ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 9.7.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 1885 of 2001, by reason whereof the writ application preferred by the respondents was allowed and the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court was set aside. 2. The essential facts which need to be taken note of is that on 13.1.1996 the concerned workman, namely, Anil Kumar Jha was transferred from Jamshedpur to Bombay. At the relevant time he was working in the Purchase Department and by reason of the order of transfer he was directed to report for duty at Bombay by 24.1.1986. It was also intimated in the order of transfer that he would be relieved from his duties at Jamshedpur from the close of the working hours of 16th January, 1996. A dispute was then raised by the Union and on 17.9.1996 the same led to a reference being made by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur to adjudicate as to "Whether the transfer of Shri Anil Kumar Jha, Ticket No. 72353, M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. [Usha Alloys Steels Division], Jamshedpur from Jamshedpur to Bombay by the management is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 3. Before the Labour Court, the Union filed a Written Statement wherein they made specific statements in relation to the Trade Union Activities of the concerned workman and stated at paragraph 3 thereof that he was an active member of the Union and had been playing a very vital role in organising the workmen and representing their cause before the management under the banner of Usha Workers Union. They further stated at paragraph 4 of the said Written Statement that the concerned workman was initially appointed as a Commercial Trainee by a letter dated 21.4.1979 [Annexure A to the Memo of Appeal], but no formal training was given to him and he was made to perform duty like any other employee and on satisfactory completion of a period of one year he was given a formal letter of appointment dated 1.5.1980. According to the Union the aforementioned letter dated 1.5.1980 contained general terms and conditions of employment but did not contain any terms or conditions in respect of the right of the management to transfer him from one place to another or from the department to another. According to the Union the aforementioned letter dated 1.5.1980 contained general terms and conditions of employment but did not contain any terms or conditions in respect of the right of the management to transfer him from one place to another or from the department to another. 4. The Union further specifically stated that the concerned workman had lost the original copy of the said letter of appointment dated 1.5.1980 but had put his acknowledgment on the original which had been retained by the management and therefore, the onus lay on the management to bring the said acknowledged copy of the letter on record of the case. They have further stated that the letter dated 1.5.1980 which was a formal letter of appointment designated the concerned workman as Staff on Special Duty [SSD] for a period of one year. According to the Union this period was extended for a further period of six months by a letter 1.5.1981 inspite of representation filed by the workman on 19.8.1981. Thereafter he was placed as a Senior Clerk with effect from 1.11.1981 and was promoted as a Personnel Assistant with effect from 1.4.1982 and his work was found to be satisfactory. 5. Further case of the Union before the Labour Court was of malice and they specifically stated at paragraphs 6 to 17 of the Written Statement that the workman by reason of his being an employee of the Company became a member of the UMB Mazdoor Sangh, a recognised Union representing the cause of persons employed in the Company with effect from 1.10.1982. He was also elected as Joint Secretary of the said Sangh and in that capacity he brought irregularities to the notice of the management which was not appreciated by them. Consequently he was issued with a charge-sheet dated 3.11.1982 containing some allegations and which ended with the issuance of a warning to him and that too at the intervention of then Working President of the Sangh, Mr. M.P. Singh. They further stated that the concerned workman had been subjected to unfair labour practices, victimisation and harassment for his trade union activities. They started taking arbitrary action against him one after the other on account of his growing popularity. They firstly transferred him to the Security Department from the post of a Personal Assistant with effect 25.11.1982 as a measure of punishment. They started taking arbitrary action against him one after the other on account of his growing popularity. They firstly transferred him to the Security Department from the post of a Personal Assistant with effect 25.11.1982 as a measure of punishment. Being aggrieved, the Sangh filed a representation and it was also accompanied by a delegate of the Sangh consisting of about 15-20 active members, but it was also not appreciated by the management, which in turn, issued a charge-sheet dated 29.11.1982 and placed him under suspension pending inquiry. This result in a strong protest by the Sangh and a token strike for one day, i.e. 1.12.1982. In the meantime, the workman had also submitted his explanation to the above-mentioned charge-sheet and a domestic enquiry was also initiated, but when the management felt that it was not going to succeed, and at the intervention of the President of the UMB Mazdoor Sangh Staff Cell, his order of suspension was revoked and he joined in the Security Department. In the said department, the work of the workman was found to be very good but in order to further harass him he was again transferred to the Commercial Department as a Commercial Assistant with effect from 1.8.1983. He worked very sincerely but the management did not allow him to work peacefully and again a charge-sheet dated 13.8.1984 was issued and till the time of filing of the Written Statement, the Union stated that it was yet to hear from the management about further steps taken in that respect and since there was silence on the part of the management, the concerned workman was led to believe that the charge-sheet had been dropped and his explanation accepted. The Union further stated before the Labour Court that the workman was again transferred from the Commercial Department to the Accounts Department with effect from 2.7.1984 where again, he worked satisfactorily but once again in order to harass him, the management issued a letter dated 9.7.1985 warning him to perform his duties diligently. The concerned workman replied by his letter dated 1.7.1985 refuting the allegations but once again nothing was heard thereafter till the time of filing of the written statement before the Labour Court. 6. The concerned workman replied by his letter dated 1.7.1985 refuting the allegations but once again nothing was heard thereafter till the time of filing of the written statement before the Labour Court. 6. Thereafter, the Union stated before the Labour Court that the management started harassing the concerned workman by not assigning any work to him as a result whereof, he made several representations and he was also deprived of his annual increment without any valid reason. 7. According to the Union, when they did not find any other reason to proceed against him, they transferred him with effect 1.2.1986 from the Accounts Department to the Purchase Department, but even there the officials stopped assigning work to him without any reason. Representations and reminders were sent but once again, nothing was heard even till the date of filing of the written statement by the Union. 8. The Union further stated before the Labour Court that the entry of the workman inside the works premises was prohibited although he was in possession of a valid gate pass and he was neither allowed to have medical attention from the Companys doctor inside the works nor was he allowed medical attention from any outside doctor. He filed a representation to different authorities including the Inspector of Factories as also the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of Bihar. This apart, the Union further stated that the management resorted to various irregularities in relation of payment of salary and other benefits to him and inspite of sanction of leave, he was deprived of his salary for 23.11.1995 and the forenoon of 24,11.1995. 9. The Union also stated that the company should not have deprived the concerned workman of his salary for the aforementioned dates as a complaint case bearing No. C/2-857 of 1995 was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur in which warrant of arrest had been issued against him. The workman was required to attend on 23.11.1995 and 24.11.1995. However, the warrants of arrest were recalled by order dated 24.11.1995 issued at 11.30 a.m. The management was aware of the aforesaid facts and therefore stopping his salary for those dates was a further act to harass him. 10. The Union further stated before the Labour Court that the concerned workman was again implicated in a proceeding under Section 107, Cr PC. Vide Miscellaneous Case No. 1358 of 1995. 10. The Union further stated before the Labour Court that the concerned workman was again implicated in a proceeding under Section 107, Cr PC. Vide Miscellaneous Case No. 1358 of 1995. His presence was required in that case on various dates including 8.12.1995, 20.12.1995 and 5.10-1996. He consequently filed leave applications, but in order to harass him, leave was not sanctioned. 11. Thus, that the Union stated before the Labour Court was that the concerned workman was harassed at every stage of his functioning. They further narrated other instances of harassment and finally at paragraph 13 of the Written Statement they stated that after a well thought out plan and with the intention to remove him and put him in the unprotected category he was promoted as Assistant Officer (Commercial) and transferred to Vishakapatnam which, the workman declined to accept. Thereafter the management started entrusting jobs which were disproportionate to his capacity and also launched various criminal cases against him. They also issued charge-sheets and in each one of them explanations were filed and in some of the inquiries that were conducted, the same were held by following a procedure which was not in accordance with law and in one of the inquiries the concerned workman had filed a request for change in the Enquiry Officer and after receipt of the said letter dated 13.1.1996, the management issued the letter dated 13.1.1996 transferring him to Bombay and simultaneously relieved him of his duties from the close of the working hours of 16.1.1996. 12. The Union, therefore, specifically pleaded unfair labour practice, malice and transfer as a measure of punishment. 13. The management, on the other hand also filed a Written Statement and stated that it is the usual practice of the Company to transfer its employees from one branch to another or from one factory to another whenever required and whenever exigencies so required and it was also in the exigency of the work that the concerned workman was transferred to Bombay. They further stated that by reason of the order of transfer he ceased to have any connection with the Jamshedpur Office after 16.1.1996 and inspite of lawful orders he did not comply and did not join at Bombay. 14. They further stated that by reason of the order of transfer he ceased to have any connection with the Jamshedpur Office after 16.1.1996 and inspite of lawful orders he did not comply and did not join at Bombay. 14. The management had also filed a rejoinder to the Written Statement of the Union/concerned workman and in reply to paragraphs 6 to 17 they had stated as follows :-- 6. Paragraph 6 of the WS.--No comments. The concerned workman is called upon to strictly prove the statements made therein as well as their relevance in the instant case. 7. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the WS.--That in paragraph 7 of the WS Under reply, the concerned workman has admitted that while he was working in the Personal Deptt., he was transferred to the Security Deptt. of the management on 22.11.1982 where he ultimately joined, in other words, he accepted his transferability from one department to another department of the management as per the condition of his letter of appointment and as such now it does not lie in his month to take the plea that his services were not transferable. So far as the Charge sheets allegedly issued to the concerned workman are concerned, the proceedings thereof are matters of record and shall abide by the same. At any rate the said matters bear little relevance to the present case. It is further asserted that at no stage did the management take any improper or undue step against the concerned workman with the intention of harassing or victimising him. The statements made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the WS under reply prove the transferability of the services of the concerned workman and the fact that he accepted and acted in compliance of his transfer orders without raising objection that his services were not transferable. He has stated no where in the said paragraph of the written statement that he had raised the objection that his services were not transferable. That makes it clear that the objection that his services were not transferable is an incorrect and false plea raised as an after thought for the sake of convenience in the instant case for the first time. It is reiterated that at no stage did the management act in any manner to torture or victimise the concerned workman by adopting any unfair labour practice. It is reiterated that at no stage did the management act in any manner to torture or victimise the concerned workman by adopting any unfair labour practice. It is submitted that the plethora of allegations made in the said paragraphs under reply, hardly bear any relevance in the present case wherein the moot question is whether the services of the concerned workman were transferable as per one of the conditions of his service. It is however, pertinent to point out that the concerned workman is taking resort to the volumes of allegations against the management as contained in the paragraphs under reply for the first time in the written statement filed by him in the instant case did never before that. He would have been better advised to take appropriate steps against the management or any of its officers in accordance with the legal remedies provided in the Industrial Disputes Act regarding workmans harassment, torture or unfair labour practice at the relevant time and not having done so, he can not be permitted to fall back upon all those allegations of the past for the first time in the Instant case. All these allegations are matters of record and subjudice in the competent Courts of law and can not be permitted to be agitated before this Honble Court in the instant case. 8. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the WS.--That the statements made in paragraph 13 of the WS are self contradictory in as much as it is admitted therein that the concerned workman was promoted in service and still he wants to make out the case of victimisation. It is worth noticing that his statements are vague against the management, as a whole without naming any of the officials, who had the intention pr motive to harass or victimise the concerned workman and for what reasons. The allegation of conspiracy against any management, as a whole can be of no avail. It is reiterated that the matters and facts which are involved in GR Case No. 1798 of 95 and Misc. Case No. 1356 of 95 can not be permitted to be agitated in the present proceeding of this Honble Court. It is stated that the management has not implicated the concerned workman in any Criminal Case falsely. It is reiterated that the matters and facts which are involved in GR Case No. 1798 of 95 and Misc. Case No. 1356 of 95 can not be permitted to be agitated in the present proceeding of this Honble Court. It is stated that the management has not implicated the concerned workman in any Criminal Case falsely. As regards the charge-sheets and departmental enquiries against the concerned workman, suffice to say that those proceedings have been dropped and no punishment has been imposed upon the concerned workman on those counts, which clearly shows that the management has had no intention to victimise the concerned workman at any stage or bore any notice against him. As regards the grievance of the concerned workman in the matter of appointment of Enquiry Officer as stated in paragraph 16 of his WS, it is clear that on his request, Shri S.K. Pande was removed and Shri B.P. Sharma was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and ultimately no action was taken against the concerned workman nor was any penalty imposed upon him. Obviously therefore, the plea of victimisation stands negative in his own written statement. 9. Paragraph No. 17 of the WS.--In reply to the paragraph No. 17 of the WS, it is hereby refuted by the management that the concerned workman has transferred because the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceedings were baseless and can not be proved. On the other hand, the concerned workman was transferred in accordance with the condition of his service about his transferability and purely in the exigencies of services of the management without any ulterior motive. It is patently clear that had the management any idea or intention of imposing any penalty upon the concerned workman, the management could have continued to go on with the departmental proceedings against him instead of dropping those proceedings and merely transferring him as per the condition of service. 10. Paragraph No. 18 of the WS.--It is vehemently denied that the transfer of the concerned workman from Jamshedpur to Bombay was not unjustified, improper, illegal or against the terms and conditions of his service. The concerned workman is called upon to substantiate the false statements made in respect of his order of transfer by corroborate evidence. 10. Paragraph No. 18 of the WS.--It is vehemently denied that the transfer of the concerned workman from Jamshedpur to Bombay was not unjustified, improper, illegal or against the terms and conditions of his service. The concerned workman is called upon to substantiate the false statements made in respect of his order of transfer by corroborate evidence. As a matter of fact, the Criminal Cases in question are the results of the misdeeds of the concerned workman himself and as such, the pendency of the said cases can not be considered to be good, valid or proper ground for not transferring the concerned workman which was necessary in the exigencies of services of the management. In one of the Criminal Case namely GR Case No. 1798 of 95 the concerned workman is being prosecuted for having committed forgery in a valuable Register of the Management. 15. Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary has argued and has submitted that the impugned order of transfer was illegal basically for three reasons :-- (a) That it was resorted to as a measure of punishment for the trade union activities of the concerned workman; (b) That the management did not have the power to transfer the workman from Jamshedpur to Bombay; and (c) The concerned workman was a petty employee and by being forced to join at Bombay, his living conditions would totally change and he would be subjected to acute harassment as cost of living in Bombay and higher than that in Jamshedpur. 16. She has further stated that the letter of appointment which was issued on 1.5.1980 contained various terms and conditions but it did not contain any condition that the management could transfer the concerned workman. In this context it would be relevant to mention that the letter dated 1.5.1980 upon which such heavy reliance has been placed by the management was brought on record by them before the Labour Court vide Exhibit X. The same has been marked Annexure B to this Memo of Appeal. This letter was shown to the concerned workman in his cross examination but he denied that it was a photocopy of the actual appointment letter dated 1.5.1980. This letter was shown to the concerned workman in his cross examination but he denied that it was a photocopy of the actual appointment letter dated 1.5.1980. The Labour Court has dealt with this issue and while refusing to rely on Exhibit X he has very rightly stated that the concerned workman had all along taken the plea that this exhibit is not the original letter of appointment and that the real copy on which he had signed was retained by the management. The workman had put his endorsement of receipt with date on the original copy but it was never produced by the management and when Exhibit X was shown to the concerned workman he denied that it was a copy of the actual appointment letter. Thus, the contention of the management to the effect that there was a term that the concerned workman could be transferred was rightly not taken into consideration and the Labour Court therefore, correctly held that the Exhibit X cannot be relied upon. 17. The second submission of Mrs. Rawat was that the actual letter of appointment did not contain any such term and condition and therefore in absence of such a condition, only the standing orders could prevail. She further submitted that at the relevant time, there was no such Standing Order save and except the Works Standing Order (Annexure-J and 4/1 to this Memo of Appeal) which did not contain any power to transfer an employee. Countering the aforementioned submission, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the power to transfer an employee is inherent and under the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Rules, 1946 the power to transfer is provided under Rule 2(A). According to him Rule 2(A)[10(B)] of the aforementioned rules makes transfer an inherent right of the management and is to be provided in the standing orders relating to all industrial establishments. The aforesaid contention of Mr. Mehta cannot be accepted inasmuch as Rule 10(B) of Rule 2(A) was inserted for the first time by GSR No. 30(E) dated 17.1.1983. The appointment of the concerned workman was firstly made on 21.4.1979 and thereafter on 1.5.1980. The aforesaid contention of Mr. Mehta cannot be accepted inasmuch as Rule 10(B) of Rule 2(A) was inserted for the first time by GSR No. 30(E) dated 17.1.1983. The appointment of the concerned workman was firstly made on 21.4.1979 and thereafter on 1.5.1980. The power to transfer became an inherent right as per the amendment brought in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules 1946 on and from 17.1.1983 but as per the Works Standing Order which was marked Exhibit W/12 of Usha Martin Black Limited [Annexure 4/1 of the memo of appeal], and which appear to have been in force at the time when the concerned workman was appointed, there is no such charging provision that gives the right of transfer to the management. In that view of the matter the argument to the effect that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules. 1946 confers an inherent power of transfer cannot be accepted. Moreover, Mr. Mehta was unable to establish that the management had incorporated the provisions of Rule 10(B) of Rule 2(A). In fact during the course of arguments and when confronted, Mr. Mehta frankly admitted that even after 1983 the management had not incorporated Rule 10(B) of Rule 2(A) of the aforementioned Rules. Even the Works Standing Orders that is marked Annexure-J and 4/1 to this Memo of Appeal cannot come to the rescue of the learned counsel for the respondents inasmuch this was in existence at the time of appointment of the concerned workman but this does not provide any enabling provision by which the management can be said to have the inherent right to transfer a petty employee. All that it provides for is Rule 17 and it merely says that refusal to accept a transfer order or non-compliance of a transfer order would amount to a misconduct. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to produce any document which can be said to confer power upon the management to transfer a petty employee from Jamshedpur to Bombay. 18. Thus, from what has been stated above what appears is that prior to 1983, the management has not been able to show nor bring on record even a chit of paper to show that they had right to transfer. 19. 18. Thus, from what has been stated above what appears is that prior to 1983, the management has not been able to show nor bring on record even a chit of paper to show that they had right to transfer. 19. Be that as it may and, noticing that the Standing Orders did not provide any power to transfer, we must hasten to add that, that by itself, cannot be said that the Management has no inherent right to transfer. In the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2486 , it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows :-- "....This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present place of posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused" The aforesaid judgm