SUBHASH B. ADI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the common order dated 5th February 2007 passed in Addl. Industrial Dispute No. 13 and 14/2006 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE State Government referred the dispute in AID No, 13/2006 and aid No. 14/2006 to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on the question of legality of the transfer of 7 workmen in AID No. 13/2006 and 8 workmen in AID No. 14/2006 by the respondent -Union interalia seeking direction to the Management to permit all the workmen to resume their usual work in the factory. The said application was opposed by the Management, The industrial Tribunal issued an interim direction directing the workmen in both the disputes to report to the duty before 13-2-2007 by giving an undertaking, that their reporting is subject to the decision of the dispute and also directed that the workmen will turn up the normal work and they will to hamper the normal work. ( 3 ) THIS interim order is called in question by the Management. Sr. S. N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Management had amended the Standing Order and the said certified amended Standing Order was called in question by the union in W. P. No. 41602/1999 and this Court by order dated 30th June 2005, allowed the writ petition in following terms: i) Writ petition is allowed in part; ii) The order of the appellate authority is modified to the following extent:- a) In clause 15 (1), the following words shall be deleted: "during the period of lay-off workmen shall be paid lay- off compensation as provided under Section 25-C of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947". b) The entire Clause 25 dealing with transfer is deleted; c) Rest of the order of the appellate authority is affirmed; hi) No costs. " ( 4 ) HE further submitted that by virtue of order passed in the writ petition, entire Clause-25 of the amended Standing Order has been deleted and there is no provision under the Standing Order as regards to the transfer of employees. He referred to the Writ Appeal No. 3445/2005 filed by the respondent No. 2 - Union against the said order of the learned Single judge and the said writ appeal was also dismissed by order dated 19th december 2005. He referred to the Writ Appeal No. 3445/2005 filed by the respondent No. 2 - Union against the said order of the learned Single judge and the said writ appeal was also dismissed by order dated 19th december 2005. He referred to the Contempt Case No. 605/2005 filed by the second respondent alleging the violation of the order of the learned single Judge and pointed out, that the Division Bench of this Court in the contempt proceedings has held that the deletion of Clause-25 of the standing Order does not restrain the Management from transferring its employees. He referred to the appointment order produced at Annexure- b dated 1-9-1976 and pointed out the terms and conditions of the appointment, particularly referring to Clause-6 of the terms and conditions of the appointment, which reads as under: "6. You are liable to be transferred to any of our establishments/ office/branches in India after you are confirmed- When you are transferred to any of our other establishments/office/branches, you shall be governed by the service conditions ad rules and regulations prevailing in that establishments/office/branch. " By referring to clause-6 of the terms and conditions of the appointment. he submitted, that under the terms of the appointment, the workman is liable for transfer of any of the establishment/office/branches of the company any where in India. By referring to the terms and conditions of the appointment order, he further submitted that the said condition of the appointment binds the workmen and the Management in exercise of its right has transferred the employees from Bangalore to Dehradun, which is one of its units. In this regard, he relied on a decision reported in (1999) 1 SCC page 300 in the matter of Cipla Limited Vs. Jayakumar R. and another and submitted that in identical circumstances, where the Standing order only provided for transfer of workmen form one department to another department in the establishment itself and the appointment order provided for transfer of workmen from one place to another place and in such circumstances, the Apex Court at para-12 of the said judgment has held that, the Standing Order operates only when the workman is transferred to one establishment where he can be transferred from one department to another department and appointment order operates for transfer of a workman from one place to another place and they arc not mutually conflicting each other. ( 5 ) HE further submitted that before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner has raised the question, as regards to the mamtainability of the reference itself, as the place of transfer will have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and not the place from where the workman is transferred. He submitted that in this regard, even the judgment of the andhra Pradesh High Court was relied before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal without adverting into the question as to whether the state Government has power to refer the dispute or not and the Industrial tribunal keeping open the said question of jurisdiction has passed an interim order. Nextly, he submitted that the main dispute is as to whether the workman is liable to be transferred or not. and the Tribunal even before adjudicating the said issue, by way of interim order, has permitted the workmen to work at Bangalore, quite contrary to the order of transfer and further submitted that it would be very hard on the Management to accept such order particularly when the Management has transferred the employees and to accept the employees would become difficult for the petitioner to manage the employees. He also relied on a judgment reported in 1990 (2) KLJ page 307 in the matter of Management of Rangaswamy and Company Vs. D. V. Jagadish and Another and submitted that when a question of jurisdiction is raised, the Tribunal is required to decide the said question as a preliminary issue and no interim order or relief could be granted even before the issue of jurisdiction is decided. ( 6 ) . A. J. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that seven workmen of the first respondent--Union and eight workmen of the second respondent - Union are the persons, who are under order of transfer and the dispute of their transfer, is the subject matter before the Industrial Tribunal. He submitted that all the 15 persons and two others, whose transfer is subject matter of dispute before the Industrial tribunal, are ready to go and work in the place where they are transferred, if the Management assures that after giving training for a period of one year, they would be brought back to the establishment at Bangalore. He submitted that all the 15 persons and two others, whose transfer is subject matter of dispute before the Industrial tribunal, are ready to go and work in the place where they are transferred, if the Management assures that after giving training for a period of one year, they would be brought back to the establishment at Bangalore. In this regard, he also submitted that all these persons have put in more than 30 years of service in the establishment and they are at the verge of retirement and they have got hardly 3 to 4 years service in the petitioner- industry. He further submitted that they are all working as general workers and if at this stage, they are subjected to the transfer, it will vitally affect the interest of these workmen, particularly in view of their age and health condition. He further submitted that, despite ail these factors, these workmen are ready to work at place where they are transferred for a period of one year and if the petitioner-Management provides basic amenities. ( 7 ) ON merit, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that, clause-25 of 1977 Standing Order, only provides for transfer of the workmen from one department or one section to another section or department within Karnataka and not beyond the State of Karnataka. He further referred to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W. P. No. 41602/1999 and submitted that the petitioner - Management amended clause-25 of the Standing Order interalia providing transfer of workmen not only within Karnataka State, but anywhere in India and the learned single Judge of this Court in the said writ petition, held that the clause providing for transfer of a workman from one establishment to another establishment in the Standing Order is contrary to the schedule of the Act and has quashed the said amended clause. He further submitted that quashing or deleting of the said clause will restore the original clause-25 as it was in the year 1977 and submitted that in the light of clause-25 of the Standing Order as it was in 1977, these workmen cannot be transferred beyond the State of Karnataka. He further submitted that quashing or deleting of the said clause will restore the original clause-25 as it was in the year 1977 and submitted that in the light of clause-25 of the Standing Order as it was in 1977, these workmen cannot be transferred beyond the State of Karnataka. ( 8 ) HE further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal, considering the dispute having been pending for more than 18 months and also considering the fact that these workmen are not having the employment for 18 months and they are also not paid the wages, in exercise of its discretionary power, has passed the interim order taking into account that the Clause-25 of the standing Order. He further submitted that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue in reference and the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner-Management, is only with intention to protract the litigation and it is in these circumstances, the Tribunal has found that granting of interim order would meet the ends of justice and further submitted that, the fact that the interim order is granted by the Tribunal itself, prima facie shows that the Tribunal having found that it has jurisdiction, has passed the interim direction. ( 9 ) HE further submitted that even otherwise, workmen involved in this case being Class-IV employes and being only qualified to the extent of SSLC or less than that, and having been serving for more than 30 years in Bangalore by practice and by convention also, they cannot be subjected to transfer to any place outside Karnataka. He also submitted that, even if the appointment order stipulates such a condition in the light of the standing Order, and in the light of the order passed by this Court, that clause providing for transfer itself being contrary to the schedule of the karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946, incorporating the condition of transfer in the Standing Order is illegal. ( 10 ) RELYING on the order of the learned Single Judge and also the interim order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that when a statute governing the industrial employment does not provide for transfer, the question of transferring an employee by incorporating a clause in the Standing Order or by way of imposing a condition in the appointment order does not arise and further submitted that these workmen having been working for more than 30 years in one place and the petitioner-Management having not transferred so far and at this stage, particularly when they are about to retire or having only service of 3 to 4 years, subjecting them to transfer is nothing but victimization or adopting unfair labour practice and it will only induce such workmen either to resign or to accept the compensation and leave the job. He also submitted that in this case itself, the Management had sought to transfer 42 employees except these 15 employees and 2 others, other have accepted the offer of voluntary employment, which would clearly show that the workmen, if they are transferred to far-off place, they would either accept the voluntary retirement or compensation and leave the job and this is nothing but the victimization method adopted by the management. ( 11 ) THOUGH several contentions were raised by the Management as well as the Union, however, question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: "whether the Industrial Tribunal could proceed to grant interim order without even prima facie deciding the question of jurisdiction?" ( 12 ) IT is not in dispute that the persons involved in these two disputes are 15 workmen. It is not in dispute that the main issue referred to the industrial Tribunal, is regarding the transfer of the workmen. It is also not in dispute that since 18 months, the dispute is pending on the main issue itself. Further, it is also not in dispute that Clause-25 of the amended standing Order has been deleted by this Court. ( 13 ) BEFORE the Industrial Tribunal, the Management seriously questioned the jurisdiction of the State Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. It is also clear from the impugned interim order that the Management wanted to produce the documents to show that the management has power to transfer these workmen. ( 13 ) BEFORE the Industrial Tribunal, the Management seriously questioned the jurisdiction of the State Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. It is also clear from the impugned interim order that the Management wanted to produce the documents to show that the management has power to transfer these workmen. The Industrial tribunal though has referred to the contentions of the Management, however, has not adverted to the said question and it has only said that said questions are kept open. ( 14 ) WHAT is required to be seen in this case is, When an issue regarding jurisdiction is raised and seriously pressed into service, the Tribunal is required to consider the question, as to whether it has jurisdiction to decide the dispute or not. Even assuming that, said contention is not supported by any authority or evidence, still, the Tribunal at least prima facie is required to come to a conclusion that it has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter As otherwise, the Tribunal would be passing interim order without even knowing as to whether it has jurisdiction or not. The Tribunal even after noticing such contention and also noticing that the Management had relied on a judgment in support of that contention, it has neither considered nor adverted to the said issue. ( 15 ) FURTHER, this Court in writ petition referred to above, has deleted the entire clause-25 of the amended Standing Order. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the Industrial Tribunal was required to consider, as to whether the deletion of Clause-25 of the amended Standing order, would also amount to deletion of the original Clause-25 of the standing Order, particularly when this Court holds that the clause providing for transfer is contrary to the schedule of the Act. The Tribunal is also required to consider, whether the terms and conditions of the appointment order, would govern the services of the workmen or the standing Order and further, as to whether it could grant interim relief in the light of the urgency of the matter. The Tribunal is also required to consider, whether the terms and conditions of the appointment order, would govern the services of the workmen or the standing Order and further, as to whether it could grant interim relief in the light of the urgency of the matter. However, from the reading of the impugned order, none of these aspects have been either considered or even referred to by the Industrial Tribunal, in turn, without even referring to the order of this Court, relying on Clause-25, the impugned interim order lias been, passed which, in my opinion, is one without application of mind. ( 16 ) IT is not disputed by the petitioner-Management that, the dispute is only in respect of 15 persons and it is not disputed that they were transferred from Bangalore to Dehradun and the services of none of these workmen either have been terminated or they are placed under suspension or they are subjected for any punishment. It is also admitted, that they continue to be employees of the petitioner-Management. In view of this admitted facts, if these workmen continue to be the employees of the petitioner and if they are not subjected for any punishment, they the question arises, whether they are entitled for wages for the period for which they are not paid. This aspect of the matter is required to be considered by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that, these workmen being Class-IV employees and they have not been paid wages for 18 months, it would be very difficult for them to sustain themselves and meet the expenditure of the litigation. It is open to the workmen to make a necessary application before the industrial Tribunal for necessary interim order. However, when an application for interim relief is sought for by the workmen, the Industrial tribunal, before it could consider the said application or the application, on which the impugned order is passed, should prima facie decide the question of jurisdiction and proceed in the matter. At any rate, the industrial Tribunal should not delay the matter both in deciding the interim application as well as main matter. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned common order dated 5th February, 2007 passed in Addl. Industrial Dispute Nos. At any rate, the industrial Tribunal should not delay the matter both in deciding the interim application as well as main matter. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned common order dated 5th February, 2007 passed in Addl. Industrial Dispute Nos. 13 and 14/2006 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore is quashed. A direction is issued to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore to prima facie decide the question of jurisdiction and consider the application regarding continuing the services of the workmen at Bangalore pending adjudication of the main matter. Further, if an application is filed for interim relief of payment of wages, or interim order, such application be considered on merit land should pass the order within one and a half months from the date of receipt of the order, but at any rate, the granting or refusing of the interim order should not be beyond the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that the tribunal should dispose of the main dispute within three months from the date of receipt of this order.