Judgment :- Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This writ petition is filed by the Management of the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantations Corporation Ltd. [TANTEA], which is a wholly owned State Enterprise. The challenge is to the Award dated 04. 1998 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 136 of 1996. By the said Award, the second respondent was directed to be paid wages for the period 28. 1995 till 010. 1997 and also to provide continuity of service. An interim stay was obtained on 110. 1998. 3. The second respondent was transferred from Chinna Kallar division to Ryan division on 05. 1992. A dispute was raised by the Anaimalai National Plantations Workers Union (affiliated to INTUC). In the conciliation held before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, the petitioner Corporation stated that the transfer was for administrative reasons and there will be no reduction in his status or emoluments. It was further stated that he will get the same facilities including housing accommodation. He was also informed that despite the order of transfer, he had not joined the new division. 4. Since the conciliation ended in failure, the Government of Tamil Nadu refused to refer the dispute vie order in G.O. (D) No. 493 Labour Department dated 26. 1993. Thereafter, a reconsideration petition was sent to the Government and on being requested, the Conciliation Officer called the parties once again for a fresh negotiation In this second conciliation, the second respondent stated that he went to join duty in the new place and despite his seeking for giving work, the same was refused. The Conciliation Officer sent a further report dated 212. 1995 to the Government. Therefore, the issue relating to the conciliation was not further pursued by the second respondents trade union. On the contrary, on the strength of the second report presuming to be a failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Labour Court and the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 136 of 1996. 5. A detailed counter statement dated 08. 1996 was filed by the petitioner Management. On the contrary, on the strength of the second report presuming to be a failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Labour Court and the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 136 of 1996. 5. A detailed counter statement dated 08. 1996 was filed by the petitioner Management. The petitioner Management took up the stand that with reference to the challenge to the transfer order, a failure report was submitted to the Government and it had declined to refer the dispute, the issue had become final and the subsequent enquiry conducted by the Conciliation Officer was also regarding the dispute relating to transfer order and, therefore, there was no dispute raised by the second respondent in the eye of law with reference to his so-called non-employment and hence, the dispute was not maintainable. On the merits of the case, it was stated that it was the workmans conduct, which led to his non-employment and the Management was in no way responsible for the same. 6. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, he examined himself as W.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs. W.1 and W.2. On the side of the Management, one Sathiapal was examined as M.W.1 and 13 documents filed by them were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.13. It is on the basis of this evidence, the Labour Court, without considering the merits of the transfer order, went on to hold that since the services of the second respondent were not terminated in terms of the Standing Orders, the refusal to employ would amount to a oral termination. Since the second respondent had reported for duty on 010. 1997 in Ryan Division i.e., the place of transfer, the question of his reinstatement may not arise. Therefore, it ordered back wages to be paid for the said period. The original records relating to the case were summoned from the Labour Court and were perused. 7. It is seen from the records that as per Ex.M.1, the petitioner was transferred to another division. The letter dated 26. 1992 marked as Ex. M.5 asking him to vacate the quarters in the original Estate, came back unserved with an endorsement that the second respondent had refused to receive the letter which was also marked as Ex. M.3. Under Clause X of the Standing Orders Ex. The letter dated 26. 1992 marked as Ex. M.5 asking him to vacate the quarters in the original Estate, came back unserved with an endorsement that the second respondent had refused to receive the letter which was also marked as Ex. M.3. Under Clause X of the Standing Orders Ex. M.13, the power of transfer from one division to another division is vested with the petitioner Management. In the oral evidence, the second respondent admitted of having received the transfer order but did not make any further statement as to why he did not agree to go to the new division. 8. In the light of the above factual background, it is not clear as to how the Labour Court had treated the issue as non-employment and granted back wages as if there was an oral termination. First of all, the second respondent never raised any dispute regarding his non-employment and the only dispute raised by his Union was relating to his transfer order and the Government had also refused to refer the said dispute. Thereafter, the matter was not pursued further. The only further conciliation held was on the basis of remarks called for by the State Government on the reconsideration petition filed by the Union. Therefore, when the second respondent filed a claim statement with that report, the issue of maintainability of the dispute was raised by the Management. The Labour Court did not answer the said issue. On the contrary, the Labour Court, without any materials on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner was orally terminated and thus clutched on to a jurisdiction which it did not have. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned Award of the Labour Court suffers from material irregularity and it was passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned Award dated 04. 1998 will stand set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.