JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. This writ petition, as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the IISCO Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, praying for the quashing of the order dated 29.8.2005 and 21.9.2005 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment shifting two officers working as Assistant Labour Commissioner from Dhanbad Region to another Region and seeking for the direction to the respondents not to abolish the said two posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner at Dhanbad. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a Union, which has been indulging itself for betterment of the workmen under the IISCO and also for the interest of public at large. In 1947, the Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner was set up in Dhanbad Region and since then five Assistant Labour Commissioners have been working in the said Region. In Dhanbad Region, itself, there are more than 5 lakh workmen. Therefore, since 1947, Central Government has created 5 posts of Assistant Labour Commissioners and 1 post of Regional Labour Commissioner to dispose of the cases relating to labour dispute, gratuity cases, contract labour cases, minimum wages cases and also for implementation of the awards concerning the workmen working in the Bharat Coking Coal Limited and other companies., 3. Since the work load is more, the different Trade Unions requested the Central Government to increase the number of posts of Assistant Labour Commissioners, but to the shock and surprise of the petitioner Union, two officers have been shifted to another region by the letters dated 29.8.2005 and 21.9.2005 whereby two Assistant Labour Commissioners, namely, Shri K.C. Sethi and Ajay Kumar were transferred to other regions. Several petitions have been sent to the authorities by the petitioner as well as by the Member of Parliament of the area requesting the concerned Ministry not to shift those officer and not to abolish the two posts as the work load is very heavy in Dhanbad region. Since there was no response, this public interest litigation has been resorted to by the petitioner. 4. Since there was no response, this public interest litigation has been resorted to by the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the strength of the counter, would strenuously submit that the details given in the writ petition by the petitioner are not factually correct and the same were made to mislead the Court in order to stall the transfer of those officers from one area to another area. According to the respondents, the real reason for transfer of those officer is that at present the work load in Dhanbad Region has come down to around 30-40 industrial disputes per Assistant Labour Commissioner and as such, the shortfall of work load was seriously reviewed by the Chief Labour Commissioner, who recommended for shifting of two officers on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner from Dhanbad to another region where their services were most needed and consequently, the two officers have been transferred one for Kanpur region and other for Ajmer region vide office orders and there is no proposal for the abolition of the posts, and as such the Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. The contention of the petitioners is that the work load in Dhanbad is more, but on the other hand, it has been specifically stated by the respondents that in the last one year the work load has come down to 40%, which necessitated shifting of two posts of Assistant Labour Commissioners to other areas and even after shifting of two posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner, the cases are being dealt with and disposal is being done speedily. As such, work load is not more. 7. It is also noticed from the counter filed by the respondents that yet another writ petition with similar prayer had been filed for the same cause of action in W.P.(PIL) No. 6302 of 2005 and the same had been dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 22.11.2006. 8. As such, work load is not more. 7. It is also noticed from the counter filed by the respondents that yet another writ petition with similar prayer had been filed for the same cause of action in W.P.(PIL) No. 6302 of 2005 and the same had been dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 22.11.2006. 8. Further it has been specifically stated in the counter that on the advice of the Chief Labour Commissioner and under the instructions of Ministry of Labour and Employment for better administration and proper utilization of services of Assistant Labour Commissioners in view of the fact that work load of Dhanbad area has come down to 40%, the two officers were transferred under policy decision of the Government. 9. It is also made clear that it is not a case of abolition of the two posts, but it is a simple case of shifting of two Assistant Labour Commissioners to the places where their services can be better utilized, which has been done as per the recommendation of the Cadre Review Committee constituted by the Ministry under the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi). 10. Now, it is also stated in the counter-affidavit that those two officers were relieved from their duties from Dhanbad with effect from 11.11.2005 and joined their respective places on transfer to other areas and they are working in those areas and the remaining Assistant Labour Commissioners in Dhanbad are successfully handling the remaining work load of Dhanbad Area. 11. On the basis of these details, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that this Public Interest Litigation is motivated with oblique purpose. This submission, in our view, merits consideration. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 12. I agree.