Judgment :- 1. The Civil revision petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.9024 of 2008 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai. 2. The first respondent was appointed as operator from 1993 in the petitioner’s establishment. The petitioner issued order of Imputation on 19. 2008 to the first respondent and three others which was also published in the newspaper on 211. 2008 stating that ‘Due to Exigencies of work, you are deputed to work at M/s. Total Drugs & Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., Gaddapothoram, Kazipalli Village, Medak District, Andrapradesh with effect from 19. 2008.” This order was challenged by the employees including the first respondent before the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in a suit to declare the said order as null and void. Earlier, the first respondent filed an application for interim stay under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the petition was dismissed. The petitioner presently has come forward with this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent squarely comes within the purview of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the forum prescribed therein will have the jurisdiction to try the matter and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. Consequently, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the fact of transfer of an employee to other state on deputation is not covered by the standing order and the Civil Court had got every power to decide the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the decisions of this Court, in which, identical situations arose wherein the transfer orders were challenged before, the Civil Court. The decisions are as follows: Rajaiah v. Southern Roadways Ltd., (1991) 2 MLJ page 72; Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. V. Venkatesan (1992) 2 MLJ 435 ; M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., Ambasamudram v. Devadoss Sathraj 2003 (3) MLJ 261 . In all the cases, this Court has taken a similar and consistent view that if the employee is aggrieved by an order of transfer, the matter will have covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and Civil Court has no jurisdiction. In between Prasar Bhari and Others v. Amarjeet Singh and Others AIR 2007 SC 1269 . In all the cases, this Court has taken a similar and consistent view that if the employee is aggrieved by an order of transfer, the matter will have covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and Civil Court has no jurisdiction. In between Prasar Bhari and Others v. Amarjeet Singh and Others AIR 2007 SC 1269 . The Apex Court has made a clear distinction between the terms, “transfer and deputation.” It is held that transfer is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre and in the same department, whereas deputation would be a temporary phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications. 5. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, whether it is a transfer or deputation, the matter will be covered by the provisions of the Industrial. Disputes Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, the first respondent would not seek remedy before Civil Court challenging the order of deputation and he should have gone to the appropriate forum for necessary legal remedies, in such view of this matter, the plaint in O.S.No.9024 of 2008 has to be necessarily struck off from the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 6. In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.