Judgment : The petitioner is a management and situated their factory at Madras Export Processing Zone, which is a notified special economic zone at Tambaram. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai to transfer the approval petitions pending in A.P.Nos.55/08 to 64/08, which have been filed for approval in respect of dismissal of the respondents 4 to 13 before the third respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour. 2. Without going to the background of the case, which let to filing of the approval applications, it is suffice to state that a conciliation proceedings is pending before the third respondent, who is a notified Conciliation Officer under section 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short I.D.Act). In view of the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and since the petitioner wanted to dismiss the respondents 4 to 13, they sought for approval of their action by the third respondent. The said applications were filed under section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act. Notice was issued to the contesting respondents. They have also filed their objection statement and the trial is pending before the third respondent. It is at this juncture, the petitioner management apprehending that the third respondent is showing personal bias sought for transfer of those petitions to some other officer. 3. They had also filed a representation before the 1st and 2nd respondents complaining about the behaviour of the third respondent. The allegation of the petitioner management was that the third respondent was having ulterior motives in promoting the CITU union at the instance of the INTUC union and consistently is maintaining such animus attitude towards the petitioner management. Therefore, they sought for appropriate direction to be taken against the third respondent. 4. Subsequently they sent further representation dated 17.11.2009 raising several doubts on the credibility of the third respondent and wanted him to clarify several points raised by him. Further, they also wrote to the 2nd respondent Labour Commissioner on 18.11.2009. In the meanwhile, the third respondent sent a communication to the petitioner management on 5.1.2010 stating that since the trial is progressing and P.W.1s evidence is sought to be recorded. If the P.W.1 does not appear, the matter will be closed without further proceedings. Further, they also wrote to the 2nd respondent Labour Commissioner on 18.11.2009. In the meanwhile, the third respondent sent a communication to the petitioner management on 5.1.2010 stating that since the trial is progressing and P.W.1s evidence is sought to be recorded. If the P.W.1 does not appear, the matter will be closed without further proceedings. The petitioner further sent a representation to the 2nd respondent on 11.1.2010 stating that the pending approval petitions in A.P.Nos.55 to 64 of 2008 should be transferred to some other authority. Even before any order could be passed by the 2nd respondent, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 5. Heard the arguments of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel leading Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner management. 6. The power to transfer any proceeding pending before the various authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act has been covered by Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is as follows: "33-B Power to transfer certain proceedings: (1) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein, withdraw any proceeding under this Act pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and transfer the same to another Labour Court, Tribunal or National, as the case may be, for the disposal of the proceeding and the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal to which the proceeding is so transferred may, subject to special directions in the order of proceeding is so transferred may, subject to special directions in the order of transfer, proceed either de novo or from the stage at which it was so transferred: Provided that where a proceeding under section 33 or Section 33-A is pending before a Tribunal or National Tribunal, the proceeding may also be transferred to a Labour Court. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub section (1), any Tribunal or National Tribunal, if so authorised by the appropriate Government, may transfer any proceeding under section 33 or Section 33-A pending before it to any one of the Labour Courts specified for the disposal of such proceedings by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette and the Labour Court to which the proceeding is so transferred shall dispose of the same. " 7. " 7. A perusal of the above said legal provision will clearly show that there is no scope even for the appropriate Government to transfer any proceeding pending before the Conciliation Officer. Even in cases where the power of transfer vested on the appropriate Government can be invoked only when there is a substantial dispute pending before the Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal. In case of transfer of such proceedings, the State Government will have to record its reasons, withdraw the proceeding pending before such forums and transfer the same to similarly placed forum. Special directions as contemplated under section 33-B (1) of the I.D.Act can be given only when such transfers take place. The question of transferring the various Miscellaneous Petitions like the petitions filed under section 33 or 33-A of the I.D.Act can also be transferred to the same forum. 8. In the present case, the matters are pending only before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore, the power under section 33-B of the I.D.Act cannot be invoked. With all these legal provisions, the petitioner management did not seek for any such transfer before the State Government, though the State Government has been made as 1st respondent in the present Writ Petition. In the absence of any power of transfer to the authorities (the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent), the relief claimed in the Writ Petition cannot be countenanced by this Court. Therefore, the prayer for transfer from the file of the third respondent to some other Conciliation Officer cannot be ordered by this Court. 9. However, alternately, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel contended that the 2nd respondent being the Head of the Department can post the matter to some other Conciliation Officer and such an action can be taken administratively. This prayer also cannot be countenanced because this Court cannot direct any functionary to exercise its administrative power of transfer as it would amount to interfering with the valid exercise of the statutory power of the authority. Significantly, in the present case, though the allegations are made against the third respondent such as mala fides, he is not made as party respondent in his individual capacity. Therefore, this Court in the absence of enforceable right on the part of the petitioner cannot even grant the alternative prayer made by the learned senior counsel. 10. Significantly, in the present case, though the allegations are made against the third respondent such as mala fides, he is not made as party respondent in his individual capacity. Therefore, this Court in the absence of enforceable right on the part of the petitioner cannot even grant the alternative prayer made by the learned senior counsel. 10. Finally it will not be out of place to mention that in the present case when the petitioner management had sought for approval from the Conciliation Officer, before whom there is already a conciliation is pending, which is a principle requirement under section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act, such Officer cannot pass any order on his ipso dixit. Even if such an order is passed, it is needless to state that such an order is always subject to judicial review by this Court. 11. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.