JUDGMENT :- (This petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india prayng to quash the impugned award dated 7th march 2008, passed by the industrial tribunal, bangalore in complaint application no.3 of 2006 filed in i.d.no.160 of 2006 at annexure-j and etc.,) 1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Award dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”) in Complaint Application No.3/2006 filed in I.D.No. 160/2006 as per Annexure-J. 2. Petitioners are a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of textile accessories, sewing threads etc. The main factory of petitioners’ company is situated at Amba Samudram and its head office is at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner company had a ware house and administrative office at No.85, Old Madras Road, Bangalore. Respondent is the Trade union representing the workers of ware house and administrative office at Bangalore. 3. The dispute relating charger demands of the respondent workmen was referred by the Government to the Tribunal for adjudication in ID No.160/2006. During the pendency of dispute before the Tribunal, in the month of October 2006 the petitioners shifted the warehouse and the administrative office from Old Madras Road, Bangalore to the new premises at Marathahalli, Ring Road, Bangalore. In the new premises, the petitioners accommodated 15 employees and transferred the remaining 27 workmen to Ambasamudram in Tamil Nadu by transfer order dated 30.12.2006. Aggrieved by this order of transfer the respondent Union filed a complaint No.3/2006 in I.D.No. 160/2006 before the Tribunal under Section 33A of the I.D. Act. The petitioner filed objections to the Complaint No.3/2006 opposing the claim of respondent Union. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for its consideration: i) Was there a practice of transferring any employees from a place out of Bangalore, to Bangalore only on request made by such employees, notwithstanding condition No.4 in the appointment order? ii) Does the complainant prove that the management contravened Sec.33 of the ID Act by passing the order of transfer during the pendency of dispute in I.D.No. 160/2006 and reducing the number of employees of the wearhouse? iii) If so, whether the transfer of 17 workmen mentioned in the complaint is justified? iv) Is the said transfer malafide? ii) Does the complainant prove that the management contravened Sec.33 of the ID Act by passing the order of transfer during the pendency of dispute in I.D.No. 160/2006 and reducing the number of employees of the wearhouse? iii) If so, whether the transfer of 17 workmen mentioned in the complaint is justified? iv) Is the said transfer malafide? v) Is the present complaint under Sec.33A of the I.D. Act maintainable? vi) To what reliefs, are the workmen mentioned in the complaint entitled? 4. Before the Tribunal the petitioners examined one witness as OW.1 and go marked 19 documents. The respondent examined one witness as CW.1 and got marked 81 documents. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned award holding that the order of transfers are contrary to service conditions and the same is malafide. Further the Tribunal held that the transfer orders are in violation of Sec.33 of the I.D.Act. Consequently the Tribunal declared that the workmen are entitled for all the reliefs. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioners-management. 5. Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contend that the letter of appointment specifies that the workmen are liable to be transferred to any department or any of the branches at any time during the service. Therefore, he contends that the order of transfer of the workmen is in accordance with the terms of appointment. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the order of transfer is actuated by malafides. Since the demands raised by the respondent union are pending before the tribunal, they do not become conditions of service. Therefore, there is no violation of Sec.33 of the I.D.Act. The Tribunal committed an illegality in not properly assessing the evidence on record. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i) (1993) 1 SCC 148 ii) 2001 ILR 190 iii) 1991 FJR 585 iv) (1999) 1 SCC 300 v) (2004) 3 SCC 172 6. Per contra. Sri Anantharam, learned counsel for respondent-Union supports the impugned award. The condition in the letter of appointment was confined only to departments at Bangalore and not out side Bangalore. Right from the beginning the practice in the warehouse at Bangalore was that no workman was transferred outside Bangalore. Per contra. Sri Anantharam, learned counsel for respondent-Union supports the impugned award. The condition in the letter of appointment was confined only to departments at Bangalore and not out side Bangalore. Right from the beginning the practice in the warehouse at Bangalore was that no workman was transferred outside Bangalore. On the other hand, at the request of few workmen they are transferred to Bangalore from outside. The intention of the petitioner is to send the workmen outside the establishment and to entrust the work to C & F agency and as such the same is malafide. One of the demands that was pending before the Tribunal was complement of work force as on 01.11.2005 should not be reduced. Now by transferring all the workmen in the warehouse amounts to violation of Sec.33 of the I.D.Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. i) 2006-II-LLJ-199 ii) 2000-II-LLJ-298 iii) 2007-III-LLJ-130 iv) 1993-I-LLJ-741 (Bombay) v) 2008-I-LLJ-183 vi) 2008-I-LLJ-193 vii) 1977 SCC (L & S) 264 viii) 2009-iv-llj-382 ix) 2008-ii-llj-339 (Guj) x) 2003-II-LLJ-234 xi) 2002-LLJ-280 (SC) 7. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 8. It is necessary at this stage to notice the law laid down by the courts on the question of transfer orders. A division Bench of this court in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd Vs. Prof.P.N.Shetty FJR (Vol.91) Kant. 585 held as under: “The Courts do not ordinarily interfere in such matters. An order of transfer can be challenged on the following grounds: i) the transfer is in violation of conditions of service or contract; ii) it is actuated by malafides or actuated by some other ulterior motive not connected with the business interest of the management; and iii) the transfer effects a change in the conditions of service by subjecting the employee to more onerous conditions.” The Supreme Court in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd Vs. Manorama Sirsi (2004) 3 SCC 172 held “unless there is a term to the contrary in the contract of service, a transfer order is a normal incidence of service. 9. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the decision referred to supra, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. The certified standing orders dated 06.05.1995 do not speak anything with regard to transfer of workmen. 9. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the decision referred to supra, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. The certified standing orders dated 06.05.1995 do not speak anything with regard to transfer of workmen. The definition clause in this certified standing order at clause 4.1 to 4.5 are relevant for the purpose of this case and the same reads as under: 4.1 In these orders unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context- 4.2 “The Company” means Madura Coats Limited, Bangalore. 4.3 “Employee” means any person employee by the Company to do any unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, manual, semi clerical, clerical, technical, secretarial or supervisory work for the Company. 4.4. “Company’s premises” means factory buildings, administrative officers, sales offices and includes other offices and building as well as vacant space located adjacent to or attached with these. The premises will also include any property or estate of the Company or leased by the Company and all rea located within such estate or property to the extend they are connected with the Company’s business. 10. From a reading of the above definition clause in the certified standing orders it is clear that work ‘company’ and ‘company premises’ are all referable to their location at Bangalore. The employee means working in the company’s offices, warehouse, depot and factory located at Bangalore. 11. One clause in the engagement order of workmen reads as under: ‘you are liable to be transferred to any department or to any of out branches at any time during your service with us. You are initially posted at our Central Warehouse, H-85, Old Madras Road, Banniganahalli, Bangalore’. 12. A combined reading of certified standing orders and the transfer clause in the engagement order manifestly makes it clear that the petitioners – management is having the power to transfer workmen to its any of the branches, offices, factory, warehouse or Depot at Bangalore. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had warehouse operation at Old Madras Road Office, Bangalore. The petitioners had two other depots at Lalbagh Road and Nagavarapalya, Bangalore. Therefore, intention between the parties while entering into the certified standing orders and also the service engagement was only empowering the petitioners – management to transfer a workman to any of their branches or depots or offices at Bangalore. 13. The petitioners had two other depots at Lalbagh Road and Nagavarapalya, Bangalore. Therefore, intention between the parties while entering into the certified standing orders and also the service engagement was only empowering the petitioners – management to transfer a workman to any of their branches or depots or offices at Bangalore. 13. Further the evidence on record establishes that on several occasions the petitioners transferred workmen from one place to another place within Bangalore. It has come on record that the attempts made by the petitioners to transfer workmen outside Bangalore was resisted by workmen and the petitioners have withdrawn such transfer orders. It is not in dispute that at the request of two workmen they are transferred to Bangalore from outside. From this evidence on record it is clear that the petitioners had the power to transfer workmen within Bangalore. Therefore, the impugned orders of transfer of workmen outside Bangalore to Ambasamudram in Tamil Nadu is in violation of conditions of service. The finding of the Tribunal in the impugned award that the transfer orders are in violation of service conditions is supported by evidence on record and the same is in accordance with law. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned award. 14. In the impugned award the Tribunal held the order of transfer of workmen is also in clear violation of Section 33 of the ID Act. It is necessary to extract Section 33 (1) (a) which is the relevant provision for the purpose of this case and the same reads as under: “33 (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before (an arbitrator or) a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall, a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding, or b) …………………….. Save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. 15. The Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipality Vs. Save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. 15. The Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipality Vs. Alibhai Karimbhai 1977 SCC (L & S) 264 interpreted Section 33 (1) (a) of the I.D. Act as under: In order to attract Section 33(1) (a), the following features must be present: (1) There is a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute pending before the Tribunal. (2) Conditions of service of the workmen applicable immediately before the commencement of the Tribunal proceeding are altered. (3) The alteration of the conditions of service is in regard to a mater connected with the pending industrial dispute. (4) The workmen whose conditions of service are altered are concerned in the pending industrial dispute. (5) The alteration of the conditions of service is to the prejudice of the workmen. 16. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipality’s case, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. It is not in dispute that the respondent – trade union submitted charter of demands on 27.09.2005. The government referred the dispute relating to charter of demands to the Tribunal for adjudication and the same came to be numbered as I.D.No.160/2006. Petitioner – management entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed statement on 30.11.2006 opposing the claim of respondent – union. The relevant demand of respondent – union referred for adjudication before the Tribunal is demand no.20 and the same reads as under: 20. Complement of Workmen: The management shall not reduce the existing complement (number of workmen as on 1.11.2005) of workmen presently on the rolls of the company without the consent of the Union in writing. 17. As already stated the certified standing orders defines the company means Madura Coats Limited, Bangalore. One of the demand before the Tribunal in I.D.No.160/2006 is complement of workmen. During the pendency of this demand, the petitions passed the impugned order of transfers on 30.10.2006. Thus the transfer orders issued by the petitioners transferring 27 workmen from Bangalore to Ambasamudram in Tamil Nadu is directly related to the dispute that is pending before the Tribunal between the workmen and the management. During the pendency of this demand, the petitions passed the impugned order of transfers on 30.10.2006. Thus the transfer orders issued by the petitioners transferring 27 workmen from Bangalore to Ambasamudram in Tamil Nadu is directly related to the dispute that is pending before the Tribunal between the workmen and the management. Therefore, the transfer orders issued by the petitioners satisfy all the conditions specified by the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipality’s case and as such the same is in violation of Section 33 (1) (a) of I.D.Act. The finding of the Tribunal n the impugned Award holding that the transfer orders are in violation of Section 33 (1) (a) of the I.D. Act is in accordance with law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.