Judgment :- 1. In all these five writ petitions, the petitioners are ex-employees of Hotel Chola Sheraton belonging to the General Group of Hotels -ITC Limited. The writ petitioners were aggrieved about the common Award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.518 of 1992, 1207 of 1992, 1702 of 1992, 1989 of 1992 and 1208 of 1992. The workmen connected with I.D.Nos.1988, 1990 and 1192 of 1992 are not before this Court. 2. By the common Award dated 09.07.2004, the Principal Labour Court, Chennai dismissed all the industrial disputes and refused to grant any relief. Except in I.D.No.518 of 1992 (W.P.No.3803 of 2007), all the four disputes were connected with nonemployment of the writ petitioners. In W.P.No.3803 of 2007, which arose out of I.D.No.518 of 1992, the petitioners are M/s.Chola Hotel ITC Limited Employees Union and one A.George. That I.D.No.518 of 1992 is a collective dispute for adjudication by the State Government vide G.O(D)No.263, Labour and Employment Department, dated 24.03.1992. The reference was whether the transfer of the second petitioner A.George was justified and if not what relief he will be entitled. 3. The writ petitions were admitted on different dates. Since the issue relating to transfer and non-employment arose out of the same set of allegations, they were grouped together and directed to be heard together by a common order dated 14.08.2009 in W.P.No.16422 of 2009. 4. On notice from this Court, the contesting second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in each of the writ petitions. 5. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as Trade Union, workmen concerned and the Management as the case may be. Since the set of allegations made in all the writ petitions arose out of the same cause of action and since the Principal Labour Court has passed a common Award which is under challenge, this Court is also inclined to pass a common order in respect of all the writ petitions. 6. When the State Government made a reference relating to illegal transfer of A.George, which was referred for adjudication by the Principal Labour Court, similarly other disputes raised by the workman viz., V.K.Mohanasundaram (deceased-I.D.No.1207/1992), K.R.Nageswara Rao (I.D.No.1702/ 1992), I.D.No.1190/1992, S.P.Vincent - Not before this Court (I.D.No.1988/1992) were arose out of disputes raised under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act. They were initially allotted to be posted by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. They were initially allotted to be posted by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. A.Jayaraman in I.D.No.1192 of 1992 is not before this Court and I.D.No.1208 of 1992 (raised by N.Kalyanasundaram), which were also disputes raised under Section 2-A(2) were allotted to be heard by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. Since disputes relating to transfer in I.D.No.518 of 1992 was pending before the Principal Labour Court, the Trade Union filed a memo dated 09.10.1996 seeking for all the disputes to be grouped together and to be heard along with I.D.No.518 of 1992. 7. On the strength of the memo, the Principal Labour Court withdrew I.D.Nos.1207, 1702, 1190, 1988 of 1992 before the First Additional Labour Court to itself and heard all the Industrial Disputes together. Therefore, a contention is raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Labour Court has no power to transfer any I.D from one Court to another Court and such a power of transfer vest only on the State Government under Section 33-B of the I.D.Act. Therefore, the Labour Court had committed a grave error in transferring such cases to itself to pass a common Award. However, the Management in their counter statement filed in W.P.No.49941 of 2006 stated that the workman after seeking for transfer cannot challenge the transfer at this point of time. However, it must be noted parties cannot give consent in matters relating to jurisdiction of a Labour Court. Before the introduction of Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act, even in respect of a dispute under Section 2-A, it was the State Government which was making reference for adjudication and in the order of reference itself, the name of the Court will be indicated. But when disputes were started filing up, extra Courts were sanctioned and at present in Chennai, there are three Labour Courts viz., Principal Labour Court, First Additional Labour Court and II Additional Labour Court and they have jurisdiction over Chennai, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur Districts. In case where there is an order of reference and indicating the name of the Court for which reference was made for adjudication, there will be no defence. In case where there is an order of reference and indicating the name of the Court for which reference was made for adjudication, there will be no defence. But after the introduction of Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act, since disputes are directly filed before the Labour Court, the Presiding Officer of the Principal Labour Court assign the work to each Labour Court and thereafter, that Court takes up the matter for adjudication. When once assignment was made and notices were issued then that matter will have to be exclusively dealt with by that Labour Court. Wherever any transfer is to be made, then proposals are sent to the State Government and it is only under the orders of the State Government made under Section 33-B of the I.D. ACt, the transfer from one Labour Court to other Labour Court is permissible. This is so even in cases where there are cluster of Labour Courts including a Presiding Officer for a Principal Labour Court. Therefore, the contention raised by the Union that even assuming a memo was filed, the Principal Labour Court viz., the first respondent could not have transferred those matters without the orders of the State Government and to that extent, the jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Labour Court in respect of I.D.Nos.1207 of 1992, 1702 of 1992, 1190 of 1992 and 1988 of 1992 were totally without jurisdiction and the Awards are liable to be set aside on the short ground. If any party files a memo for transfer, the Labour Court should have directed the parties to approach the State Government for transfer. In essence, no consent can be given to confer jurisdiction. Apart from this, in the present case, it is curious the Labour Court recorded the evidence in respect of each dispute. 8. In I.D.No.518 of 1992 (relating to transfer of A.George), the Labour Court examined A.George as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, no witnesses were examined. The workman filed 13 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W13. On the side of the Management, 10 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M10. 9. In I.D.No.1207 of 1992 (relating to non-employment of V.K.Mohanasundaram), the said V.K.Mohanasundaram was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, no witnesses were examined. The workman filed 8 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W8. On the side of the Management, 10 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M10. 9. In I.D.No.1207 of 1992 (relating to non-employment of V.K.Mohanasundaram), the said V.K.Mohanasundaram was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, no witnesses were examined. The workman filed 8 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W8. On the side of the Management, 22 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M22. 10. In respect of I.D.No.1702 of 1992 (relating to non-employment of K.R.Nageswara Rao), the said K.R.Nageswara Rao was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, one Sanjeev Sharma was examined as M.W.1. The workman filed 10 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W10. On the side of the Management, 14 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M14. 11. In respect of I.D.No.1702 of 1992 (relating to non-employment of K.R.Nageswara Rao), the said K.R.Nageswara Rao was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, one Sanjeev Sharma was examined as M.W.1. The workman filed 10 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W10. On the side of the Management, 14 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M14. 12. In respect of I.D.No.1989 of 1992 (relating to non-employment of T.Srinivasan), the said Srinivasan was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, one Sanjeev Sharma was examined as M.W.1. The workman filed 5 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W5. On the side of the Management, 22 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M22. 13. In respect of I.D.No.1208 of 1992 (relating to non-employment of N.Kalyanasundaram), the said Kalyanasundaram was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the Management, one Sanjeev Sharma was examined as M.W.1. The workman filed 15 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W15. On the side of the Management, 19 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M19. 14. Since the other workers are not before this Court, the nature of evidence let in is not set out here under. Since the Labour Court dealt with the case of transfer of A.George in I.D.No.518 of 1992 (covered in W.P.No.3803 of 2007), it is necessary to deal with the same. It must be noted that the workers were initially members of the Welcome Hotel Chola Employees Union. Since the Labour Court dealt with the case of transfer of A.George in I.D.No.518 of 1992 (covered in W.P.No.3803 of 2007), it is necessary to deal with the same. It must be noted that the workers were initially members of the Welcome Hotel Chola Employees Union. As they were dissatisfied with the functioning of the Union, they formed a new Union by name Chola Hotel ITC Limited Employees Union. A resolution starting the Union were made by seven members who subscribed their signature. The Union after convening a general body on 01.06.1990, Memorandum of Association was presented before the Registrar of Trade Unions on 22.06.1990. In the Memorandum of Association, the workers were elected as Office bearers. The workman A.George became the Vice President of the Union. When the Management of the Hotel came to know about the registration of the new Union, they made all their tricks to forestall the formation of the Union. As part of their strategy to disturb the Union, they had transferred A.George to the Hotel in Agra (Mohul Sheraton). Similarly, V.K.Mohanasundaram, who was elected as General Secretary of the Union, the petitioner in W.P.No.3166 of 2007 (ID.No.1207 of 1992) was transferred to Mangalore on 14.07.1990. M.Kalyanasundaram, petitioner in W.P.No.49941 of 2006 (I.D.No.1208/1992), who was a Committee Member was transferred to Agra on 29.09.1990. K.R.Nageswara Rao, the petitioner in W.P.No.374 of 2006 (I.D.No.1702/1992) who was an elected President was transferred to Delhi on 20.07.1990. 15. The Trade Union raised an industrial dispute on 30.08.1990 before the Labour Officer, Chennai protesting against the illegal transfer of the office bearers as soon as the Trade Union was formed. Since the Conciliation Officer as he could not bring about mediation sent a failure report to the State Government. The State Government by G.O. (D)No.263 Labour and Employment dated 24.03.1992 referred the dispute relating to transfer of George for adjudication by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. The said dispute was registered as I.D.No.518 of 1992 and notices were sent to parties. The Trade Union filed a claim statement dated Nil and the Management filed a counter statement dated Nil. In none of the cases, the workmen transferred reported to the new station as they were already agitating about en masse transfer of office bearers. The said dispute was registered as I.D.No.518 of 1992 and notices were sent to parties. The Trade Union filed a claim statement dated Nil and the Management filed a counter statement dated Nil. In none of the cases, the workmen transferred reported to the new station as they were already agitating about en masse transfer of office bearers. Even while the dispute was pending, the Management conducted enquiry in respect of V.K.Mohanasundaram, who was dismissed by an order dated 24.10.1991 and in respect of N.Kalyanasundaram, he was also dismissed from service on 24.10.1991 and even before he had obtained an interim injunction before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.6914 of 1990 on 05.09.1990. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed on 31.01.1991. K.R.Nageswara Rao was also dismissed on 24.10.1991 after conducting so called enquiry. T.Srinivasan was also dismissed on 24.10.1991 after conducting an enquiry. 16. In respect of non-employment, when the workman filed claim statement, they had also stated that subsequent to the transfer and after formation of new Union, elections were held in respect of Hotel Chola Sheraton Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society and nomination was to be filed on 21.08.1990. M/s. Kalyanasundaram, Mohana Sundaram, Jayaraman and Srinivasan went to obtain nomination form and they were prevented from entering the Hotel by one security guard Balan, who was not in uniform along with one Lakshmanan who was on duty and Kalyanasundaram was beaten. This was done under the instigation of the Management to prevent them from filing nominations. A police complaint was also given by Kalyanasundaram on 29.08.1990. The local police arrested Balan and he took bail with the help of the Management. But however on a counter complaint given by Balan, a charge memo was issued to M/s.Nageswara Rao, Mohanasundaram, Kalyanasundaram, Srinivasan alleging that they had assaulted the Security Guard and after conducting so called enquiry, they were dismissed from service. Therefore at that time, when the reference was made relating to illegal transfer order, the State Government confined the reference only to transfer of George and did not make a mention of the names of others who were also punitively transferred. 17. Therefore at that time, when the reference was made relating to illegal transfer order, the State Government confined the reference only to transfer of George and did not make a mention of the names of others who were also punitively transferred. 17. In the counter statement filed by the Management, in respect of non-employment of the four workers, the Management specifically stated that in case, the enquiry was held to be invalid by the Labour Court on conducting a preliminary enquiry, then the Labour Court should give them opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court. Notwithstanding the stand that the Labour Court is bound to hold a preliminary enquiry relating to the domestic enquiry, without any legal basis, the Labour Court allowed the parties to let in evidence and thereafter, decided the case on merits both by looking into the pleadings of the parties as well as the domestic enquiry findings and also the decision made before the Labour Court for the first time. This approach of the Labour Court is clearly erroneous and contrary to the dictum laid by the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661 . The following passage found in paragraph 22 of the said judgment may be usefully reproduced below: "22) ...... We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication." 18. In fact when a Labour Court conducted an enquiry for the first time without deciding the preliminary issue, the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1976 II LLJ 447 (Madurai-Devakottai Transport Private Limited vs Labour Court, Madurai and another) set aside the Award of the Labour Court only on the ground the Labour Court allowed the parties to lead evidence without deciding the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary issue. The Division Bench, after referring to the Cooper Engineering case, observed as follows: "When as a result of a domestic enquiry, there is a dismissal or removal from service of a workman and the matter takes the shape of an industrial dispute, the Presiding Officer has first to see whether the domestic enquiry was properly held in accordance with the norms of the principles of natural justice and if there was any defect or violation of such principles of natural justice. Of course, when this question itself is in controversy, the Presiding Officer will be justified in taking evidence confined to that question. The complaint before us is that, without adopting that course and satisfying himself whether the domestic enquiry was proper in that sense, the Presiding Officer has called upon the parties to adduce evidence on the merits. If that is so, this will be erroneous. We direct the Presiding Officer to follow the procedure as laid down in Cooper Engineering Ltd vs P.P. Mundhe (Supra) before proceeding further. There will be an order accordingly. No costs." 19. On this ground also, the Award of the Labour Court is liable for interference by this Court. On the issue of transfer, the Labour Court went at a tangent. Ex.W1 is the minutes of the meeting of the general body of the workers deciding to form a new Trade Union. According to the Labour Court, minutes was signed only by 29 workers and therefore, it cannot be said that the newly formed union represents majority of the workers. For the purpose of forming a trade union, it is enough the Memorandum of Association is signed only by 7 workers. Ex.W1 was filed by the workers only to show the sequence of events viz., the meeting held on 01.06.1990 and thereafter, the application for registration of trade union was given on 22.06.1990 (Ex.W2) and immediately thereafter the transfer order was issued to George as per Ex.W2 on 11.07.1990. The Union Registration Certificate was dated 26.07.1990. Therefore, it was evident that the Management wanted to disturb the Union by transferring the workers to far of place. 20. The following table will show the names of the workers, their date of joining, their I.D. Number, W.P.Number, the post held in the trade union as well as the place to which they were transferred:- 21. Therefore, it was evident that the Management wanted to disturb the Union by transferring the workers to far of place. 20. The following table will show the names of the workers, their date of joining, their I.D. Number, W.P.Number, the post held in the trade union as well as the place to which they were transferred:- 21. The Labour Court by relying upon the contract of employment marked as Ex.M4 which provides for transfer of workers from one hotel to other hotel within ITC Limited held that the transfer was justified. It is not the case of the workers that there was no power of transfer, but their grievance was exercise of such power at a given point of time. The Labour Court in para 26 of the Award made a finding that if the workmen was transferred on the ground of victimisation, the workman along with other petitioners could have passed a resolution and since no resolution was passed, it cannot be held to be victimisation. In this Context, the Labour Court did not even look into the content of the dispute raised under Section 2K of the I.D. Act wherein the Union in their letter to the Labour officer clearly stated that the transfer was malafide and would amount to victimisation. Thereafter, the Labour Court in Paragraph 27 made a startling finding that the charge memo was given to the workmen during the year 1990 and the dismissal was in October 1991 and therefore, when an enquiry was held for more than 12 months, after giving sufficient opportunity and the workmen having disobeyed the order of transfer, the transfer was justified. This only shows that the Labour Court has not even understood the scope of reference made by the State Government as well as the contention raised by the parties for adjudication. 22. It must be noted that Secton 2(r)(a) of the I.D. Act defines unfair labour pratice and unfair labour practice has been prohibited by Section 25-T of the I.D. Act and any violation there of will result in a penalty under Section 25(u) of the I.D. ACt. Item No.7 of the V schedule reads as follows:- ."7.) To transfer a workman malafide from one place to another, under the guise of following Management Policy" 23. Item No.7 of the V schedule reads as follows:- ."7.) To transfer a workman malafide from one place to another, under the guise of following Management Policy" 23. Therefore, the Labour Court is oblivious of the fact that even if there is any power of transfer in a given situation whether the transfer has been effectuated in accordance with the policy of the Management or by way of victimization can be gone into. In fact in I.D.No.518 of 1992, the Management did not even examine any witness and rest contended itself with cross examining the workman George. This will clearly show that the Labour Court did not even apply its mind in deciding whether the transfer of the workman in en masse is justified or not. It may be that the State Government will not have referred a dispute of the transfer of other workmen who were instrumental in forming the Trade Union but that was on the ground that they were subsequently terminated from service and therefore, any reference would be infructuous. When the Labour Court had clubbed the I.D relating to transfer and the dispute relating to dismissal of other workmen who were also transferred, the Labour Court should have cumulatively applied its mind on the entire issue and not confine itself only to transfer of George in finding out whether there was any victimisation. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to show that after formation of the Union and submission of application, all the officer bearers of the Trade Union had been transferred. Even in case of one individual, the allegation that he had resigned from the Union and therefore, he was left out, but even that resignation was said to be forged for which police complaint was also given. 24. In view of the above, W.P.No.3803 of 2007 deserves to be allowed and accordingly, W.P.No.3803 of 2007 stands allowed and the matter relating to I.D.No.518 of 2002 is remitted to the Principal Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In respect of other four writ petitions as noted already, the Labour Court, despite a preliminary issue was to be framed as decided by the Management did not frame any preliminary issue and straightway considered the materials in the domestic enquiry as well as the evidence let in before it. In respect of other four writ petitions as noted already, the Labour Court, despite a preliminary issue was to be framed as decided by the Management did not frame any preliminary issue and straightway considered the materials in the domestic enquiry as well as the evidence let in before it. The procedure adopted by the Labour Court is clearly erroneous and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 [Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.] In that judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly explained the true meaning of proviso to Section 11-A of the I.D. ACt. 25. Further the Supreme Court in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 517 has held that when an enquiry is held to be vitiated by the Labour Court after deciding it as a preliminary issue, then no part of the domestic enquiry can be relied upon while rendering findings. Since the Labour Court did not follow the legal procedure, this Court is bound to set aside all the other disputes in I.D.Nos.1702, 1208, 1207 and 1989 of 1992 and remit it to the respective Labour Courts for fresh consideration on merits after due notice to the parties. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.374 and 49941 of 2006, 3166 of 2007 and 16422 of 2009 will stand allowed. 26. Since the disputes are more than 20 years old, the Labour Court is directed to give preference to the hearing of the disputes and in any event, dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are allowed to bear their own costs.