Judgment :- 1. The first petitioner is the Chief Personnel Officer and the second petitioner is the Assistant Personnel Officer of the Integrated Coach Factory (ICF) at Chennai. In this writ petition, the petitioners seeks to set aside an Award passed by the first respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (for short CGIT) made in I.D.No.83 of 2006 dated 16.09.2009. 2. By the impugned Award, the CGIT held that the order of transfer made against the employee G.Sridhar, Technician Grade I/Fitter-General was not legal and valid. Therefore, the order of transfer was set aside and the petitioners ICF was directed to retransfer the workman to ICF Chennai forthwith along with his post. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 26.11.2009. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the second respondent Trade Union filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 seeking to vacate the interim order. However, this Court by an order dated 15.04.2010 declined to vacate the interim order and gave liberty to the parties to move for an early hearing of the writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Radharkishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Trade Union. 5. The facts leading to the case were as follows:- The workman concerned (G.Sridhar) who is a member of the second respondent Trade Union was initially appointed as Technician Grade III/Fitter in the ICF on 13.08.1990. Subsequently, he was promoted as Technician Grade II on 18.07.1994. He was further promoted as Technician Grade I on 29.01.2004. During October 2002, he was elected as Staff Council Member, which is an advisory body. As per the Railway Boards Letter dated 16.06.2005, the workman was transferred to Diesel Loco Modernisation Works at Patiala (Punjab State) on 18.06.2005 along with his post on grounds of administrative exigencies. The workman did not join at Patiala. He requested for cancellation of transfer and for his retention at Chennai. In the alternative, he requested to be posted at the nearby workshop at Tirupati or Arakkonam. The Railway Board considered his request and modified the order of transfer and posted him at Carriage Workshop at Tirupati on 01.07.2005. Based on the order of the Railway Board, he was relieved on 02.07.2005 by the ICF to join at Tirupati workshop. 6. In the alternative, he requested to be posted at the nearby workshop at Tirupati or Arakkonam. The Railway Board considered his request and modified the order of transfer and posted him at Carriage Workshop at Tirupati on 01.07.2005. Based on the order of the Railway Board, he was relieved on 02.07.2005 by the ICF to join at Tirupati workshop. 6. It was at that stage, the second respondent Trade Union raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) by a letter dated 18.07.2005. The Conciliation Officer issued notice to the ICF and as the Conciliation Officer could not bring about any settlement sent a failure report to the Central Government under Section 12(4) of the I.D.Act vide Failure Report dated 27.09.2005. The Government of India refused to refer the issue for adjudication. Hence, the second respondent Trade Union filed a writ petition being W.P.No.10722 of 2006 to refer the issue relating to transfer of the workman for adjudication. That writ petition was allowed by this Court by an order dated 21.07.2006 and the Government of India was directed to refer the dispute for adjudication. 7. It was pursuant to the order of this Court, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by virtue of Power under Section 10(1) referred the following dispute for adjudication by their order dated 15.09.2006:- "Whether the action of the management of Integral Coach Factory, Chennai in transferring Sri G.Sridhar (Employee No.696790) Technician Grade I/Fitter-General) to Patiala and again from Patiala to Thripathi Workshop alongwith the post in administrative interest, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the person concerned is entitled for?" 8. Even during the pendency of the dispute, the workman was once again by an office order was transferred from Tirupathi to Locoworks at Perambur, which is also an establishment of the Indian Railways situated adjacent to ICF. 9. The first respondent CGIT registered the dispute as I.D.No.83 of 2006 and issued notice to both sides. The second respondent Union filed a claim statement dated 15.12.2006. The petitioners ICF filed a counter statement dated Nil (January 2007). A rejoinder was also filed by the second respondent dated 02.04.2007. The stand of the second respondent Union was that the transfer of the workman from ICF, Chennai to Patiala was without following any statutory norms and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the workman. The petitioners ICF filed a counter statement dated Nil (January 2007). A rejoinder was also filed by the second respondent dated 02.04.2007. The stand of the second respondent Union was that the transfer of the workman from ICF, Chennai to Patiala was without following any statutory norms and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the workman. It was done with a view to punish the workman for his involvement in trade union activities. There was no administrative interest in the transfer. It was only because there would be an industrial unrest if such transfer is effected, he was brought back to the Tirupati Workshop coming under the South Central Railways. This fact itself will show that there was no administrative reason. The post held by the workman is still available in the ICF and therefore, the transfer was illegal, malafide and done in colourable and arbitrary exercise of power. The Trade Union in which the workman was a member opposed various measures taken by the ICF including questioning the outsourcing of various works. It was only to eliminate the workman who was in the forefront of the opposition, the transfer was effected. 10. In the counter statement filed by the ICF, it was stated that the workman Sridhar was not an office bearer of the second respondent Union. He was transferred as per the Ministry of Railways letter dated 16.06.2005 on Administrative exigency. His subsequent request for reconsideration was considered by the Railway Board and accordingly, his transfer was modified and he was posted to work at Tirupati work shop. It was admitted that the workman was a member of Staff Council, but it is claimed that it is only an advisory body and the decision taken is only recommendatory. The transfer was not due to opposition of outsourcing. Outsourcing of activities had always been taken place and it is a policy adopted by Railways as a whole. There is no necessity to give any opportunity of hearing in the matter of transfer and transfer is a general condition of service. Under Rule 226 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I, Group "C" and Group "D" employees can be transferred anywhere within India on exigencies of service. The judicial review of the Tribunal over an order of transfer was impermissible. 11. Under Rule 226 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I, Group "C" and Group "D" employees can be transferred anywhere within India on exigencies of service. The judicial review of the Tribunal over an order of transfer was impermissible. 11. In the rejoinder statement filed by the Union, it was claimed that the workman was recently married and by being transferred outside to Chennai, he cannot maintain two establishments. Even the posting at Tirupati Workshop does not cover within the incentive scheme and the workman was bound to loose heavily on account of non-availability of incentive to the post. It was further stated that there was no extraordinary circumstances for transferring the workman and it was vindictive. 12. Before the CGIT, on behalf of the Trade Union, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and one V.Muralimanoharan was examined as W.W.2. On the side of the ICF, one R.Sivakumar was examined as M.W.1. The Trade Union has filed as many as 43 documents including the last memorandum given to the workman and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W43. On the side of the ICF, four documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M4. 13. The CGIT upon perusal of the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that though the transfer is prerogative of a Government, there must be some reason for transfer and at least it should be set out in an abstract manner and that has not been done in this case. The real reason weighed with the ICF is not disclosed. Even during the pendency of the enquiry, he was transferred. If it is a case of transfer which is done malafide, it is liable to be interfered with. It was also stated certain times an order of transfer may be made, but on deeper scrutiny, it may be shown that it was due to innocuous malafide exercise of power by the concerned authorities and in such cases one has to pierce the veil to find out the real motive and if the motive is based upon irrelevant circumstances, certainly the Court has got power to interfere with the order of transfer. It was contended by the ICF that since he had been brought back to Chennai at his own interest, the Award has to be set aside. It was contended by the ICF that since he had been brought back to Chennai at his own interest, the Award has to be set aside. However, it was contended by the Trade Union that when the Trade Union had questioned the transfer from out of ICF, it is incumbent that the workman should be brought back to ICF itself and not to any other establishment. Therefore, the change made in the transfer order at the instance of the Railway Administration will not invalidate the Award. 14. Since the parties did not file the entire records made available before the CGIT, this Court directed the original records to be summoned from CGIT. Accordingly, they were summoned and circulated for perusal by this Court. 15. Though in the initial order dated 18.06.2005 signed by the Assistant Personnel Officer, ICF Workshop quoted the Ministry of Railwayss letter dated 16.06.2005 transferring the workman to Patiala along with the post showed that it was in the administrative interest, but his subsequent re-transfer to workshop at Tirupati dated 02.07.2005 was once again done by the Railways on the basis of Ministrys letter dated 16.06.2005. Though it is contended that the initial letter was based upon administrative exigencies, the fact that he was retransferred to Tirupati (though it is stated it is at his interest and intervention of the Ministry for State Railways), either before the Tribunal or before this Court, the ICF has not explained the real reason weighed with the transfer. On the other hand, the ICF all along contended that it was only due to administrative exigencies he was transferred along with the post. They have not explained as to why such a decision was revoked and the workman was brought back to Tirupati first and thereafter to Loco Works next. 16. Mr.R.Sivakumar, Staff Welfare Inspector, ICF who was examined as M.W.1 fairly admitted that he was not aware of the administrative reasons and it was also not disclosed in writing. When a reference is made under Section 10(1) to the Tribunal for adjudication, it is incumbent upon an employer to justify their action for transferring a workman from one station to another station as that is the subject matter of the dispute itself. When a reference is made under Section 10(1) to the Tribunal for adjudication, it is incumbent upon an employer to justify their action for transferring a workman from one station to another station as that is the subject matter of the dispute itself. If the petitioners ICF is either complacent about the dispute or that he being brought back to Chennai to work under the Loco Works will satisfy any one, they are mistaken. In the present case, they are bound to justify their action before the Tribunal by producing appropriate materials. Merely contending that the original order of transfer was based on exigencies and subsequently at the instance of Railway Ministrys letter, it was modified will clearly show that the exigencies pleaded but not substantiated has to be accepted by any one. In the absence of any real reason for transfer, merely contending that they have power to transfer will not take the case of the ICF any further. 17. Under the said circumstances, the CGIT based on the materials available before it came to the conclusion that the order of transfer was malafide and therefore, the workman was eligible to be posted back to ICF by the impugned Award and that cannot be found fault with. 18. The scope of power of the Industrial Tribunal interfering with an order of transfer came to be considered by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Workmen reported in AIR 1966 SC 1283 .In paragraph 6, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "We are, therefore, of opinion that Industrial Tribunals should be very careful before they interfere with the orders made by the Banks in discharge of their managerial functions. It is true that if an order of transfer is made mala fide or for some ulterior purpose, like punishing an employee for his trade union activities, the Industrial Tribunals should interfere and set aside such an order of transfer, because the mala fide exercise of power is not considered to be the legal exercise of the power given by law. But the finding of mala fide should be reached by Industrial Tribunals only if there is sufficient and proper evidence in support of the finding. Such a finding should not be reached capriciously or on flimsy grounds" 19. But the finding of mala fide should be reached by Industrial Tribunals only if there is sufficient and proper evidence in support of the finding. Such a finding should not be reached capriciously or on flimsy grounds" 19. If it is seen in the light of the above dictum, in the present case the CGIT has kept in mind its power. Only because the ICF had failed to convince the Tribunal regarding the bonafide nature of transfer, the order of transfer was set aside. There is no gainsaying that the affected workman has been brought back to Chennai to work in the Loco Works which is another establishment of Indian Railways. Once the original order of transfer is vitiated, the natural corollary is that the workman affected by the transfer should be brought back and posted in the same post. Therefore, any other view would amount to endorsing the illegal stand taken by the ICF. 20. In the light of the above, there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.