JUDGMENT 1. Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in above cases, they have been heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of Writ Petition No.855/2016 are narrated as under :- 2. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 2.12.2015 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Indore (Annexure P-5). 3. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner Company is incorporated and registered Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is having a factory at Birlagram, Nagda, District Ujjain. It has been further stated that service conditions of the employees are governed by M.P. Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. It has been further stated that the age of superannuation as per standard orders is 58 years with discretion of employer to extend it upto 60 years, as may be necessary. It has been further stated that the dispute arouse between the workman and the employer in respect of continuance of employees upto the age of 60 years. The dispute was raised before the Labour Conciliation Officer, Ujjain and the Conciliation Officer has referred the dispute for adjudication, keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Annexure P-1 dated 20.2.2015 is on record and the dispute as per the appendix has been referred to Labour Court, Ujjain for adjudication. 4. Petitioner's contention is that during pendency of the dispute the Labour Commissioner, Indore has passed the impugned order dated 2.12.2015 (Anneuxre P-5) and has transferred the dispute, which is pending for adjudication at Labour Court, Ujjain to the Industrial Tribunal, Indore. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground before this Court that without hearing the petitioner employer such an order could not have been passed for transferring the dispute to Industrial Tribunal and in all fairness an opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioner employer. 5. To bolster his arguments he has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in the case of Management of M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., v. State of Bihar, reported in (1990)0 Supreme (SC) 18705. 6. 5. To bolster his arguments he has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in the case of Management of M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., v. State of Bihar, reported in (1990)0 Supreme (SC) 18705. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the workman has vehemently argued before this Court that the dispute in question can be resolved by the Industrial Tribunal and as large number of cases were pending before various Labour Court in order to ensure that a similar order is passed in all those cases, the matter has been transferred from the labour Court to the Industrial Tribunal. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the order dated 20.2.2015 and the same reveals that the Additional Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer has forwarded the dispute to the Labour Court, Ujjain for adjudication. 8. The proceedings were started before the Labour Commissioner for adjudication and parties have marked their presence also. However another order was passed subsequently, which is on record Annexure P-5 dated 2.12.2015 and the dispute has been transferred to Industrial Tribunal. 9. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., (supra), in paragraph-24 and 25 held as under :- “24. In the present case, the State has withdrawn the pending reference from the Labour Court, Dhanbad and transferred it to another Labour Court at the distant District of Patna, on the representation of the workman, without getting it verified from the management. The State in fairness ought to have got it verified by giving an opportunity to the management which is a party to the pending reference. Denial of that opportunity is a fatal flaw to the decision of the Government. 25. The management need not establish particular prejudice for want of such opportunity. In S.L. Kappor v. Jagmohan [ (1980)4 SCC 379 ], Chinnappa Reddy, J., after referring to the observation of Donaldson, J., in Altco Ltd. v. Suterland [(1971)2 Lloyds Rep 515], said that the concept that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done in basic to our system and it is concerned not with a case of actual injustice but with the appearance of injustice or possible injustice. It was emphasized that the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary.” 10. In light of the aforesaid, the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as the employer, who is party to the dispute was not given opportunity of hearing, the impugned order passed by the Labour Commissioner dated 2.12.2015 (Annexure P-5) is hereby quashed. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 4.1.2017. It is needless to mention that the Labour Commissioner shall thereafter be free to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law. In all other connected cases also the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The parties are directed to appear before the respective Labour Commissioner on 4.1.2017. 12. No order as to costs.