JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. In the instant writ petition the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in Industrial Misc. Case No.2 of 1997 dated 2.6.1997 has been assailed by the Management, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela whereby and where under the Tribunal has not approved the action of the first management in removing the opposite party no.2-workman from his service under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The case in hand is that the workman while working as charge man in the Central Workshop of the company committed misconduct of willful insubordination, disobedience to lawful and reasonable order of the superiors and unauthorized use of company’s properties attracting the provision contained under Order 28(i) and 28(xix)(a) of the Standing Order of the company. The management sought for an explanation, explanation having not found to be satisfactory, decision was taken to proceed the workman departmentally and hence departmental enquiry committee was constituted, the workman has participated fully wherein he has been permitted all opportunity to defend him, enquiry committee found the charge proved, which having been accepted by the competent authority, has imposed punishment of removal from service. The workman being a party to the Industrial Dispute case No.27 of 1985 and as such application has been filed by the Management under the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for seeking approval of the Industrial Tribunal, which has been disapproved, being aggrieved the management has filed this writ petition assailing the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the management has submitted that requirement of provision under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has fully been complied with as the workman has been provided all adequate opportunity to defend himself before the domestic enquiry and the enquiry committee has found the charge proved against him. 3. Learned counsel for the management has submitted that requirement of provision under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has fully been complied with as the workman has been provided all adequate opportunity to defend himself before the domestic enquiry and the enquiry committee has found the charge proved against him. He has further submitted that the workman has no complain that he has not been provided adequate opportunity of being heard rather the Tribunal has also come to conclusion that the enquiry has been conducted with all fairness but even thereafter the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that transfer of the workman from fabrication section to heavy equipment section was unjust and improper but while giving such finding the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that under the provision of Order 22 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946, the workman under the fabrication section can also be transferred to discharge their duties under the heavy equipment section but ignoring the said finding the order of dismissal has not been approved under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hence the order is mechanical and as such not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. This Court while issuing notice in the matter on 11.12.1997 upon the opposite party-workman but notice having not been validly served, hence directed the management to take alternative mode of service of notice by way of publication in the daily newspaper which has duly been published but even thereafter the workman-opposite party no.2 has not turned up, hence this Court, taking into consideration that the matter is of the year 1997 and all efforts of service of notice has been taken, reached to the conclusion that notice is deemed to have been served validly, hence decided to dispose of the matter on merit. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the management and gone into the records including the order passed under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal has reached to definite finding in the order that the domestic enquiry has been conducted with all fairness. Regarding shifting of the workman from fabrication section to heavy equipment section which he has not duly been complied, hence it has been alleged against him regarding non-complinace of the order passed by the authority and on that ground the workman was directed to appear in the domestic enquiry. Regarding shifting of the workman from fabrication section to heavy equipment section which he has not duly been complied, hence it has been alleged against him regarding non-complinace of the order passed by the authority and on that ground the workman was directed to appear in the domestic enquiry. It is not in dispute, as would be evident from Order 22 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946, employees may be transferred due to exigencies of work from one works, department, section or job to other, provided that the wages, grade, continuity and condition of services of the employees are not adversely effected by such transfer and provided also that if an employee is transferred from one job to another that job should be of similar nature and such as he is capable of doing. The Tribunal after appreciating Order 22 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946 and going by the deposition of the witnesses has reached to the conclusion that there is violation of the provision of Order 22 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946 for the reason that the workman can be transferred from fabrication to heavy equipment section and in the instant case the workman has been transferred from fabrication to heavy equipment section having no alternation in the service condition but even then finding has been given that the transfer is unjust and improper but why it is unjust and improper, even though the Tribunal has in consonance with the Order 22, has not disclosed rather specific finding is that the transfer can be made from fabrication section to heavy equipment section. The workman has been removed from service, sine dispute was pending to which the workman is concerned, an application was filed under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the order of removal but the same has been disapproved. It is evident from the order impugned that the requirement as contemplated under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has fully been complied with i.e. he has been paid wages for one month, an application has been made by the employer before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. It is evident from the order impugned that the requirement as contemplated under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has fully been complied with i.e. he has been paid wages for one month, an application has been made by the employer before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. We have also taken note of the judgment rendered in the case of Jaipur Zila Sashakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. –vs- Ram Gopal Sharma and others, reported in (2002)2 SCC 244 where scope of section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been discussed by larger Bench of the Apex Court and while discussing the issue, unfairness has also been directed to part for adjudication of the removal in exercise of power conferred under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. We have examined the fact of this case in the light of the said judgment and have found that since the workman has been provided with all opportunity to defend him in course of the domestic enquiry and he was transferred in pursuance to the provision of Clause-22 of the Certified Standing Order and as such it is not a case of unfairness meted to the workman by the management. 6. We, after taking into consideration the factual aspects and the discussions made herein above, are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not given the finding in right perspective by not approving the order of remove in exercise of power under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in view thereof, we are of the considered view that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence the same is quashed. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.