ORDER : 1. This order will govern the disposal of MP Nos.47/19, 50/19, 244/19, 245/19, 268/19, 270/19, 317/19, 318/19 & 320/19 since it is jointly submitted by counsel for the parties that all these miscellaneous petitions involve the same issue in the identical fact situation. 2. For convenience the facts are noted from Miscellaneous Petition No.47/2019. 3. By this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner (employer) has challenged the order of the Labour Court, Dewas dated 13.11.2018 whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent-employee by declaring the transfer order dated 13.1.2015 as illegal and void and by setting it aside. 4. The respondent No.1 was employed in the Dewas factory of the petitioner and vide order dated 13.1.2015 he was transferred to Choupanki, District Alwar. The respondent No.1 workman through the respondent No.2 Union had raised the industrial dispute before competent authority and on failure of the conciliation proceedings a reference was made to the Labour Court in respect of correctness and legality of the order of transfer. 5. The respondents had filed the statement of claim before the Labour Court with the plea that the transfer of the respondent No.1 was done malafidely with the intention to reduce the number of workmen in the Dewas factory. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had pressurized the respondent No.1 to resign and on refusal, petitioner had transferred the respondent No.1 without any justifiable reason to Choupanki at Rajasthan, which is 900 k.m. away and such a transfer amounts to the illegal change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further plea was raised that all the family members and relatives of the respondent No.1 are residing at Dewas and the facilities which are available at Dewas are not available at Choupanki and at Choupanki, within the radius of 40-50 k.m., there is no residential area, nor any means of transport are available and the respondent No.1 is also not required at Choupanki factory. It was also pleaded that at Dewas precision pipes are manufactured, whereas at Choupanki the work of manufacturing of nut and bolt is done and the transfer will change the nature of work of the respondent No.1. Hence a prayer was made for declaring the transfer as illegal and void. 6. It was also pleaded that at Dewas precision pipes are manufactured, whereas at Choupanki the work of manufacturing of nut and bolt is done and the transfer will change the nature of work of the respondent No.1. Hence a prayer was made for declaring the transfer as illegal and void. 6. Petitioner had filed the reply before the Labour Court and had raised the plea that the respondent No.1 was already relieved in pursuance to the order of transfer and that the transfer was not done to reduce the number of workmen at Dewas and no unfair labour practice was adopted and compliance of Section 9A was not necessary. It was also denied that the respondent No.1 was pressurized to tender resignation and a plea was raised that since there was continuous reduction in production at Dewas and the staff had become surplus which was not required, therefore, to continue the employment of the respondent No.1 he has been transferred as per his service conditions and no notice in this regard under Section 9A was required and at Choupanki factory also all the facilities are available. 7. Labour Court by permitting the parties to lead evidence and after examining the same has found that the petitioner could not prove that there was continuous reduction in production at Dewas factory and the staff had proportionately become surplus. It further found that nine persons were transferred from Dewas with the intention to reduce the number of persons employed at Dewas and such an act was covered by Clause 11 of the Schedule 4 of the Act and since no notice of change was given, therefore, it was violative of Section 9A of the Act. The labour court further found that transfer will change the nature of work since the respondent No.1 was employed as labourer at Dewas and on transfer at Choupanki he will be working as supervisor. In the aforesaid background the labour court has found that the order of transfer was null and void and has accordingly set it aside. 8. The labour court further found that transfer will change the nature of work since the respondent No.1 was employed as labourer at Dewas and on transfer at Choupanki he will be working as supervisor. In the aforesaid background the labour court has found that the order of transfer was null and void and has accordingly set it aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the labour court has proceeded beyond the scope of the reference and examined the violation of Clause 11 of Schedule 4 read with Section 9A of the Act, whereas it was not covered by the terms of reference and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and Another reported in (1979) 3 SCC 762 and in the matter of Oshiar Prasad and others Vs. Employers in Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71 . He further submits that the issue in this regard is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of President Vs. Director, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2015(4) MPLJ 595 . He has also submitted that while examining the issue of administrative exigency the tribunal has wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the petitioner and in support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Surendra Nagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in (2005) 8 SCC 750 . He has also submitted that the malafides are not proved in the matter, therefore, burden of proof of no administrative exigency was on the workman. He has also submitted that transfer was one of the condition of service and the original appointment itself mentions the designation of the respondent No.1 as Assistant Supervisor. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tribunal has duly appreciated the evidence and has rightly passed the award and the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 566 . In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 566 . He further submits that as many as 9 persons have been transferred and no one has been posted in the place of the transferred employees at Dewas, therefore, Clause 11 of Schedule 4 is clearly violative and there is change in condition resulting in violation of Section 9A of the Act. He has also submitted that the status of the respondent No.1 will change on transfer and the same is not permissible. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kailash Chandra Jain reported in 1972 RLW 606. He has also submitted that the respondent No.1 has been transferred to the remote place where the facilities of hospital, education etc. are not available, which also results in change of service condition and that since the VRS was not accepted by the respondent No.1, therefore, he has been transferred. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondents in support of their plea have examined PW-1 Kanhaiyalal and PW-2 Vijay Pratap Singh Ranawat and the petitioner has examined DW-1 Manoj Thakkar, DW-2 Rajveer Singh and DW-3 Mukesh Kulshreshtha. The respondents have produced the documents Ex.P/1 to P/6 and the petitioner has produced the documents Ex.D/1 to D/24. 11. The first issue is whether the tribunal has exceeded the terms of reference while considering the issue of violation of Clause 11 of Schedule 4 in terms of Section 9A of the Act. The following question was referred to the labour court:- ^^D;k vukosnd }kjk lsokfu;qDr Jh dUgS;kyky dk LFkkukaurj.k fd;k tkuk oS/k ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks os fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gSa ,oa bl laca/k esa lsok fu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkus pkfg;s\** 12. Since the question referred requires the labour court to examine the correctness and legality of the order of transfer, therefore, the labour court was well within its competence to consider the provisions of law on the basis of which the correctness and validity of the transfer order was questioned. Since the question referred requires the labour court to examine the correctness and legality of the order of transfer, therefore, the labour court was well within its competence to consider the provisions of law on the basis of which the correctness and validity of the transfer order was questioned. The record reflects that in the statement of claim itself the respondent No.1 had raised the plea that the order of transfer was passed in violation of Section 9A of the Act and this plea was duly responded by the petitioner in its reply before the labour court. Section 9A prohibits the employer to affect any change in the condition of service applicable to any workmen in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule unless a notice of change in the prescribed manner is given to the workmen. Clause 11 of Fourth Schedule relates to increase or reduction in the number of persons employed and reads as under:- “Any increases or reduction (other than casual) in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department or shift [not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control].” 13. The tribunal has duly considered the stand of the petitioner that there was continuous reduction in production in Dewas factory, therefore, the staff had become surplus proportionately and has found it to be incorrect. The statement of DW-1 reveals that the maximum loss at Dewas was in the year 2014-15 and the loss had gradually reduced in the year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 whereas at Choupanki the maximum profit was in the year 2014-15, which is reducing since year 2016-17. The tribunal has also taken note of the admission of DW-1 as contained in Para-30 of his cross-examination that in place of the workmen transferred to Choupanki, no person has been taken at Dewas and as many as nine workmen have been transferred to Choupanki resulting into reduction of nine number of persons employed at Dewas. Hence, the tribunal has rightly found that there was violation of Clause 11 of Schedule 4 of the Act. It is undisputed that no notice of change in terms of Section 9A was given before affecting such a large scale transfer. Hence there was clear violation of Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule. 14. Hence, the tribunal has rightly found that there was violation of Clause 11 of Schedule 4 of the Act. It is undisputed that no notice of change in terms of Section 9A was given before affecting such a large scale transfer. Hence there was clear violation of Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule. 14. The issue relating to the change in the nature of work has also been considered. The respondent No.1 had adduced the evidence to the effect that at the Dewas factory the work of manufacturing precision pipe is done whereas at Choupanki manufacturing of nut and bolt is done. This was admitted by the petitioner’s witnesses DW-1 and DW-2. DW-2 had also admitted that on transfer of respondent No.1 no new recruitment will be made and the respondent No.1 will be trained and will be required to do the work of Supervisor. In this background the tribunal has rightly found that on transfer the nature of work of the respondent No.1 will completely change and he will be required to do the work of supervisor after imparting training and his existence as workman will come to an end and he will no longer be entitled to the protection and legal right as workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The findings so recorded by the labour Court are pure findings which have been duly and rightly arrived at after due appreciation of the evidence on record and after duly taking note of the legal position in this regard. 15. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) and in the matter of Oshiar Prasad (supra) wherein it has been laid down that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go beyond the reference and inquire into the question which has not been referred to, but the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the said judgments because in the present case the Labour Court has acted well within its term of reference. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of President Vs. Director, Rajasthan Patrika (supra) but that was a case of single transfer wherein the issue of violation of Clause 11 of Schedule 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not involved. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of President Vs. Director, Rajasthan Patrika (supra) but that was a case of single transfer wherein the issue of violation of Clause 11 of Schedule 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not involved. In the present case though the transfer is a condition of service but it cannot be used as a tool to effect mass transfers resulting into violation of Clause 11 of Fourth Schedule without giving any notice of change in the prescribed manner in terms of Section 9A of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106 and Surendra Nagar District Panchayat (supra) wherein it has been held that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment. There is no dispute to the aforesaid proposition. In the present case though the malafides have not been proved but the transfer order has been found to be illegal and void having been passed in violation of the statutory provision, therefore, plea of administrative exigency is not so much relevant. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of those judgments. 16. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Kailash Chandra Jain (supra), wherein it has been laid down that the transfer which operates to substantially change the conditions of service by converting a workman into a non-workman cannot be made without consent, the benefits conferred by appropriate Acts of Legislature on a workman cannot be denied to him by mere fiat of the employer under the garb of transfer. 17. It is also worth noting that present miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and the scope of interference in exercise of the power under Article 227 is limited. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Yunus (supra) in this regard has held as under:- “7. 17. It is also worth noting that present miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and the scope of interference in exercise of the power under Article 227 is limited. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Yunus (supra) in this regard has held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 18. Having regard to the aforesaid I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error or patent illegality in passing the impugned award and setting aside the order of transfer. 19. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned award is made out. The miscellaneous petitions are accordingly dismissed and the award of the Labour Court is upheld. 20. Signed order be kept in the file of MP No.47/19 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected MP Nos.50/19, 244/19, 245/19, 268/19, 270/19, 317/19, 318/19 & 320/19.