JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court, dated 27.07.2018 (published on 06.09.2018) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar in Adjudication Case no.33 of 2018, between Kishan Bahadur and Toni Electronics Limited. By the said award, the Labour Court has answered the reference made to it, under Section 4-K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), regarding the validity of termination of services of Kishan Bahadur in favour of the workman and against the employers. The termination of the services of the workman with effect from 16.01.1996 has been held to be illegal and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service with full back-wages, continuity and other benefits. 2. It must be pointed out here that the industrial dispute was raised between Kishan Bahadur and Toni Electronics Limited, the employers. Pending the industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Toni Electronics Limited was amalgamated into Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, in consequence of which Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited took over as the employers. They also took over all rights, liabilities and pending actions by or against Toni Electronics Limited. Accordingly, Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited made an application to the Labour Court that the cause title of the industrial dispute, pending before it, may be appropriately amended to indicate the new identity of the employers. The said application was made on 13.08.2001 and allowed by the Labour Court on 02.08.2002. In this judgment, Kishan Bahadur shall hereinafter be referred to as, ‘the workmen’, whereas the petitioner, M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited shall be referred to as, ‘the employers’. 3. This industrial dispute arose in relation to a unit of M/s. Toni Electronics Limited, situate at G-3, 4, Sector 11, NOIDA, since amalgamated with the employers, under an order of the Registrar of Companies, dated 13.12.1999. The employers’ unit was engaged in the manufacturing of Audio Cassettes. It is said that the employers have moved over to production and promotion of films, music and marketing of electronic goods, since audio cassettes have become an obsolete technology. The workman was employed as an Air Conditioner Mechanic with effect from 01.03.1989 with the employers. The employers’ unit was engaged in the manufacturing of Audio Cassettes. It is said that the employers have moved over to production and promotion of films, music and marketing of electronic goods, since audio cassettes have become an obsolete technology. The workman was employed as an Air Conditioner Mechanic with effect from 01.03.1989 with the employers. It appears that the workman was transferred from NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar to a unit of the employers, situate at Malanpur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, by transfer order dated 03.07.1995, requiring him to join his station of transfer by 08.07.1995. 4. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the workman did not join at Malanpur in compliance with the transfer order, last mentioned. He was charge sheeted for the misconduct, in not complying with the transfer order. A charge sheet dated 19.08.1995 was issued to him. A domestic inquiry was held, where the workman was found guilty. An inquiry report dated 14.11.1995, holding him guilty, was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. A show cause notice dated 20.12.1995 was issued to the workman, following which the workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.01.1996, with effect from 16.01.1996. It is this action of the employers that led the workman to move the Authority under the Act by an Application, under Section 2-A, seeking conciliation. The conciliation having failed, an industrial dispute, under Section 4-K of the Act was referred by the Additional Labour Commissioner in the following terms (translated into English from Hindi vernacular): “Whether the action of the employers in terminating the services of their workman, Sri Kishan Bahadur son of Sri Nand Ram, A.C. Operator w.e.f. 08.07.1995, is lawful and justified? If not, to what relief, compensation, the concerned workman is entitled and in what terms and with what effect.” 5. The said reference led to registration of Adjudication Case no.489 of 1996. Objection was raised by the employers to the validity of this reference, inasmuch as the services of the workman were not terminated with effect from 08.07.1995, which is the date of his transfer order. Rather, he was dismissed from service after an inquiry on a charge of disobeying the transfer order vide order dated 13.01.1996 w.e.f. 16.01.1996. It appears that on 08.07.1996, a second reference was made regarding the industrial dispute between the employers and their workman, relating to termination of his services. Rather, he was dismissed from service after an inquiry on a charge of disobeying the transfer order vide order dated 13.01.1996 w.e.f. 16.01.1996. It appears that on 08.07.1996, a second reference was made regarding the industrial dispute between the employers and their workman, relating to termination of his services. This reference was made in the following terms by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad vide order dated 14.11.1996 (translated into English from Hindi vernacular): “Whether the action of the employers in terminating the services of their workman, Sri Kishan Bahadur son of Sri Nand Ram vide order dated 16.01.1996, is lawful and justified? If not, to what relief, compensation, the concerned workman is entitled and in what terms and with which date and what particulars.” 6. On the basis of the reference dated 08.07.1996, Adjudication Case no.242 of 1997 was registered before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ghaziabad. An objection was raised by the employers, this time, that a similar Adjudication Case no.489 of 1996 is pending between parties. The workman made an application in Adjudication Case no.489 of 1996 that he does not want to pursue the reference. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ghaziabad accepted the application and held that on the reference, no industrial dispute survived, answering it accordingly. In Adjudication Case no.242 of 1997, parties lodged their written statements, their rejoinder statements, besides adducing evidence, both oral and documentary. Through their stand before the Labour Court, the employers informed that the workman had been dismissed from service in consequence of disciplinary proceedings by the order, the legality of which was subject matter of the reference. The employers’ case, amongst others, made it clear that the workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.01.1996, after full course of disciplinary proceedings, on the charge that he had disobeyed the transfer order dated 03.07.1997. 7. It is pointed out that on 25.10.2007, Adjudication Case no.242 of 1997 was transferred from the Labour Court, Ghaziabad to the Labour Court, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar. At NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, the Adjudication Case was renumbered as 33 of 2008. The Labour Court proceeded to frame a preliminary issue regarding fairness of the domestic inquiry, undertaken by the employers. By an order dated 12.07.2017, the Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the employers was fair and proper. At NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, the Adjudication Case was renumbered as 33 of 2008. The Labour Court proceeded to frame a preliminary issue regarding fairness of the domestic inquiry, undertaken by the employers. By an order dated 12.07.2017, the Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the employers was fair and proper. In doing so, the Labour Court had before him the Inquiry Officer, who testified as a witness and the workman also. Evidence relating to proceedings of the inquiry was adduced. The Labour Court in holding the inquiry to be fair has recorded reasons that more than meet the eye. 8. The Labour Court has remarked that at the time of decision of the preliminary point, it is not to be seen whether the transfer order regarding disobedience, on which the charge was laid, was lawful or not. What had to be seen was, according to the Labour Court, whether the inquiry was procedurally fair. The Labour Court has then gone on to say that looked at from this point of view, it is clear that a charge sheet was given to the workman. His explanation being not satisfactory, inquiry proceedings were scheduled with a first date on 23.09.1995, when the workman did not appear. Again, 21.10.1995 was the date scheduled for the inquiry, when the workman appeared. He accepted the charge and said that he had no evidence to produce or witness to examine in his defence. He also did not cross-examine any witness. On the foot of these facts, the Labour Court held that it cannot be said that there was any violation of principles of natural justice or the charges were established against him through a flawed procedure. 9. It was also held that the preliminary point was answered in favour of the employers, holding the disciplinary proceedings to be fair and one conducted according to the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court then directed the industrial dispute to come up for the purpose of determination, whether the transfer of the workman from the employers’ unit at NOIDA to Malanpur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, was lawful and further if for disobeying an order of that kind, the workman could be penalized. 10. Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Employers and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. 11. 10. Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Employers and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. 11. This Court has perused the deposition of the Inquiry Officer, Sri Anil Singhal before the Labour Court and also that of the workman. A wholesome reading of the deposition of the workman does not show that he has admitted the charge to be correct as remarked by the Labour Court in its order dated 12.09.2017, disposing of the preliminary point about fairness of the inquiry. If that were so, there would be nothing left for the Labour Court to determine. What in substance the workman has said in his testimony recorded on 23.03.2004, is that after a strike, the Management had reduced on facilities, like dress allowance, free tea and meals. He has also said that it is correct to say that he was pressurized to resign. On his refusal, he was suspended with effect from 22.02.1995. Departmental proceedings followed. He appeared at the inquiry. The charges could not be proved against him by the Management in that inquiry. The suspension order was withdrawn, but instead of being reinstated, he was transferred the same day, that is to say, 03.07.1995 to Malanpur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. It was specifically stated by the workman in his evidence that transfer was not part of his service conditions and, therefore, he refused to comply with the transfer order. He has also said that Certified Standing Orders were never displayed on the notice board. The workman has said that he did not appear further before the Inquiry Officer because transfer is not a condition of his service. The inquiry convened is, therefore, manifestly illegal. In his cross-examination, the workman has accepted it for a fact that on 03.07.1995, he was transferred to Malanpur to join there by 08.07.1995. He has also acknowledged the fact that he did not join at Malanpur. He has also not denied that he was served with a charge sheet on 19.08.1995, to which he submitted a reply on 22.08.1995. He has also acknowledged the fact that when his reply was not found satisfactory, inquiry proceedings were convened. There is a long winded cross-examination further, recorded on 19.02.2007. He has acknowledged facts fairly about the inquiry proceedings; about when he appeared and when he did not. He has also acknowledged the fact that when his reply was not found satisfactory, inquiry proceedings were convened. There is a long winded cross-examination further, recorded on 19.02.2007. He has acknowledged facts fairly about the inquiry proceedings; about when he appeared and when he did not. He has said for a fact that he admitted before the Inquiry Officer that when he did not join at Malanpur, he was served with a show cause notice. He has, however, denied the fact that he was ever provided his appointment letter. He has denied the fact that the employers did not withdraw facilities. He has also stated that it is wrong to say that he was not stopped from joining duties on 08.07.1995. It must be remarked that this statement of the workman perhaps refers to stopping him from joining work at NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar. He has then said in the concluding part of his cross-examination that his services have been wrongfully dispensed with, as a result of the inquiry proceedings. 12. This Court also notices that the Inquiry Officer appears to have been cross-examined on behalf of the workman by one Ompal Singh, who appears to be his defence representative. He put the following questions to the Inquiry Officer: ^^Á'u&Dk dkj[kkus ds Áekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'kksa vuqlkj mu Jfedksa dk nwljs jkT; esa LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tk ldrk gS tks deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSA mRrj&Áekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'k dh /kkjk&19 ¼,½ ds vuqlkj lHkh deZdkjksa dk LFkkukUrj.k ,d foHkkx ls nwljs foHkkx ,d QSDVjh@vkfQl@LFkku ls nwljs QSDVjh@vkfQl@LFkku ij LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA mlesa ,d jkT; ls nwljs jkT; esa LFkkukUrj.k ds lEcU/k esa dqN ugha fy[kk x;k gSA eSusa LFkk;h vkns'k Áekf.kr gksus ds lEcU/k esa deZdkjks ds fuokZfpr Áfrfuf/k;ksa ds ckjs esa dqN ugha ns[kk gSA** 13. This testimony of the workman leaves this Court to wonder how the Labour Court inferred that the workman has admitted the charge. What the workman had admitted, is the fact that he did not comply with the transfer order; he was proceeded with departmentally for non-compliance and punished. He has taken a stand that transfer is not one of his conditions of service and, therefore, the punishment order is bad. 14. What the workman had admitted, is the fact that he did not comply with the transfer order; he was proceeded with departmentally for non-compliance and punished. He has taken a stand that transfer is not one of his conditions of service and, therefore, the punishment order is bad. 14. This Court is, therefore, of firm opinion that the Labour Court recorded a perverse finding in its order dated 12.09.2017 that on 21.10.1995, the workman appeared before the Inquiry Officer and accepted the charges against him, and signed proceedings. The findings that he did not ask for opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses is also perverse. The stand of the workman is clear that he denied the charge that he committed any misconduct, but admitted the fact that he did not comply with the transfer order. What the workman clearly said was that since transfer was not part of his service conditions, disregarding that order was no misconduct. If this was his stand, he would have little evidence to offer in the matter of decision of the preliminary point about fairness of the inquiry. The order of the Inquiry Officer, disposing of the preliminary issue dated 12.09.2017 is bad, more fundamentally for another reason. After recording his conclusion that the inquiry was fair and the workman has admitted the charge, the Labour Court posted the industrial dispute for adjudication on the point whether the transfer order was lawful and if its disobedience could be punished. This was never the subject matter of reference, made to the Inquiry Officer. 15. Mr. Deeptiman Singh, learned Counsel for the employers has argued that the impugned award is bad because the Labour Court has gone into the validity of the transfer order, which he could not do as a Court of referred jurisdiction. 16. On the other hand, Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the workman has argued that the order of reference is about dismissal from service of the workman, at the bottom of which lies the validity of a transfer order. The validity of the transfer would, therefore, have to be adjudged while judging the issue about the validity of termination of the workman’s services on a charge of disobeying the transfer order. 17. These submissions of learned Counsel for both sides represents a correct perspective of the matter from their respective vantage. The validity of the transfer would, therefore, have to be adjudged while judging the issue about the validity of termination of the workman’s services on a charge of disobeying the transfer order. 17. These submissions of learned Counsel for both sides represents a correct perspective of the matter from their respective vantage. It has to be put together to form a wholesome and complete picture. This situation has come about because in this case and going by the structure of the dispute and the terms of reference, the Labour Court could not have decided the question as a preliminary about the procedural fairness of the inquiry. Any step towards resolution of the industrial dispute would require the Labour Court to determine whether the transfer order was indeed valid for the workman. If it was not the inquiry conducted, howsoever fairly, would be proceeding built on the edifice of a charge, that was non est. 18. The submission of Mr. Deeptiman Singh, learned Counsel for the employers that on a reference about the validity of the workman’s termination from service or dismissal pursuant to disciplinary proceedings vide order dated 16.01.19996, the validity of the transfer order dated 03.07.1995, could not be gone into, is not acceptable. It is for the reason, already indicated, and made more clear by saying that the charge on the basis of which the workman has been dismissed or removed from service has as its necessary concomitant, the validity and legality of the transfer order dated 03.07.1995. In deciding the validity of the order of dismissal dated 16.01.1996, subject matter of reference, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the transfer order could be lawfully made. But, by recording the order dated 12.09.2017 holding that the workman has accepted the charges against him and the inquiry is fair, the Labour Court has virtually left itself with nothing to decide. Also, the Labour Court in passing the impugned award has dealt with a truncated reference, under these circumstances. To add, the Labour Court has recorded in the impugned award and the order dated 12.09.2017, conclusions that would virtually run contrary to one another. Also, the Labour Court in passing the impugned award has dealt with a truncated reference, under these circumstances. To add, the Labour Court has recorded in the impugned award and the order dated 12.09.2017, conclusions that would virtually run contrary to one another. The principle is that the Labour Court while judging the validity of an order of removal based on a charge about the violation of a transfer order, where the terms of reference are about the validity of the termination/ dismissal from service, can well go into the validity of the transfer order also; though validity of the transfer order is not per se referred. 19. The view of this Court finds support from the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Workman of Bijlibari Tea Estate vs. Management of Bijlibari Tea Estate, (2010) 4 Gauhati Law Reports 849, where considering the question of validity of dismissal from service of the workman on his refusal to accept an unlawful transfer, it was held: “14. In the instant case, it is evident from the domestic enquiry proceeding (Exhibit-1) conducted against the concerned workman, relating to the charge levelled against him that the workman had participated in such proceeding and the reasonable opportunity of being heard was given. There is no allegation of victimisation or unfair labour practice as well as the allegation against the management that it had not acted in good faith. It appears that the case of the Union is that the domestic enquiry is not fair and valid as no finding has been recorded into the charge of misconduct levelled against the workman and no reason has also been recorded, inasmuch as, the Enquiry Officer did not go into the aspect as to whether by the order of transfer the conditions of employment has been violated. According to the Union, disobedience of a transfer order which is lawful and reasonable, only amounts to the misconduct under clause 10 of the standing order in force and in the instant case, as the workman was engaged in Bijlibari Tea Estate, he cannot be transferred out of the said Tea Estate and to a new venture/Tea Estate, which was not in existence at the time of his appointment. The further case, as it appears from the evidences adduced before the labour court, is that in any case, he cannot be transferred out of Dibrugarh district and the transfer order amounts to depriving him from the enjoyment of other benefits attached to his service like housing facilities, etc. 15. The Enquiry Officer though in his report had rejected the contention of the workman that he cannot be transferred out of Dibrugarh district and also relating to deprivation from enjoyment of certain benefits, had not, however, recorded any finding relating to the plea of the workman that since he was appointed in respect of Bijlibari Tea Estate only, he cannot be transferred to any other Tea Estate subsequently established by the management, while recording the finding that the lawful order of transfer has been disobeyed by the concerned workman, which amounts to misconduct, without, however, considering as to whether the order of transfer is lawful as the concerned workman was appointed only in respect of Bijlibari Tea Estate. That aspect of the matter has also not been gone into by the labour court. 16. Clause 10 of the standing order in force provides the acts or omissions of the workman constituting gross misconduct. Clause 10(a)(1) of the standing order provides that the willful insubordination or disobedience of only a lawful or a reasonable order of a superior constitutes gross misconduct. In the case in hand, the charge against the concerned workman was that he did not obey the order of transfer, which was the basis for taking disciplinary action against the concerned workman. The management, therefore, has to prove that the order of transfer is lawful and reasonable so as to constitute misconduct within the meaning of clause 10 of the standing order. The concerned workman, as noticed above, has all along pleaded that he being appointed in Bijlibari Tea Estate, he cannot be transferred out of the said Tea Estate. If such plea is accepted then he cannot be transferred out of Bijlibari Tea Estate and in that case the order of transfer would not be lawful and consequently, the concerned workman cannot be punished for not carry out such an order, the same having not constituted misconduct within the meaning of clause 10 of the standing order in force. 17. 17. As discussed above, the Enquiry Officer did not record any finding on the vital aspect of the matter as to whether the workman could be transferred out of Bijlibari Tea Estate, his appointment being in respect of Bijlibari Tea Estate only. It has not been disputed by the learned senior counsel for the management that the concerned workman was appointed in respect of Bijlibari Tea Estate and there was no other venture of the management at the point of time when the concerned workman was appointed. It is also not in dispute that by the order dated 8.8.1994, he was sought to be transferred to a new venture, which according to the management, is the out garden. The domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman, therefore, cannot be held to be fair and valid so as not to go into the merit of the case by the labour court, as has been done in the instant case, as the Enquiry Officer did not go into the vital aspect of the matter, as noticed above, which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. 22. It appears from the order of transfer dated 8.8.1994 that the pay and other benefits of the concerned workman had not been disturbed. The management by, proving the communication dated 7.9.1994 (Exhibit-6) has proved that all his service benefits including the salary and other incentives would be paid and he would be provided with rental housing facility or house rent commensurate to his status. That being the position, the concerned workman's salary, other incentives and the housing facilities etc. were 20 not disturbed and he would continue to enjoy the same, which he was enjoying in Bijlibari Tea Estate. The plea of the concerned workman that he cannot be transferred out of Dibrugarh district was also rightly found to be not acceptable by the Enquiry Officer in his report. However, it is an admitted position of fact that the concerned workman was appointed initially as trainee and thereafter, as Hazira Maharar for Bijlibari Tea Estate only. It is also not in dispute that by the order of transfer dated 8.8.1994, the workman was sought to be transferred to a proposed new venture at Margherita, which naturally was not in existence while the concerned workman was appointed. It is also not in dispute that by the order of transfer dated 8.8.1994, the workman was sought to be transferred to a proposed new venture at Margherita, which naturally was not in existence while the concerned workman was appointed. Unless there is a specific condition in the order of appointment that he can be transferred out of the Tea Estate, where he was appointed and even to a new venture, the management in exercise of its right of transfer of its workman cannot transfer such workman to a new venture, as such right of the management cannot be implied as conditions of service. If a workman is appointed in respect of one Tea Estate, he cannot be transferred to another Tea Estate, as it would be the violation of his conditions of employment he being appointed in respect of a particular Tea Estate only. In the case in hand, as noticed above, there is no dispute that the concerned workman was appointed in respect of Bijlibari Tea Estate only and hence, he cannot be transferred out of Bijlibari Tea Estate, even though the new venture is under the same management, but he can definitely be transferred to another section or to any other transferable post within the tea estate. The management though has taken the plea that the said new venture is nothing but an extension of Bijlibari Tea Estate, did not produce any evidence before the labour court in that regard. The order of transfer reveals that the concerned workman was transferred to a new venture proposed to be started. 23. The Apex Court in Kundan Sugar Mills, (supra)while considering almost the similar facts involved in the case in hand, has held that the employer has no inherent right to transfer his employee to another place where he chooses to start a business subsequent to the date of the employment, when there was no condition of service of employment of the employee either express or implied that the employer has the right to transfer to such new venture started or proposed to be started subsequent to the date of his employment. The Apex Court in that case has uphold the judgment of the labour Appellate 21 Tribunal holding that the management had no right to transfer the workman to a new factory and hence, the order dismissing him from service was illegal, based on the fact that such workman employed in a factory owned by the management was sought to be transferred to a new venture. The Single Bench decision of this court in Kakodanga Tea Estate (P.) Ltd., (supra), on which the learned senior counsel for the management places reliance, cannot be applied in the case in hand, in view of the aforesaid discussion and as in that case, the concerned workman was transferred from a post in the tea garden to the Head Quarter of the Tea Company.” 20. The reference in Workman of Bijlibari Tea Estate was in the following terms (quoted verbatim from the report in Workman of Bijlibari Tea Estate): “(a) Whether the management of Bijlibari T.E., Hoogrijan, PO-Hoogrijan, Dist. Dibrugarh is justified in dismissing Sri Sankar Dutta, Hazira, Mohurrer from service or not? (b) It not, is he entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof?” 21. In Workman of Bijlibari Tea Estate, the Gauhati High Court held the dismissal of the workman bad on a reference about dismissal from service on ground that the charges were based on a transfer order, which was illegal. This is precisely the workman’s case here. This Court does not wish to say at all whether the order of transfer is valid or invalid. 22. Mr. Deeptiman Singh has attempted to show that the Certified Standing Orders of the Company do make provision for an inter-State transfer. Mr. Shekhar Srivastava, on the other hand, submits that the provisions there do not warrant a transfer outside the State. Other issues have also been attempted to be raised by the learned Counsel. This Court is not inclined to go into those matters in the present petition as in the opinion of this Court, this matter must go back to the Labour Court for a wholesome determination of the reference. The Labour Court would examine the validity of the transfer order, first in sequence, and then proceed to determine the validity of the order of dismissal referred. The validity of the order of dismissal referred and the validity of the order of transfer cannot be separated. The Labour Court would examine the validity of the transfer order, first in sequence, and then proceed to determine the validity of the order of dismissal referred. The validity of the order of dismissal referred and the validity of the order of transfer cannot be separated. It requires a wholesome determination. 23. In the result, the impugned award is liable to be quashed, as also the order separately made, disposing of the point regarding validity of the inquiry proceedings, though the said order dated 12.09.2017 is not formally challenged by the employers. That order is patently illegal and cannot be permitted to survive. 24. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned award dated 27.07.2018 (published on 06.09.2018) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar in Adjudication Case no.33 of 2018 and the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Labour Court in the Adjudication Case aforesaid, are hereby quashed. Reference dated 08.07.2016 is upheld. The Labour Court shall proceed to redetermine the reference in accordance with law and endeavour to decide the same within a period of six months next, after hearing both parties and bearing in mind guidance in this judgment. It is further ordered that out of the sum of Rs.50,000/-deposited by the employers with the Labour Court in compliance with the interim order dated 27.11.2018, the sum of Rs.25,000/-paid to the workman, shall not be recovered, whereas the balance of Rs.25,000/-, invested with whatever Nationalized Bank, shall be forthwith withdrawn, together with accrued interest and remitted to the employers. There shall be no order as to costs.