JUDGMENT : (Alok Mathur, J.) : Heard Sri Ashish Malhotra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent No. 5 is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No. 5 had filed a complaint petition before Dy. Labour Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra with a prayer for setting aside his termination order. The petitioner is involved in running a petrol-pump in District Agra and respondent No. 5 had claimed to be his employee who was working under him and has been illegally terminated in the year 2011. Aggrieved by which he had approached Dy. Labour Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra. The petitioner had opposed the claim of respondent No. 5. 4. During pendency of the said proceedings, respondent No. 5 has moved an application for transfer of his case being Case No. 74 of 2011 pending before the Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra to any other Court/tribunal. In his complaint which has been annexed alongwith writ petition, there are personal allegations against the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra wherein it has been stated that he has little hope of getting justice before the said Tribunal. 5. The Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, sought response on the said complaint from the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra, who refuted all the allegations by means of his letter dated 4.3.2022 stating that firstly that the matter has been pending since 2011 and the said case is being prosecuted by one Yudveer Singh, learned counsel who is representing respondent No. 5 whose number of matter have been rejected by the Tribunal and who being aggrieved on this count is repeatedly misbehaving in the Court as well as trying to defame the Presiding Officer. He further said that he has no interest in the said case and also in case the Labour Commissioner wants to transfer he would not have any objection in this regard. 6. It has noticed that after tendering his response on 4.3.2022, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra soon thereafter proceeded to render his award on 25.4.2022 and forwarded to the Labour Commissioner for its publication. 6. It has noticed that after tendering his response on 4.3.2022, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra soon thereafter proceeded to render his award on 25.4.2022 and forwarded to the Labour Commissioner for its publication. Before the said award could be published, the Labour Commissioner has exercised its power under Section 6(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 and remitted the matter back to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra for re-adjudication mainly on the ground that once the Labour Commissioner was seized of the application for transfer and cognizance of the same has also been taken and response of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra has also been sought, then the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra should have waited for the outcome of the transfer application which was pending before the State Government, pursuant to which, he should have proceeded to render the award. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that it is true that the application for transfer of the case from the Court of Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra was pending before the Labour Commissioner and instead of deciding the application for transfer, he has proceeded to remit back the matter to Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra. He further submits that it was incumbent upon the Labour Commissioner first to decide the transfer application and in case the said transfer application would have been allowed, only then occasion would have arisen for interference in the award dated 25.4.2022 and the matter could be remitted to any other Tribunal apart from Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra where the proceedings are pending since its inception. It has been submitted that in case the application of respondent No. 5 did not find favour and the State Government was of the view that the same required to be rejected then there was no occasion for respondent to pass any order under Section 6(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act as there would not be any infirmity in the hearing conducted by Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra and there would not be any occasion to invoke provision of Section 6(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the only option therein to publish the award dated 25.4.2022. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other has opposed the writ petition. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that once the State Government was seized of the application for transfer then the Presiding Officer should have waited for the outcome of the same and passing the award in hurried manner clearly indicates his interest in matter and consequently supported the impugned order 31.5.2022 passed by the Labour Commissioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. The controversy pertains to a complaint made by respondent No. 5 against his order of termination. The matter was pending since 2011 before the Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra. On apprehension expressed by respondent No. 5 with regard to impartiality of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra respondent No. 5 has submitted an application for transfer his case from Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra to any other Court/tribunal. In the said complaint, he has made personal allegations against Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra. The State Government had taken cognizance on the complaint made by the respondent No. 5 and sought comments of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra had refuted the allegation and on the other had stated that he has no personal interest in the said case and he has no objection in case the said matter was transferred from his Court to any other Court. 11. The proceedings before the State Government with regard to transfer application was still pending when the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra proceeded to finally hear the matter and render award on 25.4.2022 and forwarded the same to the State Government for its publication. Before publication of the award the State Government had exercised its power under Section 6 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and remitted the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra in light of the fact that the transfer application was pending consideration before the State Government and no final decision has been taken. The Labour Commissioner was of the view that once the State Government is seized of the application for transfer, the Industrial Tribunal could not proceed and finally determine the controversy. 12. The Labour Commissioner was of the view that once the State Government is seized of the application for transfer, the Industrial Tribunal could not proceed and finally determine the controversy. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner has informed this Court that after remitting the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra the said matter is pending consideration before Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra and has not been concluded in pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.5.2022. 13. From the record, it is clear that the complaint against the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra was made sometimes in December, 2021 and his response was sought which was given in March, 2022. Since March, 2022, the State Government is still in a state of indecisiveness and no final decision has been taken on the said application. It is not appreciated that in an administrative matter regarding transfer of a case where there are allegations against the the Presiding Officer, and also where it seems that due inquiry has also been conduced by the Labour Commissioner and a response of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra has also been sought and received by him but still despite a long lapse of time nearly more than 10 months no order has been passed. There are serious matters, and speedy disposal of such application is expected. Once all the material is on record and enquiry has been conducted to verify the allegation made by the complainant then a decision in this regard shall be taken expeditiously. 14. Considering the stand of the State Government that merely because of pendency of the transfer application, the outcome of the claim preferred by the respondent No. 5 cannot be finalized, hence it was incumbent upon the Labour Commissioner to have first decide the transfer application and only thereafter he should have proceeded to exercise powers under Section 6(4)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In case there was no merit in the application for transfer then there was no reason for interference prior to publication of the award but in case there was substance in the allegations made against the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra then the matter could be remitted to any other Court except Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra but by means of the impugned order dated 31.5.2022, the matter has been remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra. 15. 15. We see no reason for the respondents to have passed the impugned order dated 31.5.2022 at this stage remitting the matter to Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra as he has already passed the award, and if the case does not deserve to be transferred in pursuance of the transfer application then no order was required to be passed under Section 6 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while in case transfer application was allowed, then the matter should have been remitted before another bench of the tribunal other than Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra and in any view of the matter, the matter at this stage could not have been remitted to Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra and hence the case for interference in the impugned order dated 31.5.2022 is made out. 16. In light the above, the order dated 31.5.2022 is set aside. The Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint preferred by respondent No. 5 expeditiously say, within a maximum period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. He shall first consider the application for transfer and pass necessary orders thereon. Once the orders are passed on the transfer application thereon it is necessary then pass orders in exercise of powers conferred under Section 6 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 17. The office of learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the Labour Commissioner expeditiously for necessary actions as directed by this Court. 18. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed.