JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/employer has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dated 23.09.2023, whereby, the order for dispensing with the services of the respondent no.2 vide order dated 08.02.2019 has been set aside and respondent no.2/workman was directed to be reinstated in the services with full back wages and other service benefits. 3. In order to resolve the controversy, the facts in nut shell are that respondent no.2/workman was engaged with the petitioner institution as a daily wager, a Class-IV employee-cum-Guard. By order dated 31.01.2019, respondent no.2 was transferred from his place of posting at district Uttarkashi to Public Relation Office, Kolkata (West Bengal). Respondent no.2 was relieved from his original office on 04.02.2019 at 03:00 PM for his joining at the new place of posting. 4. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that since, he was short of funds, he went to his village and after arranging some money, he returned on 06.02.2019 and met with the Managing Director of the Corporation about his problems that he was a low paid employee and was not paid his salary for the last 04 months and in such a meagre amount, it could not be possible for him to survive in a city like Kolkata. However, the respondent no.2 was orally told by the Managing Director, either to go to place of transfer or to leave his job. Since, the petitioner could not join at the place of his transfer, his services were retrenched vide order dated 08.02.2019. The petitioner also moved a representation against his retrenchment on 05.03.2019, but all went in vain. According to the respondent no.2, he has been regularly working at his place of posting since the date of his appointment and he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. According to the Section 13(6) of the Model Standing Order, an employee cannot be transferred to another State without his consent, and, in this view of the matter, the transfer of respondent no.2 is not maintainable in law. 5. According to the Section 13(6) of the Model Standing Order, an employee cannot be transferred to another State without his consent, and, in this view of the matter, the transfer of respondent no.2 is not maintainable in law. 5. Assailing the said order, the petitioner straightaway earlier knocked the doors of this Court by filing a writ petition being WPSS No.370 of 2019, which was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court holding that the petitioner has got a statutory and efficacious alternative remedy to approach before the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, accordingly, the reference was made. The point of reference was “Whether the transfer of respondent no.2-workman, a Class-IV employee-cum-guard, from tourist rest house, Janki Chatti (Uttarkashi) to Public Relation Office, Kolkata on 31.01.2019 and termination of services of the respondent no.2 vide order dated 08.02.2019 was legally justified? If not, to what relief/compensation, the employee/workman is entitled to get and with which details?” 7. Before the Labour Court, the employer/petitioner filed its written statement, wherein, it was stated that the respondent no.2/workman was engaged on muster roll basis as a Class-IV employee and till the date of his removal i.e. 08.02.2019, he was engaged according to the need of work. 8. In the year 2018, the respondent was engaged in Tourist Rest Centre, Janki Chatti (Uttarkashi) and on completion of Yatra period, due to there being minimal amount of tourists, instead of terminating the services of respondent no.2, he was transferred to Public Relation Office, Kolkata. Respondent no.2 did not join at the place of his transfer and by violating the order, it amounts to his arbitrariness and insubordination, which is a misconduct as per Rule 5(6) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Respondent no.2 is purely a Class-IV employee and the order of his engagement was brought to an end vide order dated 08.02.2019. Hon’ble High Court has passed the orders for equal pay for equal work and the respondent no.2 cannot deny to go at the place of his transfer. 9. I have carefully heard learned counsel for both the parties and also examine the facts of the case going through the records. Hon’ble High Court has passed the orders for equal pay for equal work and the respondent no.2 cannot deny to go at the place of his transfer. 9. I have carefully heard learned counsel for both the parties and also examine the facts of the case going through the records. In this matter, the undisputed facts are as follows:- a. The relationship of master and servant is fully established between the petitioner-employer and the respondent no.2- employee. b. After transferring respondent no.2, before taking charge from him, his services were terminated. c. There is a difference of only 8 days between his transfer and termination. d. No domestic inquiry was conducted before termination of services of respondent no.2. e. The employee has worked for more than 240 days in the petitioner’s institution in a calendar year. 10. In this view of the matter, since, no Model Standing Order was operating qua the petitioner/institution, the provisions of U.P. Industries Employment Model Standing Order would be applicable. According to the Rule 13(6) of the said Standing Order, which governs the condition for promotion, recruitment and transfer, it clearly describes that if an establishment has its units out of State, no workmen shall be transferred out of State without his prior consent. The fact of transfer of respondent no.2 appears to be malafide in nature. 11. The respondent no.2 has been transferred to Kolkata, which is at a far-flung distance of about 2000 Km. from the place of his present posting. It is an admitted fact that no domestic inquiry was carried out before terminating the services of respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is a temporary employee, who earns a meagre amount of salary. 12. In this view of the matter, considering the facts that the manner in which the petitioner has transferred its employee, at a distance of about 2000 Km. and just within 08 days from the date of his transfer, the services of respondent no.2 were done away with, which amount to violation of principal of natural justice. 13. In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. and just within 08 days from the date of his transfer, the services of respondent no.2 were done away with, which amount to violation of principal of natural justice. 13. In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2009) 3 SCC 124 , has clearly held that an employee is to be dismissed from services on the ground that he committed a misconduct, he is entitled to an opportunity of hearing, and in such a matter, holding a domestic inquiry is a sine qua non, in absence of which, the punishment imposed is void ab initio. 14. Similarly, in the matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Limited Vs. Employee (1997) 2 SCC 80, it has been held that when something is done within the discretion of authority, it is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no interference at all is warranted to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court directing for reinstatement of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.04.2019. The Court also does not find any justification to interfere with the impugned award granting back-wages alongwith consequential benefits to the respondent no.2-workman. 16. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the threshold.