HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.717 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.5640 of 2009 and 18598 of 2010 Date: 06-04-2011 W.A.No.717 of 2004: Between: Coromandel Fertilizers Limited ……. Appellant and Principal Secretary to Government, A.P. and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.717 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.5640 of 2009 and 18598 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Since all these three matters are connected and arise out of the inter se proceedings between the parties, hence, on the request of the learned counsel on either side, they are taken up together for disposal. The appellant, who is the Management, filed W.A.No.717 of 2004 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the correctness of the order, dated 25-02-2004 passed in W.P.No.25580 of 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus declaring the order of reference in G.O.Rt.No.1958, Labour Employment Training and Factories (LAB.I) Department, dated 08-10-2003 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh purportedly under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘I.D. Act’), as invalid. Briefly the facts, which lead to these proceedings, are that in the aforesaid impugned reference, the dispute between the Management and employee was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, for the purpose of adjudication on the question whether the Management is justified in transferring one V.V. Bhaskara Rao, Vice President of the Union, to the Calcutta office. Challenging the same, the Management filed W.P.No.25580 of 2003 before this Court. The main ground urged in support of the writ petition was that having regard to the settlement, which has been invoked w.e.f. 01-01-1995 and the clauses contained therein, the question of raising any such dispute when such settlement is in force is not valid. The learned single Judge, by referring to the principles laid down in M/S. NALANDA CERAMIC AND INDUSTRIES LTD. V. M/S. N.S. CHOUDHURY AND CO(P) LTD [1], wherein it was held that during the operation and continuance of a settlement and without such settlement being terminated, no reference of a putative dispute could be made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act, and also by referring to clause 22(4) of the Terms of Settlement, found that it only allows a transfer from one department to another department, and therefore, since the present impugned transfer being from Secunderabad office to Kolkata office, would it fall within its mischief or outside necessarily these mixed questions of fact and law have to be determined by the Tribunal only and therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the writ appeal. In W.P.No.5640 of 2009, the same employee, namely V.V. Bhaskara Rao, filed the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the memo, dated 18-02-2006 rejecting an application filed by him for transfer of I.D.No.21 of 2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Chandra Vihar Complex, Hyderabad, to the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, Chandra Vihar Complex, Hyderabad, where other dispute in I.D.No.25 of 2004 is pending. The case of the petitioner is to the effect that subsequent to the aforesaid reference made on the validity of the transfer, which was taken up as I.D.No.21 of 2003, the Management has filed a writ in W.P.No.25580 of 2003 assailing the same and the said writ petition was dismissed after hearing both sides, against which the aforesaid writ appeal is pending. However, pending the dispute, the services of the petitioner- employee were terminated. Hence, he filed a reference under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, which was numbered as I.D.No.25 of 2004. Since all the questions, incidental or otherwise, in these two references are interconnected, he sought for transfer of I.D.No.21 of 2003 to the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, for disposal along with I.D.No.25 of 2004 and the same was negatived. Hence, the writ petition. In the third case in W.P.No.18598 of 2010, the petitioner is once again the Management, which seeks to assail the interlocutory order, dated 21-07-2010 passed in I.D.No.25 of 2004, whereunder the objection raised by the Management with regard to the jurisdiction, which was sought to be decided as a preliminary issue on various other grounds, was not acceded to and it was held that such issues cannot be decided as preliminary issue. Hence, the writ petition. Heard both sides in detail and in depth and perused the entire material on record. The question, which ultimately falls for consideration, is whether on the facts and circumstances, the reference in regard to the transfer of the contesting respondent employee from Secunderabad office to Kolkata office and his consequent termination are valid. There being no dispute in regard to all these chequered events and also the fact that the contesting respondent is an employee of the appellant-Management and he has been transferred on 23-07-2002 from Secunderabad office to Kolkata office. It is these proceedings which gave rise to the present proceedings and also to more than one reference viz., I.D.No.21 of 2003 and I.D.No.25 of 2004 as mentioned above. The attempt on the part of the Management is only to see that the proceedings are stalled apparently at the cost of the contesting respondent-employee without there being any adjudication expeditiously. Otherwise there is no justification to raise all such objections which could have form part of the main enquiry in both the references. Be it as to whether the reference is valid or not, and whether the dispute raised by the workman against the termination is a valid or not, necessarily enquiries have to be held with opportunities to both sides and the same have to be decided, but not by way of any interdicting proceedings when the management is taken recourse to. It is regretted that the matters are being pending for quite some time for no valid reason and necessarily the same has to be disposed of expediently by giving opportunities to both sides and also on consideration of all the pleas and objections taken by both sides. It is rightly held by the learned single Judge in the impugned order in the writ appeal that the validity of transfer does not squarely fit within the scope and ambit of the Terms of Settlement, which is in force, and it is not a transfer from one department to another department, but only from one far off place to another far off place, and all these aspects have to be properly established and taken into consideration during the course of enquiry. Even otherwise, termination effected by the Management against the employee as a consequence to non-compliance of the transfer orders is once again a subject matter which can be gone into in such enquiries with all the pleas and objections from both sides. Even though an attempt has been made from both sides at length to go to niceties on the questions of law, but, however, the facts themselves stare against them in declining to touch any such issues at this juncture except to direct expedite disposal of the both the matters. Hence, we do not find any merits in the writ appeal and also in W.P.No.18598 of 2010. Accordingly, the writ appeal and W.P.No.18598 of 2010 are dismissed. No order as to costs. Coming to the other writ petition in W.P.No.5640 of 2009, since the parties is same and one case is directly connected to the other case in both the references, necessarily both the references have to be clubbed together and disposed of. Accordingly, W.P.No.5640 of 2009 is allowed directing transfer of I.D.No.25 of 2004 from the file of the third respondent in the writ petition i.e., Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Chandra Vihar Complex, Hyderabad, to the file of the second respondent i.e., Industrial Tribunal-I, Chandra Vihar Complex, Hyderabad, which is to be tried and disposed of along with I.D.No.21 of 2003. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-04-2011 YCR [1] 1977(4) SCC 37