IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.4970 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 15, 2011 Federal Mogul Bearing India Limited, Plot No.5, Sector-2, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P, through Shri Neeraj Gupta son of Shri M.C. Gupta, General Manager, Manufacturing- cum-Factory Manager, Federal Mogul Bearing India Limited, Resident of MIG 38, sector-1, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary, Labour and Employment, Government of H.P. Shimla-171002. 2. The Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Himrus Building, Circular Road, Shimla-171002. 3. Gabrial Employees Union, Registration No.258, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. through its President, Sh. Dwarka Nath Sharma son of Shri Murti Nand Sharma, Resident of C/o Shri Raj Kumar Dhiman, Near Bal Bharati School, Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana. 4. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla, through its Presiding Officer. ..Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the Notification No.11-2/93- Labour (ID)/ 09-Solan dated 31.3.2010 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. É2É Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as employer, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Commissioner in March, 2010, whereby reference has been made to Labour Court-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla, with regard to an alleged dispute viz. whether the transfer of some of the employees, who are Members of an Employees’ Union, by the employer, from one department of the Industrial Unit to another department, amounts to change in service conditions of the transferred employees. 3. Petitioner’s case is that the transfer does not amount to change in service condition, in view of the terms and conditions of the appointments of the transferred employees, standing orders and settlement arrived at between the Union of the employees and the employer and, Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may b e al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É3É therefore, order of making reference passed by the Labour Commissioner is bad in law. 4. The issue raised in the present petition can be adjudicated by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, as it has the jurisdiction to decide the same. Thus the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy. If this is so, the petitioner will be better advised to raise the plea before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. December 15, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.