The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows.-

The respondent is a driver with the petitioner, the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Central Offices, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short). He was issued with Articles of Charge, dated 28-2-1993. The charge levelled against him was that he was found participating in a gate meeting held on 10-12-1993 on the premises of the petitioner. It was further alleged that he attempted to assault the Depot Security Officer. On this basis, an enquiry was initiated and he was found guilty of the charges. By a final order dated 19-5-1994, the Disciplinary Authority reduced the pay of the respondent by one incremental stage permanently. The respondent having raised a dispute, the same was referred in Reference No. 21 of 1997 by an order dated 1812-1996. The Industrial Tribunal, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal for brevity), by an order dated 23-12-1998, accepted the reference and the order of punishment was set aside and the petitioner was directed to pay arrears. Be that as it may, it was the respondent's allegation that even during the pendency of the reference in No. 21 of 1997, the petitioner had passed an order of transfer dated 31-5-1997, which was in violation of Clause 14(c) of a Memorandum of Settlement of the year 1981 and that he was a 'protected workman' within the meaning of Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and therefore, the order of transfer amounted to alteration of conditions of service. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 33-A read with Section 33 of the Act. The Labour Court on an enquiry in respect of the said complaint, held that the respondent being a member of the recognised staff and workers union of the petitioner and being an office-bearer, was a 'protected workman' within the meaning of Section 33(3) of the Act, and that the order of transfer dated 3-5-1997 passed against the respondent was in violation of Clause 14(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement and that the order of transfer would amount to an alteration of the conditions of service and set aside the order of transfer. It is this which is in challenge in the present petition.

2. Shri L. Govindaraju, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the order of transfer on the ground of violation of Section 33(3) of the Act. He contends that the section was applicable in the event of alteration of condition of service or in the case of infliction of punishment. That being not the case, the Labour Court could not have interfered with a purely administrative order of transfer. He further contends that there was no violation under Section 33 of the Act and this ought to have been examined as a preliminary issue before recording any finding against the petitioner. The Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the impugned order seeks to interfere with the administration of the Corporation. Transfer being an incident of service and more often a corrective measure, interference with such administrative matters would tantamount to administrative interference. Reliance placed by the Labour Court on Clause 14 of the settlement, is inconsistent with the law and such reasoning would override the law which provides for transfer in the exigencies of service. He would draw my attention to Section 33 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of reads as follows.

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute.-

(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or

(b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismi