Subhash B. Adi, J.

This Writ Petition is by the management questioning the order dated 31st August 2007 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi produced at Annexure-E.

2. Petitioner is a Bank established in 1916. In 1972 petitioner Bank became Multi State Bank and since then the petitioner - Bank is following the norms and guidelines as per the Sastri Award, in the matter of transfer. Insofar as staff members of subordinate establishments are concerned they are not ordinarily transferred and even if they are transferred, they are not transferred beyond the language area of the persons so transferred. In case of workmen not belonging to subordinate staff, as far as possible, there is no transfer outside the State or the language area, which the employee has been serving except with the consent of such employee.

3. Employees of the petitioner Bank have formed a Union in the name and style as “Karur Vysya Bank Employees' Union", which is respondent No.3 herein and said Union is also member of "All India Bank Employees' Association and from time to time there has been settlement between the All India Bank Employees' Association and the Indian Bank Association, to which the petitioner Bank is also a member. Petitioner - Bank is strictly adhering to the Bipartite settlement arrived between the Indian Bank Association and All India Bank Employees - Association and such settlements are binding on both Bank Association and its members and also All India Bank Employees' Association and its member union. Though there is a Bipartite settlement between the union as well as the Bank Association in the matter of transfer, in terms of Sastri Award, still the respondent No.3 Union by its letter dated 18.8.2006 sought for conciliation as regard to policy of transfer of Bank employees before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) (i.e., Conciliation Officer). Petitioner Bank opposed the conciliation by filing detailed objections interalia stating that, the transfer is a condition of service; and it is done in terms of Sastri Award as well as Bipartite settlement and in view of the same, there exists no dispute, which requires adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. It also stated that, deployment was incidental to the computerisation of Banks and the deployment process was over by 2000. However, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) submitted his failure report to the Central Government. The Central Government by the impugned order dated 31.8.2007 referred the dispute, by invoking the provisions of Section 10(2-A) sub-Section (1) clause (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the following issue:

."Whether the action of the management of Karur Vysva Bank in denying the formulation of specific transfer policy sought by Karur Vysya Bank Employees" Union, is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the Union is entitled?"

4. It is this reference order is called in question by the petitioner.

5. Sri. Somayyaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, there exists no dispute, which requires an adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, the transfer policy is governed by Sastri Award and also by Bipartite settlement between the Indian Bank Association and All India Bank Employees-Association and similar other association, and said settlements are binding on the parties. The reference sought does not indicate any dispute. It only states the requirement of formulation of specific transfer policy. A specific transfer policy has been formulated in the Sastri Award and further, in all the Bipartite Settlements, the policy of transfer has been considered and settlement is arrived. When there is already a settlement, the question of raising the dispute does not arise. He submitted that, transfer is incidental to the service and there cannot be any policy as such that could be imposed on the Banks. However, the Banks are bound by the terms of settlement and in terms of the settlemen