1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Award dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”) in Complaint Application No.3/2006 filed in I.D.No. 160/2006 as per Annexure-J.

2. Petitioners are a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of textile accessories, sewing threads etc. The main factory of petitioners’ company is situated at Amba Samudram and its head office is at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner company had a ware house and administrative office at No.85, Old Madras Road, Bangalore. Respondent is the Trade union representing the workers of ware house and administrative office at Bangalore.

3. The dispute relating charger demands of the respondent workmen was referred by the Government to the Tribunal for adjudication in ID No.160/2006. During the pendency of dispute before the Tribunal, in the month of October 2006 the petitioners shifted the warehouse and the administrative office from Old Madras Road, Bangalore to the new premises at Marathahalli, Ring Road, Bangalore. In the new premises, the petitioners accommodated 15 employees and transferred the remaining 27 workmen to Ambasamudram in Tamil Nadu by transfer order dated 30.12.2006. Aggrieved by this order of transfer the respondent Union filed a complaint No.3/2006 in I.D.No. 160/2006 before the Tribunal under Section 33A of the I.D. Act. The petitioner filed objections to the Complaint No.3/2006 opposing the claim of respondent Union. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for its consideration: i) Was there a practice of transferring any employees from a place out of Bangalore, to Bangalore only on request made by such employees, notwithstanding condition No.4 in the appointment order? ii) Does the complainant prove that the management contravened Sec.33 of the ID Act by passing the order of transfer during the pendency of dispute in I.D.No. 160/2006 and reducing the number of employees of the wearhouse? iii) If so, whether the transfer of 17 workmen mentioned in the complaint is justified? iv) Is the said transfer malafide? v) Is the present complaint under Sec.33A of the I.D. Act maintainable? vi) To what reliefs, are the workmen mentioned in the complaint entitled?

4. Before the Tribunal the petitioners examined one witness as OW.1 and go marked 19 documents. The respondent examined one witness as CW.1 and got marked 81 documents. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned award holding that the order of transfers are contrary to service conditions and the same is malafide. Further the Tribunal held that the transfer orders are in violation of Sec.33 of the I.D.Act. Consequently the Tribunal declared that the workmen are entitled for all the reliefs. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioners-management.

5. Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contend that the letter of appointment specifies that the workmen are liable to be transferred to any department or any of the branches at any time during the service. Therefore, he contends that the order of transfer of the workmen is in accordance with the terms of appointment. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the order of transfer is actuated by malafides. Since the demands raised by the respondent union are pending before the tribunal, they do not become conditions of service. Therefore, there is no violation of Sec.33 of the I.D.Act. The Tribunal committed an illegality in not properly assessing the evidence on record. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i) (1993) 1 SCC 148 ii) 2001 ILR 190 iii) 1991 FJR 585 iv) (1999) 1 SCC 300 v) (2004) 3 SCC 172

6. Per contra. Sri Anantharam, learned counsel for respondent-Union supports the impugned award. The condition in the letter of appointme