LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner in all these four cases is Rohtas Industries Limited which has challenged the common award of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated 26th March, 1975 given in Misc. Cases No. 79 of 1970, 72 of 1970, 35 of 1970 and 73 of 1970, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 12 to C.W.J.C. 1589 of 1978 arising out of Misc. Case No. 79 of 1970 and Annexure 3 in other three cases. The records of writ case 1589 of 1978 have been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties in course of their arguments as in the leading case. Since common questions have arisen in the four cases, they have been dealt with together by the Industrial Tribunal and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. According to the respondent no. 1 in each of these cases (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) who are workmen under the petitioner, they were working as operators in the Research Laboratory of the petitioner and the nature of their work was technical and their Union raised a dispute demanding higher pay scale. The State Government made a reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was registered as Reference No. 60 of 1969 and during its pendency the Management transferred the workmen as clerks in non–technical posts. They filed applications before the Industrial Tribunal under section 33A of the Act, which were registered as Misc. Cases No. 79, 72, 35 and 73 of 1970 respectively alleging contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act, and praying for cancellation of their transfer orders. They alleged that they had passed the matriculation examination with science as one of their subjects and were appointed Trade Apprentice and later became operators and were given the scale of Rs. 55 to 93. They were entrusted with the work of Quality Control Assistant in the Research Laboratory and since the pay scale of these Assistants was Rs. 115-255, the Labour Union demanded on behalf of these workmen proper–gradation and higher wages. While Reference Case No. 60 of 1969, was pending the Management, according to the respondent's case, malafide, transferred them to non–technical jobs with the object to defeat their claim.

3. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the applications and the claim of the respondents. It was wrongly urged that the transfer orders were passed in ordinary course and did not affect the service conditions of the respondents.

4. The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal held that the transfer orders were passed malafide with the object of defeating the claim of the workmen, which was pending in Reference No. 60 of 1969 and although by themselves the transfer orders do not affect the service conditions of the respondents, but viewed in the background it should be held that the workmen are adversely affected and consequently the applications under section 33A of the Act, should be held to be maintainable. By the impugned award, the Tribunal directed the Management to re–transfer the complainants to the earlier posts they were holding in the Research Laboratory. The petitioner company has filed these writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing the said award.

5. Mr. R.P. Katriar appearing for the petitioner contended that there has not been any contravention of section 33 of the Act, at all and the applications under section 33A were not maintainable. The service conditions of the respondents have not been affected and the final finding recorded by the Tribunal on this question is entirely illegal. The right of the Management to transfer an employee (without adversely affecting the service conditions) is inherent and there is nothing in the present cases to suggest otherwise. The respondents are mere matriculates without any technical education and have been transferred to posts carrying the same pay scale. Th