Arun Chandra Upadhyay, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award-dated 29.12.05 passed by the Labour Court at Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 9 of 2003, under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

2. Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may be summarized, in brief, as follows:-

The Petitioner M/s Maijan Tea Estate, situated on the bank of river Brahmaputra, suffered loss of cultivable land due to erosion experienced over the years since 1969 and thus for having found it difficult to sustain the tea estate with low crops and large numbers of staff, proposed to transfer excess workers to different Tea gardens. Accordingly, the management proposed to transfer excess workers of Maijan Tea Estate to different Tea gardens in phase manner and accordingly issued transfer order to 125 workman of the garden.

3. It may be pointed out in this context that after the transfer order was issued by the Management on 25.1.02 in respect of 125 workers, the affected workmen being aggrieved, filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Dibrugarh challenging the transfer orders to be illegal, unwarranted and without basis with a prayer for declaration that the transfer order of 125 workers as redundant, void and not binding on the said workers and also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the Management of the Tea Estate, from giving effect to the transfer order.

4. On 06.02.02, on the prayer for injunction, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh issued order to maintain status quo in favour of the workmen. However, on 30.3.02, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, passed an order holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to Industrial Disputes. The workmen preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh and accordingly the learned District Judge admitted the appeal and on conclusion of the hearing set aside the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the subject matter under dispute and sent down the case records to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, for trial and disposal. The Petitioner Tea Estate preferred an Appeal before Hon'ble High Court against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. Case No. 237 of 2002 in RSA No. 156 of 2002) and obtained a stay order, which is still pending adjudication.

5. In the meantime, during the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge, out of 125 workmen identified for transfer in the first phase, the management selected and singled out 15 workmen for violating the transfer order issued by the management and proceeded against them hurriedly and tried to complete the enquiry so that the workmen are dismissed from employment. However, the workmen asserted that as the entire subject matter relating to transfer was sub-judice in the appellate Court and thus enquiry was illegally held. The Management of the Petitioner garden did not stay the domestic enquiry proceeding, even in spite of getting specific information in writing from all 15 workmen facing charge in the Departmental proceedings, regarding the pendency of the case relating in respect of the same subject matter before the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh. The petition was allegedly rejected by the Enquiry Officer of the Petitioner's garden on the plea that no appeal was pending.

6. Learned Labour Court held that on 30.4.02 the Management of the garden had knowledge that the appeal was pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Dibrugarh, even in spite of the fact that the domestic enquiry was held by the Management for willful disobedience of the transfer order by the workmen and thus issued charge sheet against 15 workmen for violating the transfer orders.

7. Ultimately domestic enquiry was held against only 15 workmen. Admittedly ex-parte domestic enquiry was held on 12