P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Interference declined by the learned Single Judge in respect of the challenge raised by the appellant Management against Ext.P5 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, holding that transfer of the worker from Kollam to Secunderabad was not justified in the absence of enabling provision as per the conditions of service either by way of appointment order, binding settlement or by way of standing orders and thus directing to reinstate him with backwages from 31.05.1996 is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The worker by name Sadasivan Pillai was admittedly engaged as a driver in the establishment of the appellant Management at Kollam and was continuing in service from 01.03.1990. According to the Management, his service was required to be transferred to their office at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh as instructed from the Head Office and accordingly, Ext.W4-Letter No.EEE/QLN/572/96-97 dated 26.04.1996 (in I.D. No.92 of 1998 of Labour Court, Kollam) was issued transferring the service of the workman to Secunderabad. It is contended that, on trying to serve the order of transfer in person, it was refused to be accepted and hence it had to be sent by Registered Post on the next day. According to the worker, the Management was not in good terms with him, for having filed a claim petition which was pending before the Labour Court and he was sought to be ousted from the establishment somehow or other. As a matter of fact, he was physically indisposed and had availed ESI leave as certified by the ESI Doctor, for the period from 30.04.1996 to 30.05.1996. It appeared that the Management doubted genuineness of the leave and it was accordingly, that a pre-dated order of transfer as per memo dated 26.04.1996 was served to the worker, transferring his service from Kollam to Secunderabad.

3. After the leave period, the petitioner reported for duty on 31.05.1996,but he was denied employment in the Unit at Kollam. The second respondent Union, in which the worker was a member, took up the matter by raising an industrial dispute, which after the preliminary steps by way of conciliation, came to be referred to the Labour Court, Kollam, as per Ext.P1 Order of Reference dated 29.09.1998.

4. On obtaining notice from the Labour Court, Kollam, both the sides appeared. The Union filed Ext.P2 claim statement, in response to which Ext.P3 written statement was filed by the appellant/Management. The worker gave evidence as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W3 were marked. The appellant/ Management establishment examined MW1 and documents on behalf of the Management were marked as Exts.M1 to M5.

5. The issue referred for adjudication as per Ext.P1 was whether the deputation/transfer of Shri R. Sadasivan Pillai, Driver to Secunderabad as per letter dated 26.04.1996 of the Management is justifiable, if not what reliefs, he is entitled to. After evaluating the pleadings and evidence, the Labour Court arrived at a clear finding that the appellant/Management did not have any right to have the worker transferred from Kollam to Secunderabad. No document was ever produced from the part of the Management, either in the form of appointment order, settlement or any standing order enabling the management to have effected the transfer, as part of conditions of service. In the said circumstance, the Labour Court declared that the transfer was bad and beyond the power and competence of the Management and hence ordered reinstatement of the worker with backwages from 31.05.1996.

6. Being aggrieved by the said award, the management approached this Court by way of writ petition No.28599 of 2005 contending that many vital points raised by the management were not considered by the Labour Court. It was also stated that, on the date fixed for hearing, the lawyer appearing for the Management was suffering from acute Laryngitis and hence adjournment was sought for. Subsequently, a petition was filed with a copy of the medical certificate (copies of which have been p