The requirement of Sec.33b (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that the order of transfer of proceedings from one labour court to another must state the reasons for the transfer is mandatory.

R. S. Narula, J.

1. The effect, construction and true scope of the expression " for reasons to be stated therein " occurring in Sub-section (1) of Sec.33b of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) (as subsequently amended), hereinafter referred to as the Act, calls for decision in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the management of the Technological Institute of Textiles, Bhiwani, for quashing the award of the labour court, Jullundur, dated 2 January 1965 (annexure N), directing the reinstatement of Hanuman Prasad Seni (hereinafter called the employee), respondent 3, in the service of the petitioner, and further directing payment of back-wages to him.

2. The employee Joined the service of the petitioner on 6 June 1957. In the appointment letter issued to the employee (Ex. M.2 before the labour court), it was specifically stated that his employment was subject to notice of one calendar month from either side. Under Rule 13 (1) of the certified standing orders in respect of the petitioner-institute, it is laid down that the employment of any permanent workman, whether time-rated or place-rated, may be terminated by thirteen days notice or by payment of thirteen days wages in lieu thereof by either Bide. The employee contracted tuberculosis and, therefore, remained on leave on medical grounds from 23 June to 22 October 1960. After working for barely one day on resumption of his duties, on 23 October in that year, he again proceeded on thirteen days leave. Ho finally resumed work on 7 November 1960. On 1 May 1961 he again applied for leave from 19 of that month to 30 June 1981 on grounds of health. His application was rejected. Soon thereafter, the petitioner served the employee with a notice, dated 23 May 1961 (annexure B) wherein it was stated that having been a patient of tuberculosis, the employees efficiency of work had gone down, and that since the employee was not feeling well in those days, it was not in the interest of his other co-workers that he should continue. In service. In the said communication, the employee was, therefore, informed that his services would stand terminated after the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the letter, under standing Order 13 (1) applicable to the workman of the petitioner-institute. After the termination of his services, a request was made on his behalf by respondent 2 union on 24 June 1961 (annexure C) to reconsider the matter, and to allow the employee to continue in service. It was specifically pleaded on behalf of the employee that the management of the petitioner-institute could not state that there were any symptoms of any disease in the employee " in the absence of any medical examination. " In the petitioners reply, dated 26 July 1061 (annexure D), it was stated that the services of the employee had been terminated as he was showing some symptoms of tuberculosis and his efficiency of work had gone down on account of his bad health. It was, however, stated that if the employee was willing to submit to a medical examination, he should approach the medical officer in charge of the civil hospital within a week of the receipt of the letter for medical examination at petitioners expense. It was added by the petitioner in the said letter that In case the employee was found to be fit for duty in the mills, the petitioner would be willing to reconsider the matter, bat that if the employees did not submit to medical examination with a week, it would be presumed that he had no intention of getting himself medically examined. The employee admittedly did not submit to medical examination. In letter, dated 7 August 1961 (annexure E), respondent 2 union stated that the employee had no symptoms of tuberculosis, and as such the question of his undergoing any medical examination did not arise. The petitioner wrote back on 9 August 1961 (annexure F) to respondent 2, that respondent 2 was now backing out of the suggestion to have the employe