B.C. Varma, J.

1. Respondent Parasnath is an employee of the petitioner and before his order of transfer to Bhopal, vide order dated 11.2.1987, was employed in petitioner's office at Jabalpur. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 was relieved from the office at Jabalpur the next day, i.e., 12.2.1987, and the Labour Commissioner was informed accordingly. It appears that somewhere in the month of April, 1985, a reference was made to the Labour Court relating to fixation of respondent No. 2's wages. That reference is still pending and the petitioner's contention is that it did not receive any notice of that reference to the Labour Court. However, on 11.3.1987, the respondent No. 2 voluntarily appeared before the Labour Court and submitted his statement of claim. On 12.3.1987, the respondent No. 2 (the employee) made an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 complaining that by the order of transfer his condition of service has been changed and prayed for a suitable order against the petitioner. An application was also made for stay of order of his transfer to Bhopal. The Labour Court on 3.4.1987 made an ex-parte order in favour of the respondent No. 2 staying the order of his transfer. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner against the grant of that stay of transfer. A copy of application made under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act was also served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply vide Annexure VII dated 4.5.1987. Apart from opposing the grant of stay of the order of transfer, the maintainability of the application under Section 33A of the Act itself was questioned. It was also stated that the respondent No. 2 stood relieved on 12.3.1987 while he obtained the order staying the transfer on 3.4.1987 by suppressing the material fact that he stood already relieved. On 18.5.1987, the Labour Court after hearing both the parties, affirmed the ex parte order dated 3.4.1987 and thus the respondent No. 2's transfer to Bhopal now remains stayed. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order Annexure-9 dated 18.5.1987. His main argument has been that the proceedings under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act are not tenable and, therefore, the impugned order Annexure-9 must be quashed. While disputing the correctness of this submission, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 added that the impugned order is of an interim nature and since this Court is always reluctant to interfere with such orders, no indulgence be shown to the petitioner and the petition be rejected.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have formed the opinion that the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the respondent No. 2 is wholly untenable and must be rejected. Consequently, the order Annexure-9 staying the transfer of respondent No. 2 to Bhopal must also be quashed.

3. Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is as follows:

"33-A. Special provision for adjudication as to whether condition of service etc., changed during pendency of proceedings:- Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator "a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal" any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner:-

(a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute, and

(b) to such arbitrator. Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit hi