JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dwivedi, J.

1. With the request of the parties, matter is heard finally. By the instant petition, the petitioner/Company is challenging the order dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure-P/5) passed by Labour Court No.1, Bhopal in case No.249/2003 (ID Act).

2. Relevant facts for disposal of this case are that respondent No.2 was an employee of M/s Tetragon Chemie Pvt Ltd. and was posted in February, 2000 on the post of the Sales Promotion Officer at Bhopal. Respondent No.1 is an Association of which, respondent No.2 was a Member. The Association is known as 'M.P. Medical and Sales Representatives Association'. Respondent No.2 got transferred w.e.f. 01.04.2003 from Bhopal to Bangalore. As per respondent No.2, from October, 2002 till January, 2003, he was neither paid any salary nor the expenses for which, he made a representation through respondent No.1 to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal for appropriate action. In the representation/claim made before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, he has raised a dispute under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') giving reference of Section-10 of the Act alleging that his transfer dated 01.04.2003 has been made with mala fide intention and accordingly, the said order is illegal. As per respondent No.2, he received a show-cause notice dated 02.01.2003 and the same was replied through respondent No.1 but the said reply was not found satisfactory, therefore, on 05.02.2003, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and respondent No.2 was apprised that the charge-sheet has been issued to him ergo, he was not paid salary after October, 2003.

3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner has started proceedings under Section-10 of the Act for considering the case of respondent No.2 and issued notice to the petitioner/Company asking it to participate in the meeting scheduled to be held on 27.02.2003 and as per respondent No.2, after receiving the said notice, impugned order of transfer was issued with the mala fide intention and he got transferred to Bangalore from Bhopal. Respondent No.2 has also contended that the said transfer does fall within the category of illegally changing the service conditions of an employee and accordingly, he sought direction from the Authority that the order of transfer be set aside declaring the same to be mala fide and he be also permitted to work at Bhopal.

4. The petitioner/Company submitted a reply saying that the transfer is an incidence of service and during the course of employment, respondent No.2 can be transferred from one place to another and transferring an employee is a prerogative of the management and in such circumstance, interference by the Labour Court is not permissible. The petitioner/Company has also raised an objection that the dispute in respect to transfer of respondent No.2 does not fall within the definition of "Industrial Disputes" and accordingly, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such dispute and the order of transfer, therefore, cannot be interfered with.

5. The Labour Court vide impugned award dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure-P/5) after recording evidence has held that the dispute raised by respondent No.2 does fall within the definition of "Industrial Disputes", therefore, it has jurisdiction to entertain such dispute and also held that the order of transfer of respondent No.2 from Bhopal to Bangalore is illegal and unjustified, the same was accordingly, set aside with a direction that respondent No.2 be paid all unpaid salary prior to his transfer and also the expenses which he has made during his service.

6. In the instant petition, the said award of the Labour Court has been assailed by the petitioner/Company. As per the request of the parties, matter is heard finally and Shri Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate at the time of arguments, confined his argument to the extent that the dispute which has been ente