(Prayer in W.A.No.3616 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 23.07.2025 in W.P.No.4362 of 2025;

In W.A.No.3617 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 23.07.2025 in W.P.No.12653 of 2025;

In W.A.No.3619 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 23.07.2025 in W.P.No.31239 of 2024; and

In W.A.No.3621 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 23.07.2025 in W.P.No.27937 of 2024.)

Common Judgment:

R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. Since this batch of writ appeals has arisen out of a common order passed by the Writ Court in a batch of writ petitions dated 23.07.2025, all these writ appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. That in all these cases, the respective writ petitioners/appellants, who are the employees of the respondent Transport Corporation, have questioned the transfer orders which they faced at the hands of the respondent employer.

3. The main plank of the challenge that was made by the writ petitioners/appellants against the transfer orders was that, in the Standing Orders which govern the service conditions of these employees, there has been no provision specifically available enabling the employer to make these employees transferred from one place to another, therefore, on that ground, they questioned the transfer orders.

4. During the pendency of the respective writ petitions, all these writ petitioners/appellants have been enjoying the interim order of stay, thereby, all these writ petitioners/appellants have been working in the same place from where they have been subjected to transfer through the order impugned before the Writ Court.

5. However, ultimately, the learned Writ Court, by the impugned common order dated 23.07.2025, has dismissed all these writ petitions by citing some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stating that, transfer is an incident of service and though a specific provision explicitly is not made available in the Standing Order no Standing Order since has prohibited transfer of workmen from one establishment to another establishment in the Corporation, that is the respondent Transport Corporation, such transfer could be effected, based on which, the learned Judge, while dismissing these writ petitions, has given a liberty to the writ petitioners/appellants to make representation(s) within two weeks' period to the respondent Transport Corporation, where, they could raise their plea that why they should not be transferred and on the basis of which, such representation(s), if made, could be considered and decided by the employer, was the direction given by the learned Judge.

6. However, since there has been some delay in making ready of the certified copy of the order and as the order once made ready, immediately, since the intra-Court appeal has been directed, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants that, no such representation(s) could be made so far and they are ready and willing to make such representation(s) immediately, as none of the writ petitioners/appellants so far have been relieved from the present place, that is from where they have been originally subjected to transfer.

7. This factual position is not controverted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Transport Corporation, who would submit that, till date, they have been working in the same place from where they have been transferred, however, once the transfer order has become sustained by dismissing the writ petitions, that is the order impugned herein, they are liable to be relieved from the present place and they should join the transferred place, however, if they want to make fresh representation(s), as directed by the learned Judge through the impugned order, it is open to them to make representation(s) at the earliest and that would be considered on merits and in accordance with law, he would contend.

8. In view of the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Transport Corporation and by having regard to aforesaid factual matrix, without going into the legality of the issue, which has been raised by the writ petitioners/appellants as to whether the respondent employer is entitled to make transfer orders subjecting the employees to be transfered in the absence of any provisions under the Standing Orders, we are inclined to dispose of this writ appeal by giving liberty to the writ petitioners/appellants to give representation(s) to express their grievances as on what basis they are getting suffered because of the transfer orders which they have already faced and such representation(s), if made within two weeks' period from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by getting a web copy through the website of the High Court of Madras, the same shall be considered and decided on merits and in accordance with law by the employer within two weeks thereafter, where, they could very well consider the representation(s) made by them by exercising their power to transfer or re-transfer the employees.

9. However, this of the liberty given to the respondent employer would no way prejudice the main issue raised by the employees as to the legality and jurisdiction of the employer to transfer them in the absence of a specific provision in the Standing Order covering the service conditions of the employees, as that core issue could be decided at a later point of time in some similar cases which are said to be pending already before this Court.

10. With these observations and directions, all these writ appeals are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.29878, 29885, 29861, 29863, 29838, 29839 and 29828 of 2025 are closed.