B.N. Banerjee, J. - (1.) An industrial dispute between the petitioner company and their workmen, over indefinite suspension of certain workmen, was referred to the First Industrial Tribunal, at that time presided over by Mr. Renupada Mukherjee. Statements on behalf of the parties to the dispute were filed before that Tribunal. Before, however, the matter could be taken up for adjudication, Mr. Renupada Mukherjee retired and there occurred a vacancy in the office of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. Thereupon, the respondent State Government made the following order, on November 8, 1965, in exercise of its powers, under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act: "Whereas an industrial dispute exists between Messrs. Sur Enamel and Stamping Work (P) Ltd., 24 Middle Road, Entally Calcutta-14, and their workmen represented by the Sur Enamel Sramik Union, 52/7 Bepin Behari Ganguly Street, Calcutta-12 relating to the matter specified in the schedule below, being a matter specified in the second schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the said industrial dispute); And Whereas under the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department Order No. 3863-IR/IR/101-84/64, dated the 29th August 1964, the said industrial dispute was referred to the First Industrial Tribunal constituted under this Department notification No. 808-IR/IR/3A-2/57, dated the 11th March 1957, for adjudication; And Whereas the Presiding Officer of the said First Industrial Tribunal has retired; And Whereas it is expedient that the proceeding of the said industrial dispute should be withdrawn from the file of the said First Industrial Tribunal and transferred to some other Tribunal for speedy disposal; New Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Governor is pleased hereby to withdraw the proceeding of the said industrial dispute from the said First Industrial Tribunal and transfer the same for disposal to the Third Industrial Tribunal constituted under this department notification No. 808-IR/IR/3A-2/-57, dated the 11th March 1957. The said Third Industrial Tribunal Shall for this purpose meet at such places and on such dates as it may direct. "The Schedule-Omitted." 2. The petitioner company felt that the respondent State Government should not have transferred the dispute to another Tribunal but should have filled up the vacancy in the First Industrial Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act and allowed that Tribunal to go on with the adjudication. They, therefore, raised the following preliminary objection before the Third Industrial Tribunal as to the jurisdiction of the transferee Tribunal to adjudicate upon the issue, namely: "Whether the said order of withdrawal and transfer made by order No dated November 8, 1963 was a valid one in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and Section 33B thereof; and whether the said Third Industrial Tribunal had derived any jurisdiction therein to adjudicate the issue." 3. The Third Industrial Tribunal negatived the preliminary objection and assumed jurisdiction by an order, dated February 18, 1966. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner company moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying, inter alia, for the quashing of the order and for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the transaction Tribunal from acting under the order of transfer of the dispute to itself. 4. Mr. Shankar Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner company, contends that if a Presiding Officer of a Tribunal, retires, it is the duty of the appropriate Government to fill up the vacancy and make it possible for that identical Tribunal to adjudicate upon the reference made to it. A reference, according to Mr. Banerjee, must not be transferred before another Tribunal only because of a vacancy in the office of the Presiding Officer in the Tribunal, to which the reference had already been made. In my opinion, this argument cannot be upheld. Section 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, dealing with the duty of the appropriate Government, to fill up vacancies, does not control Section 33B of the Act I which invests the appropriate Government with power of transfer of proceedings front one Tribunal to another. The power under Section 33B of the Act, however, can be exercised only for sufficient reason. In the case of Associated Electrical Industries India (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1961) 2 Lab LJ 122 : (AIR 1967 SC 284) the Supreme Court held:- "Normally when an industrial dispute is referred to an industrial Court or Tribunal, it should be tried before that Court or Tribunal and so the power of transfer can be exercised only for sufficient reason". 5. In the instant case, the reason for the transfer was the consideration for the speedy disposal of the reference, as appears from the impugned order itself. Thus, while it is the duty of the respondent State Government to fill up the vacancy in the First Industrial Tribunal, caused by the retirement of the Presiding Officer, it is equally the duty of respondent State Government to see that adjudication of disputes, pending before the First Industrial Tribunal, does not go into hibernation so long as the vacancy be not filled up. Speedy and expeditious disposal of industrial disputes are necessary. That is what section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act also requires. If on consideration of speedy and expeditious disposal of the disputes the respondent State Government made an order of transfer of the case, pending before a Tribunal, temporarily immobilised by reason of a vacancy, to another Tribunal, the reason cannot be condemned as insufficient. 6. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to interfere with this matter. The application is dismissed. Let the order be expeditiously drawn up. Application dismissed.;