Bombay High Court
Aia Engineering Limited, ... vs Mr. Rashtrapal Ramaji Patil on 24 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp2847.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2847 OF 2016
1) AIA Engineering Limited,
through its Director,
115, GVMM Estate Odhav Road,
Ahamadabad (Gujrat).
2) AIA Engineering Limited,
through its General Manager,
L-3, MIDC Hingna Road, Nagpur
(Original Respondents) .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Mr. Rashtrapal Ramaji Patil,
Aged about 29 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o Bori, Post - Zilpa,
Tahsil - Katol, District - Nagpur.
(Original Complainant). .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the petitioners,
Shri M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 24
th JUNE, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the petitioners-
2 wp2847.16
employer and Shri M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for the respondent-
employee.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The employer challenges the interim order passed by the
Industrial Court granting stay to the effect, operation and
implementation of the transfer order dated 22-02-2016 by which the
employee is transferred from Nagpur to Trichirapalli (TamilNadu).
4. The employee is working with the employer since
30-05-2012 and is getting salary of Rs.5,803/-. The employee came to
be transferred by the order dated 22-02-2016. The employee filed
complaint under Section 28 read with Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV
of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act
of 1971") challenging the transfer order on the ground that the
employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by transferring him.
5. The employee filed an application under Section 30(2) of
the Act of 1971. The application for interim relief was opposed by the
3 wp2847.16
employer. After considering the elaborate submissions made on behalf
of the respective parties, by the impugned order, the Industrial Court
has granted interim relief in favour of the employee.
6. Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the employer has submitted
that the Industrial Court could not have granted interim order staying
the transfer order as there are no pleadings of malice and grant of
interim relief amounts to granting final relief. In support of the
submissions, reliance is placed on the following judgments :
i) The judgment given by this Court in the case of Shivaji A.
More vs. Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming
Corporation Ltd. and another in Writ Petition No.579 of
1998.
ii) The judgment given by High Court of Himachal Pradesh in
the case of Ramesh Kumar s/o Sh. Tulsi Ram vs. Food
Corporation of India, Regional Office, Shimla, through
its General Manager reported in 2013 1 CLR 825.
iii) The judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. S.S. Kourav
and Ors. reported in 1995 II CLR 237.
iv) The judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
4 wp2847.16
case of Siemens Limited and another vs. Siemens
Employees Union and another reported in 2012(1)
Mh.L.J. 548.
v) The judgment given by this Court in the case of Blue Star
Ltd. vs. Blue Star Workers Union, Mumbai-14 & Anr.
reported in 1997 II CLR 1018.
vi)
The judgment given by this Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Kamgar
Sanghatana, Pune Division reported in 1999 II CLR 590.
vii) The judgment given by this Court in the case of Press
Trust of India Ltd. Employees' Union & Anr. Vs. Press
Trust of India Ltd., & Ors. reported in 1998 II CLR 1159.
viii) The judgment given by this Court in the case of Shri
Digambar Jain Parwar Mandir & Anr. vs. Vijay Kumar
Puranchand Jain in Writ Petition No.1682 of 2003.
7. It is submitted that the Industrial Court has committed
an error in granting interim relief observing that the
appointment order does not show that the services of employee are
transferable and the transfer cannot be effected unless notice under
5 wp2847.16
Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 is given. The learned
Advocate has argued that the issue could not have been considered by
the Industrial Court at this stage and it requires adjudication.
8. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the employee is
working on a post for which he is getting Rs.5,803/- per month and is
required to maintain his old father who is a heart patient, the practical
difficulties of the employee who is sought to be transferred at a place
which is about 1700 km. away from the place of his present posting,
have been rightly considered by the Industrial Court. In the facts of
the present case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order.
9. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties
to bear their own costs.
The Industrial Court shall dispose the complaint till
30-04-2017.
JUDGE
adgokar
