[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Avient Materials India Pvt Ltd vs Harishchandra Balaram Gaikwad on 23 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:3501
38-wp15385-2025.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15385 OF 2025
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI Avient Materials India Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Digitally signed by V/s.
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.23
Harishchandra Balaram Gaikwad ... Respondent
15:21:19 +0530
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Nikhil
Dongre for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Kulkarni for the respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 23, 2026
P.C.:
1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 20
August 2025 passed by the Industrial Court below Exhibit O-1 in
Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 2025. By the said order, the Industrial
Court granted stay on the transfer order issued by the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner is a private
limited company engaged in manufacturing specialty polymer
formulations, colours and additive systems, and packaging
solutions. The company has plants in Maharashtra and Gujarat.
The respondent was first appointed as Technical Executive. He is
now working as Operator.
3. The petitioner states that in April to May 2024 the
management discussed the need for an experienced and
responsible person for the post of production or mixer operator at
38-wp15385-2025.doc
its plant at Village Rania, Taluka Savli, District Vadodara. The
petitioner claims that the respondent has 14 years of experience in
the production process. The petitioner further states that although
the respondent was identified as suitable for transfer to Vadodara,
the transfer was not made earlier due to the respondent's health
condition. However, on 29 July 2025 the petitioner issued an order
transferring the respondent to Vadodara.
4. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 2025
alleging that the transfer is mala fide and amounts to victimisation.
He claims that he was actively involved in Union activities,
including submitting a charter of demands and signing a
settlement. He therefore contends that the transfer amounts to an
unfair labour practice under Items 3, 4, and 9 of Schedule IV of the
MRTU and PULP Act.
5. The petitioner contested the complaint. It filed a reply and
produced emails to justify the transfer. The petitioner pointed out
that the respondent was identified for the post on 30 April 2024.
According to the petitioner, the settlement and Union activities
relied upon by the respondent took place in 2025.
6. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court granted stay on
the transfer. It held that the petitioner had victimised the
respondent as he was an active Union member. It also held that the
respondent's qualifications were not suitable for the said post. The
petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition.
7. Mr. Bapat learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner relied
on emails from the year 2024 to show that the need for an
38-wp15385-2025.doc
experienced operator arose in 2024 and that the respondent was
identified by name at that time. He submitted that no immediate
decision was taken. He submitted that the alleged new charter of
demands and the alleged failure to implement settlement arose
only in 2025. He argued that once the respondent had been
identified as suitable for the post, the transfer cannot be called
victimisation. He further submitted that the petitioner has placed
detailed material to show administrative exigency. According to
him, the Industrial Court ignored this material and the impugned
order cannot stand.
8. Mr. Kulkarni learned Advocate for the respondent supported
the impugned order. He submitted that the respondent signed the
settlement and the new charter of demands and is an active Union
member. He submitted that the transfer order dated 29 July 2025
was issued only after he submitted the demands. He argued that
the management could have implemented its decision of 30 April
2024 if it was genuine. According to him, the transfer was
intended to victimise the respondent.
Reasons:
9. Management initiated the need for an experienced operator
in April-May 2024. The petitioner produced emails dated 30 April
2024 naming the respondent. Contemporaneous documents carry
high probative value. If a person is identified for a post in 2024,
that fact weakens a subsequent inference of punitive motive in
2025. The Industrial Court did not sufficiently explain why these
documents were ignored.
38-wp15385-2025.doc
10. The respondent's union activities, including signing a
settlement and submitting demands, took place in 2025. Temporal
proximity between protected activity and an adverse action can
support an inference of victimisation. The Industrial Court relied
on the close timing between the demands and the 29 July 2025
transfer. Temporal proximity alone can be evidence. It is not by
itself conclusive. The Court must examine whether the
management had an independent, plausible administrative reason
for transfer that is supported by contemporaneous records.
11. The petitioner said administrative exigency justified the
transfer. The petitioner produced emails from 2024 and other
material explaining the need for an experienced operator. The
petitioner also relies on the respondent's alleged health issue to
explain the delay in effecting transfer. The existence of an earlier
identification and written correspondence supports the petitioner's
case. The question is whether the Industrial Court was entitled at
interlocutory stage to reject these explanations and make a
conclusive finding of mala fide motive.
12. The petitioner pleaded that health reasons delayed the
transfer. To rely on this explanation the petitioner must produce
contemporaneous medical evidence or records showing the
respondent's inability to be transferred during the period in
question. Absent credible medical proof, the health explanation is
of limited value.
13. The Industrial Court found the respondent both victimised
for union activity and not suited by qualification for the post.
38-wp15385-2025.doc
These two findings point in different directions. If the respondent
was not qualified, then the transfer would appear justified on
suitability grounds rather than punitive grounds. The Court did not
reconcile these findings. A reasoned reconciliation is necessary on
the facts.
14. A party seeking interlocutory relief must establish a prima
facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Here the
Industrial Court granted a stay on the transfer. At the interlocutory
stage the Court must not make final findings on disputed facts
when there is contrary contemporaneous material that invites
fuller inquiry. The presence of the April 2024 emails naming the
respondent creates a triable issue. The Industrial Court should
have preserved the status quo only where the allegations of mala
fide conduct were clear and strong on the record. That threshold
was not met.
15. On the material before this Court the Industrial Court's grant
of stay was premature. The petitioner produced contemporaneous
documents that justified transfer planning in 2024. The respondent
produced evidence of union activity in 2025 and the proximity of
the transfer. Both sides produce plausible explanations backed by
documents. The matter is fact heavy and calls for a full hearing.
16. The Industrial Court therefore erred in arriving at a
conclusive finding of victimisation at the interlocutory stage while
ignoring or undervaluing the petitioner's contemporaneous
documents. The proper course is to decide the complaint on merits
after full evidence and reasons. Interim relief in the form of a stay
38-wp15385-2025.doc
of transfer should not have been granted on the present record.
17. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 20
August 2025 is set aside. The complaint in Complaint (ULP)
No.121 of 2025 shall be restored for final hearing before the
Industrial Court.
18. The Industrial Court shall decide the complaint on merits
within six months from the date on which a copy of this order is
produced to the Industrial Court.
19. The respondent shall comply with the transfer order dated
29 July 2025 subject to the Industrial Court's final adjudication.
20. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
