1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 449/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 887/2009. ( Bhandara Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti .versus.. Smt. Kusum Bandu Chamat and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 09, 2009. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Counsel for appellant, Mrs. S.P. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri Doifode, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 5. Contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is proposal for bifurcation under section 18 [c] of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, was finally accepted on 30.05.2007 and in that proposal itself name of respondent no.1 was shown as employee to separately formed Gondia Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Karmachari Sanstha. He further points out that the provisions of Rules 16 and 17 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, to urge that entire proposal including names of employee was never objected to and therefore, it has attained finality. In these circumstances, by relying upon the subsequent communication dated 2 22.02.2008, the respondent no.1 approached the Industrial Court with grievance that her transfer to Gondia constituted unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for respondent states that the employee was initially at Gondia before 30.05.2007 and on account of administrative exigencies she was transferred to Bhandara. But in view of her final allocation to Gondia, she was transferred by the impugned transfer order to Gondia. He pointed out that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has not found any unfair labour practice in the matter. He further states that, the norms of sending first employee in seniority list to Bhandara, second employee to Gondia and thereby having all employees whose name appears at odd serial number in seniority list at Bhandara and whose names appear at even number at Gondia, prescribed by the cooperative department in such circumstances, it itself unwarranted and arbitrary. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 supports the impugned order. She contends that the employees working at Bhandara and there is a direction of Cooperative Department to prepare seniority list and respondent no.1 can be adjusted either at Bhandara or at Gondia, as per her placement in the said seniority list. She points out that Bank never prepared such seniority list and has arbitrarily chosen respondent no.1 to transfer to Gondia. According to her, therefore there is unfair labour practice. We have perused the order passed by the Industrial Court as also by the learned Single Judge. The directions issued by the cooperative department to appellant are not in dispute, their legality or validity cannot be gone 3 into at this stage. The learned Single Judge has found that there was no seniority list prepared and therefore has granted interim relief. Thus there is no specific finding that there is any unfair labour practice in the matter. Absence of these words cannot always be said to conclude that there is no unfair labour practice at all. The facts considered by the learned Single Judge prima facie show that there is unfair labour practice. However, as the impugned order before the learned Single Judge was interlocutory one and main ULPA complaint is pending before the Industrial Court at Bhandara, at this stage we do not find it necessary to go into more details. We make it clear that the observations made by us are only prima facie and in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties before us. All the contentions raised by the parties are left open for consideration by the Industrial Court while looking into the controversy on merits. The observations made by the learned Single Judge shall also not influence the Industrial Court while deciding ULPA Complaint finally. The said proceedings before the Industrial Court are expedited and the learned Member is directed to decide the complaint as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2010. The respondent no.1 shall cooperate with the Industrial Court in expeditious disposal of the complaint. With these directions, Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.