1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7582 OF 2008 R. Balaji. ...Petitioner. Vs. M/s. GlaxoSmithkline Pharmaceutical Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Ms. Pallavi Dedhia i/b. M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. P.K. Rele, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.N. Tayade i/b. Mrs. N.R. patankar for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 28, 2008. P.C. The Petitioner was a Medical Sales Representative and his services were transferred from Pollachi in the State of Tamil Nadu to Banda in Uttar Pradesh. By a judgment dated 1st September 2008, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint of unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court has relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.M. S. Khandeparkar and Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.B. Majmudar, dated 12th August 2008 in GlaxoSmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Abhay Raj Jain, Appeal 2 No.716 of 2002 in Writ Petition 760 of 2002. In GlaxoSmithkline (supra), the Division Bench has held thus: “In the case of unfair labour practice, which is sought to be employed by the employer on account of transfer of the employee from one place to another, the actual adoption of the unfair labour practice would be at the place from where the employee is either sought to be transferred or at the place where the employee is sought to be transferred. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have resulted at the place from where mere order of transfer of the employee is issued. It is not the issuance of the order but it is the consequence of the order issued that would result in unfair labour practice to the employee. Being so, in case of alleged harassment consequent to the transfer resulting into unfair labour practice to the employee can result either at the place where the employee had been working prior to the issuance of the order of transfer or at the place where is actually transferred under such order. Being so, the cause of action on account of alleged unfair labour practice would arise only at one of these two places and not at any third place.” The issue which arises in these proceedings is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench. On the previous occasion, the Court was informed that a Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench and was posted before the Supreme 3 Court on 21st November 2008. The hearing of the petition was adjourned on the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. This Court observed that since at that stage prima facie, the Petitioner was covered by a binding judgment of the Division Bench which held that there would be no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, it would be inappropriate to continue the interim order which held the field during the course of the proceedings before the Industrial Court. The prayer for the extension of the interim relief was, therefore, refused. The Special Leave Petition that was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench was dismissed as withdrawn on 21st November 2008. The Supreme Court has observed that the question of law which arises out of the judgment of the Division Bench was being left open to be decided in an appropriate case before the appropriate Forum. In so far as these proceedings are concerned, since the judgment of the Division Bench in GlaxoSmithkline continues to hold the field and operates as a binding precedent, the issue which is raised in the petition is 4 covered by that judgment. In view of the judgment of the GlaxoSmithkline, the order of the Industrial Court cannot be regarded as being in error. The petition is dismissed. .......