1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4871 of 2011 Bajarangsingh Ranjeetsingh Elakar Vs. Chairman,The Akola Janata Commercial Co-op Bank Ltd., and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.G. Zinjarde, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv. for the respondent no.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 18 th October, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court on 16.09.2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under section 30(2) seeking an interim relief for staying the effect and operation of the transfer order dated 04.06.2011. The petitioner was transferred by an order dated 04.06.2011 from Akola to Indore. It was the case of the petitioner that at the time of his appointment in the year 1986, the respondent had its branches only in Vidarbha and hence the petitioner's services were transferable only in the branches in Vidarbha. However, the bank became a multi-state Cooperative Bank in the year 1999 and had its branches in Bombay and Indore also. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been transfered from Akola to Indore on administrative ground as this would result in the change of his service condition was 2 rightly rejected by the Industrial Court by relying on condition No. 9 of his appointment order which reads that the services of the petitioner were liable to be transferred to any of the branches as and when considered necessary to suit the requirements of the bank. The Industrial Court found that the services of the petitioner were transferable even outside Vidarbha and the petitioner could not have claimed that he could not have been transferred outside Vidarbha merely because the bank had branches only in Vidarbha at the time of his appointment. The Industrial Court found that the transfer order could not be stayed as the petitioner was already relieved from Akola. The other submission of the petitioner that the transfer order was malafide and vindictive was also rejected by the Industrial Court as the Industrial Court found that the transfer order was not vindictive and it was a common transfer order where several persons were transferred at the same time. The Court found that the petitioner was working for a period of more than 15 years at Akola and he was transfered along with 116 persons who were transferred from one branch of the bank to another. The Industrial Court found that the transfer was a general transfer on administrative ground and was not liable to be stayed. There is no error in the order passed by the Industrial Court. The judgment reported in AIR 1960 SC.650 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in that case the employee was transferred from one independent concern to another independent concern and in that background the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right of an employer to transfer an employee to a new concern cannot be implied as condition of service of employment. 3 Since the petition is devoid of merits, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.