1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2010 (Dada Mahadeorao Bharne vs. Superintendent Engineer and Regional Officer, Vigilence Unit, Amravati) 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, J. APRIL 15, 2010. Heard Shri Bambal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for the respondent. The learned AGP is seeking further time to find out the correct position. Shri Bambal, learned counsel, however, opposes the request and states that the necessary challenge is already raised in writ petition and this Court has also given time on two occasions to Government to verify the facts. He further states that the petitioner is going to retire on superannuation on 30th April 2010. In view of this position, request of learned AGP is rejected. The matter was earlier before this Court when Industrial Court did not grant interim relief to the petitioner. That order dated 05.08.2009 was questioned in writ petition No. 3572 of 2009 and then in LPA No. 395 of 2009. In LPA, this Court has expedited the 2 proceedings before the Industrial Court and the contention of appellant – employee that he being Government employee, he cannot be transferred to independent Corporation i.e. V.I.D.C. i.e. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation was also noted. Shri Bambal, learned counsel argues that this issue is not considered by the Industrial Court at all and he further states that even today, the petitioner is working at old place i.e. at the place from which the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner was not forced to join the transferred placed i.e. V.I.D.C. because such transfer would have amounted to transfer to foreign employer. The learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and states that as the transfer is not shown to be a malafide or in breach of Government circular, case of unfair labour practice under item 3 of Schedule IV of Act No. I of 1972, is not established. The Industrial Court ought to have considered the contentions as noted by this Court to find out whether the employer of the petitioner was being changed on account of said transfer. The petitioner had raised that issue specifically and even before this Court in present writ petition, it is served. In this situation, I am inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner because the impugned order of transfer is to VIDC. Thus, though his place of working i.e. Buldhana is not changed, but from government 3 service, the petitioner is being sent to a department under VIDC. In view of this position, it is apparent that transfer order could not have been issued without seeking previous consent of the petitioner. The transfer order dated 30.05.2009 along with impugned judgment of Industrial Court dated 31.12.2009 in Complaint ULP No. 83 of 2009 are quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.