:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.26 OF 2009 D.K. Samel & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. PRS Permacel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents. Ms.H.Tavadia with Mr.H.V.Kode for the Petitioners. Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Counsel with Mr. Ganesh S. Shetty i/b. M/s.Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : I do not for a moment suggest that there are no merits especially as regards the contention that the transfer is mala-fide. However, it is difficult to interfere at the interlocutory stage, without evidence, restraining the Respondents from transferring the Petitioner. For instance, the allegations in paragraph 24 of the petition, if true, would certainly go a long way in establishing the Petitioner’s case of mala-fides. However, Respondent no.3, against whom the allegations are made, has filed an affidavit denying the same. Without evidence, it is not possible to express any :2: conclusive opinion at this stage. 2. At first glance, there does appear to be some inconsistency between what is stated in paragraph 5 of the transfer order dated 28.10.2008 and the affidavit in reply filed before the Industrial Court regarding the nature of the duties to be performed by the Petitioner at the place of transfer. In the transfer order, it is stated that his experience and skill acquired over the years is to be used at the place of transfer where, his skills would be utilised for smoothening/rectifying any defects in the goods already delivered at the company’s customers’ end. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the transfer has been effected so that the Petitioner can assist the sales team to decide on the viability/feasibility of manufacturing products required by the customers at their plant to improve the company’s sustained business growth. 3. This alleged contradiction cannot be said to be irreconciliable without any evidence. It is possible that smoothening/rectifying defects can :3: also lead to sustained business growth. In short, these are issues which would require evidence. 4. The Petitioner’s letter of appointment dated 7.1.1981 requires him to work at the company’s factory at Andheri or at any other place as directed. It also clarifies that he will be liable to be transferred from one department to another, from one shift to another and is expected to do such work as has been assigned to him from time to time. 5. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is dismissed. Respondent no.1 however shall afford the Petitioner a facility in terms of leave, if required, for the purpose of this litigation. ***