WP/7785/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7785 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ... Petitioner V/s. Sachetan Jayram Bowlekar ... Respondent Mr.G.A. Karmlakar for Petitioner Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 8, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the interim order passed by the Industrial Court granting a stay to the transfer order issued against respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was appointed and is working as a Traffic Inspector and therefore performing duties which are supervisory in nature. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by the petitioner who is not an employee as defined u/s 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act r/w section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that the Industrial Court has erred in relying on a settlement in respect of transfer of persons working in the unit cadre when the respondent was working in the state cadre. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the transfer order has been issued for administrative reasons and, therefore, the Industrial Court ought not to have stayed the order. WP/7785/2010 : 2 : 2. Considering the submissions of learned advocates appearing for the parties, in my opinion, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court ought to have considered the question as to whether the complaint itself is maintainable, at least prima facie, before granting any interim relief. 3. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the following order: i) The impugned order is set aside. ii) The Industrial Court will consider the issue as to whether the respondent is an employee u/s 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. It will also consider whether prima facie the settlement between the Corporation and the Union is applicable to the respondent before passing any interim order staying the transfer. The issues shall be decided within two months from today after permitting the parties to lead such evidence as is necessary. However, till then, the transfer order issued to the respondent is stayed. iii) However, if it is found that the respondent is not a workman or an employee as defined u/s 3(5) the stay granted to the transfer order will stand automatically vacated. iv) The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court on 20.12.2010 at 11 am. *****