1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4030 OF 2010 The Chief Executive Officer, Nashik Merchants Coi-op. Bank & anr. .... Petitioners vs Arvind Buddhusing Chavan .... Respondent Mr.S.S. Pakale i/by Mr.K.J. Phakade for the petitioner. Mr. M. S. Topkar for respondent. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 6th May, 2010 P.C.: 1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2 The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant against the transfer order dated 9.4.2010 transferring him from Nashik to Surat. By this interim order, the Court has stayed the said transfer order by observing that it is malafide and hasty. The case is now fixed on 21.06.2010 with the notice to the respondent. The submission is that apart from this exparte order and though there was caveat, no notice was served. The order as passed is incorrect and, therefore, the interim order so passed should be stayed. In my view, basically when there is a clear provision available whereby aggrieved party can apply immediately for vacation of interim order, if passed 2 exparte. Though there is no averment yet the statement is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the caveat was filed. I am of the view that the petitioner need to approach to the Industrial Court for appropriate order including vacation of the interim exparte order as passed. The learned Judge to pass appropriate order after hearing both the parties. All points are kept open. 3 No interference is called for in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed, with above observations. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)