1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4559/2010 Amit Prabhakar Deshmukh Vs. Nishant Satellite Communication Ltd. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Ms. Pathak, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R. B. Puranik, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTMBER, 2010. 1] Heard. 2] The Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur has rejected prayer for interim relief on 3rd September 2010. The petitioner approached in ULP Complaint No.321/2010 and sought stay of transfer order dated 5.8.2010 by which he was sent from Nagpur to Aurangabad. Contention was that there was no administrative need and also transfer was not condition of service. Learned Member of Industrial Court has found that salary of petitioner exceeded Rs. 2500/- per month and hence he did not qualify to be a workman under Section 2( s) of Industrial Disputes Act. It further found that in 2004 the petitioner was transferred from Akola to Nagpur and hence argument of transfer not being condition of service of service is misconceived. 3] Advocate Pathak contents that at interlocutory stage only because of salary and designation, a finding that the petitioner is 2 not a workman could not have been recorded. She further states that when there is no written appointment order issued, transfer cannot be presumed to a condition of service. The previous instance when the petitioner came to Nagpur in 2004 cannot also be looked into for the said purpose. She has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported at 2001(4) Mh. L. J. 919 : Crest Communication Ltd. Mumbai and others Vs. Ms. Sheetal Shenoy, more particularly placitum (b). 4] Advocate Puranik has contended that relevant issues have been considered by the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court has found that salary of petitioner was Rs. 8120/- and hence he did not qualify to be workman. He further states that previous transfer has been looked into only for limited purpose. 5] The petitioner is working as Production Supervisor and administrative need given by respondent-employer is its desire to have its newspaper printed locally at Aurangabad. Contention that respondent does not have any machinery or plant at Aurangabad is therefore irrelevant. The issue has been considered by the Industrial Court at prima facie stage only. Similarly, though there is no written order of appointment, the fact that the petitioner came to be appointed in 2002 at Akola and was then transferred in 2004 Nagpur reveals at least now that transfer is condition of service. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for 3 the petitioner notes that there was no written agreement and also no other material produced to show that transfer was condition of service. Here some material in the shop of previous transfer is available and that has been looked into by the Industrial Court. 6] In view of this finding, it is apparent that much importance cannot be given to the findings recorded on the issue of workman at interlocutory stage. The Industrial Court has gone by designation and gross salary as also net salary which is above 6500/- per month. The consideration again is apparently, prima facie. As all relevant aspects are considered by the Industrial Court, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. Appreciating the consideration of controversy by the Industrial Court at interlocutory stage can and and shall not bind the Industrial Court while adjudicating the matter finally. With this clarification, present writ petition is rejected. No costs. 7] At this stage, both counsel jointly request that as the matter pertains to transfer it may be expedited. Learned Member of Industrial Court shall attempt to decide ULP Complaint No. 321/2010 as early as possible and in any case by 31/3/2011. JUDGE Ambulkar.