IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4029 OF 2009 Suresh D. Gaikwad ...Petitioner Vs. General Adminstrator, KEM Hospital, & Anr. ... Respondents --- Shri Atul P. Vanarase for Petitioner Shri C.U. Singh Senior Counsel with Ms. Neha Mehta i/b. M/s Haresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent No.2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 25TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, whereby his application for ad-interim relief filed by him in Complaint (ULP) No.230 of 2008 has been rejected. The Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent as a driver. It is the case of the Petitioner that subsequently by the order dated 1.12.2008, the Petitioner has been asked to work as a lift operator. He submitted that , therefore, the Respondents ought to have issued a notice of change under section 9A as his service condition has been altered. In this application, he has filed an interim application directing the Respondents to continue him on the same post as a driver in the said office. In the reply filed by the Respondents, it was specifically contended that in the order of appointment, it is clearly stipulated that the Petitioner will be required to attend his duties as and when required. It was further clarified that the scope of his duties is circumscribed or limited by his designation. It is the case of the Respondents that that the Respondents have sold all the vehicle and consequently there was reduction in field activities of the vehicle department and,therefore, work of a driver was not required. It is stated that therefore, the Petitioner was relocated and asked to work as lift operator as per his seniority. It is further stated in the Written Statement that as and when the work of driver would be available he would be given the said work. 3. I have perused the letter of appointment which has been reproduced in the impugned order and also the written statement and more particularly, the averment made in paragraph 7 of the said written statement, in which it is specifically mentioned that as and when the work of the driver would be available, he would be given the said work. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Industrial Court. 4. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.