vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7021 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.7021 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.7021 OF 2007 Chandrashekhar Narayan Mahangare ... Petitioner V/s. Nichrome India Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Amol Desai with Shailesh More for Petitioner Mr.A.D. Patwardhan for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 15, 2007 OCTOBER 15, 2007 OCTOBER 15, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.3.2006 by which complaint (ULP) No.7 of 2004 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Industrial Court, Satara. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint by observing that it had become infructuous. The complaint (ULP) No.7 of 2004 had been filed by the petitioner under Item 3 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act complaining that his transfer from Satara to Chennai was malafide and therefore illegal and an unfair labour practice under Item 3 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It appears that pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Industrial Court, the transfer from Satara to Chennai was stayed. However, the employer i.e., the respondent herein, transferred the petitioner from Satara to Pune instead. It appears that thereafter the petitioner’s services were terminated and the : 2 : petitioner has secured a Reference for adjudication of his dispute regarding the illegal termination of service. This dispute is pending as Reference (IDA) No.93 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Satara. 2. It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Industrial Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Item 3 of Schedule IV merely because the services of the petitioner were terminated. He submits that the complaint should have been decided on merits by the Industrial Court and in such a case the petitioner would have been able to prove successfully that his transfer was malafide. 3. Without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the impugned order, the petition is rejected. However, the Labour Court which is seized of Reference (IDA) No.93 of 2005 will not be influenced in any manner by the observations of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.7 of 2004 or by dismissal of that complaint.