WP/6672/2010 a/w WP/6682/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6672 OF 2010 The Nashik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Mukund Anandrao Pawar & anr. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.6682 OF 2010 The Nashik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Madhukar Bhaurao Hingmire & anr. ... Respondents Mr.K.S. Bapat i/b M/s.Desai & Desai Asso. for Petitioner Mr.M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 - formal party CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 18, 2010 P.C.: 1. The respondents in both these petitions are Junior Officers. They were appointed initially as Clerks in 1987 and are now working as Junior Officers in the Nashik branch of the Bank. They are sought to be transferred from Nashik to Surat only because they are active members of the trade unions representing the employees. The respondent in Writ Petition No.6682 of 2010 is the Vice President, Joint Secretary of the Cooperative Bank Employees’ Union, Nashik whereas the respondent in Writ Petition No.6672 of 2010 is also a Joint Secretary of the Union. WP/6672/2010 a/w WP/6682/2010 : 2 : Both the respondents have contended in their individual complaints that the Board of Directors as well as the Chairman of the Bank have a grievance against the office bearers of the Union. Several complaints have been lodged by the union against the Chairman which are pending before various authorities. This has led to the action being taken against the office bearers of the union by the bank, transferring the employees out of the State. They have also stated that the General Secretary of the Union had contested the election of the Board of Directors against a candidate supported by the Chairman of the bank which also led to their transfers. 2. The Industrial Court has considered the contentions raised by both the parties and has found that prima facie the transfer orders were malafide and has, therefore stayed them. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by Mr.Bapat that both the respondents are not employees or workmen and, therefore the complaint filed by them under the MRTU & PULP Act was not maintainable. He submitted that the Industrial Court ought to have first decided the issue as to whether the respondents were workmen before staying the transfer orders. Reliance is placed on my order in Writ Petition No.6041 of 2007 dated October 24, 2007. In my opinion, this submission of the learned advocate cannot be accepted. Whether the Junior Officers can be considered to be employees or workmen is an issue which an Industrial Court will decide before passing final orders in the complaint. However, when the transfer orders were to take effect immediately it became all the more necessary to stay transfer orders when the Industrial Court found that prima facie the Bank had committed an unfair labour practice. WP/6672/2010 a/w WP/6682/2010 : 3 : 4. The order passed by me in the aforesaid writ petition was in a case where an employee was terminated from service and the Industrial Court had directed the Bank by way of interim relief, to permit the employee to work on a temporary basis. It is in these circumstances that I directed that the Industrial Court should first decide whether the complainant was a workman or employee before directing that he should be temporarily reinstated. In the present case, the question is not of reinstating the workmen but of transferring them outside the State. Prima facie, when the respondents were initially appointed they were not informed that they could be transferred out of the State. In fact there was no branch in Surat at that time. In these circumstances, in my opinion the Industrial Court has committed no error in staying the transfers. 5. If the Industrial Court concludes that the Respondent is not a workman/employee as contended by the petitioners, it would always be open to the Petitioners to move the Court for vacating the interim relief. 6. Writ Petitions are therefore rejected.