1212wp4841.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4841 OF 2011 (Sheikh Ahamad Sheikh Munir Vs. M.S.R.T.C., Amravati) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri B. M. Khan, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. G. S. K. Mishra, Counsel for the respondents. A. G. P. for respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 12 DECEMBER, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Amravati on 01/8/2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30(2) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 for grant of stay to the effect and operation of the transfer order dated 24/6/2011 till the decision of the complaint. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not have been transferred from Paratwada to Warud at the fag end of his career. According to the petitioner, the transfer of the petitioner had been effected as he was a union leader and the respondent wanted to curb the activities of the union. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that considering the written statement of the Corporation, it is clear that the 1212wp4841.11.odt 2/3 transfer order was effected by malice and the petitioner was transferred from Paratwada to Warud under the guise of an administrative exigency. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the Industrial Court did not commit any illegality or perversity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was already relieved from Paratwada before the impugned order was passed. Though the petitioner relied on the Circular dated 09/5/2003, and specially Clause 2.8 thereof, to canvass that the employee who had attained 57 years of age, cannot be transferred, it is necessary to note that the petitioner had not attained the age of 57 years when he was transferred by the order dated 24/6/2011. It cannot be said on a reading of the written statement that the transfer of the petitioner was punitive in nature. In fact, the learned Industrial Court observed that during the long tenure of service of the petitioner, the petitioner was out of Paratwada only for a period of four years and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not liable to be transferred in such a case. The Industrial Court relied on various judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court to hold that the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of transfer when the same is not mala fide in 1212wp4841.11.odt 3/3 nature. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decisions reported in : 2002 LAB. I. C. 3285; 1992 (65)F.L.R. 789 and (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 532 is not well founded as the facts of those cases and the facts in the present case are distinguishable. The judgment reported in (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 532 cannot be applied to the facts of this case. So also the facts of the case reported in 1992 (65)F.L.R. 789 are distinct, as observed in para 4 of that judgment. The judgment reported in 2002 LAB. I. C. 3285 also cannot be applied to the facts of this case as the petitioner in that case had been transferred on the basis of the bald and sweeping allegations. Such is not the case here. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not be possible for this Court to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the Industrial Court, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE wwl