IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1073/2011 ANIL THAWARE ..VS.. DY. DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 18, 2011. Heard Shri Upadhye, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Industrial Court, Amravati had rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner, under section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondents had committed unfair labour practice under items 3, 5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. The Industrial Court rightly held on an appreciation of the evidence on record that the petitioner failed to prove that the transfer had been made in a vindicative manner and the petitioner had been transferred so as to victimize him. The court observed that the transfer order was not in violation of the rules in regard to transfer as the petitioner was working at Amravati for a period of more than 12 years and was overdue for being transferred. The court rightly found that the issue in regard to the absorption and reversion of the petitioner was pending before the Industrial Court in a separate complaint ULP No.18/2008 and ULP No.718/1994, hence the said issue could not have been decided in the present complaint. The order appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP