1 7 wp 3968.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION K WRIT PETITION NO. 3968 OF 2011 Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh .. Petitioner Vs. M/s. Varroc Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.D.Bhat for Petitioner. Ms. Meena Doshi for Respondents. CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 25TH JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner – original Complainant challenges the order dated 3rd December, 2010 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, rejecting the Petitioner’s Application for interim relief (Exhibit U­2). 3. The Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 206 of 2010 under section 28 read with Items 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 3, 4(a) of Schedule II and 2 7 wp 3968.11 Items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent no.1 – Company without following due process of law for taking action for suspending five workers, issued show cause notices to four workers and issued transfer orders to three workers. In the said Complaint, the Petitioner – original Complainant preferred Application for interim relief with following prayers: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents from terminating the services of the concerned workers listed at Annexure “A” without following due process of law. (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents from transferring the concerned workers from their existing place of work to any other place they being the members of Complainant Union or for any other reason. (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents from forcing the concerned workers to resign from the membership of Complainant Union. 3 7 wp 3968.11 (d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to keep in abeyance the transfer orders issued to six workers, viz. S/Shri Ramjan Babulal Sayyed, Samadhan Sanjay Bhiuangade, Kiran Bajirao Raut, Pravin Tithe, Haribhau Ohol and Ajit Sathe and further be pleased to allow them to work at their existing place of work at Pune i.e. the Respondent No.1 Company. (e) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to revoke/withdraw the suspension orders issued to 5 workers viz. S/Shri Gaurav Prakashrao Pand, Rahul Maruti Gawari, Ravindra Tukaram Tejam, Sandeep Sonba Gorde and Sandeep Patil and to allow them to perform their work peacefully. (f) Ad­interim/interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a) to (e) above be granted. (g) Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. (h) Costs and compensation.” 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that the learned Member of Industrial Court, Pune failed to appreciate that the Respondent­Company is trying to bring pressure on the 4 7 wp 3968.11 members of the Union who actively participated in forming the same. He submits that issuing of suspension order, show cause notice and transfer order of the workers amounts to unfair labour practice and the same is done by the Respondent­Company without any cause of action. He submits that the learned Member, Industrial Court failed to consider that the Respondent­Company brought pressure on the members. 6. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, dated 3rd December, 2010. Admittedly, the said order is passed by the Industrial Court on interim Application filed by the Petitioner. Main Complaint is pending. In the main Complaint the Respondent­Company already filed their reply and the same is ready for final hearing. In the present case, the Industrial Court specifically observed in para 7 that the Respondent – Company have to follow the Standing Orders before taking any action against the Members of the Petitioner Union for suspension and for issuing show cause notice. It is admitted fact that before taking any action against the employee, the employer has to follow the procedure as prescribed by law. Therefore, there is no question of restraining the Respondent­Company from following due process of law for taking 5 7 wp 3968.11 action against five workers for suspension and issuing show cause notices to four workers. 7. The next question is about three workers who were transferred from Pune factory to Binola and Greater Noida factory. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that the Respondent – Company in the guise of this transfer order trying to transfer those workers permanently to their other factory against terms and conditions of the Respondent­company. It is to be noted that even the Industrial Court in its order specifically recorded that this is not a permanent transfer, same is made for temporary purpose of six months. Not only that the Industrial Court also observed that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter Respondent­ Company have right to transfer their workers subject to the terms and conditions as per the Standing Orders. 8. Considering these facts, I do not find that the Respondent – Company is transferring the three members of the Petitioner – Union permanently to their other factory at Binola and Greater Noida . The first para of the transfer order dated 12th October, 2010 makes clear that Respondent – Company is initially transferring these workers for 6 7 wp 3968.11 a period of six months. First para of the said transfer order is as under: “You are hereby informed that the services of experienced workmen like you are required at the Company’s factory at 58, Milestone, At & Post. Binola, Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana (Tel. No.0124 2279004). Hence, initially for a period of 6 months you are transferred as per rules.” 9. In view of these facts, I do not find that it is just and proper for this court interfere with the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court dated 3rd December, 2010 on interim application filed by the Petitioner. Therefore, Petition is rejected. 10.Considering the facts and circumstance of the present case, the Industrial Court, Pune is directed to decide the Complaint (ULP) No.206 of 2010 expeditiously in any case within nine months from today. 11.Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.K. TATED, J.)