1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2008 Peerappa Malleshi Shingadgaon. ... Petitioner. V/s. Dakshin Solapur Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sanstha Maryadit and Ors. ... Respondents. ..... Mr. Anand S. Kulkani for the Petitioner. Mr. Surel S. Shah for Respondent 1. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. 08TH APRIL 2008. P.C. :- By the order impugned in these proceedings, the Industrial Court at Solapur had rejected an application for the grant of interim relief in respect of an order of transfer. The Petitioner is a Cadre Secretary of the Second Respondent and has been transferred from Mandrup to Vadapur, a distance of 20 k.m. The approach of the Industrial Court in declining to interfere with the order of transfer cannot be regarded as suffering from any infirmity. Transfers are an 2 incident of service where the service is transferable and the interference of the Court is restricted to very narrow legal categories. The Industrial Court has held that this is neither a case where the post is not transferable nor did the transfer have an adverse impact on the conditions of service of the Petitioner. The submission which has been urged is that the order of transfer was effected by the First Respondent while the Petitioner is an employee of the Second Respondent. The Industrial Court for the evaluation of the prima-facie case at the interim stage has noted that at a meeting on 6th May 1992 of the Managing Committee of the Second Respondent, a resolution was passed, by which, all the Taluka Supervisory Societies including the First Respondent have been authorised to effect internal transfers of Secretaries within the Talukas. It has been held that it was in pursuance of this authority furnished by the Second Respondent that a transfer order was issued by the First Respondent. Prima facie therefore the order of transfer was not without authority. However, it is clarified that all the observations contained in the order of the Industrial Court are 3 confined to the disposal of the application for interim relief. All questions including authority of the First Respondent shall be decided at the final hearing of the complaint and uninfluenced by the observations contained in the impugned order. It has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that he has only one kidney and is required to take medical treatment. The question as to whether an order of transfer would cause undue hardship to the Petitioner is a matter which is required to be considered by the employer. It would be open to the Petitioner to submit a representation containing a reference to the individual hardship on the basis of which the Petitioner seeks a re-consideration of his case. In the event that such a representation is made, it is stated on behalf of the Respondent that the representation shall duly and sympathetically considered in accordance with law. The statement is accepted. No case for interference is made out. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.