1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA (Review) NO. 281/2010 IN CA NO. 2737/2009 AND IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4800 OF 2009 (Talikram Kaoduji Mandurkar vs. Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 29, 2010. Heard Shri Gawali with Shri Kaslikar, learned counsel for the applicant - petitioner and Shri Yengal, learned AGP for respondent No.1. Applicant – petitioner is seeking review of order dated 06.01.2010 and 18.01.2010 disposing of writ petition finally. The challenge in writ petition was to rejection of interim relief by Industrial Court. The matter has been adjourned to accommodate Shri Gawali, learned counsel, from time to time. Today the learned counsel assisted by Shri Kaslikar, Advocate made a statement that this Court has passed orders which are contemptuous. The learned counsel, therefore, was called upon to substantiate his statement by pointing out relevant pleadings in his review petition. The attention has been invited to para (d) at page 5 of the review petition. The allegations at the most show that Respondent No. 2 – Chief Executive 2 Officer has suppressed some material and played fraud upon this Court. No other material has been pointed out. Hence, statement of learned counsel is ignored. It is not in dispute that ULP Complaint filed by the petitioner is already dismissed on merits by Industrial Court. On 18.01.2010, the question whether transfer within same city or within same building from one section to another section attracts item 3, Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, was put to learned counsel but it was not answered. It was not recorded to avoid any prejudice before Industrial Court. When learned counsel insisted for hearing further today of the controversy, he was put same question but there is no answer. The contention is, the petitioner was transferred from Bhandara to Chandrapur. That transfer order was already withdrawn by Respondent No. 2 – management. As the Industrial Court has already dismissed ULP Complaint, it is apparent that even if present proceedings are heard, no relief can be given to the petitioner in the matter. The petitioner has to challenge the final order passed by Industrial Court. At this stage Shri Ghare, learned counsel points out that the proceedings before the Industrial Court are dismissed in default. It is open to the applicant - petitioner to take further appropriate steps in the matter. Shri Kaslikar, learned counsel states that CAO 3 No. 602 of 2010 has been moved before this Court seeking restoration of ULP Complaint at its original place i.e. Industrial Court, Bhandara. Shri Ghare, learned counsel states that the matter was transferred to Nagpur Industrial Court at the request of the petitioner and it appears that it has been dismissed by Nagpur Industrial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter was not transferred to Nagpur at the request of the petitioner. The statement is taken on record and it runs contrary to order dated 18.01.2010 and Civil Application No. 602 of 2010. With liberty to the applicant - petitioner to take further appropriate steps as are open to him in the matter, the present Miscellaneous Civil Application for review is disposed of. Shri Gawali, learned counsel requests for copy of this order. A copy of this order be furnished to Shri Gawali, learned counsel for the applicant – petitioner. JUDGE *GS.