1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.931/2009 Petitioner :- Anil Premchand Khandagale, Aged 49 yrs. Occupation Service. R/o 4, Rama Nagar, Behind Renuka Vihar, Rameshwari Ring Road, Nagpur. //versus// Respondents:- 1. South Central Zone Cultural Center, Nagpur, 56/1 Opposite MLA Hostel, Civil Lines, Nagpur, through its Director, Shri J.P.Gupta. 2. South Central Zone Cultural Centre, Mumbai(deleted) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Ku. K. K.Pathak, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri P.A.Abhyankar, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 . This petition by the Cashier of respondent-Organization is directed against the order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, refusing to grant interim relief in petitioner’s complaint that his transfer from the post of Cashier to Department of Classical Music Dance Schemes amounted to an Unfair Labour Practice. The petitioner was appointed as Cashier on a fixed remuneration of Rs.1,000/- on 28/08/1989. He was regularized as Cashier by an order dated 17/08/1998. That order was modified with effect from 1/1/1996 and 2 he was re-designated as Junior Assistant. This order resulted in some recovery which has been challenged in Writ Petition bearing No. 3395/2005. However, re-designation has not been challenged. Thus the petitioner was holding one of the six posts of Junior Assistant. By the order impugned before the Industrial Court, he was shifted to the Classical Music and Dance Scheme Section. After complaint was filed a clarification was issued on 2/2/2009 defining his duty to be of a clerical nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that shifting the petitioner from post of Cashier to the post of Junior Assistant in the Dance Section amounts to change and since notice of change under Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been given, such a change could not have been effected. Section 9 A provides that 9A. “no employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change,” (a) without giving notice to the workman likely to effected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected”. The fourth Schedule to the Act enumerates 11 items. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s case falls under item Nos. “7” and “8” namely “Classification by grades” and “Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or change in usage”, respectively. As far as classification by grades is concerned, this was also effected by order’s dated 31/3/2005, which has not been challenged. Therefore, this could not be a subject matter of the present dispute. There is no customary concession for doing work as a Cashier. In fact, it is not a concession, but a duty. There is no privilege of working as a Cashier. As far as change in usage is concerned, shifting a Junior 3 Assistant from one department to another, does not mean to change in usage either. In view of this, it is difficult to hold at this stage that the change is effected and therefore, prima facie, learned Member, Industrial Court could not have granted interim relief which he has rightly declined. The reliance placed upon a judgment in the case of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd..vs..Calcutta Electric Supply Workers’ Union and others reported at (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 548, is misplaced and this judgment altogether on different point. In view of this, no case is made out for interference in exercising of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner request that the order may be kept abeyance for two weeks as she would like to prefer Letters Patent Appeal. The order may be kept abeyance for two weeks. Steno copy of the order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner. JUDGE Andurkar.