IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5391/2008 [Sunia Vinay Vidwans ..vs.. Almonard Pvt. Ltd] ===================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:12.2.2009 . Heard Shri Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Puranik, Advocate for respondent no.1 & 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was working with the respondent at Nagpur by order dated 1.11.1999. She was transferred from Nagpur to Calikat, a far distant place on 29.9.2008. She filed ULPA 362/2008 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur to challenge that order. The interim relief was claimed to allow her to continue at Nagpur during the pendency of that complaint. The interim relief was refused, that order is challenged in this petition. . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that earlier order which was passed, read thus: “Heard learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the documents. In view of the averments made on oath in respect of unavailability of Mr. Deshpande at Nagpur even on today, the complainant is not to be relieved till next date and be allowed to work at the present posting. Issue notice returnable on 18th Oct. 2008 at the risk of the complainant.” Later learned Member, Industrial Court passed impugned order on 6.12.2008. Operative part of the said order is thus: “ORDER 1] The interim relief application ex.2, filed by the complainant, is hereby rejected. 2] Matter to proceed further as per law. Dictated and declared in open court.” Thus interim relief was rejected. The basis of the said order was that the petitioner was liable to be transferred from one place to another; in the establishment of the respondent. Learned Member, Industrial Court further found that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to suggest that she did not hand over the charge on 30.9.2008 to Shri P.M. Despande. On the contrary, respondents had produced certain documents to prove that the said Deshpande had taken charge on 30.9.2008. During the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said Deshpande had taken charge of the petitioner on 30.9.2008 and he is still continued on the same post. In these circumstances, no interim relief as prayed for can be granted. Considering the nature of the petition, purpose would be served, if the Industrial Court Nagpur is directed to dispose of the complaint of the petitioner on priority basis. Hence while disposing of the petition, it is directed that the learned Member, Industrial Court shall dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner on merits as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE smp.