WP/7095/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7095 OF 2010 Hind Kamgar Sanghatana ... Petitioner V/s. Varroc Engineering Private Limited ... Respondent Mr.J.S. Deo for Petitioner Mr.S.K. Talsania a/w Pallavi Dedhia i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: MARCH 8, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner has filed the complaint (ULP) No.156 of 2010 before the Industrial Court, Pune alleging that the respondent company has committed unfair labour practies under Items 1(a), (b), 2(a), 3, 4(a) of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioner moved the Industrial Court for interim relief. The prayers in the interim relief application were that the suspension orders and the transfer orders issued to the workmen should be stayed. 2. The Industrial Court has allowed the interim application partly. Although it has refused to stay the transfer orders issued transferring the workmen from Chakan to Pantnagar in Uttaranchal, it has directed the respondent to complete the departmental enquiry if any against the suspended employees in accordance with law. It has further directed that if the respondent company decides to inflict the punishment of dismissal against the workmen it shall have no effect for a period of one month from the date the order is passed. WP/7095/2010 : 2 : 3. Mr.Talsania, appearing for the Company, points out that all the persons mentioned in the chart at page 5 of the petition have been retransferred to Pune. While some of the workmen were retransferred earlier, an order dated 2.3.2011 has been issued retransferring Bharat Shivaji Ithape, Rajendra Prakash Patil, Dinesh Pralhad Gaikwad to Pune from Uttaranchal. 4. It appears that a chargesheet was issued on 27.9.2010 to these employees as well as three others mentioned in the chart at page 5 of the petition. Mr.Talsania states that the company will not act on the chargesheet issued on 27.9.2010 which was issued for assault as well as for not reporting for duty at Uttaranchal. He states that instead the company will act on the chargesheet issued on 2.3.2011 in which the misconducts alleged against the workmen are under Model Standing Order 24(a), 24(k) and 24(l). 5. Mr.Talsania places on record the letters with respect to the retransfer, the chargesheet dated 27.9.2010 and the chargesheet dated 2.3.2011 in respect of Rajendra Prakash Patil. He states that similar letters have been issued to Bharat Shivaji Ithape and Dinesh Gaikwad. 6. These statements of Mr.Talsania are accepted. 7. In view of the statement made by Mr.Talsania, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Industrial Court except to the following extent: i) In case the respondent company decides to take any disciplinary action against the workmen Rajendra Prakash Patil, Bharat Shivaji Ithape and Dinesh Gaikwad for not having reported for duty at Uttaranchal they shall not pass any punitive orders during the pendency of the complaint (ULP) No.156 of 2010. ii) The Industrial Court while passing final orders in the complaint shall not be influenced by any observations made in the interim order. WP/7095/2010 : 3 : iii) Since the earlier chargesheet of 27.9.2010 is not being acted upon it is obvious that the petitioners cannot raise a contention that the respondent cannot act on the chargesheet dated 2.3.2011, because of the earlier chargesheet. 1. Mr.Talsania states that all other workmen whose names are mentioned at page 5 of the petition and who have been shown as transferred employees have been retransferred to Pune. They are all working in the Company after disciplinary action was taken against them. However, disciplinary action against Kiran Haribhau Gawde is still pending. 2. In view of the subsequent events which have taken place the impugned order dated 2.7.2010 has become infructuous. 3. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.