1 wp-7027-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 7027 OF 2009 Murlidhar Anant Patwardhan and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mrs.Neeta Karnik Adv. for Petitioners Mr.Bharat Goyal with Ms.Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri and Mr.Manish Upadhye Adv.for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners-original complainants and the learned counsel for the respondent-company. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd April, 2009 passed by the Industrial Court, this petition has been preferred. By the said order, the Transfer Application Nos.3 of 2009, 4 of 2009, 5 of 2009, 6 of 2009 and 7 of 2009 preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed. The transfer of the cases was sought from from the IIIrd Labour Court to any 2 wp-7027-09 other Labour Court. 3. Various grounds were urged by the learned advocate for the petitioners against the order dated 23rd April, 2009. She urged that in view of these grounds, the petitioners apprehend that the learned Judge was prejudiced towards the petitioners and hence, they would not get a fair disposal of the matter. However, I do not think it necessary to go into all these aspects as it is seen that after the transfer applications came to be rejected, matter proceeded before the same Judge and an order was passed on 11th June, 2009 wherein an application for adjournment preferred by the petitioners came to be rejected observing inter alia that “later five adjournments were availed under the garb of preference of transfer petition. ” On perusal of the Roznama, it shows that the petitioners had sought adjournment on only two occasions. As far as these two adjournments are concerned, the Roznama does not show that these adjournments were sought on the ground that transfer petition was pending. In view of the order dated 11th June, 2009, it would not be necessary for me to advert to any of the grounds raised in respect of the order dated 23rd April, 2009 but from order dated 11th June, 2009 itself, it does appear that some erroneous observations have been made by the learned Judge. No doubt, this observation may have been made on account of oversight. However, in view of these observations, it can be said that it is capable of giving rise to 3 wp-7027-09 apprehension in the minds of the petitioners at least at this stage that the learned Judge is prejudiced towards the petitioners and if the matter proceeds before the very same Judge, they would not get a fair disposal in the matter. Hence, looking to all these facts, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to transfer the matters to another Court. Accordingly, Reference (IDA) Nos. 7 of 2006, 8 of 2006, 9 of 2006, 20 of 2006 and 11 of 2006 be transferred from the file of IIIrd Labour Court, Mumbai to any other Labour Court, Mumbai. The same be done within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]