:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 863 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 977 OF 2008 Mohit V. Thakar ..Petitioner Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.M. Patel with Mr. K.S. Bapat and Mr.Jayesh Desai for petitoner. Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Goyal and Mrs. Sanika Deshpande i/by M/s. Haresh Mehta and Co. for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 27, 2008. Date : February 27, 2008. Date : February 27, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard. In both these petitions the parties are same and the petitions are directed against the interlocutory orders passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 398 of 2007 and Complaint (ULP) No. 541 of 2006. In Writ Petition No. 977 of 2008, the petitioner-complainant has :2: challenged the order dated 3/7/2007 passed below Exh.C-6 in Complaint (ULP) No. 541 of 2006 and in Writ Petition No. 863 of 2008 the complainant has challenged the order dated 3/10/2007 thereby rejecting his application for interim relief filed at Exh.U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No. 398 of 2007. 2. It appears that Complaint (ULP) No. 541 of 2006 was filed by the Associated Cement Staff Union before the Industrial Court at Mumbai and in the said complaint an application filed at Exh.U-2 under Section 30(2) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the Act) was allowed by the Industrial Court partly on 24/1/2007 by restraining the Company from introducing/implementing SAP system till disposal of the complaint or till notice of change under Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is given, whichever is earlier. This order came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 1287 of 2007 and this court by its order dated 3/4/2007 set aside the order passed by the Industrial Court on 24/1/2007 and at the same time restrained the Company from effecting retrenchment of any employee on :3: the ground that he/she is rendered surplus on introducing/implemenation of SAP technology. The Company was further directed not to redeploy or transfer the employees without prior permission of the Industrial Court and such an order should not be issued contrary to the terms of employment. The Company, therefore, moved an application at Exh.C-6 in Complaint (ULP) No. 541 of 2006 seeking leave of the Industrial Court for the transfer of the present petitioner from its establishment at Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai to its establishment at Yelahanka, Bangalore, Karnataka State. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Industrial Court allowed the said application as per the order dated 3/7/2007 which is a subject matter of challenge, as noted earlier, in Writ Petition No. 977 of 2008. 3. The complainant was served with a transfer order dated 13/9/2007 transferring him from the Company’s establishment at Kalamboli to the RMC Plant at Yelahanka, Banglore with immediate effect and he was relieved forthwith. However, he was given time to report to the Area Business Head not later than :4: 24/9/2007. He was also informed by the said order that consequent to his transfer to the RMC Plant at Yelahanka, his existing salary and emoluments shall remain fully protected. This order of transfer gave rise to Complaint (ULP) No. 398 of 2007 filed by the present petitioner under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. 4. As per the complainant a group of employees from the Kalamboli establishment was transferred to the establishment at Thane which is known as "RMC Division", but the complainant was picked up and transferred to a division which was stated to be a new Company, namely, "ACC Concrete Ltd.". He, therefore, alleged that this was an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Act. He further alleged that during the pendency of Reference (IT) No. 7 of 2007 the Company was not permitted to change conditions of service and the transfer order so issued amounted to an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The application at Exh.U-2 was filed praying for stay to the impugned order of :5: transfer and the said application came to be dismissed on 3/10/2007 and hence Writ Petition No. 863 of 2008. 5. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Mr. Patel the learned counsel for the petitioner that the new Company by name "ACC Concrete Ltd." has been formed with effect from 1/1/2008 and the RMC Plant of ACC Ltd. thus became a new Company, which is an associate. He had sought time to bring on record the documents in support of these contentions and by filing an affidavit, he has brought on record the necessary documents to show that the new Company has come into existence and if the impugned transfer order is implemented, the petitioner would automatically become the employee of the said new Company. 6. Rather than going into the issue as to whether the respondent no.1-company would have the right to transfer any of its employee to an associate company, Mr. Cama the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-company clearly stated before the court that the impugned transfer order will be :6: withdrawn but without prejudice to all the rights of the Company as an employer. Consequently, Complaint (ULP) No. 398 of 2007 would not survive and Mr. Patel submitted that the said complaint could be disposed as withdrawn, however, by protecting the legal rights of the petitioner. 7. Hence, the impugned transfer order is allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the Company as an employer to issue a fresh order and consequently without prejudice to the rights of the complainant-petitioner to challenge such an order in fresh proceedings. Both the petitions are disposed as withdrawn. Complaint (ULP) No. 398 of 2007 presently pending before the Industrial Court, Mumbai also stands disposed as withdrawn. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)