1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3433 OF 2007 Anil Devidas Garad & ors. v. Div. Contr. M.S.R.T.C. & anr. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders Mr.P.N.Varma Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.V.G.Wankhede Advocate for Res. no.1. .... CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 10 th SEPTEMBER, 2007. Heard Mr.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. He states that the petitioners were transferred in the nearby district by the respondent/ M.S.R.T.C. The reason appears to be to achieve industrial peace in the working of the Corporation. The Industrial Court by making an order on an application (Ex.2) has declined the prayer to grant interim relief during the pendency of the complaint under M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. Reading of the impugned order shows that the Industrial Court has considered the pros and cons of the matter and refused to 2 exercise the jurisdiction granting interim relief. It is stated that one of the petitioners has joined the place of his transfer. It is only petitioners no. 1 and 2 who have not joined the place of transfer. 2. Mr.Verma vehemently argued that petitioners no.1 and 2 once having been placed under suspension, they cannot be transferred unless the charges are proved. It is not possible to accept this contention since transfer is a incident of service and the decision taken by the employer to transfer the petitioners in the nearby district is with a view to achieve industrial peace. In the present scenario, it is improper to interfere with the impugned order. I do not find any error on the part of the Industrial Court in exercising its jurisdiction refusing to grant injunction. There is no substance in the petition which is dismissed. JUDGE /TA/