1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3116 OF 1991 Shri Babajan Lalbhai Sayeed ...Petitioner Versus The Superintending Engineer, Administrative Divisional Officer, M.S.E.B. Ahmednagar ...Respondent ..... None for the petitioner Mr. H. T. Joshi, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 8TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 When this petition is called for final hearing none appears for the petitioner. This petition takes exception to the order dated 16.7.1991 passed by the Member, Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 204 of 1989. 2 Brief facts of the case are as under;- The respondent herein had filed complaint under Section 29(1) of the M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act 1971 alleging interalia that the 2 respondent M.S.E.B. has committed unfair labour practice under item 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The sum and substance of the of the contentions of the complainant is that the transfer order dated 16.6.1989 is not a request transfer. Secondly, by an order reverting him from the post of lineman to Assistant line man issued on 16.11.1989 respondent has committed unfair labour practices. If the order dated 16.6.1989, is not treated as request transfer, he would have been a senior most Assistant lineman in Ahmednagar division, and therefore, he would be entitled to promotion. It is therefore, prayed that the respondent has committed unfair labour practices under Items No. 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The complainant therefore had payed that the order dated 16.11.1989 may be quashed and set aside. 3 The respondent herein had filed written statement at Exh. C-2 denying all allegations. It is stated in the written statement that it is admitted position that on or about 9.3.1966 the complainant was taken as Helper. He was promoted as Assistant lineman in the year 1973. He was posted as Assistant line on 1.8.1973. On 21.5.1984, the complainant gave an application that he may be transferred to Rahata sub division and that application was pending for consideration with the respondent and on 16.6.1989 complainant was transferred to Rahata sub division. That is essentially a transfer effected on the request of the complainant. While promoting to the post of Assistant 3 lineman, earlier request of the complainant of transfer on request to Rahata, was not considered. Since the complainant is transferred at his request he has lost his seniority and therefore, in order to rectify the mistake which was committed while promoting the complainant on 21.9.1989, the subsequent order dated 16.11.1989 revering the complainant to Assistant lineman and posting him at Rahata was passed. Therefore, the respondent denied that it had committed unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court, Ahmednagar framed as many as four issues for consideration/determination. While dealing with the issue No.1 that whether the complainant prove that his transfer from Ahmednagar division to Shrirampur division in July, 1989 was effected by respondent with “malafide” intentions and thereby unfair labour practice under Item No.3 of Schedule IV of the Act is committed by the respondent?. The said issue is answered in negative. The second issue that whether the complainant proved that the order demoting him from the post of wireman to assistant lineman issued in November, 1989 amounts to unfair labour practice under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of the Act and answered the said issue in negative. 4 On careful perusal of the findings recorded by the Industrial court, it appears that after appreciation of the material brought on record by the parties and more particularly by the petitioner herein, the court recorded the findings of fact that the transfer, which was ordered by the respondent herein was not with malafide intention. On 4 the contrary, the said transfer was effected on the request of the petitioner. Therefore, whether the transfer was with malafide intention or not is necessarily dependent upon the evidence or fact and which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction unless it shows that the findings recorded by the court below are perverse. Therefore, in my considered view, the writ petition fails. The other points which were framed by the Industrial Court for determination was also consequently depend upon the first issue. The Industrial Court has recorded findings of fact that the transfer of the petitioner was not with malafide intention. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian. Hence, Rule discharged. Writ petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ( S.S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/