1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3013 of 2009 (Mahabeej Karmachari Sanghatna v. M.S. Seeds Corporation Ltd.) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri B.M. Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 24 th July, 2009 This petition is directed against an interim order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Akola, below Exhibit 2 in Complaint ULP No.83 of 2007 refusing interim relief to the petitioner against an order of his transfer to Indore within just three-and-half months of his joining at Yavatmal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some other employees, who had been transferred along with the petitioner, got their orders of transfer cancelled on the ground that their wives are serving at the places of their previous postings, relying on a Government Resolution. He submits that the petitioner’s wife is also serving in Yavatmal District and, therefore, the petitioner’s transfer 2 also ought to have been cancelled. He also submits that the Government Circular dated 27-11-1997 applies to all Government Corporations and Government Undertakings. The respondent-employer is a Government Undertaking and, therefore, the learned Member, Industrial Court, ought to have seen that the petitioner could not have been transferred when he had not completed the prescribed term at Yavatmal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-employer before the Industrial Court and the learned counsel for the respondent-employer, who had filed caveat in this Court, also so stated that the transfer was on administrative grounds, since several employees working at Indore had been chargesheeted and the show cause notices were issued to them and, therefore, the petitioner was required to be shifted to Indore. The petitioner had in fact served at Indore in the past. The reply, which has been filed before the Industrial Court, also shows that the convenience of the employees was considered and for the time being, they were also permitted to commute every week. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Member, Industrial Court erred in refusing interim relief in these circumstances. No interference is called for. 3 The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl