WP/7582/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7582 OF 2010 The Chief Executive Offier Nashik Merchants Cooperative Bank & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Arvind B. Chavan ... Respondent Mr.K.J. Phakade for Petitioners Mr.M.S. Topkar for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 18, 2010 P.C.: 1. The respondent had challenged the transfer order issued to him on 9.4.2010 transferring him from Nashik to Surat. That order has been stayed by the Industrial Court as an interim measure pending the complaint filed by the respondent. It appears that by an earlier order dated 21.10.2009, the respondent was transferred from Nashik to Pune. He challenged that order of transfer by filing a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.94 of 2009. The order of transfer was stayed by the Industrial Court on 16.1.2010. That order was challenged in this Court by the bank by preferring Writ Petition No.1420 of 2010. The petition filed by the Bank was rejected as the Court was of the view that the bank could apply to the Industrial Court for vacating the interim order since it was passed without hearing the bank. WP/7582/2010 : 2 : 2. Instead of doing so, the Bank issued the impugned order dated 9.4.2010. 3. The Industrial Court has found that the transfer order has been passed malafide, prima facie. The Industrial Court was of the view that the two transfer orders remained in force, one transferring the respondent to Pune and the other to Surat. The Court therefore observed that the Bank has not clearly stated whether it wants to implement the transfer to Pune or Surat. The Industrial Court then concluded that prima facie there was no material on record to show that there were proper guidelines drawn up by the Bank in respect of the transfers. It is further observed that clause 7(b) of the service regulations and bye laws which gives wide powers to the Chairman of the bank to transfer employees from one place to another. The Industrial Court has held that the discretion has been used arbitrarily and malafide in this case. 4. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has given cogent reasons for granting interim relief. The Industrial Court has not committed any error in granting the interim relief. If the Industrial Court concludes that the Respondent is not a workman/employee as contended by the petitioners, it would always be open to the Petitioners to move the Court for vacating the interim relief. 5. Petition rejected.