1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2718 OF 2010 (DECIDED) (Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. .v. Mahabeej Karmachari Sanghatana) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S. Godbole, Advocate h/f Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 06TH AUGUST, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have impugned the order dated 17.06.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2718 of 2010 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been rejected. The writ petition was directed against the order by which the application for amendment of the complaint filed by the respondent-Union has been allowed and by way of amendment they are allowed to challenge the transfer orders issued by the appellants/employer after filing of the said complaint. The amendment has been allowed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2010 and the writ petition challenging that order has been rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.06.2010. Learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition has made the following observations in the order. “Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel contends that amendment is mostly argumentative and also seeks to dispute certain facts which otherwise are admitted. He points out that Nikose, who has challenged the transfer order is now said to be shown as not served with that transfer order. It is his contention that there are comments in the light of Court's orders also. He further states that refusal of interim relief to Union in the matter was challenged 2 right up to the Division Bench of this Court and that refusal has been maintained. The facts show that transfers effected by the petitioner-employer are questioned in ULP Complaint. The amendment only points out subsequent transfer and some comments are made. The learned Member of Industrial Court has used its discretion and allowed that amendment. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Having considered the observations made by the learned Single Judge and the reasons recorded by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal in the order dated 30.04.2010, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said orders in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.