IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.338 OF 2008 Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay ...Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, Best Workers’ Union ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Counsel with Mr.D.G.Dhanure i/b M/s.M.V.Kini & Co. for Petitioner. Mr.M.D.Nagle for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Petition is directed against order dated 2nd August 2007 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.79/2007 which is an interlocutory order. By the said order, the Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner to furnish copy of the whole report of Tata Consultancy Services submitted to the Petitioner by the said Agency, to the Complainant Union within fifteen days from the order. 2. The Petitioners, however, are now advised : 2 : that they would withdraw the letter dated 2nd January 2007 sent by the Chief Personnel Officer to the Chief Medical Officer as well as Circular dated 22nd December 2006 sent by Assistant General Manager (Audit) to all the Heads of the Departments/Branches which are at Annexures B and C to the complaint and maintain status-quo in respect of employment of employees in the medical and audit Departments as existing prior to the issuance of the said departmental letter/circular without prejudice to the general right of the Petitioner to transfer the employees from one Section/Department to another Section/Department under the Rules in vouge. 3. The Petitioner Corporation is also advised not to implement the report/recommendations of the Tata Consultancy Services without first discussing the issues involved therein with the complainant union and giving prior notice in relation to matters as required by Section 42 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The above statement made on behalf of the Petitioner through Counsel is accepted. : 3 : 4. In view of the said statements, nothing survives for consideration in the complaint as the substantive reliefs claimed by complainant in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c) of the complaint are worked out. 5. Indeed, Counsel for the Respondent was at pains to point out that some other issues will have to be considered in the said complaint as referred to in paragraph (4) of the complaint at page 89. However, on instructions of the Assistant General Secretary who is present in Court, the Advocate for the Respondent submits that the complaint itself can be disposed of accepting the statement of the Petitioner as reproduced earlier. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 2nd August 2007 passed by the Industrial Court is set-aside and at the same time, it is recorded that the complaint filed by the Respondent pending before the Industrial Court would stand disposed of as infructuous on the above terms. : 4 : 7. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.