Bombay High Court

SUBHASH SURESH JADHAVversusDIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHA. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The High Court held that no interference with the Industrial Court’s transfer order is warranted and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

Petitioner Subhash Suresh Jadhav, an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, challenged a transfer order dated 01.01.2024 that moved him from Ratnagiri to the Palghar Division, alleging that transfers during suspension are impermissible under a 2015 circular and that the order was arbitrary. He filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking relief against the Industrial Court's order rejecting his application under Section 30(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner had previously contested an earlier transfer order in 2020, which was dismissed for default, and he had not reported to the new posting. The High Court observed that the petitioner’s failure to join the transferred place precludes any interim relief and directed that his grievance be pursued in the pending Industrial Court proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition without interfering with the Industrial Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere with the Industrial Court's order of transfer under Section 30(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether a transfer of an employee during suspension is permissible under the circular dated 4 December 2015.
Whether the petitioner’s failure to join the transferred posting bars the grant of relief in the writ petition.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 30(2)

Subjects

transfer
suspension
Industrial Court
writ petition
Section 30(2)
arbitrary order
jurisdiction
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Judgment

                       1                             85-WP-4470-2026 (C)

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 4470 OF 2026

Subhash Suresh Jadhav                                …...Petitioner
       Vs.
Divisional Controller Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation                     …...Respondent

                                …..
Mr. Vidyanand J. Jog, advocate for the Petitioner.
                                …..

                   CORAM :     SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                     DATE :    5TH OCTOBER, 2026.

ORDER :


1.    Heard Mr. Vidyanand J. Jog, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner.

2.    The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 01.07.2026

passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, in Complaint (ULP) No.1

of 2024 below Exhibit-U-2, whereby the application has been

rejected.

3.    The Petitioner is challenging the order of transfer dated

01.01.2024, whereby he was transferred from Ratnagiri to the

Palghar Division in ULP Complaint No.1 of 2024, along with

Application Exhibit-U-2 preferred under Section 30(2) of the Act.
                         2                          85-WP-4470-2026 (C)

4.    Learned counsel for the Petitioner has canvassed various

submissions assailing the order of transfer. My attention is invited to

the Circular dated 4th December 2015. It is submitted that transfer

during the period of suspension is impermissible. The impugned

order is arbitrary in nature.

5.    The Petitioner was transferred by order dated 07.03.2020 from

Ratnagiri to Palghar. The Petitioner had filed ULP Complaint No. 29

of 2020 challenging the earlier order of transfer. The said complaint

was dismissed for default on 24.11.2023. The application for

restoration was also rejected. The another order of transfer was

issued on 01.01.2024. The Petitioner has not joined at the

transferred place.

6.    In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to grant any

relief in the present petition, as the Petitioner has not joined at the

transferred place. It would be open to the Petitioner to agitate all his

grievances in respect of the impugned order of transfer in the main

proceedings bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 1 of 2024.

7.    No interference is called for in the impugned order. The writ

petition is dismissed.

8.    The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the grievance
                     3                          85-WP-4470-2026 (C)

regarding the order of transfer, which shall be dealt with by the

Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 1 of 2024 on its own merits.




                              [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

Suresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…