The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of addressing the issue of the respondents' status as 'workmen' at the outset to determine the maintainability of the complaints under the Industrial Disputes Act.

R.M. Savant, J.

The above appeals have been admitted on 7th April, 2011 and the hearing was expedited. Considering the limited issue involved, this Court thought it fit to hear the appeals finally.

2. The facts necessary to be cited can in brief be stated thus:

3. The appellants are the original petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions. The appellant No.1 is a multiState Cooperative Bank having its branches in Maharashtra as well as Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The respondent No.1 in each of the above appeals (hereinafter “the respondents”) was working as a Branch Manager in the branches of the Appellant No.1 Bank. The transfer order came to be issued transferring the respondents on 22nd May, 2010. The respondent No.1 in LPA No. 62 of 2011 came to be transferred to Hyderabad as a Branch Manager whereas the respondent No.1 in LPA No. 85 of 2011 was transferred to Surat as a Branch Manager. Both the respondents protested against the said transfers. However, the said protestations were replied to by the appellant No.1 that the said transfers were in accordance with the contract of employment and in tune with the service rules and have been made on account of administrative exigencies.

4. The respondents thereafter, aggrieved by the said orders of transfer, filed Complaint (ULP) Nos. 96 of 2010 and 97 of 2010. The sum and substance of the case of the respondents in the said complaints was that they have been transferred vindictively as they are officebearers of the Union concerned. It was contended that though there were persons who had a longer tenure at Nashik were retained, they were transferred. In the said complaints, the respondents filed an application for interim relief seeking stay of the said transfer orders dated 22nd May, 2010. To the said applications, the appellants herein filed their reply and raised an issue as regards the maintainability of the complaints on the ground that the respondents were not “workmen” within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter “the Act”) and, therefore, the complaints filed at their behest were not maintainable. To buttress the said contention, the appellants had placed material on record in the form of their salary slips as well as relied upon the duties which they were discharging as Branch Managers. The Industrial Court heard the applications for interim relief and by its order dated 9th July, 2010, allowed the said interim applications and resultantly stayed the orders of transfer. The gist of the reasoning of the Industrial Court appears to be that the respondents had made out a prima facie case for the stay of the transfers. However, since the appellants had raised the issue as regards the maintainability of the complaints on the ground that the respondents were not workmen, the Industrial Court held that all the issues could be tried together including the issue as to whether the respondents were workmen.

5. The said order dated 9th July, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court came to be challenged by the appellants herein by way of filing the above writ petitions. A learned Single Judge of this Court by her order dated 18th October, 2010 rejected the said petitions. The learned single Judge also rejected the case of the appellants that the Industrial Court should be directed to decide the maintainability of the complaints on the ground that the respondents were not workmen as a preliminary issue. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that since at the time when the respondents were appointed, they were not informed that they could be transferred out of the State as in fact there was no branch at Surat at that time. The learned Judge was of the view that the Industrial Court had committed no error in staying the transfers. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 18th October 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in the above writ petitions which is the subject matter of the above two appeals.

6. Heard the