JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. These Petitions take exception to an identical order passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Pune on applications for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, Act, 1971 (“the Act, 1971”), whereby the prayer of the petitioners to stay the transfer orders dated 27th June, 2022 and 24th June, 2022 in respect of the petitioner-complainant Nos. 2 to 6, in the respective Petitions, came to be rejected.

3. Since the Petitions arise out of an identical factual backdrop, both the Petitions are decided together. Writ Petition No.13233 of 2022 is considered as lead Petition and reference hereinafter is to the facts in the said Petition.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Petition can be stated as under:-

(a) The respondent is engaged in manufacturing of Lead Acid Storage Batteries from its factory situated at D-2, M.I.D.C. Industrial Estate, Chinchwad (E), Pune. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are the workmen and have been working at the said factory since more than 20 years. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Trade Union. The employees of respondent, including petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, are members of petitioner No. 1.

(b) By order dated 27th June, 2022 petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 have been transferred to Exide Industries Ltd., Bawal, Rewari, Haryana. The petitioners filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Item 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971. The petitioners claim that transfer order was mala fide as it was issued as a counterblast to an order dated 21st June, 2022, passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in another complaint ULP No.50 of 2022, filed by petitioner No.1, whereby respondent has been restrained from terminating the members of petitioner No.1- Union without following due process of law. Petitioners further contended that the factory at Pune was established in the year 1971, whereas the plant at Bawal, to which the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, have been transferred was established in the year 2005. There was no express term of contract empowering the respondent to transfer its employees to a newly established plant. The said transfer order, according to the petitioners, were in teeth of the provisions contained in Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and constituted change in service condition. Petitioners asserted, the transfer orders were issued in order to break the Union activities. Even otherwise, according to the petitioners, there was no exigency which warranted the transfer of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 to Bawal, a far off place.

5. The petitioners sought interim stay to the transfer order by filing an application (Exhibit-U2). Respondent resisted the application by filing its written statement cum reply.

6. Respondent categorically denied that the transfer order was mala fide. According to the respondent, the respondent had not been able to provide meaningful work to the workmen employed in its Motorcycle Battery Division and, thus, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 were transferred to another establishment. The said transfer is in accordance with the contract of service, and it did not amount to change in service condition.

7. Controverting the contentions that the transfer order has been issued to give a counterblast to the interim order passed by the Industrial Court on 21st June, 2022 in complaint (ULP) No. 50 of 2022, the respondent contended that a decision to transfer few employees of the respondent working at its Pune plant had been taken long back and the said decision was in no way influenced by the interim order passed by the Court. Thus, there was no unfair labour practice.

8. The learned Member Industrial Court, after appraisal of the pleadings and material on record, was persuaded to reject the application for interim relief opining, inter alia, that th