Towers vs. Gopal Naidu1 , Spices and Oil Seeds Exchange vs. Suhas Anant Kulkarni2 and Maruti Dattatraya Patankar vs. M.D., Kolhapur Zilla Shetkari Vinkari Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd.3 ) Yet, at the same time, as the impugned order of the Industrial Court discloses, it clearly reappreciated the entire evidence on record. What is more striking, however, is that while re-appreciating the evidence, the Industrial Court did not, in terms, deal with the aspect of unauthorised absence of the Respondent between 17 October 1994 and 4 July 1995. It did not, in terms, consider the main question as to whether or not the Respondent was justified in reporting for the duty at the transferred location, namely, Jhansi, between 17 October 1994 and 4 July 1995, during which period the Respondent's complaint of unfair labour practice on account of his transfer had stood rejected and that there was no interim order by any Court allowing the Respondent not to join duties at the transferred location. The only ground, which seems to have weighed with the Industrial Court, is that the Respondent was finally transferred by the Petitioner to Mumbai in pursuance of the direction of this Court in the Respondent's writ petition (Writ Petition No. 638 of 2016). In the first place, it is important to note that this Court, whilst directing the Petitioner to consider the Respondent's application for transfer to Mumbai (and not really directing the Petitioner to transfer him), had expressly observed that by issuing such directions, it was not interfering in any way with the transfer orders themselves. It is a forgone conclusion, in the premises, that the original order of transfer of the Respondent from Bhusawal to Jhansi had always stood the ground. It
