Ahmedabad. Mr. Goyal stressed upon the fact that the notice of filing the complaint was received on 5th May, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. calling upon the petitioner to appear on the same date, however, notice being short, the petitioner’s representative appeared but the Court was not in service and on that date no hearing took place on 5 th May but on 6th May, 2018 which was a Sunday, the Advocate for the petitioner at Satara received a call from the Industrial Court stating that the matter would be heard on Sunday on that day the order of status quo came to be passed. He therefore submitted that no proper opportunity had been given to the petitioner. Mr. Goyal, however, conceded that subsequent to the order of status quo a hearing was granted by the Industrial Court and after hearing the parties interim relief came to be granted by the impugned order dated 25th January, 2019. Mr. Goyal relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Wimco Ltd. V/s. Wimco Employees Union and anr.1 in which this Court had found that there was no cause for interference by the Industrial Court with an order of transfer which was made in accordance with terms and conditions of service. Making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar & ors. v/s. S.I.G. of Police and ors.2 Mr. Goyal submitted that there was no vesting in the respondent in the present case to insist that he should be continued at
