Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15705 (BOM)

SUBHASH SURESH JADHAV v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHA. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

WP/4470/2026 · 2026-10-05

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

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