JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Sri Pakale Waives service for the first respondent. Second respondent, being a formal party, need not be served. 2. By consent, rule called out and heard. 3. The petitioner impugns by this writ petition an order, dated 10 August, 1998, made by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 429 of 1998, under the provisions of S. 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The impugned order is an interlocutory order and under normal circumstances I would be extremely reluctant to interfere with it. But, as the facts show, interests of justice warrant interference even at this stage. 5. The short facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition at this stage are: On 3 July, 1998, chargesheets were issued to several employees working in the factory of the petitioner at village Paudh. The charges, in essence, were that the delinquent employees had blocked the vehicle of the General Manager of Chemical Division in which the General Manager of the petitioner and certain other officers were travelling and that after blocking the vehicle on a lonely road leading to the factory, the delinquent employees pulled out the officers and severely assaulted them. This undoubtedly is a serious charge, though it is yet to be established at the domestic inquiry. The petitioners scheduled a domestic inquiry to be held initially at the factory premises at Paudh. Some of the witnesses who were to be examined in support of the charge, however, expressed apprehension, that, as they had to traverse the long and lonely road in which the incident had occurred, to reach the factory where the venue of the inquiry had been scheduled, they feared for their safety. Responding to the apprehensions expressed by the material witnesses, the petitioner-employer shifted the venue of the domestic inquiry to its office at Pune, but agreed to compensate the delinquent employees and their representatives by payment of travelling allowance and lunch allowance for every day of attendance at the inquiry. At this stage, the first respondent moved the Industrial Court by its Complaint (ULP) No. 429 of 1998 in which interim relief was sought against holding the inquiry at any place other than the factory premises. At this stage, the first respondent moved the Industrial Court by its Complaint (ULP) No. 429 of 1998 in which interim relief was sought against holding the inquiry at any place other than the factory premises. By the impugned order, dated 11 August, 1998, the industrial Court has directed the petitioners to hold the inquiry at its factory at Paudh. It is this order which is assailed in this writ petition. 6. In my view, the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a direction to the respondent-company to hold the inquiry at the factory premises, in the face of the difficulties posited by the petitioner-employer. It is true that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction under S. 30(2) of the Act to grant interim relief. In exercising such jurisdiction, at the highest, it could have eliminated the problems, if any, likely to be faced by the delinquent employees as well their representatives in effectively defending themselves at the domestic inquiry. I know of no principle of law by which the delinquent employees can demand that the venue of the inquiry should be fixed at a particular place, or that, if once fixed, it cannot be altered. It cannot be forgotten that conducting a domestic inquiry is for compliance with principles of natural justice. Holding of the inquiry at any particular place is a matter of convenience of both the parties. One cannot finicky or obdurate about the venue of the inquiry, as long as it is not shown that the delinquent is prejudiced in the conduct of his defence because of the shifting of the venue of inquiry. 7. I asked Sri Pakale as to whether any of the delinquents are likely to be prejudiced if the inquiry is conducted at Pune office of the petitioner-company. Since it is not disputed that the petitioner has agreed to defray expenses towards travelling and lunch for each day of inquiry, Sri Pakale stated that it might cause inconvenience to the union's representative. I am informed that the union representative, who is expected to defend the delinquent employees, is also not from Paudh village, but he has to travel from another nearby village. If that be so, I see no insurmountable difficulty in his travelling to Pune, which perhaps may be faster and more convenient, that too at the expense of the petitioner. 8. If that be so, I see no insurmountable difficulty in his travelling to Pune, which perhaps may be faster and more convenient, that too at the expense of the petitioner. 8. In these circumstances, I am of the view that Para. 2 of the operative part of the impugned order, dated 11 August, 1998, in Complaint (ULP) No. 429 of 1998, needs to be interfered with. Hence, the following order: Writ petition allowed. Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the impugned order, dated 11 August, 1998, made by the member of the Industrial Court, Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No. 429 of 1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Rule accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.