ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants original respondents seek to challenge the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12839 of 2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition filed by the present respondent No. 1 - original petitioner. 2. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under: 2.1 The original petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. It is the case of the original petitioner that due to change of Government Policy and implementation of new Government Rules, it was difficult for the petitioner company to manufacture the products and therefore since last few months, the petitioner company is paying idle wages to about 80 to 100 employees. Petitioner company has, therefore, passed an order of deputation of 54 employees to its ACI division, Bangalore as some work of temporary nature on the said location was available. In the said deputation order itself it was specified that the same is for a limited period of four months. However, before issuance of such deputation order, a meeting was held with the union representatives on 08.07.2016 wherein the representatives of the union remained present and minutes of meting was derived and the intention of sending the employees on deputation was specifically conveyed to the representatives of the union. 2.2 On 09.07.2016, the deputation orders were conveyed to the concerned employees and a specific order was also issued on 09.07.2016 that such employees shall not enter into the premises of the company. However, in spite of the said order, the concerned employees forcibly entered the premises of the petitioner company. Therefore, it was specifically explained to them that their services are now deputed at Bangalore. However, when they forcibly entered into the premises, a police complaint was filed against such employees. 2.3 It is the case of the original petitioner that because of the illegal act of forcibly entering into the premises of the company by the concerned employees and not adhering to the instructions of the supervisor, services of 47 employees were suspended pending inquiry. 2.3 It is the case of the original petitioner that because of the illegal act of forcibly entering into the premises of the company by the concerned employees and not adhering to the instructions of the supervisor, services of 47 employees were suspended pending inquiry. 2.4 In view of order of suspension passed by the petitioner, a complaint was filed by the union before the Industrial Tribunal by filing complaint I.T No. 130 of 2016 in the pending Reference I.T No. 68/69 of 2006, wherein the petitioner filed reply and opposed the application for grant of interim relief as well as the main complaint. However, by an order dated 25.07.2016, the Tribunal passed an order below Exh.2, whereby the order of deputation dated 08.07.2016 passed by the petitioner as well as order dated 09.07.2016 suspending the concerned employees pending inquiry and order of initiation of departmental inquiry were stayed. 2.5 Petitioner, therefore, filed the aforesaid petition along with Special Civil Application No. 12840 of 2016. 2.6 The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 24.08.2016, partly allowed both the petitions and thereby the order of transfer/deputation of the concerned workmen passed by the learned Tribunal has been confirmed. However, the order of the Tribunal qua granting stay of departmental inquiry has been set aside. Thus, the petitioner is permitted to proceed with the departmental inquiry against the concerned workmen. The appellants have, therefore, filed the present appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. T.R Mishra with learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay for the appellants and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu for the respondent No. 1 - original petitioner. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra mainly contended that the certified standing order applicable to the petitioner company does not permit the company to transfer the workmen outside the company premises i.e from one unit to another unit. In spite of that the petitioner company exercised such powers with a view to victimize the concerned workmen by sending them on deputation from Baroda to Bangalore. The concerned workmen had performed their duties on 08.07.2016 and when they reported for duty on 09.07.2016, they were prevented from entering into the company premises. However, because of the intervention of the officer of the Labour Commissioner, Vadodara, concerned workmen were permitted to enter into the company premises on the said date. The concerned workmen had performed their duties on 08.07.2016 and when they reported for duty on 09.07.2016, they were prevented from entering into the company premises. However, because of the intervention of the officer of the Labour Commissioner, Vadodara, concerned workmen were permitted to enter into the company premises on the said date. Hence, when the said workmen have not committed any misconduct as alleged by the petitioner company, there was no necessity for the petitioner company to suspend such workmen pending domestic inquiry. The domestic inquiry was initiated with malafide intention and therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have prevented the petitioner from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry. 5. It is further contended that once the order of deputation is contrary to the provisions of law then all the consequential action is bad in the eye of law and therefore the Tribunal has rightly allowed the application Exh.2 However, the learned Single Judge has wrongly interfered with the said order with regard to the conduct of the inquiry against the concerned workmen. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra would thereafter submit that learned Single Judge has committed an error by observing that there is no prohibition in law preventing the employer from holding departmental inquiry against the concerned workmen and to suspend the workmen pending inquiry. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and thereby the order passed by the Tribunal be restored. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has submitted that learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the interim order passed by the Tribunal while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as per the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted that against an interim order petition is not maintainable before this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta, has, at the outset, submitted that after the order is passed by the learned Single Judge, there is development in the matter. He submitted that Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was floated by the petitioner company on 17.09.2016 and the said scheme has already been put up on record before this Court. However, thereafter on 26.09.2016, the said scheme has been modified. He submitted that Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was floated by the petitioner company on 17.09.2016 and the said scheme has already been put up on record before this Court. However, thereafter on 26.09.2016, the said scheme has been modified. It is pointed out by learned Senior Advocate from the affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder by the present respondent No. 1 that out of 33 employees, who are suspended pending inquiry and are covered in the present appeal, 25 employees have already accepted the VRS scheme and the benefits as accrued under the said scheme have already been extended to them. One employee has already retired in the month of September 2016 and four employees are not eligible under the prevalent VRS scheme. He, therefore, submitted that majority of the employees against whom the inquiry is pending have already availed the benefits of VRS scheme and therefore it is not proper on the part of the union to continue with this proceeding. 8. On the merit of the case, learned Senor Advocate submitted that on 09.07.2016 the concerned workmen forcibly entered into the premises of the company and the said aspect can be reflected from CCTV footage and therefore on 09.07.2016, a charge-sheet was issued to the concerned workmen. Thus, when the concerned workmen have not followed the norms of discipline and good conduct and violated the instructions, the petitioner company be permitted to proceed with the inquiry. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error by setting aside the said part of the order of the learned Tribunal and by permitting the petitioner to proceed further in the inquiry against the concerned workmen. He, therefore, requested that this appeal be dismissed. 9. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it emerges from the record that two references are pending before the Tribunal for two different issues. He, therefore, requested that this appeal be dismissed. 9. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it emerges from the record that two references are pending before the Tribunal for two different issues. Pending such references, the petitioner company decided to send 54 workmen for temporary deputation which was made known to them by notice dated 08.07.2016 It is mentioned in the said notice that with a view to sustain the present business and considering the interest of the work, 54 workmen shown in the list attached with the notice are temporarily deputed to ACI division of the company at Bangalore from 09.07.2016 to 08.10.2016 and they were asked to report at Bangalore on 13.07.2016 Separate orders of deputation were also sent to the workmen. On 09.07.2016, though notice was placed on the notice board that 54 workmen were sent for deputation at Bangalore, some of the workmen tried to forcibly enter into the premises of the company and though it was requested by the concerned officer of the company that such workmen have to report for duty at Bangalore, they forcibly entered into the premises of the company. Immediately a police complaint was filed and the concerned police authorities visited the site. 10. It is further revealed from the record that new VRS scheme has been floated by the petitioner company which has been modified and out of 33 workmen against whom the inquiry is pending, 25 workmen have applied under the said scheme and accepted the benefits flowing from the said VRS scheme. One employee has already retired in September 2016 and four workmen are not eligible as per the said scheme. Thus, out of 33 workmen, three workmen have not applied under the said scheme. 11. In the aforesaid facts of the present case, if the order passed by the learned Single Judge is examined, it is revealed that the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that there is no prohibition in law preventing the employer from holding departmental inquiry against the workmen and to suspend the workmen pending such inquiry. The standing order provides for holding inquiry into the alleged act which amounts to misconduct and also for suspending the workman pending such inquiry. The standing order provides for holding inquiry into the alleged act which amounts to misconduct and also for suspending the workman pending such inquiry. Learned Single Judge further observed that what is provided under Section 33 is not to discharge or punish the workman for any misconduct connected with the dispute without permission of the authority or may discharge or punish the workman in accordance with the standing order and in terms of the contract between the workman and the company for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, as per the procedure provided therein. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while observing the same. 12. The contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are interlocutory orders and therefore learned Single Judge has wrongly interfered with the same is concerned, the said contention is misconceived. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2103 of 2015, in support of his contention. However, if the facts of the present case are examined carefully, it is revealed that T. Application was preferred before the Labour Court, Surat, wherein the workman challenged the order of dismissal. Against the order passed by the Labour Court for deciding the issue regarding validity and legality of departmental inquiry against the workman as preliminary issue and thereafter declaring the departmental inquiry conducted by the original petitioner against the respondent - workman as just and legal, the workman filed revision application before the Industrial Tribunal and against the order passed by the Tribunal, the petition was filed before this Court. The dispute was under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act (‘BIR Act’ for short) and considering the provision contained in the said Act i.e Section 85 of BIR Act, the learned Single Judge not entertained the petition which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the facts of the present case are different and therefore the said order would not be applicable. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 14. Accordingly, civil application also stands disposed of.