BEST Workers Union & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.

Judgment

1. The Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. matter 16th February, 2008, day, Ms.Karnik, learned Counsel Appellant sought a adjournment matter adjourned 18th February,

2008. On 18th February, 2008,

Ms.Karnik, learned Counsel appearing Appellant sought a adjournment ground learned Senior Counsel Mr.C.U.Singh available, matter 20th February,

2008. Again 20th February, 2008, Ms.Karnik sought adjournment contending Mr.C.U.Singh, learned Senior Counsel available. Today again, matter is called out, the same request is made by Ms.Karnik. :2:

2. We are not inclined to grant any further adjournment matter. Ms.Karnik, learned Counsel Appellant matter. We perused learned Single Judge, especially paragraph Nos.15 to 18 which reads as under: It is no doubt true that said case. respect Hon’ble observed employee tested Apex actions interests otherwise

15. observations consideration employee observed existence public complaint. T.K.Rangaranjan T.K.Rangaranjan T.K.Rangaranjan andandand Ors Ors Ors considering Government various judgments while doing so it has observed in para 10 as under: expressed Similarly, Vs. Vs. Vs. promote interests directly (Supra) (Supra) (Supra) employees clearly respect However, employer undertaking 33 public employer action public Court examining society employees investment expected direct public manner. interest reflects These employer Government Government Government Hon’ble Apex Court question occasion Supreme strike Court Tamil Tamil Tamil observations relevant interests public represent observations apprehension Nadu Nadu Nadu consider "10. Government injustice State, machinery statutory mostly enmasse, employees strike. employees, provided Even extent, a Apart from statutory rights, cannot society ransom presumed democratic resort provisions grievances. misused Strike results a redressal weapon society mal-administration. a employees entire administration Strike welfare different affects particularly strike :3: a students halt. teacher, grinding a Doctors, services, suffers, appearing affect strike suffer, transport society persons another occasions, bitterness among public against those who are on strike. entire a affected adversely work, damaged In entire educational prevented career. In innocent strike movement still, difficult employees number attend properties finally another. strike system ultimately patients business On destroyed creates Here again objection raised by the Ms.Karnik extent prohibition specific Counsel justified service Government. respect observation

16. learned No.2 therefore, judgment conditions Tamilnadu Apex inconvenience There therein. agitation protest purpose their demands and such right cannot be taken away. employees Undertaking BEST observations peaceful seeking strike Court They examining strike entirely Government enmasse different context. observations though However, framed context public caused statutory employees following Act procedure democratic peaceful agitation manner amicable settlement Respondent It employees Hon’ble strike. framed However, in the present case prima relief. interim

17. facie, members demonstrations hearing and final disposal of the complaint which is filed by the Petitioner herein. agents, restrained stoppage illegal servants, Respondent Petitioner The office Nos.2 bearers 4 illegal pending resorting Respondents, Unions violent strike

18. It is clarified that it will be open Respondents appropriate notice :4: thereafter law. Interim relief is passed in the above terms. action accordance

3. We do not find any illegality or error in the above order. In view thereof, the Appeal is totally devoid of merits. Hence, the same stands dismissed. V.MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)