:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.516 OF 2007 NO.516 OF 2007 NO.516 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1040 PETITION NO.1040 PETITION NO.1040 OF 2007 OF 2007 OF 2007 BEST Workers Union & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ..Respondents Ms.Neeta Karnik for the Appellants. Mr.S.Talsania, Senior Advocate a/w.Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b.M/s.M.V.Kini & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008 : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008 : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The above matter was on board on 16th February, 2008, on that day, Ms.Karnik, the learned Counsel for the Appellant sought a short adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 18th February, 2008. On 18th February, 2008, Ms.Karnik, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant had again sought a short adjournment on the ground that the learned Senior Counsel Mr.C.U.Singh was not available, and the matter was kept on 20th February, 2008. Again on 20th February, 2008, Ms.Karnik sought an adjournment contending that Mr.C.U.Singh, the learned Senior Counsel was not available. Today again, when the matter is called out, the same request is made by Ms.Karnik. :2: 2. We are not inclined to grant any further adjournment in the above matter. Ms.Karnik, the learned Counsel for the Appellant is not ready to argue the matter. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge, especially paragraph Nos.15 to 18 which reads as under: 15. It is no doubt true that said observations have been made in respect of facts of the said case. However, observations which are made in para 33 would be relevant even otherwise since it takes into consideration actions of the employer and employee in respect of public undertaking and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case has observed that while examining such action on the part of the employee or employer it has to be tested on the anvil of the public interests and interests of the society at large and it also observed that employees owe their existence to the direct investment of public funds and the both are expected to represent public interests directly and it is their duty to promote such public interest and not to harm them in any manner. These observations in my view clearly reflects the apprehension which is expressed by the employer in his complaint. Similarly, in the case of T.K.Rangaranjan T.K.Rangaranjan T.K.Rangaranjan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and and and Ors (Supra) Ors (Supra) Ors (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question of strike by Government employees had occasion to consider various judgments of the Supreme Court and while doing so it has observed in para 10 as under: "10. Apart from statutory rights, Government employees cannot claim that they can take the society at ransom by going on strike. Even if there is injustice to some extent, as presumed by such employees, in a democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances. Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total mal-administration. Strike affects the society as a whole and particularly when two lakh employees go on strike enmasse, the entire administration comes :3: to a grinding halt. In the case of strike by a teacher, entire educational system suffers, many students are prevented from appearing in their exams which ultimately affect their whole career. In case of strike by Doctors, innocent patients suffer, in case of strike by employees of transport services, entire movement of the society comes to a stand still, business is adversely affected and number of persons find it difficult to attend to their work, to move from one place to another or one city to another. On occasions, pubic properties are destroyed or damaged and finally this creates bitterness among public against those who are on strike. 16. Here again objection raised by the learned Counsel Ms.Karnik for the Respondent No.2 is justified to the extent that the facts of the said case are entirely different and therefore, observation made in the said judgment can not be taken out of context. It is no doubt true that these observations have been made in respect of Government employees who had gone on strike enmasse though there was specific prohibition under the rules and conditions of service which were framed by the Tamilnadu Government. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court while examining this issue has also made these observations in the context of inconvenience which is caused to the public at large when employees had gone on strike. There can not be doubt that the employees of the BEST Undertaking have statutory right to go on strike after following procedure which is laid down under the Act and rules framed therein. They also have right to make agitation in peaceful and democratic manner or protest and or make peaceful agitation for the purpose of seeking amicable settlement of their demands and such right cannot be taken away. 17. However, in the present case prima facie, case is made out by the Petitioner for grant of interim relief. The Respondents, their agents, servants, office bearers and members of the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 Unions are restrained from resorting to any violent demonstrations or from going on illegal strike or illegal stoppage of work pending the hearing and final disposal of the complaint which is filed by the Petitioner herein. 18. It is clarified that it will be open for the Respondents to give appropriate notice :4: and thereafter take action in accordance with law. Interim relief is passed in the above terms. 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. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)