((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2816 OF 2007 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Petitioner versus General Secretary, BEST Workers Union Respondent Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Counsel a/w P.M.Palshikar i/by M.V.Kini & Co. for petitioner. Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Counsel a/w M.D.Nagle for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 23rd January 2008 PC : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the interlocutory decision of the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai which is impugned in this petition. The view taken by the Lower Court, to my mind, is a possible view taken on the basis of material before that Court. In my opinion, the Industrial Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the finding that the report which is the basis for initiating the action ((-2-)) MST against eleven employees makes no reference to any violent or disturbing activity undertaken by the said employees except to indicate that they were present at the relevant point of time. The Lower Court has, therefore, distinguished the case of eleven employees from the one who was actively violent as noted in the report. In other words, the authority which issued the order of suspension acted arbitrarily and did not consider this distinction while taking the decision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would, however, rely on the unreported decision of our High Court in the case of BEST Workers Union and another versus The BEST Undertaking and another dated 19th July 2007 in Writ Petition No.1274 of 2007. Reliance was placed on paragraph 4 of the said decision. The observations at page 203, paragraph 4 of the decision is of no avail to the petitioner. The question that is posed in the present proceeding is not to question the authority of the petitioners to suspend the employees. The question, however, that is required to be addressed is whether the decision is palpably illegal or arbitrary? ((-3-)) MST 3. Reliance was then placed on the observations in the case of L.K.Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. and another reported in (2006)2-SCC-269 in particular paragraph 17 thereof. Once again, the observations in paragraph 17 of this decision will be of no avail to the present case. The fact that there are three grounds of suspension, does not take the argument of the petitioner any further. The Court below has, on perusal of the report, which is the basis for taking action against eleven employees of suspending them, has rightly found that except the fact that they were present at the relevant time there is no other material attributed to them, which can be discerned from the internal page 7 of the report, running page 45 of the paper book. The Court below in paragraph 16 as well as 18 on recording this finding, in my view, committed no mistake for passing the impugned order to stay the operation of the order of suspension. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would then rely on the decision of our High Court in the case of Ceat Limited, Mumbai Vs. Dayaram Kishorelal Yadav and another reported in 2004(II)-CLR-681. Emphasis is placed on observations in paragraphs 6 to 8 and paragraph ((-4-)) MST 17 thereof. The discussion in this paragraphs essentially is related with the issue as to whether the employer possesses right to suspend his employee. As aforesaid, that is not the question that needs to be addressed in the present case. 5. The Court below, in my opinion, has rightly taken into consideration the fact that neither the report on which reliance is placed nor any other contemporaneous record, such as reports of the Police and Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, would indicate that the eleven employees in respect of whom relief is granted by the Industrial Tribunal, had participated in violent act so as to invite an order of suspension. To get over this position, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that this analysis inevitably results in Court entering into the issue of justifiability of the order of suspension and which cannot be the basis to stay the suspension order in law. Even this argument does not commend to me for the simple reason that the conclusion that has been reached by the Industrial Court, is not to find out whether the basis was sufficient but there was absolutely no material to indicate that the ((-5-)) MST eleven employees had actively participated in the violent agitation except the fact that they were incidentally present on the spot which is the highest position that can be inferred from the report available on record at internal page 7 of the report, running page 45 of the paper book. Hence, no interference is required. Writ Petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)