The court established that the suspension order extending beyond three months without serving a charge sheet was contrary to law and unjustified, constituting a failure of justice.

JUDGMENT

R.I. Chagla, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. This Petition fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges order dated 23rd April, 2019 ("the impugned order") issued by the Assistant Commissioner, M/P Ward of the Respondent No.1 ("Respondent - Corporation") suspending the Petitioner on account of his having violated Rules 3, 8 and 11 of Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai Services (Conduct) said Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules").

3. The Petitioner had joined the employment of the Respondent - Corporation in or about 1995 with designation of P. T. Mukadam in SWM department. The Petitioner's meritorious service record resulted into his timely promotion to the post of Junior Overseer with the SWM Department. The post was assigned to the Petitioner in the year 2011.

4. In proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai, being Reference (IT) No.81 of 2005, the Industrial Tribunal on 16th April, 2019 issued a witness summons dated 18th April, 2019 pursuant to order dated 16th April, 2019 to the Petitioner directing the Petitioner to remain present before the Industrial Tribunal on 20th April, 2019. This was done by the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act read along with Rule 19 and 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. The Respondent - Corporation was the first party in Reference (IT) No.81 of 2005.

5. Pursuant to the witness summons issued by the Industrial Tribunal, the Petitioner preferred an application on 20th April, 2019 before the Tribunal and sought an adjournment, which was allowed. Thereafter on 22nd April, 2019, the Petitioner submitted a letter to his immediate superior officer i.e. Respondent No.5 by which letter the Petitioner provided a copy of the Affidavit which the Petitioner intended to submit as his evidence before the Industrial Tribunal in the said Reference. In the letter it was mentioned that the Petitioner should be informed whether Respondent No.5 or the Respondent - Corporation had any objection to the contents of the Affidavit that the Petitioner was intending to submit before the Industrial Tribunal. The said letter dated 22nd April, 2019 was received and acknowledged by the Respondent No.5. However, the same was never replied and remains un-replied till date.

6. The Petitioner had on 23rd April, 2019 submitted his application to the Industrial Tribunal in the said Reference wherein the fact of submission of letter dated 22nd April, 2019 by the Petitioner to the Respondent - Corporation was clearly mentioned. On that day, the Petitioner's Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief was taken on record by the Industrial Tribunal in the said Reference through solemn affirmation.

7. The Petitioner has stated that the contents of the Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief was identical to the contents of the draft Affidavit that was submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent - Corporation vide letter dated 22nd April, 2019. It has been mentioned that on 23rd April, 2019, the Industrial Tribunal being busy with other matters, took up the evidence of the Petitioner in the said Reference in the second session post lunch and the process of Examination in Chief and thereafter cross examination conducted by the Advocate of the Respondent Corporation got completed at about 4.15 p.m.

8. The Petitioner was served on 27th April, 2019 with the impugned order which suspended the Petitioner with immediate effect i.e. from 23rd April, 2019 for violation of Rules 3, 8 and 11 of the said Rules.

9. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a letter to the Respondent - Corporation on or about 2nd May, 2019 in response to the impugned order.

10. The Petitioner preferred a Complaint being (ULP) No.132 of 2019 on or about 14th May, 2019 before the Industrial Court at Mumbai, seeking various reliefs claiming that the Petitioner falls within the definition and classification of worker. The Respondent Corporat