:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8422 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8422 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8422 OF 2008 Sayyed Mainuddin Dagadu ..Petitioner versus Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune ..Respondents Mr. N. M. Ganguli for the Petitioner. Mr. R. G. Ketkar for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 9TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Order of the Industrial Court dismissing his revision against the Order of the Labour Court, by which the Labour Court had dismissed the petitioner’s complaint that he was illegally dismissed from service. 3. The Pune Municipal Corporation bus which the petitioner was driving met with an accident. A report was given to the superior by the Chief Traffic Inspector one Mr. Waghmare. Because the Traffic Inspector gave such a report, the petitioner :2: was apparently incensed and he entered the cabin where the Chief Traffic Inspector was resting and threatened him with dire consequences; assuring him that he would beat him in any case and further uttered some expletives in Marathi. An enquiry was held and the petitioner was dismissed. 4. Against the dismissal, the petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the enquiry held by the respondents was legal, fair and proper vide an Order dated 17.11.2005. By the subsequent order dated 10.4.2006, the Labour Court held that there was no merit in the complaint of unfair labour practice and dismissed the complaint. Against the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner approached the Industrial Court which has dismissed the revision. 5. Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was not fair and proper, particularly since according to the petitioner the witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner. There is no merit in this contention in view of the findings of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has considered the details and the manner in which the enquiry proceeded, :3: datewise, and came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had no alternative but to conduct the enquiry exparte after extending each and every opportunity to the complainant to defend himself. There is no reason to interfere with the said findings. 6. The next submission of Mr. Ganguli, is that there is a difference in the versions of the nature of abuse and threats given by the petitioner. The different versions are said to be of Waghmare the Traffic Inspector who is said to have been threatened and abused and the badli cleaner Mate who is said to have been present. I have examined both the statements which are part of Exhibit ’C’ to the petition. Both versions are substantially the same. The only difference is that Waghmare reported that the petitioner threatened him with beating and the badli cleaner Mate reported that the petitioner threatened to break Waghmare’s limbs. The rest of the abuses and threats are identical. The difference in the two is not sufficient to lead any conclusion of perversity in appreciation of evidence or falsity of the charges. 7. Mr. Ganguli, lastly submitted that the :4: punishment is disproportionate, particularly since words which would have vapourized into thin air have been immortalised by the management by reducing them to writing and taking action against the petitioner; that too for a solitary instance. That is not the case here. The petitioner was involved in a serious accident and instead of being repentant and contrite, resorted to threatening his superior with dire consequence and used abusive words which have been proved and indeed constitute grave indiscipline and insubordination. The petitioner’s conduct clearly affects the general discipline of the organisation adversely. There was no reason why the Management should have folded its hands and allowed the words to vapourize in thin air. 8. Mr. Ketkar, learned counsel for the respondents points out that the petitioner appears to have an indisciplined attitude in general. He points out to his conduct such as walking out of the enquiry and other misbehaviour. 9. In the circumstances, it does not appear that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In the result, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. :5: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)