1 wp-9348-03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 9348 OF 2003 Shri.Pundalik S.Shejwal ..Petitioner Vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.I.R.Kulkarni Adv. for Petitioner Mr.G.S.Hegde Adv. for Respondents .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 4th , 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner was working as Artisan Head in Respondent No.1- M.S.R.T.C. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Artisan. He came to be reverted to the post of Artisan Head by order dated 1st July, 1996. Being aggrieved by the reversion, Complaint (ULP) No.357 of 1996 came to be preferred by the petitioner under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P.Act. The said complaint 2 wp-9348-03 came to be dismissed by order dated 28th September, 2001. Hence, this petition. 3. The work of the petitioner as Head Artisan was to see that the vehicles of the Respondent no.1-M.S.R.T.C. were properly repaired. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inquiry was not a fair inquiry and it was conducted without looking into the relevant and material facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a practice in the workshop to note down the repair parts for carrying out the maintenance of vehicles in a diary which is known as “workshop diary. ” He submitted that this diary was a very important document and it would show that indeed the petitioner had made requisition for necessary spare parts and that despite requisition, the spare parts were not supplied due to which necessary repairs could not be carried out in the workshop. Though the petitioner repeatedly requested the Enquiry Officers and Management to produce the workshop diary, no directions were issued to produce it and without looking at the “workshop diary ” the enquiry was concluded. 4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner i.e. original complainant was most inefficient and incompetent in his work. It was his duty to allocate the work to other mechanics who are working under him in the shift and to get the work done from them, however, he always failed to keep proper watch on the employees and could not 3 wp-9348-03 control his subordinates and inspite of availability of spare parts, the vehicles were not repaired in time. When the vehicles were repaired under his supervision, the quality of work was found to be inferior. It is also their case that he was habitual absentee. On 30th August, 1993, the complainant was on duty in second shift, on that day, one bus bearing No.MWQ-6973 was in the workshop for repairing. Due to non- availability of differential packing the same could not be repaired in the first shift and therefore, there was a pending note for carrying out urgent repairs of the said bus and at 4.00 p.m. In the first shift, the said differential packing was purchased so that the complainant shall get repaired the said bus in the second shift. The complainant was having sufficient workers under him, still he did not carry out necessary repairs of the said bus because of which on 31st August, 1993, there was shortage of S.T. Buses and four drivers and four conductors remained idle because they could not be provided with the buses. It was the habit of the complainant not to do the work in time. Some other vehicles were also not properly repaired. Hence, a show cause notice came to be issued to him. 5. The case of the petitioner is that in fact he had called for the necessary parts which were required to carry out the repairs but they were not received and hence, repairs could not be carried out and to find out the truth of the matter, the “workshop diary ” was material. As far as the 4 wp-9348-03 inquiry is concerned, it is seen that at the time of inquiry the Union representative was present. In his cross-examination the petitioner has admitted that it is true that the departmental inquiry was conducted in respect of the incident which occurred on 30th August, 1993. When the inquiry took place on 21st November, 1994, Union representative was present in the inquiry along with him and since the inception of the inquiry, he and his representative were present till the end of the inquiry. He also admitted that his representative cross-examined the representative of the respondent no.1-M.S.R.T.C. He has admitted that whatever is recorded in the inquiry proceedings bears his signature and this fact is also recorded in the inquiry proceedings. He has further stated that the copies of the said inquiry proceedings were given to him. Inquiry was conducted in Marathi. The petitioner has given one more important admission i.e. he never demanded the requisition diary i.e. the workshop diary while replying to the charge sheet. The main ground taken by the petitioner in relation to the inquiry is that he was not given the copies of the workshop diary. In view of the admission given by the petitioner, it does not appear that he made any demand for the diary at any point of time. According to him, he had made oral demand for the said diary from Mr.Kadam. There is nothing there in writing that he made a demand for requisition of the diary. Though according to him, he had made oral demand for diary with Mr.Kadam 5 wp-9348-03 and yet the diary was not called for, it is admitted that he has not made any complaint against Mr.Kadam for not giving him diary. This shows that the petitioner is stating that he made an oral demand for the diary only as an after thought. 6. As far as the complaint of discrimination is concerned, no material is found on record to substantiate the same. As far as Item No.9 of Schedule IV is concerned, it deals with “failure to implement Award Settlement or Agreement. It is not proved by the petitioner that due to any particular act, the respondent committed a breach of award, settlement and agreement. No evidence is led to that effect. As far as Item No.10 of Schedule IV is concerned, it deals with “to indulge in act of force or violence ”. There is no sufficient evidence to that effect also. The petitioner has not explained how Item No.10 is attracted. 7. From the inquiry papers, it is seen that the petitioner has only been reverted looking to the past record of the petitioner which shows that he has been punished on about 14 occasions. It appears that he was fortunate inasmuch as he was not removed from service. The Industrial Court has rightly held that the inquiry appears to be proper and fair and findings given by the Enquiry Officer do not appear to be perverse. Though promotion was given to the petitioner, he was unable to do work properly on the said promotional post due to his negligence and careless attitude. It is on account of this that he was reverted back to 6 wp-9348-03 the post of Artisan Head. In view of the material on record, it cannot be said that respondent has committed breach of Item Nos.5, 9 or 10 of Schedule IV. All these facts have been considered by the Industrial Court in their right perspective. 8. In view of the above facts, the order dismissing the complaint, does not call for any interference. 9. Rule discharged. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]