Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Next, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition made, in particular in para 9, indicated that the duties of Traffic Inspector, Grade II involve technical, manual and skilled duties of artisan and they are not supervisory in nature including the duties of attending to accidents, taking sketch of the accident and submitting a report to the authorities to that effect. According to the learned counsel these functions involve technical and skill and they can be discharged only by a trained person. The further duty of the Traffic Inspector i.e. checking tickets punched by the conductor and verifying the S.R. also is a skilled or at any rate manual job and therefore he comes under the definition of 'artisan' and therefore falls within the definition of 'workman'. The learned counsel also contended that there is a bald denial in para 5 of the counter and not any specific denial of averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit. This submission is not tenable in my opinion. The duties of Traffic Inspectors are all stated in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Operation Manual and I shall go by the said duties and not by the averments made either in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition or in the counter affidavit. In para 5 of the counter, it was mentioned on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that an artisan is otherwise called a 'mechanic' and he should necessarily have some technical knowledge in handling machines and that the posts of Controllers and Traffic Inspectors did carry technical or manual and skilled duties. In view of what is stated above by me while referring to the duties of the Traffic Inspectors as mentioned in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Staff Services Manual, the petitioner is not an artisan and, therefore, will not satisfy the definition of "workman" mentioned in Explanation-I (ix) to Section 3 of the Act.