168
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 March 2011
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 39/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 25th February 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I. D.No.24/2008, dated 19-11-2010
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute raised by Thiru K. Senthamaraikannan
against the management of M/s. Arupadai Veedu
Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry over
non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the
notification issued in Labour Department’s G. O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab/L, dated 23-5-1991 it is hereby directed
by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
award shall be published in the official gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
G. MALAR KANNAN,
Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY
Present :
Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A. M.L.,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Friday, the 19th day of November 2010
I.D. No. 24/2008
K. Senthamaraikannan,
25, Athiyaman Street, K.K. Nagar,
Vannarapalayam,Cuddalore.
. . Petitioner
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Arupadai Veedu Medical College
and Hospital, Pondicherry. . . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 11-11-2010 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Mrs. R. Sudha Sankar,
advocate for the petitioner, Thiru R. Ilancheliyan and
R. Thilagavathi, advocates for the respondent, upon
hearing both sides, upon perusing the case records,
after having stood over for consideration till this day,
this court passed the following:
AWARD
This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Labour Department, Government of
Pondicherry vide G. O. Rt. No.118/AIL/Lab./J/2008,
dated 4-7-2008 for adjudicating the following :—
(1) Whether th e d i s p u t e r a i s e d b y
Thiru K. Senthamaraikannan against the management
of M/s. Arupadai Veedu Medical College and
Hospital, Puducherry over his non-employment is
justified or not?
(2) To what relief, the petitioner Thiru K. Senthamaraikannan
is entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money if it can be so computed?
2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred
as follows:
The petitioner was the employee under the
respondent institution. On 18-9-2007 the respondent
institution terminated him from service. The respondent
institution framed false charges against him and directed
him to submit the explanation. Without accepting the
explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent
institution conducted the domestic enquiry, which was
not fair and proper. One Vijayaragavan has not given
any complaint against him, as stated by the respondent
and it is one Thillainathan, who used to send letter
containing false allegation, has prepared the alleged
letter with false allegation against him. The Enquiry
Officer has conducted the enquiry in favour of the
management. Further the said Vijayaraghavan has given
in writing to the respondent institution that he has not
given any money to the petitioner as bribe. The
respondent institution has framed false complaint
against the petitioner that he received a sum of ` 8,000
from the patient without any authority or knowledge of
the respondent, but disappeared on the day fixed for
surgery. The Enquiry Officer has not considered the
letter, dated 8-3-2007 given by the petitioner in which he
has stated that he received the amount from one
Vijayaraghavan for security reason. If the respondent
institution enquire the person, who has given
complaint, he would have stated that there is no fault on
the petitioner and one Thillainathan only prepared the
false complaint against him. The enquiry conducted by
the Enquiry Officer is not fair and proper and hence, this
industrial dispute is filed to reinstatement with full back
wages and other attendant benefits.
3. In the counter statement, the respondent has
stated as follows:—
The petitioner was employed as a Lab. Technician in
the respondent institution. On 22-2-2007 when he was
on duty, received a sum of ` 8,000 from one patient
admitted for surgery without any authority and
knowledge of the respondent and upon quarrel and
altercations between the petitioner and the relatives of
the patient within the premises, it was stated that the
petitioner had received a sum of ` 8,000 assuring
169
8 March 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
treatment but disappeared on the day fixed for surgery.
When the matter was enquired, he gave some evasive
reply for receiving the money. Therefore, the
respondent initiated disciplinary proceeding. The
petitioner as such accepted for having received the
money from the patient and however gave hypothetical
and evasive explanations. In his explanation, dated 3-3-2007
he has stated that he had returned ` 4,000 to the mother
of the patient and the balance of ` 4,000 was given as
cheque through an advocate known to him. However,
during the enquiry, he contradicted his statement and
stated that he was keeping the amount in two lockers for
security reasons and paid ` 4,000 initially and ` 4,000
subsequently. Since the petitioner's reply both for
accepting money from the patient and in returning the
money belatedly in installments proved, the real
intention of the petitioner in misusing his position and
receiving the money from the public, who come to the
hospital for treatment. Therefore, based on the finding
in the enquiry, his service was terminated. The
termination of the petitioner is well within the parameter
of law and the punishment imposed against him is in
proportion to the misconduct committed by him. Hence,
he prays for dismissal of the industrial dispute.
4. On the side of the petitioner. PW1 was examined
and no exhibit was marked. On the side of the
respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R10
were marked.
5. The point for determination is :
Whether the petitioner can be considered for
reinstatement in service with back wages?
6. On the point :
The contention of the petitioner is that he has
received a sum of ` 8,000 from one Vijayaraghavan, who
is known to him, for security purpose and the said
amount has been returned to him in two instalments. He
further stated that the said Vijayaraghavan has not
given any complaint against him and it is one
Thillainathan, who prepared the alleged letter with false
allegation against him. He further submitted that without
accepting the explanation given by him to the
respondent, the respondent conducted the domestic
enquiry, which is not fair and proper.
7. On the other hand, the contention of the
respondent is that the petitioner was employed as a Lab.
Technician in the respondent institution. On 22-2-2007
when he was on duty, received a sum of ` 8,000 from
one patient admitted for surgery without any authority
and knowledge of the respondent and upon quarrel and
altercations between the petitioner and the relatives of
the patient within the premises, it was stated that the
petitioner had received a sum of ` 8,000 assuring
treatment but disappeared on the day fixed for surgery.
When the matter was enquired, he gave some evasive
reply for receiving the money. Therefore, the
respondent initiated disciplinary proceeding. The
petitioner as such accepted for having received the
money from the patient and however gave hypothetical
and evasive explanations.
8. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined
himself as PW.1 and no documentary evidence was
marked. On the side of the respondent, no oral evidence
was adduced and Ex. R1 to Ex. R 10 was marked.
9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an
employee in the respondent hospital. The main
contention of the petitioner is that he received a sum of
` 8,000 from one patient by name Vijayaraghavan for
security purpose, whereas the learned counsel for the
respondent would argue that he received a sum of ` 8,000
from the said Vijayaraghavan, who was admitted for
surgery, without any authority and knowledge of the
respondent and upon quarrel and altercation between
the petitioner and the relatives of the said patient within
the premises, it was stated that the petitioner had
received a sum of ` 8,000 assuring treatment and
disappeared on the date fixed for surgery.
10. On the side of the respondent, the letter written
by the said Vijayaraghavan was marked as Ex.R1. In
Ex.R1, the said Vijayaraghavan has stated that the
petitioner demanded a sum of ` 8,000 for medical
expenses and hence he gave ` 5,000 first and on the
next day, he gave ` 3,000 but he disappeared on the
date of surgery. Ex.R2 is the copy of the explanation,
given by the petitioner to the respondent, wherein the
petitioner has stated that he received a sum of ` 8,000
from the said Vijayaraghavan and since the patient
themselves brought surgical materials from their
pharmacy on the date of surgery, he has returned ` 4,000
as cash to the mother of the said Vijayaraghavan and ` 4,000
as cheque to the lawyer, who is known to him well. Not
satisfying the explanation submitted by the petitioner,
the respondent management issued a show cause notice
Ex.R3 as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated
against him, for which the petitioner submitted his
explanation under Ex.R4 stating that he has not received
the said amount of ` 8,000 from the said Vijayaraghavan
as bribe and he received the said amount only for
surgery expenses, as the said Vijayaraghavan is known
to him. He further stated in Ex.R4 that he paid the said
amount to the said Vijayaraghavan. Hence, based on the
complaint given by the said Vijayaraghavan, the
respondent has initiated the disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner under Ex.R6.
11. On perusal of Ex. R6, it is seen that on 8-3-2007
the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and
during the course of enquiry, one Krishnamoorthy and
Neelavani, who were working in the respondent hospital,
170
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 March 2011
were examined as respondent witnesses. Based on the
evidence of the said witnesses, the Enquiry Officer
came to the conclusion that the charges framed against
the petitioner were proved.
12. It is pertinent to note that according to the
respondent, based on the complaint given by
Vijayaraghavan under Ex.R1, the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. But for
the reasons best known to the respondent, the said
Vijayaraghavan or his mother was not examined as
witness in the said enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry
Officer, only based on the evidence of the management
witnesses, who were working in the respondent hospital,
came to the conclusion that the charges framed against
the petitioner were proved, which is not fair and proper.
13. Apart from the above, the said Vijayaraghavan
has sent a letter to the respondent hospital on 8-3-2007
and the copy of the said letter has been submitted by
the petitioner before this court. Though the said letter
has not been marked as exhibit before this court, a
perusal of the said letter would reveal that he has given
a sum of ` 8,000 to the petitioner for safety purpose on
the advise of one Jothi and on the date of surgery, since
the petitioner has not come to the hospital in time, he
asked the petitioner to return the said amount and hence
on 2-3-2007 the petitioner returned a sum of ` 4,000 and
the balance of ` 4,000 has been given to his relative
Jothi on 4-3-2007. In the said letter, Vijayaraghavan has
requested the respondent management not to take any
action against him.
14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
petitioner filed a memo. stating that as per the order of
this court, the petitioner went to Chennai and met one
Baskar, General Manager of the respondent institution
regarding his reinstatement, but the said Baskar refused
to give continuation of service. He further stated in his
memo. that though the learned counsel for the
respondent has given assurance before this court to
settle the matter by providing terminal benefits, the
respondent management has not kept their words as
assured by him before this court.
15. But the learned counsel for the respondent has
endorsed that the respondent was prepared to give
alternative employment without any precondition and
accepted to protect the last wages drawn by the
petitioner and in consideration of his past services, the
respondent was also prepared to pay lump sum of ` 10,000
and the petitioner was advised by the General Manager
to report before Dr. Suseela Rajendiran, Director of
newly set up Medical College at Paiyanoor, however the
petitioner did not report or he was not willing to accept
the offer of the respondent management.
16. This court is handicapped in believing the
version of both parties, since both parties have not filed
any documentary proof to believe their version. Further
as already stated the domestic enquiry conducted by the
Enquiry Officer is not fair and proper, as the complaint
given by Vijayaraghavan against the petitioner, has not
been examined as a witness in the enquiry. The
respondent has also not proved through the evidence
that the petitioner has received a sum of ` 8,000 from
the said Vijayaraghavan as bribe. Hence, this court is no
other option than to grant the relief of the petitioner
i.e. reinstatement with continuity of service. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner is not entitled to get the back wages.
Accordingly, this point is answered.
17. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the respondent is hereby directed to
reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service
without back wages. However, there is no order as to
costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court on this the 19th day of November 2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
————
List of witnesses examined by the petitioner :
P.W.1 —
5-7-2010 - Senthamaraikannan
List of witnesses examined for the respondent : Nil
List of exhibits marked by the petitioner : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the respondent :
Ex. R1 —
Copy of the letter, dated 2-3-2007
written by Vijayaraghavan.
Ex. R2 —
Copy of the letter, dated 3-3-2007 sent
by the petitioner to respondent.
Ex. R3 —
Show cause notice, dated 5-3-2007
issued by the respondent.
Ex. R4 —
Copy of the explanation submitted by
the petitioner.
Ex. R5 —
C o p y o f t h e s u s p e n s i o n o r d e r,
dated 8-3-2007.
Ex. R6 —
C o p y t h e e n q u i r y p r o c e e d i n g ,
dated 24-3-2007.
Ex. R7 —
Co p y o f t h e e n q u i r y r e p o r t ,
d a t e d 3-7-2007.
Ex.R8 —
Copy of the show cause notice,
dated 11-7-2007.
171
8 March 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex. R9 —
Copy of the letter, dated 15-7-2007 sent
by the petitioner.
Ex. R 10 — Copy of the termination order,
dated 18-9-2007 to the petitioner.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 40/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 25th February 2010)
NOTIFICATION
W h e r e a s , t h e Aw a r d i n I . D. N o . 2 1 / 2 0 0 5 ,
dated 21-10-2010 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute raised by 95 workers
represented by their President, All India Central Council
of Trade Unions (AICCTU), Puducherry that the Labour
Contract of Thiruvalargal M. Mani and K. Kumar in the
management of M/s. ACE Glass Containers Limited,
Puduchery is sham has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the
notification issued in Labour Department’s G. O.
Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby
directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the
said award shall be published in the official gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
G. MALAR KANNAN,
Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Dated, the 21st day of October 2010
I.D. No. 21/2005
The President /Secretary,
All India Central Council of Trade
Unions (AICCTU),
No. 471, Bharathi Street,
Pondicherry-1.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
ACE Glass Containers Limited,
Thondamanatham,
Pondicherry.
. . Respondent
This case coming on this day for hearing before me,
in the presence of Thiru P. Sankaran, counsel for the
petitioner and Thiru K. Babu, counsel for the
respondent and upon perusing the case records, this
court made the following:
ORDER
This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government under section 10(1) (c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act in G. O. Rt. No. 92/2005/Lab./AIL/J,
dated 20-6-2005. The Government made the following
reference:
(a) Whether the claim of the 95 workers
represented by their President, All India Central
Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU), Pondicherry that
the Labour Contract of Thiruvalargal M. Mani and
K. Kumar in the establishment of M/s. ACE Glass
Containers Limited, is sham, is correct? If so, give
appropriate directions.
2. Today (21-10-2010), the case was called.
Respondent counsel present. Petitioners called absent.
Hence this petition is dismissed for default. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 21st day of October 2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT
No. 266/Tr.Sectt./2011.
Puducherry, the 10th February 2011.
ORDER
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in the
Government of India has decided to implement the
project of providing Smart Card based Driving Licences
and Registration Certificates.
2. In order to develop the Smart Card based
technology usage in Motor Vehicle Department, the
Government of India has entered into a MoU with
National Informatics Centre, New Delhi. While using the
Smart Card based technology it requires security
measures and authentication of information stored in the