272
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2011
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 88/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 15th April 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. No.36/2007, dated 21-12-2010
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Unicorn (Bangalore) Private Limited, Puducherry
and Thiru P. Raguraman 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 )
N. APPA RAO,
Under 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.
Tuesday, the 21st day of December 2010
I. D. No. 36/2007
P. Raguraman
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Partner,
Unicorn (Bangalore) Private Limited,
Mettupalayam, Pondicherry.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 20-12-2010 for
final hearing before me in the presence of
Thiru R.S. Zivanandam, advocate for the petitioner
a n d T h i r u v a l a rg a l K . V. Shanmuganathan and
L. Vivekananthan and Mrs. V. Vaijayanthimala,
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.155/2007/Lab./J, dated
14-11-2007 for adjudicating the following:—
1 . W h e t h e r t h e n o n - e m p l o y m e n t o f
T h i r u P. Raguraman by the management of
M/s.Unicorn(Bangalore)Private Limited, Pondicherry
is justified or not?
2. To what relief, he 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 an employee as Machine
Operator from 1-8-1999. The workers formed a trade
union. Therefore the management did not allow the
entire work force to work exactly 60 members from
February 2004 and hence the union raised industrial
disputes with the management and also before the
L a b o u r O f f i c e r ( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) . B e f o r e t h e
Labour Officer (Conciliation), the management did not
heed the request of the petitioner. Therefore, an
Industrial Dispute has been referred to the court.
In the reference, the name of the petitioner has been
left out and hence he raised a separate dispute on 6-2-2008,
wherein which the management alleged that the
petitioner has done a serious misconduct of habitual
absence without leave. The reply made by the
management 29-5-2006 admitting the petitioner's
capacity and denying the culpabilities of the
management in not allowing the workers to work after
starting the trade union. Therefore, the management
wants to remove the petitioner from the rolls of the
company. Since the petitioner has involved in the
union activities, he was dismissed from service
without conducting any domestic enquiry and
therefore it has violated the principle of natural
justice. Hence, this industrial dispute is filed.
3. In the counter statement, the respondent has
stated as follows :
The petitioner was appointed as Trainee in the
respondent company on 1-8-1999 and during the
year 2001, the management of the respondent
company was taken over by the present management.
The petitioner was on probation when the present
management took over the respondent company. The
petitioner was irregular in reporting for duty. He was
given several warnings in that regard. He had
absented himself without sanction of leave in
unauthorised manner for 69 days in 2002 and 34 days
in 2003. In this regard, a memo. was issued to him
273
3 May 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
on 20-1-2004 seeking his explanation. He had duly
received the same. However he did not choose to
give any reply. He had worked only for 3½ days in
January 2004. In this regard, a notice was issued to
the petitioner on 3-2-2004 and even thereafter he did
not report for work. However, the management did
not precipitate any action against him. The petitioner
did not make any representation to the respondent
seeking for reinstatement immediate after the so
called termination during February 2004. The
petitioner has raised the present dispute only to make
wrongful gain from the management. Hence, they
pray for dismissal of the industrial dispute.
4. On the side of the petitioner. PW.1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. On the side of the
respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R8
were marked.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the petitioner can be considered for
reinstatement in service with back wages and other
benefits?
6. On the point:
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an
employee in the respondent company. The main
contention of the petitioner is that he was an Executive
Committee member in the Union of the Industrial Estate
Workers functioning in the respondent company and
since he was involved in the union activities, he along
with some other workers were denied employment and
subsequently he was dismissed from service without
holding any domestic enquiry. In order to prove the
same, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and PW.1 in
his evidence has deposed the said version and through
him. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that the petitioner had absented himself without
sanction of leave in unauthorised manner for 69 days
in 2002 and 34 days in 2003 and in this regard, a memo.
was issued to him on 20-1-2004 seeking his explanation.
He had duly received the same. However he did not
choose to give any reply. He had worked only for 3½
days in January 2004. In this regard, a notice was issued
to the petitioner on 3-2-2004 and even thereafter he did
not report for work.
8. In order to prove the contention of the
respondent, Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 were marked. Ex.R1 is the
copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the
Conciliation Officer wherein the petitioner requested the
Conciliation Officer to advise the respondent to
reinstate him in service. Ex.R2 is a letter, dated
15-4-1996 wherein the petitioner has given undertaking
not to take leave from 15-4-1996 to 30-4-1996. Ex.R3 is the
copy of the memo., dated 25-8-1999 issued to the
petitioner for the unauthorised absent on 23-8-1999
and 24-8-1999. Ex.R4 is the letter, dated 14-12-2002
issued to the petitioner informing about his absent for
63 days in the year 2002 and they warned him that if
such act will continue, his future benefits will be
cancelled. According to the respondent, Ex.R4 could not
be served to the petitioner, since he refused to receive
the same. Ex.R5 is the copy of the memo., dated 17-4-2003
issued to the petitioner informing the particulars of
leave taken by him. Ex.R6 is the copy of the memo., dated
20-1-2004 seeking his explanation for his absence of 69
days in 2002 and 34 days in 2003. Ex.R7 is the copy of
the memo issued to the petitioner pointing out that the
petitioner had absented from work on 11-1-2004 and
13-1-2004 without any permission or prior approval but
entered into ESI sick leave again and that he had
attended work only for 3 ½ days in January 2004 and
advised him to submit himself to the medical
examination by a Medical Practitioner of the company
choice. Ex.R8 is the copy of the letter sent to the
petitioner advising him to remove his name from the
muster roll. During the cross-examination, RW.1 has
denied the suggestion that Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 have been
created for the purpose of this case.
9. According to the petitioner, since they were
started a labour union and he along with some other
workers were the members in the said union, he was
denied employment from 22-2-2004. But during the cross-
examination, the petitioner has admitted that he was
dismissed by the respondent management. He also
admitted that he had absented from work for 34 days
during the period from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2003 on various
dates without any permission or prior approval. Since
the petitioner himself has admitted that he had absented
for duty without any permission, this court has comes
to the conclusion that the respondent has proved the
misconduct of the absenteeism by the petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the order of dismissal was given without
holding any domestic enquiry or issuing show cause
notice is against the natural justice.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent would submit in spite of several notices
given to the petitioner, he has not come forward to
cooperate with them to conduct the domestic enquiry.
12. On perusal of records, it is seen that the
respondent has not conducted any domestic enquiry for
the misconducts of the petitioner, as alleged by the
respondent. In this case, though the petitioner has
admitted about his absent for duty, he has stated that
the respondent management has insisted to come out
from the labour union and since the respondent
management has acted against the labour legislations,
he did not go for work.
274
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2011
13. The respondent being an employer, has to
safeguard the interest of their employees. When the
petitioner has committed misconducts of unauthorised
absent, they have to conduct the domestic enquiry and
in the enquiry, opportunity has to be given to the
petitioner to peruse the records and cross-examine the
management witnesses and after complying all the
formalities only, they have to take action against him.
In this case, the respondent, without conducting the
domestic enquiry, has taking action against the
petitioner directly by dismissing him from service. When
the petitioner was working in the respondent company
for more than five years without any interruption, it was
necessary to have given opportunity to the petitioner
before terminating him from service. Neither no such
opportunity was given to the petitioner, nor principles
of natural justice have been complied with. Therefore,
the termination of service of the petitioner was bad in
law. When the petitioner is not of a habitual absentee,
the
punishment
imposed
by
the
respondent
management is disproportionate. In this regard, it is
pertinent to refer the decision, which is relevant to this
case:—
2009 (III) LLJ 373 (SC) :
“When the Court and Tribunals are satisfied
that the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary
authority
is
shockingly
disproportionate, the decision of the disciplinary
authority can be interfered. Therefore, when the
delinquent employee is not of a habitual absentee
and seems to have a good track record, and also
the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence
is not of gross violation of discipline, the major
punishment of dismissal can be interfered”.
In this case, the respondent has not raised any
serious misconduct against the petitioner prior to
misconduct of unauthorised absence. Hence, the
misconduct that is alleged would definitely amount to
violation of discipline that is expected of an employee
to maintain in the establishment, but may not fit into
the category of gross violation of discipline. Hence,
this court comes to a conclusion that the non-
employment of the petitioner from service is not justified
and hence he has to be reinstated into service. But
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner is not entitled for continuity of service and
back wages. Accordingly, this point is answered.
14. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the respondent management is hereby
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.
However, he is not entitled for continuity of service and
back wages. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 21st day of
December 2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Pondicherry.
————
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner :
PW.1 — 18-3-2010 — Raguraman
List of witnesses examined for the respondent :
RW.1 — 23-9-2010 — P. Gnanagurupatham
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
Ex.P1 — Copy of the letter, dated 6-2-2006 sent to
the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter, dated 29-5-2006 sent to
the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the failure report, dated 14-8-2007
Ex.P4 — Copy of the notification, dated 14-11-2007
List of exhibits marked for the respondent :
Ex.R1—
Copy of the letter, dated 6-2-2006 sent by
the petitioner to the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.R2 — Letter, dated 15-4-1996 sent by the
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R3 — Copy of the letter, dated 25-8-1999 sent by
the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R4 — Copy of the letter, dated 14-12-2002 sent by
the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R5 — Copy of the letter, dated 17-4-2003 sent by
the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R6 — Copy of the letter, dated 20-1-2004 sent by
the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R7 — Copy of the letter, dated 24-1-2004 sent by
the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R8 — Copy of the letter, dated 3-2-2004 sent by
the respondent to the petitioner.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Pondicherry.
275
3 May 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 89/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 15th April 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.No. 34/2007, dated 21-12-2010 of
the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Unicorn (Bangalore) Private Limited, Puducherry
and Thiru D. Mohan 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)
N. APPA RAO,
Under 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.
Tuesday, the 21st day of December 2010
I. D. No. 34/2007
D. Mohan,
22, Nellumandi Street,
Muthirapalayam,
Pondicherry-605 009
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Partner,
Unicorn (Bangalore)
Private Limited,
Mettupalayam, Pondicherry . .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 20-12-2010 for
final hearing before me in the presence of
Thiru R.S. Zivanandam, advocate for the petitioner
and Tvl. K.V. Shanmuganathan and L. Vivekananthan
and Mrs. V. Vaijayanthimala, 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.153/2007/Lab./AIL/J, dated
12-11-2007 for adjudicating the following:-
1. Whether the non-employment of Thiru D. Mohan by
the management of M/s. Unicorn (Bangalore) Private
Limited, Pondicherry is justified or not?
2. To what relief, he 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 an employee as Machine
Operator from 21-6-1999. The workers formed a trade
union. Therefore the management did not allow the
entire work force to work exactly 60 members from
February 2004 and hence the union raised industrial
disputes with the management and also before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation). Before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), the management did not heed
the request of the petitioner. Therefore, an industrial
dispute has been referred to the court. In the
reference, the name of the petitioner has been left
out and hence he raised a separate dispute on 27-11-2006,
wherein which the management alleged that the
petitioner has done a serious misconduct of habitual
absence without leave. The reply made by the
management undated admitting the petitioner's
capacity and denying the culpabilities of the
management in not allowing the workers to work after
starting the trade union. Therefore, the management
wants to remove the petitioner from the rolls of the
company. Since the petitioner has involved in the
union activities, he was dismissed from service
without conducting any domestic enquiry and
therefore it has violated the principle of natural
justice. Hence, this industrial dispute is filed.
3. In the counter statement, the respondent has
stated as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as trainee in the
respondent company on 21-6-1999 and during the
year 2001, the management of the respondent
company was taken over by the present management.
The petitioner was on probation when the present
management took over the respondent company.
The petitioner used to absent unauthorised. In fact
he was found sleeping while on duty in the third shift
on 5-12-2003. He was caught red handed, however,
he was let off with warning.
276
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2011
While the petitioner was on probation, he did not
evince any interest in his work. In fact he had
tendered resignation on 9-12-2003. Subsequent he
came back to work on 10-1-2004. Later he had
abstained from work with effect from 7-2-2004. He did
not apply for leave. The petitioner was only a
probationer and he had no lien on any post. The
petitioner did not make any representation to the
respondent seeking for reinstatement immediate after
the so called termination on 9-2-2004. The petitioner
has raised the present dispute only to make wrongful
gain from the management. Hence, they pray for
dismisal of the industrial dispute.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. On the side of the
respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5
were marked.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the petitioner can be considered for
reinstatement in service with back wages and other
benefits?
6. On the point:
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an
employee in the respondent company. The main
contention of the petitioner is that he was an Executive
Committee member in the Union of the Industrial Estate
Workers functioning in the respondent company and
since he was involved in the union activities, he along
with some other workers were denied employment and
subsequently he was dismissed from service without
holding any domestic enquiry. In order to prove the
same, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and PW.1 in
his evidence has deposed the said version and Ex.P1
to Ex.P4 were marked.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that he was on probation when the present management
took over the respondent company and he used to
absent unauthorised and in fact he was found sleeping
while on duty in the third shift on 5-12-2003. In order
to prove the same, the Manager of the respondent
company was examined as RW.1, who has stated the
said facts and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked.
8.
Heard both sides. Perused the case records. The
main allegation of the respondent against the
respondent is that he used to absent unauthorisedly.
But he has not produced any document to show that
he was irregular in reporting the duty. If the contention
of the respondent is true, they would have issued memo.
to the petitioner and taken action against him. But no
such memo. has been filed by the respondent to prove
the said contention. RW.1 in his evidence has also
admitted that he did not send any show cause notice
for the unauthorised absent of the petitioner. The
relevant portion of his evidence runs as follows:-
“\–>V´Ï √ˬz ÿ>V¶ÏÕm k´V>]™V_ *ı|D
∂§s©A ÔΩ>D ÿÔV|›º>V\V ®[≈V_ ÿÔV|¬Ôs_ÁÈ.”
Hence, the respondent has failed to prove that the
petitioner was absent unauthorisedly.
9. According to the respondent, the petitioner was
found sleeping while on duty in the third shift on
5-12-2003. In order to prove his contention, the
respondent has marked a show cause notice issued to
the petitioner as Ex.R4. In Ex.R4 it has been mentioned
that the petitioner was found sleeping on 6-12-2003
at 4.35 a.m. while he was on duty and the same was
noticed by one P. Manimaran, who was a Shift In-charge.
Ex.R5 is the apology letter submitted by the petitioner
to the respondent management, wherein the petitioner
has admitted that he was sleeping while he was on duty
on 6-12-2003 and executed the management for the said
misconduct. Though the respondent has proved that the
petitioner was sleeping while he was on duty on 6-12-2003,
since the respondent himself has admitted that the
petitioner was let off with warning, much importance
cannot be given to Ex.R4 and Ex.R5.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent would
further submit that while the petitioner was on
probation, he did not evince any interest in his work
and in fact, he had tendered his resignation on
9-12-2003 and subsequently he came back to work on
10-1-2004. The respondent has marked the resignation
letter submitted by the petitioner to the respondent
as Ex.R2, which would confirm the said fact. On the side
of the respondent, the letter, dated 10-1-2004 submitted
by the petitioner to the respondent was marked as Ex.R3,
wherein the petitioner has requested the respondent
management to admit him in service and the respondent
management has considered the request of the petitioner
as a special case and admitted him in service. Hence,
much weightage can also be given to Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the order of dismissal was given without
holding any domestic enquiry or issuing show cause
notice which is against the natural justice.
12. On perusal of records, it is seen that the
respondent has not conducted any domestic enquiry for
the misconducts of the petitioner, as alleged by the
respondent and it is evident that on verbal instruction
given by the respondent, the petitioner was dismissed
from service.
13. The respondent being an employer, has to
safeguard the interest of their employees. When the
petitioner was continuously absent without getting any
prior sanction or sleeping while he was on duty, the
respondent has to conduct the domestic enquiry and
in the enquiry, opportunity has to be given to the
277
3 May 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
petitioner to peruse the records and cross-examine the
management witnesses and after complying all the
formalities only, they have to take action against him.
In this case, no domestic enquiry was conducted by the
respondent and they dismissed the service of the
petitioner on verbal instruction. When the petitioner
was working in the respondent company for more than
five years without any interruption, it was necessary
to have given opportunity to the petitioner before
terminating him from service. Neither no such
opportunity was given to the petitioner, nor principles
of natural justice have been complied with. Therefore,
the termination of service of the petitioner was bad in
law. When the petitioner is not of a habitual absentee,
the
punishment
imposed
by
the
respondent
management is disproportionate. In this regard, it is
pertinent to refer the decision, which is relevant to this
case:-
2009 (III) LLJ 373 (SC)
"When the Court and Tribunals are satisfied
that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority is shockingly disproportionate, the decision
of the disciplinary authority can be interfered.
Therefore, when the delinquent employee is not of a
habitual absentee and seems to have a good track
record, and also the alleged misconduct of
unauthorised absence is not of gross violation of
discipline, the major punishment of dismissal can be
interfered".
In this case, the respondent has not raised any
serious misconduct against the petitioner prior to
misconduct of sleeping while he was on duty. Hence,
the misconduct that is alleged would definitely amounts
to violation of discipline that is expected of an
employee to maintain in the establishment, but may not
fit into the category of gross violation of discipline.
Hence, this court comes to a conclusion that the non-
employment of the petitioner from service is not justified
and hence he has to be reinstated into service. But
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner is not entitled for continuity of service and
back wages. Accordingly, this point is answered.
14. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the respondent management is hereby
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.
However, he is not entitled for continuity of service and
back wages. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 21st day of
December 2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner :
PW.1—25-3-2010— D. Mohan
List of witnesses examined for the respondent :
RW.1—16-9-2010— P. Gnanagurupatham
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
Ex.P1 — Copy of the letter, dated 27-11-2006 sent to
the Conciliation Officer by the petitioner.
Ex.P2 — Letter, dated nil sent by the respondent to
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the letter,
dated 8-8-2007 sent to
Secretary to Government.
Ex.P4 — Copy of the notification, dated 12-11-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent :
Ex.R1 — Copy of the letter, dated 1-6-2006 sent by
the petitioner.
Ex.R2 — Letter, dated 9-12-2003 sent by the
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R3 — Letter, dated 10-1-2004 sent by the
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R4 — Copy of the letter, dated 6-12-2003 sent to
the petitioner.
Ex.R5—
Letter, dated nil sent by the petitioner to
the respondent.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 90/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 15th April 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. No. l2/2008, dated 17-12-2010
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Ajantha Cycle Parts Industry, Puducherry and
Thiru K. Parthasarathi 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 the Secretary to Government (Labour) that
the said Award shall be published in the official gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order )
N. APPA RAO,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
278
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2011
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY
Present :
Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Friday, the 17th day of December 2010
I. D. No. 12/2008
Thiru K. Parthasarathi,
36-A, Indira Gandhi Street,
Israel Nagar, Pondicherry.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Partner,
Ajantha Cycle Parts Industry,
Thattanchavady, Pondicherry.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 13-12-2010 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru P. Sankaran,
advocate for the petitioner and Thiru C. Jagadeesan,
advocate 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. 90/2008/AIL/Lab./J,
dated 2-6-2008 for adjudicating the following :
(1) Whether t h e d i s p u t e r a i s e d b y
Thiru K. Parthasarathi against the management
of M/s. Ajantha Cycle Parts Industries, Pondicherry
over his non-employment is justified or not?
(2) To what relief, he 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 working as Shaping Man from
December 1990 in the respondent company to the
utmost satisfaction of the company. From 6-10-2005
he went on leave and when he reported for duty
on 31-10-2005, the respondent company refused to give
the employment. The respondent management,
without conducting any domestic enquiry, have
dismissed him from service, which is against the
labour law. The petitioner was working for fifteen
years in the respondent company and since the
union was started, they took revenge against him.
Hence, this industrial dispute is filed for
reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages
and other benefits.
3. In the counter statement, the respondent has
stated as follows :
The petitioner was absent for duty from 3-10-2005
onwards without applying any leave or prior
intimation. Hence on 25-10-2005 the respondent sent
a letter advising the petitioner to join duty on or before
31-10-2005. The petitioner received the said notice
and failed to join duty and continued to be absent.
Again on 2-12-2005 the respondent sent a letter
informing him to join duty on or before 8-12-2005.
But the said letter was returned with an endorsement
“Refused”. On 15-12-2006 the respondent sent a letter
to the petitioner to join duty within 10 days from the
date of receipt of the letter. But the said letter
returned with an endorsement “Not claimed”.
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief
under any circumstances for his unauthorised
absence and voluntarily withdrew from his
employment, even after repeated reminders sent to him.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the industrial dispute.
4. No oral evidence was adduced on either side and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked on the side of the petitioner
and Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 were marked on the side of the
respondent.
5. The point for determination is :
Whether the petitioner can be considered for
reinstatement in service with back wages and other
benefits?
6. On the point:
The contention of the petitioner is that he was
working as Shaping Man from December 1990 in the
respondent company to the utmost satisfaction of the
company. From 6-10-2005 he went on leave and when he
reported for duty on 31-10-2005, the respondent
c o m p a n y r e f u s e d t o g i v e t h e e m p l o y m ent.
The respondent management, without conducting any
domestic enquiry, have dismissed him from service,
which is against the labour law. He was working for
fifteen years in the respondent company and since the
union was started, they took revenge against him.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that petitioner was absent for duty from 3-10-2005
onwards without applying any leave or prior
intimation. Hence on 25-10-2005 the respondent sent a
letter advising the petitioner to join duty on or
before 31-10-2005. The petitioner received the said
notice and failed to join duty and continued to be absent.
Again on 2-12-2005 the respondent sent a letter
informing him to join duty on or before 8-12-2005.
But the said letter was returned with an endorsement
“Refused”. On 15-12-2006 the respondent sent a letter
to the petitioner to join duty within 10 days from the date
of receipt of the letter. But the said letter returned with an
279
3 May 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
endorsement “Not claimed”. Hence, the petitioner is not
entitled for any relief under any circumstances for his
unauthorised absence and voluntarily withdrew from his
employment, even after repeated reminders sent to him.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an
employee in the respondent company. The main
contention of the petitioner is that he went on leave from
6-10-2005 and when he reported for duty on 31-10-2005,
he was refused to work by the respondent company.
On the other hand, the respondent would submit that
the petitioner was absent from duty from 3-10-2005
without applying any leave or prior intimation.
9. On perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner
has not produced any documentary evidence to show
that he went on leave after getting prior permission from
the respondent management. The petitioner is an
employee under the respondent company and it is for
him to get prior sanction from his employer and then to
proceed on leave that too when he proceeded on long
leave. In this case, the respondent has not sanctioned
any leave to the petitioner.
10. According to the respondent, since the
petitioner was absent for duty from 3-10-2005 onwards
without applying any leave or prior intimation, on 25-10-2005
they sent a letter advising him to join duty on or before
31-10-2005 and he received the said notice but he
continued to be absent. In order to prove his
contention, the respondent has marked the letter Ex. R1,
dated 25-10-2005 wherein the respondent has informed
the petitioner that he has to join duty on or before 31-10-2005
otherwise his name will be deleted from the company
records. Ex. R3 is another letter dated 2-12-2005 sent to
the petitioner by the respondent wherein they informed
that since the petitioner has not joined duty, he has to
give explanation for the same on or before 8-12-2005 and
if he failed to submit the explanation, it will be construed
that he abandoned his services. Ex. R1 letter has been
received by the petitioner under acknowledgment
card Ex.R2. Ex.R3 has been returned with an endorsement
“Refused” which has been marked as Ex. R4. Ex. R5
is another letter sent by the respondent to the petitioner
asking for explanation for continuous absent and the
said letter was also returned with endorsement
“Not claimed”, which has been marked as Ex.P6. From
the documents filed on the side of the respondent, it is
seen that in spite of several opportunities given by the
respondent, the petitioner has not given any explanation
for his continuous absent and hence this court comes
to the conclusion that the petitioner has unauthorisedly
absent and he went on leave without obtaining prior
permission from the respondent management. Though
on the side of the petitioner, Ex. P1 to Ex. P6 were
marked, the said documents are not in any way helpful
to his case.
11. The contention of the petitioner is that without
giving opportunity to him and without conducting any
domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service by the
respondent, which is against labour legislations.
12. On perusal of records, it is seen that the
respondent has not conducted any domestic enquiry for
the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. In this case,
since the petitioner was absent from 3-10-2005, the
respondent sent a letter Ex.R1 informing the petitioner
to joint duty on or before 31-10-2005 and since the
petitioner has not joined duty, another two letters
have been sent to him to give explanation for his
unauthorised absence and since there is no response
from the petitioner, he was dismissed from service vide
letter, dated 28-2-2006 Ex. R7.
13. The respondent being an employer, has to
safeguard the interest of their employees. When the
petitioner is continuously absent without getting any
prior sanction, he has to conduct the domestic enquiry
and in the enquiry, opportunity has to be given to the
petitioner to peruse the records and cross-examine the
management witnesses and after complying all the
formalities only, they have to take action against him.
In this case, the respondent has not conducted any
domestic enquiry and has violated the principles of
natural justice. When the petitioner is not of a habitual
absentee, the punishment imposed by the respondent
management is disproportionate. In this regard, it is
pertinent to refer the decision, which is relevant to this
case:
2009 (III) LLJ 373 (SC) Jagdish Singh Vs.
Punjab Enginering College and Others :-
“When the Court and Tribunals are satisfied
that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority is shockingly disproportionate, the
decision of the disciplinary authority can be
interfered. Therefore, when the delinquent employee
is not of a habitual absentee and seems to have a
good track record, and also the alleged misconduct of
unauthorised absence is not of gross violation of
discipline, the major punishment of dismissal can be
interfered”
In this case, the respondent has not raised any
serious misconduct prior to the present absenteeism.
Hence, the misconduct that is alleged would definitely
amounts to violation of discipline that is expected of an
employee to maintain in the establishment, but may not
fit into the category of gross violation of discipline.
Hence, this court comes to a conclusion that the non-
employment of the petitioner from service is not
justified. But at the same time the available records
would clearly prove that the petitioner was proceeding
on leave without getting prior permission from the
280
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2011
respondent. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity of service but
not entitled for back wages. Accordingly, this point
is answered.
14. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement
with continuity of service. However, he is not entitled
for back wages and other benefits. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 17th day of December 2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
————
List of witnesses examined for the petitoner: Nil
List of witnesses examined for the respondent : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:
Ex. P1 — Letter, dated 25-10-2005 sent to the
petitioner.
Ex. P2 — Copy of the letter, dated 23-2-2006 sent to
the respondent by petitioner.
Ex. P3 — Letter, dated 28-2-2006 sent to the petitioner
Ex. P4 — Copy of the letter, dated 24-5-2006 sent to the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex. P5 — Copy of the letter, dated 19-9-2006
Ex. P6 — Letter, dated 25-1-2008 sent to the Secretary
to Government (Labour).
List of exhibits marked for the respondent:
Ex. R1 — Copy of the letter, dated 25-10-2005 sent to
the petitioner.
Ex. R2 — Acknowledgment card
Ex. R3 — Copy of the letter, dated 2-12-2005 sent to the
petitioner.
Ex. R4 — Returned postal cover
Ex. R5 — Copy of the letter, dated 15-12-2005 sent to
the petitioner.
Ex. R6 — Returned postal cover
Ex. R7 — Letter, dated 28-2-2006 sent to the petitioner
Ex. R8 — Acknowledgment card.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 91/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 15th April 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.No.9/2008, dated 20-12-2010
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills over correction of date of birth
of Thiru D. Arumugam 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 )
N. APPA RAO,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY
Present: Thiru T. MOHANDASS. M.A, B.L.,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Monday, the 20th day of December 2010
I.D. No. 9/2008
The President,
Pudhuvai Mill Thozhilalar Sangam,
Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry . . Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Sri Bharathi Mills,
Pondicherry. . . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 14-12-2010 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru Durai
Arumugam, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. V. Usha,
advocate 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:
281
3 May 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
AWARD
This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Labour Department, Government of
Pondicherry vide G.O. Rt. No.78/AIL/Lab./J/2008, dated
9-4-2008 for adjudicating the following:-
(1) Whether the dispute raised by Puduvai Mill
Thozhilalar Sangam seeking correction of date of
birth of D. Arumugam as 15-1-1953 instead of
20-3-1950 based on the Birth Certificate issued by the
Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry against the
management of M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills, Puducherry
is justified or not.
(2) To what remedy, the petitioner is entitled to?
2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred
as follows:
The workman D. Arumugam was a member in the
petitioner union and he was working in the
respondent mill for the past 37 years. Based on the
Transfer Certificate given by the petitioner to the
respondent, his date of birth is mentioned as
20-3-1950 in the Attendance Register, Provident Fund
Records and other records maintained by the
respondent mill. Actually his date of birth mentioned
in the Transfer Certificate is wrong and his actual
date of birth is 15-1-1953. After computerised all the
records in the respondent mill, he came to know the
said fact. He also found that his father's name is also
wrongly mentioned in the records maintained by the
respondent mill. Hence, he submitted a letter,
dated
13-3-1986
requesting
the
respondent
management to correct his date of birth and his
father's name. But the respondent mill has not taken
any steps to correct the same. The said employee
submitted a letter on 13-3-1986 and after continuous
persuasion, the management vide its letter, dated
22-4-1987 demanded a court order to the effect of
changing the date of birth and father's name of the
employee. Again the petitioner has submitted a letter,
dated 18-3-1992 requesting to rectify the said
mistake, but the respondent mill has corrected only
his father's name. Hence, this industrial dispute is
filed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner
as 15-1-1953 instead of 20-3-1950 in the records
maintained by the respondent mill. Since he went on
superannuation, he also prays this court to reinstate
him with effect from 20-3-2010.
3. In the counter statement, the respondent has
stated as follows :
I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e b y n a m e
D. Arumugam is working for the past 37 years in the
Roving Department of the respondent mills. He
denied that the said workman came to know that his
date of birth was entered as 20-3-1950 instead of
15-1-1953 only during 1986. If the contention of the
employee is to be considered true, he would not have
given the nomination and declaration form (Form
No.2) under the Family Pension Scheme
(Provident Fund) on 20-4-1998 in which he has
mentioned that his date of birth is 20-3-1950.
The respondent management made change in the
name of the employee’s father as Daruman after
verifying many records such as the employee’s
school certificate, voter’s identity card, ration card
etc., wherein the details regarding the date of birth
of the said employee was not available and hence the
correction was done with regard to his father's name
and not to his date of birth. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the industrial dispute.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked and on the side of the
respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to
Ex.R4 were marked.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On the point:
This case was posted for argument of respondent
side from 25-11-2010 for seven hearings. But neither the
respondent nor his counsel has appeared before this
court to argue the matter. Finally this case was posted
today for argument of respondent side. Today also the
respondent or his counsel has not appeared before this
court. Hence, this court feels that there is no use to
adjourn this case further unnecessarily.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that his date
of birth is wrongly mentioned as 20-3-1950 instead of
15-1-1953 in the records maintained by the respondent
mill and hence he prays this court to correct the same
in the said records.
8. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that in the nomination and declaration form, the
petitioner has mentioned his date of birth as 20-3-1950
and without obtaining any order from the competent
court, the date of birth cannot be corrected.
9. On the side of the petitioner, his birth certificate
was marked as Ex.P1. A perusal of Ex.P1 would show
that the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as
17-1-1953. Ex.P1 is not challenged by the respondent.
Hence, the petitioner has proved that his date of birth
is 17-1-1953.
10. According to the petitioner, the date of birth of
the workman Arumugam is wrongly mentioned
as 20-3-1950 instead of 17-1-1953 and his father's name
was also wrongly mentioned and when he requested the
respondent mill to correct the same, he was advised to
get the court order, but subsequently his father’s name
has been corrected, but refused to correct his date of
birth.
282
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2011
11. The contention of the respondent is that the
management of the mill made change in the name of the
employee’s father as Dharuman after verifying many
records such as the employee's school certificate, voter’s
identity card, ration card etc., wherein the details
regarding the date of birth of the said employee was
not available and hence the correction was done with
regard to his father's name and not to his date of birth.
12. But as already stated, the petitioner has produced
the date of birth of the said employee Ex.P1 in which
his date of birth is mentioned as 15-1-1953. Ex.P1 is an
authenticated public document, which has been issued
by the Registrar, Pondicherry Municipality. According
to the petitioner, after producing the said document
before the respondent mill and requesting for correction
of the date of birth, the respondent refused to correct
the same and demanded for court order. As per the
Evidence Act, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove
that his date of birth is 15-1-1953. In order to prove the
said fact, the petitioner has filed his birth
certificate Ex.P1 issued by the Pondicherry
Municipality, who is a competent authority to issue the
birth certificate. Ex.P1 was relied on by the petitioner
as primary evidence for his case. It is relevant to
mention section 35 of Indian Evidence Act:-
"35. Relevancy of entry in public (record or an
electronic record) made in performance of duty. -
An entry in any public or other official book,
register or (record or an electronic record) stating
a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a
public servant in the discharge of his official duty,
or by any other person in performance of a duty
specially enjoined by the law of the country in
which such book, register or (record or an
electronic record) is kept, is itself a relevant fact."
As per section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, an entry
in any public or other official book or register
maintained by a public servant is a relevant fact.
Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act says about the
public document, which runs as follows:-
74. Public documents.-The following documents
are public documents:-
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records
of the acts —
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and
executive or of a foreign country.
(2) Public records kept in any state of private
documents. It is further to refer section 62 of
Indian Evidence Act, which runs as follows:-
"62. Primary evidence - Primary evidence
means the document itself produced for the
inspection of the Court."
According to section 74 of Indian Evidence Act,
Ex.P1, which was issued by the competent authority is
a public document. In this case, the petitioner has
produced Birth Certificate Ex.P1, which is a vital
document to prove his case and the same was produced
by the petitioner before this court.
13. The respondent submitted in their counter that
the petitoner has given the nomination and declaration
form (Form No. 2) under the Family Pension Scheme
(Provident Fund) on 20-4-1998 in which he has
mentioned that his date of birth is 20-3-1950.
14. On
the
side
of
the
respondent,
one
Muthukumaran, General Manager of the respondent mill
was examined as RW.1 . RW.1 in his evidence has stated
that the workman Arumugam has stated in his
nomination and declaration form that his date of birth
is 20-3-1950. But during the cross-examination, RW.1 has
admitted that after computerised all the records in the
respondent mill, the particulars regarding the date of
birth of the employee’s and the educational
qualification were mentioned in the nomination and
declaration form. RW.1 further stated that prior to 1986,
the salary slip was issued to the said employee and the
particulars regarding the date of birth and father's name
have not been mentioned in the said salary slip. RW.1
further stated that at the time of joining duty, the
particulars regarding the date of birth and the
educational qualification were obtained from the said
employee and the said particulars have been given by
the said employee orally. The relevant portion of his
evidence is as follows:-
“ºƒ\ÂÈ W] √ΩkD 2 �ÆD ƒD√· ´Êm g˛Bku§_
\–>V´ˆ[ ∏≈Õ> º>], \V>D gı| z§©∏¶©√‚|^·m
®[≈V_
ƒˆ>V[.
\–>V´ˆ[
>ÕÁ>
ÿ√BÚD
z§©∏¶©√‚|^·m. 1986¬z x[™V_ ∂kÚ¬z ƒD√· ´Êm
ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚|^·m. g™V_ ∂Õ> ƒD√· ´Ê]_ º�√Ω
>ÕÁ> ÿ√BÏ, ∏≈Õ> º>] g˛BÁk z§©∏¶©√‚| ÷ÚÕ>>V
®[Æ ®™¬z QV√ÔD ÷_ÁÈ.
\–>V´Ï
gÁÈl_
ºƒÚDº√Vm
∂kˆ¶D
kVFÿ\VaBVÔ ∂Õ>¬ ÔVȬ Ô‚¶›]_ ∏≈Õ> º>] �ÆD
Ô_s› >z] g˛BÁk ºÔ‚| z§›m¬ ÿÔV^·©√‚¶™. ∂©√Ω
∂kÏ z§©∏‚¶ sk´∫Ô^ z§›> \–>V´Ï kƒD ÁÔÿBV©√D
ÿ√≈©√‚¶>V ®[≈V_ √ÁwB gkð∫Ô^ >uº√Vm ®∫Ô^
WÏkVÔ›]_ ÷_ÁÈ.
From the above evidence of RW.1, it could be inferred
that the particulars regarding the date of birth of the
employee, his father's name and his educational
qualification have been obtained by the respondent mill,
on oral information given by the concerned employee
at the time of joining duty and the same have been
entered by them in the nomination and declaration form.
283
3 May 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
15. Now we have to see whether this court has got
jurisdiction to direct the management to correct the date
of birth as prayed for. In this case there is no dispute
about employment of the petitioner with the
respondent. As per the Second Schedule of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, there are six items to be tried by
the Labour Courts. Sixth item says that “all matters
other than those specified in the Third Schedule.”
Hence, when applying the sixth item to the present case,
this court has got jurisdiction to decide the relief of the
petitioner.
16. When the employee requested the management
to correct the date of birth subsequently, based on Ex.P1,
it is the duty of the respondent to correct the same.
Hence, this court comes to the conclusion that the
petitioner has proved that the date of birth of the
workman by name Arumugam is 15-1-1953 through Ex.P1
and hence, the respondent is hereby directed to correct
the date of birth of the said employee Arumugam as
15-1-1953 instead of 20-3-1950 in all the registers
maintained by the respondent mill and consequently, the
order of superannuation passed by the respondent
management is set aside. Since the said Arumugam
was sent on superannuation on 20-3-2010, the
respondent is also directed to reinstate the said
Arumugam in service with effect from 20-3-2010.
Accordingly, this point is answered.
17. In the result, the industrial dispute is allowed. The
respondent is hereby directed to correct the date of
birth of the workman Arumugam as 15-1-1953 in all the
registers maintained by the respondent. The order of
superannuation passed by the respondent management
is set aside and the respondent is hereby directed to
reinstate the said Arumugam in service with effect from
20-3-2010. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 20th day of
December 2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
————
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner:
PW.1 — 17-12-2009 - D. Arumugam
List of witnesses examined for the respondent:
RW.1 — 1-7-2010 - Muthukumaran
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 — Birth certificate of Arumugam
Ex.P2 — Superannuation notice issued to the said
Arumugam, dated 15-2-2010.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the letter, dated 19-2-2010 sent
by the respondent.
Ex.P4 — Copy of pay slip of the said Arumugam
Ex.P5 — Copy of the letter, dated 16-10-2007 sent
to Labour Officer.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the letter, dated 11-12-2007 sent
by the petitioner.
Ex.P7 —
Pay slip of Arumugam
List of exhibits marked for the respondent:
Ex.R1 — Copy of nomination and declaration form.
Ex.R2 — Letter, dated 13-3-1986 sent by the said
Arumugam to the respondent.
Ex.R3 —
Reply letter, dated 22-4-1987 sent by the
respondent
Ex.R4 — Copy of superannuation notice, dated
15-2-2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
II Additional District Judge,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (EDUCATION-I)
(G.O. Ms. No. 39, dated 8th April 2011)
NOTIFICATION
The Lieutenant-Governor is pleased to accept the
resignation tendered by Thiru M.O.H.F. Shajahan,
Hon’ble Minister for Higher Education, Government of
Puducherry from the Office of the Chairman of
Pondicherry Institute of Post-Matric Technical
Education, (PIPMATE), Pondicherry Society for Higher
Education (PONSHE), Puducherry, Engineering College
(Pondicherry) Society (Pondicherry Engineering
College, Puducherry) and Engineering College (Karaikal)
Society (Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Karaikal), with effect from
23-3-2011. The Secretary to Government (Education)
shall hold the charge of Chairman/Chairperson of all the
above Societies.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
L. MOHAMED MANSOOR,
Joint Secretary to Government (Edn.).