450
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 May 2013
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 55/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 16th April 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. No.44/2012, dated 2-1-2013 of
the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial
dispute between the Bharathiyar College of Engineering
and Technology Non-Teaching Staff Union, Karaikal
and the management of M/s. Bharathiyar College of
Engineering and Technology, Karaikal over withdrawal
of customary concession/privilege of providing canteen
facilities to the workers 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 )
S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Wednesday, the 2nd day of January 2013
I.D. No. 44/2012
Bharathiyar College of Engineering and
Technology Non-Teaching Staff Union,
Gnanajothi Illam, 4th Lane,
Kuthulampet Road,
Senior Kulam Street, Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
Bharathiyar College of Engineering
and Technology,
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 12-12-2012 before
me for final hearing before me in the presence of
Thiru V. Govindassamy, Advocate for the petitioner,
Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan and M. Muruganandam,
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 Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No. 160/AIL/Lab./J/2008 dated 3-12-2008 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether the dispute raised by Bharathiyar
College of Engineering and Technology Non-
Teaching Staff Union, Karaikal against the
management of Bharathiyar College of Engineering
and Technology, Karaikal over withdrawal of
customary concession/privilege of providing canteen
facilities to the workers is justified or not?
(2) If justified, what relief, they are entitled to?
2. The petitioner in his petition has stated as
follows:-
The respondent management is an educational
institution. The respondent management employed
about 160 workers. The respondent management not
paying appropriate wages to their employees. Since
the service conditions of the employment were very
poor and the grievances of the workers were not
redressed by the management, the workers formed
themselves into a union on 8-3-2007.
On 12-9-2006, the union placed a charter of
demands relating to wage revision and other
demands before the respondent management.
Since the respondent did not agreed to any of the
demands, the union raised an industrial dispute before
the Conciliation Officer, Karaikal. The conciliation
proceedings was commenced but the management did
not come forward to settle the matter before the
Conciliation Officer.
From the beginning of the college, the entire
Non-Teaching Staff were provided with free meals,
tiffin, tea etc., by the management. This concession
includes in service conditions of the employment,
which were specified in the fourth schedule of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management without
any prior notice suddenly stopped the facilities
through a circular, dated 9-7-2007 stating that the
food, breakfast and beverages were given free of
cost to non-teaching staffs will not be available from
11-7-2007 and the same may be availed on payment basis
from that date. Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 states that any facility that was offered to
the workers should not be altered without consulting
the petitioner. Furthermore section 9-A requires 21
days prior notice before altering the service
conditions. The management did not give any prior
notice, which is contrary to section 9-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
451
7 May 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
All the workers belong to poor family and the
stopping of free food is very much affected them.
The union members are getting less than the
minimum wage. Hence, they are not able to pay for
the food available in the canteen. Hence, the present
industrial dispute is filed.
3. The respondent in his counter has stated as
follows:-
During the academic year 2006-2007, it was the
administrative decision of the management that the
entire students getting admitted and studying in
Bharathiar College of Engineering and Technology,
Karaikal (whether day scholar or hostel students) to
compulsorily have food in the college and necessary
charges were collected from the students while they
are getting admitted in the college. The payments
made by the students for having food in the college
is utilised as a gesture by the management of the
respondent college to permit the staff members and
employees of the petitioner union to have free food
at the cost of the students money. While this being
the factual situation, the members of the petitioner
union taking for granted that the concession of free
food provided to them as a customary privilege is
highly ridiculous, unethical and raising an industrial
dispute. To continue the free food facility is
whimsical and cannot be entertained even remotely.
It is the policy decision of the management of the
respondent college to do away with the system of
having compulsory food in the college for the
students for the academic year 2007-2008, as many
parents of the day scholar students have stated to the
administration that they want their wards to have
their food in their home. As the motto of the
respondent college is only to impart quality
education, forcing the students to have compulsory
food in the respondent college had resulted in bitter
experiences and understanding the necessity of
delivery of quality output, a circular, dated 9-7-2007
was displayed by the order of Chairman of the
respondent college that “Canteen facilities will be
available for the staff and students on payment of
charges displayed in the dining hall and lunch will be
served only for the hostel students henceforth”.
Thus it could be clearly seen that the respondent
college which is surviving at the cost of the students
money had taken a cautious and thoughtful decision
not to compel the students to have food in the
college.
When the hostel students alone are permitted to
have food in the respondent college on payment of
cost, expecting free food in the canteen at the cost of
the students by members of the petitioner union is
highly condemnable, as no such clause has been
stipulated in the appointment order of the members of
the petitioner union.
Without understanding the provisions of section 9-A
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 treating the free food
provided during the academic year 2006-2007 to the
members of the petitioner union as a privilege, the
members of the petitioner union are under the
mistaken notion that a notice should be issued to the
petitioner union for withdrawing the concession of
free food. Section 9-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
contemplates that the notice should be given only if
there is a vested right which is withdrawn without
notice and in the instant case providing free food is
only a concession extended at the cost of the
students and the same cannot be claimed as a vested
right by the members of the petitioner union. 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.P7 were marked. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On this point :
The contention of the petitioner is that the members
of the Bharathiyar College Non-teaching Staff Union
were provided with free meal, tiffin and tea in the
students mess by the respondent management and it is
a customary practice which cannot be withdrawn
without notice to the petitioner’s union and the
respondent management without any prior notice had
suddenly stopped this facility through a circular,
dated 9-7-2007 stating that the food, tea, coffee will not
be available from 11-7-2007 to all the staff members (both
teaching and non-teaching) of the college and only
canteen facility will be available in the college campus
for staff and students on payment of charges and
aggrieved against the circular, dated 9-7-2007, the
petitioner contends that the respondent management
had violated section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and their service conditions are altered
without notice. In order to prove his case, he relied upon
the following decisions:-
Civil Appeal No. 377 of 1970, date 24-7-1975:
Management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited
and its Workmen:-
“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 9A -
Payment of compensatory allowance by Indian Oil
Corporation - Whether an implied condition of
service - Whether unilateral cancellation by
management tenable - Held, grant of compensatory
allowance, an implied term of service - Further held,
unilateral withdrawal of employer would adversely
affect the interests of workers - Compensatory
allowance, in the circumstances, held was not paid in
substitute of house rent allowance.”
452
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 May 2013
C.A. Nos. 3247-48/1993, dated 26-8-1993 (S.C.)
Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited,
Versus Calcutta Electric Supply Workers’ Union and
others :-
“Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 72 -
Regulations under the Act - Reg. 97 - Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 Section 9-A - Medical benefits
available to workmen of the appellant Corporation as
part of service conditions - Withdrawal of such
benefits on the ground that workmen governed by
ESI scheme is impermissible.”
7. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the
President of the union by name Manickam was examined
as PW1. PW.1 in his evidence has deposed as stated in
the claim statement and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1 is
the copy of the circular. A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that
the respondent management issued a circular on 9-7-2007
informing that providing food, tea, coffee to all the staff
members will be stopped. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the copy
of the letter sent to the Labour Officer, complaining
about stopping of free food to the staff members by the
respondent. Ex.P4 is the copy of the notice of enquiry
sent by the Labour Officer to the petitioner and the
respondent, fixing the conciliation on 23-8-2007. Ex.P5 is
the copy of the reply submitted to the Labour Officer.
Ex.P6 is the copy of the failure report. Ex.P7 is the copy
of the notification.
8. Per contra, the contention of the respondent
management is that individual order of appointment
issued to the staff members and more-so the members of
the petitioner union would clearly explain the factum of
reality that there exist no clause in the appointment
order that the members of the petitioner union will be
provided with free canteen facilities and further during
the academic year 2006-2007, it was the administrative
decision of the management that the entire students
getting admitted and studying in the college (whether
day scholar or hostel students) to have compulsorily
food in the college and necessary charges were
collected from the students while they are getting
admitted in the college and the food prepared for the
students at the college mess at their cost were extended
to the non-teaching staff also which cannot be
construed as a service condition.
9. In order to support his claim, the learned counsel
for the respondent relied upon the decision rendered in
Voltas Switchgear Plant Employees’ Union Versus Voltas
Switchgear Limited reported in 2001 L.L.R 373, wherein
it is held as follows:-
“The industrial court has rightly reached to the
conclusion that fixing new rates to be charged,
cannot be said to be within the purview of the
canteen managing committee constituted or to be
constituted under rule 84 of the rules. No fault with
the finding recorded in this behalf can be found.
The industrial court also recorded a finding that
fixing of rates of canteen items, cannot be the
condition of service under section 90A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the
canteen facility and fixing new rates to be charged
cannot be said to be the condition of service. The
said finding of the industrial court is based on the
judgment of this court in the case of Blue Star
Workers’ Union Versus Blue Star Limited, 1990-II, CLR
258, wherein the learned single judge of this court has
categorically held that “Canteen facility and the rates
to be charged for food items is not a condition of
service.”. No case is made out by the petitioner/union
to depart from the view in the field since 1990 in the
matter of Blue Star Workers’ Union.
10. According to PW.1, providing of free meal, tiffin
and tea in the students mess by the respondent
management is a customary practice which cannot be
withdrawn without notice to the petitioner union under
section 9-A of Industrial Disputes Act. But PW.1 in his
cross-examination has stated that there is no
memorandum of settlement between the petitioner's
union and the respondent management with regard to
providing of free meal, tiffin and tea under section 12(3)
of Industrial Disputes Act. The relevant portion of his
evidence runs as follows:-
“..... ÷Èkƒ cð° kw∫zk>uÔVÔ g>V´D
>VkVs_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√¶s_ÁÈ. RMB–¬zD
Ô_Ÿˆ¬zD ƒ‚¶©∏ˆ° 12 (3) ®[√ÁkÔπ_ ®Õ>
Œ©√Õ>xD ÷_ÁÈ. √Ë ƒD√Õ>©√‚¶ W√Õ>Á™Ô^
®Á>•D ÂV[ kw¬˛_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. ...”.
PW.1 in his cross-examination has also stated that the
mess facilities are provided only for the hostel students
on payment of mess fees and the free food has been
provided to the members of the petitioner's union from
the mess of the hostel student. The relevant portion of
his evidence runs as follows:-
“..... ®]Ï\–>V´Ï Ô_Ÿˆl_ ÿkπ\VWÈ›]KD
÷ÚÕmD \VðkÏÔ^ √Ω¬˛≈VÏÔ^ ®[≈V_ ∂m ƒˆ>V[.
Ô_ŸˆlK^·
\VðkÏÔ^
ƒV©∏‚|
kÕ>
ÿ\¸LoÚÕm >V[ ®∫Ô”¬z cð° kw∫Ô©√‚¶m
®[≈V_ ∂m ƒˆ>V[.
RMB–¬z ®[Æ >M©√‚¶ cðkÔD ˛Á¶BVm.
\VðkÏÔ^
√ðD
Ô‚Ω>V[
cðkÔ›]_
ƒV©∏|˛≈VÏÔ^ ®[≈V_ ∂m ƒˆ>V[....”
11. It is true that section 9-A of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 contemplates that the notice should be given
if there is a vested right which is withdrawn without
notice. But in the instant case, providing free food is
only at the cost of the students and the same cannot be
claimed as a vested right by the members of the
petitioner’s union. Therefore the contention of the
453
7 May 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
petitioner union that free food provided in the students’
mess by the respondent management is not a condition
of service which should not be withdrawn does not
sound merit. In the absence of any memorandum of
settlement or any clause in the appointment order to this
effect, the members of the petitioner’s union cannot
claim free food as a service condition and there exists
no infirmity in the circular, dated 9-7-2007 issued by the
respondent college and hence invoking section 9A of
the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise to the facts
of the present industrial dispute. Accordingly, this point
is answered.
12. In the result, the industrial dispute is dismissed
and the petitioner union is not entitled to get the cash
compensation of ` 60 per day per employee in lieu of
free food and tea, etc., from 11-7-2007 and also not
entitled to set aside the circular, dated 9-7-2007 relating
to withdrawal of concession. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 2nd day of January, 2013.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —
12-11-2010 — Manickam
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the circular, dated 9-7-2007
Ex.P2 — Copy of the complaint sent by the
petitioner union to the Labour Officer,
dated 11-7-2007.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the complaint sent by the
petitioner union to the Labour Officer,
dated 11-7-2007.
Ex.P4 — Copy of notice of enquiry, dated 14-8-2007
sent to the petitioner and respondent.
Ex.P5 — Copy of the reply, dated 10-9-2007 sent to
Labour Officer by respondent.
Ex.P6 — Copy of failure report, dated 16-9-2008
Ex.P7 — Copy of the gazette notification,
dated 3-12-2008.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 56/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 18th April 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I. D. No. 25/2012, dated 21-12-2012 of
the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial
dispute between the Managing Director, Hindustan
Unilever Limited, Personal Products Factory,
Puducherry and one Thiru P. Gunasegaran, 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 )
S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Dated, the 21st day of December 2012.
I.D. No. 25/2012
P. Gunasegaran
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,
Personal Products Factory,
Puducherry.
. .
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for hearing before
me in the presence of Thiru B. Mohandass, Advocate for
the petitioner and Thiru L. Sathish, Advocate for the
respondent and upon persuing 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) (e) of the
Industrial Disputes Act in G.O. Rt. No. 125/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 20-7-2012.
2. Today this petition was called. Claim statement not
filed. Hence this reference is closed. No costs.
454
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 May 2013
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 21st of December 2012.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 57/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 18th April 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. No. 4/2008, dated 17-1-2013
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the Managing Director,
ESSEM Technologies (P) Limited, Puducherry and one
Tmt. R. Varalakshmi 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)
S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.
Thursday, the 17th day of January 2013
I.D. No. 4/2008
R. Varalakshmi,
44, Society Street, Kothapurinatham,
Periyababu Samuthiram Post,
Puducherry
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
ESSEM Technologies (P) Limited,
Mannadipet, Commune, Puducherry . . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 11-1-2013
for final hearing before me in the presence of
Mrs. Vrintha Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner,
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 Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No. 16/2008/Lab./AIL/J, dated 11-2-2008 of the
Labour Department, Pondicherry to resolve the
following dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether the dispute raised by Tmt. R. Varalakshmi,
W/o. Rajaram, Puducherry against the management
of M/s. ESSEM Technologies Private Limited,
Puducherry over non-employment is justified or
not?
(2) To what relief, she 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 her petition has stated as
follows:
The petitioner was a permanent employee with
the respondent in the capacity of operator packing
division from 5th March 1998. The petitioner
became pregnant and the same was informed to the
management through proper channel and as such
the petitioner has applied and availed leave with
the permission of management from 11-8-2005 to
31-1-2006. She had obtained a maternity
benefits certificate, dated 8-9-2005 from the
E.S.I. Dispensary, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and
produced the same before the management for
availing maternal benefits in addition to her leave.
Since the health of the petitioner was deteriorated
with severe post-maternal complaints and that
since she has underwent family planning operation
and the surgical wound has got infected, the
petitioner had once again started taking higher
treatment with Dr. Balasoupramanian, who has
advised her to take complete rest from 1-12-2005
to 31-1-2006 and all the medical certificates along
with the leave letters were periodically dispatched
to the management through the petitioner's
husband, which was accepted by the respondent
every now and then without any protest. When she
reported for duty on 1-2-2006 at 9.00 hours, she
was pushed out forcibly by the company security.
Then the services of the petitioner were fancifully
terminated from the afternoon hours of 1-2-2006
itself. Hence, she approached the Labour Officer,
raising an industrial dispute and the said
conciliation entered in failure.
455
7 May 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The respondent management has not followed
a n y o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s l a i d d o w n b y t h e
labour welfare legislations/model standing orders/
The principles of natural justice in sacking out the
respondent from the employment. Hence, the
present industrial dispute is filed for her
reinstatement and other benefits.
3. The respondent in his counter has stated as
follows:
The petitioner was irregular in attending her
duties and that too without applying for leave in
advance, but used to join in duty by producing
some false medical certificate to sustain her
unauthorised leave/absence already availed. The
petitioner used to become pregnant and availed
leave or absence from duty very often and
produced false medical certificate. She was asked
to produce proper medical certificate from the
competent medical person only. The petitioner
failed to produce the medical certificates for her
absence from work and stayed away voluntarily.
She was not denied any work or terminated from
services. Without attending duty on production of
medical certificate for more than eight months, she
has chosen to file a petition before the
Conciliation Officer as if she was terminated from
service and sought reinstatement with back wages.
Hence, they pray for dismissal of the industiral
dispute.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked. On the side of the
respondent, RW.1 to RW.4 were examined and Ex.R1
to Ex.R14 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On this point:
The contention of the petitioner is that she was a
permanent employee with the respondent in the
capacity of operator packing division from 5th March
1998 and when she became pregnant, she applied
leave with the permission of the management
from 11-8-2005 to 31-1-2006 and she had obtained a
maternity benefits certificate, dated 8-9-2005 from the
ESI Dispensary, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and
produced the same before the management for
availing maternal benefits in addition to her leave and
since the health of the petitioner was deteriorated
with severe post-maternal complaints and that since
she has underwent family planning operation and the
surgical wound has got infected, the petitioner had
once again started taking higher treatment with
Dr. Balasoupramanian, who has advised her to take
complete rest from 1-12-2005 to 31-1-2006 and all the
medical certificates along with the leave letters were
periodically dispatched to the management through
the petitioner's husband, which was accepted by the
respondent every now and then without any protest
and when she reported for duty on 1-2-2006 at 9.00 hours,
she was pushed out forcibly by the company security
and then the services of the petitioner were fancifully
terminated from the afternoon hours of 1-2-2006
itself. In order to prove her case, she examined
herself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent
is that the petitioner was irregular in attending her
duties and that too without applying for leave in
advance, but used to join in duty by producing some
false medical certificate to sustain her unauthorised
leave/absence already availed and she used to
become pregnant and availed leave or absence from
duty very often and produced false medical certificate
and she was asked to produce proper medical
certificate from the competent medical person only
and she failed to produce the medical certificates for
her absence from work and stayed away voluntarily.
In order to support the said claim, the Managing
Director of respondent company was examined as
RW.1. RW.1 in his evidence has further stated that in
their company, the employees and other staff are
supposed to submit leave in the prescribed form
before availing leave and leave on medical grounds
should be accompanied by the required medical
certificate.
8. In order to prove the said aspect, RW.1 has
marked the copy of the leave letter applied by PW.1
from 12-5-2003 to 13-7-2003 and Ex.R2 is the medical
certificate produced by the petitioner for the said
leave period. Further on the side of the respondent,
the staff of the respondent management was
examined as RW.3. RW.3 in his evidence has deposed
that the employees and other staff are supposed to
submit leave in the prescribed form before availing
leave and leave on medical grounds should be
accompanied by the required medical certificate.
Ex.R3 is the leave applied in a prescribed leave form
from 7-7-2005 to 21-7-2005 with medical certificate
under Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 is his Joining Report. RW.1 has
also marked leave applied by one lyyappan from
28-8-2006 to 11-9-2006 in a prescribed form as Ex.R6.
A perusal of Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 reveals that in the
respondent company, there is a prescribed format for
applying leave and the employees had been
submitting the leave in the prescribed form before
availing leave and leave on medical grounds has been
accompanied by the required medical certificate.
456
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 May 2013
9. According to the respondent, the petitioner was
irregular in attending her duties and that too without
applying for leave in advance. It is the duty of the
petitioner to produce the relevant documents to
disprove the contention of the respondent. But no
documents viz., copy of the leave application, medical
certificate, joining report etc., were produced to prove
that she applied the medical leave well in advance and
got sanctioned.
10. PW.1 in her evidence has deposed that she had
obtained a maternity benefits certificate, dated 8-9-2005
from the E.S.I. Dispensary, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry
and produced the same before the management for
availing maternal benefits in addition to her leave and
since her health was deteriorated with severe post-
maternal complaints and that since she has
underwent family planning operation and the surgical
wound has got infected, she had once again started
taking higher treatment with Dr. Balasoupramanian,
who has advised her to take complete rest from 1-12-2005
to 31-1-2006 and all the medical certificates along with
the leave letters were periodically dispatched to the
management through the petitioner’s husband, which
was accepted by the respondent every now and then
without any protest.
11. But on the side of the respondent, the extract
from the register for entry of workman (both 'in' and
'out') maintained by security officials of the
respondent company for the period from 1-1-2006
to 31-3-2006, 4-9-2004 to 31-12-2005 and 1-1-2006 to
31-3-2007 as Ex.R6, Ex.R12 and Ex.R13 respectively to
disprove the said contention. A perusal of these
documents reveals that nowhere in the said
documents, it is mentioned that the husband of the
petitioner visited the respondent company, as alleged
by PW.1. Hence, this court has come to the
conclusion that the petitioner has taken leave for the
period from 11-8-2005 to 31-1-2006 without informing
to the respondent management well in advance and
got sanctioned.
12. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 has marked
copy of the discharge slips issued by Government
Maternity Hospital, Puducherry as Ex.P7 and Ex.P10
and the copy of the claim for maternity benefit as
Ex.P11 and the copy of the medical certificate issued
by Dr. Balasoupramanian, Certh India Hospital,
Puducherry as Ex.P12. A perusal of Ex.P7 reveals that
the petitioner was admitted in the Government
Maternity Hospital from 2-1-2004 to 4-1-2004. As per
Ex.P10, she was admitted in the said hospital from
8-9-2005 to 19-9-2005. A perusal of Ex.P11 reveals that
the petitioner was admitted in the E.S.I. Dispensary,
Thirubuvanai from 8-9-2005 to 19-9-2005 and she has
received the maternity benefits from 8-9-2005 to
30-11-2005. As per Ex.P12, the petitioner has been
treatment under Dr. Balasoupramanian from 1-12-2005 to
31-1-2006 and the said doctor advised that the
petitioner is fit to resume her duty from 1-2-2006.
From the above documents, it can be seen that
from 2-1-2004 to 31-1-2006, the petitioner was under
treatment in the various hospitals. Though the
petitioner has established that she was under
treatment from 2-1-2004 to 31-1-2006, as an employee,
it is her duty to submit the leave application well in
advance and got sanctioned. As already stated, the
petitioner has failed to establish that she has applied
the medical leave well in advance and got sanctioned.
13. The respondent has set up his case that it is
admitted that the petitioner was an employee under
them, but since she has absented herself from 11-7-2005
without any notice or information or legal sanctioned
leave, it will be presumed that she has abandoned the
employment. It is pertinent to refer the following
decisions, which are relevant to this case:-
2002(4) L.L.N. 850
State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Agra and Another:
“Abandonment of service - Even in the case
of alleged abandonment, it is necessary for
employer to conduct an enquiry, issue a charge
sheet and notice to the workman concerned
informing him that he is continuously absenting
without any sanctioned leave - Admittedly this
having not been done in this case the plea of
employer about abandonment of service by
workman not tenable”.
1988 1 LLN. Page 259
Gaurishankar Vishwakarma Versus Egle Spring
Industries (P) Limited and Others:
“Industrial dispute - Practice and procedure-
Non-employment of workman-Case of employer is
that workman has abandoned service-Even in
case of abandonment of service employer has to
give notice to workman and hold an enquiry-It is
for employer to prove such abandonment-Labour
Court expected to follow judicial procedure should
not depend on unverified statements to come to
conclusion that it was workman who had refused
to resume work”.
14. Admittedly, the respondent has not given any
notice to the petitioner either calling upon her to
resume the duty or asking her to show cause as to
why her services should not be terminated for her
failure to resume her duties. No wonder, therefore,
that there was no enquiry held before the termination
of her service. The case of the respondent is that the
petitioner had voluntarily stayed away from attending
duty and it is up to her to report to duty after
submitting proper medical certificates explaining her
absence with justification for the same. It is difficult
to accept this case. It is now well settled that even
457
7 May 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
in the case of the abandonment of service, the
employer has to give a notice to the workman, calling
upon him to resume his duty and also to hold an
enquiry before terminating his service on that ground.
In the present case, the respondent has done neither.
It was for the employer to prove that the petitioner
had stayed away from attending the duty. In the
absence of any such evidence, the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner
had stayed away from attending the duty, cannot be
accepted. In the above circumstances, the termination
of the petitioner is bad in law and the same is liable
to be set aside.
15. The petitioner herself has admitted that she
has taken leave from 11-8-2005 to 31-1-2006. But as
already stated, the petitioner has failed to prove that
the said leave has been with the permission of the
respondent management. Hence, the petitioner cannot
claim back wages without working. The provisions of
Industiral Disputes Act are not intended for such
exploitation in an unfair manner. Hence, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner
is not entitled for back wages. Accordingly, this point
is answered.
16. In the result, the industiral dispute is partly
allowed and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement
with continuity of service. However, she 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
January, 2013.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
—
22-7-2010 Varalakshmi
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— Identity certificate of the petitioner
issued by the respondent.
Ex.P2
— Petitioner’s identity card-E.S.I. Corporation
Ex.P3
— Petitioner’s provident fund receipts
to
Ex.P6
Ex.P7
— Discharge slip of the petitioner
Ex.P8
— Salary slips of the petitioner
and
Ex.P9
Ex.P10 — Sterilisation and discharge slip of the
petitioner.
Ex.P11 — Copy of the maternity benefit certificate
Ex.P12 — Copy of the medical certificate issued by
C.M.O., Certh India.
Ex.P13 — Letter by the petitioner, dated 11-10-2006
to the Labour Officer.
Ex.P14 — Reply by the respondent, dated 13-11-2006
Ex.P15 — Notice of enquiry to the petitioner and
respondent, dated 4-12-2006.
Ex.P16 — Failure report, dated 10-10-2007
Ex.P17 — Notification of the Labour Department,
dated 11-2-2008.
List of respondent’s witnesses:
RW.1
—
16-11-2012 Sriram Murthy
RW.2
—
6-12-2012
G. Murugan
RW.3
—
6-12-2012
S. Senthil
RW.4
—
27-12-2012 C. Amalan
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1
— Leave letter of the petitioner from
12-5-2003 to 13-7-2003.
Ex,R2
— Medical certificate of the petitioner
dated 12-5-2003.
Ex,R3 — Application for leave by Senthil to the
respondent.
Ex.R4
— Medical certificate of Senthil, dated 7-7-2005
Ex.R5
— Fitness certificate, dated 21-7-2005 by
Senthil.
Ex.R6
— Application for leave, dated 12-9-2006
from 28-8-2006 to 11-9-2006.
Ex.R7 —
Extract from the register from l-1-2006
to 31-3-2006.
Ex.R8
— Letter, dated 11-10-2006 submitted by
the petitioner to Labour Officer.
Ex.R9
— Reply dated 13-11-2006 submitted by the
respondent to the Labour Officer.
Ex.R10 — Copy of the proceedings, dated 14-3-2007
by the Labour Officer.
Ex.R11 — Copy of the proceedings, dated 9-5-2007
by Labour Officer.
Ex.R12 — Register relating to entry of visitors
from 4-9-2004 to 31-12-2005.
Ex.R13 — Register relating to entry of visitors
from 1-1-2006 to 31-3-2007.
Ex.R14 — Copy of the identity card of one
Murugan.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.
458
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 May 2013
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 58/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 18th April 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. No. 18/2011, dated 31-1-2013
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the Chief Executive, KALKI,
Puducherry and one Thiru N. Sivakumaran, 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)
S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Thursday, the 31st day of January 2013
I.D. No. 18/2011
N. Sivakumaran
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Executive,
KALKI, 132, Mission Street,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 28-1-2013 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru P. Rabindran,
Advocate for the petitioner, Thiru B. Mohandass, 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 Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No. 120/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 16-6-2011 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute
between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether
t h e
d i s p u t e
r a i s e d
b y
Thiru N. Sivakumaran against the management of
M/s. Kalki, Puducherry, over refusal of employment
is justified?
(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioner 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 petition has stated as follows:
The petitioner was employed in the respondent
company in the month of June 1999 and initially he
was appointed as probationer-Cashier and was paid
a monthly salary of ` 1,700. Thereafter he was
confirmed and was paid ` 2,000 per month. The
petitioner was rendered unblemished service since
his appointment in the respondent concern.
In such circumstances, a Frenchman called by
name Sergio came to be appointed as one of the
Executives of the respondent concern and he started
behaving in an inhumanly manner violating human
rights. He harassed the petitioner with abusive
language and often used to make the petitioner to
clean his shoes and at time he has even assaulted
the petitioner in causing injuries. The petitioner
suffered mental and physical harassment resulting
in serious depression and mental agony for the
petitioner. The petitioner complained all such unruly
behaviour of the said Frenchman to the Chief
Executive of the company but nothing happened.
In such circumstances, all of a sudden the
petitioner was virtually terminated from his service
in the month of August 2009 without any reason or
without any enquiry in any manner whatsoever. When
the petitioner attempted to meet the Chief Executive,
the petitioner was thrown out from the shop
mercilessly. Hence, the petitioner moved the
Conciliation Officer for remedy and he conducted
the conciliation and since the conciliation
proceedings ended in failure, the Labour Officer
reported failure of conciliation. In pursuance, the
Government of Puducherry has referred the said
dispute for adjudication before this court.
3. The respondent in his counter has stated as
follows:
The petitioner was in continuous unauthorised
absence from 14-8-2009 and so he was issued a show
cause notice, dated 19-8-2009 asking him to contact
the respondent management at once. On receiving
the said notice, the petitioner sent a letter, dated
17-8-2009 making allegations of harassment and using
of abusive language against him by Sergio, Honorary
Designer and Consultant in-charge of the respondent
459
7 May 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
organisation. To find out the truth in respect of the
allegations in the letter of the petitioner, the
management decided to conduct the preliminary
enquiry on 5-9-2009 through Mr. Arokiaraja.
However, he did not participate in the preliminary
enquiry as instructed by the respondent in the notice
of enquiry, dated 27-8-2009. On the other hand, he
sent a letter, dated 1-9-2009 to the Chief Executives
of the respondent management with false and
untenable allegations against them.
Through notice, dated 11-9-2009 the respondent
management called upon the petitioner to join duty
within 72 hours from the receipt of the said notice.
For the said notice, the petitioner sent a reply dated
15-9-2009 stating that he was hospitalised at GH,
Puducherry and he could report only after medical
condition is improved. The management waited for
sometime but the petitioner did not report for duty.
Having come to know that the petitioner was not
hospitalized and he was physically sound to join
duty, the respondent sent a reminder notice, dated
10-10-2009 calling upon him to join duty within 72
hours from the receipt of the said notice. For the
said notice, the petitioner sent a reply, dated 21-10-2009
falsely alleging the racial harassment against him
by foreign executive. There was no termination of
service of the petitioner and the petitioner has also
not utilised the repeated opportunities to get into
the service. 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.P8 were marked. On the side of the
respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 were
marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On this point :
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner
was employed in the respondent concern in the month
of June, 1999 and he was initially appointed as
probationer - Cashier and was paid a monthly salary
of ` 1,700 as a probationer and thereafter his probation
was confirmed and after confirmation he was paid a
sum of ` 2,000. He further contended that he has
rendered unblemished service since his appointment
in the respondent concern and often he was lauded
for his sincerity and hard work by the other superior
employers and therefore the petitioner's last drawn
wage is ` 7,000 per mensum with additional perks and
other allowances to the tune of ` 1,000 per month and
altogether he was drawing a sum of ` 8,000
approximately as the additional perks and allowances
would differ every month. In order to prove his case,
the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P8 were marked. Ex.P1 is the appointment order,
which proves that he was an employee under the
respondent company.
7. PW.1 in his evidence has further stated that a
Frenchman called by name as Sergio came to be
appointed as one of the Executives of the respondent
concern and this person Sergio has a bad caliber and
he is prone to racial discrimination and he started
behaving in an inhumanly manner violating human
rights and he harassed him with abusive language and
often used to make him to clean his shoes and at times
he has even assaulted him in causing injuries and he
suffered mental and physical harassment resulting in
serious depression and mental agony for him. PW.1
further stated that he complained all such unruly
behavior of the said Frenchman, who was himself
outstaying without valid visa, to the Chief Executive
of the company but nothing happened and the said
Sergio was not even questioned or enquired of his
grievances and the level of hostility and unfairness
shown towards him by the management of the
respondent concern along with the said Sergio is
beyond imagination in a comparable situation like this
and his complaint to the Chief Executive was not even
read and it all went to the dustbin as such remained
only futile attempts.
8. PW.1 further deposed that in such circumstances
all of a sudden he was virtually terminated from his
service in the month of August, 2009 without any
reason or without any enquiry in any manner
whatsoever as he was not allowed to enter the premises
and was not called upon to inform as to the reason of
his non-employment and when he attempted to meet
the Chief Executive, he was thrown out from the shop
mercilessly.
9. On the other hand, the respondent/management’s
contentions would be that the petitioner was in
continuous unauthorised absence from 14-8-2009 and
that he was issued a show cause notice, dated 19-8-2009
requiring him to contact the respondent/management
at once and on receiving the said notice sent by the
management, the petitioner sent on 20-8-2009 letter,
dated 17-8-2009 making allegations of harassment and
using of abusive languages against him by Mr. Sergio,
Honorary Designer and Consultant in-charge of the
respondent, the respondent organisation and to find
out the truth in respect of the allegations in the letter
of the petitioner, dated 17-8-2009 (but sent by him on
20-8-2009 after the receipt of the respondent’s notice, dated
19-8-2009) the management decided to conduct the
preliminary enquiry on 5-9-2009 through Mr. Arokiaraja, the
Accountant, however, he did not participate in the
460
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 May 2013
preliminary enquiry as instructed by the respondent
in the notice of enquiry, dated 27-8-2009. In order to
prove his contention, the Accountant of the
respondent company was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1
to Ex.R8 were marked.
10. RW.1 in his evidence has further stated that the
petitioner sent a letter dated 1-9-2009 to the chief
executives of the respondent management with false
and untenable allegations against them and sending
copies of the same to the high dignitaries like the
Commissioner, Labour Department, Puducherry, the
Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry and Human Rights
Commission, New Delhi, but the fact remains that he
had been absent from duty without leave or prior
permission from 14-8-2009 onwards as on date and
through notice, dated 11-9-2009, they called upon the
petitioner to join duty within 72 hours from the receipt
of said notice and he was also asked to show cause
as to why, the management should not take disciplinary
action against him for the alleged misconducts of
unauthorised absence, abandonment of employment,
spoiling the reputation of the management, passing
derogatory remarks against the management and making
false representation against the management and for
the above said show cause notice, the petitioner sent
reply, dated 15-9-2009 stating among other things, that
he was hospitalised at the Govt. Hospital, Puducherry
and he could report only after medical condition
improved and after evaluation by the doctor and the
management waited for sometime but the petitioner did
not report to duty and he also did not send any
communication in this regard and having come to know
that at that time the petitioner was not hospitalised
and he was physically sound to join duty the
respondent management sent reminder notice dated
10-10-2009 calling upon him to join duty within 72 hours
from the receipt of said notice and he was also asked
to show cause as to why, they should not take
disciplinary action against him for the alleged
misconducts of unauthorised absence, abandonment
of employment, spoiling the reputation of the
management, passing derogatory remarks against the
management and making false representation against
the management of the respondent and for the notice
10-10-2009 the petitioner sent reply, dated 21-10-2009
falsely alleging racial harassment against him by foreign
executive and on reading his reply the management
came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not
changed his hostile attitude towards the chief
executives and he still continued to make false and
vexatious allegations against them and as per the
principles of labour law and also according to the
contract of employment the petitioner is obliged to
justify his absence from duty and as such he is under
an obligation to produce the records relating to his
medical treatment (including his admission-cum-
discharge slip) for the period of his absence from duty
and as regards the claim for pay, it is to be noted that
only for the period of work he is entitled to wages and
as per the well known principles of labour jurisprudence
when there is no work, there is no pay.
11. On a careful consideration of the claims and
contentions of both parties besides the evidence
adduced by them it is clearly crystal that it is on account
of the allegations of the petitioner as against one Sergio
said to be one of the executives of the respondent
management that he is physically and mentally
harassing the petitioner a difference of opinion arose
and consequent to that the petitioner was unable to
continue to serve the respondent management.
The question whether those allegations against the said
executive Sergio were true or not are not significant
as far as the present claims of the petitioner before this
court. But the fact remains that the petitioner has not
worked in the respondent management since 14-8-2009.
This specific fact is admitted by both the parties.
The claims and allegations of both the petitioner and
the respondent relating to the issue of show cause
notice by the respondent and the reply sent by the
petitioner for all such notices are all admitted.
12. However in the course of cross-examination of
the respondent’s witness RW.1, he has made categorical
admission that there was no domestic enquiry
conducted as against the petitioner for his alleged
unauthorised absence from 14-8-2009 eventhough there
was show cause notice on two occasions contemplating
an enquiry over the absence of the petitioner. The
respondent management could have in all possibilities
conducted the enquiry contemplated by them even in
the absence of the petitioner but there is no explanation
from the respondent as to why they did not proceed
with the enquiry eventhough notices contemplating
the enquiry were admittedly sent to the petitioner by
the respondent. In the absence of any reasonable
statement as to why the contemplated domestic enquiry
was not conducted by the respondent it leads to several
suspicious circumstances in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
13. However it is an admitted fact that the
respondent management is ready to reinstate the
petitioner and such offer was continuously been made
through their notice, dated 11-9-2009 and also before
the Conciliation Officer, irrespective of the fact that
the petitioner refused to accept such offer on account
of his alleged apprehensions of fear in the respondent
management. It is also to be further noted that RW.1
admits that the petitioner has continuously worked for
a period of 10 years in the respondent concern and
there was no such incident before during such tenure
461
7 May 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
of 10 years of service and this is the first time a
circumstance of this nature has arose. Therefore, the
facts and circumstances conclusively leads to the fact
situation that it is only on account of some kind of
exploitation by one of the executives in the respondent
management the petitioner developed apprehensions
in attending to his work. Therefore, in the above
circumstances and it is also admitted that the person
responsible for this labour dispute who is alleged to
be one of the executive by name Sergio is not any
more in the management concern and therefore in such
circumstances the petitioner cannot have any difficulty
in joining the service in the respondent management
hereafter. The welfare of the petitioner is also to be
taken into consideration in spite of the fact he has
absented from attending duty. Therefore, to save scope
for justice and in the interest of justice this court feels
that it would be justifiable if an order of reinstatement
of the petitioner is passed and that would also serve
the cause of justice and suffice the situation.
14. However as far as the claim for back wages is
concerned the submissions of the learned counsel for
the respondent has some force. The learned counsel
for the respondent argued that the petitioner was given
opportunities to join service and as he had refused he
cannot have a cause of action for back wages without
doing any work. He further argued that the petitioner
was never terminated and therefore in such
circumstances the question of entitlement to back wages
is not sustainable. Therefore, this court also finds that
there is no justification to award back wages to the
petitioner in view of the factual matrix of the case.
However, as discussed above interest of justice will
be served if the petitioner is reinstated but no back
wages could be awarded to the petitioner.
15. In the result the industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the respondent is directed to reinstate
the petitioner into service with continuity of service.
However, he is not entitled for back wages. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court on this the 31st day of January, 2013.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —14-9-2012—Sivakumaran
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the appointment order of the
petitioner, dated 17-6-1999.
Ex.P2 — Discharge card of the petitioner.
Ex.P3 — Show cause notice, dated 10-10-2009 sent
to the petitioner by respondent.
Ex.P4 — Letter, dated 31-10-2009 sent by the
respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.P5 — Letter, dated 22-6-2010 sent by the
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the enquiry notice, dated 13-8-2010
Ex.P7 — Copy of the enquiry notice, dated 19-10-2010
Ex.P8 — Copy of the I.D. Note, dated 30-6-2011
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 23-11-2012—Aroquiaradja
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — Copy of the first warning letter, dated 19-8-2009
Ex.R2 — Copy of the letter, dated 17-8-2009 sent
by the petitioner to respondent.
Ex.R3 — Copy of the notice of enquiry, dated 27-8-2009
Ex.R4 — Copy of the letter, dated 1-9-2009 sent by
the petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R5 — Show cause notice, dated 11-9-2009 sent
to the petitioner.
Ex.R6 — Copy of the letter, dated 15-9-2009 sent
by the petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R7 — Copy of the reminder show cause notice
to the petitioner, dated 10-10-2009.
Ex.R8 — Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the respondent, dated 20-11-2009.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (WORKS)
(G.O. Ms. No. 15, dated 19th April 2013)
NOTIFICATION
O n a t t a i n i n g t h e a g e o f s u p e r a n n u a t i o n ,
Thiru D. Sambasivam, Assistant Engineer, Public
Health
Division,
Public
Works
Department,
Puducherry is admitted into retirement with effect
from the afternoon of 30-4-2013.
(By order)
N. SUMATHI,
Joint Secretary to Government (Works).