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).