642
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 July 2013
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 93/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 14th June 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. No. 1/2011, dated 20-2-2013
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Superfil Products Limited,Villianur, Puducherry
and Superfil Products Workers Union, over refusal of
employment and unfair labour practice on the
part of management in respect of its workmen
(1) Thiru A. Thiruneelakandan, (2) M. Umapathy,
(3) C. Murugan and (4) S. Murugan 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 20th day of February 2013
I.D. No. 1/2011
1. A. Thiruneelakandan
. .
Petitioner
2. M. Umapathy
3. C. Murugan
4. S. Murugan
Versus
The Managing Director,
. .
Respondent
Superfil Products Limited,
Mangalam Road, Villianur.
This industrial dispute coming on 11-2-2013 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
L. Sathish, N. Krishnamurthy, T. Pravin and V. Veeraragavan,
Advocates for the petitioner and Thiru R. llancheliyan,
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. 5/AIL/Lab./J/2010, dated 6-1-2011 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the Superfil
Products Workers Union against the management of
M/s. Superfil Products Limited, Puducherry, over
refusal of employment and unfair labour practice of the
workers viz., (1) A. Thiruneelakandan, (2) M. Umpathy,
(3) C. Murugan and (4) S. Murugan is justified or
not?
(2) If justified, to what relief, the petitioners are
entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The petitioners in their petition have stated as
follows:
The first petitioner is the permanent worker of the
respondent management, having put in more
than six years of service with the respondent. On
10-9-2009 the first petitioner received the copy of
the charge sheet, dated 21-8-2009 in Tamil accusing
him of various misconducts.
The first petitioner received a letter, dated 14-5-2009,
suspending him from 16-5-2009 for the alleged
commission of serious misconducts. The said
suspension order was revoked by the respondent
on 20-5-2009 in view of the illegal lockout declared
by the management, which was subsequently lifted
on 16-7-2009. Once again the respondent imposed
suspension pending enquiry on 1st petitioner with
effect from 16-7-2009 and he continues to be under
suspension as on this date.
The first petitioner gave a befitting reply to the
charge sheet on 16-9-2009. Not satisfying with the
reply on 1-10-2009, one Venkataraman, a paid
consultant of the respondent, was appointed as
Enquiry Officer and after conducting the enquiry in
utter violation and disregard to the principles of
natural justice, the first petitioner was served with
enquiry report, dated 14-12-2010 which was prepared
by one Mugundhan, who had nothing to do with
the domestic enquiry. The first petitioner was found
to be guilty of all the charges. However, in spite of so
called enquiry report, dated 14-10-2010, being submitted
to the respondent, the respondent has not taken any
action based on the said enquiry report and has
kept the first petitioner under suspension on
payment of bare minimum subsistence allowance
of 25%. Even the second show cause notice was
issued to the first petitioner only on 10-10-2011,
which was suitably replied by him on 18-10-2011.
643
2 July 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners received a letter,
dated 14-5-2009, suspending them from 16-5-2009
for the alleged commission of serious misconducts.
The said suspension order was revoked by the
respondent on 20-5-2009 in view of illegal lockout
declared by it, which was lifted on 16-7-2009 and
once again the respondent management imposed
suspension pending enquiry on them with effect
from 16-7-2009.
On 11-9-2009 the 2nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners
received Tamil translation of individual charge
sheet, dated 31-8-2009 accusing them of various
serious misconducts. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th
petitioners replied to the charge sheet on 16-9-2009.
Not satisfying with the reply, one Thilagavathy was
appointed as Enquiry Officer and after conducting
the enquiry in utter violation and disregard to the
principles of natural justice, the petitioners No. 2
to 4 were served with a letter, dated 4-5-2010 along
with enquiry report, dated 24-4-2010 calling for their
explanation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and they submitted their explanation on 17-5-2010.
On 31-8-2010, the respondent reinstated the
petitioners No. 2 to 4 but imposed the punishment
of treating the suspension period as absence and
withholding of increment for one year on grounds
that the charges against them stood proved. Hence,
this industrial dispute is filed to reinstate the first
petitioner into service with full back wages and to
pay the full back wages to the petitioners No. 2 to 4
with continuity of service from the date of their
suspension i.e., on 14-5-2009 till 31-8-2010, when
they were reinstated.
3. The respondent in his counter has stated as
follows:
On 12-11-2008 a settlement was arrived at under
section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before
the Labour Officer for a period of three years and
when the settlement was in operation, the petitioner
union in violation of the terms of settlement raised
some additional demands and resorted to various
unethical acts and unfair labour practice. In support
of the same, few of the workers i.e., the petitioners
herein entered into direction action and committed
grievous misconducts while on duty. Therefore, the
respondent was constrained to take disciplinary
action
under
the
provisions
of
Industrial
Employment and Standing Orders Act and the
petitioners were suspended with effect from 16-5-2009.
Consequently, the petitioners also instigated further
violence on account of which, the respondent was
forced to declare lockout of the factory. Since the
union demanded to revoke the suspension order
issued to the petitioners and demanded to lift the
lockout, the suspension orders were withdrawn and
lockout was lifted. However, when the day on which
the lockout was lifted, the attitude of the above
said workers remained unchanged and therefore,
again they were placed under suspension.
The petitioners were under suspension for their
grievous misconducts committed individually for
which separate charge sheets were issued and
individual enquiry were conducted and based on the
findings of the independents enquiry report,
proportionate punishment were awarded by the
respondent. In case, the petitioners are having any
grievance against the punishment or any claim
whatsoever they have to raise dispute separately to
settle the grievance if any and seeking relief under
this dispute is not maintainable. 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.P72 were marked. On the side of the
respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R6
were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On this point:
The contention of the petitioners is that they are
all members of Superfil Products Workers Union, in
which the first petitioner is the President and the other
petitioners are its office bearers and all the petitioners
were issued with a charge sheet, dated 31-8-2009 levelling
charges of various misconducts and they were
s u s p e n d e d o n 1 6 -5 -2 0 0 9 w h i c h w a s r e v o k e d
on 20-5-2009 in view of the illegal lockout declared by
the management and they were once again suspended
from 16-7-2009 once the lockout was lifted and the
domestic enquiry conducted against them were in total
contravention of the principles of natural justices fair
play, equity and good conscience. The petitioners
further contended that only after more than 1½ years
from the date of suspending them, on 31-8-2010 the
respondent reinstated the 2nd to 4th petitioners by
imposing punishment of treating the suspension
period as absence and withholding an increment for
one year and the first petitioner was terminated from
service after 2½ years of commencement of enquiry
proceedings.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that the petitioners were involved in gross
misconducts while on duty and since they are violent
and uncontrollable, they were placed under
suspension and the suspension order and the lockout
against the petitioners were withdrawn on demand
from the workers, but the attitude of the petitioners
644
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 July 2013
remained unchanged and therefore the suspension was
re-imposed on them. The respondent further contended
that the enquiry was conducted under principles of
natural justice and based on the findings of an
independent Enquiry Officer, the proportionate
punishment is awarded.
8. On the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner
was examined as PW.1. PW.1 in his evidence has
deposed that being the President of Superfil Products
Workers Union, he is a protected workman as defined
under section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
in fact 25-3-2009 under Ex.P38 their union gave a letter
declaring 14 workers as protected workmen and the
respondent replied to the said letter vide its letter, dated
28-3-2009 under Ex.P39, asking the union to submit
only 8 workers as protected workmen and accordingly
their union gave letter, dated 8-4-2009 under Ex.P40
declaring only 8 workers as its protected workmen
including himself. PW.1 further deposed that the said
letter was received by the respondent but not replied
to which would only mean that the respondent
accepted the letter, dated 8-4-2009.
9. Ex.P38 to Ex.P40 would prove the said version
of PW.1 and hence PW.1 is a protected workman.
Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates
that any change in service condition of protected
workman can be done only with prior permission of the
authority before whom an industrial dispute is already
pending. In this case, the present industrial dispute
was filed on 8-12-2011, whereas the first petitioner
PW.1 was terminated from service on 15-12-2011 as
could be seen from the termination order under Ex.P43.
At the time when the respondent dismissed PW.1 from
service, the present industrial dispute challenging his
suspension is pending and hence the respondent was
bound to seek permission for his dismissal, which they
have not done and therefore, dismissal order of PW.1
is vitiated.
10. Further as per section 33 (2) (a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the permission for dismissal must be
obtained by the management from the authority before
whom any other industrial dispute connected to the
issue of dismissal of the workmen is pending. In the
present case, PW.1 was suspended in connection with
the charge sheet issued to him under Ex.P5 and PW.1
challenged the said suspension, which is being
adjudicated by this court in the present dispute. For
the same charge sheet, the respondent has dismissed
PW.1 from service without any prior permission of
this court and hence the dismissal of PW.1 is violative
of section 33(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
11. PW.1 further deposed that the 2nd to 4th
petitioners received letter, dated 14-5-2009 suspending
them from 16-5-2009 for the alleged commission of
serious misconducts and the said suspension order
was revoked by the respondent on 20-5-2009 in view
of the illegal lockout declared by it, which was lifted
on 16-7-2009 and once again the respondent
management imposed suspension pending enquiry on
them with effect from 16-7-2009. PW.1 further deposed
that 2nd to 4th petitioners replied to the charge sheet
on 16-9-2009 and not satisfied with the reply given,
the respondent appointed one Thilagavathy, Advocate
as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry on charges
levelled against them and the said Enquiry Officer
conducted the enquiry in complete violation and
disregard to the principles of natural justice, fair play,
equity and good conscience and hurriedly set all the
petitioners ex parte and closed the enquiry proceedings
and the respondent served the letter, dated 4-5-2010
along with the enquiry report, dated 24-4-2010 calling
for explanation from the 2nd to 4th petitioners on
findings of Enquiry Officer and they submitted their
explanation on 17-5-2010 and on 31-8-2010 the
respondent reinstated them but imposed the punishment
of treating the suspension period as absence i.e., from
14-5-2009 till 31-8-2010 and withholding of increment
for one year on grounds that the charges against the
2nd to 4th petitioner stood proved.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the petitioners entered into direct action
and committed grievous misconducts while on duty.
Therefore, the respondent was constrained to take
disciplinary action. As a precaution to avoid
instigation of violence inside the factory, they were
placed under suspension with effect from 16-5-2009.
In view of the sinister acts of the petitioners, the
respondent was forced to declare lockout of the
factory and subsequently, the union demanded to
revoke the suspension order and also to lift the
lockout. With a view of restoring normalcy, the
suspension order issued to the petitioners were
revoked and the lockout was lifted. However, on the
day of lifting of lockout, the attitudes of the
petitioners were violent and dangerous and therefore,
in the interest of the restoring peace and tranquility,
they were again suspended. Now the burden is on the
respondent to prove that the charges levelled against
the petitioners are proved through the domestic
enquiry.
13. On the side of the petitioners, the copy of the
charge sheets were marked as Ex.P5, Ex.P47, Ex.P58 and
Ex.P67 issued to petitioners No.1 to 4 respectively.
A perusal of those documents reveals that neither
the respondent nor the enquiry officer gave copies of
the documents filed by the management to enable the
petitioners to understand the exact nature of charges
levelled against them. Even the list of witnesses based
645
2 July 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
on which the management proposed to prove the guilt,
were not given to them. In fact, it is mandatory that
along with the charge sheet, the respondent is required
to furnish the complete list of documents and the list
of witnesses proposed to be used during the enquiry
proceedings to prove the guilt. The charge sheet does
not contain any of those vital particulars. Hence, the
Enquiry Officer did not discharge his duties properly.
14. On the side of the petitioners, the enquiry
reports in respect of PW.1 were marked as Ex.P37,
Ex.P50, Ex.P61 and Ex.P69 respectively. The respondent
management ensured that none of the witnesses
produced by them are cross-examined by the
petitioners. In fact the reasonable and logical demand
of the petitioners of cross-examining all the witnesses
of the management together after examination in chief
of those witnesses on grounds of possibilities of a
witness tutoring the other after cross-examination was
not accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry
Officers and respondent even refused to permit the
petitioners to recall the management witnesses for
cross-examination and had been hyper technical in
refusing to reopen the matter after setting them
ex parte. Such attitude of the Enquiry Officers clearly
showed that they were biased and pre-determined.
Further the Enquiry Officers did not allow the
petitioners to give evidence or examine witnesses on
their behalf. The Enquiry Officer thought it fit to close
their side without even giving the petitioners an
opportunity to produce their witnesses or examine
themselves in the case. Further a perusal of the enquiry
reports under Ex.P37, Ex.P50, Ex.P61 and Ex.P69 further
reveals that the respondent could not produce any
acceptable evidence to prove any of the misconducts
levelled against the petitioners. Apart from the above,
the respondent engaged one Venkatraman as Enquiry
Officer for the enquiry of PW.1, but gave the enquiry
report through one Mukundan, Advocate, which is
unknown and unheard of that in industrial
jurisprudence.
15. It is pertinent to note that the respondent did
not appoint any presenting officer to put forth its case
and the Enquiry Officer acted as the presenting officer
for the respondent management. The Enquiry Officer
was completely ignorant of enquiry proceedings and
was dictated by the management in conducting the
enquiry. Further the first petitioner sent a letter, dated
16-11-2009 under Ex.P17 seeking defence assistant,
objections regarding wrong recording of evidence vide
letter, dated 16-11-2009 under Ex.P16 and letter dated
15-12-2009 under Ex.P23 requesting cross-examination
of all the witnesses together, for adjournments of
enquiry vide letter, dated 20-2-2010 under Ex.P27 and
2-5-2010 to the Enquiry Officer, but none of the letters
were replied by the Enquiry Officer and they were all
replied by the management and all decisions on those
letters, which were required to have been taken only
by the Enquiry Officer, were taken by the management.
The enquiry report prepared by Mr. Mukundan,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. Venkataraman was handed
over to the respondent on 14-12-2010 under Ex.P37.
But the respondent did not pass final order against
PW.1 and kept him under suspension pending enquiry
and he was terminated from service on 15-12-2011
as could be seen from the termination order under
Ex.P43. It shows the indecisiveness and incompetence
of the respondent. The respondent's inability to pass
final orders by itself is sufficient for this court to set
aside the entire enquiry proceedings. Though the
respondent has stated that they have conducted the
enquiry in a proper manner by giving sufficient
opportunities to the petitioners, they have not filed
the enquiry proceedings to prove the said version. In
the above circumstances, the termination of the first
petitioner is bad in law and the same is liable to be
set aside. Likewise since the charges against the 2nd
to 4th petitioners have not been proved through
enquiry by the respondents, they are entitled to get
the full back wages with continuity of service from the
date of suspension i.e., on 14-5-2009 till 31-8-2010,
when they were reinstated.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the respondent has not paid the
subsistence allowance as per law and hence the entire
enquiry proceedings must be held to be vitiated. In
order to support his claim, he relied upon the following
decision:
2003-I-LLJ:
Ranjit Singh and Another Versus Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and others:
"Held: The High Court observed the employer was
bound to pay subsistence allowance to the appellants
during the pendency of application filed under
section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Suspension did not sever the relationship of
master and servant and therefore the employee
remained entitled to subsistence allowance, it was
further observed.
The fact that the appellants did not challenge the
order of the Tribunal rejecting their claim for
subsistence allowance could not be made a ground
to deny relief, as the said order was interlocutory
in nature and got merged in the final order.”.
17. In this regard, PW.1 has stated that the
respondent suspended the petitioners on 16-5-2009
and they declared illegal lockout on 20-5-2009 which
is a subject matter of dispute before this court in
I.D. No. 16/2009 and after declaring lockout, the
646
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 July 2013
suspension order against them was illegally revoked
thereby denying them even bare minimum subsistence
allowance. PW.1 further deposed that the respondent
lifted the lockout on 16-7-2009 and once again
re-imposed suspension on the petitioners and thus the
respondent did not pay any money to them from
20-5-2009 to 16-7-2009 and the non-payment of
subsistence allowance from 20-5-2009 to 16-7-2009 by
itself vitiates the entire proceedings.
18. In order to prove that the respondent has not
paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioners,
PW.1 has marked the copy of the order passed in C.P.
No. 6/2010 as Ex.P41 and in C.P. No. 3/2010 as Ex.P42.
A perusal of Ex.P41 reveals that the petitioners have
filed the C.P. No. 6/2010 against the respondent
directing them to pay the arrears of subsistence
allowance, which was allowed by this court on 14-7-2011.
Likewise the first petitioner has filed C.P. No. 3/2011
directing to pay the arrears of subsistence allowance
of ` 46,515 and the same was allowed by this court
on 24-11-2011. In fact RW.1 in his cross-examination
has also admitted that they have not paid the
subsistence allowance from 14-5-2009 to 16-7-2009 and
in this regard, the C.P. No. 6/2010 was filed by the
petitioners before this court. RW.1 has also admitted
in his cross-examination that the first petitioner has
filed C.P. No. 3/2011 and this court allowed the said
petitioner directing the respondent to pay a sum of
` 46,515 to the first petitioner and in order to
implement the said order, the first petitioner has taken
revenue recovery against them. Hence, the petitioners
have proved that the respondent has not paid the
subsistence allowance as per law. The non-payment
of subsistence allowance by itself is against the
principles of natural justice and therefore the entire
enquiry proceedings must be held to be vitiated.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the petitioners were prevented from
attending their work with sufficient cause against
which they have raised an industrial dispute before
the conciliation machinery and upon failure of the
conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for
adjudication before this court with clear terms of
reference. He further submitted that the order of
reference specifies the point of reference for
adjudication namely "Whether the refusal of
employment and unfair labour practice is justified?",
whereas the first petitioner claims different relief not
connected with the terms of reference and the terms
of reference are only regarding refusal of employment
and unfair labour practice and not for non-employment
and in such a situation, the Labour Court cannot travel
beyond the scope of the terms of reference and the
claim of the petitioner is to be dismissed. In order to
support his claim, he relied upon the following
decisions:
2012 LLR 191:
“Regularisation - Muster roll driver having about
8 years service alleged that he demanded permanency
of job as he had passed the required trade test but
was terminated - Claim for reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages was filed by
the workman - Stand of the management is that the
workman himself had abandoned the job and could
not be selected as a permanent driver as he did not
possess minimum educational qualification of being
eighth class pass - Labour Court passed the Award
directing the Management to appoint the workman
as a regular driver with 50% back wages relaxing the
educational qualification - Management challenged
the Award of Labour Court on the ground inter alia
that it was without jurisdiction as far as
regularisation is concerned - Held, Labour Court
was not justified in giving the relief of regularisation
since it was neither the dispute referred to it nor
such a claim of the workman himself nor incidental
to the real dispute - Labour Court cannot travel
beyond the terms of reference - Accordingly Award
of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that
the workman is entitled only to the relief of
reinstatement with 50% back wages as a muster roll
employee and not as a regular employee.”.
20. The Government of Puducherry has made the
reference in this industrial dispute which states,
“Whether the dispute raised by the Superfil
Products Workers Union against the management of
M/s. Superfil Products Limited, Puducherry over
refusal of employment and unfair labour practice of the
workers viz., (1) Thiruneelakandan, (2) M. Umapathy,
(3) C. Murugan and (4) S. Murugan is justified or not?
21. The respondent themselves have admitted that
the reference is only about adjudication on the unfair
labour practice complained against them and not
against the petitioners, which is evidence from their
counter statement as well as their written arguments.
There is a typographical error in the 1st point of the
reference made by the Government of Puducherry and
hence the first point of the reference must be read only
as follows:
“Whether the dispute raised by the Superfil
Products Workers Union against the management of
M/s. Superfil Products Limited, Puducherry over
refusal of employment and unfair labour practice
against the workers viz., (1) Thiruneelakandan,
(2) M. Umapathy, (3) C. Murugan and (4) S. Murugan
is justified or not?
As already stated, the respondent has played the
unfair labour practice against the petitioners and
hence the punishment orders passed against them
647
2 July 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
are liable to be set aside. Hence, the decision relied
on by the learned counsel for the respondent is not
applicable to the present facts and circumstances
of the case.
22. Finally, the learned counsel for the respondent
has submitted that according to the above Government
Order. The dispute was raised by Superfil Products
Workers Union against this respondent and in case the
dispute was raised by Superfil Products Workers
Union, this is a dispute under section 2K of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and only the union is having the
authority to represent the case and in this dispute one
Thiruneelakandan is representing for himself and on
behalf of the other petitioners in his personal capacity
and therefore the said Thiruneelakandan does not have
any locus standi to represent this case and in case the
dispute is to be taken as a reference under the said
2-A of the Act, the said Thiruneelakandan has not filed
any authorisation to represent the other petitioners in
this dispute.
23. It is true that Thiruneelakandan, the first
petitioner herein, is representing for himself and on
behalf of the other petitioners in his personal capacity,
for which no authorisation was given by the other
petitioners i.e., petitioners No. 2 to 4 to the first
petitioner. But for the simple technical reason, the
entire petitioner's case cannot be thrown out, since the
petitioners have proved the unfair labour practice
against them by the respondent. Hence, much
weightage cannot be given to the said aspect. In the
above circumstances, the termination order issued by
the respondent to the first petitioner is bad in law and
the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioner
No. 1 is entitled to get the reinstatement with
continuity of service and full back wages and the
petitioners No. 2 to 4 are entitled for full back wages
with continuity of service from the date of their
suspension till their reinstatement. Accordingly, this
point is answered.
22. In the result, the industrial dispute is allowed
and the respondent is directed to reinstate the first
petitioner into service with continuity of service and
full back wages and the respondent is also directed to
pay the full back wages with continuity of service to
the petitioners No. 2 to 4 from the date of their
suspension i.e. from 14-5-2009 till 31-8-2010, when they
were reinstated. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court on this the 20th day of
February 2013.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness :
PW.1 — 12-9-2012 — Thiruneelakandan
List of respondent’s witness :
RW.1—12-10-2012
— Uma Maheshwari
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.P1
— Copy of the failure report, dated
16-4-2010.
Ex. P2 — Copy of the suspension order issued
to 1st petitioner, dated 14-5-2009.
Ex.P3
— Copy of the revocation of suspension,
dated 20-5-2009.
Ex.P4
— Copy
of
the
reimposition
of
suspension by the respondent, dated
16-7-2009.
Ex.P5
— Copy of the charge sheet issued to the
first petitioner, dated 21-8-2009.
Ex.P6
— Copy of the reply issued by 1st
petitioner, dated 16-9-2009.
Ex.P7
— Copy of the enquiry notice to the first
petitioner, dated 1-10-2009.
Ex.P8
— Copy of the letter given by the 1st
petitioner, dated 14-10-2009 to the
respondent.
Ex.P9
— Copy of the letter issued by the
respondent to the first petitioner,
dated 21-10-2009.
Ex.P10 — Copy of the letter, dated 28-10-2009
given by the respondent.
Ex.P11 — Copy of the letter given by the 1st
petitioner, dated 28-10-2009.
Ex.P12 — Copy of the letter given by the 1st
petitioner, dated 31-10-2009 to the
respondent.
Ex.P13 — Copy of the letter by respondent to
the first petitioner, dated 8-12-2009.
Ex.P14 — Copy of the first petitioner to the
respondent, dated 8-12-2009.
Ex.P15 — Copy of the letter by the respondent
to the 1st petitioner, dated 10-11-2009.
Ex.P16 — Copy of the letter given by the 1st
petitioner, dated 16-11-2009.
Ex.P17 — Copy of the letter given by 1st
petitioner, dated 16-11-2009.
Ex.P18 — Copy of the letter by respondent, dated
23-11-2009 to the Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P19 — Copy of the letter, dated 26-11-2009 to
the first petitioner.
Ex.P20 — Copy of the letter by 1st petitioner to
respondent, dated 26-11-2009.
648
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 July 2013
Ex.P21 — Copy of the letter given by the
respondent, dated 27-11-2009 to 1st
petitioner.
Ex.P22 — Copy of the letter given by 1st petitioner
to respondent, dated 28-11-2009.
Ex.P23 — Copy of the letter given by 1st petitioner
to the Enquiry Officer, dated 15-12-2009.
Ex.P24 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent
to 1st petitioner, dated 15-12-2009.
Ex.P25 — Copy of the letter given by 1st petitioner,
dated 15-12-2009.
Ex.P26 — Copy of the letter given by 1st petitioner
to respondent, dated 28-1-2010.
Ex.P27 — Copy of the letter given by 1st petitioner
to the respondent, dated 20-2-2010.
Ex.P28 — Copy of the reply letter given by
respondent to 1st petitioner, dated
25-2-2010.
Ex.P29 — Copy of the letter given by 1st petitioner
to the respondent, dated 27-2-2010.
Ex.P30 — Copy of the letter by respondent to
1st petitioner, dated 5-4-2010.
Ex.P31 — Copy of the reply by 1st petitioner to
the respondent, dated 23-4-2010.
Ex.P32 — Copy of the letter given by respondent
to 1st petitioner, dated 13-5-2010.
Ex.P33 — Copy of the reply by 1st petitioner to
respondent, dated 13-5-2010.
Ex.P34 — Copy of the letter by 1st petitioner to
the respondent, dated 12-6-2010.
Ex.P35 — Copy of the letter by respondent to
1st petitioner, dated 22-7-2010.
Ex.P36 — Copy of the letter by 1st petitioner to
respondent, dated 14-7-2010.
Ex.P37 — Copy of the enquiry report, dated
14-12-2010.
Ex.P38 — Copy of the letter by petitioners
union, dated 25-3-2009.
Ex.P39 — Copy of the letter given by respondent
to petitioner, dated 28-3-2009.
Ex.P40 — Copy of the letter, dated 8-4-2009 by
petitioners union.
Ex.P41 — Copy of the order passed in C.P. No. 6/2010,
dated 14-7-2011.
Ex.P42 — Copy of the order passed in
C.P. No. 3/2011, dated 24-11-2011.
Ex.P43 — Copy of the termination order sent to
the first petitioner, dated 15-12-2011.
Ex.P44 — Copy of the reply given by 1st petitioner,
dated 6-1-2012 to respondent.
Ex.P45 — Copy of the letter, dated 20-5-2009 by
respondent to 2nd petitioner.
Ex.P46 —
Copy of the letter, dated 16-7-2009 by
respondent to 2nd petitioner.
Ex.P47 — Copy of the charge sheet given by
respondent to 2nd petitioner, dated
31-8-2009.
Ex.P48 — Copy of the reply, dated 16-9-2009
by 2nd petitioner.
Ex.P49 — Copy of the letter, dated 27-2-2010
given by 2nd petitioner to respondent.
Ex.P50 — Copy of the letter given by 2nd
petitioner to Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P51 — Copy of the show cause notice by
respondent to 2nd petitioner.
Ex.P52 — Copy of the reply given by 2nd
petitioner, dated 17-5-2010.
Ex.P53 — Copy of the letter punishment order
given by respondent to second petitioner.
Ex.P54 — Copy of the letter given by 2nd
petitioner,
dated
7-9-2010
to
respondent.
Ex.P55 — Copy of the letter given by respondent
to 3rd petitioner, dated 14-5-2009.
Ex.P56 — Copy of the letter given by respondent
to 3rd petitioner, dated 20-5-2009.
Ex.P57 — Copy of the letter by respondent to
3rd petitioner, dated 16-7-2009.
Ex.P58 — Copy of the charge sheet by respondent
to 3rd petitioner, dated 31-8-2009.
Ex.P59 — Copy of the letter, dated 13-2-2010 by
3rd petitioner to Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P60 — Copy of the letter given by 3rd
petitioner dated 27-2-2010 to the
respondent.
Ex.P61 — Copy of the show cause notice with
enquiry report, dated 4-5-2010.
Ex.P62 — Copy of the letter punishment order
given by respondent to 3rd petitioner,
dated 31-8-2010.
Ex.P63 — Copy of the letter given by 3rd
petitioner to respondent, dated 7-9-2010.
Ex.P64 — Copy of the letter by respondent to
4th petitioner, dated 14-5-2009.
Ex.P65 — Copy of the letter, dated 20-5-2009 by
respondent to 4th petitioner.
Ex.P66 — Copy of the letter, dated 16-7-2009 by
respondent to 4th petitioner.
Ex.P67 — Copy of the charge sheet, dated
31-8-2009 given to 4th petitioner.
649
2 July 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P68 — Copy of the reply, dated 16-9-2009 by
4th petitioner.
Ex.P69 — Copy of the show cause notice with
enquiry report, dated 4-5-2010.
Ex.P70 — Copy of the reply, dated 17-5-2010 by
4th petitioner to show cause notice.
Ex.P71 — Copy of punishment order given by
respondent to 4th petitioner, dated
31-8-2010.
Ex.P72 — Copy of the letters given by 4th
respondent, dated 7-9-2010.
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Ex.R1
— Copy of the petition, dated 4-12-2009
filed by the first petitioner to Labour
Officer.
Ex.R2
— Copy of the petition, dated 4-12-2009
filed by Umpathy to Labour Officer.
Ex.R3
— Copy of the petition, dated 4-12-2009
filed by C. Murugan to Labour Officer.
Ex.R4
— Copy of the petition, dated 4-12-2009
filed by S. Murugan to Labour Officer.
Ex.R5
— Copy of the failure report, dated
16-4-2010.
Ex.R6
— Copy of the Government Order, dated
6-1-2011 issued by Labour Department.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (ART AND CULTURE)
(G.O. Ms. No. 31, dated 24th May 2013)
ORDER
Approval of the Lieutenant-Governor is hereby
conveyed for constitution of Screening Committee
to scrutinize the applications and recommend
nominees for Tagore International Award for Cultural
Harmony conferred by Ministry of Culture, New Delhi.
The tenure of the committee comes into effect from
the date of issue of this order. The composition of
the committee shall be as follows:
(1) Director (Art and Culture)
. . Chairman
(2) Under Secretary (Education)
. . Member
(3) Thiru M. Vetrivel,
. . Member
S/o. Muthiyan,
No. 23, Mettu Street,
Soriyankuppam, Kuruvinatham,
Puducherry–607 402.
(4) Thiru Gopalan @
. . Member
Puduvai Yugabharathi,
No. 79, Mariamman Koil Street,
Jeevanandapuram,
Puducherry–605 008.
(5) Thiru Aadhavan,
. . Member
No. F-37, Sudandira Ponvizha Nagar,
Puducherry–605 011.
2. The Chairman of the committee shall make
necessary arrangements for convening the meeting as
and when necessary.
3. The committee may have a tenure of three years
from the date of issue of Government order.
(By order)
M. GUNASEKARAN,
Under Secretary to Government (Edn.).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 88/Lab./AIL/G/2013, dated 12th June 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry has by
notification vide G.O. Ms. No. 9/95/Lab., dated 7-4-1995
under sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Puducherry
Shops and Establishments Act, 1964 authorised the
Secretary to Government, Labour Department, Puducherry
to exercise the powers of the Government under section 6
of the said Act relating to exemption;
And whereas, the Karaikal Stationery Merchants
Association, Karaikal West Side Viyabarigal Sangam,
Karaikal Jewellers Association and Karaikal Jawli
Viyabarigal Sangam have applied for grant of exemption
to shops and establishments in Karaikal region to keep
them open beyond the working hours and on weekly
holidays from certain provisions of the said Act on
account of important festivals viz., Tamil New Year,
Atchayathridhiyai, Re-opening of schools/colleges,
Mangani Festival, Ramalan, Adi Month Festival,
Vinayagar Chaturthi, Bakrid, Ayuthapooja, Deepavali,
Christmas and Pongal, etc.;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by section 6 of the said Act, the Secretary to
Government, Labour Department hereby exempt all
shops and establishments in Karaikal region from the
application of the provisions of the sections 10(1),
12(1), 12(2), 13, 14(1), 14(2), 16(1), 17(1), 17(2), 18
and 19 of the said Act, to keep them open beyond the
working hours and on weekly holidays during the under -
mentioned festivals period, subject to the following
conditions:—