264
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 April 2014
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 71/Lab./AIL/J/2014, dated 21st April 2014)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I. D. (L) No. 26/2011, dated 7-3-2014
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Tea Unit), Puducherry
and its workman Thiru N. Chandiramogane, 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 PONDICHERRY
Present : Tmt. S. MARY ANSELAM, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Labour Court.
Friday, the 7th day of March 2014
I.D. (L) No. 26/2011
N. Chandiramogane
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Tea Unit),
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 28-2-2014 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru R. Ravikumar,
Advocate for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Sathish,
T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan, V. Veeraragavan and P. Rajesh,
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 has been referred as per
the G.O. Rt. No. 175/ AIL/LAB/J/2011, dated 24-10-2011
for adjudicating the following :
(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru
N. Chandramogane, against the management of
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Tea Unit Ltd., Puducherry
over non-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 facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus :
The petitioner joined the services of respondent
on 1-6-1998. On 20-1-2011, at about 3.20 p.m.
onwards, petitioner was given a job of supervising
the loading materials into a carrier. He has completed
his assignment at about 5.30 p.m. After 5.30 p.m.
when petitioner was about to start to his home, he
was detained by respondent officers alleging that he
overloaded some item in the carrier on that day.
Respondent management threatened petitioner giving
theft complaint with a local police station. He was
blackmailed to give voluntary resignation, and he
was forced to sign his resignation letter, dated
20-1-2011. On 20-1-2011, the petitioner was detained
inside the factory for the whole night and was
tortured. His cell phone was seized and not talked
to his family members. Principles of natural justice
and fair play was not followed in terminating
petitioner. Voluntary resignation was obtained by
fraud, coercion and undue influence. No charge
sheet, show cause notice has been issued to
petitioner and no explanations were called for the
petitioner. No domestic enquiry was conducted
against petitioner before terminating him as per the
Industrial Disputes Act. Dispute did not get settled
before LOC and get present industrial dispute.
The petitioner claims reinstatement with back wages.
3. Per contra, traversing the averments the claim
statement, the respondent filed the counter with the
averments which runs thus:
Petitioner was employed as Assistant Operator on
1-6-1998 and his services were confirmed on 3-12-1999
as daily rated workman in 1999. Post accident, he
was accommodated in commercial operations in
January 2009 to give him light work. Petitioner's
routine job was to monitor loading and dispatch of
finished goods based on daily indent received by
him from commercial department. While loading
materials in carrier, petitioner was required to be
physically present throughout loading process to
cross check loading cartons and boxes, mark those
loading materials in indent and ultimately sign the
indent sheet after cross checking loaded materials.
265
29 April 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Only after petitioner's signature in approval of due
and proper loading of materials in terms of indent,
the loaded vehicle will be moved out of loading area.
On 20-1-2011, petitioner was assigned with job of
loading specific finished materials in lorry bearing
Registration No. TN28AA0235 with a indent for the
items, (1) 3rd 2 kg.-271 cases, (2) 3rd 245 g-153 cases
and (3) Taaza 490g-1 case. Loading of those materials
was done in the presence of petitioner through two
contract workers and after loading the materials in
said lorry, petitioner has signed the indent sheet
confirming that consignment was loaded only as per
indent given by commercial department of
respondent. As part of routine, random checkup, the
truck bearing Registration No.TN28AA0235 was
checked and materials were unloaded excess loading
of materials were found namely (1) 3rd 2 kg.-278 cases
namely 7 cases more than the indent value (2) 3rd
245 g-234 cases namely 81 cases more than the
indent value and (3) Taaza 490 g - 1 case. The
counting was witnessed in the presence of a
Security Guard on duty at loading point, the truck
driver of Varun Logistics, the supervisor of loading
and unloading contract M/s. SNC, two loading
contract labourers. In addition to this, the counting
was done by another employee K. Chandrasekar who
was also working in commercial department, the
Commercial Manager, The Executive and the General
Shift Executives and counting was done individually
by each stakeholder and copies signed by them.
The value of excess items was found in the said
lorry was to the tune of ` 2.85 lakhs. The petitioner
was caught red handed while attempting to steal the
materials and he admitted his guilt and pleaded
mercy. Since materials were recovered and petitioner
was pleading mercy and even volunteered to quit his
job, respondent did not lodged any police complaint
against him to save himself from ignonimity and
avoid any criminal complaint, petitioner voluntarily
resigned his job on 20-1-2011. Since petitioner
voluntarily submitted his resignation letter, he was
relieved from services with immediate effect. Only for
the reason, no domestic enquiry was conducted
against him. Petitioner as an afterthought, to regain
his lost employment, is taking his chances by raising
an industrial dispute on false claims of forcible
resignation. Hence the claims of the petitioner is
neither maintainable in law nor on facts and hence
the claim petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner PW.1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked. Ex.R1 to R3 were marked
in cross-examination of PW.1. Respondent examined its
Senior Executive-HR as RW.1 and marked as Ex.R4
to R15. Respondent summoned RW.2 - Mr. Kuppusamy,
RW.3 - Mr. Chandrasekar, RW.4 - Mr. Veeramani who
witnessed process of counting and found that there
was excess loading in the lorry bearing Registration
No. TN28AA0235.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On this point:
Ex.R1, dated 20-1-2011 is the resignation letter of the
petitioner. Ex.P2, dated 21-1-2011 is the letter given by
respondent accepting petitioner’s resignation and
relieving him from service. It is also countersigned by
petitioner. PW.1 admitted having executed Ex.R1 and P2.
RW.3 is also a co-employee of petitioner and he stood
witness to Ex.R1 and he also spoken about execution
of Ex.R1 by the petitioner. So, it is an admitted fact that
the petitioner gave Ex.R1 which is his letter of
resignation. But the petitioner challenges Ex.R1 on the
ground that it was obtained by force and coercion and
threat. So the burden of proving coercion in executing
Ex.R1 is on petitioner, on the side of the respondent CDJ
2013 MHC 3683, 2012 LLR 1276 and 2003 LLR 618 are
pressed into service. As per the above citation, CDJ
2013 MHC 3683 Burden of proving duress in submitting
resignation letter is on petitioner, once resignation letter
is accepted the same cannot be withdrawn. In order to
prove coercion on the part of the respondent no
independent witness was examined and no document
produced to prove petitioner's contention. No
independent witness was examined on his side to prove
coercion or undue influence in executing Ex.R1. If the
petitioner was forced to sit inside a cabin from 5.30 p.m.
to 3.30 a.m. it was witnessed by workers, officers and
security guards of the factory. Petitioner could have
examined at least one of them to prove such coercion.
The non-examination of some of the workers in the
factory is affecting the case of the petitioner. In Ex.P4,
dated 21-1-2011 petitioner claimed that Mr. Subburayan,
management representative, Mr. Hariharan, Production
Manager, Mr. Subramani, the Factory Manager,
Mr. Nagarajan, H.R Manager of P.P factory, Vadamangalam,
Mr. Sanjay, Commercial Manager, Mr. Loganathan, Baskaran,
Miss. Vijayalakshmi, Mr. Iyyasamy, Security Officer,
Mr. Kannan and Govindan were present when petitioner
signed Ex.R1 and they forced petitioner to sign his
resignation letter. None of them were summoned and
examined by petitioner to prove his case.
7. It was stated on the side of the petitioner he was
relieved only by 3.00 a.m. when his normal duty time
ended by 5.30 p.m. But he did not examine the family
members to substantiate these facts. Further the
petitioner nor his family members never gave a
complaint against the respondent for the wrongful
restraint, criminal intimidation or obtaining a false
document by coercion and force. The petitioner received
the relieving order without any objection.
266
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 April 2014
In this regard 2009 LLR 1209 is pressed into the
service.
No employer would like to retain such an employee
who is not trustworthy, is dishonest, is a thief and
who keeps his personal interests and that too by
dishonest intentions before the interest of the
employer.
So, it is proved through reliable evidence that the
petitioner was detained in the office till 3.30 a.m. in
the next morning cannot be believed even for that
moment. It is argued on the side of the respondent
that the petitioner challenged Ex.R1 belatedly and
only with LOC. The petitioner did not raise any
protest with respondent on the very next day namely
21-1-2011 or even on subsequent days. He approached
the LOC only on 24-1-2011 namely 4 days from the date
of his resignation. According to the petitioner he
gave Ex.P3 letter, dated 21-1-2011 to the respondent.
But there is no proof of service, petitioner gave
Ex.P4, dated 21-1-2011 to LOC only on 25-1-2011
namely only after respondent submitted Ex.R15 to
SP Rural.
In this connection 2003 (5) Bombay CR 153 is
pressed into the service on the side of the
respondent.
As per the above decision, in the above case it is
held there is no hesitation in concluding that the
teacher tendered voluntary resignation due to fear of
the exposure and social scandal as a result of his
unnatural activities. Mere telling the delinquent
workman that he was caught red handed while
committing the theft of company’s property and that
he was handed over to the police cannot be
construed to be use of force or coercion. It is only
to make him aware of the next consequence of his
behavior. So, it is not possible to accept the version
of the workman that he was forced and coerced to
sign the resignation letter.
So, it is held that he cannot be reinstated. In the
present case also no police complaint was given no
family member was examined, no worker from the
company is examined. So, Ex.R1 was obtained by
force and coercion is not proved by the petitioner in
this case. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that
on 20-1-2011, he did his work in a routine way and
there was absolutely no untoward incident warranting
his detention and obtaining his resignation. In order
to compelled the petitioner to sign, Ex.R1 there must
have been grave circumstance that warranted his
detention, so the case of the petitioner that he was
asked by the management and compelled him to
resign for absolutely no reason is unbelievable.
Ex.R2 is admittedly a handwritten letter given by the
petitioner at 7.50 p.m. wherein he has in his own
handwriting categorically admitted that he has loaded
excess materials that what he was required to load
in the lorry. Ex.R2 completely belies the petitioner
and gives a solid reason for petitioner submitting his
resignation. It is clear admission of the attempted
theft of petitioner, which was followed by his
resignation letter in Ex.R1. Once theft is admitted by
the petitioner and he has resigned to escape further
prosecution, the petitioner cannot challenge the
resignation alone.
In this regard CDJ 1996 GHC 046 is pressed into
service on the side of the respondent.
As per the decision, the petitioner in his own
handwriting admitted that he had taken two copper
conductors with silver bolt and that was his serious
mistake and he also sought pardon. This letter was
followed by letter of resignation on the same date.
Stating therein that he voluntarily gives up the job
and no criminal case be pursued against him so that
his reputation is not damaged. In view of the
aforesaid letter of resignation, the respondent
company accepted the resignation on the very date.
Thereafter, the petitioner took somersault view and
submitted that he had admitted his guilt and had
given the resignation under threat and coercion. It
is also the case of the petitioner that the company
did not pursue the criminal case against the
petitioner thereafter and no police action was taken
against him. The resignation challenged on the
grounds of coercion was disbelieved by the court so
accepting the above decision in the present case
also there is no possibility to believe that Ex.R1 is
obtained by coercion.
It is argued on the side of the petitioner that no
domestic enquiry was conducted in his case and so
his termination is not legal. In the present case, the
petitioner was caught red handed and in order to
avoid
the
criminal
prosecution
and
other
consequences he did resign voluntarily and so there
is no absolutely no domestic enquiry. As soon as the
resignation was accepted by the respondent the
employer employee stood severed and there was no
scope for conducting no domestic enquiry.
Clause 29 of the Certified Standing Order of the
respondent would read as follows:
Resignation - Workmen who desire to leave the
company's service shall give to company the same
notice as company is required to give them under
these Standing Orders. Provided that when a
workmen
gives
notice
of
resignation,
the
management shall be entitled to accept it with the
immediate effect or at any time before the expiry of
notice period. No resignation once submitted can
267
29 April 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
be withdrawn except with the permission of the
management. So, in this case there is no scope for
conducting domestic enquiry against the petitioner.
8. Further the misconduct proved before the court
even in the absence of domestic enquiry. It is settled
proposition of law that management is entitled to lead
evidence before Labour Court and prove the alleged
misconduct and justify the reasons for discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment, termination or non-employment
of worker. The petitioner cannot be reinstated in service
as the respondent has proved with cogent oral and
documentary evidence. The petitioner was caught red
handed trying to load excess materials of the company
with intentions of stealing the same. Excess material was
loaded in the carrier is proved in this case. Ex.R3 is
the manual sheet, containing the exact amount of
materials that it was required to be loaded by the
petitioner. It was duly signed by the petitioner. Ex.R2
is the hand written letter of petitioner admitting the
excess loading. RW.1 to RW.4 clearly gave evidence
that excess materials was found in such recounting,
enquiry conducted with the respondent by the petitioner
and resignation letter submitted by the petitioner.
Ex.R5 to R13 are the hand written letters given by
eyewitnesses about excess loading of materials by the
petitioner. Nothing was elucidated in the cross-
examination to discredit the evidence of the witnesses.
So, the evidence produced on the side of the
respondent clearly point out that petitioner attempted
to commit theft of materials and caught red handed and
only to save himself he has voluntarily resigned his job.
As per 2005 (5) Allahabad 360
In the above case, it is stated if resignation is
voluntary and accepted no domestic enquiry is
required. Even in case of no domestic enquiry
Tribunal must give opportunity to management to
prove charges and appreciate the evidence. Once
theft by worker is proved then there is no question
of reinstatement. In the present case also theft is
proved through oral and documentary evidence.
So, there is no possibility of reinstating the petitioner.
On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that some
discrepancies are found in the evidence of RW.1 to
RW.4 those discrepancies are minor in nature and
those minor discrepancies are not sufficient for the
petitioner to escape from criminal conduct.
As per 2004 STPL (LE) 34188 SC
Some amount of evidence is sufficient to prove
the guilt of delinquent.
The prayer in the claim statement is the
reinstatement of the petitioner. Since the petitioner
is caught red handed while he was attempting to
steal the properties of respondent the respondent
cannot take back such unscrupulous person into its
employment as it shall send wrong signals amongst
the other workers is the argument of the respondent.
Respondent has lost confidence on the petitioner.
The most important element of trust, confidence faith
are essential for the employer employee relationship
that trust and faith are completely lost and the
petitioner cannot be reinstated.
As per 2009 LLR 1209 : Punjab and Haryana
High Court
Loss of confidence management cannot retain
workers who have committed theft so there is no
possibility to reinstate the petitioner into the
respondent management.
9. It is stated on the side of the respondent that
Ex.R2 and other exhibits are not mentioned in the reply
letter which was filed before the Conciliation Officer so
those documents are forged by the respondent
management for the purpose of this case. It is not
stated on the side of the petitioner that what was the
enmity and what was the reason for the management to
foist false case against the petitioner. Without proving
the enmity there is no possibility to believe that the
exhibits are forged by the respondents. Another
argument put forward by the petitioner is that no action
was taken against the employees who were also
responsible for loading excess materials into the carrier.
Admittedly, the petitioner was the person who was
responsible for loading the material into the carrier as
per the indent so there is no necessity to take action
against the other employees who have loaded the
excess material into the lorry. Taking into consideration
of all above said aspects that there is every possibility
to believe that Ex.R1 resignation letter was given by the
petitioner and there is no sufficient evidence to prove
that the resignation letter was obtained by use of force
and coercion. Since the petitioner had voluntarily
resigned his job and resignation letter was accepted by
management and there is no possibility to allow this
industrial dispute. The allegation of theft against the
petitioner is proved by oral and documentary evidence
so, there is no possibility to reinstate the petitioner in
his service, with the continuity of service and back
wages. Since the resignation letter is given voluntary
by the petitioner, there is no possibility to set aside the
resignation letter dated 20-1-2011.
10. In the result, the claim made by the petitioner is
dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
March 2014.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (FAC), Puducherry.
268
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 April 2014
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 22-10-2012 — N. Chandiramogane
List of respondent’s witnesses:
RW.1 — 15-3-2013 — R. Vijaylaxmi
RW.2 — 10-7-2013 — S. Kuppusamy
RW.3 — 10-7-2013 — K. Chandrasekar
RW.4 — 10-7-2013 — V. Veeramani
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— Payslip of the petitioner for the month
of October 2010.
Ex.P2
— Relieving letter issued to petitioner by
respondent, dated 21-1-2011.
Ex.P3 — Copy of letter given by petitioner to
respondent, dated 21-1-2011.
Ex.P4
— Copy of letter given by petitioner
to Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated
21-1-2011.
Ex.P5
— Copy of letter sent by Labour Union
to Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated
24-1-2011.
Ex.P6
— Copy of notice of enquiry/conciliation
from Labour Officer (Conciliation),
dated 17-2-2011.
Ex.P7
— Reply version of the respondent in tamil
language, dated 14-2-2011.
Ex.P8
— Rejoinder of the petitioner to his letter,
dated 2-5-2011.
Ex.P9
— Additional counter of the respondent,
dated 26-5-2011.
Ex.P10 — Report on failure of Conciliation, dated
28-7-2011.
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — Copy of the letter given by petitioner
to respondent, dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R2
— FG Plan, dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R3 — Delivery note of Hindustan Unilever
Limited, dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R4
— Photocopy of the shift schedule,
dated 14-1-2011.
Ex.R5
— Photocopy of the list of baggage
c o u n t e d a n d h a n d w r i t t e n b y
Mr. K.Chandrasekar after unloading the
boxes from the lorry No. TN28AA0235,
dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R6
—
Photocopy of the list of baggage
c o u n t e d a n d h a n d w r i t t e n b y
Mr. Kuppusamy after unloading the
boxes from the lorry No. TN28AA0235
along with his letter, dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R7
— Photocopy of the list of baggage
counted
and
hand
written
by
petitioner after unloading the boxes
from the lorry No. TN28AA0235,
dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R8
— Photocopy of the list of baggage
c o u n t e d a n d h a n d w r i t t e n b y
Mr. Veeramani after unloading the
boxes from the lorry No. TN28AA0235,
dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R9
— Photocopy of the list of baggage
counted
and
hand
written
by
Mr.Gurunathan after unloading the
boxes from the lorry No. TN28AA0235
which was acknowledged by the
petitioner herein, dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R10 — Photocopy of the list of baggage
c o u n t e d a n d h a n d w r i t t e n b y
Mr. Pannerselvam after unloading the
boxes from the lorry No. TN28AA0235
dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R11 — Photocopy of the list of baggage
counted and hand written by
Mr. V. Selvam after unloading the boxes
from the lorry No. TN28AA0235,
dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R12 —
Photocopy of the list of baggage
c o u n t e d a n d h a n d w r i t t e n b y
Mr. Sedhupathi after unloading the
boxes from the lorry No. TN28AA0235
dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R13 — Photocopy of the list of baggage
c o u n t e d a n d h a n d w r i t t e n b y
Mr. Thamizhmani (Driver of the vehicle)
after unloading the boxes from the
lorry No. TN28AA0235, dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R14 — Photocopy of the consignment note for
Varun Logistics along with Stock
Transfer Note, Loading counting sheet
and Delivery Note, dated 20-1-2011.
Ex.R15 — Photocopy of letter sent by respondent
to the Superintendent of Police (Rural),
Thavalakuppam, dated 24-1-2011.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (FAC), Puducherry.
269
29 April 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 72/Lab./AIL/J/2014, dated 21st April 2014)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I. D. (L) No. 100/2012, dated 5-9-2013
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the Sunbeam Generators
Thozhilalargal Sangam (Affiliated with Bharathiya
Mazdoor Sangam), Puducherry against the Managing
Director, Sunbeam Generators (P) Ltd., Puducherry,
o v e r n o n - e m p l o y m e n t o f 5 w o r k m e n v i z . ,
(1) K. Dakshinamoorthy, (2) N. Siva, (3) A. Sankar,
(4) P. Mukunthan and (5) I. Raja 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 PONDICHERRY
Present :
Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Thursday, the 5th day of September 2013.
I.D. (L) No. 100/2012
The President,
Sunbeam Generators Thozhilalargal
Sangam, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Sunbeam Generator (P) Ltd.,
Koodapakkam, Puducherry
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of Thiru A.K. Thirumurugan,
Advocate for the petitioner, Thiru R. Ilanchelian and
Ms. R. Thilagavathi, Advocates for the respondent,
upon perusing the case records, 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. 215/AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 10-12-2012 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute
between the petitioners and the respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union Sunbeam Generators Thozhilalargal Sangam
(Affiliated with Bharathiya Mazdoor Sangam) against
the management of M/s. Sunbeam Generators Private
Limited, Puducherry, over non-employment of 5
workmen viz., Thiruvalargal (1) K. Dakshinamoorthy,
(2) N. Siva, (3) A. Sankar, (4) P. Mukunthan and
(5) I. Raja is justified?
(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. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent.
Thiru R. Ilanchezhiyan, Advocate filed Form ‘F’ for the
respondent. The above matter was posted for filing of
counter by the respondent to 8-3-2013, 27-3-2013,
3-4-2013, 26-4-2013, 24-5-2013, 31-5-2013, 5-6-2013,
12-6-2013, 28-6-2013, 10-7-2013, 24-7-2013, 5-8-2013,
12-8-2013 and 14-8-2013. But, in spite of several
opportunities given, no counter was filed on the side
of the respondent. Today the respondent was called
absent and set ex parte.
3. The President of the petitioner union was
examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. The
documents filed under Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 by the petitioner
side are proved their case. Hence, the respondent is
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with full
back wages and continuity of service and other benefits
with costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court on this the 5th day of September 2013.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
PW.1 —
3-9-2013 —Jayachandran
List of witness examined for the respondent : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
Ex.P1
— Copy of the E.S.I. identity card of
Dakshinamoorthy.
Ex.P2
— Copy of the identity card of the company
Ex.P3
— Copy of the E.S.I. identity card of Siva
Ex.P4
— Copy of the provident fund receipt of
Raja.
Ex.P5
— Copy of the appointment letter of
Mugunthan.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent : Nil
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.