Puducherry Gazette, No. 26, 01 July 2014

I July 2014] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 417

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?

(CO. RI. No. 971Lab.lAILlJ12014, dated 17th June 2014)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D. (L) No. 55/2012, dated 12-4-2014 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal and Thiru D. Jayaprakash, over non- employment has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) 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. MARYANSELAN,M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer (FAC), Labour Court.

(3) To compute the relief 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 he was working as driver in the Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, in the year 2000, on contractual basis for 121 months with the date of joining on consolidated pay of ~ 2,500 per month. But the payment order was dated 18-6-2003 then on 30-3-2010 the petitioner was removed from service the last pay received by the petitioner is ~ 5,500 he has given an complaint before the Labour Officer, Karaikal and the matter was not settled and the report is dated 26-9-2011. Since, there was water curiosity in the Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital canteen and quarters, the management made an arrangement to bring water through tanker lorries.

The petitioner had worked in that institution for more than 240 days continually he was not given any earlier notice. Salary or compensation after removing him from his work some other person was appointed for that post Saturday, the 12th day of April 2014.

LD. (L) No. 55/2012

D. Jayaprakash Petitioner no proper departmental enquiry was conducted in this matter. So the termination of service is not legal and so he has filed this petition with prior that the termination order, dated 31-3-2010 is illegal and direct

Versus

The Management, Mis. Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal. .. Respondent This industrial dispute coming on 5-4-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence ofThiru P. Muthukrishnan, Counsel for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal R. I1ancheliyan and R. Thilagavathi, Counsel 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. 2061 AILlLab./J/20 11, dated 25-11-20 II for adjudicating the following:

(1) Whether the d i s put era i sed by Thiru D. Jayaprakash, against the management of Mis. Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, over non-employment is justified?

the management to give him employment again with continuity of service with back wages and other benefits. But the petitioner has also proved certain facts.

He has denied that three months was not given to him and compensation was not given to him and so on. But, it is proved by the respondent through records. So the procedure adopted after the termination of service of the petitioner is not illegal and it is correct one.

It is very clear that the respondent institution had several work in the drivers and so there is no necessity to terminate the service of the petitioner who has work there for continuous period of eight years they can give driver job in some other vehicle. If the tanker lorry is no more required they can give him job as a driver in some other vehicle like college bus, ambulance and so on. So the termination of service is not legal. There is violation of natural justice in this regard. Hence the petitioner sought for declaration that the termination of service order, dated 31-3-2010 is illegal and he sought for re-employment with continuity in service and backLA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [I July 2014 418 wages and other benefits. Since the termination of months with the date of joining on consolidated pay of< 2,500 per month. But the payment order was dated service of the petitioner from the respondent institution is illegal. 18-6-2003 then on 30-3-2010 the petitioner was removed from service the last pay received by the petitioner is 3. Per contra, traversing the averments the claim statement, the respondent fi led the counter with the averments which runs thus:

Thiru Mohan is working as Personnel Officer in the respondent Medical College and Hospital. The petitioner was engaged as tanker driver and used "to bring water to the hospital, canteen and to the staff quarters at Karaikal. His engagement was purely casual and need based and he was in consolidated monthly salary. The tanker vehicles were not being operated for over 2 months and the usage of tankers became vague and unusable. The petitioner was engaged as tanker driver purely as casual and on temporary basis and was informed in advance that his services could not be required by a letter, dated 10-12-2009. The petitioner did not object to the above proposal and was receiving full wages without reporting for duty from 14-12-2009 to 31-3-2012. The petitioner was given full opportunities and also the decision of the respondent was clearly communicated.

The petitioner's services was terminated with effect from 31-3-2010 by an order of termination, dated 30-3-2010.

Accordingly a total sum of < 24,930 was paid by cheque and the same has been received and encashed by the petitioner. The petitioner remained absent and was receiving full wages without doing any work and has not objected to the decision of the respondent.

Subsequently the respondent paid the severance benefit and the petitioner having received and encashed raised this industrial dispute which is not maintainable.

The contention of the petitioner that he has been terminated from service is with ulterior motive is subject to strict proof. The writ petition filed by the petitioner and the action taken by the respondent. The respondent has terminated the service purely out of necessity for obvious reasons that the usage of tanker lorries became unviable and his termination was made by giving full opportunity to the petitioner.

4. On the side of the petitioner PW.I was examined, and the side of the respondent RW.I was examined, on the petitioner's side Ex.P 1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the respondent Ex.Rl to Ex.R8 were marked.

< 5,500 he has given an complaint before the Labour Officer, Karaikal and the matter was not settled and the report is dated 26-9-2011. Since, there was water curiosity in the Vinayaga Missions Medical College and Hospital, canteen and quarters, the management made an arrangement to bring water through tanker lorries.

So far that purpose more than seven heavy vehicle drivers were appointed and deposited water. The petitioner had worked in the management for eight years continually from 18-6-2003 onwards a consolidated pay of < 2,500 was given to him. The petitioner demanded monthly salary from the management but the drivers was appointed after him were made permanent, so he had given a complaint before the Labour Officer.

7. On receipt of the notice the management approached the Madras High Court and filed a writ petition and the writ was allowed so as per the order, dated 30-3-2010. The management asked the petitioner not to come to the work from not to attend work 31-3-2010 onwards. The petitioner had worked in that institution for more than 240 days continually he was not given any earlier notice. Salary or compensation after removing him from his work some other person was appointed for that post no proper departmental enquiry was conducted in this matter. So the termination of service is not legal and so he has filed this petition with prior that the termination order, dated 31-3-2010 is illegal and direct the management to give him employment again with continuity of service with back wages and other benefits.

PW.l in his cross-examination deposed as follows:

1 0-12-2009 6T~riLOWJ~mJri 8iLq.~~~6irr~6\lLD Ql6lJ!!)J(]6lJm6\l ~6irr!!)J LOfT~~~~® UfTri~~u, Q8ifT6iT®LDULq. 6Tr!.J8i®U,® Q8ifT®~~fTri8i6iT 6T6irr!DfTro8'rfl~fT6irr. ~6irr!!)J LOfT~LDQl6lJ!!)JQl6lJm6\l .@ro6\lfTLOro 8'LDU6TTLDQ8ifT®~~fTri8i6iT. 31-3-2010 (yl~ro $I ri6lJrr8i ~ ~ ro <86lJm 6\l .@ro61!)6\) 6T 6irr!!)J U ~ tUlro @® !li~ 6lll®6lll~~fTri8i6iT 6T6irr!DfTro8'ffl~fT6irr. u~ ~U,8iLD Q8'tiJ~<8UfT~ 6T~~m6llT 6lJ®LLD u~yrfl!liQl~fTQlLOfT ~~~® 6J>® 6lJ®L~~~® 15 !ljfTL8i6iT Q~fTm8i Q8ifT®~~fTri8i6iT 6T6irr!DfTro8'rfl~fT6irr. (ylm ~!Dl6llluy 8'LDU6TTLDQ8ifT®~~fTri8i6TTfT 6T6irrU~ \.5fTu8itDlrom6\l.

QLOfT~~LD ®UfTtiJ 24,930 Q8ifT®~~fTri8i6TTfT 6T6irr!DfTro8'rfl~fT6irr.

~6irr!!)J LOfT~ 8'LDU6TTLD6lJfTr!.J®LDQlUfT~ c:'.!>L(]8'Um= 6T@~~ ~6\lLOfT8i Q~rfl6lllu,8i6ll1rom6\l 6T6irr!DfTro8'rfl~fT6irr. ®UfTtiJ 24,930 8ifT(]8'fTm6\lUJfT8i6T~riLOWJ~fTlJri $I!!)J6lJ6lIT~~ro @®!li~ QU~!!)Ju, 5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

Q8ifT~QlL6irr. ~m~ ~®LDU ~WJuu6ll1rom6\l.

In this regard RW.I in his cross-examination deposed as 6. On this point:

According to the petitioner he was working as driver in the Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, in the year 2000, on contractual basis for 121 follows:

U~ $IUJL06lITLD2003-ro Q8'tiJ6lJ~~ (ylm6llTfTro 2000 6lJ®LLD (yl~ro 2003 6lJ61!lI]6Tr!.J8i6iT8i6U~rflu.'jro 8i6U~rfl 6lJ1T8i6llTLD6$LLq.6lIffTIT 6T6irrU~ 8'rfl~fT6irr. c:'.!>6lITfTro,~6lJri Q6lJ6Tfl6J>uu!li~~fTlJrtlLLD 6J>uu!li~LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT I July2014] 419 ~lq-UU6llLuJl6U 6lJ1T8>rntb ~LI!j. 61J!l>~lTn 6T~!DIT6U e'rfl~IT~. 2003-6U ~61J®~® ~IULOrn 2...~~IJ6lj 61JWri.J8>UULL~ (yJ~6U ~61J®~® LOIT~e'tbU6TTtb®UlTuJ 2,500 Q8>IT®~8>UUL® 61J!l>~~.

~~~Ul!D® Ulq-UUI!j.IUIT8>~61J®~® e'tbU6TTtb 2...lUn~~UUL® 8>6llLdllUlT8> u~ !$~8>tb Qe'uJIUUULL <&UIT~ ®UlTuJ 5,540 61JWri.J8>UULL~. 2003 (yJ~6U u~!$~8>tb Qe'uJIUUULL~ 61J6ll1J LOWJ~lTlJn Q~ITLn6dllUlT8> 7 ~~® 8>1T6I)tbu~tlL ..jrfl!l>~ 61J!l>~6Tr6TTlTn.@!l>~ 7 ~~® um /ID6I)~fhl6U~61Jn uS~ 6T!l>~61ll~ ®!D!D6e'ITL®tb e;)6llLIUIT~ 6T~!DIT6U e'rfl~IT~. 12-3-2005-6U ~rn~® u~ !bl1J!l>~lJtbQe'uJlU <&61J~®tb 6T~!),1Jtb LO!D!),1Jtbe'tbU6TT 2...lUn6l.jLO!D!),1Jtb@~IJ e'~6ll8>8>6Tr ~6rfl~8> <&8>lTrflLOWJ~6rfl~~lTn 6T~!DIT6U®ITU8>tDl6U6ll6l).12-3-2005-6U LOWJ~lTlJn~~<&UIT~!),1J LOWJQ8>IT®~~lTn 6T~!),1Jtb !!,>IT~~6ll~, !!,>1Tri.J8>6Trurfld6l)6llrn~® 6T®~~~ Q8>IT~<&LlTtb. ~rnlT6U ®6ll!D!l>~ e'tbU6TT~6ll~ ~6rfl~~6lllL® ~6lJ1J~ <&8>lTrfl~6ll8>8>6ll6TT,J.1)1Tri.J8>6Tr!E11J1T8>rfl~~ 6lllL<&LlTtb6T~!DIT6Ue'1fi1U6U6I).LOWJ~ITIJ®ffi® Ul!D® 2002-6\I1®!l>~ u~yrfl!l>~ 61J!l>~ ~n. 8><&=e'~, sna.ul , e'~(yJ8><&61J6U, Lq..~rn!l>~~n~~ LO!D!),1Jtb(yJ1J6rfl~IJ~ ~e;)<&lUlTn8>6TrLOL®tb u~J!llIJ!l>~tb ~ 6'\bL.J6TTtbLO!D!),1Jtb@~ e'~~ ~~8ilDIT8> ~6rfl~<&~~ 6T~!DIT6U erfuusoso. ~rnlT6U ~61Jn8>6Tr !E11J!l>~1J U~IUIT6TTn8>6TTIT8>2000 (yJ~rn<&IJ, 1998 (Yl~6U U6U<&61J!),1J <&~~8>6rfl6U@®!l>~ um Q6uJ~ 61J®If.l!DITn8>6Trto!b!),1JlD~L®JI>il8>6Tr 1998 (Yl~6U !E11J!l>~1JU~IUIT6TTn8>6TTIT8>@®!l>~ 61J®e;)!DlTn8>6Tr 6T~ U~!D® ~ 611= ri.J8>6Tr~ 6rfl~8>61ll6U6ll6l) 6T~!D IT6U e'rfllU6U6I).

LOWJ~ITIJ®~® BmW If.l6rflrnlJlT8>u~yrfl!l>~ 1n<&1J~,8>!l>~(Yl®8>~ ~e;)<&lUlTn8>®lci;® u~6lll 2...lUn6lj Q8>IT®~~ ~L®!!,>n8>6TTIT8> !bl1J!l>~lJtb~~B;uuL@6Tr6TTrnn 6T~!DIT6Ue'rfl~IT~.

Qe'~6llrn Q~ITWl6l)1T6TTn8>6Tr~6ll!D ~~61J6I)8>~~6I5l®!l>~ Q~ITW161)1T6TTn~uJ6lJ1T6TTn61JLLtb 3-6\I1®!l>~ 6Tri.J8>®I~® ~!Dl61llu4 61J!l>~Ul!D®~!l>~ !!,>L61JLq.~6ll8>8>6TrJ!ll~6ll61Juj6\l1®!l>~ QLJIT@~~IT~ LOWJ~ITIJ6ll1Ju~!$~8>tb Qe'uJ<&~lTtb. LOWJ~lTlJl'ruS~<&61J!),1J6T!l>~ffi ®!D!D6e'ITL®tb @6U6ll6l). ®!D!D6e'ITL®tb 6T~6ljtb @6U6I)1T~~1T6U 2...6Tr~6ll!D6llle'ITIJ6ll= 6T~6l.jtb !!,>L~~6lll6U6ll6l). LOWJ~lTlJn<&Lri.J8>il sonrf Lq.6ll1J6lJ1J1T8>@®!l>~ 61J!l>~lTn.<&Lri.J8>nsorrrftssnu J.1)1Tri.J8>6Tr@rn1 UIU~U®~~61J~6U6ll6l) 6T~U~IT6U ~61J®ffi® <&61J6ll6l)@6U6ll6l).

~6lJ1J~ <&61J6ll6l)(Yl1!j.6ljffi® 61J!l>~ ~61Jn 6lll®6lllffi8>UULLlTn.

<&Lri.J8>n6I)lTrfl~L®61J6ll~ ~6lll1J 8>6U~rfl <&u®!l>~, ~tby6l)~6"iu LO!D!),1Jtb8>6U~lfiffi® 61J®6ll8>yrfllljtb 6lll.al.Ul. !!,>un8>6ll6TTffiQ8>IT~® Qe'~!),1J 6lll®~6U <&UIT~!DUm8>6ll6TT LOWJ~lTlJnQe'uJ~ 61J!l>~lTn 6T~!DIT6Ue'rfllU6U6I).

8. It is admitted by the respondent that the petitioner 9. RW.I further admits there was no allegations against the petitioner on earlier occasions so the act done by the respondent is not a correct one. But the petitioner has also proved certain facts. He has denied that three months notice was not given to him and compensation was not given to him and so on. But, it is proved by the respondent through records. So the procedure adopted after the termination of service of the petitioner is not illegal and it is correct one. It is very clear that the respondent institution had several work in the drivers and so there is no necessity to terminate the service of the petitioner who has worked there for continuous period of eight years they can give him driver job in some other vehicle. If the tanker lorry is no more required they can give him job as a driver in some other vehicle like college bus, ambulance and so on. So the termination of service is not legal. There is violation of natural justice in this regard. Hence the petitioner sought for declaration that the termination of service order, dated 31 -3 -20 10 is illegal and he sought for re-employment with continuity in service and back wages and other benefits. Since the termination of service of the petitioner from the respondent institution is illegal. The declaration is sought for is granted. Since the termination of service is illegal, the respondent is directed to give employment to the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages and other benefits after deducting the amount given to him after termination.

10. In the result, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April 2014.

S. MARY ANSELAM,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (FAC),

Pondicherry.

List of petitioner s witness:

worked in their institution from the year 2000 onwards but he was given an appointment order only in the year 2003. It is admitted by the RW.I that the cleaners who PW.I - 28-6-2012 - D. Jayaprakash

List of respondent s witness:

worked under the petitioner were promoted as drivers.

It is further admitted since the petitioner filed an RW.I - 12-12-2012 - S. Mohan

application before the Labour Officer for monthly salary for giving him monthly salaries basis work and to List of petitioner s exhibits:

regularise his job and it is admitted that an notice was issued to the respondent.

RWI admits Q~ITW161)1T6TTn8>6Tr~6ll!D ~~61J6I)8>~~6I5l®!l>~ Q~ITWl6l)1T6TTn~uJ6lJ1T6TTn 61JLLtb 3-6\Jl®!l>~ 6Tri.J8>®lci;® ~ !D'l611'1U Y 611!l>~ u'l !D® ~ !l>~ !!'>L 611Lq.~ 6ll 8>8>6Tr ~~6ll61JuJl6l5l®!l>~QUIT@~~IT~ LOWJ~ITIJ6ll1J u~!$ ffi8>tb Qe'uJ<&~lTtb.

EX.PI - Copy of appointment order, dated 18-6-2003.

Ex.P2 - Copy of petition given by petitioner to Labour Officer, dated 15-10-2008.

EX.P3 - Copy of written statement issued by respondent, dated 11-3-2009.

EX.P4 - Copy of letter given by respondent to petitioner, dated 10- 12-2009.

420 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [I July2014

EX.P5 - Copy of order of termination, dated 30-3-2010.

EX.P6 - Copy of letter given by petitioner to respondent, dated 17-5-20 10.

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY Present: Tmt. S. MARYANSELAM,M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer(FAC), Labour Court.

Saturday, the 12th day of April 2014

EX.P7 - Copy of writ petition, dated 26-8-2010.

EX.P8 - Copy of wages statement, dated 3-3-2011.

LD. (L) No. 56/2012

R. Arul Jothi

Petitioner List of respondent s exhibits:

Versus

Ex.RI - Copy of authorisation letter, dated 22-11-20 n. Ex.R2 - Copy of the notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner, dated 10-12-2009.

Ex.R3 - Copy of wages statement for the month of December 2009.

Ex.R4 - Copy of wages statement for the month of January 2010.

Ex.R5 - Copy of wages statement for the month of February 20 10.

Ex.R6 - Copy of wages statement for the month of March 2010.

EX.R7 - Copy of termination order, dated 30-3-2010.

Ex.R8 - Copy of cheque sent to the petitioner, dated 30-3-2010.

s. MARY ANsELAM,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (FAC), Pondicherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

The Management,

Mis. Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal. .. Respondent This industrial dispute coming on 54-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Thiru P. Muthukrishnan, Counsel for the petitioner, Tvl. R. I1ancheliyan and R. Thilagavathi, Counsel 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. 2081 AILlLab./J/2011, dated 25-11-2011 for adjudicating the following:-

(I) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru R. Arul J othi, against the management of Mis. Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal over non-employment is justified?

(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?

(3) To compute the relief, in terms of money, if it can be so computed?

(GO Rt. No. 98ILab.lAIL1JI2014, dated 17th June 2014)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D.(L) No. 56/2012, dated 12-4-2014 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the Vinayaga Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal and Thiru R. Arul Jothi, over non-employment has been received;

N ow, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) 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 ILab'/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).

2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus:-

The petitioner he was working as driver in the Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, in the year 2000, on contractual basis for 121 months with the date of joining on consolidated pay of ~ 2,500 per month. But, the payment order was dated 18-6-2003 then on 30-3-2010 the petitioner was removed from service the last pay received by the petitioner is ~ 5,500 he has given an complaint before the Labour Officer, Karaikal and the matter was not settled and the report is dated 26-9-2011. Since, there was water curiosity in the Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital canteen and quarters, the management made an arrangement to bring water through tanker lorries.

1 July2014] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 421 The petitioner's services was terminated with effect The petitioner had worked in that institution for more from 31-3-2010 by an order of termination, dated 30-3-2010. than 240 days continually he was not given any earlier

notice. Salary or compensation after removing him from his work some other person was appointed for that post no proper departmental enquiry was conducted in this matter. So, the termination of service is not legal and so he has filed this petition with prior that the termination order, dated 31-3-2010 is illegal and direct the management to give him employment again with continuity of service with back wages and oth.er benefits. But, the petitioner has also proved certain facts. He has denied that three months was not given to him and compensation was not given to him and so on. But, it is proved by the respondent through records. So, the procedure adopted after the termination of service of the petitioner is not illegal and it is correct one.

It is very clear that the respondent institution had several work in the drivers and so, there is no necessity to terminate the service of the petitioner who has work there for continuous period of eight years they can give driver job in some other vehicle. If the tanker lorry is Accordingly a total sum of~ 24,930 was paid by cheque and the same has been received and encashed by the petitioner. The petitioner remained absent and was receiving full wages without doing any work and has not objected to the decision of the respondent.

Subsequently, the. respondent paid the severance benefit and the petitioner having received and encashed raised this industrial dispute which is not maintainable.

4. On the side of the petitioner PW 1 was examined, and the side of the respondent RW 1 was examined, on the petitioner's side Ex.P 1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the respondent Ex.Rl to Ex.R8 were marked.

5. The point for consideration is:

no more required they can give him job as a driver in some other vehicle like college bus, ambulance and so on. So the termination of service is not legal. There is Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

6. On this point:

violation of natural justice in this regard. Hence the petitioner sought for declaration that the termination of service order, dated 31-3-2010 is illegal and he sought for re-employment with continuity in service and back wages and other benefits. Since the termination of service of the petitioner from the respondent institution is illegal.

3. Per contra, traversing the averments the claim statement, the respondent filed the counter with the averments which runs thus:

Thiru Mohan is working as Personnel Officer in the respondent Medical College and Hospital. The petitioner was engaged as tanker driver and used to bring water to the hospital, canteen and to the staff quarters at Karaikal. His engagement was purely casual and need based and he was in consolidated monthly salary. The tanker vehicles were not being operated for over 2 months and the usage of tankers became vague and unusable. The petitioner was engaged as tanker driver purely as casual and on temporary basis and was informed in advance that his services could not be required by a letter, dated 10-12-2009. The petitioner did not object to the above proposal and was receiving full wages without reporting for duty from 14-12-2009 to 31-3-2012. The petitioner was given full opportunities and also the decision of the respondent was clearly communicated.

According to the petitioner he was working as driver in the Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, in the year 2000, on contractual basis for 121 months with the date of joining on consolidated pay of ~ 2,500 per month. But, the payment order was dated 18-6-2003 then on 30-3-20 I 0 the petitioner was removed from service the last pay received by the petitioner is ~ 5,500 he has given an complaint before the Labour Officer, Karaikal and the matter was not settled and the report is dated 26-9-20 II. Since, there was water curiosity in the Vinayaga Missions Medical College and Hospital, canteen and quarters. The management made an arrangement to bring water through tanker lorries.

So far that purpose more than seven heavy vehicle drivers were appointed and deposited water. The petitioner had worked in the management for eight years continually from 18-6-2003 onwards a consolidated pay of ~ 2,500 was given to him. The petitioner demanded monthly salary from the management but the drivers was appointed after him were made permanent, so he had given a complaint before the Labour Officer.

7. On receipt of the notice the management approached the Madras High Court and filed a writ petition and the writ was allowed so, as per the order, dated 30-3-2010. The management asked the petitioner not to come to the work from not to attend work 31-3-2010 onwards. The petitioner had worked in that institution for more than 240 days continually he was not givenLA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [I July 2014 422 any earlier notice. Salary or compensation after removing him from his work some other person was appointed for that post no proper departmental enquiry was conducted in this matter. So, the termination of service is not legal and so he has filed this petition with prior that the termination order, dated 31-3-2010 is illegal and direct the management to give him employment again with continuity of service with back wages and other benefits.

PW I in his cross-examination deposed as follows.:

1 0-12-2009 51~IlLDWJ~ITIJIl ffiLq.~~~6irr~6ULD C86lJ!Dl C86lJrn6U ~6irr!Dl LDIT~~~~® UITIl~~ffiGffiIT6Tr~LDULq. 51r!.Jffi~ffi® GffiIT@~~ITllffi6Tr 516irr!DITW6rfl~IT6irr. ~6irr!DlLDIT~LD (]6lJ!DlC86lJrn6U~W6UITLDW6LDu6Tn.o~')ffifT@~~ITllffi6Tr. 31-3-2010 (yl~w ~1l6lJITffi~iblw C86lJrn6U~wrn6U 516irr!Dlumfllll1w ~®,!j;~ 6ll1@6ll1~~ITllffi6Tr516irr!DITW6rfl~IT6irr. umfl G ffiffiL.DG6uJ~C8uIT~ 6T~~rn6!ff 6lJ®LLD umfl'-lrfl,!j;(]~ITC8LDIT ~~~® ~® 6lJ®L~~~® 15 !f>ITLffi6TrG~IT61f)ffi GffiIT@~~ITllffi6Tr 516irr!DITW 6rfl~IT6irr. (yl6irr~!DlGillU'-l 6LDU6TlLDGffiIT@~~ITllffi6TIIT 516irrU~ ®ITUffiu!lwrn6U. GLDIT~~LD ®UITuJ 24,930 GffiIT@~~ITllffi6TIIT 6T6irr!J)ITW6rfl~IT6irr. ~6irr!l)J LDIT~ 6LDU6TlLD 6lJITr!.J®LD(]UIT~ ~L..(]6urn= 6T@~~ ~6ULDITffi G~rfl6ll1ffiffi6ll1wrn6U 516irr!DITW 6rfl~IT6irr. ®UITuJ 24,930 ffiITC86ITrn6UUJITffi51~IlLDWJ~ITIJIl ~!l)J6116!ff~~W ~®,!j;~ GU~!Dlffi GffiIT~(gL6irr. ~rn~ ~®LDU ~ WJUU6ll1WqJ6U.

In this regard RWI in his cross-examination deposed as follows:

umfl $llULD6!ffLD2003-w G6uJ6lJ~~® (yl6irr6!ffITW 2000 6lJ®LLD (yl~w 2003 6lJrnlJ 51r!.Jffi6TrffiwWTrfluJlw ffiwWTrfl 6lJITffi6!ffLDS'L..Lq.6!ffITIl6T6irrU~ 6rfl~IT6irr. ~6!ffITw. ~6lJ1l G6lJ6Tfl ~uu,!j;~~ITlJrflLLD ~uu,!j;~ ~Lq.uurnLuJlw 6lJITffi6!ffLDS'L..Lq. 6l1,!j;~ITIl 516irr!J)ITW 6rfl~IT6irr. 2003-w ~6lJ®ffi® $lUJLD6!ff 2...~~IJ6lj 6lJWr!.JffiUUL..L~ (yl~w ~6lJ®ffi® LDIT~ 6LDU6TlLD ®UITuJ 2,500 GffiIT@ffiffiUUL@ 6lJ,!j;~~. ~~6irrLll!D® ULq.UULq.lUITffi~6lJ®ffi® 6L.DU6TlL.D2...lUll~~UUL..@ ffirnufllUITffi U~GffiffiLD G6uJlUUUL..L (]UIT~ ®UITuJ 5,540 6lJWr!.JffiUUL..L~. 2003 0fJ~w umfl G ffiffiLD G6uJlUUULL~ 6lJrnlJ LDWJ~ITIJIl G~ITLIl6d1lUITffi 7 ~~@ ffiIT6ULDU~'-lrfl,!j;~ 6lJ,!j;~6Tr6TIITIl.

~,!j;~ 7 ~~@ u~ ffiIT6U~&W ~6lJlluS ~ 51,!j;~Gill~ ®~!D66ITL..@LD c$1rnLlUIT~ 516irr!DITW6rfl ~IT6irr. 12-3-2005-w ~6!ffffi® u~ $l1J,!j;~IJLD G6uJlU a:6lJ~@LD 516irr!l)JLDLD~!DlLD 6LDU6TI2...lUll6lj LD~!l)JLD~~IJ 6~rnffiffi6Tr ~6Tflffiffi C8ffiITrflLDWJ ~6Tfl~~ITIl 516irr!DITW®ITUffiu!lwrn6U. 12-3-2005-w LDWJ~ITIJIl ~~ C8uIT6irr!l)JLDWJGffiIT@~~ITIl 516irr!DlLD!f>IT6irr~rn~, !f>ITr!.Jffi6Tr urfld'6Urn6!ffffi® 51@~~ffiGffiIT~a:LITL.D, ~6!ffITW ®rn!D,!j;~ 6L.DU6TI~rn~ ~6Tfl~~6ll1L..@ ~6lJIJ~ C8ffiITrflffirnffiffirn6TI!f>ITr!.Jffi6Tr ~IJITffirfl~~ 6ll1L..C8LITLD516irr!J)ITW6rflUJW6U. LDWJ~ITIJ®ffi®Lll!D® 20026\J1®,!j;~ U~'-lr11,!j;~6lJ,!j;~ ~Il. ffiC8=66irr, 51LD.tJl. 6~(IJlffiC86lJw, Lq.. ~6!ff,!j;~~Il~& LD~!DlLD 0fJ1J6Tfl~IJ6irr ~c$1C8UJITllffi6TrLDL..@LDu~$lIJ,!j;~IJLD G6uJ~ 6LDU6TlLDLD~!DlLD ~~IJ 6~rnffiffirn6TI ~~ffiLDITffi ~6Tfl~C8~6irr 516irr!J)ITW6rflUJW6U.

~6!ffITW ~6lJllffi6Tr ~1J,!j;~1J U~UJIT6Tlllffi6TIITffi 2000 (IJl6irr6!ffC8IJ, 1998 (IJl~w uwC86lJ!Dl C8~~ffi6TflW ~®,!j;~ U~G6uJ~ 6l1®c$1!J)ITllffi6TrLD~!l)JLD S'L..@!f>llffi6Tr 1998 (IJl~w $lfJ,!j;~1J UmflUJIT6TlIlffi6TIITffi ~®,!j;~6lJ®c$1!DITllffi6Tr 6T6irrU~~® ~ 6lJ= r!.Jffi6Tr ~ 6TflffiffiGillw 61f)6U 516irr!DITW 6 rflUJW 6U.

LDWJ~ITIJ®ffi® ffiC8w c$16Tfl6!fffJITffiU~'-lrfl,!j;~ ffi-C8IJ~, ffi,!j;~ 0fJ®ffi6irr q!,$1C8UJITllffi~6.® U~Gill2...UJIl6lj GffiIT@~~ S'L..@!f>llffi6TIITffi $l1J,!j;~IJLD q!,ffiffiUUL@6Tr6TI6!ff1l 6T6irr!J)ITW 6rfl~IT6irr .

G66irrrn6!ff G~IT\916UIT6Tlllffi6Tr~rn!D ~~6lJ6Uffi~ibloUl®,!j;~ G~IT\916UIT6Tl1l ~uJ6lJIT6Tl1l 6lJLLLD 36\J1®,!j;~ 6Tr!.Jffi~ffi® ~!D16ll1U'-l 6lJ,!j;~tJl!D® ~,!j;~ !f>L6lJLq.ffirnffiffi6Tr~~rn6lJ&S1Id®,!j;~ GUIT@~~IT6irr LDWJ~ITlJrnfJ u~G ffiffiLDG<'fuJC8~ITLD. LDWJ~ITIJIl uS~ (]6lJ!Dl 6T,!j;~ffi ®~!D66ITL..@LD ~wrn6U. ®~!D66ITL..@LD 6T~6ljLD ~W6UIT~~ITW 2...6Tr~rn!D 6ll16ITlJrn= 51~6ljLD !f>L~~6ll1wrn6U. LDWJ~ITfJll C8Lr!.Jffill6UITrflLq.rnlJ6lJfJITffi~®,!j;~ 6lJ,!j;~ITIl. C8Lr!.Jffill6UITrflrnUJ!f>ITr!.Jffi6Tr~6lIf1 uUJ6irru@~~6lJ1ilwrn6U 516irrU~ITW ~6lJ®ffi® C86lJrn6\) ~wrn6U. ~6lJfJ~ C86lJrn6U (lpLq.6ljffi® 6lJ,!j;~ ~6lJ1l Gill@6ll1ffiffiUULLITIl. C8Lr!.Jffill 6UITrfl 6$L..@6lJrn~ ~GillIJ ffiwWTrfl C8u®,!j;~, ~LD'-l6U6irr6iu LD~!DlLD ffiwWTrflffi® 6lJ®rnffi'-lrflll...JL.D6ll1.ffi.Lll. !f>ullffirn6TIffi GffiIT~@ G66irr!Dl 6ll1@~w (]UIT6irr!J)umflffirn6TI LDWJ~ITfJllG6uJ~ 6lJ,!j;~ITIl 516irr!J)ITW <'frflUJW6U.

8. It is admitted by the respondent that the petitioner worked in their institution from the year 2000 onwards but he was given an appointment order only in the year 2003. It is admitted by the RW I that the cleaners who worked under the petitioner were promoted as drivers. It is further admitted since the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Officer for monthly salary for giving him monthly salaries basis work and to regularise his job and it is admitted that an notice was issued to the respondent.

RWI admits G~IT\916UIT6Tlllffi6Tr~rn!D ~~6lJ6\)ffi~ibloUl®,!j;~ G~IT\916\)IT6Tl1l ~uJ6lJIT6Tl1l 6lJL..LLD 36\J1®,!j;~ 51r!.Jffi~ffi® ~!D16ll1U'-l 6lJ,!j;~tJl!D® ~,!j;~ !f>L6lJLq.ffirnffiffi6Tr~~rn6lJlll1oU1®,!j;~ GUIT@~~IT6irr LDWJ~ITIJ61f)fJUmflGffiffiLD G6uJC8~ITLD.

9. RWI further admits there was no allegations against the petitioner on earlier occasions so the act done by the respondent is not a correct one. But the petitioner has also proved certain facts. He has denied that three months was not given to him and compensation was not given to him and so on. But, it is proved by the respondent through records. So the procedure adopted after the termination of service of the petitioner is not illegal and it is correct one. It is very clear that the respondent institution had several work to the drivers and so there is no necessity to terminate the service of the petitioner who has worked there for a continuous period of eight years they can give driver job in some other vehicle. If the tanker lorry is no more required they can give him job as a driver in some other vehicle like college bus, ambulance and so on. So the termination of service is not legal. There is violation of natural justice in this regard. Hence the petitioner sought for declaration that the termination of service order, dated 31-3-2010 is illegal and he sought for re-employment with continuity in service and back wages and other benefits. Since the termination of1 July2014] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 423 service of the petitioner from the respondent institution GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(Go. Rt. No. 991Lab.lAILlJ12014, dated 18th June 2014)

is illegal. The declaration sought for is granted. Since the termination of service is illegal, the respondent is directed to give employment to the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages and other benefits after deducting the amount given to him after termination.

10. In the result, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April 2014.

S. MARYANsELAM,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (FAC), Pondicherry.

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D.(L) No. 4112012, dated 12-4-2014 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the management of Mis. Ramkumar Agencies, Karaikal and Thiru N. Sasikumar 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. 20/911Lab.lL, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said List of petitioner s witness:

PW.I - 25-6-2012 - R. Arul Jothi

award shall be published in the official gazette, Puducherry.

List of respondent's witness:

RW.1 - 12-12-2012 - S. Mohan

(By order)

S. THAMMuGANAPATHY, List of petitioner's exhibits:

Ex.P I - Copy of Appointment Order, dated 18-6-2003.

EX.P2 '- Copy of petition given by petitioner to Labour Officer, dated 15-10-2008.

EX.P3 - Copy of written statement issued by respondent, dated 11-3-2009.

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY Present: Tmt. S. MARYANSELAM,M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer(FAC), Labour Court.

Saturday, the 12th day of April 2014

EX.P4 - Copy of letter given by respondent to petitioner, dated 10-12-2009.

EX.P5 - Copy of writ petition, dated 26-8-20 I O. EX.P6 - Copy of wages statement, dated 3-3-2011.

I.D. (L) No. 4112012

Sasikumar

Petitioner

Versus

List of respondent's exhibits:

Ex.Rl - Copy of authorisation letter, dated 22-11-2012.

Ex.R2 - Copy of the notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner, dated 10-12-2009.

Ex.R3 - Copy of wages statement for the month of December 2009.

Ex.R4 - Copy of wages statement for the month of January 20 I O.

Ex.R5 - Copy of wages statement for the month of February 2010.

Ex.R6 - Copy of wages statement for the month of March 2010.

EX.R7 - Copy of termination order, dated 30-3-2010.

Ex.R8 - Copy of cheque sent to the petitioner, dated 30-3-2010.

S. MARYANsELAM,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (FAC), Puducherry.

Mis. Ramkumar Agencies, Karaikal.

. . Respondent This industrial dispute coming on 5-4-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence ofThiru S. Ramalingam, Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru A. Thirumalvalavan, Counsel 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.1561 AILlLab.lJ/2007, dated 14-11-2007 for adjudicating the following:

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru N. Sasikumar, by the management of Mis. Ramkumar Agencies, Karaikal is justified or not?

(2) If not, what relief he is entitled to?

LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [1 July 2014 424

(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 facts giving as per the claim petition is that the petitioner joined as one of the salesmen in the respondent agencies on 15-7-2001 and his monthly salary was fixed at '{ 1;500 and his actually paid only '{ 1,200 and the remaining balance of,{ 3,600 in that year will still in the custody of respondent and they have promised to pay '{ 3,600 at the time of marriage of the petitioner's sister. The actual management and the routine of the respondent company agencies was in the hands of one Ulaganathan, who is a Pharmacist working in E.S.I. Government Hospital, Nedungadu. The monthly salary was enhanced from '{ 1,500 to '{ 2,500 after one year and the petitioner was actually paid on Iy '{ 1,500 and the remaining amount of,{ 1,000 per month to tune of ~ 12,000 was actually in the custody of respondent agency. The monthly salary was enhanced to ~ 3,750 from 15-7-2003 up to 30-11-2005. The petitioner was actually paid ~ 2,000 only and the balance amount to the tune of,{ 1,750 for 29 months from 1-7-2003 till 30-11-2005 to the tune on 50,750 (Rupees fifty thousand seven hundred and fifty only) are still in the custody of the respondent.

The monthly salary due to December 2005 was not paid to the petitioner. As a result, the respondent is liable to pay '{ 70,100 (Rupees seventy thousand and one hundred only) to the petitioner. In order to appreciate his hardwork a TVS Scooty ES was given to the petitioner gift for Hindustan Lever Limited, Madras and to disappoint of respondent unto the disappointment the respondent with collusion of the said Ulaganathan has sold away for '{ 24,000 (Rupees twenty-four thousand only) and in fact the sale amount was not paid to the petitioner who is legally entitled to receive the sale proceeds. In this aspect also both Kethara Gnanam and Ulganathan had misappropriated the sale proceeds to the tune of ~ 24,000 and hence the respondent liable to pay ~ 24,000 to the petitioner. The respondent had shifted his office from No. 37, Neelakidangu Street, Karaikal to No. 12, Church Street, Karaikal in the year 2004. The petitioner is continuously working as salesman and he was entitled periodical incentives from every month and in this connection also is entitled to ~ 76,500 for 51 months at the average rate of ~ 1,500 per month. The respondent agencies did not pay anything from their own pocket and in fact, various companies sent the incentives by way of demand draft in the name of petitioner. Originally incentives were deducted in the invoice itself and the respondent company is only liable to pay. A number of complaints for non-payment of incentives were given to various companies and as a result by demand draft in the name of the petitioner.

Ulaganathan, had clearly with the help of Kethara Gnanam had opened in the account in the name of the petitioner in the Corporation Bank of Karaikal Branch as per Account No. SB 011001298, dated 22-10-2003 and the incentives were withdrawn by them by means of withdrawal forms and later on a cheque book containing 10 leaves and they were only duly signed by the petitioner and handed over to the respondent. The cheque book in custody of the respondent. The respondent with the help of Ulaganathan had received the incentives with the help of cheque leaves and the petitioner had already filed a criminal complaint in C.C. No. 213/2007 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate No.2 of Karaikal against the Kethara Gnanam, N aganathan, U laganathan and Prabhagaran for an offence under section 464 and 420 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.c. The case is pending enquiry. All the accused had handed over a cheque bearing No. 545234 drawn in the Corporation Bank of Karaikal to one Prabhagaran and the Prabhagaran had filed a criminal case against after filling up a fabulous sum of,{ 3,80,000 (Rupees three lakhs and eighty thousand only) from the Prabhagaran. A false complaint given against the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the case is pending before Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karaikal in STR. I 30812007. The respondent had persuaded the petitioner to give evidence on his side in connection with the sale of ready shaver to the tune of ~ 2,50,000 by Ramkumar Agencies of Commercial Traders run by Mr. Tajudeen who had purchased ready shaver at the rate of ~ 7.50 np per piece from the respondent agencies for ~ 19,44,000. An enquiry was conducted and an amicable settlement was arrived and the S.l. of Police, Karaikal Town since the petitioner had not committed any offence. The petitioner service was terminated all of a sudden and without any reason and he moved to the Labour Court of Karaikal praying besides emoluments in addition to other demands and compensation amount of ~ 50,000 from the respondent.

3. Per contra, traversing the averments the claim statement, the respondent filed the counter with the averments which runs thus:

That the petitioner joined duty on 15-7-2001 as salesman. He is an unqualified salesman. He does not possess "Salesman Licence" issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, Karaikal. The initial monthly salary was fixed at '{ 1,500 per month. It is duty of the petitioner to prove that he was paid to ~ 1,200 per month. There is no connection between the businesses of Mis. Ramkumar Agencies and that of the Ulaganathan.

Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner was enhanced to'{ 1,600. The petitioner was never paid ~ 3,750 as his salary. Apart from the salary he has received incentive from the respondent which varies from month to month based on his performance. Only on perusal of the recordI July 2014] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 425 maintained by him, the incentive amount could be ffiLDQU6l!fi QUIT ®L.ffi~6TT 6lll dlu~6lIT Q6tU6lJ~IT6iJffiLDQU6l!fiu.l16iJ Ll1rJ~r5l~ 6T6lITU,®~ ~6l!fiUJITffi 2!!!U,ffi~Q~IT~5I payable to him. There are no dues payable to the QffiIT@uul'I 6T6Ur!DIT6iJ ~~ 6rfl~IT6irr. 6T6lJ6lJ6TT6l.j QUIT®6Trffi~U,® petitioner by the respondent as on date. The petitioner had been working with the respondent only 9th ~®!!i~ndl <8un6iJ 2!!!U,ffi~ Q~n~ffi Qffin@uunl'lffi6Tr ~~dlffiITffi December 2005. His salary for the 9 days amounting to ~ 570 and the same is custody of the respondent. The petitioner did not work till the end of the December 2005 and he has right to claim entire salary for demands. The Hindustan Lever Limited had arranged and handed over the TVS Scooty ES to the petitioner and the RC Book stands in his name and the respondent does not know anything whether he sold the same or not. Neither the respondent nor Ulaganathan, in his no way connected with this transaction.

The respondent submits that they were Public Limited Company's products. The salesman incentive in any form is recorded in the salesman diary, which is always periodically countersigned by the company's representative or sales officer. As regards to the demand draft payment, the draft which is always crossed with "Account Payee only" is the authentication of payment from the company to the beneficiary. So, there is no claim for payment of incentive dues to the petitioner. The case in CC.21312007 is stayed by the High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 112008 in Cr.L.O.P. No.1343112008, dated 13-6-2008.

The petitioner had opened his savings bank account to the Corporation Bank from his own benefit to encash the payment issued by the companies towards his incentives. The respondent does not know whether the petitioner availed cheque facilities with the savings bank account. The respondent did not know who is Prabagaran and he came only on receipt of the summons issued by Judicial Magistrate-H. Karaikal in connection with false complaint filed by the petitioner in C.C213/2007.

The respondent does not know anything about the borrowal of~ 3,80,000 by the petitioner from Prabagaran.

On 15-12-2005 the petitioner became the business partner of Mis. Commercial Agencies, Karaikal. Hence no loss of employment arouse. In fact, the respondent has not terminated the petitioner from his service.

Actually, the petitioner left the respondent's concern and his own wish and will and as on 10-12-2005, the balance payable to him is only a meager amount of~ 570 being the salary from 1-12-2005 to 9-12-2005. The petitioner had illegal cohabitation one Suganthy, Storekeeper. The petitioner left the concern with an arrangement to marry Suganthy and the Storekeeper left the concern during the March 2006. Now both of them well settled and living happily. The claim of the petitioner is false and not legally sustainable under law.

4. On the side of the petitioners, PW.I and PW.2 were examined. PW.I has deposed as it is found in his claim statement. PW.I in his cross-examination admits that the RC book TVS Scooty stands in his name he further deposed as follows:-

~6l!fiUJnffi ~Lff1 ~6lJ~~u, QffiIT6Tr6lJ~6iJ~6Il. 6T6lITU,® 2!!!U,ffi~Q~IT~ffi 6lJ~rJ

<851IT6lJIT6 qj,. 2-uJl6iJ ~6Ilffi!!)IT~6irr. QuUJI'I 6lJ®6lJ~IT6iJ 6T6lITU,® 6lJ®LD 2!!!U,ffi~ Q~IT~ffi ~6lJ

PW2 has stated in his cross-examination as follows:

(Yl~6iJ 6lll6ITrJ~=uJl6iJ ffiGWL 6lll6lJrJr5Jffi6Tr !!)IT6irr Q6fT6iJ6\51 ~UJITrfiu,ffi6lSl6iJ~6Il 6T6irr!DIT6iJ ~~ 6rfi~IT6irr. (Yl~6iJ 6lSI6nrJ~=u.l1w Q6IT6iJ6IlUU@LD ~L6irrU'4U,~ffi 6Jdlun@ 6T~~lLjLD !b ~lD6irr!D~~6iJ ~nu,ffiw Q6tUUJ6lll6iJ~6Il. lDWJ~ITrJl'I rJITLD®lDITI'I 6JQ~6irr6T\ll6iJ

RW.I deposed in his cross-examination as follows:

6Tr5Jffi6TT~ $l!);lJ6lJ6lIT~~dl® 6lSIdlU~6lITu,® Qun®L.ffi6Tr QffiIT@~~ r5l !);lJ6lJ6lITLD ~6iJ6IlL. ~!!i~ UJIT r5l !);lJ6lJ6lITLD qj,®LD.

<8lDdluLq. ~6iJ6IlL. ~!!i~UJIT r5l!);lJ6lJ6lIT QUIT®L.ffi~6TT lDWJ~ITrJri u~UJITdl!D1UJ ffiIT6Il~~6iJ 6T6lJ6lJ6TT6l.j Q~IT~ffiU,® 6llldlu~6lIT Q6tU~®UUITri 6T6irr!DIT6iJ qj,6lJ=LD ~6iJ~6Il. IhlDITrJIT5I 5-6\ll®!!i~ 6 6IlL.6LD 6lJ~rJ ~®U,ffi6llITLD. lDWJ~nrJri ®UITtU 25 6IlL.6~~dl® LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [I July 2014 426 !61w61J6lIT~~(b® lO1urT(!9Lffi6Tr 61JrTri>Jffilw~. 6ill(bU6l!l6llT lO18'uJ~~.

surf Q8'~~~W~ 8'tbU!!;~UULL ~61J6mri>Jffi6Tr 6Tri>Jffi6Tr !61W61J6lIT~~W 2....6Tr6fT~. !!irTri>Jffi6Tr lO1~rTW161JrT6fTr'rffi6Tr 8'LL 6ill ~ JffiuULL61Jr'r ffi6Tr 6T6irr!Drr6U 8'rt1W6U6IJ.

as Ex.C2. Ex. C2 stands in the name of the petitioner alone. So the savings bank account money was taken by the respondent by using withdrawal forms and cheque leaves is not proved in this case. It is stated on the side of the petitioner that an enquiry was conducted in the Chamber of Commerce and an amicable settlement was available between Ramkumar Agencies and Commercial Agencies of Karaikal, dated 5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed? 28-2-2006. The settlement deed, dated 28-2-2006 copy is marked as Ex.C 1. Ex.C 1 is a settlement between Ramkumar Agencies and Commercial Traders of Karaikal 6. On this point:

According to the claim statement the petitioner claims ~ 2,17,800 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition up to the date of realisation from the respondent. The petitioner is expected to prove his case. There is no record to show that the fixed salary was not paid to the petitioner he has produced any record for that. It is the case of the petitioner that his service was terminated without any basis. According to the respondent he has stopped to attending the work of the respondent agency voluntarily. He was terminated by the respondent company without any basis is also not proved by the petitioner. He has not examined any witness to prove it. With regard to the payment of lesser salary also he can examine somebody from the Ramkumar Agencies.

He has not examined any of them. He has further stated that TVS Scooty ES was given to the petitioner as a gift by Hindustan Lever Limited. It was also admitted by the respondent and the scooty vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner so the averment that it was sold by the respondent is without any basis. Further PW.I admits that the RC book of vehicle stands in his name. So, without obtaining signature in the T.O. form and other connected records, it is not possible to sell the vehicle to somebody by the respondent. So the claim made by the petitioner for ~ 24,000 prove to be a false one. It is further stated on the side of the petitioner he is entitled periodical incentives for every month and in this connection he is entitled to ~ 76,500 he has not produced any document to show that he has done it had no connection with the petitioner. Petitioner also claimed ~ 50,000 towards mental agony, it is stated on the side of the respondent that the petitioner left the services voluntarily and his service was not terminated by the respondent company. Further more he had joined in the Commercial Traders Company, Karaikal. So the mental agony is caused to the petitioner is also not proved through oral and documentary evidence.

8. According to the respondent the petitioner is entitled only an amount of~ 570. Since the claim made by the petitioner towards arrears of monthly salary, towards the sale amount of ~ 24,000 by way of selling the TVS Scooty ES and ~ 76,500 towards incentives and ~ 50,000 towards compensation are not proved in this case by the petitioner clearly. The claim made by the petitioner is not proved in his case. He has not proved any aspect of the case and so he is not entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent. So the claim petition is dismissed.

9. 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 12th day of April 2014.

S. MARY ANSELAM,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (FAC), Pondicherry.

List of petitioner s witnesses:

considerable sales his diary is also not produced.

PW.I -6-7-2011- N. Sasikumar

7. According to RW.l they used to pay incentive as per the sales made by the petitioner and there is no PW.2 - 23-2-2012 - K. Mohammad Ibrahim List of respondent s witness:

arrears so without any record. There is no possibility to presume that there was an arrears of~ 76,500 towards RWI -12-12-2012 - V. Ramanathan

incentives. Further, it is admitted by the respondent List of petitioner s exhibits:

that the company used to send the incentives by demand draft in the name of the petitioner. So, for that only he has opened the savings account in the Corporation Bank of Karaikal branch so without his knowledge and concern nobody can withdraw the incentives from that bank. He has produced the savings bank account passbook of the petitioner and is marked Ex.CI - Settlement deed, dated 28 -2 -2 0 0 6.

Ex.C2 - Passbook of the petitioner.

S. MARY ANSELAM,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (FAC), Pondicherry.