I July 2014]
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
417
GOVERNMENT
OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR
DEPARTMENT
(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.
Saturday,
the 12th day of April
2014.
LD. (L) No. 55/2012
D. Jayaprakash
Petitioner
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?
(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?
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.
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
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.
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 back
418
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
[I July 2014
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
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. The point for
consideration
is:
Whether
the industrial
dispute
can be allowed?
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
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 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,
Q8ifT~QlL6irr.
~m~
~®LDU
~WJuu6ll1rom6\l.
In this regard RW.I in his cross-examination
deposed as
follows:
U~
$IUJL06lITLD
2003-ro
Q8'tiJ6lJ~~
(ylm6llTfTro 2000
6lJ®LLD
(yl~ro
2003
6lJ61!lI]6Tr!.J8i6iT8i6U~rflu.'jro
8i6U~rfl
6lJ1T8i6llTLD
6$LLq.6lIffTIT
6T6irrU~ 8'rfl~fT6irr. c:'.!>6lITfTro,
~6lJri
Q6lJ6Tfl6J>uu!li~~fTlJrtlLLD 6J>uu!li~
I July2014]
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
419
~lq-UU6llLuJl6U
6lJ1T8>rntb ~LI!j.
61J!l>~lTn6T~!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~!),1JtbLO!D!),1Jtb
e'tbU6TT
2...lUn6l.jLO!D!),1Jtb
@~IJ e'~6ll8>8>6Tr ~6rfl~8>
<&8>lTrfl
LOWJ~6rfl~~lTn
6T~!DIT6U®ITU8>tDl6U6ll6l).12-3-2005-6U
LOWJ~lTlJn~~<&UIT~!),1J
LOWJQ8>IT®~~lTn 6T~!),1Jtb !!,>IT~~6ll~,
!!,>1Tri.J8>6Tr
urfld6l)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.J6TTtb
LO!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>6Tr
to!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>6Tr
J!ll~6ll61Juj6\l1®!l>~QLJIT@~~IT~
LOWJ~ITIJ6ll1Ju~!$~8>tb
Qe'uJ<&~lTtb. LOWJ~lTlJl'ruS~<&61J!),1J
6T!l>~ffi
®!D!D6e'ITL®tb
@6U6ll6l).
®!D!D6e'ITL®tb
6T~6ljtb @6U6I)1T~~1T6U
2...6Tr~6ll!D6llle'ITIJ6ll= 6T~6l.jtb !!,>L~~6lll6U6ll6l). LOWJ~lTlJn<&Lri.J8>il
sonrf Lq.6ll1J6lJ1J1T8>
@®!l>~ 61J!l>~lTn.<&Lri.J8>nsorrrftssnu J.1)1Tri.J8>6Tr
@rn1
UIU~U®~~61J~6U6ll6l)
6T~U~IT6U ~61J®ffi®
<&61J6ll6l)@6U6ll6l).
~6lJ1J~
<&61J6ll6l)(Yl1!j.6ljffi® 61J!l>~ ~61Jn
6lll®6lllffi8>UULLlTn.
<&Lri.J8>n6I)lTrfl~L®61J6ll~
~6lll1J 8>6U~rfl <&u®!l>~, ~tby6l)~6"iu
LO!D!),1Jtb
8>6U~lfiffi® 61J®6ll8>yrfllljtb 6lll.al.Ul. !!,>un8>6ll6TTffiQ8>IT~®
Qe'~!),1J 6lll®~6U <&UIT~!DUm8>6ll6TT LOWJ~lTlJnQe'uJ~
61J!l>~lTn
6T~!DIT6Ue'rfllU6U6I).
8. It is admitted
by the respondent
that the petitioner
worked
in their institution
from the year 2000 onwards
but he was given an appointment
order only in the year
2003.
It is admitted
by the RW.I that the cleaners
who
worked
under the petitioner
were promoted
as drivers.
It is further
admitted
since
the
petitioner
filed
an
application
before the Labour Officer
for monthly
salary
for
giving
him
monthly
salaries
basis
work
and
to
regularise
his job and it is admitted
that an notice
was
issued
to the respondent.
RWI admits Q~ITW161)1T6TTn8>6Tr
~6ll!D ~~61J6I)8>~~6I5l®!l>~
Q~ITWl6l)1T6TTn~uJ6lJ1T6TTn 61JLLtb
3-6\Jl®!l>~
6Tri.J8>®lci;®
~
!D'l611'1U Y
611!l>~ u'l !D®
~
!l>~
!!'>L 611Lq.~ 6ll 8>8>6Tr
~~6ll61JuJl6l5l®!l>~QUIT@~~IT~
LOWJ~ITIJ6ll1J u~!$
ffi8>tb
Qe'uJ<&~lTtb.
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:
PW.I -
28-6-2012
-
D. Jayaprakash
List of respondent s witness:
RW.I -
12-12-2012 -
S. Mohan
List of petitioner s exhibits:
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.
EX.P7 -
Copy of writ petition,
dated 26-8-2010.
EX.P8 -
Copy of wages statement,
dated 3-3-2011.
List of respondent
s exhibits:
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
(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;
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 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).
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
LD. (L) No. 56/2012
R. Arul Jothi
Petitioner
Versus
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
Jothi,
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?
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.
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.
1 July2014]
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
421
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
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
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
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.
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 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:
Whether
the industrial
dispute
can be allowed?
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
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 I0 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 given
422
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
[I July 2014
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)ffiGffiIT@~~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~ 6LDU6TlLD6lJITr!.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 ffiffiLDG6uJlUUULL~
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 rflUJW6U.
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~ITfJllC8Lr!.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
of
1 July2014]
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
423
service
of the petitioner
from the respondent
institution
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.
List of petitioner s witness:
PW.I
-
25-6-2012 -
R. Arul Jothi
List of respondent's
witness:
RW.1 -
12-12-2012
-
S. Mohan
List of petitioner's
exhibits:
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.
EX.P5 -
Copy of writ petition,
dated 26-8-20 I O.
EX.P6 -
Copy of wages statement,
dated 3-3-2011.
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 IO.
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.
GOVERNMENT
OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR
DEPARTMENT
(Go. Rt. No. 991Lab.lAILlJ12014,
dated 18th June 2014)
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
award
shall
be
published
in
the
official
gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. THAMMuGANAPATHY,
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
I.D. (L) No. 4112012
Sasikumar
Petitioner
Versus
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?
424
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
[1 July 2014
(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. I30812007.
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 record
I July 2014]
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
425
maintained
by him,
the
incentive
amount
could
be
payable
to
him.
There
are
no
dues
payable
to the
petitioner
by the respondent
as on date.
The petitioner
had
been
working
with
the
respondent
only
9th
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:-
ffiLDQU6l!fi
QUIT ®L.ffi~6TT
6lll dlu~6lIT
Q6tU6lJ~IT6iJ
ffiLDQU6l!fiu.l16iJ
Ll1rJ~r5l~
6T6lITU,®~
~6l!fiUJITffi
2!!!U,ffi~Q~IT~5I
QffiIT@uul'I
6T6Ur!DIT6iJ ~~
6rfl~IT6irr.
6T6lJ6lJ6TT6l.j QUIT®6Trffi~U,®
~®!!i~ndl
<8un6iJ
2!!!U,ffi~
Q~n~ffi
Qffin@uunl'lffi6Tr
~~dlffiITffi
~6l!fiUJnffi
~Lff1
~6lJ~~u,
QffiIT6Tr6lJ~6iJ~6Il.
6T6lITU,®
2!!!U,ffi~Q~IT~ffi
6lJ~rJ<ll6lJIT~6Il
~6IllDITffi~~IT6irr
ffiLDQU6l!fi
QffiIT@UUITl'lffi6Tr.
~~dlffinffi
!!)IT6irr
~6l!fiUJITffi
ffiITI'IUU<8rJ66irr
6lJr5JffiluJl6iJ
ffi=U,®
qj,rJLDLl1~<ll~6irr.
6T6lITU,®
ffil~LU,ffiU,
Bin'4UJ
2!!!U,ffi~
Q~n~ffi
6T6lITU,®
~6l!fiUJITffi
6lJ®LD
6T6irr!);lJ Q6IT6irr6llTIT6iJ
~~
6rfiUJW6Il.
6T6lITU,®LD
6T~l'IlDWJ~nrJ®u,®LD
6T6lJ6lll~
Q~ITLI'ILJLD
~6iJ~6Il
6T6irr!);lJ
Q6IT6irr6llTIT6iJ
~~
6rfiUJ6iJ6Il.
<851IT6lJIT6 qj,.
2-uJl6iJ
~6Ilffi!!)IT~6irr.
QuUJI'I
6lJ®6lJ~IT6iJ
6T6lITU,®
6lJ®LD
2!!!U,ffi~
Q~IT~ffi
~6lJ<llrJ
6T@~~U,
QffiIT6Trffil!DITI'I 6T6irrU~
~6lJ!DIT®LD
6T6irr!);lJ
Q6n6irr6llTIT6iJ
~~
6rfiUJ6iJ6Il.
rJnLD®lDnl'l
6JQ~6irr6Tll1U,®LD
~6Ilffi!!)n~WJu,®LD
6T6lJ61ll~
Q~nLI'ILJLD
~6iJ~6Il
6T6irr!);lJ Q6IT6irr6llTIT6iJ
~~
6rfiUJ6iJ6Il.
~6Ilffi!!)IT~WJU,®
!!)IT6irr
~61!f1uUL.L
(Yl~!DuJl6iJ
QffiIT@~~
Q~IT~ffi
~!!i~
6lJf9u,ffildlffiIT5I
6LDU!!i~UU®~~
Q6IT6iJffil<8!D6irr
6T6irr!DIT6iJ
~~
6rfiUJ6iJ6Il.
<lllDdlU'4
6T~l'IlDWJ~nrJl'I
lDdl!);lJLD ~6Ilffi!!)IT~6irr
uS~
<8unLUUL.L
6lJf9U,~ffi
Q66irr~6lIT
~UJI'I
!b ~lD6irr!D~~6iJ
6lJf9U,®
~nu,ffi6iJ
Q6tU~~
Q66iJ6IlIT~
6T6irr!);lJ ~~~rJ6lJITffil
~6Tr6TT~
6T6lITU,®~
Q~rfllLjLD.
Ll1rJUITffirJ6irr 6T6irrU6lJ1'I ffiIT<86IT~6Il
<lllDIT6'4
6lJf9U,®
6T6irr
uS~
6T6Tu'4qj,I'I.
1308/2007
6S'®
6lJf9U,®
~nu,ffi6iJ
Q6tU~ITI'I
6T6irr!DIT6iJ ~~
6rfi~n6irr.
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
<ll6lJ~6Il
Q6tUlLjLD
Uf9U,ffiLD 6JdlUL.L~.
6T6lITU,®LD
lDWJ~ITrJ®U,®
2006
(Yl~6iJ
Uf9U,ffiLD
6lJ1'I~~ffi
6r5Jffi~~IT6iJ
~UJITI'I
Q6tUUJUUL.L
~L6irrU'4U,~ffiu.l16iJ
!!)IT6irr
6ITL.dl
~ffiQUJ@~~
~L.@6Tr(86TT6irr.
ffiLDQU6l!fi
QffiIT@U,®LD
2!!!u,ffi~Q~n~ffi
<866iJ6iu<8lDWJU,®
Q66iJ~6lJ~
Uf9U,ffiLD.
~~
$1 !);lJ6lJ6lIT~~
dl®LD
<ll66iJ6iu<8lDWJU,®
~6Tr6TT
~61!f1 UUL.L
~L6irrUIT@.
~~
<866iJ6iu<8lD6l!fi6irr
ffi=u,ffil6iJ
6lSIdlU~6lITu,®
6Jdl!D~<llUIT6iJ
6lJrJ6l.j
~6lJUUITriffi6Tr.
lDWJ~ITrJri
~ITU,ffi6iJ
Q6tU~
6lJ\9u,®
6LDU6TT unu,$l
6T6irr!);lJ Q~rfi!!i~QffiIT~<8L6irr.
Since
the close
friend
of PW.I
there
is no possibility
to give
much importance
to the evidence
of PW.2.
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®
<lllD6iJ 6illdlu~6lIT
Q6tU~ITri
6T6irr!);lJLD ~~dlffiITffi
~6iJ6IlL.
~!!i~UJIT
r5l!);lJ6lJ6lITLD lDWJ~ITrJ®U,®
~6irrQ66irr'46lJITffi
QffiIT@~~~
6T6irr!);lJLD
~!!i~~
Q~IT~ffilLjL6irr
!!)ITr5Jffi6Tr
lDWJ~ITrJ®U,®
QffiIT@U,ffi
5IL~lDUUL.L6lJriffi6Tr
6T6irr!!)IT6iJ
6rfiUJW6Il.
lDWJ~nrJri
6Tr5Jffi6Tr r5l!);lJ6lJ6lIT~~6iJ
u~
Q6tU~~.
6LDU6TTLD QffiIT@~~~
6LDU!!i~UUL.L
qj,6lJ=r5Jffi6Tr
6Tr5Jffi6TT~
426
LA
GAZETTE
DE
L'ETAT
[I July 2014
!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 ~
<!:p 6l!l!Dffi6l!l6fT ffi6l!lL U LfI Lq.B;ffi6illw
6l!l6IJ 6T6irr W ro
LDWI ~ n IJr'r
(gffirTrt1 2....6Tr6fT8'tbU6fT
!61~6l!l61J
lO1~rr6l!lffiffi6Tr.
LD(bWtb
j)\9ULlL(bl
Q~rr6l!lffiffi6Tr
2....LULL6l!l61Jffi6l!l6fT
LDWl6lllw
ffi~L61Jrrw
61J\9ri>JffiuULL61Jr'r
ffi6Tr 6T6irr!Drr6U 8'rt1W6U6IJ.
5. The point for
consideration
is:
Whether
the industrial
dispute
can be allowed?
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
considerable
sales
his diary
is also not produced.
7. According
to RW.l
they used to pay incentive
as
per the sales
made
by the petitioner
and there
is no
arrears
so without
any record.
There
is no possibility
to presume that there was an arrears
of~ 76,500 towards
incentives.
Further,
it is admitted
by the respondent
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
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
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
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:
PW.I
-6-7-2011-
N. Sasikumar
PW.2 -
23-2-2012
-
K. Mohammad
Ibrahim
List of respondent
s witness:
RWI
-12-12-2012
-
V. Ramanathan
List of petitioner
s exhibits:
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.
