284

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[21 April 2015

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 32/Lab./AIL/J/2015, dated 13th April 2015)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D.(L)No. 39/2014, dated 12-2-2015

of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the

industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Checkmate Security Service, Adambakkam, Chennai

and its workman Thiru K. Murugan over non-employment

has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with

the notification issued in Labour Department’s

G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the

said award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

GIDDI BALARAM,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY

Present : Thiru G. DHANARAJ, B.Sc., B.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Thursday, the 12th day of February 2015

I.D. (L) No. 39/2014

K. Murugan

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. Checkmate Security Service

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 6-2-2015

for final hearing before me in the presence of

Thiru A. Karunamoorthy, Counsel for the petitioner,

respondent called absent, set ex parte, 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. 94/AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 5-6-2014 for

adjudicating the following:-

(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner

Thiru K. Murugan against the management of

M/s. Checkmate Security Service, Adambakkam, Chennai

over non-employment is justified? If justified,

what relief he is entitled to?

(2) 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:-

He is an employee of the respondent company was

working as security from 22-5-2006 and he was

discharged to extreme satisfaction of the respondent

management.

The petitioner was working under the respondent

management from 2-5-2006 to 1-5-2013 for the past

7 years without any blemish/remarks at all by the

respondent management and during the said course

of the employment the petitioner has not avail any

unauthorised leave from his employment of the

respondent management. For the past 7 years the

petitioner had served hardly to the respondent

management.

Till date there is no remarks at all as against the

petitioner either by the management or by any

colleague of the petitioner and there is good name

in the said respondent management, but, the

petitioner as well as other employees had been given

very lowest salary of ` 5,952 per month by the

respondent management.

Because of unlawful employee activities of the

respondent management, to get remedy before the

respondent management, such as late salary

payments, not providing salary slips and details of

various dedications in salary, not providing weekly

holidays to the security staffs the petitioner made

several representations through phone and in written

and duly represented in the feedback on security

services from various companies for which he went

for security duties to the respondent management.

The respondent management got vengeance as

against the petitioner and tried to defeat and stop

such legal activities and affairs of the petitioner as a

result, the respondent management had stopped the

petitioner from his service unlawfully without

providing any lawful notice.

On 2-5-2013 due to his illness took leave for one

day after due intimation to the respondent management

by mobile phone and duly making entry in the

attendance register on 1-5-2013 itself. After the said

leave on 2-5-2013 the petitioner came back for his

duty on 3-5-2013 and duly signed in the attendance

register also but the respondent management

appointed one Babu in his place and send back the

petitioner without providing the duty. The petitioner

285

21 April 2015]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

has approached the respondent management for his

regular employment but the same was illegally

refused by the respondent management. The refusal

of employment is contrary to the Labour laws and

the principle of natural justice.

The respondent management has not furnished

any show cause notice or to conduct any enquiry

against the petitioner. In fact the act committed by

the respondent management is nothing but illegal,

and against the Labour laws and principle of natural

justice. So far the respondent management has not

turned neither reply nor employment and always

acting as against this innocent employee petitioner.

Regarding the illegal act of the respondent

management the petitioner approached before the

conciliation on 25-7-2013 and after it's intervenes/

approaches to the respondent management, the

respondent management has not adhere anything

and acting against this petitioner continuously and

also the matter was not disposed within the period

of 45 days, hence this petition for adjudication.

3. No counter was filed on behalf of the respondent.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked.

5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed or not?

6. On this point:

Heard. It was submitted by the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was the employee of the

respondent security service as security guard. The

petitioner was joining the respondent security service,

namely, M/s. Checkmate Security Service on 22-5-2006.

The petitioner was working as a security guard with the

respondent security service for about 7 years without

any blemish records. The petitioner was paid for a sum

of ` 5,952 per month by the respondent management.

The respondent management was doing unlawful

activities against the employee and were not providing

the weekly off. The petitioner was stopped from

attending the duty by the respondent management

unlawfully without any notice. The petitioner was taking

leave for one day on 2-5-2013, due to illness. The

petitioner had informed the respondent management

regarding the leave taken by the petitioner through

mobile phone and also the said fact was entered into

attendance register on 1-5-2013 itself. The petitioner was

attending duty on 3-5-2013 but the respondent

management had appointed one Babu, instead of

petitioner and the petitioner was not provided with any

duty. The petitioner was not provided any duty illegally

by the respondent management and against the natural

justice. The matter was conciliated by the concerned

Conciliation Officer, the Conciliation was failed. Hence

this dispute.

7. On behalf of the respondent, in spite of the

repeated adjournments, there was no representation and

the respondent was set ex parte.

8. After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, records

were perused. On perusal it comes to light that on behalf

of the petitioner a proof affidavit was filed by the

petitioner himself and as much as 14 documents were

produced which was marked as Ex.P1 to P14.

Accordingly a perusal of the Ex.P3 which would reveal

the fact that the Ex.P3 was a attendance register

photocopy, for the concerned guards, caretakers and

supervisors including the petitioner's name maintained

by one TATA Motors Finance Limited, Puducherry.

A perusal of the Ex.P4 reveals the fact that it was also

a photocopy of the attendance sheets for the month of

March 2013 maintained by TATA Motors Finance

Limited. The documents filed by the petitioner, namely,

Ex.P5 to P8 were the documents regarding the salary

particulars of the petitioner, namely, K. Murugan issued

by the Checkmate Services Private Limited, attached

with the TATA Motors Finance Limited, for the period

as mentioned thereon. A perusal of the Ex.P9 would

reveal the fact that a representation was given by the

petitioner to the respondent management and the matter was

conciliated by the Conciliation Officer, also established

by the petitioner as exhibited P10, P11, P12 and P13.

9. A perusal of the Ex.P12 which was a report filed

by the Conciliation Officer to the Secretary to the

Government, Labour Department, Puducherry, wherein

it has been mentioned as follows:-

“During

the

course

of

conciliation

the

management has stated that they have not denied

employment and PF contributions have been paid

regularly and also assured before the conciliation

machinery that the issue would be settled amicably”.

A cursory reading of the abovesaid averments

mentioned in the Ex.P12 would reveal the fact that the

respondent management themselves admitted before the

Conciliation Officer that they have not denied

employment to the petitioner and the dispute would be

settled amicably was the averments mentioned in the

Ex.P12 which was prepared by the Conciliation Officer.

And it was stated by the concerned Conciliation Officer

himself that the respondent management was not denying

the employment to the petitioner as mentioned thereon.

286

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[21 April 2015

10. It has been held in a case as reported in Government

of National Capital Territory Vs. Mrs. Kamlesh, 1996 (1)

LLJ 469 (Delhi) vide Industrial Disputes Act by Justice

D.D. Seth, 9th edition, Pg.1796 as follows:-

“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, section 25-F illegal

termination of workman such workmen entitled to full

back wages being within scope of reference”.

In the light of the above said ruling, a perusal of the

records on hand, the court decided on a considered

view, that the abovesaid proposition of the law laid

down by the Hon’ble High Court is also squarely

applicable to the given case, because in this case also

the respondent management did not assign any valid

reason before this court as to non-employ the petitioner

and also it was admitted by the respondent management

before the concerned Conciliation Officer that they were

not denying the employment to the petitioner and the

issue would be settled amicably. In spite of the said fact

i.e. in spite of the said admission, before the concerned

Conciliation Officer, the respondent management did

not settle the matter amicably and did not come forward

before this court as to represent its case and the

respondent management was remained ex parte. Hence

the court decided on a considered view that the case

of the petitioner was established and the petitioner is

entitled for reinstatement with the respondent

management organisation and is entitled for the salary

as drawn by him on the date of 1-5-2013 which was the

last date attended by the petitioner to the employment

and also the petitioner is entitled for the back wages

from the date of 3-5-2013 till the date of reinstatement.

The arrear amount should be paid to the petitioner,

namely, K. Murugan by the respondent management

within three months from the date of this order, failing

which the petitioner would be entitled for six per cent

of interest for the said arrear amount. Accordingly, it is

ordered.

11. In the result, it is ordered that the petitioner is

entitled for the reinstatement with the respondent

management as security guard and also entitled for the

salary from the date of 3-5-2013 to the date of

reinstatement and the arrear amount should be paid to

the petitioner within three months from the date of this

order, failing which the petitioner is entitled for six per cent

interest thereon. Accordingly, it is ordered.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 12th day of February 2015.

G. DHANARAJ,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Pondicherry.

List of petitioner’s witnesses:

PW.1 — 6-2-2015

— K. Murugan

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — Copy of the Employee Identity Card in

petitioner and respondent, dated 15-2-2007.

Ex.P2 — Copy of the E.S.I. Corporation

Identity Card in petitioner and E.S.I.,

dated 8-2-2007.

Ex.P3 — Copy of the attendance register in

petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P4 — Copy of the feedback and attendance

sheets given by Tata Motors in

petitioner and Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

Ex.P5 — Copy of the salary sheet in petitioner

and ICICI, dated November 2008.

Ex.P6 — Copy of the salary sheet in petitioner and

Essar Steels Ltd., dated December 2010.

Ex.P7 — Copy of the salary sheet in petitioner

and Tata Motors Finance Ltd., dated

September 2012.

Ex.P8 — Copy of the salary slip in petitioner and

respondent, dated November 2012.

Ex.P9 — Copy of the representation in petitioner

and respondent, dated 3-5-2013.

Ex.P10 — Copy of the representation in petitioner

and Labour Officer (Conciliation),

dated 16-5-2013.

Ex.P11 — Copy of the notice of enquiry in Labour

Officer (Conciliation) and respondent,

dated 4-7-2013.

Ex.P12 — Copy of the report on failure of

conciliation in petitioner and Labour

Officer (Conciliation), dated 14-5-2014.

Ex.P13 — Copy of the order referred to Labour

Court for adjudication in petitioner

and Labour Officer (Conciliation),

dated 5-6-2014.

Ex.P14 — Copy of the notice in petitioner and

Labour Court, dated 1-7-2014.

G. DHANARAJ,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Pondicherry.