1090

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[29 December 2015

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 128/Lab./AIL/T/2015, dated 16th December 2015)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D.(L) No. 29/2014,

dated 26-10-2015 of the Labour Court, Puducherry

in respect of the industrial dispute between the

management of M/s. Immaculate Heart of Mary Girls’

H i g h e r S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l , P u d u c h e r r y a n d

Tmt. Yesurani 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 the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

YASAM LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY,

Commissioner of Labour-cum-

Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :

Thiru N. SIVAKUMAR, B.A., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Monday, the 26th day of October 2015

I.D.(L) No. 29/2014

Yesurani

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal,

Immaculate Heart of Mary Girls’

Higher Secondary School,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 22-9-2015 for final

hearing before me in the presence of Thiru J. Cyril

Mathias Vincent, 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.77/AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 2-5-2014 for

adjudicating the following:-

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Tmt. Yesurani

against the management of M/s. Immaculate Heart

of Mary Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Puducherry

over her non-employment is justified? If justified,

what relief she 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:-

The petitioner was employed as a non-teaching

staff (ayya) on 1-6-2003 with an initial salary of

` 1,200 and in December 2011, the petitioner was paid

` 5,100 per month as wages inclusive of bonus. She

has been carrying out her duties assigned to her

without any blemish and to the satisfaction of her

superiors.

On 4-1-2012, the petitioner was orally informed by

the respondent that she need not come to work from

the next day. No reason was assigned for her

termination despite her pleas.

On 6-1-2012 the petitioner submitted a written

representation pleading the respondent to permit her

to resume her work as “ayya” since, with the wages

she was earning as an“ayya” was the only source of

income supporting her children and as a widow she

had no other source of income. The petitioner further

pleaded the respondent to let her know the reasons

for stopping her from her work.

Subsequent to her letter, dated 6-1-2012 the

respondent herein issued order bearing No. 601/

IHMGHSS/2011-12, dated 3-1-2012 on 14-1-2012

at 13.00 hours. The petitioner requested the respondent

herein to furnish her with an attested true copy of

the materials (1) to (4) referred to in the order bearing

No. 601/IHMGHSS/2011-12, dated 3-1-2012 to enable

the petitioner to give a comprehensive reply to the

order. The petitioner also pointed out that the order

has been posted after receiving her letter, dated 6-1-2012

and that she had been terminated without any notice.

The order was prepared after the impugned

termination.

She came to know only on 27-1-2012 about the

respondent's allegation that the impugned termination

was after an alleged enquiry, conducted behind her

back.

No show cause notice was issued to her either in

person or through registered post and the petitioner

had no knowledge of any show cause notice,

chargesheet, appointment of the alleged Enquiry

1091

29 December 2015]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Officer and the alleged enquiry. The petitioner came

to know about the show cause notice, chargesheet

and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer as well

as the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer only after

27-1-2012, after the impugned oral termination.

The non-employment of the petitioner by the

respondent is illegal, contrary to law and the

principles of natural justice were not followed prior

to the impugned termination.

She is without employment and salary from

January 2012 and the petitioner is entitled for her

employment with back wages and other allowances.

This Court to pass an award in favour of the

petitioner and against the respondent (a) by reinstating

the petitioner in her employment with full back wages

from January 2012 till the date of resuming her work,

(b) and for costs.

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

Since the respondent remained ex-parte.

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

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked.

5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed? or not?

6. On the point:

Heard oral submissions of the learned counsel on

record for the petitioner and documentary evidences,

namely, Ex.P1 to P7. Perused. Ex.P1 is the letter, dated

6-1-2012 sent by the petitioner to the Principal of the

respondent school, wherein, she has requested the

management to permit her to resume work at the earliest.

Ex.P2 is the acknowledgment card for dispatching Ex.P1

letter. Ex.P2 is another letter, dated 18-1-2012 written by

the petitioner to the principal of respondent

management reminding to consider the request pleaded

in the Ex.P1 letter. Ex.P4 is the yet another letter, dated

8-2-2012 scripted by the petitioner to the respondent.

In this letter, the petitioner has specifically refuted the

allegation leveled against her in the report, dated

24-1-2012 and specifically denied that no enquiry was

conducted as mentioned in this report. Further, she has

specifically stated that she was not served with any

letter or show cause notice or any communication at any

point of time regarding the enquiry. So, the enquiry

report is a fabricated one for the purpose of terminating

her service. The petitioner has reiterated her plea of

continuing her service. Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment

card for the receipt of Ex.P4 letter. As the respondent

management did not consider the request of the

petitioner she has sent Ex.P6 representation to the

Labour Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,

Government of Puducherry to conciliate the matter.

Along with this representation, she has enclosed her last

pay slip for the month of December 2011 against

on 18-3-2013. The petitioner had sent Ex.P7 representation

to the concerned Labour Officer denying the allegations

levelled against her by the management and also the

contents of the chargesheet and the enquiry proceedings.

As the conciliation between the petitioner and the

respondent failed the dispute has been referred to this

Court for adjudication.

7. The respondent has not chosen to appear before

this Court and contest the matter.

8. The petitioner through her oral testimony as PW.1

and by producing relevant documentary evidence,

namely, Ex.P1 to P7 has categorically established that

there is no fault on her part while discharging her duty.

So it is clear that without any reason the petitioner has

been illegally terminated by the respondent management.

The petitioner was working as 'ayya'. The petitioner is

a widow who was working as an 'ayya' (non-teaching

staff) in the respondent school and she was the sole

bread-winner of the family. So on carefully considering

the oral testimony of PW.1 in the light of Ex.P1 to P7.

This Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner

is entitled for the employment in the respondent

organisation as claimed by her. So, the respondent

management is directed to provide the employment to

the petitioner as a non-teaching staff (ayya) which was

the post held by her, at the time of termination, from

the date of this order within one month with all benefits

from the date of this petition, failing which the amount

entitled for the petitioner would be paid by the

respondent management with nine per cent of interest

thereon till payment. Accordingly it is ordered.

9. In the result, the respondent is directed to provide

employment to the petitioner as a non-teaching staff

(ayya) within one month from the date of this order and

also it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled for the

benefits as entitled to her from the date of this petition,

the monetary benefits should be paid to the petitioner

within one month time of this order, failing which the

amount should be paid to the petitioner with nine

per cent interest thereon till payment. Accordingly it is

ordered.-

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 26th day of October 2015.

N. SIVAKUMAR,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

1092

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[29 December 2015

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —22-10-2015—Yesurani

List of petitioner’s exhibits :

Ex.P1 — Copy of the Letter from the petitioner to

the respondent, dated 6-1-2012.

Ex.P2 — Copy of the acknowledgment card,

dated 14-1-2012.

Ex.P3 — Copy of the letter from the petitioner

to the respondent, dated 18-1-2012.

Ex.P4 — Copy of the letter from the petitioner

to the respondent, dated 8-2-2012.

Ex.P5 — Copy of the acknowledgment card, dated

10-2-2012.

Ex.P6 — Copy of the letter from petitioner to

the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

dated 24-9-2013.

Ex.P7 — Copy of the letter from petitioner to the

Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated

18-12-2013.

N. SIVAKUMAR,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY)

(G.O. Ms. No. 10/AH/1070, dated 10th December 2015)

ORDER

The Hon’ble Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry is pleased to order for promotion of the following Veterinary

Assistant Surgeons of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Puducherry as Joint Directors on

temporary and ad hoc on conditional basis as detailed below and posted the officials in the offices mentioned against

each with immediate effect:

Sl.

Name of the

Present place

Posting on

Remarks

No.

Veterinary Assistant

of working

promotion

Surgeon

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Dr. S. Alagarasu

CVMS, Puducherry

Joint Director (LH),

—

Puducherry.

Dr. Giri Mehar Baba

Clinical Lab., Puducherry,

Registrar, PSVC,

—

Service placed at Veterinary

Puducherry.

Dispensary, Thattanchavady,

Puducherry.

Dr. A.V. Subba Rao

Block-II, Key Village Centre,

Joint Director (AH),

—

Puducherry.

Dr. G. Selvaraj

ADS, Puducherry, service

Joint Director (ADS),

—

placed at Veterinary Dispensary,

Puducherry.

Thirukkanur, Puducherry.

Dr. R. Rajendiran

Mobile Veterinary Dispensary-II, Joint Director (Poultry),

—

Puducherry.

Dr. T.S. Tamilselvan

Block-I, Key Village Centre,

Joint Director (LP),

—

Puducherry.

Dr. E. Syed Ali

Block-III, Key Village Centre,

Deputy Registrar

—

Puducherry.

(Academic), RIVER,

Puducherry.