292
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 20/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 19th April 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. (L) No. 41/2015, dated
17-2-2016 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s. Puducherry Agro Products Food and Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited (PAPSCO), Puducherry
and Thiru P. Sivaraman over refusal of employment and
seniority 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)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY
Present : Thiru N. SIVAKUMAR, B.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Wednesday, the 17th day of February 2016
I.D. (L) No. 41/2015
P. Sivaraman,
S/o. Pakkiri, aged about 40 years
No. 32, Gurusidhananda Nagar,
Navarkulam, Lawspet,
Puducherry - 605 008.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. PAPSCO,
Having its office at Agricultural Complex,
Thattanchavady, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before
me for hearing in the presence of Tvl. S. Vimal and
K. Ashok Kumar, Counsels for the petitioner, respondent
called absent, set ex-parte, upon perusing the case
records, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
This industrial dispute has been referred as per the
G.O. Rt. No. 86/AIL/LAB/J/2015, dated 3-8-2015 for
adjudicating the following :
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru P. Sivaraman against the management of
M/s. Puducherry Agro Products Food and Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited (PAPSCO), Puducherry
over non-employment and seniority is justified?
(2) If justified, what relief the petitioner is
entitled to ?
(3) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus:-
(i) The petitioner completed his Diploma in
Pharmacy at Mother Theresa Institute of Health
Science and employed as a Daily Rated Labour with
the respondent management since 24-12-2004. From
the date of joining, the petitioner was regular in
service with the respondent management as a dutiful
employee without any sort of black mark. The
petitioner was placed at No. 123 of the Tentative
Seniority List of need based daily rated labour in
No.1-22/Estt./PAPSCO/2009-10, dated 5-11-2009 as
issued by the Managing Director of Respondent
Management. The petitioner was diagnosed with
'Rheumatic Heart Disease' and was informed to take
medical treatment for about two months. The
petitioner promptly took steps to inform the
respondent management about the same vide letter,
dated 19-4-2012. The petitioner was admitted as an
inpatient from 20-4-2012 till 14-6-2012 at JIPMER
Hospital. Thereon, he was advised rest from
14-6-2012 for 180 days. The said fact is evident from
the Medical Certificate issued to the petitioner on
27-11-2012 by JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry.
(ii) The petitioner was again advised rest for 152
days with effect from 16-12-2012 as necessary for
restoration of his health by the Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre, Kirumampakkam, Puducherry.
However, despite medical advice for rest till
16-5-2013, petitioner tried to inform his willingness
to resume work with the respondent establishment
and took efforts from the 1st week of May, 2013 but,
he was not duly responded. On one of his such
visits, petitioner found that the respondent
establishment once again published a temporary list
of daily waged employees on 26-4-2013. On perusal
293
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
of said list, petitioner shocked to find that his
originally stood at a seniority No. 123 since 2009
was suddenly missing in the final seniority list,
dated 26-4-2013 displayed by the respondent
management. Immediately without any loss of time
petitioner brought the said facts to the respondent's
notice vide his letter, dated 13-5-2013 and sought for
the restoration of his name in the list.
(iii) Later on 16-5-2013, he submitted a letter along
with fitness certificate issued by the Medical Officer
of Primary Health Centre, Kadirkammam expressing
his willingness to join the work but, was not
entertained. Respondent authorities turned down his
request by informing that he would be called for the
job through a written communication, and thereby
refused his work despite there was availability of
ample work.
(iv) Respondent did not allow him to resume
work despite his willingness to do so. Later, on
27-6-2013, the respondent displayed a final seniority
list of daily wagers employed with them, wherein his
name was still missing despite his letter, dated
13-5-2013 seeking to include him in the list of
employees. He was left perplexed to see that inspite
of his letter, his name was missing in the final
seniority list while he was on medical leave due to
ill health. Respondent's such conduct caused too
much of mental agony apart from physical and
financial hardship to petitioner.
(v) Further, petitioner was shocked to know that
his juniors were promoted in his place, while he was
unceremoniously and illegally removed/terminated/
retrenched from employment without due process of
law. Respondent's termination/refusal of employment
to him without following the social security measures
provided under various statutes including the
Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules framed therein is most unjust,
unethical and against all the principles of law and
natural justice amounting to victimisation and
condemning of an employee without giving any
opportunity.
(vi) Petitioner pleaded for reinstatement to work
with the respondent many times but, he was least
responded. Hence, with no other alternative, he
approached the Conciliation Officer for settlement.
(vii) The respondent filed their reply on
16-10-2014 before the Conciliation Officer. A perusal
of the reply would show that the respondent
establishment has failed to justify his retrenchment
as known to law, but, rather confirmed that they had
not followed the mandatory provisions of law and
principles of natural justice while terminating/
retrenching petitioner's employment with respondent.
(viii) The petitioner prays this Court (i) to declare
that the respondent's act of retrenchment of the
petitioner from employment is illegal as opposed to
law and principles of natural justice, and direct the
respondent to restore his seniority status at No. 123
as existed prior to 26-4-2013 with all the benefits
appertaining thereto, (ii) to direct the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner to work with all back wages
and benefits appending to his work with interest at
the rate of 18% and thereby stop his employer from
victimising him, in the interest of justice (iii) 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, WW.1 was examined,
and Ex.W1 to Ex.W10 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On this point :
Heard learned Counsel on record for the petitioner
and perused oral testimony of WW.1 and documentary
evidence, namely, Ex.W1 to W10.
7. The respondent has not chosen to appear before
this Court and contest the matter.
8. Petitioner P. Sivaraman while testifying himself as
WW.1 has categorically stated that he completed
diploma course and employed with the respondent
industry as a daily rated worker since 20-12-2004.
To show his employment he has produced his Identity
Card as Ex.W.1. He was placed with rank No. 123 in the
tentative seniority list of need based daily rated labour
as seen from Ex.W.2. In the year 2012, the petitioner was
diagnosed with Rheumatic Heart Disease and advised
to take medical treatment and rest for months together.
The petitioner has informed about his health condition
to the management as per Ex.W.3 letter, dated 19-4-2012
and it was duly acknowledged by the respondent
management. Ex.W.4 is the medical certificate, dated
27-11-2012 pertaining the petitioner and it discloses that
he was admitted in JIPMER for "Redo Open Heart
Surgery - Mitral Valve Replacement" for Rheumatic
Heart Disease and admitted as inpatient for a period
from 20-4-2012 to 14-6-2012. After the open heart
surgery the petitioner was medically advised to take rest
294
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
for a long time period. The respondent management
removed the name of the petitioner from the seniority
list, and to show this fact. Petitioner has produced
Ex.W.5 of statement showing final seniority list of need
based daily rated workers working in the PAPSCO, dated
27-6-2013.
9. A perusal of Ex.W.5 would disclose that
petitioner's name does not find place in this list since
he was continuously absent as medical ground. So, the
petitioner has sent Ex.W.6 representation, dated
13-5-2013 requesting the respondent management to
consider his seniority and include his name in the list.
Further, the petitioner wrote Ex.W.7 letter along with
fitness certificate requesting the management to
reinstate him since he was fully recovered. As the
respondent management was not amenable and not
willing to reinstate the petitioner he sent representation
to the Conciliation Officer and copy of the same is
marked as Ex.W.8. Ex.W.9 is the copy of the counter,
filed by the respondent before the Conciliation Officer.
Again the petitioner has sent Ex.W.10 rejoined, dated
11-11-2014 to Ex.W.9 counter filed by the management.
10. The respondent though resisted the claim before
the Conciliation Officer has not chosen to contest the
industrial dispute in this Court. Since, the respondent
failed to file his counter inspite of repeated
adjournments it was set ex-parte.
11. The petitioner is a diploma holder and appointed
as a daily rated labour in the respondent management
on 20-12-2004. He was a sincere worker and there was
no adverse remarks against him. The petitioner was
suffering with Rheumatic Heart Disease and he was
medically advised to undergo mitral valve replacement
by open heart surgery. The petitioner has duly informed
the respondent management about his ill-health
condition the proposed heart surgery by sending its
Ex.W.3 letter. But, the respondent has not considered
the request of the petitioner and necessary leave on
medical grounds was not sanctioned. Originally, the
petitioner was placed in rank No.123 in the seniority list
as seen from Ex.W.2. The petitioner was advised to
undergo rest for six months from 14-6-2012, since, he had
undergone open heart surgery for mitral valve replacement
as seen from Ex.W.4 medical certificate. Since, the
petitioner was suffering from severe heart disease and
undergone open heart surgery, he applied for long leave
but it was not properly considered by the respondent.
Petitioner's absence due to medical grounds that too by
informing the management about the open heart surgery
in time, cannot be construed as unauthorised absence.
12. The petitioner while undergoing rest during post
operative heart surgery, his name was removed from the
seniority list. Thereafter, the petitioner made several
attempts seeking reinstatement by producing fitness
certificate but, the respondent management was
stubborn and reluctant to consider representation of the
petitioner and to reinstate him.
13. Of course, the petitioner was working only as a
daily rated worker and allotment of work to the daily
rated workers will be on the basis of requirement
Anyhow, the respondent management has prepared a
seniority list for allotment of work to the daily rated
workers. Originally, the petitioner was placed in
SI. No. 123 but, subsequently his name was removed
due to his continuous absence on medical grounds.
Considering the conduct of the petitioner while, he was
working with the respondent management for many
years without any remarks and also taking note of his
serious heart ailment and open heart surgery for
replacement of mitral valve and also his representations
made to the respondent management I consider that the
claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and restore his
seniority status as existed prior to 26-4-2013 has to be
allowed. Whereas, his prior for full back wages with
interest at the rate of 18% cannot be entertained legally
on the basis of the principle of no work, no pay.
Accordingly, this industrial dispute is partly allowed,
and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner
as Daily Rated Labour within one month regarding the
prior of back wages and benefits' appending his service
with interest of 18% per annum is dismissed and
accordingly this point is answered.
14. In the result, this industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner as daily rated labour within one month by
restoring his original seniority as found in Ex.W2
(tentative seniority list of need based daily rated labour
in Ex.W2) prior to 26-4-2013. Regarding the prayer of
back wages and benefits appending his service with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 17th day of February, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
295
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of petitioner’s witness:
WW.1 — 23-1-2016 — P. Sivaraman (Petitioner)
List of respondent’s witness:
– Nil –
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.W.1 — Copy of the petitioner's identity card
issued by the Respondent (Photocopy).
Ex.W.2 — Copy of the tentative seniority list
of need based daily rated labour in
No.
1-22/Estt./PAPSCO/2009-10,
issued by the Managing Director of the
Respondent
Establishment,
dated
21-2-2009 (Photocopy).
Ex.W.3 — Copy of the petitioner's letter to
respondent's office with their seal and
signature for receipt, dated 19-4-2012
(Photocopy).
Ex.W.4 — Copy of the petitioner's medical
certificate, dated 27-11-2012 (Photocopy).
Ex.W.5 — Copy of the circular and final seniority
list of employees displayed by the
respondent, dated 27-6-2013 (Photocopy).
Ex.W.6 — Copy of the petitioner's letter to the
respondent's office, dated 13-5-2013
(Photocopy).
Ex.W.7 — Copy of the petitioner's letter along
with fitness certificate issued by the
Medical Officer of Primary Health
Centre, Kirumampakkam, dated 16-5-2013
(Photocopy).
Ex.W.8 — Copy of the petitioner's letter to the
conciliation officer, dated 7-7-2014
(Photocopy).
Ex.W.9 — Copy of the respondent's reply before
the conciliation officer, dated 16-10-2014
(Photocopy).
Ex.W.10— Copy of the petitioner's letter to the
conciliation officer in response to
respondent's reply, dated 11-11-2014
(Photocopy).
List of respondent’s exhibits:
– Nil –
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 21/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 19th April 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. (L) No.24/2012, dated
24-2-2016 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between Chemcrown Exports
and Suolificio Linea Italia Private Limited, Thozhilalar
Sangam, P ud ucherry and the management o f
M/s. Chemcrown Exports Limited Unit-III and M/s. Suolificio
Linea Italia (India) Private Limited,Puducherry over
non-employment of 12 employees 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)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PONDICHERRY
Present : Thiru N. SIVAKUMAR, B.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Wednesday, the 24th day of February 2016
I.D. (L) No. 24/2012
The President,
. . Petitioner
Chemcrown Exports and
M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia
Private Limited Thozhilalar Sangam,
Puducherry.
Versus
1. The Management,
Chemcrown Exports Limited
Unit-III, Puducherry.
2. The Management,
Suolificio Linea Italia (India)
Private Limited, Puducherry.
. . Respondents.
296
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
This industrial dispute coming on 4-2-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru R.T. Shankar,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru K. Ranganathan, Counsel
for the first respondent and Thiru A. Latchoumicandane,
Counsel for the second respondent and upon hearing
both sides, perusing the case records and having stood
over till this day for consideration, this court delivered
the following:
AWARD
This industrial dispute has been referred as per the
G.O. Rt. No. 114/ AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 13-7-2012 for
adjudicating the following:-
1. Whether the dispute raised by the union
workmen Chemcrown Exports and Suolificio Linea
Italiya Private Limited, Thozhilalargal Sangam against
the management of M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia (India)
Private Limited, over non-employment of 12 employees
viz., (1) A. Ravichandran, (2) K. Kaliyamoorthy,
(3) A. Subramanian, (4) A. Lakshmanan, (5) E. Selvam,
(6) T. Srinivasan, (7) K. Ezhumalai, (8) S. Ramesh,
(9) A. Arumaiselvam, (10) R. Murugan, (11) P. Sekar,
(12) S. Magesh are justified?
2. If justified, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to?
3. Whether the management of M/s. Chemcrown
Exports Limited-Unit-III, Sedarapet, Puducherry is
liable to pay the closure compensation to the above
mentioned employees? If so, to give appropriate
directions?
4. 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:-
2(i) The petitioner is a trade union and the
12 members/workers of the petitioner union were
working as permanent employees in the first
respondent factory, namely. Chemcrown Exports
Limited, Unit-III, Puducherry which was engaged in
manufacturing of leather products. There was a fire
accident in the first respondent's factory on 8-12-2010
and thereafter the company declared lay-off, but the
petitioner's regularly came to the factory and signed
for a few days. Then the first respondent management
refused to get signature of the 12 workers. On 21-2-2011
the first respondent issued closure notice stating
that the company was deemed to be closed since
23-1-2011. In the closure notice 1st respondent has
declared to pay four months' salary only as full and
final settlement irrespective of the service of the
workers. The announcement of 1st respondent for
payment for four months salary as final settlement
is illegal. Some of the trainees accepted the final
settlement and left to some other concerns. But the
12 workers concerned with the industrial dispute
have refused to receive final settlement amount, and
insisted for their reinstatement in 2nd respondent
since it is a sister concern of the first respondent and
it is also functioning within the same premises. Both
respondents 1 and 2 have been registered under
Companies Act in the office of Registration of
Companies, Kolkata. So, the laid off workers requested
for re-employment in the second respondent
management and it was not accepted, The dispute
was dealt with Conciliation Officer, but no settlement
was arrived at and failure on Conciliation Report was
submitted. In pursuance of the same a notification
G.O was issued and the same is referred to this court
for adjudication. 2(ii) In the year 1991 Chemcrown
Exports Limited, Unit-I was started with 20 workers.
Then ‘Chemcrown India Limited Unit-II was started
in the year 1998 with 100 workers in the same
premises and in the year 2000 the name of the factory
was changed as 'Chemcrown Exports Limited, Unit-II'
and this factory was subsequently closed.
(1) In the year 2001 another factory by name
Dye-Chem (India) Limited was started in the same
premises and the employees working in Chemcrown
India Limited, Unit-II, were engaged in Dye-Chem
(India) Limited and this factory was also closed.
(2) In the year 2005 the second respondent,
namely, M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia (India) Private
Limited was started in the same premises and the
workers of Dye-Chem (India) Limited, were observed
in this factory. In the year 2005 Chemcrown Exports
Limited Unit-I was closed and the name of the
factory was changed as Chemcrown Exports Limited
Unit-III (first respondent) and started as if it was a new
factory. As more number of workers were required for
the first respondent some of the employees from the
second respondent were transferred to the first
respondent. The first respondent was totally damaged
due to fire accident, and the 12 workers concerned
with the industrial dispute, namely, (1) A. Ravichandran,
(2) K. Kaliyamoorthy, (3) A. Subramanian,
(4) A. Lakshmanan, (5) E. Selvam, (6) T. Srinivasan,
(7) K. Ezhumalai, (8) S. Ramesh, (9) A. Arumaiselvam,
(10) R. Murugan, (11) P. Sekar, (12) S. Magesh were
permanent employees and they had been directed
to work in the different units. The management of
both the respondents are one and the same. Under
the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, and
as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India to decide whether the respondents 1 and 2
297
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
are one establishment, the following points have to
be taken into account (1) Ownership (2) Control and
Supervision (3) Finance (4) Management and
Employment (5) Geographical Proximity and (6)
General Unity of Purpose and Functional Integrality.
On analysing the above referred points, relating to
the respondents 1 and 2 this court can easily come
to the conclusion that both establishments are
having functional integrality.
2(iii) Respondents No. 1 and 2 are registered in
the same Registrar Office, namely, Registrar of
Companies, Kolkata. West Bengal. Thiru Balidoliya
Bhaiya @ B.D. Bhaiya and his two sons, namely
(i) Manoj Bhaiya and (2) Mukund Bhaiya are the
proprietors/directors of both respondents. Both the
companies are supervised by the same management.
There is only one trade union by name Chemcrown
Exports and M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia Private
Limited Thozhilalar Sangam, Sedarapet, (Registration
No. RTU/1338/2003) i.e., petitioner union and it is
functioning for the welfare of workers of both
respondents. Both respondents have jointly entered
into two settlements with petitioner trade union
(under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act) on
15-2-2007 and 28-4-2010.
2(iv) As per in the information furnished by the
Government, the factory namely, Chemcrown Exports
Limited, Unit-II has been name changed and now it
is functioning as M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia (India)
Private Limited, (second respondent). So, it is evident
that both the respondents have engaged in the same
business under the same management and the
directors of both the factories are one and the same,
and the workers have been shifted from one factory
into another factory as per requirement. So, the
retrenched 12 workers have to be accommodated in
the second respondent's factory. So, the industrial
dispute has been raised to declare that the first
respondent which was damaged due to fire accident
has been re-started by changing name as Suolificio
Linea Italia (India) Private Limited, (second
respondent) and both the establishment and the
same, and to direct the second respondent to engage/
reinstate the 12 workers of the petitioner union with
backwages, continuity of service and other attendant
benefits and to render justice.
3. The facts set out in the counter filed by the first
respondent management are stated as follows:-
3(i) It is false to state that the second respondent
is the sister concern of the first respondent. The first
and second respondents are distinct and different
factories and they are having separate owners and
shareholders. The said Companies are independent
of each other having separate control of management,
accounting, standing orders separate ESI accounts,
Provident fund accounts and nature of business. The
employees of the abovesaid factories are governed
by their own rules and regulations. The said
establishments are not managed by same family. The
first respondent has leased out a portion of its
premises to the second respondent in which it is
running the factory and the same cannot be
construed that the abovesaid companies are one and
the same. There was a fire accident on 8-12-2010 in
first respondent's factory and the entire goods,
machineries and materials were totally damaged. So,
the first respondent company could not run due to
the fire accident and lay-off was given to the workers
and lay-off salary was duly disbursed. All the
employees of the first respondent factory were
settled properly, and all their dues cleared by the
company except the petitioner (12 workers). The
workers are legally entitled to get only three months
wages as compensation under Section 25(FFF) of the
Industrial Disputes Act but the first respondent
offered four month's salary as compensation to the
workers. The first respondent cannot make any
arrangements for accommodating the 12 workers in
the second respondent factory/company. The first
respondent has no right or control over the second
respondent management. Hence the petition is devoid
of merits and liable to be dismissed.
4. The facts set out in the counter filed by the
second respondent management are stated as follows:
4(i) The two companies, namely, respondents No.1
and 2 are independent of each other having separate
management control, accounting, standing orders
etc., and the employees of the second respondent are
governed by their own rules and regulations. The
second respondent was incorporated on 11-5-2005 and
it was registered under Companies Act by the
Registrar of Companies at Kolkata. The second
respondent is a joint venture company of foreign
investors and Indian investors and it is distinct and
separate from the first respondent. The question of
absorption of the workers of the first respondent in
the second respondent company does not arise and
the claim of the petitioners is misconceived and
unsustainable in law.
4(ii) It is not true that some of the employees of
the first respondents were transferred to the second
respondent since 2005. The second respondent is
engaged in carrying on the business of manufacture
and sale of leather shoe sole and components made
298
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
of plastic polymer and the like. The goods are mainly
exported to different places in Europe and other
countries in the west besides selling within the
country.
The
second
respondent
has
been
incorporated with foreign and Indian investors as a
separate entity distinct from the first respondent. The
management and control and administration, standing
orders, disciplinary rules are done separately under
the directions of a separate Board of Directors
distinct from the first respondent.
4(iii) As the second respondent did not have a
premises for manufacture, it entered into lease
agreement with the first respondent to commence
production of goods in one portion of the premises
owned by the first respondent. Location of the
factory cannot be a criteria to hold that the first and
second respondents are one and the same establishment
under the common management.
4(iv) It is false to state that the services of the
employees of the first respondent were transferred
to that of the second respondent since 2005.
memorandum of settlement under section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act entered into between the
workers of Chemcrown Exports Limited and the first
respondent as one document only for the sake of
convenience and not with a view to combine the
services of the employees as if the companies are
one and the same. As there is a single union for
employees of both the companies and the union gave
a common Charter of Demands and this was the
reason why a common settlement agreement was
entered into.
4(v) A transfer of licence from Chemcrown
Exports Limited, Unit-II to M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia
India Private Limited, was made on a separate
application by the second respondent and this
cannot be considered to prove that both the
companies came under the same management.
Location of two companies for their manufacturing
activity or registered office in one and the same
premises cannot be prima facie evidence and depends
on availability of place, convenience of the investors
and other relevant matters. When the second
respondent company was in search for a place for
carrying on manufacturing activity, the first respondent
came forward to offer its premises and the factory
buildings on lease, and so the manufacturing unit
was located at the present place. The fact that some
of the directors are common in Board of Directors of
both the respondents cannot be prima-facie evidence
leading to the conclusion that both the entities are
one and the same. The Companies Act permits
persons to function as directors in different companies
at the same time subject to a limit. The fact that Sri
B.D. Bhaiya and his two sons Sri Manoj Kumar
Bhaiya and Sri Mukund Bhaiya are found to be in
both the companies is no criteria in favour of the
claim of the petitioners. The claim of the petitioner
union is not justified and it is unsustainable in law
and hence this industrial disputes is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. On the side of the petitioner trade union PW1
Thiru A. Ravichandran has been examined and Ex.P1 to
P24 were marked. On the side of the respondents RW1
(D. Vijayarajan) and RW2 (B. Balasubramanian) have
been testified and Ex.R1 to R12 were marked.
6. The point for consideration:
Whether the first respondent and the second
respondent was having functional integrality and the
petitioner (12 workers) of the 1st respondent are entitled
to be reinstated in the 2nd respondent factory with all
service benefits since the 1st respondent issued closure
notice on account of a fire accident?
7. On this point:
The first respondent, namely, M/s. Chemcrown
Exports Limited (Unit-Ill, Puducherry) was incorporated
on 26-8-1976 under the Company's Registration Act by
the Registrar of Company, Kolkata, West Bengal. The
said company engaged in manufacture of TPR PVC
Soles for foot wears/shoes. The petitioner trade union,
namely, Chemcrown Exports and Suolificio Linea Italia
Private Limited Thozhilalar Sangam is the trade union
which took care of the welfare employees of the first
respondent. Admittedly on account of a fire accident
on 8-12-2010 the entire factory building of the first
respondent with finished goods, machineries, raw
materials, furniture and office equipments were damaged.
So, the management of the first respondent decided to
close down the factory establishment with effect from
23-1-2011, and accordingly Ex.P1 notice of closure, dated
21-2-2011 was issued to all the workmen informing all
the workers that their service were terminated with
effect from 23-1-2011. Most of the employees and
trainees received closure compensation and left the first
respondent. Only 12 workers, namely, (1) A. Ravichandran,
( 2 ) K . K a l i y a mo o r t h y, ( 3 ) A . S u b r a m a n i a n ,
(4) A. Lakshmanan, (5) E. Selvam, (6) T. Srinivasan,
(7) K. Ezhumalai, (8) S. Ramesh, (9) A. Arumaiselvam,
(10) R. Murugan, (11) P. Sekar, (12) S. Magesh who are
members of the petitioner trade union declined to receive
closure compensation but insisted for reinstatement in
the second respondent factory which is a sister concern
of the first respondent having its factory within the
same premises wherein the first respondent was located.
299
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
8. According to the petitioners Chemcrown Unit No. 1
was started in the year 1991 with 20 workers (the above
referred 12 workers) and in the year 1998 Chemcrown
India Limited Unit-ll was started in the same premises
with 100 workers, in the year 2000 the name of
‘Chemcrown India Limited Unit-II’ was changed as
'Chemcrown Exports Limited Unit-II' and it was
subsequently closed. The same management started
Dye-Chem (India) Limited, factory in the same place,
wherein, Chemcrown India Limited, Unit-II, was
functioning and it was also closed later. In the year 2005
the same management started Suolificio Linea Italia
(India) Private Limited, (2nd respondent) in the place
wherein Dye-Chem (India) Limited, was functioning.
9. So, it is clear that after closing down “Chemcrown
Exports Limited Unit-I” the same factory started
functioning with the name of “Chemcrown Exports
Limited Unit-II” and again this unit was also closed and
started the second respondent unit in the same place.
The workers from first respondent were frequently
transferred and shifted to 2nd respondent, according to
requirements. The management of both first and second
respondent jointly entered two settlements with the
petitioner trade union on 15-2-2007 (Ex.P20) and
on 28-4-2010 (Ex.P21) under section 18(1) of Industrial
Disputes Act petitioner trade union represented
employees of both respondents 1 and 2 and settlements
under section 18(1) was entered between the common
management of both respondents with the petitioner
trade union, regarding the wages and working condition
of the workers/employees.
10. It is seen from Ex.P23 licence docket that
Chemcrown Exports Limited, Unit-II has been
subsequently name changed as Suolificio Linea Italia
(India) Private Limited, (second respondent) and it is
functioning within the same premises.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued
that management of both respondents is one and the
same and both the factories are located within the same
premises and there is only one trade union for both the
industries and they engaged in manufacture of same
products by transferring and exchanging labours as per
requirement so the second respondent is nothing but a
sister concern of the first respondent since there is
functioning integrality, so the petitioners 12 workers are
entitled to get re-employment in the second respondent
factory.
12.
Per contra, the counsels on record for
respondents 1 and 2 have contended that first respondent
and second respondent are distinct and separate
entities functioning under different management’s and
second respondent was started in the year May 2005
and it has no links with the first respondent. Though
some of the directors of both the industries are common
and the second respondent is located in a portion of
the first respondent's factory it cannot be presumed
that both the industries are related and have functional
integrality. Only for the sake of convenience one trade
union (Petitioner) has been recognized for both the
industries by the managements for the purpose of
entering settlements under section 18(1). The first
respondent is ready to pay closure compensation to the
petitioners (12 workers) since the second respondent
is a different industry not connected with the first
respondent, so the second respondent cannot be
compelled to engage the petitioners and this industrial
disputes has to be dismissed.
13. O n b e h a l f o f p e t i t i o n e r t r a d e u n i o n
Thiru A. Ravichandran has been examined as PW1 and
he has categorically explained the facts of functional
integrality between the first and second respondent by
producing relevant documents, It is an admitted fact
that first respondent was started in the year 1996 and
engaged in the business of manufacturing PVC Soles
for foot wears and shoes and the fire accident that
occurred on 8-2-2010 totally damaged and destroyed 1st
respondent factory. It is true the second respondent was
started on 11-5-2005 within the same premises of the
first respondent.
14. The company master details of first and second
respondents have been produced as Ex.P6 and P7, Ex.P6
discloses that first respondent, namely, Chemcrown
Exports Limited, was incorporated on 26-8-1976 and it
was registered under the Companies Act, in the office
registrar of Companies, Kolkata having registered office
at 95, Park Street, Second Floor, Kolkata. The other
particulars of this company have been mentioned in
Ex.P6. Ex.P7 is the master details of second respondent.
It is seen from Ex.P7 that the second respondent was
incorporated on 11-5-2005 and registered by the same
Registrar of Companies, Kolkata, having the same
registered office at 95, Park Street, Second Floor, Kolkata.
Admittedly, both the factories are located in the
following address No.19/1 and 4/4, Southern Side,
Mailam' Main Road, Sedarapet, Puducherry. Ex.R2 is the
Value Added Tax Registration Certificate of second
respondent (Form-D) and Ex.R3 is the Certificate of
Registration (Form-B). Ex.R4 is the copy of the
Memorandum and Articles of Association of second
respondent. Central Excise Registration Certificate
pertaining to the second respondent is produced as
Ex.R5. It is admitted that the second respondent factory
is located within the portion of the first respondent
factory in the same premises.
300
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
15. The certificate issued by Central Board of Excise
and Customs (Form ST-2) as relating to second
respondent is produced as Ex.R6 and PAN Card copy
is marked as Ex.R7. It is seen from Ex.R7 PAN Card that
it has been issued under the name of first respondent
(Chemcrown Exports Limited Unit-Ill). Ex.R8 is the letter
sent by ESI Corporation to the second respondent. It
is seen from Ex.R9 letter that ESI Corporation has
allotted Code No. 55-42384-90 for second respondent.
Ex.R10 is the acknowledgement of the Government of
Puducherry, Department of Industries and Commerce for
the acknowledgement of the memorandum filed by the
second respondent, regarding manufacturing of PU
Shoe Soles and Heels and other particulars of the
factory. The Government of Puducherry has issued
Ex.R11 no objection certificate for change of
manufacturing from PU Shoe Soles and Heels to TPR
Soles, PVC Soles by the second respondent. Further the
Government of Puducherry has issued Ex.R12 no
objection letter to the second respondent to
manufacture "Foot Wears" as additional product with
certain conditions. So, the documents produced by the
respondent referred above would clearly indicate that
the second respondent factory has been started in a
portion of the first respondent premises and 2nd
respondent is doing the same business of manufacturing
different types of soles for shoes and also foot wears.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed
out that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the
Associated Cement Companies Limited (1960 AIR Pg.
No. 56) has formulated the guidelines to decide whether
the two establishments have functional integrality or
they are separate entities by carefully considering the
following aspects (1) Ownership, (2) Control and
Supervision, (3) Finance, (4) Management and
Employment, (5) Geographical Proximity and (6) General
Unity of Purpose and Functional Integrality.
17. Ex,P1 is the closure of notice, dated 21-2-2011
issued by 1st respondent stating that the factory was
closed with effect from 23-1-2011. As 1st respondent
factory was ravaged due to fire accident on 8-2-2011 it
decide for closure of the industry. Except the petitioner
(12 workers) other labour accepted closure compensation
and the petitioner insisted for re-employed in 2nd
respondent. As the petitioners denied employment in
second respondent factory with back wages and
continuity of service they approached the Labour
Department by filing representation, dated 9-3-2011
marked as Ex.P2. The respondents strongly rejected the
claim of petitioners for reinstatement and expressed
willingness to pay closure compensation only and the
conciliation ended in failure. Ex.P3 report on Failure of
Conciliation, dated 20-4-2012 was sent to the Government
and consequently Ex.P4 notification was issued
referring to the dispute to this court for adjudication.
18. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent
was started in a portion of the premises of the first
respondent factory on 11-5-2005. To substantiate the
contention of the petitioner, that the second respondent
is the sister concern of the first respondent, Ex.P6 and
P7 master details of respondents 1 and 2 have been
produced and these certificates disclosed that both the
respondents 1 and 2 have been registered in the office
of Registrar of Companies, Kolkata and having business
address in the same premises Further B.D. Bhaiya and
his sons were the proprietors of first respondent and
B.D. Bhaiya is one of the directors of second
respondent company, who he is having 33% share
holding. The petitioners have produced some of the
appointment orders of the workers as Ex.P8 (related to
D. Sundaramoorthy), Ex.P9 (D. Karthikeyan), Ex.P11
(S. Ramesh) and Ex.P24 (A. Ravichandran). Employee
D. Karthikeyan of 1st respondent has been transferred
to another factory, namely, Dye-Chem India Limited, as
per Ex.P10 Order. Ex.P12 is the pay slip of worker
S. Ramesh issued by first respondent. Ex.P13 contains
copies two pay slips of worker T. Ezhilarasan one related
to the month of December 2008 issued by the first
respondent, and another for the month of August 2007
issued by the second respondent. Ex.P14 is the copy
of two pay slips relating to worker N. Velmurugan one
for the month of May 2008 issued by the second
respondent and another for the month of February 2009
issued by first respondent. Ex.P15 is the copy of two
pay slips of worker P. Thanasekaran, one pay slip for the
month of March 2008 has been issued by the second
respondent and another pay slip for the month of
November 2009 was issued by first respondent. Ex.P16
contains two pay slips of worker D. Sundaramoorthy
and one pay slip for the month of November 2010 was
issued by the second respondent and another pay slip
for the month of February 2005 has been issued by the
first respondent.
19. Pointing out the above referred pay slips of some
of the workers, the learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that workers of first respondent had been
transferred/shifted frequently to the second respondent,
since both the factories are under the control of same
managemert and engaged in manufacturing of PU Shoe
Soles and Heels. The interchangeable nature of workers
of respondents 1 and 2 and location of these factories
would disclose that the two industries are not separate
entities, on the other hand there were managed,
supervised and controlled by one group of management
according to learned counsel for the petitioner.
20. Admittedly, there was only one trade union,
namely, Chemcrown Exports and M/s. Suolificio Linea
Italia Private Limited Thozhilalar Sangam (petitioner
trade union) for the workers of respondents 1 and 2.
301
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
It is not in the dispute that the management of respondents
1 and 2 jointly entered Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 settlements
under section 18(1) that the management of petitioner
trade union. A perusal of the Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 would
clearly indicate that the management of both the
respondents is one and the same and the workers of
both factories represented by the same trade union
(petitioner) and these settlements have been arrived at.
21. Ex.P22 is the information furnished by the
Government of Puducherry under the Right to
Information Act stating that the name of the Chemcrown
Export Limited Unit-II has been changed and it is now
functioning as Suolificio Linea Italia (India) Private
Limited, (second respondent). Further Ex.P23 is the
licence docket of Chemcrown Exports Limited, Unit-II
and which discloses that this factory has been name
changed as Suolificio Linea Italia (India) Private Limited,
(second respondent). Further name of the licencee
Thiru B.D. Bhaiya has been changed in the name of his
son Thiru Mukund Bhaiya. So, Ex.P22 and P23 would
clearly demonstrate that Chemcrown Exports Limited
Unit-II was closed and the factory was restarted in the
name of the second respondent. The management of the
companies is vested with the family Thiru B.D. Bhaiya
and his sons Thiru Manoj Bhaiya and Thiru Mukund
Bhaiya.
22 The proprietors of first respondent have taken
major role in the formation and running of second
respondent and they are now managing and supervising
the second respondent concern. So, the petitioners have
categorically established that the ownership of both first
and second respondent is one and the same and now
the second respondent is controlled, supervised by the
same management. Further there was only one Trade
Union (Petitioner) for the workers of both industries and
the management representing both respondents jointly
entered settlements under section 18(1) with petitioner
Trade Union. While considering the fact of proximity
both respondents 1 and 2 are located in the same
premises and only after closing down of Chemcrown
Exports Limited Unit-II it was restarted in the name of
second respondent and both the factories are engaged
in manufacturing the same products, namely, different
types of soles for shoes and foot wears. The workers
of the first respondent factory were transferred to
second respondent factory as per requirements and this
fact is established by Ex.P13, Ex.P14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16
pay slip copies of some workers. So, a careful analysis
and perusal of the records available would clearly
indicate that there exists functional integrality between
the first and second respondent and both the factories
are under the control and supervision of the same
management and engaged in production of the same
materials.
23. The petitioners, namely, 12 workers served for
many years in the first respondent factory and they
acquired much experience, in fact the second respondent
is ready to engage the petitioners but only as a fresh
entrants. But considering the factual position and the
service of the workers in the light functional integrality
of both the factories, namely, respondents 1 and 2,
I consider that the petitioners have to be absorbed in
the second respondent factory with half back-wages and
with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
Accordingly, I answer that the first respondent (closed
down industry) and the second respondent (running
industry) have functional integrality as per the
guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed
in the case of Associated Cement Companies Limited.
So, the petitioners who have laid-off due to the closure
of the first respondent is entitled for reinstatement in
the second respondent factory and accordingly I answer
this point.
24. In the result, this industrial disputes is allowed
and the second respondent is directed to engage/
reinstate the petitioners, namely, the following
12 workers (1) A. Ravichandran, (2) K. Kaliyamoorthy,
(3) A. Subramanian, (4) A. Lakshmanan, (5) E. Selvam,
(6) T. Srinivasan, (7) K. Ezhumalai, (8) S. Ramesh,
(9) A. Arumaiselvam, (10) R. Murugan, (11) P. Sekar,
(12) S. Magesh with 50% back-wages and with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits within
a period of one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this
the 24th day of February, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner's witness:
PW.1— 18-8-2014 — A. Ravichandran
List of respondent's witnesses:
RW.1— 17-2-2015 — D. Vijayarajan
RW 2— 17-3-2015 — B. Balasubramanian
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the notice of closure, dated
21-2-2011. (Orginal)
Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter in Sangam raised
industrial dispute, dated 21-2-2009.
(Photocopy)
302
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
Ex.P3 — Copy of the conciliation failure report,
dated 20-4-2012.(Original)
Ex.P4 — Copy of the reference notification
by Government of Puducherry, dated
13-7-2012. (Photocopy)
Ex.P5 — Copy of the Certificate of registration of
trade union, dated 26-3-2003. (Photocopy)
Ex.P6 — Copy of the company master details for
1st
respondent,
dated
20-11-2011.
(Original)
Ex.P7 — Copy of the company master details for
2nd respondent,
dated
20-11-2011.
(Original)
Ex.P8 — Copy of the Sundaramoorthy Appointment
Order in Chemcrown Exports Limited,
dated 1-7-1998. (Photocopy)
Ex.P9 — Copy of the Karthikeyan Appointment
Order in Chemcrown (India) Limited,
dated 1-8-1996. (Original)
Ex.P10— Copy of the Karthikeyan Transfer Order
in Chemcrown (India) Limited, to
Dye chem (India) Limited, dated 30-3-2000.
(Original)
Ex.P11— Copy of the Ramesh Appointment Order in
Chemcrown (India) Limited, dated 2-5-1997.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P12— Copy of the S. Ramesh salary bill in
Chemcrown Exports Limited, dated
May 2010 (Photocopy)
Ex.P13— Copy of the T. Ezyilarasan salary bill in
2nd respondent and T. Ezhilarasan
Salary Bills in 1st respondent, dated
August 2007 and December 2008.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P14— Copy of the N. Velmurugan salary bill in
2nd respondent and N. Velmurugan
salary bills in 1st respondent, May 2008
and February 2009. (Photocopy)
Ex.P15— Copy of the P. Thanasekar salary bill in
2nd respondent and P. Thanasekar
salary bills in 1st respondent, March
2008 and November 2009. (Photocopy)
Ex.P16— Copy of the D. Sundaramoorthy salary bills
in 2nd respondent and D. Sundaramoorthy
salary bills in 1st respondent, February
2005 and November 2010. (Photocopy)
Ex.P17— Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner
sangam to the 1st respondent management
and
received
by
2nd
respondent
management, dated 25-9-2009. (Photocopy)
Ex.P18— Copy of the general letter issued by the
petitioner sangam to the 1st and 2nd
respondent management and received
by
2nd
respondent
management,
dated 4-10-2010. (Photocopy)
Ex.P19— Copy of the general letter issued by the
petitioner sangam to the 1st and 2nd
Respondent management and received
by
2nd
respondent management,
dated 14-6-2010. (Photocopy)
Ex.P20— Copy of the memoranduom of agreement
between M/s. Chemcrown Exports Limited
and Chemcrown Exports Workers Union
under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, dated 15-2-2007. (Photocopy)
Ex.P21— Copy of the memorandum of agreement
between M/s. Chemcrown Exports Limited
and Chemcrown Exports Workers Union
under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, dated 28-4-2010. (Original)
Ex.P22— Copy of the Reply Letter issued by the
Labour Department Puducherry under
the Right to Information Act, dated
14-9-2012. (Original)
Ex.P23— C o p y o f t h e L i c e n c e D o c k e t i n
M/s. Chemcrown Exports Limited, Unit-II,
with the re cent name chang e o f
M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia Private
Limited, dated 14-9-2012. (Photocopy)
Ex.P24— Copy of the Appointment Order in
A. Ravichandran in first petitioner,
dated 21-7-1994. (Photocopy)
List of respondents exhibits:
Ex.R1 — Certified copy of the authorisation letter,
dated 4-11-2014 (True copy)
Ex.R2 — Copy of the Value Added tax registration
certificate, dated 28-9-2007. (Photocopy)
Ex.R3 — Copy of the cetificate of registration of
commercial tax, dated 14-12-2005.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R4 — Copy of the memorandum of articles of
association, dated 11-5-2005. (Photocopy)
Ex.R5 — Copy of the certificate of registration
issued by the Central Board of Excise
and Custom, dated 9-9-2005. (Photocopy)
Ex.R6 — Copy of the certificate (Form ST-2)
issued by the Central Board of Excise
and Custom, dated 17-1-2005. (Photocopy)
303
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R7 — Copy of the PAN Card (Photocopy)
Ex.R8 — Copy of the letter of Employees State
Insurance Corporation, dated 29-1-2005.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R9 — Copy of the certificate of Registration of
factory issued by the Employees' State
Insurance Corporation, dated 7-3-2006.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R10— Copy of the Acknowledgement issued by
Department of Industries and Commerce,
dated 8-10-2014. (Photocopy)
Ex.R11— Copy of the letter of Department of
Industries and Commerce, dated 2-8-2011.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R12— Copy of the letter of Department of
Science Technology and Environment,
Puducherry, Pollution Control Committee,
dated 27-8-2014. (Photocopy)
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 22/Lab./AIL/J/2016, dated 19th April 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 10/2013,
dated 29-1-2016 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited,
Puducherry and its worker Thiruvalar D. Ramesh 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)
E. VALLAVAN,
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.
Friday, the 29th day of January 2016
I.D. (L) No. 10/2013
D. Ramesh,
S/o. Dhandapani,
aged about 37 years,
No. 10, Nadu Street,
Wisemen Higher Secondary
School Opposite,
Velrampet, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Larsen & Toubro Limited,
Pondicherry Works,
Mylam Road, Sedherapet,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 18-1-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal M. Vaikunth,
R. Vikneshraj and R. Elamparuthi, Counsel for the
respondent, upon hearing both sides, perusing the case
records and having stood over till this day for
consideration, this court delivered the following:
AWARD
This industrial dispute has been referred as per the
G.O. Rt. No. 15/AIL/Lab./J/2013, dated 15-2-2013 for
adjudicating the following:-
(1) Whether the dispute raised by petitioner Thiru
D. Ramesh against the Management of M/s.
Larsen & Toubro Limited, Puducherry over his non-
employment caused due to the termination order,
dated 22-11-2011 issued by the management is
justified or not?
(2) If justified, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus:-
2(i) The petitioner, namely, D. Ramesh was
appointed in the respondent factory, namely, Larsen
& Toubro Limited, on 21-11-1995 as a Turner
(workman-skilled) and after medical examination he
304
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
was fit for appointment. The petitioner was given an
appointment order, dated 8-7-1996 designating him as
Trainee and along with the petitioner 30 workmen
were also appointed. While so, the petitioner and
4 other workers, namely, D. Kulanjinathan,
M. Boothanathan, K. Selvam and V. Ramalingam,
Murugavel, were denied employment by the
respondent's act of victimisation and unfair Labour
practice. So the workers, namely, M. Boothanathan,
K. Selvam and V. Ramalingam challenging their illegal
termination raised an industrial dispute in ID(L) No.
54 of 2001 before the Labour Court, Puducherry.
Likewise the petitioner and the workman namely
D. Kulanjinathan raised another industrial dispute in
ID(L) No. 59 of 2001. The Labour Court, Puducherry,
vide its order, dated 31-1-2003 passed an award
holding that the termination of the petitioner and the
other workers are illegal and directed the respondent
herein to reinstate the petitioner and the other
workers with effect from 21-8-1998 with half back
wages and with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits.
2(ii) Against the award passed by the Labour
Court the respondent preferred Writ Petitions WP
No.11475 and 11476 of 2003 and the same were
dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its
common order, dated 8-2-2011 against which the
respondent preferred Writ Appeals WA No. 577 and
578 of 2011 and the same were also dismissed by the
Division Bench vide its common order, dated 7-4-2011
and thereby the award of the Labour Court made
in ID Nos. 54 and 59 of 2001 reached finality since
no SLP was preferred by the respondent as against
the said order of Division Bench. Even thereafter the
respondent did not provide employment to the
petitioner. So the petitioner made representations,
dated 9-5-2011, 9-6-2011 and 14-6-2011 to the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer
(DLC). On receipt of the said representations the
DLC had issued conciliation notice, dated 5-7-2011
to the respondent, during the conciliation meeting
before the DLC on 25-7-2011 the petitioner and the
other terminated workers were given a fresh
appointment orders as probationers.
2(iii) The petitioner and other terminated workers
objected fresh appointment order of probation and
complained the same before the conciliation officer
and then the respondent issued a reinstatement
order, dated 6-8-2011 implementing the award of the
Labour Court to all the said workers except the
petitioner. As the petitioner was a member in the
Trade Union namely L&T Pattali Thozhir Sangam, he
was denied implementation of the award of the
Labour Court and he was treated discriminately. The
respondent with an ulterior motive to terminate
service of the petitioner again issued fresh
appointment order as probationer. So the petitioner
objected the probation order and sent a legal notice,
dated 26-7-2011 to the respondent. On receipt of the
said legal notice the respondent issued reply, dated
27-7-2011 stating that the other terminated workers
had accepted the terms and conditions of the
reinstatement order.
2(iv) So the petitioner refuting the averments
made in the said letter sent a legal notice, dated
3-8-2011. At the time of initial appointment in the year
1995 the petitioner was medically examined and found
that he was physically fit for appointment and
accordingly appointment order was issued. Despite
that, while reinstating the petitioner as per the award
of the Labour Court, he was given appointment order
as a Probationer and he was directed to undergo
medical test for providing employment.
2(v) On 27-7-2011 the petitioner was sent to
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Science for medical
test. The doctor who had examined the petitioner
issued a medical certificate stating that the petitioner
is medically fit for employment. Not satisfied with the
medical test report the respondent once again
directed the petitioner to undergo medical
examination at Padmavathi Hospital at Puducherry,
wherein the doctor who examined the petitioner had
issued a certificate by mentioning that the petitioner
is suffering from “Rheumatic Heart Disease”, but he
has no ‘Cardiac Symptom’ and he is fit to do
sedentary type of work and advised to avoid heavy
work. Despite that the respondent denied employment
to the petitioner.
2(vi) The petitioner sent a letter, dated 10-8-2011
to the respondent stating that he is physically fit to
do all work to be assigned by the management and
even if he suffers from any health problem he will
get treatment from the ESI Hospital. Inspite of such
request, the respondent denied employment to the
petitioner and directed him on 24-9-2011 to get
fitness certificate from the Apollo Hospital, Chennai.
Since the respondent was searching reasons to deny
employment to the petitioner by directing to undergo
medical tests one after another, the petitioner sent a
letter, dated 3-10-2011 stating that he is fit to do all
works assigned by the respondent and requested the
respondent to send him common medical test
provided under the ESI Hospital, but the respondent
did not send the petitioner to the ESI Hospital.
305
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
2(vii) The respondent had not allotted any duty
to the petitioner. So he sent complaints to Labour
Department and several representations to the
respondent on various dates. Even after such
representation the respondent did not allot routine
work to the petitioner. Curiously on 22.11.2011 the
service of the petitioner was terminated on the
ground of continued ill health and as there is no
sedentary type of work in the respondent factory to
retain him in service.
2(viii) The termination of petitioner’s service is
nothing but an act of continued victimisation and
unfair labour practice by the respondent. The
petitioner has not suffering with any continuous
ill-health. The respondent factory has various
departments such as Fabrication, Quality Control,
Galvencing, Store, Reception, Despatch, Furnace
Operator, Paint Shop, Grain Operator, etc., wherein
sedentary type of works available.
2(ix) The petitioner requested the respondent to
issue certificate of re-employment in form-37 so as
to get medical fitness certificate from Apollo Hospital,
Chennai through ESI Hospital. But his request was
denied and he was not given re-employment certificate.
2(x) The petitioner made several complaints to the
Labour authorities for breach and violation of award,
unfair labour practice of the respondent. Thereafter
the petitioner filed the Writ Petition WP No. 5290 of
2012, wherein the Hon'ble High Court directed the
petitioner to approach the Conciliation Officer and
raise a dispute over his denial of employment and in
turn the conciliation officer and the Government
directed to refer the petitioner's dispute before this
court. So the petitioner raised an industrial dispute
over his illegal termination of service which is
referred to this court under G.O. Rt. No. 15/AIL/Lab./
J/2013 and taken on file as ID No. 10 of 2013. The
termination of the petitioner on 22-11-2011 on the
ground of continued ill-health is illegal and liable to
be set aside on the following among other grounds:-
(i) Termination of the petitioner service is
arbitrary, illegal and gross violation of principle
of natural justice and amongst of victimisation and
unfair labour practice.
(ii) The respondent initially failed to implement
the award of the Labour Court, dated 31-1-2003
made in ID(L) No. 59 of 2001 without any basis.
The respondent has denied employment to the
respondent on the false ground of continued
ill-health.
(iii) The service of the petitioner was
terminated on 21-8-1998 by an act of victimization
and unfair labour practice. Since the labour court
set-aside the earlier termination and ordered for
reinstatement of the petitioner, now the
respondent in order to deny employment to the
petitioner once again terminated his service as if
he is suffering from continuous ill health.
(iv) The doctors who examined the petitioner
had given certificate that the petitioner is fit for
employment. Despite such medical records the
respondent has terminated petitioner’s service by
falsely alleging that he was suffering from
continuous ill-health.
(v) The petitioner has not been examined by
the medical board under the ESI Act and he was
not declared as he has been suffering continuous
ill-health. In the absence of any material to show
that the petitioner is suffering from continued
ill-health and unfit for employment, the termination
of the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary.
(vi) The rheumatic heart disease cannot be said
as continuous ill-health and there is no material
or expert opinion to say that if a person suffering
from such a disease cannot be recovered till his
retirement.
(vii) The petitioner has not been declared, that
he is incapacitated to do work due to his illness.
There are sedentary type of work available in
various departments of the respondent factory.
The doctors have given second opinion that the
petitioner can do sedentary type of work but the
petitioner’s service has been illegally terminated
by the respondent against to the medical advice.
(viii) The petitioner can be accommodated in
any sedentary type of work in other departments.
The termination of the petitioner’s service is
violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial dispute
Act, which is illegal.
(ix) The petitioner is the sole bread winner of
the family and due to his termination of service
his family is facing untold hardship, since he has
not been gainfully employed in any establishment
in anywhere. The last drawn salary of the
petitioner is ` 14,582.
So, this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to
pass an award holding that the termination of service
of the petitioner by the respondent with effect from
22-11-2011 is illegal and consequently direct the
respondent to reinstate him with effect from 22-11-2011
with continuity of service, backwages, and all other
attendant benefits and pass such suitable order.
306
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
3. The facts set out in the counter filed by the
respondent management are stated as follows:
3(i) The petitioner along with four others had
raised industrial disputes against the termination of
services from the respondent from 21-8-1998. This
disputes were referred to this Hon’ble High Court
and numbered as I.D. No. 54 of 2001 and I.D. No. 59
of 2001. At the conclusion of the trial, awards were
passed on 31-1-2003, where the petitioner was one
of the parties in I.D. No. 59 of 2001. The awards
directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner
with effect from 21-8-1998 with half back wages and
with continuity of service and other attendant
benefits as applicable to them as per Labour laws.
3(ii) The respondent management had filed two
separate writ petitions (W.P. No. 11475 and 11476
of 2003) before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras
challenging the awards passed by the Labour Court
in I.D. No. 54 of 2001 and I.D. No. 59 of 2001. The
Hon’ble High Court, Madras by order, dated 8-2-2011
was pleased to dismiss both the writ petitions.
Thereafter the respondent management preferred Writ
Appeals W.A. Nos. 577 and 578 of 2011 before the
Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court, The Hon’ble
first bench by order, dated 7-4-2011 was pleased to
dismiss both the Write Appeals.
3(iii) Pursuant to the abovesaid orders, the
respondent management by letter, dated 25-7-2011
issued orders of reinstatement to all the workmen
covered by both the awards directing them to report
for duty on 27-7-2011.
3(iv) Although the terminated workers covered by
the awards were entitled for the reinstatement only
as casual workers, based on the job requirement, the
respondent management offered to reinstate them in
the permanent services and accordingly issued
orders of reinstatement. Hence the petitioner was
also reinstated to the permanent services and he was
also sent for medical examination along with the four
other workmen who were similarly placed.
3(v) Though the petitioner was directed to report
for duty on 27-7-2011, the continuity of service will
be considered for all practical purposes with effect
from 21-8-1998. The petitioner accepted the offer/
order of reinstatement and reported for employment
on 27-7-2011 and also received the backwages on the
same day and issued a receipt, dated 28-7-2011 for
the same.
3(vi) As per the terms of the order of
reinstatement, the petitioner was referred to the
Company’s Medical Officer. The Medical Officer who
carried out medical examination of the petitioner of
the view that the petitioner was found to be suffering
from serious heart ailment and needed to be examined
by an expert cardiologist. Accordingly, the petitioner
was referred to an expert at AG Padmavathi Hospital,
Puducherry. As per the opinion of the expert, the
petitioner was found to suffer from “Rheumatic Heart
Disease”. The expert has also opined that the
petitioner is fit to do sedentary type of work and
advised to avoid heavy work.
3(vii) The petitioner was working as a Turner. The
duties of “Turner” required considerable physical
activities and hard work. So taking into account the
opinion of the expert and keeping with mind the
duties required to be performed by the petitioner as
a Turner the respondent management advised the
petitioner to undergo further examination at Apollo
Hospitals, Chennai vide letter, dated 24-9-2011. But
the petitioner by his letter, dated 3-10-2011 refused
to appear for any further medical examination. In view
of the above, the respondent management by letter,
dated 22-11-2011 intimated the petitioner that in view
of his health condition and keeping in mind the
nature of duties required to be performed him, which
is strenuous and demand physical exertion and in
view of the fact that there is no sedentary type of
work available in the factory, the management has no
other option except to discharge the petitioner from
the services. The petitioner had been paid salary and
other allowances full and final settlement of all dues,
including notice pay, etc., by means of a cheque.
However the petitioner has not encashed the cheque
issued to him.
3(viii) The petitioner has filed a complaint before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry under
Section 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act alleging
non-compliance of the award, dated 31-1-2003 in this
Hon’ble Court. In fact respondent company has
implemented the award of this court in letter and
spirit. Therefore there was no question of any unfair
labour practice on the part of the respondent
company. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ
Petition No. 5290 of 2012 before the Hon’ble High
Court, Madras alleging unfair labour practice and
seeking prosecution of the respondent. The Hon’ble
High Court, Madras has disposed the writ petition
with direction to refer the industrial disputes relating
to non-payment of the petitioner for adjudication to
the Labour Court, Puducherry and further direction
to this court to dispose of the industrial dispute as
expeditiously as possible.
3(ix) The petitioner had worked only as a contract
labourer through a contractor that too at intermittent
intervals. During 1995 when the petitioner was taken
as a casual worker, he was not subjected to any
307
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
medical examination as there was no practice of
medical check for a casual labourer. The respondent
had no knowledge of the medical fitness of the
petitioner, so he was sent for medical examination.
All the workers covered under the two awards made
in ID No. 54 and 59 of 2001, including the petitioner
were offered employment on and from 27-7-2011
making it clear that their seniority for all the purposes
would be reckoned from 21-8-1998.
3(x) The averment that there are sedentary type
of work available in the respondent factory in various
departments such as Fabrication, Quality Control,
etc., is not correct as there is no vacancy available
in other departments referred to by the petitioner
suitable to his qualification and experience. In any
case, it is submitted that the nature of job in all these
areas requires the same physical/mental exertion.
Therefore the petitioner may not be suited in view
of the expert's opinion on the health condition.
Further, it is submitted that it is within the
managerial/administrative powers to utilise the
services of employees where they are required,
depending upon the requirements of the company
and exigencies of work.
3(xi) There is no question of violation of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act as the petitioner was discharged
pursuant to his being found to be suffering from
rheumatic heart disease and the petitioner also
refused to appear for any further medical examination.
The petitioner did not make use of the offer of the
respondent
management
and
therefore
the
respondent had no other option except to discharge
the petitioner on the ground of ill-health. Hence the
claim of the petitioner is not legally sustainable and
the reference has to be dismissed.
4. During the course of enquiry, petitioner
Thiru D. Ramesh has been testified as PW.1 and Ex.P1
to P56 were marked. On the side of the respondent
Thiru K. Shanmugam, Engineering Works, Larsen and
Toubro Limited, Puducherry works has been examined
as RW.1 and Ex.R1 to R11 have been marked through
PW1 during his cross-examination.
5. The points for consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioner Thiruvalar D. Ramesh
was duly reinstated by the respondent in compliance
with the award passed in ID(L) No. 59 of 2001, dated
31-1-2003 confirmed in Writ Petition WP No. 11476
of 2003 and in Writ Appeal WA No. 578 of 2011?
(2) Whether Petitioner D. Ramesh is physically
not fit to continue his service as a Turner or to do
any sedentary nature of work in the respondent/
management?
(3) Whether the denial of employment to the
petitioner on medical grounds and termination of his
service with effect from 22-11-2011 by the respondent
amount to victimisation and unfair labour practice?
6. On the points No. 1 and 2:
The respondent factory, namely, Larsen and Toubro
Limited is located in Puducherry. The petitioner, namely,
D. Ramesh was appointed as a Trainee worker in
respondent management along with 30 other workers.
Later the order of appointment as Trainee was issued
and it is produced as Ex.P1 and the petitioner admitting
the terms and conditions of Ex.P1 affixed his signature
thereon. While the petitioner was working he became a
member of the ESI Corporation and contributions were
deducted from his salary and the Xerox copy of the ESI
Card is marked as Ex.P2. The petitioner and five other
workers were illegally terminated from service on
20-8-1998 without any notice or enquiry. So all the five
workers including the petitioner approached the Labour
Department and raised industrial disputes. The
Conciliation was not fruitful and the failure report on
conciliation was sent to Government and the abovesaid
reference was taken on file as ID No. 59/2001 for
disposal and consequently G.O. Rt. No. 179/2001/AIL/L,
dated 3-10-2001 was issued for adjudicating the
following:-
(i) Whether the non-employment of Thiruvalagal
D. Ramesh and D. Kulanjinathan by the management
of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, Puducherry is
justified or not?
(ii) To what relief/benefits the said workmen are
entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money if it can be so computed?
7. On considering the averments of claim statement,
counter and on appreciating oral and documentary
evidence adduced on either side the Labour court
passed award, dated 31-1-2003 directing the
respondent/management to reinstate the petitioner with
effect from 21-8-1998 with half back wages and with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits as
applicable to them as per Labour laws. The copy of the
order made in I.D. No. 59/2001 is marked as Ex.P3.
8. The respondent management felt aggrieved by the
award of the Labour Court passed in ID No. 59/2001
preferred writ petition WP No. 11476 of 2003 challenging
validity of the said award. Finally the said writ petition
was dismissed on 8-2-2011 and thereby the award was
confirmed and copy of the order is produced as Ex.P4.
Thereafter the respondent management preferred Writ
Appeal in WA No. 578 of 2011 and it was also dismissed
on 7-4-2011 as seen from Ex.P5 order copy.
308
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
9. Even after dismissal of the said Writ Appeal the
respondent management did not implement the award
passed in ID No. 59/2001, so the petitioner sent a
complaint under section 29 of Industrial Disputes Act
to the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation
Officer and the Conciliation officer issued Ex.P6 notice,
dated 5-7-2011 to the respondent management for
prosecution under Section 29 of the ID Act. The copy
of the proceedings of the Conciliation Officer is marked
as Ex.P7. The management sent Ex.P8 letter, dated
25-7-2011 directing the petitioner to report for
employment on 27-7-2011.
10. The respondent management has issued Ex.P9
employment order titled as “employment on probation”
with effect from 27-7-2011 with some terms and
conditions Clause 3 of the Ex.P9 order reads that the
period of probation will be for six months. However the
management reserves to extend this period, if necessary.
If at the end of the probation period you are found
suitable, your appointment will be confirmed by us in
writing, subject to even being physically found fit by
our company’s Doctor. Clause 8 says during the first
three months of the period of probation, either will be
entitled to terminate the contract of employment by
giving 24 hours notice and thereafter during the
remaining period of probation by giving 14 days notice
in writing to the other without assigning any reason.
After confirmation in service, either party will be entitled
to terminate the contract of employment by giving one
month’s notice in writing or a month's salary in lieu of
thereof. A perusal of the terms and conditions found in
Ex.P9 would clearly indicate that it is a fresh order of
appointment of the petitioner in respondent’s
management only as a ‘Probationer.’
11. The petitioner through his advocate had sent
Ex.P10 reply by Fax on 26-7-2011 acknowledging the
appointment order but raised objection stating that the
appointment order is not fully in compliance with the
directions given in the award. The management has sent
Ex.P11 reply by Fax, dated 27-7-2011 stating that other
workmen have accepted the offer of employment and
the terms and conditions wholeheartedly, so the
petitioner should also accept Ex.P9 employment order.
Further the respondent management has issued Ex.P12
letter, dated 27-7-2011 asking the petitioner to undergo
pre-medical checkup at Pondicherry Institute of Medical
Sciences, Puducherry and report to the above hospital
on 28-7-2011. Ex.P13 is the medical report pertaining to
the petitioner, wherein, the doctor has given impression
as “Mild MS with Moderate MR” but given opinion as
“Mr. Ramesh (Petitioner) is medically fit for employment.”
12. Again the petitioner was referred to A.G. Padmavathi
Hospital for examination by Senior Cardiologist
Dr. G. Elangovan and the medical certificate, dated
29-7-2011 issued by him is marked along with letter
Ex.P14 (Ex.R5). It is mentioned in Ex.P14 that “On
examination the petitioner was found to have rheumatic
heart disease, mitral stenosis moderately severe, mitral
regurgitation mild, aortic regurgitation mild, in sinus
rhythm there was no clot he has no cardiac symptoms
and he is fit to do sedentary type of work and advised
to avoid heavy work.” Based on the abovesaid medical
certificate the respondent management sent Ex.P14
letter, dated 1-8-2011 to the petitioner stating that in the
light of his continued ill-health, namely, rheumatic heart
disease, etc., it will not be possible for him to continue
in service any longer. Such continuation of service will
be a greater risk to the petitioner and his fellow
employees and there was no sedentary posts available
in the factory, where he can be accommodated. In these
circumstances, the respondent management has
proposed to discharge the petitioner from service on
grounds of continued ill-health and copy of the medical
certificate has been enclosed with this letter.
13. On receiving Ex.P14 letter intimating proposal of
discharge of service the petitioner sent Ex.P15 reply by
fax, dated 3-8-2011, to the respondent management
explaining the direction of the award and the denial of
employment on the part of the respondent management.
One of the workmen Thiruvalar D. Kulanjinathan who
took part in the legal battle along with the petitioner
has accepted the work order and copy of the same is
marked as Ex.P16 and it is pertinent to note down that
the said D. Kulanjinathan has been reinstated as a
‘workman’ with basic wage of ` 1265 per month,
whereas the petitioner was not reinstated as a workman
but a fresh order of employment on probation (Ex.P9)
was issued whereunder the petitioner was proposed to
be appointed as a ‘Probationer’ with consolidated
wages on certain terms and conditions and he has to
undergo training for a specific period. So there is
discrimination on the part of the respondent while
issuing reinstatement orders to the petitioner and other
terminated workers.
14. The petitioner has sent a (Ex.P.17) a letter,
dated 10-8-2011 narrating the sequence of events right
from the beginning and the intentional denial of
employment by the management. Along with this letter
medical report Ex.P18 of the petitioner issued by
Dr. S. Anandaraja, International Cardiologist was
enclosed. It is specified in this medical report that the
petitioner though suffering from RHD “Mild MS with
Moderate MR” and AR, he is advised to carry on with
his regular activities and undergo yearly evaluation of
309
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
his heart problem. Not satisfying with the medical report
the management again sent Ex.P19 letter, dated
12-8-2011and sought for explanation of the petitioner
in respect of his heart disease mentioned in Ex.P13
medical certificate issued by PIMS. The petitioner has
sent Ex.P20 reply, dated 18-8-2011 stating that he has
already submitted his explanations regarding medical
fitness under Ex.P17 letter.
15. The petitioner has submitted Ex.P22 representation,
dated 26-8-2011 to the Commissioner of Labour
regarding his denial of employment by management on
medical grounds. Again the petitioner has sent Ex.P23
representation, dated 14-9-2011 requesting the
Commissioner of Labour to enforce the award passed
in ID(L) No. 59/2001. The Deputy Commissioner of
Labour has issued Ex.P24 notice, dated 19-9-2011 to the
trade union, namely, L&T Pattali Thozhir Sangam and
also the respondent directing the respondent to give
explanation otherwise to be prosecuted under Section 29
of the ID Act. Further the Chief Inspector of Factories
sent Ex.P26 memo to the respondent for non-issuance
of pay slip, uniform, confirmation of work and allocation
to the petitioner.
16. Thereafter the respondent issued Ex.P27 letter,
dated 24-9-2011 directing the petitioner for further
medical examination by an Expert Cardiologist at Apollo
Hospitals, Chennai. The petitioner sent reply stating
that already he had been examined by Experts/
Specialists in two medical institutions and no more
medical tests required. He has mentioned that if he
suffers from any heart ailment he would continue
treatment through ESI Hospital. Further the petitioner
has made several representations to the Labour
Department stating that he has not been given
employment and discriminated from other workers.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that petitioner was ready to undergo medical
examination in Apollo Hospital for which he sought for
Form-37 from the management but it was denied. The
petitioner has produced Ex.P2 ESI identity card and
Ex.P32, P33, P34 and P35 ESI Hospital prescriptions to
show that he went to ESI Hospital for medical
examination.
18. The respondent has sent Ex.P36 letter, dated
22-11-2011 stating that petitioners continued health
condition, that relates to rheumatic heart disease does
not enable the petitioner to continue service any longer
so the management has decided to discharge the
petitioner from service forthwith for his continued
ill-health. The discharge of the petitioner from service
has taken effect from 22-11-2011 and a cheque for a
sum of ` 96,463 has been enclosed towards the full and
final settlement including one month's wages in lieu of
notice.
19. The petitioner has sent Ex.P37 letter, dated
23-11-2011 to the respondent management stating that
he was not given due opportunity and sufficient time
to go to Apollo Hospital for medical tests. It is further
mentioned that if Form-37 is issued to the petitioner, he
will be ready to attend for medical examination at Apollo
Hospital, Chennai. The petitioner as an employee
covered under ESI Act, he could get necessary medical
treatment from ESI Hospital. The petitioner has sent
Ex.P38, P40, P41 letters to the respondent management
explaining his health condition and the ordeals faced
by me due to denial of employment. Thereafter the
petitioner has addressed to the Labour Commissioner
through Ex.P42 letter raising an industrial dispute in
respect of his denial of employment by the respondent.
Further the petitioner has sent several complaints
alleging certain violations and illigal activities of the
respondent management to Labour Department. But no
effective steps were taken by the Labour Department,
Puducherry, for reinstatement of the petitioner. So the
petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing
Writ Petition WP No. 5290 of 2012 seeking direction to
the Union territory of Puducherry to prosecute the
respondent
management
for
failure
of
the
implementation of award in ID(L) No. 59/2001. The said
Writ Petition was disposed on 8-2-2011 with a direction
to the Union territory of Puducherry to refer the
industrial dispute relating to non-employment of
petitioner caused due to termination order, dated
22-11-2011 (Ex.P36) issued by the management for
adjudication to Labour Court and further direction to
the Labour Court to dispose of the industrial dispute
as expeditiously as possible. The copy of the order in
the abovesaid Writ Petition is produced as Ex.P51 and
in pursuance of the direction the petitioner raised
industrial dispute but the conciliation was failed and the
reference was made to this court for disposal.
20. It is true that the petitioner was found to be a
workman of the respondent management and the
respondent management was directed to reinstate him
with effect from 21-8-1998, as per Ex.P3 award with half
back wages and with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits.
21. The respondent management without complying
the direction of the award, preferred Ex.P4 Writ Petition
which was dismissed and the Writ Appeal Ex.P5 was
also dismissed, after dismissal of Writ Petition and Writ
Appeal the award passed in ID No. 59 of 2001 reached
finality, since no SLP was preferred. The learned
counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
310
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
without reinstating the petitioner the respondent
management adopted several tactics and denied
employment of the petitioner. The petitioner ought to
have been reinstated as a workman line other terminated
workers, but the petitioner has been isolated and he has
been issued with Ex.P9 employment order on probation.
It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P3 award nothing has
been mentioned that the petitioner should be reinstated
as a Probationer/Trainee. Contrary to the direction given
in Ex.P3 award confirmed in Writ Petition and Writ
Appeal, the management has chosen a third decree
method to victimise the petitioner and consequently
issued Ex.P9 for appointing the petitioner on probation.
The terms and conditions found Ex.P9 clearly
demonstrate that the petitioner was selected as a fresh
Trainee/Probationer.
22. After issuing Ex.P9 appointment order, the
petitioner was directed to appear for routine medical
checkup. Ex.P13 is the first medical report issued by
PIMS wherein the doctor has given opinion that the
petitioner is medically fit for employment, though he
was suffering with “Mild MS with Moderate MR”. Not
satisfying with the medical report, the management
directed the petitioner to undergo medical examination
by an Expert, namely, Dr. G. Elangovan and on thorough
examination he issued the medical certificate produced
along with Ex.P14 letter. It is specifically mentioned in
the medical certificate that the petitioner “has no
cardiac symptoms” and he is fit to do sedentary type
of work and advised to avoid heavy work”.
The respondent management was not satisfied even
with the second report also and the petitioner was not
reinstated. The petitioner made several attempts and
preferred may representations to the management to get
employment. Further he sent several complaints in this
regard to the concerned authorities. But the respondent
management without perusing the representation of the
petitioner, once again directed him to appear for medical
examination by Expert Doctor at Apollo Hospital,
Chennai.
23. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner as an
employee covered under ESI Scheme and he can very
well undergo treatment for his ailments in the ESI
Hospital. The petitioner has also sent specific
representation stating that he is fit for appointment and
ready to undergo examination by a Medical Board to
be constituted by ESI. But the management without
sending the petitioner for Examination by Medical
Board of ESI, has directed him to be examined by a
private hospital. The medical reports Ex.P13, Ex.P14
and Ex.P18 would clearly indicate that the petitioner is
not suffering from any continued ill-health nor Cardiac
Symptoms but he is suffering from “Mild MS with
Moderate MR”.
24. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the
year 1995 as a Probationer and on completion of training
he continued service as a Turner, since he had
completed ITI course. So he is a qualified Turner and
he was doing the work of Turner and Machine Operator.
In Ex.P13 medical report nothing explained about his
cardiac disease and the doctor has given opinion that
he was medically fit for employment. Only in Ex.P14
(Ex.R5) it is mentioned that he has no cardiac symptoms
but found to have rheumatic heart disease and advised
that he is fit to do sedentary type of work and to avoid
heavy work. The respondent management has firmly
taken a decision of not reinstating the petitioner and
asked him to undergo medical examinations one after
another. The attitude of the respondent management is
a deliberate denial of employment to the petitioner since
he has been driven from pillar to post.
25. The respondent is under legal obligation to
reinstate the petitioner in terms of Ex.P3 award. Having
lost the legal battle the respondent management has
chosen to adopt third decree methods to victimise the
petitioner and he has been directed to undergo several
medical tests. It is clear from the medical records that
the petitioner has no cardiac symptoms and he can be
employed in sedentary type of work. But the
respondent management has not chosen to absorb the
petitioner as an employee and abruptly sent Ex.P36
letter discharging his service.
26. The petitioner has undergone medical tests for
two times as insisted by the respondent management
in Ex.P13 and P14 medical certificate/report pertaining
to the petitioner nothing has been disclosed that he is
suffering from continued ill-health or he is unfit to do
any work. Even in the Ex.P14, it is specifically
mentioned that the petitioner is advised to do
sedentary nature of work and avoid heavy work.
Intentionally, the respondent management has not
chosen to send the petitioner to the Medical Board to
be constituted by ESI for further examination, since all
the required tests have already been conducted on two
occasions as evident from Ex.P13 and P14 according to
learned counsel for petitioner. The respondent has not
stated any valid reason why the petitioner should
undergo third medical tests at Apollo Hospital, Chennai,
when the same tests could be conducted by ESI Medical
Board. It is pertinent that the petitioner is not suffering
from any cardiac symptoms as opined by Doctor
G. Elangovan in Ex.P14 (Ex.R5 report). Unless, the
petitioner is examined by a Medical Board and issued
with a disability certificate, the management should not
presume on the basis of Ex.P13 and P14 that the
petitioner is suffering from continued ill-health
according to learned counsel for the petitioner and in
support this contention he placed reliance on the
following authorities.
311
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
2002(2) LLJ 973
Management of Eagle Flasks Industries Limited
Vs.
Presiding Officer and Another
“In the event of the management having come to
the conclusion that the petitioner was medically unfit
then the management should have referred the worker
to a properly constituted Medical Board, only after
giving proper opportunity to the second respondent,
and found that the worker medically unfit. Therefore,
mere reliance placed on the letter of the second
respondent to hold that he was medically unfit to be
employed in Madras, cannot be sustained.”
27. The respondent management has not conducted
any enquiry by giving opportunity the petitioner to
prove the factum that the petitioner is affected by
continued ill-health. Only on the basis of enquiry report
the service of the petitioner should have been
terminated, but the respondent without conducting any
enquiry arrived the finding that the petitioner is
suffering from continued ill-health purely on the basis
of Ex.P14 medical report and this procedure is not in
accordance with law according to learned counsel for
petitioner and he referred to the following citation in
support his contention.
Reliance is faced on the ruling reported in
1992(2) LLJ 439,
Lalit Mohan Puri Vs. Pure Drinks (New Delhi)
Limited.
“In our view the respondents should have some
direct evidence with it to show firstly, that the
petitioner was suffering from ill-health and secondly,
that he continued to be in ill-health till the time of
termination of his services. We are of the opinion
that inquiry should have been held if the petitioner
continued to be ill-health and the matter should not
be left merely to presumptions. For this purpose the
respondent was free to hold a proper inquiry where
the petitioner could have been examined and even
could lead his evidence to show that he was not
suffering from ill-health. We are therefore of the view
that it was illegal on the part of the respondent to
terminate the services of the petitioner and we do not
agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour
Court". The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that since the management failed to
remit the ESI and PF contributions to the concerned
authorities it is hesitant to send the petitioner for
treatment at ESI Hospital. Further ESI (General
Regulation 98) specifies certain conditions and
procedures for discharging employees which the
respondent management could not strictly follow, so
respondent management has not referred the
petitioner to Medical Board of ESI.
28. The petitioner in pursuance of the award passed
by the Labour Court was issued with appointment order
but before-allotting work he was subjected and
tormented by medical examinations at the behest of the
respondent management. The two medical certificates,
namely, Ex.P13 and P14 have not disclosed any
continued ill-health of the petitioner nor any permanent
disablement. It is admitted by RW.1 that some employees
suffering from heart ailments are working in the
respondent management. The petitioner's continued
ill-health as alleged by the respondent has not been
strictly proved by relevant medical evidence.
No enquiry was conducted by the respondent
management to find out the alleged continued ill-health
of the petitioner as already discussed. The respondent
management was not ready to refer the petitioner to the
Medical Board of ESI. Under such circumstances, on the
basis of the available evidence, namely, Ex.P13, Ex.P14
and Ex.P18 it is difficult to infer that the petitioner is
suffering from continued ill-health.
29. The petitioner is suffering from ‘Rheumatic Heart
Disease’ but he can continue sedentary nature of work
and to avoid heavy work as per Ex.P14 certificate. The
learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued
that the respondent being a Turner he has to do (a)
Turning the Machine's punch and dies, Turning the
bushes for CNC and other machines, (b) Turning lock
nets and making thread for AMC machines, (c) Turning
crane wheel and other parts and other miscellaneous
jobs and these nature of duties are strenuous and
require physical exertion and the petitioner as a cardiac
patient could not carry out the work of a Turner. Of
course, in Ex.P13 medical certificate, it is stated that the
petitioner is medically fit for work, but in Ex.P14 Medical
Report there is a suggestion by the Doctor that the
petitioner should avoid heavy work and he can do
sedentary nature of work. There is no medical opinion
given by the Competent Medical Board, so as to
precisely decide health condition of petitioner. So, on
the sole basis of Ex.P14 medical certificate issued by a
private doctor recommended by the respondent
management it is not safe to conclude that the petitioner
is suffering from continued ill-health. The learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the court
comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is suffering
from heart ailment, respondent/management is bound to
provide employment to him suitable to his health
condition, in view of the award passed by the Labour
Court and in support of his contention he placed
reliance on the following authorities:-
312
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
(i) (1994)4SCC460
Narendra Kumar Chandla
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
“Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right
to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life When
an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due
to which, when he is unable to perform the duties of
the posts he was holding, the employer must make
every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the
employee would be suitable to discharge his duties".
(ii) CDJ 2008 MHC 4833 and 2008(4) TLNJ 272
(Civil)
“It is well settled that a person who is found to
be disabled and is not in a position to carry on the
work which was assigned to him earlier should be
assigned with the duties which he could perform
inspite of disability. Section 47 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, clearly lays
down that the disabled person should not be put in
a disadvantageous position due to his disability.
Therefore, a duty is cast on the employer to continue
the disabled person in employment assigning him the
work which he would be in a position to perform. "
30. First of all in this case, there is no reliable
medical evidence to hold that the petitioner is suffering
from continued ill-health. In the absence of such
evidence discharging the petitioner from service is
certainly, illegal, that too when the respondent has been
directed to reinstate the petitioner by an order passed
by the Labour Court affirmed by the Hon'ble High
Court. The respondent management should not have
resorted to denial of employment on the ground of
continued ill-health of the petitioner without proper and
reliable medical reports. The petitioner who received the
appointment order and appeared for medical examination
and issued with Ex.P13 certificate which discloses his
medical fitness. Again the second medical examination
was conducted at the instance of respondent
management and it is mentioned in the medical certificate
Ex.P14 that petitioner has “no cardiac symptoms”.
Under such circumstances it cannot be said that
petitioner is suffering from continued ill-health.
31. The respondent management without seeking
report from Medical Board and without conducting
proper enquiry to prove the alleged continued ill-health
of the petitioner, has discharged him from service
on 22-11-2011 as per Ex.P36. The procedure adopted
by the respondent management in discharging the
petitioner is certainly unjustifiable and not in
consonance with the provision of Industrial Dispute
Act and the Regulation 98 of ESI Act.
32. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that though petitioner is suffering with mild heart
ailment he can be provided with medical treatment at
ESI Hospital, but the respondent is not ready for
sending the petitioner to ESI Hospital since the
management failed to remit ESI contribution regularly.
33. It is clear that the respondent management with
the only intention of denial of employment to the
petitioner has harassed him by subjecting to undergo
several medical tests. The respondent management
should not have issued Ex.P9 fresh appointment order
to appoint the petitioner as a 'Probationer’ since Ex.P3
award directs the respondent to reinstate the petitioner
with effect from 21-8-1998 with half backwages and with
continuity of service. Ex.P9 fresh appointment order has
been issued to appoint the petitioner as a Probationer/
Trainee on consolidated pay is certainly a violation of
the direction to the respondent as per Ex.P3 award. The
further direction of continuity of service has been
blatantly flouted and the petitioner has not been duly
appointed and no work was allotted to him nor his name
was entered into the muster roll. Before reinstating the
petitioner he was forced to undergo several medical
tests and finally he was illegally discharged. The contact
of the respondent management in discharging the
petitioner before appointment is certainly an act of
continued victimisation and not in good faith, but in
the colourable exercise of the employer's rights as
specified 5 (a), (b) in the 5th Schedule, namely, unfair
labour practices. On taking into account the oral and
documentary evidence adduced on either side, I hold
that the petitioner D. Ramesh was not duly reinstated
by respondent in compliance with the award passed in
ID(L) No. 59/2001 and accordingly I answer Point
No. 1. Regarding Point No. 2. I answer that the
petitioner D. Ramesh is physically fit to do regular work
or sedentary nature of work in the respondent
management.
Point No. 3
34. There is no medical proof, to conclude that the
petitioner is suffering from continued ill-health and he
is unfit to do work of a Turner. In the absence of any
medical certificate issued by Competent Medical Board
nothing could be presumed that the petitioner is
suffering with disability and continued ill-health.
The respondent management relying on the medical
report Ex.P14 illegally discharged the petitioner and
terminated his service even before appointment. So the
petitioner has been victimised and subjected to unfair
labour practice of the respondent management. If the
respondent considers the petitioner as suffering from
rheumatic heart disease in the light of Ex.P14 (Ex.R5)
medical certificate, then, it is advisable to allot him
313
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
sedentary nature of work in the respondent
management. I conclude that the denial of employment
to the petitioner on the ground of continued ill-health
and consequently discharging his service with effect
from 22-11-2011 by the respondent management is
unjustifiable and amounts to acts of continued
victimisation and unfair labour practice and accordingly
I answer Point No.3.
35. In the result, this industrial dispute is allowed and
the respondent management is directed to reinstate the
petitioner with effect from 22-11-2011 with half backwages
and with continuity of service and all other attendant
benefits applicable to him as per Labour Laws.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by
her, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court
on this the 29th day of January, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 — 15-7-2013
— D. Ramesh
List of respondent’s witnesses:
RW.1 — 6-6-2014
— K. Shanmugam
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the Apprenticeship Order in
Trainer of the Petitioner, dated 8-7-1996.
Ex.P2 — Copy of the ESI Identity Card of
petitioner.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the Labour Court Order in I.D.
No. 59/2001, dated 31-1-2003.
Ex.P4 — Copy of the Hon’ble High Court Order
in WP No. 11476 of 2003, dated 8-2-2011.
Ex.P5 — Copy of the Hon’ble High Court Order
in Writ Appeal WA No. 578 of 2011,
dated 7-4-2011.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the Intimation letter by the
Labour Commissioner and Labour
Officer, Labour Department, dated 5-7-2011.
Ex.P7 — Copy of the Memorandum in Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
dated 8-7-2011.
Ex.P8 — Copy of the letter issued by the
respondent
management
to
the
petitioner, dated 25-7-2011.
Ex.P9 — Copy of the Probation Order issued by
the respondent management to the
petitioner, dated 25-7-2011.
Ex.P10— Copy of the notice sent by petitioner
counsel to the respondent management,
dated 26-7-2011.
Ex.P11— Copy of the notice sent by respondent
management to the petitioner counsel,
dated 27-7-2011.
Ex.P12— Copy of the letter sent by respondent
management to the petitioner for medical
checkup, dated 27-7-2011.
Ex.P13— Copy of the medical fitness certificate
issued by PIMS Hospital, dated 28-7-2011.
Ex.P14— Copy of the letter issued by respondent
management to the petitioner with
related to his medical fitness certificate,
dated 1-8-2011.
Ex.P15— Copy of the notice sent by petitioner
counsel to the respondent management,
dated 3-8-2011.
Ex.P16— Copy of the Apprenticeship Order issued by
respondent management to D.Kulanjinathan,
dated 6-8-2011.
Ex.P17— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner (self medical report) to the
respondent management, dated 10-8-2011.
Ex.P18— Copy of the medical fitness certificate of
petitioner.
Ex.P19— Copy of the letter issued by the
respondent
management
to
the
petitioner, dated 12-8-2011.
Ex.P20— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner
to
the
respondent
management, dated 18-8-2011.
Ex.P21— Copy of the new ESI number issued by
the petitioner, dated 19-8-2011.
Ex.P22— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, dated 26-8-2011.
Ex.P23— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, dated 14-9-2011.
Ex.P24— Copy of the Intimation letter sent by
Labour Commissioner to the petitioner,
dated 19-9-2011.
Ex.P25— Copy of the letter issued by Pattali
Thozhir Sangam to the Inspector of
Factories, dated 19-9-2011.
Ex.P26— Copy of the letter issued by Inspector
of
Factories
to
the
respondent
management, dated 23-9-2011.
314
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 May 2016
Ex.P27— Copy of the letter issued by respondent
management to the petitioner, dated
24-9-2011.
Ex.P28— Copy of the letter issued by Pattali
Thozhir Sangam to the Inspector of
Factories, dated 29-9-2011.
Ex.P29— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner
to
the
respondent
management, dated 3-10-2011.
Ex.P30— Copy of the letter issued by petitioner
to the Inspector of Factories, dated
16-11-2011.
Ex.P31— Copy of the registered postal letter and
acknowledgment card issued by the
petitioner
to
the
respondent
management, dated 17-11-2011.
Ex.P32— Copy of the medical receipt issued by
ESI Hospital to the petitioner, dated
22-11-2011.
Ex.P33— Copy of the medical receipt issued by
ESI Hospital to the petitioner, dated
22-11-2011.
Ex.P34— Copy of the medical receipt issued by
ESI Hospital to the petitioner.
Ex.P35— Copy of the medical receipt issued by
ESI Hospital to the petitioner.
Ex.P36— Copy of the termination order issued by
the respondent management to the
petitioner, dated 22-11-2011.
Ex.P37— Copy of the registered postal letter and
acknowledgment card issued by the
petitioner
to
the
respondent
management, dated 23-11-2011.
Ex.P38— Copy of the registered postal letter and
acknowledgment card issued by the
petitioner
to
the
respondent
management, dated 23-11-2011.
Ex.P39— Copy of the registered postal letter and
acknowledgment card sent by petitioner
to the respondent management, dated
26-11-2011.
Ex.P40— Copy of the registered postal letter sent
by the petitioner to the respondent
management, dated 9-12-2011.
Ex.P41— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the ESI Officer, dated
29-11-2011.
Ex.P42— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, dated 13-12-2011.
Ex.P43— Copy of the letter sent by ESI Officer to
the petitioner, dated 16-12-2011.
Ex.P44— Copy of the letter sent by Inspector of
Factories
to
the
respondent
management, dated 19-12-2011.
Ex.P45— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the ESI Officer, dated
11-1-2012.
Ex.P46— Copy of the letter sent by ESI Officer to
the respondent management, dated
24-1-2012.
Ex.P47— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, dated 16-2-2012.
Ex.P48— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, dated 7-8-2012.
Ex.P49— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, dated 10-10-2012.
Ex.P50— Copy of the letter issued by the
petitioner to the Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, dated 13-12-2012.
Ex.P51— Copy of the Hon’ble High Court Order
in WP No. 5290 of 2012, dated
18-12-2012.
Ex.P52— Copy of the letter sent by Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department to the
petitioner, dated 31-1-2013.
Ex.P53— Copy of the petition filed by the
petitioner before the Labour Conciliation
Officer regarding the dispute, dated
4-2-2013.
Ex.P54— Copy
of
the
Failure
Report
in
Conciliation Officer, Labour Department,
dated 13-2-2013.
Ex.P55— Copy of the Govt. Order in Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
dated 15-2-2013.
Ex.P56— Copy of the list of names in permanent
labourers (Technical and Non-Technical)
are working in various departments from
the respondent management.
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — Copy of letter, dated 25-7-2011 from
respondent to petitioner regarding the
reinstatement with 50% of back wages
and other benefits as per the Court
Order ID No. 59/2001, dated 31-1-2003
and High Court Order W.P. No. 11476/
2003, dated 8-2-2011.
Ex.R2 — Copy of letter from respondent to PIMS
Hospital, regarding the Pre-employment
Medical Checkup of the petitioner, dated
27-7-2011.
315
3 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R3 — Copy of letter from respondent to
petitioner, regarding the Pre-employment
Medical Checkup in PIMS Hospital,
dated 27-7-2011.
Ex.R4 — Copy of Laboratory report of petitioner
from PIMS Hospital, dated 28-7-2011.
Ex.R5 — Copy of letter from A.G. Padmavati's
Hospital Ltd., to Dr. G. Subbaiah, MBBS,
dated 29-7-2011.
Ex.R6 — Copy of letter from the respondent to the
petitioner, dated 24-9-2011.
Ex.R7 — Copy of reply letter, dated 28-9-2011 from
the petitioner to the respondent for the
letter, dated 24-9-2011.
Ex.R8 — Copy of letter from the respondent to the
petitioner regarding that reply letter,
dated 29-9-2011.
Ex.R9 — Copy of reply letter, dated 3-10-2011
from the petitioner to the respondent
regarding the letter, dated 26-9-2011,
Ex.R10— Copy of Pay Slip of the petitioner for the
period from 27-7-2011 to 31-8-2011, and
wages for the period from 1-9-2011 to
30-9-2011 and wages paid for October
2011 (30 days).
Ex.R11— Copy of letter from respondent to the
petitioner, dated 22-11-2011.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
No. 536-540/DSE/EC/C/2016.
Puducherry, the 25th April 2016.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby informed that the following candidates have lost their original Higher Secondary Examination
Mark Certificates and beyond the scope of recovery, necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates.
If any one finds the original mark certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of Secondary
Examinations, College Road, Chennai-600 006 for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.
Sl.
Name of the
Register No.,
Sl. No. of the
School in which studied last
No.
applicant
session and
mark
year
certificate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :
1
Deepan, R.
526860, March 2009
G 455581
Chevalier Sellane Government Higher
Secondary School, Kalapet, Puducherry.
2
Kamarudeen, S.
576634, March 2011
5982874
V.O.C. Government Higher Secondary
School, Puducherry.
3
Revathy, P.
723277, March 2000
35041
Sri NKC Government Girls’ Higher
Secondary School, Kurusukuppam
Puducherry.
4
Senthil Kumar, N.
761593, March 2001
1744381
V.O.C. Government Higher Secondary
School, Puducherry.
5
Priyadharshini, V.
542733, March 2013
7986130
Immaculate Heart of Mary’s Girls’ Higher
Secondary School, Puducherry.
J. KRISHNARAJU,
Joint Director.