326
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 May 2016
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 23/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 21st April 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 13/2013, dated
19-2-2016 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect
of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. ARK Securities, Hyderabad and its
Security Guards Thiru A. Pitchan and 18 others over
arrears of wages and wages settlement 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT PONDICHERRY
Present : Thiru N. SIVAKUMAR, B.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal.
Friday, the 19th day of February 2016
I.D. (T) No. 13/2013
1. A. Pichan,
S/o. Ayyakannu,
No. 544, Arishan North Street,
Kodivalathur (Panchayat),
Tiruvarur-610 207.
2. J. Narayanasamy,
No. 989/NA3,
South Street,
Punthottam, Nannilam (TK),
Tiruvarur (Dt.)-610 105.
3. G. Murugadass,
No. 8, Vedan Thoppu Street,
Ambagarathur,
Karaikal-609 601.
4. K.V. Subramanian,
S/o. Vishnu, No. 9, Block,
No. 1, Edaiyathangudi(P),
Nagapattinam (K) & (Dt.).
5. S. Lakshmanan,
S/o. Subramanian,
No. 22, Mudaliar Street,
Vizhithiyur, Karaikal,
Puducherry-609 607.
6. V. Pakirisamy,
S/o. Vadivel,
No. 1-17 Anaiyan Mettu Street,
Vishvanathapuram,
Nagapattinam-609 607.
7. E. Ezekiel,
S/o. Easu Pillai,
No. O/4, L.I.G Quarters (South Side),
Karaikal.
8. R. Sivanandam,
S/o. Ramaiah,
No. 1/62, Vellalar Street,
Melatheru, Serugudi(P),
Tiruvarur-612 203.
9. P. Balakrishnan,
S/o. Pakkiri,
No. 442, Alathur (P) Middle Street,
Nagapattinam-609 604.
10. S. Balu,
S/o. Somu,
No. 229, Veeravadi Adi-dravidar Street,
Ward-4, Poonathottam,
Agarathirumalam(P),
Tiruvarur-609 503.
11. P. Loganathan,
S/o. Pasupathi,
No. 3-138-A-Appurasapuram Puthur, Akkur,
Tharangambadi (T.K),
Nagapattinam-609 301.
12. T. Jayakumar,
S/o. Thangavel,
No. 33, Nedungadu Kottucherry,
Salai Ponbetty, Karaikal-609 603.
13. S. Aruldass,
S/o. Santhanasamy,
No. 3-469 Pattavaram North Street,
Neduvasal (P),
Ward:3, Nagapattinam-609 309.
327
10 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
14. M. Kaliyamoorthy,
S/o. Marimuthu,
No. 1-222/NA Sinkanodai Main Road,
Ward-1, T. Manaimedu (R.V) & (P),
Nagapattinam.
15. T. Ramamoorthy,
S/o. Thangavelu,
No. 25/7 Vellapillaiyar Kovil Theru,
Kottucherry.
16. A. Dhakshnamoorthy,
S/o.Ayyaru,
No. 66E, Thandalai (P) Vilamal,
Tiruvarur-613 701.
17. R. Ramanathan,
Valluvar Street,
Andankovil, Valangaiman-612 804.
18. G. Paneerselvam,
S/o. Ganapathi,
No. 557, Mudhal Kudiyanather, Ward-2,
Pavundareekapuram (P),
Thanjavur-612 204.
19. R. Sundarapandiyan,
S/o. Rengaiyan,
No. 1, Cholan Kurinji Salai,
Ambagarathur, Karaikal-609 601.
. . Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Managing Director,
ARK Security Service, Hyderabad.
2. The Manager,
ARK Security Service,
Kumbakonam.
. . Respondents.
This industrial dispute coming, on 22-1-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru R.T. Shankar,
Counsel for the petitioner, M/s. R. Poornima, Counsel
for the 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 to this
Court as per the G.O. Rt. No. 113/AIL/Lab./J/2013,
dated 30-7-2013 for adjudicating the following:-
(1) Whether the claim of the petitioners
demanding their arrears of salary and wages
settlement and other benefits against the management
of M/s. ARK Security Service, Hyderabad is justified
or not?
(2) If justified, to what relief they are entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief if any 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) According to the petitioners 1 to 19 they
completed service in Indian army and they are
Ex-Servicemen. The first respondent as an employer
is running a security service under the name and
style “ARK Security Services” at Hyderabad. The
respondents obtained a contract with BSNL
Department, Kumbakonam Branch for the purpose of
providing security services to other branches in
Karaikal. So, the respondent engaged the petitioners
for the security service post at BSNL Department,
Karaikal. The petitioners were appointed on 1-3-1999
in the Security Service of the respondent and sent
to BSNL at Karaikal.
2(ii) The first respondent registered under the
Directorate-General Re-settlement (DGR), Department
of Ex-Servicemen (Ministry of Defense) has informed
ESM Security Agency for providing security service
to State and Central Offices. Therefore, the
respondent entered into agreement with BSNL at
Karaikal on 21-2-2009. The specific clause No. 7 of
the agreement states that General Manager, BSNL,
Kumbakonam Branch shall pay the wages as per the
wages fixed by Directorate-General Re-settlement,
New Delhi, with service charges of 14% and service
tax, etc., as applicable. Clause No. 8 of the agreement
specifies monthly wages at ` 13,068 for Head
Security Guard (one number) and at ` 8,855 for each
Security Guard (58 numbers). The respondents as
employer has to pay the wages as per the DGR rates.
But, the respondent though agreed to pay monthly
wages for Security Guards at ` 7,504 has been paying
only a sum of ` 5,363 (Lesser amount of ` 2,141 every
month) from the beginning.
2(iii) So, the reduction of ` 2,141 from the wages
of each petitioner every month by the respondent is
illegal and the respondents have cheated the
petitioners. So, the respondents have violated to
terms and conditions of the agreement entered with
the BSNL, and paid only lesser amount as wages to
the petitioners. The BSNL Department has been
paying wages for the Service Guard at ` 7,504 per
month after deduction employed by another
management, namely, TEXCO. So, the respondent
management in violation of the agreement clauses
paid lesser amount and illegally deducted ` 2,141 per
328
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 May 2016
month from each of the petitioners from the month
of March 2009 to till January 2014. So, the petitioners
have raised the industrial dispute seeking direction
to the respondents to pay arrears of wages to each
petitioner at the rate of ` 2,141 per month for a period
of 59 months from March 2009 to January 2014
amounting to ` 1,26,319.
3. The facts set out in the counter filed by the
respondent management are stated as follows:
3(i) The first respondent is also an Ex-Servicemen
and after retirement from Indian Air Force 1st
respondent started the ARK Security Services at
Hyderabad. The first respondent engaged in
providing Security Services to the BSNL exchanges
in the CRDA Kumbakonam at Myladuthurai and
Karaikal areas. Initially, there was a contract for
12 months and after that it was periodically extended
for every year and thereafter, further extended for
once in every two or three months. The respondents
have agreement with BSNL, Kumbakonam Office that
an amount of ` 3,849 would be the basic plus VDA
wages for one month (26 days), while computing the
wages for Security Guards. Total emolument for each
guard is computed on wages sheet depending on his
duty as per monthly attendance. Thereafter,
consolidated wages payment was made to all
employees by means of cheque through IOB,
Kumbakonam Branch.
3(ii) Casual Labour can work only for 26 days in
any calendar month. Rest 4 or 5 days would be
Saturdays and Sundays or holidays. The respondents
have entered into agreement with BSNL to provide
round the clock security for the contract period. So,
the respondents have to provide extra man powers
for the weekly holidays. Security Guards agreed to
perform extra duties also on the additional cost
around 28.83% of basic pay of ` 3,849 per month. The
BSNL paid monthly wages totally at ` 8,646, but, the
respondents have paid monthly wages for 26 days
at ` 5,263 including OT for four or five days and
holiday allowance. The respondents clearly
mentioned that what is the contract amount of wages
from BSNL and what amount is actually disbursed.
The petitioners are aware that ARK Securities is a
Contractor with the BSNL and the contract of wages
amount received by the respondents from the date
of appointment Security Guards (March 2009).
Petitioners have received monthly salary at the rate
of ` 5,363 paid by the respondents without any
objection till this date. Petitioners are not entitled to
claim enhanced amount as arrears of wages since
respondents are not doing any profitable business
to collect extra payment from the BSNL and sharing
it that the petitioners. The respondents are paying
correct wages to all the Security Guards working
under them. BSNL, Kumbakonam is a necessary party
and without impleading as a party to this petition,
it is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary
party. The respondents are paying money to ESI, PF
and Service Tax for the petitioners and they have not
hidden any accounts. So, this petition is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioners PW.1 (Thiru
A. Pichan, first petitioner) and PW.2 (Thiru S. Ganesan)
have been examined as Ex.P1 to P11 were marked. Thiru
T. Rajagopalan, Accounts Officer of BSNL, Kumbakonam
has been summoned and examined as CW.1 and Ex.C1
and C2 have been marked through him. The
respondents though filed counter and cross-examined
the petitioner side witnesses, have not chosen to let in
any oral or documentary evidence on their side.
5. Points for consideration:
Whether the petitioners 1 to 19 are entitled to
claim arrears of salary/wages at the rate of ` 2,141
per month from the respondents for a period of 59
month from March 2009 to January 2014 as claimed
in the petition?
6. On this Point:
Petitioners numbering 19 are retired from Indian army
and they are Ex-Servicemen. The first respondent is the
Managing Director, ARK Security services having its
office at Hyderabad. The second respondent is the
manager of the same security service of Kumbakonam
Branch. The respondent security service used to engage
Ex-Servicemen and provide them job of Security Service
in various institutions as per requirement. BSNL,
Karaikal and Kumbakonam branches were in need of
Security Guards. So, BSNL approached ARK Service for
providing Security Guards for BSNL offices on contract
basis. Accordingly, petitioners 1 to 19 were engaged by
the ARK Security Services and they were deployed as
Security Guards in BSNL, Kumbakonam. Admittedly, the
respondent, namely, ARK Securities, the first respondent
herein entered into Ex.P1 agreement, dated 21-2-2009
with BSNL, Kumbakonam in respect of providing
Security Guards. It is pertinent to note clauses 6 to 8
of the agreement speak about the terms and conditions
and the salary of Security Guards. Clause 6 of the Ex.P1
agreement says that M/s. ARK Security Service
(Respondent) shall maintain all records as stipulated by
329
10 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the Director-General of Re-settlement (DGR) (Ministery
of Defense) with Government of India, New Delhi, and
these records will be open for inspection by them as
and when required. Clause 7 reads General Manager,
BSNL, CRDA, SSA, Kumbakonam shall pay to M/s. ARK
Security Service, as per the wages fixed by the
DGR, New Delhi with service charges of 14% and service
tax (includes Cess etc.,) as applicable. Clause 8
specifies monthly wages Details of Head Security Guard
(one number) at ` 13,068 and Security Guards (58
numbers) at ` 8,855. So, it is clear that the respondent,
namely, ARK Security Guards has entered into Ex.P1
agreement with the BSNL Kumbakonam, in respect of
providing Head Security Guard with monthly wages of
` 13,068 and Security Guard at ` 8,855. It is admitted by
the respondent that in terms of Ex.P1 agreement monthly
wages of Security Guard was fixed at ` 8,855. Ex.P2 is
the Award of tender for engaging security personnel in
Telecom Installations of CRDA, SSA, Kumbakonam for
the year 2008-2009, wherein, the wages for a security
guard is fixed at ` 8,855 as per DGR guidelines with
effect from 1-8-2008, subsequently, the wages for the
security personnel have been revised with effect from
April 2009 to June 2009 as per Ex.P3 circular.
7. The respondent used to collect total monthly
wages of the Security Guards by means of cheques.
Ex.P5 is the copy of the cheque, dated 10-7-2012 issued
in the name of ARK Security Service for a sum of
` 4,28,269 by BSNL, Kumbakonam towards wages for
Security Guards. Ex.P4 is the copy of the claim bill
submitted by respondents to the BSNL.
8. PW.1 has categorically stated that though the
respondent received monthly wages for Security Guards
at the rate of ` 8,855 it agreed to pay monthly wages to
the Security Guards at the rate of ` 7,504 after deducting
payment towards ESI, PF and Service Tax for the
petitioners. But, ARK Security Service actually paid
monthly wages at the rate of ` 5,363 only and deducted
at ` 2,141 every month.
9. PW.2 Thiru Ganesan is also an Ex-servicemen and
formerly he was engaged by the Respondent Security
Services and he was also paid lesser amount as wages
so, he relieved from ARK Security Service acid joined
in the management of TEXCO and now, he is getting extra
income. PW.2 also specifically says that there is
deduction of ` 2,141 from wages of security guards and
this amount has been illegally deducted by the
respondents.
10. The Respondent Security Service failed to pay
monthly wages regularly and periodically even at the
sum of ` 5,363 to the petitioners. So, the Security Guards
have sent several representations to the Deputy General
Manager, BSNL, requesting to settle their pay and
allowances and copy of one of the representation letter
sent by them is marked as Ex.P6. The respondent has
contended in the counter that wages for Security
Guards will be calculated only for 26 days, and for the
remaining five or six days of the month some other
arrangement, should be made so lesser wages were paid
to the petitioners.
11. The petitioner in order to establish the fact that
monthly wages for the Security Guard service was fixed
rate of ` 8,855 by BSNL have summoned and examined.
Thiru T. Rajagopalan, Accounts Officer at BSNL, C1 as
RW.1 and he has produced the agreement, dated
1-11-2014 entered into between BSNL and ARK Security
Service as Ex.C1. Ex.C2 is the statement of accounts from
March 2009 till January 2014 for the amount claimed and
paid to ARK Security Services produced by CW1. A
careful perusal of the deposition of PW.1 in the light of
Ex.C1, C2 and Ex.P1 would clearly establish that BSNL
paid monthly wages for Security Guards at the rate of
` 8,558 (after some deduction) in terms of agreement.
But, the respondent security service received the wages
of each Security Guards at the rate of ` 8,558 disbursed
only of ` 5,363. The respondents in their counter have
pleaded that the agreed wages payable to the Security
Guard is ` 7,504 only (26 days) and after deducting EPF,
PF payment paid at the rate of ` 5,363 only. The
respondents though filed counter have not chosen to
let in any evidence to prove the facts set out in the
counter. Petitioners have agreed that the monthly wages
was fixed at ` 7,504, but, actually they were paid at the
rate of ` 5,363 per month. So, the respondent has
intentionally and deliberately deducted to ` 2,141 from
the wages of each petitioner every month.
12. The respondent has not produced any records
to show that the deducted amount of ` 2,141 from each
petitioner every month was utilised for payment
towards.PF subscription or ESI Contribution. The
petitioners through the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and
CW.1 and in the light of the documentary evidence
marked as Ex.P1 to P11. Ex.C1 and C2 have established
that the respondent received monthly wages of the
petitioners the rate of ` 8,558 from the BSNL and agreed
to pay at the rate of ` 7,504 per month, but, actually paid
a lesser amount of ` 5,363 only. There is no explanation
on the side of the respondent why lesser amount was
filed as wages to the petitioners.
330
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 May 2016
13. So, I come to the conclusion that the petitioners
have established that though they agreed to work as
Security Guards for a monthly wages of ` 7,504 at BSNL,
as engaged by the respondents but, they were paid only
at the rate of ` 5,363 and there is a deduction of ` 2,141
from the wages each petitioner every month. The
petitioners had worked as Security Guard in BSNL
offices for the period from March 2009 to January 2014
totally 59 months. So, each petitioner is entitled to claim
arrears of wages at the rate of ` 2,141 per month for the
abovesaid period from the respondents. So, each
petitioner entitled to claim total arrears of wages
amounting to ` 1,26,319. Hence, I hold that the
petitioners 1 to 19 have substantiated their claim that
each petitioner is entitled for recovery arrears of wages
of ` 2,141 per month, for a total period of 59 months
from March 2009 to January 2014. Accordingly,
I conclude that the petitioners No. 1 to 19 have proved
their claim of recovery of arrears of wages/salary each
from the respondents at the rate of ` 2,141 per month
from March 2009 to January 2014 i.e., for a period
59 months amounting to ` 1,26,319 each according this
point is answered.
14. In the result, this industrial dispute is allowed
and the respondents are directed to pay arrear wages
amount of ` 1,26,319 (at the rate of ` 2,141per
month for 59 months for the period from March 2009 to
January 2014) to petitioners 1 to 19 each within one
month, and thereafter, along with interest at 12% per
annum.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 19th day of February, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 19-8-2014
— Pichan
PW.2 —14-10-2014
— Ganesan
List of respondent’s witness: Nil
List of court witnesses:
CW.1 —20-11-2015 — T. Rajagopalan (Accounts
Officer, BSNL, Kumbakonam).
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —
dated
Copy of the
Photocopy
21-2-2009 agreement entire
by the respondent
with the BSNL.
Ex.P2 —
dated
Copy of award of
Photocopy
26-2-2009 tender for engaging
security personnel
in BSNL.
Ex.P3 —
dated
Copy of the revised
Photocopy
23-7-2009 raise of minimum
wages by DGR.
Ex.P4 —
dated
Copy of the claim
Photocopy
1-6-2012 bill submitted by
the respondent to
the BSNL.
Ex.P5 —
dated
Copy of the cheque
Photocopy
10-7-2012 issued by the BSNL
to the respondent.
Ex.P6 —
dated
Copy of the request
Photocopy
18-7-2012 letters sent by the
10-7-2012, petitioners to the
11-3-2013. respondents.
Ex.P7 —
dated
Copy of the notice Photocopy
28-9-2012 of enquiry/Conciliation
4-2-2013, sent by the Labour
11-3-2013. Officer, Karaikal to
the 6-3-2013 and
respondent.
Ex.P8 —
dated
Copy of the
Photocopy
12-7-2012 disbursement of
employee salary.
Ex.P9 —
dated
Copy of the Identity
31-8-1997 Card issued by the
Sainik Welfare Board,
Nagapattinam.
Ex.P10 —
dated
Copy of the Voter
Photocopy
11-2-1998 Identity Card issued
by the Election
Department,
Nagapattinam.
Ex.P11 —
—
Copy of the Indian
Photocopy
Overseas Bank at
Sirkali Branch from
13-8-2012 to 9-7-2014.
331
10 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of Court exhibits:
Ex.C1 —
dated
Copy of the
Photocopy
11-2-1998 claim bill submitted
by the respondent
to the BSNL.
Ex.C2 —
—
Copy of the
Photocopy
Statement of Accounts
from March 2009
till January 2015 for
the amount claimed
and paid to ARK
Security Services
after deducting TDS.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Pondicherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 24/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 21st April 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D (L) No. 1/2014, dated
29-1-2016 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the Industrial Dispute between the management of
M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills Limited, Puducherry and Indiraji
National Textile Uzhaipalar Congress (INTUC) over
change of correction of the date of birth in the service
record of Thiru K. Gunasekaran as 14-5-1958 instead of
17-5-1957 has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with
the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by Secretary to Government (Labour), that the said
award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
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.
Friday, the 29th day of January 2016
I.D. (L) No. 1/2014
Indiraji National Textile
. . Petitioner
Uzhaipalar Congress (INTUC).
Versus
The Managing Director,
Sri Bharathi Mills Limited,
P.O. Box No.10, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry-605 004.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 6-1-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru M.S. Subramanian,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru K. Ravikumar, 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. 174/ AIL/Lab./J/2013, dated 11-12-2013 for
adjudicating the following:-
1. Whether the dispute raised by the union, Indiraji
National Textile Uzhaipalar Congress (INTUC) against
the management of M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills Limited,
Puducherry over Change of Correction of the date
of birth in the service record of Thiru K. Gunasekaran
as 14-5-1958 instead of 17-5-1957 as per records is
justified or not? If justified what relief he is entitled
to?
2. To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus:-
2(i) The petitioner, namely, Thiru K. Gunasekaran
has been working as a permanent employee in the
Electrical Department of the respondent mill, namely,
Sri Bharathi Mills Limited, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.
When the petitioner was appointed on 1-9-1983, he
mentioned his date of birth as 14-5-1958 and also
produced relevant records such as S.S.L.C. Certificate,
ITI Certificate and Transfer Certificate to show his
date of birth is 14-5-1958. Further, the respondent has
issued ESI Card to the petitioner, wherein, his date
332
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 May 2016
of birth is mentioned as 14-5-1958. When the service
particulars of the employees of the respondent mil!
were computerized the date of birth of the petitioner
has been wrongly recorded as 17-5-1957 instead of
14-5-1958. Further, name of the petitioner's father was
also wrongly recorded. The petitioner made several
representations orally and also by writing to correct
the particulars, namely, his date of birth and father's
name, but, the respondent did not consider the
representations of the petitioner. So, the petitioner
approached the Lokadalat and during Conciliation
proceedings the respondent adamantly refused to
correct the date of birth and father's name of the
petitioner, so Lokadalat submitted a failure on
Conciliation report. Unless, the correct date of birth
of the petitioner is recorded, he will be put into much
hardship and he may lose gratuity, bonus benefits,
sizable amount of gratuity and pension benefits. So,
the petitioner has raised the industrial dispute
requesting to correct his date of birth in the service
records as 14-5-1958 on the basis of his school
records and to render justice.
3. The facts set out in the counter filed by respondent
management are stated as follows:-
3(i) It is false to state that the petitioner has been
working for the past 30 years in the respondent mill.
Date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned in pay
slips issued every month. But, the petitioner has not
questioned the date of birth mentioned in his pay
slips. The petitioner has not made any representation
for many years. It was only on 19-4-2011, the
petitioner had given a letter requesting the
respondent to correct the date of birth. As the
demand was made nearly after 28 years of joining into
service respondent had rightly refused to correct his
date of birth in service records. Again the petitioner
submitted a letter on 13-5-2011 requesting the
management to correct his date of birth. It was also
denied by the management and sent suitable reply
to the petitioner. Then the petitioner issued legal
notice, dated 16-6-2011 to the respondent regarding
correction of his date of birth. As already suitable
reply was sent to the petitioner no specific reply
notice was dispatched. The petitioner filed the case
in LAC No.10657/2011 before the Lokadalat,
Puducherry, praying for a direction to the respondent
to correct his date of birth. The respondent officials
appeared before the Lokadalat and expressed their
inability to correct the date of birth. Hence, the case
was closed.
3(ii) The petitioner filed a suit in OS No. 1645/2011
against the respondent before the III Additional
District Munsif Court, Puducherry praying for a
direction to the respondent to correct the date of
birth of the petitioner. The respondent filed a detailed
written statement denying that the Civil Court had
no jurisdiction to entertain the relief. Therefore, the
petitioner not pressed the suit and consequently it
was dismissed.
3(iii) In the nomination form and declaration form
filled and filed by the petitioner he has mentioned
his date of birth as 17-5-1957 and not as 14-5-1958
as claimed by the petitioner. The particulars of each
employee such as Name, Department, Category,
Token No, Father's Name, Date of Birth and Date of
Entry into service are printed in the pay slip of the
workman concerned.
The main object of such particulars in the pay
slips is for the workman to check whether the
information given by them and recorded by the
management in the service records are correctly done
and in case of any discrepancy or clerical error the
same may be rectified immediately. The petitioner
though received pay slips for over a period of thirty
years has not chosen to correct his date of birth and
father's name in time. So, the petitioner is estopped
from raising any dispute over the entries made in the
pay slip and service records.
3(iv) The petitioner by his own hand has written
his date of birth and father's name in nomination and
declaration form. It is not the case of the petitioner
that those particulars in the nomination Form and
declaration Form were not given by him, nor the
particulars were obtained under duress. Unless the
date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the
service records maintained by the respondent are
declared to be wrong or proved to be wrongly
entered, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be
granted. Only on the basis of information given by
the petitioner himself the entries in the service
records have been made. The petitioner is not
entitled to raise the industrial dispute and he is not
entitled to get the relief as sought for in the claim
statement. Hence, the industrial dispute has to be
dismissed in limine.
4. On the side of the petitioner, patitioner himself
has been examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to P7 were
marked. On the side of the respondent management
Thiru M. Sugumaran has been testified as MW1 and
Ex.M1 has been marked.
333
10 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
5. The point for consideration is:
(1) Whether the correct date of birth of the
petitioner is 14-5-1958 as per his testimonials and
school ecords which has been wrongly entered into
the service records as 17-5-1957 maintained by the
respondent management?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief of
correcting his date of birth as 14-5-1958 in the service
records maintained by the respondent management?
(3) Whether the industrial dispute can be
allowed?
6. On this Points No.1&2:
According to the petitioner the employee K. Gunasekaran
is a permanent workman (Token No. P.C./2/2921) of the
respondent management who is working in the electrical
department for the past 30 years. His father's name and
date of birth have been wrongly entered into the service
registers. The correct date of birth of the employee
K. Gunasekaran is 14-5-1958, whereas, it is wrongly
recorded as 17-5-1957. The said worker made several
representations to correct his father's name and date of
birth, but, the management corrected his father's name
only and refused to correct his date of birth, So, this
industrial dispute has been raised.
7. Per contra, the respondent management has
contended that the particulars such as father’s name and
date of birth were furnished by the workman himself and
recorded into the service registers. In the year 1985,
service particulars of the workman were computerized.
Thereafter, no correction regarding date of birth could
be carried out. After completing 25 years of service, the
workman has approached to correct his date of birth
which is not permissible. In the nomination Form and
declaration Form, his date of birth is recorded as 17-5-1957.
The petitioner is not entitled to raise the industrial
dispute in respect of correction of date of birth and this
Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. So, the
claim of the petitioner has to fail.
8. The concerned employee, namely, K. Gunasekaran
is a member of the petitioner union who has been
examined as P.W.1. He has categorically stated that he
was employed as a casual worker on 1-9-1983. At that
time of appointment he represented the particulars of
his father's name, date of birth, qualification extraorally,
but, the entries in the appointment order and nomination
Form were wrongly entered into by the officials of the
management. Though, he made several representations,
the respondent management was not amenable to
correct the erroneous particulars. Anyhow, the management
was kind enough to correct the name of petitioner's
father. Petitioner's father name is 'S. Kalraya Padayatchi',
but, it was wrongly recorded as 'Parthasarathy' in the
service records. On representation given by the
petitioner, his father's name was suitably corrected.
9. Petitioner in order to prove his correct date of
birth has produced copy of first page of S.S.L.C. Book
as Ex.P1, copy of S.S.L.C. Mark sheet as Ex.P3 and copy
of Transfer Certificate as Ex.P4. In all this documents,
petitioner’s date of birth is recorded as 14-05-1958.
Further, he has produced Family Identity Card as Ex.P7
issued by ESI Corporation. Admittedly, the employee
K. Gunasekaran(P.W.I) completed his S.S.L.C. and ITI
course(Wireman) from Government Industrial Training
Institute, Cuddalore and the copy of the National Trade
Certificate is marked as Ex.P2. Name of petitioner's father
is mentioned as 'S. Kalraya Padayatchi' in Ex.P1, P4 and
P7. So, the respondent satisfied with the records
produced by PW1 and found that his father's correct
name is 'S. Kalraya Padayatchi' and accordingly
corrected the same in the service registers.
10. The respondent has specifically contended that
once the service particulars of the employees were
computerized in the year 1985, thereafter, there is no
scope for carry out any corrections, particularly in
respect of date of birth. The date of birth of the
petitioner was orally given and it was recorded by the
staff of the respondent management.
Thiru M. Sugumar, Personal Officer of the respondent
mill while disposing as R.W.1 he has admitted that-
“
”
So, it is clear that when the petitioner was
appointed as a casual labourer his bio-data were
recorded by the staff of the respondent management.
Further, the testimonials of the petitioner were not
perused by the respondent management at the time of
his entry into service. Not only the petitioner, but, some
other employees had also the same problem of wrong
entries in their service registers and approached the
Courts and after getting favourable order got corrected
their date of birth.
It is admitted by R.W.1 that the date of birth of one
Kuppusamy was corrected as per the order passed by
the Lokadalat in the case of LAC No. 3167/2009 that
apart one employee D. Arumugam approached this
Court by raising an industrial dispute in ID No. 9/2008
with reference to correction of his date of birth and it
was allowed on 20-12-2010 and the copy of the order
has been produced for perusal.
334
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 May 2016
So, it is inferrable that at the time of appointing
employees, the respondent management did not exercise
due care while recording their bio-data and other
particulars.
11. The respondent has produced Ex.M1 nomination
and d eclaration Fo rm pertaining to emplo yee
K. Gunasekaran (P.W.1) wherein, his date of birth is
mentioned as 17-5-1957. In this Form, the date of birth
of the workman has been filled up on the basis of the
particulars available in his service records. Already the
date of birth of the P.W.1 has been wrongly noted as
17-5-1957. So, the same wrong date of birth is reflected,
in Ex.M1. So, this document ExM1 would not substantiate
the contention of the respondent management.
12. The petitioner has let in relevant and precise
documentary evidence to substantiate his contention
that his correct date of birth is only 14-5-1958. The
genuineness of Ex.P1, P3 and P4 have not been
specifically challenged by the respondent. Of course,
the date of birth of the workman has been recorded as
17-5-1957 in his Identity card marked as Ex.P5 and salary
slips marked as Ex.P6 as already discussed. Purely on
the basis of entries found in service records as already
discussed date of birth of the worker has been wrongly
mentioned in his identity card (Ex.P5) and monthly pay
slips (Ex.P6).
13. The burden is on the petitioner to prove his
correct date of birth by adducing relevant evidence. The
petitioner has let in relevant documentary evidence,
namely, Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. The respondent has not
raised any objection to the documentary evidence
namely, Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 produced by the
petitioner to show his correct date of birth as 14-5-1958.
The only objection raised by the respondent is that the
petitioner has not taken any steps to correct date of
birth before computerization of the service particulars
carried out in the year 1985. But, the petitioner has
stated that though he made several oral representations,
the respondent management was not amenable and
finally corrected his father’s name only.
14. The employee PW.1 approached the Lokadalat
by filing a petition seeking direction to the respondent
to correct his date of birth, but, no relief was granted
in the application. So, the petitioner filed the
suit in OS No.1645/2013 before the Additional District
Munsif Court, Pondicherry, but, the said suit was also
dismissed by holding that the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. Ultimately, on behalf
of the said employee the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and
since, the conciliation failed the same has been referred
to this Court for adjudication.
15. Regarding maintainability of the industrial
dispute for the relief of correction of date of birth, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out 6th item
of the Second Schedule of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 empowers this Tribunal/Labour Court to
adjudicate the dispute. The sixth item of the second
schedule says "All matters other than those specified
in the third schedule". Section 2(k) defines an Industrial
Dispute means "any dispute or difference between
employers and employers or between employers and
workmen, or between workmen and workmen which is
connected with the employment or non-employment or
the terms of employment or with the conditions of
labour or any persons." Now, there is difference
regarding date of birth of the employee between
employee himself and the employer which is connected
with the terms of employment. So, the petitioner trade
union is entitled to raise this industrial dispute regarding
the wrong entry of date of birth of one of it's member
employee, since, the same is connected with employment.
The Conciliation Officer also taking note of this point
has referred this dispute to this Court for adjudication.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has already
exhausted his remedy before the Lokadatat and Civil
Court, but, in vain. So, I hold that this Court has got
jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute and to grant
the relief sought for by the petitioner.
16. The respondent management has not raised any
serious objection to carry out correction regarding date
of birth of the petitioner. As the petitioner did not file
necessary application seeking to correct date of birth,
before 1985, the respondent management declined to
correct his date of birth. Now, the petitioner has
produced all relevant documentary evidence to show
that his correct date of birth is 14-5-1958 which has been
wrongly entered as 17-5-1957 in the service registers
maintained by the respondent management. So, under
such circumstances on appreciating oral and documentary
evidence adduced on either side, I hold that the petitioner
is entitled for the relief as claimed in the industrial
dispute. Accordingly, I answer Point No. 1 that the
correct date of birth of the employee K. Gunasekaran is
14-5-1958 and the same has been wrongly entered into
the service records as 17-5-1957 maintained by the
respondent management and consequently I answer
Point No. 2 that the petitioner is entitled for the relief
of correcting date of birth of the said workman as 14-5-1958.
335
10 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
17. For the foregoing reasons discussed above and
as answered for the Points No.1 & 2, I conclude that
this industrial dispute has to be allowed and accordingly
I answer Point No. 3.
18. In the result, the industrial dispute is allowed and
the respondent/management is hereby directed to
correct the date of birth of the workman K. Gunasekaran
(Token No. P,C./2/2921) as 14-5-1958 in all the registers
maintained by the respondent.
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,
Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner's witness:
P.W. 1— 24-11-2015 — K. Gunasekaran
List of respondent's witness:
M.W. 1— 8-12-2015 — M. Sugumar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Photocopy of the first page of S.S.L.C.
Book.
Ex.P2 — Photocopy of the National Trade
Certificate.
Ex.P3 — Photocopy of the Secondary School
Leaving Certificate.
Ex.P4 — Photocopy of the Transfer Certificate.
Ex.P5 — Photocopy of the Identity Certificate
issued by Bharathi Mills Limited.
Ex.P6 — Photocopy of the Pay Slip.
Ex.P7 — Photocopy of the Identity card issued
by ESI Corporation.
List of respondent's exhibits:
Ex.M1— The copy of the nomination and
declaration Forms submitted by the
petitioner K. Gunasekaran, dated
22-4-1998.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
HOME DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 27, dated 22nd April 2016)
NOTIFICATION
The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry is pleased to
appoint Shri Subham Sundar Ghosh, who has been
allotted to the Pondicherry Police Service by
Department of Personnel and Training, Government of
India on the basis of the Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2013, to the Entry Grade of Pondicherry
Police Service (Group ‘B’) in the Pay Scale of PB-2;
` 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of ` 4,800 with effect from
the afternoon of 8-4-2016, subject to the conditions
mentioned in the offer of Appointment.
2. The Lieutenant-Governor is also pleased to order
that Shri Subham Sundar Ghosh will be probationer in
the Entry Grade of Pondicherry Police Service for a
period of two years from the afternoon of 8-4-2016.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
F.P. VERBINA JAYARAJ,
Under Secretary to Government.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
No. 650/CEO/Exam.Cell/2015-16.
Puducherry, the 22nd
April 2016.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby notified that the original S.S.L.C.
Mark Certificate under Register Number 356114 of April
1998 in respect of
P. Murugeswari, an ex-pupil of
Government High School, Archivakpet is reported to
have been lost and beyond the scope of recovery, it is
proposed to issue a duplicate certificate. If the original
certificate is to be found by anybody, it should be sent
to the Director of Government Examinations, Chennai-6 for
cancellation, as it is no longer valid.
N. RAMALINGAM,
Chief Educational Officer.