344
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[17 May 2016
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 28/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 6th May 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 10/2014, dated
29-3-2016 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Vaigai
Industries, Karaikal and its worker Thiru U. Ravi over
reinstatement with backwages 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.
Tuesday, the 29th day of March 2016
I.D. (L) No. 10/2014
U. Ravi,
S/o. Utrapathi,
Melavelankudi Post,
Nannilam Taluk,
Thiruvarur District. .. Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Vaigai Industries,
Melakasakudi,
Karaikal. .. Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me for
hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Ramar, Representative
for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal V.O.S. Kalaiselvam,
R. Thambiraj and A. Gnanarajan, Counsel for the
respondent, respondent called absent and 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.12/AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 5-2-2014 for
adjudicating the following:-
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru U. Ravi over reinstatement with backwages
against the management of M/s. Vaigai Industries,
Karaikal is justified?
(2) If justified, what relief he is entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The averments made in the claim statement are
briefly stated as follows:-
2 (i) Petitioner was appointed in the respondent
management in the year 1999 as a Fitter Mechanic
and he was promoted as a Foreman on 1-4-2001 and
he was given monthly salary of ` 8,000. The petitioner
was suffering with some ailments, so, after informing
the management he availed medical leave. After
recovery when the petitioner attended for duty on
7-4-2006, he was not allotted any work. The management
insisted the petitioner to give an undertaking that he
would not avail any leave in the near future and also
obtained his signatures in several blank papers and
typed papers. Believing the words of the
management, the petitioner affixed his signatures in
some blank and typed papers. But, the respondent
management did not allot any work for one year even
after executing, undertakings. The provident fund
amount of the petitioner was dispatched to him and
when the petitioner questioned about the same he
was informed that he would be observed after getting
necessary instructions from the Managing Director.
Later, the petitioner came to know that CBI
Registered a case against the Managing Director of
the respondent, So, he was not in a mood to consider
the request of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner
sent a letter, dated 10-9-2012 requesting the
management to dispose his gratuity amount. As the
respondent did not reply, the petitioner has raised
industrial dispute. The management submitted
objections before the Conciliation Officer by stating
that the petitioner joined duty on 1-4-2002 and
resigned his job on 4-1-2006, and also received
provident fund and other benefits. The petitioner
filed reply statement before the Conciliation Officer
by mentioning that he did not submit any resignation
letter and his signatures obtained in many papers had
been manipulated as a resignation letter. As no
345
17 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
settlement was reached out before the Conciliation
Officer, the dispute has been referred to this Court.
The petitioner is illiterate person, and he did not
know the contents of the letters in which he affixed
his signatures. So, the respondent management may
be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full
backwages and continuity of service and other
attendant benefits.
3. Despite several adjournments, no counter was
filed on behalf of the respondent since the respondent
remained ex parte.
4. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner U. Ravi
himself has been examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5
were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner has to be reinstated in the
respondent management with backwages, continuity of
service and other attendant benefits as prayed for?
6. On this point:-
Heard learned Counsel on record for the petitioner
and perused oral testimony of PW.1 and documentary
evidence, namely, Ex.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is the ID Card
pertaining to the petitioner issued by the respondent
management. The designation as of the petitioner and
his date of joining duty is 1-4-2001 are mentioned in
Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the letter submitted by the petitioner to
the respondent management requesting to reinstate him
and claimed pay for the period of non-employment. The
respondent
management
has
submitted
Ex.P3
representation along with copy of the resignation letter,
relieving order, EPF claim Form, and the bank account
details of the petitioner to show that the petitioner had
already resigned his job. It is specifically averred by
the respondent that the petitioner had submitted his
resignation letter and it was accepted and relieved with
effect from 4-1-2006, and consequently relieving order
was issued. The petitioner had submitted Employees’
provident fund claim Forms, and received the amounts
and submitted requisition for gratuity payment. As the
petitioner did not complete five years continuous
service, he was not entitled to claim gratuity.
7.
The petitioner has raised the industrial dispute
by submitting Ex.P4 representation. The respondent
management filed reply, dated 26-10-2012 by mentioning
that due to personal reasons the petitioner resigned his
job on 4-1-2006 and he was relieved with effect from 4-1-2006.
The petitioner after voluntarily resigning employment,
submitted his provident fund claim Form 19 and 10(c),
wherein, he had mentioned his date of joining as 1-4-2001
and date of relieving as 4-1-2006, and the reasons for
his separation from employment as resigned from
service. The management processed his claim Form and
the EPF amount was settled through remittance to the
bank account S.B. A/c.No.79855 of the petitioner in the
Urban Co-operative Bank, Karaikal. The management
has submitted copy of resignation letter, relieving order
given by the management, copy of the EPF claim Form
and copy of letters given by the petitioner in favour of
the respondent management.
8. Despite several repeated adjournments the
respondent failed to appear before this Court and to
contest the matter to filing counter statement, So, the
respondent has been set ex parte.
9. The petitioner Thiru U. Ravi has deposed as PW.1
and in-support of his contention he was produced Ex.P1
to P5. The petitioner has contended that he joined duty
in the respondent management in the year 1999, and he
was promoted as Foreman on 1-4-2001. The petitioner
has not produced any records to show that he was not
working in the respondent management since 1999, and
thereafter, he was promoted as Foreman on 1-4-2001.
10. The respondent management has objected the
petitioners claim before the Conciliation Officer by
specifically stating that the petitioner had already
resigned by submitting resignation letter, dated 4-1-2006
and it was duly processed and approved and necessary
relieving order was issued. The copy of the resignation
letter, dated 4-1-2006 and relieving order on the same
day has been produced by the respondent and available
in the records. Further, the petitioner received his
provident fund claim by submitting necessary
application through the management and this is also
admitted by the petitioner. The respondent management
has submitted a representation, dated 6-2-2013 before
the Conciliation Officer along with relevant records
relating to the petitioner’s resignation, relieving order,
employees provident fund claim Form, etc., Further, the
petitioner was a habitual absentee without any
information and he had given several apologising letters
to the management and these facts have been
mentioned in the representation letter submitted by the
management to the Conciliation Officer. It is evident that
the petitioner had resigned his job on 4-1-2006 and he
was duly relieved on the same way. On the basis of the
claim Form submitted by the petitioner, the provident
fund amount was settled and the amounts were
deposited into his bank accounts. The petitioner admits
that he received provident fund amount. Petitioner’s
specific contention is that the management obtained his
signatures in several papers and printed Forms by fraud
346
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[17 May 2016
and as an illiterate person he could not read and
understand the contents of the letters wherein, his
signatures were obtained. Though the petitioner has
stated that he made several attempts for reinstatement
he has not produced any records to show that he was
persistently
making
representations
for
his
reinstatement.
11. According to the management, the petitioner
resigned his job with effect from 4-1-2006. The
petitioner has raised the industrial dispute by submitting
Ex.P4 representation in the year 2013. So, nearly, after
seven years, the petitioner has raised the industrial
dispute of non-employment. The petitioner has not
offered any explanation for the inordinate delay in
making representation before the Conciliation Officer.
On the other hand the respondent management has
produced copy of the resignation letter, relieving order
and other records pertaining to the petitioner before the
Conciliation Officer.
12. Though the respondent remains ex parte, the
petitioner is bound to substantiate his claim of
reinstatement and other benefits. It is clear from the
materials available on record, that the petitioner had
already resigned his job by submitting resignation letter,
dated 4-1-2006 and it was duly accepted by the
respondent management and relieved the petitioner from
service on the same day. The petitioner has received
provident fund amount by submitting necessary
application. Now, the petitioner has contended that by
playing fraud and forgery by the respondent the
resignation letter, provident fund Forms have been
manipulated by the management. The petitioner has not
stated any acceptable reasons as to why the
management manipulated and fabricate records against
him?. The petitioner who resigned job in the year 2006,
has raised the industrial dispute in the year 2013 by
stating that the management has fabricated records to
show as if he resigned from service. The petitioner
miserably failed to establish that his signature found
in resignation letter, provident fund Form and other
apology letters have been forged by the respondent
management. The respondent management after
carefully considering the resignation letter of the
petitioner accepted the same and relieved him from
service with effect from 4-1-2006. Thereafter, petitioner’s
provident fund claim has been processed and the
amount has been credited in this account. The petitioner
belatedly approached the Conciliation Officer in the
year 2013 seeking reinstatement by stating that the
respondent management manipulated and fabricated the
same records. The petitioner’s contention cannot be
accepted since there is no proof for the same. Hence,
I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to claim
reinstatement and accordingly, this industrial dispute is
liable to be dismissed.
13.
In the result, this industrial dispute is
dismissed. The respondent is directed to disburse
gratuity amount to the petitioner within one month.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
29th day of March, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 27-2-2015
— U. Ravi (Petitioner)
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the petitioner’s identity card
issued by the respondent. (Photocopy)
Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter raising industrial dispute
before theLabour Officer (Conciliation),
Labour Department, Karaikal, dated
8-10-2012. (Photocopy)
EX.P3 — Copy of the letter issued by the
respondent Management to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Karaikal, dated 6-2-2013. (Photocopy)
EX.P4— Copy
of
the
letter
issued
by
the petitioner to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation),Labour Department,
Karaikal, dated 6-5-2013. (Photocopy)
EX.P5— Copy of the failure report of Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Karaikal, dated 30-9-2013. (Photocopy)
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
347
17 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 29/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 6th May 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 28/2014,
dated 18-3-2016 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Vinayaga Missions Medical College
and Hospital, Karaikal and its worker Thiru K. Prakash
over reinstatement with backwages 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.
Friday, the 18th day of March 2016
I.D. (L) No. 28/2014
K. Prakash,
S/o. Krishnamoorthy,
Hindu, aged about 37 years,
No.29, Mariamman Koil Street,
Periyapet, Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Vinayaka Missions Medical
College and Hospital,
Karaikal.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 4-3-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,
representative for the petitioner, Tvl. R. llancheliyan
and R. Thilagavathi, 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 as per the
G.O. Rt. No. 36/ AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 6-3-2014 for
adjudicating the following:-
1. Whether the dispute raised by Thiru. K. Prakash
against the management of M/s.Vinayaga Missions
Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal over
reinstatement with backwages is justified?
2. If justified, to 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 averments made in the claim statement are
briefly stated as follows:-
2(i) In the year 1998, the petitioner was appointed
in the respondent management, namely, M/s. Vinayaka
Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal.
On 06-05-2002, the petitioner was made as permanent
worker (Attender) in Animal Husbandry Department
with monthly salary of ` 3,000. On 26-12-2004 huge
waves of Tsunami entered into the respondent
hospital and the petitioner suffered a lot. The
petitioner lost his bi-cycle in the Tsunami, and his
health condition was also affected. As petitioners
health condition was deteriorating he sent a letter
on 31-1-2005 and applied for leave. Thereafter, the
petitioner sent a leave letter through his mother but,
the respondent management refused to receive the
same. During the course of his treatment the petitioner
persistently contacted his supervisor over phone and
informed his health condition and sought for medical
leave. After recovery, the petitioner went to work on
19-7-2005, but, the respondent management did not
allot any work to the petitioner. As the respondent
management was not willing to reinstate the
petitioner, he raised an industrial dispute on 15-7-2013
before the Conciliation Officer. The respondent
management submitted his objections, dated 24-9-2013
by stating that as the petitioner was absent without
prior intimation till 31-1-2005, a show cause notice,
dated 15-2-2005 was sent to him, and it was returned
as refused. As there was no response from the
petitioner his service was terminated with effect from
1-5-2005, and due intimation, in this regard was sent
to him, but it was also returned with endorsement as
refused. No settlement was arrived at before the
Conciliation Officer, so, the dispute has been referred
to this Court for adjudication.
2(ii) The respondent management without conducting
any
enquiry
has
dismissed
the
petitioner.
The conduct of the respondent is dismissing in the
petitioner is against natural justice and also amounts
348
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[17 May 2016
to victimisation and unfair labour practice. So, the
petitioner prays for reinstatement with full backwages
with continuity of service and other attendant
benefits.
3. The averments made in the counter are briefly
stated as follows:-
3(i) The petitioner worked as a Attender and he
was in the habit of habitual absenteeism.
The respondent gave several opportunities to correct
himself but, the petitioner has failed to mend his ways
and he was unauthorisedly absent from 31-1-2005
onwards. The petitioner was absent without
submitting necessary leave application or any prior
intimation. So, a show cause notice, dated 15-2-2005
was sent him by registered post and it was returned,
on 26-2-2005 with endorsement as refused. As the
petitioner has neither reported for work nor submitted
any reply to the letter sent to him, it was presumed
that he did not have any reason to inform to the
management for his continuous absence. Therefore,
his services were terminated with effect from 1-5-2005.
The petitioner was duly informed regarding his
termination by an order, dated 2-5-2005 by registered
post, and this letter has also been returned as
‘refused’.
3(ii) The petitioner having remained silent for
more than six years has now raised the industrial
dispute alleging that the respondent management
prevented him for attending duty. The case of the
petitioner is purely voluntary absenteeism of duties
and will not come within the parameter of refusal of
employment or non-employment. The petitioner is not
entitled for re-employment for backwages and other
pecuniary benefits. The petition is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner Thiru K. Prakash
(petitioner) has deposed as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to P8 were
marked. On the side of the respondent no oral or
documentary evidence was adduced.
5. The point for consideration:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek
reinstatement with backwages and other pecuniary
benefits as prayed for?
6. On this point:
According to petitioner he was appointed as a
labourer in the respondent management, namely,
Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital,
Karaikal, in the year 1998. After successfully completing
probationary period, he was posted as a permanent
worker as a Sub-Staff in Grade JM-I as per the order of
the respondent, dated 5-6-2002 issued by the
respondent. The copy of the order is produced as Ex.P1
and it is seen from the order that the petitioner has
successfully completed his probationary period and his
service was confirmed as a Sub-Staff in the respondent
management. The terms and conditions of employment
are enclosed with Ex.P1 letter. The respondent hospital
was affected by the Tsunami floods and the petitioner
lost his bicycle. So, the petitioner has submitted Ex.P2
letter stating that he lost his bicycle in the floods, and
sought for necessary assistance. The management has
considered request and the petitioner and allotted
bicycle to him as seen from the endorsement made on
Ex.P2 letter.
7. The petitioner while deposing as PW.1 has stated
that after Tsunami his health condition was affected
badly and he could not attend work, so, he informed his
supervisor over phone and sought for leave. Ex.P3
series is the medical certificates for extension of leave
for different spells. The petitioner has sent Ex.P8 letter,
dated 17-9-2005 stating that he was fit to join duty, and
be permitted to continue his work.
8. The respondent management did not consider the
request of petitioner nor permitted him to join duty.
So, the petitioner has submitted Ex.P4 representation,
dated 15-7-2013 before the Conciliation Officer raising
the industrial dispute over his non-employment.
The respondent has submitted Ex.P5 objections stating
that the petitioner was continuasly absent since 31-1-2005
and as the petitioner did not approach the respondent
management to join duty, his services were terminated
with effect from 1-5-2005. As the respondent
management was reluctant to reinstate the petitioner, no
settlement was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer
and Ex.P6 Failure Report, dated 17-12-2013 was sent to
the Government and consequently, reference has been
made to this Court for adjudicating the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner. The copy of the reference,
dated 6-3-2014 has been produced as Ex.P7.
9. During when the matter was posted for
cross-examination PW.1 by the respondent management,
the representative of the petitioner submitted that
without insisting for backwages and continuity of
service and other pecuniary benefits, reinstatement of
petitioner may be considered sympathetically.
The learned counsel representing the respondent
management, after receiving instructions from the
respondent, informed the Court that the petitioner can
be reinstated without backwages or any other benefits.
10. The petitioner has contended that on medical
grounds only he availed leave for many spells
continuously and immediately after recovery he
approached the respondent management and sought
349
17 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
permission to join duty, but, the respondent management
declined to allot work to him. There is no proof to hold
that the petitioner duly informed his health condition
to the respondent management and sought for leave on
medical grounds. The notice and the termination order
sent to the petitioner have been returned to the
management with endorsement as 'refused'. So, the
respondent has no other option except to terminate
services of the petitioner, since he was unauthorisedly
absent for several months together.
11. The petitioner without contesting the matter on
merits has submitted that he may be reinstated without
backwages and other benefits claimed by him. The
respondent management is ready to reinstate the
petitioner but, without backwages, continuity of service
and other pecuniary benefits claimed by the petitioner.
So, considering the plea in the light of the documentary
evidence produced and also as conceded by the
respondent, and on the principle of no work no pay.
I hold the reinstatement of the petitioner alone has to
be ordered.
12. In the result, this industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the respondent management is directed to
reinstate the petitioner within a period of one month,
from the date of this order and the petitioner is not
entitled for the benefits of backwages, continuity of
service, and other pecuniary benefits.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 18th day of March, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 27-2-2015 — K. Prakash (Petitioner)
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the Appointment
Order of
K. Prakash, dated 5-6-2002 (Photocopy).
Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner
to the respondent management and sought
for necessar assistance, dated 18-1-2005
(Photocopy).
Ex.P3 — Copy of the Medical Certificate for leave in
Form-4 of the Petitioner, dated 31-5-2005,
21-5-2005, 16-7-2005 (Photocopy).
Ex.P4 — Copy of the letter raising industrial dispute
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Labour Department, Karaikal, dated 15-7-2013
(Photocopy).
Ex.P5 — Copy of the letter issued by the respondent
Management to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Labour Department, Karaikal,
dated 24-9-2013 (Photocopy).
Ex.P6 — Copy of the failure report of Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Labour Department, Karaikal,
dated 17-12-2013 (Photocopy).
Ex.P7 — Copy of the Notification under G.O. Rt.No.36/
AIL/Lab./J/2006, dated 6-3-2014 in Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 6-3-2014
(Photocopy).
Ex.P8 — Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner
to the Respondent management (He is fit
to join duty and permitted to continue his
work), dated 17-9-2005 (Photocopy).
List of respondent’s exhibits : Nil
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 30/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 16th May 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas,an Award in I.D (L) No. 42/2014, dated
18-03-2016 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital,
Karaikal and its worker Thiru B. Irudhayaraj 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).
350
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[17 May 2016
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT
AT PONDICHERRY
Present : Thiru N. SIVAKUMAR, B.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Friday, the 18th day of March 2016
I.D. (L) No. 42/2014
B. Irudhayaraj,
S/o. Balu,
Block-C2, No.2, Anbu Nagar,
Thalatheru Post,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Vinayaka Missions
Medical College and Hospital,
Keezhakasakudimedu,
Kottucherry Post, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 4-3-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,
representative for the petitioner, Tvl. R. Ilancheliyan and
R. Thilagavathi, 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 as per the
G. O. Rt. No.121/AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 19-8-2014 for
adjudicating the following:-
(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru B. Irudayaraj
against the management of M/s. Vinayaga Missions
College and Hospital, Karaikal over non-employment
is justified? If justified, what relief he is entitled to?
(2) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The averments made in the claim statement filed by
the petitioner are briefly stated as follows:-
2(i) Petitioner Thiru B. Irudhayaraj was appointed
in the respondent management M/s. Vinayaga
Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal on
monthly wages of ` 3,500 and he was posted in the
X-Ray section on 19-11-2010 when the petitioner had
gone to his house for lunch his two-wheeler got
faulted, so, he could not return to work within the
time. When the petitioner went to attend duty on the
next day the management did not allow him to work.
So, the petitioner approached the Executive Officer,
and he told that after consulting the General
Manager, he would intimate within one month. After
one month the petitioner approached the Executive
Officer but, he did not reply properly. Several
attempts made by the petitioner to get reinstatement
ended in vain. So, the petitioner has no other option
except to represent before the Conciliation Officer by
raising industrial dispute on 12-7-2013. As the
respondent management was not ready to reinstate
the petitioner, the conciliation entered in failure and
the failure on conciliation report, dated 30-7-2014
was sent to the Government. The respondent
management has illegally terminated services of the
petitioner
by
falsely
stating
that
he
was
unauthorisedly absent without any prior permission.
No show cause notice was issued to petitioner nor
any enquiry was conducted. Without following the
rules and procedure the respondent management has
dismissed the petitioner illegally and the act of the
respondent amounts to violation of natural justice,
victimisation and unfair labour practice. The
termination of petitioner is against the provision of
section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. So, the
petitioner prays for reinstatement with full
backwages, continuity of service and other attendant
benefits.
3. The averments made in the counter filed by the
respondent are briefly stated as follows:-
3(i) The petitioner was working as a casual labour
upto November 2010. Subsequently he did not report
for work for reasons best known to him. The
petitioner having kept silent for about three years has
now falsely claimed that he has been prevented from
employment.
The
respondent
never
denied
employment to the petitioner. The petitioner was
engaged only as a casual labour on daily wage basis,
and his engagement was purely on need basis. The
employer employee relationship starts when he
reports for work and ends on that day when he
completes his work. The petitioner having failed to
report for work on his own accord for more than
three years cannot claim re-employment as a matter
of right. Only due to voluntary act of the petitioner,
he has already lost his lien, and there is no
justification in the claim of the petitioner either under
the law or in fact. The petitioner is not entitled for
re-employment, backwages or any other monetary
benefits as claimed in the petition. The petition is
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner Thiru B. Irudhayaraj
(Petitioner) has deposed as PW.1 and EX.P1 to P5 were
marked. On the side of the respondent no oral or
documentary evidence was adduced.
5. The point for consideration:
Whether the petitioner has to be reinstated with
backwages, continuity of service and other monetary
benefits as claimed by him?
351
17 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
6. On this point:-
Petitioner, namely, B. Irudhayaraj was appointed
in the year 2005 as a casual labour on daily basis in
the respondent management, namely, M/s. Vinayaka
Missions Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal and
he was getting monthly wages of ` 3,500 According
to the petitioner that on 19-11-2010 during lunch
break he had gone to his house for lunch and while
returning to his two wheeler got faulted, so, he could
not report duty on that day. He has further,
contended that when he reported duty on the next
day, no work was allotted to him and the management
did not properly respond for his requests and he
was waiting for many years. As the respondent
denied employment to him, he approached the
Conciliation Officer by filing Ex.P1 representation
to consider his prayer and for re-employment. The
respondent by reply, dated 26-8-2013 has specifically
contended that the petitioner was working upto
November 2010 and thereafter, he did not report for
duty and the petitioner neither approached the
management for any employment, nor submitted any
representation for his absence and failure to report
duty. According to the respondent the petitioner
voluntarily abandoned his duty and intentionally
failed to report work. Again, the petitioner has sent
Ex.P3 representation, dated 26-9-2013 to the
Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer
considered the representation of the petitioner and
the objection raised by the respondent and finally
sent the failure on Conciliation report, dated 30-7-2014
marked as Ex.P4. In pursuance of the Conciliation
failure report, Labour Department has issued
notification in G. O. Rt. No.121/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 19-8-2014 by raising industrial dispute relating
to the petitioner and referred to this Court for
adjudication.
7. The petitioner though contended that the
management did not allot him work from 20-11-2010
he has raised the industrial dispute nearly after three
years by submitting Ex.P1 application in July 2013.
The petitioner has not produced any records to show
that he was persistently attempted to get work in the
respondent management. Further, there is no acceptable
evidence to hold that the respondent denied
employment to the petitioner.
8. During the course of trial the learned Counsel for
the respondent fairly conceded to reinstate the
petitioner as a casual worker without providing the
benefits such as backwages, continuity of service and
other monetary concessions. The petitioner has also
expressed his willingness to join duty and to carry on
work without claiming backwages, continuity of service
and other monetary benefits. The learned Counsel for
the respondent pointed out that on the principle of no
work, no pay, the petitioner is not entitled to claim
backwages. The petitioner has also agreed to join duty
without claiming backwages and other monetary
benefits. So, I hold that the respondent may be directed
to reinstate the petitioner without the benefits of
backwages, continuity of service and other monetary
benefits. Accordingly, I answer this point that the
petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement only,
without backwages, continuity of service and other
monetary benefits.
9. In the result, this industrial dispute is partly
allowed thereby, directing the respondent management
to reinstate the petitioner within a period of one month
without backwages, continuity of service and other
monetary benefits.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 18th day of March, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 27-2-2015
— B. Irudhayaraj (Petitioner)
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the letter raising industrial
dispute
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Labour Department,
Karaikal, dated 12-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter issued by the
respondent Management to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Karaikal, dated 26-8-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P3 — Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Labour Department, Karaikal, dated
26-9-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P4 — Copy of the failure report of Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Karaikal, dated 30-7-2014. (Photocopy)
Ex.P5 — Copy
of
the
Notification
under
G.O.Rt.No.121/AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated
19-8-2014
in Labour
Department,
Puducherry 19-8-2014. (Photocopy)
List of respondent’s Exhibits: Nil.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.