262
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 April 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 27/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 15th March 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I. D.(T) No. 11/2014, dated,
7-2-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute
between Larsen & Toubro Employees Union,
Puducherry against the management of Larsen &
Toubro Limited, Mailam Road, Sedarapet, Puducherry
over charter of demands 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 23-5-91, it is hereby
directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the
said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
R.DJEACOUMAR,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Tuesday, the 7th day of February 2017.
I.D. (T) No. 11/2014
The President, Larsen & Toubro
Employees Union,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Larsen & Toubro Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 18-1-2017 for
final hearing before me in the presence of Thiru Durai
Arumugam,
Counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Thiruvalargal M. Vaikunth, R. Vikneshraj and
R. Elamparudhi, Counsel for the respondent on record
and subsequently, when the case was posted for
petitioner side evidence, the respondent being called
absent and set-ex parte, upon hearing the petitioner and
perusing the case records, after having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O.
Rt. No.100/AIL/LAB/J/2014, dated 18-6-2014 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the
following dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent, viz.,
(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
Larsen & Toubro Employees Union against the
management of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited,
Mailam Road, Sedarapet, Puducherry over charter
of demands such as showing discrimination in
granting annual increment to the junior most
workers attaining grade change earlier than the
senior workers and non inclusion of statutory
holidays for granting the annual increment, grade
change, bonus, OTLS, etc., are justified ? If justified,
what relief they are entitled to ?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed ?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus:-
The
petitioner
stated
that
the
respondent
establishment is the Multi National Corporation
involved in production of construction materials at
about 70 places in all over India and about 25,000
employees are working in the respondent establishment
and that the respondent management is one of its
branches, running at Puducherry for the past many
years and involved in production of tower rods and
about 100 number of regular employees and thousand
number of contract employees are working in the
respondent management and that since the respondent
management is adopting different yard stick/grade
system in providing salary/wages to its employees, the
junior most employees are getting more increment than
senior most workers and therefore, misdeed arises to
its members and that the respondent management
should not treat the employees in equal manner and
that the respondent management on par with the
fixation of Scale of Pay to the employees and that
there is uncertainty in amend of grade and
insufficiency in calculation of continuity of service
and hence, the petitioner union prays before this Court
263
4 April 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
to direct the respondent to take down the continuity
of service, statutory holidays, cessation of work while
calculation of continuity of service.
3. Per contra, traversing the averments the claim
statement, the respondent filed the counter with the
averments which runs thus:
The respondent denied all the allegations contained
in the claim statement of the petitioner and stated that
petitioner has no “locus standi” to question the grade
system followed by the respondent management in
granting salary/wages to its employees because the
petitioner entered into 12(3) settlement with
respondent management for fixing salary/wages to its
members and the settlements was strictly obeyed by
the respondent management and providing salary/
wages, what it has been agreed in 12(3) settlement by
both parties, every month to its employees/workers not
even deducting any single pie from 12(3) settlement
and that in order to motivate the employees/workers,
who are giving more productivity, the respondent
management following performance appraisal system
and providing salary/wages in addition to salary/wages
fixed/agreed in 12(3) settlement by evaluating their
performance during relevant period and that the
respondent management treat the workers/employees
in a equal manner and that there is no discrimation and
arbitrariness in providing salary/wages as alleged by
the petitioner and hence, there is no violation of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and
there is no violation of the Doctrine of Equal pay for
equal work and that how the continuity of service of
the employees/workers would be calculated is set out
in 12(3) settlement and prays this Court to dismiss the
petition.
4. Despite of opportunity given for the respondent
for cross examination of PW.1, the respondent called
absent and no representation for respondent and he was
set ex parte.
5. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was
examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were
marked.
6. The point for determination is:
Whether the petition can be allowed or not ?
7. Heard. It is the evidence of the petitioner that the
respondent management has not treated the employees
in equal manner and that the respondent management
on par with the fixation of Scale of Pay to the
employees and that the respondent management
showing discrimination in granting annual increment to
the junior most workers attaining grade change earlier
than the senior workers and non inclusion of statutory
holidays for granting the annual increment, grade
change, bonus, OTLS, etc., In support of his evidence,
he has exhibited copy of the letter sent by the union
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry and
the respondent as Ex.P1, Copy of the failure report
submitted by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry as Ex.P2 and copy of the list of disparity
Basic Pay as Ex.P3.
8. On the other hand, though the respondent filed
counter, he does not appear before this Court and
subsequently, due to his absence, the respondent was
set ex parte. The petitioner appeared before this Court
and he was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P3. This Court carefully considered the evidence
of PW.1 and the exhibits marked through him. On
perusal of Ex.P2, failure report submitted by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry which
discloses that this dispute has been referred to this
Court to decide over the charter of demands showing
discrimination in granting annual increment to the
junior most workers attaining grade change earlier than
the senior workers and non inclusion of statutory
holidays for granting the annual increment, grade
change, bonus, OTLS, etc., are justified or not and to
compute the relief in terms of money and Ex.P3-list
of disparity Basic Pay which discloses that there is
some variation in the Basic Pay and some of the grade
IV employees get more than the Grade III employees
and that these evidences and documents would go to
show that there is discrimination in granting annual
increment to the workers and attaining grade change
earlier than the senior workers and non-inclusion of
statutory holidays for granting the annual increments,
grade change, bonus, OTLS and that therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for the order as prayed for.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
respondent is directed to granting annual increment
without any discrimination to the employees and also
directed to include statutory holidays for granting the
annual increments, grade change, bonus and OTLS.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court
on this the 07th day of February, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
264
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 April 2017
List of
petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 18-1-2017 — Kolanjinathan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the letter sent by the union
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry and the respondent,
dated 2-12-2011.
Ex.P2 — Copy of the failure report submitted
by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, dated, 18-6-2014.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the list of disparity Basic
Pay.
List of
respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits: Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 28/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 15th March 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D(L).No.29/2013, dated
27-1-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the Managing
Director, Easun-MR Tap Changers (P) Limited
Puducherry and its workman Thiru D. Rajasekar,
Puducherry 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 23-5-91, it is hereby
directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the
said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
R. DJEACOUMAR,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Friday, the 27th day of January, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 29/2013
D. Rajasekar
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Easun-MR Tap Changers (P) Limited
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 25-1-2017
for final hearing before me in the presence of
Thiru S. Venkatapathy, Counsel for the petitioner
and Tvl. P. Balamurali and C. Chandramohan, Counsels
for the respondent on record, when the case is posted
for cross examination of WW.1, the respondent being
called absent and set ex parte, upon hearing the
petitioner and perusing the case records, after having
stood over for consideration till this day, this Court
passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred as per
the G.O. Rt. No. 82/AIL/Lab./J/2013, dated 29-5-2013
for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru D. Rajasekar against the management of
M/s. Easun-MR Tap Changers (P) Limited, over his
non-employment is justified or not ? If not justified,
what relief he is entitled ?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed ?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus:-
The petitioner stated that he did Diploma in
Electrical and Electronics Engineering and joined the
service of the respondent company i.e., M/s. Easun-
MR Tap Changers (P) Limited as an employee in
Quality Control Department on 17-6-2009 and he was
not issued any orders towards his employment by the
respondent management but, he was serving his service
without any leave or remarks for the period of 3 years
and six months right from the beginning of his
employment at the service of the respondent
management and the petitioner was working in the
respondent management till, dated 31-10-2012, while
being so, the respondent management stopped the
petitioner from the service/employment on the ground
265
4 April 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
of service break for the period of 3 months in the year
2011 because of to resist the completion of the
continuous service and also assured that the
respondent management would reinstate the petitioner
after the said break period of 3 months and after the
said break of three months, the petitioner had again
joined with his employment at the respondent
management and the management in order to avert the
petitioner's continuous service again gave a service
break for a period of 15 days on 31-10-2012 and the
same has been intimated to him at about 6.30 p.m.,
while he was working in the company on the aforesaid
date and when the petitioner sought the reason for
granting leave, the manager of the company Thiru
Gurusankar had replied that due to lack of orders, the
management is in a position to retrench some of the
workers and he was also asked to find a new job by the
management.
The petitioner further stated that he was granted ESI
Card by the respondent management and he was
contributing ESI and PF and he was working directly
under the control of the respondent management and
he had been serving the respondent management at the
utmost satisfaction of the respondent management and
there is no remarks at all against the petitioner so far
and he was recruited by the respondent management
directly and further, the respondent had exercised full
control over the petitioner and the attendance register
was maintained by the respondent management and the
petitioner had worked not less than 25 days every
month and the petitioner had worked even on all
Sundays in a month and had done overtime work
monthly 15 days.
The petitioner further stated that during the
conciliation proceedings the respondent management
has alleged that the petitioner was working under their
contractors M/s. Servocraft HR solutions (P) Limited
and engaged for supporting services during the period
from June, 2010 to September, 2012 and further, the
management belied that the petitioner had been
irregular to duty, frequent absenteeism in spite of
verbal warnings given to him and owing to the same he
was sacked but, the management later in the
conciliation proceedings reported that they are ready
to provide employment in Chennai as there is no
vacancy in Pondicherry and the management has taken
different stand at the inspection and later they resiled
from their earlier stands and all these thing shows that
the management has indulged in an unfair labour
practice as against the petitioner and there is no
contractor like Servocraft HR solutions working in the
respondent management.
The petitioner further stated that he have been
offered employment by the respondent management
directly as a regular employee after undergoing a
thorough process of selection and interview and he was
serving at the respondent management from 17-6-2009
to 31-10-2012 without any blemish or remarks at all
and he was serving at the utmost satisfaction of the
respondent management as a regular employee but, in
order to escape from the continuity of service the
respondent management purposely issued break for the
period of 15 days on 31-10-2012 and that the
petitioner had served more than 240 days in a year in
the 3 1/2 years and though without any justice or
reasons, the respondent management sue moto and
blindly terminated the petitioner from the service
which is absolutely against the labour laws as well as
natural justice and therefore, the said alleged
impugned order of the respondent managements
against and violation of sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
The petitioner further stated that the petitioner had
also approached before the Labour Officer-Conciliation
at Puducherry on 24-12-2012 but, within the period
45 days there is no amicable settlement arrived and
therefore, as per the Amended Act, the petitioner is
constrained to file this petition before this Court for
adjudication and prays before this Court to pass an
order for directing the respondent management to
reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity
of service and all other attendance benefits.
3. Per contra, traversing the averments the claim
statement, the respondent filed the counter with the
averments which runs thus:
The respondent denied all the allegations contained
in the claim statement of the petitioner and stated that
while the case was in the stage of conciliation it was
found that the petitioner was working with one
M/s. Servoraft HR solutions (P) Limited RF 4 Galilei
Sqauare: No.27/11. Lakshmi Street, Alagappa Nagar,
Kilpauk, Chennai-10 (Regd. Office), a licenced contractor
working for the respondent and the respondent had any
sort of nexus with the petitioner directly and there is
no master and servant relationship in between the
respondent and the petitioner at any point of time and
that the petitioner may arise his claim with his
Employer namely M/s. Servoraft HR solutions (P)
Limited and the petitioner claim with the respondent
is not at all maintainable and the respondent is not the
proper party either in law or on facts and the
petitioner suppressed
facts and
the petitioner
employed through the contractor namely M/s. Servoraft
HR solutions (P) Limited and there was no relationship
of employer and employee with the workers employed
266
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 April 2017
through contractor and the petitioner being on them,
there was no question of termination of his services
and the petitioner has failed to produce any document
to establish the relationship of master and servant, and
the burden of proof of the same with the petitioner and
the petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in
loading work in the quality control Department, the
work of loading and unloading was also being carried
out by the contractor and the petitioner was employed
through contractor for loading and unloading of
materials was being done by the petitioner in the
respondent establishment was enstrusted to the
petitioner through contractor and the petitioner has
received the salary from the contractor and the labour
supplied by the contractor will work under directions,
supervision and control of the respondent but would
not make the petitioner a direct employee of the
respondent, if, the salary is paid by a contractor against
the attendance maintained by the contractor, if, the
right to regulate the employment is with the contractor
and the ultimate supervision and control with the
contractor and the petitioner has not eligible to claim
anything from the respondent and that the attendance
register of the petitioner maintained by the contractor,
the work which was being done by the petitioner in the
respondent establishment was carried out through
contractor engaged by the establishment and that the
petitioner mere sent an application for claim without
produce any documents in supporting of his claim and
the petitioner was employed through contractor and not
in direct employee of the respondent establishment
and that the petitioner has not come with clean hand
and the claim of the petitioner against the respondent
is liable to dismiss and the name of the contractor who
was engaged by the respondent is the employer and
prays this Court to dismiss the petition.
4. On cross examination of WW.1, the respondent
called absent and no representation was given on behalf
of respondent, hence, set ex parte.
5. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner
examined himself as WW.1 and marked Ex.W1 to
Ex.W5.
6. The point for determination is:
Whether the petition can be allowed or not ?
7. Heard. It is the evidence of the petitioner that he
joined service in the respondent company on
17-6-2009 as an employes in Quality Control
Department and was working there for the period of
three years and six months without any remarks from
17-6-2009 to till date 31-10-2012. Without giving
any notice, the respondent management stopped him
from service and asked him to go on leave for 3
months in the year 2011 and after the said break of
three months, he had again joined with his employment
at the respondent management and in order to avert his
continuous service, the respondent management again
gave him a service break of 15 days on 31-10-2012 and
that he has got ESI Card and was contributing ESI and
PF and he was working directly under the control of
the management and had been in service to the utmost
satisfaction of the respondent management and there is
no remarks at all against him and that he was recruited
by the respondent management directly and that they
had exercised full control over him and that attendance
register was maintained by the respondent management
and to escape from the continuity of service, the
respondent management purposely issued break and
that he served more than 240 days in year in the 3 1/2
years with continuous employment and that therefore
the respondent management sue motto and blindly
terminated him from the service against the labour laws
and as well as natural justice.
8. In support of his evidence he has exhibited copy
of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry dated 24-12-2012
as Ex.Wl copy of the Notice of Enquiry, dated 28-1-
2013 as Ex.W2, copy of the Notice of Enquiry,
dated 13-2-2013 as Ex.W3, copy of the report given by
Labour Officer to the Secretary to Government
(Labour), Puducherry as Ex.W4 and copy of failure
report submitted by the Labour officer (Conciliation)
to the Secretary to Government (Labour), Puducherry
as Ex.W5. These documents would go to show that the
petitioner has served in the respondent management
under the control of the respondent and the respondent
has paid the salary to him and he was under the direct
control of the respondent. On the other hand, though
the respondent has filed the agitation stating that the
petitioner was working with one M/s. Servoraft HR
solutions (P) Limited RF 4 Galilei Square, No.27/11,
Lakshmi Street, Alagappa Nagar, Kilpauk, Chennai-10
(Regd. Office), a licensed contractor working for the
respondent and that the respondent had any sort of
nexus with the petitioner directly and that there is no
Master and Servant relationship in between the
respondent and the petitioner at any point of time.
However, the respondent has not let in any evidence or
produced any document to show that M/s. Servoraft
HR solutions (P) Limited is the employer of the
petitioner.
267
4 April 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
9. Hence, from the oral and documentary evidence
of the petitioner, it is clearly established by the
petitioner that he was working with the respondent
management for the period from in 17-6-2009 to
31-10-2012 with continuity of service and he was
terminated without any proper notice under the 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act for retrenchment of the
workmen. Without adopting any procedure, orally
instructed the petitioner to stop his work and as such
it can be held that the termination of the petitioner by
the respondent is invalid and illegal and the same is
liable to be set aside. As this Court has already held
that the termination of the petitioner is invalid and
illegal and the same is liable to be set aside, it is to be
seen that whether the petitioner is entitled for the
relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and
back wages. The petitioner was found as workman and
his work is an essential and therefore, the petitioner
has to be given reinstatement. Hence, it can be held
that the petitioner is entitled for an order of
reinstatement with continuity of service.
10. In this case nothing is pleaded by the
petitioners/claimants that they have not joined or
worked in any other establishment or they did not have
any income for their survival and that therefore,
petitioner is not entitled for full back wages. However
considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court finds that the petitioner was illegally
terminated from his service by the respondent all of a
sudden without giving any notice and hence he has
approached before the Labour Conciliation Officer and
subsequently before this Court for challenging the
termination by the respondent. On the other hand, the
respondent has not proved that the petitioner has
earned income after his termination from service. In
the above circumstances, this Court does not find any
reasonable cause to grant full back wages to the
petitioner and consequently, considering the other
circumstances in this case, this Court is inclined to
grant partial back wages of 30% to the petitioner till
his reinstatement. Accordingly, this point is answered.
11. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement with
continuity of service and 30% of back wages till his
reinstatement.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on
this the 27th day of January, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
List of petitioners witness:
P.W.1—5-2-2016- D. Rajasekar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.W1— Copy of the letter submitted by the
petitioner to
the
Labour Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry,
dated
24-12-2012.
Ex.W2—Copy of the Notice of Enquiry, dated
28-1-2013
Ex.W3—Copy of the Notice of Enquiry, dated
13-2-2013
Ex.W4—Copy of the report given by Labour
Officer to the Secretary to Government
(Labour), Puducherry.
Ex.W5—Copy of the failure report submitted by
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to the
Secretary to Government (Labour),
Puducherry, dated 29-5-2013.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respomndent’s exhibits : Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 29/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated
15th March 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(L)No.28/2015, dated
30-1-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between Thiru N. Narayanasamy,
Puducherry against the management of M/s. Poorvika
Mobile World, Puducherry over non-employment has
been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by Secretary to Government (Labour),
that the said Award shall be published in the Official
Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
R. DJEACOUMAR,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
268
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 April 2017
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Monday, the 30th day of January 2017
I.D. (L) No. 28/2015
Narayanasamy,
. . Petitioner
S/o. Nagappan
Versus
Poorvika Mobiles World Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 12-1-2017 for
final h e a r i n g b e f o r e m e i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f
Thiru L. Rajendiran, Counsel for the petitioner
and Thiru K. Kodeeswaran, Counsel for the respondent
on record and subsequently, the respondent being
called absent and set ex parte, upon hearing the
petitioner and perusing the case records, after having
stood over for consideration till this day, this Court
passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred as per
the G.O. Rt. No. 52/ AIL/Lab./J /2015, dated 18-6-2015
for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised Thiru N. Narayanasamy
against the management of M/s. Poorvika Mobile,
World, Puducherry over his non-employment is
justified ? If justified, what relief he is entitled to ?
(ii) Whether the claim of the petitioner for
the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by
him for his treatment at PIMS, since he met with
an accident during the course of employment and
his claim of disablement compensation as per the
Act, justified ? If justified, what relief he is entitled
to ?
(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus:-
The petitioner stated that he was working under the
respondent management i.e., Poorvika Mobiles World
Limited, at No. 181, Anna Salai, Puducherry from
24-7-2010 and as per instruction of the respondent
management, the petitioner and along with his another
employee attended the advertisement work at
Marakanam and after completing the work, while
returning to Puducherry at Anumanthai the petitioner
met with a road traffic accident during the course of
employment on 16-6-2013 at about 2.00 p.m. and
sustained serious spinal injury.
The petitioner further stated that immediately after
the accident,
the
petitioner's
family members
contacted the respondent management and the
management promised for the medical expenses and
also assured to provide employment to the petitioner
and also assured for the reimbursement of the medical
expenses and asked the petitioner's father to admit the
petitioner at the private hospital and hence, his family
members admitted him at the PIMS Hospital for
treatment and undergone surgery as inpatient for more
than 15 days and after surgery he was bedridden and
took treatment as outpatient for nearly more than 4
months and his family members spent several lakhs of
Rupees for his medical treatment.
The petitioner further stated that he approached the
respondent management to provide employment after
the medical checkup and as the Doctors certified him
fitness to perform his duty, the management not
allowed him to enter the mobile shop and also refused
to provide employment and medical expenses.
The petitioner further stated that there is no E.S.I
coverage and the accident was occurred only during the
office hours and the management registered in the
E.S.I only in the month of February 2014 and only in
the month of February, the petitioner submitted his
family photo and the E.S.I temporary Identity
Certificate provided only on 21-3-2014. Hence, the
petitioner firmly stood on his hand that there is no
E.S.I coverage at the time of accident and therefore,
he has no right to benefit under E.S.I Act and medical
treatment.
The petitioner further stated that he was employed
in the respondent management from the beginning of
the establishment and he rendered his service
sincerely, honestly and up to the satisfaction of the
management and dedicated his service for the growth
of the management and further, he sustained the
employment, injury only at the time of advertisement
work at Marakanam and therefore, the petitioner
requested to provide employment with all legal
benefits and also to provide medical expenses
incurred by his family
member at PIMS Hospital
and also disable compensation as applicable under the
Act. The petitioner denied the benefits from the E.S.I.,
because the respondent management not paid their
269
4 April 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
contribution properly to the E.S.I., therefore, at the
time of accident there is no coverage under the E.S.I.,
medical benefit under the said Act.
The petitioner further stated that the management
eventhough assured to provide the employment during
hospitalization of the petitioner and refused to provide
employment when he approached for employment and
compensation, therefore, he raised an industrial
dispute before the
Labour
Officer, Conciliation,
Puducherry vide representation, dated 13-3-2014 and
11-7-2014 and during the conciliation there is no
representation from the respondent management
inspite of repeated enquiry notices. As there is no
cooperation on the part of the management, hence, the
conciliation proceedings are ended in failure and the
matter was referred to this
Court for proper
adjudication. Hence, the petitioner prays before this
Court to pass an order to direct the respondent
management to reinstate the petitioner with full back
wages, continuity of service and all other attendance
benefits and to direct the respondent management to
pay the medical expenses and lose of income during
the treatment time for a sum of `5,00,000 and to award
the cost of this petition.
3. Though the Counsel for the respondent filed
Vakalat, despite several opportunities, no counter was
filed on behalf of the respondent since the respondent
remained ex parte.
4. In the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself
examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the petition can be allowed? or not?
6. Heard. It is the evidence of the petitioner that
he was working in the respondent establishment from
24-4-2010 and in the course of employment, while on
the return to Puducherry from Marakanam, after
completing the advertisement work, he met with a road
accident at Anumanthai on 16-6-2013 at 2.00 p.m., and
sustained serious spinal injuries and the petitioner was
admitted at the private PIMS Hospital and that the
respondent management promised to pay medical
expenses and also assured to provide employment and
that he has undergone surgery as inpatient for more
than 15 days and after surgery he was bedridden and
taking treatment as outpatient nearly for more than 4
months, since there is no E.S.I., coverage at the time
of accident, he was taken treatment at private PIMS
Hospital and spent several lakhs of rupees for his
medical expenses and after that while he approached
the respondent management to provide employment
after that Doctors certified him as fit to perform his
duty but, the respondent not allowed him to enter the
mobile shop and refused to pay the medical expenses
and the respondent management refused to provide
employment with all legal benefits and also to provide
medical expenses incurred by his family members and
also refused to pay the compensation for the
disablement under the Act and that the injury was
sustained during the course of employment from the
accident and that therefore, he approached the Labour
Officer
to
raise
the
industrial
dispute
vide
representation, dated 13-3-2014 and 14-7-2014 and
during the course of conciliation there is no
representation
was
made
by
the
respondent
management and that therefore, the conciliation
proceedings was ended in failure and the case was
referred to this Court for proper adjudication.
7. In support of his case, the petitioner PW.1
exhibited Conciliation Failure Report as Ex.P1,
Reference letter as Ex.P2, Discharge summary issued
by PIMS Hospital as Ex.P3, Payment voucher issued
by respondent as Ex.P4, E.S.I., Temporary Identity
Certificate as Ex.P5, Appointment letter issued by
respondent as Ex.P6, PIMS Hospital medical records
on various dates as Ex.P7, PIMS Hospital medical bills
on various dates as Ex.P8, Identity Card issued by
respondent as Ex.P9. These documents would go to
show that the petitioner was working in the respondent
concern and he met with an accident and was taken
treatment on PIMS Hospital, since the respondent has
not provide employment, he approached the Labour
Officer for conciliation and on failure, the case was
referred to this Court for disposal.
8. On the other hand, though the respondent Counsel
filed Vakalat for respondent, he does not file any
counter and subsequently due to his absence, the
respondent was set ex parte. From the ex parte
evidence, the petitioner has established his case that
he was working in the respondent concern and he met
with an accident and was taken treatment on PIMS
Hospital, since the respondent has not provide
employment, he approached the Labour Officer for
conciliation and hence, he is entitled for the Award as
prayed for with costs.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with
full back wages, continuity of service and all other
benefits and also directed the respondent to pay the
medical expenses of `5,00,000 as claimed by the
petitioner with costs.
270
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 April 2017
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on
this the 30th day January, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner's witness:
P.W.1— 12-1-2017 Narayanasamy
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Conciliation Failure Report, dated
5-12-2014.
Ex.P2 — Referrence letter, dated 18-6-2015.
Ex.P3 — Discharge summary issued by PIMS
hospital, dated 24-6-2013.
Ex.P4 — Payment
voucher
issued
by
respondent, dated 4-1-2014.
Ex.P5 — ESI Temporary Identity Certificate,
dated 31-3-2014.
Ex.P6 — Appointment
letter
issued
by
respondent, dated 23-7-2010.
Ex.P7 — PIMS Hospital medical records on
various dates.
Ex.P8 — PIMS Hospital medical bills on
various dates.
Ex.P9 — ldentity Card issued by respondent
List of respondent’s witnesses:Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (HEALTH)
(G.O. Ms. No. 14, Puducherry, dated 13th March 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
was made and entered into at Puducherry on the
13th day of March, 2017 by and between the
President of India, represented by Dr. K.V. Raman,
son of Khareedhi Venkatesaiah, Director of Health and
Family Welfare Services, Government of Puducherry
and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW),
Government of India.
2. And whereas, a capacity building project for
Trauma Care facilities in Indira Gandhi Government
General
Hospital
and
Postgraduate
Institute,
Puducherry (IGGGH & PGI) has been established as
per the approval given in the 6th Meeting of the
Screening Committee for Trauma with Burn Scheme.
3. And whereas, necessary MoU has been entered
into between the Government of India and Government
of Puducherry and therefore, in order to implement the
Capacity Building Project for Trauma Care facilities,
a Monitoring Committee has been set up with the
following composition:
1. Secretary to Government (Health), . . Chairman
Puducherry
2. Director of Health and Family
. . Member
Welfare Services, Puducherry
3. The RD, Health and Family Welfare, . . Member
Directorate of G.H.S.(representative
from the Government of India)
4. Medical Superintendent,
. . Member
IGGGH & PGI, Puducherry
5. Executive Engineer (Buildings),
. . Member
P.W.D., Puducherry
6. The Resident Medical Officer,
. . Member-
IGGGH & PGI, Puducherry
Secretary.
4. And whereas, the implementation of the progress
of the scheme shall be reviewed at the Union territory
of Puducherry level on a quarterly basis. For this
purpose, the above constituted Monitoring Commitee
set up by the Union territory of Puducherry will
supervise the above Scheme.
5. And whereas, the other terms and conditions of
the Scheme has been elaborately mentioned in the
MoU.
6. And whereas, quarterly progress report (physical
and financial) will be submitted as per the guidelines.
7. And whereas, Directorate-General of Health
Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, will
also review the progress of implementation of the
project from time to time at its own level.
8. Now, therefore, the Lieutenant-Governor of
Puducherry, is pleased to approve the constitution of
the Monitoring Committee under the capacity building
for Trauma Care facilities in IGGGH & PGI, Puducherry
and to implement the same as per MoU signed between
Government of India and Government of Puducherry.
9. This issues with the concurrence of the
Finance Department vide I.D. No. 3204/PRO/F4/A1/16,
dated 11-3-2017.
(By Order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
V. JEEVA,
Under Secretary to Government (Health).