La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 15-00
Prix : ` 15-00
Price :
` 15-00
2017 }
|
18 {
No.
16
Poudouchéry
Mardi
18
Avril
2017 (28 Chaitra 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
18th
April
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 312
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 312
Award of the Labour Court .. 312
de tribunal.
.. 314
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 314
Government Notifications .. 314
.. 327
Etablissements dangereux
.. 327
Dangerous Establishments
.. 327
.. 328
Annonces
.. 328
Announcements
.. 328
[ 311 ]
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India under
No. 10410
Registered No. SSP/PY/44/2015-17
WPP No. TN/PMG(CCR)/WPP-88/2015-17
Dated : 18-4-2017
Price : ` 15-00
312
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 April 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 41/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 6th April 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(L)No. 3/2014, dated
24-2-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between Thiru S. Madhiazhagan,
Karaikal against the management of M/s. Alpha Facility
Services Private Limited, Chennai and Marg Karaikal
Port Private Limited,, Karaikal 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,
Labour Commissioner-cum-
Additional 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 24th day of February, 2017
I.D.(L) No. 3/2014
S. Madhiazhagan,
S/o. Sambandam,
No. 15, Pallivasal Street,
Kheezhavanjoor,
Karaikal
. . Petitioner/
Workman
Vs.
1. M/s. Alpha Facility Services Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Anjali Towers, Nos. 392 and 393,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kottivakkam,
Chennai-600 041.
2. The Marg Karaikal Port Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kheezhavanjoor Village,
T.R. Pattinam,
P.B. No. 33, Karaikal-609 606.
. . Respondent/
Management.
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
o r hea rin g in th e p r ese nce o f T hir uva larg al
P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,
Counsels for the petitioner, Thiru S. Karthikeyan,
Counsels for the 1st respondent, Thiruvalargal K. Babu
and C. Arivajagane, Counsels for the 2nd respondent,
upon perusing the case records, 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. l84/AIL/Lab./J/2013, dated 27-12-2013 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
over reinstatement with backwages against the
management of M/s. Alpha Facility Services Private
Limited, Chennai and Marg Karaikal Port Private
Limited, Karaikal is justified or not ?
(ii) 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 petitioner in his claim statement has stated
as follows :
The respondents appointed the petitioner in the
Marg Karaikal Port on 1-2-2010 as a workman on
a monthly salary of ` 5,982 and he was regularized
on permanent basis in the year 2010 and while he
was working as Diesel Pump House Operator, he was
threatened by the respondents to vacate the shop
owned by his wife outside the company premises
and due to the same, the respondent requested his
wife to do so but his wife did not pay any heed to
his request and as a result he was thrown out of his
job on 13-7-2012 without any prior notice or valid
reason and hence, the petitioner raised a dispute
before the Labour Officer, Karaikal on 27-7-2012
prayed for reinstatement in his service with
backwage and continuity of service and all other
attendant benefits and during the course of
conciliation
the
respondent
offered
fresh
employment without backwages and continuity of
313
18 April 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
service. The petitioner demanded-reinstatement
with backwage, continuity of service which was not
conceded by the respondent hence, the conciliation
ended in failure and that the termination of
petitioner's service is arbitrary, illegal and against
the principles of natural justice, violation of model
standing order and it is a clear case of victimization
and it is an act of unfair labour practice committed
by the respondent against the petitioner and further,
the termination of petitioner's service is contravention
of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and
the petitioner has not been gainfully employed in
any establishment since he was illegally terminated
from service and hence the petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement with continuity of service with full
backwage and all other attendant benefits.
3. The 1st respondent in the counter has stated as
follows :
The 1st respondent denied all the averments and
allegations made in the claim statement as false and
concocted except those that are specifically
admitted in the counter filed by 1st respondent. The
petitioner was previously/originally employed by
one of the erstwhile man power contractor of the
second respondent namely M/s. Heiligen (Worldwide)
Services Limited and the petitioner was deployed by
the said M/s. Heiligen (Worldwide) Services Limited
to work at the second respondent's site and that
when they had taken the undertaking of the said
M/s. Heiligen (Worldwide) Services Limited, the
1st respondent herein absorbed the petitioner herein
as its employee with the continuity of service and
put him in the same designation as “Diesel Pump
Operator” in February, 2012 and that the petitioner
also accepted the job on the terms and conditions
referred to in the respective letter, dated 1-2-2012
and continued to work under this 1st respondent till
12-7-2012 and as such the petitioner never had the
employer-employee relationship with the second
respondent at any point of time and that the
petitioner’s employment with regard to his service
conditions were only under the control of the 1st
respondent and not the 2nd respondent and that the
petitioner was not thrown out of his job by this
respondent at any point of time much less on and
from 13-7-2012 and that the petitioner had run a
shop in the Port premises of the 2nd respondent
without any licence or any permission to run the
said shop besides his employment under the 1st
respondent in the Port and the said fact was
informed by
the 2nd respondent to the 1st
respondent to take necessary action and that on
receipt of the said information the 1st respondent
had caused a letter to the petitioner legally on
12-7-2012 directing to vacate the said shop run by
the petitioner since running of the shop at the place
by the petitioner is not as per law and further it is
an act of double employment and that the 1st
respondent never threatened the petitioner for
anything and also not thrown out the petitioner from
employment and that the petitioner alone did not
turn for duty at the site on and from 13-7-2012
onwards and also not submitted any explanation
towards the same to the 1st respondent and that the
petitioner had also not replied to its letter, dated
12-7-2012 and that in such background only the
petitioner has with ulterior motive resorted to
raise a wrong dispute before the Conciliation Forum
alleging that he was thrown out of job and these
were came to the knowledge of the 1st respondent
on receipt of the notice from the Conciliation
Officer and that there is no truth in the dispute
raised by the petitioner before the Conciliation
Forum and that it is a clear attempt of blackmailing
the respondents by covering up of the petitioner's
illegal running shop at the Port premises and that
of his double employment and that the petitioner
who has raised alleged dispute of non-employment
and seeking re-instatement with backwages, himself
had declined to resume for duty and demanded for
settlement up to his retirement age before the
conciliation proceedings and that the said act of the
petitioner certainly reveals his ulterior motive and
that the petitioner is gainfully employed by running
a shop.
4. The 2nd respondent in the counter has stated as
follows :
The 2nd respondent denied all allegations and
averments made by the petitioner in his claim
statement as false except those that are specifically
admitted in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent.
The petitioner is not a workman of/under 2nd
respondent and there does not exist any employer-
employee relationship between the petitioner and
2nd respondent and the petitioner was not employed
by 2nd respondent at any point of time and that the
petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent
and as such the petitioner has no locus standi to
raise any conciliation or industrial dispute as
314
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 April 2017
against 2nd respondent and that the petitioner is
willfully and wantonly stated that respondents
appointed him the 2nd respondent Marg Karaikal
Port on 1-2-2010 as a workman on a monthly salary
of ` 5,982 and that he was regularized on permanent
basis in the year 2010, so as to harvest illegal gain
from 2nd respondent and that the petitioner is
illegally and unauthorizedly running a shop at the
Port land outside the Port entrance gate without any
legal sanction from any of the Government authority
and that necessary steps are being taken by 2nd
respondent and that the petitioner is gainfully
employed by running a shop at the port land till date
and that the petitioner in his claim statement with
illegal and hidden motive has mentioned at all
places as “respondents” by not specifying the name
of the respondent with whom he avers and alleges
and that the petitioner concealed all the material and
relevant facts and made false and vexatious
allegations against the 2nd respondent and that the
2nd respondent had not been involved in any sort of
unfair labour practice at any point of time.
5. In the course of enquiry, no oral or documentary
evidence has been let in by either sides. Both sides
arguments heard.
6. Records perused. This reference has been made
by the Government to decide the dispute raised by the
petitioner over reinstatement with backwages against
the management of the respondents private limited
company is justified or not and for other reliefs.
However, today the memo has been filed by the
petitioner stating that there was a settlement reached
between the petitioner and the respondents under
section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
on 6-2-2017 and the copy of the settlement arrived
between the parties is also enclosed with the memo.
and that therefore, the petitioner has also stated in the
memo that he is not pressing the claim. In view of the
memo filed by the petitioner stating that the matter
was settled between the parties herein out of Court and
that not pressing the claim, the Tribunal is of the
considered view that the reference is to be closed and
accordingly the same is closed.
7. In the result, the reference is closed in view of
the memo filed by the petitioner stating that the matter
is settled out of Court and not pressing the case.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on
this the 24th day of February, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
}| {