La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 20-00
Prix : ` 20-00
Price :
` 20-00
2017 }
|
13 {
No.
24
Poudouchéry
Mardi
13
Juin
2017 (23 Jyaistha 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
13th
June
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 574
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 574
Award of the Labour Court .. 574
de tribunal.
.. 580
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 580
Government Notifications .. 580
.. 591
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 591
Tender notices
.. 591
.. 592
Annonces
.. 592
Announcements
.. 592
[ 573 ]
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 : 13-6-2017
Price : ` 20-00
574
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 June 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 73/Lab./AIL/T/2017, dated 2nd May 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(L) No. 38/2014, dated
21-3-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between
the Management of Anglo French Textiles Limited,
Puducherry and its workman Thiru A. Balachandiran
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)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-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,
Tuesday, the 21st day of March, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 38/2014
D. Balachandiran,
No. 47, Maraimali Nagar,
Velrampattu,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Anglo French Textiles,
AFT Mill Premises,
Cuddalore Road,
Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 21-3-2017 before
me for hearing in the presence of Thiru M/s. Vrintha Mohan,
Counsel for the petitioner and Thiru B. Mohandoss,
Counsel for the respondent on record, upon perusing
the case records, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred
as
per the G. O. Rt. No. 91/AIL/LAB/J/2014, dated 2-6-2014
for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether
t h e
d i s p u t e
r a i s ed
b y
Thiru A. Balachandiran against the management of
M/s Anglo French Textiles Limited, Puducherry over
non- employment is justified? If justified, what
relief, he is entitled?
(b) 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 petitioner submits that the respondent is a
Government of Puducherry undertaking company and
registered under the companies act and is represented
by its Managing Director and is a leading industry
engaged in the activity of production and export of
quality cotton textiles.
The petitioner submits that the outset that the
Chairman (A Honorary Political Posting) of the
respondent management belongs to a political party and
the petitioner belongs to a different political party and
that due to this differences of opinion and political
vendetta and ill will, the management along with the
Chairman cooked a false case and in furtherance of it
issued a false and malafide charge-sheet, dated 17-4-2013
with an immediate temporary suspension from service.
The charge-sheet accompanied with an immediate
suspension from service without even a show cause from
this petitioner would itself reflect the guilty mind of
the respondent management in its determination to
remove this petitioner from the services with the
respondent management by any unfair means. However,
this petitioner had furnished a befitting reply, dated
20-4-2013 for the charges levelled as against him by
the respondent management.
The petitioner was a permanent employee with the
respondent in the capacity of Helper (Code No. 10175 D;
T.No. GS 125) in its Waste Godown until he was
malafidely dismissed from service vide dismissal order,
dated 1-7-2013 by the respondent besides malafidely
and willfully with holding the monetary benefits and
arrears accrued upon this petitioner in consequence of
his employment with the respondent management in
glare contravention to the well established procedures
laid down by the Labour Law and the principles of
natural justice. Petitioner gave numerous representations
to the respondent and the authorities for reinstatement,
575
13 June 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
payment of gratuity, provident fund, payment of bonus
and when all his representations remained unheeded,
the petitioner ventilated his grievances with the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) and due to the adamancy of the
respondent herein the matter was thereafter notified
by the Labour Department - Government of Puducherry
vide notification G.O. Rt. No.91/AIL/LAB/J/2014,
dated 2nd June, 2014 with the following reference-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru A. Balachandiran
against the management of M/s Anglo French
Textiles Limited, Puducherry over non-employment
is justified?
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
and thereafter was referred for adjudication before
this Court.
The petitioner had legally joined the respondent's
company as a worker on 12-6-1982 until he was
dismissed on 1-7-2013 from employment malafidely
by leveling false and malicious charges by the
respondent using undue influence, coercion and threat
against the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner submits that the alleged incident, dated
16-4-2013 was itself a false and fabricated drama
staged by the respondent management and the
respondent had cleverly and meticulously roped in the
petitioner with their undue influence and conspiracy
on the contract based security staffs employed by the
respondent management. The allegations of the security
guards and that of the security officer employed under
the respondent management that the petitioner on
16-4-2013 along with some persons entered into the
respondent’s mill unauthorized and that the petitioner
forcefully took a staff by name Munusamy who was
being questioned by the said Security Officer in his
office after threatening to do away with the security
officer and other high officials of the administration
and pushed the security officer down to the ground are
all completely false and fabricated stories that never
happened. The petitioner is a reputed person due to his
good conduct and impeccable character, he was elected
as the President of Panjallai Thozilallar Congress
(RTU/723/92) and that the respondent became inimical
and vindictive with the petitioner since he has to plead
for the cause of justice of his colleagues against the
unjust and anti labour activities of the respondent and
the termination of the petitioner is only due to the
grudge against the trade union in general and this
petitioner in particular. In this context, the charge-sheet,
dated 16-04-2013 issued to one Munusamy (Code
No. 11565) - which was issued by the respondent
management at the earliest point of time would not
disclose anything about the involvement of this
petitioner in taking the said Munusamy outside the mill
premises. However, as an afterthought, improved and
colored version the respondent management had
managed to fabricate a charge sheet belatedly on 17-4-2013
that the petitioner had taken forcibly the said Munusamy
from the clutches of the security officials of the
respondent mill besides threatening the management
with dire consequences. This petitioner submit with
great respect a perusal of the improvements made in
the fictitious charge sheets issued to Munusamy
dated 16-4-2013 and the petitioner Balachandar, dated
17-4-2013 would categorically and blatantly proved that
the management had animated a false and concocted
story to oust out the petitioner by unfair and illegal means.
The petitioner further submits that as a result of the
abovesaid forged and false complaint by the contract
security officer through the coercion of the respondent,
the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, dated 17-4-2013
terminating him temporarily from employment for
which he had given a written explanation, dated 20-4-2013
wherein he had clearly explained that he had nothing to
do with the allegations thrown at him by the respondent
management and he had also clearly stated in the letter
that he is being wantonly targeted by the Chairman of
the respondent management company for no fault of
his. The petitioner was being targeted by the respondent
management and he was already once served with a
similar fictitious and malicious notice, dated 31-1-2013
for which he had given a suitable reply on 4-2-2013
stating clearly that he had done nothing as stated in the
notice.
Thereafter a namesake enquiry was held into the
matter as against the petitioner and on 21-6-2013 the
enquiry officer gave his common enquiry report in both
the alleged offences of the petitioner and another staff
namely Munusamy whom the petitioner is alleged to
have taken out from the security officer's room on 16-4-2014.
The petitioner further submits that the enquiry
conducted by the enquiry officer was only a formality
done to shew a drama for the employees and during the
so called domestic enquiry no procedures or legal
formalities or any other principle enshrined under the
labour laws or the basic principles of natural justice
were followed nor was any opportunity much less fair
opportunity was given to this petitioner nor was any
contextual explanations with regard to the domestic
576
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 June 2017
enquiry was given to him and no opportunity was even
offered to him to produce any documents or witnesses
on his side and he was not given any opportunity to
explain the real facts and circumstances of the incident
and unfortunately all the document which would
substantiate the innocence of the petitioner are in the
custody of the management and the so called dramatic
enquiry proceedings would speak volumes of the high
handed capitalism of the respondent and their integrity
and respect for laws and labour welfare and that all the
empty formalities followed by the respondent were just
mockery on the established principles of the Labour
Laws - depriving the petitioner off defending from even
bare and minimum opportunity of projecting his
bona fide case and as such great prejudice is caused to
the petitioner by the fraudulent conduct of the
respondent in not conducting the domestic enquiry as
per legal norms and principles and as such the domestic
enquiry was unilaterally concluded to suit the
respondent's whims and fancies.
The petitioner submit that a mere perusal of the
findings of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report would
patently imply to this Court that the enquiry officer had
conducted the enquiry as an empty formality and to some
how arrive at a conclusion based on surmises and
conjectures and not on any concrete evidence and that
even the witnesses of the respondent management has
not supported the management’s case during the domestic
enquiry.
The petitioner further submits that it is common
knowledge that the contract security officer employed
with the respondent management company are under the
direct supervision and pay, of the respondent
management, herein and that they are bound to dance to
the tunes of the management and bound to speak as
directed by the respondent management and their
evidences are interested evidence with falsities. The
enquiry officer never showed any inclination to listen
to this petitioner's pleas of hatred of the Chairman of
the respondent management towards this petitioner and
the Enquiry Officer failed to take into the evidence the
motive, conduct, previous enmity and prejudice of the
respondent management in general and the Chairman’s
political enmity in particular towards this petitioner and
the false allegations levelled on this petitioner on earlier
occasions and the undue influence of the respondent
management on the contractual securities employed at
the respondent management company premises to make
them dance to the tunes of the respondent. A perusal of
the enquiry report would patently evidence that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer is diametrically opposite
and self contradictory and no punishment could be based
on this mala fide and unjust enquiry report.
Based on the Enquiry Officer's enquiry report, dated
21-6-2013 the respondent management sent its second
show cause notice, dated 25-5-2013 and the petitioner
had aptly replied to the respondent management by his
letter, dated 28-6-2013 but, the respondent management
without considering the legitimate and true averments
of the petitioner by its mala fide and predetermined and
premeditative order, dated 1-7-2013 terminated the
petitioner from service devoid of any merits. In this
context, the petitioner submits that a perusal of the
termination order, dated 1-7-2013 served on this
petitioner would rely only on the so called past
antecedent records of the petitioner and would not rely
on the findings of the enquiry report and on this count
alone the termination order, dated 1-7-2013 is liable to
be set aside.
The petitioner is filing chronologically all the
available relevant documents as annexure to this claim
petition and reserves his right to file appropriate
petitions for taking inventories of documents that are
essential for proper adjudication for the fact in issue
which are in custody of the respondent.
The petitioner submits at the cost of repetition that
it is only the political enmity and vendetta between the
Chairman and this petitioner that had resulted in the
fanciful dismissal of this petition which is unjust,
unethical and illegal.
The petitioner further submits that in continuation of
the enmity of the respondent management, it had once
again lodged a false Police complaint in Crime No. 127/
2013, dated 5-9-2013 registered with the Mudaliarpet
Police Station, Pondicherry against this very petitioner
under the influence of the Chairman and the petitioner
was let out only on Bail and the same is pending enquiry.
The respondent management has not followed any of
the principles laid down by the Labour Welfare
Legislations/Model Standing Orders/the Principles of
Natural Justice in sacking out the respondent from
employment
The petitioner is aged about 54 years and has spent
all his youth, energy, know how and a major part of his
life with the respondent management's mill and he and
his family consisting of his wife, aged parents and
children are presently under going severe financial crisis
and poverty and that he was not placed with any
577
13 June 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
employment with any other concerns since he was also
fancifully thrown out with an aspersion in the dismissal
order that his past records and antecedents are improper
and at this advanced age of 54 years he could not obtain
a new employment with a different technical knowhow
right now and as such the petitioner is praying for
reinstatement with continuity of service along with back
wages and all benefits attached thereto in consideration
of the reasons as stated above.
The petitioner submits that the conduct, hasty and
biased behaviour of the respondent-management
throughout would clearly show that the management had
a preconceived mindset to ease out the petitioner from
service. The dismissal order speaks for itself for its mala
fide and prejudice against the petitioner and as such is
liable to be set aside.
The petitioner further submits that it is a well settled
principal of law that when a punishment has to be
imposed on a employee prior to applying the procedure
contemplated under the Labour Law along with the rules
and regulations laid down by the standing orders
appreciation of mitigating incriminating circumstances
has to be impeccably taken care of but, in this case the
dismissal order is disproportionate to the charges
allegedly levelled as against the petitioner. On this ground
to the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. The
extreme penalty of dismissal from service is totally
unjustified, unwarranted besides being inversely
proportional in the facts and circumstances of the alleged
charge and also disproportionate to the gravity of the
charge.
The petitioner was wrongfully terminated in violation
of both the principle of natural justice coupled with the
principles of Labour Legislation, and that this act of
respondent in illegally terminating the petitioner amounts
to unfair Labour practice besides a violation of Article 14
and 19 of the Indian Constitution and that the petitioner
is rightfully entitled to reinstatement by the respondent
company, with back wages and continuity of services and
all the benefits attached there with from 1-7-2013.
The petitioner reserves his right to file additional
documents besides letting in oral evidence with the help
of relevant witnesses to disprove the respondent's false
case and bring to light the petitioner's innocence since
all the opportunity of fair enquiry was denied by the
Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings. The
petitioner has no other alternative than to approach this
Court for remedy.
3. The respondent in his counter has stated as
follows:-
The claim made by the petitioner for directing the
respondent to set aside the order of dismissal, dated 1-7-2013
and reinstate the petitioner in his original employment
with continuity of service and other reliefs is not
maintainable in law or on facts and hence liable to be
dismissed.
The respondent admits the averment that the
petitioner became a permanent employee of the
respondent on 12-6-1982 and was working in the
capacity of helper in the waste godown until he was
terminated from his service on 1-7-2013. But, the
respondent very categorically denies the allegation that
the petitioner was malafidely dismissed from service
by the respondent.
It is true that the respondent is a Government of
Puducherry undertaking registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, is represented by its Managing Director and
is a leading industry engaged in the production and
export of quality cotton textiles. But, there is no truth
in the allegation that due to the relationship of the
petitioner and the Chairman of the respondent company
with different political parties and due to the difference
of opinion and political vendetta and ill-will the
management of respondent company along with its
chairman cooked a false case and in furtherance of it
issued a false and mala fide charge sheet, dated 17-4-2013
with an immediate temporary suspension from service.
The allegation that the charge sheet accompanied with
an immediate suspension from service without even a
show cause notice reflects the guilty mind of the
respondent lacks truth and substance. It may kindly be
noted that the charge-sheet, dated 17-4-2013 was issued to
the petitioner granting time to submit his reply to the
charges framed under the charge sheet. Accordingly,
the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 2-4-2013.
Then, what is the necessity for issuing another show
cause notice again? The charge sheet itself served the
purpose of the show cause notice and valid in law.
The petitioner has made several false and vexatious
allegations against the respondent management with the
bad motive of tarnishing the image of the respondent.
It is significant to note that the tenor of the allegation
made in the claim statement discloses that only the
petitioner has got personal animosity and political
enmity towards the chairman of the respondent
company. The respondent denies the allegations made
by the petitioner against the respondent and expects the
petitioner to prove the same.
578
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 June 2017
The respondent submits that the petitioner has made
a distorted version of facts with jaundiced eyes, to suit
his convenience. The fact remains that the petitioner
has made his claim with suppression of material facts
with a view to attract the sympathy of this Court. For
the proper appreciation of facts and circumstances
leading to the dismissal of the petitioner from service,
the respondent hereby submits the following material facts.
The respondent very earnestly submits that as
pointed out in the charge sheet, dated 17-4-2013, the
petitioner on 16-4-2013 along with some persons
entered into the respondent’s mill unauthorized (when
there was enquiry with workman Munusamy of
processing department-A unit in connection with
recovery of clothes belonging to the company from
him) and spoke loudly along with the other persons to
the security and also forcefully took away the
employee by name Munusamy who was being
questioned by the said Security Officer in his office.
It is very significant to note in the above charge-sheet
there were some other allegations of misconduct
levelled against the petitioner by the respondent. To be
specific it was alleged there on that on 16-4-2013 (a)
the petitioner after entering into the room of the mill
Security Officer threatened him and his family members
with causing death, (b) threatened the Security Officer
and his family members with causing death by fire, if
he gives complaint, and (c) intimidated the security
officer after pushing him down and uttering the
following words:- “be it Managing Director or
Chairman, tell all of them; we will only take away the
things belonging to the mill continuously like this; if
anybody asks about the same and prevents us from doing
the same we will close their lives’’. However, the above
charges were not taken into consideration while
terminating the services of the petitioner. It is on
account of the fact that in his report, dated 21-6-2013,
the learned Enquiry Officer found the above additional
charges not proved in the enquiry and the respondent
management accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer
holding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges
only framed under the charge-sheet. In such a case the
allegations leveled by the petitioner against the enquiry
officer as well as respondent management in the
conduct of the enquiry proceedings cannot be accepted
as valid one. Had the allegation of bias against the
enquiry officer been true, the learned Enquiry Officer
could have very well given a finding of guilty of the
petitioner in respect of all the charges framed against
the petitioner. Similarly, if, the allegation against the
respondent that the enquiry was conducted as an empty
formality were to be true, the respondent could have
very well rejected the Enquiry Officer's report with
reference to the finding of not guilty in respect of some
of the charges of misconduct.
The respondent submits that the entire disciplinary
proceedings starting from the issuance of the
charge-sheet as well as suspension order and ending with
the dismissal order are in accordance with law and the
principles of natural justice. As due opportunity was
granted to the petitioner to defend the charges in the
domestic enquiry and the respondent also proved the
charges through proper evidence in the enquiry, the
petitioner cannot have valid objections for the penalty
of dismissal imposed against him by the respondent.
As the charges proved against the petitioner are grave
ones, the quantum of punishment is not excessive. It is
also pertinent to note that there is no extenuating
circumstances warranting imposition of lesser punishment.
On the other hand, the past conduct of the petitioner is
not free from blemish, but with many incidents of
misconducts for which the petitioner was given
warnings and punishments. To add further, unless the
petitioner makes out a case that the finding made by
the learned Enquiry Officer is perverse one, no
interference can be made in the report. The fact remains
that the enquiry has been conducted by the learned
Enquiry Officer Thiru G. Krishnan, a Senior Advocate
of Puducherry in a fair manner.
It is further submitted that a careful perusal of the
claim statement clearly reveals that in several places
the petitioner has alleged that the main cause for the
disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent
against him is the personal animosity between him and
the chairman of the respondent company on account of
their position and relationship with different political
parties. In so far as the petitioner has made vexatious
allegations against the chairman of the respondent
company there is obligation on the part of the petitioner
to implead him as a party to the proceedings. The claim
petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal for
not impleading the chairman Thiru Balan as a party.
The respondent further submits that it is a patently
false allegation that the respondent has initiated
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by way
of victimization for the trade union activities of the
petitioner. On the other hand, it is only the petitioner
who is at fault for his unlawful acts in the guise of the
trade union activities, thus exceeding his limits.
The respondent submits that it is a Government of
Puducherry undertaking and its employees enjoy some
facilities at par with the Government servants. If, the
petitioner were to be reinstated in his original
579
13 June 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
employment, it will demoralize the several other
employees who discharge their services faithfully in
the respondent management. The petitioner has also lost
his right to respondent-employment as the respondent
has lost the confidence in the service of the petitioner.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex. P1
to Ex. P16 were marked and on the side of the
respondent RW1 was examined and exhibits R1 to R15
were marked.
5. The point for consideration is that whether the
petitioner is entiteld for the Award of reinstatement with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits and
` 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) towards compensation
for the mental agony? or not?
6. Both sides are heard. At the time of the argument
the petitioner has endorsed that he is willing to withdraw
the case by not pressing the industrial dispute. In view
of the endorsement of the petitioner that not pressing
the case, this reference is liable to be closed as not
pressed.
7. In the result, the industrial dispute is dismissed
as not pressed by the petitioner. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 21st day of March, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1—26-3-2015
A. Balachandiran
PW.2—8-12-2015
Murali
List of Respondent’s witness:
RW.1—17-3-2016
B. Pragadeeswaran
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the Photo Identity Card,
dated 12-6-1982.
Ex.P2 — Copy of the charge-sheet against the
petitioner by the respondent, dated 31-1-2013.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the explanation letter, dated
4-2-2013 by the petitioner to the
charge-sheet, dated 31-1-2013.
Ex.P4 — Copy of the charge sheet against the
petitioner by the, respondent, dated
17-4-2013.
Ex.P5 — Copy of the explanation letter, dated
20-4-2013 by the petitioner to the
charge-sheet, dated 17-4-2013.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the enquiry, dated 21-6-2013 on
the alleged charge against the petitioner
and another employee called Munusamy.
Ex.P7 — Copy of the show cause notice, dated
25-6-2013.
Ex.P8 — Copy of the explanation letter, dated
28-6-2013 sent by the petitioner to the
respondent as reply for show cause notice,
dated 25-6-2013.
Ex.P9 — Copy of the order dismissing the petitioner
passed by the respondent, dated 1-7-2013.
Ex.P10 — Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the respondent in reply to the respondent's
older of dismissal, dated 5-7-2013.
Ex.P11 — Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, dated 24-7-2013.
Ex.P12 — Copy of the complaint given to the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudaliarpet by
the petitioner, dated 5-9-2013.
Ex.P13 — Copy of the order in Cr.M.P. 1116/
2013 (Bail Petition).
Ex.P14 — Copy of the letter sent by the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) to the Labour
Secretary, Puducherry, dated 29-3-14.
Ex.P15 — Copy of the Government of Puducherry,
Labour Department, notification, dated
2-6-2014.
Ex.P16 — Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the respondent regarding his bonus
and acknowledged by the respondent,
dated 18-10-2014.
List of respondent’s exihibits:
Ex.R1 — Copy of report of the Enquiry Officer
Thiru G. Krishnan.
Ex.R2 — Copy of punishment order, dated 1-7-2013
sent by the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R3 — Copy of representation, dated 24-7-2013
made by the petitioner to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.
580
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 June 2017
Ex.R4 — Copy of reply letter, dated 5-12-2013
made by the respondent to the Labour
Officer, (Conciliation), Puducherry.
Ex.R5 — Copy of charge-sheet, dated 7-5-1990
given by the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R6 — Copy of the warning letter, dated 16-5-1990
given by the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R7 — Copy of the warning letter, dated 27-11-1999
given by the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R8 — Copy of the charge-sheet, dated 31-1-2013
given by the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R9 — Copy of the enquiry proceedings, dated
15-2-2013 in respect of charge-sheet,
dated 31-1-2013.
Ex.R10 — Copy of the enquiry report, dated
15-2-2013 submitted by the Enquiry
Officer Thiru R. Sridharan in respect of
the charge-sheet, dated 31-1-2013.
Ex.R11 — Copy of the order, dated 23-2-2013
imposing suspension as substantive
punishment in respect of the charge-sheet
dated 31-2-2013.
Ex.R12 — Copy of the charge-sheet, dated 4-2-2013
given by the respondent to the petitioner.
Ex.R13 — Copy of the enquiry proceedings, dated
15-2-2013 in respect of charge-sheet,
dated 4-2-2013.
Ex.R14 — Copy of the warning letter, dated 23-2-2013
given by the respondent to the petitioner
in respect of charge-sheet, dated 4-2-2013.
Ex.R15 — Copy of the enquiry proceedings, dated
24-5-2013.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
#
*