La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 28-00
Prix : ` 28-00
Price :
` 28-00
2017 }
| 8 {
No.
32
Poudouchéry
Mardi
8
Août
2017 (17 Sravana 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
8th
August
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 792
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 792
Award of the Labour Court .. 792
de tribunal.
.. 807
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 807
Government Notifications .. 807
.. 820
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 820
Tender notices
.. 820
.. 825
Annonces
.. 825
Announcements
.. 825
[ 791 ]
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 : 8-8-2017
Price : ` 28-00
792
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 108/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 7th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 08/2014, dated
4-5-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s. Pondicherry Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union
Ltd., Puducherry (Ponlait) and Ponlait Thozhilalar
Sangam, Puducherry over revision of wages;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour), that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM.,M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 4th day of May 2017
I.D. (T) No. 08/2014
Ponlait Thozhilalar Sangam
Rep. by its President,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
The Pondicherry Co-operative
Milk Producers’ Union Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on this day for
hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal
M. Veerappan and S. Lenin Durai, Counsel for the
petitioner, M/s. Law Solvers, Advocates for the
respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon 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. 86/AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 15-5-2014
of the Labour Department, Pondicherry to resolve the
following dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent, viz.,
(i) Whether the dispute arises by Ponlait
Thozhilalar Sanagam, Puducherry against the
management of M/s. The Pondicherry Co-operative
Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. (Ponlait), Puducherry
over revision of wage i.e., Pay Band of ` 5,200-20,200
and Grade Pay of ` 1,800 to the categories of
workers viz., 1. Dairy Helper, 2. Dairy Helper Grade-I,
3. Lab Helper, 4. A.I. Assistant and 5. Assistant
Operator demanding to implement the Pay Scale
with effect from 1-1-2006 instead of 1-7-2013 is
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 averment of the claim statement filed by the
petitioner are as follows :
(i) The petitioner Sangam is one of the major
union in the respondent concern and had given
representation to the respondent management
regarding fixation of Pay Band of ` 5,200-20,200
+ minimum Grade Pay of ` 1,800 to the following
categories of workmen i.e., 1. Dairy Helper, 2. Dairy
Helper Grade-I, 3. Lab. Helper, 4. A.I. Assistant and
5. Asst. Operator who had been working in the
respondent concern for the past several years and
their wages were not revised on par with other
workers although other categories of workers and
staff were drawing the wages and salaries as per the
Pay Scale and Grade Pay of 6th Central Pay
Commission with effect from 1-1-2006 and there
are around 120 workers were affected due to the
unjustified stand taken by the management when
other categories of workers were given the said
monetary benefit with effect from 1-1-2006 and
there was no justification for respondent management
to deny the same monetary benefit of wage revision
to other set of employees working in the same
respondent management.
(ii) The respondent management was not willing
to settle and implement the demand raised by the
petitioner sangam and hence, it approached the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) through their petition,
dated 23-4-2013 and at the proceeding of the Labour
793
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Officer (Conciliation) the respondent agreed to
implement the revised wages as demanded by the
petitioner but, they agreed to implement the revised
pay with effect from 1-7-2013 and adduced some
reason for the same was due to financial problem
it could not be implemented with effect from
1-1-2006 and along with the workers union demand
in this regard made to the respondent management,
the affected workers have also made representation
individually and requested the respondent management
to consider their cases sympathetically but, so for
the respondent failed to respond positively.
(iii) The
workers
sangam
made
several
representations to the respondent management and
tried to settle the wage revision for the affected
employees and discussed with the respondent
management about the difficulties and economic
conditions of the workers who had been under loss
of legitimate wages refused by the respondent
without any fair and proper reasons and the
petitioner not accepted the stand of the respondent
that implement the Pay Band with effect from
1-7-2013 on the basis of major section of workers
were already drawing their revised wages with
effect from 1-1-2006 and the categories pointed
out in this petition alone denied the wage revision
with effect from 1-1-2006 which amounted to
discrimination among the equals and therefore, it is
a violation of equality among equals as per
constitutional rights protected as per Article 14 and
16 of the said Act and prays this Court to direct the
respondent to implement the pay revision to the
workers of the petitioner sangam as per revised Pay
Band and Grade Pay with effect from 1-1-2006 as
implemented to other workers and staffs working in
the same respondent management and also other
monetary benefits consistence with the implementation
of the revised pay and allowances to the workers.
3. The averment of the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:-
(i) The respondent M/s. Pondicherry Co-
operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., for short
PONLAIT has been formed and registered under the
Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act cannot by
any stretch of interpretation, claim parity with the
Department of Government and specific regulations
exist for governing the service condition of the
officers and staff of PONLAIT called a rules and
regulations governing the service conditions of the
employees of the respondent union Ltd., framed
under Bye-law No. 20 and till the date on which the
5th Central Pay Commission Scales were made
applicable to the employees of PONLAIT, the
Scales of Pay given to those employees were not
on any specific pattern and it was only after the 5th
Central Pay Commission
Scales were made
applicable to the employees of Union Territory, the
Pay Scales of the various categories of employees
of PONLAIT were fixed on the pattern and structure
of Central Pay Scales. Here again, the fitment of
scales was left to the decision of the Board of
Director/Administrator as there was no parity
between the employees of PONLAIT and the
Government
servants
and
the
duties
and
responsibilities and other service conditions were
entirely different from each other.
(ii) The categories of employees covered under
the industrial dispute namely, 1. Dairy Helper,
2. Dairy Helper Grade-I, 3. Lab. Helper, 4. A.I.
Assistant and 5. Asst. Operator are as the Dairy
Helper in the Pay Band of S.1. category ` 2,550-55-
2,660-60-3,200 and the remaining four categories are
classified under Pay Band of S3 category ` 2,650-
65-3,300-70-4,000 and in the recommendations
of the 6th Central Pay Commission all the above
categories namely, S1 and S3 with the Pay Band of
` 4,440-7,440 with Grade Pay of ` 1,300 for Dairy
Helper and ` 1,650 for remaining four categories
and this has been granted by the decision of the
Board of Directors/Administrator with effect from
1-6-2006 for regular employees of the respondent
management. While restructuring the cadre in the
Government Department, the 6th Central Pay
Commission abolished the Group-D category and
brought all in Group-C category in the Pay Band
PB-1, (` 5,200-20,200) with Grade Pay of ` 1,800
and this classification recommended by the Central
Pay Commission was not adopted by the PONLAIT
for the reason that there was vast disparity in the
nature of work, qualifications prescribed and the
duties and responsibilities and it is now the demand
of the petitioner that the 5 categories of the
employees namely, 1. Dairy Helper, 2. Dairy
Helper Grade-I, 3. Lab. Helper, 4. A.I. Assistant and
5. Asst. Operator should be given the pay band of
PB-1 (` 5,200-20,200) with Grade Pay of ` 1,800
as per the Central Pay Commission pattern
recommended, to the Government employees.
(iii) According to the recommendations of the
6th Central Pay Commission, while recommending
grant of Grade Pay, the commission has taken into
account
number
of
variables
including
the
794
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
Government’s capacity to pay and other service
benefit real and unreal available to the Government
employees and existence of multiplicity of other
benefits, available to them. In so far as the
employees of PONLAIT are concerned they are
entitled for additional benefits like social security
coverage under Employees State Insurance and
Employees Provident Fund and other extramural and
intramural benefits like bonus, medical allowance,
free supply of one litre milk every day,
superannuation scheme, earn leave benefits,
encashment of death benefits all these fringe
benefits are not available to the employees of the
Government. The denial of the Pay and Grade Pay
on par with Government employee therefore,
cannot be disputed.
(iv) The petitioner sangam has sought for grant
of revised benefit from 1-1-2006 which will land
the management in insurmountable financial crisis
involving
1.2
crore,
while
the
respondent
management is running on a loss of 26 crore. The
Government of India abolished the Group-D
category but, as far as PONLAIT is concerned, the
employees are not categorized into groups as
existing in Government Department. Besides the
nature of work of PONLAIT i.e., supply of milk to
the public daily on two sessions warrants
requirement of more number of labourers to
undertake the above work and in the said dispute the
petitioner sangam have been demanding for
revision of Grade Pay in respect of five categories
of employees on par with the Government servants
(Multi-tasking Staff). In fact, all the five categories
of employees belong to labour category and the
qualification prescribed by the Government, to
become MTS is not required by PONLAIT as they
will be engaged in Labour oriented type of works
daily to deal with the supply of essential commodity
and
therefore,
the
conversion
of
labourers
particularly those five categories as MTS is not at
all required by PONLAIT.
4. On the side of the petitioner,
WW.l was
examined and Ex.W1 to Ex.Wl4 were marked. On the
side of the respondent, no oral or documentary
evidence has been adduced. Argument heard.
5. The point for determination is that whether the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over revision of wages is
justified or not and if justified, for what relief, the
workmen of the petitioner union are entitled to?
6. From the pleading of both the parties, it is clear
that following facts are admitted by both the parties
that the union has raised a dispute before the
Conciliation Officer and the conciliation was failed and
the Government has made a reference to this Court to
decide the dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondent management over the revision
of wages of the members of the union on various
categories with effect from 1-1-2006 instead of 1-7-2013
and the respondent establishment is a Co-operative
Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., registered under the
Co-operative Societies Act and members of the petitioner
union are working as workmen in the respondent
establishment and these employees are covered under
Employees State Insurance and Employees Provident
Fund and that they are entitled for benefits like bonus,
medical allowance, free supply of one litre milk every
day and earn leave benefits and encashment of death
benefits.
7. To prove the case, the petitioner has examined
WW.1 and through him Ex.Wl to WW.14 were marked,
Ex.W1 is the copy of the dispute notification issued
by Labour Department. Puducherry, dated 15-5-2014,
Ex.W2 is the copy of rhe failure report passed by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, dated
1-4-2014. Ex.W3 is the copy of the representation
given to the respondent management by the petitioner,
dated 5-9-2014. Ex.W4 is the copy of the counter
statement filed by the respondent before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation). Puducherry, dated 23-8-2013.
Ex.W5 is the copy of the statement of existing Pay
and also revised Pay with Pay Band and Grade Pay due
for implementation relating to petitioner sangam
workers. Ex.W6 is the copy of the individual
representation of the workers of the petitioner sangam
to the respondent. Ex.W7 is the copy of the list of
promotion effected to the employees with effect from
1-2-2012, dated 1-2-2012. Ex.W8 is the copy of the
revised Pay Scale structure applicable to employees of
petitioner sangam. Ex.W9 is the copy of the list of
employees in the respondent management as on the
date, dated 1-9-2014. Ex.W10 is the copy of the
Administrator proceedings held at Pondicherry
Co-operative Milk Producers Union, dated 15-10-2008.
Ex.W11 is the copy of the note sheet for faming of
Draft Recruitment Rules for employees of Ponlait,
dated 2-6-2016. Ex.W12 is the copy of list of
employees regularized from 1-6-2014 to 31-5-2016.
Ex.W13 is the copy of the list of employees taken for
Consolidate Pay from 1-6-2014 to 31-5-2016.
Ex.W14 is the copy of the list of employees taken as
Casual Workers from 1-6-2014 to 31-5-2016. These
documents would go to show that petitioner has made
795
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
representation before the respondent management and
the petitioner union has raised a dispute before the
Conciliation Officer for which the respondent
management has filed a counter and on failure, the
Government has referred this matter to this Tribunal
and that the respondent establishment has 80
consolidated employees and 206 casual employees are
working in the respondent management and from these
documents, the petitioner has established that the
petitioner union has made a representation for wage
revision to the abovesaid five categories of workers
before the respondent management and the respondent
management has revised the salary of other categories
of workers and staffs as per the Pay Scale and Grade
Pay with effect from 1-1-2006 but, the wages of the
said five categories of workers who are working for
several years in the respondent establishment have not
been revised on par with the other categories and they
have been denied wage revision on par with the others.
8. In the course of argument, the joint compromise
memo has been filed by the parties stating that on
21-4-2017 both the parties have mutually agreed and
entered a Memorandum of Settlement under section
18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A copy of the
said 18(1) settlement, dated 21-4-2017 is also filed
along with the joint compromise memo which would
reveal the fact that the management and the petitioner
union has amicably entered into the settlement on
21-4-2017 in respect of 400 employees of the union
and therefore, the matter has been settled between the
parties by entering the settlement and hence, the
compromise is to be recorded and Award is to be
passed in terms of settlement and a copy of the
settlement is to be attached as part and parcel of the
Award.
9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the Award is passed directing the respondent to revise
the wages of the said five categories of employees in
terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties
on 21-4-2017 under section 18(1) of Industrial
Disputes Act and the same is recorded and the said
settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes
Act shall he attached as part and parcel of the Award.
No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 04th day of May, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of witness examined for the petitioner:
WW1 — 14-12-2015— Mahesh
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:
Ex.Wl— Copy of the dispute notification issued
by Labour Department, Puducherry,
dated 15-5-2014.
Ex.W2— Copy of the failure report passed by the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry, dated 1-4-2014.
Ex.W3— Copy of the representation given to the
respondent management by the petitioner,
dated 5-9-2014.
Ex.W4— Copy of the counter statement filed by
the respondent before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, dated
23-8-2013.
Ex.W5— Copy of the statement of existing pay
and also revised pay with Pay Band and
Grade
Pay due for implementation
relating to petitioner sangam workers.
Ex.W6— Copy of the individual representation of
the workers of the petitioner sangam to
the respondent.
Ex.W7— Copy of the list of promotion effected
to the employees with effect from
1-2-2012, dated 1-2-2012.
Ex.W8— Copy of the revised pay scale structure
applicable to employees of petitioner
sangam.
Ex.W9— Copy of the list of employees in
respondent management as on the date,
dated 1-9-2014.
Ex.W10—Copy of the Administrator proceedings
held at Pondicherry. Co-operative Milk
Producers’ Union, dated 15-10-2008.
Ex.W11—Copy of the note sheet for faming of
Draft Recruitment Rules for employees
of Ponlait, dated 2-6-2016.
Ex.W12—Copy of the list of employees regularized
from 1-6-2014 to 31-5-2016.
Ex.W13—Copy of the list of employees taken for
Consolidate Pay from 1-6-2014 to
31-5-2016.
Ex.W14—Copy of the list of employees taken as
Casual Workers from 1-6-2014 to
31-5-2016.
796
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
List of witnesses examined for the respondent: Nil
List of exhibits marked for the respondent: Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 109/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 7th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D (L) No. 2l/2014,
dated 30-5-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s. Sun Beam Generator Private Limited,
Puducherry and its 5 employees viz., (1) K. Sivakumar,
(2) S. Sivakumar, (3) P. Munisamy, (4) E. Jayachandran
and (5) P. Gopalasamy represented by Sun Beam
Generators Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry has been
received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department’s
G. O. Ms. No.20/91/Lab./L., dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby
directed by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that
the said Award shall be published in the Official
Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Tuesday, the 30th day of May 2017.
I.D. (L) No. 21/2014
Sun Beam Generators Thozhilalargal
Sangam, Rep., by its Secretary
Mr. E. Jayachandiran,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Sun Beam Generator
Private Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming up before me for
final hearing on 2-5-2017 in the presence of
Thiruvalargal R.T. Shankar, A. Ashok Kumar and
P. S u r e s h , Counsel for the petitioner, and Thiru
R. Ilancheliyan, Advocate for the respondent, upon
hearing both sides, upon 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 by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. 60/AlL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 2-4-2014 for adjudicating the following:
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Sunbeam
Generators Thozhilalar Sangam against the
management of M/s. Sun Beam Generators Private
Limited, Puducherry over non-employment of
Thiruvalargal (1) K. Sivakumar, (2) S. Sivakumar,
(3) P. Munisamy, (4) E. Jayachandran and are
entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief, if any awarded in
terms of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement filed by the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
(i) The petitioner union is a registered trade
union under the Trade Unions Act vide Registration
No. RTU/1701/2012 and their union workmen are
working at respondent establishment for more than
6 years with full dedication and up to the
satisfaction of management and performed all
works assigned to them however, they getting very
low salary, due to escalating the price of living cost/
living index, the financial position and buying
capacity of the employees comes down, hence, the
petitioner union was demanded wage increase/
revision from the respondent management but, they
are not ready to increase the wages and therefore,
they formed a trade union for collective bargaining,
under
such
circumstances
the
respondent
management has adopted unfair labour practice to
deprive the workmen of their legitimate right
created under the Labour Laws and in order to
curtail the trade union activities the management has
foisted false charges and suspended, transferred and
terminated the office bearers and union members
from the company.
797
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(ii) It is further stated that the petitioner union
already raised one dispute before the Labour
Officer, conciliation, dated 9-3-2012 to protect
their workmen against false charges, suspension and
termination by the management and in response to
the same, the respondent management appeared
before the Labour Officer, conciliation authority and
stated that they have to conduct domestic enquiry
and require cooperation of the union members and
as requested by the management, the Labour Officer,
conciliation advised the union to cooperate for
domestic enquiry and accordingly Thiruvalargal
K. Sivakumar, S. Sivakumar, P. Munisamy,
E. Jayachandran, P. Gopalasamy and other union
members participated in the enquiry. The management
conducted one domestic enquiry as against the
principles of natural justice and even after elapse
of 6 month of completion of domestic enquiry the
management neither furnished the domestic enquiry
report nor gave employment to the workers. The
management
without
any
concrete
decision
prolonging the issue with an intention to have
revenge on the union members. Hence, the
petitioner union requested the Labour Officer,
conciliation to intervene in the matter and advise the
management to reinstate the workers with
backwages and other benefits.
(iii) It is further stated that the union members
Thiruvalargal K. Sivakumar and S. Sivakumar
were suspended from service on 25-2-2012 and
29-2-2012 respectively and the domestic enquiry
was
completed on 14-4-2012 and 11-6-2012
respectively. Similarly, Thiruvalargal P. Munisamy,
E. Jayachandran and P. Gopalasamy were suspended
from service on 5-3-2012, 21-3-2012 and 22-3-2012
respectively and domestic enquiry was completed
on 30-5-2012, 8-11-2012 and 25-6-2012 respectively
and in this connection conciliation meeting was
held and during the conciliation proceedings the
management again transferred, suspended the office
bearers and members of the petitioner union
because of their union activities and some of the
members were suspended and the management paid
only 75 % as subsistence allowance instead of
100%. While being so, the respondent management
has sent termination notice to (1) S. Sivakumar,
(2) K. Sivakumar, (3) Munisamy when conciliation
was pending for which the conciliation authority
advised the management that during pending
conciliation the management should not issue
termination notice and also advised to reinstate the
workers who are suspended as well as transferred
but, the same was not accepted by the management.
(iv) It is further stated that the respondent
management neither furnished the domestic enquiry
report nor gave employment to the Gopalasamy and
Jayachandiran and has continuously refusing the
employment to the said Gopalasamy and Jayachandiran
and the Act of the respondent management by issuing
the transfer order is comes under the unfair labour
practice which is enumerated under the fifth
schedule in item No. 7 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and as per the provisions under section
33 of Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency
of the proceedings the respondent management has
no right or whatsoever to change the service
condition of the petitioner union employees but the
respondent management has adamantly violated the
same in transferring and dismissing the employees
of petitioner union, which is already disputed one
and therefore, prayed this Court to direct the
respondent management to reinstate the employees
of the petitioner union with full backwages, continuity
of service and all other attendant benefits.
3. The brief averments of the reply statement filed
by the respondent are as follows :
(i) The respondent denied all the averments made
by the petitioner union in the claim statement and
stated that employee K. Sivakumar was in the habit
of indulging in various misconducts and was a
habitual offender of the rules of law and indulged
in an act of beating the Senior Officer and he has
indulged in the act of gross negligence and due to
his negligence the machine fell down and caused
extensive damages and production loss and even
after the warning given to him he has not corrected
his mistake and continued his misbehavior and he
was continuously speaking in cell phone in the work
spot on 23-2-2012 and for which he was issued
a show cause notice on the same day and he gave
an evasive reply and has not rectified his indifferent
behaviour and that therefore, the domestic enquiry
was conducted and while the enquiry was in progress
he came along with a group of mob entered into the
respondent premises on 22-3-2012 and indulged in
acts of threatening the Managing Director and
assaulted the Executives and therefore the domestic
enquiry was conducted against him after giving all
opportunities and charges framed against him
proved beyond reasonable doubts and he was
terminated from service on 17-10-2013.
(ii) It is further stated that another employee
S. Sivakumar also was in the habit of indulging in
various misconducts by abusing and threatening the
co-workers and for which he tendered his apology
798
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
through letter, dated 31-7-2009 and subsequently on
1-10-2009, he indulged in act of indiscipline with
Senior Officers for which as a punishment he was
transferred to another Department and on 24-2-2012
he was also misbehaved with the co-worker inside
the factory during working hours and disciplinary
proceedings was taken, against him on 29-2-2012
and he also has entered the factory along with the
group of mob on 22-3-2012 and indulged in acts of
threatening the Managing Director, assaulted the
Executives and after conducting domestic enquiry
and after giving due opportunities he was terminated
from service on 17-10-2013 since the charges was
proved.
(iii) It is further stated that the employees
P. Munisamy, E. Jayachandiran and P. Gopalasamy
were transferred to Salem, Bhubaneswar and
Chennai respectively and all of them have not joined
the duty and subsequently they did not attend the
duty and disrupted their transfer places and refused
to accepted the transfer order and that therefore
they have voluntarily committed abatement of duty
and the domestic enquiry was conducted against
them and after completion of the domestic enquiry
a report was submitted on 20-4-2013 and that
therefore, all the employees have committed mis-
conducts, the domestic enquiry was conducted
properly against them and they were terminated
from service and prayed for dismissal of claim
petition.
4. In the course of enquiry PW.l and PW.2 was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 were marked and on the
side of the respondent RW.l was examined and Ex.Rl
to Ex.R57 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner union members are entitled
for the order of reinstatement with back-wages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits
or not?
6. Both sides are heard. 'The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the
exhibits marked on both sides are carefully considered.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued
that the petitioner employees have not been given full
opportunity in the domestic enquiry and the domestic
enquiry has not been conducted properly by following-
the principles of natural justice and in support of his
contention the learned counsel has relied upon the
Judgment reported in CDJ 2002 SC 195, Jaipur, Zila
Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Vs. Shri Ram
Gopal Sharma and Others. On the other hand, the
learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
management has filed a written argument and he has
also relied upon the following Judgments :
* Shri. M.K. Saini Vs. Indraprasatha Power
Generation Co. Ltd. (IPGCL), (2015 LLR 616),
* National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation
Ltd., Vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001 LLR 1222 SC),
* Management of RAS Theatre Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Salem, (2004 LLR 1130 Mad
HC),
* Shri Sekhar Rudra Vs. The Union of India and
Ors. (2016 LLR Pg.45),
* High Polymer Laboratories Vs. Jagdish Chand
and Anr, (Punjab and Haryana HC 2007 LLR 166),
* Sh. Mohd.Azim Vs. Sarv UP Gramin Bank (2015
Delhi HC LLR 464),
* K. Rajakumaran Vs. The Managing Director
(Madras HC 2012),
* Manilal Vs. Matchless Industries of India (2016
Delhi HC LLR 72),
* Ashok Kumar Sharma
Vs. Oheroi Fligh
Services (SC.LLR.2009pg.1281).
7. The petitioner union has raised this dispute over
the non-employment in respect of the employees
K . S i v a k u ma r, S . S i v a k u ma r, P. M u n i s a my,
E. Jayachandran and P. Gopalasamy on the ground that
the respondent management has conducted the
domestic enquiry as against the principles of natural
justice and in biased manner for fulfilling the
formalities enumerated in the Labour laws and even
after the completion of the domestic enquiry the
management did not furnish the domestic enquiry
report nor gave any employment to the workers and
that the respondent management has sent the
termination notice to the employees K. Sivakumar,
S. Sivakumar, P. Munisamy when the conciliation was
pending before the Conciliation Officer who advised
the management that during the pendency of
conciliation the management should not issue the
termination notice and advised to reinstate the workers
and that the respondent management has committed the
unfair labour practice by issuing the transfer orders
with mala fide and the termination of the employees
while the industrial dispute is pending before the
799
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Conciliation Officer is contravention of provisions
S.33 of the Industrial Dispute Act and therefore it is
the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent
management has not conducted the domestic enquiry
properly and while the industrial dispute is pending
before the Conciliation Officer the termination order
passed by the respondent, management is contravention
of provision S.33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
8. From the pleadings of both the parties it is clear
that the following facts are admitted by both the
parties. The petitioner union members are the
employees of the respondent establishment and they
were working for more than 6 years and that they have
formed a trade union and the union has raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
against the management and while the conciliation was
pending the respondent management has conducted the
domestic enquiry against the members of the trade
union and the union members namely K. Sivakumar and
S. Sivakumar were suspended in the month of February,
2012, P. Munisamy, E. Jayachandran and P. Gopalasamy
were suspended from service and the domestic enquiry
was completed and some of the employees were
transferred while the conciliation was pending and they
have been paid 75% of the subsistence allowance and
while the conciliation was pending the management has
issued the termination notice to the employees and all
the said 5 employees were terminated from service and
the conciliation was failed and this reference has made
before this Court by the Government of Puducherry.
9. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
respondent management has failed to increase the
wages and that the employees were demanded for wage
increase and wage revision but, the respondent
management have not ready to increase the wages and
hence the employees formed a trade union for
collective bargaining and the respondent management
has adopted unfair labour practice to deprive the
workmen of their legitimate right created under the
labour laws and in order to curtail the trade union
activities the respondent management has foisted false
charges and suspended, transferred and terminated the
office bearers and union members and that therefore,
they have raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer on 9-3-2012 and while the
conciliation was pending before the conciliation
officer, the respondent management has conducted the
domestic enquiry against the principle of natural
justice and the respondent management has not neither
furnished the domestic enquiry report nor gave
employment to the workers and while, the conciliation
was pending, the respondent management suspended the
employees K. Sivakumar. S. Sivakumar, P. Munisamy,
E. Jayachandiran and P. Gopalasamy on 25-2-2012,
29-2-2012, 5-3-2012, 21-3-2012 and 22-3-2012
respectively and during the conciliation proceedings
the management wantonly again transferred, suspended
the office bearers and the members of the petitioner
union because of their union activities and suspended
members were paid 75% of the subsistence allowance
and the conciliation authority also advised the
respondent management that during the pendency of
the conciliation proceedings the management should
not issue termination notice and also advised to
reinstate the workers who are suspended as well as
transferred and the respondent management has not
accepted the same and even after the completion of
the domestic enquiry the respondent management has
not furnished the domestic enquiry report nor gave
employment to the employees which is against the
contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
10. In support of the case, the petitioner union has
examined one Jayachandiran, General Secretary of the
union as PW.l and he has stated all the above facts in
his evidence. Particularly, he has stated that during the
pendency
of
the
conciliation
proceedings
the
management has issued a termination notice and even
after the advice of the Conciliation Officer the
respondent management has failed to reinstate the
workers and while the conciliation is pending the
respondent management transferred some of the
employees which is unfair labour practice committed
by the respondent management and which is against the
law under the fifth schedule, in item No. 7 of Industrial
Disputes Act and the termination and the transfer also
has been committed by the respondent management in
contravention of provisions of Sec.33 of Industrial
Disputes Act in which during the pendency of the
conciliation proceedings in respect of an Industrial
Dispute any dismissal or transfer of any workmen
concerned in such dispute, can only be done with the
permission of the authority before which the industrial
dispute is pending and in support of the case the
petitioner union has also examined Ramachandiran,
President of the Union as PW.2 and he has reiterated
the evidence of PW.1 and in support of the oral
evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 they have marked Ex.P1
to Ex.P30.
11. On the other hand, the respondent management
has examined one Sakthi, Assistant Manager-HR of the
respondent management as RW.1 and he has stated in
his evidence that the employee K. Sivakumar was in the
800
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
habit of indulging in various misconducts and was a
habitual offender of the rules of law and indulged in
an act of beating the Senior Officer and he has indulged
in the act of gross negligence and due to his
negligence the machine fell down and caused extensive
damages and production loss and even after the
warning given to him he has not corrected his mistake
and continued his misbehavior and he was continuously
speaking in cell phone in the work spot on 23-2-2012
and for which he was issued a show cause notice on
the same day and he gave an evasive reply and has not
rectified his indifferent behaviour and that therefore,
the domestic enquiry was conducted and after that he
came along with a group of mob entered into the
respondent premises on 22-3-2012 and indulged in
acts of threatening the Managing Director and
assaulted the Executives and therefore the domestic
enquiry was conducted against him after giving all
opportunities and charges framed against him proved
beyond reasonable doubts and he was issued a second
show cause notice on 8-8-2012 communicating the
proposed punishment along with the enquiry report for
which he gave his reply on 17-8-2012 and since
his explanation was not accepted he was terminated
from service on 17-10-2013 and another employee
S. Sivakumar also was in the habit of indulging in
various misconducts by abusing and threatening the
co-workers and for which he tendered his apology
through letter, dated 31-7-2009 and subsequently on
1-10-2009 he indulged in the act of indiscipline with
the Senior Officers for which as a punishment he was
transferred to another Department and on 24-2-2012
he was also misbehaved with the co-worker inside
the factory during working hours and disciplinary
proceedings was taken against him on 29-2-2012 and
he also has entered the factory along with the group
of mob on 22-3-2012 and indulged in acts of
threatening the Managing Director, assaulted the
Executives and after conducting domestic enquiry and
after giving due opportunities he was terminated from
service on 17-10-2013 since the charges was proved
and the employees P. Munisamy, E. Jayachandiran and
P. Gopalsamy were transferred to Salem, Bhubaneswar
and Chennai respectively and all of them have not
joined the duty and subsequently they did not attend
the duty and disrupted their transfer places and refused,
to accepted the transfer order and that therefore they
have voluntarily committed abatement of duty and the
domestic enquiry was conducted against them and after
completion of the domestic enquiry a report was
submitted on 20-4-2013 and that therefore, all the
employees have committed misconducts and they have
spoiled the industrial claimants and in support of the
evidence, the respondent management has exhibited
Ex.Rl to Ex.R57.
12. From the evidence and exhibits marked on the
side of the respondent, it is clear that the contention
of the respondent is that these employees have
committed misconducts and misbehavior against the
management and that they have initiated the
disciplinary proceedings and conducted domestic
enquiry properly after giving all opportunities to them
in accordance with the natural justice and that
therefore, they are not entitled for any reinstatement
as claimed by the petitioner union.
13. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioner
that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in terms
of the procedure and the fairness of the enquiry is
challenged by the petitioner union stating that
the enquiry is not in the procedure laid down under
Labour laws and in violation of the Natural justice.
On this aspect, records are perused. In all the enquiry
reports, the Enquiry Officer has stated that they have
been given sufficient opportunities to putforth their
case and they have been permitted to cross examine
the witnesses. Ex.Rl0- the Enquiry report of K. Sivakumar
runs as follows :
“
S.
K.
K.
K.
”
801
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Further Ex. R10- the enquiry report of P. Gopalasamy
runs as follows:
“
”.
The above enquiry report of K. Sivakumar would
reveal that the petitioner employee has been informed
to assist by one co-worker and the petitioner
employee asked the permission of the Enquiry Officer
to allow S. Sivakumar, the Honorary President of the
petitioner union to assist the petitioner in the enquiry
but, he was not permitted to assist through the said
S. Sivakumar by the Enquiry Officer and subsequently
on 21-3-2012 the said petitioner K. Sivakumar has
participated in the enquiry with the assistance of one
K. Datchinamoorthy and asked permission of the
Enquiry Officer to allow the said K. Datchinamoorthy
to assist him but the respondent management has stated
that the said K. Datchinamoorthy has not attended the
duty from 3-3-2012 and therefore, he is not eligible
to assist the said K. Sivakumar. Admittedly, the said
K. Datchinamoorthy is the employee of the respondent
management as attending the duty till 3-3-2012 but, the
said K. Datchinamoorthy was also not permitted by the
Enquiry Officer on the allegation of the respondent that
he is not the employee of the respondent establishment
to assist the one of the petitioner employee K. Sivakumar
and thereafter the said K. Sivakumar has attended the
enquiry without the assistance any other co-worker and
the enquiry was also conducted outsource of the
factory. The abovesaid facts would go to show that the
petitioner has not been given ample opportunities to
participate in the enquiry with the assistance of nobody
else and even he has not cross examined the witnesses.
14. The point that has to be borne in mind in every
case that whether the workmen was given a reasonable
opportunity on presenting his case and whether the
enquiry authority fairly, justly, reasonably and
impartially does not so much to act judicially but it is
to act fairly, the proceedings adopted must be just fair
and reasonable in particular circumstances of the case
and in other words the application of principles of
natural justice that no men should be condemned and
unheard intense to prevent the authority to act
arbitrarily affecting the rights of the person
concerned. In this case, one of the workmen though has
requested the Enquiry Officer to permit his colleague
the honorary union leader to defend his case which was
refused by the Enquiry Officer and the request could
have been acceded to rather than having been rejected
to detriment the interest of the workmen and they have
a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the
appearance of the arbitrariness, unreasonableness or
unfairness and they have to act in a manner which is
patiently impartial and against the natural justice. The
above all due opportunities should be given to the
delinquents officially to cross examine the witnesses
with the help of the assistance of somebody else but
in this case the Enquiry Officer has not permitted the
workmen to conduct the enquiry with the help of the
Honorary President of the union and that therefore, the
alleged enquiry have been conducted without following
the principles of natural justice and even the enquiry
does not hear the arguments of both sides and that
therefore, the enquiry is not in accordance with the
basic principles of natural justice i.e., failure to give
opportunities to the petitioner workmen to cross
examined the vital witnesses in the domestic enquiry
which would be fatal and the Enquiry Officer conducted
and concluded the enquiry without cross examined the
witnesses by the workmen and without giving
opportunity to the employees to defend their case and
hence, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has not
followed the principles of natural justice.
15. Further, it is learnt from enquiry proceedings-
Ex.P8 that the employee K. Sivakumar has not cross
examined the MWl-Pargunan who has alleged all the
allegations against him. This fact alone would go to
show that the Enquiry Officer has not given sufficient
opportunities to the employee K. Sivakumar to cross
examine the said MWl with the assistance of any other
co-worker. Furthermore, Ex.P10 to Ex.Pl2 reveals the
fact that the respondent management has terminated the
employees K. Sivakumar, S. Sivakumar and P. Munisamy.
The termination order given by the respondent
management under Ex.P10 to K. Sivakumar runs as
follows:
“
802
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
”.
and the termination order given, by the respondent
management under Ex.Pll to S. Sivakumar runs as
follows :
“
”.
and the termination order given by the respondent
management under Ex.Pl2 to P. Munisamy runs as
follows :
“
”.
The above recital of the termination letters - Ex.P10
to Ex.P12 would go to show that the respondent
management has stated that if the delinquent is
admitting the charges and asking for any apology they
can able to consider to give employment and they have
been terminated only for the reason that the petitioner
employees have made accusation against the domestic
enquiry and its proceedings and from the above fact,
it is clear that the petitioner employees have not been
terminated by the respondent management for the
charges committed by them, only for the reason that
the
petitioner
employees
have
alleged
some
allegations against the domestic enquiry they were
terminated from service and that therefore the reasons
stated by the respondent for the termination of
the emp lo yees K. Sivakumar, S. Sivakumar and
P. Munisamy is not at all reasonable one.
16. Furthermore the employees P. Munisamy,
E. Jayachandran and P. Gopalasamy have been
terminated for the reason that they have not joined the
duty as per the transfer order and the domestic enquiry
was conducted and they have been terminated from
service. The contention of the said employees are that
the respondent management wantonly transferred these
employees with malafide intention without mentioning
address in the transfer order to where they have to join.
The transfer order of the employee P. Munisamy
Ex.R24 runs as follows :
“It is hereby informed that you are transferring
from CBG to Marketing office at Salem with effect
from 15-2-2012”.
The transfer order of the employee E. Jayachandiran
Ex.R38 runs as follows:
You are hereby transferred from fabrication
Department, Puducherry to Service Department,
Bhubaneshwar branch with immediate effect. You
are advised to report to Mr. Manoj Kumar Muduli,
Senior Manager Marketing.
The transfer order of the employee P. Gopalasamy-
Ex.R44 runs as follows :
You are hereby transferred from loading
Department, Pondicherry to Service Department,
Chennai with immediate effect. You are advised to
report to Mr. S. Rengarajan, General Manager.
From the above transfer orders, It is clear that the
content of the transfer order does not contains the
address where they have to join and even the
respondent has failed to mention the office address or
803
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the factory address where they have been transferred
and except the name of the town they did not mention
the address and that therefore no one can join
anywhere else without mentioning the name of the
factory or address and mere mentioning the name of
the city as Salem, Chennai and Bhubaneshwar is not
sufficient to asking the workmen to join any factory
or any establishment without any address and in the
domestic enquiry also on behalf of the respondent
management the transfer order has been exhibited as
a vital document. The Enquiry Officer does not find
anywhere else that it contains any office address or
branch address where the transferred employees have
to join and that therefore, these facts itself would go
to show that the Enquiry Officer before coming into
the conclusion that the charges were proved has not
considered the transfer orders are not containing the
address where the employees have to join and
furthermore, it reveals that the respondent management
has asked the employees to report before the Senior
Manager and the General Manager and the address of
the said Senior Manager and General Manager was also
not mentioned in the transfer order. Totally no
particulars are available in the transfer orders that
where the employees have to join.
17. The domestic enquiry proceedings of the
petitioner employees would go to show that no
witness was examined on side of the petitioner
employees and none of the witnesses were examined
as a witness by the Enquiry Officer and further, no
opportunity was given to petitioner employees to cross
examine the witnesses and further, it would go to show
that the Enquiry Officer has not given opportunities to
the petitioner employees to putforth their case and
without taking any evidence the Enquiry Officer came
to the conclusion that the charges alleged against them
were proved and the petitioner employees were not
given opportunities for cross examination and it is
clear from Ex.R50— Enquiry report of the employee
Gopalasamy that without examining the witnesses the
Enquiry Officer has exhibited the documents 1 to 9 on
the side of the respondent and that therefore, it is clear
that these documents have, been marked without
examining any witnesses and therefore, the workmen
did not get any opportunity to elicit anything regarding
the documents and that therefore, the enquiry was
conducted in a biased manner and sufficient
opportunities have not been given to the employees in
terms of natural justice. Furthermore, it reveals from
the domestic enquiry reports, that the Enquiry Officer
has not furnish the list of witnesses which are going
to be examined on the side of the management and the
workmen has not served the list of witnesses proposed
to be examined in the enquiry. It is the elementary
principles of an enquiry that the person who required
to answer the charge memo. not only know the
accusation but also testimony by which the accusation
is supported. But, in this case, the Enquiry Officer has
not furnish the list of witnesses to the employee
before commencing the enquiry and hence, the
employees have not been furnished the list of
witnesses proposed to be examined on the side of the
management and on the enquiry also the assistance of
another staff or colleague of his own was not
permitted to participate in the enquiry.
18. Furthermore, it is clear from the records that
the Industrial dispute was raised by the employees of
the petitioner union and subsequently the respondent
management has terminated the employees without
previous permission of the Conciliation Officer. The
sec.33(l)(b) of the Act would runs as follows :
“For any mis-conduct connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal
or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such
dispute, save with the express permission in writing
of the authority before which the proceeding is
pending”.
Therefore, it is the clear violation of the
Sec.33(l)(b) of the Act that the respondent
management has not obtained any previous permission
for the dismissal of the petitioner union employees.
Therefore, the reason assigned by the respondent
management for the dismissal of the employees from
the respondent establishment that the two employees
of the petitioner union were mis-behaved and other
employees of the petitioner union were not obeyed the
order of transfer is not justified and erroneous and
therefore, they can get the benefit of reinstatement.
In respect of the backwages and other attendant
benefits absolutely there is no evidence that the union
employees were not working anywhere else after the
dismissal and that therefore, they cannot be given full
backwages. However, considering the fact and
circumstances of this case and the fact that the
respondent management has not elicited any evidence
that they are working anywhere else, this Court is
inclined to hold that the petitioner employees are
entitled for 50% of the backwages and other attendant
benefits with continuity of service.
804
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
19. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioners over the
non-employment is justified and an Award is passed by
directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner
employees in service with continuity of service and
further directed to pay 50% of backwages to the
petitioner employees from the date of termination till
the reinstatement with other attendant benefits. No
cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 30th day of May, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Puducherry.
————
List of
petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 — 3-3-2015
—
Jayachandiran
PW.2 — 6-11-2015
—
Ramachandiran
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl —7-8-2012
— Copy of the Trade Union
Registration Certificate.
Ex.P2 —9-3-2012
— Copy of the dispute
raised by the petitioner
union before the Labour
Officer,
Conciliation,
Puducherry.
Ex.P3 —7-8-2012
— Copy
of
the
letter
submitted
by
the
petitioner union before
the
Labour
Officer,
Conciliation, Puducherry.
Ex.P4 —23-2-2012
— Copy of the show cause
23-2-2012
notice
issued
respectively
and
t o K . S i v a k u m a r ,
24-2-2012
P. Munisamy and the
show
cause
notice
issued to S. Sivakumar.
Ex.P5 —7-3-2012
— Copy of the transfer
order
and
issued and respectively
19-3-2012
to P. Gopalasamy and
E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.P6 —16-3-2012
— Copy
of
the
letter
submitted by K. Sivakumar
to the Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P7 —Several
— C o p y o f t h e en q u i r y
dates
proceeding’s of dates
K. Sivakumar.
Ex.P8 —Several
— C o p y o f t h e en q u i r y
dates
proceedings of S. Sivakumar.
Ex.P9 —Several
— C o p y o f t h e en q u i r y
dates
p ro ceed ings o f d ates
P. Munisamy.
Ex.P10—17-10-2013 — The termination letter
issued by the respondent
m a n a g e m e n t
t o
K. Sivakumar.
Ex.P11— 17-10-2013— The termination letter
issued by the respondent
m a n a g e m e n t
t o
S. Sivakumar.
Ex.P12— 28-3-2014 — The termination letter
issued by the respondent
m a n a g e m e n t
t o
P. Munisamy.
Ex.P13—4-5-2012
— The show cause notice
issued to P. Gopalasamy
and E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.P14—30-5-2012
— The Enquiry call letter
sent
by
the
Enquiry
Officer to P. Gopalasamy
and the copy of the
enquiry call letter sent
by the enquiry letter to
E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.P15—Several
— C o p y o f t h e en q u i r y
dates
proceedings of Gopalasamy.
Ex.P16—Several
— C o p y o f t h e en q u i r y
dates
p r o c e e d i n g s
o f
Jayachandiran.
Ex.P17—3-9-2012
— Copy of job request
letter
sent
by
the
Gopalasamy
to
the
respondent
management
and Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P18—24-4-2013
— Copy of one job request
letter sent by Gopalasamy
to
the
Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P19—25-4-2013
— Acknowledgment
card
acknowledged by the
respondent management
for the job request letter.
805
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P20—28-8-2012
— Copy of the allegation
letter sent by S. Sivakumar
to
the
respo nd ent
management.
Ex.P21—3-12-2013
— Copy of the letter sent by
the Munisamy to the
respondent management.
Ex.P22—5-3-2012
— The letter sent by the
Munisamy to the respondent
management.
Ex.P23—21-2-2012
— Copy of the letter sent by
the Munisamy to the
respondent management.
Ex.P24—11-9-2013
— Copy of the Conciliation
call letter.
Ex.P25—3-1-2014
— The Conciliation failure
report.
Ex.P26— —
— Government of Puducherry,
Notification vide G.O.
Rt.No.60/AIL/Lab./J/
2014.
Ex.P27—26-1-2012
— Copy of the proceedings
of the minutes of the
meeting.
Ex.P28—1-2-2012
— Copy of the Trade Union
Registration Application
submitted
before
the
Registrar of Trade Union,
Puducherry.
Ex.P29—27-2-2012
— Copy of the intimation
letter submitted by the
petitioner union to the
respondent management.
Ex.P30—Various
— C o p y o f t h e t r an s fe r
dates.
order, suspended order,
dismissal order by the
respondent.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 15-3-2016
—
R. Sakthi
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl —30-9-2010
— Copy of the Suspension
O r d e r i s s u e d t o
Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.R2 —2-11-2011
— Copy
of
the
Warning
m e m o .
i s s u e d t o
Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.R3 —
— Copy of the complaint
l e t t e r
g i v e n
b y
Mr. R. Uthiravel.
Ex.R4 —23-2-2012
— Copy of the show cause
n o t i c e i s s u e d t o
Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.R5 —24-2-2012
— Copy of the reply letter
given by Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.R6 —24-2-2012
— Copy of the Complaint
Mr.A.Raj amanikkam,
Manager.
Ex.R7 —25-2-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
notice.
Ex.R8
—
— Copy of the enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.R9 —7-4-2012
— Copy of the letter given
to Mr. K. Sivakumar
regarding
Subsistence
Allowance.
Ex.R10—2-7-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
report of Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.Rl1 —8-8-2012
— Copy of the second show
cause notice issued to
Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.Rl2 —17-8-2012
— Copy of the reply letter
given by Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.Rl3 —17-10-2013 — Copy of the Termination
O r d e r i s s u e d t o
Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.Rl4 —8-11-2013
— Copy
of
the
letter
r e c e i v e d
f r o m
Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.R15 —
— Copy of the complaint
l e t t e r
g i v e n
b y
Mr. R. Uthiravel against
Mr. K. Sivakumar.
Ex.RI6
—
— Copy of the complaint
l e t t e r
g i v e n
b y
C. Vijayakumar against
K. Sivakumar.
Ex.R17—24-2-2012
— Copy of the show cause
n o t i c e i s s u e d t o
Mr. S. Sivakumar.
806
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[8 August 2017
Ex.Rl8 —29-2-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
n o t i c e i s s u e d t o
Mr. S. Sivakumar.
Ex.R19
—
— Copy of the enquiry
p r o c e e d i n g s
o f
Mr. S. Sivakumar.
Ex.R20—11-6-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
report of Mr. S. Sivakumar.
Ex.R21—8-8-2012
— Copy
of
the
second
show cause notice issued
to Mr. S. Sivakumar.
Ex.R22—28-8-2012
— Copy of the reply letter
r e c e i v e d
f r o m
Mr. S. Sivakumar.
Ex.R23—17-10-2013 — Copy of the Termination
Or d e r
i s s u e d
t o
Mr. S. Sivakumar.
Ex.R24—13-2-2012
— Copy of the Transfer
Or d e r i s s u e d t o
Mr. P. Munisamy,
Ex.R25—21.02.2012 — Copy of the letter
r e c e i v e d f r o m
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R26—23-2-2012
— Copy of the letter sent to
Mr. P. Munisamy by the
re s p o n d e n t
w i t h
registered post and
acknowledgment card.
Ex.R27—23-2-2012
— Copy of the show cause
n o t i c e
i s s u e d
t o
Mr. P. Munisamy by
the
respondent
with
registered
post
and
acknowledgment card.
Ex.R28—29-2-2012
— Copy of the reply
letter received from
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R29—5-3-2012
— Copy
of
the
letter
r e c e i v e d f r o m
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R30—27-2-2012
— Copy of the show cause
n o t i c e i s s u e d t o
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R3l —5-3-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
notice with postal slip
and
acknowledgment
card.
Ex.R32
—
— Copy of the enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.R33—1-3-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
report.
Ex.R34—25-11-2013 — Copy of the second show
cause notice issued to
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R35—3-12-2013
— Copy of the reply
letter received from
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R36—28-3-2014
— Copy of the Termination
Or d e r i s s u e d t o
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R37—1-7-2014
— Copy
of
the
letter
r e c e i v e d
f r o m
Mr. P. Munisamy.
Ex.R38—19-3-2012
— Copy of the Transfer
Or d e r i s s u e d t o
Mr. E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.R39—9-4-2012
— Copy of the show cause
n o t i c e i s s u e d t o
Mr. E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.R40—14-4-2012
— Copy
of
the
letter
r e c e i v e d
f r o m
Mr. E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.R41—4-5-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
notice.
Ex.R42
—
— Copy of the enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.R43—20-4-2013
— Copy of the enquiry report
of Mr. E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.R44—7-3-2012
— Copy of the Transfer order
issued to Mr. P. Gopalasamy.
Ex.R45—8-3-2012
— Copy of the letter received
from Mr. P. Gopalasamy.
Ex.R46—15-3-2012
— Copy
of
the
letter
r e c e i v e d
f r o m
Mr. P. Gopalasamy.
807
8 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R47—9-4-2012
— Copy of the Show cause
n o t i c e i s s u e d t o
Mr. P. Gopalasamy.
Ex.R48—4-5-2012
— Copy of the enquiry
notice.
Ex.R49 —
— Copy of the enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.R50—20-4-2013
— Copy of the enquiry report
of Mr. P. Gopalasamy.
Ex.R5l—23-3-2012
— Copy of the FIR filed
against the petitioners.
Ex.R52—25-7-2009
— Copy
of
the
Board
resolution.
Ex.R53—18-1-2007
— Copy of the Order of
A p p o i n t m e n t o f
P. Munisamy.
Ex.R54—6-2-2007 —
Copy of the Order
of Appointment for
trainee of K. Sivakumar.
Ex.R55—22-6-2009
— Copy of the order of
revision of wages of
S. Sivakumar.
Ex.R56—22-6-2009
— Copy of the order of
revision of wages of
E. Jayachandiran.
Ex.R57—22-6-2009
— Copy of the order of
revision of wages of
P. Gopalasamy.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Commissioner
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT (AUDIT SECTION)
No. 7/1/1/RCS/Liq./16/2015/308.
Puducherry, the 14th July 2017.
Proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Puducherry.
Present : Dr. A.S. SIVAKUMAR,
Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
Sub : Puducherry region - Registered Co-operative Societies - Liquidation -Appointment of
Liquidator under section 127 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972- Orders-
Issued.
Ref : (1) Proceedings No. 7/1/1/RCS/Liq./l6/2015/139, dated 15-6-2015 of the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Puducherry.
(2) Office Order No. 510/RCS/Estt./E6/2017/55, dated 11-7-2015 of the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Puducherry.
(3) Joining report, dated 13-7-2015 of Thiru Lanka Veerasamy, Co-operative Officer.
ORDER
In exercise of the powers conferred under section 127 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972,
Thiru R. Rangababu, Co-operative Officer was appointed vide Proceedings No. 7/1/1/RCS/Liq./l6/2015/139, dated
15-6-2015 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Puducherry, as “Liquidator” for Puducherry region in
respect of Co-operative Societies liquidated under section 126 of the said Act.
2. Whereas, Thiru Lanka Veerasamy, Co-operative Officer, is transferred and posted as “Liquidator”, vice
the said Thiru R. Rangababu, Co-operative Officer vide Office Order No. 510/RCS/Estt./E6/2017/55, dated 11-7-2015
of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Puducherry. The said Thiru Lanka Veerasamy, Co-operative Officer
reported for duty vide Joining report, dated 13-7-2015 of Thiru Lanka Veerasamy, Co-operative Officer, to assume
charges as Liquidator.