La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 42-00
Prix : ` 42-00
Price :
` 42-00
2017 }
| 15 {
No.
33
Poudouchéry
Mardi
15
Août
2017 (24 Sravana 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
15th
August
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 832
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 832
Award of the Labour Court .. 832
de tribunal.
.. 839
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 839
Government Notifications .. 839
.. 884
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 884
Tender notices
.. 884
.. 885
Etablissements dangereux
.. 885
Dangerous Establishments
.. 885
.. 886
Annonces
.. 886
Announcements
.. 886
[ 831 ]
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 : 15-8-2017
Price : ` 42-00
832
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 August 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 110/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 10th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 11/2010, dated
19-5-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
in respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,
Personal Products Factory, Puducherry and Ponds
(India) Limited Soap Division Employees Welfare
Union over charter of demands has been received;
Now,
therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947),
read with the
notification issued in Labour
Department’s G. O . M s . N o . 2 0 / 9 1 / L ab./ L , d a t e d
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.
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.
Friday, the 19th day of May 2017
I.D. (T) No. 11/2010
Pond’s (India) Limited Soap Division
Employees Welfare Union,
Registration No. 664/RTU/1989,
Rep. by its Secretary
R. Murugan, Uruvaiyar,
Villianur, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Factory Manager,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,
Personal Products Factory,
NH-45A, Vadamangalam,
Puducherry-605 102.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before
me for hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,
Counsel for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal L. Sathish,
T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan, V. Veeraragavan, Advocates
for the respondent, upon perusing the case records,
this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. 213/AIL/Lab./J/2010,
dated 1-11-2010 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
Pond's (India) Limited Soap Division Employees
Welfare Union (Registration No.664/RTU/1989)
against the management of M/s. Hindustan Unilever
Limited, Personal Products Factory, Vadamangalam,
Puducherry over charter of demands such as
increase of Basic Pay, Fixed DA., HRA. Attendance
Allowance, transport allowance, production
incentive, etc., is justified or not?
(ii) If justified, what relief, the union workmen
are entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. In the industrial dispute, the Secretary of the
union has filed a claim statement for which the
respondent management has also filed a counter and
the case was being tried by this Court to decide
whether the dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondent management over the charter of
demands such as increase of Basic Pay, Fixed DA.,
HRA., Attendance Allowance, Transport Allowance,
Production incentive, etc., is justified or not.
3. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the
petitioner the Counsel has endorsed that they have no
oral evidence and hence, no oral evidence was let in and
no exhibits were marked. On the side of the respondent
no evidence was let in and now, the case is pending for
respondent side evidence. Meanwhile, the newly
elected President of the petitioner union has filed
a petition in I.A. No. 68/2012 stating that the matter was
settled out of Court under the Memorandum of
settlement arrived at between the petitioner union and
the respondent management on 2-2-2010 and praying
to reject the claim petition filed by the then Secretary
of the petitioner union which was allowed by this
Court today.
833
15 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
4. Both sides are heard. Records are perused. Since,
the dispute raised by the petitioner union was settled
out of Court between the parties under Memorandum of
Settlement arrived on 2-2-2010 the I.A. No. 68/2012
was allowed and the claim petition filed by the then
Secretary was rejected and hence, this industrial
dispute has to be closed by recording the settlement
and an Award has to be passed in terms of settlement
arrived at between the petitioner union and the
respondent
management under Memorandum of
Settlement, dated 2-2-2010.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
management vehemently argued that the benefits of the
Memorandum of Settlement arrived on 2-2-2010
should not be given to the employees who have not
signed and accepted the same. However, mere reason
that they have raised the dispute over the wage revision
and contested the case against the respondent
management and not accepting the settlement which
was arrived at between the newly elected union
members and the respondent management are not at all
a sufficient reason to refuse the benefits of the
Settlement, dated 2-2-2010 to those employees and
therefore, all the members of the union are entitled
for the benefits and hence, it is also to be directed
the respondent management to give benefits of above
Memorandum of Settlement to all the members of the
union who were at the time of raising the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer by the
petitioner union.
6. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly
allowed and the Award is passed in terms of
Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the
petitioner union and the respondent management
on 2-2-2010 which is exhibited as Ex.R9 in
I.A.No.145/2013 and all the members of the petitioner
union who were at the time of raising the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer by the
petitioner union are entitled for the benefit of the
abovesaid settlement. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 19th day of May, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
Nil.
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Nil.
List of respondent’s witness:
Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Nil.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 111/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 10th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award I.D (L) No. 17/2014, 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 S. Saravanan S/o. Srinivasan, 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. 17/2014
S. Saravanan,
S/o. Srinivasan,
No. L-38, Boomiyanpet Housing Board,
Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
834
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 August 2017
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. Suresh, 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. 50/AIL/Lab./J/
2014, dated 18-3-2014 for adjudicating the following:
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru S. Saravanan against the management of
M/s. Sun Beam Generators Private Limited,
Puducherry over non-employment is justified?
If justified, what relief, he is 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 joined with the respondent
establishment as Forklift Operator on and from
6-2-2007 and he was working very sincerely with
full dedication without any blemish with the
respondent management and therefore, after a long
time the respondent management permanent the
petitioner and that the respondent management were
paid low wages and statutory benefits were not
extended to the employees, most of the workers are
placed as temporary workers for a long period
without making permanent and the workers are
working beyond working hours and also during
holidays and hence, the employees were formed one
trade union in order to have collective bargaining
and to get their statutory benefits. Under such
circumstances the respondent management has
adopted unfair labour practices against the office
bearers as well as members of the trade union to
deprive the workmen of their legitimate rights
created under the Labour Laws.
(ii) It is further stated that the respondent
management insisted and threatened the petitioner
to quit from the union and to give apology letter to
the management but, the petitioner did not accept
the same therefore, the management refused the
employment of the
petitioner without
any
reasonable cause on and from 12-6-2012 and in this
regard the petitioner gave a representation on the
same day before the Labour Officer, Conciliation
and in response to the same, the management sent
one pre dated show cause notice to the petitioner
with false and fake allegations and appeared before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and insisted the
petitioner to cooperate for domestic enquiry.
Further, the Labour Officer (Conciliation) advised the
petitioner to take part in the domestic enquiry and
as such the petitioner agreed for the domestic
enquiry and same was completed on 29-10-2012.
But, the management not furnished the enquiry
report and refused the employment of the petitioner.
The management conducted one domestic enquiry as
against the principles of natural justice and even
after elapse of 6 months of completion of domestic
enquiry, the management neither furnished the
domestic enquiry report nor gave employment to
the petitioner.
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 petitioner
with backwages and other benefits.
(iii) It is further stated that the respondent
management terminated the petitioner on 17-10-2013
when the 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. The petitioner union and the petitioner
was raised a dispute for job protection and refusal
of employment as against the respondent management
and the same was pending before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry under such circumstances
the respondent management has no right or
prima facie to terminate the employees of the
petitioner union including the petitioner and
therefore, such act of the respondent management
is a contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act and as per the provisions under
section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act during the
pendency of the proceedings, the respondent
835
15 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
management has to obtain previous permission from
the concern authority, but, the respondent
management has adamantly violated the same in
dismissing the petitioner, which is already disputed
one and therefore, prayed this Court to direct the
respondent management to reinstate the petitioner
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 and stated that the petitioner was
working as Forklift Operator in the respondent
company with specific condition that he should
strictly follow the safety norms of the company and
also he should abide all the terms and conditions
prescribed in the HR. policy of the company.
However, in violation of the same, the petitioner
used to be a habitual offender and was not following
the safety norms and the HR. policy prescribed by
the company and on 20-4-2012, the petitioner drove
the forklift very rashly inside the work premises and
was attempting to dash the Assistant Manager-HR.,
when he was asked about his rash and wilful act the
petitioner gave a casual and lethargic reply and
subsequently on 4-5-2012, the petitioner left the
work place without any prior permission for about
30 minutes and was speaking on the mobile phone
in the bathroom and when the Production Manager
asked about his act, the petitioner used abusive
language against him and again on 5-5-2012 when
the General Manager-HR and IR and the loading
Supervisor were speaking inside the factory, the
petitioner without any reason intervened and made
unwanted comments using abusive language and on
6-6-2012, the petitioner was asked to operate the
forklift to unload the Generator he desserted the
forklift abruptly without telling any reason and left
out. In such a way, the petitioner continued to be
indulging in various misconducts and his attitudes
were indifferent and became uncontrollable.
Therefore, with a view of knowing the reason for his
indifferent attitude and changing behaviour, it was
proposed to conduct an enquiry through an
independent Enquiry Officer. Since, the behaviour
of the petitioner was indifferent and likely to cause
injury, he was placed under suspension pending
enquiry. The notice dated 11-6-2012 was issued to the
petitioner and the petitioner refused to receive and
raised an industrial dispute before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) alleging that he was
prevented from attending his work and therefore, the
dispute raised by the petitioner was only an attempt
to stop the disciplinary proceedings.
(ii) It is further stated that the petitioner was
appointed as a Trainee with effect from 1-2-2007
and subsequently, he was placed on probationer and
the period of probation was also confirmed in
writing and he was also given periodical increments
and was even given revision of wages for the
financial year 2011-2012 and his annual CTC
was fixed as ` 15,692 by an order, dated 29-4-2011
and the petitioner was also given all the
statutory benefits such as PF, ESI. and so on which
is a clear proof of healthy managerial practice
followed by the respondent and further, the
petitioner was also given subsistence allowance
during the period of suspension under the Industrial
Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and further
on the charges levelled against the petitioner enquiry
was conducted by giving full opportunities to him
to take the assistance of co-worker and examined
himself and to cross examine the witnesses, to
produce evidence and so on and a show cause notice
was
issued
communicating
the
proposed
punishment. The reply given by the petitioner was
not satisfactory and proportion to the misconduct
committed by the petitioner, his services were
terminated and the enquiry was conducted by
following the principles of natural justice and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for
re-employment, backwages or any other benefits
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.P17 were marked and on the
side of the respondent RW.l was examined and Ex.Rl
to Ex.R15 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for the order of
reinstatement with backwages, 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 has 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 :
836
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 August 2017
* Manilal
Vs. Matchless Industries of India
(Delhi HC 2016 LLR 72),
* Biecco Lawrie Limited, Anr, Vs. State of West
Bengal and Anr.(SCC 2009 LLR Pg.1057),
* Sh.Mohd.Azim Vs. Sarv UP Gramin Bank (Delhi
HC 2015 LLR 464),
* L.K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Limited, (SCC 2006
LLR 296),
* Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oheroi Fligh Services
(SCC 2009 LLR 1281),
* Novartis India Limited, Vs. State of West
Bengal and others (SCC 2008 CDJ 2046),
* High Polymer Laboratories
Vs. Jagadish
Chand and Anr.(Punjab and Haryana HC 2007 LLR
166).
7. From the pleadings of both the parties it is clear
that the following fact are admitted by both the parties
that the petitioner was in service of the respondent
establishment from the year 2007 and the respondent
management has refused the employment of the
petitioner on and from 12-6-2012 and the said
petitioner has raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer and a show cause notice was given
to him and the domestic enquiry was conducted against
the petitioner which was completed on 29-10-2012
and the respondent management has terminated the
petitioner, on 17-10-2013.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been
in service from the year 2007 in the respondent
establishment and after a long time of service the
respondent management has confirmed him as
permanent employee of the respondent establishment
and the trade union members has demanded the
legitimate right while so, the management has insisted
him to quit from the union and to give apology letter
to the management for which he refused and therefore,
the respondent management has refused employment
on and from 12-6-2012 for which the petitioner
approached the Labour Officer, Conciliation and raised
a dispute against the respondent management on the
same day and thereafter the domestic enquiry
was initiated by the respondent management which was
completed on 29-10-2012 and the enquiry was
conducted against the principles of natural justice and
it is not a fair enquiry and even after elapse of 6 month
of completion of domestic enquiry the respondent
management has refused to give employment to the
petitioner and also has not furnished the domestic
enquiry report and only to take revenge on the union
members, the management has terminated the
petitioner on 17-10-2013 while the conciliation was
pending and in order to prove his case, the petitioner
has examined himself as PW.l and he has stated all the
above facts in his evidence and in support of the case
the petitioner has also examined Ramachandiran, President
of the Union as PW.2 and he has reiterated the
evidence of PW.l and in support of the oral evidence
of PW.l and PW.2 they have marked Ex.Pl to Ex.P17.
9. On the other hand, the respondent management
has examined one R. Sakthi as RW.1 and he has deposed
that petitioner was working as Forklift Operator and he
has not followed the safety norms of the company and
he has not abiding the terms and conditions prescribed
in the policy of the company and he has violated the
same and he is a habitual offender and not followed the
safety norms he drove the forklift very rashly, on
20-4-2012 and has attempted to dash the Assistant
Manager-HR., when he was asked about his rash and
willful act he gave a casual and lethargic reply and on
4-5-2012, the petitioner left the work place without any
prior permission for about 30 minutes and was
speaking on the mobile phone in the bathroom when
it was questioned by the Production Manager, the
petitioner has used abusive language against the
Production Manager and again on 5-5-2012, when the
General Manager and the loading Supervisor were
speaking inside the factory the petitioner without any
reason intervened and made unwanted comments using
a abusive language and on 6-6-2012 the petitioner was
also asked to operate the forklift to unload the
Generator but, he deserted the forklift abruptly without
telling any reason and left out and therefore, the
behaviour of the petitioner indifferent and became
uncontrollable he was placed under suspension and the
notice was issued on 11-6-2012 which was refused to
receive by the petitioner and he has raised industrial
dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
alleging that he was prevented from attending his work.
10. In support of its case the respondent has
exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.Rl5. The complaint given against
the petitioner by the co-workers are exhibited as Ex.R1
to Ex.R4. The suspension order was exhibited as
Ex.R5. The industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
before the Conciliation Officer was exhibited as Ex.R6.
The reply letter given by the respondent management
to the Labour Officer on 5-7-2012 was exhibited as
Ex.R7. The enquiry proceedings were exhibited as
837
15 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R8. The enquiry report was exhibited as Ex.R9. The
second show cause notice was exhibited as Ex.R10.
The reply letter given by the petitioner was exhibited
as Ex.Rl1. The termination order issued to the
petitioner, on 17-10-2013 was exhibited as Ex.R12.
The order of appointment for trainee was exhibited as
Ex.Rl3. The revision of wages-cum-Probation order
was exhibited as Ex.R14. The confirmation order was
exhibited as Ex.R15. These documents would go to
show that there was some complaint made by co-
workers and the petitioner was suspended and he has
raised the industrial dispute, on 12-6-2012 and
subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and he was terminated from service on
17-10-2013.
11. It is the main contention of the petitioner that
the act of termination of the petitioner from service
while industrial dispute is pending before the
Conciliation Officer is against the provisions of
section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Admittedly
the petitioner has raised the industrial dispute
on 12-6-2012 and thereafter, the domestic enquiry was
initiated by the respondent management appointing
one Advocate A. Thilagavathi and after completion of
domestic enquiry, a enquiry report was filed by the
Enquiry Officer on 1-3-2013 and that therefore, it is
clear from the records that when the industrial dispute
is pending before the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
which was raised by the petitioner, on 12-6-2012
without the express or previous permission of the
Conciliation Officer the respondent management has
terminated the petitioner employee from service
against the provision under section 33(l)(b) of the Act.
The section 33(l)(b) of the Act would runs as follows:
"For any misconduct 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".
And that therefore, it is the clear violation of the
Sec.33(l)(b) of the Act that the respondent
management have not obtained any previous
permission for the dismissal of the petitioner.
12. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.R8-enquiry
proceedings, which would reveal that the petitioner has
raised his objection regarding the appointment of the
Enquiry Officer and he has submitted the letters on
25-8-2012 and 8-8-2012 asking the management to
appoint another Enquiry Officer stating that he has no
faith on the Enquiry Officer for which the respondent
management has refused and that petitioner alone
participated in the domestic enquiry and further, it
reveals from the Ex-R9-enquiry report that the enquiry
was conducted by the same officer and the petitioner
has not been permitted to assist by somebody else, the
co-worker and further, it reveals that the report has
been prepared by the Enquiry Officer only on 1-3-2013
while the domestic enquiry was completed on
29-10-2012 for which no explanation was given by the
Enquiry Officer for submission of enquiry report after
lapse of four months of completion of enquiry.
Furthermore, it reveals from the Ex.R9, 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 furnished the list of witnesses
to the employee before commencing the enquiry and
the employee has 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. Further, the
conciliation failure report-Ex.Pl2 would also reveal
that the Conciliation Officer also has advised the
respondent management to reinstate the workmen.
13. Considering the above fact that the domestic
enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and the
respondent management by terminating the petitioner
while the conciliation is pending has violated the
provisions of section 33(l)(b) of the Act, this Court
held that the reason assigned by the respondent
management for the dismissal of the petitioner from
the respondent establishment that the petitioner has
misbehaved is not a reasonable one and erroneous and
therefore the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
over the non-employment is justified and he is entitled
for an order of reinstatement and hence, the petitioner
can get the benefit of reinstatement. In respect of the
backwages and other attendant benefits absolutely there
is no evidence that the petitioner was not working
anywhere else after the dismissal and that therefore,
he cannot be given full backwages. However,
considering the fact and circumstances of this case and
the fact that the respondent management has not elicit
any evidence that petitioner is working anywhere else,
this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner is
entitled for 50% of the backwages and other attendant
benefits with continuity of service.
838
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 August 2017
14. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner over the
non-employment is justified and an Award is passed by
directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service with continuity of service and further directed
to pay 50% of backwages to the petitioner 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 — 17-2-2015 —Saravanan
PW.2 — 6-11-2015—Ramachandiran
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
—
11-6-2012 —
Notice sent by the
r e s p o n d e n t
management
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.P2
—
12-6-2012 — Dispute raised by the
petitioner union before
the
Labour
Officer
( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) ,
Puducherry.
Ex.P3
—
12-6-2012 —
Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
r e s p o n d e n t
management.
Ex.P4
—
11-6-2012 —
Notice sent by the
r e s p o n d e n t
management
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.P5
—
30-7-2012 —
Letter submitted by the
petitioner
to
the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P6
—
05.07.2012 — Reply submitted by
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t
management
before
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P7
—
23-4-2013 —
Copy of the letter
submitted
by
the
petitioner before the
La b o u r
Of f i c e r
(Conciliation).
Ex.P8
—
19-7-2013 —
Letter sent by the
r e s p o n d e n t
management
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.P9
—
20-8-2013 —
Copy
of
the
reply
letter sent by the
petitioner
to
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t
management.
Ex.P10 —
17-10-2013 — The termination order
sent by the respondent
management
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.Pll
—
Several
— Enquiry proceedings.
dates.
Ex.P12 —
3-12-2013 — Failure report submitted
by the Labour Officer
( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) ,
Puducherry.
Ex.P13 —
18-3-2014 — Notification issued by
the
Government
of
Puducherry.
Ex.P14 —
26-1-2012 — Copy of the minutes of
the meeting.
Ex.P15 —
1-2-2012
— Copy of the Trade
Union
Registration
Application submitted
before the Register of
Trade Union, Puducherry.
Ex.P16 —
27-2-2012 — Copy of the intimation
letter submitted by the
petitioner
union
to
t h e r e s p o n d e n t
management.
Ex.P17 —
Various
— Copy of the transfer
dates
order, suspended order,
dismissal order issued
by
the
respondent
management.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 15-3-2016
—
R. Sakthi
839
15 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl —20-4-2012
— Copy of the complaint
letter given by C. Nargunan,
Assistant Manager-HR.
and IR.
Ex.R2 —4-5-2012
— Copy of the complaint
letter given by Mr. Abdul
Rakoop, Vice-President-
Manufacturing
Ex.R3 —5-5-2012
— Copy of the complaint
l e t t e r
g i v e n
b y
Mr. Govindhan.
Ex.R4 —6-6-2012
— Copy of the complaint
l e t t e r
g i v e n
b y
M r. P. Vi j a y a r a j , I T
Department.
Ex.R5 —11-6-2012
— Copy of the Suspension
order cum enquiry notice
sent by the respondent
with registered post slip
and acknowledgment card.
Ex.R6 —12-6-2012
— Copy of the industrial
dispute raised by the
petitioner before the Labour
Officer (conciliation).
Ex.R7 —5-7-2012
— Copy of the letter given
by the respondent to the
L a b o u r
Of f i c e r
(conciliation).
Ex.R8 —Various
— C o p y o f t h e E n q u i r y
dates.
proceedings.
Ex.R9 —1-3-2013
— Copy of the Enquiry
report.
Ex.R10—19-7-2013
— Copy of the second show
cause notice issued to
the petitioner.
Ex.Rl1—20-8-2013
— Copy of the reply
letter given by the
petitioner
Ex.Rl2—17-10-2013 — Copy of the Termination
order
issued
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R13—6-2-2007
— Copy of the Order of
Appointment for Trainee.
Ex.Rl4 —22-6-2009
— Copy of the Revision
of wages-cum-Probation
order.
Ex.R15—3-4-2010
— Copy of the Revision of
wages-cum-confirmation
order.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
INDIAN RAILWAYS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROJECT
DIRECTOR
Railway Electrification
Egmore, Chennai
No. ETR/252/RE/2449/EIG.
Chennai, dated 22nd June 2017.
ANNEXURE – I
Proforma 10-01
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice is hereby given to all users of Railway lines
and premises situated on the completed section of the
under noted sections of the Southern Railway that the
25,000 Volt 50 Hz., AC. Overhead Traction wires will
be energized on or after the date specified against the
sections. On and from the same date the Overhead
Traction line shall be treated as ‘LIVE’ at all times and
no unauthorized person shall approach or work in the
proximity of the said Overhead lines.
Section
Date
Tiruchchirappalli-Nagapattinam-Karaikal 31-12-2017
CHIEF PROJECT DIRECTOR,
Railway Electrification,
Egmore,Chennai – 600 008.
————
INDIAN RAILWAYS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROJECT
DIRECTOR
Railway Electrification
Egmore, Chennai
ANNEXURE – II
INTRODUCTION OF AC 25 KV TRACTION
Proforma 10-02
“WARNING TO ROAD USERS”
It is notified for information of the public that in
connection with introduction of 25 KV AC Electric
Traction on and from the dates mentioned against the
following sections of Southern Railway, height gauges