La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 24-00
Prix : ` 24-00
Price :
` 24-00
2017 }
| 22 {
No.
34
Poudouchéry
Mardi
22
Août
2017 (31 Sravana 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
22nd
August
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 892
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 892
Award of the Labour Court .. 892
de tribunal.
.. 905
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 905
Government Notifications .. 905
.. 910
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 910
Tender notices
.. 910
.. 917
Etablissements dangereux
.. 917
Dangerous Establishments
.. 917
.. 921
Annonces
.. 921
Announcements
.. 921
[ 891 ]
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 : 22-8-2017
Price : ` 24-00
892
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 August 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 112/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 10th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. (L) No. 16/2013,
dated 10-5-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the
Management of Sigma Pack, Mannadipet Commune,
Puducherry and its workers Thiruvalargal D. Manikandan,
A. Kuppusamy and K.R. Kumaravel, Puducherry over
non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV\of 1947) read
with the notification issued in Labour Department’s
G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L., dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by Secretary to Government (Labour)
that the said Award shall be published in the Official
Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
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.
Wednesday, the 10th day of May 2017.
I.D. (L) No. 16/2013
1. D. Manikandan,
2. A.Kuppusamy,
3. K.R.Kumaravel.
. . Petitioners
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Sigma Pack,
No.85/2, Thirukkanur Main Road,
Kodathur, Mutrampet Post,
Mannadipet Commune,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming up before me for
final hearing on 26-4-2017 in the presence of
Thiru P. Manivannan, Counsel for the petitioners and
Thiru G. Krishnan, Counsel 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
This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. 23/AIL/Lab./J/2013,
dated 26-2-2013 for adjudicating the following:
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiruvalargal
D. Manikandan, A.Kuppusamy and K.R.Kumaravel
against the management of M/s. Sigma Pack,
Puducherry, over non-employment is justified or not?
(b) If justified, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim petition filed by the
petitioners are stated as follows:
(i) The first petitioner joined the service of the
respondent company on 5-2-2000 and was confirmed
on 1-9-2002 as an Operator. The second petitioner
joined the service of the respondent company
on 13-11-2001 and was confirmed on 1-3-2003 as
Fork Lift Operator. The third petitioner joined in
service on 17-4-2002 and was confirmed on 1-10-2004
as an Operator. The respondent company acted
against the right and the welfare of the workers
without giving rightful salary and these petitioners
have approached the Conciliation Officer through
their Union on 22-11-2010 and 24-11-2010 and the
settlement was arrived in between the respondent
company and their Union on 27-4-2011 and as per the
settlement the company agreed for yearly increments
and allowances from 1-11-2010 to 30-11-2013 for
three years and the company from January, 2012
onwards individually threatened and insisted the
workers that they intend to close down the company
in the month of March, 2012 to evade the taxes from
the Government and insisted voluntary resignation
from the workers and nearly 50 workers put their
signature in the blank papers, the respondent
company will be closed down and restarted in one
month assured by them.
(ii) The respondent company never given any lock
out or closure notice as per law to any workmen
including the petitioners till 4-5-2012 and the
respondent illegally made the workers to resign
893
22 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
their job and sheds crocodile tears for running the
company and illegally try to close down the company.
The management threatened the petitioners that they
will be transferred if, they do not accept for
resignation and therefore, the petitioners filed an
individual complaint on 4-5-2012 and requested the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) to pass an order to the
respondent company to provide employment to the
petitioners till the lawful closure and on 21-5-2012,
the conciliation done before the Conciliation
Officer on 23-5-2012 and conciliation initiated
wherein the petitioners requested employment till
lawful closure of the company and conciliation
proceedings adjourned to 26-6-2012. While the
petitioners went for work as usual on 11-6-2012 the
management not allowed to enter into the company
and that they have close down the factory
permanently. The respondent company sent a letter
on 11-6-2012 the notice of termination on account
of closure on 7-6-2012 in person on 9-6-2012 at
about 4.30 p.m. Further, the respondent company
also enclosed a cheque bearing No. 226931, dated
11-6-2012 for
` 75,357 to the 1st petitioner, a
cheque bearing No. 226933, dated 11-6-2012 for
` 69,525 to the 2nd petitioner, a cheque bearing
No. 226932, dated 11-6-2012 for ` 60,803 to the
3rd petitioner towards the petitioners full and final
settlement of accounts. The petitioners were served
with the letter, dated 11-6-2012 and the same was
vehemently denied by the petitioners by their reply
letter, dated 21-6-2012. No notice of termination
on account of closure, dated 7-6-2012 was tendered
to the petitioners at any point of time in person and
further, no notice were annexed with the letter,
dated 11-6-2012. Since, the conciliation proceeding
were
pending
before
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry in No. l203, 1204,
1205/2012/LO(C)/All the closure of the respondent
company is most illegal. It deems to be a lockout
which is also unlawful.
(iii) As per the Industrial Disputes Act, the
respondent company shall serve at least two months
or three months before the date on which the
intended closure is to become effective, a notice,
in
the prescribed manner, on the appropriate
Government stating clearly the reason the intended
closure of the company, but, the respondent
company never stick on to the provisions
contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. The
respondent company cheated the workers by illegal
closure and the same is deemed to be a lock out and
while pending conciliation proceedings, the
respondent company made a full and final settlement
on their accord is illegal and had violated the
provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, in order
to appoint a new labour or workers to run a company
in another name to evade the tax from the
Government and the permanent closure of the
company is the drama set up by the respondent
company and hence, the petitioners are entitled for
back wages and other benefits. The petitioners
individually sent a reply, dated 21-6-2012 by
stating the above facts through R.P.A.D to the
respondent company and they will return back the
cheques in the presence of the Conciliation Officer
and the said reply letter was acknowledged by the
respondent company on 22-6-2012.
(iv) A cheque sent by the respondent management
to the petitioners were handed over to Mr. S. Giridharan
(Commercial Manager) in person on 26-6-2012 in
conciliation proceedings, but, he refused to receive
the same. Thereafter, the petitioners are constrained
to send back the abovesaid original cheques to the
respondent company by covering letter, dated
27-6-2012 through R.P.A.D. and the same was
ackno wledged by the resp ond ent company.
The
petitioners insisted the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry for employment in the
respondent company since, the closure is illegal one.
The petitioners never proposed for any full and final
settlement. But, the respondent company was very
much particular for full final settlement and they
proposed for a sum of ` 1,83,518.54, ` 1,69,925.00
and
` 1,44,418.38 to the petitioners 1 to 3
respectively. Since, the respondent company does
not come forward to provide employment to the
petitioners, they insisted to close down the
conciliation proceedings and to refer the matter to
this Hon’ble Court for proper consideration and
adjudication.
(v) The 1st petitioner was served with another
notice of enquiry/conciliation, dated 26-9-2012 to
appear before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry on 3-10-2012 at 11.00 a.m. for
amicable settlement. The petitioners appeared
before
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry and they stated their inability that they
are very particular about their employment and they
never insisted for any full and final settlement.
Therefore, the petitioners requested for close down
the conciliation and to refer the matter to this
Hon’ble Court. The Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry failed to investigate the dispute and she
894
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 August 2017
helped the respondent company knowing fully that
closure of the respondent company is unlawful. The
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry passed
a report on failure of conciliation, dated 22-1-2013
ard the same was intimated to the petitioners
through registered post. The petitioners denied the
each and every allegation levelled against the
petitioners by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry in the abovesaid report on failure and
the petitioners filed RTI Application before the
Public Information Officer, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 24-9-2012 and sought for the
information regarding respondent company's
closure notice, permission given by the Government
to the closure notice, returns, etc.,. The said
application was duly acknowledged by the Public
Information
Officer,
Labour
Department,
Puducherry on 25-9-2012. The Public Information
Officer has furnished the information to the
petitioners that no permission was granted by the
Government to close down the respondent company
and therefore, the closure of the company is highly
illegal.
(vi) The first petitioner way furnished with ESI
Card by the respondent company and he took
treatment before the ESI, Dispensary, Gandhi Nagar,
Puducherry even after the illegal closure. If, the
respondent company is closed down, the insurance
to the worker would have been terminated. This
shows that the respondent company is playing fraud
upon the workers and the Government. The
respondent company’s management has to be
penalized by initiating criminal action for the
illegal closure of the company. The respondent
company made an illegal closure, when there was a
settlement exist in force from 1-12-2010 to 30-11-2013
in between the respondent company and the
abovesaid two unions on 27-4-2011(No. l3/2011/
Labour Officer (Conciliation)/AIL, dated 27-4-2011),
when the conciliation proceedings were pending
before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry in Nos. l203,1204,1205/2012/LO(C)/
All the closure of the respondent company is most
illegal.
3. The averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:-
(i) M/s. SIGMAPACK was carrying on the
business of manufacturing Corrugated Card Board
Boxes and unfortunately a steep rise in cost of
production, cut throat competitive market situation,
deliberate non-cooperation of the workmen
resulting in under utilization of the installed
capacity and heavy drop in production have badly
affected the viability of the company making the
operation of the factory almost impossible. The
bona fide efforts made by the management for tiding
over the difficulties did not yield any fruitful results
as the company had become technically infeasible
and economically not viable and realizing the
adverse conditions prevailing in the factory except
few all the other workmen have resigned and made
full and final settlement of their accounts
voluntarily. All these factors have created a
situation whereby continuing with the operation of
the factory had become impracticable and the
management was constrained to take the painful
decision of closing the factory wholly and
permanently with effect from 11-6-2012.
(ii) The notice of closure with statement of
reason for closure was displayed in the notice-board
of the factory on 7-6-2011 itself and the workmen
were also tendered with a copy of the same and as
they have refused to receive the notice the
respondent management has sent the same along
with the cheque towards terminal benefits including
closure compensation to the residential address of
the workmen and on the date of closure only four
workmen i.e., the petitioners and one Selvi were on
the rolls and all of them have received the notice
with cheque and subsequently, the petitioners have
returned the cheque and raised an industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Authority. The said Selvi had
made full and final settlement of her account with
the respondent company and in the course of
conciliation proceedings, the petitioners have
accepted the closure declared by the management
and came up with a claim of 90 days closure
compensation for every completed year of service
including Gratuity and other legal dues and
thereafter, the management had putforth a proposal
in respect of the full and final settlement amount
but, the petitioners have insisted for an additional
amount of ` 10,000 and after negotiation both sides
have mutually agreed for payment of a sum of
` 7,500 in addition to the said proposed full and
final settlement. When, the conciliation proceedings
was posted for signing settlement the petitioners
made a turn around and insisted for employment in
case the management restarts the company in future
and hence, the conciliation ended in a failure
on 1-8-2012.
895
22 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(iii) Even though the conciliation failed, the
management made bona fide efforts to settle the
dispute amicably by sending a letter, dated 17-9-2012
to the Conciliation Authority for reopening the
industrial dispute with an offer to provide
employment to the petitioners in case of restarting
of the respondent company in future but, the
petitioners have not shown much interest in further
conciliation and finally came with a representation
that they were not willing for settlement and again
insisted for recording failure of conciliation and
due to their intransigent attitude, the authority had
no other alternative than to conclude the industrial
dispute with a failure note. The respondent fully
co-operated in the conciliation proceedings and
were looking forward to amicably settle the dispute.
It was only the petitioners who tried to browbeat
the respondent in accepting their unlawful demands
and for the failure of the conciliation proceedings
before the Authorities, the petitioners alone to be
blamed for the adamant and indifferent attitude.
(iv) The number of workmen in the respondent
factory on the date of closure was four only and no
permission is required for effecting closure.
Neither the provisions of 25 (O) nor 25 (FFA)
would be attracted to the facts of the present case.
The
petitioners
were
offered
their
due
compensation, and therefore, cannot question the
closure of the respondent factory. As such there is
no violation of any provision of the Industrial
Disputes Act or any other laws. The closure declared
by the respondent is legal and in accordance with
the provisions of law and no ulterior motive or
mala fide intention can be attributed to respondent's
decision of closing down the factory. The closure
is complete and not mere pretence or lock out as
alleged by the petitioners. The respondent factory
was closed wholly and permanently from 11-6-2012
and no manufacturing activities of any nature
whatsoever was carried out in the respondent
factory on and from the date of closure. The
respondent has also complied with the legal
obligations as contemplated under the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 towards permanent
closure and no ulterior motive or mala fide intention
can be attributed to respondent's decision of closing
down the factory. The closure of the respondent
factory was bona fide, genuine and real and the
petitioners are not entitled for any relief other than
the
statutory
compensation
for
closure
as
contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 which was already offered to
them by the respondent management.
4. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 to PW.4 was examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P46 were marked and on the side of the respondent
RW.1 was examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.R15 were marked.
Argument Heard. The learned Counsel for the
respondent has filed a written argument and relied
upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 1969 SC 434,
M/s. Tatanagar Foundry Company Limited Vs. Their
workmen, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has been held that,
“In the present case the totality of facts and
circumstances would lead to the conclusion that
the undertaking at Jamshedpur was closed down
completely and was a final and irrevocable
termination of the business itself.................It is now
well established that in the case of a closure the
employer does not merely close down the place of
business but, he closes the business finally and
irrevocably. The closure has to be genuine and
bona fide in the sense that it should be a closure in
fact and not a mere pretence of closure ............. The
motive behind the closure is immaterial and what
is to be seen is whether it an effective one..........
The result, therefore, is that the workmen are
entitled to compensation under the main clause
of S. 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”.
The learned Counsel also relied upon the Judgment
reported in CDJ 2001 BHC 0765, Azad Kamgar Union
Vs. Metagraphs Private Limited, wherein the Hon’ble
High Court of India has been held that,
“It has been laid down by this Court in a series
of decisions that it is not for Industrial Tribunals
to enquire into the motive to find out whether the
closure is justified or not.................the Head Note
of the Judgment : Held : The interpretation that
notice under S.25-FFFa is not a condition precedent
for closure of an undertaking gets support from the
language of S.25-F which lays down the condition
precedent for retrenchment. S.25-(sic) of the Act
which was inserted with effect from 27-10-1981
also supports the above interpretation. This section
gives an indication in regard to legal position prior
to its incorporation. Prior to insertion of S.25-O,
the only requirement for closure was contained in
S.25:FFA which does not require an employer to
apply for permission of the appropriate Government
to close down its undertaking. What is required in
that case is only to give sixty days notice to
appropriate Government of the employer’s intention
to close down an undertaking. No consequence of
896
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 August 2017
failure to give such a notice has been set out in
S.25-FFA as has been done in sub-section (7) of
S.25-O of the Act. This distinction in these two
sections (S.25-FFA and S.25-O as applicable in
Maharashtra) in perceptible and material. Unlike
S.25-O, the requirements of S.25-FFA are not
mandatory. The power of the employer to close
down an undertaking is not subject to prior
permission of the appropriate Government. It simply
requires the employer to give 60 days notice of the
intended closure to the appropriate Government.
Failure to do so would not render the closure illegal
from its inception. It may render the employer
liable to pay wages of 60 days to the workman.
Non-compliance with the requirements of this
section therefore, cannot be equated with non-
fulfilment of a condition precedent to the passing
of an order............it is now well established that
failure to comply with the provisions of
S.25FFA of the Act does not make closure illegal
or [est.... It is on record that the respondents had
offered one] non-months wages in lieu of notice
and the closure compensation in according with the
provisions of S. 25-FFA of the Act. The respondents
cannot be blamed if, the workmen refused to accept
the dues”.
5. The point for consideration:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioners
against the management of the respondent over
non-employment is justified or not and if justified, for
what relief the petitioners are entitled to ?
6. From the pleadings of the petitioners and the
respondent, it is clear that these petitioners had been
in service in the respondent establishment and the
respondent establishment was closed down the factory
in the month of March, 2012 and some of the
employees have given voluntary resignation from the
service and some of the employees have settled
amicably with the respondent establishment and these
petitioners have raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer on 4-5-2012 and the conciliation
was initiated on 23-5-2012 and the conciliation was
failed and this Industrial Tribunal has been referred to
this Court for adjudication.
7. In order to establish their case, the petitioners
have examined the first petitioner as PW.1, second
petitioner as PW.2, third petitioner as PW.3 and the
co-worker one Ravi who was in service at the
respondent company as PW.4 and through them Ex.P1
to Ex.P44 were marked. PW.1 to PW.3 have stated in
their evidence that they have been in service of the
respondent establishment and their service have been
confirmed by the respondent establishment and from
January, 2012, the respondent management has
threatened them that they have been intend to close
down the company in the March, 2012 and insisted
voluntary resignation from the workers and only
50 workers put their signature in the blank papers and
got amicable settlement from the respondent company
on belief that the respondent company would be close
down and restarted in one month as assured by them
and the management had illegally made the workers to
resign their jobs and illegally trying to close down the
company against the principles of natural justice and
the labour welfare and these petitioners were insisted
and threatened for voluntary resignation from the
service and they have been invited for settlement talks
but, no settlement was arrived and hence, these
petitioners have made a legal complaint on 4-5-2012
requested the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to pass an
order to the respondent to provide employment and the
respondent company has sent a letter, dated 11-6-2012
stating that the respondent company has given a notice
of termination on account of closure, dated 7-6-2012
and cheques for ` 75,357, ` 69,525 and ` 69,803 were
sent to the petitioners by the respondent company
along with the above notice which was returned by the
petitioners along with the reply on 21-6-2012 and no
notice of termination on account of closure on 7-6-2012
was tendered to the petitioners at any point of time in
person and no such notice was enclosed with the letter,
dated 11-6-2012 and the respondent has not served any
notice prior to the notice for closure regarding
intention to close the establishment required under the
Industrial Disputes Act and that the closure is illegal
and that therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement
with full back wages and other benefits.
8. Apart from the oral evidence of the petitioners,
the petitioners have exhibited the confirmation, letters
issued by the respondent company to the petitioners
1 to 3 as Ex.Pl, Ex.P18 and Ex.P32 respectively, the
copies of the Identity Card of the petitioners 1 to 3
as Ex.P2, Ex.Pl9 and Ex.P33 respectively, the
Settlement (agreement) arrived at between the
respondent company and Pack Pattali Union & Sigma
Pack Labour Union, dated 27-4-2011 as Ex.P3, the
copy of the complaint letters given by the petitioners
1 to 3 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, dated 4-5-2012 as Ex.P4, Ex.P20 and
Ex.P34 respectively, the notice of enquiry/conciliation
issued by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry to the petitioners 1 and 2, dated 21-5-2012
as Ex.P5 and Ex.P21 respectively, the letters sent
897
22 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
by the respondent company to the petitioners 1 to 3,
dated 11-6-2012 as Ex.P6, Ex.P22 and Ex.P35
respectively, the copy of the reply letters, dated 21-6-2012
sent by the petitioners 1 to 3 to the respondent
company’s letter, dated 11-6-2012 as Ex.P7, Ex.P23
and Ex.P36 respectively, the acknowledgement cards
acknowledged by the respondent company, dated
22-6-2012 as Ex.P8, Ex.P24 and Ex.P37 respectively, the
copy of the letters sent by the petitioners 1 to 3 to
the respondent company, dated 27-6-2012 as Ex.P9,
Ex.P25 and Ex.P38 respectively, the acknowledgment
card acknowledged by the respondent company as
Ex.P10, Ex.P26 and Ex.P39 respectively, the notice
of enquiry/conciliation issued by the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry to the 1st petitioner, dated
26-9-2012 as Ex.Pll, the copy of the letters sent by
the petitioners 1 to 3 to the PIO, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 24-9-2012 as Ex.P12, Ex.P27 and
Ex.P40 respectively, the acknowledgment cards
acknowledged by the PIO, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 25-9-2012 as Ex.P13, Ex.P28 and
Ex.P41 respectively, the information letters furnished
by the PIO, Labour Department, Puducherry to the
petitioners 1 to 3, dated 18-10-2012 as Ex.P14,
Ex.P29 and Ex.P42 respectively, the conciliation
failure reports
issued by the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry, addressed to the petitioners
1 to 3, dated 22-1-2012 as Ex.P15, Ex.P30 and Ex.P43
respectively, the ESI
medical treatment receipt
(certificate), dated 25-6-2012, 1-9-2012, 11-1-2013,
18-1-2013, 8-8-2013 (5 series) as Ex.P16, the pay
slip of the 1st petitioner for the month of February
2012 as Ex.P17, Pay Slip of the petitioners 2 and 3
for the month of March, 2012 as Ex.P31 and Ex.P44
respectively, RTI application in FORM-I, dated
23-9-2014 addressed to the Commercial Tax Officer-
IAC, Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry by the
1st petitioner as Ex.P45, Supply of information in FORM-3,
dated 7-10-2014 by the Commercial Tax Officer-IAC,
Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry to the 1st
petitioner as Ex.P46.
9. These exhibits would go to show that these
petitioners are the employees of the respondent
establishment and their services have been confirmed
and that there was settlement arrived at between the
union and the respondent establishment and these
petitioners have made representation before the
Conciliation Officer and the notice was sent to the
petitioners as well as the respondent establishment and
that there was some conciliation and the respondent
management has issued a notice to the petitioners on
11-6-2012 stating that on account of closure, dated
7-6-2012 the petitioners were tendered to receive the
compensation which was refused to receive by the
petitioner and a cheque for ` 75,354, ` 69,525 and
` 69,803 were sent along with the notice towards full
and final settlement on account of the closure, for
which the petitioner have sent a reply notice on
24-6-2012 stating their objection for the final
settlement and sent an another letter, dated 27-6-2012
and have returned the original cheque to the respondent
management.
10. The main contention of the respondent
management is that the Government has made a
reference to adjudicate the dispute raised by the
petitioners only over the non-employment of the
petitioners and dispute over the closure was not
referred and the claim of the petitioners challenging
the closure of the establishment is beyond the scope
of the reference and the petitioner cannot seek
adjudication of the dispute which was not actually
referred by the Government and another contention of
the respondent is that the closure was done according
to the Industrial Disputes Act and the respondent
establishment was closed with effect from 11-6-2012
due to the steep rise in cost of production, cut throat
competitive
market
situation,
deliberate
non
cooperation of the workmen and heavy drop in
production and even after the bona fide efforts taken
by the management for tiding over the difficulties did
not yield any fruitful results as the company had
become technically infeasible and economically not
viable and realizing the adverse conditions prevailing
in the factory except few all the other workmen have
resigned and made full and final settlement of their
accounts voluntarily and before the closure on
7-6-2012 itself the notice of closure with statement
of reason for closure was displayed in the notice-board
of the factory on 7-6-2012 and the workmen were
also tendered with the copy of the same and the
workmen have refused to receive the notice the
respondent management has sent the same along with
the cheque towards terminal benefits including closure
compensation to the residential address of the
workmen and that therefore, the closure is a valid one
and the further contention of the respondent is that the
petitioner are not entitled for the order of
reinstatement since the factory was closed wholly and
permanently from 11-6-2012 and no manufacturing
activities was carried out in the respondent factory on
and from the date of closure.
11. In order to prove the same, the respondent has
examined RW.1 and exhibits Ex.Rl to Ex.P15 were
marked. The respondent has exhibited the closure
notice displayed in the respondent factory on 7-6-2012
898
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 August 2017
as Ex.R1, the letter of intimation of closure sent to
the Secretary (Labour), Puducherry on 7-6-2012 as Ex.R2,
the letter sent to the petitioners 1 to 3 as Ex.R3, Ex.R5
and Ex.R7 respectively and the acknowledgement signed
by the petitioners 1 to 3 as Ex.R4, Ex.R6 and Ex.R8
respectively, the letter sent by the petitioners 1 to 3
returning the cheque as Ex.R9 to Ex.11 respectively,
the conciliation report as Ex.R12, the copy of the letter
sent to the Commercial Taxes Department as Ex.R13,
the copy of the letter sent to the Chief Inspector of
Factories as Ex.R14 and the copy of the letter sent to
the Directorate of Industries and Commerce as
Ex.R15.
12. It is evident from Ex.Rl2 - the failure report of
the
Conciliation
Officer
that
the
respondent
management has made a proposal for full and final
settlement amount to an extent of ` 1,83,518.54,
` 1,69,925.00 and ` 44,418.38 respectively and these
petitioners have insisted for ` 10,000 in addition to
the abovesaid amount, for which the respondent
management has accepted and agreed to pay ` 7,500
in addition to the proposed full and final settlement
and both the parties have agreed for the same and
finally when the conciliation was posted for signing of
settlement,
the
petitioners
have
insisted
for
employment in case, the management restarts the
company in future, for which the management did not,
accepted and that therefore, the conciliation was failed
and even after the failure of conciliation, the
management requested the Conciliation Officer to
reopen the industrial dispute and agreed to the claim
made by the petitioners in respect of providing
employment to the petitioners when they restart the
company once again and the Conciliation Officer also
restarted the ID and petitioners were called upon and
the petitioners did not show much interest in further
conciliating the issue and they are not willing for
settlement and insisted to send the failure report to the
Government and that therefore, the conciliation was
failed and the matter has been recommended for
adjudication by the Conciliation Officer to the
Government, Ex.R12 also would reveal the fact that
though the management has agreed to the claim made
by the petitioners, the petitioners insisted to send the
failure report to the Government and only on the
request of the petitioner the failure report was sent to
the Government.
13. The other documents would also reveal the fact
that the respondent management has sent a closure
notice to the Government and to the petitioners and the
same was received by the petitioners and the
respondent also sent a cheque for full and final
settlement to the petitioners and the respondent
management has sent a letter to the Commercial Taxes
Department, Chief Inspector of Factories and
Directorate of Industries and Commerce regarding the
closure of the factory. Particularly Ex.R13 to Ex.R15
would go to show that the respondent management has
stated that due to the administrative and provisional
issues they are not in a position to run the factory and
they have closed the factory permanently from
11-6-2012 and furthermore, it would evident that the
respondent management has already intimated the
closure on 7-6-2012 to the Chief Inspector of
Factories and to the Directorate of Industries and
Commerce. Particularly Ex.R1 would evident that the
respondent management has issued a closure of notice
on 7-6-2012 to the workmen of the factory that they
are going to close the factory wholly and permanently
with effect from 7-6-2012 for the reasons explained
in the annexure displayed in the notice-board along
with the notice of closure and they have stated the
service of workmen are not required from the date of
closure and also has been assured by the respondent
management in the notice would be paid pay and
compensation as required by and provisions under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
14. It is the case of the respondent management that
they have closed down the factory from 11-6-2012 by
issuing a closure notice on 7-6-2012. But, it is the
case of the petitioners that the respondent management
has closed the factory illegally without following the
procedure to be adopted by the management to close
the factory under the Industrial Disputes Act and it
reveal from the letters given by the petitioners which
is exhibited as Ex.P7, Ex.P23 and Ex.P36 that the
factory has been closed on 11-6-2012 and it is alleged
in the letters that the respondent management has not
followed the procedure for closure under the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The letter runs
as follows:
“
(No. 1203/2012/LO(C)/AIL)
,
Closure(Lock out)
899
22 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
,
,
,
Closure
,
Full and Final Settlement
Settlement
Permanent Closure
”.
The above recital of the letter would go to show that
the respondent has closed the factory on 11-6-2012
but, it has not been accepted by the petitioners since
the respondent management has not followed the
procedure adopted under the Industrial Disputes Act
and it is also further reveal from the above letters-
Ex.P7, Ex.P23 and Ex.P36 that the respondent
management has sent a cheque to settle the amount to
the petitioners and the same was returned by these
petitioners. The above letter would go to show that the
respondent management has closed the factory on 11-6-2012
and so far, even till now the respondent management
has not started the factory and it is learnt from other
documents Ex.Rl2 to Ex.R15, the respondent
management have intimated the closure to the
Directorate of Industries and Commerce and Chief
Inspector of factories and therefore, it is clear that the
respondent management has closed the factory and so
far they have not restarted the same till now.
15. Admittedly, the respondent management has not
issued a statutory 60 days notice as per S.25FFA of the
Act in the prescribed manner on the appropriate
Government stating its intention to close down the
factory. Since, the respondent management has closed
the factory without getting prior permission from the
Government and without following the procedure as
laid down u/s. 25F and 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes
Act, it is clear that the respondent management has
closed down the establishment without following the
procedure as stated above and hence, the closure of the
factory by the management is illegal by which the
petitioners have become unemployed and that therefore,
the dispute raised by the petitioners over the
non-employment is justified.
16. Though the closure might be illegal one, the
respondent management cannot be compelled to
reinstate them since, it is impossible to reinstate the
petitioners by the respondent management in the
respondent factory as it was closed from 11-6-2012
Since, the respondent management has not restarted his
factory, they cannot reinstate the petitioners in the
factory as claimed by the petitioners and the
petitioners are not entitled for the order of
reinstatement as claimed by the petitioners. On this
aspect, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are perused and
the evidence runs as follows:
“
DD
DD
Labour
Officer
meeting
meeting
,
Settlement
900
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 August 2017
demand
”.
From the above evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, it is
clear that the petitioners have admitted the fact that
they have demanded only the compensation of 90 days
salary for year of service for which the respondent
management has not accepted and therefore, the
respondent is liable to pay compensation for the
non-employment of the petitioners. Therefore, the
petitioners are entitled for the compensations under
the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act.
17. To fix the compensation to be given to the
petitioners, the documents and records are perused.
On perusal of the records, it is learnt to this Court that
both the parties have not filed any documents to show
the monthly salary of the petitioners but, it is clear
from the evidence that the first petitinor has joined the
service of the respondent company on 5-2-2000 and
the second petitioner joined the service of the
respondent company on 13-11-2001 and the third
petitioner joined in service on 17-4-2002. Since no
evidence is before this Court regarding the salary of
the petitioners, this Court cannot fix the compensation
under Sec.25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, considering the period of service that the
petitioners have been in service for more than 10 years
in the respondent establishment and they become
unemployed due to the closure of the factory, they
have to be compensated. The respondent management
is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners which
was also agreed by the respondent at the time of
conciliation. It is clear from the conciliation failure
report-Ex.Rl2, the respondent management has come
forward to pay compensation of ` 1,83,518.54,
` 1,69,925.00 and ` l,44,418.38 to the petitioners 1
to 3 respectively. Considering the fact that the
petitioners have admitted themselves in the cross
examination that after the closure of the factory they
have demanded only compensation of 90 days salary
for a year from the respondent management and that
the respondent himself come forward to pay the
compensation before the Conciliation Officer as stated
above and considering the other circumstances, this
Court is inclined to fix the compensation of
` 2,25,000 each tentatively to the petitioners.
18. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioners over the
non-employment is justified and the Award is passed
by directing the respondent to pay compensation
of
` 2,25,000 each to the petitioners for non-
employment caused by the respondent management
within one month from the date of this order and the
petition is partly dismissed in respect of the claim of
reinstatement and back wages. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court
on this the 10th day of May, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal
Puducherry.
List of
petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 —
2-4-2014
— D. Manikandan
PW.2 — 27-6-2014
— A. Kuppusamy
PW.3 — 27-6-2014
— K.R. Kumaravel
PW.4 —17-10-2014 — V. Ravi
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
—
Confirmation letter issued by the
respondent company in favour of the 1st
petitioner.
Ex.P2
—
Copy of the Identity Card of the 1st
petitioner.
Ex.P 3 —
The Settlement (agreement) arrived in
between the respondent company and
Pack Pattali Union and Sigma Pack
Labour Union, dated 27-4-2011.
Ex.P4
—
True copy of the complaint letter given
by the 1st petitioner to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,
dated 4-5-2012.
Ex.P5
—
The notice of enquiry/conciliation
issued
by
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry to the 1st
petitioner, dated 21-5-2012.
Ex.P6
—
The letter sent by the respondent
company to the 1st petitioner, dated
11-6-2012.
Ex.P7
—
True copy of the reply letter, dated
21-6-2012 sent by the 1st petitioner to
the respondent company’s letter, dated
11-6-2012.
901
22 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P8
—
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the respondent company, dated
22-6-2012.
Ex.P9
—
True copy of the letter send by the 1st
petitioner to the respondent company,
dated 27-6-2012.
Ex.P10 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the respondent company.
Ex.Pll
—
The notice of enquiry/conciliation issued
by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry to the 1st petitioner, dated
26-9-2012.
Ex.P12 —
True copy of the letter send by the 1st
petitioner to the PIO, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 24-9-2012.
Ex.Pl3 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the PIO, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 25-9-2012.
Ex.P14 —
The information furnished by the
PIO, Labour Department, Puducherry.
to the 1st petitioner, dated 18-10-2012.
Ex.Pl5 —
The report on failure of conciliation
issued by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, addressed to the 1st
petitioner, dated 22-1-2012.
Ex.P16 —
The ESI medical treatment receipt
(certificate), dated 25-6-12, 1-9-12,
11-1-13, 18-1-13, 8-8-13 (5 series)
Ex.P17 —
Pay slip of the 1st petitioner for the
month of February 2012.
Ex.Pl8 —
Confirmation letter issued by the
respondent company in favour of the
2nd petitioner.
Ex.P19 —
Copy of the identity card of the 2nd
petitioner.
Ex.P20 —
True copy of the complaint letter given
by the 2nd petitioner to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,
dated 4-5-2012.
Ex.P21 —
The notice of enquiry/concilation
issued
by
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry to the 2nd
petitioner, dated 21-5-2012.
Ex.P22 —
The letter sent by the respondent
company, to the 2nd petitioner, dated
11-6-2012.
Ex.P23 —
True copy of the reply letter, dated
21-6-12 sent by the 2nd petitioner to
the respondent company’s letter, dated
11-6-2012.
Ex.P24 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the respondent company, dated
22-6-2012.
Ex.P25 —
True copy of the letter sent by the 2nd
petitioner to the respondent company,
dated 27-6-2012.
Ex.P26 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the respondent company.
Ex.P27 —
True copy of the letter sent by the 2nd
petitioner to the PIO, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 24-9-2012.
Ex.P28 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the PIO, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 25-9-2012.
Ex.P29 —
The information furnished by the
PIO, Labour Department, Puducherry
to the 2nd petitioner, dated 18-10-2012.
Ex.P30 —
The report on failure of conciliation
issued by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, addressed to the 2nd
petitioner, dated 22-1-2012.
Ex.P31 —
Pay slip of the 2nd petitioner for the
month of March, 2012.
Ex.P32 —
Confirmation letter issued by the
respondent company in favour of the
3rd petitioner.
Ex.P33 —
Copy of the Identity Card of the 3rd
petitioner.
Ex.P34 —
True copy of the complaint letter given
by the 3rd petitioner to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,
dated 4-5-2012.
Ex.P35 —
The letter sent by the respondent
company to the 3rd petitioner, dated
11-6-2012.
Ex.P36 —
True copy of the reply letter, dated
21-6-12 sent by the 3rd petitioner to
the respondent company’s letter, dated
11-6-2012.
Ex.P37 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the respondent company, dated
22-6-2012.
902
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 August 2017
Ex.P38 —
True copy of the letter sent by the 3rd
petitioner to the respondent company,
dated 27-6-2012.
Ex.P39 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the respondent company.
Ex.P40 —
True copy of the letter (application)
sent by the 3rd petitioner to the PIO,
Labour Department, Puducherry, dated
24-9-2012.
Ex.P41 —
The acknowledgement card acknowledged
by the PIO, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 25-9-2012.
Ex.P42 —
The information furnished by the
PIO, Labour Department, Puducherry
to the 3rd petitioner, dated 18-10-2012.
Ex.P43 —
The report on failure of conciliation
issued
by
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry and the
same was addressed to the 3rd
petitioner, dated 22-1-2012.
Ex.P44 —
Pay Slip of the 3rd petitioner for the
month of March, 2012.
Ex.P45 —
RTI application in FORM-1, dated
23-9-2014 addressed to the Commercial
Tax Officer-IAC, Commercial Taxes
Department, Puducherry by the 1st
petitioner.
Ex.P46 —
Supply of information in FORM-3,
dated 7-10-2014 by the Commercial
Tax Officer-TAG, Commercial Taxes
Department, Puducherry to the 1st
petitioner.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.l
—
17-2-2016 V. Gobi
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
—
Notice of closure displayed in the
petitioner/respondent factory, dated
7-6-2012.
Ex.R2
—
Letter of intimation of closure sent to
the Secretary (Labour), Government of
Puducherry, dated 7-6-2012.
Ex.R3
—
Copy of the letter sent to the lst
petitioner
with
enclosure,
dated
11-6-2012.
Ex.R4
—
Acknowledgement card signed by the
lst petitioner.
Ex.R5
—
Letter sent to the 2nd petitioner with
enclosure, dated 11-6-2012.
Ex.R6
—
Acknowledgement card signed by the
2nd petitioner.
Ex.R7
—
Letter sent to the 3rd petitioner, dated
11-6-2012.
Ex.R8
—
Acknowledgement card signed by the
3rd petitioner, 13-6-2012.
Ex.R9
—
Letter with returned cheque sent by the
1st petitioner, dated 27-6-2012.
Ex.R10 —
Letter with returned, cheque sent by the
2nd petitioner, dated 27-6-2012.
Ex.R11 —
Letter with returned cheque sent by the
3rd petitioner, dated 27-6-2012.
Ex.R12 —
Conciliation failure report, dated
22-1-2013.
Ex.R13 —
Copy of the letter sent to the Commercial
Taxes Department, dated 6-11-2015.
Ex.R14 —
Copy of the letter to the Chief Inspector
of Factories and Boilers, dated 11-12-2015.
Ex.Rl5 —
Copy of the letter sent to the
Directorate of Industries and Commerce,
dated 16-12-2015.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 113/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 10th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. (L)No. 34/2013, dated
12-5-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the Management
of M/s. Packaging India Private Limited, Pillaiyarkuppam
Post, Puducherry and Thiru P. Pragalathan, Puducherry
over non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read
with the notification issued in Labour Department's
903
22 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-91, it is
hereby directed by Secretary to Government (Labour)
that the said Award shall be published in the Official
Gazette, Puducherry.
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 12th day of May, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 34/2013
P. Pragalathan,
. . Petitioner
S/o. Pandurangan,
Puducherry.
Versus
The Managing Director,
. . Respondent
M/s. Packaging India Private Limited,
Kandanpet Village,
Pillaiyarkuppam Post,
Bahour Commune, Puducherry.
This industrial dispute coming up before me for
final hearing on 29-4-2017 in the presence of
Tvl. R.T. Shankar and Thamotharan. Counsel for the
petitioner and Tvl. L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar,
Counsel 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. l03/AIL/LAB/
J/2013, dated 17-7-2013 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru P. Pragalathan against the management of
M/s. Packaging India Private Limited, Puducherry over
his non-employment is justified or not?
(ii) If justified, to what relief, the petitioner is
entitled to ?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The brief averments of the petition filed by the
petitioner are stated as follows:-
The petitioner has joined in the respondent
establishment on 26-6-1998 as Junior Operator in the
Pro-slitting Department and his last drawn salary is
` 9565-00 and the petitioner is also holding the post
of Vice-President in Packaging India INTUC Union
and he had been in service without any remarks for
about 12 years but, on 31-10-2010 without any
prima-facie complaint the respondent management has
temporarily suspended the petitioner from his service
and has issued a charge memo on 25-1-2011 and for
which the petitioner has given his explanation to the
charge memo on 26-1-2011 before the Manager of the
respondent factory but, the respondent management has
not accepted his explanation and conducted domestic
enquiry against him and in the domestic enquiry, no
opportunity was given to the petitioner and the enquiry
was conducted with the bias in favour of the
management and the management threatened the
workers to admit the charges and has assured the
petitioner that if, the petitioner admits the charges, the
management will provide employment to the petitioner
and believing the assurance given by the management
the petitioner and his colleagues namely T. Ramesh,
E. Bakthavachalam, V. Iyyanar, Alexpeter and
K. Narayanan endorsed the admission but, no enquiry
was conducted properly and the Enquiry Officer has
submitted a report finding guilty of the petitioner as
well as his colleagues on the ground of admission of
the employees and on the foot of the report the
management has issued a show cause notice on 12-3-2011
and the petitioner has sent a reply letter to the show
cause notice on 14-3-2011 for which the respondent
management has not accepted the explanation of the
petitioner and passed an order on 31-5-2011 and the
respondent has wantonly terminated the services of the
petitioner since, he was functioning as Vice-President
of the union and has taken false disciplinary action
against the petitioner along with his colleagues.
(ii) Though in the enquiry, it was found all the
employees are found guilty except the petitioner and
one Narayanan all others would not have been
terminated from service and their temporary
suspension was revoked and therefore, the refusal of
employment to the petitioner and the said Narayanan
is totally against the law and is illegal and against the
natural justice. Though the petitioner has approached
the respondent management after his termination on 31-5-2011
in person and through letter of requisition, he has not
been given employment and that therefore, the
petitioner has submitted a conciliation on 31-8-2012
with the Conciliation Officer and the conciliation
proceedings was taken and both the petitioner and the
904
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 August 2017
respondent has been summoned to appear on 18-10-2012
at about 3.00 p.m., though the petitioner has appeared
on 18-10-2012 as summoned in the notice, the
respondent has not appeared before the Conciliation
Officer and therefore, the conciliation proceedings
were adjourned to 9-11-2012 and on which date also
the petitioner was appeared and the respondent
management has not appeared and hence, the personal
hearing was adjourned to 28-11-2012 and on which
date also the respondent management has not appeared
and subsequently, the case was adjourned to 19-2-2013
and on which date the management was appeared and
filed a false objection and the conciliation was failed
and that therefore, the Conciliation Officer submitted
a report to the Government on 26-4-2013 and this
reference has been sent before this Court and in the
domestic enquiry the respondent management has not
given any opportunity to the petitioner and the act of
the respondent management on bias with the petitioner
and the termination of the petitioner is against the law
and against the natural justice and that therefore, the
petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the
termination
order
passed
by
the
respondent
management against the petitioner and to direct the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the
respondent are stated as follows:-
The petitioner was employed as the Slitting Operator
in
the
management
and
was
suspended
in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings through order,
dated 31-10-2010 and that the petitioner was served with
a charge sheet under Ref. No. PIPL/IR/JAN/SUS/2011/09,
dated 25-1-2011 and was directed to explain in writing
within 48 hours from the receipt of the charge sheet
and for which the petitioner had submitted his
written explanation on
26-1-2011 and upon
inconsistent reply, the management had ordered for an
enquiry through order, dated 29-1-2011 appointing
Mr. G.K. Govindasamy, Advocate, Puducherry as the
Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge sheet,
dated 25-1-2011 and Mr. R.V. Sathyanarayanan,
Manager - HR and Admin. as the Presenting Officer in
the enquiry and enquiry was conducted and upon
admission of charges by the petitioner in the enquiry
proceedings, the enquiry was closed and based on the
enquiry report, the management had dismissed the
petitioner vide order, dated 30-5-2011 and that having
accepted the charge, the petitioner is now making a hue
and cry by shedding crocodile tears as though he is
innocent and leniency should be bestowed on him and
therefore, the management
rejects the entire
allegations of the claim petition by reiterating that the
order of dismissal, dated 30-5-2011 holds good and
cannot be re-considered by the management and prays
for dismissal of claim petition filed by the petitioner.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined
and Ex.PI to Ex.Pll were marked. On the side of the
respondent, no oral evidence has been let in and no
documents has been marked. Argument heard. Records
are perused.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over his
non-employment is justified or not.
6. The Government has made this reference to this
Tribunal to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respo nd ent management over his
non-employment is justified or not. On this aspect, the
records and evidence are carefully perused. In order
to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself
as PW1 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. From the
evidence and exhibits marked on the side of the
petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was temporarily
suspended from the respondent management on 31-10-2010
and a charge memo was given by the respondent to the
petitioner on 25-1-2011 and the Enquiry Officer was
appointed and the domestic enquiry was conducted by
the said Enquiry Officer in which the Enquiry Officer
has found mis-conduct of the petitioner and a show
cause notice was given and finally the petitioner was
terminated from service on 31-5-2011. But, it is the
evidence of petitioner PW.1 that he has not been given
any opportunity to putforth his case in the domestic
enquiry and the enquiry was conducted in a biased
manner.
7. While the case was posted for order today both
the parties have filed a compromise memo along with
the settlement arrived at between them stating that
on 11-5-2017 both the parties have mutually agreed
and entered a Memorandum of Settlement. The copy
of the said Memorandum of settlement, dated 11-5-2017
and the copy of the receipt is also filed along with the
memo which would reveal the fact that the management
and the petitioner has amicably entered into the
settlement on 11-5-2017 and the petitioner has
received a sum of ` 5,30,710 for his employment
benefits as one time settlement including gratuity and
therefore, the matter has been settled between the
parties by entering the settlement and hence, the
compromise is to be recorded and the 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.
905
22 August 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the Award is passed in terms of the Memorandum of
settlement arrived at between the parties on 11-5-2017
and the same is recorded and the said Memorandum of
settlement shall be 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 12th day of May, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW. 1—7-10-2014 - Pragalathan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 31-10-2010
Copy
of
the
temporary
suspension order.
Ex.P2
25-1-2011
Copy of the Charge memo.
Ex.P3
29-1-2011
Copy of the order for
appointment
of
Enquiry
Officer.
Ex.P4
14-2-2011
Copy
of
the
enquiry
proceedings note.
Ex.P5
9-3-2011
Copy of the report of the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P6
12-3-2011
Copy of the show cause notice.
Ex.P7
31-5-2011
Copy of the
termination
order.
Ex.P8 23-12-2010
Copy of the proceedings of
domestic enquiry conducted
against co-worker Ramesh.
Ex.P9
4-3-2011
Copy of the Enquiry report of
Ramesh.
Ex.P10
3-5-2011
Copy of the order passed
against Ramesh.
Ex.Pll
26-4-2013
Copy of the Conciliation
failure report.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of
respondent’s exhibits: Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
[(iii)-]
H.
A.
Ca.
G/
}|{,
S.K