La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 17-00
Prix : ` 17-00
Price :
` 17-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1300
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 1300
Award of the Labour Court .. 1300
de tribunal.
.. 1309
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1309
Government Notifications
.. 1309
.. 1315
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1315
Tender notices
.. 1315
.. 1317
Annonces
.. 1317
Announcements
.. 1317
.. 1322
Corrigendum
.. 1322
Corrigendum
.. 1322
[1299]
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 : 28-11-2017
Price : ` 17-00
2017 } | 28 {
No.
48
Poudouchéry
Mardi
28
Novembre
2017 (7 Agrahayana 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
28th
November
2017
1300
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 November 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 155/Lab/AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 16th October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. (T) No. 01/2010,
dated 31-7-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
in respect of the industrial dispute between the
Management of G.T.F.C. Limited, Puducherry and its
workers over closure of the unit has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department's
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab/L, dated 23-5-91, it is hereby
directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the
said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present: Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 31st day of July 2017.
I.D. (T) No. 01/2010
1. P. Babukrishnan
2. Chandramathi
3. Muthazhagi
4. Pushpaveni
5. Geetha
. . Petitioners
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. G.T.F.C. Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of Thiru K. Velmurugan,
Counsel for the petitioners and Tvl. R. Ilancheliyan
and S. Geetha, Counsels for the respondent, upon
hearing both sides, 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. 9/AIL/Lab./J/
2009-10, dated 25-01-2010 for adjudicating the
following:
(i) Whether the dispute raised against the
management of M/s. G.T.F.C., Oulgaret, Puducherry
over closure of the unit represented by the workers
of G.T.F.C., namely, Tvl. P. Babukrishnan, M. Sathya
Bama, Jayamalini @ Navaneetham, Anthony, Jeevaraj
and Geetha @ Padma is illegal is justified?
(ii) If justified, to what relief, the petitioners are
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 petitioners stated that the respondent factory
was started in the year 1997 in Oulgaret, Puducherry
region who manufactures Moulded Insoles, Counter
stiffner, Toecap, Steel shanks, etc., and the finished
products were supplied worldwide and that they have
joined in the respondent management ranging from
the year 2001 to 2005 onwards and they rendered
their services to the respondent management in a
sincere and honest manner without any sort of
blackmark whatsoever and that the respondent
factory is very successful in getting orders from
several companies and thereby earned enormous
profits and as such the respondent management has
established its sister concern in Iyyankuttipalayam
under the name “G.T.F.C. Trading” and that the
respondent management has employed about
62 workers and 40 staffs with imported machineries
in the factory unit situated at Oulgaret and
depending upon the necessity, the respondent
management used to transfer the workers and staffs
from the Oulgaret unit to the Iyyankuttipalayam unit
i.e., G.T.F.C. Trading and vice versa and further
stated that since the products of the respondent is
well-known for its standard and quality in the
International Arena, more orders were equipped upon
the respondent management and that unlike seasonal
employment, the respondent management is getting
regular orders from its customer companies like
Good leather, Jagar Export, NML, Sri Sakthi PKL,
Shoe Line, G.K.K., Baktech, Florans, etc., and due
to heavy work the petitioners and other workers in
the factory used to do overtime works and for which
1301
28 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
over-time wages were also paid by the respondent
factory periodically and that on several occasions,
the respondent management has given its work to
outside job workers due to over accumulation of
orders and that the respondent factory used to pay
Bonus and other periodical increments to all its
workers every year and with the huge profits earned
from
factory
at
Oulgaret,
the
respondent
management has started another factory at
Pallavaram, Chennai under the name “CPSL”.
It is further stated that the 1st petitioner on
several occasions used to go to the Chennai unit and
train the workers regarding the operation of
machines and also he used rectify the problems in
the machines and that the respondent management
used to pay the travel allowance and other batta
expenses to the 1st petitioner in this regard and that
all the petitioners depends their livelihood solely
upon the income earned from the job given by the
respondent management and they are not having any
other source of income except the present
employment with the respondent management and
that during the month of January, 2009 the
respondent factory has produced 1.25 lakhs pairs
of Insole, 1,80,000 pairs of TPC, 8,000 pairs of
sole and 4,00,000 pairs of steel shanks and thus the
respondent factory has functioned in a full swing
operation and further stated that on 16-02-2009, the
respondent management without any prior notice/
intimation has permanently closed down the factory
and when the petitioners and other workers
contacted the respondent management, they replied
that they are going to shift the entire company to
Chennai and hence, they closed down the factory and
immediately the petitioners and the other 57 workers
that is totally 62 workers gave representation, dated
18-02-2009 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry about the act of the respondent management
in declaring illegal closure of the factory and in
order to convenience to participate in the conciliation
proceedings, the said 62 workers authorised
6 workers namely P. Babukrishnan, Jayamalini @
Navanedham, Jeevaraj, M. Sathyabama, Anthony,
Geetha to represent in the dispute raised by the
62 workers collectively and meanwhile the respondent
management had started diverging the workers by
offering them lump sum settlement and by the
inducement of the respondent management, all the
workers except the 5 petitioners in the present
industrial dispute had received their settlement
benefits from the respondent management.
It is further stated that the respondent
management has not followed the procedures
contemplated under section 25-O of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 before permanently closing
down the factory on 16-02-2009 and therefore, they
filed the present industrial dispute as against the
respondent for illegal closure of the factory praying
to declare that the closure of the respondent factory
effected by the respondent management on 16-02-2009
as illegal and improper and consequently direct the
respondent management to pay the statutory dues
like compensation for illegal closure, notice pay,
gratuity, earned leave cash benefits, unpaid wages,
bonus for the year 2008-2009, etc., with interest at
24% per annum from date of closure and till date
of realisation.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by
the respondent are stated as follows:
The contentions of the petitioners in their claim
petition are absolutely false and not maintainable
under law and stated that the names of the
petitioners mentioned in the claim petition are not
a party in the terms of reference issued by the
Government in G.O. Rt. No. 9/AIL/Lab./J/2009-2010,
dated 25-01-2010 excepting one Babukrishnan and
therefore, the alleged petitioners do not have any
locus standi to file the claim statement and further
stated that since the respondent was supplying its
products to the foot wear exporters and on account
of the global recession the business was severely
affected, there were steady decrease in business,
which caused substantial financial loss and was
supplying its products to various factories in and
around Puducherry and several factories which were
manufacturing foot wears for exports have closed
down, on account of which the manufacturing of the
products became unviable and uneconomical and
there was accumulation of financial lose and the
respondent could not manage the business and in
addition to the adverse situation faced by the
respondent there were serious indiscipline, violent
behaviour including damage to machinery, assault
and threats by the workers at large and inspite of the
adverse situation the respondent tried to revive the
operations and the efforts taken failed and could not
come out successful and only in such a situation, the
respondent contemplated closure of the factory with
effect from 16-02-2009 and further stated that they
issued the notice of closure to the Government
under section 25 FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act
and also made known to all the workers about the
1302
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 November 2017
closure of the factory and also clearly informed
that every worker/employee employed would be
paid their legal dues such as pay in lieu of notice,
retrenchment compensation, gratuity, Pro-rata of
Bonus, un-availed leave salary and other legal dues
whatsoever and however a section workers did not
come forward to take up the settlement and raised
an industrial dispute vide letter, dated 18-2-2009
before the Labour Officer, Conciliation in which
there were 57 signatories and however, when the
dispute was pending out of total signatories of
fifty-seven workers, 52 workers voluntarily came
forward to directly negotiate the issue with the
respondent management and entered into settlement
under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
and based on the settlement all the 52 workers
received their full and final settlement and further
stated that since majority of the workers accepted
the closure and also received their full and full
settlement the closure is deemed to have been
justified and as far as the remaining five workmen
were concern, the respondent was ready to settle
their dues along with other group of workmen and
only the respective workmen did not take up their
settlement on their own accord and therefore, the
petitioners do not have any right to claim any
interest against their dues for obvious reasons that
the non-receipt of their dues for over 8 years is
purely on their own accord and not fault of the
respondent and prayed to dismiss the claim pettion.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex. P1 to Ex. P22
were marked. On the side of the respondent, no oral
evidence has been let in and no document has been
marked. Argument heard. Records are perused.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by workers of
G.T.F.C., namely, Tvl. P. Babukrishnan, M. Sathya
Bama, Jayamalini @ Navaneetham, Antony, Jeevaraj
and Geetha @ Padma against the respondent
management over the closure of the unit is justified
or not.
6. The Government has made this reference to
this Tribunal to decide the dispute raised by the
petitioners against the closure of the respondent
factory is justified or not. On this aspect, the records
and evidence are carefully perused. It is not in dispute
that the petitioners are the workers of the respondent
establishment and they had been in service and the
respondent factory was closed in the year 2009 and the
Industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) by all the workers of the factory over
the closure of the respondent factory and the claim of
the other workers have been settled by the respondent
management and these petitioners have filed this
industrial dispute to declare that the closure of the
respondent factory is illegal and for other monetary
benefits.
7. In order to prove their case the 1st petitioner
has examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex. P1 to
Ex. P22, From the evidence and exhibits marked on the
side of the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners
are the workers of the factory and these petitioners
were working as Operators and as Maintenance
Technicians and the respondent management has closed
the factory on 16-02-2009 by giving a notice of
closure and against the closure the petitioners have
raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) on 01-02-2009 and these petitioners
have been working at the respondent management from
the year 2001 and they have been contributed for the
Employees’ State Insurance and Employees’ Pension
Fund. Though the respondent management has
contended that they have closed the factory as per the
laws after getting prior permission from the
Government, nothing is established by them before
this Court that they have closed the factory in
accordance with the labour laws and it is also admitted
by them that they have not paid any employment
benefits for the closure of the factory. In such
circumstances, the evidence of PW1 and the exhibits
marked on the side of the petitioners would go to show
that the petitioners have established the fact that they
are the workers of the respondent management and they
had been in service at the respondent factory and they
have not been paid employment benefits for the closure
of the factory as stated by the petitioners.
8. Furthermore, after hearing the argument of
both sides, both the parties have filed a joint
compromise memorandum along with the settlement
arrived at between them stating that on 31-07-2017
both the parties have mutually agreed and entered a
Memorandum of Settlement. The copy of the said
Memorandum of settlement dated 31-07-2017 and the
copy of the receipt is also filed along with the
memorandum which would reveal the fact that the
management and the petitionei has amicably entered
into the settlement today that is 31-07-2017 and the
petitioners namely, P. Babukrishnan has agreed for a
sum of ` 60,961, R. Chandramathi has agreed for a sum
of ` 23,555, I. Muthazhagi has agreed for a sum of
1303
28 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
` 32,818, E. Pushpaveni has agreed for a sum of
` 38,566, R. Geetha has agreed for a sum of ` 40,890
for their employment benefits 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.
9. 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 today that is
on 31-07-2017 and the same is recorded and the
respondent is directed to pay the employment benefits
to the petitioners as per the settlement entered
between them 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 31st day of July, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of
petitioner’s witness:
PW1
— 26-06-2017— P. Babukrishnan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
— 16-02-2009— Copy of the notice of
closure of the respondent
factory.
Ex.P2 — 18-02-2009— Copy of the letter given
by the employees of the
respondent factory to the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry
regarding illegal closure.
Ex.P3 — 18-02-2009— Copy of the authorisation
letter
given
by
the
employees of respondent
factory to the Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P4 — 23-02-2009— Copy of the intimation of
closure given by the
respondent management
to the Labour Commissioner,
Puducherry.
Ex.P5 — 27-02-2009— Copy of the letter submitted
b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t
management to the Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P6 — 11-05-2009— Copy
of
the
letter
s u b mi t t e d
b y
t h e
respondent, management
to the Labour Officer
( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) ,
Puducherry.
Ex.P7 — 24-07-2009— Copy
of
the
Failure
report submitted by the
L a b o u r
O f f i c e r
( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) ,
Puducherry
to
the
Secretary to Government
(Labour), Puducherry.
Ex.P8 — 11-03-2005— Copy of the ESI card of
the
1st
petitioner
Babukrishnan.
Ex.P9 — 2006-2007— Copy of the Annual EPF
statement
of
the
1st
petitioner Babukrishnan.
Ex.P10— December, — Copy of the payslip of the
2008
1st petitioner Babukrishnan.
Ex.P11 —
–
— Copy of the Employment
identity card of the 1st
petitioner Babukrishnan.
Ex.P12—
–
— Copy of the Employment
identity card of the 2nd
petitioner Chandramathi.
Ex.P13— 20-05-2006— Copy of the ESI card of
t h e
2 n d
p e t i t i o n e r
Chandramathi.
Ex.P14—
–
— Copy of the Employment
identity card of the 3rd
petitioner Muthazhagi.
Ex.P15—
–
— Copy of the ESI card of
t h e
3 r d
p e t i t i o n e r
Muthazhagi.
Ex.P16— May, 2008 — Copy of the pay slip of
the
3rd
petitioner
Muthazhagi.
Ex.P17— 13-11-2006— Copy of the ESI card of
t h e
4 t h
p e t i t i o n e r
Pushpaveni.
1304
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 November 2017
Ex.P15— 2006-2007— Copy of the Annual EPF
statement
of
the
4th
petitioner Pushpaveni.
Ex.P19—
–
— Copy of the Employment
identity card of the 5th
petitioner R. Geetha.
Ex.P20— May, 2008 — Copy of the pay slip of
the
5th
petitioner
R. Geetha.
Ex.P21—
–
— Copy of the ESI card of
the 5th petitioner R. Geetha.
Ex.P22— 2006-2007— Copy of the Annual EPF
statement
of
the
5th
petitioner R. Geetha.
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. 159/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 23rd October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. (L) No. 43/2014, dated
28-9-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry and its workman Thiru. A. Kannan over
non-employment has been received;
Now, therfore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab/L, dated 23-5-91, it is hereby
directed by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that
the said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under 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 28th day of September, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 43/2014
A. Kannan,
Vedal Village,
Kadapakkam Post,
Cheyyur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of
Medical Sciences,
Ganapathichettikulam Village,
Kalapet, Puducherry.
... Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 27-09-2017 for
hearing in the presence of Thiru L. Sathish, Advocate for
the respondent, Thiru G. Krishnan, Advocate for the
petitioner on record, the petitioner remained absent and
no representation for petitioner, upon hearing the
respondent, 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. l23/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 25-8-2014 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru A. Kannan, Anesthesia Technician against the
management of M/s. Pondicherry Institute of
Medical Sciences, Puducherry over his 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 petitioner in his claim statement stated that
he has joined the respondent institution on 14-9-2010
on contract for two years vide appointment order
dated 13-9-2010 and as his conduct and performance
were found satisfactory, he was offered the post of
Anesthesia Technician on probation with effect from
17-9-2012 and on successful completion of the
probation period, he was confirmed as regular employee
1305
28 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
with effect from 1-4-2013 vide confirmation order
23-3-2013 and he discharged his duties without any
blemish and his active involvement in the trade union
activities lead to expose him to the ill will of the
management which went to the extent of issuing a false
charge memorandum dated 15-2-2014 alleging that one
Ms. Guna, daughter of Mrs. Pichaiyammal, PIMS patient
gave a written complaint on 5-2-2014 stating that the
petitioner has received ` 300 from her towards cost of
medicines used for the procedure for undergoing
Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT) and subsequently, the
alleged complainant herself has categorically stated
that the petitioner has not demanded any money from
her. The respondent has hatched a conspiracy against
petitioner and he had written according to the wishes
of Respondent Officer as it was misrepresented to him
that only a warning notice would be issued to him
since, the complainant herself has stated that he has
not demanded any money from her. The respondent
issued false charge-memo on 15-2-2014. In the
Department Enquiry, the petitioner was not afforded with
an opportunity to examine the said Ms. Guna and mark
as exhibit the letter given by her. The Enquiry Officer
made petitioner to believe that the enquiry was only in
compliance of procedure to close his file after
recording his admission and he would be allowed to
continue in service by issuing a warning notice.
Petitioner’s signature was obtained in the enquiry
proceedings held on 18-2-2014 and the enquiry came
to an end on that day itself. The enquiry proceedings
were not read over and explained to the petitioner.
The respondent has hustled through the matter in a
mechanical manner only to victimise the petitioner for
his union activities. The letter given by Ms. A. Guna
and the representation made by all the trade unions in
the respondent institution were not taken into
consideration. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry
Officer was only an empty formality and was not in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and
was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. The
findings arrived at the enquiry are perverse and the
management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour
practice and mala fide. The copy of the enquiry report
was also not served on the petitioner and the petitioner
was punished in an arbitrary manner. The punishment
of termination for the alleged misconduct was
outrageous, in defiance of logic and was shocking,
perverse, irrational, unconscionable and wholly
disproportionate. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled
to recover full back wages from the date of termination
till the date of reinstatement.
3. On the other hand, it is stated by the respondent
management in the counter that the petitioner was
employed as Anesthesia Technician on contract for two
years vide appointment order, dated 13-9-2010 and
he was confirmed as regular employee on 23-3-2013.
On 5-2-2014 the respondent management received a
written complaint from Ms.A. Guna, daughter of patient
Mrs. Pitchaiammal stating that petitioner had illegally
received Rs. 300 on 3-2-2014 from her for undergoing
Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT) for her mother
alleging that the amount was towards the cost of
medicines used for the procedure and for which the
preliminary spot enquiry was immediately conducted
by the respondent's Additional Medical Superintendent,
HOD-Anesthesia, Personnel Manager and the Nursing
Superintendent, where Ms.A. Guna and petitioner were
enquired about the complaint given by her. Since, the
petitioner was caught red-handed, he categorically
admitted in writing that he received Rs.300 from the
said Ms. A. Guna for the ECT procedure by stating that
the said amount was required for medicines and had
actually taken the medicines without the knowledge of
respondent management from the O.T. stock. The said
Ms. A. Guna also endorsed in writing that Rs.300 was
received by petitioner for ECT procedure and she
identified petitioner before the enquiring committee.
The proceedings in preliminary enquiry was have been
signed by both the petitioner and the said Ms. A. Guna
before the Additional Medical Superintendant, HOD -
Anesthesia,
Personnel
Manager
and
Nursing
Superintendent.
4. The respondent further stated that inspite of
categorical admission of such grave misconduct in
preliminary enquiry, the respondent wanted to conduct
a full fledged enquiry giving full opportunity to
petitioner to defend himself. Accordingly, a charge-
memorandum dated 15-2-2014 was issued to the
petitioner for fraud and dishonesty in his service and
seeking his explanation. The petitioner once again
categorically accepted his illegal gratification vide his
explanation, dated 17-2-2014. In order to give further
opportunities to the petitioner to disprove the charges,
a domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner
and in the domestic enquiry proceedings dated 18-2-2014,
petitioner had also admitted that he used the medicines
in the O.T for the ECT without the knowledge of his
superiors and sought for forgiveness. The enquiry
proceedings were recorded in the presence of
petitioner, the petitioner also signed the same as a
token of his participation and he had nothing more to
say and hence, the enquiry was closed with the
recordings of the statement of petitioner and marking
1306
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 November 2017
of documents of the management. Based on the
proceedings done by Enquiry Officer, the oral and
documentary evidences the Enquiry Officer submitted
his findings dated 18-2-2014 holding the petitioner
guilty of the charges leveled against him under the
charge-sheet dated 15-2-2014 beyond all reasonable
doubts based on his own admission and evidence
on record. The management has perused all the
documents, domestic enquiry proceedings, and also
finding of the Enquiry Officer and more importantly,
the categorical admission of petitioner of his own guilty
on three occasion and taking the gravity of the
misconduct into account and to uphold discipline and
integrity in organisation and to prevent such
recurrences in future as a deterrent to other employees
the
respondent
issued
order
dated
19-2-2014
terminating the petitioner from service with effect
from 20-2-2014. As a medical institution, the
respondent requires the services of its Staffs, Officers
and Doctors, Nurses, Attendants, etc., at all times to
cater to the needs of its patients. It receives number of
emergency cases and round the clock attendances of
such patients are extremely essential and such illegal
acts would adversely affect the reputation of the
respondent’s hospital. Such indiscipline and lack of
character, if left, unpunished or even if lesser
punishments are imposed it will set a trend among the
other workers and for committing such illegal acts,
which will spread like contagious disease. Therefore,
the respondent was compelled take such severe action
which is fully justified.
5. In the course of enquiry, no oral evidence has been
let in on both sides and no exhibits were marked on the
side of the petitioner and on the side of the respondent
management Ex. Rl to Ex. R8 were marked. Heard.
6. Now, the point for determination is,
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management over his non-employment
is justified, or not and if justified, what relief is entitled
to the petitioner.
7. In this case this Court has already passed
preliminary Award in favour of the respondent holding
that the domestic enquiry conducted against the
petitioner workmen is valid. Hence, the petitioner was
directed to let any evidence on his side. But, though the
opportunities were given to the petitioner no evidence
was let in by the petitioner and subsequently he was
absent and hence, on 27-9-2017, the evidence of
petitioner side was closed and argument was heard.
Since, this Court has held that the domestic enquiry is
valid and conducted in accordance with the principles
of natural justice, it is to be decided that whether
findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on the evidence
and whether it is reasonable one and whether the
punishment
of
termination
from
service
is
proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
8. On the above aspect, the evidence let in by the
respondent management and the petitioner before the
Enquiry Officer and documents exhibited are carefully
considered.
The
evidence
of
the
respondent
management would go to show that the petitioner has
committed the misconduct of illegal gratification
against the patient and therefore, the findings of the
Enquiry Officer holds good and hence, the punishment
is given proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct
by the disciplinary authority which is absolutely based
on the evidence let in before him and other
circumstances. Hence, the termination of the petitioner
from service is absolutely valid and sustainable and
hence, the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over his non-
employment is not justified and therefore, this Court
finds that the petitioner is not entitle for any relief as
claimed by him and as such the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 28th day of September, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses: Nil.
List of petitioner’s exhibits: Nil.
List of respondent’s witnessess: Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex. R1
23-02-2013 Copy of the confirmation letter
given by the respondent to the
petitioner.
Ex. R2
05-02-2014 Copy of the complaint letter
given by patient’s attender one
Mrs. A. Guna to the respondent.
Ex. R3
15-02-2014 Copy of the charge-memorandum
given by the respondent to the
petitioner.
1307
28 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex. R4
17-02-2014 Copy of the letter given by the
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex. P5
18-02-2014 Copy of the domestic enquiry
proceedings against the
petitioner.
Ex. R6
18-02-2014 Copy of the findings of the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex. R7
19-02-2014 Copy of the order passed by the
respondent against the petitioner
its postal registration slip.
Ex. R8
—
Copy of the letter given by
the petitioner to the Conciliation
Officer, Labour Department,
Puducherry.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 160/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 23rd October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(T)No.02/2015, dated
28-9-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the Management
of M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Puducherry and Puduvai Pradesa Pokkuvarathu
Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry, over reimbursement
of medical expenses under the medical reimbursement
scheme to the petitioner Thiru K. Ramakrishnan,
Driver, 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)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under 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 28th day of September 2017
I.D. (T) No. 02/2015
Puduvai Pradesa Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam,
No. 20, Cuddalore Road, Ariyankuppam,
Puducherry-605 007.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Puducherry Depot, Uppalam,
Puducherry-605 001.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 20-9-2017
before me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru
Durai Arumugam, Representative for the petitioner, the
respondent being called absent and set ex parte, upon
hearing the petitioner and perusing the case records,
this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute arises out of the
reference made by the Government of Pondicherry,
vide G. O. Rt. No. 21/AIL/Lab./J/ 2015, dated
17-3-2015 of the Labour Department, Pondicherry to
resolve the following dispute between the petitioner
and the respondent, viz.,
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Puduvai
Pradesa Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam over
reimbursement of medical expenses under the
medical reimbursement scheme to the petitioner
Thiru K. Ramakrishnan, Driver against the management
of M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
is justified?
(b) If justified, what relief the workman is
entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Inspite of due service of notice the respondent
called absent and the respondent was set ex parte.
3. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9
were marked.
1308
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 November 2017
4. The point for determination is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union, over reimbursement of Medical expenses
under the medical reimbursement scheme to the
petitioner Thiru K. Ramakrishnan, Driver against the
respondent management is justified or not and if
justified, what is the relief entitled to the petitioner
Thiru K. Ramakrishnan.
5. Heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
has filed a written argument and the same is carefully
perused. Though the Government has referred this case
for adjudication against the respondent M/s. Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation, Puducherry
Depot, the petitioner sangam has filed a claim
statement, proof affidavit, written argument against
M/s. Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation,
Salamedu, Vazhudhareddy, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu.
6. It is the evidence of the petitioner Ramakrishnan
that he was working at the respondent establishment
for about 30 years and he was affected by heart disease
and that there was bulge in the heart vein and he was
taken treatment at A.G. Padmavati’s Hospital with the
help of heart specialists and they have advised to
undergo an operation and the petitioner had admitted
at Shree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences
and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram to undergo an
operation which is not under the list of insurer of the
respondent and the petitioner has approached the
Managing Director of the respondent corporation for
getting no objection certificate to undergo operation
at the said hospital through letters but, the said letters
has not been replied by the respondent corporation
and that therefore, the petitioner has paid ` 1,50,000
to the Hospital for which cheque was issued and
petitioner was discharged from Hospital after 10 days
from operation he was asked for a sum of ` 13,598
and the same was paid by him and thereafter, he
approached the respondent corporation for reimbursement
of
` 1,63,598 under the registered post which was
received by the respondent but, it has not been replied
by the respondent corporation and the amount has also
not been reimbursed to the petitioner.
7. In support of case, the petitioner Ramakrishnan
has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Ex.P1 is the copy of the
outpatient receipt of A.G. Padmavati's Hospital
Limited. Ex.P2 is the copy of the requisition to issue
no objection certificate given by the petitioner
Ramakrishnan to the General Manager, India Health
Care Services, Chennai. Ex.P3 is the copy of the
requisition to issue no objection certificate given by
the petitioner Ramakrishnan to the General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation. Ex.P4
is the copy of the payment bill of ` 1,50,000 by the
petitioner Ramakrishnan to Sree Chitra Tirunal
Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology. Ex.P5
is the copy of the Discharge summary. Ex.P6 is the
copy
of
the payment
bill by
the
petitioner
Ramakrishnan to Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for
Medical Sciences and Technology. Ex.P7 is the copy
of
the
requisition
given
by
the
petitioner
Ramakrishnan to the General Manager, Tamil Nadu
Government Transport Corporation. Ex.P8 is the copy
of the order in G.O. Rt. No. 680. Ex.P9 is the copy of
N.O.C. letter provided by Prof. Dr. M. Nachiappan. The
order of the Government of Puducherry under Ex.P8
runs as follows:
“In the Government order first read above, orders
have been issued for the implementation of New
Health Insurance Scheme 2012 to provide Health
Care Assistance to the employees of Government
Departments, Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory
Boards,
Local
Bodies,
State
Government
Universities,
Willing
State
Government
Organisations / Institutions and their eligible family
members with a provision to avail assistance up to
` 4.00 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs only) for a block
of 4 years on selection of a suitable Public Sector
Insurance Company through National Competitive
bidding.”
From the above order, it is clear that the employees
of State Governments, Public Sector undertakings,
Statutory Boards, Local Bodies are entitled for the
reimbursement of medical expenses under the scheme.
The petitioner has taken treatment at Shree Chitra
Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of getting heart
treatment to save his life and hence mere not taking
treatment at the recognied Hospital of the Insurer
would not affect his claim and that therefore, the
respondent is liable to pay medical expenses of the
petitioner under
the abovesaid reimbursement
scheme and hence, the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner sangam against the respondent management
over reimbursement of medical expenses under the
medical reimbursement scheme to the petitioner
Thiru K. Ramakrishnan, Driver, is justified and the
petition is liable to be allowed and the petitioner
K. Ramakrishnan is entitled for the relief as claimed
by him.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner sangam
over reimbursement of medical expenses under
the medical reimbursement scheme to the petitioner
Thiru K. Ramakrishnan, Driver against respondent
management is justified and the petitioner
1309
28 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Thiru K. Ramakrishnan is entitled to reimburse the
medical expenses and an Award is passed by directing
the
r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r m i t t h e p e t i t i o n e r
T h i r u K. Ramakrishnan to reimburse the medical
expenses. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on
this the 28th day of September, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW1 —03-12-2015—
K. Ramakrishnan
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.Pl —01-10-2012 Copy of the outpatient
receipt of A.G. Padmavati’s
Hospital Limited.
Ex.P2—24-12-2012 Copy of the requisition to
issue
no
objection
certificate given by the
petitioner Ramakrishnan to
the General Manager, India
Health
Care
Services,
Chennai.
Ex.P3—20.12.2012 Copy of the requisition to
issue
no
objection
certificate given
by the
petitioner Ramakrishnan to
the General Manager, Tamil
Nadu Government Transport
Corporation.
Ex.P4—02-02-2013 Copy of the payment bill of
` 1,50,000 by the petitioner
Ramakrishnan to Sree Chitra
Tirunal Institute for Medical
Sciences and Technology.
Ex.P5—11-02-2013 Copy
of
the
Discharge
summary.
Ex.P6—11-02-2013 Copy of the payment bill by
the petitioner Ramakrishnan
to
Sree
Chitra
Tirunal
Institute
for
Medical
Sciences and Technology.
Ex.P7—19-04-2013 Copy of the requisition
given
by
the
petitioner
Ramakrishnan to the General
Manager,
Tamil
Nadu
Government
Transport
Corporation.
Ex.P8—29-07-2013 Copy of the order in G.O.
Rt. No. 680.
Ex.P9—26-06-2017 Copy of N.O.C. letter provided
by Prof. Dr. M. Nachiappan.
List of respondent’s witnesses : Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits : Nil.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)
(G.O. Ms. No. 71, Puducherry, dated 10th November 2017)
NOTIFICATION
The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is pleased to
order the following reallocation of Subjects among
I.A.S., Officers in addition to the Subjects/Departments
already being held by them with immediate effect.
Sl.
Name of the Officer
Subjects allocated
No.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Tvl.
1. Dr. V. Candavelou, I.A.S.,
Health
CEO/Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to Government
(Finance).
2. Dr. S. Sundaravadivelu, I.A.S., Cooperation and HRI
Secretary to Government
(Personnel).
3. R. Mihir Vardhan, I.A.S.,
Science, Technology
Secretary to Government
and Environment.
(Works).
4. D. Manikandan, I.A.S.,
S a in i k We l fa r e a n d
Secretary to Government
Freedom Fighters Cell.
(Agriculture).
5. P. Parthiban, I.A.S.,
Industries and Commerce,
Secretary to Government
Transport, Port, Tourism
(Fisheries).
and, Wakf and Minorities
Affairs.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
ASHWANI KUMAR,
Chief Secretary to Government.