La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 15-00
Prix : ` 15-00
Price :
` 15-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1324
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 1324
Award of the Labour Court .. 1324
de tribunal.
.. 1332
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1332
Government Notifications .. 1332
.. 1337
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1337
Tender notices
.. 1337
.. 1340
Etablissements dangereux
.. 1340
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1340
.. 1342
Annonces
.. 1342
Announcements
.. 1342
[1323]
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 : 5-12-2017
Price : ` 15-00
2017 } | 5 {
No.
49
Poudouchéry
Mardi
5
Decembre
2017 (14 Agrahayana 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
5th
December
2017
1324
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 December 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 161/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 23rd October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I.D.(L) No. 21/2013,
dated 21-9-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the Management
of M/s. Karaikal Port (P) Ltd., MARG, T.R. Pattinam,
Karaikal and Thiru S. Jeganathan, Karaikal over
non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department’s
G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-91, it is hereby
directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the
said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
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 21st day of September 2017.
I.D. (L) No. 21/2013
S. Jeganathan,
S/o. Susai Marianathan,
No. 16, Housing Board Colony,
Nehru Nagar, Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Karaikal Port (P) Limited, MARG,
Keezavanjore, T.R. Pattinam,
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 08-09-2017
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru K. Velmurugan, Counsel for the petitioner,
Thiruvalargal K. Babu and C. Arivajagne, Advocates for
the respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing
the case records, after having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 34/AIL/Lab./J/2013,
dated 11-03-2013 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru S. Jeganathan against the management of
M/s. Karaikal Port (P) Limited, MARG, Karaikal
over Non-employment is justified or not? If justified,
what relief the petitioner is entitled to ?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief are as follows :
The petitioner stated that he was joined in the
respondent management as Weigh Bridge Supervisor
on 08-10-2007 as a trainee for a period of 6 months and
on seeing his hard work and sincerity, the respondent
management before the completion of the said training
period had issued him the offer letter on 29-02-2008
and accepted the services of the petitioner as
probationer and his services were confirmed by the
respondent management vide letter, dated 01-09-2008
for the post of Executive Projects and he was sincere
and dedicated to his job and has discharged his duties
in a honest manner without any sort of black-mark in
the respondent management and by way of appreciating
his services, the respondent management has given
periodical increments and further stated that the
respondent management has grossly violated the labour
welfare legislations and also violated the provisions of
the Factories Act, 1948 and since, there is no trade
union
functioning in the respondent management, the
petitioner had pointed out the said lacunas to the
respondent management and by an act of victimisation,
the respondent management suspended his services on
02-02-2011 stating that he has not wear the helmet
while he was riding in the motorcycle as a pillion-
rider inside the respondent factory premises and
further stated that only by intervention of the Labour
Officer, Karaikal, the management withdrawn the order
of suspension and reinstated into the service and he
further stated that at the time of re-joining in the
respondent company, the respondent officials
compelled him to sign in the blank papers and also give
apology letters, since he is not in a dominate position
to go against the words of his superior officials, he
has yielded to the illegal and unlawful demands of the
respondent officials solely for the purpose of
protecting his employment and despite his several
requests the respondent management has not provided
1325
5 December 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the official e-mail and official Sim card to him after
his re-joining and the respondent management again by
an act of victimisation refused employment with effect
from 12-07-2011 and when he questioned regarding
his employment, Mr. Ameer, Deputy Manager (HR)
directed the petitioner to meet Deputy General
Manager Mr. Senthil at Head Office, Chennai and that
he was not allowed to meet the said DGM Mr. Senthil
and it was explained to the management but, the
Senior Management Personnel Mr. Amir used
unparliamentary words in front of other workers and
not allowed the petitioner for employment and for
which he was mentally affected and regarding his
employment he tried many times to meet the DGM
Mr. Senthil but, he never allowed him to meet the petitioner
and therefore, all his efforts ended in vain and further
stated that the refusal of employment by the
respondent is mainly to terminate his services at any
cost since he is bringing in light the gross labour
violations of the respondent management and no
principles of natural justice were followed by the
respondent management in terminating his service and
the act of the respondent management in terminating
the services of the petitioner is illegal, unlawful and
arbitrary and against the established principles of law
and prayed this Court to set aside the termination
order, dated 26-07-2011 issued by the respondent as
null and void, illegal, improper and consequently
reinstate him in his original employment with full
backwages and all attendant benefits and also award
compensation of ` 5,00,000 for the illegal termination.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by
the respondent are as follows :
The respondent management stated that the petitioner
was the management executive and employed as Weigh
Bridge Supervisor and therefore, he will not covered
under the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial
Disputes Act and therefore, he has no locus standi to
raise any industrial or individual dispute under this Act
and further stated that the petitioner joined as Weigh
Bridge Supervisor on 01-03-2008 and promoted as
Executive Projects in the grade of Junior Management
2 and he was entrusted with mainly managerial and
administrative services, duties and responsibilities
towards the management and therefore, the petitioner
has no right to raise an industrial dispute and seek his
remedy as the “workman” as envisaged by section 2(s)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further stated
that the petitioner has tendered his resignation
voluntarily vide official e-mail, dated 12-07-2011 and
his resignation was duly accepted by the management
and therefore, he was relieved from his duties on the
closing hours of 26-07-2011 and based on his
resignation the petitioner was fully settled all his dues
on 26-07-2011 and relieved from all his duties and
therefore, raising such an instant dispute vide representation,
dated 09-04-2012 was nothing but a mere after-thought
and he has no locus standi to raise such dispute under
this Act after his resignation has been accepted and he
was relieved from all his responsibilities and further
stated that the management never threatened their
executive officials nor their workmen at any time and
that the petitioner indulged such activities on so many
occasions and thereafter, expressed by written
apologies and his past service records reveals that his
conduct has not been satisfactory and that he had
indulged in misappropriation, violent and unruly
behaviour, indiscipline and spreading of false
allegations against the management and lowering the
reputation of the senior management and the allegation
made by the petitioner against the respondent
management is utterly false and prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW1 and PW2 was examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P2 were marked and on the side of the respondent
RWl was examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.R39 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management over non-employment is
justified or not and if justified what relief the
petitioner is entitled to ?
6. Both sides are heard. The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the
exhibits marked on both sides are carefully considered.
On perusal of the pleadings it is clear to this Court that
following facts are admitted by either sides that the
petitioner was working at the respondent establishment
and initially he was posted as a trainee in the year 2007
for a period of 6 months and thereafter, he was served
as a probationer and thereafter, his service was
confirmed by the respondent management and on
02-02-2011, the petitioner was suspended from
service by the respondent management for the reason
that petitioner has not weared the helmet while he was
riding in the motorcycle as a pillion rider inside the
premises of the respondent establishment and the
petitioner has taken the matter to the Labour Officer
and thereafter, the respondent management has revoked
the suspension order and re-employed the petitioner
1326
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 December 2017
into service and subsequently the problem arises
between the petitioner workman and the respondent
management and thereafter, the petitioner raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and
on failure of the Conciliation the Government has
referred this matter to this Tribunal.
7. It is an admitted fact that petitioner workman has
not been terminated from service after conducting the
domestic enquiry. As he is a permanent worker he has
to be removed only after the domestic enquiry.
However, if, he resigned from the job no such domestic
enquiry is required for the non-employment of the
petitioner workman.
8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner PWl
and PW2 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were
marked. Ex.P1 is the copy of the Appointment letter
of the petitioner as Weigh Bridge Supervisor issued by
the respondent. Ex.P2 is the copy of the letter issued
by the respondent company confirming the services of
the petitioner. Ex.P3 is the copy of the promotion
letter of the petitioner as Executive Projects issued
by the respondent. Ex.P4 is the copy of the letter
issued by the respondent company to the petitioner.
Ex.P5 is the copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Inspector, Labour Welfare, Karaikal. Ex.P6 is
the copy of the letter sent by the petitioner to the
Labour Officer, Karaikal. Ex.P7 is the copy of the
reply given by the respondent company to the
Conciliation Officer (Labour), Karaikal. Ex.P8 is the
copy of the failure report submitted by the
Conciliation Officer to the Government of Puducherry,
9. From the above documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 would
reveal the fact that the petitioner has been appointed
as a Weigh Bridge Supervisor on 08-10-2007 and on
29-02-2008 the letter was issued to the petitioner
appreciating
his
service
by
the
respondent
establishment and he was promoted as Executive-
Projects based on his performance and company's
confidence on the petitioner. Ex.P4 would reveal the
fact that the respondent management has appreciated
the service of the petitioner. Ex.P5 would reveal the
fact that the petitioner has made complaint before the
Labour Officer, Karaikal stating various allegations.
Ex.P6 - the complaint letter would reveal the fact that
the petitioner again has raised the industrial dispute
against the respondent management for his non-
employment before the Labour Officer stating that the
respondent management has victimised him and has
suspended him from service and thereby caused mental
agony and the petitioner has made several complaints
against the respondent management stating that his
employment
was
refused
by
the
respondent
management and asked the petitioner to attend job only
after he met with Deputy General Manager one Senthil
but, he was not permitted to meet him. Ex.P7 is the
reply given by the respondent management would
evident
that
on
15-10-2012
the
respondent
management submitted the reply to the Conciliation
Officer wherein, they have stated that petitioner
Jeganathan is not a workman under the Industrial
Disputes Act and he had joined in the establishment as
Weigh Bridge Supervisor on 01-03-2008 and
subsequently, he was promoted as Junior management
2 and rendering mainly managerial and administrative
services and that therefore, he is not the workman and
it is also stated by the management in the reply that
the petitioner Jeganathan has tendered his resignation
from service voluntarily vide his Official e-mail, dated
12-07-2011 and accordingly, due acceptance
of
resignation he had been relieved of his duties on the
closing hours of 26-07-2011 and his monetary
benefits have been settled on the same day and that
therefore, the representation made by the petitioner
was nothing but a mere afterthought.
10. Further, it is noticed from Ex.P8 that this
petitioner has raised the industrial dispute before the
Labour Officer on 04-04-2012 by giving a petition for
his non-employment against the management alleging
that only to victimise the petitioner, the respondent
management has refused his employment with effect
from 12-07-2011 and in the conciliation proceedings
the respondent management has filed a reply on
15-10-2012 alleging that the petitioner Jeganathan was
the management executive and employed as Weigh
Bridge Supervisor and he would not be covered under
the Industrial Disputes Act and further, the management
has stated that the petitioner has tendered his
resignation voluntarily vide e-mail on 12-07-2011 and
his resignation was duly accepted by the management
and therefore, he was relieved from his duties on the
closing hours of 26-07-2011 and on which date the
petitioner was settled all his dues by the respondent
management and relieved from his duties. From these
documents and evidence of PW1 and PW2 it is clear
that the petitioner has established the fact that he had
served at the respondent establishment from the
year 2007 and his work was confirmed by the respondent
management and subsequently he was also promoted
based on his performance and the petitioner has made
some charter of demands before the Inspector of
Labour Officer and also made complaint against the
respondent management on 15-03-2011 under Ex.P5
1327
5 December 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
and subsequently he was suspended from service and
thereafter without giving written order his employment
was refused by the respondent management stating that
the petitioner has voluntarily resigned from service
through e-mail alleged to have been sent by the
petitioner on 12-07-2011.
11. On the other hand, in order to prove the case of
the respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.Rl to
Ex.R39 were marked Ex.R1(series) is the Invoice-
Receipts regarding issue of diesel to the respondent
management (5 Nos.). Ex.R2 is the e-mail regarding
diesel on hand for the month of April, 2009. Ex.R3 is
the work allotment given by the respondent
management on 27-05-2011 to the petitioner.Ex.R4 is
the copy of the e-mail sent by the petitioner on
03-07-2008. Ex.R5 is the copy of the Charge-sheet
cum order of suspension given by the respondent to
the petitioner on 03-02-2011. Ex.R6 is the copy of
the letter given by the petitioner to the Labour
Welfare Officer on 15-03-2011. Ex.R7 is the copy of
the letter given by the petitioner to the Labour Welfare
Officer on 31-02-2011. Ex.R8 is the copy of the FIR
against the petitioner on 13-06-2013. Ex.R9 is the
copy of the letter given by the petitioner to the
Municipality Office, Thirumalairayanpattinam on
04-09-2013. Ex.R11 is the copy of the letter given
by the petitioner to the Municipality Office,
Thirumalairayanpattinam on 11-10-2013. Ex.R11 is
the copy of the letter given by the petitioner to the
Home Ministry, Department on 07-12-2013. Ex.R12
is the copy of the letter given by the petitioner to the
Home Ministry, Department on 07-12-2013. Ex.R13
Proceedings of conciliation. Ex.R14 is the copy of
the offer letter issued to the petitioner on 29-02-2008.
Ex.R15 is the copy of the Personal Data Form of
Petitioner on 01-03-2008. Ex.R16 is the copy of the
Appointment letter of petitioner as “Weigh Bridge
Supervisor” on 01-03-2008. Ex.R17 is the copy of the
Joining report of petitioner as "Weigh Bridge
Supervisor", dated 01-03-2008. Ex.Rl8 is the copy of
the Confirmation letter issued to the petitioner on
01-09-2008. Ex.R19 is the copy of the Petitioner’s
Confirmation Evaluation Form, dated 02-09-2008.
Ex.R20 is the copy of the e-mail extract of Petitioner’s
resignation, dated 12-07-2011. Ex.R21 is the copy of
the monthly status report of petitioner for the period
from 01-06-2011 to 31-08-2011. Ex.R22 is the copy of
the full and final settlement statement of petitioner,
dated 12-07-2011. Ex.R23 is the copy of the loan
application form of petitioner, dated 25-10-2010.
Ex.R24 is the copy of the office letter by respondent
to Indian Bank Branch Manager requesting statement
of Accounts of Petitioner, dated 16-01-2014. Ex.R25
is the copy of Statement of Accounts of petitioner
issued by Indian Bank, Karaikal for the period from
0l-04-2011 to 30-09-2011. Ex.R26 is the copy of the
complaint letter of D. Kumar, Transport Driver, dated
03-08-2009. Ex.R27 is the copy of the apology letter
by petitioner on 04-08-2009. Ex.R28 is the copy of
the apology letter by petitioner on 08-02-2011.
Ex.R29 is the copy of the Apology letter by petitioner
on 31-03-2011. Ex.R30 is the copy of the Extract
of defamatory publication by petitioner in face book,
dated 16-10-2012. Ex.R31 is the copy of the
complaint letter of S. Senthilkumar, DGM-HR, dated
19-10-2012. Ex.R32 is the copy of the Extract of
defamatory publication by petitioner in face book,
dated 09-11-2012. Ex.R33 is the copy of the e-mail
extract with defamatory publication by petitioner in
face book, dated 22-01-2013. Ex.R34 is the copy of
the Extract of threatening by petitioner through e-mail,
dated 02-03-2013. Ex.R35 is the copy of the Extract
of threatening by petitioner through e-mail, dated
03-03-2013. Ex.R36 is the copy of the failure report
issued by the Conciliation Officer, dated 18-01-2013.
Ex.R37 is the copy of the Notification issued by
Government of Puducherry, dated 11-03-2013. Ex.R38
is the copy of the e-statement Account of respondent
issued by Indian Bank, Karaikal, dated 30-03-2015.
Ex.R39 is the copy of the order of transfer to BECL
Project site given by the respondent to Mr. Ganesan
on 10-04-2012.
12. The main contention of the petitioner is that
though the respondent management after revoking
the suspension order re-employed him in service and
though on paper he was permitted to work in
the respondent management, the respondent in reality
did not provide him any work in the Office area and
while so on 12-07-2011, when the petitioner was
reported to job, he was refused employment by
Mr. Ameer, Deputy Manager (HR) and while he asked
the reason for his non-employment the petitioner
was asked to meet Mr. Senthil, DGM (HR) at Chennai
and he went to met him he was asked to wait all along
the day and in the evening he was told that the said
Senthil is out of station and was asked to come after
a month and thereby, the respondent management has
refused employment to the petitioner and though he
had made several requests he was not allowed to enter
into the respondent establishment.
13. Though the respondent management has admitted
all other facts stated above they contended that
petitioner himself has sent a resignation under an
e-mail to the respondent establishment and therefore,
1328
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 December 2017
the non-employment is only due to the reason that
the petitioner has resigned his job from the respondent
establishment and he was never terminated from
service by the respondent establishment at any point
of time and he himself has not reported to duty and he
has only sent a resignation under an e-mail. Therefore,
it is just and necessary to decide whether the
petitioner has resigned his job or the petitioner was
terminated by the respondent management only
to victimise the petitioner who has raised some
dispute against the respondent management before the
Labour Officer.
14. On this aspect, the evidence of both sides and
exhibits marked by them are carefully considered. The
evidence of RW1 in his cross examination runs as
follows :
“
Safe violation
Jaganathan MCL 387 @ yahoo.in
”
From the evidence of respondent management RW1,
it is clear that the petitioner has been suspended from
service for the mere reason that he has not weared the
helmet in the factory premises without any enquiry and
he has been charge-sheeted and suspension order was
passed against the petitioner and for which the
petitioner has made a complaint to the District
Collector and the Labour Officer and thereafter, his
suspension was revoked and he was re-employed by the
respondent management and no official I.D has been
given to the petitioner.
15. To establish the contention that petitioner has
voluntarily resigned from service on 12-07-2011 by
sending e-mail for his resignation, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.R39 out of
which the alleged copy of the e-mail exhibited as
Ex.R20 is the vital document. Only on the basis of the
said document, it is alleged by the respondent
management that petitioner has resigned his job from
the respondent establishment resignation of petitioner
was accepted and they have settled all the dues to the
petitioner on 26-07-2011 and they did not terminate
the petitioner at any point of time. Hence, it is to be
decided whether the said d o cument Ex.R2 0 is
a genuine e-mail sent by the petitioner to the
respondent management for the purpose of resignation.
16. It is an admitted fact that there is a dispute
between the petitioner and the respondent management
and earlierly he was suspended from service on
02-02-2011 by issuing a memo to him for the charge
that he has not weared helmet in the premises of the
respondent establishment while he was riding in
the motorcycle as a pillion rider and further that the
petitioner has accepted that he submitted a complaint
before the Labour Officer against the management on
15-03-2011 regarding the unsafety measures of the
industry and unfair labour practice committed by the
respondent management. The said complaint letter was
exhibited as Ex.P5 and it is not denied by the
respondent management that the petitioner has made
such a complaint. In such circumstances, when the
complaint is pending before the Conciliation Officer
it is alleged by the respondent management that
petitioner has voluntarily sent an e-mail to the Human
Resource Department for his resignation on 12-07-2011.
The said copy of the e-mail is exhibited as Ex.R20
which would also reveal the fact that this email has
been forwarded by Karthick, Human Resource-
Department to Ameer, Deputy Manager-HR only on
18-08-2011 at 01.24 p.m.,
and the same was
forwarded by the said Ameer, Deputy Manager-Human
Resource to General Manager Senthil on 18-08-2011
at 01.35 p.m., i.e. the resignation letter has been
forwarded to the Deputy General Manager only
on 18-08-2011. But, it is stated by the respondent
management that the resignation sent by the petitioner
Jeganathan was accepted by them and all the amount
was settled on 26-07-2011. The respondent management
has not stated anything how it is possible to them to
accept the resgination of the petitioner and how they
could settle the dues of the service benefits of the
petitioner as early as on 26-07-2011 that is even prior
to receipt of e-mail by Deputy Manager and General
Manager on 18-08-2011. It creates suspicion over
Ex.R20.
1329
5 December 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
17. Furthermore, the other two e-mail copies
exhibited by the respondent management as Ex.R34
and Ex.R35 alleged to have been sent by the petitioner
to the respondent management. These copies of the e-mail
would go to show that the said e-mails were sent from
other e-mail LD of the petitioner. But, the alleged
resignation letter is not sent from the said e-mail I.D.
This also would create doubt whether petitioner has
actually sent e-mail for his resignation to the
respondent management, since the petitioner has
denied the same. Furthermore, the said e-mail copies
would reveal the fact that Human Resource-Department
Karthick, the Deputy Manager, Ameer, GRK Reddy
and one Acharyulu have got official e-mail ID in the
name of the company. But, such I.D has not been given
to the petitioner. Though, the respondent management
has stated that the official e-mail I.D has been given
to the petitioner in their counter, it is admitted by the
respondent management in their evidence that no such
official e-mail I.D was given to the petitioner and
furthermore, the respondent management has not
exhibited any other e-mail communication from the
e-mail in which the resignation was alleged to have
been sent by the petitioner workman to prove that the
said e-mail I.D belongs to the petitioner and other
exhibits Ex.R34 and Ex.R35 was also admitted by them
that email was sent by the petitioner to the respondent
management but, the said e-mails are sent from the
separate e-mail I.D of the petitioner and furthermore,
admittedly the respondent management has not sent the
intimation to the petitioner regarding the acceptance
of resignation through the said e-mail I.D,
18. It is a known fact that any person can create
thousands of e-mail I.D without the help of anyone else
and any communication can be sent by anyone else by
creating new e-mail I.D even in the name of others.
In such circumstances, the respondent management
has silent why they have not sent any notice or letter
to the petitioner workman even for their alleged
acceptance of resignation of the petitioner. Admittedly,
they have not communicated their acceptance and no
document is exhibited before this Court to prove the
fact that they have accepted voluntary resignation of
the petitioner and furthermore, it is alleged by the
respondent management that they have settled the dues
of the petitioner but, no accounts settlement is
exhibited before this Court to prove how much was
given to the petitioner and what was communicated by
the petitioner for the receipt of the settlement benefits
and nothing is proved by the respondent management
that they have sent any communication to the
petitioner after they have received a resignation letter
from the petitioner and no document is exhibited
before this Court to prove the fact. The statement of
the petitioner that e-mail has not been sent by him and
no settlement was given to him and the resignation
letter is a fabricated one and his employment was
refused cannot be thrown away and the respondent
management has utterly failed to prove their
contention that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned
from service by filing appropriate documents to prove
the same.
19. Furthermore, it is established by the petitioner
that he has served at the respondent establishment and
his service was confirmed and subsequently he was
promoted as Project Executive and he has made
complaint before the Inspector of Labour for unfair
labour practice committed by the respondent
management and subsequently, his employment was
refused orally by the management and for which he has
raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer and therefore, as the respondent management
has failed to establish their contention by filing
sufficient documents that petitioner has resigned his
job voluntarily and the same was accepted by the
respondent management and that they have not
terminated him from service and hence, it is clear that
petitioner employment was orally denied by the
respondent management and hence, the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over his non-employment is justified and
the petition is liable to be allowed and the petitioner
is entitled for the relief as claimed by him.
20. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over his non-employment is justified, it
is to be decided whether the petitioner is entitled for
backwages with continuity of service as claimed by the
petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that
petitioner is working in any other industry after his
unemployment. The petitioner has stated that he is not
working anywhere else after his termination. However,
the petitioner could have served at any where else after
he was removed from the respondent establishment.
Considering the above circumstances, this Court
decides that the petitioner is entitled for 50%
backwages and other attendant benefits.
21. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner over the
non-employment is justified and an Award is passed by
directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner
1330
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 December 2017
within one month from the date of this order and to
pay 50% backwages from the date of termination till
the date of reinstatement with continuity of service and
other attendant benefits. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 21st day of September, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnessess:
PW.1
— 04-12-2014— S. Jaganathan
PW.2
— 24-04-2017— V.G. Ganesan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
— 08-10-2007 —Copy of the Appointment
letter of the petitioner as
Weigh Bridge Supervisor
issued by the respondent.
Ex.P2 — 29-02-2008— Copy of the letter issued by
the respondent company
confirming the services
of the petitioner.
Ex.P3 — 12-07-2008— Copy of the promotion
letter of the petitioner
as Executive Projects
issued by the respondent.
Ex.P4 — —
— Copy of the letter issued by
the respondent company
to the petitioner.
Ex.P5 — 15-03-2011— Copy of the letter sent
by the petitioner to the
Inspector, Labour Welfare,
Karaikal.
Ex.P6 — 04-04-2012 —Copy of the letter sent
by the petitioner to the
Labour Officer, Karaikal.
Ex.P7 — 15-10-2012— Copy of the-reply given
by the respondent company
to the Conciliation Officer
(Labour), Karaikal.
Ex.P8 — 18-01-2013— Copy of the failure
report submitted by the
Conciliation Officer to
the
Government
of
Puducherry.
List of respondent’s witness:
PW.1
— 14-03-2016— N. Kandasamy
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
— —
— I n v o i c e - R e c e i p t s
regarding issue of diesel
(series) to the respondent
management (5 Nos.).
Ex.R2 — April,
e-mail regarding diesel on
2009
hand.
Ex.R3 — 27-05-2011 — Work allotment given
b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t
management
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R4 — 03-07-2008 —Copy of the e-mail sent
by the petitioner.
Ex.R5 — 03-02-2011 — Copy of the Charge-
sheet-cum-order
of
suspension given by the
respondent
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R6 — 15-03-2011— Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner to the
Labour Welfare Officer.
Ex.R7 — 31-02-2011— Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner to the
Labour Welfare Officer.
Ex.R8 — 13-06-2013— Copy of the FIR against
to the petitioner.
Ex,R9 — 04-09-2013— Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner to the
Municipality
Office,
Thirumalairayanpattinam.
Ex.R10— 11-10-2013— Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner to the
Municipality
Office,
Thirumalairayanpattinam.
Ex.Rll — 07-12-2013— Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner to the
H o m e
M i n i s t r y ,
Department.
Ex.R12— 07-12-2013— Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner to the
H o m e
M i n i s t r y ,
Department.
Ex.R13— —
— P r o c e e d i n g s
o f
conciliation.
1331
5 December 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R14— 29-02-2008— Copy of the offer letter
issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R15— 01-03-2008— Copy of the Personal
Data Form of Petitioner.
Ex.R16— 01-03-2008— Copy of the Appointment
letter of petitioner as
“ W e i g h
B r i d g e
Supervisor”.
Ex.R17— 01-03-2008— Copy of the Joining
report of petitioner as
“ W e i g h
B r i d g e
Supervisor”.
Ex.Rl8 — 01-09-2008— Copy
of
the
Confirmation
letter
issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R19— 02-09-2008— Copy of the Petitioner’s
Confirmation Evaluation
Form.
Ex.R20— 12-07-2011— Copy of the e-mail
extract
of
Petitioner’s
resignation letter.
Ex.R21— 01-06-2011— Co p y o f the monthly
to
status report of petitioner.
31-08-2011
Ex.R22— 12-07-2011— Copy of the full and
final settlement statement
of petitioner.
Ex.R23— 25-10-2010— Copy
of
the
loan
application
form
of
petitioner.
Ex.R24— 16-01-2014— Copy of the office letter
by respondent to Indian
Bank Branch Manager
requesting statement of
Accounts of Petitioner.
Ex.R25— 01-04-2011— Copy of Statement of
to
Accounts of petitioner to
30-09-2011
issued by Indian Bank,
Karaikal.
Ex.R26— 03-08-2009— Copy of the complaint
letter
of
D. Kumar,
Transport Driver.
Ex.R27— 04-08-2009— Copy of the Apology
letter by petitioner.
Ex.R28— 08-02-2011— Copy of
the Apology
letter by petitioner.
Ex.R29— 31-03-2011— Copy of the Apology
letter by petitioner.
Ex.R30— 16-10-2012— Copy of the Extract of
defamatory publication
by petitioner in face
book.
Ex.R31— 19-10-2012— Copy of the complaint
letter of S. Senthilkumar,
DGM-HR.
Ex.R32— 09-11-2012— Copy of the Extract of
defamatory publication
by petitioner in face
book.
Ex.R33— 22-01-2013— Copy of the
e-mail
extract with defamatory
publication by petitioner
in face book.
Ex.R34— 02-03-2013— Copy of the Extract of
threatening by petitioner
through Email.
Ex.R35— 03-03-2013— Copy of the Extract of
threatening by petitioner
through e-mail.
Ex.R36— 18-01-2013— Copy of the failure
report
issued by
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.R37— 11-03-2013— Copy of the Notification
issued by Government of
Puducherry.
Ex.R38— 30-03-2015— Copy of the e-statement
Account of respondent
issued by Indian Bank,
Karaikal.
EX.R39— 10-04-2012— C o p y o f t h e o r d e r
of transfer
to BECL
Project site given by
t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o
Mr. Ganesan.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.