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
.. 116
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 116
Award of the Labour Court
.. 116
de tribunal.
.. 124
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 124
Government Notifications
.. 124
.. 130
Avis d’Adjudication
.. 130
Tender notice
.. 130
.. 134
Annonces
.. 134
Announcements
.. 134
[115]
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India under
No. 10410
Registered No. PY/44/2018-20
WPP No. TN/PMG(CCR)/WPP-88/2018-20
Dated : 23-1-2018
Price : ` 15-00
2018 }
|
23 {
No.
4
Poudouchéry
Mardi
23
Janvier
2018 (3 Magha 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
23rd
January
2018
116
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 January 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 190/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 30th November 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 40/2012,
dated 6-10-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between K. Mohandoss,
Karaikal and the Management of M/s. Soundararaja
Mills, 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 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
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.
Friday, the 6th day of October 2017.
I.D. (L) No. 40/2012
K. Mohandoss,
No. 46, Annavasal Road,
Nedungadu, Thirunallar,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Employer,
M/s. Soundararaja Mills,
Nedungadu, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 27-9-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,
Representative for the petitioner and Thiru G. Jagadharaj,
Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood
over for consideration till this day, this Court passed
the following :
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 79/2006/Lab./AIL/J,
dated 30-5-2006 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the termination of Thiru K. Mohandoss
by the management of M/s. Soundararaja Mills
Limited, is justified or not?
(b) If not so, to what relief he is entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money, if it can be so computed?
The above reference originally taken on file by the
District Court at Karaikal which was being functioned
as Labour Court in I.D. No. 10/2006 and subsequently
when this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
established in the year 2012, the case has been
transferred to this Court and this case was taken on file
by renumbering it as I.D.(L). No. 40/2012.
2. The brief averments of the Claim Statement filed
by the petitioner are as follows:
The petitioner was employed as a winder in the
respondent mills from the year 1986. On 1-4-2003,
he got a promotion. His last drawn salary was
` 6,000. The petitioner was initially a member of
INTUC union of Soundararajan Mill National
Workers Union. From 1-3-2003, he became a
member of the CITU union of Nedungadu
Soundararaja Mill Thozhilalar Sangam and he was
the Vice-President of the CITU union. On 19-3-2003
the requisition was given by the petitioner not to
deduct subscription for INTUC union to the
management. The CITU union questioned various
wrong acts of the management. The petitioner
questioned the misappropriation of ` 40 Lakhs from
the Co-operative Society of the respondent
management mills and had been demanding 900
workers who had been working as badlis and
contract workmen to be made permanent which
annoyed the management. On 9-8-2003, the
petitioner was served with a charge memo stating
that he had given lesser production on various dates
between May, 2003 and July, 2003 that against what
was agreed to in the settlement section 18 (1) of
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, dated 7-5-1998 with
the INTUC union. He was charged with deliberate
go slow. If the allegation was true then the
management would not have waited till 9-8-2003 to
issue a charge-sheet. On the contrary they would
have issued a memo to him on the very day there
117
23 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
was alleged shortfall in production they would have
also deducted wages for lesser production in the
relevant months. Production is many a time less not
on account of fault of the worker but on account of
shortage of power, failure of machine, thread cuts,
poor quality thread, cones with less weight etc., On
22-8-2003, the another charge-sheet was issued to
the petitioner that he had mixed up two different
wrong coloured threads into the cones and caused
loss to the management. Based on the complaint,
dated 22-8-2003 of the maistry Mahalingam and
Supervisor Aranga Karthikeyan, he was straight away
suspended, without even calling for an explanation.
It is further stated that on 2-9-2003, the Enquiry
Officer gave notice fixing the enquiry on 13-9-2003
in respect of the two charge-sheets. The Enquiry
Officer M. Elanchezhian, is the junior counsel of
M. Elumalai, who represents the management in
almost all their cases. The said M. Elanchezhian had
filed a counter along with his senior in I.D. No. 1 of
4 on the first date of enquiry. The petitiner
requisition for the assistance of a co-worker namely
Nilavazhagan or N. Ramar was denied by the
management on the ground that both of them are
dismissed workers. Ramar was employed by the
respondent management and in his dispute, there is
an order reinstating him in service and that was
confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras and
the case is now in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
petitioner went through the enquiry without the
assistance of a co-worker. A dismissed workman is
also a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947.
It is further stated that in the domestic enquiry,
the respondent examined two witnesses namely,
Aranga Karthikeyan and V. Mahalingam. No witness
was examined in respect of the charge, dated
9-8-2003. In respect of the second charge-sheet,
dated 22-8-2003 Aranga Karthikeyan disclaimed
knowledge about anything else except complaint
made by him against the petitioner and V. Mahalingam,
maistry, the main defence of the petitioner was that
the two cones produced by him were taken away by
him and the cones produced in the enquiry. In the
alleged complaint, dated 22-8-2003, there was no
mention about his handing over of the cones. In the
enquiry the cones alleged to have been produced by
the petitioner were not proved to be the same that
was seized by him. Ignoring all the materials
discrepancies the Enquiry Officer forced the
petitioner guilty of the charges. On 28-3-2005,
a second show cause notice was issued. The
petitioner gave his reply on 25-4-2005. Ignoring all
the points in favour of the petitioner and his
unblemished record of service and his plea that he
had been victimised, because he joined CITU union
in March, 2003 and defending the workers, on
4-5-2005 the petitioner was dismissed from service.
3. The brief averments of the counter statement
filed by the respondent are as follows:
The petitioner was working as a winder in the
Cone-Winding Department of the respondent mill.
The respondent and its workmen after negotiations
entered into an 18(1) settlement as per the
provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in
respect of work-load, work assignment, wages, etc.,
on 7-5-1998 in which the respondent management
agreed to pay ` 500 to the permanent employees of
the respondent as ex gratia. The petitioner had also
being a member of INTUC trade union accepted the
settlement and received ` 5 0 0 as exg r a tia
on 14-5-1998 and hence, the settlement was
binding on the petitioner. But, in contravention of
the said settlement, the petitioner, instead of giving
determined workload, wantonly worked slowly and
gave low production on 2-5-2003, 3-5-2003,
9-5-2003, 18-5-2003, 21-5-2003, 25-5-2003,
30-5-2003, 6-6-2003, 7-6-2003, 11-6-2003,
13-6-2003, 20-6-2003, 22-6-2003, 27-6-2003,
28-6-2003, 2-7-2003, 11-7-2003, 18-7-2003,
25-7-2003 and 26-7-2003 and caused loss to the
respondent management. The acts on part of the
petitioner are very serious and grave misconduct
under Clause 17 (3) (o) of the Certified Standing
Orders of the respondent mill. Hence, the respondent
management issued the show cause notice to the
petitioner on 9-8-2003. The petitioner also on 22-8-2003
during the 1st shift wantonly damaged the cones by
mix up the counts. When questioned by the Maistry
as well as the Supervisor, the petitioner has abused
them and failed to obey the reasonable and lawful
orders of the superior Supervisor. These acts on the
part of the petitioner are very serious and grave
misconduct under Clauses 17 (3) (k), 17 (3) (o), 17
(3) (j) and 17 (3) (a) of the Certified Standing
Orders of the respondent mill.
It is further stated that on complaints from
maistry Mr. V. Mahalingam and Supervisor
Mr. C. Aranga Karthikeyan, a show cause notice with
suspension pending enquiry, dated 22-8-2003 along
with the copies of the basic complaints was issued
118
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 January 2018
to the petitioner. In the said show cause notice the
acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner
were clearly and unambiguously stated. As his
explanation, dated 25-8-2003 for the show cause
notice, dated 22-8-2003 was not at all satisfactory
and unacceptable and as the petitioner failed to give
any explanation to the show cause notice, dated
9-8-2003, with a view to afford him adequate
opportunity, the respondent decided to hold a
full-fledged domestic enquiry and accordingly,
issued to the petitioner an enquiry notice on 2-9-2003.
As per the enquiry notice, dated 2-9-2003, the
domestic enquiry was conducted for both the charges
by an independent outside lawyer on 13-9-2003,
20-9-2003, 1-10-2003, 11-10-2003, 18-10-2003,
1-11-2003, 22-11-2003, 6-12-2003, 20-12-2003,
3-1-2004, 10-1-2004, 24-1-2004, 7-2-2004, 14-2-2004,
28-2-2004, 13-3-2004 and 26-3-2004 in accordance
with the principles of natural justice and the
provisions of law.
It is further stated that in the entire domestic
enquiry proceedings the petitioner had fully
participated with his observer and availed all the
opportunities afforded to him and defend his case
and the petitioner had signed each and every page
of the enquiry proceedings after perusing it. The
copies of the documents were furnished to the
petitioner by the respondent management as well as
the Enquiry Officer as requested by him in the
domestic enquiry. After carefully considering the
facts and analysing the material evidence placed
before him, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner
guilty of the charges framed against him and
submitted his report and findings on 23-6-2004. The
respondent management accepted the report and
finding of the Enquiry Officer as fair and unbiased
and issued to the petitioner a second show cause
notice, dated 28-3-2005 enclosing the copies of the
domestic enquiry proceedings and the report and
findings of the Enquiry Officer. After receiving the
second show cause notice, the petitioner requested
typed set of enquiry proceedings. After receiving
the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has
submitted his explanation on 25-4-2005, which was
not at all satisfactory and unacceptable and as the
acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner
were very serious and grave in nature and in order
to maintain internal discipline and industrial peace,
the respondent has no other option except
terminating the services of the petitioner in the
large interests of industry, internal discipline,
industrial peace and morale of the employee by an
Order, dated 4-5-2005. While passing the order of
dismissal the respondent management has taken into
consideration the seriousness and gravity of the
misconduct committed by the petitioner, the
aggravating and extenuating circumstances thereof
as well as his past record of service.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced and on the side of the respondent management
MW.1 was examined and Ex.M1 to Ex.M93 were
marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the termination of petitioner by the
respondent management is justified or not and if not
justified, what is the relief entitled to the
petitioner?
6. Both sides are heard. The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in and the exhibits marked by
the respondent are carefully considered. On both sides,
written arguments were filed and the same is carefully
considered.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been
in service at the respondent establishment from 1986
and he has served for 17 years and he has been given
show cause notice on 9-8-2003 and 22-8-2003
alleging that he has committed go-slow production
against the norms of the management and relating to
mixing of two different wrong coloured threads into
the cones affecting quality of the production and
subsequently on 4-5-2005 he was removed from
service and that he is a INTUC union member and
subsequently from 1-3-2003, he became a member of
the CITU union and he requested the management not
to deduct subscription for INTUC union on 19-3-2003
and the CITU union had been questioning various
unlawful acts of the management and that he questioned
the misappropriation of ` 40 lakhs from the Co-operative
Society of the respondent management mills and had
been demanding 900 workers who had been working as
badlis and contract workmen to be made permanent,
which annoyed the management and that on 9-8-2003,
he had come for an enquiry to defend two employees
Sakthivel and Chandrasekaran in the domestic enquiry
on which date the charge memo, dated 9-8-2003
was served stating that he had given lesser production
on various dates between May, 2003 and July, 2003
that against what was agreed to in the settlement
119
23 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
section 18 (1) of Industrial Dispute Act with the INTUC
union which was arrived on 7-5-1998 and charge memo
was also given and they would have also deducted wages
for lesser production in the relevant months and
production is low not on the account of the fault of
the petitioner but on the account of shortage of power,
failure of machine, thread cuts, poor quality thread,
cones with less weight etc., and on 22-8-2003, the
petitioner was issued another charge-sheet alleging
that he had mixed up two different wrong coloured
threads into the cones and caused loss to the
management and he was suspended without even
calling for an explanation and on 2-9-2003, the
Enquiry Officer gave notice fixing the enquiry on 13-9-2003
in respect of the two charge-sheets and enquiry was
conducted and one M. Elanchezhian was appointed as
an Enquiry Officer who is the junior counsel of
M. Elumalai, who represents the management in almost all
their cases and the petitioner requested the Enquiry
Officer
for
assistance
of
co-worker
namely,
Nilavazhagan or N. Ramar which was denied by the
management on the ground that both of them are
dismissed workers and that therefore, without
assistance of co-worker he went through the enquiry
and after the enquiry ignoring all the materials
discrepancies the Enquiry Officer forced the petitioner
guilty of the charges and on 28-3-2005, a second show
cause notice was issued and though he gave his reply
on 25-4-2005 ignoring all the points mentioned therein
and to victimise the petitioner as he joined in CITU
union he was dismissed from service on 4-5-2005.
8. On the other hand, it is contended by the
respondent that petitioner was working as a winder in
the Cone-Winding Department of the respondent mill
and the workers have negotiated and entered into an
18(1) settlement in respect of work-load, work
assignment, wages, etc., on 7-5-1998. In which the
respondent management agreed to pay ` 500 to the
permanent employees of the respondent as ex gratia
and the petitioner being a member of INTUC trade
union accepted the settlement and received ` 500 as
ex gratia on 14-5-1998 and hence the settlement was
binding on the petitioner but in contravention of the
said settlement the petitioner, instead of giving
determined work-load, wantonly worked slowly and
gave low production on various dates and he has caused
loss to the respondent management and the act of the
petitioner are very serious and grave misconduct under
Clause 17 (3) (o) of the Certified Standing Orders of
the respondent mill and hence, the respondent
management issued the petitioner show cause notice
on 9-8-2003 and that the petitioner wantonly damaged
the cones by mix up the counts on 22-8-2003 when it
was questioned by the maistry as well as the
Supervisor, the petitioner has abused them and failed
to obey the lawful orders of the superior Supervisors
and that on complaint from maistry and Supervisor a
show cause notice with suspension pending enquiry
was given on 22-8-2003 along with the copies of the
basic complaints to the petitioner and the explanation
given by the petitioner was not at all satisfactory to
the management which are unacceptable and as the
petitioner failed to give any explanation to the show
cause notice, dated 9-8-2003, with a view to afford him
adequate opportunity, the respondent decided to hold
a full-fledged domestic enquiry and accordingly, an
enquiry notice issued to him on 2-9-2003 and after the
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty
of the charges framed against him and submitted his
report and findings on 23-6-2004 which was accepted
by the management and issued a second show cause
notice to the petitioner on 28-3-2005 enclosing the
copies of the domestic enquiry proceedings and after
receiving the second show cause notice, the petitioner
requested typed set of enquiry proceedings and after
receiving the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has
submitted explanation on 25-4-2005 which was not at
all satisfied to the management which is also
unacceptable and considering the fact that the
misconduct committed by the petitioner is very serious
and grave in nature the service of the petitioner was
terminated by the management on 4-5-2005 in the
interest of internal discipline.
9. On perusal of records, it is found that this Court
has already held that the domestic enquiry conducted
by the respondent management against the petitioner
was invalid one. Hence, now it is to be decided by this
Court that whether from the oral evidence of the
respondent management RW.1 and exhibits marked on
their side the respondent management has proved that
the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner
is fair and whether the respondent management has
established the charges before this Court and whether
the punishment given by the respondent management
is proportionate to the gravity of the alleged
misconduct committed by the petitioner. On this
aspect the evidence and exhibits were carefully
considered.
10. On this aspect the evidence of the respondent
management RW.1 was carefully perused. After passing
of a Preliminary Award holding that the domestic
enquiry conducted by the respondent management
against the petitioner is unfair and not in accordance
120
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 January 2018
of principles of natural justice the respondent
management has examined RW.1 the personal manager
of the respondent Industry who has deposed that the
petitioner has involved in go slow strike in production
and he has not shown the production as agreed under
the settlement entered between the workers and the
management under section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and the petitioner was given several
notices regarding low production of the petitioner
than the agreed norms on various dates in the month
of May, June and July 2003 and that the petitioner has
caused loss to the respondent management which is
against the section17 (3) (o) of the provisions of
Certified Standing Order and hence, show cause notice
was issued to him on 9-8-2003 and it is the further
evidence of RW.1 that on 22-8-2003 while petitioner
was working at the 1st shift wantonly damaged the
cones by mix up the counts and also disobey the orders
of the superiors which also mis-conduct under Clauses
17 (3) (k), 17 (3) (o), 17 (3) (j) and 17 (3) (a) of the
Certified Standing Order and that therefore, the enquiry
was conducted and the Enquiry Officer has found
guilty against the petitioner and that therefore, after
issue of show cause notice he has been removed from
service on 4-5-2005.
11. In support of their contention the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.M1 to Ex.M93. It is
learnt from Ex.M1 to Ex.M7 that these documents are
coming to exist only after the domestic enquiry and
these documents only discloses the fact that dismissal
of the petitioner from service and raising the
industrial dispute and the reference sent by the
Government to this Tribunal and Ex.M8 reveal that
settlement arrived at between the management and
union on 7-5-1998. Ex.M9 is the copy of the
production given by the petitioner. Ex.M10 would
evident that the show cause notice was given to the
petitioner on 9-8-2003 and Ex.M11 is the requisition
of the petitioner asking copy of the settlement and
Ex.M12 is the letter of the management permitting the
petitioner to persue the settlement and Ex.M13 is the
complaint given by the maistry Mahalingam against the
petitioner on 22-8-2003. Ex.M14 is the complaint
given by Supervisor Aranga Karthikeyan on the same day.
Ex.M15 is the copy of the show cause notice issued
on the same day for which the petitioner has given
explanation on 25-8-2003 under Ex.M16. Ex.M17 is
the copy of the enquiry notice issued to the petitioner
on 2-9-2003. Ex.M18 is the copy of the requisition
of the petitioner to appoint a union leader as his
representative in the domestic enquiry. Ex.M19 is the
reply given by the respondent management which
reveal that the respondent management has not
permitted the petitioner to get assistance of the union
leader and rejected his requisition that the union leader
is not working as employee at that time. Ex.M20
would reveal the fact that petitioner has stated to the
Enquiry Officer regarding his inefficiency to read his
documents and to cross examine the witnesses and to
produce the documents which is in his favour and he
has asked permission to appoint Nilavazhagan or
N. Ramar as a representative to conduct the enquiry and
the same was also refused by the management under
the letter, dated 22-9-2003 which is exhibited as
Ex.M21 on the ground that the said Nilavazhagan or
N. Ramar have been removed from service from the
factory. The letter of the petitioner and the reply of
the petitioner are exhibited as Ex.M22 to Ex.M24.
Ex.M25 to Ex.M29 are the enquiry notices sent to the
petitioner and Ex.M30 is the order of the Hon'ble High
Court passed in W.P. No. 15958/2003 on 13-8-2003.
The other documents would go to show that the
petitioner was complained that he has not completed
his production norms and he has submitted the
explanation for the show cause notice and the enquiry
notice was sent to him and the petitioner has submitted
number of applications to the respondent management
on various dates from 25-8-2003 to 3-1-2004 which
are exhibited as Ex.M49 to Ex.M62. These documents
would go to show that the petitioner has sent several
letters to the management regarding false charges
foisted against him and to permit him to get an
assistance of a co-employee and regarding his inability
to participate in the domestic enquiry with the Enquiry
Officer. Instead of marking glass tubes and glass cones
as material objects, the said objects were marked as
Ex.M92 and Ex.M93.
12. Though the respondent witness has stated about
the charges leveled against the petitioner, show cause
notices issued to the petitioner and the domestic
enquiry in the chief examination, it does not contain
the averment regarding the Enquiry Officer who
conducted the domestic enquiry and proceedings of the
domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer in
a biased manner as this Court has already held that the
domestic enquiry is unfair. The respondent management
has failed to establish before this Court that the
domestic enquiry was held in a fair manner following
the principles of natural justice. As the management
has failed to establish the above it is clear that the
respondent management has utterly failed to establish
their case and the findings of the domestic enquiry
report is suspicious one. Further, the written argument
filed by the respondent management also does not
speak about any further evidence let in by the
management.
121
23 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
13. Furthermore, it is learnt from the records that
though the respondent management has exhibited 93
documents they have not filed the enquiry report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer before this Court.
Further, the complaints given by maistry Mahalingam
and Supervisor Aranga Karthikeyan are exhibited as
Ex.M13 and Ex.M14. But, the said complainants have
not been examined before this Court to prove the the
said exhibits that is the complaints given by them
against the petitioner. Though the respondent
management has relied upon several citations, it has
failed to establish that the domestic enquiry was
conducted in a fair manner and failed to prove the
charges leveled against the petitioner before this Court
after passing of the said Preliminary Award and
therefore, as this Court has already held that the
domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is
not in accordance with the principles of natural justice
and the respondent management has terminated the
service of the petitioner only on the foot of the said
invalid enquiry report and as the petitioner has served
more than 17 years at the respondent establishment,
the punishment of termination from service given to
the petitioner for the charge of agitation of go-slow
in production and mixing of two different wrong
coloured threads into the cones and causing loss to the
management, is not proportionate. Therefore, it is just
and necessary to held that the termination order passed
by the respondent management on the foot of the
domestic enquiry report is not sustainable and hence,
it is to be held that the termination of petitioner by
the respondent management is not justified and the
petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement as
claimed by him in the claim statement.
14. As this Court has decided that the termination
of petitioner by the respondent management is not
justified, it is to be decided whether the petitioner is
entitled for back wages 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 termination. 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 his termination from the
respondent establishment. Considering the above
circumstances, this Court decides that the petitioner
is entitled for 30% back wages and other attendant
benefits.
15. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the termination of petitioner by the respondent
management is not justified and an Award is passed by
directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner
within one month from the date of this order and to
pay 30% back wages from the date of termination till
the date of reinstatement with continuity of service and
other attendant benefits. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 6th day of October, 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 witness:
MW.1 — 21-11-2012— A. John Amalraj
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.M1 —
Copy of the dismissal order issued to
the petitioner, dated 4-5-2005.
Ex.M2 —
Copy of the notice of the Labour
Officer with 2A petition, dated
10-10-2005.
Ex.M3 —
Copy of the reply filed by the
respondent, dated 18-11-2005.
Ex.M4 —
Copy of the Conciliation failure report
from the Labour Officer, Karaikal,
dated 9-2-2006.
Ex.M5 —
Copy of the notification issued by the
Government of Puducherry, dated
30-5-2006.
Ex.M6 —
Copy of the claim statement filed by
the petitioner, dated 19-11-2006.
Ex.M7 —
Copy of the counter statement filed by
the respondent, dated 5-9-2007.
Ex.M8 —
Copy of the 18(1) Settlement in
respect of work load etc., dated
7-5-1998.
Ex.M9 —
Copy of the production list given by the
petitioner.
Ex.M10—
Copy of the show cause notice issued
to the petitioner, dated 9-8-2003.
122
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 January 2018
Ex.M11—
Copy of the letter of petitioner asking
copy of settlement, dated 12-8-2003.
Ex.M12—
Copy of the letter of respondent asking
the petitioner to peruse the Settlement,
dated 18-8-2003.
Ex.M13—
Copy of the complaint given by Maistry
V. Mahalingam against the petitioner,
dated 22-8-2003.
Ex.M14—
Copy of the complaint given by
Supervisor C. Arangakarthikeyan against
the petitioner, dated 22-8-2003.
Ex.M15—
Copy of the show cause notice issued
to the petitioner, dated 22-8-2003.
Ex.M16—
Copy of the explanation of the
petitioner, dated 25-8-2003.
Ex.M17—
Copy of the enquiry notice, dated
2-9-2003.
Ex.M18—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner to
have
a
Union
Leader
as
his
representative, dated 13-9-2003.
Ex.M19—
Copy of the reply given by the
respondent, dated 13-9-2003.
Ex.M20—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner to
have a union leader as his representative,
dated 20-9-2003.
Ex.M21—
Copy of the reply given by the respondent,
dated 22-9-2003.
Ex.M22—
Copy of the letter of petitioner making
false allegations, dated 26-9-2003.
Ex.M23—
Copy of the reply given by the
respondent with proof, dated 29-9-2003.
Ex.M24—
Copy of the letter of petitioner to
adjourn the enquiry, dated 30-9-2003.
Ex.M25—
Copy of the enquiry notice, dated
1-10-2003.
Ex.M26—
Copy of the receipt given by the
petitioner for accepting the settlement,
dated 7-5-98 and receiving ` 500 as
good will payment, dated 14-5-1998.
Ex.M27—
Copy of the letter of the respondent,
dated 11-10-2003.
Ex.M28—
Copy of the letter of the respondent,
dated 14-11-2003.
Ex.M29—
Copy of AD Card, dated 15-11-2003.
Ex.M30—
Copy of the order of the Hon'ble High
Court passed in W.P. No. 15958/2003,
dated 13-8-2003.
Ex.M31—
Copy of the order promoting the
petitioner, dated 28-3-2003.
Ex.M32—
Copy of the production report in
respect of petitioner in Winding
Department for the month of May,
2003 to July, 2003.
Ex.M33—
Copy of the enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M34—
Copy of the report and findings of the
Enquiry Officer, dated 23-6-2004.
Ex.M35—
Copy of the second show cause notice,
dated 28-3-2005.
Ex.M36—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner
requesting typed copy of enquiry
proceedings, dated 1-4-2005.
Ex.M37—
Copy of the reply of the respondent
enclosing typed copy of enquiry
proceedings, dated 13-4-2005.
Ex.M38—
Copy of the explanation submitted by
the petitioner, dated 25-4-2005.
Ex.M39—
Copy of the show cause notices issued
to the petitioner, dated 28-4-2003,
18-6-2003, 9-8-2003 and 22-8-2003.
Ex.M40—
Copy of the letter enclosing order of
the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, dated
5-6-2003.
Ex.M41—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner to
the INTUC Union, dated 19-3-2003.
Ex.M42—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner
asking copy of the settlement, dated
12-8-2003.
Ex.M43—
Copy of the letter of INTUC President
issued to the petitioner, dated 25-7-2003.
Ex.M44—
Copy of the reply of the petitioner to
the INTUC, dated 31-7-2003.
Ex.M45—
Copy of the wage slip in respect of the
petitioner.
Ex.M46—
Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Labour Officer, Karaikal.
Ex.M47—
Copy of the letter of CITU Union to the
Registrar of Co-operative Department,
Karaikal, dated 21-7-2003.
Ex.M48—
Copy of the enquiry notice, dated
2-9-2003.
123
23 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.M49—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 25-8-2003.
Ex.M50—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 13-9-2003.
Ex.M51—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 20-9-2003.
Ex.M52—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 20-9-2003.
Ex.M53—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 22-9-2003.
Ex.M54—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 26-9-2003.
Ex.M55—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 11-10-2003.
Ex.M56—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 17-10-2003.
Ex.M57—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 11-11-2003.
Ex.M58—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 11-11-2003.
Ex.M59—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 24-11-2003.
Ex.M60—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 29-12-2003.
Ex.M61—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 30-12-2003.
Ex.M62—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 3-1-2004.
Ex.M63—
Copy of the letter enclosing Hon'ble
High Court Order, dated 5-6-2003.
Ex.M64—
Copy of the letter given by petitioner to
the INTUC Union, dated 19-3-2003.
Ex.M65—
Copy of INTUC to the petitioner, dated
25-7-2003.
Ex.M66—
Copy of INTUC to the petitioner, dated
31-7-2003.
Ex.M67—
Copy of the wage slip in respect of
petitioner, dated 31-7-2003.
Ex.M68—
Copy of the letter of CITU to the
Registrar, Co-operative Department,
dated 21-7-2003.
Ex.M69—
Copy of the failure report, dated
25-7-2003.
Ex.M70—
Copy of pamphlet of CITU.
Ex.M71—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 12-8-2003.
Ex.M72—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
22-8-2003.
Ex.M73—
Copy of the enquiry notice, dated
2-9-2003.
Ex.M74—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
13-9-2003.
Ex.M75—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
20-9-2003.
Ex.M76—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
22-9-2003.
Ex.M77—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
26-9-2003.
Ex.M78—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
11-10-2003.
Ex.M79—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
17-10-2003.
Ex.M80—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
11-11-2003.
Ex.M81—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
11-11-2003.
Ex.M82—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
24-11-2003.
Ex.M83—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
24-11-2003.
Ex.M84—
Copy of the letter of the petitioner,
dated 29-12-2003.
Ex.M85—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
30-12-2003.
Ex.M86—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
3-1-2004.
Ex.M87—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
20-1-2004.
Ex.M88—
Copy of the letter of petitioner, dated
7-2-2004.
Ex.M89—
Copy of the letter of R. Vadivel, dated
8-2-2004.
Ex.M90—
Copy of certified standing Order, dated
1-9-1966.
Ex.M91—
Copy of the past records of the
petitioner.
Ex.M92—
Glass tubes (2 Nos.).
Ex.M93—
Cones (2 Nos.).
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.