La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 20-00
Prix : ` 20-00
Price :
` 20-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 138
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 138
Award of the Labour Court
.. 138
de tribunal.
.. 145
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 145
Government Notifications
.. 145
.. 158
Avis d’Adjudication
.. 158
Tender notice
.. 158
.. 162
Annonces
.. 162
Announcements
.. 162
[137]
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 : 30-1-2018
Price : ` 20-00
2018 }
|
30 {
No.
5
Poudouchéry
Mardi
30
Janvier
2018 (10 Magha 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
30th
January
2018
138
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 January 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 191/Lab/AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 30th November 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 02/2016,
dated 27-10-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the
Management of M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia (India)
Private Limited, Sedarapet, Puducherry and Chemcrown
Exports Suolificio Linea Italia Thozhilalargal Sangam
over termination of 5 union workmen 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 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 27th day of October, 2017.
I.D. (L) No. 02/2016
The Chemcrown Exports Suolificio
Linea Italia Thozilalargal Sangam,
No. 42, Cuddalore Main Road,
Bharathi Mill Thittu, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry-605 004.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia (India)
Private Limited,
No. 19/1 and 4/14, Mylam Pondy Road,
Sedarapet, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 11-10-2017
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalargal R.T. Shankar, A. Ashokkumar, P. Suresh
and B. Balamurugan, Counsel for the petitioner,
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan,
Advocates filed vakalat for the respondent and
subsequenty when the case was posted for filing of
counter, the respondent being called absent and set
ex parte, upon hearing the petitioner and perusing the
cast records, this Court passed the following :
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 14/AIL/Lab./T/2016,
dated 14-3-2016 for adjudicating the following:
(a) Whether the dispute raised by union workmen
Chemcrown Exports Suolificio Linea Italia Thozilalargal
Sangam against the management of M/s. Suolificio
Linea Italia Private Limited, Puducherry over illegal
termination of 5 union workmen Thiruvalargal
(1) R. Annamalai, (2) T. Nagamuthu, (3) P. Ganapathy,
(4) V. Anton Sagayaraj, (5) S.Selvamani during the
pendency of conciliation proceedings and pendency
before the Labour Court is justified? If justified,
what relief they are entitled to?
(ii) Whether the management had violated the
provisions under section 33(A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. If so, what relief the union
workmen are entitled?
(iii) Whether the engagement of contract labour
directly in the manufacturing process against the
provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act is justified? If not justified, what
relief the union workmen are entitled to?
(iv) Whether the management had adopted unfair
labour practice against the trade union office
bearers. If so, what relief they are entitled to ?
(v) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Though the Counsel for the respondent filed
vakalat, despite several opportunities, no counter was
filed on behalf of the respondent and hence, the
respondent was set ex parte.
3. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the
petitioner the union member Anton Sagayaraj was
examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P102 were marked.
4. The point for determination is:
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union against the respondent management over
illegal termination of 5 union workmen namely
R. Annamalai, T. Nagamuthu, P. Ganapathy, V. Anton
Sagayaraj, S. Selvamani during the pendency of
conciliation proceedings and pendency before the
Labour Court is justified or not and if justified,
what is the relief entitled to the said workmen?
(ii) Whether the management had violated the
provisions under section 33(A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and had adopted unfair labour
practice against the trade union office bearers and
if so, what is the relief entitled to the union workmen?
139
30 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(iii) Whether the engagement of contract labour
directly in the manufacturing process against the
provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act is justified or not and if not
justified, what is the relief entitled to the union
workmen?
5. On point No.1 :
Heard. As per the claim petition and evidence of
PW.1, it is the case of the petitioner union that union
is a registered one and the respondent establishment
is a registered company and functioning for about 12 years
in which more than 250 employees are working and
involving the manufacturer of leather foot wear and
leather products having huge profits as annual income
and that the union has raised the industrial dispute for
unfair labour practice committed by the respondent
management, protection of service conditions of the
members of the union, suspension and termination of
the five union workmen and engagement of contractual
labourers and that the union has given strike notice on
16-12-2014 to the management and raised industrial
dispute against the respondent management that the
management adopting unfair labour practice against the
union workmen and no protection for their service and
illegally suspended the union workmen by false
charges and terminating the service of the union
workmen against the principles of natural justice and
also violating the provision of section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act and engaged contractual workmen
illegally for manufacturing process against the
provisions of the Contract Labour, Act and threatening
the petitioner union members by outside bad element
inside the factory premises and violating the terms and
conditions of the 12(3) settlement and on 15-12-2014
the union has filed a charter of demand for various
demands including the suspension and refusal of
employment to the workmen while pendency of the
dispute and during the course of conciliation on
19-12-2014 the union alleged that the management
continuously adopting unfair labour practice from the
year 2003 since, from the date of formation of the
trade union and illegally terminated the 5 union
workmen during the year 2011 which was referred to
Labour Court and the Labour Court awarded
reinstatement with full back wages and all legal benefits
and the order has not been implemented by the
management and against the order the management
filed a Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court which
is pending and the management illegally refused the
regularisation to union workers including 5 dismissed
employees and the dispute was referred to Labour Court
in I.D.(T). No. 31/2012 which was allowed by the
Labour Court on 3-9-2013 and even then the
management refused to implement the same and
therefore, the petitioner union filed an execution
petition in E.P. No. 16 of 2015 before the II ADJ and
the same was pending and during the Court proceedings
and
conciliation,
the
respondent
management
suspended 5 union workmen who is connected with
disputes namely Annamalai, Nagamuthu, Ganapathy,
Anton Sagayaraj and Selvamani with
mala fide
intention and by an act of victimisation
6. It is the further case of the petitioner union that
the management again suspended 7 union officers on
13-12-2014 when Police complaint was made before
the SHO, Sedarapet vide in FIR. No. 100/201 as the
management dismantled the trade union flag and union
name board and that the respondent management agreed
before the SHO, Sedarapet to revoke the order of
suspension, dated 26-12-2014 to 5 union workmen and
revoke the order of suspension, dated 13-12-2014 to
7 union workmen and however, the management acted
against the agreed terms and conditions before the
SHO, Sedarapet and without obtained any permission
or approval from the appropriate authority terminated
the abovesaid 5 union workmen on 1-4-2015 illegally
by an act of victimisation and motivation which is
against the section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and
the petitioner union strongly represented before the
Conciliation Officer that the management illegally
adopting unfair labour practice and termination of
union workmen while pendency of conciliation and
Labour Court proceedings and that the management
violated the provision under section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act and engaged illegally the
contract labourers in the place of the union workmen
and imposed false charges against the trade union
office bearers in order to terminate their services
illegally with mala fide intention and the Enquiry
Officer appointed by the respondent management is
nothing but their Counsel and therefore, he would be
acted upon the tunes of the employer and hence, the
enquiry conducted by the respondent management is
absolutely contra and against law and it would not bind
as per law and not provided any sufficient opportunity
to the union members to prove their innocence in the
domestic enquiry on the principles of natural justice
and the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and
the respondent management while entering a 12(3)
settlement before the conciliation machinery forcibly
not allowed the petitioner union to enter the
settlement in the registered name of the trade union
and honorary president to sign in the settlement and
union agreed with the management not to adopt unfair
practice against the union workmen and whereas, the
management taking advantage continuously adopting
unfair labour practice against the workmen by issuing
140
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 January 2018
false charge-sheet, suspension and termination of their
service and charges are fake, false and invented and
concoted one for victimize the employees and the
Enquiry Officer is appointed by the management not
an independent and Impartial Officer and he is a Counsel
appearing for the respondent management and he has
also not permitted the office bearer of the union to
assist the charge-sheet employees and the domestic
enquiry is conducted in a biased manner and has not
followed the principles of natural justice and the
enquiry is not conducted in a manner by giving full
opportunity to the employees to defend the charge on
merit and the Enquiry Officer has not considered the
evidence of the employee’s witnesses in the enquiry
proceedings and the employees were not permitted by
the Enquiry Officer to cross examine the respondent
side witnesses and that therefore, the respondent
management taking the law into their hands to do all
sort of unfair labour practices as against the petitioner
union members and that employees are not working
anywhere else in other establishment and the workmen
and their family are facing untold hardship after
termination by the respondent management. In support
of their case, the petitioner union has exhibited Ex.P1
to Ex.P102.
7. From the oral evidence and exhibits marked by
the petitioner, it is clearly established through the
petitioner union that the petitioner union members
were working in the respondent establishment and that
the respondent management has not conducted the
domestic enquiry in a proper manner and has not given
any opportunity to petitioner workmen to defend the
case and the
respondent management without
conducting domestic enquiry in a proper manner has
terminated the above-mentioned workmen from service
without obtaining any prior permission which is totally
against the provisions of the labour laws.
8. On the other hand, though the respondent Counsel
filed vakalat for respondent, the respondent has not
filed any counter and subsequently due to the absence
of the respondent, the respondent was set ex parte.
Considering the fact that the petitioner union has
established their case that the union members are
terminated by the respondent management without
following any procedures and without obtaining any
prior permission while the conciliation is pending, it
is to be held that the termination of 5 union workmen namely
Annamalai, Nagamuthu, Ganapathy, Anton Sagayaraj and
Selvamani are not justified and hence, it can be held
that the petitioners are entitled for reinstatement with
full back wages, continuity of service and all other
attendance benefits as claimed by them.
9. On point No. 2 :
The another point is to be decided that whether
the respondent management has adopted unfair
labour practice as against the petitioner workmen
and has violated the provisions of section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent management did not
want any trade union to function in its factory and
has terminated the members of the trade union without
any reason. As already discussed above, it is clear that
while the conciliation was pending before the
Conciliation Officer regarding charter of demands
the respondent management has terminated the
union members without any permission of the
Conciliation Officer where the industrial dispute is
pending and that therefore, it is clear that the
respondent management has violated the provisions
of section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act and further,
the respondent management has terminated the
services of the employees without giving any
opportunity and without conducting domestic
enquiry in a proper manner while the industrial
dispute is pending before the Conciliation Officer
without getting express permission from the
Conciliation Officer. These facts would go to show
that the respondent management has interfered with
and coerced the workmen in the exercise of their
right of participation in the trade union in the
respondent factory and the respondent management
has terminated the union members without giving any
opportunity and without conducting domestic
enquiry in a proper manner and that therefore, it can
be held that the respondent management has
adopted unfair labour practice against the workers
of their establishment and has violated the
provisions of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
10. On point No. 3 :
It is the case of the petitioner union that the
respondent management has engaged the contractual
labour in the manufacturing process in the place of
union workmen against the provisions of Contract
Labour Act and in support of their contention PW.1
has let evidence. Percontra, the respondent management
does not prefer themselves to conduct the dispute
and as discussed above the respondent management
has used to appoint contract labours in the
manufacturing process as against the provisions of
Contract Labour Act and has to be forbidden by the
Award and hence, the respondent management is to
be directed not to engage contract labours in the
manufacturing process.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed and it
is held that the respondent management has adopted
unfair labour practice against the workers of their
establishment and has violated the provisions of
section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the
141
30 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over illegal termination of
5 union workmen Tvl. (1) R. Annamalai, (2) T. Nagamuthu,
(3) P. Ganapathy, (4) V. Anton Sagayaraj, (5) S. Selvamani
during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and
pendency before the Labour Court and against engagement
of contract labour directly in the manufacturing
process are justified and an Award is passed by
directing the respondent to reinstate the abovesaid
workmen in service within one month from the date of
this order with full back wages, continuity of service
and all other attendance benefits and further the respondent
management is directed not to engage contract labours
directly in the manufacturing process. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 27th day of October, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of
petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 11-10-2017— Anton Sagayaraj
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl —20-08-2013— Copy of Form-L of strike
notice
given
by
the
petitioner union to the
respondent management for
the unfair labour practices
committed by the respondent
management.
Ex.P2—31-10-2013— Copy of conciliation call
letter send by the Labour
Officer in respect of the
strike notice.
Ex.P3—08-04-2013— Copy
of
charter
of
demands submitted by the
petitioner union before
the
Labour
O f fi c e r
Conciliation,
Puducherry
for wage revision of the
employees wo rk i n g wi t h
the respondent management.
Ex.P4—11-03-2014— Copy
of
conciliation
reopen letter submitted by
the petitioner union before
t h e
L a b o u r
O f f i c e r
Conciliation, Puducherry.
Ex.P5—29-04-2015— Copy of industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner
u n i o n
f o r
d i s mi s s e d
employees.
Ex.P6—13-07-2015— Copy of failure report
submitted by the Labour
O ffi c e r
C o n c i l i a t i o n ,
Puducherry to Government
of Puducherry.
Ex.P7—14-03-2016— Copy of notification issued
by the Government of
Puducherry to refer the
industrial dispute to Labour
Court,
Puducherry
for
adjudication.
Ex.P8—
–
— Certified copy of the claim
statement filed in I.D. (T).
No. 31/2012.
Ex.P9—03-09-2013— Certified
copy
of
the
Award passed in I.D.(T).
No. 31/2012.
Ex.P10—11-11-2014— Certified
copy
of
the
Execution petition filed in
E.P. No. 16 of 2015.
Ex.P11—04-10-2015— Certified
copy
of
the
counter
filed
by
the
respondent management in
E.P. No. 16 of 2015.
Ex.P12—16-11-2015— Certified copy of the order
passed in E.P. No. 16 of 2015.
Ex.P13—11-11-2014— Certified copy of the H4
notice received by the
respondent in E.P. No. 16
of 2015.
Ex.P14—05-07-2013— Copy of the show cause
notice
issued
by
the
respondent management to
Annamalai.
Ex.P15—06-07-2013—Copy of the reply letter
submitted by Annamalai to
the respondent management.
Ex.P16—23-07-2013—Copy of the show cause
notice
issued
by
the
respondent management to
Annamalai.
Ex.P17—25-07-2013—Copy of the reply letter
submitted by Annamalai to
the respondent management.
142
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 January 2018
Ex.P18—26-07-2013— Copy of the temporary
suspension order issued by
the respondent management
to Annamalai.
Ex.P19—07-08-2013— Copy of suspension pending
enquiry letter issued by
the respondent management
to Annamalai.
Ex.P20—26-08-2013— Copy of the notice sent by
the respondent management
to Annamalai.
Ex.P21—28-08-2013— Enquiry proceedings.
Ex.P22—07-09-2013— Copy
of
the
letter
submitted
by
the
Annamalai to the Enquiry
Officer seeking permission
for Assistance.
Ex.P23—07-09-2013— Copy
of
the
enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.P24—14-09-2013— Copy
of
the
letter
submitted by Annamalai to
the Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P25—14-09-2013— Copy
of
the
enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.P26—21-09-2013— Copy of the objection
letter given by Annamalai
to the Enquiry Officer for
biased enquiry.
Ex.P27—21-09-2013— Copy
of
the
enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.P28—21-09-2013— Copy
of
the
letter
submitted by Annamalai
for
changing
Enquiry
Officer.
Ex.P29—01-10-2013— Copy of summon sent by
the Enquiry Officer to
Annamalai.
Ex.P30—08-01-2014— Copy of the letter sent
by
Annamalai
to
the
respondent management
for
requesting
the
subsistence allowance.
Ex.P31—29-03-2014— Copy
of
the
enquiry
report.
Ex.P32—05-09-2014— Copy of dispute raised by
Annamalai
before
the
La b o u r
Of f i c e r
Conciliation.
Ex.P33—05-03-2015— Copy of the 2nd show
cause notice sent by the
respondent management
to Annamalai.
Ex.P34—09-03-2015— Copy of reply letter sent
by
Annamalai
to
the
respondent management.
Ex.P35—01-04-2015— Copy of dismissal order
issued to Annamalai with
o ne mo nth salar y fo r
a sum of ` 7,300 vide
ICICI Bank cheque, dated
01-04-2013
under
the
cheque No. 103752.
Ex.P36—16-04-2015— Copy of letter sent by
Annamalai to the respondent
management for requesting
job.
Ex.P37—24-05-2013— Copy of show cause notice
issued by the respondent
to the Selvamani.
Ex.P38—27-05-2013— Copy
of
the
letters
submitted by the Selvamani
to the respondent.
Ex.P39—24-08-2013— Copy of the suspension
pending enquiry order
issued by the respondent
management to Selvamani.
Ex.P40—27-08-2013— Copy
of
reply
letter
submitted by Selvamani.
Ex.P41—26-08-2013— Copy of notice sent by
the respondent management
to Selvamani.
Ex.P42—28-08-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P43—07-09-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P44—07-09-2013— Copy of letter submitted
by the Selvamani to the
Enquiry Officer seeking
permission for Assistance.
Ex.P45—14-09-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P46—14-09-2013— Copy of written statement
filed by Selvamani to the
Enquiry Officer.
143
30 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P47—21-09-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P48—21-09-2013— Copy of objection letter
submitted by Selvamanai
before the Enquiry Officer
for biased enquiry.
Ex.P49—21-09-2013— Copy of objection letter
submitted by Selvamani
before
the
respondent
m a n a g e m e n t
f o r
requesting to change the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P50—01-10-2013— Copy of summon sent by
the Enquiry Officer to
Selvamani.
Ex.P51—05-10-2013— Copy of reply letter sent
by
Selvamani
to
the
Enquiry Officer for non
appearance of the enquiry.
Ex.P52—22-02-2014— Copy of enquiry report.
Ex.P53—05-09-2014— Copy of the letter sent by
Selvamani to the respondent
management for requesting
job.
Ex.P54—05-03-2015— Copy of second show
cause notice issued by the
respondent to Selvamani.
Ex.P55—10-03-2015— Copy of the reply for the
second show cause notice
submitted by Selvamani
to the respondent.
Ex.P56—01-04-2015— Copy of dismissal order
issued to Selvamani with
one month salary for a
sum of ` 5,500 under the
cheque No. 103749 of
I C I I C B a n k , d a t e d
01-04-2015.
Ex.P57—15-04-2015— Copy of the letter sent by
Selvamani to the respondent
management for requesting
job.
Ex.P58—27-07-2013— Copy
of
show
cause
notice
issued
by
the
respondent to Nagamuthu.
Ex.P59—29-07-2013— Copy of reply for show
cause notice.
Ex.P60—03-08-2013— C o p y o f t e m p o r a r y
suspension order issued by
the respondent management
to Nagamuthu.
Ex.P61—12-08-2013— Copy of suspension pending
enquiry order issued by the
respondent management
to Nagamuthu.
Ex.P62—12-08-2013— Copy
of
reply
for
suspension letter.
Ex.P63—19-08-2013— Copy of statement sent
by the Nagamuthu to the
respondent.
Ex.P64—26-08-2013— Copy
of
show
cause
notice
issued
to
Nagamuthu
by
the
respondent management.
Ex.P65—28-08-2013— Copy of summon sent by
the Enquiry Officer to
Nagamuthu.
Ex.P66—02-09-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P67—07-09-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P68—07-09-2013— Copy of letter submitted
by Nagamuthu to the
Enquiry Officer seeking
permission
for
Assistance.
Ex.P69—14-09-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P70—14-09-2013— Copy of written statement
filed by the Nagamuthu
before the Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P71—14-09-2013— Copy of objection letter
submitted by the Nagamuthu
before
the
Enquiry
Officer for biased enquiry.
Ex.P72—21-09-2013— C o p y
o f
e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P73—21-09-2013— Copy of objection letter
submitted by Nagamuthu
before
the
Enquiry
Officer for biased enquiry.
Ex.P74—21-09-2013— Copy of objection letter
submitted by Nagamuthu
before
the
respondent
m a n a g e m e n t
f o r
requesting to change the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P75—01-10-2013— Copy of summon sent by
the Enquiry
Officer to
Nagamuthu.
144
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 January 2018
Ex.P76—05-10-2013— Copy of reply letter sent
by the Nagamuthu to the
Enquiry Officer for non
appearance of the enquiry.
Ex.P77—22-02-2014— Copy of the enquiry report.
Ex.P78—05-09-2014— Copy
of
the
dispute
raised
by
Nagamuthu
before the Labour Officer
for subsistence allowance.
Ex.P79—05-03-2015— Copy
of
show
cause
notice sent to Nagamuthu
b y
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t
management,
Ex.P80—09-03-2015— Copy of reply letter for
second show cause notice.
Ex.P81—01-04-2015— Copy of dismissal order
issued to Nagamuthu with
one month salary for a sum
of ` 7,600 under the cheque
No. 103751 of ICICI
Bank, dated 01-04-2015.
Ex.P82—15-04-2015— Copy of letter sent by
N a g a m u t h u
t o
t h e
respondent management
for requesting job.
Ex.P83—28-08-2013— Copy
of
show
cause
notice
sent
to
Anton
Sagayaraj by the respondent
management.
Ex.P84—29-08-2013— Copy of the reply letter
sent by Anton Sagayaraj to
respondent management.
Ex.P85—29-08-2013— Copy
of
show
cause
notice
sent
by
the
respondent management
to Anton Sagayaraj.
Ex.P86—30-08-2013— Copy of reply letter sent
by Anton Sagayaraj to
respondent management.
Ex.P87—30-08-2013— Copy of suspension pending
enquiry order issued by the
respondent management
to Anton Sagayaraj.
Ex.P88—31-08-2013— Copy of reply letter sent
by Anton Sagayaraj to
respondent management.
Ex.P89—02-09-2013— Copy of notice sent to
Anton Sagayaraj.
Ex.P90—07-09-2013— Copy of letter sent by
Anton Sagayaraj to the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P91—07-09-2013— C o p y o f t h e e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P92—14-09-2013— C o p y o f t h e e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P93—21-09-2013— C o p y o f t h e e n q u i r y
proceedings.
Ex.P94—21-09-2013— Copy of objection letter
submitted
by
Anton
Sagayaraj
before
the
respondent management
for requesting to change
the Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P95—01-10-2013— Copy of summon sent to
Anton Sagayaraj by the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P96—04-10-2013— Copy of letter sent by
Anton Sagayaraj to the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P97—11-04-2013— Copy
of
the
enquiry
report.
Ex.P98—05-09-2014— Copy
of
the
dispute
raised by Anton Sagayaraj
before
the
Labour
Officer, Conciliation.
Ex.P99—05-03-2015— Copy of second show
cause
notice
sent
to
Anton
Sagayaraj by the
respondent management.
Ex.P100—09-03-2015— Copy of reply letter for
second show cause notice.
Ex.P101—01-04-2015— Copy of dismissal order
issued to Anton Sagayaraj
with one month salary for
a sum of ` 6,900 under the
cheque No. 103750 of ICICI
Bank, dated 01-04-2015.
Ex.P102—16-04-2015— Copy of request letter
sent by Anton Sagayaraj to
the respondent management
for requesting job.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits : Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.