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
.. 166
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 166
Award of the Labour Court
.. 166
de tribunal.
.. 172
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 172
Government Notifications
.. 172
.. 180
Avis d’Adjudication
.. 180
Tender notice
.. 180
.. 182
Vente publique
.. 182
Auction notice
.. 182
.. 184
Etablissements dangereux
.. 184
Dangerous Establishments
.. 184
.. 186
Annonces
.. 186
Announcements
.. 186
[165]
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 : 6-2-2018
Price : ` 20-00
2018 }
|
6 {
No.
6
Poudouchéry
Mardi
6
Février
2018 (17 Magha 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
6th
February
2018
166
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 February 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 192/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 30th November 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 18/2017, dated
26-10-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the Industrial Dispute between the management
of M/s. Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry and the
union workmen represented by Puduvai Pradesa
Thuppuravu Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry over denial
of promotion has been received.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the
notification issued in Labour Department's G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Thursday, the 26th day of October, 2017
I.D. (T) No. 18/2017
The President,
Puduvai Pradesa Thuppuravu
Thozhilalar Sangam,
No. 20, Cuddalore Road,
Ariyankuppam, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Commisioner,
Puducherry Municipality,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me for
final hearing in the presence, of Thiru Durai Arumugam,
Representative for the petitioner, the respondent being
called absent and set ex parte, upon hearing the
petitioner and perusing the case records, this Court
passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G. O. Rt.
No. 91/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 08-06-2017 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Puduvai Pradesa
Thuppuravu Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry against
the management of M/s. Puducherry Municipality
over the punishment order, dated 30-01-2006 of
Thiru Ramalingam, Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II, that the
pay by two stages from ` 3,950 to ` 3,800 in the
Time Scale of Pay of ` 3,050-75-3,950-80-4,590 for
a period of two years with effect from 01-07-2004
and to subsequently promote him to the post of
Sanitary Maistry Gr.-I respectively from 1994 with
all benefits are justified or not? If justified, what
relief, he is entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Despite of due service of notice the respondent
did not turn up before this Court and hence, the
respondent was set ex parte.
3. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were
marked.
4. The point for determination is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondent management over the
punishment order, dated 30-01-2006 of Thiru
Ramalingam, Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II, that the pay by
two stages from ` 3,950 to 3,800 in the Time
Scale of Pay of ` 3050-75-3,950-80-4,590 for a
period of two years with effect from 01-07-2004
and to subsequently promote him to the post of
Sanitary Maistry Gr.-I respectively from 1994 with
all benefits are justified or not and if justified, what
is the relief entitled to the said Ramalingam.
5. Heard. As per the claim statement and evidence
of PW.1 Ramalingam, it is the case of the petitioner
union that the respondent management has wantonly
refused promotion to Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II Ramalingam
by not sending the name of the said Ramalingam to
Dep artmental
P ro mo t io nal
Co mmit tee
fo r
consideration for promotion stating that departmental
enquiry against the misconduct of malpractice in the
attendance register and muster roll maintained for the
sanitary section in his control was pending against him
and that the Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II Ramalingam had
been in service for about 24 years and it is the further
167
6 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
case of the petitioner union
that the enquiry was
conducted for about 10 years and two times Enquiry
Officers has been transferred and that therefore, the
enquiry was not conducted as per the circular issued
by the Secretary to Government, Puducherry
on 13-07-1993 in which it is directed by the
Chief Secretary to all Departments that all enquiry
should be completed within 180 days and that therefore,
the enquiry conducted after 180 for about 10 years is
against natural justice and in violation of above circular,
dated 13-07-1993 of Chief Secretary of Puducherry.
6. In order to prove the case, the Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II
Ramalingam was examined as PW.1 and in support of
his evidence PW1has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1
is the copy of the counter statement filed by the
respondent Municipality before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation). Ex.P2 is the copy of the notice for
enquiry. Ex.P3 is the copy of the order of Disciplinary
authority. Ex.P4 is the copy of the order of Disciplinary
authority. Ex.P5 is the copy of the information
furnished
by
the
Commissioner-cum-Public
Information Officer, Puducherry. Ex.P6 is the copy of
the circular issued by the Chief Secretary to
Government, Puducherry. Ex.P7 is the copy of the note
issued by Local Administration Department, Puducherry.
7. From the above documents, Ex.P6 is the circular
issued by the Chief Secretary to Government,
Puducherry, wherein it is directed by the Chief Secretary
to Government that enquiry should be completed within
180 days. But, in this case, the enquiry conducted by
the respondent establishment is not completed within
the period of 180 days and it is also learnt from Ex.P1
that enquiry was commenced in the year 1992 and
Municipality has initiated the disciplinary proceedings
against 12 persons including said Ramalingam only in
the year 1994 and the enquiry was completed only in
the year 2004. These facts would go to show that enquiry
was conducted for about 12 years from the date of the
alleged occurrence of misconduct and that therefore,
the period beyond 180 days that is for about 12 years
the enquiry was conducted and only in the year 2004
the order has been passed by the Enquiry Officer
on 27-07-2004. Further, it is learnt from Ex.P5 that
juniors were promoted to the post since, disciplinary
action was pending against the Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II
Ramalingam before the Enquiry Officer for the period
of 10 years though the Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II
Ramalingam is the senior most to the said persons.
8. It is clearly established through the evidence of
PW.1 and records that enquiry is not completed within
the period of 180 days and admittedly, the enquiry was
completed only in the year 2004 i.e., the enquiry was
pending for the period of 12 years from the date of
alleged
charge
levelled
against
the
workman
Ramalingam and that therefore, as rightly pointed by
the petitioner union that the enquiry conducted by the
respondent Municipality is against the circular of the
Chief Secretary to Puducherry and it is also established
by the petitioner union that the juniors were promoted
in the year 1993 to the next cadre and the name of the
Sanitary Maistry Gr.-II Ramalingam was not considered
for promotion stating that enquiry is pending against
him and that therefore, it is to be held that the industrial
dispute raised by petitioner union against the
respondent Municipality over the punishment order,
dated 30-01-2006 of Ramalingam, Sanitary Maistry
Gr.-II, that the pay by two stages from ` 3,950 to
` 3,800 in the Time Scale of Pay of ` 3,050-75-3,950-
80-4,590 for a period of two years with effect from
01-07-2004 and to subsequently promote him to the
post of Sanitary Maistry Gr.-I respectively from 1994
with all benefits are justified and hence, the said
Ramalingam is entitled for the claim as prayed by him
and as such, the petition is liable to be allowed.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent Municipality over the punishment order
dated 30-01-2006 of Thiru Ramalingam, Sanitary
Maistry Gr.-II, that the Pay by two stages from ` 3,950
to ` 3,800 in the Time Scale of Pay of ` 3,050-75-
3,950-80-4,590 for a period of two years with effect
from 01-07-2004 and to subsequently promote him to
the post of Sanitary Maistry Gr.-I respectively from
1994 with all benefits are justified and an Award is
passed by directing the respondent Municipality to give
promotion to the said Ramalingam with retrospective
effect from the said period on which date he has reached
such seniority for promotion. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 26th day of October, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —13-10-2017 — A. Ramalingam
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —27-07-2016 — Copy
of
the
counter
statement
filed
by
the
respondent
Municipality
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
168
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 February 2018
Ex.P2 —14-05-2002 — Copy of the notice for enquiry.
Ex.P3 —27-07-2004 — Copy of the order of
Disciplinary authority.
Ex.P4 —31-01-2006 — Copy of the order of
Disciplinary authority.
Ex.P5 —01-06-2015 — Copy of the information
furnishe d
b y
the
Commissioner-cum-Public
I n f o r m a t i o n O f f i c e r ,
Puducherry.
Ex.P6 —13-07-1993 — Copy of the circular issued
by the Chief Secretary to
Government, Puducherry.
Ex.P7 —06-08-2012 — Copy of the note issued
by Local Administration
Department, Puducherry.
List of respondent’s witnessess : Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Nil.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 195/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 26th December 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 29/2016, dated
27-11-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s. Tamil Nadu State Corporation, Uppalam
Depot, Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Uppalam, Puducherry and
Thiru E. Gunasekaran, No. 2/491, Mariamman Koil Street,
Anna Nagar, Pallithennal Post, Villupuram District,
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.
(By order)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM.,M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 27th day of November 2017
I.D. (L) No. 29/2016
E. Gunasekaran,
No. 2/491, Mariamman Koil Street,
Anna Nagar, Pallithennal Post,
Villupuram District.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Tamil Nadu State Corporation,
Uppalam Depot, Dr. Ambedkar Salai,
Uppalam, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 23-11-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru Durai
Arumugam,
Representative
for
the
petitioner,
Tmt. J. Vanitha, 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. 111/AIL/Lab./T/2016,
dated 05-12-2016 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru E. Gunasekaran,
Villupuram District against the management of
M/s. Tamil Nadu State Corporation, Puducherry, over
his non-employment is justified? If justified, what
relief he is entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
The petitioner was served as Conductor for about
28 years at the respondent Depot functioning at
Uppalam, Puducherry. The petitioner was a diabetic
patient. Though the petitioner was suffering from
diabetic, he has attended the duty properly without
fail. The respondent management did not mention
his presence to duty in the attendant register and
stated that if, work is allotted, then only it will be
entered in attendance register and only his presence
will not be taken into account. The respondent
management without mentioning his presence to
169
6 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
duty terminated his service stating that he was
absent to duty which is against to law. Inspite of his
illness, the petitioner was unable to attend duty
regularly. However, he submitted medical leave to
the respondent management. The respondent
management without taking into account the leave
taken by the petitioner as medical leave, stated that
he was absent to duty without any leave and issued
charge-sheet and demanded explanation. The leave
letters of the petitioner are not accepted, even if, it
is accepted, it is not acknowledged by the respondent
management. The petitioner submitted his
explanation for the charge-sheet, dated 20-11-2012
to
the
respondent
management.
Since,
the
respondent
management
has
terminated
the
petitioner from service while the I.D. No. 05/2011
is pending the respondent management ought to get
the approval by filing petition under section 33 (2)(b)
before the Industrial Tribunal for the disciplinary
action taken against the worker. However, the
respondent management did not file any approval
petition while I.D. No. 05/2011 was pending before
the Industrial Tribunal at Puducherry. Instead of that
the respondent management has filed approval
petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Tamil
Nadu which is not sustainable. Hence, the
termination order passed by the respondent
management without following any legal procedure
is to be declared as illegal and prayed for reinstatement
with continuity of service and back wages by
calculating ` 18,383 per month.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent denied all the averments made by
the petitioner in his claim statement and stated that
the petitioner was employed as temporary Conductor
on 08-07-1987 by the respondent management and he
was confirmed as permanent on 01-07-1989. The
petitioner was absent to duty from 05-10-2012 till his
termination. The action of the petitioner caused
distress to the day to day works of the respondent
management. The petitioner is having the habit of
absent to duty which causes damages to the smooth
running of the buses resulted in bad name to the
respondent management in the public. Based on the
complaint given by the Branch Manager the
disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner
and memo was issued to him and since the
explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfied
to the management, it was honored for domestic
enquiry which was conducted on 04-07-2013 in
which the petitioner has appeared and charges were
explained to the petitioner and he had accepted the
same and witnesses were examined and the
petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to
putforth his case. The petitioner was examined as
witness and he has not exhibited any documents on
his behalf. Sufficient opportunities were given to
the petitioner in the domestic enquiry and the
domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with
the principles of natural justice and petitioner also
has been permitted to putforth his case with
assistance of another labour and on the report of
the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has been asked
to give his explanation for which the petitioner has
not filed any explanation and even he has not stated
any objection for the alleged domestic enquiry
conducted against him and that the domestic enquiry
was conducted fairly by following all the principles
of natural justice and that the petitioner was
punished for several charges levelled against him
and though several opportunities were given, he has
not rectified his defect and continuously he was
absent for duty and that therefore, the buses has
not been properly functioned which creates and
spoil the name of the respondent corporation and he
has not submitted his leave application along with
the medical certificate of the Doctor and he has not
even submitted records which to prove that he was
treated as in-patient and that therefore, the reasons
stated by the petitioner that he was affected by
diabetic and hence, he was unable to appear for duty
is not satisfied and that therefore, after the enquiry
his service was terminated on 21-02-2015 and that
the petitioner was given ` 18,383 as one month
salary and the petitioner was given several opportunities
to putforth his case in the domestic enquiry and the
charges levelled against the petitioner was proved
in the domestic enquiry without any doubt and one
month salary was also given to him along with the
termination
order
and
that
the
respondent
management has followed the principles laid down
by the Supreme Court under section 33(2)(b) of the
Act and that the petition was submitted for approval
before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Labour
Department, Chennai on 21-02-2015 and the same
was taken on file for enquiry on 27-04-2015 and
summon was issued and while so, though the
approval petition was numbered in No. 34/2015
and was posted for enquiry and that the petitioner
without participating in the enquiry, has raised this
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer in
which on 03-03-2016 a notice was received by the
respondent management for which a explanation was
given on 16-03-2016 to the Conciliation Officer
and thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner of Labour in the approval
170
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 February 2018
application and it was prayed to dismiss the
conciliation proceedings and that therefore, the
Conciliation
Officer has submitted his failure
report on 21-10-2016 in which the Government has
sent the reference to this Tribunal on 05-12-2016
and that the approval application was filed by the
respondent management only for the approval of the
termination of the petitioner on 21-02-2015 and the
same is pending for enquiry from 27-04-2015 till
date and that therefore, before getting the approval
this industrial dispute has been raised by the
petitioner is not sustainable and that therefore, the
respondent management prays to dismiss the claim
petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
was examined and Ex.Rl and Ex.R2 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over his
non-employment is justified or not and if justified,
what is the relief entitled to the petitioner?
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 both sides, written arguments were filed and the
same were carefully considered.
7. The petitioner has deposed all the facts which
are stated in the claim statement in his evidence. Apart
from oral evidence the petitioner has exhibited Ex.P1
to Ex.P9. Ex.P1 is the copy of letter submitted by the
petitioner before the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
which would reveal the fact that petitioner has raised
the industrial dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) regarding his non-employment on
20-03-2015 and the same was acknowledgd by the
Conciliation Officer wherein, the petitioner has stated
that due to his illness by diabetics he is not able to
attend the duty and though he has submitted medical
leave along with the medical certificate, it was not
considered by the respondent management and they
have entered absence for him in the attendance register
and terminated him from service on 21-02-2015 which
is against the principles of natural justice. Ex.P2 is the
copy of the medical certificate for leave for extension
or commutation leave which would go to show that the
medical certificate was issued to the petitioner by the
Medical Officer for taking medical leave. Ex.P3 is the
copy of memo given by the respondent management to
the petitioner wherein, it was stated by the respondent
management
that
petitioner
was
absent
from
05-10-2012. Ex.P4 is the copy of enquiry proceedings
which would reveal the fact that enquiry was conducted
against the petitioner and one Rajendiran, co-worker
was permitted to conduct the case on behalf of
petitioner Gunasekaran and wherein, it was stated by
the respondent management that due to absence of the
petitioner
continuously
from
05-10-2012
to
14-10-2012 without any intimation the function of the
buses were seriously affected and the image of the
corporation was reduced and further, it is learnt from
Ex.P4 - enquiry proceedings that witness has not been
cross examined by the petitioner side though the
opportunities were given and it is further learnt that
Deputy Manager of the respondent corporation has
deposed that petitioner Gunasekaran has not been
allotted any work by mentioning route number and the
manager has categorically admitted the fact that the
petitioner Gunasekaran has not been allotted any work
and further, it is learnt from Ex.P4 - enquiry
proceedings that it is the charge of the respondent
management that petitioner was unauthorizedly absent
from 05-10-2012 to 14-10-2012 for about 10 days for
duty and it is also admitted by the respondent
management that the petitioner was working as a spare
Conductor and no separate bus route was allotted to
him and the application submitted by the petitioner
also has exhibited as document in the enquiry.
8. Further, the petitioner has exhibited the copy of
letter submitted by the petitioner to the respondent
management as Ex.P5 wherein, the petitioner has stated
that he has appeared on the alleged days before the
respondent corporation for duty and he was working
as spare Conductor and his attendance has not been
entered in the register and that he was not absent on
the said dates. Ex.P6 is the termination order issued
by the respondent management to the petitioner
wherein, it is stated by the respondent corporation that
petitioner was absent for very long time from the year
1993 to 2012 and several punishment were given to
him for the continuous absence without submitting the
application for leave and the same was entered in the
service register of the petitioner and it is also stated
by the respondent management in the termination
order that petitioner was often absent and he was absent
for 1166 days and though the respondent management
has granted sufficient chances, the petitioner not turned
up and the termination order would further reveal the
fact that the same was issued to the petitioner with one
month salary. Ex.P7 is the copy of the letter given by
the petitioner to the respondent management on
02-03-2015 to reconsider the termination order
wherein he has stated that whenever he attends the
duty, no work has been allotted by the respondent
corporation and the respondent management has
entered in the attendance register as absence without
allotting the work with the intention to remove him
from service and the petitioner has requested the
management to cancel the termination order by
reinstate him in service.
171
6 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
9. Further, the petitioner has exhibited the copy of
statement of account as Ex.P8 which would reveal the
fact that ` 18,383 was credited in the account of the
petitioner on 02-03-2015. Ex.P9 is the copy of the
order passed by Spl. Deputy Commissioner of Labour
in Approval Petition No. 34/2015 which is the vital
document would reveal the fact that the request of the
respondent management to approve the dismissal of
the
petitioner was rejected by the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner of Labour and further, it reveal the fact
that domestic enquiry is not conducted fairly and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and
further, it reveals that Spl. Deputy Commissioner of
Labour could not decide the fact whether enquiry was
conducted properly and it is also stated by the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner of Labour in the order that
since the proceedings of the domestic enquiry is not
submitted before him, he could not be able to decide
whether there is any
prima facie case for the
termination of the petitioner.
10. On the other hand, it is stated by the respondent
management
through
the
examination
of
one
Senthilkumar, working as Assistant of the respondent
corporation
that
petitioner
was
absent
from
05-10-2012 without giving any leave letter to the
respondent management by which the petitioner has
caused damages to the respondent corporation and
hence, the memo was given to him by initiating
disciplinary action and subsequently domestic enquiry
was conducted and thereafter, the petitioner was
removed from service on 21-02-2015 and that the
petitioner was terminated while industrial dispute
raised by the union against the respondent management
regarding 12(3) settlement entered between them in
the year 2013 and to enforce the same was pending
before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and
that they have applied for approval of the termination
before Spl. Deputy Commissioner of Labour which
was taken on file in A.P. No. 34/2015 and the same was
exhibited as Ex.Rl and subsequently, on 27-07-2013
the petitioner has submitted an application stating the
above facts that the Spl. Deputy Commissioner of
Labour has rejected the approval application and he
asked for reinstatement along with other benefits and
back wages and the same was also exhibited as Ex.R2.
11. From the pleadings of both the parties and
exhibits marked by either sides, it is clear that when
the industrial dispute raised by the union in respect of
12(3) settlement entered between the respondent
management and the union in the year 2013 to enforce
the same was pending, the petitioner was removed from
service without getting prior permission from the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner of Labour and that the
respondent management has applied for approval of the
dismissal on 21-02-2015 in A.P. No. 34/2015 and
admittedly, the same was rejected by the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner of Labour which was exhibited as Ex.R1
as well as Ex.P9 and that therefore, the termination
order passed by the respondent management was not
approved by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai on 03-03-2017
and that therefore, the
termination
order
passed
by
the
respondent
management against the petitioner is not sustainable
and as such, it is just and necessary to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over his non-employment is
justified and hence, the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement as claimed by him in the claim petition.
12. As this Court has decided that industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over non-employment is justified, it is to
be decided whether the petitioner is entitled for
back wages as claimed by him. It is learnt from the
records that petitioner has taken leave, for which
several punishments were given by the respondent
management. It is not disputed by the petitioner that
he has not taken any leave and he has not been given
punishments for the unauthorized absence and it is
also revealed from the enquiry proceedings that
petitioner was unauthorized absence for several times
and several punishments were given which was
corroborated by the enquiry proceedings. Further,
there is no evidence that the said workman is working
so far in any other establishment and that there is no
proof exhibited before this Court that he is working
anywhere else. The respondent has not proved that the
petitioner has earned income after his termination.
However, the petitioner workman could have served at
anywhere else after his termination. Considering the
above circumstances, this Court decides that the
petitioner is entitled only for 50% back wages with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
13. In the result, the petition is allowed by holding
that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respond ent management o ver his
non-employment
is
justified
by
declaring
the
termination of service of the petitioner from the
respondent corporation is illegal and Award is passed
by directing the respondent corporation to reinstate
the petitioner in service within one month from the
date of this order and further directed the respondent
corporation to pay 50% back wages 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 27th day of November, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
172
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 February 2018
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —06-09-2017 E. Gunasekaran
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl —20-03-2015 Copy of letter submitted by
the petitioner before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P2
Copy of medical certificate
for leave for extension or
commutation of leave.
Ex.P3—20-11-2012 Copy of memo given by the
respondent management to
the petitioner.
Ex.P4—24-07-2013 Copy of enquiry proceedings.
Ex.P5—17-02-2017 Copy of letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
respondent management.
Ex.P6—21-02-2015 Copy of termination order
issued by the respondent
management to the petitioner.
Ex.P7—02-03-2015 Copy of letter regarding
reconsideration
of
termination submitted by the
petitioner to the respondent
management.
Ex.P8—02-03-2015 Copy
of
statement
of
account of petitioner.
Ex.P9—03-03-2017 Copy of the order passed by
Spl. Deputy Commissioner
of Labour in Approval
Petition No. 34/2015.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW1 —27-10-2017 V. Senthilkumar
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl —03-03-2017 Copy of the order passed by
Spl. Deputy Commissioner
of Labour in Approval
Petition No. 34/2015.
Ex.R2—27-07-2017 Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent management.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
(G.O. Ms. No. 13, Puducherry, dated 2nd January 2018)
NOTIFICATION
The Lieutenant-Governor is pleased to constitute
Vigilance Committees in order to ensure effective and
hassle free implementation of the Targeted Public
Distribution System, in Union territory of Puducherry
at District Level as well as at Union Territory level.
2. The composition of the Vigilance Committee at
each level is as detailed below:
A. State Level Vigilance Committee
1. Minister, Civil Supplies and
. . Chairman
Consumer Affairs.
2. Two MLAs Nominated by the
. . Members
Government.
3. Secretary to Government,
. . Member
Civil Supplies and Consumer
Affairs.
4. Director of Civil Supplies
. . Member
and Consumer Affairs.
5. Director of Social Welfare
. . Member
6. Director of Women and
. . Member
Child Welfare.
7. Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare . . Member
8. Two representatives from Consumer . . Members
Activities, Youth and Women/
Organisations from the outlying
regions.
9. Two public representatives from . . Members
SC, ST, Women and destitute or
Persons with disability from the
outlying regions.
B. District Level Vigilance Committee
I. Puducherry:
(a) District Collector, Puducherry . . Chairman
(b) Deputy Director, Civil Supplies . . Member
and Consumer Affairs.
(c) Deputy Director (Social Welfare). . Member
(d) Deputy/Assistant Director,
. . Member
(Adi Dravidar Welfare).
(e) Child Development Project
. . Member
Officer.
(f) Five public representatives from . . Members
SC, ST, Women and destitute or
Persons with disability, Nominated
from Puducherry region.