La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 22-00
Prix : ` 22-00
Price :
` 22-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 282
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 282
Award of the Labour Court
.. 282
de tribunal.
.. 293
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 293
Government Notifications
.. 293
.. 300
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 300
Tender notices
.. 300
.. 306
Etablissements dangereux
.. 306
Dangerous Establishments
.. 306
.. 310
Annonces
.. 310
Announcements
.. 310
[281]
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 : 27-2-2018
Price : ` 22-00
2018 }
|
27 {
No.
9
Poudouchéry
Mardi
27
Février
2018 (8 Phalguna 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
27th
February
2018
282
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 199/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 29th December 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D (L) No. 09/2014,
dated 16-11-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the Industrial Dispute between the management
of M/s. Hindustan Unilever limited, NH 45A, Personal
Products Factory, Vadamangalam, Puducherry-605 102
and Thiru S. Sivaprakash, S/o. V. Swamydoss, No. 55,
Salai Street, Uzhavarkarai, Reddiyarpalayam Post,
Puducherry-605 010, 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.
Thursday, the 16th day of November 2017.
I.D. (L) No. 09/2014
S. Sivaprakash,
S/o. V. Swamydoss,
No. 55, Salai Street,
Uzhavarkarai,
Reddiyarpalayam Post,
Puducherry-605 010.
. .Petitioner/
Workman.
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s, Hindustan Unilever Limited,
NH 45A , Personal Products Factory,
Vadamangalam, Puducherry-605 102. . .Respondent/
Management.
This industrial dispute coming on 02-11-2017
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalargal P. R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun
Chakkaravarthy, Advocates
for
the petitioner,
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan,
V. Veeraragavan and P. Rajesh, Advocates for the
respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the
case records, after having stood over for consideration
till this day, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. l5/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 07-02-2014 for adjudicating the fallowing:
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru S. Sivaprakash
over his non-employment against the management
of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Personal Products
Factory, NH 45A, Vadamangalam, Puducherry is
justified? If not 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 filed under
section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 by
the petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
(i) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed
as an operator on 26-07-2012 in the respondent
factory and his service was confirmed on 29-10-2002
and ever since he discharged his duty sincerely.
He is a member of the Pond’s (India) Limited Soap
Division Employees Welfare Union. The Union has
raised charter of demands regarding wages and
allowances against the management in the year
2009. The management has refused to consider the
charter of demands whereas, entered an 18(1)
settlement by threatening the employees to sign the
settlement. Except the Office Bearer of the said
trade union and few other active members of the
union including the petitioner all other worker were
signed the said 18(1) settlement. Hence, the
respondent targeted the petitioner and other workers
who were not signed the said settlement and they
were issued with show cause notice, charge-sheet
for frivolous false allegations and after the said 18(1)
settlement, the workers namely, Gopalakrishnan,
Jaganathan and Devanathan who were not signed the
18(1) settlement were issued show cause notice,
charge-memo to victimise them for not signing in
the 18(1) settlement and in sequence of which the
respondent threatened the petitioner to sign in the
18(1) settlement. Since, he was an active member of
283
27 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the said trade union he did not pay any heed to the
threat of the respondent. In that regard he also wrote
a letter to the said trade union. While being so, the
management issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner
on 02-07-2011 alleging that on 24-06-2011 while
the petitioner was working in the ‘A’ shift around
08.30 a.m., he had misbehaved with a woman worker
who worked in the Talcum Section. Based on said
allegation he was placed under suspension from
02-07-2011 in the said charge-sheet and in the order
of suspension the respondent had not disclosed the
fact that against whom the petitioner had
misbehaved, further, there was no detail about the
person who allegedly gave the complaint against the
petitioner.
It is further stated that in response to the said
charge-sheet the petitioner gave reply to the
management. The management without hearing the
versions of the petitioner and without passing any order
directly appointed one Ms.Thilagavathy, Advocate as
Enquiry Officer and commenced the domestic enquiry
on 26-07-2011. The petitioner knew about the
domestic enquiry only after receiving notice from the
Enquiry Officer. In the domestic enquiry the
management representative one Vidhya Venkatram
appeared and stated that the petitioner misbehaved with
a woman worker namely, Vishalakshi. The petitioner
made a written objection to the Enquiry Officer
requesting him to furnish the name of the complainant
and copy of other details. Thereafter, the petitioner has
issued a legal notice, dated 16-08.2011 to the said
Vishalakshi through registered post. In response to the
same, she sent a reply, dated 24-08-2011 to the
petitioner and as well as to the management stating
that she has not made any complaint against the
petitioner and no such incident was taken place as
stated in the legal notice. In the enquiry on 28-07-2011
the management representative has filed certain
documents in English before the Enquiry Officer.
Since the petitioner is unacquainted with the English
requested the Enquiry Officer and the respondent
management to furnish the Tamil translation of the
documents whereas, the management has refused to
give translated copy and also denied opportunity to the
petitioner to defend the charge levelled against him.
The respondent management and the Enquiry Officer
conducted the enquiry in a biased manner.
It is further stated that on 05-11-2009, the petitioner
produced a copy of the reply letter of woman worker
Vishalakshi and made a objection to drop the enquiry
against her as the charge itself is false and baseless.
The Enquiry Officer without considering his objection
conducted enquiry and has failed to examine the
complainant Vishalakshi, Karuna jyothi who had
allegedly given complaint against the petitioner and
other persons namely, Dhansu and B. Baskaran to whom
the complaint was given. The disciplinary action was
initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the
complaint allegedly given by Vishalakshi and the
preliminary enquiry report submitted by Nabixa begam.
The petitioner was neither served the copy of the
complaint and preliminary enquiry report before
appointing the Enquiry Officer and commencing regular
domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry
Officer without examining the real witness and without
considering the letter of said Vishalakshi submitted
his report dated 29-09-2011 stating that charges
against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner has
submitted his objection vide letter on 17-10-2011
against the enquiry report as the enquiry was not fair
and proper and Enquiry Officer acted in a biased
manner. In response to the petitioner's objections the
management ordered a fresh enquiry vide order dated
07-05-2012 but conducted enquiry with the same
Enquiry Officer and that the petitioner objected to the
same and requested to change the Enquiry Officer. The
respondent management has refused the petitioner’s
objection and terminated him from service vide order,
dated 04-05-2013 against which the petitioner raised
a dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 13-05-2013
but, the same was ended in failure and therefore, he
prayed this Court to pass an Award holding that the
termination of service of the petitioner, dated
04-05-2013 is illegal, consequently direct the
respondent to reinstate him in service with effect from
04-05-2013 as a workman in the respondent's factory
with continuity of service, back wages and all other
attendant benefits.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
(i) The respondent denied all the averments of the
claim petition and stated that one Visalatchi (then
unmarried) D/o. Kanthasamy, worked as a casual
employee
in
the
respondent’s
organisation.
Similarly, one Karunajothi, W/o. Sanjeev was also
a casual worker in respondent’s organisation. By
circular No. 4924/94/Lab./AIL/L., dated 21-07-2000
issued by Labour Commissioner, Puducherry, the
respondent was directed to incorporate specific
clause in its certified standing orders regarding
prevention of sexual harassment in work place, which
was promptly complied with by respondent after
284
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2018
giving due notice to all the workers and trade
unions. A duty is cast on the respondent to prevent
or deter commission of acts of sexual harassments
and such complaints are required to be kept
confidential to prevent threats and harassments to
victims. Respondent vide its notice dated 29-03-2008
had informed all its workers that a complaint
regarding sexual harassment can be lodged either
orally or in writing with Nafeesa Begam. On 24-06-2011,
one Chidambaram (Emp. No. 000335112) lodged a
written complaint with respondent stating that
petitioner had been sexually harassing Visalatchi and
Karunajothi in talc plant during working hours,
which was intimated to him by one K. Danasu who
was also in A-shift along with the victims and
petitioner. It was also informed that victims are
extremely scared to report this incident to
management. Based on the complaint, preliminary
enquiry was conducted by Nafeesa Begam, who had
personally enquired the victims Visalatchi and
Karunajothi on 29-06-2011 and 30-06-2011. She
had also enquired the Shift Officer Mr. Chidambaram
who lodged the complaint. In the preliminary report
she had given the detailed account of how Visalatchi
and Karunajothi were sexually harassed by petitioner.
She had also enclosed written statements given by
victims. The hand written letter given by Visalatchi and
Karunajothi give specific details of the nature of
harassments done by petitioner.
Significantly, both Visalatchi and Karunajothi stopped
reporting to work from 30-06-2011 and 01-07-2011
respectively. The preliminary report of Nafeesa
Begam, who had personally examined the victims,
revealed that she had noticed the demeanor of both
victims and found truth and honestly in their
statements. Based on the preliminary enquiry of
Nafeesa Begam a charge-sheet was issued to petitioner
on 02-07-2011 in Tamil and English, informing him
about sexual harassment complaint. In the said
charge-sheet, the date and time of incident was
reported. The possibility of unwanted publicity of
sexual harassment through the contents of charge-sheet
was imminent which would have seriously prejudiced
the victims. Therefore, the names and specific nature
of harassment was not mentioned in charge-sheet,
which was justified in the given nature of case to
protect dignity and secrecy of victims. The petitioner
is not at all prejudiced by non-disclosure of these
particulars in charge-sheet, dated 02-07-2011.
In response to the charge-sheet, dated 02-07-2011,
petitioner gave reply, dated 09-07-2011 which was
unsatisfactory and hence, an independent lady Enquiry
Officer was appointed by respondent, who had issued
a notice of enquiry to parties fixing the date of enquiry
on 26-07-2011. Considering the sensitivity of matter
a Lady Officer by Vidya Venkatraman was appointed
as Presenting officer on behalf of the management. On
26-07-2011, petitioner appeared and attended Enquiry,
signed enquiry proceedings and also gave a letter
choosing P. Ethiraj as defence, assistant, which was
permitted by the Enquiry Officer. He had also
submitted another letter asking for various particulars
regarding the complaint, which were furnished to him
in the next date of enquiry on 28-07-2011. The Enquiry
Officer gave maximum opportunities to the petitioner
to cross examine management witness, file his
documents, submit list of witnesses, and file his
version in his defence, which were not utilised by
petitioner. He tried to delay the proceedings on some
count or the other.
On 05-09-2011, petitioner produced certain
documents and on the basis of those documents
refused to participate further in enquiry proceedings
and requested to close the proceedings. The Enquiry
Officer received all the documents filed by petitioner
and marked them as his exhibits. The Enquiry Officer
thereafter requested the petitioner and his defence
assistant to cross examine management witness but, the
petitioner refused to do so or to let in his evidence
or participate any further in the enquiry, compelling
the Enquiry Officer to close the enquiry proceedings.
Enquiry Officer submitted her report on 29-09-2011
holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct leveled
against him. The said enquiry report was given to
petitioner on 30-09-2011 which was received by him
and reply was given by him on 17-10-2011, wherein,
he claimed that he was not given sufficient opportunity
to defend himself in the enquiry. Inspite of the fact that
full opportunity was given to him, which was
deliberately misused by him, the respondent thought
it appropriate to give yet another opportunity to petitioner
to defend himself and therefore, vide letter, dated
07-05-2012 the respondent requested the Enquiry
Officer to reopen the enquiry. Accordingly, the Enquiry
Officer gave a letter, dated 04-06-2012 fixing the date
of further enquiry on 09-06-2012. On 09-06-2012, the
petitionera and his defence assistant did not participate
and hence, the enquiry was postponed to 19-06-2012
and intimation to that effect was immediately given to
petitioner. However, on 12-06-2012 the respondent
received a letter from petitioner dated 09-06-2012
claiming that he has no faith in Enquiry Officer and
requested the management to pass appropriate orders
based on the earlier report on the Enquiry Officer.
On 19-06-2012, the petitioner did not participate in
the enquiry but, Enquiry Officer once again adjourned
285
27 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the enquiry to 26-06-2012. Petitioner once again
wrote a letter dated 19-06-2012 reiterating that he is
not interested in proceedings further in the enquiry.
Therefore, on 26-06-2012 the Enquiry Officer had no
other option but, to close the enquiry and submit her
2nd report on 10-04-2013 confirming that charges,
dated 02-07-2011 stood proved against petitioner. Yet
again, the additional enquiry report dated 10-04-2013
was given to the petitioner on 19-04-2013 and his
explanation was called for but petitioner did not
respond to said letter and therefore, taking all the
factors into consideration and gravity of misconduct,
the respondent terminated the petitioner from services.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner WW1 was examined and Ex.Wl to Ex.W32
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW1
was examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.R21 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner over
his
non-employment
against
the
respondent
management is justified or not and 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 the side of the respondent written argument was
filed and the same is carefully considered. The learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the
Judgments reported in CDJ 2011 SC 366, CDJ 2006
SC 542, CDJ 2006 SC 430, CDJ 2005 SC 120, 2004
STPL (LE) 34188 SC, CDJ 1999 SC 36, CDJ 1996 SC
1732, CDJ 1991 SC 710, CDJ 1977 SC 184, CDJ
1975 SC 212, CDJ 1973 SC 302, CDJ 2011 MHC
3119, CDJ 2004 MHC 134 :[2004 II LLJ 207 Mad],
CDJ 2007 MHC 3824, CDJ 2006 MHC 471, CDJ
1980 MHC 165, CDJ 2015 DHC 153, CDJ 2006 PH
1946, CDJ 2006 DHC 2099, CDJ 1997 BHC 1242
[1998 (4) Bom. CLR 57], CDJ 1984 BHC 022 & In
Ram Autar Agnihotri
Vs. U.P. State Handloom
Corporation Reported in Indiankanoon the Division
bench of Allahabad High Court. In this case, though the
petitioner has challenged the fairness of domestic
enquiry in his claim statement which was denied by the
respondent in their counter, the then Presiding Officer
of this Court by over sight without deciding the
preliminary issue regarding fairness of the domestic
enquiry conducted the trial by taking evidence. After
taking all the evidence and after hearing part of the
argument in this main case, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner filed a petition to decide the issue regarding
the fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary
issue. Since, the case is riped for argument after taking
all evidence, the parties are directed to putforth their
arguments in main case and after hearing both sides
the case has been posted for orders.
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner was
examined himself as WW1 and he has deposed that he
had joined in the respondent establishment as operator
on 26-07-2002 and that on the same year after
completing the training his service was regularised on
29-10-2002 as permanent worker and that he had been
in service for about 9 years and that the union in which
the petitioner was the member has raised the demand
before the respondent establishment for revision of
wages and other allowances and that therefore, the
management has threatened the workers and compelled
them to execute the 18(1) settlement between them
and most of the workers were signed the 18(1)
settlement on the compulsion of the respondent
establishment and that the respondent management
also has made an attempt to capture the trade union
with the help of some of the workers who supporting
the management and the respondent management
had taken action against the union members and the
workers who have not accepted 18(1) settlement and
that the petitioner and the office bearers of the union
were threatened by the respondent management as they
have not accepted and entered the 18(1) settlement and
that the petitioner was given charge-sheet on 02-07-2011
alleging that on 24-06-2011 while the petitioner was
working in the ‘A’ shift at about 08.30 a.m., he had
misbehaved with women worker who worked in the
Talcum Section and immediately the petitioner was
suspended from service on 02-07-2011 and even the
charge-sheet does not disclose the name of the women
worker to whom the petitioner has misbehaved and who
has made complaint against the petitioner for which the
petitioner has replied on 09-07-2011 and without
considering the reply of the petitioner and did not
go through the explanation, the respondent management
has directly appointed one Ms. Thilagavathy, Advocate
as Enquiry Officer and commenced the domestic
enquiry on 26-07-2011 and that the appointment of the
Enquiry Officer was not informed to him and that he
has received enquiry notice from the Enquiry Officer
and one Ms. Vidhya Venkatram was appointed as
Presenting Officer who has stated that the petitioner
misbehaved with the woman worker namely,
Vishalakshi and that he made a written objection to the
Enquiry Officer requesting him to furnish the name of
the complainant and copy of other details,
286
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2018
8. It is the further evidence of WW1 that thereafter,
he had issued a legal notice dated 16-08-2011 to the
said Vishalakshi through registered post and after
receipt of the said notice, the said Vishalakshi has sent
a reply, dated 24-08-2011 to the petitioner and as well
as to the management stating that she has not made any
complaint against the petitioner and no such incident
was happened and that in the enquiry on 28-07-2011
the management representative has filed certain
documents in English before the Enquiry Officer and
since the petitioner is unacquainted with the English
requested the Enquiry Officer and the respondent
management to furnish the Tamil translation of the
documents whereas the management has refused to
give translated copy and also denied opportunity to the
petitioner to defend the charge levelled against him and
that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in
a biased manner and on 05-11-2009 the petitioner has
produced the copy of the reply letter of women worker
Vishalakshi and made a objection to drop the enquiry
against him as the charge itself is false and baseless
and without considering the objection of the
petitioner, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry
and has failed to examine the complainant Vishalakshi,
Karuna Jyothi who had allegedly given complaint
against the petitioner and other persons namely,
Dhanusu and B. Baskaran to whom the complaint was
given and that disciplinary action was initiated against
the petitioner on the basis of complaint allegedly
given by Vishalakshi and the preliminary enquiry report
submitted by Nafeesa Begam which was not served
to the petitioner and the served copy of the complaint
and preliminary enquiry report before appointing the
Enquiry Officer and commencing regular domestic
enquiry against the petitioner and that the Enquiry
Officer without examining the real witness and without
considering the letter of said Vishalakshi stating that
charges against the petitioner are proved for which the
petitioner has submitted his objection on 17-10-2011
against the enquiry report as the enquiry was not fair
and proper and Enquiry Officer acted in biased manner
and that in response to the petitioner’s objection, the
management has ordered fresh enquiry on 07-05-2012
and the same Enquiry Officer was permitted to
continue the same though the petitioner objected to the
same and that the respondent management has refused
employment to the petitioner on 04-05-2013 against
which the petitioner has raised industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer on 13-05-2013 which
was failed and reference has been sent to this Court and
that therefore, the petitioner prayed to declare that the
order of termination of service of the petitioner, dated
04-05-2013 as illegal, consequently direct the
respondent to reinstate him in service with effect from
04-05-2013 as a workman in the respondent's factory
with continuity of service, back wages and all other
attendant benefits.
9. In support of his contention, the petitioner has
exhibited Ex.Wl to Ex.W32. Ex.Wl is the copy of the
offer of employment & Probation of the petitioner,
dated 26-06-2002. Ex.W2 is the copy of the
confirmation order of the petitioner, dated 29-10-2002
which would disclose the fact that petitioner was
placed in the category of Monthly rated workman from
01-10-2002. Ex.W3 is the copy of the respondent
letter to the Commissioner and the copy of the
relevant portion of standing order regarding prevention
of sexual harassment of women in work place, dated
24-05-2001. Ex.W4 is the copy of charge-sheet
issued to the petitioner, dated 02-07-2011 which
would reveal the fact that respondent establishment has
served a charge-sheet to the petitioner stating that on
24-06-2011 the petitioner misbehaved and sexually
harassed the women employees at about 08.30 a.m.,
and it is also stated that he has made unwelcome sexual
determined behavior with the said female employees
even in the previous two days and the said Ex.W4
would also reveal the fact that as pointed out by the
petitioner the name of the women workers to
whom the petitioner has misbehaved has not been
stated and it is stated silently that petitioner has
misbehaved with the female employees and the
management has also suspended the petitioner on the
same day directing him to give an explanation within
3 days and further, it is learnt from Ex.W4 that though
the occurrence has taken place on 24-06-2011, the
management has not taken any action even issuing a
memo to the petitioner till 02-07-2011 and no
complaint was made against him before any Police and
they have served the charge sheet only after 9 days of
the alleged misbehavior though the alleged charge is
grave in nature. Ex.W5 is the copy of the explanation
given by the petitioner to the charge-sheet, dated
09-07-2011, wherein, the petitioner has denied the
entire charges and asking the management to furnish
the name of the complainants since, the charge-sheet
does not disclose the name of the women employees
who has made complaint against him and has stated
charge-sheet would have been filed only after
conducting preliminary enquiry and confirmed the
complaint given against him.
10. Further, Ex.W6 is the copy of the petitioner’s
representation to the respondent to engage his
co-worker to assist him in enquiry, dated 15-07-2011.
Ex.W7 is the copy of the minutes of enquiry
proceedings, dated 25-07-2011. Ex.W8 is the copy of
the petitioner’s objection over domestic enquiry, dated
26-07-2011. Ex.W9 is the copy of the minutes of
enquiry proceedings, dated 28-07-2011. Ex.W10 is
287
27 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the copy of the petitioner’s legal notice to K, Vishalakshi
and its courier receipt, dated 16-08-2011. Ex.W11 is
the copy of the minutes of enquiry proceedings, dated
18-08-2011. Ex.W12 is the copy of the letter of
K. Vishalakshi and its postal cover, dated 24-08-2011.
These documents would reveal the fact that in the
enquiry, the petitioner has made a representation to the
respondent permitting him to engage his co-worker
to assist in the enquiry on 15-07-2011 and has
objected for the domestic enquiry on 26-07-2011 and
it is also learnt from Ex.W10 and Ex.Wll that petitioner
has sent a legal notice to Visalatchi on 16-08-2011
and the said Visalatchi has been receiving the notice
and sent a reply on 24-08-2011 stating that it is not true
that she has made complaint against the petitioner and
that she has not made any complaint to the respondent
management or to the anybody else and that petitioner
has behaved with her only as a brother and as a
co-worker and he has not committed any misbehavior
as alleged by the respondent and it is also informed
by Visalatchi to the respondent through Factory
Manager that she has not made any complaint against
petitioner and particularly asking the management
that not to utilise such poor female worker to take
any revenge against the petitioner.
11. Further, Ex.Wl3 is the copy of the minutes
of the enquiry proceedings, dated 27-08-2011.
Ex.W14 is the copy of the petitioner's objection
letter,
dated 05-09-2011. Ex.Wl5 is the copy of the
petitioner’s objection letter to enquiry, dated 05-09-2011.
Ex.W16 is the copy of the minutes of enquiry
proceedings, dated 05-09-2011. Ex.Wl7 is the copy
of the enquiry report, dated 29-09-2011. Ex.Wl8 is
the copy of the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner by the respondent, dated 30-09-2011.
Ex.Wl9 is the copy of the petitioner's explanation to
enquiry report, dated 17-10-2011. Ex.W20 is the copy
of the petitioner’s letter to respondent, dated 17-10-2011.
Ex.W21 is the copy of the respondent order to
conduct fresh enquiry, dated 07-05-2012. Ex.W22 is
the copy of the Enquiry Officer notice, dated 04-06-2012.
Ex.W23 is the copy of the minutes of enquiry
proceedings, dated 09-06-2012. Ex.W24 is the copy
of the petitioner’s objection to Enquiry Officer and its
courier receipt, dated 09-06-2012. Ex.W25 is the copy
of the minutes of enquiry proceedings, dated 19-06-2012.
Ex.W26 is the copy of the petitioner’s representation
to respondent and its courier receipt, dated 26-06-2012.
Ex.W27 is the copy of the respondent show cause
notice to the petitioner, dated 19-04-2013. Ex.W28 is
the copy of the second enquiry report, dated 10-04-2013.
Ex.W29 is the copy of the petitioner’s termination
order, dated 04-05-2013. Ex.W30 is the copy of the
claim statement filed by the petitioner before the
Conciliation Officer, dated 13-05-2013, Ex.W31 is the
copy of the counter filed by the respondent, dated 15-
07-2013. Ex.W32 is the copy of the conciliation
failure report, dated 27-09-2013. These documents
would reveal the fact that Enquiry Officer has
submitted a report on 29-09-2011 and show cause
notice was issued on 30-09-2011 for which the
petitioner has given explanation on 17-10-2011 for
which the respondent management has passed an order
to conduct fresh enquiry on 07-05-2012 i.e. after
more than 6 months and thereafter, the notice was sent
to the petitioner on 04-06-2012 and enquiry was
conducted on 09-06-2012 and petitioner has objected
and sent an objection to the Enquiry Officer on 09-06-2012
and petitioner also has made a representation to the
respondent management on 26-06-2012 and second
enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer
on 10-04-2013 and thereafter, second show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner on 19-04-2013 and
the petitioner was terminated from service by passing
an order on 04-05-2013 by the respondent management
and thereafter, the petitioner has raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer wherein, the
respondent management has filed a counter on 15-07-2013
and Cconciliation Officer has sent a conciliation
failure report to the Government on 27-09-2013 .
12. On the other hand, the H.R. Manager of the
respondent establishment was examined as RW1 and
she has denied all the averments in the claim statement
in his evidence and she has deposed that as per the
circular on 21-07-2000, the Labour Commissioner of
Puducherry has directed to incorporate specific clause
in the standing orders regarding prevention of sexual
harassment in work place and the same was complied
by the company after giving due notice to all the
workers and the trade unions and that duty is cast upon
them to prevent or deter commission of acts or even
an attempt to commit any act of sexual harassment
against women workers and it is also published in the
notice-board on 29-03-2008 and it is also informed
to all the workers that a complaint regarding sexual
harassment can be lodged either orally or in writing
with Nafeesa Begam and it is the further evidence of
the RW1 that one Chidambaram one of the employee
lodged a written complaint with the management on
24-06-2011 stating that the petitioner had been
sexually harassing Visalatchi and Karunajothi in talc
plant during working hours and based on the complaint
288
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2018
preliminary enquiry was conducted by Nafeesa Begam,
who had personally enquired the victims Visalatchi and
Karunajothi on 29-06-2011 and 30-06-2011, and also
enquired the complainant Chidambaran and submitted
the preliminary report that the victims Visalatchi and
Karunajothi were sexually harassed by the petitioner
and the written letters given by Visalatchi and
Karunajothi gives specific details of the nature of
harassment done by the petitioner and that both
Visalatchi and Karunajothi has not attended duty from
30-06-2011 and 01-07-2011 onwards and the
preliminary enquiry report of the Nafeesa Begam who
has personally examined the victims revealed that she
had noticed the demeanour of both victims and found
truth and honesty in their statements and based on the
report the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on
02-07-2011 in Tamil and English informing him about
the sexual harassment complaint and possibility of
unwanted publicity of sexual harassment through the
contents of charge-sheet the names of the victims and
specific nature of harassment was not mentioned in the
charge-sheet and charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner on 02-07-2011 for which the petitioner has
submitted a reply on 09-07-2011 which was not
satisfactory and hence, an independent lady Enquiry
Officer was appointed by the company who issued
notice to the parties fixing the date of enquiry on
26-07-2011 and lady Manager by name Ms. Vidya
Venkatraman was appointed as Presenting Officer on
behalf of the management and petitioner also made
requests choosing one Ethiraj as defence assistant
which was permitted by the Enquiry Officer and
Enquiry Officer has given maximum opportunities to
the petitioner to cross examine the management
witness and to file the documents and list of witnesses
and file his version in his defence which were not
utilised by the petitioner and he tried to delay the
proceedings on some count or the other and on 05-09-2011
the petitioner has produced certain documents and on
the basis of documents, the petitioner refused to
participate further in enquiry proceedings and
requested to close the proceedings and that Enquiry
Officer received all the documents filed by the
petitioner and marked them as exhibits and thereafter,
the Enquiry Officer requested the petitioner to cross
examine the management witness but, the same was
refused by the petitioner and to participate further in
the enquiry and that therefore, the Enquiry Officer has
closed the enquiry proceedings and submitted the
report on 29-09-2011.
13. In support of their case, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.R21. Ex.Rl is
the copy of the letter, dated 24-05-2001, extract of
certified standing orders of respondent company
incorporation
clause on
Prevention of
sexual
harassment of Women in workplace as per the circular
No.4924/94/LAB/AIL/L, dated 21-07-2000. Ex.R2 is
the copy of the charge-sheet issued by respondent
petitioner and its Tamil translation, dated 02-07-2011.
Ex.R3 is the copy of the explanation letter for charge-
sheet, dated 02-07-2011 given by the petitioner to the
respondent, dated 09-07-2011. Ex.R4 is the copy of
the intimation letter sent by the Enquiry Officer to
petitioner intimating time and place of enquiry
proceedings, dated 15-07-2011. Ex.R5 is the copy of
the letter, dated 26-07-2011, given by petitioner to
Enquiry Officer seeking Mr. Yathiraj as defence
assistant for enquiry proceeding along with his
objection for charge-sheet dated 02-07-2011. Ex.R6
is the copy of the enquiry proceedings conducted by
the Enquiry Officer on various dates along with the
exhibits marked by the respondent and petitioner,
dated 26-07-2011, 28-07-2011, 18-08-2011, 27-08-2011,
05-09-2011. Ex.R7 is the copy of the enquiry report
along with covering letter sent by the respondent to the
petitioner, dated 30-09-2011. Ex.R8 is the copy of
the objection letter for enquiry report given by the
petitioner to the respondent, dated 17-10-2011. Ex.R9
is the copy of the letter sent by the respondent to
Enquiry Officer to reopen the enquiry proceedings,
dated 07-05-2012. Ex.R10 is the copy of the
intimation letter sent by the Enquiry Officer to
petitioner about reopening of enquiry proceedings,
dated 04-06-2012. Ex.R11 is the copy of the enquiry
proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer on
various dates along with explanation given by the
petitioner on 09-06-2012, 19-06-2012, 26-06-2012.
Ex.R12 is the copy of the show cause notice along with
enquiry report, dated 10-04-2013 sent to petitioner
and its AD card, dated 19-04-2013. Ex.R13 is the copy
of the dismissal order of the petitioner along with
postal track slip, dated 04-05-2013. Ex.R14 is the
copy of the letter of authorisation, dated 11-01-2016.
Ex.R15 is the copy of the advice letter for
unauthorised absenteeism of petitioner for 69 days in
2008, dated 28-01-2009. Ex.R16 is the copy of the
advice letter for unauthorised absenteeism of
petitioner for 29.5 days from January to June, 2009,
dated 19-08-2009. Ex.R17 is the copy of the document
showing counseling done by respondent to petitioner
for chronic absenteeism, dated 21-01-2010. Ex.R18 is
the copy of the warning letter issued by the respondent
to petitioner for his unauthorized absenteeism for
289
27 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
63 days in 2009, dated 12-05-2010. Ex.Rl9 is the
copy of the shop-floor indiscipline counseling done by
the respondent to petitioner, dated 05-06-2010.
Ex.R20 is the copy of the punishment order 3 days
issued by the respondent to petitioner for his
unauthorised absenteeism for 59.5 days from 1st Jan
to 30th June, 2010, dated 13-12-2010. Ex.R21 is the
copy of the advice letter issued by the respondent to
petitioner for his unauthorised absenteeism for 61.5
days from Jan-June 2011, dated 01-08-2011.
14. From the above documents, the enquiry report
was exhibited as Ex.R7 would disclose the fact that in
the domestic enquiry the alleged victims Visalatchi and
Karunajothi have not been examined as witnesses and
they have not appeared before the Enquiry Officer and
they have not been summoned by the Enquiry Officer
and they did not say anything against the petitioner
while so, two witnesses have been examined, one is
Nafeesa Begam who alleged to have been enquired the
two victims and another is N.M. Chidhambaram who
has stated before the Enquiry Officer that one Dhanusu
has informed the above facts to him and he has made
a complaint before the management. The Evidence of
N.M. Chidhambaram before the Enquiry Officer
mentioned in the enquiry report runs as follows :
S.
TVV
It is learnt from the above evidence that on the said
alleged date of occurrence on 24-06-2011, the
petitioner was working at machine section while the
said Dhanusu was working at Production Department
and that the complainant Chidhambaram was asked the
said Dhanusu that how the said occurrence was known
to said Dhanusu and that therefore, from the above
statement of Chidhambaram, it is clear that Dhanusu
is also not an occurrence witness and Chidhambaram
is also not an occurrence witness and further, it is
clear from the above evidence that Dhanusu and
Chidhambaram do not know about anything directly
regarding the occurrence and the said Dhanusu who
alleged to have hear the incident from the victims has
also not been examined before the Enquiry Officer.
Further, Chidhambaram who has heard the incident
from Dhanusu alone has examined as witness on the
side of the respondent in the domestic enquiry and
therefore, his evidence is not only hear-say evidence
but, also a third party evidence who heard the incident
from Dhanusu, the hear-say witness to the occurrence.
15. Admittedly, in this case the Enquiry Officer has
filed two enquiry reports one is exhibited as Ex.W17
and another is exhibited as Ex.W28. The first enquiry
report was submitted on 29-09-2011 and the second
enquiry report was submitted on 10-04-2013. On the
objection of the petitioner alone the second enquiry
was commenced even in the second enquiry, the
respondent management had not enquired anybody else.
It is alleged by the respondent establishment that they
have offered opportunities to the petitioner workman
to putforth his case. The second enquiry report would
reveal the fact that no witness was examined and no
further evidence was taken by the Enquiry Officer and
290
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2018
the said second enquiry report does not say about the
fact that why victims have not been summoned by the
Enquiry Officer and why the respondent management
has not produced the victims as the witnesses before
the Enquiry Officer. Without the evidence of the
victims, the alleged sexual harassment cannot be
proved against the petitioner. Furthermore, the second
enquiry was conducted about an year after the
occurrence and furthermore, no explanation was putforth
by the respondent establishment that though the
alleged occurrence is taken place on 24-06-2011, why
no steps were taken either by the respondent
management or by the victims to make a complaint
before the Police and even no memo was issued to him
till 02-07-2011 that is after one week of the alleged
occurrence.
16. Furthermore, the occurrence witness who has
witnessed the occurrence also has not been examined
by the Enquiry Officer and the statement of Nafeesa
Begam is only hear-say evidence and her evidence is
not a direct one and she is not a witness to the
occurrence and that therefore, the findings of the
Enquiry Officer only of hear-say evidence of the
person and the person who conducted the preliminary
enquiry is not at all sufficient to hold that the charges
were proved since none of the witnesses are the
occurrence witnesses to say about the actual
occurrence. Further, the alleged victim Visalatchi had
denied the occurrence and had sent a letter to the
petitioner as well as to the respondent management
stating that no such occurrence was happened on the
said day and that therefore, the above facts would
create a doubt over the case of the respondent and as
such there is no prima facie case in the case of the
respondent that petitioner has committed sexual
harassment to the victims and it is an admitted fact that
between the respondent establishment and the workers
18(1) settlement was entered for wage revision and
office bearers of the union and some other workers
including the petitioner have not signed the said 18(1)
settlement and they have raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer for wage revision and
as the petitioner is the active participant of the union
activities, the respondent management might have made
some false complaints or allegations to remove him
from service and further, in the domestic enquiry
though the petitioner has asked for Tamil version of
the documents which was refused by the Enquiry
Officer and the respondent establishment to furnish
the same and furthermore, the petitioner was not
furnished any preliminary report submitted by the
above said Nafeesa Begam to the management and the
same is not denied by the respondent management and
furthermore, no complaint or copy of other details has
been furnished to the petitioner before getting
explanation from the petitioner.
17. Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer does not
consider the objection of the petitioner that since, the
victim has given a letter alleging that no incident has
happened as alleged in the charge-sheet and to stop the
enquiry, has continued the enquiry and has conducted
the enquiry and submitted the report to the management
and even thereafter, when the enquiry was re-opened on
the objection of the petitioner, no witness was
examined and no person was enquired and no exhibits
were marked and without conducting the above, the
Enquiry Officer has submitted the second enquiry
report would go to show that Enquiry Officer has not
conducted the enquiry in a fair manner and violating
the principles of natural justice by without giving
sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and
furthermore, Ex.P3 charge-sheet would go to show that
the petitioner was suspended from service on the same
day on 02-07-2011. Though, the petitioner was
suspended from service he was not granted any
subsistence allowance for the suspension period and
the petitioner was compelled to face the enquiry even
without the subsistence allowance is also against the
principles of natural justice and that therefore, the
findings of the Enquiry Officer without giving
opportunity to the petitioner and without examining the
persons who witnessed the occurrence is totally
unsustainable and on the foot of the unsustainable
evidence, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report
that the charges were proved and as such, the domestic
enquiry conducted by the respondent management
through the Enquiry Officer is not a valid one and the
order of termination issued by the respondent
management on the foot of the said enquiry report is
also unsustainable and illegal and that therefore, it can
be held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent management over his
non-employment is justified and as such the petitioner
is entitled for reinstatement as claimed by him.
18. As this Court has decided that industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner against the respondent over
non-employment is justified, it is to be decided
whether the petitioner is entitled for backwages as
claimed by him. There is no evidence that the said
workman is working so far in any other industry 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
291
27 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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 30%
back wages with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits.
19. In the result, the petition is allowed by holding
that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respo nd ent management over his
non-employment is justified by declaring the
termination of service of the petitioner from the
respondent establishment is illegal and Award is passed
directing the respondent management to reinstate the
petitioner in service within one month from the date
of this order and further directed the respondent
management 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 the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 16th day of November, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
List of
petitioner’s witness:
WW.1—09-12-2015 —
S. Sivaprakash
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Wl
— 26-06-2002—Copy of the offer of
employment & Probation
of the petitioner.
Ex.W2
— 29-10-2002—Copy of the confirmation
order of the petitioner.
Ex.W3
— 24-05-2001—Copy of the respondent
letter
to
the
Commissioner and the
copy of the
relevant
portion of standing order
regarding prevention of
sexual
harassment
of
women in work place.
Ex.W4
— 02-07-2011—Copy of the charge-sheet
issued to the petitioner.
Ex.W5
— 09-07-2011—Copy of the explanation
given by the petitioner to
the charge-sheet.
Ex.W6
— 15-07-2011—Copy of the petitioner’s
representation
to
the
respondent to engage his
co-worker to assist him
in enquiry.
Ex.W7
— 25-07-2011—Copy of the minutes of
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.W8
— 26-07-2011—Copy of the petitioner's
objection over domestic
enquiry.
Ex.W9
— 28-07-2011—Copy of the minutes of
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.Wl0 — 16.08.2011— Copy of the petitioner’s
legal notice to K.Vishalakshi
and its courier receipt.
Ex.Wll
— 18.08.2011— Copy of the minutes of
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.W12 — 24.08.2011— Copy of the letter of
K.Vishalakshi and its
postal cover.
Ex.Wl3 — 27-08-2011—Copy of the minutes of
the enquiry proceedings.
Ex.W14 — 05-09-2011— Copy of the petitioner’s
objection letter.
Ex.W15 — 05-09-2011—Copy of the petitioner's
objection
letter
to
enquiry.
Ex.W16 — 05-09-2011—Copy of the minutes of
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.Wl7 — 29-09-2011—Copy of the enquiry
report.
Ex.Wl8 — 30-09-2011—Copy of the show cause
notice
issued
to
the
petitioner by the respondent.
Ex.W19 — 17-10-2011—Copy of the petitioner’s
explanation to enquiry
report.
Ex.W20 — 17-10-2011—Copy of the petitioner’s
letter to respondent.
Ex.W21 — 07-05-2012—Copy of the respondent
order to conduct fresh
enquiry.
Ex.W22 — 04-06-2012—Copy of the Enquiry
Officer notice.
292
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2018
Ex.W23 — 09-06-2012—Copy of the minutes of
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.W24 — 09-06-2012—Copy of the petitioner’s
objection
to
Enquiry
Officer and its courier
receipt.
Ex.W25 — 19-06-2012—Copy of the minutes of
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.W26 — 26-06-2012—Copy of the petitioner’s
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
t o
respondent
and
its
courier receipt.
Ex.W27 — 19-04-2013—Copy of the respondent
show cause notice to the
petitioner.
Ex.W28 — 10-04-2013—Copy
of
the
second
enquiry report.
Ex.W29 — 04-05-2013—Copy of the petitioner’s
termination order.
Ex.W30 — 13-05-2013—Copy
of
the
claim
statement filed by the
petitioner
before
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.W31 — 15-07-2013—Copy
of
the
counter
filed by the respondent.
Ex.W32 — 27-09-2013—Copy of the conciliation
failure report.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 18-03-2016 —
Reshma Jacob
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
— 24-05-2001— Copy
of
the
letter,
extract
of
certified
standing
orders
of
respondent
company
incorporation clause on
Prevention of Sexual
Harassment of Women in
Workplace as per the circular
No. 4924/94/Lab./AIL/L.,
dated 21-07-2000.
Ex.R2
— 02-07-2011— Copy of the charge-sheet
issued by respondent to
petitioner and its Tamil
translation.
Ex.R3
— 09-07-2011— Copy of the explanation
letter for charge-sheet
given by the petitioner to
the respondent.
Ex.R4
— 15-07-2011— Copy of the intimation
letter sent by the Enquiry
Officer
to
petitioner
intimating time and place
of enquiry proceedings.
Ex.R5
— 26-07-2011— Copy of the letter given by
petitioner
to
Enquiry
Officer
seeking
Mr.
Yathiraj
as
defence
assistant
for
enquiry
proceeding along with
his objection for charge-
sheet.
Ex.R6
— 26-07-2011— C o p y o f t h e e n q u i r y
28-07-2011
proceedings conducted
18-08-2011
by the Enquiry Officer
27-08-2011
on various dates along
05-09-2011
with the exhibits marked
by the respondent and
petitioner.
Ex.R7
— 30-09-2011— Copy of
the
enquiry
report along with covering
letter sent by the respondent
to the petitioner.
Ex.R8
— 17-10-2011— Copy of the objection
letter for enquiry report
given by the petitioner to
the respondent.
Ex.R9
— 07-05-2012— Copy of the letter sent by
the respondent to Enquiry
Officer to reopen the
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.R10 — 04-06-2012— Copy of the intimation
letter sent by the Enquiry
Officer
to
petitioner
about
reopening
of
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.Rll
— 09-06-2012— C o p y o f t h e e n q u i r y
19-06-2012
proceedings conducted
26-06-2012
by the Enquiry Officer
o n various dates along
with explanation given by
the petitioner.
Ex.R12 — 19-04-2013— Copy of the show cause
notice along with enquiry
report, dated 10-04-2013
sent to petitioner and its
AD card.
293
27 February 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R13 — 04-05-2013— Copy of the dismissal
order of the petitioner
along with postal track
slip.
Ex.R14 — 11-01-2016— Copy of the letter of
authorisation.
Ex.Rl5 — 28-01-2009— Copy of the advice letter for
u n a u t h o r i s e d
absenteeism of petitioner
for 69 days in 2008.
Ex.Rl6 — 19-08-2009— Copy of the advice letter for
unauthorised absenteeism
of petitioner for 29.5
days from January to
June, 2009.
Ex.Rl7 — 21-01-2010— Copy of the document
showing counseling done
by respondent to petitioner
for chronic absenteeism.
Ex.Rl8 — 12-05-2010— Copy of the warning
letter
issued
by
the
respondon: to petitioner
for
his
unauthorised
absenteeism for 63 days
in 2009.
Ex.R19 — 05-06-2010— Copy of the shop-floor
indiscipline counseling
done by, the respondent
to petitioner.
Ex.R20 — 13-12-2010— Copy of the punishment
order 3 days issued by the
respondent to petitioner
for
his
unauthorised
absenteeism for 59.5 days
from 1st January to 30th
June, 2010.
Ex.R21 — 01-08-2011— Copy of the advice letter
issued by the respondent
to petitioner for his
unauthorised absenteeism
for
61.5
days
from
January-June 2011.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 17/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 8th February 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Adhi Sakthi Project Private Limited,
Kothapurinatham, Puducherry and Thiru B. Lakshmi
Narayanan, Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry, over
non-employment in respect of the matter mentioned
in the Annexure to this order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it
is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of
the Labour Department, Puducherry to exercise the
powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act XIV of 1947), it is hereby directed by the
Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
dispute be referred to the Labour Court, Puducherry
for adjudication. The Labour Court, Puducherry shall
submit the Award within 3 months from the date of
issue of reference as stipulated under sub-section (2-A)
of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
in accordance with rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. The party raising the dispute
shall file a statement of claim complete with relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses to the
Labour Court, Puducherry within 15 days of the
receipt of the order of reference and also forward a
copy of such statement to each one of the opposite
parties involved in the dispute.
ANNEXURE
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru B. Lakshmi Narayanan, S/o. Balasundaram,
residing at No. 44, Kamban Nagar, 2nd Cross Street,
Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry against the management of
M/s. Adhi Sakthi Project Private Limited, R.S. No. 40/9,
Near Wipro Computers, Earikarai Road, Thiruvandarkoil,
Kothapurinatham, Puducherry, over non-employment
is justifiable or not? If justified, what is the relief
entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).