La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 11-00
Prix : ` 11-00
Price :
` 11-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 548
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 548
Award of the Labour Court
.. 548
de Tribunal.
.. 553
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 553
Government Notifications
.. 553
.. 556
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 556
Dangerous Establishments
.. 556
.. 557
Annonces
.. 557
Announcements
.. 557
[ 547 ]
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 : 1-5-2018
Price : ` 11-00
2018 }
|
1 {
No.
18
Poudouchéry
Mardi
1
Mai
2018 (11 Vaisakha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
1st
May
2018
548
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[1 May 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 34/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th March 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 43/2015, dated
29-01-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s. Auromed Hospital P. Ltd., (AUM Hospital),
Puducherry and Thiru D. Sugumar - Award of the
Labour Court, Puducherry 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.
Monday, the 29th day of January 2018
I.D. (L) No. 43/2015
D. Sugumar,
No. 15, Courd Nagar,
II Cross, Kanuvapet, Villianur,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Auromed Hospital P. Ltd.,
(AUM Hospital),
No.l, Sapthagiri Garden,
Solai Nagar Main Road,
Muthialpet, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 10-01-2018 before
me
for
final
hearing
in
the
presence
of
Thiruvalargal R.T. Shankar, N. Babu, A. Ashok Kumar,
Advocates for the petitioner and Thiru J. Cyril Mathias
Vincent, 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.91/AIL/LAB/J/2015,
dated 12-08-2015 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether
the
dispute
raised
by
Thiru
D. Sugumar against the management of M/s. Auromed
Hospital P. Ltd., (AUM Hospital), 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 working at the respondent
establishment from 2008 without any blemish. He
is dedicated and very sincere on his duties. The
CEO of the respondent management had contacted
the petitioner directly on 12-04-2014 and orally
ordered not to come to work and after inspite of the
same the petitioner went to duty on 14-04-2014
whereas, the petitioner was stopped at the entrance
by the management security and was not allowed
inside the Hospital. Hence, the petitioner questioned
the security for which the security person stated
that he was informed by the management that do not
to allow him inside as he was terminated from
service. The petitioner immediately contacted the
HR Manager Thiru Krishnan over phone but, he
doesn’t
responded
properly.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner tried several occasions to meet his CEO
but ended in vain. Therefore, the petitioner had sent
letter on 09-06-2014 to the management regarding
his April month salary and refusal of employment.
But, the respondent management purposely, willfully
and wantonly not replied the same for the reasons
best known to them. The act of the management by
orally dismissing the petitioner is against Industrial
Disputes Act and principles of natural justice. From
2008 the petitioner served for the period of
365 days per year with continuous employment without
any justice or reasons the respondent management
sue motto and blindly terminated the petitioner
from the service without any legal procedure which
549
1 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
is contemplated under the labour laws, which is
absolutely against the labour laws as well as the
principles of natural justice and therefore, the said
alleged impugned oral order of the respondent
management is against and violation of sec.25-F of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the
petitioner has raised an industrial dispute on
18-06-2014 and the same is not amicably settled
and hence, the Puducherry Government has referred
the dispute for proper adjudication. Therefore, the
petitioner prayed this Court to pass an order
directing the respondent management to reinstate
the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The petition filed is neither maintainable in law
nor sustainable on facts. The petitioner stopped
report to duty and attending his work on his won
accord from 12-04-2014 in order to avoid receiving
a memo issued to him. The respondent management
had tried in vain to give a memo in person to the
petitioner for grave misconduct, misdeeds and other
activities which amount to breach of trust. The
petitioner refused to receive the memo tendered to
him in person on two occasions and knowing that
on 12-04-2014 he would not be able to avoid
receiving the memo he stopped coming for work
from the afternoon of 12-04-2014, it is denied by
the respondent that the petitioner is working with
the respondent Hospital since 2008 without any
blemish and the allegations that the petitioner is
dedicated and very sincere on his duties and due to
administrative reasons various changes occurred in
the administration set up of the management are
false, irrelevant and concocted. It is further
denied by the respondent management that
Mrs. Geethanjali, Chairperson and CEO of the
respondent
management
had
contacted
the
petitioner over phone on 12-04-2014 and orally
ordered not to come to work hereafter in spite of
the same the petitioner went to duty on 14-04-2014
whereas, the petitioner was stopped at the entrance
by the management security and was not allowed
inside the Hospital. The allegations that the
petitioner questioned the security for not allowing
inside for which the security person stated that he
was informed by the management that not to allow
him inside as he was terminated from service are
false. It is denied by the respondent management
that the petitioner immediately contacted the HR
Manager Thiru. Krishnan over phone but he doesn’t
responded properly. The allegations that thereafter
the petitioner tried several occasions to meet his
CEO but ended in vain and that therefore, he had sent
letter on 03-06-2014 to the management regarding
his April month salary and refusal of employment
are false. It is denied by the respondent management
that the management purposely, willfully and
wantonly not replied the same for the reasons best
known to them and the allegation that the act of the
management by orally dismissing the petitioner is
against Industrial Disputes Act and principles of
natural justice is false. It is denied by the
respondent management that the petitioner served
for the period of 365 days per year with continuous
employment from 2008 and the allegations that
without any justice or reasons the respondent
management sue motto and blindly terminated the
petitioner from the service without any legal
procedure which is contemplated under the labour
laws, which is absolutely against the labour laws as
well as the principles of natural justice and therefore,
the said alleged impugned oral order of the
respondent management is against and violation of
sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are false.
There is no industrial dispute and the ID is not
maintainable and the petition for reinstatement with
full back wages, continuity of service and all other
attendant benefits is not maintainable since the
petitioner has not filed the claim petition under any
specific provision of law and that therefore, the
claim petition filed by the petitioner is to be
dismissed.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P6 was marked and on the side of the respondent
no oral evidence has been let in and no exhibit has
been marked.
5. Both sides are heard. The pleadings of the
parties, the evidence let in and the exhibits marked on
side of the petitioner are carefully considered.
6. 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.
550
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[1 May 2018
7. In order to prove the case the petitioner was
examined as PW.1 and he has stated in his evidence that
he was working at the respondent establishment from
2008 and on 12-04-2014 the Chief Executive Officer
of the respondent had ordered orally that not to come
to work and on 14-04-2014 while he was made an
attempt to enter into the Hospital the Security has
stopped and has not allowed him to enter into the
Hospital and the Security has stated that he was
informed by the management that do not allow the
petitioner as that he was terminated from service and
even after he made several demands to meet the Chief
Executive Officer he was not allowed to meet him and
hence, he has sent a letter on 09-06-2014 to the
management regarding his salary for the month of April
and for employment and that the management had not
followed any principles of natural justice and hence, he
has raised the industrial dispute on 18-06-2014 before
the Conciliation Officer against the act of the
respondent management that abundantly terminated
from service without any legal procedure and without
following the provision of the sec.25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his evidence
PW.1 has exhibited the copy of the letter sent by the
petitioner
to
the
respondent
management
on
02-06-2014 as Ex.P1, the copy of the dispute raised
by the petitioner before the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
as Ex.P2, the copy of reply submitted by the
respondent management before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) as Ex.P3, the copy of conciliation call
letter sent by the Labour Officer to the petitioner as
Ex.P4 and the reference letter of the Puducherry as
Ex.P5.
8. Further, to prove his case the petitioner has
examined the staff of the Provident Fund Office as
PW.2 and he has stated that the petitioner is the
subscriber of the Provident Fund from 17-11-2008 at
the respondent Hospital and the respondent Hospital
also had been paying subscription to the petitioner and
lastly subscription was paid on April, 2014 and PW.2
had exhibited the Form-9 with account statements of
the Employee's Provident Fund Organization for the
payment of contribution of EPF as Ex.P6.
9. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and exhibits
marked by them would go to show that the petitioner
had been working at the respondent Hospital and the
respondent Hospital has paid EPF contribution to the
petitioner from 2008 and continuously the respondent
management had paid contribution in the name of the
petitioner from 2008-2009 till 2014-2015 and the
petitioner had raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer for which the respondent
management has also submitted the reply before the
Conciliation Officer and the reply was exhibited as
Ex.P3 wherein the respondent management has stated
that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct and
that the respondent management had tendered in vain
to give a memo in hand to the petitioner and that the
petitioner had not attended the duty on 14-04-2014 in
order to avoid to receive the memo issued to him and
that the petitioner has refused to receive the memo
tendered to him in person on two occasions and that
the petitioner is free to resume his work and face
disciplinary proceedings and he has to be advised to
report for duty and the management reserves its right
to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that they have
denied the other averments of the petitioner. It is also
revealed from Ex.P3 that the petitioner was working
at the respondent Hospital and he has not been given
any notice so far and no termination order was issued
in written manner and the petitioner has not even
received any show cause notice from the respondent
establishment for such an unauthorized absence from
14-04-2014.
10. It is the main contention of the respondent
management that the petitioner has not been terminated
from service and he has wantonly left from service to
avoid receiving memo and that they are ready to admit
him into service and at no point of time the petitioner
was terminated from service by the respondent
management and he has been asked through
Conciliation Officer to attend the duty since he was
absent from service wantonly from 14-04-2014 and the
alleged oral termination is false and that therefore, the
claim petition filed by the petitioner is to be
dismissed. However, no oral evidence has been let in
and no documents have been exhibited by the
respondent to prove their contention.
11. From the evidence and pleadings of the
petitioner and the contention of the respondent
management it is clear that the petitioner was working
at the respondent establishment and he has not been
terminated so far and no disciplinary action was taken
against the petitioner at any point of time and
admittedly no domestic enquiry was conducted for any
charge. Further, from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2,
it is established by the petitioner that he had been in
service from 2008 at the respondent establishment and
551
1 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
that the respondent management has paid EPF
contribution for the period from 2008-2009 till
2014-2015 and he was not allowed to attend the duty
from 14-04-2014 and hence, he has raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and
no disciplinary proceedings was conducted against him.
12. It is stated by the respondent management that
the petitioner has wantonly left from service from
14-04-2014 and to avoid receiving the memo the
petitioner was left from service. But, admittedly the
respondent management has not sent any memo to the
petitioner for his unauthorized absence for the period
from 14-04-2014 and no document is exhibited before
this Court by the respondent to prove that the memo
was given to the petitioner for his unauthorized
absence and that therefore, the alleged refusal of
employment to the petitioner without taking proper
steps by the respondent management cannot be
accepted. It can be presumed from the fact that the
petitioner has not been given any memo for his
unauthorized absence and no disciplinary action has
been taken for the alleged unauthorized absence and
that the petitioner was orally refused employment from
14-04-2014 as alleged by the petitioner, the alleged
oral refusal of employment to the petitioner is against
the principles of natural justice and the respondent has
not followed the procedures laid down under the
principles of natural justice while orally dismissing the
petitioner from service and hence, the petitioner is
entitled for order of reinstatement as claimed by him
and as such, it is to be held that the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over his non-employment is justified and
the petition is liable to be allowed.
13. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over his non-employment is justified, it
is to be decided whether the petitioner is entitled for
back wages as claimed by him. There is no evidence
that the petitioner is working so far and that there is
no proof exhibited before this Court that he is working
anywhere else. The respondent has not proved the fact
that the petitioner has been working in any other
establishment after refusal of employment. However,
the petitioner could have served at anywhere else after
refusal of employment. Considering the above facts and
circumstances, this Court decides that the petitioner is
entitled only for 25% back wages with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
13. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management over his non-employment
is justified and Award is passed directing the
respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in
service within one month from the date of this Award
and further directed the respondent management to pay
25% back wages from the date of industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner before the Labour Conciliation
Officer 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 29th day of January, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 — 26-12-2016 —Sugumar
PW.2 — 05-12-2017 —Karthikeyan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl — 02-06-2014 —Copy of letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent management.
Ex.P2 — 18.06.2014 — Copy of dispute raised
by the petitioner before
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P3 — 21-07-2014 —Copy of reply submitted
by
the
respondent
management before the
L a b o u r
O f f i c e r
(Conciliation).
Ex.P4 — 23-07-2014 —Copy of conciliation call
letter sent by the Labour
Officer to the petitioner.
Ex.P5 — 12-08-2015 —Reference letter of the
Government of Puducherry.
Ex.P6
—
— Copy of Form-9 with
account statements.
List of
respondent’s witnesses: -Nil-
List of respondent’s exhibits : -Nil-
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
552
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[1 May 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 35/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th March 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 01/2015, dated
19-01-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the
industrial
dispute between the
management of M/s. Novateur Electrical and Digital
Systems Private Limited, Puducherry and the Novateur
Employees Union over annual increment for the
year 2013, over charter of demand for the year 2014
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.
Friday, the 19th day of January 2018
I.D. (T) No. 01/2015
The President/Secretary,
Novateur Employees Union,
No. 10, II Cross Street, Gandhi Nagar,
Puducherry-605 009
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Novateur Electrical and
Digital Systems Private Limited,
33/1, PIPDIC Industrial Estate,
Sedarapet,
Puducherry-605 111.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before
me for hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakaravarthy,
Advocates for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal T.S. Gopalan
and Co. and L. Sathish, Advocates for the respondent,
upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the case
records, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. l3/AIL/Lab./J/
2015, dated 10-02-2015 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Novateur
Employees Union against the Management of
M/s. Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems
Private Limited, Puducherry, over annual increment
for the year 2013 and charter of demand for the
year 2014 is justified? If justified, what relief the
union is entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. It is to be decided that whether the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner union against the
respondent management over annual increment for the
year 2013 and charter of demand for the year 2014 is
justified or not. The petitioner claimant has filed a
claim statement and the respondent has filed a counter
statement before this Court.
3. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner
union has filed an application along with the 12(3)
settlement arrived at between the petitioner union and
the respondent management stating that the dispute has
been amicably settled out of the Court and 12(3)
settlement was entered and executed between them and
the respondent management also has endorsed that they
have no objection to record the settlement and to
close the reference. Since, the petitioner reported that
the matter is settled out of the Court and the Counsel
for the respondent endorsed no objection, the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the 12 (3)
settlement and therefore, an Award has to be passed in
terms of 12(3) settlement.
4. In the result, Award is passed as per the terms
of 12(3) settlement and the copy of the 12(3)
settlement will form part of the Award, No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 19th day of January, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.