La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 15-00
Prix : ` 15-00
Price :
` 15-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 622
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 622
Award of the Labour Court
.. 622
de Tribunal.
.. 628
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 628
Government Notifications
.. 628
.. 633
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 633
Tender Notices
.. 633
.. 633
Etablissements dangereux
.. 633
Dangerous establishments
.. 633
.. 636
Annonces
.. 636
Announcements
.. 636
[ 621 ]
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 : 22-5-2018
Price : ` 15-00
2018 }
|
22 {
No.
21
Poudouchéry
Mardi
22
Mai
2018 (1 Jyaistha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
22nd
May
2018
622
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 May 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 40/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 12th March 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No.42/2013, dated
23-1-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the management
of
M/s. Whirlpool of India Limited, Thirubuvanai,
Pud ucherry and Thiru D. Palanivel o ver his
non-employment-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.
Tuesday, the 23rd day of January, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 42/2013
D. Palanivel,
No. 54, Kamaraj Street,
II Cutting Extension,
Murungapakkam,
Puducherry-605 004.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Whirlpool of India Limited,
Thirubuvanai,
Puducherry-605 007.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 10-1-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru R.S. Zivanandam, Counsel for the petitioner
and Thiru A. Latchoumicandane, 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.l58/AIL/Lab./J/2013,
dated 31-10-2013 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru. D. Palanivel
against the management M/s. Whirlpool of India Limited,
Thirubuvanai, 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 joined as a Government Apprentice
under the recommendation of the Government on 23-5-2007.
He completed the Apprenticeship for the period from
23-5-2007 to 22-5-2008 in the respondent factory
satisfactorily. His name was chosen for appointment on
23-5-2008 by the respondent factory. The same was
also forwarded to the Labour Department, Government
of Puducherry. Immediately, on 23-5-2005 he joined
with the respondent factory as a Trolley Wheel
Mechanic. He worked as an industrial workman
satisfactorily from 23-5-2008 to 31-10-2009 for
more than one year and 5 months until his accident in
the factory. During the course of employment he met
with an industrial accident on 30-10-2009. He was
initially admitted in the private Hospital namely
A.G. Padmavathi Hospital Limited, Puducherry. His two
phalanges of his right middle finger and index finger
were amputated. He was discharged from the Hospital
on
04-11-2009
after
operation. He
underwent
treatment for more than one year in various Hospitals
and Clinics and after he was fit for duty he approached
the respondent factory for joining duty. In the year 2010,
he approached the respondent for joining duty
but, he was refused a job. Hence, he lodged a complaint
with the Trade Union of his industry and that too went
in vain. Therefore, he sent a notice of industrial
dispute, dated 20-10-2012 and the respondent
acknowledged the letter on 14-11-2012. No reply has
been received from the respondent side. Hence, he
preferred an industrial dispute on 24-12-2012 for his
reinstatement
with
back
wages
and
also
for
compensation for the loss of two phalanges of the
623
22 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
right middle and index finger. He prayed this Tribunal
to pass an Award directing the respondent management
to reinstate him with full back wages from the date of
his dismissal and also for the compensation for the
loss of the two phalanges of the right hand finger and
index finger.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent denied all the allegations made in
the claim petition and stated that the petition filed by
the petitioner is not maintainable neither in law nor on
facts. The petitioner joined on 23-5-2007 as Government
Apprentice as per the recommendation of the
Apprentice Advisor, Government of Puducherry as per
Apprenticeship Act. The petitioner completed his
apprenticeship in the respondent company for a period
one year from 23-5-2007 to 22-5-2008. The certificate
of apprenticeship was issued by the respondent as per
the norms to the petitioner. The relation between the
petitioner and the respondent ended after the
completion of apprenticeship. After few months the
petitioner approached the respondent and asked for a
job orally for which the respondent informs him orally,
they will inform when required. The petitioner tried in
many ways to get a job. Since the vacancy does not
arise the respondent could not able to give him a right
job. While so, the petitioner raised a individual
industrial dispute before the Labour Conciliation
Officer, Puducherry for which the respondent replied
to the Conciliation Officer and the conciliation ended
in failure. The petitioner was an apprentice and he
cannot claim employment based on the certificate of
apprenticeship as a matter of right and he has got no
locus standi to raise industrial dispute and he will not
come under the purview of worker and there is no
employer and employee relationship. At no point of
time the petitioner was appointed in the respondent
company and therefore, the question of dismissal will
not arise and the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement
with back wages and for compensation under section 2A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The apprentices
are trainees and not workmen and if any, dispute arise,
then the settlement has to be made by the Apprentice
Advisor as per section 20 of Apprentice Act 1961 and
his decision thereof is final. The petitioner had not
even given any written request for the employment and
after the completion of the apprenticeship, the
petitioner has not even worked a day and the petitioner
has approached this Court with unclean hands and false
information in order to get appointment in the
respondent company. The petitioner has not filed any
documentary evidence to show that he worked in the
respondent factory, neither an appointment order nor
any other records which is normally an employee will
hold. There is nothing mentioned in the discharge
summary issued by the Hospital authority that the
accident took place at the factory. There is no evidence
to show the history of accident in the discharge
summary
which
the
Doctors
would
normally
mentioned at the time of admission of the patient.
Without any proof of evidence the allegation of the
petitioner is a created story for the sake of the case.
As per the provision of law, the apprentice is not a
worker as per section 18 of Apprentice Act, 1961 and
the petitioner cannot claim industrial dispute. The
finding of the Conciliation Officer is not correct and
the Conciliation Officer failed to differentiate the
Apprentice Act and the Industrial Disputes Act and
therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P14 were marked and on the side of the respondent
RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked.
Arguments of both sides are heard.
5. The submission of both the parties, the evidence
let in by either sides and the exhibits marked on both
sides are carefully considered. In support of his case,
the learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the
Judgments reported in 2000 AIR (SC) 2524, (2013)
AIR(SC) 403, 2004 (2) MLJ 631, 2004 Supreme (Raj)
829 and 2017 Supreme (ALL) 356 and the same was
also 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?
7. It is the evidence of the PW.1 that he has joined
at the respondent establishment as a Government
Apprentice on 23-5-2007 and he has completed the
Apprentice period successfully on 22-5-2008 and
thereafter, he has been appointed in the same capacity
as Trolley Wheel Mechanic from 23-5-2008 and that
he met with an accident on 30-10-2009 in which his
two fingers were amputated and after the accident he
was admitted at A.G. Padmavathi Hospital Limited,
Puducherry for treatment and he was discharged on
04-11-2009 and he has taken treatment for about six
624
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 May 2018
months at various hospitals including ESI Hospital as
outpatient and incurred expenditure to the tune of
rupees one lakh and that he fully recovered only in the
month of June, 2010 and immediately in the month of
June, 2010 he ap proached the respo ndent for
re-instatement the security people did not allow him
inside the factory and prevented him from entering the
factory and hence, he had sent letters to the respondent
and knocked the doors of the State Legal Aid Board and
other authorities and that therefore, he has raised the
industrial dispute against the respondent management.
8. To corroborate the evidence of PW.1 the
petitioner has examined one Ashok Kumar as PW.2
who has stated in his evidence that he had been working
at the respondent establishment from August, 2009
at Labour Department and he know the petitioner who
had working at the same establishment and that
on 30-10-2009 while he was working he saw that the
company security has taken the petitioner in a two
wheeler who sustained injuries and he found that there
was bleeding in his right hand and he came to know
that the petitioner was taken to A.G. Padmavathy
Hospital by somebody else. From the said A.G. Padmavathy
Hospital the staff was summoned and examined as
witness who has deposed that the petitioner has taken
treatment at their Hospital and his treatment records
were exhibited as Ex.P13. The then employee of the
respondent, Dr. Shyam Sunder Majumdar was examined
as PW.4 who has deposed that he had been in service
at the respondent from 1992 to 2002 and thereafter,
he was acting as a consultant to the respondent
establishment and that there is an contract between the
A.G. Padmavathy
Hospital
and
the
respondent
establishment to give treatment to the employees and
he does not know that the petitioner has sustained
injuries on 30-10-2009 and that he has recommended
to take treatment at A.G. Padmavathy Hospital and
that he used to recommend to take treatment at
A.G. Padmavathy Hospital whoever approached him.
9. In support of his case, the petitioner has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Ex.P1 is the conciliation
failure report, dated 05-7-2012. Ex.P2 is the
Apprenticeship training Scheme Hall Ticket for
October, 2008. Ex.P3 is the Apprenticeship training
Scheme Hall Ticket for October, 2008. Ex.P4 is the
copy of demand for reinstatement letter, dated
20-10-2012. Ex.P5 is the Acknowledgment Card,
dated 14-11-2012. Ex.P6 is the copy of letter to union,
dated 06-7-2010. Ex.P7 is the copy of Service
Certificate issued by the respondent on 22-5-2008.
Ex.P8 is the copy of apprenticeship training interview
issued by the respondent on 17-5-2007 Ex.P9 is the
copy of letter to Labour Conciliation Officer (Form K),
dated 24-12-2012. Ex.P10 is the copy of discharge
summary along with prescription and bills, dated
30-10-2009. Ex.P11 is the confession statement of
Mr. G. Keerthi. Ex.P12 is the copy of apprenticeship
contract form, dated 20-6-2007. Ex.Pl3 is the authorisation
letter given to A.Subramani Siva on 02-4-2016 by
A.G.. Padmavathi’s Hospital Limited., Ex.P14 is the copy
of case sheet of the petitioner (33 pages). These
documents would go to show that the petitioner had
taken apprentice training at the respondent establishment
from 23-5-2007 and he has been given hall ticket for
test which was held on October, 2008 and subsequently
for test which was held on October, 2009
and
thereafter on 30-10-2009 he was admitted at
A.G. Padmavathy Hospital and discharge on 04-11-2009
and he was referred by Dr. Majumdar and his right
hand index finger and middle finger were amputated
and the said injuries was sustained by him in an
accident and that the petitioner was given Service
Certificate as an apprentice for the period of one year
and he has written a letter to the union to raise the
industrial dispute. From the documents, it is
established by the petitioner that he had been in service
at the respondent establishment as an apprentice
from 23-05-2007 to 22-05-2008 and he sustained
injuries on 30-10-2009 and has taken treatment at
A.G. Padmavathy Hospital from 30-10-2009 to
04-11-2009 and he has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer.
10. On the other hand, in order to prove the case of
the respondent, RW.1 was examined who has stated in
his evidence that the petitioner had joined at the
respondent establishment as Government Apprentice
on 23-05-2007 as per the recommendation of the
Apprentice Advisor, Government of Puducherry and he
has completed his apprenticeship for the period of one
year from 23-05-2007 to 22-05-2008 and as per the
norms the certificate of apprenticeship was issued to
him and after few months of the completion of
apprenticeship the petitioner asked for job orally for
which reply was given orally that information will be
given when require and as vacancy does not arise they
could not able to give him right job and while so, the
petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the
Labour Conciliation Officer, Puducherry for which
they have replied before the Conciliation Officer that
the petitioner was an apprentice trainee and hence, he
cannot raise industrial dispute and no accident was
taken place inside the factory and that they have
demanded the petitioner to show any proof of
625
22 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
employment and the petitioner did not give any reply
and therefore, the Conciliation Officer has sent a
failure report to the Government and further deposed
that
apprentice period of the petitioner was
completed on 22-05-2008 and the alleged accident
took place on 30-10-2009 and the petitioner did not
file any documentary evidence to show that he worked
in their factory and neither an appointment order nor
any other records which is normally issued by the
management to the employee and nothing mentioned in
the discharge summary issued by the Hospital authority
that the accident took place in the respondent factory
and that there is no evidence to show the history of
accident in the discharge summary and further as per
the provision of law the apprentice is not a worker as
per section 18 of Apprentice Act and he cannot claim
industrial dispute and that therefore, the allegation that
the petitioner was working at the respondent establishment
as trolley wheel mechanic from 23-05-2008 till the
accident which alleged to have been happened in the
factory in the course of employment is totally false.
11. In support of their contention the respondent has
exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.R5. Ex.R1 is the authorisation
letter given to Murali on 04-04-2017 by the
respondent management. Ex.R2 is the copy of salary
voucher for the period from April-2008 to July-2008.
Ex.R3 is the copy of tracking sheet for injuries and
illness for the period from 2-01-2009 to 30-12-2009.
Ex.R4 is the copy of register for adult workers for the
period from 24-03-2008 to 23-07-2009. Ex.R5 is the
copy of salary register for the period from June-2008
to August-2008. These documents would go to show
that the name of petitioner does not find in the salary
voucher, tracking sheet for injuries and illness,
register of adult workers and salary register.
12. From the pleadings of the parties, the evidence
let in by either sides and exhibits marked on both sides
it is clear that following facts are admitted by either
sides that the petitioner joined at the respondent
establishment
on
23-05-2007
as
Government
Apprentice and he has completed his apprentice training
on 22-05-2008 and subsequently no appointment order
was given to the petitioner by the respondent
establishment and no Salary Certificate or Identity Card
was given by the respondent establishment to the
petitioner and no EPF and ESI contribution was paid by
the respondent management to the petitioner.
13. It is the case of the petitioner that after the
completion of the apprentice training he had been in
service at the respondent establishment from
23-05-2008 as trolley wheel mechanic and he met with
an accident on 30-10-2009 while working at the
respondent establishment. On the other hand, it is
totally denied by the respondent management that after
the completion of the apprentice training the
petitioner had not been appointed at the respondent
establishment and except the apprentice training the
petitioner had no any other relationship with the
respondent.
14. Though the petitioner has stated that after the
completion of training on 22-05-2008, he was
appointed at the same capacity as trolley wheel
mechanic at the respondent establishment on 23-05-2008,
and working till 30-10-2009, no document is exhibited
before this Court to prove the above fact. The
petitioner has not exhibited appointment order, salary
slip, EPF and ESI contribution made by the respondent
as an employer. Even as per the case of the petitioner
that the petitioner has not been given appointment
order or any salary slip. On this aspect the oral
evidence of the petitioner PW.1 runs as follows :
“
Government Apprentice
Apprenticeship
Service Certificate
Ex.P7
Apprentice
seal apprenticeship
Apprenticeship
apprenticeship
”
The above evidence would go to show that the
petitioner has been given send-off by the management
after issuing the certificate for apprentice training and
he has also accepted the fact that the respondent
management has not given any letter to him to continue
the work after the completion of apprentice training
and admittedly no document is filed by the petitioner
that after the completion of the apprentice training he
had been working at the respondent establishment.
The petitioner has stated in the above evidence that
626
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 May 2018
there was some documents for continuous employment
of the petitioner at the respondent establishment till
30-10-2009. But, no such document has been exhibited
before this Court to prove the same. Though the
petitioner has established that he sustained injuries in
his two fingers and the same was amputated and he has
taken treatment for more than a year, it is not
established by him that he sustained injuries in the
course of employment at the respondent establishment.
Though the petitioner has exhibited 14 documents, out
of which no document is exhibited by him that he had
been in service after the apprentice period while he
was relieved from the factory the Service Certificate
was issued by the management. No document is filed
before this Court to prove that he had been in service
at the respondent establishment.
15. Admittedly, the petitioner is only a apprentice
for the period from 23-05-2007 to 22-05-2008. Even
assuming that the petitioner had been joined at the
respondent establishment, it is not established by him
that he joined as a worker at the respondent
establishment by exhibiting any document for the proof
of his employment. However, it is not established by
the petitioner that he had been become a permanent
worker or his service has been regularised by the
respondent management. If, the workman was in
service for about 240 days in a year at the respondent
establishment, he is entitled for order of reinstatement.
But, in this case the petitioner has not established that
he had been in service after the completion of
apprentice training and that he had been in service for
about 240 days in a year at the respondent
establishment.
16. Furthermore, it is argued by the respondent
Counsel that the apprentice trainees are not the
workers and they are not entitled for reinstatement.
On this aspect, the learned Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the Judgment reported in [2000] AIR
(SC) 2524 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that,
“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Factories Act,
1947- Section 103 - Workman - Appointment as an
apprentice - Stipend paid - After completion of
apprenticeship continued working in anticipation of
being provided employment - No appointment letter
-No payment of salary apart from stipend- No
evidence to indicate deduction of GPF or ESI-
Respondent's claim he was workman since he
continued
working
after
apprenticeship
and
termination of service by oral instruction not valid-
Not tenable on facts available on record - Even
otherwise working in anticipation of securing
employment did not make respondent workman or
regular employee - Presumption under section 103,
Factories Act not applicable to adjudication under
Industrial Disputes Act.”
Further the learned Counsel fori the respondent
also has relied upon the Judgment reported in
(2013) AIR (SC) 403 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that,
“Apprentices Act, 1961 - Sections 18, 20 and
22 -Apprentices are trainees and not workers-
Nature and charter of apprentice is that of a trainee
only and on expiry of training, there is no
corresponding obligation on part of employer to
employee him-An apprentice does not have statutory
right to claim appointment and employer is not
under any statutory obligation to give him
employment- However, if, terms of contract of
apprenticeship lay down condition that on successful
completion of apprenticeship employer would offer
him employment, then it is obligatory on his part to
do so - In absence of such condition, there is no
obligation - It depends on terms of contract.
............... We have referred to the aforesaid
pronouncements solely for the purpose that an
apprentice does not have a statutory right to claim
an appointment and the employer is not under any
statutory obligation to give him employment.
However, if, the terms of the contract of apprenticeship
lay down a condition that on successful completion
of apprenticeship an employer would offer him an
employment, then it is obligatory on his part to do
so. In the absence of such a condition, there is no
obligation. It depends on the terms of the contract.
In the case at hand as the letter of appointment
would show, the employer had only stated that on
successful
completion
of
the
training,
the
apprentice may be appointed as Plant Attendant/
Technician Grade-II. Thus, it was not a mandatory
term incorporated in the agreement casting an
obligation on the employer to appoint him.....”
and the learned Counsel also has relied upon the
Judgment reported in [2004] 2 MLJ 631 wherein
the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has observed that,
“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2-A
(ii)
Maintainability
of
industrial
dispute
-
Absorption in service - Apprentice cannot claim any
right for appointment”.
and also has relied upon the Judgment reported
in 2004 Supreme (Raj) 829 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that,
627
22 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) read
with Section 25(F), Apprentices Act, 1961, Section 2(aa)
and Life Insurance Corporation of India (Apprentice
Development Officers) Recruitment Scheme, 1980-
Definition of workman and Apprentice - Appointed as
Apprentice Development Officer - Service terminated -
Industrial Dispute raised - Appellant to prove he is a
workman - Applicant must establish that he is not
covered by the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act,
but, he is employed in the establishment for the purpose
of doing any work-In a case where the period of
apprenticeship is extended, a further written contract
carrying out such intention need not be executed -
Held - In absence of any pleading or proof that either
by novation of the contract or by reason of the conduct
of the parties, such a change has been brought about, an
apprentice cannot be held to be workmen”.
and also has relied upon the Judgment reported in
2017 Supreme (All) 356 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that,
“.....Section 4K - Apprentices Act, 1961 - Section
20 -Employer and Employee Relationship - Apprentice
trainee - Right to job after completion of period of
training - Respondent No. 3 was merely a trainee and
no relationship of employer and employee-Respondent
No. 3 after date of its engagement raised an industrial
dispute-No obligation on part of employer under
Apprentices Act to offer any job to such an apprentice
after completion of period of training...”.
From the above observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court, it is clear
that though the petitioner is an apprentice of the
respondent establishment he is not the worker and
therefore, he cannot claim as a worker on the foot of
the apprentice. However, it is claimed by the petitioner
that after the completion of apprentice training he was
working as a worker. But, no document is filed before
this Court to prove the same. As stated in the above
observations of the Hon'ble High Court, the burden is
on the petitioner and he must establish that he had
been in service at the respondent establishment for the
purpose of doing any work. Admittedly, even the
apprentice period of the petitioner is not extended and
he has not been given any appointment order even the
petitioner has not filed any identification card issued by
the respondent management. On the other hand, the
documents produced by the respondent would go to
show that the name of the petitioner does not find in
the salary register, salary voucher and not at all find in
the tracking sheet for injuries and illness and register
of adult workers and that therefore, nothing is
established by the petitioner that he had been in
service after completion of the apprentice period on
22-05-2008 and that therefore, in the absence of any
proof that either by novation of the contract or by
reason of the conduct of the parties the petitioner
cannot be held to be a workman.
17. Even assuming that the petitioner had been in
service as he stated, nothing is established by him that
his service was regularised, his appointment was
confirmed as permanent one. Further, to prove his
contention the petitioner has examined PW.2, the
co-worker. But, no document is exhibited by him that
he was working at the respondent establishment and
furthermore, his evidence is not corroborated by any
other documentary evidence and hence, oral evidence
of PW.2 cannot be relied by this Court. Admittedly, the
petitioner has sustained injuries and taken treatment at
A.G. Padmavathy Hospital and it is not established
by him that the accident was happened at the
respondent establishment wherein he has alleged to
have sustained injuries. Totally the petitioner has not
filed any document to prove and establish that he had
been in service at the respondent establishment after
his apprentice training and that therefore, the
petitioner
is
not
entitled
for
any
relief
of
reinstatement as claimed by him and hence, it is to be
held that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over his non-
employment is unjustified and the claim petition is
liable to be dismissed. :
18. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over his non-employment is
unjustified. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 —04-12-2015— Palanivel
PW.2 — 01-3-2016 — K. Ashok Kumar
PW.3 — 05-4-2016 — A. Subramanisiva
PW.4 — 22-6-2017 — Dr. Shyam Sunder Majumdar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl —05-07-2012 — Conciliation failure report.
Ex.P2 —
October — Apprenticeship training
2008
scheme (Hall Ticket).
Ex.P3 —
October — Apprenticeship training
2008
scheme (Hall Ticket).
628
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 May 2018
Ex.P4— 20-10-2012 — Co p y o f d emand fo r
reinstatement letter.
Ex.P5 —14-11-2012 — Acknowledgement card.
Ex.P6 —06-07-2010 — Copy of letter to union.
Ex.P7 —22-05-2008 — Copy of service certificate
issued by the respondent.
Ex.P8 —17-05-2007 — Copy of Apprenticeship
training interview issued by
the respondent.
Ex.P9 —24-12-2012 — Copy of letter to Labour
Co nciliation Officer
(Form K).
Ex.P10—30-10-2009— Copy of discharge summary
alongwith prescription and
bills.
Ex.P11— —
— Confession statement of
Mr. G. Keerthi.
Ex.P12—20-06-2007— Copy of apprenticeship
contract form.
Ex.P13—02-04-2016— Authorization letter given
to A. Subramani Siva by
A.G. Padmavathi’s Hospital
Limited.
Ex.P14— —
— Copy of case sheet of the
petitioner (33 pages).
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 —05-07-2017— Murali
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1—04-04-2017— Authorization letter given
to Murali by the respondent
management.
Ex.R2 — April-2008 — Copy of salary voucher.
to
July-2008
Ex.R3 — 02-01-2009 — Copy of tracking sheet for
to
injuries and illness.
30-12-2009
Ex.R4 — 24-03-2008— Copy of register for adult
to
workers.
23-07-2009
Ex.R5 — June-2008 —
Copy of salary register.
to
August-2008
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 69/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 4th May 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that
an industrial dispute has arisen between Puducherry
Distilleries Limited, Puducherry and Puducherry
Distilleries Limited Workers Union, over promotion of
Thiru A. Nagasoundarame as Junior Operator with effect
from 23-11-2009 and to grant him subsequent
promotion to the post of Senior Operator with all
monetary and service benefits 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 union
workmen Puducherry Distilleries Limited Workers
union against the management of M/s. Puducherry
Distilleries Limited, Puducherry, over promotion
of Thiru A. Nagasoundarame as Junior Operator with
effect
from
23-11-2009
and
to
grant
him
subsequent promotion to the post of Senior
Operator with all monetary and service benefits is
justified or not?