La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 17-00
Prix : ` 17-00
Price :
` 17-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 714
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 714
Award of the Labour Court
.. 714
de Tribunal.
.. 721
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 721
Government Notifications
.. 721
.. 725
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 725
Tender Notices
.. 725
.. 727
Etablissements dangereux
.. 727
Dangerous Establishments
.. 727
.. 729
Annonces
.. 729
Announcements
.. 729
[ 713 ]
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 : 12-6-2018
Price : ` 17-00
2018 }
|
12 {
No.
24
Poudouchéry
Mardi
12
Juin
2018 (22 Jyaistha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
12th
June
2018
714
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 June 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 52/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 24/2014, dated
06-02-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the Industrial Dispute between the management
of M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Science,
Puducherry and Thiru V.S. Mannadeeswaran, Puducherry,
over 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 06th day of February, 2018
I.D. (L). No. 24/2014
V.S. Mannadeeswaran,
No. 15, Pallatheru, Periyakalapet,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Science,
Ganapathichettikulam Village, Kalapet,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-01-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalargal R.T. Shankar, A. Ashok Kumar, P. Suresh,
Advocates for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal
L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan, V. Veeraragavan
and E. Karthik, 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. 67/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 21-04-2014 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether t h e d i s p u t e r a is e d b y T h i r u
V.S. Mannadeeswaran against the management of
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Science,
Kalapet, 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 the service of the
respondent on 20-02-2006. The petitioner has been
working in the respondent Hospital in a prompt
manner without any default or remarks since, his
joining of duty in the respondent Hospital. The
petitioner is educated and hailing from a poor and
he had studied out of his own efforts and in order to
fulfill his needs of his life, the petitioner was
forced to work in Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical
College, Pondicherry as part time worker. When the
said matter came to the knowledge of the respondent
management, the respondent started to impose
several conditions. The petitioner applied before
the respondent for changing of his shift hours in
order to avoid causing default in his duties to the
said Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical College. On
14-02-2014, the respondent management convened
an enquiry on the petitioner complaining against him
that he had taken the things from the Biomedical
Department of the respondent Hospital without the
knowledge of the respondent’s management. The
petitioner has not taken any things as alleged in the
complaint. In order to cause stigma and blemish on
the petitioner, the respondent willfully and wantonly
accused the petitioner without any iota of truth.
Though, the petitioner was working as a part time
worker in Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical College,
it was not a permanent job. The petitioner is
working in the respondent Hospital as a permanent
employee. When the petitioner contacted the
personnel office through phone, the petitioner was
informed that he had been terminated from service
and that he doesn’t have to come to work. The petitioner
was not given any written order of termination.
The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.
The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and
715
12 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the matter has been referred for adjudication to this
Court. The petitioner had undertaken before the
Enquiry Committee that he would not do any part
time work in the said Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical
College and the same was duly recorded by the
committee members and he was terminated from his
job at the respondent Hospital as per the report
given by the said Committee. No poor employee
shall not be punished for his other part time work
when the employee causes no harm to his
permanent employer. Therefore, the petitioner is a
workman of the respondent. In any event, no prior
notice have been given prior to the termination, the
termination being reattachment within meaning of
section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the
same is void ab initio. Therefore, the petitioner is
constrained to file this industrial dispute in I.D (L).
No. 24/2014 before this Court. The petitioner
approached the respondent several times for
reinstatement with back wages but, his entire attempt
becomes in vain. The respondent has not given any
employment or to settle the back wages with
benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner
prayed this Court to pass an order to direct the
respondent to reinstate into service with full back
wages and other attendant benefits by dismissing the
termination order against the petitioner and to pay
a sum of `
1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifthy
thousand only) as back wages and other benefits due
to the petitioner for the period of termination.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent did not admitted the averments
contained in the claim petition filed by the
petitioner except those that are specifically admitted
and it is stated that the cause title in the claim
petition as well as in the reference is wrong as there
is no Managing Director in the respondent institution.
The respondent is headed by Director-Principal and
therefore, the cause title in the claim petition needs
to be suitably amended. The respondent is a Multi-
specialty Hospital and Trauma Care Centre, providing
plethora of medical facilities and treatments to
people in and around Puducherry region. It also runs
a Medical College and Nursing College. The respondent
employees around 1670 workers, Nursing staff,
General Staff, Officers and Faculty out of whom 682
employees are covered under the Industrial
Disputes Act of 1947. The respondent being a
public utility service institution catering to the
emergency health care, a highest levels of
discipline, integrity, honesty, sincerity and conduct
is expected from each and every one associated with
respondent. It cannot take any incident of dishonesty,
indiscipline or lack of integrity easily. Any
compromise by respondent on such qualities
expected of any worker can only wreck havoc in the
institution and can give a leeway to others to follow
such courses with impunity. It can also be demoralising
honest and upright Officers. The petitioner’s case
must also be approached by keeping these
fundamental principles at the backdrop. The claim
statement of petitioner is full of vital admissions on
the gross misconduct committed by him. Hence,
there is absolutely no scope for any enquiry, except
on the quantum of punishment given to him. The
petitioner in his claim statement has admitted that to
fulfill his needs of his life he was forced to work in
Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical College, Puducherry
as part time worker and when the said matter came
to the knowledge of the respondent it started to
impose several conditions and that he applied
before respondent for changing his shift hours in
order to avoid causing default in his duties to the
said Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical College and that
he is a permanent employee of the respondent
Hospital and while in such employment, he was
working as a part time worker in the Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Medical College but, it was not a
permanent job and that he had undertaken before the
Enquiry Committee that he would not do any part
time work in the said Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical
College. The said vital and substantial admissions of
the petitioner prove beyond any iota of doubt that he
did commit the grave misconduct of being in dual
employment while being in employment with the
respondent and hence, the charges regarding dual
employment against petitioner stands proved. The
petitioner was employed as Instrument Mechanic in
Biomedical Department as a regular employee from
01-09-2007
vide letter of appointment dated
03-09-2007. When the respondent gained concrete
information that petitioner was gainfully employed
with one of the other Hospitals in Puducherry
namely, Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical
Science and he was clandestinely sharing confidential
information regarding respondent’s Hospital, it
issued
a
charge-sheet
to
petitioner
dated
27-02-2013 under clause 17.2, 17.17, 17.23, 17.26
and 17.34 of its Service Rules for serious and gross
misconduct of fraud, dishonesty giving false
information, disclosing information to respondent
716
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 June 2018
with regard to the process, facts, figures and details
of work including technical knowhow and engaging
in other work for gain without permission of
respondent and theft of property. The petitioner was
placed suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner
gave an explanation to the charge on 06-03-2013
wherein, he admitted his acquaintances with the said
institution but, denied his gainful employment. Hence,
respondent conducted a domestic enquiry through an
impartial Enquiry Officer, who gave full opportunity
to petitioner to disprove the charges and prove
his innocence. A principle of natural justice was
strictly adhered and petitioner fully participated
in the enquiry from 21-03-2013 to 29-04-2013.
During the course of enquiry, the petitioner once
admitted his casual employment at Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Institute of Medical Science, Puducherry,
without permission of respondent and even admitted
that he had actually tinkered with his shift timings
to juggle between two employments. The Enquiry
Officer submitted his findings on 04-05-2013
holding petitioner-guilty of all charges, except the
charges of theft for want of evidence, which stand
testimony to the fairness of Enquiry Officer.
The respondent issued second show cause notice,
dated 06-05-2013 seeking petitioner’s explanation.
The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated
10-05-2013 whereby, he once again accepted that he
was employed on part time basis in Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Institute of Medical Science and promised
not to repeat such mistakes in future. Considering
the gravity of his misconduct, the petitioner was
dismissed from service with effect from 07-06-2013
vide termination order, dated 07-06-2013. The
clause 7 of the appointment order of the petitioner,
dated 01-09-2007 stated that there was a condition
that the petitioner could not do employment,
consultation, trade or business including part time
activity except with written permission of the
management. The clause 8 of the appointment order
stated that the petitioner will be governed by the
Institute's Service Rules relating to attendance,
leave, conduct and other conditions of employment
and he must abide by the Rules and Regulations of
the Institute which are in force at present and which
may be formulated from time to time. The rule
17.26 of the Service Rules of respondent
specifically
prohibits
dual
employment
and
considers it a serious misconduct. No punishment
lesser than dismissal from services can be
commensurate with such gross misconduct as it not
only amounts to violation of service rules and terms
of employment, it also amounts to betrayal of faith
reposed by respondent on petitioner. Such dual
employment cannot be trivialised as minor
misconduct as it leads to pilferage of vital and
confidential information, especially, if, the other
employer is also a competitor operating in the same
field. It results in exodus of good hands from one
organisation to another and it gives an opportunity
to the worker take both employers on ransom
regarding
pay
packages
and
other
service
conditions. It also shows lack of discipline and
integrity towards the employer. If, such conduct is
not punished with maximum punishment, it would
encourage other workers to engage in similar
misconducts, which can subject the respondent’s
Hospital to chaos. Therefore, the misconduct done
by petitioner deserved the maximum punishment of
dismissal from service. Since, the petitioner has
engaged himself is misconduct which exposed his
dishonesty lack of integrity and lack of dedication
towards the respondent. The respondent has also
lost its confidence on the petitioner and hence,
there is absolutely no scope of his reemployment as
the lost confidence cannot be gained. The claim-
petition is devoid of merits lack of bona fide and is
liable to be dismissed.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner WW1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked
and on the side of the respondent RW1 was examined
and Ex.R1to Ex.R12 was marked.
5. Both sides are heard. The pleadings 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 has relied upon the Judgment reported in
CDJ 2016 BHC 1310, CDJ 2014 CAT NEW DELHI
184, CDJ 2012 MHC I486, CDJ 1956 BHC 144 and
Panjab - Haryana HC in CWP No.15088/2015 -
Gulbahar Vs. Presiding Officer and Another and the
same were 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. In order to prove the case the petitioner has
examined himself as WW1 and he has deposed that he
joined in the respondent Hospital on 20-02-2006 and
he had been working in the respondent Hospital in a
prompt manner without any default and that he was
hailing from a poor family and he had studies out of
717
12 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
his own efforts and in order to fulfill needs of his life,
he was forced to work in Sri Lakshmi Narayana
Medical College, Puducherry as part time worker and
that when the said fact was came to the knowledge of
the respondent management it started to impose several
conditions and that he has asked the respondent
management for changing his shift hours in order to
avoid causing default in his work to the Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Medical College and that on 14-02-2014, the
management has convened the enquiry complaining
against him that he has taken things from the
Biomedical Department of the respondent Hospital
without the knowledge of the respondent management
and that he had not taken any things as alleged in the
complaint and that he was working as a part time worker
in the Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical College which is
not a permanent job and that he was working in the
respondent Hospital as a permanent employee and that
he had been terminated from service and that he has
raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer and on failure, the matter has been referred to
this Court and that he had undertaken before the
Enquiry Committee that he would not do any part time
work in the said Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical
College.
8. In support of his case the petitioner has exhibited
the conciliation failure report as Ex.P1 which would
reveal the fact that the petitioner has raised an
industrial dispute on 11-06-2013 over his non-
employment stating that he has joined at the
respondent Hospital as Instrument Mechanic on
20-02-2006 and he had been in service till
27-02-2013 and it is stated by the petitioner that the
management by an act of victimisation and motivation
issued false charge memo on 27-02-2013 and that he
had been terminated from service by the respondent on
07-06-2013 and that the management has not given any
opportunity to prove his case and his long service of
employment has not been considered by them and
further, it is also learnt from Ex.P1 that the
management has also participated in the conciliation
proceedings and submitted reply on 08-07-2013
denying all the averments made by the petitioner and
stated that the petitioner has committed serions
misconducts of fraud false information disclosing
information of facts and figures and details of work
and hence, he was suspended pending enquiry and that
the petitioner against the terms of the employment
engaged dual employment at Sri Lakshmi Narayana
Institute of Medical Science and has manipulated the
shift timings for his personal gain and the domestic
enquiry was conducted against the petitioner based on
the charge-sheet, dated 27-02-2013 and only based on
the findings of the Enquiry Officer who has submitted
the report on 04-05-2013, the respondent issued show
cause notice on 06-05-2013 and further, it is learnt
from Ex.P1 that in the conciliation it was stated by the
respondent that the petitioner during enquiry has
accepted that he has been employed on part time basis
in Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Science
and that the management firmly insisted that engaging
in other work for monetary gain at any other purpose
which amounts to serious misconduct, and cannot be
tolerated and that the charges against the petitioner was
proved during the domestic enquiry and on the basis of
the material evidence on record the petitioner was
terminated from service on 07-06-2013 considering
the gravity of the misconduct. Further, it is also learnt
from Ex.P1 that the Conciliation Officer has advised
the management that the punishment of dismissal is not
proportionate and also advised the management to give
punishment of deduction of increment or demote his
grade instead of terminating his service.
9. On the other hand, in order to prove the
contention of the respondent management the General
Manager was examined as RW1 and he has deposed that
the respondent establishment is the institution and
multi-specialty Hospital and Trauma Care Centre
providing plethora of medical facilities and treatment
in and around Puducherry region and that they are
running Medical College and Nursing college and that
they have qualified and efficient Doctors, Nurses,
Staffs, Administrators and that they have well furnished
laboratories and that they have employees around 1670
workers, nursing staff, general staff, officers and
others and that they are maintaining highest levels of
discipline, integrity, honesty, sincerity and that he has
denied the averments of the petitioner which was stated
in the claim statement and that the petitioner has
admitted that he was forced to work at Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Medical College as part time worker and in
the enquiry it was stated by him that he would not do
any part time work at Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical
College and that the petitioner has admitted the above
fact in the explanation given by him for the charge on
06-03-2013 and that domestic enquiry was conducted
and full opportunity was given to the petitioner to
disprove the charges and to prove bis innocence and
that the principles of natural justice were strictly
adhered to and that the petitioner has fully participated
in the enquiry from 21-03-2013 to 29-04-2013 and
that the petitioner had admitted his casual employment
at Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry and that the appointment given to the
718
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 June 2018
petitioner also would reveal the fact that there was a
condition that the petitioner could not do employment,
consultation, trade or business including part time
activity except with written permission of the
management.
10. In support of their contention, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R12. Ex.R1
(series 1 to 5) is the copy of the appointment orders
issued by the respondent to the petitioner on various
dates. Ex.R2 is the copy of the charge-memo issued by
the respondent to the petitioner on 27-02-2013. Ex.R3
is the copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner to
the respondent on 28-02-2013. Ex.R4 is the copy of
translation of charge-memo. Ex.R5 is the copy of the
explanation letter submitted by the petitioner to the
respondent on 06-03-2013. Ex.R6 is the copy of the
enquiry proceedings. Ex.R7 is the copy of enquiry
particulars. Ex.R8 is the copy of the second show
cause notice, dated 06-05-2013. Ex.R9 is the copy of
the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second
show cause notice on 10-05-2013. Ex.R10 is the copy
of warning memo issued by the respondent to the
petitioner on 13-08-2010. Ex.R11 is the copy of the
service rules of the respondent institution. Ex.R12 is
the copy of the dismissal order issued by the
respondent to the petitioner. From the above
documents Ex.R1(series) would disclose the fact that
the appointment order was given to the petitioner
on 21-02-2006 and he was posted as Attendant
(Bio-Medical) in the respondent institution for three months
on contract on terms and Ex.R1(series) further, would
evident that on 19-05-2006, 21-08-2006, 23-02-2007,
27-05-2011, the petitioner was again and again
appointed on condition that he would not engage
himself in other employment, consultation, trade, or
business including part-time activity except with
written permission of the management. The other
documents would go to show that the respondent
management has conducted the domestic enquiry by
issuing charge-memo and after getting explanation and
after the report of the Enquiry Officer a second show
cause notice was also issued by the management on
06-05-2013 for which the petitioner has submitted a
reply on 10-05-2013 and previously the petitioner was
warned by the respondent management on 13-08-2010
and warning memo was issued to him by the
respondent and that there was some service rules at
respondent
Industry
and
that
the
respondent
management has terminated the petitioner from
service.
11. From the pleadings, evidence let in by either
sides and documents marked on both sides it is clear
that the following facts are admitted by them that the
petitioner was working in the respondent institution
for the period from 2006 to 2013 and he has been
charged for his misconduct for dual employment at Sri
Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Science and the
domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner
for the alleged charge and second show cause notice
was issued to him for which the petitioner has given
explanation and after that he was terminated from
service. According to the respondent management the
petitioner has committed serious misconduct of dual
employment by working as part time at Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Institute of Medical Science without the
permission of the respondent management. On perusal
of Ex.Rl(series) it is clear that there is some terms
and conditions that the employee should not work at
anywhere else even as a part time worker while he was
in service at the respondent establishment. Even in .the
claim statement the petitioner has admitted the fact
that due to the circumstances to meet out the needs of
his life he has worked at Sri Lakshmi Narayana
Institute of Medical Science as part time worker. In
the first para of the claim statement filed by the
petitioner he has admitted that he had studied out of his
own efforts and in order to fulfill the needs of his life
he was forced to work in Sri Lakshmi Narayana
Medical College as part time worker.
12. Further, in the chief examination also the
petitioner has stated that in order to fulfill the needs
of his life, he was forced to work in Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Medical College as part time worker. Even in
his reply for the show cause notice issued against him
which was exhibited under Ex.R9 the petitioner has
admitted the fact that he was working at Sri Lakshmi
Narayana Medical College. Further, the petitioner has
also admitted in his evidence that he was working at
the said Sri Lakshmi Narayana Medical College
Hospital as part time worker and it is also admitted by
him that the appointment order given by the respondent
management having terms and conditions that he
should not work at anywhere else even as a part time
worker while
he was working at respondent
establishment.
13. In support of their contention, the learned
Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
Judgment reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 1486, wherein,
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has observed that,
719
12 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
“....Court held - seeing the records and evidence,
came to the conclusion that the charges were proved
and it did not call for any interference under Act
- second respondent - management raised a defence
before the Labour
Court that they had lost
confidence in the petitioner - workman for
retaining in the service and the Labour court had
also accepted the same and refused to give any
relief to the petitioner - workman - Court was not
inclined to interfere with the well -reasoned Award
passed by the Labour Court - no case made out by the
petitioner to interfere with the Award of Labour Court
- Writ Petition dismissed.” From the above
observation, it is clear that if, any employee is
doing dual employment while he was working at
any industry or establishment cannot be permitted
to do dual employment which would cause loss and
difficulties to the employer. In this case also
the petitioner was admittedly working as a part time
worker at another Medical College while he was
working as a permanent employee at respondent
Medical
College
by
which
the
respondent
management might have lost, confidence on the
petitioner and that therefore, the reason stated by
the petitioner that he was forced to work as a part
time worker cannot be accepted and as the domestic
enquiry was held properly by the respondent
management by giving opportunities to the
petitioner to putforth his case and show cause
notice was given to the' petitioner, this Court finds
that the disciplinary action taken against the
petitioner is absolutely necessary and hence, the
termination of service of the petitioner from the
respondent establishment is absolutely reasonable
and justifiable and that therefore, the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over his non-employment
cannot be justified and as such, the claim petition
filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over his non-employment is
not justified. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 06th day of February, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW1
—01-03-2016 S. Mannadeeswaran
List of petitioner’s exhibit:
Ex.Pl
—14-02-2014 Copy of the conciliation
failure report.
List of respondent’s witness:
RWl
—08-05-2017 A.G. Isaiah
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
—21-02-2006 Copy of the appointment
(series —19-05-2006 o rd ers issued by the
1 to 5) —21-08-2006 r e s p o n d e n t t o t h e
27-05-2011
Ex.R2 —27-02-2013 Copy of the charge-memo
issued by the respondent
to the petitioner.
Ex.R3 —28-02-2013 Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
respondent.
Ex.R4 —04-03-2013 Copy of translation of charge-
memo, dated 27-02-2013.
Ex.R5 —06-03-2013 Copy of the explanation
letter submitted by the
petitioner
to
the
respondent.
Ex.R6
—
Copy
of
the
enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.R7
—
Copy of enquiry particulars.
Ex.R8 —06-05-2013 Copy of the second show
cause notice.
Ex.R9 —10-05-2013 Copy of the reply submitted
by the petitioner to the
second show cause notice.
Ex.R10—13-08-2010 Copy of warning memo
issued by the respondent to
the petitioner.
Ex.R11 —
Copy of the service rules of
the respondent institution.
Ex.R12—07-06-2013 Copy of the dismissal order
issued by respondent to the
petitioner.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
720
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 June 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 53/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 31/2016, dated
10-02-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in the
management of M/s. Klas Ploymers, Puducherry and
Thiru R. Ilangovan, Kandamangalam, Tamil Nadu,
over 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 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 LOK ADALAT AT PUDUCHERRY
Organised by Ms. V. Sofana Devi (District Judge)
Member-Secretary, of the State Legal Services
Authority, Puducherry, under section 19 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act (Act 39 of 1987).
Ms. S. Rohini,
. .
Judge
Additional Sub-Judge,
Puducherry.
Thiru S. Chandra Sekar,
. .
Judge
Principal District Munsif,
Puducherry.
Thiru C. Ayyanar,
. .
Member
Advocate,
Puducherry.
LOK ADALAT CASE No................/2018
in
I.D. (L). No. 31/2016
(On the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry)
Saturday, the 10th day of February 2018
P. Ilangovan,
S/o. Puthupattan,
No. 2/456, Sri Ram Nagar,
Kandamangalam,
Villupuram P.O.,
Tamil Nadu-605 102.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Klas Polymers,
166*165/166, Vazhudavoor Road,
Kurumbapet,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This case coming on this day before us in the
p r e s e n c e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r a n d h i s Co u n s e l
Thiru A. Mugundhan and the respondent and his
Counsel Thiru L. Sathish having agreed to settle the
matter and thereby, the case being settled under Joint
Compromise Memo filed, an Award is passed
accordingly:
Taken cognizance under section 20 (1) of the Legal
Services Authorities Act (Act 39/87)
1. This case which was filed before the Presiding
Officer as ID (L). No. 31/2016 was transferred to the
Lok Adalat and was taken on file for settlement.
2. The petitioner filed the case to pass an Award to
hold that the non-employment of the petitioner
workman by the respondent management is not
justified and to direct the respondent management to
reinstate him with full back wages and all other
attendant benefits and for costs.
3. Both parties were served with notice and
appeared before the Lok Adalat and the petitioner made
an endorsement today to the effect that the petitioner
herein has received a sum of ` 45,000 (Rupees forty- five
thousand only) by a Cheque No. 851328, dated
12-02-2018 and a sum of ` 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh
only) by a Cheque No. 851334, dated 10-03-2018
drawn on the Canara Bank, Muthialpet Branch,
Puducherry towards full quit and.discharge and prayed
for closing the case. It is also agreed by both the
parties that if, the post dated cheque has not been
honoured by the respondent on 10-03-2018 this
reference will be reopen for further proceedings.
4. The endorsement made by the parties is bona fide
and there is no reason why the same should not be
considered and recorded. There is no inducement or
other indication for the said compromise. Accordingly,
the Joint endorsement mode by the parties is recorded
and an Award is passed under the terms and conditions
therein.
721
12 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
5. This case is referred to the Lok Adalat, organized
by the State Legal Services Authority under section 19
of the Legal Services Authorities Act (Act 39/87) and
after full and frank discussion of all issues, an Award
is passed as follows:
AWARD
1. It is ordered and decreed that the Award is passed
in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo made by the
parties and that the petition and the same is hereby
closed.
2. It is ordered and decreed that the Joint Endorsement
made by the parties shall form part of the Award.
3. That this Award of the Lok Adalat shall be
deemed to be a Decree of the Civil Court as per
section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Dated at Puducherry, on this the 10th day of
February, 2018.
S. ROHINI
S. CHANDRA SEKAR
C. IYYANAR
Judge
Judge
Member
P. ILANGOVAN,
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Petitioner
KLAS POLYMERS
Respondent
A. MUGUNDHAN
L. SATHISH
Counsel for the
Counsel for the
Petitioner
Respondent
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
NO.1-1/RAM/C1/2018.
Mahe, dated 22nd May, 2018
NOTIFICATION
(Under Regulation No. 3 of G. O. Ms. No. 04,
dated 9-2-2018 of Health Secretariat)
Whereas, it has been widely reported in the
newspaper, that there is an outbreak of ‘NIPAH’ Virus in
parts of Kozhikode District, (Kerala), neighboring Mahe
region and the Government of Kerala is on high alert
and initiating various measures to contain the situation;
Whereas, the undersigned is of the opinion that
Mahe region being contiguous to infected areas of Kozhikode
District, Kerala, the situation warrants immediate action
under Regulation No. 3 of G.O. Ms. No. 04, dated 9-2-2018
of Health Secretariat, to strengthen the ongoing
preventive measures;
Whereas, the undersigned is satisfied that there are
sufficient grounds to declare Mahe region as ‘Threatened
Area’ consequent to the outbreak of ‘NIPAH’ Virus in parts
of Kozhikode District (Kerala), neighbouring Mahe region.
Now, therefore, in order to strengthen the
preventive measures and to effectively contain the
situation, the undersigned hereby notify to declare Mahe
region as a ‘Threatened Area’ under Regulation No. 3 of
G. O. Ms. No. 04, dated 9-2-2018 of Health Secretariat.
S. MANICKADEEPAN,
Regional Administrator.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY)
(G.O. Ms. No. 7/AH, Puducherry, dated 28th May 2018)
NOTIFICATION
The Lieutenant-Governor of Puducherry is pleased
to confirm the services of Dr. E. Sayed Ali, Joint Director,
Department of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare,
Puducherry and to appoint him substantively in the
entry grade of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with effect
from 17-2-2002.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
MANGALATTE DINESH,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
(Animal Husbandry).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)
(G.O. Ms. No. 33, Puducherry, dated 28th May 2018)
NOTIFICATION
The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is pleased
to appoint Thiru D. Mohan Kumar, Erode, Tamil Nadu,
who has been allotted to the Union territory of
Puducherry by Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, New Delhi, on the basis of the
results of Civil Services Examination, 2016 to Grade-II
of Pondicherry Civil Service with effect from the
forenoon of 16-5-2018, subject to the conditions
mentioned in this Department’s letter of Offer of
Appointment No. A.19011/6/2018/DPAR/SS-I(2), dated
16-4-2018.
2. The Lieutenant-Governor is also pleased to
order that Thiru D. Mohan Kumar will be a Probationer
in the Pondicherry Civil Service for a period of two
years from the forenoon of 16-5-2018.