La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 24-00
Prix : ` 24-00
Price :
` 24-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 772
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 772
Award of the Labour Court
.. 772
de Tribunal.
.. 785
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 785
Government Notifications
.. 785
.. 797
Etablissements dangereux
.. 797
Dangerous Establishments
.. 797
.. 798
Annonces
.. 798
Announcements
.. 798
.. 8 0 3
Corrigenda
.. 8 0 3
Corrigenda
.. 8 0 3
[ 771 ]
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 : 26-6-2018
Price : ` 24-00
2018 }
|
26 {
No.
26
Poudouchéry
Mardi
26
Juin
2018 (5 Asadha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
26th
June
2018
772
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 June 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 56/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 101/2012, dated,
03-03-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the Management
of M/s. State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai
and Thiru Vanajamunian, Cuddalore District, over
non-payment of wage increments for completion of
postgraduation, financial assistance to his children and
revision of basic pay-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.
Saturday, the 03rd day of March, 2018.
I.D. (L) No. 101/2012
Vanajamunian,
No. 5, Thillai Nagar,
Buvanagiri and Post,
Chidambaram Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. State Express Transport Corporation,
Pallava Salai, Chennai-600 002.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 09-02-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan,
V. Veeraragavan and E. Karthik, Counsel for the
petitioner, and Thiru S. Karthikeyan, Counsel 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. 222/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 20-12-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru Vanajamunian against the management of
M/s. State Express Transport Corporation, over
non-payment of wage increments for completion of
postgraduation, financial assistance to his children
and revision of basic pay as per the wage settlement
are justified?
(ii) If justified, what relief the petitioner is
entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been in
service as Conductor in the respondent corporation
from 07-04-1989 and his service was confirmed on
01-03-1991 and for the past 25 years he was working
in various places and now, he is working as Senior
Conductor in Puducherry Depot since from 2005 and
that as per settlement arrived at between the
respondent corporation and the trade unions, the
respondent enhanced educational allowance from
` 1,000 to ` 1,500 and his daughter joined B.E., in
2006 at Salem Government College and completed her
course in 2010 and that the respondent did not pay him
education allowance to the petitioner inspite of his
repeated demands for the said period though he had
applied on 06-03-2009 and 08-03-2011 which comes
to the tune of ` 6,000 for the period from 2006-2010
and as he has completed postgraduation in M.A.,
Sociology through distance education in the year 2000
he has applied to incorporate his Master’s Degree in his
service record vide his letters, dated 21-07-2004,
15-09-2004, 19-10-2004, 13-08-2006 and 16-04-2008
and even then, the respondent never responded to any of
the letters of petitioner and he was entitled for
additional two increments of ` 150 in his basic salary
in addition to regular annual increment of ` 75 since
there was a settlement under section 12(3) of the Act
which provides two increments to the worker who
completes postgraduation degree without availing any
leave or any other assistance from respondent and
evenafter repeated demands made by the petitioner the
773
26 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
respondent gave a vexatious reply on 07-05-2008 that
the financial status of the respondent corporation is not
good by thus the increments are not able to provide
and that denial of two additional increments to the
petitioner by respondent since September 2000 caused
immense monetary loss to the petitioner and also
affected his wage increments and subsequent wage
fixations throughout his career and that the respondent
is liable to pay monetary loss which comes to the
tune of ` 4,77,471.00 as calculated in the claim
petition and that he was not given review for his
service even after completion of 20 years of service
and has prayed to pass an Award for a total sum of
` 4,77,471.00 and to revise the wage scale of the
petitioner to ` 13,715 with effect from 01-09-2010 by
holding that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner is justified.
3. On the other hand, the respondent corporation
has filed a counter statement denying all the
allegations made by the petitioner in his claim
statement and stated that the petitioner was appointed
by the Head Office at Chennai and as per the terms and
conditions agreed between the petitioner and the
management only Chennai is having the jurisdiction to
solve any issues arises and one of the branches at
Puducherry the Branch Manager is not having the
power to represent the corporation and moreover, the
Managing Director is only at Chennai and if at all, the
petitioner is having any grievance, he should have
approached the appropriate authority at Chennai not
before this authority and Court at Pondicherry and that
the respondent Corporation is running the busses only
for the welfare of the people and it is not running in a
profitable manner and it is also highly indebted and
there are number of accident cases and the buses have
been attached still in various Courts and moreover, as
far as the respondent’s Corporation is acting as per Act
and also the settlement arrived at Corporation and the
trade unions and that the petitioner is not a law abiding
citizen and he is an intransigent and irrecoinsable man
and there are number of complaints as against him and
on the basis of the complaints, number of memos and
charge-sheets were issued for his misconduct and
misbehavior and he is having the habit of creating
troubles not only to the management but, also to his
colleagues
for
that
he
was
suspended
from
09-11-2006 till 01-02-2008 and thai the petitioner has
not obtained any permission for his alleged graduation
and the alleged graduation no way helpful to the
corporation and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P24
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.l
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R36 were marked. Both
sides are heard. The pleadings of the parties, the
evidence let in by either sides and the exhibits marked
on both side are carefully considered.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the resp o nd ent manageme nt o ver
non-payment of wage increments for completion of
postgraduation, financial assistance to his children
and revision of basic pay as per the wage settlement
are justified or not and if, justified, what is the
relief entitled to the petitioner?
6. It is the evidence of the petitioner PW.1 that
there was a settlement between the majority union of
the respondent corporation and the respondent
management wherein, the respondent management has
increased the educational allowance payable to one child
of workers studying in any professional courses from
` 1,000 to ` 1,500 and her daughter had joined in B.E.,
at Salem Government College in the year 2006 and
completed the course in the year 2010 and though, he
applied for the education allowance at ` 1,500 per year
from 2006 to 2010 to the tune of ` 6,000 the said
educational allowance was not sanctioned and that he
has completed Master’s degree in M.A., Sociology
though distance education at Annamalai University in
September, 2000 and he applied for two additional
increments on 21-07-2004 and also sent reminders on
15-09-2004, 19-10-2004, 13-08-2006 and 16-04-2008
and that the respondent management never responded
to his letters and it is also agreed by the management
in 12(3) settlement executed in the year 1989 that the
worker who completes postgraduation without availing
any leave or any other assistance from the respondent
is entitled for two additional special increments and
the same has not been granted to him though, he has
applied for which the respondent management has
given reply on 07-05-2008 that due to the financial
status of the respondent Corporation they are not able
to give the said two increments and that therefore, he
has
claimed
two
additional
increments
since
September 2000 and it is the further evidence of the
petitioner PW.1 that the respondent management has
failed to give regular annual increments of ` 75 per
year in March 2001 and March 2002 and the same was
not paid to him from March-2001 to February-2003
i.e., for 24 months at the rate of ` 75 per month and
he has also claimed two additional increments from
774
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 June 2018
September-2000 as he has completed the Master’s
degree in M.A., Sociology and wage settlement was
arrived in the year 2005 and basic wage of the Senior
Conductor was enhanced to
` 1,950 and from
September 2005 his pay was ` 4,665 with the revision
of basic wage ought to have been fixed at ` 6,615
and has claimed ` 4,77,471.00 for his total monetary
loss.
7. In support of his case, the petitioner has exhibited
Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. Ex.P1 is the copy of transfer order
of the petitioner from Chennai to Puducherry Depot,
dated 07-05-1990. Ex.P2 is the copy of extract of
clause No. 73 at Page No. 74 of the book published by
CITU union showing salient features of 7th 12(3)
settlement book. Ex.P3 is the copy of request letter
given by the petitioner to respondent for educational
allowance to his daughter (2 Nos.) along with
Provisional Certificate of petitioner's daughter for BE
(EEE) on 06-03-2009 and 08-03-2011. Ex.P4 is the
copy of page No. 92 of the book published by CITU
union on the 7th 12(3) settlement between union and
respondent showing details of two advance increments
for completion of degree. Ex.P5 is the copy of request
letter given by petitioner to the respondents on various
dates. Ex.P6 is the copy of request letter sent by the
petitioner to respondent toward non-payment of his
two years advance increments. Ex.P7 is the Copy of
petitioner’s monthly salary slips for the period 1995
to 2015. Ex.P8 is the copy of request letter given by
petitioner to respondent for arrears of revision in his
salary as per 10th 12(3) settlement for the months
from September, 2007 to January, 2008. Ex.P9 is the
copy of wage settlement arrear bill of petitioner.
Ex.P10 is the copy of relevant portion of Tamil Nadu
Governments order vide G.O. No. 189 for payment of
interest. Ex.P11 is the copy of the 12(3) settlement
effective from 01-09-2010. Ex.P12 is the copy of the
12(3) settlement effective from 01-09-2013. Ex.P13
is the copy of letter given by petitioner to respondent
seeking arrears in basic wages as per respondent's
letter claiming payment of basic wages. Ex.P14 is the
copy of comparative salary bill of Mr. Subramani
showing payment of basic wages to him. Ex.P15 to
Ex.P24 are the copy of RTI application submitted by
the petitioner on various dates.
8. From the above documents, it is learnt to this
Court that the petitioner was working at the respondent
establishment and subsequently, he was transferred to
Puducherry Depot and as per 7th 12(3) settlement it is
clear that the management had enhanced the education
allowance from ` 1,000 to ` 1,500 to one of the
children of the worker and it is agreed by the
respondent Corporation that two additional increments
would be given to the workers who completed the
Master’s degree in M.A. Sociology and this petitioner
has applied for the said two additional increments for
completion of Master’s degree in M.A. Sociology and
also applied for educational allowance on 06-03-2009
to the respondent corporation and also has submitted
several letters subsequently for the sanction of the
same and it is also clear that he has sent several
representations on various dates claiming the said
increments and that there was several wage settlements
executed
between
the
management
transport
corporation and the union under 12(3) settlements.
9. To disprove the case of the petitioner the
respondent corporation also has examined RW.1 and
marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R36. Ex.Rl is the copy of
authorization letter, dated 31-08-2014. Ex.R2 is the
copy of letter of industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner
before
the
office
of
the
Labour
Commissioner on 13-12-2011. Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 are
notice of remarks received from the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry. Ex.R5 is the photocopy of
the objections filed by the opposite party before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry. Ex.R7 to
Ex.R9 are the photocopy of settlements entered under
section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
various dates. Ex.R10 is the photocopy of the
Government order issued by the Finance (BPE)
Department. Ex.R11 is the attendance and LLP detail
extract of the petitioner from January-1999 to July-2017.
Ex.R12 is the N.Q.D. statement of the petitioner
from 1989 to January-2015. Ex.R13 to Ex.R17 are
photocopy of punishment order issued to petitioner on
various dates. Ex.R18 is the photocopy of order issued
to petitioner. Ex.R19 is the photocopy of second show
cause notice issued to petitioner. Ex.R20 is the
photocopy of order, dated 17-06-2016. Ex.R21 is the
photocopy
of
order
issued
to
petitioner
on
28-06-2016. Ex.R22 is the photocopy of second show
cause notice issued to petitioner on 28-06-2016.
Ex.R23 is the photocopy of order issued to petitioner,
dated 01-07-2016. Ex.R24 is the photocopy of order
issued to petitioner. Ex.R25 is the photocopy of
punishment
order
issued
to
petitioner,
dated
05-05-2016. Ex.R26 is the photocopy of revised order
issued to petitioner. Ex.R27 is the photocopy of
acknowledgement of receipt of service record copy by
the petitioner. Ex.R28 is the photocopy of extract of
service record of petitioner. Ex.R29 to Ex.R31 are
photocopy of salary receipts of the petitioner. Ex.R32
775
26 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
is the photocopy of the wage settlement arrear bill for
period from 09-2007 to 01-2008 for the petitioner.
Ex.R33 is the photocopy of punishment order issued to
petitioner on 22-11-2000. Ex.R34 is the photocopy of
revised order issued to petitioner. Ex.R35 is the
photocopy of right to Information Commissioner
Judgment order of case No. 19216/Eng/F/2013,
dated 24-02-2014. Ex.R36 is the photocopy of right to
Information Commissioner Judgment order of case
No. 11197/Eng/F/2014. These documents would go to
show that the respondent corporation has taken several
disciplinary
action
against
the
petitioner
for
misbehavior and misconduct committed by him and
punishments were given to the petitioner.
10. From the evidence and pleadings of both the
parties it can be noticed that the following facts are
admitted by either sides that the petitioner was working
at the respondent corporation for about 25 years as
Conductor and he was working at Puducherry Depot
from 2005 as Conductor and he has applied for two
wage increments as he has completed Master’s degree in
M.A., Sociology at Annamalai University through
distance education and it is also not disputed by either
sides that the petitioner has applied for education
allowance for his daughter who studied B.E at Salem
Government College for the. period from 2006-2010
and the request of the petitioner was denied by the
respondent management stating that the financial crisis
existing in the respondent corporation. Further, it is not
disputed by the respondent corporation that the
petitioner has not applied with sufficient documents
for additional two increments for completion of his
degree and it is also not disputed by the respondent
management that the daughter of the petitioner has not
studied B.E., course at Salem Government College.
11. Now, it is the case of the petitioner though he is
entitled for two additional increments for the
completion of postgraduation of M.A. Sociology
under settlement arrived at between the parties in the
year 1989 and he is entitled for education allowance
for his daughter under settlement arrived at between
the parties in the year 2005 the respondent management
has refused to sanction the same even after giving
sufficient proof for completion of master degree in
M.A. Sociology and that his daughter has studied B.E
professional course from 2006 to 2010 at Salem
Government College. On the other hand, it is
contended by the respondent management that since
the petitioner has not completed M.A. Sociology
post graduation in the regular study and he has
completed the same through distance education, he is
not entitled for any increments.
12. On this aspect the evidence and documents are
carefully perused. From the documents filed by the
petitioner it is clear that workers who has completed
M.A. Sociology have to be given two additional
increments apart from the regular increments and it is
also agreed by the respondent corporation that they
have to give education allowance of ` 1,500 for one
of the child of the worker who studying professional
course. It is not disputed by the respondent management
that the daughter of the petitioner was not studying at
Salem Government College for the period from 2006
to 2010. The RW.1 who deposed on behalf of
Respondent Corporation has stated in his cross
examination as follows:
“
M.A.
Sociology
M.A.
Social
Work
M.A. SocialogyM.A. Social Work-
776
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 June 2018
`
RTI
`
`
”.
From the above evidence it is clear that the
petitioner has applied for two additional increments
for completion of his Master’s degree in Sociology as
per the 12(3) settlement executed in the year 1989 and
that there was a settlement under section 12(3) of the
Act arrived at between the management and the
majority union of the respondent corporation on
31-08-2005 wherein, the educational allowance was
enhanced from ` 1,000 to ` 1,500 to the children of
the workers of the respondent corporation and it is
also admitted by RW.1 who has deposed on behalf of
the respondent corporation that there is a settlement
that two additional increments have to be given to the
workers who have completed the postgraduation in
M.A., Social Work but, he denied the person who has
completed the postgraduation in M.A., Sociology is
entitled for such additional increments. As there is no
difference between M.A., Sociology and M.A., Social
work, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for such
two additional increments from the date of his
completion of postgraduation. Furthermore, it is
admitted by RW.1 the witness who examined on behalf
of the management corporation that both the
applications filed by the petitioner for educational
allowance and two additional increments was replied
stating that financial position of the respondent
corporation is not possible to give such additional
increments and educational allowance to the petitioner
and therefore, the reason stated by the respondent
management for not giving additional increments to the
petitioner and not sanctioning educational allowance
to the petitioner on the ground that financial crises
was existing at the respondent Corporation cannot be
accepted and the respondent Corporation as agreed in
the 12(3) settlement is liable to pay such two
additional increments for the completion of his
Master’s degree in Sociology and wage revision to the
petitioner.
13. Furthermore, though, the respondent has filed
several documents to establish the fact that the
petitioner has committed misconduct and misbehavior
it would not restrain the petitioner to get the benefit as
per 12(3) settlement i.e., two additional increments
apart
from annual increment for the period from
September-2000 and to get the educational allowance
to his daughter for about four years from 2006 to
2010 and therefore, the case of the petitioner is clearly
established by him that he is entitled for two additional
increments as he has completed the postgraduation in
M.A.,(Sociology) and also entitled for educational
allowance for his daughter who has studied B.E from
2006 to 2010 at Government College, Salem and as
the worker of the respondent corporation, the petitioner
is also entitled for revision of wage as per the wage
settlements arrived between the employees and the
respondent management and that therefore, the
petitioner is also entitled for wage revision as per the
wage settlements arrived at between the respondent
corporation and its employment union and hence, it is
to held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent corporation over
non-payment of wage increments for completion of
postgraduation, financial assistance to his children and
revision of basic pay as per the wage settlement is
justified and the petitioner is entitled for the relief as
claimed by him in the claim petition.
777
26 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
14. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent corporation over non-payment of wage
increments
for
completion
of
postgraduation,
financial assistance to his children and revision of basic
pay as per the wage settlement is justified and Award is
passed directing the respondent corporation to pay two
additional
increments
to
the
petitioner
from
September-2000 for completion of postgraduation
and also to pay children educational allowance to the
petitioner and also to give pay revision as per the
settlements arrived at between the management and its
employees union to the petitioner as claimed in the
claim petition. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 03rd day of March, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
—28-03-2017 Vanajamunian
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —07-05-1990 Copy of transfer order of
the petitioner from Chennai
to Puducherry Depot.
Ex.P2
—
Copy of extract of clause
No. 73 at Page No.74 of
the book published by CITU
union
showing
salient
features
of
7th
12(3)
settlement book.
Ex.P3 —06-03-2009 Copy of request letter given
08-03-2011 by
the
petitioner
to
respondent for education
allowance to his daughter
(2
Nos.)
along
with
Provisional Certificate of
petitioner’s daughter for
BE (EEE).
Ex.P4
—
Copy of page No. 92 of the
book published by CITU
union on the 7th 12(3)
settlement between union
and respondent showing
details of two advance
increments for completion
of degree.
Ex.P5— 21-07-2004 Copy of request letter given
15-09-2004 b y p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e
19-10-2004 respondent to include his
16-12-2005 M.A., degree in his service
13-08-2006 r e c o r d s
a n d
h i s
postgraduation
degree
certificate with M.A degree
certificate (5Nos.).
Ex.P6 —22-08-2008 Copy of request letter sent
20-05-2012 by the petitioner to respondent
toward non-payment of his
two
years
ad vance
increments (2 Nos.).
Ex.P7 —
1995 to Copy of petitioner’s monthly
2015
Salary slips, showing non-
payment of mandatory 2
increments on completion
of postgraduation degree.
Ex.P8 —10-06-2008 Copy of request letter given
20-10-2008 by petitioner to respondent
for arrears of revision in
his salary as per 10th 12(30
settlement for the months
from September, 2007 to
January, 2008 (2 Nos.).
Ex.P9 —
Copy of wage settlement
arrear bill of petitioner
showing non-payment of
his basic wage as per the
10th 12(3) settlement from
September 2007 to January
2008 and comparative arrear
bill of Mr. Karunanidhi
showing payment of similar
wages to him. (2 Nos.).
Ex.P10—29-09-1998 Copy of relevant portion of
Tamil Nadu Governments
order vide G.O. No. 189 for
payment of interest.
Ex.P11 —22-01-2011 Copy of the 12(3) settlement
effective from 01-09-2010.
Ex.P12—13-04-2015 Copy of the 12(3) settlement
effective from 01-09-2013.
778
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 June 2018
Ex.P13—14-10-2015 Copy of letter given by
petitioner to respondent
seeking arrears in basic
wages as per respondent's
letter claiming payment of
basic wages.
Ex.P14—
August Copy of comparative, salary
2013 bill of Mr. Subramani showing
August payment of basic wages to
2015 him (2 Nos.).
Ex.P15—16-04-2008 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
non-payment of his two
advance increments along
with
reply
given
by
respondent, dated 07-05-2008.
Ex.P16—14-07-2008 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
non-payment of his two
advance increments along with
reply given by respondent,
dated 29-07-2008.
Ex.P17—27-09-2008 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
non-replying to his letter,
dated
22-08-2008
for
nonpayment of his two
advance increments along with
reply given by respondent,
dated 14-10-2008.
Ex.P18—03-12-2008 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
non payment of his two
advance increments along with
reply given by respondent,
dated 16-12-2008.
Ex.P19—30-12-2008 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
non-payment of his two
advance increments along with
reply given by respondent,
dated 06-01-2009.
Ex.P20—24-02-2009 Copy of RTI appeal filed
by the petitioner as against
the information furnished
for RTI application, dated
30-12-2008
along
with
reply given by respondent,
dated 27-02-2009.
Ex.P21—29-04-2009 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
non-payment of his two
advance increments along with
reply given by respondent,
dated 09-10-2009.
Ex.P22—15-12-2009 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
fowl seeking information
regarding the person who
are all receiving the two
advance increments from
1989 along with reply given
by
respondent,
dated
07-01-2010.
Ex.P23—05-04-2010 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
educational allowance to his
daughter V.M. Sivasankari
along with reply given by
respondent, dated 03-05-2010.
Ex.P24—04-05-2013 Copy of RTI application
submitted by the petitioner
for seeking information for
non-payment of his two
advance increments along
with
reply
given
by
respondent, dated 30-05-2013.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1
—19-09-2017 Pradeep Vaseekaran
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
—31-08-2014 Copy
of
authorisation
letter.
Ex.R2 —13-12-2011 Copy of letter of industrial
dispute
raised
by
the
petitioner
before
the
Office
of
the
Labour
Commissioner.
Ex.R3 —11-01-2012 Notice of remarks received
from the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry.
779
26 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R4 —20-01-2012 Notice of remarks received
from the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry.
Ex.R5 —26-04-2012 Photocopy
of
the
objections filed by the
opposite party before
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry.
Ex.R6 —31-08-2005 Photocopy of settlement
entered
under
section
12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Ex.R7 —06-02-2008 Photocopy of settlement
entered
under
section
12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Ex.R8 —22-01-2011 Photocopy of settlement
entered
under
section
12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Ex.R9 —13-04-2015 Photocopy of settlement
entered
under
section
12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Ex.R10—21-01-2002 Photocopy
of
the
Government order issued by
the
Finance
(BPE)
Department.
Ex.R11—05-08-2017 Attendance and LLP detail
extract of the petitioner
from
January-1999
to
July-2017.
Ex.R12—05-08-2017 N.Q.D. statement of the
petitioner from 1989 to
January-2015.
Ex.R13—03-11-2005 Photocopy of punishment
order issued to petitioner.
Ex.R14—03-07-2006 Photocopy of punishment
order issued to petitioner
(No. 510).
Ex.R15—03-07-2006 Photocopy of punishment
order issued to petitioner
(No. 512).
Ex.Rl6 —09-08-2006 Photocopy of punishment
order issued to petitioner.
Ex.R17—04-11-2011 Photocopy of punishment
order issued to petitioner.
Ex.R18—23-11-2015 Photocopy of order issued
to petitioner.
Ex.R19—03-05-2016 Photocopy of second
show cause notice issued
to petitioner.
Ex.R20—17-06-2016 Photocopy of order.
Ex.R21—28-06-2016 Photocopy of order issued
to petitioner.
Ex.R22—28-06-2016 Photocopy of second show
cause
notice
issued
to
petitioner.
Ex.R23—01-07-2016 Photocopy of order issued
to petitioner.
Ex.R24—April-2016 Photocopy of order issued
to petitioner.
Ex.R25—05-05-2016 Photocopy of punishment
order issued to petitioner.
Ex.R26—17-05-2016 Photocopy of revised order
issued to petitioner.
Ex.R27—24-08-2016 Photocopy of acknowledgement
of receipt of service record
copy by the petitioner.
Ex.R28 —
Photocopy of extract of
service
record
of
petitioner.
Ex.R29— June-2017 Photocopy of salary receipt
of the petitioner.
Ex.R30— July-2017 Photocopy of salary receipt
of the petitioner.
Ex.R31—
August Photocopy of salary receipt
2017 of the petitioner.
Ex.R32 —
Photocopy of the wage
settlement arrear bill for
period from 09-2007 to
01-2008 for the petitioner.
Ex.R33—22-11-2000 Photocopy of punishment
order issued to petitioner.
Ex.R34—20-03-2013 Photocopy of revised order
issued to petitioner.
Ex.R35—27-02-2014 Photocopy
of
right
to
Information Commissioner
Judgment order of case
No.
l9216/Eng./F/2013,
dated 24-02-2014.
Ex.R36—02-06-2015 Photocopy
of
right
to
Information Commissioner
Judgment order of case
No. 11197/Eng./F/2014.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
780
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 June 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 57/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 83/2012, dated
6-3-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect
of the Industrial Dispute between Management of
M/s. Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills, Pallore,
Mahe and Rajiv Ji Memorial Trust, Kannur, over
termination of the services of Thiru R.K. Manoharan-
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 6th day of March, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 83/2012
1. The Chairman,
Rajiv ji Memorial Trust (S.C. and S.T),
Zam Zam Complex. South Bazar
Kakkad Road, Kannur.
2. Manoharan R.K.
. . Petitioners
Versus
The General Manager,
M/s. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills,
(A Unit of National Textile
Corporation Limited, New Delhi),
Pallore–673 333, Mahe, Puducherry. . .
Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 28-02-2018 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Tvl. M.D. Thomas,
Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru T.C. Valsarajan.
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. 30/AIL/Lab./J/2011,
dated 07.02.2011 for adjudicating the following
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Rajiv ji
Memorial Trust, Kannur, against the management
of M/s. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills, Pallore
over termination of the services of Thiru R.K. Manoharan
is justified or'not?
(b) If justified, what relief the petitioner is
entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
The above reference originally taken on file by the
Sub-Court at Mahe which was being functioned as
Labour Court in I.D. No. 01/2011 and subsequently,
when this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court established
in the year 2012, the case has been transferred to this
Court and this case was taken on file by renumbering
it as I.D. (L) No. 83/2012.
2. The averments in the claim statement of the first
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
The first petitioner is a trust, constituted for the
purpose of upliftment and protection of its members
belonging to SC and ST community. The representation
was submitted by the second petitioner regarding the
denial of his employment by the respondent. The second
petitioner joined in the service under respondent
management as an employee Muster Roll No. 59 in the
simplex department on 16-04-1977. The respondent
management has not given proper protection of
employment to the second petitioner and also he was not
approved as a permanent employee. When the second
petitioner enlightened his eligibility to become a
permanent employee the respondent instead of appointing
him as a permanent employee, terminated him from
service violating all norms and rules of natural justice.
Since, the second petitioner belongs to Malayan
Community which is a Scheduled Caste in Kerala State he
is entitled to protection of employment. The respondent
was reluctant make the second petitioner as a permanent
employee though, he is having 17 years service. There
is a caste discrimination shown towards second
petitioner by the respondent. The respondent is not
complying the reservation guaranteed to the persons
belonging to the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. The
second petitioner was terminated from service on 10-02-1994
and subsequently, he was permitted to work as a Gate
Badali with effect from 20-09-2004. Eventhough,
781
26 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the second petitioner had worked as Gate Badali, the
respondent has not provided sufficient daily work to him
with a view to gradually remove the second petitioner
from the position of Gate Badali. Subsequently, the
respondent removed the name of the second petitioner
from the Badali register in the month of June 2010
without affording an opportunity to hear the side of the
second petitioner. The respondent has not issued any show
cause notice or conducted any enquiry against second
petitioner in order to terminate him from the service.
The respondent acted without any legal basis and
manipulated and fabricated documents which are in the
custody of the respondent with a view to deny the
employment of second petitioner. Therefore, the first
petitioner prayed this Court to pass an Award directing
the respondent to reinstate the second petitioner as a
permanent employee in simplex department and to direct
the respondent to pay the arrears of salary and other
benefits from 10-02-1994 till the date of reinstatement.
3. The averments in the claim statement of the
second petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
The second petitioner joined in the service under
respondent management as an employee Muster Roll No.
59 in the simplex department on 16-04-1977. The
second petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste community
and appointed under reservation of the said category and
he worked under the respondent with full honest and
sincerity. The second petitioner was not made permanent
and hence, he submitted the said fact before the
respondent. The respondent management instead of
appointing him as a permanent employee terminated him
from service in violation of all norms of natural justice.
The second petitioner belongs to Malayan Community
which is a Scheduled Caste in Kerala State and hence, he
is entitled to protection of employment. The respondent
shown caste discrimination towards the second petitioner
and only on that count he was denied employment.
The second petitioner was terminated from service
on 10-02-1994. The said order of termination was
challenged by the second petitioner and an application
was
submitted before the Labour Department,
Puducherry. It was ordered by the Labour Court to
reinstate the second petitioner but, the respondent for one
or other reason best known to them deliberately not
reinstated him. Subsequently, the second petitioner was
permitted to work as a Gate Badali with effect from
20-09-2004. Eventhough, the second petitioner had
permitted to work as a Gate Badali. the respondent has not
provided sufficient daily work to him with a view to
gradually remove him from the position of Gate Badali.
The respondent removed the name of the second
petitioner from the Badali register in the month of June
2010 without affording an opportunity to hear the side
of the second petitioner. The respondent done all the
atrocities against the second petitioner without any legal
basis. The action of ihe respondent is highly illegal and
arbitrary. The respondent have manipulated and fabricated
documents in order to deny the legitimate right of the
second petitioner. Hence, the second petitioner is
entitled to reinstating as permanent employee in simplex
department and therefore, prayed this Court to pass an
Award directing the respondent to reinstate the second
petitioner as a permanent employee in
simplex
department and to direct the respondent to pay the arrears
of salary and other benefits from 10-02-1994 till the date
of reinstatement.
4. The brief averments in the written statement filed
by the respondent are as follows:
The respondent denied the entire allegations and
averments as contained in ihe claim petition and stated
that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the
respondent Mill and none of the officials of the
management has shown any caste discrimination either
against claim petitioner or against other workers in the
Mill. The action was taken by the management only due
to the absence in the duty on the part of the claim
petitioner. The claim petitioner was a chronic and habitual
absentee in duty. Because of this, the then management
reverted him to Badali as a disciplinary measure under
clause 11 (1) of the Mill Standing Order as per Office
Order No. 3486, dated 09-11-1992. The said fact was
also well known to the claim petitioner who accepted the
same and worked as Badli. The claim petitioner was also
given warning that his name will be removed from Badali
register, in case he could not complete 70 days of
attendance within 3 months from 09-11-1992 onwards.
The claim petitioner was irregular in duty and he
continued his habit of absence in duty and he was not
attending even a single day work from January 1994 to
10-02-1994. As per the order, dated 10-02-1994, he was
removed from Badali register from 10-02-1994 because,
he was continuously absent from January 1994 to 10th
February 1994. As per section 2A or 2(k) of Industrial
Disputes Act either the first petitioner or the second
petitioner have no right to file a claim petition or to
raise an industrial dispute before any forum. Therefore,
the issue in the claim petition cannot be decided before
this Court. The Labour Court is not having jurisdiction
to entertain this claim petition. As no claim petition was
filed by the claim petitioner defore raising of dispute,
there is no industrial dispute in existence and the
reference to this Court is bad in law and hence,
782
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 June 2018
this proceedings is not maintainable. The first petitioner
is not having any connection with this respondent and is
not a trade union. The first petitioner has no right to
represent before any Labour Court as per law. As per
section 2A or 2(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, no right
is available a single work man to raise a dispute in the
given circumstances. The claim petitioner had challenged
the order of the management, dated 10-02-1994 before
the Assistant Labour Inspector, Mahe. Consequent to the
petition, there was an agreement signed by the claim
petitioner and management before the Assistant Labour
Officer, Mahe on 14-09-1994 and in that agreement, the
claim petitioner had been reinstated as trained Gate Badli
with effect from 28-09-1994. Evenafter, the agreement
the claim petitioner had never improved his attendance
in duty and he was a chronic and habitual absentee in
duty. The claim- petitioner was permitted to do work as
and when he was present. But, the claim petitioner had
never improved his attendance in duty and he was a
chronic and habitual absentee. Evenafter, the agreement,
the claim petitioner had never improved his attendance
and he has not shown even a sign of improvement and
he continued to be a chronic and habitual absentee. The
claim petitioner is working at All India Radio as a Tabala
Artist and he is attending there regularly and he
occasionally comes to the Mill. The continuous absence
in duty is highly detrimental to the running of the Mill.
The action taken by the Mill is honest, bona fide and fully
justified in the facts and circumstances of the matter.
Even now, on 13-10-2011 the name of the claim
petitioner is borne in trained Gate Badli records and
register and his name is not removed even now. He will
be given work in the Mill as and when there is work to
be allotted to him and the petitioner is present on such
days on which work is available to be allotted to him.
Hence, there is no subject at all to be decided by this
Court as there is no pending dispute in the matter. No
claim petition could be legally filed directly before the
Court as there is no provision for the same in any of the
nature. Hence, the above proceeding is not maintainable.
The claim petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as
prayed in the claim petition. Therefore, prayed this Court
to dismiss the claim petition.
5. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner WW.1 and WW.2 were examined and Ex.P1
was marked. However, evenafter granting sufficient
opportunities WW.2 has not turned up before this Court
for subjecting himself for cross-examination of
respondent side and hence, the oral evidence of WW.2
and Ex.P1 marked through WW.2 was eschewed by this
Court. On the side of the respondent RW.1 was examined
and Ex.R1 was marked. Both sides are heard. The
pleadings of 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 argument notes
was filed and the same was carefully considered. In
support of his case, the learned Counsel for the
respondent has relied upon the order passed in W.P. No.
33756 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 2 of 2012 and 1 of 2013-
All India General Insurance Obc Vs. United India
Insurance Company.
6. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the first petitioner
against the respondent management over termination of
the services of Thiru R.K. Manoharan the second
petitioner is justified or not and if, justified, what is the
relief entitled to the said R.K. Manoharan?
7. It is the evidence of WW.1 that the second
petitioner joined in the service at the respondent
establishment on 16-04-1977 and his muster roll number
is 59 and he was appointed under reservation of the
Schedule Caste community category and that the second
petitioner was not made permanent by the respondent
management and hence, he has asked the management to
give permanent status and instead of appointing him as a
permanent employee, the respondent management
terminated him from service without following the
principles of natural justice and that the second petitioner
is a protected employee as he belongs to Scheduled Caste
in Kerala and only on the caste discrimination the second
petitioner was denied employment on 10-02-1994 and
hence, he raised the Industrial Dispute before the Labour
Department, Puducherry and even then the respondent
management has not reinstated the second petitioner and
only permitted the second petitioner to work as a Gate
Badali and thereafter, the respondent has not provided
sufficient daily work to the second petitioner with a view
to gradually remove the second petitioner from the
position of Gate Badali and that the name of the second
petitioner was also removed from the Badali register in
the month of June-2010 without affording an opportunity
to hear his side and that therefore, the termination made
by the respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary and the
respondent have manipulated and fabricated documents
in order to deny the legitimate right of the second
petitioner. In support of his oral evidence, no document
has been exhibited by WW.l to corroborate the case of
the petitioners.
8. It is the evidence of RW.l that the second petitioner
is not entitled for protection of employment and the
respondent has not shown caste discrimination towards
the second petitioner and the second petitioner was
783
26 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
a chronic and habitual absentee in duty and therefore, the
management has reverted him to Badali as a disciplinary
measure under clause 11 (1) of the Mill standing order
on 09-11-1992 and that after giving warning letter, the
name of the second petitioner was removed from Badali
as he has not completed 70 days of attendance within
3 months from 09-11-1992 onwards and the second
petitioner was irregular in duty and was continuously
absent from January 1994 to 10-02-1994 and his name
was removed from Badali register from 10-02-1994 and
the second petitioner had been reinstated as trained Gate
Badli with effect from 28-09-1994 as per the agreement
made between the management and the second
petitioner on 14-09-1994 and the second petitioner had
never improved his attendance in duty and he was a chronic
and habitual absentee in duty and that the first petitioner
is not having any right to represent before the Labour
Court as it is not a trade union and as per the provision,
a single workman cannot raise the industrial dispute and
that the second petitioner is not entitled for any relief
as claimed by him and that the RW.l has denied the other
evidence of PW.l and in support of his evidence the RW.l
has exhibited the copy of the standing order of the
respondent Mill.
9. From the pleadings and evidence of both the parties
it is clear that the following facts are admitted by either
side that the second petitioner had been in service at the
respondent establishment and he was terminated from
service on 10-02-1994 against which the second
petitioner has raised the Industrial Dispute before the
Conciliation Officer wherein, both the parties have
agreed and the respondent management has accepted to
reinstate the second petitioner as a trained Gate Badly
with effect from 28-09-1994 and that the second
petitioner was permitted to work as a Gate Badli by the
respondent and thereafter, action was taken by the
respondent management in the year 2010 for the absence
of second petitioner who has raised the Industrial
Dispute before the
Conciliation
Officer and the
conciliation was failed and thereafter, the Government
has made the reference to this Court to adjudicate the
dispute.
10. It is the case of the petitioners that the second
petitioner was terminated from service on 10-02-1994
and the second petitioner has and subsequently, the second
petitioner was permitted by the respondent to work as a
Gate Badli and the respondent removed the name of the
second petitioner from Badli register in the month of
June-2010 without giving opportunity to the second
petitioner and that the second petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement and for back wages.
11. It is the contention of the respondent management
that first petitioner is not the union registered under the
Trade union Act and it is only the trust and hence, it
cannot raise the Industrial Dispute and as the first
petitioner is not registered under the Trade Union Act,
it cannot represent the second petitioner and in support
of his contention the learned Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Madras in W.P. No. 33756 of 2012 and M.P.
Nos. 2 of 2012 and 1 of 2013, wherein, it has been held
that,
''.............For the purpose of representing the
workmen, a group must first of all get itself registered
under the Trade Union Act and thereafter, seek for
recognition as held by the Supreme Court in Food
Corporation of India Staff Union Vs. Food Corporation
of India reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 678...."
From the above observation it is clear that registered
Trade Union can represent the workmen. In this case apart
from the first petitioner the second petitioner also has
filed a claim statement. Further, from the reference it is
clear that the plea of the respondent that the first
petitioner is not a registered union and has no locus
standi to raise the dispute has not been taken up before
the Conciliation Officer who has sent the failure report
to the Government and further, the first petitioner also
is a registered trust under the Act and it can represent
the petitioner worker as it has got interest over the
employees and therefore, the contention of the
respondent management that the first petitioner has no
locus standi to raise the Industrial Dispute for the second
petitioner is not sustainable and it cannot be accepted and
therefore, it is to be held that the Industrial Dispute
raised by the second petitioner though, first petitioner
is sustainable.
12. The second contention of the respondent
management is that the second petitioner was a chronic and
habitual absentee in duty and action was taken by the
management and the management reverted him to Badly
as a disciplinary measure under section 11(1) of the standing
order of the Mill, the Ex.R1. It is learnt from claim petition
filed by the second petitioner that after he was terminated
from service on 10-02-1994, he challenged it before, the
Labour Department and then on agreement entered between
the parties, he was permitted to work as a Gate Badly. From
the admission of the respondent management it is clear that
the second petitioner is the employee who had been in
service as a permanent worker at the respondent
establishment and subsequently, he was reverted to Badly
worker in the year 1994 and it is not disputed by the
respondent management that the second petitioner had not
been in service from 16-04-1977 at the respondent
784
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 June 2018
establishment. These facts would go to show that the
second petitioner was in service at the respondent
establishment from 1977 and after 15 years he was reverted
back as Badli worker against which the second petitioner
has raised the Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation
Officer wherein, it was agreed by the respondent
management to reinstate the second petitioner with effect
from 28-09-1994. Though, the respondent management has
contended that the second petitioner was not a permanent
employee of the respondent Mill it is not denied by the
respondent management that the second petitioner has
joined at the respondent establishment in the year 1977 and
he had been service for about 15 years while he was reverted
back as a Badli worker and it is stated by the respondent
management that the second petitioner has not turned up for
work since from June 2010 and however, it was admitted
by RW.1 that till 13-10-2011, the name of the second
petitioner was borne in trained Gate Badli register and his
name has not been removed from the said register even now.
These facts would go to show-that the second petitioner was
in service at the respondent establishment for about
15 years and thereafter, he was reverted as Badli and
subsequently, his name was removed from Badli register in
the month of June-2010 without affording any opportunity
to the second petitioner and thereafter, the first petitioner
as well as the second petitioner has raised the Industrial
Dispute over non-employment of the second petitioner and
for other reliefs. Though, it was stated by the respondent
in the counter that consequent to the petition, there was an
agreement signed by the claim petitioner and management
before the Assistant Labour Officer. Mahe on 14-09-1994
wherein, the claim petitioner had been reinstated as trained
Gate Badli with effect from 28-09-1994 to establish the
same no such agreement was exhibited before this Court
by the respondent.
13.
Further, though, the petitioners had not been
exhibited any documents to prove that the second
petitioner had been in service at the respondent
establishment for about 15 years, then he was reverted by
the management and thereafter he was permitted to work
as Badli, it is admitted by the respondent management
that the second petitioner had been in service at their
establishment and he was reverted back as a Badli Worker
and subsequently, the dispute was arose between the
parties. Further, the respondent management witness
RW.l has stated in his cross examination as follows:
"I do not know the date of appointment of the
petitioner. I have verified the service records of the
petitioner. The petitioner was the permanent
employee thereafter, he was reverted as Badali worker.
It is suggested by the petitioner that the petitioner had
joined on 16-04-1977 at our establishment in simplex
department in master roll No. 59 is denied by me
since I do not know the exact date of appointment.
I could not admit or deny the above facts since, I did
not go through, the records and so far, I have not
verified the records. I do not know the exact date of
termination. If, the employee belonging to Scheduled
Caste, he is entitled for protection. But, I do not know
whether, the petitioner is belonging to Scheduled
Caste or not. We have not received any certificate
from the petitioner that he is belonging to Scheduled
Caste. We did not conduct any domestic enquiry to
terminate the petitioner from service. As per the
certificate produced before this
Court by the
petitioner as Ex.P1.
I cannot confirm that the
petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The certificate
is issued by Tahsildar, Thalassery.
Before, the
petitioner was reverted as Badali Worker from the
permanent service. I do not know whether there was
any domestic enquiry conducted by the management
or not. It is suggested by the petitioner, I am not able
to say anything about the petitioner. Since, I have
not produced any records is denied by me. The
suggestion that we have not conducted any proper
enquiry against the petitioner before terminating the
petitioner is denied by me".
From the above evidence, it is clear and corroborated
by RW.1 that the second petitioner had been in
service at the respondent establishment as a permanent
worker and subsequently, he was reverted back as Badli
Worker and that the respondent management has not
conducted any domestic enquiry against the second
petitioner for the misconduct of unauthorised absence
before terminating the second petitioner from service
and even they have not issued any show-cause notice or
charge-memo.
regarding the alleged
unauthorised
absence claimed by the respondent management in their
counter and therefore, from the evidence of RW.1 it is
corroborated that the second petitioner had been in
service at the respondent establishment as a permanent
worker from
16-04-1977 and without conducting
enquiry and without giving opportunity, the second
petitioner was terminated from service.
14. Further, except the said standing order no
document is exhibited before this
Court
by the
respondent management to establish that opportunities
were given to the second petitioner before reverting him
as a Badli Worker though, he had been in service for
about 15 years at the respondent establishment and to
establish that the second petitioner has committed
unauthorized absence from duty. Admittedly, no domestic
enquiry was conducted by the respondent management
785
26 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
before removing the name of the second petitioner from
the Badli register and it is also not established by the
respondent management that the second petitioner was
in continuous absence in attending the duty by filing the
attendance register before this Court and that therefore,
it is to be inferred that the second petitioner has not
committed any misconduct of unauthorised absence and
hence, it is decided that the industrial dispute raised by
the first petitioner against the respondent management
over termination of the services of second petitioner is
justified.
15. As this Court has decided that the industrial dispute
raised by the first petitioner against the respondent
management over termination of the services of second
petitioner is justified, it is to be decided whether the
second petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as claimed
by the petitioners. It is learnt from the records the
deposition which was eschewed by this Court that the
second petitioner
might have attained the age of
superannuation and therefore, now, the second petitioner
could not be reinstated by the respondent management.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
considering the age of the second petitioner, the order of
reinstatement would not be passed by this Tribunal and
hence, compensation has to be fixed tentatively. Therefore,
considering the above-facts and circumstances and the long
period of litigation pending before this Tribunal, this
Tribunal is inclined to pass an Award directing the
respondent management to pay the compensation of
` 3,00.000 (Rupees three lakhs only) to the second
petitioner for the unlawful termination of his service.
16. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the first petitioner against
the respondent management over termination of the
services of second petitioner Thiru R.K. Manoharan is
justified and Award is passed directing the respondent
management to pay the compensation of ` 3.00,000
(Rupees three lakhs only) to the second petitioner for
the unlawful termination of his service. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 06th day of March, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
WW.1 —09-02-2012 — Lakshmanan Panakkadan
WW.2 —09-02-2012 — R.K. Manoharan
(eschewed)
List of petitioner’s exhibit:
Ex.P1 — 12-01-2012 — True copy of community
(eschewed)
certificate
issued
by
Tahsildar, Thalassery to
the second petitioner
R.K. Manoharan.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 16-02-2018— S.S. Vasan
List of respondent’s exhibit:
Ex.R1 — 1967
— Copy of Standing Order,
Cannanore Spinning and
Weaving Mill Limited,
Unit No. 11.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
}|{
S.