La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 25-00
Prix : ` 25-00
Price :
` 25-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1062
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1062
Award of the Labour Court
..1062
de Tribunal.
.. 1080
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1080
Government Notifications
..1080
.. 1084
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1084
Tender notices
..1084
.. 1092
Etablissements dangereux
.. 1092
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1092
.. 1093
Annonces
.. 1093
Announcements
..1093
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 : 28-8-2018
Price : ` 25-00
[ 1061 ]
2018 }
|
28 {
No.
35
Poudouchéry
Mardi
28
Août
2018 (6 Bhadra 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
28th
August
2018
1062
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 78/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 15th May 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 09/2013, dated
28-03-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Leo Fasteners and
Thiru D. Gurunathan, over non-employment has been
received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the
notification issued in Labour Department's G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Deputy Labour Commissioner.
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.com, M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 28th day of March, 2013
I.D. (L) No. 09/2013
Thiru D. Gurunathan,
16A, Iyyanar Koil Street,
Ulandaikeerapalayam,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Occupier,
M/s. Leo Fasteners,
No. 27-A, Industrial Estate,
Thattanchavady,
Puducherry-605 009.
. .
Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 21-03-2018 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru L. Vinoba,
Advocate for the petitioner and M/s. Vrintha Mohan,
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. 11/AIL/Lab./J/2013,
dated 11-02-2013 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether
the
dispute
raised
by
Thiru
D. Gurunathan against the management of M/s. Leo
Fasterners, Puducherry, over his non-employment is
justified ?
(ii) If justified, what relief the workman is
entitled?
(iii) 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 is a worker in the respondent company
M/s. Leo Fasteners, Puducherry which is one of the
leading manufacturing industry functioning at Puducherry
for few decades. The petitioner was employed as 'Helper'
vide appointment order, dated 19-08-2002 and working
in the said industry for the past 8 years. The petitioner is
now a permanent workman employed in "Tapping" Section.
The petitioner is the "President" of 'Leo Fasteners Labour
Welfare Union actively participating in the day-to-day
affairs of the union. The respondent with arbitrary power
kept the workmen at its mercy depriving their basic
privileges and such act comes under unfair Labour practice
on part of the respondent as per the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner agitated before the
respondent for all the basic amenities and needs of the
workers through the union, by which he gathered the
displeasure of the management. The respondent has caused
a charge-sheet, dated 09-04-2010 on the petitioner
alleging that the petitioner was absent on 22-02-2010 and
continued his absence from 23-02-2010 without any
intimation. The petitioner requested 10 days time vide
letter, dated 15-04-2010 which was refused by the
respondent vide letter, dated 17-04-2010. The petitioner
has requested the respondent to initiate domestic enquiry
and induct him to work pending enquiry vide letter,
dated 17-04-2010. The respondent has initiated domestic
enquiry as against the petitioner by suspending him vide
suspension order, dated 06-05-2010. The petitioner has
submitted his explanation, dated 20-07-2010 with relevant
documents by denying the allegations levelled by the
respondent in charge-sheet before the Enquiry Officer.
The petitioner contested the domestic enquiry tooth and
nail, by producing relevant documents and proved beyond
reasonable doubt that there is no mischief on his part by
the own admissions of the witnesses produced by the
respondent during cross-examination. Despite the fact,
1063
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the Enquiry Officer who danced to the tunes of the
respondent, without going through the admissions made
by the witnesses produced by the respondent, advised that
the petitioner was found guilty vide his report, dated
20-01-2012. The respondent on the strength of the
enquiry report,
dated 20-01-2012 terminated the
petitioner on 17-04-2012. The petitioner was not
regularly provided with subsistence allowance pending
enquiry. The p etitioner has raised a conciliation
proceeding before the Labour Officer, (Conciliation)
on 18-07-2012. On receipt of the representation,
conciliation was initiated. The respondent in order to
precipitate the conciliation proceedings, had issued a
cheque bearing number 966330 for a sum of ` 54,290
towards Full and Final settlement (terminal dues including
subsistence allowance). The petitioner has refused to
accept the settlement and returned the cheque to the
respondent. The Labour Officer (Conciliation) too
warned the respondent not to indulge in such activities
pending conciliation proceedings and instructed the
respondent to pay the subsistence allowance. The respondent
again issued two cheques bearing numbers 966351 and
966350 for a sum of ` 16,103 and ` 38,187 respectively
towards subsistence allowance and terminal benefits.
The petitioner en-cashed the cheque bearing number
966351 for a sum of ` 16,103 issued towards subsistence
allowance and returned the cheque bearing Number 966350
for a sum of ` 38,187. The conciliation proceedings ended
in failure and therefore, the matter was referred before
this Hon'ble Court as stated above.
Further, the petitioner prays this Court to decide the
matter on the grounds that the petitioner is a permanent
employee working in the respondent establishment for
the past eight years. The petitioner was a workaholic
performing the work assigned to him with utmost care to
the satisfaction of the respondent management with
blemish less record. The petitioner was resisted from
entering the factory premises from 23-02-2010 and he
was not assigned any work. The petitioner was served with
a charge-sheet, dated 09-04-2010 despite satisfactory
replies given and domestic enquiry was initiated. Though
the petitioner proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was
innocent of the allegations leveled in the charge-sheet he
was terminated on 17-04-2012 against the principles of
natural justice. Therefore, he has to be reinstated with
back wages and continuity in service. The respondent
management was registered under the Factories Act and
they employed more than 120 workmen and they come
under the definition of industrial employment (Standing
orders) act to the conditions of discharge, disciplinary
etc., of the workmen employed in the industry, there is no
standing order in operation of the industry. Therefore,
prescribed model standing orders shall be deemed to be
adopted in the industry. The punishment against the
workmen is completely contradicting the model standing
orders. The petitioner being the President of the 'Leo
Fasteners Labour Welfare Union' is bound to question the
high handedness of the respondent management when they
terminated 09 employees without assigning any reason
which fact was established during the domestic enquiry.
The employers were forced to agitate against the
respondent to safeguard their legitimate rights. The respondent
with the help of Police attacked the employees and resisted
them from entering into the Industry. The respondent
management taking into consideration of the petitioner
who came to the rescue of the terminated employees
resisted him from entering the Industry. Further, all the
request and the pleas of the workmen to resume work have
been refused and rejected by the management without
offering fair opportunity to justify his stand. The petitioner
has agitated against the management only when 9 employees
were terminated from their employment for no obvious
reasons. The industry was closed till 04-04-2010
by the management and therefore, the allegation that the
respondent willfully absented himself for more than 10
days is a sheer product of imagination recited on advice
to victimize the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended
only after initiation of conciliation proceedings in I.D.
No. 637/2010 /LO(C) /AIL which was closed by the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) on representation by the respondent
that domestic enquiry is going to be commenced. The
respondent with the intention to settle the scores had
foisted false charges against the petitioner under
charge-sheet, dated 09-04-2010 stating that the petitioner
has breached the relevant provisions of the standing orders.
Domestic enquiry was initiated with false charges in a
haste to satisfy the management's ego stimulated by reply
letter, dated 06-04-2010 issued by the petitioner who
requested to initiate enquiry to substantiate his claims and
contentions. The motive of the respondent management
is to curb the natural instinct of the employees from
agitating to safeguard their legitimate rights. The
respondent management's attitude exposes violation of
the principles of natural justice. The reply letters issued
by the petitioner, dated 23-03-2010 and 06-04-2010
would expose the fact that despite the petitioner expressed
his willingness to work, but he was neither permitted to
meet the management staffs nor assigned any work. There
is no justifiable reason to initiate domestic enquiry.
Charges were foisted in the charge-sheet, dated 09-04-2010
and domestic enquiry was initiated only after a reply
letter, dated 23-03-2010 addressed by the petitioner. The
petitioner was suspended only after he had raised
conciliation proceedings in I.D. No. 637/2010/LO(C)/
1064
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
AIL, before the Labour Officer (Conciliation). The period
of delay in issuing the charge-sheet was utilized by the
management to create and manipulate evidence against the
petitioner. The Enquiry Officer who conducted the
enquiry acted biasedly to benefit the
respondent
management. The copies of the documents relied and
submitted on the side of the respondent management were
not verified with original even after repeated demands
made by the petitioner. Further, certain documents were
not produced by the management which are vital for the
petitioner to disprove the charges levelled against him. The
petitioner was not allowed to have the defence assistance
of his own choice. Further, the Enquiry Officer failed to
record the petitioner's version and even the petitioner is
deprived of the right of cross examining the respondent's
witness. The evidence adduced by the management in the
enquiry is not convincing and the documentary evidences
produced before the Enquiry Officer is not relevant to the
charges levelled against the petitioner. The evidences were
created with ulterior motive to terminate the petitioner
at once. The respondent in order to put an end to the union
activity of the petitioner fabricated the charge-sheet stating
that the petitioner is indulging in activities against the
provisions of the standing orders. No fair opportunity was
offered to the petitioner during the domestic enquiry. The
respondent in the course of enquiry acted biased, the
management witnesses stated their evidence collectively
which is not fair and the process of cross-examination
is also conducted unfairly. The petitioner evidences
were not allowed to establish the real facts and they were
shut from exhibiting the real facts. There is no fair play
of justice in conducting the domestic enquiry, it is
deliberately orchestrated by the respondent and the
Enquiry Officer too danced the tunes of the respondent in
order to terminate him deceitfully on the strength of the
fabricated evidences. The attitude of the respondent
management is to terminate the workmen due to his
involvement in union activities. The petitioner is innocent
of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, dated
09-04-2010 and yet he is being punished due to his
involvement in union activities which displeased the
respondent. The respondent's objective and purpose is to
keep the petitioner out of the Industry, thereby to put an
end to his legitimate union activities. The petitioner
therefore, prayed this Court to reinstate him with
continuity of service and pay full back wages from the
date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent is a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Indian Companies Act. It is a leading
manufacturer of fasteners for the automotive industry.
The annual turnover of the company is about ` 75 crores.
It has saved the Indian nation large amounts of foreign
exchange as it has developed import substitute parts for
automotive industries. The respondent is a leading
manufacturer making nut blanks and heat treatment for
the automotive industry and supports and does job work
for Leo Fasteners Unit-II also. All the contract of the
company for supply of its goods to its customers is time
bound and requires to be completed within a stipulated
period of time and failure of which could cause heavy loss
and damages to it apart from loss of business and
cancellation of orders and that even a casual delay in
supply of materials causes incalculable and unimaginable
hardship and prejudice, in addition to huge monetary loss
and therefore, it is very important that the respondent runs
the unit non-stop with utmost decency, discipline ethics
and performs its obligations without any demur. The
petitioner and the respondent herein are well governed by
the 'Model Standing Orders'. All the allegations contained
in the claim statement are denied except those that are
specifically admitted. The reference is bad in law and not
maintainable and deserves to be rejected in limini. There
is no believable reason or logic to allege against the
respondent management that it against its own employees.
No reasonable management which had invested huge
capital will go against its employees against their
betterment or against its own employer who are working
for its profit and progress. The petitioner was appointed as
Helper on 19-08-2002 and was made permanent
on 20-08-2004. The petitioner is a chronic absentee right from
the beginning and that he used to take long leaves on false
pretext or another. The respondent management had
pardoned him umpteen number of times for such behaviors
and the management was always helpful to him in times
of his need and even on 01-02-2008 when he sought for
loan of 1 Lakh rupees with this respondent through the
State Bank of India, the management got it done through
Loan Number 30430897585 and that he was also extended
assistance in the L1C policy under Salary Saving Scheme
in Policy Number 732546409. The petitioner apart from
his other misconducts had with high handedness started
to threaten co-workers to join his group for reasons best
known to him and that he was served with notices for the
said charge on 05-08-2008 for which the petitioner sought
a extension of time without reply and thereafter, gave a
unconditional 'Good Conduct Assurance' on 13-08-2008.
Under the above back drop the petitioner indulged in
unlawful activities in and around the premises of the
respondent herein and on 22-02-2010 he was arrested by
the SHO, D Nagar in Crime No.70/2010 since, the
petitioner and some of his co-workers willfully and
voluntarily indulged in an unlawful and illegal strike
disobeying an order of Injunction, dated 30-04-2009
1065
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
passed by the Hon'ble Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry
in I.A. 290/2009 in O.S. 63/2009 and thereafter, the
petitioner unauthorisedly abstained from the work without
any intimation or permission. However, on humanitarian
grounds on 04-03-2010 the respondent had called up the
petitioner to report for duty immediately on receipt of
this letter, for which there was no response from the
petitioner and belatedly on 23-03-2010 the petitioner
submitted a reply stating that the petitioner had
participated in the unauthorized and illegal strike as
against the management from 22-02-2010 beside the
petitioner also gave malicious and evasive replies that the
management is preventing the petitioner from work but
on the reality the petitioner had deliberately continued
his unauthorized absence from work and thereafter, this
reply was not satisfactory the respondent on 30-03-2010
again gave a chance for the petitioner to give suitable
explanations for his unauthorized absence from work for
which the respondent herein received a malicious
reply, dated 06-04-2010 in which the petitioner had once
again accepted his involvement in the illegal strike and
that the petitioner insisted that the respondent shall
conduct a domestic enquiry as against him. It was
constrained to issue a detailed charge-sheet, dated 09-04-2010
with a show cause as against the petitioner which was
received by the petitioner on 10-04-2010 and on 16-04-2010,
the petitioner sought an adjournment of 10 days for
replying to the show cause notice for which the
management extended the time and thereafter on 17-04-2010
the petitioner gave a reply with mala fideness and falsities
besides admitting the illegal strike and voluntarily
requested for conducting a domestic enquiry. Thereafter,
since the explanation offered by the petitoner was not
reasonable, he was suspended. Thereafter, in accordance
with the legal principles enshrined under the Labour Laws
coupled with the principles of natural justice a domestic
Enquiry Officer, Advocate Ashok Kumar was appointed
on 06-05-2010 and the notice of enquiry was served on
the petitioner and the enquiry date was also intimated to
the petitioner duly by a letter and all the legal formalities
were duly complied with and the Enquiry Officer conducted
the enquiry in utmost evenhandedness and by adhering to
all the essential principles of natural justice, equity and
fair play. The domestic enquiry was conducted in a free
and fair manner giving full opportunity to the petitioner
to defend himself from 13-05-2010 to 20-08-2011.
The Enquiry Officer had explained the entire proceedings
in detail to the petitioner in vernacular and the petitioner
had revealed that it was understood by him. The Enquiry
Officer permitted the petitioner to peruse the documents
relied on by the respondent and even copies of the
documents were provided after due verification with the
originals before the petitioner herein. The Enquiry Officer
offered permission to the petitioner to engage defense
assistance of his choice which was also acknowledged and
accepted by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer explained
to the petitioner that he has right of cross-examination of
respondent's witness which was also acknowledged and
accepted by the petitioner and acted upon. The entire
enquiry proceedings were conducted in Tamil which is
the mother tongue of the petitioner with which he is
conversant. The day to day proceeding notes of the
domestic enquiry were duly signed by the petitioner
without protest and agitation thus acknowledging the
fairness of the proceedings. The enquiry report was based
on the appreciation of the entire materials placed on
record by either of the parties by applying the established
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The
enquiry report was served on the petitioner which was duly
received by him and that adequate and reasonable
opportunity was granted to submit his explanation on the
enquiry report. The order of dismissal was a cumulative
decision taking into consideration all the aspects that were
involved in the case including the past conduct of
petitioner. In the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner
categorically admitted the fact that he had conspired with
the other co-workers for staging a illegal and unwarranted,
unlawful strike as against the respondent/ management and
had also meticulously participated in the strike and had
also remained unauthorizedly absent from 22-02-2010
and had taken part in the illegal strike as against the order
of injunction dated 30-04-2009 by the Hon'ble Additional
Sub-Judge, Puducherry in O.S. No. 63/2009. Thereafter,
the Enquiry Officer submitted his detailed report, dated
20-01-2012 analyzing the charges levelled against the
petitioner in the light of the available records and
evidences and more importantly the admissions made by
petitioner during enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry
Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was
guilty of the charges levelled against him in accordance
with the model standing orders. Immediately after the
conclusion of the enquiry proceedings it issued a notice
along with the domestic enquiry report to the petitioner
on 07-03-2012 which was duly received by the petitioner
on 08-03-2012 and the respondent on 28-03-2012 sent
a 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner seeking for
explanation and that the show cause notice was
acknowledged by the petitioner and a bald, malicious,
fictions reply, dated 05-04-2012 was furnished on the
respondent and since the petitioner did not give any valid,
reasonable or sufficient cause or explanation and the
respondent has no other alternative but, to terminate the
petitioner from services on 17-04-2012. The petitioner
was removed from the services for a grave misconduct of
1066
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
absenteeism, which was admitted by him in an independent
and impartial domestic enquiry. Therefore, the dismissal
of petitioner from service is fully justified and warrants
non interference of this Court. Even after the petitioner
was charge-sheeted and domestic enquiry was conducted,
he remained unauthorizedly absent and never showed any
inclination to report to duty. The petitioner did not even
respond to the 2nd show cause notice or the termination
order, which by itself shows that he had actually abandoned
his employment and was not inclined to resume duty.
Hence, the petitioner's dismissal was absolutely justified.
Apart from financial loss, the acts of the petitioner were
also leading to frustration amongst the regular employees
as the absenteeism was causing additional burden of work
on those employees. The petitioner was terminated only
in accordance with the principles of natural justice and
that he was given an opportunity to explain the show cause
notice issued by the management but, the explanation
tendered by him was unjust, unreasonable and
non-convincing. The judicious appreciation of the facts and
circumstances of the case of the petitioner, a strong
disciplinary action is highly warranted since, the conduct
and chain of events enacted by the petitioner showed no
willful inclination or orientation towards employment
with the respondent's organization despite enjoying
warnings and pardons umpteen number of times as a result
of which the respondent was left with no other alternative
than to impose a maximum punishment of dismissal from
service. The respondent management had paid the
'Subsistence Allowance' to the petitioner as was laid by
the parameters of Labour Laws. The petitioner is put to
strict proof to show that on the date when he was
terminated, the conciliation proceedings concerning him
or connected to him was pending. The industry was closed
till 04-04-2010 as was maliciously stated by the
petitioner. The petitioner had not shown any inclination
or willingness to work with the employment of the
respondent even during the enquiry period and all the
contrary allegations are mala fide fantasies. The story of
the petitioner about the trade union and his involvement
in it and the managements intensions to terminate him
due to his involvement in the union activities are false
and stories invented by him to cover up his misconduct
leading to termination. The prayer by the petitioner for
reinstatement with full back wages and monetory benefits
is unjust and illegal since, the question of reinstatement
would not arise as he was legally terminated on just and
fair grounds. The petitioner having accumulated technical
skill and know how is employed for higher remuneration
in a different company and that he had not whispered in
the entirety of the petition that he is jobless and hence,
the question of back wages and monetory benefits would
not arise.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the petitioner
PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked
and on the side of the respondent RW.1 was examined and
Ex.R1 to Ex.R37 were 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.
5. 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?
6. On the point :
In order to prove his case the petitioner has examined
himself as PW.1 and he has stated all the facts which are
stated in the claim petition and it is the evidence of the
petitioner PW.1 that he was working at the respondent
establishment as Helper for the past 8 years as permanent
workman in "Tapping" Section and that the petitioner is
the President of Leo Fasteners Labour Welfare Union and
that the petitioner agitated before the respondent for all
the basic amenities and needs of the workers through the
union and to victimize the petitioner the respondent has
caused a charge-sheet on 09-04-2010 alleging that the
petitioner was absent on 22-02-2010 and continued his
absence from 23-02-2010 without any intimation and that
though he asked 10 days time for reply, his request was
refused by the respondent on 17-04-2010 and domestic
enquiry was ordered and domestic enquiry was initiated
against the petitioner by suspending him and that though
he submitted his explanation with relevant documents
by denying the allegations levelled against him in the
charge-sheet before the Enquiry Officer the management
has ordered for the domestic enquiry wherein, it was
proved by the petitioner that there is no mischief
committed by him and the Enquiry Officer danced to the
tunes of the respondent and he submitted the report on
20-01-2012 stating that the petitioner was found guilty
and that therefore, the management has terminated the
petitioner on 17-04-2012 and that subsistence allowance
was not paid regularly to the petitioner and that therefore,
conciliation was raised by the petitioner on 18-07-2012
and precipitate the conciliation proceedings wherein a
cheque was issued for a sum of ` 54,290.00 towards Full
and Final settlement which was refused by the petitioner
and returned the cheque to the respondent and that the
respondent management was also advised and warned by
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) that not to indulge in
such activities pending conciliation proceedings and
instructed the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance
and that therefore, the subsistence allowance was paid to
1067
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the tune of ` 16,103 towards subsistence allowance and
another cheque issued by the management towards
terminal benefits was returned by the petitioner and the
conciliation was failed and the matter has been referred
to this Court.
7. In support of his case the petitioner has exhibited
Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the copy of the
representations sent by Leo Fasteners Unit-II Labour
union to the Labour Secretary, Puducherry, the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Puducherry and to the Managing
Director, Leo Fasteners Unit-II. Ex.P4 is the copy of the
returned postal cover. Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are the copy of
the conciliation proceedings raised by Leo Fasteners Unit-
II. Ex.P7 is the copy of the reply given by Leo Fasteners
management on 09-06-2010. Ex.P8 is the copy of the
explanation given by the petitioner with acknowledgment
card, dated 06-04-2010. Ex.P9 is the copy of the
representation given by the petitioner with acknowledgment
card, dated 15-04-2010. Ex.P10 is the copy of the letter
given by the management to the petitioner on 17-04-2010.
Ex.P11 is the copy of the letter given by the petitioner to
the management on 17-04-2010. These documents would
reveal the fact that the Labour union has sent a letter to
the
Labour
Secretary, Puducherry, Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Puducherry and to the Managing Director,
Leo Fasteners Unit-II and the letter sent by the petitioner
was returned as unclaimed and conciliation proceedings
was raised by the union for which the management has
submitted a reply on 09-06-2010. Further, the documents
would reveal the fact that the union has made a
complaint against the non-compliance with the
provisions of Factories Act of the respondent management
and has claimed to provide safety measures like hand
gloves, goggles, mask and appropriate first aid and
ambulance facilities, canteen facility and for proper
drinking water with sufficient dining facilities and to
repair and relay the damaged unsafety electric wiring.
8. On the side of the respondent management the
HR-Manager of the respondent establishment was
examined as RW.1 and he has reiterated the counter
statement filed by the respondent management. It is the
evidence of the RW.1 that they are the leading
manufacturer of fasteners for the automotive industry and
making nut blanks and heat treatment for the automotive
industry and that the petitioner and the respondent are well
governed by the Model Standing Orders and that the
petitioner is a chronic absentee right from the beginning
and used to take long leaves on false pretext or another
and the management had pardoned him number of times
for such behaviours and the management was always
helpful to him in times of his need and even
on 01-02-2008 when he sought for loan it was arranged
by the management through State Bank of India and he
was also extended assistance in other Schemes and that
apart from the misconducts the petitioner had with high
handedness started to threaten co-workers to join his group
for the reasons best known to the petitioner and he was
served with notices for the said charge on 05-08-2008
and that on 13-08-2008 unconditional good conduct
assurance was given by the petitioner and thereafter the
petitioner indulged in unlawful activities in and around
the premises of the respondent herein and on 22-02-2010
he was arrested by the SHO, D Nagar in Crime No.70/
2010 since, the petitioner and some of his co-workers
willfully and voluntarily indulged in an unlawful and illegal
strike disobeying an order of Injunction passed by the
Hon'ble
Additional Sub-Judge,
Puducherry
and
thereafter, the petitioner unauthorisedly abstained from
the work without any intimation or permission and on
humanitarian grounds on 04-03-2010 the management had
called upon the petitioner to report for duty for which
there was no response from the petitioner and belatedly
on 23-03-2010 the petitioner submitted a reply stating
that the petitioner had participated in the unauthorized and
illegal strike as against the management from 22-02-2010
and as the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory the
respondent on 30-03-2010 again gave a chance for the
petitioner to give suitable explanations for his
unauthorized absence from work for which the respondent
herein received a malicious reply from the petitioner
wherein he has accepted his involvement in the illegal
strike and that the petitioner insisted that the respondent
shall conduct a domestic enquiry as against him and
detailed charge-sheet, dated 09-04-2010 with a show
cause was issued against the petitioner which was received
by the petitioner on 10-04-2010 and on 16-04-2010 for
which the petitioner gave a reply with mala fideness and
falsities besides admitting the illegal strike and
voluntarily requested for conducting a domestic enquiry
and as the explanation offered by the petitioner was not
reasonable, he was suspended and enquiry notice was
served on the petitioner and enquiry was initiated against
the petitioner after following the legal formalities and
that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a free and fair
manner giving full opportunity to the petitioner to defend
himself from 13-05-2010 to 20-08-2011 and the Enquiry
Officer also had explained the entire proceedings of the
domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer permitted the
petitioner to peruse the documents relied on by the
respondent and even copies of the documents were
furnished after due verification with the originals and the
Enquiry Officer also has given permission to the petitioner
to engage defense assistance of his choice and the same
1068
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
was also acknowledged and accepted by the petitioner and
that the entire enquiry proceedings were conducted in
Tamil and the same was signed by the petitioner without
protest and that the petitioner himself acknowleged the
fairness of the proceedings and that the enquiry report
was based on the appreciation of the entire materials and
reasonable opportunity was granted after the enquiry
report was furnished to him to submit his explanation and
that this petitioner had conspired with the other
co-workers for staging a illegal and unwarranted, unlawful
strike as against the respondent management and had also
meticulously participated in the strike and had also
remained unauthorizedly absent from 22-02-2010 and had
taken part in the illegal strike as against the order of
injunction, dated 30-04-2009 by the Hon'ble Additional
Sub-Judge, Pondicherry and that the Enquiry Officer came
to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the
charges levelled against him in accordance with the model
standing orders.
9. In support of their evidence the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R37. Ex.R1 is
the copy of the good conduct assurance signed by the
petitioner on 13-08-2008. Ex.R2 is the copy of the letter
sent by the respondent to the petitioner as reply for
letter, dated 04-03-2010. Ex.R3 is the copy of the 1st
show cause notice, dated 09-04-2010. Ex.R4 is the copy
of letter of authorization, dated 29-12-2017. Ex.R5 is
the copy of the appointment letter, dated 19-08-2002.
Ex.R6 is the copy of the service standing order, dated
19-11-2003. Ex.R7 is the letter of the ESI Manager regarding
the petitioner's signature, dated 19-11.2003. Ex.R8 is the
copy of the permission letter of the petitioner asking 20
days leave. Ex.R9 is the copy of the permission letter of
the petitioner asking for a sitting job for a period of
3 months, dated 07-12-2005. Ex.R10 is the copy of the
confirmation letter, dated 15-07-2008. Ex.R11 is the
copy of the service standing orders, dated 29-07-2008.
Ex.R12 is the copy of the letter sent by the petitioner to
the respondent requesting time for reply for the, dated
05-08-2008. Ex.R13 is the copy of the explanation letter
sent by the respondent to the petitioner for the letter,
dated 06-08-2008. Ex.R14 is the copy of the letter sent
by the petitioner to the respondent, dated 04-03-2010.
Ex.R15 is the copy of the unclaimed returned postal cover,
dated 11-03-2010. Ex.R16 is the copy of the letter sent
by the petitioner to the respondent on 30-03-2010.
Ex.R17 is the copy of the letter sent by the respondent to
the petitioner as reply for the letter, dated 30-03-2010.
Ex.R18 is the copy of the letter sent by the respondent to
the petitioner as reply to the letter, dated 09-04-2010.
Ex.R19 is the copy of the letter sent by the petitioner to
the respondent as reply to the letter, dated 15-04-2010.
Ex.R20 is the copy of the letter sent by the respondent to
the petitioner as reply to the letter, dated 15-04-2010.
Ex.R21 is the copy of the letter sent by the respondent
to the Enquiry Officer, Leo Fasteners on 29-09-2011.
Ex.R22 is the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer,
dated 20-01-2012. Ex.R23 is the copy of the letter
intimating the result of the domestic enquiry report sent
by the petitioner to the respondent on 07-03-2012.
Ex.R24 is the copy of the second show cause notice sent
by the respondent to the petitioner, dated 28-03-2012.
Ex.R25 is the copy of the letter sent through FAX by the
petitioner to the respondent regarding the enquiry
report, dated 05-04-2012. Ex.R26 is the copy of the
letter of dismissal sent by the respondent to the petitioner
on 17-04-2012. Ex.R27 is the notice of remarks from
office of the Labour Officer (Conciliation) regarding
the petitioner, dated 19-07-2012. Ex.R28 is the notice
of remarks from office of the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) to the respondent, dated 08-08-2012.
Ex.R29 is the copy of the letter sent by the respondent to
the petitioner regarding the non-payment of subsistence
allowance from Feb. 2012 to 17-04-2012 along with
calculation and cheque copy. Ex.R30 is the copy of the
letter sent by the respondent to the office of the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) on 28-08-2012. Ex.R31 is the
copy of the letter, dated 27-08-2012 sent by the
petitioner to the respondent returning the cheque. Ex.R32
is the copy of the letter, dated 05-09-2012 sent by the
respondent to the petitioner with 2 separate cheques for
subsistence allowance and terminal benefits. Ex.R33 is
the copy of the letter, dated 11-09-2012 sent by the
petitioner to the respondent. Ex.R34 is the copy of the
letter, dated 11-09-2012 sent by the petitioner to the
Office of the Labour Officer (Conciliation). Ex.R35 is
the copy of the explanation letter, dated 16-11-2012 sent
by the respondent to the Office of the Labour Officer
(Conciliation). Ex.R36 is the copy of the report, dated
18-01-2013 on failure of conciliation sent by the Office
of the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to the Secretary to
Government (Labour).
Ex.R37 is the copy of the
notice of hearing, dated 08-03-2013 from the Hon'ble
Labour Court, Puducherry.
10. From the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 and exhibits
marked on their side it can be noticed that the following
facts are admitted by either side that the petitioner was
working at the respondent establishment as permanent
worker and there was a strike for some demands on 22-02-2010
and that the petitioner was charged for unauthorized
absence and domestic Enquiry Officer was appointed to
decide unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 23-02-2010
and enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer wherein,
1069
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the petitioner has participated and the Enquiry Officer
has submitted the report found guilty of the charges
against the petitioner and thereafter the show cause notice
was given to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner
was terminated from service by the respondent
management.
11. It is the main contention of the petitioner that
domestic enquiry has not been conducted properly and it
is not conducted in accordance with the principles of
natural justice and is not fair on the ground that even the
charge was framed under the model standing order while
the company is having its own certified service standing
order and furthermore, the second contention of the
petitioner is that punishment given by the respondent
management for the alleged misconduct of unauthorized
absence is highly disproportionate and therefore the
termination order passed by the management is not
sustainable and the petitioner is entitled for the order of
reinstatement as claimed in the claim statement with back
wages.
12. In respect of the first contention, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted the argument that
the disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner
only on the model standing order not under the service
standing order of the respondent company. Though the
respondent industry having its service standing order they
have not followed it and hence, the charges levelled against
the petitioner itself is not sustainable. On this aspect the
learned Counsel has pointed out that the enquiry report
under Ex.R22 would reveal the fact that the petitioner was
charged under the model standing order and the charge
has not been levelled against the petitioner under the
certified service standing order of the company. The
charges levelled against the petitioner have been stated in
the enquiry report under Ex.R22 in which the portion of
it runs as follows :
"The above-mentioned activity of yours are grave in
nature, if proved are equivalent to the following
misconducts according the model standing orders,
1. Voluntarily, individually or collectively not obeying
the orders of the Supervisors, Standing Order No:14 (3) (a).
2. Remaining in absenteeism for more than days.
Standing order : 14(3)(c).
3. Habituated Prohibition of the rules and regulations
of the management. Standing Order No.:14 (3) (g).
4. Indulging in disciplinary activities during the
working hours. 14(3)(h).
5. Involving in strike illegally, prohibiting the rules,
intimidating others to involve in strike. Standing Order
No.:14 (3) (k).
If, proved true, the charges above which are levelled
against you are serious misconducts according to model
standing orders."
From the above it is clear that the petitioner was
charged only under the model standing order and the
petitioner was charged for the misconduct under clause 14
(3) (a), 14 (3) (c), 14 (3) (g), 14 (3) (h) and 14 (3) (k) of
the model standing order. It is the case of the petitioner
that the respondent management having its own service
standing order and the employees were given service
standing order at the time of their appointment and when
they became permanent.
The RW.1 in his cross
examination has stated as follows :
"………
Standing Order
Standing Order-
Standing Order
charge-
sheet-
model
standing order-
standing order-
standing order-
model standing order-
standing order-
model standing order-
standing order
(a), (b), (c), (g), (h), (k)
standing
order-
ESI-
Misconduct, Misbehave-
……."
From the above evidence of RW.1, it is clear that the
respondent management has accepted that they are having
service standing order and the same was furnished to the
employees at the time of their appointment and they have
to be acted according to the service standing order and
the charges have not been levelled as per the service
standing order against the petitioner and the charge
mentioned under clause 14 (3) (a), 14 (3) (c), 14 (3) (g),
14 (3) (h) and 14 (3) (k) have not been in the service
standing order and clause 14 would speak only about the
ESI contribution and it has not spoken any misconduct or
1070
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
misbehavior of the employees and RW.1 has corroborated
the same by perusing the service standing order of the
company in the above evidence. Furthermore, the
respondent management has exhibited the service standing
orders of the company as Ex.R6 and Ex.R11 respectively
which were given to the petitioner at the time of his
appointment and when he was given permanent status by
the respondent management and these copies are furnished
by the management to the petitioner with the direction to
follow it in their service. While so, the charges were
framed against the petitioner without following the service
standing order of the respondent company and charges
were framed only on the model standing order cannot be
tenable.
13. Further, from Ex.R34 the letter sent by the
petitioner to the Labour Conciliation Officer, it is learnt
to this Tribunal that the petitioner has challenged the
service standing order on 19-08-2010 in the enquiry. The
RW.1 in his cross examination has further stated as follows :
"………Model
Standing
Order-
Standing Order-
Model
Standing
Order-
Standing Order-
…….".
From the above evidence it is clear that the respondent
management is having service standing order and while
so the charges have not been framed under the respondent's
own service standing order which was admitted by RW.1
in his evidence after perusing the service standing order
of the company which was exhibited as Ex.R6 and Ex.R11
that the charges mentioned in the clause XIV of the service
standing order of the company is only relating to payment
of contribution regarding ESI and not about any
misconduct or misbehavior of an employee and that
therefore, it is clear from the above evidence that the
charges have been mistakenly laid against the petitioner
under clause XIV of the model standing order while
workers have been directed to follow the service standing
order of the company when they have been appointed as
an employee.
14. Further, it is admitted by RW.1 that they are used
to give standing order while the employees have became
permanent and this petitioner was also given standing order
when he became permanent and every employee has to
follow the own standing order. While it was admitted by
the respondent management this Court does not find any
reason why the petitioner has been charged under the
model standing order and further, it is the contention of
the petitioner that he has not been allowed to enter into
the respondent establishment though he has made attempt
to enter into the factory and it is also learnt from the
records Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 the representation made by the
union that that they have made some demands to the
management that the employees are in indefinite strike
from 22-02-2010 for their fundamental grievances and
non-compliance with the provisions of the Factories Act
for safety measures, canteen facilities, toilet facilities
and it is also learnt from Ex.P2 that the union has sent a
letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Puducherry
regarding the fact that the respondent management has not
provided safety measures, etc., in the factory. Further, it
is learnt from the said letter that the said letter was sent
after they have declared strike and that therefore, the
charges levelled against the petitioner by the respondent
management that the petitioner is unauthorizedly absent
from 22-02-2010 cannot be accepted while the union has
undergone strike and the strike notice was given regarding
their strike to the management. Further, it is learnt from
the records filed by the respondent management that on
the complaint of the respondent management some of the
workers have been arrested by the Police while they have
commenced strike on 22-02-2010 and further, the charges
also has not been properly laid against the petitioner under
the own service standing order while it was admitted that
the service standing order was existing in factory at the
respondent establishment which was alleged to have been
furnished to the employees at the time of appointment
and when they became permanent employee and advised
the employees to follow the same in service.
15. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner for the misconduct of
unauthorized absence for the period of more than 10 days
the punishment of dismissal of an employee is
disproportionate since, absence is only due to the strike
announced by the union and furthermore, it is not the case
of the respondent management that the petitioners have
involved in some other cases earlierly and committed any
misconduct against the management and no proof is
exhibited before this Court to prove the same and
therefore, the alleged domestic enquiry conducted against
the petitioner is not in accordance with the principles of
1071
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
natural justice as the charge itself is not properly framed
under the own service standing order and furthermore,
the punishment of termination against the petitioner for
the charge of unauthorized absence for sometime without
any prior charges while the union in which the petitioner
was the president has undergone the strike and on the
complaint of the respondent management some of the
workers have been arrested by the Police and they had
been in custody and hence, show cause notice could not
be given by the management for the unauthorized absence
knowing the fact that they are arrested on their complaint
and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that
the domestic enquiry is not conducted properly and is not
fair and is not in accordance with the principles of natural
justice is established through evidence and further, the
another contention that the punishment of termination is
not proportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized
absence is also sustainable.
16. Further, it is learnt from Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 marked
on the side of the petitioner that the union in which the
petitioner was the president has raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer against the
management of the respondent establishment over the
unfair labour practice and against the victimization of the
labourers and it is not disputed by the respondent that such
industrial dispute has not been raised by the union in which
the petitioner was the president. While, the union has
raised the industrial dispute with regard to victimization
and unfair labour practice committed by the respondent
management and while conciliation proceedings were
pending before the Conciliation Officer the respondent
management cannot take any dismissal action against the
petitioner without getting approval of the Conciliation
Officer and therefore, the termination order passed against
the petitioner without getting prior permission of the
Conciliation Officer is also not sustainable and further,
it is clear from the order of dismissal under Ex.R26 that
the order has not been given with the payment of one
month wage to the petitioner and that therefore, the order
of dismissal has not been passed properly and therefore,
it is to be held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent management over
non-employment is justified and the petitioner is entitled
for the order of reinstatement as claimed by him in the
claim statement.
17. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over his non-employment is justified, it is
to be decided whether the petitioner is entitled for back
wages as claimed by him. There is no evidence that the
petitioner is working so far in any other industry and that
there is no proof exhibited before this Court that he is
working anywhere else. The respondent has not proved
the fact that the petitioner has been working in any other
establishment after his termination.
However, the
petitioner could have served at any other industry after
his termination.
Considering the above facts and
circumstances, this Court decides that the petitioner is
entitled only for 25% back wages with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
18. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over his non-employment is
justified and Award is passed directing the respondent
management to reinstate the petitioner in service within
one month from the date of this Award and further directed
the respondent management to pay 25% back wages to
the petitioner from the date of termination till the date of
reinstatement with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 28th day of March, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —12-09-2014 — Gurunathan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1— 25-02-2010—Copy of the representation
sent by Leo Fasteners Unit-II
Labour union to the Labour
Secretary, Puducherry.
Ex.P2—26-02-2010 — Copy of the representation
sent by Leo Fasteners Unit-II
Labour union to the Deputy
Labour
Commissioner,
Puducherry.
Ex.P3—01-03-2010 — Copy of the representation
sent by Leo Fasteners Unit-II
Labour
union
to
the
Managing Director, Leo
Fasteners Unit-II.
Ex.P4—12-03-2010 — Copy of the returned postal
cover.
Ex.P5—22-03-2010— Copy of the conciliation
proceedings raised by Leo
Fasteners Unit-II.
1072
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
Ex.P6—22-03-2010 — Copy of the conciliation
proceedings raised by Leo
Fasteners Unit-II.
Ex.P7—09-06-2010 — Copy of the reply given by
Leo Fasteners management.
Ex.P8—06-04-2010 — Copy of the explanation
given by the petitioner with
acknowledgment card.
Ex.P9—15-04-2010 — Copy of the representation
given by the petitioner with
acknowledgment card.
Ex.P10—17-04-2010—Copy of the letter given by
the management to the
petitioner.
Ex.P11—17-04-2010—Copy of the letter given by
the
petitioner
to
the
management.
List of respondent's witness:
RW.1 —09-01-2018—N. Krishnan
List of respondent's exhibits:
Ex.R1—13-08-2008— Copy of the good conduct
assurance signed by the
petitioner.
Ex.R2—23-03-2010— Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner
as reply for
letter, dated 04-03-2010.
Ex.R3—09-04-2010— Copy of the 1st show cause
notice.
Ex.R4 —29-12-2017—Letter of authorization.
Ex.R5 —19-08-2000—Copy of the appointment
letter.
Ex.R6—19-11-2003 — Copy
of
the
service
standing order.
Ex.R7—19-11-2003 — Letter of the ESI Manager
regarding the petitioner's
signature.
Ex.R8—25-08-2005— Copy of the permission
letter of the petitioner
asking 20 days leave.
Ex.R9 —07-12-2005—Copy of the permission
letter of the petitioner
asking for a sitting job for
a period of 3 months.
Ex.R10—15-07-2008— Copy of the confirmation
letter.
Ex.R11—29-07-2008—Copy
of
the
service
standing orders.
Ex.R12—06-08-2008—Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent requesting time
for reply for the, dated
05-08-2008.
Ex.R13—21-08-2008—Copy of the explanation
letter sent by the respondent
to the petitioner
for the
letter, dated 06-08-2008.
Ex.R14—04-03-2010—Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent.
Ex.R15—11-03-2010—Co py of the unclaimed
returned postal cover.
Ex.R16—30-03-2010—Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent.
Ex.R17—06-04-2010—Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner as reply for the
letter, dated 30-03-2010.
Ex.R18—15-04-2010—Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner as reply to the
letter, dated 09-04-2010.
Ex.R19—17-04-2010—Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent as reply to the
letter, dated 15-04-2010.
Ex.R20—17-04-2010—Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner as reply to the
letter, dated 15-04-2010.
Ex.R21—29-09-2011—Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
Enquiry
Officer,
Leo
Fasteners.
Ex.R22—20-01-2012—Enquiry
report
of
the
Enquiry Officer.
Ex.R23—07-03-2012—Copy
of
the
letter
intimating the result of the
domestic enquiry report
sent by the petitioner to the
respondent.
1073
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R24—28-03-2012—Copy of the second show
cause notice sent by the
respondent
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R25—05-04-2012—Copy of the letter sent
through
FAX
by
the
petitioner to the respondent
regarding the enquiry report.
Ex.R26—17-04-2012—Copy of the letter of
dismissal
sent
by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R27—19-07-2012—Notice of remarks from
Office
of
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation)
regarding the petitioner.
Ex.R28—08-08-2012—Notice of remarks from
Office
of
the
Labour
Officer (Conciliation) to
the respondent.
Ex.R29—23-08-2012—Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner regarding the
no n-p ayment
of
subsistence allowance from
Feb. 2012 to 17-04-2012
along with calculation and
cheque copy.
Ex.R30—28-08-2012—Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
Office
of
the
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.R31—27-08-2012—Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent returning the
cheque.
Ex.R32—05-09-2012—Copy of the letter sent by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner with 2 separate
cheques for subsistence
allowance
and
terminal
benefits.
Ex.R33—11-09-2012—Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent.
Ex.R34—11-09-2012—Copy of the letter sent by
the petitioner to the Office
of
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.R35—16-11-2012—Copy of the explanation
letter
sent
by
the
respondent to the Office of
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.R36—18-01-2013—Copy of the report on
failure of conciliation sent
by the Office of the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) to
the
Secretary
to
Government (Labour).
Ex.R37—08-03-2013—Copy of the notice of
hearing from the Hon'ble
Labour Court, Puducherry.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 79/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 15th May 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No.47/2015, dated
20-3-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. Rane Madras
Limited, Puducherry and Gayathri, Puducherry, over
reinstatement with full backwages, continutity in
service and all other attendant benifit 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,
Deputy Labour Commissioner.
1074
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN,B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Tuesday, the 20th day of March, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 47/2015
Gayathri,
D/o. Kaliyaperumal,
No. 24, Police Street,
Nettapakkam,
Puducherry.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Rane Madras Limited,
No. 77, Thirubuvanai Main Raod,
Puducherry -605 107.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 14-03-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of Tvl.
R.T. Shankar, L.K. Saravanan & A.Ashokkumar,
Advocates for the petitioner, Thiru K. Babu, 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 is a petition filed by the petitioner under
section 2-(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying to
pass an Award to direct the respondent management to
reinstate the petitioner with full backwages, continuity
of service and all other attendant benefits.
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner joined with the respondent company
on 12-03-2010 as an employee, but, she had not been
given any appointment order on the said date of
appointment with the respondent however, continued
her work with the respondent factory very honestly and
to
the
entire
satisfaction
of
the
respondent
management without any remarks or blemish at all.
During the course of her employment the respondent
management provided an Identity Card thereafter, the
respondent management issued an appointment order
on 01-06-2011 as such the respondent management
concealed the previous employment/service of the
petitioner for the period of 15 months and paid
monthly salary to a tune of ` 4,095. The petitioner
was having requisite experience and qualification and
the petitioner have been working for a long period
since 12-03-2010 with the respondent management
but in contra, the respondent management had issued
such alleged appointment order dated 06-11-2011 for
the reasons best known to them. The said order of
employment, the respondent revealed/declared that the
said order is only for the period of one year towards
temporary job/employment and after one year, the said
employment will be completed but, the petitioner had
been continued with the service/employment with the
respondent management for the same nature of work
for the said period of 5 years. Since, the petitioner is
employed for the past 5 years with respondent
management and therefore, the petitioner had forced to
the
respondent
management
to
confirm
her
employment as permanent employee on and from the
year 2014 itself but, the respondent management
denied and failed for the same but, instead of
complying the lawful/legitimate demands of the
petitioner, the respondent management had harassed
the petitioner mentally accordingly on 23-10-2014 at
about 5.00 p.m. the HR Manager called the petitioner and
waited her by standing upto 7.00 p.m. and scolded her
in a filthy languages and after very next day on 24-10-2014,
the petitioner had been prevented to enter into the
factory and waited her at the main gate without giving
even water and food as such she has been failed/
refused continuously to give food from 7.00 a.m. to
5.00 p.m. The next day i.e. 25-10-2014, is a Sunday
and therefore, after taking leave on that day, when the
petitioner rushed to the factory on 26-10-2014, she
had been again prevented to enter into the factory and
not permit her to continue with her employment. The
petitioner had been served with the respondent
management for the past 5 years from 13-03-2010 but,
so far, she has not been confirmed for her employment
apart from refusing to continue with her employment.
The act committed by the respondent is against labour
laws and industrial dispute. By an act of victimization
and motivation, the respondent management denied/
refused the employment of the petitioner for her
permanent status, the said act committed by the
respondent management is absolutely illegal and
against law and therefore, the respondent is liable to
reinstate the petitioner with back wages and continuity
of service. The petitioner had also approached the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), at Puducherry on 11-12-2014
but, within the period of 45 days there is no amicable
settlement arrived as per the Amended Act (24 of 2010)
and hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this
petition before this Court for adjudication. Therefore,
prayed this Court to pass an order to direct the
respondent management to reinstate the petitioner with
full back wages, continuity of service and all other
attendance benefits.
1075
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
3. The averments in the counter field by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent denied all the allegations contained
in the claim statement and stated that the claim
statement of the petitioner are baseless, vexatious,
devoid of merits and is not maintainable either in law
or on facts and that the claim made by the petitioner
over her alleged non-employment is not maintainable
in law or on facts, devoid of merits and hence, liable to
be dismissed. The petitioner has circumvented the
legal procedures prescribed under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 by not approaching the conciliation
machinery and had chosen to file her claim statement
hastily before this Court for the best reasons known to
her and as such the claim statement is to be rejected.
The factory unit at Puducherry was established and
started its commercial production in the year 1996 and
manufactures various models of steering gears and
suspension linkage products which are very sensitive
products in terms of quality and performance. The
numbers of apprentices/trainees taken were also
gradually increased keeping pace with the number of
products/models that were newly added. It is necessary
to point out that these types of operations are
comparable only with other units of the respondent
management and therefore that was an added reason as
to why the training had to be imparted carefully and
meticulously over a period of time. In order to impart
training to these persons, the Company had engaged
experienced Supervisors, under whose immediate
supervision, the trainees learn how to work on various
process operations. Apart from this, the Company
apprentices/trainees were also made to undergo
training which is imparted to them by experts.
Obviously, conscious of the need to learn and acquire
the technique to operate all these advanced operations,
the company apprentices/trainees had no objection
whatsoever to learn the trade. It is under this process
the petitioner was absorbed as a Company Apprentices/
Trainee in the respondent's factory at Puducherry with
effect from 02-05-2011. The petitioner joined the
factory unit at Puducherry as a Company Apprentice
(CAPS) under the Company Apprentice Scheme of the
respondent on 02-05-2011. In the meanwhile, since
there arised a vacancy for temporary Operator, the
petitioner applied for the same and based on the same
she was engaged as a temporary Operator vide letter of
appointment, dated 01-06-2011 initially for a period of
one year, the terms and conditions of which are
accepted by her. The said engagement of the petitioner
as a temporary Operator was purely on temporary
basis. It is further respectfully submitted that even
after said the period of one year, the petitioner was
allowed to continue in her temporary post due to the
temporary pressure of work arisen at that point of
time. Since, the petitioner had opted and switched over
to temporary Operator from Company Apprenticeship
Scheme. She had not evinced much interest as other
Apprentices in learning multi-skill that is very vital and
essential for the production job. It is the usual practice
of the company to periodically assess and appraise the
skills of the Company Apprentices/Trainees and other
workman of the factory and based on the assessment,
the eligible persons will be absorbed as probationers
for the permanent posts after screening tests. Though,
the petitioner was also made to attend several training
programs and offered to learn the production skills as
that of others, she was much reluctant to attend training
programs and also did not evinced any interest in
learning multi-skills. Even in the final appraisal made
on 31-05-2014 to assess the scope for permanency for
Grade-I Operator, the petitioner expressed her
inability to attend the work in other departments/cells
of the factory and further expressed that she would do
only her routine temporary job. She also failed to
write the screening test conducted by the respondent
company and as such she was found unsuitable for
permanent post. In the meantime, the petitioner did
not turn up for the job on and from 25-10-2014 without
any intimation.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R15 were 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 both sides,
written arguments were filed and the same were also
carefully considered. In support of his case, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
Judgment reported in CDK 1987 BHC 472, CDJ 2011
MHC 4578 and also relied upon the common order
passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.11 and 80 of 2015 and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 1 and 2 of 2015 and WMP (MD)
No.1578 of 2016 by Hon’ble Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court. The learned Counsel for the
respondent also in support of his case has relied upon
the Judgment reported in 2003(3) CTC 244 (SC),
1998 LLR 1167 SC, 2006 LLR 68 SC and 2007 LLR
98 (SC).
5. The Point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for the order of
reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service
and all other attendant benefits or not.
1076
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
6. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined
with the respondent company on 12-03-2010 as an
employee and no appointment order was given to her
and she was provided with an Identity Card and
thereafter, on 01-06-2011 an appointment order was
given to her without considering the fact that she
already
served 15
months at
the
respondent
establishment and her monthly salary was ` 4,095
and she had been working at the production department
as an Operator doing the perennial nature of work along
with other permanent workers and she had been in
service for about 5 years and the petitioner has asked
the management to confirm her employment as
permanent from the year 2014 which was denied by the
management and on 23-10-2014 she was prevented to
enter into the factory at the main gate without giving
even water and food as such she has been refused
continuously and on 26-10-2014 again she was
prevented to enter into the factory and her employment
was refused since she has asked for the status of
permanent worker with the management and she was
victimized by the management and therefore, she has
prayed for reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity, service and all other attendance benefits..
In support of her case, the petitioner herself was
examined as PW.1 and she has stated all the above-facts
in her evidence. In support of her evidence, the
petitioner has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.P1 is the
copy of appointment order issued by the respondent to
the petitioner on 01-06-2011. Ex.P2 is the copy of
insured person (I.P) order issued by the Employees
State Insurance Corporation to the petitioner on 28-11-1986.
Ex.P3 is the copy of the identity card issued by the
respondent to the petitioner on 11-03-2011. Ex.P4 is
the copy of the identity card order issued by the
respondent to the petitioner on 01-05-2012. Ex.P5 is
the original copy of the dispute raised before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry on 11-12-2014.
Ex.P6 is the copy of the ESI contribution details,
under the Member I.P. No: 5518704367 and
5518837196 from October-2009 to March-2015.
These documents would go to show that the petitioner
was appointed on 01-06-2011 at the respondent
establishment and an identity card was issued to her on
11-03-2011 even prior to the alleged appointment
order and another identity card issued to the petitioner
under Ex.P4 would reveal the fact that the petitioner
was working at the respondent establishment since
from 2011 and the petitioner has raised the industrial
dispute before the Labour Conciliation Officer was
exhibited on 11-12-2014 and ESI contribution was paid
by the respondent management in the name of the
petitioner from October-2009 to March-2015.
7. On the other hand, it is the case of the
respondent that the respondent factory commenced its
business in the year 1996 and manufactures various
models of steering gears and suspension linkage
products which are very sensitive products in terms of
quality and performance and manufacturing operations
involves multiple operations and that the induction of
apprentice trainees if of two types one is technical
with ITI qualification and the other is non-technical
with 10th or 12th passed and later they are placed on
probation for a year based on their performance and
the petitioner joined the factory unit at Puducherry as
a Company Apprentice under the Company Apprentice
Scheme on 02-05-2011 and subsequently, she
appointed as temporary Operator under an order of
appointment on 01-06-2011 for a period of one year
and her engagement as a temporary Operator was purely
on temporary basis and even after the period of one
year the petitioner was allowed to continue in her
temporary post due to the temporary pressure of work
arisen at that point of time and it is the usual practice
of the company to periodically assess and appraise the
skills of the company Apprentices/Trainees and other
workman of the factory and based on the assessment
the eligible persons will be absorbed as probationers
for the permanent posts after screening tests and that
though, the petitioner was also made to attend several
training programs and offered to learn the production
skills as that of others, she was much reluctant to
attend training programs and also did not evinced any
interest in learning multi-skills and that the petitioner
is bound by the terms and conditions of the
appointment order acknowledged by her and in view of
the terms and conditions of the appointment order the
petitioner has no locus standi to claim any permanent
post with the respondent establishment and that the
petitioner has failed to write the screening test
conducted by the respondent company and that the
respondent company found that the petitioner was
unsuitable for permanent post and thereafter, the
petitioner did not turn up for the job on and from
25-10-2014 without any intimation to the respondent
management. To prove their contention the respondent
management has examined RW.1 and marked as Ex.R1
to Ex.R15. Ex.R1 is the copy of appointment order
issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 01-06-2011.
Ex.R2 is the copy of sign in Form, dated 25-04-2014.
Ex.R3 is the copy of sign in Form, dated 19-06-2014.
Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 are the identity cards of the
petitioner. Ex.R6 is the copy of assessment sheet of
the petitioner, dated 31-05-2014. Ex.R7 and Ex.P8 are
the copy of assessment sheet and test papers of
company apprentice of the respondent Mr. E. Mariappan,
1077
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
dated 28-03-2011. Ex.R9 and Ex.R10 are the copy of
assessment sheet papers written by company apprentice
Mr. N. Dhayanithi, dated 31-12-2011. Ex.R11 is the
copy of assessment sheet of company apprentice of the
respondent Mr. R. Thirunavukkarasu, dated 28-03-2011.
Ex.R12 is the copy of test papers written by company
apprentice Mr. R. Thirunavukkarasu. Ex.R13 is the
certified photocopy of Exhibit P3 in I.D(L).No.47/2015,
dated 11.01.2014. Ex.R14 is the certified photocopy
of Exhibit P5 in I.D. (L).No.47/2015, dated 15.02.2017.
Ex.R15 is the copy of H4 notice along with copy of
petition and documents of the petitioner served on the
respondent.
8. From the pleadings of both the parties and
evidence let in by both the parties, it can be noticed that
the following facts are admitted by either sides that the
petitioner was working at the respondent establishment
for about four years and now she is not at the
respondent establishment and she has raised an
industrial dispute for reinstatement of her employment
and also for back wages. It is also not disputed by the
respondent that the petitioner was working at the
respondent establishment. However, it is the main
contention of the respondent management that the
petitioner was only a apprentice trainee working as
temporary employee and she had not been found
suitable for the work at the respondent establishment
and the petitioner has voluntarily not turned up to the
employment. It is stated by the petitioner that her
employment has been refused by the respondent
management and she was restrained by the management
at the main gate on 24-10-2014 and 26-10-2014. But,
it is stated by the respondent management that this
petitioner was not turned up for the job from 25-10-2014
without any intimation.
9. Apart from the oral evidence of PW.1 the
petitioner has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The copy of
appointment order is exhibited as Ex.P1 which was
issued on 01-06-2011 by the respondent management
wherein, it was stated by the respondent management
that it is the temporary appointment and it will not
confer any right and entitlement for claiming
absorption against any regular vacancy and the
petitioner was appointed as temporary Operator from
01-06-2011. The Ex.P2 is the copy of identity card
issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation
to the petitioner which would evident that the
petitioner
was
working
at
the
respondent
establishment. The Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the copy of
identity cards issued by the respondent management to
the petitioner which would evident that the petitioner
was working at the respondent establishment and
identity card was given to her which was valid till
01-05-2012. The Ex.P5 is the copy of industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner on 11-12-2014 before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation). The Ex.P6 is the
copy of ESI contribution details which would reveal
that the petitioner was paid ESI contribution for the
period from 2009 to 2015. These documents would
reveal the fact the petitioner was working at the
respondent establishment for the period from 2009 to
2014 for about five years.
10.
It is contended by the respondent management
that the petitioner was only a temporary employee
working as apprentice and thereafter, she was working
as an Operator and she was found not suitable for
employment. But, to prove the same, no such document
is exhibited before this Court that the performance of
the petitioner was ascertained by them and they passed
an order found not suitable for the work to give status
of permanent worker. Though, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R15, the
assessment sheet of the petitioner as well as other
employees are exhibited under Ex.R6 to Ex.R12 which
would reveal the fact that it was not signed by the
workers who have been assessed by the management
and it is a unilateral document. Further, who assessed
the level of the petitioner was not examined before
this Court. It is also not stated by the respondent
management whether the assessment level was
intimated to them or not. No document is exhibited
before this Court whether the above facts are intimated
to the employees regarding the assessment made by
them. The respondent himself has exhibited the
identity card of the petitioner as Ex.R5 which would
reveal the fact the petitioner was working at the
respondent establishment from 11-03-2011. Though,
the respondent management has contended that the
petitioner was only apprentice or trainee and she is not
suitable for work, the respondent management has not
established that the petitioner had been appointed only
as apprentice or trainee. The appointment order has
nine terms and conditions. The appointment order has
not stated that the petitioner was appointed either as an
apprentice or trainee. The said appointment order
would evident that the petitioner was appointed as
temporary Operator but, in the counter it was stated by
the respondent management that the petitioner was
appointed as an apprentice. The petitioner by
exhibiting the documents established that she had been
working at the respondent establishment from 2009
till 2014 and therefore, the contention raised by the
respondent management that the petitioner was
appointed only as apprentice or trainee cannot be
accepted by this Tribunal since the petitioner was
1078
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
working more than five years continuously at the
respondent establishment and she had been contributed
for ESI, it can be inferred that she had working for
more than 240 days in a year and she has to be treated
as permanent worker.
11. Admittedly, in this case no memo and no
charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner and no
domestic enquiry was conducted before terminating or
refusal of employment to the petitioner from service.
It is the case of the respondent management that the
petitioner did not turn up for service from 25-10-2014.
But, the respondent has not at all stated the reason that
why they have not issued any notice or memo to the
petitioner for her absence from 25-10-2014 till now.
The RW.1 in his cross examination has stated as
follows:
“...........apprentice
scheme
apprentice
apprentice
scheme
apprentice
production
apprenctice
”
From the above evidence of RW.1 it is clear that the
petitioner was working at the respondent establishment
continuously for more than three years and assessment
done by the respondent management is not known to
the petitioner and it was also not intimated to the
petitioner and further, the RW.1 admits that they have
not issued any notice to the petitioner for the
unauthorized absence from 25-10-2014 as alleged by
them. No reason has been assigned by RW.1 that why
the respondent management has not taken any
disciplinary
action
against
the
petitioner
for
unauthorized absence or for abandonment of service.
On this aspect the learned Counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 1984
BHC 472 wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held
that,
“...........What strikes us more is the reasoning of the
Labour Court. Since, it is the case of the respondent
No.1 Company that the workman had abandoned the
service, it was for the company to prove that there was
such abandonment. However, the Labour Court has
argued that since the workman had not given any notice
to the company after his alleged removal, it should be
held that it was he who had refused to join the service,
and that he had no intention to work in the factory.
We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the
finding recorded by the Labour Court is prima-facie
bad in law, and the order of the Labour Court should be
set aside……….”.
From the above observation it is clear that atleast
notice or memo has to be given whenever the workman
had abanded the service and that therefore, as per the
observation of the Hon'ble High Court it is to be
inferred that the management has refused the
employment of the petitioner. Further, it is stated by
the respondent management that the petitioner was
appointed only as apprentice and the petitioner has to
be worked as probationer and after verifying the
performance of the petitioner she would be appointed
as permanent. But, no record has been produced by the
respondent establishment to prove that she was appointed
as an apprentice and thereafter, she appointed as
probationer and therefore, it is clear that the
respondent management has failed to establish that the
petitioner has committed any unauthorized absence as
stated by them.
1079
28 August 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
12. On the other hand, it is established by the
petitioner from Ex.P1 that the petitioner was only
appointed after the interview conducted by the
respondent
management
and
she
rendered
uninterrupted service for more than three years
between 2009 to 25-10-2014 and she was abruptly
denied employment without giving any memo or
notice. Further, it is also established by the petitioner
that she had been doing production work along with the
permanent workers. Though, the respondent management
has exhibited Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 the training sign Form,
it does not contain any signature of the management and
the Form is relating to the year 2014 and no reason has
been assigned by the management that why these
workers have been treated as trainees while they were
working as early as from 2011 and further, the said
Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 are not supported by any evidence of
the officials who are maintaining it. Further, the
respondent management has exhibited the identity cards
of the petitioner under Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 wherein, it has
not been stated that the petitioner was a trainee or
apprentice. Furthermore, the Ex.R5 would evident that
the identity card was issued by the management to the
petitioner stating that the identity card was valid till
11-03-2011 while she had been given appointment
only on 01-06-2011. The same identity card exhibited
under Ex.R5 was also exhibited by the petitioner under
Ex.P4. It is alleged by the respondent management that
the document exhibited by the petitioner is fabricated
one. But, no steps were taken by the respondent
management to prove that such document is fabricated
one and therefore, from Ex.R5 it can be inferred that
even prior to the date of appointment the petitioner
had been in service at the respondent establishment as
stated by the petitioner and Ex.R5 strengthen the case
of the petitioner that he had been in service from
12-03-2010 prior to the order of appointment dated
01-06-2011.
13. The learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted a written argument wherein, he
has stated that as per the point No. 2 of the
appointment order the petitioner will not confer any
right or entitlement for claiming absorption against
any regular vacancy and when it occurs it will be
determined on the basis of relative merit of other
candidates. However, any terms and conditions which
is against the labour laws cannot be enforced against
the worker as the petitioner has completed the service
of about four years and as the respondent has not
produced the attendance registers or wage register to
establish that the petitioner had not been in service for
about 240 days in a year, it is to be inferred that the
petitioner's service has to be regularized and the
termination of the employment was done without
following the procedure as laid down under the Act and
even no memo has been issued and no charge-sheet has
been issued and no domestic enquiry was conducted
before refusal of employment and that therefore, the
contention raised by the respondent that petitioner
was not turned up from 25-10-2014 also cannot be
accepted and that therefore, the refusal of employment
to the petitioner is against the provisions of labour
laws while the petitioner had been working at the
respondent establishment for more than five years as
an Operator and that therefore, it is to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over her non-employment is
justified and as such the petitioner is entitled for order
of reinstatement as claimed by her.
14. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over her non-employment is justified, it
is to be decided whether the petitioner is entitled for
back wages as claimed by her. There is no evidence
that the petitioner is working so far in any other
industry and that there is no proof exhibited before
this Court that she is working anywhere else. The
respondent has not proved the fact that the petitioner
has been working in any other establishment after her
abandonment of service. However, the petitioner could
have served at any other industry after her refusal of
employment. Considering the above facts and
circumstances, this court decides that the petitioner is
entitled only for 30% back wages with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
15.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over her non-employment is
justified and Award is passed directing the respondent
management to reinstate the petitioner in service
within one month from the date of this Award and
further directed the respondent management to pay
30% back wages from the date of refusal of
employment till the date of reinstatement with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits. No
cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 20th day of March, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
1080
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 August 2018
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —29-12-2016— Gayatri
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
01-06-2011 — Copy of appointment order
issued by the respondent
to the petitioner.
Ex.P2
28-11-1986 — Copy of insured person
(I.P) order issued by the
Employees State Insurance
Corporation to the
petitioner.
Ex.P3
11-03-2011 — Copy of the identity card
issued by the respondent to
the petitioner.
Ex.P4
01-05-2012 — Copy of the identity card
issued by the respondent to
the petitioner.
Ex.P5
11-12-2014 — Original copy of the dispute
raised before the Labour
Officer
Conciliation,
Puducherry.
Ex.P6 — October
— Copy of the ESI contribution
2009 to
details, under the Member
March-2015
I.P. No. 5518704367 and
551887196.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 —09-06-2017— S. Joseph
List of respondent’s witnesses:
Ex.R1 01-06-2011 — Copy of appointment order
issued by the respondent
to the petitioner.
Ex.R2 25-04-2014 — Copy of sign in form.
Ex.R3 19-06-2014 — Copy of sign in form.
Ex.R4 —
— Identity card of the petitioner
valid till 01-05-2012.
Ex.R5 —
— Identity
Card
of
the
p e t i t i o n e r v a l i d t i l l
11-03-2011.
Ex.R6 31-05-2014 — Copy of assessment sheet
of the petitioner.
Ex.R7 28-03-2011 — Copy of assessment sheet
of an company apprentice
of the respondent Mr.
E. Mariappan.
Ex.R8 —
— Copy of test papers written
by company apprentice
Mr. E. Mariappan.
Ex.R9 31-12-2011 — Copy of assessment sheet
of an company apprentice
o f t he resp o nd ent
Mr. N. Dhayanithi.
Ex.R10 —
— Copy of test papers written
by company apprentice
Mr. N. Dhayanithi.
Ex.R11 28-03-2011 — Copy of assessment sheet
of an company apprentice
o f t h e
r e s p o n d e n t
Mr. R. Thirunavukkarasu.
Ex.R12 —
— Copy of test papers written
by company apprentice
Mr. R. Thirunavukkarasu.
Ex.R13 11-01-2017 — Certified photocopy of
Exhibit P3 in I.D. (L).
No.47/2015.
Ex.R14 15-02-2017 — Certified photocopy of
Exhibit P5 in I.D. (L).
No. 47/2015.
Ex.R15 —
— Copy of H4 notice along
with copy of petition
and documents of the
petitioner served on the
respondent.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
}| {
B