La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 28-00
Prix : ` 28-00
Price : ` 28-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1222
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1222
Award of the Labour Court .. 1222
de Tribunal.
.. 1238
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1238
Government Notifications
.. 1238
.. 1245
Avis de Saisis-arrêt
.. 1245
Notice of Attachments
.. 1245
.. 1251
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1251
Tender Notices
.. 1251
.. 1253
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 1253
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1253
.. 1256
Annonces
.. 1256
Announcements
.. 1256
.. 1260
Derniere Notification
.. 1260
Late Notification
.. 1260
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 : 25-9-2018
Price : ` 28-00
[ 1221 ]
2018 }
| 25 {
No.
39
Poudouchéry
Mardi
25
Septembre
2018 (3 Asvina 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
25th
September
2018
1222
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 86/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 6th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 26/2014, dated
23-4-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between
the management
of M/s. Jayaprakash
Narayanan Co-operative Spinning Mill, Karaikal and
Thiru K. Madhavan, Karaikal, 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.
Monday day, the 23rd day of April, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 26/2014
K. Madhavan,
S/o. Kaliyaperumal,
No. 40, Kattunayakan Street,
Karaikal.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Jayaprakash Narayanan
Co-operative Spinning Mill,
Keezhamanni, Neravy,
Karaikal-609 604.
. .
Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 13-03-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru N. Ramar, Representative for the petitioner and
Thiru
C.
Balasubramaniayan, 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.74/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 22-04-2014 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru K. Madhavan
against the management of Jayaprakash Narayan
Co-operative Spinning Mill, Karaikal, over non-
employment is justified ?
(b) If justified, to what relief the workman is
entitled to ?
(c) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner was joined as trainee at the
respondent Mill on 30-12-1996. Subsequently, he was
regularized in the spinning department as Cone Paker
with effect from 21-04-2000. He was paid ` 7,000 as
monthly salary. While so, since from 08-05-2007, the
petitioner was affected by jaundice and was under
medical treatment till 21-11-2008 he was not able to
attend the work and the same was intimated to the
respondent management through his co-worker. When
the petitioner returned to duty after cure of disease with
medical certificates, the management refused to offer
work stating that he was terminated from service on
17-11-2008. The petitioner came to know that he was
terminated from service only on the said date. The
petitioner made several requests to the respondent
management for his employment. But, the management
refused to offer employment without any valid reasons.
Hence, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 27-03-
2011 for which the respondent management has filed
the reply stating that since petitioner was unauthorizedly
absent from 08-05-2007 he been removed from service
on 17-03-2008. The conciliation was failed and the
matter has been referred to this Court. No enquiry has
been conducted by the management as per clause 20,
21and 22 of the certified standing order of the
respondent establishment. The alleged termination
without giving any opportunity and without conducting
any enquiry against the petitioner is against the
principles of natural justice. The petitioner has prayed
for reinstatement with back wages.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent Mill is a Society and its main object
is “no gain no loss” and it has been runs under the
control of Puducherry Government. The petitioner had
joined the respondent Society in the year 1996 and the
1223
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
respondent Society had permanent the employee
on 21-04-2000. The petitioner work is Cone Paker.
The petitioner was always a chronic absentee and was
taking leave without any permission. The respondent
issued a warning notice on 18-07-2003 to the petitioner
that he takes leave without got proper permission. On
13-08-2003, the respondent issued a warning notice to
the petitioner that he is not measure the cone in proper
weight. The respondent issued warning notice on
17-09-2003, 12-11-2003, 11-01-2004, 19-07-2004, 21-08-2004
to the petitioner that he takes leave without got proper
permission. On 18-04-2006, the respondent issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner, the petitioner duly
received the notice give apology and again rejoined
the employment. The petitioner again taking leave
without gets any proper permission to the respondent. On
30-12-2006, the respondent Society again issued another
show cause notice to the petitioner to join the
respondent with some condition. After that incident also
the petitioner did not turn his ears. The petitioner again
taking leave without get proper permission to the
respondent. On 28-02-2007, the respondent issued
another warning notice to the petitioner the petitioner
also received the letter and again joined the respondent
with some condition. After that incident also the
petitioner did not turn his ears. Finally the petitioner
does not co-operate the respondent on 17-11-2008 the
respondent society terminated the petitioner and also
sends the termination letter to post. The allegation
stated in the petitioner in his petition is false. The
petitioner did not produce any medical certificate or
any medical record for his long absence. The petitioner
has not come with clean hands before this Court. The
petitioner’s
unauthorized
absence
affected
the
respondent society a huge loss. The issue of chronic
absenteeism has become a very serious in respondent's
society, the production activities and disturbing its work
schedules and man power allotments. The high
percentage of unauthorized absenteeism clearly
indicated that the workers of respondent society were
taking their employment casually and the leniency
shown by the respondent in the past in not taking
stringent disciplinary action was an encouraging factor.
Apart from financial loss, it was also leading to
frustration amongst the regular employees as the
absenteeism was causing additional burden of work on
those employees. The claim petition is devoid of merits,
lacks bona fide and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner no oral evidence has been adduced and Ex.P1
to Ex.P7 were marked on consent and on the side of the
respondent RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R13
were marked. Both sides are heard.
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:
The pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced
by the respondent and the exhibits marked on both sides
are carefully considered. On both sides, written
arguments were filed and the same was carefully
considered. In support of his case, the representative
for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment reported in
1996(1) LLJ 1/96 Pg.No.152 and CDJ 1996 SC 180.
The learned Counsel for the respondent also in support
of his case has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Appeal (Civil).No. 463-464
of 2005-West Bengal State Electricity Vs. Chandernath
Banerji and also relied upon the order, dated 22-03-2004
of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Anglo French
Textiles A Unit Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
In order to prove his case the petitioner has exhibited
Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1 is the copy of offer of appointment
to the petitioner as a trainee dated 30-12-1996. Ex.P2
is the copy of appointment order of the petitioner on
regular basis, dated 21-04-2000. Ex.P3 is the copy of
medical certificates of the petitioner for the period
08-05-2007 to 21-08-2008. Ex.P4 is the copy of
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner on 27-03-2011.
Ex.P5 is the copy of letter given by the respondent
management to the Labour Department on 13-10-2011.
Ex.P6 is the copy of failure report dated 28-02-2014.
Ex.P7 is the copy of standing order of the respondent
company. These documents would go to show that the
petitioner was appointed as trainee at the respondent
establishment on 30-12-1996 and his service became
permanent on 21-04-2000 and he was suffering with
Jaundice and he has taken medical treatment for the
period from 08-05-2007 to 21-08-2008 and he had been
given several prescriptions and thereafter, he has raised
the industrial dispute for his non-employment on 27-03-2011
before the Conciliation Officer and conciliation proceedings
were taken place and the management has appeared
before the conciliation proceedings and the conciliation
was failed and the matter has been referred to this Court
and the respondent establishment is having certified
standing order.
7. On the other hand, it is contended by the
respondent management that the petitioner was a
chronic absentee and was taking leave without any
permission and he was issued with several memos and
notices for his unauthorized absence i.e., taking leave
without got proper permission on 18-07-2003, 13-08-2003,
1224
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
17-09-2003, 12-11-2003,
11-01-2004,
19-07-2004,
21-08-2004 and a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on 18-04-2006 for which the petitioner gave
an apology and again rejoined the employment and on
30-12-2006 the respondent Society again issued another
show cause notice to the petitioner to join the
respondent establishment with some conditions and
however, the petitioner did not turn up for his duty
and lastly on 28-02-2007 the respondent issued another
warning notice to the petitioner and the same was
received by him, wherein, it was stated that the
petitioner was permitted to join duty with some
condition and even after receipt of the same the
petitioner d id not turn up for duty and hence ,
on 17-11-2008 he was terminated by the management.
In order to prove their contention, the respondent
management has examined RW.1 and RW.1 has stated
all the facts which are stated in the counter statement.
8. In support of their oral evidence the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R13. Ex.R1 is
the copy of memo., dated 18-07-2003. Ex.R2 is the
copy of warning notice, dated 13-08-2003. Ex.R3 is
the copy of memo., dated 17-09-2003. Ex.R4 is the
copy of memo., dated 12-11-2003. Ex.R5 is the copy of
warning notice dated 11-01-2004. Ex.R6 is the copy of
warning notice, dated 19-07-2004. Ex.R7 is the copy
of warning notice dated 21-08-2004. Ex.R8 is the copy
of explanation notice, dated 11-01-2005. Ex.R9 is the
copy of final warning notice, dated 18-04-2006.
Ex.R10 is the copy of office order, dated 30-12-2006.
Ex.R11 is the copy of warning notice, dated 28-02-
2007. Ex.R12 is the copy of termination order, dated
17-11-2008. Ex.R13 is the office order, dated 22-01-
2017. These documents would go to show that the
petitioner
was
given
various
memos
for
his
unauthorized absence and office order was passed
directing the petitioner to join on or before 07-01-2004
and thereafter, he was terminated from service on 17-11-2008
for his unauthorized absence.
9. From the evidence of RW.1 and the documents
marked on either sides it is clear that following facts
are admitted by either side that the petitioner has joined
at the respondent establishment as apprentice in the
year 1996 and that the respondent management has
given permanent status to the petitioner on 21-04-2000
and the petitioner was working as Cone Paker and he
was unathorizedly absent for some time from the year 2006
and he was given several memos and without
conducting domestic enquiry, the petitioner was
terminated from service. Further, it is clear that no
charges has been framed against the petitioner for his
unauthorized absence and no opportunity was given to
the petitioner and though several memos has been
issued by the management to the petitioner for the
unauthorized absence, no domestic enquiry was
conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer and no
charge has been framed against the petitioner.
10. Further, the petitioner has exhibited the standing
order of the respondent mill under Ex.P7 which would
reveal the fact that clause 20 of the standing order deals
with the misconduct of the employee and clause 21
deals with the Enquiries by Officer i.e., a neutral person
appointed by the factory Manager in this behalf and the
factory Manager shall have powers to award punishment
and clause 22 deals with the punishment for misconduct
and particularly no order of punishment shall be made
unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of
the alleged misconduct against him and the enquiry in
accordance with the principles of natural justice is
conducted.
11. In this case, admittedly, no such domestic enquiry
proceedings were conducted by the management by
appointing Enquiry Officer and no opportunity was
given to the petitioner in accordance with the standing
order of the respondent Mill and that therefore, it is
clear that the respondent management has not followed
the standing order and the petitioner has also not been
given sufficient opportunities to putforth his case by
giving an opportunity of an enquiry which would be
conducted by a neutral person and to find the truth of
the charges levelled against him and that therefore, the
order of termination of the petitioner is against the
principles of natural justice and also against the
provisions of the standing order of the respondent Mill
and that therefore, the alleged termination order passed
against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and is liable
to be set aside 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.
12. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management, over 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
1225
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
after his termination. Further, it is clearly established by
the respondent management that they have given
number of memo to the petitioner for his unauthorized
absence and he was permitted to join duty by giving
pardon to him and furthermore, he was absent from duty
from the year 2007 and he has raised the industrial
dispute only on 27-03-2011 and that the petitioner was
given 7 memos for his unauthorized absence. These
facts would go to show that the petitioner has
committed unauthorized absence and has not turned for
duty even he was permitted to join at the respondent
establishment by giving intimation to him by the
management and that therefore, considering the above
facts and circumstances of this case, this Court decides
that the petitioner is not entitled for any back-wages as
claimed by him and hence, no back-wages can be
awarded in favour of the petitioner.
13.
In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management, over non-employment is
justified and Award is passed directing the respondent
management to reinstate the petitioner in service with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits within
one month from the date of this Award and the claim
petition is partly dismissed in respect of back wages
claimed against the respondent. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 23rd day of April, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses: Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 30-12-1996 — Copy of offer of appointment
for trainee.
Ex.P2 — 21-04-2000 — Copy of appointment on
regular basis.
Ex.P3 — 08-05-2007 — Copy of medical certificate
to
of the pettioner.
21-08-2008
Ex.P4 — 27-03-2011 — Copy of industrial dispute
to raised by the petitioner.
Ex.P5 — 13-10-2011 — Copy of letter given by the
respondent management to
the Labour Department.
Ex.P6 — 28-02-2014 — Copy of failure report.
Ex.P7 — 23-03-2003 — Copy of standing order of
the respondent company.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 20-07-2017 — Kumaresan
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — 18-07-2003 — Copy of memo.
Ex.R2 — 13-08-2003 — Copy of warning notice.
Ex.R3 — 17-09-2003 — Copy of memo.
Ex.R4 — 12-11-2003 — Copy of memo.
Ex.R5 — 11-01-2004 — Copy of warning notice.
Ex.R6 — 19-07-2004 — Copy of warning notice.
Ex.R7 — 21-08-2004 — Copy of warning notice.
Ex.R8 — 11-01-2005 — Copy of explanation notice.
Ex.R9 — 18-04-2006 — Copy of final warning notice.
Ex.R10 — 30-12-2006 — Copy of office order.
Ex.R11 — 28-02-2007 — Copy of warning notice.
Ex.R12 — 17-11-2008 — Copy of termination order.
Ex.R13 — 22-01-2017 — Office order.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 87/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 7th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 08/2012, dated
12-4-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial
Dispute between the management of M/s. Puducherry
Power Corporation Ltd., Karaikal and Puducherry
Power Corporation Employees Social Welfare Union,
over revision of pay scale on par with 5th Central Pay
Commission 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
1226
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
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.
Monday day, the 12th day of April, 2018
I.D. (T) No. 08/2012
Puducherry Power Corporation Employees
Social Welfare Union,
No. 6/B, Nagalakshmi Colony,
Mudukku Theru,
Thirumalairayan Pattinam,
Karaikal-609 606.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Executive Engineer,
M/s. Puducherry Power Corporation Ltd.,
Polagam,
Thirumalairayan Pattinam,
Karaikal.
. .
Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 29-03-2018 before
me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Law Solvers,
Councel for the petitioner and Thiru B. Mohandoss,
Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood over
for considaration 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.77/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 10-05-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Puducherry
Power Corporation Employees Social Welfare Union
against the management of M/s. Puducherry Power
Corporation Limited, Karaikal, over revision of pay
scales for the post of Line Inspector, Tester Gr.1,
Draughtsman, Boiler Attendant and junior Chemist
on par with 5th Central Pay Commission are justified ?
(ii) If justified, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to?
(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 filed by the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The dispute raised by the union traversed only the
scale of pay prescribed for the posts of Junior Chemist
and Boiler Attendant. There are four Boiler Attendants
and five Junior Chemists who are only covered by the
scope of the above industrial dispute. The workmen
namely, K. Lakshmirayanan has joined as Junior
Chemist on 29-10-1999, K. Manikanan has joined as
Junior Chemist on 21-10-1999, K. Ashok Kumar has
joined as Junior Chemist on 30-12-1999, R. Kumaravel
has joined as Junior Chemist on 07-03-2000, T. Lavanya has
joined as Junior Chemist on 21-01-2008, K. Palvannan
has joined as Boiler Attendant on 06-10-1999,
K. Vengadesan has joined as Boiler Attendant on
29-10-1999, A. Kathiravan has joined as Boiler
Attendant on 09-12-1999 and S. Srinivasan has joined
as Boiler Attendant on 11-08-2010 in the respondent
corporation. The respondent corporation by a resolution
dated 08-12-1997 numbered as item No. 28.4 resolved
that the employees of the corporation shall be granted
the scales of pay applied to the corresponding
employees of the Government of Puducherry. The
corporation recommended and the board approved a
scale of ` 4,000-100-6,000 for both the posts of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist. The members of the
petitioner union who were appointed to their respective
posts in 1999 were granted the above scale. There was
no posts corresponding to or having parity to the post
of Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist in the
Government of Puducherry. The adoption of the above
scale to Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist was
therefore
prima facie whimsical and arbitrary.
According to the recruitment rule for the post of Boiler
Attendant in the respondent corporation the qualification
prescribed is Diploma in mechanical engineering with
boiler competency certificate, class-I and II with 2 years
of relevant experience. The method of recruitment is
only direct recruitment. As regards the post of Junior
Chemist the qualification prescribed
for direct
recruitment is a Degree of B.Sc., (Chemistry) or
equivalent with 2 years experience. Here also the
method of recruitment is only by direct recruitment.
The duties and responsibilities prescribed for Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist are highly technical and
these workmen definitely come under the category of
technicians and entitled for wage fixation as applicable
to the technicians. After considering fixation of specific
scales for various categories of employees, the fifth pay
commission in chapter XXI (A and B) under para 52.111
considered the cases of technicians with either a degree
1227
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
in science or diploma in engineering and recommended
a scale of `5,000-150-8,000. This was approved by the
Central Government and the Government of Puducherry
by G.O.Ms.No. 55/97/F3 dated 15-10-1997 published in
Extraordinary Gazette No. 103 dated 15-10-1997. The
petitioner union has been hammering home to the
respondent management the patent anomaly that has
crept in the prescription of scale of pay to the posts of
Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist and has been
praying for re-fixation of the scale of ` 4,000-6,000 as
`5,000-8,000 to the Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist. The respondent corporation has been dragging
its feet without reaching final conclusion notwithstanding
the fact that there were expert Committees and
consultants appointed by the respondent corporation
who have also recommended removal of the anomaly in
the scale of pay of the post of Boiler Attendant and
Junior Chemist. The prescription of a scale `4,000-
5,000 lower than the appropriate scale ` 5,000 to 8,000
under the fifth Pay Commission recommendations, the
petitioners have been deprived of the appropriate
replacement scales under the recommendation of the
sixth Pay Commission. The respondent management by
resolution No. 28.4 dated 08-12-1997 took a conscious
decision to apply the recommendations of the fifth Pay
Commission for revision of scales of the posts under
the corporation. However, while creating the posts
following the decisions in item No. 31/3, the
corporation created the post of Boiler Attendant and
Junior Chemist in the scale of `4,000-6,000 which
created anomalous situation which deserves rectification
on merits. The recommendations of the fifth Pay
Commission as accepted by the Government in chapter
52.111 recommending the scale of ` 5,000 to ` 8,000
to technicians with either a degree in science or
diploma in engineering in unambiguous. Admittedly, the
qualification prescribed for the Boiler Attendant and
Junior Chemist in the respondent corporation are at par
with if, not more than the qualifications recommended
by the fifth Pay Commission. There is therefore
absolutely no ground for the respondent management to
demure to grant the demanded scale to the Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemists. In a successive meeting
which the petitioner association had with the
Government and the respondent management, the
authorities were convinced of the anomaly. However,
for reasons best known to the management the just
demand of the petitioner has not been conceded. The
recommendations of the fifth Pay Commission adumbrated
in chapter 52.111 and accepted by the Government of
Puducherry as per G.O. Ms. 55/97/F3, dated 15-10-1997
has got national application and denial of the same to
the workmen locked up with the management in the
above industrial dispute is discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. Therefore, the
petitioner union prayed this Court to pass an Award
holding as justified the claim of the petitioner union for
revision of the scale of pay of the Boiler Attendant and
Junior Chemist in the respondent corporation as
` 5,000-` 8,000 with effect from their respective dates
of initial appointment at par with the scale
recommended for the posts by the fifth Central Pay
Commission and awarding the consequential financial
and other benefits pursuant to such revisions of scales
and also awarding the corresponding replacement scale
to ` 5,000 to 8,000 as per the recommendations of the
Sixth Central Pay Commission.
3. The brief averments in the counter and additional
counter filed by the respondent are as follows:
The respondent denied all the averments in the claim
petition except those that are specifically admitted by
them in the counter and stated that the petitioner union
finds fault with the appropriate Government for
widening the scope of reference beyond the matters in
dispute in the above industrial dispute and traversed in
the conciliation proceedings. The jurisdiction of this
Tribunal is determined by the terms of reference by the
appropriate Government as contemplated by section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In such a case,
unless the terms of reference are amended, the
industrial Tribunal has to decide all the matters in
question referred to it by the appropriate Government.
In the case on hand the petitioner union has confined its
claim to the revision of pay scale for the posts of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist in the respondent
Corporation. The petitioner union has confined itself
to the above aspects of the dispute, this Tribunal is
empowered to decide all the matters in dispute covered
by the terms of reference. Under such circumstances
there is an obligation on the part of the petitioner union
to open its mouth and to put black and white on all the
questions covered by the reference and on failure to do
so, this Tribunal is entitled to draw adverse inference
against the petitioner union in respect of the matters in
dispute not dealt with by the petitioner union in the
claim statement. The petitioner union cannot ignore the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to decide the
matters in dispute which are incidental to the main
matters covered by the terms of reference. The reference
mentioned Boiler Attendants and junior chemists were
appointed in the pay scale of `4,000-100-6,000.
The petitioner union has given distorted version of facts
with suppression of material facts for its claim of higher
pay scales on the ground of parity in employment. The
1228
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
respondent
vide
Board resolution No. 28.4 on
08-12-1997 has considered and approved the extending
the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission as applicable to
the employees of the corporation decided that
corresponding replacement scales be given with effect
from 01-01-1996. The scale of pay of the posts of
Junior Chemist and Boiler Attendant were created
subsequently vide Board resolution No. 31.3 on 18th
September, 1998 and the scales of pay has been fixed
as ` 4,000-100-6,000. The respondent corporation
cannot be equated to the Government Department. Under
Government Departments, it is coming under the purview
of the manufacturing Industrial unit and governed by
the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and other
labour enactments.
It is further stated that the petitioner is not justified
in blowing hot and cold. On the one hand, it contends
that there was no post corresponding to or having the
parity to the posts of Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist in the Government of Puducherry. On the other
hand, it contends that the pay scale recommended for
the Government Departments should be adopted for the
employees of the corporation who are not Government
servants. The petitioner cannot compare the posts of
Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist to similar posts in
any other Government undertaking and claim parity pay
scale, provide the well recognized principles relating to
parity in pay scales like nature of employment,
qualification in terms of education and experience,
terms and conditions of employment, duties and
responsibilities and other relevant considerations. The
reference mentioned workers can be considered as
technicians, the petitioner union has to establish the
factors that are necessary for claiming parity in pay
scales. The parity or equality in pay scale is based on
the principle of equality in the matter of employment.
The petitioner union has made reference to Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution in this regard. It is a basic
principle of law that “equality of equals” alone can be
claimed and unequal can not be treated equally. The
“equality in pay scale” is not an abstract doctrine. The
petitioner should identify a particular post with
particular scales of pay applicable to the post and claim
for adopting the same to a similar post. No post similar
to the post of Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist with
pay scale of ` 5,000-8,000 have been identified by the
petitioner. The term ‘technician’ is common term and
reach several post carrying several pay scale can be
grouped. The petitioner has miserably failed to
establish its case relating to parity in pay scales. The
pay scale for the posts of Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist have been fixed in the Board Resolution
according to its requirements, after taking note of the
relevant facts and circumstances and so it is not
arbitrary. The 4 Boiler Attendants and 5 Junior Chemist
referred in the claim petition have consciously accepted
their terms and conditions of employments including
the pay scale and now, they are estopped from
contending that the pay scales are unfair one, as an after
thought. The recommendations of the fifth
Pay
Commission in chapter 52.1ll recommending the scale
of ` 5,000-8,000 to technicians with either a Degree in
Science or Diploma in Engineering is not taken or
considered by the Corporation for the post of Junior
Chemists and Boiler Attendant as the nature of work is
different in the Corporation as it is a manufacturing
Industrial Unit governed by the
provisions of
Factories Act and the scale of pay ` 4,000-100-
6,000 for the posts of Junior Chemist and Boiler
Attendant have been fixed as per the Board resolution
No. 31.3. The scales of pay of the post of Junior
Chemist and Boner Attendant is in accordance with the
Board resolution as applicable to Puducherry Power
Corporation Ltd., vide GO. Ms. No. 55/97/F3, dated
15-10-1997 and G.O Ms. No. 66/F3/2008, dated 24-10-2008
issued by the Finance Department of Government of
Puducherry and subsequent Board decision No. 28.4
dated 08-12-1997 and 83.1, dated 19-11-2008
respectively. Regarding the revision of the scales of pay
and anomalies, i.e., Office Memorandum No.A. 12017/
10/2012/DPAR/CCD(1), dated 26-11-2012 of Chief
Secretary, Government of Puducherry, Department of
Personnel and administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing)
has issued directions which clarifies that the ratificatory
orders are awaited from Government of India. The
respondent
corporation
is
an
undertaking
of
Government of Puducherry and it can not take an
independent decision without the approval of the
Government authorities concerned. Unless approval by
competent authority is granted for pay scale of
`5,000-8,000 for posts Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist, the respondent can not accept the claim made
by the petitioner union. The respondent corporation is
ready to take up the matter further and the claim of the
petitioner union can be considered in the light of
decision of the Government. The issue relating to
implementation of pay scales is an administrative act
falling under the exclusive consideration of the
employer and the Court and Tribunals do not interfere
with the same unless there is a clear violation of any
legal provision.
It is further stated that on account of pressure given
by the petitioner union and in good faith the respondent
corporation took steps to revise the pay scales of the
Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists at `5,000-8,000
and the proposal for the same was discussed in the
1229
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Board Meeting of the Corporation. As per the decision
of the Board, the Corporation decided to revise the pay
scales of the Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists at
`5,000- 8,000 with prospective effect and with no
arrears, subject to the approval of the Government. The
resolution contained in the Board resolution No.110.15
was communicated through Letter No. 1177/PPCL/
TRP/SE/2014/dated 06-08-2014 of the Superintendent
Engineer, Puducherry Power Corporation Limited,
Karaikal. The Finance Department, Government of
Puducherry has disapproved the proposal of the
respondent corporation to revise the pay scales of the
Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists at ` 5,000 to
8,000 as the Ministry of Home Affairs has not ratified
the revision of pay done in the Electricity Department.
The decision of the Government is binding on the
management of the respondent corporation, it being a
Government of Puducherry undertaking.
4. The averments in the reply to additional counter
filed by the petitioner, is as follows :
The petitioner union denied all the allegations made
in the additional counter except those which have been
specifically admitted by them. The claim statement is
confined to the revision of pay scale for the posts of
Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist in the respondent
corporation. The unions PPCL gave a strike notice on
16-07-2009 and 20-07-2009 for implementation of
revision of pay scale as per the Board resolution 75.10
which is based on the Electricity Department. As per
the aforesaid Board resolution the pay scale revision
was approved by the respondent corporation for 12
categories of posts, in which the aforesaid post of
Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist forms part which
is subject to the approval of the Government of
Puducherry Electricity Department. The post of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist never existed in the
Electricity Department, hence, the averment that the
Finance Department, Government of Puducherry has
disapproved the proposal of the respondent corporation
to revise the pay scales of the Boiler Attendant and
Junior Chemist at `5,000 - 8,000 as the Ministry of
Home Affairs has not ratified the revision of pay done
in the Electricity Department is irrelevant and does not
apply to the case on hand pending on the file of this
Tribunal in respect of Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist. The respondent management had taken a
conscious decision while passing resolution No. 34.6,
dated 08-03-1999 that no telescopic pay scales be given
for the posts and the scales fixed in accordance with
the rules of the Government of Puducherry. The
respondent management is violating their own decision
which against the articles of association of
the
respondent corporation. The respondent management
under RTI application communicated vide its reply,
dated 25-04-2012 that only certain post namely Helper,
Wireman and Line Inspector have been revised scale of
pay as per Electricity Department after obtaining
approval from the Government of Puducherry and that
other categories which is inclusive of Boiler Attendant
and Junior Chemist of posts were revised as per 5th and
6th Central Pay Commission.
5. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P42
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 were marked. Both
side arguments were heard.
6. The point for consideration:
The Government has made this reference to this
Tribunal to decide whether the industrial dispute raised
by the petitioner union against the respondent
corporation over revision of pay scales for the post of
Line Inspector, Tester Gr.I, Draughtsman, Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist on par with 5th Central
Pay Commission is justified or not. But, the petitioner
union has restricted their claim only with regard to the
revision of pay scales for the post of Boiler Attendant
and Junior Chemist on par with 5th Central Pay
Commission. Hence, the point for consideration in this
case is that whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union against the respondent corporation
over revision of pay scales for the post of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist on par with 5th Central
Pay Commission is justified or not and if, justified,
what is the relief can be granted to the said Boiler
Attendants and Junior Chemists.
7. On the point:
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 petitioner union
written argument was filed and the same was carefully
considered. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in
support of his contention has relied upon the decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal (Civil).
Nos. 26005-26006/2011 between L.Ganesh and others
Vs. Pondicherry Public Works Department, Work
Assistant Association and others and also relied upon
the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.
No. 20377 of 2009, order in G.O. Ms. No. 13, dated
28-03-2013 issued by the Govenrment of Puducherry,
order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
W.P(C). No. 4033/2001, order passed by the Hon’ble
1230
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
Delhi High Court in W.P(C).No.421357-59/2005, order
passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
W.P(C).No.10688-90/2005 and Para No. 43.15, 55.111,
55.149, 56.56, 63.87, 64.10, 69.63, 71.25 and 71.60/61
of the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations,
Para No. 43.15, 50.23, 50.24 and 52.111 of the 5th Central
Pay Commission recommendations, Para No.168.3 of the
5th Central Pay Commission recommendations, Para
No.126.5 of the 5th Central Pay Commission
recommendations. The learned
Counsel for the
respondent has also in support of his case relied upon
the Judgment reported in (2017) 1 SCC (L & S)1 and
(2017) 2 SCC (L & S) 645.
8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner union,
the Secretary of the petitioner union was examined as
PW.1 and he has stated all the facts which are stated in
the claim statement and he has deposed that the
members of the petitioner union particularly who are
working as Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist have
joined in their establishment and they have been in
service since from 1999 and they have claimed the
revision of pay scale for the post of Boiler Attendant
and Junior Chemist to the respondent corporation and
the corporation recommended and the board has
approved a scale of `4,000-100-6,000 for both the
posts of Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist and that
there was no posts corresponding to the post of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist in the Government of
Puducherry and they have been appointed under the
method of direct recruitment as per rules and that they
are having academic qualification required for the post
and that after considering fixation of specific scales for
various categories of employees, the
Fifth
Pay
Commission considered the cases of technicians with
either a degree in science or diploma in engineering and
recommended a scale of ` 5000-150-8000 and the same
was approved by the Central Government and the
Government of Puducherry by Government order, dated
15-10-1997 published in Extraordinary Gazette and that
there was a pay anomaly that has crept in the
prescription of scale of pay to the posts of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist and that the petitioner
union has asked the respondent corporation regarding
pay anomaly and asking them to re-fix the scale of pay
from ` 4,000-6,000 as ` 5,000-8,000 to the Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist and thereafter the
respondent corporation also has recommended removal
of the anomaly in the scale of pay of the post of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist and that as per the fifth
pay commission recommendations, the petitioners have
been deprived of the appropriate replacement scales
under the recommendation of the sixth pay commission
and that therefore, the petitioner union has asking for
revision of pay scales for the post of Boiler Attendant
and Junior Chemist on par with the fifth Central Pay
Commission scales and that the respondent corporation
has passed a resolution on 08-12-1997 and took a
conscious decision to apply the recommendations of the
5th Pay Commission for revision of scales of the posts
under the corporation and while creating the posts of
Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist in the scale of
` 4,000-6,000 which created anomalous situation which
deserves rectification on merits and as per the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission to
technicians with either a degree in science or diploma
in engineering in unambiguous and the qualification
prescribed for the posts of Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist respectively are Diploma in Mechanical
Engineering with boiler competency certificate, class-I
and II with 2 years of relevant experience and the
qualification for Junior Chemist is a Degree of B.Sc.,
(Chemistry) or equivalent with 2 years experience and
though anomaly is known to
the respondent
management and the Government of Puducherry the
reasons best known to the management the just demand
of the petitioner union has not been conceded and the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission accepted
by the Government of Pondicherry as per Government
Order, dated 15-10-1997 has got national application
and denial of the same to the workmen locked up with
the management in the above industrial dispute is
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
constitution.
9. In support of their oral evidence the petitioner
union has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P42. Ex.P1 is the copy
of representation by the petitioner, dated 03-12-2011. Ex.P2
is the copy of rejoinder by the petitioner, dated
16-02-2012. Ex.P3 is the copy of reply by the
respondent, dated 01-02-2012. Ex.P4 is the copy of
reply by the respondent, dated 15-03-2011. Ex.P5 is the
copy of recruitment rules for the post of Boiler
Attendant. Ex.P6 is the copy of recruitment rules for
the post of Junior Chemist. Ex.P7 is the copy of duties
and responsibilities assigned to Boiler Attendant issued
by the respondent corporation. Ex.P8 is the copy of
duties and responsibilities assigned to Junior Chemist
issued by the respondent corporation. Ex.P9 is the copy
of failure report, dated 09-04-2012. Ex.P10 is the copy
of abstract of the reference issued vide G.O. Rt. No. 77/
AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 10-05-2012. Ex.P11 is the copy
of board resolution No.31.3 issued by the respondent
corporation. Ex.P12 is the copy of board resolution
No. 28.4 issued by the respondent corporation. Ex.P13
is the copy of Gazette Notification No.103 issued by
Government of Puducherry, dated 15-10-1997. Ex.P14
1231
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
is the copy of reply by respondent, dated 01-03-2012.
Ex.P15 to Ex.P23 are the copy of appointment orders issued
by the respondent corporation to Mr. K. Lakshminarayanan,
Mr. K. Manikandan, Mr. K.Ashok Kumar, Mr. R. Kumaravel,
Mr. T. Lavanya, Mr. K. Palvannan, Mr. K.Vengadesan,
Mr. A. Kathiravan and Mr. S. Srinivasan respectively.
Ex.P24 is the copy of board agenda and resolution
No.75.10 by the respondent corporation. Ex.P25 is the
copy of form-L of the unions along with the charter of
demands by petitioner, dated 16-07-2009 and 20-07-2009.
Ex.P26 is the copy of minutes of meeting held with the
Secretary (Power) by the respondent, dated 30-07-2009.
Ex.P27 is the copy of union letter with reference
No.conf/83/2009 by petitioner, dated 31-07-2009.
Ex.P28 is the copy of the conciliation proceedings
before DCL-cum-Conciliation Officer, Puducherry,
dated 31-07-2009 and 04-08-2009. Ex.P29 is the copy
of minutes of meting held in the chamber of Chief
Minister by the respondent, dated 12-08-2009. Ex.P30
is the copy of board agenda and resolution No. 87.6
by the respondent, dated 22-09-2009.
Ex.P31 is the
copy of board agenda and resolution No .89.3 by the
respondent, dated 26-02-2010. Ex.P32 is the copy of
board agenda and resolution No. 90.3 by the respondent,
dated 30-06-2010. Ex.P33 is the copy of letter of
Industrial Development (Power) Department
with
reference No. 881/ID(P)/D/10/P5, dated 05-07-2010.
Ex.P34 is the copy of RTI reply by respondent, dated
12-01-2011. Ex.P35 is the copy of RTI reply by
respondent, dated 25-04-2012. Ex.P36 is the copy of
RTI reply by respondent dated 23-05-2012. Ex.P37 is
the copy of board agenda and resolution No.39.6 by
respondent, dated 13-12-1999. Ex.P38 is the copy of
G.O. Ms. No.22 of Industrial Development (Power)
Department dated 06-10-1999. Ex.P39 is the copy of
board agenda and resolution No.34.6 by respondent,
dated 08-03-1999. Ex.P40 is the copy of letter of
appointment of consultant under the chairmanship of
Thiru H.Dasarathan, Under Secretary to Government
(Rtd.,) by respondent. Ex.P41 is the copy of relevant
page No. 16 and 17 of the report of consultant under the
chairmanship of Thiru H. Dasarathan, Under Secretary to
Government (Rtd.,) by respondent. Ex.P42 is the copy
of board agenda and resolution no.110.15 passed on
27-06-2014 by the respondent.
10. On the other hand, to disprove the case of the
petitioner union the Superintendent Engineer of the
respondent corporation was examined as RW.1 and
RW.1 has deposed that the claim made by the petitioner
union is not maintainable and that the reference
mentioned Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists were
appointed in the pay scale of ` 4,000-100-6000 and
they have claimed higher Pay Scales on the ground of
parity in employment and that the respondent
corporation under board resolution on 08-12-1997 has
considered and approved the extending benefits of the
5th pay commission as applicable to the employees of
the corporation decided that corresponding replacement
scales be given with effect from 01-01-1996 and that the
scale of pay of the posts of Junior Chemist and Boiler
Attendant were created subsequently
vide board
resolution and the scale of pay has been fixed as
` 4,000-100-6000 and the respondent corporation can
not be equated to the Government Department and the
respondent is a manufacturing Industrial unit and
governed under the Factories Act and other labour laws
and that the term ‘technician’ is common term under
which several post carrying several Pay Scale can be
grouped and that the pay scale for the posts of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist have been fixed in the
Board Resolution according to its requirements and
after taking note of the relevant facts and circumstances
and that they have accepted the Pay Scale at the time of
their appointment and now, they are estopped from
contending that the pay scales are unfair one and the
recommendations of the fifth
Pay
Commission
recommending the
Pay Scale of
` 5,000-8,000 to
technicians with either a Degree in Science or Diploma
in Engineering is not taken or considered by the
corporation for the post of Junior Chemists and Boiler
Attendant as the nature of work is different in the
corporation and the posts of Junior Chemist and Boiler
Attendant have been fixed as per the Board Resolution
and that the scales of pay of the post of Junior Chemist
and Boiler Attendant is in accordance with the Board
Resolution as applicable to Puducherry Power
Corporation Ltd., vide GO.Ms.No. 55/97/F3, dated
15-10-1997 and G.O Ms. No. 66/F3/2008, dated
24-10-2008 issued by the Finance Department of
Government of Puducherry and subsequent Board
decision taken on 08-12-1997 and 09-11-2008
respectively regarding the revision of the scales of pay
and anomalies and that the respondent corporation is an
undertaking of Government of Puducherry and it can
not take an independent decision without the approval
of the Government authorities concerned and unless
approval by competent authority is granted for Pay
Scale of `5,000-8,000 for the posts of Boiler Attendant
and Junior Chemist, the respondent cannot accept the
claim made by the petitioner union and that the issue
relating to implementation of
Pay Scales is an
administrative act falling under the exclusive
consideration of the employer and the Court or
Tribunals cannot interfere with the same unless there is
a clear violation of any legal provision.
1232
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
11.
It is the further evidence of RW.1 that after
filing of the claim statement the petitioner union
insisted on the revision of Pay Scale of the Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist and that on account of
pressure given by the petitioner union and in good faith
the respondent corporation took steps to revise the Pay
Scales of the Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists at
`5,000- `8,000 and the proposal for the same was
discussed in the Board Meeting of the Corporation and
as per the decision of the Board, the Corporation has
decided to revise the Pay Scales of the Boiler Attendants
and Junior Chemists at ` 5,000-` 8,000 with prospective
effect and with no arrears, subject to the approval of the
Government and that the resolution contained in the
Board resolution was communicated through letter on
06-08-2014 of the Superintendent Engineer of the
respondent
corporation
and
that
the
Finance
Department, Government of Puducherry has not
approved the proposal of the respondent corporation to
revise the Pay Scales of the Boiler Attendants and
Junior Chemists at ` 5,000-8,000 as the Ministry of
Home Affairs has not ratified the revision of pay done
in the Electricity Department. In support of their
evidence the respondent corporation has exhibited
Ex.R1 to Ex.R9. Ex.R1 is the copy of the board
resolution No.31.3 regarding fixing of scales of pay for
the posts of Junior Chemists and Boiler Attendants,
dated 18-09-1998. Ex.R2 is the copy of the GOMS 55/
97/F3 issued by the Finance Department, Government of
Puducherry, dated 15-10-1997. Ex.R3 is the copy of
G.O. Ms. 66/F3/2008 issued by the Finance Department,
Government of Puducherry, dated 24-10-2008. Ex.R4 is the
copy of the Board resolution No. 28.4, dated
08-12-1997. Ex.R5 is the copy of the Board resolution
No. 83.1, dated 19-11-2008. Ex.R6 is the copy of the
Office Memorandum No. A. 12017/10/2012/DPAR/
CCD(1) of Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry,
dated 26-11-2013. Ex.R7 is the copy of the board
resolution No.110.15 communicated through letter
No.1177/PPCL/TRP/SE/2014, dated 06-08-2014. Ex.R8
is the copy of the Office Memorandum No. 55011/
07/2016/PPCL/P5 of the Department of Industrial
Development (Power) Department, Puducherry, dated
03-05-2017. Ex.R9 is the copy of extract of the minutes
of the 129th meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation.
12. On careful consideration of pleadings of both
the parties, the evidence let in and exhibits marked on
both sides it is noticed that following facts are admitted
by either side that the members of the petitioner union
are working at the respondent corporation and 4 Boiler
Attendants and 5 Junior Chemists are working at the
respondent corporation in the Pay Scale of ` 4,000-6,000
and after the recommendations of the 5th pay
commission the respondent corporation board has also
resolved to revise the salary of the petitioners at the
rate of ` 5,000 - 8,000 and the respondent corporation
has also accepted to revise the Pay Scale of the
employees of the respondent corporation on par with
the 5th
Pay
Commission recommendations and
resolution has also sent to the Government of
Puducherry for the approval which was rejected by the
Government stating that in the 5th Pay Commission no
pay has been revised in the category of Boiler
Attendants and Junior Chemists and except these
Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists all other
employees of the respondent corporation have been
given the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission and these
Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists were also
recommended for the revision of wages as the
Government employee of Puducherry and to revise the
salary under the 5th Pay Commission recommendations.
Further, it can be noticed from the pleadings that both
the parties have not disputed the fact that since the
Government has not approved to raise the pay scale
these Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists have not
been given revised pay and that therefore, they have
raised the industrial dispute through the petitioner
union and as the conciliation was failed this matter has
been referred to this Court.
13. It is the first contention of the respondent
corporation that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is
determined by the terms of reference by the appropriate
Government as contemplated by section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act and hence, unless the terms of
reference are amended, the Industrial Tribunal has to
decide all the matters in question referred to it by the
appropriate Government and in the case on hand the
petitioner union has confined its claim to the revision
of pay scale for the posts of Boiler Attendant and
Junior Chemist in the respondent Corporation and that
therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the
reference with regard to scale of pay of Boiler Attendant
and Junior Chemist. It is true that the reference has
been made by the Government to decide the dispute
raised by the petitioner union over revision of pay
scales for the post of Line Inspector, Tester Gr.I,
Draughtsman, Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist and
it is also true that the claim petition filed by the union
is confined only with regard to the revision of pay scale
for the post of Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist in
the respondent corporation. Though the reference has
been made by the Government to decide the pay scale
of various categories of the workmen of the respondent
corporation it is the right of the petitioner union to
1233
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
restrict their claim as their wish and that alone cannot
cease the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the
reference in respect of pay scale of Boiler Attendant
and Junior Chemist of the respondent corporation and
that therefore, the contention raised by the respondent
corporation that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
decide the reference only with regard to the pay scale
of Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist is not sustainable.
14. It is the second contention of the respondent
corporation that since the Government has disapproved
the proposal of the respondent corporation the Boiler
Attendants and Junior Chemists are not entitled for
revision of pay scale on par with 5th Pay Commission.
On this aspect the evidence and documents are perused.
The documents exhibited by the petitioner union would
go to show that on 03-12-2011 the petitioner union has
submitted the letter to the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
with regard to the Pay Scale revision for the cadres of
Junior Chemist and Boiler Attendant as per the 5th
Central Pay Commission and the said letter would
further reveal the fact that the petitioner union has
represented that the Pay Scale of the Junior Chemist
and Boiler Attendant was not properly fixed by the
respondent corporation on par with the 5th Central Pay
Commission and the union has also submitted the
charter of demands with the respondent corporation
regarding the issue of pay revision and the respondent
corporation has also passed a resolution on 08-12-1997
and approved the grant of Pay Scale on par with the 5th
Central Pay Commission and the respondent corporation
has given reply to the Labour Officer regarding revision
of Pay Scales stating that they were awaiting for the
outcome of the proposal sent by them to the
Government of India with regard to the revision of
scales of pay for certain categories of posts of
Electricity Department, Puducherry and that has to be
yet to receive and they have assured that further action
will be taken after getting direction from the
Government of Puducherry and the respondent
management has given another reply on 15-03-2011 to
the Labour Commissioner stating that the respondent
management has agreed for the revision as per the scale
of pay for the Group C and Group D of the corporation
and it would be in accordance with the recommendation
of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission and subsequently
board decision, dated 08-12-1997 and 19-11-2008 for
the revision of the scale of pay in respect of Group C
and Group D employees of the corporation and in the
board meeting held on 25-09-1997 the respondent
management has approved in extending the benefit of
the 5th Pay Commission as approved by the Government
of Puducherry.
15. The documents would further reveal the fact that
the petitioner union and the respondent management
has conducted the meeting in the month of December,
2006 to consider the demands of the employees
regarding the revision of scales of pay of different
cadres in accordance with the Pay Scales of the
Electricity Department, Government of Puducherry and
that the petitioner union has given a strike notice on
20-07-2009 to the respondent management regarding
charter of demands of the employees of the respondent
corporation and on 31-07-2009 the Confederation of
Puducherry Government Employees’ Association has
submitted the letter to the Chief Secretary to
Government with regard to the petitioner union’s
charter of demands and strike notice and negotiations
were held between the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director of the respondent corporation and with the
petitioner union on 30-07-2009 wherein, the respondent
management has agreed to clear all the proposals for
revision of Pay Scales covered by the 5th Central Pay
Commission recommendations and the Government of
India and the Government of Puducherry which includes
the posts of Line Inspector, Tester, Draughtsman (Civil)/
(Mechanical)/Boiler Attendants which requires diploma
in relevant field engineering as the minimum
qualification, and Junior Chemist which requires
qualification of graduate in science under the 5th Pay
Commission in para No. 52.111 5th Central Pay
Commission which call for the fitment of Pay Scale of
`5,000-150-8,000 from 01-01-1996 or from the date on
which the said workers have been appointed to the
posts and that there was a conciliation proceedings
between
the
management
of
the
respondent
establishment and the petitioner union and thereafter
the meeting was held at the chamber of Chief Minister
with regard to the benefits of the 5th Central Pay
Commission to the employees of the respondent
corporation and board meeting was held on 12-08-2009,
22-08-2009, 26-02-2010 and 30-06-2010 and a resolution
was passed for ratification of pay anomalies as per Pay
Commission Recommendations and that there was
a meeting held on 13-12-1999 in the chamber of
Chief Secretary, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry to
consider the decision and approved the revision of scale
of pay for the post of Junior Chemist and Boiler
Attendant and G.O. has been passed by the Government
of Puduchery on 06-10-1999 with regard to the fixation
of salary for the employees of the Electricity
Department, Puducherry and that the respondent
corporation has given an appointment to one
Dasarathan, the Secretary to Government (Retired) to
review, amendment, alteration, modification of the
1234
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
existing recruitment rules of the respondent corporation
and review of the scale of pay of certain posts which
have not been considered as per the 5th
Pay
Commission and Mr. Dasarathan has submitted the
report recommending revision of scale of ` 5,000-
` 8,000 for Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemist along
with Tester -II and Line Inspector and board meeting of
the respondent corporation conducted on 27-06-2014 to
consider the decision of implementation of revision of
Pay Scale of the following 12 number of cadres as per
the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission was
under consideration for the long time and has
recommended the revised Pay Scale at ` 5,000-150-
`8,000 as per 5th Pay Commission to Junior Chemist
and Boiler Attendant.
16. The respondent management witness RW.1 has
stated in his cross examination as follows :
“……I am not aware that the Government of
Pondicherry has obtained approval from Central
Government for implementation of 5th CPC. Since
there is no similar post of Boiler Attendant and
Junior Chemist in any other Department of
Government of Puducherry. We revised the salary on
the basis of 5th CPC recommendations. The Board
approved the Pay Scale revision of `5,000-8,000 for
the post of Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist paid
with effect from the date of joining of the members
of the petitioner union without arrears for the 12
categories has not been paid arrears out of 52
categories. ………”.
From the evidence of RW.1 it is clear that with
regard to scale of pay of Boiler Attendant and Junior
Chemist steps were taken by the management and the
proposal for the same was discussed and as per the
decision of the Board, the Corporation decided to
revise the Pay Scales of the Boiler Attendants and
Junior Chemists at `5,000 - 8,000 with prospective
effect subject to the approval of the Government and
the same was communicated on 06-08-2014 to the
Superintendent Engineer of the respondent corporation
and that the Finance Department of Government of
Puducherry has not approved the proposal of the
management corporation to revise the Pay Scale of
Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist as the Ministry of
Home Affairs has not ratified the revision of pay done
in the Electricity Department.
17. From the evidence of PW1 and the exhibits
marked on the side of the petitioner it is clearly
established by the petitioner union that the respondent
management has accepted the above revision of the Pay
Scale of the Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists at
` 5,000-150-8,000 and the Government of Puducherry
alone has not accepted the proposal of the respondent
management stating that the Ministry of Home Affairs
has not ratified the revision of pay done in the
Electricity Department and that therefore, it is clear that
the Government of Puducherry alone has not approved
the proposal of the respondent corporation to revise the
Pay Scales of Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists.
18. The main case of the petitioner union is that as
per the G.O. issued by the Government of Puducherry
in G.O.Ms.No.55/97/F3, dated 15-10-1997 and
G. O. Ms. No. 66/F3/2008, dated 24-10-2008 the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission was
accepted by the Government of Puducherry which has
got national application and denial of the same to the
workmen locked up with the management in the above
industrial dispute is discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. On the other
hand, it is stated by the respondent corporation that the
respondent management has in good faith taken steps to
revise the Pay Scales of the Boiler Attendants and
Junior Chemists at `5,000-150-8,000 and the proposal
for the same was discussed in the Board Meeting of the
respondent corporation and the respondent corporation
has also decided to revise the Pay Scales of the Boiler
Attendants and Junior Chemists at `5,000-150-8,000
with prospective effect subject to the approval of the
Government and the Finance Department, Government
of Puducherry has disapproved the proposal of the
respondent corporation to revise the Pay Scales of the
Boiler Attendants and Junior Chemists at ` 5,000-
150-8,000 as the Ministry of Home Affairs has not
ratified the revision of pay done in the Electricity
Department and that the decision of the Government is
binding on the management of the respondent
corporation.
19. On this aspect the Government orders, dated
15-10-1997 and 24-10-2008 which were exhibited as
Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 respectively are carefully perused.
The G.O., under Ex.R2 would reveal the fact that the
Government of Puducherry has revised the Pay Scales
for the common categories of staffs as per the
recommendations of the Pay Commission and such
scales have necessarily to be given with perspective
effect and that the staffs working in an organization
outside the Secretariat in the cadre of Assistants, Head
Clerical Staffs, Superintendents level -2 and Upper
Division Clerks, Draughtsman - II, Operation theatre
Technicians, Radiographers, Technicians with either a
degree in science or diploma in engineering were given
pay revision at `5,000-150-8,000. The G.O. under
1235
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R3 would reveal the fact that the Government of
Puducherry has ordered the implementation cell to
examine the feasibility of extending the 6th Pay
Commission Recommendations to the employees of the
Organizations, Corporations, Societies, Boards, Local
Bodies under the Government of Puducherry and after
getting the report from the committee of the
implementation cell and based on the decision of the
Counsel of Ministers, the Lieutenant-Governor has
approved the recommendations to the employees of the
Organizations, Corporations, Societies, Boards, Local
Bodies under the Government of Puducherry.
20. Further, it is learnt from the evidence and
records that the recommendations of the 5th Pay
Commission was accepted by the Government of
Puducherry and recommended the scale of pay at
` 5,000-150-8,000 to technicians with either a degree
in science or diploma in engineering and as per the
recruitment rules the qualification prescribed for the
post of Boiler Attendant is Diploma in Mechanical
engineering with boiler competency certificate, class-I
and II with 2 years of relevant experience and the
qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Chemist is
a Degree of B.Sc., (Chemistry) or equivalent with 2 years
experience
and that
therefore,
admittedly
the
qualifications prescribed for the posts of Boiler
Attendant and Junior Chemist in the respondent
management are on par with the qualification
recommended by the Government of Puducherry under
G.O. which was exhibited as Ex.R2.
21. Further, on this aspect, the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the order
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in
W.P.No.20377/2009, wherein the Hon'ble High Court
has observed that,
“……….When the matter is taken up for
consideration
learned
Government
Pleader
(Pondicherry) submitted that considering the claim
of similarly situated persons, the Department has
submitted a proposal to the Government of
Pondicherry including the cadre of Work Assistants
as a feeder category to the post of Junior Engineers
and also the subsequent revision of pay as has been
prayed for in this writ petition.
Considering the aforesaid subsequent development,
it is clear that the Department itself has clarified the
position that the petitioners are entitled to the Pay
Scale as has been claimed in this writ petition.
Hence, the petitioners are entitled for the revised pay
scale of ` 5,000-8,000 as was Draughtsman from the
date of regularization i.e., 23-10-2003. This exercise
has to be completed within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
Writ
Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the
connected M.P. is closed. No costs.”
From the above observation it is clear that the
Draughtsman were given Pay Scale of `5,000-8,000
from the date of their regularization considering the
fact the Department has submitted a proposal for pay
revision to the cadre of Work Assistant. Likewise, in
this case also the respondent corporation has passed a
resolution and submitted a proposal to raise the Pay
Scale of the Junior Chemists and Boiler Attendants.
Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in W.P(C).No.21357-59/2005, wherein the
Hon'ble High Court has observed that,
“………..Based thereon, the Ministry of Finance
gave concurrence to a request sent by the Department
of Science and Technology to grant said two scales of
pay to Junior Technical Assistants and Technical
Assistants and passed an order to said effect on August 18,
2000, relevant part whereof reads as under:-
5th Pay Commission had recommended that for (i) a
post having qualifications of B.Sc./Diploma in
Engineering as essential eligibility condition at the
entry level and in the pre-revised Pay Scale of
`1,400-2,300, a higher replacement scale of pay of
`5,000-8,000 may be allowed and (ii) a post having
prescribed
qualification
of
an
Engineering
Degree…….”
From the above observation it is clear that 5th Pay
Commission has recommended the increase of Pay
Scale to the employees who is having the qualification
of B.Sc., Degree or Diploma in Engineering as
essential eligibility and has raised the Pay Scale at
` 5,000-8,000. In this case also the qualification for
Junior Chemist is Degree of B.Sc., (Chemistry) or
equivalent with 2 years experience and qualification for
Boiler Attendant is Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
with boiler competency certificate, class-I and II with
2 years of relevant experience as per recruitment rules.
Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in W.P(C).No.4033/2001, wherein, the Hon’ble
High Court has observed that,
“……..Therefore, it has been rightly held by the
Tribunal that the Commission clearly made provisions
for grant of the pay scale of ` 5,000-8,000 (pre-revised
`1600-2660) to Diploma Holder Engineers across the
Board. As the notification of the 5th Pay Commission
came into being on 30-11-1997, the respondents shall
be granted the Pay Scale of ` 5000-8000/- w.e.f.
1-1-1996
in
pursuance
of
the
Commission's
recommendations in para 50.23 and 50.24. ….”
1236
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
From the above observation it is clear that the Pay
Scale of the Diploma Holder Engineers were revised at
`5,000-8,000 with effect from 01-01-1996 in pursuance
of the Commission’s recommendations in para 50.23
and 50.24 and hence, if any, employees required a
qualification of degree of B.Sc., or Diploma in
Engineering must have to be paid revised Pay Scale of
` 5,000-150-8,000 as per 5th Pay Commission.
22. Furthermore, it is not disputed by the respondent
management that the qualification prescribed for the
post of Junior Chemist is a Degree of B.Sc.,(Chemistry)
or equivalent with 2 years experience and the
qualification prescribed for the post of Boiler Attendant
is Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with boiler
competency certificate, class-I and II with 2 years of
relevant experience and that therefore, it can be
inferred that the Boiler Attendants are the Engineering
Diploma holders and the Junior Chemists are the degree
holders in B.Sc (Chemistry). As per the recommendation
of the 5th Pay Commission and as per the G.O., issued
by the Government of Puducherry the technicians who
are having either degree in science or diploma in
engineering have to be given revised scale of pay at
` 5,000-150-8,000 and that the Boiler Attendants and
Junior Chemists are also have to be given revision of
scale of pay as per the 5th
Pay
Commission
recommendations. Further, as the Government has already
passed the G.O., giving pay scale of ` 5,000-150-8,000
to the technicians it cannot disapprove the proposal of
the respondent corporation stating that the Ministry of
Home Affairs has not approved the revision of Pay
Scale of the workers in the Electricity Department and
therefore, the second contention raised by the respondent
corporation is also untenable and not sustainable and
that therefore, it is to be held that the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union against the respondent
corporation over revision of Pay Scales for the post of
Boiler Attendant and junior Chemist on par with 5th
Central Pay Commission is justified and the petitioners
are entitled for the revision of scales of pay at `5,000-
150-8,000 from the date of raising this industrial
dispute.
23. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent corporation over revision of Pay Scales
for the post of Boiler Attendant and Junior Chemist on
par with 5th Central Pay Commission is justified and
Award is passed directing the respondent corporation to
revise the scale of pay of the Boiler Attendants and
Junior Chemists of the respondent corporation at the
Scale of Pay of ` 5,000-150-8,000 from the date of
raising of this industrial dispute. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 12th day of April, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 1-12-2015 — Lakshmi Narayanan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —03-12-2011—
Copy of representation by
the petitioner.
Ex.P2 — 16-02-2012 — Copy of rejoinder by the
petitioner.
Ex.P3 — 01-02-2012 — Copy of reply by the
respondent.
Ex.P4 — 15-03-2011 — Copy of reply by the
respondent.
Ex.P5
Copy of recruitment rules
for the post of
Boiler
Attendant.
Ex.P6
Copy of recruitment rules for
the post of Junior Chemist.
Ex.P7
Copy of duties and
responsibilities assigned to
Boiler Attendant issued by
the respondent corporation.
Ex.P8
Copy of duties and
responsibilities assigned to
Junior Chemist issued by
the respondent corporation.
Ex.P9 — 09-04-2012 — Copy of failure report.
Ex.P10—10-05-2012 — Copy of abstract of the
reference issued vide G.O.
Rt.No.77/AIL/Lab./J/2012.
Ex.P11
Copy of board resolution
No. 31.3 issued by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P12
Copy of board resolution
No. 28.4 issued by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P13— 15-10-1997 —
Copy of Gazette Notification
No.
103
issued
by
Government of Puducherry.
Ex.P14—01-03-2012 — C o p y o f r e p l y b y
respondent.
1237
25 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P15
Copy of
Appointment
O r d e r i s s u e d t o
Mr. K. Lakshminarayanan,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P16
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr. K. Manikandan,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P17
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr. K. Ashok
Kumar, Junior Chemist by
the respondent corporation.
Ex.P18
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr. R. Kumaravel,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P19
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr. T. Lavanya,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P20
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr. K. Palvannan,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P21
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr. K. Vengadesan,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P22
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr. A. Kathiravan,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P22
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr.A. Kathiravan,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P23
Copy of Appointment Order
issued to Mr.S. Srinivasan,
Junior Chemist by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P24
Copy of board agenda and
resolution No.75.10 by the
respondent corporation.
Ex.P25—16-07-2009 — Copy of form-L of the unions
20-07-2009
along with the charter of
demands by petitioner.
Ex.P26—30-07-2009 — Copy of minutes of meeting
held with the Secretary
(Power) by the respondent.
Ex.P27—31-07-2009 — Copy of union letter with
Reference No.conf/83/2009
by petitioner.
Ex.P28—31-07-2009 — Copy of the conciliation
04-08-2009
proceedings before DCL-
cum-Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P29—12-08-2009 — Copy of minutes of meeting
held in the chamber of
Chief Minister by the
respondent.
Ex.P30—22-09-2009 — Copy of board agenda and
resolution No. 87.6 by the
respondent.
Ex.P31—26-02-2010 — Copy of board agenda and
resolution No. 89.3 by the
respondent.
Ex.P32—30-06-2010 — Copy of board agenda and
resolution No. 90.3 by the
respondent.
Ex.P33—05-07-2010 — Copy of letter of Industrial
Development
(power)
Department with reference
No. 881/ID(P)/D/10/P5.
Ex.P34—12-01-2011 — Copy of RTI reply by
respondent.
Ex.P35—25-04-2012 — Copy of RTI reply by
respondent.
Ex.P36—23-05-2012 — Copy of RTI reply by
respondent.
Ex.P37—13-12-1999 — Copy of board agenda and
resolution No. 39.6 by
respondent.
Ex.P38—06-10-1999 — Copy of G.O. Ms. No. 22 of
Industrial Development
(power) Department.
Ex.P39—08-03-1999 — Copy of board agenda and
resolution No. 34.6 by
respondent.
Ex.P40
Copy of letter of appointment
of consultant under the
chairmanship of Thiru
H. Dasarathan, Under Secretary
to Government (Rtd.,) by
respondent.
1238
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 September 2018
Ex.P41
Copy of relevant page No. 16
and 17 of the report of
consultant
under
the
chairmanship of Thiru
H. Dasarathan, Under
Secretary to Government
(Rtd.,) by respondent.
Ex.P42—27-06-2014 — Copy of board agenda and
resolution No. 110.15 by
respondent.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1—
28-08-2017 — R. Santhosh
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1— 18-09-1998 — Copy of the board resolution
No. 31.3 regarding fixing of
scales of pay for the posts of
Junior Chemists and Boiler
Attendants.
Ex.R2— 15-10-1997 — Copy of the G.O. MS. 55/97/
F3 issued by the Finance
Department, Government of
Puducherry.
Ex.R3— 24-10-2008 — Copy of G.O. MS. 66/F3/
2008 issued by the Finance
Department, Government of
Puducherry.
Ex.R4— 08-12-1997 — Copy of the Board resolution
No. 28.4.
Ex.R5— 19-11-2008 — Copy of the Board resolution
No. 83.1.
Ex.R6 — 26-11-2012 — Copy
of
the
office
Memorandum No.A.12017/
10/2012/DPAR/CCD(1) of
Chief Secretary, Government
of Puducherry.
Ex.R7— 06-08-2014 — Copy of the board resolution
No.110.15 communicated
through letter No.1177/
PPCL/TRP/SE/2014.
Ex.R8— 03-05-2017 — Copy
of
the
office
Memorandum No.55011/07/
2016/PPCL/P5
of
the
Department of Industrial
Development
(Power)
Department, Puducherry.
Ex.R9
Copy of extract of the
minutes of the 129th meeting
of the Board of Directors of
the corporation.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (HEALTH)
(G.O. Ms. No. 41, Puducherry, dated 7th September 2018)
ORDER
The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi has introduced a Health Care
Scheme namely, “Ayushman Bharat-National Health Protection Scheme” for nearly 10 crore poor and vulnerable
families all over India with a premium coverage of ` 5.00 lakh per family per annum for secondary and tertiary
care in Government and Private empanelled hospitals under this Scheme.
2. The number of beneficiaries is nearly 1.03 lakh family in the entire Union territory of Puducherry. The
Scheme has been approved in-principle by the Council of Ministers and the Hon’ble Lieutenant-Governor,
Puducherry. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been executed by the Government of
Puducherry with the National Health Agency, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi for implementing
the Scheme through Insurance Mode.
3. As per the MoU and Guidelines of the National Health Agency, the Union territory of Puducherry have
to constitute a Governing Council viz., State Health Agency for implementation of the Scheme and deliver the key
functions such as data sharing, verification/validation of families and members, awareness generation, monitoring,
etc. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) will look after the day-to-day operations of the State Health Agency and
implementation of the Scheme in the State with his supportive team and the same is counselled and overseen by
the Governing Council.