La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 22-00
Prix : ` 22-00
Price : ` 22-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1404
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1404
Award of the Labour Court .. 1404
de Tribunal.
.. 1424
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1424
Government Notifications
.. 1424
.. 1424
Avis de saisis-arrét
.. 1424
Notice of attachment
.. 1424
.. 1424
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1424
Tender Notices
.. 1424
.. 1425
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 1425
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1425
.. 1428
Annonces
.. 1428
Announcements
.. 1428
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 : 30-10-2018
Price : ` 22-00
[ 1403 ]
2018 } | 30 {
No.
44
Poudouchéry
Mardi
30
Octobre
2018 (8 Kartika 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
30th
October
2018
1404
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 103/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 19th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 23/2016, dated
25-05-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute
between management of M/s. Aathi Sakthi Projects
Private Limited, Puducherry and Thiru Senthilkumar, over
reinstatement with full back wages, continuity in service
and all other attendant benefits 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.
Friday, the 25th day of May 2018.
I.D. (L) No. 23/2016
Thiru Senthilkumar,
S/o. R.S. Dhandapani,
No. 44, 7th Cross, Selva Nagar,
Uruvaiyaru, Villianur,
Puducherry.
. .Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Aathi Sakthi Projects Private
Limited, R.S. No. 40/9, Earikarai Road,
Kothampurinatham,
Thiruvandarkoil,
Puducherry-605 102.
. .Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 08-05-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalargal R.T. Shankar, A. Ashokkumar and
P. Suresh, Counsels for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal
R. Ilancheliyan and S. Geetha, Counsels 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 re-instate the petitioner with full back wages,
continuity of service an all other attendance benefits.
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The respondent management started his concern
in the year 2004 and after the due course of the
selection process the petitioner had been appointed
in Welder Post. The petitioner had been serving at
the respondent management from April-2009 at the
utmost satisfaction of the respondent management
and there is no remark at all as against the
petitioner so far. All the employees are performed
all works assigned to them more than 12 hours
without any safety, health, statutory leave or
welfare and also the employees are getting very low
salary, due to escalating the price of living cost/
living index, the financial Position and buying
capacity of the employees comes down toward.
Hence, the employees were demanded wage
increase/revision from the respondent management
but they are not ready to increase the wages.
Therefore all the employees are formed one trade
union in the year of 2014 namely Adhisakthi Project
workers Limited Workers Union wherein the
petitioner is a General Secretary and the same was
duly registered before the Government of
Puducherry, vide Registration No. 1764/RTU/2014
for their collective bargaining. All the employees
of the respondent management are joined as a
member of the said Trade Union. Therefore, the
said union is only one and majority union and
therefore the respondent management is heated as
against the Office Bearers of the Trade Union as
well as its active members. The respondent
management has started all sorts of unfair Labour
Practice against the trade union to deprive the
workmen from their legitimate right created under
the Labour Laws and also to abolish/wipe out the
1405
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
petitioner's Trade Union from respondent's
Concern, as a result, the respondent management
has committed and adopted the unfair labour
practices against the Office Bearers as well as active
members of the said trade union. The respondent
management has finally after a lapse of 7 days
accusing the petitioner that on 29-10-2014 without
obeying the instructions of Mr. Balamurugan, Tool
Room Incharge, induced co-workers to walk out
from the company without getting any prior
permission for the same, used abusive/filthy
languages, attempting to assault and followed
malpractice of causing violence and based on the
said false complaint issued a show cause notice,
dated 05-11-2014. The petitioner had replied aptly
for the said show cause notice to the respondent.
Whereas the respondent management did not act
further after receipt of the said reply of the
petitioner. On 13-11-2014 the petitioner and other
co-workers demanded the respondent to provide
safety materials like hand cloves and Glass.
Whereas, the respondent willfully and wantonly
delayed without providing any such safety materials
to the employees and the Personnel Managers
Mr. Sasikumar and Saravanan asked them in a
threatening manner whether the petitioner and his
co-workers did engage in Strike after a long time
waiting by the petitioner. There was a notification
was pasted on the notice-board after some hours
that the petitioner and other co-workers called for
a strike for which there would a deduction of 8 days
salary per day. Hence, the workers were on duty
on that day gave a denial letter to the respondent
management. But, the respondent did not accept it.
So, they sent it to the respondent through Courier.
The respondent management on the next day did not
allocate any job to the petitioner and other
co-workers for attending their routine works. There
was no fruitful result yielded for the repeated
demands made by the petitioner for their duties in
the respondent management and they were ignored
by the respondent and hence, the petitioner returned
home without attending duty. On 15-11-2014 the
respondent management issued suspension order to
four employees namely Manimaran, Munikumar,
Karunagaran, and this petitioner Senthilkumar and
they have sent out of the company stating that there
would be an enquiry on the charges leveled against
them. After giving show cause notice to the
employees of about 40 people, the respondent
suspended only these four employees for their collective
demand of safety materials.
The respondent
management openly threaten the members of the
petitioner union and offered a suggestion to come
out the said trade union or otherwise the employees
of the union will lose more and more and the
respondent
management
forcefully
get
the
signatures from the employees and these four
suspended employees were exposed as the models
of punishment.
The respondent management
appointed an Enquiry Officer, who the Counsel is
appearing on behalf of this management before the
Labour Court at Puducherry and she formally
enquired to fulfill the statutory norms which is
enumerated in the labour laws. The Enquiry Officer
conducted the enquiry in their senior advocate
office who is the counsel for respondent
management and acted upon the tunes of the
respondent management in a biased manner and as
per the instructions and pre plan of the respondent
management the Enquiry Officer submitted her
report without giving sufficient opportunities to the
petitioner and co-employees and without following
the principal of natural justice. Based on the above
said false report given by the Enquiry Officer the
respondent management dismissed the employees
on 08-01-2016 as per their pre-plan. The employees
were made scapegoats and the respondent
management forced and threatened the other
employees by showing such dismissal order of these
employees, further the domestic enquiry conducted
against the petitioner was in violation of principles
of natural justice, and the enquiry was not
conducted in a free and fair manner, giving full
opportunity to the petitioner to contest the charges
on merits and all the essential requisites of a fair
trial were scrupulously not followed and the
Enquiry Officer did not consider the deposition of
the petitioner side witness in the enquiry
proceedings. Therefore, the dismissal order passed
against the petitioner is illegal and it is shockingly
disproportionate.
The
order passed by the
respondent management is against the natural
justice and contrary to the code of the Labour
Laws.
The respondent management has not
followed any rules or provisions under the Labour
Rules and Act and acted against them in order to
wreck vengeance against the petitioner and his
union. The petitioner therefore prayed this Court
to pass an order to direct the respondent
management to re-instate the petitioner with full
back wages, continuity of service and all other
attendance benefits.
1406
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent denied all the averments made by
the petitioner in his claim statement except those
that are all specifically admitted in the counter.
The petitioner has filed his claim Statement with
false allegations against the respondent. The petitioner
was a workman in the respondent factory.
There was an instruction by the management that
the employees going out of the factory except their
shift-breaks, gate pass shall be produced. On
29-10-2014 when the security guard asked for the
gate pass for going out for breakfast the petitioner
entangled into quarrel and altercations with the
security guard. Subsequently on the same day
around 1.00 p.m., when the security guard was
standing in his place, the petitioner along with his
co-workmen namely Mr. Munikumar, locked the
main gate inside of their own accord and continued
their battle against the security guard. They
threatened the security guard using filthy language.
When the situation became tense and uncontrollable
Mr.R.V.Balamurugan, Tool Room Engineer came to
the spot with an intention of pacifying the situation.
However he was also reprimanded by the petitioner
using abusive languages and the petitioner even
went to the level of manhandling and attacking him
along with another worker Mr. Manimaran. The scene
was witnessed and compromised one Mr. Saravanan,
Team Leader. The petitioner was issued a show
cause notice on 05-11-2014 for his abovesaid acts.
Then on 13-11-2014 the petitioner did not take up
the duties allocated to him and around 10.00 a.m.,
on the same day convened a meeting at the shop
floor and instigated the other workers to stop work.
He indulged in an act of preventing the other
workmen to join with him. For the abovesaid acts
the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry.
Against this the petitioner provoked his co-
workmen to instigate violence inside the factory.
Therefore, the respondent was constrained to seek
the intervention of the local Police to control the
adverse situation and only upon intervention by the
Police the petitioner was removed from the spot and
situation was brought under control. This was
communicated to the Labour Department and
Conciliation Officer. Therefore, the petitioner is
a continuous offender and every acts committed by
him is unlawful acts and not in the order of a
workman. Only in such a situation disciplinary action
was contemplated against the petitioner. The petitioner
was issued a show cause notice, dated 05-11-2014 for
which the petitioner submitted his explanation,
dated 07-11-2014. Since the explanation given by
the petitioner was not satisfied, he was issued a
charge sheet, dated 26-12-2014 and an independent
Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer
conducted her enquiry by giving due opportunities
to the petitioner and submitted her report, dated
02-11-2015. Since the charges leveled against the
petitioner were stated to have been proved by the
enquiry officer in her enquiry report, dated
02-11-2015, a second show cause notice, dated
24-11-2015 was issued communicating the proposed
punishment. The petitioner gave his explanation,
dated 02-12-2015. The petitioner did not come
forward neither to accept the charges nor to prove
himself innocent and submitted only an evasive
reply and imputed various allegations against this
respondent and the enquiry proceedings without any
documentary evidence in support of his allegations.
Since the misconducts committed by the petitioner
were serious and grievous in nature, his services
were terminated. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner are fictitious and an afterthought and
trying to mislead this Court by giving fabricated
and false allegations against this respondent.
The petitioner has suppressed every fact with
ulterior motive of gaining sympathy and he has not
come to this Court with clean hands.
The respondent was paying reasonable salary to
the industrial standard of its kind. The industry is
not a processing industry and it is only producing
packaging machines by buying various spare parts
from other industries and assembling the same.
There are no hazardous operations as contended by
the petitioner and wherever safety materials are
required to be provided, the same is provided
within the parameter of Factories Act 1948 and
rules made there under. The petitioner was having
any grievance, should have approached the
respondent management and negotiated the issue.
If, there were any contraventions, the petitioner was
having openings to approach the Government
Authorities seeking relief in the event any failure
in negotiations. The petitioner has unnecessarily not
only intervened in the managerial decisions and
also refused to work, prevented the other workmen
from doing their lawful dutlities, instigated
violence in the factory etc., Whatever may be the
grievances, the petitioner was having every right to
seek a legal remedy through an appropriate forum
and he was not supposed to take the law in his own
hand with an ulterior, motive of disturbing the
industrial peace and harmony inside the premises
1407
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
of the shop floor. The petitioner used filthy
languages against the management and the
managerial staffs, which is not permissible at any
point of time. The petitioner instead of proving
himself that he has not involved in such unlawful
acts, now taking the blanket to cover up his acts in
the guise of union activities and trying to gain
sympathy of this Court. The petitioner's contention
that the enquiry was conducted by a junior of the
senior Advocate, who is appearing in this case, is
a strategy to escape from the charges leveled
against him. The enquiry was conducted by giving
due opportunities under the principles of Natural
Justice and the findings were submitted based on
the various oral and documentary evidences. The
petitioner was also given good opportunities to
examine and cross examine the witnesses and
permitted to produce the documents. The petitioner
who did not object the proceedings all along, now
objecting is only an after thought tutored by the
learned counsel. The petitioner is to prove as to
how the enquiry is biased and in the absence of
proving unfairness of the enquiry proceedings,
making out such allegation is absolutely not
maintainable. Even, there are cases, decided by the
Apex Court that the enquiry- conducted by the legal
advisor of the company is permissible, unless there
were no bias is established. In this case also the
same analogy is applicable and the contention of
the petitioner is not maintainable. The respondent
does not have any intention to deny the legal rights
of the petitioner and the enquiry was conducted
within the parameter of Law. In case the petitioner
was having any issues, he should have settled the
issue within frame work of law and he did not have
any legal rights directly or indirectly to take the
Law in his hand. The action initiated against the
petitioner is only for the grievous misconducts
committed by him while he was on duty and there
were no mala fide intentions as contended by the
petitioner in his claim petition. The punishment
imputed against the petitioner is in proportion to
the misconducts committed by him. The petitioner
is in gainful employment. The petitioner is not
entitled for any reinstatement back wages or any
other pecuniary benefits what so ever. The respondent
therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition as devoid
of merits.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R18 were marked.
Both sides are heard.
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 attendance benefits as claimed
in the claim petition against the respondent
management or not .
6. On the point :
The submission of both the parties, the evidence
let in by either side and the exhibits marked on both
sides are carefully considered. This application has
been filed by the petitioner for the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of
service and all other attendance benefits. In order
to prove his case the petitioner was examined
himself as PW.1 and it is the evidence of the PW.1
that he was working at the respondent establishment
from April 2009 and he is the Office Bearer of the
trade union and he was appointed as Fitter after due
course of selection process and he had been serving
at the respondent management and he has not
committed any misconduct or misbehavior and all
the employees were working 12 hours per day
without any safety, health, statutory leave or
welfare and their salary was also very low and
therefore the employees of the respondent
establishment have demanded wage revision but the
same was refused by the management and that
therefore in the year of 2014 trade union was
formed and registered and hence, the respondent
management was heated as against the Office
Bearers of the Trade Union and started all sorts of
unfair labour practice against the members and
Office Bearers of the Trade Union and the respondent
management has committed and adopted the unfair
labour practices against the Office Bearers and the
active members of the Trade Union and the
respondent management on 29-10-2014 accusing
the petitioner that without obeying the instructions
of Mr. Balamurugan, Tool Room Incharge, induced
co-workers to walk out from the company without
getting any prior permission and used abusive,
filthy languages and attempting to assault and based
on the said false complaint, a show cause notice
was issued on 05-11-2014 for which the petitioner
has replied and the respondent management did not
act further after receipt of the said reply and on
13-11-2014 the petitioner and other co-workers
demanded the respondent management to provide
safety materials to the employees and the
management has pasted a notice stating that the
petitioner and other co-workers called for a strike
1408
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
for which there would be a deduction of 8 days
salary per day and hence, the workers were on duty
on that day gave a denial letter to the respondent
management and the respondent management did
not allocate any job to the petitioner and other
co-workers and on 15-11-2014 the respondent
management issued suspension order to four
employees including the petitioner and the
petitioner was sent out of the company to face the
enquiry and the respondent management openly
threaten him and offered a suggestion to come out
the said trade union and forcefully get the
signatures from the employees and this petitioner
and three other suspended employees were exposed
as the models of punishment and an Advocate who
is junior advocate to the counsel appearing on
behalf of this management was appointed as
Enquiry Officer by the management to conduct the
enquiry and the enquiry was conducted by the
Enquiry Officer in their senior advocate office who
is the counsel for respondent management and acted
upon the tunes of the respondent management in a
biased manner and as per the instructions and pre
plan of the respondent management the Enquiry
Officer submitted her report without giving
sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and
co-employees and without following the principal
of natural justice and based on the false report
given by the Enquiry Officer the respondent
management dismissed the petitioner from service on
08-01-2016 and therefore, the dismissal order passed
against the petitioner is illegal and disproportionate
and is against the natural justice.
7. In support of his oral evidence the petitioner has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. Ex.P1 is the copy of Copy
of the show cause notice issued by the management.
Ex.P2 is the Trade Union certificate. Ex.P3 is the copy
of the petitioner dismissed letter issued by the
management. Ex.P4 is the copy of reply notice to the
management given by workers. Ex.P5 is the copy of
notice to the Labour Department. Ex.P6 is the
original conciliation letter. Ex.P7 is the copy of the
dispute raised by the petitioner union before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) Ex.P8 is the copy of
letter sent by the workers to the respondent
management through professional courier. Ex.P9 is
the copy of letter submitted by the petitioner’s union
before the Labour Commissioner. Ex.P10 is the copy
of letter submitted by the petitioner's union before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation). Ex.P11 is the copy of
call letter sent by the Labour Officer for conciliation.
Ex.P12 is the copy of strike notice given by the
petitioner's union. These documents would go to show
that there is a trade union in the respondent
establishment and service of the petitioner was
terminated by the respondent management and
industrial dispute has been raised by the petitioner
before the Conciliation Officer and the union also has
submitted a letter to the Labour Commissioner and
conciliation notice was issued by the Conciliation
Officer and Conciliation Officer has sent a letter to the
parties to conduct the conciliation and strike notice
was given on 27-11-2014 by the union.
8.
On the other hand to disprove the case of the
petitioner the respondent management has examined
RW.1 and RW.1 has deposed that the petitioner was
working at the respondent establishment and while he
was on duty on 29-10-2014 the security guard asked
him to give the gatepass while he was going out for
morning breakfast and the petitioner started
quarrelling with the security guard and subsequently
on the same day around 01.00 p.m., the petitioner
along with his co-workman Munikumar continued their
quarrel against the security guard and threatened him
using filthy language and hence, Tool Room Engineer
Balamurugan came to the sport with an intension of
pacifying the situation and he was also reprimanded
by the petitioner using abusive languages and was
attacked by this petitioner and his co-workman
Manimaran and the petitioner not allow other
workmen to go for lunch break and that therefore,
show cause notice was issued on 05-11-2014 to the
petitioner for his abovesaid act and on 13-11-2014
the petitioner did not take up the duties allocated to
him and around 10.00 a.m., on the same day convened
a meeting at the shop floor and instigated the other
workers to stop work and indulged in an act of
preventing the other workman to join with him for
which the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry
against which the petitioner provoked his co-workmen
to instigate violence inside the factory and therefore
the respondent was constrained to seek the
intervention of the local Police to control the adverse
situation and the petitioner was removed from the spot
and situation was brought under control and the same
was communicated to the Labour Department and
Conciliation Officer and that the petitioner is a
continuous offender and every act committed by him
is unlawful acts and not in the order of a workman and
therefore disciplinary action was taken against the
petitioner and show cause notice was issued on
05-11-2014 for which the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 07-11-2014 and an independent
Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer
conducted the enquiry by giving due opportunities
1409
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
under the principles of natural justice to the petitioner
and submitted a report on 02-11-2015 and thereafter
a second show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner along with the documentary evidences on
24-11-2015 calling upon him regarding proposed
punishment and the petitioner gave his explanation on
02-12-2015 and since the misconducts committed by
the petitioner were serious and grievous in nature his
services were terminated by the management by
issuing full and final settlement through registered
post and the petitioner has refused to work prevented
the other workmen from doing their lawful duties and
instigated violence in the factory with an aim of
disturbing the industrial peace and harmony inside the
premises of the factory and the respondent does not
have any intention to deny the legal rights of the
petitioner.
9. In support of their contention the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R18. Ex.R1
is the copy of complaint letter given by roduction
Manager Mr. S.Sasikumar. Ex.R2 Is the copy of
complaint letter given by Tool Room Engineer
Mr. R.V.Balamurugan. Ex.R3 is the copy of complaint
letter given by security guard Mr. S.Tharani. Ex.R4
is the copy of show cause notice issued to the
petitioner. Ex.R5 is the copy of reply letter given by
the petitioner to the show cause notice. Ex.R6 is the
copy of complaint letter given by Production Manager
Mr. S.Sasikumar. Ex.R7 is the copy of notice
displayed by the respondent in the notice-board of the
Factory. Ex.R8 is the copy of complaint letter given
by Assistant Manager Mr. T. Vinayagam. Ex.R9 is the
copy of suspension order issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R10 is the copy of letters given to the Police
Department by the respondent. Ex.R11 is the copy of
charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. Ex.R12 is the
copy of complaint letter given by Production Manager
Mr. S. Sasikumar. Ex.R13 is the copy of the letter from
Pepsico Indian Holidngs Private Limited, to the
respondent. Ex.R14 is the copy of domestic enquiry
proceedings. Ex.R15 is the copy of domestic enquiry
report. Ex.R16 is the copy of second show cause
issued to the petitioner. Ex.R17 is the copy of reply
letter issued by the petitioner.
Ex.R18 is the
termination order issued to the petitioner.
10. The documents exhibited by the respondent
management would go to show that the petitioner was
given show cause notice on 05-11-2014 for the alleged
incident taken place on 29-10-2014 and the petitioner
has given reply on 07-11-2014 and the petitioner was
suspended on 15-11-2014 and thereafter the charges
were framed against the petitioner on 26-12-2014 and
Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic
enquiry and enquiry report was submitted by the
Enquiry Officer and second show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 24-11-2015 for which the
petitioner has given his reply and thereafter, the
petitioner was terminated from service on 07-01-2016
by the respondent management and full and final
settlement was sent to the petitioner through RPAD.
11. From the pleadings of both the parties and
evidence let in by either side it can be inferred that
following facts are admitted by either side that the
petitioner
was
working
at
the
respondent
establishment and he is an Office Bearer of the trade
union which was newly formed by the workers of the
respondent establishment in the year 2014 and the said
union has raised some industrial dispute before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) and this petitioner was
charge-sheeted and enquiry was conducted against him
and show cause notice was given to him and lastly the
petitioner was terminated from service and he has
raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) for reinstatement with back wages and
while the same was pending before the Conciliation
Officer this petitioner has filed this application before
this Court for seeking an order of reinstatement with
full back wages, continuity of service and all other
attendance benefits.
12. It is the main contention of the respondent
management that on 29-10-2014 when the security
guard asked to give the gate pass to go out for
morning breakfast this petitioner started quarrelling
with the security guard and subsequently on the same
day around 1.00 p.m., this petitioner along with his
co-worker Munikumar have continued their quarrel
against the security guard and threatened him using
filthy language which was questioned by Tool Room
Engineer Mr. R.V. Balamurugan and he was also
reprimanded by the petitioner using abusive languages
and he was attacked by this petitioner and his
co-worker Manimaran and hence, the petitioner was
issued a show cause notice on 05-11-2014 and
thereafter, the petitioner did not take up the duties
allocated to him, and around 10.00 a.m., on the same
day he convened a meeting at the shop floor and
instigated the other workers to stop work and
thereafter the Enquiry Officer was appointed and
enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer has
submitted a report found guilty of the charges and on
the foot of the same on 07-01-2016 the petitioner was
terminated from service.
13. On the other hand the petitioner has contended
that the charges levelled against him by the
management are false and only to victimize the Office
Bearers of the union the petitioner and three other
1410
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
workmen have been charge sheeted wantonly and an
advocate who is the junior of the counsel of the
respondent management was appointed as Enquiry
Officer and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry
without following the principles of natural justice and
submitted the report in favour of the management and
that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is
a biased one and is not in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the enquiry was
conducted without giving sufficient opportunities to
the petitioner to putforth his case. Therefore it is to
be decided by this court that whether the enquiry was
conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a fair manner in
accordance with the principles of natural justice or not
and whether the punishment given to the petitioner by
the management is proportionate or not. On this
aspect the evidence and documents are carefully
perused.
14. The onus of proof is always cast upon the
respondent management to prove the fact that the
domestic enquiry was conducted properly and
sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner in
accordance with the principles of natural justice
before submitting the enquiry report. The petitioner
has denied that he has been given sufficient
opportunity and it is contended by the petitioner that
the enquiry was conducted without giving sufficient
opportunities by the Enquiry Officer and without
following the principles of natural justice and that
therefore it is to be seen whether the respondent
management has proved the fact that the domestic
enquiry was conducted in a fair manner in accordance
with the principles of natural justice or not.
15. The respondent management exhibited the
enquiry proceedings as Ex.R14 which would reveal the
fact that one Ms. R. Thilagavathi, Advocate has
conducted the domestic enquiry on 24-01-2015 against
the petitioner over the charge-sheet given by the
management on 26-12-2014 and in the domestic
enquiry the petitioner has denied the allegations of the
management and the petitioner has been given an
opportunity to appoint somebody to assist his case and
the same was refused by the petitioner and further it
is learnt from Ex.R14 that the enquiry was conducted
in several adjournments and in the enquiry on behalf
of the management one Balamurugan, Vinayagam,
Sasikumar and Saravanan were examined as
management witnesses and all the witnesses have been
cross examined by the petitioner and all the witnesses
have stated before the Enquiry Officer that this
petitioner along with some other workers have
demanded safety materials like hand cloves and Glass
from the management and this petitioner and other
workers have involved in the incident alleged to be
happened on 29-10-2014 and this petitioner along with
some other workers have been suspended from service
on 15-11-2014 and thereafter only the enquiry was
conducted by the management.
16. Further, it is learnt from the records that the
enquiry proceedings was completed on 12-05-2015
and the enquiry report was submitted only on 02-11-2015
and in the enquiry report it was decided by the Enquiry
Officer that without giving any strike notice the
employees have illegally involved in the strike to
demand the safety materials which is not required to
be given to all the workers and should be given only
to the particular nature of work and the Enquiry Officer
has found that the charges have been proved against
the petitioner and thereafter the second show cause
notice was issued on 24-11-2015 to the petitioner
calling upon him to show cause why he should not be
removed from service and on 02-12-2015 the
petitioner has submitted his explanation for the said
notice denying the entire allegations of the
management and also has stated that he has been
suspended from service and thereby he has been
affected and thereafter on 07-01-2016 the management
has passed an order terminating the petitioner from
service.
17. Further it is learnt from Ex.P6 that the union
in the which the petitioner was functioning as
Treasurer has raised the industrial dispute over the
charter of demand demanding safety materials like
hand cloves and Glass before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) on 13-10-2014 in which they have also
asked for ESI and EPF benefits for 32 workers and on
the foot of the same the Conciliation Officer has issued
notice of conciliation to the management of the
respondent establishment on 24-11-2014 stating that
the conciliation proceedings would be held on 27-11-2014
at 11.00 a.m., at their office and directed the
management
to
appear
for
the
conciliation
proceedings. These facts would go to show that the
notice of conciliation enquiry was issued by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) to the management and
while the facts are so, the management has framed
charges against the petitioner holding that he has
committed misconduct and misbehavior on 29-10-2014
i.e., while the dispute was raised and pending before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) regarding the charter
of demand the petitioner along with three other
workers were suspended by the management on 15-11-2014.
1411
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The respondent management has taken the disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner the treasurer of the
union and three other workers who are the executives
and active participants of the trade union while the
industrial dispute was raised by the union on
13-10--2014 itself under Ex.P6 and without getting
permission from the
Conciliation
Officer the
management has conducted and completed the
domestic enquiry and has passed an order of
termination of service of the petitioner which is
clearly in violation of Sec.33 C(2) of the Act.
18. Further, it is contended by the petitioner that the
enquiry was not conducted properly since, the Junior
of the respondent counsel who has been conducting
the case on behalf of the management was appointed
as Enquiry Officer knowing fully aware the fact that
her senior is appearing for the management case and
therefore, there would be some bias in giving the
findings of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer.
On this aspect the evidence of the respondent
management witness RW.1 was carefully considered
which runs as follows:
“............
Tool Room
Manager
Memo
Show Cause Notice
Notice
Notice
Show Cause Notice
Charter of
demands
...........”.
From the above evidence it is clear that the
respondent management though has received the
conciliation notice not participated in the enquiry on
27-11-2014 before the Conciliation Officer for the
dispute raised by the union wherein the petitioner was
functioned as Treasurer over the charter of demand
and further, it is also admitted by the respondent
management witness RW.1 that the Enquiry Officer is
the junior advocate of the counsel of the respondent
management who has appearing in this case. These
facts would go to show that the enquiry could not be
conducted by the junior advocate the Enquiry Officer
without any bias in favour of the respondent
management for whom her senior counsel was
appearing and therefore the domestic enquiry could
not have been conducted in a fair manner.
1412
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
19. Further, it is learnt from Ex.R9 the suspension
order issued by the respondent management to the
petitioner that this petitioner and three other workers
have been suspended from service on 15-11-2014 for
the alleged incident happened on 29-10-2014 and
further it is revealed from Ex.R9 that no subsistence
allowance has been granted to the petitioner to make
convenient to the petitioner to face the domestic
enquiry. The non-payment of subsistence allowance
while the petitioner was facing disciplinary domestic
enquiry is also against the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act and against the principles of natural
justice.
20. Furthermore admittedly there is no previous
charge or complaint against this petitioner before the
formation of trade union though the petitioner has
joined in the respondent establishment in the year
2009 and hence, even assuming that this petitioner and
other three suspended workers have committed
misconduct or misbehavior on 29-10-2014 and made
an attempt to commit an illegal strike without giving
any notice while they have formed trade union with
the motive to get the charter of demand the
punishment of termination given by the management
is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct
committed by the petitioner workman the one of the
Office Bearer of the trade union instead of that the
management might have imposed lesser punishment to
the petitioner and other co-workers.
21. From the above discussion and the facts and
circumstances this Court finds that the respondent
management has committed error in appointing the
junior advocate of the respondent advocate who has
appeared for the respondent management in this case
as domestic Enquiry Officer and the above fact would
create a doubt over the enquiry report and in findings
of the Enquiry Officer being the junior counsel of the
management counsel and this Court also finds that only
after the formation of the Trade Union in the year 2014
by the workers of the respondent establishment and
after raising of industrial dispute by the union on
13-10-2014 regarding charter of demand for pay
revision and for ESI, EPF and safety measures, the
entire disciplinary proceedings, domestic enquiry on
the allegation that the petitioner has committed
alleged misbehavior on 29-10-2014 was complained
and charge sheeted by the respondent management and
same also would establish that only to take vengeance
the respondent management has charge sheeted the
employees to victimize them since they have formed
trade union and raised industrial dispute before the
conciliation for charter of demand.
22.
Further, it is also found from the above facts
and circumstances that the order of termination passed
by the respondent management against the petitioner
is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged to have
been committed by him since, this petitioner and other
suspended workers have not indulged or involved or
committed any other misconduct or misbehavior in
previous occasions though they have been in service
from 2008 and 2009 respectively and the alleged
incident has also happened while they have been
demanding some safety measures. Further, this Court
also finds that non-payment of subsistence allowance
to the petitioner while he was facing the domestic
enquiry is against the principles of natural justice and
that therefore, it is decided by this Court that the
domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent
management against the petitioner is not fair and not
in accordance with the principles of natural justice and
hence, it is to be held that the industrial dispute raised
by the petitioner against the respondent management over
reinstatement is justified and the petitioner is entitled
for the order of reinstatement as claimed by him.
23. Further, as far as back wages is concerned
absolutely there is no evidence let in by the petitioner
to prove that he is not working so far in any other
industry. The respondent has also not proved the fact
that petitioner has been working in any other
establishment after his termination and no proof is
exhibited by the respondent management before this
Court that the petitioner is working anywhere else.
However, the petitioner could have served at any other
industry after his termination and therefore, 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.
24. In the result, the petition is 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
within one month from the date of this Award and
further, directing 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 25th day of May, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
1413
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1— 29-08-2017
—
Thiru Senthilkumar.
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 05-11-2014 — Copy of the show cause
notice issued by the
management.
Ex.P2
— 10-10-2014 — Copy of the Trade Union
certificate.
Ex.P3
— 07-01-2016 — Copy of the petitioner
dismissed letter issued
by the management.
Ex.P4
— 03-11-2014 — Copy of reply notice to
the management given by
workers.
Ex.P5
— 17-11-2014 — Copy of notice to the
Labour Department.
Ex.P6
— 05-05-2016 — Original conciliation letter.
Ex.P7
— 13-10-2014 — Copy of the dispute
raised by the petitioner
union before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P8
— 13-11-2014 — Copy of letter sent by the
workers
to
the
respondent management
through
professional
courier.
Ex.P9
— 18-11-2014 — Copy of letter submitted
by the petitioner's union
before
the
labour
commissioner.
Ex.P10 — 18-11-2014 — Copy of letter submitted
by the petitioner's union
before
the
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P11 — 24-11-2014 — Copy of call letter sent
by the Labour Officer for
conciliation.
Ex.P12 — 27-11-2014 — Copy of strike notice
given by the petitioner's
union.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 11-01-2018— Thiru S.A. Saravanan.
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1
— 29-10-2014— Copy
of
complaint
letter
given
by
production
Manager
Mr. S. Sasikumar.
Ex.R2
— 30-10-2014— Co py
o f
co mp laint
letter
given by Tool
R o o m
E n g i n e e r
Mr. R.V. Balamurugan.
Ex.R3
— 30-10-2014— Copy of complaint letter
given by security guard
Mr. S. Tharani.
Ex.R4
— 05-11-2014— Copy of show cause
notice issued to the
petitioner.
Ex.R5
— 07-11-2014— Copy of reply letter
given by the petitioner to
the show cause notice.
Ex.R6
— 13-11-2014— Co py
o f
co mp laint
l e t t e r
g i v e n
b y
Production
Manager
Mr. S. Sasikumar.
Ex.R7
— 13-11-2014— Copy of notice displayed
by the respondent in the
notice-board
of
the
Factory.
Ex.R8
— 15-11-2014— Copy of complaint letter
given by Assistant Manager
Mr. T. Vinayagam.
Ex.R9
— 15-11-2014— Copy of suspension order
issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R10 — 16-11-2014— Copy of letters given to
the Police Department
by the respondent.
Ex.R11 — 26-12-2014— Copy of charge-sheet
issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R12 — 25-11-2014— Co p y
o f
c o mp lai nt
letter
given
by
Production
Manager
Mr. S. Sasikumar.
Ex.R13 — 13-08-2014— Copy of the letter from
Pepsico India Holdings
Private Limited to the
respondent.
Ex.R14 — —
— Copy of domestic enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.R15 — 02-11-2015— Copy of domestic enquiry
report.
Ex.R16 — 24-11-2015— Copy of second show
cause
issued
to
the
petitioner.
1414
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
Ex.R17 — 03-12-2015— Copy of reply letter
given by the petitioner.
Ex.R18 — 07-01-2016— Termination order issued
to the petitioner.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 104/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 19th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 20/2016,
dated
25-5-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Aathi Sakthi
Projects Private Limited and Thiru Karunagaran, over
reinstatement with full back wages, continuity in service
and all other attendance benifits 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 25th day of May, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 20/2016
Karunagaran,
S/o. Murugesan,
Indra Nagar,
Thirumalai Nagar Extension,
Thiruvandarkoil,
Puducherry.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Aathi Sakthi Projects Private Limited,
R.S. No. 40/9, Earikarai Road,
Kothampurinatham,
Thiruvandarkoil,
Puducherry-605 102.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 08-05-2018 before
me
for
final
hearing
in
the presence
of
Tvl.
R.T. Shankar, A.Ashokkumar and P.Suresh, Counsels
for the petitioner and Tvl. R. Ilancheliyan and
S.Geetha, Counsels 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
re-instate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity
of service and all other attendance benefits.
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The respondent management started his concern
in the year 2004 and after the due course of the
selection process the petitioner had been appointed
in Fitter Post. The petitioner had been serving at the
respondent management from May-2009 at the
utmost satisfaction of the respondent and there is no
remark at all as against the petitioner. All the
employees are performed all works assigned to
them more than 12 hours without any safety, health,
statutory leave or welfare and also the employees are
getting very low salary, due to escalating the price
of living cost/living index, the financial position and
buying capacity of the employees comes down
toward. Hence, the employees were demanded wage
increase/revision from the respondent but, they are
not ready to increase the wages. Therefore, all the
employees are formed one trade union in the year of
2014 namely, Adhisakthi Project Workers Limited
Workers Union, in which the petitioner is the
Treasurer and the same was duly registered before
the Government of Puducherry vide Registration
No. 1764/RTU/2014 for their collective bargaining.
All the employees of the respondent management are
joined as a member of the said Trade Union.
Therefore, the said union is only one and majority
union and therefore, the respondent management is
1415
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
heated as against the Office Bearers of the Trade
Union as well as its active members and has started
all sorts of unfair Labour Practice against the Trade
Union to deprive the workmen from their legitimate
right created under the Labour Laws and also to
abolish/wipe out the petitioner's Trade Union from
respondent's concern, as a result, the respondent
management has committed and adopted the unfair
labour practices against the Office Bearers as well
as active members of the said Trade Union.
The respondent management has finally after a lapse
of 7 days accusing the petitioner that on 29-10-2014
without obeying the instructions of Mr. Balamurugan,
Tool Room Incharge, induced co-workers to walk out
from the company without getting any prior
permission for the same, used abusive/filthy
languages, attempting to assault and followed
malpractice of causing violence and based on the
said false complaint issued a show cause notice,
dated 05-11-2014. The petitioner had replied aptly
for the said show cause notice to the respondent.
Whereas, the respondent management did not act
further after receipt of the said reply of the
petitioner. On 13-11-2014 the petitioner and other
co-workers demanded the respondent to provide
safety materials like hand cloves and Glass.
Whereas, the respondent willfully and wantonly
delayed without providing any such safety materials
to the employees and the Personnel Managers
Mr. Sasikumar and Saravanan asked them in a
threatening manner whether the petitioner and his
co-workers did engage in Strike after a long time
waiting by the petitioner. There was a notification
was pasted on the notice board after some hours that
the petitioner and other co-workers called for a
strike for which there would be a deduction of 8 days
salary per day. Hence, the workers were on duty on
that day gave a denial letter to the respondent
management. But, the respondent did not accept it.
So, they sent it to the respondent through Courier.
The respondent management on the next day did not
allocate any job to the petitioner and other
co-workers for attending their routine works. There was
no fruitful result yielded for the repeated demands
made by the petitioner for their duties in the
respondent management and they were ignored by
the respondent and hence, the petitioner returned
home without attending duty. On 15-11-2014 the
respondent management issued suspension order to
four employees namely Manimaran, Senthilkumar,
Munikumar and this petitioner Karunagaran and
they have sent out of the company stating that there
would be an enquiry on the charges leveled against
them. After giving show cause notice to the
employees of about 40 people, the respondent
suspended only these four employees for their
collective demand of safety materials. The respondent
management openly threaten the members of the
petitioner union and offered a suggestion to come
out the said Trade Union or otherwise the employees
of the union will lose more and more and the
respondent management forcefully get the signatures
from the employees and these four suspended
employees were exposed as the models of
punishment. The respondent management appointed
an Enquiry Officer, who the counsel is appearing on
behalf of this management before the Labour Court
at Puducherry and she formally enquired to fulfill the
statutory norms which is enumerated in the labour
laws. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in
their senior advocate office who is the counsel for
respondent management and acted upon the tunes of
the respondent management in a biased manner and
as per the instructions and pre plan of the respondent
management the Enquiry Officer submitted her report
without giving sufficient opportunities to the
petitioner and co-employees and without following
the principal of natural justice. Based on the above
said false report given by the Enquiry Officer the
respondent management dismissed the employees on
08-01-2016 as per their pre-plan. The employees
were
made
scapegoats
and
the
respondent
management forced and threatened the other
employees by showing such dismissal order of these
employees, further the domestic enquiry conducted
against the petitioner was in violation of principles
of natural justice and the enquiry was not conducted
in a free and fair manner, giving full opportunity to
the petitioner to contest the charges on merits and
all the essential requisites of a fair trial were
scrupulously not followed and the Enquiry Officer
did not consider the deposition of the petitioner side
witness in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the
dismissal order passed against the petitioner is
illegal and it is shockingly disproportionate. The
order passed by the respondent management is
against the natural justice and contrary to the code
of the Labour Laws. The respondent management
has not followed any rules or provisions under the
Labour Rules and Act and acted against them in
order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner and
his union. The petitioner therefore prayed this Court
to pass an order to direct the respondent management
to re-instate the petitioner with full back wages,
continuity of service and all other attendance
benefits.
1416
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent management denied all the
averments made by the petitioner in his claim
statement except those that are all specifically
admitted in the counter by the respondent
management. The petitioner has filed his claim
statement with false allegations against the
respondent management. The petitioner was a
workman in the respondent factory and while he was
on duty on 29-10-2014 the security guard asked one
of his co-worker Mr. Munikumar to give the gate pass
while he was going out for morning break
(Breakfast). The petitioner along with a group of
workers came to the gate around 08.00 a.m.,
voluntarily and started quarrelling. The petitioner
threatened the security guard using filthy language.
Subsequently on the same day around 1.00 p.m., the
petitioner along with his
co-workmen namely
Mr. Munikumar, Mr. Manimaran and Mr. Sendhilkumar
continued their battle against the security guard.
When the situation became tense and uncontrollable
Mr. R.V. Balamurugan, Tool Room Engineer of the
respondent establishment came to the spot with an
intention of pacifying the situation. However the
said Mr. R.V. Balamurugan was also reprimanded by
the petitioner using abusive languages. The petitioner
also did not allow other workmen to go for lunch
break. The petitioner was issued a show cause
notice on 05-11-2014 by the respondent management
for his above said acts. On 13-11-2014 the petitioner
did not take up the duties allocated to him and
around 10.00 a.m., on the same day convened
a meeting at the shop floor and instigated the other
workers to stop work. The petitioner indulged in an
act of preventing the other workmen to join with
him. On 15-11-2014 the petitioner prevented a
customer from Parry Agro Company who came to
take up trial of the machine. The petitioner was
issued a show cause notice around 03.00 p.m., on the
same day for the above said acts. Against this the
petitioner fought with the officer who had issued
him the notice and then provoked his co-workmen
namely Mr. Mugunthan, Mr. Meenatchisundharam,
Mr. Latchuminarayanan, Mr. Manikandan and
Mr. Sundhar to instigate violence inside the respondent
factory. Therefore, the respondent management was
constrained to seek the intervention of the local
Police to control the adverse situation and only upon
intervention by the Police the petitioner was
removed from the spot and situation was brought
under control. In fact the petitioner indulged in such
unlawful acts of coercing the other workmen even in
previous occasions and on 01-10-2014 between 3.00 p.m.,
to 6.00 p.m., the petitioner endeavored stoppage of
production and again from 13-11-2014 to 15-11-2014
the production was stopped by him. This was
communicated to the Labour Department and
Conciliation Officer by the respondent management.
Therefore, the petitioner is a continuous offender
and every acts committed by him is unlawful acts
and not in the order of a workman. Only in such a
situation disciplinary action was contemplated
against the petitioner by the respondent management.
It is further stated that the petitioner was issued
a show cause notice on 05-11-2014 by the
respondent management for which the petitioner
submitted his explanation on 07-11-2014 to the
respondent management. Since, the explanation given
by the petitioner was not satisfied to the respondent
management, he was issued a charge sheet, dated
26-12-2014 and an independent Enquiry Officer was
appointed by the respondent management to conduct
the domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The
Enquiry Officer conducted her enquiry by giving due
opportunities to the petitioner and submitted her
report, dated 02-11-2015 to the respondent management.
Since, the charges leveled against the petitioner were
stated to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer
in her enquiry report, dated 02-11-2015, a second
show cause notice, dated 24-11-2015 was issued by
the respondent management to the petitioner
communicating the proposed punishment. The petitioner
gave his explanation, dated 02-12-2015 to the
respondent management. The petitioner did not come
forward neither to accept the charges nor to prove
himself innocent and submitted only an evasive reply
and imputed various allegations against this
respondent management and the enquiry proceedings
without any documentary evidence in support of his
allegations. Since, the misconducts committed by
the petitioner were serious and grievous in nature,
his services were terminated by the respondent
management. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner are fictitious and an afterthought and
trying to mislead this Court by giving fabricated and
false allegations against this respondent management.
The petitioner has suppressed every fact with ulterior
motive of gaining sympathy and he has not come to
this Court with clean hands.
The respondent management denied the averments
made by the petitioner in the claim petition and
stated that the contentions raised by the petitioner
in the claim petition are absolutely false.
1417
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The respondent management was paying reasonable
salary to the industrial standard of its kind. The industry
is not a processing industry and it is only producing
packaging machines by buying various spare parts
from other industries and assembling the same.
There are no hazardous operations as contended by
the petitioner and wherever safety materials are
required to be provided, the same is provided within
the parameter of Factories Act 1948 and rules made
there under. The petitioner was having any
grievance, should have approached the respondent
management and negotiated the issue. If, there were
any contraventions, the petitioner was having
openings to approach the Government Authorities
seeking relief in the event any failure in negotiations.
The petitioner has unnecessarily not only intervened
in the managerial decisions and also refused to work,
prevented the other workmen from doing their lawful
dutlities, instigated violence in the factory, etc.,
Whatever may be the grievances, the petitioner was
having every right to seek a legal remedy through an
appropriate forum and he was not supposed to take
the law in his own hand with an ulterior, motive of
disturbing the industrial peace and harmony inside
the premises of the shop floor. The petitioner used
filthy languages against the management and the
managerial staffs, which is not permissible at any
point of time. The petitioner instead of proving
himself that he has not involved in such unlawful
acts, now taking the blanket to cover up his acts in
the guise of union activities and trying to gain
sympathy of this Court. The petitioner's contention
that the enquiry was conducted by a junior of the
senior Advocate, who is appearing in this case, is a
strategy to escape from the charges levelled against
him. The enquiry was conducted by giving due
opportunities under the principles of natural justice
and the findings were submitted based on the various
oral and documentary evidences. The petitioner was
also given good opportunities to examine and cross
examine the witnesses and permitted to produce the
documents. The petitioner who did not object the
proceedings all along, now objecting is only an after
thought tutored by the learned Counsel. The petitioner
is to prove as to how the enquiry is biased and in
the absence of proving unfairness of the enquiry
proceedings, making out such allegation is
absolutely not maintainable. Even, there are cases,
decided by the Apex Court that the enquiry-conducted
by the legal advisor of the company is permissible,
unless there were no bias is established. In this case
also the same analogy is applicable and the
contention of the petitioner is not maintainable.
The respondent does not have any intention to deny
the legal rights of the petitioner and the enquiry was
conducted within the parameter of Law. In case the
petitioner was having any issues, he should have
settled the issue within frame work of law and he did
not have any legal rights directly or indirectly to take
the Law in his hand. The action initiated against the
petitioner is only for the grievous misconducts
committed by him while he was on duty-and there
were no mala fide intentions as contended by the
petitioner in his claim petition. The punishment
imputed against the petitioner is in proportion to the
misconducts committed by him. The petitioner is in
gainful employment. The petitioner is not entitled for
any reinstatement back wages or any other pecuniary
benefits what so ever. The respondent therefore,
prayed to dismiss the petition as devoid of merits.
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.R19 were marked. Both
sides are heard.
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 attendance benefits as claimed
in the claim petition against the respondent
management or not.
6. On the point :
The submission of both the parties, the evidence
let in by either sides and the exhibits marked on both
sides are carefully considered. This application has
been filed by the petitioner for the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of
service and all other attendance benefits. In order
to prove his case the petitioner was examined
himself as PW.1 and it is the evidence of the PW.1
that he was working at the respondent establishment
from May 2009 and he is the Office Bearer of the
Trade Union and he was appointed as Fitter after due
course of selection process and he had been serving
at the respondent management and he has not
committed any misconduct or misbehavior and all
the employees were working 12 hours per day
without any safety, health, statutory leave or welfare
and their salary was also very low and therefore, the
employees of the respondent establishment have
demanded wage revision but, the same was refused
by the management and that therefore, in the year of
2014 trade union was formed and registered and
hence the respondent management was heated as
1418
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
against the Office Bearers of the Trade Union and
started all sorts of unfair labour practice against the
members and Office Bearers of the Trade Union and
the respondent management has committed and
adopted the unfair labour practices against the Office
Bearers and the active members of the Trade Union
and the respondent management on 29-10-2014
accusing the petitioner that without obeying the
instructions of Mr. Balamurugan, Tool Room
In-charge, induced co-workers to walk out from the
company without getting any prior permission and
used abusive, filthy languages and attempting to
assault and based on the said false complaint, a show
cause notice was issued on 05-11-2014 for which the
petitioner
has
replied
and
the
respondent
management did not act further, after receipt of the
said reply and on 13-11-2014 the petitioner and
other
co-workers
demanded
the
respondent
management to provide safety materials to the
employees and the management has pasted a notice
stating that the petitioner and other co-workers
called for a strike for which there would be a
deduction of 8 days salary per day and hence, the
workers were on duty on that day gave a denial letter
to the respondent management and the respondent
management did not allocate any job to the petitioner
and other co-workers and on 15-11-2014 the
respondent management issued suspension order to
four employees including the petitioner and the
petitioner was sent out of the company to face the
enquiry and the respondent management openly
threaten him and offered a suggestion to come out
the said Trade Union and forcefully get the signatures
from the employees and this petitioner and three
other suspended employees were exposed as the
models of punishment and an Advocate who is junior
Advocate to the Counsel appearing on behalf of this
management was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the
management to conduct the enquiry and the enquiry
was conducted in her senior Advocate office who is
the Counsel for respondent management and acted
upon the tunes of the respondent management in a
biased manner and as per the instructions and pre
plan of the respondent management the Enquiry
Officer submitted her report without giving sufficient
opportunities to the petitioner and co-employees and
without following the principal of natural justice and
based on the false report given by the Enquiry Officer
the respondent management dismissed the petitioner
from service on 08-01-2016 and therefore, the
dismissal order passed against the petitioner is
illegal and disproportionate and is against the natural
justice.
7. In support of his oral evidence the petitioner has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. Ex.P1 is the copy of the
Trade Union Certificate. Ex.P2 is the copy of the
petitioner dismissed letter issued by the management.
Ex.P3 is the copy of reply notice to the management
given by workers. Ex.P4 is the copy of notice to the
Labour Department. Ex.P5 is the original conciliation
letter. Ex.P6 is the copy of the dispute raised by the
petitioner union before the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P7 is the copy of letter sent by the workers to the
respondent management through Professional Courier.
Ex.P8 is the copy of letter submitted by the petitioner's
union before the Labour Commissioner. Ex.P9 is the
copy of letter submitted by the petitioner's union before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation). Ex.P10 is the copy
of call letter sent by the Labour Officer for Conciliation.
Ex.P11 is the copy of strike notice given by the
petitioner's union. These documents would go to show
that there is a Trade Union in the respondent
establishment and service of the petitioner was
terminated by the respondent management and
industrial dispute has been raised by the petitioner
before the Conciliation Officer and the union also has
submitted a letter to the Labour Commissioner and
conciliation notice was issued by the Conciliation
Officer, and the Conciliation Officer has sent a letter
to the parties to conduct the conciliation and strike
notice was given on 27-11-2014 by the union.
8. On the other hand to disprove the case of the
petitioner the respondent management has examined
RW.1 and RW.1 has deposed that the petitioner was
working at the respondent establishment and while he
was on duty on 29-10-2014 the Security Guard asked
one of his co-worker Munikumar to give the gate pass
while he was going out for morning breakfast and the
petitioner along with a group of workers came to the
gate around 08.00 a.m., voluntarily and started
quarreling and threatened the Security Guard using filthy
language and subsequently, on the same day around
01.00 p.m., the petitioner along with his co-workman
Munikumar, Manimaran and Senthilkumar continued
their quarrel against the Security Guard and hence, Tool
Room Engineer Balamurugan came to the spot with an
intension of pacifying the situation and he was also
reprimanded by the petitioner using abusive languages
and the petitioner did not allow other workmen to go
for lunch break and therefore, show cause notice was
issued on 05-11-2014 to the petitioner for his above
said act and on 13-11-2014 the petitioner did not take
up the duties allocated to him and around 10.00 a.m.,
on the same day convened a meeting at the shop floor
and instigated the other workers to stop work and
indulged in an act of preventing the other workman to
1419
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
join with him and the petitioner again on 15-11-2014
prevented a customer from Parry Agro Company who
came to the factory to take up trial of the machine and
the petitioner was issued a show cause notice around
03.00 p.m., on the same day and the petitioner
quarreled with the Officer who has issued him the
show cause notice and then provoked his co-workmen
Mugunthan, Meenatchinsundharam, Latchuminarayanan,
Manikandan and Sundhar to instigate violence inside
the factory and therefore, the respondent was
constrained to seek the intervention of the local Police
to control the adverse situation and the petitioner was
removed from the spot and situation was brought under
control and on 01-10-2014 between 03.00 p.m., to
06.00 p.m., the petitioner endeavored stoppage of
production and again from 13-11-2014 to 15-11-2014
the production was stopped by him and the same was
communicated to
the Labour
Department and
Conciliation Officer, and that the petitioner is a
continuous offender and every act committed by him is
unlawful acts and not in the order of a workman and
therefore, disciplinary action was taken against the
petitioner and show cause notice was issued on 05-11-2014
for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on
07-11-2014 and an independent Enquiry Officer was
appointed and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry
by giving due opportunities under the principles of
natural justice to the petitioner and submitted a report
on 02-11-2015 and thereafter, a second show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner along with the
documentary evidences on 24-11-2015 calling upon
him regarding proposed punishment and the petitioner
gave his explanation on 02-12-2015 and since, the
misconducts committed by the petitioner were serious
and grievous in nature his services were terminated by
the management by issuing full and final settlement
through registered post and the petitioner has refused
to work prevented the other workmen from doing their
lawful duties and instigated violence in the factory with
an aim of disturbing the industrial peace and harmony
inside the premises of the factory and the respondent
does not have any intention to deny the legal rights of
the petitioner.
9. In support of their contention the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R19. Ex.R1 is
the copy of complaint letter given by production
Manager Mr. S. Sasikumar. Ex.R2 Is the copy of
complaint letter given by Tool Room Engineer
Mr. R.V. Balamurugan. Ex.R3 is the copy of complaint
letter given by Security Guard Mr. S. Tharani. Ex.R4 is
the copy of show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R5 is the copy of reply letter given by the petitioner
to the show cause notice. Ex.R6 is the copy of
complaint letter given by Production Manager
Mr. S. Sasikumar. Ex.R7 is the copy of notice displayed
by the respondent in the notice-board of the Factory.
Ex.R8 is the copy of complaint letter given by Assistant
Manager Mr. T. Vinayagam. Ex.R9 is the copy of
suspension order issued to the petitioner. Ex.R10 is the
copy of letters given to the Police Department by the
respondent. Ex.R11 is the copy of charge sheet issued
to the petitioner. Ex.R12 is the copy of complaint letter
given by Production Manager Mr.S.Sasikumar. Ex.R13
is the copy of the letter from Pepsico Indian Holdings
Pvt. Ltd., to the respondent. Ex.R14 is the copy of
domestic enquiry proceedings. Ex.R15 is the copy of
domestic enquiry report. Ex.R16 is the copy of second
show cause issued to the petitioner. Ex.R17 is the copy
of reply letter issued by the petitioner. Ex.R18 is the
termination order issued to the petitioner. Ex.R19 is
the full and final settlement sent to the petitioner by
RPAD.
10. The documents exhibited by the respondent
management would go to show that the petitioner was
given show cause notice on 05-11-2014 for the alleged
incident taken place on 29-10-2014 and the petitioner
has given reply on 07-11-2014 and the petitioner was
suspended on 15-11-2014 and thereafter, the charges
were framed against the petitioner on 26-12-2014 and
Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic
enquiry and enquiry report was submitted by the
Enquiry Officer and second show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 24-11-2015 for which the
petitioner has given his reply and thereafter, the
petitioner was terminated from service on 07-01-2016
by the respondent management and full and final
settlement was sent to the petitioner through RPAD.
11. From the pleadings of both the parties and
evidence let in by either side it can be inferred that
following facts are admitted by either side that the
petitioner was working at the respondent establishment
and he is an Office Bearer of the Trade Union which was
newly formed by the workers of the respondent
establishment in the year 2014 and the said union has
raised some industrial dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) and this petitioner was charge sheeted
and enquiry was conducted against him and show cause
notice was given to him and lastly the petitioner was
terminated from service and he has raised the industrial
dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) for
reinstatement with back wages and while the same was
pending before the Conciliation Officer this petitioner
has filed this application before this Court for seeking
an order of reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity of service and all other attendance benefits.
1420
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
12. It is the main contention of the respondent
management that on 29-10-2014 this petitioner and
some group of workers have come to the factory gate
and the Security Guard asked the worker Munikumar
to give the gate pass to go out for morning breakfast
and this petitioner along with group of workers started
quarrelling with the Security Guard and threatened him
using filthy language and subsequently, on the same day
around 1.00 pm, this petitioner along with his co-
workers Munikumar, Manimaran and Sendhilkumar
have continued their quarrel against the Security Guard
which was questioned by Tool Room Engineer
Mr.R.V. Balamurugan and he was also reprimanded by
the petitioner using abusive languages and the
petitioner also did not allow other workmen to go for
lunch break and hence, the petitioner was issued a show
cause notice on 05-11-2014 and thereafter, the petitioner
did not take up the duties allocated to him, and around
10.00 a.m., on the same day he convened a meeting at
the shop floor and instigated the other workers to stop
work and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed
and enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer has
submitted a report found guilty of the charges and on
the foot of the same on 07-01-2016 the petitioner was
terminated from service.
13. On the other hand the petitioner has contended
that the charges levelled against him by the management
are false and only to victimize the Office Bearers of the
union the petitioner and three other workmen have been
charge sheeted wantonly and an advocate who is the
junior of the Counsel of the respondent management was
appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer
conducted the enquiry without following the principles
of natural justice and submitted the report in favour of
the management and that the enquiry conducted by the
Enquiry Officer is a biased one and is not in accordance
with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry
was conducted without giving sufficient opportunities
to the petitioner to putforth his case. Therefore, it is
to be decided by this Court that whether the enquiry was
conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a fair manner in
accordance with the principles of natural justice or not
and whether the punishment given to the petitioner by
the management is proportionate or not. On this aspect
the evidence and documents are carefully perused.
14. The onus of proof is always cast upon the
respondent management to prove the fact that the
domestic enquiry was conducted properly and sufficient
opportunities were given to the petitioner in accordance
with the principles of natural justice before submitting
the enquiry report. The petitioner has denied that he has
been given sufficient opportunity and it is contended
by the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted
without giving sufficient opportunities by the Enquiry
Officer and without following the principles of natural
justice and that therefore, it is to be seen whether the
respondent management has proved the fact that the
domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair manner in
accordance with the principles of natural justice or not.
15. The respondent management exhibited the
enquiry proceedings as Ex.R14 which would reveal
the fact that one Ms. R. Thilagavathi, Advocate has
conducted the domestic enquiry on 22-01-2015 against
the petitioner over the charge sheet given by the
management on 26-12-2014 and in the domestic
enquiry the petitioner has denied the allegations of the
management and the petitioner has been given an
opportunity to appoint somebody to assist his case and
on the same day the co-worker one Senthilkumar was
permitted to assist the petitioner to face the domestic
enquiry for which the management has objected and
hence, the domestic enquiry was postponed and further
it is learnt from Ex.R14 that the enquiry was conducted
in several adjournments and in the enquiry on behalf
of the management one Balamurugan, Vinayagam,
Sasikumar
and
Saravanan
were
examined
as
management witnesses and all the witnesses have been
cross examined by the petitioner and all the witnesses
have stated before the Enquiry Officer that this
petitioner along with some other workers have
demanded safety materials like hand cloves and glass
from the management and this petitioner and other
workers have involved in the incident alleged to be
happened on 29-10-2014 and this petitioner along with
some other workers have been suspended from service
on 15-11-2014 and thereafter, only the enquiry was
conducted by the management.
16. Further, it is learnt from the records that the
enquiry proceedings was completed on 12-05-2015 and
the enquiry report was submitted only on 02-11-2015
and in the enquiry report it was decided by the Enquiry
Officer that without giving any strike notice the
employees have illegally involved in the strike to
demand the safety materials which is not required to be
given to all the workers and should be given only to
the particular nature of work and the Enquiry Officer has
found that the charges have been proved against the
petitioner and thereafter, the second show cause notice
was issued on 24-11-2015 to the petitioner calling upon
him to show cause why he should not be removed from
service and on 02-12-2015 the petitioner has submitted
his explanation for the said notice denying the entire
1421
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
allegations of the management and also has stated that
he has been suspended from service and thereby he has
been affected and thereafter, on 07-01-2016 the
management has passed an order terminating the
petitioner from service.
17. Further, it is learnt from Ex.P6 that the union in
which the petitioner was functioning as Treasurer
has raised the industrial dispute over the charter of
demand demanding safety materials like hand cloves
and Glass before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on
13-10-2014 in which they have also asked for ESI and
EPF benefits for 32 workers and on the foot of the same
the Conciliation Officer has issued notice of conciliation
to the management of the respondent establishment on
24-11-2014 stating that the conciliation proceedings
would be held on 27-11-2014 at 11.00 a.m., at their
office and directed the management to appear for the
conciliation proceedings. These facts would go to show
that the notice of conciliation enquiry was issued by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) to the management and
while the facts are so, the management has framed
charges against the petitioner holding that he has
committed misconduct and misbehavior on 29-10-2014
i.e., while the dispute was raised and pending before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) regarding the charter of
demand the petitioner along with three other workers
were suspended by the management on 15-11-2014.
The respondent management has taken the disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner the Treasurer of the
union and three other workers who are the executives
and active participants of the Trade Union while the
industrial dispute was raised by the union on 13-10-2014
itself under Ex.P6 and without getting permission from
the Conciliation Officer the management has conducted
and completed the domestic enquiry and has passed an
order of termination of service of the petitioner which
is clearly in violation of Sec. 33 C(2) of the Act.
18. Further it is contended by the petitioner that the
enquiry was not conducted properly since, the junior of
the respondent Counsel who has been conducting the
case on behalf of the management was appointed as
Enquiry Officer knowing fully aware the fact that her
senior is appearing for the management case and
therefore, there would be some bias in giving the
findings of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer.
On this aspect the evidence of the respondent
management witness RW.1 was carefully considered
which runs as follows :
“......
Tool Room Manager
Memo
Show Cause Notice
Notice
Notice
Show Cause
Notice
1422
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
Charter of
Demands
”
From the above evidence it is clear that the
respondent management though has received the
conciliation notice not participated in the enquiry on
27-11-2014 before the Conciliation Officer for the
dispute raised by the union wherein the petitioner was
functioned as Treasurer over the charter of demand and
further it is also admitted by the respondent
management witness RW.1 that the Enquiry Officer is
the junior Advocate of the counsel of the respondent
management who has appearing in this case. These
facts would go to show that the enquiry could not be
conducted by the junior Advocate the Enquiry Officer
without any bias in favour of the respondent
management for whom her senior Counsel was
appearing and therefore, the domestic enquiry could not
have been conducted in a fair manner.
19. Further, it is learnt from Ex.R9 the suspension
order issued by the respondent management to the
petitioner that this petitioner and three other workers
have been suspended from service on 15-11-2014 for
the alleged incident happened on 29-10-2014 and
further, it is revealed from Ex.R9 that no subsistence
allowance has been granted to the petitioner to make
convenient to the petitioner to face the domestic
enquiry. The non-payment of subsistence allowance
while the petitioner was facing disciplinary domestic
enquiry is also against the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act and against the principles of natural
justice.
20. Furthermore, admittedly there is no previous
charge or complaint against this petitioner before the
formation of Trade Union though the petitioner has
joined in the respondent establishment in the year 2009
and hence, even assuming that this petitioner and other
three suspended workers have committed misconduct or
misbehavior on 29-10-2014 and made an attempt to
commit an illegal strike without giving any notice while
they have formed Trade Union with the motive to get the
charter of demand the punishment of termination given
by the management is disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct committed by the petitioner workman the
one of the Office Bearer of the Trade Union instead of
that the management might have imposed lesser
punishment to the petitioner and other co-workers.
21. From the above discussion and the facts and
circumstances this Court finds that the respondent
management has committed error in appointing the
junior Advocate of the respondent Advocate who has
appeared for the respondent management in this case
as domestic Enquiry Officer and the above fact would
create a doubt over the enquiry report and in findings
of the Enquiry Officer being the junior Counsel of the
management Counsel and also finds that only after the
formation of the Trade Union in the year 2014 by the
workers of the respondent establishment and after
raising of industrial dispute by the union on 13-10-2014
regarding charter of demand for pay revision and for
ESI, EPF and safety measures, the entire disciplinary
proceedings, domestic enquiry on the allegation that the
petitioner has committed alleged misbehavior
on 29-10-2014 was complained and charge sheeted by the
respondent management and same also would establish
that only to take vengeance the respondent management
has charge sheeted the employees to victimize them
since, they have formed Trade Union and raised industrial
dispute before the conciliation for charter of demand.
22. Further, it is also found from the above facts and
circumstances that the order of termination passed by
the respondent management against the petitioner is
disproportionate to the misconduct alleged to have been
committed by him since, this petitioner and other three
workers have not indulged or involved or committed
any other misconduct or misbehavior in previous
occasions though they have been in service from 2008
and 2009 respectively and the alleged incident has also
happened while they have been demanding some safety
measures. Further, this Court also finds that
non-payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner
while he was facing the domestic enquiry is against the
principles of natural justice and that therefore, it is
decided by this Court that the domestic enquiry
conducted by the respondent management against the
petitioner is not fair and not in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and hence, it is to be held
that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over reinstatement
is justified and the petitioner is entitled for the order
of reinstatement as claimed by him.
23. Further, as far as back wages is concerned
absolutely there is no evidence let in by the petitioner
to prove that he is not working so far in any other
industry. The respondent has also not proved the fact
that petitioner has been working in any other
establishment after his termination and no proof is
exhibited by the respondent management before this
1423
30 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Court that the petitioner is working anywhere else.
However, the petitioner could have served at any other
industry after his termination and therefore, 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.
24.
In the result, the petition is 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 within
one month from the date of this Award and further
directing 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 25th day of May, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 29-8-2017 — Karunakaran
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —10-10-2014—
Copy of Trade Union
Certificate.
Ex.P2 —07-01-2016—
Copy of the petitioner
dismissed letter issued by
the management.
Ex.P3 —13-11-2014—
Copy of reply notice to
the management given by
workers.
Ex.P4 —17-11-2014—
Copy of notice to the
Labour Department.
Ex.P5 —05-05-2016—
Original conciliation letter.
Ex.P6 —13-10-2014—
Copy of the dispute raised
by the petitioner union
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P7 —13-11-2014—
Copy of letter sent by the
workers to the respondent
management
through
Professional Courier.
Ex.P8 —18-11-2014—
Copy of letter submitted
by the petitioner's union
before
the
Labour
Commissioner.
Ex.P9 —18-11-2014—
Copy of letter submitted
by the petitioner's union
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P10—24-11-2014— Copy of call letter sent by
the Labour Officer for
Conciliation.
Ex.P11—27-11-2014— Copy of strike notice
given by the petitioner's
union.
List of respondent’s witnesses:
RW.1 —21-12-2017 — S.A. Saravanan
List of respondent’s witnesses:
Ex.R1—29-10-2014 — Copy of complaint letter
given
by
production
Manager Mr.S.Sasikumar.
Ex.R2—30-10-2014 — Copy of complaint letter
given by Tool Room Engineer
Mr. R. V. Balamurugan.
Ex.R3— 30-10-2014— Copy of complaint letter
by given Security Guard
Mr. S. Tharani.
Ex.R4—05-11-2014 — Copy
of
show
cause
notice
issued
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R5—07-11-2014 — Copy of reply letter given
by the petitioner to the
show cause notice.
Ex.R6—13-11-2014 — Copy of complaint letter
given
by
Production
Manager Mr. S. Sasikumar.
Ex.R7—13-11-2014—
Copy of notice displayed
by the respondent in the
notice-board
of
the
Factory.
Ex.R8—15-11-2014 — Copy of complaint letter
given by Asst. Manager
Mr. T. Vinayagam.
Ex.R9—15-11-2014 — Copy of suspension order
issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R10—16-11-2014— Copy of letters given to
the Police Department by
the respondent.
Ex.R11—26-12-2014— Copy of charge sheet
issued to the petitioner.
1424
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[30 October 2018
Ex.R12—25-11-2014— Copy of complaint letter
given by Production Manager
Mr. S. Sasikumar.
Ex.R13—13-08-2014— Copy of the letter from
Pepsico Indian Holdings
Pvt. Ltd., to the respondent.
Ex.R14—
Copy of domestic enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.R15—02-11-2015— Copy of domestic enquiry
report.
Ex.R16—24-11-2015— Copy of second show
cause
issued
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R17—03-12-2015— Copy of reply letter given
by the petitioner.
Ex.R18—07-01-2016— Termination order issued
to the petitioner.
Ex.R19—24-02-2016— A full and final settlement
sent to the petitioner by
RPAD.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (AGRICULTURE)
(G.O. Ms. No. 22/Ag.,
Puducherry, dated 16th October 2018)
NOTIFICATION
The notice of the voluntary retirement given under
rule 48-A of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972 by Thiru K. Kumaran, Agricultural Officer, Office
of the Additional Director of Agriculture, Karaikal, is
accepted.
2. Accordingly, he is admitted into voluntary
retirement with effect from the afternoon of 31-10-2018.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
MANGALATTE DINESH,
Deputy Secretary to Government (Agriculture).
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
TALUK OFFICE, VILLIANUR
FORM-5
(Section 27)
NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT
Notice of attachment to Thiru Somasundaram,
S/o. Chinnaiya, No. 25, Gandhi Nagar,
Thirukkanur, Puducherry of Mannadipet Revenue
Village in Villianur Taluk, Puducherry.
Take notice as you have not paid or shown sufficient
cause for the non-payment of ` 4,99,152 (Rupees four
lakhs ninety-nine thousand and fifty-two only) along
with 12% interest per annum being the payment of
Employee’s Compensation payable to Thiru Kannan,
S/o. Ranganathan, No. 39, Pudhu Nagar, 1st Street,
Kunichempet, Puducherry due by you as holder of the lands
comprised in R.S. No. 131/1/C/17 of Mannadipet
Revenue Village are hereby placed under attachment
towards Employee’s Compensation payable to
Thiru Kannan, S/o. Ranganathan, No. 39, Pudhu Nagar,
1st Street, Kunichempet, Puducherry, due by you with
interest @ 12% per annum and other charges be paid
within the fifteen days, the property with building and
furniture's if any, will be brought to sale in due course
of law. You will further take notice that from the date
of this Attachment Notice until the date of sale of your
land is hereby attached, you are and will be held, liable
for all kists thereon accruing, and the said kists will be
demanded of and levied from you as arrears of land
revenue.
Station : Villianur,
Date
: 05-10-2018.
TAHSILDAR.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA
Karaikal, the 19th October 2018.
TENDER NOTICE
Sealed tenders offering the rate per kilogram are
invited fro m the tend er ers fo r the d isp osal o f
old newspapers (Tamil and English) belonging to the
District Project Office, Samagra Shiksha, Karaikal.