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
..
616
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 616
Award of the Labour Court .. 616
de Tribunal.
..
628
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 628
Government Notifications .. 628
..
635
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 635
Tender Notices
.. 635
..
639
Etablissements dangereux
.. 639
Dangerous establishments
..
639
..
641
Annonces
.. 641
Announcements
..
641
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 : 13-8-2019
Price : ` 22-00
[ 615 ]
2019 }
|
13 {
No.
33
Poudouchéry
Mardi
13
Août
2019 (22 Sravana 1941)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
13th
August
2019
616
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 August 2019
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 94/Lab./AIL/T/2019,
Puducherry, dated 08th July 2019)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 19/2016, dated
10-04-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between
the management of M/s. Shree Mother Plast India
Private Limited, Puducherry and Thiru E.K. Shankar,
over non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L., dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present:Thiru C. KUMAR SARAVANAN, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer (FAC).
Wednesday, the 10th day of April 2019.
I.D. (T) No. 19/2016
Thiru E.K Sankar,
No. 89, Vetri Vinayagar Street,
Kalitheerthalkuppam Village,
Madagadipattu Post,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Shree Mother Plast India
Private Limited,
Thirubhuvanai,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 27-03-2019 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru A. Sakthivel,
Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru R. Illancheliyan,
Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood over
for consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following;
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 94/AIL/Lab./J/2016,
dated 22-09-2016 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether, the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru E.K. Shankar against the management of
M/s. Shree Mother Plast India Private Limited,
Puducherry, over non-employment is justified? If
justified, what relief he is entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief are as follows :
The petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 in
the respondent establishment. Even since he has
been continuously working for the past 15 years and
above, as such he is a workman and he is Union
Leader of the M/s. Shree Mother Plast India Private
Limited in Union Registration No. l690/RTU/2012,
Puducherry. The respondent’s management is
running in No. Plot Nos. A43 to A48, Electronic Block,
PIPDIC, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry. There are
several employees were working in the respondent’s
company. That on 23-01-2012, the petitioner was
issued a Charge sheet and an independent enquiry
was conducted by the Enquiry Officer by alleging that
the petitioner and co-worker one P.R. Palaniappan
were assaulted Mr. Kamaraj and they were ripped off
by them using filthy languages and the respondent’s
company issued show cause notice for his delinquency.
The respondent’s company has attempted and issued
the Memo to all the 1’st shift workers and to all 2’nd
shift workers and the petitioner has returned it back
the same and the petitioner is not there at the time
of given memo and what the action taken by the
respondent management against all the operators for
returning the memo issued to them. It is alleged that
four or five workers are attempted the General
Manager Mr. Kamaraj on 23-01-2012. That on
13-01-2012 at 1.45 p.m., the 1’st shift Manager has
issued memo to all the operators of the respondent’s
company for not produce the Production Hourly
Report and they did not furnish any report. Further,
it is charged that 2’nd shift operators Mr. Palaniappan
and Mr. E.K. Shankar abused the Plant Head with filthy
words and they made attempt to attack him and
617
13 August 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Mr. Kamaraj tried to rescue the Plant Head and he
was reprimanded and he pushed down by the
petitioner and his co-worker Mr. Palaniappan. But, it is
stated in the evidence of MW3 that when he endeavored
to escape from the co-worker Mr. Palaniappan and
Mr. Kamaraj and his shirt was ripped off by the
petitioner and his co-worker, but, the charge was
framed against the petitioner. There was no chances
for the alleged act which was stated in the charge
sheet against the petitioner, when, the 2’nd shift was
running on 20-01-2012, and the above charges are
baseless. The petitioner has submitted his
explanation, dated 21-01-2012 and the respondent has
not furnished any documents for the alleged charges
and the act of the respondent is against the natural
justice. The respondent was having ulterior motive
in taking disciplinary action to deprive the rights of
the workman is absolutely false. The respondent has
not conducted any enquiry properly for the alleged
charges against the petitioner and other workman and
the domestic enquiry has been initiated against the
petitioner is not maintainable. Moreover, there was
no preliminary enquiry conducted regarding the
incident is immaterial and there is no need of
preliminary enquiry for the false incidences and the
charge sheet is to be rejected. It is against the
principles of natural justice for the alleged domestic
enquiry which was conducted on 04-02-2012 onwards.
Disciplinary Proceedings Officer Mr. S. Subramanian
ought to have been appointed the Enquiry Officer for
conducting domestic enquiry regarding the incident
and the activities of the Enquiry Officer are as against
the principles of inquiry procedure. In the enquiry
proceedings, the petitioner has submitted his
explanation, letters and their objections and the
documents, but, the respondent’s Enquiry Officer has
net taken into the consideration and the Enquiry
Officer acted infavour of the respondent management.
Further, the respondent has not considered the
document Ex.M3 of the letter by the Assistant
Protection Officer and does not referred with the
original letter. The respondent hars not produced
any material object ripped shirt which was involved
in the alleged assault committed by the petitioner and
his co-worker and the document Ex.M4 photographs
are produced during the enquiry proceedings which
are not acceptable one. The Enquiry Officer has
conducted enquiry on 25-04-2014 by examined
witnesses as Dl to D4 and the Enquiry Officer was not
explained his report stating that the petitioner along
with co-worker has assaulted attack him, the Plant
Head Mr. Thiruvasagam and tried to stop the
employees in order to rescue the Plant Head by
Mr. Kamaraj and it is clear that the witnesses were
examined as MW.1 to MW.3 are acted and deposed
their evidence infavour of the respondent management.
As such, the respondent was having ulterior motive
in taking action against the petitioner and does not
provide any subsistence allowance for the
suspension period since 21-01-2012, and they have
caused irreparable hardship to the petitioner. It is
false to state that the respondent was conducting
domestic enquiry by giving due opportunities under
the principles of natural justice and findings were
submitted based on the oral and documentary
evidence and the petitioner was given full
opportunities to produce the documents during the
time of enquiry and the respondent has conducted
enquiry was biased and in the absence of prove the
charges of the enquiry proceedings, and the
activities of the respondent are against the natural
justice and the allegation made against the petitioner
is not maintainable. The petitioner is entitling to
reinstate with full back wages, continuity of service,
and all other attendant benefits. The denial of
employment to the petitioner without any reasonable
cause and the act of the respondent is arbitrary,
illegal and clear act of violation of principles of natural
justice. In view of the above reasons stated the
petitioner is entitled for reinstatement, back wages
and subsistence allowances for the suspension
period and other benefits. Therefore, prays this Court
to pass an Award holding that the denial of
employment to the petitioner with effect from show
cause notice-cum-suspension order, dated 20-01-2012,
is an act of unfair labour practice, illegal and
consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in his service with full back wages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
1. The respondent herein denies all the averments
made by the petitioner in his claim statement, dated
24-03-2017, except those that are all specifically
admitted herein. The petitioner has filed his claim
statement with false allegations against the respondent
and the allegations so imputed are put to strict proof.
It is submitted that the petitioner was a workman in the
respondent factory and on 13-01-2012 at 1.45 p.m.
first shift Supervisor Mr. Kamaraj issued memo to all
the operators of the company for the reason of not
producing “Production Hourly Report” at first shift.
After gone through the memo, the operators had
618
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 August 2019
refused to sign on the memo and returned it back and
when they were asked for the reason, they did not
furnish any proper reason. Subsequently, when Plant
Head Mr. Thiruvasagam finished his lunch and just
passed by that way, all the operators shouted and
rushed to him. At that juncture, second shift
operators Mr. Palaniyappan and Mr. E.K. Shankar
(herein called the petition) abused the Plant Head
with filthy languages and made an attempt to attack
him as well. Consequently, Mr. Kamaraj tried to
rescue the Plant Head, but, he was also reprimanded
and pushed down by the petitioner and his
co-workman Mr. Palaniyappan and the situation was
finally pacified by the other staffs of the respondent
company.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a
show cause notice-cum-suspension order, dated
20-01-2012 for his abovesaid acts, for which the
petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 21-01-2012.
Since, the explanation given by the petitioner was not
satisfied, he was issued a charge sheet, dated
23-01-2012 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 25-04-2014. Since, the
charges levelled against the petitioner were stated to
have been proved by the Enquiry Officer in her enquiry
report, dated 25-04-2014, a second show cause
notice, dated 12-05-2014 was issued communicating
the proposed punishment. The petitioner gave his
explanation, dated 25-04-2014.
3. As for as the petitioner is concerned he did not
come forward neither to accept innocent and
submitted only an evasive reply 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 after thought and trying to mislead
this Hon’ble Court by giving fictitious and false
allegations against of this respondent. The 1st
petitioner has suppressed every fact with ulterior
motive of gaining sympathy and he has not come to
this Court with clean hands.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner has claimed
that he is the President of Shree Mother Plast Trade
Union and all the permanent employees of the
respondent company are the members of the said
union. Therefore, when he started demanding for the
production incentive and wage increment, his services
averments made in para 6 to 8 of his claim statement
are concerned, the respondent herein denies all the
averments and the contentions are absolutely false.
5. It is submitted that one of the Supervisor of the
respondent’s company Mr. Kamarai has attempted
to issue the memo to all the 1’st shift operators, who
were failed to produce the Production Hourly Report,
but, after receiving and reading the memo, the said
operators refused to sign and returned it to him
without any reason. The said incident was happened
around 1.45 p.m., whereas, the 1’st shift ends and the
2’nd shift starts at 2.00 p.m. and so, the petitioner who
had come to proceed his 2’nd shift duty was obviously
presented on the spot. Subsequently, a group of
employees headed by the petitioner and his
co-worker Mr. Palaniyappan abused with filthy languages
and rushed to the Plant Head Mr. Thiruvasagam to
attack him and seeing this Mr. Kamaraj tried to stop
the employees in order to rescue the Plant Head.
At the point that point of time, the petitioner and his
co-workers Mr. Palaniappan, Mr. Kamaraj and when
he endeavored to escape from them, his shirt was
ripped off by them and then situation was appeased
by the other staff of the respondent company and
thus, he was issued a show cause notice for his
delinquency.
6. It is submitted that right from the beginning the
respondent herein was having a healthy practice of
recognizing the union activities and negotiating the
issues with the union and entered into various
settlements from time to time. It was having strong
faith in collective bargaining mechanism and there is
no necessity for using any third grade methods to
deprive the rights of the workmen in general and the
petitioner s in particular. When the negotiation for
wage settlement was going on, the members were
trying to put indirect pressure of reducing the
production and the petitioner herein was instrumental
for such unruly behaviors. Therefore, contentions of
the petitioner that the respondent was having
ulterior motive in taking disciplinary action to deprive
the rights of the workman is absolutely false. As far
as the respondent was concern, it has not taken any
action against the workmen, who have refused to
receive the memos for obvious reason that it will
instigate a tense situation inside the factory as the
workers were large in number and action was
instigated only against two workers who went to the
extend of abusing, assaulting and manhandling the
Supervisor. Therefore, contentions of the petitioner
that no action was taken against the other workman
does not have any relevance as far as his case is
concern.
619
13 August 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
7. It is submitted that whatever may be the
grievances, the petitioner should have approached the
respondent management and negotiated the issue. If,
there were any contraventions, he was having every
right to seek a legal remedy through an appropriate
forum. However, the petitioner was not only interfered
into the managerial decisions but also instigated
violence in the factory. The petitioner 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.
Moreover, 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 trying to
conceal all his misdemeanors with the veil of enquiry
proceedings.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a
detailed charges sheet-cum-suspension order and the
suspension was executed for evading further
rebellious behavior of the charge sheet-cum-
suspension order was issued to the petitioner’s
co-worker Mr. Palaniyappan as well, who had been
accompanied with the petitioner in leading the said
transgression. In that case, domestic enquiry has
been initiated nevertheless, during the enquiry,
Mr. Palaniappan has voluntarily approached requested
to close the enquiry proceedings. Considering his
request, the respondent had withdrawn the enquiry
and conferred his settlement as the wished.
Therefore, the disciplinary action taken by the
respondent against the petitioner neither retributive
nor isolated.
9. It is submitted that the petitioner indulged in
acts of assaulting and manhandling the Supervisor
and was apprehended that the petitioner will also
aggravate the situation further, in case, he is
continued to be allowed inside the factory and spoil
the atmosphere and that was the reason, the
petitioner was suspended immediately, pending
enquiry. Moreover, the petitioner’s contention that
there was no preliminary enquiry conducted
regarding the incident is immaterial because, when a
person of authority to take disciplinary action gets
a complaint it is left to him to make such investigation
of preliminary enquiry as he considers it fit together
the information and find out the truth of the
complaint and the evidence available support of it
and if, prima facie of the facts exist, then no need
for such preliminary enquiry. Though, the petitioner was
issued show cause notice, seeking his explanation
for his acts, but, when the respondent found
unsatisfactory of such reply instigated the domestic
enquiry. Copy of all the documents based on which
the enquiry was initiated, has been provided to the
delinquent. 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. Therefore, the petitioner’s contentions
are after thought to safeguard his position. It is
submitted that if at all there is a case, 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 in para 9 to 10 is not
maintainable.
10. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer who
has conducted the enquiry initially was unable to
continue the enquiry due to some personal reasons,
so, the enquiry was postponed for few months, after
that another person was appointed for that purpose
and it was duly informed to the delinquent through
a letter, dated 01-08-2013. Ever since all the legal
procedures and formalities are being followed, 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 shall
not follow this kind of awful strategy to escape from
the charges levelled against him. In fact, the petitioner
indulged in such unlawful acts of coercing the other
workmen even in previous occasions and was issued
with show causes notices on 16-5-2007 and 03-06-2010.
Therefore, the petitioner is a continuous offender and
every acts committed by him is unlawful acts and not
in the order of a workman. Therefore, the action of
the respondent is well within the parameter of law.
11. As far as the domestic enquiry is concern, it
is not an enquiry to be conducted strictly in
accordance with the civil or criminal laws; it is purely
a procedural law, being conducted to find out the
facts of the misconduct by giving due opportunities
620
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 August 2019
under the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the
contentions that the respondent did not conduct any
preliminary enquiry, produced list of witnesses,
material evidence Act are not applicable as claimed
by the petitioner. It is the fundamental question to
be relied upon is whether there were any bias or
vested interest in conducting enquiry and unless
such facts are proved the enquiry proceedings cannot
be questioned at any point of time. The respondent
herein relies completely on the proceedings recorded
during the enquiry proceedings and the subsequent
report submitted. Since, the charges levelled against
the petitioner were proved, the respondent taken
consideration of various facts and situations and
taken action in the interest of industry and the
workmen employed therein as a whole. Therefore,
there was no bias or vested interest in taking action
against petitioner and denies all the averments of the
petitioner and consider those contentions as a
blanket to cover up the grievous misconducts
committed by him in to.
12. At the outset, it is submitted that the action
initiated against the petitioner is only for the
grievous misconducts committed by him 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.
13. In view of the reasons stated above the
petitioner is not entitled for any reinstatement, back
wages or any other pecuniary benefits whatsoever
and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the petition as devoid of merits and for costs of the
petition.
4. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management, over non-employment
is justified or not? and if justified, what is the relief
entitled to the petitioner?
5. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were
marked on the petitioner side. And on the side of the
respondent’s General Manager was examined as the
RW.1 and Ex.Rl to Ex.R.l8 were marked. Both sides
arguments are heard. The pleadings of the parties, the
evidence let in by either sides and the exhibits marked
on both sides are carefully considered. On both sides,
written arguments were filed and the same was carefully
considered.
On the point:
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
was working as an Operator in the respondent's
company and the respondent management is a supplier
and manufacturer of plastic molding, injection
precision engineering plastic works components and
other plastic injection and plastic articles. The
petitioner is member in the Shree Mother Plast
Employees Union and president of the said union vide
Registration No. 1690/RTU/2012 at Puducherry and the
respondent’s Administrative block in Nos. A43 to A48,
Electronic Park PIPDIC, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry.
Further, it is contended that the there was regular
practice to produce the Hourly Report to their company
and the operators ought to have been submitted the
report to the Supervisors in the respondent management.
The petitioner was under suspension, dated 20-01-2012
and a show cause notice was issued to him with
suspension order and alleging that the petitioner
disorderly behavior, for which the petitioner has given
explanation for the alleged charges against him, dated
21-01-2012. It is further contended by the petitioner that
the respondent was not satisfied the explanation, dated
21-01-2012, and the respondent was issued a Charge
Sheet, dated 23-01-2012 and an independent Enquiry
Officer was appointed for conducting domestic enquiry
for the alleged charges against the petitioner and the
enquiry was conducted on 04-02-2012 without giving
opportunities to the petitioner neither for cross
examination of the respondent’s witnesses nor to
participate the enquiry proceedings to disprove the
various allegations. Further, it is contended that the
petitioner was suspended and terminated his service
and alleging that the petitioner was caused misconduct
behavior committed by the petitioner were severe
grievous in nature.
7. Per contra, here the respondent contended that
the petitioner entered into altercations and man
handling of the factory’s Plant Head Mr.Thiruvasagam
for which show cause notice issued and the explanation
given by the petitioner is not accepted and proper
enquiry was conducted by an independent Enquiry
Officer and the finding that the petitioner was
recommended for suspension and the petitioner was
suspended and subsequently, he was terminated from
service for alleged charges and misconduct of the
petitioner along with co-worker Mr. Palaniappan and the
punishment was imputed in proportion to the misconducts
committed by the petitioner during the time running
factory work. Further, it is contended that the Enquiry
Officer had conducted enquiry by giving due
621
13 August 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
opportunities and submitted the enquiry report on
25-04-2014, since the charges levelled against the
petitioner has been proved and stated in the enquiry
report on 25-04-2014. Further, it is stated that the
respondent has issued a second show cause notice to
the petitioner, dated 12-05-2014 and was communicating
to the petitioner and his proposed punishment and the
petitioner given his explanation, dated 03-06-2014 to the
respondent management. According to the respondent
that the domestic enquiry was conducted fair and freely
without any bias or any interest vested in taking action
against the petitioner and the punishment imputed to
the petitioner for his misconduct during the working
hours in the respondent’s factory. Further, it is stated
that the petitioner was issued charge sheet-cum-
suspension order but, his co-worker Mr. Palaniappan
who had accompanied with him in leading the said
transgression and he has voluntarily approached the
respondent and made an apology in writing for his
misdemeanors along with the petitioner requested to
close the enquiry proceedings and it is stated that
disciplinary action taken by the respondent against the
petitioner neither retributive nor isolated and the
petitioner had instigated violence in the factory and the
petitioner used filthy languages against the management
and their staffs, which is not permissible and the
petitioner has spoiled the atmosphere and he was
suspended immediately pending enquiry. Further, it is
stated by the respondent that the petitioner used to join
with trouble makers and on 05-08-2014 indulged in an
act of violence and criminal action was taken against
him and the claim of the back wages during the period
from the date of termination is not maintainable.
8. The pleadings of the parties and the exhibits
marked on both sides are carefully considered. On both
sides, written arguments were filed and the same was
carefully considered. The petitioner is examined as PWl
and Exs.P1 to Ex.P11 are marked as documents on the
petitioner side. Further, the petitioner/PWl has stated in
his oral evidence that the respondent - management
acted illegally and terminated from service without any
cause and terminated him without any justification and
the act of the respondent is totally against the law and
such act of the respondent management is purely
mala fide and it is an arbitrary in nature.
9. Further, the respondent is examined as RW1 and
the documents are marked as Exs.R1 to Exs.R18 on the
respondent side. RWl deposed that the petitioner is
trouble maker and continuous offender with violent
behaviour and he has not produced any documentary
evidence during the time of domestic enquiry to show
that he is not gainful employment and he is not entitled
for reinstatement and for back wages for the alleged
suspension period.
10. The following documents are marked on the
petitioner side are as follows. Ex.Pl is the copy of
suspension order issued by the respondent, dated
20-01-2012. Ex.P2 is the petition given by all the workers
is to cancel the suspension order given to the petitioner,
dated 21-01-2012. Ex.P3 is the copy of charge sheet
issued to the petitioner by the respondent, dated
23-01-2012. Ex.P4, dated 23-01-2012, is the copy reply
given by the petitioner to the respondent for the alleged
show cause notice for the alleged misconduct. Ex.P5 is
the copy of the petition for refusing opportunities to
the petitioner for the domestic enquiry, dated 19-03-
2013. Ex.P6 is the copy of the Domestic Enquiry Report,
dated 25-04-2014. Ex.P7 is the copy explanation given
by the petitioner for the alleged show cause notice to
the petitioner, dated 12-05-2014. Ex.P8 is the copy
permanent suspension order issued to the petitioner by
the respondent management, dated 11-10-2014. Ex.P9 is
the copy of the objection petition seeking cancel the
suspension order, dated 14-11-2014. Ex.P10 is the copy
of the Industrial Dispute (2A), dated 26-11-2014. And
Ex.P11 is the copy of the report of the failure of
conciliation before the Labour Officer, dated 11-07-2016.
These are the documents have been supported for the
claim of the petitioner and it is contended that the
petitioner is entitled for reinstatement and for back
wages to the petitioner for the suspension period and
other monetary benefits as per rules of the respondent's
company.
11. Further, the respondent have been supported the
documents to deny the claim of the petitioner and
they are follow. Ex. R1 is the copy of charge sheet
issued to the petitioner by the Saba Industries Private
Limited, dated 16-05-2007. Ex.R2 is the copy of show cause
notice issued to the petitioner, dated 03-06-2010. Ex.R3
is the copy of the complaint of Mr. Gandhi, dated
13-01-2012. Ex.R4 is the copy of the complaint letter of
Mr. Kamaraj, dated 13-01-2012. Ex.R5 is the copy of the
complaint letter of Mr.Thiruvasagam, dated 18-01-2012.
Ex.R6 is the copy of the show cause notice-cum-
suspension order to the petitioner, dated 20-01-2012.
That on 21.01.2012 a reply given by the petitioner is as
Ex.R7. Ex.R8 is the copy of charge sheet issued to the
petitioner, dated 23-01-2012. Ex.R9 is the copy of
apology letters of Mr. Palaniappan, dated 08-12-2012.
Ex.R10 is the copy of the First Enquiry Officer’s letters
mentioning his inability to continue to conduct enquiry,
dated 23-07-2013. Ex.R11 is the copy of intimation letter
622
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 August 2019
to the petitioner regarding appointment of new Enquiry
Officer, dated 01-08-2013. Ex.R12 is the copy of the
domestic enquiry proceedings. Ex.R13 is the copy of
the enquiry report, dated 25-04-2014. Ex.R14 is the copy
of the second show cause notice issued to the petitioner
by the respondent management, dated 12-05-2014.
Ex.R15 is the copy of the termination order of the
petitioner, dated 11-10-2014. Ex.R16 is the copy of the
settlement given by the respondent to the petitioner,
dated 11-10-2014. Ex.R17 is the copy of the FIR filed
against the petitioner and others by the Thirubhuvanai
Police, dated 05-08-2014. Ex Rl8 is the copy Bail Order
and petition, dated 28-08-2014. It is contended by the
respondent that the petitioner is trouble maker and he
continuous offender coupled with violent activities and
on 05-08-2014, the petitioner and other co-workers
together indulged in act of the violence in the industrial
belt of the respondent factory and further, the petitioner
has not produced any documentary evidence to shows
that he is not in gainful employment and the petitioner
is not entitled for back wages during the period from
the date of his termination are not maintainable.
Because, it is argued that the petitioner was given
sufficient opportunities to examine and cross examination
of the witnesses, even, the delinquent enquiry was
conducted and communicated through letter, dated
01-08-2013 under Ex.R11 and the legal formalities legal
procedures are being followed and the enquiry was
conducted within the parameter of the law.
12. The petitioner/PW.l deposed that the respondent
has to reinstatement of his employment and the
respondent is liable to pay back wages due to his
unlawful termination form service of the petitioner and
the respondent. Further, it is stated in his evidence of
PW.l that the respondent was acted only to escape their
liability to give monetary benefit to the petitioner and
they gave termination/dismissal from her service on
20-01-2012 and it is proved under Ex.P1 and also the
respondent has produced the document Ex.R6 the
management issued the termination/dismissal letter,
dated 20-01-2012, to the petitioner and it would amounts
to illegal termination from employment. Further, RW.1
stated in his chief examination that a show cause notice
-cum-suspension order, dated 20-01-2012 for his
disorderly activities for which the petitioner has given
explanation, dated 23-01-2012 under Ex.P4 and the same
has been marked as Ex.R7. The respondent has issued
charge-sheet to the petitioner, dated 23-01-2012 under
Ex.P3 and Ex.R8. Further, it is deposed by the respondent
that the management has issued another show cause
notice, dated 03-06-2010 and it is evidenced from Ex.R2
and it is also Ex.R14 the second show cause notice
issued to the petitioner and the Ex.R15 is the termination
order of the petitioner and the Ex.R16 is the settlement
given to the petitioner. Further, the contractor of the
Shree Mother Plast India Private Limited, company has
lodged a complaint against the petitioner Mr. E.K. Shankar
and co-workers before the Thirubhuvanai Police Station
on 05-08-2014 and a case was registered under sections:
147, 148, 307, 324 and 323, r/w section 149 of IPC in FIR
No. 90/2014, dated 05-08-2014 and it is evidenced from
Ex.R17, i.e., the copy FIR filed by the respondent. It is
found that the petitioner and 19 other workers are
enlarged on Bail in Crl O.P. No. 22614/2014, 20-08-2014
on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and
Ex.Rl8 is the copy of the bail petition order. On perusal
of the bail order Ex.R18, it would shows that on
05-08-2014 in Thirubhuvanai NDLF pasted the posters
of its procession at about 6 p.m. a huge procession of
NDLF party workers proceeded raising slogans
contending their demands and supporters of the
contractors questioned workers, wordy quarrel took
place and on such certain persons sustained injuries
each side and some Police personnels sustained minor
injuries and one Boopalan alleged in the complaint that
Raja was assaulted with knives, but, in the hospital it
was told that he was assaulted with sticks.
13. From the evidence of PW.l and RW.l it is found
that the respondent was appointed the domestic enquiry
for the alleged charges against the petitioner by the
respondent’s Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer
has submitted enquiry report, dated 25-04-2014 under
the Ex.P6 and Ex.R13 confirming the charges levelled
against the petitioner was proved. But, the averments
made in the counter statement and in the evidence of
RW.l is not been admitted by the petitioner. Further, it
is narrated in the evidence of PW.l that the respondent
that he approached and he has raised the industrial
dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) for
amicable settlement and the conciliation was failed and
the Labour Officer has referred the issue before the
Labour Court for adjudication. Ex.P10 is the industrial
dispute and Ex.P11 is the report of the Labour Officer
for failure conciliation.
14. Further, it is contended on the respondent side
that the enquiry was being conducted by giving full
opportunities to take the assistance of the co-worker
of the petitioner and the full opportunities was also
given to the petitioner for cross examination of the
respondent’s witnesses and produce evidences and the
enquiry was conducted free and fair reasonably and it
is established under Ex.R12 and Ex.Rl3. On perusal of
the case records it is clear that the petitioner is not been
623
13 August 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
examined in the domestic enquiry proceedings when the
enquiry was conducted by the management. The other
workers are examined as namely Mr. C. Kumar, R. Sakthivel,
P. Prabhu and Mr. S.Panchatcharam as DW.l to DW.4
during the domestic enquiry and the enquiry report is
as Ex.Rl3, dated 25-04-2014. But, it is alleged by the
respondent management that the petitioner and his
co-worker Mr. Palaniappan has approached voluntarily
the respondent management on 08-12-2012 and he has
made an apology in writing for his misconduct along
with co-worker petitioner and he requested to close the
enquiry proceedings and the apology letter of the said
Mr. Palaniappan is as Ex.R9. But, from the perusal of
the apology letter of the Mr. Palaniappan, it seems that
he has sought for continue the enquiry proceedings and
he agreed for the continuous enquiry proceedings.
15. In support of the contention of the respondent,
relies upon the decision in the case of “Delhi HC 2016
LLR 72-Manilal vs. Matchless Industries of India”,
wherein, the Court has observed that when the evidence
on record reveals that domestic enquiry by an Enquiry
Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority has
been conducted by adhering to the principles of natural
justice, interference by the Court in the enquiry finding
is not called for to substitute the findings already
concluded. It is well settled that Enquiry Officer can
also be an advocate of the employer and mere fact that
the Enquiry Officer was conducted by an enquiry of the
employer would not vitiate the enquiry. The
management of the industrial establishments must
satisfy the principles of natural justice while maintaining
a neutral attitude towards the workmen. The delinquent
employee must be apparently informed about the
charges levelled against him and shall be provided with
an opportunity to be heard so he can refute them and
establish his innocence. He must be given an occasion
to cross-examine the witnesses in his defense and
evidence at the enquiry should be adduced in his
presence. The punishment awarded, if, proven guilty,
should be in proportion to the misconduct committed.
These principles of natural justice are specified in
sections 2(b), 5(2), 10A (2) and 13A of The Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In Union of
India vs. T.R. Verma, 1957 AIR 882 (1958 SCR 499), the
Court laid down that the principles of natural justice
require the charge sheeted employee shall have an
opportunity of adducing the relevant evidence and that
the evidence of the employer should be taken in his
presence, he should be given the opportunity of cross-
examining the witnesses examined on behalf of the
management and that no materials should be relied upon
against him without giving him an opportunity to explain
to them. Following the procedure, the evidence recorded
at an enquiry is not open to attack. In “1992 AIR SCW
2595 State of Punjab vs. Ram Singh Ex-constable and
1967 11 LLJ 715 SC Firestone Tyre Rubber co vs.
Workman” wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has very
rightfully observed that “The word ‘Misconduct’
through not capable of precise definition, on reflection
receives its connotation from the context, the
delinquency in its performance and its effect on the
discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve
moral turpitude. It must be improper or wrong
behaviour, unlawful behaviour or transgression of
definite rule of action or code of conduct, established
and but, not mere error of judgments, carelessness or
negligence in performance of the duty; the Act
complained of bears forbidden quality of character”.
16. Further, it is held that Enquiry Officer,who was
the company lawyer cannot be considered as being
biased and partisan, who favoured and was partial
towards the management of the company and the
observation made in the case “2009 LLR SCC Page 1057-
Bieco Lawrie Limited vs. State of West Bengal and
Another”. Further, it is contended that the petitioner
has claimed reinstatement and back wages on the
ground that the enquiry proceedings was not
conducted properly. In this regard, the contention has
been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
even when the dismissal of a workman is set aside by
the Court, compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be
appropriate in the case “SC LLR 2008 1281-Asok Kumar
Sharma vs. Oheri Fligh Services”. In “CDJ 2008 SC
20146-Novartis India Limited vs. State of West Bengal
and Others” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
for the purpose of grant of back wages besides other
factors, conduct of the concerned workman also plays
a vital role. The respondent has relies upon the decision
in the case of “2007 LLR 166 High Polymer Laboratories
vs. Jagdish Chand and Another (Punjab and Haryana
High Court)” wherein, the Court has observed that any
conduct of the duties by an employee, inconsistent with
the faithful discharge of the duties towards his
employer would be a misconduct and further, it is
submitted that when an employee willfully disobeyed
the orders of the Supervisor and the employer terminates
his service it is not open to take view that the
punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges
proved and here in the present petitioner is concerned
that he was awarded punishment of termination in
proportion to the misconduct committed and requires
no intervention.
624
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 August 2019
17. In the light of the above decisions, it is clear that
the monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement
of the workman would not be proper and the
reinstatement of the employee with back wages is not
automatic and may not be appropriate in a given
situation eventhough, the termination of an employee
and it would be legal and the relief of reinstatement with
back wages is not justified and back wages cannot be
granted automatically and the burden of proof that the
employee would not be workman now, he remained
unemployed in the respondent factory and the burden
of proof contained under section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act. In the case “2007 (9) SCC 748-Madya
Pradesh Administration vs. Tribhuvan” the Apex Court
held that while reiterating the principle relating to grant
of back wages in some of the decisions to which we
had adverted to the Court opined that the Court should
consider each case on its own merits.
18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would
submits that no material records to show that the
petitioner has committed misconduct and disorderly
behaved during the time of working hours in the
respondent’s factory by the workman and in support he
relies on the decision reported in “2008 (4) LLN 545
High Court of Madras–Management of Chemplast
Saninar Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Salem and Another” wherein, the Court has held that
the
Labour
Court has properly appreciated the
circumstances and decided the case as per the power
exercise under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Apex Court held in “1996 (1) LLN 526-Palghat BPL
and PSP Thozhilali Union vs. BPL India Limited and
Another”, thus, the Apex Court has observed in Para 6
are as follows:
“In this case, the findings recorded by the High
Court and the Labour Court is that stones were
thrown and the officers were attacked which resulted
in grievous injuries to the officers. But, it is seen that
the appellants alone were not members of the
assembly of the workman standing at the BPL
bus stop. The Labour Court had discretion under
section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, to
consider
the
quantum
of
misconduct
and
punishment, In view of the surging circumstances the
workman were agitating by their demands collective
bargain for acceptance of their demands and when
the strike was on the settlement during the
conciliation proceedings though initially agreed to,
was raised later on. They appeared to have attacked
the officers when they were going to the factory.
Under these circumstances, the Labour Court was
well justified in taking lenient view and in setting
aside the order of dismissal and giving reinstate the
workman with a cut of 75 per cent. of the back wages
up to the date of award. In our considered view, the
discretion exercised by the Labour Court is proper
and justified in the above facts and circumstances.
From the above decision, it is clearly applicable to
the present case on hand and the workman have
agitated and proceeded to attack the officers when
they were going to the factory and the Labour Court
took a lenient view of setting aside the dismissal
order and directed reinstatement of the employees
with 25 percentage of back wages.
19. In this dispute the petitioner’s claim is that the
non-employment (termination/dismissal) of the petitioner
is an operator in the respondent’s company, who was
work from 1999, till his termination is not justified and
sought for reinstatement with back wages from the
respondent is justified. At this juncture we have to
mentioned about some decisions on this issue for
determination. In “Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors., 2013
(10) SCC 324” the Apex Court has held that in the case
of wrongful termination of a worker, reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages was a normal rule.
However, the payment of back wages has to be
determined as per the facts and circumstances of each
case and cannot be automatically granted on an order of,
reinstatement of the worker. The worker has to
specifically raise the claim for back wages, as well as
present supporting evidence demonstrating his
unemployment. The Court also set out various factors
for calculating the back wages, which include, among
others: (a) the length of service of a worker; (b) the
nature of misconduct, if any, proved against a worker;
and (c) the financial condition of an employer.
20. The two important kinds of reliefs that can be
granted, in case, the workman is found to be wrongfully
discharged, are: (1) reinstatement, and (2) compensation
in lieu of reinstatement. Which of the two is appropriate
in the circumstances of a particular case is a matter of
judicial discretion depending upon the facts of such
case. In “B. and C.Mills”, it was contended that the
relief of reinstatement should be granted only in cases
of victimization and unfair labour practice, and
compensation should be granted in all other cases of
improper termination of service. The Labour Appellate
Tribunal rejected the contention saying that it was not
possible to lay down rules which could be regarded as
exhaustive on the subject and that each case had to be
considered on its merits. And a year later, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court confirmed the
625
13 August 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
proposition: Whether a discharged employee is to be
reinstated in service, or the compensation would be an
adequate relief is a matter of discretion. “Admittedly,
the petitioner was under suspension in view of the
document Ex.R15, dated 11-10-2014 and recommended
for other monetary benefits for his suspension period.
Suspension is of three kinds. An order for suspension
may be passed by way of punishment in terms of the
conduct rules. An order for suspension can be also
passed by the employer in exercise of its inherent power
in the sense that he may not take any work from the
delinquent officer but, in that event, the entire salary
is required to be paid. An order for suspension can also
be passed, if, such a provision exist in the rule laying
down that in place of the full salary, the delinquent
officer shall be paid only the subsistence allowance
specified therein. The petitioner herein admittedly not
obtained any subsistence allowances without any
demur and the petitioner has raised objections and it is
evidenced from Ex.P9 and the respondent has not
considered the provision of section 11(A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, before the termination of the
petitioner from service.
21. The Apex Court has held that the principles
governing the award of back wages is no longer
res integra and the same are well settled in the decisions
reported in “M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Jarina Bee
(Smt.), G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Rudhan Singh, U.P.
State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey,
J.K. Synthetics Limited vs. K.P. Agrawal and Anr.,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan,
Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing
Board and Anr., and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak”. After referring to the above
judgments, the Court held that:
“In our considered opinion, the Courts below
completely failed to see that the back wages could
not be awarded by the Court as of right to the
workman consequent upon setting aside of his
dismissal/termination order. In other words, a
workman has no right to claim back wages from his
employer as of right only because the Court has set
aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed
his reinstatement in service”.
22. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal exercises power under section 11 (A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even
though the enquiry held against the employee/workman
is consistent with the rules of natural justice and or
certified standing orders, if any, but, holds that the
punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct
found proved, then it will have the discretion not to
award full back wages. However, if, the Labour Court/
Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman
is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the
employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be
ample justification for award of full back wages.
23. As this Court has decided that industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner against the respondent, over
non-employment is not justified, because of, there is no
proper domestic enquiry conducted about the alleged
charges and misconduct committed by the petitioner
during the working hours along with co-worker and for
his unsatisfactory job performance as specified in the
show cause notice-cum-suspension order, dated
20-01-2012 under Ex.P1 and the same has been produced
by the respondent in Ex.R6. Further, it is decided by the
respondent that the petitioner is not entitled for
back wages as claimed by him, due to his misconduct
and disorderly behavior and his explanation given to
the respondent, dated 23-01-2012 under Ex.P4, and the
petitioner’s explanation was not accepted and the
charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, dated 23-01-2012
in Ex.P3 and Ex.R8 and the Enquiry Officer was
appointed and the same has been communicated to the
petitioner and it is established under Ex.R10 and Ex.R11
and Ex.R12 and after completion of the enquiry
proceedings, the Enquiry Officer had submitted report
under Ex.Rl3, then the petitioner was suspended
permanently from the service of the respondent’s
company. There is no evidence to shows that the said
workman is working so far in any other industry and
that there is no proof exhibited before this Court that
he is working anywhere else. The respondent has not
proved the fact that the petitioner has been working in
any other establishment after the refusal of employment.
However, the petitioner workman could have served at
any other industry after the refusal of employment.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, this
Court decides that the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement of the employment along with his back
wages and other benefits as per rules of the
respondent’s company. With regard to compensation as
back wages with continuity of service from the respondent
and other attendant benefits are maintainable.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner Thiru E.K. Shankar,
for reinstatement in the respondent factory is justified
and the petitioner is entitled for compensation as back
wages.
24. A workman has no right to claim back wages from
his employer as of right only because the Court has set
aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his
626
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 August 2019
reinstatement in service. ‘The Supreme Court has held
that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court
as of right to the workman consequent upon setting
aside of his dismissal/termination order. The Court of
the considered opinion that the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of “Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) ‘7 SCC 177]” would aptly
apply to the facts of this case and we prefer to apply
the same for disposal of these appeals. It is opposite
to reproduce what this Court has held in the case of
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. “It is clear from the
reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary
principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages,
when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position
where services of a regular/permanent workman are
terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of
victimization, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when
it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage
worker and where the termination is found illegal
because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of
section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court
is consistent intaking the view that in such cases
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
instead the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of justice. The
reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such
cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the
termination is found to be illegal because of
non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice
pay as mandatory required under section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to terminate the
services of that employee by paying him the
retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was
working on daily wage basis and even after he is
reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus,
when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right
to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful
purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a
workman and he can be given monetary compensation
by the Court itself in as much as if, he is terminated
again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary
compensation only in the form of retrenchment
compensation and notice pay. In such a situation,
giving the relief of reinstatement, would serve the justice
to the affected employee and his life and also his family.
25. It is clear from the pleadings of both the parties,
claim statement, counter statement and based on the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides,
it would clear that both the parties have admitted the
fact that the petitioner was under suspension, dated
20-01-2012 and explanation given by the petitioner,
dated 21-01-2012 and the charge-sheet was issued,
dated 23-01-2012 to the petitioner and an independent
enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the
enquiry report was submitted on 25-04-2014 confirming
the charges levelled against the petitioner has been
proved as per the respondent’s contention and
subsequently, a second show cause notice has been
issued to the petitioner, dated 12-05-2014 and it was
communicating to the petitioner and the petitioner was
given his explanation, dated 03-06-2014 for the alleged
second show cause notice and then the respondent was
issued show cause notice to the other workman on
16-05-2017 and 03-06-2010. Further, it is found that the
petitioner was terminated permanently under Ex.P8 and
the respondent’s document Ex.R15, dated 11-10-2014.
It is crystal clear that the industrial dispute has been
raised by the petitioner before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) Puducherry, over non-employment and the
petitioner has represented, dated 26-11-2014 in order to
protract the rights of the workers and collective
bargaining and the management was taking revenge
activities on the employees in which the union was
established and the petitioner was given a charter of
demands to the management for the year 2011-2014, in
order to drag the issue and the management did not
settle the issue to dissolve the dispute raised by the
petitioner’s union, and he was temporarily suspended
at first instance and, then he was permanently
suspended by way of enquiry on 11-10-2014 and there
was no opportunity given to defend the charges as
alleged by the respondent and the petitioner was not
allowed to cross examine the respondent’s witnesses
eventhough the petitioner informed his letter, dated
19-03-2013 which is proved under Ex.P5, the respondent
management did not consider the explanation of the
petitioner workman and the petitioner was given his
letter, dated 16-06-2012 requested for evidences,
documents to provide his side and the same was not
served to him and he was not given sufficient chances
to prove himself as alleged charges. As far as the
respondent concerned the service of the petitioner was
terminated for grievous misconduct committed by him
and the termination was made based on the enquiry
report of the Enquiry Officer after giving opportunities
under principles of natural justice. But, there is no
sufficient evidence to shows that the domestic enquiry
was conducted fair and free and it is found that the
petitioner was not giving sufficient opportunities to
prove the charges alleged by the respondent by
producing evidence and relevant documents.
627
13 August 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
26. Therefore, the Labour Court/Tribunal is of the
considered view that the industrial dispute raised by
the petitioner against the respondent management, over
his non-employment is justified, it is to be decided
whether the petitioner is entitled for back wages as
claimed by him. There is no evidence that the petitioner
is working so far in any other industry and that there
is no proof exhibited before this Court that he is
working anywhere else. The respondent has not proved
the fact that the petitioner has been working in any
other establishment after his termination. However, the
petitioner could have served at any other industry after
his termination. Considering the above facts and
circumstances, this Court decides that the petitioner is
entitled for reinstatement and for back wages with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
27. In the result, this Industrial Dispute (Labour)
Petition is allowed and directing the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in the respondent’s company
within a month and the respondent is directing to pay
the back wages from the date of suspension of the
petitioner, and the amount to be paid within one month
from the date of the award. The parties are hereby
directed to bear their respective cost of the petition.
Typed by me in Laptop, and transcribed by me,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 10’th day of April, 2019.
C. KUMAR SARAVANAN,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.l
—
20-06-2017
E. K. Shankar (Petitioner)
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
—
20-01-2012
The
show
cause-cum-
suspension order of the
petitioner.
Ex.P2
—
21-01-2012
Copy of the petition of the
all employees to cancel
the suspension order to
the respondent.
Ex.P3
—
23-01-2012
The charge sheet issued
by the respondent to the
petitioner.
Ex.P4
—
23-01-2012
Copy of the reply to the
charge
sheet
by
the
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.P5
—
19-03-2013
Copy of the petition given
by the petitioner regarding
unfairness of domestic
enquiry.
Ex.P6
—
25-04-2014
Copy of the domestic
enquiry report.
Ex.P7
—
12-05-2014
The show cause notice.
Ex.P8
—
11-10-2014
The dismissal order of the
petition.
Ex.P9
—
14-11-2014
Copy of the objection
petition on dismissal order
by the petitioner to the
respondent.
Ex.P10 —
26-11-2014
Copy of the 2A petition.
Ex.P11 —
17-07-2016
Copy of the report on
failure of conciliation.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.l
—
25-09-2017
G. Narayanamoorthy
(General Manager).
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1
—
20-01-2012
Copy of the charge-sheet
issued to the petitioner
by Saba Industries Private
Limited.
Ex.R2
—
21-01-2012
Copy of the show cause
notice
issued
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.R3
—
23-01-2012
Copy of the Mr. Gandhi’s
complaint letter.
Ex.R4
—
23-01-2012
Copy of the Mr. Kamaraj’s
complaint letter.
Ex.R5
—
19-03-2013
Copy of the Mr. Thiruvasagam’s
complaint letter.
628
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 August 2019
Ex.R6
—
25-04-2014
Copy of the show cause
notice-cum-suspension
order.
Ex.R7
—
12-05-2014
Copy of the reply letter
given by the petitioner.
Ex.R8
—
11-10-2014
Copy of the charge sheet
issued to the petitioner.
Ex.R9
—
14-11-2014
Copy of the Mr. Palaniyappan’s
apology letters.
Ex.R10 —
26-11-2014
Copy of the first Enquiry
Officer’s letter mentioning
his inability to continue
the enquiry.
Ex.R11 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the intimation
letter to the petitioner
regarding appointment of
a new Enquiry Officer.
Ex.R12 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the domestic
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.R13 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the enquiry report
of the petitioner.
Ex.R14 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the 2nd show
cause notice.
Ex.R15 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the termination
order of the petitioner.
Ex.R16 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the settlement
given to the petitioner.
Ex.R17 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the FIR filed
against the petitioner and
others by the Thirubuvanai
Police.
Ex.R18 —
11-07-2016
Copy of the bail petition
order.
C. KUMAR SARAVANAN,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT
(G.O. Ms. No. 13/LAS/A4/2019, Puducherry, dated 29th July 2019)
ORDER
The Central Government has announced Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA) to build capabilities of
Panchayati Raj Institutions. In order to implement the Abhiyan, following Committees are constituted:
A. State Executive Committee (SAC)
Composition of the Committee
Roles/Functions to
be performed by the
Committee
1.
Hon’ble Minister for Local Administration
. . Chairperson
2.
Hon’ble Minister for Rural Development
. . Member
3.
Secretary to Government, Finance
. . Member
4.
Secretary to Government, Social Welfare
. . Member
5.
Secretary to Government, Rural Development
. . Member
6.
Secretary to Government, Women and Child Development
. . Member
7.
Secretary to Government, Local Administration
. . Member-
Secretary.
To review periodically
the
performance
in
implementation
of
the
Scheme of RGSA and to
advise suitably authorities
of the Union territory for
effective implementation.