La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 24-00
Prix : ` 24-00
Price :
` 24-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
962
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 962
Award of the Labour Court
.. 962
de tribunal.
..
976
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 976
Government Notifications
.. 976
..
987
Etablissements dangereux
.. 987
Dangerous Establishments
..
987
..
990
Annonces
.. 990
Announcements
..
990
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 : 24-12-2019
Price : ` 24-00
[ 961 ]
2019 }
|
24 {
No.
52 Poudouchéry
Mardi
24
Décembre
2019 (3 Pausa 1941)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
24th
December
2019
962
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 127/AIL/Lab./T/2019,
Puducherry, dated 06th December 2019)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 56/2015 dated
23-09-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial
Dispute between the management of M/s. Lycee
Francais de Pondicherry, Puducherry and Thiru Louis
Gilbert Aroquiassamy @Samicannou, Moolakulam,
Puducherry
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 V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., L.L.M.,
Presiding Officer
Monday, the 23rd day of September 2019.
I.D. (T) No. 56/2015
Louis Gilbert Aroquiassamy @
Samicannou,
S/o. Louis Joseph Aroquiassamy,
No. 39 and 40, 2nd Floor,
Singapore Avenue,
Muthirayarpalayam Road,
Moolakulam, Puducherry
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Principal/Managing Director,
No.12, Victor Simonel Street,
Lycee Francais de Pondicherry,
Pondicherry.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 09-09-2019 before
me for final hearing, in presence of petitioner, appeared
in person and Thiru J. Cyril Mathias Vincent, Counsel
for the respondent management, 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 as per
the G.O. Rt. No. 118/AIL/Lab./J/2015, dated 03-11-2015 for
adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru Louis
Gilbert Aroquiassamy @ Samicannou against the
management of M/s. Lycee Francaise de Pondicherry
over his non-employment is justified or not? If
justified, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The brief averments of the Claim Statement:-
(i) The petitioner is a French Nationality and he
was appointed in the respondent School on
16-07-2012 as per the contract between the petitioner
and the respondent, as a Teacher for French syllabus
for History and Geography subject from July 2012
to July 2013. Thereafter, the contract was extended
for teaching French syllabus in Biology subject from
July 2013 to July 2014. Thereafter, his job was not
confirmed though he was selected for the subject of
Biology, even on the availability of vacancy, in full
time basis during the relevant point of time. This
petitioner has rendered unblemished service to the
pupils and to the respondent School and he has
completed his two years service as a Teacher to the
utmost satisfaction of the respondent as well as to
the students. Further, he has successfully passed
the probation period in Biology teaching field also.
In the mean while, he has received a letter from the
respondent on 26-03-2014 alleging that his contract
with respondent comes to an end on 14-07-2014.
Though this petitioner has applied Biology Teacher
posting with the respondent, the Local Consultative
Commission (Selection Committee) did not
recommended him for the said post vide its letter,
dated 20-03-2014 by referring Article No. 27.3 of
section VIII. This petitioner has received a letter,
dated 20-03-2014 from the respondent, which is
named as inspection report and which disclosed that
the petitioner’s performance and mode of taking class
etc., were unsuitable to the pupils of the school.
This petitioner has given reply to that letter on
24-03-2014 and it was received by the respondent on
963
24 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
25-03-2014. Further, this petitioner has also sent a
letter, dated 24-03-2014 to the Counselor for
Cooperation and Cultural Commission at New Delhi
and it was received by the authority at Delhi on
01-04-2014. This petitioner has specifically denied the
unfounded allegations made against him in its
inspection report, dated 20-03-2014. The abovesaid
authority has given reply on 08-04-2014 wherein, it
has stated the Selection Committee has not consider
the inspection report and has not influenced the
commissions, but, the Commission has given priority
to the French Diploma holder for Biology (SVT)
Teacher post and added that the petitioner Diploma
was not of the same in nature and he was not
selected for the post of Biology (SVT). The
petitioner has stated that he is a Ph.D. holder in
alternative medicines it was recognized by United
Nations Peace University and accredited by
alternative Medical Counsel at Calcutta by the
Government of West Bengal.
(ii) The alternative Medicine is also recognized by
Government of India with an special mandate,
Ministry of Ayush. This petitioner was appointed as
per the Article 3.2 section II of the rules and
regulations of the School. This petitioner is having
higher qualification, and as per the rules and
regulations, he can be recruited for the job, which is
confirmed in both permanent and fixed-term
contracts. The decision of the Selection Committee
on 20-03-2014 is against the Article 3.2 of section II,
his contract was terminated in an unjustified manner.
The non-extension of the contract is void and illegal
and so, the decision of the Selection Committee,
dated 26-03-2014 is against the Article 27.3 of the
rules and regulations and also against the provision of
section 25 (B) (2) (a) (ii) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(iii) Further, this petitioner has given reply to the
Counselor for Cooperation and Cultural Action on
23-04-2014 specifying that he has unblemished
service to the student’s community and dedicated
service to the respondent. Further, he has indicated
in his reply that the contract between the petitioner
and respondent, never ever specified that French
Diploma holders are supposed to be given priority.
Further, the respondent has failed to give
professional training to this petitioner as per Article
8.2 in section III of rules and regulations of
Recruitment Act.
(iv) Further, this petitioner was eligible for
appointment on regular basis in the vacant post of
Biology as per the Article 4.5 in section II of the rules
and regulations Act of the School. Further, this
petitioner is a French Diploma holder in Geography
and as per the Recruitment Rules in Article 3.1
section II of the internal rules and regulations, this
petitioner has to be recruited in teaching History and
Geography. This petitioner was denied that
opportunity with malicious intention. The respondent
has not proposed to this petitioner name as per the
abovesaid rule for the vacant post in the History and
Geography field. Even though, this petitioner is
deserves for it by seniority and qualification, it was
denied to this petitioner wantonly.
(v) Further, against the rules in Article 3.1 section II,
Mrs. Levy Anna who had three weeks of experience
has been appointed in the said post. This petitioner
sent a legal notice to the Selection Committee at
Puducherry and to the Counselor at Delhi. Evenafter
that also another person by name Mrs. Veinne was
posted for History and Geography teaching field on
violation of Article 4.1 in section II. This petitioner
has complete 655 days of work during his tenure in
the School. Though he has worked for more than 240
days continuously and without any break in service
under the respondent, he has to be confirmed as per
the provision under section 25(B) (2) (a) (ii) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, he was not paid
one month salary in lieu of notice. The respondent/
management has acted against the principles of
natural justice and against the rules and regulations
of the School. The Principal of the respondent
School has acted against the welfare of the School,
which resulted in general strike which took place on
12-09-2014 and it is due to the mall administration by
the Principal. This petitioner is struggling very hard
in his day to day life as he was not provided with an
employment in the respondent School. Therefore, this
petitioner has sent a notice to the Principal and other
authorities on 15-11-2014 and demanded to provide
him an appointment on permanent basis. The legal
notice was addressed to the Director to the Agency
for French Education Abroad (AFEA), Counselor for
Cooperation and Cultural Action at New Delhi. After
receiving the legal notice this petitioner rank has
been put into third position vide the e-mail, dated
20-11-2014. Since, the petitioner has rendered
unblemished service to the respondent, he has to be
provided with immediate employment in the academic
year from 15-07-2014. The appointment of Mr. Levy
Anna and Veinne, was against the internal rules and
regulations. This petitioner is entitled to get monthly
remuneration till the date of the reappointment as per
the revised pay scale applicable to this petitioner
with arrears of salary as per the probation order,
dated 09-10-2015.
964
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
(vi) This
petitioner
was
entitled
to
get
reappointment as he was workman under section 2 (s)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per the Judgment
reported in (AIR) 1958 Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, page No. 358 in
Chintaman Rao
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
and, as per the Judgment reported in 1978 (1) LLJ.
349 in Bangalore Water Supply Case, and as per the
Judgment reported in 1983 (1) LLJ 267 in
Umayammal
Vs.
State of Kerala
the petitioner has stated that the work of the Teacher
is just like a workman in the workshop who moulded
metal piece and similar to that the Teacher is
moulding the minds and brain of the pupil community
and hence, the Teacher has to be treated as workman
under section 2(a) (iv) of Industrial Disputes Act.
The petitioner has stated the following case laws are
in support of his claim.
1. AIR 1958 SC 358 – Chintaman Rao Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh.
2. 1978 (1) LLJ 349 – Bangalore Water Supply
Case.
3. 1983 (1) LLJ 267 – Umayammal Vs. State of
Kerala.
(vii) The petitioner has stated that Teachers are
workman under the term of employee in its wider
sense and he has stated that they are in equivalent
to that of the Pilots in the Aircraft who were
recognized as workman under section 2 of ID Act.
He has further stated that the Educational Institution
is an industry and hence the Teachers have to be
considered as workman. Since, the Educational
Institution becomes an industry, this petitioner also
come under the category of workman just like that
of Pilots in Air Craft. Further, this petitioner stated
that he was employed in the permanent post and he
was not employed in the replacement vacancy.
Further, he has stated that in the fixed term contract
document also, it was not mentioned that he was
placed in the replacement vacancy and hence, the
removal of this petitioner from the job is against the
rules and regulations of the management and it will
amounts to unfair labour practice. The petitioner has
stated he has lodged a complaint on 10-03-2014
regarding the violation of Article 2.3 and also
complaint about the failure in giving proper training
to the Teachers. He has stated that the Principal of
the respondent School visited the class room and has
submitted a false inspection report with mala fide
intention and it was done due to the complaint filed
by this petitioner on 10-03-2014 before the respective
authorities. The petitioner has stated that the
decision of Local Consultative Commission that
French Diploma holders has to be given top priority
was also taken with mala fide intention to remove
this petitioner from his job opportunities.
(viii) This petitioner has stated that he was a
Ph.D. scholar in alternative medicine and also having
Diploma in French language and he has got
knowledge in Pathology, Anatomy, Physiology,
Hygiene, Gynaecology, etc., and therefore, he has
higher qualification than that of the requirement of
the respondent School for the post of Biology
Teacher
and
therefore,
the
allegation
of
non-compatibility of this petitioner is nothing but,
a mala fide action of the respondent against this
petitioner. Further, this petitioner is having Master
Degree in Geography from France which also a
Science Degree and he has knowledge in Life Health
Science, Environmental Science and Geography and
therefore, this petitioner is very much suitable for the
post of Biology Teacher. In addition to that this
petitioner is also having M.Phil., qualification. The
petitioner has stated that the inspection by the
Principal was not necessary and it was done with
mala fide intention to evict this petitioner from the
posting.
(ix) The petitioner has stated that the respondent
failed to informed the vacancy in the Geography
subject and he was not recommended after Mrs. Briez
Sandrine who left the posting on 15-07-2014. This
petitioner has to be proposed for the abovesaid post
as per the seniority rules but, that was not adopted
by the respondent/management and thereby Principal
has adopted unfair labour practice and hence, he
prayed for reinstatement and other monetary benefits.
3. The brief averments of the counter statement:-
(i) The respondent has denied all the allegations
contained in the petition, except those specifically
admitted in his counter and denied the same as false
and irrelevant filed with frivolous and vexatious
intention. The petitioner purposely failed to mention
the provision under which he is claiming the prayers.
It is the case of the respondent that this petitioner
965
24 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
is not a workman under section 2 (s) (iv) of Industrial
Disputes Act 1947 and he has not entitled for any
relief and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
this application. The respondent School was
established under Treaty of Cession concluded
between India and France and it is functioning under
the control of Supervision of Agency called as
Agency for French Education Abroad. Since, the
abovesaid agency was not a party in this case, this
petition became fit for dismissal for non-joinder of
necessary parties. It is further averred that since it
is being run by a French Institution, the qualification
for the Teachers are based on the policy issued by
the French Ministry of Education from time to time.
The respondent has stated that this petitioner was
not recruited through a mandatory selection process
for the permanent employment as per statutes and
rules of the School and hence, this petitioner is
trying to get the job bet back door entry by filing
this petition.
(ii) The respondent has submitted that three types
contract employment is in vogue in the respondent
School based on the rules and regulations of the
Government of France, and as per the terms and
conditions it is binding on the respondent School
and the Teachers of all categories. The contract
employment is read together with rules and
regulations for personnel recruited in India by the
respondent. The Principal of the respondent School
is empowered to end or close the fixed term contract
employment. If, the contract reaches its term and the
Principal decides, he need not renew the same. The
petitioner was employed under fixed term contract
and he was covered under the contract of
employment for locally recruited permanent staff and
hence, he cannot claim anything against the terms
and conditions of the contract of employment. This
petitioner was appointed in the medical leave vacancy
and he was relieved after the candidate on medical
leave joined her duty and therefore, the fixed term
contract was not renewed after 15-07-2013 in the
field of Geography teaching. Further, this petitioner
was appointed in the field of Biology on contract
basis as a Teacher for abovesaid curriculum in the
leave vacancy and the abovesaid vacancy was filled
by appointing this petitioner on contract basis
during the following period.
1. 17-07-2013 – 31-07-2013 (15 days)
2. 01-08-2013 – 30-08-2013 (30 days)
3. 23-11-2013 – 14-07-2014 (nearly 234 days).
(iii) During this tenure, as Biology Teacher, the
petitioner exposed the life and physical safety of the
student and performed the chemical laboratory work
to risk of the students on 20-03-2014 by dealing with
dangerous and combustible substances without
permission, without proper and protective measures.
(iv) The respondent has stated that at the end of
the contract period this petitioner has applied for the
post of Biology Teacher, during the academic year
2014-2015, but, he has not passed the Selection
Process for want of qualifications. Further, this
petitioner was in the third rank in the order of merit
and therefore, he was not appointed as History
Teacher also. Therefore, the candidate in the first
place was appointed and thereafter, she has resigned
the job and therefore, the candidate with second rank
was appointed to the job and she is currently doing
the job. This petitioner has not worked continuously
during 16-07-2012 to 14-07-2014. This petitioner
conveniently suppressed the break in service in the
abovesaid period on contract appointment and
thereby this petitioner has given false and concocted
story. This respondent denied the allegation that
though the post was vacant at the relevant point of
time,
he was denied the opportunity by the
respondent.
(v) Further, the respondent denied the averment
that he was excellent and unblemished. The
respondent further denied his averment that he
worked up to the satisfaction of the students and
the management. This respondent denied the
allegation made in the letter, dated 10-03-2014, further,
this respondent denied the academic qualification
stated in the claim petition. This respondent denied
the allegation that the rules and regulations in
Article 3.2 in section II and Article 27.3 were violated
by this respondent. The respondent has followed the
selection procedure clearly and without any biased
activity by following the all provisions. Further, this
respondent has stated that this petitioner was
appointed on leave vacancy as per the rules and
regulations and he was not taken for permanent
employment and therefore, he is not entitled to get
any relief against this respondent. Since, he was not
appoint as permanent employee, it was not necessary
to give training to this petitioner and hence, the
allegations that Article 8.2 was not followed, became
utter lie. Since, the petitioner was appointed for a
Specific period of contract and he cannot raise the
allegation that Article 4.5 in section II was not
followed. This respondent has stated that his
petitioner is trying to get an appointment as
permanent Teacher without sufficient qualification
and without applying through proper channel
966
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
and without appearing and passing an interview, and
without fulfilling the eligible criteria fixed by the
Ministry of Education, France.
(vi)
The respondent has stated that there is no
violation of Article 3.1 in section II of internal rules
and regulation in the case of appointment on
Mrs. Levi Anna in the field of Biology teaching.
Similarly, there is no illegal appointment in the case
of Mrs. Vinniee for History and Geography subject.
The respondent has stated that this petitioner has
no right to claim any posting as he was governed
by the terms of contract and he has to follow the
procedure for appointment. The respondent
management has not failed to follow the rules and
regulation in Article 4.5 in section II of the School
which is applicable to the present case.
(vii) This petitioner was not in continuous service
for more than 240 days and hence, the allegation of
dishonor of this petitioner was nothing but utter lies.
There is no iota of truth in the allegation that this
petitioner was sent home by this respondent even
without any explanation and payment in lieu of
notice. The allegation levelled against the current
Principal by name, Aline Charles was denied as
totally false. Further, this respondent has denied the
averment that after the receipt of legal notice issued
by this petitioner, he was placed in third rank vide
email, dated 20-11-2014. This respondent denied all
the allegations levelled by this petitioner as his
application has been properly considered and he was
placed in the third rank of candidature and as this
petitioner was not eligible for appointment as
permanent Teacher and he has been rightly removed
from service as per the terms of contract and there
is no violation of rules and regulations and hence,
this petition has to be dismissed.
4. In the course of the enquiry, PW1 to PW3 were
examined on the side of the petitioner, Ex.P1 to P41 were
marked. Ex.R1 to R3 was marked during the cross-
examination of PW3 and no oral evidence was adduced
on the side of the respondent.
5. The petitioner has filed his written argument
wherein, he has stated he was illegally terminated from
his service and he was the eligible candidate to be
appointed for the post of Teacher in History and
Geography field and therefore, he has to be reinstated
into service and he has to be regularized with full back
wages and other attendant benefits. The petitioner has
argued that he was a qualified Teacher in the field of
History and Geography and also in the field of Biology,
even then his candidature was not considered for the
post in the field of Biology, History and Geography and
he has further argued that unexperienced Teachers were
appointed in the abovesaid post without considering
his application. Further, he has argued that a complaint
was lodged on 10-03-2014 regarding the failure of giving
professional training to the Teachers and giving
information regarding the violation of Article 8.2 in
section III of the Internal rules and regulations to the
higher authorities, and hence, he has been victimized
by way of inspection report, dated 20-03-2014 with
mala fide intention. It is further argued that Diploma
holders in French Law alone can be appointed as
Teachers was not mentioned in the rules and regulations
of the School and his application was rejected without
any consideration and it was done against the rules and
regulations of the School. He further, argued that he
cannot be terminated from the service on the basis of
letter, dated 26-03-2014 at the time of existence of his
contract up to the period of 14-07-2014 and it was done
against the rules and regulations and he has to be
reinstated with other benefits.
6. The respondent side Counsel has argued that this
petitioner is not at all a workman under section 2(s)(iv)
of Industrial Disputes Act and hence, this petition
cannot be allowed and it has to be dismissed. It is
argued by the respondent Counsel that this petitioner
was engaged as a Teacher in the leave vacancy and he
was never ever engaged as a permanent Teacher and
therefore his claim cannot be considered by this Court.
Further, it is argued that this petitioner was not in
continuous service for more than 240 days and
therefore, he cannot claim the benefits under section
25(B) (2) (ii) of Industrial Disputes Act. It is argued
that this petitioner was in service with breaks in service
as follows:
17-07-2013 – 31-07-2013
01-08-2013 – 30-08-2013 and
23-11-2013 – 14-07-2014
and therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be
accepted under section 25(B) (2) (a) (ii) of Industrial
Disputes Act.
7. It is further, argued that since this petitioner was
engaged as a teacher on contract basis, and hence, he
cannot seek any claim under Industrial Disputes Act.
If, at all any claim is available to this petitioner he can
claim the same under the provisions of Contract
Labours Regulation Act only and hence, he prayed for
dismissal of this application. It is further, argued that
this petitioner was not dismissed or discharged or
967
24 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
retrenched from his service, and therefore, this case
cannot be entertained as an Industrial Dispute. Though
the Educational Institutions are termed as industries,
the Teachers cannot be considered as workmen and
therefore, he is not eligible to claim anything against
this respondent. It is further, argued that this petitioner
cannot claim anything even under his fixed term
contract as per the Judgment reported in AIR 2012 SC 729.
Further, it is argued that the respondent Principal is not
the authorized person to appoint any person and it has
to be done by the Appointment Committee alone. Since,
the School is under the control of the agency at France
and the said Agency at France has to be added as
necessary party to this case and hence, this case has
to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The respondent side Counsel argued that as this
petitioner has been employed under the category of
contract of employment for Locally Recruited Staff on
fixed term of contract his service comes to an end
automatically on 14-07-2014 and it was not renewed by
the Principal and therefore, he cannot seek any claim
against this respondent/management and hence, he
prayed dismissal of this Industrial Dispute with cost.
8. Points for consideration:
1. Whether the termination of this petitioner is
valid or not?
2. Whether the plea of the petitioner is that his
application for the post was not considered with
mala fide intention is correct or not?
3. Whether this petitioner is workman or not?
4. Whether this petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement and other benefits or not?
5. Whether the termination of this petitioner, over
non-employment is justified or not? Whether he is
entitle for any other monetary relief?
9. Point No.1.
Whether the termination of this petitioner is valid
or not?
This petitioner has pleaded that he was appointed
as a Teacher in the respondent School from July 2012
to July 2013 and from July 2013 to July 2014 and he
has deposed as PW1, in support of his plea, and
marked Ex.P2 to P6 on his side. Ex.P2 to P5 and P6
would goes to shows that this petitioner has been
employed in the respondent School on the basis of
“Contract of Employment for Locally Recruited Staff
on Fixed Term Contracts”. As per the abovesaid
contracts of employment, this petitioner has been
employed in the School as a teaching staff in the
field of History and Geography, Biology and for the
purpose of completing a Specific Temporary Mission
and the details are given below:
Ex.P2 16-07-2012 – History and Geography 365 Days
14-07-2013
Teacher.
Ex.P3 17-07-2013 – For the purpose of
14 days
31-07-2013
completing Specific
Temporary Mission.
Ex.P4 01-08-2013 – For the purpose of
30 days
30-08-2013
completing Specific
Temporary Mission.
Ex.P5 10-09-2013 – For the purpose of
74 days
22-11-2013
completing Specific
Temporary Mission.
Ex.P6 23-11-2013 – Biology Teacher
234 days
14-07-2014
All the abovesaid documents would goes to shows
that this petitioner has been employed for a Specific
period only. That is he was employed for a fixed period
on fixed term of contracts.
10. Now, let us see the document No. Ex.P1 which
contains the rules and regulations of the respondent
School. The rules and regulations of the School was
explained in detail under IX sections with numerous
number of Articles. Wherein, the termination of
employment was dealt with in section VIII. Article 27.3
in section VIII empowered the Principal to terminate the
contract, Article 28 deals with termination of employees
who worked under (non-fixed term) on going
employment contracts and Article 29 deals with
termination of fixed term employment contracts. As per
Article 27.3 the Principal is having discretion power
either to renew it or not. Here in this case, the Principal
has not renewed the fixed term contract of this
petitioner. Further, as per Article 29 the fixed term
employment contracts can be terminated as mentioned
below:
“in case of fixed term contracts unless there has
been a provisional short comings warranting
dismissal, the establishment must give one month
notice or equivalent in salary, when the contract
reaches its term”. Therefore, as per Article 29 the
fixed term employment contract will comes to an end
when it reaches its term. But, if the fixed term contract
has to be terminated in the middle of the term, in case
of warranting on provisional short comings, the
establishment has to give one month notice or it has
to give one month salary in lieu of notice. Therefore,
as per the abovesaid Article, this petitioner can be
removed from the service after giving one month
968
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
notice, if he was removed from the service in the
middle of the term, and if, it comes to an end by its
term no such notice is necessary. Here in this case
the term of contract comes to an end on 14-07-2014
automatically as it has reached its term, it shows that
he was not terminated from the service either by
inspection report of the Principal or by the decision
of Local Consultative Commission. Therefore, the
termination of this petitioner from his service is valid
one as it was done as per the terms of contract.
Further, it shows that he was not terminated from his
service with mala fide intention by the respondent
management.
11. This petitioner has pleaded and deposed that he
was removed from his service as Ex.P7 during the
existence of fixed term contract till 14-07-2014. But, on
perusal of Ex.P7 it is found that the Principal of the
respondent School has intimated this petitioner that his
contract comes to an end on 14-07-2014 only. Further,
the Principal of the respondent school has intimated
that the formal application filed by this petitioner for
the post of Biology Teacher has not been selected by
the Locally Consultative Commission on 20-03-2014.
Further, the Principal of the respondent School has not
stated that his term of contract comes to an end either
on 20-03-2014 or 26-03-2014. Therefore, there was no
termination during the existence of the contract as
alleged by this petitioner but, he has mis-conceived it,
as if, he was removed from service as per the letter,
dated 26-03-2014. It is clearly explained in Ex.P11 and
P28 also.
12. Further, on perusal of Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 it is found
that nothing was mentioned in the abovesaid contract
that he was eligible for permanent job or later. Hence,
Ex.P2 to P6 would goes to show that his fixed term of
contracts cannot be consider for further, appointments
in the abovesaid school. Hence, this Court come to the
conclusion that the termination of this petitioner as
occurred as per the terms of contract and as per Article
29 in section II of the rules and regulations of the
management and not as per the findings in Ex.P7. Hence,
the termination of this petitioner is decided as valid one.
13. Point No.2.
Whether the plea of the petitioner is that his
application for the post was not consider with
mala fide intention is correct or not?
To decide the abovesaid aspects, this Court
inclined to peruse the document marked as Ex.P11,
Ex.P15, Ex.P25 and Ex.P28. As per the Ex.P11 he has
been intimated by the LCC that the LCC has not
raised the class visit report filed by the Principal and
which did not influenced its decision. Further, it has
also intimated that there were three candidates for
the posting and two of them had French teaching
Diploma in the discipline and the degrees hold by
this petitioner was not of the same nature and the
LCC had given priority to the French Diplomas of
Education in the discipline and had ranked the first
two candidates and it has not ranked this petitioner
in the list itself. It has further intimated that the
decision was taken unanimously by the members of
the LCC and it was adopted and therefore, his
candidature was not selected for the post. The
document marked as Ex.P15 is the letter sent by this
petitioner to the Counselor for Cooperation and
Cultural Action Committee on 23-04-2014 wherein, he
has mentioned as follows:
“In your letter, you state that the French Diplomas
are a priority and that the Principal report did not
influence the decision of the LCC. If, French
Diplomas have priority, if the Principal's report did
not influence your decision:
1. You should have, at least, ranked me on 3rd
position on the list since there were only three
candidates
2. Being in services on a vacant posting, so
priority should have been given, and list me at
least 3rd position.
14. Therefore, it seems that this petitioner has made
a request to place him in the 3rd rank in the candidature
list. Further, the abovesaid request was accepted by the
Local Consultative Committee and it was discussed in
the meeting that was held on 17-11-2014 and his
candidature was kept in 3rd rank and it was also
informed to this petitioner by its letter on 20-11-2014
and it was marked as Ex.P25. It shows that this petitioner
himself requested that the priority given to French
Diploma holders and he himself requested his
candidature in the 3rd place. Further, it has also sent a
letter to this petitioner on 27-04-2015 it was marked as
Ex.P28 and it has explained that the recruitment in the
History and Geography has been done accordance with
the ranked applications and as this petitioner’s rank was
in 3rd position, LCC was not able to select this
petitioner for the History and Geography Teacher post.
Hence, on perusal of the Ex.P11, 15, 25 and 28 that this
Court comes to the conclusion that the candidature of
this petitioner was not rejected with mala fide intention
and the non-selection of this petitioner to the post of
History and Geography was done according to the rules
and regulations and as per the decisions taken down
by the LCC Committee. This petitioner has plead that
he was a Ph.D., Scholar and he has more qualification
969
24 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
than those who was appointed to the field of teaching
History and Geography and Biology. Further, he has
plead that under Article 3.2 in section II of the internal
rules and regulations this candidature has to be
considered for permanent job. Therefore, this Court
inclined to peruse the Article 3.2., section II. Article 3.2
related to recruitment procedure. Article 3.1 says that
recruitment of employees can be/has to be performed
by the Local Consultative Committee, Article 3.2 runs
as follows “the employer shall give the candidates
sufficient information about the proposed job by means
of a job specification sheet; and the job specification
sheet shall include the following.
(i) the nature of the functions,
(ii) the pay,
(iii) the hours
(iv) and other imposed requirements (age-limit,
required qualification and experience, etc.)
(v) A candidate with qualifications higher than
those specified can be recruited for a job;
this however shall have no bearing on the job
category or entitlements, neither at the time
of recruitment or later.
On perusal of Article 3.2 it seems that a candidate
with higher qualification can also be considered for the
job. However, his higher qualification has no bearing
on the job category and entitlements neither at the time
of recruitment or later. So, therefore, even if, the
petitioner is having higher qualification, he cannot take
it as a tool at the time of recruitment or later. Hence,
Article 3.2 also never empowered this petitioner to seek
any advantage on the basis of his higher qualification.
Therefore, under Article 3.2 also this petitioner cannot
seek any relief on the basis of his higher qualification.
15. Point No.3.
Whether this petitioner is workman or not?
This petitioner has plead and deposed that he had
worked more than 240 days in a year. On perusal of
Ex.P2 to P6 it is found to be correct. Therefore, on
the basis of the number of days of work, this
petitioner status can be consider as a workman under
section 25 (B) (2) (ii) of Industrial Dispute Act. But,
this is not only criteria to consider this petitioner as
a workman. Whether the nature of work that he
performed comes under the category of workman has
also to be decided, in terms of section 2 (s) of
Industrial Disputes Act. At this juncture, the
respondent side Counsel has filed a citation reported
in 2007 (1) Chandigarh Law Times 95, the abovesaid
Judgment was rendered in
Y.M.C.A. College Sports Higher Secondary School
(Sports Wing)
Vs.
The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and
Another
16. Wherein Para No. 10, 11 and 12 runs as follows;
The second respondent is a non-teaching staff,
employed in the petitioner aided school. Whether a
non-teaching staff of an Educational Institution is a
workman or not, was considered by the Honourable
Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2004) 1
SCC 755 (Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers
Association vs. Administrative Officer). In the said
decision it is held that the Teachers in the schools
cannot be termed as employees under the Labour
Laws so long as they are engaged in teaching. The
said position is made clear in the decision reported
in 1989 1 LLJ 61 (Miss. A. Sundarambal Vs.
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and others)
wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
“The question for consideration is whether even
after the inclusion of the above two classes of
employees in the definition of the expression
workman in the Act a Teacher in a School can be called
a workman. We are of the view that the teachers
employed by Educational Institutions whether they
are imparting Primary, Secondary, Graduate or
Postgraduate Education, cannot be called as
workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
Act. Imparting of education which is the main
function of Teachers cannot be considered as skilled
or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or
technical work or clerical work. Imparting of
educations in the nature of a mission or a noble
vocation. A Teacher educates children, he moulds
their character, builds up their personality and makes
them fit to become responsible citizens. Children
grow under the care of Teachers. The clerical work,
if any they may do, is only incidental to their
principal work of teaching. We agree with the reasons
given by the High Court for taking the view that
Teachers cannot be treated as workman as defined
under the Act. It is not possible to accept the
suggestion that having regard to the object of the
Act, all employees in an industry except those falling
under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section 2(s)
of the Act should be treated as workmen. The
acceptance of this argument will render the words to
do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work meaningless”.
970
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
17. Whether the Educational Institution is an
industry or not, came up for consideration before the
Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in
(1978) 1 LLJ 349 (Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage
Board Vs. A. Rajappa). In the said decision, the
Educational Institutions were held as industry and the
non-teaching staff were held as workmen.
18. Similar issue was decided by the Honourable
Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1988 (1) LLN
9 (C.M.C. Hospital Employees Union Vs. C.M.C. Vellore
Association). In the said decision it is held that even
against the minority institution, the Labour Court has
got jurisdiction and it will not be an infringement on
the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of
the Constitution of India. It is specifically held therein
that the Christian Medical College Hospital, attached
thereto constituted an industry and the Labour Court
has got right to adjudicate the matter even against the
minority institutions.
As per the abovesaid citation though the Educational
Institutions can be considered as an industry, the
Teachers in the abovesaid industry cannot be
considered as workman as the Teachers has not come
under the purview of section 2(s) (i-iv). Further, it has
held that the staffs other than teachers alone can be
consider as workman. Hence, as per the abovesaid
Judgment this petitioner cannot be consider as a
workman as per the nature of his service rendered.
Further, the respondent has filed another Judgment
reported in 1990 (1) MLJ 555 rendered in
Management, Sacred Heart Convent High School,
Panruti, South Arcot
Vs.
Sate of Tamil Nadu and Others.
19. Wherein in para No. 2 and 4 runs as follows:
The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
is that if, the Industrial Disputes Act is applied to
teaching institution of the petitioner, the rights
guaranteed to the minority institution under Article
30(1) of the Constitution will stand violated. It is not
necessary to go into the various points raised in the
developing of the Industrial Law in relation to
Educational Institutions. In Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa and others (1978-I-
LLJ-349), the Supreme Court of India has held that
even Educational Institution can be brought within
the definition of industry under the Industrial
Disputes Act. In the said decisions (sic) while held
that Educational Institution was an industry,
an observation was made that it was possible for
some of the employees in that industry might not be
workman. The questions has now been resolved in
Miss A. Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa, Daman
and Diu and others, (1989-I-LLJ-61). After
considering all the earlier decisions, the Supreme
Court of India lays down the law as follows (P.65):
“The question for consideration is whether even
after the inclusion of the above two classes of
employees in the definition of the expression
workman in the Act a Teacher in a School can be called
a workman. We are of the view that the Teachers
employed by Educational Institutions whether they
are Imparting Primary, Secondary, Graduate or
Postgraduate
Education, cannot be called as
workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
Act. Imparting of Education which is the main
function of Teachers cannot be considered as skilled
or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or
technical work or clerical work. Imparting of
educations in the nature of a mission or a noble
vocation. A Teacher educates children, he moulds
their character, builds up their personality and makes
them fit to become responsible citizens. Children
grow under the care of Teachers. The clerical work,
if any they may do, is only incidental to their
principal work of teaching. We agree with the reasons
given by the High Court for taking the view that
Teachers cannot be treated as workman as defined
under the Act. It is not possible to accept the
suggestion that having regard to the object of the
Act, all employees in an industry except those falling
under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section 2(s)
of the Act should be treated as workmen. The
acceptance of this argument will render the words to
do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work meaningless”.
20. Further, in the passage quoted above from the
decision of the Supreme Court in Miss. A. Sundarambal
Vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and others,
(supra) there is reference to the fact that imparting of
education is the nature of a mission or a noble
vocation. A Teacher educates children, he moulds their
character, builds up their personality and makes them
fit to become responsible citizens. Similarly, in
University of Delhi and Another vs. Ram Nath (1963-II-
LLJ-335), there is a reference to the fact that Teachers
build up the physical and mental standards of a student.
These observations of the Supreme Court also support
the view that a Physical Education Teacher should be
treated in all respects as equivalent to other teaching
staff. It follows therefore that on the simple ground that
971
24 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the second respondent is not a workman within the
meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, the impugned
Government Order making a reference under section
10(1) (c) of the Industrial disputes Act for adjudication
by the third respondent is found to be without
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed. There will be no order
as to costs.
In that case also the Hon’ble High Court was held
that the Teachers cannot be treated as workman under
section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act.
The respondent has filed another Judgment reported
in AIR 2012 SC 729 and the abovesaid Judgment was
rendered in
GRIDCO Limited and Another
Vs.
Sri Sadanada Doloi and Others.
21. In the above said citation Para No. 26, 27 and
28 runs as follows:
A conspectus of the pronouncements of this Court
and the development of law over the past few
decades thus show that there has been a notable shift
from the stated legal position settled in earlier
decisions, that termination of a contractual
employment in accordance with the terms of the
contract was permissible and the employee could
claim no protective against such termination even
when one of the contracting parties happened to be
the state. Remedy for a breach of a contractual
condition was also by way of civil action for
damages/compensation. With the development of law
relating to judicial review of administrative actions,
a Writ Court can now examined the validity of a
termination order passed by public authority. It is
no longer open to the authority passing the order to
argue that its action being in the realm of contract is
not open to judicial review. A Writ Court is entitled
to judicially review the action and determine whether
there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness,
unfairness or irrationality that would vitiate the
action, no matter the action is in the realm of contract.
Having said that we must add that judicial review
cannot extend to the Court acting as an Appellate
Authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The
Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Administrator
to decide whether a more reasonable decision or
course of action could have been taken in the
circumstances. So, long as the action taken by the
authority is not shown to be vitiated by the
infirmities referred to above and so long as the
action is not demonstrably in outrages defiance of
logic, the writ Court would do well to respect the
decision under challenge.
22. Applying the above principles to the case at
hand, we have no hesitation in saying that there is no
material to show that there is any unreasonableness,
unfairness, perversity or irrationality in the action taken
by the Corporation. The regulations governing the
service conditions of the employees of the Corporation,
make it clear that officers in the category above E-9 had
to be appointed only on contractual basis.
23. It is also evident that the renewal of the contract
of employment depended upon the perception of the
management as to the usefulness of the respondent and
the need for an incumbent in the position held by him.
Both these aspects rested entirely in the discretion of
the Corporation. The respondent was in the service of
another employer before he chose to accept a
contractual employment offered to him by the
Corporation which was limited in tenure and terminable
by three months’ notice on either side. In that view,
therefore, there was no element of any unfair treatment
or unequal bargaining power between the appellant and
the respondent to call for an over-sympathetic or
protective approach towards the latter. We need the
remind ourselves that in the modern commercial world,
executives are engaged on account of their expertise in
a particular field and those who are so employed are
free to leave or be asked to leave by the employer.
Contractual appointments work only if, the same are
mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and
not otherwise. As per the abovesaid citation, the
contractual employment can be terminated in
accordance with terms of contract only and the contract
employee could not claim anything against such
termination. The remedy available for the aggrieved
person is only under the contract Act alone. In the
present case also, this petitioner was employed on fixed
term contract. Therefore, he cannot raise any claim
before this Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act. If at
all this petitioner felt aggrieved for the breach of
contract he can seek his remedy before the Civil Court
either under Contractual Act or under CLRA Act only.
As per the abovesaid Judgment also, this petitioner
cannot claim any right over his non-employment before
this Tribunal even under the caption/category of
workman.
24. Now, this Court inclined to go through the
citations filed on the side of the petitioner and whether
this petitioner could claim anything as per the
Judgments filed by him.
972
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
This petitioner has produced a citation dated on
10th April, 2006 delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Vs.
Umadevi and Others
in the abovesaid case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:
“if for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary
employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the
authorities must consider his case for regularization
provided he is eligible and qualified according to the
rules and his service record is satisfactory and his
appointment does not run counter to the reservation
policy of the State”.
25. With respect, why should the State be allowed
to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary
employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our
view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and
proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or
shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules
of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent
-- the distinction between regularization and making
permanent, was not emphasized here -- can only
encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its
own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at
the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the
direction made in paragraph 50 of Piara Singh (supra)
are to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in
paragraph 45 therein. With great respect, it appears to
us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter
to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized
in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be
said that this decision has laid down the law that all
ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without
following the regular recruitment procedure should be
made permanent.
As per the abovesaid Judgment ad hoc, temporary
or casual employees engaged without following the
regular recruitment procedure should not be made
permanent. On careful consideration of this citation this
Court come to the conclusion that even this Judgment
is also not in his favour.
26. This petitioner has produced the Judgment on
6th February, 1998 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Uptron India Limited
Vs.
Shammi Bhan and Anr
27. In the abovesaid citation the petitioner who is
an operator was under training and his post was
confirmed on 13-07-1982 and therefore, he was made as
permanent employee and he was removed from his
service for his absence. But, here in this case this
petitioner is a teacher and the case on hand is not
similar to that of the fact in the abovesaid citation.
Hence, it is considered as irrelevant to this present
case.
28. This petitioner has produced another Judgment,
dated on 1st July, 2010 by the Bombay High Court in
Masina Hospital
Vs.
Sunanda Hari Kadam
The abovesaid citation related to the appointment of
the ward boy in the hospital who had rendered in
20 years of service as he was the Union leader and he
has been removed from the service for some charges.
But, the fact of the present case is not similar to the fact
in the abovesaid Judgment. Hence, this Court consider
the abovesaid citation as not relevant to the present
case.
29. This petitioner has produced another Judgment
reported in
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works
reported in 1979 AIR 75. The abovesaid case dealt with
dispute arises out of retrenchment of employees due to
the non availability of raw material and related to the
dispute regarding the retrenchment wages. Wherein, the
claimants are workman in the industry but, in the
present case, the petitioner is not at a workman and
therefore, the abovesaid citation is not relevant to this
case on hand.
30. This petitioner has produced another citation
reported in
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas
Vs.
Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors on 17 January, 2002
The abovesaid case related to the dispute that arises
under sction 33 of Industrial Disputes Act and it relates
to the change in service condition of the employees.
The fact in the abovesaid case is not relevant to this
case.
973
24 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
31. This petitioner is produced another citation
reported in
Om Prakash
Vs.
M/s. Lamba Plastics on 10 March, 2010
The abovesaid case related to the dispute of
termination of service of a Machine man who was
rendered nearly six years of service, but, here this under
section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the
abovesaid citation also is not relevant to this case of
hand.
32. The petitioner has filed a citation reported in
Government of National Capital
Vs.
Mrs. Kamlesh and Anr. On 1st August, 1995
The abovesaid citation is related to the dispute of a
daily wager/casual worker. He was decided as a
workman, working as Safai Karmachari but, the petitioner
in this case is a teacher. Therefore, the fact of the above
citation seems to be not relevant to this case.
33. This petitioner has produced the citation
reported in, dated 24-04-2009 by the Hon’ble Guwahati
High Court,
T. Lalvulliana
Vs.
State of Mizoram and Ors.
34. The third and fourth paragraph runs as follows:
The case of the writ petitioner can be briefly stated
as under:
In the year 1999 for filling up of 19 regular vacant
posts of Middle School Teacher in the scale of
` 1,640-2,900 per month plus other allowances, the
respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement through
Employment Exchange. The petitioner having had the
eligibility for the post submitted his application for
appointing him in one of the posts so advertised.
Written test was held on 13-08-1999. Thereafter, the
Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter
referred as to DPC) appointed the petitioner to the
post of Middle School Teacher vide Office Order
under Memo No. A.22014/2001-DTE(EDS), dated
29-11-2001 at a fixed pay of ` 3,500 per month for a
period of two years. In the said order it was also
provided that on completion of the period of
probation for two years, the petitioner would be
regularized subject to his satisfactory performance
during the probation period. The petitioner
accordingly was discharging his duties on fixed pay
to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities.
35. It is contended that as the services of the
petitioner along with similarly situated colleagues were
not regularized even after completion of their probation
period satisfactorily, the petitioner’s colleagues had
approach this Court by filing a joint Writ Petition being
No. 50 of 2005 which was disposed of vide Judgment
and Order, dated 06-05-2005 with a direction to the
petitioners to file representation to the concerned
authority within three weeks and the concerned
authority was to dispose of the same within one month.
Accordingly, the petitioners’ colleague in other words
the similarly situated Teachers submitted representation
to the concerned authority on the basis of which the
State respondents decided that the School authority
should initiate and submit a proposal to the Government,
which would be examined as per established procedure.
On perusal of the abovesaid citation it is found that
it is a case related to a middle School Teacher whose
probation period was under dispute in par with his
colleagues, but, here in this case, the dispute is not
related to probation period and therefore, this Court
come to the conclusion the abovesaid citation is not
relevant to this case on hand.
36. This petitioner has produced the citation
reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4835 in the abovesaid citation
was given in
The Manipal Academy of Higher
Vs.
R. Swaminathan and Anr
37. In the citation 6th para runs as follows:
Now, the question is whether the services of a
probationer can be terminated without his completing
the period of probation. To appreciate this, it is
necessary to state the relevant portion of the
appointment order, which reads:
So, as per the abovesaid citation the probation period
of workman under dispute, but, here in this case, this
petitioner was not terminated for non satisfaction of his
probation period and therefore, the abovesaid citation
was also not relevant to the present case.
38. This petitioner has produced another Judgment
reported in
Deepali Gundu Surwase
Vs.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak and Ors on 12th August, 2013
974
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
39. Para No.2 and 3 of the Judgment runs as
follows:
The question which arises for consideration in
this appeal filed against order, dated 28-09-2011
passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay
High Court, Aurangabad Bench is whether the
appellant is entitled to wages for the period during
which she was forcibly kept out of service by the
management of the school.
40. The appellant was appointed as a Teacher in
Nandanvan Vidya Mandir (Primary School) run by a
trust established and controlled by Bagade family. The
grant-in-aid given by the State Government, which
included rent for the building was received by Bagade
family because the premises belonged to one of its
members, namely, Shri Dulichand. In 2005, the Municipal
Corporation of Aurangabad raised a tax bill of ` 79,974
by treating the property as commercial. Thereupon, the
Headmistress of the School, who was also President of
the Trust, addressed a letter to all the employees
including the appellant requiring them to contribute a
sum of ` 1,500 per month towards the tax liability. The
appellant refused to comply with the dictate of the
Headmistress. Annoyed by this, the management issued
as many as 25 memos to the appellant and then placed
her under suspension vide letter, dated 14-11-2006. She
submitted reply to each and every memorandum and
denied the allegations. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla
Parishad, Aurangabad did not approve the appellants
suspension. However, the letter of suspension was not
revoked. She was not even paid subsistence allowance
in terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short,
the Rules) framed under section 16 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the Act). from the
abovesaid paragraph it is found that the dispute was
with respect to the wages for the period during which
he was forcefully kept out of service by the management
School, but, here in this case the challenge or dispute
was not with respect to the wages for the period in out
of service. Therefore, the fact in the abovesaid case was
also not related to this case. So, considering the above
said citation, this Court come to the conclusion that this
petitioner was not a workman and therefore, he cannot
raised any claim over his non-employment under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
41. As per the citation report in Gridco Limited
AIR 2012 SC 729 also this petitioner cannot claim
anything before this Court under the category
contractual employer also. Hence, this point is answered
against this petitioner.
42. Point No.4 and 5 jointly.
Whether
this
petitioner
is
entitled
for
reinstatement and other benefits or not?
Whether the termination of this petitioner over
non-employment is justified or not? Whether he is
entitle for any other monetary relief?
43. Already this Court has decided point No.1 to 3
against this petitioner and thereby this Court decided
that he is not entitled for reinstatement and other
benefits. Hence, this points are also decided against
this petitioner and hence, this dispute raised by this
petitioner over his non-employment against the
respondent is decided as unjustified.
44. In this result, this petition is dismissed as the
industrial dispute by the petitioner against the
respondent over the non-employment is decided as
unjustified. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 23rd day of September, 2019.
V. PANDIARAJ ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1
— 30-03-2016 —
Louis Gilbert
Aroquiassamy @
Samicannou
PW.2
— 12-04-2017 —
Louis Gajalakshmi
PW.3
— 06-06-2017 —
Pragash Eganadane
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the rules and regulations for
personnel recruited locally in India by the
respondent.
Ex.P2 — Copy of the contract of employment for
locally recruited staff on fixed-term
contract between the petitioner and
respondent, dated 24-07-2012.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the contract of employment for
locally recruited staff on fixed-term
contract between the petitioner and
respondent, dated 26-07-2012.
Ex.P4 — Copy of the extension of contract, dated
17-07-2013 with
translation, dated
23-08-2013.
975
24 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P5 — Copy of the extension of contract, dated
17-07-2013 with translation.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the contract of employment for
locally recruited staff on fixed-term
contract between the petitioner and
respondent, dated 4-12-2013.
Ex.P7 — Copy of the Letter to the petitioner from
respondent
with
translation,
dated
26-03-2014.
Ex.P8 — Copy of the complaint to the hygiene,
security
and
Working
conditions
Committee
with
translation,
dated
10-03-2014.
Ex.P9 — Copy of the inspection report made by
respondent
with
translation,
dated
20-03-2014.
Ex.P10— Copy of the reply from petitioner to
respondent
with
translation,
dated
24-03-2014.
Ex.P11— Copy of the letter from the Counselor for
Cooperation and Cultural Action to the
petitioner
with
translation,
dated
08-04-2014.
Ex.P12— Copy of the Ph.D. Certificate of the
petitioner.
Ex.P13— Copy of the certificate of registration of
the petitioner from Alternative Medical
Council Calcutta, dated 23-11-2010.
Ex.P14— Copy of the mark sheet of the petitioner
from Alternative Medical Council Calcutta.
Ex.P15— Copy of the petitioners letter to the
Counselor for Cooperation and Cultural
Action with translation, dated 23-04-2014.
Ex.P16— Copy of the master degree attestation from
University of Nice France with translation,
dated 22-05-1990.
Ex.P17— Copy of the year end report of the
petitioner by the previous principal with
translation, dated 19-4-2013.
Ex.P18— Copy of the office legal notice, dated
15-11-2014.
Ex.P19— Copy of the Acknowledgment Card signed
by the respondent, dated 17-11-2014.
Ex.P20— Copy of the petitioners mark sheet in
geography of University of Nice France
with translation, dated 23-07-1986.
Ex.P21— Copy of the website publication of job
offer by the respondent with translation,
dated 20-01-2015.
Ex.P22— Copy of the contract of employment for
locally recruited staff on fixed-term
contract between the petitioner and
respondent, dated 12-01-2015.
Ex.P23— Copy of the extension No.1 of contract
signed on 12.01.2015, dt.1.2.2015.
Ex.P24— Copy of the extension No. 2 of contract
signed on 12-01-2015, dated 12-02-2015.
Ex.P25— Copy of the Local Consultative Committee’s
decision to petitioner’s appointment in 3rd
position, dated 20-11-2014.
Ex.P26— Copy of the Acknowledgment Card signed
by the Director of AFEA, dated 05-12-2014.
Ex.P27— Copy of the letter from Department Posts
intimating delivery of legal notice to the
Counselor for cooperation and cultural
action, dated 16-12-2014.
Ex.P28— Copy of the letter to the petitioner from the
respondent
with
translation,
dated
27-04-2015.
Ex.P29— Copy of the latest remuneration proposal
by the respondent with translation, dated
09-01-2015.
Ex.P30— Copy of the letter to the Conciliation
Officer received on 22-12-2014, dated
21-12-2014.
Ex.P31— Copy of the reply of the respondent to
Conciliation Officer, dated 16-01-2015.
Ex.P32— Copy of the petitioners reply to the
respondents letter addressed to the
Conciliation Officer, dated 9-2-2015.
Ex.P33— Copy of the report on failure of
Conciliation by the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), dated 22-09-2015.
Ex.P34— Copy of the Order of the Government of
Puducherry for publication in the Official
Gazette and notification to the Labour
Court, Puducherry for adjudication, dated
3-11-2015.
Ex.P35— Copy of the petitioners experience
certificate issued by the French Ministry
of Education, dated 23-11-1995.
976
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 December 2019
Ex.P36— Copy of the contract of employment for
locally recruited staff on fixed-term
contract between PW.3 and respondent,
dated 01-07-2014.
Ex.P37— Translation copy of salary slip (Bulletin De
Salaire) of the Mr. Eganadane Pragash,
dated 31-08-2015.
Ex.P38— Translation copy of salary slip (Bulletin De
Salaire) of the Mr. Eganadane Pragash,
dated 31-12-2015.
Ex.P39— Translation copy of Contract terminator
prior notice, dated 01-10-2015.
Ex.P40— Copy of Indian Employment Visa Rules as
on 08-01-2014.
Ex.P41— Copy of HDFC loan disbursement letter,
dated 23-12-2014.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — 16-05-2017
Non-payment of receipt of the
PW.3’s daughter
namely,
Roshini
sent
by
the
respondent.
Ex.R2 — 16-05-2017
Non-payment of receipt of the
PW.3’s daughter namely,
Yamini
sent
by
the
respondent.
Ex.R3 — 04-01-2016
Notice sent by the respondent
to the PW.3, dated 04-01-2016.
V. PANDIARAJ ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
[(iii)-]
}|{,
ANNEXURE – I
Sl.
Name of Assignee
Town Survey
LGR No.
Extent
Remarks
No.
No.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
H. A.
Ca.
LGR Samathuvarpuram Vacancy No. 27. Darumapuram Revenue Village
1
Noornisha, w/o. Mohammed Usuf and
E/10/5/4
223/03-04
0
00
76
Vacant
Mohammed Usuf, s/o. Mohammed Ibrahim.