

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry



Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority

` 15-00

Prix : ` 15-00

Price :

` 15-00



SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS



Page

..

Sentence arbitral du travail

Award of the Labour Court

de tribunal.



Notifications du Gouvernement

Government Notifications



Avis de saisis-arrét

Notice of attachment



Avis d’ appel d’ offres

Tender Notices



Etablissements dangereux

Dangerous Establishments



100

Annonces

.. 100

Announcements

100

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 : 4-2-2020

Price : ` 15-00

[ 81 ]







2020 }

|

4 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2020 (15 Magha 1941)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

4th

February

2020

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[4 February 2020

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 11/AIL/Lab./T/2019,

Puducherry, dated 13th January 2020)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 40/2015, dated

09-10-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between

the management M/s. MRF Limited, Nettapakkam

Commune, Puducherry and Thiru Ponnurangam,

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 AT

PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., L.L.M.,

Presiding Officer

Wednesday, the 9th day of October 2019.

I.D. (L) No. 40/2015

Ponnurangam,

S/o. Kannan,

No. 22-A, Manakula Vinayagar Nagar,

Mangalam, Villianur Post,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Plant Head,

MRF Limited, P.B. No. l,

Eripakkam, Nettapakkam Commune,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 18-09-2019

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru M. Ganesan, Counsel for the petitioner and

Thiru L. Swaminathan, Counsel for the respondent,

upon hearing, 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. 80/AIL/Lab./J/2015,

dated 13-07-2015 for adjudicating the following:

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner

Thiru K. Ponnurangam against the management of

M/s. M.R.F. Limited, Puducherry-over his non-employment

is justifiable? 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 brief averment of the petition filed by the

petitioner:

(i) The case of the petitioner is that he is a

workman in the respondent establishment from

15-07-1998 and thereby he has more than 15 years of

service as workman. The respondent company has

more 1500 employees working under various

sections. This petitioner’s work nature is very much

hard and therefore, he has often fell in ill health and

it is due to work nature. Further, he got affected by

stomach pain, eye problem and fever and all are due

to his work nature. This petitioner faced all these

kinds of short comings due to his work nature. Even

then he has 15 years of service in the respondent

company. Whenever this petitioner applied for ESI

leave, on the basis of his eligibility criteria, the

respondent/management refused to grant, the same

and has marked him as absent in the register. The

respondent management has adopted such kind of

unfair labour practices to all other employees, then

and there and it has been adopted by the respondent

management for years long and the respondent

management would permit the employees to the

routine work only after getting the unconditional

apology letter.

(ii) By adopting this kind of unlawful activity the

respondent management has victimized so many

employees and this petitioner was also put into

threat and similar kind of unconditional apology

letters were also received from this petitioner and this

petitioner has given such kind of letter in order to

save his employment in the respondent/management.

The management utilized the abovesaid apology

letters received from their employees for taking

termination action at the time of its desire to remove

any body from the factory. Further, the management

is issuing unreasonable false charge-sheet and

terminated them from the service and it is having a

such habit for a long term and it is acting against

the natural principles of justice and rule of law also.

Likewise, this petitioner was issued a show cause

notice, dated 06-08-2011, which is very vague and it

4 February 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

has not contained any details and therefore, this

petitioner approached the respondent authorities, for

which they have directed this petitioner to give

unconditional apology letter as dictated by them and

therefore, this petitioner has given such a kind of

letter under the compulsion made by the respondent

management as if, it was given on his own volition.

While so, the enquiry proceedings letter was issued

to this petitioner stating that the disciplinary

proceedings were scheduled to be held on 14-11-2011

by the Enquiry Officer, by name Mr. K. Babu, B.A., B.L.,

and this petitioner has attended disciplinary

proceedings wherein, the representative of the

management by name, Yahuf Sheriff and Manikandan

were present and the Enquiry Officer informed this

petitioner that it was only a formal enquiry and he

would not be removed from the service and he

informed that he need not worried about the enquiry

proceedings. At the time of enquiry, this petitioner

represented that he was an innocent and un

educated person and therefore, he is in need of

support of his colleague, and it was refused by the

Enquriy Officer, and the Enquiry Officer did not

permit him to cross-examine the management side

witness and did not consider the ESI leave

application, Medical Certificate, the document related

to accident and the leave letters produced by this

petitioner and the Enquiry Officer has acted in a

biased manner and concluded the disciplinary

proceedings as directed by the management on a

single day in their favour. This petitioner has worked

in the factory till 29-03-2012 and he was removed from

service from 30-03-2012. This petitioner was not

intimated about his termination from the service and

therefore, this petitioner has approached the

Conciliation Officer on 11-08-2013 and he has given

his reply on 10-02-2014, against the objection made

by respondent/management on 30-12-2013 and the

conciliation proceedings also came to an end on

18-05-2015 due to its failure. This petitioner was

removed from service against the principles of

natural justice and against the provision of 2(oo) of

I.D. Act, and on the basis of the biased report of the

Enquiry Officer and against the rules and regulations

enumerated in the standing order of the abovesaid

respondent/management and hence, this petition has

to be allowed, with the direction to reinstate the

petitioner and with all other monetary benefits.

3. The brief averment of the counter filed by the

respondent:

(i) This petition is not maintainable either in law

or on facts as it is devoid of merits. This petitioner

was a habitual absentee and his absent period was

detailed below:

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

110

2011

74 (till 31.07.2011).

(ii) The petitioner was served with show cause

notice, dated 06-08-2011 for his absence since,

30-07-2011 during the year 2011, for which this

petitioner has been directed to give his explanation

within two days. In the abovesaid show cause notice,

the details of his absence without permission in the

previous period (i.e., from 09-09-2003 to 19-04-2011)

was also given and also details of his previous

warnings, severe warning and suspension awarded

as punishment were given by the respondent

management clearly. This petitioner has submitted his

reply letter, dated 19-08-2011 wherein, he has stated

that due to his family problem, health problem and

due to less salary, he was not able to attend the duty

regularly. Though the respondent management was

having right to impose punishment directly, it has not

done so and it has decided follow the natural

principles of justice and therefore, it has intimated

that an enquiry is contemplated by appointing an

Enquiry Officer and it was also intimated to this

petitioner in its letter, dated 07-09-2011. This petitioner

has attended the enquiry proceedings and he

voluntarily admitted the charges and sought apology

on 14-09-2011 before Enquiry Officer and signed in

the daily order proceedings and the final report of

the Enquiry Officer was submitted on 24-10-2011,

wherein, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges

levelled against this petitioner stands proved.

Therefore, the 2nd show caused notice, dated

02-11-2011 was issued and this petitioner has given

his reply on 07-11-2011, wherein, also he has

admitted the charges. After considering the past

history of this petitioner, and after considering all the

relevant factors and the circumstances, he was

terminated from his service from 30-03-2012 onwards.

This petitioner received the order of termination and

thereafter, he has filed the petition to the Conciliation

Officer on 11-08-2013 i.e., after a span of 18 months.

The respondent management has given its objection

to the Conciliation Officer on 30-12-2013 and

thereafter, reply was filed before the Conciliation

Officer on 10-12-2014 by this petitioner and the

Conciliation Officer also perused all those documents;

and finally a failure report was issued on 18-05-2015

and it was published in the Gazette on 13-07-2015

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[4 February 2020

and thereafter, it was referred to this Tribunal for

adjudication. This petitioner was a regular and

habitual absentee and the enquiry was conducted in

a proper manner and thereafter, only he has been

removed from service and therefore, this petition has

to be dismissed.

4. On the side of the petitioner only one witness was

examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side

of the respondent two witnesses were examined and

Ex.R1 to R43 were marked.

5. The petitioner side Counsel argued that this

petitioner has rendered unblemished service to the

management even then he was victimized and he has

been removed from service on false charges and against

the natural principles of justice and also against the

rules and regulations of the management. It is argued

by the petitioner Counsel that though this petitioner has

filed the leave applications, for which he was entitled,

the respondent management refused to give the eligible

leave to this petitioner and further, it has threatened this

petitioner and obtained the unconditional apology

letters from this petitioner in an illegal manner for their

convenience to remove this petitioner from the job.

It is further, argued by the petitioner Counsel that such

kind of unfair labour practice has been adopted by the

respondent management to other employees also. It is

argued by the petitioner Counsel that biased enquiry

was conducted by the management on the vague

charges and he was removed from the service against

clause 25.6 of the standing order, in an unlawful manner

and therefore, he has to be reinstated into service with

all other monetary benefits.

6. The respondent Counsel argued that this petitioner

was an habitual absentee and so many severe warnings

and warnings were already given and further, he was

punished with the suspension also. It is argued by the

respondent Counsel that since his past record was very

bad, the respondent management was unable to give any

kind of leniency to this petitioner and he has been

removed from the service only as a last resort. It is

further, argued by the respondent Counsel that this

petitioner has admitted all his charges of misconduct

and therefore, he has been properly enquired and

removed from service and therefore, this petition has

to be dismissed with cost.

7. Points for consideration:

Whether the dispute raised by this petitioner

against the respondent management, over his

non-employment is justified or not? and if justified,

what is the relief that he was entitled for?

8. On the point:

The pleading raised on the both sides and the

evidences adduced on both sides and the exhibits

marked on both sides were considered carefully. The

written argument filed on the side of the respondent

side was also carefully considered. The Counsel for

the respondent filed the following judgments in

support of his case.

1. W.P. (c) No. 4841/2018 (Del HC)

2. (2010) 5 SCC 775

3. 2010 LLR 913 (Guj HC)

4. 2009 (5) CTC 160 (Mad HC)

5. (2008) 5 MLJ 733 (Mad HC)

6. W.P.Nos. 1888 & 11704 of 2003 (Mad HC)

7. 2005 (6) Bom CR 1 (Bom HC)

9. The first and foremost argument submitted on

behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent

management acted, against this petitioner in an unlawful

manner and the Enquiry Officer also acted a biased

manner in favour of respondent management and the

petitioner was not provided with a chance to cross

examine the witnesses and the Enquiry Officer refused

to receive and consider the documents that was filed

on the side of this petitioner and the charges were also

not clear and vague and therefore, the report of the

Enquiry Officer should not be relied upon and therefore,

the dismissal of this petitioner from his service is

nothing but, a clear violation of natural justice and an

arbitrary act of management and it was nothing but,

clear case of retrenchment in clear violation under

section 2 (oo) and section 25 (F) of ID Act. Per contra,

the respondent side Counsel argued that this petitioner

was chronic absentee and the charges levelled against

him was proved before the Enquiry Officer and on the

basis of his report and on consideration of the past

records, this petitioner has been removed from service.

It is further argued by the Counsel that the natural

principles of justice was followed by the Enquiry Officer

and there was no biased activity in his proceedings.

It is further argued that since the petitioner himself has

admitted the charges, he was estopped from making

such a kind of allegation before this Tribunal and

therefore, the dispute raised by him became unjustified.

From and out of this argument, this Court considered

that it is the prime duty of this Court to find out whether

the preliminary enquiry was conducted in a biased

manner or not? and whether, the natural justice was

followed or not? and whether, the charges are clear or

not? and whether, the charges are proved or not?

4 February 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

10. The petitioner has deposed that the show cause

notice, dated 06-08-2011 was served to him and he has

given explanation to the same on 19-08-2011 and as it

was not up to the satisfaction of the management,

enquiry notice, dated 07-09-2011 was supplied to him

and therefore, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer

on 14-09-2011. The show cause notice, dated

06-08-2011(Ex.R17), the written explanation letter given

by the petitioner, dated 19-08-2011(Ex.R13) and the

enquiry notice, dated 07-09-2011 (Ex.R14) were marked

before this Court. From and the out these documents it

seems that this petitioner was supplied with the charge

sheet papers and the explanation given by him was also

obtained by the management and thereafter, due to the

non satisfaction arrived by the respondent/management

the enquiry notice, dated 07-09-2011 (Ex.Rl4) was issued

and thereafter only the enquiry proceeding were

conducted on 14-09-2011 as per Ex.R15. It shows, before

starting he enquiry proceedings all the formalities were

clearly complied by the respondent management. It is

the next plea of the petitioner Counsel that the charges

were not clear and vague. The charge papers in this

case was marked as Ex.R17. It has clearly mentioned the

period of absence of the petitioner, the standing orders

and the previous records of absence and the

punishment awarded were also clearly mentioned in it.

Further, it has offered time to this petitioner to give his

explanation in this regard. On perusal of Ex.R17 it is

found that the charges were clearly and found to be

accurate. This Court found that there is no ambiguity

are vagueness the in the charge-sheet. Therefore, the

argument putforth by the petitioner’s Counsel that the

charge-sheet was very vague found to be un acceptable

by this Court. On the side of the respondent

management Ex.R19 was marked and it is nothing but,

the attendance/payment details of this petitioner.

On perusal of the abovesaid document, the following

details emerges out from it

Sl.

No. of

Period

No.

days

absent

worked

January

2011

February 2011

March

2011

April

2011

May

2011

June

2011

July

2011

August

2011

Total

Further, as per the attendance register R19 his last

date of attendance during July 2011 was 29-07-2011.

Thereafter, this petitioner has attended the duty on

19-08-2011 only. That is, he was absent from 30-07-2017

till 19-08-2011. This petitioner has not filed any

document to show that he was present to the duty in

between 30-07-2011 to 19-08-2011. The abovesaid

document Ex.R19 would goes to show that this

petitioner was habitual absentee in each and every

month and highly negligent in his duty. The clause 25.6,

25.12, 25.67 of the standing order of the Management

runs as follows:

Clause 25.6: “Habitual absence without leave or

absence without leave for more than 8 consecutive

days, overstaying the sanctioned leave without

satisfactory explanation”.

Clause 25.12: “Negligence or neglect of work”.

Clause 25.67: “Frequent repetition of any

misconduct or omissions”.

On comparison of the abovesaid document Ex.R19

and the standing orders of the respondent management,

it is very clear that this petitioner has violated the

standing orders and failed to comply the same by

attending the duty regularly and carefully. The single

document Ex.R19 clearly shows that this petitioner was

highly absentee and highly negligent in performing his

duty. It also shows that he was irregular in his duty and

he is man of the nature taking leave or absence

repeatedly. Thus, the misconduct on the part of this

petitioner was clearly proved by the respondent

management.

11. The petitioner has deposed that the Enquiry

Officer was an Advocate and the management is having

control over him, but to this aspect this petitioner has

not produced any materials, and therefore, it was also

not accepted by this Court as it is a bald allegation only.

Further, this petitioner has deposed that he has sought

for permission to take assistance from one of his

colleague to assist him in the enquiry proceedings and

it was denied by the Enquiry Officer. But, he has not

even whispered the name of the assistant in his

evidence before this Court who was sought for, to assist

him in the enquiry proceedings. It proves that this

petitioner is giving false evidence before this Court in

this regard. Further, this petitioner deposed that he has

explained his inability to attend the duty by mentioning

the reasons such as his health problem, ill health for

his wife, death of his uncle and ill fate of motor accident

and all other circumstances. He has also deposed that

has produced the relevant documents, like Medical

Certificate to the Enquiry Officer and he alleged that the

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[4 February 2020

enquiry officer failed to hear the reasons that was

adduced by him, and failed to receive the documents

that was produced before him. But, he has not deposed

about the details of the document and he has failed to

produce the supporting evidences in this aspect. To this

aspect, he could very well examine his wife before this

Court, but, even that was also not done by this

petitioner. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion

that this petition is adducing false evidence in order to

save his case. On perusal of the enquiry report, dated

24-10-2011 marked as Ex.R20 in this case, it is found that

this petitioner has voluntarily admitted the charges that

was levelled against him. Further more, the Enquiry

Officer also perused the evidence adduced by the

respondent management, and the documents marked by

them from Ex.M1 to M52. Therefore, the allegation

levelled against the Enquiry Officer seems to be

baseless. In addition to that this petitioner signed in

every pages of the enquiry proceeding, dated 14-09-2011

which was marked as Ex.R15 in this case. Further more,

on perusal of Ex.R13, dated 19-08-2011 also this Court

found that this petitioner has very well admitted the

charges levelled against him after the receiving of charge-

sheet from the management. As he has already admitted

his charge in his explanation letter, dated 19-08-2011

itself, he may not denied the said charges during the

enquiry proceedings and there exists a possibility for

it on the basis of probability theory. No supporting

evidence is produced by him before this Tribunal in this

aspect. Therefore, the allegation levelled against the

Enquiry Officer and the enquiry proceedings are found

to be baseless. The respondent management has further

sent the second show cause notice, dated 02-11-2011

(R38) after the receipt of the enquiry report, dated

24-10-2011 (Ex.R20) and in his explanation for the 2nd

show cause notice also this petitioner has admitted his

guilty and his written explanation, dated 07-11-2011

which was marked as Ex.R16. The documents such as

Ex.R13, 15, 20, 38 and R16 would goes to shows that

this petitioner voluntarily admitted charges levelled

against him and it would goes to shows that there is

no biased activity in the enquiry proceedings. Hence,

the allegation of biased act by the Enquiry Officer,

violation natural principles of justice, violation of

standing orders, raised by this petitioner found to be

unacceptable and baseless; as he failed to prove the

same by producing sufficient documents and evidence.

12. The petitioner has deposed that the Enquiry

Officer has started his enquiry on 14-09-2011 and he has

completed it on the same day itself and copy was not

furnished him, but, on perusal of Ex.R15 and R20 it

seems that the enquiry proceedings was not completed

on a single day as alleged by this petitioner. The enquiry

proceedings started on 14-09-2011 as per the Ex.R15 and

the report was filed on 24-10-2011 as per Ex.R20.

Therefore, this Court come to the conclusion that the

enquiry proceedings was not conducted in a hurried

manner as alleged by the petitioner and the evidence

given by this petitioner in this regard also found to be

unacceptable and baseless. Therefore, the allegation of

biased enquiry found to be incorrect by this Court from

and out of the evidences available in this case.

13. Now, this Court inclined to consider whether, the

charges are proved or not? In this regard, this Court

inclined to go through the charge papers, dated

06-08-2011, wherein, it has been alleged that this

petitioner was a chronic absentee and his previous

records were also not good and this petitioner is having

previous punishment of the nature of warnings, severe

warnings and suspensions. As per Ex.R17, the charge-

sheet, this petitioner was alleged as absentee during the

following periods:

Year

Cumulative No. unauthorized

of days of absence.

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

106

2011

(Up to 31-07-2011)

and he was given punishment as follows:

Action taken

Dated

Warned

09-09-2003

Warned

14-09-2006

Warned

12-08-2006

Suspended for 7 days

19-02-2007

Warned

13-06-2007

Warned

27-11-2007

Warned

26-03-2008

Warned

17-05-2008

Suspended for 15 days

03-02-2009

Severe Warned

28-11-2009

Severe Warned

25-03-2010

Severe Warned

15-06-2010

Severe Warned

20-12-2010

Severe Warned

20-01-2011

Severe Warned

10-02-2011

Severe Warned

19-04-2011

4 February 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

14. In this regard, this petitioner was cross examined

by the respondent management side Counsel and during

his cross-examination this petitioner clearly admitted

that he was subjected to previous enquiry as per the

show cause notice, dated 14-12-2006 (Ex.R1) and he was

suspended as per the order, dated 19-02-2007 (Ex.R3).

Further, he has admitted that he has been subjected to

previous enquiry as per the show cause notice, dated

16-10-2008 and in the result of which he has been

suspended on 03-02-2009 (Ex.R6). Further, he has

deposed that he was subjected to a show cause notice,

dated 28-06-2010 (Ex.R9). Further, he has also admitted

that he was given warnings as follows:

Action taken

Dated

Exhibits

Warned

09-09-2003

Ex.R24

Warned

14-09-2006

Ex.R30

Warned

12-08-2006

Ex.R29

Warned

13-06-2007

Ex.R31

Warned

27-11-2007

Ex.R32

Warned

26-03-2008

Ex.R33

Warned

17-05-2008

Ex.R37

Severe Warned

28-11-2009

Ex.R35

Severe Warned

25-03-2010

Ex.R7

Severe Warned

15-06-2010

Ex.R8

Severe Warned

20-12-2010

Ex.R37

Severe Warned

20-01-2011

Ex.R11

Severe Warned

19-04-2011

Ex.R12

15. All these admissions made by this petitioner

during his cross-examination are supported by the

relevant document by the respondent management.

It shows that his previous record was not good and he

was a chronic absentee in his past period of service

also. This petitioner has admitted the charges of

continuous absent from 30-07-2011 till the date of issue

of show cause notice, dated 06-08-2011 (Ex.R17) Further,

he deposed that he has admitted the charges before the

Enquiry Officer and given his admission letter in the

presence of the Enquiry Officer as it was promised by

the Enquiry Officer that no harm would resulted in his

admission of charges. But, on perusal of records it is

found that no such letter of admission of charges were

found place in this case. It shows that this petitioner

has not given any letter of admission charges before

the Enquiry Officer. Hence, this Court come to the

conclusion that this petitioner is going to the extend

of degrading the Enquiry Officer in order to save his

service in the respondent management by giving false

evidence as if, he filed the letter of admission to the

Enquiry Officer. Further, he has admitted that he was

absent for 74 days during 2006, for 20 days during 2007,

for 48 days during 2008, for 44 days during 2009, for

106 days during 2010 and for 74 days during 2011 (till

30th July). This clear version of admission before this

Court, during his cross-examination would goes to

shows that he was chronic absentee, not only in the

present but, in the past also. Further more, the

respondent side witness, RW.1 has also deposed that

the petitioner was a chronic absentee during his present

and past service in the management, resulted in

difficulty in duty roaster, in deputing substitute workman

in his place and thereby causing much hindrance to the

day to day affairs of the factory. He has also deposed

that his absence was reported to the disciplinary

authorities through proper channel and he has also

confirmed his previous punishments. Hence, analyzing

all these aspects, records and the circumstances, this

Court come to the conclusion that the charges levelled

against the petitioner found to be proved.

16. Now, let us pass on to the decision on the

punishment of termination given to this petitioner. This

Court has to decide whether it is proportionate or not?

or it is excessive for the misconduct of absenteeism.

In this aspect, this Court inclined to pass on to the

citations produced by the respondent side Counsel. The

citations reported in W.P. (C) No. 4841/2018 (Del HC),

dated 12-05-2018 was considered. Wherein, the 13the

paragraph runs as follows:

In view of this settled position in law, the

High Court/Tribunal cannot interfere with the

discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority/

Appellate Authority unless such discretion suffers

from illegality or material procedural irregularity as

that would shock the conscience of the High Court/

Tribunal.

17. Similarly, the Judgment reported in (2010) 5

SCC 755 was also considered wherein, the 14th para

runs as follows:

The question of long absence of the workman and

his consequent termination came up for consideration

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Transport

Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh 2004 (7) SCC 576 and it

was held that when an employee absents himself from

duty even without sanctioned leave for a very long

period, it prima facie shows the lack of interest in

work. It was further, held that the conclusion

regarding negligence and lack of interest can be

arrived a by looking into the period of absence, more

particularly when the same is unauthorized. However,

the burden is on the employee, who claims that there

was no negligence or lack of interest established by

placing relevant material.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[4 February 2020

18. From and the out of these two citations, it is

found that normally the Tribunal cannot interfere with

the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority but,

it can interfere if, such discretion suffers illegality and

arbitrary. Here, in this case as per the charge-sheet this

petitioner was already given warnings as nearly as 14 times

further, he has been suspended for two times and this

petitioner seems to be chronical absentee therefore, the

punishment of termination need not be interfered as per

the abovesaid citation. The petitioner side Counsel

submitted the citation reported in 2008 5 MLJ 733

wherein, the 4 para runs as follows:

The first respondent, who was working as a

Kalasi, was charge-sheeted by a charge memo, dated

27-07-1999 in terms of rule 9 of the Railway Servants

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The charge

against him was that during the year 1998, he was

absent from duty for nearly 181 days and in the year

1999, from January to July alone, he was absent for

136 days. Within a period of 1½ years, he had

absented himself from duty for more than 317 days.

A departmental enquiry was ordered against him.

Though, he was offered the assistance of a

co-employee, he defended himself without any

assistance. When he was questioned in the enquiry

with reference to his absence, he informed that his

wife was a Tb patient and he had to take care of her

which resulted in his absence. He also stated that

since he was having family problem, he could not

inform his superior about his absence. The muster

roll extract showing his attendance was produced in

the enquiry. He also accepted the charge against him

and stated that in future, he will attend properly. The

Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, on the basis of

the said findings, called for his further, explanation.

“The same was not forth coming from the first

respondent and therefore, by an order, dated

01-08-2000, he was removed from service with effect

from 25-08-2000. The first respondent filed an appeal,

dated 21-08-2000 and the second petitioner dismissed

the appeal vide order, dated 24-11-2000 confirming

the punishment order. Thereafter, the first respondent

preferred a revision petition and the revisional

authority, viz., the first petitioner, dismissed the

revision by an order, dated 10-07-2001.

19. In the abovesaid case the workman was removed

from the service for his habitual absenteeism. In the

present case also this petitioner was a chronical

absentee therefore, as per the abovesaid citation also

this Court come to the conclusion that the order of

termination need not be interfered by this Court. Hence,

this Court come to the conclusion that the punishment

of termination given to this petitioner found as correct

and sufficient and not excessive.

20. In the result, the industrial dispute raised by this

petitioner against, the management, over his

non-employment is decided as unjustified and it is

further, decided that this petitioner is not entitled for

any other monetary relief. Hence, this industrial dispute

is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on

this the 9th day of October, 2019.

V. PANDIARAJ,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.l

— 28-09-2017 Ponnurangam

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 29-03-2004 Order of Confirmation.

Ex.P2 —

Pay Slip.

Ex.P3 —

The Employees Provident

Fund Scheme, 2010-2011.

Ex.P4 —

Referral Slip 2 Nos., dated

05-05-2008 and 19-11-2002.

Ex.P5

— 05-05-2008 Medical Certificate issued by

I.G.G.G. Hospital, Puducherry.

Ex.P6 —

Medical Certificate issued

GDMO, PHC, Thalavakuppam -

2 Nos., dated 17-02-2008 and

26-07-2008.

Ex.P7 —

Final Certificate issued by

ESI, Puducherry, 6 Nos..

List of respondent’s witness:

RW.1

— 24-04-2018 Yacob Sharief

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.Rl

— 14-12-2006 Show cause notice issued to

the claim petitioner.

Ex.R2

— 06-01-2007 Enquiry proceedings initiated

against the claim petitioner.

Ex.RS

— 19-02-2007 Suspension order issued to

the claim petitioner.

Ex.R4

— 25-04-2007 Order issued to the claim

petitioner.

Ex.R5

— 18-11-2008 Enquiry proceedings initiated

against the claim petitioner.

Ex.R6

— 03-02-2009 Suspension order issued to

the claim petitioner.

4 February 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R7

— 25-03-2010 Severe warning letter issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R8

— 15-06-2010 Severe warning letter issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R9

— 28-06-2010 Show cause notice issued to

the claim petitioner.

Ex.R10 — 07-09-2010 Phonogram issued to the

09-11-2010 claim petitioner.

Ex.R11 — 20-01-2011 Severe warning letter issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R12 — 19-04-2011 Severe warning letter issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R13 — 19-08-2011 Written explanation of the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R14 — 07-09-2011 Notice of enquiry issued to

the claim petitioner.

Ex.R15 — 14-09-2011 Enquiry proceedings initiated

against the claim petitioner.

Ex.R16 — 07-11-2011 Written explanation of the

claim petitioner to the 2nd

show cause notice, dated

02-11-2011.

Ex.R17 — 06-08-2011 Charge-sheet-cum-sho w

cause notice issued the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R18 — 10-08-1999 Inter office memorandum.

Ex.R19 — 01-01-2011 Attendance register of the

31-08-2011 respondent

management

along with salary slip of the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R20 — 24-10-2011 Enquiry report.

Ex.R21 — 30-03-2012 Order of termination issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R22 — 30-03-2012 Paper publication.

Ex.R23 — 17-06-2003 Advise letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R24 — 09-09-2003 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R25 — 16-10-2003 Advise letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R26 — 01-11-2003 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R27 — 04-11-2003 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R28 — 22-12-2003 Severe warning letter issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R29 — 12-08-2006 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R30 — 14-09-2006 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R31 — 13-06-2007 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R32 — 27-11-2007 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R33 — 26-03-2008 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R34 — 17-05-2008 Warning letter issued to the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R35 — 28-11-2009 Severe warning letter issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R36 — 19-11-2010 Enquiry proceedings of the

claim petitioner.

Ex.R37 — 20-12-2010 Severe warning letter issued

to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R38 — 02-11-2011 Second show cause notice

issued to the claim petitioner.

Ex.R39 — 12-09-2013 Notice of remarks of the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry along with the

letter, dated 11-08-2013 of

the claim petitioner.

Ex.R40 — December

Reply of the Respondent

2013

Management to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.R41 — 10-02-2014 Complaint of the

claim

petitioner. to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry

his

non-employment.

Ex.R42 — 18-05-2015 Failure of conciliation over

the industrial dispute raised

by the claim petitioner.

Ex.R43 — 13-07-2015 Notification by Government

of Puducherry in Gazette.

V. PANDIARAJ,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.