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
..
228
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 228
Award of the Labour Court
.. 228
de tribunal.
..
243
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 243
Government Notifications
.. 243
..
245
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 245
Tender Notices
.. 245
..
254
Annonces
.. 254
Announcements
.. 254
..
260
Erratum
.. 260
Erratum
.. 260
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 : 24-3-2020
Price : ` 24-00
[ 227 ]
2020 }
|
24 {
No.
12
Poudouchéry
Mardi
24
Mars
2020 (4 Chaitra 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
24th
March
2020
228
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 29/Lab./AIL/T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 26th February 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in Lok Adalat Case No. 21751/2019
in I.D (L) No.14/2017, dated 14-12-2019 of the Lok Adalat,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. Jayaprakash
Narayanan Co-operative Spinning Mill, Karaikal
and Thiru G. Anandaraman and 12 others, 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 LOK ADALAT AT PUDUCHERRY
Organised by Ms. V. Sofana Devi (District Judge)
Member-Secretary, State Legal Services Authority,
Puducherry, under section 19 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act (Act 39 of 1987).
Thiru V. Jaikumar,
. .
Judge
Special Officer-cum-
Additional Sub-Judge,
Puducherry.
Ms. S. Mumtaj,
. .
Judge
I Additional District Munsif,
Puducherry.
Thiru Shanmugham,
. .
Member
Advocate.
LOK ADALAT CASE No. 21751/2019
in
I.D. (L) No. 14/2017
(On the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry)
Saturday, the 14th day of September 2019
Thiruvalargal :
1. G. Anandaraman
2. S. Vasudevan
Thiruvalargal :
3. P. Sakthivel
4. V. R. Ganesan
5. P. Darmadourai
6. S. Saminathan
7. S. Suresh
8. J. Beemarao
9. S. Murugavel
10. Y. Yudhi Francis
11. P. Aravamutham
12. P. Selvamani
13. K. Thennarasu
. . Petitioners
Vs.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Jayaprakash Narayanan
Co-operative Spinning Mill,
Keezhamani, Melaoduthurai,
Neravy, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This case coming on this day before us in
the presence of the petitioner and his Counsel
Thiru S. Suriamoorthy and the respondent and his
Counsel Thiru P. Djeassillane, having agreed to settle
the matter and thereby the case being settled under
Joint Compromise Memo filed, an Award is passed
accordingly:
Taken cognizance under section 20 (1) of the Legal
Services Authorities Act (Act 39/87)
l. This case which was filed and pending before the
Presiding Officer as I.D. (L) No. 14/2017 was transferred
to the Lok Adalat and was taken on file for settlement.
2. The petitioner has filed this case to pass an Award
to hold that the non-employment of the petitioner/
workman by the respondent/management is not justified
and for other monetary benefit if any.
3. Both parties were served with notice and appeared
before the Lok Adalat and the petitioner and the
respondent jointly filed a compromise memo stating that:
(i) Out of the petitioners numbering 13 mentioned
in the Reference on G.O. Rt. No. 36/AIL/Lab./T/2017,
dated 05-04-2017, the following petitioners (only)
came forward for the settlement. It is therefore,
decided by both the parties that Memorandum of the
Settlement shall be filed before this Hon’ble Court
(only) in respect of such of the petitioners who came
forward for the settlement and presented themselves
before this Lok Adalat.
229
24 March 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Thiruvalargal :
1. G. Anandaraman (Petitioner 1)
2. S. Vasudevan
(Petitioner 2)
3. V.R. Ganesan
(Petitioner 4)
4. P. Darmadourai
(Petitioner 5)
5. S. Saminathan
(Petitioner 6)
6. S. Suresh
(Petitioner 7)
7. J. Beemarao
(Petitioner 8)
8. S. Murugavel
(Petitioner 9)
9. K.Thennarasu
(Petitioner 13)
10. P. Selvamani
(Petitioner 12)
(ii) the respondent/management will reinstate the
above-mentioned petitioner into the services of the
Mill with immediate effect.
(iii) the above-mentioned petitioners/workmen will
not claim any back wages for the period from the date
of termination, till the date of reinstatement.
(iv) the respondent management will reinstate the
above-mentioned petitioner/workman with continuity
of service.
(v) the above-mentioned petitioners/workmen will
not claim any monetary/service benefit for the period
from the date of termination till the date of
reinstatement.
(vi) the respondent/management shall arrange to
relive the above-mentioned petitioners/workmen from
the services of the Mills under the Special Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, which is in vogue/force in the
Mills, without any other conditions if, the above
petitioners/workmen submit application under the
scheme within a period of one month from the date
of reinstatement.
On failing the abovesaid conditions this reference will
be reopened for further proceedings.
4. The Compromise Memo filed by the parties is
bona fide and there is no reason why the same should
not be considered and recorded. There is no inducement
or other indication for the said compromise.
Accordingly, the Joint Comprormise Memo filed by the
parties is recorded and an Award is passed under the
terms and conditions therein.
5. This case is referred to the Lok Adalat organized
by the State Legal Services Authority under section 19
of the Legal Services Authorities Act (Act 39/87) and
after full and frank discussion of all issues, an Award
is passed as follows.
AWARD
1. It is ordered and decreed that the Award is passed
in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo made by the
parties and that the reference made by the Government
on G.O. Rt. No. 36/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 05-04-2017
and the same is hereby closed.
2. It is ordered and decreed that the Joint
Compromise Memo signed by the both parties shall
form part and parcel of the Award.
3. That this Award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed
to be a decree of the Civil Court as per section 21 of
the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Dated at Puducherry, on this the 14th day of
September, 2019.
V. JAIKUMAR,
S. MUMTAJ,
Judge.
Judge.
SHANMUGAM,
Advocate, Member.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, PUDUCHERRY
I.D. (L) 14/2017
Thiruvalargal :
1. G. Anandaraman
2. S. Vasudevan
3. P. Sakthivel
4. V. R. Ganesan
5. P. Darmadourai
6. S. Saminathan
7. S. Suresh
8. J. Beemarao
9. S. Murugavel
10. Y. Yudhi Francis
11. P. Aravamutham
12. P. Selvamani
13. K. Thennarasu
. . Petitioners
Vs.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Jayaprakash Narayanan
Co-operative Spinning Mill,
Keezhamani, Melaoduthurai,
Neravy, Karaikal-609 609.
. . Respondent
230
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIES
It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court by both the
parties that out of the petitioners numbering 13
mentioned in the Cause Title (Reference), the following
petitioners only came forward for the settlement. It is
therefore, decided by both the parties that memorandum
of the settlement shall be filed before this Hon’ble Court
only in respect of such of the petitioners who came
forward for the settlement and presented themselves
before this Lok Adalat.
Thiruvalargal :
1. G. Anandaraman (Petitioner 1)
2. S. Vasudevan
(Petitioner 2)
3. V.R. Ganesan
(Petitioner 4)
4. P. Darmadourai
(Petitioner 5)
5. S. Saminathan
(Petitioner 6)
6. S. Suresh
(Petitioner 7)
7. J. Beemarao
(Petitioner 8)
8. S. Murugavel
(Petitioner 9)
9. K.Thennarasu
(Petitioner 13)
10. P. Selvamani
(Petitioner 12)
It is further submitted before this Hon’ble Court that
in the above Industrial Dispute, the above-mentioned
Petitioners and the Respondent are mutually willing to
settle the issues as follows:
1. The respondent/management will reinstate the
petitioner into the services of the Mill with immediate
effect.
2. The above-mention petitioners/workmen will
not claim any back wages for the period from the date
of termination, till the date of reinstatement.
3. The respondent management will reinstate the
above-mention petitioners/workmen with continuity
of service.
4. The above-mention petitioners/workmen will
not claim any monetary/service benefit for the petiod
from the date of termination till the date of
reinstatement.
5. The respondent/management shall arrange to
relive the above-mention petitioners/workmen from
the services of the Mills under the Special Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, which is in vogue/force in the Mills,
without any other conditions if the above-mention
petitioners/workmen submits application under the
Scheme within a period of one month from the date
of reinstatement.
Both parties pray this Hon’ble Court to approve the
above proposed Settlement and pass order and Award
accordingly.
Dated at Puducherry on this 14th day of December 2019.
S. SURIAMOORTHY,
P. DJEASSILLANE.
Counsel of Petitioner.
Counsel of Respondent.
SARISHTADAR
Labour Court
Puducherry
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 30/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 27th February 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 28/2016, dated
09-12-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between
the management of M/s. MRF Limited, Nettapakkam
Commune, Puducherry and Thiru Muthukumarasamy,
Mudaliarpet, 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 23-05-1991, 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., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 9th day of December 2019.
I.D. (L) No. 28/2016
Thiru Muthukumarasamy,
No. 18, Anitha Nagar,
4th Cross Street,
Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
231
24 March 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The Managing Director,
M/s. M.R.F. Limited, Eripakkam,
Nettapakkam Commune,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 09-12-2019
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru M. Subramanian, 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 of Puducherry as per the G.O. Rt. No. 113/
AIL/Lab./T/2016, dated 05-12-2016 for adjudicating the
following:
(a) Whether
the
dispute
raised
by
the
petitioner Thiru A. Muthukumarasamy against the
management of M/s. M.R.F. Limited, Puducherry, over
non-employment is justified or not? 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 petitioner was employed in the respondent
company on 12-03-1999 and he has more than 16 years
service in the respondent company, and his Emp.
No. 600132. He worked as a Mechanic in Extruder
section. The respondent management has more than
1500 employees in various sections. This petitioner
acted as Vice President in INTUC and he had played
an important role in the talk between management and
the employees, as a representative of the Union and
therefore, occasionally he had controversial term with
the management. Due to that the management has
issue charge memo, dated 28-04-2014 with vague and
false allegations, though he has no way connected
with that charges. This petitioner has given his reply
on 30-04-2014 with detailed explanations. After that
the management has fixed the enquiry date of
Disciplinary proceedings on 09-05-2014. This
petitioner-participated in the Disciplinary proceedings
and he has enlightened his defence also and he has
also brought out the truth before the Enquiry Officer.
This petitioner has made a request on 20-05-2014, to
permit him to contest his Disciplinary proceedings
through his Advocate. Further, he has requested the
Enquiry Officer to supply the copy of the complaint,
who has lodged a complaint against this petitioner.
The Enquiry Officer failed to comply the same and
he did not permit him to have his own Advocate to
defend his case. The Enquiry Officer has not
permitted this petitioner to plead his case and he has
not permitted this petitioner to cross-examine the
management side witnesses by name Kalaiselvan and
Franklin. The Enquiry Officer by name Rajadurai, B.A., B.L.,
and the respondent side representative by name
K. Babu, B.A., B.L., have good knowledge about the
provisions of Laws of the Labour Legislations.
Usually they would act in favour of the management
always and they would conclude the Disciplinary
proceedings in favour of the management only.
Hence, as a routine manner, the Enquiry Officer
without considering the contradictions in the
evidences and the charge memo, they had concluded
the Disciplinary proceedings in favour of the
management and they have failed to find out the truth
and
they
have conducted
the
Disciplinary
proceedings without following the principles of
natural justice. The evidences of the representatives
of the management by name, Kalaiselvan and Franklin
were accepted and acted upon by the Enquiry Officer
without analyzing the truth in their evidence. The
Enquiry Officer has completed his Disciplinary
proceedings in a biased manner and concluded the
Disciplinary proceedings in favour of the respondent
management, in violation of natural principles of
justice and hence, the subsequent termination order
becomes invalid one. Thereafter, this petitioner
approached the Conciliation Officer and the
respondent management failed to cooperate for the
conciliation proceedings, which resulted in failure of
the conciliation proceedings. This petitioner was
entitled for reinstatement with all his back wages and
monetary benefits and hence, this industrial dispute
has to be allowed.
3. The brief averment of the counter filed by the
respondent:-
(i) The allegations made by the petitioner
against the respondent were denied as false in total.
This petition was filed with suppression of material
facts and this petition has to strictly prove the
allegations against this respondent management with
sufficient evidences. The show cause notice was
issued by the respondent management as the
petitioner has committed misconduct which attracts
clause 25.4, clause 25,49 and clause 25,71 of the
Certified
Standing
Orders of the respondent
management. The petitioner has given cryptic and
vague reply for the show cause notice, dated
28-04-2012. As the reply submitted by the petitioner
232
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
on 30-04-2014 was vague, the management has
decided to have Disciplinary proceedings by appointing
an Advocate/Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has
falsely alleged that the management has targeted the
petitioner. The enquiry was fixed on 09-05-2014 and
it was intimated to the petitioner. That the petitioner
has denied the charges levelled against him. This
petitioner has also participated in the Disciplinary
proceedings and therefore, it was adjourned to
09-05-2014. On that day also the petitioner has
submitted a letter to the Enquiry Officer requesting
him to have one Mr. R. Jayakumar as an assistant to
him to assist the Disciplinary proceedings on behalf
of him and it was also permitted by the Enquiry
Officer. But, in contrary to the above, with venomous
reasons this petitioner had stated that he has sought
for assistance of an Advocate. Even then the written
argument filed on 01-07-2014 also, there is no whisper
about the said letter, dated 20-05-2014. This petitioner
has participated in the Disciplinary proceedings,
wholeheartedly, and he did not allege any such bias
in the conduct of Enquiry Officer, at the time of the
argument. This case was filed as a result of after
thought aimed to gain, misplaced sympathy from the
Court. The respondent reserved his right to take up
the preliminary issue as just and fair if warranted.
The Enquiry Officer has concluded his enquiry and
filed his report on 04-08-2014. The management was
fully satisfied with the Enquiry Officer report and
therefore, it has issued second show cause notice
on 17-09-2014, and for which this petitioner has given
his reply on 04-10-2014, wherein, also this petitioner
has raised false and vague allegations against the
conduct of the Enquiry Officer as against the Enquiry
proceedings for the first time and he has requested
for the reconsideration of the proposed punishment.
After the consideration of the charges, enquiry
report and the reply, the management has applied its
mind on the charges of misconduct and explanation
offered by the petitioner. The petitioner has
concentration on making ridiculous/preposterus
averments against the management. Already the
respondent management has wasted considerable
man hours in issuing warning letters, show cause
notices and in conducting the enquiry proceedings.
The management was not able to extend slightest
sympathy also. Therefore, the petitioner was
terminated from the service and hence, this petition
has to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner only witnesses was
examined and Ex.Pl to Ex.P7 was marked. On the side of
the respondent three witnesses were examined and Ex.R1
to R29 were marked.
5. The petitioner side Counsel argued that the
management was represented to its managing Director
Mr. Govindarajan, who had filed the counter in this
case, failed to appear before this Court and he has enter
into box to adduce evidence on behalf of the
management. It is argued that RW1 to RW3 examined
on the side of the respondent side, but, they have not
produced any authorization letter from the management
and therefore, their evidence could not be taken into
consideration for any purpose. It is further, argued that
the documents marked on the side of the respondent
were self attested by RW3 as he has no locus standi to
file such self attested documents and hence, those
documents cannot be taken into consideration under the
provisions of Evidence Act. It is argued that the charges
were vague and false and this petitioner has no way
connected with them. It is further, argued that the
charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved
as required under the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act. It is argued by the petitioner Counsel that there
was serious of lacunae and contradictions among the
evidences of RW1 to RW3 and it was not sufficient
enough to prove the charges. It is argued by the
petitioner Counsel that RW1 has deposed that this
petitioner was absent for 5 days as per Ex.R16 and for
which also he has received a salary, whereas, RW2 has
deposed that this petitioner was absent for 27 days and
this petitioner has received a salary for the abovesaid
27 days. The petitioner’s side Counsel argued that as
per the charge-sheet, this petitioner was alleged as
absentee for 32 days and he received the salary for
32 days by deceitful means. It is argued that the
contradictions between the evidence of RW1 and RW2,
the contradiction between the documents Ex.R16 and
Ex.Pl were not considered by the Enquiry Officer. It is
further argued that no other workmen were examined to
prove the absence and receipt of salary by this
petitioner for the abovesaid period of 32 days. The
petitioner side Counsel argued that the management has
failed to prove the aspect of compulsion made by this
petitioner to the staff by name Mr. Allane and thereby
he coerced the abovesaid Mr. Allane and get attendance
in worksheet in SAP 6008. It is further argued that the
non-examination of the Mr. Allane by the management,
is a fatal to the case against the petitioner and the
Enquiry Officer failed to consider all these aspects and
he acted in a biased manner. The petitioner side Counsel
argued that the apology letter alleged to have been
given by Mr. Allane was marked as Ex.R9, which is
nothing but, a created document for the purpose of
victimization against the petitioner. The petitioner side
Counsel argued that in case, if, this petitioner was
absent for 32 days, definitely there may be some
substituted workman, who may worked in the place of
233
24 March 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
this petitioner and he may also be get the salary for the
abovesaid period. The details of the substituted service
rendered by the other workman, the amount of the salary
received by the substituted workman, were not at all
produced before the Enquiry Officer and it was also not
considered by the Enquiry Officer. It is argued that this
petitioner has no possibility of making false entries in
the worksheet in SAP 6008 which is under the
supervision and control of the management staff. It is
argued that the Enquiry Officer acted in a biased manner
and he refused to give permission to this petitioner to
have engagement of his Advocate, though the management
has representation through its representative by name
Mr. Rajadurai, who is a practitioner in law. It is further
argued that the copy of the complaint was not served
to this petitioner and this petitioner was denied to
produce his evidences and records during his enquiry
proceedings. It is further argued that the Enquiry
Officer has acted in a biased manner and he has given
his report in favour of the management as usual. It is
further argued that the management has failed to take
any legal action against the so called Mr. Allane and
failed to recover the salary from the abovesaid
Mr. Allane, would goes to shows that the allegations
of mis-conduct is nothing, but, vague and false. It is
argued by the petitioner Counsel that no two cards can
be punched at a time in a punching machine and
therefore, allegation of misuse of punching card by this
petitioner and making of false entries by Mr. Allane,
would nothing, but, a cooked up story to victimize this
petitioner as he had played active role in the trade union
activities. The petitioner side Counsel argued that the
apology letter marked as Ex.R12, would goes to shows
that this petitioner and the so called the Mr. Allane were
friends from January 2014 alone and therefore, there is
no chance for misuse of punching cards and there is
no chance for making proxy entry in the SAP 6008 for
the period from June 2013 to December 2013. In fine,
the petitioner side Counsel argued that the management
has failed to prove the charges against the petitioner
and Enquiry Officer failed to consider the same and he
acted in a biased manner and gave a report in favour of
the management, which resulted in termination of this
petitioner from the respondent company, and therefore,
he is entitled for reinstatement with all other monetary
benefits.
6. The respondent side Counsel argued that this
petitioner along with one Mr. Allane cheated the
company and they indulged in breach of trust and
thereby they have made fraudulent entries in the SAP
as well as the Punching machine and thereby they have
received the salary for their absent period, which is a
serious mis-conduct, which resulted in termination of
this petitioner. It is further argued by the respondent
Counsel that the so called Mr, Allane has resigned his
job from the company and he left out to abroad and
therefore, there is no necessity for the respondent
company to have legal action against the so called
Mr. Allane and therefore, this petitioner cannot escape
from the clutches of law under the pretext of no action
against Mr. Allane. The respondent side Counsel argued
that this petitioner was provided all the documents and
the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a proper
manner by adherering natural principles of justice. It is
argued that there is no provision in Standing Orders of
the company, to have engagement of Lawyer by the
employee. It is argued that this petitioner has engaged
the co-employee/trade union Secretary by name
Jayakumar and he hes fully utilized the abovesaid
person throughout the enquiry proceedings. It is argued
that totally three witnesses (MW1 to MW3) were
examined on the side of the management and they were
thoroughly cross-examined by this petitioner and this
petitioner has not produced any witness on his side and
endorsement in this aspect also made by this petitioner
himself. It is argued that the allegation of denial of
engagement of Advocate, non-supply of copy of the
complaint are all nothing but, cooked up story. It is
argued that this petitioner has not made any request in
respect of copy of the complaint and engagement of
Advocate to assist him before the Enquiry Officer. It is
argued that this petitioner was placed in the Duplex 2
machine section and he has no connection with the
salvage department, but, with his influence with
Mr. Allane, he has made entries in the working sheet in
SAP 6008 and in response he has made proxy entries
for the abovesaid Mr. Allane on 09-04-2014 and
10-04-2014 by using Punching card on 09-04-2014 and
10-04-2014. In fine, respondent side Counsel argued that
this petitioner indulged in misconduct of fraud and
cheating and therefore, he has been terminated from his
service after complying all the legal formalities and
therefore, he prayed to dismiss the claim of this
petitioner.
7. Points for consideration:
Whether, the management has adopted all the
legal formalities during the disciplinary proceedings?
and whether he was removed from his service in
accordance with law? and whether this petitioner was
entitle for reinstatement with all monetary benefits?
are the points to be decided in this case.
8. On the Point:
The petitioner was an employee in the respondent
company and he has been removed from his service
by the management are all admitted facts. Whether,
234
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
the order of the removal/termination on the basis of
the enquiry proceedings is justifiable or not is to be
decided hereunder.
9. The first and foremost argument advanced by the
petitioner Counsel is that the Enquiry Officer failed to
adopt the natural principles of justice and he has acted
in a perversed manner and therefore, the report of the
Enquiry Officer has to be rejected in total. To find out
the genuinity of the abovesaid argument, this Court
inclined to go through the evidence adduced by the
petitioner. This petitioner examined himself as PW1 in
this case. In his chief examination, he has deposed that
“the copy of the complaint against me was not served
to me. I gave a request to the Enquiry Officer to furnish
the copy of the complaint. Enquiry Officer failed to
comply the same and failed to give suitable reply for
the abovesaid request. I was denied to cross-examined
Mr. Allane. I was denied to have engagement of an
Advocate. The Enquiry Officer has not given, any reply
to the request made to him regarding the assistance by
Advocate. The Enquiry Officer failed to comply the
natural principles of justice. The management failed to
comply the clause/section 27.2.2 of the Standing Order.
The Enquiry Officer failed to give the copy of the
complaint, dated 23-04-2014 given by Mr. Kalaiselvan”.
10. From and the abovesaid evidence, the petitioner
side Counsel argued that there was some perversity in
the nature of enquiry and the natural principles of
justice was also not followed by the Enquiry Officer.
At this juncture, this Court inclined to go through the
evidence adduced by PW1 in his cross-examination. In
his cross- examination he has deposed that “I was
served with enquiry notice, dated 06-05-2014 (Ex.R1) and
fully participated in the enquiry on 06-05-2014, the
enquiry proceedings, dated 06-05-2014 was Ex.R2. The
co-employee by name, Mr. Jayakumar (Joint Secretary)
participated in the enquiry proceedings with me.
I participated in the proceedings fully. I received a copy
of the Enquiry proceedings by putting my signature,
it was marked as Ex.R2. The co-employee by name
Mr. Jayakumar was presented for my assistance.
I cross-examined the witnesses. I received the Enquiry
proceedings of the 3rd witness by name Franklin Vijay
on the side of the management. I signed the Enquiry
proceedings, dated 01-07-2014. I endorsed that no
witness on my side, I filed the written argument. I have
said nothing to say in the enquiry on the delinquent
side. The co-employee Mr. Jayakumar also signed the
same. I have also read and signed the same”.
11. On perusal of the abovesaid cross-examination,
it is found that this petitioner has fully and
wholeheartedly participated in the enquiry proceedings
along with his assistance by name Mr. Jayakumar and
he received the copies of all the proceedings and to that
effect he and his co-employee by name, Mr. Jayakumar
has signed the proceedings paper. All these facts would
goes to shows that the Enquiry Officer has given proper
opportunity to the petitioner and he was permitted to
participate in the Enquiry proceedings with his
Assistant by name, Mr. Jayakumar and he was also
provided with the all the documents marked during the
Enquiry proceedings. It also shows that he was given
opportunity to file his written argument and this
petitioner has also filed the same before the Enquiry
Officer. From these evidences and on analysis, this
Court come to the conclusion that the natural principles
of justice was followed and adopted by the Enquiry
Officer during the enquiry proceedings.
12. At this juncture, the petitioner side Counsel
argued that as per clause/section 27.2.2 of Standing
Orders this petitioner has to be given permission to
conduct his case through an Advocate. Per contra, the
management side Counsel argued that as per the
Standing Orders the delinquent cannot get Assistance
of the Advocate and he can participate in the enquiry
and he can cross-examine the witness either by himself
or through his co-employee who assisted him. In
support of his argument he has produced the copies of
the Standing Order of the company section 27.2.2 of
Standing Order runs as follows:
“At the enquiry, the workmen concerned shall be
given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself i.e.,
he will be given opportunity to examine himself and
his witnesses and cross-examine the management’s
witness, he can produce any material evidence that
may be relevant to the enquiry. If, the charged
workman so desires in writing, he will be allowed in
the conduct of the enquiry the Assistance of a
co-workman or any Office Bearer of a trade union who
is an employee of the establishment of which he is a
member and the co-workman shall assist only in
matters of clarification and to see that principles of
natural justice are adhered to”.
13. From and out of the abovesaid Standing Order,
this Court come to the conclusion that the denial to the
request made by the petitioner is a valid one and it is
not against the Standing Order. At this juncture, the
petitioner side Counsel filed a citation reported in 1988
(2) MLJ 389 wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held
that the denial of the request made by the delinquent
to have engagement of Advocate will amounts to denial
of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and
therefore, it would amounts to violation of principles
of natural justice. Here, in this case, this petitioner has
235
24 March 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
deposed that he has given a request on 20-05-2014,
seeking Assistance by an Advocate to defend his case.
But, he has not produced any such document showing
his request made before the Enquiry Officer.
Furthermore, as per clause 27.2.2 of Standing Order this
petitioner has took the Assistance of one Jayakumar
who is the Joint Secretary of the M.R.F. Employees
union, and cross-examined all the three management
side witnesses thoroughly with his Assistance.
Therefore, this Court was unable to come to the
conclusion that there was violation of natural principles
of justice and therefore, the argument advanced on this
score is rejected in total.
14. The petitioner has deposed that the copy of the
complaint was not served to him, which is also against,
the principles of natural justice. Per contra, the
respondent side Counsel argued that the copy of the
complaint was given to this petitioner at the time of
enquiry proceedings. The so called copy of the
complaints were marked as Ex.R15, 16 and R10 in this
case. Further, the letter given by the so called Mr. Allane
was also marked as Ex.R9 in this case. The enquiry
report in this case was marked as Ex.R17. The Enquiry
proceedings were marked as Ex.R2 in this case. The
abovesaid complaints, dated 23-04-2014 by Mr. Franklin,
complaint, dated 25-04-2014 by Mr. Senthil Kumar and
complaint, dated 25-04-2014 given by Mr. Kalaiselvan
were marked as Ex.MW13, 12 and 4 in the Enquiry
proceedings. On perusal of Ex.R2, the Enquiry
proceedings, the petitioner himself has admitted that he
has perused the abovesaid copy of the complaints
during his presence in the enquiry proceedings before
the Enquiry Officer. Furthermore, endorsement in this
regard was also made in the Enquiry proceedings, dated
27-04-2014, wherein, this petitioner and his Assistant
Jayakumar also signed it. Therefore, it is clear that the
non supply of copy of the documents was nothing but,
an utter lie. Therefore, this Court come to the
conclusion that there was no perversity or failure in
adopting the principles of natural justice by the Enquiry
Officer during the Enquiry proceedings. At this justice,
this Court inclined to reproduce the verdict/findings/
observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
citation reported in AIR 1996 SC 2474, in the case of
State of Tamil Nadu ... Appellant
Vs.
K.V. Perumal and others ... Respondent
“The fourth ground also thus disappears. Now,
remains only the third ground viz., the non-furnishing
of the documents asked for by the respondent.
The Tribunal seems to be under the impression that the
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority is bound to
supply each and every document that may be asked for
by the delinquent Officer/Employee. It is wrong there.
Their duty is only to supply relevant documents and
not each and every document asked for by the
delinquent Officer/Employee”. Hence, as per the
abovesaid findings/observations it is not relevant to
supply the copies of all the documents unless it is
relevant. Here, in this case also, the abovesaid citation
was squarely applicable, as the petitioner has failed to
show, how it is relevant. Hence, the abovesaid
argument also goes out as per said citation.
15. The petitioner has deposed that the management
side witness by name Senthilkumar has adduced
evidence before the Enquiry Officer that this petitioner
was absent for 5 days as detailed below:
July 2013
10 and 11
October 2013
21
December 2013
06 and 07
Total
5 days
16. Further he has deposed that the management
side witness by name Franklin has deposed before
the Enquiry Officer that this petitioner was absent
for 27 days as detailed below:
June 2013
03, 4, 20 and 24.
July 2013
05,10 and 11.
August 2013
08, 17, 18 and 28.
September 2013
02, 05, 09, 10, 13 and 14.
October 2013
05, 07, 10, 19 and 21.
December 2013
06, 07, 18, 19 and 24.
Total
27 days.
17. Further, this petitioner has deposed that as per
the charge sheet (Ex.Pl) he has been shown as absent
for 32 days as follows:
June 2013
03, 04, 07, 10, 12, 13, 14,
20, 24 and 28.
July 2013
05, 10 and 11.
August 2013
08, 17 and 28.
September 2013
02, 05, 09, 10, 13 and 14.
October 2013
05, 07, 10, 19 and 21.
`
December 2013
06, 07, 18, 19 and 24.
Total
32 days.
236
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
18. Further, the petitioner has deposed that the non-
examination of Mr. Allane was also fatal to the
management and the Enquiry Officer has failed to
consider the same. From and the out of the abovesaid
evidences, the petitioner side Counsel has argued that
the charges were vague and the evidences between
RW.1 to RW.3 were totally contra to each other and the
non-examination of Mr. Allane was paucity to the
management, even then the Enquiry Officer has
concluded the enquiry in favour of the management and
therefore, it has to be rejected in total. Per contra, the
respondent side Counsel argued that the inadequacy of
the evidences before the Enquiry Officer cannot be
weighed by this Court at this stage, and this Court
cannot act as a appellate authority of the Enquiry Officer
and therefore, he has requested to reject the argument
advanced on the petitioner side. At this juncture, this
Court inclined to go through the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996
Supreme Court 2474 in the Civil Appeal No. 9229/1996
in the case of
State of Tamil Nadu ... Appellant
Vs.
K.V. Perumal ... Respondent
19. Wherein, the paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4 runs as
follows:
“Thiru. K.V. Perumal was a Deputy Registrar of the
Co-operative Societies under the Government of
Tamil Nadu. He was suspended pending enquiry into
certain gave charges which are set out in the memo
of charges dated November 3, 1987. There are two
charges and in support of each charges supporting
material and particulars are elaborately set out. The
respondent did not furnish a reply to the memo of
charges. By an application, dated September 23, 1988,
he asked for perusal of certain “records and files”
which according to him were quite essential for the
purpose of preparing the statement defence by him.
He seems to have addressed certain further
representations to the same effect. On September 26,
1989, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (who
had served the memo of charges to whom the
respondent had made representation for supply of
documents) wrote to the respondent asking him to
specify how the records asked for by him were
relevant to the charges framed. He also stated that
his duty is to supply only those documents which
are relevant to the charges and not each and every
document asked for by the respondent. It appears
that the respondent did not comply with the said letter
of the Registrar.The Enquiry Officer appointed by the
Registrar sent notices to the respondent to attend
the enquiry, but, the respondent declined to do so.
The Enquiry Officer thereupon perused the records
and submitted a report holding both the charges as
established. A copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was
communicated to the respondent who submitted a
detailed representation. The Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commissions which was consulted in the
matters recommended the removal of the respondent.
On September 22 1991 the respondent was served
with orders removing him from the service. (As a
matter of fact, he was to retired from service on
September 30, 1991) A Review Petition filed by the
respondent was rejected by the Government
whereupon he approached the Tamil Nadu Tribunal
by way of O.A. No. 1) 1053 of 1992. The Tribunal
allowed the respondent’s O.A, set aside the order of
removal and directed that the respondent be treated
as on medical leave, to which he is eligibles, during
the period of suspension and that he shall also be
entitled to all benefits under the rules”.
20. “The Tribunal has allowed the O.A on four
grounds viz., (1) that the charges are vague; (2) that
the appointment of Enquiry Officer was itself illegal in
as much as the person appointed as Enquiry Officer was
himself a witness against the respondent; (3) the failure
to supply the documents asked for by the respondent
amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice
and; (4) the charges levelled against the respondent
cannot be said to have been established on the material
before the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority”.
21. “After hearing the Counsel for the parties we find
that grounds 1, 2 and 4 are unsustainable in law and
on facts of the case. We need not deal with grounds 1
and 2 in as much as Shri Venkatramani, learned Counsel
for the respondent, did not seek to support to the said
grounds. Be that as it may, we have perused the memo
of charges and we do not find any vagueness in the
charges. Similarly, the second ground given by the
Tribunal appears to be based upon a mistake as to the
identity of the person appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
So far as, the fourth ground is concerned it has been
repeatedly held by this Court that it is not the province
of the Tribunal to go into the truth or otherwise of the
charges and that the Tribunal is not an appellate
authority
over
the
departmental
authorities.
Accordingly, the Tribunal must be held to have
exceeded its jurisdiction in entering upon a discussion
whether, the charges are established on the material
available. The fourth ground also thus disappears. Now,
remains only the third ground viz., the non-furnishing
of the documents asked for by the respondent. The
Tribunal seems to be under the impression that the
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority is bound to supply
each and every document that may be asked for by the
Delinquent Officer/Employee. It is wrong there. Their
237
24 March 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
duty is only to supply relevant document and not each
and every document asked for by the Delinquent Officer/
Employee. In this case, the respondent had asked for
certain documents. The Registrar, to whom the request
was made, called upon him to specify the relevance of
each and every document asked for by him. It is not
brought to our notice that the respondent did so. The
Tribunal too has not gone into the question nor has it
expressed any opinion whether, the documents asked
for were indeed relevant and whether their non-supply
has prejudiced the respondent’s case. The test to be
applied in this behalf has been set out by this Court in
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, 1996 (3) Scale 202:
(1996 AIR SCW 1740). It was the duty of the
respondent to point out how each and every document
was relevant to the charges or to the enquiry being held
against him and whether, and how their non-supply has
prejudiced his case. Equally, it is the duty of the
Tribunal to record a finding whether, any relevant
documents were not supplied and whether such
on-supply has prejudiced the defendant’s case. Since,
this has not been done by the Tribunal in this matter,
it has to go back for a rehearing”.
22. Furthermore, as per judgment,rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Government of Tamil Nadu and another
Vs.
Rajapandian
Reported in 1995 1 LLJ Supreme Court 953
Wherein the paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 runs as
follows:
“We have quoted above three paragraphs from
the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal
to show that the Tribunal reappreciated the evidence
recorded before the inquiring authority. The
Administrative
Tribunal
reached
different
conclusions from the inquiring authority on its own
evaluation of the evidence. The Tribunal fell into
patent error and acted wholly beyond its jurisdiction.
It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of
appreciation of evidence by the two authorities
because we are of the view that the Administrative
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit as an appellate
authority over the findings of the inquiring
authority”.
23. This Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur
(1972-I-LLJ-l), held as under: P.6
“A Disciplinary proceeding is not a Criminal Trial.
The standard of proof required is that of
preponderance of probability and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt. If, the inference that Nand Kumar
was a person likely to have official dealings, with the
respondent was one which reasonable person would
draw from the proved facts of the case, the High
Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision
based on it. Where, there are some relevant materials
which the authority has accepted and which material
may reasonably support the conclusion that the
officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High
Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to
review the materials and to arrive at an independent
finding on. the materials. If, the enquiry has been
properly held the question of adequacy or reliability
of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High
Court”.
24. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989-II-LLJ-57),
this Court observed as under : pp (64-65)
“We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary
matters or punishment cannot be equated with an
appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere
with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent
authority where, they are not arbitrary or utterly
perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power
to impose penalty on a Delinquent Officer is conferred
on the competent authority either by an Act of
legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution. If, there has been an enquiry
consistent with the rules and in accordance with
principles of natural justice what punishment would
meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within
the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If, the
penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on
the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power
to substitute its own discretion for that of the
authority”.
25. From and out of the abovesaid citations, it is
clear that the Tribunal cannot reappreciate the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer/Authority and reach
different conclusions on its own evaluation of evidence.
In the above reported citation, the Administrative
Tribunal acted as appellate authority over the finding
of inquiry authority, and so, it is held that “the
Tribunal must be held to have exceeded its jurisdiction
in entering upon a discussion whether the charges are
established on the materials available”. It shows that
the Tribunal is not having power to interfere with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, and if, it was done, then
it will amounts to exceeding of its jurisdiction by the
Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is not empowered to
have discussion over the finding given by the Enquiry
Officer as it was not in perverse or against the principles
238
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
of natural justice. At this juncture. this Court inclined
to go through the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur in the appeal
No. 780/2016 in R.K. Solangi Vs. Central Bank of India,
wherein, Para 9 page No. 3, para 16 in page No. 4, para
13 in page No. 5 runs as follows:
“The scope of departmental inquiry and criminal
cases have been considered by the Apex Court in
number of cases. The said issue is no longer res
Integra. In B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (1995)
6 SCC 749 the Supreme Court has held as under:
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but, a review of the manner in which the
decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant
to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment
and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of
the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges
of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal
is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was
held by a Competent Officer or whether, rules of
natural justice are complied with. Whether, the
findings or conclusions are based on some evidence,
the authority entrusted with the power to hold
inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach
a finding of fact or conclusion. But, that finding must
be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence
as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding.
When the authority is entitled to hold that the
Delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/
Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not Act
as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where,
the authority held the proceedings against the
Delinquent Officer in a manner inconsistent with the
rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory
rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If, the conclusion
or finding be such as no reasonable person would
have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere
with, the conclusion or the finding, and mould the
relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each
case, emphasis supplied”.
26. “Before adverting to the first contention of the
appellant regarding want of material to establish the
charge, and of non-application of mind, we will have to
bear in mind the rule that the Court while exercising writ
jurisdiction will not reverse a finding of the inquiring
authority on the ground that the evidence adduced
before it is insufficient. If, there is some evidence to
reasonably support the conclusion of the inquiring
authority, it is not the function of the Court to review
the evidence and to arrive at its own independent
finding. The inquiring authority is the sole judge of the
fact so long as there is some legal evidence to
substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability
of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted
to be canvassed before the Court in writ proceedings”.
27. “As per the principles laid down in the aforesaid
cases, it is clear that interference can be made against
the findings of Inquiry Officer and other authorities,
provided findings are perverse or it is a case of no
evidence. If there is some evidence to support the
conclusion of Inquiring Authority, no interference can
be made. Adequacy of evidence cannot be subject
matter of judicial review”.
28. As per the abovesaid judgment, the Tribunal can
interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer
provided it is perverse or it is the case of no evidence.
If, there is some evidence to support the conclusion of
Enquiry Authority no interference can be made.
Adequacy of evidence cannot be a subject matter of
judicial review. It is also held that the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to reverse the finding of the Enquiry Officer
on the ground that the evidence adduced before the
Enquiry Officer is insufficient and it is also held that, it
is not the function of the Tribunal to review the
evidence and to arrive its own independent findings.
The Enquiry Authorities were sole judge of the fact, so
long as, there is some legal evidences to substantiate
the findings and the adequacy or reliability of the
evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be
canvassed before the Tribunal. Therefore, on the basis
of the abovesaid citations the inadequacy or the paucity
of evidence cannot be considered by this Tribunal and
therefore, the argument put forth by the petitioner side
Counsel cannot be taken into consideration.
29. Just for the argument sake, this Tribunal goes
through the Enquiry Officer report Ex.R17. Here, in this
case, the Enquiry Officer has given his report after
giving sufficient opportunity to this petitioner. He has
supplied the copies of the documents to this petitioner.
He has permitted this petitioner, to have his cross-
examination. He heard the argument advanced by this
petitioner, and finally he has given finding/report and
it was marked as Ex.R17, wherein, the Enquiry Officer
has clearly stated the valid reasons for his conclusion
in page 15 to 17 as follows:
T.
Attendance Details
239
24 March 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Extruder
Area Incharge
J.(J. Allane)
Emp.No.
Entry
Punch-In
Punch-outSAP
Attendance Update
Extruder
Punching details
Punching
detailsSAP
(Punching In and Out)
In and Out Punching
Punch
Extruder
In-Punch
ExtruderOut
Punch
30.
Work
Sheet
Entry
Compare
Production Supervisor
Cost CenterWork Sheet
31.
Cross Verify
AttendanceAbsentWork Sheet
Cost Center
Pay
Slip
Verify
“B”
Out-Pass
cost Center
hrs.Work Sheet Entry
“B”
General Extruder
“”
240
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
“”
Salvage
32.
Extruder
Area Incharge
Work Sheet Entry
Work Sheet Entry
Cost CenterSalvaging
Work
Sheet
Entry
33.
34.
35.
36. It speaks in volume that the Enquiry Officer has
given his findings on the basis of evidences of RW.1
to RW.3 and on the basis of the document marked on
the side of the management. It shows that the Enquiry
Officer has given his report based legal evidence and
not on “No evidence”. Hence, this Tribunal comes to
the conclusion that there was not perversity or violation
of natural principles of justice by the Enquiry Officer
in the Enquiry proceedings and therefore, it is held that
it is not necessary to interfere with the finding of the
Enquiry Officer report.
241
24 March 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
37. The next point for consideration is whether the
order of termination is proportionate or not? In this
regard, the petitioner side Counsel filed a citation
reported in 2010 LLR 744 by the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court, wherein, it is held that the dismissal of the
watchman who mishandled and became violent towards
his superior, has not been disproportionate to the
misconduct and therefore, there is no warrant for
interference of the order of the Labour Court. The
petitioner side Counsel filed another citation reported
in 2005 (2)CTC 730 by Hon’ble Madras High Court,
wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held that dismissal
from service for unauthorized absent is proportionate
and it is not disproportionate. Further, the petitioner
side Counsel has filed another citation reported in 2001
LLR 1213 by Patna High Court, wherein, the Hon’ble
High Court has held that dismissal of the Assistant
Manager is not illegal for the misconduct of various act
of omission and commission as mentioned in the charge
sheet. Here, in this case also this petitioner was absent
for 32 days as per Ex.P1, during his tenure in the
respondent factory from June 2013 to December 2013,
for that period he has made worksheet entries through
his colleague by name Mr. Allane in the working sheet
in SAP 6008, and for that period also he has received
his salary. Further, this petitioner has made proxy
entries to Mr. Allane for the dates 09-04-2014 and
10-04-2014. All these facts were proved by the
management before the Enquiry Officer by examining
three management side witnesses, namely, Kalaiselvan,
Franklin Vijay and Rajadurai. To substantiate their
evidences the management has produce as many as 22
documents before the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry
report was also infavour of the management, which
would goes to shows that this petitioner indulged in
making proxy entries and also gained unlawful
advantages through his colleague by receiving salary
for his absent period. Since, the abovesaid act of
misconduct is serious and grave, the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner found to be justifiable and
proportionate one. Further, the respondent side Counsel
filed the citations reported in 2001 LLR 401 (Madhya
Pradesh High Court), 2001 LLR 1154 SC and 2001 LLR
1237 Kerala High Court, and thereby he argued that the
management has loss its confidents against this
petitioner and therefor no leniency was granted or
shown in favour of this petitioner. As per the citations
mentioned in 2011 LLR 401, causing monetary loss to
the corporation is held as serious one. Further, in the
abovesaid judgment it is held that if dishonest person
are allowed to continue in corporation it may cause
monetary loss to the corporation and in such
circumstances, leniency is not permissible. Here, in this
case also,this petitioner has gained unlawful
advantages by receiving salary for his absent period
and thereby caused monetary loss to the respondent
company. Furthermore, he has made proxy entries for
Mr. Allane and thereby acted as a tool for unlawful gain
for Mr. Allane and thereby he has caused monetary loss
to the respondent company. All these things would
goes to shows that leniency is not permissible in this
case. Hence, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that
the order of dismissal of this petitioner from the service
is in accordance with law and the punishment of
termination is also proportionate one.
38. Now, the last point for consideration: Whether,
this petitioner is entitle for reinstatement with all
monetary benefits?
39. As per the above discussions this petitioner was
removed from his service in accordance with law for his
proven misconduct. Therefore, this Court come to the
conclusion that he was not entitle for reinstatement with
all monetary benefits as he claimed in this petition.
40. In the result, the order of dismissal by the
management is decided as justifiable and the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner, against the management
is decided as unjustified and 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 December, 2019.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 20-09-2017
A. Muthukumarasamy
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 28-04-2014
Copy of show cause notice
issued
to
the
claim
petitioner.
Ex.P2
— 30-04-2014
Copy of written explanation
of the claim petitioner.
Ex.P3
— 17-09-2014
Copy of second show cause
notice issued to the claim
petitioner.
Ex.P4
— 20-05-2014
Copy of requisition letter
given by the petitioner to
the Conciliation Officer for
appointing a Counsel on
behalf of the petitioner.
242
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 March 2020
Ex.P5
— 20-05-2014
Copy of requisition filed by
the petitioner for obtaining
copy of the complaint.
Ex.P6
— 05-01-2015
Copy of the termination from
service
of
the
claim
petitioner.
Ex.P7 —
Letter to the Conciliation
Officer raising industrial
dispute by the petitioner.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1
— 21-03-2018
Kalaiselvan
RW.2
— 09-01-2019
Franklin Vijay
RW.3
— 10-04-2019
Rajadurai
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — 06-05-2014
Copy of the notice of
enquiry.
Ex.R2 — 09-05-2014
C o p y o f t h e En q u i r y
—
pro ceed ings against the
01-07-2014
claim petitioner.
Ex.R3 —
Petitioner’s signature found
in the enquiry proceedings.
Ex.R4 — 28-04-2014
Copy of the show cause
notice issued to the claim
petitioner.
Ex.R5 — 30-04-2014
Copy the written explanation
of claim petitioner.
Ex.R6 — 17-12-2013
Copy of factory outpass of
the claim petitioner.
Ex.R7 —
Copy of punching entry
details of the claim petitioner
and J. Allane.
Ex.R8 —
Copy of attendance details
from
21-03-2014
to
15-04-2014.
Ex.R9 — 23-04-2014
Copy of letter of J. Allane.
Ex.R10 — 25-04-2014
Copy of complaint received
from the time office as
against the claim petitioner.
Ex.R11 — 22-04-2014
Copy of show cause notice
issued to Mr. J. Allane.
Ex.R12 — 22-04-2014
Copy of reply of show cause
notice by Mr. J. Allane.
Ex.R13 — 23-04-2014
Copy of resignation letter by
Mr. J. Allane.
Ex.R14 — 22-05-2014
Copy of resignation letter by
Mr. J. Allane.
Ex.R15 — 23-04-2014
Copy of the complaint letter
of M. Franklin Vijay.
Ex.R16 — 25-04-2014
Copy of the complaint letter
of J. Senthil Kumar.
Ex.R17 — 04-08-2014
Copy of the enquiry report of
the claim petitioner.
Ex.R18 — 17-09-2014
Copy of the second show
cause notice issued to the
claim petitioner.
Ex.R19 — 22-12-2003
Copy of the severe warning
letter issued to the claim
petitioner.
Ex.R20 — 03-01-2004
Copy of the warning letter
issued to the claim petitioner.
Ex.R21 — 14-03-2005
Copy of the advice letter
issued to the claim petitioner.
Ex.R22 — 20-11-2003
Copy of the warning letter
issued to the claim petitioner.
Ex.R23 —
Copy of the attendance
details
(worksheet
and
punch entry) of the claim
petitioner from June 2013 to
December 2013.
Ex.R24 —
Copy of the salary slip of the
claim petitioner from June
2013 to December 2013.
Ex.R25 —
Copy of Lave Card of the
claim petitioner.
Ex.R26 — 04-10-2014
Copy of explanation of the
Claim petitioner.
Ex.R27 — 05-01-2015
Copy of the termination from
service
of
the
claim
petitioner.
Ex.R28 — 12-01-2015
Copy of the representation
of the claim petitioner to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.R29 —
Copy of the reply of the
respondent management to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.