La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 11-00
Prix : ` 11-00
Price : ` 11-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
278
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 278
Award of the Labour Court
.. 278
de tribunal.
..
292
Annonces
.. 292
Announcements
..
292
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 : 21-4-2020
Price : ` 11-00
[ 277 ]
2020 }
|
21 {
No.
16
Poudouchéry
Mardi
21
Avril
2020 (1 Vaisakha 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
21st
April
2020
278
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 34/Lab./AIL/T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 4th March 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 11/2015, dated
26-11-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,,
Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Pondicherry Institute
of Medical Sciences, Kalapet, Puducherry and
Ilanthalaivar Ragul Gandhi PIMS Technical and
Non-Technical Staff Welfare Union, Periyakalapet,
Puducherry, over reversion of promotion to Union
workman Thiru S. Doureradjou, 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.
Tuesday, the 26th day of November 2019.
I.D. (L) No. 11/2015
Ilanthalaivar Ragul Gandhi PIMS
Technical and Non-Technical
Staff Welfare Union,
Having Office at No. 110,
Murugan Koil Street,
Periakalapet,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Rep. by its President and Secretary
Versus
The Director,
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ganapathychettikulam, Kalapet,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
AWARD
This Industrial Dispute coming on 17-10-2019 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R.T. Shankar,
Counsel for the petitioner, and Thiru L. Sathisb, Counsel
for the respondent, up on hearing, up on perusing the
case records, after having stood over for consideration
till this day, this Court passed the following:
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 20/AlL/Lab./J/2015,
dated 17-03-2015 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the PIMS
Technical Staff Welfare Union against the
management of M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical
Sciences, Puducherry, over reversion order, dated
05-10-2013 issued to Thiru S. Doureradjou from the
post of Supervisor to Diesel Generator Set Operator
is illegal or justified? If justified, what relief the Union
is entitled to?
(b) Whether the management adopts unfair
labour practice against the Union Vice-President
Thiru S. Doureradjou for his Union activities?
(c) 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 appointed as Diesel
Generator Set Operator on 02-12-2002 and the said
post was confirmed on 05-02-2010. The respondent
has recovered ESI, PF contributions from this
petitioner’s salary. This petitioner was very active in
Trade Union activities and he has functioned as Joint
Secretary in PIMS CITUC and also in PIMS Technical
Staff Welfare Union as Vice-President and he has
participated in all over settlement talks for workers
in salary, bonus, promotion, etc., between the
respondent management and the Union. During the
2009 this petitioner has disclosed the drunken
condition of the Electrical Engineer, Mr. Rajakumara
Reddy and his quarrel with AC Mechanic by name
Mr. Kathamuthu to the respondent management. This
petitioner approached the management on 10-06-2009
for fixation of the date for salary settlement, but, the
management with an ulterior motive to punish him,
has issued a charge memo dated 10-06-2009 to this
petitioner. The Tamil version of the same was not
given to this petitioner. This petitioner has academic
qualifications of 10th, 12th, ITI and D.E.E. Further,
he had Technical Apprenticeship training in various
institutions such as, Cummins Diesel Sales and
Service India Limited, Pune, Bharath Diesel Sales
279
21 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
and Service, Indial Oil Corporation Limited, Anand
Automobile and the Supreme Industries Limited.
Though he has sufficient academic and Technical
Qualifications he was neglected by the respondent
management in giving promotion. Further, this
petitioner has deposed and disclosed truth to save
one Mr. Ubendiran, Ward Boy of the respondent
management in an industrial dispute case against the
management in the year 2011. On 06-07-2011, this
petitioner has given a letter to the Chief Engineer,
PIMS, seeking promotion for him as he has sufficient
academic and technical qualifications and therefore,
he has been promoted from the rank of Grade-III
Diesel Generator Set Operator to the rank of Grade-
II Diesel Generator Set Operator on 22-08-2011.
(ii) This petitioner has made several oral and
written representations to trie Engineers by name,
Mr. Rajakumara Reddy, (Electrical Engineer), Mr. Alex
Mathew, (Maintenance Engineer), for the promotion
and for the benefits of the workers on various dates
such as 06-07-2011, 26-12-2011 and 07-02-2012, but,
they have not taken any suitable steps for the
promotion of the rightful and well qualified persons.
Instead of that, they have promoted unqualified
persons and they have also increased their salaries.
Further, the abovesaid Engineers had illegally
disclosed the letters addressed to the higher
authorities by this petitioner, to the other workers,
which resulted in life threat through intercom by the
unknown workers to this petitioner. Therefore, this
petitioner gave letter to the Welfare Officer, PIMS,
on 20-04-2012 to solve the abovesaid problem, but,
it ends in vain. Again this petitioner gave two letters
to the Welfare Officer, PIMS, on 14-05-2012, seeking
action against the abovesaid Engineers and also for
his promotion, but, it also ends in vain. Thereafter,
this petitioner approached the Pondicherry Lok
Adalat on 23-05-2012 for his promotion and
thereafter, the management had promoted this
petitioner as Supervisor-DG Set Operator by its
order, dated 04-06-2012 wherein six months period
was fixed as probation period. Therefore, this
petitioner has not pressed the LAC No.1828/2012 on
the file of the Hon’ble Lok Adalat, Pondicherry, on
22-06-2012. Thereafter, this petitioner gave a
complaint before the Conciliation Officer on
06-06-2012 for his enhanced salary and for arrears of
salary of Grade-II DG Set Operator. In the meanwhile,
the respondent management had promoted six
unqualified and technically unsound persons as
Supervisor by its circular order, dated 19-07-2012.
On 06-08-2012, the petitioner gave a letter to the
Chief Engineer, to grant weekly leave on Sundays.
On 09-08-2012, this respondent has issued a circular
order for training programme and for supply of
uniforms to all the Supervisor promotees including
this petitioner.
(iii) The respondent management had stealthily
issued a circular order, dated 19-07-2012, wherein, the
promotion of the other six supervisors were
confirmed, but, this petitioner’s promotion was not
confirmed, as he has given several letters for taking
action against the illegal activities of the Engineers
in the Engineering Section. On 21-12-2012, this
petitioner’s Union alone not accepted the 12 (3)
settlement, but, the other five Unions accepted the
same. Though the petitioner has given so many
letters regarding the illegal activities of the Engineers,
the respondent management has not come forward
to take action on the basis of the letters given by
this petitioner. Whereas, it has issued a notice,
dated 05-01-2013 to all the Head of the Department,
Trade Union stating that without permission no
workers should leave the working spot, sleep in the
working time else. It has warned that such activities
will be subjected to disciplinary action and for wage
cut. This petitioner has got Best Worker Award on
21-01-2013 only after filing a request letter and after
hard struggling. The respondent management has
extended the probation period of this petitioner for
further period of three months by its letter 03-05-2013.
In the meanwhile, this petitioner have filed an
application seeking permission to meet the respondent
Principal on 06-06-2013, but, it also ends in vain. So,
this petitioner was not able to brought to the
knowledge of the Principal, regarding the life threat
given by the unskilled Electrical/co-worker by name
Mr. Manjini. Further, this petitioner has made complaint
regarding the Electrical Engineer, Mr. Rajakumar
Reddy to the Personal Manager on 21-06-2013, but,
he failed to take any action against him. In the mean
time, his probation period was further, extended for
a period of another three months by the management
by its office order, dated 05-09-2013 and this
petitioner has given his reply on 12-09-2013, for the
office order, dated 05-09-2013, wherein, he has
requested to take action against the Personal
Manager by name Mr. Ralph Mathew, Chief Engineer,
by name, Mr. Subramani, Maintenance Engineer by
name, Alex Mathew and Electrical Engineer by name
Mr. Rajakumar Reddy. But, it was also ended in vain.
After that in this regard, this petitioner and 21 other
employees gave a complaint letter on 23-09-2013
to the Principal for necessary action against
the Engineers and Personal Manager for their
malpractices, but, it was also ended in vain.
280
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
Due to that impact the respondent management has
issued a memo, dated 05-10-2013 stating that this
petitioner has been reverted back to his original post
of D.G. Set Operator and therefore, this petitioner has
issued a Legal notice on 03-01-2014 through his
Counsel to the Chairman, Chief Administrator,
Personal Manager and Chief Engineer of the
respondent management. He has also demanded
Supervisor Post with retrospective effect and
benefits. The respondent management has issued its
reply letter on 13-01-2014 with the intention to save
the culprits. Again this petitioner gave letter to the
Personal Manager on 24-02-2014 for confirmation of
his Supervisor Post. He has also given a letter on
02-05-2014 regarding the life threat made by unknown
persons. He has sent a complaint on 12-05-2014
regarding the disobedience, late coming of
Mr. Vasanth, (Technician) and Mr. Tuennarasu
(DG Set Operator), but no action was taken against
them. As the management has failed to confirm his
Supervisor Post even after repeated request, this
petitioner made a representation before the
Conciliation Officer on 01-04-2014 through PIMS
Technical Staff Welfare Union. The management has
filed his objection on 19-04-2014 with false
allegations with ulterior motive. The reply was given
by this petitioner on 09-06-2014. Due to the adamant
attitude of the respondent management authorities,
the conciliation proceedings ended in failure.
Thereafter, the management has issued a memo, dated
03-09-2014, having seven baseless charges against
this petitioner with ulterior motive. The Tamil version
of the memo, dated 01-10-2014 was given to this
petitioner on 04-10-2014. This petitioner gave the
explanation on 15-10-2014 with all necessary
evidences in the booklet format. Again on 01-12-2014
this petitioner made a complaint regarding the life
threat to the Senior Electrical Engineer (Operation
and Maintenance). It also ended in vain. Similarly,
there was no action taken on the complaint, dated
09-02-2015 given by the Electrician by name
Mr. Gurunathan, regarding the illegal break open of
lock and door. In the mean time, the respondent
management has taken its vindictive action against
this petitioner by appointing Domestic Enquiry Panel
with the Advocates K. Ilango and
U. Mohan
Ilayaraja. The material Manager of PIMS by name
Mr. Adaikala Yesuraj was in the Panel. The Enquiry
Notice, dated 23-12-2014 was served to this petitioner
on 26-12-2014, wherein, the enquiry was scheduled
to be conducted on 27-12-2014. This petitioner has
made objection regarding the short duration. Tais
petitioner was not permitted to take the legal
Assistance of his lawyer or co-worker. So, many
material evidences were not recorded in the
deposition of Mr. Ralph Mathew. This petitioner was
not permitted to examine any witnesses on his side
and the copy of the proceedings were also not
furnished to this petitioner. Copy of the depositions
were not granted to this petitioner. In the mean time,
this petitioner has issued a letter, dated 23-03-2015
to the Enquiry Officer, by name, Mr. Ilango seeking
the information regarding the further examination
date. But, no reply was given by them. In the
meanwhile, the respondent has issued memo dated
31-03-2015 to this petitioner and other workers on the
basis of the earlier memo, dated 03-09-2014. The
report of the Enquiry Officer is not acceptable as the
enquiry was conducted within the short duration i.e.,
from 27-12-2014 to 13-01-2015. The report is not
acceptable as the date of enquiry was not intimated.
Further, the details of the persons examined, details
of the deposition and report of the enquiry were not
furnished to this petitioner.
(iv) This petitioner has rendered unblemished
service from 02-12-2002. He was fully qualified in
academic and technical. Hence, the reversion from
the Supervisor Post to DG Set Operator was illegal.
Since, this petitioner is a protected workman, his
service condition cannot be altered and the reversion
is nothing but the crystal clear action of victimization.
He has been reverted as he has informed the illegal
activities of the co-workers and the engineers to the
management. As this petitioner Union was against
the 12(3) settlement (wage revision), this respondent
has reverted this petitioner from supervisor D.G. Set
Operation to Grade-II D.G. Set Operator as a punitive
measure. As this petitioner has enlighten the
malpractices, misappropriation of copper transformer
and copper wires to the tune of several Lakhs in the
Maintenance Department, he was victimized and
reverted to the Grade-II D.G. Set Operator under the
guise of appraisal report. No such appraisal report
was received for other Supervisor promotees. The
other six supervisor promotees were promoted and
confirmed on the date of their promotion itself i.e.,
on 19-07-2014 itself. Even as per appraisal rating he
has scored 68.15% which was made during his
extension of probation period on 05-09-2013. The
respondent management doesn’t follow the correct
rating systems. The appraisal rating is not proper
and sincere one. The appraisal report was obtained
with the help of the abovesaid Engineers against
whom this petitioner has made several complaints.
The non-satisfaction report of the management is
nothing but, a malafide activity. It was a colourable
exercise done against this petitioner with vindictive
intention and planning. Hence, the reversion order
281
21 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
has to be set aside and the petitioner has to be
reinstated in the post of Supervisor D.G. Set Operator
with effect from 04-06-2012 with increased wages and
all other attended benefits and hence this petition
has to be allowed.
3. The brief averment of the counter filed by the
respondent:-
(i) The respondent denied all the allegations
mentioned in the claim petition as false and baseless
and those allegations were made only for the
purpose of this case and it has to be proved by this
petitioner strictly. This industrial dispute raised by
this petitioner suffers from various legal lacunae and
infirmities and hence, it becomes fit of dismissal. This
petitioner has stated himself as Supervisor DG Set
operator. Therefore, he has no right to file this
Industrial dispute as a workman before this Court/
Tribunal. The reference made by the Government of
Puducherry to this Labour Court is not maintainable
as the reference itself is relating to promotion, which
comes under the category of gradation and which
ought to be referred to the industrial dispute alone.
The matter of promotion/regularization is not a right,
but, it is a matter of policy of every establishment.
In the matter of promotion will depend up on various
criteria’s setforth by the establishment. The worker
can make a claim for consideration for promotion and
he cannot make a claim for promotion as a matter of
light. Hence, the claim of this petitioner became unfit
to allow. Initially, this petitioner was promoted as
D.G. Set Operator Grade-II from D.G. Set Operator
Grade-III on 22-08-2011 and then within a short span
of one year i.e., on 04-06-2012 he has been promoted
as Supervisor D.G. Set Operator on probation. In the
order, dated 04-06-2012 the respondent has
specifically mentioned the following conditions;
“The probation period may also be extended
depending up on your performance during the said
period. Unless confirmed in writing, he will continue
to be on probation. On successful completion of the
probation period as decided by the Management, he
will be confirmed in the post of Supervisor-D.G. Set
Operator with revision of salary appropriate to the
Post. The management keeps its options open to
revert him to his original post if not found, suitable
for the post”.
(ii) This petitioner receive the order, dated
04-06-2012 within specific terms and conditions on
05-09-2012 wherein, the original period of
probation was fixed as six months. The Supervisor
must have following multi-tasking abilities such as
“(a) good communication skills; (b) maintaining
cordial relationship with subordinates and higher
officials; (c) ability to extract optimum results
from subordinates and commanding their respect;
(d) handling workers with patience and compassion,
without compromising on discipline and punctuality;
(e) being impartial and neutral to all workers;
(f) escalating genuine needs and demands of
subordinates to management and extracting maximum
productivity from the workers; (g) exhibiting
knowledge skill and expertise on the technical
aspects of the job; (f) being a good leader by leading
from the front”,
(iii) The petitioner lias failed to complete his
probation period to the satisfaction of this respondent,
hence, it was extended for a period of 3 months from
29-04-2013 vide its order, dated 03-05-2013, wherein,
it is specifically stated that if, he does not perform
to the required level of respondent, he would not be
confirmed to the post of Supervisor and he has been
informed that he has to reach the adequate rating
with remarks “Needs improvement in inter personal
relationship”. Attitude is still that of a D.G. Set
Operator. Even then this petitioner has not exhibit
any qualities as a Supervisor, he behaved like a
workman alone and he was not able to maintain
cordial relationship with his superiors, colleagues
and juniors. Therefore, he was not consider for a
post of Supervisor, though be had found to be good
with respect to his work, dependability, initiatives,
adaptability, dress code, attendance and safety. He
has no good remarks with respect to team work,
leadership, ability to give guidance to the subordinates,
planning, cooperation with others and he was not
found to be a good example for others. Therefore, a
further chance was given this petitioner to improve
his quality and attitude towards the post of
Supervisor by extending his probation period for
another three months vide its Office Order, dated
05-09-2013. It contains the entire facts and it was
received by him. Even then this petitioner has not
performed his duty as a Supervisor up to the
satisfaction of the respondent management, as he has
not completed his probation period to the subjective
satisfaction of the respondent, the management was
not able to confirm his post as Supervisor D.G. Set
Operator and hence, a memo, dated 05-10-2013
was issued to this petitioner stating that he shall
continue to discharge his service as D.G. Set
Operator Grade-II. It was not a demotion in the
position. It was only a natural corollary of his failure
to complete his probation successfully. The
respondent has taken this decision on Sound
Administrative Principles and ethos and based on
282
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
the systematic appraisal of work and ethics. The
appraisal was done by the qualified superiors of the
office. This petitioner cannot raise any dispute in
this regard and there is no chance for judicial review
without any proof of gross injustice and victimization.
This petitioner is a man of controversies. He has made
so many complaints against the superiors, colleagues
and juniors. He had aggressive and belligerent
attitude towards the management, his co-workers and
he was a habitual man of lodging complaints after
complaints which were ultimately found to be false
or bogus with disorted versions. The respondent has
taken necessary actions and steps based on his
complaints. Further, it has appointed a fact finding
Committee with two Advocates and with senior staffs
of the respondent management. The Committee has
filed its impartial enquiry report on 14-02-2015 were
it has found fault on this petitioner also. Furthermore,
it has found partial truth in the complaint raised by
this petitioner; the respondent management has taken
necessary steps and issued show cause notice to all
concerned in order to rectify the defects and in order
to prevent the unwarranted activities.
(iv) This
petitioner
was
never
subjected
victimization for his Trade Union activities and such
all the allegations were denied as false. Though he
was given, maximum possible opportunities to
improve his skills, he failed to achieve it, instead he
has continuously lodged so many complaints against
others as a habitual complainant and it could be seen
from the claim statement itself. Totally six Unions are
in the factory and this petitioner union is having
only a handful of workers alone. The respondent
management has received so many complaints
against this petitioner from various corners regarding
these controversies. Eventhen, the respondent
management has acted in neutral manner only. This
petitioner is totally incompatible, incompetent and
unfit to discharge functions as Supervisor, all these
factors played crucial role in non considering this
petitioner for the confirmation of the abovesaid post
and for appraisal rating, The respondent management
never ever adopted biased activity in the case of
promotion to others as alleged in the petition. The
allegations that there was no appraisal for other
candidates are false and irresponsible statement of
this petitioner. The respondent management has
followed a sound and uniform policy for considering
promotions for all its employees in each and every
promotion. The promotion was carried out only on
the basis of appraisal report given by the superior
officers of the department. The petitioner was not a
protected workman under the Industrial Dispute Act.
Furthermore, there is no necessity arises to lend such
privilege to this petitioner and hence, this petition
has to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner two witnesses was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P73 were marked. On the side
of the respondent only one witness was examined and
Ex.R1 to R12 were marked.
5. The petitioner side Counsel argued that the
reference made by the Government of Puducherry to
this Court is proper and valid and this Court is having
sufficient power as it was entrusted with Tribunal Power
also. Merely, numbering the case ID(L) instead of ID(T)
is not a ground for dismissal of this application. It is
argued that this petitioner has joined the respondent
hospital on 02-12-2012 and he has rendered unblemished
service and therefore, he has been promoted as D.G. Set
Operator Grade-II from D.G. Set Operator Grade-III. It is
further argued that this petitioner was very much active
in Union activities and he has enlightened so many
malpractices that happened in the Electrical Engineering
section to the knowledge of the higher authorities of
the respondent management, as a result, of which the
respondent management failed to give the confirmation
order to this petitioner in the post of Supervisor D.G.
Set Operation with the intention of victimization. It is
further argued that though, he was promoted as
supervisor D.G. Set Operator he was not entrusted with
duties to perform in that post, rather, he was reverted
back to his original position as per the order dated
05-10-2013 as a vindictive measure. It is further argued
that the appraisal rating was performed in a biased
manner with an intention to depromote this petitioner
and no such appraisal rating was carried out with
respect to other supervisors of respondent management.
It is further argued that though this petitioner was
technically and academically qualified for the abovesaid
Supervisor post, it has been denied to this petitioner
by the respondent management with victimizing
intention. It is further argued that as per the appraisal
rating he has scored 68.15% which is more than that of
the required rating. It is further argued that this
petitioner has rendered more than 15 years of
unblemished service and he has been depromoted
without any valid reasons and the complaints against
this petitioner are all created for the purpose of this case
and they were not related to the period of his promotion
and hence, Ex.R5 to R12 marked on the side of the
respondent has to be rejected as they were created with
mala fide intention and with after thought. It is argued
that the post of Supervisor D.G. Set Operator cannot
be abolished without the approval of the Director/
Principal and hence, the plea of abolition of the
283
21 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
abovesaid post has to be rejected in total and therefore,
he has to be permitted to work as Supervisor D.G. Set
Operator from 05-10-2013 and necessary monetary
benefits for the above saidpost has to be given to this
petitioner and hence, he prayed to allow this application.
6. The respondent side Counsel argued that this
petitioner was promoted as D.G. Set Operator Grade-II
from D.G. Set Operator Grade-III on 22-08-2011 and
thereafter, he has been promoted as Supervisor D.G. Set
Operator on probation on 04-06-2012 i.e., within nine
months he has been promoted as Supervisor1 D.G. Set
Operator and therefore, the argument of victimization
cannot be taken as correct. It is further argued that there
is no Supervisor post exists in Electrical Section, even
then the respondent management has given such
promotion to this petitioner on his repeated request and
demand. It is further argued that the petitioner was not
able complete the probation period as Supervisor D.G.
Set Operator and he hence, has been reverted back to
his original position. It is further argued that he has
been reverted back only, after the appraisal of the
performance of this petitioner, by highly qualified and
neutralized high authorities only. It is further argued
that the next promoted post to the D.G. Set Operator is
nothing but, Engineer and no higher or lower post is
available in the D.G. Set Operator Section. It is further
argued that nobody was promoted as Supervisor D.G.
Set Operator except this petitioner, even then this
petitioner was unable to save his promotion as
Supervisor D.G. Set Operator by performing up to the
satisfaction of the respondent management. It is further
argued that the D.G. Set Operator Grade-II was not at
all grant to other four D.G. Set Operators. It is further
argued that no such post of Supervisor D.G. Set
Operator is kept pending as vacant in the respondent
management and the abovesaid post was abolished as
there is no necessary for such posts. The respondent
side Counsel argued that promotion cannot be claimed
as a matter of right and this petitioner cannot question
the appraisal rating before this Court unless is mala fide
and this Court has no power to weigh the appraisal
rating. It is further argued that the petitioner failed to
prove that the respondent management acted in mala fied
manner in his case. It is further argued that promotion
is a matter of policy and this Court is having no power
to interfere in it and at the best it can give a direction
to consider petitioner for the same. It is further argued
that initially this petitioner was promoted as Supervisor
D.G. Set Operator on 04-06-2012 with six months
probation period, but he has not completed it
successfully and therefore, he was again given a chance
to complete his probation period in a successful manner
up to the satisfaction of the management by extending
the probation period for another 3 months from
29-04-2013. Even then this petitioner has not completed
his probation period in a successful manner up to the
satisfaction of the management. Again the probation
period was extended for another three months as per
the order, dated 05-09-2013, but this petitioner has failed
to complete his probation period in a successful manner.
Therefore, after rating his performance in the probation
period he has been reverted back to his original position
as per order, dated 05-10-2013, though this petitioner
has made several complaints against the Superiors,
colleagues and juniors and it was not taken for
consideration and he has been appraised by the expert
team in a proper manner in the proper format. It is
further argued that the reference itself is defective and
hence, it has to be dismissed for the same. It is further
argued that even as per the complaints made by this
petitioner, this Court can come to the conclusion that
he has not having capacity to act as a Supervisor and
he has no good relationship with others and hence,
prayed for dismissal of this application.
7. Points for consideration:
Whether the dispute raised by this petitioner
against the respondent management over his
reversion order, dated 05-10-2013 from the post of
Supervisor to Diesel Generator Set Operator is
justified or not? and if justified what is the relief that
he was entitled for?
8. On the point:
The petitioner was originally posted as Grade-III
D.G. Set Operator and thereafter, he has been
promoted as Grade-II D.G. Set operator on 22-08-2011
and thereafter, he has been promoted Supervisor
D.G. Set Operator (probation) on 04-06-2012 are the
facts admitted on both sides.
9. This petitioner has been reverted back to this
original position as per the order of the management,
dated 05-10-2013, was challenged by this petitioner
before this forum, on the ground that it was a mala fide
and victimization Act done by the management.
Per contra, the management has pleaded that such
allegation was not true, arid his reversion was on sound
principle of appraisal rating.
10. This petitioner/PW2 has pleaded and deposed
that he has been promoted as Supervisor D.G. Set
Operator on 04-06-2012. To that effect, Ex.P25
was marked. He has deposed that his promotion
order, dated 04-06-2012 was served to him belatedly on
05-09-2012 with mala fide intention of delaying tactics.
But, on perusal of Ex.P25 it is found that the date of
receipt of the order is not mentioned as 05-09-2012.
284
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
Hence, the allegation of late supply of promotion order
found to be baseless, PW.2 has deposed that six months
probation period was fixed to this petitioner alone and
it was fixed with mala fide intention and no such
probation period was fixed for other Supervisor
promotees. Per contra, RW.1 has deposed that the
probation period was fixed as a routine manner and it
was not fixed only against this petitioner as alleged by
the petitioner. To that effect he has produced Ex.Rl,
which is the document containing the service rules
wherein page No. 6 under the head confirmation it is
stated that all appointees shall be on probation for a
period of one year except where otherwise specified.
Further, it has been stated that the period may be
extended by a further period not exceeding six months
at the discretion of the management. Hence, it seems
that the probation period was not fixed in a biased
manner as alleged by the petitioner, whereas, it has been
fixed by the management as per the service rule alone.
The petitioner/PW.2 has deposed that he has rendered
his service as Supervisor D.G. Set Operator in an
appreciated manner by all others. But, for this aspect
also he has not produced any supporting documents
or evidences. PW.2 has deposed that the management
was willing to give Supervisor post to this petitioner
but, due to the vengeance, the engineers in electrical
section, has prevented it by misusing their power and
also by adopting Ruse and tactic methods, as this
petitioner has made allegation against them before the
higher authorities. But, in this aspect also this petitioner
has not filed any supporting documents to show their
ruse and misuse of powers. Further, he has deposed that
the engineers has given false information to the
management and thereby prevented his promotion, but,
no useful documentary evidences are produced in this
regard. Hence, the bald allegation raised against the
Electrical Engineers, that they had acted in a ruse and
biased manner was not proved by this petitioner.
Per contra, RW.1 has deposed that the petitioner failed
to complete his probatioa period to the subjective
satisfaction of the superior officers and hence, his
probation period was extended twice for another three
months vide its order, dated 29-04-2013 and 05-09-2013,
for further, evaluation with specific remarks and it was
initiated to this petitioner that if, he doesn’t perform to
the required level of the institution he would not be
confirmed to the post of Supervisor, In this regard, RW.1
has marked orders, dated 04-06-2012, 29-04-2013 and
05-09-2013 and it has been marked as Ex.P25, P37 and
Ex.P40. On perusal of Ex.P25 dated 04-06-2012 it would
goes to shows that this petitioner was promoted as
Supervisor D.G. Set Operator on probation and he has
been placed under probation for a period of six months,
further, he was assigned with specific supervisory works.
Further, Ex.P25 would goes to shows that this
petitioner’s promotion was subject to confirmation in
writing until then he has to continue his probation
period and it has also goes to shows that the
management will confirm his post of Supervisor D.G. Set
Operator after the successful completion of the
probation period. Similarly, on perusal of Ex.P37 dated
29-04-2013, it would goes to shows that this petitioner
has failed to complete his probation period to the
satisfaction of the management and hence, it has been
extended for a further, period of three months from
29-04-2013, wherein, also it has been specifically
mentioned he will be evaluated and bis performance
must be up to the required level and otherwise he will
be reverted back to the post of D.G. Set Operator.
Similarly, on perusal of Ex.P40 dated 05-09-2013, it is
found that this petitioner needs improvement in inter
personal relationship and his attitude is still that of
D.G. Set Operator. It has also mentioned that as per the
appraisal rating he has scored 68.15% only. The 2nd to
6th para of the document runs as follows:
“The probation period may also be extended
depending up on your performance during the said
period. Unless confirmed in writing, he will continue
to be on probation. On successful completion of the
probation period as decided by the Management, he
will be confirmed in the post of Supervisor-D.G. Set
Operator with revision of salary appropriate to the
post. The Management keeps its options open to
revert him to his original post if, not found suitable
for the post”.
“However, as he failed to complete his probation
to the satisfaction of the management, the probation
period was extended for three months from 29-04-2013
for further, evaluation with the specific remark that
if, he does not perform to the required level he would
be reverted to the post of D.G. Set Operator. He had
obtained only adequate rating with the remarks:
“Needs improvement in inter personal relationship.
Attitude is still that of a D.G. Set Operator”.
“Mr. S. Doureradjou has presently completed his
extended period of probation from 29-04-2013 and as
per his Appraisal Rating he has obtained 68.15% with
the remarks- “He does not exhibit any qualities of a
Supervisor. His behavior and thinking is only as a
workman. He does not have any cordial relations with
the superiors and also most of his colleagues are
against him because of his attitude and hence
cannot be considered for supervisor post”.
“From the performance report Mr. Doureradjou is
found to be good in his work, dependability,
communication, initiatives, adaptability, dress code,
285
21 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
attendance and safety, but, however, he is found to
be average and below in matters of team work,
leadership, ability to give guidance to subordinates,
plaining, cooperation with colleagues/superiors and
general discipline as he is not able to be an example
to others”.
“In view of the fact that he has not shown
improvement in supervisory qualities, though he is
performing well in his assigned work, he is given a
final opportunity to come up to expectations of his
superiors. His probation is extended finally for three
months and if, he does not tune himself to the
assigned work in the capacity of a Supervisor, he will
be reverted back to the post of D.G. Set Operator. The
decision of the Management will be final".
11. From the abovesaid documents it seems that the
petitioner has mot completed his probation period in a
successful manner and therefore, he has been
depromoted to his original post vide its order, dated
05-10-2013 (Ex.P43). Furthermore, the appraisal rating
report was also filed as Ex.R2 and R3 on the respondent
side. On perusal of the Ex.R2 and R3, it is found that
this petitioner has been subjected to appraisal rating
in a proper and detailed manner as per the format. Hence,
the oral evidence of the RW.1, supported by Ex.R2 and
R3 would goes to shows that this petitioner has been
properly subjected to appraisal rating and on the basis
of the appraisal report only, he has been reverted back
to his original position. Hence, this Court come to the
conclusion that the reversion order, dated 05-10-2013
(Ex.P43) was proper and correct one. Hence, on that
score this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there
is no mala fideness in the act of reversion in this case.
12. The petitioner has filed as many as 74 exhibits
on his side. The first crucial date in this case is
04-06-2012, the date on which this petitioner has been
promoted on probation with six months period initially.
The next crucial, date is 29-04-2013 (Ex.P37), the date
on which his probation period was extended for three
months from 29-04-2013. The next crucial date in this
case is 05-09-2013 (Ex.P40), the date on which further
extension of three months probation period was ordered
by the management. The next crucial date in this case
is 05-10-2013(Ex.P43) the date on which he has been
reverted back to his original post. As per the case of
this petitioner he has been victimized, as he enlightened
the malpractices in the Electrical Engineers Section to
higher authorities, which resulted in his demotion/
reversion as per order, dated 05-10-2013. Therefore, this
Tribunal has to consider the complaints and requests
made by this petitioner before 05-10-2013. The
documents subsequent to 05-10-2013 are immaterial
as it would not play important role in passing the
reversion order by the management. Therefore, the
document marked as Ex.P44 to Ex.P74 has no vital role
in this case as they were subsequent to 05-10-2013.
Before 05-10-2013 this petitioner has given as many as
9 complaints against the superiors, colleagues and
juniors. They were marked as Ex.P19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29,
38, 39 and 41 and they were detailed as below:
Ex.P19 — 07-02-2012 Complaint to the Chief
Engineer
against
the
Electrical Engineer Rajkumar
Reddy and the Maintenance
Engineer Alexander Mathew.
Ex.P21 — 20-04-2012 Complaints to the Welfare
Officer (Employees) against
the Chief Engineer.
Ex.P23 — 14-05-2012 Reminder complaints to the
Welfare Officer (Employees)
against
the
previous
complaint dated 20-04-2012.
Ex.P24 — 23-05-2012 Complaint to the Member-
Secretary (Legal Service
Authority,
Puducherry)
against Welfare Officer by
name Mathew, Electrical
Engineer Rajkumar Reddy
and
the
Maintenance
Engineer Alexandar Mathew.
Ex.P28 — 26-07-2012 Complaints
to
the
Conciliation Officer, against
the Personal Manager Ralph
Mathew.
Ex.P29 — 06-08-2012 Complaints to the Chief
Engineer against Electrical
Engineer Rajkumar Reddy
and
the
Maintenance
Engineer Alexandar Mathew.
Ex.P38 —
Complaint to the Principal/
Director
against
the
Superiors,
Electrical
Engineer Rajkumar Reddy
and
the
Maintenance
Engineer Alexandar Mathew
and against an associate by
name Manjini.
Ex.P39 — 21-06-2013 Complaint to the Personal
Manager against Electrical
Engineer Rajakumar Reddy,
Maintenance
Engineer
Alexandar Mathew, Manjini
and against the Chief
Engineer.
286
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
Ex.P41 — 12-09-2013
Complaint to the Principal
against the Chief Engineer
by
name,
Subramani,
Electrical Engineer, by name,
Rajakumar
Reddy,
Maintenance Engineer by
name Alex Mathew and
Personal Manager by name
Ralph Mathew.
13. From the abovesaid documents it is clear that he
has made several complaints against the others. It
would show that, he was not able to have cordial
relationship with all sorts of persons. It shows that he
was a man of controversy. If, these documents are
taken into consideration then definitely he cannot
perform his duty as Supervisor in an effective manner.
All these documents strengthens that the appraisal
made by the respondent management as a valid one.
Therefore, appraisal of the management that this
petitioner is having lack of team work capability, lack
of leadership ability, lack of cooperation with colleagues
and superiors, found to be on sound reasons and
grounds. Hence, the appraisal done by the respondent
management was not only supported by R2 and R3, but,
it also get its support from this petitioner side
documents itself. Hence, this Tribunal found no error
in the order of reversion, dated 05-10-2013.
14. RW.1 has deposed that this petitioner was
promoted and depromoted only according to the service
rules and no victimization has happened or occurred in
this case. Further, he has deposed that the respondent
management has its own promotion policy for their
employees. Further, he has deposed that the
management has supplied the written communication to
this petitioner regarding his promoted post of
Supervisor's roles and responsibilities. In this aspect
this petitioner himself has produced Ex.P25, dated
04-06-2012. It is the promotion order given to this
petitioner wherein, it has given details of the roles of
the supervisors. Furthermore, RW.1 has deposed that
the petitioner was not able to get along with anybody
and therefore not able to function as a Supervisor
because of bad relationship. He further, deposed that
the management had no victimizing intention as it had
already given two promotions to this petitioner as
Grade-II D.G. Set Operator and Supervisor D.G. Set
Operator and no such promotions were given to other
four D.G. Set Operator. These evidences would goes to
shows that there was no victimized1 intention against
this petitioner. Hence, the allegation of victimization
found to be a false one.
15. At this juncture, this Court inclined to go through
the cross examination of PW.1, wherein, PW.1 has
deposed as follows. The vernacular form is extracted;
“DG Operator
Electrical Section
”
“D.G. Operator
Section
”
“D.G. Operator
Electrical
Supervisor
Supervisor D.G. Operator
”
“Supervisor D.G. Operator
Section-Section-
”
“ D.G. Operator-
Office Assistant-
Office Assistant-
D.G. Operator-
D.G. Operator-
”
“D.G. Set Operation
Section-
Probation-
Probation
Probation Period
Probation
D.G. Set Operator
Personal
Officer
”
“D.G. Operator Section-
D.G. Operator Section
Supervisor ”
16. Similarly, the petitioner/PW.2 has also admitted
the following facts in his cross examination. The
vernacular version of the same is extracted hereunder:
287
21 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
“
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
SupervisorD.G. Operator
Supervisor
probation
probation
”
“Supervisor
probation-
Performance
Report
”
“From the performance report Mr.
Doureradjou is found to be good in his work,
dependability, communication, initiatives, adaptability,
dress code, attendance and safety, but however, he
is found to be average and below in matters of team
work, leadership, ability to give guidance to
subordinates, planning, cooperation with colleagues/
superiors and general discipline as he is not able to
be an example to others".
“ D.G. Operator
Supervisor
”
17. From the abovesaid evidence it is clear that this
petitioner alone was promoted as D.G. Set Operator
Grade-II and then Supervisor D.G. Set Operator. Before
and after him, nobody was promoted like that of this
petitioner. It is also clear that at present no such post
was inexistence. It is also clear that the promotion
opportunities were given to this petitioner only. Hence,
on perusal of the abovesaid evidence this Court come
to the conclusion that there was no mala fide intention
against this petitioner and he was given privilege of
promotion, even then this petitioner was not able to
save the same in his probation period by working up to
the satisfaction of the management. So, this Court come
to the conclusion even for argument sake, if this
petitioner is consider to be fit person for the post of
Supervisor, it cannot be ordered as there is no post
inexistence at present. Furthermore, this petitioner
seeks promotion as a matter of right. At this juncture,
the citation reported in 2019-LLJ-595 (Madras) produced
on the side of the respondent was taken into
consideration. The abovesaid citation was reported in
the case of Kannaiya Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
Repd. by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Agriculture
Engineering Department and others, wherein, it is held
that the petitioner cannot sought regularization in a post
in which he was continuing to work, but as there is no
sanctioned post, the claim of the petitioner was
dismissed. Here, in this case also no sanctioned post
of Supervisor D.G. Set Operator is available in the
respondent Management. Here, also this petitioner
seeking regularization/confirrnation/promotion to the
abovesaid posts. Hence, as per the abovesaid reported
judgment he cannot be regularized/confirmed to the post
of Supervisor D.G. Set Operator as there is no sanction
post of Supervisor/D.G. Set Operator is available.
18. Further, the respondent has filed another
judgment reported in CDJ 1987 SC 737 wherein, it has
been held that “where the State Government or
Statutory Authority is under an obligation to promote
an employee to an higher post which has to be filled
up by selection, the State Government or the Statutory
Authority alone should be directed to consider the
question whether the employee is entitled to be so
promoted and that the Court should not ordinallv issued
a writ to the Government or Statutory Authority to
promote an officer straightway. Here, in this case also
this petitioner filed this Industrial Dispute seeking a
direction to the respondent management for promotion/
confirmation. As per the abovesaid citation, such a
direction cannot be issued by this Tribunal. Further, in
the abovesaid citation, the selection committee did not
find the respondent fit for promotion on all such
occasion. Here, in this case also the appraisal team has
evaluated this petitioner twice as per Ex.R2 and R3, and
as per the Ex.R2 and R3, he has scored 68.15 % only. It
was not up to the satisfaction of the respondent
management. As per the citation, this Court has no
power to direct this respondent to get satisfaction with
that abovesaid score. Therefore, as per the abovesaid
citation also this Court cannot interfere in the evaluation
and it cannot direct the respondent to promote this
petitioner, as it is the area where the respondent alone
has amble power to fix the criteria for promotion. Hence,
on that score, this Court was not unable to order for
giving such direction as prayed for by the petitioner.
288
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
19. Further, the respondent side Counsel has filed a
judgment reported in CDJ 2016 DHC 558 and the
abovesaid citation was the judgment rendered in the case
of Saraswathy Vs. Press Trust of India and another, in
the above said case also the employee/claimants
probation period was. extended twice. In the abovesaid
case also the note/details listed out the short comings
of the employee based on which the claimant was
dismissed from service. The appeal filed by the claimant
was also dismissed fcy the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Here, in this case also this petitioner was subjected to
extension of probation for two times. Here, in this case
also, as per the appraisal team report he was not up to
the satisfaction of the management. Hence, if, we
consider the present case with the facts in the
abovesaid citation, the claim of this petitioner becomes
unfit to allow. Further, the respondent side Counsel filed
the judgment reported in CDJ 1995 Bihar High Court 175,
wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that,
“there can be no doubt that the promotions which
Industrial employees are entitled normally would be
treated as the function of the management and so even
the National Industrial Tribunal recognized that it must
be left to the discretion of the management to select
persons for promotions”. As per the abovesaid citation
this Tribunal has no power to interfere with the appraisal
rating done by its expert committee for promotion on
the basis of the service rules.
20. The next limb of argument putforth by the
respondent Counsel is that this petitioner was not a
workman and therefore, he has no locus standi to file
this petition before this Tribunal. The petitioner in this
case has been reverted from in the post of Supervisor
DG Set Operator to the post of Grade-II D.G. Set
Operator. Further admittedly, this petitioner has been
reverted back,to his original position as Grade-II D.G.
Set Operator on 05-10-2013, therefore this petitioner
becomes workman on and from 05-10-2013 and he
cannot be consider as a Supervisor and therefore, this
petitioner is entitled to file this claim petition before this
Tribunal as a workman. Therefore, the argument
advanced in that score is rejected in total.
21. The next limb of argument that was advanced by
the respondent Counsel was that the reference made by
the Government of Puducherry to this Labour Court is
invalid as the matter involved in this case, related to
Industrial Tribunal. Admittedly, the dispute involved in
this case related to promotion/confirmation which
comes under the category of gradation, which has to
be dealt as Industrial Tribunal matter. Though the
Government of Puducherry has referred the matter to
the Labour Court and it has been numbered as
Industrial Dispute (L), the entire matter was dealt as a
matter involved in Industrial Tribunal and as this Court
is functioning as Industrial Tribunal also, it cannot be
said that this Court is not having power to deal with
this matter. Further, the entire matter is dealt as an
industrial dispute under the Tribunal power, and no
prejudice was caused to this respondent and therefore,
the argument putforth on that score also rejected in
total.
22. As per the judgment reported in CDJ 1996
Alahabad High Court in 054, a promotion cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, at the same time, the
claimant can seek a direction for consideration for
promotion, if, he holds necessary education and
Academic Qualifications. Further, in the abovesaid
judgment the Hon’ble High Court has directed the
management to give the difference of pay during the
period, the claimant hold the promoted post, if, not paid
already. Here, in this case also, this petitioner has
deposed that he has not been given salary in the scale
of Supervisor D.G. Set Operator on probation. Hence,
as per the abovesaid judgment if the petitioner was not
paid the relevant Scale of Pay in the cadre of Supervisor
D.G. Set Operator on probation, he could very well apply
for the same before the management and the
management is hereby directed to pay the salary dues
if any, in the scale of Supervisor D.G. Set Operator on
probation as early as possible, if, it was not paid
already.
23. In the result, the Industrial Dispute raised by this
petitioner against the management stands dismissed and
the reversion order made by the management is decided
as justified. This petitioner was entitled for the salary
dues if any, in the scale of Supervisor D.G. Set Operator
on probation for the period from 04-06-2012 to
05-10-2013. No Cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this 26th day of November, 2019.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1
— 24-01-2017 Subrayan
PW.2
— 12-09-2019 Doureradjou
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 18-02-2016 Original letter of authorization
to Mr. V. Subrayan, petitioner’s
U n i o n c o n s u l t a n t a n d
Ex. Secretary.
289
21 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P2
— April 1990 Copy of the S.S.L.C. Certificate
of the petitioner.
Ex.P3
— March 1992 Copy of the H.S.C. Certificate
of the petitioner.
Ex.P4
— 06-01-1994 Copy of the I.T.I. (Mechanic
Motor Vehicles) Certificate
of the petitioner.
Ex.P5
— May 1996
Copy of the I.T.I. (Apprentice),
Certificate of the petitioner.
Ex.P6
— 27-04-2007 Copy
of
the
Diploma
Certificate (Electrical Wiring)
Community
Polytechnic,
Pondicherry,
of
the
petitioner.
Ex.P7
Copy
of
the
Diploma
Certificate (Electrical and
Electronics) Karnataka Open
University (4 series) of the
petitioner dated 19-10-2013,
20-06-2014, 11-11-2014 and
21-07-2015.
Ex.P8
— 31-03-1995 Copy
of
the
Helper
Experience Certificate of the
petitioner issued by Anand
Automobiles, Pondicherry.
Ex.P9
— 21-02-1997 Copy of the Generator
Operator, Bonafide-cum-
Experience Certificate of the
petitioner issued by Indian
Oil Corporation, Bangalore.
Ex.P10 — 05-09-2001 Copy of the Generator
Operator,
Experience
Certificate of the petitioner,
issued
by
Supreme
Industries Ltd., Pondicherry.
Ex.P11 — 06-11-1998 Copy of the Generator
Training
Experience
Certificate of the petitioner
issued by Cummines India
Ltd., Pune.
Ex.P12 — 05-04-2002 Copy of the Generator
Operator
Experience
Certificate of the petitioner
issued by Bharath Diesel
Sales
and
Service,
Pondicherry.
Ex.P13 — October
Copy of Blood Bonation
2011 to
Volunteer Certificate 2015 of
June and
the petitioner issued by G.H.,
October
Pondicherry (6 series).
2015
Ex.P14 — 02-12-2002 Copy of Order of D.G. Set
Operator of the petitioner
issued by PIMS.
Ex.P15 — 05-02-2010 Copy of Confirmation
Order for D.G. Set
Operator
of
petitioner,
issued by PIMS.
Ex.P16 — 06-07-2011 Copy of Recommendation
letter for promotion given by
the Engineers, PIMS to the
petitioner.
Ex.P17 — 22-08-2011 Copy of Promotion Order for
D.G. Set Operator Grade-III to
Grade-II, issued by PIMS of
the petitioner.
Ex.P18—
26-12-2011 Copy of the requisition letter
given by the petitioner to
the Chief Engineer and
Personal Manager, PIMS for
the purpose of General Shift
and Weekly off for Sunday.
Ex.Pl9 — 07-02-2012 Copy of letter, given by the
petitioner to the Chief
Engineer, PIMs to conduct
the enquiry about the illegal
promotion to the staffs.
Ex.P20 — 21-03-2012 Copy of the complaint given
by the petitioner to the Chief
Engineer, PIMS.
Ex.P21 — 20-04-2012 Copy of the letter given by
the
petitioner
to
the
Personal Manager, Principal
and
Finance
Controller
against the malpractices
done by the Department.
Ex.P22 — 14-05-2012 Copy of the requisition
given by the petitioner to
the Personal Manager, PIMS
for Salary enhancement of
Grade II.
Ex.P23 — 14-05-2012 Copy of letter given by the
petitioner to the Chief
Engineer, PIMS to take
action against the Engineer
who done the
Ex.P24 — 23-05-2012 Copy of the letter given by
the petitioner before the Lok
Adalat, Puducherry.
Ex.P25 — 04-06-2012 Copy of Order issued by the
PIMS to the petitioner.
290
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
Ex.P26 — 06-06-2012 Copy of letter submitted by
the petitioner before the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P27 — 22-06-2012 Copy of the Lok Adalat
Order No.1828/2012 dated
22-06-2012.
Ex.P28 — 26-07-2012 Copy of the Reminder letter
submitted by the petitioner
to the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P29 — 06-08-2012 Copy of letter submitted by
the petitioner to the Chief
Engineer, PIMS for
demanding Sunday Off.
Ex.P30 — 09-08-2012 Copy
of
the
Training
Programme Nomination list
issued by the PIMS.
Ex.P31 — 12-02-2014 Copy of the Department
eligibility workers list.
Ex.P32 — 21-12-2012 Copy of the Conciliation
Proceedings, dated 19-10-2012,
25-10-2012, 02-11-2012,
06-11-2012, 09-11-2012,
15-11-2012, 10-12-2012,
12-12-2012 and 21-12-2012.
Ex.P33 — 05-01-2013 Copy of the notice issued by
the Personal Manager of the
respondent to all the HoDs
and Trade Union.
Ex.P34 — 21-01-2013 Copy of the complaint given
to the Chief Engineer by the
petitioner.
Ex.P35 — 31-01-2013 Copy of the warning issued
by the Personal Manager for
getting bribe for obtaining
job.
Ex.P36 — March 2013 Copy of the Uniform list of
the Supervisors issued by
the PIMS.
Ex.P37 — 03-05-2013 Copy of the order of the
Extension
of
Probation
period against law.
Ex.P38 — 06-06-2013 Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
Principal for taking action
against
the
Manjini
(Electrician).
Ex.P39 — 21-06-2013 Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
Personal
Manager
and
Finance Controller for taking
action against the Manjini
(Electrician).
Ex.P40 — 05-09-2013 Copy of the order of the
Extension
of
Probation
period against the law.
Ex.P41 — 12-09-2013 Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
Principal,
PIMS,
the
Engineers and Personal
Manager
were
taking
revenge action against him.
Ex.P42 — 23-09-2013 Copy of the letter submitted
by the workers of the
petitioner’s Department to
the Principal.
Ex.P43 — 05-10-2013 Copy of the Reversion order
of the petitioner.
Ex.P44 —
Copy of the mistakes (10
series)
done
with
the
knowledge
of
the
Department Engineer.
Ex.P45 — 03-01-2014 Copy of the Legal Notice.
Ex.P46 — 12-02-2014 Copy
of
the
Workers
Educational Qualification
was
published
through
Internet by the PIMS.
Ex.P47 — 13-01-2014 Copy of the Reply notice for
the Legal Notice.
Ex.P48 — 24-02-2014 Copy of the Requisition
letter submitted by the
petitioner
to
the
Management for Salary.
Ex.P49 — 01-04-2014 Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner’s Union to
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P50 — 19-04-2014 Copy of the Reply given by
the PIMS to the Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P51 — 02-05-2014
Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
Personal Manager, PIMS for
taking action against the
threatened.
Ex.P52 — 12-05-2014 Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
higher authorities, PIMS for
taking action against the
Vasanthakumar (Electrician).
Ex.P53 — 09-06-2014 Copy of the Reply Notice of
the petitioner.
291
21 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P54 — 07-10-2014 Copy of the Conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P55 — 01-10-2014 Copy of the memo issued to
the
petitioner
by
the
Personal Manager.
Ex.P56 — 15-10-2014 Copy of the Reply for the
memo.
Ex.P57 — 01-12-2014 Copy of the letter submitted
by the petitioner to the
Department Engineer, PIMS
for taking action against the
threatened through intercom.
Ex.P58 — 23-12-2014 Copy of the memo issued to
the
petitioner
by
the
Personal Manager to attend
the Enquiry Panel.
Ex.P59 —
Copy of the complaint given
to the Chairman, Madras
Medical Mission against the
Electrical Engineer, by
the President, Anumanthai
Panchayat Union and the
copy of the Paper Publication,
dated 21-08-2014.
Ex.P60 —
Copy of the complaint given
by the Gurunathan, to the
Senior Electrical Engineer,
regarding the break open of
the door.
Ex.P61 — 23-03-2015 Copy of Reminder letter.
Ex.P62 — 31-02-2015 Copy of Enquiry completion
information letter.
Ex.P63 — 20-04-2015 Copy of the letter submitted
by the Gurunathan to take
action against the Kathirvel.
Ex.P64 — 22-07-2015 Copy of the Memo issued by
the PIMS to the petitioner.
Ex.P65 — 01-09-2015 Copy of the Reply for the
memo.
Ex.P66 —
Audio CD
Ex.P67 —
Audio CD.
Ex.P68 — 05-10-2015 Copy of the Warning Memo
issued by the PIMS to the
petitioner.
Ex.P69 — 08-02-2016 Copy of the Requisition letter
given by the petitioner’s
union for obtaining records.
Ex.P70 — 26-12-2011 Copy of the Form-C, Certificate
and
o f a n d R e g i s t r a t i o n o f
27-07-2015 Petitioner’s Trade Union.
Ex.P71 — 23-03-2016 Copy of Appreciation
letter issued by the
Respondent Management to
Mr. S. Doureradjou.
Ex.P72 — 05-10-2016 Copy of memo issued by the
Respondent Management to
Mr. Balaraman, Plumber.
Ex.P73 — 25-11-2016 Copy of the letter given
by
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner-PIO, Labour
Department, Puducherry
to Mr. V. Subrayan and
S. Doureradjou.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.l
— 08-12-2017 Isaiah
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl —
Copy of the service rules of
the respondent’s institution.
Ex.R2 — 26-04-2013 Copy of the performance
appraisal of petitioner.
Ex.R3 — 29-08-2013 Copy of the performance
appraisal of petitioner.
Ex.R4 — 06-01-2014 Copy of reply notice to legal
notice, dated 03-01-2014
issued by petitioner.
Ex.R5 — 22-08-2014 Copy of the complaint given
by the Chief Engineer
against the petitioner for
non-cooperation with other
staffs in the shift.
Ex.R6 — 03-09-2014 Copy of the charge memo
issued by the respondent to
petitioner for his disobedience
under the service rules of
respondent’s institution.
Ex.R7 — 10-09-2014 Copy of the letter given by
the petitioner seeking Tamil
version of the charge memo,
dated 03-09-2014.
Ex.R8 — 01-10-2014 Copy of the Tamil version of
the charge memo, dated
03-09-2014.
Ex.R9 — 07-10-2014 Copy of the complaint given
by the one Mr. Kathirvel and
Mr. Selvam to respondent
against petitioner.
292
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 April 2020
Ex.R10 — 09-10-2014 Copy of the complaint given
by the Chief Engineer
against the petitioner for
non cooperation and not
attending the complaints
calls
from
the
other
Departments.
Ex.R11 — 03-11-2014 Copy of complaints given by
all the Electrical staffs
against the petitioner.
Ex.R12 — 23-12-2014 Copy of the complaint given
by one Mr. Antony doss
from Electrical Department
agairst the petitioner.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Gracy @ Grace Catherine, wife of Morris Antony,
Christian, aged about 68 years and residing at No. 73,
Kamarajar Salai, V.V.P. Nagar, Thattanchavady,
Puducherry-605 009, do hereby solemnly and sincerely
affirm and state as follows:
That I am the deponent herein and well acquainted
with the facts of the case. I submit that I was born to
my parents on 05-11-1946 and I completed my S.S.L.C.
(Academic) Certificate and in which my name has been
mentioned as ‘Grace Catherine’ and I got married at
Puducherry, the same was Registered at Pondicherry
Municipality, Pondicherry and also got Livert De
Family Book under No. 173 by the Pondicherry
Municipality (Etat Civil, Pondicherry) and in which my
name has been mentioned as ‘Gracy’. Further, I submit
that I was employed in St. Antony’s Government Aided
School at Puducherry and retired from the service,
thus, receiving pension from the Government and in
which my name is mentioned as ‘Grace Catherine’.
I got Permanent Account Number (PAN) from the
Income-tax Department in which my name has been
mentioned as ‘Grace Catherine’. I got Passport from
Government of India vide Passport No. J2481191 and
in which my name is mentioned as ‘Grace Catherine’.
I got Membership Card in REPCO Bank and in which
my name has been mentioned as ‘Grace Catherine’.
Further, I submit that I am blessed with one male
child by name called Andrew Gerard who was born
on 10-07-1989, his birth was duly registered at
Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry and in which
my name has been mentioned as ‘Gracy’, my son got
Confirmation Certificate in the Register of Our Lady
Fatima Church, Thattanchavady, Puducherry-605 009
and in which my name has been mentioned as ‘Grace
Catherine’, and my son got Baptism Certificate at
Assumption Church, Nellithope, Puducherry and in
which my name has been mentioned as ‘Gracy’.
Further, I submit that in my Voter’s Identity
Card issued by the Election Commission of India
vide No. PY/01/019/090515; in my Aadhaar Card
vide No. 3692 4775 9849 issued by Unique
Idenfification Authority of India, and in my Family
Ration Card issued by the Department of Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of
Puducherry vide Card No. 140496 in all three
abovesaid records, my name has been mentioned as
‘Grace Catherine’ and ‘’.
Further, I declare that the above-mentioned names,
in the different documents viz., ‘Gracy’, ‘Grace
Catherine’ and ‘’ are referred one and the
same person of myself only.
I state that what are all stated in the above paragraphs
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief
and information.
Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public
at Puducherry, on this 19th day of March 2020.
342658
A. GRACE CATHERINE.
No legal responsibility is accepted for the publication of advertisement regarding change of names and other private
notifications in the Gazette. Persons notifying the same will remain solely responsible for the legal consequences and
also for any other misrepresentations, etc.
online publication at “https://styandptg.py.gov.in”
Published by The Director, Government Press
Printed at: Government Central Press, Puducherry.
Posted at: Puducherry HPO on every Tuesday