Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry

∂]ÔV´D ÿ√u≈ ÿkπX|

Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority

sÁÈ : ` 8-00

Prix : ` 8-00

Price : ` 8-00

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^..

334

Sentence arbitral du travail

.. 334

Award of the Labour Court

.. 334

de tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

341

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 341

Government Notifications .. 341

Œ©√ ∂§s©A

343

Avis d’Adjudication

.. 343

Tender Notice

.. 343

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

344

Annonces

.. 344

Announcements

344

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 : 19-5-2020

Price : ` 8-00

[ 333 ]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2020 }

º\ |

19 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mai

2020 (29 Vaisakha 1942)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

19th

May

2020

334

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 May 2020

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 39/AIL/Lab./T/2020,

Puducherry, dated 17th March 2020)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 16/2014, dated

10-01-2020 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry,

in respect of the industrial dispute between the management

of M/s. NTS Paper Mills Ltd., Karasur, Puducherry and

Thiru Manickam, 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., L.L.M.,

Presiding Officer.

Friday, the 10th day of January, 2020.

I.D. (L) No. 16/2014

Thiru V. Manickam

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. NTS Paper Mills Ltd.,

Karasur, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 09-01-2020

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru B. Mohandoss, Counsel for the petitioner, and

Thiru R. Chandrasekaran, 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. 35/

AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 06-04-2014 for adjudicating the

following:-

( a ) W h e t h e r t h e d i s p u t e r a i s e d b y

Thiru V. Manickam against the management of

M/s. NTS Paper Mills, Karasur, Kadaperikuppam Post,

Puducherry, over non-employment is justified?

If justified, what relief he is entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. The brief averment of the petition filed by the

petitioner:-

(i) Originally this petitioner was appointed as

Electrician on 07-09-2014 in Diamond Paper and Board

Mills Pvt. Ltd., thereafter, it was taken over by the

present management. Subsequently, this petitioner

was also taken over by the present management and

his employment was confirmed by its letter, dated

15-10-1997 with gross emoluments of ` 1,450 per

month. This petitioner has discharged his duty as an

Electrician before this respondent in a sincere and

honest manner without any black mark. While so, the

respondent management has issued a show-cause

notice, dated 16-05-2009 wherein, it has alleged that

this petitioner is having a habit of attending duty

after consuming alcohol which posed threat to safety

of life. It further alleged that this petitioner used to

have quarrel with co-employees and supervisors on

many occasions. Further, in the charge-sheet it was

alleged that this petitioner was warned and pardoned

on many occasions for his misconduct and inspite

of that there was no change in the behavior of this

petitioner.

(ii) Further, in the charge-sheet it was alleged that

on 18-04-2009 at about 10.00 a.m. this petitioner

entered the company premises under drunken

condition and abused filthy words against the

Managing Director of the company in the presence

of workman and also indulged in quarrel. The

workman who witnessed the occurrence submitted a

letter to the management for necessary action against

this petitioner. It is further alleged that on 24-04-2009,

this petitioner and his wife met the Managing

Director and tendered apology letter for his mistake

and gave assurance to that effect that he would not

indulge in any such activity in drunken condition and

he would discharge his duty properly. It was also

stated in the charge-sheet, that on 25-04-2009 this

petitioner under drunken condition, had threatened

the security person by name Ajay and obtained

335

19 May 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

signatures and seals from him with ulterior motive.

This petitioner has given his explanation, dated

20-05-2009 to the charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009

wherein, he has denied all the charges and also

pointed out that it was a colourable exercise of

power, as he has find out the false and the

unjustified acts of the respondent management. The

respondent management has sent the notice of

enquiry and the order of suspension on 27-05-2009

stating that he was not satisfy in the explanation and

it has also stated that the date, time, place and the

name of the Enquiry Officer would be intimated later.

It has also stated in the suspension order that it will

disbursed the subsistence allowance for the

suspension period. But, the respondent management

failed to intimate the details of domestic enquiry and

also failed to pay the subsistence allowance to this

petitioner and it has not sent any communication in

this regard.

(iii) This petitioner made a representation before

the Labour Commissioner, Puducherry on 18-12-2009

pointing out the other things and the non-payment

of subsistence allowance and the non-conducting of

domestic enquiry against the charges levelled against

him. The Labour Commissioner, Puducherry held a

meeting in this regard on 25-01-2010 and directed the

respondent management to pay the subsistence

allowance to this petitioner for the period from

01-04-2009 to 27-05-2009. However, the management

failed to pay the same and hence, the Certifying

Officer has issued the order, dated 15-10-2010 and

directed this petitioner to approach the Hon’ble

Court for the necessary remedy. Even then, the

respondent management continued its unlawful and

unjustified act against this petitioner which caused

much hardship to this petitioner to run his family and

hence, this petitioner approach the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) regarding his non-employment through

his petition, dated 23-01-2012 against the respondent

management. The respondent management failed to

file any reply before the Conciliation Officer, on the

other hand it has assured before the Conciliation

Officer, that the dispute will be settled as soon as

possible and thereby drag on the matter. Finally, the

conciliation proceeding comes to an end with its

failure report, dated 19-09-2013.

(iv) The respondent management failed to provide

employment to this petitioner on the ground of

disciplinary proceedings as well as on pending

suspension enquiry in gross violation of labour

legislations and also against the principles of natural

justice. The management has failed to pay not even

a pie after the suspension order, dated 27-05-2009.

It was against the provisions of Industrial Employment

(Standing Oders) Act 1946, this petitioner was unable

to defend his case and he was not able to run his

family and the management has purposely dragged

the matter and thereby caused hardship to this

petitioner without any justification. It has exercised

its power in an arbitrary manner and it has not

commenced domestic enquiry proceedings without

any justification. The respondent management not even

appointed the Enquiry Officer towards the domestic

enquiry proceedings. It has initiated the disciplinary

proceedings in oblique intention. The concept of fair

hearing was violated by non-conducting the enquiry

for a years together. By the unlawful act of the

respondent this petitioner has lost his employment

and wages. The respondent management is enjoying

the undue advantages for its own wrong. The

management has to prove the allegations in the

charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009 strictly in accordance

with law. Due to the act of this respondent the

petitioner’s life has become miserable and he was not

able to maintain his family and himself, and it has

caused heavy dept to this petitioner. That this

petitioner suffered physically and mentally and

therefore, he becomes entitled to claim damages to

the tune of ` 5,00,000. Therefore, this petitioner

prays to allow this application and prayed to pass

an award by declaring the charge-sheet 16-05-2003

is null and void, to declare the suspension, dated

27-05-2009 as illegal, awarding damages to the tune

of ` 5,00,000 and directing the respondent to reinstate

this petitioner with full back wages and continuity of

service an all other attendant benefits.

3. The brief averment of the counter filed by the

respondent:-

(i) The respondent denied all the allegations

except those are specifically admitted. The respondent

denied the allegations of discharge of duties by this

petitioner in a very sincere and honest manner and

without any black mark. This respondent admitted the

issuance show-cause notice, dated 16-05-2009 with

the allegations against this petitioner. The industrial

dispute is raised by this petitioner with false and

frivolous allegation and hence, it is not maintainable

either in law or on facts and it was lack of bona fides

and merits and hence, it has to be dismissed in limine.

The allegations against the respondent management

mentioned in the claim statement are utter false,

baseless, concocted and purposely invented for the

purpose of the present industrial dispute. This

petitioner was in the habit of attending duty after

consuming alcoholic drinks which posed threat to

safety of his life. This petitioner used to loiter in the

factory without attending duty and used to sleep in

the working place in the working hours itself.

336

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 May 2020

(ii) Further, he used to enter into quarrel, under

drunken condition, with the co-employees and

supervisors. When the employees questioned the

same the petitioner used to threatened them with dire

consequences stating that he is from local Village and

well known to the Managing Director of the company

and no one should questioned him about his attitude.

Further, he used to avoid the emergent work as to

the electrical shutdown. The respondent management

has given so many warnings and pardon to this

petitioner, but, this petitioner did not change his

behavior

and

misconduct.

The

co-workers,

supervisors apprehend unsafety due to this

petitioner. This petitioner used to come to the duty

under drunken condition and used to enter the

premises forcibly by pushing down the security

personnel also. Likewise, on 18-04-2009 at about

10.00 a.m. this petitioner forcible entered the

company premises under the drunken condition and

when he was questioned by the security persons

about his drunken condition at the time entry to the

duty, he pushed them down by necking the security

personnel. The Manager of the respondent company

questioned this petitioner about his rudely behavior

and this petitioner intimidated the Manager with

filthy languages. Further, this petitioner having

stated that he and the MD of the company studied

together in the same school and hence, no one

should questioned him. Further, this petitioner

abused the MD of the company with the filthy

languages in the presence of the workers. The

co-workers, Supervisor and Manager of the company

afraid of it, has given complaint before the management

also. The mis-behavior, misconduct, atrocity,

ruthless and indiscipline act of the petitioner in the

factory causes heavy monetary and production loss

to the respondent company, which resulted in the

issuance of charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009 to this

petitioner for his grave misconduct. This petitioner

gave evasive, false and unsatisfactory to the reply

on 20-05-2009 to the charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009.

(iii) The respondent management has decided to

conduct domestic enquiry against this petitioner and

it has issued the suspension order with effect from

27-05-2009. Under these circumstances, this petitioner

approached the Labour Commissioner, Puducherry

with false pretext of non-payment of subsistence

allowance and non conducting of domestic enquiry.

Eventhough this petitioner indulge in all sorts of

mis-behavior, this respondent agreed to pay the

subsistence allowance in the meeting held on

25-01-2010 before the Certifying Officer/Labour

Commissioner, Puducherry. The respondent did not

pursue for any disciplinary action by way of

conducting domestic enquiry with good hope to give

one more opportunity to this petitioner to change his

attitude and to give employment to him by pardoning

him as a gesture of his acquaintance on account of

his study with the MD of the respondent company

in the same school. But, all of sudden, this petitioner

made a representation before the Conciliation Officer

by raising dispute for his non-employment. Even in

the Conciliation also this respondent agreed to settle

the issue with humanitarian thought.

(iv) In this back drop, on 2010-2013 this

petitioner along with his wife met the MD at No. 211,

Chetty Street, Puducherry and stated that he was not

willing to continue the service due to his acute

ill- health and he was ready to resign his job and willing

to receive the service benefits from the management.

Further, he stated that he will not pursue before the

Conciliation Officer/Labour Court regarding the issue

of non-employment and accordingly he has given a

resignation letter, dated 20-10-2013 signed by him

and his wife. He received a sum of ` 75,000 towards

full and final settlement of his service benefit as and

ex gratia under voucher, dated 20-10-2013. Thus, he

received all the retrial benefits from the management

on the same day itself. Further, he received ` 4,500

towards subsistence allowance. Since, employment

of this petitioner with the respondent management

comes to an end on 20-10-2013 itself, by virtue of his

resignation letter, this petitioner is not entitle for any

relief as he prayed in the claim statement. This

petitioner suppressed the real facts and without any

iota of truth filed the claim statement with ulterior

motive to get undue advantages. Due to the

petitioner acquaintance in lieu of their study in the

same school with the MD of the respondent

management, the respondent did not take serious

action

under

humanitarian

ground

for

his

misconduct. But, this petitioner misused the above

said humanitarian thought for extracting money from

this respondent by way of raising this vexatious

industrial dispute. In view of the abovesaid facts, this

industrial dispute becomes liable to be dismissed in

toto and hence, it has to bo dismissed with cost.

4. On the side of the petitioner four witnesses were

examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 was marked. On the side

of the respondent only one witness was examined and

Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 was marked.

5. The petitioner side Counsel argued that the

petitioner was employed as an Electrician in the

respondent company and he was charge-sheeted on

16-05-2009 with false allegations. It is further argued that

337

19 May 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

this petitioner has given reply on 20-05-2009 and then

he has been suspended on 27-05-2009. The petitioner

side Counsel further argued that though the suspension

was order was issued on 27-05-2009, no enquiry was

conducted till date and this petitioner was put into

hardship without any employment by the management

will fully. It is further argued that the respondent has

not paid subsistence allowance to this petitioner.

Further, it is argued that the allegations of apology

letter, dated 24-04-2009 and the allegation of assault on

the security person by name Ajay on 25-04-2009 was

not proved by the management. Further, it is argued that

the Manager by name Muralidharan has no authority to

appoint anybody, and hence, the suspension order

issued by the management on 27-05-2009 through him

is also invalid. Further, it is argued by the petitioner

Counsel that the management has failed to produce

earlier records regarding the allegations of drunken

condition of this petitioner and the warning, pardoning

memos issued by the management. It is also argued by

the petitioner Counsel that the management has failed

to produce the certified standing order and hence, it is

not possible to come to the conclusion whether the so

called act of this petitioner come under the caption of

misconduct. The petitioner side Counsel argued that the

management has agreed to pay the subsistence

allowance as per the order of the Certifying Officer, but,

it has failed to comply the same. It is argued that all

these act of the management amounts to clear violation

of labour legislation and hence, this petitioner was

entitle for the prayers in the claim statement. The

petitioner side Counsel argued that Ex.R1 to R3 was

created for the purpose of this case and they should

not be taken into consideration for any purpose of this

case. It is further argued by the petitioner Counsel that

since the letter, dated 20-10-2013 stated that this

petitioner resigned his job on 01-11-2010, it can be

easily presumed as a created document. It is further

argued that since, the petitioner was under suspension

from 27-05-2009 without any genuine reasons and

without domestic enquiry, he has to be reinstated with

full back wages along with other prayers that he prayed

in the claim statement.

6. The respondent side Counsel has filed the written

argument on behalf of the management, wherein, it is

stated that since, the petitioner has voluntarily resigned

his job from 01-11-2010 by his letter, dated 20-10-2013,

he cannot claim anything before this Court. It is further

stated in the written argument that this petitioner was

not subjected to domestic enquiry proceeding on

humanitarian ground and on the ground of his

relationship with the MD of the company as a school

mate in the same school. It is further stated in the written

argument that this petitioner has misused the

humanitarian ground shown by the management

towards this petitioner and thereby attempted to grab

something from this management and with this intention

this industrial dispute has been raised before this Court

and hence, it has to be dismissed.

7. Points for consideration:

Whether the charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009 and

the suspension order, dated 27-05-2009 are to be

declared as null and void and invalid? whether this

petitioner was entitle for the prayer of seeking

` 5,00,000 towards damages? and whether he was

entitle for reinstatement with full back wages with all

other monetary benefits are to be decided in this

case.

8. On the Point:

The petitioner was an employed under the

respondent company and he was charge-sheeted as

per the charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009 and he was

suspended from his service on 27-05-2009 and the

non-conducting of domestic enquiry are all admitted

facts on both sides.

9. The charge-sheet was marked as Ex.P7 in this

case, wherein, it has been alleged that this petitioner

was a drunkard, having the habit of attending the duty

under drunken condition. The second allegation in the

charge-sheet was that on 18-04-2009 at about 10.00 a.m

this petitioner has entered into the company premises

and he has used filthy language against the MD in the

presence of the other workman. It is further alleged that

the co-employees has given complaint against this

petitioner for suitable action. In continuation of this,

it is alleged that this petitioner and his wife by name

Sulochana met the MD of the company and has given

apology letter on 24-04-2009. Thirdly, it was alleged that

this petitioner under drunken condition entered into the

respondent company on 25-04-2009 and he has harassed

and threatened the security person by name Ajay and

this petitioner has obtained seal and signatures from

the security person with an ulterior motive. The

petitioner has pleaded and deposed that no such

occurrence took place either on 18-04-2009 and

25-04-2009. To substantiate this evidence has also

examined PW.2 to PW.4. Further, PW.1 and PW.2 has

deposed that they have not given any apology letter

on 24-04-2009 as alleged in the counter. They have

categoricaly denied the suggestions made in this regard

during their cross-examination also. They have deposed

that on 24-04-2009, the respondent/management has

obtained their signature in blank papers and vouchers

338

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 May 2020

under threat, while they approached the management for

March 2009 salary. Therefore, the pardon of proving the

abovesaid aspect of incident on 18-04-2009, 25-04-2009

and the factum of filing of apology letter on 24-04-2009

has to be proved by the management itself. In this

regard, RW.1 has deposed that on 18-04-2009 at about

10.00 a.m., the petitioner forcibly entered in the company

premises in the drunken condition by necking the

security person at the time of his entry. RW.1 has further

deposed that the Manager of the company questioned

the rudely behavior of the petitioner and at that time

this petitioner criminally intimidated the Manager with

filthy languages and also stated that no one should

questioned him for anything. It is further deposed by

him that this petitioner has stated that he and the MD

studied in the same school and hence, no one should

questioned him. It is also stated in the evidence of

RW.1, that this petitioner has abused with filthy

languages against the MD of the company in the

presence of the workers. He has further deposed that

the rudely behavior of the petitioner has caused heavy

loss to the company. As per the evidence of RW1, the

incident alleged to be took place on 18-04-2009 in the

presence of the other workers. But, no other worker

was examined to substantiate this evidence. Further, the

copy of the complaint by co-workers was also not

marked. Further, as per Ex.R7 Charge sheet, the

co-workers said to have given complaint in this regard

on 18-04-2009, but, in this regard RW.1 has not deposed

anything in his oral evidence before this Court i.e., he

has not deposed anything regarding the complaint

given by the other workers on 18-04-2009. Therefore,

the allegation of forcible entry of the petitioner under

drunken condition on 18-04-2009 and the use of filthy

language against the MD in the presence of the other

workers found to be not true. Further, no documents

were produced to show this petitioner as a drunkard.

10. As per the charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009 issued

by the respondent management, this petitioner and his

wife has given an apology letter on 24-04-2009 and seek

pardon from the respondent management. But, the

respondent has not pleaded anything in this regard in

their counter. If, at all this petitioner and his wife gave

an apology letter on 24-04-2009 for the incident that was

alleged to be taken place on 18-04-2009, then this

respondent could very well pleaded the same and

produce the letter of apology, dated 24-04-2009 before

this Court. But, it was not done so. The failure of

non-production of apology letter, dated 24-04-2009 by

the management shows that the allegation against this

petitioner regarding the incident on 18-04-2009 is found

to be baseless and ungenuine.

11. Thirdly it was alleged in the charge-sheet that

this petitioner forcibly entered into the factory premises

under drunken condition on 25-04-2009 and obtained

seals and signature from the security person by name

Ajay by harassing him and threatening him. To

substantiate his evidence, the management has failed

to examine the so called security person by name Ajay.

Further, it has not received any complaint from the

security person by name Ajay in this regard, which

shows that the incident alleged to took place on

25-04-2009 also found be a false one.

12. At this juncture, the petitioner’s wife (PW.2)

deposed that on 24-04-2009 at about 08.45 p.m. she and

her husband met the MD of the Mill for the purpose of

getting her husband salary for the month of March 2009

and at that time, the MD by name Sambath, Kasilingam

and Muralidharan has obtained signatures on two

blank vouchers, on two white papers and in one empty

bond paper. She further deposed that all the papers are

empty and blank. She further deposed that the

signatures were obtained under threat. She further

deposed that to save the life and employment of her

husband she agreed to sign the papers. She further

deposed that driver Loganathan of the respondent/

management entered into the room and he obtained the

signatures in the empty papers and vouchers as referred

above. Therefore, it seems that this petitioner and his

wife signed in the empty papers and vouchers and not

given any apology letter on 24-04-2009. Furthermore,

PW.l and PW.2 has sent a complaint in this regard and

seeks explanation from the management vide Ex.P5, P6

and P16.

13. At this juncture, this Court inclined to go

through the evidence of RW.l, wherein, he has deposed

that on 20-10-2013 this petitioner and his wife by name

Sulochana came to the Office of the MD and stated that

this petition is not willing to continue his service due

to his acute ill-health and they have given resignation

letter and willing to receive the service benefit from the

management. If, at all this evidence is true, then the

resignation letter must contained side initials of the

office bearers of the respondent management. Further,

it may also contained the date seal of the management

to show the receipt of the same on 20-10-2013. But, on

perusal of Ex.Rl, the so called resignation letter, dated

20-10-2013 signed by the petitioner and his wife did not

contain any seal or signature. It proves that the so

called letter, dated 20-10-2013, as a created one for the

purpose of this case. Further, this Court was able to

presume that the abovesaid resignation letter, dated

20-10-2013 was prepared with the help of the signed

blank papers obtained from the petitioner and his wife

on 24-04-2009. Similarly, Ex.R2 and R3 also found to be

339

19 May 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

created from and out of the signatures obtained on

blank vouchers on 24-04-2009. Therefore, the allegation

of voluntary resignation by this petitioner is found to

be untrustworthy.

14. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.R1, the resignation

letter, dated 20-10-2013, it is stated that this petitioner

has resigned his job from 01-11-2010. It shows that,

even for the argument sake also, this document cannot

be considered to be a true and trustworthy one.

Therefore, this Court has clear doubt over the

document, dated 20-10-2013 marked as Ex.Rl and the

subsequent documents such as Ex.R2 and R3 also. In

fine, this Court considers Ex.Rl to R3 as created

document for the purpose of this case.

15. At this juncture, PW.2 has deposed that the

respondent authorities had obtained signatures on

blank papers and vouchers on 24-04-2009. She has

further deposed on they have put their signatures to

save the life and employment of his husband. She has

further deposed that even after signing the empty

papers, wages were not paid and therefore, she has

suggested her husband to send a letter to the

respondent to requesting them to sent copies of the

documents with the contents written there on above

their signatures. She deposed that her husband has

written a letter, dated 25-04-2009 to the respondent and

she also signed the same and it was handed over to the

security person of the respondent mill gate and they

have obtained the acknowledgment for the same from

the security person on 25-04-2009. In order to,

substantiate this evidence, the petitioner has marked

Ex.P16, dated 25-04-2009 through the evidence of PW2.

Further, it was also supported by Ex.P5 and P6. But,

RW.1 has deposed that this petitioner has forcibly

entered into the gate on 25-04-2009 and obtained seal

and signature from the security person by name Ajay.

But, to substantiate this part of evidence the respondent

management has not examined the so called security

person by name Ajay. Hence, on analyzing the evidence

of PW.2, RW.1 and Ex.P16, this Court come to the

conclusion that this petitioner and his wife was

compelled to give signatures on blank papers and

vouchers and which was utilize by the respondent

management to create document, dated 20-10-2013.

16. PW.1 has deposed that no domestic enquiry was

conducted from 27-05-2009 to till date in order to harass

this petitioner. Further, he has deposed that the

respondent management has failed to give subsistence

allowance even after the order was passed by the

Labour Commissioner/Certifying Officer. He has also

deposed that though this respondent has agreed to pay

the subsistence allowance on the meeting held on

25-01-2010 before the Labour Commissioner, he has

failed to comply the same. He has further deposed that

he has approached the Labour Commissioner,

Puducherry on 18-12-2009. To substantiate this aspect

he has filed Ex.P9, letter to the Commissioner, Labour

Department, Puducherry, dated 18-12-2009. He has

further deposed that the respondent agreed to pay the

subsistence allowance on the meeting held on

25-01-2010. It was also admitted by the respondent

management. Tha petitioner has deposed that even after

the assurance given before the Labour Commissioner,

Puducherry on 25-01-2010, the respondent has failed to

comply the same and he has obtained an order on

15-03-2010 in this regard, from the Certifying Officer. In

order to substantiate this evidence he has produced

Ex.P11, dated 15-03-2010, order of the Certifying Officer.

He has further deposed that he has approached the

Labour Commissioner, Puducherry again on 23-01-2013

and to substantiate this evidence he has produced

Ex.P12, dated 23-01-2013. Further, he has deposed that

he has sent reminder letter to the Labour Commissioner

on 26-02-2013 and to substantiate this evidence he has

produced Ex.P13, dated 26-02-2013, letter to the Labour

Commissioner, Puducherry. Further, he has deposed

that he has approached the Conciliation Officer on

23-01-2012 and it ends in vain and the failure report was

given on 19-09-2013. To substantiate this evidence he

has produced the failure report, dated 19-09-2013 as

Ex.P15. From and out of these evidence and documents

it is clear that this petitioner was kept under suspension

from 27-05-2009 to till date i.e., as nearly as 10 years

and more. Furthermore, it shows that this petitioner in

the battle and faced hard struggle, for more than 10 years

for his subsistence allowance and for reinstatement.

RW1 has deposed that on humanitarian ground and

with good hope to give one more opportunity to the

petitioner to change his attitude and to give employment

to him by pardoning him as a gesture of his acquaintance

on account of his study with the MD of the respondent

management in the same school, the management did

not pursue any disciplinary action by way of conducting

domestic enquiry. The evidence of RW1 in this regard

seems to be utter false one and unable to be accepted

genuine one. Keeping a poor man of an Electrician under

suspension for more than 10 years without any domestic

enquiry under the guise of classmate of MD is nothing

but, a colourful exercise of victimization and harassment

by the management. Furthermore, the management has

obtained the signatures from the petitioner and his wife

on 24-04-2009 and make use of the same for their

convenience to prepare the resignation letter, dated

20-10-2013. Therefore, this Court comes to the

conclusion that the petitioner is entitle for all the relief

that he claimed in the claim petition.

340

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 May 2020

17. In the result, the order of suspension, dated

27-05-2009 issued by the management is declared as

invalid, the charge-sheet, dated 16-05-2009 is declared

as null and void, and the petitioner is entitled to get

damages of ` 5.00,000 and he was also declared to be

entitle to get reinstatement with full back wages and all

other attendant benefits and the industrial dispute

raised by the petitioner against the management is

decided as justified one and hence this ID is allowed

with cost.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 10th day of January, 2020.

V. PANDIARAJ,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witnesses:

PW.1 — 10-05-2017

Manickam

PW.2 — 07-08-2017

Sulochana

PW.3 — 08-09-2017

Anbuchezhian

PW.4 — 19-09-2017

Jayakumar

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.Pl — 15-10-1997

Copy of letter of Confirmation

of Service, dated 15-10-1997

issued by the Diamond

Paper and Board Mills Pvt.

Ltd. to the petitioner.

Ex.P2 —

Copy of Identity Card of the

petitioner issued by the

Enteeyes Paper and Board

Mills (P) Ltd.,

Ex.P3 — 12-11-2007

Copy of ESI Identity Card of

the petitioner.

Ex.P4 —

Copy of Salary Slip of the

petitioner for the month of

May 2002 issued by the

respondent.

Ex.P5 — 25-04-2009

Copy of the letter submitted

by the petitioner and his

wife to the respondent.

Ex.P6 — 27-04-2009

Copy of the letter submitted

by the petitioner to the

Labour

Commissioner,

Puducherry.

Ex.P7 — 16-05-2009

Copy of the show-cause

notice sent by the respondent

to the petitioner.

Ex.P8 — 27-05-2009

Copy of letter of Suspension-

cum-Enquiry sent by the

respondent to the petitioner.

Ex.P9 — 18-12-2009

Copy of letter submitted by

the petitioner to the Labour

Commissioner, Puducherry.

Ex.P10 — 09-02-2010

Copy of Notice sent by the

Certifying Officer, Labour

Department, Puducherry to

the respondent with copy to

the petitioner.

Ex.P11 — 15-03-2010

Copy of Order passed by the

Certifying Officer, Labour

Department,

Puducherry

referring the dispute raised

by the petitioner against the

respondent to the Labour

Court, Puducherry.

Ex.P12 — 23-01-2013

Copy of letter submitted by

the petitioner to the Labour

Commissioner, Puducherry

regarding non-payment of

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P13 — 25-02-2013

Copy of letter submitted by

the petitioner to the Labour

Commissioner, Puducherry

regarding non-payment of

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P14 — 15-03-2013

Copy of Notice of enquiry/

conciliation sent by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation)

to the petitioner with copy

to the respondent.

Ex.P15 — 19-09-2013

Copy of report of failure of

conciliation, submitted by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation)

to the Secretary to Government

(Labour).

Ex.P16 — 25-04-2009

True copy of the letter sent

by the petitioner to the

respondent and signed by

the PW.2 also containing the

acknowledgment for receipt

the

same

the

respondent mills on the

reverse of the same.

Ex.P17 —

True copy of the ESI Card

bearing No. 13860489.

Ex.P18 —

True copy of the EPF Scheme

Certificate and covering letter,

dated 03-06-2016 issued by

the Employees’ Provident

Fund

Organization

Jayakumar.

341

19 May 2020]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

List of respondent’s witness:

RW.1 — 06-11-2017

Soundarajan

List of respondents exhibits:

Ex.R1 — 20-10-2013

Resignation letter, dated

20-10-2013.

Ex.R2 — 20-10-2013

Cash Voucher, dated 20-10-2013

for an amount of ` 75,000.

Ex.R3 — 20-10-2013

Cash Voucher, dated 20-10-2013

for an amount of ` 4,570.

Ex.R4 — 05-10-2017

Board Resolutions.

Ex.R5 — 06-10-2017

Power of Attorney Deed.

V. PANDIARAJ,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (AGRICULTURE)

(G.O. Ms. No. 2/Ag., Puducherry, dated 30th April 2020)

ORDER

Administrative approval of the Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is hereby conveyed for the Addendum of

the following Crops and Notified Area in Karaikal region and continued under Sl. No. 292 in the Annexure to the

G.O. Ms. No. 29/Agri., dated 20-12-2019 of the Chief Secretariat (Agriculture), Puducherry.

Sl.

Season

State

Crop

District

Commune

Revenue

No. of

No.

Village

CCE to be

conducted

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

293

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Dharmapuram

294

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Kovilpathu

295

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Thalatheru

296

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Keezhakasakudy

297

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

Sorakudy

298

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

Subrayapuram

299

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

Devamapuram

300

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Black Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

301

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherrv

Green Gram

Karaikal

Dharmapuram

302

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Green Gram

Karaikal

Kovilpathu

303

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Green Gram

Karaikal

Thalatheru

304

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Green Gram

Karaikal

Keezhakasakudy

305

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Green Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

Sorakudy

306

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Green Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

Subrayapuram

307

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Green Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

Devamapuram

308

Rabi 2019-20

Puducherry

Green Gram

Karaikal

Thirunallar

2. The other terms and conditions contained in the G.O. Ms. No. 29/Agri., dated 20-12-2019 of the

Chief Secretariat (Agriculture), Puducherry remains unaltered.

(By order)

A. PUNITHAMARY

Under Secretary to Government (Agriculture).