La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 13-00
Prix : ` 13-00
Price :
` 13-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
516
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 516
Award of the Labour Court
.. 516
de tribunal.
..
523
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 523
Government Notifications .. 523
..
528
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 528
Tender Notices
.. 528
..
529
Etablissements dangereux
.. 529
Dangerous Establishments
..
529
..
530
Annonces
.. 530
Announcements
..
530
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 : 18-8-2020
Price : ` 13-00
[ 515 ]
2020 }
|
18 {
No.
33
Poudouchéry
Mardi
18
Août
2020 (27 Sravana 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
18th
August
2020
516
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 August 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 68/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 14th July 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 15/2016, dated
12-02-2020 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. S & S Power
Switchgear Equipment Limited, Sedarapet, Puducherry
and Thiru Poongavanam, Vanoor District, over
non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT
PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 12th day of February 2020.
I.D. (L) No. 15/2016
Poongavanam,
No. 2/463, Bharathi Street,
Kalaignar Nagar,
Thiruchitrambalam Koot Road,
Vanoor District.
. . Petitioner/
Workman.
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. S & S Power Switchgear
Equipment Limited,
No. 4, EVR Street,
Sedarapet, Puducherry.
. . Respondent/
Management.
This industrial dispute coming on 11-02-2020 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P.R. Thiruneelakandan, A. Mithun Chakravarthy
and R. Harinath, Counsels for the petitioner and
Thiru M. Vaikunth, 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:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government of Puducherry as per the G.O. Rt.
No. 52/AIL/Lab./T/2016, dated 06-06-2016 for
adjudicating the following;
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru
E. Poongavanam, against the management of
M/s. S & S Power Switchgear Equipment Limited,
Puducherry, over his non-employment is justified or
not? If justified, what relief he is entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The brief averment of the petition filed by the
petitioner:
(i) The petitioner was employed ed in the
respondent factory during 1988. He was an active
member in the Union namely, S & S Power Switchgear
Equipment Limited, Labour Union. It had only limited
member of workers. During the year 2012, the
abovesaid Union and the other Union by name S & S
Power Switchgear Equipment Limited, Employees
Welfare Sangam, which had majority workers as his
member, had submitted a charter of demands for
revision of wages before the respondent.
(ii) The Trade Union by name S & S Power
Switchgear Equipment Limited Labour Union had
acted against the interest of the workers in collusion
with the management. It raised misunderstanding
between this petitioner and the S & S Power
Switchgear Equipment Limited Labour Union,
therefore, this petitioner along with two other workers
had left from the said Union and joined as members
in the rival union by name S & S Power Switchgear
Equipment Limited Employees Welfare Sangam.
Since, this petitioner and two other members resigned
from the said minority Union it strength was reduced
to five members only. It was not even enough to meet
the minimum statutory strength to form and function
as Trade Union and therefore, the management was
unable to execute the 12(3) settlement with the said
minority Union with respect to the wage revision and
therefore, the respondent management had personal
animosity with this petitioner and it has decided to
victimize this petitioner by adopting unfair labour
practice. While so on 13-11-2013, the charge memo
was issued to this petitioner alleging that this
petitioner had assaulted the co-employee by name
517
18 August 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Mr. K. Saravanan. This petitioner denied the charges
as false and
baseless. But, the respondent
management conducted the domestic enquiry in a pre
determind manner to terminate this petitioner from
his service. It has adopted empty formality without
observing any rule and principles of natural justice
and in a hasty manner and concluded the domestic
enquiry in its favour and it has terminated this
petitioner from service on 18-04-2015. Aggrieved by
the same, this petitioner had raised the dispute
before the Conciliation Officer (Labour) and it ended
in failure. It was reported on 27-01-2016 and
thereafter, this Industrial Dispute has been referred
to this Labour Court by the Government of
Puducherry. The management had acted in arbitrary,
illegal and against the natural principles of justice
and thereby removed this petitioner from service on
18-04-2015. It is a pure Act of victimization and unfair
labour practice and hence, the order of termination
has to be set aside. No fair and proper enquiry was
conducted by the management. This petitioner was
not afforded with opportunity to defend his charges.
The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a hasty
manner with pre-determination. The management has
imposed the punishment of termination in an arbitrary
manner. Therefore, the illegal termination order, dated
18-04-2015 has to be set aside and the petitioner has
to be reinstated into the company with continuity of
service. back wages and all other monetary benefits.
Hence, it is prayed to allow this application.
3. The brief averment of the counter field by the
respondent:
(i) The allegations raised by he petitioner against
the respondent as denied as false and baseless. The
management never acted in a victimized manner. This
petitioner was terminated for his proven misconduct
relating to the incident that took place inside the
factory on 07-11-2013. The punishment awarded
against the petitioner is in proportionate one. There
is no arbitrariness or illegality in the termination
order and therefore, it is not necessary to set aside
the order of termination.
(ii) On 07-11-2013 at 05.10 p.m. the co-employee by
name Mr. Saravanan was returning from the toilet
along with his colleague by name Mr. Augstin and
at the time, this petitioner accosted the abovesaid
Saravanan, at the end of the path way opposite to
the Machine shop where angle notching machine is
located. This petitioner abused the said Saravanan
as follows “
” Further, this
petitioner scolded and assaulted Mr. Saravanan on
his right neck and pushed him and he raised his
hand once again, which was intervened and stopped
by the said Augustin. The abovesaid act is a
misconduct under clause 149(3) (g) (h) and (i) of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Central
Rules, 1946 and hence, the charge memo was issued
to this petitioner in writing and he is directed to file
his reply within 48 hours from the date of receipt of
the charge memo. This petitioner has requested
for 15 days time to enable him to file his explanation
on 15-11-2013. The management has granted a week
time letter, dated 16-11-2013. Again on 23-11-2013,
the petitioner seeks further time to offer his
explanation and it was granted by the management
vide its letter, dated 25-11-2013. Finally, this
petitioner filed his explanation on 30-11-2013
wherein, he has denied the charges in a single line.
Thereafter, the enquiry was started on 13-12-2013
and the domestic enquiry was concluded on
11-07-2014. It has consumed nearly 28 sittings from
the date of commencement on 27-12-2013. The
respondent management has examined Mr. Saravanan,
Augustine and the Senior Engineer Mr. Selvakumar.
The management has represented its case through
its representative by name Mr. Arul. This petitioner
has participated in the Domestic Enquiry and he
has examined Mr. Palaninathan, Mr. V. Murugan
and one V. Senthilkumar. This petitioner was assisted
by his colleague by name D. Thirugnaunsambandam.
This petitioner has participated in the enquiry fully with
his assistant with above the said D. Thirunanasambandam.
All the material and relevant records were produced
before the Enquiry Officer and its copies were
furnished to this petitioner. Further, this petitioner
has cross-examined all the witnesses thoroughly and
finally the findings of the Enquiry Officer were
submitted on 29-10-2014 and the copy of the same
was given to this petitioner on 22-12-2014. This
petitioner has given his reply to the findings on
13-01-2015. Thereafter, the 2nd show cause notice
was issued to this petitioner on 13-02-2015. This
petitioner has taken sufficient time and advice from
his Colleague/Trade Union member and finally, he
has given his reply on 03-03-2015. After considering
the same, the gravity of the Acts and misconduct of
this petitioner, the management has terminated this
petitioner from his service. The order of dismissal has
no relevance with the Union activity and it was purely
related to the incident that took place on 07-11-2013
at about 05.10 p.m. This petitioner has purposely
suppressed the real fact and attempted to project the
518
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 August 2020
picture that he was victimized by the management and
by the rival Union. The resignation of this petitioner
from one Union and switch over to other Union is
no way relevant to this case and the reasons for his
quit also no way connected with Union activity.
Further, the issue of wages as no way related to this
industrial dispute. Hence, it has to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the petitioner only witness was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side
of the respondent only one witness was examined and
Ex.Rl and Ex.R11 were marked.
5. The petitioner side Counsel argued that this
petitioner was victimized and terminated from the
service, as he resigned from the minority Union along
with two other members and switch over to the majority
Union. It is further argued that due to his resignation
of his membership from the minority Union, the minority
Union has lost its statutory strength and it was unable
to enter into 12 (3) settlement with the management. In
order to victimize this petitioner, the respondent
management has issued a false charge memo and
conducted the disciplinary proceedings as an empty
formality and thereby removed this petitioner from his
service. It is further argued that the termination order
was issued as a colourful exercise by the management
against the provision of labour legislations. It is further
argued that removal of this petitioner from service for the
act of use of filthy language against the co-employee,
is a colourful exercise and the order of the punishment
is also highly excessive and dis-proportionate and
hence, it has to be set aside and the petitioner has to
be awarded with re-instatement with all other monetary
benefits.
6. The respondent side Counsel argued that this
petitioner was removed from service for alleged
misconduct that took place on 07-1l-2013 and there was
no relevancy of rivalry Union activity as alleged by this
petitioner. It is further argued that this petitioner was
removed from his service for the proven and misconduct
of use of filthy language and assault against the
co-employee on 07-1l-2013. It is further argued that in
order to save the co-employee and to maintain the
industrial peace, this petitioner was properly subjected
to disciplinary proceedings and hence, punished with
removal of service and it was not excessive as alleged
by the petitioner. It is further argued that there was no
hasty in concluding the proceedings and this petitioner
was removed from his service after following all the
legal formalities and the principles of natural justice and
hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition by this
petitioner.
7. Points for consideration:
Whether the dispute raised by Thiru E. Poongavanam
against the management of M/s. S & S Power
Switchgear Equipment Limited, Puducherry, over his
non-employment is justified or not? If justified, what
relief he is entitled to?
8. On the Point:
The petitioner was an employee in the respondent
company and he has been removed from his service
by the management on 18-04-2015 are all admitted
facts. Originally, this petitioner was a member in
S & S Power Switchgear Equipment Limited Labour
Union which is a minority Union and thereafter, this
petitioner along with two others left from the same
union and they have joined as members of the
majority Union by name S & S Power Switchgear
Equipment Limited Employees Welfare Sangam are
also admitted facts. Whether the order of the
removal/termination on the basis of the enquiry
proceedings is justifiable or not is to be decided
hereunder.
9. The petitioner has pleaded that as he left from the
minority
Union and therefore, the respondent
management and the representatives of the minority
Union had personal animosity with this petitioner and
therefore, he was victimized by the respondent
management. At the same time, the respondent has
pleaded that the removal of this petitioner from his
service is for the proven of misconduct that took place
on 07-11-2013 and not for the rivalry Union activities.
To analyse the abovesaid aspects, this Court inclined
to go through the documents produced on both sides.
This petitioner has pleaded that originally the minority
Union has also given a charter of demand and due to
his resignation from the said minority Union, the
minority Union has lost its statutory strength and
therefore, it was unable to enter under section 12(3)
settlement with the respondent management. The
petitioner further pleaded that due to that animosity, he
was victimized by the management as well by the
representative of the minority Union. The petitioner has
no given the date of filing of charter of demand before
the responden management, the date of his resignation
from the minority Union and the date of settlement under
section 12(3) by the management with the majority
Union, without which, this Court was unable to come
to the conclusion that this petitioner was removed from
his service due to personal animosity that arises due
to the resignation of this petitioner from the minority
Union. Further, he has failed to examine the
co-employees to strengthen their aspect. Therefore, the
allegation of rivalry Union activity and personal
animosity are found to baseless.
519
18 August 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
10. At the same time, the respondent has pleaded
that he was removed his service for the alleged
misconduct that took place on 07-11-2013. To
substantiate this pleading, the respondent has filed
Ex.R1 wherein, it is stated that on 07-11-2013 at 05.10 p.m.
this petitioner, accosted the said Saravanan and used
filthy language and assaulted him. Furthermore, as per
the Ex.R2, dated 18-04-2015, the termination order, it has
been clearly mentioned in the 2nd paragraph that this
petitioner accosted the said Saravanan, used filthy
language against him and he also assaulted the said
Saravanan”. Furthermore, in the termination order,
dated 18-04-2015 (Ex.R2) it is clearly mentioned that the
charge against this petitioner was clearly proved and
therefore, he was terminated from his service.
Furthermore, the respondent has raised the plea of
misconduct of use of filthy language against one
Saravanan and same plea was raised before the
Conciliation Officer also. But, this petitioner has
conveniently suppressed the abovesaid misconduct,
dated 07-11-2013 in his pleading before this Court. It
shows that this petitioner has not approached this Court
with clean hands and he has conveniently the
suppressed the same. Therefore, from the abovesaid
discussion it was clear that this petitioner was removed
from his service for the proven of misconduct that took
place on 07-11-2013. Thus, the respondent has clearly
proved that this petitioner was removed from his service
for the proven of misconduct and not for rivalry Union
activities.
11. Thirdly, this petitioner has pleaded that the
respondent management has conducted the domestic
enquiry in a hasty manner and no opportunity was given
to this petitioner to defend his case. To substantiate
this part of pleading, this petition has to file
documentary and oral evidence. But, he has not
produced any documentary or oral evidence with
respect to the disciplinary proceedings. It shows that
this petitioner has raised false and bald allegation only.
At this juncture, this inclined to go through the counter
pleading and the evidence of RW1, wherein, he has
deposed that for the alleged misconduct by this
petitioner on 07-11-2013, he has served with charge
memo on 13-11-2013 and this petitioner has requested
15 days time for his explanation on 15-11-2013. He
has further deposed that the management has granted
time to this petitioner to file his objection. It is also
deposed that this petitioner has filed his explanation
on 30-11-2013 with one line denial. He further depose
that the disciplinary proceedings commenced on
27-12-2013 and it continued on various days as follows:
31-12-2013
18-04-2014
11-01-2014
23-04-2014
25-01-2014
29-04-2014
30-01-2014
05-05-2014
04-02-2014
15-05-2014
15-02-2014
21-05-2014
15-03-2014
02-06-2014
18-03-2014
06-06-2014
21-03-2014
14-06-2014
24-03-2014
19-06-2014
02-04-2014
23-06-2014
07-04-2014
03-07-2014
09-04-2014
11-07-2014.
12. He further deposed that nearly 28 sittings were
conducted from the date of commencement on 27-12-2013
and the findings were given on 29-10-2014 and the
management has given the copy of the report on
29-12-2014 and await for his reply on the findings. He
further deposed that this petitioner filed his view over
the report on 13-01-2015. He has further deposed that
the second show cause notice was issued on
16-02-2015, the reply was received on 03-03-2015 and
then finally he was removed from his service on
18-04-2015. This petitioner has not come forward to
cross-examined RW1 to get over the same as false. The
unchallenged oral evidence of RW1 substantiate of the
pleadings raised in the counter. Thus, it shows that this
petitioner was removed from his service only after
adopting all the legal formalities and the principles of
natural justice. Therefore, this Court comes to the
conclusion that there is no violation of principles of
natural justice during the enquiry proceedings.
13. Now, let us pass to the punishment awarded to
this petitioner as to its proportionality, i.e., it has to
find out whether the punishment of dismissal for the
alleged misconduct of this petitioner on 07-11-2013 is
proportionate or excessive. At this juncture the
petitioner side Counsel filed the citation reported in
1982 AIR1552 reported in the case of
Rama Kant Misra
Vs.
State of UP and others, dated 2l-10-1982.
Wherein, the Hon’ble Court has indicated that
punishment must always be commensurate with the
gravity of the offence charged. In the abovesaid ease,
520
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 August 2020
the appellant/workman who had put in more than
14 years of service, who was removed from his service
for the misconduct of use of filthy language and
threatening posture, and the same was challenged
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the removal of the
workman for such allegation is an extreme steps taken
by the management. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was
not satisfied with the order of dismissal as it was
unjustified and has imposed the punishment of
withholding of two increments with future effect and
stated that which will be more than adequate
punishment. Further, this petitioner has filed another
judgment reported in 1984 AIR 914 wherein, it is held
that the order of the dismissal for the alleged misconduct
of use of filthy language as disproportionate. It is held
as follows: “We are also of the opinion that no
responsible employer would ever impose in like
circumstances, the punishment of dismissal to the
employee and that victimization or unfair labour practice
could well be inferred from the conduct of the
management in awarding the extreme punishment of
dismissal for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker
or officer of the management by the appellant within
the premises of the factory. We therefore, hold that
the termination of the appellant’s service is invalid and
unsustainable in law, and that he is entitled to
reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits
including continuity of service. The appeal is allowed
accordingly with costs quantified at ` l,000.
14. Further, the petitioner side Counsel filed another
citation reported in Writ Petition No.12339/2016, dated
08-10-2018 by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Wherein,
the technical staff who was removed from his service
for the misconduct of abusive language against his
superior i.e., the Assistant Engineer has challenged his
order of termination before the Hon’ble Madras High
Court. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the
penalty of dismissal on the alleged use of filthy
language as disproportionate and it has ordered to the
reinstate the workman in service with continuity of
service with the attendant benefits but, without back
wages. It has also ordered a cut in the increment in the
wages for the period of 2 years without cumulative
effect.
15. Here, in this case also this petitioner was
removed from his service for the alleged misconduct of
use of filthy language and assaulted against one
Saravanan on 07-11-2013. There was no past record of
misconduct against this petitioner. Hence, considering
the abovesaid circumstances and the service of this
petitioner since 1988, this Court comes to the
conclusion that tile punishment of dismissal is
disproportionate. As laid down by the principles in the
abovesaid citations, this Court comes to the conclusion
that this petitioner is very well entitle for the benefits
of the abovesaid citations. Hence, this Court comes to
the conclusion that the order of dismissal has to be
necessarily be set aside and he has to be re-instated
into service with all other attendant benefits. At the same
time, this Court is of the view that the punishment of
cut in the increment with cumulative effect for a period
of two years would be an appropriate one.
16. In the result, the order of termination by the
management is decided as unjustified and the Industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the management
is decided as justified with the following observations.
(i) the order of dismissal, dated 18-04-2015 is set
aside and the petitioner is ordered to be
re-instated into service with effect from 18-04-2015
with full back wages and all other monetary benefits,
however, there shall be a cut in the increment in the
wages for a period of two years with cumulative
effect.
(ii) Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 12th day of February, 2020.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.l — 29-06-2017
Poongavanam.
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl — 18-04-2015
Copy of the Petitioner’s
Termination Order.
Ex.P2 — 11-05-2015
Copy of the petitioner’s
raised an Industrial Dispute
b e f o r e
t h e
L a b o u r
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P3 — 14-05-2015
Copy of the Conciliation
Notice.
Ex.P4 — 27-01-2016
Copy of the Conciliation
Failure Notice.
Ex.P5 — 06-06-2016
Copy of the Government
Reference.
Ex.P6 — 01-07-2016
Copy of the Legal Notice.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW1 — 30-08-2017
Balakrishnan.
521
18 August 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — 15-05-2015
Copy of Form K filed
before
the
Industrial
Tribunal-Labour
Court,
Puducherry.
Ex.R2 — 18-04-2015
Copy of letter from S & S
Power Switchgear Equipments
Limited.
Ex.R3 — 20-04-2015
Co py
o f
letter
fro m
Poongavanam.
Ex.R4 — 05-05-2015
Copy of letter from S & S
Power Switchgear Equipments
Limited.
Ex.R5 — 10-06-2015
Co py
o f
letter
fro m
Poongavanam.
Ex.R6 — 10-06-2015
Co py
o f
letter
fro m
Poongavanam.
Ex.R7 — 23-06-2015
Copy of letter from S & S
Power Switchgear Equipments
Limited.
Ex.R8 — 17-07-2015
Copy of letter from S & S
Power Switchgear Equipments
Limited.
Ex.R9 — 27-07-2015
Copy of letter from Office
of
the
Labour
Officer
(Concilation).
Ex.R10 — 06-08-2015
Copy of letter from S & S
Power Switchgear Equipments
Limited.
Ex.R11 — 06-07-2015
Copy of reefrence letter
from Labour Department,
Puducherry.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 71/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 15th July 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 16/2017, dated
05-03-2020 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. Jayaprakash
Narayanan Co-operative Spinning Mill, Neravy,
Karaikal and Thiru M. Dhanasekaran, Karaikal, over
reinstatement with back wages has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O.Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT
PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 5th day of March 2020.
I.D. (L) No. 16/2017
M. Dhanasekaran,
No. 6, Sivan Koil Street,
Poovam, Varichikudi,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Jayaparakash Narayanan
Co-operative Spinning Mill,
Neravy, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R. Ramar,
Representative for the petitioner and Thiru Sangaralingam
and P. Djeassilane, Counsels 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:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Disputes has been referred by the
Government of Puducherry, as per the G.O. Rt. No. 43/
AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 06-04-2017 for adjudicating the
following;-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru
M. Dhanasegaran against the management of
M/s. Jayaprakash Narayanan Co-operative Spinning
Mill, Karaikal, over reinstatement and back wages is
justified or not? If justified, what relief he is entitled
to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be computed?
522
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 August 2020
2. Brief of the claim petition:
The petitioner was employed as apprentice during
the year 1996 and thereafter, he was made permanent
in the year 2000. He availed two years long leave
from 01-02-2013 to 01-02-2015. In the mean time, he
was called on by the respondent/management and
directed to attend the duty and therefore, this
petitioner attended the duty on and from 10-02-2014
and he received a sum of ` 12, 000 as monthly salary.
Thereafter, this petitioner availed ESI leave from
01-03-2014 to 07-03-2014. In the meanwhile, this
petitioner was admitted in Vinayaga Medical Mission
Hospital, through ESI Corporation for surgery on
08-04-2014 and then he was discharged on 21-04-2014.
Further, this petitioner availed ESI leave from
22-04-2014 to 27-04-2014. Even then, this petitioner
was not able to get good relief and hence, he was
unable to attend the duty and he was on leave
continuously. In the meanwhile, the management has
issued show cause notice stating that he was absent
on and from 15-04-2014 and seeks explanation for that
and this petitioner filed his reply on 30-04-2014
stating that due to his health condition, he was
unable to attend the duty. After getting improvement
in the health condition, this petitioner approached
the respondent/management on 30-01-2015 for duty.
The respondent/management refused to receive the
documents submitted by this petitioner and intimated
that this petitioner was terminated from his duty on
and from 30-08-2014. The second show cause notice
issued by the management dated 09-07-2014 was not
at all received by this petitioner. This petitioner’s
effort to get employment ends in failure and
therefore, this petitioner approached the Conciliation
Officer on 02-02-2015. This petitioner was illegally
terminated from service while he was under treatment
in Vinayaka Mission Hospital at Karaikal from
08-04-2014 to 21-04-2014. The show cause notice,
dated 15-04-2014 was issued, while he was in
admission in the Vinayaka Mission Hospital. The
reply given by this petitioner on 30-04-2014 was not
at all considered by the respondent/management. He
was removed from his service without any enquiry
and it was also not intimated to this petitioner in
appropriate time. The termination of this petitioner
is against clause 17 and 21 of the Standing Order of
the Mill and it was also against the principles of
natural justice, hence, this petitioner has to be
reinstated into service with full back wages and all
other monetary benefits.
3. Brief of the counter averments:
All the averments in the claim statement is denied
as false except those are specifically admitted by the
respondent in the counter. The respondent admitted
that this petitioner was permanently employed and
he availed the long leave for two years. While the
petitioner was on sanctioned long leave he was
recalled by the management on 25-01-2014 as per the
Standing Order and this petitioner also rejoined duty
on 10-02-2014 and he continued his duty till 03-04-2014.
Then from 05-04-2014 he was absent from his duty
without any intimation and therefore, this respondent
issued the show cause notice, dated 15-04-2014 to
this petitioner and sought for his explanation. This
petitioner filed his reply on 30-04-2014 with medical
certificate and fitness certificate, as per the fitness
certificate he has to resume work on 26-04-2014, but,
he has failed to resume duty from 28-04-2014 on
wards and therefore, the respondent/management
was constrained to remove this petitioner’s name
from the muster role of the Mill and therefore, this
respondent/management issued a show cause notice
on 09-07-2014 and sought for his explanation within
3 days. The postal notice was returned as left
without intimation. In abandon caution, the
respondent/management also intended to enquire him
personally about his continuous absent and a notice
was put up in the notice-board on 16-07-2014. Even
then, this petitioner failed to give his explanation for
his continuous absence. Since, this petitioner was
continuously absent from 28-04-2014 onwards, the
management has removed his name from the muster
roll on 30-08-2014 as per the discharge order passed
on 28-08-2014. The discharge order was also returned
as undelivered, which was sent to the petitioner’s
address. Thereafter, this petitioner received the same
in person on 30-01-2015. The Assistant Spinning
Master was empowered to issue discharge order and
he was authorised to terminate this petitioner, as the
District Administrator/Collector has given power to
him, as per the resolution passed on 27-08-2014. This
respondent/management has considered his health
condition and expected him to resume duty with
effect from 26-04-2014, as per the fitness certificate
produced by this petitioner. This petitioner failed to
utilize the chances given by the management to
explain his inability to attend the duty. The
management has adopted the principles of natural
justice, while exercising its option to remove this
petitioner. This petitioner was reckless towards his
employment, which resulted in his termination and
therefore, this petition has to be dismissed.
4. While the abovesaid case was pending for filing
counter on behalf of this respondent from 15-09-2017 to
07-12-2018, this respondent failed to appear before this
Court and hence, ex parte order was passed on
07-12-2018. Thereafter, ex parte evidence was recorded
on 01-02-2019 and the ex parte Award was passed on
20-02-2019. Thereafter, the respondent management
filed the ex parte Award set aside petition and it was
523
18 August 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
also allowed. While the case was adjourned for enquiry
on 27-02-2020, both parties appeared before this Court
and filed the memorandum of settlement stating that the
entire dispute was settled out of Court and they have
represented that, the Award has to be passed in terms
of settlement arrived between them on 27-02-2020.
To that effect they have filed the joined memorandum
of settlement signed by both parties, dated 27-02-2020.
5. The joint memorandum of settlement, dated
27-02-2020 was perused. The terms of settlement was
as follows:
(i) The respondent/management will reinstate the
petitioner into the services of the Mill with immediate
effect.
(ii) The petitioner/workman will not claim any
back wages for the period from the date of
termination, till the date of settlement.
(iii) The respondent/management will reinstate
the petitioner/workman with continuity service.
(iv) The petitioner/workman will not claim any
monetary/service benefit for the period from the date
of termination till the date of reinstatement.
(v) The respondent/management shall arrange to
relive the petitioner/workman from the services of the
Mills under the Special Voluntary Retirement
Scheme, which is in vogue/force in the Mills, without
any other conditions if, the petitioner/workman
submits application under the scheme. Both parties
pray this Court to approve the above proposed
settlement and pass order and Award accordingly.
6. Since, the dispute has been amicably settled out
of Court between the parties as per the Joined
Memorandum of settlement, the management has
endorsed that they have no objection to record the
settlement and to close the reference. The petitioner also
reported that the dispute is settled out of Court and he
had no objection to close the reference as per of terms
of settlement. Hence, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the
memorandum of settlement, this Court inclined to pass
an Award as per the terms of settlement arrived between
the parties on 27-02-2020.
7. In the result, the Award is passed in terms of
settlement arrived between both parties on 27-02-2020
and as per the joined memorandum of settlement, dated
27-02-2020 filed before this Court. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on
this the 5th day of March, 2020.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
No. 1056/Lab./AIL/G/2008/695.
Puducherry, the 22nd July 2020.
ORDER
In exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (1) of section 3 and sub-section (2) of
section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with the
notification issued vide G.O. Ms. No. 11/Lab./AIL/G/2017,
dated 29-06-2017, the undersigned hereby revise the
rates of Dearness Allowance for the employees
employed in “Tailoring Industries” in the Union territory
of Puducherry with effect from 01-01-2020 on the basis
of rise in the average consumer price index number
reaching 321 from 308 (Base year 2001 = 100) and
thereby resulting in an increase of 13 points calculated
on the basis of average indices of the Puducherry City
Consumer Price Index for the year 2019.
Accordingly, the Dearness Allowance payable to the
classes of employees employed in the employment of
Tailoring Industries in the
Union
territory of
Puducherry with effect from 01-01-2020 would be
` 900 per month.
E. VALLAVAN, I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
No. 999/Lab./AIL/G/2003/696.
Puducherry, the 22nd July 2020.
ORDER
In exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (1) of section 3 and sub-section (2) of
section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with the
notification issued vide G.O. Ms. No. 07/AIL/Lab./G/2016,
dated 10-08-2016, the undersigned hereby revise the
rates of Dearness Allowance for the employees
employed in “Electronic Industries” in the Union
territory of Puducherry with effect from 01-01-2020 on
the basis of rise in the average consumer price index
number reaching 321 from 308 (Base year 2001 = 100)
and thereby resulting in an increase of 13 points
calculated on the basis of average indices of the
Puducherry City Consumer Price Index for the year 2019.
Accordingly, the Dearness Allowance payable to the
classes of employees employed in the employment of
Electronic Industries in the
Union
territory of
Puducherry with effect from 01-01-2020 would be
` 268 per month (cumulative).
E. VALLAVAN, I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government (Labour).