La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 14-00
Prix : ` 14-00
Price :
` 14-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
550
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 550
Award of the Labour Court
.. 550
de tribunal.
..
557
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 557
Government Notifications .. 557
..
564
Avis de saisis-arrét
.. 564
Notice of attachment
.. 564
..
565
Annonces
.. 565
Announcements
..
565
..
568
Corrigendum
.. 568
Corrigendum
.. 568
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 : 1-9-2020
Price : ` 14-00
[ 549 ]
2020 }
| 1 {
No.
35
Poudouchéry
Mardi
1
Septembre
2020 (10 Bhadra 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
1st
September
2020
550
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[1 September 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 74/Lab./AIL/T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 15th July 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D (L).No. 37/2017, dated
26-02-2020 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between
the Management of M/s. Puduchery Road Transport
Corporation (PRTC), Puducherry and Thiru D. Sivagnanam,
Lawspet, 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 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 26th day of February, 2020.
I.D. (L) No. 37/2017
D. Sivagnanam,
No.76,1 Cross Extension,
Bharathi Nagar,
Karuvadikuppam, Lawspet,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
M/s. Puducherry Road Transport
Corporation (PRTC),
Ayyanar Koil Street,
Raja Nagar, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial dispute coming on 18-02-2020 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru Mr. Sugumaran,
Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiru. B. Mohandass,
Counsel for the respondent, the respondent being called
absent and set ex parte, up on hearing the petitioner
and perusing the case records, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 89/AIL/Lab./T/2017
dated 15-06-2017 of the Labour Department, Puducherry,
for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether
t h e
d i s p u t e
r a i s e d
b y
Thiru D. Sivagnanam, Puducherry, against the
management of M/s. Puducherry, Road Transport
Corporation (PRTC), Puducherry, over non-employment
is justifiable 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 notice for the respondent has been duly
served to the respondent, even then this respondent
has not appeared before this Court and hence, he was
set ex parte on 25-01-2018 itself.
3. Brief of the petition:
The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on
temporary basis on 08-01-1994 and was made
permanent on 13-01-2000. This petitioner rendered
unblemished service for the past 18 years, till the
termination order passed by the respondent
management by its colourful exercise. While, this
petitioner was on duty, on 04-03-2006, he met with
an accident and thereby, affected seriously due to
the grievous injuries sustained by him, including
fracture in Spinal Cord at L4 and L5. This petitioner
got treatment from 05-03-2006 at PIMS, Puducherry.
He was granted 72 days disability leave from
05-03-2006 to 15-05-2006. Later on, this petitioner was
posted as Cashier from 16-05-2006 and then he was
posted as Clerk in the Reservation Centre up to
18-08-2010. The abovesaid postings were given as he
suffered severely and he was not able to do regular
work as Conductor. On 18-08-2010, he was relieved
from the Clerk work in the Reservation Center and
he was directed to work as regular Conductor. The
respondent corporation has purposely relieved this
petitioner from the post of Clerk as this petitioner
actively indulged in Trade Union activities such as,
demanding wage increase, promotion, etc., The
treatment for this petitioner for his injury at his right
toe has not yielded good result and it has got
aggravated, making him not suitable for his
Conductor job. Apart from that he was prone to
severe diabetism also. Despite, this petitioner joined
his duty as Conductor and worked in the Puducherry
to Tirupathi route as directed by the management
during the year 2010. Due to severe pain at his
551
1 September 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
right toe he was not able to stand for a long time
and the injury in the right toe has aggravated further.
As a result, he could not continue the said duty as
Conductor and his Doctor also advised him, not to
stand for a long time. Therefore, this petitioner
sought for an alternative duty from the management,
twice, in person with the General Manager. This
petitioner was entitle to get alternative duty under
section 47 of the “Persons with disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights) Act 1985. He
made several requests before the management and
by his letter, dated 12-04-2012, but, it ended vain. The
management has issued a show cause notice to this
petitioner, dated 01-06-2012 and sought for
explanation from this petitioner within 10 days. This
petitioner replied to the abovesaid memo. vide his
letter, dated 13-06-2012, stating that due to his injury,
he was unable to perform his duty as Conductor and
he has sought for suitable alternative service based
on his medical certificate till his recovery from the
injuries. But, without considering the reply the
management
had
terminated
this
petitioner
unilaterally stating that he was absent from
September 2011 to June 2012 by its letter, dated
02-11-2012 without adhering the principles of natural
justice. Thereafter, this petitioner submitted his
representation on 01-12-2012 and reminder on
26-06-2013. Even then, the respondent has not given
any response to those representations. Therefore,
this petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer on
01-10-2013 and it also ended in failure, despite, the
recommendation made by the Conciliation Officer for
reinstatement of this petitioner with back wages and
other benefits by observing the genuinity in the claim
made by this petitioner and also by pointing out the
act of termination without conducting any enquiry.
(ii) The respondent had flouted all the principles
of natural justice by neither referring this petitioner
to the Medical Board examination to know his medical
fitness, nor conducted any enquiry to find out him
guilty, but, terminated him from his service
arbitrarily. The respondent failed to comply the
principles of natural justice in terminating this
petitioner. Furthermore, it has violated clause 25 of
Standing Order of the Corporation. The management
has failed to give any reply to the letter, dated
13-06-2012 given by this petitioner and it has not
given any reply or explanation regarding this
petitioner’s willingness and request of this petitioner
regarding alternative job. The petitioner was not yet
cured at all. Hence, the order of illegal termination
by the management has to be declared as void and
he has to be re-instated with full back wages and all
other monetary benefits.
4. In the course of enquiry, the petitioner by name
Sivagnanam was examined in ex parte as PW1 on
14-10-2019 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked.
5. The point for determination is :
( 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 D. Sivagnanam, Puducherry, against the
management of M/s, Puducherry Road Transport
Corporation (PRTC), Puducherry, over non-employment
is justifiable 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?
6. On the point:
Admittedly, this petitioner was an employee and
he was terminated from his service by the letter, dated
02-11-2012 issued by the respondent management.
Further, the accident occurred on 04-03-2006 was also
admitted on both sides and the disability leave
granted to this petitioner from 05-03-2006 to
15-05-2006 was also admitted by both parties.
Similarly, the placement of this petitioner as Cashier
on and from 16-05-2006 and as Clerk till 18-08-2010
was also admitted on both sides. This petitioner was
admittedly posted as Cashier and Clerk due to his
accidental injury while he was discharging his
Conductor duty. It is also not disputed, that he was
posted as Clerk and Cashier as a measure ol giving
lesser nature of duty.
7. The petitioner has pleaded and deposed that he
was relieved from the post of Clerk from 18-08-2010 and
directed to work as a regular Conductor. He further
deposed that in obedience to the order of the
management, he worked as a Conductor in Puduchery
to Tirupathi route. He deposed that due to pain in the
right toe, due to the advise given by the Doctor and
due to the aggravated injury in the right toe, he was
not able to perform his regular duty as Conductor and
seeks alternative work of lesser nature from the
management. He deposed that the management has
relieved this petitioner and directed him to work as
regular Conductor only as a measure to victimize and
to take revenge as he was actively indulged in Trade
Union activities. But, he has not produced any
document to show the bona fideness of his actual
involvement in the Union activities. Therefore, the bald
allegation of this petitioner in this regard is decided as
false one.
8. This petitioner has deposed that he has sought
for a lesser nature of work from the management by its
letter dated 12-04-2012. To substantiate this evidence
he has produced the document Ex.P5. It would goes to
552
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[1 September 2020
show that this petitioner is seeking alternative service
of lesser nature of work. But, the respondent has not
given any reply to the representation made by this
petitioner, rather it has given a charge memo dated
01-06-2012 vide Ex.P6. The petitioner has deposed that
he has given his reply on 13-06-2012 vide Ex. P7. On
perusal of the Ex.P7 it is found that this petitioner has
stated his inability to perform his regular duty as
Conductor due to his accidental injury. It is also found
that his absence was not willful and it was due to the
grievous injuries and due to diabetism. It is further
found that Ex.P7 dated 13-06-2012 was also supported
by Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Narayanasamy,
dated 12-06-2012. The abovesaid reply to the charge
memo, dated 01-06-2012 was not at all considered by
the respondent management, rather it has passed the
termination order on 02-11-2012 vide Ex.P8. On perusal
of Ex.P8, it is found that the management has not given
any comment on its decision over the explanation/reply
given by this petitioner on 13-06-2012. In the termination
order, dated 02-11-2010 vide Ex.P8, the management has
not stated, whether it has accepted the explanation
given by the petitioner or it has rejected the explanation
offered by this petitioner. Furthermore, in Ex.P8, the
termination order, it has not stated how this petitioner
has violated the clause 25 of Standing Order of the
Corporation. Before passing termination order, the 2nd
show cause notice must be given to the petitioner by
the respondent without failure, but, the respondent
management has not given any such 2nd show cause
notice before taking the decision of termination of
service of this petitioner. Furthermore, on perusal of
Ex.P8 it is found that no disciplinary proceedings were
conducted by the respondent management. Thus, it is
clear that the management has violated the principles
of natural justice in terminating this petitioner’s service
in the Corporation.
9. At this juncture, this Court inclined to go through
the citation produced by the petitioner side. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order, dated
10-02-1999, in the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee.
Vs.
Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic
Science at Calcutta, held that “where the finding
regarding
misconducts
are
arrived
at
without
conducting a regular departmental enquiry, then the
termination order will be vitiated”. Here, in this case also
this petitioner was terminated from the service vide
order, dated 02-11-2012 without conducting any
departmental enquiry proceedings, despite, this
petitioner met with accident while he was discharging
his duty on 04-03-1996 and he was given with disability
leave and also he was given with lesser nature of work
earlier till 18-08-2010.
10. Hence, this Court come to the conclusion that
the order of the termination is nothing but, a unilateral
and colourable exercise as alleged by this petitioner.
Hence, this Court declared the said order of termination,
dated 02-11-2012 as null and void and directed the
respondent to reinstate this petitioner.
11. Now, the next point for consideration is whether
the petitioner is entitled to get back wages with all other
monetary benefits. The Labour Court cannot simply
order for back wages at the time of ordering
reinstatement to the claimant/petitioners. The petitioner
has to necessarily prove the fact that he was not
gainfully engaged after the termination of service from
the corporation. He has to produce the affidavit and
evidence in this regard. But, here, in this case, this
petitioner has not produced any such affidavit or oral
evidence. Therefore, this Court not inclined to order
back wages to this petitioner.
12. In the result, the Industrial dispute raised by
this petitioner against the respondent over his
non-employment is decided as unjustified and the
respondent is directed to reinstate this petitioner
without full back wages and other monetary benefits.
No cost.
Dictated to
Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 26th day of February, 2020
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’ witness:-
PW.1 — 14-10-2019
Sivagnanam
List of petitioner’s exhibits:-
Ex.P1 — 24-06-2006
Original document of Grant
of 57 days Special Disability
Leave to the petitioner by
the Respondent/Management
(05-03-2006 to 30-04-2006).
Ex.P2 — 26-05-2006
Original document of Grant
of 15 days Special Disability
Leave to the petitioner by
the Respondent/Management
(01-05-2006 to 15-06-2006).
Ex.P3 — 18-08-2010
Original
document
of
Relieving
order
of
the
petitioner from the post of
Reservation
Counter
of
Puducherry Bus Stand.
553
1 September 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P4 — 12-02-2009
Original document of Service
Placement order of petitioner
from Karaikal (PRTC) to
Pondicherry (PRTC).
Ex.P5 — 12-04-2012
Original
document
of
representation of the petitioner
t o
t h e
R e s p o n d e n t /
Management for seeking
leave until the healing from
the wound.
Ex.P6 — 01-06-2012
Original document of Memo
issued by the Respondent/
Management
seeking
explanation for the absence
of the petitioner from duty
(from September 2011).
Ex.P7 — 13-06-2012
Copy
of
the
Reply/
Explanation given by the
petitioner to the memo
01-06-2012.
Ex.P8 — 02-11-2012
Original
document
of
Termination order issued to
the
petitioner
by
the
Respondent/Management.
Ex.P9 — 01-12-2012
Original
document
of
Representation of the petitioner
t o
t h e
R e s p o n d e n t /
Management.
Ex.P10 — 26-06-2013
Original
document
of
reminder letter submitted by
the
petitioner
to
the
Respondent/Management to
his reply, dated 01-12-2012
for seeking recall of duty.
Ex.P11 — 10-10-2013
Original document of the
dispute
raised
by
the
petitioner
before
the
Conciliation
Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P12 — 04-12-2013
Original
do cument
o f
remarks
filed
by
the
Respondent/Management
for the representation, dated
10-10-2013 made by the
petitioner before Conciliation
Officer, Puducherry.
Ex.P13 — 05-02-2014
Original
document
of
Rejoinder statement filed by
the petitioner before the
C o n c i l i a t i o n
O f f i c e r,
Puducherry.
Ex.P14 — 05-03-2014
Copy of the reply given by
the Management to the
rejoinder statement filed by
the petitioner.
Ex.P15 — 10-03-2014
Copy of the proceeding of
the Conciliation Officer
Ex.P16 — 12-04-2017
Original document of the
Order of the failure report by
the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.Pl7 — 04-11-2016
Copy of the request made
by the petitioner to the
Conciliation Officer, seeking
the Conciliation report.
List of Respondent’s Witnesses: Nil
List of Respondent’s Exhibits: Nil
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 75/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 15th July 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 40/2017, 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 D. Mariappan, Karaikal, over reinstatement
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).
554
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[1 September 2020
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. 40/2017
D. Mariappan, s/o. Datchnamoorthy,
No. 355, Bharathiyar Road,
Thalatheru Post, Karaikal
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Jayaprakash Narayanan
Co-operative Spinning Mill,
Keezhamanai, Meladuthurai,
Neravy, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru
Ilangokrishnamoorthy, Counsel for the Petitioner, and
Tvl. S. Sankaralingam and P. Djeasilane, 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 Dispute has been referred by the
Government of Puducherry as per the G.O. Rt. No. 100/
AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 28-06-2017 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 D. Mariappan, Karaikal, against the management
of M/s. Jayaprakash Narayanan Co-operative
Spinning Mill, Karaikal, over reinstatement 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. Brief of the claim petition:
(i) The petitioner was employed as apprentice on
08-01-1997 and thereafter, he was made permanent
08-05-2000. Since, 2009, the respondent/management
declared layoff on several occasions and the Mill has
not functioned in the following periods 01-04-2011
to 31-08-2011, 08-11-2013 to 22-01-2014, 10-06-2015 to
26-08-2015 and 03-09-2015 to 06-12-2015. The layoff
was declared without intimation. The respondent/
management failed to give layoff compensation to the
workers under section 25(c) of Industrial Disputes Act.
Further, the respondent/management Mill has not
disbursed the salary to the workman on stipulated
dates under payment of wages Act and it always
disbursed the salary belatedly in each and every
month by stating one or other reasons and thereby
it has caused much hardship to the family members
of its employees .
(ii) This petitioner’s wife by name Susaimary was
admitted as inpatient for delivery from 01-12-2015 to
21-12-2015. She had thyroid disorder also. She
underwent caesarian operation also. This petitioner
was under necessity to give personal attendant to
his wife. Therefore, he was unable to attend the duty
on and from 07-12-2015, after the completion of the
layoff period declared between 03-09-2015 to
06-12-2015. This petitioner’s elder daughter informed
the inability of this petitioner to attend duty, to the
Supervisor of the respondent/management Mill. It was
not considered by the respondent/management Mill.
It has issued show cause notice on 29-12-2015 calling
explanation for his absence from 07-12-2015 to
21-12-2015. It has not given charge sheet and it has
not conducted any enquiry. It has terminated this
petitioner on 04-02-2016 and the order was received
by the wife of this petitioner. Thereafter, this
petitioner approached the respondent/management
and explained his inability and the situation, the
respondent/management assured that he will be
revoked soon after the discussion with the Labour
Minister of newly formed Government. Though this
petitioner approached the respondent/management
continuously, it has advised to wait for some time.
The respondent/management failed to keep up its
assurance and it has failed to revoke the termination
order and therefore, this petitioner approached the
Conciliation Officer and raised the industrial dispute
in respect of his employment. The respondent/
management has given false reply and the
conciliation proceedings also ended in failure by its
report, dated 30-05-2017 and thereafter, it was referred
to this Court by the Government of Puducherry. This
petitioner was removed from service in violation of
Standing Order and in violation of the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, without conduct any
disciplinary proceedings and hence, this petitioner
has to be reinstated with full back wages, continuity
of service, other attendant benefits and with damages
to the tune of ` 2,00,000. Hence, this industrial
dispute has to be allowed.
3. Brief of the counter averment:
(i) All the averments in the claim statement are
denied as false except those are specifically admitted
by the respondent in the counter. The respondent
555
1 September 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
admitted that this petitioner was permanently
employed during the year 2012. The petitioner was
always a chronic absentee and he was absent for so
many days without prior permission right from the
joining of the duty in the respondent/management.
He was always negligent and indiscipline in his work
and the following memos/warnings were issued to
him:
Sl.
Date
Ref.
Details of Misconduct
No.
No.
and Action Taken
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
10-11-1998
—
Unauthorized absence from
duty from January-1998 to
September-1998.
2
12-11-1998
—
Petitioner’s letter to
admission about the
unauthorized absence.
3
03-05-2001
—
Warning memo for poor quality
of work.
4
26-07-2003
—
Memo for misbehavior with
Supervisor
5
29-07-2003
—
Explanation of the petitioner.
6
18-08-2003
—
Memo for poor quality of work.
7
21-09-2004
—
Unauthorized absence of 5 days
in August-2004.
8
27-02-2014
—
Warning memo for poor quality
of work.
9
15-03-2014 1499 Show
cause
notice,
for
unauthorized absence for 5 days
in February-2014.
10
24-03-2014 1633 Warning memo for sleeping while
on duty on 22-03-2014, in III
Shift.
11
04-04-2014
78
U n a u t h o r i z e d a b s e n c e o f
9.5 days in March-2014.
12
10-04-2014
158
Warning memo for poor quality
of work.
13
21-04-2014
297
Show cause notice for continuous
absence for more than 8 days in
March-2014.
14
28-04-2014
—
Reply of the petitioner admitting
his unauthorized absence and
assurance
for
future
good
conduct.
15
28-06-2014 1203 Office order for unauthorized
absence of 8 days in March-2014.
16
27-08-2014 1732 Warning memo for poor quality
of work.
17
14-10-2010 2148 Warning memo for poor quality
of work.
18
06-12-2015
—
Notice about the re-opening of
the Mill
19
29-12-2015
596
Show
cause
notice
for
continuous absence for more
than 8 days from 12-12-2015,
sent
Registered
post
with
Acknowledgment.
20
31-12-2015
—
Post acknowledgment for having
received the show cause notice.
21
04-02-2016
881
Order of removal of name of the
petitioner from the muster roll of
the Mill.
22
09-02-016
—
Postal
acknowledgment
for
having received the order of
removal.
23
10-08-2016
306
Notice received by the Labour
Officer, Karaikal, also a copy of
petitioner’s complaint dated
28-07-2016.
24
17-08-2016
—
Reply letter to the Labour
Officer.
25
30-05-2017
25/
Failure report of the Labour
2016 Officer.
(ii) The allegation of non compliance of
section 25 (C) of Industrial Disputes Act is not at all
relevant to this case. Further, the allegation of non-
payment of salary to the employees in stipulated times
was also false. This petitioner was absent in the
layoff period also and hence, he was not entitled to
receive the layoff salary. Moreover, the respondent/
management has already given the layoff compensation
to the eligible person as per the law. Further, the
allegation of non-payment of layoff compensation is
not a matter related with this industrial dispute. This
petitioner was not locally available to attend the work
during the layoff period but, he was in Puducherry
for all along the period of layoff. The respondent/
management Mill has promptly informed the date of
reopening of the Mill on 07-12-2015 after the layoff
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
556
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[1 September 2020
period, by putting the notice in the notice-board on
06-12-2015 and it was the accepted practice followed
in all the Mills. Further, the reopening of the Mill was
spread over among all the workman in the Mill. If, at
all this petitioner is really interested to attend the
duty, then he can very well gather the information
from the colleagues and he can attend the duty on
07-12-2015, but, he failed to do so. Further, this
petitioner received the notice issued by the
respondent/management, dated 29-12-2015 through
his father on 30-12-2015 and he had not responded
to the abovesaid notice, calling his explanation for
his absence and therefore, the respondent/
management has constrained to remove the name of
this petitioner from the muster role by its order, dated
04-02-2016 and it was also informed to this petitioner
by registered post with acknowledgment. This
petitioner never met the Managing Director of the
company as alleged in his petition and no assurance
was given by the Managing Director in respect of
his re-employment. Before the Conciliation Authority
also this petitioner admitted his absence without
bona fide reasons by tis representation letter, dated
28-07-2016. He admitted that he had availed
without sending leave application and he further
admitted that he has not given any explanation for
his absence from 12-12-2015. The Conciliation Officer
has issued the failure report, dated 30-05-2017 and it
was also filed before this Court. The respondent/
management never violated the Standing Order and
the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Since, the petitioner himself has admitted his
non-filing of leave application and non-giving of
explanation, the removal of this petitioner name from
the muster role is fair and bona fide only. There is
no mala fide intention in the removal of name of the
petitioner in the muster role and no victimization took
place as alleged in the petition. This petitioner can
blame himself only, for the removal of his name from
the muster role, as the respondent/management has
followed all the principles of natural justice and the legal
provisions. The petitioner is non-entitle for any relief
as claimed in the statement and there is no provision
for damages in industrial dispute jurisprudence.
Hence, this petition has to be dismissed.
4. On perusal of records, it is found that 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 represented that the
Award may be passed in terms of settlement arrived
between them on 27-02-2020. To that effect they have
filed the Joint 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
relieve 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 the 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.