La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 15-00
Prix : ` 15-00
Price :
` 15-00
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 : 29-9-2020
Price : ` 15-00
[ 627 ]
2020 }
|
29 {
No.
39
Poudouchéry
Mardi
29
Septembre
2020 (7 Asvina 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
29th
September
2020
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
628
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 628
Award of the Labour Court
.. 628
de tribunal.
..
631
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 631
Government Notifications .. 631
..
642
Avis de saisis-arrét
.. 642
Notice of attachment
.. 642
..
644
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 644
Tender Notices
.. 644
..
644
Etablissements dangereux
.. 644
Dangerous Establishments
..
644
..
645
Annonces
.. 645
Announcements
..
645
628
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 September 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 87/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 16th July 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 39/2017 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 G. Kumaravel, Karaikal, over re-instatement has
been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by subsection (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT
PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 5th day of March 2020.
I.D. (L) No. 39/2017
G. Kumaravel, s/o. Gunasekaran,
No. 62, Karudapalaiya Theru,
T.R. Pattinam, 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 Thiruvalargal S. Sankaralingam and P. Djeasilane,
Counsels 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. 99/
AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 28-06-2017 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 G. Kumaravel, 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:
The petitioner was employed as apprentice on
18-12-2003 and thereafter, he was made permanent
01-07-2012. On 20-08-2014 the respondent/management
has suspended the petitioner with false allegation
that he was continuously absent without filing any
leave application and it has issued the charge-sheet,
dated 11-09-2014, for which this petitioner has given
his reply on 15-09-2014. Thereafter, there was no
response from the respondent/management. In the
meanwhile, this petitioner received a communication,
dated 02-02-2015 from Advocate C. Balasubramanian,
Thirunallar, directing him to attend the enquiry on
15-02-2016. This petitioner appeared before the
Enquiry Officer and stated that the management has
to refer the matter for arbitration under section 10 (A)
of Industrial Dispute Act. The Enquiry Officer had not
let his ears to the representation made by this petitioner
and he failed to record the objection to the continuation
of enquiry. However, this petitioner attended the
enquiry proceedings with protest. The Enquiry Officer
has not conducted the enquiry in a free and fair manner.
The Enquiry Officer has not given chances to this
petitioner for cross-examination of the witnesses and
he has failed to record the objection raised by this
petitioner. Further, the Enquiry Officer has conducted
the enquiry in an eye washed manner and he compelled
this petitioner to admit the charges. Thereafter, the
enquiry proceedings were kept in abeyance by the
Enquiry Officer. In the mean time, the respondent
management issued a letter, dated 20-05-2016 to this
petitioner and directed this petitioner to produce the
Medical Certificate. This petitioner has given his reply
on 27-05-2016 with Medical Certificate and seeks
extension of leave to him. Further, the respondent/
management issued a letter, dated 04-06-2016 and
directed him to join duty within 7 days. It has not
considered the request of this petitioner to extend his
leave. He reported to duty on 10-06-2016 in obedience
629
29 September 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
to the direction given by the respondent/management
and he was not permitted to the working spot and
he was forced to tender an unconditional apology
letter. This petitioner refused to do the same. The
respondent/management forced this petitioner to
give such apology letter, in order to treat the
suspension period from 20-08-2014 to 10-06-2016 as a
punishment for the charges of absence leveled
against him. The Enquiry Officer has not given the
list of documents and witness list marked on the side
of the respondent/management and he has not
obtained the signatures on the day
to day
proceedings of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has
not furnished the enquiry report to this petitioner and
he has acted in biased manner. The enquiry
conducted by the Enquiry Officer was unfair and
unjust and therefore, the punishment order, dated
28-07-2016 was also unjust and mala fide. It is not
based on the enquiry report nor on any other charges
fixed by the management. The respondent/management
has failed to issue second show cause notice before
awarding punishment order, dated 28-07-2016.
Therefore, this petitioner approached the Conciliation
Officer on 29-09-2016. The conciliation proceedings
were also ended in failure on 30-05-2017 vide its
failure report. Hence, this petition has to be allowed
and the respondent/management has to be directed
to pay a sum of ` 2,00,000 as damage. Further,
it may be directed to reinstate this petitioner into
service with the back wages and all other monetary
benefits.
3. Brief of the counter:
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 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
15-03-2007
26
1st memo for unauthorized
absence for duty for 9 days in
February-2007.
2
17-05-2007
26
2nd memo for unauthorized
absence for duty for 19 days in
March-2007.
3
17-05-2007
26 3rd memo for unauthorized
absence for duty for 13 days in
April-2007.
4
09-07-2007
26 Warning notice No. l for
unauthorized absence for duty
for 18 days in May-2007.
5
01-09-2007
26 Warning notice No. 2 for
unauthorized absence for duty
for 19 days in July-2007.
6
11-10-2007
26 Warning notice No. 3 for
unauthorized absence for duty
for 18 days in August-2007.
7
11-03-2014 1411 Warning notice for negligence in
work on 08-03-2014.
8
04-04-2014
98 Memo for unauthorized absence
for duty for
10 days in
March-2014.
9
13-05-2014
548 Show
cause
notice
for
unauthorized absence for duty
for 15 days in April-2014,
10
28-06-2014 1209 Warning memo for unauthorized
absence for duty for 21 days in
May-2014.
11
19-08-2014 1655 Order
of
suspension
for
unauthorized absence for duty in
the year 2014.
12
11-09-2014 1840 Charge-sheet
for
willful
unauthorized absence from duty.
(ii) The allegation of non compliance of section
10 (A) of Industrial Dispute Act is not at all relevant
to this case. The respondent/management has issued
charge-sheet, dated 11-09-2014 for his long absence.
For which this petitioner has filed his reply on
15-09-2014 wherein, he has stated that he was
suffering from various ailments and he had been
medically advised that, he was unsuitable to spinning
mill work. However, he has not produced any
supporting Medical Certificates in favour of his
explanation. Thereafter, this petitioner approached
the Conciliation Officer, Karaikal on 20-11-2014,
wherein, he has admitted his various spells of
unauthorized absence from duty in the year 2014.
The respondent/management also filed its reply on
04-12-2014, wherein, also the respondent/management
has stated that it is ready to give duty to this petitioner,
if he produce, necessary Medical Fitness Certificate.
In spite of that offer, this petitioner failed to produce
the same and continuously remained as absent
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
630
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 September 2020
without filing any leave letter. His absence was
unauthorized and wantonly. Therefore, the respondent
management appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct
Domestic Enquiry regarding his unauthorized absence.
This petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer
on 15-02-2016 and at his request the proceedings were
adjourned to 15-03-2016 and 09-05-2016. The enquiry
proceedings were adjourned at his request as a measure
of giving a fair opportunity to this petitioner.
Even during the enquiry proceedings also this
petitioner failed to produce his Fitness Certificates
and Medical Certificate. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
has sent a letter, dated 10-03-2016 with a copy of
Medical Certificate issued by the Private Medical
Officer and thereby, seeks leave for treatment up to
the end of year for his abdominal pain and ulcer.
Further, he has sent an another letter on 11-05-2016
stating that he was advised to take treatment for more
than 3 months by his Medical Officer and thereby,
seeks leave for 3 months. With that leave letter also he
has not enclosed any Medical Certificate. Furthermore,
in the abovesaid leave application, he has falsely
stated that he attended the enquiry proceedings on
15-03-2016 and 09-05-2016. Thereafter, this respondent/
management sent another letter on 20-05-2016 and
directed him to produce the Medical Certificate in
support of his leave application. For which this
petitioner sent reply on 27-05-2016, without any
Medical Certificate. Thereafter, again the respondent/
management sent another letter on 04-06-2016 to
produce the Medical Documents about his ill-health.
In response to the letter, dated 04-06-2016 by the
management, the petitioner appeared in person on
10-06-2016 to the time office of the mill, near the
entrance of the mill and informed that he had come
to attend duty in the morning shift and so he has to
be allowed to work and he would attend his duty
without any leave in future. But, he left abruptly
without attending the shift duty on that day and on
the following days also and thereby, he remained
absent continuously unathorisedly. Therefore, this
respondent/management again sent another letter on
22-06-2016 and advised this petitioner to report duty
within 3 days failing which it would remove the name
of the petitioner in the muster role as per the standing
order of the mill. However, he failed to report duty
and he failed to produce the Medical Certificate as
demanded by the respondent/management. Again on
11-07-2016 the respondent/management has given
a final notice and directed him to report duty within
3 days. Even then, this petitioner failed to give any
response to the abovesaid final notice. Hence, the
respondent/management has removed the name of
the petitioner from muster role on 28-07-2016 and it
was also intimated to this petitioner. This petitioner was
irregular and absent to duty from the year 2014 itself.
The respondent/management has given repeated
request letters to the petitioner to attend duty on various
dates such as 04-04-2014, 28-06-2014, 19-08-2014,
11-09-2014, 20-05-2016, 04-06-2016, 22-06-2016
and 11-07-2016. Since, the petitioner failed to produce
the Medical Certificate to regularize his long absence,
the respondent/management has finally dismissed
this petitioner. Therefore, the grounds raised by this
petitioner in the claim petition are nothing, but, utter
lie and therefore, it has to be dismissed with cost.
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 of terms of settlement.
631
29 September 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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 ended 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
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
NO. 04021/DSE/Estt.-IV/C/2019.
Puducherry, the 2nd September 2020.
ORDER
Sub.
: DSE-Estt.-IV-Thiru S. Stalin Rabindranath,
Secondary Grade Teacher (redesignated
as Primary School Teacher), GPS,
Murungapakkampet, Puducherry-Final
orders for deemed resignation-issued.
Ref.
: (1)
Office Order No. 7870/DDE(W)/
Estt./E.6/92/2332, dated 27-05-1992
o f t h e D e p u t y D i r e c t o r o f
Education(Women), Puducherry.
(2)
Letter, dated 12-08-2015, 29-03-2018
and 21-03-2019 of Thiru S. Stalin
Rabindranath, Secondary Grade
Teacher (redesignated as Primary
S c h o o l T e a c h e r ) ,
GPS,
Murungapakkampet, Puducherry.
Whereas, Thiru S. Stalin Rabindranath while working
as Secondary Grade Teacher (now re-designated as
Primary School Teacher) in GPS, Murungapakkampet,
Puducherry, was granted Extraordinary Leave for one
year from 01-06-1992 to 31-05-1993 without Medical
Certificate, for his visit to France, with instruction to
report for duty on or before 01-06-1993 failing which it
will be presumed that he has resigned his job with effect
from 01-06-1993 as per the undertaking given by him;
And whereas, Thiru S. Stalin Rabindranath did not
join duty, and therefore a show cause notice was issued
to him by the Deputy Director of Education (Women),
Puducherry vide No.7870/ DDE(W)/ Estt./E4/95/354, dated
22-05-1995, inter alia, seeking his explanation for not
joining duty;
And whereas, in reply to the abovesaid letter,
Thiru S. Stalin Rabindranath had submitted a letter,
dated 26-06-1995 to the Depuy Director of Education
(Women), Puducherry from France requesting for
extension of EOL till end of the academic year 1995-96
citing poor health condition of his wife. However, he
did not care to join duty all along. After a lapse
(unauthorized absence from duty) of more than 25 years
i.e., on the verge of attaining the age of 60 years, he
tried to take advantage of the situation by offering to
join duty;
And
whereas, Thiru S. Stalin Rabindranath,
subsequently filed O.A. No. 310/00040/2019 in the
Hon’ble CAT, Madras Bench. The Hon’ble CAT,
disposed the O.A on 28-01-2019 with the direction “To
consider the representations of the applicant vide letter,
dated 12-08-2015 and 29-03-2018 in accordance with law
and pass a reasoned and Speaking Order within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order”;
And whereas, in compliance with the orders, dated
28-01-2019 of the Hon’ble CAT, Madras Bench, a
Speaking Order rejecting his request was issued vide
No. 04021/DSE/Estt.-IV/C/2019, dated 04-09-2019 in the
light of the extant legal provisions and rules in force.
And whereas, Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules,
1972, stipulates inter alia that no Government Servant
shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous
period exceeding five years. Further, it states that a
Government Servant who remains absent from duty for
a continuous period exceeding five years other than on
foreign service, with or without leave, shall be deemed
to have resigned from the Government Service;
And whereas, Thiru S. Stalin Rabindranath was on
unauthorized absence from 01-06-1993 till the date of
attaining the age of 60 years (i.e., on 31-03-2019); he
has deserted Government Service;
Now, therefore, the Lieutenant-Governor is pleased
to order that Thiru S. Stalin Rabindranath, Secondary
Grade Teacher (now redesignated as Prirmary School
Teacher) in GPS, Murungapakkampet, Puducherry,
is deemed to have resigned from Government Service
with effect from the forenoon of 01-06-1993. He shall
not be entitled for any payment from the Government.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
P. T. RUDRA GOUD,
Joint Secretary to Government
(School Education).