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
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
202
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 202
Award of the Labour Court
.. 202
de tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
207
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 207
Government Notifications
.. 207
∞È ∂§s©Ad
..
209
Vente publique
.. 209
Auction Notice
.. 209
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
211
Etablissements dangereux
.. 211
Dangerous Establishments
..
211
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
212
Annonces
.. 212
Announcements
..
212
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
Registered No. PY/44/2021-23
[ 201 ]
®ı
Amflºƒˆ
ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\
2021 }
º\ |
25 {
No.
21
Poudouchéry
Mardi
25
Mai
2021 (4 Jyaistha 1943)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
25th
May
2021
202
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 May 2021
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 36/AIL/Lab./T/2021,
Puducherry, dated 3rd May 2021)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 29/2014, dated
04-03-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. Immaculate Heart of
Mary Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Puducherry and
Tmt. Yesurani, 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)
D. MOHAN KUMAR,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru P. DHANABAL, B.Sc., B.L.,
Presiding Officer (FAC).
Thursday, the 4th day of March, 2021.
I.D. (L) No. 29/2014
Tmt. Yesurani,
W/o. Lourdessamy (late),
No. 53, Second Cement Street,
Poiyakulam, Vinoba Nagar,
Lawspet Post,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Principal,
Immaculate Heart of Mary Girls’
Higher Secondary School,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 17-02-2021 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru J. Cyril
Mathias Vincent, Counsel for the petitioner and
M/s. Law Solvers, 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. 77/
AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 02-05-2014 for adjudicating the
following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Tmt. Yesurani
against the management of M/s. Immaculate Heart of
Mary Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Puducherry,
over her non-employment is justified or not? If
justified, what relief she is entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner was employed as a non-teaching
staff (Ayya) on 01-06-2003 with an initial salary of
` 1,200 and in December 2011, the petitioner was paid
` 5,100 per month as wages inclusive of bonus. The
petitioner has been carrying out her duties assigned
to her without any blemish and to the satisfaction
of her superiors. While so, 04-01-2012, the petitioner
was orally informed by the respondent that she need
not work from the next day and no reason was
assigned for her termination despite her pleas. That
on 06-01-2012, she submitted a written representation
pleading the respondent to permit her to resume her
work as “Ayya” since with the wages she was naming
as an “Ayya” was the only source of income
supporting her children and as a widow she had no
other source of income. The petitioner further
pleaded that the respondent to let her know the
reasons for stopping her from her work. Subsequent
to her letter, dated 06-01-2012, the respondent herein
issued order bearing No. 601/IHMGHSS/2011-2012,
dated 03-01-2012 on 14-01-2012 at 13.00 hours. The
petitioner requested the respondent herein to furnish
her with an attested true copy of the materials (1) to
(4) referred to in the order bearing No. 601/
IHMGHSS/2011-2012, dated 03-01-2012 to enable the
petitioner to give a comprehensive reply to the order.
The petitioner also pointed out that the order has
been posted after receiving her letter, dated
06-01-2012 and that she had been terminated without
any notice and contrary to principles of natural
justice. The petitioner came to know only on
27-01-2012 about the respondent’s allegation that the
impugned termination was after an alleged enquiry,
conducted behind her back. The petitioner further
submits that no show cause notice was issued to her
either in person or through registered post and the
petitioner had no knowledge of any show cause
203
25 May 2021]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
notice, charge-sheet, appointment of the alleged
Enquiry Officer and the alleged enquiry. The
petitioner came to know about the show cause notice,
charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry
Officer as well as the proceedings of the Enquiry
Officer only after 27-01-2012, after the impugned oral
termination. The non-employment of the petitioner
by the respondent is illegal, contrary to law and the
principles of natural justice were not fallowed prior
to the impugned termination and the petitioner is
without employment and salary from January 2012
and the petitioner is entitled for her employment with
back wages and other allowances. Hence, the
petitioner prays to pass an Award in favour of her
and against the respondent by reinstating the
petitioner in her employment with full back wages
from January 2012 till the date of resuming her work.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent management denies all the
allegations contained in the claim statement filed in
support of the claim for reinstatement with full back
wages and other benefits and put the petitioner
Union to strict proof of the same. The petitioner was
initially appointed as Ayah with effect from
01-06-2003 and the petitioner was conduct was not
at all satisfactory ab initio and she was insubordinate
with the superiors and was non- co-operative and
quarrelsome with the colleagues. Thereafter, she was
removed from service in October 2007 and the
petitioner had pleaded for mercy and the respondent
management reappointed on compassionate grounds
on 01-06-2008, There was however no improvement
in the petitioner’s behaviour and she continued to
indulge in acts of insubordination and quarrels with
co-workers and riotous behaviour with the colleagues
and students. The petitioner was served with an
memorandum of charges on 19-09-2011, granting ten
days time to submit written statement of defence for
certain alleged grave and serious acts of omissions
and commissions. The respondent management
charge-sheeted the petitioner for four articles of
charge and the charges are accompanied by a
statement of imputations in respect of each article
of charge and also lists of documents and witnesses
proposed to be relied upon to substantiate charges.
The petitioner did not however submit any written
statement of defence to the charges. Thereafter, the
respondent management appointed Tmt. J. Marie
Anna Dayavathi, Advocate as the enquiring authority
to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner
by an order, dated 11-10-2011 and the said order was
also communicated to the petitioner.
(ii) The respondent further submits that the
enquiry was conducted on different dates. The
petitioner did not participate throughout the enquiry
proceedings and the petitioner was set ex parte by
the enquiry authority and the enquiring authority
proceeded with the enquiry and after recording
evidence from the witnesses and perusing the records
and the documents, the enquiry authority submitted
a report on the basis of evidence holding that all the
articles of charge as proved vide enquiry report,
dated 02-12-2011 to the respondent management.
Thereafter, the respondent management by a
proceeding, dated 12-12-2011 provisionally decided
to impose on the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal
from
service.
The
respondent
management
communicated in the said proceedings, dated
12-12-2011 to make a representation against the
findings in the enquiry report and the provisional
penalty of dismissal from service.
(iii) The respondent respectfully submits that the
aforesaid communication was also refused by the
petitioner. The respondent management subsequently
affixed the aforesaid memorandum, dated 02-12-2011
in the School notice-board. Even then no reply was
received from the petitioner. The respondent
management considered the enquiry report carefully
and also past records of the petitioner and found
that the petitioner conduct has always been against
the disciplinary rules of the School. As the charges
framed against the petitioner was proved and the
petitioner was causing mental agony to her
colleagues and was disturbing the peaceful
atmosphere in the School, the decision already taken
was communicated to the petitioner in the
memorandum, dated 12-12-2011 was made absolute
and the petitioner was dismissed from service with
effect from 03-01-2012.
(iv) The respondent further submit that the
petitioner thereafter, by a letter, dated 06-01-2012
wrote to the Principal of the School and then
petitioner came up with another letter, dated
18-01-2012 asking for a copy of the dismissal order
03-01-2012 and a reply, dated 24-01-2012 was sent to
the petitioner furnishing all the information and
explaining circumstances under which the petitioner
service was terminated and the said communication
was acknowledged by the petitioner by registered
post and the petitioner sent a Lawyer notice, dated
04-06-2013 issued through her Counsel Mr. J. Cyril
Mathias Vincent and the said notice was duly replied
by respondent’s Counsel on 12-07-2013 and it is at
this stage the petitioner had raised an industrial
dispute over her non-employment.
204
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 May 2021
(v) There is nothing illegal or inconsistent in the
proceeding and the respondent management was
justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from
service on the petitioner and hence, the respondent
management prays to dismiss the claim petition and
pass an Award holding that the claim of the petitioner
for reinstatement is not justified.
4. After receipt of referral order from the Government,
the matter this Court has issued notice to the both sides
and then the petitioner has filed the claim application.
The respondent has also filed counter. During the
course of enquiry, on the side of the petitioner PW1 was
examined Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the
respondent RW1 to RW4 examined Ex.R1 to R35 have
been marked. Upon perusing the pleadings and
documents and hearing both sides.
5. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against, the respondent management over her non-
employment is justified or not?
(2) If justified, what is the relief entitled to the
petitioner?
6. Heard both sides and perused the records, both
side have filed written arguments and also perused.
7. On Points 1 and 2;
The petitioner contention is that she was
employed as non-teaching staff (Ayya) on 01-06-2003
with an initial salary of ` 1,200 in the respondent
School. Thereafter, in the month of December 2011
her salary was hiked and was paid ` 5,100 per
month. The petitioner was carrying out her duties
assigned to her without any blemish and to the
satisfaction of her superiors. While so, on 04-01-2012
the petitioner was orally informed by the respondent
that she did not come to work from the next day. No
reason was assigned for her termination despite her
pleas. On 06-01-2012, the petitioner submitted the
written representation pleading the respondent to
permit her to resume her work but, subsequent to
letter, dated 06-01-2012, the respondent has issued
order, dated 03-01-2012 on 14-01-2012. The petitioner
has not been served any notice and she has been
terminated without any notice and same is contrary
to the principles of natural justice. Subsequently, the
petitioner came to know on 27-01-2012 about the
respondent allegation that impugned termination was
after an alleged enquiry conducted behind her back.
The petitioner never issued any show cause notice,
charge-sheet, appointment of Enquiry Officer as well
as the proceedings of Enquiry Officer. The termination
is not in accordance with law therefore, the petitioner
is entitled to reinstatement in her employment with
full back wages from January 2012 till the date of
resuming her work.
8. The respondent contention is that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Ayya with effect from
01-06-2013, but, her conduct was not at all satisfactory
ab initio and she was insubordinate with the superiors
and was not cooperated and quarrelsome with the
colleagues. Thereafter, she was removed from service
in October 2007 and again she was reinstated on
01-06-2008. However, no improvement in the petitioner’s
behavior and again she continued to indulge in acts of
insubordination and quarrels with co-workers hence, the
petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges on
19-09-2011 granting 10 days time to submit written
statement her defence. The petitioner did not submit
any written statement of defence to the charges.
Thereafter, the respondent management appointed
Tmt. J. Marie Anna Dayavathi, Advocate as the enquiring
authority by order, dated 11-10-2011 and the same was
also communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner did
not participate throughout the enquiry proceedings and
she was set ex parte. The Enquiry Officer filed a report
holding that charges were proved against the petitioner
wide enquiry report, dated 02-12-2011. Thereafter, the
respondent management decided to penalty of dismissal
of service to the petitioner by proceeding, dated
12-12-2011. The said dismissal order also served to the
petitioner along with enquiry report and the said
communication was refused by the petitioner and the
same was affixed in the notice-board. Thereafter, the
petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from
03-01-2012. Thereafter, on 06-01-2012 wrote letter to the
School Principal stating that on 04-01-2012 orally told
not to come for work from the next date and thereafter
she received letter on 24-01-2012. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled any relief and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
9. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to
relationship of employer and employee and termination
of petitioner also admitted, the only contention of the
petitioner is that no notice served to her and no
opportunity given her to participate in the enquiry
proceedings. In order to prove the contention of the
claim, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW1
and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and she also narrated all the
things and she filed chief Affidavit by stating the facts
narrated in the claim application. The main contention
of the petitioner is that notice was not served to her
and no opportunity was given to putforth the defence
in the enquiry proceedings. But, at the same time, the
respondent has examined RW1 to RW4 and marked Ex.R1
205
25 May 2021]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
to Ex.R35. Once the respondent admit that the petitioner
was working in the respondent Institution and she was
removed from service, it is duty of the respondent to
prove that notice was served to the petitioner. In order
to prove the same there is no any proof. Further, the
respondent themselves admitted that notice was not
served on the petitioner due to her refusal. If so, the
respondent has to prove that notice was served to
petitioner and she refused. In this context the RW1 in
her cross-examination stated that “\–>V´Ï ∞∑´VË
®[√kÚÁ¶B zΩlÚ©A xÔkˆ sÈVƒD ®™¬z
ÿ>ˆBVm.
10-09-2011
º>]l‚¶
z§©√VÁðl_
\–>V´Ú¬z ƒVÏA g™m ®[√Á> ÔV‚¶ ∂>uz§B
ΩA>_
∂‚Á¶
®m°D
÷Õ>
kw¬˛_
>V¬Ô_
ÿƒFB©√¶s_ÁÈ
®[≈V_
ƒˆ>V[.
∂mº√VȺk
®\>ƒVg.14g™
sƒV´Áð
∂]ÔVˆ
ÿÔV|›>
∂§¬ÁÔl[ ÂÔ_ \–>V´Ú¬z ƒVÏA ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m
®[√Á> ÔV‚¶ Œ©A>_ ∂‚Á¶ºBV ∂_Èm ÷>´
ÿ√uƬÿÔVı¶>uÔV™
gkð∫ÔÁ·ºBV
>V¬Ô_
ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ®\>ƒVg.15g™ s·¬ÔD
ºÔVÚD z§©√VÁð \–>V´Ú¬z ƒVÏA g˛•^·m
®[√Á>
ÔV‚¶
gkð∫Ô^
®Á>•D
>V¬Ô_
ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[.
10. Further, the same that RW1 during the course of
cross-examination stated that “√Ë ¿¬Ô c›>´° ®Õ>
º>]l_ \–>V´Ú¬z ƒVÏA g™m ®[Æ ÿ>ˆ•\V
®[≈V_ ®™¬z ÿ>ˆBVm. \–>V´ˆ[ √Ë ¿¬Ô c›>´°
®Õ> xÁ≈l_ ∂kÚ¬z ƒVÏA ÿƒFB©√‚¶m ®[≈V_
®™¬z ÿ>§BVm. Therefore, from the evidence of RW1
reveals that RW1 has no knowledge as to whether
notice was served to the petitioner and no documents
filed to show the notice were served to the petitioner
regarding the enquiry and removing from service. In
order to substantiate the contention of the respondent
they have also examined RW2 and RW3 who were staff
and Teacher of the respondent’s School and they
deposed about the quarrel nature of the petitioner. But,
they have not stated about the service of notice to the
petitioner regarding enquiry and termination of service.
The main contention of the petitioner is that without
serving notice to the petitioner, the enquiry was
conducted and without any reason, she was terminated
from the service, but, the respondent have raised
allegations against the petitioner. While so, the
respondent have to prove the service of notice and the
opportunity given to the petitioner for defending her
defence. But, there is no sufficient evidence adduced
to prove the contention of the respondent.
11. Further, on the side of the respondent RW4 was
also examined and marked some documents. The
documents 34 and 35 are the unserved return covers in
the name of the petitioner, but, the said notices were
sent to the School address in the name of petitioner
as sanitary worker. But, the said covers were returned
as refused on 19-10-2011 and 04-11-2011, respectively.
Further, the RW4 during the cross-examination stated
that “®\>ƒVg.29 x>_ ®\>ƒVg33 kÁ´•^· AÔVÏ
ÔΩ>∫Ô^ ∂Á™›mº\ ÂV[ º�√Ω WÏkVÔ›]_
x>_k´VÔ √ËBVu§B ÔVÈÔ‚¶›]_ kw∫Ô©√‚¶Ák>V[.
∂Õ>
AÔVÏ
ÔΩ>∫Ôπ[
ÂÔ_Ô^
\–>V´Ú¬z
kw∫Ôs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ÷_ÁÈ. ÂV[ ÿÔV|›> charge
memoáÁk ®Õ> xÔkˆ¬z ∂–©∏ Ák›º>[ ®[≈V_
xÔkˆ
®™¬z
ÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ.
ÂV[
ÿÔV|›>VÔ
ÿƒV_È©√|D ®\>ƒVg13áM_ \–>V´ˆ[ T‚| xÔkˆ
÷_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ÂV[ \–>V´Ú¬z charge
memoáÁk ºÂ´ΩBVÔ ÿÔV|›º>[ ®[√>uzD \–>V´Ï
∂>Á™ ÿ√uƬÿÔV^· \Æ›ms‚¶VÏ ®[√>uzD
∞º>–D g>V´D >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ g>V´D
÷_ÁÈ. \–>V´Ï 19-09-2011 º>]l‚¶
charge
memoáÁk \–>V´Ï ÿ√uƬÿÔVı¶VÏ ®[√>uz
g>V´›Á> ¿]\[≈›]_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_
®™¬z ÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ. Therefore, from the evidence of
RW4 it reveals that no notice sent to the residential
address of the petitioner and no documents filed by the
respondent to prove that the charge memo was served
to the petitioner and the enquiry proceedings were,
intimated to the petitioner.
12. Further, during the cross-examination of RW4
also admitted that “\–>V´Ú¬z ®]´VÔ sƒV´Áð
∂]ÔVˆBV™ kw¬Ô§QÏ >BVk] ®[√k´V_ ∂–©√©√‚¶
sƒV´Áð
∂§¬ÁÔl[
ÂÔÁÈ
\–>V´Ú¬z
kw∫Ôs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ®™¬z QV√Ôt_ÁÈ. ÂV[
>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^· x>_ sƒV´Áð kV¬z JÈ›]_, ®Õ>
º>]l_
sƒV´Áð
∂]ÔVˆl[
∂§¬ÁÔÁB
\–>V´Ú¬z
kw∫˛º™VD
®[Æ
z§©∏‚|fl
ÿƒV_Ès_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆl[
∂§¬ÁÔl[ ∂Ω©√Á¶l_ \–>V´ˆ¶D s·¬ÔD
ºÔ‚¶>VÔ ®™m x>_ sƒV´Áð ƒV‚EB›]_ ∞º>–D
ÿƒV_olÚ¬˛º≈™V ®[≈V_ ÿƒV_Ès_ÁÈ. 1212-2011
º>]l‚¶ ¶kΩ¬ÁÔÁB \–>V´Ú¬z ®Õ> º>]l_
∂–©∏ Ák›º>VD ®[Æ ®™m x>_ sƒV´Áð
ƒV‚EB›]_
ÔVð©√¶s_ÁÈ
®[≈V_
ƒˆ>V[.
Therefore, from the evidence of RW4 reveals that no
evidence to show that the copy of order of enquiry
authority was served to the petitioner. Further, there is
no documents to show the serving of the notice to the
residential address of petitioner. Per contra Ex.R34 and
Ex.35 were served to the School address. The respondent
admitted that the notice was not served to petitioner
due to her refusal, but, no evidence to prove that the
notice was served to petitioner either through postal
or through messenger. Even the petitioner refused to
receive the notice the respondent could sent notice
through postal or through staff, but, no evidence
adduced by the respondent to that effect. Even as per
Ex.34 and Ex.35 the petitioner refused to receive
206
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 May 2021
the notice, but, no evidence as to whether the particular
dates the petitioner was present in the School. The
respondent could very well to produce the attendance
of the petitioner but, not done so. Further, on perusal
of Ex.R11 letter, it reveals that the copies of complaints
were not enclosed and no proof for service of that letter
to petitioner. Even as per Ex.R13 no enclosures for
annexures documents and no proof to show that the
said charge was served to the petitioner. Even as per
Ex.R33 termination order, dated 03-01-2012 was placed
in the notice-board, but, the said termination order has
not been produced before this Court by either parties.
13. Therefore, from the abovesaid evidence and
documents it is clear that no notice served to the
petitioner regarding charges, enquiry report and the
termination order and thereby principles of natural
justice were not followed prior to impugned termination.
Therefore, it is appropriate to hold that the Industrial
Dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over her non-employment is justified and
the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as claimed for
in the claim petition, since, this Court has already
decided in the previous paras that industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management over non- employment is justified. At this
juncture, it is appropriate to decide that whether the
petitioner is entitled for backwages as claimed by her.
On careful perusal of documents and the evidence of
PW1 as RW1 and RW4 they reveal that already
disciplinary action was taken and the petitioner was
suspended from service and once again she was
reinstated. The PW1 also in his cross-examination
admitted that in the month of October 2007 she was
removed from service and again gave requisition on
01-06-2008 for reinstate. The petitioner in her evidence
stated that she was depending upon the income of her
employment and due to non-employment, she suffered
lot due to her termination. Further, there is no evidence
that the petitioner has been working in any other place
and earning through other employment. Therefore,
considering the abovesaid circumstances this Court
decided that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of
backwages with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits. Thus, the points 1 and 2 are
answered.
14. In the result, this petition is allowed by holding
that the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over her
non-employment is justified by declaring the termination
of service of the petitioner from the respondent
institution is illegal and Award is passed by directing
the respondent institution to reinstate the petitioner in
service within one month from the date of this order and
further directed the respondent institution to pay 50%
back wages from the date of termination till date on
reinstatement with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits. No costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 4th day of March, 2021.
P. DHANABAL,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW1
— 02-04-2018 Yesurani
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 06-01-2012 Letter from the petitioner to
the respondent.
Ex.P2
— 14-01-2012 Acknowledgment Card.
Ex.P3
— 18-01-2012 Letter from the petitioner to
the respondent.
Ex.P4
— 08-02-2012 Letter from the petitioner to
the respondent.
Ex.P5
— 10-02-2012 Acknowledgment Card.
Ex.P6
— 24-09-2013 Letter from the petitioner
to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P7
— 18-12-2013 Letter from the petitioner to
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
List of respondent’s witnesses:
RW1
— 11-11-2019 SR. Amalorpavam
RW2
— 08-01-2020 Marthal
RW3
— 10-01-2020 Lilly
RW4
— 10-01-2020 Joesphine Selvarani
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1
— 01-06-2003 Copy of the Memorandum
by the respondent to the
petitioner. (Appointment
Order)
Ex.R2
— 02-07-2004 Copy of the letter from
Mrs.
Yesurani
to
the
respondent.
Ex.R3
— 31-07-2004 Copy of the letter from
Mrs.
Yesurani
to
the
respondent.
Ex.R4
— 14-12-2004 Copy of Suspension order
by the respondent to the
petitioner.
207
25 May 2021]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R5
— 06-01-2005 Copy of letter from Superior
to the Principal.
Ex.R6
— 11-12-2006 Copy of letter from Yesurani
to the Respondent.
Ex.R7
— 21-01-2010 Copy of letter from Principal
to the petitioner.
Ex.R8
— 04-02-2010 Copy of letter from Principal
to the petitioner.
Ex.R9
— 26-07-2011 Copy of letter from Principal
to the petitioner.
Ex.R10 — 26-08-2011 Copy of letter from Principal
to other Superior.
Ex.R11 — 26-08-2011 Copy of letter from Principal
to the petitioner.
Ex.R12 — 06-09-2011 Copy of reply from petitioner
to the Principal.
Ex.R13 — 19-09-2011 Copy of charge memorandum
issued by the Principal to
the petitioner.
Ex.R14 — 02-12-2011 Copy of enquiry report by
the Enquiry Officer to the
Principal.
Ex.R15 — 12-12-2011 Copy of Show Cause Notice
from the Principal to the
petitioner.
Ex.R16 — 03-01-2012 Copy of proceedings issued
to the petitioner dismissing
her from service.
Ex.R17 — 24-01-2012 Copy of letter from Principal
to the petitioner.
Ex.R18 — 04-06-2013 Copy of Advocate notice
issued on behalf of the
petitioner.
Ex.R19 — 12-07-2013 Copy of reply notice issued
on behalf of the respondent.
Ex.R20 — 02-09-2003 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R21 — 13-09-2004 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R22 — 09-11-2004 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R23 — 11-12-2006 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R24 — 06-01-2005 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R25 — 01-11-2006 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R26 — 11-09-2007 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R27 — 20-08-2008 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R28 — 01-08-2011 Copy of apology letter by
petitioner to the respondent.
Ex.R29 — 25-08-2011 Copy of complaint letter by
Savariyammal
to
the
respondent.
Ex.R30 — 24-08-2011 Copy of complaint letter by
Marthal to the respondent.
Ex.R31 — 24-08-2011 Copy of complaint letter by
Sumithra to the respondent.
Ex.R32 — 24-08-2011 Copy of complaint letter by
Bakkiyam to the respondent.
Ex.R33 — 24-08-2011 Copy of complaint letter by
Lilly to the respondent.
Ex.R34 — 18-10-2011 Returned Postal cover from
the petitioner.
Ex.R35 — 04-11-2011 Returned Postal cover from
the petitioner.
P. DHANABAL,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 35/AIL/Lab./T/2021, dated 3rd May 2021)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. RVS Educational Trust, Karaikal, and
Thiru S. Suresh, Porayar, over non-employment in respect
of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is
necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV
of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to
Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred
to the Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication.
The Labour Court, Puducherry, shall submit the Award
within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as
stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with
rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.