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
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
Registered No. PY/44/2021-23
[377]
®ı
Amflºƒˆ
ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\
2021 }
gÔ¸‚ |
31 {
No.
35
Poudouchéry
Mardi
31
Août
2021 (9 Bhadra 1943)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
31st
August
2021
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
378
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 378
Award of the Labour Court
.. 378
de tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
381
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 381
Government Notifications
.. 381
Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^
..
382
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 382
Tender Notice
..
382
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
384
Etablissements dangereux
.. 384
Dangerous Establishments
..
384
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
385
Annonces
.. 385
Announcements
..
385
378
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[31 August 2021
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 49/Lab./AIL/T/2021, dated 29th July 2021)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 31/2017, dated
22-03-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Kal Publications Private
Limited, Puducherry and Thiru A. Muthupandi,
Puducherry, 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 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
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)
Monday, the 22nd day of March, 2021
I.D. (L) No. 31/2017
A. Muthupandi,
No. 29, VOC Street,
Kamaraj Nagar,
Gorimedu,
Puducherry.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
M/s. Kal Publications
Private Limited, SPL Al and Gl,
Industrial Estate,
Thattanchavady, Puducherry.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 05-03-2021
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru P. Shankaran, Counsel for the petitioner,
Thiru T. H. Nizamudeen, 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
This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government of Puducherry as per the G.O. Rt. No.76/
AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 08-05-2017 for adjudicating the
following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru A. Muthupandi
against the management of M/s. Kal Publications Private
Limited, Puducherry, 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. The averments in the claim statement
of the petitioner, in brief are as follows :
The petitioner was appointed in the respondent company
as Office Assistant on 06-05-2002. The respondent company
has been functioned in Puducherry from 2001. In the year
of 2007, the petitioner was paid hiked of salary of ` 4,000
whereas, the other persons who working with the
petitioner ` 5,000 as hiked of salary. Further, though the
ESI and EPF was deducted from September 2008 they
obtained written submission from the petitioner that he
has only joined on 01-08-2008. The petitioner has been
working more than 14 years without any blemish and
he lastly drawn a sum of ` 8,919 as salary. On
08-11-2016 the General Manager of the respondent
company called the petitioner and asked to give
training to one Saithanya Prasad. Accordingly, the
petitioner also gave training to him, on 09-11-2016, the
petitioner instructed the person to segregate the bills
and then he went for drinking water. Thereafter, the
co-worker told him that the General Manager searched
him, immediately he gone to the room of General
Manager, but, the General Manager scolded him and
then obtained written letter. Accordingly, he handed
over an amount of ` 650 and room key. Thereafter, the
petitioner was waiting for appropriate orders from the
respondent. Since, the respondent has not issued any
reply and he complained before the Labour Department
on 14-11-2016. Thereafter, on 28-12-2016 the management
has given false reply, dated 28-12-2016 and the same
was replied by the petitioner, again the management has
given false reply, dated 20-01-2017. Since, the dispute
has not been settled between the parties, the
Settlement Officer has referred the matter to the Labour
Court. The petitioner has been removed from service
without any reason, no enquiry was conducted and no
written order given to him, since, no opportunities was
given to the petitioner to putforth his defence and not
followed principles of natural justice and hence, the
petitioner filed this claim statement.
379
31 August 2021]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent denied the every allegations
contained in the said claim statement.It is true that the
petitioner was working in Collection section at Sooriyan
Press Office of Dhinakaran, he used to roam out during
the course of his employment, whenever he was asked
the reason, he has been given only evasive reply by
saying that he was drinking water attended natural calls
and gone to take a tea and he was given several
excuses. Further, the respondent has found the
malpractices of the petitioner and he has not given any
explanation by written and he is not give any appropriate
answer. The petitioner has refused to give excuse letter
though he was directed, the petitioner used to scold the
officers unparliamentary from his seat, on the date of
incident when he was asked the reason he has not given
any suitable answer. The petitioner was a chronic
absentee and the petitioner is also inducing the other
persons in the office to act like him by creating havoc
in the administration unnecessarily and petitioner has
filed the above vexatious petition with false and
fabricated story and hence, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4. After receipt of referral order from the Government,
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. Pl to Ex. P8 were marked. On the side of the
respondent RW1 was examined and no document was
marked. Upon perusing the pleadings and documents
and hearing both sides. The points for consideration
are:
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against
the
respondent
management
over
his
non-employment is justified or not?
(2) If justified, what is the relief entitled to the
petitioner?
5. Heard both sides and perused the records, both
side have filed written arguments and also perused.
6. On Points 1 and 2:
The petitioner's contention is that he was an
employer of the respondent management and he was
appointed as Office Assistant on 06-05-2002 and
thereafter, he was removed from service, and his last
salary was ` 8,919. On 08-11-2016, the manager of the
respondent management has directed the petitioner
to give training to one Saithanya Prasad. Accordingly,
on 09-11-2016 he gave a training and then he went for
drinking water. After some time co-worker stated that
the General Manager was searched him, immediately he
went to the room of General manager at the time, without
any enquiry, the General Manager of the respondent
management scolded in English and again called the
Sales Manager and directed him to sent out the
petitioner after receiving all the things and then the
petitioner was compelled to give consent letter to go
out after resigned his job and he refused to do so.
Thereafter, due to the compulsion of Sales Manager he
handed over the Identity Card, room key and an amount
of ` 650 to the Saithanya Prasad and then he went out.
Since, then the petitioner is expecting the reply from the
respondent management, but, they have not issued any
reply and thereby on 14-11-2016, he gave a petition to
the Labour Officer and the same was served to the
respondent management, but, they have not come
forward to settle the issue and the dispute has not been
settled and referred to the Labour Court.
7. The respondent's contention is that the respondent
also admitted that the petitioner was working under the
respondent management and he was removed from his
service due to wrongs committed by the petitioner. The
petitioner mainly raised the allegation that no written
termination order was received and he was orally
instructed and he was removed from the service. The
respondent also admitted the removal of petitioner from
his employment, but, no any written order produced by
the either parties. The main contention of the petitioner
is that no charge memo was issued, no enquiry was
conducted, no opportunities were given to petitioner to
putforth his defence and without following the legal
formalities, the respondent management has removed
the petitioner from his service.
8. PW1 filed the proof affidavit by supporting the
claim averments. The contention of the respondent
management also that the petitioner was insubordination
and continuously he was absent arid thereby appointed
some other persons in his place. In this context, the PWI
in his chief examination stated that “®[Á™ ®m°º\
sƒVˆ¬ÔV\_, g∫˛È›]_ ]‚Ω, ÂVºB ÿkπºB º√V¶V
®[≈VÏ. º\KD, su√Á™ º\ÈV·Á´ ∂Áw›m
®[M¶D ®_ÈV ÿ√VÆ©AÔÁ·•D kV∫˛¬ÿÔVı|
ÿkπºB ∂–©A∫Ô^ ®[≈VÏ. ∂©º√Vm, ÂV[ ®ø›m
ØÏk gÁð ÿÔV|›>V_ º√VF s|k>VÔfl ÿƒV[º™[.
ÂV™VÔ, ÔΩ>D >´xΩBVm ®™ \Æ›m s‚º¶[, ∂>Á™›
ÿ>V¶ÏÕm su√Á™ º\ÈV·Ï ƒ´kð[ ºÔ‚¶>™V_,
®[–Á¶B ∂Á¶BV· ∂‚Á¶, º\Áƒ ƒVs, ∑ˆB[
√]©√Ô ‘D ƒVs �ÆD ÿ´V¬ÔD ‘. 650án Áƒ>VMB
∏´ƒV›]¶D Œ©√Á¶›ms‚| kÕm s‚º¶[. Further,
during the course of cross-examination, PW1 has stated
that º\KD, ®™m Circulation Manager ƒ´kð[
®[√kÁ´ k´flÿƒV_o ®[M¶tÚÕ> Identity Card
�ÆD EÈ gkð∫Ô^, º¶∏_ ƒVs, √ðD ‘. 650
g˛BkuÁ≈ kV∫˛s‚|, ®ø] kV∫˛s‚| ∂–©A\VÆ
ÿƒV[™VÏ. ÂV[ >´ xΩBVm ®[Æ ÿƒV_os‚º¶[.
380
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[31 August 2021
∂kÏÔ·VÔ º√VÔ ÿƒV[™>V_, ÿÈ‚¶Ï >´ xΩBVm ®[ÆD
¿∫Ô·VÔ ÿÔV|›>V_ kV∫˛¬ÿÔVı| º√VF s|˛º≈[
®[Æ ÿƒV[º™[”. RW1 also in his chief examination
stated
that
“÷Õ>
ºkÁÈÿB_ÈVD
®[M¶D
Ák›m¬ÿÔV^·VyÏÔ^.
c∫ÔÁ·©º√V_
√ÈÁ´©
√VÏ›ms‚º¶[. ÂV[ ÷Õ> ºkÁÈÁB ÂD∏ ÷_ÁÈ.
c[Á™ √VϬԺkıΩB ÷¶›]_ √VÏ›m¬ÿÔV^˛º≈[
®[Æ Ì§s‚|, ∂k´m ∂Á¶BV· ∂‚Á¶ÁB ®[
º\Áƒ*m
#¬˛ÿB§Õms‚|,
∂KkÈÔ›Á>s‚|
ÿkπºB ÿƒ[≈VÏ”. Further, the RW1 also admitted that
due to the continuous absent of petitioner they have
appointed some other person in the place of petitioner.
Therefore, it is deemed to be termination. Therefore, it
is clear from the evidence of PWI and RW1 that the
petitioner was working in the respondent management
and he was not allowed to do the work and he was orally
terminated from service and there was no charge memo
was given to the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted
and no any opportunities was given to the petitioner
to putforth his defence. Therefore, it is clear that
principles of natural justice has not been followed and
thereby the termination order is not in accordance with
law. Therefore, it is appropriate to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management, over his non-employment is
justified and hence, the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement as claimed by him in the claim petition.
9. As far as, the back wages and other attendant
benefits are concerned, the petitioner himself admitted
that since the respondent management asked to handed
over the things, he handed over and gone out.
Thereafter, the petitioner has not approached the
respondent management for his employment and further,
he has not sent any written requisition for his
employment and further, the RW1 has categorically
stated that when the respondent management asked
about his non-availability in the work place he shouted
the respondent management and went out and
therefore, the petitioner himself went out from the work
place and thereafter, he never approached the
respondent management and within four days he lodged
petition before the Labour Authority. However, the
petitioner was serving in the respondent management
for 14 years and the respondent management also not
sent any letters of demand of apology or any
explanation from the petitioner. Therefore, considering
the abovesaid circumstances this Court decided that the
petitioner is entitled to 20% of back wages with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Thus,
the points 1 and 2 are answered.
10. In the result, this petition is allowed by holding
that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
against
the
respondent
management
over
his
non-employment is justified by declaring that the
termination of service of the petitioner from the
respondent management is illegal and Award is passed
by directing the respondent management to reinstate
the petitioner in service within one month from the date
of this order and further directed the respondent
management to pay 20% back wages from the date of
termination till date on reinstatement with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on
this the 22nd day of March, 2021.
P. DHANABAL,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal-cum
Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —01-08-2019 Muthupandi
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl —
Copy of Identity Card issued
by the Respondent Institution.
Ex.P2 —
Copy of Salary Slip for the month of
July 2016.
Ex.P3 —
14-11-2016 Copy of petition filed
by the petitioner to the Conciliation
Officer, Labour Department.
Ex.P4 —
28-12-2016 Copy of reply filed by
the respondent to the Conciliation
Officer, Labour Department.
Ex.P5 —
10-01-2017 Copy of Additional
petition filed by the petitioner to
the Conciliation Officer, Labour
Department.
Ex.P6 —
20-01-2017 Copy of Additional Reply
filed by the respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P7 —
01-03-2017 Copy of Conciliation
Failure Report issued by the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P8 —
08-05-2017 Copy of Gazette Publication
G.O. Rt. No. 76/AIL/Lab./T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 08-05-2017,
List of respondent’s witness:
PW.1 — 19-11-2019 Lokesh
List of respondent’s exhibits : Nil
P. DHANABAL,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.