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

[455]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2021 }

∂¬º¶V√Ï |

19 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Octobre

2021 (27 Asvina 1943)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

19th

October

2021

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

456

Sentence arbitral du travail

.. 456

Award of the Labour Court

.. 456

de tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

466

Notifications du Gouvernement

.. 466

Government Notifications

.. 466

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

467

Annonces

.. 467

Announcements

467

456

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 October 2021

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 66/AIL/Lab./T/2021,

Puducherry, dated 6th October 2021)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 11/2017, dated

26-08-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute

between the management of M/s. SAB Miller India

Limited, Unit: Sica Breweries, Puducherry and

Thiruvalargal

K. Raji

and

V. Krishnamoorthy,

Puducherry, over reinstatement with back wages and

other statutory benefits 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 R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Thursday, the 26th day of August 2021.

I.D. (L) No. 11/2017

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000352017

K. Raji,

No. 1, Ellai Pidariamman Koil Street,

Ragavendhra Nagar, Kurumbapet,

Puducherry.

V. Krishnamurthy,

No. 14, Vivekanandhar Street,

Pudu Nagar, Oulgaret,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. SAB Miller India Limited,

Unit: Sica Breweries,

Ayyankuttipalayam,

Muthirayarpalayam Post,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 28-07-2021 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru Mohan

Keerthikumar, Counsel for the petitioners and

Thiruvalargal R. Thirumavalavan and R. Ramachandiran,

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. 37/

AIL/LAB/T/2017, dated 05-04-2017 for adjudicating the

following:-

(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiruvalargal

K. Raji and V. Krishnamoorthy against the

management of M/s. SAB Miller India Limited, Unit:

Sica Breweries, Puducherry, over reinstatement with

back wages and other statutory benefits is justified?

If justified, what relief they are entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioners joint as Operators in the

respondent company on 25-09-1995 and 12-09-1996

respectively. The petitioners are the members of SICA

Breweries Thozhilalargal Munnetra Sangam affiliated

to AICCTU. Since, the petitioners are active members

of Union and the respondent management suspended

them on 19-09-2013 and ordered for Domestic Enquiry.

The petitioners were transferred by letter, dated

05-09-2013 and 10-09-2013. The respondent

management has lodged a complaint against the

petitioners with Mettupalayam Police Station

alleging that they were attempted to kill the

Managers. The petitioners were transferred to

Paradeep of Orissa and Sangareddi Andhra Pradesh

in order to penalize them. Both the petitioners were

terminated from the service from 04-11-2014.

Advocate Thiruvalargal Edward Kumar was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Since, the petitioners

has received a notice from the advocate, they have

not participated in the enquiry, an ex parte enquiry

was conducted against the petitioners and held

charges were proved against them. The present

petition is filed to declare the transfer orders and

termination orders are legally not sustainable.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed are as

follows:

The respondent is running Breweries Factory at

Puducherry and having its registered office at

Andheri East, Mumbai. The respondent management

transferred the petitioners on 05-09-2013 and

457

19 October 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

10-09-2013 to the factories located at Orissa and

Hydrabad. On 13-09-2013 the petitioners threatened

the Breweries Manager and H.R. Manager with dire

consequences of killing them. Hence, the F.I.R

lodged with Mettupalayam Police Station in

Cr.No. 93/2013 and the petitioners were suspended

immediately. Show cause notice was served on the

petitioner on 16-11-2013 alleging various charges.

The management appointed Thiru Edward Kumar,

Practicing Advocate as an Enquiry Officer to conduct

domestic enquiry. The petitioners refused to attend

the domestic enquiry and letter, dated 30-12-2013

addressed to the Enquiry Officer stating that they did

not know the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer

should not write any letter to them. In the said

enquiry, the petitioners were set ex parte and

management witnesses were examined and the

Enquiry Officer given its report, dated 25-09-2014 and

found all the charges levelled against the petitioners

were proved. The management sent second show

cause notice, dated 18-09-2014 to show cause against

the proposed punishments of dismissal from service.

The said notice was returned as the petitioners

refused to claim. The Disciplinary Authority passed

speaking order, dated 04-11-2014 by awarding the

punishment of dismissal from service with immediate

effect. The said letter was received by the

petitioners. The statutory dues were paid through

cheque, dated 25-12-2014 which was not claimed

by the petitioners. The petitioners has filed O.S.

No. 1902/2013 and O.S. No. 1899/2013 on the filed of

the I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, for

staying the transfer order. As per the standing orders

of the company refusal to accept the transfer order

from one place to another place is a misconduct. After

termination of the petitioners they have addressed a

letter, dated 17-06-2015 through Sica Breweries

Thozhilalargal Munnetra Sangam for reinstatement.

The petitioners have also instigated the Union to a

disturb the production activities of the respondent

company. The Enquiry Authority after giving fair

opportunities to the petitioners as conduct the

enquiry and found them guilty. In conduct of the

enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was followed the

principles of natural justice. The allegation stated in

the claim statement is not true and prayed for

dismissal of the petition.

4. The points for consideration are:

Whether the dispute raised by the petitioners

against the respondent management over reinstatement

with back wages and other statutory benefits is

justified or not ? If justified, what is the relief entitled

to the petitioners ?

5. On the petitioner side Thiru K. Raji was examined

as PW1. and through him EX.Pl to EX.P9 were marked.

In the chief affidavit filed by the petitioner PW.1 has

deposed that since, he was an active member of the Sica

Breweries Thozhilalargal Munnetra Sangam affiliated to

AICCTU. The respondent management has suspended

him from service on 19-09-2013. The respondent

management has also lodged criminal complaint against

him. In respect of enquiry, he has received a letter from

an Advocate Mr. Edward Kumar and he has not received

any communication from the management side. The

petitioner was transferred to Paradeep, Orissa in order

to penalize him. Earlier to the termination the respondent

has issued show cause notice to answer the charge

framed against the petitioner. Since, the letter is received

from an Advocate the petitioner did not attend the

enquiry. The petitioner was set ex parte in the enquiry

and an ex parte order was passed stating that the

charges were proved. PW.2 Thiru Krishnamoorthy was

examined as PW.2 and through him EX.PI0 to EX.P.12

were marked. PW.2 has filed an affidavit, in his chief

examination he has deposed that he was transferred to

Sangareddi at Andhra Pradesh in order to penalize him.

Thozhilalargal Munnetra Sangam affiliated to AICCTU.

The management has also lodged a criminal complaint

against him the petitioner was terminated from service

on 04-11-2014. Earlier to termination a show cause

notice was issued by the management to answer the

charges framed against the petitioner. The said notice

was issued by Advocate Mr. Edward Kumar. The

petitioner has not participated in the enquiry. The

petitioner was set ex parte and the Enquiry Officer

submitted his enquiry report stating that the enquiry

against the petitioner Krishnamoorthy were proved.

6. Thiru A. Ramamoorthy, Assistant Manager, H.R.

Department of respondent company was examined as

RW.1 and through him Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.14 were marked.

Chief affidavit of RW.1 was filed. RW.1 deposed that

the 1st petitioner Raji and the 2nd petitioner

Krishnamoorthi were transferred to Paradeep, Orissa and

Sangareddi, Hydrabad by transfer orders, dated

05-09-2013 and 10-09-2013 respectively. Both the

petitioners stated that they received the orders of the

transfer on the next day. On 13-09-2013 when the

petitioners were called to discuss the matter regarding

the transfer they have threatened the Breweries

Manager and H.R. Manager with dire consequences.

The respondent management has preferred complaint

against the both the petitioners and F.I.R in Cr.No. 93/2013

was registered with Mettupalayam Police Station. The

respondent management has charge sheeted the petitioners

and one Advocate Mr. Edward Kumar was appointed

as Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry.

458

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 October 2021

Both the petitioners refused to attend the enquiry and

the letter, dated 30-12-2013 they have addressed to the

Enquiry Officer that he should not write any letter to

them. The Enquiry Officer has again sent a letter, dated

27-02-2014 and the same was returned as unclaimed.

After recording the evidence of the management the

Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and has given his

report. Thereafter, the management has issued 2nd

show cause notice, dated 18-09-2014 to show cause

against the proposed punishment of dismissal from

service. The Disciplinary Authority came to the

conclusion that the petitioners are not fit persons to

be retained in the service of the management and the

management lost confidence in the petitioner and hence,

awarded the punishment of dismissal from service with

immediate effect. The petitioners after receiving the

transfer orders has filed Suit in O.S. No.1902/2013 and

O.S. 0.1899/2013 on the file of the I Additional District

Munsif, Puducherry, for stating the order of the transfer.

The petitioners has also threatened the Managers of the

respondent management. On 17-06-2015, the Sica

Breweries Thozhilalargal Munnetra Sangam affiliated to

AICCTU has addressed the General-Manager of the

respondent management to reinstate the petitioners

failing which they will agitate against the management.

Apart from the above the petitioners instigated the

Union to disturb the production activities in the

respondent factory. The Union has also placed a banner

at the entrance of the respondent company demanding

the management to reinstate the terminated workers.

The respondent management has filed Civil Suit in O.S.

No. 1334/2015 against the petitioners and others for

permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from

conducting any strike activity within the premises of

the factory. After giving fair opportunity to the

petitioners they were dismissed from the service

considering the seriousness of the charges and prayed

for dismissal of the claim of the petitioners.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit

that the petitioners Raji and Krishnamoorthi wherein

service of the respondent management from 10-11-1999

and 18-05-1999. Since, the petitioners were active

members in the Sica Breweries Thozhilalargal Munnetra

Sangam affiliated to AICCTU. The respondent

management has transferred them to Orissa and Andra

Pradesh as a vindictive measure. The charges levelled

against the petitioners are totally false and invented to

substantiate the transfer orders. The petitioners were

not appear before the Enquiry Officer since, they have

no instruction or communication from the respondent

that an enquiry was proposed against them and

Thiru Edward Kumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

Since, the petitioners has received the communication

from an Advocate they have not participated in the

enquiry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submit that even in the transfer order the Manager,

Human Resource has stated that he has taken this

opportunity to thank for the contribution and look

forward to your continued commitments to the

organisation. Since, the petitioners were not attended

the enquiry they were set ex parte and an ex parte

report was filed by Advocate Mr. Edward Kumar. Even

then, the said report has not discussed all the charges

levelled against the petitioners and in fact the charge

memo issued to both the petitioners contain one and

the same charges which will established ulterior motive

of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the

petitioners further submitted that the order of the

domestic enquiry was not communicated by the

management and the enquiry was proceeded without

participation of the petitioners. The whole domestic

enquiry is vitiated since, the principles of the natural

justice was not followed. The learned Counsel for the

petitioners further submit that the respondent has not

marked the F.I.R copy filed against the petitioners and

the misconduct and the alleged misconduct was not

properly proved and they have given maximum

punishment of dismissal only with a view to suppress

Trade Union activities.

8. The petitioner never used intemperate language

against the Managers of the respondent company and

they never indulged in altercation with the H.R. Manager.

The allegation against the petitioners that they have

threatened the managers of the respondent company

that they will murdered them, if, the respondent

company transfered the petitioner which is a false and

concocted story. It is further submit that on 17-06-2015

the Trade Union has put up a board at the entrance of

the respondent company to consider the reinstatement

of the petitioners and others who were illegally

terminated and there was no strike conducted by the

Trade Union on the date. It was further contended that

the respondent company in Puducherry is functioning

for more than 30 years. In the said 30 years only 4 persons

were transferred. The petitioners are poor illiterates and

they do not know the implications of Law. The

respondent management taking an advantage of the

same has terminated them without giving proper

opportunity and without following the principles of

natural justice. The petitioners prayed for reinstatement

of the services with back wages, continuity of service

and other attendant benefits.

9. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the

respondent that the petitioners were transferred on

05-09-2013 and 10-09-2013 to the factories site located

at Orissa and Hydrabad respectively. On 13-09-2013 the

petitioners threatened the Managers of the respondent

459

19 October 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

company with dire consequences thereafter a criminal

complaint was lodged with Mettupalayam Police Station

and F.I.R. in Cr.No. 93/2013 was registered. Since, the

petitioners has not responded to the transfer orders,

a show cause notice, dated 16-11-2013 was served on

them. In the said show cause notice 8 Articles of

charges were framed against them as per the standing

orders of the company. Thiru Edward Kumar, Advocate

was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Having received the

intimation from the Enquiry Officer both the petitioners

were refused to attend the domestic enquiry. Having

provided with sufficient opportunity the petitioners

failed to attend the enquiry and therefore, the Enquiry

Officer proceeded the enquiry setting the petitioners

ex parte. After examination of the respondent witnesses

the Enquiry Officer found all the charges were proved

against the petitioners and he submits his enquiry

report. Even for the 2nd show cause notice, dated

18-09-2014 the petitioners were responded and

thereafter, the respondent management considering the

grave nature of the offence committed has passed

dismissal order, dated 04-11-2014.

10. The learned Counsel for the respondent further

submit that both the petitioners were inducted in the

service of the company on 10-11-1999 and 18-05-1999

respectively. It is further contended that in the

appointment order of the petitioners it is clearly

mentioned that they are liable to be transferred within

the factory premises or somewhere else. Having

accepted the conditions the petitioners were joined the

respondent company. When they were transferred to

meet the urgent requirements of the company they failed

to obey the order and protest against the management

they have also threatened the Senior Managers of the

respondent company and also used vituperative

language against the officers of the respondent

company. They have also exposed rude behaviour

against the officers of the company. They failed to

receive the transfer order and has approached the Civil

Court for the stay of the transfer order. The learned

Counsel for the respondent management further submit

that the petitioners joined hands with the Union

members and started strike infront of the company

premises by putting up a banner infront of main gate of

the respondent company. The respondent management

was forced to file the Suit for injunction restraining the

petitioners and other Union Members from conducting

any strike or boycott within 500 metres from the

respondent company premises. The respondent

management having considered the enquiry report of the

Enquiry Officer as found both the petitioners guilty of

serious misconduct and has issued the dismissal order,

dated 04-11-2014. The petitioners having threatened the

Managers of the respondent company with dire

consequences and also deliberately absent themselves

from attending the enquiry and using intemperate

language as against the officials of the respondent

management. They are not entitled for reinstatement and

also they are not entitled for any other reliefs since, they

have not worked in the respondent company from the

date of issuance of transfer order.

11. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submissions and the list of documents filed in this case.

12. This reference is made by the Government to

adjudicate upon the issue of non-employment of the

petitioners and for reinstatement with back wages with

other statutory benefits. As per the records available

both the petitioners were appointed on 10-11-1999 and

18-05-1999. The issue arose when the respondent

management has transferred both the petitioners by

transfer orders, dated 05-09-2013 and the factory site at

Orissa and Hydrabad. The transfer orders Ex.R1 and R2

were received by the petitioners on the date of issue,

but, they have promised to receive the transfer order

on the next day which was endorsed by the respondent

management in Ex.R1 and R2. The respondent

management has contended that the employment of the

petitioners are given to them with a condition that they

will be transfer within the factory premises or

somewhere else which includes the factory site situated

in other states. In this respect, the learned Counsel for

the respondent has pointed out clause-9 of Ex.P3 and

Ex.P10 appointment order. On contrary the learned

Counsel for the petitioner has stated the transfer to

somewhere else is not find place in the standing orders

of the respondent company. The certified standing

orders was not marked before this Court by both sides.

13. The petitioners served the show cause notice,

dated 16-11-2013 marked as R3 and R4. In the said

show cause notice the management has mentioned

8 misconducts which warrants disciplinary action as

against the petitioners. The relevant clause of stand

orders in respect of the alleged misconduct has as

follows:

14.02.01 – Willful insubordination and Disobedience

14.02.09 – Misbehaviour towards Department Head

14.02.11 – Riotous or Disorderly behaviour

14.02.21 – Threatening Superior

14.02.27 – Refusal to receive the notice issued to you

14.02.36 – Refusal to accept transfered

14.02.64 – Refusal to accept any communication issued

by the Management.

460

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 October 2021

14.02.73 – The use of abusive or disrespectful language

and rude behaviour to superior. Having received the

transfer orders, the petitioners has filed Civil Suit in

O.S. No. 1902/2013 and O.S. No. 1899/2013 for the said

matter transfer orders. In the meanwhile, the respondent

has filed complaint against the petitioners for having

threatened the management in filthy language and

criminal intimidated them with dire consequences. Both

the parties has not filed the complaint or the F.I.R.

registered in Cr.No. 93/2013 before this Court. The

petitioners were also suspended immediately.

14. Thiru Edward Kumar, Advocate was appointed

as a Enquiry Officer to enquire about the misconduct

of the petitioners. The Enquiry Officer has intimated the

date of enquiry to the petitioners. Both the petitioners

received the letters sent by the Enquiry Officer who

they have not turned up for the enquiry. Since, the same

was sent by an Advocate and there was no notice of

appointment of Enquiry Officer was intimate by the

management to the petitioners. The Enquiry Officer by

sending another notice has intimated the date of

enquiry for which there is no respond from the

petitioners. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to record

ex parte evidence of the respondent officials and has

filed his enquiry report stating that all the charges

levelled against the petitioners stands proved.

15. Transfer orders were issued against the

petitioners on 05-09-2013 and 10-09-2013, but, the

complaint with Mettupalayam Police Station was given

against the petitioners on the same date with same

allegation in the show cause notice the charges levelled

against the petitioners are one and the same. It is not

clear from the evidence from the respondent witnesses

that who actually threatened the respondent management

officials with what words. The specific overtact done

by the petitioners was not properly explained by the

respondent side. The respondent has caused another

show cause notice along with the report of the Enquiry

Officer to offer the explanation as to why the petitioners

should not be terminated from the service. The

respondent having considered that there was no

indicating circumstances as issue Ex.R11 and R12

dismissal order.

16. The respondent management having started the

domestic enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer are

who have properly informed the petitioners who are the

workers under the management. The contention of the

petitioners is that since, they have issued notice from

an Advocate they have not appeared on the enquiry

date.

17. Before the issuance of transfer order there was

no previous misconduct proved against the petitioners.

There is no evidence that the petitioners involved in

strike and cause interference for the production which

ended in loss of business. However, clause – 9 of the

transfer orders of the petitioner is from specific and

clear that the petitioners can be transferred somewhere

else. The transfer of an employee is the part of

conditions of service and the employee is bound to obey

the order of transfer if, it is not done with mala fide

motive. The contention of the petitioner is that since,

they involved in Trade Union activities, the respondent

management has issued the transfer order to victimize

the petitioners and also suppressed the Trade Union

activities. The abovesaid contention was not

established by the petitioners. It is the management to

assess sand finalise how to distribute its employees to

different branches.

18. The respondent management is not clear as to

what was the disrespectful language used by the

petitioner and what was the rude behaviour exhibited

by them on the specific date. The failure on the part of

the respondent management to intimate the petitioners

as to initiation of domestic enquiry by appointing

Thiru Edward Kumar as an Enquiry Officer is certainly

a lacuna on the part of the respondent management

which is against the principles of natural justice.

19. In the transfer orders issued by the respondent

management, the Manager, Human Resource has stated

that “we takes this opportunity to thank you for your

contribution and look forward to your continued

commitment to the organization’s Vision, Mission and

Goals” which clearly established that there is no

previous misconduct as against both the petitioners. On

the petitioner side it is contended that out of frustration

due to sudden transfer they were hesitant to receive the

transfer orders in time.

20. The criminal case instituted upon the complaint

preferred by the management is still pending. The

Enquiry Officer has not individually deal with each and

every charges and given finding in respect of individual

charges. The Enquiry Officer has simply stated that the

charges were proved against the petitioners. This Court

is of the opinion that the order of transfer issued against

the petitioners is not with mala fide intention. This

Court has considered the long period of service held

by the petitioners in the respondent company. Even now,

the petitioners are not employed. This Court is of the

considered opinion that the order of dismissal from

service is highly excessive on considering the nature

of charges levelled against the petitioners. The

Industrial Disputes Act is a beneficial legislation

keeping the balance between the company on the one

part of the labours on the other part to maintain natural

peace and stability. Under Article 21 of the Constitution

461

19 October 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

the right to life is not mere animal existence but, to live

in decent environment. The petitioners could not live

with human dignity when decent employment. Keeping

the above in mind this Court is inclined to direct the

respondent management to reinstate the petitioners.

Since, the petitioners were not attended the duty with

respondent company from the date of issuance of

transfer order, they are not eligible for any wages by

applying the principle of “no work, no pay”. However,

this Court is inclined to reinstate the petitioners with

continuity of service. The respondent management is

at liberty to fix the place of posting of the petitioners

considering the present requirements of the respondent

company.

21. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The

respondent management is directed to reinstate the

petitioners in the service of the respondent company

with continuity of service. The petitioners are not

entitled for any back wages. The respondent management

is directed to issue the order of reinstatement and

posting orders to the petitioners within the period of

one month from the date of this order. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 26th day of August, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witnesses:

PW.1

— 14-03-2018

K. Raji

PW.2

— 08-08-2019

V. Krishnamoorthi

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 30-01-2017

Failure Report issued by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

EX.P2 — 05-04-2017

Notification of the Labour

Department, Puducherry.

EX.P3 — 10-11-1999

A p p o i n t m e n t O r d e r o f

K. Raji issued by the Sica

Breweries.

EX.P4 — 10-09-2013

Transfer Order to K. Raji

issued

the

Sica

Breweries.

Ex.P5

— 04-11-2014

Dismissal letter to Raji

issued

the

Sica

Breweries.

Ex.P6

— 16-09-2013

Show Cause letter to K. Raji

issued by SAB India Miller.

Ex.P7

— 31-05-2015

Letter by K. Raji to Sica

Breweries.

Ex.P8

— 30-05-2015

Reply letter to Raji issued by

Sica Breweries.

Ex.P9

— 25-08-2014

Enquiry Report submitted by

the

Advocate

Edward

Kumar.

Ex.P10 — 18-05-1999

A p p o i n t m e n t O r d e r o f

V. Krishnamoorthi issued by

Sica Breweries.

Ex.P11 — 05-09-2013

T r a n s f e r O r d e r o f

V. Krishnamoorthi issued by

Sica Breweries.

Ex.P12 — 04-11-2014

D i s m i s s a l l e t t e r t o

V. Krishnamoorthi issued by

Sica Breweries.

List of respondent’s witness:

RW.1

— 22-11-2019

Ramamoorthy

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1 — 10-09-2013

Copy of the Transfer Order

to the 1st Petitioner.

Ex.R2 — 05-09-2013

Copy of the Transfer Order

to the 2nd Petitioner.

Ex.R3 — 16-09-2013

Copy of the Suspension

letter issued by the company

to the 1st Petitioner.

Ex.R4 — 16-09-2013

Copy of the Suspension

letter

issued

the

company

the

2nd

Petitioner.

Ex.R5 — 30-11-2013

Copy of the letter issued by

the 1st Petitioner to the

Enquiry Officer by name

Edward Kumar.

Ex.R6 — 30-11-2013

Copy of the letter issued by

the 2nd Petitioner to the

Enquiry Officer by name

Edward Kumar.

Ex.R7 — 25-08-2014

Copy of the Enquiry Report

against the 1st Petitioner.

Ex.R8 — 25-08-2014

Copy of the Enquiry Report

against the 2nd Petitioner.

462

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 October 2021

Ex.R9 — 18-09-2014

Copy of the Show Cause

notice issued to the 1st

Petitioner by the Manufacturing

Manager K. Muralidharan.

Ex.R10 — 18-09-2014

Copy of the Show Cause

notice issued to the 2nd

Petitioner by the Manufacturing

Manager K. Muralidharan.

Ex.R11 — 04-11-2014

Copy of the termination

order of 1st Petitioner

issued by Manufacturing

Manager K. Muralidharan.

Ex.R12 — 04-11-2014

Copy of the termination

order of 2nd Petitioner

issued by Manufacturing

Manager K. Muralidharan.

Ex.R13 — 17-06-2015

Copy of the Agitation notice

issued by the Trade Union

to the General-Manager.

Ex.R14 — 09-10-2019

Copy of the Power of the

Attorney issued to RW.1-

Ramamoorthy.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 67/AIL/Lab./T/2021,

Puducherry, dated 6th October 2021)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 16/2018, dated

18-08-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute between

the management of M/s. AUM Hospitals, Sapthagiri

Thottam, Solai Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry and

Tmt. R. Santhi and P. Kalaivani, 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 R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 18th day of August 2021.

I.D. (L) No. 16/2018

CNR. No. PYPY060001032018

Tmt. R. Santhi,

No. 6, Viswanathan Nagar,

Thirugnanasambandham Street,

Muthialpet, Puducherry.

Tmt. Kalaivani ,

No. 17, Ganapathi Nagar,

Irulansandai,

Villupuram Main Road,

Bahour Commune,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. AUM Hospitals,

Sapthagiri Thottam,

Solai Nagar Main Road,

Muthialpet,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 09-08-2021 before me

for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R.T. Shankar,

Counsel for the petitioners, Thiruvalargal J. Cyril

Mathias Vincent and A. Anuradha, Counsel for the

Respondent, the respondent being called absent and

set-exparte, upon hearing the petitioners and perusing

the case records, this Court passed the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No. 31/AIL/Lab./T/2018, dated 06-03-2018 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the

following dispute between the petitioners and

the respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioners

Tmt. R. Santhi and P. Kalaivani, Puducherry,

against the management of M/s. AUM Hospitals,

463

19 October 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Puducherry, situated at Sapthagiri Thottam, Solai

Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry, over non-employment

is justified or not? If justified, what relief they are

entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. On the respondent side Thiru J. Cyril Mathias

Vincent has filed form – F. Since, the respondent failed

to file their counter, the respondent was set-exparte.

3. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the

petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were

marked.

4. Points for consideration:

Whether the dispute raised by the petitioners

Tmt. R. Santhi and P. Kalaivani, Puducherry, against

the management of M/s. AUM Hospitals, Puducherry,

situated at Sapthagiri Thottam, Solai Nagar,

Muthialpet, Puducherry, over non-employment is

justified or not and if justified, what is the relief

entitled to the petitioners.

5. The petitioners Santhi and Kalaivani has filed

joint claim petition and stating that they were joined in

the respondent management as ward attendant on

01-04-2009 and 18-08-2009 respectively. They were

attended various works like cleaning the hospital

wards, cleaning the beds and bed sheets, dressing the

patients, assisting the staff in blood testing and they

were getting monthly salary of ` 5,940 and they were

in the services of the respondent management for about

8 years. The respondent management has extended the

ESI and EPF benefits to the petitioners on par with

permanent employees. The petitioners worked more

than 240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar

months, but, the respondent management has not

regularised the petitioners. The management without

assigning any valid reasons and without conducting

any enquiry and without issuing any termination order

has stopped the petitioners from attending the regular

work with ulterior motive. The respondent has acted in

violation of 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and also

against the principles of natural justice. The petitioners

prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and

continuity of services.

6. On the petitioner side Tmt. Kalaivani was

examined as PWl, through her Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were

marked. In the evidence of PW1 Kalaivani has deposed

that the petitioners were appointed as attendant with

the respondent hospital from 01-04-2009 and 18-08-2009

from which date onwards both of them were in

continuous service of the respondent till they were

stopped at the main gate on 25-03-2017 without

assigning any valid reasons and without issuing any

termination orders. The respondent management for a

long time utilised the services of the petitioners and

exploited their tender age and has not considered the

various benefits entitled to the petitioners as per the

labour enactments. The petitioners are facing untold

hardship without employment and without any

earnings.

7. To prove the case of the petitioners they have

filed Ex.P1 which is the letter addressed by the

Conciliation Officer to the Secretary to Government,

Labour Department, Puducherry, dated 14-02-2018,

wherein, the Conciliation Officer has stated that both

the petitioners and the management were appeared for

Conciliation and Conciliation process was not fructified

and hence, the matter was referred for adjudication.

8. In Ex.P2 letter, dated 05-04-2017 both the

petitioners were sent letter to the Administrative

Manager, AUM Hospital for their reinstatement in

service. Ex.P6 is the appointment letter, dated

18-08-2009 issued by the respondent to the petitioner

Kalaivani. Ex.P3 is the employment confirmation letter

issued by the respondent management to the petitioners

Santhi and Kalaivani, dated 01-09-2009 and 18-01-2010

respectively wherein, the respondent management has

confirmed the services of the both the petitioners. The

respondent management has also issued Identity Cards

for both the petitioners. The petitioners have also filed

their salary slips for the month of October 2016 in

respect of petitioner Santhi and November 2016 in

respect of petitioner Kalaivani. It is evident from Ex.P3

the services of petitioners Santhi and Kalaivani were

confirmed and their service conditions continue to

remain unchanged as per the employment confirmation

letter. The salary slips of the petitioners for the month

of October 2016 and November 2016 would go to show

that they were in continuous service of the respondent

hospital. Admittedly, though the respondent appeared

through Counsel, they were not inclined to file counter.

On the petitioner side by filing Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 the

petitioners have categorically established that both the

petitioners were employed by the respondent

management and they were in continuous service of the

respondent management for more than 8 months.

Admittedly, there is no notice of termination or any

disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioners

for any lapses. The petitioners were all of a sudden not

permitted to attend the work on 25-03-2017 without

issuing any termination order. No statutory notice was

issued against the petitioners as per the terms of

employment.

9. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the

Constitution is not mere animal existence, but, right to

a decent living with human dignity. From the discussion

above made this Court is of the concrete opinion that

464

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 October 2021

the termination of the petitioners is not in accordance

with established principles of law and natural justice.

This Court is of the further opinion that the non-

employment of the petitioners is not justified.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed. Both the

petitioners are entitled for reinstatement with the

respondent management with full back wages and

continuity of service. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on

this the 18 th day of August, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 09-08-2021

Kalaivani

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 14-02-2018

Xerox copy of the Failure

report, submitted by the

Labour Officer, Conciliation,

Puducherry.

Ex.P2

— 05-04-2017

Xerox copy of the letter sent

by the petitioners to the

respondent management.

Ex.P3

— 01-09-2009

Xerox copy of the Confirmation

Order issued by the respondent

18-01-2010

management to the petitioners.

Ex.P4

—

Xerox copy of the Identity

Card

issued

the

respondent management to

the Petitioners.

Ex.P5

—

Xerox copy of the Salary

Slips

issued

the

Respondent management to

the Petitioners for the

month of October 2016 and

November 2016.

Ex.P6

— 18-08-2009

Xerox

copy

the

Appointment Order issued

the

respondent

management

the

Petitioners.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 68/AIL/Lab./T/2021, Puducherry,

dated 06th October 2021)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D.(L) No. 27/2020, dated

25-08-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute

between the Management of M/s. Faber Sindoori

Management Services Private Limited, Puducherry, and

Union workmen, represented by Puthuvai Manila Pattali

Thozhir Sangam, Rajiv Gandhi Government Women and

Children Hospital Contract Employees Union,

Puducherry, over enhancement of retirement age from

58 years to 60 years 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 R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Wednesday, the 25th day of August 2021

I.D. (L) No. 27/2020 in

C.N.R.No. PYPY060000652020

The President,

Puthuvai Manila Pattali Thozhir Sangam,

Rajiv Gandhi Government Women and

Children Hospital Contract Employees Union,

100 Feet Road, Ellaipillaichavady,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Faber Sindoori Management

Services Private Limited,

No.25 & 26, Prince Towers,

7th Floor, College Road,

Nungampakkam, Chennai.

. . Respondent.

465

19 October 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

This industrial dispute coming on this day before me

for hearing, upon perusing the records, this Court

passed the following :

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No.120/AIL/LAB/T/2020, dated 11-11-2020 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,

(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Union workmen

represented by Puthuvai Manila Pattali Thozhir Sangam,

Rajiv Gandhi Government Women and Children Hospital

Contract Employees Union, Puducherry, against the

management of M/s. Faber Sindoori Management

Services Private Limited, Puducherry, over enhancement

of retirement age from 58 to 60 years is justified or not?

If justified, what relief the Union workmen are entitled to?

(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms of

money if, it can be so computed?

2. Today, when the case came up for hearing,

petitioner notice served, respondent notice returned as

‘Left’. Petitioner called absent. No representation.

The notices sent to the petitioner for the hearing dates

on 23-01-2021, 26-04-2021 and 25-08-2021 were served.

But, the petitioner not turned up. Notices sent to the

respondent for four times returned as left. No useful

purpose will be served by keeping the reference

pending. Hence, the reference is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court,

on the 25th day of August, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 71/AIL/LAB/T/2021, Puducherry,

dated 06th October 2021)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 07/2020, dated

18-08-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute

between the management of M/s. Puducherry Institute

of Medical Sciences, Kalapet, Puducherry and the Union

workmen, represented by Bharatheya Puducherry

Maruthuva Vingana Niruvana Thozhilalar Sangam,

Puducherry, over charter of demands such as to revise

the basic wages by ` 12,000; to grant an Annual

Increment of ` 3,000; to grant promotion to employees

who have completed 10 years of service with an

increment of ` 2,000; to provide Canteen facilities at

subsidized rates and other allowances, etc., 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)

D. MOHAN KUMAR,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Wednesday, the 18th day of August 2021

I.D. (T) No. 07/2020 in

C.N.R.No. PYPY060000652020

The Secretary,

Bharatheya Puducherry Maruthuva Vingana

Niruvana Thozhilalar Sangam,

No. 3, Mettu Street, Chinna Kalapet,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Puducherry Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kalapet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent.

This Industrial Dispute coming on this day before

me for hearing, in the presence of Thiru L. Sathish,

Counsel for the respondent, on record, the petitioner

remained absent, no representation have been made on

his behalf, upon perusing the records, this Court

passed the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No.147/AIL/LAB/T/2019, dated 31-12-2019 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,

466

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 October 2021

(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Union workmen,

represented by Bharatheya Puducherry Maruthuva

Vingana Niruvana Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry,

against the management of M/s. Puducherry Institute

of Medical Sciences, Kalapet, Puducherry, over charter

of demands such as to revise the basic wages by

` 12,000; to grant an Annual Increment of ` 3,000; to

grant promotion to employees who have completed

10 years of service with an increment of ` 2,000; to

provide Canteen facilities at subsidized rates and other

allowances, etc., are justified or not? If justified, what

relief the Union workmen are entitled to?

(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms of

money if, it can be so computed?

2. Today, when the case came up for hearing, notice

served on the petitioner. No representation for the

petitioner. Respondent Counsel present. Already notice

served on the petitioner on 01-04-2020 to 26-04-2021.

But, the petitioner not turned up. Hence, the reference

is closed for the non-appearance of the petitioner.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court,

on this 18 th day of August, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

No. 215-224/DSE/HSW/EC/SSLC/2021.

Puducherry, the 05th October 2021.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby informed that the following candidates have lost their original SSLC Examination Mark Certificates

beyond the scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates. If, anyone

finds the original mark certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations(SEC),

College Road, Chennai – 600 006 for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.

Sl.

Name of the applicant

Sl. No. of the

School in which

No.

session and

mark

studied last

year

certificate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Tmt./Selvi/Thiru :

Sobina V

1854892, March 2013

2302422

Thiruvalluvar Government Girls’ Higher

Secondary School, Puducherry.

Sharma B

602679, March 2010

8168359

Holy Flowers Higher Secondary School,

Kariyamanickam, Puducherry.

Soubramaniane Siva R

324019, March 1995

AA 3202588

Bharathi Government Higher Secondary

School, Bahour, Puducherry.

680873, April 1998

AA 5745543

Private Study

Pydimalla Jagadeesh

1682628, March 2016

—

KSP Higher Secondary School,

Kumar

Kathirkamam, Puducherry.

Selvaganapathi M

5006631, March 2015

5299733

Thanthai Periyar Government Girls’

Higher Secondary School, Ariyankuppam,

Puducherry.

Prabavathy P

365234, March 1999

06307348

Kalaignar Karunanithi Government

Higher Secondary School, K.T. Kuppam,

Puducherry.