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

[569]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2021 }

ΩƒD√Ï |

14 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Décembre

2021 (23 Agrahayana 1943)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

14th

December

2021

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

570

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 570

Award of the Labour Court .. 570

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

588

Notifications du Gouvernement

.. 588

Government Notifications

.. 588

√uÆÁÔ ∂§s©A

596

Avis de saisis-arrét

.. 596

Notice of attachment

.. 596

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

596

Etablissements dangereux

.. 596

Dangerous Establishments

596

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

598

Annonces

.. 598

Announcements

598

570

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 80/AIL/Lab./T/2021,

Puducherry, dated 13th November 2021)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 04/2015 to I.D (L)

No. 07/2015 and I.D (L) No. 10/2015, dated 15-09-2021

the

Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care

Private Limited, Puducherry and (i) Tmt. G. Madhiyarasi,

Puducherry; (ii) Tmt. M. Thiruselvi, Puducherry;

(iii) Tmt. M. Muniammal, Puducherry; (iv) Thiru

C. Karuppaiah, Puducherry and (v) Thiru P. Sunil Kumar,

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 15th day of September 2021.

I.D (L). No. 04/2015 to I.D (L). No. 07/2015 and

I.D (L). No. 10/2015

I.D (L) No. 04/2015

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000782015

G. Madhiyarasi,

Muthumariamman Kovil Street,

Fire Station Backside, Muthu Nagar,

Madugarai, Puducherry-605 110.

. . Petitioner

I.D. (L) No. 05/2015

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000442015

M. Thiruselvi,

C/o. Ramalingam,

No. 22, Poraiyathamman Kovil Street,

Thamizhthai Nagar, Vanarapet,

Puducherry-605 001.

. . Petitioner

I.D. (L) No. 06/2015

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000452015

M. Muniammal,

Pillaiyar Kovil Street,

Balaji Nagar, Kombakkam,

Puducherry-605 110.

. . Petitioner

I.D. (L) No. 07/2015

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000462015

C. Karuppaiah,

No.10, First Street,

Thirukuralar Nagar,

Villianur,

Puducherry-605 110.

. . Petitioner

I.D. (L) No. 10/2015

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000492015

Sunil Kumar,

Mahalakshmi Illam,

12th Cross, Vennisamy Nagar,

G.N. Palayam, Arumbarthapuram,

Puducherry-605 105.

. . Petitioner

Versus

I.D. (L) No. 04/2015 to I.D. (L) No. 07/2015 and

I.D. (L) No. 10/2015

The Managing Director,

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care Private Limited,

Odhiyampet Village,

Puducherry - 605 110.

. . Respondent

These industrial disputes coming on 08-09-2021 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

A. Sakthivel and A. Govindh, Advocates for the

petitioners and Thiru B. Mohandoss, Advocate for the

respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the

case records, after having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court delivered the following award:

Having considered that the petitioners are the erstwhile

employees of the respondent company and considering

the fact that the cause of action for the present reference

for all the petitioners are one and the same and the counter

averments of the respondent in all the industrial disputes

are one and the same. This Court is inclined to pass

Common Award in all the industrial disputes.

COMMON AWARD

These Industrial Disputes have been referred by the

Government for adjudicating whether the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioners against the

management of M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care Private

Limited, Odhiyampet Village, Puducherry, over their

571

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

non-employment is justified and if justified, what relief

the petitioners are entitled to, in which the petitioners

have filed claim statements praying for reinstatement

with continuity of service and with back wages.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, are as

follows:

The petitioners are working with the respondent

company for 18 years. They are also members of

Medimix Labours Union. The respondent company is

engaged in production of soap. There are 60 Members

in the petitioner’s Union and remaining 23 Labours

are with employees Welfare Union. For the past 28 years

from the date of starting of the company the

respondent has not implemented company’s standing

orders and Industrial Disputes Act. On 11-11-2011 the

petitioner’s Union has given complaint to the factory

Inspector since, the respondent management has

engaged the employees for white washing and

cleaning the drainage. The respondent management

has dismissed one Ayyappan who is the President

of the petitioner’s Union. Against the arbitrary

removal representation was made before the

Conciliation Officer. Since, the conciliation fails

reference was made to the Labour Court. On

05-06-2012 during strike the petitioner has not

indulged in unlawful activities. On 05-06-2012 the

23 employees were attended duty. Inspite of that the

respondent has declared lockout sine die. Since, the

petitioners are the active members of the petitioners

union they were removed from service by the

respondent management by inputing false charges.

The Domestic Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry

from 02-03-2013 to 27-04-2014. The enquiry was

conducted for about 14 months. The Enquiry Officer

has not permitted the petitioner to examine the

witness and the Enquiry Officer has not followed the

principles of natural justice.

(ii) The respondent management has levelled

various allegation against the petitioner and others,

which are totally false. The petitioners never stopped

any employee from attending duty and has not

prevented the lorry belongs to Sarath Logistic

Company from transporting the finished products. On

the date of strike Police were stationed at the

company premises and there was no untoward

incident taken place. The respondent has also made

a false allegation that the petitioner and others went

to the house of Thiru. Lucas on 05-11-2013 at

07.30 a.m. as if, the petitioner and others threatened

him. The complaint preferred against the petitioners

Thiru Lucas on 05-06-2012 is totally false. Without

any proper reason the representation of the

management was withdrawn from the domestic

enquiry. Without concluding the enquiry punishment

was inflicted upon the petitioner and others which

is totally against the principles of natural justice. The

petitioners pray to set aside the dismissal order and

order for reinstatement along with salary, allowance,

bonus and compensation to the petitioner.

(iii) On 05-06-2012 the 23 employees were

attended the job. Even then, the respondent

management has declared lockout which is against

the principles of law. Since, the petitioners are

holding post in the Union, the respondent

management with a view to take revenge has imputed

the false charges. On 23-05-2013 during the course

of domestic enquiry when there was no one represent

the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has obtained the

statement of management witnesses 3 and 4 which

was not proper. If, at all any untoward incident

happened on 05-06-2012 in the presence of

respondent management staffs then would have

entered the same in the registers maintained by them.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed are as

follows:

The petitioners are the members of Medimix

Thozhilalar Sangam. It is not correct to state that out

of 88 permanent workmen 60 workmen belongs to the

petitioner Union. It is not correct to say the Thozilalar

Nala Sangam, the other Trade Union formed by the

workman of the respondent company to favour the

management. The unlawful strike and other misleads

committed by the workmen forced the respondent to

declare lockout. The petitioner along with other

workmen belongs to Medimix Thozhilalar Sangam

stopped their production activities by indulging in

strike without notice to the respondent. They were

are indulged in unlawful activities such as preventing

the entry and exit of goods and shouting inflammable

slogans in filthy language. The 1st Additional District

Munsif Court, Puducherry, has granted interim

injunction against the respondents not to hold

meetings, dharna or raising slogans within 500 metres

from the main gate of the factory premises. The

petitioner was charged for her misconducts on

05-06-2012 that she along with co-workers stopped

other employees from entering into the factory,

causing production loss and monetary loss. The

petitioner along with other employees prevented the

entry of lorry bearing Registration No. TN 31 F 9959,

passing derogatory remarks against the management

staff, on 06-06-2012 and 5 other dates she joined with

co-workers has made defamatory allegations through

pamphlets. The petitioner along with co-workers

572

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

threatened the managerial and Administrative Officers.

The respondent management arranged for domestic

enquiry and Mr. K. Indrajith, Advocate was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry proceedings were

stopped under extraordinary circumstances. Even

before stopping the enquiry proceedings the

petitioner and other employees were issued show

cause notice, dated 10-07-2013. The petitioner filed

reply, dated 25-07-2013. The respondent rejected the

reply through speaking order, dated 27-08-2013. The

respondent has also issued notice, dated 08-11-2013

regarding the proposed penalty of dismissal from

service. The respondent after taking into consideration

of the past record of service of the petitioner as

issued dismissal order, dated 04-01-2014. There is no

merit in the claim statement filed by the petitioner and

pray for dismissal of the claim petition.

4 The points for consideration are:

Whether, the respondent management adopted

unfair labour practice as against the petitioners and

whether the non-employment of the petitioners are

justified?

5. In all the industrial dispute common domestic

enquiry was conducted by the respondent management.

In all the industrial disputes facts are one and the same.

Moreover, the petitioners in all the industrial disputes

were examined as PW.1. In all the industrial disputes

Ex.P1 to P23 were marked on the petitioner side. In

I.D.(L) No. 05/2015 RW.1 to RW.5 were examined. In all

other Industrial Disputes RW.1 to RW.4 were examined

and respective Exhibits were marked on the respondent

side.

6. The evidence of petitioner witnesses in nutshell

is as follows:

All the petitioners were the members of Medimix

Thozhilalargal Sangam registered as Trade Union in

Regn. No. 1593/RTU2009. The petitioners are the

permanent employees of the respondent management.

Out of total 88 employees 60% are the members of

the Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam. The petitioners

are working in the respondent company for about

18 years. The respondent management is not in the

habit of following standing orders and Industrial

Disputes Act. Only after the starting of Medimix

Thozhilalargal Sangam in the year 2009, the petitioners

has given representation to the Assistant Commissioner,

Labour Department, Puducherry and enquiry is at the

appeal stage. For the past 19 years the respondent

is in the habit of getting signature for settlement

under section 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute, Act. The

respondent management has used the employees for

the purpose of cleaning the drainage and white

washing the walls. The petitioners Union has given

several representations to the management that the

employees should not be engaged for non

production works. Finally, the petitioner’s Association

has given a complaint to the Inspector of Factories

the respondent management has also removed the

President of Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam by

conducting enquiry partially. The problems faced by

the management were periodically reported to the

Conciliation Officer, Labour Department. The

petitioners never engaged in any unlawful activities

on 05-06-2012 during strike. On the date of strike

23 Labours were attended the duty even thereafter

the respondent management has declared lockout

which is not in accordance with law. The domestic

enquiry was conducted by the officer Thiru Indrajith

appointed by the management. The domestic enquiry

was conducted from 02-03-2013 to 27-04-2014. The

Enquiry Officer was acted in support of the

management and prevent the petitioners from

examining any witnesses. The Enquiry Officer has

also not followed the principles of natural justice.

7. The Enquiry Officer on 06-06-2013 has denied the

request of the petitioners for granting adjournment for

cross-examination of K. Saravanan management witness.

On 08-06-2013 the Enquiry Officer has denied the request

of the petitioner for an adjournment of cross-examination

of Sundar. On 23-05-2013 the Enquiry Officer has

received the statement of the management witnesses in

the absence of the petitioners which is against the

principles of natural justice. Though, the respondent

management has alleged that the petitioners on

05-06-2012 stopped the goods lorry bearing

Registration No. TN 31 F 9959 belongs to Sarath

Logistics. The respondent management has not directly

receive any complaint from the Driver of the lorry. On

05-06-2012 the Police were present at the factory

premises and there was not untoward incident taken

place in presence of Police. No employee was arrested

for their involvement of activities for any unlawful

activities. The complaint preferred by Thiru Lucas on

05-11-2013 at Villianur Police Station, against the

petitioners is totally false. There is no possibility for

the petitioners for threatening the officer when they are

seeking employment. On 08-06-2013 there is no

altercation between one of the petitioner Karupaiah and

the management representative Thiru Dhamodaran, after

relieving the Presenting Officer from the domestic

enquiry. The respondent management has not

nominated any other Presenting Officer. Without

appointing new Enquiry Officer. The respondent

management abruptly stopped the enquiry and imposed

punishment on the petitioners which is totally against

the principles of natural justice.

573

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

8. Thiru Lucas RW.1 in his evidence deposed that the

petitioners who were went on strike among the 27 workmen

all belongs to Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam stopped

the production activities on 05-06- 2012 and they were

indulged in unlawful activities by preventing the entry

and exit of vehicles and employees. They have a l s o

shouting inflammable slogans in filthy language. The

respondent has obtained the interim injunction against

the petitioners and others in I.A. No. 1898/2012 in O.S.

No. 986/2012. The order of the Court restrained the

petitioners and others from preventing the entry of raw

materials into the factory premises and entry of

workmen, Officers and business customers. The

allegation of the petitioners that the respondent

management has dismissed the petitioners on false

charges is totally false. For the alleged misconducts

done by the petitioners on 05-06-2012 charge-sheet,

dated 28-12-2012 was given to the petitioners stating

8 charges. The petitioners have given explanation, dated

12-01-2013 denying the charges of misconduct. Thiru

K. Indrajith, Advocate was appointed as a Enquiry

Officer proper opportunity was given to the petitioner

side the enquiry was conducted with in accordance with

law and principles of natural justice. The enquiry was

stopped before the formal closure of evidence on

account of un avoidable circumstances. The respondent

came to a bona fide conclusion that there was an

extraordinary circumstances beyond his control warrant

stoppage of the enquiry proceedings by appointing

another Presenting Officer and another Enquiry Officer.

Even before the stopping of the enquiry proceedings

were given show cause notice, dated 10-07-2013. The

explanation given by the petitioners were considered on

merit and the same was rejected through speaking order,

dated 08-11-2013. After taking into account on all the

relevant facts on 04-01-2014 the respondent management

has imposed punishment of dismissal. The punishment

of dismissal is in tune with gravity of misconduct

committed by the petitioners.

9. RW.2 Thiru Sundar deposed that on 05-06-2012

at about 08.30 a.m. when he was about to enter the

company he was stopped by the petitioners and other

members of Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam, Further, he

deposed that he was prevented from entering into the

factory premises he has given a complaint in this regard

to the Factory Manager.

10. RW3 Thiru Dhamodaran who is the Deputy

Manager of the respondent company deposed that for

the misconducts committed by the petitioners they were

served on the charge-sheet, dated 28-12-2012. The

petitioners submitted their explanation, dated

12-01-2013. Thiru K. Indrajith, Advocate was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. RW.3 is the Presenting Officer in the

common enquiry. The petitioners have shown hostile

attitude towards the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry

Officer and he was humiliated by the petitioners in

several ways. On 10-06-2013 he has requested the

disciplinary authority to relieve him from the enquiry

proceeding and appoint another Presenting Officer and

he was relieved accordingly.

11. RW.4 Thiru Indrajith, Advocate in his evidence

deposed that he has conducted common enquiry

inrespect of the petitioners. One Sayeena Beebi and

Karupaiah were shown hostile attitude towards him and

the Presenting Officer Thiru Dhamodharan, as such they

were forced to come out of the enquiry proceedings.

He has submitted a letter, dated 19-06-2013 pointing out

the true facts to the Disciplinary Authority and

explained his inability to preside enquiry procedures.

12. Thiru Saravanan who was working as Production

Supervisor was examined on the respondent side in

I.D.(L). No. 05/2015 in his evidence he has deposed that

on 05-06-2012 when he was going to the factory the

employees of the Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam has

called for a strike. When he was about to enter the

factory premises he was prevented by them. At the

time, the Police Officers of the Villianur Police Station

interfered. The members of the Medimix Thozhilalargal

Sangam has also threatened the witness Saravanan and

the women workers abused him in filthy language. He

has given a complaint to the Factory Manager on

05-06-2012 stating the incidents happened to him.

13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioners are employees of the respondent

management for more than 15 years the respondent

management is not in the habit of following the standing

orders and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The long

term wage revision settlement of the employees expired

on 31-12-2009. The Trade Union has submitted the

charter of demands. But, the management refused for

collective bargaining and has compelled all the workmen

for 18(1) settlement individually. The respondent

management has also unilaterally increased the

production norms without holding negotiations with the

workmen or the Trade Union. Since, the petitioners has

insisted for wage revision and other benefits the

respondent management as a vindictive measure take

several actions against the petitioners and other

employees. It is further submitted that the respondent

management has issued show cause notice, dated

28-12-2012 to the petitioners making allegations that on

05-06-2012, the Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam has

organized the illegal strike and thereby preventing the

entry of the employees and they are also stopped to

carrying the finished products to the respective

574

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

destination by stopping the lorry bearing Registration

No. TN 31 F 9959 belongs to Sarath Logistics Company.

The petitioners has also raised defamatory slogans

against the management and they have also given

Television interviews on various dates which caused

damage to the goodwill of the management. It was

further alleged in the show cause notice that the

petitioners and the other workmen on 05-06-2012 after

declaring the lockout by the company has stopped the

management officials in filthy language and prevented

them entering into the company. All the petitioners and

other employees on 16-11-2012 went to the house of

Saravanan who is the employee and threatened to kill

him. Even though, the petitioners has given their reply,

dated 12-01-2013 that they were indulged in any illegal

activities as against the company. The respondent

management without considering the reply has initiated

domestic enquiry as against all the petitioners. On the

management side Thiru Dhamodharan was appointed as

Presenting Officer and Thiru Indrajith, Advocate was

appointed as Enquiry Officer.

14. All the petitioners were promptly participated in

the domestic enquiry but, the Presenting Officer and the

Enquiry Officer on several occasion has not yielded for

the request of the petitioners. The respondent

management has failed to provide with necessary

particulars requested by the petitioners. Moreover, the

petitioners denied opportunity when the sought time for

the cross-examination of the witnesses. The petitioners

has submitted letters, dated 04-05-2013 and 11-05-2013

stating that the management is not co-operating in the

domestic enquiry. The petitioners by letter, dated

30-05-2013 informed the Disciplinary Authority that the

Enquiry Officer denied the opportunity to the petitioners

they have also sent another letter, dated 03-06-2013 that

the Enquiry Officer acted in contravention to the

principles of natural justice. On the contrary, the

Presenting Officer Dhamodaran and the Enquiry Officer

Indrajith has sent letter to the Disciplinary Authority

by falsely stating that they are humiliated by the

irresponsible attitude of the petitioners and they are not

inclined to continue as Presenting Officer and Enquiry

Officer. The Disciplinary Authority without enquiring

into the merits of the contentions made by the

Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer has intimated the

petitioners by letter, dated 27-08-2013 and that he is

inclined to stop the domestic enquiry and proceed to

the next stage. In respect of the representation made

by the petitioners on 05-09-2013 to the Disciplinary

Authority, he has sent letter, dated 08-11-2013 two

show cause notice “why the management should not

dismiss the petitioners from service”.

15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit.

that without concluding the domestic enquiry and

without any adverse remarks as against the petitioners

by Enquiry Officer the action of the Disciplinary

Authority to stop the domestic enquiry abruptly is

certainly against the principles of natural justice. The

management ought to have appointed some other

Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer of the domestic

enquiry ought to have proceeded with the management

when taking any further action for the conduct of

domestic enquiry. They have simply closed the enquiry

in the middle and imposed the punishment of dismissal,

the dismissal order, dated 04-01-2014 was issued to the.

petitioners and by letter, dated 20-01-2014 they have

requested the management to set aside the dismissal

order the petitioners has raised industrial dispute

before the Conciliation Officer, Labour Department,

Puducherry. But, the Conciliation ended in failure by

letter, dated 08-12-2014. The Conciliation Officer has

given his report to the Secretary to Government,

Labour Department, Puducherry.

16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submit that on 01-06-2012, the Medimix Thozhilalargal

Sangam Union has issued strike notice to the

respondent management and the same was received by

the Factory Manager on 05-06-2012 demanding

recognition of the Trade Union. The production wage

revision has to be negotiated with the office bearers of

the Trade Union and to recall the false complaints

against the employees as such the strike called by the

Union cannot be termed as illegal strike. The learned

Counsel for the petitioner further submit that ever since

of the date of the appointment of the petitioners in the

services of the respondent management they were

compelled to sign in 18(1) settlement and the respondent

management has a vindictive measure as dismissed the

president of Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam Trade

Union. The intention of the management to dismiss the

members of the Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam and

engaged new workers for less wages in their place. The

respondent management all along indulged in issuing

show cause notice to the employees to create a negative

history about the employees and also the management

is in the habit of compelling to admit guilty of the

charges against them.

17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has

invited this Court attention to the Judgment of Division

Bench of Allahabad High Court in Kotwal Singh Rawat

vs. Union of India, 1985 L. & I.C. 80 held “punishment

of removal from service on the basis of letter issued by

District Magistrate after conclusion of inquiry which

was not made available to the delinquent nor brought

to his notice during inquiry or even thereafter

constituted violation of the principles of natural justice”.

575

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

invited this Court attention to the Judgment rendered

by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Pashupati

Dayal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1988 1 S.C.D. 95 held

“where in reply to show cause notice, the Government

servant submitted his reply and asserted that he was

not afforded reasonable opportunity to explain and was

denied to cross-examine the witnesses and the

statement of the witnesses were changed. The

Punishing Authority is bound to decide the allegations

raised in the reply and record a finding prior to passing

final order”.

19. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has

invited the attention of this Court to the Judgment of

Allahabad High Court reported in Ashwani Kumar

Suman vs. Uttar Pradesh State Argo Industrial

Corporation, Ltd. 1900(1) LLN 629 “A perusal of the

order passed by the; punishing authority indicates that

the defence of the petitioner was not considered and

no finding was given in spite of the, fact that the

petitioner had asserted that he was not afforded

reasonable opportunity to explain and the copies of the

material documents were not furnished to him. In view

of what has been stated herein above, we are of the

opinion that the order of dismissal passed against the

petitioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be

quashed”.

20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submit that no reasonable man could have justified the

action of the respondent management to dismiss the

employee on the basis of past lapses of his part. The

management on receipt of the explanation submitted by

the petitioner has discharged from the charges after

warning. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited

this Court attention to the Judgment of a Division Bench

of Honorable Gujarat High Court in Ashwin N. Acharya

V. Okha Port reported in 1993(2) LLN 544 “we find that

the extreme punishment of severance of the employment

inflicted on the petitioner in this case is grossly

disproportionate to his misconduct arising from his

alleged rude behaviour with his fellow-workmen or with

his superior officers and more particularly, so, when his

apologies were accepted. Different considerations might

have arisen if, his apologies were not accepted and the

charge-sheet might have come to be issued for his such

misconduct of rude behaviour. Once we come to the

conclusion that the punishment inflicted on the

petitioner is out of proportion, we have only to set aside

such punishment”.

21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit

that the respondent management ought to have adopted

reasonable procedure in the domestic enquiry. They

have conducted the enquiry with an intention to found

them guilty of misconduct and to remove them from

service. The stoppage of the domestic enquiry when

reaching its fair end categorically established to

intention of the management in this regard. The learned

Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of

this Court to the Judgment of Honorable Karnataka

High Court reported in ILR 1994 KAR 2736 in

G.R. Venkateshwara Reddy vs. Karnataka State Road

Transport “The second question is whether an

employee is entitled to summon or demand production

of documents from the management in a domestic or

department enquiry. It is now well settled that the

doctrine of natural justice as applied to enquiries

consists of the following three principles: (a) No person

shall be the Judge of his own cause; (b) No person shall

be condemned unheard; and (c) there should not be any

procedural unreasonableness in the enquiry. The right

to be heard, by following a reasonable procedure in an

enquiry necessarily envisages and involves the

following, subject to any special provisions relating to

procedure in the relevant rules/regulations/standing

orders or statute:

(a) the employee shall be informed of the exact

charges which he is called upon meet;

(b) he should be given an opportunity to explain

any material relied on by the management to prove

the charges;

should be recorded in the presence of the delinquent

employee and he should be given an opportunity to

cross-examine such witnesses;

(d) the delinquent employee shall either be

furnished with copies of the documents relied on by

the management or be permitted to have adequate

inspection of the documents relied on by the

management;

(e) the delinquent employee should be given the

opportunity to produce relevant evidence – both

documentary and oral which include the right to

examine self and other witnesses; and to call for

relevant and material document in the custody of the

employer;

(f) whenever the Enquiring Authority is different

from Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee

shall be furnished with a copy of the enquiry report

and be permitted to make a representation to the

Disciplinary Authority against the findings recorded

in the enquiry report.

22. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit

that to victimize the active members of the Medimix

Thozilalargal Sangam Trade Union, the respondent has

576

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. The

petitioner were serving the respondent management for

more than15 years and they have lost their youth at

present they have suffering even for a square meal and

without any job. The punishment imposed by the

respondent management is grossly disproportionate to

the charges levelled against the petitioner. The learned

Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners

are order to be reinstated with full back wages and

other benefits.

23. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit

that the management has given charge-sheet, dated

28-12-2012 to all the petitioners for various misconduct

alleged to have committed by them on 05-06-2012 and

consequent days. The petitioners were submitted their

explanation on 12-01-2013 denying the allegations. The

respondent management has arranged for a domestic

enquiry for which Mr. K. Indhrajith was appointed as

Enquiry Officer (EO). All the petitioners were given

sufficient opportunity and the enquiry was conducted

in accordance with law and by following the principles

of natural justice. The petitioners exhibited hostile attitude

towards the Presenting Officer Thiru Dhamodaran and

Enquiry Officer Thiru K. Indhrajith. The Presenting

Officer Dhamodaran has written a letter to the

Disciplinary Authority stating his inability to participate

in the enquiry as Presenting Officer. On 19-06-2013

Indhrajith has addressed the Disciplinary Authority by

expressing his non-inclination to conduct the enquiry

since he was humiliated by the baseless allegations

levelled against him by the petitioners. The learned

Counsel for the respondent further submit that the

petitioners were earlier abstained from work for which

memo was issued by the respondent management and

since, the petitioners admitted guilty and submit apology

they were reprimanded by letter, dated 20-01-2009 and

no further disciplinary action was taken against them.

24. By issuing notice, dated 10-07-2013, the

management directed the petitioners to show cause as

to why the domestic enquiry should not be stopped and

punishment to be imposed on the petitioners. The

respondent by letter, dated 27-08-2013 stopped the

domestic enquiry and proceeded to the next stage.

Having considered the submissions made by the

petitioners on 05-09-2013 the Disciplinary Authority has

issued notice, dated 08-11-2013 to show cause as to

why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service

should not be inflicted upon the petitioners. At last, the

management has lost faith in the petitioner and has

passed order of dismissal to all the petitioners on

04-01-2014. The management has also given suitable

reply before the Conciliation Officer with whom the

petitioners have raised an industrial dispute. Since,

the conciliation failed the Conciliation Officer has sent

report, dated 08-12-2014 to the Secretary to Government,

Labour Department, Puducherry.

25. The respondent management submit that this

Court has decided the validity of the domestic enquiry

by raising preliminary issue and passed common

Preliminary Award, dated 08-08-2017. In the said Award,

this Court held the domestic enquiry conducted by

respondent management against the petitioners are

invalid. In fact, the enquiry could not be completed due

to the irresponsible attitude of the petitioners and due

to circumstances as beyond the control of the

management. The learned Counsel for the respondent

has invited the attention of this Court to the Judgment

of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kurukshetra University vs.

Prithvi Singh (2018), Supreme Court cases (L & S) 749.

It was held where termination “The legal position in our

view, is succinctly explained by this Court (two-Judge

bench) in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. vs. Ludh

Budh Singh, in Propositions 4, 5 and 6 in the following

words: when a domestic enquiry has been held by the

management and the management relies on the same, it

is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the

validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue

and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence

before the Tribunal, if, the finding on the preliminary

issue is against the management. However, elaborate

and cumbersome the procedure may be, under such

circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the

first instance, as a preliminary issue, the validity of the

domestic enquiry. If, its finding on the preliminary issue

is in favour of the management, then no additional

evidence need be cited by the management. But, if, the

finding on the preliminary issue is against the

management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer

an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give

a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence

contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been

made by the management to the Tribunal during the

course of the proceedings and before the trial has come

to and end. When the preliminary issue is decided

against the management and the latter leads evidence

before the Tribunal, the position, under such

circumstances, will be, that the management is deprived

of the benefit of having the finding of the domestic

Tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof of the

alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the management

will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that

the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action

taken by it is proper. It will not be just and fair either

to the management or to the workman that the Tribunal

should refuse to take evidence and thereby ask the

management to make a further application, after holding

577

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

a proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit

of the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence

adduced before its, that he was or was not guilty of the

alleged misconduct”.

26. The learned Counsel for the respondent has

further invited the attention of this Court to the

Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Union of

India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel reported in CDJ 1985 SC 161

in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held “charged official

can be dismissed without conducting enquiry when the

conducting of enquiry is not practicable”.

27. The factory Manager Thiru Lucas, occurrence

witness Thiru P. Sundar, Presenting Officer Thiru

Damodaran, Enquiry Officer Thiru Indrajith were

adduced independent evidence to prove the misconduct

of the petitioners.

28. The learned Counsel for the respondent further

submit that it is the bounden duty of the Court to

scrutinize the evidence let in by the management and

adjudicate on the basis of available evidence, the Courts

cannot simply order reinstatement stating that no

disciplinary enquiry was held. Our Hon’ble High Court

in the case of GMM Company Ltd. Madras vs. Labour

Court (II Additional Judge) Madras, 2002 (2) LLN 730

wherein, our Hon’ble High Court held “The Labour Court

though mentioned both the parties have let in oral and

documentary evidence failed to discuss the same before

reaching its conclusion of the order of reinstatement.

The Labour Court did not even whisper that the petition

under S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act has been

filed by the management, which was allowed and

consequently evidences were let in by the management

of Court by the workman also. Though, the Labour Court

discussed some of the documents and come to the

conclusion that the order of termination passed by the

management without holding any enquiry as if, no

petition under S. 11A of the Act has been filed by the

management. Once the petition under S.11A was

allowed and evidences were let in by the parties, the

bounden duty of the Labour Court is to scrutinize the

same and adjudicate upon the basis of such evidence.

In this case, the Labour Court failed to scrutinize and

adjudicate upon the evidence let in before it”.

29. The past performance and past conduct of the

petitioners was not clean for the charges framed against

petitioner Madhiyarasi in the charge-sheet, dated

28-03-1996. She has tendered pardon and felt sorry for

her misconduct she was given a warning letter, dated

20-01-2009 Tmt. Thiruselvi was charge-sheeted on

28-03-1996, she was admitted the guilt and tendered

pardon. The respondent accepted the same and issued

warning letter, dated 19-02-2013. Likewise, the

petitioners Muniammal, P. Karupaiya and P. Sunil Kumar

were issued charges and they were given warning letter,

dated 19-02-2013. While imposing punishment, the

respondent is at liberty to consider the previous

conduct of the petitioner. The attention of this Court

to the Judgment of our Hon’ble High Court in Engine

Valves Ltd., Madras vs. Labour Court Madras, 1991 (1)

LLN 268 “we are of the view that the Standing Order in

question is in the nature of an enabling provision

casting an unilateral obligation on the concerned

authority to take into account, the previous record with

no further duty or a corresponding right in favour of

the employee to either insist upon the issue of a second

show cause notice and an opportunity or consideration

by a detailed discussion of the materials contained in

such previous record. The factual reference in the Order

to the consideration having been made of the previous

record, in our view constitutes sufficient compliance

with the requirements of the Standing Order in question

and the grievance made about the non-consideration of

past record of service before the Labour Court as well

as the learned single Judge and which found their

acceptance is wholly unjustified and unwarranted. The

nature of the consideration that is required could be

indicative of the manner in which it requires to be

considered. In the light of the ratio of the Apex Court

that it is meant to be for the unilateral consideration of

the Authority, we are obliged to conclude that the

manner of consideration of the past record adopted in

the case on hand constitutes sufficient consideration

as well as compliance with the Standing Order in

question and the order of punishment could not be said

to have been vitiated on this account”.

30. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit

that even when the past misconduct of the employee is

condoned by acceptance of his apology it cannot be

the basis for discharge from service by way of

punishment is the argument advanced by the Counsel

for the petitioner which is not correct to the facts of

the present case. The petitioners were charge sheeted

for commission of fresh misconduct. The past

misconducts were identified and submitted before this

Court only to strengthen the action taken by the

respondent. It is further submitted the respondent after

considering all the fact and circumstances and also the

representations made by the petitioners has lost faith

with the petitioners and has passed final orders which

need not be interfered with and prayed for dismissal of

the claim made by the petitioners.

31. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submissions made by both sides learned Counsels. This

Court has perused the evidence adduced on both sides

578

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

and also the exhibits marked as both sides. This Court

has passed Common Preliminary Award in respect of the

preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry

conducted by the respondent management is valid.

After hearing both sides, this Court has held that the

domestic enquiry held against the petitioners is invalid.

After the passing of the Preliminary Award both the

parties were permitted to lead evidence and permitted

to marked as respective documents.

32. All

the

petitioners

were

served

with

charge-sheet, dated 28-12-2012 alleging various

imputations that on 05-06-2012 they were engaged in

illegal strike and prevented the entry of employees and

has caused loss for the production and ultimately result

in loss to the company. They have also stopped the

lorry belongs to Sarath Logistics Company bearing

Regn. No. TN 31 F 9959 on 05-06-2012 all the petitioners

were raised defamatory slogans as against the

management and they have also given Television

interviews and issued pamphlets and pasted posters

against the management which caused severe damage

to the goodwill of the management. On 05-06-2012 after

declaring lockout when the managerial person were in

the company they were stopped by the petitioners and

were scolded in abusive language. The petitioners have

also threatened the co-employee Mr. Saravanan at his

house. The acts of the petitioners are misconducts as

per the Standing Orders of the company and they were

directed to furnish the reply as to why disciplinary

action should not be initiated against them. All the

petitioners were given their individual reply, dated

12-01-2013 by denying all the charges. They have also

further denied that since lockout was declared on

05-06-2012 there is no possibility to be present at the

company premises on 06-06-2012 or on the subsequent

dates.

33. To prove the correctness of the charges, the

respondent management has appointed Thiru Indrajith

a practicing Lawyer as Enquiry Officer. Thiru

Dhamodharan was appointed as Presenting Officer. The

domestic enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer

on various dates. In the said enquiry on the Department

side Thiru Muthuramalingam and Lourdusamy were

examined in chief and further cross-examined, the

proceedings of the chief and cross-examination were

marked as exhibits on the respondent side. On the

petitioner side they have addressed the Enquiry Officer

by letter, dated 04-05-2013 that the management

representative and Thiru Muthuramalingam the

management witness were not cooperating for the

Departmental Enquiry. The petitioners have also made

another representation to the Enquiry Officer that they

were provided with proper opportunity to establish their

case. On 13-06-2013, the petitioner have make an appeal

to the Disciplinary Authority that the Enquiry Officer

denied the opportunities to the petitioners. The

petitioners have also addressed the Disciplinary

Authority stating that the Enquiry Officer acted in

contravention to the principles of natural justice and

also the Enquiry Officer is acted in favour of the

management.

34. On the management side, the enquiry was stopped

in the middle based on the letter addressed by the

Presenting Officer Thiru Dhamodaran on 10-06-2013 that

the petitioners are raising serious objections for each

and everything and they have shown a indifferent

attitude and they have also scolded Presenting Officer

that he is doing “Broker work”. The Enquiry Officer

Thiru Indrajith has also sent letter, dated 19-06-2013 that

he could not proceed that domestic enquiry and

requested for appointment of another Enquiry Officer.

On the management side they have not taken any steps

for the continuation of the domestic enquiry and issued

show cause notice, dated 10-07-2013 to show cause as

to why the domestic enquiry should not be stopped and

imposed punishment. All the petitioners individually

submitted their reply, dated 11-07-2013 by stating that

they are ready and willing to prove their case. However,

the Disciplinary Authority intimated the petitioner by

letter, dated 27-08-2013 that the domestic enquiry was

stopped and proceeded with next stage on 08-11-2013.

The petitioners were given notice about the proposed

dismissal from service and show cause as to why

punishment should not be inflicted upon them. The

respondent management has issued dismissal order,

dated 04-01-2014 stating that the respondent has lost

faith and confidence with the petitioners and if, they

are not relieved from the service of the company, the

respondent would face unbearable loss.

35. On the respondent side, the evidence adduced

by the witness in the domestic enquiry were marked as

exhibits and copy of the proceedings of the Enquiry

Officer is also marked as exhibits. On the respondent

side the respondent witnesses Thiruvalargal Lucas,

Dhamodharan admitted the fact that the domestic

enquiry was stopped in the middle. The evidence of the

Enquiry Officer Thiru Indrajith also confirmed the fact

that enquiry was not completed. In a case where

termination from service is the punishment for the

charges of misconduct sufficient opportunity should be

given to the dismissed employee to prove his case. The

respondent without affording opportunities to the

petitioners has abruptly stopped the domestic enquiry

in the midway and straight away imposed punishment

on the petitioners. In the absence of any finding by the

Enquiry Officer imposition of the punishment certainly

not in accordance with law and the principles of natural

justice.

579

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

36. The longterm wage revision settlement was

expired on 31-12-2009 the Trade Union submitted charter

of demand and the management refused for collective

bargaining of the employee were signed individually in

the 18(1) settlement is an admitted fact. It is contended

on the petitioner side that 23 employees were worked

inside the company and the managerial persons were

also present in the company on 05-06-2012 from 08.18

hours to 18.37 hours which can be proved from the staff

attendance produced on the petitioner side. On the

petitioner side it is contended that the Medimix

Thozhilalargal Sangam Trade Union is called for a strike

against the management and has issued registered

notice to respondent on 01-06-2012 and the same was

received by Thiru Lucas on 05-06-2012 at 01.20 p.m. as

such it is clear that the Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam

Trade Union has given notice beforehand to the

respondent. Immediately the respondent management

has given lockout notice, dated 05-06-2012 addressed

to the Secretary, Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam Trade

Union.

37. The respondent has stated in the dismissal order,

dated 04-01-2014 that they have lost confidence with

the petitioners. From the evidence of Thiruvalargal

Lucas and Dhamodaran it is clear that the Police

belongs to Villianur Police Station was present at the

entry gate of the company. As such stopping the

employees from attending the company only have

remote possibility. Moreover, from the evidence of the

petitioner side it is clear that 23 employees were

attended duty on 05-06-2012 and the managerial persons

were also present for the full day. The respondent has

not filed any complaint received from the Driver of the

lorry bearing Regn. No. TN 31 F 9959. Even though, the

respondent management has charged the petitioners for

giving Television interviews and issuance of pamphlets

and pasting posters, no such Television interviews was

brought before this Court and no posters and pamphlets

were marked as exhibits. There is no Police complaint

registered against the petitioners for the alleged filthy

language used by the petitioners against the

management officials. The charges made by the

respondent against the petitioners is bereft of details.

38. The loss of confidence and faith can only be

established through the objective facts that leads to a

defenite inference that the conduct of the employees

made an apprehension in the mind of the employer that

further continuance of the employee in the services of

the company would be detrimental to the interest of the

company. Our Hon’ble Apex Court in Kanhaiyalal

Agrawal v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., “this Court laid down

the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether

there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee,

observing that, (See p.614), para 9) (i) the workman is

holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by

abusing such position, he commits an act which results

in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in

service/establishment would be embarrassing and

inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental

to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss

of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the

mind of the management. Objectives facts which would

lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind

of the management, regarding trustworthiness or

reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved”.

39. Our Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamalakishore

Laxman vs. Management of Pan America World Airways

Inc AIR 1987 SC 229 “of course, if, no disciplinary

enquiry is held, and the management is unable to justify

to the Court that their loss of confidence in the worker

was best of objective grounds the dismissal of worker

can be set aside”.

40. The Management failed to establish that due to

the conduct of the petitioners there was decrease in

production which caused loss to the management. This

Court is of the further opinion that the order of

termination of service issued by the respondent

management was with a view to victimize the petitioners

who are the members of the Medimix Thozhilalargal

Sangam Trade Union.

41. This Court is of the further opinion that dismissal

order, dated 04-01-2014 by the Disciplinary Authority

was not passed in accordance with the established

principles of law and not followed the principles of

natural justice. Hence, the order of dismissal passed by

the Disciplinary Authority on 04-01-2014 is liable to be

set aside.

42. The petitioners are working in the respondent

management for more than 15 years and they are not in

gainfull employment elsewhere till date. The respondent

has also not proved that the petitioners are in gainful

employment from the date of termination of the services.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioners are not guilty of any misconduct and the

charges levelled against them are false in nature. This

Court is also considered that right to life enshrined in

Article 21 of the Constitution is to live with all human

dignity. The prudent man can easily presume that an

employee without any employment and salary for quite

a long time cannot lead a decent and dignified life. The

non-employment of the petitioners is not justifiable at

any rate. It is just and necessary to order for the

reinstatement of the petitioners in the services of the

respondent management.

580

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

43. In the result, the claim petitions are partly

allowed. The respondent is directed to reinstate all the

petitioners with all attending benefits. The petitioners

are entitled to receive 2/3rd of the back wages from the

date of their termination. The respondent management

is directed to reinstate the petitioners and pay their

2/3rd of back wages within the period of six weeks 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 15 th day of September, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

I.D (L) No. 04/2015

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 15-02-2016

Mathiyarasi

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 28-12-2012

Letter regarding call for

explanation letter sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Madhiyarasi.

Ex.P2

— 12-01-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Madhiyarasi

to the letter sent by the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P3

— 04-05-2013

Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P4

— 11-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P5

— 30-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority and

its Acknowledgment Card

copy.

Ex.P6

— 03-06-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P7

— 13-06-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P8

— 02-03-2013 C o p y o f t h e e n q u i r y

proceedings.

17-06-2013

Ex.P9

— 10-07-2013 Copy of the letter regarding

all for explanation sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

the

petitioner

Madhiyarasi.

Ex.P10 — 11-07-2013 Copy of the letter sent by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P11 — 27-08-2013

Show cause notice sent by

the respondent management

the

petitioner

Madhiyarasi.

Ex.P12 — 05-09-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Madhiyarasi

the

letter,

dated

27-08-2013 of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P13 — 08-11-2013 Notice of punishment to be

proposed

sent

the

Disciplinary Authority to

the petitioner Madhiyarasi.

Ex.P14 — 18-11-2013

Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Madhiyarasi

to the notice of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P15 — 04-01-2014 Dismissal order given by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Madhiyarasi.

Ex.P16 — 20-01-2014 Requisition to withdraw the

termination submitted by

the petitioner Madhiyarasi.

Ex.P17 — 17-03-2014 Petition filed under section

2A of ID Act by the

petitioner Madhiyarasi.

Ex.P18 — 16-05-2014

Reply given by the respondent

management to the Labour

Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P19 — 30-05-2014 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Madhiyarasi

to the reply of respondent

management.

Ex.P20 — 08-12-2014 Failure report submitted by

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation)

the

Secretary to Government,

Puducherry.

581

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P21 — 05-06-2012 Signature of RW.1 found in

the Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.P22 — 04-06-2012

C o p y o f t h e S t a f f s

Attendance Register.

05-06-2012

Ex.P23 — 05-06-2012

Copy of the Affixed Notice

(Lockout).

List of respondent’s witnesses:

RW1

— 11-01-2018

E.M.I.D. Lucas

RW2

— 28-02-2018

P. Sundar

RW3

— 07-03-2018

G. Dhamodharan

RW4

— 04-05-2018

K. Indrajith

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 31-12-2008

Show Cause notice sent

by M/s. AVA Cholayil

Health Care Pvt. Ltd., to

G. Madhiyarasi.

Ex.R2

— 09-01-2009 Admission letter submitted

b y G. M a d h i y a r a s i t o

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd.

Ex.R3

— 04-01-2014 Punishment Order sent

by M/s. AVA Cholayil

Health Care Pvt. Ltd., to

G. Madhiyarasi.

Ex.R4 —

Letter

admission

submitted by G. Madhiyarasi

to M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd., for the

C h a r g e - S h e e t ,

d a t e d

28-03-1996.

Ex.R5

— 20-01-2009 Warning letter sent by

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

C a r e P v t . L t d . , t o

G. Madhiyarasi.

Ex.R6

— 10-06-2013 Copy of letter submitted by

the Presenting Officer,

Mr. G.T. Dhamodharan to

the respondent.

Ex.R7

— 19-06-2013

Copy

letter,

dated

19-06-2013 submitted by

t h e E n q u i r y O f f i c e r

Mr. K. Indrajith to the

respondent.

Ex.R8

— 05-06-2012 Complaint given by P. Sundar

against the Striking Workmen

to the Management.

Ex.R9

— 08-06-2012 Copy of complaint given by

S. Muthuramalingam to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R10 — 08-06-2012 Copy of complaint given by

S. Lourdusamy to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R11 — 26-03-2013

Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Chief Examination (Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R12 — 04-05-2013

Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Chief

Examination

(Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R13 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Cross-Examination before

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R14 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Cross-

Examination before the

Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R15 —

Copy of the Proceedings

of the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith in the domestic

enquiry

into

charges

levelled

against

the

petitioner and 5 other

co-workers.

I.D (L) No. 05/2015

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 15-02-2016

Thiruselvi

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 28-12-2012 Letter regarding call for

explanation letter sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Thiruselvi.

Ex.P2

— 12-01-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Thiruselvi to

the letter sent by the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P3

— 04-05-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

582

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

Ex.P4

— 11-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P5

— 30-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority and

its Acknowledgment Card

copy.

Ex.P6

— 03-06-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P7

— 13-06-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P8

— 02-03-2013

Copy of the enquiry

proceedings.

17-06-2013

Ex.P9

— 10-07-2013

Copy of the letter regarding

all for explanation sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Thiruselvi.

Ex.P10 — 25-07-2013

Copy of the letter sent by

the petitioner Thiruselvi to

the Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P11 — 27-08-2013

Show cause notice sent by

the respondent management

to the petitioner Thiruselvi.

Ex.P12 — 05-09-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Thiruselvi to

the letter, dated 27-08-2013

of Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P13 — 08-11-2013 Notice of punishment to be

proposed

sent

the

Disciplinary Authority to

the petitioner Thiruselvi.

Ex.P14 — 18-11-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Thiruselvi to

the notice of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P15 — 04-01-2014 Dismissal order given by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Thiruselvi.

Ex.P16 — 20-01-2014 Requisition to withdraw the

termination submitted by

the petitioner Thiruselvi.

Ex.P17 — 17-03-2014 Petition filed under section

2A of ID Act by the

petitioner Thiruselvi.

Ex.P18 — 16-05-2014 Reply given by the respondent

management to the Labour

Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P19 — 30-05-2014

Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Thiruselvi to

the reply of respondent

management.

Ex.P20 — 08-12-2014 Failure report submitted

by the Labour Officer

(Conciliation)

the

Secretary to Government,

Puducherry.

Ex.P21 — 05-06-2012 Signature of RW.1 found in

the Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.P22 — 04-06-2012

C o p y o f t h e S t a f f s

Attendance Register.

05-06-2012

Ex.P23 — 05-06-2012

Copy of Affixed Notice

(Lockout).

List of respondent’s witnesses:

RW1

— 11-01-2018

E.M.I.D. Lucas

RW2

— 28-02-2018

K. Saravanan

RW3

— 28-02-2018

P. Sundar

RW4

— 07-03-2018

G. Dhamodharan

RW5

— 04-05-2018

K. Indrajith

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.Rl

— 04-01-2014

Punishment Order sent by

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care

Pvt. Ltd., to M. Thiruselvi.

Ex.R2 —

Letter

admission

submitted by M. Thiruselvi

to M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd., for the

C h a r g e - S h e e t ,

d a t e d

28-03-1996.

Ex.R3

— 31-12-2008 Show Cause notice sent by

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd., M. Thiruselvi.

Ex.R4

— 09-01-2009 Admission letter submitted

by M. Thiruselvi to M/s. AVA

Cholayil Health Care Pvt.

Ltd.,

583

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R5

— 20-01-2009

Warning letter sent by

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care

Pvt. Ltd., to M. Thiruselvi.

Ex.R6

— 10-06-2013 Copy of letter submitted by

the Presenting Officer,

Mr. G.T. Dhamotharan to the

respondent.

Ex.R7

— 19-06-2013 Copy of letter submitted

by the Enquiry Officer

Mr. K. Indrajith to the

respondent.

Ex.R8

— 05-06-2012

C o m p l a i n t g i v e n b y

K. Saravanan against the

Striking Workmen to the

Management.

Ex.P9

— 05-06-2012 Complaint given by P. Sundar

against the Striking Workmen

to the Management.

Ex.R10 — 08-06-2012 Copy of complaint given by

S. Muthuramalingam to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R11 — 08-06-2012

Copy of complaint given by

S. Lourdusamy to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R12 — 26-03-2013 Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Chief Examination (Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R13 — 04-05-2013 Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Chief

Examination

(Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R14 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Cross-Examination before

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R15 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Cross-

Examination before the

Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R16 —

Copy of the Proceedings of

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith in the domestic

enquiry

into

charges

levelled

against

the

petitioner and 5 other

co-workers.

I.D (L) No. 06/2015

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 15-02-2016

Muniammal

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 28-12-2012 Letter regarding call for

explanation letter sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Muniammal.

Ex.P2

— 12-01-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Muniammal to

the letter sent by the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P3

— 04-05-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P4

— 11-05-2013

Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P5

— 30-05-2013

Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority and

its Acknowledgment Card

copy.

Ex.P6

— 03-06-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P7

— 13-06-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P8

— 02-03-2013 Copy of the Enquiry

proceedings.

17-06-2013

Ex.P9

— 10-07-2013

Copy of the letter regarding

all for explanation sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Muniammal.

Ex.P10 — 25-07-2013

Copy of the letter sent by

the petitioner Muniammal to

the Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P11 — 27-08-2013

Show cause notice sent by

the respondent management

to the petitioner Muniammal.

584

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

Ex.P12 — 05-09-2013

Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Muniammal to

the letter, dated 27-08-2013

of Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P13 — 08-11-2013

Notice of punishment to be

proposed

sent

the

Disciplinary Authority to

the petitioner Muniammal.

Ex.P14 — 18-11-2013

Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Muniammal to

the notice of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P15 — 04-01-2014

Dismissal order given by

the Disciplinary authority

to the petitioner Muniammal.

Ex.P16 — 20-01-2014

Requisition to withdraw the

termination submitted by

the petitioner Muniammal.

Ex.P17 — 17-03-2014

Petition filed under section

2A of ID Act by the

petitioner Muniammal.

Ex.P18 — 16-05-2014

given

the

respondent management to

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.P19 — 30-05-2014 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Muniammal to

the reply of respondent

management.

Ex.P20 — 08-12-2014 Failure report submitted by

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation)

the

Secretary to Government,

Puducherry.

Ex.P21 — 05-06-2012 Signature of RW.1 found in

the Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.P22 — 04-06-2012 Copy of the Staffs

Attendance Register.

05-06-2012

Ex.P23 — 05-06-2012 Copy of Affixed Notice

(Lockout).

List of respondent’s witnesses:

RW1

— 11-01-2018

E.M.I.D. Lucas

RW2

— 28-02-2018 P. Sundar

RW3

— 07-03-2018 G. Dhamodharan

RW4

— 04-05-2018 K.lndrajith

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 04-01-2014

Punishment order sent

by M/s. AVA Cholayil

Health Care Pvt. Ltd., to

M. Muniammal.

Ex.R2 —

Letter of admission submitted

b y M . M u n i a m m a l t o

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd., for the

Charge

Sheet,

dated

28-03-1996.

Ex.R3

— 31-12-2008 Show cause notice sent by

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd., to Muniammal.

Ex.R4

— 09-01-2009 Admission letter submitted

b y M . M u n i a m m a l t o

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd.

Ex.R5

— 20-01-2009

Wa r n i n g l e t t e r s e n t

by M/s. AVA Cholayil

Health Care Pvt. Ltd., to

M. Muniammal.

Ex.R6

— 10-06-2013

Copy of letter submitted by

the Presenting Officer,

Mr. G.T. Dhamotharan to the

respondent.

Ex.R7

— 19-06-2013

Copy of letter submitted

by the Enquiry Officer

Mr. K. Indrajith to the

respondent.

Ex.R8

— 05-06-2012

Complaint given by P. Sundar

against the Striking Workmen

to the Management.

Ex.R9

— 08-06-2012 Copy of complaint given by

S. Muthuramalingam to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R10 — 08-06-2012 Copy of complaint given by

S. Lourdusamy to the Factory

Manager.

Ex.R11 — 26-03-2013 Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Chief Examination (Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R12 — 04-05-2013 Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Chief

Examination

(Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

585

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R13 —

C o p y of deposition of

Muthuramalingam

Cross-Examination before

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R14 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Cross

Examination before the

Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R15 —

Copy of the Proceedings of

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith in the domestic

enquiry

into

charges

levelled

against

the

petitioner and 5 other

co-workers.

I.D (L) No. 07/2015

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 15-02-2016

C. Karuppaiah

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

28-12-2012

Letter regarding call for

explanation letter sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Karuppaiah.

Ex.P2

— 12-01-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Karuppaiah

to the letter sent by the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P3

— 04-05-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P4

— 11-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P5

— 30-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority and

its Acknowledgment Card

copy.

Ex.P6

— 03-06-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P7

— 13-06-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P8

— 02-03-2013 Copy of the Enquiry

proceedings.

17-06-2013

Ex.P9

— 10-07-2013 Copy of letter regarding all

for explanation sent by the

Disciplinary Authority to

the petitioner Karuppaiah.

Ex.P10 — 25-07-2013

Copy of the letter sent by

the petitioner Karuppaiah to

the Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P11 — 27-08-2013

Show cause notice sent by

the respondent management

to the petitioner Karuppaiah.

Ex.P12 — 05-09-2013

Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Karuppaiah

the

letter,

dated

27-08-2013 of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P13 — 08-11-2013

Notice of punishment to be

proposed

sent

the

Disciplinary Authority to

the petitioner Karuppaiah.

Ex.P14 — 18-11-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Karuppaiah

to the notice of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P15 — 04-01-2014 Dismissal order given by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Karuppaiah.

Ex.P16 — 20-01-2014

Requisition to withdraw the

termination submitted by

the petitioner Karuppaiah.

Ex.P17 — 17-03-2014 Petition filed under section

2A of ID Act by the

petitioner Karuppaiah.

Ex.P18 — 16-05-2014 Reply

given

the

respondent management to

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.P19 — 30-05-2014 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Karuppaiah

to the reply of respondent

management.

586

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

Ex.P20 — 08-12-2014 Failure report submitted by

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation)

the

Secretary to Government,

Puducherry.

Ex.P21 — 05-06-2012 Signature of RW.1 found in

the Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.P22 — 04-06-2012

C o p y o f t h e S t a f f s

Attendance Register.

05-06-2016

Ex.P23 — 05-06-2012

Copy of Affixed Notice

(Lockout).

List of respondent’s witnesses:

RW1

— 11-01-2018

E.M.I.D. Lucas

RW2

— 28-02-2018

P. Sundar

RW3

— 07-03-2018

G. Dhamodharan

RW4

— 04-05-2018

K. Indrajith

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 04-01-2014

Punishment Order sent by

Mis. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd., to Karuppaiah.

Ex.R2

— 26-02-2010

Report by Enquiry Officer,

Advocate K. Velmurugan in

the charge-sheet, dated

31-12-2008 by AVA Cholayil

Health Care Pvt. Ltd., to

Karuppaiah.

Ex.R3

— 26-02-2010

Copy of Enquiry Report

by the Enquiry Officer

K. Velmurugan.

Ex.R4

— 10-06-2013

Copy of letter submitted by

the Presenting Officer,

Mr. G.T. Dhamotharan to the

respondent.

Ex.R5

— 19-06-2013

Copy of letter submitted

by the Enquiry Officer

Mr. K. Indrajith to the

respondent.

Ex.R6

— 05-06-2012

Complaint given by P. Sundar

against

the

Striking

Workmen to the Management.

Ex.R7

— 08-06-2012

Copy of complaint given by

S. Muthuramalingam to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R8

— 08-06-2012

Copy of complaint given by

S. Lourdusamy to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R9

— 26-03-2013

Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Chief Examination (Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R10 — 04-05-2013

Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Chief

Examination

(Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R11 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Cross-Examination before

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R12 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Cross-

Examination before the

Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R13 —

Copy of the Proceedings of

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith in the domestic

enquiry

into

charges

levelled

against

the

petitioner and 5 other

co-workers.

I.D (L) No. 10/2015

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 15-02-2016

Sunil Kumar

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 28-12-2012 Letter regarding call for

explanation letter sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Sunil

Kumar.

Ex.P2

— 12-01-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Sunil Kumar

to the letter sent by the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P3

— 04-05-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

587

14 December 2021]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P4

— 11-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P5

— 30-05-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority and

its Acknowledgment Card

copy.

Ex.P6

— 03-06-2013 Copy of the letter given by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P7

— 13-06-2013 Copy of the letter sent

through registered post by

the

petitioners

the

Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P8

— 02-03-2013 Copy of the Enquiry

proceedings.

17-06-2013

Ex.P9

— 10-07-2013

Copy of the letter regarding

all for explanation sent by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Sunil

Kumar.

Ex.P10 — 25-07-2013

Copy of the letter sent by

the petitioner Sunil Kumar

to the Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.P11 — 27-08-2013

Show cause notice sent by

the respondent management

to the petitioner Sunil Kumar.

Ex.P12 — 05-09-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Sunil Kumar

the

letter,

dated

27-08-2013 of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P13 — 08-11-2013 Notice of punishment to be

proposed

sent

the

Disciplinary Authority to

the petitioner Sunil Kumar.

Ex.P14 — 18-11-2013 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Sunil Kumar

to the notice of Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex.P15 — 04-01-2014 Dismissal order given by

the Disciplinary Authority

to the petitioner Sunil Kumar.

Ex.P16 — 20-01-2014 Requisition to withdraw the

termination submitted by

the petitioner Sunil Kumar.

Ex.P17 — 17-03-2014 Petition filed under section

2A of ID Act by the petitioner

Sunil Kumar.

Ex.P18 — 16-05-2014 Reply given by the respondent

management to the Labour

Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P19 — 30-05-2014 Copy of the reply given by

the petitioner Sunil Kumar

to the reply of respondent

management.

Ex.P20 — 08-12-2014 Failure report submitted by

t h e

L a b o u r

O f f i c e r

(Conciliation)

the

Secretary to Government,

Puducherry.

Ex.P21 — 05-06-2012

Signature of RW.1 found in

the Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.P22 — 04-06-2012

C o p y o f t h e S t a f f s

Attendance Register.

05-06-2012

Ex.P23 — 05-06-2012

Copy of Affixed Notice

(Lockout).

List of respondent’s witnesses:

RW1

— 11-01-2018

E.M.I.D. Lucas

RW2

— 28-02-2018

P. Sundar

RW3

— 07-03-2018

G. Dhamodharan

RW4

— 04-05-2018

K. Indrajith

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 04-01-2014

Punishment Order sent by

M/s. AVA Cholayil Health

Care Pvt. Ltd., to Sunil

Kumar.

Ex.R2

— 26-02-2010 Report by Enquiry Officer,

Advocate K. Velmurugan in

the Charge-sheet, dated

31-12-2008 by AVA Cholayil

Health Care Pvt. Ltd., to

Sunil Kumar.

Ex.R3

— 26-02-2010 Copy of Enquiry Report

by the Enquiry Officer

K. Velmurugan.

588

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 December 2021

Ex.R4

— 10-06-2013 Copy of letter submitted by

the Presenting Officer,

Mr. G.T. Dhamotharan to the

respondent.

Ex.R5

— 19-06-2013 Copy of letter submitted

by the Enquiry Officer

Mr. K. Indrajith to the

respondent.

Ex.R6

— 05-06-2012 Complaint given by P. Sundar

against the Striking Workmen

to the Management.

Ex.R7

— 08-06-2012 Copy of complaint given by

S. Muthuramalingam to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R8

— 08-06-2012 Copy of complaint given by

S. Lourdusamy to the

Factory Manager.

Ex.R9

— 26-03-2013 Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Chief Examination (Proof

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R10 — 04-05-2013 Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Chief

E x a m i n a t i o n

( P r o o f

Affidavit)

before

the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.R11 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Muthuramalingam in

Cross-Examination before

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R12 —

Copy of deposition of

S. Lourdusamy in Cross-

Examination before the

Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith.

Ex.R13 —

Copy of the Proceedings of

the Enquiry Officer Thiru

K. Indrajith in the Domestic

Enquiry

into

charges

levelled

against

the

petitioner and 5 other

co-workers.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

COLLECTORATE

KARAIKAL

NO. DCK/A1/FGR45/2021-22.

Karaikal, the 27th October 2021.

ORDER

In terms of section 6(1) of the Sexual Harassment of

Women at Work place (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013. Local Complaints Committee is

constituted in Karaikal District to receive complaints of

sexual harassment from establishments where the

Internal Complaints Committee has not been constituted

due to having less than ten workers or if, the complaint

is against the employer himself.

1. Tmt. G. Latha Mangeshkar,

. . Chairperson

Joint Director, Department of

Animal Husbandry and Animal

Welfare, Karaikal.

2. Tmt. G. Suriya,

. . Member

Assistant Community Organizer,

Karaikal Municipality.

3. Tmt. J. Indira Devi, B.SC.,B.L.,

. . Member

Advocate, 15, Nehru Street,

Karaikal.

4. Tmt. Buvaneswari, Secretary,

. . Member

Village Beneficiaries Education

and Development Society (VBEDS),

92, Yadaval Street, Poovam,

Karaikal.

5. Tmt. P. Sathya,

. . Member

Child Development Project

Officer, Karaikal.

The Members will hold office for three years from

their appointment/Transfer/Retirement whichever is

earlier.

ARJUN SHARMA, I.A.S.,

District Collector-cum-District Officer.

————

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ �ÆD k¬‡A mÁ≈

(∂´∑ gÁð √ÈkÁÔ ®ı 141/÷ƒW./ºÔV.3/2021-449,

Amﬂºƒˆ, ÂV^ 2021, } ÂkD√Ï |, 22 {.)

gÁð

Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈD, Amﬂºƒˆ k‚¶V´D, cwkÏÔÁ´

º>k¸>V™›Á> WÏk˛¬zD ÿ√VÚ‚| ∂´∑ gÁð

√ÈkÁÔ ®ı 51/÷ƒW./ºÔV.3/2018, ÂV^ 29á03á2018á[

JÈD

∂Á\¬Ô©√‚¶

∂≈∫ÔVkÈÏ

kVˆB›>V_

√>s¬ÔVÈD xΩkÁ¶Õms‚¶m.