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

[43]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2022 }

ƒ™kˆ |

25 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2022 (5 Magha 1943)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

25th

January

2022

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

Notifications du Gouvernement

Government Notifications

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

Etablissements dangereux

Dangerous Establishments

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

Annonces

Announcements

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[25 January 2022

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 89/Lab./AIL/T/2021,

Puducherry, dated 28th December 2021)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 36/2017, dated

13-10-2021 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of the industrial dispute between the Management

of M/s. MRF Private Limited, Puducherry and

Thiru K. Velmurugan, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepurarm,

Tamil Nadu, 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 13th day of October 2021.

I.D. (L) No. 36/2017

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000242017

K. Velmurugan,

(Emp. No. 601370)

S/o. K. Kumaresan,

Vennangupet, Kottaikadu Post

Cheyyur Taluk

Kancheepuram.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. MRF Limited,

P.B. No. 1, Eripakkam,

Nettapakkam Commune,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 03-09-2021 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

R.T. Shankar, L.K. Saravanan, P. Suresh, A. Ashok

Kumar and B. Balamurugan, Counsels for the petitioner,

and Thiruvalargal K. Babu and S. Karthikeyan, Counsel

for the respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon

perusing the case record, after having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the

Government of Puducherry, a per the G.O. Rt. No. 88/

AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 29-05-2017 for adjudicating the

following:-

(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru

K. Velmurugan, Vennangupet, Kottaikadu Post,

Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, against

the Management of M/s. MRF Private Limited,

Puducherry, over non-employment is justified or not?

If justified, what relief he is entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

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

The petitioner has raised an industrial dispute

before the Labour Court on 13-10-2015 as against the

respondent management over the termination of his

employment. The petitioner was selected through an

interview and appointed as a Labour under the

respondent management to operate the wrapping

machine in BEAD section of Zone-I Department with

effect from 26-07-2007 and worked up to 20-11-2011.

The respondent management ousted him from

service on 21-11-2011 without giving prior notice. In

continuation to that the respondent management has

issued termination order, dated 31-01-2012. The

petitioner worked in the respondent company for

more than 4 years with lesser wages. The respondent

management engaged the petitioner to do the

perennial nature of work in full time. The petitioner

worked without any remarks or any blemish during

his tenure of his employment. The petitioner has been

directly working in the Production Department as an

operator doing the perennial nature of work along

with other permanent workers. The petitioner was

having the requisite experience and qualification and

he has completed 240 days of service within a period

of 12 calendar months ever year. The respondent

management has not regularized the services of the

petitioner for the reasons best known to them. The

respondent managernent has not conducted specific

enquiry contemplated under labour laws for

implementing the statutory right of the workman. The

respondent is liable to reinstate the petitioner with

full back wages with continuity of service.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed are as

follows:

The petitioner has approached the Conciliation

Authority with an inordinate delay without any

substantial reason. The respondent factory at

25 January 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Puducherry engaged in production of radial tyres

from the year 1998. The manufacture of radial tyres

is highly technical and is a complicated one. The

workman are given in depth training on various

machine so that each workman is able to operate all

machineries. The respondent used to recruit person

from nearby Villages who do not process qualification

beyond Higher Secondary level. There are no trade

apprentices for tyre industries and the individual

recruited were taken as apprentices to examine their

suitability to learn and assimilate the highly skilled

process in manufactures of radial tyres. The

petitioner is not a workman or an employee of the

respondent company. The petitioner was engaged as

an apprentice trainee as per order, dated 01-04-2008.

He was paid stipend during his period of training as

per the terms and conditions of his apprentice order.

The apprenticeship training will be for a period of

42 months in 4 pells and the petitioner was initially

engaged for a period of six months. The petitioner

was lethargic and shown less interest in learning the

job and he was very irregular in his attendance. The

petitioner did not turned up for training from

22-10-2011 without any information. During the

period of his training his performance was also not

satisfactory. The respondent denied that the

petitioner was appointed as a labour though

interview and his nature of job is perennial in nature.

There is no legal obligation on the respondent to take

a workman permanent who has worked in the

management for more than 240 days in a calendar

year. This is a case of discontinuance of

apprenticeship governed by the apprenticeship order.

The petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement and

prayed for dismissal of the reference.

4. The points for consideration are:

Whether the non-employment of the petitioner

K. Velmurugan in the respondent management is

justified and what relief the petitioner is entitled to?

5. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the

respondent RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R29

were marked.

PW.1 Velmurugan in his evidence before this

Court deposed that he was appointed as labour at MRF

management to operate wrapping machine in BEAD

section of Zone-1 Department with effect from

26-07-2007 and worked up to 21-11-2011. Without giving

any notice, the management ousted him from service on

21-11-2011. The respondent management has issued

termination order on 31-01-2012. The petitioner worked

with respondent management for more than 4 years for

8 hours in a day in all working days in a month and

have completed 240 days of service within a period of

12 calendar months in a year. The petitioner was directly

working in the Production Department as a wrapping

machine operator and doing perennial nature of work

along with other permanent workers. The respondent

management instruct, manage, control in all stages of

the operation. The respondent management refused to

accord permanent employee status to the petitioner

which is absolutely against the labour laws. The

petitioner is not in gainful employed in any

establishment and his family is facing untold hardship

without employment and earnings. The petitioner was

illegally terminated by the respondent management. The

petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity

of service and back wages.

7. RW.1 Thiru Rajadurai who is the Manager in H.R.

Department of the respondent management in his

evidence deposed that the MRF factory at Puducherry,

commenced trial production in the year 1998. The

manufacture of radial tyres are highly technical and is

a complicated one. The workman are given in depth

training on various machines, so that each workman is

able to operate all machines. It is a practice followed

by the company of recruiting person from the nearby

Villages of Puducherry who do not possess

qualification beyond 12th Standard. There is no trade

apprentices in tyre factory and the individuals were

taken as apprentices to examine their suitability to learn

and assimilate the highly skilled proces of manufacture

of radial tyes. The petitioner was engaged by an

apprenticeship order, dated 01-04-2008 and was started

training on the same date. The training was for a period

of 42 months during which period the respondent has

paid him stipend. If, the performance of the petitioner

is found to be not satisfactory his apprenticeship will

be ceased as per order, dated 31-01-2012. The petitioner

was only an apprentice trainee and not being a workman

of the the respondent management, he has no locus

standi to maintain claim against the respondent

management. The petitioner was not selected through

an interview and not appointed as labour under MRF

management to operate the wrapping machine. The

petitioner was not worked for more than 4 years with

lesser wages. There is no statutory obligation on the

respondent to make every workman as a permanent

employee who has worked in the respondent

management for more than 240 days and prays for the

dismissal of the claim petition.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that

the petitioner was appointed in the respondent

management by way of appointment order, dated

01-04-2008. The petitioner was instructed by the

respondent to do all kinds of work on par with other

regular permanent employees of the respondent company.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[25 January 2022

Though in Ex.P1 apprenticeship order the respondent

has mentioned that the period of apprenticeship for

42 months in four spells and the petitioner is entitled

for consolidated stipend of ` 90 for first term, ` 105 for

second term, ` 120 for the third them and ` 135 for the

fourth term. However, the petitioner was engaged in

regular work of the company, he was working for 8 hours

per day and worked in all working days without any

remarks. The petitioner has completed 240 days of work

in each calendar year. All of a sudden the respondent

has issued letter, dated 31-01-2012 stating that his work

is not satisfactory and the apprenticeship ceased to exit

with immediate effect as per clause 8 of apprenticeship

agreement. The petitioner has approached the Labour

Officer (Conciliation) by submitting Ex.P6 letter, dated

13-10-2015 since, the respondent was not evinced any

interest towards Conciliation. The Labour Officer

(Conciliation) has sent a failure report in Ex.P8, dated

21-03-2017. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

further submitted that the petitioner was engaged in

operating the wrapping machine in BEAD Section,

Zone-I Department with effect from 26-07-2007 and

worked up to 21-11-2011. It is further submitted that the

nature of work for which the petitioner was engaged is

perennial in nature and the petitioner was directly

working in the Production Department of wrapping

machine along with other permanent workers of the

respondent management. The respondent management

has got supervision and control over the work of the

petitioner in all stages of the machinery operation from

beginning to end as such the petitioner is a workman

as per section 2 (S) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the petitioner has worked with the respendent

management diligently for a continuous period of 4 year.

The petitioner ought to have terminated without notice

and without complying the provisions of section 25 F

of the Industrial Disputes Act.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that

the respondent management has employed the

petitioner for a period of 4 years and extracted maximum

work from the petitioner. After exploiting the youthful

period of the petitioner has terminated in order to avoid

payment of higher wages to him. In this respect, the

learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention

of this Court to the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

reported in CDJ 2011 SC 832 “Labour statutes were

meant to protect the employees/workmen because, it

was realized that the employers and the employees are

not on an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection

of employees was required so that they may not be

exploited. However, this new technique of subterfuge

has been adopted by some employers in recent years

in order to deny the rights of the workmen under

various labour statutes by showing that the concerned

workmen are not their employees, but, are the

employees/workmen of a contractor, or that they are

merely daily wage or short term or casual employees

when in fact, they are doing the work of regular

employees.

This Court cannot countenance such practices any

more. Globalization/Liberalization in the name of growth

cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers”.

10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submit that there was no training given to the petitioner

in the long four years of service. There was no trade

apprentice training for the tyre factory available in the

Act. The respondent management was not given licence

or permission to impart training to the non-technical

workers who are not possessing adequate technical

qualification. Whether the employee is a worker or a

apprenticeship has to be determined from the nature of

work attended by the employee as well a from the

control of employer over the work of the employee and

it was more depend upon the employer and employee

relationship. In this respect, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the

Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat reported in

CDJ 2003 GHC 182 wherein, the Hon’ble Gujarat High

Court discussed in the judgment 2002 (1) LLN 1090 in

which the Gujarat High Court held “if the agreement of

the apprentice of lineman as contract of apprenticeship

was not registered and no training was obtained by the

apprentice, then he has been considered as the

workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and non-observance of the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Act makes the

termination illegal. She also submitted that the Labour

Court has rightly held that section 25-F has not been

complied with by the petitioner and therefore, the

workman entitled to benefits under section 25-F and

that is how the order of termination rightly held to be

illegal and void abinitio and therefore, the Labour Court

has not committed error and hence, no interference of

this Court is called for the interest of justice”.

11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit

that there are 1540 employee working in their company

and the petitioner was appointed as an apprentice as

per Apprenticeship Training Act 1961 and by following

the Company Training Scheme. The learned Counsel for

the petitioner further submit that as per Apprenticeship

Training Act 1961 a person can be inducted for training

only for a period of one year and beyond which period

the training given in the name of apprenticeship is

illegal. Moreover a person can be inducted as an

apprentice only if, he has completed Industrial Training

Institute (ITI) under the National Council for Vocational

Training Scheme. RW.1 the H.R. Manager of the

25 January 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

respondent management, during the course of cross-

examination admitted that the petitioner attended the

company in all the three shifts it was further admitted

in Ex.P7 the petitioner was allotted Employer Code 21750

in the said Ex.P7 the date of entry of the petitioner is

mentioned as 11-09-2007. RW.1 further admitted that the

person inducted for apprenticeship need not pay ESI

contribution and they are exempted in the said Act. The

learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

some other persons who are inducted in the same way

as the petitioner was inducted were made permanent by

the respondent management since, the petitioner has

worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year

for a period of 4 years he is workmen as per section 2

(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and he is entitled to

benefits under section 25(f) of the industrial dispute as

against the respondent management.

12. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit

that the petitioner was inducted as a trainee a per Ex.R1

Apprenticeship Order, dated 01-04-2008. Ex.R2 and R3

are revised stipend order issued to the petitioner. The

petitioner was inducted for training for a period of 42

months in four spells. During the period of training the

petitioner has availed leave for several days for which

he has given Ex.R4 letter, dated 24-10-2010. Moreover

he has entered into altercation with respondent

management officials for which misconduct the

petitioner has give apology letter, dated 24-04-2010

marked as Ex.R5. The learned Counsel for the respondent

further submitted that the pay slips for the months of

January 2011 to November 2011 which were marked as

Ex.R6 to R16 would establish that the attendance of

petitioner is very poor during his training period.

13. The learned Counsel for the respondent invited

the Court attention to the “Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi

High Court reported in (2006) II LLJ 106 Delhi in Kartik

Ramachandran R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

and another wherein, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has

dealt with the issue of “Trainee Steno Clerk expeditor”

would be covered within the definition of workmen

under section 2 S of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. During

the course of discussion Hon’ble Delhi High Court has

discussed the land mark Judgment of Hon’ble Apex

Court in S.K. Mani Vs. Carona case (Supra) wherein, our

Hon’ble Apex Court held “it is well settled that the

designation of an employee is not of importance and it

is the real nature of duties being performed by the

employee which would decide as to whether an

employee is a ‘workman’ under section 2 (s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The determinative factor is the

main duties performed by the employee and not the work

done incidentally. The nature of duties performed by the

workman is a question of fact. An employee is required

to set up such plea and to lead evidence in support

thereof. Only then can the Labour Court go into the

facts and circumstances of the case and based material

on record, decide as to the real nature of duties and

functions being performed by the employee in all

cases”.

14. The learned Counsel for the respondent invited

the attention of this Court to the Judgment of Hon’ble

Apex Court in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

Vs. Tata Engg. & Co. reported in 1976-I-LLJ-81 wherein,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held “The heart of the matter

in apprenticeship is, therefore, the dominant object and

intent to impart on the part of the employer and to

accept on the part of the other person learning under

certain agreed terms. That certain payment is made

during the apprenticeship, by whatever name called,

and that the apprentice has to be under certain rules of

discipline do not convert the apprentice, to a regular

employee under the employer. Such a person remains a

learner and is not an employee.

To my mind, the aforesaid observations, clearly lay

down the foundation of the relationship between the

parties. In my view, whether the trainee is a mere trainee

under the personal contract (de hors the Apprentices

Act), or is an apprentice within the meaning of the said

Act, makes no difference. So long as a trainee is

engaged by the employer for the purpose of imparting

training, this dominant purpose and object, and the

basis intention behind such an engagement, cannot be

frustrated by refusal of registration of a contract under

the said Act”.

15. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit

that at any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot

be termed as a workmen. The petitioner was ordered to

impart training by the respondent management. The

petitioner has not possessed any technical qualification

to be employed as a workman under the respondent

management. During the course of training the

petitioner was not evinced any interest to learn things

and he was absent for so many days without any excuse

and he was also written apology letter in his

misconduct. The learned Counsel for the respondent

further submitted that there is no statutory obligation

on the part of the respondent to make a training as

permanent employee of the Act. It was further submitted

that the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement could

not arise as there was no employer and employee

relationship and the petitioner was only an

apprenticeship training and the relationship between the

petitioner and respondent would not stand “test of

control”.

16. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submissions. The aspect of the litigation is two fold.

This Court has to look at the factual and legal side of

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[25 January 2022

he aspect to adjudicate the issue involved in it. There

is no dispute that the petitioner was inducted into the

respondent management by apprentice order, dated

01-04-2008. The stipend was also fixed and the

petitioner received the same at the end of every month.

As per Ex.P1 apprenticeship order the training of the

petitioner will be assessed and evaluated and on

satisfactory completion of training in each spell the

trainee will be put to next level of training. The

petitioner was in the service of the respondent

management till 31-01-2012 on which date the

respondent has issued P4 notice stating that as per

clause 8 of the Ex.P1 order that the apprenticeship

clases with immediate effect.

17. On perusal of the evidence of RW.1, it is clear

that the petitioner was inducted as a trainee as per

Apprenticeship Training Act 1961 and Company,

Training Scheme. The petitioner was also provided with

employer code 21750. The respondent witness RW.1

admitted that the respondent has deducted ESI

contribution from the salary of the petitioner. RW.1

further admitted that the respondent management is not

licensed to impart training from the respective

Government Departments. The learned Counsel for the

petitioner submit that as per section 2 (s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act “workman” means any person

(including an apprentice) employed in any industry to

do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether

the terms of employment be express or implied, and for

the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in

relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such

person who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of,

that dispute, or whose dismissal discharge or

retrenchment has led to that dispute”.

18. In S.K. Mani vs. Corona Sahu Company Limited

and others our Hon’ble Apex Court held “the

designation of an employee is not of much importance

and what is important is the nature of duties being

performed by him, the above Judgment of Hon’ble Apex

Court was confirmed by the later Judgments of Hon’ble

Apex Court in Ananda Bazaar case “If, we accept the

contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant that once a persons accepts an appointment

order he cannot challenge the designation mentioned

in that order then the employer can always exploit the

workers by giving them designation as apprentice

though in fact taking regular work from them. This

would be contrary to the whole approach of Industrial

Law and hence, we cannot accept this submission”.

19. In the claim statement filed by the petitioner it

was averred that the petitioner has been directly

working in the Production Department of wrapping

machine in BEAD Section, Zone-I Department as an

operator and doing perennial nature of work along with

other permanent workers and has completed 240 days

of service in a period of 12 calendar month in each

Calendar year and he ought to be observed and

regularized by the respondent management. In the

evidence of PW.1 he has categorically deposed that he

was employed in Production Department and the nature

of his work is perennial in nature and the respondent

instructed manage and control his work in all stages of

operation from beginning to end and he has also

completed continuous period of 240 days in each

calendar year and his services ought to be made

permanent.

20. In Mcleod and Co. Vs. Sixth Industrial Tribunal,

West Bengal. 1958 AIR Calcutta 273 wherein, the

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held “whether a person

was a workman within the definition of the Industrial

Disputes Act would be the very foundation of the

jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. The Court further

observed that in order to determined the categories of

service indicated by the use of different words like

“supervisor’, ‘managerial’ and ‘administrative’, it was

not necessary to import the notions of one into the

interpretation of the other. The words such as

‘supervisory’, ‘managerial’ and ‘administrative’ are

advisedly loose expressions with no rigid frontiers and

too much subtlety should not be used in trying to

precisely define where supervision ends and

management begins or administration starts. For that

would be theoretical and not practical. It has to be

broadly interpreted from a common sense point of view

where tests will be simple both in theory and in their

application. The learned Judge further observed that a

supervisor need not be a Manager or an Administrator

and a Supervisor can be a workman so long as he did

not exceed the monetary limitation indicated in the

section and supervisor irrespective of his salary is not

a workman who has to discharge function mainly of

managerial nature by reasons of the duties attached to

his office or of the powers vested in him”.

21. A perusal of definition workman shows that it

makes no difference between permanent employee and

a temporary employee or a casual employee. The said

view has gain support from the Judgment Chief Engineer

(Irrigation) Chepauk Vs. Nadesan, 1973 II LLJ 446 and

Management of Crompton Engineering & Co. Vs.

Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, reported in

1974 I LLJ 459 (Madras). It is clear that even if, a person

is a casual employee he will be entitled to the benefit

of the provision of section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 if, he satisfies the requirement of this

provision.

25 January 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

22. From the nature of work attended by the

petitioner as an operator of wrapping machine in BEAD

section, Zone-1 of the respondent management in all the

three shifts for more than 240 days in each calendar year

he can be very well fit into the definition of “workman

as defined in under section 2 (8) of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947”. RW.1 has categorically admitted

that there was no trade apprentice for tyre manufacturing

company. Admittedly the petitioner has not completed

ITI training under the NCVT pattern under the Labour

and Employment Department. The signing of an

apprentice agreement alone would not make him as an

apprentice training. In order to appreciate whether a

person employed is a trainee or workman, the test is

employer and employee relationship and the control of

the employer over the work of the employee and

effective control or the employer. In the present case

on hand, the petitioner is working with the respondent

management for almost 4 year and engaged in

production activity along with other permanent

employee. There is no evidenee on the part of the

respondent management that what are all the training

imparted to the petitioner and who has imparted the

training to the petitioner. There are no details of

apprenticeship training allegedly underwent by the

petitioner was produced before this Court. This Court

is of the considered opinion that the management has

used the term apprenticeship only as a measure of

preventing the petitioner from getting his lawful

entitlements. This Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioner is concretely come under the purview

of workmen as defined under section 2 (8) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. As such the termination of the

petitioner without notice and without following the

provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes

Act is against the established principles of law. The

petitioner has deposed that he was not in gainful

employment in any other concern from the date of

termination till date.

23. The petitioner is aged about 32 years and having

a wife and kids. the untimely termination of his job

would certainly cause serious repercussions in leading

a dignified life. A person without an employment and

without any salary cannot lead a dignified life. Article

21 of the Constitution of India contemplates “right to

life is more than mere animal existence”. From the

discussions above made this Court is of the considered

opinion that the non-employment of the petitioner in

the respondent management is not justified. Since, the

petitioner was terminated in the month of January 2012

and considering the fact that he is not in any gainful

employment in any other company from the date of his

termination till this date, this Court deem it fit to pay

50% of wages to the petitioner from the date of his

termination till the date of his reinstatement.

24. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The

respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner within

a period of 6 weeks from the date of this Award. The

respondent is directed to pay 50% of back wages with

other attendant benefits. The monetary benefit has to

be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within a

period of 6 weeks from the date of this Award. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this 13th day of October, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 26-04-2018

K. Velmurugan

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 01-04-2008

Photo

copy

the

Appointment order issued

the

respondent

management.

Ex.P2

— 31-07-2008

Photo copy of the letter

issued by the respondent

management.

Ex.P3

— 30-07-2011

Photo copy of the letter

issued by the respondent

management.

Ex.P4

— 31-01-2012

Photo

copy

the

Termination letter issued by

the

respondent

management.

Ex.P5

— 16-03-2013

Photo copy of the Job

Request letter sent by the

petitioner to the respondent

management.

Ex.P6

— 13-10-2015

Photo copy of the Dispute

raised

letter

the

petitioner before the Labour

Officer,

Conciliation,

Puducherry.

Ex.P7

— 11-09-2007

Photo copy of the E.S.I

Identity

Card

the

petitioner issued by the

ESIC.

Ex.P8

— 21-03-2017

Photo copy of the Failure

report submitted by the

Labour Officer, Conciliation,

Puducherry.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[25 January 2022

List of respondent’s witness:

RW.1

— 15-10-2019

Rajadurai

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 01-04-2008

Apprenticeship order of the

petitioner.

Ex.R2

— 31-07-2008

Revised

stipend

letter

issued by the respondent

management.

Ex.R3

— 30-07-2011

Revised

stipend

letter

issued by the respondent

management.

Ex.R4

— 24-10-2010

Excuse letter given by the

petitioner to the respondent

management.

Ex.R5

— 24-10-2010

Excuse letter given by the

petitioner to the respondent

management.

Ex.R6

— January

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

January 2011.

Ex.R7

— February

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

February 2011.

Ex.R8

— March

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

March 2011.

Ex.R9

— April

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

April 2011.

Ex.R10 — May

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

May 2011.

Ex.R11 — June

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

June 2011.

Ex.R12 — July

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

July 2011.

Ex.R13 — August

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

August 2011.

Ex.R14 — September

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

September 2011.

Ex.R15 — October

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

October 2011.

Ex.R16 — November

Copy of the Pay Slip of the

2011

petitioner for the month of

November 2011.

Ex.R17 — October

Copy of the Extract of

2011

Muster Roll for the month

of October 2011.

Ex. R18 — Novemver

Copy of the Extract of

2011

Muster Roll for the month

of November 2011.

Ex.R19 — December

Copy of the Extract of

2011

Muster Roll for the month

of December 2011.

Ex.R20 — January

Copy of the Extract of

2012

Muster Roll for the month

of January 2012.

Ex.R21 — 11-06-2003

Photocopy of the Standing

Orders of the Respondent

Company.

Ex.R22 — 31-01-2012

Photocopy

the

Ceasesation letter issued to

the

petitioner

respondent with its Postal

Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.R23 — 09-10-2015

Photocopy of the letter by

petitioner to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.R24 — 23-10-2015

Original document of the

notice from the Conciliation

Officer seeking explanation.

Ex.R25 — 07-03-2016

Copy of the reply submitted

the

respondent

management

the

Conciliation Officer.

Ex.R26 — 29-03-2016

Photocopy of the reply

submitted by the petitioner

to the Conciliation Officer

with

respect

the

explanation given by the

management.

Ex.R27 — 27-06-2016

Copy of the reply submitted

by the management to the

Conciliation Officer.

Ex.R28 — 2l-03-2017

Original document of the

failure report given by the

Conciliation Officer.

Ex.R29 — 29-05-2017

Copy of the reference

issued

the

Labour

Department, Puducherry.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.