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
[621]
®ı
Amflºƒˆ
ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\
2022 }
gÔ¸‚ |
23 {
No.
34
Poudouchéry
Mardi
23
Août
2022 (1 Bhadra 1944)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
23rd
August
2022
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
\Vk‚¶ ¿]√]BV_ ®|¬Ô©√|D ..
622
Procédure du Magistrate de District ..
622
Procedings of the District
..
622
º\_¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^
Magistrate
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
639
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 639
Award of the Labour Court
.. 639
de tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
643
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 643
Government Notifications
.. 643
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
649
Annonces
.. 649
Announcements
..
649
∏Áw ]Ú›>D
..
652
Erratum
.. 652
Erratum
..
652
639
23 August 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 123/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 29th July 2022)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 28/2018, dated
23-03-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between
Thiru K. Rangarajan, S/o. Kaliyaperumal, No. 30, Masthan
Palli Street, Karaikal, against the management of
M/s. Karaikal Market Committee, Thirunallar Road,
Karaikal, over reinstate the petitioner with back wages
and attendant benefits has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
P. MUTHU MEENA,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 23rd day of March, 2022
I.D. (L) No. 28/2018
CNR. No. PYPY06-000054-2018
K. Rengarajan,
S/o. Kaliyaperumal,
No. 30, Masthan Pillai Street,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary,
Karaikal Market Committee,
Thirunallar Road,
Karaikal.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 17-03-2022
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru N. Ramar, Representative for the petitioner and
Thiru M. Nakkeeeran, Counsel, for the respondent, upon
hearing both sides, perusing the case records, after
having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court delivered the following:
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute has been filed by the petitioner
represented by Thiru N. Ramar, Secretary of C I T U ,
State Union, Karaikal, for adjudication of the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner Thiru K. Rangarajan
against the Managing Director, Market Committee,
Karaikal, over reinstatement of the petitioner with back
wages along with other attendant benefits is justified?
If, justify what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Brief averments made in the petition of the
petitioner :
The petitioner was joined as worker in the
respondent Market Committee on voucher payment. He
received ` 7,000 as monthly salary. The Karaikal
Market Committee has established for the welfare of
farmers in that area. The Market Committee procure the
yield from the farmers and kept in its safe custody till
the yields get fair price. The respondent has also
established Uzhavar Sandhai for selling the fruits and
vegetables directly by the farmers. In the year 2005
about 32 persons were employed by the Chairman as
voucher employees and they were promoted as CLR
Casual Labours during 2010 to 2015. They were again
promoted as daily rated employees during the year 2015-
2016. They were further promoted as Multi Task Service
workmen from the year 2016. The petitioner was also
engaged on the same basis during the year 2009. The
petitioner was utilised for cleaning and packing the
agricultural products and safeguarding the same from
cattles and rats, maintaining the farm in the Market
Committee. The petitioner was also worked as Driver for
the LMV and HMV vehicles. The petitioner was also
served as office boy continuously.
On 23-08-2016 the respondent administration refused
employment to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has
raised industrial dispute on 28-11-2017 before the Labour
Officer and no conciliation steps were taken. The
petitioner has continuously worked for seven years. His
service was terminated by the respondent without any
notice or charges which is against the provisions of
section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act. The respondent
is .duty bound to reinstate the petitioner with back wages
and attendant benefits.
640
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 August 2022
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The Karaikal Market Committee is an Autonomous
Body to do service to the farmers of Karaikal District,
established under Pondicherry Agricultural Produce
Markets Act, 1973. There are 10 regular staffs and 32
numbers of full-time casual labourers working in the
Market Committee. There were another 32 casual
labourers who were temporarily engaged by the
organization based on demand of work and their
employment was approved by the Government of
Puducherry as per the “Casual Labourers Engagement
and Regulation Scheme 2009”. But, the engagement of
petitioner was purely on temporary basis to do menial
work such as paddy procurement for Food Corporation
of India and paid ` 200 as daily wages. Now, the
procurement of Food Corporation of India is
discontinued. Their engagement is without the approval
of the General Body and the same is illegal because,
they have been engaged without reference to
employment exchange. The petitioner was engaged as
wage labourer and there is no question of termination
of services. The work of the organization is seasonal in
nature and engaging the petitioners permanently is not
at all feasible. The respondent is not making any profit
and struggling to pay monthly salary to the regular
employee.
4. On the petitioner side Thiru Rengarajan was
examined as PW.1 and through him proof affidavit
was filed, Ex. P1 & Ex. P2 were marked. On the
respondent side R. Ganesan was examined as RW1 and
Mohammad Dasir was examined as RW.2, Ex. Rl to R3
were marked.
5. Points for consideration:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement
with back wages, continuity of service and other
attendant benefits in the respondent organization?
6. On the petitioner side Mr. Rengarajan petitioner
was examined as PW.1 and the chief affidavit was filed.
In the evidence of PW.1, he has deposed that he has joined
in the Karaikal Market Committee on 01-09-2009. He
has worked in the regulated Market Committee, the
Uzhavar Sandhai and weigh bridge. He has also served
as Driver for the Chairman and the Secretary, and
received monthly salary of ` 7,000 per month. The 32
daily wage labourers were employed by the Chairman
in the year 2005. On the same basis, the petitioner was
also appointed by the Chairman in the year 2009 and
continuously working for seven years. On 23-08-2016,
when the petitioner went to the respondent organization
to attend his regular work. He was prevented by the
management from attending his work. The petitioner has
made several request to the respondent for the
consideration of his reinstatement. The same was not
considered by the respondent management. Left with
no other alternative the petitioner has raised industrial
dispute on 28-11-2017 before the Labour Department,
Puducherry. Since, there was no action taken by the
Labour Officer within 45 days, the petitioner has filed
the petition under section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes
Act. The averments made in the counter is not at all
acceptable and the respondent has denied employment
to the petitioner since, there was no approval granted
by the General Body. Moreover, the respondent cannot
deny employment to the petitioner side stating the
financial crisis. The respondent has retrenched the
petitioner without issuing any notice and without
framing any charges. The unemployment of the
petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and
also the principles laid down under section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner is suffering
without any work and without any salary and is
suffering to run his family. The petitioner prayed for
reinstatement with back wages and other attendant
benefits.
7. On the respondent side Thiruvalar Ganesan, the
Secretary of Karaikal Market Committee was examined as
RW.l and through him chief affidavit of RW l was filed.
The respondent committee has a strength of 10 regular
staffs and 32 full-time casual labourers. The 32
casual labourers are regularized with the approval of the
Government as prescribed under the Casual Labourers
Engagement and Regulation Scheme 2009. The
petitioner was engaged through menial works for a daily
wage of ` 200 by the Chairman. The services of the
petitioner was discontinued since, the services of the
petitioner is no more required. Even at the time of
engagement it was made without considering the
financial position of the Committee and without actual
requirement at all. The petitioner was engaged against
the frame work of the Scheme 2009 and without the
approval of the Government, the same is illegal. The
petitioner engagement requires no termination and there
is no need to follow the provisions of section 25(F) of
the Industrial Disputes Act and pray for dismissal of
the petition.
8. RW. 2 Thiru P. Mohammad Dasir who was retired
as Deputy Agricultural Director has deposed that based
on the resolution passed by General Body of the Market
Committee. The employee will be engaged by the
respondent organization. Such resolution was sent to
the Revenue Department of the Puducherry Government
641
23 August 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
for consent in the year 2008 to 2010. The 32 employees
were in the services of the Karaikal Market Committee.
Thiruvalargal Sudhakaran, Rangaraj and Vijayakumar
were worked as voucher payment casual labourers from
0l-09-2009 based on the recommendation of the Member
of Legislative Assembly. The said absorption was made
by the Chairman of the Market Committee. The Principal
Secretary of Agriculture Department of Puducherry, has
ordered to relieve the petitioner and other two persons.
On the basis of the order of the Principal Secretary
they were relieved from the services on 23-08-2016
and pray for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The representative appeared on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed
in the respondent’s Regulated Market Committee from
01-09-2009 for the monthly salary of ` 7,000. The Regulated
Market Committee was established to procure and protect
the agricultural produces of the fanners of Karaikal region.
The petitioner was engaged in cleaning, maintenance
and also sales division. He was also served as Office
Assistant as well as Driver for the LMV and HMV vehicles.
10. It was further submitted that there are yet another
32 voucher employees engaged by the Chairman in the
year 2005. The said 32 voucher payment employees were
regularised by the respondent. The petitioner initially
received `85 as wage per day and subsequently, he has
received `150, `200 and `270 per day and finlly received
a sum of `7,000 per month, when he was retrenched from the
services on 23-08-2016. The representative of the petitioner has
further argued the petitioner was employed by the
Chairman of the regulated Market Committee and his
services were continuously utilised by the respondent
from 01.09.2009. Evidence of PW.2 categorically established
that the petitioner was employed by Thiruvalar
Sathiyaseelan, Chairman-cum-Managing Director. It was
further submitted that the respondent has not served
any notice, not conducted any enquiry against the
petitioner. The termination of the petitioner was not
even informed to him by letter. It was further argued on
the petitioner side that the other employee by name
Thiruvalargal Manikandan, Ramkumar were already
reinstated by the respondent consequent to the Award
passed by this Court. The representative of the
petitioner has invited this Court attention to the
Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1995
(1) LLJ 973 and submit, the petitioner has served for
240 days in each year from the date of his engagement
and hence, his removal from service would come under
section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since, the
respondent
has
not
followed
the
procedure
contemplated under section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes
Act, the order of removal from service is not at all
maintainable. He has further referred to order of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.A. No.183/1996 &
C.M. No. 2734/1996, dated 15-03-1996 and submit that
even if, the appointment of a workman is not in
accordance with law, the management cannot refuse to
follow the provisions of 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act.
11. On the petitioner side, it was further contented
that the petitioner was served in the respondent
organization till 23-08-2016. The services of the
petitioner is of perennial nature and the petitioner has
received salary from the Market Committee and the
relationship of employer and employee was proved. In
the evidence of PW.1, he has categorically deposed that
the subsequent to his termination of employment he
was not in gainful service in any other establishment.
Even, the respondent has not pleaded and proved that
the petitioner was in gainful employment. In the
circumstances the petitioner being a workman and the
respondent is entitled for reinstatement along with back
wages and other attendant benefits.
12. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit
that the 32 voucher paid employees were regularised by
the Government of Puducherry, as per the casual labours
engagement and Regulation Scheme 2009. But, the
engagement of the petitioner was purely on temporary
basis to do menial work such as procurement of paddy
for Food Corporation of India which is a seasonal work.
Now, the procurement by the Food Corporation of India
stands discontinued. The engagement of the petitioner is
without the approval of the General Body of the
respondent organisation. The petitioner was not
engaged through Employment Exchange. He is only a
casual labour not engaged on regular basis and the
respondent is not duty bound to follow the procedure
contemplated under section 25(F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
13. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit
that the Government of Puducherry has issued a Gazette
Notification, dated 27-02-2009 wherein, it is stated with
“all other designation e.g.: Daily Wager, CLR etc., will
be discontinued from the date of notification of the
scheme”. In the said Gazette, it is further notified the no
casual labourer will be engaged for attending to work
of the regular nature, for which a regular post exist or
can be created.
14. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit
that the petitioner was engaged on l-09-2009 and his
engagement is against the Gazette Notification of the
Government of Puducherry.
15. The learned Counsel for the respondent invited
this Court attention to the G.O. Ms. No. 66/F3/2008
dated 24-10-2008 issued by the Finance Department
marked as Ex. R2 wherein, it is specifically notified
642
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 August 2022
“no daily rated posts should henceforth, be created by
the institutions without the specific written approval of
the Government”. The engagement of the petitioner is
not in accordance with Ex. R1 and R2 and he was
removed from services on 23-08-2016 as per the order of
Secretary of Agriculture since, his employment would
found to be illegal.
16. The learned Counsel further submit that the
petitioner was not regularly absorbed by the respondent
and he never worked for more than 240 days in each
year. The petitioner is only a casual labour engaged on
daily rated basis according to the needs and at no
stretch of imagination he can be termed as “workmen”
as defmed at the section 2(S) of Industrial Disputes Act.
The petitioner has not proved that he has received
monthly salary of ` 7,000 per month and he failed to
prove the employer and employee relationship. In the
circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the
benefits under section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement with
back wages along with other attendant benefits. Since,
the Market Committee is not a profit making
organization and the respondent is struggling to pay
the monthly salary to its regular employee.
17. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submission made by both sides and perused to the
documents marked on either side.
18. The petitioner was engaged as voucher paid
employee on 01-09-2009 by the then Chairman of the
Market Committee. The petitioner was utilized for
cleaning, maintenance, procurement of paddy and also
as Driver. According to the petitioner, he was initially
paid ` 85, `150, `200 and `270 as daily wages and finally
he has received a sum of ` 7,000 a monthly salary. Since,
the petitioner was denied employment without any
justifiable reason, he has raised industrial dispute
before the Labour Officer Conciliation on 28-11-2017
for conciliation. Since, the conciliation proceedings
were not commenced within 45 days, the petitioner
has proceeded to file this petition under section 2(A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has
served with the respondent organization for about
7 years without any break except the permitted holidays.
The petitioner was utilised by the respondent for
driving the vehicle of the Chairman and the Managing
Director.
19. A set of 32 employees who were engaged by the
then Chairman in the year 2005 as voucher paid
employee were specifically given promotions and
finally regularized as per the Scheme formulated in the
year 2009. The respondent denied employment to
the petitioner and two others who are employed
on 01-09-2009 by the Chairman of the respondent
organization on the basis that their engagement is
against. Ex. R1 and R2. RW.2 in the evidence deposed
that in the absence of the Chairman, the Managing
Director of the Market Committee who is the District
Collector of Karaikal will hold additional charge. All
along from the date of his engagement the petitioner
was paid salary by the Market Committee after getting
proper permission of the Agricultural Director.
20. The RW.2 has also admitted the petitioner was
worked in the respondent organization till 23-08-2016.
The respondent has furnished information, dated
09-l1-2016 under RTI wherein, the respondent has
admitted that the petitioner was appointed based on the
permission granted by the Chairman. In Ex. P1 para 203
which is office note submitted by the Secretary to the
Chairman-cum-Director of Agriculture, it is stated that
“The continuous engagement of the persons is
essential during the samba harvest season and further
they may be deployed in Karaikal Market Committee
premises for house helping and maintenance of Rural
Godowns, hence, the engagement of abovesaid persons
on voucher payment basis may be approved, besides it
is proposed to increase their wages from ` l00 to
` 150 for 29 days from July 2010”. The above stated
statement would go to show that the continuous
engagement of the petitioner and other two persons is
essential during samba harvest season. The petitioner
was utilised for the procurement of paddy, cleaning and
maintenance of godowns protection of the agricultural
producers from the cattles and insects, served as a
Office Boy and also as a Driver. The nature of
employment does not require special skill, however, the
nature of work has not seasonal but, perennial in
nature. No doubt, the petitioner has received his salary
from the respondent after the approval of the Director
of Agriculture and he has worked for about 7 years
continuously without break from 01-09-2009 to
23-08-2016 except permitted holidays. The petitioner can
be well fit in within the definition of “workmen” under
section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
21. The respondent without any give notice and
without conducting proper enquiry has relieved him
from the services on 23-08-2016 without affording any
opportunity to the petitioner which is against the
principles of natural justice and against the established
principles laid down in section 25(F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
22. In the evidence of PW.1, he has deposed that he
is suffering without any employment from the date of
his relieving from the respondent organisation.
643
23 August 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The petitioner is not gainfully employed in any other
establishment and the contrary was not proved by the
respondent. From the discussion about made this Court
is of the considered opinion that the non-employment
of the petitioner is not justifiable on any grounds. Since,
the petitioner is not in gainful employment is entitled
for reasonable back wages and other attendant benefits.
23. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The
respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner within
8 weeks from the date of this Award. The petitioner is
entitled to receive 30% of last drawn salary as back
wages from the date of his termination till the date of
his reinstatement. The petitioner is also entitled to
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on
this the 23rd day of March, 2022.
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer ,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner witness:
PW.1 —15-07-2018 K. Rengarajan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P l —
28-11-2017 Industrial dispute raised
by the employee before the Labour
Court.
Ex.P 2 —
09-11-2016 The informati on received
by the employee through RTI from
the respondent.
List of respondent’s witnesses:
RW.1 —
18-09-2019 R. Ganesan
RW.2
—
07-01-2020 P. Mohammed Dasir
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R l —
27-02-2009 Copy of the Gazette of
Puducherry.
Ex.R 2 —
24-10-2008 Copy of the G.O. Ms. No. 66/
F3/2008.
Ex.R 3 —
9-7-2010 Copy of the order of the
Chairman-cum- Director of Agriculture,
regarding the engagement of 3 persons.
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 122/Lab./AIL/T/2022,
Puducherry, dated 29th July 2022)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry and the Joint Action Committee (JAC), PIMS
Hospital and Research Institute, over charter of demands
regarding wage revision for the year 2021 to 2024, in respect
of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government,
it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV
of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to
Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred
to the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, for adjudication.
The Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, shall submit the
Award within 3 months from the date of issue of
reference as stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in
accordance with rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. The party raising the dispute shall
file a statement of claim complete with relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses to the Industrial
Tribunal, Puducherry, within 15 days of the receipt of the
order of reference and also forward a copy of such
statement to each one of the opposite parties involved
in the dispute.
ANNEXURE
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Joint Action
Committee (JAC) of PIMS Maruthuvamanai and
Research Institute against the management of
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry, over charter of demands with regard to
wage revision for the year from 2021 to 2024 is justified
or not? If justified, to give appropriate direction?
(ii) Whether the stand taken by the management
of M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry, regarding non-recognition of the PIMS
Puduvai Maanila Pattali Thozhir Sangam which was
duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 lacks
minimum criteria of membership for negotiation is legal
and justified? If justified, to give appropriate direction.