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

[21]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

ƒ™kˆ |

10 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2023 (20 Pausa 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

10th

January

2023

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

[10 January 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 167/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 19/2018, dated

29-08-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. Abirami Soap Works,

Puducherry and Thiru C. Sellakannu, Sembiyapalayam,

Puducherry, over non-employment;

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 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. SOFANA DEVI, M.L.,

Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 29th day of August 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 19/2018

CNR. No. PYPY06-000109-2018

C. Chellakannu,

S/o. Chinnathambi,

No.27, Mariammal Koil Street,

Sembiyapalayam,

Puducherry - 605 110.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Abirami Soap Works,

R.S.Nos. 93/1A, 18 and 2,

Sembiyapalayam,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 25-08-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Ashok

Kumar, C o u n s e l f o r t h e P e t i t i o n e r a n d Thiru

R. Ilancheliyan, 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

This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the

Government as per the G.O. Rt.No. 42/AIL/Lab./T/2018,

dated 19-03-2018 for adjudicating whether the industrial

dispute raised by the Petitioner Thiur C. Sellakannu,

s/o. Chinnathambi, Sembiyapalayam, Puducherry against

the Management of M/s. Abirami Soap Works,

Sembiyapalayam, Puducherry, over non-employment is

justified or not? If justified, 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 claim Statement of

the Petitioner are as follows:

(i) For the past 14 years as permanent worker the

Petitioner was a worker in the respondent company,

i.e., M/s. Abirami Soap Works, Puducherry, which is

one of the soap manufacturing industry functioning

at Puducherry. The respondent with arbitrary power

kept the workmen at his mercy depriving of the

appointment order, status and privileges of the

permanent workmen and such act comes under unfair

labour practice on part of the respondent as per the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(ii) The Respondent issued show cause notice on

05-07-2016 for flimsy reason which is utterly false and

fabricated, the explanation was submitted by the

Petitioner on 08-07-2016. The Respondent dissatisfied

with explanation issued the charge-sheet on

13-07-2016 and initiated enquiry instantaneously on

15-07-2016 without any breathing time. As a result

of the enquiry, the Petitioner was found guilty, then

the Petitioner was terminated from service on

29-11-2016. Petitioner addressed a letter to the

General Manager for employment, when the letter

was refused the Petitioner sent the same through

registered post on 30-11-2016. On 01-12-2016, the

Petitioner Workman again sent a remainder to the

respondent, even then the Petitioner received no

reply from the management.

(iii) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in

the enquiry proceedings:

(a) In the enquiry proceedings the Enquiry

Officer acted unilaterally in support of the

management, he refused to record the statements

and evidence of the Petitioner. When this was

agitated by the Petitioner several times, the

Petitioner even endorsed the same in the

proceedings. So this Act of the Enquiry Officer

prevented the Petitioner to bring out the truth.

10 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(b) The management issued the charge-sheet

on 13-07-2016, on the same day the Enquiry Officer

issued the notice of enquiry. The enquiry was

initiated on the next day, i.e., on 15-07-2016

without any reasonable time of notice. The

methods adopted by Enquiry Officer is very hard

and no justice finds place in it. She acted for the

benefit of the Management all along the enquiry

proceeding. There is no fair play of justice in the

enquiry proceedings.

the workmen who indulged in Union activities,

which displeasured the management. The

punishment is also not as per the standing orders,

the whole proceedings is only to put out the

Workman.

(iv) The Petitioner raised conciliation on

28-06-2017. On receipt of the representation,

Conciliation was initiated and ended in failure and

therefore, he came before this Court on reference.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

respondent are as follows:

Pending appeal against the Award passed in

I.D., Petitioner Workman has reinstated on

09-03-2015. From the first day of reinstatement, the

Petitioner Workman was indulging in misconduct.

Since appeal pending before Hon'ble High Court,

Management waited with patience and no action

taken against the Petitioner Workman. As all workers,

the Petitioner Workman has to handover the mobile

phone to the security, after signing in the

attendance. But, Petitioner Workman refused do so

and picked up quarrel with a security. He also

threatened the security with dire consequences.

Notice issued by the Management to the Petitioner

in this regard. But, no reply from the Petitioner

workman. He used to give irresponsible reply in a

non-cogent manner. Often, Petitioner workman would

enter into the security room, sitting there for several

hours, picking unwanted quarrel the security

obstructing them from doing their worker and thus

constitute misconduct. Apart from this, Petitioner

workman was using filthy languages towards the lady

security, quarrel with her, obstructing to do her duty

and also threatening her as she would be sexually

assaulted with the help of Petitioner’s friends. A

show cause notice issued by the management to the

Petitioner workman calling for suitable explanations.

The reply of the Petitioner workman was not

satisfactorily. So, domestic enquiry was initiated to

find out the truth. Domestic enquiry conducted in a

fair, free and by following the principles of natural

justice. In the said domestic enquiry, charges against

the Petitioner workman were proved. Based on the

domestic enquiry report, the Petitioner workman was

terminated by the management. Though the Petitioner

workman has given sufficient time to explain his side,

to examine witnesses, to produce documents to

support his defence, Petitioner workman failed to

utilize the above opportunities. Instead, he was

finding fault wantonly with domestic Enquiry Officer

regarding the way of conducting the enquiry. This

was done by the Petitioner workman only to evade

and to escape from his charges. Based on the

domestic enquiry report and the provisions of the

sexual harassment of women at work place

(Protection, Prevention and Rehabilitation) Act, 2013

the management has dismissed the Petitioner

workman in order to give protection and safety work

place for the women workers in the factory. There are

more than 100 women workers are working in the

respondent factory. Only to protect and to provide

a safety work place and for the industrial peace, the

management dismissed the Petitioner workman. There

is no intention to do the same. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service and pay full

back wages from the date of discharge till the date

of reinstatement ?

2. To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

5. On Points:-

On the Petitioner side, Mr. Chellakannu/the

Petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and

Exs. P1 to P20 were marked. On the respondent side,

Mrs. Manjula, Manager HR was examined as RW.1

and Exs.R1 to R.18 were marked.

6. On the Points:

(1) Was there a Violation of Principles of Natural

Justice in the enquiry proceedings:-

It has been vehemently pleaded in the claim

petition by the Petitioner/Workman about the

violation of principles of natural justice in the

enquiry proceedings. That in the enquiry proceedings

the Enquiry Officer acted unilaterally in support of

the management, he refused to record the statements

and evidence of the Petitioner. When this was

agitated by the Petitioner several times, the Petitioner

even endorsed the same in the proceedings. So, this

act of the Enquiry Officer prevented the Petitioner

to bring out the truth. The management issued the

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 January 2023

charge-sheet on 13-07-2016 on the same day the

Enquiry Officer issued the notice of enquiry. The

enquiry was initiated on the next day, i.e., on

15-07-2016 without any reasonable time of notice.

The methods adopted by Enquiry Officer is very

hard and no justice finds place in it. She acted for

the benefit of the management all along the enquiry

proceeding. There is no fair play of justice in the

enquiry proceedings. Therefore, he contended that

the main object of the enquiry is to put out the

workmen who indulged in Union activities, which

displeasured the management. The punishment is

also not as per the standing orders, the whole

proceedings is only to put out the workman.

7. Per contra, the respondent management at para

Nos. 4 and 5 of its counter statement objected and it

has been pleaded that the domestic enquiry has been

conducted for the charges framed against the workman

by following principles of natural justice. Sufficient

opportunities were given for the Petitioner workman to

produce his side witnesses, documents and to explain

his side. Despite of it, the Petitioner workman did not

come forward to utilize the opportunity but, wantonly

found unnecessarily fault in the enquiry proceedings

and on the Enquiry Officer.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by

learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The workman challenges the validity of the

enquiry. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are also

challenged by him. As such first of all I shall see

whether the enquiry held is proper and valid ? Whether

the domestic enquiry conducted by following the

principles of natural justice? In the enquiry 2 witnesses

were examined on the side of the management and

6 documents were marked. No witnesses or documents

were marked on the side of the workman. A perusal of

the enquiry report and connected papers shows that the

workman fully participated in the enquiry. The

witnesses examined by the management were cross-

examined in extensor by the workman. The requests

made by the workman such as for furnishing the copies

or the translated copies of the documents were allowed

by the Enquiry Officer and same furnished. But, the

enquiry officer had closed the enquiry by rejecting the

request of the Petitioner Employee and thereby refusing

to give time for production of Petitioner Workman side

witnesses and documents.

10. Further, to find out whether the said domestic

enquiry has been conducted in a fair manner by

following the principles of natural justice, it is necessary

to have a glance on the relevants documents referred

in the Domestic enquiry proceedings. On perusal of

Ex.R8, it is found that the heading mentioned therein is

“show cause notice”, dated 13-07-2016 wherein four

charges have been framed as against the Petitioner

Employee and in the same letter Ex.R8, one Mrs. S. Geetha

has been appointed as a Domestic Enquiry Officer. But,

Ex.R8 is nothing but the charge-sheet framed by the

respondent Management against Petitioner Workman.

It is not the show cause notice as mentioned in the

heading of Ex.R8. Ex.R17 is only the show cause notice

calling explanations from the Petitioner Employee

stating certain allegation in evasive manner as several

complaints were received against him. From Ex.R17,

I shall see that it contains no details of complaints

such as date time of occurance, from whom and what

complaints whether oral or written complaints, details

of the complaints etc. For Ex.R17, the Petitioner

Employee has given his explanation in Ex.R18, dated

13-07-2016. But, the charges were framed only vide

Ex.R8 (Ex.P19). The first flaw committed by the

respondent management clearly shows that when the

Petitioner Employee was issued with the charge-sheet

ExR8 (Ex.P19), he was also issued with an order of

enquiry and the Enquiry Officer was appointed in the

same charge to go into the alleged misconduct, without

even looking at the sufficient cause to be made by the

delinquent Employee in his explanation on the charges

framed, and the disciplinary authority while issuing the

charge-sheet ought not to have appointed the Enquiry

Officer. That shows that they were not willing to hear

any explanation whatsoever from the delinquent

Employee who is said to have committed alleged

misconduct. The copy of the charge-sheet clearly

shows that while issuing the charge-sheet, the

delinquent Employee was not given an opportunity to

give his explanation regarding the charges made against

him. Even in the charge-sheet, it has been clearly stated

that about the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and

informed that the enquiry details will be intimated later.

Therefore, at the time of issuing the charge-sheet itself,

the management respondent has prejudged the issue

to take a negative decision against the Petitioner

Workman delinquent.

11. Secondly, before giving an opportunity to the

Petitioner Employee to explain his stand on the charges

so framed by the respondent management, it goes

without saying that the disciplinary authority has

decided to hold the enquiry, which clearly indicates the

clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

12. Thirdly, when the charge sheet-cum-order of

enquiry was issued on 13-07-2016, the domestic enquiry

was initiated on 15-07-2016 i.e., on the second day from

the date of framing the charge and on the very same

day i.e., 15-07-2016 Enquiry Officer recorded the

10 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

versions of the Petitioner Employee as well as the

management. That also again shows that they were in

a hurry to complete the enquiry, without even willing

to peruse his explanation by the disciplinary authority/

the management . The rule says that once the Employee

is issued with a charge memo/charge-sheet containing

allegations, he should be given reasonable opportunity

to explain his case before the disciplinary authority.

Only if, the disciplinary authority is dissatisfied with

the explanation offered by the said delinquent employee

on the allegations, it is open to the disciplinary authority

to constitute an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry

Officer. The said procedure has been completely

overlooked. The charges have been framed only on

13-07-2016 and the said charge-sheet itself there was

an order for an enquiry and appointment of Enquiry

Officer. That shows that there is no fair or proper

enquiry.

13. As per Ex.R9, the enquiry proceedings, as said

above, the 1st hearing was on 15-07-2016. On the very

same day the explanation from the Petitioner Workman

herein and the management respondent herein has been

recorded. In the said Enquiry proceedings held on

15-07-2016, the Petitioner Employee herein had made an

objection endorsement as Domestic Enquiry Officer was

conducting the enquiry in favour of Management as

against the principles of natural justice and he also

signed with the written objection. The 2nd hearing was

on 19-07-2016, wherein, the copies of the standing order

and the complaint letters served to the Employee on his

request. But, rejected his request seeking one

Mr. Loganathan, Joint Secretary of New Democratic

Employees Union, Union territory of Puducherry to

assist him in the enquiry and instructed by the Domestic

Enquiry Officer to get the assistance of any

Co-Employee in conducting the domestic enquiry. On

19-07-2016 hearing also the Petitioner Employee has

endorsed that the Enquiry Officer was conducting the

enquiry against the Principles of Natural Justice. On

22-07-2016, the 3rd hearing of the domestic enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer had made some allegations about the

Petitioner Employee. Further, on the same day

Management Witness No. 1 Mrs. S. Sivasankari, Lady

Security and Management witness No. 2 Mr. Poorna

Chandra Doss, the Security Supervisor were examined

in cheif and the enquiry was adjourned to 02-08-2016

for cross-examination of MW.1 and MW.2 by the

Petitioner Employee. The Petitioner Employee on

22-07-2016 also requested for translated copies of the

complaints given by MW.2. On that date also the

Petitioner Employee had signed with an objection note

that Domestic Enquiry Officer conducting the enquiry

in partial manner and in favour of the management. The

enquiry was against Principles of Natural Justice. He

also has given an illustration in his objection note that

while one witness is examining, the other witness has

to be outside the room or far away but, both the

witnesses were in the same room in the presence of one

witness, other witness was examined. Further, he

objected the Domestic Enquiry Officer has put leading

questions to the witnesses while examining them. With

the above objections, the Petitioner Employee had

signed in the enquiry proceedings, dated 22-07-2016.

14. When the enquiry started on 02-08-2016, the

Petitioner Employee had signed with objection note that

Enquiry Officer has not recording what the Petitioner

Employee says instead she was recording in a different

way accusing the Petitioner Employee. The 5th hearing

of the domestic enquiry posted on 11-08-2016. On that

day the Management side witness namely MW.1 was

cross-examined in part. At the end of that date

proceedings, the Petitioner Employee herein had made

an Objectionable note that Domestic Enquiry Officer

had put leading questions to the witness MW.1 while

she was cross-examined by the Petitioner Employee.

Further, he had mentioned in the said note that

Petitioner Employee was not allowed to attend his

natural call during the proceedings. When the Petitioner

Employee had requested the Domestic Enquiry Officer

to read over to him what was recorded in the

proceedings, it was rejected by the Domestic Enquiry

Officer. Further, in the said note the Petitioner Employee

had written that the Domestic Enquiry Officer guided

the witness MW.1 by telling her to depose whatever

she knew and she (Domestic Enquiry Officer) will

record the rest. Hence, the Petitioner Employee had

concluded his endorsement note, dated 11-08-2016 that

entire enquiry proceedings was against the principles

of natural justice. The 6th hearing of the domestic

enquiry was fixed on 17-08-2016, wherein, the Petitioner

Employee cross-examined MW.1. The 7th hearing of the

domestic enquiry was fixed on 27-08-2016 wherein, the

Petitioner Employee cross-examined MW.2 in part. The

8th hearing of the domestic enquiry was fixed on

06-09-2016 and the Petitioner Employee cross-examined

the MW.2 in part. Again the 9th hearing, the domestic

enquiry fixed on 17-09-2016 wherein, the Petitioner

Employee completed the cross-examination on MW.2.

On that day the Petitioner Employee requested time for

production of witnesses and documents on his side. But,

it was rejected by the Domestic Enquiry Officer as

already sufficient time granted. The examination of

witnesses were closed on the very same date i.e.,

17-09-2016. On 28-09-2016, the domestic enquiry was

posted for arguments on either side. The management

has filed written arguments in the domestic enquiry.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 January 2023

After receiving the copy of the arguments filed by the

respondent management, Petitioner requested time but,

it was rejected by the Domestic Enquiry Officer as

already sufficient time given and thus, she closed the

enquiry.

15. On perusal of the above discussed minutes of

the enquiry proceedings Ex.R9 recorded by the

Domestic Enquiry Officer, I could able to find that in

most of the hearings before domestic enquiry officer,

the Petitioner Employee herein had categorically

endorsed his objection at the end of the each hearing

that the Domestic Enquiry Officer was not following the

Principles of Natural Justice, conducting enquiry in a

partial and biased manner in favour of the Management,

not giving sufficient time of the Petitioner Employee,

putting leading questions to the witnesses, helping the

witnesses by putting the facts into their mouth while

they being cross examined by the Petitioner Employee

etc., On close and careful perusal of the entire domestic

enquiry proceedings Ex.R9, I could not find any

findings of the Domestic Enquiry Officer recorded on

the above objectionable notes made by the Petitioner

Employee. No explanations tendered by the Domestic

Enquiry Officer on the objectionable note endorsed by

the Petitioner Employee regarding the violation of

Principles of Natural Justice. The Domestic Enquiry

Officer simply adjourned the matter to some other date

despite the objectionable note endorsement made by the

Petitioner Employee before he signs the daily

proceeding of the domestic enquiry. Further the

Domestic Enquiry Officer has refused to give time to

the Petitioner Employee for the production of

documents, witnesses and submitting his arguments.

Since, the disciplinary authority while issuing the

charge sheet ought not to have appointed the enquiry

officer, which shows that the management was not

willing to hear any explanation whatsoever from the

delinquent. From the absence of any observations or

explanation or findings by the Domestic Enquiry Officer

on the objectionable note made by the Petitioner

Employee in the enquiry proceedings, this Court

without any hesitation could come to the conclusion

that domestic enquiry has not been conducted by giving

fair chance to the Petitioner Employee to explain his

side. Curiously, the domestic enquiry proceeding closed

on 29-09-2016 without giving a chance for the

Employee to submit his arguements. But she took more

than a month for filing her report and filed her domestic

enquiry report only on 03-11-2016. That also again

shows that they were in a hurry to complete the enquiry,

without even willing to hear the arguments on the

Employee side. It has therefore to be said that Principles

of Natural Justice have not been complied with by the

enquiry officer. In that sense it has to be said that the

enquiry is not proper and not valid.

16. As there is unfairness and fragrant violation of

Principles of Natural Justice in the domestic enquiry

calling for intervention of this Court, it is must to look

into further evidence before the Court to decide this

reference in hand.

17. Whether the Charges (prima facie) proved

against the Petitioner Employee :

Charges as per Ex.R8 (Ex.P19) are as follows:

>∫Ô·m ÿƒB_Ôπ[ *>V™ cıÁ\ WÁÈB§B

c^ásƒV´Áð ÿƒFB c›º>E¬Ô©√‚|^·m. >∫Ô^

*m ˇµ¬Ôı¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô^ √]° ÿƒFB©√|˛[≈m.

1. 10á03á2015 ∂[Æ √]ºk‚| ÁÔÿBV©√t‚¶

∏≈z, >∫Ô·m ÁÔº√EÁB Œ©√Á¶¬Ô \Æ›>m;

2. ∂ÀkVÆ

\Æ›>º>V|

√VmÔVkÈÁ´

t´‚ΩBm;

3. >∫Ô”¬z

ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚¶

10á03á2015

º>]l‚¶ s·¬ÔD ºÔVˆB ºÂV‚œLuz xÁ≈BV™

s·¬ÔD ∂π¬ÔV>m �ÆD x[–¬z© ∏[

x´ðV™ s·¬Ô∫Ô^ ÿÔV|›>m �ÆD >∫Ô·m

ÿƒB_ÔÁ· \Á≈¬Ô xBuE›>m;

4. ºkÁÈ¬z kÚD >V∫Ô^, ∂Àk©º√Vm

√VmÔVkÈˆ[ ∂Á≈¬z ÿƒ[Æ ∂\ÏÕm ÿÔV^km.

º>ÁkBu≈ kV¬zkV>›]_ ~|√|km �ÆD ÿ√ı

√VmÔVkÈÏÔπ¶D xÁ≈Bu≈ kV¬zkV>D ÿƒFm,

∂kÏÔ·m √ËÔÁ· ÿƒFB s¶V\_ >|›>_

º√V[≈ ÿƒB_Ôπ_ ~|√‚¶m.

18. 1st , 2nd and 3rd Charges:-

On going through the evidences adduced by the

management side witnesses namely MW.1 and MW.2

in the domestic enquiry proceedings, I shall able to

find that MW.1 Mrs. Sivasankari, the lady security

and MW.2. Poorna Chandra Doss, the security

supervisor during their chief examinations before the

Domestic Enquiry Officer, did not adduce any

evidence about the 1st and 2nd charges-refusal to

hand over the mobile phone by the Petitioner

Employee and in continuance of that threatened the

Security.

19. MW.1 Mrs. Sivasankari, the lady security given

her evidence before the enquiry officer only regarding

the fact that Petitioner Employee intervened when she

was attending a lady staff who was suffering from

stomach ache due to mensuration and the Petitioner

Employee told her not to insist for the leave form. she

further deposed that she informed about this to the

security supervisor so Petitioner Employee scolded her.

Because of this, she was afraid to go out. Further, she

would say that she along with the security supervisor

gave complaint before Karikalampakkam Police Station

in this regard.

10 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

20. MW.2 the security supervisor also, in his cheif

examiantion deposed nothing about 1st and 2nd charges

that the Petitioner Employee refused to handover his

cellphone and in continuance of that threatened the

Security. He has deposed only that Petitioner Employee

used to often sit inside the security room so he gave a

complaint. Further, he deposed that the Petitioner

Employee used to talk unnecessarily to the lady

security. Further, MW.2 deposed that Petitioner

Employee insisted to let the women Employee who was

suffering from stomach ache to go out of the company

without company gate pass. So the lady security gave

complaint in this regard. For which, the Petitioner

Employee scolded her. Apart from this nothing was

averred by MW.2 in the domestic enquiry. With regard

to this later part, it was only a hearsay.

21.

Whereas, on documentary evidence regarding

the 1st and 2nd charges, Ex.R3 is the only document

filed on the respondent Management to show that the

matter went to Police Station. No other document filed

to show they to went to Police Station. From Ex R3, I

shall see that it was the Copy of the report in non

cognizable offences of Karikalampakkam out post police

station in which the complainant was the security

supervisor one Poorna Chandra Dass (MW.2 in

Domestic Enquiry) not the MW.1 Mrs. Sivasankari.

Further the contents of the complaint have been

recorded therein which were totally not related to the

contents that was deposed by MW.1. The content in

Ex.R3 was about the refusal to hand over the mobile

p h o n e b y t h e P e t i t i o n e r E m p l o y e e a n d o n e

Mrs. Veeralakshi. It was not averred in the said Ex.R3,

that Petitioner Employee abused verbally the lady

secutiry nor about the leave form quarrel as alleged by

the both MW.1 and MW.2 in the domestic enquiry.

Further the complaint said to have been lodged by the

Lady supervisor before the Police station has not been

produced before this Court. But, during her cross

examination done by the Petitioner Employee in the

domestic enquiry she deposed that she gave one case

(police complaint)and one letter to the management in

this regard. The letter has been marked as Ex.R7, which

is bereft of particulars such as no date, time, day of

occurrence mentioned in it and moreover when and near

which place alleged occurrence had happened and

who were all witnessed to the occurrence (either the

lady staff who suffered stomach ache to speak about

the alleged obstruction or else any person to speak

about the alleged threat committed by the Petitioner

Employee on the lady security). Though this fact are

not related to the 1st and 2nd charges, I would say that

there is no particulars of the alleged misconduct said

to have been committed by the Petitioner Employee.

22. Whereas, in the enquiry report submitted by the

Domestic Enquiry Officer, dated 03-11-2016 at page

No. 5, in the 1st para answered for the 1st charge as

proved to the contrary that no cogent, consistent

evidence given by both the witnesses before the

Domestic enquiry. At the first instances, they both

never uttered any word relating to the 1st and 2nd

charge. Only the Petitioner Employee asked questions

on the point of 1st charge while cross examination. Both

witnesses answered to the said questions in cross very

evasively.

23. Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer in her report

Ex.R10 at page No. 5 unnumbered para 1 mentioned that,

“during cross examination MW.2 deposed that the

Petitioner Employee refused to hand over the mobile

phone to the security”. But, this fact was not originally

deposed by MW.2 in his chief examination before the

domestic enquiry. Since it was the 1st charge framed

against him, Petitioner Employee put a question in this

regard to MW.2 during cross examination for which he

answered in a very evasive manner in one word as true.

No other details such as when the occurrence (refusal

to handover the mobile phones) happened, when it was

complained, by whom and to whom the complaint was

made. Except this question during the cross-examination

put by the Petitioner Employee, nothing has been

whispered by MW.2 in the domestic enquiry

proceedings.

24. Apart from this, in Ex.R 3-the Copy of the report

in non cognizable offence of Karikalampakkam out post

police station occurrence date has been mentioned as

14-03-2015, but as per the complaint Ex.R1 occurrence

occurred on 10-3-2015; The show cause notice issued

by the Management calling for the Explanation also on

the very same date of alleged occurance 10-03-2015

(EX.R2). No reason adduced on the side of Management

for delay in reporting the occurrence on 14-03-2015 to

the police when they issued show cause notice on

10-03-2015 itself. Further, it has been clearly mentioned

in the police report that 14-03-2015 was the occurrence

date. Therefore, even the date of occurance of 1st and

2nd charges is under confusion and leads to suspicion

and failure of both management witnesses in the

domestic enquiry to depose about the 1st and 2nd

charges at the first instance, leads to the conclusion

that 1st and 2nd charges have not been proved prima

facie in the enquiry proceedings.

25. When I look into the evidence adduced before

the court, I shall see that RW.1 Mrs. Manjula, the

Manager HR has deposed that, 09á03á2015 ∂[Æ

\–>V´Ï *ı|D ºkÁÈ¬z ºƒÏÕ> \ÆÂVº·, ∂>Vkm

10á03á2015 º>]l_ ŒÚ show cause notice ®∫Ô^

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 January 2023

WÆk™D >Õ>m. ®∫Ô^ WÆk™›][ security Poorna

Chandran ®[√kÏ JÈD Ôˆ¬ÔÈVD√V¬ÔD ÔVk_

WÁÈB›]_, \–>V´Ï *m ŒÚ AÔVÏ \– ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶m

®[≈V_ g\VD. Ex.R3á_ \–>V´ˆ[ ÁÔÿBø›m ®m°D

ÔVð©√¶s_ÁÈ. From all these above facts, I shall see

substance in the defence made by the Petitioner

Employee that the Management documents such as

complaints, show cause notice were not reliable in

absence of the supportive evidence.

26. With regard to 3rd charge, I find that Ex.R1

complaint by the Security Supervisor on 10-03-2015 to

the Manager Management and Ex.R3 Non-Cognizable

Offences report contain different dates of occurrence

namely 10-03-2015 and 14-03-2015 respectively. On Ex.R2

the show cause notice calling for explanation on Ex.R1

complaint, it is mentioned as Petitioner Employee

refused to receive the said notice. For which the

Petitioner Employee in his explanation (Ex.R18/P18),

dated 08-07-2016 has mentioned at page 3 that he never

served with the notice and when he was very well

present in the company the management did not serve

the copy of the show cause notice, dated 17-03-2015

on the Petitioner Employee at the office but the show

cause notice, dated 17-03-2015 was said to have been

sent to the Petitioner residence through registered post.

He further explained in the explanation Ex.R18/P18,

dated 08-07-2016 that he never refused to receive any

communication/letter that was tendered by the

management including the show cause notice, dated

05-07-2016. He has given his explanation that, “since

Petitioner Employee has refused to receive the show

cause notices more particularly notice, dated 17-03-2015

it was sent to the Petitioner residence” is according to

the Petitioner Employee is purely an after thought. He

further explained that he never refused any such notice

directly in person nor received through post. He thus

concluded his explanation for the 3rd charge that it is

the action of the management to gather documents

against the Petitioner Employee. While answering the

1st charge the Petitioner Employee has given a detailed

explanation on the 1st charge (refusal to hand over the

mobile phone to the security) that he always comply

the above condition and never refused to give his

mobile phone to the security. According to the

Petitioner Employee, the management in order to collect

evidence in documentary nature has created Ex.R1, R3

and in consequent of these Ex.R4 as against the

Petitioner Employee as if, he refused to hand over the

mobile phone to the security. For the show cause notice,

dated 05-07-2016 which as already found above with

incomplete vague allegations againts the petitioner

employee, he had given a reply with explanation on

08-07-2016 (Ex.R18/P18). According to the respondent

Management the matter went to Police Station and there

Petitioner Workman agreed not to repeat the same

hereafter and thus settled. That was on 14-03-2016.

When that was the case what is the necessity for the

respondent Management to issue show cause notice for

the same issue subsequently on 17-03-2016. Therefore,

it creates suspicion and the 3rd charge that petitioner

workman did not give explanation to the notices issued

and at the same time managemnt would also say and

frame charge as petitioner workman gave improper reply

to the notices. Thus it can't blow hot and cold about

whether Petitioner workman has not given any reply or

improper reply in this regard.

27. As already discussed above Ex.R4 the report of

non cognizable offence registered in Karikalampakkam

out post Police Station, but, no documents produced

on the side of the respondent management to show the

Petitioner was called upon, enquired and admitted to

hand over the mobile phone to the security in future

without creating any resistance. The Petitioner

Employee specifically denied the 1st charge that

everyday he used to hand over the mobile phone to the

security and no such quarrel happened as alleged in

Ex.R1 and R3. He admitted that he was called for the

enquiry in the Karikalampakkam Police Station, but, after

hearing him the Station House Officer let him to go

since there was no case as alleged in the complaint.

Further in his explanation Ex.P18/R18 he would also state

that if, at all there was a compromise held in the Police

Station it could be reduced into writing and obtained

the signature of the Petitioner Employee. But, nothing

was produced in this regard to show that the 1st charge

has been committed by the Petitioner Employee.

28. The oral evidences of MW.1 and MW.2 before

the domestic enquiry did not help and not prima facie

enough to prove the 1st and the consequent 2nd

charge. Therefore, in absence of oral evidence in

Domestic Enquiry, difference in the date of occurrence

in Ex. R1, R2 with that of R3 with regard to 1st and 2nd

charge (refusal to hand over the mobile phone in the

security room and thereby threatened the security),

when it was denied specifically by the Petitioner in his

explanation Ex.P18/R18, even no witness produced on

the mamagement side to speak about the said charges

before this Court and further the Petitioner had

submitted his explanation on 08-07-2016 to the show

cause notice (containing Vague allegations), dated

05-07-2016, by initiating the domestic enquiry without

giving sufficient time for the Petitioner Employee to

submit his explanation on the charge-sheet, dated

13-07-2016, this Court has decided that 1st , 2nd and

3rd charges are not Prima facie proved.

10 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

29. 4th Charge:-

(a) that often sitting inside the security room and

picking unnecessary quarrels with security;

(b) that picking improper quarrels with lady

security; and

doing their duty.

30. In order to prove the last charge, Ex.R5, Ex.R6,

Ex.R7 complaints were relied by the Management. Ex.R5

is the complaint given by security officer that the

Petitioner Workman and said Mrs. Veeralakshmi were

sitting inside the security room while the security

officers were on rounds. When the security officers

came back to the room both the Petitioner Workman

and Mrs. Veeralakshmi came out and sat outside the

room. Ex.R6 is the complaint, dated 22-06-2016 by the

security supervisor to the General Manager alleging that

the Petitioner Workman was disturbing their duty in

security gate and unnecessarily speaking to our

security and lady security. Ex.R7 is the complaint by

the lady security to the General Manager alleging that

the Petitioner Workman was obstructing to do the

security work and unnecessarily talking to her and

thereby caused hindrance from doing her duty. Further,

alleged that daily he used to give a book and asked her

to read the same.?

31. In page No. 5 of the domestic enquiry report

Ex.R10 at unnumbered 2nd para, ÷´ı¶Vk>VÔ

ƒD\Õ>©√‚¶ ÿ>VaÈVπ, √VmÔVkÈˆ[ ∂Á≈¬z ÿƒ[Æ

∂\ÏÕm ÿÔV^km �ÆD ∂kÏÔ”¶[ º>ÁkBu≈

kV¬zkV>›]_

~|√|km

º√V[≈

ÿƒB_Ôπ_

~|√‚|^·V´? ®[≈ ®øs™VsÁ™© ÿ√VÆ›> kÁ´l_

ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ¬z^ ºkÁÈ¬z kÚD ÿ>VaÈVπ ®[˛≈

kÁÔl_, ºkÁÈ ºÂ´›]_, WÏkVÔD ®∫z ºkÁÈ¬

ÿÔV|¬˛≈º>V �ÆD ®[™ ºkÁÈ¬ ÿÔV|¬˛≈º>V

∂Á> \‚|º\ ÿƒFB¬ Ô¶Á\© √‚¶k´VkÏ. g™V_

∂Á> s‚|s‚|, ÷kÚ¬z √Ë Œm¬Ô©√‚¶ ÷¶›Á>

s‚|ﬂ ÿƒ[Æ, √VmÔVkÈÏÔπ[ ∂Á≈l_ ∂\ÏÕm

ÿÔV^km, º>Ákl_ÈV> s≠B∫ÔÁ·© √u§ º√E

∂kÏÔ^ √Ël_ ÷Á¶RÆ ÿƒFkm, ∂kÏÔ·m

√]ºk|ÔÁ· ∂kÏÔ^ ∂–\]l_ÈV\_ ®|›m √VÏ©√m,

∂Á>

>|¬zD

√VmÔVkÈÏÔπ¶D

º>ÁkBu≈

kV¬zkV>›]_ ~|√|km, ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ¬z^ kÚD

kVÔ™∫ÔÁ· OÁwkVlo_ WÆ›] ºƒV>Á™ ÿƒF•D

ƒ\B∫Ôπ_ ÿ>VÕ>´° ÿƒFkm �ÆD Tı ∏´ﬂƒÁ™Ô^

ÿƒFkm º√V[≈ ÿƒB_Ôπ_ ~|√‚|^·VÏ. ÷m z§›m

ƒD\Õ>©√‚¶ ÿ√ı √VmÔVkÈ´V_ Ôˆ¬ÔÈVDÔV©√D

ÔVk_ WÁÈB›]_ AÔVÚD ∂π¬Ô©√‚|^·m. º\KD,

ƒD√Õ>©√‚¶ ÿ√ı √VmÔVkÈˆ¶D, √È ƒ\B∫Ôπ_

ƒD\Õ>©√‚¶ ÿ>VwÈVπ º>ÁkBu≈ A›>Ô∫ÔÁ·¬

ÿÔV|›m √Ω¬Ô ÿƒV_o kuAÆ›]•^·VÏ ®[√mD, gÆ

]Ú\]

Ekƒ∫Ôˆl[

kV¬zJÈ›][

JÈxD,

ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_ √ËAˆ•D ÷>´ √VmÔVkÈÏÔπ[ AÔVÏ

ÔΩ>∫Ô^ JÈxD ÿ>^·› ÿ>πkVÔ› ÿ>ˆ˛≈m.

32. Whereas, MW.1 in her cross-examination at page

35 of the domestic enquiry proceedings for the question

No. 38, answered to the question put by the Petitioner

Employee that she never gave complaint as Petitioner

Employee has taken registers in the security room

unnecessarily and refused to give back. MW.2 also in

his cross examination at page 54 of the domestic

enquiry proceedings for the question No. 63, answered

to the question put by the Petitioner Employee that

Petitioner Employee has never taken any registers in

the security room unnecessarily and never refused to

give back.

33. MW.1 furhter deposed that Petitioner was

talking unnecessarily and give unwanted books to

read. she also deposed at page No. 29 to the Question

No.19 that Petitioner Employee gave their Union book

to read, but, she said not required.

34. Whereas, MW.1 in his cross-examination at page

27-28 of the domestic enquiry proceedings for the

question No.17, denied that he has not stated as

Petitioner Employee was obstructing at the gate while

they were checking the vehicle in the gate. As

mentioned in the Domestic Enquiry report, no complaint

by Lady security said to have been lodged in the Police

Station in this regard has been filed either before the

Domestic Enquiry or before the Court.

35. MW.1 in her cross-examination at page 29 of the

domestic enquiry proceedings for the question No. 19,

she stated that Petitioner Employee gave his Union

Book to read once. Except this, no evidence available

as against the Petitioner Employee. That too while

answering the specific question put by the Petitioner

Employee about what book he gave to her and

compelled to read?

36. From the above referred oral evidence and the

documents marked even on the side of the respondent

Management in the domestic enquiry proceedings, this

Court could not able to find how the enquiry officer has

given a finding beyond the charges framed, that too

about the new facts what was not utterred by anyone

of the Management witnesses before her. Therefore,

the conclusion thus arrived by the Domestic Enquiry

Officer that the charges framed against the Petitioner

Employee were proved could not be acceptable in the

eye of Law.

37. Moreover, with regard to 4th charge, the

Petitioner Employee in Ex.P18/R18 has given his

explanation that the allegations contained in the said

charge suffers for vague description such as no date,

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 January 2023

time specified in the said charge. In the said charge there

is no mention with whom the Petitioner Employee had

quarrelled or unnecessarily had conversation thereby

disturbing the security work. Further, with regard to the

fact that Petitioner Employee has alleged to give some

books to the lady security and compel to read the same,

the Petitioner Employee specifically has put questioned

to the lady security MW.1 in the domestic enquiry

proceedings (page No. 29, Q.No.19) for which the lady

security namely MW.1 answered that Petitioner

Employee gave a book regarding his Union and she

refused.

38. Further, with regard to 4th charge, nothing has

been elucidated in favour of the respondent

management from RW.1 before this Court. RW.1 during

her

cross-examination

before

this Court

has

categorically admitted that there is no complaint against

the Petitioner Employee alleging that he verbally

abused the lady Employees. No such complaint ever

received by respondent management as against the

Petitioner Employee. Even in Ex.R7 complaint given by

the lady security there is no such word as Petitioner

Employee abused her. Further RW.1 admits that in Ex.R9

(examination of witnesses in domestic enquiry

proceedings) also MW.1 and MW.2 have spoken that

only the Petitioner Employee insisted the lady security

to take the lady staff to the hospital who was suffering

stomach ache due to mensuration. Except this nothing

more mentioned in Ex.R9. For better appreciation the

relevant portion of RW1 cross-examination has been

reproduced hereunder:

RW.1 Mrs. Manjula, the Manager HR has deposed

during her cross examination that, “>uº√Vm

®[M¶D ÔVı∏¬Ô©√|D charge-sheet,

dated

13á07á2016, ®∫Ô^ WÆk™D ÿÔV|›> charge-sheet

gzD. º�√Ω charge-sheetá_ \–>V´Ï ÿ√ıÔπ¶D

>ÔV> kVÏ›Á> º√∑k>VÔ°D, >ÔV> xÁ≈l_

Â¶ÕmÿÔVı¶>VÔºkV ®m°D ÷_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ∂]_

“ÿ√ı √VmÔVkÈˆ¶D xÁ≈Bu≈ kV¬zkV>›]_

~|√‚¶>VÔ°D, ∂kÁ´ √Ë ÿƒFB >|›>>VÔ°D

c^·m” ®[Æ ƒV‚E √>Èπ¬˛≈VÏ. 09-03-2015

∂[Æ \–>V´Ï *ı|D ºkÁÈ¬z ºƒÏÕ> \ÆÂVº·,

∂>Vkm 10á03á2015 º>]l_ ŒÚ show cause notice

®∫Ô^ WÆk™D >Õ>m. ®∫Ô^ WÆk™›][ security

Poorna Chandran ®[√kÏ JÈD Ôˆ¬ÔÈVD√V¬ÔD

ÔVk_ WÁÈB›]_, \–>V´Ï *m ŒÚ AÔVÏ \–

∂π¬Ô©√‚¶m ®[≈V_ g\VD. Ex.R3á_ \–>V´ˆ[

ÁÔÿBø›m ®m°D ÔVð©√¶s_ÁÈ. \–>V´Ï

ÿ√ıÔπ¶D >ÔV>kVÆ Â¶Õm¬ÿÔV^k>VÔﬂ ÿƒV_o

®Õ>s>

AÔVÚD

ÔVk_WÁÈB›]_

®∫Ô^

WÆk™›][

JÈD

>´©√¶s_ÁÈ.

ÿ√ı

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔº·V ∂ÀkVÆ ®Õ> AÔVÚD >´s_ÁÈ.

Ex.R7 ÿ√ı √VmÔVkÈÏ ®∫Ô^ WÆk™›]uz ∂π›>

AÔ´VzD. Ex.R7áM_ \–>V´Ï ÿ√ı √VmÔVkÈˆ¶D

>ÔV> xÁ≈l_ º√EB>VÔºkV, >ÔV> xÁ≈l_

Â¶ÕmÿÔV^k>VÔºkV ÷_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ g\VD, g™V_

º>Ákl_ÈV\_ º√∑k>VÔ Ex.R7áM_ c^·m.

\–>V´Ï >™¬z √Ë ∂π¬ÔV\_ ÷Ú©√m tzÕ>

\™cÁÈﬂƒÈVÔ ÷Ú¬˛≈m ®[ÆD, √Ë ∂π¬Ô ºÔVˆ

WÏkVÔ›]uz ∑\VÏ 13 ÔΩ>∫Ô^ ∂π›m^·VÏ ®[≈V_

g\VD. ∂Õ> 13 ÔΩ>∫ÔÁ· ÿ√uÆ¬ÿÔVı¶ ÂV∫Ô^,

∂kÚ¬z √Ë >´°D ÷_ÁÈ, ∂>uz √]_ >´°D

÷_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ g\VD. Domestic enquiryá_ º�√Ω

ÿ√ı √VmÔVkÈÁ´ sƒV´Áð ÿƒF>º√Vm, ∂kÏ

\–>V´Ï >[M¶D ºkÆ ŒÚ ƒÔ ÿ√ıÿ>VaÈVπ¬z

\V>s¶VF

∏´ﬂƒÁ™

÷Ú©√>VÔ°D,

∂kÁ´

\Ú›mk\Á™¬z ∂Áw›mﬂ ÿƒ_K\VÆD Ì§™VÏ,

®[Æ>V[ ÿƒV_o•^·VÏ (Ex.P9).

39. From the above referred oral evidence and the

documents marked even on the side of the respondent

Management, this Court could able to find that the

allegation made on the Petitioner Workman regarding

refusal to hand over the mobile phone in the security

room, verbally or sexually abused or threatened the lady

Security Officer and restraining the securities more

particularly the lady Security Officer from doing her

duty during her duty hours, etc., are remained unproved

either by way of cogent oral evidence or by

documentary evidences. No prima facie proof made out

as against the charges framed in the charge-sheet Ex.R8.

40. On the other hand, the Petitioner Workman has

marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 on his side. Out of which Ex.P3

to Ex.P16 were the letters addressed by the Petitioner

Workman to the Respondent Management requesting

to allot him work inside the factory. From these Exhibits

Ex.P3 to Ex.P16, this Court could able to find that the

Petitioner Workman since his date of rejoining the duty

i.e., from 09-03-2015 was made to sit idle near the

security room i.e., at the gate of the factory without

giving any work inside the factory. In all the above

referred letters, the Petitioner Workman requested to

allot him work and it was also specifically mentioned

that not allowing him inside the factory for work thereby

not allotting any work to him amounts to unfair labour

practices. He further mentioned in those letters namely

Ex.P3 to Ex.P16 from 10-03-2015 to 30-06-2016 (14 letters)

that not allowing him inside the factory, not allotting

him any work, made him to sit outside the factory near

the security room under the tree deemed to be a kind

of untouchability. This fact of not allotting any work

to the Petitioner Workman and made him to sit idle

under the tree near the security room was categorically

admitted by the Management witness namely RW.1

during her cross-examination. RW.1 Mrs. Manjula, the

Manager HR has deposed that, “17B - go basic salary

>ÚD√Ω

c›>´s¶©√‚¶m

∂Ω©√Á¶

ƒD√·›Á>

WÆ›]s‚|, WÏkVÔ›]¶tÚÕm, \–>V´Á´ √Ël_

10 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

∂Õ> gÁðÁB ÿ√uÆ¬ÿÔVı| \ÆÂVº·, ∂>Vkm

09-03-2015 ∂[Æ ºkÁÈl_ ºƒÏÕms‚¶VÏ. \–>V´Ï

ºkÁÈ¬z ºƒÏÕ> ÂVπoÚÕm ∂>Vkm 09-03-2015

x>_ 05-07-2016 kÁ´ ∂kÚ¬z ®Õ>s> ºkÁÈ•D

41. Thus, the Petitioner Employee admittedly made

to sit near the security room under the tree from the

date of his rejoining for continous 13 months till his

dismissal. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that

Petitioner Employee coming inside the security room

sometimes and sitting inside and talking to the security,

it could not find substance in saying mere coming to

the Security room and talking with the security amounts

to misconduct. In case, if, the respondent managment

accomodated the Petitioner Employee inside the factory

by alloting him any work but, he failed to do the work

so alloted and without doing his work he left his place

of work and coming often inside the security room

unnecessarily and then it may amounts to misconduct.

But, this is not the case here. On consideration of all

the above this Court holds that the dismissal of the

Petitioner is not justified. Hence, order of dismissal is

liable to be set aside.

42. From the above discussions and findings, this

Court holds that the domestic enquiry conducted is

not fair and Principles of Natural Justice not followed.

Thus, the finding of the enquiry is set aside. This Court

further finds that the charges framed against the

Petitioner Employee have not been prima facie proved.

Therefore, this Court upon consideration of these facts

and circumstance comes to a conclusion that the

Respondent Management failed to establish the

dismissal of the petitioner on valid charges and the

contentions of the Respondent Management are also

not acceptable and therefore, the Petitioner is entitled

for reinstatement with back wages, continuity of

service and all other attendant benefits.

In the result, this industrial dispute is allowed by

setting aside the dismissal order. Further, the

Respondent Management is directed to reinstate the

Petitioner with continuity of service and to pay full back

wages and all other attendant benefits from the date of

his dismissal till his date of reinstatement. There is no

order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this

29th day of August 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 26-02-2020

Chellakannu

List of petitioner’s side exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 26-02-2015

Photocopy of the notice

issued by the Management

to the Petitioner.

Ex.P2

— 09-03-2015

Photocopy of the reply to

Ex.P1

given

the

Petitioner

the

Management.

Ex.P3

— 10-03-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P4

— 11-03-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the

respondent/Manager

with postal receipt.

Ex.P5

— 02-07-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the respondent/Manager.

Ex.P6

— 11-07-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P7

— 19-08-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P8

— 19-09-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P9

— 19-10-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P10 — 19-11-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent / Manager.

Ex.P11 — 19-12-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P12 — 20-01-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 January 2023

Ex.P13 — 25-02-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P14 — 21-03-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P15 — 12-04-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P16 — 30-06-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Managing Director of

the Respondent/Manager.

Ex.P17 — 05-07-2016

Show cause notice issued by

the Abirami Soap Works to

the Petitioner.

Ex.P18 — 08-07-2016

Photocopy

the

explanation submitted by

the

Petitioner

the

Managing Director of Power

Soap Limited.

Ex.P19 — 13-07-2016

Photocopy of the show

cause notice where charges

framed

against

the

Petitioner Employee issued

the

Respondent

Management

the

Petitioner.

Ex.P20 — 28-06-2017

Photocopy of the petition

filed under section 2 (A) of

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

by the Petitioner before the

Conciliation Officer against

Respondent Company.

List of respondent witnesses:

RW.1

— 17-11-2021

Mrs. P. Manjula

List of respondent side exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 10-03-2015

Photocopy of the complaint

given

Security

Supervisor Mr. P.C. Doss to

the Manager, Respondent.

Ex.R2

— 10-03-2015

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued by the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner Workman

with copies of the postal

receipt and Acknowledgment

Card.

Ex.R3

— 14-03-2015

Photocopy of the report in

non cognizable offences of

Karikalampakkam out post

Police Station.

Ex.R4

— 17-03-2015

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued by the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner Workman

with copy of the postal

receipt.

Ex.R5

— 09-05-2016

Photocopy of the complaint

given

Security

Supervisor Mr. P.C. Doss to

the

General

Manager,

Respondent.

Ex.R6

— 22-06-2016

Photocopy of the complaint

given

Security

Supervisor Mr. P.C. Doss to

the

General

Manager,

Respondent.

Ex.R7

— 25-06-2016

Photocopy of the complaint

given by Lady Security to

the

General

Manager,

respondent.

Ex.R8

— 13-07-2016

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued by the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner Workman.

Ex.R9

— 15-07-2016

Photocopy of the domestic

enquiry proceedings

29-09-2016

(containing page Nos. 10

to 69).

Ex.R10 — 03-11-2016

Photocopy of the domestic

Enquiry Report.

Ex.R11 — 19-11-2016

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued by the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner Workman

with

copy

the

Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.R12 — 26-11-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner

Workman addressed to the

Managing

Director,

Respondent Management

seeking time for submitting

his reply.

Ex.R13 — 26-11-2016

Photocopy of the dismissal

order of the Petitioner

Workman issued by the

Respondent Management.

10 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R14 — 07-12-2016

Photocopy

the

memorandum intimating the

Petitioner Workman about

his termination and cheque

details with copy of the

Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.R15 — 05-07-2017

Photocopy of the notice of

remarks issued by Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Government of Puducherry

the

Respondent

Management along with the

copy of the Section 2(A) on

Industrial

Dispute

Act

petition.

Ex.R16 — 14-07-2017

Photocopy of the reply

given

Respondent

Management to Ex.R15.

Ex.R17 — 05-07-2016

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued by the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner Workman.

Ex.R18 — 08-07-2016

Photocopy

the

Explanation given by the

Petitioner Workman to the

Managing

Director

Ex.R17.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LOCAL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT

(G.O. Ms. No. 57/LAS/A5/2022,

Puducherry, dated 20th December 2022)

ORDER

Approval of the Hon’ble Lieutenant-Governor, is

hereby accorded for conducting door to door

enumeration of OBC population ward-wise, by Single

Member Commission for recommending reservation for

OBCs under supervision of the concerned Local Bodies

across the Union territory of Puducherry, towards

conduct of Civic Elections in this Union territory of

Puducherry.

(By order)

G. KARTHIGESAN,

Under Secretary to Government

(Local Administration).

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 179/Lab./AIL/T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 20th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. ATC Chemicals India Private Limited,

Puducherry and All India United Trade Union Centre

(AIUTUC), over reinstatement of Thiru Prasanth Kumar

Behra and 4 others with back wages and other attendant

benefits, 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. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (c) 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 Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication. The

Labour Court, 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 Labour Court,

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 any employer-employee relationship

exists between the workers namely, Thiru Prasanth

Kumar Behra and 4 others, represented by the

Union AIUTUC and the management of M/s.

ATC Chemicals India Private Limited, Puducherry.

(ii) If so, whether the dispute raised by the All India

United Trade Union Centre, against the management

of M/s. ATC Chemicals India Private Limited,

Puducherry, over non-employment of 5 workmen

namely, Thiruvalargal (1) Prasanth Kumar Behra,

(2) Nabin Parida, (3) Balaram Das, (4) Beemasendas

@ Rajudas and (5) Kamalesh Sharma, along with back