[111]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

112

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 112

Award of the Labour Court .. 112

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

132

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 132

Government Notifications

.. 132

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

133

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 133

Tender Notice

133

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

134

Annonces

.. 134

Announcements

134

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

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

∏©´kˆ |

7 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2023 (18 Magha 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

7th

February

2023

112

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 176/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 20/2019, dated

07-09-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of dispute between the

management of Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited

(Formerly called SABMiller India Limited), Puducherry

and Thiru K. Gunasekaran, Puducherry, over

reinstatement with wages from 15-05-2013 till his

construed date of retiremnt that is, 03-11-2014 with all

monetary and service benefits.

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 07th day of September, 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 20/2019

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000026-2019

K. Gunasekaran,

No. 4, Main Road, S.V. Nagar,

Sokkanathanpet,

Puducherry-605 009.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited,

(Formerly called SAB Miller Limited),

Ayyankuttipalayam,

Puducherry-605 009.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 29-08-2022

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru R. Soupramanien, Counsel for the Petitioner and

Tvl. R. Thirumavalavan and R. Ramachandiran, 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. 45/AIL/LAB/T/2019,

dated 18-03-2019 for adjudicating whether the industrial

dispute raised by the Petitioner Thiru K. Gunasekaran,

Puducherry against the Management of M/s. Anheuser

Busch InBev India Limited (Formerly called SAB Miller

India Limited), Puducherry, over reinstatement with wages

from 15-05-2013 till his construed date of retirement that

is, 03-11-2014 with all monetary and service benefits 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) The petitioner raised an industrial dispute

before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 11-5-2018

against the respondent management. The Conciliation

was ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer

submitted his failure report 06-12-2018 to Government

of Puducherry. Considering the failure report, the

Government of Puducherry referred the above dispute

before this Hon’ble Court for adjudication under the

Government Order vide G.O. 45/AIL/LAB/T/2019,

dated 18-03-2019 with reference:

(ii) The petitioner was joined as Process Operator

in the respondent factory on 13-01-1979 and

inadvertently his date of birth was recorded as

15-05-1955. Later the petitioner came to know that his

actual date of birth was registered as 04-11-1956.

Hence, made a representation to the respondent

management through a letter, dated 15-10-2012 with

a request to rectify the date of birth based on his

birth certificate as 04-11-1956 and requested the

respondent company to revise the date of retirement

as 03-11-2014 according to the actual date of birth

dated 04-11-1956.

(iii) The

Management

has

rejected

the

represention seeking correction in his date of birth in

the service records and corresponding date of

retirement as 03-11-2014.

(iv) The petitioner approached the Hon’ble

I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry seeking a

relief declaration and mandatory injunction wherein,

he sought the relief to declare that his date of birth is

04-11-1956 as per birth certificate and mandatory

113

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

injunction directing the respondent management to

provide continuation of service or in the alternative

to grant back wages, increments, arrears as

permissible from 01-06-2013 till the date of decree.

(v) Though the Hon’ble I Additional District

Munsif, Puducherry granted the declaration of date

of birth is 04-11-1956, however, declined to grant other

reliefs with an observation that the petitioner has right

to approach before Labour Court.

( vi) The petitioner has continuously demanding

for reinstatement as per his actual date of birth in the

respondent's company and the respondent company

has refused to issue the order of reinstatement of his

service. Therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial

dispute in this regard before Labour Conciliation to

intervene and pass an order reemployment

retrospectively from 14-05-2013 with back wages.

However, the respondent refused for reemployment

retrospectively towards service for the remaining

period.

Grounds

(a) The petitioner was joined as Process Operator

in the respondent factory on 13-01-1979 and the date

of birth was inadvertently recorded as 15-05-1955

instead of 04-11-1956. The respondent factory failed

to note that date of birth is the primary document

would be the fundamental evidence for deciding the

date of retirement for an employee irrespective of the

fact that he is working any private concern or

Government employee or Government Undertaking etc.

(b) The respondent failed to consider that on

gaining of knowledge of actual date of birth by

obtaining birth certificate from Cuddalore District, the

petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent

factory that his date of birth was erroneously entered

in the service records by letter, dated 15-10-2012 to

rectify the same by extending the date of retirement

as per his birth certificate. The respondent factory

failed to revise the date of retirement based upon his

actual date of birth and deliberately refused to

consider his request by its reply, dated 05-11-2012.

I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry even while

he was in service approached Court seeking relief for

declaration and mandatory injunction wherein,

Hon’ble Judge has confirmed his date of birth is

04-11-1956, however, made an observation that the

petitioner shall workout remedy with Labour Court, as

such, the petitioner referred the dispute before office

of the Labour Office (Conciliation), but, the

conciliation got failed.

(d) The respondent factory even during pendency

of the proceedings the management has discharged

him from service on 14-05-2013 wherein, the petitioner

made endorsement with objection indicating the

pendency of the case before Civil Court on 23-04-2013.

(e) The respondent management failed to note that

the date of birth is 04-11-1956 and corresponding date

of retirement falls only on 03-11-2014. Hence, the

petitioner ought to have provided employment for the

period from 15-05-2013 till 03-11-2014 with salaries

dues and other benefits which are entitled for the

petitioner. The denial of reinstatement would amount

to violation of Industrial Dispute, Act. Hence, this

petition.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

respondent are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner had totally suppressed the

material facts with sole intention to harass the

Respondent/Management and to get enriched

dishonestly and has not come with clean hands and

is not entitled to seek an relief much less the relief

claimed in the petition. The petitioner joined duty with

the Respondent on 13-01-1979 and at the time of filing

up the application he had mentioned only as

15-05-1955. The petitioner had done his education in

S.S.L.C. in the Government High School, Panruti and

had done his PUC in the Government Arts College,

Cuddalore but, had not chosen to produce his study

certificates which creates doubt in the petitioner’s

correct date of birth.

(ii) The petitioner had not mentioned any details,

on what documentary evidence, the alleged birth

certificate was obtained and only on 15-10-2012, just

6 months before his retirement the alleged birth

certificate was obtained such belatedly and the

Municipal Administration, Cuddalore is not added as

party before the Civil Court.

(iii) The claim of the petitioner to reinstate him in

service is unwarranted and in the view of the findings

of the various High Court and Supreme Court that

even assuming that the date of birth of the plaintiff is

14-11-1956, the application has to be made within

reasonable time.

(iv) That even if, the service rules are silent in this

aspect, notwithstanding the same an application made

after 33 years of service and almost within 6 months

of his retirement his plea that he came to know only

very recently is not tenable when his date of birth is

mentioned as 15-05-1955 in his application form for

joining duty, when he submitted his nomination and

114

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

declaration form under ESI pension scheme on

23-12-1996 and in all his monthly salary slip till date,

the birth date of the petitioner is mentioned as

15-05-1955.

(v) When the petitioner had taken an LIC policy

in policy No.732010946, his date of birth is mentioned

as 15-05-1955, and for all the reasons mention supra

the above claim of the petitioner directing the

Respondent/Management to reinstate him with back

wages with such increments, arrears as permissible on

01-06-2013 is devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

(vi) That in O.S. No. 154/2013, the Honourable

Court was pleased to observe that “this Court comes

to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of this Court is

barred for the reliefs of reinstatement, and mandatory

injunction to correct the date of birth in the service

records and also for the relief of back wages as

claimed”. Hence, no relief had been granted to

petitioner with regard to the service condition of the

petitioner with the respondent and the petitioner

retired from service on his superannuation as per his

service records.

(vii) The petitioner preferred appeal against the

order of the I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry

in A.S. No. 77/2018 but, at the very last minute chose

to withdraw the same on 07-03-2019 after several

hearings for arguments and the appeal was dismissed

as withdrawn. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

4. The Points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement with wages from 15-05-2013 till his

construed date of retirement, i.e., 03-11-2014 with all

monetary and service benefits as prayed for ?

2. To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

5. On Points:

On the Petitioner side, Mr. K. Gunasekaran/the

Petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and Exs. P1

to P9 were marked. On the respondent side,

Mr. Ramamoorthy, Assistant Manager (HR) of the

respondent company was examined as RW1 and

Ex. R1 was marked.

6. On the Points :

On the petitioner side, it is argued that the

petitioner was joined as Process Operator in the

respondent factory on 13-01-1979 and the date of birth

was inadvertently recorded as 15-05-1955 instead of

04-11-1956. On gaining of knowledge of actual

date of birth by obtaining birth certificate from

Cuddalore District, the petitioner has brought to the

notice of the respondent factory that his date of birth

was erroneously entered in the service records by

letter, dated 15-10-2012 to rectify the same by

extending the date of retirement as per his birth

certificate. But, management failed to revise the date

of retirement based upon his actual date of birth and

deliberately refused to consider his request by its

reply, dated 05-11-2012. Thus, the Petitioner had

approached the Hon'ble I Additional District Munsif,

Puducherry even while he was in service seeking relief

for declaration and mandatory injunction wherein,

Hon'ble Judge has confirmed his date of birth is

04-11-1956, however, made an observation that the

petitioner shall workout remedy with Labour Court.

Even during pendency of the proceedings the

Management has discharged him from service on

14-05-2013 wherein, the petitioner made endorsement

with objection indicating the pendency of the case

before Civil Court on 23-04-2013. The date of birth is

04-11-1956 and corresponding date of retirement falls

only on 03-11-2014. Hence, the petitioner ought to

have provided employment for the period from

15-05-2013 till 03-11-2014 with salaries dues and other

benefits which are entitled for the petitioner. The

denial of reinstatement would amount to violation of

Industrial Disputes Act.

7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has in that

regard relied on the decision in Writ Appeal No.781 of

2019 and C.M.P. No. 6179 of 2019 reported in CDJ 2020

MHC 3979, Where, the case of the petitioner therein is

that his mother who is an illiterate and therefore at the

time when he joined S.S.L.C. during the year 1978, with

the assistance of someone else, she had filled up the

application form and furnished his date of birth as

20-10-1961, instead of 10-10-1962. This case law is not

applicable to the facts of the case in hand.

8. On Petitioner-workman side, following documents

exhibited in support of his contentions: The Photocopy

of the Representation of the Petitioner to the HR of the

respondent company for rectification of his date of birth

in service records, dated 15-10-2012 (EX.P1); Photocopy

of the Reply given by the respondent to EX.P1, dated

05-11-2012 (EX.P2); Photocopy of the Retirement order

issued by the respondent to the Petitioner, dated

23-04-2013 (EX.P3); Photocopy of the birth certificate

issued by the Department of Municipal Administration

and Water Supply, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated

08-10-2012 (EX.P4); Photocopy of Judgment passed in

O.S.No.154/2013, dated 25-01-2018 by the I Additional

District Munsif, Puducherry (EX.P5); Photocopy of the

Petition under Section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes

Act,1947, dated 15-06-2018 (EX.P6); Photocopy of the

115

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Reply of the Petitioner workman to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government of Puducherry, dated

29-08-2018 (EX.P7); Photocopy of the Failure report of

the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of

Puducherry, dated 06-12-2018 (EX.P8); Photocopy of the

Notification of Failure report in G.O. Rt. No. 45/AIL/LAB/

T/2019, dated 18-03-2019 (EX.P9).

9. On the Respondent side, it is argued that the

Petitioner joined duty with the Respondent on 13-01-1979

and at the time of filing up the application he had

mentioned his date of birth only as 15-05-1955. The

petitioner had done his education in SSLC in the

Government High School, Panruti and had done his PUC

in the Government Arts college, Cuddalore but, had not

chosen to produce his study certificates which creates

doubt in the petitioner's correct date of birth. The

petitioner had not mentioned any details, on what

documentary evidence the alleged birth certificate was

obtained and only on 15-10-2012, just 6 months before

his retirement. The alleged birth certificate was obtained

such belatedly and the Municipal Administration,

Cuddalore is not added as party before the Civil Court.

Even if, the service rules are silent in this aspect,

notwithstanding the same an application made after 33

years of service and almost within 6 months of his

retirement his plea that he came to know only very

recently is not tenable when his date of birth is

mentioned as 15-05-1955 in his application form for

joining duty, when he submitted his nomination and

declaration form under ESI pension scheme on 23-12-1996

and in all his monthly salary slip till date, the birth date

of the petitioner is mentioned as 15-05-1955. When, the

petitioner had taken an LIC policy in policy No.732010946,

his date of birth is mentioned as 15-05-1955. Hence,

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has in

this regard relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India (i) in the case of Factory Manager

Kirloskar Brithers Limited vs Laxman [Civil Appeal

No(s)4387/2019 arising fro SLP(C) Nos. 2592-2593/2018];

(ii) U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and ors vs

Rajkumar Agnihotri - date of judgement - 21-04-2005; and

(iii) AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3418 and (iv) 1995-II-

LLJ659;

11. Heard Both. Perused the case records.

12. The fact that the Petitioner had joined the services

of the respondent on 13-01-1979, at the time of filing up

the application he had mentioned his date of birth only

as 15-05-1955 and the fact that the Petitioner through

his representation made in the year 2012 that is, on

15-10-2012, just 6 months before his retirement was

seeking for change of the entry relating to date of birth,

are the accepted positions. EX.P1 to EX.P3 substantiate

the same.

13. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner had

done his education in SSLC in the Government High

School, Panruti and had done his PUC in the Government

Arts College, Cuddalore but, had not chosen to produce

his study certificates which creates doubt in the

petitioner's correct date of birth. Though the Petitioner

relies on the birth certificate, copy of it marked as EX.P4

to indicate that the date of birth stated therein is 04-11-1956,

it is an admitted fact that the said document had not been

produced before the employer at the time of joining

employment. In that background, the service record

maintained by the respondent will disclose that the date

of birth indicated as 15-05-1955 which had been furnished

by the Petitioner himself as the relevant forms under his

signature contain the said date at the time of his joining

and on various occasions thereafter. The very fact that

the Petitioner through his representation made in the

year 2012 that is, only on 15-10-2012, just 6 months

before his retirement was seeking for change of the entry

relating to date of birth will indicate that what was

contained in the service records is 15-05-1955, which was

the position from 13-01-1979, when he initially joined as

Process Operator in the respondent factory.

14. PW1, the Petitioner himself deposed as follows:

®[–Á¶B PUC and SSLC ƒV[§>µÔπ_ ∏≈Õ>

º>] 15-05-1955 ®™ c^·m. ®[–Á¶B PUC and

S.S.L.C. ƒV[§>µÔπ_ c^· ®™m ∏≈Õ> º>]

15-05-1955 ®™ ÷Ú©√m, ÷mkÁ´lKD \Vu≈D

ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. 13-01-1979 º>]l_ ÂV[

®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_ ºkÁÈ¬zﬂ ºƒÏÕº>[. ÂV[

®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_ ºkÁÈ¬zﬂ ºƒÏÕ>º√Vm

®[–Á¶B SSLC-l[ \VuÆ ƒV[§>µ Œ©√Á¶›º>[.

ÂV[ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_ kw∫˛B ∂Õ> \VuÆ

ƒV[§>µ√Ω ®™m ∏≈Õ> º>] 15-05-1955 >V[.

®]Ï\–>V´Ï

WÏkVÔ›]_

ÂV[

>V¬ÔV_

ÿƒF>

gkð›][√Ω ®[–Á¶B ∏≈Õ> º>] 15-05-1955

®[√>V_ ®[–Á¶B retirement º>] ®[™ÿk[≈V_

∂>–Á¶B 58 kBÁ> Ì‚|k>V_ ∞u√|D º>]ºB

®™m retirement º>]BVzD. 03-11-2013_ ÂV[ retire

g˛s‚º¶[.

®]Ï\–>V´Ï

WÏkVÔ›]¶D

c^·

®[–Á¶B Service Register-l_ ∞º>–D ]Ú›>D

ÿƒFB ºkı|D ®™ Es_ kw¬˛ºÈV �ÆD ÷Õ>

ÿ>Vau>VkVsºÈV ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ ®ø©∏•^º·™V ®[≈V_

ºÔ‚|^º·[. ÂV[ ∂ÀkVÆ ®Às>\V™ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ•D

®ø©∏s_ÁÈ ®[Æ 15-05-2013 x>_ 03-11-2014 kÁ´

®™¬z

∏[

º>]l‚¶

ƒD√·xD

∂>uzı¶V™

√È[Ô”D ºkı|D ®™ ºÔ‚|^º·º™ >s´, ºkÆ

÷>´ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÔ”D ®ø©√s_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_

ƒˆ>V[. ®[–Á¶B Service Record √Ω•D ÂV[

®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_ kw∫˛B gkð›][√Ω•D

ƒˆBV™ º>]l_ {F° ÿ√uÆ^º·[ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_

\Æ¬˛º≈[. ®™¬z ƒD√· ÷´ÊmÔπKD ®™m ∏≈Õ>

º>] 15-05-1955 ®[Æ c^·m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ÂV[

√Ë {F° ÿ√Æk>uz x[A ®[–Á¶B ∏≈Õ> º>]

116

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

>k≈VÔ

c^·m

®[√m

z§›>

ÔΩÔ›Á>

WÏkVÔ›]uz 15-10-2012_ ÿÔV|›º>[. ®™¬z

®[–Á¶B ∏≈Õ> º>] z§›> \–Ák ®[–Á¶B

32 kÚ¶ service xΩÕ> ∏≈z, 33 km kÚ¶ service

xΩk>uz x[√VÔ ®™¬z ÿ>ˆBkÕ>º√Vm, ÷Õ> \–

º√V‚º¶[. OS. No. 154/2013 ®[≈ ∂Õ> Es_ kw¬˛_

WÏkVÔ›][

ƒVÏ∏_

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFB©√‚¶

®]Ï

kw¬zÁ´l_ ®[–Á¶B ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ƒD\Õ>\V™

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÔÁ· Es_ ¿]\[≈›]_ ®ø©√ xΩBVm

®[ÆD ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈›Á>›>V[ ÂV¶ xΩ•D

®[ÆD ÿƒV_oÚÕ>m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂ÀkVÆ ®]Ï

kw¬zÁ´ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF> c¶º™ºB ÂV[ ÿ>VaÈV·Ï

¿]\[≈›Á> 2013áMºÈºB ∂–˛º™™V ®[≈V_

ºÂ´ΩBVÔ k´s_ÁÈ, ƒ\´ƒ ∂]ÔVˆ x[A º√VFs‚|

kÕº>[. 2018D gı| ƒ\´ƒ ∂]ÔVˆÁB ÂVΩº™[

OS. No. 154/2013

®[≈

yÏ©∏uz

®]´VÔ

ÂV[

AS.No. 77/2018 ®[≈ º\_xÁ≈X‚| kw¬ÁÔ >V¬Ô_

ÿƒFº>[ ®[≈V_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFº>[, ∏[™Ï kV√¸

kV∫˛s‚º¶[. º�√Ω ∂©¨_ kw¬˛_ yÏ©A º>]

WÏðl¬Ô©√‚¶ ∏≈z>V[, ∂Õ> yÏ©A ®™¬z ®]´VÔ

kÚD ®™ x[Ì‚ΩºB cðÏÕm¬ÿÔVı|, ÂV[ ∂Á>

kV√¸ kV∫˛º™[ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ \Æ¬˛º≈[.

15. Many a times our Hon'ble Apex Court and various

Hon'ble High Courts have consistently held that the

request for change of the date of birth in the service

records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. In

State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram

Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 423 wherein, a series of

the earlier decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court were taken

note and was held as hereunder:

“Para 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant

has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in

U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad vs. Raj Kumar

Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96].

In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered

a number of judgments of this Court and observed that

the grievance as to the date of birth in the service

record should not be permitted at the fag end of the

service career”.

16. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal

V. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC

(L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee

on the ground that he sought correction in the service

record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting

aside the judgment of the High Court, the Hon’ble Apex

Court observed that the High Court ought not to have

interfered with the decision after almost three decades.

These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case

that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a

large number of employees, therefore, any correction at

the fag end must be discouraged by the Court.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in fact has also held that

even if, there is good evidence to establish that the

recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot

be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of

M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 it is held as

hereunder;

8. “It needs to be emphasised that in matters

involving correction of date of birth of a

government servant, particularly on the eve of his

superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the

Court or the Tribunal has to be circumspect,

cautious and careful while issuing direction for

correction of date of birth, recorded in the service

book at the time of entry into any government

service. Unless the Court or the Tribunal is fully

satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof

relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is

made in accordance with the procedure prescribed

or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the

Department concerned, as the case may be, and a

real injustice has been caused to the person

concerned, the Court or the Tribunal should be

loath to issue a direction for correction of the

service book. Time and again this Court has

expressed the view that if, a government servant

makes a request for correction of the recorded date

of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction

into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed

by his employer, he cannot claim,as a matter of

right, the correction of his date of birth,even if, he

has good evidence to establish that the recorded

date of birth is clearly erroneous. No Court or the

Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep

over their rights (see Union of India vs. Harnam

Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 :

(1993) 24 ATC 92] )”.

18. As Rightly referred and relied on the side of the

respondent that in the case of Factory Manager Kirloskar

Brothers Limited vs. Laxman in SLP (C) Nos.25922593/

2018, dated 25-04-2019 wherein, the belated claim was

not entertained. Further, in the case of M/s Eastern

Coalfields Limited & Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors.

in C.A.No. 7724 of 2011, dated 27-05-2019 wherein, the

Honble Supreme Court of India has held as hereunder:

Page 12 of 16 “....Only one year prior to his

superannuation, Respondent No. 1 raised the dispute

which can be said to be belated dispute and therefore,

the learned Single Judge as well as the employer was

justified in refusing to accept such an issue. The

Division Bench of the High Court has, therefore,

committed a grave error in directing the appellant to

correct the date of birth of Respondent No. 1 in the

service record after number of years and that too when

the issue was raised only one year prior to his

superannuation and as observed hereinabove no

dispute was raised earlier”.

117

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

19. In the above background it is to be noticed as to

whether the representation made by the Petitioner in the

year 2012 that is, only on 15-10-2012, just 6 months

before his retirement can be taken for consideration?

Though such reference is made, in my opinion, the same

was not appropriate in the present facts when more than

three decades had elapsed from the date of employment.

The position is well established that if, a particular date

of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought

cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after

accepting the same to be correct during entire service.

In the instant facts, the position is that the Petitioner

entered service on 13-01-1979. The date of birth entered

as 15-05-1955 has remained on record from the said date.

Admittedly, his date of birth is mentioned as 15-05-1955

in his application form for joining duty, when he

submitted his nomination and declaration form under ESI

pension scheme on 23-12-1996 and in all his monthly

salary slip till date the birth date of the petitioner is

mentioned as 15-05-1955. When the petitioner had taken

an LIC policy in policy No. 732010946, his date of birth

is mentioned as 15-05-1955. In all the said Forms/

Applications, the date of birth of the employee was

required to be mentioned, wherein, the Petitioner on his

own has indicated the date of birth as 15-05-1955.

20. In the instant case, as on the date of joining and

as also in the year 1979, when the Petitioner had an

opportunity to fill up the Nomination Form and rectify

the defect if any, he had indicated the date of birth as

15-05-1955 and had further reiterated the same when

Provident Fund Nomination Form was filled in 1998. It is

only after more than 33 years from the date of his joining

service, for the first time in the year 2012, he had made

the representation. Further, the Petitioner did not avail

the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before

retirement. Instead, the Petitioner retired from service on

14-05-2013 and even thereafter the industrial dispute was

filed only in the year 2019, after five years from the date

of his retirement. In that circumstance also, no

indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner by this Court.

21. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the delay of over

three decades in applying for the correction of date of

birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the Petitioner

notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule

or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within

which such application could be filed. It is trite that even

in such a situation such an application should be filed

which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed

by the Petitioner 33 years after his induction into service,

by no standards, can be held to be reasonable. Further,

his claim for reinstatement with wages from 15-05-2013

till 03-11-2014 with all monetary benefits and service

benefits cannot be granted and thus rejected.

22. Therefore, in that circumstance, when the

Petitioner himself in his nomination and declaration form

under ESI pension scheme on 23-12-1996 and when the

petitioner had taken an LIC policy in policy No. 732010946,

his date of birth is mentioned as 15-05-1955 had indicated

the date of birth as 15-05-1955 which corresponds to the

date of birth entered in the service register as on the date

of commencement of the employment, merely because a

verification was made on the birth certificate recently

obtained by him and even if, it was confirmed that the

date of birth was 04-11-1956 such change at that stage

was not permissible. Thus, the points for consideration

decided as against the claim Petitioner and he is not

entitled for any relief under this Reference.

In the result, the Reference is unjustified and the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The industrial

dispute as raised by the Petitioner is dismissed. 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

the 07th day of September, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner witness:

PW1

— 20-01-2020

Mr. K. Gunasekaran

List of Petitioner Side Exhibits:

Ex.P1 — 15-10-2012

Photocopy

the

Representation

the

Petitioner to the HR of the

respondent company for

rectification of his date of

birth in service records.

Ex.P2 — 05-11-2012

Photocopy of the Reply

given by the respondent to

EX.P1.

Ex.P3 — 23-04-2013

Photocopy

the

Retirement order issued by

the respondent to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P4 — 08-10-2012

Photocopy of the birth

certificate issued by the

Department of Municipal

Administration and Water

Supply, Government of

Tamil Nadu.

118

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

Ex.P5 — 25-01-2018

Photocopy of Judgment

passed in O.S.No. 154/2013,

dated 25-01-2018 by the

I Additional District Munsif,

Puducherry.

Ex.P6 — 15-06-2018

Photocopy of the Petition

under sec 2(A) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

Ex.P7 — 29-08-2018

Photocopy of the Reply of

the Petitioner workman to

the the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government

of Puducherry.

Ex.P8 — 06-12-2018

Photocopy of the Failure

report of the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government

of Puducherry.

Ex.P9 — 18-03-2019

Photocopy of the Notification

of Failure report in G.O. Rt.

No. 45/AIL/LAB/T/2019.

List of Respondent’s Witness:

Rw1

— 15-06-2022

Mr. Ramamoorthy, Assistant

Manager

(HR)

the

Respondent Company.

List of Respondent Side Exhibits:

Ex.R1 — 21-09-2021

Authorization (POWER OF

ATTORENY) Letter given

by the Respondents to

RW1.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 177/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 15/2018, dated

19-10-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of Dispute between Thiru

M.L. Muthukrishnan, Cashier (Retd.) Ex-employee of

M/s. Daily Thanthi, Puducherry, towards Dearness

Allowance in terms of the Majithia Wage Board Award;

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.

Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2022.

I.D. (T) No. 15/2018

CNR. No. PYPY06-000064-2018

M.L. Muthukrishnan,

Cashier (Retd.),

No. 18, 11th Cross, Periyar Nagar,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Employer/Manager,

M/s. Daily Thanthi,

No. 23, Cuddalore Road,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 05-09-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of the Petitioner

(in person) and Thiruvalargal D. Abdullah and Yuvaraj,

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. 110/AIL/Lab./G/2018,

dated 09-07-2018 of the Labour Department, Puducherry,

to resolve the following dispute between the Petitioner

and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether any amount is due to Thiru

M.L. Muthukrishnan, Cashier (Retd.), Ex-employee of

M/s. Daily Thanthi, Puducherry, towards Dearness

Allowance in terms of the Majithia Wage Board

Award?

119

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(b) If so, give appropriate directions.

M.L. Muthukrishnan, Ex-employee of M/s. Daily

Thanthi, towards Assured Career Development in

terms of para 20 (f) of the Majithia Wage Board

Award ?

(d) If so, give appropriate directions.

(e) 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:

The Respondent M/s. The Daily Thanthi is a

leading Tamil Daily having its Head Office at Chennai

and a several editions in Tamilnadu, Karnataka,

Mumbai and Pondicherry, where in the Petitioner

employed as Advertisement Clerk, Managerial

Cashier, etc., for the past 36 years from 02-05-1977

to 30.04.2013 in various branches.

(ii) The Petitioner retired from the Respondent’s

establishment on 30-04-2013 while the Petitioner was

in the position of “Cashier” in Pondicherry branch.

The Petitioner work history details are given here

under.

Date of joining at Tirunelveli : 02-05-1977

(Tamil Nadu)

Date of retirement at

: 30-04-2013

Pondicherry

Total years of service

: 36 years

completed

(a) Tirunelveli

: May 1977 to

December 1979

(b) Bangalore

: January 1980 to

April 1982

: May 1982 to

April 1994

(d) Bangalore

: May 1994 to

April 2004

(e) Pondicherry

: May 2004 to

April 2013

As Advertisement/Managerial : May 1977 to

Clerk

April 1994 – 17

years

As Cashier

: May 1994 to

April 2013 –19

years.

(Promoted: but,

without any

order/benefits)

(iii) Any of the Employee of the Respondent’s

establishment has not been issued with any Job Offer

letter or Appointment Order while joining duty, by

the management. So the Petitioner could not produce

any evidence or authenticated document to produce.

The Petitioner had been paid a sum of ` 1,59,360 on

1st October 2015 towards Wage Board arrears, for

which the Petitioner had not been provided any

salary break up details for the abovesaid amount.

Without knowing whether the amount disbursed to

the Petitioner was correct or not, the Petitioner had

been forced to submit one written statement stating

that the Wage Board arrears amount had been

received by him in full and final. If, the Respondent

provide the salary work sheet for the said amount

` 1,59,360, then only it could be known whether the

disbursement of amount ` 1,59,360 is calculated in a

proper way or not.

(iv) When the Petitioner came across the Gazette

Notification the Petitioner realized that he had been

paid a very low arrear amount by fixing very low

salary. When the Petitioner had taken up this matter

to ‘Under Secretary to the Government, Minister of

Labour and Employment, New Delhi’ the Petitioner

received another amount vide one Indian Bank

cheque bearing No. 863337, dated 15-03-2016 for

` 7,37,479.80, which is said to be full and final

towards the followings, for which the Petitioner

received his salary breakup details. Copy of the

Statement is submitted. (Annexure II).

Gratuity arrears

: ` 3,93,963.00

EL Salary arrears

: `

24,659.20

Wage Board Salary arrears

: ` 3,18,857.60

Total

` 7,37,479.80

Therefore, the Petitioner received two cheques i.e.,

(i) On 1 October, 2015 the Petitioner received a sum

of ` 1,59,360; (ii) On 15th March, 2016 the Petitioner

received an amount of ` 7,37,479.80.

(v) Without any doubt it can be ascertained that

Wage Board Awards has not been implemented by

Respondent till date fully. In this connection the

Petitioner submitted his representation vide his letter

28th September 2016. But till this time the Petitioner

have not received any clarification on this queries

raised by him.

(vi) Honourable Justice G.R. Majithia has given

clear guide lines with regards of D.A. calculation. In

Gazette Notification, it states in P.Nos. 16 and 17,

Section III, 4, “The Dearness Allowance in respect

120

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

of the period preceding the date of implementation

of the Award shall be given at the existing rates”.

The Petitioner received arrear amount which is said

to be full and final on 15th March 2016. D.A. was

calculated to the tune of ` 3,754.30 which is

calculated on the basis of AICPI average of July 2010

to June 2011. The details here under which shows

clear picture how M/s. The Daily Thanthi have

arrived the low D.A. to the tune of ` 3,754.30.

(1) July 2010-June 2011 average of AICPI number

is 184.

(2) DA to be calculated to 184 - 167 = 17/167 =

0.101796 points.

(3) DA was calculated as 0.101796* Basic Salary of

November 2011 i.e., 0.101796*36881 = 3,754.30

(The Basic salary constitutes Basic Pay +

Variable Pay 35%).

(vii) Thus, ` 3,754.30 was the actual DA disbursed

to him as per the Wage Board Arrear statement of

M/s. The Daily Thanthi as on November, 2011. But,

the Petitioner received the amount said to be full and

final on 15-03-2016. Therefore, it is needless to say

that AICPI pertains to the period March 2015 to

February 2016 should be taken in to account. But, it

is not followed, purportedly to fix very low salary.

The Petitioner here under provides the exact D.A.

calculation to be taken into account as per Justice

G.R. Majithia wage board recommendations.

1. March 2015 to February 2016 average AICPI

number 264.

2. DA to be calculated to 264 – 167 = 97/167 =

0.580838 points.

3. DA was calculated as 0.580388* Basic Salary of

November 2011 i.e., 0.580388* 37988 = 22065.

(The Basic salary constitutes Basic Pay +

Variable Pay 35%).

(viii) Hence, it is clearly proved that D.A. was thus

calculated wrongly in order to pay very low amount.

Thus, salary was fixed very low. Thus, arrear amount

was also paid low. In Daily Thanthi all the staff and

workers are under designated, without considering

their Nature of Work, Years of Service, etc. This is

purportedly done to pay them very low salary.

Justice G.R.Majithia in the Wage Board Award clearly

states that each and every employee should be given

maximum of 3 promotions once in 10 years during

their service time. As such during his service period

the Petitioner worked as Clerk and Cashier, as

detailed below.

(a) May 1977 to April 1994 - worked as Clerk - 17

years.

(b) May 1994 to April 2013 - worked as Cashier

without benefits - 19 years.

(ix) Therefore, the Petitioner should be designated

as “Chief Cashier” after completion of first 10 years

i.e., after 2003 i.e., before fixing his salary as per

Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award. But it was

not followed. At the time of his retirement the

Petitioner was the only Senior most Man having such

long years of service as Cashier. As, M/s. the Daily

Thanthi has not taken up the Wage Board Awards

recommendation with regards of Promotion Criteria,

his salary is fixed under Group 4 in Schedule II,

instead of under Group 3 in Schedule II. A letter dt.

27-10-2017 addressed to Labour Officer (Enforcement)

Labour Department, Pondicherry, wherein, the

Petitioner informed M/s. The Daily Thanthi, to submit

any such promotion order issued to him as it was

informed to the Labour Officer (Enforcement) that the

Petitioner had been awarded promotions. Thus, the

Respondent is not implementing Justice G.R. Majithia

Wage Board Award’s recommendations fully. In all

aspects such as fixing new wages, 35% variable pay,

calculating DA and in assured career development

they followed wrong methods/wrong calculations. In

all the nine meetings the Petitioner submitted his

representations in written, requesting to provide,

whether his demands are a valid one or not. Till this

time the Petitioner did not receive any opinion either

from the Labour to the Officer (Enforcement) or from

the Daily Thanthi.

(x) The Under Secretary to the Govt. of India,

Delhi in his letter dated 4th August,2016, directing

the Secretary (Labour), Labour Department, Chief

Secretariat, Pudducherry, that “The primary

responsibility of the implementation of the

recommendations of the Wage Board Awards lies with

the State Governments/Union Territories. Respective

Newspaper Establishment may be issued the suitable

instruction for implementation of the recommendation

of the Wage Board. They directed the concerned to

give priority. Under Secretary to the Govt. of India,

Delhi also wrote several reminders. Hence the

petition.

3. The brief averments in the Counter filed by the

Respondent are as follows:

The Respondent is a newspaper establishment. It

has got its Head Office at Chennai and one of its

branches at Pondicherry. From 01-03-2013 the

Respondent did not have any printing facility at

Pondicherry. During the relevant period of time there

121

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

were only 42 employees in Pondicherry. The

Petitioner retired from Pondicherry on 30-04-2013. As

on date of retirement of the Petitioner there was one

Branch Manager, the Petitioner worked as Cashier.

The nature of establishment of the Respondent did

not permit more than one Cashier at Pondicherry

branch and the question of either the Petitioner being

designated as Senior Cashier or discharging duties

of the Senior Cashier did not arise. As such the

Petitioner cannot claim any monetary or any other

benefits on the ground that he should have been a

Senior Cashier. The hierarchy of employment does

not have any employment or designation as Senior

Cashier. The Petitioner cannot ask for a designation

that was never in vogue.

(ii) The wage revision for journalists and

non-journalists are determined by way of wage board

awards constituted by the Central Government. The

last of such recommendation was made by Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board and the award was duly

notified by the Central Government by Notification,

dated 11-11-2011. The Wage Board Award for revision

of wage in respect of the Petitioner is applicable for

the period 11-11-2011 to 30-04-2013.

(iii) The newspaper establishments across India

questioned the validity of Justice G.R. Majithia wage

board recommendation which culminated in the order of

Supreme Court, dated 07-02-2014 in W.P (Civil) No. 246/

2011 batch of cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld

the validity of the Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board

recommendations and also held that the revision of

wages as per the Award were payable from 11-11-2011

viz., the date of notification of the Wage Board Award.

Prior to the constitution of Justice G.R. Majithia Wage

Board, a Wage Board under auspice of Justice Manisana

was constituted and the said Wage Board submitted its

recommendation on 05-12-2000. However, the

recommendations of the said Wage Board were struck

down by Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. However,

the benefits given to the Newspaper employees under

the Manisana Wage Board award were not adjusted

against the future payments.

(iv) The Petitioner joined the employment of the

Respondent on 02-08-1977 as Clerk Trainee and the

Petitioner was lastly working as Cashier from 01-10-1996

till his retirement. At the time of retirement the Petitioner

was reporting to the Branch Manager. There were no

employees supervised by the Petitioner and none

reported to the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s employment

if taken into consideration the Petitioner can only be

included under the category of Cashier, as per Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award. Further the Petitioner

was only a non-journalist newspaper employee who can

be grouped under the administrative staff category

under Group IV of Schedule II of the Award. Hence, at

any circumstances the category as Senior Cashier does

not arise and the post of Senior Cashier is non-existant

in the Respondent establishment. Therefore, the

Petitioners’ employment does not fall under the

category of Senior Cashier or Chief Cashier and the

Petitioner was not entitled to revision of wages to the

said category of employment.

(v) Further, notes to Schedule II of the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award also sets out that

in the event of redesignation of employees the same

can be only under mutual and bilateral agreement

with the management. In the present case there was

never such agreement and as such the Petitioner does

not get any right to ask for a classification that was

never agreed upon between the management and the

workmen.

(vi) The Respondent’s liability to implement the

Wage Board Award is applicable only for the period

11-11-2011 to 30-04-2013 and the Petitioner gets no

right to claim any benefit out of the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award for the period

subsequent to 30-04-2013. The issue raised by the

Petitioner whether the Respondent had implemented

the Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award in full is

concerned, the said issue raised is not supported by

any facts by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has very

vaguely and baldly stated that the payment of arrears

were not implemented fully by the Respondent as per

the Wage Board recommendations. The matter

referred to Annexure-II in relation to the said issue

also does not disclose any facts or proof to show

that there was either a short payment or non

implementation of the Wage Board Award. The matter

stated in the Annexure-II to the petition were already

answered by the Respondent before the Labour

Enforcement Officer, Pondicherry, by its reply, dated

01-09-2019 and 27-09-2016 enclosing the statement of

calculation showing the basis of the payment of

arrears as per the Wage Board Award.

(vii) With regard to the issue whether the

Dearness Allowance was calculated as per the

Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award is

concerned, the Dearness Allowance was calculated

as applicable from 11-11-2011, viz., the date of

notification of Award. The Petitioners’ calculation

relating to the computation of Dearness Allowance

and basis of calculation of Dearness Allowance by

the Respondent for the periods November 2011 upto

30-04-2013 had already been admitted by the

122

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

Petitioner to be correct. However, the Petitioner is

seeking computation of Dearness Allowance on the

basis of All India Consumer Price Index applicable

for the period March 2015 to February 2016 for the

mere reason that the Petitioner was paid the arrears

on 15-02-2016. The claim is vexatious and without any

basis. The Petitioner’s entitlement for arrears is valid

only from 11-11-2011 to 30-04-2013, viz., upto the

date of superannuation.

(viii) With regard to the third issue whether the

wages were fixed as per the nature of duty of

Petitioner by providing proper designation is

concerned the award of the Justice G.R. Majithia

Wage Board only suggest the designations in

Schedule I, II and III are general designations and

notes to the schedules also set out that any

appropriate nomenclature used by a newspaper

establishment can be continued and as such the same

is not violation of Award. The award also further sets

out that a change in designation if sought, is only

on certain conditions viz., the change can happen

only on mutual and bilateral agreements for

redesignation under the present Award.

(ix) The fixation of Pay Scales applicable to

employees in the Group-IV categorized under

Schedule-II is commensurate to the nature of work

discharged by the Petitioner and the wage revision

was done as per the Wage Board Award applicable

to nature of work done by the Petitioner. The Petitioner

cannot seek for a classification under Group-III to

Schedule-II as the said category is applicable to

people who are Officers or Sectional in-charge.

(x) With regard to the averments made in the

claim statement regarding the various jobs done by

the Petitioner are concerned, the Petitioner is put to

strict proof of the same. The Petitioner’s claim that

he was a Managerial Cashier is a mischievous

statement and there is no designation as Managerial

Cashier in the Respondent establishment. With regard

to the averments made in the claim statement

regarding the payment of benefits to the Petitioner

are concerned, though the Respondent paid the

amounts in two stages, the total entitlement of the

Petitioner as per the prevailing Wage Board Award

including terminal benefits was only to the tune of

` 15,84,859.90, The Petitioner does not have legal

right to claim any further amounts from the

Respondent.

(xi) The Petitioner is maintaining this petition

merely to get break up of figures paid to him. It is

submitted that be the case, the Petitioner was

furnished with the details of payment even before

the Conciliation officer/Labour officer vide reply,

dated 01-09-2016 and letter, dated 27-09-2016. In the

above manner the Petitioner’s doubts were duly

clarified. The present petition is vexatious and devoid

of any merits With regard to the averments made in

the claim statement that the Respondent did not

implement the G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award is not

correct. The payment initially made was done on an

erroneous calculation and the said payment was due

to clerical error and that missed the attention of the

Respondent. On receiving the Petition copy the

Respondent realized that error had happened in the

calculation, paid off the balance to the Petitioner. The

payment of ` 1,59,360 paid on 15-10-2015 was also

made in keeping with G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award, however, there was a clerical error in the

calculation which was rectified subsequent. There is

no further liability to pay any amount under the

subsisting Wage Board Award after discharging the

balance payment of ` 7,37,47 on 15-03-2016. Further,

the clarifications raised by the Petitioner vide his

letter, dated 28-09-2016 were repetitive and the said

clarifications were already answered by the

Respondent and also vide letters, dated 27-09-2016

and 02-01-2018 even before the Labour officer.

(xii) With regard to the averments made in the

claim statement that the Respondent had calculated

the amount as per the AICPI for the period 2010-11

and not for period 2015-16 being the period of

payment is concerned the calculation provided

therein and in the Annexure are incorrect. The

Petitioner retired on 30-04-2013. His entitlement to

claim any arrears on the basis of subsisting Wage

Board Award is only up to 30-04-2013. The Petitioner

cannot claim wage revision as per AICPI prevailing

for the period 2015-16 which is much after his

retirement as the employer employee relationship

ceased on 30-04-2013. The basis of calculation

adopted by the Respondent is not legally valid.

(xiii) The Wage Board recommendation relating to

the promotion is not unconditional. Further, the

Award itself states that the designations mentioned

are only indicative and the newspaper establishment

can follow the designations used by it. Hence, the

question of the Respondent not promoting an

employee or under designating an employee for the

purpose of avoiding the legal obligations under the

Award is not true and the said allegations made by

the Petitioner are false.

(xiv) Even as per the Wage Board Award the

Petitioner is not entitled to any unilateral right to for

redesignation as Senior Cashier. The wage board

award clearly states that redesignation can happen

123

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

only bilaterally when the employer and employee

agrees. Further, the redesignation can be only in

respect to a category existing. In the entire industry

of the Respondent there is no designation as Senior

Cashier. Even on this ground the claim for

redesignation and the ensuing claims of the

Petitioner are not sustainable in law and on facts .

With regard to the averments made in the claim

statement that the Respondent did not implement the

Wage Board Award is not correct. It is the admitted

case of the Petitioner that he was promoted over a

period of time and lastly worked as Cashier. It is also

equally incorrect and without basis on the part of the

Petitioner to state that as per the Wage Board Award

the Petitioner should be categorized only in Group-III

employees and not Group-IV as was done by the

Respondent. The Petitioner does not fall under any

of the categories of employment mentioned in

Group-III. By the nature of work done the Petitioner

falls only under Group-IV and the said categorization

is proper and legal. The subsisting Wage Board

Award has been duly implemented and the Petitioner

was paid terminal benefits as per statute and the

arrears as per the Wage Board Award. The Petitioner

has no right under law to claim any other amounts

than that were paid. Hence prayed for dismissal.

4. Reply to the counter statement filed by the

Petitioner:

The Respondent in his statement claims that

nature of establishment of the Respondent did not

permit more than one Cashier at Pondicherry branch

and the question of either the Petitioner being

designated as Senior Cashier or discharging duties

of the Senior Cashier did not arise. The Government

of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Gazette

Notification Order, dated 11-11-2011 says in

“Section III under caption ‘Revised Scale of Wages

and Allowances’ Clause 20(f) “As regard to Assured

Career Development, Every Employee shall be given

at least three promotions during his entire service

career, i.e., First to next higher grade after

satisfactorily completion of ten years of service,

Second to next higher grade after satisfactorily

completion of twenty years of service, Third to next

higher grade after satisfactorily completion of thirty

years of service”, Therefore, if the Respondent

engaged one Cashier or two, it is not the question;

but as per the Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board’s

recommendation, Cashier shall be given at least three

promotions during his entire service career. As such,

as the Petitioner completed 36 years of service, (in

fact he is eligible of 3 promotions), Petitioner would

become eligible to claim all the monetary benefits on

this ground. But, the Petitioner now is struggling for

only one promotion from Cashier to next higher grade

i.e., To Chief Cashier grade.

(ii) Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award in

Schedule II (Grouping of Non Journalist Employees

- Administrative Staff) “Cashiers” are classified

under Group 4. As per Wage Board’s recommendation

“If, a Cashier completed first 10 years of service

satisfactorily, he shall be given next higher grade”

i.e., “Cashier” to next higher grade “Chief Cashier”

which is falling under Group 3. But, the Respondent

without considering these facts, arguing that the

hierarchy of employment does not have any

employment or designation as Senior Cashier and

that the Petitioner cannot ask for a designation that

was never in vogue.

(iii) The Respondent in his statement pointed out

that to Schedule II of the justice G.R. Majithia Wage

Board Award also set out that in the event of

redesignation of employees the same can be only

under mutual and bilateral agreement with the

management. In fact in the Respondent establishment

no any mutual and bilateral agreement is in force and

no one have signed or enrolled under mutual and

bilateral agreement with the management. Not only

that the Respondent establishment does not admit

any such “Mutual and Bilateral Agreement”.

(iv) With regard of Respondent's statement that

Petitioner cannot claim any benefits beyond the

period 30-04-2013. But, the Respondent failed to

perform their responsibilities while settling

superannuation benefits to the Petitioner. It is the

responsibility of the Respondent to settle all the legal

liabilities pertain to the Petitioner as soon as after

his retirement. But, they made the justice Majithia

Wage Board Award benefits only by 1st October 2015

to the tune of ` 1,59,360 and 15 March 2016 to the

tune of ` 7,37,479 beyond his retirement only. This

delay was intentionally created by the Respondent.

This Court should not consider this Respondent’s

irresponsible reply.

(v) Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award gives

following explanation in respect of calculating

“Dearness Allowance”. “Dearness Allowance in

respect the period preceding the date of amendment

of the Award shall be given at the existing rate”. Very

specifically this explanation has been given only for

Dearness Allowance and not for any other

emoluments such as Basic Salary, Variable Pay and

other applicable allowances. Therefore while

concluding the recommendations, giving such

explanation very clearly with regards of Dearness

Allowance alone.

124

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

(vi) If, the Wage Board benefits implemented on

11th November 2011 in the Respondent establishment,

namely, The Daily Thanthi it could be agreed with the

Dearness Allowance granted to the Petitioner at the

rate as on 11th November 2011 to the tune of ` 3,754

as per their break up statement issued to him is

correct. But, the Wage Board benefits were disbursed

to the Petitioner on 15th March 2016. Therefore 15th

March 2016 should be actually considered to be the

date of amendment of the award to the Petitioner. So,

it is needless to explain that the Dearness Allowance

alone should be calculated as on March 2016 on the

basis of the average of All India Consumer Price

Index related to the period March 2015 to February

2016 and should be given accordingly. This is the

exact recommendations awarded by the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board. But, at the same time Basic

Salary, Variable Pay and other applicable allowances

should be calculated and given as on 30th April 2013.

But, the Respondent on his own created a law and

forced others too, to abide with. This Court should

not admit this illegal statement.

(vii) The Respondent’s statement that the arrear

amount ` 1,59,360 which was paid to him on

01-10-2015 (not on 15-10-2015 as stated by the

Respondent) in the first instance just mere on

erroneous calculation occurred due to clerical error,

could not be acceptable and which is evasive.

(viii) His superannuation benefits which includes

Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award arrear

amount should be settled soon after his retirement.

i.e., by 30th April 2013. But, it was not done as such

and intentionally this payment was delayed and paid

to him despite his repeated requests and demands,

right from the very first time. Thus, it was paid by

1st October 2015 and 15th March 2016. Therefore, it

is also not correct to pay the arrear amount which

was paid to him during 2015-16 with very old

Dearness Allowance which in fact related to the

Period 11th November 2011. This was done against

the Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award’s

recommendation. The Respondent has to calculate

the Dearness Allowance from the All India Consumer

Price Index number average of 2015-16 instead of

2010-11 and the Wage Board’s recommendations also

insist to pay the Dearness Allowance on the

following explanation “Dearness Allowance in

respect the period preceding the date of amendment

of the Award shall be given at the existing rate”.

Thus, the Respondent violating the Wage Board

Award recommendation and blaming the Petitioner as

he made his claim beyond his retirement date 30th

April 2013.

(ix) Therefore, the Petitioner pray this Court to

issue orders to pay the pending salary arrears

amount, Gratuity Arrears and EL salary arrears as per

the calculation submitted via the statement of his

salary account Annexure XIV(1,2) which the

Petitioner submitted along with his Petition, with

reasonable Interest @ 24% per annum.

5. Points for consideration:

1. Whether any amount is due to Thiru

M.L. Muthukrishnan, Cashier (Retd.), Ex-employee of

M/s. Daily Thanthi, Puducherry towards Dearness

Allowance in terms of the Majithia Wage Board

Award?

2. W h e t h e r a n y a m o u n t i s d u e t o T h i r u

M.L. Muthukrishnan, Ex-Employee of M/s. Daily

Thanthi, towards Assured Career Development in

terms of para 20 (f) of the Majithia Wage Board

Award?

3. If so, whether the reference made is justified

and for what reliefs the Petitioner is entitled to?

6. On Point:

On Petitioner Ex-employee side, PW.1 Chief and

Additional Chief examination affidavit filed. Through

him Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 marked. Respondent marked

Ex.R1 to R5 through PW1 during Cross-Examination

of PW.1. On Respondent side. RW.1 Mr. H. Anil

Laksham, Assistant in Human Resources Department

of the Respondent Establishment examined. Through

him Ex.R6 to R15 marked. Written arguments filed by

the Petitioner. Oral arguments made on both sides.

7. On the Point No. 1:

The reference has been made with regard to

whether any amount is due to the Petitioner/

Ex-employee towards Dearness Allowance in terms

of the G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award?

8. Dearness Allowance

According to the Petitioner who appeared in

person and represented his case before this Court

has submitted that he joined the Respondent

management on 02-05-1977 and retired on 30-04-2013

as Cashier from the Respondent establishment. The

employees of the Respondent’s establishment had

never issued any job offer/appointment order while

joining duty by the management. Therefore, he could

not able to produce any document to that effect.

9. The Petitioner was an ex-employee of the

Respondent Establishment, his date of joining, his date

of superannuation and his designation at the time of

superannuation as Cashier are the admitted facts.

125

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Respondent has paid the sum of ` 1,59,360 on

01-10-2015 towards Wage Board Arrears and the

Respondent establishment had paid another amount to

the Petitioner vide a Cheque, dated 15-03-2016 for

` 7,37,479.80 with the break up details are also admitted

positions in this case.

10. Further, he submits that though Respondent has

paid the sum of ` 1,59,360 on 01-10-2015 towards Wage

Board Arrears, but, not provided any salary break up

details for the said amount. The Petitioner had been

forced to submit a written statement stating that the

Wage Board Arrears amount had been received by him

in full and final. He further, submits that after verifying

with the Gazette Notification, the Petitioner had realized

that very low arrear amount paid to him by fixing very

low salary. When the matter was taken up to the Under

Secretary to the Government, Minister of of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi, the Respondent establishment

had paid another amount to the Petitioner vide a

Cheque, dated 15-03-2016 for ` 7,37,479.80 with the break

up details. Thus, the Petitioner received two cheques

one for ` 1,59,360 on 01-10-2015 and another for

` 7,37,479.80 on 15-03-2016 towards the arrears amount.

11. The Petitioner/Ex-employee would submit that if

the first disbursement of arrear amount of ` 1,59,360

had been paid as full and final, why did the Respondent

issue their second cheque for ` 7,37,479.80 towards

Wage Board arrears? Therefore, his contention is that

Justice Majithia Wage Board Awards has not been

implemented properly.

12.According to him with regard to DA calculation,

in page No.16 and 17, Section III, 4 of the Gazette

Notification says that “the Dearness Allowance in

respect of the period preceding the date of

implementation of the Award shall be given at the

existing rates”. Thus, the Respondent establishment has

calculated a very low DA for a tune of ` 3,754.35p on

the basis of AICPI average of July 2010 to June 2011.

The case of the Petitioner/Ex-employee is that AICPI

pertains to the period of March 2015 to February 2016

should be taken into account, since he received the

amount said to be full and final arrears only on

15-03-2016. Therefore, he concludes his arguments with

regard to DA that Respondent establishment calculated

DA wrongly in order to pay a very low amount.

13. On the other hand, the learned Counsel

appearing for the Respondent has argued that Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award Notification was

published on 11-11-2011. Therefore, G.R. Majithia Wage

Board Award for revision of wage in respect of the

Petitioner is applicable for the period 11-11-2011 to

30-04-2013 i.e., from the date of notification till the date

of his superannuation. Further, he argued that prior to

the Constitution of Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board,

a Wage Board under Justice Manisana was constituted

and submitted its recommendation on 05-12-2000. The

Hon’ble Karnataka and Delhi High Courts struck down

the said recommendations made by the Justice

Manisana Wage Board. However, the benefits given to

the newspaper employees under the Manisana Wage

Board Award were not adjusted against the future

payments.

14. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent further argued that the Respondent’s

liability to implement the G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award is applicable only for the period 11-11-2011 to

30-04-2013 (till his superannuation) and the Petitioner

has no right to claim any benefit out of justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award for the period

subsequent to his superannuation i.e., 30-04-2013.

15. Heard both on this point and perused the

available records. According to the claim Petitioner, the

DA was wrongly calculated in order to pay a very low

amount as arrear amount. His strong contention is that

the Dearness Allowance in respect of the period

preceding the date of implementation of the Award shall

be given at the existing rate mentioned in the Gazette

Notification should be according to AICPI pertains to

the period of March 2015 to February 2016, since, the

Petitioner received the amount towards DA arrear as

per justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award only on

15-03-2016. The simple case put forth by the Petitioner

ex-employee is since he received the DA arrears only

on 15-03-2016, the said date (15-03-2016) should be

considered to be the “date of implementation of the

justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award to the

Petitioner” and the dearness allowance to the period

preceding 15-03-2016 i.e., 11-11-2011 to 31-03-2013

should be given at the rate which was in force as on

15-03-2016 as per the Petitioner's Doc. No.10. Therefore,

` 22,065 should be given towards Dearness Allowance

instead of ` 3,754.

16. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the Respondent

stoutly denies the above arguments put forth by the

Petitioner. As per the justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award, the Respondent liability to implement the

G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award is only applicable for

the period 11-11-2011 to 30-04-2013 and the Petitioner

has no right to claim any benefit out of the justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award for the period

subsequent to his superannuation, i.e., 30-04-2013.

Further, he would argue that Petitioner’s calculation

relating to computation of Dearness Allowance and

basis of calculation of Dearness Allowance by the

Respondent for the periods November, 2011 upto

30-04-2013 had already been admitted by Petitioner to

be correct.

126

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

17. The Petitioner is seeking computation of DA on

the basis of AICPI applicable for the period March 2015

to February 2016 for the mere reason that the Petitioner

was paid the arrears on 15-02-2016. Whereas, it has

been strongly denied by the Respondent that the

Petitioner’s entitlement for arrears is valid only from

11-11-2011 to 30-04-2013 i.e., up to the date of his

superannuation. Thus, the claim is vexatious and

without any basis.

18. On perusal of the oral evidence of the Petitioner

who was examined as PW.1, where this Court could find

that there was a categorical admission during his

cross-examination that, “he retired on 01-05-2013 and

there was no relationship of employer employee between

the Petitioner and the Respondent establishment”.

Further, he admitted that, “as per his document Ex.P7

at para No. 2 the calculation of the DA by the

Respondent as ` 3,754.30 admitted as correct by him”.

19. For better appreciation, I would like to reproduce

the relevant portion of the Petitioner/Ex-Employee

hereunder:-

ÂV[ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]oÚÕm

01-05-2013áM_

√Ë

{F°

ÔV´ð\VÔ

s|s¬Ô©√‚º¶[. ®™¬z 2016ágD gı|, Majithia

Wage Board Award recommendationá√Ω Gratuity Arrear,

E.L. Salary Arrear, Majithia Wage Board Salary Arrear

ÿÔV|›>VÏÔ^.

Majithia

Wage

Board

Award

recommendationá¬z

®]´VÔ

\VıAtz

cﬂƒ

¿]\[≈›]_ kw¬z ÿ>V¶´©√‚| 2014ágD gı|

xΩ°u≈m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂]_ º�√Ω º√VÏΩ[

√ˆÕmÁ´ÔÁ· 11-11-2011 x>_ ∂\_ √|›]™V_ º√VmD

®[Æ \VıAtz cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D ∑Ω¬ÔV‚Ω•^·m

®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. º\ 2013á_ ÂV[ √Ë {F° ÿ√u≈

∏[™Ï, ]™›>Õ] ∂KkÈÔ›]_ √ËBVu§º™™V

®[≈V_ ˛Á¶BVm. º\ 2013á¬z ∏≈z ®™¬z

®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]uzD ÷Á¶ºB ∂�√Ω Wage

Board Award recommendation z§›m ÿ>V¶ÏA \‚|º\

cı| ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[.

20. Further, the Petitioner/Ex-Employee has deposed

that, “®™¬z \VÏﬂ 2015 x>_ ∏©´kˆ 206 kÁ´•^·

All India Consumer Price Index number average √Ω DA

Ôð¬˛¶©√‚| kw∫Ô©√¶ ºkı|D. ÂV[ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF>

\>ƒVg. 7á_ √›] ÷´ıΩ_, WÏkVÔD DAáÁk ‘√VF

3,754.30

®™

Ôð¬˛‚ΩÚ©√m

ƒˆ

®[ÆD

15á03á2016á_ Wage Board Arrears ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚¶>V_,

\VÏﬂ 2015 �ÆD ∏©´kˆ 2016 gıΩuÔV™ AICPI

average √Ω DA Ôð¬˛‚ΩÚ¬Ô ºkı|D ®™ c^·m

®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. 2016 \VÏﬂá_ ÂV[ ºkÁÈl_ ÷_ÁÈ.

®[M¶D ÔV‚¶©√|D gkðD, Majithia Wage Board

Award ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂m ®\>ƒVg.1 gzD. ∂Õ>

√ˆÕmÁ´ÁB \›]B ∂´∑ 11á11á2011 ∂[Æ ∂´ƒVÁð

JÈD ∂xK¬z ÿÔVı| kÕ>m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂m

ÿƒ_ÈVm ®[Æ √_ºkÆ ÿƒF]›>V^, WÆk™∫Ô^

\VıAtz cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D c›>´° ∏≈©∏›>m ®[≈V_

ƒˆ>V[. ®[M¶D ÔV‚¶©√|km ∂>[ ÂÔ_>V[. ∂m

®\>ƒV. 2 gzD.

21. Further, the Petitioner/Ex-Employee has deposed

that, "DA arrears, Gratuity arrears, Earned Leave arrears

g˛BÁk >´ ºkı|D ®™ ºÔ‚|, ÷Õ> kw¬ÔÁÔ

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^º·[. Gratuity Arrear ÿ√VÆ›m kw¬ÁÔ

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB ÷Õ> ¿]\[≈›]uz ∂]ÔV´D ÷_ÁÈ

®[ÆD ∂m z§›m >M ∂]ÔVˆ c^·VÏ ®[ÆD

∂kˆ¶D >V[ \– >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB ºkı|D ®[Æ

ÿƒV[™V_ ®™¬z ∂m √u§ ÿ>ˆBVm. Controlling

authority under payment of gratuity Act ®[≈

∂]ÔVˆl¶D Gratuity arrears \– >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^º·[

®[≈V_ ÷_ÁÈ.”

22. Further, the Petitioner/Ex-Employee has deposed

that, “ÂV[ 01á05á2013áM_ √Ë {F° ÿ√uº≈[

>uº√Vm

®™¬zD

®]Ï\–>V´Ú¬zD

÷Á¶ºB

ÿ>VaÈVπáx>ÈVπ ®[≈ c≈° ˛Á¶BVm. 01á05á2013

x>_ xΩkÁ¶Õ>m. ®™¬z …ÁÈ 2010áoÚÕm …[

2011 kÁ´•^· All India Consumer Price Index number

√Ω

®[–Á¶B

Ôð¬˛¶©√‚|

®™¬z

kw∫Ô©√‚|^·m. ∂Õ> ÿ>VÁÔ

` 3,754 gzD.

∂ÀkVÆ ®™¬z kw∫Ô©√‚¶ ÿ>VÁÔ ` 3,754 zÁ≈›m

kw∫Ô©√‚|^·m ®[√m ®™m ƒV‚EBVzD.”

23. Further, PW.1 deposed during cross-examination

that “Further, when a question was posed by the

Respondent Counsel to the Petitioner during cross-

examination that, “after the constitution of G.R. Majithia

Wage Board Award and till its recommendation, an

interim relief amount was paid monthly to him along with

his salary”. The Petitioner clearly admitted the same as

follows in his cross examination which has been

extracted as follows:-.

“Majithia Wage Board recommendation constitute

ÿƒFk>uÔV™ √ˆÕmÁ´ 2008á_ ÿƒFB©√‚¶m

®[≈V_ ®™¬z ÿ>ˆBVm. ®™m \V>ﬂ ƒD√·›m¶[

Interim Relief ®[≈ >ÁÈ©∏[ ˇµ ŒÚ z§©∏‚¶

ÿ>VÁÔ \V>V\V>D kw∫Ô©√‚¶m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[.”

24. Therefore, from the version of Petitioner during

his cross-examination and from the admissions in the

claim petition, this Court has able to find that the

Respondent Establishment had duly paid the D.A.

arrears amount as per the justice G.R. Majithia Wage

Board Award by calculating on the basis of AICPI for

the relevant period and arrived the arrear amount for

the period November 2011 to April 2013 till the date of

Petitioner's superannuation. The claim of the Petitioner

that the arrears amount should have been calculated on

the basis of AICPI for the period April 2015 to March

2016 since the payment of D.A. arrears were received

by him only on 15-03-2016, is totally misconceived,

erroneous and not maintainable in the eye of law. Since,

it is admitted by the Petitioner that he already received

the D.A. arrears amount from the Respondent

Establishment as per the calculation made on the basis

of AICPI for the period November 2011 to 30-04-2013,

127

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

i.e., till his superannuation from the Respondent

establishment, he is not entitled for any further, D.A.

arrears as claimed in the claim petition.

25. The reference in this ID was made vide G.O. Rt.

No. 110/AIL/Lab./G/2018, dated 09-07-2018 before this

Court to find out whether any amount is due to the

Petitioner towards Dearness Allowance and Assured

Carrier Development in terms of Majithia Wage Board

Award. Whereas, the Petitioner in this claim petition

sought for the prayer with the following reliefs:

(1) Salary arrears after having calculated the Dearness

Allowance at the existing rate, (2) Gratuity Arrears

thereafter, calculating the DA at the existing rate,

(3) Earned Leave salary arrears also after calculating the

DA at the existing rate and other retired benefits arrear

if any and (4) Promotion benefits. The learned Counsel

appearing for the Respondent would argue in this

regard that Petitioner cannot make a claim regarding

Gratuity arrears before this Court when a statutory

authority specifically constituted under the statute i.e.,

the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity

Act is empowered to decide those issues on Gratuity.

When a specific question was posed before the

Petitioner PW.1, he conveniently deposed that he did

not know about the above exclusive forum namely, the

Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity

Act, so he did not approach the same forum for his relief.

The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder for better

appreciation “DA arrears, Gratuity arrears, Earned Leave

arrears g˛BÁk >´ ºkı|D ®™ ºÔ‚|, ÷Õ> kw¬ÁÔ

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^º·[. Gratuity Arrear ÿ√VÆ›m kw¬ÁÔ

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB ÷Õ> ¿]\[≈›]uz ∂]ÔV´D ÷_ÁÈ

®[ÆD ∂m z§›m >M ∂]ÔVˆ c^·VÏ ®[ÆD

∂kˆ¶D >V[ \– >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB ºkı|D ®[Æ

ÿƒV[™V_ ®™¬z ∂m √u§ ÿ>ˆBVm. Controlling

authority under Payment of Gratuity Act ®[≈

∂]ÔVˆl¶D Gratuity arrears z§›m \– >V¬Ô_

ÿƒFm^º·™V ®[≈V_ ÷_ÁÈ”.

26. As decided above that Dearness Allowance

arrears were calculated by applying AICPI for the

relevant period by the Respondent establishment and

arrived the arrear amount for the period from November

2011 to April 2013 i.e., till the date of the Petitioner’s

superannuation and same is decided as correct by this

Court. Hence, the claim of the Gratuity Arrear amount

as claimed in the claim petition by the Petitioner that,

“Gratuity Arrears after calculating the DA at existing

rate” does not arise at all and furthermore since, there

is a special forum to decide the question of eligibility

of any Gratuity Arrear, would not stand even for a while

before this Court.

27. On the Point No.2: Assured Carrier Development:

The second limb of argument made by the

Petitioner/ex-employee is that according to Justice

Majithia Wage Board Award, each and every

employee should be given maximum of three

promotions once in ten years during their service

time. As such during his service period, the Petitioner

worked as Clerk and Cashier. The Petitioner should

be designated as Chief Cashier after completion of

first ten years i.e., after 2003, before fixing his salary

as per justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award. But,

it was not followed. The Respondent establishment

has not taken up the G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award’s recommendation with regards of promotion

criteria, his salary is fixed under Group 4 in

Schedule-II, instead of under Group 3 in Schedule-II.

28. In the reply filed by the Petitioner to the

Respondent’s counter it has been pleaded that the

Respondent in his statement claims that nature of

establishment of the Respondent did not permit more

than one Cashier at Pondicherry Branch and the

question of either the Petitioner being designated as

Senior Cashier or discharging duties of the Senior

Cashier did not arise. Whereas, the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Gazette

Notification Order, dated 11-11-2011 says in “Section III

under caption “Revised Scale of Wages and

Allowances” Clause 20(f) “As regard to Assured Career

Development, Every Employee shall be given at least

three promotions during his entire service career, i.e.,

First to next higher grade after satisfactorily completion

of ten years of service, Second to next higher grade after

satisfactorily completion of twenty years of service,

Third to next higher grade after satisfactorily completion

of thirty years of service”. Therefore, if, the Respondent

engaged one Cashier or two, it is not the question; but,

as per the Justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board’s

recommendation, Cashier shall be given at least three

promotions during his entire service career. As such,

as the Petitioner completed 36 years of service, (in fact

he is eligible of 3 promotions), Petitioner would become

eligible to claim all the monetary benefits on this

ground. But, the Petitioner now is struggling for only

one promotion from Cashier to next higher grade i.e. To

Chief Cashier grade.” But, the Respondent without

considering these facts, arguing that the hierarchy of

employment does not have any employment or

designation as Senior Cashier and that the Petitioner

cannot ask for a designation that was never in vogue.

Thus, he concluded his arguments that Respondent is

not implementing justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award’s recommendations such as fixing new wages,

35% variable, calculating DA and in Assured Carrier

Development and the calculations made by the

Respondent are totally wrong by following wrong

methods.

128

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

29. The Respondent in his statement claims that

nature of establishment of the Respondent did not

permit more than one Cashier at Pondicherry branch and

the question of either the Petitioner being designated

as Senior Cashier or discharging duties of the Senior

Cashier did not arise.

30. Further, on this point, it is urged on the side of

the Respondent that the post of Senior Cashier is non-

existence in the Respondent establishment. The

Petitioner was only a non-journalists newspaper

employee who can be grouped under the administration

staff category under Group-IV of Schedule-II of the

Award. Therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to

revision of wages under the category of Senior Cashier

or Chief Cashier. Developing his arguments, the learned

Counsel for the Respondent would argue that, “as per

the notes to Schedule-II of the justice G.R. Majithia

Wage Board Award, in the event of redesignation of

employees the same can be only under mutual and

bilateral agreement with the management. There was

never such agreement and as such the Petitioner does

not get any right to ask for a classification that was

never agreed upon between the management and

workmen”.

31. For which as a way of reply, the Petitioner would

say that, “In fact in the Respondent establishment no

mutual and bilateral agreement is in force and no one

have signed or enrolled under mutual and bilateral

agreement with the management. Not only that, the

Respondent establishment does not admit any such

Mutual and Bilateral Agreement.”

32. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also

argued that the Petitioner cannot seek for a classification

under Group-III of Schedule-II as the said category is

applicable to people who are officers of Sectional

in-charge. The fixation of pay scales applicable to

employees in Group-IV under Schedule-II is

commensurate to the nature of work discharged by the

Petitioner and the wage revision was done as per the

Wage Board Award applicable to nature of work done

by the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s claim that he was a

managerial Cashier is a mischievous statement and there

is no designation as such in the Respondent establishment.

33. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent has admitted that the payment initially

made was done on an erroneouscalculation and the

said payment was due to clerical error and that missed

the attention of the Respondent. On receiving the

petition copy, the Respondent realized its error in

calculation and paid the balance amount of ` 7,37,479.80

on 15-03-2016. Further, the Petitioner employee was

furnished with the details of the payment even before

the Conciliation Officer/Labour Officer vide reply dated

01-09-2016 and 27-09-2016.

34. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent argued further that Wage Board Award

itself states that the designations mentioned in the

Award are only indicated and the newspaper

establishment can follow the designations used by it.

Even as per the Wage Board Award the Petitioner is not

entitled to any unilateral right for redesignation as

Senior Cashier. In the entire industry of the Respondent

there is no such designation as Senior Cashier. He also

referred Ex.P1 Wage Board Award and argued that the

Wage Board Award clearly states that redesignation can

only happened bilaterally when the employer and

employee agrees. Therefore, the claim for redesignation

by the Petitioner is not sustainable. Thus, the learned

Counsel has concluded his arguments that the Petitioner

was promoted over the period of time and lastly worked

as Cashier. The Petitioner does not fall under any of

the categories of employment mentioned in Group-III.

By the nature of work done, the Petitioner falls only

under the Group-IV and the said categorization is

proper and legal. The subsisting Wage Board Award has

been duly implemented and the Petitioner was paid

terminal benefits as per statute and arrears as per the

Wage Board Award. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the

claim made by the Petitioner.

35. Heard both. Perused the case records on this

point. During cross-examination the Petitioner himself

has admitted that nobody employed or occupied as

Chief Cashier in the Respondent establishment. But, he

conveniently answered that he did not know whether

any such post as Chief Cashier in the Respondent

establishment. On careful perusal of his evidence, this

Court could find that the Petitioner did not deny to the

question put by the Respondent Counsel that there

was/is no such post as Chief Cashier in the Respondent

establishment at any point of time. The relevant portion

of PW.1 admission during cross-examination is as

follows: ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_ Chief Cashier ®[≈

ŒÚ post ÷_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ÿ>ˆBVm. Chief Cashier ®[≈

√>s ÷mkÁ´lKD BVÚD k˛›>]_ÁÈ ®[≈V_

ƒˆ>V[.

36. Further, PW.1 during his cross-examination

clearly admitted that he did not give any representation

to the Respondent establishment seeking for any

promotions at any point of time. The relevant portion

of PW.1 admission during cross examination is as

follows: ÂV[ ®Õ> ÔVÈ¬Ô‚¶›]KD ®™¬z √>s cBÏ°

kw∫z\VÆ ºÔ‚| ÔΩ>D ®ø>s_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[,

ÂV[ ∂ÀkVÆ ºÔ‚Ô xΩBVm.

37. Further, in his cross-examination the Petitioner

himself admitted that he worked under the Branch

Manager of Pondicherry, Respondent Branch. The

deposition of PW1 in this regard is extracted below;

º\º™¤Ï √Ë¬z k´V> ÔVÈ›]_, ∂Õ> ÿ√VÆ©Á√ ÂV[

129

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

√VÏ›m kÕ> ÔVÈ›]_, ÂV[ ∂kÁ´ ÿ>V¶ÏA ÿÔVı|,

∂kˆ[ ∂§°Á´©√Ω ÿƒB_√|ºk[ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_

ƒˆB_È. ÂV[ >ÁÈÁ\ ∂KkÈÔ›Á> ÿÔV¶ÏA¬ ÿÔVı|

ÿƒB_√|ºk[. ÂV[ √VıΩﬂºƒˆ ˛Á·l_ c^·

∂KkÈÔ º\ÈV·ˆ[ ˇµ ÂV∫Ô^ ∂Á™kÚD √ËBVu§

kÕº>VD............. √VıΩﬂºƒˆl_ √ËBVuÆk>uz

x[√VÔ ÿ√∫Ô”ˆ_ √ËBVu§º™[. ÿ√∫Ô”ˆ_

Cashierá´VÔ

√ËBVu§B

ÔVÈ›]_

ÂV[

ÿƒF>

>kÆÔÁ· Œ©A¬ÿÔVı|, ŒÚ ÔΩ>D ÿÔV|›]ÚÕº>[

®[≈V_

ƒˆ>V[.

∂>[

ÂÔ_>V[

®[M¶D

ÔV‚¶©√‚|^·m. ∂m ®\>ƒVg.3 gzD. ÿ√∫Ô”ˆ_

√ËBVu§B º√Vm ÂV[ ®\>ƒVg.3áM_ c^· ÿ>VÁÔ

ƒˆ¬Ô‚|k>uÔVÔ ÂV[ WÏkVÔ›]¶D ` 24,000 Ô¶[

ºÔ‚|, ÔΩ>D ÿÔV|›º>[. ∂>[ ÂÔ_ ®[M¶D

ÔV‚¶©√|km>V[. ∂m ®\>ƒVg.4 gzD. ∂>Á™

ÿ>V¶ÏÕm ®™¬z ŒÚ kÚ¶ increment, cut ÿƒFB©√‚¶m.

ÂV[ √VıΩﬂºƒˆl_ √ËBVu§B º√Vm √Ë {Fsuz

x[√VÔ, √Ë ¿‚Ω©A ºÔ‚|, 23-04-2013 ∂[Æ ŒÚ

ÔΩ>D ÿÔV|›º>[. ∂Õ> ÔΩ>D ®\>ƒVg.5 gzD. ∂Õ>

ºkı|ºÔVÁ· ∞uÆ WÏkVÔD √Ë ¿‚Ω©A ®m°D

kw∫Ôs_ÁÈ”.

38. Therefore, from his own version, the PW.1 has

admitted that even at the time of superannuation he

requested before the Respondent management for

extension of his employment vide letter Ex.R5 dated

23-04-2013. On perusal of Ex.R5, I shall see that even in

the document, dated 23-04-2013 the Petitioner

ex-employee sought only for extension of his service

as Cashier, not for any promotion.

39. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has

referred the following deposition of PW.1 and argued

that at no point of time the Petitioner herein approached

the Respondent establishment for any promotion during

his tenure of service. Even at the verge of superannuation,

he requested the Respondent establishment only for

extension of service as Cashier stating that he is in need

of money to get some loan dues to be repaid.

40. Therefore, from the above evidence of Petitioner

as PW1, this Court has able to come to the conclusion

that there is no such post as Chief Cashier in the

Respondent establishment and the Petitioner has failed

to exhibit and prove the said fact before this Court.

Further, from his evidence it is made clear to this Court

that he did not work as Senior Cashier or Chief Cashier

but he himself in his evidence deposed that the

Respondent establishment is under the duty to

designate him as Chief Cashier. The exact extract of

PW.1’s cross-examination reproduced hereunder :

ÂV[ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF> \–s_, ¿ı¶ ÔVÈD Cashier

√>s k˛›m kÕ>VKD, J›> ªaBÏ ®[√>VKD,

®™¬z Chief Cashier ®[≈ √>s cBÏ° >Õ]Ú¬Ô

ºkı|D ®[≈ ÿƒV_o•^º·[ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[.

\VıAtz cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈ c›>s[√Ω ÂV[ √>s

cBÏ° ®[≈ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÁB ÷Õ> ¿]\[≈›]_ ºÔV´

xΩBVm ®[≈V_ >kÆ. Majithia Wage Board

recommendation ®[√m 2011á_ ∂\K¬z kÕ>m, ÂV[

01-05-2013á_ √Ë {F° ÿ√uº≈[. Majithia Wage

Board recommendationá_ Schedule II Group IIIá[

ˇµ ®[Á™ Ák›]Ú¬Ô ºkı|D, g™V_, ®[Á™

Group IVá^ ˇµ Ák›]ÚÕ>VÏÔ^. ®Õ> ∂Ω©√Á¶l_

∂ÀkVÆ ÿƒF]Ú¬Ô ºkı|D ®[Æ ÷Õ> \–s_

ÿƒV_Ès_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ƒV‚E >V™VÔ x[

kÕm, ÿƒV_olÚ©√>VÔ ÌÆ˛≈VÏ. ®™¬z cˆB

arrearsán 2016ágD gı| kw∫˛lÚÕ>VKD Ì¶,

2016áD gı| Indexán follow ÿƒFm kw∫Ô

ºkıΩB ∂kEBD ÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD 2010á2013áD

gı|kÁ´•^· Index √Ω arrears kw∫˛lÚ©√m

ƒˆ>V[ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ \Æ¬˛º≈[.

41. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that he

should have been promoted as Chief Cashier which is

non existent in the Respondent establishment neither

holds good nor maintainable. Admittedly from the

documents this Court shall see that the petitioner was

keeping quite all along his tenure of service without

claiming any promotion, but, now he claims promotion

after his superannuation which is unknown to law.

Further as per justice G.R. Majithia Wage Board Award,

the redesignation can only be happen bilaterally when

the employer employee agrees. As admitted by the

Petitioner, there was no such bilateral agreement

between the Respondent establishment and the

Petitioner herein. Therefore, that he would be promoted

as Chief Cashier and to be considered under the

category of Group-IV is totally unacceptable and thus

not maintainable.

42. From the above findings and discussions, this

Court holds the points for determination 1 and 2 as

against the Petitioner in favour of Respondent to the

effect that Dearness Allowance already disbursed to the

Petitioner by the Respondent establishment for the

period November 2011 to April 2013 on the basis of

AICPI of the relevant period is correct and the Petitioner

is not entitled for any Assured Carrier Development

reliefs as claimed in the claim petition. Consequently,

all other reliefs claimed in the claim petition are also not

sustainable and thereby liable to be rejected.

43. In the result, the reference made is unjustified

and the Industrial Dispute is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 19th day of October 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

130

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 20-11-2019

M.L. Muthukrishnan, the

Petitioner herein.

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 20-07-2015

Photocopy of the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Boards

for working Journalists and

Non-Journalist and other

newspaper employees –

arrear payment – regarding.

Ex.P2

— 30-07-2015

Photocopy of the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Boards

for working Journalists and

Non-Journalist and other

newspaper employees –

implement – requesting

gratuity arrear – regarding.

Ex.P3

— 08-08-2015

Photocopy of the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Boards

for working Journalists and

Non-Journalist and other

newspaper employees –

implement – requesting

gratuity arrear – regarding.

Ex.P4

— 01-10-2015

Photocopy of the written

statement of Petitioner

submitted to the Respondent

stating that the arrear

amount had been received in

full and final.

Ex.P5

— 22-10-2015

Photocopy of the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Boards

for working Journalists and

Non-Journalist and other

newspaper employees –

implement – requesting

gratuity arrear – regarding.

Ex.P6

— 25-06-2016

Photocopy of the Justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Boards

for working Journalists and

Non-Journalist and other

newspaper employees –

implement with effect from

01-07-2010 – requesting

gratuity arrear – regarding.

Ex.P7

— 27-10-2017

Photocopy of the M/s. The

Daily Thanthi, Puducherry –

Justice G.R. Majithia Wage

Board for working Journalists

and Non- Journalist and

other newspaper employees –

implementation – Variation in

DA calculation – requesting

arrear – regarding.

Ex.P8

— 07-02-2014

Photocopy

the

recommendation on Dearness

Allowance (Pg.No. 17).

Ex.P9

— —

Photocopy

the

calculation

memo

Petitioner – Respondent’s

DA calculation work sheet

to the tune of ` 3,754

calculated from the average

of AICPI from July 2010 to

June 2011.

Ex.P10 — —

Photocopy

the

calculation

memo

Petitioner – Exact DA

calculation – payable to the

tune of ` 22,065 as per Wage

Board

Award’s

recommendation from the

average of AICPI from

March 2015 to February

2016.

Ex.P11 — —

Photocopy of the Table

shows All India Consumer

Price Index, since 01-01-2006.

Ex.P12 — 11-11-2011

Photocopy of the justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award’s recommendation on

Assured Career Development

(Page No. 19).

Ex.P13 — 11-11-2011

Photocopy of the justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award’s recommendation on

Grouping of Non-Journalist

Newspaper Employees –

Administrative Staff (Page

No. 30).

Ex.P14 — 04-08-2016

Photocopy of the Letter,

Under Secretary to the

Government

India,

Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi.

Ex.P15 — 18-04-2017

Photocopy of the Letter,

Under Secretary to the

Government

India,

Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi.

131

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P16 — 13-11-2017

Photocopy of the Letter,

Under Secretary to the

Government

India,

Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi.

Ex.P17 — 23-11-2017

Photocopy of the Letter,

Under Secretary to the

Government

India,

Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi.

Ex.P18 — —

Photocopy of the works

sheets show the exact arrear

amount payable to the

Petitioner as per justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award’s recommendation

Ex.P19 — 20-11-2019

Photocopy of the justice

G.R. Majithia Wage Board

Award’s recommendation –

arrear calculation statement

Muthukrishnan,

Ex-Cashier, Pondicherry

with breakup details –

issued by the Respondent –

regarding.

Ex.P20 — —

Photocopy

the

consolidated

statement

showing the salary and

other arrears details of

M.L.

Muthukrishnan,

Ex-Cashier, Puducherry as

per justice G.R. Majithia

Wage

Board

Award’s

recommendation – issued

the

Respondent

–

regarding.

Ex.P21 — 11-11-2011

Photocopy of the statement

showing the salary details

of M.L. Muthukrishnan,

Cashier

(Retired)

from

11-11-2011 to 30-04-2013.

List of respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 21-02-2022

H. Anil Laksham, Assistant,

Human

Resources

Department

the

Respondent establishment.

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 11-11-2011

Justice G.R. Majithia Wage

Board Award.

Ex.R2

— 07-02-2014

Order copy of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in

W.P (Civil). No. 246 /2011.

Ex.R3

— 16-04-2004

Photocopy of the covering

letter with the explanations

submitted by the Petitioner

Mr. M.L. Muthukrishnan to

the respondent establishment.

Ex.R4

— 16-04-2004

Photocopy of the loan

sanctioned letter.

Ex.R5

— 23-04-2013

Photocopy of the requisition

submitted by the Petitioner

Mr. M.L. Muthukrishnan

requesting for extension of

Service.

Ex.R6

— 24-11-2021

Original Authorization letter

issued to witness.

Ex.R7

— March to

P h o t o c o p y o f t h e P a y

May 2013

Ex.R8

— 01-09-2016

Photocopy of the reply

the

Respondent

Labour Enforcement Officer,

Pondicherry.

Ex.R9

— 01-09-2016

Photocopy of the calculation

sheet annexed to reply.

Ex.R10 — 27-09-2016

Photocopy of the reply of

the Respondent to Labour

Enforcement

Officer,

Pondicherry.

Ex.R11 — —

Photocopy of the All India

Consumer Price Index from

the Official Labour Department

Website.

Ex.R12 — 2007-2008,

Photocopy of the Trial

2008-2009

Balance Sheet of the

and

Respondent.

2009-2010

Ex.R13 — 14-03-2016

Photocopy of the vouchers

signed by the Petitioner.

Ex.R14 — 11-07-2017

Photocopy of the Letter

addressed

Labour

Enforcement Officer to

Respondent with Status

Report.

Ex.R15 — 08-12-2021

Original Certificate issued

under section 65B of the

Evidence Act.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

132

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

mÁð \Vk‚¶ g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF) ∂KkÈÔD, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_

No. 9119/DCR/KKL/LGR/MVP/C3/2022-23.

∂§s¬ÁÔ

[Amﬂºƒˆ WÈ \VMB s] 1975, s] 60(iii)-[ ˇµ]

W√Õ>Á™ (2)án >V∫Ô^ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬ÔV>Á> ∂§B°D.

kˆÁƒ

\Æ/ÂÔ´

WÈ›][

WÈ Œ©√Á¶

®ı

�ÆD xÔkˆ

∂·Ák ®ı

√´©√·°

gÁð ®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«.

ƒV.

31.

W´s

W´s kÚkVF

kÚkVF

kÚkVF ˛´V\D

˛´V\D

1. ]Ú. ´V¤V\Ë, >/ÿ√. ´V\ÂV>[.

40/14

282/84

∂]ÔVˆl¶D xÁ≈l¶ÈVD.

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, 2023 } ƒ™kˆ | 23 {,

J .

J . g>Ïi,

g>Ïi,

mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARAIKAL

NO. 2401/CEO/KKL/E3(EXAM.)/2023/138.

Karaikal, dated 24th January 2023.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby informed that the following candidates have lost their original S.S.L.C., Mark Certificates beyond

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

original Mark Certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of Secondary Examinations, College

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

Sl.

Name and address

Sl. No. of the

Permanent

School in which

No.

of the applicant

Session and

Mark

Reg. No.

studied last

year

Certificate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

Manikandan. R

4928326 March, 2020

—

XM20R121

T.P.S. Government H i g h e r

4928326

S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l ,

Thenoor, Karaikal.

133

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Diviya. M

523700 March, 2007

4662825

—

Government Girls’ High School,

T.R.Pattinam, Karaikal.

K. RAJASEKARAN,

Chief Educational Officer.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

(G.O. Ms. No. 09/989,

Puducherry, dated 25th January 2023)

ORDER

Under rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection

(Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment,

procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation

and removal of the President and Members of the State

Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, the

Government hereby reconstitutes the Selection

Committee consisting of the following, namely:–

Selection Committee

Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Raja,

Chairperson

Acting Chief Justice,

Madras High Court, Chennai

The Secretary to Government,

Member

Department of Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.

The Secretary to Government,

.. Member

Law Department, Puducherry.

(Nominee of Chief Secretary,

Government of Puducherry).

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

C. UDAYA KUMAR, I.A.S.,

Secretary to Government

(Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs)

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

ÿ>Va_ �ÆD kËÔ› mÁ≈÷B¬z™´ÔD

Amﬂºƒˆ, >‚¶VﬁƒVkΩ ÿ>Vauº√‚Á¶l_ c^· 3 √ÈV

\´∫Ô^, 12 \V \´∫Ô^, 7 ÷Èk \´∫Ô^, 4 ÿ>[Á™

\´∫Ô^, 2 AπB \´∫Ô^ g˛Bku§[ cˆÁ\ÁB

\Ë¬z^ ÷B¬z™Ï, ÿ>Va_ �ÆD kËÔ› mÁ≈,

ÿ>Vauº√‚Á¶, >‚¶VﬁƒVkΩ, Amﬂºƒˆá605 009

®[≈ xÔkˆ¬z kÕm ºƒ´ ºkı|D. ∂[Á≈B

ºÂ´›]uz

∏[™Ï

ÿ√≈©√|D

Œ©√Õ>©A^πÔ^

W´VÔˆ¬Ô©√|D.

4. ÿ>Vauº√‚Á¶l_ c^· º�Ôı¶ \´∫Ôπ[

∂kuÁ≈ ∂KkÈÔ ºÂ´∫Ôπ_ √VÏÁkl¶ÈVD.

cÁ≈l[º\_ “>‚¶VﬁƒVkΩ ÿ>Vauº√‚Á¶l_ \´∫Ô^

ƒ\Ï©∏¬Ô ºkı|D.

ºkı|D. ÷ÀkKkÈÔ›]uz ÷[Æ kÁ´ WKÁk›

` 250 (‘√VF ÷Ú±uÆ nD√m \‚|D) ÿƒK›> ºkı|D.

c¶º™ ÿƒK›> ºkı|D.

]≈¬Ô©√‚|

ŒÚ

kV´

s|xÁ≈ ÂV·VÔ ÷Ú¬Ô ºÂˆ‚¶V_ ∂>uz ∂|›> ∂KkÈÔ

cı|.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

134

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

10. ∞º>–D c¶[√VΩ[Á\ ®ø\Vl[, ÿ>Va_

�ÆD kËÔ›mÁ≈ ÷B¬z™ˆ[ xΩºk ÷Æ]BV™m.

Amﬂºƒˆ, 2023 } ¤™kˆ | 31 {,

mÁð ÷B¬z™Ï.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE

Puducherry, dated 31st January 2023.

TENDER NOTICE

Sealed tenders are invited for taking on lease Silk

cotton 7, Mango tree 12, Jack fruit 3, Coconut tree 4,

Tamarind tree 2, in the Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady,

Puducherry-605 009 for the period up to 31-12-2023.

2. The tenders should reach the Office of the

Director of Industries and Commerce, Industrial Estate,

Thattanchavady, Puducherry-605 009 on or before

15-02-2023 at 3.00 p.m. The tenders will be opened by

the Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce in this

Office at 3.30 p.m. on the same day in the presence of

the tenderers who choose to be present.

3. Tenders received after the due date and time will

be rejected.

4. The intending tenderers should submit the tenders

in sealed cover superscripted with the words “Tender

for the lease of usufructs trees in the Industrial Estate,

Thattanchavady, Puducherry”.

5. The intending tenderers may inspect the usufructs

trees in the Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady,

Puducherry, at any time during the office hours.

6. The tender amount should be in whole of rupees

only. The tenders from the tenderers those who are kept

arrears in this office as on date will not be accepted.

7. (i) The intending tenderers should deposit an

amount of ` 250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only)

in cash as earnest money along with their tenders. The

earnest money deposit will be refunded to the

unsuccessful tenderers as and when the tender process

is completed.

(ii) The successful tenderer should remit the

balance of tender amount immediately, by deducting

the earnest money deposit amount.

(iii) An acceptance letter should be provided by

the successful tenderer within a week time. Only after

receipt of the same, the successful tenderer would

be allowed to enjoy the usufructs.

8. If, the tender opening date i.e., on 15-02-2023

happens to be a public holiday, the tenders will be

received up to 3.00 p.m. and opened at 3.30 p.m. on

the next working day.

9. This Office reserves the right to accept or reject

any or all the tenders without assigning any reason

thereof.

10. If, any dispute arises in this regard, the decision

of the Director of Industries and Commerce,

Puducherry, will be the final.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

AFFIDAVIT

I, T L S Balaji, son of T.L Sethuraman (late), Hindu,

aged 56 years, residing at No. B-403, Srinivasa

Apartments, Ajeez Nagar, Reddiyarpalayam Post,

Puducherry-605 010, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm and state on oath as follows:

That my name is mentioned as ‘T L S Balaji’ in my

Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 7362, issued by the

Unique Identification Authority of India, in my ECHS

Card under Registration No. DL0011946, issued by

the Ex-Servicemen Medical and Health Department,

New Delhi, and in my Ex-Servicemen Identity Card

No. PDY-01/2616, issued by the Director, Department

of Sainik Welfare, Puducherry.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘T. L. S. Balaji’

in my Higher Secondary Course Certificate Register

No. 615017, issued by the Secretary, Board of Higher

Secondary Examination, Government of Tamil Nadu.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Balaji T L S’

in my PAN Card No. AJGPB3504M, issued by the

Income-tax Department, Government of India.

I state that my name is mentioned surname as

‘Tirunelveli Lakshmanayya Sethurama’, given name

as ‘Balaji’ in my Passport No. M0166769, valid dated

10-07-2024, issued by the Regional Passport Office,

Chennai.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Tirunelveli

Lakshmanayya S Balaji’ in my PPO No. 08/14/B/

02816/2004, issued by the Office of the Dy.C.D.A.

(A.F.), New Delhi.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Balaji’ in my

Elector’s Photo Identity Card No. TN/38/220/0174095,

issued by the Election Commission of India.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Balaji T L S’

in my Certificate of Discharge or Transfer of the

Reserve Ex-Airman No.692788 'B', issued by the

Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen's Welfare Board,

New Delhi.

135

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘√VÈV˜’ in

my Family Ration Card No. 175693, issued by the

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Government of Puducherry.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘T L Sethurama

Balaji Balaji’ in my Bank Passbook Account No.

XXXXXX8202, issued by the State Bank of India,

Lawspet Branch, Puducherry.

Hence, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

names viz., ‘T L S Balaji’, ‘T. L. S. Balaji’, ‘Balaji T L S’,

surname as ‘Tirunelveli Lakshmanayya Sethurama’

given name as ‘Balaji’, ‘Tirunelveli Lakshmanayya S

Balaji’, ‘Balaji’, ‘Balaji T L S’, ‘√VÈV˜’ and

‘T L Sethurama Balaji Balaji’ are referring one and the

same person that is myself only.

I state that I am always writing and signing my

name as ‘T L S Balaji’ on all records, papers and all

affairs of my life.

The above deposition is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material

has been concealed thereon.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary

Public at Puducherry, on this 24th day of January 2023.

562204

T L S BALAJI.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Prabha, wife of T.L.S. Balaji, Hindu, aged 52 years,

residing at No. B-403, Srinivasa Apartments, Ajeez

Nagar, Reddiyarpalayam Post, Puducherry-605 010, do

hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on oath

as follows:

That my name is mentioned as ‘S Prabha’ in my

Higher Secondary Course Certificate under Register

No. 613600, issued by the Secretary, Board of Higher

Secondary Examination, Government of Tamil Nadu

and in my husband's PPO No. 08/14/B/02816/2004,

issued by the Office of the Dy.C.D.A. (A.F.), New

Delhi.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘B Prabha’

in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 0606, issued

by the Unique Identification Authority of India, in

my PAN Card No. GYKPP7996C, issued by the

Income-tax Department, Government of India, in my

Bank Passbook Account No. XXXXXX1917, issued

by the Indian Bank, Kamaraj Salai Branch,

Puducherry and in my ECHS Card Registration

No. DL0011946, issued by the Ex-Servicemen Medical

and Health Department, New Delhi.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Prabha’ in

my Elector’s Photo Identity Card No. UIJ0161315,

issued by the Election Commission of India and in

my Passport No. W0998220, Valid dated 08-06-2032

issued by Regional Passport Office, Chennai.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Prabha

Venkatasubbulakshmi’ in my husband's Certificate of

Discharge or Transfer of the Reserve Ex-Airman

No.692788 'B', issued by the Assistant Director of Ex-

Servicemen's Welfare Board, New Delhi.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘∏´√V’ in the

Family Ration Card No. 175693, issued by the

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Government of Puducherry.

Hence, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

names viz., ‘S Prabha’, ‘B Prabha’, ‘Prabha’, ‘Prabha

Venkatasubbulakshmi’ and ‘∏´√V’ are referring one

and the same person that is myself only.

I state that I am always writing and signing my

name as ‘Prabha’ on all records, papers and all affairs

of my life.

The above deposition is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge, belief and nothing material has

been concealed thereon.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary

Public at Puducherry, on this 19th day of January 2023.

562205

PRABHA.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Gnanavel, son of Ramanujam, aged 52 years,

residing at No. C-34, Viduthalai Nagar, Mudaliarpet,

Puducherry-605 004, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm and state on oath as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and made this

affidavit on behalf of me.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Gnanavel R’ in

my Aadhaar Card, issued by the Unique Identification

Authority of India, bearing No. XXXX XXXX 0203.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Gnanavel’ in

my PAN Card, issued by the Income-tax Department,

Government of India bearing No. BNQPG4732F.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Gnanavel’ in

my Elector’s Photo Identity Card, issued by the Election

Commission of India bearing No. IBI0138701.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Gnavel’ in my

Service Book issued by the Public Works

Department, Public Health Division, Puducherry

bearing No. EHRMS-3843.

136

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 February 2023

Hence, I declare that the names described in the

above records as ‘Gnanavel R’, ‘Gnavel’ and

‘Gnanavel’ are referred one and the same person

i.e., myself name only.

The above statements in the foregoing paragraphs

are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary

Public at Puducherry, on this 20th day of January, 2023.

562208

R. GNANAVEL.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Jegadheeswari, daughter of Kumaravel, aged

27 years, converted Muslim, residing at No. 29,

Vellaipillaiyar South Street, Kottucherry, Karaikal, do

hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on oath

as follows:

That I was a Hindu by birth. My birth name was

‘Jegadheeswari’ recently, I had embraced Islamic

faith. Upon conversion of religion, I had renounced

my birth name ‘Jegadheeswari’ and assumed to

myself the Muslim name ‘Jafira’.

I do hereby declare that henceforth I shall be

known, called, referred and identified only as ‘Jafira’.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Karaikal, on this 06th day of January 2023.

497

K. JEGADHEESWARI.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, M. Anjalakshmi, daughter of Mani, aged 19 years,

converted Muslim, residing at No. 61, Bungalow

Thottam, Melaoduthurai, Karaikal, do hereby solemnly

and sincerely affirm and state on oath as follows:

That I was a Hindu by birth. My birth name was

‘Anjalakshmi’ recently, I had embraced Islamic faith.

Upon conversion of religion, I had renounced my

birth name ‘Anjalakshmi’ and assumed to myself the

Muslim name ‘Roja Banu’.

I do hereby declare that henceforth I shall be

known, called, referred and identified only as ‘Roja

Banu’.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Karaikal, on this 04th day of January 2023.

498

ANJALAKSHMI.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Neelavathi, wife of Jakabar, aged 57 years,

converted Muslim, residing at No. 61, Bungalow

Thottam, Melaoduthurai, Karaikal, do hereby solemnly

and sincerely affirm state on oath as follows:

That I was a Hindu by birth. My birth name was

‘Neelavathi’ recently, I had embraced Islamic faith.

Upon conversion of religion, I had renounced my

birth name ‘Neelavathi’ and assumed to myself the

Muslim name ‘Jaithun Beevi’.

I do hereby declare that henceforth, I shall be

known, called, referred and identified only as

‘Jaithun Beevi’.

Solemnly affirmed and impressed my left hand thumb-

impression before the Notary Public at Karaikal, on this

04th day of January 2023.

499

LT.I OF NEELAVATHI.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Lourdessamy Maleappane Vanangamoudiar, son of

Maleappane Candidassane, aged 44 years and residing

at No. 8, Lenin Street, Subbaiya Nagar, Ariyankuppam,

Puducherry-605 007, do hereby solemnly sincerely

affirm and state on oath as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and I am well aware

of the facts of this deposition.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Lourdessamy

Maleappane Vanangamoudiar’ in my Birth Certificate

vide Registration No. R/1978/00118, dated 03-06-1978

issued by the Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry,

in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 3245, issued

by the Unique Identification Authority of India, in

my Elector’s Photo Identity Card No. FBN0233528,

issued by the Election Commission of India.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Lourdessamy

Maleappane’ in my Marriage Certificate vide

Registration No. 6/AMC/2008, issued by the

Ariyankuppam Commune Panchayat, Puducherry.

I state that my name is entered as ‘ŸÏmƒVt

Card No. 170521, issued by the Department of Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of

Puducherry.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the

abovesaid names, i.e., ‘Lourdessamy Maleappane

Vanangamoudiar’, ‘Lourdessamy Maleappane’ and

identified and relate to one and same person, that is

myself only.

137

7 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Hereinafter, shall be known and identified only

the

name

‘Lourdessamy

Maleappane

Vanangamoudiar’ for all purposes.

I state that what are all stated in the above

paragraphs is true and correct to the best of

my knowledge, belief and information.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 25th day of

January 2023.

562211

LOURDESSAMY MALEAPPANE.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Alphonsa Mary, daughter of Gnana Kannu (late),

Service No. 7974949, Rank-NAIK, aged 63 years,

residing at No. 16, Mariyal Nagar, Mahalakshmi Koil

Backside, Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry-605 010, do

hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on oath

as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and made this

affidavit on behalf of me.