[141]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

\Vk‚¶ ¿]√]BV_ ®|¬Ô©√|D ..

142

Procédure du Magistrate de District .. 142

Procedings of the District

142

º\_Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

Magistrate

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

152

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 152

Award of the Labour Court .. 152

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

161

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 161

Government Notifications

.. 161

Œ©√∂§s©AÔ^d

163

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 163

Tender notices

.. 163

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

164

Etablissements dangereux

.. 164

Dangerous Establishments

164

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

166

Annonces

.. 166

Announcements

166

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 |

14 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2023 (25 Magha 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

14th

February

2023

152

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 February 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 178/AIL/Lab./T/2022, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 47/2017, dated

18-10-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of dispute between the

management of M/s. Pondy Agrochemicals Private

Limited, Periyakalapet Puducherry, and Thiru S. Sengeni,

Karayambuthur, Puducherry, over reinstatement with

salary dues.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with

the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

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

Presiding Officer.

Tuesday, the 18th day of October, 2022

I.D. (L) No. 47/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000077-2017

Sengeni S/o. Sadhasivam,

No. 3, Balaji Nagar,

Opposite to Police Station,

Karayambuthur, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Pondy Agrochemicals Private Limited,

Mathur Road, Periyakalapet,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 30-09-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R. Raja

Prakash, Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal

B. Baskaran, K. Ashokkumar, B. Karunakaran and

R. Maduraimuthu, Counsel for the Respondents, and

after hearing the both sides and perusing the case

records, this Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.

No. 127/AIL/Lab./T/2017 dated 18-08-2017 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent, viz.

(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru Sengeni,

Karayambuthur, Puducherry against the Management of

M/s. Pondy Agrochemicals Private Limited, Periyakalapet,

Puducherry, over reinstatement with salary dues are

justifiable 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 facts of the case of the Petitioner averred

in the claim petition:

The Petitioner was employed since 09-01-2004 with

the Respondent as a permanent worker in Respondent

factory at Kalapet and his monthly salary is `18,000.

During the employment with Respondent, Petitioner

rendered his unblemished and flawless services to

Respondent from the date of his joining the services.

The Petitioner is an nativian of Karayambuthur Village.

Petitioner is an uneducated and his family comprised

of his mother, wife and two children. Because of his

employment with Respondent, he shifted his residence

from Karaiyambuthur village to Kalapet.

(ii) In April 2015, the Petitioner requested the

respondent Management for salary hike, who in turn

refused by saying that it cannot enhance the salary for

Petitioner alone. However, on 09-05-2015, the Petitioner

was transferred to its Poothurai Unit without serving

any transfer order. The Petitioner reported at Poothurai

Unit of Respondent and attended the work assigned to

him at Poothurai Unit to the satisfaction of the

Respondent. While being so, the Petitioner was

informed that the Poothurai Unit of respondent is

functioning without obtaining any permission from the

Labour Department, therefore, his services at Poothurai

Unit of respondent will not be considered into account

as his service period. Therefore, the Petitioner

requested the Respondent to transfer him to Kalapet

Factory, the respondent though agreed but dilly dallied

the issue on one count or the other. The Poothurai Unit

also does not have proper and necessary facilities as

mandated according to the Factories Act and more

importantly because of Petitioner's financial and family

constraints he repeatedly requested the respondent to

transfer him to its factory at Kalapet but, it had not done so.

153

14 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(iii) Meanwhile in July 2015, the Respondent

Management illegally deducted a sum of ` 286 from his

monthly wages. Immediately, the Petitioner had

approached the Respondent Management and sought

for an explanation. But, there was absolutely no reason

given by the respondent. Therefore, the Petitioner

raised his objections for the illegal deduction from his

monthly wage with the Respondent Management. The

respondent assured the Petitioner that such deducted

wages to the tune of ` 286 will be credited along with

the salary in the upcoming months and requested the

Petitioner not to precipitate the issue. The Petitioner

continued his work to the satisfaction of respondent

even then it has not paid the deducted wages to

Petitioner in the subsequent months. Again in December

2015, the respondent deducted a sum of ` 5,931 in the

monthly wage of Petitioner. The Petitioner was really

disturbed because of the fact that he did his work

according to the satisfaction of the Respondent

without any lack on his part. Once again the Petitioner

approached the respondent and called for an

explanation for such illegal deduction in his monthly

wage in the month of December 2015. Without giving

proper explanation, the respondent in turn had informed

the Petitioner that the same will be credited along with

the salary of January 2016. Since, the Petitioner and

his entire family is fully dependent on his employment

and his monthly salary, Petitioner has not intended to

take the issue of illegal deduction and his transfer to

Labour Department. But, he had continued his

employment with respondent.

(iv) The Respondent once again deducted a sum

of ` 9,948 in the monthly wage of Petitioner for

January 2016. Since the wages deducted in July 2015

and December 2015 were not paid by respondent and

his request of transfer from Poothurai Unit to Kalapet

Village was dilly dallied by Respondent, Petitioner

suspects that he had been victimized by respondent.

Therefore, on 20-01-2016, he approached the Labour

Department, Puducherry seeking their intervention to

direct the Management to pay the illegal deduction of

his monthly wages and gave a written representation,

dated 27-01-2016 and on 23-01-2016, he approached the

Labour Officer (Conciliation) for transfer and other

reliefs.

(v) The Respondent Management having gained

knowledge about the Petitioner approaching the Labour

Department, in order to counter protect the Respondent

and to pressurize the Petitioner to withdraw his

complaints with the Labour Departments, has issued

the 1st charge memo, dated 23-01-2016 containing false

and vague allegations against him based on a bogus

complaint, dated 22-01-2016 given by its Factory

Manager at Kalapet. The said complaint, dated

22-01-2016 given by its Factory Manager at Kalapet was

not served to Petitioner to understand the nature and

veracity of complaint given against him. Even though,

the Petitioner gave a befitting reply to the alleged

charges levelled against him vide his reply dated

30-01-2016. In order to deny the charges levelled by

Petitioner vide his reply dated 30-01-2016 against the

respondent, it has issued a reply dated 06-02-2016 to

Petitioner . However, in its reply dated 06-02-2016, it

has admitted that about the deductions of wages, for

which the respondent gave an evasive reason which is

false and the respondent has put to strict proof of the

same. However, it has absolutely failed to state any

reasons for the illegal deduction of Petitioner's wages

for the months of July and December 2015. That

11-01-2016 was Petitioner’s weekly off, thereafter the

Petitioner did reported to his duty from 12-01-2016

onwards and worked at Poothurai Unit which was to the

satisfaction of his superior. Respondent further

admitted in its reply dated 06-02-2016 that it has

transferred the Petitioner to its Poothurai Unit and have

claimed that the Poothurai Village is within Puducherry

District, which is once again absolutely false and it

falls within the Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District,

Tamil Nadu. The Respondent completely failed to assign

any reason as to why the Petitioner was transferred to

Poothurai Village, which is run by it without any

permission from Government Authorities.

(vi) In order to strengthen the Respondent false

accusation and allegations against the Petitioner, it has

issued the 2nd charge memo, dated 06-02-2016 based on

another bogus complaint dated 05-02-2016 given by its

Kalapet Factory Manager and once again Petitioner was

not served with the alleged complaints of its Factory

Manager dated 05-02-2016. In the 2nd charge memo

dated 06-02-2016 the Respondent has extracted the

same charges for which the Petitioner was already called

for an explanation in the 1st charge memo dated

23-01-2016, which once again very vague and imprecise.

After receipt of Tamil translation of 2nd charge memo

dated 06-02-2016 the Petitioner replied to the same on

02-03-2016. Meanwhile, the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry has sent a Notice of Enquiry to the

respondent but, the respondent did not turn up for

enquiry hearings, instead it gave a representation dated

29-02-2016.

(vii) Since, the Petitioner has not withdrawn his

complaints from the Labour Departments the

Respondent decided to throw him out of its factory, it

has issued a Charge Sheet-cum-Suspension Order dated

01-03-2016 (posted on 07-03-2016) through its authorized

signatory, whereby it has suspended the Petitioner

pending enquiry for minor charges issues, when in fact

the Petitioner has not past misconducts. The charges

154

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 February 2023

levelled against the Petitioner are very vague as the

respondent has failed to mention; (1) under what

provisions of model standing order the Petitioner was

charge sheeted; (2) what are the works that were

assigned to Petitioner which were done and undone

by him; (3) the names and designations of the superior

officers of Petitioner who gave instructions which are

not obeyed; (4) the names of his co-workers with whom

the Petitioner is combating; (5) the details of mobile

numbers with whom the Petitioner is talking over

phone; (6) what are the filthy and threatening words that

were used by Petitioner against the manager or his

co-workers; (7) why the reply given by Petitioner to

the 1st charge memo was not satisfactory to the

respondent. The documents based on which the charges

were framed vide charge sheet dated 01-03-2016 was not

served to Petitioner along with the Charge Sheet-cum-

Suspension Order. Furthermore, the charge-sheet is not

issued by the disciplinary authority of the Respondent.

Therefore, it is not valid under law.

(viii) Petitioner has not received any letter from

the Respondent for appointment of an (independent

and impartial) Enquiry Officer to enquiry in to the

alleged charges against the Petitioner. But, the Petitioner

received an advocate notice dated 28-03-2016, wherein,

it is claimed that he was appointed as an Enquiry Officer

to enquiry into the alleged charges levelled against the

Petitioner vide Charge-sheet dated 06-02-2016 and

Suspension Order dated 01-03-2016 and called upon the

Petitioner to attend the enquiry at Advocate’s place

on 26-04-2016. Petitioner was shocked and surprised

that he has not been served with any Charge-sheet

dated 06-02-2016 by the Respondent. Further more, the

place of enquiry fixed by the Enquiry Officer is 15 kms.

away from Petitioner’s place and the Petitioner was

required to take two buses from his place to reach the

Enquiry Officer’s place, which caused grave prejudice

during his suspension period, when in fact subsistence

allowance was also not paid according to law. Petitioner,

being a layman, who does not know his rights to object

the place of enquiry and subsistence allowance payable

to him during suspension period, he attended the

enquiry on 26-04-2016.

(ix) The entire enquiry proceedings conducted by

Enquiry Officer conducted in a biased and highhanded

manner, which are against the Principles of Natural

Justice and equity. The following acts done by Enquiry

Officer would prove the same;

(a) The place of enquiry fixed by Enquiry Officer,

where the equity alleged to have been took place,

which was far away from the Petitioner’s place.

(b) Enquiry was not conducted in his mother

tongue.

proceedings without there being a Management's

respresentative.

(d) The date of charge-sheet was wrongly

mentioned in the alleged enquiry intimation notices

sent by Enquiry Officer and in his Order dated

01-10-2016.

(e) Enquiry Officer permitted the Respondent to

represent through advocates.

(f) Enquiry Officer has not explained the charges

levelled against the Petitioner for which he is

conducting the Enquiry proceedings.

(g) Enquiry Officer has not informed/explained the

manner in which the enquiry will be conducted and

the rights and opportunities the Petitioner had

during the Enquiry proceedings.

(h) Enquiry Officer received the list of witnesses

and allowed the same behind the back of Petitioner .

(i) Enquiry Officer received the documents

produced by Respondent and recorded oral

evidences of respondent in the absence of Petitioner.

(j) Enquiry Officer had not given sufficient time

to Petitioner to peruse the documents filed by

Respondent and statements recorded by respondent's

witnesses during enquiry proceedings but have

insisted the Petitioner to get along with enquiry.

(k) Enquiry Officer did not consider the

objections raised by Petitioner regarding the manner

in which the enquiry was conducted.

(l) Enquiry Officer did not give sufficient

opportunities to Petitioner to lead his evidence and

puts forth his arguments.

(m) Enquiry Officer failed to give findings to the

documents filed by respondent to prove the charges

levelled against the Petitioner.

For all the abovesaid reasons, the entire enquiry

proceedings conducted was against the Principles of

Natural Justice, which caused serious prejudice and

irreparable loss to the Petitioner. Therefore, the entire

enquiry proceedings is not valid under law and it is

against the law.

(x) The Order dated 01-10-2016 passed by the

Enquiry Officer sent directly by him to Petitioner, which

was in English and was received by the Petitioner on

04-10-2016. The 2nd show cause notice as mandated

under the Model Standing Order was not issued to

Petitioner to call for an explanation to the Order of

Enquiry Officer. However, the respondent terminated

155

14 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

the Petitioner vide its Order of Termination dated

05-10-2012. The Respondent has failed to consider the

past services of Petitioner with respondent and his

conducts but has passed an extreme punishment of

dismissal from services. The respondent has not

complied with the provision of Section 33(1) (b) of

Industrial Disputes Act while dismissing the Petitioner

while the dispute is pending before the Conciliation

Officer, therefore, the Petitioner’s dismissal is invalid

under law. The Petitioner was victimized and punished

by respondent only because he raised his objections

when the Respondent illegally deducted his monthly

wages and in order to refrain the other workers in the

respondent factory from raising any protest and

questions against the Management.

(xi) The Petitioner is unemployed from the date

of his suspension and the subsistence allowance paid

by the respondent is also lesser than what has to be

paid as per law. Petitioner was suspended by

respondent vide its Charge sheet-cum-Suspension Order

dated 01-03-2016 (posted on 07-03-2016). The

Respondent did not paid the 50 of his monthly salary,

which amounts to ` 9,000 towards subsistence

allowance making his life and his family members

miserable but have paid paltry sums after making

deduction, which is against the law. The respondent

failed to pay 75% of Petitioner's monthly salary as

subsistence allowance to him from the 91st day of his

suspension as per section 10.A(1)(b) of Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Such an atrocious

act by the respondent prevented the Petitioner from

contesting the Domestic Enquiry properly as he was

struggling to even sustain his family. The non-payment

of actual subsistence allowance by itself is against the

Principles of Natural Justice as the Petitioner cannot

be expected to defend himself properly with empty

stomach. Therefore, the non-payment of proper/actual

subsistence allowance to Petitioner by respondent by

itself vitiates the enquiry proceedings.

(xii) Without giving proper subsistence allowance

to Petitioner, it is obnoxious on the part of respondent

to expected the Petitioner conduct the enquiry

proceedings on empty stomach that too at a faraway

place. The Respondent do not have a certified Standing

Order inspite of the statutory mandate and has charge

sheeted the Petitioner only under the Model Standing

Orders. When the Respondent do not have it own

certified Standing Orders permitting it to pay reduced

salary during the period of suspension the respondent

is bound to pay full salary to the Petitioner without

any deduction. Hence, the petitioner prays for an order

of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of

service, other attendant benefits, bonus, salary

increment, balance subsistence allowance to the

petitioner.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

respondents are as follows:

Based on the complaints dated 22-01-2016 and

05-02-2016 given by one Mr. P. Krishnasamy, Factory

Manager of Respondent Company, two charge memo

dated 23-01-2016 and 06-02-2016 were issued to the

Petitioner calling for explanations on the said charges.

The list of the above said complaint was that the

Petitioner during working hours, often used to talk over

mobile phone without attending his work inspite of

repeated instructions and warnings from the Superior

Officers of the factory. Inspite of the charge memo, the

Petitioner continued the same and did not change his

attitude. Thus, it resulted in low production of goods.

Petitioner gave an explanation only to the Charge memo

dated 22-01-2016 but, continued in speaking over mobile

phone during working hours and not attending his work.

He also used to threaten the Superior Officer as he will

lodge false complaints before the Labour Department

and against the respondent factory if he compelled to

do work. Hence, respondent company had decided to

conduct Domestic Enquiry of the petitioner employee.

(ii) The Domestic enquiry initiated by appointing

Enquiry Officer and Petitioner was suspended from

01-03-2013. Since he was suspended pending enquiry,

50% of his salary, i.e., ` 5,099 has been paid as

subsistence allowance. In order to escape from any

action against him, he gave a complaint with false

allegation before Labour Department and the same was

pending.

(iii) Though the Petitioner received the notice of

hearing on the domestic enquiry issued by Enquiry

Officer and filed his reply in the said enquiry, he did

not turn up for further proceedings in the domestic

enquiry. He wantonly evaded from the domestic enquiry,

not co-operated to conduct the said enquiry. Since, even

after giving opportunities, Petitioner did not come

forward to cross examine the Respondent witnesses,

domestic enquiry officer without any other option

closed the enquiry and submitted his report to the

Respondent Management. In his report, Enquiry Officer

found

the charges as proved and thereby has given a

finding that Petitioner is guilty of the charges framed.

(iv) Based on the domestic enquiry report,

Respondent Management has issued a dismissal order

to the Petitioner and the legally entitled benefits has

been credited into the Petitioner’s Bank Account. The

said amount has also been received by the Petitioner.

The Respondent factory never acted against the

interest, welfare of its workmen at any point of time.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

156

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 February 2023

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner employee is entitled for an

order of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity

of service, other attendant benefits, bonus, salary

increment, balance subsistence allowance to the

petitioner as claimed in the claim petition?

5. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex. P1 to

P14 were marked. On Respondent side Mr. Krishnasamy,

the General Manager of Respondent Company examined

as RW1. Through him Ex. R1 to R13 were marked.

On Petitioner side Ex. P15 marked though RW1 during

cross-examination. Mr. Sengeni/co-employee examined

as RW2 and Ex.P16 marked on the Petitioner side

through RW2 during cross-examination.

6. On the point:

The present reference made in this industrial dispute

is over reinstatement with salary dues. According to

the Petitioner since 09-01-2004 he was employed with

the Respondent as a permanent worker in the

Respondent factory with his monthly salary as

` 18,000. In April 2015, he requested for salary hike. So,

all of a sudden on 09-05-2015 he was transferred to

Poothurai Unit of the Respondent company without

serving any transfer order. Petitioner reported at

Poothurai Unit of the Respondent and doing the work

that was assigned to him to the satisfaction of the

Respondent. The Petitioner repeatedly requested the

Respondent to transfer back him to the Kalapet factory.

Meanwhile in July 2015, ` 286 and in December 2015

` 5,931 were deducted from his monthly wage without

any proper reason. When he approached the

Respondent he was informed that the said amounts will

be credited in the January 2016 salary.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

would submit that on 20-01-2016, the Petitioner

approached the Labour Department, Puducherry, for

suitable direction to the management towards such

illegal deduction. He also approached the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) for transfer and other reliefs on

23-01-2016 vide EX. P1. The Petitioner also gave a

written representation to the Managing Director of the

Respondent Factory vide EX. P2 dated 27-01-2016. That

being so, he was served with the charge memo vide

EX. P4 dated 23-01-2016 in which it is mentioned that

said charge memo has been issued based on the

complaint EX. R2 dated 22-01-2016 given by the Factory

manager, Kalapet. He replied vide EX. R4 on 30-01-2016.

The second charge memo dated 06-02-2016 vide EX. P6

was served on the Petitioner on 11-02-2016 in which it

is mentioned that said charge memo has been issued

based on the complaint EX. R5 dated 05-02-2016 given

by the Factory Manager, Kalapet. Petitioner submitted

his reply vide EX. P8. The Respondent Management

did not turn up for the enquiry hearings before Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry. But, they gave a

representation dated 29-02-2016.

8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would

argue that the Respondent issued Charge Sheet-cum-

Suspension Order EX. P9 dated 01-03-2016. According

to the Petitioner, no communication received by the

Petitioner from the Respondent regarding the

appointment of Domestic Enqiury Officer, but, an

Advocate Notice dated 28-03-2016 received from the

Enquiry Officer for the charge sheet dated 06-02-2016

and suspension order dated 01-03-2016. The place of

enquiry fixed by an Enquiry Officer is far away from the

Petitioner’s place. Subsistence allowance also not paid

in accordance with the provisions of law. He was not

explained about the rights and opportunities, he had

during the enquiry. Advocates were present on the

Respondent

Management side which was objected by

the Petitioner, but, the same was not considered by the

Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was not conducted in a

fair and free manner. Despite the requests made by the

Petitioner to conduct the enquiry in the local language,

i.e., in Tamil, it was not considered by the Enquiry

Officer. The Enquiry Officer permitted the Respondent

Management to file its list of witnesses, documents and

witnesses statements in the absence of Petitioner and

failed to give an opportunity to the Petitioner to peruse

the same. Petitioner was forced to cross-examine the

Respondent's witnesses without looking into the

documents filed on the side of the Respondent

Management. The Enquiry Office did not give sufficient

opportunities to the Petitioner to adduce his side

evidence and for production of his documents. Based

on the biased and partial enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

prepared his report dated 01-10-2016 EX. P12 in English

and sent the same to the Petitioner. Termination order

was issued to the Petitioner thereby terminating him

from the services of the Respondent Management vide

EX. P13 dated 05-10-2016. Therefore, the Learned

Counsel for the Petitioner has concluded his arguments

that the entire domestic enquiry proceedings were

conducted in a biased, partial manner and against the

Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, he prayed to

reinstate the Petitioner with salary dues as claimed in

the claim petition.

9. On the other hand, the learned Respondent

Counsel would submit in his reply that the domestic

enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a fair

manner by giving fair opportunity to the Petitioner to

put forth his defence. Only the Petitioner who had not

157

14 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

cooperated with the proceedings of the enquiry. He had

also not come forward to cross examine the Respondent

Management witnesses. Petitioner was the one who

delayed the enquiry proceedings by not appearing

before the Enquiry Officer for several hearings.

Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the

domestic enquiry was conducted against the Principles

of Natural Justice has to be rejected at the threshold.

10. Heard both. Perused the case records.

On perusal of documents filed on either side, I could

see that the domestic enquiry proceedings/minutes

were not produced before this Court by either parties.

Whereas, the Petitioner in his claim statement has

raised specific plea that the enquiry was not held in an

impartial manner. In his claim statement, he has also

clearly pleaded that he raised same objections before

the domestic Enquiry Officer but it was not considered

by him. In fact, the said fact has been mentioned even

by the Enquiry Officer in his report EX. P12 that, “on

09-07-2016 employee submitted letter raising objections

regarding the manner in which domestic enquiry had

been conducted”. The photocopy of said objection

letter is also marked by the Petitioner as Ex. P15,

dated 09-07-2016 through RW1, the management

witness, who has also admitted the same in his cross-

examination.

11. RW1 has deposed while he was cross examined

by the Petitioner’s Counsel that, “09-07-2016-_

\–>V´´Ï, c^sƒV´Á™ ∂]ÔVˆl¶D ŒÚ g‚ºƒ√Á™

ÔΩ>D >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF>VÏ ®[≈V_ g\VD. ∂m >uº√Vm ®[M¶D

ÔVı∏¬Ô©√|km>V[. ∂m Ex.P15-gkm >uº√Vm z§X|

ÿƒFB©√|˛≈m. Ex. P15-_ c^sƒV´ÁðÁB ƒˆBV™

xÁ≈l_ Â¶›>s_ÁÈ ®[ÆD c^sƒV´Áðl[º√Vm

sƒV´Áð ÂÁ¶xÁ≈ ÷BuÁÔ ¿] ºÔV‚√V| s]Ô^

∏[√u≈©√¶s_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ÿƒV_o•^·VÏ ®[≈V_ g\VD

Ex. P15á*m c^sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ ®Õ>s> c›>´°D

º√V¶s_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_, ∂kÏ x>o_ \–>V´Ï >´©A

c^sƒV´Áðl_

g‚ºƒ√Á™ÁB

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒF•\VÆ

∂§°Æ›>™VÏ ®[Æ ƒV‚E √]Èπ¬˛≈VÏ.

12. When, the fairness of the Domestic enquiry was

challenged in the specific terms by the Petitioner in his

claim petition, it is the bounden duty of the Respondent

to prove its Fairness before this Court. Whereas, the

Respondent did not come forward to file the said

Enquiry proceedings/minutes to prove the fairness and

validity of the Domestic enquiry initiated by it as

against the Petitioner. As mentioned earlier, the

Domestic Enquiry Proceedings/Minutes are not before

this court. The Management has not taken any steps to

produce the same before this Court. RW1, the General

Manager of Respondent Company has deposed that,

“16-04-2016-_

c^sƒV´Áðl[

x>_

kVF>V

ÂÁ¶ÿ√u≈m.

c^sƒV´Áð

>ta_

>V[

Â¶Õ>m.

c^sƒV´Áðl[º√Vm sƒV´Áð ÂÁ¶xÁ≈ ÷BuÁÔ

ºÔV‚√V| s]Ô^ √u§ s·¬˛™V´V ®[≈V_ gD s·¬˛™VÏ.

c^sƒV´Áð

ÂV‚z§©A

Â¶kΩ¬ÔÁÔπ_

∂ÀkVÆ

s·¬˛B>VÔ

c^sƒV´Áð

∂]ÔVˆ

z§©∏‚|^·V´V

®[≈V_,

z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.

c^sƒV´Áð

ÂV‚z§©A

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

∂Àk©º√Vm

c^sƒV´Áð

∂]ÔVˆ

®∫Ô”¬z >ÚkVÏÔ·V ®[≈V_ ÷_ÁÈ. c^sƒV´Áð

xΩÕ>∏≈z, c^sƒV´Áð ÂV‚z§©A Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔÁ·

sƒV´Áð

∂]ÔVˆ

®∫Ô”¬z

>´s_ÁÈ.

c^sƒV´Áðl[º√Vm sƒV´Áð ÂÁ¶xÁ≈ ÷BuÁÔ ¿]

ºÔV‚√V| s]Ô^ ÔÁ¶©∏¬Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™VKD

∂>™V_>V[

ÂV‚z§©A

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

®∫Ô”¬z

∂Àk©º√Vm

c^sƒ´Áð

∂]ÔVˆ

>´s_ÁÈ

®[Æ

ÿƒV[™VKD ƒˆB_È. c^sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ, \–>V´ˆ¶D

∂kÏ º\_ ∑\›>©√‚|^· zu≈ﬂƒV‚Á¶, ∂kˆ¶xD, ∂kÏ

ƒVÏ√VÔ kV>VΩB ∏´]W]l¶xD >ta_ s·¬˛ Ì§™VÏ.

º�√Ω ∂DƒD ÂV‚z§©∏_ ÿÔVı|kÕm^·VÏÔ·V ®™Æ

®™¬z

ÿ>ˆBVm.

∂ÀkVÆ

∂kÏ

∑\›>©√‚¶

zu≈ﬂƒV‚Á¶ \–>V´ˆ¶xD s·¬˛¬ Ì≈s_ÁÈ ®[Æ

ÿƒV[™VKD, ∂>Á™ ÂV‚z§©∏_ z§©∏¶s_ÁÈ ®[≈VKD

∂>™V_>V[ ∂Õ> ÂV‚z§©A Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔÁ· ®∫Ô^

>´©∏_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈VKD ƒˆB_È”. Even

thereafter i.e., after this above cross-examination of

RW1, the Respondent Management has not chosen to

produce the Enquiry proceedings/minutes for reason

best known to them.

13. Further, it has been clearly elucidated by the

learned Petitioner Counsel by way of cross-examining

the General Manager of Respondent Company RW1

that, no proof examination affidavit filed by the

Management in the domestic enquiry, but, in the

enquiry report EX. P12, Enquiry Officer had mentioned

as if, proof affidavit filed by the Respondent

management. He also admitted that it was wrongly

mentioned in the report as proof affidavit filed on the

side of the management and no such affidavit filed on

their side. The relevant portion of RW1, the General

Manager of Respondent company is extracted hereunder

“®∫Ô^

WÆk™D

ƒVÏ√VÔ

kw¬z¬z

ƒD\Õ>\V™

gkð∫ÔÁ·

c^sƒV´Áðl_

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFº>VD.

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ ®∫ÔÁ· zÆ¬z sƒV´Áð ÿƒF>VÏ. ∂Á>

>s´ kV¬zJÈD ®m°D ÂV∫Ô^ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ

“Ex.P12-o_ sƒV´Áð ∂>ÔVˆ WÏkVÔ>´©∏_ proof

affidavit >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√‚¶>VÔ z§©∏‚|^·VÏ. g™V_,

WÏkVÔD ∂ÀkVÆ proof affidavit c^sƒV´Áðl_ >V¬Ô_

ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF>>VÔ Ex.P12-_ Ôı|^·m >kÆ

®[≈V_ ∂m >kÆ>V[.”

14. On close and careful perusal of the Domestic

Enquiry Report EX. P12, I could able to find

that the Petitioner Mr. Sengeni was represented by

Mr. P. R. Sathishkumar, Advocate. Management was

158

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 February 2023

also represented by some Advocates. At the first hearing

the Enquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry to 23-04-2016

for filing counter by the Petitioner employee, and

thereafter, to 21-05-2016, 04-06-2016, 11-06-2016,

25-06-2016 and 02-07-2016, but, counter not filed by him.

Instead, the Petitioner filed a letter raising objections

on the enquiry conducted. In the objection letter Ex. P15,

dated 09-07-2016 the Petitioner has mentioned that

"z§©AÔÁ· zu≈D ƒV‚¶©√‚¶ ÿ>VaÈVπBV˛B ÂV[ ∂§Õ>

>tµ ÿ\Val_ √]° ÿƒFB ºkı|D ®[Æ >∫Ôπ¶D

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ Ák›mD, ∂>Á™ >V∫Ô^ ∞uÔs_ÁÈ. ÂV[

�≈kˆ¶D ºÔ‚| ∂§Õ> kÁÔl_, sƒV´Áð z§©∏[

∏´]lÁ™, sƒV´Áðl_ √∫ºÔuzD zu≈D ƒV‚¶©√‚¶

®™¬z

kw∫Ô

ºkı|D

®[√Á>•D

>V∫Ô^

ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬Ôs_ÁÈ. º\KD, WÏkVÔ›>´©∏_ sƒV´Áðl_

ÌuÆ ∂§¬ÁÔ/gkð∫Ô^ √‚ΩB_/ƒV‚EÔπ[ √‚ΩB_

®[Æ ÷mkÁ´ ®m°D >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√¶s_ÁÈ. g™V_,

ÂV[

√]_

∂§¬ÁÔ

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFBºkı|D

®[Æ

WÏ√Õ]›mkÚ˛SÏÔ^.

ÂV[

∂§Õ>

kÁÔl_

c^sƒV´Áðl_ ∂ÀkV≈V™ Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^ ÷_ÁÈ ®[Æ

∂§B©√‚|^º·[. º\KD, sƒV´Áð Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔπ[ ∏´]

®™¬z kw∫Ô©√¶ºkı|D ®[Æ ∂§B©√‚|^·™.

"®™¬z

∂Á™›m

sƒV´Áð

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔπ[

∏´]ÁB•D kw∫Ô ºÔ‚|¬ÿÔV^˛º≈[".

15. From this document Ex. P15, dated 09-07-2016,

it is understood that Petitioner had raised serious

objection on the conduct of the enquiry before the

Enquiry Officer and requested to Domestic Enquiry

Officer to furnish the copy of domestic enquiry

proceedings/minutes as early as on 09-07-2016. But, the

minutes/proceedings of the domestic enquiry has not

been served on the Petitioner. When this question was

put to RW1 (General Manager of the Respondent

company) by the Petitioner Counsel, he has

categorically admitted that no Domestic Enquiry

proceedings/minutes were served on them by the

Domestic Enquiry Officer. For better appreciation, the

relevant portion of RW1 cross-examination is

reproduced hereunder:

“c^sƒV´Áð

ÂV‚z§©A

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔÁ·

∂Àk©º√Vm c^sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ ®∫Ô”¬z >ÚkVÏÔ·V

®[≈V_ ÷_ÁÈ. c^sƒV´Áð xΩÕ>∏≈z c^sƒV´Áð

ÂV‚z§©A Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔÁ· sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ ®∫Ô”¬z

>´s_ÁÈ".

16.

Further, RW1 in his cross-examination deposed

before this Court to the effect that the Management

documents were submitted already to the Domestic

Enquiry Officer and copies were already given to the

Petitioner. Only after the filing the reply/counter from

the Petitioner/employee, the domestic enquiry will be

started. Relevant portion of RW1, the General Manager

of Respondent Company's cross-examination is as

follows:–

"c^sƒV´Áðl[ º√Vm x>o_ WÏkVÔ›Á>>V[

sƒVˆ©√VÏÔ^ ®[≈VKD ∂ÀkVÆ ®∫ÔÁ· sƒVˆ¬ÔV\_,

\–>V´Á´ g‚ºƒ√Á™ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB ∂§°Æ›]Bm

÷BuÁÔ ¿] ºÔV‚√V| s]Ô”¬z x´ðV™m ®[Æ

ÿƒV[™V_ c^sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆl¶D WÏkVÔD, ®∫Ô^

>´©A gkð∫ÔÁ· ∞uÔ™ºk ƒ\Ï©∏›ms‚º¶VD. ∂>[

ÂÔ_ÔÁ· \–>V´Ú¬z ÿÔV|›ms‚º¶VD. ∂>uz \–>V´Ï

√]Èπ›> ∏[™Ï>V[ c^sƒV´Áð ÿ>V¶ÚD ®[Æ ƒV‚E

√]Èπ¬˛≈VÏ".

17.

First of all, in Ex. P12 the enquiry report, there

is no mention as the documents were submitted by

the Management and copies were also served on the

Petitioner, either at the time of starting the enquiry or

even before that. In the report EX. P12, I could not

find any such recordings as documents of the

Management received and copies served on the

Petitioner before he was insisted to file his counter.

Whereas, it could be seen from the report EX. P12

that on the first hearing of the enquiry itself i.e., on

16-04-2016, the Petitioner employee was asked to

submit his counter in the next hearing on 23-04-2016.

The relevant portion of EX. P12 is extracted hereunder

for better appreciation:–

“I hereby have given notice to both parties. Both

the parties received the notice. The enquiry commenced

on 16-04-2016 both the parties appeared, Mr. B. Karunakaran,

and R. Madurai Muthu, Advocates for Employer,

and Mr. P. R. Sathish Kumar, Advocate appeared for

Mr. S. Sengeni, adjourned for counter on 23-04-2016,

and 21-05-2016, adjourned to 04-06-2016 as last chance,

but not counter filed”.

18. Therefore, it is made clear that, there is

absolutely no evidence on the Respondent side that the

documents of the Respondent were submitted before

the domestic enquiry proceedings before the Petitioner

was asked to file his counter. No proof to show that

the copies of the so called documents were served upon

the Petitioner/employee. As already said, the enquiry

proceedings/ minutes are not before this Court. The

Management has not taken steps to produce the enquiry

proceedings before this Court even after the cross-

examination of RW1-General Manager of the Respondent

company for the reason best known to them. This makes

this Court, without any other option than to draw an

adverse inference in this regard as against the

Respondent. From the above discussions and findings,

I hold that the Domestic Enquiry held in this case is

invalid, unfair and the Principles of Natural Justice not

followed.

19. Whether the Charges framed as against the

Petitioner were proved?

No sufficient oral as well as documentary

evidences produced either before this Court or before

the enquiry officer by the Management to substantiate

159

14 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

the charges. The management has not produced any

records such as attendance register or any other proof

to substantiate the charge that petitioner employee was

absent for the period either before Domestic Enquiry or

before this Court. Further, from Ex. P12, the enquiry

report, I could not find any substance to substantiate

the charges framed against the petitioner employee.

The domestic Enquiry Officer has simply observed that

“Reason for findings of charges: In perusal of the above

said charges the employer filed the documents to prove

their case and the PW2 has also deposed the evidence

substantiating the charges. On the cross-examination

also both the PW1 and PW2 did not make any

admissions against the charges. On the other hand, the

delinquent employee did not file any counter denying

the charges. The delinquent employee did not file any

documents to disprove the charges levelled against him.

Hence, I am inclined to accept that the charges has been

proved by the employer as against the Delinquent

employee”. Furthermore, as already decided by this

Court that the domestic enquiry was unfair, invalid and

against the Principles of Natural Justice, this Court

holds that in absence of evidences the charges framed

as against the Petitioner have not made out.

20. Is termination order is correct and on valid

reasons?

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

employee has argued that the order, dated 01-10-2016

passed by the Enquiry Officer has sent directly by him

to Petitioner, which was in English and was received by

the Petitioner on 04-10-2015. The 2nd show cause notice

as mandated under the model Standing Order was not

issued to Petitioner to call for an explanation to the

order of Enquiry Officer. However, the respondent

terminated the Petitioner vide its order of termination,

dated 05-10-2012. The respondent has failed to consider

the past services of Petitioner with respondent and his

conducts, but, has passed an extreme punishment of

dismissal from services. The respondent has not

complied with the provision of section 33(1) (b) of

Industrial Disputes Act while dismissing the Petitioner

while the dispute is pending before the Conciliation

Officer, therefore, the Petitioner’s dismissal is invalid

under law. The Petitioner was victimized and punished

by respondent only because he raised his objections

when the respondent illegally deducted his monthly

wages and in order to refrain the other workers in the

respondent factory from raising any protest and

questions against the Management.

21. It is an admitted fact that no 2nd show cause

notice issued to the Petitioner, calling for his

explanations on the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

Without issuing 2nd show cause notice and without

receiving the version of the Petitioner , the respondent

company had directly soon after receiving the report

from the Enquiry Officer, had issued the termination

order to the Petitioner.

Relevant portion of RW 1, the General Manager

of Respondent Company’s cross-examination is as

follows:–

"c^sƒV´Áð

∂§¬ÁÔ

˛Á¶¬Ô©ÿ√u≈

∏≈z,

÷´ı¶Vkm xÁ≈BVÔ ®Õ>s> show

cause

notice

º�ÿÔVı| ®Õ>s> Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ•D ®|¬Ô xΩ•D ®[Æ

ÿƒV[™VKD, g™V_ ÷Õ> kw¬˛_ ∂ÀkVÆ ®Õ>s>

ºÂ´ΩBVÔ

∂–©∏B

Termination

Order

ƒ‚¶©√Ω

∞uÆ¬ÿÔV^·›>¬Ô>_È ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È".

22.

EX. P13 is the copy of the termination order,

dated 05-10-2016. From the said Termination order also,

I could see that after the receipt of the Enquiry report,

the management had straight away passed the

Termination order EX. P13 without giving an

opportunity to the Petitioner to explain his defence.

The relevant portion from the termination Order, dated

05-10-2016 (Ex. P13) runs as follows:

“The Management referred the alleged allegations

against you to the Independent Enquiry Officer

Mr. S. Ganesh Gnanasambanthan. Yourself, your

Advocate Mr. P.R. Satishkumar, and Mr. Dinesh

Ponnaiha, General-Secretary, AITUC, Puducherry, have

participated in the Enquiry before the Enquiry Officer.

In the result, 01-10-2016 the Enquiry Officer confirmed

the allegations and passed the orders on result of the

enquiry. On perusal of the Enquiry Officer Order the

Management herein decided to terminate you

(Mr. S. Sengeni, S/o. Sadhasivam), from services

effected on 05-10-2016. Therefore, I herein informed

you, and on behalf of the management that your

services have been terminated with immediate effect”.

Therefore, the termination order without giving

opportunity for the petitioner employee to submit his

version on the findings of the enquiry report is illegal

and liable to be set aside.

23.

In addition to that the case of the Petitioner

employee is that he was employed since 09-01-2004 with

the respondent as a permanent worker in respondent

factory at Kalapet and his monthly salary is ` 18,000.

During the employment with Respondent, Petitioner

rendered his unblemished and flawless services to

160

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 February 2023

respondent from the date of his joining the services.

This has been proved by the Petitioner by putting a

specific question to RW1, the General Manager of the

Respondent Company, while cross-examination. The

answer given by RW1 is extracted below for the better

appreciation:-

Cross-examination of RW1 on 02-03-2022 at page 1:

"2004

x>_ 2015áD gı|kÁ´ \–>V´Ï *m

®]Ï\–>V´´V_

Œø∫z

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ

®m°D

Cross-examination of RW1 on 15-06-2022 at page 4:

"\–>V´Ï ÷>uz x[A ®Õ>s> >ı¶Á™ gÁðºBV,

∂§°Æ›>_

ÔΩ>º\V

ÿ√≈V>º√Vm,

ºÂ´ΩBVÔ

÷Õ>

zu≈›]uÔVÔ Termination Order ÿÔV|›>m ∂]Ô√‚ƒ

®[Æ ÿƒV[™VKD ƒˆB_È. \–>V´Á´ ºkÁÈloÚÕm

¿¬Ô ºkı|D ®[≈ c^ºÂV¬Ô›º>V|,∂kÏ *m Tı √a

∑\›] ∂kƒ´ Ô]l_ c^sƒV´Áð Â¶›] ƒ‚¶ s]Ô”¬z

A≈D√VÔ ∂]Ô√‚ƒ >ı¶Á™ ∂π›m, ∂kÁ´ ºkÁÈloÚÕm

ºkı|ÿ\[º≈ ¿¬˛º™VD ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È".

Therefore, from all angles, the punishment of termination

is not valid and without any supportive or justifiable

reasons. Thus, the termination order is liable to be set

aside.

24. To conclude, the domestic enquiry held in this

case is decided as unfair and principles of Natural

Justice has not been followed. Thus, it is declared as

invalid. The charges framed against the Petitioner

Employee is not proved. The termination order is liable

to be set aside.

25. In the result, the Reference is decided as

Justified and the industrial dispute is allowed. The

Respondent management is directed to reinstate the

Petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service,

other attendant benefits, bonus and salary increment

and other perks which the petitioner is legally entitled

to as claimed in the claim petition. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 18th day of October, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum

Labour Court,

Puducherry.

————

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —

03-10-20192 Thiru Sengeni

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 —

23-01-2016 Photocopy of the complaint

given by the Petitioner before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P2 —

27-01-2016 Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to the

Respondent.

Ex.P3 —

06-02-2016 Photocopy of the reply

letter given by the Respondent.

Ex.P4 —

23-01-2016 Photocopy of the 1st charge

Memo issued by the Respondent.

Ex.P5 —

30-01-2016 Photocopy of the explanation

letter given by the Petitioner to the

Respondent.

Ex.P6 —

06-02-2016 Photocopy of the 2nd

charge memo issued by the

Respondent.

Ex.P7 —

12-02-2016 Photocopy of the letter

given

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P8 —

02-03-2016 Photocopy of the explanation

letter given by the Petitioner to the

Respondent.

Ex.P9 —

01-03-2016 Photocopy of the charge

sheet-cum-suspension order.

Ex.P10 —

28-03-2016 Photocopy of the Advocate

Notice.

Ex.P11 —

02-09-2016 Photocopy of the Advocate

Notice.

Ex.P12—

01-10-2016 Photocopy of the enquiry

report.

Ex.P13—

05-10-2016 Photocopy of the order of

termination.

Ex.P14—

21-09-2016 Photocopy of the letter given

by the Petitioner to the Respondent.

Ex.P15 —

09-07-2016 Photocopy of the objection

filed by the petitioner employee before

the domestic enquiry objecting the

conduct of domestic enquiry.

Ex.P16 —

02-01-2016 Photocopy of the complaint

given by PW2 Mr. Datchinamurthy to

the Manager, Respondent company.

List of petitioner’s witnesses:

RW.1 —

14-12-2022 Krishnasamy

RW.2 —

28-06-2022 Datchinamurthy

161

14 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1 —

15-10-2017 Authorization letter.

Ex.R2 —

22-01-2016 Photocopy of Krishnasamy to

the Management.

Ex.R3 —

23-01-2016 Photocopy of the charge

memo issued by the management to

Sengeni.

Ex.R4 —

30-01-2016 Photocopy of reply notice to

the Management by Sengeni.

Ex.R5 —

05-02-2016 Photocopy of the 2nd

complaint of Krishnasamy to the

Management.

Ex.R6 —

06-02-2016 Photocopy of the 2nd charge

memo issued by the Management to

Sengeni.

Ex.R7 —

01-03-2016 Photocopy of the charge

sheet-cum-suspension order issued by

the Management to Sengeni.

Ex.R8—

Photocopy of the salary pay slips (from

November 2015 to March 2016).

Ex.R9 —

Photocopy of the termination letter and

compensation letter issued by the

management to Sengeni.

Ex.R10—

15-10-2016

Photocopy

the

acknowledgment

card

signed

Sengeni.

Ex.R11—

14-11-2016 Photocopy of the letter

communicating the termination and

payment of Settlement of Gratuity by

M/s. Pondy Agro Advice letter issued

by Pondy Agro Chemicals Private

Limited.

Ex.R12 —

18-11-2016 Acknowledgment card signed

by Sengeni.

Ex.R13—

Photocopy of the Statement of Axis

B a n k

R e s p o n d e n t

A c c o u n t

No. xxxxxxxxxxx3579

stating

that

Petitioner Sengeni withdraw settlement

and compensation amount sum of

` 89,362 through cheque No. 189883 on

31-10-2016.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer (FAC),

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

No. A.1911/1/2023/DP&AR/SS.I(1)

Puducherry, dated 20th January 2023

ORDER

Shri D. Manikandan, I.A.S., Secretary to Government,

Puducherry, is designated as Nodal Officer for

preparation of “Vision and Action Plan-2047” document,

until further orders. He shall coordinate with the other

Secretaries for finalisation of the document.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND

ANIMAL WELFARE

No. 4741/DAH&AW/Estt./A7/2023/82,

Puducherry, dated 27th January 2023.

NOTIFICATION

The Notice of voluntary retirement given under

rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021

by Tmt. S. Jenith Mary, Fieldman, Department of Animal

Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Karaikal, is accepted.

2. Accordingly, she is admitted into voluntary

retirement with effect from the afternoon of 13-02-2023.

(By order)

Dr. G. LATHA MANGESHKKAR,

Director (Animal Husbandry).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 04/DP&AR/SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 31st January 2023]

NOTIFICATION

The Notice of voluntary retirement given under

rule 48-A of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972,

by Tmt. M. Selvanayaguy, Superintendent, Department

of Science, Technology and Environment, Puducherry,

is accepted.

2. Accordingly, she stands retired from service with

effect from the afternoon of 06-01-2023.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government

(Personnel).