Puducherry Gazette, No. 8, 21 February 2023

Registered No. PY/44/2021-23 Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under No. 10410 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 ®ı Amflºƒˆ ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\ 2023 } ∏©´kˆ | 21 {

No. 8 Poudouchéry Mardi 21 Février 2023 (2 Phalguna 1944)

No. Puducherry Tuesday 21st February 2023

ÿ✓VÚ·¶¬ÔD SOMMAIRES CONTENTS

Page ✓¬ÔD Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ .. 172 Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 172 Award of the Labour Court .. 172

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s©AÔ^ .. 179 Notices du Gouvernement .. 179 Government Notices .. 179 ∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 183 Notifications du Gouvernement .. 183 Government Notifications .. 183 g✓›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^ .. 187 Etablissements dangereux .. 187 Dangerous Establishments .. 187

.. 187 Announcements .. 187 ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 187 Annonces

[171]172 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [21 February 2023 GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 190/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 28th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 25/2017, dated 28-11-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect of Dispute between the Management of M/s. PASIC, Limited, Puducherry and P A S I C Wo r k e r s U n i o n o v e r r e i n s t a t e m e n t T h i r u P. Annadassane and Thiru D. Tillegovindane with back wages.

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.

K . S u n d a r a j a n , P. K a l i r a t h i n a m , S . Vi j a y a s a n t h i , T. Vijayashanthi and K. Manopriya, Counsels for the Respondent 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. 63/AIL/Lab./T/2017 dated 27-04-2017 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz., (a) Whether the dispute raised by the PASIC Wo r k e r s U n i o n a g a i n s t t h e M a n a g e m e n t o f M/s. Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Limited (PASIC), Puducherry over reinstatement of Thiruvalargal P. Annadassane and D. Tillegovindane with back wages 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 facts of the case of the Petitioner averred in

(By order)

the claim petition:

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 28th day of November, 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 25/2017

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000102-2017

The President, PASIC Workers Union, No. 7-8, Moovendar Street, Mullai Nagar, Orleanpet, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director, M/s. Puducherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Limited (PASIC), Agro House, Thattanchavady, Puducherry.

. . Respondent This Industrial Dispute coming on 09-11-2022 before m e f o r f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f T h i r u P. Sankaran, Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal B. Mohandoss, P. Manivannan, Indrajith, K. Velmurugan, Thiru P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane are the President and Secretary of the Petitioner Union called PASIC Workers Union. D. Tille Govindane joined in service on 01-01-2003 and P. Annadassane on 11-10-2004 respectively under the Respondent as workman. Both of them were issued with Identity Cards and Employee's data sheets were secured from them in the year 2012. EPF deductions were made from their salary from the year 2005 as per the practice followed by the Respondent. Mr. P. Annadassane was in service till 16-07-2014 and D. Tille Govindane till 19-07-2014 respectively without any remark to the satisfaction of their superiors whatsoever till they were refused employment orally by the Respondent.

(ii) All of a sudden both were refused employment and disengaged from 16-07-2014 and 19-07-2014 respectively without any reason except that they formed an Union and extended moral support to the fraternal Unions functioning in PASIC which clearly amounts to victimization and unfair labour practice for which the PASIC Workers Union objected and sent a letter dated 11-08-2014 to the Respondent and pleaded for restoration of both the workmen with back wages and continuity of service etc., followed by the Government Employees Associations letter, dated 23-09-2014 in which the PASIC Workers Union is affiliated.

(iii) When the Union Office bearers and the Confederation Office bearers met the Respondent, he said that the disengagement was done as per the orders of the Chairman. But the Chairman refused to meet them informing that the Respondent only would decide the matter. That when the same leaders met the Secretary to Government he assured that the matter would be decided in the governing body and they would be reinstated with the approval of the governing body. But finally, the Respondent replied to the workman D. Tille Govindane through letter dated 05-08-2015 that the question of reinstatement does not arise and so on when there are about 250 workmen recruited along with them and continued in service. Both P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane were working for more than 10 years without any remark and so the Respondent cannot say that both of them are not workmen or disengage them calling by some designation or the other which is against law and justice and also the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The R e s p o n d e n t 's d i s e n g a g e m e n t a n d r e f u s a l o f employment to the workmen is clearly biased, arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal even without giving an opportunity of enquiry, terminal benefits etc., after completion of 10 years of service which is against law and natural justice.

(iv) The Respondent also admits the averments of the Petitioner Union's averments regarding the recruitment of service of both P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane in the counter filed before Labour Officer (Conciliation) but gives many meaningless and untenable averments regarding the status and nature of their job etc., which are not genuine, reasonable and lawful for a public sector undertaking like PASIC which is not any man's personal property.

(vii) If at all the Respondent is genuine and appointed the said two workmen as per the Service Rules 1988, under rule 7 classification of posts he should have issued appointment order at least under category D with a scale of the maximum of which is less than ` 1,150 per month to both of them with effect from their respective dates of appointment and they cannot be made the scapegoats for the commissions and omissions of the Respondent.

(viii) As per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 the said workmen P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane could not have been appointed as casual labour since definition of casual labour under the Act is not applicable to them as they were working throughout the year without any break continuously and also for more than 10 years which confer them status of permanency of employment. That as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 also since they have completed more than 240 days of continuous service they are entitled to be treated as permanent for all purposes.

(ix) The Petitioner Union made several representations to various Authorities and since there was no solution or remedy raised an Industrial disputes before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), vide letter dated 11-02-2016 for which the Respondent filed a reply dated 09-06-2016 and Petitioner Union filed a rejoined to it on 04-07-2016 for which the Respondent filed reply dated 22-08-2016 and 12-09-2016 and since there was no amicable settlement the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry made failure recommending for adjudication by this Court by report dated 17-02-2017. Both the Petitioners have worked for more than 10 years without any remark to the satisfaction of their superiors and there is no opportunity for alternative employment and source of income for their livelihood and their dependent parents, wife and children would be put to many hardships and handicaps and their future is dark and gloomy. Hence the Petition.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

Respondent as follows:

(v) Once they were appointed they are governed by law and entitled for benefits under the Industrial laws and the Respondent is also bound by such laws. They worked for more than 10 years continuous service in public sector undertaking like PASIC and the Respondent is restrained from disengaging them especially, when more than 200 similar workmen are allowed to continue in service saying that the question of reinstatement does not arise.

(vi) In PASIC Staff Service Rules, 1988 as there is no educational and other qualifications prescribed for any post under chapter III rule 7 classifications of posts where there are grades from A, B, C and D with only some difference in the quantum of salary between them. There are no classifications like daily wages, voucher-paid or casual labourers with rules of recruitment, wages or allowance, leave rules, etc., the workmen P. Annadassane and D. Thille Govindane cannot be disengaged.

Mr. D. Tille Govindane and Mr. P. Annadassane joined the service of the Respondent as workmen on 01-01-2003 and 11-10-2004 respectively. But, the Petitioner Union has conveniently omitted to state that they were initially engaged as voucher paid workmen from the above stated days and they were made daily rated labour with effect from 17-11-2005 and 01-10-2005 respectively. It is also admitted fact that deduction towards EPF have been effected from the year 2005 onwards till they were disengaged with effect from 19-07-2014 and 16-07-2014 respectively.

Petitioner Union has stated that workmen P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane are entitled to be treated as permanent as they have completed more than 240 days of continuous service. The petitioner is not justified in reading between the lines to suit its convenience by wrong interpretation of law. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Rejoinder petition Filed by the Petitioner

against the Counter Statement:

(ii) The Thiruvalargal P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane were only daily rated casual employees and they were engaged on day-to-day basis depending upon exigencies of work prevailing in the organization. Their employment was need based one without any assurance for continuance of employment. The above casual labour were not recruited in a formal manner in accordance with rules and regulations relating to appointment. Such persons employed not have right to hold the post in PASIC. The conditions of service cannot be equated to regular employees as well as permanent employees appointed in accordance with Recruitment Rules. Under such circumstances, they cannot have any grievance for their disengagement. Moreover, their disengagement was without any motive or malafide intention as alleged by the Petitioner Union.

(iii) As pointed out in the letter, dated 05-08-2015 addressed to Thiru Tille Govindane, the question of reinstatement does not arise since he was engaged only to do casual work on account of exigencies of work and as per PASIC Staff Service Rules 1988 "Employee" meant a person who is in the whole time employment of the Corporation but does not include persons employed on daily wages. The same status only can be accorded to Thiru Annadassane and so he cannot claim reinstatement. The dispute has been raised by PASIC Workers Union, RTU/1709/2012 on behalf of Annadassane and Tille Govindane, stating that they are the President and Secretary of the said Trade Union. As such it becomes necessary to find out whether such Union is on the live registers of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Puducherry and whether that Union has got locus standi to raise dispute on behalf of Thiruvalargal P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane. As such the issue relating to locus standi of the Petitioner Union to raise the dispute be decided in the first instance before giving a finding on other issues involved in the claim petition.

The burden of proof lies on the Respondent to define the meaning of refusal of employment or non-employment or disengagement from service or abandonment of service or removal of name of the Petitioner from attendance register for unauthorized absence, etc., if no termination of service as mentioned in para 3 of the counter statement filed by the Respondent Management.

(ii) The Petitioner was only daily rated casual employee and he was engaged on day-to-day basis depending upon exigencies of work whereas he contradict the same in which he admits the continuous engagement of the Petitioner as daily rated casual for years together which is illegal and cannot come under the definition of casual labour. If the disengagement was without any motive or malafide, then whatever reason for disengagement of the President and Secretary of the Petitioner Union when all other about 250 workmen were continuously engaged who were recruited along with them which remains a million dollar question till date.

(iii) When the Respondent utterly failed to issue any letter till 05-08-2015 after disengagement with effect from 16-07-2014 and 19-07-2014 for nearly one year and it was issued only after they made grievance petition to the Central Home Ministry as mentioned in the reference which exposes the fact that the Respondent was least bothered about the law and practice to be followed by an Authority in Public Sector undertaking in dealing with the life and death problems of employers. Hence the Prayer.

5. Point for determination:

(iv) The daily rated casual employees cannot claim treatment on par with regular employees. Continuous engagement of daily-rated casuals for years together cannot confer on them right to regularization so as to make them included in their cadre strength. They do not have right to hold the post and hence cannot claim protection when their services are disengaged by their employer. The above rule is applicable to all the employees, irrespective of the fact whether they are engaged in Trade Union work or not.

(v) The Petitioner Union has quoted several statutory provisions out of context and without understanding their legal significance. For example the Whether the claim Petitioners Thiruv a la rg a l P. Annadassane and D. Tille Govindane are entitled for an order of reinstatement with back wages and other relies as claimed in the claim petition?

5A. On Point:

Thiru. Annadassane himself examined as PW1 and Ex.Pl to Ex.P15 were marked. On Respondent side, Thiru. Sivashanmugam, the Managing Director of the Respondent Management was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 marked.

6. On the point:

This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the Government of Puducherry over reinstatement of Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane with back wages. The admitted facts are both were initially engaged as voucher paid employees with effect from 01-01-2003 and 11-10-2004 respectively under the Respondent Management. It is also an admitted fact that deduction toward EPF have been deducted and effected from the year 2005 till they were disengaged. From the exhibits it could be seen that, the Respondent Management also issued Identity Cards (Ex.Pl & P2) to the claim Petitioners Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane. The Respondent Management had also issued employer data sheet for Mr. Tille G o v i n d h a n ( E x . P l ) o n 1 5 - 0 3 - 2 0 1 2 a n d f o r Mr. Annadassane (Ex.P2) on 16-03-2012. It is also an admitted position between the parties to this dispute that both Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane were orally informed about their disengagement.

7. The point of dispute arises is that according to the Petitioner Union all of a sudden without prior notice and reasons, the Respondent Management refused employment to Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane orally which amounts to clear case of victimization.

8. Whereas, on the side of the Respondent Management, it is contended that Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane were only daily rated casual labours and they were engaged on day to day basis depending upon exigencies of work prevailing in the Organization. Their employment was need based one without any assurance for continuance of employment. They are casual labourers and not recruited in a formal manner in accordance to Rules and Regulations relating to appointments. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Management would also refer the cross examination of PW1 and submitted that while deposing before this Court he has admitted the same.

9. The relevant portion is produced hereunder for better appreciation ÂV–D ]_ÁȺÔVsÕ>–D 11-10-2004 º>]l_ g´D✓ WÁÈl_ Voucher paid workmen ®[≈ WÁÈl_ ✓Ël_ ∂\Ï›>©✓'º¶VD ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∏[ÂVπ_ ]™¬Ìo ªaBÏÔ·VÔ 01-10-2005 \uÆD 17-11-2005 x>_ ✓ˬz ∂\Ï›>©✓'º¶VD. 2005-D gı| x>_ PF ∏Ω›>D ÿƒFB©✓'¶m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂ÀkVº≈ 16-07-2014 x > K D 1 9 - 0 7 - 2 0 1 4 x > K D ® ™ ¬ z D ]Ú. ]_ÁȺÔVsÕ>–¬zD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›>V_, ✓Ë \Æ©A ÿƒFB©✓'¶m ®[≈VKD ƒˆ>V[. ]™¬Ìo ªaBÏÔ^ ∂[≈V¶D º>Ák¬ºÔu✓, ∂Àk©º✓Vm WBt¬Ô©✓|kVÏÔ^ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. WÏkVÔ›][ º>Ák¬ºÔu✓ WBt¬Ô©✓'¶>V_, ]™ƒˆ ✓Ë kw∫Ô©✓|D ®[≈ cÆ]l_ÈV\_ WBt¬Ô©✓'º¶VD ®[≈V_ ƒˆB_È. ÂV∫Ô^ º>Ák¬ºÔu✓ ]™ƒˆ ªaBÏÔ·VÔ WBt¬Ô©✓'¶ WÁÈl_ Staff Service Rule 1988á[✓Ω WBt¬Ô©✓¶s_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È. ✓Ël_ ºƒÏ©✓>uz x[✓VÔ ºÂÏÔVð_ ¶›>©✓'¶m ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È. x>ÈÁ\flƒˆ[ ✓ˆÕmÁ´l[º✓ˆ_ ÂV–D, ]_ÁȺÔVsÕ>[ ®[✓kÏ ∂Á\flƒÏ ]Ú. Â\flEkVBD ∂kÏÔπ[ ✓ˆÕmÁ´l[º✓ˆ_ WBt¬Ô©✓'º¶VD. Staff Service Ruleá[✓Ω ÂV∫Ô^ WBt¬Ô©✓¶s_ÁÈ ®[≈VKD ∂>™V_ ✓Ël_ ¿Ω©✓>uÔV™ cˆÁ\ ºÔVÚD ∂ÚÔÁ>l_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È. ºkÁÈ kVF©A ∂KkÈÔD JÈ\VÔ°D ÂV∫Ô^ ✓Ë WB\™D ÿƒFB©✓¶s_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[.

10. Further PW1 deposed that, ®[Á™•D ]_ÁȺÔVsÕ>Á™•D 16-07-2014 \uÆD 19-07-2014 º>]Ôπ_ ✓Ë \Æ©A ÿƒF>VÏÔ^ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂Õ> ✓Ë \Æ©A¬z ®]´VÔ ÂV∫Ô^ ®Õ> cˆÁ\•D ºÔV´ >z]l_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È. WÏkVÔ ∂]ÔVˆÔ"¬zD ®∫Ô"¬zD ÷Á¶ºB ®Õ>s> ÔÚ›m ºkÆ✓V|D, sº´V>xD ÷_ÁÈ. 2012áD gı| PASIC Workmens Union ®[≈ ÿ✓Bˆ_ ÿ>Vauƒ∫ÔD ÿ>V¶∫˛º™VD. ∂]_ ÂV[ >ÁÈk´VÔ°D. ]_ÁȺÔVsÕ>[ ÿƒBÈV·´VÔ°D ÷ÚÕº>VD. ÿ>Vauƒ∫ÔD g´D∏¬Ô©✓'¶ ÂV^ x>_ ®∫Ô"¬z 2014áD gı| ✓Ë \Æ©A ÿƒF> ÂV'Ô^ kÁ´ WÏkVÔ›]uz ®∫Ô^ *m ®Õ> zu≈flƒV'|D ˛Á¶BVm. ∂>™V_ WÏkVÔD ®∫ÔÁ· ✓a kV∫zD ∂kEBt_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È.

11. PW1 further deposed before this court as, ®∫Ô^ WÏkVÔ›][ WB\™ s]Ôπ[ ˇµ ÿ>VaÈVπ ®[≈ kÁ´BÁ´ xø ºÂ´ ✓ËBV·Ú¬z \'|D>V[ ÿ✓VÚÕmD, ]™¬Ìo ªaBÏÔ"¬z ÿ✓VÚÕ>Vm ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ®∫Ô·V_ g´D∏¬Ô©✓'¶ PASIC ÿ>Vauƒ∫ÔD ÷[ÆÂV^ kÁ´¬zD ÷B∫˛¬ÿÔVıΩÚ¬˛≈m. ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô ✓]kV·Ï, ®∫Ô^ ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô›]uz ∂∫ˇÔV´D kw∫˛•^·VÏ. ®∫Ô·m >M©✓'¶ ✓Ë \Æ©A ƒD✓Õ>\VÔ. >VkV ÿ>V¶∫zk>uz ®∫Ô^ ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô›][ ƒVÏ✓VÔ yÏ\V™D WÁ≈ºku≈©✓'¶m. WÁ≈ºku≈©✓'¶ yÏ\V™D, ®[Æ WÁ≈ºku≈©✓'¶m ®[Æ WÁ™s_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ®∫Ô^ ÷Úkˆ[ >M©✓'¶ ∏´flƒÁ™ ƒD✓Õ>\VÔ kw¬z ÿ>V¶∫zk>uz yÏ\V™D WÁ≈ºku≈©✓¶V> WÁÈl_, ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô›]uz kw¬z ÿ>V¶∫zk>uz ∂ÚÔÁ>l_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆB_È.

12. Further, it is a case of the Respondent Management that as per PASIC Staffs Service Rules, 1988 an employee means a person who is in the whole time employment of the Corporation but does not176 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [21 February 2023 include persons employed on daily wages. The same status only can be accorded to both Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane and so they cannot claim reinstatement. Further, the learned counsel for the Respondent Management stressed upon that continuous engagement of daily rated casuals for years together cannot confer on them a right to regularization so as to make them included in their cadre strength. They don't have right to hold the post and hence cannot claim protection when their services are disengaged by their employer.

Identity Card it can be seen that he was engaged as DRL that is Daily Rated Labourer. Along with the Identity Card, his Employees Provident Fund Scheme receipt also enclosed showing that EPF has been paid for him for the Financial Year 2008-2009. Therefore, from their own exhibits namely Ex.Pl and P2 admittedly without any doubt they both were engaged by the Respondent Management from their initial induction till their disengagement as voucher paid employees, contract and as daily rated labourers. It is also not disputed on either side.

13. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Respondent Management has concluded his arguments that persons like casual labourers who were not recruited in accordance with Rules and Regulations don't have any right to hold the posts in PASIC. The conditions of service cannot be equated to regular employees as well as Permanent employees appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The learned counsel for the Respondent Management referred and relied upon the following case-laws during arguments: (i) (2016) 1 SCC (L & S) 186 Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar; (ii) (2019) 2 SCC(L &S) 37; (iii) (2019) 2 SCC (L &S) 98 and (iv) (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 659.

14. Heard both. Perused the records.

17. Ex.P3 is the representation of the Petitioner Union to Chairman/Managing Director of the Respondent Management (PASIC) requesting for reengagement of Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane into the service of Respondent Management, Ex.P6, Ex.P8 are the representations given by the Petitioner Union before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of Puducherry. Ex.P4 and Ex.P9 are the representations given by the Petitioner Union to the Secretary (Agriculture), Government of Puducherry. All these representations given by the Petitioner Union for the same claim which was made and referred before this Court. In all these representations that is Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P6, P8 and P9, Petitioner Union has raised the same plea that Respondent Management was abruptly disengaged Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane who were casual labourers without any valid reasons and requested to restore them in the job. In addition, the Petitioner Union has produced Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 regarding unpaid wages for 18 months for the period from 2011 to 2014 to be paid to Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhan and Annadassane respectively by the Respondent Management. From the calculation made by the Petitioner Union vide Ex.P14 and P15, the arrears of wage for the said 18 months is ` 1,36,272.00 for each Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhan and Annadassane. This fact of wage arrears in Ex.P14 and P15 has not been disputed by the Respondent Management anywhere in this case.

15. On Petitioner Union side Ex.Pl to P15 were exhibited to substantiate their case. Ex.Pl and P2 are Employees Date sheet issued to both Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane. On perusal, it can be seen that Tille Govindhane's initial date of engagement is 01-03-2003 as voucher paid employee till 17-11-2005. Thereafter, he was engaged as daily rated labourer from 17-11-2005 till his date of disengagement. In Ex.Pl his Identity Card copy issued by the Respondent Management also found place. From his Identity Card it can be seen that he was engaged as DRL that is Daily Rated Labourer. Along with the Identity Card, his Employees Provident Fund Scheme receipt also enclosed showing that EPF has been paid for him for the Financial Year 2006-2007 and 2005-2006.

18. During arguments the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Union submitted that having deducted the EPF, they have to be considered as full time workmen, illegal denial of employment is violative of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The above said argument seems to be incorrect for the reason that EPF is a Social Security benefit such Provident Fund must be provided to all employees/workers who are engaged on contract/casual/daily wages basis 16. On perusal of Ex.P2, it can be seen that Mr. Annadassane's initial date of engagement is 11-10-2004 as contract employee till 30-09-2005. Thereafter, he was engaged as daily rated labourer from 01-10-2005 till his date of disengagement. In Ex.P2 his Identity Card copy issued by the Respondent Management also found place. From his21 February 2023] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 177 since there is no distinction between a person employed on permanent, temporary, contractual or casual basis under section 2(f) of the EPF Act. Therefore, having EPF account and deductions effected thereon, they should be considered as Permanent Employee is not an acceptable argument. Thus rejected.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in RBI vs. S. Mani reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100 held that in law 240 days of continuous service by itself does not give right to claim permanence. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthy vs. State of Bihar reported in 1997 IV ADSC 196 that admittedly they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of 'retrenchment' therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. Although by way of definition of workman under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act 'daily wage' worker also falls within the definition of workman it cannot be said that daily wages have all the rights and duties which are available to the regular employee of the Respondent Management.

20. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458 that persons who were employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service holding similar posts. Daily rated workers are not required to possess the qualification prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which the regular employees are selected. In other words the requirement for selection are not as rigorous. There are also provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and this being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purpose for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of regular pay scale of the regularly employed.

21. Undisputedly, in the present case both the claim Petitioners Thiruvalargal Tille Govindhane and Annadassane were daily wage labourers. Hence, they have no right to the posts because the appointment of daily wages are made by not complying or observing the procedural formalities in consonance to any rules, regulations or by observing the procedures prescribed for the recruitment. Engagement of the daily wager commences and ends every day. There is a contractual deployment for every day. It is up to the Employer/Respondent Management to allow to continue the employment or disengage the daily wager at any time in absence of work.

22. In view of the decision in Magarasem vs. State of UP and others reported in 2002 (2) AWC 1712 the daily wagers engaged without any written appointment order could be terminated without any written Order. Therefore, daily and casual workers who are engaged in disregard of all rules cannot be allowed to continue when there is no work and their engagement is not required. Daily wagers are deployed on temporary assignment only and not on sanctioned posts and even if completion of 240 days work by daily wager cannot attribute status of casual workman under Industrial Disputes Act and as such it does not create right to claim for reengagement as claimed in the petition.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld in various cases that compelling the Management employer to observe or to engage continuously the persons who were engaged by the Respondent Management as casual workers/daily rated labours for a long period on the ground that such a practice is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution would itself offend another aspect of Article 14 that is by choosing initially such persons without any rational procedure recognized by the Rules and Regulations or by law but to continue them in engagement of services without any need or exigencies would definitely deprive eligible candidates who were similarly situated to compete for such employment.

24. In view of the above ratios held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various occasions it could be seen that it is again and again reiterated that daily wager cannot have a right to hold the claim for reengagement. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the claim for seeking an order directing reinstatement of service as daily rated employees, with continuity of service and back wages cannot be sustained.

25. In the result, the Reference is decided as 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 28th day of November, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.

Ex.P9 — 18-07-2016 Photocopy of the letter petition by the Confederation

of Puducherry Government

Employees' Association to

the Secretary to Government

(Agriculture), Puducherry.

Ex.P10 — 22-08-2016 Photocopy of the reply (to the Rejoinder) of the List of petitioner's witness:

PW1 — 06-02-2019 Annadasane

Respondent Management

to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

List of petitioner's exhibits:

Ex.Pl — 05-03-2012 Photocopy of the Employee Data Sheet, Employee Identity Card and EPF Slip of the Tillegovindane.

Ex.P2 — 06-03-2012 Photocopy of the Employee Data Sheet, Employee Identity Card and EPF Slip of the Annadassane.

Ex.P3 — 11-08-2014 Photocopy of the letter given by the Petitioner Union to the Respondent Management.

Ex.P4 — 23-09-2014 Photocopy of the letter given by the Confederation of Puducherry Government Employees' Association to the Respondent Management.

Ex.P5 — 05-08.2015 Photocopy of the letter given by the Respondent Management to the Petitioner Tillegovindane.

Ex.P11 — 12-09-2016 Photocopy of the letter given by the Respondent

Management to the Labour

Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry stating the

non-appearance in the

Conciliation Proceedings.

Ex.P12 — 17-02-2017 Photocopy of the Failure Report given by the Labour

Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P13 — 27-04-2017 Photocopy of the Notification of the Labour

Department, Puducherry.

Ex.P14 — July 2011 to Photocopy of the Pending March 2014 Salary Arrear detail of

Annadassane.

Ex.P15 — July 2011 to Photocopy of the Pending March 2014 Salary Arrear detail of Tille

Govindane.

List of respondent's witness:

Ex.P6 — 11-02-2016 Photocopy of the representation submitted by the Petitioner Union before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

RW10 — 05-07-2022 K. Sivashanmugam, Managing Director, PASIC, Puducherry.

List of respondents's exhibits:

Ex.P7 — 09-06-2016 Photocopy of the reply l e t t e r g i v e n b y t h e Respondent to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

EX.R1 — — Photocopy of the PASIC

(Staff Service) Rules, 1988.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Ex.P8 — 04-07-2016 Photocopy of the Rejoinder given by the Petitioner Union to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.