[171]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬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

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

187

Annonces

.. 187

Announcements

187

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 |

21 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2023 (2 Phalguna 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

21st

February

2023

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

PASIC Workers Union over reinstatement Thiru

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.

(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 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

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru

P. Sankaran, Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal

B. Mohandoss, P. Manivannan, Indrajith, K. Velmurugan,

K. Sundarajan, P. Kalirathinam, S. Vijayasanthi,

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

Workers Union against the Management of

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

the claim petition:

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.

173

21 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(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

Respondent’s disengagement and refusal of

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.

(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.

(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:

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.

174

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[21 February 2023

(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.

(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

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:

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:

Whether the claim Petitioners Thiruvalargal

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.

175

21 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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 ]_ÁÈºÔVsÕ>–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 �ÆD 17-11-2005 x>_ √Ë¬z

∂\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. ]_ÁÈºÔVsÕ>–¬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_

Â¶›>©√‚¶m ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆB_È. x>ÈÁ\ﬂƒˆ[

√ˆÕmÁ´l[º√ˆ_

ÂV–D,

]_ÁÈºÔVsÕ>[

®[√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

]_ÁÈºÔVsÕ>Á™•D 16-07-2014 �ÆD 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. ]_ÁÈºÔVsÕ>[ 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 not

176

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

177

21 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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.

178

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[21 February 2023

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.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 06-02-2019

Annadasane

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

the

Petitioner Tillegovindane.

Ex.P6 — 11-02-2016

Photocopy

the

representation submitted by

the

Petitioner

Union

before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P7 — 09-06-2016

Photocopy of the reply

letter

given

the

Respondent to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P8 — 04-07-2016

Photocopy of the Rejoinder

given by the Petitioner

Union to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), 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)

the

Respondent Management

to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P11 — 12-09-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Respondent

Management to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry

stating

the

non-appearance

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

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:

RW10 — 05-07-2022

K. Sivashanmugam, Managing

Director, PASIC, Puducherry.

List of respondents’s exhibits:

EX.R1 — —

Photocopy of the PASIC

(Staff Service) Rules, 1988.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.