[195]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

196

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 196

Award of the Labour Court .. 196

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

202

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 202

Government Notifications

.. 202

∂´∑ ∂§s©AÔ^

204

Notices du Gouvernement

.. 204

Government Notices

.. 204

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

207

Annonces

.. 207

Announcements

207

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 |

28 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2023 (9 Phalguna 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

28th

February

2023

196

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[28 February 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 02/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 5th January2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 05/2017, dated 26-

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

Puducherry in respect of dispute between the

management of M/s. Pondicherry Engineering College,

Pillaichavady, Kalapet, Puducherry and Puducherry

State Federation N.R. Congress Thozhilalar Sangam,

Puducherry, over non-employment and regularisation of

6 Scavengers (i) Tmt. K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammale,

(iii) S. Indirani, (iv) E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and

(vi) G. Maragadam.

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.

Wednesday, the 26th day of October, 2022

I.D. (L) No. 05/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000110-2017

The President/Secretary,

Pondicherry State Federation

N.R Congress Thozhilalar Sangam,

No. 61/2, 1st Floor,

Aswini Hospital Opposite,

Vazhudhavur Road, Koundanpalayam,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Principal,

Pondicherry Engineering College,

Pillaichavady, Kalapet,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 03-10-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

K. Velmurugn & P. Preethi, Counsels for the Petitioner

and Thiru. M. Nakkeeran, Government Pleader, Counsel

for the Respondent, Respondent remaining absent set

ex-parte, upon hearing Petitioner side 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. 21/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 24-02-2017 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute

between the Petitioners and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute, raised by Puducherry

State Federation N.R. Congress Thozhilalar Sangam,

Puducherry, against the management of M/s. Pondicherry

Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Kalapet, Puducherry,

over non-employment and regularisation of 6 Scavengers

(i) K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammalle, (iii) S. Indirani, (iv)

E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and (vi) G. Maragadam are

justified or not? If justified, what relief they are 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:

The Petitioner Union is a registered Trade Union having

RTU No. 1803/2013 and is functioning for the welfare and

upliftment of the working class in the Puducherry region.

As such the Petitioner Union had raised the above

industrial dispute on behalf of 6 workmen namely;

(i) K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammalle, (iii) S. Indirani,

(iv) E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and (vi) G. Maragadam

(hereinafter Petitioner workmen) claiming the relief of

reinstatement and regularisation. The Respondent

management is a prominent Engineering College in the

Puducherry region for about 33 years imparting Engineering

studies which is well known for its standard and quality.

The 2568 students from Puducherry and other States, 2136

students are pursuing B.Tech. and 432 students are

pursuing M.Tech. Degree. To cater the above students, the

Respondent Management has employed 153 teaching staff,

286 non-teaching staff and 445 office staff including the

Petitioner workmen raised the above industrial disputes.

(ii) The Petitioner workmen involved in the above

industrial disputes was appointed by the Respondent

management on 01-01-2002. After the appointment, all the

Petitioner workmen were allotted work to clean the toilets

used by the students and staffs, cleaning the roads inside

197

28 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

the Respondent campus, cleaning the hostel rooms, etc.,

The right from the date of their appointment all the

Petitioner workmen had discharged their duties in a sincere

and honest manner to the Respondent management without

any blackmark whatsoever. The Petitioner workmen used

to work all around the day and used to avail leave only on

rare occasions and thus, they worked for more than 300

days in every year with the Respondent Management.

Though there are regular permanent vacant posts in the

Respondent Management so as to absorb the Petitioner

workmen, the Respondent Management did not chosen to

regularise them for the reasons best known to it.

(iii) Though the Respondent management had

utilized the services of the Petitioner workmen for about 15

years, it did not conferred the permanent status upon the

Petitioner workmen and also the Respondent has not

provided the monetary welfare benefits which is enjoyed

by the other permanent workmen.Though the Petitioner

workmen have made several requests upon the Respondent

management to regularise them, the Respondent management

has not acted upon. The Respondent management

employed the Petitioner workmen with very minimal wages

mentioned below:

Period

Rate of

daily wage

01-01-2002 to 31-12-2005

` 65

01-01-2006 to 31-12-2009

` 80

01-01-2010 to 31-12-2013

` 125

01-01-2014 onwards

` 200

(iv) The Respondent management vide letters, dated

28-09-2015 and 14-10-2015 regularised the services of some

25 workmen who were joined in the service during the year

2010 only. The act of the Respondent management in

regularising the 25 workmen who were joined during the

year 2010 and neglecting to regularise the 6 Petitioner

workmen who joined on 01-01-2002 i.e., having 8 years

seniority is arbitrary, illegal and unlawful. The 2 daily rated

watchman by name (i) V. Vetriselvam and (ii) N. Ravi who

were appointed in 2005 by PCDWDAP Limited, has been

regularised from 25-08-2015 vide order, dated 10-09-2015 which

is also an Government Autonomous Body. They had given

representation, dated 25-01-2016 to the Respondent

requesting regularisation of their services but, no steps has

been taken in furtherance thereof. Similarly, the Petitioner

workmen had given representations, dated 15-02-2016 to

the Chief Secretary, Secretary to Government (Higher and

Technical Education), Chairman of Pondicherry Engineering

College and to the Respondent requesting regularisation

of their services. The Petitioner painfully submits that none

of the said competent authorities took any steps to

regularise the 6 Petitioner workmen.

(v) The aggrieved by the act of the Respondent

request of management, the Petitioner workmen raised

industrial dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry, vide representation, dated 17-03-2016

claiming regularisation of the 6 workmen in the services of

the Respondent management. However, on 01-06-2016

during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the

Respondent management arbitrarily terminated the services

of the 6 workmen without following any procedures of law

which tantamount to unfair labour practice. The

Respondent has not given any single pie to the Petitioner

workmen towards compensation and for appreciation of the

services rendered by them for all these 15 years. The

Respondent management has filed its reply, dated 06-

07-2016 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,

stating false and vexatious reasons. When they informed

about the illegal termination to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry, the said authority advised the

Respondent management to reinstate the 6 Petitioner

workmen in their respective services. However, the

Respondent refused to take the advice of the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry and told that only if, the 6

Petitioner workmen unconditionally withdraw the industrial

dispute and also waive their rights for regularisation, they

will be given employment in the Respondent management.

Since, the Respondent management did not chosen for

amicable settlement, the above dispute ended in failure and

hence, the said industrial disputes was referred to this

Court for adjudication.

(vi) The Petitioner submits that the act of the

Respondent management is not regularising the 6 Petitioner

workmen after utilizing their 15 years of hard work and

service is against the principle of estoppels. Similarly, the

act of the Respondent management in showing disparity in

regularising the services of the workmen joined in service

during the year 2010 and neglecting the legitimate request

of the Petitioner workmen who were having 8 years seniority

is unconstitutional and against the Fundamental right of

equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The act of the Respondent management, the Petitioner

workmen are suffering great hardship and severe mental

agony. Till date all the Petitioner workmen are unemployed

and they are starving to their day to day needs because of

the illegal termination of the Respondent management.

Thus, in light of the above propositions of law and also

various judicial-pronouncements in this regard the

termination of the Petitioner workmen is arbitrary, null

and void, illegal, invalid, improper and hence, liable to be

set aside.

(vii) Hence, the Petitioner prays to reinstate the 6

Petitioner workmen in their original employment with full

back wages, continuity in service and all other attendant

benefits from 01-06-2016 onwards till date of reinstatement;

to direct the Respondent management to regularise the

198

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[28 February 2023

services of the 6 Petitioner workmen with retrospective

effect and to give them the back wages, continuity of

services and all attendant benefits thereof; to award

compensation of `10,00,000 for the mental agony, hardship

suffered by the Petitioner due to the illegal termination by

the Respondent with interest at 18% from the date of

petition till date of realisation.

3. Brief averments made in the counter:

The Respondent is not the person to be used or to

take decisions relating to creation of posts and to

regulate recruitments. The Pondicherry Engineering

College established and maintained and its administration

and management are being carried on by the Engineering

College (Pondicherry) Society (Registered No. 40/84),

registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as the Society). The said Society

and its Institutions are managed by a Governing Body.

(ii) Rule 3 of the Rules and Regulations of the

Engineering College (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)

prescribe the Authorities of the Society. Rule 3 stated

that-

“3. Authorities of Society:- The following shall be

the authorities of the Society, namely:-

(a)

The General Body;

(b)

The Governing Body and the Executive

Committee; and

(c)

Such other Committees as have been

appointed under these present and other

authorities as may be appointed by the

General Body from time to time specifying

their duties, powers and functions”.

(iii) The composition of the Governing Body is

called the Board of Governors, Engineering College

(Pondicherry) Society (hereinafter referred to as the

Board) and rule 11 (2) (n) of the rules empowers the Board

only to create posts and to regulate recruitment of staff

of the Society and its Institutions. A Standing

Committee, “Staff (Non-Teaching) Selection Committee”

has also been constituted by the Board for the purpose

of selection of non-teaching staff. Rule 11 (2) (u)

prescribed that the Board shall be the person to sue and

defend all legal proceedings on behalf of the Society.

(iv) As prescribed by the rules, the Society only

can be deemed to be the employer as the definition

clause, 2(g), of the Service Bye-laws defines that

“Employee” means a person in the service of the Society

in any post.

(v) Therefore, the Pondicherry Engineering College,

an Institution established and maintained by the Society,

cannot be deemed to be the employer for the purpose

of deciding the industrial dispute referred to this Court.

The Institution, as such, has not power to decide upon

the creation or regularisation of posts. Therefore, the

present reference of the alleged dispute, without making

the Society as a party through its proper representative,

is not maintainable.

(vi) It is denied that the 6 persons claiming

regularisation by the Petitioner were appointed by the

Respondent management on 01-01-2002 or on any other

date as claimed by the Petitioner. The said 6 persons were

engaged by a labour contractor between 2000 and 2004

for road cleaning works and subsequently, on their

offer, they were engaged for daily worker at the rate of

` 85 per day to do cleaning work for three days in a week,

for a maximum number of 13 days in a month and were

paid through hand receipts/vouchers. From March 2006

till November 2009, there was a break in service and in

the same month itself they were again engaged for the

same number of days at the same rate of work till June

2010. Subsequently the rate were raised to ` 125 per day

and number of days were increased to 22 days till August

2012. From September 2012 the rates were raised to ` 200

per day. However, it is denied that there are regular,

permanent vacant posts to absorb the said 6 persons.

Till date there are no sanctioned posts as against their

engagement to consider regularisation.

(vii) The creation and sanctioning of posts are

issues and policy matters within the purview and powers

of the Society and the Respondent herein has no power

to create posts or to regularise the 6 persons claiming

through the Petitioner. The said persons cannot be said

or deemed to be holders of a post, since; a regular

appointment could be made only by making appointment

consistent with the requirements of the Society and by

the Society only.

(viii) The

Petitioner

Union’s

claim

for

regularisation of its members merely because they have

been engaged for a considerable period of time cannot

be granted in light of several decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, which had consistently held that casual

employment terminates when the same is discontinued,

and merely because a temporary or casual worker has

been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he

would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, if, the original appointment was not

in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules.

(ix) The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased

to hold that “The employees before us were engaged

on daily payment in the Department concerned on a rate

that was made known to them. There is no case that the

wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are

199

28 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

working on daily payment formed a class by themselves,

they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against

those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of

the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an

employment on daily wages to claim that such employee

should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited

candidate, and made permanent in employment, even

assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming

equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental

right in those who have been employed on daily wages

or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they

have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held

by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post,

since, a regular appointment could be made only by

making appointments consistent with the requirements

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be

treated equally with the other employees employed on

daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal

treatment with those who were regularly employed. That

would be treating unequals. It cannot also be relied on

to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though

they have never been selected in terms of the relevant

Recruitment Rules”.

(x) The Respondent denies the averment that all the

six persons claiming regularisation belong to Scheduled

Castes. To the best of the knowledge and information of

the Respondent three of them only are from Scheduled

Castes and one from MBC and the remaining two are from

Scheduled Castes from Tamil Nadu. Even assuming that

posts are created as against the engagement of the 6

persons the Recruitment Rules cannot be framed in a

manner to accommodate them with reference to age and

minimum educational qualifications.

(xi) The demand for regularisation is not

sustainable

for

the

following

reasons:

(a) No

appointment order was issued as against any existing

post specifying the terms and conditions of service,

(b) The six persons were engaged by the Estate Officer

when contingency required, (c) There are no regular

posts to accommodate the said six persons, (d) They

have no educational qualification to accommodate them

in any Group ‘C’ post. Engagement in Group ‘D’ posts

are against the recommendations of the 6th Pay

Commission and involve policy decisions. (e) The

existing ratio of non-teaching staff as against the

teaching staff is being questioned by the AICTE, (f) As

the Institution is owned by the Society and funded by

the Government of Puducherry, independent decisions

cannot be taken by the Institution in matters having

financial implications and the Government itself had to

be made a party to the proceedings under the

circumstances, (g) There exists a ban on direct

recruitment in Government of Puducherry vide G.O. No.

G. 24011/1/2017-18/Fl(B), dated 2nd January 2018 issued

by, Finance Department, Government of Puducherry

highlighting the Economy measures and rationalisation

of expenditure to face the emerging financial challenges.

(xii) The Petitioner cannot seek relief citing

appointments not related or equated to the six persons

whose cause is espoused by the Petitioner.

(xiii) It is denied that the six persons represented by

the Petitioner were illegally terminated. Their services,

were no longer required by the Society and therefore,

their engagement was discontinued which cannot be

deemed to be termination. There was no discharge or

dismissal consequent to any misconduct and assuming

that it was discharge it was a simple discharge only

requiring no redressal. It is denied that the Respondent

has done anything which can be termed arbitrary, illegal

or improper to treat the disengagement of the six persons

as null and void.

(xiv) There was no original employment to grant

the relief of reinstatement as prayed for by the

Petitioner. As already submitted the question of

regularisation does not arise in the case of the six persons

represented by the Petitioner Union. The Respondent is

not liable to pay any compensation and much less the

sum of ` 10,00,000 or any part of it as claimed by the

Petitioner and as the dispute is not adversarial there can

be no costs also.

(xv) The Petitioner’s claim, has no merit and the

dispute itself has been raised speculatively aiming for

unjust enrichment which is evident from the claim of

` l0,00,000. As already submitted, the reference of the

dispute against the Respondent herein is improper and

no enforceable Award can be passed as against the

Respondent herein. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

5. Points for consideration:

Whether the Puducherry State Federation N.R. Congress

Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry is entitled for

non-employment and regularisation of 6 scavengers

(i) K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammalle, (iii) S. Indirani,

(iv) E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and (vi) G. Maragadam?

6. On point:

PW1 Mr. Mohandas examined Ex. Pl to Ex. Pll

marked. Since Respondent did not come forward to

cross-examine PW1, the Respondent was set ex parte

on 24-02-2022.

200

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[28 February 2023

7. On the Point:

The relief sought in the claim petition is to reinstate

the six Petitioner-workmen in their original employment

with full back wages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits from 01-06-2016 onwards till the date

of reinstatement; to regularise the services of the said

six Petitioner workmen with retrospective effect and to

give them the back wages, continuity of services and

all attendant benefits; to award ` 10,00,000 with interest

@ 18% from the date of petition till the date of

realisation as compensation for the mental agony,

hardship suffered by the Petitioners due to illegal

termination.

8. As per the claim Statement, the Petitioner workmen

were appointed by Respondent management on 01-01-2002

for doing the work of cleaning the toilets, roads inside

the Respondent campus, hostel rooms etc., The Petitioner

workmen had discharged their duties to the satisfaction

of the Respondent management without any black

marks. Petitioner workmen worked for more than

300 days in every year. Though there are regular

permanent vacant post in the Respondent management

to observe the Petitioner workmen, the Respondent

management did not chosen to regularise them. But, the

Respondent management vide letters, dated 28-09-2015

and 14-10-2015 regularised the services of some 25

workmen who joined during 2010 and Respondent

management neglected to regularise the six Petitioner

workmen, which is illegal and unlawful.

9. Despite the representations given by the Petitioner

workmen requesting regularisation of their services,

there were no responses. Aggrieved by that, Petitioner

workmen raised industrial dispute before Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry vide representation dated

07-03-2016. Pending Conciliation proceedings the

Respondent management arbitrarily terminated the

services of the six Petitioner-workmen on 01-06-2016

without following any procedures which amounts unfair

labour practices. When the illegal termination was

informed to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry, he advised the Respondent management to

reinstate the six Petitioner-workmen. For which the

Respondent management informed the Conciliation

Authority that if, the six Petitioner workmen

unconditionally withdraw the ID and they waive their

rights for regularisation only, they will be given

employment in the Respondent management. Hence, it

was referred to this Court.

10. On the side of the Petitioner workmen,

representation given to Labour Officer (Conciliation),

dated 17-03-2016 with the prayer to regularise the six

Petitioner workmen retrospectively from 31-12-2006 with

financial benefits etc., filed and marked as Ex. Pl. The

reply to Ex. Pl submitted by the Respondent

management, dated 06-07-2016 to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) filed and marked as Ex. P2. On perusal of

Ex. P2, I could able to find that the Respondent

management has listed out the reasons for not accepting

the workmen's claim for regularisation. The counter

reply given by the Petitioner Union on Ex. P2 to the

Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 24-08-2016 was filed

and marked as Ex. P3. The Petitioner Union has

elaborately given its reply that the reasons mentioned

by the management in Ex.P2 for not giving regularisation

as improper and false. Further, in Ex. P3 Petitioner Union

has stated at page 3 of Ex.P3 that during the hearing

before Labour Officer (Conciliation) held on 23-05-2016,

both the Petitioner Union and the Respondent

management were present and participated in the

Conciliation talks. In that meeting, the representatives

of management had stated that since the Principal of

the College was out of station, the reply regarding the

claim for regularisation of the said six Petitioner

workmen will be duly given after getting instructions

from the Principal and thereby requested to adjourn the

matter to 20-06-2016. That being so, meanwhile all of a

sudden the six Petitioner workmen were terminated on

01-06-2016 illegally. The learned Counsel appearing for

the Petitioner would also argue that when the

Conciliation proceedings were pending before Labour

Officer (Conciliation), having participated and sought time

for filing their reply, the Management in the mean time

before giving a reply, had terminated all the six

Petitioner workmen for whom the Conciliation

proceedings were pending.

11. Ex. P4 is the Failure report of the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), dated 06-01-2014. On perusal of Ex. P4

also, I could find that the six Petitioner workmen were

terminated pending Conciliation proceedings. The said

fact has been stated by the Labour Officer, (Conciliation)

in his Failure report. Ex. P4 at page 6 unnumbered 1st

and 2nd para. Further, at page 30 of the Ex. P4 it is

mentioned that,

"During the course of Conciliation proceedings

held on various dates, the management prays further

time for discussion with higher officials and to report.

Further course of proceedings on 01-09-2016, on

16-09-2016 and 26-09-2016, the Management also

stated that as the direction regarding continuous

service of 6 workers working as daily rated workers

pending before the Law Department for vetting and

also prays short time to report to the Conciliation

Authority.

201

28 February 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

During the course of Conciliation proceedings

held on 03-10-2016, workers/Petitioner insisted that

to take immediate action in this regard. The management

stated that as the matter is pending for the direction

before the Law Department, they are unable to reply

before the Conciliation Authority regarding the

continuous service of the 6 workers. The Union not

accepted the above statement of the management and

also stated that the management follow the delay

tactics and hence, insist to failure this issue and to

take further steps for adjudication. As an amicable

settlement could not be reached before this forum, the

matter is ended in failure".

12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted

the two case laws during his arguments to substantiate

his contention which are as follows:

(i) CDJ 2018 SC-463– the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India-in Chennai Port Trust Vs. The Chennai Post

Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare

Association and Others held on dated 27-04-2018 that,

"15-(a) The canteen has been there since the

inception of the appellant's factory, (b) The workmen

have been employed for long years and despite a

change of contractors, the workers have continued to

be employed in the canteen, (d) The wages of the

canteen workers have to be reimbursed by the

appellant, (e) The supervision and control on the

canteen is exercised by the appellant through its

authorised officer, as can be seen from the various

clauses of the contract between the appellant and the

contractor, (f) The contractor is nothing but an agent

or a manager of the appellant, who works completely

under the supervision, control and directions of the

appellant, (g) The workmen have the protection of

continuous employment in the establishment.

(ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India- in Civil

Appeal No.4443 of 2021, held that, "the point that arises

for consideration in these appeals is whether the

daily wagers/Respondents are entitled for

regularisation of their services.

By an order, dated 17-10-2011, persons similarly

situated to the Respondents were absorbed by being

given the benefit of regularisation. The Division Bench

of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory

approach of the University in conferring the benefit of

regularisation to some and not to all those daily wagers

who are eligible. There is no error in the Judgment of

the High Court which warrants interference by this

Court. Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the

schemes have been eagerly awaiting regularisation as

per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural

University's Case (Supra). The right of the Respondents

for regularisation has been correctly recognised by the

High Court.”

13. In addition to the above referred documents,

the Petitioner Union has also filed and relied Ex. P5- photocopy

of the extract of attendance of Petitioner workmen for

the period 01-04-2016 to 30-04-2016; Ex.P6-Photocopy of

the attendance of Petitioner workmen for the month of

April, 2016; Ex.P7-photocopy of the appointment letter

of Mr. Anbarasan as helper on contract basis in the

Respondent establishment; Ex.P8-photocopy of office

order issued by the Respondent regularising

Mr. Anbarasan; Ex.P9- photocopy of the memorandum

issued by the Respondent regarding regularisation of

consolidated staffs; Ex.Pl0-photocopy of the RTI

Application submitted by the Petitioner to the

Respondent; Ex.Pl1-RTI reply given by the Respondent

to the Petitioner.

14. Though the Respondent management filed

their counter refuting the claims of the Petitioner, they

did not come forward to cross-examine the Petitioner

witness PW1. .Respondent remained absent and set

ex parte on 24-02-2022. From the exhibits i.e., P1 to P11

and as discussed above, I hold that Petitioner Union

has categorically proved its case by way of adducing

oral evidence and by marking documentary evidences.

The case of the Petitioner Union has not been rebutted

by the Management Company and it remained absent.

Therefore, from all angles this Court decides the point

for determination in favour of the Petitioner Union to

the effect that Respondent management is directed to

reinstatement the six Petitioner workmen and thus, the

industrial dispute referred is justified.

15. In the result, the Reference is justified. The

industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner Union is

partly allowed to the effect that the Respondent

management is hereby directed to reinstate the six

Petitioner-workmen in their original employment with

full back wages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits from 01-06-2016 onwards till the date

of reinstatement; to regularise the services of the said

six Petitioner workmen with retrospective effect and to

give them the back wages, continuity of services and

all attendant benefits. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this 26th day of October, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum

Labour Court,

Puducherry.

202

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[28 February 2023

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —20-08-2019 Mohandas

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 —

17-01-2016—Photocopy of the

representation given by the Petitioner

to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P2 —

06-07-2016—Photocopy of the

reply submitted by the Respondent

to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P3 —

24-08-2016—Photocopy of the

representation given by the Petitioner

to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P4 —

06-07-2017—Photocopy of the

failure report submitted by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P5 —

April 16—Photocopy of the extract of

attendance of the Petitioner workmen

for the period 01.04.2016 to 30-04-2016.

Ex.P6 —

April 16—Photocopy of the attendance

of the Petitioner workmen for the

month of April, 2016.

Ex.P7 —

12-08-2010—Photocopy of the

Appointment Letter of Mr. Anbarasan

as helper on contract basis in

the Respondent establishment.

Ex.P8 —

14-10-2015—Photocopy of office

order issued by the Respondent

regularising Mr. Anbarasan.

Ex.P9 —

28-09-2015—Photocopy of the

memorandum issued by the

Respondent regarding regularisation

of consolidated staffs.

Ex.P10—

06-12-2017—Photocopy of the RTI

A p p l i c a t i o n s u b m i t t e d b y t h e

Petitioner to the Respondent.

Ex.P11—

21-01-2018—RTI reply given by the

Respondent to the Petitioner.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits : Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer (FAC),

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (FISHERIES)

(G.O. Ms. No. 6/Fy.,

Puducherry, dated 06th February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Tmt. J. Mary Santhi, Deputy Director of Fisheries

(Inland), Department of Fisheries and Fishermen

Welfare, Puducherry, is admitted into retirement with

effect from the afternoon of 28-02-2023 on attaining the

age of superannuation.

(By order)

S. MURUGESAN,

Under Secretary to Government,

(Fisheries).

————

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ �ÆD k¬‡A mÁ≈

(∂´∑ gÁð √ÈkÁÔ ®ı 56/÷ƒW./ºÔV.4/2023,

gÁð

Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈD, Amﬂºƒˆ k‚¶V´D, ÔVÕ] T],

2004/520, ÂV^ 13á 12á 2 021á[ J È D WB\™D

ÿƒBÈÔD

∂kÏÔ^

º�Ôı¶

º>k¸>V™›Á>

{´Vı| xΩkÁ¶Õ> WÁÈl_, º�√Ω º>k¸>V™›Á>

ÿƒDÁ\BVÔ WÏk˛¬zD ÿ√VÚ‚| ºkÆ {Ï A]B WÏkVÔ

∂]ÔVˆÁB WBt¬Ô ºkıΩBm ∂kEB\V™>VÔ¬

ÔÚ>©√|˛≈m.

2. ®™ºk, 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ ÷Õm ƒ\B

∂]ÔV´∫ÔÁ·ﬂ ÿƒK›], Amﬂºƒˆ, ]Úk^”kÏ ∂´∑ ÿ√ıÔ^

]Ú. ˛. pWkVƒ[, >/ÿ√. ˛ÚiðJÏ›] ®[√kÁ´, Amﬂºƒˆ,

º>k¸>V™›]uz, WÏkVÔ ∂]ÔVˆBVÔ ∂´ƒV_ ÷>[

3. ]Ú. ˛. pWkVƒ[ ∂kÏÔ^, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B

WÆk™∫Ô^ ƒ‚¶D, 1972á[√Ω, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÔVÕ] T], p

c¶™ΩBVÔ º√uÆ¬ÿÔVı|, ∂´∑› mÁ≈l_ >V[ k˛¬zD