[345]
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
346
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 346
Award of the Labour Court .. 346
de Tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
352
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 352
Government Notifications
.. 352
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
355
Annonces
.. 355
Announcements
..
355
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 }
∞©´_ |
25 {
No.
17
Poudouchéry
Mardi
25
Avril
2023 (5 Vaisakha 1945)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
25th
April
2023
346
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 April 2023
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 19/AIL/Lab./T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 16th February 2023)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 51/2017, dated
22-12-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the dispute between M/s. Adhi
Sakthi Project Private limited, Puducherry and Thiru
A. Kumanan, Cuddalore, over non-employment has been
received;
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.
Thursday, the 22nd day of December, 2022
I.D. (L) No. 51/2017
CNR. No. PYPY06-000081-2017
A. Kumanan,
No. 3/2A, Mariamman Koil Street,
Chinnapakandai Post,
Panrutti, Cuddalore District,
Tamil Nadu.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Adhi Sakthi Project Private Limited,
R.S. No. 40/9, (Near Wipro Computers),
Earikarai Road,
Thiruvandar Koil,
Kothapurinatham,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 01-12-2022 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal R.
T. Shankar, L.K. Saravanan, A. Ashokkumar, P. Suresh and
B. Balamurugan, Counsel for Petitioner, Thiruvalargal
R. Ilanchezhiyan and S. Geetha, Counsels for Respondent,
and after hearing 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. 152/AIL/Lab./T/2017 dated 13-10-2017 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the
following dispute between the Petitioners and the
Respondent, viz.,
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner
Thiru A. Kumanan, Cuddalore, against the Management
of M/s. Adhi Sakthi Project Private Limited, Puducherry,
over non-employment 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:
The Respondent Management is company incorporated
under the provision of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and
started its concern in the year 2004. The Petitioner had been
duly selected and appointed on 19-04-2011 as welder. But,
no orders towards his employment issued by the
Respondent Management. He was doing his work without
any leave or remarks for the period of more than 4 years
since he joined.
(ii) The Petitioner had performed all works assigned
to him more than 8 hours in a day without any safety,
health, statutory leave or welfare, and also lesser wages.
(iii) The Respondent Management engaged the
Petitioner to do the perennial nature of work in full-time for
8 hours in a day and all working days in a month in the
Production Department as a welder and doing the perennial
nature works with other permanent workers thereby the
Respondent Management extended the benefits of ESI and
EPF to the Petitioner at par with permanent employees only
from 19-04-2012, and the Petitioner is having requisite
experience and qualification as well.
(iv) Petitioner has been working for a long period as
a permanent worker in the Respondent Management after
the Petitioner completing his probation period and he has
worked more than 240 days of service in a year and the
same was continued for more than 4 years without any
347
25 April 2023]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
interruption of service. Hence, the petitioner is deemed to
be a permanent workman as per labour laws. However, the
Respondent Management has not absorbed and regularised
the services of the Petitioner despite he placed his request.
The Respondent Management did not ready to regularize
the Petitioner and increase the wages.
(v) While being so on 29-06-2016, the Respondent
Management had issued an alleged “Probation Order” to
the Petitioner in which the Petitioner had been designated
as “Probationer”. Though, the Petitioner has been directly
working at the Production Department as welder and doing
the perennial nature of works with other permanent workers,
the Petitioner is having requisite experience and
qualification and the Petitioner workman have been working
for a long period since from 2011 with the Respondent
Management. To the contrary, the Respondent Management
has issued such an alleged Probation Order.
(vi) The Petitioner had been continued with the service
more than 4 years with the Respondent Management for
the same nature of work and similar number of hours like
permanent employees therefore, the Petitioner are entitled
for regularisation as per labour laws and therefore, the
Petitioner had insisted the Respondent Management to
absorb and confirm his employment and increase the wages.
The Respondent Management on 15-03-2016 to the shock
and surprise of the Petitioner, not permitted him to do his
work and stopped him at the main gate with an ulterior
motive, without issuing any termination order or statutory
notice. Thereafter, the Respondent Management sent a
letter, dated 15-03-2016 to the Petitioner and the same was
received by the Petitioner on 19-03-2016.
(vii) The Respondent Management first orally
terminated on 15-03-2016 and sent a letter, dated 15-03-2016
to the Petitioner by RPAD without following mandatory
procedures and thrown him out without following the
Labour Welfare Laws. The said act committed by the
Respondent Management is a clear violation of section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act and against the Principles of
Natural Justice.
(viii) The Respondent Management utilised the
Petitioner/Employee like a slave for a long time and
exploited his tender age and not consider his welfare and
all other benefits which are enumerated in the labour laws.
In order to escape from the clutches of law the Respondent
Management denied/refused the employment to the
Petitioner for their permanent status, the said act committed
by the Respondent Management is absolutely illegal and
against the law and therefore, the Respondent Management
is liable to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and
continuity of service.
(ix) The Petitioner has not been gainfully employed
in any establishment, his family are facing untold hardship
without employment and earnings. Hence, the Petitioner
prays to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and
continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Hence,
the petition.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the
respondent as follows:
The Petitioner was initially appointed as trainee and
after completion of training period he has been
appointed as probationer w.e.f. 01-12-2014. The
Petitioner was placed as probationer with a main object
of observing him for the fitness for job and to access
his abilities by measuring various parameters such as
attitude in discharging his duties, attendance, obedience,
general attitude and behaviour and so on. However, the
Petitioner could not reach the bench mark, even though
he was given sufficient time and tolerance by the
Respondent Management. The Petitioner happened to
be a non-performer and could not reach the benchmark.
Therefore as per the terms of appointment his services
were terminated by an order dated 15.03.2016 and
whatever amount payable to him was credited in his
back account.
(ii) The Petitioner was working only as a probationer
with clear terms and conditions as envisaged in his order
of appointment and unless his services were confirmed
he continued to be a probationer and he cannot claim
the status of a permanent workmen. His services were
terminated for the non-performance and as a probationer
the Petitioner can neither challenge his termination nor
claim employment as a matter of right. Therefore
whatever allegations made by the Petitioner in his
petition are absolutely false and the termination made by
the Management is a valid termination. As far as the
Respondent is concerned it does not have any ulterior
motive or vested interest as contended by the Petitioner
in terminating the services of the Petitioner. It is the
prerogative right of the Respondent to foreclose the
period of probation/terminate the service on the
principle that once a probationer is always a
probationer and he cannot claim employment as a matter
of right. In view of the reasons stated above the
Petitioner is not entitled for any reemployment, back
wages or any other monitory benefits whatsoever.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Point for determination:
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for an order of
reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service and
other attendant benefits as claimed in the claim petition?
348
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 April 2023
5. On Point:
Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex. Pl to P9
were marked. On Respondent side Thiru Sasikumar,
General Manager-Manufacturing of Respondent Company
examined as RW1. Through him Ex. Rl to R6 were marked.
Written arguments filed on the Respondent Management
side.
6. On the point:
Industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner herein
against the Respondent Management challenging an
order dated 15-03-2016 (Ex. P3/Ex. R4) whereby, his
services have been terminated by discontinuance of his
contract (Ex. Pl/ Ex. Rl) on the ground of unsatisfactory
performance upto the level required during probation
period as Welder in the Respondent Company. The Reference
has been made by the Government of Puducherry over
his non-employment.
7. According to the Petitioner he was appointed on
19-04-2011 as Welder and worked for four years in the
Respondent Management, which was perennial in nature
and having 8 hours work per day. ESI and EPF were
assigned to the claim Petitioner and deductions were
made from the salary towards ESI and EPF from
19-04-2012. On 29-06-2015 the Respondent Management
issued Probation Order in which the Petitioner has been
designated as Probationer. On 15-03-2016 the Respondent
Management has not permitted the Petitioner to do his
work and stopped him at the main gate without issuing
any termination order or statutory notice. On 19-03-2016,
a letter of the Respondent Management dated 15-03-2016
was received by the Petitioner. The impugned action of
termination is mala fide and a result of the personal
vendetta of the Management on account of the fact that
Petitioner insisted for-wage revision and regularisation
of his services in the Respondent Company. Thus, the
act of the Respondent Management is a clear
violation of 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. No
Principles of Natural Justice and statutory provisions
followed by the Respondent Management. Hence, the
claim for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity
of services and all other attendant benefits filed by the
claim Petitioner.
8. On the other hand, it is contended on the side of
the Respondent Management that Petitioner was initially
appointed as trainee and after completion of training
period he was appointed as probationer w.e.f. 01-12-2014.
The Petitioner was working only as a probationer and
unless his services were confirmed in writing he should
be construed to be considered as a probationer only. It
is well settled that “In the absence of any deeming
clause or term in the contract of for automatic
confirmation on expiry of probation or extended period
of probation, the services of the employee would
continue on probation till he is confirmed in his
employment”. Jaya Raina vs. Gujarat Livelihood Promotion
Company Limited., & Anr. (Gujarat HC 2015 LLR 193 &
194). The Petitioner could not reach the benchmark even
though he was given sufficient time. Therefore, as per
the terms of the appointment his services were
terminated by Ex. P3/R3.
9. The learned counsel for the Respondent Management
referred the relevant endorsement made on Ex. R4 the
Termination Order wherein it is found an endorsement
to the effect that the Petitioner herein has refused to
receive the copy of the Termination order when it was
tendered to him in person. It is well settled that
“Probationer has no right on the job and his
termination as per contract of employment will not be
stigmatic and as such he will not be entitled to get any
relief by challenging termination of probationary
services”. Continental Construction Limited, vs., Workmen
of Continental Construction Limited (Karnataka HC 2013
LLJ 612). Further he also relied on the case decide by
the Honb’le Jharkhand High Court in 2010 LLR 40.
Wherein, it is held that, “A probationer does not acquire
any right to hold or continue to hold such a post
during the period of probation, hence, probationary
services can be terminated either during or after the
completion or the extended period of probation.”
Services of a probationer can be terminated or
dispensed with during or at the end of probation period
without assigning any reason.
10. Further it is contended in the counter filed
by the Respondent Management that, the allegations
of bias and mala fides levelled by the Petitioner against
the Respondent Institution are completely baseless.
Termination of the service of the Petitioner is an
outcome of the non-performance and as a probationer
the Petitioner can neither challenge his termination nor
claim employment as a matter of right.
11. Heard. Perused the records. The Probation Order
Ex. Rl was issued on 29-06-2015 and same was received
by the Petitioner on 07-07-2015. There is no
documentary evidence to show that this Probation
Order was objected by the claim Petitioner at the time
of its issuance. Thus, the order deemed to be accepted
without any objection. Therefore, now he cannot
challenge the Probation Order nor he challenged the
same in this reference. In the said Probation Order, it is
mentioned that unless confirmed in writing the
Petitioner will be deemed as Probationer after the expiry
of the initial or extended period of Probation. The
services are liable to be terminated without any notice
349
25 April 2023]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
or wages in lieu thereof during the initial or extended
period of probation. Further more, in the same probation
order Ex. Pl/Rl, it is clearly mentioned that the initial
period of training will not be counted for service or any
other benefits whatsoever and the said appointment as
probationer is subject to the Petitioner's acceptance to
the general terms and condition of service as enumerated
in the enclosed Annexure. Therefore, Ex. Pl/Rl, the
Probation order, dated 29-06-2015 which was accepted by
the Petitioner without any protest. The letter was never
challenged in any Court of law prior to the order of
termination impugned herein and only because his
services have been terminated, Petitioner is laying a
challenge to its validity, as an after-thought.
12. There can be no manner of doubt that the
employer is entitled to engage the services of a person
on probation. During the period of probation, the
suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If
his services are not satisfactory which means that he
is not suitable for the job, then the employer has a right
to terminate the services as a reason thereof in absence
of rules, if the contract of employment, has fixed or
particular period of probation and on expiry of the
probation period the employee still continuous in
services then the implications are that he or she
continuous as a probationer. A Probationer continuing
past the probation period will not automatically become
a permanent employee and the employer as rights to
extend the probation period till it is satisfied the
probationer is fit for confirmation. Thus a probationer
will be a probationer until he or she is confirmed by the
employer.
13. In the claim petition, the Petitioner has urged
that as an act of victimization, he has been terminated
all of a sudden without any written Termination Order
or statutory notice. On perusal of the case records
and the evidences adduced before this Court, the claim
Petitioner failed to show cause, the fact that the Respondent
Management wantonly has terminated and it was an act
of victimization. On the other hand, the Respondent
Management has also issued a show cause notice/
Ex. R2 dated 06-01-2016 to the Petitioner stating that a
complaint was received against him that on 15-12-2015 at
06.00 p.m when the Petitioner was leaving the company
after his work while he was under security check by the
Security, he did not cooperate for the search and
abused the Security with filthy languages. Explanation
was called for from the Petitioner to submit the same in
three days failing which there was no explanation from
the Petitioner and will be proceed further. On
perusal of Ex. R2, I could also find an endorsement to
the effect that the same was received by the Petitioner
but, with objections. Further, it is contended that a
memo dated 12-03-2016 (Ex.R3) issued to the claim
Petitioner regarding the habit of the Petitioner going on
in unauthorised leave for several days without any
intimation or permission. Further, it is mentioned in it
the leave details that the Petitioner had taken leave on
Loss of Pay for the past nine months. In the same Ex.
R3 number of days leave on Loss of Pay taken by the
Petitioner on month wise from April to December has
been mentioned. He has taken 34 days leave for nine
months without permission and treated as leave on Loss
of Pay. The said Memorandum Ex. R3 was signed and
received by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the
Respondent
Management
referred
the
relevant
endorsement made on Ex. R4 about his refusal to
receive. Hence, it was duly sent through post. Further a
letter from the Respondent Management addressed to
the claim Petitioner dated 24-05-2016 wherein it is stated
that the petitioner failed to approach the Respondent
Office for settlement of his dues and further it is stated
that on calculations, it is found that the arrear due of
` 14,218 which has been credited into the Bank Account
of the Petitioner towards full and final settlement from
the Respondent Management. The reply of the
Respondent Management on Industrial Disputes raised
by the Petitioner before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) has been marked as Ex. R6. In the reply
the Respondent Management has stated that they are
not satisfied with the claim Petitioner’s work during his
probationary period so they terminated him from his
services. Further, it is mentioned in Ex. R6 that since his
employment was on probationary basis he is not entitled
to demand for any reemployment or for continuation of
employment as a matter of right.
14. The Respondent Management by way of
exhibiting document such as Ex. R2 and R3 as clearly
made out that he was used to be unauthorised absence
without any prior intimation or permission from the
Respondent Management for several days and also went
on several days leave on Loss of Pay. Further, an incident
of non-cooperation with the Security personnel while
security checkup also shown by the Respondent
Management before this Court vide Ex. R2. As a probationer
the claim Petitioner has no liem over on the job, his
service can be terminating as the discretion of the
employer. The deductions towards EPF and ESI from the
Petitioner salary has no impact on the claim of the
Petitioner as every employee though he is a casual/
contract/daily rated/probationer has to be given the
benefits under the said schemes. Hence, deductions
towards ESI and EPF from the salary of the claim
petitioner alone cannot create any special right to hold
the posts as permanent post. Continuous working of
350
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 April 2023
240 days in a year also does not create any right to hold
the posts/services as the probationer. On the whole,
being a probationer, I find no semblance of right for the
claim Petitioner to make this claim against the
Respondent Management.
15. The learned Counsel for the Respondent
Management argued that the Petitioner was terminated
from his probationary service, since, his efforts did not
reach the expectation of the employer, even after given
a chance by extended his probation for one more year
to improve his work. It is for the employer to assess
whether a probationer can be continued or not and the
performance of the probationer is not up to the
satisfaction of the employer, then the employer can
terminate the services of a probationer, for unsatisfactory
work. It is well settled that “An employer can terminate
the services of a probationer for unsatisfactory work”
Municipal Committee, Sirsa vs. Munishi Ram SCC (2)
2005 382 It is well settled that “unsatisfactory performance
of the probationer, cannot be ipso facto termed as
“stigmatic” or “punitive” in nature. During the probation
period, an employee has to be extra careful and diligent
while discharging his assigned duties, so that he can
successfully complete his probation period to get
confirmation against the post he has been selected for.
Before the probationer is confirmed, the authority
concerned is under an obligation to consider whether the
work of the probationer is satisfactory or whether he is
suitable for the post. If, during the period of probation,
the performance of a probationer is not found
satisfactory or suitable for a particular job, as per the
assessment of the employer, he may be terminated from
the service”. Suresh Chand Jain vs. Director General &
Anr. (2015 Delhi HC) and it is well settled that
“Termination of a probationer on account of
unsatisfactory performance can never be treated as
penal” Paramjit Singh vs. Director Public Instructions
and Ors. (2011 SS LLR 116) “Even if an order of
termination of a probationer refers to unsatisfactory
service of the person concerned, the same cannot be
said to be stigmatic”, Chaitanya Prakash & Anr. Vs. H.
Omkarappa (2010 SCC LLR 225).
16. It is very well settled proposition that if, the
termination is only due to unsatisfactory performance
then the question of abiding by the principals of natural
justice would not arise. The order of termination is not
stigmatic rather it is termination simplicitor on the basis
of unsatisfactory performance of the Petitioner. Though
EX. R2 and EX. R3 were exhibited on the respondent
side to show that the petitioner was not diligent and
went on leave on loss of pay for several days without
prior intimation or permission from the respondent
company, this will not make his termination to be treated
as punitive in nature or stigmatic, because the
termination is not so worded to be stigmatic.
17. In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. Union of
India AIR 1964 SC 1854 wherein, after holding a
preliminary enquiry, the employee was discharged. It
was argued that since a fact finding enquiry was
conducted with an intention to hold a Departmental
enquiry if, a prima facie case is found out, and,
therefore, the termination order passed after
completion of preliminary enquiry, would render it
punitive. Rejecting this contention, Court held that
once a preliminary enquiry is over, it is open to the
employer not to proceed with the regular enquiry to
prove guilt of the employee and instead to pass a
simplicitor order of termination. Employer can stop
at any stage. The preliminary enquiry, therefore, at
the best can be a motive but, not a foundation so as
to render the order punitive.
18. In A.G. Benjamin vs. Union of India 1967 (1)
LLJ 718 (SC), the charge-sheet was issued,
explanation was received and Enquiry Officer was
appointed but, before completion of enquiry, the
proceedings were dropped and the incumbent was
terminated. Court held that the order is not punitive.
19. In the instant case, Ex. R2 and R3 issued to the
Petitioner. One for the alleged quarrel with the security
personnel and other for not attending the work for
several days which were treated as loss of pay. Though
they were issued to the Petitioner, the Respondent did
not proceed further on those Complaints. Instead the
Respondent Management has issued a simplicitor order
of
termination
of
Probation,
on
account
of
unsatisfactory performance. There is no illegality in the
action of Respondent Institution in terminating the
Petitioner on account of unsatisfactory probation and
no show cause notice was required, in law. It is a
termination simplicitor and not by way of punishment
pursuant to a disciplinary action requiring a Disciplinary
Enquiry. The order is not punitive or stigmatic. As per
the terms and conditions of the probation order Ex. Pl/Rl
that the services of the Petitioner's probation are liable
to be terminated without any notice or wages in lieu
thereof during the initial or extended period of
probation, the probation was terminated during the
period of probation and the Respondent Management
has given a one month’s salary to the Petitioner. This
could be seen from of Ex. R5.
20. Next point urges on the side of the Petitioner is
that there was necessity of complying with section 25-F
of Industrial Disputes Act since the Petitioner has
351
25 April 2023]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
completed 240 days of employment. For which it is
necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions
hereunder for better understanding:–
“Section 2 (oo) of Industrial Disputes Act-
“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer
of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action, but does not include.
(bb) Termination of the service of the workman
as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman
concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained
therein."
21. As per Sec 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the termination of the service of the
workman as a result of the non-renewal of the
contract of employment between the employer and
the workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation in that
behalf contained therein. The said section squarely
applicable to this present situation. In this case in
hand the Termination of the service of the workman as
a result of discontinuance of the probationary contract
of employment between the Respondent herein and
the Petitioner due to the unsatisfactory work, for the
conditions as stipulated in the contract would come
within the purview of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, Further, in the case law
reported in CDJ 1992 SC 118, it is upheld that
Constitution of India, Article 16-Regularisation of
services-Ad hoc appointment on a consolidated
compensation on contract basis for a limited period.
By expiry of contractual period, the right to remain
in post comes to an end-Services of respondent
being continued from time to time on 'ad hoc' basis
for more than a year, does not entitle him to
regularisation.
22. From the above discussions and findings,
I hold that the Termination Order Ex. P3/R4 is
termination simplicitor and not punitive nor stigmatic.
The appointment of the Petitioner in the Respondent
Management was under probation based on the
probation order Ex. Pl/Rl, the Termination Order
Ex. P3/R3 issued to the Petitioner on account of
unsatisfactory performance needs no show cause
notice or enquiry before its issuance. Since, this case
comes under the purview of Sec 2(oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, Petitioner cannot ask for relief
under Sec 25(F) of the Act. Thus, the point for
determination is decided accordingly to the effect
that Petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed
in his claim petition.
23. In this 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 22nd day of December, 2022.
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —17-12-2019 Thiru Kumanan
Claim Petitioner.
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —
29-06-2015 Probation Order with
terms and conditions issued by the
Respondent Management to the
Petitioner.
Ex.P2 —
15-03-2016 Photocopy of the letter
of the Petitioner addressed to the
M a n a g e r o f t h e R e s p o n d e n t
Management.
Ex.P3 —
15-03-2016 Photocopy of the
Termination Order issued by the
Respondent Management to the
Petitioner.
Ex.P4 —
16-03-2016 Photocopy of the letter
of the Petitioner addressed to Manager
of the Respondent Management.
Ex.P5 —
31-03-2016 Photocopy of the letter
sent by the Petitioner to the
Respondent Management with postal
receipt.
Ex.P6 —
05-05-2016 Photocopy of the
p e t i t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 2 A o f
Industrial Disputes Act filed by the
Petitioner before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Government
of Puducherry.
Ex.P7 —
24-05-2016 Photocopy of the letter
sent by the Respondent on the
Petitioner intimating the credit of
legal dues into the Petitioner’s Bank
Account.
352
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 April 2023
Ex.P8 —
22-12-2016 Photocopy of the reply
of the petitioner on the Respondent’s
reply before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Government of
Puducherry.
Ex.P9 —
13-09-2017 Photocopy of the
Conciliation Failure Report.
List of Respondent’s witness:
RW.1 —07-07-2022 Thiru S. Sasikumar,
General Manager-Manufacturing
Respondent Management.
List of Respondent’s exhibits:
EX.R1 —
29-06-2015 Photocopy of the
Probation Order issued to the
P e t i t i o n e r b y t h e R e s p o n d e n t
Management.
Ex.R2—
06-01-2016 Photocopy of the
show cause notice issued to the
Petitioner by the Respondent
Management.
Ex.R3—
1 2- 0 3 - 2 0 1 6 P h o t o c o p y to t h e
memorandum issued to the Petitioner
by the Respondent Management.
Ex.R4—
15-03-2016 Photocopy of the
Termination Order issued to the
Petitioner by the Respondent
Management.
Ex.R5—
24-05-2016 Photocopy of the letter
sent by the Respondent to the
Petitioner intimating the credit of
legal dues into the Petitioner’s Bank
Account.
Ex.R6—
09-04-2016 Photocopy of the file
by the Respondent Management to
the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Government of Puducherry.
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 46/Lab./AIL/T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 28th March 2023)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Vinayaka Mission’s Medical College, Karaikal
and the Union workman Thiru R. Johnson Raj Ramesh,
represented by the Union for all Staff in Vinayaka
Mission’s Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, over
pay anomaly, in respect of the matter mentioned in the
Annexure to this order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is
necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV
of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to
Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred
to the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, for adjudication.
The Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, shall submit the
Award within 3 months from the date of issue of
reference as stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of
section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in
accordance with rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. The party raising the dispute shall
file a statement of claim complete with relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses to the Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry, within 15 days of the receipt of the order
of reference and also forward a copy of such statement
to each one of the opposite parties involved in the
dispute.
ANNEXURE
(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
Union workman represented by Union for all Staff in
Vinayaka Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,
Karaikal, against the Management of M/s. Vinayaka
Mission’s Medical College, Kottucherry (PO), Kavaikal,
over pay anomaly of Thiru R. Johnson Raj Ramesh
and to refix his salary on par with his juniors Thiru
M.K. Dharmaraj and S. Mohan with arrears is justified
or not? If justified, what relief Thiru Johnson Raj
Ramesh is entitled to?
(ii) If justified, what relief Thiru R. Johnson Raj
Ramesh is entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief in terms of money if,
it can be so computed.
(By order)
P. RAGINI,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).