[357]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

358

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 358

Award of the Labour Court .. 358

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

364

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 364

Government Notifications

.. 364

Œ©√∂§s©AÔ^d

372

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 372

Tender notices

.. 372

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

373

Etablissements dangereux

.. 373

Dangerous Establishments

373

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

374

Annonces

.. 374

Announcements

374

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 }

º\ |

2 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mai

2023 (12 Vaisakha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

2nd

May

2023

358

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 May 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 20/AIL/Lab./T/2023, dated 16th February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 52/2017, dated

22-12-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between

M/s. Adhi Sakthi Project Private Limited, Puducherry

and Thiru P. Sudalaikathan, Puducherry, 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. 52/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000082-2017

P. Sudalaikathan,

No. 22, Murugan Koil Street,

Keezhsathamangalam,

Korkadu Post, Via Villianur,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Adhi Sakthi Project Private Limited,

R.S. No. 40/9, (Near Wipro Computers),

Earikarai Road,

Thiruvandarkoil,

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

Balamurugan,

Counsel

for

Petitioner,

Thiruvalargal R. Ilanchezhiyan and S. Geetha, Counsel

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. 153/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 13-10-2017 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Thiru P. Sudalaikathan, Villianur, Puducherry 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 19-04-2012 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 19-04-2013 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

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 regularized

359

2 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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 29-06-2015 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 has been working

for a long period since from 2012 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 Respondent Management denied all the averments

made by the Petitioner in his claim statement. The

petitioner’s claims are absolutely false and not maintainable

under law. 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

Bank 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 monetary 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?

5. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex. Pl to P8

were marked. On Respondent side Thiru Sasikumar,

General Manager, Manufacturing of Respondent

Company examined as RW1. Through him Ex. Rl to R5

were marked. Written arguments filed on the

Respondent Management side.

360

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 May 2023

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. R3) whereby, his

services have been terminated by discontinuance of his

contract (Ex. Pl/ Ex. Rl) on the ground of unsatisfactory

performance up to 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

19-04-2012 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

19-04-2013. 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.

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 the 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. Further, it is contended on the Respondent

Management side that the Termination Order Ex. R3

dated 15-03-2016 tendered to the Petitioner but, he was

refused to receive the same. 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 Hon’ble 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. Pl/Ex. Rl was issued on 29-06-2015 and same was

received by the Petitioner on 06-07-2015. 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

or wages in lieu thereof during the initial or extended

period of probation. Furthermore, 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

361

2 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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 has 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 victimisation, 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 showcause the fact that the

Respondent Management wantedly has terminated and

it was an act of victimization. Further, it is contended

that a memo, dated 12-03-2016 (Ex. R2) 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. R2 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 30 days leave for

nine months without permission and treated as leave

on Loss of Pay. The said memorandum Ex. R2 was signed

and received by the Petitioner. 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

petitioner herein has refused to receive the copy of the

termination order when it was tendered to him in person.

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 to approach the Respondent Office

and to repay the loan due to be paid by the petitioner

herein to the Respondent Management and it is

found that the loan due of ` 28,022 which the

petitioner is liable to repay to the Respondent

Management after deducting the amount payable to 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. R5. 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. R5 that since his employment was

on probationary bases 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 as clearly made out

that he was used to be absent from his service without

any prior intimation or permission from the Respondent

Management for several days and also went on several

days leave on Loss of Pay. As a probationer the claim

Petitioner has no lien 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 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

362

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 May 2023

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 principles 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 was exhibited on the respondent side to show

that 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 issued to the Petitioner

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

the Complaint. 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. R4.

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

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

363

2 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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/R3 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 —14-09-2021 Thiru Sudalaikanthan

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 —

0 5 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 6 P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

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 —

22-12-2016 Photocopy of the reply

of the Petitioner on the Respondent’s

reply before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government of

Puducherry.

Ex.P8 —

14-09-2017 Photocopy of the

Conciliation Failure Report.

List of Respondent’s witness:

RW.1 —

07-07-2022 Thiru Sasikumar, General

Manager-Manufacturing Respondent

Management.

List of Respondent’s exhibits:

EX.RI —

2 9 - 0 6 - 2 0 1 5 P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

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 —

12-03-2016 Photocopy of the

Memorandum issued to the

Petitioner by the Respondent

Management.

Ex.R3 —

1 5 - 0 3 - 2 0 1 6 P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

Termination Order issued to the

Petitioner by the Respondent

Management.

Ex.R4 —

24-05-2016 Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Respondent to the

Petitioner intimating him about the

loan amount due to be repaid by the

the Petitioner to the Respondent

Company.

Ex.R5 —

09-04-2016 Photocopy of the reply

filed by the Respondent Management

to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Government of Puducherry.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.