[1]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

002

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 002

Award of the Labour Court .. 002

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

012

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 012

Government Notifications

.. 012

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

019

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 019

Tender Notices

.. 019

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

022

Annonces

.. 022

Announcements

022

Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry

∂]ÔV´D ÿ√u≈ ÿkπX|

Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2024 }

ƒ™kˆ |

2 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2024 (12 Pausa 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

2nd

January

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 January 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 108/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 05th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 24/2017, dated

31-08-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of dispute between the M/s. Strides Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, Puducherry and Thiru

S. Murugan, s/o. Shenbagalingam, Puducherry, over

reinstatement after correction of date of birth and back

wages 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 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Thursday, the 31st day of August 2023.

I.D. (L). No. 24/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000101-2017

Murugan (died),

Suseela (Legal heirs of deceased Murugan),

No. 17, Second Street,

Devaki Nagar,

Muthialpet,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

(Impleaded as per Order in I.A. 01/2020, dated 28-01-2020.)

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited,

R.S. Nos. 33 and 34,

Mathur Road,

Periyakalapet,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 23-08-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

S. Lenin Durai, M. Ruthra and M. Murali, Counsels for

t h e pe t i t i o n e r a n d T h i r u v a l a r g a l L . S a t h i s h ,

S. Ulaganasthan, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan, V. Veeraragavan

and E. Karthitk, Counsels for fee respondent and after

hearing the both sides and perusing the case records,

this Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No. 64/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 27-04-2017 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondents,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner

Thiru S. Murugan, s/o. Shenbagalingam, Muthialpet,

Puducherry, against the Management of M/s. Strides

Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, Periyakalapet,

Puducherry, over reinstatement after correction of

date of birth and back wages is justified or not? If

justified, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. The averments stated in the claim petition is as

follows:

The respondent company is a medicine

manufacturing company running profitably and the

branch of the respondent company is situated at

Periyakalapet, Puducherry. The petitioner’s husband

had joined in the respondent company on 01-11-1980

and had been working for 36 years with utmost

satisfaction of respondent company. The petitioner’s

husband at the time of joining had furnished wrong

date of birth and thereby, the respondent company

has recorded the date of birth of petitioner’s husband

in the service records as 04-08-1964. That later the

respondent company has called for particulars from

its employees and the petitioner’s husband also

furnished his details based upon which identity card

was issued and the petitioner’s husband gave a

requisition letter to correct his date of birth along

with Transfer Certificate but, the respondent without

correcting the date of birth has informed the

petitioner’s husband that the petitioner’s husband

had reached the age of superannuation. Thereby, the

act of the respondent by not permitting the

petitioner’s husband to complete his remaining

period of service of six years eight months and three

days is illegal and therefore, this claim petition is filed

for reinstatement, back wages and all other attendant

benefits. Hence, the Petition.

2 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

3. The averments in the counter filed by the

respondent is as follows:

The Petitioner has no locus standi to raise an

industrial dispute either before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) or before this Court for the following

reasons:

(ii) Petitioner was not a worker within a definition

of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

Petitioner joined the services of erstwhile Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, on 01-11-1980 at Chennai.

The Petitioner thereafter given periodical promotions

lastly, from Senior Executive to Manager - Production

in Aldehyde plant vide letter, dated 29-02-2012. The

letter of job description clearly spelled out his roles

and obligations as a Manager which are extracted

below:

(iii) Extract roles and obligations:

Production plan in shift basis. Cross check the

quality of the raw materials, intermediates, solvents

in every batch. Cross check and control the

parameters and plant operators. Concentrate on the

daily production and product yield. Maintaining the

intermediates and fresh solvents receipts and issue

samples in process stage of production process.

Raise MRMs to the Service Department. Checking

positive pressure and weighing scale. Job allotment

to the operators and their assignments. Following

safety activities in the production area. Maintain shift

change control register.

(iv) The roles and obligations of the Petitioner

was thus to manage and look after the entire

production in Aldehyde plant with as many as 15 plant

operators are working directly under him and were

reporting to him directly. The petitioner had

pervasive control over entire production Unit of

Aldehyde plant and he was the leave recommending/

sanctioning authority for the workers working under

him in his Unit. Petitioner was supervising the entire

production and was responsible for extracting works

workers in the said plant. The roles and

responsibilities of the petitioner would made it abundantly

clear that he discharged managerial functions and

was therefore not a worker within the definition of

section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Thie Respondent

Management has already raised a plea regarding the

Jurisdiction of Labour Officer (Conciliation) in

entertaining the dispute raised by petitioner as an

industrial dispute, but, the Labour Officer (Conciliation)

completely ignored such objections and failed the

dispute. The Government of Puducherry, has also

mechanically referred the dispute to this Court

without considering the fundamental objection of

respondent of the status of petitioner. This Court

which is Statutory Court created under the Industrial

Disputes Act has limited jurisdiction to entertained

only those disputes that are directly and substantially

covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. Only a

workman as defined under section 2(s) of Industrial

Disputes Act can approach the Labour Courts

constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act for

redressal of any grievance. Since, the petitioner does

not falls within the definition of workman under

Industrial Disputes Act, he has no legal right to

invoke the Jurisdiction of this Court for adjudication

of this dispute.

(v) This dispute was raised by the petitioner as

an individual worker demanding reinstatement after

correcting his date of birth in the service records, is

not an industrial dispute under section 2(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act and hence, the reference is

required to be answered in the negative. It is well

settled law by way of plethora of judicial precedents

that an individual dispute which is not covered under

section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act (with respect

to dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination

only) cannot become an industrial dispute unless the

same is espoused by a Union or at least by sizable

number of workmen. The petitioner was only

superannuated on completion of 58 years as per the

service records of the petitioner and hence, he was

not dismissed, discharged, retrenched or terminated

from service for him to raise an industrial dispute

directly and hence, the Labour Officer (Conciliation)

ought not to have entertained the present dispute

on this count also.

(vi) The petitioner joined the services of erstwhile

Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai, on

01-11-1980. At the time of his joining the employment,

he declared his date of birth as 04-08-1958 in PF

Nomination Form and ESI Nomination Form.

Therefore, all the service records relating to

petitioner

maintained

erstwhile

Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, carried his date of birth as

04-08-1958 which was very much to the knowledge

of petitioner.

(vii) The petitioner was transferred from Chennai

to Puducherry on 01-12-1987 and his service records

were also transferred to Puducherry which clearly

reflected his date of birth as per service records as

04-08-1958. Since, the age of petitioner in the service

records was 04-08-1958 his date of retirement was

31-08-2016. It appears that petitioner gave a letter,

dated 09-03-2015 to the erstwhile Management of

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 January 2024

Shasun Pharmaceuticals, requesting for correction in

date of birth, but, the then management did not

consider it favorably and gave a letter, dated

02-08-2016 to petitioner informing his date of

retirement as 31-08-2016.

(viii) Petitioner thereafter submitted a Notarised

Affidavit, dated 12-06-2016 along with Transfer

Certificate where his date of birth was declared as

10-01-1964. However, the Notarised Affidavit as well

as Transfer Certificate produced by him contained

various anomalies. The affidavit mentioned Petitioner’s

name as S. Murugan, whereas, his name in service

record of the erstwhile Management of Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, was G. Murugan, his father

name found in Transfer Certificate attached by

petitioner contained T. Shenbagalingam Nadar,

Whereas, the service records of petitioner contained

his father’s name as S. Genbagalingam. Therefore,

those documents are not only unreliable, but, they

were submitted at the fag end of his career which is

not acceptable and admissible for correction of

service records.

(ix) Moreover, if, date of birth as contained in the

Transer Certificate produced by petitioner is assumed

to be true; then petitioner would have been only

16 years of age at the time when he joined the

services of the erstwhile Management of Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, on 01-11-1980. If, he had

disclosed the said age to the erstwhile Management,

he would have never got employment at the first

place. Therefore, the petitioner having made

respondent believe that his date of birth at the time

of joining employment was 04-08-1958 and having

secured an employment by such declaration, was

richly benefited and therefore, he is stopped from

giving any different date of birth for his retirement.

(x) Respondent stated that the petitioner heavily

relies upon the ID Card that is furnished by

the respondent after it has been taken over of

M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, by way of

acquisition, dated 19th November 2015. The new

respondent management while retaining the

employees, called upon them to furnish their personal

details for preparing fresh ID Cards. Such ID Cards

were issued solely for the purpose of identification

of employee and ensuring their entry into the factory

and for other administrative purpose. The ID Card

serves no purpose than mere identification of the

said person as an employee of respondent. The

details furnished in ID Card are basic information

based on information obtained from employees and

they do not form part of service record under any

circumstances. In any event the petitioner cannot

claim that merely because an ID in the service records

the Management had agreed and accepted to correct

the service records of such employee. Therefore, the

petitioner cannot on the mere strength of the fresh

ID Card issued by the respondent claim that his

service records is corrected and he is entitled for

extended period of employment.

(xi) Though the reliefs sought for by petitioner

appears to be very simple and innocuous, it will

have for reaching consequences for the respondent

in its administration and will also burden it

monetarily. Apart from that it may lead to multiplicity

of such cases by its other workers who are the

fag-end of their carrier. It will also block the prospects

of promotion of another deserving candidate and

scope for employment for some other. Therefore,

such reliefs therefore, cannot be granted at this

stage. The petitioner cannot be benefited for his own

wrong and for his failure to rectify the alleged

mistake at an earliest given opportunity.

(xii) The petitioner raised the present at the fag

end of his carrier, i.e., on 09-03-2015, i.e., just before

a year of his retirement. He has now retired from the

service. The catena of judicial precedents have

settled the proposition that even genuine and

bona fide mistakes in the service records regarding

date of birth cannot be corrected if, the employees

sleeps over his rights and does not take corrective

measures at the earliest possible opportunity. The

fact that the petitioner has approach Labour Officer

(Conciliation), at the fag-end of his career also

dis-entitle his from seeking any reliefs. Hence, prays

for dismissal of the petition.

4. Point for Consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner’s husband is a workman

as contemplated under section 2(s) of Industrial

Disputes Act?

2. Whether the petitioner’s husband is entitled to

correct his date of birth as 10-01-1964 in the service

records maintained by the respondent management?

3. Whether the petitioner’s husband is entitled for

the relief of re-instatement, back wages and other

Attendant benefits flowing therefrom?

4. To what other reliefs?

5. On point:

Thiru Murugan (deceased) himself examined as

PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and Ex.R1 to R4 were marked.

Tmt. Suseela (Legal heirs of deceased Murugan)

examined as PW.2. On respondent side Thiru

Selvakumar, DGM - HR and authorised signatory of

the respondent management, examined as RW.1 and

Ex.R5 to Ex.R9 were marked.

2 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

6. On points 1 to 4:

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner leading

to the dispute is that the husband of the petitioner

joined in the respondent company on 01-11-1980 and

thereafter was working for nearly 36 years to the

utmost satisfaction of the management and further

the respondent company is one of the leading

medicine manufacturing company running profitably.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the

petitioner’s husband while joining in the respondent

company had furnished an incorrect date of birth and

later when the petitioner’s husband had noticed the

same he had submitted a requisition letter along with

the Transfer Certificate and thereafter, the

management had issued a fresh Identity Card with

corrected date of birth, but, subsequently on

04-08-2016 the respondent management had informed

that petitioner’s husband that he has reached the age

of superannuation and thereby did not permit the

petitioner’s husband to continue the work for

remaining service period of 6 years and 8 months and

thereby, the act of respondent company is illegal one

and prayed for reinstatement, back wages and

attendant benefits for the remaining service periods

as claimed by the petitioner's husband.

7. Refuting the contentions of the petitioner, the

respondent firstly contends that the petitioner’s

husband was working as a Manager after giving

periodical promotions and therefore, the petitioner’s

husband does not fall within the ambit of section 2 (s)

of Industrial Disputes Act (In brevity referred as

Industrial Disputes Act) and therefore, the petitioner has

no locus standi to raise this industrial dispute. The

further contention of the respondent is that the

petitioner’s husband while joining in the erstwhile

Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, at Chennai has

declared his date of birth as 04-08-1958 in PF and E.S.I

Nomination Forms and thereby, as per the service

records the date of birth of petitioner’s husband was

04-08-1958 and hence, the date of retirement was on

31-08-2016, but, the petitioner’s husband at the fag end

of his career on 09-03-2015 has submitted a requisition

to correct his date of birth and the erstwhile

management has refused to consider the request of the

petitioner’s husband and while so as per acquisition,

dated 19-11-2015 the erstwhile company M/s. Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, was taken over by the

respondent company and thereafter, personal details

were called for from the employees for the purpose of

issuing new Identity Cards and later new Identity Cards

were issued based on the particulars given by the

employees and further the same was issued only for the

purpose of identification of employees during their entry

into the factory and hence, based on the information

available in the Identity Card the employees have no

right to seek for correction of the details entered in the

service records.

8. The respondent further contends that as the date

of birth of petitioner’s husband was 04-08-1958 the

respondent company had issued a letter, dated

02-08-2016 to the petitioner stating that the petitioner

will be reaching superannuation on 31-08-2016 on

completion of 58 years of service as per his service

records and the same was received by the petitioner’s

husband without any demur and when such being so,

the petitioner’s husband has submitted a Notarised

Affidavit, dated 12-08-2016 along with Transfer

Certificate to correct his date of birth as 10-01-1964, but,

as there were various anomalies in the documents

furnished by the petitioner’s husband and moreover as

the petitioner’s husband had approached the

respondent company it the fag end of his career the

management has rejected the request of the petitioner’s

husband and made the petitioner’s husband to retire on

31-08-2016. The learned Counsel for respondent

vehemently contended that there are catena of judicial

precedents which has settled proposition of law that

even a bona fide mistake in the service record regarding

date of birth cannot be corrected at the fag end of the

career and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for

any relief as claimed in the claim petition.

9. In this case, it has to be first determined whether

the petitioner’s husband is a workman as contemplated

under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. For better

appreciation section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act is

extracted hereunder.

Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act

“workman” means, any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute

but, does not include any such person - (iii) Who is

employed mainly in a managerial or administrative

capacity.

10. Thus as per section 2(s) (iii) of Industrial

Disputes Act, any person who is employed mainly in a

managerial or administrative capacity is not a

“workman”. Further, if, a person performs managerial

functions by reason of a power vested in him or by the

nature of duties attached to his Office then he goes out

of the category of “Workmen” on proof of

circumstances excluding him from the category.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 January 2024

11. In this case, the learned Counsel for respondent

has placed reliance upon Ex.P6 the payslip for the month

of August 2016 wherein, the grade of the petitioner’s

husband is mentioned as Manager and Ex.R1 letter,

dated 29-02-2012 issued by the erstwhile M/s. Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, which states that the

petitioner’s husband was promoted as Manager and

Exs.R5 to R7 wherein, it is stated that the grade of the

petitioner's husband is a production manager and

thereby contended that the petitioner’s husband was

employed in the managerial capacity and thereby, the

petitioner’s husband does not come within the

definition of workman as enumerated under section 2(s)

of Industrial Dispute Act.|

12. This Court on perusal of Ex.P6, Ex.R1 and Exs.R5

to R7 finds that the grade of the petitioner’s husband

is mentioned as ‘Manager more particularly Production

Manager. Further, more when the petitioner’s husband

was examined as PW.1 it is admitted by the PW.1

himself that as per Ex.R1 letter, dated 29-02-2012, the

petitioner was promoted as Manager and further

categorically admitted that he was paid salary on the

basis that he was working in the grade of Manager and

further seven employees were working under his control

and the said employees can avail leave only after the

approval by the petitioner’s husband. Hence, this Court

from the above exhibits and from the categorical

admission by the petitioner’s husband during his cross

examination holds that the petitioner’s husband was

working as a manager in the respondent company.

13. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.P6 payslip for the

month of August 2016 it is found that the petitioner’s

husband had received monthly salary of ` 70,757.00

more particularly in the grade as Manager. Hence, on

considering the above, this Court finds that the

petitioner’s husband is categorically excluded from the

definition of ‘workman’ under section 2(s) of Industrial

Disputes Act and further on taking into consideration

that the petitioner’s husband had been primarily

performing managerial functions as a production

Manager it could be held without any doubt that the

petitioner’s husband falls outside the ambit of Industrial

Disputes Act and thereby is not a workman as

contemplated under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes

Act and not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour

Court.

14. However, even on going into the merits of the

case, it is found that it is the case of the petitioner and

respondent that the representation to correct the date

of birth has been submitted by the petitioner’s husband

for the first time as per Ex.P2 on 09-03-2015 when it is

the admitted case of the petitioner and respondent that

the husband of the petitioner had joined in the service

on 01-11-1980. Thus, it is found that the petitioner’s

husband after completion of 34 years of service is found

to have approached the respondent company to correct

his date of birth and more particularly when as per the

service records maintained by the respondent the

petitioner was about to retire on 31-08-2016. Furthermore,

it is found that the petitioner’s husband in the claim

statement filed by him has stated that at the time of

joining into service he had furnished the details

regarding his date of birth, but, however, it was noticed

after 34 years that the date of birth furnished by him

was incorrect and therefore, approached the respondent

company to correct the same. Similarly, the petitioner’s

husband during his cross examination has admitted that

he was subscribing to Employees State Insurance

Corporation and was paying subscription towards ESI

and also admitted the details as contained in Exs.R3 and

R4 details pertaining to ESI. On perusal of Exs.R3 and

R4 it is found that the date of birth of the petitioner’s

husband is mentioned as 04-08-1958.

15. Moreover, the petitioner’s husband when

examined as PW.1 during his cross examination has

admitted that till 2016 he had not taken any steps to

correct the date of birth as alleged by him in the claim

statement. Thus, from the material records and from the

evidence of the PW.1 it is found that the petitioner’s

husband having successfully continued his service in

the respondent company for more than 34 years and

further having permitted the respondent company all

along to maintain the service records of petitioner’s

husband with date of birth as 04-08-1958 and also

having maintained his subscription towards ESI with

date of birth as 04-08-1958 is found to have approached

the respondent company at the fag end of his career to

correct the date of birth.

16. At this juncture the learned Counsel for

respondent has relied upon the following citations:

(i) 2021 STPL 10030 SC

(A) Karnataka State Servants (Determination of

Age) Act, 1974, section 4, 5(2), 6 - Service Law -

Change in date of birth - Delay and laches -

Respondent No. 1 employee made the application

for the first time vide notice, dated 23-06-2007, i.e.,

after the lapse of 24 years since he joined the

service and nearly after the lapse of 16 years from

the date of adoption of the Act, 1974 by the

appellant - corporation - Held that the application

of the respondent for change of date of birth was

liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and

laches also and therefore, as such respondent

2 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

employee was not entitled to the decree of

declaration and therefore, the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable and not tenable at law.

Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court,

the law on change of date of birth can be summarized

as under:

(i) application for change of date of birth can

only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations

applicable;

(ii) even if, there is cogent evidence, the same

cannot be claimed as a matter of right;

(iii) application can be rejected on the ground

of delay and latches also more particularly when

it is made at the fag end of service and/or when

the employee is about to retire on attaining the

age of superannuation.

(ii) CDJ 2005 SC 423

U.P. Recruitment Service (Determination of the

Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2 - Correction of

Date of Birth - As per the existing rule, the date

of birth or the age recorded in his service book at

the time of entry into the Government service shall

be deemed to be the correct date of birth or age,

as the case may be, for all purposed and no

application or representation shall be entertained

for correction of such date or age in any

circumstances whatsoever - The respondent has

given his date of birth as 30-07-1941 at the time

of entry into service which has also been recorded

in the service records of the respondent. The

above amended rule which come into force with

effect from 28-05-1974 stipulates that no

application or representation, shall be entertained

for correction of such date or age in any

circumstances whatsoever and that the date of

birth or age recorded in the service book at the

time of his entry into Government service shall be

deemed to be his correct date of birth or age as

the case may be for all purposes - The correct date

of birth of the respondent is only 30-07-1941 and

the claim now made by the respondent to correct

his date of birth from 30-07-1941 to 16-10-1945

cannot at all be entertained or encouraged.

(iii) CDJ 2020 SC 125

Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of

over two decades in applying for the correction

of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the

respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there

was no specific rule or order, framed or made,

prescribing the period within which such

application could be filed. It is trite that even

in such a situation such an application should

be filed which can be held to be reasonable.

The application filed by the respondent 25 years

his induction into service, by no standards, can

be held to be reasonable, more so when not a

feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay.

17. The learned Counsel for petitioner to

substantiate his contentions has stressed upon the

following citations:

(i) 1979 AIR 49

It will therefore be a gross abuse of legal power

to punish a person or destroy her service career

in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule

which makes a useful provision for the premature

retirement of Government servants only in the

“public interest” to a purpose wholly unwarranted

by it and to arrive at quite a contradictory result.

(ii) 1987 AIR 948

The appellant had not earned any adverse

remarks during the last five years of service; on

the other hand, he had earned ‘good’' and ‘very

good’ entries during those years. In this view, the

Government’s decision to retire the appellant

prematurely in exercise of the power under rule 3

is not sustainable in law.

(iii) 2023 Live Law (SC) 165

Service Law - Supreme Court sets aside order

of CBDT passed to compulsorily retire a Gazetted

Officer, any exercise of power that exceeds the

parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on

account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is

driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it,

so, patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand

judicial scrutiny, must be struck down - In such a

case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke

screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view

that the order of compulsory retirement in the

given facts and circumstances of the case cannot

be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature

and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary

proceedings pending against the appellant and

ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order

passed by the respondents dose not pass muster

as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving

the interest of the public.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 January 2024

18. This Court on considering the material records

and the evidence of PW.1 finds that the petitioner’s

husband has approached the respondent company after

completion of 34 years of service and more particularly

when the petitioner’s husband had remaining paltry

service period of one year and five months and the same

is nothing but, the fag end of his career. In the citations

relied by the learned Counsel for respondent it is

categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Courts that an

application for correction of the date of birth cannot be

entertained at the fag end of the service. This Court

finds that the citations relied by the learned Counsel

for petitioner is not applicable to the present case in

hand. On the other hand, in the light of above citations

relied by the learned Counsel for respondent this Court

holds that as the petitioner’s husband has approached

the respondent company at the fag end of his career to

correct the date of birth, the petitioner’s husband is not

entitled to seek for correction of date of birth as alleged

by him.

19. Even otherwise, as per Ex.P5 Standing Order of

respondent company in clause 4.5 (iv) it is stated that

the date of birth once entered in the service card shall

be sole evidence of the workman including fixation of

date of retirement from the service of the company. The

date of birth of the workman already entered is binding

and final and shall not be allowed to be altered under

any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore, even as per

the Standing Orders of respondent company, the

petitioner’s husband is not entitled to seek correction

or alteration of his date of birth in the service records.

20. The other contention of the petitioner that the

respondent company has issued Ex.P1 Identity Card

with date of birth as 04-08-1964 and therefore, the

respondent company has admitted the year of birth of

the petitioner’s husband is 1964 and therefore, entitled

to correct the date of birth as 10-01-1964 is found to be

unsustainable one because, it is the specific contention

of the respondent that after the present respondent

company has taken over the erstwhile company

M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, as per acquisition,

dated 19-11-2015, the present company for the purpose

of issuance of Identity Card had called for the

particulars from the employees and based on the

information provided by the employees a new Identity

Cards were issued to its employees and thereby, the

new Identity Card was issued to the petitioner’s

husband with date of birth as 04-08-1964, but, however

even as per the evidence of PW.1 the date and month

as mentioned in Ex.P1 Identity Card does not tally with

the date and month as claimed by the petitioner’s

husband because as per PW.1 the date of birth claimed

by the petitioner’s husband is 10-01-1964 and whereas,

in the Ex.P1 the date of birth is mentioned as 04-08-1964.

21. Furthermore, this Court finds that the credentials

entered in the service records has more validity for any

employees concerned and when such being so, the

entries made in the Identity Card cannot prevail over

the credentials entered in the service records because

as contended by the respondent the Identity Card at

the most can be used issued for the purpose entry into

the company. Thus, viewed in any angle this Court

holds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as

claimed in the claim petition. In view of above

discussions this Court holds that the industrial dispute

raised by the petitioner as against the respondent

management over non-employment of petitioner’s

husband is not justified and as such this Court holds

that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed

in the claim petition. Thus, the points are answered

accordingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed by holding

that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as

against the respondent management, over non-

employment of petitioner’s husband is not justified and

hereby the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as

claimed in the claim petition. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 31st day of August, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witnesses:

PW.1 —

24-04-2018

Murugan

PW.2 —

03-08-2022

Suseela (Legal heirs of the

deceased Murugan).

List of petitioner’s exhibits :

Ex.P1

— —

Photocopy of the Identity

Card

issued

the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner Murugan.

Ex.P2

— 09-03-2015

Photocopy of the Petition

given by the Petitioner to

the Respondent Management

for correction of his Date of

Birth.

Ex.P3

— —

Photocopy of the Transfer

Certificate of the Petitioner

Murugan.

2 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P4

— 10-07-2015

Photocopy of the Order in

C.M.P No. 104/2015 of the

Principal District Munsif

Court, Puducherry.

Ex.P5

— —

Photocopy of the Standing

Order of the Respondent

Management.

Ex.P6

— —

Photocopy of the Pay Slip

of the Petitioner.

Ex.P7

— 12-01-2017

Photocopy of the counter

filed by the Respondent

Management to the Labour

Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P8

— 21-02-2017

Photocopy

the

Conciliation Failure Report

of the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

List of Respondent’s witness:

RW.1

— 28-10-2022

Selvakumar, DGM-HR and

Authorised Signatory of the

Respondent Management.

List of Respondent’s Exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 29-02-2012

Photocopy

the

Promotion Order of the

deceased Murugan issued

the

Respondent

Management.

Ex.R2

— 16-07-2012

Photocopy of the Salary

Slip

the

deceased

Murugan.

Ex.R3

Photocopy

the

Employees details issued by

the ESI Corporation to the

deceased Murugan.

Ex.R4

Photocopy

the

Temporary

Identity

Certificate issued by the ESI

Corporation to the deceased

Murugan.

Ex.R5

22-06-1995

Photocopy of the letter of

job description issued by

the Petitioner’s erstwhile

company in favour of

Petitioner’s husband.

Ex.R6

01-09-2001

Photocopy of the letter of

job description issued by

the Petitioner’s erstwhile

company in favour of

Petitioner’s husband.

Ex.R7

— 02-08-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Respondent

Management

the

Murugan informing his date

of retirement.

Ex.R8 — —

Photocopy of the Claim

Petition filed by the wife of

the

deceased

Murugan

before the Payment of

Gratuity in P.G. No. 61/2021.

Ex.R9 — —

Photocopy of the Counter

Statement filed by the

Respondent Management in

P.G. No. 61/2021.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 109/AIL/Lab./S/2023,

Puducherry, dated 5th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 41/2022, dated

30-08-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, in

respect of dispute between the Puducherry State NREGA

Staffs Association against the Management of M/s.

District Rural Development Agency, Anna Nagar,

Puducherry, over absorption of 59 Grama Rozgar Sevak

(GRS) in the entry level post of Sevak 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).

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 January 2024

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 30th day of August, 2023.

I.D. (T). No. 41/2022

CNR. No. PYPY06-000083-2022

The Secretary,

Puducherry State NREGA Staffs Association,

No. 4, Gengaiamman Koil Street,

Abishegapakkam,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Additional State Project Director,

District Rural Development Agency (DRDA),

2nd Floor, Housing Board,

Anna Nagar, Nellithope, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 30-08-2023 before

me for final hearing, in the presence of Thiru A. Pazhanisamy,

Counsel for petitioner and Thiru S. Sridhar, Government

Pleader for the respondent, after perusing the case

records, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No. 121/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 29-07-2022 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’s

Union Puducherry State NREGA Staffs Association

against the Management of M/s. District Rural

Development Agency (DRDA), Anna Nagar,

Puducherry, over absorption of 59 Grama Rozgar

Sevak (GRS) in the entry level post of Sevak (Annexure)

is justified or not?

(b) If justified, give appropriate direction?

of money, if, it can be so computed?

2. Today when the case came up for filing claim

statement, no representation on petitioner side. Claim

statement not filed inspite of several adjournments and

posting as last chance. No further adjournments.

Hence, this reference is closed for non-prosecution.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 30th day of August, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

ANNEXURE

Sl.

Name

Father’s/Husband’s

Date of birth

Occupation

No.

name

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Kanagaraj

Venugopal

21-09-1970

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Babu

Vengadesan

03-05-1978

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Velumany

Munusamy

10-12-1975

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Valarmathy

Palanivel

29-07-1974

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Thandapani

Kannaiyan

02-08-1976

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Sankar

Santharam

10-05-1977

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Sathiyapriya

Natarajan

21-10-1985

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Chandiran

Anjapuli

28-04-1975

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Rathibalan

Dachinamurthy

08-06-1974

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Uthiravelu

Perumal

20-12-1985

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Murugaiyan

Samikannu

19-05-1977

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Suresh

Suridarraj

30-04-1987

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Kannadasan

Ramalingam

23-01-1989

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Angalammal

Ammavasai

15-05-1971

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Nithya

Thandavarayan

02-11-1988

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

2 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Anandan

Duraikannu

14-10-1982

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Sivakala

Kallipattan

05-07-1978

GRS, BDO(Ariyankuppam)

Palanivel

Perumal

06-10-1986

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Rajeshwari

Ayyanar

05-06-1989

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Mutamizhvanan

Munusamy

19-10-1986

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Santhakumar

Pachaiyappan

—

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

Saravanan

Veerappan

25-10-1979

GRS, BDO (Karaikal)

Sundaram

Muthaiyan

25-05-1977

GRS, BDO (Karaikal)

Chitra

Murugaraj

08-12-1980

GRS, BDO (Karaikal)

Jothi

Kalaiselvan

02-12-1978

GRS, BDO (Karaikal)

Yasotha

Kumar

06-08-1979

GRS, BDO (Karaikal)

Prabhavathi

Thiruvengadam

10-07-1978

GRS, BDO (Karaikal)

Poongothi

Thandapani

22-12-1973

GRS, BDO (Karaikal)

Munusamy

Mahalingam

17-11-1983

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Sathiya

Loganathan

05-04-1986

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Kumaresan

Sundaramurthy

29-07-1976

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Jayamoorthi

Dharuman

08-06-1976

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Prakash

Lakshmanan

05-09-1986

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Rathakrishnan

Munusamy

16-04-1983

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Tripurasundari

Vaithiyanatasamy

26-06-1978

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Kalaiselvi

Parthasarathy

16-05-1975

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Pradaban

Selvarasu

20-09-1979

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Gajendiran

Thangavelu

11-06-1971

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Balasubramani

Baskar

01-06-1987

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Thirumal

Angamuthu

11-05-1987

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Mahadevi

Jaishankar

19-12-1984

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Jancyrani

Nagarajan

09-10-1990

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Balamurugan

Krishnaraj

04-01-1978

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Pushparaj

Arumugam

26-04-1975

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Mahendiran

Subramani

12-02-1983

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Sankardevi

Ravikumar

29-09-1975

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Poungode

Velmurugan

17-09-1972

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Vinothkumar

Masilan

18-02-1989

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Varadharaj

Rajaram

30-05-1982

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Saravanan

Gnanavel

12-01-1978

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Kumar

Natarajan

15-05-1970

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Prakash

Kuppusamy

18-06-1983

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Ramesh

Ramasamy

03-11-1980

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Devi

Gnanaprakash

21-12-1984

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Balaji

Parthasarathy

28-06-1982

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Sivapragassame

Govindaraju

04-02-1977

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Karunamurthy

Pandurangan

05-09-1978

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Thamizharasan

lyyanar

10-04-1983

GRS, BDO (Villianur)

Arumugam

—

GRS, BDO (Ariyankuppam)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)