[111]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^..

112

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 112

Award of the Labour Court.. 112

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ gÁðÔ^/

121

l’ Orders/Notifications du

.. 121

Government Orders/

.. 121

∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

Gouvernement

Notifications

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

124

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 124

Tender Notices

.. 124

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

126

Etablissements dangereux

.. 126

Dangerous Establishments

126

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

128

Annonces

.. 128

Announcements

128

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 }

∏©´kˆ |

6 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2024 (17 Magha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

6th

February

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

112

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[6 February 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 118/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 8th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 55/2023, dated

29-09-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of dispute between M/s. Texbond Non-Wovens, PIPDIC

Electronic Park, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and Thiru

Rajiv Gandhi, Kalitheerthalkuppam, Puducherry, over his

non-payment 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. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Friday, the 29th day of September, 2023.

I.D. (T). No. 55/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000091-2017

Rajiv Gandhi,

S/o. Vengadachalam,

Jeevi Malar Nilayam,

Opposite to Perunthalaivar

Kamarajar Arts College,

Kalitheerthalkuppam,

Madagadipet Post,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Management,

Texbond Non-Wovens,

No. 28-30, PIPDIC Electronic Park,

Thirubuvanai, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 04-09-2023 before me

for final hearing in the presence of Thiru Parthasarathy,

Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru A. Latchoumicandane,

Counsel for the respondent and after hearing the both

sides and perusing the case records, this Court

delivered the following:

AWARD

This petition is filed by the petitioner under section

10 (A) (2) of the Industrial Standing Orders Act, 1947

to direct the respondent to pay subsistence allowance

for the month of December 2014 to May 2018.

2. The averments set out in the claim petition is as

follows:

The petitioner is working in the respondent

company as a permanent employee for the past 9 years

with unblemished records and in the respondent

company there are 30 permanent employees and

60 contract labours and further the petitioner was

attached to a Union by name Texbond Ovens

Employees Union and the said Union took efforts to

restore the rights and benefits of employees and due

to same the management foisted false charges against

the office bearers and the active members of the said

Union and also transferred the office bearers in a

vindictive manner. That in the said circumstances the

respondent foisted false charges against the

petitioner and temporarily suspended the petitioner

as per order, dated 20-08-2014 and paid subsistence

allowance for the period from September 2014 to

November 2014 and thereafter has failed to pay

subsistence allowance to the petitioner and therefore

the petitioner gave a representation to the Deputy

Labour Commissioner and also filed W.P. No. 36893/

2015 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and in

the said Writ Petition the Hon'ble Madras High

Court was pleased to direct the Deputy Labour

Commissioner to take action on the representation

but, again the respondent management without any

valid reason has failed to pay subsistence allowance

to the petitioner and therefore, this reference has

been made to this Court.

3. The averments set out in the counter is as follows:

The claim petition filed by the Petitioner for an

order to direct the respondent to pay the subsistence

allowance from December 2014 as alleged in the

petition is maintainable neither in law nor on facts.

(ii) The respondent denies that the petitioner has

worked for 9 years without committing any offence.

There is no any recognised Union by the respondent

and there is no strength of members in the Union as

per the law. The respondent denies that there was

discrimination among the workers in wages and

transferred workers from one Unit to another.

(iii) The petitioner went out of the working

premises without any information and without

entering in the time register and the respondent

113

6 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

issued charge notice but the reply of the petitioner

was not satisfactory and hence, a Domestic Enquiry

was conducted and even though Domestic Enquiry

was conducted in parallel, the petitioner worked and

the respondent did not take any action of suspension

considering his future life.

(iv) The petitioner has involved in a serious

criminal offence under sections 147, 148, 307, 323,

324 IPC r/w 149 IPC in Cr.No. 90/2014, dated

05-08-2014 of Thirubuvanai Police Station, Puducherry

and in which the petitioner is a name accused and

further the petitioner was arrested and remanded to

judicial custody and he was in central prison,

Puducherry and he was absent from work from

06-08-2014 and then on 13-08-2014, his mother sent

a letter to the respondent requesting leave for his

son (the petitioner herein) from 06-08-2014 to

14-08-2014 for the reason that he is unable to attend

duty and when the respondent enquired it came to

know that the petitioner is in jail and his mother is

giving false information to the management and

hence, the respondent sent a Suspension Order on

20-08-2014 under Clause 20 (67) of the Standing

Order for “Commission of offence punishable under

the Penal Code. That the respondent’s mother again

sent a letter on 22-08-2014 requesting for leave for

his son from 24-08-2014 to 31-08-2014 and the

respondent on 01-9-2014 issued a notice of additional

charge for his suspension under Clause 11 of

Standing Order “Unauthorized absence for more than

8 days” and on 11-09-2014, the petitioner after he was

enlarged on Court bail sent a letter stating that the

letter, dated 01-09-2014 is not understandable as he

did not know English and the respondent sent a

translated copy to the petitioner on 12-09-2014 and

ordered for Domestic Enquiry. That after full enquiry,

the Domestic Enquiry Officer filed his report stating

that the Charges against the petitioner is proved

undoubtedly and hence recommend to take action

against him. That from the month of suspension until

November 2014 the suspension allowance was paid

to the petitioner and later as the charges against the

petitioner was proved the respondent was

constrained to stop the suspension allowance given

to the Petitioner.

(v) On 28-01-2015 the petitioner given a letter to

the Labour Officer for his suspension allowance and

after receiving notice, the respondent appeared

before the Labour Officer and gave reply. The

petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble

High Court, Madras and the respondent appeared

and submitted their reply and based upon the reply,

the Hon’ble High Court disposed the matter by

giving direction to the Labour Officer and the

respondent gave reply and based upon the reply the

Labour Officer referred the matter to this Court.

(vi) The petitioner is entitled for the suspension

allowance till the completion of the Domestic

Enquiry and once the Domestic Enquiry completes

and the charges against him was proved, the

respondent is not entitled to give suspension

allowance. Hence prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

4. Points for determination:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for subsistence

allowance during the entire period of suspension that

is upto passing of final order of termination on

8-5-2018?

5. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to

P23 were marked. On Respondent side Mr. Raja Balaji,

the Assistant Manager of respondent Company was

examined as RW1 and through him Ex.R1 to R23 were

marked.

6. On point:

The contention of the petitioner is that he was

working in the respondent company as a permanent

employee for the past 9 years with unblemished

records and in the respondent company there are

30 permanent employees and 60 contract labours and

further the petitioner was attached to a Union by

name Texbond Ovens Employees Union and the said

Union took efforts to restore the rights and benefits

of employees and due to same the management

foisted false charges against the office bearers and

the active members of the said Union and also

transferred the office bearers in a vindictive manner.

That in the said circumstances the respondent foisted

false charges against the petitioner and temporarily

suspended the petitioner as per order, dated

20-08-2014 and paid subsistence allowance for the

period from September 2014 to November 2014 and

thereafter has failed to pay subsistence allowance to

the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner gave

a representation to the Deputy Labour Commissioner

and also filed W.P.No. 36893/2015 before the Hon’ble

Madras High Court and in the said Writ Petition the

Hon’ble Madras High Court was pleased to direct the

Deputy Labour Commissioner to take action on the

representation, but, again the respondent management

without any reason has failed to pay subsistence

allowance and therefore, this reference has been

made to this Court.

114

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[6 February 2024

7. The contention of the respondent is that the

petitioner got involved in a serious criminal offence

under sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 324 IPC r/w 149 IPC

in Cr.No. 90/2014 on the file of Thirubuvanai Police

Station, Puducherry and was arrested and remanded to

judicial custody and thereby, the petitioner had

absented himself from attending the work from

06-08-2014 and later the mother of the petitioner

suppressing the criminal offence had sent a leave letter

but however, the respondent came to know about the

involvement of the petitioner in the criminal offence and

hence, the respondent had suspended the petitioner

from his service as per suspension order, dated

20-08-2014 and later had subsistence allowance for the

period from September 2014 to November 2014 and

subsequently as the Domestic Enquiry was completed

and the charge against the petitioner stood proved, the

petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance thereafter

onwards.

8. In this case the only point for determination is

whether the petitioner is entitled for subsistence

allowance for the whole period of suspension as

contended by the petitioner or only till the completion

of Departmental Enquiry as contended by the

respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that for

the whole suspension period the petitioner is entitled

for subsistence allowance but, whereas, the respondent

has paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50%

wages for the period from September 2014 to November

2014 and thereafter, has stopped paying the subsistence

allowance till the termination of petitioner from service.

Whereas, the respondent admits that the subsistence

allowance was paid to the petitioner from September

2014 to November 2014 and contends that thereafter as

the departmental enquiry was completed and further as

per Enquiry Report, dated 14-10-2014, the charge as

against the petitioner stood proved the respondent had

stopped from paying the subsistence allowance to the

petitioner from December 2014 onwards and further

it is the specific contention of the respondent that the

subsistence allowance has to be paid only till the

completion of Domestic Enquiry.

9. Thus, it is admitted by both the parties that the

petitioner was suspended from service on 20-08-2014

and dismissed from service on 08-05-2018 and further

the subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner for

the period from September 2014 to November 2014 and

further it is an admitted fact that from December 2014

to 07-05-2018 the petitioner was not paid subsistence

allowance. In this case it is pertinent to mention that

the mode for computation of subsistence allowance by

the respondent company is stipulated in the

respondent's Standing Order which is marked as Ex.R23.

On perusal of Ex.R23 it is stated in Clause 22 (b) of the

Standing Order as follows:

22 b : A workmen, who is placed under suspension

under clause (a) shall be during the period of such

suspension allowance in accordance with the

provisions of 10A of the Industrial Employment

Standing Orders Act, 1946.

10. Therefore, as per clause 22(b) of the Company’s

Standing Order it is stated that the subsistence

allowance to the workmen placed under suspension

shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of 10A

of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946.

Thus, the procedure, payment and computation of

subsistence allowance is found to be as per the

provisions specified in section 10A of the Industrial

Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. Section 10A of

Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 is

extracted hereunder for better appreciation:

“10A. Payment of subsistence allowance : (1) Where,

any workman is suspended by the employer pending

investigation or inquiry into complaints or charges

of misconduct against him, the employer shall pay

to such workman subsistence allowance -”

(a) at the rate of fifty percent of the wages

which the workman was entitled to immediately

preceding the date of such suspension, for the

first ninety days of suspension; and

(b) at the rate of seventy-five percent of such

wages for the remaining period of suspension if

the delay in the completion of disciplinary

proceedings against such workman is not directly

attributable to the conduct of such workman.

(2) If, any dispute arises regarding the subsistence

allowance payable to a workman under sub-section (1)

the workman or the employer concerned may refer the

dispute to the Labour Court, constituted under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), within the

local limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial

establishment wherein, such workman is employed is

situate and the Labour Court to which the dispute is

so referred shall, after giving the parties an

opportunity of being heard, decide the dispute and

such decision shall be final and binding on the

parties”.

11. Thus, from the provisions of section 10 A of

Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, it is

clear that during the period of suspension, the

subsistence allowance payable to the suspended

employee is liable to be calculated at the rate of fifty

percent of the wages which the workman was entitled

to immediately preceding the date of such suspension,

for the first ninety days of suspension. Thereafter, the

rate of subsistence allowance is enhanced to

115

6 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

seventy-five percent of such wages for the remaining

period of suspension. Clause (2) of the said Standing

Order provides a remedy in the event of a dispute

arising regarding the subsistence allowance payable

then either the workman or the employer may refer the

dispute to the Labour Court.

12. Hence, in view of section 10 A of Industrial

Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, the respondent

herein has to pay 50% of wages to the petitioner for

first ninety days and 75% of wages for the remaining

period of suspension. In this case it is found that after

the petitioner was suspended from service the

respondent has paid subsistence allowance at the rate

of 50% of wages received by the petitioner preceding

to his suspension for the period from September 2014

to November 2014 and thereafter has stopped from

paying subsistence allowance and the reason stated by

the respondent is that the enquiry was completed and

Enquiry Report emerged on 14-10-2014.

13. No doubt, section 10 A of Industrial Employment

Standing Orders Act, 1946 stipulates that the subsistence

allowance has to be paid to the suspended workmen

pending enquiry. Therefore, it has to be determined

whether the term pending inquiry would mean till the

completion of inquiry alone or for the entire period of

suspension till passing of further orders based on

Enquiry Report. In this case though the Enquiry Report

emerged on 14-10-2014, but, however, the termination

order based on Enquiry Report was passed on

08-05-2018 and further, it is found that till the passing

of termination order on 08-05-2018, the petitioner

continued to be in suspension and further, when the

petitioner continued to be in suspension the subsistence

allowance was denied to the petitioner by the

respondent.

14. This Court at this juncture relies upon the

following citations relied by the petitioner:

(i) CDJ 2013 MHC 2606

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras

Held-Petitioner was placed under suspension-

bounden duty of the petitioner management to pay

the subsistence allowance till passing of the final

order of termination-petitioner management

financially prevented the employee from

participating in the enquiry for the reason of

non-payment of subsistence allowance-No

justifiable ground was made out for non-payment

of the subsistence allowance-clear case of breach

of principles of natural justice, Writ Petition is

dismissed.

(ii) Indian Kanoon-http://indiankannon.org/doc/

1539251/

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

The Management,

Tube Products of India Limited,

Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Presiding Officer,

I Additional Labour Court,

Madras.

2. K. Sathish

. . Respondents

This Court is unable to agree with the said

submission. If, an employer has the power to

suspend an employee, it is automatic that the

employee must be paid subsistence allowance on

the rate prescribed, failing which the workman is

entitled for full wages. It is because it is the

employer who had prohibited the employee from

reporting to work. The Standing Order produced

by the management though, states suspension as

a substantive punishment and there is no

provision for suspension pending enquiry, then all

the more reason, the management will have to pay

full wages to the workman. The word‘Suspension’

found in the Standing Order is susceptible to mean

both suspension as a penalty and also suspension

pending enquiry.

(iii) CDJ 2005 MHC 203

Likewise, payment of subsistence allowance is

the legal right granted under law for a delinquent

officer who is facing enquiry in any enquiry

proceeding since it is the only means of livelihood

for the delinquent officer to survive during the

pendency of the enquiry and therefore, it is not

out of place to mention that non-payment of the

subsistence allowance besides being inhuman and

incongruous goes against the principles of the

Subsistence Allowance Payment Act and this

would also attribute motives to the disciplinary

authority regarding the very disciplinary

proceeding initiated against him and since on part

of the petitioner Bank they are not able to place

such materials before this Court to the effect that

sufficient and reasonable opportunities were

afforded for the second respondent to exhaust his

remedies particularly in the matter of putting up a

valid defence such as seeking the assistance of

an expert, perusal of the documents etc., and since

such opportunities have not been afforded to the

second respondent, needless to mention that it is

a case of denial of such opportunities in violation

116

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[6 February 2024

of the principles of natural justice and in denying

to pay the subsistence allowance, the basis rights

of the petitioner enshrined under law have been

denied and at this score also, the enquiry

proceeding initiated by the disciplinary authority,

the petitioner Bank herein, becomes tainted and

therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the

Appellate Authority in setting aside the decision

of the disciplinary authority resorting to dismissal

of the second respondent from service has been

legally and in the circumstances of the case,

rightly done and therefore, this Court does not

find it necessary to cause its interference.

(iv) http://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

M/s. Sivam Apparels

Rep. By its Proprietor

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh

. . Petitioner in both petitions

Vs.

Y. Priya

. . Petitioner in both petitions

At the same time, it should not be lost sight of

the fact that no purpose would be served in

keeping these Writ Petitions pending for years

together, by dragging on the proceedings

consecutively. In that process, the Management/

employer cannot be allowed to go scot-free and

make the Employee suffer endless and unless an

opportunity is given and the Employee subsists.

(v) 2001-III-LLJ (Suppl)

Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that

Interim Relief-Grant of-Prima facie case for

grant of interim relief made out by dismissed

employee-Question of payment of subsistence

allowance, it being payable pending suspension

and during subsistence of employer-employee

relationship, did not arise in present case- Much

less could application under Tamil Nadu Payment

of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, be maintained

by employee in this case who had been dismissed-

Labour Court order declining interim relief

quashed.

(vi) CDJ 2007 MHC 3392

Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that “The

contention raised by the appellant Management

that since the Writ Petitioner had worked in some

other organisation, he is not entitled for

subsistence allowance cannot be accepted and it

is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is

rejected.

(vii) CDJ 1999 SC 210

“Exercise of right to suspend an employee may

be justified on facts of a particular case. Instances,

however, are not rare where officers have been

found to be afflicted by “suspension syndrome”

and the employee have been found to be placed

under suspension just for nothing. It is their

irritability rather than the employee’s trivial lapse

which has often resulted in suspension.

Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of

Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which

has an unpropitious effect on the life of an

employee. When the employee is placed under

suspension, he is demobilished and the salary is

also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick

name of “Subsistence Allowance”, so that the

employee may sustain himself. This Court in O.P.

Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1987(4) SCC

328 made the following observations with regard

to Subsistence Allowance:

“An order of suspension of a Government

servant does not put an end to his service under

the Government. He continues to be a member of

the service in spite of the order of suspension.

The real effect of suspension as explained by this

Court in Khem Chand vs. Union of India is that

he continues to be a member of the Government

service but is not permitted to work and further,

during the period of suspension he is paid only

some allowance-generally called subsistence

allowance-which is normally less than the salary

instead of the pay and allowances he would have

been entitled to if, he had not been suspended.

There is no doubt that an order of suspension,

unless the departmental inquiry is concluded

within a reasonable tie, affects a Government

servant

injuriously. The

very

expression

‘subsistence allowance’ has an undeniable penal

significance. The dictionary meaning of the word

‘Subsit’ as given in Shorter Oxford English

Dictionary, Vol. II at p.2171 is “to remain alive as

on food: to continue to exist”. “Subsistence”

means-means of supporting life, especially

a minimum livelihood”. (Emphasis supplied)

If, therefore, even that amount is not paid, then

the very object of paying the reduced salary to

the employee during the period of suspension

would be frustrated. The act of non-payment of

Subsistence Allowance can be likened to

slow-poisoning as the employee, if, not permitted

to sustain himself on accoun of non-payment of

Subsistence Allowance, would gradually starve

himself to death.

117

6 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

15. Thus the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above

citations has categorically held that the subsistence

allowance is paid to a suspended workmen for his

survival since, it is the employer who has denied the

work during the suspension period and further denial

of subsistence allowance would amount to denial of

basic rights to the workmen and also slow poisoning

the workmen so as to make him to die out of starvation.

Thus, in the light of above citations it is very clear that

the payment of subsistence allowance to a workmen is

a basic right of workmen and the same is paid to enable

the workmen to sustain himself during the suspension

period. Therefore, without any doubt it can be held that

the subsistence allowance has to be paid for entire

suspension period more particularly till the passing of

final orders upon the charge of misconduct alleged

against the workmen. Hence, in the said circumstances,

the contention of the respondent that the respondent

is liable to pay subsistence allowance only till the

completion of enquiry and thereafter, can continue to

place the workmen under suspension without paying

subsistence allowance and can pass final orders after

years together at the desire of respondent company is

found to be untenable and unacceptable one. At the

same time, it has be remind that if, the delay in

completion of enquiry is occasioned due to the conduct

of workmen then the management is not liable to pay

subsistence allowance.

16. In this case the RW1 during his cross-

examination has deposed as follows:

\VÏﬂ 2015 \–>V´Ï *m ∑\›>©√‚¶|^·

zu≈ﬂƒV‚Ω[ c^sƒV´Áð xΩÕm, c^sƒV´Áð

∂§¬ÁÔ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√‚¶m. ∂>uz ∂|›>

3 kÚ¶D Ôa›m>V[ \–>V´Á´ √Ë ¿¬ÔD

ÿƒFB©√‚¶m ®[≈V_ g\VD. º�√Ω 3 kÚ¶

ÔVÈ>V\>›]uÔV™ ÔV´ðD ®™¬z ÿ>ˆBVm.

÷´ı| \V>›]uz ∏≈z Subsistence Allowance

WÆ›>©√‚¶m. ∂>uz ÔV´ðD Domestic Enquiry-_

\–>V´Ï *m zu≈D WÚ∏¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ ∂§¬ÁÔ

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√‚¶>V_ Subsistence Allowance

WÆ›]s‚º¶VD. ÷Á> >s´ ºkÆ ®Õ> ÔV´ðxD

÷_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ g\VD.

17. Thus, the R.W.1 in his evidence has deposed

that the final order of termination was passed after

3 years of completion of enquiry and further

categorically deposed that he does not know the reason

for the delay and further deposed that subsistence

allowance was not paid from December 2014 onwards

since the enquiry got completed and in the Enquiry

Report, the charge as against the petitioner stood

proved. Thus, from the evidence of R.W.1 it is found

that delay in completion of enquiry or passing final

orders has not occurred due to the conduct of the

petitioner. When such being so, this Court finds that

the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance for

the disputed period that is from December 2014 to

07-05-2018 that is till the date of passing of final order

of termination on 08-05-2018. Further, as per section 10 A

of of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946,

since, the period from December 2014 onwards is

a period whereby 90 days of suspension period has

elapsed, this Court holds that from December 2014 to

07-05-2018 the petitioner is entitled to receive

subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of wages that

was received by him preceding to the suspension.

18. In view of above discussions, it is held that

Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as against the

respondent management over his non-payment of

subsistence allowance is justified and as such this

Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for subsistence

allowance as claimed by him for the period from

December 2014 to 07-05-2018. Thus, the points are

answered accordingly.

In the result, this petition is allowed by holding that

the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as against

the respondent management over his non-payment of

subsistence allowance is justified and the respondent

management is directed to pay subsistence allowance

for the period from December 2014 to 07-05-2018 within

two months from the date of this Award. 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 29th day of September, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 03-09-2019

Thiru Rajiv Gandhi

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 12-09-2014

Photocopy of explanation

letter.

Ex.P2

— 03-10-2014

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P3

— 10-10-2014

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

118

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[6 February 2024

Ex.P4

— 14-10-2014

Photocopy of the charge

sheet

issued

the

Respondent.

Ex.P5

— 27-10-2014

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the Labour Commissioner

for subsistence allowance.

Ex.P6

— 14-11-2014

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P7

— 21-11-2014

Ex.P8

— 12-12-2014

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P9

— 15-12-2014

Photocopy of the reply

letter

given

the

Respondent to the Labour

Commissioner.

Ex.P10 — 31-12-2014

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P11 — 28-01-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P12 — 02-02-2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P13 — 16-03-2015

Photocopy of the reply

letter

given

the

Respondent to the Deputy

Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P14 — 20-05-2015

Photocopy of the order of

the

Deputy

Labour

Commissioner.

Ex.P15 — 02-06-2015

Photocopy of the reply

letter

given

the

Respondent to the Deputy

Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P16 — 03-06.2015

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P17 — 15-12-2015

Photocopy of the Order

passed by the Hon’ble High

Court, Madras in W.P.No.

36983/2015.

Ex.P18 — 03-02-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Deputy

Labour

Commissioner

for

subsistence allowance.

Ex.P19 — 14-03-2016

Photocopy of the Advocate

Notice

sent

the

Petitioner to the Deputy

Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P20 — 12-04-2016

Photocopy of the reply

given by the Respondent to

the

Deputy

Labour

Commissioner.

Ex.P21 — 13-07-2016

Photocopy of the reply

given by the Petitioner to

the

Deputy

Labour

Commissioner.

Ex.P22 — 29-07-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Deputy

Labour

Commissioner

for

Subsistence allowance.

Ex.P23 — 13-05-2017

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Respondent

for

subsistence allowance.

List of Respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 25-02-2020

Thiru Raja Balaji, Assistant

Manager of the Respondent

Management.

List of Respondent’s exihibits:

Ex.R1

— 24-01-2020

Authorization letter.

Ex.R2

— 14-10-2014

Photocopy of the Enquiry

Committee Report.

Ex.R3

— 06-03-2015

Photocopy of the Charge

Notice.

Ex.R4

— 13-08-2014

Photocopy of the letter

from Rajiv Gandhi's mother

about informing his leave.

Ex.R5

— 15-08-2014

Photocopy of the letter

from Rajiv Gandhi’s mother

about informing his leave.

119

6 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R6

— 22-08-2014

Photocopy of the letter

from Rajiv Gandhi’s mother

about informing his leave.

Ex.R7

— 28-08-2014

Copy of the Bail order

granted to Rajiv Gandhi for

FIR No. 90/2014.

Ex.R8

— 30-08-2014

Photocopy of the request

letter from Rajiv Gandhi for

requesting permission to

join duty.

Ex.R9

— 01-09-2014

Photocopy of the request

letter from Rajiv Gandhi for

requesting permission to

join duty.

Ex.R10 — 01-09-2014

Photocopy of the letter

from Management asking

explanation

for

unauthorized absence.

Ex.R11 — 03-09-2014

Photocopy of the request

letter from Rajiv Gandhi for

requesting permission to

join duty.

Ex.R12 — 06-09-2014

Photocopy of the request

letter from Rajiv Gandhi for

requesting permission to

join duty.

Ex.R13 — 08-09-2014

Photocopy of the request

letter from Rajiv Gandhi for

requesting permission to

join duty.

Ex.R14 — 10-09-2014

Photocopy of the letter to

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.R15 — 11-09-2014

Photocopy of the letter for

asking Management to sent

letter of 01-09-2014 in Tamil.

Ex.R16 — 12-09-2014

Photocopy of the letter of

translation of letter, dated

01-09-2014.

Ex.R17 — 20-09-2014

Photocopy of the letter

asking time for giving

explanation

for

Management letter, dated

01-09-2014.

Ex.R18 — 03-10-2014

Photocopy of the letter for

giving

explanation

for

Management letter, dated

01-09-2014.

Ex.R19 — 14-10-2014

Photocopy of the charge

notice for informing about

Domestic Enquiry.

Ex.R20 — 09-09-2014

Photocopy of the order in

C.M.P. No. 02/2014 of the

Hon’ble High Court of

Madras.

Ex.R21 — 20-08-2014

Photocopy

the

suspension order issued by

the Respondent Management.

Ex.R22 — 05-08-2014

Photocopy

the

FIR

registered against Rajiv

Gandhi in Cr.No. 90/2014 of

Thirubuvanai

Police

Station, Puducherry.

Ex.R23 — —

Photocopy of the Standing

Order.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 119/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 8th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 20/2020, dated

06-07-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of the industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. The Pondicherry Co-operative Milk Producers’

Union Ltd., No. P1, Kurumampet, Puducherry and

NRTUC, Thilaspet, Puducherry, over promotion to the

post of Operator of Thiru J. Murugan, Dairy Helper

Grade-I 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).

120

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[6 February 2024

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

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

Presiding Officer.

Thursday, the 6th day of July, 2023

I.D. (L) No. 20/2020

CNR. No. PYPY06-000053-2020

Thiru J. Murugan,

Dairy Helper, Grade-I,

The Pondicherry Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union

Limited, Vazhudavoor Road,

Kurumampet, Puducherry

. . Petitioner

Versus

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. The Pondicherry Co-operative Milk Producers’

Union Limited,

Vazhudavoor Road,

Kurumampet,

Puducherry.

2. S. Rasu

3. R. Janarthanan

4. J. Baskaran

5. A. Subarayulu

6. A. Vishnu

7. R. Vinothkumar

8. S. Saranraj

9. M. Arunkumar

10. B. Chandru

. . Respondents

This Industrial Dispute coming on 06-07-2023 before

me for hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

M. Veerappan and V.R. Aroumougam, Counsels for

the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan and

I. Ilankumar, Counsels for the Respondents, and the

Respondent remained ex parte, upon hearing the

Petitioner sides, after perusing the case records, after

having stood over till this day, 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. 104/AIL/Lab./T/2020, dated 13-10-2020 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

Union NRTUC, Thilaspet, Puducherry, against the

Management of M/s. The Pondicherry Co-operative

Milk Producers’ Union Limited, No. P1, Kurumampet,

Puducherry over promotion to the post of Operator

for Thiru J. Murugan, Dairy Helper Grade-I is

justified or not? If justified, what relief the Union

workmen are entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner averred

in the claim petition:

The Petitioner was appointed as casual worker on

28-02-2005 and from the inception of joining the

Respondent Management, he was working as plant

operator and he possessed requisite qualifications

and experience to hold the post of operator in the

Respondent Management. The Petitioner was

appointed on regular basis as Dairy helper in the

year 2011. Since, he possessed requisite qualifications

and experience to hold the post of operator in the

Respondent Management, he raised objection for

being appointed as dairy helper and made

representations to the Respondent Management to

appoint his as operator instead of appointing him as

dairy helper.

(ii) As per the office circular issued by the

Respondent the seniority of the employee was fixed

with the name of the employees and the said

document was also filed along with the claim

statement and it is found the Petitioner is the senior

than other employees namely the respondents as

stated above.

(iii) Again in the year 2016, instead of giving

opportunity to him and consider him for the post of

operator the Respondent Management promoted and

appointed some of his juniors working as dairy helper

below him as operators but at the same time again

he was promoted and posted as dairy helper Grade-I

which is below the rank of operator post and also

attract lesser pay scale and therefore, he immediately

made representations to the Respondent Management

about his promotion at the lower cadre, but, no action

was taken nor justified reason was explained by the

Respondent Management about the denial of proper

post to him.

(iv) As on date of promotion to him as dairy

helper in the year 2016, there was at least 11 post of

operator vacant due to the reason that 11 employees

who were working as operators were promoted to the

post of operator Grade-I and out of the said vacancies

he is entitled to get the post of operator.

121

6 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(v) It is clear that the Respondent Management

adopted unfair labour practice as he is the senior

employee in the cadre of dairy helper but the

Respondent Management promoted the Respondents

Nos. 2 to 9 as per the name cited above as operators

and it is clear that the Respondent Management has

indeed violated the seniority of the employees for

considering for promotion to the highest post.

(vi) The Petitioner has made several representations

on 08-06-2012, 05-07-2012, 24-09-2012, 24-07-2014,

18-05-2015, 02-03-2026 and on 14-12-2016 to the

Respondent Management to consider his case for

promoting to the post of operator as his many

juniors were already promoted to the post of operator

by giving preference to them without following

seniority and choosing the juniors overlooking his

seniority clearly attracted the violation of service

conditions by the Respondent Management and also

comes under the terms of unfair labour practices

adopted by the Respondent Management.

(vii) The Petitioner has sent several representations

to the Respondent Management, but, the 1st Respondent

failed and neglect to take action on the said petitions.

Hence, the Petition.

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and Respondent.

Petitioner appeared and engaged an Advocate to

represent him. Though the Respondent has engaged his

Advocate, but, not chosen to file its counter after

sufficient time given by this Court. Neither Respondent

Management appeared nor represented by its Counsel.

Hence, the Respondent Management was set ex parte

on 24-04-2023. Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner.

4. Respondent remained ex parte as counter not

filed. Proof affidavit of Petitioner filed, he himself

examined as PW1. Ex.P1 to P11 were marked.

5. On perusal of case records it is found that this

reference has been made with regard to the dispute

raised by the Petitioner for promotion to the post of

operator. The records reveals that the Petitioner has

filed claim statement, but, the Respondent has remained

ex parte. The records further reveals that the Petitioner

was examined in Chief and it is at this stage the Counsel

for Petitioner has filed a letter stating that the

Respondent has decided to give promotion to the

Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner wants to

withdraw the claim statement. Today the Petitioner

present and endorsed that he is withdrawing the claim

statement. Hence on recording the above, this Court is

inclined to dismiss the claim petition.

In the result, the reference is disposed and the claim

petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this 6th day of July, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND WAQF

(G.O. Ms. No. 40/CHRI/T.4/2023,

Puducherry, dated 10th November 2023)

ORDER

Adverting to the Orders, dated 30-06-2023 of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in

W.P. Nos. 34726 of 2022 and 3241 of 2023, and G.O. Ms.

No. 1/CHRI/T.2/2023, dated 14-07-2023 and in

exercise of the powers conferred under the

Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972,

Thiru S. Sezhian, s/o. Sinnathami, Lower Division Clerk,

Ariyankuppam Commune Panchayat, Puducherry, is

hereby appointed as Temple Administrative Officer of

Arulmigu Sri Muthumariamman Thirukoil, Manavely,

Ariyankuppam Commune, Puducherry, on honorary

basis. The Temple Administrative Officer shall administer

the said Devasthanam as envisaged in the provisions

of the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act,

1972 and the rules framed thereunder.

Important duties and responsibilities of the Temple

Administrative Officer are given below :

(i) To take over the administration of the said

Devasthanam along with movable and immovable assets;

(ii) Submission of compliance report on taking

over of the administration of the temple along with

the details of movable and immovable properties

with a period of fifteen days from taking over the

administration;

(iii) Submission of annual report on maintenance

of movable and immovable assets including the cleaning

and desilting of temple ponds;

(iv) To coordinate and facilitate the completion of

work undertaken by donors as per rule 13 (9);

(v) Submission of annual budget by March as per

rule 13 of the Act;

(vi) To maintain accounts as per sections 14 to 17

of Hindu Religious Institutions Act and to get the

accounts, audited annually by the Directorate of

Accounts and Treasuries, Puducherry;