[219]
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
220
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 220
Award of the Labour Court .. 220
de Tribunal
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
227
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 227
Government Notifications
.. 227
Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^
..
232
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 232
Tender Notices
.. 232
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
232
Etablissements dangereux
.. 232
Dangerous Establishments
..
232
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
233
Annonces
.. 233
Announcements
..
233
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 }
\VÏfl |
12 {
No.
11
Poudouchéry
Mardi
12
Mars
2024 (22 Phalguna 1945)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
12th
March
2024
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
220
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 March 2024
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 11/AIL/Lab./T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 24th January 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 34/2018, dated
13-10-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect
of the industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research
Institute, represented by Senior Personal Manager,
Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry and Thiru Boominathan,
Kondur Post, Cuddalore, over continuity of service, full
back wages and all other attendant benefits 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.
Friday, the 13th day of October, 2023
I.D. (L) No. 34/2018
CNR. No. PYPY06-000069-2018
Boominathan,
S/o. Stalin,
No. 42, Vinayaga Nagar,
Kondur Post, Cuddalore.
. . Petitioner
Versus
Mahatma Gandhi Medical College
and Research Institute,
Rep. by its Senior Personal Manager,
SBV Campus, NH 45A,
Pondy - Cuddalore Main Road,
Pillaiyarkuppam, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 20-09-2023 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,
Counsels for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Sathish,
S. Velmurugan, V. Veeraragavan and E. Karthik, Counsels
for the Respondent and after hearing the both sides and
perusing the case records, this Court delivered the
following:
AWARD
This Petition filed under section 2(A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, Amended Act 24 of 2010 to pass an
Award holding that the termination of the petitioner
service with effect from 23-06-2016 is arbitrary, illegal
and direct the respondent/management to reinstate the
petitioner in his service as Network Administrator with
continuity of service, full back wages and all other
attendant benefits with effect from the date of illegal
termination, i.e., on 23-06-2016.
2. The averments in the claim petition is as follows:
(i) The petitioner was appointed in the respondent
establishment on 09-06-2010 as a “Network
Administrator” and the respondent with an ulterior
motive to deny and deprive the status of permanent
workman and other monetary benefits and to deny
the other statutory protection of service condition
of the permanent workman to the petitioner has
stated in the appointment letter that the petitioner
was engaged on contractual basis only for 11 months
from 09-06-2010. The fact remains that even after
lapse of the said 11 months period, the petitioner was
continuously engaged as a Network Administrator
till he was illegally terminated from service in the
year 2016 and that itself is evident that the initial
appointment order of the petitioner was issued with
mala fied. In the year 2010, the petitioner was paid a
sum of ` 12,000 as monthly wage and then in the year
2011, the wage was increased to ` 16,000 per month.
After about 5 years till 2016, when the petitioner was
illegally terminated from his service there was no
wage increment and his service also was not
regularised as permanent employee and furthermore,
he was not event paid wage on par with the
permanent employee who did service similar nature
of work of the petitioner as Network Administrator.
(ii) Since, the petitioner rendered 6 years continuous
service as network administrator with fond of hope
that this service could be confirmed as permanent
employee and he will be paid wage and other benefits
as well as protection of service condition as permanent
employees, but, he was denied. Hence, the petitioner
demanded the respondent management to regularize
his service as permanent employee and extend the
benefits of the permanent employee including the
wage but, the respondent management did not come
forward to concede the legitimate demand of the
221
12 March 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent decided
to terminate the service of the petitioner and
accordingly on 23-06-2016, the petitioner was
terminated from service on the allegation that
22-06-2016 he has indulged in the activities of
instigating the willing workmen to refrain from
discharging their duties. The allegation is absolutely
false and the petitioner was neither charge-sheeted
nor any enquiry was conducted against him for
aforesaid charge before his service was terminated.
(iii) Since, the petitioner’s initial appointment, the
petitioner has been working in the respondent
management under the direct control of the
respondent management but, the respondent
management in order to deny the regularization of
service has fabricated records as if, he was employed
through contractor. Hence, the Petition.
3. The averments in the counter filed by the
respondent is as follows:
The Respondent Management is a Multi-Specialty
Hospital and Trauma Care Centre, providing plethora
of medical facilities and treatment to people in and
around Puducherry region. It also runs a reputed
Medical and Nursing Colleges. The respondent is a
trauma care centre where hundreds of patients come
in for emergency treatments in any given day. Apart
from that, there are in-patients and out-patients, who
require constant medical attention. Respondent’s
hospital also has ICU and CCU wards, critical operation
theaters, where Doctors, Nurses, Technicians,
Assistants, Attendants and other workers provide
round the clock medical treatment and assistance to
patients. Respondent employs around 2,000 workers,
Nursing Staff, General Staff, Officers and Faculty out
of whom 15% employees are engaged through
contractors for peripheral works on periodical basis
as per due provision of law.
(ii) The petitioner was employed on 09-06-2010
vide offer of Temporary engagement to work for the
post of Network Administrator purely on contract
basis. Some of the important clause of offer of
Temporary engagement of petitioner, dated 09-06-2010
are as follows:
Clause 3: Your temporary engagement is only
for the specific period of eleven months only from
the date you start working. This engagement for
work will not be extended on the expiry of eleven
months and will, on the expiry of the period,
automatically stand terminated. This offer of
engagement for work will not bestow any right/
claim for your future continuous absorption in the
Institute.
Clause 4: You should be responsible in the
discharge of the work allotted to you and you
should carry out the same to the satisfaction of
your superiors. Punctuality in work timings and
daily attendance should be strictly observed by
you.
Clause 7: If, you performance during working
is found to be not satisfactory and in the event
of any acts of misconduct noticed during the
period, this temporary engagement for work will
be terminated without any notice.
Clause 13: Based on the understanding of the
above terms and conditions, this offer for your
temporary engagement is made to you.
(iii) Right from the date of engagement of
petitioner on contract basis, the petitioner had
exhibited short temperedness and would fight with
his co-workers and his superiors on trivial issues and
will disobey the orders of his superior. Petitioner
would constantly instigate other workers to bully the
management and make unreasonable demands. When
respondent’s official would request for a peaceful
negotiation of issues, he would immediately put his
foot down and instruct workers to engage in
demonstrations, slogan shouting and other kinds of
pressure tactics. This has been a routine for petitioner
and the respondent on number of earlier occasions
warned petitioner of serious consequences but, the
petitioner did not mend his ways and continued to
engage himself in such abhorring conducts.
(iv) Only two registered and recognized Unions
in the hospital namely, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth deemed
University and MGMCRI Labour and Employees
Union, (Registration No. 586/RTU/2009) and Mahatma
Gandhi Maruthuvam and Indiragandhi Palmaruthuva
Kallori Congress Employees Union, (Registration
No. 1582/RTU/2009), which represents majority of
workers in respondent’s Institution. Only with these
two Unions, respondent has always held discussions
on issues of general importance and has signed long
term settlements under section 12(3) of Industrial
Disputes Act. However, on 03-03-2016, a letter was
addressed by Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kallori
matrum Aaraichi Niruvana Niranthara Thozilalar
Vazhvurimai Sangam that they have formed and
registered a new Union and the placed a charter of
demands vide letter, dated 07-03-2016. Similarly, on
27-04-2016, respondent received yet another letter
signed by Mahatma Gandhi Muruthuva Kallori
Matrum Aaraichi Niruvana Opantha Thozhilalar
Vazhvurimai Sangam informing Niruvana Opantha
Thozhilalargal Sangam placed their 22 points
222
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 March 2024
Charter of Demands and requested the respondent
to invite them for discussions on such charter of
Demand, petitioner herein claimed himself to be the
President of Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kallori
Mattrum Aaraichi Nuruvana Opantha Thozhilalargal
Vazhvurimai Sangam. Therefore, respondent received
letters signed by the petitioner and other leaders of
Union, dated 24-05-2016, claiming that if, the charter
of demands given by two newly formed Unions is
not met within 15 days, they shall indulge themselves
in strikes and demonstrations.
(v) That on 15-06-2016, the petitioner through
his Union addressed a letter to Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Government of Puducherry placing his
Union’s charter of demands and had once again
threatened of continuous illegal strike, if, their
demands are not met by the respondent. The said
Labour Officer (Conciliation) issued a Notice of
Conciliation, dated 20-06-2016 and thus, initiated
process of negotiation on industrial dispute raised
by Petitioner’s Union. Law thus mandates that once
conciliation process is initiated, both parties to
dispute were required to maintain decorum and were
not supposed to engage in illegal strike or lockout
but, the petitioner as the head of his Union was not
inclined to follow rule of law. He once again
addressed a letter through his Union, dated
21-06-2016, wherein, he declared that his Union shall
indulge in indefinite strike and other forms of
demonstrations with effect from 22-06-2016, which
would initially not be implemented at ICU, MICU,
Casualty, maintenance and Ambulance service for
two days and thereafter, those units will also be
subjected to be the continuous illegal strike.
(vi) Petitioner has worked as a Network
Administrator in respondent’s Institution on contract
basis, which is a very responsible position in its
hospital. The entire hospital activities of the
respondent were computerized and each and every
Department is interconnected and interlinked.
Petitioner was in a very responsible position of
managing smooth functioning of all the networks and
its connections. Petitioner was therefore required to
display utmost maturity and sincerity in his work and
was not suppose to engage himself in flash strikes,
demonstrations or picketing. The strike that was
called for by petitioner through his Union was clearly
illegal and he was fully aware of the fact that such
strike pending conciliation before services and illegal
strikes would jeopardize the life and limb of many
patients and would bring the entire hospital to a
standstill.
(vii) The petitioner and his Union namely,
Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kalloori Matrum
Aaraichi Niruvana Niranthara Thozhilalar Vazhvurimai
Sangam, along with few others, especially
R. Velmurugan, G. Anbarasan, D. Karthikeyan has
restored to illegal strike inside respondent’s
Institution on 22-06-2016 from 8.00 a.m. The strike
continued till 7.30 a.m. on 15-07-2016. They disturbed
and disrupted respondent’s daily activities,
especially treatment to the needy patients. Many of
the needy patients in respondent’s hospital required
emergency care and treatment. Petitioner and other
Union representatives along with their Unions
namely, Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kallori Matrum
Aaraichi Niruvana Niranthara Thozhilalar Vazhvurimai
Sangam and Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kallori
Matrum Aaraichi Niruvana Opantha Thozhilalargal
Vazhvurimai Sangam has threatened the other loyal
and willing employees and workers to join them in
their illegal strike. Petitioner, R. Velmurugan,
G. Anbarasan and D. Karthikeyan included a group
of workers to barge inside the laboratories where
costly equipments/specimens/investigation details
were kept and threatened laboratory staffs to support
their illegal strike, failing which they will destroy the
specimens obtained for patients and other laboratory
equipments in the lab. The efforts taken by respondent
to prevent petitioner and other members of the
Unions entering into respondent’s hospital resulted
in failure. Left with no other alternative, respondent
has displayed a notice, dated 22-06-2016, clearly
highlighting about disturbance caused to essential
service and intimated that appropriate disciplinary
proceedings would be initiated. Respondent also
gave a complaint, dated 23-06-2016 to the Senior
Police Officials and to Kirumampakkam Police Station
requesting them to provide adequate Police
protection in and around respondent's hospital and
requested them to prevent agitating workmen from
thwarting ingress and egress of men/materials/
patients/staffs/students and more particularly
intimated that life saving surgeries in operation
theater has been cancelled owing to non-availability
of workman from discharging their duties.
(viii) Since, the situation went out of control and
there was an imminent and lurking danger of loss of
line, limb and materials of the respondent, it
immediately moved a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 201/2016
on the file of Principal Sub-Judge, Puducherry,
seeking permanent and interim prohibitory injunction
against the petitioner, his associates, his Union and
other Union to restrain them from conducting any
illegal strike within the precincts of the respondents
223
12 March 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
hospital. Respondent obtained ex parte injunction
but, it could still not control the petitioner and his
associates from giving up the illegal strike.
(ix) Since, the petitioner was leading the entire
strike as President and D. Karthikeyan as Secretary
of Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kalloori Matrum
Aaraichi Niruvana Opantha Thozhilalar Vazhvurimai
Sangam along with others like R. Velmurugan and
G. Anbarasan of Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kallori
Matrum Aaraichi Niruvana Niranthara Thozhilalargal
Vazhvurimai Sangam and since, the situation in the
hospital has gone out of control and the respondent
was not able to control the rampaging workers
engaging in illegal flash strike in complete violation
section 22 of Industrial Disputes Act, it has not
options but, to take immediate and quick action
against petitioner. Entire situation in hospital has
become grim and even with Civil Court’s injunction
order, respondent has not able to control agitating
workers, who were fully charged up and instigated
by the petitioner. There was absolutely no time for
the respondent to issue charge-sheet, conduct domestic
enquiry and it has compelled by circumstances to
take immediate action against petitioner, who was the
main player in the strike. Further, petitioner was
engaged on contract basis and hence, respondent
was advised that it had every right to relieve
petitioner without any enquiry. Respondent was
advised that even if, any enquiry was required to be
conducted, it could done by the management after
defusing the grave situation. The respondent has
thus, compelled to take immediate action in the
interest of the Institution and thousands of patients
stranded inside hospital to diffuse illegal strike of
Union headed by petitioner. Hence, it terminated
petitioner with immediate effect vide its Order, dated
23-06-2016. Therefore, there is no merits in the
contention that petitioner was victimized for his
Union related activities. Hence, the petition filed by
the Petitioner is liable to dismissed.
4. Points for determination:
1. Whether the employment of the Petitioner in
the respondent Institution was a permanent or
contractual one?
2. Whether the termination order passed by the
respondent without conducting domestic enquiry is
sustainable or unsustainable one?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief
to set aside the termination Order, dated 23-6-2016
and for reinstatement with continuity of service,
full back wages and other attendant benefits?
5. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and
Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of respondent
R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R11 were marked.
Written arguments was filed on either side.
6. On points 1 to 3:
The contention of the petitioner is that the
petitioner was employed in the respondent Institution
on 09-06-2010 as a Network Administrator on
contractual basis for 11 months but, however, the
petitioner continued to work in the respondent
Institution till, he was illegally terminated from service
in the year 2016. The further specific contention of
the petitioner is that the respondent with an ulterior
motive to deny and deprive the status of a permanent
workman and other monetary benefits to the
petitioner has employed the petitioner on contractual
basis and in the year 2010 the petitioner was paid a
sum of ` 12,000 as monthly wages and in the year 2011,
the wage was increased to ` 16,000 per month and
thereafter, there was no any wage increment given
to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner’s
further contention is that though the work extracted
from the petitioner was similar to that of a permanent
employee work but, the petitioner was not paid wages
on par with the permanent employee and hence, the
petitioner has demanded the respondent management
to regularize his service as a permanent employer and
to extend all benefits of the permanent employee but,
the respondent without considering the legitimate
demand of the petitioner has terminated the service
of the petitioner on 23-06-2016 without providing
charge-sheet or conducting enquiry alleging that on
22-06-2016, the petitioner has indulged in the
activities of instigating the willing workmen to refrain
from discharging their duties.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that the petitioner was appointed on 09-06-2010 to the
post of Network Administrator and his offer letter it is
specifically stated that the engagement to work in the
respondent Institution is for a period of 11 months and
the employment is purely on contract basis and further,
it is stated that the offer of engagement for work will
not bestow any right/claim for future continuous
absorption in the Institution and also in case, the
performance of the petitioner during the working period
is found to be not satisfactory or in the event of any
acts of misconduct is noticed then, the temporary
engagement of work will be terminated without any
notice and therefore, it is the specific contention of the
respondent that the petitioner was engaged in the
respondent Institution on a contractual basis without
any right to claim regularization of his employment and
224
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 March 2024
further the petitioner being an educated youth and
having accepted the employment as per the terms of
offer letter is precluded from claiming the rights of a
permanent employee. Apart from that the respondent
contends that after engagement of petitioner on
contractual basis, the petitioner was exhibiting his short
temperedness to his co-workers and to his superiors and
disobeyed the orders of the superior and instigated
other workers to fight with management for unreasonable
demands and later the petitioner claimed himself to be
the President of Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva Kalloori
Matrum Aaraichi Niruvana Opantha Thozhilalargal
Vazhvurimai Sangam and gave a letter, dated 24-05-2016
signed by the petitioner and other leaders of the Union
stating that if the charter of demands given by two
newly formed unions is not considered within 15 days
then they would indulge in strikes and demonstrations
and on 15-06-2016 through his Union has addressed
a letter to Labour Officer Conciliation placing the
Union’s charter of demands and again threatened for
continuous illegal strike if the demands are not met with
by the respondent and on 22-06-2016 the petitioner and
his Union has indulged in indefinite strike and disrupted
the respondent institution from providing treatment to
the needy patients and though the respondent had
lodged complaint before Kirumampakkam Police Station,
Puducherry, seeking protection and also filed Civil Suit
in OS.201/2016 before Principal Sub-Judge, Puducherry,
but, the situation in the hospital became grim and
uncontrollable and therefore, the respondent was
constrained to take a drastic step and terminated the
petitioner from service without conducting Domestic
Enquiry.
8. In this case, the core question that arises for
consideration is whether the employment of the
Petitioner in the respondent institution was a permanent
one as contended by the petitioner or a contractual one
as contended by the respondent. The respondent to
substantiate that the petitioner was employed on
contractual basis has placed reliance upon the terms
stipulated in Ex.P1. This Court on perusal of evidences
adduced by both parties and the pleadings finds that
Ex.P1 is admitted by both parties. On perusal of Ex.P1
it is stated that it is an Offer for Temporary Engagement
to Work issued to the petitioner. Some of the important
terms and conditions as stated in Ex.P1 is extracted
hereunder for better appreciation:
The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Medical
College and Research Institute has decided to engage
S. Boominathan to work/serve as Network Administrator
on a purely contract basis.
This contract of engagement to work in our
institution is for a period of only Eleven months.
This offer of engagement for work will not bestow
any right/claim for your future continuous absorption
in the institute.
If, your performance during working is found to
be not satisfactory and in the event of any acts of
misconduct noticed during this period, this temporary
engagement for work will be terminated without any
notice.
9. Thus, in Ex.P1 offer letter it is distinctly stated
that the contract engagement of the petitioner to work
in the respondent institution is purely on contract basis
for a period of 11 months and further the said offer of
engagement for work will not bestow any right upon the
petitioner to claim for future continuous absorption in
the institute. The petitioner during his cross-examination
as P.W.1 has deposed that he has studied M.Sc., I.T.
and he has good proficiency in English and further, he
was well aware of the terms of employment as stated in
Ex.P1. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 it could be
inferred that the petitioner was well aware of the terms
of offer for employment provided by the respondent and
further, the petitioner also has accepted the offer of
employment as per the terms as found in Ex.P1.
10. In this case though the petitioner accepts that
as per Ex.P1 offer for temporary engagement to work
issued by respondent stipulates that the respondent
had offered work to the petitioner purely on contract
basis for 11 months but contends that the respondent
continued the employment of petitioner more than
11 months and thereby the petitioner had worked in the
respondent institution from 09-06-2010 to 26-06-2016 on
regular basis and further, the respondent had extracted
from the petitioner all similar works that were done by
a permanent employee and therefore, the petitioner had
worked in the respondent institution only as a
permanent employee but, the respondent with mala fide
intention to deprive from providing the status and
benefits of permanent employee has wantonly stated in
the Ex.P1 that the petitioner is engaged to work in the
respondent institution purely on contract basis.
11. Therefore, in the said context it becomes
necessary to determine when the offer of employment
issued by the respondent states that the employment
is for eleven months and purely on contract basis then
whether the continuation of employment of petitioner
even after eleven months that is extension and
continuation of petitioner’s service for more than
six years would confer any rights of a permanent
employee upon the petitioner. The learned Counsel for
respondent contended that when the appointment made
was purely contractual, then the concerned person shall
not be entitled to claim any rights of a permanent
225
12 March 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
employee and further, in this case the petitioner being
an educated youth having understood the terms of offer
and having accepted the contractual appointment is
estopped from challenging the terms of appointment and
also claiming the rights of a permanent employee. The
Learned Counsel for petitioner to substantiate this
contention has relied upon the following citations:
(i) CDJ 1992 SC 118: The question is whether
the directions are valid in law to our mind, it is clear
that where the appointment is contractual and by
efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the
respondent could have no right to continue in the
post. Once this conclusion is arrived at, what
requires to be examined is, in view of the services of
the respondent being continued from time to time on
ad hoc basis for more than a year whether she is
entitled to regularization? The answer should be in
the negative.
In the instant case, there is no such rule. The
appointment was purely ad hoc and on the
contractual basis for a limited period. Therefore, by
expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain
in the post comes to an end.
(ii) CDJ 2016 BHC 107 : “Court Held - Perusal
of appointment orders clearly show that appointment
of complainant is contractual in nature for specific
period and is to come an end at period as specified
in the said order - It is not even evidence of
complainant that he is in continuous employment
either for period of not less than a year or for more
than 3 months - Thus, Single Judge has erred in
setting aside concurrent orders passed by the Labour
Court as well as the Industrial Court denying
reinstatement and continuity of service with back
wages - Hence, judgment and order passed by the
Single Judge is quashed and set aside and order of
the Industrial Court is maintained - Appeal allowed.
It is not the law that on completion of 240 days
of continuous service in a year, the concerned
employee becomes entitled to for regularization of his
services and/or permanent status. The concept of
240 days in a year was introduced in the industrial
law for a definite purpose. Under the Industrial
Disputes Act, the concept of 20 days was introduced
so as to fasten a statutory liabilities upon the
employer to pay compensation to be computed in the
manner specified in section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 before he is retrenched from
services and not for any other purpose. In the event
a violation of the said provision takes place, termination
of services of the employee may be found to be
illegal, but, only on that account, his services cannot
be directed to be regularized. Direction to reinstate
the workman would mean that he gets back the same
status.
12. Thus, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Apex
Courts have held that it is not the law that on completion
of 240 days of continuous service in a year an employee
is entitled for regularization of his service or to claim
a permanent status. It is further, held that the concept
of 240 days in a year was introduced in the industrial
law so as to fasten a statutory liability upon employer
to pay compensation to be computed in the manner
specified in section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947, when a workman is sought to be retrenched by
an employer. Similarly, it is held that the protection and
benefits provided under section 25-F of Industrial
Disputes Act will not apply in case of section (oo) (bb)
of Industrial Disputes Act, where a workmen is
terminated as a result of non-renewal of contract of
employment on its expiry or being terminated under a
stipulation in that behalf contained therein.
13. Therefore, even for claiming the benefits
provided under section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act,
the employment should not be one under contractual
basis. Likewise even for claiming regularization on the
basis of completion of 240 days of continuous service
in a year, the employment should not be one under
contractual basis and in case the employment is on
contractual basis then section 2 (oo) (bb) of Industrial
Disputes Act gets attracted whereby neither regularization
or benefits of retrenchment as stipulated under section
25F of Industrial Disputes Act cannot be claimed.
14. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Courts have held that
when the initial appointment was of a contractual nature
and not against a sanctioned post and not in compliance
with the rules or regulations then such appointment
would not give the concerned employee any right to
have his service regularized. Further, it is held that if it
is a contractual appointment, then the appointment
comes to an end at the end of the contract and a temporary
employee cannot claim to make him permanent on the
expiry of his term of appointment. Similarly, it is held
that because a temporary employee is continued for a
time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not
be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made
permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance,
if, the original appointment was not made by following
a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant
rules.
15. Therefore, this Court in the light of above
citations finds that as in this case the employment was
provided as per Ex.P1 which states that the petitioner
is engaged to work in the respondent institution on a
purely contract basis then in such case even when the
petitioner continued to work in the respondent
Institution for a period of 240 days in a year the same
cannot confer any right of regularisation upon the
petitioner since the employment of the petitioner was
on contractual basis. Hence, when such being so, the
petitioner cannot seek to treat him as a permanent
226
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 March 2024
employee in the absence of regularisation and thereby
cannot seek to provide him all rights of permanent
employee more particularly to conduct domestic enquiry
before termination of service. As per Ex.P1 it is stated
that the petitioner being appointed on contract basis,
the respondent has reserved the right to terminate
without any notice and it is the contention of the
respondent that the same has been exercised by the
respondent.
16. Hence, this Court in view of above discussions
holds that the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner
ought to have given the rights of permanent employee
and further, ought to have afforded opportunity to
prove his innocence or disprove the charges leveled
against him by conducting domestic enquiry is found
to be untenable in view of terms of employment
stipulated in Ex.P1. Thus, this Court holds that there is
no any illegality in the termination order passed by the
respondent. Therefore, in the said facts and discussions
held supra, this Court holds that the Industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner as against the respondent
management, over his non-employment is not justifiable
one. Thus, the points are answered accordingly.
In the result this petition is dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 13th day of October, 2023.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 29-03-2022 T h i r u
B o o m i n a t h a n
(Petitioner herein).
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 09-06-2010 Photocopy of the Petitioner’s
Appointment Order.
Ex.P2 — 23-06-2016 Photocopy of the Petitioner’s
Termination Order.
Ex.P3 — 28-12-2016 Photocopy of the dispute
raised by the Petitioner
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry.
Ex.P4 — 18-02-2017 Photocopy of the reply given
by the Respondent to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P5 — 27-04-2016 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Union to the
Respondent for Demand and
Strike Notice.
Ex.P6 — 24-05-2016 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Union to the
Respondent for Demand and
Strike Notice.
Ex.P7 — 15-06-2016 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Union to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, for Demand and
Strike Notice.
Ex.P8 — 21-06-2016 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Union to the
Respondent for Strike.
Ex.P9 — 23-06-2016 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Union to the
Superintendent of Police.
Ex.P10 — 24-06-2016 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Union to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P11 — 29-06-2016 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Union to the
L a b o u r
D e p a r t m e n t ,
Puducherry.
Ex.P12 — 20-12-2021 Photocopy of the Judgment
and Decree in O.S. No. 201/
2016.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW1
— 30-09-2022 Balamukundan
(Senior
Personal Manager of the
Respondent Management).
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — 08-12-2009 Photocopy of the Interim
and
Order in MP. No. 1 and 2 of
17-04-2012 2009 in WP. No. 25414/2009
and Order in WP. No. 25414/
2009.
Ex.R2 — 09-06-2010 Photocopy of the Temporary
engagement to work issued
by
the
Management
to
Petitioner.
Ex.R3 — 07-03-2016 Photocopy of the Charter of
Demands submitted by the
Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva
Kallori Matrum Aaraichi
N i r u v a n a
N i r a n t h a r a
Thozhilalar
Vazhvurimai
Sangam.
Ex.R4 — 21-06-2016 Photocopy of the Letter
issued by the Management to
Station
House
Officer,
Kirumambakkam
Police
Station, Puducherry, seeking
protection.
227
12 March 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R5 — 22-06-2016 Photocopy of the Notice
issued by the Management to
workers clearly highlighting
about disturbance caused to
e s s e n t i a l
s e r v i c e
a n d
intimated that appropriate
disciplinary
proceedings
would be initiated.
Ex.R6 — 23-06-2016 Photocopy of the Complaint
issued by the Management to
the Senior Police Officials and
to Kirumambakkam Police
Station requesting them to
provide
adequate
police
protection in and around
hospital.
Ex.R7 — 28-06-2016 Photocopy of the Circular
issued by the Management to
its contract labour.
Ex.R8 — 15-06-2016 Photocopy of the Strike
Notice
issued
by
the
Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva
Kallori Matrum Aaraichi
N i r u v a n a
N i r a n t h a r a
Thozhilalar
Vazhvurimai
Sangam and the notice issued
by the conciliation office on
20-06-2016.
Ex.R9 — 15-07-2016 Photocopy of the Strike
Notice
issued
by
the
Mahatma Gandhi Maruthuva
Kallori Matrum Aaraichi
N i r u v a n a
N i r a n t h a r a
Thozhilalar
Vazhvurimai
Sangam.
Ex.R10 — 30-06-2016 Photocopy of the Interim
injunction order passed in
OS. No. 201/2016 on the file
of
Principal
Sub-Judge,
Puducherry.
Ex.R11 — 27-09-2016 Photocopy of the Intimation
of no change of address by
the Petitioner to Management.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), KARAIKAL
NO. 2102/DDSE/KKL/E3(Exam.)/2024/60.
Karaikal, the 21st February 2024.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby notified that the following candidates have lost their original S.S.L.C. and H.S.C. Mark
Certificates beyond the scope of recovery, necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificate(s). If, any
one finds the original Mark Certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations
(Sec.), College Road, Chennai – 600 006 for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.
Sl.
Name of the
Register No.,
Sl. No. of
School in which
No.
applicant
session and
the mark
studied last
year
certificate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Thiruvalargal :
500067, March 2006
3578999
Thanthai Periyar Government Higher
1
Kumaresan. M
Secondary School, Kovilpathu, Karaikal.
483453, March 2008
3689767
V.O.C. Government Higher Secondary
School, Kottucherry, Karaikal.
2
Mohamed Muzzamil. H
1745715, April
2012
0752106
St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School,
Karaikal.
M. RADJESVARY,
Deputy Director (Secondary Education).