[281]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

282

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 282

Award of the Labour Court .. 282

de Tribunal

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

290

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 290

Government Notifications

.. 290

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

292

Etablissements dangereux

.. 292

Dangerous Establishments

292

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

293

Annonces

.. 293

Announcements

293

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 }

∞©´_ |

9 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Avril

2024 (20 Chaitra 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

9th

April

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

282

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 April 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 28/AIL/Lab./S/2024,

Puducherry, dated 11th March 2024)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 24/2019, dated

16-06-2022 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of the industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Detergent Factory,

Vadamangalam, Puducherry and its workman Thiru

R. Yayadhy, over non-employment has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with

the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

S. SANDIRAKUMARAN,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

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

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 20th day of December, 2023

I.D. (L) No. 16/2016

CNR. No. PYPY06-000020-2016

R. Yayadhy,

S/o. Ramamoorthy,

Main Road, Thanikuppam,

Embalam Post, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,

Detergent Factory,

NH-45A, Vadamangalam,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 06-12-2023 before me

for final hearing in the presence of Thiru L. Ramalingam,

Counsel for the Petitioner and Thiruvalargal L. Sathish,

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

and E. Karthik, Counsels for the Respondent, upon

hearing both sides, perusing the case records, after

having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute on preliminary issue has

been referred by the Government as per the G.O. Rt.

No. 87/AIL/Lab./T/2016, dated 01-08-2016 for

adjudicating whether the industrial dispute raised by

the Petitioner R. Yayadhy against the management of

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Detergent Factory,

Vadamangalam, Puducherry, over his non-employment

is justified or not? If, justified what relief the

Petitioner is entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. The averments setforth in the claim statement is

as follows:

The Petitioner was working in the Respondent’s

Company with utmost sincerity and rendered his

dedicated services for the upliftment of the

production of the company and also its growth. He

was regular in his duties and brought Good

Attendance in his works, for which he was awarded

meritorious-cum-letter of appreciation on 14-07-2009

for 141.5 days of his attendance out of 149 of the

total working days and also, on another occasion,

on 18-01-2010, he was also awarded another letter of

Appreciation of Attendance for 283.5 days out of 302

of the total working days.

(ii) As days went on, his health condition was

getting weaker due to his continuous work in the

soap making Unit which caused spreading of

detergent chemicals in the air, thereby, the Petitioner

sustained drowsiness, weakness, fatigue, breathing

trouble, lung infection, nausea, vomitting and

headache, cold, fever, tiredness. Bearing all these

Health Hazards and danger to the normal physical

health, the Petitioner continued to work unhesitatingly

for the growth of the Respondent’s Company.

(iii) When, his health condition was so

deteriorating, he took leave on some occasions and

submitted the Medical Certificates, obtained from the

ESIC. and also from his private Doctors who treated

him instantly in such dangerous situations.

(iv) Since, the Respondent’s Company followed

the Unfair Trade Practice against the Employees of

the Respondent’s Company, a Trade Union, namely,

Hindustan Unilever Workers Union was organized by

the Employees of the Respondent’s Company in

which, the Petitioner became a member and also

worked for the welfare of the Factory Workers as well

283

9 April 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

as the Growth of the Respondent’s Company’s

production. Since, the Petitioner gained popularity

among the employees of the Union and the factory

during 2011, the Respondent/Company devised

cunningly and brought false charges against this

innocent employee by misusing his sick leaves for

their unlawful object to wreak - vengeance first time

against him with the charges for unauthorized

absences for about 285 days for the period

01-01-2012 to 30-04-2013 and conducted a Biased

Domestic Enquiry and punished this Petitioner on

03-04-2014 by suspending him for about 25 days

without wages. No reasonable opportunities were

given to this Petitioner and no reasonable time

duration were given to this Petitioner for establishing

his defense and innocence. The proceedings were

conducted in a hurried manner and his Oral and

Documentary Evidences were not appreciated in

accordance with Labour Laws. In order to achieve its

illegal objects for the suspension of this Petitioner,

the Respondent’s Company violated the principles of

natural justice, equity, ethics and good conscience

and passed a non-speaking order of suspension

without wages as per clause 40(a) (v) of the Certified

Standing Orders and such unlawful suspension

without wages thrust upon this innocent Petitioner

for 25 days from 07-04-2014 to 01-05-2014.

(v) During 2011, the Respondent’s Company had

misused its power by transferring this Petitioner to

the TSF Division of the factory without any

necessity for the sake of the sole reason to put an

end to the Petitioner’s Labour Union Welfare

activities. During the abovesaid domestic enquiry, the

Respondent’s Company threatened the Petitioner to

rule 18(1) of the standing order for Terminating him

from the job. When, the Petitioner did not accept for

such compulsion, coercion and intimidation, the

Respondent’s Company took another stand of

“unauthorized absences” and proceeded against the

Petitioner to quell his Trade Union welfare activities.

(vi) As the Petitioner’s health condition was often

got deteriorated, he took medical treatments not only

with the ESIC and also with his private Doctors and

found some improvements in his health condition and

later on, he was able to discharge his duties

effectively and efficiently.

(vii) In order to achieve its illegal goal for the

wrongful dismissal of this innocent Petitioner from

his sincere service, the Respondent/Company

cunningly devised for another charges and issued

charge-sheet, dated 02-08-2014 with the allegations

of unauthorized absences for about 148 days for the

period from 01-05-2013 to 31-01-2014 and conducted

a domestic enquiry under the Enquiry Officer, Smt.

Thilagavadhi who commenced and conducted her

enquiries on 09-06-2014, 17-06-2014, 21-06-2014,

28-06-2014, 30-06-2014, 04-07-2014 and 08-07-2014

and finally, passed an order under section 39(1),

39(3) and 39(97) of the Certified Standing Order of

the company in favour of the Respondent on

06-08-2014. On basis of the findings, the Petitioner

was dismissed from service with effect from

10-09-2014 with the long term settlement of wages of

` 18,247 by way of a cheque. But, this Petitioner had

strongly and stoutly objected the said finding, dated

06-08-2014 and also returned the said cheque

with a covering letter, dated 14-11-2014.

(viii) That during the domestic enquiry, no

reasonable opportunities were given to the Petitioner

for establishing his defence and innocence and one

can presume that the bad health condition of the

petitioner, supported by the medical certificates

would unequivocally establish that his intermittent

absences are the causes of the factories detergent

fumes and its mixtures in the air, thereby, the

Petitioner was under the forceful obligation to

maintain his health through ESIC as well as his

private Doctors. All the absences were well explained

through oral and documentary evidences. The

Respondent’s Company viewed only to achieve its

sole object of terminating the services of this

innocent Petitioner by hook and crook methods by

adopting unfair trade practices and also by violating

the principles of natural justice, equity Respondent’s

Company has wrongly interpreted the provision of

law envisaged under such 39(1), 39(3) and 39(97) of

the Certified Standing Orders of the company for its

own unlawful benefits and moreover, the human

rights are mercilessly violated in rendering this

innocent Petitioner jobless without properly

balancing the evidences available and good

conscience.

(ix) The

Respondent/Company

has

never

substantiated its stand that due to the absences/

leave of the Petitioner, the Respondent’s Company

underwent hardships to allot a worker to the

particular place of work where, the Petitioner worked,

thereby, the Respondent’s Company incurred a

production. In view of the Respondent's Company’s

Biased, tyrannical and unethical attitudes towards the

Petitioner for his legitimate involvement in the

Trade Union welfare activities during, 2011 and also,

in view of the hurried disposal of the domestic

enquiry and its finding on 06-08-2014 without giving

reasonable opportunists to establish his Defenses/

Innocences through oral and documentary evidences

and also, in view of the unholy Dismissal Order

284

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 April 2024

passed on 10-9-2014 without proper interpretation of

the section 39(1), 39(3), 39(97) of the Certified

Standing Orders of the Company for the sole benefit

of the biased object of the Respondent/Company and

also, in view of the ill-health of the Petitioner who

suffered due to the spreading and mixing of the

detergent - chemical fumes in the air of the factory,

thereby, the Petitioner sustained severe health

disorders and also, in view of the Respondent/

Company’s Award of Good Attendance Certificate

issued to the Petitioner on two occasions on

14-01-2009 and 18-01-2010 and also, in view of the

dependency of the Petitioner’s family people upon

this sole bread winner’s income, (i.e.) the Petitioner

herein, and also, in view of the scope and object of

the welfare legislation of the Labour Act for the

beneficial interests to the aggrieved labourers, this

Petitioner is legally and morally entitled to resume

his job in the Respondent/Company with all benefits.

Hence, the petition.

3. The averments setforth in the counter filed by the

Respondent is as follows :

Respondent is a Multi-National Company operating

under the Unilever group, and have factories, units

and offices in many parts of the Country. Hindustan

Unilever Limited, currently has 3 manufacturing units

located in Puducherry two at Vadamangalam Village

manufacturing soaps, detergents and personal care

products, and the third at Kirumambakkam Village for

blending and packing of tea. The Respondent unit

of Hindustan Unilever Limited at Vadamangalam is

engaged in the business of manufacturing detergent

soaps such as Surf Excel, Rin, Rin Bars, Vim Bars,

Vim liquid, etc., and toilet soaps such as Lux, Hamam,

Rexona, Lifebuoy, etc., which are distributed across

the country. The Respondent unit employs about

506 permanent workers, 7 staff, 36 officers and 11

Managers.

(ii) The Petitioner was confirmed as a daily rated

workman (W3 grade) from 10-02-1998. Clause 21 of

his Letter of Confirmation read as follows;

“If, you remain absent from work without any

intimation and permission for a continuous period

of 15 working days or more, you shall be deemed

to have tendered your resignation and terminated

your employment with us, with effect from the day

you complete 15 working days of such absence”.

(iii) All the terms and conditions of appointment

was explained to the Petitioner in Tamil and after

understanding

the

same,

accepted

and

acknowldged the terms and conditions of service

mentioned in his Letter of Confirmation, dated

10-02-1998 and joined the Respondent’s factory.

(iv) The respondent has its own Certified

Standing Orders as the same is duly displayed in the

shop floor and other prominent places in English and

Tamil. Clauses 39 (1), 39 (3) and 39 (97) of the said

Certified Standing Orders reads as follows:

Clause 39 (1) : “Absence without leave

without sufficient cause or absence without

permission or habitual absence”.

Clause 39 (3) : “Absence without leave for 10

consecutive days or over staying of leave

originally sanctioned or subsequently extended by

10 consecutive working days”.

Clause 39 (97) : “Habitual or frequent breach

of any standing order or any rules or regulations

for the time being in force or any law applicable

to the factory or any rule made there under”.

(v) Availing leave only on permission is the prime

and fundamental duty of Petitioner. The petitioner

had always been chronic absentee (both authorized

and unauthorized) in Respondent's factory. The

incidents of his past absenteeism including the one

for which, he was ultimately terminated are listed

below.

Sl.

Dates and events of

Response by

Action initiated by

Punishment if any,

No.

misconducts of

the workmen

Respondent

given by Respondent

Petitioner

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Remained unauthorisedly

—

Advice letter given to Advice letter given to

absent for 44 days during

Petitioner on 14-03-2011.

the period January -

December 2010.

Remained unauthorisedly

—

Warning letter issued and

Warning letter given to

absent for 117 days out of

advised to be regular for Petitioner on 17-07-2012.

152 days during the period

work.

January - June 2012.

285

9 April 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(vi) The respondent had shown maximum leniency

to Petitioner and on more than one occasion it had

condoned the misconduct of chronic absenteeism of

petitioner but, the Petitioner took undue advantage

of the leniency shown by respondent and did not

bother to mend his ways.

(vii) The Petitioner continued to be erratic in his

attendance and remained unauthorisedly absent 148

days from 01-05-2013 to 31-01-2014, without any

intimation or information to Respondent. When, the

petitioner’s

attendance

did

not

show

any

improvements in spite of several advisory/warning

letters, charge-sheet/s and suspension in the past,

the Respondent issued a detailed charge-sheet on

02-05-2014 charging him for unauthorized absence

and irregular attendance from 01-05-2013 to

30-01-2014 and for habitual absenteeism in past under

clauses 39 (1), 39 (3) and 39 (97) of Certified Standing

Orders of Company. The Charge-Sheet, dated

02-05-2014 was sent to petitioner's official residential

address, which was received by him. The Petitioner

have his explanation letter, dated 06-05-2014. Since,

the explanation of Petitioner was not satisfactory,

Respondent appointed an independent and impartial

Enquiry Officer, which was also duly informed to

Petitioner vide Enquiry Notice, dated 12-05-2014 was

sent to petitioner’s official residential address, which

was received by him. Thereafter, Petitioner appeared

in enquiry proceedings.

(viii) Domestic enquiry was conducted against

Petitioner for his unauthorized absence (under

charge- sheet, dated 02-05-2014) on 09-06-2014,

17-06-2014, 21-06-2014, 28-06-2014, 30-06-2014,

04-07-2014, 08-07-2014 and 11-07-2014. The Enquiry

Officer conducted enquiry in utmost fairness and by

adhering to essential Principles of Natural Justice,

Equity and Fair Play. The Domestic enquiry was

conducted in a free and fair manner, giving full

opportunity to Petitioner to defend himself can be

gauged from the fact that,

(a) The Enquiry Officer offered permission to

Petitioner to engage Defense Assistance of his

choice.

(b) Entire enquiry proceedings were conducted

in Tamil which is the language known to petitioner.

notes and it was duly signed by Petitioner

acknowldging fairness of proceedings.

(d) Petitioner was served with all documents

filed and marked by Respondent Management.

(e) Enquiry Officer gave opportunities to

Petitioner to produce documents and lead

evidence.

(f) Enquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry

proceedings on request of Petitioner and Defence

Assistant.

(g) Enquiry report was based on appreciation

of entire materials placed on record by applying

sound principles of law and reasoning.

(h) Enquiry report was given to Petitioner and

he was given an opportunity to submit his

explanation on enquiry report.

Remained unauthorisedly

—

Advice letter issued and Advice letter given to

absent from 203 days out

advised to be regular for Petitioner on 08-04-2013.

of 302 days during the

work.

period January - December

2012.

Unauthorized absence of

Apology letter dated

Charge-sheet on 14-05-2013, Suspended for 25 days

Petitioner for 285 days from

10-07-2013 given by

domestic enquiry conducted

from 07-04-2014 to 01-05-2014

01-01-2012 to 30-04-2013.

petitioner.

against the Petitioner.

without wages vide Order,

dated 03-04-2014.

Unauthorized absence for

Petitioner denied the

Charge-sheeted, domestic

Petitioner was terminated

148 days from 01-05-2013

charges.

enquiry vide charge-sheet, vide Dismissal Letter,

to 31-01-2014.

dated 02-05-2014 was

dated 10-09-2014.

conducted against the

petitioner. The charges

levelled against Petitioner

stood proved.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

286

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 April 2024

(ix) In the enquiry proceedings, the Petitioner

produced certain documents to justify his unauthorized

absence. However, the Management representative

has pointed out various defects, anomalies and the

shortcomings in those documents and they explained

in the enquiry proceedings as to how they were

concocted and fabricated by the Petitioner for the

purposes of the case. The Enquiry Officer has also

considered all the evidences placed before her has

given a very detailed, reasonable and cogent findings

were given by her in her report. The Enquiry Officer

submitted her detailed report on 06-08-2014,

analyzing the charges leveled against the Petitioner

in the light of the available records and submissions

made by Petitioner and Respondent during enquiry

proceedings. The Enquiry Officer came to the

conclusion that Petitioner was guilty of the charges

leveled against him under Clauses 39 (1), 39 (3) and

39 (97) of Certified Standing Orders of Company.

(x) The Respondent issued a 2nd showcause

notice, dated 27-08-2014 along with enquiry report,

dated 06-08-2014 to petitioner, which was directly

received by him but, he has not replied to the second

show cause. Since, the gravity of misconduct

committed by Petitioner was grave and serious, the

Respondent terminated Petitioner vide its Order, dated

10-09-2014 and gave termination order to Petitioner

directly together with salary of one month, which

was received and acknowledged by Petitioner on

10-09-2014. The order of dismissal was made taking

into consideration all the aspects that were involved

in the case including the past misconducts of

petitioner. By way of abundant caution, the

Respondent filed Approval Petition No. 99/2014

in I.D. (T) No. 10/2012 before Industrial Tribunal,

Puducherry under section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial

Disputes Act. The said petition was allowed by the

Industrial Tribunal on 05-03-2015.

(xi) The Petitioner was removed from the services

for grave misconducts of chronic, habitual absenteeism,

which was proved by producing documentary

evidences in the independent and impartial domestic

enquiry. Therefore, the dismissal of Petitioner from

service is fully justified and the same cannot be

interfered with.

(xii) The Petitioner’s accusation of victimization

because of his trade union activities is absolutely

unfounded and is generalized allegation without any

substance. The burden of proof of victimization rests

heavily on the Petitioner and such bald accusation

without cogent evidence cannot be considered. First

of all, petitioner’s claim that he is an active trade

union member is refuted and the Petitioner is put to

strict proof of the same. Such plea is being taken by

the Petitioner for the first time before this Court.

Assuming without admitting that he is an active trade

union member that by itself does not suggest that

Respondent victimized him. The Petitioner is not the

lone trade union activist in the factory. There are

other union activists, who are also raising various

issues on behalf of respective trade unions. But, the

Respondent never victimized anybody for their union

activities.

(xiii) The Petitioner has pleaded in the claim

statement that he suffered from occupational disease

therefore, he could not attend his work regularly but,

he was compelled to take treatments at ESI Hospital.

The Petitioner has not produced any documents

before the enquiry proceedings wherein the diseases

that are complained of by the Petitioner in his claim

statement were not reflected in the ESI records.

In the Respondent’s factory there are more than

270 workers are employed in Personal Wash Plant

and 235 workers are employed in Home Care Plant.

No such complaints in the past or accusation of any

occupational diseases or health related issues being

raised by any of the workers of the Respondent.

(xiv) The Respondent has a state of art factory

with latest and most modern machineries. It does not

uses any hazardous or life threatening chemicals in

its factory and none of its raw materials are classified

as hazardous. In any event there is absolutely no

possibilities of industrial pollutants getting mixed in

air as Respondent adopts strict and stringent

pollution control norms. The factory is strictly

monitored by Inspector of Factories and the Pollution

Control authorities and never has there been even

an accusation of occupational disease being reported

in Respondent’s factory. The Petitioner is trying to

play the card of occupational disease and health

hazards only to justify his unauthorized absence for

long duration and distract the core issue of his

unauthorized absence. Therefore, it is clear that the

Petitioner is trying to make out some case before this

Hon’ble Court to plead mercy as an afterthought.

(xv) The Respondent is a leading FMCG company

and is a brand leader in many of the products

manufactured by it. It has a very high demand for

its products in the market and there is cut-throat

competition that exists in its business. Hence,

production in large volumes, supply of materials in

time and maintaining exceptionally high quality of its

products are essential for its sustenance in the

business. It therefore, cannot afford any slackness

in attendance by workers. One of the biggest challenges

287

9 April 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

of the Respondent in its factory is habitual absenteeism,

whether authorized or unauthorized. Unauthorized

absenteeism sends its production plans and strategies

topsy-turvy, crippling its production activities and

disturbing its work schedules and man power

allotments. The high percentage of unauthorized

absenteeism in Respondent’s factory clearly indicates

that its workers were taking their employment

casually and the leniency shown by Respondent in

the past in not taking stringent disciplinary action

was also an encouraging factor. Apart from financial

loss, it was also leading to frustration amongst the

regular employees as the absenteeism was causing

additional burden of work on those employees. In

such circumstances, strong disciplinary action was

warranted and Since, the misconduct of Petitioner

showed no inclination to improve his conduct inspite

of previous warnings, the Respondent was forced to

impose maximum punishment of dismissal. Hence,

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The points for consideration are:

Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate

to the charges framed against the Petitioner?

5. On point:

On the side of Petitioner and respondent no

witnesses were examined but, on consent Exs.P1 to

P18 were marked on the Petitioner side and on the

side of Respondent Exs.R1 to R23 were marked.

6. On the Point :

This Court on perusal of case records finds that

the Petitioner has raised the above dispute stating

that the Petitioner joined in the Respondent company

on 14-01-2008 and was working with utmost

dedication and further the petitioner was awarded

meritorious-cum-letter of appreciation on 14-07-2009

for his attendance of 141.5 days out of 149 working

days and another letter of appreciation of attendance

for 283.5 days out of 302 total working days and

while so the health of the petitioner got deteriorated

as the petitioner suffered drowsiness, weakness,

fatigue, breathing problem and fever due to continuous

work in the soap making unit where the detergent

chemicals got mixed up in the air and thereby the

petitioner had to take leave on some occasions and

in the meanwhile as the respondent company

adopted unfair labour practices the employees of the

Respondent company have started a trade union by

name Hindustan Unilever Workers Union in which the

Petitioner also became the member and worked for

the welfare of the workers and therefore, the

Respondent company to victimize the Petitioner has

framed charges against the Petitioner for unauthorised

absence for about 285 days for the period from

01-01-2012 to 30-04-2013 and conducted a biased

domestic enquiry and punished the petitioner on

03-04-2014 by suspending the petitioner for 25 days

without wages.

7. The petitioner has further stated that to quell the

petitioner’s trade union welfare activities the Respondent

company has issued another charge sheet on 02-08-2014

with allegations of unauthorised absence for about

148 days for the period from 01-05-2013 to 31-01-2014

and conducted domestic enquiry without giving

reasonable opportunities and dismissed the Petitioner

from service and therefore, the dismissal order has to

be set aside and direct the Respondent company to

reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages,

promotions and all other benefits.

8. Whereas, the contention of the Respondent is that

the petitioner was confirmed as a daily rated workman

and in the letter of confirmation it was stated that If,

the petitioner remained absent without any intimation

and permission for a continuous period of 15 working

days or more than it, then it shall be deemed that the

petitioner has tendered resignation and the employment

would stand terminated. The further contention of the

respondent is that the petitioner had been always a

chronic absentee and remained unauthorisedly absent

without any intimation or information and therefore, the

respondent has issued a detailed charge sheet and

conducted domestic enquiry for the unauthorized

absence in a fair manner by adhering the essential

principles of natural justice and thereafter the Petitioner

was removed from service for his chronic and habitual

absenteeism.

9. The records further reveals that during the

pendency of industrial dispute, the issue of fairness of

domestic enquiry was taken up as preliminary issue and

this Court after hearing the arguments on both sides

has held that the principles of natural justice was

properly adhered and therefore, the domestic enquiry

held was a fair and valid one. Therefore, as the issue

of fairness of domestic enquiry was decided and further

having held that the domestic enquiry was fair and

proper manner it becomes incumbent to determine

whether the punishment of dismissal from service

imposed upon the Petitioner is proportionate to the

charge leveled against the Petitioner.

10. In this case the respondent is found to have

imposed punishment of dismissal from service for the

reason that the Petitioner was a chronic and habitual

absentee and further the punishment of dismissal was

awarded by taking into the previous unauthorised

288

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 April 2024

absenteeism of the Petitioner. The learned counsel for

Respondent relied upon the following citations to

substantiate his contention that past conduct can be

taken into account while imposing the punishments.

CDJ 2009 SC 1194 : In view of the above, it is

evident that it is desirable that delinquent employee

may be informed by the disciplinary authority that

his past conduct would be taken into consideration

while imposing the punishment. But, incase of

misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in

absence of statutory rules, the authority may take

into consideration the indisputable past conduct/

service record of the employee for adding the weight

to the decision of imposing the punishment If, the

facts of the case so require.

11. The sole contention of the Petitioner is that his

health got deteriorated due to continuous working in

the soap making unit where the detergent chemicals got

mixed up in air but, whereas, the specific contention of

the Respondent is that in the documents produced

before enquiry proceedings the diseases complained by

the Petitioner does not find place in the ESI records and

further the Petitioner has raised the plea of occupational

disease and health hazards only to justify his

unauthorised absence for a long duration and distract

the core issue of his unauthorised absence. Thus, the

vehement contention of the Respondent is that the

petitioner willfully remained himself to be a chronic and

habitual absentee and the same amounts to willful

misconduct. On perusal of Ex.P15 Enquiry Report it is

stated the petitioner without prior permission and

information has remained as unauthorised absentee and

thereby the petitioner has committed the charges

mentioned in charge sheet, dated 02-05-2014.

12. That apart the respondent in the counter

statement has furnished the previous unauthorised

absence of the Petitioner and the same has not been

disputed by the Petitioner but, his only contention is

that he was constrained to take leave due to his health

condition and the said reason stands to be unproved.

This Court finds that in the above citation relied by the

Respondent it is held that the indisputable past conduct

of the employee can be taken into consideration for

imposing punishment. As in Ex.P15 enquiry report it is

held that the absence of the Petitioner was willful and

the same amounting to willful misconduct, this Court

on considering the Ex.P15 enquiry report and also the

past conduct of the Petitioner that the petitioner was

unauthorisedly absent for a quiet long period intermittently,

holds that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion of

duty and the petitioner is guilty of chronic absenteeism

and therefore, in such context the dismissal of Petitioner

is found to be justified since, there would be no any

justifiable reason to maintain a person who has no

inclination to work at all inspite of numerous warnings

being given to the Petitioner in the earlier occasions.

Therefore, this Court finds that the punishment imposed

upon the Petitioner is proportionate to the charges

leveled against the Petitioner and there is no necessity

to interfere in the action taken by the respondent based

upon the enquiry report and hence, the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioner is not justified and the

same deserves to be dismissed.

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 is

not justified and thereby 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 her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 20th day of December, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness : Nil

List of petitioner's side exhibits marked on consent :

Ex.P1 — 11-01-2008 Offer of Traineeship

Ex.P2 — 14-01-2008 O f f e r o f T r a i n e e s h i p

(2 sheets).

Ex.P3 — 14-07-2009 Letter

from

Respondent

company.

Ex.P4 — 24-01-2009 Offer of employment on

probation (4 sheets).

Ex.P5 — 14-07-2009 O f f e r o f c o n f i r m a t i o n

(5 Sheets).

Ex.P6 — 14-07-2009 Respondent company’s letter

of appreciation for good

attendance.

Ex.P7 — 18-01-2010 Respondent company's letter

of appreciation for good

attendance.

Ex.P8 — 15-03-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate for leave.

Ex.P9 — 01-05-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate for leave.

Ex.P10 — 18-05-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate for leave.

Ex.P11 — 05-06-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate for leave.

289

9 April 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P12 — 03-07-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate for leave.

Ex.P13 — 24-07-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate for leave.

Ex.P14 — 14-05-2013 Charge sheet (2 Sheets) with

cover.

Ex.P15 — 06-08-2014 Photocopy of the domestic

enquiry report (3 Sheets).

Ex.P16 — 10-09-2014 Dismissal Order (4 Sheets).

Ex.P17 — 14-11-2014 True copy of the covering

letter of the Petitioner for

return the cheque to the

Respondent and copy of the

cheque.

Ex.P18 — 14-11-2014 True copy of the petition to

Labour Department (2 Sheets).

List of respondent’s witness : NIL

List of respondent’s side exhibits marked on consent:

Ex.R1 — 02-05-2014 Photocopy of the charge

sheet issued to the Petitioner

and its tamil translation.

Ex.R2 — 06-05-2014 Photocopy of the reply given

by the Petitioner to the

Respondent.

Ex.R3 — 02-05-2014 Photocopy of the notice of

enquiry

issued

the

Respondent’s Management

to Petitioner.

Ex.R4 —

—

P h o t o c o p y

o f

t h e

entire

domestic

enquiry

proceedings.

Ex.R5 — 27-08-2014 Photocopy of the second

show cause notice along with

enquiry

report,

dated

06-08-2014 sent by the

Respondent to the Petitioner.

Ex.R6 — 10-09-2014 Photocopy of the dismissal

letter of the Petitioner issued

by the Respondent to the

Petitioner.

Ex.R7 — 05-03-2015 Photocopy of the order

passed

the

approval

petition in I.A. No. 99/2014 in

I.D. (T) 10/2012.

Ex.R8 — 02-05-2014 Photocopy of the charge

sheet issued to the Petitioner

and its postal slip.

Ex.R9 — 12-05-2014 Photocopy of the notice of

enquiry

issued

the

Respondent’s Management

to the Petitioner.

Ex.R10 —

—

Photocopy of the muster

report from the period of 1st

May to 31st May.

Ex.R11 — 03-04-2014 Photocopy

the

punishment order issued by

the

Respondent

the

Petitioner and its AD Card.

Ex.R12 — 06-05-2014 Photocopy of the reply given

by the Petitioner to the

charge

sheet,

dated

02-05-2014.

Ex.R13 — 15-03-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate of the Petitioner.

Ex.R14 — 15-05-2013 Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate of the Petitioner.

Ex.R15 — 01-05-2013 Photocopy of the Leave

Certificate.

Ex.R16 —

—

Photocopy of the Medical

Certificate of the Petitioner.

Ex.R17 —

—

Photocopy of the Leave

Certificate.

Ex.R18 —

—

Photocopy of the muster roll

of the petitioner.

Ex.R19 — 14-05-2013 Photocopy of the charge

sheet issued to the Petitioner,

its tamil translation and its

AD Card.

Ex.R20 —

—

Photocopy of the reply letter

given by the Petitioner to the

charge

sheet,

dated

14-05-2013.

Ex.R21 — 09-07-2013 Photocopy of the notice of

enquiry

issued

the

Respondent’s Management

to the Petitioner and its AD

Card.

Ex.R22 —

—

Photocopy of the entire

domestic enquiry proceedings.

Ex.R23 —

—

Photocopy of the enquiry

report, dated 24-03-2014 sent

by the Respondent to the

Petitioner.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.