[343]
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
344
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 344
Award of the Labour Court .. 344
de Tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
353
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 353
Government Notifications
.. 353
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
356
Etablissements dangereux
.. 356
Dangerous Establishments
..
356
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
358
Annonces
.. 358
Announcements
..
358
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 }
º\ |
14 {
No.
20
Poudouchéry
Mardi
14
Mai
2024 (24 Vaisakha 1946)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
14th
May
2024
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
344
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 May 2024
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 48/AIL/Lab./S/2024,
Puducherry, dated 23rd April 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 06/2017,
dated 28-02-2024 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in
respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Sri Manakula Vinayagar
Educational Trust, Madagadipet, Puducherry and its
workman Thiru P. Anandhan, over reinstatement and
compensation 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 28th day of February, 2024
I.D. (L) No. 06/2017
CNR. No. PYPY06-000100-2017
Thiru Anandhan,
S/o. Perumal,
No. 24, Eswaran Koil Backside,
M.G.R. Nagar, Valavanur and Post,
Villupuram District.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Educational Trust,
No. 23, Mariamman Koil Street,
Madagadipet, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 27-02-2024
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru D. Ravichandiran, Counsel for the Petitioner,
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, S. Ulaganathan, T. Pravin,
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 Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.
No. 22/AIL/LAB/T/2017, dated 24-02-2017 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following
dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents,
viz.
(a) Whether the industrial dispute raised by
Petitioner Thiru P. Anandhan, Puducherry, against
the Management of M/s. Sri Manakula Vinayagar
Educational Trust, Madagadipet, Puducherry, over
reinstatement and compensation and to issue Service
Certificate is justifiable 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 set forth in the claim petition is
as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant
on 14-02-2005 vide appointment order, dated 04-02-
2005 in the Respondent management. Initially he has
been entrusted with charge in the Pharmacy section
and rendered his service in an unblemished
manner and up to the expectation/satisfaction of the
employer. By appreciating his service, Respondent
also issued a Service Certificate, dated 07-03-2008.
Subsequently
he
has
been
transferred
to
Venkateswara College of Education and Venkateswara
Teacher Training Institute on 17-09-2008. At the time
of his initial appointment his salary was fixed at
` 2,500 per month as a consolidated pay. His
responsibility was fixed relating to clerical work in
the Hospital and Medical College and the works
allotted to time to time. He never discharged any
work in the supervisory cadre. After completion of
the period of one year he was not disturbed at any
stage and discharged his work in a regular manner
till 25-08-2011 the date on which he was relieved from
his duty in a abrupt manner without any notice of
termination.
(ii) The Petitioner has to be construed as a regular
worker and his nature of work has not been altered
and it deems to be that he had a continuous duty
from the date of appointment until he was relieved.
Till the date of his relieving order there is no whisper
from the management about his unsatisfactory work
345
14 May 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
if, any but, all of a sudden he has been relieved from
his duty without any reason. Even after he was
relieved from his duty the Chairman and Managing
Director of the Respondent Trust issued a Service
Certificate, dated 14-06-2014 by appreciating his
unblemished service. Sudden/surprise relieving order
of the Petitioner by the management/respondent is
arbitrary and against the natural justice.
(iii) The Petitioner made several attempts and
approached Vice-Chairman, Managing Director,
Administrative Officer several times for his
employment but, all of is efforts ended in vain. From
26-08-2011 to July 2014, this Petitioner approached
all the authorities concerned in the Respondent
Management for his employment but, they one way
or other misguided the Petitioner, hence, this
Petitioner issued an Advocate Notice, dated
12-07-2014 informing the Management that he will
raise industrial dispute against the management.
(iv) Even after this the Management has not come
forward to offer employment to the Petitioner. This
Petitioner also approached Legal Services Authority,
Villupuram and on the direction given by the Legal
Services Authority, Villupuram, he appeared before
the Legal Services Authority, Puducherry and in the
proceedings before the Legal Services Authority from
27-01-2015, the Respondent Management initially
come forward to offer employment to this Petitioner
and subsequently vide their letter, dated 08-04-2015
negated the request of the Petitioner and raise
several allegations against this Petitioner in a
surprise manner for the 1st time before the said
authority. The Legal Services Authority, Puducherry,
also advised the Respondent management to
consider the grievance of the petitioner but, the
Respondent Management failed to Act as per their
advice. Hence, they advised this Petitioner to
approach the proper form for appropriate relief. Even
after this, the Petitioner submitted a representation,
dated 12-10-2015 to the respondents, requesting
them to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and
requested them to offer employment to him. They
received the said representation on 13-10-2015 but,
have not considered the said representation till this
date and also not come forward to issue any reply.
Hence, this Petitioner submitted a representation,
dated 16-03-2016 before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry, for reinstatement into
service and compensation with Service Certificate in
the said proceedings this respondent appeared and
raised/leveled several charges in a surprise manner
for the purpose to defeat the claim of the petitioner
in an unlawful manner. All the charges leveled against
the Petitioner are not sustainable and only created
to defend/defeat the claim of the Petitioner. The
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, also taken
effective steps to settle the matter in an amicable
manner, but, due to adamant attitude of the
Respondent, matter ended in failure and hence, he
referred the dispute for adjudication.
3. The averments set forth in the counter statement
filed by the respondent is as as follows:
The reference per se is bad and is liable to be
rejected on certain basic and preliminary legal
infirmities. Very description of the Respondent as
present industrial dispute against the Respondent as
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Educational Trust Private
Limited is wrong. The Respondent is a registered
Educations trust and is not a private limited entity.
Hence, the very reference with mis-description of
Respondent is wrong.
(ii) The Petitioner has no locus standi to raise the
industrial dispute against the Respondent as even
according to Petitioner he was last employed at
Venkateswara College of Education, Kalitheerthalkuppam,
Puducherry. The Petitioner was appointed by the
Managing Director of Sri Manakula Vinayagar
Medical College and Hospital on 14-02-2005. He was
transferred to Venkateswara College of Education by
Managing Director of Sri Manakula Vinayagar
Medical College and Hospital on 17-09-2008.
Petitioner was relieved from services by Managing
Director of Venkateswara College of Education.
Though both the institutions where Petitioner was
appointed and relieved are running under the aegis
of Respondent, they are two separate, independent,
self financing institutions both of those institutions
are separately registered legal entity with
independent administrative setup and without any
functional integrality. Even, the Respondent trust
does not interfere into the day to day administration
of the two institutions. The Respondent Trust or its
Trustees or administrators does not play any role in
either appointment or dismissal of any of the
employees of the said institutions in their capacity
as Trustees or Administrators of Trust. Therefore, the
Petitioner cannot raise any industrial dispute against
the Respondent Trust as there is privy between the
Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner ought
to have raised the dispute against Venkateswara
College of Education. At the least, the petitioner
ought to have made the said institution a party to
the industrial dispute, which has not been done by
him. Hence, no relief as claimed by the Petitioner can
be granted by this Court against the Respondent
Trust.
346
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 May 2024
(iii) The Petitioner was never terminated from the
services of Venkateswara College of Education,
Puducherry, for him to claim wrongful termination,
reinstatement or compensation. He was only relieved
from his services by the said institution and at his
own request, which was done by him to avoid legal
actions that were contemplated by Respondent
against him for multiple misconducts and criminal
actions during his tenure of employment at
Venkateswara College of Education and Sri Manakula
Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital. The
Petitioner had voluntarily put down his services but,
without any written letter of registration, which is
being taken undue advantage of by him at this stage.
(iv) After voluntarily quitting the employment of
Respondent and obtaining a clean relieving order
with no adverse remarks, Petitioner got multiple
employments with various other educational and
business entities. Petitioner joined as clerk in
Sri Venkateswara Medical College Hospital and
Research Center, Ariyur and worked there for few
months. Even, there the Petitioner left the services
on his own without submitting resignation letter and
then join Devi Oil Industry, Thirubuvanai. He worked
there for close one year or so and thereafter, once
again left the said company without submitting
resignation and joined VSB Paper Products,
P.S. Palayam, Puducherry and worked as Accounts
Assistant from September, 2014 to June, 2015. The
Petitioner is now employed in Anbu Paulson's Anbu
Cement, Anbu Nagar, Sethurapet Industrial Estate,
Thuthipet, Puducherry, with effect from 17-02-2016 to
till date on monthly salary of ` 10,000 as ascertained
from the firm. The Petitioner has secured all these
employment only by showing the clean and
unblemished relieving order by Venkateswara College
of Education, Puducherry. Thus, the Petitioner had
actually voluntarily left the services of Venkateswara
College of Education, Puducherry, to avoid and
escape disciplinary and criminal actions by the said
institution and after remaining quite for more than
2½ years, had started making claims of illegal
termination with intentions of extracting and
extorting money from the Respondent Trust. Since,
the Petitioner was never terminated from services
there is no question of his reinstatement. Hence,
there is absolutely no industrial dispute to adjudicate
by this Court.
(v) The Petitioner was appointed on 14-02-2005 as
Junior Assistant by Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical
College and Hospital and he was posted in Pharmacy
Section in the said Hospital. During Petitioner’s
tenure as Junior Assistant in the Free Pharmacy
Section, his job was to generate computerized bill for
the medicines prescribed. He was always reported to
be impertinent and arrogant and frowned on the
patients crowding the counter in the free pharmacy.
(vi) Several patients and pharmacists had lodged
complaint against petitioner for his rough behavior.
The Petitioner’s employer and his immediate superiors
had orally warned him several times also issued a
Memorandum once to that effect Memorandum No.
SMVMCH/A3/Esst./Junior Assistant/2008-2009,
dated 16-05-2008. But, the Petitioner did not change
his attitude and therefore, Petitioner’s employer
thought it appropriate to place Petitioner at a place
where he will have to have lesser interaction with
people. Thus, he was transferred from Free Pharmacy and
posted to Venkateswara College of Education,
Kalitheerthalkuppam, Puducherry on 17-09-2008 in
the same capacity.
(vii) While, the Petitioner was working in the
Venkateswara College of Education his behavior
became even worse. Petitioner had always exhibited
short temperateness and would fight with even
co-worker and his superiors for trivial issues and will
disobey the orders of his Principal. He has performed
work according to his whims and fancy would never
listen to the instructions of his superior. He poked
his nose into affairs of faculty members and students
which he is not supposed to do in his official capacity
as a clerical staff. Numerous counselling and
instructions were given to Petitioner by his immediate
seniors and even the Principal of the institution but,
he did not correct himself.
(viii) On 26-02-2009 Petitioner prepared printing
charges bill of Respondent's College duly enclosing
the duplicate bills of the printing press. When that
claim was rejected, he got certification from the
Principal stating that the original bills were
irrecoverably lost. On the basis of the certification
about the loss of original printing bills, the claim
supported by the duplicate bills was passed and
payment made to the printing press. However, after
a month or so, it was notice from the office records
that the original bills, were claimed in recoupment of
permanent imprest of the B.Ed., College and payment
received by the Principal of Venkateswara College of
Education through petitioner. Knowing fully well
about the recoupment of Permanent Imprest before
hand, the claim was preferred twice once through
payment vouchers enclosing original bills in
recoupment of imprest and another one through the
printing press claim in a contingent bill endorsing
payment to the printers. It was thus a clear case of
making illegal enrichment by forgery and fudging
records.
347
14 May 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(ix) On another occasion, Petitioner instigated a
student Sundari to lodge a false police complaint
against Principal of Venkateswara College of
Education, Puducherry, Mrs. Nalini P. Rajagovindan
who us purported to scold the student in an abusive
language and made her wait for getting her original
Certificates from the college office. It was noticed
from the FIR of Mrs. Sundari, B.Ed., student that it
was the Petitioner who was instrumental in brain
washing the girl to lodge complaint against the
Principal and he even stood as witness to the false
accusation of the student complaint against the
principal lodged in Thirubuvanai Police Station. The
Police complaint lodged by Mrs. Sundari gave untold
sufferings to the Principal of the Respondent’s
institution. However, it was proved that the complaint
was a fabricated one at the instigation of the
Petitioner. After this incident since the Petitioner has
gone overboard with his misconducts and had gone
to the extent of causing serious prejudice to his own
employer, the administration of Venkateswara College
of Education, Puducherry issued Memorandum
No. VCE/A3/Esst./Junior Assistant/Disciplinary
Action/2011-2012, dated 10-08-2011 specifying in
detail various misconducts committed by petitioner
and calling upon him to submit his explanation to
such specific charges. It was at this juncture that
Petitioner profusely apologized for all his misdeeds
(though initially he was extremely violent and
misbehaving with the Principal) and offered to quit
his job instead of facing the charges leveled against
the
Petitioner
and
undergoing
disciplinary
proceedings. He requested his management to relieve
him with dignity to enable him have dignified
employment with some other concern. The employer
of Petitioner, after due deliberation and considering
the fact Petitioner was married man with minor
children took sympathy on him and agreed to relieve
him on his request and discharge him from services
based on his oral resignation of job. Only in this
background, Petitioner was relieved of his duties
from Venkateswara College of Education on 25-08-
2011, which facilitated the Petitioner to secure decent
employment with other employers.
(x) Sometimes in June 2014, he requested the
Respondent to issue Service Certificate for some
undisclosed purpose. Respondent genuinely wanted
to help Petitioner and since the Petitioner was
relieved from services on his own accord, a Service
Certificate was given to him on 14-06-2014. As the
Respondent did not carry any grudge or ill-will
against Petitioner, it issued a good character
certificate to Petitioner. The fact that Petitioner was
given Service Certificate by itself is a proof of the
fact that Petitioner was not terminated from service
but, he was relieved on his request. This doesn't
mean that he had performed unblemished service
during his tenure in the Medical College and B.Ed.,
College and the respondent do not want to spoil
Petitioner's future carrier by means of issued
unsatisfactory Service Certificate to him. On
humanitarian consideration only Petitioner was
relieved of his duties and that too on his request.
(xi) The Petitioner, has issued a legal notice on
12-07-2014, i.e., immediately after getting his Service-
cum-Conduct Certificate, dated 14-06-2014 from the
Respondent
management
seeking
either
reemployment or on payment of compensation of
` 25,00,000 by trying to take advantage of
Management's sympathy and in order to extricate
money. The very language and tenor of the notice
suggest that Petitioner had worked on a well
calculated plan. He had avoided any kind of action
against him by his employer by requesting him to be
relieved from services. Thereafter, he obtained decent
employment with other employers and after waiting
for close to 3 years approached the Respondent and
induced it to issue certificate to him. Immediately
thereafter, he issued legal notice demanding huge
compensation. Petitioner did not stop with that he
gave a false representation to the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Hon'ble
Lieutenant-Governor of Puducherry and Legal Aid
Commission vide Petition No. 2014/797361/CP, dated
16-08-2014.
(xii) On the basis of petition, dated 16-08-2014
direction was given by the CM Cell to Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, the Inspector
of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Valavanur, Tamil
Nadu, to enquire into the complaint. The employer
of Petitioner were summoned and numerous occasion
by the police officials, subjecting them to untold
sufferings. However, Police enquiry revealed the truth
where the Petitioner have a statement on 07-09-2014
that he and his family members are quite safe and
they have not received any threat from his employer.
Hence, all further actions were dropped by the Police.
This was an unwarranted action on the part of the
petitioner which caused unnecessary probe by the
Police Department of Government of Tamil Nadu
and spoil the reputation of the Educational and
Medical institutions of Respondent among the
public. This fabricated incident clearly revealed
petitioner’s criminal mind. The petitioner relentlessly
approached Puducherry State Legal Aid Commission
to intervene in his matter for getting compensation
applied and submitted Petition No. 117/2014, dated
12-07-2014.
348
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 May 2024
(xiii) The Petitioner was relieved on 25-08-2011 on
his request. If, the Petitioner had not requested his
employer to relieve him from services, a full fledged
Domestic Enquiry would have been conducted by his
employer and the charges against him would have
been proved. Having prevented the employer from
conducting the enquiry, Petitioner cannot take
advantage of his own conducts and claim that no
enquiry was conducted. In any event, the employer
of Respondent is still entitled to prove all the charges
of misconduct against the petitioner before this
Court and the Petitioner cannot claim reinstatement
only because no enquiry was conducted against him.
The respondent therefore, reserves its right to let in
oral evidence before this Court to prove the charges
of grave misconducts committed by Petitioner as per
the charge sheet, dated 10-08-2011. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Point for determination:
1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner as against the respondent trust is
maintainable or not maintainable?
2. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner as
against the respondent trust over his non
employment is justified?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs
as claimed in the claim petition?
5. On Points 1 to 3:
The petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and
Exs.P1 to P12 were marked and through cross
examination Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. On the
Respondent side Mr. Datchinamurthy, the Registrar
of Respondent management was examined as RW.1
and through him Exs.R4 to R17 were marked.
Mr. Rajasekaran was examined as RW.2 and
Mr. R. Prabu was examined as RW.3 and Exs.R18 and
R19 marked through him.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that he was
appointed as a junior Assistant in the respondent
management on 14-2-2005 and thereafter, he was
rendering his service without any unblemished records
and on 07-03-2008 the respondent had issued service
certificate appreciating the character and conduct of the
petitioner and subsequently on 17-09-2008 the
respondent
has
transferred
the
petitioner
to
Venkateswara College of Education and Venkateswara
Teacher Training Institute and thereafter, on wards the
petitioner was discharging his work as a regular worker
and at any point of time the Petitioner had worked in
supervisory capacity and while so the petitioner was
relieved from his duty on 25-08-2011 all of a sudden
without any notice of termination and further, even after
the petitioner was relieved from the service the
respondent educational trust has service certificate on
14-06-2014. The further contention of the petitioner is
that thereafter, the petitioner from 26-08-2011 to July,
2014 had been approaching the respondent authorities
but, all the attempts of the petitioner had ended in vain
and therefore, the petitioner has issued legal notice,
dated 12-07-2014 but, there was no any response and
later the petitioner had approached legal services
authority and for the first time the respondent had
raised several allegations against the petitioner and
thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Labour
officer conciliation for reinstatement to service and for
compensation but, the said efforts also ended in failure.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that the industrial dispute raised as against the
respondent is unsustainable for the reason that the
Petitioner was employed at Venkateswara College of
Education and though the Petitioner was appointed by
the Managing Director of respondent trust on
14-02-2005 but, was transferred to Venkatesawara
College of Education by the same Managing Director
of respondent trust but, both institutions are separately
registered legal entity with independent administration
and therefore, the industrial dispute raised as against
the respondent trust is not maintainable. The other
contention of the respondent is that the petitioner was
not terminated from service but, was relieved from the
institution on his own request but, without obtaining
any written letter of resignation from the petitioner and
therefore, the Petitioner is trying to take advantage of
the same and further, after quitting from the respondent
management the Petitioner got employment in various
educational and business entities by showing the
Service Certificate issued by the respondent
management and had worked for few months and left
the job on his own accord without submitting any
resignation and the petitioner is presently working at
paulson's Anbu cement from 17-02-2016 and earning
monthly salary of ` 10,000 per month. The further,
contention of the petitioner is that during the tenure of
the petitioner as Junior Assistant in Sri Manakula
Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital the petitioner
was working in the Free Pharmacy Section and it was
reported by several patients and pharmacists that the
petitioner was impertinent, arrogant and frowned on the
patients crowding in the counter pharmacy and was not
cordial with petitioner’s employer and his immediate
349
14 May 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
superiors and therefore, a memorandum, dated
16-05-2008 was issued to the petitioner but, then also
the Petitioner did not change his attitude and therefore,
the Petitioner was transferred to a place where the
interaction with people was less and thereby was
transferred to Venkestwara College of Education on
17-09-2008 but, again the Petitioner did not mend his
attitude and picked up quarrel with co-worker and his
superior and disobeyed the orders of the Principal and
similarly on 26-02-2009 the petitioner had prepared
printing charges bill by enclosing duplicate bills of
printing press and when the same was rejected the
petitioner managed to obtain a certificate from principal
stating that original bills were lost and thereafter, the
printing charges bills were passed but, later it was
noticed that the petitioner has recouped permanent
imprest of the college with original bills and thereby the
petitioner has attempted to make illegal enrichment by
forgery and fudging records. The yet another
contention of the respondent is that the petitioner
instigated a student by name Sundari to lodge a false
complaint against the Principal of Venkateswara College
of Education and even stood as a witness for the false
accusation and therefore, for the misconduct of the
petitioner a memorandum, dated 10-08-2011 was issued
but, later at the request of petitioner the management
had elieved the petitioner, considering the welfare of the
petitioner and his family members and subsequently out
of sympathy and to help the petitioner, the respondent
management had issued Service Certificate, dated
14-06-2014 to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner
also continued to work in various educational and
business establishments and subsequently suppressing
all these facts has raised this industrial dispute.
8. This Court finds that the employment of petitioner
in Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital
on 04-02-2005 and transfer of petitioner to Venkateswara
College of Education and Venkateswara Teacher Training
Institute on 17-09-2008 stands undisputed by both
parties. In this case, the first objection of the respondent
is that the very description of the respondent as private
limited entity is incorrect one and the exact name of the
respondent trust is Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational
Trust and therefore, the same has to be corrected by
the petitioner. This Court on perusal of case records
finds that as per order passed in I.A. 57/2018, dated
10-05-2018, the petitioner herein had been permitted to
amend the name of the respondent trust as Sri Manakula
Vinayaga Educational Trust and subsequently, the
petitioner also has carried out necessary amendments
thereon and further, the records reveals that the
respondent herein has not challenged the Order in I.A.
No. 57/2018, dated 10-05-2018 before the Hon'ble Apex
Court and hence, in the said context the above
objection raised by the respondent does not hold any
water.
9. The next objection of the respondent is that the
petitioner was initially appointed at Sri Manakula
Vinayakar Medical College and Hospital on 14-02-2005
but, later has been transferred to Venkateswara College
of Education and though the Managing Director for the
abovesaid two Institutions are one and the same but,
the said Institutions were registered as separate legal
entities with independent administration and therefore,
the petitioner ought to have raised dispute as against
Venkateswara College of Education and hence, the relief
claimed by the petitioner as against the respondent
Trust cannot be granted. This Court on perusal of Ex.P1
finds that it is an order of appointment issued by
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Educational Trust for having
the petitioner appointed as Junior Assistant for
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital
and likewise on perusal of Ex.P3 transfer Order, dated
17-09-2008, it is found that the same has been issued
by Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and
Hospital stating that the petitioner is transferred to
Venkateswara College of Education and Venkateswara
Teacher Training Institute in the same capacity as given
at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and
Hospital. Further, the Exs.P1, P3 and P4 that is the
appointment order, transfer order and relieving order is
found to have been signed by one and same person in
the capacity as Chairman of Sri Manakula Vinayaga
Educational Trust and as Managing Director of
Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and Hospital
and Venkateswara College of Education.
10. Thus, on perusal of Exs.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, it is
found that the Managing Director for both Institutions
are one and the same and it is also admitted by the
respondent in the counter. Likewise on perusal of Ex.P5/
service certificate issued to the petitioner it is found
that the same has been issued by Chairman and
Managing Director of Sri Manakula Vinayaka
Educational Trust stating that the conduct and the
character of the petitioner during the tenure of his
service at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and
Hospital and Venkateswara College of Education was
good. Thus, it is found that the service certificate
stating the conduct of the petitioner during his tenure
in both institutions that is for Sri Manakula Vinayakar
Medical College and Hospital and Venkateswara College
of Education has been issued by a common service
certificate by the respondent Trust herein. Further more,
the R.W.1 during his cross-examination has admitted
that Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and
350
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 May 2024
Hospital and Venkateswara College of Education were
administered by Sri Manakula Vinayaka Educational
Trust. Had it been true that the two institutions are two
separate legal entities with independent administration,
then the respondent has failed to explain as to why the
respondent educational trust has issued Ex.P5, a common
service certificate to the petitioner for the services
rendered at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and
Hospital and Venkateswara College of Education.
Hence, in the said context this Court is unable to accept
the contention of the respondent that the petitioner
cannot seek any relief as against the respondent
educational trust but, has to seek only as against
Venkateswara College of Education. Therefore, this
Court holds that the contention of respondent that the
industrial dispute ought to have been raised as against
Venkateswara College of Education and not as against
Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust is found to
be untenable one.
11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the
contention of the petitioner that he had been working
from 14-02-2005 at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical
College and Hospital as Junior Assistant and thereafter,
has been transferred to Venkateswara College of
Education on 17-09-2008 and subsequently, he was
relieved on 25-08-2011 without conducting any domestic
enquiry or issuance of any notice of termination and
further, it is the contention of the petitioner that his
salary at the time of appointment was a fixed
consolidated pay of ` 2,500 per month and did not work
in the supervisory capacity in the abovesaid institutions.
This Court finds that though the respondent in the
counter has denied the abovesaid facts it is found that
the respondent has not produced any proof to show
the actual salary of the petitioner or to show that the
petitioner was employed for supervisory work. Hence,
in the said context this Court finds that the contention
of the petitioner that his initial salary was a fixed
consolidated pay of ` 2,500 and was a regular worker
and did not work in the supervisory capacity is
acceptable one and thereby the industrial dispute as
raised by the petitioner is held to be sustainable one.
12. In this case, it is admitted by both parties that
that the petitioner was employed at Sri Manakula
Vinayagar Medical college and hospital on 04-02-2005
and later was transferred to Venkateswara College of
Education and Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute
on 17-09-2008 and subsequently was relieved from the
service on 25-08-2011 as per Ex.P4. Further, it is the
specific case of the petitioner that before issuing
relieving order the respondent has neither conducted
any enquiry nor issued any notice of termination. The
respondent also admits that before issuance of Ex.P4
relieving order the respondent has neither conducted
any enquiry nor issued any notice of termination to the
petitioner and the reason for the same as stated by the
respondent is that the petitioner has committed various
misconducts more particularly when the petitioner was
working as Junior Assistant in Sri Manakula Vinayagar
Medical College and Hospital, the petitioner was at Free
Pharmacy section and at that time it was reported by
several patients and pharmacists that the petitioner was
impertinent, arrogant and frowned on the patients
crowding in the counter pharmacy and was not cordial
with petitioner's employer and his immediate superiors
and therefore, a Memorandum, dated 16-05-2008 was
issued to the petitioner but then also the petitioner did
not change his attitude and therefore, the petitioner was
transferred to a place where the interaction with people
was less and thereby, was transferred to Venkestwara
College of Education on 17-09-2008 but, again the
petitioner did not mend his attitude and picked up
quarrel with coworker and his superior and disobeyed
the orders of the Principal and similarly on 26-02-2009
the petitioner had prepared printing charges bill by
enclosing duplicate bills of printing press and when the
same was rejected the petitioner managed to obtain
a certificate from Principal stating that original bills were
lost and thereafter, the printing charges bills were
passed but, later it was noticed that the petitioner has
recouped permanent imprest of the college with original
bills and thereby, the petitioner has attempted to make
illegal enrichment by forgery and fudging records and
also instigated a student by name Sundari to lodge
a false complaint against the Principal of Venkateswara
College of Education and even stood as a witness for
the false accusation and therefore, a Memorandum,
dated 10-08-2011 was issued to the petitioner to submit
this explanation for the said charges but later, the
petitioner requested that he has to be relieved with
dignity and therefore, on considering the request of the
petitioner and his welfare the respondent has relieved
the petitioner from his service and therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement
with back wages and with compensation.
13. The respondent to prove that complaints were
given by few patients has produced Exs.R9, R10, R12
through R.W.1 and likewise has produced Ex.R11 and
Ex.R15 to substantiate that Memorandum, dated
16-05-2008 and Memorandum, dated 10-08-2011 was
issued to the petitioner. However, the R.W.1 during his
cross-examination has deposed that the respondent has
not produced any proof for having served Ex.R11 and
R15 to the petitioner. Thus, in this case it is found that
the respondent has miserably failed to prove that
charge memo explaining the charge was issued to the
petitioner and further, the petitioner was given
opportunity to submit his explanation to the charge
memo and thereafter, proper domestic enquiry was
351
14 May 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
conducted following the principles of natural justice.
When, the petitioner had worked in the management of
respondent from 14-02-2005 to 24-08-2011 then in such
case Ex.P5 relieving order issued to the petitioner is
nothing but, a termination simpliciter and the same is
untenable one. This Court finds that even in case if,
the respondent intended to take any action as against
the petitioner for the misconducts alleged by the
respondent, then the same ought to have been done
after following the principles of natural justice. In this
case the contention of the respondent that the
respondent has accepted the request of the petitioner
to be relieved with dignity and thereby neither enquiry
was conducted nor notice of termination was issued is
found to be unbelievable and unacceptable one.
14. Apart from that when the respondent contends
that the petitioner has committed various misconducts
as stated above then, in such case the respondent has
failed to prove the same. Further more, the respondent
is found to have issued service certificates Exs.P2,
dated 07-03.2008 and Ex.P5, dated 14-06-2014 stating
that the conduct and character of the petitioner during
his service at Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College
and Hospital and at Venkateswara College of Education
was good and more particularly Ex.P5 has been issued
after the petitioner was relieved from the respondent
management. Had it been true that the petitioner had
committed various misconducts as stated in the counter
then in such case, the explanation of the respondent
stating the compelling situation for issuance of Ex.P5
service certificate stating that the character and
conduct of the petitioner during his service period at
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital
and at Venkateswara College of Education was good is
found to be totally dubious and unbelievable one. Thus,
this Court holds that from the evidences adduced by
both sides and from the available material records, the
respondent has miserably failed to prove the charges
as alleged against the petitioner and thereby warranting
the petitioner to be relieved from the service. Therefore,
this Court from the above discussions holds the
conduct of the respondent is nothing but an unfair
labour practice and thereby holds that the Ex.P5
relieving order issued by the respondent is an illegal
one and is liable to be set aside and holds that the
petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement.
15. In this case though the petitioner has denied
that he was employed anywhere else after he was
relieved from the respondent management but, it is
found that the petitioner during his cross-examination
has admitted that he had been working at VSB Paper
product from 2011 to 2014 and presently working at
Anbu Cement and thereby, it is found that after the
petitioner had been relieved from the respondent
management, the petitioner was gainfully employed in
the other establishments and thus, in the said context
this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for
any back wages. Hence, from the above discussions
this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for the
relief of reinstatement without any back wages.
16. The respondent in this case has taken a plea that
the respondent has lost confidence upon the petitioner
on account of petitioner being arrayed as a witness in
respect of a complaint given by a student as against
the management and therefore even in case, the
petitioner is directed to be reinstated the same would
cause unnecessary embarrassment since, there is no
possibility to maintain the cordiality in future. This
Court finds that the petitioner during his cross-
examination has admitted that he had been cited as one
of the witness in the said criminal case lodged as against
the respondent management. Therefore, in such context
this Court finds that the contention of the respondent
that the relationship between the petitioner and
respondent has become strained and the respondent
management has lost the confidence upon the petitioner
and there is no any chance to maintain harmony in
between the petitioner and the respondent management
in future is found to be acceptable one. Thus, this Court
holds that the respondent herein has proved a case of
loss of confidence and hence, in the abovesaid
discussions, this Court holds that the reinstatement of
petitioner would cause embarrassment to both parties
and therefore, to maintain industrial peace, this Court
finds that it would be appropriate to direct the
respondent to pay a lump sum amount as compensation
to the petitioner.
17. This Court finds that it is not case of the
petitioner or respondent that the petitioner has got well
placed employment after the petitioner was relieved
from the employment of the respondent. Therefore,
on considering the same and the future prospectus of
the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to
direct the respondent to pay compensation of ` 8,00,000
(Rupees eight lakhs only) to the petitioner in lieu of
reinstatement. Thus, the dispute raised by the petitioner
is justified and the points are answered accordingly.
In the result, this petition is partly allowed with
modification by directing the respondent to pay
compensation of ` 8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakhs only)
to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement within a period
of two months from today failing which the petitioner
is entitled for the said amount with interest at the rate
of 9% p.a. from the date of award to till the date of
realisation. There is no order as to costs.
352
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 May 2024
Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 28th day of February, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness :
PW1
— 30-09-2019 Anandhan
List of petitioner's exhibits :
Ex.P1 — 04-02-2005 Photocopy
of
the
Appointment Order of the
Petitioner issued by the
Respondent.
Ex.P2 — 07-03-2008 Photocopy of the Service
Certificate issued by the
Respondent.
Ex.P3 — 17-09-2008 Photocopy of the Transfer
Order issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P4 — 25-08-2011 Photocopy of the Relieving
Order issued to the Petitioner.
Ex.P5 — 14-06-2014 Photocopy of the Service
Certificate issued by the
Respondent.
Ex.P6 — 12-07-2014 Photocopy of the Advocate
Notice sent by the Petitioner.
Ex.P7 — 27-01-2015 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Petitioner to the
Member-Secretary, Puducherry
Legal
Aid
Commission,
Puducherry.
Ex.P8 — 08-04-2015 Photocopy of the Respondent's
letter
addressed
to
the
President, Puducherry State
Legal Aid Commission.
Ex.P9 — 12-10-2015 Photocopy of the Respondent
letter given by the Petitioner
to the Respondent.
Ex.P10 — 29-10-2015 Photocopy of the proof of
delivery letter issued by the
Senior Superintendent of
Post Offices, Puducherry.
Ex.P11 — 16-03-2016 Photocopy
of
the
representation submitted by
the Petitioner before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P12 — 03-02-2017 Photocopy of the Failure
Report given by the Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry.
List of respondent’s witnesses :
RW1
— 22-09-2021 Datchinamurthy
RW2
— 27-06-2022 Rajasekaran
RW3
— 12-07-2022 Prabu
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Ex.R1 — 06-09-2018 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Green Chemicals
to the Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Koodapakkam.
Ex.R2 — 01-07-2014 Photocopy of the letter
given by Chandira to the
Hon'ble
Chief
Minister,
Puducherry.
Ex.R3 — 16-08-2014 Photocopy of the letter
given by the Petitioner to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister,
Tamil Nadu.
Ex.R4 — 21-09-2021 Letter of Authorization of
Mr. T. Datchinamurthy.
Ex.R5 — 22-08-2005 Photocopy of the letter for
Recognition issued by the
Regional
Director
to
Venkateswara College of
Education for Recognition of
B.Ed. Course.
Ex.R6 — 12-05-2006 Photocopy of the letter of
permission
issued
by
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare permitting to
establish
new
Medical
C o l l e g e i n t h e n a m e o f
Sri
Manakula
Vinayaga
Educational Trust.
Ex.R7 — 13-10-2014 Photocopy of the Salary
Series
and
credit Statement issued by VSB
08-01-2015 Paper products claiming
Petitioner was working as
Accountant (2 Nos.)
Ex.R8 — September
Photocopy of the Attendance
Series
2014 to
Register of VSB Paper products
February
(Nos.).
2015
353
14 May 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R9 — 10-05-2008 Photocopy of the complaint
given by one Mr. Kumar
against the Petitioner.
Ex.R10 — 13-05-2008 Photocopy of the complaint
given by one Mr. Arumugam
against the Petitioner.
Ex.R11 — 16-05-2008 Photocopy
of
the
Memorandum of warning
letter
issued
by
the
Respondent to Petitioner.
Ex.R12 — 18-07-2008 Photocopy of the complaint
given by one Mr. Veerasamy
against the Petitioner.
Ex.R13 —
–
Cash voucher and manual note
Series
prepared by the Petitioner
along with four original bills
for payment (7 Nos.).
Ex.R14 —
–
Manual hand written note
Series
prepared by the Petitioner
with duplicate bill claiming
the same are loosed and its
payment note issued by the
Respondent (6 Nos.).
Ex.R15 — 10-08-2011 Photocopy
of
the
Memorandum
issued
by
Venkateswara College of
Educational for Show Cause
to the Petitioner for his
various misconducts.
Ex.R16 — 06-09-2018 Photocopy of the Salary
Credit Statement issued by
Green Chemicals to petition.
Ex.R17 — 20-04-2020 Photocopy of the Application
submitted by Paulsons Ltd.,
for reopening the unit at
Sedarapet,
describing
Petitioner as Manager in the
said Industry.
Ex.R18 —
–
Photocopy of the Aadhaar
Card of the Prabu.
Ex.R19 —
–
Letter of Authorization of
Mr. R. Prabu.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
HEALTH SECRETARIAT
(G.O. Ms. No. 18, Puducherry, dated 29th April 2024)
NOTIFICATION
On attaining the age of superannuation of 65 years,
Dr. P. Udayakumar, Senior Chief Medical Officer,
Government General Hospital, Karaikal, is admitted into
retirement with effect from the afternoon of 30-04-2024.
(By order)
S. MURUGESAN,
Under Secretary to Government
(Health).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT
(HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION)
(G.O. Ms. No. 11, Puducherry, dated 03rd May 2024)
NOTIFICATION
The Notice of resignation tendered by the following two (2) Assistant Professors is accepted, so as to
enable them to join the new post of Assistant Professor (Law) in the Department of Law, University of Lucknow,
Lucknow, with effect from the dates mentioned against each:
Sl.
Name of the
Institution
Date of one
Date from which
No.
Assistant Professor
month notice
the resignation
and Discipline
given for
is accepted
resignation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
Dr. Rupam Lal Howlader
Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College,
06-03-2024
03-05-2024 (Afternoon)
Puducherry.