The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 294] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1969 BHADRA 3, 1891
Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed
as a separate compilation.
MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION
(Department of Labour and Employment)
ORDERS
New Delhi, the 25th August 1969
S.O. 3472.—Whereas by the order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employ- ment) No. 29/53/69-LWI-III/Fac.II dated 25th August, 1969, an Industrial Dispute between the Registered Stevedore employers of the Cochin Dock Labour Board namely : —
(1) M/s. K. B. Jacob and Sons, Stevedores, Cochin-1. (2) M/s. Poovath Paree and Sons, Stevedores, Cochln-1. (3) M/s. W. H. D'Cruz and Sons, Stevedores, Cochln-1. (4) M/s. P. A. Abdul Rehiman Kutty and Sons, Stevedores, Cochin-1. (5) M/s. O. P. Mammoo, Stevedores, Cochin-2. (6) M/s. B. J. Khona, Stevedores, Cochin-2. (7) M/s. C. V. A. Hydross and Son, Stevedores, Cochin-2. (8) M/s. New Dholera Shipping and Trading Company Ltd., Stevedores, Cochin-2.
(9) M/s. Paul Abrao and Sons, Stevedores, Cochin-3.
(10) M/s. South India Corporation (P) Ltd., Stevedores, Cochin-3. (11) M/s. Achuthan Pillai and Co., Stevedores, Cochin-3.
1194 XHE GAZEITH OF 1MD1A EXTRAORDINARY [PART 11—-SEC. 3(ii)] (12) The Chairman, Cochin Dock Labour Board, Wlllingdon Island, Cochln-3. (13) The President, Administrative Body, Cochin Dock Labour Board, Willjngdon Island, Cochin-3. and their workmen represented by the unions :—•(1) The President, Cochin Thuramugha Thozhilali Union, Cochin-2. (2) The President, Cochin Port, Thozhilali Union, Cochin-2 and (3) The President, Cochin Dock Labour Union, T.U. House, Cannon Shed Road, prnakulam, Cochin-11
referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for adjudication;
And whereas it is necessary to prohibit the continuance of the strike in exis- tence in the port of Cochin in connection with the said dispute;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powera conferred by sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)t the Central Govern- ment hereby prohibits the continuance of the strike in existence in connection with the said dispute in the said port.
[No. 29/53/69-LWI-III/Fac.IL]
S.O. 3473.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the Registered Stevedore employers in relation to:—
(1) M/s. K. B. Jacob and Sons, Stevedores, Cochin-1. (2) M/s. Poovath Paree and Sons, Stevedores, Cochin-1. (3) M/s. W. H. D'Cruz and Sons, Stevedores, Cochin-1. (4) M/s- P. A, Abdul Rehiman Kutty and Sons, Stevedores, Cochin-1. (5) M/s. O. P. Mammoo, Stevedores, Cochin-2. (6) M/s. B. J. Khona, Stevedores, Cochin-2. (7) M/s. C. V. A. Hydross and Son, Stevedores, Cochin-2. (8) M/s. New Dholera Shipping and Trading Company Ltd., Stevedores, Cochin-2.
(9) M/s. Paul Abrao and Sons, Stevedores. Cochin-3.
(10) M/s. South India Corporation (P) Ltd., Stevedores, Cochin-3. (11) Achuthan Pillai and Co., Stevedores, Cochin-3. (12) The Chairman, Cochin Dock Labour Board, Willingdon Island, Cochln-3. (13) The President, Administrative Body, Cochin Dock Labour Board, Willing- don Island, Cochin-3.
and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;
And, whereas, the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of aub-eection (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitute an Industrial Tribunal of which Shrl Tajummal Hussain shall be Presiding Officer, with Headquarters at Madras and refers the said dispute for adjudication to the said Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"1. Whether the demand of the workmen for increase In wages for days of weekly offl as per the present rate i.e., Ra. 3.75 P is justified? If BO, at what rate and with effect from what date ?
2. Whether the demand of the workmen for an increase in the dearness allowance is justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled and with effect from what date?"
[No. 29/53/69-LWI-III/Fac.IL]