Industrial disputes referred for adjudication

click here for IIIF manifest

Government of Kerala കേരള സർക്കാർ

2011

Reg. No. രജി. നമ്പർ KL/TV(N)/12/2009-2011

KERALA GAZETTE

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No.

Vol. LVI

2011 ഡിസംബർ 6

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, TUESDAY

തിരുവനന്തപുരം, ചൊവ്വ

നമ്പർ

വാല്യം 56 } } ⁶th December ²⁰¹¹

15th Agrahayana 1933 1933 അഗ്രഹായനം 15

PART I

Notifications and Orders issued by the Government

Labour and Rehabilitation Department

Labour and Rehabilitation (A)

ORDERS

{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1)}}}}

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1644/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 31st October 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between 1. The Manager, Krishnagiri/Ramagiri Estate, Appapara P. O., Thirunelli, Mananthavady, Wayanad. 2. Sri B. Muthu, Proprietor, Krishnagiri Estate, Appapara P. O., Thirunelli, Mananthavady, Wayanad. 3. Sri B. Raju, Proprietor, Ramagiri Estate, Appapara P. O., Thirunelli, Mananthavady, Wayanad and the workman of the above referred establishment represented by Sri P. K. Kunhimoideen, General Secretary, Malabar Estate Workers Union, Reg. No. 103662, INTUC, Geetha Stores, Kalpetta, And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is nec- essary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kannur. The Labour Court will pass the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of work to 1. Smt. P. K. Santha, 2. Smt. Leela Bhaskaran, 3. Smt. Nabeesa Rafeeque, 4. Smt. Kumari, 5. Smt. Rajamma Subhrahmanian, 6. Smt. Ragini Viswanathan, 7. Smt. Meenakshi Jogi, 8. Smt. Santha Rajan, 9. Smt. Bhanu Suresh, 10. Smt. Kavery, 11. Smt. Vella, 12. Smt. Meenashi, 13. Smt. Rukhiya, 14. Smt. Devu Chandran by the management of Krishnagiri/Ramagiri Estate ofThirunelly Panchayath is justifiable ? 2. If not, what are the relief the above workers are entitled for ? Wayanad-673 577 in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order; (2)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1710/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between Sri Chenthamara s/o.

Velayudhan, Edayamkulamb, Vandithavalam P. O., Pattanchery, Chittoor Taluk and the workman of the above referred establishment Sri Pankajakshan s/o. Raman, Mele Veedu Kalam, Karikulam, Vilayodi P. O., Chittoor Taluk in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. The Industrial Tribunal will pass the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment to Sri Pankajakshan s/o. Raman by Sri Chenthamara s/o Velayudhan, Edayamkulamb, Vandithavalam, Licensee, Chittoor Excise Range Group 4 is justifiable ? If not, what relief he is entitled to?

(3)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1713/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between Sri Chenthamara s/o. Velayudhan, Edayamkulamb, Vandithavalam P. O., Pattanchery, Chittoor Taluk and the workman of the above referred establishment Sri Muralidharan s/o. Kunjappan, Mithunam, Pallathampulli, Thathamangalam P. O., Chittoor Taluk in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment to Sri Muralidharan, s/o Kunjappan by Sri Chenthamara, Licensee, Group 4, T. S. No. 9, Chittoor Excise Range is justi- fiable? If not, what relief he is entitled to?

(4)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1715/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the Managing Direc- tor, M/s. Chackosons Chemicals Private Limited, Mulankunnathukavu P. O., Thrissur-680 581 and the workman of the above referred establishment Sri M. K. Vidyasagaran s/o Kunjakkan, Madakkavil House, Gramala, Mulankunnathukavu P. O., Thrissur-680 581 in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby di- rect that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudi- cation to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. The Industrial Tribunal will pass the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

1. Whether the dismissal of employee Sri M. K. Vidyasagaran by the Management of M/s. Chackosons Chemicals Private Limited, Mulankunnathukavu is justifiable?

2. If not, what all benefit, Sri M. K. Vidyasagaran is entitled to get?

(5)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1716/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between 1. The President, Kulappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Shornur P. O., Palakkad-679 122, 2. The Secretary, Kulappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Shornur P. O., Palakkad-679 122 and the workman of the above referred establishment Sri P. Krishnaprasad, s/o Raghavan, Palakkal House, Kulappully, Shornur-2, Palakkad in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

ANNEXURE

Whether the dismissal of the employee, Sri P. Krishnaprasad, Peon from the service of the Kulappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Shornur with effect from 20-5-2010 by the Management is justifiable ? If not, what relief he is entitled to?

(6)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1717/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an in- dustrial dispute exists between Sri V. J. Thankachan, Vennayappillil Veedu, Nadavayal P. O., Wayanad and the workman of the above referred establishment Sri A. S. Padmanabhan, Alumoolayil, Nadvayal P. O., Wayanad in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is nec- essary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby di- rect that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudi- cation to the Labour Court, Kannur. The Labour Court will pass the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

1.Whether the denial of employment to Sri A. S. Padmanabhan, Alumoolayil, Nadvayal P. O. Wayanad by the employer is justifiable?

2. If not, what are the reliefs the worker is entitled to?

(7)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1720/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the General Manager, Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Sahakarana Sadabthi Mandiram, Thrissur-680 022 and the workman of the above referred establishment Smt. V. I. Nalini, d/o V. S. Mohanan, Palanchery House, And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

ANNEXURE

1. Whether the termination of service of Smt. V. I. Nalini, Part Time Sweeper on daily wages by the employer i.e. Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited, Thrissur is justifiable?

2. If not, what all remedies she is entitled ?

(8)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1721/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the Managing Director, Kerala Feeds Limited, Kallettumkara, Thrissur and the workman of the above referred establishment represented by the President, Kerala Feeds Workers Union, Kallettumkara, Thrissur in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And Whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudica- tion;

ANNEXURE

Whether there is any anomaly in fixation of pay as per LTS dated 9-4-2008 in respect of Sri Fazaludeen, B. S., Technician of Kerala Feeds Limited, Kallettumkara as alleged by the Union? If so, what reliefs he is entitled to?

(9)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1722/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Kurichikkara P. O., Thanikudam, Thrissur-680 028 in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order; Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between Sri Santhosh Babu Mundayil, s/o Appu, Managing Director, Popular Books and Stationery, City Mall Building, Payyannur-670 307 and the workman of the above referred establishment Sri V. T. Anirudhan, s/o N. V. Kunjiraman, N.V.K. House, Korom Amsam Desam, Korom P. O., via Payyannur-670 307 in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct that the said industrial dispute be referred for adju- dication to the Labour Court, Kannur. The Labour Court will pass the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment to Sri V. T. Anirudhan, Salesman, with effect from 21-1-2010 by the manage- ment of M/s. Popular Books and Stationery, Payyannur is justifiable? If not, what relief the worker is entitled to?

(10)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1723/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between 1. The Managing Direc- tor, Aspinwall and Company Limited, Pullencode Estate, Pullencode P. O., Malappuram, 2. The Manager, Aspinwall and Company Limited, Pullencode Estate, Pullencode P. O. Malappuram and the workmen of the above referred establishment represented by the Secretary, Estate Staff and Employees Union of South India, Thekkungal Build- ings, Collectorate P.O., Kottayam-2 in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is nec- essary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct that the said industrial dispute be referred for adju- dication to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. The Indus-

(11)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 1724/2011/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 11th November 2011.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the Manager, M. J. Woods, Nalloomadu P. O., Dwaraka, Edavaka, Mananthavady and the workman of the above referred es- tablishment Sri P. M. Kunjumon (Anthonichan), Puthanpurakkal, Nalloornadu P. O., Pulikkad, Near to Yuvadhara Library, Edavaka, Mananthavady in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And Whereas, in the opinion of Government it is necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

ANNEXURE

1. Whether the denial of employment of Sri P. M. Kunjumon, Worker by the management of M. J. Woods, Nalloomadu P. O., Dwaraka, Mananthavady is justifiable?

2. If not, what are the reliefs the worker is entitled to?

By order of the Governor,

R. SASIKUMAR,

Under Secretary to Government.

trial Tribunal will pass the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

1. The action of the management of Aspinwall and Com- pany Limited, Pullamgode Estate in giving promotion to staff cadre from 1-7-2010 in contravention of the UPASI norms is justifiable?

2. If not, what is the remedy?