748

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 July 2013

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No.105/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 17th July 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D. No.39/2011, dated 18-4-2013

of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the

industrial dispute between the Managing Director,

M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited, Puducherry and

its workman Thiru Rock Marine 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.20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the

said award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Thursday, the 18th day of April 2013

I.D. No. 39/2011

B. Rock Marine

. .

Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

Hidesign India Private Limited,

Puducherry

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 10-4-2013 for

final hearing before me in the presence of Tvl.

M. Veerappan and S. Lenin Durai, Advocates for the

petitioner, Thiru S. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the

respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing

the case records, after having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court passed the

following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide

G.R. Rt. No.187/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 21-11-2011 of

the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the

following dispute between the petitioner and the

respondent, viz.,

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru B. Rock

Marine, against the management of M/s. Hidesign

India Private Limited, Puducherry over non-

employment is justified ?

(2) If justified, to what relief, the workman is

entitled to ?

(3) To compute the relief in terms of money, if

it can be so computed.

2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has

averred as follows :

The petitioner joined the service of the

respondent company as Storekeeper on 1-12-2006

and then he was promoted as store in-charge

during the year 2008 and he continued his position

in the respondent company till 2010. In order to

protect his service condition, he tried to form an

employees’ trade union in the name and style

‘Hidesign Employees’ Trade Union’ and the same

was registered before the competent authority.

This act of starting a trade union got provoked the

management and thereafter the management

adopted all kinds of unfair labour practice against

the petitioner.

The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet

on 20-5-2010 and the respondent company ordered

for domestic enquiry on 24-5-2010 and on 31-5-2010

the domestic Enquiry Officer sent a notice to him

for his appearance before the Enquiry Officer on

9-6-2010. Meanwhile on 14-6-2010 the respondent

without waiting for the enquiry proceedings, the

petitioner was suspended from service without

following fair and reasonable opportunity to the

petitioner and based on the enquiry report, he

was dismissed from service on 30-9-2010.

Merely because a employee’s trade union was

started in the said company and he was holding

Vice-President post in the trade union caused

irritation to the management and at the result

fabricated charges were issued and without

applying any reasonable, legal, fair approach, the

respondent with ill-conceived motivation and by

way of illegal act, he was dismissed from service

on 30-9-2010 which is not only act of unfair labour

practice, but also amounted to victimisation and

unjust action. Hence, this industrial dispute is

filed.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has

stated as follows :

749

30 July 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

The respondent has followed all the procedures

as contemplated under law before discharging the

petitioner from service for his proved misconduct.

The respondent has issued a charge sheet,

dated 20-5-2010 to the petitioner based on a report

that on 19-5-2010 at about 8.40 a.m. during his

working hours the petitioner had left his work spot

without permission and at about 8.45 a.m. he went

to the bag cutting section and in a loud voice and

angrily he had asked the supervisor by name

C.R. Saravanan to transfer his wife Selvi to some

other section. The petitioner has received the

charge sheet and having understood the charges

levelled against him, has submitted his written

explanation,

dated

22-5-2010

and

as

the

management was not satisfied with the explanation,

an enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled

against him. In order to maintain proper discipline

in the factory and to conduct a fair domestic

enquiry,

the

petitioner

was

placed

under

suspension pending enquiry. The Enquiry Officer

Thiru G. Krishnan, Advocate has conducted the

enquiry

by

affording

fair

and

reasonable

opportunities to the petitioner to defend and the

petitioner has participated in the enquiry and

cross-examined the management witness and

submitted his statement and examined his witness

and also submitted his written argument. The

Enquiry Officer has submitted his report, finding

the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against

him. Then the management has sent a show cause

notice, dated 9-9-2010 to the petitioner regarding

proposed punishment on the proved misconduct.

On receipt of the same, the petitioner has sought

for extension of time to submit his reply and in

spite of extension of time, the petitioner has failed

to submit his explanation. Then the management

has decided to impose the punishment of

discharge from services and accordingly, the

petitioner was discharged from the services of the

company with effect from 30-9-2010. Discharging

the services of the petitioner is proper, justified,

valid and sustainable in law and hence the prayer

of reinstatement of the petitioner with all benefits

does not deserve any consideration. Hence, they

pray for dismissal of the industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was

examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On the

side of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1

to Ex.R16 were marked.

5. The point for determination is :

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

6. On the point :

The contention of the petitioner is that he was the

one of the main office-bearers of the employees union

and the management started to harass and exercised

unfair labour practice against him by adopting

victimisation activities on flimsy grounds and he was

discharged from his service on 30-9-2010, violating

the basic principles of natural justice and contrary

to the standing orders of the company and violation

of labour laws and against the principles of natural

justice. In order to prove his case, the petitioner

examined himself as PW.1.

7. Per contra, the contention of respondent is that

the petitioner has been terminated from service on the

proved charges and by his own misconduct, the

petitioner committed an act unbecoming of an

employee of the company resulting in loss of

confidence in him and the order of discharging the

services of the petitioner is proper, justified and valid.

In order to prove his claim, the Senior Executive

Human Resources of the respondent company was

examined as RW.1.

8. There is no dispute that the petitioner was an

employee under the respondent company. Ex.P1 is the

copy of the identity card issued to the petitioner,

Ex.P2 is the copy of the salary slip, Ex.P3 is the copy

of the E.S.I. card. Those documents also prove that

the petitioner was an employee under the respondent

company. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the following decisions to prove his claim:–

2012(2)C.L.T. 722:-

“Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice -

Framing of charges by Special Officer of Bank (R1)

against writ petition - Suspension order passed -

Final order of punishment passed after conducting

disciplinary proceedings - Very same authority

issuing

suspension

order

and

conducted

disciplinary proceedings, rendered - Procedure,

held unknown to law - Entire proceedings vitiated -

Act of petitioner filing series of cases against

petitioner, held would not amount to misconduct -

Failure to furnish copy of document relied on by

Disciplinary Authority held, resulted in denial of

opportunity to put forward petitioner’s case -

Petitioner entitled to all retiral and monetary

benefits.”

2010-IV-L.L.J.-541 (Bom.)

“Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and

Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 -

Schedule-IV - Item 1 - Complaint under - of

Workman of wrongful dismissal from service -

Finding of Labour Court that charge was not

750

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 July 2013

proved, held, could not be interfered with by

Industrial Court in revision by reappreciating

evidence - Award of back wages also was on facts,

held justified.”

9. According to RW.1, the respondent has issued

a charge sheet, dated 20-5-2010 to the petitioner

based on a report that on 19-5-2010 at about 8.40 a.m.

during his working hours the petitioner had left his

work spot without permission and at about 8.45 a.m.,

he went to the bag cutting section and in a loud voice

and angrily he had asked the supervisor by name

C.R. Saravanan to transfer his wife Selvi to some

other section. The copy of the charge sheet was

marked as Ex.R3 on the side of the respondent. A

perusal of Ex.R3 reveals that the management has

suddenly issued a charge sheet to the petitioner

without issuing any show cause notice to him and

even the allegations in the charge sheet was vague

and was not specific about the event of occurrence,

nature of violation and there is no list of witnesses

and documents involved in such event, were all

absent in the said charge sheet. The said fact was

admitted by RW.1 in his cross-examination. The

relevant portion of his evidence is as follows:-

\.ƒV.g.9á_ ƒV‚EÔ^ ÿ√BÏÔ^ �ÆD AÔVÏ

ÿÔV|›> AÔVˆÁ™•D ÷Áð›m z§©∏¶s_ÁÈ

®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[.

10. In order to prove the said misconduct, it is the

duty of the respondent to establish the same through

the domestic enquiry. In this regard, the learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to

defend his case and the Enquiry Officer has not

conducted the enquiry proceedings in a fair and

proper manner.

11. On the side of the respondent, the copy of the

enquiry proceedings was marked as Ex.R7. A perusal

of Ex.R7 reveals that on the side of the respondent,

one Saravanan was examined and on the side of the

petitioner, two witnesses were examined. Though the

said Saravanan has stated that that the petitioner, has

asked about the transfer of his wife to some other

section, during the cross-examination, he has stated

that the petitioner never shouted against him. The

said fact was also admitted by RW.1 in his

cross-examination. The relevant portion of his

evidence runs as fotlows:-

“c^sƒV´Áðl[

º√Vm

AÔVÏ

ÿÔV|›>

ƒ´kð[ ®[√kÏ \–>V´Ï >[M¶D Œø∫ˇ™\VÔ

¶¬Ôs_ÁÈ ®[ÆD, ƒ›>\VÔ º√ƒs_ÁÈ ®[ÆD

ÿƒV_o•^·VÏ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[.”

From above, it can be seen that the management

witness himself has admitted that there is no such

incident occurred, as stated by the respondent in the

charge sheet. Hence, the respondent has failed to

establish the first and third misconducts as stated in

the charge sheet under Ex.P2. As far as the second

item of misconduct is concerned that the petitioner

was wandering away from the assigned place of duty

during working hours, though the said Saravanan has

stated about the same, the Section Manager has not

filed any complaint to the Manager. Even the

respondent proves that the petitioner has left

assigned place of duty during working hours, the said

misconduct is not grave in nature. Further there is

no adverse remarks on the part of the petitioner prior

to the alleged misconduct. In fact the respondent has

appreciated the work of the petitioner and revised the

salary to ` 3,551 and then to ` 3,951 per month, as

could be seen from Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively. In

the above circumstances, the order of dismissal under

Ex.R15 is liable to be set aside.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that eventhough the punishment of

discharging the petitioner from service was legal, the

management

considered

the

request

of

the

Conciliation Officer purely on humanitarian basis and

offered the petitioner reinstatement without back

wages

but

with

continuity

of

service

and

magnanimously offered even revision of his wages

from ` 3,950 to ` 5,500 but the petitioner adamantly

refused to accept the offer and by his refusal to

accept the offer of reinstatement without back wages

during the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner

has lost his right to seek for the relief of reinstatement

with back wages. In order to prove his claim, he

relied upon the following decision:-

(2004) III L.L.J. 511 Mad:-

“The above stated facts will clearly disclose that

in spite of the repeated offers before the

Conciliation Officer and before the Labour Court

and this court, directing the petitioner to come and

join duty, the employee had deliberately refrained

from joining duty and has not accepted the offer

of the management.

The attitude of the employee cannot at all be

appreciated. He cannot claim any right over

particular post. As long as the pay, allowances and

other conditions of service are not affected, it is

always open to the management to assign any

work or to transfer the employee from one post to

the other. Such an offer has been made by the

management from the beginning. Apparently, the

employee seeks to obtain unfair gain of back wages

without even working. The provisions of Industrial

Disputes

Act

are

not

intended

for

such

exploitation in an unfair manner.

751

30 July 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

13. On the side of the respondent, the copy of the

failure report was marked as Ex.R16. A perusal of

Ex.R16 reveals that during the course of conciliation

proceedings, the conciliation authority advised the

management to consider the plea of the petitioner for

reinstatement with back wages and after several

rounds of discussions, the management agreed to

reinstate the petitioner on humanitarian grounds

based on the advice of the conciliation authority in

their sister concern with continuity of service and

revision in wages from ` 3,950 to ` 5,500 a perusal of

Ex.R16 further reveals that the petitioner has stated

that not even a single memo. had been issued to him

during his entire service and strongly insisted for

reinstatement in the last working place with back

wages.

14. From the above, it can be seen that during the

pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the

management had offered that the petitioner will be

reinstated in some other job with their sister concern

with continuity of service, but the petitioner insisted

for reinstatement in the last working place with back

wages. The petitioner cannot claim any right over

particular post. In fact the management was ready to

give the revised pay from ` 3,950 to ` 5,500 to the

petitioner, as could be seen from Ex.R16. The attitude

of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Considering

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

the respondent and as guided by the Hon’ble High

Court, Madras in (2004) III L.L.J. 511 Madras, this

court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner

is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of

service and back wages from the d a t e o f

dismissal to the date of failure report i.e., 2-9-

2011, however, the petitioner is not entitled for back

wages from 3-9-2011 till the date of joining.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

15. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly

allowed and the respondent is hereby directed to

reinstate the petitioner within one month with

continuity of service, other benefits and back wages

from the date of dismissal to the date of failure report

i.e., 2-9-2011, however, the petitioner is not entitled

for back wages from 3-9-2011 till the date of joining.

No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this 18th day of April 2013.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

List of witnesses examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 23-11-2012 — Rock Marine

List of witness examined for the respondent :

RW.1 —

15-3-2012 — R. Ayyappan

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

Ex.P1

— Copy of the identity card of the

petitioner.

Ex.P2

— Copy of the E.P.F. slip of the petitioner

Ex.P3

— Copy of the E.S.I. slip of the petitioner

Ex.P4

— Copy of the salary revision issued by

the management.

Ex.P5

— Copy of the increment letter issued by

the management, dated 1-4-2008.

Ex.P6

— Copy of the letter for store in-charge,

dated 29-7-2008.

Ex.P7

— Copy of the certificate of trade union

Ex.P8

— Copy of the trade union letter pad

Ex.P9

— Copy of the charge sheet issued by the

management, dated 20-5-2010.

Ex.P10 — C o p y o f t h e su s p e n s i o n o r d e r,

dated 14-6-2010.

Ex.P11 — Copy of the enquiry report, dated 3-9-2010

Ex.P12 — Copy of the order of discharge of the

petitioner, dated 30-9-2010.

Ex.P13 — Copy of the failure report, dated 2-9-2011

List of exhibits marked for the respondent:

Ex.R1

— Copy of the resolution, dated 12-1-2013

Ex.R2

— Copy of the complaint against the

petitioner, dated 19-5-2010.

Ex.R3

— Copy of the charge sheet, dated 20-5-2010

Ex.R4

— Copy of the explanation given to the

charge sheets, dated 22-5-2010.

Ex.R5

— Copy of the notice of enquiry, dated

24-5-2010.

Ex.R6

— Copy of the order of suspension,

dated 14-6-2010.

Ex.R7

— Copy of the enquiry proceedings,

dated 9-6-2010.

Ex.R8

— Copy of the deposition recorded in the

enquiry proceeding.

Ex.R9

— Copy of the written argument by

petitioner in the enquiry proceedings,

dated 28-7-2010.

Ex.R10 — Copy of the written argument by the

management in the enquiry proceedings,

dated 28-7-2010.

Ex.R11 — Copy of the enquiry report, dated 3-9-2010

Ex.R12 — Copy of the show cause notice,

dated 9-9-2010.

Ex.R13 — Copy of the letter for extension of time,

dated 18-9-2010.

752

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 July 2013

Ex.R14 — Copy of the letter by the respondent,

dated 20-9-2010.

Ex.R15 — Copy of the order of discharge, dated

30-9-2010.

Ex.R16 — Copy of the failure report, dated 2-9-2011

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 106/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 17th July 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D.No. 30/2011, dated 26-4-2013

of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the

industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. ARK Golden India Private Limited, Puducherry

and the petitioners viz.,Tvl. (1) H. Ramthilagar,

(2) R. Peethambaram, (3) G. Jayachandran and

(4) K. Senthil, 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. 20/91/Lab./L., dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the

said Award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Friday, the 26th day of April 2013

I.D. No. 30/2011

(1) H. Ramthilagar,

(2) R. Peethambaram,

(3) G. Jayachandran,

(4) K. Senthil

. . Petitioners

Versus

The Managing Director,

ARK Golden India Private Limited,

R.S. No. 19/3A, Mailam Main Road,

Sedarapet, Puducherry

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on this day for hearing

before me in the presence of Thiru N. Baptiste Augustin,

Advocate for the petitioners and the respondent called

absent and set ex parte, upon perusing the case records,

this court passed the following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O.

Rt. No. 180/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 24-10-2011 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioners and the respondent,

viz.,

(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioners

(1 ) H . R a m t h i l a g a r, ( 2 ) R . P e e t h a m b a r a m ,

(3) G. Jayachandiran and (4) K. Senthil against the

management of M/s. ARK Golden India Private

Limited, Puducherry, over non-employment is

justified?

(2) If justified, to what relief, the workmen are

entitled to?

(3) To compute the relief in terms of money, if it can

be so computed.

2. When the above industrial dispute came up for

enquiry, the respondent called absent and set ex parte.

The petitioner appeared before this court today and he

was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P42. Claim

proved. The petitioners are entitled for the claim as

stated in the claim petition. Hence, the respondent is

directed to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages,

continuity of service and other attendant benefits with

costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open cour on

this 26th day of April 2013.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Puducherry.

————

List of witness of PW.1 : Ramthilagar.

List of documents marked on the side of the petitioners:

Ex.P1

—

8-6-2009

Photocopy of the letter

sent

by

the

first

p e t i t i o n e r

t o

t h e

respondent company.

Ex.P2

—

8-6-2009

Photocopy of the letter of

confirmation given to the

third petitioner.

Ex.P3

—

17-5-2010

Photocopy of the letter

sent b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r s

t o t h e respondent along

with postal receipt.

753

30 July 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P4

—

19-5-2010

A c k n ow l e d g m e n t c a r d

signed by the respondent.

Ex.P5

—

20-5-2010

Letter

sent

by

the

respondent to the petitioners.

Ex.P6

—

26-5-2010

Letter

sent

by

the

petitioners to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P7

—

29-6-2010

Enquiry

held

by

the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P8

—

8-9-2010

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the petitioners to

the respondent along with

postal receipt.

Ex.P9

—

9-9-2010

Letter

sent

by

the

respondent

to

the

petitioners.

Ex.P10 —

19-9-2010

Copy of the letter by way

of reply sent by the first

petitioner.

Ex.P11 —

28-9-2010

Letter

sent

by

the

respondent to the petitioners.

Ex.P12 —

30-9-2010

Notice

sent

by

the

r e s p o n d e n t t o t h e

petitioners.

Ex.P13 —

9-10-2010

Letter sent by the first

petitioner to the respondent.

Ex.P14 —

9-10-2010

Letter sent by the first

petitioner to the respondent.

Ex.P15 — 20-10-2010

Letter sent by the respondent

to the petitioner.

Ex.P16 —

1-11-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the first petitioner to the

respondent.

Ex.P17 —

3-11-2010

Letter sent by the petitioners

to

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

.

Ex.P18 — 12-11-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the first petitioner to the

respondent.

.

Ex.P19 — 24-11-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the

respondent

to

the

fourth petitioner.

Ex.P20 — 30-11-2010

Show cause notice sent by

the respondent to the third

petitioner.

Ex.P21 —

1-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the first petitioner to the

respondent.

Ex.P22 —

1-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the fourth petitioner to the

respondent.

Ex.P23 — 11-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the first petitioner to the

respondent.

Ex.P24 — 11-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the fourth petitioner to the

respondent.

Ex.P25 — 13-12-2010

Notice of termination sent

by the respondent to the

first petitioner.

Ex.P26 — 13-12-2010

Notice of termination sent

by the respondent to the

second petitioner.

Ex.P27 — 13-12-2010

Notice of termination sent

by the respondent to the

third petitioner.

Ex.P28 — 13-12-2010

Notice of termination sent

by the respondent to the

fourth petitioner.

Ex.P29 — 16-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the first petitioner to the

respondent

with

postal

receipt.

Ex.P30 — 16-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the second petitioner to the

respondent

with

postal

receipt.

Ex.P31 — 16-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the third petitioner to the

respondent

with

postal

receipt.

Ex.P32 — 16-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the fourth petitioner to the

respondent

with

postal

receipt.

Ex.P33 — 20-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the

petitioners

to

the

L a b o u r

D e p a r t m e n t ,

Puducherry.

Ex.P34 — 20-12-2010

Copy of the letter sent by

the petitioners to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P35 —

6-1-2011

Letter by the respondent to

the first petitioner about

the wages for December

2010 and final settlement.

Ex.P36 —

6-1-2011

Letter by the respondent to

the second petitioner about

the wages for December 2010

and final settlement.

754

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 July 2013

Ex.P37 —

6-1-2011

Letter by the respondent to

the third petitioner about

the wages for December 2010

and final settlement.

Ex.P38 —

6-1-2011

Letter by the respondent to

the fourth petitioner about

the wages for December 2010

and final settlement.

Ex.P39 —

14-1-2011

Copy of the letter sent by

the petitioners to the Labour

Department, Puducherry.

Ex.P40 —

14-1-2011

Copy of the letter sent by

the

petitioners

to

the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P41 —

15-7-2011

Report

on

failure

of

conciliation given by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P42 —

22-7-2011

Report

on

failure

of

conciliation given by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 107/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 17th July 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D.No. 28/2011, dated 12-4-2013

of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the

industrial dispute between the Pondicherry Tourism

Developments Corporation Water Sports Labour Union,

Puducherry against the Managing Director, Pondicherry

Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Puducherry

over retrospective revision of ceiling for collection

incentive eligibility in water sports wing of the

Corporation 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. 20/91/Lab/L,

dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed by Secretary to

Government (Labour) that the said award shall be

published in the official gazette, Puducherry.

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present:

Thiru T. MOHANDASS. M.A, M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Friday, the 12th day of April, 2013.

I.D. No. 28/2011

Pondicherry Tourism Development

Corporation Water Sports Labour Union,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Pondicherry Tourism Development

Corporation Limited.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 10-4-2013 for final

hearing before me in the presence of Thiru C.H. Balamohanan,

au t h o r i s e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r,

Thiruvalargal A. Kanniappan and K. Balaji, Advocates for

the respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the

case records, after having stood over for consideration till

this day, this Court passed the following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.

No. 177/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 24-10-2011 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Pondicherry Tourism

Development Corporation Water Sports Labour Union,

Puducherry against the management of M/s. Pondicherry

Tourism Development Corporation, Puducherry over

retrospective revision of ceiling for collection incentive

eligibility in water sports wing of the Corporation is

justified?

(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioners are

entitled to?

(3) To compute the relief in terms of money, if it can be

so computed.

2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred as

follows :

The management of PTDC Limited had vide office

order No. 66/PTDC/WS/2007/017, dated 13-1-2010

retrospectively revised the formula for grant of collection

incentive to the workers employed in Water Sports Unit at

Chunnambar from 1-1-2009 as 5% of the total collection

from the boat operations when the collection amount

exceeded ` 70,000 a day, raising the earlier limit of total

collection from ` 50,000 adversely affecting the workmen

and without giving notice to the workmen or their union

under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

755

30 July 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

The total collections on the day when exceeded ` 50,000

was to the tune of ` 25,93,770 during the year 2009 and

5% of the above total collection to be distributed as

incentive to the workmen was to the tune of ` 1,29,689.

The respondent management has illegally resorted the

formula with retrospective effect from 1-1-2009 already

affecting the workmen and refused to entertain the legal

claim of the workmen till date. Therefore, the union has

staked the additional relief of 12% as interest on the dues

restricted reasonably to the years 2010 and 2011. Hence,

this industrial dispute is filed for retrospective revision of

ceiling for collection incentive is fully justified and the

claim computed above to the tune of ` 1,60,814 may be

declared as total relief payable to the workmen on duty on

the dates in the year 2009, when the collections exceeded

` 50,000 a day.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has stated

as follows:-

It is true that the respondent vide office order,

dated 13-1-2010 revised the formula for grant of collection

incentive to the workers retrospectively from 1-1-2009

as 5% of the total collection if the total amount exceeded

` 70,000 raising the limit from ` 50,000, 5% amount on

boating collection is an “incentive” and it does not fall

under the definition of “wages” and hence no previous

notice is necessary under section 9-A of the Act.

The Finance Department of the Central Government

has directed that all institutions should ensure 10%

deduction in administrative expenditure while

implementing the 6th Pay Commission. As per the order

of Under Secretary to Government (Finance), Government

of Puducherry, dated 24-10-2008, the respondent has to

implement the 6th Pay Commission recommendations and

as such the respondent need not pay incentives, ex gratia,

etc., to the employers. In fact the respondent ought to

have cancelled the incentive, but instead the Corporation

has raised the eligibility ceiling from ` 50,000 to ` 70,000

with retrospective effect from 1-1-2009 in order to reduce

administration expenditure. Therefore, it is a policy decision

of the Government and cannot be rolled back. Hence, they

pray for dismissal of the industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. On the side of the respondent,

RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked.

5. The point for determination is:

Whether the claim of the petitioner can be allowed?

6. On the point:

The contention of the petitioner is that the management

of PTDC Limited had vide office order No.66/PTDC/WS/

2007/017, dated 13-1-2010 retrospectively revised the formula

for grant of collection incentive to the workers employed in

Water Sports Unit at Chunnambar from 1-1-2009 as 5% of the

total collection from the boat operations when the collection

amount exceeded ` 70,000 a day, raising the earlier limit of

total collection from ` 50,000 adversely affecting the workmen

and without giving notice to the workmen or their union under

section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the

respondent management has illegally resorted the formula

with retrospective effect from 1-1-2009 already affecting the

workmen and refused to entertain the legal claim of the

workmen till date.

7. In order to prove his claim, the Secretary of Pondicherry

Tourism Development Corporation was examined as PW.1.

PW.1 has marked the copy of the circular issued by the

Managing Director of Pondicherry Tourism Development

Corporation Limited, dated 17-12-2007 as Ex.P1, as per which,

the incentive at 5% will be paid when the collection amount

exceeds ` 50,000/- in a day. Ex.P2 is the copy of the office

order informing the revised ceiling limit from ` 50,000 to

` 70,000 Ex.P3 is the resolution passed by the petitioner union.

Ex.P4 is the copy of the letter sent by the petitioner union to

the respondent management.

8. On the side of the respondent, the Manager

(Administration) of the respondent was examined as RW.1.

RW.1 in his evidence has deposed that the Finance Department

of the Central Government has directed that all institutions

should ensure 10% deduction in administrative expenditure

while implementing the 6th Pay Commission and as per the

order of Under Secretary to Government (Finance),

Government of Puducherry, dated 24-10-2008, the respondent

has to implement the 6th Pay Commission recommendations

and as such the respondent need not pay incentives,

ex gratia, etc., to the employers and in fact the respondent

ought to have cancelled the incentive, but instead the

Corporation has raised the eligibility ceiling from ` 50,000

to ` 70,000 with retrospective effect from 1-1-2009 in order to

reduce administration expenditure.

9. In order to prove his claim, RW.1 has marked the

authorisation letter as Ex.R1 Ex.R2 is the copy of the order

issued by the Finance Department, Government of

Puducherry, as per which, all the institutions have been

advised to cut 10% in administrative expenditure while

implementing the 6th Pay Commission. Ex.R3 is the copy of

the I.D. Note issued by the Under Secretary (Finance) to the

respondent management. A perusal of Ex.R3 reveals that the

Under Secretary (Finance) had pointed out the granting

additional perks and benefits over and above the Government

norms by deviating the guidelines issued under Ex.R3 by the

respondent management and hence she requested the

respondent management to review the additional perks and

benefits granted to their employees. Ex.R4 is the copy of the

Profit and Loss Account for the year 2009. Ex.R5 is the copy

of the 6th Annual Report.

10. The order under Ex.R2 would clearly show that all the

institutions have been advised that they should ensure that

economy measures and rationalisation of expenditure to cut

10% in administrative expenditure. Ex.R2 would further show

756

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 July 2013

that the employees of all non-profit, making or financially

non-viable institututions will be entitled to minimum bonus

only as per Bonus Act and in no case ex gratia or additional

bonus than the minimum statutory bonus should be paid to

the employees. The respondent management has no other

way than to implement the order of Under Secretary (Finance)

under Ex.R2 and hence they raised the eligibility ceiling from

` 50,000 to ` 70,000 with retrospective effect from 1-1-2009 in

order to reduce the administration expenditure. Hence, it is a

policy decision of the Government and no one can interfere

with such policy condition.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the raising of ceiling from ` 50,000 to ` 70,000 without

notice to the employees under section 9-A of the Industial

Dispute Act is illegal and hence the same is liable to be

set aside.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted

that 5% amount on boating collection is an "incentive” and it

does not fall under the definition of “wages” and hence no

previous notice is necessary under section 9-A of the Act.

In order to support his claim, the learned counsel for the

respondent relied upon the following decision:

1994 LAB. I.C.632 (Kerala High Court)

“Where the monthly ex gratia payment was not part of

the original contract of employment but was offered by

the employer long after employee's promotion on terms

that it was in appreciation of his good services and the

payment was to be shown separately in the books and

records of employer and was liable to be increased,

decreased or tally withdrawn at the discretion of the

employer, the ex gratia payment was to be excluded for

the purposes of computing the wages”.

9. Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines

the term wages as follows:-

“Wages” means all remuneration capable of being

expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of

employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable

to a workman in respect of his employment, or of work done

in such employment and includes-

(i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the

workman is for the time being entitled to:

(ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply

of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any

service or of any concessional supply of food grains or other

articles;

(iii) any travelling concession;

(iv) any commission payable on the promotion of sales

or business or both; but does not include-

(a) any bonus;

(b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer

to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of

the workman under any law for the time being in force;

(c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his

service.

The term incentive does not find place in the definition of

wages. The term wages clearly excludes any bonus, paid by

the employer. The collection incentive granted by the

employer shall be deemed to be aimed at motivating the

workmen during peak tourist season when the boatmen will

be required to operate more trips to cater to the tourist rush.

An incentive is nothing but a bonus and hence, not part of

the contract of employment as well as remuneration. Since

the definition of wages does not include “Bonus”, the

employer is justified in revising the target for grant of incentive.

10. It is true that section 9-A of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 contemplates that the notice should be given if

there is a vested right which is withdrawn without notice. But

in the instant case, the incentive was granted unilaterally by

the respondent only to motivate the boatmen and the same

cannot be claimed as a vested right by the petitioner.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that granting of

incentive by the respondent management is not a condition

of service which should not be withdrawn does not sound

merit. In the absence of any Memorandum of Settlement or

any clause in the appointment order to this effect, the

petitioner cannot claim the incentive as a matter of right and

hence invoking section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act

does not arise to the facts of the present industrial dispute.

11. The labour legislations were enacted to bring peace

among the workers to bring more productivity in our country

in the smooth circumstances. The industrial legislations were

enacted to achieve the ambitions enshrined under Article 14

and 21 of Constitutional Law of India. The proposition laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases

are very relevant at this stage:

2005(3) L.L.N. 719 (Madras)

National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai Vs.

Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Madras and

another:

“The whole approach of industrial law is that the employer

and employee do not stand on an equal bargaining position.

Industrial law recognizes that the workers are in a weaker

position than the employers who have financial resources,

management skills, connections etc. Hence the whole object

of industrial law is to help the weaker section in the society

(the workmen) and given them protection from exploitation.

There can be no estoppel against a person, who accepts his

designation as an apprentice, but later on raises a plea that in

fact he was not an apprentice but was doing the work of a

workman.”

1982 I LLJ 33 S.C.

Workmen of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. Vs.

William Magor and Company Limited :

757

30 July 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

“This court in the case of K.C.P. Employees Association,

Madras Vs. Management of KCP Limited, Madras and other

reported in (1977I L.L.J. 322) observed:

“In Industrial Law, interpreted and applied in the

perspective of Part IV of the Constitution, the benefit of

reasonable doubt, on law and facts, if there be such doubt

must go to the weaker section, labour. The Tribunal will

dispose of the case making this compassionate approach but

without over stepping the proved facts”.

12. The above proposition of law laid down by the Superior

Courts were to be borne in mind to decide this case. The

employees of the respondent, who are from weaker section

of the society, should not be exploited by the management,

those who are in higher position. The petitioner has filed the

above industrial dispute in the year 2011 and the employees,

who are the members of the petitioner's union had been

walking to this court for the past two years, expecting

favourable order from this court. The learned authorised

representative has submitted that the employees of the

respondent Corporation are working in all the days without

taking any leave and their family is depending upon the said

incentive apart from their salary. In the above circumstances,

I feel that the claim of the petitioner can be considered on

humanitarian grounds by allowing the industrial dispute to

the extent of granting 5% incentive on total collection from

the boat operations, when the collection amount

exceeded ` 50,000 in a day instead of ` 70,000 in a day as

mentioned in Ex.P2 without interest for the year 2009.

However, the petitioner cannot claim the same as a matter of

right in future. Accordingly this point is answered.

13. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly allowed

and the petitioner union is entitled for ` 1,29,690 towards

incentive for the year 2009. However, considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled

to get the interest on the said amount. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 12th day of April, 2013.

T. MOHANDASS

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

List of witness examined for the petitioner

PW.1 - 15-9-2012 - Gajapathy

List of witness examined for the respondent:

RW.1 - 26-12-2012 - Santhakumar

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:

Ex.P1

— Copy of the circular issued by the

Managing Director of Pondicherry Tourism

Development Corporation Limited, dated

17-12-2007.

Ex.P2

— Copy of the office order informing the revised

ceiling limit from ` 50,000 to ` 70,000,

dated 13-1-2010.

Ex.P3

— Resolution passed by the petitioner union

Ex.P4

— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner

union to the respondent management,

dated 15-10-2008.

List of exhibits marked for the respondent

Ex. R1 — Authorisation letter, dated 6-11-2012

Ex.R2

— Copy of the order issued by the Finance

Department, Government of Puducherry,

dated 24-10-2008.

Ex.R3

— Copy of the I.D. Note issued by the Under

Secretary (Finance) to the respondent

management.

Ex.R4

— Copy of the Profit and Loss Account for the

year 2009.

Ex.R5

— C o p y o f t h e 6 t h A n n u a l R e p o r t ,

dated 19-10-2012.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 109/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 18th July 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D. No. 1/2012, dated 28-3-2013

of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the

industrial dispute between the Managing Director,

Sri Bharathi Mills, Puducherry and Panjalai

Thozhirsanga Congress over correction of date of birth

of the workmen viz., Thiruvalargal (1) Udayakumar @

Devanarayanan, (2) J. Ramakrishnan @ Purshothaman,

(3) S. Padmanarayanan and (4) K. Shankar 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. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the

said award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

758

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 July 2013

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Thursday, the 28th day of March 2013

I.D. No. 1/2012

The President,

. . Petitioner

Panjalai Thozhirsanga Congress,

N-Block-10, Viduthalai Nagar,

Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.

Versus

The Managing Director,

Sri Bharathi Mills, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 21-3-2013

for f i n a l hearing before me in the presence of

Thiru V. Govindaradjou, Advocate for the petitioner,

Thiru K. Ravikumar, Advocate for the respondent,

upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the case

records, after having stood over for consideration till

this day, this court passed the following:

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.

No. 220/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 19-12-2011 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the

following dispute between the petitioner and the

respondent, viz.,

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Panjalai

Thozhirsanga Congress (Registration No.783/RTU/1992)

against the management of M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills,

Puducherry over correction of date of birth of the

workmen viz., Thiruvalargal (1) Udayakumar @

Devanarayanan,

(2)

J.

Ramakrishnan

@

Purshothaman, (3) S. Padmanarayanan and

(4) K. Shankar is justified?

(2) If justified, to what relief, the workmen are

entitled to?

2.The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred

as follows:

The petition mentioned workmen have been

working in the respondent’s mill for a period of

more than 25 years. At the time of entering into the

service, their date of birth was not verified and their

date of birth been wrongly mentioned in the mill

records. The details of actual date of birth of the

workmen and their wrong entry in the mill records

are as follows:—

Name of the

Actual date

Wrong entry

workmen

of birth

in the

mill records

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.Udayakumar @

2-11-1958

2-11-1957

Devanarayanan

2. Ramakrishnan @

9-3-1962

1-7-1960

Purshothaman

3. Padmanarayanan 12-4-1957

12-3-1954

4. Shankar

4-6-1956

11-12-1954

The respondent has computerised all the records

in the respondent’s mill in the year 1986 and only

thereafter they came to know that their date of birth

has been wrongly mentioned in the mill records.

Therefore they have immediately approached the

respondent in person and through representations

requesting to correct their date of birth in the mill

records. But the respondent failed to correct their

date of birth in the mill records. Therefore, the

petition mentioned workmen are constrained to raise

the industrial dispute.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has

stated as follows:

As per the practice and standing orders of the

respondent mills, at the time of employment all the

workers are required to submit proof of birth to

prove age. The petitioners will also have to submit

service and identification agreement and gratuity

nomination. Each of the petitioners have signed and

submitted the service and identification agreement

and gratuity nominations, in which the date of birth

have been given by themselves. Only based on the

information given by the petitioners themselves,

the date of births have been entered in the

respondent mill records. The petitioners have not

claimed that they themselves have given the date

of birth wrongly. Hence, the petitioners are estopped

from claiming such a relief.

The

very

basic

details,

such

as

name,

department, category, token number, father's name,

date of birth and date of entry of each and everyone

of the workmen of the respondent mills, as per the

records of the respondent mills are reproduced in

each pay slip of such workmen. Each and everyone

of the petitioners, who have raised the dispute have

put in service of more than twenty years and have

received and checked and have been satisfied with

the entries in their respective pay slips for all these

years. The petitioners are estopped from now raising

any dispute over the entries made in the pay slip

759

30 July 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

and reproduced in the list with permanent numbers.

Hence, the respondent prays for dismissal of the

industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 to PW.4 were

examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 were marked. Neither oral

nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side

of the respondent.

5. The point for determination is:

Whether the claim of the petition mentioned

workmen can be allowed?

6. On the point:

The contention of the petition mentioned workmen

is that they have been working in the respondent’s mill

for a period of more than 25 years and at the time of

entering into the service, their date of birth was not

verified and their date of birth been wrongly mentioned

in the mill records and the respondent has

computerised all the records in the respondent's mill

in the year 1986 and only thereafter they came to know

that their date of birth has been wrongly mentioned in

the mill records and therefore, they have immediately

approached the respondent in person and through

representations requesting to correct their date of birth

in the mill records, but the respondent failed to correct

their date of birth in the mill records. In order to prove

their claim, the said Udayakumar, Ramakrishnan,

Padmanarayanan and Shankar were examined as PWs.1

to 4 and they have marked their relevant birth

certificate as Ex.P1, Ex.P12, Ex.P15 and Ex.P18

respectively. As per the said documents, the date of

birth of the said workmen are 2-11-1958, 9-3-1962,

12-4-1957 and 4-6-1956 respectively. The documents

under Ex.P1, Ex.P12, Ex.P15 and Ex.P18 have not been

challenged by the respondent. Hence, this court has

come to the conclusion that the date of birth of PWs.1

to 4 are 2-11-1958, 9-3-1962, 12-4-1957 and 4-6-1956

respectively.

7. On the other hand, the contention of the

respondent is that as per the practice and standing

orders of the respondent mills, at the time of

employment all the workers are required to submit

proof of birth to prove age and the petitioners will also

have to submit service and identification agreement

and gratuity nomination and each of the petitioners

have

signed

and

submitted

the

service

and

identification agreement and gratuity nominations, in

which the date of birth have been given by themselves

and only based on the information given by the

petitioners themselves, the date of births have been

entered in the respondent mill records and the

petitioners have not claimed that they themselves

have given the date of birth wrongly. The respondent

has further contended that the very basic details, such

as name, department, category, token number, father's

name, date of birth and date of entry of each and everyone

of the workmen of the respondent mills, as per the

records of the respondent mills are reproduced in each

pay slip of such workmen and each and everyone of

the petitioners, who have raised the dispute have put

in service of more than twenty years and have received

and checked and have been satisfied with the entries

in their respective pay slips for all these years and the

petitioners are estopped from now raising any dispute

over the entries made in the pay slip and reproduced

in the list with permanent numbers.

8. In order to prove his claim, neither oral or

documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the

respondent. A perusal of records reveals that the

petitioner’s side evidence was closed on 13-2-2013 and

the matter was posted for examination of respondent's

side witnesses to 14-3-2013. But in spite of sufficient

opportunities given, no witnesses were examined on

the side of the respondent.

9. According to PWs.1 to 4, the respondent has

computerised all the records in the respondent mill in

the year 1985 and only thereafter they came to know

that their date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the

mill records and therefore, they have immediately

approached the respondent in person and through

representation to correct the date of their birth in the

mill records, but the respondent has failed to correct

the date of birth in the mill records. PW.1 has marked

the representation, dated 30-3-2010 given to the

respondent for correcting his date of birth as Ex.P4.

Likewise PW.2 has marked his representation,

date 9-11-2009 as Ex.P7, PW.3 marked his

representation as Ex.P10 and PW.4 marked his

representation as Ex.P13. When PWs.1 to 4 have given

representations to the respondent to correct their date

of birth by enclosing their relevant birth certificates,

it is the duty of the respondent to correct the same in

the mill records. Even after producing the relevant birth

certificate, which is an authenticated document, the

respondent has not come forward to correct the date

of birth of the petitioners in the mill records. It is

significant to mention that as per section 35 of Indian

Evidence Act, an entry in any public or other official

book or register maintained by a public servant is a

relevant fact. Moreover, the birth certificates of

PWs.1 to 4 are the certificates issued by the

competent authority is a primary evidence and it is a

vital evidence to prove their case. Further the

respondent has never insisted upon the workman even

at the time of computerisation of mill records to

produce the certificate of age proof.

760

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 July 2013

10. PWs.1 to 4 have contended that the respondent

has corrected the birth date of the employee viz., one

Kuppan @ Kuppusamy and thereby extended his

service for a period of ten years and so also, the date

of birth of the workmen by name D. Arumugam and

Sabapathy @ Sundaramurthy were corrected in the mill

records. However, the respondent has not come

forward to correct the date of birth of the petition

mentioned workmen in spite of producing their

respective birth certificates.

11. The labour legislations were enacted to bring

peace among the workers to bring more productivity

in our country in the smooth circumstances. If the

version of the respondent that only based on the

information given by the petitioners themselves, the

date of births have been entered in the mill records is

taken as true, when the petitioners have produced

their birth certificates and requested the respondent

to correct the date of birth in the mill records, it is the

duty of the respondent to correct the same in their

records. The industrial legislations were enacted

to achieve the ambitions enshrined under Article

14 and 21 of Constitutional Law of India. The

proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the following cases are very relevant at this stage:

2005(3) LL.N. 719 (Madras)

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Chennai Versus Presiding Officer, I Additional

Labour Court, Madras and Another:

“The whole approach of industrial law is that the

employer and employee do not stand on an equal

bargaining position. Industrial law recognises that

the workers are in a weaker position than the

employers

who

have

financial

resources,

management skills, connections etc., Hence the

whole object of industrial law is to help the weaker

section in the society (the workmen) and given them

protection from exploitation. There can be no

estoppel against a person, who accepts his

designation as an apprentice, but later on raises a

plea that in fact he was not an apprentice but was

doing the work of a workman."

1982 IL.LJ. 33 S.C.;

Workmen of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co

Limited Versus William Magor and Company

Limited:

“This court in the case of K.C.P. Employees

Association, Madras Versus Management of KCP

Limited, Madras and other reported in (19771 L.L.J.

322) observed:

“In Industrial Law, interpreted and applied in the

perspective of Part-IV of the Constitution, the

benefit of reasonable doubt, on law and facts,

if there be such doubt must go to the weaker

section, labour. The tribunal will dispose of the

case making this compassionate approach but

without over stepping the proved facts.”.

12. The above proposition of law laid down by the

Superior Courts were to be borne in mind to decide

this case. The workers, who are from weaker section

of the society, should not be exploited by the

management, those who are in higher position. Hence,

the relief sought by the petition mentioned workmen

is reasonable and genuine and the change of date of

birth of the said four workmen in the mill records

according to their birth certificates under Ex.P1, Ex.P12,

Ex,P15 and Ex.P18 is justifiable. Accordingly, this point

is answered.

13. In the result, the industrial dispute is allowed

and the respondent is hereby directed to correct the

date of birth of the petition mentioned workmen in the

mill records, according to their birth certificates.

No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this 28th day of March, 2013.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Puducherry.

————

List of witnesses examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 11-1-2013

—

Udayakumar @

Devanarayanan.

PW.2 — 11-1-2013

—

Ramakrishnan @

Purshothaman.

PW.3 —

11-1-2013

—

Padmanarayanan

PW.4 — 11-1-2013

—

Shankar

List of witnesses examined for the respondent : Nil.

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

Ex.P1

— Birth certificate of Udayakumar,

dated 6-11-1958.

Ex.P2

— Copy of the identity certificate issued

by PDM, dated 10-8-1992.

Ex.P3

— Salary slip of PW.1

Ex.P4

— Representation given by PW.1,

dated 30-3-2010.

761

30 July 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P5

— Birth certificate of Pourouchottamane,

dated 14-3-1962.

Ex.P6

— Salary slip of Purushothamane for the

month of October 2009

Ex.P7

— Representation

given

by

Purushothamane, dated 9-11-2009.

Ex.P8

— Birth certificate of Bademanarayanane,

dated 20-4-1957.

Ex.P9

— Salary slip of Bathmanarayanan for the

month of February 2010.

Ex.P10 — R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

g i v e n

b y

Bathmanarayanan, dated 30-12-2009.

Ex.P11 — B i r t h C e r t i f i c a t e o f S a n k a r,

dated 1 3 - 6 - 1 9 5 6 .

Ex.P12 — Salary slip of Sankar, for the month of

July 2008.

Ex.P13 — Representation given by Sankar,

dated 30-3-2010.

Ex.P14 — Joint representation given by the

workmen to the union.

Ex.P15 — Representation given by Panjalai

Thozhirsanga Congress to the Labour

Officer, dated 4-7-2011.

Ex.P16 — Representation

given

by

the

Panjalai Thozhirsanga Congress,

d a t e d 26-8-2011.

Ex.P17 — Representation

given

by

the

Psnjaiai Thozhirsanga Congress,

dated 18-12-2009.

Ex,P18 — R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

g i v e n

b y

Panjalai Thozhirsanga Congress,

d a t e d 26-12-2009.

Ex.P19 — R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

g i v e n

b y

Panjalai

Thozhirsanga Congress,

d a t e d 29-12-2009.

Ex.P20 — R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

g i v e n

b y

Panjalai Thozhirsanga Congress,

d a t e d 2 9 - 3 - 2 0 0 9 .

List of exhibits marked for the respondent : Nil.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

NO. 360-369/DSE/EC/C/2013.

Puducherry, the 15th July 2013.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby informed that the following candidates have lost their original Higher Secondary Examination

Mark certificates beyond the scope of recovery and necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate

certificates. If any one finds the original Mark Certificates, they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of

Secondary Examinations, College Road, Chennai – 600 006, for cancellation as they are no longer valid.

Sl.

Register No.

Sl. No. of the

School in which

No.

Name of the applicant

Session and

Mark

studied last

year

Certificate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

1

Aravinthan, R.

548889

HSG 5147712

A c h a r i y a S i k s h a M a n d i r,

March 2010.

Vi l l i a n u r, Puducherry.

2

Ezhilarasi, S.

764436

1210682

Maraimalai Adigal Government

March 2001.

Higher Secondary School,

Embalam, Puducherry.

3

Jaclin Maria, S.

528202

HSG 4494912

Government Higher Secondary

March 2009.

S c h o o l , I n d i r a N a g a r ,

Puducherry.