196
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 March 2014
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 16/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 7th February 2014)
NOTIFICATION
W h e r e a s , a n Aw a r d i n I . D . N o . 2 0 / 2 0 0 3 ,
dated 23-11-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the Managing
Director, M/s. Puducherry Agro Products Food and Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited, Puducherry and PAPSCO
Employees Union, Puducherry represented by its
President Thiru Ravi over overlooked their seniority
and denied the appropriate pay scale 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 : Tmt. S. MARY ANSELAM, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Saturday, the 23rd day of November 2013.
I.D. No. 20/2003
PAPSCO Employees Union
Puducherry represented by its
President Mr. Ravi
. . Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. Puducherry Agro Products Food
and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
Puducherry represented by its
Managing Director
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 4-10-2013 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal
L. Annadoure, Mrs. Sharmila Anandan and N. Anandan,
Advocates for the petitioner, Thiru K. Ranganathan,
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. 105/2003/Lab/J, dated 1-8-2003 based on the
representations made by the PAPSCO Employees Union
stating that PAPSCO had overlooked their seniority and
denied the appropriate pay scale to them. In the said
G.O. the Labour Department has referred the following
matter for adjudication and to pass award within a period
of three months from the date of issue of reference:
(1) Whether the management of M/s. Pondicherry
Agro Products Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Pondicherry has overlooked the seniority
while giving appointment to the posts of Junior
Assistants and Drivers? If so, to give appropriate
direction.
(2) Whether the said management has denied
appropriate pay scale to Thiru K. Ramasamy working
in Coffee Section as Coffee Roaster? If so, to give
appropriate direction.
(3) To what other reliefs the workmen represented
by the said union are entitled to?
(4) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money if it can be computed.
2. The petitioner in his petition has stated as
follows :-
The petitioner states that PAPSCO came into
existence on 1-1-1990 and at the time of its establishment
PAPSCO had recruited casual labourers. The petitioner
states that for about five years on end the casual
labourers were working as such without any promotion
being giving to them. As per the agreement arrived at
between the parties about 25 of the casual labourers
were regularised according to service seniority and
subject to the reservation policy for schedule castes/
tribes as Helpers in the pay scale of ` 750-940
irrespective of the nature of duties performed by them.
But when fitment to appropriate posts was undertaken
the management had overlooked the service seniority
of many candidates in the regular and non-regular
establishments.
The
management
had
wrecked
vengeance
and
victimized
both
the
President
Mr. Sathiyamurthy and Secretary of the union
Mr. Mariyappan who ranked No.1 and 22 respectively
in the seniority list and they were left as Helper and
Auto Driver respectively in the pay scale of ` 750-940
along with some others while similarly placed and
similarly qualified juniors were elevated to higher posts
of Junior Assistant and Driver respectively in the pay
scale of ` 950-1580 and therefore he is entitled to the
salary and other statutory benefits as drawn by Junior
Assistant from 14-8-1995 till 8-7-2003 and the
197
25 March 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
respondent/management must pay the amount less the
amount which he has been drawing as salary every
month and further he is entitled to claim salary as given
to Senior Assistant from 9-7-2003 to 5-9-2005 which has
to be worked out by the respondent/management and
paid in favour of him in accordance with rules and further
his position in the needs to be reverted and placed in
the 1st in the seniority list as it was in existence them.
The petitioner humbly submits that the said
Mariappan was figuring 22nd place in the order of
seniority and he was designated as Auto Driver on
31-10-1995. The petitioner submits that earlier on
21-10-1995 the respondent / management had posted
one Thangavelu, Gowri Ganesh, Ezhumalai and
Munisamy @ Nagarajan to the regular post of Driver/
Staff Car driver who were very much juniors to the
aforesaid Mariappan who should have been posted to
the regular post of Driver/Staff Car Driver and in fact
the respondent/management had done so with the
corrupt intention of victimizing him who had been
actively engaged in trade union activities and in fact
he was the Secretary of the PAPSCO Employees Union.
The said Mariappan having been aggrieved by the order
which would post him as Auto Driver had filed
O.S.No.1539/96 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District
Munsif Court, Puducherry for setting aside the order
and for mandatory injunction against the respondent/
management directing it to post him as Driver/Staff Car
Driver and the suit came to be decreed in his favour by
way of judgment and decree dated 22-12-1998. The
respondent/management had filed Appeal A.S.No.110/99
on the file of Hon’ble III Additional District Judge,
Puducherry.
The
Petitioner
states
that
the
respondent/
management had also disregarded the case of
M. Munisamy for promotion to the post of Junior
Assistant when in fact he had educational both
requisite and desirable qualification like S.S.L.C., +2,
B.Com and English typewriting. The respondent/
management had not considered the cases of Helpers
V. Vijaikumar, V. Murugasamy, V. Datchanamurthy,
V. Palanisamy, S. Vijayaragavan, V. Gunasegaran,
S. Guna, R. Rajaram, S. Narindersundar who should
have been promoted to the post of Junior Assistant.
Consequently, direct the respondent to accord all
statutory, monetary and other benefits to those persons
who were affected by such a promotion done by
overlooking the service seniority retrospectively;
direct the respondent to promote Mr. J. Sathiyamurthy
who is a Junior Assistant at present and who was 1st
in the seniority list, to the post of Manager by awarding
all statutory, monetary and other benefits as per law,
rules and regulations if any and further direct the
respondent to cause fixation of pay scale of ` 3,500 for
Mr. K. Ramasamy- Coffee Roaster on par with the pay
scale fixed for Drivers employed in rice milling and
hulling and oil expelling unit in Puducherry Marketing
Committee, Thattanchavady, Puducherry.
3. The respondent in his counter has stated as
follows:—
The respondent states that the name of the PAPSCO
was changed into Puducherry Agro Products, Food and
Civil Supplies Corporation Limited on 6-3-2007. As such,
between 1-2-1991 i.e. from the date of commencement
of activities of this Corporation and 31-12-1991,
totally 90 candidates were employed as casual
labourers on daily rated basis. The two applicants viz.
Tvl. J. Sathiyamurthy and K. Ramasamy in this I.D are
among the 90 candidates and their educational
qualifications were Higher Secondary and VI (discontinued)
respectively. The eligibility for declaring the seniority
of the said 90 casual labourers was based on the date
of their engagement as casual labourer. As such, the
seniority of the applicants J. Sathiyamurthy and
K. Ramasamy in this I.D. was at No.1 and No.11 among
the said 90 CLRs. the first 25 CLRs. were regularised
on 30-3-1995 in the post of Helpers carrying the scale
of pay of ` 750-12-870-EB-14-940 including the two
applicants. The audit of Comptroller and Auditor
General of India was taken up with due diligence and
the Board of PAPSCO decided to create the post of
“Junior Assistants” falling under Group-C category
carrying the scale of pay of ` 3050-75-4590.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner Sathiyamurthy stung
by handicap in his educational qualification which
deprived him of the promotional opportunity, completed
his typewriting examination during August 2000 after a
gap of five years. The petitioner himself admitted that
at the time of offer of promotion on selection basis
during 1995 he possessed the educational qualification
of 12th standard alone and subsequently he acquired
typewriting examination in the year August 2000. The
petitioner
Sathiyamurthy
was
not
possessing
typewriting and during the scheme of offer of
appointment till November 1995, he was not in the zone
of selection list neither in the first spell of 17 candidates
since he was not possessing Degree/Diploma as the
number of posts required under general category during
July 1995, nor in the second spell of selection list of
3 candidates possessing +2 with typewriting during
November 1995.
The petitioner Sathiyamurthy is that since he has
now acquired the requisite typewriting, the eligible
individuals who were promoted to the post of Junior
Assistant but did not pass the typewriting within the
time frame given and who were subsequently exempted
from the same based on their nature of their duties. The
same ID Thiru K. Ramasamy, Helper who studied up to
V standard (VI Standard discontinued) also offered
198
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 March 2014
Helper post in the scale of ` 750. The absorption of
casual labourers as Helpers was made during 1995 and
while offer of appointment to the first 25 CLRs.
Therefore, the question of offer of promotion to the
above said Ramasamy, Helper to the post carrying in
the scale of ` 3,050 on par with Junior Assistant who
were selected on seniority-cum-merit basis with
necessary qualifications/candidates satisfying the
recruitment rules did not arise.
The above case could not be disposed off within the
said stipulated time by the absence of default of the
petitioner. The stand of the PAPSCO Employees Union
is not consistent as well as common interest. Initially
in the disputes which filed in the year 1996,
23 employees’ names were mentioned by the petitioner
union as if they were overlooked by the PAPSCO and
caused grievances to them. Whereas in the claim
statement filed in the above case by the petitioner
union on 23-4-2009 only 10 names were mentioned
specifically by way of including two more persons
claiming wrongly the acquiring of B.Com. degree
qualification of Thiru Munusamy. Subsequently on
10-11-2010 a list of employees claiming to have been
aggrieved for 17 persons to consider Junior Assistant
post by way of excluding 8 names which furnished in
the list while making industrial dispute in the year 1996
and by way of including one employee namely
R. Balamurugan in the above case. PW1 has admitted
during cross-examination that he has no proof to show
that he is the President of the said union and one
V. Palanisamy is the Secretary of the said union.
4. On the side of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 are
examined and the side of the respondent RW1 was
examined. On the petitioners side Ex.P1 to Ex.P86 were
marked. On the side of the respondent, Ex.R1 to Ex.R19
were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief
sought for is the point for determination?
6. On this point:
lt is stated on the side of the petitioner that it has
raised the industrial dispute over regularisation of
service and framing of industrial standing orders and
therefore the issues have been brought before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) and a settlement has been
arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent
who has agreed to publish tentative seniority list, also
agreed to regularise 25 employees of PAPSCO as per
seniority to the post of Helpers before 31-3-1995 and
it has agreed to submit draft standing orders and on
the basis of agreement a settlement has been drawn
up on 16-2-1995. But while fitment to appropriate posts
was undertaken the respondent overlooked the service
seniority of several candidates for instance one
J. Sathiyamurthy who was the President of the union
and one Mariappan was the Secretary were victimized
in as much as they have been left as Helper and Auto
Driver respectively and similarly juniors were elevated
to higher posts of Junior Assistants and Driver
respectively. According to the management the minimum
educational qualification for appointment as Junior
Assistant is S.S.L.C. passed with typewriting in English
(lower grade) and preference to be given to graduates.
Although the respondent has appointed even those
were not possessed the minimum qualifications required
for the post by relaxing the condition of passing the
typewriting test and requiring them to pass the test
within one year of joining as Junior Assistant. It is
submitted by the petitioner that once again the issue
of supersession of seniority while promoting the
candidates, the issue the denial of appropriate pay scale
and an issue relating Mr. Ramasamy who is the Coffee
Roaster in the coffee section has been taken up before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) since conciliatory
effort taken by the officer has ended in vain and
conciliation failure report No.993/LOC/AIL, dated
5-1-1996 of the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry
came into being and consequently the Government has
been pleased to refer the matter for adjudication before
the Labour Court and the terms of the reference are as
follows:
(1) Whether the management of M/s. Pondicherry
Agro Products Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd., Pondicherry has overlooked the seniority while
giving appointment to the posts of Junior Assistants
and Drivers? If so, to give appropriate direction.
(2) Whether the said management has denied
appropriate pay scale to Thiru K. Ramasamy working
in coffee section as Coffee Roaster? If so, to give
appropriate direction,
(3) To what other reliefs the workmen represented
by the said union are entitled to?
(4) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money if it can be computed.
7. The petitioner submits that despite agreement to
present draft industrial standing orders the respondent
has not framed the industrial standing orders to this
day and similarly there are no recruitment rules framed
and approved by Government and notified for the posts.
The respondent contend that the recruitment rules have
been framed duly only after Office of the Controller and
Auditor General has pointed out during March 1995 as
to the dearth in the number of staff and that the Board
has decided the number of posts needed in various
cadres and fix the recruitment rules correspondingly and
such a stand find place in the counter statement and it
will be appropriate and the relevant portion is stated
below.
199
25 March 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
8. It is advised that they shall decide the number of
posts needed in various cadres and fix the recruitment
rules correspondingly. The recruitment rules consciously
devised by the Board for the post of Junior Assistant
for direct recruitment was as below:
Essential: A minimum pass in S.S.L.C. with
typewriting English Lower.
Desirable: Any Degree/Diploma of a recognized
institution with minimum two years of service
experience.
9. The Board of our Corporation, while deciding the
number of posts of Junior Assistant to be created and
the
corresponding
recruitment
rules
and
the
corresponding rules is mentioned above. So, solely for
the purpose of meeting out roaster based reservation for
SC/ST, 3 scheduled caste candidates with the minimum
S.S.L.C. qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules
was recruited. All candidates initially recruited as Junior
Assistants from the Helper/casual labourer category
satisfied the eligibility prescribed in the recruitment
rules. The petitioner had acquired the typewriting
qualification subsequently during August 2000, on
eligibility and satisfying the recruitment rules, his
promotion of Junior Assistant was offered on account
of vacancy arising and eligibility criteria.
10. Therefore, the question of offer of promotion to
the above said Ramasamy, Helper to the post carrying
in the scale of ` 3,050 on par with Junior Assistant who
were selected on seniority-cum-merit basis with
necessary qualifications/candidates satisfying recruit
rules did not arise.
11. Hence, he was not considered for the post of
Junior Assistant during 1995. Further, for another
petitioner Ramasamy who studied up to V Std.
discontinued one among the CLR of the Corporation
was offered the Helper post satisfying the recruitment
rules applicable to the other CLRs.
12. It is stated in the counter statement and it was
stated by the RW1 in his cross-examination that during
April 1995 the recruitment rules was given which were
not approved by the Government and it was not
necessary. ∞©´_ \V>D 95áD gı| √Ë WB\™
c›>´° kw∫z˛≈VÏÔ^. ∂Õ> WB\™ s]xÁ≈Ô^
∂´E[ ∂–\] ÿ√≈s_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ∂>uz ∂kEBD
÷_ÁÈ.
13. The petitioner becomes necessary to know about
the antecedent of RW1. RW1 has been working as CLR
and as per the settlement arrived at between petitioner
and the respondent the service of CLRs have been
regularised as Helper and the name of RW1 as find place
42 in the seniority list and the management has just
promoted RW1 as Junior Assistant and he has been
successively promoted as Senior Assistant, Manager
and then the Assistant General Manager because he is
in good books with the management and the respondent
management has shown him favourtism in violation of
the principal of natural justice then he has attached
himself as Personal Assistant to the Managing
Directors namely Mr. Ezhumalai, Mr. Ravindran,
Mr. Anbazhagan, Mr.Vasantha Kumar, Mr. Ganesan,
Mrs.Priyadarsini. Further RW1 has prepared the counter
statement and his evidence serving and he is interested
and he is the one who is the cause for the lot of workers
and therefore his evidence is not credible. On the side
of the respondent except RW1 no other witness was
examined so his evidence is viewed with great caution.
14. It is argued that on the side of the respondent
that there are recruitment rules but it is not chosen as
to submit the relevant recruitment rules for the posts
available in the PAPSCO duly approved by the
Government and the same notified in the official gazette.
According to the RW1 it is not necessary to get the
recruitment rules duly approved by the Government, it
is not correct statement because PAPSCO is the
Government undertaking and it is being managed and
functions as such with the funds contributed by the
Government. RW1 says that the management has framed
recruitment rules during the month of April 1995 and
then he would say that the staff service rules of PASIC
is applicable to the respondent Corporation which is a
false one because the respondent has nowhere in the
counter statement has stated that staff service rules
Ex.R18 is applicable to the process of recruitment and
promotion of candidates to the posts. It is not
specifically pleaded and proved that the staff service
rules of PASIC is applicable to PAPSCO. RW1 would
say that staff service rules of PASIC is being in vogue
in PAPSCO from 23-11-1990, for the Corporation has
been incorporated only on 27-9-1990 and it has started
its business activities with effect from 1-2-1991 and
therefore there is no knowing as to kind of recruitment
rules available and the applicable in PAPSCO. RWI
further states the Chairman of the respondent
Mr. Balan has appointed one man committee to over see
the framing and preparation of recruitment rules and the
said one man committee has not framed the recruitment
rules so far. So from the available evidence, it is clear
that there are no recruitment rules framed for the posts
in the respondent establishment down to this day and
the respondent is promoting the candidates as its
whims and fancies would dictate and further it is
indicative there is no rule of law in PAPSCO and all the
workers are either at the mercy of the management or
at displeasure of the management and RW1 is one who
decides all.
15. The Industrial Employment Standing Orders
Act, 1946 require the respondent has to define with
sufficient precision the conditions of employment of
200
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 March 2014
workers who work under it to make the said conditions
known to the workmen employed by it. Section (1) of
the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946
require that the PAPSCO has to submit the draft
standing orders to the certifying officer within six
months from the date on which the Act became
applicable to it. The respondent has agreed before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) to submit the draft
standing orders but the respondent has not taken any
steps to certify the standing orders to this day. Ex.P26
is a copy of the gazette notification of the recruitment
rules for Lower Division Clerk in support of its
contention and prescribing a higher qualification for
recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant must
certainly smack of favouritism and it will only indicate
that the respondent intents to recruit certain person of
its choice and nothing more. The post of Lower Division
Clerk in Government departments and the post of Junior
Assistant are similar and the respondent being a
Government industrial establishment is precluded from
prescribing a different qualification than one prevailing
in other departments of Government and the respondent
is bound to follow the recruitment rules and qualifications
prescribed by other departments. Further the pay scale
of Lower Division Clerk in Government departments is
` 950-1,500 and the pay scale of Junior Assistant in the
respondent establishment is ` 950-1,500 are similar and
therefore there is no difference in pay scale.
16. The service seniority has been affixed by 90
workers and there is no doubt about it and the
respondent cannot deny it. So when once having
decided to recruit helpers to the post of Junior Assistant
the respondent ought to follow rules strictly the
workers rank in the seniority list but the respondent has
failed to do so and promotion has been made recklessly
and against the principles of natural justice as there is
no recruitment rules. A few candidates with qualification
of degree has been promoted as Junior Assistants and
some candidates with S.S.L.C. without typewriting
certificate has been promoted as Junior Assistants and
those appointees who have no typewriting certificates
have been extempted from' production at the time of
promotion and they have been required to produce the
certificates within one year from the date of appointment
and one Vengatachalapathy whose order in seniority is
88 and who has no typewriting certificate has been
promoted as Junior Assistant when in fact he has not
passed the typewriting till this day. Likewise, the
following candidates who have been promoted as
Junior Assistants have been exempted from production
of typewriting certificates as per the office order
No.125/PAPSCO/95, dtated 14-8-1995.
1. Venkatachalapathy (Sl. No. 10 of the office order)
2. V. Jeyaraman (Sl. No. 11 of the office order)
3. V. Sowmian (Sl. No. 13 of the office order)
4. A. Gajavardhan (Sl. No. 15 of the office order)
5. M. Rajasekaran (Sl. No. 165 of the office order)
6. M. Ravi (SI. No. 17 of the office order).
In the seniority of the Venkatachalapathy is 88 in a
list of 90 candidates. The respondent has failed to
consider the following senior candidates who possesses
the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. and above.
Further, the following candidates have been upgraded
as Junior Assistants by superseding the legitimate and
rightful claims of the aforesaid candidates. Name
seniority
1.T. Nallathambi 14
2. J.Santhi 17
3. R. Amaran 18
4. K. Kalyanasundaram 27
5. S. Ganesan 40
6. V. Sripathy 42
7. K. Vengadachalapathy 52
8. D. Vardharaj 79
9. P. Vaithiyanathan 84
These candidates have been further promoted as
Senior Assistants as RW1 one among them. The
petitioners submits that Sathiyamurthy whose order in
this seniority list is 1 has not been promoted as Junior
Assistant by relaxing the conditions as typewriting
certificate but he has been denied promotion because
he was the President of the trade union similarly one
M. Munisamy
who
possessed
the
educational
qualification of higher secondary and typewriting
certificate has been denied promotion because he has
involved actively in trade union activities. Likewise, one
Mariappan who was the Secretary during 1995 was
denied of promotion as Driver. The aggrieved workers
have been promoted to the post of Junior Assistants
during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore
were entitled for all benefits from the date of their claim
which has been overlooked till the date of their claim
promoted as Junior Assistants so it is decided that the
respondents has promoted juniors by overlooking
service seniority. So, it is necessary to place them
retrospectively on the same footing at the time of
passing the order unlawful supersession till the time the
aggrieved workers promoted as Junior Assistants. So
the first question is answered in favour of the
petitioners.
17. One, Mariappan who is the Secretary of the
PAPSCO employees union has been denied promotion
as Driver when in fact candidates who are very much
junior to him have been promoted as Drivers and
201
25 March 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
therefore he has filed as O.S.No.1539/96 against the
respondent and the juniors in service seniority on the
file of Hon'ble Principal District Munsif Court,
Puducherry for setting aside the order of promotion and
after trial the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct
the respondent to place and the post of said Mariappan
in accordance with his seniority while appointing
drivers. The judgment is marked Ex.P83 and the decree
is marked Ex.P84 in the judgment para No.28. It is stated
that DW1 himself has admitted in the evidence that the
first defendant Corporation has overlooked the seniority
of the plaintiff and posted him in lower category while
his juniors were posted in higher category and higher
pay and allowance. The first defendant Government
Corporation should act more in the welfare of its
employees as a model employer and there should not
be any room for whims and fancies.
18. As against the judgment the respondent has
preferred appeal and the appeal was dismissed and
subsequently the respondent has complied with the
direction given in the suit. So far Ex.P83 and 84 it is
very clear that the promotion is being made by the
respondent by overlooking service seniority during the
material point of time.
19. It is submitted on the side of the petitioner name
of K. Ramasamy finds place 11th in the order of seniority
who is the technically experienced skilled hand working
as Coffee Roaster from 31-5-1991. He has been working
in Lakshmi Coffee Works, Puducherry prior to 31-5-1991
and the respondent establishment has sought his
service and therefore he has resigned from the work as
a Coffee Roaster and when the 25 CLRs have been
regularised as Helpers he too has been regularised as
Helper and in fact after appreciating the work of
K. Ramasamy the respondent has fixed his wage at
` 1,000 per month while others who performed clerical
duties were fitted to wages ranging from ` 450-900 and
therefore K. Ramasamy has claimed the pay scale of
` 950-1,500 which is the pay scale for Junior Assistant.
The respondent has not conceded the claim because
K. Ramasamy has been actively engaged in trade union
activities. In order to counter the claim of K. Ramasamy
and deprive his claim respondents sent some workers
to be trained in coffee roasting and grinding in the
Coffee Board in Bangalore and although they have been
trained they could not practically roasting and grinding
coffee Ex.P10 to 13 proves it. Therefore, the respondent
has closed down in coffee section during the pendency
of proceedings with an ulterior motive. The pay scale
of a Driver who performs the duties of rice milling and
hulling which is similar to roasting and grinding coffee
so as to show that both the jobs are analogous. So the
petitioner, need not closed down the unit on the ground
of viability and in fact coffee unit has been fetching
good income and the unit has been closed only due to
retaliatory measure. He has been assigned the duties
which are being performed by Junior Assistant and
therefore the pay or wage as given to their Lower
Division Clerk is to be fixed in his case.
20. The respondent in its written argument would say
of selection post and non-selection posts but on the
petitioner has known all along is that juniors in the
seniority list have been promoted as Junior Assistant
superseding the claim of the seniors who have similar
qualification as arguments and side of the respondents
has not been correct one. Taking into consideration of
the above such aspects it is very clear that the seniority
has been overlooked by the respondent in promoting
employees so the respondent is directed to promote
Mr. J. Sathiyamurthy, Junior Assistant at present who
was the first in the seniority list to the post of Manager
by awarding all statutory, monetary and other benefits
as per law, rules and regulations. The respondent is
further directed to fix the pay scale at ` 3,500
for K. Ramasamy, Coffee Roaster on par with the pay
scale fixed for the employees of rice milling and hulling
unit in Puducherry Market Committee. The respondent
is directed to promote K. Ramasamy to the post of
Junior Assistant by awarding all tentative benefits and
the claim petition filed by the petitioners are allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of
November 2013.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses :
PW.1—Ravi
PW.2—Sathiyamurthy
PW.3—K. Ramasamy
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.P1 — Copy of Technical Education of Munissamy
@ Dayalan in May 1990.
Ex.P2 — Copy of Transfer-cum-Conduct Certificate
of Munissamy @ Dayalan, dated 5-1-1995.
Ex.P3 — Copy of letter of Munissamy @ Dayalan
regarding educational quality and
promotion to the Managing Director,
dated 8-8-2002.
Ex.P4 — Copy of letter of Munissamy @ Dayalan
regarding omission of his name in
Junior Grade to the Managing Director,
dated 21-4-2003.
202
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 March 2014
Ex.P5 — Copy of letter of Munissamy @ Dayalan
regarding promotion for Junior
Assistant to the Managing Director,
dated 10-9-2003.
Ex.P6 — Copy of letter of Munissamy @ Dayalan
regarding promotion for Junior Assistant
to the Managing Director, dated 25-4-2005.
Ex.P7 — Copy of letter of Munissamy @ Dayalan
regarding
promotion
for
Junior
Assistant to the Managing Director,
dated 14-3-1996.
Ex.P8 — Copy of letter of Memorandum from
PAPSCO promotion to the post of Store-
Keeper, dated 4-1-2008.
Ex.P9 — Copy of letter of Office Order from
PAPSCO promotion to the post of Store-
Keeper, dated 29-1-2002.
Ex.P10 — Copy of letter from PAPSCO for
arrangements of training at Bangalore to
the Director of Promotion, dated 24-4-1991.
Ex.P11— Copy of letter from PAPSCO for sending two
persons for training at Bangalore to the
Director of Promotion, dated 27-4-1991.
Ex.P12 — Copy of letter of Training Programme
from Coffee Board, dated 29-4-1991.
Ex.P13 — Copy of letter from Coffee Board for
Training Programme to the Director of
Promotion, dated 10-5-1991.
Ex.P14 — Copy of letter of Order of First Appellate
Authority under RTI Act, dated 2-7-2007.
Ex.P15 — Copy
of
Technical
Education
of
Vijayaragavan in August 2001.
Ex.P16 — Copy of Master Degree Certificate of
Vijayaragavan, dated 10-1-2000.
Ex.P17 — Copy of Letter of Sathiyamurthy to
Managing Director, dated 14-12-2000.
Ex.P18 — Copy of Master Degree Certificate of
Sathiyamurthy, dated 12-3-2000.
Ex.P19 — Copy of Letter from PAPSCO Employees
Union, dated 2-3-2002.
Ex.P20 — Copy of Letter from PAPSCO Employees
Union to the Chief Secretary to
Government, dated 12-4-1996.
Ex.P21 — Copy of Letter from PAPSCO Employees
Union to the Chairman/Managing
Director, dated 27-8-2003.
Ex.P22 — Copy of the List of PAPSCO Helpers
Final Seniority, dated 21-4-2005.
Ex.P23 — Copy of the Memorandum of order of
Regularisation of Helpers, dated 9-7-2003.
Ex.P24 — Copy of the list of PAPSCO Casual
Labourers Final Seniority, dated 30-3-1995.
Ex.P25 — Copy of Memorandum, dated 30-3-1995.
Ex.P26 — Copy of the recruitment rules of Lower
Division Clerk, dated 27-12-2005.
Ex.P27 — Copy of the Office Order of Junior
Assistants, dated 14-7-1995.
Ex.P28 — Copy of Corrigendum of Appointment of
Helpers, dated 27-11-1995.
Ex.P29 — Copy of Office Order of Junior Assistant,
dated 5-12-1995.
Ex.P30 — Copy of Memorandum of Junior
Assistant, dated 15-5-2000.
Ex.P31 — Copy of Memorandum of Junior
Assistant, dated 25-2-2005.
Ex.P32 — Copy of Memorandum of Junior
Assistant, dated 10-6-2005.
Ex.P33 — Copy of Memorandum of Junior
Assistant, dated 14-6-2005.
Ex.P34 — Copy of Office Order of Senior Assistant,
dated 30-6-2005.
Ex.P35— Copy of the Application under the RTI
Act, 2005, dated 8-5-2008.
Ex.P36 — Copy of Memorandum of Junior
Assistant, dated 28-2-2009.
Ex.P37— Copy of the application under the RTI
Act, 2005 for Ramasamy, dated 27-4-2008.
Ex.P38 — Copy of the Matriculation Certificate of
R. Siddardhan, dated 2-6-1978.
Ex.P39 — C o p y o f Te c h n i c a l E d u c a t i o n o f
R. Siddardhan in August 2012.
Ex.P40 — Copy of the Provisional Certificate of
R. Siddardhan, dated 14-7-1997.
Ex.P41 — Copy of the Provisional Certificate of
R. Siddardhan, dated 1-9-1998
Ex.P42 — Copy of the HSC Certificate of
Palanisamy in April 1984.
Ex.P43 — Copy
of
Technical
Education
of
Palanisamy in August 2000.
Ex.P44 — Copy of S.S.L.C. of Palanisamy in
March 1981.
203
25 March 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P45 — Copy of Memorandum for the post of
Junior Assistant, dated 4-1-2008.
Ex.P46 — Copy
of
Technical
Education
of
Sathiyamurthy in August 2000.
Ex.P47— Copy of Master Degree of Sathiyamurthy,
dated 20-11-2008.
Ex.P48 — Copy of Technical Education of Sengeni
in May 1998.
Ex.P49 —Copy of the letter for arrangements for
Training at Bangalore to the Director of
Promotion, dated 24-4-1991.
Ex.P50 — Copy of the letter of sending two person
for Training at Bangalore to the Director
of Promotion, dated 27-4-1991.
Ex.P51 — Copy of the letter from Coffee Board for
Training Programme, dated 29-4-1991.
Ex.P52 — Copy of the letter from Coffee Board for
Training Programme, dated 10-5-1991.
Ex.P53 — Copy of the Permission Letter, dated
23-10-1991.
Ex.P54 — Copy of the Memorandum for maintenance
of Daily Progress Report Register,
dated 15-2-1996.
Ex.P55 — Copy
of
the
Office
Order
for
implementation of the scheme for the
monthly free issue of 10 Kgs. of rice to
Red Card Holder of Puducherry Region,
dated 4-8-2007.
Ex.P56 — Copy of the Office Order for transfer and
posting of Helpers, dated 9-7-1996.
Ex.P57 — Copy of the Office Order of Ramasamy,
dated 7-10-2006.
Ex.P58 — Copy of the Office Order for transfer
and posting of Helper of Ramasamy,
dated 28-6-2003.
Ex.P59 — Copy of Character Certificate, dated
3-6-1991.
Ex.P60 — Copy of S.S.L.C. of Ravi in April 1990.
Ex.P61 — Copy of Technical Education of Ravi in
February 2005.
Ex.P62 — Copy of S.S.L.C. of Balamurugan in
October 1989.
Ex.P63 — Copy
of
Technical
Education
of
Balamurugan in February 2005.
Ex.P64 — Copy of S.S.L.C. of Kumaraguru in
March 1984.
Ex.P65 — Copy of Master Degree of Kumaraguru,
dated 8-12-1998.
Ex.P66 — Copy
of
Technical
Education
of
Kumaraguru in August 2007.
Ex.P67 — Copy of Memorandum for Tentative
Seniority List of Casual Labourers, dated
27-2-1995.
Ex.P68 — Copy of Objection for Tentative
Seniority List of Casual Labourers, dated
8-3-1995.
Ex.P69 — Copy of Memorandum of Casual
Labourers, dated 22-11-1995.
Ex.P70 — Copy of Office Order for Helpers, dated
5-12-1995.
Ex.P71 — Copy of Office Order of Repatriate of
Thiru B. Mohandass, Jr. Assistant,
dated 1-3-1999.
Ex.P72 — Copy of Office Order for posting of
Kumaraguru to discharge the duties of
Cashier, dated 1-3-1999.
Ex.P73 — Copy of letter from Kumaraguru for
willingness to discharge the duties of
Cashier, dated 4-3-1999.
Ex.P74 — Copy of Office Order for Grant of Special
Pay to Kumaraguru for handling cash,
dated 12-7-1999.
Ex.P75 — Copy of inhouse training programme in
accounts, dated 10-12-1999.
Ex.P76 — Copy
of
Technical
Education
of
Murugasamy in August 2005.
Ex.P77 — Copy of Memorandum for post of
Junior Assistant of Murugasamy,
dated 10-6-2005.
Ex.P78 — Copy of S.S.L.C of Murugasamy in
March 1983.
Ex.P79 — Copy of Office Order for Junior
Assistant, dated 30-6-2005.
Ex.P80 — Copy of letter from Ravi regarding RTI
Act, 2005, dated 8-5-2008.
Ex.P81 — Copy of the trial court judgment and decree
and appellate court judgment pertaining
the driver Mariappan (O.S.No. 1539/96,
PDM & A.S. No.110/99 Additional District
Judge), dated 22-12-1998.
204
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 March 2014
Ex.P82 — Copy of the trial court judgment and decree
and appellate court judgment pertaining
the driver Mariappan (O.S.No.1539/96,
PDM & A.S. No. 110/99 Additional District
Judge), dated 22-12-1998.
Ex.P83 — Copy of deposition of witness for
Anbazhagan,dated 9-11-1998.
Ex.P84 — Copy of the trial court judgment and
decree and appellate court judgment
pertaining, the driver Mariappan in A.S.
No.110/99 Additional District Judge,
dated 15-11-2000.
Ex.P85 — Copy of letter from Muthuraman
regarding RTI Act, 2005, dated 8-5-2008.
Ex.P86 — Copy of particulars of staff list eligible
for higher post, dated 10-11-2010.
List of respondent’s witness :
RW1 —V. Sripathy
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Ex.R1 — Authorisation letter, dated 3-2-2013
Ex.R2 — Copy of the recommendations of the
Comptroller-cum-Auditor General of
India as to the dearth of workers and
consequently the decisions as regards
to the recruitment of Junior Assistants
from Helper/Casual Labourers category
(Copy of the Audit Slip No. 18), dated
31-3-1995.
Ex.R3 — Copy of the decision of the Board of the
respondent
Corporation
regarding
absorption of best available talents,
dated 9-6-1995.
Ex.R4 — Copy of the Diploma presented by
V. Kaliyanasundaram and K. Vengada-
chalapathy at the time of promotion to
the post of Junior Assistants, dated
April 1990 and October 1992.
Ex. R5 — Copy of the file pertaining the
recruitment of 1 to 15 whose names find
place in the seniority list and approval
granted by the Board, dated 22-11-1995.
Ex.R6 — Copy of the trial court judgment and
decree and appellate court judgment
pertaining the driver Mariappan (O.S.No.
1539/96, PDM & A.S. No. 110/99 Additional
District Judge), dated 22-12-1998.
Ex.R7 — Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement
arrived between PAPSCO Employees
Union and the Management of
PAPSCO, dated 16-2-1995.
Ex.R8 — Copy of the recruitment rules of the
post of Helper, dated 31-3-1995.
Ex.R9 — Copy of the Memorandum of 25 Casual
Labourers absorbed as Helper posts,
dated 30-3-1995.
Ex.R10 — Copy of the recruitment rules of the post
of Junior Assistants, dated 9-6-1995.
Ex.R11 — Copy of the Memorandum of offer for 17
Junior Assistant posts, dated 24-7-1995.
Ex.R12 — Copy of the recruitment rules of the
post of Driver with copy of the minutes,
dated 4-9-1995.
Ex.R13 — Copy of the Memorandum of offer for 3
Junior Assistant posts, dated 22-11-1995.
Ex.R14 — Copy of the Memorandum of regularisation
of 20 Junior Assistant posts, dated 9-7-2003.
Ex.R15 — Copy of the rentative seniority list of 20
Junior Assistant posts, dated 28-4-2005.
Ex.R16 — Copy of the order of final seniority list
of 20 Junior Assistant posts, dated 10-6-2005.
Ex.R17 — Copy of the Order passed in W.P.
No. 15809 of 2008 by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras, dated 3-3-2010.
Ex.R18 — Copy of the true extract of the
resolutions passed by the Board of
Directors of PAPSCO, dated 23-11-1990.
Ex.R19 — Copy of Staff Service Rules - 1988 of
Pondicherry Agro Service and Industries
Corporation Ltd.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 46/Lab./AIL/J/2014, dated 13th March 2014)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, and award in I.D. (T) No. 8/2011,
dated 27-9-2013 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
in respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Detergent
205
25 March 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Factory, Vadamangalam, Puducherry and Hindustan
Unilever Employees Union, Puducherry, over declaration
of 8 paid holidays and setting off 2 paid holidays during
the year 2010 violating clause 15 of the 12(3) Settlement,
dated 10-5-2007 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Tmt. S. MARY ANSELAM, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal.
Friday, the 27th day of September 2013.
I.D. (T) No. 8/2011
The President,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Employees Union,
No. 306, V.O.C. Street, Sudhana Nagar–2,
Nainarmandapam,
Puducherry-605 004.
. . Petitioner
Vs.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Detergent Factory,
N.H. 45A, Vadamangalam,
Puducherry-605 102.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Sridhar, Advocate
for the petitioner and Thiru L. Sathish, Advocate, for
the respondent 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. 123/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 16-6-2011 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether the dispute raised by Hindustan
Unilever Employees Union (Reg. No. 1534/RTU/2008),
Puducherry against the management of M/s. Hindustan
Unilever Ltd. Detergent Division, Vadamangalam,
Puducherry, over declaration of 8 paid holidays and
setting off two paid holidays during the year 2010
violating clause 15 of the 12(3) Settlement, dated
10-5-2007 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. The petitioner in this petition has stated as
follows:
The respondents annual turnover is approximately
` 20,000 crores and its profit is ` 2,000 crores. The
respondent unit engages more than 1,000 workers in
its unit. The 12(3) Settlement, dated 10-5-2007
contained any illegal clauses much less clause 15(5)
of the said agreement was illegal. The union had
signed the 12(3) Settlement, dated 10-5-2007 without
knowledge of its contents and the Conciliation Officer
had shown any benevolence to the respondent
company. The Commissioner of Labour had ever
clarified that the 12(3) Settlement between the
petitioner union and the respondent was in
contravention of the Puducherry Industrial Establishment
National and Festival Holidays Act, 1964 (PIENFHA)
and this respondent ever attempted to violate the
same. Since the respondent offered two additional
days leave in the year 2009, it accepted that clause 15
of the 12(3) Settlement, dated 10-5-2007 was illegal
and inoperative. The Election Commission had written
a letter, dated 12-5-2009 to the Labour Commissioner,
Puduherry, requesting them to advise the respondent
to desist from insisting upon a compensatory
working day on 27-9-2009. The Labour Commissioner
issued any orders, dated 11-9-2009 instructing the
respondent not to compensate the paid holiday
granted on 13-5-2009. The respondent has ever
violated any statute or order and they claim law unto
themselves and it is conducting a separate kingdom.
The respondent cheated members of petitioner union in
signing 12(3) Settlement.
3. The respondent in this counter has stated as
follows:
The petitioner is entitled for any reliefs as claimed
for in the petition especially 4 days paid holidays for
the year 2010 and 2011 and for compensation of
` 11,30,000 and is liable to imprisoned for six months.
The petitioner is further entitled to 10 days of
national and festival holidays for all the future years
206
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 March 2014
to come. The conditions in clause 15 of the 12(3)
Settlement, dated 10-5-2007 to the effect that “it is
agreed that in case the government declares a paid
holiday on account of polling to a National or State
Assembly, such paid holiday will be set off against
one from among the list of 8 declared earlier in the
year. If it is not possible from the list declared for
the year such paid holiday will be set off against the
one from the list for the succeeding year” is violative of
section 135(B) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Every employee shall be allowed in each calendar
year a holiday of one whole day on the 26 January,
15 August, 16 August and 2 October and four other
holiday each of one whole day for such festival as
the Inspector may, in consultation with the employer
and the employees, specify in respect of any
industrial establishment. Provided that, if the majority
of the employees so desire the 1st May shall be one
of the four festival holidays aforesaid. Provided
further that if in any calendar year the 26 January,
15 August, 16 August and 2 October falls on a weekly
holiday, every employee shall, in addition to his
normal wages, at his option and subject to the
proviso to sub-section (3) of section 5, be entitled to-
(i) An extra single day's wages, or (ii) Avail himself of
an additional holiday with wages on any other day.
Further it is to be seen that section 3 of the Act
provides for only 8 paid holidays, whereas, the
respondent had volunteered to give two extra days
as national and festival holidays by virtue of
clause 15 of 12(3) Settlement. Therefore, the petitioner
are entitled to 10 days of national and festival
holidays only by virtue of clause 15 of 12 (3)
Settlement and not by virtue of section 3 of the said Act.
When additional benefits are provided by respondent
by virtue of a well reasoned settlement over and
above what is prescribed under the statute, the
respondent is well within its right to regulate those
benefits and prescribe special conditions for availing
those benefits. If clause 15 of 12(3) Settlement is to
be attacked on grounds that it is violative of section 3,
then the additional benefits of 2 paid holidays that
flow from the said clause will also have be struck
down. But the petitioner insists that they should be
given 10 paid holidays as per the settlement, but are
only objecting to the regulations prescribed for
availing those holidays. The petitioner cannot
choose only those portions of settlement which are
beneficial to them and attack the rest of the portions
which imposes certain conditions for enjoyments of
those benefits as null and void.
The respondent had granted a paid holiday on
13-5-2009, but only sought to adjust the same against
one of the 10 paid holidays given to the workers
upon mutual agreement under clause 15 of 12(3)
agreement. Such agreement cannot be termed to be
violative of section 135(B) of Representation of
People Act, 1951. That is the reason why the
respondent is offering two extra days holidays over
and above the statutory requirements, to enable it
off-set the same against any unforeseen public
holidays
declared
by
the
government.
The
respondent submit that 12(3) Settlement has a force
of law under the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act and it cannot be struck down unless it is
violative of any statute. It is trite proposition that a
settlement cannot be dissected into pieces and the
clauses that are disadvantageous to the workers
cannot be attacked as illegal. A settlement is always
treated as package and benefits and obligations flow
from the same. No party can seek enforcement only
beneficial clauses and seek rejection of no so
beneficial clauses in a settlement. The parties who
have entered into an agreement with their eyes wide
open and that to in the presence of a responsible
government officer, are bound by each and every
terms and conditions of such settlement. Once the
petitioner claim 10 days compulsory holidays as per
terms and conditions of the settlement the
subsequent limb of the same clause entitling the
management to adjust any polling day from the said
10 contractual holidays cannot be rejected as
violative of any provision of law.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On the point:
On 10-5-2007 12(3) Settlement was executed now
according to the petitioner clause 15(5) of the said
agreement is illegal. Clause 15 of the 12(3) Agreement
is with regard to paid holidays. Section 3 of the Act
provides for only 8 paid holidays. Whereas in the 12(3)
Settlement the respondent had volunteered to give two
extra days as national and festival holidays, so, the
petitioner is entitled to 10 days of national and festival
holidays only by virtue of clause 15 of 12(3) Settlement
and not by virtue of section 3 of the said Act. If clause 15
of 12(3) Settlement is to be attacked on grounds that it
is violative of section 3 then the additional benefits of
2 paid holidays that flow from the said clause will also
have be struck down. But the petitioner insists that they
should be given 10 paid holidays as per the settlement,
but he is objecting to the regulations prescribed for
availing those holidays when a settlement entered into,
it has to be accepted in toto. The petitioner cannot
choose only those portions of settlement which are
beneficial to him and attack the rest of the portions
which imposes certain conditions for enjoyment of
those benefits as null and void.
207
25 March 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
7. The respondent had granted a paid holiday
on 13-5-2009 but only sought adjust to the same against
one of the 10 paid holidays given to the workers upon
mutual agreement under clause 15 of 12(3) Agreement.
Such agreement cannot be termed to be violative of
section 135(B) of Representation of People Act, 1951.
The respondent is offering two extra days holidays over
and above the statutory requirements to enable it off-
set the same against any unforeseen public holidays
declared by the government. 12(3) Settlement has a force
of law under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.
The settlement is mutually agreed between the parties
and so it cannot be struck down unless it is violative
of any statute. A settlement has always treated as
package and benefits and obligations flow from the
same. No party can seek enforcement only beneficial
clauses and seek rejection of the non-beneficial clauses
in a settlement. The settlement is entered into in the
presence of responsible government officers and so the
parties are bound by each and every terms and
conditions of such settlement. Once the petitioner claim
10 days compulsory holidays as per the terms and
conditions of the settlement. The subsequent limb of
the same clause entitling the management to adjust any
polling day from the said 10 contractual holidays
cannot be rejected as violative of any provision of law.
8. So, it is very clear that clause 15 of the 12(3)
Settlement, dated 10-5-2007 is not violative of any
provision of law and so clause 15 of the 12(3)
Settlement, dated 10-5-2007 is justified.
9. With regard to the question No. 2 and 3 no objection
is raised on the side of the parties with regard to that
there is no agitation in this case. The compromise memo
was filed on the side of the petitioner and the
respondent counsel filed an endorsement that he has
no objection in recording it. And now, the petitioner is
not pressing the petition. So, the petition is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court on this the 27th day of September, 2013.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal.
————
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner :
PW.1 —
3-2-2012 —Ezhumalai
PW.2 — 14-8-2013 —G. Ganesan (Assistant Inspector
of Labour).
List of witness examined for the respondent :
RW.1 —
4-4-2012 —M. Arokia Berdila Anand
(HR
Executive
in
the
Respondent Factory).
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
Ex.A1 — Memorandum of Settlement, dated 10-5-2007
Ex.A2 — Letter sent by the Inspector of Factories
to the occupier of the petitioner’s
company, dated 16-12-2009.
Ex.A3 — Form-V. Approved by the Inspector of
Factories, dated 11-12-2008.
Ex.A4 — Circular of the Labour Department,
dated 22-4-2009.
Ex.A5 — Letter by the Election Department,
Puducherry to the Labour Commissioner
of Puducherry, dated 4-5-2009.
Ex.A6 — Order issued by the Labour Commissioner,
dated 11-9-2009.
Ex.A7 — Reply by the respondent to the Labour
Officer, dated 3-11-2010.
Ex.A8 — Letter by the organiser of the Hindustan
Unilever Employees Union, dated 3-9-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent :
Ex.B1 — Pay slip of the petitioner for the month
of October 2011.
Ex.B2 — Form-V issued by the factory Manager
respondent for the year 2010, dated
27-1-2010.
List of exhibits marked through PW.2 :
Ex.X1 — Authorisation letter by Commissioner of
Labour to PW. 2, dated 5-7-2013.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
No. 650/CEO/Exam.Cell/2013-14.
Puducherry, the 27th February 2014.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby notified that the original S.S.L.C. Mark
Certificate under Register Number 476854 of April 2004, in
respect of P. Kala, an ex-pupil of Kasthuribai Gandhi
Government Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Bahour
is reported to have been lost and beyond the scope of
recovery, it is proposed to issue a duplicate certificate.
If the original certificate is to be found by anybody, it
should be sent to the Director of Government
Examinations, Chennai-6 for cancellation as it is no
longer valid.
R. KALAISELVAN,
Chief Educational Officer.