250
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 April 2014
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 45/Lab./AIL/J/2014, dated 13th March 2014)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. (T) No. 1/2011, dated 27-9-2013
of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the managemant of
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Detergent Factory,
Vadamangalam, Puducherry and Hindustan Unilever
Employees Union, Puducherry, over change of service
conditions of their workmen has been recevied;
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 PONDICHERRY
Present : Tmt. S. MARY ANSELAM, M.A. M.L.,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal.
Friday, the 27th day of September 2013
I.D. (T) No. 1/2011
The Secretary,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever
Employees Union,
No. 306, V.O.C. Street,
Sudhana Nagar 2,
Nainarmandapam,
Puducherry-605 004.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,
Detergent Factory,
N.H. 45A, Vadamangalam,
Villianur Commune,
Puducherry 605 102.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Sridhar, filed
vakalat for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal L. Sathish,
N. Krishnamurthy, T. Pravin and V. Veeraragavan,
Advocates for the respondent upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood over
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. 20/AIL/LAB/J/2011, dated 3-2-2011 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),
P u d u c h e r r y a g a i n s t t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Detergent Division,
Vadamangalam, Puducherry, over change of service
conditions of their workmen without adhering section 9A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and violation
of 12 (3) settlement, dated 10-5-2007 is justified
or not?
(2) If not justified, what relief their workmen are
entitled to? And what conditions should be adopted?
2. The petitioner in this petition has stated
as follows:
The respondent’s annual turnover is ` 20,000
crores and its profit is ` 5,000 crore per year. The
respondent employs more than 1,000 workers and it
is doing standardisation, rationalisation and
improvement of plant or techniques and with
intention of reducing manpower. A notice of change
is required to be given under section 9A of Industrial
Disputes Act for standardisation, rationalisation and
improvement of plant or technique. The changes
brought in NSD-bar section, NSD power section, TSF
and TSN as is claimed in para 1 to 10 of the claim
statement under the heading "changes" are in
contravention and violation of the long-term
settlement, dated 10-5-2007. Any of the workers in
the factory were ever forced by the respondent to
do their work unwillingly as is claimed in claim
statement. There is any violation of section 9 A of
the Industrial Disputes Act. There were any
reduction in the incentives of the workers because of
the rationalisation, standardisation and improvement
of plant or technique. Each workers have lost ` 750
per month from 2007 onwards and the respondent is
bound to pay the same.
251
22 April 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
3. The respondent in this counter has stated
as follows :
The petitioner further submits that the entire case
of the petitioner rests upon the premises that for
standardisation, rationalisation and improvement of
plant or technique, prior notice is required to be given
to the workers under section 9A of Industrial
Disputes Act and since no such notice is given by
the respondent before carrying out standardisation,
rationalisation and improvement of plant or
technique, the entire process of such standardisation,
rationalisation and improvement of plant or
technique is illegal. The petitioner has not produced
an iota of evidence to substantiate that the
respondent is contemplating retrenchment of his
workmen by its act of standardisation, rationalisation
and improvement of plant or technique. It is
pertinent to mention that though it is claimed that
the process of standardisation, rationalisation and
improvement of plant or technique has began as early
as in the year 2007, not even a single instance of
retrenchment is reported to by petitioner. In fact the
petitioner
has
not
even
pleaded
that
the
standardisation, rationalisation and improvement of
plant or technique is carried out by the respondent
with intentions of retrenching the workmen.
The respondent further submit that the process of
standardisation, rationalisation and improvement of
plant or technique is explicitly covered under 12(3)
settlement, dated 10-5-2007 which specifically speaks
about the respondent's power, rights and privileges
to standardisation, rationalisation and improvement
of plant or technique. Clause 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 of
Part-A and 3(e) of the Miscellaneous Service
Conditions of the said settlement deals with
expansion,
modernisation,
mechanisation,
rationalisation of manpower and processes and
introduction of any new products, technology or
machinery as may be required due to the business
exigencies of the respondent. The respondent states
that due to business exigencies the operation known
as mazzoni has been replaced with existing plough
share mixer. Hence, the additional mazzoni operators
are being utilised to operate other equipments in the
same unit.
The respondent states that it has given
5 additional manpower to the NSD plant for the
installation of new machines. Earlier there were
35 workmen allocated to 6 machines and currently
40 workmen are allocated for 8 machines. Hence, there
is proportionate increase in manning for the
additional machines. The respondent states that
12(3) settlement, dated 10-5-2007 contains clauses
pertaining to productivity, production process and
manning for all operations. The incentive scheme is
worked out on the basis of output and productivity
and the respondent is implementing all such process
in accordance with the 12(3) settlement. Hence, it
is not that the company is yielding extra output with
less manning. In fact, all the employees are getting
additional incentives for the proportionate increase
in production along with adequate increase in
manning for each process. The respondent states
the incentive has been calculated on Capacity
Utilisation Index (CUI) method during the last
settlement, dated 12-12-2002 and at present the
incentive is being calculated on the basis of Overall
Equipment Efficiency (OEE) method as per the 12(3)
settlement, dated 10-5-2007. Hence, there is no
reduction in the incentive amount.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On the point:
In this case a settlement, dated 10-5-2007 is executed
between both parties. According to the petitioner a
notice of change is required to be given under section 9A
of Industrial Disputes Act for standardisation,
rationalisation and improvement of plant or technique.
The changes brought in NSD bar section, NSD power
section, TSF and TSN under the heading changes or in
contravention and violation of long-term settlement,
dated 10-5-2007 any of the workers in the factory were
ever forced by the respondent to do their work
unwillingly as is claimed in claim statement. There were
any reduction in the incentives of the workers because
of the rationalisation, standardisation and improvement
of plant or technique. Each worker have lost ` 750 per
month from 2007 onwards and the respondent is bound
to pay the same. It is stated on the side of the
respondent that the petitioner has not produced an iota
of evidence to substantiate that the respondent is
contemplating retrenchment of his workmen by his act
of standardisation, rationalisation and improvement of
plant or technique.
7. Though, it is claimed that the process of
standardisation, rationalisation and improvement
of plant or technique has began as early as in the year
2007 not even a single instance of retrenchment is
reported by the petitioner. It is specifically stated on
12(3) settlement, dated 10-5-2007 which specifically
speaks about the respondents power, right and
privileges to standardisation, rationalisation and
improvement of plant or technique. Clause 1, 5, 10 to
13 of Part-A and 3(e) of the Miscellaneous Service
Conditions of the said settlement deals with expansion,
modernisation, mechanisation, rationalisation of
manpower and processes and introduction of any new
products, technology or machinery as may be required
due to the business exigencies of the respondent.
252
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 April 2014
8. The respondent clearly states that it has given 5
additional manpower to the NSD plant for the
installation of new machines. Earlier there were 35
workmen allocated to 6 machines and currently 40
workmen are allocated for 8 machines. Hence, there is
proportionate increase in manning for the additional
machines.
The 12(3) settlement, dated 10-5-2007 contains
clauses pertaining to productivity, production process
and manning for all operations. The incentive scheme
is worked out on the basis of output and productivity
and the respondent is implementing all such process in
accordance with the 12(3) settlement. In fact all the
employees are getting additional incentives for the
proportionate increase in production along with
adequate increase in manning for each process. After
the settlement the incentive is being calculated on the
basis of Overall Equipment Efficiency method so there
is no reduction in the incentive amount.
9. The 12(3) settlement, dated 10-5-2007 is agreed by
both the parties and the agreement was entered into in
the presence of the responsible Government Officers.
So, the parties are bound by each and every terms and
conditions of such settlement. Once the agreement is
accepted it has to be accepted in toto and partial
acceptance is not possible. No party can seek
enforcement only beneficiary clauses and seek rejection
of non-beneficiary clauses in settlement. So, it is very
clear that the 12(3) settlement, dated 10-5-2007 is
justifiable one. In this case a compromise memo was
filed on the side of the petitioner and the respondent
counsel endorsed no objection in it. Since, the parties
have settled the matter 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 witness examined for the petitioner:
PW. 1
— 4-11-2011— Ezhumalai
List of witnesses examined for the respondent:
RW. 1
— A u g u s t 2 0 1 2 — S . G u r u m o o r t h y
(Maintenance
Executive
in
the
respondent factory).
RW. 2
— 31-3-2012—Santosh Sahakari (Manufacturing
Manager in the respondent detergent
factory).
List of exhibits marked for the pettinioner:
Ex.P1
— Memorandum of Settlement, dated 10-5-2007.
Ex.P2
— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the respondent, dated 26-2-2009.
Ex.P3
— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the respondent, dated 5-3-2009.
Ex.P4
— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the respondent, dated 25-3-2009.
Ex.P5
— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Labour Commissioner/ Labour
Officer,
Conciliation,
Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 12-6-2009.
Ex.P6
— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Labour Commissioner/ Labour
Officer-Conciliation, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 12-6-2009.
Ex.P7
— Letter sent by the respondent to the
petitioner, dated 27-6-2009.
Ex.P8
— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Commissioner/ the Conciliation
Officer, Labour Department, Puducherry,
dated 30-6-2009.
Ex.P9
— Copy of the letter sent by the
petitioner to the Conciliation Officer,
Labour
Department, Puducherry,
dated 8-7-2009.
Ex.P10
— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Conciliation Officer , Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 8-7-2009.
Ex.P11 — Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Conciliation Officer, Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 1-3-2010.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent :
Ex.R1
— NSD bar VIM cascade
Ex.R2
— Copy of the layout.
Ex.R3
— Cascade - 1 Bulk bagging station
Ex.R4
— Copy of production incentive table.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)
(G.O. Ms. No. 24, dated 8th April 2014)
NOTIFICATION
In pursuance of the Order No. 14046/36/2005-UTS-I,
dated 27-2-2014 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
and on having reported for duty in this Administration on
the forenoon of 28-3-2014, Shri K. Jegadesan, I.P.S.
(AGMU: 1998) is appointed as Deputy Inspector-General of
Police, Puducherry.