590
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 August 2014
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 109/Lab./AIL/J/2014, dated 16th July 2014)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the a ward in I.D.(T) No. 4/2008,
dated 23-5-2014 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the General
Manager, M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Puducherry and the
Puduvai Mill Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry over
correction in the date of joining of 15 workers 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 PONDICHERRY
Present : Tmt. S. MARY ANSELAM, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Industrial Tribunal.
Friday, the 23rd day of May 2014
I.D. (T) No. 4/2008
The President,
Puduvai Mill Thozhilalar Sangam,
Puducherry
. . Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me for
hearing in the presence of Thiru Durai Arumugam, Counsel
for the petitioner and Thiru K. Ravikumar, Advocate 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
The industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Pondicherry as per the
Conciliation Failure Report No.1614/2007/LO(C)/AIL,
dated 9-5-2008. The Government of Pondicherry made a
reference to the Labour Court, Pondicherry through
G.O. Rt. No. 112/AIL/Lab./J/2008, dated 4-7-2008.
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Puduvai Mill
Thozhilalar Sangam (CITU), Puducherry against the
management of M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills,
Puducherry over correction in the date of joining of
15 workers viz., Tvl./Tmt. (1) Segar, (2) Sundaramoorthy,
(3) Parameswaran, (4) Anwar Basha, (5) Sathyanarayanan,
(6) Ezhilarassou, (7) Ramanujam, (8) Porkilai,
(9) Patchiyappan, (10) Thangarassou, (11) Karunagaran,
(12) Perumal, (13) Mangalakshmi, (14) Chandrasekaran
and (15) Ramachandiran is justified or not?
(b) If not, what remedy they are entitled to?
Give appropriate directions?
2. The petitioner in this petition has stated as follows:
The petitioner union had raised the industrial dispute
for selection as to the date of confirmation of
15 workmen of Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Puducherry.
The name of the 15 employees is found in Ex.P2 stated
as follows:
Sl.
Labour name
Token
Date of
Date of
Deduction
No.
No.
joing
registration
of year
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1 Sekar
2629
16-6-1985
16-5-1987
2 years
3 months
2 Sundaramurthy
2631
3-3-1985
19-5-1987
2 years
2 months
3 Parameshwaran
2630
13-5-1985
29-5-1987
2 years
4 Anwar Basha
2629
21-2-1985
13-1-1987
1 year
10 months
5 Sathiyanarayanan
432
27-3-1976
1-4-1978
2 years
6 Ezhilarasu
563
2-10-1966
1-5-1970
3 years
6 months
7 Ramanujam
434
2-9-1976
1-4-1978
1 year
6 months
8 Pokkilai
9731
18-6-1984
3-9-1986
2 year s
2 months
9 Pachaiyappan
2643
-12-1986
26-5-1993
6 years
10 Thangarasu
436
4-12-1976
1-4-1978
1 year
3 months
11 Karunagaran
2230
7-4-1979 16-02-1982
2 years
10 months
591
5 August 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
12 Perumal
428
1976
2-5-1977
1 year
5 months
13 Mangalakshmi
2636
14-12-1979
6-7-1987
7 years
6 months
14 Chandirasekaran
2127
1982 18-10-1984
1 year
10 months
15 Ramachandiran
2134
11-1-1980
30-1-1985
5 years
The date of joining is also mentioned in Ex.P2 filed
along with the claim statement.
It is stated in the claim petition that in the respondent
mill some 250 workers are working now. On 1-1-2005 in
consultation with all Labour Union the respondent
released his statement with permanent code number with
all the employees. In that list the date of entry is not
stated as it is mentioned in the ESI Card. Since, there
is a variation in the date of entry into service. The
employees sustained a loss of 14 to 76 months pay.
In this connection, the petitioner union sent a letter to
the respondent. Since no reply was given by the
respondent the matter was taken to the Labour Officer,
Conciliation after 9 months only. The respondent gave
a reply. In their reply, it is stated by the respondent that
the dispute is raised after inordinate delay. It is further
stated why this objection was not raised while giving a
nomination form the request of the petitioner is to
correct. The date of entry, as it is found in the ESI Card,
so it is prayed that the date of entry of all the
15 members are to be corrected as it is found in the
ESI Card.
3. The respondent in this counter has stated as
follows:
As per the ESI Act all the employees including
permanent employees, temporary employees, casual
employees, employees receiving monthly wages,
employees
receiving weekly
wages, employees
receiving wages on hourly basis, piece rated employees,
contract labourers, paid apprentice, paid trainee and
paid probationers will have to be brought under the
purview of the Act. This information is given alike to
all casual employees, contract employees and temporary
employees, this does not mean that they were confirmed
on that date, it only means that they have entered to
the mills as casuals. This respondent denies that the
date of entry as per the ESI Identity Card is liable to be
taken as date of confirmation. As per the EPF Act all
the employees including permanent employees,
temporary employees, casual employees, employees
receiving monthly wages, employees receiving weekly
wages, employees receiving wages on hourly basis,
piece rated employees, contract labourers, paid
apprentice, paid trainee and paid probationers will have
to be brought under the purview of the Act and are
given coverage under the Act in order to protect their
interests. All the employees who are made permanent
are given individual code numbers, and from the date
on which they are made permanent, provident fund
contributions are deducted. The petitioners are claiming
to consider the date of entry mentioned in the ESI Card
as the date of confirmation for all other purposes and
records. This respondent states that the ESI Card is
issued under the Employees State Insurance Act and
the same yardstick under which a worker is brought
under the ambit of the ESI Act cannot be in blanket and
blindly applied to all records not covered by the ESI
Act. On 31-3-2005 the accumulated loss of the
respondent mills stood at ` 87.12 crores and its yearly
loss at ` 10.40 crores. As on 31-3-2006 its yearly loss
at
` 3.84 crores. On account of the continuous loss,
the working capital of the mill has been completely
eroded and presently the mill is able to function only
with the supplier’s credit. As a result which the
respondent has not been able to remit even the
statutory dues to the concerned authorities in time.
The National Textiles Corporation were decided to be
closed down by the NTC as they were termed to be
unviable as per the Revival-cum-Rehabilitation Scheme.
It is only at that point of time that in order to protect
the interest of the workmen, the Government of
Pondicherry had stepped and taken over the mills
directly under the control of the Pondicherry Textiles
Corporation, vide a gazette notification dated 19-4-2005.
A Unit of the National Textile Corporation Limited,
New Delhi and was administered by namely, ‘National
Textile Corporation (Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry)
Limited’. As the NTC had decided to close down the
mills, the Government of Puducherry had offered to run
the mills and the Government of Puducherry and NTC
had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. On
19-4-2005 vide a gazette notification, by a Government
Order issued by the Government of Pondicherry, the
respondent was taken over by the Pondicherry Textile
Corporation as its unit mills. Again on 4-7-2005 vide
a gazette notification G.O. Ms. No. 11/2005-Ind-B,
the respondents were transformed as a company under
the name of Swadeshee-Bharathee Textile Mills Limited,
Pondicherry.
The period of the claim of the petitioner is prior to
1-4-2005 and hence the liability is on the NTC. The claim
of the petitioner can only be against the NTC, and as
they have not been added as a party to the case, the
claim will have to be dismissed on the grounds of
non-joinder of necessary parties. This respondent states
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
592
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 August 2014
that the respondent mill has its own standing orders,
dated 8-7-1968 for the employees and the respondent
mills abide by the said standing orders. This respondent
states that very basic details, such as name,
department, category, token No., father’s name, date of
birth and date of entry of each and every one of the
workmen of the respondent mills, as per the records of
the respondent mills, are reproduced in each pay slip
of such workmen. The respondent mills but all the NTC
mills and its main objective is for the workmen to check
whether the information given by them and recorded by
the respondent in the service records are correctly done
and in case of any discrepancy or clerical error. Each
and every one 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 and
reproduced in the list with permanent numbers. The
respondent mills each of the petitioners will have to
submit Service and Identification Agreement and
Gratuity Nomination. Each of the petitioners have
signed and submitted Service and Identification
Agreements and Gratuity Nominations. Only based on
the information given by the petitioners themselves, the
entries have been made in the respondent mills records.
4. On the side of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were
examined, and the side of the respondent RW1 and RW2
were examined. On the petitioners side Ex.P1 to Ex.P4
were marked. On the side of the respondent, Ex.R1 to
Ex.R3 were marked.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
Whether the demand of Puduvai Mill Thozhilalar
Sangam, Puducherry, against the management of
M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Puducherry for change of
date of entry of the following mills is justified?
6. On the point:
Whether the date of entry in the ESI Card is the date
of confirmation of service is the first point is to be
decided in this case. The date of entry in the ESI Card
is Ex P4. In this regard PW1 in his cross-examination
deposed as follows:
ESI, EPF
ESI
Ex.P4
ESI ESI
ESI
So according to PW1 the date of ESI Card and the year of
issuing ESI is 1979. According to him, he joined the mill as a
temporary employee in the year 1979 and he was permanent
employee from 1982 onwards. He admits that the date of
appointment is mentioned in the monthly salary receipt.
In this regard PW2 deposed as follows :
print
ID 4/2007
writ petition
bathly
ESI
ESI
Ex.P4 ESI
In this regard RW1 in his cross-examination deposed as
follows:
We are issuing ESI Cards to casual labourers also. If he
went to any other work, the number won't change. On seeing
the ESI Card and number, I cannot say whether he is
permanent or casual.
593
5 August 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
In this connection RW2 in his cross-examination deposed
as follows:
clip-English-
Provident fund-nomination form-English-
English
English
On the side of the respondent the ESI declaration form
was marked. In that declaration form the date of joining of the
employee in a particular work is mentioned. The date of
appointment is found in the muster roll. It is further stated on
the side of the respondent that in the pension scheme, the
nominee application form will be given to the employees and
it will be filled up by the employees themselves. Further, in the
pay slip which was issued to the employees also the date of
joining in the service is mentioned there. But the employees
have not taken any steps to rectify that mistake till the filing
of this petition. The petitioners witness Karunagaran PW1
deposed in his evidence nomination form was in English and
the management used to ascertain the name of the nominee
and obtained his signature in it. Likewise, the employees
used to see the gross salary and the deductions and they
were not very particular in noting the date of appointment.
They came to know about the contradiction in the date of
appointment because some of the workers went on VRS and
thereafter only they came to know this contradiction.
7. It is argued on the side of the petitioner that in a similar
case the order was passed in favour of the petitioners and
the number of case I.D.No.4/2007. The order was passed on
19-10-2010 but as against that order a writ petition was filed
and the stay has been granted. So, there is no possibility to
give much importance to the order passed in I.D.No. 4/2007.
8. The appointment order copy of the employees are not
filed in this case. The employees have not filed their pay slip.
It is admitted on the side of the petitioner as well as the
respondent that ESI Card was issued to casual labourers,
permanent labourers, contract labourers, daily wage labourers
and others. So, there is no possibility to consider the date
which was mentioned in the ESI Card as the date of
appointment. It is admitted by the witness that the
employees were employed in the mill as casuals and then
temporary and thereafter the services were confirmed and
made permanent. The date of entry into the service is 1979
but date of regularisation is 1982. This aspect is clearly proved
by the evidence of PW1, PW2, RW1 and RW2.
9. It is stated on the side of the petitioner that they never
used to notice, the date of appointment in the pay slip. It is
their mistake. Further it is stated on the side of the petitioners
that the particulars in the nomination form for PF and gratuity
are not filled by the employees. But they used to give their
particulars. No dispute was raised by the employees till now
that they have given wrong particulars. So the explanation
given by the employees is highly artificial and unbelievable
and it cannot be accepted.
10. In the pay slips and in the gratuity and PF forms a
particular date is mentioned. As the date of appointment and
some other date is mentioned in the ESI Card. The petitioners
have not mentioned what are the records they wish to
correct. What are the documents in which the date of entry is
to be corrected is not clearly stated by the petitioners. It was
not clearly stated in the claim statement as well as in the
evidence. So from the available evidence and from the records,
it is clear that the date of confirmation is different from the
date of issue of the ESI Cards. It is admitted by RW1 and it is
not mentioned in the ESI Card as to whether the employee is
the casual labourer or permanent labourer.
11. According to the petitioners the management has
mentioned some other date as the appointment date in the
records and thereby some 15 members of the union had lost
17 to 74 months salary reduction in their service and so there
was a loss in the gratuity and retrenchment compensation.
The objection was not raised in the proper time. The objection
was raised belatedly and there was inordinate delay. So they
were estopped from raising their objection now. Furthermore,
some of the important documents are not filed by the
petitioners such as their pay slip and their identity card to
show that there are member of the petitioner union.
Furthermore no authorisation was given to PW1 and PW2
to depose evidence before court.
12. It is stated on the side of the respondent that the
period of the claim of the petitioner is prior to 1-4-2005 and
hence the liability is on the NTC. The claim of the petitioner
can only be against the NTC, and as they have not been
added as a party to the case, the claim will have to be
dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary
parties. With regard to this aspect no answer was given on
the side of the petitioner. It is stated on the side of the
respondent as per the Memorandum of Understanding
between the National Textile Corporation Limited and the
Government of Puducherry dated 1-4-2005 all liability prior to
the date of NTC the respondent taken over by the Government
ofPuducherry under zero liability. On 19-4-2005 the Government
of Puducherry has taken over the respondent mill as its unit
mills. Hence, this vital question was not answered by the
petitioners and the present case is bad on the grounds of
non-joinder of necessary parties also. It is clearly stated by
the respondent that each and every one 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. So, the petitioners have estopped from now
raising any dispute over the entries made in the pay slip and
reproduced with the list in the permanent numbers. The
argument on the side of the petitioner that they have not
checked the entries in the pay slip as well as in the
nomination forms is a lame excuse and it cannot be accepted.
Furthermore, it is not the case that they have given the date
of entry wrongly. So, the petitioners have estopped from
594
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 August 2014
claiming such a relief. The order referred in I.D. No. 4/2007 is
passed by this court and according to the respondent an
appeal is pending and stay has been granted. So, there is no
possibility to take that order into consideration to decide the
present dispute. Taking into consideration of all the above
said aspects, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
13. In the result, the present petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court on this the 23rd day of May 2014.
S. MARYANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner:
PW.1 — 10-9-2012 — V. Karunakaran
PW.2 — 21-6-2013 — V. Setharanyam
List of witnesses examined for the respondent:
RW.1 — 29-11-2013—Aadil Shamim
RW.2 — 24-1-2014—Sridher
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 — Photocopy of the Company Labour list,
dated 8-1-2005.
Ex.P2 — Photocopy of the loss of labour details,
dated 6-9-2007.
Ex.P3 — Photocopy of the Company letter,
dated 26-2-2008
Ex.P4 — Photocopy of the ESI identity card in
fifteen members.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent:
Ex.R1 — Copy of the standing orders pertaining
to the respondent’s mills.
Ex.R2 — Copies of the pay slips of 13 petitioner
workmen pertaining to March 2011.
Ex.R3 — Copies of the gratuity nomination forms
of 12 petitioner workmen.
S. MARYANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
No. 429-435/DSE/EC/C/2014.
Puducherry, the 21st July 2014.
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 certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board
of Secondary Examinations, College Road, Chennai – 600 006 for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.
Sl.
Name of the applicant
Register No.,
Sl. No. of the
School in which
No.
session and
mark
studied last
year
certificate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :
1
Muneeswari, V.
545881, March 2013
7994017
K.S.P. Higher S e co n d ar y School,
Kadhirkamam, Puducherry.
2
Ilakkiyan, J.
549449, March 2010
5148209
Aditya Vidyashram Higher Secondary
School, Konerikuppam, Puducherry.
3
Iyyappan, V.
531350, March 2009
4500771
Kamban Government Higher Secondary
School, Nettapakkam, Puducherry.
4
Rajalakshmi, M.
473553, March 2007
2929514
Government Higher Secondary School,
Korkadu, Puducherry.