914
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 December 2014
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 138/Lab./AIL/J/2014, dated 5th December 2014)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. (T). No. 3/2006, dated
28-10-2014 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the Managing
Director, M/s. Pondicherry Co-operative Sugar Mills
Limited, Puducherry and Pattali Thozhir Sangam,
Puducherry over seniority of Thiru A. Udayakumar 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)
GIDDI BALARAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT PONDICHERRY
Present : Thiru G. DHANARAJ, B.Sc., B.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal.
Tuesday, the 28th day of October 2014
I.D. (T) No. 3/2006
The President/Secretary,
Pattali Thozhir Sangam,
Pondicherry Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Puducherry
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Manager Director,
Pondicherry Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of Mrs. Devasundari,
Counsel for the petitioner and A.N.D. Law Associates
Thiruvalargal K. Palaniappaan and R. Asvani Palaniappaan,
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
The industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Pondicherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No.63/AIL/Lab./J/2006, dated 31-3-2006 of the Labour
Department, Pondicherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(a) Whether the demand of Pattali Thozhir
Sangam claiming seniority of Thiru A.Udayakumar,
Helper, over Thiru S. Elangovan, against the management
of M/s. Pondicherry Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited
is justified or not?
(b) If not, what remedy the petitioner is entitled to?
To give appropriate directions?
2. The petitioner in this petition has stated as
follows:
The petitioner union is a trade union registered
under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 bearing No. 656/86.
The said union is working for the cause of the
workmen of the respondent mills. The present dispute
pertains to the seniority of Thiru A. Udayakumar,
Helper in relation to Thiru S. Elangovan, another
Helper in the mills. During the pendency of the
industrial dispute relating to the seniority of the
above two Helpers, the respondent management
granted promotion to S. Elangovan, as Fitter and
hence the issue relating to legality of the promotion
granted to S. Elangovan is also covered in this
dispute. Thiru A. Udayakumar joined the service of
the Pondicherry Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., on 9-1-1984
as NMR employee and from 1-6-1986 onwards he has
been working as Fitter-Helper and he has been
discharging his duties in a very and honest manner
and without any black mark. The rival claimant
S. Elangovan also joined the service of the mills as
NMR employee on 9-1-1984 and later appointed as
Fitter-Helper on 1-6-1986. As per the practice followed
in the respondent mills and as per the sound
principles of Labour law, the petitioner was accorded
higher status in terms of seniority, he being elder
than S. Elangovan, as the date of birth of petitioner
Udayakumar and S. Elangovan are 11-7-1963 and
7-10-1965 respectively. Accordingly the respondent
mills maintained the seniority list granting the
petitioner Udayakumar higher position when compared
to S. Elangovan.
In terms of merits also Thiru A. Udayakumar was
in a better position when compared to S. Elangovan.
Ever since the date of appointment, the former was
regular in attending to the duties while the latter was
915
23 December 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
very irregular in attendance. On account of very poor
attendance, S. Elangovan was on loss of pay on
several occasions. This has resulted in interruption
of continuity of service by way of “service cuts”
made by the respondent management. After taking
note of the above irregularities and demerits in the
service records of Thiru S. Elangovan the respondent
management fixed lower wages when compared to
A. Udayakumar. However, contrary to the above
f a c t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e h i g h e r s e n i o r i t y o f
A. Udayakumar over S. Elangovan, the respondent
management suddenly somersaulted and took a
deviant stand that S. Elangovan is senior to
A. Udayakumar. Accordingly, the respondent altered
the seniority list of Helpers and accorded higher
seniority position to S. Elangovan, resulting in
raising the industrial dispute in respect of the
seniority position of the above persons in the
category of Helpers. The petitioner union would like
to bring to the kind attention of this court the
seniority lists published by the respondent management
in the year 1986, 1989 and 1995 for all the categories
of employees in the mills. It is very pertinent to note
that in the seniority list of the year 1986, in the
category of Helper the name A. Udayakumar (F) has
been placed under serial No. 14 while S. Elangovan
has been placed below him under Serial No. 15.
Similarly in the seniority list of the year 1989
A. Udayakumar and Elangovan have been placed
under Serial Nos. 12 and 13 respectively in the
category of Helpers. To add further in the seniority list
of the year 1995 in the seniority list of Fitter-Helpers
(Semi-skilled) Udayakumar and Elangovan have been
accorded seniority position No. 6 and 7 respectively.
However, quite surprisingly in the seniority list, dated
28-4-2000 obliged by the respondent in the category
of Fitter-Helper (Seasonal) the said S. Elangovan has
been placed in the 4th position while A. Udayakumar
has been placed in the 5th position. Aggrieved by
the same the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute.
The petitioner union raised the dispute by
submitting representation, dated 20-9-2001 to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Pondicherry finding
fault with the respondent management for altering
the seniority position of Udayakumar. The respondent
management filed its reply before the Conciliation
Officer belatedly, after 4 years. This made the
petitioner union to submit its rejoinder for the reply
of the respondent management. As the conciliation
of the dispute was not possible due to the adamant
attitude of the management, it tendered in failure
report, dated 2-12-2003 by the Conciliation Officer.
And the present dispute has been referred to this
court by the Government through G.O. Rt. No., dated
31-3-2006. During the pendency of the above
industrial dispute before this court the respondent
management has granted promotion to S. Elangovan
as Fitter through order, dated 4-11-2006 with effect
from 6-11-2006.
When the dispute between the petitioner union
and the respondent management in the matter of
seniority of Udayakumar in relation to Elangovan in
the post of Fitter-Helper was pending before this
court, the granting of promotion by the respondent
to said Elangovan as Fitter is highly unjustified,
making mockery of judicial proceedings. In fact even
when preparatory steps were taken by the
respondent in this regard, Thiru A. Udayakumar sent
notice, dated 9-10-2006 through his counsel calling
upon the respondent to stop the process of issuing
Fitter promotion to Elangovan and till the disposal
of industrial dispute by this Tribunal. The above act
of the respondent is also against the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contained in
section 33. According to the above provision the
employer shall not alter to the prejudice to the
workman concerned in the industrial dispute the
condition of service applicable to workman
immediately before the commencement of proceeding
before the Industrial Tribunal, during the pendency
of the proceedings before the Tribunal. By granting
promotion to S. Elangovan the respondent has
altered the condition of service applicable to
workman concerned in the Dispute ID(T) 3/2006 in
regard to matter connected with the dispute
(i.e. seniority). The respondent management is an
agency of instrumentality of State under Article 12
of the Constitution of India and is expected to act
as a model employer. The above act of the respondent
is also against the certified standing orders and
service rules of the respondent company. Moreover
it reveals a clear case of arbitrary exercise of power
by the respondent. The constitutional principle of
equality has also been grossly violated by the
respondent. As the respondent has no justification
to ignore the settled seniority list in the post of
Fitter-Helper, there is a good ground for interference
by this court.
The issue relating to granting of promotion to
S. Elangovan is incidental to the terms of reference
made by the Government for determination by this
Tribunal. This Tribunal may kindly take note of the
916
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 December 2014
fact that for granting promotion the material factor
is the seniority in the feeder post. As such the
question relating to legality of the promotion granted
to S. Elangovan by the respondent to the post of
Fitter comes within the purview of this Tribunal,
being incidental to the determination of main issue
relating to seniority position of A. Udayakumar and
S. Elangovan in the post of Fitter-Helper. This
dispute can also be approached from another angle.
According to section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 this Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate
as to whether the condition of service of the workman
has been changed during the pendency of the
proceedings when complaint is given in writing with
regard to contravention of section 33 of the above
Act. As such the petitioner intends to submit a
separate complaint in writing.
The petitioner craves leave of this Tribunal to treat
the various representations and contentions made by
the parties before the Conciliation Officer may kindly
be treated as part and parcel of the representations
and contentions before this Tribunal. Except the facts
that are specifically admitted herein the petitioner
expects the respondent to prove its contentions
relating to the industrial dispute. The petitioner
reserves its right to file additional claim statement,
if warranted at a later stage. The petitioner prays
this Tribunal to pass an award holding that the demand
of the petitioner union claiming seniority of
Thiru A. Udayakumar, Helper over Thiru S. Elangovan
against the management of the respondent mills is
justified, that the promotion granted to Thiru S. Elangovan
to the post of Fitter is null and void and to grant
such other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.
3. The respondent in this counter has stated as
follows:
The respondent denies all the averments
contained in the claim statement except those that
are admitted hereunder.
The dispute relating to promotion of one S. Elangovan
as Fitter, from the post of Fitter-Helper, is not covered
by the reference and therefore, it cannot be raised in
this proceeding. The dispute relates to the grant of
seniority to the said S. Elangovan in preference to
one A. Udayakumar.
The respondent puts the petitioner to strict proof
that it is the practice of the mills, to fix seniority on
the basis of age factor. The said Udayakumar is elder
to the said Elangovan by less than 2 years. Having
regard to the educational qualification, the ability, the
skill and the quality of performance, the seniority is
fixed. The seniority list, published in the routine
manner does not give any vested interest to the said
Udayakumar nor it is binding on the mills.
When the promotion was due from the post of
Fitter-Helper, following the principles of fairness,
equity and good conscience, the mills having
examined the correctness of the ranking and given
an overall consideration to all the attending and
relevant factors, had rightly revised the seniority and
placed the said Elangovan senior to the said
Udayakumar, and the mills are not estopped from
revising the order of seniority. The mills bona fide
revised the seniority after considering all relevant
factors, relating to the said Udayakumar and the said
Elangovan. The respondent puts the petitioner to
strict proof the said Udayakumar has a meritorious
record deserving senior status to that of the said
Elangovan.
The leave on loss of pay is considered only for
the postponement of increments and not for the
reduction in seniority and therefore, the claim of the
petitioner is untenable. The respondent puts the
petitioner to strict proof that there is interruption of
continuity of service by way of “service cuts” in the
case of the said Elangovan. The respondent puts the
petitioner to strict proof that in terms of merits, the
said Udayakumar was in a better position than the
said Elangovan. The respondent puts the petitioner
to strict proof that there are demerits in the service
record for the said Elangovan to rank him junior to
the said Udayakumar. The respondent puts the
petitioner to strict proof that the act of the mills is
against the certified standing orders and the service
rules. The respondent denies that there was an
arbitrary exercise of power in the case of the said
Udayakumar. The ranking of the said Elangovan as
senior to the said Udayakumar is just and proper and
consequently the promotion given to the said
Elangovan, as Fitter, from the post of Fitter-Helper,
on the basis of the revised seniority is also just and
proper. The act of the mills is not mala fide.
Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
This court may be pleased to dismiss the reference
with cost.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PW1 was examined,
and the side of the respondent RW1 and RW2 were
examined, on the petitioner side Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were
marked. On the side of the respondent, Ex.R1 to Ex.R6
were marked.
917
23 December 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed or not?
6. On the point:
Both sides heard. It was submitted by the counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner is representing one
Udayakumar who was working as a Helper in the
Pondicherry Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, seniority
was to be fixed as to the senior to one S. Elangovan
who was a junior in the service of the said respondent
mill by virtue of joining date. Subsequently, the said
Elangovan was placed as a senior to the said Udayakumar.
The conciliation was taken place regarding the fixation
of the seniority between the said Udayakumar and
Elangovan. The said conciliation was failed because of
the attitude of the respondent management. Hence this
reference. The said Udayakumar was to be placed as a
senior to the said Elangovan in his service.
7. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended
that the seniority was being fixed on the basis of merit-
cum-seniority and other relevant factors. The said
Elangovan was qualified technically better than the said
Udayakumar. Hence the claim of the petitioner that
Udayakumar was to be placed as a senior over the said
Elangovan was not maintainable.
8. After hearing both sides, records were perused.
On perusal it comes to light that on behalf of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and on behalf of the
respondent RW1 and RW2 were examined. On behalf of
the petitioner Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked. Respondent
side Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 were marked.
9. On the basis of the submission of the respondent
counsel, a perusal of the evidence of RW1 who would
say as follows (relevant portion):-
“The workman, A. Udayakumar was appointed as
“Fitter-Helper” (seasonal) on the same consolidated
pay of ` 620 per month with effect from 1-6-1986. The
workman, S. Elangovan, the counterpart of A. Udayakumar,
was also appointed to the post of “Fitter-Helper”
(Seasonal) with effect from 1-6-1986 from the post of
“Oil Man” (Seasonal). The order of seniority among
the “Fitter-Helper” (Seasonal) was assigned by the
selection committee, having regard to respective
educational and technical qualifications, among other
aspects. The workman, A. Udayakumar passed S.S.L.C.
(10th standard) in 1980 and the technical course in
fitting (Higher Secondary Course Certificate-Vocational
Eduation) in 1982, whereas, the workman, S. Elangovan
passed Fitter Grade in Junior Technical High School (JTS)
in 1981 and the course of General Mechanist
in Technical Higher Secondary School-Vocational in
1983. Therefore, the selection committee having
examined the relative technical qualifications of both
the workmen, ranked S. Elangovan as senior to A.
Udayakumar, which is just and proper. There is no
practice in the mills to fix seniority only on the basis
of age.”
A cursory reading of the evidence of RW1 would
show that the seniority was fixed on the basis of the
merit and other qualifications by the competent
authority, namely, the selection committee and the
seniority was not fixed on the basis of age.
10. A perusal of evidence of PW1 at the time of
cross-examination who would show as follows (relevant
portion):-
“
NMR
Fitter/Helper
Fitter/Helper
seasonal semi-skilled
Fitter Fitter/
Helper
seniority
Selection commitee
seniority ”
A careful study of evidence of PW1 at the time of
cross-examination would reveal the fact that a
selection committee was constituted for the purpose
of deciding the seniority among the workers, on the
basis of the said committee report, seniority was
fixed, was the evidence of PW1 at the time of cross-
examination.
11. Though, it was submitted by the petitioner that
the said Udayakumar seniority was fixed over the said
Elangovan as exhibited, Ex.P1, but a perusal of Ex.P1,
on the basis of the evidence of PW1, which would show
that the Ex.P1 was not at all a authorised document i.e.,
the said document was not signed either by the respondent
mill authority or by any competent authority and also
it was only a photocopy containing the names as
mentioned thereon. The said photocopy also would not
show the fact for which purpose the said copy was
prepared and by whom on which date, these facts were
not revealed on the face of the said document.
The other documents filed by the petitioner also would
not establish the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner was fully qualified for the said post, namely,
the post which was in dispute and the said Udayakumar
918
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[23 December 2014
was fully qualified to be placed over the said Elangovan
as a senior by the respondent authority. Whereas, the
documents filed by the respondent would reveal the fact
that the said Elangovan was qualified for the said post,
namely, the Fitter was established by the respondent
by the documents as adduced by the respondent,
marked as exhibits. Hence the court decided on a
considered view that the case of the petitioner was not
established and whereas the case of the respondent was
established. The points are answered accordingly.
12. In the result, the reference is answered that the
claim of the said Udayakumar seniority over the said
Elangovan was not justified and the petitioner is not
entitled for any relief, on the basis of the seniority
claimed. Accordingly it is ordered.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 28th day of October 2014.
G. DHANARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner:
PW.1 — 4-4-2012
— Udayakumar
List of witnesses examined for the respondent:
RW.1 — 22-8-2013
— Dayalan
RW.2 — 27-6-2014
— Ilangovan
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the extract from seniority list
published by the respondent company
in 1986.
Ex.P2 — Copy of the extract from seniority list
published by the respondent company
in 1989.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the extract from seniority list
published by the respondent company
in 1995.
Ex.P4 — Copy of the representation submitted by
me to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P5 — Copy of the reply filed by the respondent
to
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the failure report submitted by
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry
to Secretary to Government (Labour),
dated 2-12-2003.
Ex.P7 — Copy of the circular, dated 8-8-2006
issued by the respondent.
Ex.P8 — Copy of the letter submitted by me to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,
dated 20-9-2001.
Ex.P9 — Copy of the letter submitted by me to
the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, dated 5-12-2000.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent:
Ex.R1 — Copy of the Mark list, dated 25-6-1981
Ex.R2 — Copy of the Mark list, dated 7-6-1983
Ex.R3 — Copy of the Mark list, dated 7-6-1984
Ex.R4 — Copy of the Statement of Marks,
dated 7-5-1990.
Ex.R5 — Copy of the National Trade Certificate
Ex.R6 — Copy of the Certificate of Competence,
dated 18-9-1993.
G. DHANARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 139/Lab/AIL/J/2014, dated 5th December 2014)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I.D. (T) No. 19/2012,
dated 24-9-2014 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
in respect of the industrial dispute between the Managing
Director, Anglo-French Textiles, Puducherry and
Thiru A. Rajendiran, over regularisation in the post of
Attender with remuneration 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)
GIDDI BALARAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
919
23 December 2014]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT PONDICHERRY
Present : Thiru G. DHANARAJ, B.SC., B.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal.
Wednesday, the 24th day of September 2014
I.D. (T) No. 19/2012
A. Rajendiran
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Anglo-French Textiles,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before
me for hearing in the presence of Thiru V.N.S. Srinivasan,
Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru B. Mohandoss,
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. 126/AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 24-7-2012 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether
t h e
d i s p u t e
r a i s e d
b y
Thiru A. Rajendiran against the management of
M/s. Anglo-French Textiles over regularisation in the
post of Attender with remuneration is justified?
(2) If justified, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. In view of the order passed in I.A.23/2014, the
petition is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court
on this the 24th day of September 2014.
G. DHANARAJ,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
}|{