174
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 12/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 22nd February 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. (L) No. 26/2006, dated
22-12-2015 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the Industrial Dispute between the MRF Thozhilalar
Sangam and the management of M/s. MRF Limited,
Eripakkam, Puducherry over non-employment of
23 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)
E. VALLAVAN,
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru N. SIVAKUMAR, B.A., B.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Tuesday, the 22nd day of December 2015
I.D. (L) No. 26/2006
MRF Thozhilalar Sangam,
Registration No.1278/RTU/2001,
Represented by its General Secretary,
No. 10, Kulathu Mettu Street,
Embalam and Post,
Pondicherry-605 106.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management of M/s. MRF Limited,
Represented by the General Manager,
Eripakkam, Pondicherry-605 106.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 11-12-2015 for
final hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal
Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan and P. Ganesh Ram, Counsel
for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan and
I. llankumar, Counsel for the respondent, upon hearing
both sides, perusing the case records and having stood
over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered
the following :
AWARD
This Industrial Dispute has been referred as per the
G.O. Rt. No. 151/AlL/Lab./J/2006, dated 19-10-2006
for adjudicating the following :
1. Whether the terminated of Tvl. (1). T. Arumugam,
(2) K. Subramanian, (3) B. Velmurugan,
(4) P. Nagamuthu, (5) S. Bakiaraj, (6) A. Arulselvan,
(7) G. Sekar, (8) D. Deenadayalan, (9) K. Murali,
(10) K. Kumar, (11) A. Rajavel, (12) K. Balamurugan,
(13) J. Durai, (14) J. Gnanamurthy, (15) A. Ramamurthy,
( 1 6 ) R . P a n n e e r, ( 1 7 ) R . R a j a l i n g a m ,
(18) Marudahachalamurthy, (19) V. Muthukumarasamy,
(2 0 ) Vanavaramb an, (2 1 ) M. Sab arinathan,
(22) S.M. Saravanan, (23) M. Narayanan, by the
management of M/s. MRF Limited Pondicherry are
workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
If so, whether their termination is justified or not?
(2) If not, what relief, they are entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition runs thus :
2(i) The workman concerned in the above
mentioned industrial dispute are members of the
petitioner trade union, namely, M/s. M.R.F. Limited,
Pondicherry, (Registration No. 1278/RTU/01) and the
said union having the strength of 390 workers among
the employees 23 workmen concerned in this case
had joined service of the respondent company
between 1-6-1999 and 7-11-2002. The respective dates
when the said 23 workers joined the service of the
respondent company have been indicated in the
Annexure to the claim statement.
2(ii) The respondent company is a leading
manufacturer of tyres, and its factory at Pondicherry
is engaged in the manufacture of car and truck radial
tyre. The Pondicherry factory of the respondent
company commenced production activity in the
year 1998. However, even 3 years after the factory
commenced production, the factory did not have
a single permanent workman and the workers engaged
in regular manufacturing activity were designated as
apprentices and probationers and many of them were
without any designation but said to be 'under
observation'. The respondent management adopted
such a practice in a bid to evade the application of
the labour welfare laws and was in fact not complying
with the labour laws.
175
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
2(iii) The petitioner union, namely, MRF Thozhilalar
Sangam was formed on 29-9-2001 and the President
sent a communication about the formation of the
union to the respondent management. Immediately
thereafter, the management embarked on a spree of
victimization and terminated all the 218 members
of the petitioner union. So, the petitioner union filed
W.P. No. 20591 of 2001 before the Hon'ble High Court
of Madras against the respondent company seeking
for reinstatement of the workers so terminated. In the
meanwhile, the management started engaging
outsiders to do the work hitherto done by the said
workers and the petitioner union filed another
writ petition in W.P. No. 19 of 2002 before the
Hon'ble High Court, Madras seeking a direction to
the respondent not to recruit any outsiders without
first giving employment to the members of the
petitioner union. The respondent management
also created a puppet union under the name
“M.R.F. Employees Union” which is closely resembled
that of the petitioner union.
2(iv) On 10-6-2002, the Hon'ble Court of Madras was
pleased to pass a common order in W.P. Nos. 20591
of 2001 and 19 of 2002. It is observed by the
Hon'ble High Court in the common order that the
situation created by the respondent management was
most unconscionable, monstrous and deplorable and
also further held that it is the formation of the
petitioner union that had triggered the spree of
terminations. Finally, the Hon'ble High Court allowed
W.P. Nos. 20591 of 2001 and 19 of 2002 directing the
reinstatement of the terminated employees with full
back wages. As against the said order, the respondent
management
had
preferred writ appeals
W.A. Nos. 2043 and 2044 of 2002 and during the
pendency of the appeals, the management has
reinstated all but, 49 of the said workers. The said
49 workers include the President of the petitioner
union, A. Sivanandan; General Secretary, P. Anburadjou,
S. Anandavel, Joint Secretary; C. Kumaravelan,
Treasurer and P. Manoharan, Joint Treasurer.
2(v) Among the 23 workmen, concerned with the
present industrial dispute (petitioners) 5 of them, viz.,
T. Arumugam, K. Subramanian, B. Velmurugan,
M. Saravanan and M. Narayanan were among the
workers terminated soon after the formation of the
petitioner union and were thus among the workers
involved in the case in W.P. No. 20591 of 2001.
All the said workmen had been designated are
trainees although they have involved in the regular
tyre manufacturing activity in the factory and had
been working continuously in the factory for periods
from about 1 and ½ years to 4 and ½ years. The service
details of the said 23 workmen have been indicated
in the Annexure.
2(vi) The said retrenched 23 employees are
workmen within the definition of section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said workers were
not being given any training and had in fact been
engaged in direct production of work in the factory
on a regular basis. Taking into consideration the
nature of work performed by the petitioners, although
they continued to be designated as 'Apprentices/
Trainees' by the respondent management, they are
nothing but workmen within the meaning of section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The action of the
respondent management in failing to confer
permanency on them is an unfair labour practice as
per Entry 10 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 read with section 2(ra) of the Act.
2(vii) The Management pressurized the reinstated
workmen to join in its puppet union, namely, MRF
Employees Union (Registration No.1287/RTU/2002).
Membership of the MRF Employees Union is a
pre-condition for all the subsequently recruited persons
to join work. On 8-7-2002, the management entered
into a so-called settlement with its puppet union and
forced the workers in the factory including the
members of the petitioner union to sign a register
indicating their acceptance of the said so-called
settlement. After the said settlement was signed, the
management designated over 35 workmen belonging
to the said union as permanent.
2(viii) In December 2003 sought for the workmen
reinstated by the management during the pendency
of Writ Appeal No. 2043 of 2002 be absorbed by the
company in permanent service with retrospective
effect. It was also sought that the 49 workers who
had not been earlier retrenched be reinstated in
service. However, the management did not favourably
considered these fair and just demands of the
petitioner union. President of the petitioner union
undergone a fast between 11-2-2004 and 15-2-2004
near the factory. At that time, the membership of the
petitioner union increased to 390 members with
210 more workers in the factory joining the union.
On 14-2-2004, the petitioner union made representations
to the Chief Inspector of Factories, Pondicherry and
other authorities and also the Secretary, Department
of Labour, Government of Pondicherry regarding the
unauthorized massive engagement of contract labour
in direct manufacturing processes in the factory and
sought that appropriate action be taken.
2(ix) With a view to victimize the workers for
indicating their overwhelming support for the
petitioner union, on 21-2-2004, the respondent
management declared a lock-out of the factory
176
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
onwards, alleging that the workman had been
intimidating and gheraoing the staff, striking work
intermittently each day, obstructing the staff in
carrying out their duties, abusing their superiors,
going-slow, etc.,. Further, it was alleged that the
workman had been assembling unauthorisedly in
front of the administrative building during shift
hours demanding reinstatement of the workmen
terminated from the service in the year 2001 and the
withdrawal of the suspension orders issued to some
of the workmen. Further, it was stated that the
agitating workmen had progressively become more
aggressive and that the lockout was being declared
in the interest of the physical safety of the supervising
staff and the officers.
2(x) There is not an iota of truth in the said
allegations of the respondent management and the
lock-out was declared only because of the majority
of the workers had clearly indicated their support for
the petitioner union. The lockout is illegal and
unjustified and amounts to an unfair labour practice.
So, the petitioner union has raised an industrial
dispute as against the said lockout and W.P. No. 39259
of 2004 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court,
Madras seeking that conciliation proceedings be
initiated in respect of the said industrial dispute.
2(xi) The management through its production
supervisors and area-in-charges informed the workmen
that only those of them who left the membership of
the petitioner union and joined its puppet union
would be allowed in the factory. Under such
pressure, apart from 32 workers, the other locked out
workers signed the membership forms of the
management's puppet union and the registers to
indicate their acceptance of the so-called settlement
of 8-7-2002 and they were allowed to work in the
factory.
2(xii) The petitioners herein have always been
ready and willing to work in the factory but, on
account of the imposition of such a condition which
is in violation of the fundamental right under the
Constitution of India and the illegal and unjustified
lockout was continued on them.
2(xiii) In March 2004, the management sent
telegrams and letters to (1) S. Bhagyaraj, (2) G. Sekar
and (3) D. Deenadayalan asking them to report for
work. But, the said three workers sent replies to the
management stating that they could return for work
as soon as the lockout is unconditionally lifted for
all the workers in accordance with law. But, thereafter,
to their shock and surprise, the respondent management
arbitrarily terminated the services of S. Bhagyaraj,
G. Sekar and D. Deenadayalan. The petitioner has
already sent letters to the management pointing out
that they were not trainees but, workmen and that
their termination in the said manner was against the
law and not proper. In reply, the management has
made utterly false allegations in a bid for termination
of the service.
2(xiv) The management also issued similar orders
of termination to petitioner K. Balamurugan, dated
18-3-2004, R. Panneer, dated 18-3-2004, A. Rajavel
dated 22-3-2004 and K. Murali, dated 11-4-2004
falsely alleged that it was withdrawing their orders
of apprenticeship with immediate effect as they had
apparently not evinced any interest in continuing
their training.
2(xv) The
respondent
management
issued
termination, dated 17-3-2004 to 29-3-2004 in the form
of ‘Memo’ and it has been falsely alleged that
training period with the company ended on 16-3-2004
so, his training with the company ceased with effect
from 17-3-2004. Subsequently, on 7-6-2004, the
respondent management issued identical orders of
termination of T. Arumugam, K. Subramanian,
B. Velmurugan, P. Nagamuthu, K. Kumar, J. Durai,
J. Gnanamourthy, A. Ramamurthy, R. Rajalingam,
A. Marudhasala Moorthy and V. Muthukumarasamy.
2(xvi) Earlier, in February 2004, the management
placed 4 petitioners involved in the industrial
dispute namely, V. Vanavaramban, M. Sabarinathan,
M. Saravanan and M. Narayanan under suspension
on the ground that they had committed acts of
misconduct and also issued show cause notices to
them making various false allegations against them
to which they submitted explanations denying the
charges made against them. Even without conducting
any departmental enquiries in respect of the charges
made against them, in violation of the principles of
natural justice, the management terminated their
services. Such orders of suspension, show cause
notice and orders of termination in respect of
petitioners were issued as part of the campaign of
victimization by the management against the office
bearers and members of the petitioner union.
On 13-10-2005, the petitioner union raised an
industrial dispute as against the termination of the
said 23 workers from service before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Pondicherry. Conciliation
proceedings regarding the dispute were initiated
pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court,
Madras, dated 12-6-2006 in W.P. No. 5941 of 2006.
The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and
on 3-8-2006, the Conciliation Officer issued his failure
report and on 19-10-2006 and the dispute was referred
for adjudication.
177
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
2(xvii) Grounds.— (1) The workmen concerned in
the present industrial dispute are not apprentices or
trainees as indicated by the management. From the
very beginning the petitioners had been engaged in
radial tyre production work which is regular
manufacturing work of the factory. The management
had engaged the petitioners under the guise of
apprentices or trainees solely with a view to evade
its legal obligations under various labour welfare
legislations and they were not being given any
training. The work performed by the petitioners was
the same as that performed by the permanent
workman in the factory and their workload was the
same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
designation of an employee is not conclusive of his
status and it is the nature of his work and which is
determine whether he is a workman within the
meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. So, considering the nature of work and
duties and responsibilities of the petitioners, they are
workmen within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2) When the petitioners are workmen within the
meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, there is no question of lapse of their
'apprenticeship' by efflux of time or their 'apprenticeship
being withdrawn'. All the petitioners/workmen had been
unjustly and arbitrarily terminated from the service of
the company and their termination amounts to
retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination of the
services is therefore in violation of the provisions of
section 25 (F) and 25(N) of Industrial Disputes Act.
(3) The issue of impugned orders of termination is
therefore mala fide and amounts to an unfair labour
practice under section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 read with the fifth Schedule of the Act.
(4) In respect of the workmen V. Vanavaramban,
M. Sabarinathan, M. Saravanan and M. Narayanan, they
have been dismissed from service in gross violation of
the principles of natural justice in as much as even no
disciplinary proceedings were held in respect of the
charges made against them prior to their termination on
the basis of the charges. The allegation of the management
that it was not practical and feasible to hold enquiries
in this type of matters is totally false. The termination
of service is nothing but a measure of victimization on
account of their trade union membership.
(5) The workmen concerned in the dispute have not
been gainfully employed anywhere else following the
termination of their services. So, it is prayed to answer
the reference as follows:
(i) holding that the following dismissed/retrenched/
terminated workers, namely, Tvl. (1) T. Arumugam,
(2 ) K . Sub ra ma ni an , (3 ) B . Vel mu ru ga n,
(4) P. Nagamuthu, (5) S. Bakiaraj, (6) A. Arulselvan,
(7) G. Sekar, (8) D. Deenadayalan, (9) K. Murali,
(10) K. Kumar, (11) A. Rajavel, (12) K. Balamurugan,
(13) J. Durai, (14) J. Gnanamurthy, (15) A. Ramamurthy,
( 1 6 ) R . P a n n e e r , ( 1 7 ) R . R a j a l i n g a m ,
(18) Marudahachalamurthy, (19) V. Muthukumarasamy,
(20) Vanavaramb an, (21) M. Sabarinathan,
(22) S.M. Saravanan, (23) M. Narayanan in the
management of M/s. MRF Limited, Pondicherry are
workmen within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
(ii) that their discharge/termination/dismissal from
service amounts to unfair labour practice and in
violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and
(iii) that they are entitled to the relief of
reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of
service and all consequent and attendant benefits.
3. The facts set out in the counter filed by the
respondent management are stated as follows:
3(i) The petition is not maintainable either on law
or on facts. The petitioners are not eligible to raise
any industrial dispute as they are not workman as
defined under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. All the petitioners in 23 numbers are
trainees and they are not workmen and hence question
of invoking industrial dispute under section 2(k) of
the Industrial Dispute Act does not arise even
remotely. The apprenticeship order issued to the
23 petitioners/trainees contains in the following
clause:
"On completion of the total Apprenticeship Period,
your service with us as apprentice will stand
automatically terminated. However, you may be
considered for the Post of Probationer on satisfactory
completion of the training by the company at its
discretion, depending upon the exigencies and
vacancy position. Your status of apprentice, will not
change until it is changed by the company in
writing..............”.
Apprenticeship order further states that ”.............
your apprenticeship is liable to be terminated by the
company without notice or assigning any reasons
thereto. The apprentice appointment will automatically
cease at the end of the periods specified ..............”.
petitioners have signed the individual apprenticeship
Order understanding the terms and conditions of the
order and now they are estopped from challenging
178
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
the order of apprenticeship by praying for
reinstatement with all attendant benefits. So, the
reference of the present industrial dispute by the
petitioner is bad under law and it is liable to be
dismissed as devoid of merits.
3(ii) Petitioner union had no locus - standi to
espouse the cause of the 23 petitioners and more
particularly invoking section 2(k) of Industrial
Disputes Act. As the petitioners are individual
trainees they have to individually agitate their cause
as contemplated under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners are strangers to
the union so that the petitioner is not entitled to
prefer the dispute. It is not a dispute between
employer and workman and it is the dispute between
an individual trainee and the employer. Having fully
understood the terms and conditions of the
Apprenticeship Order, the petitioners cannot change
the same through the union as the respondent
management is well within their right to terminate the
order of Apprenticeship as per the recitals of the
Apprenticeship Order. The petitioners/trainees,
namely, (i) V. Vanavaramban, (ii) M. Sabarinathan and
(3) S.M. Saravanan and (iv) M. Narayanan have
indulged in serious misbehavior and misconduct
during the apprenticeship period and their training
was terminated in accordance with the conditions of
the Apprenticeship Order. The respondent management
is not concerned whether an individual trainee is a
member of any Trade Union and absorption of an
individual trainee into the services of the
management are clearly enshrined in the Apprenticeship
Order and only after undergoing the period of training
successfully order of appointment will be issued.
In the instant case many trainees have not reported for
training and inspite of issuance of notice/telegrams
by the respondent management, the individual
trainees failed to report and left training by their
volition. Hence, the claim of the petitioners has to
be dismissed.
4. Facts set out in the additional counter are stated
as follows:
4 (i) Clause 3 of the certified standing orders
of the respondent company speaks about the
classification of workman and clause 3.6 deals
with Apprenticeship Act under the Apprenticeship
Act, 1961.
Admittedly, 450 permanent workmen are working in
the Puducherry factory and all of them had undergone
the training for 42 months. There is a codified training
programme. There has always been a notified training
officer. In respect of every trainee, there is a skill matrix
sheet maintained periodically or once in three months
recording the progress of every trainee to the
Apprenticeship. In respondent's factory training is
bonafide and structured one with periodical monitoring
of the progress regarding the knowledge, skill and
development of his work.
4(ii) Clause 2(g) of the Model Standing Orders
framed by the Central Government defines an
Apprentice to mean " a learner who is paid allowance
during the period of his training". It is noteworthy
that no period has been stipulated for the period of
Apprenticeship. The standing orders of the respondent
company was certified on 10-7-2003. After
certification of standing orders the respondent
management is engaging trainees, as was done
before, in terms of the certified standing orders. Since
July 2003, 159 persons, who were subsequently taken
as trainees, on successful completion of the training
were offered regular employment. In the light of the
foregoing, there is no scope for the petitioner to
contend that the engagement of trainees by the
respondent was not bona fide, nor genuine, nor was
resorted to so as to call it as an unfair labour practice.
4(iii) On 3-1-2002, a section of the workmen,
including the apprentices who were dis-satisified
with the attitude of the petitioner union, started
another union called MRF Employees Union. While
the petitioner union was relentlessly carrying on
some litigation or the other, the group of workmen
belonging to MRF Employees' Union submitted
a Charter of Demands and commenced negotiations.
On 18-7-2002, a settlement was made between the
ma n ag e me n t a n d M R F E mp l o ye e s ' U ni o n .
The settlement was accepted by 243 workmen
including some of the Apprentices involved in this
dispute. In fact, some of the workmen involved in
the present dispute were all parties to the settlement.
4(iv) Members of the petitioner union refused to
receive the benefit of the settlement demanding that
the 49 terminated workmen should be reinstated.
The workmen who were members of the petitioner
union were indulging in various acts of indiscipline
to press their demand for reinstatement of the 49
terminated workmen even during 2002 and 2003.
4(v) As a group of workmen claiming to be
members of the petitioner union resorted work
stoppage and continued agitations the respondent
was obliged to declare a lockout to 23 workmen who
were indulging in such disruptive activities. This
included 16 Apprentices who are involved in the
present dispute.
179
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
4(vi) After the lockout on 21-2-2004, a clear
message was sent to all the workmen affected by the
lockout that if they give an undertaking of
resumption of normal work, they would be permitted
to resume duty. Thereafter, several workmen gave
undertaking and received work. Infact, among the
petitioners D. Dheendhayalan, K. Murali, R. Paneer,
S. Bagyaraj and A. Arulselvan give undertaking and
the reported for training for subsequently did not
report for further training.
4(vii) Apprentice V. Vanavaramban was taken
apprentice as per Apprenticeship Order dated 1-3-2002
his training was not satisfactory and he was seen
loitering during working hours and he instigated the
other workmen indulging strike. He was placed under
suspension on 16-2-2004 and show cause notice was
issued on 22-2-2004 as he gave reply on 4-3-2004 and
reply was not satisfactory on 29-3-2004, his
apprenticeship terminated as per clause 13 of the
terms and conditions of Apprenticeship Order.
His cessation of Apprenticeship was preceded with
an act of misconduct for which he was issued with
show cause notice.
4(viii) Thiru Sabarinathan was appointed as
apprenticeship by order, dated 7-11-2002 and
he instigated and incited contract workman and he
misbehaved in a riotous and disorderly manner. He
disobeyed instruction given by foreman. He was
placed under suspension on 15-2-2004 and show
cause notice, dated 22-2-2004 was sent to him and
ultimately by an order of termination, dated 29-3-2004
he was terminated by stating reasons for his
termination.
4(ix) Thiru M. Narayanan as an Apprentice joined
on 9-6-2000 and he was found sitting on cured tyres
so he was given severe warning letter on 13-1-2003
for the misconduct. Narayanan instructed all the
workmen not to have dinner during second shift. He
was always using filthy language, so he was placed
under suspension on 14-2-2004. On 17-2-2004 he was
issued with show cause notice calling upon him to
show cause, why disciplinary action should not be
taken against him for the acts of misconduct
committed by him and he gave a reply, dated 23-3-2004.
Even after suspension, he was indulging in various
disruptive activities and all such instances were
mentioned in the order of termination, dated 11-4-2004.
4(x) Thiru S.M. Saravanan was taken as an
Apprentice on 9-6-2002. On 13-2-2004 during the shift
hours, he resorted to a work stoppage at he will
squatted in the premises en-masse and deserted the
work spot at 6.45 pm itself. He was found heckling
the Supervisors. He dis-obeyed the orders of
Departmental Supervisor and abused him, so he was
placed under suspension. On 17-2-2004 on the same
day show cause notice was issued calling upon him
and he gave a reply on 5-3-2004. As the reply was
not satisfactory, he was placed under on 11-4-2004
his services was terminated for the various acts of
misconduct referred to in the termination order.
4(xi) Thiru D. Dheenadhayalan was taken as an
Apprentice vide apprenticeship order, dated 1-3-2002
and he was directed to attend the training in the
Production Department. He was unauthorizedly
absent from 12-11-2002 to 11-12-2002 and it was
proceeded by way of disciplinary action. He gave an
undertaking, expressing regret for his misconduct.
Based on the letter he was permitted to resume
training. Once again from 6-3-2004, he stopped
reporting for training. So, on 16-3-2004 a phonogram
was sent by the respondent management asking him
to report for training immediately. Since there was no
reply or letter from him it clearly expressed his
unwillingness to resume for training. Instead of
reporting for training, he sent an undated letter
stating that he would report for work only if all the
terminated individuals returned to work. The respondent
management terminated his services on 11-4-2004 for
willfully abandoning the training and for the various
acts of misconduct referred to the termination order.
4(xii) Thiru S. Bagyaraj was taken as an
Apprenticeship as per order,dated 1-3-2002. He
committed misconduct and on account of admission
of the 10 commission of such misconduct through
his letter, dated 17-3-2004 the said S. Bagyaraj was
permitted to resume training on 18-3-2004. Thereafter
he stopped reporting for training from 23-3-2004.
On 2-4-2004, a phonogram was sent by the respondent
management asking him to report for training
immediately. Instead of reporting for training, a reply
letter, dated 19-4-2004 was sent by him stating that
he would report for work only if all the terminated
individuals returned to work which clearly expressed
his unwillingness to resume for training. The respondent
management on 23-4-2004 terminated his services for
willfully abandoning the training and for various acts
of misconduct referred to in the termination order.
4(xiii) Thiru G. Sekar was appointed as an
Apprenticeship as per order, dated 15-4-2002
containing the terms and conditions and he was
directed to attend training in the Production
Department. Thereafter, he was not reporting for
training from 19-2-2004. On 13-3-2004, a letter was
sent by the respondent management asking him to
180
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
report for training immediately. Instead of reporting
for training, a reply letter, dated 29-3-2004 was
received stating that he would report for work only
if all the terminated individuals returned to work
which clearly expressed his unwillingness to resume
for training. The respondent management on 01-4-2004
terminated his services for willfully abandoning the
training and for the various acts of misconduct
referred to in the termination order.
4(xiv) Thiru K. Murali was taken as an Apprenticeship
as per the order dated 7-5-2002 containing the terms
and conditions and was directed to attend training
in the Production Department. On account of admission
of the commission of misconduct through letter,
dated 1-3-2004, the said K. Murali was permitted
to resume training on 1-3-2004. Thereafter the said
K. Murali again stopped reporting for training from
2-3-2004 which clearly expressed his for work only if
all the terminated individuals returned to work which
clearly expressed unwillingness to resume for training.
So the respondent management on 11-4-2004
terminated his services for willfully abandoning the
training and for the various acts of misconduct
referred to in the termination order.
4(xv) Thiru K. Balamurugan was taken as an
apprenticeship as per order, dated 6-6-2002 containing
the terms and conditions and was directed to attend
training in the Production Department. Thereafter he
was not reporting for training from 19-2-2004.
On 13-3-2004, a letter was sent by the respondent
management asking him to report for training
immediately. The respondent management on 18-3-2004
terminated his services for willfully abandoning the
training and for the various acts of misconduct
referred to in the termination order.
4(xvi) Thiru R. Paneer was appointed as an
apprenticeship as per order, dated 7-6-2002 containing
the terms and conditions and was directed to attend
training in the Production Department. On account
of his admission of the commission of misconduct
through letter, dated 27-2-2004, the said R. Paneer
was permitted to resume training on 27-2-2004.
Thereafter, the said R. Paneer again stopped reporting
for training from 28-2-2004 which clearly expressed
his unwillingness to resume for training. So, the
respondent management on 11-4-2004 terminated his
services for willfully abandoning the training and for
the various acts of misconduct referred to in the
termination order.
4(xvii) Thiru A. Rajavel was appointed as an
apprenticeship as per the order, dated 15-7-2002
containing the terms and conditions and was directed
to attend training in the Production Department.
Thereafter he was not reporting for training
from 21-2-2004. On 13-3-2004, a letter was sent by the
respondent management asking him to report for
training immediately. Instead of reporting for training,
a reply letter, dated 14-3-2004 sent by him stating
that he would report for work only if all the
terminated individuals returned to work which clearly
expressed his unwillingness to resume for training.
The
respondent management on 22-3-2004
terminated his services for willfully abandoning the
training and for various acts of misconduct referred
to in the termination order.
4(xviii) Thiru A. Arulselvan was taken as an
Apprenticeship as per order, dated 1-1-2002
containing the terms and conditions and was directed
to attend training in the Production Department.
In view of the terms and conditions of Apprenticeship
order, on completion of apprenticeship period, the
services of A. Arulselvan were terminated on 17-3-2004.
4(xix) Thiru K. Subramanian was taken as an
Apprenticeship as per order, dated 1-12-1999
containing the terms and conditions. On account of
commission of various misconducts during the
Apprenticeship period, the respondent management
requested the said K. Subramanian to give an
undertaking to work peacefully in the respondent
factory. But, he was not prepared to give undertaking
which clearly expressed his unwillingness to resume
for training. So, the respondent management
on 7-6-2004 terminated his services on account of
efflux of time and the cessation of apprenticeship is
fully justified.
4(xx) Thiru K. Kumar was taken as an Apprenticeship
as per order, dated 1-3-2002 containing the terms and
conditions. On account of commission of various
misconducts during the apprenticeship period, the
respondent management requested the said K. Kumar
to give an undertaking to work peacefully in the
respondent factory. But, he was not prepared to give
undertaking which clearly expressed his unwillingness
to resume for training. So, the respondent management
on 7-6-2004 terminated his services on account of
efflux of time and the cessation of apprenticeship is
fully justified.
4(xxi) Thiru A. Maruthasala Moorthy was taken
as an Apprenticeship as per order, dated 1-3-2002
containing the terms and conditions. On account of
commission of various misconducts during the
apprenticeship period, the respondent management
requested the said A. Maruthasala Moorthy to give
an undertaking to work peacefully in the respondent
factory. But, he was not prepared to give undertaking
181
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
which clearly expressed his unwillingness to resume
for training. So, the respondent management
on 7-6-2004 terminated his services on account of
efflux of time and the cessation of Apprenticeship is
fully justified.
4(xxii) Thiru A. Ramamurthy was taken as an
Apprenticeship as per order,dated 13-4-2002 containing
the terms and conditions. On account of commission
of various misconducts during the apprenticeship
period, the respondent management requested the
said A. Ramamurthy to give an undertaking to work
peacefully in the respondent factory. But, he was not
prepared to give undertaking which clearly expressed
his unwillingness to resume for training. So, the
respondent management on 7-6-2004 terminated his
services on account of efflux of time and the
cessation of apprenticeship is fully justified.
4(xxiii) Thiru R. Rajalingam was taken as an
Apprenticeship as per order, dated 18-5-2002 containing
the terms and conditions. On account of commission
of various misconducts during the apprenticeship
period, the respondent management requested the
said R. Rajalingam to give an undertaking to work
peacefully in the respondent factory. But, he was not
prepared to give undertaking which clearly expressed
his unwillingness to resume for training. So, the
respondent management on 7-6-2004 terminated his
services on account of efflux of time and the
cessation of apprenticeship is fully justified.
4(xxiv) Thiru J. Durai was taken as an Apprenticeship
as per order, dated 6-6-2002 containing the terms and
conditions. On account of commission of various
misconducts during the apprenticeship period, the
respondent management requested the said J. Durai
to give an undertaking to work peacefully in the
respondent factory. But, he was not prepared to give
undertaking which clearly expressed his unwillingness
to resume for training. So, the respondent management
on 7-6-2004 terminated his services on account of
efflux of time and the cessation of apprenticeship is
fully justified.
4(xxiv) Thiru J. Gnanamourthy was taken as an
Apprenticeship as per order, dated 7-6-2002 containing
the terms and conditions. On account of commission
of various misconducts during the Apprenticeship
period, the respondent management requested the
said J. Gnanamourthy to give an undertaking to work
peacefully in the respondent factory. But, he was not
prepared to give undertaking which clearly expressed
his unwillingness to resume for training. So, the
respondent management on 7-6-2004 terminated his
services on account of efflux of time and the
cessation of apprenticeship is fully justified.
4(xxv) Thiru V. Muthukumarasamy was taken as
an Apprenticeship as per order, dated 18-6-2002
containing the terms and conditions. On account of
commission of various misconducts during the
apprenticeship period, the respondent management
requested the said V. Muthukumarasamy to give an
undertaking to work peacefully in the respondent
factory. But, he was not prepared to give undertaking
which clearly expressed his unwillingness to resume
for training. So, the respondent management
on 7-6-2004 terminated his services on account of
efflux of time and the cessation of apprenticeship is
fully justified.
4(xxvi) Thiru P. Nagamuthu was appointed as an
Apprenticeship as per order, dated 30-6-2002
containing the terms and conditions. On account of
commission of various misconducts during the
apprenticeship period, the respondent management
requested the said P. Nagamuthu to give an
undertaking to work peacefully in the respondent
factory. But, he was not prepared to give undertaking
which clearly expressed his unwillingness to resume
for training. So, the respondent management
on 7-6-2004 terminated his services on account of
efflux of time and the cessation of apprenticeship is
fully justified.
4(xxvii) Thiru T. Arumugam was selected as an
Apprentice and he had to abide by the terms and
conditions of the apprenticeship order. On account
of commission of various misconducts during the
apprenticeship period, the respondent management
requested the said T. Arumugam to give an undertaking
to work peacefully in the respondent factory. But, he
was not prepared to give undertaking which clearly
expressed his unwillingness to resume for training.
So, the respondent management on 7-6-2004 terminated
his services on account of efflux of time and the
cessation of apprenticeship is fully justified.
4(xxviii) Thiru Velmurugan was selected as an
Apprentice and he had to abide by the terms and
conditions of the apprenticeship order. On account
of commission of various misconducts during the
apprenticeship period, the respondent management
requested the said Velmurugan to give an undertaking
to work peacefully in the respondent factory. But, he
was not prepared to give undertaking which clearly
expressed his unwillingness to resume for training.
So, the respondent management on 7-6-2004 terminated
his services on account of efflux of time and the
cessation of Apprenticeship is fully justified.
182
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
4(xxix) All the above
mentioned trainees,
committed various acts of misconducts, disobedience
and insubordination during the apprenticeship
period.
Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the
Apprenticeship
Order
clearly
specifies
about
Termination of Apprenticeship without notice or
compensation.
Clause 17 of the terms and conditions of the
apprenticeship order stipulates that “Mere fact that you
had undergone this Apprenticeship Training, does not
guarantee you any automatic further employment or
confirmation”.
The Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court
of Madras by its order, dated 4-1-2008 in W.A. No. 2043
and 2044/2002 was pleased to modify the order in
W.P. No. 20591/2001 and WP. No. 19/2002 to the extent
that the dismissed/terminated employees had to
approach the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal.
Further the petitioner union preferred SLP (Civil)
No. 6004-6009/2004 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
by its record of proceedings dismissed the Special Leave
Petitions on 12-5-2009. The management does not in
any way interfere in the affairs of the petitioner union.
It is specifically denied that the respondent made
membership to the MRF Employees Union as pre-
condition for subsequently recruited person to join
work. The 23 individual apprentices did not come
forward to give the undertaking, so apprenticeship of
those apprentices who failed to give the undertaking
was terminated on the ground that they were not
interested to continue as apprentice.
4(xxx) It is denied that Termination/Cessation
amount to "Retrenchment" within the meaning of
Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
therefore, it is in violation of Sections 25F and 25N
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is denied that
Termination .of the Services of the 23 Individual
Apprentices is nothing but a measure of victimization
on account of their Trade Union Membership. During
the period of Training, the 23 Individual Apprentices
had indulged in acts of indiscipline, insubordination,
using filthy and obnoxious language, aiding and
abetting the co-workers to squat, instigating other
workers and the respondent management cannot be
a silent spectator to the commissions of the
23 Individual Apprentices which is in violation of the
Certified Standing Orders/Individual Apprenticeship
Orders as the respondent management cannot
compromise on discipline even to a slightest extent.
4(xxxi) The petitioner union cannot alter the status
of the apprentices and sought for reinstatement of
the 23 Apprentices with continuity of service as this
relief does not apply to the instant 23 individual
Apprentices who were governed by the Certified
Standing Orders/Individual Apprenticeship Orders.
Hence, the claim has to be dismissed as devoid of
merits with exemplary costs.
5. On the side of the petitioner union PW.1
Thiru S. Sasikumar, General Secretary and the union and
PW. 2 C. Rajadurai have been examined and Ex.P1
to P64 were marked. On the side of the respondent
management, no oral evidence let in but, Ex.R1 to R116
have been marked.
6. The point for consideration is:
(1) Whether the 23 trainees involved in this case
are only 'Apprentices' appointed under Apprenticeship
Orders as specified in the certified standing order,
and the respondent management is entitled to
terminate their services without any notice and
enquiry as per the terms and conditions of the
Apprenticeship Appointment Order and Certified
Standing Order?
(2) Whether the 23 trainees are workmen as
defined under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
are entitled to maintain this Industrial dispute?
(3) Whether this industrial dispute has to be
allowed?
7. On this points 1 and 2:
The respondent management, namely, M/s. MRF
Limited is a unit (factory) engaged in manufacturing
radial tyres in Pondicherry which was commissioned in
the year 1998. The manufacture of radial tyres and
components thereof is a highly technical and
complicated process involving several automatic
machineries with controls by logistic progress. Nearly
450 permanent workmen are working in the factory. The
tyre manufacturing activities are broadly classified into
three zones, namely, (i) Preparatory, (ii) Assembly and
(iii) Curing and Finishing.
8. According to the petitioner trade union, namely,
'MRF Thozhilalar Sangam' was registered in the year
2001 with Registration No.1278/RTU/2001 and it was
duly communicated to the respondent management.
Several
workmen,
Apprentices,
Probationers,
Temporary and Contract Labourers joined as
members in the petitioner union and the union raised
several demands for the welfare of the labourers.
Irked by the activities of the petitioner sangam the
management immediately started victimization and
termination of service of several employees. It is
183
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
pertinent to note that no permanent workmen was
engaged by the management. After formation of the
petitioner union, the management started to victimize
workers and terminated nearly 218 members of the
petitioners. The petitioner union preferred writ
petition WP. No. 20591 of 2001 and WP. No. 19 of
2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for the
welfare and to safeguard the interest of employees
and this Writ Petitions were allowed. The management
preferred writ appeals in WA Nos.2043 of 2002 and
2044 of 2002 and during 'the pendency of writ appeals
most of the terminated employee were reinstated and
many of them became permanent employees, except
49 workers. The 23 trainees concerned in this
industrial dispute were dismissed from service
without any show cause notice or enquiry under the
guise of apprentices. Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act says “workman means a person
(including a apprentice employee in any industries),
so even if the 23 workmen concerned in this industrial
dispute are ‘apprentices’ they are also entitled to get
all the legal benefits and protection under the
legislation and their termination of service is illegal
and amounting to unfair labour practice. These 23
workmen have been terminated by the respondent
management without notice of enquiry, so they are
entitled for re-employment with back wages,
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
9. Refuting the allegations and charges, the
respondent management has contended that the 23
Apprentices involved in the dispute or only
Apprenticeship/Trainees and they have been
appointed on different dates under Apprenticeship
Orders. The Certified Standing
Order of the
respondent
management
permits
to
appoint
Apprentices
and
Probationers
as
per
the
requirements. As per the Apprenticeship Order every
apprentice should undergo 42 months of training in
different sections and only on successful completion
of training for the prescribed period the apprentice
will be absorbed as a 'Probationer'. After satisfactory
completion on probationary period the management
may consider such probationer for permanency. All
the 23 trainees knowing the terms and conditions and
joined the training course. While undergoing training
some of the trainees committed disobedience and
some of them indulged in acts of indiscipline,
insubordination and misbehaviour. Some other
trainees discontinued training course despite
receiving intimation sent by management. So, service
of some trainees was terminated even before
completion of training period. In respect of some
other trainees those who were undergoing training
beyond the prescribed period also indulged in
grave
misconduct,
disobedience
and
abused
superiors in filthy languages. Advice letters, notice
of warning were issued on several occasions and
as the training of these apprentices was not
satisfactory the management terminated their service
without any notice and enquiry and all the
apprentices are bound by the terms and conditions
of Apprenticeship Order since, they have been
appointed only as apprentices. The 23 trainees are
not members of the petitioner union.
None of the 23 terminated apprentices was
examined as a witness in this proceedings to speak
about their nature of employment and work. So, the
claim of the petitioner union is unsustainable under
the Industrial Dispute Act and it is liable to be
dismissed. The names of the 23 apprentices involved
in the dispute and their date of joining, token number,
date of termination are furnished in the following
tabular column:-
ANNEXURE
Service Details of the Workmen involved in the
Industrial Dispute
Sl.
Name and
Token
Date of
Date of
No.
designation
No.
joining
termination
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
T. Arumugam
90012
17/03/00
7-6-2004
Trainee.
2
K. Subramanian
70061
01/06/99
7-6-2004
Trainee.
3
B. Velmurugan
90104
15/08/00
7-6-2004
Trainee.
4
P. Nagamuthu
70381
30/06/02
7-6-2004
Trainee.
5
A. Arul Selvan
70163
01/01/02
17-3-2004
Trainee.
6
K. Kumar
70197
01/03/02
7-6-2004
Trainee.
7
J. Durai
70358
06/06/02
7-6-2004
Trainee
8
J. Gnanamurthy
70359
07/06/02
7-6-2004
Trainee.
9
A. Ramamurthy
70281
13/04/02
7-6-2004
Trainee.
10 R. Rajalingam
70340
18/05/02
7-6-2004
Trainee.
11 A. Marudhachalamurthy 70215
01/03/02
7-6-2004
Trainee.
184
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
12 V. Muthukumarasamy 70371
18/06/02
7-6-2004
Trainee.
13 S. Bagyaraj
70224
01/03/02
23-4-2004
Trainee.
14 G. Sekar
70287
01/03/02
1-4-2004
Trainee.
15 D. Deenadayalan
70215
01/03/02
23-4-2004
Trainee.
16 K. Murali
70325
07/05/02
11-4-2004
Trainee.
17 A. Rajavel
70424
5/07/02
22-3-2004
Trainee.
18 K. Balamurugan
70357
06/06/02
18-3-2004
Trainee.
19 R. Paneer
703620
7/06/02
18-3-2004
Trainee.
20 V. Vanavaramban
70213
01/03/02
29-3-2004
Trainee.
21 M. Sabarinathan
70431
07/11/02
29-3-2004
Trainee.
22 M. Saravanan
90111
09/06/00
11-4-2004
Trainee.
23 M. Narayanan
90053
9/6/2000
11-4-2004
Trainee.
10. The apprenticeship orders in respect of the
above mentioned 23 trainees are produced by both
sides. It is an admitted fact all the 23 trainees pertaining
to this industrial dispute have been appointed only
through Individual Apprenticeship Orders.
11. Thiru Sasikumar, General Secretary of the
petitioner union has been examined as PW.1. PW.1
during cross examination has categorically admitted that;
“
Apprentice-
Apprentice-
Apprentice-
Apprentice
Apprentice-
Apprentice
(Probational)
”
Apprentice
Probationer
”
Further cross examination on 21-8-2013 and
28-8-2013 PW.1 has admitted that-
“(Ex.R116)
(Standing Order)
Apprentice
Apprentice
(Probation)
Apprentice-
Ex.R1Apprentice-
Apprentice-
Apprentice-
(Ex.R36 Apprenticeship Order)
Apprentiice
”.
Again during cross examination of PW.1 on 4-9-2013
he has admitted that-
Apprentice
Ex.R29-Apprentice
”
185
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
“Pointing out
the
above quoted
specific
admissions given by PW.1 during cross examination
the learned counsel for the management vehemently
argued that only as per the standing order trainees
are appointed subject to the terms and conditions of
Apprenticeship Orders. So, as incorporated in the
certified standing order and mentioned in the
apprenticeship order, an apprentice/trainee can be
terminated at any time without any show cause notice
or enquiry.”
12. Copy of the Certified Standing Order of the
respondent management is produced as Ex.R.116.
In Ex.R116 clause 3.6 speaks about Apprentice/Trainee
that.
‘The apprenticeship period will be 42 months
comprising 4 spells, the first spell is for six months
and the remaining three spells each are for one year
duration and the company is not obliged to employ
after the conclusion of their apprenticeship. At the
expiry of any spell each trainee will be assessed and
evaluated and on satisfactory completion of the
training in each spell, the trainee will be put on
training for the next spell. On completion of the total
apprenticeship period, the services as an Apprentice
will stand automatically terminated. However, they
may be considered for the post of Probationer on
satisfactory completion, of training by the company
at it's discretion depending upon the exigencies and
vacancy position. The status as an Apprentice will
not change until it is changed by the company in
writing. During the time of apprenticeship they will
receive only stipend. “Further Clause 22.0 deals with
termination of employment and Clause 22(1) reads
that “Subject to the provisions relating to the
misconduct as provided in the service conditions, the
service of the workman may be terminated by the
company for a reasonable cause giving one month
notice in writing or wages in lieu thereof. However,
no notice/wages in lieu thereto "shall be necessary
in the case of a Probationers/Casual/Temporary/
Apprenticeship Trainee by Part-time workman."
13(1) In the Apprenticeship order clause 4 of the
terms and conditions reads as “On completion of the
total apprenticeship period, your services with us as an
apprentice will stand automatically terminated. However,
you may be considered for the post of Probationer on
satisfactory completion of training by the company at
its discretion, depending upon the exigencies and
vacancy position. Your status as an Apprentice will not
change until it is changed by the company in writing.
13(2) Clause 6 says that “during each spell of your
training your apprenticeship is liable to be terminated
by the company without notice or assigning any reason
thereto. The Apprentice appointment will automatically
ceases at the own period specified".
13(3) Clause 11 reads that "you (Apprentice) will be
subject to the standing orders and the rules and
regulations of the company as are under force from time
to time".
13(4) Clause 13 says that "should you (Apprentice) be
guilty at any time of neglect of work, in-subordination,
indulgence or abetment of any misconduct involved
moral turpitude' or breach of any of the terms and
conditions of your appointment, the company shall
have the right to terminate your appointment without
notice or compensation, in lieu of notice".
14. All the 23 trainees concerned with the
industrial dispute had been appointed as Apprentices
and working as apprentice only. PW1 has
categorically admitted that he himself had undergone
42 months training and only after completing the
training period he was posted as Probationer and
then conferred with permanency. When the Certified
Standing order and the Apprenticeship order have
conferred power on the management to terminate the
service of Apprentice/Trainees/Probationers without
any show cause notice or enquiry, the 23 trainees
related to the dispute have already been terminated
for misconduct, insubordination, unauthorised
absence and disobedience are not entitled to claim
reinstatement with/backwages, continuity of service
and other attendant benefits, according to learned
counsel for the management. The learned counsel for
the management further pointed out that none of the
23 trainees pertaining to this dispute have been
examined as witness to substantiate their contention.
15. The petitioner union has contended that the 23
workmen
had
been
appointed
though
under
Apprenticeship Order they had been doing the work of
permanent employees in all section and no training was
imparted. But these 23 workmen were paid only some
meager amount as stipend, and they had been directed
to do even over time work also. The learned counsel
for the petitioners pointed out some salary slips wherein
over time stipend is also mentioned. Of course /in all the
pay slips marked the first column shows ‘basic pay/
stipend’. The learned counsel for the management
replied that when the apprentice undergoing training in
a particular section they may be required to attend late
hours also for which over time payment has been
granted and such over time payment allotted to
apprentices may not lead to any interference that they
were doing the regular work of permanent employees.
186
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
16. The management has produced certain records
in respect of the some of the apprentices to show their
misbehavior, objectionable activities, disobedience,
indiscipline, insubordination, using unpreliminary
words, aiding and abetting co-workers, to go on strike.
The documents produced by either side relating to the
23 apprentices are discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs:
16(1) Apprentice - T. Arumugam:-
In respect of Apprentice T. Arumugam his pay slips
are produced as Ex.P 56 series and E.S.I. Card is
produced as Ex.P62. Ex.R 99 is the office memorandum
submitted by J. Oulaganadane stating that on 6-2-2003.
He was directed to do a particular work but, inspite
of repeated instructions to him, he left the work spot
and not completed the job assigned to him. He never
returned back to the work spot and left home. Ex.Rl00
is another note of office memorandum stating that
disobedient activities of T. Arumugam. Ex.R101 is the
warning letter issued to T. Arumugam, wherein, his
unauthorised absence has been mentioned month-
wise. It is mentioned in this letter that T. Arumugam
was habitually absenting from training which
constitute serious misconduct under clause No. 25.6
of the certified standing orders. Ex.R 102 is the
another warning letter, dated 9-9-2003, wherein,
unauthorized absence of Apprentice T. Arumugam is
specified and he was severely warned. Ex.R 103.
dated 2-11-2003 and Ex.R 104, dated 20-11-2003
are other warning letters issued to Apprentice
T. Arumugam explaining his unauthorised absence for
many days and he has again warned to be carefully
in future. Ex.R 105 is the memo., dated 7-6-2004 issued
stating that your (T. Arumugam) apprenticeship with
the company ceased with immediate effect by efflux
of time. (Ex.P 25).
The said T. Arumugam was appointed as a Trainee
on 17-3-2000 and his training was ceased with effect
from 7-6-2014. Of course, the said T. Arumugam was
permitted to continue training beyond the period of
42 months. But, in the mean time, he had been severely
warned on many occasions by the management.
Ultimately, Apprentice T. Arumugam was unauthorizedly
absent for many days during the course of training.
On assessment and evaluation, he did not complete
the training satisfactorily in each spell, so his
apprenticeship was terminated on 7-6-2004 as soon
from Ex.R 105.
16(2) Apprentice - K. Subramanian:-
Ex.P 29 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on dated 1-6-1999 (Ex.R 72), Ex.P 61 is the
E.S.I. Identity Card. Ex.R 73 is the warning notice
issued to K, Subramanian for his unauthorised
absence on many days. Ex.R74 is the Inter-office
Memorandum reporting disobedience of K. Subramanian
in the work place on 14-10-2001. Ex.R 75 is the second
warning letter issued to K. Subramanian for his
unauthorized absence in the months of July, August
and September 2003. Ex.R 76 is the third another
warning letter, dated 2-11-2003, wherein, it is stated
that his continued to have food in the staff dining- hall
only deliberately to cause disturbance to the
smooth running and for disturbing the customers and
other important visitors for having food in the
intention of tarnishing the image of the company.
Further, you have been leaving the work spot when
tea was served at work spot unauthorisedly
assembling in groups along the aisles, idling and
chatting for 15 to 20 minutes and for some other
objectionable activities. Ex.R77 is yet another
warning letter, dated 20-11-2003 for the unauthorizedly
absence of 4 days during the month of October 2003.
Ex.R 78 is the memo., dated 7-6-2004 stating that the
terms of apprenticeship of K. Subramanian with the
company ceases with immediate effect, so, it is clear
that Trainee K. Subramanian indulged in several
objectionable activities and misbehavior during the
course of training so his apprenticeship with the
company had been ceased. K, Subramanian joined as
Trainee on 1-6-1999 and his apprenticeship was
t er min a te d o n 7 -6 -2 0 0 4 . As t h e ap p r en t ic e
K. Subramanian was irregular in attendance and
indulged in several acts of indiscipline and
insubordination resulted in termination of his
apprenticeship. (Ex.P 30).
16(3) Apprentice - B. Velmuruqan:-
He was appointed on 15-8-2000. Ex.R 106 is the
Inter-office memorandum noting down negligence of
his duty in belt loading job on 23-9-2000 first shift.
Ex.R 107 is the apology letter, dated 28-9-2000
given by B. Velmurugan stating that by oversight
he committed mistake and thereafter sought for
tender. Ex.R 108, dated 25-10-2003 and Ex.R 109,
dated 20-11-2003 are the warning letters issued
to Apprentice B. Velmurugan explaining he
unauthorised absence for many days and he was
terminated on 7-6-2004. Ex.R 110 is the termination
of apprentice memo., dated 7-6-2004.
16(4) Apprentice - P. Nagamuthu:-
Ex.R 97 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 30-6-2002. Ex.R 98 is the memo. dated
7-6-2004 issued stating that his Apprenticeship with
the company ceased with immediate effect by efflux
of time.
187
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
16(5) Apprentice - A. Arul Selvan:-
Ex.P 14 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 1-1-2002. Ex.R 71 is the memo. and his
apprenticeship was terminated on 17-3-2004. (Ex.R70)
16(6) Apprentice - K. Kumar:-
Ex.P1 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 1-3-2002. Ex.P 32 and Ex.P 58 are the
Pay Slips for the Month of November 2003 and
Ex.P59 is the ESI Identity Card. Ex.R79 is the
complaint regarding disobedience during training
period, dated 24-1-2004. Ex.P 31 is the memo..
dated 7-6-2004 issued stating that his apprenticeship
with the company ceased with immediate effect by
efflux of time. (Ex.R 80).
16(7) Apprentice - J. Durai:-
Ex.P8 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 6-6-2002 Ex.R 92 (Ex.R 91) is the
memo.,
dated 7-6-2004
issued
stating
that
his
Apprenticeship with the company ceased with
immediate effect by efflux of time.
16(8) Apprentice-J. Gnanamurthy:-
Ex.P22 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 7-6-2002. Ex.P57 is the pay slips for the
month of September 2002. Ex.P63 is the E.S.I.
Identity Card. Ex.P 23 is the memo. dated 7-6-2004
issued stating that his apprenticeship with the
company ceased with immediate effect by efflux of
time.
16(9) Apprentice-A. Ramamurthy:-
Ex.R86 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 13-4-2002. Ex.P 6 is the ESI identity
Card. Ex.P5 (Ex.R 87) is the memo issued stating that
his training was terminated on 7-6-2004.
16(10 )Apprentice - R. Rajalingam:-
Ex.P4 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 18-5-2002. Ex.R 89 is the advice letter,
dated 16-11-2002 stating on while reviewing the
performance of R. Rajalingam found out that he had
not improved his efficiency at work despite all the
training and inputs provided by the company and he
had to put in best efforts to improve his performance.
Though his performance and conduct have not been
satisfactory, considering his assurances to show
improvement in future, he was placed in next spell
of training. Ex.R90 is the memo., dated 7-6-2004
issued stating that his apprenticeship with the
company ceased with immediate effect by efflux of
time.
16(11) Apprentice -A. Marudhachalamoorthy:-
Ex.R 81 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 1-3-2002. Ex.P 55 is the Pay Slips for
the month of August to October 2002 December 2002
and December 2003. Ex.R 82 is the complaint
regarding his carelessness during in the work spot,
dated 24-5-2003. Ex.R83 is the warning letter,
dated 25-5-2003 issued to A. Marudhachalamurthy.
Ex.R 84 is the inter-office memorandum, dated 28-6-2003,
wherein, some of the slackness and disobedience
acts of A. Marudhachalamurthy has been noted
down. Ex.R 85 is the memo., dated 7-6-2004 issued
stating that his Apprenticeship with the company
ceased with immediate effect by efflux of time
16(12) Apprentice-V. Muthukumarasamy:-
Ex.P 28 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 18-6-2002. Ex.R96 is the memo.,
dated 7-6-2004 issued stating that his apprenticeship
with the company ceased with immediate effect by
efflux of time.
16(13)Apprentice-S. Bagyaraj:-
Ex.R36 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 1-3-2002. Ex.P 54 is the Pay Slip for the
month of January 2004. Ex.R 37 is the Complaint by
the Supervisor regarding the carelessness in the work
spot, dated 30-7-2003. Ex.R 38 is the letter, dated 17-3-2004
given by S. Bagyaraj stating that he is the member
of MRF Employees Union and he is no way
connected with petitioner union. Ex.R39 is the
apology letter, dated 17-3-2004 of S. Bagyaraj
admitting some of his mistakes committed by
him. Ex.R 40 is the Inter-office Memorandum
relating to S. Bagyaraj for his unauthorised absence,
dated 31-3-2004. Ex.R 41 is the another Inter-office
memorandum sent to S. Bagyaraj stating that he was
absenting from training and directed to report
immediately. Ex.R 42 is the reply letter, dated 19-4-2004
sent by S. Bagyaraj stating that he was not a trainee
and in fact he was doing regular operating and
manufacturing work and he would return to work as
soon as lockout is lifted as against everyone. Ex.R 43
is the letter, dated 21-4-2004 stating that S. Bagyaraj
was not interested in continue training so his
apprentice was withdrawn with immediate effect.
Ex.R 44 is the rejoinder letter, dated.23-4-2004 sent
by the respondent management to S. Bagyaraj.
16(14) Apprentice - G. Sekar:-
Ex.R 45 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 1-3-2002. Ex.P12 is the letter, dated
1-4-2004 issued to G. Sekar. Ex.R 46 is the inter-office
Memorandum complaining operational lapses in the
188
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
G. Sekar, dated.12-1-2004. Ex.R 47 is the report another
struck work and sit in strike by some of the
employees including apprenticeship and as the report
dated 15-2-2004 regarding struck work and sit in
strike apprenticeship G. Sekar. Ex.R 48 is the letter
dated 13-3-2004 addressed to G. Sekar stating that he
was not reporting for training with effect from 19-2-2004.
Ex.R 49 is the letter, dated 29-3-2004 sent by
G. Sekar to the respondent management. Ex.R 50 is
the another letter dated 1-4-2004 stating that his
apprenticeship was withdrawn with immediate effect.
Ex.R 51 is the reply sent by management to G.Sekar
dated 2-4-2004.
16(15) Apprentice - D. Deenadayalan:-
Ex.R 27 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 1-3-2002. Ex.R 28 is the Inter-office
memorandum, dated 11 -11 -2 00 2 exp laining
D. Deenadayalan’s indiscipline acts in the work spot.
Ex.R 29 is the letter, dated 11-11-2002 sent by
D. Deenadayalan admitting that he came to work
place in drunken mood, vomitted and apologized
for the same. Ex.R 30 is the another apology letter,
dated 5-12-2002 stating that he will be carefully in
future and undergo training sincerely. Ex.R 31 is the
Inter-office memorandum, dated 15-3-2004 regarding
D. Deenadayalan's absence from work. Ex.R 32 is the
letter, dated 16-3-2004 addressed to D. Deenadayalan
stating that absence from training since 6-3-2004
and report immediately. Ex.R 33 is the letter, dated
11-4-2004 addressed to D. Deenadayalan stating that
his apprenticeship is withdrawn with immediate
effect. Ex.R 34 is the letter sent by D. Deenadayalan
stating that he was not a trainee and not interested
to rejoin training immediately. Ex.R 35 is the reply
letter, dated 23-4-2004 addressed to D. Deenadayalan
stating that his apprenticeship is withdrawn with
immediate effect.
(16)(16) Apprentice - K. Murali:-
Ex.P10 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 7-5-2002. Ex.P 33 is the advice letter
dated 5-11-2002 sent to K. Murali stating that his
performance and conduct is not satisfactory and he
was advised to improve his career (Ex.R 53). Ex.R 54
is the Inter-office memorandum, dated 13-4-2003
explaining lapse of duty to K. Murali. Ex.R 55 is the
warning letter, dated August 2003 addressed to
K. Murali for his unauthorised absence for many
days. Ex.R 56 is the apology letter, dated 1-3-2004
written by K. Murali to the respondent management.
Ex.P 11 is the letter, dated 11-4-2004 addressed to
K. Murali stating that his apprenticeship is withdrawn
with immediate effect. (Ex.R 57). His apprenticeship
was terminated on 11-4-2004. (Ex.R 52).
16(17) Apprentice - A. Rajavel:-
Ex.P 9 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 15-7-2002. Ex.P 24 is the Warning Letter
dated 23-1-2003 addressed to A. Rajavel for his
unauthorized absence for many days. Ex.R 66 is the
second warning letter, dated 20-11-2003 addressed to
A. Rajavel for his unauthorized absence for many
days. Ex.R 67 is the letter, dated 13-3-2004 addressed
to A. Rajavel regarding his continuous absence since
21-2-2004. Ex.R69 is the letter, dated 14-3-2004 sent
by A. Rajavel not reporting for duty with effect
from 25-2-2004. Ex.P17 is the letter, dated 22-3-2004
addressed to A. Rajavel stating that termination of
apprenticeship with immediate effect. (Ex.R 68). His
apprenticeship was terminated on 22-3-2004. (Ex.R 65).
16(18)Apprentice - K. Balamurugan:-
Ex.P 15 is the apprenticeship order and he was
appointed on 6-6-2002. Ex.P 16 is the letter, dated
13- 3-2004 sent to K. Balamurugan stating that he was
not reporting training with effect from 22-2-2004 (Ex.R
60). Ex.R 59 is the warning letter, dated 23-1-2003
addressed to K. Balamurugan for his unauthorized
absence for many days. Ex.R 61 is the letter, dated
18.-3-2004 terminating apprenticeship of K. Balamurugan
with immediate effect. His apprenticeship was
terminated on 18-3-2004, (Ex.R 58)
16(19) Apprentice - R. Paneer:-
Ex.P 18 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 7-6-2002. Ex.R 66 is the warning letter
dated 20-11-2003 addressed to R. Paneer for his
unauthorized absence for many days. His apprenticeship
was withdrawn on 18-3-2004 as per Ex. R 62.
16(20) Apprentice -V. Vannaavaramban:-
Ex.P 34 is the Apprenticeship Order and he was
appointed on 1-3-2002. Ex.P 60 is the E.S.I. Identity Card.
Ex.R2 is the complaint against V. Vannaavaramban in
respect of indiscipline act in the work place, dated
15-2-2004. Ex.P 2 is the Suspension pending enquiry,
dated 16-2-2004 as the said V. Vannaavaramban
committed serious misconduct. Ex.P 35 is the show
cause notice, dated 22-2-2004 issued to the said
V. Vannavaramban for which he has sent by reply
(Ex.R3). Ex.P 13 is the letter, dated 4-3-2004 given by
V. Vannavaramban to MRF Limited, Ex.R 4 is the written
explanation of V. Vannavaramban to the show cause
notice, dated 4-3-2004. Ex.P 27 is the order, dated 29-3-2004
a detailed order mentioning as the order to terminate
the apprenticeship with immediate effect, wherein, the
acts of misbehavior, disobedience and abusing officials
in filthy language have been quoted (Ex.R 5 ).
His Apprenticeship was withdrawn on 29-3-2004 (Ex.R 1).
189
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
16(21) Apprentice - M. Sabarinathan:-
Ex.R6 is the apprenticeship order and he was
appointed on 7-11-2002. Ex.R 7 is the warning letter
dated 25-10-2003 addressed to M. Sabarinathan for
his unauthorised absence for many days. Ex.R 8 is
the Inter-office memorandum, dated 14-2-2004
as M. Sabarinathan indulged in sitting enmass and
also for his indiscipline behaviours. Ex.R 9 is the
show cause notice, dated 22-2-2004 issued to
M, Sabarinathan stating his misbehavior and using
filthy language against supervisors and other serious
misconducts. Ex.R 10 is the reply, dated 4-3-2004
sent by M. Sabarinathan stating that denying the
charges in the show cause notice. Ex.P3 is the order
dated 29-3-2004 terminating apprenticeship of
M. Sabarinathan within the company (Ex.R11).
16(22) Apprentice - S.M. Saravanan:-
Ex.P7 is the Suspension pending enquiry, dated
14-2-2004 as the said S.M. Saravanan committed
serious misconduct. Ex.R 20 is the complaint against
S.M. Saravanan in respect of indiscipline act in the
work place, dated 10-4-2003. Ex.R 21 is the letter dated
11-4-2003 sent to S.M. Saravanan stating that he
was not reporting training with effect from 9-4-2003.
Ex.R 22 is the warning letter, dated 20-9-2003 sent to
S.M. Saravanan for his unauthorized absence for
many days. Ex.R 23 is the Inter-office memorandum
dated 13-2-2004 regarding disobedience and
indisciplinary acts of S.M. Saravanan. Ex.R 24 is the
sho w cause no tice, dated 1 7 -2 -2 0 0 4 issued
to S.M. Saravanan stating his misbehavior and in the
middle of shop floor enmass, indulging in Go-slow
at work and other serious misconducts. Ex.R25 is the
written explanation of S.M. Saravanan to the show
cause notice, dated 5-3-2004.
16(23) Apprentice - M. Narayanan:-
Ex.P19 is the show cause notice, dated 17-2-2004
issued to M. Narayanan stating his misbehavior
and in the middle of shop floor enmass, indulging
in Go-slow at work and other serious misconducts
(Ex.R 17). Ex.R 12 is the complaint regarding
carelessness working during training, dated 12-1 2003.
Ex.P 20 is the suspension pending enquiry, dated
14-2-2004 as the said M. Narayanan committed
serious misconduct. Ex.P 21 is the order, dated 11-4-2004
terminating apprenticeship of M. Narayanan within
the company (Ex.R 19). Ex.R 13 is the apology letter
of M. Narayanan for the incident of 12-1-2003. Ex.R 14
is the warning letter, dated 2-11-2003 issued to
apprentice M. Narayanan. Ex.R 15 is the severe
warning letter, dated 13-1-2003 issued to M. Narayanan.
Ex.R16 is the complaint in respect of his M. Narayanan
attitude and misbehavior during training period,
dated 13-2-2004. Ex.R18 is the written explanation
of M. Narayanan to the show cause notice, dated
23-3-2004.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner union
argued that since the 23 workmen concerned in this
dispute and some other employees joined the petitioner
union as members to the management with motivation
and victimization again some of the workers discharged/
retrenchment/terminated them from service and the
company declared illegal layout. The termination of
23 workmen is illegal and it amounts to unfair labour
practice. All the 23 workmen were doing the same work
as that of the regular/permanent workmen. The term
workman as defined under section 2(s) of Industrial
Disputes Act includes an apprenticeship. The designated
Apprentices are also workers and they are also entitled
for the protection and benefits provided under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
18. In support of his contention the learned Counsel
for the petitioners relied on the ruling laid down in the
case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited
Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court,
Madras, 2. V. Lakshminarayanan, dated 28-3-2005,
reported in 2005 III LLJ-284- wherein, the Hon'ble
Division Bench of A Madras High Court has observed
that:-
"In the present case in view of the findings of the
Labour Court that the respondent herein (workman)
was not undergoing training, we are of the opinion
that although he was designated as apprentice, in
fact he was not an Apprentice but was an employee
doing full time work in the establishment and not
undergoing training...........
In our opinion, there can be no estoppel against
a person who accepts his designation as an
apprentice, but, later on raises a plea that in fact he
was not an apprentice but was doing the work of
a workman..........
The designation of an employee is not of much
importance, and what is important is the nature of
duties being performed by him."
In the above referred case, the management
witness MW1 has admitted that the petitioner
(workman) was appointed as Apprentice/Trainee (job
assistant) but, he was doing the same work as a
labourer. Further during cross-examination it has
been mentioned that even though the petitioner was
the 'shop assistant' he worked only in the show room
190
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
'on a full time job', and no special training was given
to the petitioner, and that during the time of tenure
of service the petitioner was doing his work
properly".
As the management witness has categorically
admitted that no training was imparted to the
petitioner therein and in fact he was doing work of
regular workman. The Hon'ble Division Bench has
categorically observed that though the petitioner
was designated as a Apprentice he was doing regular
work and he is entitled for permanent employment
with all benefits.
19. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
contended that in the case in hand also 23 workmen
though appointed as apprentices they had been
doing work of the regular employee and even they
worked for over time they could not be retrenched/
terminated without any notice or enquiry and their
discharge/termination is -illegal. The learned Counsel
for the management vehemently argued that there is
absolutely no evidence to hold that 23 Apprentices
were doing regular work. None of the 23 trainees
appeared before this Court and deposed that they
were doing regular work like permanent workers. In
fact PW1 has categorically admitted that 23 workers
were appointed only as apprentices and undergone
and they were undergoing training as Apprentices.
So, the principle laid down in the above referred
authority (Lakshminarayanan case) is not applicable
to the facts of the present case."
20. The learned Counsel for the respondents further
argued that there is no proof to show that the
23 apprenticeships are members of the union. So, the
petitioner union is not entitled to represent the cause
of the said trainees. PW. 1 said to be the General
Secretary of the petitioner union has not produced any
records. relevant to show membership of the trainees.
So, the petitioner union has produced three lists of its
members as Ex.P 40. P 43 and P 45. A perusal of these
lists would disclosed that only 12 out of the 23
trainees are members and the remaining 11 trainees are
not shown as members, when the above said 11 apprentices
are not members of the petitioner union, the said union
is not entitled to represent them, according to learned
Counsel for the respondent.
21. The respondent management's specific contention
is that since the 23 Apprentices have been appointed
only as per the terms and conditions of the apprenticeship
order and the apprentices knowing the terms and
conditions of the apprenticeship order agreed the same,
so they are not entitled to seek permanent employment
even after successfully completing training course.
As already discussed apprenticeship orders specify
42 months of training and the learned Counsel for the
respondent submitted that since the manufacturing of
radial tyres is a lengthy process involving different
sections like preparatory, assembly, curing and
finishing. The duration of training is fixed as 42 months
in the Certified Standing Order.
22. A workman is expected to work in all the activities
carried on in every sections, so necessarily, he has to
develop the skill by acquiring the relevant parameter
knowledge of the material, machine process, quality and
safety. So, 42 months is prescribed as a training period
for all the Apprentices and it is specifically admitted by
PW.1 who had already undergone such a lengthy
training, as per the Certified Standing Order. So, in terms
of the standing orders apprenticeship order has been
issued with the condition that the apprentices should
undergo training for 42 months comprising with four
spells and the first spell is for six months and the
remaining three spells each one for one year duration.
There is a specific clause in the apprenticeship order
that the company does not guarantee any automatic
confirmation in services at the end of the apprenticeship
period and if apprenticeship is found guilty of such
misconduct he would be summarily dismissed from
apprenticeship without notice or any compensation in
lieu of notice. The Apprentices accepting the terms and
conditions of the apprenticeship order joined the
training. The learned Counsel for the management
referred the following citations to show that the
management has powers to discharge/retrenched/
dismissal/terminate service of an Apprentice without any
show cause notice or enquiry.
22 (1) Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry Vs.
Presiding Officer and Another-
"It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above referred case that there is no dispute
regarding the proposition of law that termination of
probationer of his service by the employer after
making
over-all
assessment
was
legal
and
justified...............
Once, it was found that the assessment made by
the employer was supported by some material and
was not mala fide, it was not proper for the High Court
to interfere and substitute its satisfaction with the
satisfaction of the employer. The High Court was also
wrong in holding that in order to support its
satisfaction, it was necessary for the appellant to
produce some reports or communication or other
evidence to show that performance of the respondent
was below the expected norms."
191
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(2) (2004) 2 LLJ 626 Madras
Management of MRF Limited Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Vellore-
"In the order of appointment, it was clearly stated
that the appointments were for a fixed period of time.
The management is at liberty to extend the apprenticeship
period if required. There was no guarantee that at the
end of the period of apprenticeship, that the workmen
would be absorbed as probationers...................
No evidence was adduced to show as to how the
workmen were victimized. The workmen were only
Apprentices and probationers. The Labour Court
further gave a reason to the effect that the question
of victimization does not arise as the management
would not gain anything by terminating the workmen
as they were neither workmen nor office-bearers or
even committee members of the union, which union
still continues to exist..................
Ex.M 3 series would show that the services of the
workmen during the period were not upto the mark
from the point of view of efficiency. This basic fact
stares at the contention of the workmen that the non-
employment was mala fide and victimization............."
(3) (2008) 3 SCC 310-
Progressive Education Society and Another
Vs. Rajendra and Another-
"The appointing authority is at liberty to terminate
services of a probationer if it finds performance of
probationer to be-unsatisfactory during the period of
probation. The assessment has to be made by the
appointing authority itself and the satisfaction is to
be that of the appointing authority as well. The
authorities however not required to give reason for
termination except to inform employee that his
performance was found unsatisfactory..................
The law with regard to termination of the services
of a probationer is well established and it has been
repeatedly held that such a power lies with the
appointing authority which is at liberty to terminate
the services of a probationer if it finds the
performance of the probationer to be unsatisfactory
during the period of probation...............".
(4) 2011-III-LLJ-335 (Delhi)-
Management of Apparel Export Promotion Council
And Surya Prakash-
"8. You (probationer) will be on probation for a
period of one year which may be extended at the
absolute discretion of the management. On
satisfactory completion of the period of probation,
your services will be confirmed in writing...............
9. The appointment letter clearly sets out the terms
of employment which make it clear that his services
could be put to an end at any time by giving twenty
four hours notice during the period of probation and
his services would be regularized only after
satisfactory completion of the probation period.
These terms were accepted by the workman and were
never challenged before the tribunal or writ court. In
fact, the respondent workman has not let any
evidence in the Courts below that the appointment
letter was issued with mala fide intent to terminate his
services.
Ratio Decidendi:
In this judgment, his termination of service as per
clause in letter of appointment during probation, will
fall under section 2(oo) (bb) and section 25-F of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not be attracted.
So, a comprehensive reading of the above referred
citations would clearly indicate that in terms of the
apprenticeship order, the management is at liberty to
terminate the services of apprentices if their are
services found to be not satisfactory."
23. As already discussed the 23 Apprentices have not
completed the training successfully during the course
of training are extended period. They indulged in several
act of misbehavior, disobedience, misconduct and their
performance was not satisfactory to the management.
It is pertinent that even after successful completion, the
Apprentices have no right to seek permanency. Under
such circumstances, the apprentices have no manner of
right to claim themselves to be workmen of the
respondent management and seek for reinstatement with
full back wages and other benefits according to learned
Counsel for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the
management printed out that the terms and conditions
of apprentice training as contemplation in the Certified
Standing Order and Apprentices Order have not been
challenged by the petitioner. Once the trainees accept
the terms and conditions of apprentice order they are
bound to abide by the same. The learned petitioners
Counsel argued that as the 23 workmen were doing
regular work of permanent employees, given token
number and paid E.S.I. contribution so they have to be
construed only as' workmen' as per the definition of
section 2(s). As already discussed 23 apprentices joined
only as a trainees and while were undergoing training
they indulged in acts of indiscipline, insubordination
and also aided and abetted co-workers for different
forms of strikes. There is no material available on record
to hold that the trainees were doing the work of regular
workers. So, the company was forced to declare lockout
and issued Ex.P 36 lockout notice on 21-2-2004.
192
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
24. When the management dismissed more than
200 employees of petitioner union the said union filed
WP. No. 20270/2001sought for direction to the management
not to give effect to the order of dismissal Mr. D.
Ramachandra Reddy, Secretary of the union and another
writ petition WP. No. 20591/2001 seeking for reinstatement
of 116 workers together with back wages and other
benefits and also a direction to the management to
strictly comply with the provisions of model standing
orders and provisions of the Factories Act, and
another writ petition in WP. No. 19/2002 was filed to
restrain the management from recruiting any new
workers or recruiting any workers juniors to the members
of the petitioner union without giving employment to
the members of the union. The writ petitions were
resisted by the management and finally all the above
said three writ petitions were allowed by the common
order, dated 10-6-2002 and copy of the order is
produced as Ex.P 39. Felt aggrieved by the order made
in writ petitions, the management preferred writ appeals
in WA. Nos. 2043 and 2044/2002, and the petitioner
union filed writ petition WP. No. 24183 of 2005 praying
for issuance of writ calling for records of impugned
order of Notification in No. 2173/AIL/Lab./J/2004, dated
18-5-2004 and quash the same and direct the call for the
records of the first respondent therein, in connection
with the impugned order bearing No. 2173/AIL/Lab./
J/2004, dated 18-5-2004 to cancel the registration of
the second respondent. The writ appeals and the writ
petition were taken together and disposed by the common
order, dated 4-1-2008 and writ appeals were allowed with
certain modifications since most of the employees were
re-employed during the pendency of the writ appeals.
The writ petition WP. No. 24183 of 2005 filed by the
petitioner union was also disposed with direction to
aggrieved persons to move the appropriate forum for
appropriate relief. The learned
Counsel for the
petitioners pointed out paragraph No. 69 and 70 in Ex.P
39 common judgment in the writ petitions, wherein,
respondent management's actions were strongly criticized
and commented upon by the Hon'ble High Court.
Any how the writ petition orders have been reversed in the
writ appeal, as the circumstances have been changed
due to the attitude of the management since it has
reemployed most of the terminated employees and many
of them had been made permanent employees, during
the pendency of writ appeals. Now, only the 23 Apprentices
have been left out and they were disengaged.
25. The Apprentices during their course of training
did not perform well and upto the satisfaction of the
management, so their services were terminated and
necessary orders have been issued. When the 23
Apprentices were undergoing training in terms of the
apprenticeship orders they are not entitled to seek
permanent employment, as per the principle laid down
by the above cited rulings by the learned counsel for
the respondents. Hence, I conclude that 23 Apprentices
are not workmen entitled to raise dispute under the
Industrial Dispute Act and their termination by the
management is justified. Since, there is no material to
infer the alleged victimization or motivation or any
unfair labour practice.
26. As per-the principal laid down in the case of
Management of Apparel Export Promotion Council
Vs.Surya Prakash 2000-LLJ-335,
“It is clear that termination of service of an
apprenticeship during the period of training will fail
under the exception section 2(oo) (bb) under section
25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not be
attracted. So, the termination of the 23 Apprentices
cannot be construed as retrenchment nor any
entitled for any retrenchment compensation as
prescribed under section 25 -F.
Section 2(oo) defines 'retrenchment' and 2(bb) is
an exception stating that termination of the service
of the workman as a result of the non-removal of the
contract of employment between the employer and
the workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation in that
behalf contained therein.”
27. It is observed that termination of service as per
clause in the letter of appointment during probation will
fall under section 2(oo) (bb) and section 25-F of
Industrial Disputes Act will not be attracted, so, 23
Apprentices are not entitled to claim any relief or
compensation by invoking section 25-F.
28. It is not established that all the 23 apprentices
became member of the petitioner union. As already
discussed only a few of the trainees were member of
petitioner union. As the terminated Apprentices have
not come forward to depose about the work allotted to
them it is difficult to hold that they were doing regular
work of the permanent employees. The management
terminated services of the trainees only because of their
unsatisfactory performance and unauthorized absenteeism,
acts of insubordination, disobedience. The management
has produced relevant documents to show the
misconduct, disobedience, insubordination of the
trainees during the course of training, I hold that the
23 trainees are only Apprentices in terms of Apprentice
Order and they cannot be said as 'workman' as defined
under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Under
such circumstances, petitioners are not entitled to claim
any relief and the reference deserves dismissal......
Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 and 2.
193
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Point No. 3:-
29. The respondent management though is not
legally obliged to pay any compensation on taking into
account the plight of the Apprentices and the difficulties
faced by them due to termination of apprenticeship long
back, I hold that in the interest of justice, these
Apprentices should be given some ex-gratia payment.
Hence, I conclude that 23 Apprentices are not entitled
for any relief claimed in the dispute. Accordingly, the
reference is dismissed. Anyhow the respondent
management is directed to pay ex gratia payment at the
rate of ` 40,000 to the Apprentices (i) T, Arumugam,
(ii) K. Subramanian, (iii) B. Velmurugan, (iv) S.M. Saravanan
and (v) M. Narayanan and at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each
for the other 18 Apprentices.
37. Finally, on the basis of the appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence adduced on either side and
the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
High Court in the authorities cited above, I conclude
that the 23 trainees involved in this dispute are only
Apprentices and they are not entitled for the reliefs
under the reference.
38. In the result, the reference is dismissed. However,
the respondent management is directed to pay lumpsum
ex-gratia payment of ` 40,000 each of the following five
trainees, namely, (i) T. Arumugam, (ii) K. Subramanian,
(iii) B. Velmurugan, (iv) S.M. Saravanan and
(v) M. Narayanan and at the rate of ` 25,000 each for
the remaining other 18 Apprentices. There is no order
as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this
the 22nd day of December, 2015.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses :
P.W.1—6-6-2013—S. Sasikumar
P.W.2—13-10-2014—C. Rajadurai
List of respondent’s witnesses :
Nil.
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.P1
— Copy of the Apprenticeship order issued
to K. Kumar, dated 1-3-2002.
Ex.P2
— Copy of the Suspension order issued to
V. Vanavaramban, dated 16-2-2004,
Ex.P3
— Copy of the order, issued to M. Sabarinathan,
dated 29-3-2004.
Ex.P4
— Copy of the apprenticeship order issued
to R. Rajalingam,dated 18-5-2002,
Ex.P5
— Copy of the memo. issued to A. Ramamurthy,
dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.P6
— Copy of the E.S.I. Identity card issued to
A. Ramamurthy, dated 13-4-2002.
Ex.P7
— Copy of the Suspension order issued to
S.M. Saravanan, dated 14-2-2004.
Ex.P8
— Copy of the Apprenticeship order issued
to J. Durai, dated 6-6-2002
Ex.P9
— Copy of the Apprenticeship order issued
to A. Rajavel, dated 15-7-2002.
Ex.P10
— Copy of the Apprenticeship order issued
to K. Murali, dated 7-5-2002.
Ex.P11
— Copy of the letter issued to K. Murali,
dated 11-1-2001.
Ex.P12
— Copy of the letter issued to G. Sekar,
dated 1-4-2004.
Ex.P13
— Copy of the letter issued by V. Vanavaramban,
to MRF Limited, dated 4-3-2004.
Ex.P14
— Copy of the Apprenticeship order issued
to A. Arulselvan, dated 1-1-2002.
Ex. P15 — Copy of the Apprenticeship order issued
to K. Balamurugan, dated 6-6-2002.
Ex.P16
— Copy of the letter issued to K. Balamurugan,
dated 13-3-2004.
Ex.P17
— Copy of the letter issued to A. Rajavel,
dated 22-3-2004.
Ex.P18
— Copy of the apprenticeship order issued
to R. Paneer, dated 7-6-2002.
Ex.P19
— Copy of the show cause notice issued
to M. Narayanan, dated 17-2-2004.
Ex.P20
— Copy of the suspension order issued to
M. Narayanan, dated 14-2-2004.
Ex.P21
— Copy of the order issued to M. Narayanan,
dated 11-4-2004.
Ex.P22
— Copy of the apprenticeship order issued
to J. Gnanamourthy, dated 7-6-2002.
Ex.P23
— Copy of the memo. issued to J. Gnannmourthy,
dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.P24
— Copy of the warning letter issued to
A. Rajavel, dated 23-1-2003.
Ex.P25
— Copy of the memo issued to T. Arumugam,
dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.P26
— Copy of the order issued to S.M. Saravanan,
dated 11-4-2004.
194
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
Ex.P27
— Copy of the order issued to V. Vanavaramban,
dated 29-3-2004.
Ex.P28
— Copy of the apprenticeship order issued to
V. Muthukumarasamy, dated 18-6-2002 .
Ex.P29
— Copy of the apprenticeship order issued to
K. Subramanian, dated 1-6-1999.
Ex.P30
— Copy of the memo issued to K. Subramanian,
dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.P31
— Copy of the memo issued to K. Kumar,
dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.P32
— Copy of the payslip of November 2003
issued to K. Kumar.
Ex.P33
— Copy of the advice letter issued to
K. Murali, dated 5-11-2002.
Ex.P34
— Copy of the apprenticeship order issued
to V. Vanavaramban, dated 1-3-2002.
Ex.P35
— Copy of the show cause notice issued
to V. Vanavaramban, dated 22-2-2004.
Ex.P36
— Copy of the lockout notice issued by
MRF Limited, dated 21-2-2004.
Ex.P37
— Copy of the failure report issued by
Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated 3-8-2006.
Ex.P38
— Copy of the notification of failure report
issued by Additional Secretary to Government
of Pondicherry, dated 19-10-2006.
Ex.P39
— Copy of the Order of Hon'ble High Court
in W.P. No. 20591 of 2001 and W.P. No. 19
of 2002 dated 10-6-2002.
Ex.P40
— Copy of the Letter from petitioner union
to respondent management regarding
intimation of trade union membership
of 111 employees, dated 12-2-2004.
Ex.P41
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
the General Manager, MRF Limited,
Pondicherry, dated 14-2-2004.
Ex.P42
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
the Chairman and Managing Director,
MRF Limited, dated 16-2-2004.
Ex.P43
— Copy of the letter from petitioner union
to respondent
management regarding
intimation of trade union membership of
43 employees, dated 13-2-2004.
Ex.P44
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
the General Manager, MRF Limited,
Pondicherry, dated 18-2-2004.
Ex.P45
— Copy of the letter from petitioner union
to
respondent
management regarding
intimation of trade union membership
of 22 employees, dated 13-2-2004.
Ex.P46
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
the General Manager, MRF Limited,
Pondicherry, dated 14-2-2004.
Ex.P47
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
the Chairman and Managing Director, MRF
Limited, Pondicherry, dated 14-2-2004
Ex.P48
— Copy of the Complaint to Superintendent
of Police, Secretary Labour Department
and Chief Inspector of Factories against
Management of MRF Limited, regarding
engaging Contract Labourers in direct
Production, dated 14-2-2004.
Ex.P49
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
Secretary Labour Department, Pondicherry,
dated 16-2-2004.
Ex.P50
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
Chief Inspector of Factories, Pondicherry,
dated 16-2-2004.
Ex.P51 — Copy of the Complaint to Secretary to
Labour Department
Pondicherry, Chief
Inspector
of
Factories, Inspector of
Factories and Commissioner of Labour
through Telegram, dated 14-2-2004
Ex.P52
— Copy of the letter from petitioner union
to respondent management regarding to
request for negotiation with petitioner
union, dated 17-2-2004
Ex.P53
— Copy of the acknowledgment card from
General Manager of MRF Limited,
Pondicherry, dated 19-2-2004
Ex.P54
— Copy of the Payslip for the month of
January 2004 issued to S. Bagyaraj.
Ex.P55
— Copy of the Payslip for the month of
August 2002 to October 2002 and
December 2002 and December 2003 issued
to A. Maruthasalamoorthy (Series)
Ex.P56
— Copy of the Payslip for the month of
September 2002, March 2003 and April
2003 issued to T. Arumugam (Series).
Ex.P57
— Copy of the Payslip for the month of
September 2002 and October 2003 issued
to J. Gnanamourthy (Series).
Ex.P58
— Copy of the Pay slip for the month of
November 2003 issued to K. Kumar.
Ex.P59
— Copy of the E.S.I. Card of K. Kumar.
Ex.P60
— Copy of the E.S.I. Card of V. Vanavaramban
Ex.P61
— Copy of the E.S.I. Card of K. Subramanian
Ex.P62
— Copy of the E.S.I. Card of T. Arumugam
195
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P63
— C o p y o f t he E . S. I . Ca r d i ss ue d t o
J. Gnanamourthy.
Ex.P64
— Copy of the letter of authorization issued
by MRF Limited, dated 26-6-2014
Pondicherry.
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Ex.R1
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
V. Vanavaramban, dated 1-3-2002.
Ex.R2
— Copy of the complaint from K. Anand
(Zone-I) to the respondent management
on the indisciplinary activities of
V. Vanavaramban, dated 15-2-2004.
Ex.R3
— Copy of the show cause notice, issued
to V. Vanavaramban by the respondent
management, dated 22-2-2004
Ex.R4
— Copy of the written explanation of
V. Vanavaramban to the show cause
notice, dated 4-3-2004
Ex.R5
— Copy of the order issued to V. Vanavaramban
by the respondent management, dated
29-3-2004
Ex.R6
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
M. Sabarinathan, dated 7-11-2002.
Ex.R7
— Copy of the warning letter issued to
M. Sabarinathan by the respondent
management, dated 25-10-2003.
Ex.R8
— Copy of the complaint from P. Gopal to the
respondent management on the indisciplinary
activities of M. Sabarinathan, dated 14-2-2004.
Ex.R9
— Copy of the show cause notice, issued
to M. Sabarinathan by the respondent
management, dated 22-2-2004.
Ex.R10
— Copy of the written explanation of
M. Sabarinathan to the show cause
notice, dated 4-3-2004.
Ex.R11
— Copy of the order issued to M. Sabarinathan
by the respondent management, dated
29-3-2004
Ex.R12
— Copy of the complaints to the respondent
management on the indisciplinary activities
of M. Narayanan, dated 12-1-2003.
Ex.R13
— Copy of the apology letter of M. Narayanan
fo r t h e i n c i d en t of 12-1-2003, d a t e d
12-1-2003
Ex.R14
— Copy of the warning letter issued to
M . N a r a ya n a n b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t
management, dated 2-11-2003.
Ex. R15 — Copy of the severe warning letter issued
to M. Narayanan, by the respondent
management (Refused to receive the
RPAD cover), dated 13-1-2003.
Ex.R16
— Copy of the Complaint from A. Ernest to
the respondent management on indisciplinary
activities of M. Narayanan, dated 13-2-2004.
Ex.R17
— Copy of the show cause notice issued to
M. Na rayanan b y the resp o nd ent
management, dated 17-2-2004.
Ex.R18
— Copy of the written explanation of
M. Narayanan to the show cause notice,
dated 23-3-2004.
Ex.R19 — Copy of the order issued to M. Narayanan
by the respondent management, dated
11-4-2004.
Ex.R20
— Copy of the complaint from K.T. Raja
to the respondent management on the
indisciplinary activities of S.M. Saravanan,
dated 10-4-2003.
Ex.R21
— Copy of the letter issued to S.M. Saravanan
by the respondent management, dated
11-4-2003.
Ex.R22 —
Copy of the warning letter issued to
S.M. Saravanan by the respondent
management (refused to accept), dated
20-9-2003.
Ex.R23
— Copy of the complaint from A. Ernest
to the respondent management on the
indisciplinary activities of S.M. Saravanan,
dated 13-2-2004.
Ex.R24
— Copy of the show cause notice issued to
S.M. Saravanan by the respondent
management, dated 17-2-2004.
Ex.R25
— Copy of the written explanation of
S.M. Saravanan to the show cause notice,
dated 5-3-2004.
Ex.R26
— Copy of the order issued to S.M. Saravanan
by the respondent management, dated
11-4-2004.
Ex.R27
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
D. Dheenadhayalan, dated 1-3-2002.
Ex.R28
— C o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t s f r o m
P. Arulmurugan and
K. Nagaraj on
t h e i n d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s o f
D. Dheenadhayalan, dated 11-11-2002.
Ex.R29
— C o p y o f t h e a p o l o g y l e t t e r o f
D.
Dheenadhayalan to the Superior,
dated 11-11-2002.
196
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
Ex.R30
— C o p y o f t h e a p o l o g y l e t t e r o f
D. Dheenadhayaian to the respondent
management, dated 5-12-2002.
Ex.R31
— Copy of the Complaint from G. Ravikumar
for unauthorized absence from training by
D. Dheenadhayalan, dated 15-3-2004.
Ex.R32
— C o p y o f t h e ph o n o g r a m s e n t t o
D. Dheenadhayalan by the respondent
management to immediately report to duty,
dated 16-3-2004.
Ex.R33
— C o p y o f t h e
or d e r i s s u e d t o
D. Dheenadhayalan by the respondent
management, dated 11-4-2004.
Ex.R34
— C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r s e n t b y
D. Dheenadhayalan to the respondent
management, dated Nil.
Ex.R35
— Copy of the reply to D. Dheenadhayalan
for the letter dated Nil by the respondent
management, dated 23-4-2004.
Ex.R36
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
S. Bagyaraj, dated 1-3-2002.
Ex.R37
— Copy of the Complaint from G. Ravikumar
to the respondent management on the
indisciplinary activities of S. Bagyaraj,
dated 30-7-2003.
Ex.R38
— Copy of the letter of S. Bagyaraj to the
MRF Employees union, dated 17-3-2004
Ex.P39
— Copy of the apology letter of S. Bagyaraj
to the respondent management,
dated 17-3-2004.
Ex.R40
— Copy of the complaint from A. Ernest
to
the
respondent,
management
for
unauthorized absence from training by
S. Bagyaraj, dated 31-3-2004 .
Ex.R41
— C o p y o f t h e p h o n o g r a m s e n t t o
S. Bagyaraj by the respondent management
to immediately report to duty, dated Nil.
Ex.R42
— Copy of the letter sent by S. Bagyaraj
to the respondent management, dated
19-4-2004.
Ex.R43
— Copy of the order issued to S. Bagyaraj
by the respondent management, dated
21-4-2004.
Ex.R44
— Copy of the reply to S. Bagyaraj for the
letter dated 19-4-2004 by the respondent
management, dated 23-4-2004.
Ex.R45
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
G. Sekar, dated 15-4-2002.
Ex.R46
— Copy of the complaint from Joseph Kurian
to the respondent management on the
indisciplinary activities of G. Sekar, dated
12.-1-2004 .
Ex.R47
— Copy of the Complaint from K. Ramadhas
to the respondent management on the
indisciplinary activities of G. Sekar,
dated 15-2-2004.
Ex.R48
— Copy of the letter sent to G. Sekar by the
respondent management to report to duty
by 17-3-2004, dated 13-3-2004.
Ex.R49
— Copy of the letter sent by G. Sekar to the
respondent management, dated 29-3-2004.
Ex.R50
— Copy of the order issued to G. Sekar by
the respondent management, dated 1-4-2004.
Ex.R51
— Copy of the reply to G. Sekar for the letter
dated
29-3.2004
by
the
respondent
management, dated 2-4-2004.
Ex.R52
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
K. Murali dated 7-5-2002.
Ex.R53
— Copy of the advice letter issued to K. Murali
by the respondent management, dated
5-11-2002.
Ex.R54
— Copy of the complaint from J. Natarajan
to the respondent management on the
indisciplinary activities of K. Murali,
dated 13-4-2003.
Ex.R55
— Copy of the warning letter issued
to K. Murali for unauthorized absence
by the respondent management, dated
August-2003.
Ex.R56
— Copy of the apology letter by K. Murali to
the respondent management, dated 1-3-2004.
Ex.R57
— Copy of the order issued to K. Murali by
the respondent management, dated 11-4-2004.
Ex.R58
— Copy of the apprenticeship order issued
to K. Balamurugan, dated 6-6-2002.
Ex.R59
— Copy of the warning letter issued to
K. Balamurugan by the respondent
management for unauthorized absence,
dated 23-1-2003.
Ex.R60
— C o p y o f t h e
order s e n t t o
K. Balamurugan b y the respondent
management to report to duty by 17-3-2004,
dated 13-3-2004.
Ex.R61
— C o p y o f t h e
order s e n t t o
K. Balamurugan by the respondent
management, dated 18-3-2004.
Ex.R62
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
R. Paneer, dated 7-6-2002.
197
15 March 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R63 —
Copy of the apology letter of R. Paneer
for unauthorized absence to the respondent
management, dated 27-2-2004.
Ex.R64
— Copy of the order issued to R. Paneer by
the respondent management, dated 11-4-2004.
Ex.R65
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
A. Rajavel, dated 15-7-2002.
Ex.R66
— Copy of the warning letter issued to
A. Rajavel by the respondent management,
dated 20-11-2003.
Ex.R67
— Copy of the letter sent to A. Rajavel by
the respondent management to report to
duty by 17-3-2004, dated 13-3-2004.
Ex.R68
— Copy of the order issued to A. Rajavel by
the respondent management, dated 22-3-2004 .
Ex.R69
— Copy of the letter sent by A. Rajavel to
the respondent, management through RPAD.
dated 14-4-2004.
Ex.R70
— Copy of the Apprenticeship order of
A. Arulselvan, dated 1-1-2002.
Ex.R71
— Copy of the memo issued to A. Arulselvan
by the respondent management, dated
17-3-2004.
Ex.R72
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
K. Subramanian, dated 1-12-1999.
Ex.R73
— Copy of the warning notice issued to
K. Subramanian by the respo ndent
management for unauthorized absence,
dated 4-3-2000.
Ex.R74
— C o p y o f t h e
co m p l a i n t f r o m
J. Oulaganadane to the respondent
management on the indisciplinary activities
of K. Subramanian, dated 14-10-2001.
Ex.R75
— Copy of the warning notice issued to
K. Subramanian by the respondent
management for unauthorized absence
(refused to accept in person and sent
through RPAD), dated 25-10-2003.
Ex.R76
— Copy of the warning notice issued to
K. Subramanian by the respondent
management for indisciplinary activities
(refused to accept in person and sent
through RPAD), dated 2-11-2003.
Ex.R77
— Copy of the warning notice issued to
K. Subramanian by the respondent
management for unauthorized absence,
dated 20-11-2003.
Ex.R78
— C o p y o f t h e m e m o . i s s u e d t o
K. Subramanian by the respondent
management, dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.R79
— Co p y o f t he co mp la int fr o m
P. Arulmurugan to the respondent
management on the indisciplinary activities
of K. Kumar, dated 24-1-2004.
Ex.R80
— Copy of the memo. issued to K. Kumar by
the responden management, dated 7-6-2004
Ex.R81
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
A. Maruthasalamoorthy, dated 1-3-2002
Ex.R82
— Copy of the complaint from N. Ravi Verma
to the respond ent management on
t h e i n d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s o f
A. Maruthasalamoorthy, dated 24-5-2003.
Ex.R83 —
Copy of the warning letter issued to
A. Maruthasalamoorthy by the respondent
management on the incident of 24-5-2003,
dated 25.-5-2003.
Ex.R84
— Copy of the Complaint from N. Ravi Verma
to the respondent management on
t h e i n d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s o f
A. Maruthasalamoorthy, dated 28-6-2003.
Ex.R85
— C o p y o f t h e m e m o i s s u e d t o
A. Maruthasalamoorthy by the respondent
management, dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.R86
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
A. Ramamurthy, dated 13-4-2002.
Ex.R87
— C o p y o f t h e m e m o i s s u e d t o
A. Ramamurthy by the respondent
management, dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.R88
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
R. Rajalingam dated 18-5-2002.
Ex.R89 — Copy of the advice letter issued to
R. Raj alingam b y the resp o nd ent
management, dated 16-11-2002.
Ex.R90
— Copy of the memo. issued to R. Rajalingam
by the
respondent management,
dated 7-6-2004
Ex.R9
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
J. Durai, dated 6-6-2002.
Ex.R92 —
Copy of the memo, issued to J. Durai by
the respondent management, dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.R93
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
J. Gnanamourthy, dated 7-6-2002.
Ex.R94
C o p y o f t h e m e m o . i s s u e d t o
J. Gnanamourthy by the respondent
management, dated 7-6-2004.
198
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2016
Ex.R95
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
V. Muthukumarasamy, dated 18-6-2002.
Ex.R96
— C o p y o f t h e m e m o . i s s u e d t o
V. Muthukumarasamy by the respondent
management, dated 7-6-2004 .
Ex.R97
— Copy of the apprenticeship order of
P. Nagamuthu, dated 30-6-2002.
Ex.R98
— Copy of the memo. issued to P. Nagamuthu
by the respondent management, dated 7-6-2004 .
Ex.R99
— C o p y o f t h e C o m p l a i n t f r o m
J. Oulaganadane to the
respondent
management
on
the indisciplinary
activities of T. Arumugam, dated 6-2-2003.
Ex.R100—
C o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t f r o m
J . Oulaganadane to the respondent
management on the indisciplinary activities
of T. Arumugam, dated 12-2-2003.
Ex.R101—
Copy of the warning letter issued to
T. Arumugam by the respondent management
for unauthorized absence. dated 26-8-2003.
Ex.R102—
Copy of the warning letter issued to
T. A r u m u g a m b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t
management for unauthorized absence
(sent through RPAD and refused to accept
the said RPAD), dated 9-9-2003.
Ex.R103 — Copy of the warning letter issued to
T. Arumugam by the respondent management
for indisciplinary activities, dated 2-11-2003.
Ex.R104 — Copy of the warning letter issued to
T. Arumugam by the respondent management
for unauthorized absence, dated 20-11-2003.
Ex.R105 — Copy of the memo. issued to T. Arumugam
by the respondent management, dated
7-6-2004.
Ex.R106 — Copy of the complaint from G. Ravikumar
to the respondent management on the
indisciplinary activities of B. Velmurugan,
dated 25-9-2000.
Ex.R107—
Copy of the apology letter of B. Velmurugan
to the respondent management,
dated 28-9-2000.
Ex.R108—
Copy of the warning letter issued to
B . Ve l mu r u g a n b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t
management for unauthorized absence
(refused to accept), dated 25-10-2003.
Ex.R109 — Copy of the warning letter issued
to B. Velmurugan by the respondent
management for unauthorized absence
(sent through
RPAD and refused to
accept the said RPAD), dated 20-11-2003.
Ex.R110 — C o p y o f t h e m e m o i s s u e d t o
B . Ve lmu ru g a n b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t
management, dated 7-6-2004.
Ex.R111 — Copy of the tyre manufacturing steps and
process flow chart.
Ex.R112 — Copy of the counter statement filed by
the respondent management before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,
dated April 2006.
Ex.R113 — Copy of the notification under G.O. Rt.
No. 151/AIL/Lab.J/2006 regarding the
failure report of conciliation, dated 19-10-2006.
Ex.R114 — Copy of the Order of the Hon'ble
High Court of Judicature, Madras in
W.A. Nos. 2043 and 2044 of 2002 and
W.A. M.P. Nos.3454 and 3455 of 2002 and
W.P. No.24183 of 2005 and W.P. M.P.
No. 26395 of 2005, dated 4-1-2008.
Ex.R115 — Copy of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) CC. No. 6004-6006 of 2009,
dated 12-5-2009.
Ex.R116 — Copy of the extract of the relevant portion
of the certified Standing Orders of the
respondent management.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LAW DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 3/2016, dated 25th February 2016)
NOTIFICATION
The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry is pleased to
appoint Thiru C.T.Rammesh, Advocate, Puducherry,
as the Additional Government Pleader for Puducherry
at the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras for a
period of one year from the date of assumption of charge.
2. The terms and conditions of appointment of the
Additional Government Pleader for Puducherry at the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, shall be
as set out in G. O. Ms. No. 36/96-LD, dated 23-12-1996
of the Law Department, Puducherry and as amended
from time to time.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
N. MURUGAVEL,
Under Secretary to Government (Law).