360
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 May 2016
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 32/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 6th May 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D (L) No. 27/2014, dated 31-3-2016
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Power Soap and Abirami Soap Works, Sembiapalayam
Village, Puducherry and Pudhiya Jananayaga
Thozhilalar Munnani, Puducherry over transfer of
employees resulting in non-employment of Thiruvalargal
(1) E. Murugan, (2) A.Veerasami, (3) R. Raja,
( 4 ) M . L i n g e s w a r a n , ( 5 ) L . P a c h a i a p p a n ,
( 6 ) L. Gnanamurthy and (7) M. Kannan 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 23-5-91, 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,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-Additional
Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT
PONDICHERRY
Present:Thiru N. SIVAKUMAR, B.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Thuesday, the 31st day of March 2016.
I.D. (L) No. 27/2014
Pudhiya Jananayaga Thozhilalar Munnani,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Regn. No.1656/RTU/2010
No.17, 11th Cross Street,
Kurinji Nagar,
Lawspet,
Puducherry - 605 008.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Power Soap and Abirami Soap Works,
R.S. No. 93/1A, 1B, 2, Sembiapalayam Village,
Korkadu Post,
Puducherry - 605 110.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 21-3-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru A.Sakthivel,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal R. lIancheliyan
and R. Thilagavathi, Counsel for the respondent and
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. 64/AIL/Lab./J/2014, dated 10-4-2014 for
adjudicating the following:-
1. Whether the dispute raised by Puthiya Jananayaga
Thozhilalar Munnani against the management of
M/s. Abirami Soap Works, Korkadu, Puducherry over
transfer of employees resulting in non-employment of
Thiruvalargal (1) E. Murugan, (2) A. Veerasami
(3) R Raja, (4) M. Lingeswaran, (5) L. Pachaiappan
(6) L. Gnanamurthy and (7) M. Kannan is justified?
If justified, what relief, the workmen are entitled to?
2. To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of
money, if it can be so computed?
2. The averments made in the claim statement are
briefly stated as follows:- 2 (i) The seven workmen,
namely, (1) E. Murugan, (2) A. Veerasami (3) R. Raja,
( 4 ) M . L i n g e s w a r a n , ( 5 ) L . P a c h a i a p p a n
(6) L. Gnanamurthy and (7) M. Kannan are working in
the respondent management and they are members of
the petitioner trade union and hereinafter they are
referred as workmen. The said workmen are working with
the respondent management for over a period ranging
from 6 to 10 years. The respondent management is
engaged in the manufacturing of washing soap, washing
powder, toilet soap, shampoo, face powder etc., There
are about 183 permanent workers in the respondent
management. Since the management did not consider
representations of the employees they organised
themselves by forming trade union, namely, ‘Power and
Abirami Soap Thozhilalar Munnani’ in order to toil the
unit activities the office bearers of the said union were
dismissed. Thereafter, another union by name ‘Abirami
Soap Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani’ emerged but the
respondent continued to victimise the members of the
trade union. Under such circumstances, the ‘Power and
361
24 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Abirami Soap Thozhilalar Munnani’ raised an industrial
dispute against the unfair labour practice of the
management. However, the Conciliation ended in failure
and dispute is pending before this court for
adjudication. The employees came to know that ‘Abirami
Soap Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani’ is a management
sponsored trade union. The money collected by the unit
misused and accounts not properly maintained. So many
employees resigned from the aforesaid trade union and
given letter to the management. Under such
circumstances most of the workmen concerned in this
dispute relinquished their membership with the former
management sponsored trade union and joined with the
petitioner trade union, namely, ‘Puthiya Jananayaga
Thozhilalar Munnani’.
2(ii) The workmen concerned in this dispute were not
permitted to enter the factory since 3-7-2013. Further
they were not paid salary for the month of June 2013.
In respect of denial of employment, the workmen had
sent telegrams and representations to the Conciliation
Officer. So the Deputy Inspector of Factories inspected
the respondent factory. Thereafter the management
started saying that the workmen concerned have been
transferred, and sent transfer orders to the workmen and
the particulars of the transfer given to workmen in the
following
Tabular column:-
SI.
Workmen Concerned
Place of Transfer
No.
in the Dispute
(1)
(2)
(3)
1. E. Murugan (Loader)
Silvassa
2. A. Veerasamy (Production)
Silvassa
3. L. Gnanamurthy (Loader)
Silvassa
4. M. Lingeswaran (Loader)
Gummidipoondi
5. R. Raja (Loader)
Gummidipoondi
6. R. Pachaiappan (Loader)
Gummidipoondi
7. M. Kannan (Loader)
Gummidipoondi
2(iii) The workmen are getting meager wages and out
of the seven workmen three of them were transferred to
Silvassa which is far away from Puducherry. The
workmen do not know Hindi or English. So they
cannot work at Silvassa and all the workmen are married
and having children who are studying in schools in
Puducherry. There is absolutely no administrative
necessity or exigency for the transfer. So the transfer
is illegal amount, to victimisation. Four workmen have
been transferred to Gummidipoondi which is also
located in a far away place. The workmen concerned in
the dispute have been transferred only with an intention
of victimising them since they joined the petitioner
union. The orders of transfer have been issued when
the workmen concerned sent several complaints to
various authorities regarding the oral denial of
employment by the respondent. The order of transfer
is an unfair labour practice by colorable exercise of
power without semblance of justification. The
respondent does not have power under the Certified
Standing Orders to transfer the workmen concerned in
this dispute. The proposed wage increase of 15 percent
or 10 percent is of no consequence for an employee
being completely uprooted from his family and the
community. The workmen are not gainful employees from
the date of illegal transfer, so they are starving along
with family members. So it is prayed to hold that the
order of transfer of seven workmen concerned in the
dispute is illegal, arbitrary and in colorable exercise of
power and to set aside the same, and consequently
direct the respondent to reinstate the workmen
concerned in the dispute with full backwages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits
with cost.
3. The averments made in the reply statement are
briefly stated as follows:- 3(i)The petitioner is not a
trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act
which does not have any locus-standi to raise this
dispute. It is admitted that the seven workmen
concerned are the employees in the respondent factory
and they were transferred to other factories of the
respondent management situated at Gummidipoondi and
Silvassa respectively. Four workers were transferred to
Gummidipoondi and four workers to Silvassa and out
of which one namely, Manoharan has already joined
duty and the remaining seven workers have not reported
for work. The transfer of the petitioners is out of dire
necessity and exigency of work and also within the
parameter of law. The workmen concerned were
transferred by an order, dated 2-7-2013 and when the
orders were served to the workmen individually they
blatantly refused to receive the same. So the transfer
orders were sent to them by registered post date on the
same date. The petitioners without joining duty were
loitering and entering into various correspondences
alleging that the manageinent prevented them from
entering into factory. The workmen intentionally refused
to accept the lawful orders of the respondent
management and their acts per se are contrary to the
terms of the certified standing orders of the company.
362
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 May 2016
The present dispute against the transfer orders has
been raised with an ulterior motive to procrastinate their
transfer. The respondent never refused employment and
in fact the workmen concerned refused to join duty at
the transferred place by giving flimsy reason.
3(ii) The workmen have been transferred purely out
of exigency of work and their transfer is as per the
standing orders of the company. Refusing to accept
orders of transfer is a grievous misconduct. Therefore
the claim of the petitioners alleging non-employment or
refusal of employment does not arise. It is purely a case
of voluntary abetment of duty without obeying the
lawful orders of the respondent management. The
workmen are not entitled for re-employment, backwages
or any other benefits and the claim made by the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
4 . O n b e h a l f o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r s / wo r k e r s
Thiru D. Palanisamy and Thiru E. Murugan has been
examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P59 were
marked. On behalf of the respondent management,
Thiru O.P. Sanjay Madan, General Manager has been
testified as RW.1 and Ex.R1 to R69 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
(1)Whether transfer of seven workers concerned
in this industrial dispute is an act of victimisation
amounts to unfair labour practice?
(2) Whether the petitioners’/seven workers are
entitled for reinstatement at Puducherry unit of
Respondent Industry itself and other incidental
reliefs as claimed by them?
6. On this point:
The seven workers, namely, (1) E. Murugan,
(2) A. Veerasami, (3) R. Raja, (4) M. Lingeswaran,
( 5 ) L. P a c ha ia p p an , (6 ) L. G na n amur th y an d
(7) M.Kannan of the respondent industry were
transferred to Gummidipoondi and Silvassa units by
transfer orders, dated 2-7-2013. But the said workers
without accepting the transfer orders have raised the
industrial dispute stating that the respondent industry
with a view to victimise the said workers indulged in
unfair labour practice and denied employment. The
seven workers mentioned above concerned in the
industrial dispute referred above are hereinafter referred
as workmen.
7. It is an admitted fact that the workmen concerned
in this dispute are the employees of the respondent
industry and they have rendered service for more than
five years. The workmen were posted in production and
loading sections. On 2-7-2013, the respondent
management issued transfer orders to the seven workers
transferring the following workers (1) E. Murugan,
(2) A. Veerasami, (3) R. Raja, (4) M. Lingeswaran,
( 5 ) L. P a c h a i a p p a n , ( 6 ) L. G n a n a mu r t h y a n d
(7) M.Kannan to Silvassa and Gummidipoondi units.
A l o n g w i t h t h e m o n e m o r e wo r k e r, n a me l y,
T. Manoharan was also transferred to Silvassa who
obeyed the order and joined at Silvassa unit.
8. The transfer orders issued to seven workers are
marked as EX.P1 to P7 (the copy of the same is marked
by the respondent side as Exs.R1, R11, R20, R28, R37,
R46 and R55. As the workmen refused to receive the
transfer orders they were sent by registered post, but
the registered covers containing the transfer orders
were returned with endorsement as refused. The returned
covers have been produced by the respondent
management and marked as exhibits. The workmen have
sent a letter next day, on 3-7-2013 stating that when they
came to the factory, for attending work they were not
permitted to enter by the security. So again the workmen
have submitted representation to the General Manager
of the respondent alleging that the respondent with the
intention of victimisation and motivation denied
employment to them. The workmen have sent telegram
to the Manager of the respondent stating that when they
attended for duty the security not allowed them inside
the factory. On receiving the letters from the workmen,
the respondent management has sent memos, dated
8-7-2013 stating that the contents of the letters sent by
the workmen are all false and the workmen intentionally
refused to receive the transfer, and without obeying the
transfer orders they made attempts to work at
Pondicherry. Thereafter the workmen have sent several
representations to allot work at Puducherry unit. But the
respondent has sent memos directing them to obey the
transfer order and to attend work at the transferred
places. Finally, the trade union, namely, the New
Democratic Labour Front in which the workmen are the
members raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer by filing EX.P9 representations.
EX.P8 is the reply submitted by the respondent
management stating that the transfer of the workmen is
out of dire necessity and exigency of work and also
within the parameter of law and specifically denied all
the allegations made in the representation of the
petitioners. Further the respondent management has
submitted EX.P10, explanation, dated 24-9-2013 to the
Conciliation Officer explaining the circumstances under
which the workmen were transferred. As the Conciliation
failed the Conciliation Officer has sent EX.P12 report on
failure of Conciliation, dated 19-2-2014 to the
Government and consequently EX.P13 notification,
dated 10-4-2014 has been issued by referring the dispute
to this court for adjudication.
363
24 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
9. The learned counsel for the respondent
management argued that the respondent industry is
engaged in the manufacturing of washing soap, washing
powder, toilet soap, shampoo, face powder etc., and it
has units at Gummidipoondi and Silvassa apart from
Puducherry. As per the Certified Standing Orders the
respondent is entitled to transfer the workmen either
permanently or temporarily at any time from one unit,
job, branch, sectors, department, to another whether it
is new or old or acquired. The learned counsel for the
respondent cited Clause 38 of the Certified Standing
Orders marked as Ex.R64 (Ex.P14) which deals with
transfer of workers and reads
38(a) “Every workman is liable to be transferred,
according to exigencies of work, either permanently
or temporarily, at any time, from one Unit, job,
branch, sectors, department, whether it is new or old
or acquired. Such transfers could also be made as
far as possible within Puducherry region or to any
of the allied or sister or from Mills to Administrative
Office or Sales Department and vice-verse, provided
that the wages, grade, continuity of services of the
workman are not adversely affected by such
arrangement. In case of refusal to report to the place
where transferred, a corresponding deductions will
be made from his wages, in accordance with the
provisions of Payment of Wages Act, for the period
of non-reporting for duty. They are also liable to
disciplinary action under this standing order.....
In such cases, the workmen concerned shall be
paid travelling allowance and other incidental
expenses and also eligible for additional allowances
on par with the workman employed in the places
where the concerned workmen is being transferred
(or) relocated.”
So, it is clear from the above referred clause of
the standing order that the respondent management
has power and authority to transfer any workmen
according to exigencies of work. It is the contention
of the respondent management that as exigencies
arose the seven workmen were transferred to
Gummidipoondi and Silvassa units. Accordingly,
transfer orders, dated 2-7-2013 were issued to the
seven workmen who intentionally refused to accept
the transfer orders. Totally, eight workers were
transferred on the same dated, on 2-7-2013 among
them Thiru T. Manoharan obeyed the order of
transfer and joined duty and the records relating to
transfer of T. Manoharan and his train travelling
ticket copy and joining report etc., have been
produced as Ex.R66 to R69.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondent further
contended that the seven workmen were transferred not
with the intention of victimisation or punishment, but
only due to dire necessity the transfer orders were
issued. He further contended that not only seven the
workmen, but several workers from Puducherry unit
have already been transferred from Pondicherry to
Chennai, Nallathur, Silvassa and Gummidipoondi units.
The particulars of such transfer details are produced as
Ex.R65. A perusal of this list would clearly indicate that
from the year 2009 October onwards nearly 32 labourers
have been transferred to various units of the respondent
industry and the transferred workers obeyed the order
of management and joined the duty at the transferred
places.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended
that as the seven workmen concerned with the dispute
relieved from the trade union, namely, ‘Abirami Soap
Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani’ and joined as members
other trade union, namely, ‘New Democratic Labour
Front’ this irked the management resulted in transferring
of the workers as victimisation. He further contended
that Abirami Soap Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani is a
puppet trade union of the management and it’s office
bearers are lawyers to the management and they failed
to protect the interest and welfare of the workers. So
the workmen concerned relied from that trade union and
joined the new trade union. Only because of this
incident the management victimised and punished the
seven workers by transferring them to various far away
places.
12. First of all the Certified Standing Orders permit
the management to transfer its workers in case of dire
necessity and exigencies. Already several labourers
have been transferred and they are now working at
different places as seen from Ex.R65. Even the other
worker Thiru T. Manoharan who was transferred along
with the seven workmen joined duty at the new station.
So the transfer of the seven workers concerned with the
dispute cannot be termed a victimisation or punishment
or unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the
workmen submitted that Silvassa is a far away place
situated at Maharashtra and the workmen do not know
Hindi and they could not get adequate shelter, so, it
would be very difficult for the workmen to go to Silvassa
and serve there. In fact, the Supervisor Thiru Sankar of the
Silvassa unit is a Tamilian and many Tamilians are
working at Silvassa and they have been provided with
safety sheds for stay according to RW.1. The
management is ready to pay travelling allowance and
arrange their train tickets for the transferred workers to
enable them to go to Silvassa. So, it may not be a
difficult task for the workers under transfer to go to the
new station.
364
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 May 2016
13. The workmen concerned in this dispute
deliberately and intentionally refused to receive the
transfer orders, when furnished directly and also sent
by registered post. But they have chosen to raise
industrial dispute as if the management denied
employment to them. There is no question of denial of
employment in this case, since the management is ready
to provide employment to workmen concerned. The
management has stated that there will be 15 percent
increase on wages for workers transferred to Silvassa
and 10 percent increase for workers transferred to
Gummidipoondi. Further transferring expenses and first
15 days boarding expenses will be borne by the
company. When the Standing Orders permits the
management to issue transfer orders, the respondent is
entitled to transfer some of workers due to exigencies
and dire necessity. The respondent has stated not
anything about the formation of the New Trade Union
and the involvement of the workmen in the trade union
activities. When the respondent management used to
transfer workers frequently to other units, the
contention of the workmen concerned that only as
punishment or victimisation they have been transferred
cannot be accepted.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that transfer of workmen is only a temporary
arrangement and there is possibility for transferring
them again Puducherry. The workmen have no right to
contend that they are non-transferable, so they could
not be transferred. RW.1 the General Manager of the
respondent industry has clearly explained the
circumstances under which the workmen have been
transferred. There is no material to hold that the
petitioners are the members of the union, namely, New
Democratic Labour Front. RW.1 has categorically stated
that the management has not concerned with the trade
union, namely, New Democratic Labour Front. The trade
union, namely, New Democratic Labour Front has not
been recognised according to RW.1. Under such
circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that since the
workmen joined as members in the New Democratic
Labour Front resulted in their transfer as an act of
punishment or victimisation.
15. The petitioners have not established that the
respondent industry with a view to punish and victimise
them has transferred to far away places and such an
act amounts to unfair labour practice. Accordingly,
I hold that the transfer of seven workmen is strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Certified Standing
Orders and not an act of victimisation nor amounting
to unfair labour practice. The respondent industry only
due to exigency and dire necessity has transferred the
seven workers to Gummidipoondi and Silvassa units.
There is no subsistence to hold that the transfer is an
act of victimisation or punishment amounting to unfair
labour practice. In the absence any relevant material it
cannot be presumed that the transfer is illegal and
amounts to victimisation. The workmen intentionally
disobeyed the order of transfer and raised industrial
dispute as denial of employment. The management is
always ready to allot work to the workmen at the
transferred places. So the petitioners/seven workmen
are not entitled for the relief as claimed in the dispute.
Hence, I conclude and answer Point No.1 that transfer
of seven workers concern in this industrial dispute is
not an act of victimisation amounting to unfair labour
practice. Further, I answer Point No.2 that the workmen
concerned in this dispute are not entitled for any relief
as claimed in the petition.
16. In the result, this industrial dispute is dismissed.
No costs. Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by
her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on
this the 31st day of March, 2016.
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 — 16-3-2015
— D. Palanisamy
PW.2 — 10-12-2015 — E. Murugan
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 8-2-2016
— O.P. Sanjay Madan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the letter of E. Murugan,
dated 2-7-2013 (Photocopy)
Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter of A.Veerasamy,
dated 2-7-2013 (Photocopy)
Ex.P3 — Copy of the letter of L.Gnanamoorthy,
dated 2-7-2013 (Photocopy)
Ex.P4 — Copy of the letter of M. Lingeswaran,
dated 2-7-2013 (Photocopy)
Ex.P5 — Copy of the letter of R. Raja, dated
2-7-2013 (Photocopy)
Ex.P6 — Copy of the letter of R. Pachaiappan,
dated 2-7-2013 (Photocopy)
Ex.P7 — Copy of the letter of M.Kannan, dated
2-7-2013 (Photocopy)
365
24 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P8 — Copy of the Reply notice issued by
the Respondent to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation),Labour
Department,
Puducherry, dated 23-7-2013. (Original)
Ex.P9 — Copy of the Petition filed under
Section 2(K) filed by the Petitioners
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, dated 5-8-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P10 — Copy of the Reply notice issued by
the Respondent to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Labour Department,
dated 24-9-2013. (Original)
Ex.P11 — Copy of the Reply notice issued by
the Petitioner to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 9-10-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P12 — Copy of the failure report of Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 19-2-2014. (Original)
Ex.P13 — C o p y o f th e N o ti fic a ti o n u n d e r
G.O. Rt. No. 64/AIL/LAB/J/2014, dated
10-4-2014 in Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 10-4-2014. (Original)
Ex.P14 — Copy
of
the
Standing
Orders
(Photocopy)
Ex.P15 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
E. Murugan (Petitioner union) e-mail
send to the Respondent management,
dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P16 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
E. Murugan (Petitioner union) copy
to the Labour officer (Conciliation),
Labour Department, Puducherry, dated
2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P17 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
E. Murugan (Petitioner union) copy
to the Labour Commissioner, Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 2-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P18 — Copy of the Complaint letter issued
by E. Murugan (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent Management with
Postal Receipt, dated 3-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P19 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
E. Murugan (Petitioner union) to the
President, Abirami Soap Thozhilalar
Viduthalai Munnani, dated 3-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P20 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
E. Murugan (Petitioner union) to the
Labour
Commissioner,
Labour
Department,
Puducherry,
dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P21 — Copy of the Letter issued by the
President,
Puthiya
Jananayaga
Thozhilalar Munnani to the Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P22 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
E. Murugan (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to the Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P23 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
E. Murugan (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 14-11-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P24 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
A. Veerasamy (Petitioner union) e-mail
send to the Respondent Management,
dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P25 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
A. Veerasamy (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to the Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 2-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P26 — Copy of the Complaint Letter issued by
A.Veerasamy (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent
Management,
dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P27 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
A. Veerasamy (Petitioner union) send to
the President, Abirami Soap Thozhilalar
Viduthalai Munnani, dated 3-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P28 — Copy of the
Letter
issued by
A.Veerasamy (Petitioner union) to the
Labour Commissioner, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P29 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
A. Veerasamy (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department
Puducherry, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
366
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 May 2016
Ex.P30 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
A. Veerasamy(Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 14-11-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P31 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union)
e-mail send to the Respondent
Management, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P32 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P33 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to Labour
Commissioner, Labour
Department,
Puducherry, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P34 — Copy of the Complaint Letter issued by
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union)
send
to
the
Respondent
Management, dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P35 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union) send
to the President, Abrirami Soap
Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani, dated
3-7-2013 (Photocopy)
Ex.P36 — C o p y o f t h e L e t t e r i s s u e d b y
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union) to
the Labour Commissioner, Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 3-7-2013
(Photocopy)
Ex.P37 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P38 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
L. Gnanamurthy (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 14-11-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P39 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
M. Lingeswaran (Petitioner union)
send
to
the
Respondent
Management, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P40 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
M. Lingeswaran (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to the Labour
Commissioner,
Labour
Department,
Puducherry, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P41 — Copy of the Complaint Letter issued by
M. Lingeswaran (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent Management, dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P42 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
M. Lingeswaran (Petitioner union) send
to the President, Abirami Soap
Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani, dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P43 — C o p y o f t h e L e t t e r i s s u e d b y
M. Lingeswaran (Petitioner union)
to the Labour Commissioner, Labour
Department,
Puducherry,
dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P44 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
M. Lingeswaran (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P45 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
M. Lingeswaran (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Labour
Department,
Puducherry,
dated
14-11-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P46 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
R. Pachaiappan (Petitioner union)
e-mail send to the Respondent
Management, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P47 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
R. Pachaiappan (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to the
Labour C o m m i s s i o n e r , L a b o u r
Department,
Puducherry,
dated
2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P48 — Copy of the Complaint Letter issued by
R. Pachaiappan (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent Management with
Postal Receipt, dated 3-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P49 — Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
R. Pachaiappan (Petitioner union) send
to the President, Abirami Soap
Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani, dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P50 — C o p y o f t h e L e t t e r i s s u e d b y
R. Pachaiappan (Petitioner union) to
the Labour Commissioner, Labour
Department,
Puducherry,
dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
367
24 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P51 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
R. Pachaiappan (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P52 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
R. Pachaiappan (Petitioner union) to
the Respondent and copy to Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 14-11-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P53 — Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
M. Kannan (Petitioner union) e-mail
send to the Respondent Management,
dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P54—
Copy of the Relieving Letter issued by
M. Kannan (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to the Labour
O f f i c e r ( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) , L a b o u r
Department, Puducherry, dated 1-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P55—
Copy of the Complaint Letter issued
by the M. Kannan (Petitioner union)
to the Respondent Management with
Postal Receipt, dated 3-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P56—
Copy of the Relieving letter issued by
M. Kannan (Petitioner union) send to
the
President,
Abirami
Soap
Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani,
dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P57—
C o p y o f t h e L e t t e r i s s u e d b y
the M. Kannan (Petitioner union) to
the
Labour Commissioner, Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 3-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.P58 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
M. Kannan (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to Labour
Commissioner, Labour Department,
Puducherry, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.P59 — Copy of the Objection Letter issued by
M. Kannan (Petitioner union) to the
Respondent and copy to Labour Officer
(Conciliation),
Labour
Department,
Puducherry, dated 14-11-2013. (Photocopy)
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — Copy of the transfer order of E. Murugan
(Petitioner union) with registered post
receipt, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R2 — Copy of the transfer order registered
post returned cover with postal remarks,
dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R3 — Copy of the letter issued by E. Murugan
to the Respondent Management, dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R4 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
E. Murugan to the Respondent
Management, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R5 — Copy of the telegram message received
from petitioners,
dated
5-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R6 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to E. Murugan with
registered post receipt,dated 8-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
EX.R7 — Copy of the memorandum registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R8 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
E. Murugan to the Respondent
Management, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R9 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to E. Murugan with
registered post receipt, dated 8-8-2013.
(Photocopy)
EX.R10— Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to E. Murugan with
registered
post
receipt
and
Acknowledgment card, dated 22-10-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R11 — C o p y o f t h e t r a n s f e r o r d e r o f
A. Veerasami (Petitioner union) with
registered post receipt,dated 2-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R12 — Copy of the transfer order registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R13 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
A. Veerasami to the Respondent
Management, dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R14 — Copy of the letter issued by A. Veerasami
to the Respondent Management, dated
4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R15 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to A. Veerasami with
registered post receipt, dated 8-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
368
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 May 2016
Ex.R16 — Copy of the memorandum registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 9-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R17 — Copy of the letter issued by A. Veerasami
to the Respondent Management, dated
17-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R18 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to A. Veerasami with
registered post receipt, dated 8-8-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R19 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to A. Veerasami with
registered post receipt, dated 22-10-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R20 — Copy of the transfer order of R. Raja
(Petitioner union) with registered post
receipt, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R21 — Copy of the transfer order registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R22 — Copy of the letter issued by R. Raja to
the Respondent Management, dated
3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R23 — Copy of the letter issued by R. Raja to
the Respondent Management, dated
4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R24 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to R. Raja with registered
post receipt, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R25 — Copy of the memorandum registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R26 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to R. Raja with registered
post receipt and its returned cover,
dated 8-8-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R27 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to R. Raja with registered
post receipt and its returned cover,
dated 22-10-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R28 — C o p y o f t h e t r a n s f e r o r d e r o f
M. Lingeshwaran (Petitioner union)
with registered post receipt, dated
2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R29 — Copy of the transfer order registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R30 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
M. Lingeshwaran to the Respondent
Management, dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R31 — Co py o f the letter issued by
M. Lingeshwaran to the Respondent
Management, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R32 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to M. Lingeshwaran with
registered post receipt, dated 8-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R33 — Copy of the memorandum registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R34 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
M. Lingeshwaran to the Respondent
Management, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R35 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to M. Lingeshwaran with
registered post receipt and its returned
cover, dated 8-8-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R36 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to M. Lingeshwaran with
registered
post
receipt
and
Acknowledgment card, dated 22-10-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R37 — C o p y o f t h e t r a n s f e r o r d e r o f
R. Patchaiappan (Petitioner union) with
registered post receipt, dated 2-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R38 — Copy of the transfer order of registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex. R39 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
R. Patchaiappan to the Respondent
Management, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R40 — Co py o f the letter issued by
R. Patchaiappan to the Respondent
Management, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R41 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to R. Patchaiappan with
registered post receipt, dated 8-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R42 — Copy of the memorandum registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R43 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
R. Patchaiappan to the Respondent
Management, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
369
24 May 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R44 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to R. Patchaiappan with
registered post receipt, dated 8-8-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R45 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to R. Patchaiappan with
registered
post
receipt
and
Acknowledgment card, dated 22-10-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R46 — C o p y o f t h e t r a n s f e r o r d e r o f
L. Gnanamoorthy (Petitioner union)
with registered post receipt, dated
2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R47 — Copy of the transfer order of registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R48 — Co py o f the letter issued by
L. Gnanamoorthy to the Respondent
Management, dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R49 — Co py o f the letter issued by
L. Gnanamoorthy to the Respondent
Management, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R50 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to L. Gnanamoorthy with
registered post receipt, dated 8-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R51 — Copy of the memorandum registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R52 — Co py o f the letter issued by
L. Gnanamoorthy to the Respondent
Management, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R53 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to L. Gnanamoorthy with
registered
post
receipt
and
Acknowledgment card, dated 8-8-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R54 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to L. Gnanamoorthy with
registered
post
receipt
and
Acknowledgment card, dated 22-10-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R55 — C o p y o f t h e t r a n s f e r o r d e r o f
M. Kannan (Petitioner union) with
registered post receipt, dated 2-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R56 — Copy of the transfer order of registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 2-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R57 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
the M. Kannan to the respondent
Management, dated 3-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R58 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
M.
Kannan
to
the
respondent
Management, dated 4-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R59 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to M. Kannan with
registered post receipt, dated 8-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R60 — Copy of the memorandum registered
post returned cover with postal
remarks, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R61 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
M.
Kannan
to
the
respondent
Management, dated 8-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R62 — Copy of the memorandum sent by the
respondent to M. Kannan with
registered post receipt and returned
cover, dated 8-8-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R63 — Copy of the memorandum sent by
the respondent to M. Kannan with
registered
post
receipt
and
Acknowledgment card, dated 22-10-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R64 — Copy of the Certified Standing Order of
the Company. (Photocopy)
Ex.R65 — Copy of the list of employees
transferred to other places. (Photocopy)
Ex.R66 — C o p y o f t h e t r a n s f e r o r d e r o f
T. Manoharan (Petitioner union) with
registered post receipt, dated 2-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R67 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
T. Manoharan to the Respondent
Management,
dated
31-7-2013.
(Photocopy)
Ex.R68 — Copy of the train reservation ticket
from Chennai to Mumbai,
dated
31-7-2013. (Photocopy)
Ex.R69 — C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r i s s u e d b y
T. Manoharan to the respondent
Management, dated 7-8-2013. (Photocopy)
N. SIVAKUMAR,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pondicherry.