442
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 June 2016
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 47/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 31st May 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D (T) No. 11/2008, dated 2-5-2016
of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Ajantha Cycle Parts Industries, Puducherry and All
India Centre of Trade Union Council (AICCTU),
Puducherry over denial of fixation of monthly wages and
other charter of demands 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 the 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT
PONDICHERRY
Present: Tmt. S. MARY ANSELAM, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal.
Monday, the 2nd day of May, 2016.
I.D. (T) No. 11/2008
The President,
All India Centre of Trade Union
Council (AlCCTU),
No. 471, Bharathi Street,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Ajantha Cycle Parts Industries,
C-4, Thattanchavady,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 28-4-2016 for final
hearing before me in the presence of Thiru N. Ganapathy,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru L. Sathish, 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. 155/AIL/Lab./J/2008, dated 3-11-2008 for
adjudicating the following:-
1. Whether the denial of fixation of monthly wages
by the management of M/s. Ajantha Cycle Parts
Industry, Puducherry to Thiruvalargal (1) G. Devaraj,
(2) M. Janarthanan, (3) Murugan, (4) Parthasarathy,
(5) Murthy, (6) Arul, (7) Kulandaiperumal, (8) Senthil
Kumar, (9) Jayalakshmi and (10) Rukmani and other
charter of demands to the workmen of the said
establishment represented by AICCTU is justified or
not? If not to give appropriate directions?
2. To what benefits, the said workmen are entitled?
3. To what relief, the said workmen are entitled?
4. 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:-
According to the petitioner time scale and minimum
wages not given but, piece rate wages given to workers.
So, workers started a union in the year 2009 and gave
their requisition to the management. No reply from the
management. So, on 9-1-2007 workers gave a work
stopping notice. So, before the Labour Officer
Conciliation was done. It was dragged on. So, petition
was given for high level conciliation. So, conciliation
was done before Labour Department Joint Commissioner.
It ended in failure. So, payment of salary and bonus from
2005 till 2008 was stopped surrender of E.L. and
encashment was also stopped from March 2007, G.O. Ms.
No. 3/2007/Lab./9 was passed fixing minimum wages
per day as ` 122.50 it was also not paid. Since proper
measures were not followed in the factory, accident
occurred and fingers of workers Devaraj, Manikandan,
Ravindran and Jeya Lakshmi were cut. As per the
complaint given by the Union criminal action was taken.
With regard to the non-payment of minimum wages from
8-3-2007, Chief Inspector of Factories took action
against the management. While enquiry in G.O. Rt.
No. 155/AIL/Lab/J/2008, dated 3-11-2008 is pending,
management terminated Devaraj, Janarthanan and
Murthy. So, present petition (1) with a prayer for
443
21 June 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
minimum wages as ` 122.50 per day (2) From January
2006 till reinstatement, backwages (3) From 2005
January onwards leave with wages benefit and from
2005 till reinstatement, payment of bonus balance.
3. The facts set out in the reply filed by the
respondent management are stated as follows:-
It is stated on the side of the management that
AICCTU is not registered trade union and the petitioner
has no locus-standi to represent any of the employee.
The so-called President is not an employee or employer
in any industry. respondent adopts payment of wages
for piece work from the beginning. Hence, the demand
for fixation of time rate of wages does not arise.
Employees were advised to receive the salary, bonus
and other emoluments through letters. They were
returned as refused. Employees are provided with new
clothes to wear in the factory. So, there is no reason
to claim uniform. When the management was willing to
give shoes to them, employees refused to accept it,
since it is uncomfortable, management is paying T.A.
respondent is paying wages as fixed by Minimum
Wages Act, as per the order of Government of
Puducherry.
4 . On the side of the petitioner, PW1 was examined
and Ex.A1 to A21 were marked. On the side of the
respondent no witness was examined and no document
was marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed or
not?
6. On this point:
Both sides heard. They have filed the written
arguments also. It is stated on the side of the petitioner
that as per section 2(h) of the Trade Union Act, trade
union includes any federation of two or more trade
unions. Hence, the contention of the respondent that
the petitioners cannot represent the employees of the
respondent is not forming any valid ground. It is
further stated that all along only the AICCTU is making
representations and demands on behalf of the
employees of the respondent and at that time the
respondent has not objected the status of the trade
union. It is further submitted that virtually the
respondent had admitted and recognized the status of
the petitioner's trade union and hence, the respondent
is stopped from disputing the status of the trade union
now in this proceedings.
7. It is stated on the side of the respondent that as
per section 36 sub-section (1) (a) and (b) of the
Industrial Dispute Act representation of a worker only
by the executive or office bearer of registered trade
union of which he is a member or by the executive or
office bearer of a federation to which the trade union in
which the worker is a member is affiliated. So, the
petitioner is expected to prove that it is a registered
federation of trade union, the signatory or the
representative is an office bearer or member of executive
of petitioner federation. The workers involved in this
dispute are members of Cycle Parts Jananayaga
Thozhilalar Sangam and this Sangam is a registered trade
union and the said trade union is affiliated to petitioner
federation. On the side of the petitioner, the registration
certificate of the trade union is marked as Ex.A18. So,
the trade union is a registered one is proved in this
case. Further, as per section 2(h) of the Trade Union
Act, trade union includes any federation two or more
trade unions. So, the petitioner has got locus-standi to
represent the petitioners. (1) The Delhi High Court
Decision in Maheshwari Gas Services Vs. Bhure Lal is
not fitting with facts of the present case. (2) It is stated
on the side of the respondent that the claim petition filed
by the petitioner is unclear, vague, imprecise. The
petitioner is making claims for benefits like HRA, DA,
Uniforms, Transport Allowances, etc., But, there is
absolutely no foundation in the pleadings any of these
demands. The petitioner has not proved as to how they
are entitled to such demands. According to the
respondent they are providing uniform to the workers
and they are also providing shoes to them. Since the
claim petition with regard to the above facts is unclear
the petitioner is not entitled for the abovesaid reliefs.
Likewise, it is not stated on the side of the petitioner
that what was the actual wage received by them per day.
This is an important aspect to be stated by the petitioner.
In this connection, no record was also filed on the side
of the petitioner. According to the respondent as per the
G.O. published in the year 2007 they are paying the
minimum wages. It is further stated on the side of the
respondent that the piece rate wages paid to the
employee is more than the minimum wage fixed by the
Government. So, it is highly necessary on the part of
the petitioner to prove that what was the wage received
by him in the year 2008, since it is not stated in the claim
statement as well as in the evidence of PW1 and it is
not proved through documentary evidence the argument
advanced on the side of the respondent that the claim
statement made by the petitioner is vague and unclear
is a correct one. Without this necessary detail this Court
is not in a position to pass an order in favour of the
petitioner.
8. It is stated on the side of the respondent that the
burden of proof lies heavily on the petitioner. The initial
burden of proof of this case is upon the petitioner, there
is no doubt about it. According to the petitioner, the
444
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 June 2016
minimum wage is not given to them and only piece rate
wages is given to them. It is admitted by the respondent
that they are giving piece rate wages, but, according to
the respondent the piece rate wages given to the
workers is above the minimum wages fixed by the
Government. If it is so, it is for the respondent to prove
it through documentary evidence, but on the side of the
respondent no witnesses was examined and no
document were marked. So, the wages given to the
workers is more than the minimum wages fixed by the
Government is not proved in this case. According to
the petitioners minimum wage per day fixed by the
Government is ` 122.50 per day. So, they are claiming
from January 2006 till reinstatement backwages.
According to the petitioner, the Government of
Puducherry had issued a notification fixing the minimum
wages for the different categories of the employees as
per the G.O. Ms. No. 1/2007/Lab/AIL/G, dated 7-3-2007.
The Government is revising the minimum wages
periodically by Gazette Notifications and the latest is
G.O. Ms. No.19/Lab/AIL/G/2015, dated 14-10-2015.
According to the petitioner, the respondent is bound
and liable to pay the minimum wages to its employees
as per the periodical revision of the minimum wages by
the Government. The difficulty arising to the workers in
the piece rate wages is that the respondent had not
provided required raw materials and the employees used
to wait idle for 8 hours even there was no production
for want of raw materials. So, the petitioners are asking
for minimum wages on the basis of ` 122.50 per day.
It is the paramount duty of the respondent to submit clear
evidence before this court to show that they are paying
the minimum wages to the employees. The respondent
cannot make use of the loopholes and weaknesses of
the employees.
9. As per section 3 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act,
the appropriate Government may fix (a) a minimum rate
of wages for time work (b) a minimum rate of wages for
piece work and so on. As per section 17 of the Minimum
Wages Act wherein employees employed on a piece
work for which minimum time rate and not a minimum
piece rate has been fixed under this Act, the employer
shall pay to such employee wages at not less than the
minimum time rate. So, it is clear that the employee is
entitled for minimum wages fixed by the Government.
As per Ex.A19 minimum wages from February 2009 has
been implemented. The dispute in connection with this
case arises in the year 2008. In the year 2007 itself,
Government of Puducherry has fixed the minimum wage
as ` 122.50 per day. So, the petitioners are entitled for
minimum wages on the basis of ` 122.50 per day from
January 2006 till reinstatement they are also entitled for
leave with wages benefit from 2005 January onwards.
It is stated on the side of the respondent that the bonus
given to the employees were refused. So, the employees
are entitled for bonus balance from January 2005 to
reinstatement. Taking into consideration of all the
abovesaid aspects, the denial of fixation of monthly
wages by the management, on the basis of minimum
wages fixed by the Government of Puducherry in its
periodical G.O. is not justified. But, in the present case,
the case of the petitioner is not established through oral
and documentary evidence with regard to payment of
minimum wages. What was the wage received by them
is not at all stated by the petitioner. So, whether it is
the correct minimum wage or it is below the minimum
wage is not proved by the petitioner.
10. So, the prayer of minimum wages as ` 122.50 per
day from January 2006 till reinstatement and backwages
is denied. Likewise, the prayer from 2005 January
onwards leave with wages benefit and bonus balance
benefit is also denied because the management is ready
to pay it. On the side of the petitioner it is stated that
the minimum wages is revised recently by Gazette
notification in G.O. Ms. No. 19/Lab/AIL/G/2015, dated
14-10-2015. The copy of the Gazette notification is also
filed. It will come into force from 14-10-2015 onwards.
As per this notification minimum wages for day is fixed
as ` 352 per day. The present dispute is with regard to
2008. The G.O. applicable to them is of the year 2007.
It is stated on the side of the petitioner that the
management terminated Devaraj, Janarthanan and
Murthy. The present dispute is not with regard to the
termination as illegal. So, G.O. passed in the year 2015
is not applicable to them. Since what was the daily wage
given to the workers are not proved, it is not possible
to come to a conclusion that the wage paid is minimum
wage or below it. So, fixation of monthly wage is denied
by the management is not proved. Further, Ex.A19
proved that minimum wage has been implemented
from 2009.
11. “Sec. 102 of Evidence Act says as follows:- The
burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that
person who would fail if no evidence at all were given
on either side. When the evidence is all in, and a party
introducing it has not, by the preponderance of
evidence required by law, established his position or
claim, the decision will be against him. The burden must
be strictly discharged; in other words the plaintiff, in
order to succeed, must put the Court in possession of
legal and satisfactory evidence, and it will not suffice
to point to matters of suspicion or even to plausible
conjecture.”
Hence, the Court decided on a considered view that
the case of the petitioner was not established by
445
21 June 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
adducing the documentary evidence and the claim of
the petitioner was not established by the petitioner and
the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as claimed
in the petition. Accordingly the points are answered.
12. In the result, it is ordered that the petitioners are
not entitled for any relief as it was not established and
the reference is closed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of May, 2016.
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Pondicherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 11-8-2011
— S. Balasubramanian
List of respondent’s witnesses:
Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.A1
— Copy of the industrial dispute raised
by the petitioner union before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated
9-8-2006. (Photocopy)
Ex.A2
— Copy of the additional claim filed by
the petitioner before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), dated 8-9-2006.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A3
— Copy of the Strike Notice issued by
the petitioner union to the respondent,
dated 9-1-2007. (Photocopy)
Ex.A4
— Copy of the Rejoinder filed by the
petitioner union Photocopy before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
dated 22-1-2007. (Photocopy)
Ex.A5
— Copy of the Gazette Copy of the
Government of Puducherry for minimum
wages, dated 8-3-2007 (Photocopy)
Ex.A6
— Copy of the Counter Statement filed
by the respondent before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), dated 30-3-2007.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A7
— Co p y o f the Co mp laint to the
Chief Inspector of Factories by the
petitioner, dated 11-4-2007 (Photocopy)
Ex.A8
— Copy of the representation for higher
level Conciliation, dated 24-7-2007.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A9
— Copy of the Strike issued by the
petitioner union to the respondent,
dated 5-11-2007. (Photocopy)
Ex.A10 — Copy of the Complaint to Chief
Inspector of Factories regarding
factory accident, dated 4-1-2008.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A11 — Copy of the Complaint to Chief
Inspector of Factories regarding
factory accident, dated 22-2-2008.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A12 — Copy of the Prohibition Order issued
to the respondent by the Chief Inspector
of
Factories,
dated
6-5-2008.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A13 — Copy of the conciliation failure report,
dated 22-9-2008. (Photocopy)
Ex.A14 — Copy of the reference by the
Government of Puducherry to the
tribunal. dated 3-11-2008. (Photocopy)
Ex.A15 — Copy of the Complaint to the DLC
regarding the non-implementation of
the minimum wages G.O. dated 8-12-2008.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A16 — Copy of the Intimation for rejoining
duty by the petitioner union to the
respondent, dated 8-12-2008. (Photocopy)
Ex.A17 — Copy of the industrial dispute raised
by the petitioner union before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated
24-12-2008. (Photocopy)
Ex.A18 — Copy of the registration certificate of
the Trade Union, dated 9-4-2009.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A19 — Copy of the non-payment minimum
wages orders-order by Chief Inspector
of
Factories,
dated
29-6-2009.
(Photocopy)
Ex.A20 — Copy of the non-payment minimum
wages
orders-order
by
Chief
I n s p e c t o r of Factories, dated
3-7-2009. (Photocopy)
Ex.A21 — Copy of the Bonus demand raised
by the union for 2007-2008, dated
13-10-2008. (Photocopy)
List of respondent’s Exhibits:
Nil
S. MARY ANSELAM,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Pondicherry.
446
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[21 June 2016
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 48/Lab./AIL/T/2016, dated 31st May 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in Lok Adalat Case No.26289/
15 in I.D. (L). No. 22/2013, dated 12-12-2015 of the
Lok Adalat, Puducherry in respect of the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Suzlon
Energy Limited, Unit-IV, Puducherry and Suzlon
Thozilalargal Sangam, affiliated to Centre of Indian
Trade Union-(CITU), Puducherry and Suzlon
National Employees and Workers Union (INTUC),
Puducherry 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,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT PUDUCHERRY
Organised by Thiru G. Sendil Kumar, Member-Secretary,
Union territory of Puducherry, Legal Services Authority
(State Authority), Puducherry, under section 19 of the
Legal Services Authorities Act (Act 39 of 1987).
QUORUM
N. Sivakumar,
. .
Judge
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Pondicherry.
Thiru C. Munusamy, Advocate,
. .
Member
Pondicherry.
Thiru A. Abudul Rachide, Advocate,
. .
Member
Pondicherry.
LOK ADALAT CASE No. 26289/15
in
I.D. (L) No. 22/2013
(On the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry)
Saturday, the 12th day of December 2015
(1) The President,
Suzlon Thozhilalargal Sangam,
Represented by its President
L. Sundaramoorthy,
Affiliated to Centre of
Indian Trade Union -(CITU)
Pondicherry.
(2) The President,
Suzlon National Employees and
Workers Union (INTUC),
Pondicherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The The Managing Director,
M/s. Suzlon Energy Limited, Unit-IV,
Pondicherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day, before us
in the presence of the petitioner and their Counsel
Thiru R.T. Shankar and the respondent management and
his counsel Thiru L. Sathish, both the petitioner and
the respondent management having agreed to settle the
matter and thereby, the case being settled and an Award
is passed accordingly:
Taken cognizance under section 20 (2) of the Legal
Services Authorities Act (Act 39/87)
1. I.D.(L) No.22/2013 in the Court of Labour Judge,
Puducherry was filed by the petitioner unions to
direct the respondent management to provide the
employment to the employees of the petitioner No.1
union with full backwages, continuity of service and
all other attendance benefits and for costs.
2. On 12-12-2015, the petitioner unions and the
respondent management entered into 18 (1)
settlement, whereby, the individual workers have
agreed to receive ` 2,50,000 (Rupees two lakhs and
fifty thousand only) each as full and final settlement
and agreed to withdraw this I.D.(L) No. 22/2013 in
terms of the settlement and hence, the matter is
settled.
447
21 June 2016]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
3. We are satisfied that the settlement is arrived
by both out of their free will and volition.
4. This case is referred to the Lok Adalat organised
by the State Legal Services Authority under section 19
of the Legal Services Authorities Act (Act 39/87) and
after full and frank discussion of all issues, an Award is
passed as follows:
AWARD
1. It is ordered and decreed:
(i) That the Award is passed in terms of the
settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes
Act made in between the petitioner unions and the
respondent management.
(ii) That the industrial dispute (L) No. 22/2013 be
and the same is hereby closed.
(iii) That the settlement deed, dated 12-12-2015
entered in between the petitioner unions and the
respondent management under section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act shall form part of the Award.
2. That this Award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed
to be a Decree of the Civil Court as per section 21 of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Dated at Puducherry, on this the 12th day of
December, 2015.
N. SIVAKUMAR
Judge
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Pondicherry.
C. MUNUSAMY
A. ABUDUL RACHIDE
Advocate, Member
Advocate, Member
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 46/AIL/Lab./T/2016, dated 30th May 2016)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s Swadeshi-Bharathi Textiles Mills Limited,
Puducherry and National Textile Corporation Limited
(A Government of India Undertaking), Coimbatore and
the union workmen Swadeshi-Bharathi Mills Thozhilalar
Urimai Padukappu Sangam over illegal deductions made
in the terminal benefits of 285 employees listed in
Annexure-I against the bonus advance amount paid
from the year 1996-1997 to 2003-2004 which is in
violation of the settlement, dated 20-4-2005;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is
necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms.No. 20/91/Lab/L., dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to exercise the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV
of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to
Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred
to the Labour Court, Puducherry for adjudication. The
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry shall submit the award
within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as
stipulated under sub-section 2-A of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with
Rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. The party raising the dispute shall file a statement
of claim complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses to the Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry within 15 days of the receipt of the order
of reference and also forwad a copy of such statement
to each one of the opposite parties involved in the
dispute.
ANNEXURE
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the union workmen
Swadeshi - Bharathi Mills Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu
Sangam against the management of M/s. Swadeshi-
Bharathi Textiles Mills Limited, Puducherry and National
Textile Corporation Limited (A Government of India
Undertaking), Coimbatore over the illegal deductions
made in the terminal benefits of 285 employees listed in
Annexure-I against the bonus advance amount paid
from the year 1996-1997 to 2003-2004 is justified or not?
If justified, what relief they are entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of
money, if it can be so computed?
(By order)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).