La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 21-00
Prix : ` 21-00
Price :
` 21-00
2017 }
|
6 {
No.
23
Poudouchéry
Mardi
6
Juin
2017 (16 Jyaistha 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
6th
June
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 544
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 544
Award of the Labour Court .. 544
de tribunal.
.. 551
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 551
Government Notifications .. 551
.. 567
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 567
Tender notices
.. 567
.. 569
Annonces
.. 569
Announcements
.. 569
[ 543 ]
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India under
No. 10410
Registered No. SSP/PY/44/2015-17
WPP No. TN/PMG(CCR)/WPP-88/2015-17
Dated : 6-6-2017
Price : ` 21-00
544
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 June 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 72/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 2nd May 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(T)No. 02/2014, dated
14-3-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the Management of M/s. S & S Power Switch
Gear Equipment Limited, Puducherry and the Secretary,
S & S Power Switch Gear Limited, Employees Union over
revision of wages 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present:Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Tuesday, the 14th day of March 2017.
I.D. (T) No. 02/2014
The Secretary,
M/s. S & S Power Switch Gear Limited,
Employees Welfare Union,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. S & S Power Switch Gear
Equipment Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day for hearing
before me in the presence of Thiru K. Velmurugan,
Advocate for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan
and I. Ilankumar, Advocates for the respondent, upon
hearing both sides, upon perusing the case records,
after having stood over for consideration till this day,
this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute arises out of the
reference made by the Government of Pondicherry,
vide G.O. Rt. No. 59/AIL/LAB/J/2014, dated 31-3-2014
of the Labour Department, Pondicherry to resolve the
following dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent, viz.,
(i) Whether the charter of demands, dated
17-9-2012 submitted by the S & S Power Switch Gear
Limited Employees Welfare Union against the
management of M/s. S & S Power Switch Gear Equipment
Limited, Puducherry over revision of wages is justified?
If justified, what relief they are entitled to?
(ii) Whether the 18(1) settlement, dated 30-9-2012
reached with S & S Power Switchgear Labour's union
while pendency of the conciliation proceedings and
wage negotiation is justified ? If justified, what relief
they are entitled to ?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has
averred as follows:
(i) The petitioner is the Secretary of the
M/s. S & S Power Switch Gear Limited Employees
Welfare Union and the said union is a trade union
registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 vide RTU.
No.1539/2008 and it is the majority trade union
functioning in the respondent management with 23 of
the employees as its members out of the total strength
of 28 employees in the respondent management and
that right from the date of inception, the petitioner
union is functioning for the welfare and benefit of the
employees working in the respondent management and
that at this juncture, the petitioner has raised the
present industrial dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) Pondicherry in respect of revision of
their wages and other allowances from the respondent
management and since, the parties presented their view
and had divergent views infront of the conciliation
table, the conciliation ended in failure and the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) submitted the failure report on
17-12-2013, following which the Government of
Puducherry, through the Labour Department, has made
the reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal,
Pondicherry through No. l366/2013/LO©/AIL.
545
6 June 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(ii) It is further stated that the petitioner union
had entered into 18(1) settlement, dated 9-10-2009
with the respondent management with regard to their
revision of wages and other allowances and the period
of said settlement agreement was mutually agreed
between the parties for 3 years and as such the above
18(1) settlement agreement has expired on 30-9-2012
and that since the 18(1) settlement is about to expire
as early as on 30-9-2012, the petitioner union made a
representation, dated 5-9-2012 to the respondent
management regarding revision of wages and other
allowances from 1-10-2012 onwards and subsequently,
the petitioner union also made another representation,
dated 17-9-2012 enclosing the detailed claim of their
revision of wages and other allowances under various
heads. However, the respondent management for one
reason or the other dragged the petitioner from pillar
to post without granting any relief and that since, the
respondent management has not come forward to
provide the legitimate demands of the union, the union
has submitted its charter of demands, dated 24-6-2013
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) claiming the
revision of wages and other allowances.
(iii) It is further stated that the respondent is
doing the business of manufacturing Isolators/
Disconnectors for the use of Electricity Boards and
that the respondent management had started its unit in
Puducherry region during the month June, 1997 and
thereby till date functioning with steady increase in
profits every year and that during the year 2012 the
members of the petitioner union has worked more than
60 hours per month in addition to their regular working
hours so as to increase the production of the
respondent management and that on account of the
sincere and continuous hard work of the members of
the petitioner union, the respondent management has
achieved a tremendous turn over of 24 crores in the
year 2012 and thereby earned enormous profit and that
during the succeeding years also, the respondent
management is keep on doing their business with huge
profits and as such the petitioner union through their
representation, dated 17-9-2012 has claimed the
following benefits from the respondent management:
(i) Revision of Basic Wages, (ii) Revision of variable
Dearness Allowance, (iii) House Rent Allowance,
(iv) Conveyance Allowance, (v) Washing Allowance,
(vi) Shift Allowance, (vii) Attendance Allowance,
(viii) Over time, (ix) Leave Travel Assistance, (x) Bonus
and Ex gratia, (xi) Gratuity, (xii) Leaves, (xiii) Salary
Advance, (xiv) Festival Advance, (xv) Educational
Allowance, (xvi) Uniform, (xvii) Safety Equipments,
(xviii) Soap, (xix) Co-op., Societies Loan, (xx) Funeral
expenses, (xxi) Medical Allowance, (xxii) Festival Gift,
(xxiii) Permission Hours, (xxiv) Service weightage,
(xxv) Service gift, (xxvi) Heat Allowance, (xxvii) On duty,
(xxviii) Leave Surrender, (xxix) Incentive, (xxx) Arrears.
(iv) The petitioner union claimed that in addition
to the present basic wages, a sum of ` 6840 should
be added i.e., (4122+6840) and the pay scale may be
modified as 10962-EB-548.10-13702.50-EB-685.
12-17128.12-EB-856.40-21410.12 and that for 101-491
points, D.A at the rate of ` 1.30 for each point and that
for 492-801 points, D.A at the rate of ` 1.65 for each
point and that for 802-2843 points, D.A at the rate
of ` 2.00 for each point and that for above 2844
points, D.A at the rate of ` 7.00 for each point and that
in addition to the present HRA, a sum of ` 1600
should be added and that in addition to the present
conveyance allowance, a sum of ` 900 should be added
and that in addition to the present washing
allowance, a sum of ` 100 should be added and that
for the employees working after 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.,
shift allowance of ` 20 per day shall be given and
that for the employees working after 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.,
shift allowance of ` 30 per day shall be given and that
for the employees working after 6 a.m. to 8.45 p.m.,
shift allowance of ` 20 per day shall be given, Cab
facility shall be arranged by the management for the
to and fro of the employees during the shift timings
and that for each day of attending the work, attendance
allowance of ` 25 per day shall be given to the
employees and that double wages for the over time
work as contemplated under the Factories Act, 1948
should be given, added to that free food and
accommodation to the employees should be provided
by the management during the over time working hours
and that once in a year, every employee shall be granted
a one week holiday for going to tour. Added to that
1 month basic wage, variable DA and normal DA should
be given or in the alternative, the management should
arrange for family tour of the employees along with
their families by providing accommodation, food,
travel expenses at free of cost, and that in addition to
the present Bonus and Ex gratia, for the year 2012-2013
(1-10-2012 to 30-9-2013) an amount of ` 3000,
for the year 2013-2014 (1-10-2013 to 30-9-2014)
an amount of ` 3,500, for the year 2014-2015
(1-10-2014 to 30-9-2015) an amount of ` 4000. The above
bonus and Ex gratia amount should be paid to every
employees 30 days prior to the Diwali Festival and
that gratuity amount for the employees on account of
superannuation, voluntary retirement from service,
death, transfer, etc., should be computed in accordance
with the Provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and that
546
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 June 2017
all the employees should be given earned leave as
provided under law, and that all the employees should
be given 12 days casual leave in every year, and that
all the employees should be given 12 days sick leave
in every year and that once in two months, an amount
equivalent to l/3rd of the total salary of an employee
should be given as salary advance, and that every year
one month salary should be given as festival allowance
during the Pongal Festival and that the management has
to bear the entire educational expenses of the child of
every employee. Added to that a sum of ` 20,000
should be given to each child towards the incidental
educational expenses and that all the employees should
be given 4 set of uniforms during every year along with
stitching charges of ` 500 per set. Similarly, 2 pair
of shoes, polish, brush and 4 pair of socks should be
given to all employees annually and that every
employee should be given non-veg. meals along with
curd at free of cost, coffee along with biscuit or
snacks should be given daily in the morning and
evening, cafeteria should be provided separately away
from the workspot, evening snacks provided earlier
should be continued. Buttermilk should be provided
during the summer season. During the overtime hours,
the quantity of free food should be sufficiently
increased. Similarly, 1 packet of Goodday biscuit
should be provided along with tea during the OT hours.
Tea break timings should be fixed as 10 a.m. to 10.15 a.m.
in the morning and 3.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m. in the
evening. During the OT hours, lunch break should be
fixed as 05.45 to 06.15 and that every employee
should be provided safety equipment in connection
with his nature of work and that once in every month
2 Hamam Soap of 150 gm., 2 bathing towels, 500 gm.
of coconut oil and 1 kg. of Horlicks should be given
to all employees at free of cost and that the
management has to formulate a Co-operative Society
in the Industry with its main objective to provide loan
to the members/employees in cases of emergency and
the said Society has to function in accordance with the
Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder and that the
management has to provide a sum of ` 20,000 towards
funeral expenses to the death of employee or his
family members while in service and that the
management has to bear the medical expenses of the
employees and his family members when the medical
expenses cross the limit of ` 500 per month and in
addition to that the management has to organize free
medical checkup to all the employees and his family
members once in a year and that during the festival of
Ayudha Pooja, the management should give gift worth
of ` 3,000 to all of its employees and that once in a
week 2 hours permission should be granted by the
management and that for the every 2 completed years
of service, one additional annual increment should be
granted and that for the employees who has completed
15 years of service should be rewarded with 4 gram
of gold coin as service gift and that for the employees
working in the welding section, a sum of ` 400 should
be given in addition to the present wage, similarly,
a sum of ` 400 should be given as Operator Allowance
to the employees working as Fitter, Turner, Machinist,
Wire man, Sheet metal and that employees who were
working on-duty for more than 8 working hours in
a day should be given OT and such employees are
entitled for ` 500 per day as food allowance, ` 300
per day as on duty allowance. When more than 1
worker is sent for onduty, a co-worker should be
permitted along with him. Workers working on-duty in
company holiday and night hours, OT shall be given for
Travelling time and that when any employee has got
leave for 30 or more days, the management has to
accept the surrender of such leave and pay the cash
in lieu of that to the concern employee and that all the
employees should be given monthly incentive and that
all the revised wages and other variable allowances
which the employees are entitled by virtue of this
charter of demands should be given to the employees
computing from 1-10-2012 onwards and the said
amount has to be paid through arrears.
(v) It is further stated that due to the heavy
increase of cost of living, the present wages received
by the members of the petitioner union is not
affordable and thereby the members of the petitioner
union are facing much trouble and hardship to meet out
their demands and that the respondent management
without considering the legitimate demands of the
petitioner union arbitrarily formed a rival union with
meager employees and thereby granted the revised
wages and other allowances to them and that the above
act of the respondent management in curbing the lawful
trade union activities of the petitioner union is
unjustifiable, improper and illegal and added to that
the act of the respondent management in providing
revised wages arbitrary to the management support
union and rejecting the legitimate demands of the
petitioner union tantamount to unfair labour practice
and in other words, the respondent management cannot
take two different stands to two different unions
functioning in the same management. Moreover, the
respondent is stopped from denying the payment of
revised wages to the petitioner union as granted by
them to the management support union and that the
respondent management is pressurizing the petitioner
union to yield upon the unlawful demands of the
547
6 June 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
respondent management and as such the respondent
management is providing various revised wages and
other allowances to the management support union.
But, on the contrary, the respondent management is
denying to pay the revised wages to the members of
the petitioner union alleging that issue regarding the
revision of wages is pending before this Court and that
all the members of the union are straining their each
and every nerve for the growth of the respondent
management and therefore, prays this Court to pass an
Award directing the respondent management to provide
the revised wages and other allowances detailed in the
claim statement from 1-10-2012 onwards till the next
settlement is arrived at between the petitioner and the
respondent.
3. In the counter statement, the respondent has
stated as follows:-
(i) The claim petition filed by the petitioner
union is perse not maintainable either on Law or on
Facts and liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits
with exemplary cost and that the various contentions
and allegations stated in the claim petition are factually
incorrect and the petitioner union only to achieve
unlawful gains through suppression of material facts
had approached this Tribunal with unclean hands and
hence, it is just and necessary that the respondent
management recapitulates the factual circumstances by
rebuking the entire contentions of the petitioner union
and prays this Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition
with cost and that the validity of the entire reference
of charter of demands raised by M/s. S & S Power
Switch Gear Limited Employees' Welfare Union is
open to question and this is being stressed because of
twin reasons namely (a) Normally it is expected of the
Government to examine the demands placed by the
union and reject reference of demands which are
governed by the statutes and (b) of the two unions
which placed charter of demands namely S & S Power
Switchgear Equipment Limited Labour's union and S & S
Power Switch Gear Limited Employees Welfare union,
a settlement was concluded on the demands raised by
S and S Power Switch Gear Equipment Limited
Labour's union and in other words, wage revision had
been effected by means of a settlement and no
settlement could be concluded with the petitioner
union and that the fact remains that a copy of the
settlement, dated 11-9-2013 concluded with S & S
Power Switch Gear Equipment Limited Labour's union
has been forwarded to the Government. Under the
circumstances, the present reference of the demands
by the Government goes to show that there is non-
application of mind by the Government of Puducherry
in exercising the powers of referring the dispute to
adjudication and in view of the above, the reference of
the entire demands raised by the S & S Power Switch Gear
Limited Employees' Welfare union for adjudication is
liable to be rejected by this Tribunal.
(ii) It is further stated that the respondent
management is a small scale unit involved in the
manufacture of switchgear for the use by electricity
boards and that the competition in this trade is very
stiff and that further with the escalating cost of inputs,
the manufacturing cost is extremely prohibitive and
that our customers mostly delay payments much to the
detriment of the respondent thereby posing huge
liquidity problems and that due to stiff competition,
the customers are demanding reduction in prices
instead of granting upward revision in prices which is
well justified due to escalation in the manufacturing
cost and that yet the respondent management through
various settlements has been granting revision in wages
to the workmen and that at the risk of repetition, we
stress that a settlement has already been concluded
with S & S Power Switch Gear Equipment Limited
Labour's union and their members have received the
benefits of the settlement and by virtue of the said
settlement the workmen received a package of ` 2694
in gross and ` 2958 in CTC which includes benefits
such as increase in basic and other allowances. Further
the existing DA structure provides for revision in DA
based on increase in DA points. Consequently the
respondent does not have financial ability / viability to
consider any of the demands referred for adjudication.
(iii) It is further stated that the cumulative loss
sustained by the respondent as on 31-3-2013 is
` 6.62 crores, 31-3-2014 is ` 6.42 crores and 31-3-2015
is ` 7.41 crores. The relevant details are as follows :
Year
Turnover
Profit/
Remarks
(in `)
Loss
(in `)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
2010-2011
14,14,75,010
2,79,73,863
Loss
2011-2012
14,60,94,647
4,15,755
Profit
2012-2013
16,39,11,367
2,18,79,800
Loss
2013-2014
20,24,59,443
20,20,824
Profit
2014-2015
19,26,66,304
99,60,707
Loss
548
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 June 2017
The respondent reeling under stiff competition
and staggering losses cannot afford to increase the
manufacturing cost in any form. Therefore the
respondent having granted revision in wages to the
workmen of which a portion of the workmen has
received the revised wages as per the settlement, does
not have the financial capacity to increase the wage
burden in any form. Consequently the remaining
workmen also can take the benefits under the
settlement, dated 11-9-2013 and bring a finality to the
issue, for the respondent cannot bear the burden of any
further increase in wages and allowances.
(iv) It is further stated that until the year 2008,
there was only one union which espoused the cause of
the workmen in the respondent's company and that
union was functioning under the name and style of S & S
Power Switch Gear Limited Labour's union and in the
year 2008, a splinter group known as S & S Power
Switch Gear Limited Employee's Welfare union emerged
and the settlement concluded in the 2009 was signed
by both the unions. After the expiry of the settlement,
dated 9-10-2009, the respondent company negotiated
with both the unions. The parent union expressed their
willingness to conclude the settlement and thus a long
term settlement, dated 11-9-2013 was concluded with
the parent union. Even though the respondent company
was willing to extend the same benefits to the
petitioner union, they did not show any inclination to
conclude the deal. Thus more than the merits of the
issue, it is the rivalry among the unions which resulted
in demands being referred for adjudication.
(v) It is further stated that as regards the increase
of ` 6,840 demanded in basic wages, this works out
to 166% increase in the basic wage. The fact remains
that this increase when fitted into the new scale
demanded by the union will hike the increase much
further and that in the settlement dated 11-9-2013
concluded with S & S Power Switch Gear Equipment
Limited Labour's union, a hike of ` 1,278 per month
had been granted in basic wages and the respondent
therefore does not have the financial capacity to grant
increase in basic wages any further. Apart from the
substantial increase in basic wage ` 80 per month is
granted as annual increment every year and that as
regards the demand on increase in Dearness Allowance,
as per the terms of the earlier settlement, dated 9-10-2009,
besides fixed dearness allowance of ` 1,785 VDA was
paid at the rate of ` 2.40 per point beyond 2843 points
of the consumer price index for Chennai city of the
base year 1960=100. On this basis, as on 30-9-2012
the workmen were getting DA of ` 6,962. This system
continues by virtue of the settlement, dated 11-9-2013.
The demand referred for adjudication by the union
works out to an increase of ` 13,415 by way of
DA which means 193% increase in DA. This apart, the
fact remains that the demand of the union for payment
of dearness allowance in a graded from 101 points
onwards ignoring the neutralization at 2843 points is
a retrograde step. Such a hefty demand unrelated to the
ground realities is extremely fanciful and unrealistic.
It is needless to say that the present dearness
allowance is protecting the life security of every
workman and the demand of the petitioner union on
this court cannot be entertained even to a slightest
extent.
(vi) It is further stated that as regards House Rent
Allowance, the demand of ` 3,100 represents an
increase of ` 1,600. This is the demand works out to
an increase of 107% over what was paid under the
earlier settlement, dated 9-10-2009 and that by virtue
of the settlement, dated 11-9-2013, the workmen have
been granted an increase of ` 450 in House Rent
Allowance. Under the circumstances, any further
increase in House Rent Allowance is totally unjustified
and that in the case of the demand on conveyance
allowance, that as against ` 650 per month which was
paid under the earlier settlement, dated 9-10-2009
an increase of ` 900 per month which works out to
an increase of 138% has been demanded. By virtue of
the settlement, dated 11-9-2013, an increase of ` 200
per month in conveyance allowance has been given
which works out to an increase of 31% and that the
respondent regrets their inability to increase the wage
burden on this score any further and that ignoring clause
4.5 of the settlement, dated 9-10-2009 in which washing
allowance was merged with the newly introduced
amenity allowance, this demand has been revived and
that the earlier settlement, dated 9-10-2009 was also
signed by the petitioner union. Consequently this
demand is devoid of merit.
(vii) It is further stated that as per shift Allowance
of ` 500 has been demanded and this is a new demand
and it has been always a practice that after arriving at
an agreed package, payments due to all workmen are
classified under different heads and since this has
already been done, this cannot be reopened and as in
the case of shift allowance, attendance allowance
is also a new demand and hefty payment of ` 625
(i.e. ` 25 per day) has been demanded and in the
earlier settlement, dated 9-10-2009 this demand was
dropped by both the unions after an understanding was
reached on the long term settlement to be signed and
549
6 June 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
this demand has been rejected while concluding the
settlement, dated 11-9-2013 and consequently the
respondent is not in a position to consider this demand.
During over time working, catering arrangement and
welfare facility is being provided and the demand for
accommodation is bereft of any merit and that the
Leave Travel Allowance of ` 150 per month paid under
the earlier settlement has been revised as ` 200 per
month by virtue of the settlement, dated 11-9-2013, while
so, the demand of one week holiday and one month
gross wages is indeed unrealistic and has no rationale
and therefore this demand cannot be acceded to.
(viii) It is further stated that as regards the
demand on Bonus and Ex gratia that all the employees
are outside the coverage of Bonus Act and yet as
gesture of goodwill a sum of ` 18,500 was fixed by
virtue of the settlement, dated 9-10-2009 which was
increased to ` 19,100 in the settlement concluded with
S & S Power Switch Gear Equipment Limited Labour’s
union. Since the respondent company has extended this
payment despite the limitations of the payment of
Bonus Act, no further increase can be considered and
that in the matter of gratuity the union has demanded
gratuity even in case of transfer and this is not tenable
under the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
and that the demand on Earned Leave has no force
because earned leave is being given to the employees
as per Sec.79 of the Factories Act, 1948 and that even
though there is no mandatory obligation to provide
casual leave, 7 days of casual leave with wages granted
in terms of the settlement, dated 9-1-2009 is being
continued and the respondent is unable to improve this
any further.
(ix) It is further stated that as regards the demand
for 12 days of sick leave in every year, this is not a
mandatory requirement, yet employees who are the
outside of the coverage of ESIC Act are being paid
medical allowance of ` 500 per month besides the
facility of policy under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act as per the terms of settlement, dated 11-9-2013
and consequently the respondent regrets their inability
to improve this in any form and that the demand of
payment equivalent to one third of the total salary of
an employee as advance once in every two months is
not tenable under law. However in genuine cases, the
management does provide help and as in the case of
salary advance, festival advance is also not tenable
under law, however a sum of ` 2,000 per annum is
being given as Festival Advance recoverable in ten
equal monthly installments and hence the respondent’s
inability to consider Festival Advance equivalent to
one month wage.
(x) It is further stated that the respondent
company is a medium scale unit struggling against very
heavy odds and the company therefore does not have
the financial ability to accommodate the demand of
bearing the entire educational expenses of the child of
every employee and extending a payment of ` 20,000
per child and yet the respondent has been paying each
employee a sum of ` 525 per month in this regard and
that the existing system of providing two sets of
uniform fulfills the requirements in this regard and
consequently the demand for additional two sets of
uniform per annum is not justified and that the present
system of payment of stitching charge of ` 452
towards two sets of uniform is continuing which a
decent amount for that requirement and hence the
increase in this payment to the extent of ` 1,575 which
works out to 370% is not justified and that the existing
system of giving a pair of shoes and two pairs of socks
is more than adequate and consequently the respondent
regrets their inability to give additional pair of shoes
and two additional pair of socks besides polish and
brush as demanded and that there are in all 27 workers
working in respondent's company, the total strength
including the staff is less than hundred and therefore
the respondent is not statutorily required to maintain
any canteen, yet as a gesture of good will, subsidized
food (91% borne by the respondent company) is being
given to the workers and therefore the host of demands
made in this regard by the union is untenable and that
safety equipment is being provided to workmen based
on the nature of work and consequently there is no
justification to provide this facility to everybody and
that by virtue of clause 4.6 of the settlement, dated
9-10-2009, the facility of soap, towel and coconut oil
were converted into monetary payment of ` 100 per
month and this amount was increased to ` 125 per
month by virtue of the settlement, dated 11-9-2013 and
therefore there is no justification for reviving this
demand.
(xi) It is further stated that considering the
meager numerical strength , it is not feasible to start
a Co-operative society and hence the respondent's
inability to consider this demand and this apart this is
not a mandatory requirement and that fortunately there
is no occasion to consider the demand on funeral
expenses, if by misfortune any employee dies, the
management will consider extending monetary assistance
and in the case of the demand on Medical allowance,
that as against ` 390 per month which was paid under
the earlier settlement, dated 9-10-2009 for workers
550
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 June 2017
who are not under the purview of the ESI Act and by
virtue of the settlement, dated 11-9-2013, an increase
of ` 110 per month in Medical Allowance has been
given which works out to an increase of 28% besides
the facility of policy under Workmen Compensation
Act and the respondent regrets their inability to
consider the demand of the petitioner union and that
demand on the festival gift is not legally tenable and
this was being given as per by the management's
discretion and however by virtue of the settlement,
dated 11-9-2013 a sum of ` 750 is being paid as a gift
during Ayudhapooja and that strictly speaking,
permission facility is not conducive to disciplined
working in the factory and yet by virtue of the
settlement, dated 11-9-2013, the respondent has
granted this facility for late attendance on three
occasions of a duration not exceeding 15 minutes in
a month and all the workmen enjoying this facility as
45 minutes per month and while finalizing the package
for the settlement, service weightage was taken into
account and the increase was accommodated in the
basic wage itself and hence there is no justification for
considering the service weightage separately and that
service gift has been recognized and rewarded at the
time of completion of 10 years of service by means
of a wrist watch and hence the demand for 15 years is
untenable and by virtue of the settlement dated
11-9-2013, the heat allowance of ` 150 per month for
welders and the remaining workers are being paid
operator allowance of ` 55 and as per the earlier
settlement, the payment for heat allowance was ` 110
and the payment for operator allowance was ` 40 and
in view of this, there is no justification to grant any
further increase and that as much as actual expenses
are being reimbursed, there is no merit in the demand
on duty allowance and as per the Factories Act, Leave
Encashment demand is untenable because it is
restricted to cases of resignation, retirement and death
and in fact as per the Factories Act, leave to the credit
of the employees in excess of 30 days will lapse but
this is not being enforced and incentive is not feasible
in the respondent's company and hence the
respondent's inability to consider the same and even
after protecting the workmen's life by their Dearness
Allowance increase on every month arrears is not valid
and in as much as the petitioner union did not come
forward to accept the decent package offered during
negotiation, the respondent is unable to improve the
package in any form and consequently the demand for
payment for arrears is not justified.
(xii) It is further stated that the petitioner union
is not correct in stating that the respondent company
has earned enormous profit and it is also equally
fallacious to contend that the management kept on
doing business with huge profit and in fact, if we
strictly consider the financial position of the company,
the respondent would not have been in a position offer
any increase of after the expiry of the settlement dated
9-10-2009 and in view of the factual position stated
in para 6 above, it is preposterous for the petitioner
union to allege that the respondent formed a rival
union and granted the revised wages and allowances to
the said union and that negotiation with both the unions
lasted more than a year and ultimately the parent union
came forward to sign the settlement and that the
respondent has done nothing illegal while concluding
the settlement with the parent union and all the
allegations mentioned in this regard by the petitioner
union are totally unjustified and that the respondent
company has treated both the unions fairly and the
allegation of discrimination is totally without any
substance and that the benefits of the settlement
concluded under sec. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act will accrue only to those who subscribe to the
terms of the settlement. The petitioner union and its
members having refused to accept the terms of the
settlement concluded with the parent union cannot turn
round and complain that the benefits of the 18(1)
settlement concluded with the parent union have not
been extended to their members and that none of the
demands raised by the petitioner union can be acceded
to beyond what has been already finalized and hence,
they pray for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On the side of the petitioner, WW.l was
examined and Ex.Wl to Ex.W6 were marked. On the
side of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence
has been adduced.
5. The point for determination is:
(i) Whether the Industrial Dispute raised by the
petitioner union against the respondent management
over revision of wages is justified or not ?
(ii) Whether the 18(1) settlement, dated 30-9-2012
reached with the petitioner’s union while pendency of
the conciliation proceedings and wage negotiation is
justified ?
6. In the course of enquiry before completing
the evidence, the joint memo has been filed by the
parties stating that on 16-11-2016 both the parties
have mutually agreed and entered a Memorandum of
Settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 incorporating the reliefs sought in the
above I.D. with certain modifications. A copy of the
section 18(1) settlement, dated 16-11-2016 is also
filed along with the memo and therefore, the matter has
been settled between the parties out of Court and by
551
6 June 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
entering the settlement under section 18(1) of
Industrial Disputes Act which was filed by both the
parties and therefore the compromise is recorded and
award is passed in terms of settlement arrived at
between the parties under section 18(1) of Industrial
Disputes Act, dated 16-11-2016. A copy of the
settlement is to be attached as part and parcel of the
award.
7. In the result, an award is passed in view of the
joint memo of compromise and the same is recorded
in terms of the settlement under section 18(1) of
Industrial Disputes Act arrived at between the parties
on 16-11-2016.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by
her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this the 14th day of March, 2017.
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
WW.1— 27-1-2016 — R. Sivakumar
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:
Ex.Wl — Copy of the representation submitted
by the petitioner union to the Chief
Manager (Operation) of respondent,
dated 17-9-2012.
Ex.W2— Copy of the representation submitted
by the petitioner union to the Chief
Manager (Operation) of respondent,
dated 4-3-2013.
Ex.W3— Copy of the letter sent by the
respondent management to the petitioner
union, dated 9-3-2013.
Ex.W4— Copy of the representation submitted
by the petitioner union to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,
dated 24-6-2013.
Ex.W5— Copy of the Failure report submitted by
the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry to the Secretary to
Government (Labour), Puducherry,
dated 17-12-2013.
Ex.W6— Copy of the order passed by the Under
Secretary to Government (Labour)
for
referring
the
I.D.
to
Industrial
Tribunal, Puducherry, dated 31-3-2014.
List of witness examined for the respondent: Nil
List of exhibits marked for the respondent: Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
NO. 3818/CEO/KKL/E3(Exam.)2017/874.
Karaikal, the 17th May 2017.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby informed that the following candidates have lost their original SSLC Mark Certificates/
Higher Secondary Examination Mark Certificates and beyond the scope of recovery, the necessary steps have
been, taken to issue duplicate certificates. If, any one finds the original Mark Certificate(s), it/they may be
sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examination (Sec.), College Road, Chennai – 600 006 for
cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.
Sl.
Name of the
Exam, Register No. Sl. No. of the
School in which
No.
applicant
Session and
Mark
studied last
year
Certificate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :
1
Nithyanandam, K.,
SSLC 1745728,
07552119
St. Mary’s Higher Secondary
April, 2012.
School,
Karaikal.
2
Venugopal, R.,
SSLC 3002896
3884887
Kamaraj Government High School,
April, 2014.
Vadamaraicadu.