La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 22-00
Prix : ` 22-00
Price :
` 22-00
2017 }
| 11 {
No.
28
Poudouchéry
Mardi
11
Juillet
2017 (20 Asadha 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
11th
July
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 664
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 664
Award of the Labour Court .. 664
de tribunal.
.. 672
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 672
Government Notifications .. 672
.. 681
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 681
Tender notices
.. 681
.. 684
Annonces
.. 684
Announcements
.. 684
[ 663 ]
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 : 11-7-2017
Price : ` 22-00
664
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 July 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 92/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 15th June 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D.(T)18/2013, dated 27-4-2017
of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the
industrial
dispute between the
Management of
Texbond Nonwovens, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and
Texbond Nonwovens INTUC Sangam, Puducherry over
charter of demands regarding unfair labour practice
and wage revision 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,
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 27th day of April 2017.
I.D. (T) No. 18/2013
K. Durai Raj,
The Texbond Non-wovens,
INTUC Sangam.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Texbond Non-wovens,
Thirubuvanai,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming up before me for
final
hearing
on 28-2-2017 in the presence of
Thiruvalargal A. Govindu and A. Sakthivel, Counsel for
the petitioner, Thiruvalargal S. Radjagopalane
and V. Nagalingom Pillai, Counsel 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 has been referred by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. 173/AIL/LAB/J/2013,
dated 3-12-2013 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Texbond
Non-Wovens, INTUC Sangam against the management
of M/s. Texbond Nonwovens, Puducherry over charter
of demands such as wage revision, annual increment
@ ` 3,000, total wage package of ` 20,000, V.D.A.,
H.R.A., @ 25%, festival advance, is justified or not?
(ii) If justified, what relief, the Union is entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money, if it can be so computed ?
2. The brief averments of the claim statement filed
by the petitioner are as follows :
(i) The petitioner were employed nearly
nine years of service with the respondent management
and the management is not contributing for P.F. and
E.S.I., the contribution is entirely from the employees
and there is no contribution and deduction on the part
of the respondent which is against the Act and so far
the management has not given any wage slip to their
workers. The respondent also engages employees
from north India in the grade of operators on contract
basis and has fixed the wage with disparity between the
employees from north India and the petitioner union
employees without any rhyme or reason. All the
employees does not differ in any kind either in their
nature of work or their designation. The respondent
has shown this disparity only to show their scheming
attitude over the employees and has never follow the
principal of equal pay for equal work instead they
adopted victimization and motivation by paying higher
wages to the employees from North India and poor
wages has been paid to the employees attached with the
petitioner union.
(ii) The management for the past several years
compulsorily extracts 12 hours of work daily but, the
respondent so far has not paid over times wages. When
any objection is raised regarding the victimization in
the working place the respondent threatens that they
665
11 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
will be terminated from service. Even though they are
working for the past nine years, they were not
provided with proper Salary Slip, Identity Card and
they were not allotted P.F. Hence, the worker with the
help of union approached the respondent, the
respondent management taking into consideration of
this Act of the union members and refused employment
to 6 union employees without any reason and
justification. The respondent frequently transfer and
change their working place as they like, hence, there
is no protection to their service condition and there
is no safety in the working place and to develop a
convenient working atmosphere made a charter of
demand regarding the following issues:
i. To provide annual increment of ` 3000 per
month total wage package of ` 20,000 V.D.A.,
H.R.A-25%, T.A, festival advance, bonus, educational
allowance, canteen facility, etc.
ii. To issue detailed wage slip.
iii. To contribute P.F & E.S.I. amount as per
the Act.
iv. To pay over-time allowance when the
workers compelled to work for more than 12 hours
of work per day.
v. To provide protection to their service
condition
vi. To pay equal wages for equal work and
there should not be discrimination in the wages.
vii. Wages should be revised with effect from
July 2012 and to include dearness allowance in the
wage structure.
viii. To provide employment to their 7 union
employees.
ix. Higher wages to the contract employees
from North India should not be paid and they should
not be engaged in the regular nature of work.
x. To provide appointment orders and identity
cards to their employees.
But, the respondent neither chosen to settle the
issues nor replied to their representations, instead the
petitioner’s demand was neglected. Hence, the
petitioner union made a representation before the
labour conciliation to resolve the dispute. On the basis
of their representation conciliation was held between
the petitioner and the respondent before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation). Even in the conciliation
proceedings also the respondent has not co-operated
to arrive at a common idea and refused to take the
advice of the conciliation machinery and requested to
close the conciliation proceedings for adjudication.
Hence, this industrial dispute was raised in order to
meet their needs.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
(i) The respondent denied all the allegation of the
petitioner except those that are specifically admitted.
The charter of demands raised by the petitioner is not
clear, specific and consistent and the increment to an
employee is a sole discretionary right of the employer
which cannot be demanded as a matter of right and the
increment is given upon valuation of the employee
based on his skill, ability, performance, sincerity and
other factors and the demand of the petitioner to give
` 3,000 as increment is not admissible and apart from
this, the respondent is paying increment to all the
employee annually without any discrimination
irrespective of the profit and loss of the company and
the demand of the petitioner in respect of total wage
package of ` 20,000 D.A., H.R.A. @ 25% are all very
exorbitant and inconsistent as per the Wages Act and
in fact the floor minimum wages as per the Central
Government notification and as per the guidelines of
the Labour Department, Puducherry, the total wages to
the employee for a month should not be below ` 4,350
(i.e.,) ` 145 per day inclusive of all the allowances, but
the respondent is paying total wages for a month to
each employee ranging from ` 9,500 to ` 15,000 and
the respondent is paying total wages more than the
guidelines of the Labour Department, Puducherry.
The petitioner has not mentioned in the demand, where
in Puducherry, for these nature of companies are giving
the incentive and total package as demanded by the
petitioner.
(ii) The respondent is promptly paying the P.F.
and E.S.I. contribution to the concerned Department as
per the Act and the proof of the contribution to P.F.
and E.S.I. are submitted and the employees are working
for 8 hours a day at the respondent’s company and the
over-time wages are paid to the employees in
calculation from the total wages and not from the basic
wages and the company has given prime importance to
the welfare of the employees and provided adequate
safety measures to the employees and as well to their
service condition and the wages were revised as per
the Act and the guidelines of the Labour Department,
Puducherry and the respondent without prejudice ready
to accept all the suggestion of the employees when it
is fair and correct and there was no dismissal of 7
666
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 July 2017
union employees and there is no contract employees
in the company and in fact all the employees are casual
labours and the petitioner has got no right to direct the
respondent not to engage the North Indian employees
in the regular nature of work.
(iii) The statement of the petitioner is utter false
that he is working with respondent management for
nearly nine years in fact the company was started only
in August 2007 and the allegation of the petitioner are
all invented stories for the sake of the case and further
the demand of the petitioner for equal wages for equal
work is not acceptable because the company was
started in the year 2007 only, but, the North Indian
workers are having experience for more than 10 to 12
years in the same field and they have worked in the
same nature of work in the companies at various
places in India and got adequate experience in the work
and whereas, the petitioner's union workers are fresher
and further the petitioner's union workers has damaged
the products and the output of the petitioner's union
workers are not satisfactory and due to many
complaints received from the customers, the principle
of equal wages for equal work is not applicable in this
case and hence, the demand of the petitioner is not
justified and hence, the petitioner's demands may be
rejected on these grounds.
4. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.Pl to
Ex.P20 were marked. On the side of the respondent
RW.l was examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.Rll were marked.
5. The point for consideration is that whether the
dispute raised by petitioner union against the
respondent management over charter of demands is
justified or not?
6. Both side arguments were heard. On the side of
both sides, written arguments were filed and the same
are carefully considered.
7. This industrial dispute has been raised by the
petitioner union over the charter of demands for wage
revision, annual increment, total wage package, H.R.A.,
festival advance, educational allowance and to decide
whether unfair labour practice is committed by the
respondent management. The petitioner has asked for
the demand to raise the annual increment at ` 3000 per
month, total wage package of ` 20,000, V.D.A., H.R.A.-25%,
T.A., Festival advance, Bonus, Educational allowance,
canteen facility with effect from July, 2012 and to
issue detailed wage slip and also to contribute P.F and
E.S.I. amount as per the Act and to pay over time
allowance when the workers compelled to work for
more than 12 hours of work per day and also to provide
employment to the 7 union employees. The demands
of the union was neglected by the respondent
management and that therefore, it was represented
before the Conciliation Officer and even after several
sittings for conciliation and on failure of the
conciliation, this case has been referred to this Court
by the Government of Puducherry.
8. The respondent has stated in his counter that the
granting of increment to an employee is a sole
discretionary right of the employer and therefore, it
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the demand
of the petitioner to give ` 3,000 as increment is not
admissible and the respondent is paying increment to
all the employees annually without any discrimination
irrespective of the profit and loss of the company and
that the minimum wage should not be less than ` 4,350
(i.e.) ` 145 per day and the respondent is paying total
wages for a month to each employee ranging from
` 9,500 to ` 15,000 and that therefore, the demand of
the petitioner is not a valid one and the respondent
further stated in his counter that they are paying the
P.F. and E.S.I. contribution to all the employees and the
employees are working only for 8 hours per day at the
respondent company and no overtime wages to be paid
to the employees and there was no dismissal of
7 employees as stated by the petitioner.
9. In the evidence, PW.1 and PW.2 has deposed the
facts which are in the claim statement and in support
of their case, the petitioner has exhibited the
representation given by the union to the Conciliation
Officer on 22-1-2013 as Ex.P1, wherein it has been
stated that the union has passed the resolution for
demand of ` 3,000 to the employees in addition to the
Basic Pay and to raise ` 3,000 per year as Dearness
Allowance and also to raise shift allowance, over time
wages, educational expenditure, portal allowance, 20%
bonus and to increase the increment at ` 1,500. The
another representation given by the union to the
Conciliation Officer on 1-2-2013 as Ex.P2, wherein,
it has been stated that the respondent management has
not come forward to invite the union members for
settlement talks and threatened the union members.
Ex.P3 is also the another representation sent by the
union to the Conciliation Officer on 8-2-2013, wherein,
it has been stated that the respondent management has
not come forward to accept the demands of the
petitioner and also has refused to permit the
employees to work from 30-1-2013. Ex.P4 is the
another representation given by the respondent
667
11 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
management to the Labour Officer stating that they are
giving increase on every year with effect from April
and all the workers and staffs are given increment for
July, 2012 and assured that increment will be given
during July as per the performance of the each and
every employee. Ex.P5 is the another representation
given by the union to the Conciliation Officer with
same demand of same kind to raise the wages of the
employees. Ex.P6 is also the representation given to
the Labour Officer by the union stating that they are
working for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours and
seeking direction to the respondent management to
pay the over time wages for 4 hours. Ex.P7 & Ex.P8
are also the representations given by the union to the
Conciliation Officer stating that the management has
been committing victimization against the labourers
and also to raise the same demands in respect of wages
and increase in bonus, portal allowance. Ex.P9 is the
failure report sent by the Conciliation Officer to the
Secretary to Government, Labour Department. Ex.P10
is the reference sent by the Government to this Court.
Ex.P11 is the another requisition given by the union to
the Conciliation Officer to direct the respondent
management to give equal salary to the members of the
union like North Indian labourers. Ex.P12 is the
another requisition given by the union to the
Conciliation Officer stating that the respondent
management is refusing to allot work to the workers
of the petitioner union. Ex.P13 is the pay slips of the
workers which reveals that the salary particulars of the
employees. Attendance register is exhibited as Ex.P14
Ex.P15 to Ex.P18 are the wage slip of the employees.
Ex.P19 is the salary particulars of staffs of the
respondent establishment. Ex.P20 is the certificate of
registration of petitioner union.
10. On the other hand, the respondent has examined
one Raja Balaji as RW.1 and he has denied the
averments of the petitioner and stated that they are
paying E.S.I., and P.F., contribution to the employees
of the respondent establishment as per the Act as
followed by the Factories in Puducherry and the
demands of the petitioner have to be rejected. Further,
he deposed that minimum wages as per the guideline
of Labour Department of Puducherry is ` 4,350, but,
the respondent is paying ` 9,500 to ` l5,000 to their
employees and that therefore, the demand made by the
petitioner to raise
` 3,000 as increment is not
sustainable and that the workers are working only
8 hours per day not for 12 hours and that they have not
dismissed 7 union employees as stated by the
petitioner and that there is no contract employees at
their establishment. The respondent has also exhibited
the licence issued by the Commissioner, Mannadipet
Commune Panchayat, Puducherry as Ex.Rl, Registration
of license to factory issued by the Chief Inspector of
Factories as Ex.R2, Factory licence as Ex.R3,
Certificate of Registrations of Factories as Ex.R4,
Ex.R5 is the letter issued by the Assistant P.F.
Commissioner. Combined challan EPF contribution as
Ex.R6. EPF contribution till January 2016 as Ex.R7,
E.S.I. return of contribution as Ex.R8, E.S.I.
contribution till January 2016 as Ex.R9, staff salary
details for the month of April, 2013 as Ex.R10, staff
salary details for the month of January, 2016 as Ex.Rll.
11. In the claim statement, the petitioner have stated
that 7 employees have refused employment by the
respondent management and they have sought for an
order of reinstatement in the claim statement.
However, this reference has been made by the
Government to this Court only to decide the dispute
raised over the charter of demands such as wage
revision, annual increment, total wage package of `
20,000, H.R.A., festival advance, educational
allowance and this reference has not been referred to
this Court to decide any industrial dispute over the
termination of employment and that therefore, this
Court does not decide the above claim in this
reference and the petitioner can seek such a remedy
in any other dispute raised before the Conciliation
Officer and to file a separate application for
reinstatement before this Court and that therefore, this
Court cannot pass such order of any reinstatement as
claimed by the petitioner in the claim statement and
this Court cannot decide any other issues beyond the
reference.
12. From, the pleading of both the parties, it is clear
that both the parties have admitted the following facts
i.e., the respondent management is engaged in
manufacturing of medical articles such as face mask,
shoe covers, surgeon caps, etc., and the petitioner
union has raised the industrial dispute and submitted
an application to the Conciliation Officer over the
charter of demands for wage revision, annual
increment, total wage package of ` 20,000, V.D.A.,
H.R.A., festival advance and the union has submitted
some applications
to reinstate
the dismissed
employees and the union members are working in the
respondent
establishment
and
the
respondent
management has not given ` 3,000 as increment as
claimed by the petitioner and the conciliation was
failed before the Conciliation Officer.
668
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 July 2017
13. It is the main contention of the petitioner union
that the respondent management has refused for
revision of wages and the respondent management is
paying poor wages below the rate of minimum wages
and equal wages are not paid to the equal work and the
respondent management is paying higher wages to the
employees employed from North India and they are not
contributing P.F., and E.S.I., amount to the employees
and no amount is deducted on the part of the
respondent and the respondent management openly
adopts the discrimination in payment of wages and the
management extracts 12 hours of work daily but has
not paid overtime wages and engages the contract
workmen from North India and that there is no
protection to their service condition and the
management has refused employment to the union
employees without any reason and justification and
the management has committed unfair labour practice.
But, it is the contended by the respondent that they are
giving equal pay to the workers who have employed by
them and that they have not adopted any discrimination
and have not committed any unfair labour practice.
14. To establish the contention of the petitioner,
the representations made by the petitioner union
before the Conciliation Officer is exhibited as Ex.P1
to Ex.P3, Ex.P5 to Ex.P6, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. Ex.P11
is the another representation made by the petitioner to
the Conciliation Officer, which would evident that the
petitioner union has passed a resolution and has raised
a dispute before the labour Conciliation Officer and
even after to the dispute raised before the Conciliation
Officer and while conciliation is pending the
respondent management has transferred some machine
operators and appointed some North Indians as contract
labours and have paid ` 20,000 per month to the
contract labours. Ex.P12 would evident that the union
has submitted an another application before the
Conciliation Officer subsequent to the dispute raised
by them before the Conciliation Officer that the
respondent management has refused to give work to
some of the employees of the union and have given
employment to North Indian workers and to compel
them to withdraw the dispute raised before the
Conciliation Officer. These documents would go to
show that when the conciliation is pending before the
labour
Conciliation
Officer,
the
respondent
management has appointed some North Indian
employees as contract labourers and has paid salary
more than the payment of salary given to the regular
employees.
15. The petitioner has exhibited the salary slips of
employees as Ex.P13 which would go to show that
there was some Printing Operators in the respondent
management in the name of Madav Adhikari, Anandababu,
Vishal Sharma, Rajenthiran, Rajiv Gandhi, Raja and
Rahul Singh. The Pay Slip of Anandababu who was
working as Operator in the respondent factory would
evident that he has joined in the company on 8-11-2010
and he was having gross earning of ` 15,400 in the
month of July, 2013 and he has not been paid any
incentive. The pay slip, of Madav Adhikari who was
working as an Operator in the same respondent
management would go to show that the said Madav
Adhikari earns ` 20,375 with incentive of ` 3,258 in
the month of September, 2013. The Pay Slip of Vishal
Sharma would evident that Vishal Sharma earns
` 17,862 with incentive of
` 2,856 and at the same
time Rajenthiran who was working as Operator was
earning gross amount only ` 7,500 without having any
incentive and Rajiv Gandhi who working as an Operator
has earned ` 9,198 with an incentive of ` 3,333
and the pay slip of one Rajiv Gandhi for the month of
March, 2014 would go to show that he has earned only
` 8,111 with incentive of ` 214 while so Rahul Singh
earns ` 18,025 with the incentive of ` 2,575.
These document would go to show that the respondent
management has not given uniform salary to
the Operators of the respondent and as rightly stated
by the petitioner union, the respondent management
has given more salary to the North Indian contract
workers than the regular employees of the factory and
furthermore, from the exhibits marked by the
petitioner, it is also revealed that the respondent
management has refused to give employment to the
workers while the conciliation proceedings was
pending.
16. To prove the contention of the petitioner that
the respondent management has not paid equal salary
to the members of the petitioner union they have
exhibited Ex.P17 the salary slip of one Madav
Adhikari, which would go to show that the said Madav
Adhikari, has joined the respondent factory only on 1-5-2013
and he has been given salary of ` 46,038 for the
month of August, 2014 and Ex.P18 the salary slip of
Abinesh Kumar Singh would show that the said
Abinesh Kumar Singh who has joined on 15-5-2014
was given salary of ` 18,902 for the month of
September-2014 and Ex.P16 the salary slip of Srinivas
Patra would show that the said Srinivas Patra was
working as Shift Engineer and joined the service
o n 2 2 -5 -2 0 1 4 in the facto ry has b een gi ven
` 23,000 as monthly salary for the month of August.
669
11 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P15 is the Salary Slip would go to show that Sunil
Kumar Yadhev who has joined on 12-5-2014 in the
factory was given ` 15,612 for the month of May,
2014 for 19 days. On the other hand, Ex.P13 would
evident that one Rajenthiran who was in service from
the year 2007 and who was working as Machine
Operator was given only ` 6,335 for the whole month.
These discrepancy in the payment of salary has not
been explained by the respondent management though
the respondent management has stated in the counter
that they are paying equal pay to the workers, they have
not let any evidence and has not proved that the North
Indian employees are having more experience and
educational qualification or having any seniority in
the work of Operator and therefore, the respondent
without giving any explanation before the Conciliation
Officer or before this Court has contend that they are
paying equal pay for equal work.
17. This Court finds from Ex.P17 that the
management has given ` 40,038 in the month of
August, 2014 to one Madav Adhikari who was working
as an Operator and who has joined only on 1-5-2013
in the respondent management and the respondent
management has given only ` 6,335 without any
incentive to one Rajenthiran who was the regular
employee and who was working from 21-8-2007 in the
respondent factory as an Operator and furthermore, it
is clear from the Ex.P13 that one Srinibas Patra has
been given ` 23,000 for the month of August, 2014
who has joined only on 22-5-2014 and that therefore,
these exhibits would go to clearly show that the
respondent management has adopted unfair labour
practice by victimization in payment of wages to the
employees and has not followed the principles of equal
pay to equal work in the cadre of Operator in the
respondent factory and furthermore, the person
namely Rajenthiran who has been joined in the
company on 21-8-2007 was paid only ` 6335 for the
March, 2014 and he has not been given any incentive.
From these facts, it can be inferred that the respondent
management has not followed any procedure in fixing
and paying the salary to the workers who were worked
as an Operators of the factory.
18. Though, the respondent RW.1 has denied the
allegation of the petitioner as false and filed Ex.R1 to
Ex.R11, the documents in Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 would go to
show only about the licence obtained by the respondent
factory from the Commissioner of Panchayat and
Inspector of Factories to conduct the factory and the
registration of their establishments under the Indian
Partnership Act and Ex.R5 to Ex.R9 would go to show
only that they are paying P.F., and E.S.I., contribution
to some of the employees. But, it does not reveals the
particulars to whom the contribution is paid and
Ex.P10 and Ex.Pll does not reveals about the
categories of staffs in the production and total number
of workers in the factory and they have not produced
any documents to prove that how much salary is being
paid to the employees and how much contribution are
being paid and for whom the contribution are paid and
how much increment is being given to the employees
for every year.
19. Furthermore, the evidence of RW.1 in his cross
examination runs as follows :
North India—
North
Indian
North
Indian
From the above evidence, it is clear that the
respondent management has pleaded that since the
North Indian employees are having experience,
technical qualification, they have been given more
salary than the local employees but, no documentary
evidence is produced before this Court by the
respondent management to prove that the said North
Indian employees are having any extra educational
qualification, technical qualification or experience
than the local workmen and furthermore, nothing is
produced before this Court by the respondent to prove
that they are giving equal pay to the workers and
particularly they have not explained anything why they
have given salary of ` 40,038 in the month of August,
2014 to one Madav Adhikari, an Operator who has
joined only in the year 2013 while the regular
employee Rajenthiran who has joined in the year 2007
was paid only ` 6,335 in the month of March, 2014.
670
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 July 2017
These difference would go to show that the respondent
management has not paid equal pay for equal work and
that there is discrepancy in paying the wages to the
employees who were working in the same cadre as an
Operator in the respondent establishment and they have
adopted some unfair labour practice in giving the
salary and incentives to the workers and therefore, it
is held by this Court that the industrial dispute raised
by the Texbond Nonwovens INTUC sangam against the
management of Texbond Nonwovens over the charter
of demands for wage revision, annual increment, total
wage package, H.R.A., festival advance, educational
allowance is justified.
20. As this Court has justified the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union against the respondent
management, it is to be decided for what relief the
workmen of the petitioner union members are entitled
to. On this aspect, the evidence and pleading of both
the parties are carefully perused. Though, the petitioner
has established that there was some wage discrepancies
in the payment of wages to the workers, no particulars
available before this Court to decide how much
increment was already given by the respondent
management to the workers for every year and how
much H.R.A., V.D.A., educational allowance are paid
to the employees so far by the respondent management
and hence, this Court could not specify the amount as
annual increment or H.R.A. or educational allowance
as claimed by the petitioner union. However, it is
established by the petitioner union under Ex.Pl7 that
the management has given the Salary of ` 46,038 with
basic pay of ` 15,000, H.R.A. ` 7,500 M.A. ` 1,500,
Con. All ` 1,500, E.N.T. ` 3,250 to one Madav Adhikari
and to the contract employees engaged from North
India while they are paying only ` 7,000 to the regular
employees who were engaged for more than 6 years
and that they have not produced any records regarding
the contribution of P.F., and E.S.I., overtime particulars
before the conciliation proceedings and furthermore,
the respondent management was not ready even to
discuss the said aspects in the conciliation
proceedings and furthermore, it is learnt from the
conciliation report submitted by the Conciliation
Officer to the Secretary to Government that the
conciliation has advised the management to have
collective bargain and to settle the issues on bilateral
discussion and whereas, the management refused to
take the advice of the conciliation machinery and the
management has not co-operated with the conciliation
proceedings to settle the dispute.
21. These above facts would go to show that even
in the conciliation proceedings the management has
not at all produced the records with regard to the
overtime work done by the employees and the
respondent management has not produced any
document before this Court to establish that they have
not extracting any work more than 8 hours from
petitioner union members. These facts and other
circumstances would go to show that the respondent
management has not at all established that they are not
extracting work of more than 8 hours i.e., 12 hours
from the members of the union and they have admitted
that they are giving only ` 7,000 to the regular
employees while they are giving the salary to the
contract workers about ` 22,000 and that therefore, the
claim made by the petitioner is reasonable.
22. It is also clear from the evidence, facts and
circumstances that the respondent management has
adopted unfair labour practice by refusing the equal
pay to equal work to the employees of the respondent
establishment and further the petitioner have filed the
copy of the attendance register of the employees as
Ex.P14, which is not authenticated and it is not clear
and not signed by anyone and does not have particulars
of time worked by the employees and that therefore,
this Court could calculate the hours whether they are
working more than 8 hours. However, the employees
are statutorily entitled for over-time wages if, they are
worked for more than 8 hours.
23. Even both the parties have let evidence and filed
exhibits, absolutely there is no evidence that how many
categories of employees are working in the respondent
establishment and how much they are received as Basic
Pay, D.A., H.R.A., medical allowance and their
increments and furthermore, the evidence is available
only regarding the salary of the employees who are
working as Operators and hence, this Court decides to
take the salary of the employee, the Operator Madav
Adhikari as basic and fundamental one to revise the
Salary in Basic Pay, H.R.A., D.A., and other allowances
to all the employees.
24. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over charter of demands
is justified and
(i) the respondent is directed to revise the wages
by taking the salary of employee, the Operator Madhav
Adhikari under Ex.P17 as a basic and fundamental one
to fix the Basic Pay, H.R.A., D.A., and other allowances
and increments to the employees proportionately
671
11 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
according to their categaries and period of service
from the date of claim petition filed before this Court
and further
(ii) directed the respondent to give overtime
wages in future if, they are working for more than 8
hours and further.
(iii) directed the respondent to pay the statutory
contribution for P.F., and E.S.I., to all the employees
of the respondent establishment.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 27th day of April, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
————
List of
petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 — 18-11-2014—K. Durai Raj
PW.2 — 18-12-2015—Rajiv Gandhi
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
—
22-1-2013 — Letter sent by the
petitioner
to
the
Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry along with
postal receipt.
Ex.P2
—
1-2-2013
— Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Labour
Officer,
Puducherry along with
acknowledgment card.
Ex.P3
—
8-2-2013
— Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Labour
Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P4
—
18-2-2013 — Letter sent by the
respondent to the
Labour
Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P5
—
8-4-2013
— Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P6
—
22-4-2013 — Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Labour
Officer,
Puducherry.
ExP7
—
27-5-2013 — Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P8
—
18-7-2013 — Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P9
—
7-10-2013 — Report of failure of
Conciliation issued by
the Labour Officer,
C o n c i l i a t i o n ,
Puducherry.
Ex.P10 —
3-12-2013 — G.O. Rt. No. l73/AIL/
Lab./J/2013.
Ex.Pll
—
11-12-2013 — Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P12 —
12-12-2013— Letter sent by the
petitioner to the
Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry.
Ex.P13 —
-
— Copy of the pay
slip of same cadre
employees with different
pay.
Ex.Pl4 —
-
— Copy of the Attendance
Register (with time).
Ex.Pl5 —
May
— Copy of salary slip of
2014
Sunil Kumar Yadhev.
Ex.P16 —
August
— Copy of salary slip of
2014
Srinibas Patra.
Ex.P17 —
August
— Copy of salary slip of
2014
Madav Adhikari.
Ex.P18 —
September
— Copy of salary slip of
2014
Abhishek Kumar Singh.
Ex.Pl9 —
August
— Copy of 48 employees
2014
and staff salary list
Ex.P20— -
— Copy of the certificate
of
Registration
of
Trade Union.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 1-3-2016 —
S. Raja Balaji
672
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 July 2017
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
—
6-8-2007 —
Copy of the licence
issued by office of the
C o m m i s s i o n e r
Mannadipet Commune
Panchayat.
Ex.R2 —
19-7-2007 —
Copy of Registration
and Licence to work
as a factory issued by
Chief Inspector of
Factories.
Ex.R3 —
19-7-2007 —
Copy of the factory
licence renewed till
31-12-2018.
Ex.R4 —
7-8-2006 —
Copy of the certificate
of registration as per
the Indian Partnership
Act, 1932.
Ex.R5 —
6-9-2007 —
Applicability of E.P.F.
letter issued by the
Assistant
P.F.
Commissioner/O.I.C.
Ex.R6 —
15-4-2015 —
Copy of the cabined
c h a l l a n E .P .F .
contribution-SBI.
Ex.R7 —
13-2-2016 —
Copy of the E.P.F.
contribution
till
January 2016.
Ex.R8 —
27-10-2014— Copy of the ESI return
of Contribution.
Ex.R9 —
20-2-2016 —
ESI contributions till
January 2016.
Ex.R10—
30-4-2013 —
Copy of
the staff
salary details for the
month of April 2013.
Ex.Rll —
31-1-2016 —
Copy of
the staff
details for the month
of January 2016.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 98/AIL/Lab./T/2017
Puducherry, dated 27th June 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Jayaprakash Narayanan Co-operative Spinning
Mill, Neravy, Karaikal and its workman Thiru M. Rajkumar,
over reinstatement in respect of the matter mentioned
in the Annexure to this order;
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 (c) of sub-section (1) of
section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act XIV of 1947), it is hereby directed by
Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said dispute
be referred to the Labour Court, Puducherry for
adjudication. The Labour Court, 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 Labour
Court, Puducherry within 15 days of the receipt of the
order of reference and also forward a copy of such
statement to each one of the opposite parties involved
in the dispute.
ANNEXURE
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru M. Rajkumar, Karaikal, against the management
of
M/s.
Jayaprakash Narayanan Co-operative
Spinning Mill, Karaikal over reinstatement is
justified or not? If justified, what relief he is
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).