La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 30-00
Prix : ` 30-00
Price :
` 30-00
2017 }
| 18 {
No.
29
Poudouchéry
Mardi
18
Juillet
2017 (27 Asadha 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
18th
July
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
696
Sentence arbitral du travail
..
696
Award of the Labour Court .. 696
de tribunal.
..
708
Notifications du Gouvernement
..
708
Government Notifications .. 708
..
730
Avis d’Adjudications
..
730
Tender notices
.. 730
..
733
Etablissements dangereux
..
733
Dangerous Establishments
.. 733
..
734
Annonces
..
734
Announcements
.. 734
[ 695 ]
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 : 18-7-2017
Price : ` 30-00
696
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 July 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 93/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 15th June 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D(T).No. 12/2008, dated
6-4-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the Management
of M/s. Pond’s Exports Limited (Foot Wear Factory),
Puducherry and Pondicherry, Hindustan Thozhilalar
Sangam (PHLTS), Puducherry over charter of demands
such as increase of Basic Pay for each grade, Annual
increment, fixed dearness allowance for 2000 points
variable dearness allowance, HRA, Production incentive
Pay, etc., has ben 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 6th day of April, 2017
I.D. (T) No. 12/2008
Pondicherry Hindustan,
. . Petitioner
Thozhilalar Sangam (PHLTS)
No. LIG 204, Housing Board,
Kurumbapet, Muthirayarpalayam,
Puducherry.
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Pond’s Exports Limited,
(Foot Wear Factory),
Post Box No. 18, Vazhudavur Road,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial
dispute coming on 14-2-2017
for final hearing before me in the presence of T vl.
P. R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,
Counsel for the petitioner Thiru L. Sathish, Counsel
for the respondent upon bearing 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.161/AIL/LAB/
J/2008, dated 15-12-2008 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Pondicherry
Hindustan Thozhilalar Sangam against the management
of M/s. Pond's Exports Limited (Foot Wear Factory),
Puducherry, over charter of demands such as increase
of Basic Pay for each grade, annual increment, fixed
dearness allowance for 2000 points, variable dearness
allowance, HRA, Production incentive Pay, etc., 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 petitioner in its claim petition has stated
as follows:-
(i) The Pondicherry Hindustan Thozhilar Sangam is
a registered Trade Union and the union had raised the
charter of demand for wage revision before the
Management of respondent vide letter, dated 1-3-2008,
the respondent did not consider the demands of the
Union and on the other hand, compelled the entire
workers to opt for voluntary retirement and left from
the service, the Union workers did not accept the
proposal of the management and raised the industrial
dispute over the charter of demand for wage revision
and other allowances before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry. Several rounds of direct
talks were held between the petitioner union and the
respondent management, but, no settlement was arrived
at between them, the conciliation proceeding ended in
failure, hence, the conciliation had left the matter to
this
Industrial
Tribunal
for
adjudication
and
accordingly, the Government of Puducherry referred
this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with the
above-mentioned issues.
(ii) The respondent factory started in the year 1989
and it is a subsidiary of Hindustan Unilever Limited
which is a Multi-national company of United Kingdom
and the company deals in variety of consumer goods
697
18 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
and established brand name for various products and
had an annual turnover of several Hundred of Crores
and it had common balance sheet for all its division,
the company acquired a number of leading Indian
Companies during the last fifteen years and its
financial capacity is very well to meet the wage
demand of the petitioner union, the company availing
benefits like substantial Sales Tax concession, power
concession and substantial subsidies given by the
Government and setup his factory in various places of
the Union territory of Puducherry, that in the
respondent factory more than 200 permanent workers
and 400 Casual and Contract workers engaged in the
day to day production activities, the first batch of the
workmen were recruited in the year 1989 as a trainee,
they were paid ` 475 per month as a consolidated pay,
and no bonus given to them and in the case of
temporary workers they were paid ` 17.10 per day and
in the year 1993, the workers were made permanent,
and they were paid a sum of `1,600 consolidated per
month.
(iii) Initially, there was no trade union, after
formation of petitioner Trade Union first time in the
year 1995 the union raised the charter of demand and
entered into the 18(1) settlement with the respondent
management, thereby the workers were got increased
from 1600 to 2275 and thereafter, the Union entered
several settlement with the management with regard to
the wage revision of the workers, that in the year 2002,
the Union raised the charter of demand for wage
revision before the management and thereafter, the said
matter went to this Court for adjudication, meanwhile,
the respondent management entered into the 18(1)
settlement with the individual workers and reported
before this Tribunal in the said dispute that the
majority of the individual workers were accepted the
wage revision, accordingly, the said industrial dispute
was closed as against which the petitioner union
preferred the Writ Petition WP. No. 25952 of 2008
same is pending before the High Court, while so, the
last settlement entered between the Management and
the workers, came to an end in the year 2007, hence, the
petitioner union raised the new charter of demand for
wage revision etc., on 7-3-2008, but, the Management
did not consider the demand of the workers and also
wanted to recruit the new workers for very meager
wage, instead of considering the demand of the
workers who put their length of service in the
respondent management, hence, the petitioner union
raised charter of demand for wage revision, ultimately
the matter went to the Conciliation Officer and now, it
has been referred before this Tribunal that the
petitioner union raised the charter of demand for wage
revision and other allowances.
(iv) The Union stated that 99 % of the workers are
married and have children and also parents to support,
therefore, for a family of four, to support itself in
Puducherry region, approximately a sum of ` 27,400.
There is no comparable Industry in Puducherry region
with kind of financial capacity of the respondent
management, therefore, it not possible to apply the
standard of comparable Industry in the Puducherry
region in respect of dispute. The quantum of wage
revision and facilities are (i) The need of workmen and
his defendants, (ii) The capacity of the respondent
management to the meet above need, (iii) The wage
levels of Supervisor, Executive and Managerial Staff
and upwards, (iv) The overall Expenditure pattern of
respondent management on various counts, (v) And the
wage structure of the other unit of the respondent
management both in Puducherry region and other
States, hence, the union prays this Court to pass an
Award revising the wage in terms of the charter of
demand, dated 7-3-2008, Annexure-I with retrospective
effect from 31-10-2016 and issue such further or
other appropriate orders or direction as deemed fit
and proper, Award cost in favour of the workmen for
the legal proceeding.
3. The respondent in its counter has stated as
follows :
(i) The respondent denied all the allegations
contained in the claim statement and the respondent
unit had two recognized unions viz: Ponds Export Ltd
Workers Welfare Association (PELWWA) and Pond’s
Exports Uzhaipalar Sangam (PEUS) which have been
representing majority of workmen and the petitioner
union was formed in the year 1995 and it was minority
union commending less than 10% representations and
was an un-recognized union and from the year 2002,
the respondent unit witnessed downward due to the
prices of all leather products saw downward slide and
many international buyers had drastically reduced their
intake and had imposed strict quality standards leading
to huge rejection of products and inspite of such
slump in its business, the respondent was determined
to run the Puducherry factory, the poor performance of
the respondent's factory in general is fully known to all
its workers including the petitioner union and inspite
of all adversaries in the business, the respondent had
never compromised on welfare of its workers and had
always paid the best salary package to its workers as
per long term settlements from time to time, the
average salary for the unskilled and skilled workers as
on 2008 were around ` 8,500 and ` 9,600 respectively,
which was far higher than any of the comparative
industries in and around Puducherry.
698
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 July 2017
(ii) Apart from the salary the respondent also had
various welfare schemes for workers, such as
subsidized canteens, family day gatherings, sports day
functions, family planning benefit, etc., and the last
wage settlement between respondent and its majority
union PELWWA was on 24-10-2002 which expired on
30-9-2006, which was acceptable to all the workers,
was unacceptable to six office bearers of petitioner
union against which the petitioner had filed I.D.2/2002
for wage revision and other issues and the industrial
dispute was dismissed on merits on 19-12-2006,
specifically holding that petitioner is bound by the
majority decision and against the findings in ID (T).2/
2002 the petitioner challenged before Hon'ble High
Court in W.P.No.25952/2008 and the Hon'ble High
Court once again upheld the settlement with the
majority workers, dated 24-10-2002 and in exercise of
its extraordinary jurisdiction, directed the respondent
to extend the benefits of settlement, dated 24-10-2002
to the six workmen of the petitioner union and the
respondent complied with the directions of High Court
by sending the monetary benefits to six workers including
the one who was terminated in 2007 on 10-6-2011.
(iii) The settlement, dated 24-10-2002 came to an
end on 30-9-2006 and it gave a wage increase of
`1,500 and an incentive of ` 675 for a base output of
13 pairs per man day and consequent to the expiry of
the settlement, dated 24-10-2002, all the three unions
including the petitioner union representing the
workmen submitted a charter of demands and the
respondent discussed the LTS with the PELWAA union
who signed the last LTS and having majority of workers
and in the course of such negotiations, the respondent
made a proposal of wage increase of `1,400 per month
including an improved incentive scheme and however,
the workmen refused to understand the constraints of
respondent to bear any additional burden by way of
increase in wage and chose the path of confrontation,
the respondent even improved its offer to ` l,500 p.m.,
the union refused to accept and sign a settlement and
that when the wage settlement was getting delayed due
to the higher demand for wage increase, the workers
resorted to various illegal actions including go-slow
over several months from September 2007 which the
output per man day started declining below 13 pairs
per man day, the production chart for the year 2006
and 2007 would reveal a consistent reduction in
productivity level, the situation in October 2008
became so acute that as against the last average
production of about 16 pairs for a day which was
agreed to in the 12 (3) settlement in 2002 it came
down to a near 3.31 pairs per man, thus, the respondent
completely modernized the plant in the year 2007 and
expected an average production of 16 pairs per man,
the significant drop through go-slow hurt the business
drastically and the workers also suffered huge loss due
to low incentive earning, inspite of obvious drops in
their earnings, the workmen did not come forward to
remedy the situation clearly indicating that the
workmen were not having the will to work and the
fresh orders from overseas buyers stopped coming in
and by October 2008, there was practically no order,
nor was production done and since February 2007, the
respondent repeatedly communicated to all the
workmen through various notices and letters about the
danger of such go-slow agitation by the workmen,
especially in an export unit which is sensitive to both
price as well as timely deliveries which directly impact
the viability of the factory.
(iv) It is further stated that despite the various
agitations by the workmen, the respondent continued to
give opportunity to the unions to have wage negotiation
and to arrive at an amicable settlement with the hope
that after wage settlement, normal productivity would be
restored and the business could be resurrected, finally,
since there was no improvement in productivity and the
respondent incurred loss in its business because of
agitation of workers and their uncompromising attitude
coupled with other variable factors it had no options
but, to suspend its production activities with effect
from 21-10-2008 and that it would have been far easier
and simpler for it to have decided on closing the unit
after complying with all legal formalities, such closure
would have been far more cost effective and hassle
free for the respondent but, the respondent in its
wisdom considered the collective benefits of its
workers and was inclined to be more generous and
gratuitous towards its workers who had served the
company for good number of years, therefore, instead
of closing down the factory, respondent offered
a handsome and generous voluntary retirement scheme
package to all its workers on 21-10-2008 and initially
the management offered an
ex gratia
amount
calculated @ 3 months PF wages for every completed
year of service and another ex gratia of 2½ months
wages besides an additional amount of ` 50,000 and
all the three union, were not satisfied with the
compensation offered and wanted it to be improved,
accordingly, the management offered an additional
amount of ` 15,000 to those who accepts the scheme
and a further sum of ` 10,000 if, everyone accepts
VRS, the workmen who were members of the two
unions namely Pond's Exports Limited Workers
Welfare Association and Pond's Exports Uzhaipavargal
699
18 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Sangam accepted the VRS and left the service and out
of 163 workmen who were then in employment,
97 workmen opted for VRS, received the compensation
and left the service.
(v) It is further stated that between 21st October and
29th October 2009, M/s. A. Sivamurthy, S. Kandasamy,
J . J a ya r a ma n , P. T h i r u ma l , R . R a ma l i n g a m,
V. Sundaramoorthy, S. Muthulingam, V. Vijayashankar
and B. Balaraman personally approached Mr. Youvarajan,
Officer - HR Department and pleaded with him that as
they were juniors in services and VRS compensation
should be not less than ` 3 lakhs and therefore, they
should be considered for some additional amount and
against which the respondent transferred the 66 workmen
to the other units of respondent in other States, which
was not accepted by the workers and they raised
agitations in various forms including illegal strike,
gheraoing picketing, obstructing movement of men and
materials, compelling the respondent to approach Civil
Court in O.S. 1476/2008 seeking injunction against
the striking workers. The petitioner also gave
complaints to various authorities, filed writ petitions
challenging
the
transfers
and
conciliations
proceedings. The Government of Puducherry referred
the dispute to this Court and in the mean time, the
petitioner union filed three writ petitions before the
Hon'ble High Court Madras in W.P.No. 26180/2008,
22319/2009 and 399/2010 challenging alleged closure
of respondent Unit, the transfer order and for
amendment of reference G. O. RT. No.30/AIL/LAB/J/
2009, dated 24-3-2009. The Hon'ble High Court vide
its
common
order,
dated
1-12-2010
directed
Government of Puducherry to amend the reference to
make it comprehensive covering all the disputes
concerning the petitioner and respondent and for
adjudication. Accordingly, the Government has referred
a comprehensive dispute in I.D(T).3/2011 for
adjudication.
(vi) If, the transfer of 66 workers is upheld, the
petitioners cannot seek the relief of wage revision as
the 66 workers will be governed by the wage patterns
and structures as existing the transferred units. The
respondent admitted that it had completely stopped its
production activities from 21-10-2008 and except for
the workforce, the rest of the workforce has left its
service. The employees are seeking wage revision from
the date of their charter of demands, dated 7-3-2008,
If, respondent's decision to suspend its production
from 21-10-2008 is upheld, there cannot be a wage
revision for a period of 7 months, especially when
majority of workers have resigned their job. Therefore,
the adjudication in the present ID is intrinsically
dependent on the final outcome of ID(T).3/2011 and
hence, the present ID cannot be adjudicated before
adjudication of ID(T).3/2011 and the respondent prays
that all the proceedings in the present ID shall be
either stayed or suspended till the adjudication of
dispute in ID(T) 3/2011. The respondent further stated
that petitioners have not made out a case for upward
revision of wages, a demand for wage revision in term
of charter of demands, dated 7-3-2008 without even
specifying the exact nature of such demands and the
legal, moral and contractual and factual justification
for such multifarious demands. Pleadings in claim
petition giving vital particulars regarding actual
demands raised and the justification for such demands
are absolutely essential for the respondent to respond,
thus, respondent prays to reject the claim petition for
want of necessary pleadings regarding the charter of
demands and legal justification for such exorbitant
demands. The respondent further stated that in order to
claim upward wage revision, the fundamental
requirements is to specify the existing wage structure
and then plead and prove why the existing wage
structure as on the date of raising charter of demands
needs to be revised. Pleadings in the claim petition are
woefully short of such essential pleadings, there is
absolutely no legal, moral or contractual mandate that
on expiry of 12(3) settlement or 18(1) settlement
governing wages of workers, the employer is bound to
make an upward revision in wages and other amenities.
(vii) The balance sheet of Hindustan Unilever
Limited as a whole which is a conglomeration of as
many as companies manufacturing wide and different
ranges of products cannot be the factor to decide the
paying capacity of respondent, the performance of
respondent unit alone is the criteria for deciding its
financial capacity, the standard to guide the wages
revision. The prospect of respondent's company in
future is very bleak, there is no scope for increasing
the productivity of workers in near future in view of
suspension of production since 21-10-2008 and
resignation of 97 workers and transfer of remaining 66
workers, thus, there is no scope for considering the
request for any wage revision. Hence, the respondent
prays this Court to dismiss the claims made in the
dispute.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.l was examined,
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 were marked. On the side of the
respondent RW.1 was examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.R96
were marked.
700
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 July 2017
5. The point for consideration is that whether the
dispute raised by the petitioner sangam against the
respondent management over charter of demands such
as increase of Basic Pay for each grade, annual
increment, fixed dearness allowance for 2000 points,
variable
dearness allowance,
HRA,
production
incentive pay, etc., is justified or not?
6. Both side arguments were heard. On the side of
the respondent, written arguments were filed and in
support of its case, the learned Counsel for the
respondent relied upon the following citations in
(i) CDJ 1965 SC 339
(ii) CDJ 1975 SC 518
(iii) CDJ 2005 Kar HC 403
(iv) Unreported citation in M/s. Bharati Bhawan
(P&D), Patna Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors on 29
July, 2015 - by High Court of Judicature at Patna in
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9645of 2007.
7. It is the evidence of PW.1 that the trade union is
registered under the Trade Union Act and its members
are permanent workmen of the respondent factory
and service conditions of the workers are determined on
the basis of the settlement time to time entered and
the last wage settlement was signed on 24-10-2002 for
four years period came to an end on 24-10-2006 and
on expiry of the said settlement, the petitioner union
has raised a new charter of demands for wage increase
and other allowances for a period of four years from
24-10-2006 and the respondent did not offered any
wage increase after 24-10-2006 and they have not
come forward to negotiate the wage demand
with the petitioner and therefore, they raised the
industrial dispute over the revision of wage before the
Labour Officer(Conciliation), which was ended in
failure on 27-11-2008 and this case was referred to
this Court by the Government to decide the dispute
raised by the petitioner union against the respondent
management over charter of demands such as increase
of Basic Pay for each grade, annual increment, fixed
dearness allowance for 2000 points, variable dearness
allowance, HRA, production incentive pay, etc., are
justified or not and that the respondent suspend
the production and the workers were illegal laid off and
the respondent permanently closed the factory and
shifted the same to Potheri village, where the
respondent running the factory by the workers who
have opted VRS in the respondent factory and those
workers who had not opted VRS are denied
employment and that therefore, the said dispute has
been raised for fixation of wage, for the period worked
from 24-10-2006 to till the date of illegal lay off and
consequently shifted the factory to Potheri village
and the union members of the petitioner are entitled
arrears of revised wage from 24-10-2006.
8. In support of his evidence, the petitioner has
exhibited the registration certificate as Ex.P1 , list of
the union members as Ex.P2, Charter of demands as
Ex.P3, reply of the management as Ex.P4, Reply of the
petitioner union to the management as Ex.P5,
Conciliation notice as Ex.P6, Failure report of the
Conciliation Officer as Ex.P7, Reference made by the
Government as Ex.P8. These documents and evidence
would go to show that the petitioner union has raised
the charter of demands before the respondent
management and the same was denied by the
management and therefore, the conciliation notice was
issued and subsequently, the conciliation was failed
and the case was referred by the Government to this
Tribunal to decide the dispute over the charter of
demands. Furthermore, the petitioner has also
exhibited the Delivery challan in the name of the
respondent as Ex.P9, Profit and Loss account of the
respondent as Ex.P10, Form 20 B as Ex.Pll and Ex.Pl2,
declaration form submitted by the respondent as
Ex.P13, Export invoice cum delivery challan as Ex.P14
to Ex.Pl7, Form 23 AC as Ex.P18 to Ex.P20, Packing
list of Poothurai Factory as Ex.P21, Invoice cum
challan as Ex.P22, Invoice as Ex.P23, declaration
submitted by the respondent as Ex.P24, Consignee
copy of respondent factory as Ex.P25, Tax
information of the respondent factory as Ex.P26. the
financial performance 10 year track record as Ex.P27,
Wage settlement of Godrej as Ex.P28, Wage
settlement of NCR as Ex.P29, Wage settlement of
Hindustan Unilever Limited Daman Detergent Factory
as Ex.P30, Wage settlement of HUL Kandla as Ex.P3l,
wage settlement of HUL Brooke Bond Limited as
Ex.P32, wage settlement of Lucas Limited as Ex.P33.
From the documents, Ex.P9 to Ex.Pl2 would evident
that the company has not run in the profitable manner
and it has met a loss in the financial year 1-1-2007
to 31-12-2007 and these would go to show that the
company has no financial capacity and the documents
Ex.P28 to Ex.P33 would evident that some of the
related establishments have arrived the settlement to
raise the wages of the workers.
9. On the other hand, the respondent management
has examined the RW.1, the Executive HR of the
respondent company and he has deposed that the
petitioner union is not a recognized one and it is only
701
18 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the minority trade union when they submitted the
charter of demands to the respondent and that there
was two other unions in the respondent factory which
are majority union and that the respondent factory has
given best wages and other privileges to its workers
and on expiry of wage settlement in October, 2006
only the majority unions have submitted the charter of
demands and the respondent management has held
wage discussion with the PELWWA union as it was the
majority union and the workers of the petitioner union
have reduced their works by go slow tactics from
January 2007 and the production of the finished shoes
were reduced to 16 pairs per day and to improve the
same various notices were given by the respondent to
the union members and because of the continuous
defiance, the respondent could not revive production
and sustained losses for more than 3 years and the
establishment had to cease production on 21st
October, 2008 since there is no new orders and
continuous loss for more than 1½ years due to the
illegal activities of the workers and hence, it become
completely unviable and there was no new orders for
production and suspend the production activities with
effect from 21-10-2008 and offered Voluntary
Retirement Scheme to all the workers on 21-10-2008
and out of the total 163 workers, 97 workers accepted
the VRS and only 66 workers wanted re-employment
and that therefore, they have been transferred to
various units but, it was not accepted by the workers
and that they have raised the industrial dispute
challenging the transfer and other issues and it is
pending before this Court in I.D.No.3/2011 and that
claim statement is very vague and lacks material
particulars such as the last drawn wages of workers, the
precise and exact of revision to each of workers,
jurisdiction for such hike in the wage structure.
10. The respondent also exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.R96.
Ex.R2 to Ex.R28 would evident that there was a
settlement for the year 2002-2006 made under section
18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act on 24-10-2002 and
the respondent factory has issued notice to improve the
production on various dates on 14-3-2007, 26-6-2007,
11-7-2007, 17-7-2007, 20-8-2007, 13-12-2007, 16-4-2008,
18-4-2008, 19-4-2008, 21-4-2008, 2-5-2008, 5-5-2008,
6-5-2008, 8-5-2008, 9-5-2008, 22-5-2008, 30-5-2008,
2-6-2008 and 7-8-2008, in which it was stated by the
respondent management that the workers not to indulge
in go slow production and the management has also
requested to restore normal production and other
notices were issued to the workers on 12-8-2008,
20-8-2008,
27-8-2008,
5-9-2008
and
9-9-2008
advising the workers to increase productivity and it is
also revealed from the Ex.R29 to Ex.R38 notices of
the management that the management has informed the
union and its members to avoid to tactics on go slow
production with details. Ex.R39 to Ex.R45 would also
evident that notices given by the respondent
management announcing the VRS scheme to the union
and its members on various dates. Ex.R46 to Ex.R83
would reveal that union has sent a letter to the
Conciliation Officer, Factory Manager, Labour
Commissioner, Station House Officer, Tahsildar and
these six workers have been transferred and the union
also sent a letter to Government authorities,
Conciliation Officer on VRS and conciliation
proceedings were failed on 20-2-2009 and that
therefore, the reference was made by the Labour
Department on 24-3-2009 and some of the employees
have opted for VRS and on 17-2-2010, the meeting was
held. Ex.R84 to Ex.R96 would reveal the fact that the
respondent company has made an agreement with
Maulik Leather Crafts and with Auroma Leather Crafts
and the said agreement was renewed by the respondent
management and also the said agreement was registered
and licence was obtained.
11. From the above evidence and documents, it is to
be seen that whether the petitioner has established
their case and whether they are entitled for the revised
scale as claimed by them in the claim statement. On
this aspect, the evidence and records are carefully
perused. These are the admitted fact that the members
of the petitioner union are the workmen of the
respondent factory till 21-10-2008 and that there was
settlement made between the respondent management
and the workers under section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act for a period of 4 years regarding their
revision of pay and it is also not in dispute that the
settlement came to an end on 30-9-2006 and
subsequently the petitioner union has raised the said
dispute claiming the wage revision and other
allowances from the respondent management. It is also
an admitted fact that the respondent has closed the
factory on 21-10-2008 and before the closure of the
factory, they have announced for the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme to its workers and the same was
accepted by the majority of workmen, 97 out of 163
and the remaining 66 were transferred to the other
units held by the respondent management and it is also
not in dispute that there was three union in the
respondent factory and the settlement was arrived in
the year 2002 for the period till 24-10-2006 with the
PELWWA union.
12. It is also admitted by both sides that the
respondent has suffered due to the go slow work and
was not able to run the factory profitably, various
notices were given to improve the production for the
702
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 July 2017
period from 2006 to 2008 and even after that notices
since there was no improvement in the production, the
company has been closed on 21-10-2008 and the
management has not accepted the charter of demands
made by the petitioner union to revise the wage and
allowances and it is also admitted that now, the factory
is not in existence and it was closed by the respondent
management in the year 2008 itself and except these
six employees, other employees have not raised any
dispute regarding their wages since they have accepted
18(1) settlement arrived between the respondent
management and the PELWWA union and most of the
employees have accepted the voluntary retirement
scheme and these employees have only raised this
dispute and the petitioner union members have not
signed the Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 and it is also admitted by
the petitioner union that the factory has been closed
since the production was very low and the factory was
not running profitably and that therefore, it can be held
that
closure
of
business
by
the
respondent
management is not illegal and that therefore, it is to
be decided whether the refusal made by the respondent
management to revise the wages and allowances to the
petitioner can be accepted or not.
13. It is the main contention of the respondent that
the petitioner union is a not a recognized union and it
can not raise the dispute for wage revision and also the
respondent factory has two more union in the name
PELWWA and PEUS which were the majority unions.
These fact would reveal from Ex.Rl that the trade union
in the name of PELWWA has signed the settlement,
dated 24-10-2002. On the other hand, it is also not
established by the petitioner that the petitioner union
is a major union and also recognized union and nothing
is before this Court to infer that it is a major union or
recognized by the respondent management. The
pleadings of the petitioner union is very silent with
regard to the above. On this aspect, the evidence of
PW.1 considered and the evidence of PW.1 runs as
follows:
“
Ex.P5
trade union
trade union-
trade union-
Ex.P2W-
Pond’s
Exports Unit Welfare Association-
”
From the above evidence, it is clear that PW.1 has
admitted that there was three unions in the respondent
establishment and the petitioner union has not obtained
any signature from its members and the petitioner
union has not submitted the members list to the
Registrar of trade union and also admitted that
settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act arrived at between the respondent
management and PELWWA union on 24-10-2002 and
except these six union members others have accepted
the settlement and their salary has been revised. These
fact would go to show that petitioner himself admitted
that except these six union members, all other workers
of the respondent factory has accepted the settlement
and their salary has been revised as per the settlement
arrived at between the respondent management in the
year 2002 under section 18(l) of Industrial Disputes Act.
14. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied
upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 2005 Kar HC 403.
The President Labour Organization of HAL Vs. The
Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited wherein,
the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been held that-
703
18 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
"In the instant case it is not in dispute that in the
industrial establishment there is another registered
trade union which admittedly has membership of
more than 80% of the employees. The management
has recognized the said union. In so far as the
petitioner union is concerned till today they are not
able to give list of the members of the union. They
are unable to state how many members are there in
their union. Though in the counter statement it was
specifically stated that the union is not duly
authorized to espouse the dispute and they have no
locus standi to represent the workers of the
establishment except producing the certificate of
registration, bye-laws and a copy of the resolution
passed by the Executive Committee nothing is placed
on record to show the membership of the union and
the number of persons it represent. In fact the
respondents have filed along with the
statement of objections an affidavit stating that
seven
members
who
have
subscribed
to
the
memorandum of association to the petitioner union
since
have
retired
on
reaching
the
age
of
superannuation and all of them earlier were
members of the recognized union and, therefore, it is
contended that this union is not a representative
union
of
the
employees
of
the
industrial
establishment and, therefore, they have no locus
standi to espouse the dispute. .................. Under
these circumstances, as rightly held by the Industrial
Tribunal, the petitioner is not a representative union
of the entire employees of the establishment, they
have no locus standi to raise this industrial dispute
and the Government was in total error even in
making the reference to the Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication, though this objection was raised by the
management at the earliest point of time, at the
conciliation. I do not find any merit in this petition.
Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs”.
From the above observation, it is clear that the
dispute pertains to the entire labour force can be
raised only by the recognized majority union and the
union which is not a recognized one cannot be termed
as representative union of the employees of the
industrial establishment and therefore, the petitioner
union is not a representative union of the entire
workmen of the respondent establishment and they
have no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute and
it is also pointed out by the respondent Counsel that an
unrecognized union cannot raise the demands of
general nature and it can only negotiate the individual
problems of the members of individual nature and that
therefore, it is clear that the petitioner union has
absolutely no locus standi to raise the industrial
dispute of wage revision since it is the minority union
and also unrecognized by the respondent establishment
and furthermore, it is also pointed out by the
respondent management, the petitioner union has not
laid any evidence to prove the existing wage structure
of the respondent's factory and it is also not
established by the petitioner that which of the wage has
to be raised and on what basis it can be raised and
wage and allowance can be raised by putting the
material evidence before this Court and considering
the above facts that the financial position of the
respondent factory and what is the wage being obtained
by the other workers in the same industry situated in
the region and what is the emoluments that each and
every worker would receive if, the charter of demand is
accepted by the Tribunal have not been established by
the petitioner union.
15. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent
has also relied upon the following decisions :
M/s Bharati Bhawan (P&D), Patna Vs. The State of
Bihar and Ors. on 29 July, 2015 - Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 9645 of 2007. Wherein, the
Patna High Court has been held that:
“In series of cases, it has been held by Apex Court
of this Country that fixation of wages and dearness
allowance has to be done on industry-cum-
region basis having regard to the financial capacity
of the industry. ................ The industrial
adjudicator has to take due note of the position of
the employer
per se and in relation to other
comparable concerns, the nature of the business of
the employer the financial capacity of the employer,
the financial and economic conditions.”
Mathura Prasad Srivastava & Others Vs. Saugor
Electric Supply Company Limited and Another reported
in CDJ 1965 SC 339, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has been held that
“The Tribunal then considered the question of
revision of wages and in that connexion went
into the financial capacity of the company to bear the
burden of increase in wages. It found that the profit
of the company in the year 1959-60 was ` 32,986.
It also found that the increase in wage-scales
demanded by the workman would add ` 30,000 annually
to the wage-bill with a recurring increase of ` 5,000
annually on account of increments. It, therefore, held,
that the company was not in a financial position to bear
704
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 July 2017
the burden of increase in wages.......... We have already
set out the reasons which impelled the Tribunal to
reject the claim for revision of wages. The reasons
given by the Tribunal for not increasing the wages
appear to us to be sound. The financial position of the
company is such that it cannot bear the burden of
a further wage-increase. As the Tribunal has pointed out,
the net profit for the year 1959-60 was only ` 32,986.
While the wage-increase demanded was of the order of
` 30,000 for one year and thereafter, there would be an
increase at the rate of ` 5,000 per year on account of
incremental scales. Obviously, the company has not the
financial capacity to bear this increase in wages. We,
therefore, confirm the order of the Tribunal rejecting
the increase in wages.”
Sangam Press Limited Vs. Workmen reported in
CDJ 1975 SC 518, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has been held that,
In a case of a fair wage, besides the principle of
industry-cum-region, the company's capacity to bear
the financial burden must receive due consideration.
The past performances of the company and the future
prospects with a totality of the picture must be present
in the mind of the adjudicator in deciding a dispute of
this nature.... ....Whether the Poona presses in the
aforesaid Award are comparable concerns may require
investigation into facts. We, therefore, declined to
permit the learned Counsel to sustain the Award on
other grounds in this appeal”.
From the above observations, it is also clear that the
Tribunal has to consider the financial capacity of the
company to bear the burden of increase in wages and
the profit of the company and the increase in wage-
scales demanded by the workmen has to be considered.
On this aspect, the documents exhibited by the
petitioner Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 were perused. Those
documents would reveal that the company was run of
profit of `1,137 for the period of 1-1-2006 to 31-6-2006
and also the company was on loss for a tune of
` 22,173 for the period of 1-1-2007 to 31-12-2007.
PW.1 has also admitted the above fact in his cross
examination and therefore, considering the financial
condition of the respondent factory, we can not
directed to revise the wage scale for the period as
claimed by the petitioner union and in this case also the
financial position of the respondent company to bear
the burden of increase of wages has not been
established by the petitioner.
16. These facts and circumstances would go to show
that the respondent company has been closed since the
company met with loss and has not earn any profit and
therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner to
revise the wage and to increase the allowances can not
be accepted since the company has not having the
capacity to bear the increase in wages and that
therefore, the charter of demands cannot be accepted
as prayed by the petitioner and therefore, they are not
entitled for any relief as prayed for.
17. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 6th day of April, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW. 1— 14-2-2014 - Pannerdasee
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
8-8-1995
Copy
of
the
union
registration certificate.
Ex.P2 —
Copy of the union member
list.
Ex.P3
7-3-2008
Copy of the petitioner
union charter of demand.
Ex.P4
18-3-2008
Copy of
the
respondent
management reply.
Ex.P5
31-3-2008
Copy of the petitioner reply
to the management reply.
Ex.P6
21-5-2008
Copy of the Conciliation
notice.
Ex.P7 27-11-2008
Copy of the Failure report
Ex.P8 15-12-2008
Copy of the Government
reference.
Ex.P9
13-2-2009
Copy
of
the
Delivery
challan stands in the name
of respondent.
Ex.P10
—
Copy of the Profit and loss
account of the respondent
and Form 23 Ac submitted
before the Company Law
Board.
Ex.P11 31-3-2010
Copy of the Form 20B.
Ex.P12 25-7-2011
Copy of the Form 20B.
705
18 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P13 22-4-2013
Copy of the Declaration
Form
submitted
by
respondent before Central
Excise Department.
Ex.P14 22-4-2013
Copy of the Export invoice
of 3rd respondent.
Ex.P15 22-4-2013
Copy
of
the
Export
i n v o i c e - c u m - d e l i v e r y
challan.
Ex.P16 22-4-2013
Copy
of
the
Export
i n v o i c e - c u m - d e l i v e r y
challan.
Ex.P17 22-4-2013
Copy
of
the
Export
i n v o i c e - c u m - d e l i v e r y
challan.
Ex.P18
1-4-2013
Copy of the Form 23AC.
Ex.P19 20-7-2012
Copy of the Form 23AC.
Ex.P20 25-7-2012
Copy of the Form 23AC.
Ex.P21 27-7-2012
Copy of the packing list in
Poothurai factory.
Ex.P22 27-7-2012
Copy of the Invoice-cum-
challan.
Ex.P23 10-7-2012
Copy of the Invoice.
Ex.P24 10-7-2012
Copy of
the Respondent
declaration
sub mitted
before
Central
Excise
Department.
Ex.P25 27-7-2012
C o n si g n e e
c o p y
o f
respondent factory.
Ex.P26 28-7-2012
Copy of the Tax information
of the respondent factory.
Ex.P27 —
Copy
of
the
Financial
performance 10 year track
record.
Ex.P28
—
Copy of the Wage settlement
of Godrej.
Ex.P29 —
Copy of the Wage settlement
of NCR.
Ex.P3013-12-2007
C o p y o f t h e Wa g e
settlement of Hindustan
Unilever Limited Daman
Detergent Factory.
Ex.P31 4-12-2008
C o p y o f t h e Wa g e
settlement of HUL Kandla.
Ex.P32 23-3-2011
C o p y o f t h e Wa g e
settlement of HUL Brooke
Bond Ltd.,
Ex.P33 —
C o p y o f t h e Wa g e
settlement of Lucas Ltd.,
List of respodent’s witness:
RW. 1—22-1-2016 - Youvarajan
List of respodent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1—23-12-2015 - Letter of Authorization.
Ex.R2—24-10-2002 - Copy of the long term
settlement 2002-2006.
Ex.R3—07-02-2003 - Copy of the memorandum
of understanding.
Ex.R4—14-3-2007 -
Copy of the notice to
improve
production
displayed at factory.
Ex.R5—26-6-2007 -
Copy
of
the
notice
displayed at factory
Ex.R6—11-7-2007 -
Copy of the notice on go
slow and to improve
production displayed at
factory.
Ex.R7—17-7-2007 -
Copy of the notice to
improve
production/
quality
displayed
at
factory.
Ex.R8—20-8-2007 -
Copy of the notice to
improve
production
displayed at factory.
Ex.R9—13-12-2007 - Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R10—16-4-2008 - Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R11—18-4-2008 - Copy of the notice to
improve production and not
to indulge in go slow
displayed at factory.
Ex.R12—19-4-2008 - Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R13—19-4-2008 - Copy of the notice to
desist from slowing down
displayed at factory.
Ex.R14—21-4-2008- Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
706
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 July 2017
Ex.R15—2-5-2008 -
Copy of the notice
on conveyor displayed at
factory.
Ex.R16—5-5-2008 -
Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R17—6-5-2008 -
Copy of the notice to
restore normal production
displayed at factory.
Ex.R18—8-5-2008 -
Copy of the notice to
restore normal production
displayed at factory.
Ex.R19—9-5-2008 -
Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R20—22-5-2008 - Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R21—30-5-2008 - Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R22—2-6-2008 -
Copy of the notice to
improve production displayed
at factory.
Ex.R23—7-8-2008 -
Copy of the notice on
go-slow
displayed
at
factory.
Ex.R24—12-8-2008 - Copy
of
the
notice
advising to restore normaly
displayed at factory.
Ex.R25—20-8-2008 - Copy of the notice advising
to increase productivity
displayed at factory.
Ex.R26—27-8-2008 - Copy of the notice advising
to increase productivity
displayed at factory.
Ex.R27—5-9-2008 -
Copy of the notice not to
indulge go-slow activities
displayed at factory.
Ex.R28—9-9-2008 -
Copy of the notice advising
to increase productivity
displayed at factory.
Ex.R29—21-6-2008 - Copy of the letter
to
union with annexures.
Ex.R30—5-7-2008 -
Copy of the letter to
PELWWA Union on go
slow with details.
Ex.R31—5-7-2008 -
Copy of the letter to PEUS
Union on go slow with
details.
Ex.R32—7-8-2008 -
Copy of the letter to
PELWWA Union on wage
cut and not to indulge in go
slow with details.
Ex.R33—19-8-2008- Copy of the letter to
PHLTS Union on go slow.
Ex.R34—1-9-2008 -
Copy of the letter to
Coordinated
Unions
Association regarding go
slow.
Ex.R35—4-9-2008 -
Copy of the letter to
Coordinated
Union’s
Association regarding go
slow/wage cut.
Ex.R36—10-9-2008- Copy of the letter to
Coordinated
Union’s
Association
regarding
forcing to remove mgt.
Ex.R37—11-9-2008- Copy of the letter to
Coordinated
Union’s
Association regarding delay
in
commencement
of
production.
Ex.R38—17-9-2008- Copy of the letter to
Coordinated
Union’s
Association regarding go
slow.
Ex.R39—11-10-2008- Copy of the letter from
PHLTS union.
Ex.R40—22-10-2008-Copy of the letter to
workers
by Coordinated
U n i o n ’s A s s o c i a t i o n
regarding VRS.
Ex.R41—21-10-2008- Copy of the notice on VRS
announcement by management.
Ex.R42—22-10-2008- Copy of the notice on VRS
announcement by management.
Ex.R43—23-10-2008-Copy of the notice on
VRS additional amount by
management.
Ex.R44—23-10-2008-Copy of the notice on
other benefits of VRS by
management.
707
18 July 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R45—25-10-2008 -Copy of the notice to the
VRS opted employees.
Ex.R46—29-10-2008 -Copy of the union letter to
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.R47—31-10-2008 -Copy of the union letter to
Factory Manager.
Ex.R48—1-11-2008 - Copy of the union letter to
Labour Commissioner.
Ex.R49—5-11-2008 - Copy of the letter to
Station House Officer.
Ex.R50—5-11-2008 - Copy of the letter to
Tahsildar.
Ex.R51—6-11-2008 - Copy of the report in
non-cognizable offences.
Ex.R52—5-11-2008 - Copy of the notice on
transfer.
Ex.R53—5-11-2008 - Copy of the transfer letters
of 66 with entitlements.
Ex.R54—6-11-2008 - Copy of the union letter to
Government Authorities on
VRS.
Ex.R55—6-11-2008 - Copy of the union letter
Conciliation
Officer
on
VRS.
Ex.R56—6-11-2008 - Copy
of
the
advisory
notice on overstay.
Ex.R57—6-11-2008 - Copy of the letter from
Conciliation
Officer
on
Service Condition.
Ex.R58—24-11-2008-Copy
of
the
reply
to
Conciliation Officer notice
6-11-2008.
Ex.R59—7-11-2008 - Copy of the Letter to
Inspector of Factories on
inspection.
Ex.R60—7-11-2008 - Copy of the letter to
Conciliation
Officer
on
overstay.
Ex.R61—7-11-2008 - Copy of the report from
Police Station to Labour
Commissioner.
Ex.R62—7-11-2008 - Copy of the notice on
overstay.
Ex.R63—7-11-2008 - Copy of the complaint
letter to Police Station by
Management.
Ex.R64—7-11-2008 - Copy of the notice on
overstay.
Ex.R65—8-11-2008 - Copy of the notices on
overstay.
Ex.R66—8-11-2008 - Copy of the letter to
Station House Officer on
unauthorized protests.
Ex.R67—15-11-2008- Copy of the notice to all the
transferred employees.
Ex.R68—21-11-2008- Copy of the notice of
enquiry from Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.R69—24-11-2008- Copy of the reply to
Conciliation
Officer
notice.
Ex.R70—22-12-2008-Copy of the notice from
Commissioner of Labour.
Ex.R71—2-1-2009 -
Copy of the letter by
Management
on
wages
dispute
to
Labour
Commissioner.
Ex.R72—22-12-2008-Copy of the notice from
Commissioner of Labour.
Ex.R73—5-1-2009 -
Copy of the reply letter to
notice from LC, dated,
22-12-2008.
Ex.R74—22-1-2009 - Copy of the letter to
Management to Conciliation
Officer on 2248/08/LO(C)/
All dispute.
Ex.R75—13-2-2009 - Copy of the letter from
union
to
Labour
Commissioner.
Ex.R76—20-2-2009 - Copy of the report
on failure of conciliation.
Ex.R77—24-3-2009 - Copy of the Government
order
Labour
Department
reference of ID.
Ex.R78—9-4-2009 -
Copy of the show cause
notice
from
Labour
Department.
Ex.R79—27-4-2009 - Copy of the reply from
Management on show cause
notice.
Ex.R80—1-6-1997 -
Copy
of
Confirmation
Order of an employee.
Ex.R81—4-2-2009 -
Copy of the letter from
Arokiyadass on request for
VRS.
708
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[18 July 2017
Ex.R82—30-4-2009- Copy of the letter from
P. Janakiraman on request
for VRS.
Ex.R83—17-2-2010- Copy
of
the
points
discussed
during
the
meeting on 17-2-2010.
Ex.R84—1-9-1999-
Copy of the agreement
with
Maulick
Leather
Crafts.
Ex.R85—1-8-2004-
Copy
of
the
Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R86—1-8-2008-
Copy
of
the
Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R87—31-8-2010- Copy of the Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R88—18-8-2011- Copy of the Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R89—1-10-2003- Copy of the agreement
with Auroma Leather
Crafts.
Ex.R90—4-9-2004-
Copy
of
the
Auroma
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R91—31-12-2007-Copy of the Auroma
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R92—26-12-2009-Copy of the Auroma
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R93—31-12-2010-Copy of the Auroma
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R94—31-12-2011- Copy of the Auroma
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R95—31-12-2011- Copy of the certificate of
Registration under Contract
Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act 1970.
Ex.R96—
—
Copy
of
the
factory
licence.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 10/Lab./AIL/G/2017, Puducherry, dated 29th June 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the proposal for revision of minimum rates of wages payable to the employees engaged in Carpentry
and Blacksmithy Industries in the Union territory of Puducherry, was published as required under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act 11 of 1948) in the Labour Department's
notification issued vide G. O. Ms. No. 13/Lab./AIL/G/2016, dated 10th November, 2016, published in the Official
Gazette No. 48, dated 29th November 2016, inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected
thereby, within sixty days from the date of publication of the said notification in the Official Gazette of Puducherry;
2. And whereas, the said Gazette notification was notified for information of the general public
on 29th November, 2016;
3. And whereas, pursuant to the said notification no objections or suggestions have been received within
the abovesaid stipulated time-limit;
4. And whereas, though no objections or suggestions have been received within the abovesaid stipulated
time-limit, a meeting was convened on 23-2-2017 with the employers' and employees' representatives under
the Chairmanship of Secretary to Government (Labour), Puducherry to hear their views/suggestions in respect
of the minimum rates of wages notified in the employment of Carpentry and Blacksmithy Industries in
the Union territory of Puducherry;