La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 15-00
Prix : ` 15-00
Price :
` 15-00
2017 } | 5 {
No.
36
Poudouchéry
Mardi
5
Septembre
2017 (14 Bhadra 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
5th
September
2017
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 950
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 950
Award of the Labour Court .. 950
de tribunal.
.. 956
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 956
Government Notifications .. 956
.. 965
Annonces
.. 965
Announcements
.. 965
.. 970
Corrigendum
.. 970
Corrigendum
.. 970
[ 949 ]
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 : 5-9-2017
Price : ` 15-00
950
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 September 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 115/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 10th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No.15/2012, dated 29-5-2017
of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in respect of
the industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. Anglo French Textiles, Pondicherry and
Thiru M. Chandrasekaran, Puducherry over seniority
and pay fixation.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the
notification issued in Labour Department's G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Monday, the 29th day of May, 2017
I.D. (T) No. 15/2012
M. Chandrasekaran,
No. 12, ‘C’ Block, II Floor,
Chanakya Apartment,
Sithankudi,
Puducherry-605 013.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Anglo French Textiles,
Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming up before me for final
hearing on 5-5-2017 in the presence of the petitioner
appeared in person, Thiru B. Mohandoss, Advocate for
the respondent, upon hearing and upon persuing 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. 110/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 10-7-2012 for adjudicating the following:
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru M. Chandrasekaran against the management
of M/s. Anglo French Textiles, Puducherry over
claim of higher category and fixing of higher pay
than his juniors based on his seniority is justified?
(ii) If justified, what relief the petitionier is
entitled to ?
(iii) To compute the relief if any awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
(i) The petitioner has joined in the respondent
Mill in the year 1981 and he was in service as a
permanent employee of the Mill which was informed
by the Mill for the petition filed under the Right to
Information Act and he was not given any promotion for
about 30 years though he was performing the work of
Fitter in his Department and his Basic Salary was
revised as very low in the month of October, 2009
which is objected by him and he has asked for the
basic pay of 3,530-60-5,930 in the year 2009 and
has further stated that his junior was getting salary
more than the salary of him for which he has given a
letter on 29-9-2011 stating the above anomaly in the
Pay Scale and that the petitioner has asked for
promotion from the year 1999 and that therefore, he
raised the industrial dispute against the management
of Anglo French Textiles, Puducherry over the claim
of higher category and fixing of higher pay than his
juniors based on his seniority.
3. The brief averments in the counter and additional
counter filed by the respondent are as follows:
(i) The respondent stated that as per section 2A
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 an individual
workman cannot raise an industrial dispute except
in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
otherwise termination and hence, the petitioner
cannot raise the above industrial dispute which
relates to claim for pay fixation based on its alleged
seniority, unless the dispute is sponsored by a trade
union for workmen or in the alternative espoused by
a large majority of workmen and that the dispute
raised by the petitioner is not an industrial dispute
951
5 September 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
as defined by section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and as such this Tribuna1 cannot entertain
the claim made by the petitioner for want of
jurisdiction.
(ii) It is further stated that as per records, the
petitioner was appointed as casual substitute
workman in the Mill and as per the practice followed
by the respondent Mills a casual substitute workman
(working under card system) is terminated from
service after 3 months and he can seek re-emlployment
only on renewal of his card and in tune with the above
practice, on 1st January, 1990 the petitioner, working
as casual substitute in the Spinning Department, ‘B’
shift (‘C' Unit) was transferred to weaving
Department ‘C’ shift (‘C’ unit) and subsequently in
September, 1990, the petitioner transferred to weaving
Department ‘A’ shift, and according to the abowe
practice the petitioner was employed till 1-6-1991 and
that on1-6-1991, the petitioner was appointed as
substitute workman and later on 1-2-1993, the petitioner
was transferred from Weaving Department ‘A’ shift
to weaving maintenance Department and from that
day onwards the petitioner has been working as
Beam Transporter and pinning coolie in the ski1l
code of SS2 in weaving maintenance Department in
the Pay Scale of 3,300-50-5,300 and his code No.
is 10285 and on the other hand the skill code SK2
for the fitter category.
(iii) It is further stated that as per the
revised wages determined in the year 2009, the
Beam transporter category comes under S.S. (semi
skilled) 2 as per G.O. and the wages due to the
petitioner has been paid as per the I.D.A wages and
that prior to the revision of wages in October, 2009
as per G.O under the I.D.A. wage rates, the
management paid the wages according to their
categories (without change) to all the workman.
But, when the I.D.A wage revision was implemented,
the workman were categorized as skilled 1, skilled 2,
skilled 3, skilled 4, semi-skilled 1, semi-skilled 2, semi-
skilled 3, semi-skilled 4, unskilled 1 and unskilled
2 according to the nature and conditions of
employment and were paid the corresponding wages
and the same has been followed till date and that the
Beam transporter post was classified as semi-skilled 2
and wages corresponding to the category has been
paid to the petitioner from then onwards, but, the
petitioner wants wages determined for skilled-2
category of employment which corresponds to the
post of Loom-tackler and that all the persons
employed as Loom-tacklers in the respondent Mills
have undergone Fitter training and after the completion
of the training have been employed as Fitters for the
last several years but, the petitioner has not
undergone Fitter training and he has also not worked
as Fitter and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled
to claim the wages due to Fitter (in the category of
loom-tackler) without occupying the post of Fitter.
(iv) It is further stated that originally the
petitioner was working in Spinning Department
(‘C’ Unit) and
having found the situation of
sending out for “no work” got transferred to Weaving
Department (‘C’ unit) as he came to know of the
employment opportunities as “Sundries” and he also
got trained in sundries work and he has worked as
sundries and that prior to the notification of l.D.A
revised wages by the Government in 2009, there was
no opportunity for promotion for persons employed
as sundries category and as for as Weaving
Department ‘C’ Unit is concerned, only persons
occupying the posts of Helper, Loom-tackler, Beam-
Gaiter, Asst. Jobber and Jobber - in the above line of
promotion were having promotional chances.
However, as per the revised I.D.A wage structure
the petitioner has got promotional chances in his
post of Beam transporter in weaving maintenance
Department and the petitioner will be given
promotion as and when vacancies arise and
according to his qualification. Promotion to the
post of Loom- tackler cannot be given to the
petitioner at the first instance and the promotion to
the post of Loom-tackler can be given only by way
of step by step and for obtaining the post of Loom-
tackler, the petitioner has to cross four stages of
promotion.
(v) It is further stated that based on his seniority
in Sundries category and in the post of Beam
transporter the petitioner cannot claim promotions
and as per the promotion policy, merit also plays an
important role and for the post of Loom-tackler
Fitter training is very important and the petitioner
cannot ignore the fact of several persons in the
Weaving Department who are seniors to the
petitioner but, working in lesser catogory and on low
wages when compared to the petitioner. The persons
bearing code nos.11785 and l1786 have completed
ITI course, worked as Weavers, have undergone Fitter
training and then got appointment in the category of
952
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 September 2017
Loom-tackler and there is no justification for the
petitioner to expect promotion to the post of Loom-
tackler without ITI qualification and Fitter training,
solely based on seniority.
4. In the course of enquiry, no oral evidence was let
in by the petitioner and no document was filed by him
even after granting sufficient opportunities to him to
produce evidence. On the side of the respondent RW. 1
was examined and Ex. Rl to Ex. R4 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent Mill over the claim of higher category
and fixing of higher pay than his juniors based on his
seniority is justified or not ?
6. Heard. The learred Counsel who appeared for the
respondent argued that the petitioner has not let any
evidence and no documents were marked and hence, he
was not subjecting himself for cross examination and
nothing is before this Court to decide the case of the
petitioner and that therefore, the petitioner has utterly
failed to establish his case and therefore, the claim
petition is to be dismissed and the reference is to be
closed.
7. From the pleadings of both the parties the
following facts are admitted by them. The petitioner
Chandrasekaran was working at the respondent Mill
from the year 1981 and he was serving at the maintenance
Department in the Pay Scale of ` 3,300-50-5,300 and the
promotion was not given to him and subsequently the
petitioner raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer on 19-8-2011 and the conciliation
was failed and this reference was sent to this Court for
adjudicating the said issue.
8. It is the evidence of RW. 1 that the petitioner was
working as a Casual substitute in the Spinning
Department from 1st January, 1990 and he was
transferred to Weaving Department ‘C’ shift and
subsequently in 1990, the petitioner was transferred
to Weaving Department ‘A’ shift and he was employed
till 1-6-1991 and thereafter, he was appointed as
substitute workman and later on 1-2-1993 the petitioner
was transferred from Weaving Department ‘A’ shift to
weaving maintenance Department and from that day
onwards the petitioner has been working as Beam
Transporter and pinning coollie in the code of SS2 in
weaving maintenance department in the Pay Scale of
` 3,300-50-5,300 and his code no is 10285 and all the
persons employed as Loom-tacklers in the respondent
mills have undergone Fitter training and after the
completion of training they have been employed as
Fitters for the last several years and this petitioner has
not undergone fitter training and he was also not worked
as Fitter and therefore, he is not entitled to claim the
wages in the category of Loom-tackler without getting
the post of Fitter.
9. In support of its case, the respondent has
exhibited Ex. Rl to Ex.R4, Ex.R1 is the copy of the
reply submitted by the respondent management before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to the representation
submitted by the petitioner wherein, it has been stated
that the petitioner was not working in the higher
category. Ex. R2 is the letter given by the petitioner to
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 29-9-2011.
Ex. R3 is the letter given by the respondent management
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 31-10-2011.
Ex. R4 is the copy of the remarks furnished by the
Weaving Department to the petitioner on 11-12-2012.
RW.l has not been cross examined by the petitioner even
after giving sufficient opportunities.
10. To establish his case, the petitioner has not come
forward to let any evidence and has not exhibited any
documents to prove the allegation that the respondent
has failed to give sufficient higher category of
promotion and to fix the right salary and that therefore,
the petitioner has failed to establish his case as claimed
in the claim petition by adducing sufficient evidence
and therefore, it is just and necessary that the industrial
dispute raised by him before the Conciliation Officer
which was referred by the Government to this Court is
to be decided against him and that therefore, this Court
has held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent management over the
claim of higher category and fixing of higher pay than
his juniors a based on his seniority is not justified and
hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. 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 29th day of May, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
953
5 September 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of petitioner’s witness:
Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Nil
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 21-3-2016
B. Pragadeeswaran
List of respondents’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — 19-8-2011
Copy of the reply given by
the respondent management
before the Labour Officer
( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) t o t h e
representation submitted by
the petitioner.
Ex.R2 — 29-9-2011
Copy of the letter given by
the petitioner to the Labour
O ffic er ( Co nc il ia ti o n )
Puducherry.
Ex.R3 —31-10-2011
Copy of the letter given by
the respondent management
to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) Puducherry.
Ex.R4 —11-12-2012
Copy
of
the
remarks
furnished by the respondent
Weaving Department to the
petitioner.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 119/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 12th July 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No.16/2012, dated
29-5-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the
industrial
dispute between the
management of Automative Coaches and Components
Limited, (ACCL), Puducherry and PL Haulwel
Trailers Labour Union (AICCTU), Puducherry over non-
production of balance-sheet for the year 2007-08, 2008-09,
2009-10 and 2010-11, non-payment of bonus and ex
gratia @ 20% for the year 2010-11 without any
ceiling;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the notification issued in Labour Department’s
G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby
directed by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that
the said Award shall be published in the Official
Gazette, Puducherry.
A. RAJARATHINAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 29th day of May 2017
I.D. (T) No. 16/2012
The President,
PL Haulwel Trailers Labour
Union (AICCTU),
No.22, 3rd Cross Street,
Sithankudi, Puducherry
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Automotive Coaches
and Components Limited,(ACCL),
PL Haulwel Trailers Division,
No.79-19, Industrial Area,
Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming up before me for
final hearing on 10-5-2017 in the presence of
Thiru. M. Ganapthy, Advocate for the petitioner and
G. Krishnan, Advocate for the respondent on record and
subsequently when the case was posted for cross
examination of PW.1 the respondent being called
absent and set-ex parte upon hearing the petitioner and
perusing the case records, after having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This
industrial
dispute arises out of the
reference made by the Government of Puducherry vide
G. O. Rt. No. l15/AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 13-7-2012
of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the
following dispute between the petitioner and
the respondent viz.,
954
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 September 2017
(i) Whether the dispute raised by PL Haulwel
Trailers Labour Union (AICCTU) against the
management of M/s. Automotive Coaches and
Components Limited, Puducherry over non-production
of balance-sheet for the year 2007-2008, 2008-
2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, non-payment of
bonus and ex gratia @ 20% for the year 2010-2011
without any ceiling are justified ?
(ii) If justified, what relief the union workmen
are entitled to ?
(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement filed by
the petitioner are as follows :
The petitioner stated that they have made a demand
for 20% bonus and 20% ex gratia for the year
2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011
for non-payment of bonus and ex gratia each @ 20%
and inspite of repeated demands the management
bluntly refused to furnish the balance-sheet of the
company
for
the
abovesaid
periods
and
the
management without producing any records or balance-
sheet simply alleging that there is loss for the
abovesaid period and that there was maximum
production and profit to the company and obviously
for this reason only the management is avoiding to
produce the balance-sheet for the abovesaid period
and that the management failed to note if, there is
surplus allocable profits it can be carried over to the
next year for paying maximum of 20% bonus to the
employees to encourage them and also failed to note
that the payment of ex gratia of 20% is also a legally
enforceable custom in the industrial area for several
decades. Thus, the management is evading to pay 20%
ex gratia also without any justification and that similar
industries involving very heavy manual and skilled
labour are paying 20% bonus with 20% ex gratia and
the management failed to note that the employees have
worked very hard and brought out a maximum
production to the respondent company for the relevant
period and also failed to note that similar industries
existing in the locality are paying 20% bonus with 20%
ex gratia every year to all its employees and the
management is also aware about this fact and even after
knowing this situation the management is refusing to
concede the just demands of the employees and
therefore, prayed to pass an Award directing the
respondent to pay 20% bonus and 20% ex gratia to the
petitioner union members for the years 2007-2008,
2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.
3. The averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
(i) The respondent stated that the claim
statement made by the petitioner union is false and
stated that during the relevant period only one union
namely, Sedarapet Industries Pattali Workers Union
was the recognized and sole representative of the
workmen and the balance sheet for every financial
year was provided to them and that the workmen
were paid ` 3,500 as bonus and ` 500 as good will
amount for the financial year 2007-2008, ` 3,500
as bonus for the financial years 2008-2009, 2009-
2010 and 2010-2011 and ` 1,500 as ex gratia for
the financial year 2010-2011 and these payments
were made ad hering to the provisions of the
Payment of Bonus Act and that the bonus and other
payment as mentioned above were accepted by the
union and workmen and all the workmen have
received the same unconditionally and that the
management and the said Sedarapet Industries Pattali
Workers Union have entered into a settlement under
section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
on 2-2-2011 in respect of revision of wages and
other benefits and the petitioner union emerged
only thereafter and from its inception till date it
remains only as a minority and unrecognized union.
(ii) It is further stated that ex gratia/good will
payment are made in the absolute discretion of the
management and there is no criteria or guidelines
for the same and the provisions of the Payment of
Bonus Act do not provide for payment of ex gratia
and claiming of ex gratia as a matter of right is
illegal and that the bonus paid for the financial years
2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011
was in accordance with law and this industrial
dispute was raised by the petitioner union due to
inter union rivalry and it is not open to the petitioner
union to question the bonus paid and received by all
the
workmen
unconditionally
and
that
the
respondent company has been incurring huge losses
year after year and the company has accumulated
loss to the tune of ` 94.08 crores as on 31st March,
2014 and ` 104.50 crores as on 31-3-2015 and that
due to lack of orders, lower production/sales the
955
5 September 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
company is struggling to meet even the basic
commitment of payment of salaries and wages and
the company had become economically and
commercially
non-viable
due
to
its
huge
accumulated losses and that the claim of the
petitioner union for payment of 20% bonus and
20% ex gratia for the financial years 2007-2008,
2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 is wholly
unjustified, unreasonable, baseless and contrary to
the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act and do
not deserve any consideration either factually or
legally and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. Despite of opportunity given to the respondent
management for cross examination of WW.l, the
respondent called absent and no representation for
respondent and hence, the respondent was set ex parte.
5. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was
examined himself as WW.1 and no exhibits were
marked.
6. The point for determination is:
Whether the dispute raised by PL Haulwel Trailers
Labour Union (AICCTU) against the management of
M/s. Automotive Coaches and Components Limited,
Puducherry over non-production of balance-sheet
for the year 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and
2010-2011, nonpayment of bonus and ex gratia @
20% for the year 2010-2011 without any ceiling are
justified or not.
7. Heard. Tt is the evidence of the petitioner WW.1
that the petitioner union had made demand of 20%
bonus and 20% ex gratia for the year 2007-2008,
2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 for non- payment
of bonus and ex gratia each @ 20% and that the
respondent management has refused to furnish the
balance sheet of the company for the abovesaid period
inspite of repeated demands and simply alleged that
there is a loss for the abovesaid periods and though
there was maximum production and profit of the
company and that therefore, the management is
avoiding to produce the balance-sheet. However,
though petitioner union has let oral evidence, no
exhibits were marked on the side of the petitioner.
8. From the evidence of WW.1 and records, it is
learnt that the petitioner union has made a demand with
the respondent management in respect of bonus and
ex gratia amount for which they have raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and
the conciliation proceedings were failed and that
therefore, this reference has been made to this Court
to decide
whether the dispute raised by the
petitioner union over the non-production of balance
sheet for the
year 2007-2008, 2008-2009,
2009-2010 and 2010-2011, non-payment of bonus
and ex gratia @ 20% for the year 2010-2011 are
justified.
9. On the other hand, the respondent has not let any
evidence since he was set ex parte. Though the
respondent has appeared and filed its counter, no
evidence was let in by them, to disprove the case of
the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner
has
established
its
case
that
the
respondent
management has failed to produce the balance-sheet
for the year 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and
2010-2011 and the petitioner union has demanded bonus
and ex gratia for the year 2010-2011 at the rate of
20%, it is to be held that dispute raised by the
petitioner union is justified and the petition filed by
the petitioner union is liable to be allowed.
10. In the result, the petition is allowed and Award
is passed directing the respondent to pay 20% bonus
and 20% ex gratia for the year 2010-2011 to the
petitioners as claimed by the petitioner union. No
cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court
on this the 29th day of May, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
WW1 — 22-2-2016
—
Pandi
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Nil.
List of respondent’s witness:
Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Nil.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.