La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 21-00
Prix : ` 21-00
Price :
` 21-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1240
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 1240
Award of the Labour Court .. 1240
de tribunal.
.. 1259
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1259
Government Notifications .. 1259
.. 1265
Etablissements dangereux
.. 1265
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1265
.. 1266
Annonces
.. 1266
Announcements
.. 1266
[1239]
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 : 14-11-2017
Price : ` 21-00
2017 }
|
14 {
No.
46
Poudouchéry
Mardi
14
Novembre
2017 (23 Kartika 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
14th
November
2017
1240
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 148/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 5th October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. (T) No. 09/2012, dated
24-8-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care Private Limited,
Puducherry and Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam, over
charter of demands such as (i) revision of Basic Pay
@ ` 6,000 (ii) annual increment @ ` l,500 (iii) HRA
@ ` 1,500 (iv) Conveyance and Educational Allowance,
etc., during the pendency of 18(1) settlement and to
negotiate with the union when there is change in
production process and production targets, etc., has
been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the notification issued in Labour Department’s G. O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour), that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under 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 24th day of August 2017
I.D. (T) No. 09/2012
The President,
M/s. Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam,
No. 4, Vinayagar Koil Street,
S.M.V. Puram, Villianur,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care
Private Limited,
No. 283/1, Othiyampet, Villianur Post,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 11-08-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Tvl. S. Asokkumar,
A. Sakthivel and A. Govindh, Advocates for the petitioner,
Thiru. B. Mohandoss, 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. 78/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 10-05-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether
the dispute raised by the union
workmen Medimix Thozhilalargal Sangam, (Reg.
No. 1593/RTU/2009), against the management of
M/s. AVA Cholayil Health Care Private Limited,
Puducherry over
charter
of demands
such
as
(i) revision of Basic Pay @ ` 6,000 (ii) annual
increment @ ` l,5 0 0 (iii) HRA @ ` 1,500
(iv) Conveyance and Educational Allowance, etc.,
during the pendency of 18(1) settlement and to negotiate
with the union when there is change in production
process and production targets, etc., are justified?
(b) If justified, to what relief the union
workmen are entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief if any, 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 union is the largest sangam of
the employees of the respondent's company. The
petitioner union has been rendering best service to
the respondent company and the members of the
petitioner union have been cooperating with the
management for the proper and best management of
the company. The members of the petitioner union
are dedicated employees, who toiled tirelessly for
the improvement of the company and further stated
that the company began to act against the interests
of its employee and in furtherance of the respondent
move to ameliorate their wealth the respondent
company had adopted unfair labour practice and
without consultation and talks with the union, the
respondent has obtained the signature of the
employees alleged to be a settlement under section
18 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act. The employees
were tempted and made to sign in the alleged
settlement. The petitioner's union Office Bearers
1241
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
were ignored and finally without any alternative the
petitioner union members have also constrained to
sign in the alleged agreement which is not valid. But,
immediately on 23-03-2010, the petitioner union
sent a representation to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry setting forth their
objections to the validity of the alleged settlement.
Hence, the petitioner union has not consented to the
alleged settlement, dated 18-03-2010. So, it is not
valid and enforceable. However, the members of the
petitioner union have been cooperating for the
smooth management of the company.
(ii) It is further stated that the respondent
company had been operating with the production of
414 kgs. (103.05 x 4) and it continued till August,
2011. Suddenly, without having any talks with the
employees and without appraising the employees a
new production scheme was introduced under the
pretext that the price of oil has been increased and
wanted to supply low quality oil. So, the workers
were burdened with much hard work and they are
unable to reach the goal. The respondent realised the
same and added three more workers and the
production level was also reduced to 207 kgs. This
process had been going with the hard work and labour
of the workers. But, suddenly unmindful of the
workers
difficulty,
the
respondent
company
pressurised the workers to produce the quantity in the
old system that is 414 kgs. The employees expressed
their inability and impossibility of the respondent
unfair expectation with the poor quality of raw
materials. Hence, the petitioner union represented
and requested the management to have a talk with
them to arrive at an amicable settlement for which
the respondent was not willing. Even before that, the
petitioner union has been giving representations to
the respondent setting forth the problems in the
process
of
production
and
requested
for
rectification. But, the respondent has not heed to the
demands made by the petitioner union. The petitioner
union's several efforts to rectify the defects went in
vain. The petitioner union has vehemently opposed
the new system of production process introduced by
the management. So, without calling for any
conciliatory talks, the respondent has levelled unfair
charges against the union president Mr. Ayyappan and
initiated disciplinary action against other Office
Bearers also when the conciliation proceeding was
pending before the Labour Officer, Puducherry.
Hence, the petitioner union protested against the
vindictive attitude and victimisation of the Office
Bearers and other employees on false charges
and issued a notice to the respondent for a strike on
04-05-2012 that they are going on strike on 21-05-
2012. But, there was no strike on that day, hoping
that the management will rectify the defects and
concede to the demands of the petitioner union. But,
the respondent was very adamant and did not heed to
the request of the petitioner union.
(iii) It is further stated that the employees have
been working in the company for the past 20 years.
But, the respondent has been contending that the
company was started only about 17 years. It is not
correct. Previously the company was functioning in
the name of Padra Integrated Pharmaceuticals
Company Limited, at G.N. Palayam, Puducherry and
the present employees had been working there also
and then the company's name was changed in the
name of the respondent. It does not make any
difference. The respondent had previously produced
three variants of Medimix soaps and thereafter,
producing one variant only. The respondent has not
appraised the employees about the terms contained
in the alleged 18(1) settlement. The respondent has
its own union in the name of "Cholayil Thozhilalargal
Nala Sangam" and the members in the said sangam
are pro-management and they tempted and brain-
washed the other employees to sign. But, most of
the employees signatures were obtained only in blank
papers. The Office Bearers of the petitioner union
have always in their mind the general welfare of the
workers and in order to avoid any disturbance at that
point of time and with the view to work out their
remedy by raising a dispute later have merely signed
in the blank paper. The alleged settlement was the
result of threat, coercion and undue influence and
by luring the employees with attractive words.
However, all the terms included in the alleged
settlement are unilaterally incorporated by the
respondent without any consultation with the
petitioner union which has got the majority of
employees as its members. The petitioner union
members have not voluntarily signed in the alleged
settlement. Though the respondent agreed to increase
the wage at ` 750 per month, it was not given effect
to for the first one year and the alleged settlement
remained as dead letter. However, the petitioner has
been raising objections even from 23-03-2010 and
thereafter, series of representations have been made
asking for wage revision and fixing productivity
1242
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
norms. But, the respondent has not come forward to
have talks with the petitioner union. In fact, the
respondent did not consider the petitioner as a union
at all eventhough, the petitioner union is having
majority of the employees as its members.
Previously there has been production of 414 kgs. all
along till August, 2011. From September, 2011, the
respondent has supplied low quality oil and also
reduced the quantity of oil by stating that the oil
price has been increased. In such circumstances, the
employees were put to much hard work and
productivity was also naturally reduced in view of
supply of sub-standard oil and the work consumes
lot of manual work and consumes time. The
petitioner union brought this fact to the notice of
the respondent and it was realised by the respondent
and the respondent has added three more workers
and also reduced the production to 207 kgs. The
petitioner union has been formed to advance the
cause and interest of workers and infurtherance of
their objective they have raised the issues of wage
revision and fixing productivity norms and also the
partiality attitude adopted by the respondent in
advancing loans to members of the respondent's
promoted union referred to above and other benefits.
In view of the dispute raised by the petitioner under
the representation, dated 24-05-2011 the matter was
referred to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Labour Department, Puducherry.
(iv) It is further stated that the petitioner union
has given a charter of demands to the respondent to
be complied with. But, the respondent has not
accorded to the demands made by the petitioner
union. The charter of demands is annexed herewith/
It
certainly
raises
an
industrial
dispute
as
contemplated under section 2(k) of Industrial
disputes Act. All the demands made by the petitioner
union pertain to the conditions of service, labour and
employment. So, the respondent's contentions that
there exists no industrial dispute is untenable. The
demands were communicated to the respondent. Even
before, the Conciliation Officer, the respondent has
not come forward with any settlement but, all along
raised the maintainability of the settlement without
considering the demands made by the petitioner and
therefore, the petitioner prayed this Court to declare
that the alleged 18(1) settlement, dated 18-01-2010
is invalid and unenforceable and to direct the
respondent to effect wage revision, productivity
norms and other demands made by the petitioner in
their representation, dated 24-05-2011 and to grant
appropriate reliefs.
3. The brief averments in the counter and
additional counter filed by the respondent are as
follows:-
The respondent denied all the allegations made by
the
petitioner
union
against
the
respondent
management and stated that the claim for the
declaration that the settlement, dated 18-03-2010
which was wrongly stated as 18-01-2010 in the claim
petition by the petitioner entered under section 18(1)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can't be granted
by this Tribunal as per the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act and the matters coming within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal as specified in the 3rd
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and there
are 11 items enumerated there on and none of them
refers to the validity of a settlement between the
employer and workmen and that the settlement, dated
18-03-2010 was arrived at between the management of
the AVA cholayil Health care Private Limited and its
workmen individually and the petitioner union is not a
party to the settlement and the petitioner union has no
locus standi to challenge the settlement, dated 18-03-2010
and further stated that the declaration of invalidity of
18(1) settlement, dated 18-03-2010 does not find
a place in the terms of reference and hence, it cannot
be taken up for adjudication and the petitioner has not
made out any justification for the demands and further
stated that consequent to the expiry of the period fixed
for the settlement, dated 18-03-2010 expired on 31-12-2012,
a fresh settlement was entered into between the
permanent workers and the management of the
respondent company under sec.l8(l) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 for the period from 01-01-2013
to 31-12-2015 and further, a fresh settlement was
entered into between the workmen and management of
the respondent under section 18(1) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 for further period of 3 years starting
from 01-01-2016 and ending with 31-12-2018 and
both the above settlements have exhaustively covered
the demands of the workmen relating to wage revision,
productivity norms and other demands and under such
circumstances, the petitioner union prayer for
effecting wage revision, productivity norms and other
demands as per the petitioners representation, dated
24-05-2011 is not maintainable and further stated that
any consideration of the reliefs claimed by the
petitioner union for wage revision, productivity norms
and other demands so as to affect the settlement
referred to above will cause prejudice to the individual
1243
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
workmen who are parties to the settlement as they are
real beneficiaries and the petitioner union has no
representative capacity to make a claim in respect of
demands of the workmen of the respondent without
their consent and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
to RW.4 was examined and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were
marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management over charter of demands
is justified or not and if justified, what relief the
petitioners are entitled to?
6. Both sides are heard. The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the
exhibits marked on both sides are carefully considered.
On both sides written argument was filed and the same
is carefully considered.
7. It is clear from the pleadings of both the parties
that both the parties have admitted the fact that the
petitioner union is formed by the workers of the
respondent management and that they have made some
charter of demands by representation and subsequently
a memorandum of settlement was arrived at between
the permanent workers of the respondent establishment
and some of the workers have entered into the
settlement and these petitioners have not exhibited the
same and that they have raised the industrial dispute
before
the
Conciliation
Officer
wherein,
the
conciliation was failed and on the intimation of the
Conciliation Officer the Government has referred this
matter to this Court and it is also an admitted fact that
the petitioners have claimed for wage revision,
productivity norms and other demands made by the
petitioner in their representation, dated 24-05-2011
and for other reliefs.
8. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner union
the President of the union was examined as PW.1 and
he has stated in his evidence that they have employed
in the respondent establishment and the management
of the respondent establishment had adopted unfair
labour practice and instead of negotiating with the
union regarding the service condition of the work they
have entered 18(1) settlement containing unfair cause
regarding their service condition and unilaterally fixed
the productivity norms and the respondent management
is not interested in collective bargaining and the
respondent management has also created own union in
the name of "Cholayil Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam" and
the members of the said Sangam tempted and brain-
washed the other employees to sign in the alleged
settlement and the members of the petitioner union
have also constrained to sign in the alleged agreement
and most of the employees signatures were obtained
by the management only in blank papers and that
therefore, the representation was made by the petitioner
union to the Labour Conciliation on 23-03-2010
for conciliation and the respondent management
has taken action against the members of the union and
dismissed the Office Bearers as well as the other
employees who were in the forefront supporting the
union and therefore, the petitioner union has forced to
raise the dispute which was referred to this Court
since the conciliation was failed in which the
petitioner union has claimed the revision of Basic Pay
at ` 6,000, Annual increment of ` 1,500, House Rent
Allowance
` 1,500 along with Conveyance and
Educational Allowance during the pendency of 18(1)
settlement and to negotiate with the union when there
is a change in production process and production
targets, etc., and for other reliefs. PW.1 has further
deposed that the settlement in new discipline by fixing
the production norms without discussing with the
majority union as entered with the intention to break
the union which is certainly unfair labour practice
which would affect earnings of the workmen in the
form of wages which would be paid by the management
based on the production norms.
9. It is the main contention of the respondent
management that there is no settlement on 18-01-2010
under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
actually the settlement was arrived at between the
respondent management and the workers of the
establishment on 18-03-2010 under section 18(l) of
the Industrial Disputes Act and the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to grant any relief as specified in the 3rd
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, and there are
11 items enumerated thereon and none of them refers
to the validity of the settlement between the employer
and workmen and this matter can be decided only by
the Labour Court under 2nd Schedule of the Industrial
Disputes Act and further, contention of the respondent
is that the settlement was arrived at between the
individual workman with the respondent and the union
is not the party to the settlement and that therefore,
the petitioner union has no locus standi to challenge
1244
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
the settlement, dated 18-03-2010 since all the
workers have been enjoyed all the benefits under the
said settlement and that therefore, the said workers
have to be necessary parties to the claim petition.
10. Admittedly, the alleged settlement which was
challenged by the petitioner union has been executed
by the individual workman with the respondent
management. As rightly stated by the respondent
management, the workmen who have entered the
settlement with the respondent management have been
enjoying the benefits of the settlement executed
under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
in such circumstances, without hearing the individual
workers of the respondent management who are
enjoyed the benefits of the settlement the validity of
the settlement cannot be decided. Furthermore, though
the petitioners have filed the claim statement, nowhere
in the claim statement they have mentioned the claim
of Basic Pay of ` 6,000, increment of `1,500 and
other claims. But, it was mentioned by them that they
have claimed only to direct the respondent to effect
wage revision, productivity norms and other demands
made by the petitioner union in their representation,
dated 24-05-2011. However, on perusal of documents,
the petitioner union has not at all filed any such
representation which was alleged to have been given
by them either to the respondent management or to the
Conciliation Officer on 24-05-2011 before this Court
for
consideration.
Without
filing
the
said
representation, dated 24-05-2011 how this Tribunal
could pass such an Award directing the respondent to
effect wage revision, productivity norms and other
demands made in the representation alleged to have
been made by them on 24-05-2011 as claimed by the
petitioner.
11. Though the petitioner have exhibited Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7, the representation, dated 24-05-2011 has not
been exhibited before this Court. Further in this case,
the individual workers who have entered settlement
under section 18(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act with
the respondent management have not been added
parties
to
the
proceedings.
Furthermore,
the
petitioners have claimed in the claim statement for
revision of wages on
the foot of the alleged
representation, dated 24-05-2011. But, it is the case of
the petitioner that even prior to the settlement, dated
18-01-2010 they have made representation before the
respondent management for the wage revision.
However, they have claimed in the claim statement that
they have made representation only on 24-05-2011
which is totally contrary to the pleadings and the said
representation also is not exhibited before this Court.
In such circumstances, this Court cannot pass any such
Award as claimed by the petitioner in the claim
statement.
12. Furthermore, though the petitioners have
claimed the Basic Pay at ` 6,000, Annual increment
of ` 1,500, House Rent Allowance ` 1,500 along with
Conveyance and Educational Allowance, they have not
produced any other settlement arrived at between the
workers of similar nature in any other establishment
within the region of Puducherry wherein, the
respondent establishment is functioning. Even they
have not produced Pay Slip of workers of same nature
of work in any other establishment. Nothing is before
this Court to decide that the petitioners are entitled
for the Basic Pay at ` 6,000, Annual increment of
` 1,500, House Rent Allowance ` 1,500 along with
Conveyance and Educational Allowance as stated by
them. The petitioners have not at all filed any
settlement or any other document or any Salary Slip
which was received by them before their demand
before this Tribunal. Even they have not summoned any
documents from the respondent to prove the same. In
such circumstances, the petitioner union have utterly
failed to prove the fact that what was the salary being
issued to them at the time of submitting charter of
demands and how they are entitled for the Basic Pay
at ` 6,000, Annual increment of ` 1,500, House Rent
Allowance
` 1,500 along with Conveyance and
Educational Allowance.
13. Further Ex.P4— Copy of 18 (1) settlement
which was arrived at between the respondent
management and other workers also would not disclose
the fact how much the salary was received by the other
workers of the respondent establishment and that
therefore, the petitioner is utterly failed to substantiate
their claim. From the foregoing reasons, this Court held
that without adding the individual workers who have
entered
the
settlement
with
the
respondent
management
and
without
exhibited
the
said
representation, dated 24-05-2011 the claim made by
the petitioner in the claim statement to declare that the
18 (1) settlement arrived at between the respondent
establishment and other individual workers is invalid
and unenforceable is not sustainable and that therefore,
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union
before the Conciliation Officer over the charter of
demand is not justified and therefore, these petitioners
are not entitled for the claim and hence this industrial
dispute is liable to be dismissed.
1245
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
14. In the result, this industrial dispute is
dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on
this the 24th day of August, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
P.W.1 — 19-01-2015 — Ayyappan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 17-06-2009 — Copy of certificate of
registration
of
trade
union.
Ex.P2 — 02-11-2009 — Representation to the
Manager.
Ex.P3 — 03-12-2009 — Representation to the
Manager.
Ex.P4 — 18-03-2010 — Copy of 18(1) settlement.
Ex.P5 — 12-08-2011 — R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
t o
conciliation.
Ex.P6 — 11-01-2011 — R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
t o
Manager.
Ex.P7 — 01-08-2012 — R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
t o
conciliation.
List of respondent’s witnessess:
RW.1
— 28-12-2016 — E.M.I.D. Lucas
RW.2
— 05-05-2017 — K. Saravanan
RW.3
— 05-05-2017 — S. Jayanthi
RW.4
— 05-05-2017 — R. Murugesan
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Ex.R1 — 01-01-2013 — Copy of the settlement
to
under to section l8(1)
31-12-2015
of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 between the
ma nag emen t o f t he
respondent
and
its
individual workmen.
Ex.R2 — 01-01-2016 — Copy of the settlement
to
under to section l8(1)
31-12-2018
of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 between the
ma nag emen t o f t he
respondent
and
its
individual workmen.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 149/Lab./AIL/J/2017,
Puducherry, dated 10th October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(L) No. 44/2014, dated
23-8-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry and its workman Thiru L. Bhuvaneswaran
over non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour), that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM.,M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 23rd day of August 2017
I.D. (L) No. 44/2014
L. Bhuvaneswaran,
Ganapthy Nagar,
(Travellers Bungalaw Back Side),
Marakkanam Post,
Tindivanam Taluk.
. . Petitioner/
Workman
1246
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ganapthichettikulam Village,
Kalapet.
. . Respondent/
Management
This industrial dispute coming on 7-8-2017 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R.S. Zivanandam,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Sathish,
T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan and V. Veeraragavan, Advocates
for the respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon
perusing the case records, after having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. l24/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 25-8-2014 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru L. Bhuvaneswaran against the management of
M/s. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry over his non-employment is justified?
If justified, what relief he is 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 of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
(i) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed
as a Storeman in the respondent establishment on
19-12-2012 through his appointment letter for
initial period of two years and his salary was
fixed at ` 7,000 per month as per the details
mentioned in the appointment letter and he also
deposited a sum of ` 7,000 security as required by
the respondent and he discharged his service
unblemishingly for the period of one year and
further stated that on 12-12-2013, it was alleged by
the respondent on 13-11-2013 when a stock was
taken in the central store, it was found that a material
of Socket 20 amps was in shortage and requested
the petitioner to admit the shortage in order to
deduct from the salary and he was forced to write a
letter as intra-office memorandum admitting the
mistake with an assurance that the cost of material
will be deduct from the salary and further stated that
on 18-12-2013 he was issued an order of
termination without any charge-sheet or any
departmental
enquiry
and
immediately
the
petitioner met the Personal Manager about the
surprise termination order against him and the said
Manager ordered him to file a labour dispute before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and immediately
the petitioner on 22-1-2014 raised an industrial
dispute for reinstatement with backwages and upon
the notice of the Labour Officer (Conciliation) the
respondent
appeared
before
the
conciliation
submitted the written reply on 10-3-2014 and after
protracted conciliation, the Conciliation Officer
submitted a failure report on 5-8-2014 and on
25-8-2014 the Government of Puducherry had
issued a notification of reference to this Tribunal
to resolve a dispute between the respondent and the
petitioner.
(ii) It is further stated that the order of
termination,
dated
18-12-2013
against
the
petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and against the natural
justice and without any basis of rhyme or reason and
further stated that the petitioner was employed as
storeman as alleged by the respondent on contract
period of two years and therefore, within a period
of one year, terminating him simply without any
consciousness or reasonableness mainly based upon
bias and that the order of appointment, he was
employed for a period of two years on contract and
if, the service of the petitioner was not satisfied by
the respondent he may be removed from service
with a minimum period of notice but, he was not
terminated on the terms of contract and he was,
terminated on allegation of his conduct when the
allegation of misappropriation was made by the
respondent, the respondent ought to have initiate a
department enquiry and placed the charges against
the petitioner and must give an opportunity to the
petitioner to disprove the charges against him and
if, not the removal of the service of the petitioner
is simplified and it cannot be understood the terms
of contract of service and therefore, the petitioner
raised his demand with the respondent for re-
employment for violating the natural justice of
denying the right of independent enquiry and
therefore, the termination is illegal and void abinitio
and
further
stated
that
during
conciliation
proceedings the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
advised the respondent that the allegation of the
management or misconduct is not a grave in nature
and it is only a mistake in making the entry in the
stock register and the innocence of the petitioner
1247
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
can be proved if, the enquiry initiated against him and
even inspite of it, it only a mistake and the
management can consider that the mistake of the
petitioner is due to oversight and also advised to
take back the petitioner for the employment and
since, the gravity of the punishment is excessive and
disproportionate to the mistake committed by him
and inspite of it the management is adamant and not
taking back the petitioner for employment and
therefore, thwarting the advice of the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) is purely an authoritative approach of
the respondent and it should be deprecate through
court of law.
(iii) It is further stated that after the termination,
the petitioner did not gainfully employed in any
other firm and any avocation in any of similar nature
and that it is not a misappropriation, its only wrong
entry in the stock register and no opportunity was
granted to the petitioner to dissolve the wrong entry
in the stock register and moreover the loss if
assessed, in the wrong entry, the cost of the material
is ` 200 and its negligible cost is not weighed by
the respondent before terminating from service and
however, the act of management is obituary and
violating of natural justice and prayed this Court for
reinstatement with back wages and continuity of
service
from
18-12-2013
i.e.,
the
date of
termination.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent denied the averments made by the
petitioner in the claim petition except those that are
specifically admitted by them in the counter
statement and stated that the cause title in the claim
petition is wrong as there is no Managing Director
in the respondent institution and the respondent is
headed by Director - Principal and therefore, the
cause title in the claim petition needs to be suitably
amended and further stated that the petitioner
L. Bhuvaneswaran Employee No. 5220 joined in
the respondent establishment on 19-12-2012 as
Storeman on two years contract vide appointment
order No. 298/PO/2012, dated 19-12-2012 which
was duly signed and accepted by him and as per
clause 3 and 5 speaks the rights of management for
discontinuations of service in respect of the
assessment and termination shall be made by giving
one month notice by letter on both sides and further
stated that it was reported that discrepancies were
noted in the Engineering section of the general
stores which was handled by the petitioner and it
was found that in the departmental issue note
specifying items issued from general stores to
Engineering Department (Issue No. l8713D05461,
dated 19-10-2013) prepared by the petitioner under
Sl. No. 2, Code No. E002957, 4 Nos” 20 A 1 way
switch (RO) was issued and it also been noted that
in the indent Form (Sl. No. 57043) for issue No.
l8713D05461, dated 19-10-2013 issued by the
Engineering Department to general stores, the
quantity of above two items has been subsequently
corrected from 4 to 14 in order to facilitate the
pilferage of 10 items and it was noticed during audit
and audit report, dated 28-11-2013 was submitted
showing the shortage of the items and it was also
noticed that subsequent department issue note
No. l8713D06141, dated 4-12-2013 was prepared
by the petitioner referring to the earlier indent no.
57043 including the 10 Nos of 20 A1 way switch
(RO) and 10 Nos of 20 A socket (RO) in order to
correlate with the tampered indent Form Sl. No.
57043, dated 19-10-2013 and on verification of
records in the Electrical section it was only 4 Nos’
each of 20 A socket (RO) and 20A 1 way switch
(RO) and the balance 10 Nos’ was not received by
the management and further stated that the petitioner
vide letter, dated 12-12-2013 accepted that he had
made an additional departmental issue note on
4-12-2013 without informing the stores in-charge
and corrected the indent Form and since the conduct
of petitioner and more importantly his integrity and
honesty was doubtful, the respondent management
invoked clause 3 of the terms of appointment and
issued order of discontinued from his contract of
service with effect from 19-12-2013 as the
management not satisfied with the performance of
the petitioner and prayed this Court to dismiss the
claim petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over his
non-employment is justified or not and whether the
petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed by
him?
1248
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
6. Both sides are heard. The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the
exhibits marked on both sides are carefully considered.
In support of his case the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner has relied upon the citation in AIR
1999 SC 983. The learned Counsel for the respondent
has filed a written argument and relied upon the
following citations : CDJ 2011 SC 622, CDJ 2007 SC
139, CDJ 2007 SC 1312, CDJ 2006 SC 611, CDJ 2006
SC 1238, CDJ 2005 SC 604, 2000 AIR SCW 3439,
CDJ 2001 SC 363, CDJ 1999 SC 470, CDJ 1992 SC
118, CDJ 1961 SC 097, CDJ 2008 MHC 327, CDJ
2016 BHC 1370, CDJ 2014 GHC 080, CDJ 2013 DHC
1750, CDJ 2012 DHC 2073, CDJ 2010 BHC 2177,
CDJ 2008 APHC 690, CDJ 2008 PHC 075, CDJ 2001
GHC 481, 2000 2 LLJ 493, 1995 2 LLJ 492 AP HC,
(1994) II LLJ 423 Ker, India Tourism Development
Corporation Vs. Poonam Rai (DEL) and Mahesh Kumar
Vs. M/s. Fruit and Vegetable Projects.
7. It is clear from the pleadings of both the parties
that both the parties have admitted the fact that the
petitioner Bhuvaneswaran was appointed at the
respondent establishment as a Storeman on 19-12-2012
under an appointment letter for the contract period of
two years and his monthly salary was fixed at ` 7,000
and on 13-11-2013 audit was conducted by the
respondent management at central store and it was
found that material of socket of 20 Amps was in
shortage and without conducting any enquiry the
petitioner Bhuvaneswaran was terminated from service
on 18-12-2013 and that he has raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 22-1-2014
and on failure of the conciliation the matter has been
referred to this Court.
8. It is the main contention of the petitioner that
only on the instigation and request and assurance of
the management that the cost of the material will be
deducted from the salary the petitioner has admitted
the shortage of socket of 20 Amps and the petitioner
was
terminated without any charge-sheet or any
departmental
enquiry on 18-10-2013
and that
therefore, the order of termination, dated 18-10-2013
is arbitrary, illegal and against the natural justice and
though the petitioner was employed as a Storeman on
contract period of two years in the respondent
establishment the termination of his service within the
period of one year simply without any consciousness
or reasonableness and that the petitioner was not
terminated on the terms of the contract but, he was
terminated on the allegation of his conduct of
misappropriation, for which the domestic enquiry is
required after placing charge against the petitioner and
the petitioner has to be given an opportunity to dispose
the charges levelled against him.
9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
respondent that the respondent establishment is a
Multi-Speciality Hospital and Trauma Care centre,
providing plethora of medical facilities and treatments
to people in and around Puducherry region and also the
respondent runs a Medical College and Nursing
College within its premises and this petitioner was
appointed on 19-12-2012 as a Storeman on contract
period of two years and it only for the period of two
years from the date of employment and the
appointment to the petitioner also with specific terms
and conditions duly signed and accepted by the
petitioner in which it is accepted by the petitioner that
if, his conduct and performance are required to be
excelled ordinarily and after a period of six months he
will be evaluated and in case of any lapses in his
performance institutional rules will apply for his
assessment and discontinuation of his service and
clause 5 of the said appointment order would also
permitting the respondent management to terminate
the employee by giving one month notice or one
month pay in view of notice by either sides and his
employment was strictly only for period of two years
and his services were subject to contract monitoring
and scrutiny by the respondent and in the event of
petitioner found to be wanting in performance or his
conduct the contract of employment was terminable
and in audit report, dated 28-11-2013 it was found that
there is some discrepancy and showing shortage of 20
sockets.
10. From the contention of both the parties, it is
clear that the main issue to be decided in this case is
that whether the employee who appointed on contract
basis could be terminated without conducting domestic
enquiry and without serving charges for the reason of
low performance of the petitioner workman and that
to for the misconduct by causing shortage while
working as a Storeman. On this aspect, the records and
documents are perused. Admittedly, in this case the
petitioner is a contractual labour appointed for 2 years
under a contract and according to the appointment the
petitioner can be terminated by giving one month
notice. The petitioner has exhibited the appointment
order, dated 19-12-2012 as Ex.P1. The 3rd and 5th
terms and conditions of the appointment order runs as
follows:
1249
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
“3. Your conduct and performance are required
to be excellent ordinarily. We suggest that you
cooperate with our monitoring of your performance
regularly and after a period of six months you will
be evaluated and in case of any lapses in your
performance the institutional rules will apply for
your assessment and discontinuation of your
service............... 4. The employment can be
terminated by giving one month’s notice or one
month’s pay in lieu of notice, by either side.”
From Ex.P1 - Appointment letter it is clear that the
petitioner was appointed as Storeman for a period of
two years on contract, and the abovesaid terms and
conditions would go to show that if, the management
found that there is any lapses in the performance it can
be discontinuation of the services of the petitioner and
furthermore, it is clear from the term 5 of the contract
that the petitioner can be terminated by giving one
month notice or one month pay in view of the notice
by either sides.
11. Even according to the case of the petitioner that
there was some shortage of socket of 20 Amps and it
was found in the audit conducted by the management
and this petitioner also gave a letter admitting the
shortage to the management and such circumstances
the petitioner has terminated from service under
Ex.P4-Termination order issued by the respondent
establishment to the petitioner, in which last four lines
would runs as follows :
“The Management is not satisfied with the
conduct and performance of Mr. L. Bhuvaneswaran
and is constrained to invoke clause 3 of his terms
of appointment and he is hereby discontinued from
his contract of service with effect from 19-12-2013.
He
may
approach
the
Finance/Personnel
Department for settlement of dues. He will also be
paid one month salary in lieu of notice board”.
The abovesaid termination order would go to show
that the management has not satisfied with the conduct
and performance of the petitioner and that therefore,
as per the terms of the appointment his service was
discontinued from the contract of service with effect
from 9-12-2013 and he has also been given one month
salary in view of the notice period and that therefore,
it is clear from the Ex.P4 - termination order that the
respondent management has terminated the petitioner
as per the terms and conditions of the contract.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued
that the petitioner was appointed as contractual
employee and though he has committed shortage by
over sight he cannot be terminated without issuing
charge memo and without conducting domestic enquiry
and without giving any opportunity to disprove the
charges since the petitioner was terminated on the
allegation of the conduct of misappropriation made by
the respondent management and in support of his case
the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has
relied upon the Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 983
-Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose
National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and
others, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that,
(C) Constitution of India, Art.311 - Termination
of probationer - Stigmatic words - Need not be
contained in order of termination itself - Documents
referred to in order may also contain material which
may amounts to stigma and would vitiate order.
(D) Constitution of India, Art.311 - Termination
of probationer - Whether stigmatic - Order stating
that conduct, performance, during whole period not
satisfactory - Letter issued earlier to probationer
from management stated that he had prepared “false
bills” and “misbehaved with women academic staff
members” - Contents of letter form foundation of
termination order and not a case of mere motice -
other three letters referred to in termination order
contained not only certain allegations but, clear
adverse Endings by Director as well as by informal
Inquiry Committee - Said findings arrived at in
non-departmental inquiry are ‘foundation’ for
termination - order vitiated on ground of stigma -
Probationer not gainfully employed elsewhere -
Entitled to reinstatement and backwages”
and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also
relied
upon
the
Judgment
reported
in
1993
LAB.I.C.913 of Delhi High Court, wherein it has been
observed that,
(B) Industrial Disputes Act (1947), Sch.2 Item 3,
Ss.2(00), 25F - Termination of Service - Misconduct
- Neither charge-sheet was issued to employee nor
inquiry was held - Memorandum of termination
amounting to retrenchment - Provisions of S.25F
not complied with - Award setting aside order of
termination of service by Labour Court - Not
illegal.
1250
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
From the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it is clear
that if, no workman is terminated from service on
certain allegation of any stigmatic words in termination
order that he has committed any misbehavior,
misconduct, or misappropriation without any domestic
enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to disapprove
the charges leveled against him. But, on perusal of
Ex.P4 - termination order passed by the respondent
management to the petitioner does not contain any
allegation against the petitioner workman except that
his performance and conduct are not satisfied to the
management and that too, agreed by the petitioner
workman as per the terms and conditions of the
contract of the appointment since the petitioner
himself has accepted and read down the terms and
conditions under Ex.P1 - Appointment order.
13. Furthermore,
the
petitioner
himself
has
admitted the mistake of stock deficit by writing a letter
as intra office memorandum. While mistake of stock
deficit was admitted by him no further domestic
enquiry is required to prove the same and that
therefore, the domestic enquiry is not required to
terminate the petitioner from service. Admittedly, the
petitioner is a contract labour only for the term of
2 years and he is not a permanent employee which is
also evident from Ex.P1 and in such a case the
question of reinstatement would not arise and that
therefore, this Court after considering all the facts and
circumstances come to the conclusion that the
petitioner is not entitle for any relief of reinstatement
and backwages claimed by him and as such, it is to be
held by this Court that the Industrial tribunal raised by
the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer is not
justified and as such the claim petition is liable to be
dismissed.
14. 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 23rd day of August, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses :
PW1 —18-04-2015—
Bhuvaneswaran
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.Pl —19-12-2012 Appointment order issued by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.P2—24-01-2013 ESI Temporary identity card
registration.
Ex.P3—12-12-2013 Intra office memo.
Ex.P4—18-12-2013 Termination order issued by
the
respondent
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.P5—December, Copy of the pay slip.
2013
Ex.P6—01-04-2014 Letter sent by the petitioner
to the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P7—10-03-2014 Reply letter sent by the
respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P8—08-04-2014 Reply letter sent by the
respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P9—05-08-2014 Failure report sent by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P10—25-08-2014
Notification
of
Labour
Department.
List of respondent’s witness :
RWl —02-03-2016 Karmel Reetha
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Ex.Rl —19-10-2014 Copy of Indent Form.
Ex.R2—24-10-2013 Departmental Issue note.
Ex.R3— October,
Copy of Indent Register.
2013
Ex.R4—29-02-2016 Letter of authorization.
Ex.R5—04-12-2013 C o m p u t e r
g e n e r a t e d
Departmental
issue
note
fabricated by the petitioner.
Ex.R6—11-12-2013 Co p y
o f
the
in te rn al
correspondences in respondent’s
institution on the incident
relation to petitioner.
Ex.R7—22-01-2014 Copy of the letter given by
the petitioner.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
1251
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 150/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 10th October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
W h e r e a s , Awa r d i n I . D . ( T ) N o . 0 1 / 2 0 0 7 ,
dated 22-8-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
in respect of the Industrial Dispute between the
Management of M/s. Vasavi Modern Raw and Boiled
Rice Mill, Yanam and M/s. Bhargavi Agro Tech.,
Adavipolam, Yanam and Sri Vigneswara Rice Mill
Operators and Workers Union, Yanam over revision of
wages and other allied matters has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the notification issued in Labour Department’s
G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L., dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Tuesday, the 22nd day of August 2017.
I.D. (T) No. 01/2007
The President,
Sri Vigneswara Rice Mill Operators
and Workers Union,
(Regd. No. 1197/RTU/2000),
2-2, Golaghabathulla Street,
Yanam.
. . Petitioner
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
M/s. Vasavi Modern Raw and
Boiled Rice Mill, Adavipolam,
Yanam.
2. The Managing Director,
M/s. Bhargavi Agro Tech,
Adavipolam,
Yanam.
. . Respondents
This industrial dispute coming on 21-7-2017
before me f o r f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e
o f Thiru R.S. Zivanandam, Advocate for the
petitioner, Thiru L. Sathish, Advocate 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. l87/2006/LAB/
AIL/J, dated 29-12-2006 for adjudicating the
following:-
(i) Whether the demand by Sri Vigneswara Rice
Mill Operators and Workers Union, Yanam for
revision of wages and other allied matters made
against the management of M/s. Bhargavi Agro
Tech, Adavipolam, and M/s. Sri Vasavi Modern Raw
and Boiled Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Yanam is justified?
(ii) If so, to give appropriate direction?
(iii) To what other relief workers are entitled to?
(iv) 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:
It is stated that the petitioner union is a workers'
union functioning at Yanam-one of the Region of
Union territory of Puducherry and the union consists
of workers belong to various rice mills of Yanam
region and that the 1st respondent Mill is functioning
since 1985 and its work force is 69 Nos. in various
categories and the 2nd respondent Mill is functioning
since 1984 and it is having 108 workers in various
categories and further stated that the petitioner union
raised an industrial dispute for revision of wages for
both the mills by their representation, dated 9-6-2004
and their main demands are revision of wages of
` 1,000 per head per month and overtime wages as per
the Act are to be paid and every completed 24 hours of
duty, 8 hours of wages to be paid as bata, night shift
work, every worker who discharge 2 workers' duty is
eligible to get 1 day bata and National festival holidays
to be implemented and the implementation of the wage
revision for every worker will be from 9-6-2004. On
16-11-2004, a representation was submitted to the
Regional Administrator, Yanam, marking a copy to the
Assistant Inspector of Labour to resolve the dispute
and another letter was also submitted on 1-12-2004.
1252
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
On the basis of the letters, the protractive
Conciliation was held before the Assistant Inspector
of Labour at Yanam who is the designated authority
under the Industrial Disputes Act. The conciliation
ended in failure after several sittings and hence a
failure report was sent by the Asst. Inspector of
Labour, Yanam on 19-12-2005 to the Labour
Department and based on the same, the Labour
Department of Government of Puducherry issued a
notification on 29-12-2006 by making a reference of
this Labour Tribunal to resolve the dispute under
section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It is further stated that the wages paid to the workers
are not in accordance to law or Minimum Wages Act
and there is no categorisation of workers and some
workers are paid piece rated and some are paid daily
wages and some monthly wages and there is
discrimination between male and female workers and
there is justification in seeking monthly wages for all
categories of workers and that the respondents are
dealing with 1500 bags of paddy and are earning
` 50,000 per day and only 15% is paid as wages and
the wages are not paid according to Minimum wages
Act applicable to Pondicherry and the existing wages
of workers for an Operator/Mill driver is far below the
minimum wages and there is exploitation of workers
and that the demand for increase of ` 1,000 per month,
an increment of ` 500 a month every year is justified
and that the respondents are calculating rice-mill
allowance and conveyance allowance in calculating the
wage and it is contrary to basic structure of minimum
wages and the revision of wages on basic wages, D.A.,
H.R.A., rice-mill allowance and conveyance shall be
on par for all the workers and prayed to dissolve their
issue according to the demands.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondents denied all the averments made by
the petitioner union and stated that the petitioner union
is not a registered trade union and the union had not
been functioning for the last several years and the
union does not have the requisite membership and has
become completely defunct and is an unregistered,
unrecognised minority union. They are representing
only six workers, who are participants before the
conciliation proceedings. Only for the benefit of those
six workers the present industrial dispute has been
raised by the petitioner and that the combined strength
of the two respondents being 105 workers and the
petitioner union does not even represent 10% of the
total workforce of the respondents and further stated
that the petitioner union has not been authorised by its
General Body to raise the present dispute or to contest
the issue of wage revision before this Court and has
no mandate to represent the cause of workers who are
not its members and therefore, they cannot seek for the
wage revision on behalf of all the workers of the
respondents.
The respondents further stated that there is a clear
categorisation of workers in its mills by the distinct
nature of work allotted to each of the workers in its
mills and they assign specific duty to all its employees
be it, paddy hullers, paddy boilers, sweepers, helpers,
bag carriers or bag stretchers and except for the
6 workers who participated in the conciliation
proceedings no other workman have any affiliation with
the petitioner union and all the six workman who
participated in the conciliation proceedings are either
paddy hullers or paddy boilers who performed the
specific nature of job allotted to them and that the
six workers of petitioner union were never asked to do
any work other than paddy boiling or paddy hulling and
similarly a worker who is engaged as a helper or a
sweeper is never asked to do paddy hulling or paddy
boiling and further stated that by law, the respondents
are entitled to engage daily rated workers, jattu
workers or casual workers to whom the wages can be
paid on a daily rated basis and to demand monthly
wages to jattu workers or daily rated workers is absurd
and unsustainable more particularly in a seasonal
industrial activity like rice milling and further stated
that they are paying more than the wages prescribed
under the Minimum Wages Act and each of six
representative of the union are drawing salaries
between ` 2,200 to ` 2,850 depending upon their
grade, which is exclusive of the batta of ` 450 and
none of the workers of the petitioner union are
drawing a salary as low as what has been claimed in the
claim petition and further stated that they have
implemented the minimum wages prescribed under the
Act and that the Labour Officer, Conciliation has stated
in the report dated 29-5-2007 that the workmen
representatives request the Conciliation Officer to
enhance wages ` 350 on present wages that is ` 2,750
+ ` 350 and it shows that the workers were drawing
` 2,750 as salary which is way beyond what is prescribed
under Minimum Wages Act and during the conciliation
proceedings the respondents have magnanimously
agreed to give a flat high of ` 170 as against the
demand of ` 350 which was not acceptable to the
representatives of petitioner union and that the petition
filed by the petitioner union is clear abuse of Trade
union powers, is vexatious and\is liable to be dismissed.
1253
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and Ex.Al to Ex.A10
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW1
was examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.R31 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the demand made by the petitioner union
for revision of wages and other allied matters against
the respondents is justified or not?
6. Heard. The submission of both the parties, the
evidence let in by either sides and the exhibits marked
on both sides, the written argument filed by the
petitioner are carefully considered.
7. The petitioner union have raised the industrial
dispute by giving their representation for the revision
of wages for Rl and R2 mills. They have sought for
enhancement of wages of ` 1,000 per head per month
and overtime wages as per the Act and for every
completed 24 hours of duty, 8 hours of wages to be
paid as bata and in the night shift work every worker
who discharge 2 workers' duty is eligible to get one day
bata and further demand is that the national festival
holidays to be implemented and implementation of
wage revision for every worker would be from
9-6-2004 and they have raised the industrial dispute on
16-11-2001 by giving representation to the Regional
Administrator, Yanam and the copy has been sent to the
Assistant Inspector of Labour to resolve the dispute.
Since, the conciliation was failed, the Government has
made this reference to decide the revision of wages
and other allied matters made against the management
of M/s. Bhargavi Agro Tech. Adavipolam and M/s. Sri
Vasavi Modern Raw and Boiled Rice Mill (P) Ltd.,
Yanam is justified or not.
8. It is the case of the petitioner union that the
respondent's mill have different categories of workers
like Drivers/Operators, Assistant Operators, Clerks,
Sweepers, Bag carriers or bag waiters and bag stitchers
and Sweepers and bag stitchers/waiters are piece-rated
with daily wages and others are treated as monthly
earners and that therefore, the union claimed that all
are to be treated as monthly wages and that their main
contention is that the respondent managements have not
paid the minimum wages to the workers who are
entitled to a maximum of ` 86 per day and minimum
of ` 77 for every category of workers and they have
asked to enhance the minimum of ` 1,000 from
existing wages.
9. On the other hand, it is contended by the
respondent managements that the petitioner union has
become defunct as many of its members have either
formed their own unions or have joined the other union
and even some of the office bearers of the union have
ceased to act as union leaders owing to their joining
avocations unconnected with the Rice-mills and the
union had not been functioning for the last several
years and the union is unregistered and unrecognised
minority union and the petitioner union does not even
represent 10% of the total workforce of the
respondents and the union has not been authorised by
its General Body to raise the present dispute or to
contest the wage revision before this Court and that
the respondent mills are entitled to engage daily rated
workers, jattu workers or casual workers to whom the
wages can be paid on a daily rate basis and the
representatives of the union are drawing salaries
between ` 2,200 to ` 2,850 depending upon their
grade, which is exclusive of the bata of ` 450 and the
respondents are implementing the minimum wages
prescribed under the Act and during the conciliation
proceedings, the respondents have magnanimously
agreed to give a flat high of ` 170 as against the
demand of ` 350 per month.
10. From the pleadings of both the parties it is clear
that the following facts are admitted by them that the
petitioner union members and executives are working
at the respondent mills and the petitioner union has
raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer over charter of demands such as wage revision
for ` 1,000 per month and also for other benefits as
claimed in the claim statement and the conciliation
was failed and subsequently the case was referred to
this Tribunal to decide the fact that whether the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union over
charter of demands is justified or not and whether the
petitioners are entitled for any other relief.
11. To establish the case, the petitioner union has
exhibited Ex.Al to E.A10. The charter of demands is
exhibited as Ex.Al wherein, the petitioner has claimed
the demands from the management of both the mills
Rl and R2 that the monthly salary will be enhanced
to ` 1,000 per month to every operator, overtime
wages shall be executed as per Act, one day wage shall
be paid as bata for 24 hours duty and two batas shall
be paid if, a workers may have perform dual work at
night and festival holidays shall be executed as per
Act. From the above Ex.Al, it is clear that the
petitioners have made a representation over charter of
demands on 9-6-2004 to both the mill for the above
demands. Ex.A2- Reminder to the charter of demands
would evident that the union has made a representation
before the Assistant Inspector of Labour-cum-
Conciliation Officer on 1-12-2004 regarding the
1254
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
charter of demands which was claimed by them from
the managements on 9-6-2004 and wherein, it is
stated by the union that the management had agreed for
8 hours work per day and to pay over time wages twice
to the wage. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are the reply of the
respondent management R1 and R2 to the Assistant
Inspector of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer on 22-4-2005
which would evident that there was a conciliation
proceedings before the Assistant Inspector of
Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer on 22-4-2005 and
in the conciliation the managements have stated that
the petitioners are paid more than the D.A. included
minimum wages and the management is ready to pay
the statutory minimum wages and statutory minimum
bonus as revised periodically. Ex.A5 is a letter sent by
the petitioner union on 6-6-2005 to the Assistant
Inspector
of
Labour-cum-Conciliation
Officer
regarding the charter of demands submitted by them
which would evident that the conciliation meeting was
held on 28th April and 10th May, 2005. Ex.A6 is the
representation given by the union members to the
Regional Executive Officer, Yanam on 16-11-2004
regarding the charter of demands submitted by them
before the Conciliation Officer. Ex.A7 is the failure
report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the
Assistant Inspector of Labour, Yanam to the
Government. Ex.A8 is the reference made by the
Government to this Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute
over the charter of demands raised by the petitioner
union. Ex.A9 is the salary slips which reveals that
some of the employees have received Rice mill
allowance ` 400 and Conveyance allowance ` 240 and
some of the employees have received rice mill
allowance ` 562 and conveyance allowance ` 338 in
the year 2005 for the month of August, 2005 and
further some of the employees have received rice
mill allowance ` 62 Conveyance allowance ` 375 in
the month of May, 2005 and in the month of January,
2005 some of the employees have received rice
mill allowance ` 566 and Conveyance allowance
` 340 and further the basic pay of ` 960, ` 1,350,
` 1,500 and ` 1359 were paid to the employees in the
year 2005 for various categories of employees.
Ex.A10 is the notification of the Government of
Puducherry passed in the year 2005 which reveals that
the Government of Puducherry has fixed the minimum
rate of wages payable to each category of employees
engaged in the rice mills, Flour mills and Dhal mills
of the Union Territory of Puducherry and ` 77 was
fixed as minimum rate of wages per day 8 hours work
to the rice mills paddy driver, millers, sweepers,
shellerman, winnowers, paddy soakers, water carriers,
watchman and mazdoors employed in polishing. On
perusal of records, Ex.A7 would evident the fact that
the conciliation was held and in the conciliation the
Conciliation Officer has observed that in the
conciliation the respondent management has accepted
for 8 hours duty and double O.T and the petitioner
union has claimed only enhancement of wages at
` 450 in the conciliation for which the respondent
management has accepted to enhance the wages to
` 170 instead of ` 450.
12. On the other hand, in order to prove the case,
the respondents have exhibited the copy of the list of
operators who have left the services of the respondents
as Ex.Rl, RTI form submitted by the respondent to the
registrar of trade union as Ex.R2, the copy of
certificate of Registration of the petitioner union
furnished by Registrar of Trade union under RTI as
Ex.R3, the copy of the returns filed by the petitioner
union to Registrar of Trade union on 8-2-2006 as
Ex.R4, the copy of the list of the office bearers as in
the year 2006 along with the rules and regulations of
petitioner trade union as furnished by the Public
Information Officer as Ex.R5, the copy of the
application submitted by the petitioner union for registration
of the trade union along with the list of their office
bearers as furnished by the Registrar of Trade Union
as Ex.R6, the copy of the memorandum of 18(1)
settlement between 1st respondent and Mistry and
Contract Jattu Labour as Ex.R7, the copy of
memorandum of settlement in Telugu under section
12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act as Ex.R8, the copy of
memorandum of settlement under section 18(1) of
Industrial Dispute Act as Ex.R9, the wage register of
respondent’s company for the months of September to
October, 2013 as Ex.R10, the original affidavit
executed by Siva Koti Venkatasamy as Ex.Rll, the
original affidavit executed by Badrajula Nageshwara
Roa as Ex.R12, the original affidavit executed by
Ulusukondayya as Ex.R13, the Memorandum of
settlement under section 18(1) between Sri Vasavi
Modern Rice Mills and the workers as Ex.R14, the
original Memorandum of settlement under sec. 18(1)
between Vasavi Modern V Rice Mill and the workers
as Ex.Rl5, the copy of the memorandum of 18(1)
settlement entered between 2nd respondent and (l)
Koppisetty Subrahmanyam, (2) Nati Srinivasan Roa,
(3) Saladi Adinaryanan, (4) Sundara Thata Roa as
Ex.R16, the copy of the memorandum of 18(1)
settlement entered between 2nd respondents and
(1) Choday Yedukondalu, (2) Gurumella Jondayya, (3)
Chavakula devadas as Ex.R17, the original receipts
given by Choday Yedukondalu to 2nd respondent
1255
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
towards as full and final settlement on his
resignation.(3Nos.) as Ex.R18, the original receipts
given by Gurumella Kondayya to 2nd respondent as full
and final settlement on his resignation (3Nos.) as
Ex.R19, the original receipts given by Chavakula
devadas to 2nd respondent towards as full and final
settlement on his resignation.(3Nos.) as Ex.R20,
the
original
receipts
given
by
Koppisetty
Subrahmanyam to 2nd respondent towards as full and
final settlement on his resignation.(5Nos.) as Ex.R21,
the original receipts given by Nati Srinivasan to 2nd
respondent towards as full and final settlement on his
resignation.(5Nos,) as Ex.R22, the original receipts
given by Saladi Adinarayanan to 2nd respondent towards
as full and final settlement on his resignation.(5Nos.)
as Ex.R23, the original receipts given by Sundara Thata
Roa to 2nd respondent towards as full and final
settlement on his resignation.(5Nos.) as Ex.R24, the
original list of vouchers/receipts for payment made
towards arrears of wage increase by the 1st respondent
to some of its workers as Ex.R25, the original receipt
given by Batrajula Nageshwara Rao to 1st respondent
as full and final settlement of his resignation as
Ex.R26, the original receipt given by Bara Nageshwara
Rao to 1st respondent as full and final settlement of
his resignation as Ex.R27, the original receipt given
by A. Srinivasa Rao to 1st respondent as full and final
settlement of his resignation as Ex.R28, the original
receipt given by J.V.V. Sathyanarayanan to 1st
respondent as full and final settlement of his
resignation as Ex.R29, the original settlement arrived
between 1st respondent and Chitti Raju before the
Assistant Inspector of Labour, Yanam with receipt for
full and final settlement as Ex.R30, the copy of the
register of wages maintained by the respondents as
Ex.R31.
13. On perusal of the above records, Ex.R7 to
Ex.R9 are the copy of the memorandum of settlement
between the respondent management and contract Jattu
labours under section 18(l) & 12(3) of the Act in the
year 2003 and 2005. Ex.R10 would reveal the fact that
the respondent management is paying overtime wages,
HRA, ESI and PF contribution in the year 2013. Ex.R11
to Ex.R13 are the affidavit of the operators of the
respondent mill wherein, they have stated that they are
not the members of the petitioner union and that they
have resigned from the job after getting terminal
benefits from the respondent mill. Ex.Rl4 to Ex.Rl7
are the memorandum of 18(1) settlement arrived at
between the workers of the respondent mill and the
respondent management. Ex.Rl8 to Ex.R30 are the
original receipts given by the employees towards their
full and final settlement on their resignation which
would go to show that most of the employees of the
respondent mill have resigned their job after getting
full and final settlement from the respondent
management. These documents would go to show that
most of the employees of the respondent mill have
entered settlement with the respondent management
under section 18(3) and 12(3) of the Act and some of
the employees are also have resigned their job after
getting
all
the\benefits
from
the
respondent
management and majority of the employees are not the
members of the petitioner union and the office bearers
of the petitioner union only 6 members alone have
raised the dispute for enhancement of wages while
other employees have entered settlement under section
18(l) and 12(3) of the Act.
14. It is the main contention of the respondent
management that the petitioner union is a defunct one
and the union does not have atleast 10% of the workers
and only these 6 petitioners have claimed the overtime
wages, most of the employees resigned their job after
getting full and final settlement and some of the
employees have also entered into 18(1) settlement and
therefore, this petitioner union is not functioning and
that therefore, the petitioner union members are not
entitled for any relief. It is also established by the
respondent management that most of the employees
have left after getting full settlement and work benefits
by executing receipt for full settlement by resigning
their job and most of the employees have entered into
the settlement with them. Ex.A7 is the memorandum
of settlement made under section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act by the respondent management
on 23-9-2003 which would go to show that the
respondent management has agreed to increase all
piece rate wages by 7% payable to jattu labour and also
agreed to pay 65% extra wages for work rendered on
specified factory holidays and weekly holidays and
also agreed to contribute EPF and ESI.
15. It is not in dispute that the respondent
management have paying minimum wages to the
petitioners. There cannot be any objection to the
respondent management to pay minimum wages to the
petitioners according to the law. Admittedly, in the year
2005 under Ex.A10 a notification was notified by the
Government of Puducherry wherein, the wages of the
Rice mill employees were fixed at ` 77 per day for
8 hours work and that therefore the petitioner who
were working in the year 2005 at the respondent Mills
are entitle to get the minimum wages at the rate of
` 77 per day and the management have also agreed to pay
1256
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
the over time wages and double wages for O.T. and the
respondent management have also admitted the fact
that they are ready to increase the pay at ` 77 from
the date of charter of demands and the petitioner union
have also agreed and demanded only enhancement of
`
450 in the wages and they have also claimed
increment for every year as the petitioners are the
union members and they are entitled for increment per
year. The petitioner union have claimed enhancement
of salary of ` 1,000 to its workers. As there is no
contract between the petitioner union and the
respondents the salary cannot be raised on the basis
of their claim at the rate of ` 1,000 per month and
furthermore, the petitioner union have claimed ` 450
in the conciliation proceedings and the management
have also accepted to enhance the salary of ` 170 at
the time of conciliation and furthermore, it would
evident from Ex.R7-Memorandum of settlement
arrived at between the jattu labours of the respondent
mill and the respondent management that the
respondent have agreed for rate of wages to its jattu
labours and agreed to pay 65% extra wages for work
rendered on specified factory holidays and weekly
holidays and also agreed to pay EPF and ESI
contribution apart from the bonus of 8.33% of wages
and though there is no settlement arrived at between
the union and the respondents, as the pay increase was
given to the jattu labours under the settlement entered
u/s. 8(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 23-9-2004
these petitioners are also entitled for the enhancement
of wages. However, enhancement of ` 1,000 cannot be
given to them since it is not stated by the petitioner
workmen on what basis `1,000 was fixed by them for
asking enhancement.
16. The petitioner workmen have claimed only
` 450 in the conciliation proceedings for which the
respondents have also accepted to grant `170 towards
revision of wages. The petitioners have not filed any
document or let any evidence that how they are entitled
for the wage enhancement of ` 1,000 per month. Wage
cannot be enhanced under statutory right without any
settlement or contract between the employee and the
employer. Hence, these petitioners are not entitled for
any wage enhancement of ` 1,000 as claimed by them.
However, the petitioners are entitled for the minimum
wage at the rate of ` 77 per day (` 77 x 30 days
` 2310) and they have also entitled for the Rice mill
allowance of ` 625, conveyance allowance of ` 375
and also entitled for the Dearness allowance for the
said pay of ` 2,310. Apart from the above minimum
wages, the petitioners are also entitled for the
overtime wages and the respondents have also to
contribute EPF and ESI contribution in respect of their
employees as claimed by the petitioners under the
statutory provisions. Further, the petitioners have
claimed bata and other things. But, no document is
exhibited before this court to grant such relief to the
workers. If, the petitioner workmen are working more
than statutory period of 8 hours they are entitled for
the overtime wages as claimed by them and that
therefore, it is to be held that the petitioners are
entitled for the minimum wages at the rate of basic pay
of ` 2,310, rice mill allowance of ` 625, Conveyance
allowance of ` 375 along with dearness allowance and
hence, the dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondents over their charter of demand
is justified and the petition is liable to be partly
allowed and the petitioner workmen are entitled for
the relief. However, as already discussed above the
petitioner workmen are not entitle for enhancement of
wages of ` 1,000 as claimed by them and hence Award
is to be passed to pay the minimum wages to the
petitioners after deducting the wages already paid to
them and for overtime wages and for contribution of
EPF and ESI.
17. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union
over the charter of demand is justified and an Award
is passed by directing the respondents to pay minimum
wages of ` 2,310 towards basic pay, ` 625 towards
rice mill allowance, ` 375 towards Conveyance
allowance along with proper dearness allowance and
house rent allowance to these 6 members of the
petitioner union for the said period i.e. from the date
of raising the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer and further directed the respondents to pay
overtime wages to these petitioners if they have served
overtime and also directed to pay EPF and ESI
contribution as claimed by these petitioners and this
petition is partly dismissed in respect of charter of
demand of wage enhancement of ` 1,000. No cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 22nd day of August, 18-6-2015 for
adjudicating the following:-
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
1257
14 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of pettitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 21-08-2009— K. Subramanian
List of pettitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Al
— 09-06-2004 —Charter of demands by
the union.
Ex.A2 — 01-12-2004 —Reminder to the charter
of demands.
Ex.A3 — 22-04-2005 —Reply
by
the
1st
respondent.
Ex.A4 — 22-04-2005 —Reply
by
the
2nd
respondent.
Ex.A5 — 06-06-2005 —Reminder to the charter
of demands.
Ex.A6 — 16-11-2004 —Representation to the
REO, Yanam.
Ex.A7 — 19-12-2005 —Failure report of the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.A8 — 29-12-2006 —Reference
by
the
Government.
Ex.A9 — August,
— Wage slips issued by the
2005
1st respondent (5Nos).
Ex.A10— 24-01-2005 —Gazette
Notification
issued by the Government
of Puducherry .
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1
— 03-01-2014— V. Sathyananda Kumar
List of respondent’s Exhibits:
Ex.Rl
— —
— Copy of the list of
operators who have left
the
services
of
the
respondents.
Ex.R2 — 01-03-2012 —RTI form submitted by
the respondent to the
registrar of trade union.
Ex.R3 — 15-03-2000 —Copy of certificate
of Registration of the
p e t i t i o n e r
u n i o n
furnished by Registrar
of Trade Union under
RTI.
Ex.R4 — 08-02-2006 —Copy of the returns filed
by the petitioner union
to Registrar of Trade
Union on 08-02-2006.
Ex.R5 — —
— Copy of the list of the
office bearers as in the
year 2006 along with the
rules and regulations of
petitioner trade union as
furnished by the Public
Information Officer.
Ex.R6 — —
— Copy of the application
s u b m i t t e d b y t h e
petitioner
union
for
registration of the trade
union along with the list
of their office bearers as
fu r n i s h e d
b y
t h e
Registrar of Trade Union.
Ex.R7 — 23-09-2003 —Copy of the memorandum
of
18(1)
settlement
between 1st respondent
and Mistry and Contract
Jattu Labour.
Ex.R8 — — — Copy of memorandum
of settlement in Telugu
under section 12(3) of
ID Act.
Ex.R9 — 24-09-2005 —Copy of memorandum
of settlement under
section 18(1) of ID Act.
Ex.R10— —
— Wage
register
of
respondent’s company for
the months of September
to October, 2013.
Ex.Rl1— 08-02-2007 —Original affidavit executed
by Siva koti Venkatasamy.
Ex.R12— 08-02-2008— O r i g i n a l
a ffi d a v i t
executed by Badrajula
Nageshwara Roa.
Ex.R13— 08-02-2007— O r i g i n a l
a f f i d a v i t
e x e c u t e d
b y
Ulusukondayya.
Ex.R14— 24-08-2008 —Memorandum
of
settlement under section
l8(l) between Sri Vasavi
Modern Rice Mills and
the workers.
Ex.R15— 28.02.2009 — Original Memorandum
of
settlement
under
section 18(1) between
Vasavi Modern Rice Mill
and the workers.
1258
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[14 November 2017
Ex.Rl6 — 15-03-2009— C o p y
o f
t h e
memorandum of 18(1)
s e t t l e m e n t
e n t e r e d
between 2nd respondent
and
(l) Koppisetty
Subrahmanyam, (2) Nati
S r i n i v a s a n
R o a ,
(3) Saladi Adinaryanan,
(4) Sundara Thata Roa.
Ex.R17— 06-08-2008— C o p y
o f
t h e
memorandum of 18(1)
settlement entered between
2nd respondents and
(1) Choday Yedukondalu,
(2) Gurumella Jondayya,
(3) Chavakula devadas.
Ex.Rl8 — 13-08-2008— Original receipts given
13-08-2008
by Choday Yedukondalu
31-08-2009
to 2nd respondent towards
as full and final settlement
on his resignation. (3 Nos.)
Ex.R19— 13-08-2008— Original receipts given
13-08-2008
by Gurumella Kondayya
31-08-2009
to 2nd respondent as full
and f i n a l settlement on
his resignation. (3Nos.)
Ex.R20— 13-08-2008— Original receipts given
13-08-2008
by Chavakula devadas to
31-08-2009
2nd respondent towards
as full and final settlement
on his resignation. (3Nos.).
Ex.R21— 31-03-2009— Original receipts given
b y
K o p p i s e t t y
Subrahmanyam to 2nd
respondent towards as
full and final settlement
on
his
resignation.
(5Nos.).
Ex.R22— 31-03-2009— Original receipts given
by Nati Srinivasan to
2nd respondent towards
as full and final settlement
on his resignation. (5Nos.).
Ex.R23— 31.03.2009 — O r i g i n a l
receipts
g i v e n b y S a l a d i
Adinarayanan to 2nd
respondent towards as full
and final settlement on
his resignation. (5Nos.).
Ex.R24— 31-03-2009— Original receipts given
by Sundara Thata Roa to
2nd respondent towards
as
full
and
final
settlement
on
his
resignation.(5Nos.).
Ex.R25— —
— Original
list
of
vouchers/receipts
for
payment made towards
arrears of wage increase
by the 1st respondent to
some of its workers.
Ex.R26 —31-08-2009— Original receipt given by
Batrajula Nageshwara
Rao to 1st respondent as
full and final settlement
of his resignation.
Ex.R27— 14-10-2008— Original receipt given by
Bara Nageshwara Rao to
1st respondent as full
and final settlement of
his resignation.
Ex.R28— 09-03-2009— Original receipt given by
A. Srinivasa Rao to 1st
respondent as full and
final settlement of his
resignation.
Ex.R29— 10-03-2009— Original receipt given by
J.V.V. Sathyanarayanan
to 1st respondent as full
and final settlement of
his resignation.
Ex.R30— 22-04-2008 —Original
settlement
arrived
between
1st
respondent and Chitti
Raju
before
the
Assistant Inspector of
Labour,
Yanam
with
receipt for full and final
settlement.
Ex.R31— December, — Copy of the register of
2006 and
and wages maintained by
January,
the respondents.
2007.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.