

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry



Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority

` 13-00

Prix : ` 13-00

Price :

` 13-00



SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS



Page

.. 1346

Sentence arbitral du travail

.. 1346

Award of the Labour Court .. 1346

de tribunal.



.. 1352

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1352

Government Notifications .. 1352



.. 1359

Avis d’Adjudications

.. 1359

Tender notices

.. 1359



.. 1360

Annonces

.. 1360

Announcements

.. 1360

[1345]

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 : 12-12-2017

Price : ` 13-00







2017 } | 12 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Decembre

2017 (21 Agrahayana 1939)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

12th

December

2017

1346

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[12 December 2017

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 162/Lab./AIL/T/2017,

Puducherry, dated 23rd October 2017)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Award in I.D. (L) No. 2/2017, dated

28-9-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect

of the industrial dispute between the Management of

Puducherry Distilleries Limited, Puducherry and

Puducherry Distilleries Limited Workers Union,

Puducherry over regularisation of 27 casual labourers

has been received;

Now,

therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of

1947) read with the notification issued in Labour

Department’s G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-91,

it is hereby directed by the Secretary to Government

(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the

Official Gazette, Puducherry.

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,

Tuesday, the 28th day of September, 2017

I.D. (L) No. 2/2017

The President/Secretary,

Puducherry Distilleries Limited

Workers Union, Ariyankuppam,

Villianur (Post), Puducherry-605 110. .. Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. Puducherry Distilleries Limited,

R.S. No. 144 and 145,

Ariyankuppam,

Villianur, Puducherry-605 110.

.. Respondent

This

industrial

dispute

coming

26-9-2017

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru M. S. Subramanian, Advocate for the petitioner,

the respondent being called absent and set-ex parte,

upon hearing the petitioner and perusing the case

records, 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. 7/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 19-1-2017

of the Labour Department, Pondicherry to resolve the

following dispute between the petitioner and the

respondent, viz.,

(i) Whether the dispute raised by Puducherry

Distilleries Limited Workers Union against the

management of M/s. Puducherry Distilleries Limited,

Puducherry over regularisation of 27 casual

labourers as listed in Annexure-II is justified or not ?

If justified, what relief they are entitled to ?

(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in

terms of money, if it can be so computed?

2. The petitioner union have filed the claim

statement wherein, it is stated that petitioners were

working at the respondent establishment for about

5 years continuously and they are the members of

the trade union and the respondent management has

not given wage revision and has not regularised them

as a permanent worker and the petitioners were

working more than 240 days in a year continuously

for 5 years and they were doing the duties of the

permanent worker and that they are entitled for E.L.,

C.L., P.L., Medical leave and other monetary

benefits from the respondent management and while

the permanent workers are paying

` 21,606 as

monthly wages, the respondent management has

given only ` 300 to the petitioners though they are

doing the same work and the respondent management

has also not granted E.L., C.L., P.L., though they are

working for about 5 years and even after the request

made by the petitioners the respondent management

has not accepted the demand and therefore on 29-7-2013

they raised the industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer and the conciliation proceedings

was taken place but, it is ended in failure and that

therefore, the conciliation failure report was

submitted by the Conciliation Officer on 7-12-2015

and the case has been referred to this Court and the

petitioners are entitled for E.L., C.L., P.L., and also

entitled for the salary of

` 21,606 from the

respondent management after deducting

` 7,800

which was received by them as monthly wages and

each petitioner is entitled for ` 3,86,568 for about

28 months.

3. Inspite

due

service

notice

the

respondent appeared before this Court in person and

even after granting sufficient opportunities the respondent

has failed to file their objection as a counter

statement and hence, the respondent was set ex parte.

1347

12 December 2017]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

4. In the course of enquiry, on the side of the

petitioner PW.l was examined and Ex. P1 to Ex. P4

were marked.

5. The point for determination is:

Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner

union over regularisation of 27 Casual Labourers

against the respondent management is justified or

not and if justified what relief entitled to the said

workers.

6. Heard. It is the evidence of the petitioner PW.l

that they have been in service at the respondent

establishment for about 5 years continuously and

though they have served continuously for about 240

days at the respondent establishment, they have not

been regularised by the respondent management and

for which they have raised the industrial dispute

before the Conciliation Officer and this reference

has been sent to this Court for proper adjudication.

7. In support of their case, the petitioners have

exhibited Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. Ex. P1 is the copy of the

industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union

which would evident that petitioners have raised the

industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on

29-7-2013

for

regularisation

and

for

other

entitlement. Ex.P2 is the copy of the reply given by

the respondent management to the notice of the

Labour Officer (Conciliation). It is learnt from Ex. P2

that petitioners are working at the respondent

establishment for about five years and they have

attended the duty 240 days in a year continuously. Ex. P3

is the copy of the Memorandum, Office Order of the

respondent management which would go to show that

one of the petitioner Murugan has been appointed as

multi-purpose worker and Appointment Order was

issued to him on 29-12-2015. Ex. P4 is the copy of

the Pay Slips given by the respondent management to

Nagasoundarame, Junior Operator which reveal the

fact that the respondent management has issued pay

slip to Junior Operator at ` 21,536 for the month

of October, 2013 November, 2013 and December, 2013.

8. It is clearly established through the petitioner

evidence and records that petitioners were in

service at the respondent establishment for about

5 years continuously and though they have served

continuously for about 240 days at the respondent

establishment in a year they have not been

regularised by the respondent management 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

regularisation of 27 casual labourers against the

respondent management is justified or not.

9. On the other hand, though the respondent

appeared before this Court in person, they have not

filed any counter and subsequently due to his absence,

the respondent was set ex parte. Considering the fact

that the petitioners have established their case, it is

to be held that the petitioners are entitled for the

claim as prayed by them and hence, the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioner union against the

respondent management over his regularisation of

27 casual labourers is justified and the petition is

liable to be allowed and the petitioners are entitled

for the wages on par with the permanent workers of

the respondent establishment from the date of

raising the industrial dispute.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the

industrial dispute raised by the petitioner over

regularisation of 27 casual labourers against the

respondent management is justified and an Award is

passed by directing the respondent to pay wages to

the petitioners on par with the permanent workers

from the date of raising the industrial dispute. No cost.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on

this the 28th day of September, 2017.

G. THANENDRAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry.

ANNEXURE-II

Sl. No.

Name of the employees

(1)

(2)

P. Murugan

V. Kannan

R. Shanmugam

S. Jayakumar

B. Narayanasamy

R. Selvarangam

S. Seetharaman

R. Ramalingam

M. Elumalai

S. Sachidanandam

S. Kodandaramane

1348

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[12 December 2017

G. Selvaraj

S. Prabakar

D. Vijayalakshmi

I. Sashikumar

A. Rajaram

V. Manikandan

M. Tiroutchalingame

I. Kumar

B. Murugan

R. Prabagaran

D. Mourougane

S. Madhan

K. Meena

V. Sundaramoorthy

B. Palanivel

R. Marie Roland

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

26-9-2017

B. Murugan

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex. P1 29-7-2013

Copy of the industrial dispute

raised by th petitioner union.

Ex. P2 19-3-2014

Copy of the reply given by the

respondent management to the

notice of the Labour Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex. P3 7-12-2015

Copy of the

memorandum,

office order of the respondent

management.

Ex. P4

October,

Copy of the Pay Slips given

2013 to

by the respondent management

2013

December, to Nagasoundarame,

Junior Operator.

List of respondents witness: Nil.

List of respondents exhibits: Nil.

G. THANENDRAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G. O. Rt. No. 164/Lab./AIL/T/2017,

Puducherry, dated 30th October 2017)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Award in I.D.(L)No. 80/2012, dated

06-09-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in

respect of the industrial dispute between the

Management of Cannanore Spinning and Weaving

Mills, Mahe and Thiru B.V. Prasanth, over denial of

employment and termination has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read

with the notification issued in Labour Department’s

G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-91, it is hereby

directed by 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 6th day of September, 2017

I.D. (L) No. 80/2012

B.V. Prasanth,

Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills,

Mahe.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills,

Palloor - 673 333 (Near Tellicherry),

Mahe.

. . Respondent.

This industrial dispute coming on 18-08-2017

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru N.K. Inder Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner,

Thiru O.G. Premarajan, Advocate for the respondent,

upon hearing, upon perusing the case records, after

having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court passed the following:

(1)

(2)

1349

12 December 2017]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

AWARD

1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the

Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. 129/AIL/Lab./J/2008,

dated 23-07-2008 for adjudicating the following:-

(i)

W h e t h e r

t h e

d i s p u t e

r a i s e d

b y

T h i r u B.V. Prasanth against the management of

M/s. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills, Mahe over

denial of employment and termination is justified

or not?

(ii) To what relief, Thiru B.V. Prasanth is entitled to ?

(iii) To compute the relief, if any awarded in

terms of money, if it can be so computed?

The above reference originally taken on file by the

Sub-Court at Mahe which was being functioned as

Labour Court in I.D. No. 02/2010 and subsequently

when this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court established

in the year 2012, the case has been transferred to this

Court and this case was taken on file by renumbering

it as I.D (L) No. 80/2012.

2. The averments in the claim statement of the

petitioner, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner stated that he has been working in the

respondent establishment from 2001 to 2007 as Open

Gate Badli and he has received annual bonus from the

respondent management and that due to an application

filed before Provident Fund Office, Kannur by

somebody regarding the issue of provident fund and its

allocation the management suspected that the

petitioner is behind the abovesaid dispute and illegally

terminated the petitioner and denied him the

employment and also denied all the benefits accrued

from it.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed

by the respondent are as follows:

The management stated that the petitioner is not an

employee of their mill and that Open Gate Badlis are

temporary casuals and they are used to wait outside the

mill premises at the beginning of each shift, and they

are engaged, if required, in each shift or else they will

not be permitted even to enter into the mill premises

and that the Open Gate Badlis are not in the rolls of

mill and they are not the labour or employee of the mill

and there is no employee-employer relation between

them and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any

benefit from the mill as an employee and he is not

entitled for any pecuniary or compensatory relief as

claimed in the claim petition.

4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the

petitioner WW.1 was examined and Ex.W1 was marked

and on the side of the respondent PW.1 was examined

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked.

5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against

the respondent management over denial of employment

and termination is justified or not and if justified, what

relief the petitioner is entitled to?

6. Heard.

Even

after

granting

sufficient

opportunities either the petitioner or his Counsel did

not appear and has not putforth their arguments.

Argument was putforth by the side of the respondent.

The pleadings of both the parties, the evidence let in

by either sides and the exhibits marked on both

sides and submission made by the respondent are

carefully considered.

7. It is stated in the claim petition that the

petitioner was working as Open Gate Badli in the

respondent establishment from 2001 till 2007 and he

has also received annual bonus from the respondent

management and also he has got ESI coverage and that

there was some dispute arose between the management

and the employees of the respondent mill regarding the

issue of provident fund coverage and as the

management suspected that petitioner is behind the

above dispute the respondent management illegally

terminated the petitioner and denied the employment.

8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner

workman was examined as WW.1 and Ex.W1 was

marked. He has stated in his evidence that he has

worked at the respondent establishment from 2001

onwards as a Open Gate Badli and has got ESI

coverage and continuously worked till 2007 and

somebody has filed an application before the Provident

Fund Office, Kannur regarding non-coverage of

provident fund the respondent management suspected

the petitioner and denied employment to him and

terminated him from service and hence, he constrained

to raise the dispute before the Labour Department and

in support of his case the petitioner has exhibited the

ESI Card.

9. On the other hand, it is the case of the

respondent that there is no relationship of employer-

employee between the respondent management and the

petitioner workman and the petitioner is not the

employee of the respondent establishment and the

Open Gate Badlis are the temporary casuals and they

used to wait at the door i.e., outside the mill premises

1350

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[12 December 2017

at the beginning of each shift and they will be engaged

if required by the management in each shift otherwise

they will not be permitted even to enter into the mill

premises and that this claim petitioner is not an

employee or labour or worker of the respondent mill

and that therefore, he is not entitled for any

reinstatement or for any monetary benefits from the

respondent mill as an employee.

10. From the pleadings and evidence of both the

parties it is clear that following facts are admitted by

either sides that the petitioner was working only as

Open Gate Badli and he is not a permanent workman

of the respondent mill and his employment was denied

by the respondent management and no domestic

enquiry was conducted and no disciplinary action was

taken against the petitioner and no termination order

was given to the petitioner and the petitioner has

raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation

Officer and since, the conciliation was failed the

matter

has

been

referred

this

Court

for

adjudication.

11. This industrial dispute has been referred to this

Court for adjudication to decide the dispute raised by

the petitioner against the respondent management

over denial of employment and termination is

justified or not. In this case no termination order is

produced before this Court and admittedly, no

domestic enquiry was conducted and no show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner workman. But, it

is the case of the respondent management that there

is no relationship of employee-employer between the

petitioner workman and the respondent management

and that the petitioner is not an employee of the

respondent mill and hence, he is not entitled for any

benefit as prayed by him. No document is exhibited by

the petitioner to prove the fact that he is continuously

working from 2001 to 2007 at the respondent mill and

he was doing the work of the permanent workers.

He himself admitted the fact that he was working

as a Open Gate Badli. In such circumstances that the

relationship of employee-employer is between the

petitioner workman and the respondent management to

be established by him and he has also not established

that his service was continuous one. Atleast he has to

prove the fact that he was working continuously for

about 240 days in a preceeding year and furthermore,

the petitioner

has not exhibited

any other

documents except Ex.W1 - ESI Card to prove that he

was working for about 7 years from 2001 at the

respondent establishment and he has also not exhibited

the Salary Slip, Identity Card or any other documents

to prove the fact that he was working for more than

7 years at the respondent establishment.

12. On this aspect the evidence of WW.1, the

petitioner workman in cross-examination is perused

which runs as follows:

“I was working as Open Gate Badli in the mills.

I started working in 2001 which is seen in Ex.W1.

I have no record to show that I have received the bonus

from the mill. Except W1 there is no other document

to show that I was continuously working in the mill

in the year 2007. I have not submitted any application

to the Provident Fund Officer, Kannur. There is no

other document available to me to show that I have

terminated from service. I was assigned to the number 629

by the mill. There is no other document to show that

the same. Conciliation was conducted by the Labour

Officer in the matter. I do not know whether it is

stated in Ex.P7 that I was not worked as workman.

We used to wait outside the mill and if, there is

employment, we will be called for the same. I used to

get an employment in all days, but, there is no record

to show the same. Except W1, I have no documents

to show that I was working in the mill. I am not

satisfied if, I am continued as a Badli employee as

before, but, I want post to be permanent. I do not want

to be appointed as Badli employee”.

From the above evidence, it is clear that the

petitioner himself has admitted the fact that he was an

employee of the respondent mill since he was working

as Open Gate Badli and the Open Gate Badli was

waiting at the gate of the mill i.e., outside the premises

of the mill at the time of shift and if, the management

requires, the Open Gate Badli will be engaged by them,

otherwise the Open Gate Badli has not been permitted

to enter into the mill. Further, he admitted in his

evidence that he has no record to show that he was

working at the respondent mill and he has received

salary and also admitted that there is no document for

termination. No document is filed by him to prove the

fact he is a permanent or temporary employee of the

respondent mill for the period of 7 years.

13. On the other hand, the Labour Officer who was

examined as PW.1 has exhibited the letter given by the

petitioner before the Labour Officer, Mahe as Ex.P1,

the letter given by the petitioner before the Regional

Administrator, Mahe as Ex.P2, the notice issued by the

Conciliation Officer, Mahe to the respondent management

as Ex.P3, the reply given by the respondent management

as Ex.P4, the Conciliation Notice as Ex.P5, the

conciliation failure report as Ex.P6, the confidential

report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, Mahe

to the Secretary (Labour), Labour Department,

Puducherry as Ex.P7, the minutes of the conciliation

1351

12 December 2017]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

proceedings as Ex.P8. These documents would go to

show that the petitioner has raised the industrial

dispute before the Labour Officer and on failure of the

conciliation

the

matter

was

referred

the

Government to this Tribunal.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner is the Open Gate

Badli and he has raised the industrial dispute for his

unemployment. The petitioner has not at all stated in

his claim statement that on which date his employment

was refused by the respondent management and on

which date he was lastly permitted to enter into the

premises of the respondent management to do his

employment and what is the contract between them and

nature of work done by him at the respondent mill.

Unless, he is a permanent worker or working not

continuously for 240 days in a proceeding year no

domestic enquiry is required to terminate him from

service. In this case, admittedly he was working as

Open Gate Badli and it is the case of the respondent

that Badli can be utilised only in the absence of the

regular employee in the shift, if, all the workers are

attended the shift no Badli worker can be engaged by

the respondent management and that therefore,

as admitted by the petitioner that he was working only

as Badli from 2001.

15. Furthermore, the petitioner has not established

that he was continuously working for 240 days in

a preceeding year and hence, the respondent management

have not required to establish that they have conducted

the

domestic

enquiry

terminate

the petitioner

workman. Furthermore, the petitioner himself has not

stated that when he was terminated from service and

when he was lastly attended the duty at the respondent

establishment and why he has not submitted the petition

to the management to claim employment and it is also

not stated by the petitioner that whether he was given

any salary receipt or not and whether he was given

monthly or daily wages or piece rate for his Badli

employment and that therefore, the petitioner has

utterly failed to establish his case and he has also failed

to establish that there is relationship of employee and

employer between the petitioner workman and the

respondent management and also failed to establish that

he is a permanent workman and that therefore, the

industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the

respondent management

before

the

Conciliation

Officer over denial of employment and termination is

not justified and as such the petitioner is not entitled

for any relief as claimed by him and hence, this

industrial dispute is liable to be dismissed.

16. 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 06th day of September, 2017.

G. THANENDRAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

WW.1

— 02-02-2012 — B.V. Prasanth

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.Wl — Employees State Insurance Corporation

Card.

List of respondent’s witness:

PW.1

— 10-01-2012 — T. Rajkumar

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 —08-08-2007— Letter

given

the

petitioner

before

the

Labour Officer, Mahe.

Ex.P2 — 08-08-2007—Letter

given

the

petitioner

before

the

Regional Administrator,

Mahe.

Ex.P3 — 10-08-2007—Notice issued by the

Conciliation

Officer,

Mahe to the respondent

management.

Ex.P4 — 14-08-2007—Reply

given

the

respondent management.

Ex.P5 — 07-12-2007—Conciliation Notice.

Ex.P6 — 16-05-2008—Conciliation

Failure

report.

Ex.P7— 21-05-2008— Confidential

report

submitted by the

Conciliation

Officer,

Mahe to the Secretary

(Labour),

Labour

Department, Puducherry.

Ex.P8 — 21-12-2007—M i n u t e s o f t h e

conciliation proceedings.

G. THANENDRAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.