La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 29-00
Prix : ` 29-00
Price :
` 29-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
2
Sentence arbitral du travail
..
2
Award of the Labour Court
..
2
de tribunal.
..
20
Notifications du Gouvernement ..
20
Government Notifications
..
20
..
36
Etablissements dangereux
..
36
Dangerous Establishments
..
36
..
39
Annonces
..
39
Announcements
..
39
[1]
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India under
No. 10410
Registered No. PY/44/2018-20
WPP No. TN/PMG(CCR)/WPP-88/2018-20
Dated : 2-1-2018
Price : ` 29-00
2018 }
|
2 {
No.
1
Poudouchéry
Mardi
2
Janvier
2018 (12 Pausa 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
2nd
January
2018
2
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 181/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 27th December 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I.D.(T) No. 01/2013,
dated 13-10-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
in respect of the industrial dispute between Omkar Fine
Organics Employees Union, Puducherry and the
management of M/s. Omkar Fine Organics Private
Limited, Puducherry over termination, refusal of
employment, unfair labour practice and change of service
condition 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.
Friday, the 13th day of October 2017.
I.D. (T) No. 01/2013
Omkar Fine Organics Employees Union,
Rep., by its President,
Reg.No. 1702/RTU/2012,
No. 40, Selva Nagar,
Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Uruvaiyar, Mangalam Post,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner/
Trade Union
Versus
M/s. Omkar Fine Organics Private Limited,
Rep., by its Managing Director,
No. 22/2, Mangalam Road,
Uruvaiyar, Villianur Commune,
Puducherry-605 110.
. . Respondent/
Management.
This industrial dispute coming on 19-09-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P. R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru S. Savariram, 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. 228/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 21-12-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the charter of demand over wage
revision, regularisation, protection of service condition,
implementation of safety measures etc., is justified
or not? If justified what relief they are entitled?
(ii) Whether the termination of K. Elumalai,
P. Prabu, A.Harikrishnan, J. Arul, G. Sasikumar,
K. Venkatesan, M.Iyyappan and A. Ilayaperumal is
justified or not ? If not justified what relief they are
entitled?
(iii) Whether the refusal of employment to the
following union workmen namely R. Arivaradhan,
N. Saravanakumar, M. Soundarapandian, A.Baskar,
B. Murugaiyan, G.Dasarathan, M. Murugan,
G. Suresh, S. Anbu, C.Ramesh is justified or not?
If not justified what relief they are entitled?
(iv) Whether the management adopted any unfair
labour practice under schedule V of the Industrial
Disputes Act? If so what remedy they are entitled?
(v) Whether the management violated the
provisions of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute
Act? If so what relief they are entitled?
(vi) 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 respondent factory is a
chemical industry, manufacturing fragrance and
flavours. It was established and commenced its
operation in the year 1993. Ever since the
petitioner union members are employed in the
respondent factory as workmen. There were
45 permanent employees including the petitioner union
members employed in the respondent factory in day
3
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
to day manufacturing activities. They were paid
meager wage and extracted more than 8 hours of
work in a day and no overtime wage was paid and
there was no periodical wage increase, and other
allowances increased as time to time as increased
in other factory in that region. None of the safety
measure usually followed by the chemical industry
has been followed and welfare measures provided
under the labour laws are totally denied. The
respondent exploited the workers taking advantage
of their poverty. The petitioner and the other
workers were not even given written appointment
order and while so to protect their legal rights the
workers formed their trade union. The said union
raised charter of demand for wage revision and
other allowances. During 2009 the management
terminated all the members of the trade union
numbering 20 workmen without any reason.
As against the said illegal termination the said
workers approached the Labour Officer, Conciliation,
since there was no action the said workers
approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ
petition No. 9724 of 2009. While pending the said
dispute before the Conciliation Officer and Writ
petition, the respondent settled 18 workers out of
20 workers.
(ii)It is further stated that the Hon’ble High Court
vide
its order, dated 03-07-2012 directed the
Government to refer the dispute regarding the issue of
non employment of the remaining 2 workers to the
Labour Court. In the year 2010, another batch of
workers numbering 8 who demanded wage increase
and other allowances also were removed from service
and they were not allowed to enter into the premises
of the factory. The said workers agitated against their
illegal termination and then they were given settlement.
The remaining 18 permanent workers demanded the
respondent management for wage revision, other
allowances, protection of service conditions and
implementation of safety measures to avert the
accident occur while handling the hazardous chemicals.
The respondent did not pay any heed to the demands
of the workers and had not even come forward for
negotiation. Hence, the workers decided to form a
trade union to address and resolve their grievances.
Since the respondent did not want the workers to form
any trade union in its factory made a complaint before
the Conciliation Officer as against the workers who
took active role in formation of trade union namely,
N. Saravanakumar, G.Suresh, M. Soundarapandian,
G.Thasaradan, M.Iyappan, Arivaradhan, A. Baskar as
there was a labour unrest in the respondent factory.
The conciliation took the said dispute and issued notice,
dated 22-07-2011. The said workers formed a trade
union on 11-03-2012 in the name and style of “Omkar
Fine Organics Employees Union” and on 24-04-2012
the said workers submitted an application in Form-A
before the Registrar of Trade union, Puducherry for
registration of Trade union. Since, the respondent did
not want the workers to form any trade union in its
Factory decided to victimise the workers issued a false
and frivolous charge memo against them.
(iii) It is further stated that the petitioner union
members made a complaint, dated 09-04-2012 and
12-04-2012 to the Conciliation Officer about the
victimisation and unfair labour practice of the
respondent management and sought for protection
of their service condition. On 07-05-2012 the
petitioner union raised an industrial dispute over the
charter of demand before the Conciliation Officer,
while pending the said dispute the respondent
without approval of the Conciliation Officer
terminated and denied employment to all the
members of the petitioner union and engaged north
Indian contract workers mostly from Orissa State in
manufacturing activities, which was opposed by the
petitioner union and raised an industrial dispute on
25-09-2012 over the issue of appointment of
contract workers in the place of permanent workers
and also preferred a complaint, dated 25-09-2012
against the respondent management for unfair
labour practice and also made a complaint under
section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act against
the termination, denial of employment of the
petitioner union members service pending dispute
before the Conciliation Officer. Further, the
petitioner union raised an industrial dispute over the
illegal termination, denial of employment of its
members. The conciliation ended in failure and the
dispute has been referred for adjudication before
this Court. The petitioner prayed this Court to pass
an Award holding that the charter of demand of the
petitioner are justifiable and revise the wage of the
petitioner union workers and also holding that the
termination of service of petitioner union members
are illegal and violation of section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act and unfair labour practice
under schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act and
set-aside the same and direct the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner union members in their
service with continuity of service, full back wage
and all other attendant benefits with effect from the
date of their respective termination of service.
4
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
(i) The respondent management stated that
the I.D. No. 1/2013 is neither maintainable in law
nor in facts and as such liable to be dismissed and
denied all the allegations mentioned in the claim
statement of the petitioner and stated that all the
allegations are false, frivolous and vexatious
contentions further there has been suppression of
material particulars/truth, therefore the claim
statement is nothing but mere abuse of process of
law and misuse of judicial machinery therefore, the
claim petition in I.D. No. 1/2013 is liable to be
dismissed and further stated that the alleged
reference made by the petitioner before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) under the pretext of
industrial
disputes
such
as
protection
of
employment,
unfair
abour
practice,
illegal
termination, denial of employment against the
respondent as well as complaint under section 33
(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act are false, frivolous
and vexatious and that the alleged disputes taken on
file by the Conciliation Officer as I.D. Nos. 960/
LO(C)/AIL/2012, ID.No.1924/LO(C)/AIL/2012,
ID. No. 2624 / LO(C) / AIL / 2012, ID.No. 2623/
LO(C)/AIL/2012, are the disputes taken on file
based on the false complaints lodged by the
petitioner with an ulterior motive and intention to
spoil good atmosphere in the factory and thereby
committing
serious
misconduct
with
the
management and they did not perform their duties
and are only indulging in creating sabotage/
industrial unrest inside the factory premises
resulting heavy loss of production and therefore
the reference mentioned in page No. 2 (I to VI)
of the claim statement is one imaginary and created
and the failure report, dated 14-12-2012 cannot
taken into account for any purpose whatsoever.
(ii) It is further stated that their company is a
private limited company registered as per the
provisions of the Companies Act and the respondent
company's basic manufacturing products are
Flavours and Fragrance Chemicals (Plant extracts
etc.,) which are auxiliaries and ancillaries in food
processing and the products are supplied to global
companies in India and in abroad and those products
are highly demand in the market because of the fact
the standard of quality given by the respondent
company and compete with their products in the
international market and at present there are
30 employees are working in the factory including
6 women employees and in addition to the safety
measures and equipment’s providing by the
respondent company the respondent also providing
insurance coverage’s to all the employees for a minimum
sum of ` 1 lakh to maximum sum of ` 5 lakh,
depending upon the earning capacity of the
employees arising out and in the course of
employment and they are also providing 12%
Provident Fund to the employees for the total sum
drawn including all categories and for casual
employees the company is maintaining the
attendance register, for usual employees the
management use to give appointment letters.
(iii) It is further stated that N. Saravana Kumar
joined in the company on 11-01-1995 and became
Offi c e r- Wo rk s an d c o s ts in th e ye a r 2 0 0 9 ,
M. Soundarapandian joined in the company on
29-02-1995 and became the Executive Officer-
Industrial Procurement Cum Production in the year
2009 and R. Arivaradhan joined in the company on
22-06-1993 and became Executive Officer-
Commercial-cum-Development in the year 2009
and during the month of April, 2012 the above
mentioned three Officers received a monthly salary
of ` 8,525, ` 10,065 and ` 10,245 respectively and
infact the respondent company gave increment to
the above mentioned persons during the month of
May, 2012 with retrospective effect starting from
the month of January, 2012 however, the above
mentioned persons refused to receive the same and
as such returned un-served and further stated that
the Trade Union Certificate vide No.1702/RTU/2012,
dated 24-08-2012 has been issued by the Registrar
of Trade Union for Government of Puducherry
in contravention of section 4 of the Trade Union
Act for the reason that out of 7 members the above
mentioned 3 persons are officers of the respondent
management and they cannot be coined as workmen
as contemplated under section 2 (s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and the salary they are received from
the respondent management cannot be termed as
wage as contemplated under section 2 (rr) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the other persons
mentioned in the list of officers namely, S. Suresh,
G. Thasaradhan are temporary wo r k e r s a n d
M. Iyappan is a casual worker and A. Bhaskar is
a permanent worker of the respondent company and
therefore, the very registration of Trade Union itself
is under challenge and as such the petitioner cannot
5
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
get any relief whatsoever in the present industrial
dispute since, the provisions of the trade Unions Act
and industrial disputes Act are violated by the
petitioners and they simply approach the LO (C) on
their whims and fancies and act of surmises which
is against to law and procedure.
(iv) It is further stated that under section 12(3)
of the Industrial Dispute Act settlement has been
arrayed between the respondent management and 16
workers of the respondent company vide No. 2/LO
(C) 2010 AIL, dated 29-03-2010 and despite the
fact settlement has been arrived the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) without apply her mind submitted
failure report to the Government and referred the
matter to this Court in I.D (T). No. 3/2013 and
thereafter, the entire facts has been brought and the
said I.D.No. 3/2013 was dismissed by order, dated
20-06-2013 and that the alleged Trade Union was
registered only on 24-08-2012 and that there is no
permanent workmen in the company the petitioner
could not make out a Trade Union as prescribed
under law and further stated that certain trainee
employee in the company namely B. Senthilkumaran,
S. Selvamani and K. Haridoss had committed
serious misconduct with the respondent management
therefore, the respondent management had issued
show cause notice, dated 08-11-2010 to the above
mentioned persons and after receipt of objections
from them domestic enquiry was initiated and since
the charges are proved as against them the
respondent has terminated the service of the above
persons by its termination orders, dated 23-03-2011
and the same was sent by registered post with
acknowledgments and despite the factum of
termination order passed the above mentioned
persons high handily threatened the respondent
management and its management including the
employees and as such the respondent company had
filed a suit in O.S. No. 642/2011 on the file of
Hon’ble Principal District Munsif, Puducherry for
the relief of permanent injunction and the same was
decreed as prayed for by Judgment and decree and
despite decree granted as against the above-mentioned
persons they did not kept quite on the contrary they
instigating the other loyal employees so as to create
problem in the respondent company thereby the
smooth functioning of the company is spoiled by
the other Officers namely, M. Soundarapanidan,
N.Saravakumar and Arivaradan since they are having
close relationship with the said terminated persons
and dancing according to their tunes resulting non
performing their duties in the company ultimately
affected production in the goods.
(v) It is further stated that in the mean time the
said p erso ns namely M. So und arap anid an,
N. Saravakumar and Arivaradan along with some
trainees in the respondent company submitted an
alleged representation before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Government of Puducherry on
09-04-2012 with false and frivolous allegations and
sought for an enquiry and that on 19.04.2012 Labour
Officer
(Conciliation)
forwarded
the
said
representation, dated 09-04-2012 and 12-04-2012
and called the respondent company to give
explanation and that on 26-04-2012 the company
had submitted detailed objection pin pointing the
petitioner's illegal act to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) and that on
25-06-2012 reply
statement also filed by the management refuting the
allegations of the above mentioned persons and
filed a suit in O.S. No. 1121/2012 on the file of
III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry as against
the defendants therein for the relief of Permanent
Injunction. The respondent also filed a petition for
an ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 2054/2012 in
O.S. No. 1121/2012 restraining the above mentioned
persons interference in the factory premises and for
other reliefs. On merits the said application was
decided and as such the III Additional District
Munsif allowed the interim injunction as prayed for
by Order and Decreetal order, dated 06-12-2012.
The said persons did not prefer any Appeal or
Revision as the case may be till date. Since the
workers continues their misconduct in the factory
without any legal or factual basis the respondent
company issued a notice, dated 06-04-2012 to the
defendants and informing the anti-activities of the
workers against the management and thereby
advised the workers to safe guard the interest of the
company for the benefits of all concerned and
despite the notice if, no improvement seen serious
action will be initiated by the respondent. Since the
workers wanted Tamil version of the above notice
the same was considered by the company and issued
Tamil version to the workers. In the mean time the
workers along with some trainees in the company
submitted an alleged representation before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of
Puducherry on 09-04-2012 with false and frivolous
allegations and sought for an enquiry which
forwarded to the respondent management sought for
explanation by the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
6
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
On 26-04-2012 the respondent submitted detailed
objection pin pointing the worker's illegal act to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of
Puducherry. At this juncture the workmen started
alleged trade union without giving any intimation to
the respondent.
(vi) It is further stated that before taking actions
as against the workers the casual and temporary the
respondent followed the procedure of law.
Elumalai, Prabu, Harikrishnan, Arul, Sasikumar,
Venkatesan, Iyappan, Ealayaperumal are all temporary
and Casual workers. M. Iyyappan, K. Venkatesan,
K. Elumalai, A. Harikrishnan are removed for not
working in the strike period. Arul was suspended
along with Anbu and Ramesh for creating bogus data
logging.
Sasikumar refused to carry out alternate
work in May, 2012 suspended pending enquiry.
Ealayaperumal name removed from attendance for
abandoned the job for more than 2 months without
any intimation. R. Arivaradhan, N. Saravankumar,
M. Soundarapandian are restrained by virtue of the
order and Decreetal order, dated 06-12-2012 passed
in I.A. No. 2054/2012 in O.S. No. 1121/2012 on the
file of III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry.
Infact N. Saravankumar attained superannuation
from his service. A. Baskar, V. Murugaiyan,
G. Thasathan and Murugan are left the job on their
own and joined in some other companies. G. Suresh,
S. Anbu, C. Ramesh are suspended for their legal
act. The charge-sheet was given to the respective
workers and they did not participated in the enquiry
conducted and they left from the company on their
own. Elumalai, Prabu and Harikrishnan are casual
workers and as such the provision of Industrial
Disputes Act and Traded Union Act will not
applicable to them and consequently they are
arrayed as Office bearers in the trade union is also
yet another falsity against to the provisions of the
Trade Unions Act. The charge sheet furnished to
J. Arul, Anbu and Ramesh called for explanation the
respondent management fixed time for enquiry and
three time notice were sent to them despite above
factum they failed to participate in the enquiry and
as such further orders has been passed as per
law and procedure.
G. Sasikumar, Venkatesan and
Baskar refused to discharge their duties as directed
by the management so as to continue the process of
production but they deliberately not complied the
demands of the respondent but, idly they are present
inside the company without doing any work for
several days further except Baskar and other
persons are temporary and casual workers. Baskar
was suspended for retaining the company property
i.e., Motorcycle and refused to handover infact FIR
was registered by the Mangalam Police so as to
confiscate the motorcycle. Since Ealayaperumal
and Iyyappan are temporary workers/trainees in view
of continuous absent their name were removed from
the attendance register, infact they joined some
other companies without intimation to the
respondent management.
(vii) It is further stated that Arivaradhan,
Saravankumar, and Soundarapandian are office
bearers ranks of the respondent company they
received salary more than 10 thousand per month
and they are not categorised as workman as per the
definition of workman. Since they are induced other
workmen and loyal workers from discharging their
duties and committed serious misconduct with the
management and they are not performing their
duties and are only indulging in creating sabotage/
industrial unrest inside the factory premises and as
such by virtue of Injunction Order passed on
06-12-2012 in I.A. No. 2054/2012 in O.S. No.
1121/2012 on the file of III Additional District
Munsif, Puducherry they are resting from the
factory premises. Mr. Saravanakumar attained
retirement on 30-06-2013. The above mentioned
3 persons did not work inside the factory as
stipulated to discharge their duties on the contrary
they inducted other workers to go for strike for a
period of 8 months and during that period no
production was made and as such the question of
paying salary for this period will not arise under
the dictum of law “No work No pay” since eight
months there was no production in the company
resulting huge monetary loss to respondent
company including cancellation of all orders from
the market.
(viii) It is further stated that G.Thasaradhan left
job from the company on his own and he is only
temporary worker/ trainee. No registered trade
union particular was submitted by the petitioner at
any point of time. Infact the respondent came to
know the alleged Trade Union registration only
in O.S. No. 1121/2012 filed by the respondent as
against
Arivaradhan,
Saravankumar,
and
Soundarapandian. The company did not violate any
laws on the contrary, the respondent company is
7
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
maintaining harmonious relationship with its
customers, employees, local villagers and the
Government of Puducherry. The company is
transparent in Labour relations in general by
following all the statutory enactments in letter and
spirit without violating any of the labour provision.
The names mentioned above are casual and
temporary workers therefore, the question of
reinstatement with full back wages does not arise
for any purpose whatsoever. The workmen
un-necessarily making false propaganda and false
statements before the public as well as statutory
bodies without any basic evidence and published
false statement in the newspapers so as to degrade
the goodwill of the company which is against to law
and procedure.
4. The brief averments in the rejoinder statement
filed by the petitioner are as follows:
The petitioner union denied all the allegations made
in the counter filed by the respondent management
except those that are specifically admitted and stated
that the petitioner union members have been
continuously serving in the respondent factory for
about 5 to 20 years length of service without any
break. But, they were not even issued appointment
order. Except few workers most of the workers were
not even paid ESI, PF contribution and they were paid
very meager wage despite extracting heavy works for
more than 8 hours in a day. The petitioner union
members joined together and formed petitioner trade
union and then demanded the respondent to confirm
their service and revise their wage, other allowances
at least on par with the other Industrial workers in that
region. The respondent did not wish to consider the
demand of the petitioner union members on the other
hand they decided to terminate the service of the
petitioner union members for their union activity.
As a result of which all of the petitioner union members
were denied employment in the year 2009, 2010 on
false, frivolous allegation without any enquiry. After
they were denied employment and their service were
terminated there is no permanent employees employed
in the respondent factory and the respondent running
the factory with help of the North Indian contract
workers mostly migrated from the State of Orissa,
despite the Government banned the engagement of
contract workers in the Chemical Industries.
The respondent without adhering the Government order
and in gross violation of the Act and Rules has engaged
unqualified contract workers in the direct manufacturing
process. Therefore, at present 30 employees employed
in the factory is false. The respondent has not
maintained the muster roll of the workers and separate
registers for workers as required under the factories
Act and Rules made there under, so as to engage the
North Indian contract workers. The workers were not
even given appointment order, only few workers who
had completed 10 to 15 years of their service, sought
for appointment order were alone issued appointment
order. The rest of the workers were not given any
appointment order, despite they have been continuously
working in the respondent factory for several years.
The union was duly registered in accordance with law under
the Trade Union Act, 1926. The petitioner union members
namely M. Saravanakumar, M. Soundarapandian,
R. Arivaradhan are workmen and they are not Executive
Officer and they have been paid the current
average wage of ` 8,000 to `10,000 after their long
service of more than 15 years. The termination of
batch of workers in 2010 and another batch of workers
numbering 8 are all matter of record and it cannot be
disputed.
5. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P142
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R33 were marked.
6. The point for consideration is:
(i) Whether the charter of demand over wage
revision regularisation, protection of service
condition, implementation of safety measures etc.,
is justified or not and if justified, what is the relief
entitled to the union.
(ii) Whether the termination of Thiru K. Elumalai,
P. Prabu, A. Harikrishnan, J. Arul, G. Sasikumar,
K. Venkatesan, M. Iyyappan and A. Ilayaperumal and
the refusal of employment to the following union
workmen namely, R. Arivaradhan, N. Saravanakumar,
M. Soundarapandian, A. Baskar,B. Murugaiyan,
G. Dasarathan, M. Murugan, G. Suresh, S. Anbu,
C. Ramesh are justified or not and if not justified,
what is the relief entitled to them.
(iii) Whether the management adopted any unfair
labour practice under schedule V of the Industrial
Dispute Act and violated the provisions of section
33 of the ID Act and if so, what is the remedy and
relief entitled to them.
7. 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 the side of the respondent, the written argument
was filed and the same is carefully considered.
8
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
In support of his case the learned Counsel for the
respondent has
re lie d u p o n th e J ud g men ts
reported in (19 99) AIR SC 1441, (2008) 6 MLJ
626, Supreme Court of India- Himanshu Kumar
Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others,
dated 26-03-1997 and W.P. No. 3976 of 2004.
8. Discussion and Decision on Point No.1:-
From the pleadings of both the parties it is clear that
the workers of the respondent establishment formed
a union and the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute over charter of demands to revise the
wages and other monetary benefits and they have also
raised the industrial dispute and they have moved to
Hon'ble High Court seeking an order directing the
Conciliation Officer to send the failure report to the
Government and various correspondences were taken
place between the members of the union and the
respondent management and number of employees
were suspended and disciplinary proceedings was
initiated by the respondent establishment and memos
were given and subsequently they have been
terminated from service against which the industrial
dispute has been raised by the employees and the
conciliation was failed and the case has been referred
to this Court.
9.
It is the evidence of the PW.1 Saravana Kumar
that their union is a registered one and employees are
working for not less than 5 years and about 20 years
continuously at the respondent establishment which is
a chemical industry producing fragrance and flavours
and that the respondent has not permitted to form the
association and has paid meager wages and the workers
have been compelled to work for more than 8 hours
and they have denied the revision of wages and they
have not provided safety equipments and they have not
maintained the factory properly and only with the
intention to get profit the management run the factory
and even they have not provide purified water and even
they have not provided toilet facilities to the workers
and that therefore, the workers of the respondent
establishment have formed the workers union in the
name of Omkar Fine Organics workers union and asked
revision of wages and other allowances and submitted
the charter of demands with the Conciliation Officer
and that therefore 20 workers have been terminated
from service without any reason for which they have
filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court
in W.P. No. 9724 of 2009 and while pending of case
the respondent management has settled all the dues to
the 20 workers who have been terminated from service
and on 03-07-2012 the Hon’ble High Court has passed
the order in favour of the workers and that in the
year 2010 eight senior workers who have fighted for
wage increase and other benefits have been removed
from service and they were not allowed to enter the
factory and thereafter their dues has been settled and
removed from service by the respondent management
and that out of 45 workers the respondent management
has removed 28 workers from service without any
prima facie reasons and other 17 workers have
treated as slaves and the revision of wages and other
allowances have been refused to them by the
management and they have been forced to handle
hazardous chemical substance and they have been
compelled to work for more than 8 hours and they have
been given meager wages for their work.
10. It is the further evidence of the PW.1 that
because of unsafety condition of service the workers
namely Iyyappan and Baskar were affected and
sustained injuries and eye sight of the Baskar was
affected and he has taken treatment at ESI Hospital and
Aravindar Eye Hospital for about 3 months and other
workers Anbu, Iyyappan and Ramesh were sustained
injuries while using the acid in the reactor and the
respondent management has not sanctioned any costs
except ESI leave and conceal the above accident
without informing to the Inspector of Factories and
one worker Soundarapandian while on work has
affected in the accident occurred at factory and he has
taken treatment at MIOT Hospital as inpatient which
was also not informed to the Inspector of factories and
that therefore, no safety measure have been provided
by the respondent establishment and even they have not
given first aid and emergency ambulance service and
they have also not obtained proper licence to run the
factory which was informed to Inspector of Factories
and other Officers and even then they have not
obtained licence under the Explosives Act to use the
hazardous raw materials and though the respondent
establishment has gained 8.9 crores profit in a year,
it has given only `150 per day as salary to the
workers and though the petitioners are working for
about 15 years the respondent management has not
provided benefits to the workers.
11. In support of their evidence the petitioner has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P142. These documents would
go to show that petitioner trade union is a registered
one and the trade union filed a charter of demands
before the Labour Officer Conciliation on 07-05-2012
for revision of wages and the petitioner union
members
were
working
at
the
respondent
establishment Omkar Fine Organics Private Limited as
a workers and they have contributed ESI and PF by the
respondent
management
and
the
respondent
management
has
given
memo
to
the Anbu,
9
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ilayaperumal, Iyyappan, Ramesh, Venkatesan, Arul,
Saravanakumar, Soundarapandian, Arivaradhan and most
of the employees have suspended by the respondent
establishment and the petitioner union has raised
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
regarding the wage revision and the conciliation was
made by the Conciliation Officer and subsequently the
union members who were working at the respondent
establishment have filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 9724 of 2009 for
seeking direction to the 1st respondent Conciliation
Officer to conclude the conciliation proceedings and
to file a report and the Hon’ble High Court has
allowed the Writ petition and has directed the
Conciliation Officer to conclude the conciliation
proceedings and directed 1st respondent Conciliation
Officer to file a report within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order and thereafter
the said union members also have raised the another
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on
12-07-2012 to declare the suspension as illegal and
to reinstate the petitioner along with back wages and
continuity of service and other allowances and also to
direct the respondent management not to employ
North Indian labourers and to direct the respondent
management to regularise all the employees as a
permanent workers and it is also learnt from the
records that the respondent management has
terminated the workman Arikrishnan on 17-06-2012,
terminated the workman Arul on 18-07-2012,
terminated the workmen Venkatesh and Sasikumar on
01-10-2012.
12. On the other hand, in order to prove the case of
the respondent, the Managing Director of the
respondent establishment Krishna Baliga was examined
as RW.1 and he has stated in his evidence that their
company is a private limited company registered as per
the provisions of the Companies Act and they are
manufacturing Flavours and Fragrance Chemicals
which are auxiliaries and ancillaries in food
processing and the products are supplied to global
companies in India and in abroad and are highly
demand in the market because of the quality and that
30 employees are working in the factory and that they
have provided welfare measures which are required in
the labour laws and apart from the above they have
provided safety measures and equipment’s and the
company is also providing insurance coverage's to all
the employees for a minimum sum of ` 1 lakh to
maximum sum of ` 5 lakhs depending upon the earning
capacity of the workers and it is the further evidence
of the RW.1 that the averments in the claim petition
are false and for casual employees the company is
maintaining the attendance register, for usual
employees the management used to give appointment
letters and the petitioners have formed trade union
without following the provisions of law and in
contravention of section 4 of the Trade Union Act and
that employee N. Saravana Kumar joined in the
company on 11-01-1995 and M. Soundarapandian
j o i n e d i n t h e c o mp a n y o n 2 9 - 0 2 - 1 9 9 5 a n d
R. Arivaradhan joined in the company on 22-06-1993
and they have received a salary of ` 8,525, ` 10,065 and
` 10,245 respectively for the month of April, 2012 and
has given prior increment to the above mentioned
persons during the month of May, 2012 with
retrospective effect starting from the month of January,
2012 and other persons S.Suresh, G. Thasaradhan are
temporary workers and M. Iyappan is a casual worker
and A. Bhaskar is a permanent worker of the respondent
company and the very registration of trade union itself
is under challenge and the trade union certificate
issued by the Registrar of trade union for Government
of Puducherry in contravention of section 4 of the
Trade Union Act for the reason that out of 7 members
the above mentioned 3 persons are Officers of the
respondent management and they cannot be coined as
workmen as contemplated under section 2 (s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the very
registration of trade union itself is under challenge and
as such the petitioner cannot get any relief whatsoever
in the present Industrial Disputes and that under
section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act settlement
has been arrayed between the respondent management
and 16 workers of the respondent company on 29-03-2010
and despite the fact settlement has been arrived the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) without apply her mind
submitted failure report to the Government and
referred the matter to this Court in I.D(T). No. 3/2013
and thereafter, the entire facts has been brought and
the said I.D. No. 3/2013 was dismissed by order,
dated 20-06-2013.
13. The RW.1 has further deposed that other
allegations made by the petitioner are denied by the
respondent and that show cause notice was issued
against B. Senthilkumaran, S. Selvamani and K. Haridoss
on 08-11-2010 and domestic enquiry was initiated and
since the charges are proved against them they have
been terminated from service under the termination
orders, dated 23-03-2011 which was sent by the
respondent management to the petitioners and in the
meanwhile the union members have threatened the
respondent management and its employees and that
therefore, the respondent company had filed a suit in
O.S. No. 642/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Principal
District Munsif, Puducherry for the relief of
10
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
permanent injunction which was decreed as prayed and
that the Officers namely M. Soundarapanidan,
N. Saravakumar and Arivaradan who are having close
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e t e r m i n a t e d p e r s o n s
B. Senthilkumaran, S. Selvamani and K. Haridoss were
dancing according to their tunes resulting non
performing their duties in the company ultimately
affected production in the goods and that the
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer on 09-04-2012 with
false and frivolous allegations and sought for an
enquiry for which the respondent management has
filed a detailed objection pin pointing the petitioner's
illegal act to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and that
taking advantage of pendency of conciliation
proceedings continuously the petitioners have created
problems everyday backed by local politicians,
terminated employees and anti-social elements without
performing their job for several months and that they
have followed the procedure before taking action as
against the casual workers and temporary workers and
that Elumalai, Prabu, Harikrishnan, Arul, Sasikumar,
Venkatesan, Iyappan, Ealayaperumal are all temporary
a n d C a s u a l wo r k e r s a n d t h a t M . I y y a p p a n ,
K. Venkatesan, K. Elumalai, A. Harikrishnan are removed
from service since they are not working in the strike
period and Arul was suspended along with Anbu and
Ramesh for creating bogus data logging and Sasikumar
refused to carry out alternate work in May, 2012 was
suspended pending enquiry and Ealayaperumal name
was removed from attendance for abandoned the job
for more than 2 months without any intimation and
that A. Baskar, V. Murugaiyan, G. Thasathan and
Murugan are left the job on their own and joined in
some other companies. G. Suresh, S. Anbu, C. Ramesh
are suspended for their legal act and that J. Arul, Anbu
and Ramesh are charge sheeted which was furnished to
them and called for explanation by the respondent
management and time was fixed for enquiry and three
time notice were sent to them despite above factum
they failed to participate in the enquiry and as such
further orders has been passed as per law and
procedure and that G. Sasikumar, Venkatesan and Baskar
have refused to discharge their duties as directed by
the management so as to continue the process of
production but they deliberately not complied the
demands of the respondent but, idly they are present
inside the company without doing any work for several
days and except Baskar other persons are temporary
and casual workers and the said Baskar was suspended
for retaining the company property i.e., Motorcycle
and refused to handover the same and infact FIR was
registered by the Mangalam Police so as to confiscate
the motorcycle and that since Ealayaperumal and
Iyyappan are temporary workers/trainees in view of
continuous absent their name were removed from the
attendance register and that Arivaradhan, Saravankumar,
and Soundarapandian are Office bearers ranks of the
respondent company and they received salary more
than 10 thousand per month and they are not
categorised as workman as per the definition of
workman and that Mr. Saravanakumar attained the age
o f s u p e r a n n u a t i o n o n 3 0 - 0 6 - 2 0 1 3 a n d t h a t
G. Thasaradhan left job from the company on his own
and he is only temporary worker/ trainee and that
petitioners have committed misconduct to the
management and they are not performing their duties
and are only indulging in creating sabotage and
industrial unrest inside the factory premises and in
support of the case the respondent management has
exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R33.
14. It is noticed from the documents exhibited by
the respondent management that the respondent
management has filed a suit before the Additional
District Munisf, Puducherry against their workers and
they have also filed injunction application and the
r e s p o n d e n t ma n a g e me n t h a s g i v e n me mo t o
M. Soundarepandian, N. Saravanakumar, R. Arivaradhan,
Baskar and Sasikumar to initiate the disciplinary action
against them and subsequently the respondent
management has framed charges against Ramesh and
the respondent management has suspended workers
namely Arivaradhan, Soundarapandian and the
respondent management also has sent show cause
notice to R. Anbu, C. Ramesh and J. Arul and charge
sheet was filed against Anbu and the memo was issued
to the worker Suresh and the respondent management
has made a police complaint on 12-04-2012 against
the workers and earlierly on 03-04-2012 a memo was
issued to S. Anbu, Ramesh and Arul and the respondent
management has given warning letters to them and
several reminder letters was sent by the respondent
management to S. Anbu and charge sheet has also
issued by the respondent management to S. Anbu and
the letter was received by the said Anbu and the
respondent management has sent a letter to
Soundarapandian to return the company vehicle.
15. Further, the respondent management has also
exhibited the salary certificate of the Arivaradhan,
dated 18-05-2011 as Ex.R33 which reveals that the
said Arivaradhan was earning ` 5,000 as basic pay in the
Scale of Pay of `10,245 for the month of April, 2011
and the said salary certificate also reveals the fact that
the petitioner was working from 22-06-1993 at the
respondent establishment. From these documents and
evidence it is clear that the main contention of the
respondent management is that the petitioners are not
11
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
working
properly
and
they
have
committed
misconducts and misbehavior for which charges have
been framed and enquiry was conducted and they have
been removed from service in respect of permanent
employees but, in respect of casual and temporary
employees the charge sheet has been given and they
have terminated from service on the non satisfaction
of the explanation given by them.
16. The conciliation failure report is exhibited as
Ex.P134. The following facts are noticed from the
failure report that the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute on 09-04-2012 against the
respondent
management
over
wage
revision,
regularisation, safety measures, medical benefits, non-
employment, protection to their union workmen
against rowdy element, unfair labour practice and
further, it is learnt from the conciliation failure report
it is the allegation of the union that the respondent
management has victimised the union workmen
whoever formed the trade union in their industry and
the workers of the respondent establishment to protect
their legal rights have formed trade union and without
stating any reason the respondent management has
terminated all the union workmen during 2009 from
the service and during the course of conciliation the
management has not appeared for several hearings and
it was advised by the Conciliation Officer to the
respondent management to provide employment and
regarding the issue of misconduct, if any it would be
only dealt based on the principles of natural justice and
it is also learnt from the conciliation failure report
that it was also advised to the respondent management
by the Conciliation Officer that while the industrial
dispute over charter of demands such as wage revision,
regularisation, protection of service condition, safety
measures in the industry etc., pending before the
Conciliation Authority the termination or refusal of
employment change of service condition etc., is not
fair in the eye of law and is against the principles of
natural justice and further, it was also advised to the
management that the engagement of contract labour as
alleged by the union in the place of terminated
workmen is not fair and the management was also
instructed to produce the records pertains to the
Register of employment, Provident Fund, ESI etc., but
the management not produced any records for
verification stating that they are not available and since
the respondent management has not appeared for
several hearings and not interested for amicable
settlement the conciliation was failed and the dispute
has been referred to the Tribunal. The Conciliation
Officer himself has framed the issues that whether the
charter of demands over wage revision, regularisation,
protection of service condition, implementation of
safety measures, etc. is justified and whether the
termination, suspension and refusal of employment to
eighteen union workmen is justified while pendency of
the industrial dispute, whether the management adopted
any unfair labour practice under schedule V of the
Industrial Dispute Act and whether the management
violated the provisions of section 33 of the Industrial
Dispute Act.
17. From the Conciliation failure report, it is clear
that the petitioner workmen have raised the industrial
dispute for wage revision, regularisation, safety
measures, medical benefits, non-employment, protection
to their union workmen against rowdy element, unfair
labour practice as early as on 09-04-2012 against the
respondent management and that therefore, it is to be
decided that whether the charter of demands over wage
revision, regularisation, safety measures, medical
benefits, non-employment, protection to their union
workmen against rowdy element, unfair labour practice
is justified or not. On this aspect, the evidence and
exhibits are carefully considered. The petitioner has
not at all exhibited any document to prove that how
much salary was received by them and how much is
required to be revised by exhibiting the salary
certificate of any other industry in region who are
doing the same type of work. No document is
exhibited by the petitioner union that how much salary
was received by them and how much of wages is to be
revised and failed to prove that how they are entitled
for the same. The charter of demand raised by the
petitioner union against the respondent management is
exhibited as Ex.P21 which was submitted to the
Conciliation Officer by the union on 09-04-2012
wherein the petitioner union has stated that the
respondent management has not regularized the
workers who have served for about two years and the
respondent management has not provided safety
equipments, safety measures and the salary of the
permanent workers also has not been revised by the
respondent establishment and the workmen sustained
injuries while using chemical acid in the industry.
18.Though the petitioner union has exhibited Ex.P1
to Ex.P142 no document is exhibited to reveal the fact
that how much salary was paid by the respondent
management to the petitioner workmen. However,
it is clear from the charter of demands that there is
no equipments were provided for the safety measures.
Since the respondent management is doing production
of goods by using chemicals, it is just and necessary
to provide the safety equipments and the respondent
management also has to take safety measures and
therefore, as far as the charter of demands the claim
of the petitioner to revise the wages cannot be decided
12
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
since nothing is before this Court whether it is revised
or not that is the petitioner has not exhibited any
documents to prove the fact that how much is paid by
the respondent management as wages to the workers
and how much was paid by other similar industries to
the workers doing the same nature of work and
therefore, this Court cannot decided whether the wage
revision is essential or not and further it is not
established by the petitioner union that they have been
paid lesser wages than the minimum wages and they
have failed to establish that similar industries are
paying more than the wages being paid by the
respondent establishment. Nothing is before this
Court to decide whether the salary of the petitioner
union members is less than the salary of similar
industry or wages being paid by the respondent
management is lesser than the minimum wages for the
said period.
19. However, in respect of other demands such as
protection of service condition and implementation of
safety measures etc., absolutely necessary to the
industry since admittedly they are using the hazardous
materials and acid in the industry and that therefore,
it can be held that the charter of demands in respect
of regularisation, protection of service condition,
implementation of safety measures is justified and the
petitioner is entitled for an Award of protection of
service condition, implementation of safety measures
and regularisation of service since whoever in service
for more than 240 days in a preceding calendar year.
Considering the above an Award is to be passed in
favour of the petitioner union that the respondent
management has to be directed to regularise the
services of the employees and provide safety measures
and protective service condition according to the
rules.
20. On Point No.2 :
The next point to be decided is that whether the
termination of Thiru K. Elumalai, P. Prabu, A. Harikrishnan,
J. Arul, G. Sasikumar, K. Venkatesan, M. Iyyappan and
A. Ilayaperumal and the refusal of employment to the
following union workmen namely, R. Arivaradhan,
N. Saravanakumar, M. Soundarapandian, A. Baskar,
B. Murugaiyan, G. Dasarathan, M. Murugan, G. Suresh,
S. Anbu, C. Ramesh are justified or not. In this case
to decide the said issue, it is just and necessary to
decide whether the respondent management has
followed all the procedures laid down under the Act
for termination and for refusal of employment.
According
to
Rule
17(ii)
of
the
Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 no
order of punishment shall be made unless the workman
concerned is informed in writing of the alleged
misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the
allegation made against him and departmental inquiry
shall be instituted before dealing with the charges and
the workman concerned has to be given opportunity and
he has to be permitted to get an assistance of a
co-worker in the inquiry and a copy of the enquiry
proceedings shall be given to the workman concerned
on the conclusion of the enquiry and show cause
notice has to be given regarding the findings of the
domestic enquiry to get explanation of the delinquent.
But in this case though the respondent management has
stated in its counter that they have conducted domestic
enquiry and terminated the particular employees, they
have not placed any enquiry report as an exhibit and
no such enquiry report is exhibited before this Court
to establish that the domestic enquiry was conducted
by the respondent establishment and admittedly, no
such show cause notice on the basis of the domestic
enquiry report was issued to the petitioner workmen
before terminating their service. The respondent
establishment has not exhibited such document before
this Court to prove the fact that the domestic enquiry
was conducted by them by giving opportunity to the
members of the union.
21. Further in his evidence the respondent
management witness RW.1 has stated as follows :
“......
Omkar Fine Organics Workers Union
dismissed
WP.No. 9724/2009 (Ex.P89)
writ petition
writ petition
Ex.P47-
Ex.P2-
Ex.P21
13
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P38
Ex.P66-Charter
of
Demand”
The above evidence would go to show that the
respondent management has not at all conducted the
domestic enquiry before terminating any worker from
the service of the respondent establishment and further
it is also clear from the above evidence that in the
year 2010 the respondent management has terminated
20 workers and before their termination the said
20 workmen have filed a writ petition before the
Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 9724/2009, wherein,
the writ was allowed and ordered in favour of the
workmen and further it is revealed from the evidence
of RW.1 that the respondent management has not
regularised the workers eventhough they have worked
for about 2 years and further it is revealed that though
the petitioners have raised the industrial dispute on
09-04-2012 under Ex.P21, the respondent management
has terminated the services of 12 employees while the
industrial dispute is pending and hence the termination
is totally against the provisions of section 33 of the
Industrial Dispute Act.
22. Further it is learnt from the failure report that
the Conciliation Officer himself has advised the
respondent management to reinstate the petitioner
workmen in their factory. Further, the respondent
management has not conducted the domestic enquiry
and has not given any opportunity to petitioner
workmen to defend the case and without giving show
cause notice regarding the punishment, these
petitioners have been terminated from service which
is totally against the provisions of the labour laws and
standing orders and that therefore, it can be held that
the termination of K. Elumalai, P. Prabu, A. Harikrishnan,
J. Arul, G. Sasikumar, K. Venkatesan, M. Iyyappan and
A. Ilayaperumal and refusal of employment to the
union workmen namely, R. Arivaradhan, N. Saravanakumar,
M. Soundarapandian, A. Baskar, B. Murugaiyan,
G. Dasarathan, M. Murugan, G. Suresh, S. Anbu,
C. Ramesh are not justified and hence it can be held
that the petitioners are entitled for reinstatement as
claimed by them.
23. As this Court has decided that termination of
K. Elumalai, P. Prabu, A. Harikrishnan, J. Arul,
G. Sasikumar, K. Venkatesan, M. Iyyappan and
A. Ilayaperumal and refusal of employment to the union
workmen namely R. Arivaradhan, N. Saravanakumar,
M. Soundarapandian, A. Baskar, B. Murugaiyan,
G. Dasarathan, M. Murugan, G. Suresh, S. Anbu,
C. Ramesh are not justified, it is to be decided whether
the said workmen are entitled for back wages as
claimed by the them. The respondent management
without conducting domestic enquiry has terminated
the above mentioned workmen from service while the
industrial dispute is pending before the Conciliation
Officer. On the other hand, the respondent has not
proved that the said workmen have earned income after
their termination from service. There is no evidence
that the said workmen are working so far in any other
industry and that there is no proof exhibited before
this Court that they are working anywhere else.
However the petitioner workmen could have served at
anywhere else after their termination from the
respondent establishment. Considering the above
circumstances, this Court decides that the petitioner
is entitled for 50% back wages with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
24. On Point No. 3:
The another point to be decided is that whether the
respondent management has adopted unfair labour
practice as against the petitioner workmen and has
violated the provisions of section 33 of the Industrial
Dispute Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the
respondent management did not want any trade union
to function in its factory and has terminated all the
members of the trade union numbering of 20 workers
in the year 2009 without any reason and that as per the
order of the Hon'ble High Court, 18 workers have been
settled out of 20 workers and that the respondent
management did not want the workers to form any trade
union in its factory made a complaint against the
workers who took ac tiv e ro le in fo r mati o n o f
trade union namely N. Saravanakumar, G. Suresh,
M. Soundarapandian, G. Thasaradhan, M. Iyappan,
Arivaradhan, A. Baskar and the said workers have
formed a trade union on 11-03-2013 in the name and
style of Omkar Fine Organics Employees Union that
is the petitioner union. As already discussed above,
it is clear that while the industrial dispute was pending
before the Conciliation Officer the respondent
management has terminated the petitioners without any
permission of the Conciliation Officer where the
industrial dispute is pending and that therefore it is
decided by this court that the respondent management
has violated the provisions of section 33 of Industrial
Disputes Act and further it is clear that the respondent
management has terminated the services of the
petitioner workmen without any domestic enquiry and
some of the employees were denied employment by
them without following the procedures laid down
under the Industrial Disputes Act and further it is
established by the petitioner union that the respondent
establishment has not provided with safety equipments
and has not maintained the safety measures in the
14
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
factory. Further, the respondent management has
terminated the services of the employees without
giving any opportunity and without conducting
domestic enquiry while the industrial dispute is
pending before the Conciliation Officer. These facts
would go to show that the respondent management has
interfered with and coerced the workmen in the
exercise of their right of organise the trade union in
the respondent factory and the respondent management
has terminated the number of employees without giving
any opportunity and without conducting domestic
enquiry and that therefore, it can be held that the
respondent management has adopted unfair labour
practice against the workers of their establishment and
has violated the provisions of section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
25. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
it is held that the respondent management has adopted
unfair labour practice against the workers of their
establishment and has violated the provisions of
section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management regarding the charter of
demands over regularisation, protection of service
condition, implementation of safety measures etc., is
justified but in respect of wage revision is unjustified
and an Award is passed by directing the respondent
management to give regularisation to the members of
the petitioner union, protection to their service
condition and further directed to implement the safety
measures in accordance with law in the respondent
factory and the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union against the respondent management
over the termination of K. Elumalai, P. Prabu,
A. Harikrishnan, J. Arul, G. Sasikumar, K. Venkatesan,
M. Iyyappan and A. Ilayaperumal and the refusal of
employment to the following union workmen namely
R. Arivaradhan, N. Saravanakumar, M. Soundarapandian,
A. Baskar, B. Murugaiyan, G. Dasarathan, M. Murugan,
G. Suresh, S. Anbu, C. Ramesh are justified and an
Award is passed by directing the respondent to reinstate
the abovesaid workmen in service within one month
from the date of this order and to pay 50% back wages
from the date of termination till the date of
reinstatement with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits. No cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 13th day of October, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 17-04-2015— N. Saravana Kumar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — —
— Copy of the petitioner
union Registration Certificate.
Ex.P2 — —
— Copy of the petitioner
union members ESI card.
Ex.P3 — 29-04-2009—Copy of the petitioner
union
office
bearer
confirmation order.
Ex.P4 — —
— Copy of the ESI accident
report.
Ex.P5 — —
— Copy
of
the
list
of
products manufactured from
Methanol.
Ex.P6 —19-03-2012 —Copy of the petitioner
union member Anbu’s
memo.
Ex.P7 —20-03-2012— Copy of the respondent
notice.
Ex.P8 —02-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member Ramesh
and Venkatesan Memo.
Ex.P9 —03-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member Ramesh’s
memo.
Ex.P10 — —
—
Copy of the petitioner
union
member
Arul’s
memo.
Ex.P11 —03-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
member Anbu’s
memo.
Ex.P12 —04-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
l e t t e r
t o
t h e
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P13 —05-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
l e t t e r t o t h e A n b u ,
C. Ramesh and J. Arul.
Ex.P14 —05-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
u n i o n o f f i c e r b e a r e r
Soundarapandian letter to
the respondent.
Ex.P15 —05-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
l e t t e r
t o
t h e
Soundarapandian.
15
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P16 —06-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Arivaradhan.
Ex.P17 —06-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Soundarapandian.
Ex.P18 —06-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Soundarapandian.
Ex.P19 —06-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Saravanakumar.
Ex.P20 —08-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
notice.
Ex.P21 —09-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union letter to the Labour
Officer and other labour
authorities.
Ex.P22 —10-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the S. Anbu.
Ex.P23 —10-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Suresh.
Ex.P24 —10-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Ramesh.
Ex.P25 —11-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
u n i o n o ffi c e b e a r e r
Soundarapandian letter to
the respondent.
Ex.P26 —11-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
u n i o n o f f i c e b e a r e r
Arivaradhan letter to the
respondent.
Ex.P27 —11.04.2012—
Copy of the petitioner
u n i o n o f f i c e b e a r e r
Saravanakumar letter to
the respondent.
Ex.P28 —11-04-2012— Copy of the respondent’s
Memo. to the Suresh.
Ex.P29 —11-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
un io n
o ffic e
b ea re r
G. Suresh letter to the
respondent.
Ex.P30 —12-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member G. Suresh
letter to the respondent
and Labour Officer.
Ex.P31 —15-04-2012— Copy of the respondent letter
to the Soundarapandian.
Ex.P32 —15-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Arivaradhan.
Ex.P33 —15-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Saravanakumar.
Ex.P34 —16-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Suresh.
Ex.P35 —17-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Soundarapandian.
Ex.P36 —17-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Arivaradhan.
Ex.P37 —17-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Saravanakumar.
Ex.P38 —18-04-2012— Copy of the conciliation
notice.
Ex.P39 —19-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
issued charge memo to
the Ramesh.
Ex.P40—19-04-2012—
Copy of the respondent
issued charge memo to
the Anbu.
Ex.P41 —19-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
issued charge memo to
the Arul.
Ex.P42 —20-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
office
bearer
Arivaradhan leave letter.
Ex.P43 —25-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Anbu.
Ex.P44 —25-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
l e t t e r
t o
t h e
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P45 —25-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Ramesh.
Ex.P46 —25-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Arul.
Ex.P47 —26-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
reply to the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P48 —27-04-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Inspector of
Factories.
Ex.P49 —28-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member Suresh
reply to respondent.
Ex.P50 —29-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
member
Anbu
letter to the respondent.
Ex.P51 —29-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member G.Suresh
letter to the respondent.
16
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
Ex.P52 —29-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member G.Suresh
reply to respondent.
Ex.P53 —29-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner union
member Soundarapandian
reply to respondent.
Ex.P54 —29-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member G. Ramesh
reply to respondent.
Ex.P55 —29-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member S. Anbu
reply to respondent.
Ex.P56 —30-04-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union letter to the Labour
Officer Conciliation.
Ex.P57 —01-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
letter
to
the
respondent.
Ex.P58 —01-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member Arul letter
to the respondent.
Ex.P59 —02-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
salary increment letter to
t h e
M u r u g a i y a n ,
Saravanakumar, Murugan,
Arivaradhan.
Ex.P60 —03-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member Murugaiyan
letter to the respondent.
Ex.P61 —03-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member letter to
the respondent.
Ex.P62 —03-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Ramesh.
Ex.P63 —03-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Anbu.
Ex.P64 —03-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
l e t t e r
t o
t h e
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P65 —04-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
office
bearer
Soundarapandian letter to
the respondent.
Ex.P66 —07-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union charter of demand
to the respondent.
Ex.P67 —07-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Saravankumar.
Ex.P68 —07-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Murugan.
Ex.P69 —07-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Thasarathan.
Ex.P70 —07-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
l e t t e r
t o
t h e
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P71 —07-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter
t o
t h e
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P72 —07-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Arivaradhan.
Ex.P73 —08-05-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
notice ID. No. 960/LO©/
AIL/2012.
Ex.P74 —09-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
u n i o n o ffi c e b e a r e r
Soundarapandian letter to
the respondent.
Ex.P75 —17-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter
to
the
S o u n d a r a p a n d i a n ,
Saravanakumar, Arivaradhan.
Ex.P76 —19-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member G. Suresh
letter to the respondent
with AD card.
Ex.P77 —21-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
office
bearer
S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
S o u n d a r a p a n d i a n ,
Arivaradhan letter to the
respondent and Labour
Officer Conciliation.
Ex.P78 —21-05-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
Notice.
Ex.P79 —28-05-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to ESI authorities.
Ex.P80 —30-05-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
letter
to
the
respondent
and
other
labour authorities.
Ex.P81 —06-06-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union letter to Labour
Officer Conciliation.
17
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P82 —19-06-2012— Copy of the petitioner union
member
Arikrishnan
Termination order.
Ex.P83 —19-06-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to J. Arul show
cause memorandum.
Ex.P84 —20-06-2012— Copy of the conciliation
notice.
Ex.P85 —22-06-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union letter to the Labour
Officer
(Enforcement)
and
other
labour
authorities.
Ex.P86 —23-06-2012— Copy of the respondent
notice.
Ex.P87 —02-07-2012— Copy of the respondent
order to G. Suresh.
Ex.P88 —02-07-2012— Copy of the respondent
order to S. Anbu.
Ex.P89 —03-07-2012— Copy of the order passed
in WP. No. 9724 of 2009.
Ex.P90 —04-07-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
Office
bearer
Saravanakumar salary slip.
Ex.P91 —12-07-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union dispute before the
Labour Conciliation.
Ex.P92 —18-07-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
member
J.Arul
termination order and
cheque issued by the
respondent.
Ex.P93 —24-07-2012— Copy of the respondent
order.
Ex.P94 — —
—
Copy of the petitioner
union member S. Anbu
letter to Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P95 —02-08-2012— Copy of the plaint filed in
OS. No. 1121 of 2012.
Ex.P96 —02-08-2012— Copy of the Affidavit and
petition in IA. No. 2054
of 2012 on OS. No. 1121
of 2012.
Ex.P97 —02-08-2012— Copy of the conciliation
notice.
Ex.P98 —08-08-2012— Copy of the respondent
memo.
Ex.P99 —14-08-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union letter to Labour
Commissioner.
Ex.P100 —17-08-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
notice.
Ex.P101 —21-08-2012— Copy
of
the
written
statement filed by the
petitioner union.
Ex.P102 —21-08-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
minutes.
Ex.P103 —25-08-2012— Copy of the Enquiry
Officer notice to Anbu.
Ex.P104 —28-08-2012— Copy of the respondent
memo to the Saravanakumar.
Ex.P105 —28-08-2012— Copy of the respondent
me mo .
t o
t h e
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P106 —28-08-2012— Copy of the respondent
memo
to
the
S o u n d a r a p a n d i a n ,
S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
Arivaradhan.
Ex.P107 —30-08-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
Office
bearer
Soundarapandian reply to
the respondent.
Ex.P108 —01-09-2012— Copy of the respondent
memo.
Ex.P109 —19-09-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
letter
to
the
respondent.
Ex.P110 —24-09-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union member Sasikumar,
Baskar, Venketesan letter
to respondent.
Ex.P111 —24-09-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
Office
bearer
S o u n d a r a p a n d i a n ,
S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
Arivaradhan letter to the
respondent.
Ex.P112 —24-09-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
letter
to
the
management and Labour
Officer Conciliation.
Ex.P113 —25-09-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union dispute before
the
Labour
Officer
Conciliation.
18
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
Ex.P114 —25-09-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union dispute before the
Labour
Officer
Conciliation.
Ex.P115 —25-09-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union dispute before
the
Labour
Officer
Conciliation.
Ex.P116 —01-10-2012— Copy of the respondent
order of termination to
K. Venkatesh.
Ex.P117 —01-10-2012— Copy of the respondent
order of termination to
Sasikumar.
Ex.P118 —03-10-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union letter to the Labour
Officer Conciliation and
authorities.
Ex.P119 —03-10-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union letter to the Labour
Officer Conciliation and
other Labour authorities.
Ex.P120 —04-10-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
Notice.
Ex.P121 —04-10-2012— Copy of the Show cause
notice.
Ex.P122 —08-10-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
notice.
Ex.P123 —08-10-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
notice.
Ex.P124 —08-10-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter
to
the
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P125 —09-10-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
Notice.
Ex.P126 —19-10-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
Notice.
Ex.P127 —29-10-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
Notice.
Ex.P128 —23-11-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
Notice.
Ex.P129 — —
Copy of the petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P130 —26-11-2012— Copy of the respondent
memo. to the Murugan,
Murugaiyan, Thasarathan.
Ex.P131 —06-12-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Arivaradhan,
S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
Soundarapandian.
Ex.P132 —07-12-2012— Copy of the respondent
reply to the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P133 —14-12-2012— Copy of the respondent
reminder letter.
Ex.P134 —14-12-2012— Copy of the Conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P135 —15-12-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P136 —21-12-2012— Copy of the Government
reference.
Ex.P137 —24-12-2012— Copy of the respondent
letter to the Inspector of
Police.
Ex.P138 —24-12-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
Office bearer
Soundarapandian reply to
the respondent.
Ex.P139 —28-12-2012— Copy of the petitioner
union
Office bearer
S o u n d a r a p a n d i a n ,
S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
Arivaradhan letter to the
respondent.
Ex.P140 —05-01-2013— Copy of the respondent
order to Soundarapandian,
S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
Arivaradhan.
Ex.P141 —17-01-2013— Copy of the respondent
order to Soundarapandian,
S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
Arivaradhan.
Ex.P142 —14-02-2013— Copy of the respondent
letter
to
Conciliation
Officer.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 —22-02-2016— B. Krishna Baliga
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 —06-12-2012 —Copy of the order in
I.A. No. 2054/2012 in
OS. No.1121/2012 on the
file
of
III Additional
District Munsif, Puducherry.
19
2 January 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R2 —06.12.2012 — Copy of
the decreetal
order in I.A. No. 2054/
2012 in OS. No. 1121/
2012 on the file of III
Additional
District
Munsif, Puducherry.
Ex.R3 —2009 — Sales Report Chart
-
2012
Ex.R4 — —
—
Terms and conditions of
service issued by the
respondent management.
Ex.R5 —02-04-2012 —Original memo of show
cause
issued
by
the
respondent to Ramesh and
Venkatesan.
Ex.R6 —08-08-2012 —Memo
to
initate
disciplinary action issued
by the respondent to
M. Soundarapandian,
N . S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
R. Arivaradhan, Baskar
and Sasikumar.
Ex.R7 —19-04-2012 —Office copy of charge
sheet
issued
by
the
respondent to Ramesh.
Ex.R8 —25-04-2012 —Remainder letter sent by
the respondent to Ramesh.
Ex.R9 —28-08-2012 —Memo to surrender the
keys
and documents
etc., (Nos.3) issued by
t h e r e s p o n d e n t
t o
M. Soundarapandian,
N . S a r a v a n a k u m a r ,
R . Arivaradhan.
Ex.R10 —12-09-2012 —Order
of
Suspension
issued by the respondent
to Arivaradhan.
Ex.R11 —12-09-2012 —Order
of
Suspension
issued by the respondent
to Soundarapandian.
Ex.R12 —20-07-2012 —Continuous disturbance
from the employees letter
sent
to
Labour
Commissioner
by
the
respondent management.
Ex.R13 —05-04-2012 —Office copy of the letter
of show cause sent by the
management to R. Anbu,
C. Ramesh, J. Arul.
Ex.R14 —19-04-2012 —Office copy of charge
sheet
issued
by
the
respondent management
to S. Anbu.
Ex.R15 —07-05-2012 —Letter to get increment
by
the
respondent
management to S.Anbu.
Ex.R16 —10-04-2012 —Dormitory Quit Notice
issued by the respondent
management to S. Anbu.
Ex.R17 —11-04-2012 —Memo
issued
by
the
respondent management
to Suresh.
Ex.R18 —12-04-2012 —Office copy of police
complaint given by the
respondent management
against Suresh.
Ex.R19 —03-04-2012 —Memo
issued
by
the
respondent management
to S.Anbu, Ramesh and
Arul.
Ex.R20 —04-04-2012 —Letter to produce the
books by the respondent
management to S. Anbu.
Ex.R21 —05-04-2012 —Warning letters by the
respondent management
to S. Anbu, Ramesh and
Arul.
Ex.R22 —00-08-2012 —Copy of the letter sent by
post by Anbu to Enquiry
officer.
Ex.R23 —09-05-2012 —Letter
sent
by
the
respondent management to
Anbu.
Ex.R24 —25-04-2012 —Office
copy
of
the
remainder letter sent by
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t
management to S.Anbu.
Ex.R25 —03-05-2012— Copy of the letter sent by
the
r es p o nd en t
management to S.Anbu.
Ex.R26 —29-04-2012— Letter sent by S.Anbu to
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t
management.
Ex.R27 —19-04-2012— Returned courier cover
and receip t ad d ressed
t o
S. Anbu
by
the
respondent management.
Ex.R28 —17-10-2009— Office copy of charge
sheet
issued
by
the
respondent management
to S. Anbu.
20
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 January 2018
Ex.R29 —17-09-2012— Acknowledgement card
addressed to S. Anbu.
Ex.R30 —30-04-2012— Acknowledgement card
addressed to S. Anbu.
Ex.R31 —23-04-2012 —Acknowledgement card
addressed to S. Anbu.
Ex.R32 —17-01-2013— L e t t e r t o r e t u r n t h e
company vehicle by the
respondent management
to M. Soundarapandian.
Ex.R33 —18-05-2011— Office copy of salary
certificate issued by the
respondent management
to S. Arivarathan.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
No. 650/CEO/Exam Cell/2017.
Puducherry, the 15th December 2017.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby notified that the original Matric Mark
Certificate bearing Serial Number B 0328863 under
Register Number 228924 of March 1999, in respect
of Lakshminarasu alias Rekah, an ex-pupil of
St. Patrick Matric Higher Secondary School,
Puducherry, is reported to have been lost and beyond
scope of recovery, it is proposed to issue a duplicate
certificate, If, the original certificate is to be found
by anybody, it should be sent to the Director of
Government Examinations, Chennai-6 for cancellation,
as it is no longer valid.
V. RANGANATHAN,
Chief Educational Officer.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
No. 650/CEO/Exam Cell/2017.
Puducherry, the 15th December 2017.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby notified that the following candidates have lost their original S.S.L.C. Mark Certificates and
beyond the scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates. If, any one
finds the original mark certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations
(Sec.), College Road, Chennai-600 006 for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.
Sl.
Name of the
Register No.,
Sl. No. of
School in which
No.
applicant
session and
the mark
studied last
year
certificate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :
1
A. Pravin
555754, March 2008
—
Government High School, Kuruvinatham,
Puducherry.
2
M. Mahalakshmi
5017183, March 2015
—
Immaculate Heart of Marys Government
Aided High School, Reddiyarpalayam,
Puducherry.
3
A. Anbukumar
469783, April
2004
—
Jeevanandam Government Higher
Secondary School, Karamanikuppam,
Puducherry.
4
A. Arutgracy
388147, March 2000
—
Immaculate Heart of Marys Higher
Secondary School, Puducherry.
5
D. Jayabalaji
595331, March 2010
—
Veeramamunivar Government Boys’
High School, Puducherry.
V. RANGANATHAN,
Chief Educational Officer.