La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 22-00
Prix : ` 22-00
Price :
` 22-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 334
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 334
Award of the Labour Court
.. 334
de tribunal.
.. 347
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 347
Government Notifications
.. 347
.. 352
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 352
Tender notices
.. 352
.. 356
Etablissements dangereux
.. 356
Dangerous Establishments
.. 356
.. 358
Annonces
.. 358
Announcements
.. 358
[ 333 ]
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 : 13-3-2018
Price : ` 22-00
2018 }
|
13 {
No.
11
Poudouchéry
Mardi
13
Mars
2018 (22 Phalguna 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
13th
March
2018
334
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 March 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 201/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 29th December 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D (T) No. 11/2011
dated 07-11-2017 of Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
in respect of the Industrial Dispute between the
management of M/s. PASIC, Puducherry, M/s. PONLAIT,
Puducherry and Directorate of School Education,
Education Department, Puducherry and President,
M/s. Education Department Bread and Milk Workers
Union, No. 3, 13th Cross street, Avvai Nagar, Lawspet,
Puducherry-605 009, over non-payment of bonus
from 2003 onwards has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Tuesday, the 7th day of November 2017.
I.D. (L) No. 11/2011
The President,
M/s. Education Department
Bread and Milk Workers Union,
No.3, 13th Cross Street,
Avvai Nagar, Lawspet,
Puducherry-605 008.
. .Petitioner
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
M/s. PASIC, Thattanchavady,
Puducherry.
2. The Managing Director,
M/s. PONLAIT, Vazhudavur Road,
Kurumampet,
Puducherry.
3. The Director,
Directorate of School Education,
Education Department,
Puducherry.
. .Respondents
This Industrial Dispute coming on 25-10-2017
before me f o r f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e
o f Thiru S. Ramakrishnan, Counsel for the petitioner,
Thiru B. Mohandoss, Counsel for the first respondent,
Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar, Counsel
for the second respondent, Thiru S. Tamilselvan,
Counsel for the third respondent on record and
subsequently when the case was posted for filing of
counter, the third respondent being called absent and
set ex parte, 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. l79/AIL/Lab./J/2011,
dated 24-10-2011 for adjudicating the following:
(i) Whether there exists any employer-employee
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t we e n t h e ma n a g e me n t o f
M/s. Puducherry Agro Service and Industries
Corporation Limited/The Pondicherry Co-operative
Milk Producers' Union Limited, No. P.I and the
Education Department Bread and Milk Workers
Union? If so, to give appropriate direction.
(ii) Whether the claim of the said workers for
non-payment of bonus for the accounting year 2002-2003
till 2008-2009 as against the management of
M/s. Puducherry Agro Service and Industries
Corporation Limited/The Pondicherry Co-operative
Milk Producers’ Union Limited, No. P.1 is justified?
If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement and
additional claim statement of the petitioner, in brief,
are as follows :
The petitioner stated that in the year 2003, the
Government of Puducherry has formulated two
schemes in the Education Department, namely, (i) Shri
Rajiv Gandhi Break-fast Scheme and (ii) Shri Rajiv
Gandhi Evening Milk Scheme and that these two
schemes are intended for the students studying from
335
13 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Pre-primary to XII standard and Pre-primary to X
standard respectively in the Government and
Government Aided Private Schools in the Union
territory of Puducherry and under these two schemes,
(i) standardised hot milk of 150 ml. with 7 gms. of
sugar and Britania Glucose biscuits of 35 gms. are
provided to the students after the morning assembly is
over and before the commencement of classes by 9.30 a.m.
and (ii) standardised hot milk of 150 ml with 7 gms
of sugar after the classes are over by 4.30 p.m., daily
and that these two schemes have been implemented
with a view that the poor students will not be deprived
of nutrition and also to attract poor students to
Schools and thereby they get better education and on
an average 2,54,692 students from 701 institutions are
getting benefitted by these two schemes from all the
four regions of the Union territory of Puducherry and
that to ensure prompt and punctual supply of hot milk
and biscuit in the morning and hot milk in the evening
to the students, the Education Department has to make
arrangements for procuring of milk by 6.00 a.m., and
by 01.30 p.m., cleaned vessels for storing milk, stoves
and fuel for boiling the milk, procuring and stacking
of sugar and biscuit of good quality, procuing of
stainless steel tumblers of required quantity, cleaning
powders and other materials for cleaning these vessels
then and there and mobilization of required manpower
to perform all the above-mentioned works and in order
to implement the above functions smoothly without
any hitch, the Education Department, as it has no
manpower, discussed with the management of PASIC
in the year 2003 and later with the management of
PONLAIT in the year 2008 and an arrangement was
entered into with the PASIC at the first instance and
at a later point of time with the PONLAIT on a single
quotation basis.
It is further stated that in accordance with the
agreement entered into, the PASIC/the PONLAIT used
to send their workmen daily to the Schools allotted for
them and the workmen so deputed by the PASIC/the
PONLAIT, will arrive at the specified schools between
04.00 a.m. and 06.00 a.m. in the morning in accordance
with the arrival of milk van and after collecting the
required number of milk packets, clean the vessels for
boiling the milk, tumblers for distribution of milk,
clean the stove and keep the fuel ready and clean the
premises and the milk packets will be opened and
boiled only after the Headmaster of the School/Head
of the Institution concerned or any other official
deputed for that work in the school verify the number
of milk packets received by the workmen and then only
the boiling of milk will be commenced, the required
quantity of sugar and biscuits will be supplied from the
custody of the Headmaster of the School/Head of the
Institution concerned and then the distribution work
will be started under the supervision of the
Headmaster of the School/Head of the Institution
concerned and once the distribution work is completed,
the workmen deputed by the PASIC/the PONLAIT will
clean the vessels and the premises and they will be
permitted to leave the School after signing in the
attendance provided by the PASIC/PONLAIT and again
the abovesaid process is repeated commencing from
01.00 p.m., onwards for the distribution of hot milk
with sugar to those students by 4.30 p.m.
It is further stated that as per the agreement entered
into with the PASIC in the year 2003 by the Education
Department, the PASIC supplied all the vessels, fuel,
stove and cleaning materials and to avoid pilferage, the
PASIC also supplied sugar and biscuits to the
Headmaster/Head of the Institution concerned, to be
kept in safe custody till they are distributed to the
students and the PASIC placed indents with the
Pondicherry Milk Co-operative Society or supplying
necessary quantities of milk pockets directly to the
Schools concerned and that the PASIC deputed their
own workmen to each and every School for the
implementation of these schemes and that the
Headmaster/Head of the Institution concerned will
simply oversee whether the workmen deputed by the
PASIC are discharging their duties properly and put
their signatures daily in the attendance register,
provided by the PASIC and the wages of every workman
so deputed by the PASIC were paid by the officials of
the PASIC before the expiry of the tenth day after the
last day of the wage period in respect of which the
wages are payable under due acknowledgment and the
responsibility of implementing these two schemes are
undertaken by the Education Department but, the
execution of supply of milk, sugar, biscuits, vessels,
stoves, fuel, cleaning materials and the required
number of workmen are vested with the PASIC and the
total expenditure incurred, in executing the work by
the PASIC will be reimbursed by the Education
Department, once bills are raised with the Education
Department by the PASIC.
It is further stated that all the details mentioned
above are as such being continued to be performed by
the PONLAIT from the year 2008 onwards, since the
agreement was entered into between the Education
Department and the PONLAIT from the year 2008
onwards and the quantum of expenditure incurred to
the PASIC/the PONLAIT is calculated year-wise, since
rates of items will vary and accordingly, the rate per
student is calculated on the basis of agreement entered
into between the Education Department and the PASIC/
336
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 March 2018
the PONLAIT and the Education Department was very
generous in giving options to revise the rate per
student as quoted by the PASIC/the PONLAIT in case,
the PASIC/the PONLAIT feel they are at loss or any
loss incurred by paying bonus to their workmen
deputed for the implementation of these schemes, then
the PASIC and the PONLAIT are at liberty to quote the
revised rates to the Government through the Education
Department and made the loss good and that the
expenditure so incurred by the PASIC the PONLAIT,
in the implementation of these two schemes are
settled then and thereby the Education Department as
soon as the PASIC/the PONLAIT raise the bills with
the Education Department and to implement these two
schemes, the Education Department will simply
reimburse the expenditure alone but, the vessels, food
materials, milk, stoves, fuel are all the properties of
the PASIC/the PONLAIT and the workmen are also of
the PASIC/the PONLAIT and that the PASIC/the
PONLAIT are on the wrong notion that since their
workmen are working under the supervision of
Headmaster/Head of the Institution concerned, the
bonus should be paid by the Education Department and
not by them and since, the employer-employee
relationship exists between the PASIC/the PONLAIT
and their workmen and also the PASIC/the PONLAIT
are disbursing the wages to their workmen and as such
the bonus should invariably be paid by them only.
It is further stated that eventhough the petitioner
union members are the workmen of the PASIC/the
PONLAIT, just for their identity sake, their union is
termed as M/s. Education Department Bread and Milk
Workers Union and as they are ordered to perform
certain works by the PASIC/the PONLAIT therefore,
they are entitled to receive bonus disbursed by their
master alone i.e., PASIC/the PONLAIT and their nature
of work is neither intermittent nor seasonal but, it is
perennial in nature since these workmen are employed
throughout a year and altogether they are engaged for
about more than 240 days in a year and as these
workmen are employees of the PASIC/the PONLAIT
and being employed by them in the Education
Department on the basis of agreement entered into
between the Education Department and the PASIC/the
PONLAIT and the Education Department is regularly
reimbursing the expenditure incurred by the PASIC/the
PONLAIT in implementing these two schemes, it is the
sole responsibility of the PASIC/the PONLAIT to
disburse bonus to their own workmen and the PASIC
failed to discharge their liability of disbursing
minimum statutory bonus to their own workmen from
2003 onwards and the PONLAIT from 2008 onwards
and they are bound to disburse bonus to their own
workmen, not the minimum bonus with interest but, the
maximum bonus with interest after calculating the
allocable surplus on any accounting year subject to
a maximum of twenty percent their wages paid and
while the Director of School Education, Education
Department, Puducherry was impleaded as Respondent
No. 3 as a necessary party the respondent No. 3 is also
liable to pay the bonus to the petitioner from 2003 to
till date since, both the schemes were implemented by
the Department of respondent No. 3.
It is further stated that most of the workmen
employed in this work are ladies and these ladies are
from weaker section of society and they have
preferred this work just to save their family from
deprivation of certain monetary benefits to meet both
ends and these women are toiling all along these years
from 2003 onwards and moreover, they are not
regularised and not even entitled to get any benefits
such as leave, advances, ESIC benefits, etc., and they
were not paid wages during their leave period and their
conditions is also very pitiable in nature and the
Government is not at all considering to implement
atleast some basic welfare measures and prayed this
Court to declare that the workmen engaged by the
PASIC are entitled to receive the maximum bonus from
the year 2003 to 2007 from the respondent Nos. l and
3 and to declare that the workmen engaged by the
PONLAIT are entitled to receive the minimum bonus
from the year 2008 onwards from the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 and for some other reliefs.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
first respondent are as follows :
The claim petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable in law or on facts and stated that
necessary particulars like the name and description of
the person employed from the PASIC/the PONLAIT by
the Education Department in respect of whom the reliefs
are claimed are not mentioned in the claim petition
and further the details of employment like how many
persons worked for how many days, the total number
of days worked, the rate of wages claimed for the
workmen, etc., and among the persons how many
persons are sought to be declared as workmen of the
first respondent and how many persons are sought to
be declared as workmen of the second respondent are
also not pointed out by the petitioner in the claim
petition. One and the same person cannot be workman
of 2 employees and as such it is obligatory on the part
of the petitioner union to give separate list of
employees of the first respondent and second
respondent and in the absence of segregation of
employees, the claim petition is defective in not
337
13 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
identifying the employer in relation to workmen for
whom the claim has been made. Before the learned
Conciliation Officer, there was a dispute raised by the
petitioner union through representation, dated
15-10-2009 in which the claim for payment of bonus
under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 was the subject
matter of conciliation, but, before this Court the very
same petitioner has made several claims which were
not subject matter of the conciliation process. As per
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a
reference of an industrial dispute to the industrial
tribunal can be made on failure of conciliation
process. As all the reliefs except the bonus were not
taken up for conciliation they cannot be taken for
adjudication by this Tribunal. The claim made by the
petitioner in so for as it relates to issues other than
bonus may kindly be taken up as another preliminary
issue and a finding may be given on the same in the
first instance.
The persons engaged for the carrying out of the
above said schedule are not employees. Even if,
arguments sake if, they are considered as employees,
then also they cannot make a claim for bonus by virtue
of the provisions contained in section 32(iv) of the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, PASIC being a
Government of Puducherry undertaking. As such the
issue relating to non maintainability of the claim
against this respondent may also kindly be taken up as
another preliminary issue before deciding the claim on
merits. Out of the 10 reliefs claimed by the petitioner
the reliefs (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi) alone has been claimed
against the first respondent. The granting of first relief
is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal. The matters within the jurisdiction of
Industrial Tribunals have been listed in the III Schedule
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There are 11
items mentioned in the list. But, the relief claimed in
the claim petition does not find a place in the list.
As such the relief No. l claimed by the petitioner cannot
be granted by this Tribunal as there is no jurisdiction
for this Tribunal to adjudicate this matter. The dispute
relating to the subject matter of the claim is not an
individual dispute, it is a collective dispute pertaining
to several workmen. In such a case the petitioner union
should have a representative capacity to raise the
dispute on behalf of the several workmen. The locus
standi of the petitioner union to raise the dispute on
behalf of the workmen may kindly be taken up as
preliminary issue and be decided in the first instance
before taking up the other issues involved in the claim
petition.
The first respondent engaged some workmen purely,
on temporary basis for the implementation of (a) Shri
Rajiv Gandhi Breakfast Scheme and (b) Shri Rajiv
Gandhi Evening Milk Scheme is true. Those persons
were engaged on a daily rated and part time basis. They
were all casuals engaged depending upon the need of the
hour and they did not have any right to hold any particular
post. In circular No. 6566/Edn./DE/PA/2002-2003,
dated 03-09-2002 no where contemplates employment
of any person by the implementing agency in respect
of the scheme. The guidelines/procedures contemplate
deputation of its own staffs by the Education
Department the persons working in Schools for the
implementation of the breakfast scheme. At no point
of time in the implementation of the abovesaid
scheme there was any condition stipulated whereby the
PASIC should employ any person of its own for
carrying out the scheme in its capacity as an
implementing agency of the Education Department.
In law, particularly in labour jurisprudence the concept
of engagement of persons is different from concept
of employment of persons. The persons engaged for
the implementation of the scheme were at the disposal
of the Head of the Educational Institutions whose
students were benefited by the scheme. The management
of the first respondent does not know the identity of
the persons engaged by the Education Department in
this regard and the Head of the Institutions were only
maintaining the records of persons engaged on day to
day basis. The very nature of the scheme and its
implementation through the agency by way of
contractual arrangement discloses that there is no
master and servant relationship between the Education
Department and the persons deputed for carrying out
the scheme on the one hand and between the
implementing agency (PASIC/PONLAIT) and the
persons engaged for carrying out the scheme on the
other hand. In the absence of master and servant
relationship, there is no employment and on account
of want of status of employees the persons engaged
for the implementation of Rajiv Gandhi Breakfast
Scheme are not eligible to make a claim for bonus.
On the same reasoning the persons engaged in the
above two schemes cannot claim the other reliefs also
which find a place in the claim statement. The first
respondent did not have complete administrative
control over the persons engaged so as to make them
employees of the first respondent. The association is
confusing the ex-gratia payment granted by the
Government with the concept of bonus as statutory
right. No amount of monetary compensation as an
ex-gratia payment can confer the status of an
employee to anyone, who is otherwise not considered
as an employee under the Bonus Act.
338
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 March 2018
4. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
second respondent are as follows:
The industrial dispute filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable either on law or facts. They agitate the
claim of impleading the third respondent as a party to
the proceedings when the reference made by the
Government of Puducherry under section 10 of the
Industrial dispute does not include the Director,
Directorate of School Education, Education Department,
Government of Puducherry. The first relief of the
claim statement is highly whimsical as the claim
petitioner union cannot claim the status of workman
in two institutions namely M/s. PASIC and M/s. PONLAIT
and as there exists no clarity the claim petition has to
be dismissed. When the individual aggrieved workmen
had not approached this Tribunal the claim petitioner
union cannot espouse their cause an in service matters,
Trade Unions are precluded from championing the
cause of the individual workmen and in the instant case
the workmen are aggrieved against non-payment of
Bonus from the year 2003 onwards and unless and
until the status of the employer is determined neither
the individual workmen nor the claim petitioner union
can agitate their grievances as against the second
respondent. The claim petitioner union without seeking
the relief of the status of the employer under whom
the Bread and Milk Workers are employed, the claim
petitioner union cannot seek any relief from this
Tribunal and more particularly, when the period of
implementation of the Government scheme is vested
with two instrumentalities of the state on different
periods, it is obvious and necessary that the status of
employment had to be determined at the initial
instance without which none of the reliefs prayed by
the claim petitioner union can be entertained by this
Tribunal.
From the Academic year 2008-2009, Shri Rajiv
Gandhi Breakfast Scheme was entrusted to PONLAIT
to implement the said scheme and as per the said
scheme, PONLAIT is only an implementing agency of
the Education Department, Government of Puducherry
and supplied diet articles on the ratio Fixed by the
Education Department to the school children as per the
indent received from the concerned School Principal/
Head Master/In-charge of the Diet Articles section.
As per the Terms and conditions for the supply of diet
articles, wages to the Milk boiling workers are to be
borne only by the Transport Contractors whose
vehicles are engaged for supply of milk through Tender
process and PONLAIT neither effects any wages for
the casual Bread and Milk Workers nor the said
workers are under the Muster Rolls of PONLAIT even
remotely. As there exist no Employer-Workmen
relationship between PONLAIT and the Casual Bread
and Milk Workers, implementation of Statutory
benefits and Payment of Bonus does not arise as
Wages are not paid by PONLAIT and they are not in
the Muster Rolls and will not fall under the Definition
of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
As the Government of Puducherry had entrusted the
implementation of the said scheme to PONLAIT for
the Academic year 2009-2010, ratios were quoted by
the Administration of PONLAIT on the letter, dated
23-05-2009 addressed to the Chief Educational
Officer, Education Department, Puducherry which
contained the terms and conditions for supply of Diet
Articles. Clause 4 of the said terms and conditions
clearly stipulates that the Wages for the Milk Boiling
employees will be given by the Transport Contractors
as done by PASIC in the previous instances as the
Casual Bread and Milk Workers are not Employees of
PONLAIT.
5. Despite of due service of notice third respondent
has appeared through their Counsel before this Tribunal
and though the Counsel for the third respondent has
filed vakalat, despite several opportunities, no counter
was filed on behalf of the third respondent and hence
the third respondent was set ex-parte. In the course
of enquiry on the side of the petitioner PWl was
examined and Ex.PI to Ex.Pl7 were marked and on the
side of the first respondent RW1 was examined and
Ex.Rl to Ex.R3 were marked. No evidence has been let
in and no exhibits have been marked on the side of the
second respondent. Argument heard.
6. The point for consideration is:
Whether there any employer-employee relationship
exists between the management of first respondent/
second respondent and the petitioner union and
whether the claim of the said workers for non-payment
of bonus for the accounting year 2002-2003 till
2008-2009 as against the management of first
respondent/second respondent is justified or not and
what is the relief entitled to the said workmen.
7. The submission of both the parties, the evidence
let in and the exhibits marked on by the side of the
petitioner
and
first
respondent
are
carefully
considered. On the side of the petitioner, written
argument and additional written argument was filed and
the same were carefully considered. The learned
Counsel for the second respondent also has filed
a written argument and the same is also carefully
considered. In support of his contention, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the citations in
AIR 1957 SC 264, Appeal (Civil) 1407-1409 of 1998,
339
13 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Writ Appeal No.998/2007 dated 01-05-2015 of the
Hon’ble High Court, Andhra Pradesh, CWP. No.
17452/2006 dated 13-10-2009 of the Hon’ble High
Court, Punjab and Haryana, Order dated 26-11-1973,
the Hon’ble High Court, Orissa (Equivalent
Citation: 1974 II LLJ 34 Ori.).
8. It is the evidence of PW1 that he is the President
of the petitioner union and the members of the
petitioner union were engaged as workers under Shri
Rajiv Gandhi Break-fast Scheme and Shri Rajiv Gandhi
Evening Milk Scheme formulated and implemented by
the Government of Puducherry through Directorate of
Education, Government of Puducherry in the year 2003
and that these schemes are intended for the welfare of
the students and as the Education Department is not
having sufficient man power to implement the said
schemes the management of PASIC was contacted in
the year 2003 and then the management of PONLAIT
in the year 2008 and entered into an agreement
implementing the schemes on single quotation basis
and both the PASIC and PONLAIT deputed their
workmen to each and every School to implement the
scheme and that was supervised by the Headmaster of
every School and wages to every workman so deputed
was disbursed by the officials of PASIC till 2008 and
thereafter, PONLAIT undertook the above process and
the work performed by the workmen is neither
intermittent nor seasonal but perennial in nature and
the workmen are employed throughout a year and these
workmen performed their duties without break and
hence, they automatically eligible for receipt of bonus
and that these workmen though employed by Education
Department, they are deputed by PASIC and later on
by PONLAIT to the Education Department and
therefore,
discharging
of
bonus
is
the
sole
responsibility of the PASIC/the PONLAIT and that the
workmen are entitled to receive the bonus from PASIC
from the year 2003 onwards and from PONLAT from
the year 2008 onwards and that these workmen are
entitled to receive the maximum bonus with interest
after calculating the allocable surplus on any
accounting year subject to a maximum of twenty
percent of the wages paid to them and that the
employer-employee relationship exists between the
PASIC and the workmen for the period from 2003 to
2007 and the employer-employee relationship exists
between the PONLAIT and the workmen for the period
from 2008 onwards and as such the disbursement of
bonus actually lies with the PASIC for the period from
2003 to 2007 and with the PONLAIT from the year
2008 onwards and that the petitioner union is not
suffice to justify that the workmen are the employee
of the Education Department, however, the said
nomenclature is actually intended to differentiate the
persons who are normally engaged in the PASIC/
PONLAIT itself and they have been deputed by the
PASIC/PONLAIT to the Education Department to be
engaged in the Bread and Milk supply schemes to the
students and as such the disbursement of bonus
actually rests with the PASIC/the PONLAIT for the
corresponding period respectively and the workmen
were given ` 3,000 as wages for a month and later it
gradually increases to ` 4,000 per month and from
2009 they are working without wages and that though
the said workmen have been deputed to execute the two
schemes, the Education Department as the principal
employer utilized the services of the said workmen to
perform the mid-day meals duties in addition to those
two schemes.
9. In support of their case the petitioner union has
exhibited Ex.Pl to Ex.P17. Ex.Pl is the copy of the
Note No. l-3/DSF/PA/2008 issued by the Director of
School Education. Ex.P2 is the copy of the G.O. Rt.
No. 186 issued by the Chief Secretariat (Education).
Ex.P3 is the copy of the requisition for the rate of
supply of hot milk and bread issued by the Chief
Educational Officer in No. 455/CEO/SRBS/2008-09.
Ex.P4 is the copy of the counter statement filed by
the Managing Director, M/s.PONLAIT before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation). Ex.P5 is the copy of the
letter No. 455/CEO/SRBS/2009-10 of the Chief
Educational Officer. Ex.P6 is the copy of the letter
No. 455/CEO/SRBS/2011-12 of the Chief Educational
Officer. Ex.P7 is the copy of the Writ Petition
No. 27855/2010 filed by M/s. PONLAIT. Ex.P8 is the copy
of Lok-Adalat order sheet in W.P. No. 27855/2010. Ex.P9
is the copy of application filed by the petitioner under
the RTI Act before the Public Information Officer,
Education Department along with the reply received.
Ex.P10 is the copy of application filed by the
petitioner under the RTI Act before the Public
Information Officer, Education Department along with
the reply received. Ex.P11 is the copy of application
filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act before the
Public Information Officer, M/s. PASIC along with the
reply received. Ex.P12 is the copy of application filed
by the petitioner under the RTI Act before the first
Appellate Authority, M/s. PONLAIT along with the
application under the RTI Act dated 14-12-2015 and
the reply received thereon. Ex.P13 is the copy of
application filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act
b e fo r e t h e fi r s t Ap p e l l a t e Au t h o r i t y,
M/s.
PONLAIT along with the application under the RTI Act
dated 14-12-2015 and the reply received thereon.
Ex.P14 is the copy of the letter by Manager (SMS),
PONLAIT addressed to the Headmaster, Government
Boys’ Primary School, Muthialpet. Ex.P15 is the copy
of the affidavit and petition in I.A. No. 142/2013 in
I.D(T). No.11/2011. Ex.P16 is the copy of Order in
I.A.No.142/2013 in I.D(T).No. ll/2011. Ex.P17 is the
H4 Notice to R1.
340
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 March 2018
10. On the other hand, in order to prove the case
of the first respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.Rl
to Ex.R3 were marked. On perusal of case records and
evidence let in and exhibits marked on by the side of
petitioner and first respondent, it is clear that the
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute over
the non-payment of bonus for the period 2003 to 2007
against the management of first respondent PASIC,
Thattanchavady, Puducherry and from the year 2008
onwards against the management of second respondent
PONLAIT, Kurumampet, Puducherry before the
Conciliation Officer and on failure of the conciliation,
the Government has referred this matter to this
Tribunal and the case was taken on file in I.D(T).No.
11/2011 on 03-11-2011. When the I.D is pending
before this Tribunal, the Director, Directorate of
School Education, Education Department, Puducherry
was impleaded as third respondent. The said reference
is sent to this Tribunal to decide whether there is any
relationship of employer and employee existing
between the management of Puducherry Agro Service
and Industries Corporation Limited/The Pondicherry
Co-operative Milk Producers, Union Limited and
Education Department Bread and Milk Workers Union
and whether the petitioners are entitled for bonus for
the accounting year 2002-2003 till 2008-2009 against
the management of PASIC and after impleading of third
respondent, the petitioner union has filed claim
statement and first and second respondent have filed
counter statement and though the Counsel for the third
respondent has filed vakalat, despite several
opportunities, no counter was filed on behalf of the
third respondent and hence, the third respondent was
set ex-parte. Now, the question before this Tribunal
is that under whom the petitioner union members have
worked and who has to pay the bonus to the members
of the petitioner union.
11. Admittedly, in this case, all the union members
are working for two schemes, namely, (i) Shri Rajiv
Gandhi Break-fast Scheme and (ii) Shri Rajiv Ganshi
Evening Milk Scheme under the first respondent
from 2003 to 2007 and under the second respondent
from 2008 onwards on behalf of the third respondent.
The students in the pre-primary class to X standard
respectively in the Government and Government Aided
Private Schools in the Union territory of Puducherry
have to be provided with standardized hot milk with
sugar and biscuits in the morning and evening. It is not
in dispute that the members of the petitioner union
were working for the abovesaid scheme and they have
not been paid bonus and it is also not in dispute that
they are entitled for bonus and that therefore, it is the
only question to be answered is who has to pay the
bonus to the members of the petitioner union. It is the
contention of the first respondent that petitioner union
members were appointed for implementation of Bread
and Milk Breakfast Scheme and they have been paid by
the Education Department through first respondent.
The main argument of the second respondent is that
petitioner union has failed to establish how many
workers have been working? and period of service of
the workmen and who have paid the wages to them and
further PW1 has not obtained any authorization or
power from the individual workman to raise the
industrial dispute and the petitioners have not exhibited
the attendance register even before the Conciliation
Officer and without giving details of the workmen even
enclose 588 workers are eligible for Bonus and had
arrived some calculation in the proof affidavit and that
the petitioners have not produced the wage slip of the
workers and not chosen to examine any one of the so-
called 588 workmen and no witness had been examined
by the petitioner other than the PWl to establish the
relationship of employer and employee.
12. The petitioner union has exhibited Ex.P1 to
Ex.P17 and it is learnt from the records that among the
said documents, Ex.P8 is the Copy of the Hon’ble High
Court Lok-Adalat order sheet passed in W.P. No.
27855/2010 which is the vital document which would
discloses that while pending of this I.D. before this
Tribunal the second respondent herein has filed a Writ
Petition before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.
No. 27855 of 2010 in which, the Secretary to
Government (Labour), Chief Secretariat, Puducherry
is the first respondent, the Commissioner of Labour,
Labour Department, Puducherry is the second
respondent, the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Labour
Department, Puducherry is the third respondent, the
Director,
Directorate
of
School
Education,
(Government of Puducherry is the fourth respondent
and the Education Department Bread-Milk Workers
Association is the fifth respondent in which the
Hon’ble Madras High Court has passed an order in Lok
Adalat which was held on 30-10-2012, which runs as
follows:
“The dispute is as to who shall pay the bonus
payable to the workers between the petitioner and
the fourth respondent. It is seen that wages are being
paid by the fourth respondent herein (Director,
Directorate of School Education, Government of
Puducherry) to the workers through the petitioner
(Pondicherry Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union).
Naturally, therefore, it follows that the payment of
bonus shall also be made by the fourth respondent.
It is needless to point out that the fourth respondent
who pay the wages through their own department
also pay the bonus through the petitioner. There is
no dispute about payment of bonus.
341
13 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
2. It is seen from the letter produced that wages
are being disbursed through the petitioner on behalf
of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the bonus also
shall be paid by the fourth respondent through the
petitioner.
3. We feel that Government should interfere and
direct the fourth respondent to pay bonus to the
workers through the petitioner. It is evident that just
like wages paid by the fourth respondent, bonus
under Payment of Bonus Act shall also be paid by
the fourth respondent through the petitioner. It is
duty of the Government of Puducherry to release
the amount incurred for payment of bonus to the
workers, as being followed in respect of wages.”
From the above order of the Hon’ble High Court,
it is also learnt that one Advocate Mr. A.S. Bharathi
has appeared for the first, second and third
respondents in Writ Petition and the same Advocate
also has appeared for the fourth respondent the
Director,
Directorate
of
School
Education,
Government of Puducherry in the said Writ Petition
who is the third respondent in this I.D. It is further
learnt from the above Lok Adalat order that
amicable settlement was arrived in the Lok Adalat
and the above order has been passed by Lok Adalat
headed by Hon'ble Justice directing the fourth
respondent the Director, Directorate of School
Education, Government of Puducherry to pay bonus
to the members of the petitioner union who is the
fifth respondent in the above Writ Petition stating
that the wages are being paid by the fourth
respondent the Director, Directorate of School
Education, Government of Puducherry to the
workers through the Pondicherry Co-operative Milk
Producers' Union Limited the second respondent
herein and it is also mentioned in the above order
that it is also the duty of the Government of
Puducherry to release the amount incurred for
payment of bonus to the workers.
13. Further, it is also learnt from the Lok Adalat
order that the second respondent and third respondent
and petitioner in the present I.D. are the parties to the
said Writ Petition and that therefore, it will bind all
of them. No Writ or Writ Appeal is filed against the
said order of the Lok Adalat passed by the Hon’ble
High Court and that therefore, it is very clear from the
Lok Adalat order passed by the Hon'ble High Court
under Ex.P8 that the Director, Directorate of School
Education, Government of Puducherry the fourth
respondent in said Writ Petition was directed to pay
bonus to the members of the petitioner union for the
service rendered by the workers under the PONLAIT,
the petitioner in Writ Petition through whom the wages
were disbursed to the workers and that therefore, as
the Lok Adalat of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras
has already passed an order directing the Education
Department third respondent herein to pay Bonus to
the members of the petitioner union and the same was
accepted by the petitioner union and the second and
third respondents and the said Bonus was also directed
to disburse through the Pondicherry Co-operative Milk
Producers' Union Limited the second respondent
herein. Therefore, it is clearly established by the
petitioner union that the relationship of employer-
employee was existing between the third respondent
Education Department as the principal employer and
the members of the petitioner union and as they have
paid wages to the members of the petitioner union
through first and second respondents and admittedly,
Bonus has not been paid to the members of petitioner
union from 2002-2003. Hence, it is to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union over
non-payment of bonus for the accounting year 2002-2003
till 2008-2009 as against the management of all the
respondents is justified and as such, the petitioner
union members are entitled for the relief as claimed
by them.
14. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is
held that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union over non-payment of bonus for the accounting
year 2002-2003 till 2008-2009 as against the
management of all the respondents is justified as
relationship of employer-employee was existing
between the members of the petitioner union and the
management of the respondents and Award is passed by
directing the third respondent to pay Bonus to the
members of the petitioner union through the
second respondent. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 07th day of November, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of
petitioner’s witness:
PW.1— 07-01-2015 —
P. Lakshumanaswami.
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
— 11-01-2008—Copy of the Note No.l-3/
DSF/PA/2008 issued by
the Director of School
Education.
Ex.P2
— 26-09-2008—Copy of the G. O. Rt.
No. 186 issued by the
C h i e f
S e c r e t a r i a t
(Education).
342
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 March 2018
Ex.P3
— 16-02-2009—Copy of the requisition
for the rate of supply of
hot milk and bread issued
by the Chief Educational
Officer in No. 455/CEO/
SRBS/2008-09.
Ex.P4
— 20-11-2009—Copy of the counter
statement filed by the
Managing
Directo r,
M/s. PONLAIT before
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P5
— 23-12-2009—C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r
No.
455/CEO/SRBS/
2009-10 of the Chief
Educational Officer.
Ex.P6
— 06-07-2011—C o p y o f t h e l e t t e r
No.
455/CEO/SRBS/
2011-12 of the Chief
Educational Officer.
Ex.P7
— 29-11-2010—Copy
of
the
Writ
Petition No. 27855/2010
filed by M/s. PONLAIT.
Ex.P8
— 30-10-2010— Copy of Lok-Adalat order
sheet in W.P. No. 27855/
2010.
Ex.P9
— 14-12-2015— Copy of application filed
by the petitioner under
the RTI Act before the
Public Information Officer,
Education
Department
along with the reply
received.
Ex.P10 — 14-12-2015— Copy of application filed
by the petitioner under
the RTI Act before the
Public Information Officer,
Education
Department
along with the reply
received.
Ex.Pll
— 14-12-2015— Copy of application filed
by the petitioner under
the RTI Act before the
Public Information Officer,
M/s. PASIC along with
the reply received.
Ex.P12 — 28-01-2016— Copy of application filed
by the petitioner under
the RTI Act before the
first Appellate Authority;
M/s. PONLAIT along with
the application under the
RTI Act dated 14-12-2015
and the reply received
thereon.
Ex.P13 — 28-01-2016— Copy of application filed
by the petitioner under
the RTI Act before the
first Appellate Authority,
M/s. PONLAIT along with
the application under the
RTI Act, dated 14-12-2015
and the reply received
thereon.
Ex.P14 — 21-08-2016— Copy of the letter by
Manager (SMS), PONLAIT
a d d r e s s e d
t o
t h e
Headmaster, Government
Boys’ Primary School,
Muthialpet.
Ex.P15 — 06-08-2013— Copy of the affidavit
and petition in I.A.No.142/
2013 in I.D(T). No. 11/2011.
Ex.P16 — 02-05-2014— Order in I.A. No. 142/2013
LD(T). No. 11/2011.
Ex.P17 — 30-11-2015—H4 Notice to R1.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 05-05-2017 —
A. Ramamourti
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
— 22-01-2003— Copy of the order under
G.O. Ms. No. 9 of the Chief
Secretariat (Education),
Government of Puducherry.
Ex.R2
— 04-03-2003— C o p y
o f
C i r c u l a r
No. 6566/Edn./DE/PA/
2002-03 of Department
of Education, Government
of Puducherry showing
the
guidelines
for
implementation of Shri
Rajiv Gandhi Breakfast
Scheme.
Ex.R3
— 21-01-2010— Copy of reply submitted
by the first respondent
to
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
List of
second and third respondent’s witnesses:Nil
List of second and third respondent’s exhibits:Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
343
13 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 01/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 3rd January 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in Industrial Dispute (L) No. 37/
2012, dated 3-9-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry
in
respect of the Industrial Dispute between the
management of M/s. Soundraraja Mills, Nedungadu,
Karaikal and its workman Thiru S.R. Rajendiran represented
by the Secretary, CITU Nedungadu, Soundararaja Mills
Thozhilalagal Sangam, Nedungadu, Karaikal, over
denial of promotion to Thiru S.R. Rajendiran, has been
received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department’s
G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
E. VALLAVAN,
Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Additional Secretary to Government, (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Friday, the 3rd day of September, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 37/2012
Nedungadu Soundraraja
Mill workers union,
CITU, Nedungadu,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
M/s. Soundraraja Mills,
Nedungadu, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 31-10-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,
representative for the petitioner, Thiru G. Jagadharaj,
Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood over
for consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 83/2004/Lab./AIL/J,
dated 11-06-2004 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the denial of promotion to the
worker Thiru S.R. Rajendiran by the management of
M/s. Soundararaja Mills, Karaikal is justified or not?
(ii) If not justified, to what relief, the said
workman is entitled to ?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. It is the case of the petitioner union that the
workman S.R. Rajendiran joined in the respondent Mill
in the year 1983 and his service was confirmed as
Reliever on 01-07-1990 and subsequently on 01-06-1998
he was promoted as Bale Breaker Attender and he was
doing his work sincerely for which he has got incentive
bonus and he was initially the member of INTUC union
which was supporting the management and the
respondent management has introduced apprentice
scheme against the permanent workers and more than
800 women employees were appointed for meager
wages while the permanent post are vacant and some of
the employees were waiting for promotion and that the
Vice-President of the respondent mill misappropriated
more than ` 40,00,000 from the workers Co-operative
Credit Society for which the INTUC union failed to
take the matter to the respondent and hence, the
members of the INTUC as well as S.R. Rajendran
dissatisfied with the INTUC union and formed CITU
union in which the said S.R. Rajendran was an Executive
Committee member and the said S.R. Rajendran
questioned the management regarding illegal activities
of the management and filed a criminal case against the
Vice-President of the respondent Mill and that therefore,
the respondent management has compelled the
workman S.R. Rajendran to left from CITU union
and threatened him and to victimise him the said
S.R. Rajendran was refused work of Skutcher Tenter and
that was allotted to relievers Ilango, Thirumalairajan,
Kamaraj, Manohar, Ramesh, Ravichandran, Suresh,
Lakshmanan and Badlies Ramesh and Suresh who were
juniors to him by which the said S.R. Rajendran has
lost ` 300 per month and though out of 7 Skutcher
Tenter posts 5 post was vacant the workman
S.R. Rajendran was not given that work and only his
relievers and badly workers have been appointed by the
management and though the workman S.R. Rajendran
was qualified for the post he has not been promoted to
the post and only juniors of him have been appointed
to the post and that therefore, the petitioner union has
344
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 March 2018
raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer on
25-09-2003 in which the respondent
management has not denied that they have appointed
relievers as Skutcher Tenter. Though the workman
S.R. Rajendran was having seniority than the other and
having sufficient qualification and skill the respondent
management to victimise the said workman has not
granted promotion to him and that therefore, praying
this Court to pass an order directing the respondent to
give promotion to the said workman.
3. On the other hand, it is stated by the respondent
in the counter statement that the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union on behalf
of S.R. Rajendran is infructuous since, he has already
been dismissed from service by the respondent by
order, dated 23-10-2004 and that the petitioner union
has no representative character and locus standi to
raise the present dispute since it has no adequate
members in the respondent mill and has not followed
the statutory and mandatory legal procedure to raise
the present dispute in that it has not conducted a
General Body meeting of its so called members who
were workmen of the respondent nor the workmen
attending the meeting passed any resolution authorising
the General Secretary to raise the present dispute
against the respondent and that the averments
contained in the claim statement are baseless, false and
lacking in bona fide and that workman S.R. Rajendran
was working as a Bale Breaker Attender in the blow
room section of the respondent mill from 01-06-1998
and during his service, he was warmed, fined,
suspended on various occasions for committing very
grave and serious acts of misconduct and despite
several punishments being imposed on him, he had not
rectified his faults and due to lack of discipline in his
work, he was denied promotion and that a worker is a
senior it is not legal to compel any management to
give him promotion because the promotion is based on
merit also and that while giving promotion the
management has taken into consideration seniority
cum merit and since, the delinquent S.R. Rajendran has
been punished on various occasions he was not given
promotion and that the relievers were not given
promotion and that the petitioner in No.2100/2003 has
already raised an industrial dispute before the Labour
Court for the same matter i.e. for promotion for
S.R. Rajendran and the same was withdrawn by the
petitioner union and hence, the petitioner is estopped
from raising the same dispute which is not in
accordance with law and it is liable to rejected by this
Court.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PWl was examined and Ex,P1 to Ex.P7 were
marked and on the side of the respondent RW1 was
examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.R4 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the denial of promotion to the worker
Thiru. S. R. Rajendiran by the respondent management
is justified or not and if not justified, what is the relief
entitled to the said workman?
6. The pleadings of the parties, the evidence let in
by either sides and the exhibits marked on both sides
are carefully considered. On both sides, written
arguments were filed and the same is carefully
considered. In support of his case, the learned Counsel
for the respondent relied upon the Judgment reported
in 1967 - 68 Vol.33 FJR 151 (SC) and AIR 1973 SC
2452.
7. From the pleadings of both the parties, it can be
inferred that the following facts are admitted by either
sides that the workman S.R.Rajendiran on whose
behalf the industrial dispute was raised by the
petitioner union was working at the respondent
establishment and he was promoted as Bale Breaker
attender and the said workman S.R. Rajendiran was the
active member of the INTUC union and thereafter, he
left from the union and joined in CITU union, while so
the respondent Mill has not promoted him to the post
of Skutcher Tenter and hence, the union has raised the
industrial dispute for denial of promotion to said
workman S.R. Rajendiran by the respondent mill
before the Conciliation Officer.
8. It is the evidence of PW1, the member of the
petitioner union workman S.R. Rajendiran that he had
been in service from 1983 at the respondent mill and
subsequently he was promoted as Bale Breaker and
thereafter, his promotion for Skutcher Tenter was
refused by the respondent and though the Badli
workmen Ramesh, Suresh and relievers Ilango,
Thirumalairajan, Kamaraj, Manohar and Latchumanan
who were juniors to him were given the work of
Skutcher Tenter, and out of the 7 post of Skutcher
Tenter 5 post was vacant he was not given the work of
Skutcher Tenter with intention by which he has lost
` 300 per month and hence, the union raised the
industrial dispute for his promotion on 25-09-2003
before the Conciliation Officer.
9. In support of his case the PWl has exhibited
Ex.PI to Ex.P7. Ex.P1 is the copy of the confirmation
order given by the respondent Mill to the petitioner.
Ex.P2 is the copy of the promotion order given by the
respondent Mill to the petitioner. Ex.P3 is the copy of
the production bonus. Ex.P4 is the copy of the letter
given to INTUC. Ex.P5 is the copy of the industrial
dispute raised by petitioner union. Ex.P6 is the copy of
the letter given by the respondent mill to Labour
345
13 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Officer (Conciliation). Ex.P7 is the copy of the failure
report. These documents would go to show that the
service of workman S.R.Rajendiran was confirmed by
the respondent on 30-06-1990 and he was promoted as
Bale Breaker Attender on 31-05-1998 and he was also
given incentive in the year 2001 and the workman
S.R. Rajendiran along with other workers sent a letter
to the INTUC on 19-03-2003 stating that they are
come out from the said union which was sent to various
Government Labour Departments and to the Vice-President
of the respondent mill and requesting the management
not to deduct subscription amount for INTUC union
from their salary.
10. Further, Ex.P5 would reveal the fact that
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer stating that the
workman S.R.Rajendiran has not been given promotion
while juniors have been given work of Skutcher Tenter
and promoted to the said post and requesting the
Conciliation Officer to conciliate the same. Ex.P6 is
the reply given by the respondent to the Conciliation
Officer wherein, it is stated that since the workman
S.R. Rajendiran was working carelessly and negligently
and has been committed several misconducts and
misbehavior for which he has been punished and though
he is senior, his conduct is not good and his character
is not fair to give such promotion and that therefore,
he has not been considered for promotion and it is
also averred by the respondent management that earlier
dispute regarding the same issue raised by the union
on 18-8-2003 was withdrawn as not pressed and now,
the union has raised the present dispute and on failure
of the Conciliation, the Labour Officer has sent a letter
under Ex.P7 which would reveal the fact that in the
conciliation the respondent management has stated
that
the
promotion
given
to
the
juniors
of
S.R.Rajendiran is not violative of law because the
promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit and that the
workman S.R. Rajendiran had committed various
misconducts for which the management imposed
various punishments and his performance was also not
upto the mark.
11. On the other hand, the respondent management
has examined its Personnel Manager as RW1 and he
has denying the contention of the petitioner union
stating that the dispute raised by the petitioner union
is not sustainable since, no General Body meeting was
held to raise such a industrial dispute and it is admitted
by him that the petitioner was working as Bale Breaker
Attender from 01-06-1998 and he has committed
several misconducts for which several punishments
were given by the management and he was also
suspended from service and since, he has not been
rectified the defect of misconduct he has not been
granted promotion and mere seniority is not sufficient
for promotion to the employee since, he has
committed
several
misconducts
and
several
punishments were given and that already industrial
dispute was raised before the conciliation and
subsequently, the same was with drawn by them and
once again raised the industrial dispute regarding the
same issue is not sustainable and it is untenable and the
juniors of S.R. Rajendiran were promoted since, they
are working sincerely and furthermore, the said
S.R. Rajendiran is terminated from service vide order,
dated 23-10-2004 for his misbehavior and misconduct.
12. In support of his case, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.R4. Ex.Rl is the
copy of the punishment orders given to petitioner by
the respondent mill (Pg. No.l to 170) which would
reveal the fact that the respondent management has
imposed fine to workman S.R. Rajendiran for several
times. Ex.R2 is the copy of the letter given by the
petitioner union to Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Karaikal which would reveal the fact that petitioner
union has raised industrial dispute earlierly on 15-05-2003.
Ex.R3 is the copy of the reply letter given by the
respondent mill to Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.R4 is the notice of Remarks and industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union before the Conciliation
Officer on 25-09-2003. It is alleged in the Ex.Rl that
workman S.R. Rajendiran has committed misbehavior
of unauthorised absence for number of days for which
fine was imposed by the management and he was
suspended in the year 1992 and 1993 and several
disciplinary proceedings was taken against him and
also suspended in the year 1996 and also in the year 2003
and the workman S.R. Rajendiran was very irregular in
attending the work and several notices were given for
his unauthorised absence for more than 100 times.
13. On this aspect, the records and evidence are
perused. The workman S.R. Rajendiran has stated in
his cross examination which runs as follows :
“....
346
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 March 2018
”
From the above evidence, it is clear that workman
S.R. Rajendiran has committed several misbehavior
and fine was imposed on him by the management for
more than 100 times which was admitted by the said
workman in his evidence that he has been fined for the
misbehavior and misconduct. Further, on perusal of
Ex.Rl which would reveal the fact that workman
S.R. Rajendiran was unauthorisedly absence for his
work for more than 100 times and he was suspended
for several times in the year 1992, 1993 and also in
the year 1996 and 2003
and the same was
admitted by the workman S.R. Rajendiran that the
fine was imposed against him for his misconduct. But,
the said S.R. Rajendiran has denied that the said orders
have been accepted by him only on the threat of the
respondent management and it is also admitted by him
that he has not filed any case against the said
punishments. These documents and evidence would go
to show that workman S.R. Rajendiran is very irregular
in work and he was absent for very long time in
attending the work. In such circumstances, the
management cannot be compelled to give promotion to
the said S.R. Rajendiran as claimed by the petitioner
union. Though the workman S.R.Rajendiran is senior
the promotion is not a right, based only on the
seniority and it is also under the merit. The documents
exhibited by the respondent management would clearly
go to show that member of the union, the workman
S.R. Rajendiran was very irregular and he was absent
for his duty for more than 100 times which is not an
accepted one.
14. Admittedly, the petitioner union has not exhibited
any trade union certificate and General Body meeting
conducted by the union and authorising the petitioner
union to raise the industrial dispute for the promotion
of an individual. As rightly pointed out by the
respondent though the workman S.R. Rajendiran is
having seniority, he was not qualified for any
promotion
since,
he
has
committed
several
misconducts and several punishments were imposed on
him and that therefore, the respondent management has
clearly established their case that the workman
S.R. Rajendiran has committed several misbehavior
and misconduct by committing unauthorised absence
for several times and the same was admitted by
S.R. Rajendiran in his evidence and that therefore, he
is not fit for any promotion as claimed by the
petitioner union and that therefore, it can be held that
denial of promotion to the worker S.R. Rajendiran by
the respondent management is justified and hence, it is
to be held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union over denial of promotion to the
worker S.R. Rajendiran by the respondent management
is not justified and as such, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
15. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 3rd day of September, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puduhcerry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —02-03-2012— S.R. Rajendiran
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex. P1 —30-06-1990— Copy of the confirmation
ord er given by the
respondent mill to the
pettioner.
Ex. P2 —31-05-1998— Copy of the promotion
order given by the
respondent
mill to the
pettioner.
Ex. P3 — December, — Copy of the incentive
2001
bonus.
Ex. P4 —19-03-2003— Copy of the letter given
to INTUC.
Ex. P5 —25-09-2003— Copy of the industrial
dispute raise by pettioner
union.
Ex. P6 —12-12-2003— Copy of the letter given
by the respondent mill to
L a b o u r
O f f i c e r
(Conciliation).
Ex. P7 —28-04-2004— Cop y
of
the
failure
report.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 —17-10-2012— John Amalraj
347
13 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex. R1 — From,
— Copy of the punishment
22-7-1191
orders given to petitioner
To
by the respondent mill
15-9-2003
(Pg. No. 1 to 170).
Ex. R2 —15-05-2003— Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner union to
L a b o u r
O f f i c e r
(Conciliation) Karaikal.
Ex. R3 — —
— Copy of the letter given
by the respondent mill to
L a b o u r
O f f i c e r
(Conciliation).
Ex. R4 — 01-10-2003—Notice of Remarks.
25-09-2003
Industrial dispute raised by
the pettioner union before
the Conciliation Officer.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puduhcerry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
(SECRETARIAT WING)
(G.O. Ms. No. 69, Puducherry, dated 26th February 2018)
ORDER
Sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is
conveyed for fixing the concessional rent as given
below for using the AFT Ground, Puducherry and
Helipad Ground, Lawspet, Puducherry:-
Sl.
Name of the
Rent per day
No.
Ground
Commercial
Non-
Circus
commercial
units
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
`
`
`
1 AFT Ground
75,000
40,000
10,000
2 Helipad Ground
38,000
20,000
5,000
2. The above rate will be reviewed once in three
years. Allotment will be subject to on condition that
there should be no leasing out of the Grounds in part
and it should be for the whole area of the Ground.
3. Allotment of the above Grounds to the
Government Departments/Public Sector Undertaking
will be on free of cost basis, whenever required by
them.
4. This issues with the concurrence of the
Finance Department vide their I.D. No. 2542/F4/A4/
FC/2017, dated 1-12-2017.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
V. JAISANKAR,
Under Secretary to Government
(School Education).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 25/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 27th February 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that
an industrial dispute has arisen between M/s. Brightnex,
Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady, Puducherry and Thiru
Deiveegan, over non-employment of service in respect
of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government,
it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to exercise the
powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act XIV of 1947), it is hereby directed by
Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said dispute
be referred to the Labour Court, Puducherry for
adjudication. The Labour Court, Puducherry shall submit
the Award within 3 months from the date of issue of
reference as stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of
section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in
accordance with
rule 10-B of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The party raising
the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete
with relevant documents, list
of reliance and
witnesses to the Labour Court, Puducherry within 15
days of the receipt of the order of reference and also
forward a copy of such statement to each one of the
opposite parties involved in the dispute.
