La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 25-00
Prix : ` 25-00
Price :
` 25-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 434
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 434
Award of the Labour Court
.. 434
de Tribunal.
.. 454
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 454
Government Notifications
.. 454
.. 459
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 459
Tender Notices
.. 459
.. 459
Annonces
.. 459
Announcements
.. 459
.. 468
Corrigendum
.. 468
Corrigendum
.. 468
[ 433 ]
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 : 3-4-2018
Price : ` 25-00
2018 }
|
3 {
No.
14
Poudouchéry
Mardi
3
Avril
2018 (13 Chaitra 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
3rd
April
2018
434
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 12/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 5th February 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 03/2011, dated
18-12-2017 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in
respect of the Industrial Dispute between the
management of M/s. Pond’s Exports Limited, Footwear
Factory, Puducherry and the Pondicherry Hindustan
Lever Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry, over transfer
of 66 workmen (as mentioned in the Annexure) has
been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour), that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM., M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 18th day of December 2017
I.D. (T) No. 03/2011
Pondicherry Hindustan Lever Thozhilalar Sangam,
Reg. No. 970/RTU/95,
Rep. by its President S. Pannirdasse,
Registered Office at No. 207,
LIG Housing Board,
Kurumbapet,
Muthiraiyarpalayam,
Puducherry-605 009.
. . Petitioner
Versus
M/s.. Pond’s Exports Limited,
Footwear Factory,
(Subsidiary of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,
Rep. by its Factory Manager,
Post Box No. 18, Vazhuthavur Road,
Puducherry-605 009.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 24-11-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Sathish,
N. Krishnamurthy, T. Pravin and V. Veeraragavan,
Advocates for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood over
for consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 83/AIL/Lab./J/2011,
dated, 08-04-2011 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Pondicherry
Hindustan Lever Thozhilalar Sangam, over transfer
of 66 workmen (as mentioned in the Annexure) by
the management of M/s. Pond’s Exports Limited,
(Footwear Factory), Puducherry is justified? If not,
to give appropriate directions?
(ii) To what relief the 66 workmen represented
by Pondicherry Hindustan Lever Thozhilalar Sangam
are entitled to?
(iii) Whether the dispute raised by Pondicherry
Hindustan Lever Thozhilalar Sangam, over closure
of the unit by the management is legal and justified?
If justified, to give appropriate directions?
(iv) 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 it is the
registered trade union and the members of the union
are the workers of the respondent establishment which
manufacturing show and other allied products and also
exporting the same and the respondent factory was
started business in the year 1989 and these workers
were appointed in the year 1989 and their services have
been confirmed as permanent workers and the
respondent establishment has paid wages and other
allowances and incentives to the workers as per the
settlement entered between the union and the
respondent from time to time once in every 4 year and
the petitioners were paid wages only at ` 2,000 per
month and after several settlement the salary of the
workers have been considerably increased after 22 years
and as per the last settlement, dated 24-10-2002, the
permanent employees derived about ` 10,000 to
` 15,000 as a salary per month and the said settlement
came to an end in the year 2006 and after the expiry
of the said settlement the union has submitted the new
charter of demand in the year 2007 and in the
435
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
meanwhile the respondent recruited the contract
workers for very meagre wage of ` 2,000 to ` 3,000
and engaged them in direct manufacturing activity
along with the permanent workers and on 18-04-2008
the fresh charter of demand was submitted by the
petitioner union to revise the wages and allowances
and the respondent management did not want to
continue to engage the permanent workers and to
reduce the permanent workers the respondent
management has announced Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and out of 163 permanent workers, 97 workers
were accepted Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the
petitioner union has not accepted the same and
demanded for continuous employment and the
respondent management has stopped the production
with effect from effect from 21-10-2008 and the
respondent management also has threatened the
workers that they are going to close the factory and
they are going to transfer the workmen to other state
if, they failed to opt Voluntary Retirement Scheme on
or before 30-10-2008 and the workers have preferred
a complaint regarding apprehension of closure of
factory and transfer of workers before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) and while dispute is pending
without the permission of the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), the respondent management has closed
down the factory on 30-10-2008 and transferred 66
workers to other places and that therefore, the union
has raised the dispute regarding the illegal closure and
illegal transfer of workers and prayed to hold the
transfer of 66 reference mentioned workmen by the
respondent is unjustified and illegal as it is mala fied
and colourable exercise and the transfer order are
violation of section 0-A. 33, 25-E of the Industrial
Disputes Act and to hold that the closure of the factory
is illegal as it is violation, of section 25-O of the
Industrial Disputes Act and to direct the respondent to
reinstate the reference mentioned petitioner union
members with back wages, continuity of service and
all other attendant benefits and to Award compensation
benefits to the petitioner union members for the
period of illegal closure.
3. On the other hand, it is the contended by the
respondent that though it is a subsidiary of M/s. Hindustan
Unilever Limited, a multinational company, it is a separate
entity, engaged in the business of manufacturing foot-wears
and 163 permanent workmen are working in this
factory and it is entirely dependent on export orders
received from overseas customers and due to business
fluctuations, outsourcing was also done based on need
and certain preparatory operations were also done by
third party units situated in and around Pondicherry
which was always part of respondent’s manufacturing
operations for a long period and the salary was based
on ‘Industry-cum-Region’-wise increase and the age
of the factory and they paid the best salary package
to its workers, the average salary for the unskilled and
skilled workers were around ` 8,500 to ` 9,600
respectively and the wage and other allowances and
incentives were determined and paid by them as per the
Long-term settlement from time to time and that they
had three unions including the petitioner union and
the petitioner union is the minority union with only
6 workers as its members and that the majority trade
unions (PELWWA) entered into a settlement with them
on 24-10-2002 for which the petitioner union has not
accepted the terms of the said settlement and raised
industrial dispute in I.D. 02/2002 for wage revision
which was dismissed on merits on 19-12-2006 and the
said Award was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court
in W.P. No. 25952/2008 and the two majority trade
union placed its charter of demands for wage revision
and other benefits on 27-11-2006, but, the petitioner’s
union submitted its charter of demands only in the
year 2008 and even before the expiry of long-term
settlement on 30-09-2006 the respondent engaged in
various dialogues and negotiation with the majority
union and majority of workers and the respondent was
always willing to offer a reasonable increase in wages
and other benefits but, the demands of the union far-
reached the sensibilities and therefore, no settlement
could be concluded and in order to pressurize
respondent to accept unreasonable demands of wage
revision, the workers resorted to various illegal actions
including go-slow over several months as against the
average production and thus, hurt the business
drastically and since February, 2007, the respondent
repeatedly communicated to all the workmen through
various notices and letters about the danger of such
go-slow agitation by the workmen, especially in an
export unit which is sensitive to both price as well as
timely deliveries which directly impact the viability of
the factory and the continuous loss for more than one
and half years due to the illegal activities of the
workers and since, the unit had became completely
unviable respondent had no options but, to suspend its
production activities with effect from 21-10-2008 and
however, the respondent in its wisdom by considered
the collective benefits of its workers and was inclined
to be more generous and gratuitous towards its
workers who had served the company for good number
of years, instead of closing down the factory, the
respondent offered a handsome and generous voluntary
retirement schemel package to all its workers which
436
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
was far better than the legal compensation payable to
workers in the event of closure of the unit and 97
workers out of 163 workers accepted voluntary
retirement scheme received monetary benefits under
the said scheme and submitted their resignation and
only 66 workmen were not interest in the voluntary
retirement scheme and requested for continuous
employment preferably in the same unit or any other
units in Puducherry and the respondent could not
accommodate 66 workers in Puducherry and hence it
decided to transfer 66 workmen to other factories in
the nearby states for which the petitioner raised
objection in various forms of agitations including
illegal strike, gheraoing, picketing, obstructing
movement
of
men
and
materials,
compelling
respondent to approach Civil Court in O.S. No. 1476/
2008 seeking injunction against the striking workers
and the petitioner also gave complaints to various
authorities, filed Writ Petitions challenging the
transfers and conciliation proceedings.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P91
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R73 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union over transfer of 66 workmen (as mentioned
in the Annexure) by the respondent management is
justified or not and what is the relief entitled to the
said 66 workmen.
(ii) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union over closure of the unit by the management
is legal and justified or not.
6. Both sides are heard. The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the
exhibits marked on both sides are carefully considered.
On both sides, written arguments were filed and the
same were carefully considered. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported
in 1974(79) Cal.W.N.410 : 1975 LIC 1153, AIR 1960
SC 777, 1970(1) SCC 225, (2005) 3 SCO 202, AIR
2005 SC 1555(1), 2012(3) LLN 358 (Mad.), (2002)
2 SCC 244, (2000) II LLJ 1005 Mad., 1986 I LLJ 506
and also relied upon several judgments. The learned
Counsel for the respondent also relied upon the
Judgement reported in W.P.(C).2116/2010 of Delhi
High Court, dated 11-09-2012, CDJ 2015 MHC 790,
CDJ 1979 MHC 021, CDJ 1984 SC 083, CDJ 2004
MHC 2066, W.P.6663/2002 of Jharkhand High Court,
dated 26-06-2009, CDJ 1991 MPHC 166, CDJ 2003
Kar HC 209, CDJ 2003 MHC 315, CDJ 2001 SC 260,
CDJ 2015 MHC 4789.
7. On point No. l;
The main contention of the petitioner union is
that the respondent management has illegally closed
the factory by announcing the voluntary retirement
scheme against the employees who have filed the
charter of demands on 18-04-2008 before the
Conciliation Officer for the revision of wages and
other allowances and while the union members have
not accepted the voluntary retirement scheme and
demanded continuous employment in the respondent
factory, the respondent management has illegally
closed the factory on 30-10-2008 and illegally
transferred the 66 workers of the petitioner union
on 01-11-2008 and therefore, the petitioner union
has raised the industrial dispute, over the transfer
against the respondent management.
8. On the other hand, it is contended by the
respondent management that the petitioner union is not
the majority union and it has only 6 members and the
workers were in go slow production and the production
was drastically dropped and no improvement in
production, the respondent management has suspended
the
production
at
the
respondent
factory
on
21-10-2008 and on the same day the respondent
management has announced voluntary retirement
scheme to the workers and that out of 163 permanent
workers 97 workers were opted for voluntary
retirement scheme and they have been settled and rest
of the 66 workers who have not opted voluntary
retirement scheme have been transferred on their own
request and that therefore, the respondent management
has not lockout or close down the factory and
therefore no violation of section 25(o) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and there is no illegal violation
committed by the respondent management.
9. From the pleadings of both the parties it can be
noticed that following facts are admitted by both the
parties that the petitioners are the permanent workers
of the respondent establishment and that there was a
dispute regarding the wage revision between the
petitioner union and the respondent management and
the petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute
regarding the wage revision and since no settlement
was arrived at between the petitioner and the
respondent management they raised the industrial
dispute
before
the
Conciliation
Officer
and
subsequently
the
respondent
management
has
suspended their production from 21-10-2008 and
announced
voluntary
retirement
scheme
and
thereafter, 97 workers out 163 permanent workers
were accepted voluntary retirement scheme and they
437
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
have been settled and rest of the 66 workers have not
accepted the voluntary retirement scheme and they
have asked for continuous employment in the
respondent factory and the respondent management has
transferred the said 66 workers to their branches even
outside the State of U.T. of Puducherry and hence, the
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute which
was referred by the Government to this Court for
adjudication.
10. In order to prove the case the petitioner union
has examined PWl and it is the evidence of PWl that
the petitioner union members are the permanent
workers of the respondent establishment and the union
has been registered under the Trade Union Act in the
year 1995 and they have raised an industrial dispute for
wage revision which was refused by the management
before the Conciliation Officer and that ` 2,000 to
` 3,000 were paid as monthly wages to the members
of the petitioner union though the respondent
management has paid huge salary to the executives of
the establishment and that the respondent management
has refused to revise the wages as per the demand of
the petitioner union and that therefore, on 04-04-2000
they submitted a charter of demands before the
respondent Industry and the same was refused by the
respondent establishment and thereafter, they raised an
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on
30-04-2002 and on failure the case has been referred
to this Court for adjudication and the same was taken
on file in I.D(T).No. 02/2002 by the Industrial
Tribunal and the claim statement was filed by the union
on behalf of 194 workers and when the I.D was running
before the Tribunal, the respondent management has
created a labour union in the name of Ponds Exports
Limited Workers Welfare Association as puppet union
and they have entered into the wage settlement in which
the members of the union have also compelled to sign
the said settlement and the respondent establishment
also has compelled to sign within 31-10-2002 and all
other workers excepted the members of the petitioner
union signed the said settlement and the said I.D(T).
02/2002 was dismissed by the Tribunal stating that
most of the employees have accepted the settlement
for revision of wages and since, the said settlement was
in force for about 4 years the petitioner union has
raised the another demand on behalf of 81 workers for
revision of wages and other requirements, while so the
members of Ponds Exports Limited Workers Welfare
Association was divided by 20 workers and they have
created a new union in the name of Ponds Exports
Limited Workers Union and they have also raised the
charter
of
demands
before
the
respondent
establishment and while so, the petitioner union also
has raised the demand on 31-03-2008 with 81 members
and submitted a requisition to the management, while so,
the puppet union Ponds Exports Limited Workers
Welfare Association made an attempt to enter into an
agreement and the petitioner union has sent a letter
along with 81 members list as that they are the majority
union and however, the respondent establishment has not
considered the charter of demands raised by the
petitioner union and that therefore, on 18-04-2008, the
industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner unionand
that therefore, on 21-05-2008 both the parties are
directed to appear before the Conciliation Officer and
notice was given to both parties wherein, the
conciliation
was
failed
and
the
respondent
establishment has not supplied the raw materials to
raise the production and has arranged a third party unit
Aroma Leathers and Malik Leathers to produce the
leather shoes and further the respondent establishment
is manufacturing the shoes also at Vazhudavur Industry
and it gives more order to Aroma Leathers and Malik
Leathers to produce the shoes and though, the
respondent management has suspended the production
at respondent Industry in the month of October, 2008,
they are doing the same manufacturing business
through Aroma Leathers and Malik Leathers and earning
more than the profit and that therefore, a complaint
has been sent by the petitioner union on 21-05-2010
to the Inspector of Factories and that since the
petitioner union and other union workers have asked
the revision of wages the respondent management has
closed down the factory and announced the voluntary
retirement scheme on 21-10-2008 and workers have
been compelled to opt voluntary retirement scheme on
or before 25-10-2008 and 97 workers out of 163
workers opted voluntary retirement scheme and these
petitioners 66 workers have not opted voluntary
retirement scheme and as they have not opted voluntary
retirement scheme they have been transferred to
various places of the respondent establishment and
that therefore, the transfer of 66 workers are mala fide
and act of the transfer of 66 workers is unjustified and
that therefore, they have raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer against the transfer of
66 workers.
11. In support of their case the petitioner union has
exhibited Ex.Pl to Ex.P91. Ex.Pl is the copy of the
petitioner union registration certificate. Ex.P2 is the
copy of the petitioner union members list. Ex.P3 is the
copy of the documents relates to salary structure of
the Executive of the respondent management. Ex.P4 is
438
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
the copy of the petitioner union charter of demand
submitted to the respondent management. Ex.P5 is the
copy of the counter demand raised by the respondent
management. Ex.P6 is the copy of the Minutes of
meeting before the Conciliation Officer. Ex..P7 is the
copy of the conciliation failure report. Ex.P8 is the
copy of the Government reference. Ex.P9 is the copy
of the claim statement. Ex.P10 is the copy of the
letter of the individual worker accepting the 18(1)
settlement. Ex.P11 is the copy of the order passed by
the Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 25952 of 2008. Ex.P12
is the copy of the charter of demand submitted by the
petitioner union on behalf of its 81 members. Ex.PI3
is the copy of the petitioner union’s letter to the
respondent management claiming majority status.
Ex.Pl4 is the copy of the conciliation notice on the
petitioner union dispute dated 18-04-2008. Ex.P15 is
the copy of the Licence issued by the Inspector of
Factory to the respondent under the Factories Act.
Ex.P16 is the copy of the delivery challan stands in the
name of respondent which shows. the respondent
engaging manufacturing activity in the name of Aroma
and Malic Leathers. Ex.P17 is the copy of the profit
and loss account of respondent and form 23AC
submitted before the company Law Board. Ex.P18 is the
copy of the petitioner union objection to the Inspector
of Factories. Ex.P19 is the copy of the trade union
complaint to the PW authority. Ex.P20 is the copy of
the trade union complaint to the PWA authority.
Ex.P21
is the copy of the High
Court order in
WP.No.24521 of 2008. Ex.P22 is the copy of the VRS
application issued by the respondent. Ex.P23 is the
copy of the letter issued by the respondent on receipt
of the VRS application. Ex.P24 is the copy of the
details of the resigned employees in Aroma and Malic.
Ex.P25 is the copy of the petitioner union complaint
to the Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation Officer
regarding production in third party unit. Ex.P26 is the
copy of the petitioner union complaint to the
Commissioner
of
Labour,
Conciliation
Officer
regarding production in third party unit. Ex.P27 is the
copy of the petitioner union complaint to the
Commissioner of Labour regarding lock out. Ex.P28
is the copy of the petitioner union complaint regarding
removal of machinery. Ex.P29 is the copy of the
petitioner union complaint regarding closure of
production planning control and lock out. Ex.P30 is
the copy of the petitioner union objection to the
respondent. Ex.P31 is the copy of the petitioner union
complaint to the Superintendent of Police. Ex.P32 is the
copy of the petitioner union complaint to the Inspector
of Police. Ex.P33 is the copy of the news published
in the Dinakaran regarding removal of machinery to
the respondent factory. Ex.P34 is the copy of the
petitioner union complaint to the Government
regarding removal of machinery and its courier
receipt. Ex.P35 is the copy of the objection letter to
the Commissioner of Labour regarding shifting of
factory. Ex.P36 is the copy of the objection letter to
the Commissioner of Labour regarding shifting of
factory. Ex.P37 is the copy of the objection letter of
the HUL Employees Union. Ex.P38 is the copy of the
objection letter of the HUL TEA Union. Ex.P39 is the
copy of the petitioner union complaint to the
Conciliation Officer,
etc., regarding transfer of
workmen. Ex.P40 is the copy of the petitioner union
complaint to the Conciliation Officer, etc., regarding
transfer of workmen. Ex.P41 is the copy of the
petitioner union complaint regarding closure of
factory. Ex.P42 is the copy of the petitioner union letter
to the Commissioner of Labour, Secretary to the Labour
Department. Ex.P43 to Ex.P48 are the copy of the
Conciliation Officer notice. Ex.P49 is the copy of the
Conciliation Officer notice and dispute, dated
18-04-2008 raised by the petitioner union for charter
of demands for wage revision. Ex.P50 is the copy of
the conciliation failure report. Ex.P51 is the copy of
the conciliation failure report over the dispute of
closure of factory. Ex.P52 is the copy of the
Government reference. Ex.P53 is the copy of the High
Court order in Writ Petition No. 26180 of 2008,
23319/2009, 399/2010. Ex.P54 is the copy of the
Government reference as per the High Court. Ex.P55
is the copy of the report of the Inspector of Factories.
Ex.P56 is the copy of the Conciliation Officer notice.
Ex.P57 is the copy of the list of machinery removed
from the factory. Ex.P57A is the
copy of the
memorandum of Ground filed in CRP.PD. No. 294 of
2011. Ex.P58 is the copy of the commissioner’s show
cause notice to the respondent. Ex.P59 is the copy of
the news published in the daily news paper. Ex.P60 is
the copy of the ESI treatment refusal letter. Ex.P61 is
the copy of the news published in the Dinathanthi
regarding profit of the respondent company. Ex.P62 is
the copy of the petitioner letter to the Director, Labour
Department, New Delhi. Ex.P63 is the copy of the
petitioner letter to the Secretary to the Government,
Labour Department, New Delhi. Ex.P64 is the copy of
the acknowledgment card to letter, dated 21-05-2010.
Ex.P65 is the copy of the petitioner union letter to the
Secretary to the Government, Labour Department,
Puducherry. Ex.P66 is the copy of the petitioner union
complaint to the Inspector of Factories. Ex.P67 is the
copy of the Award of the Labour Court in I.D. 8 of
439
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
2008 and I.D.No. 4 of 2001. Ex.P68 is the copy of the
transfer letter. Ex.P69 is the copy of the details of the
transfer workmen submitted to the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P70 is the copy of the petitioner union letter to the
respondents. Ex.P71 is the copy of the petitioner
union letter to the respondents. Ex.P72 is the copy of
the petitioner union letter to the respondents. Ex.P73
is the copy of the petitioner union letter to the
Inspector of Factories. Ex.P74 is the copy of the Form
20B. Ex.P75 is the copy of the Form 20B. Ex.P76 is the
copy of the Form 20B. Ex.P77 is the copy of the
declaration Form submitted by respondent before
Central Excise Department. Ex.P78 is the copy of the
export Invoice of 3rd respondent. Ex.P79 is the copy
of the export invoice-cum-delivery challan. Ex.P80 is
the copy of the export invoice-cum-delivery challan.
Ex.P81 is the copy of the export invoice-cum-delivery
challan. Ex.P82 is the copy of the Form 23 AC. Ex.P83
is the copy of the Form 23 AC. Ex.P84 is the copy of
the Form 23 AC. Ex.P85 is the copy of the Form 23 AC.
Ex.P86 is the copy of the packing list in Poothurai
Factory. Ex.P87 is the copy of the invoice-cum-
challan. Ex.P88 is the copy of the invoice. Ex.P89 is
the copy of the respondent declaration submitted
before Central Excise Department. Ex.P90 is the
consignee copy of respondent factory. Ex.P91 is the
copy of the Tax information of the respondent factory.
12. On the other hand, to prove their contention the
respondent management has examined RW1 and it is
the evidence of RW1 that the petitioner union has got
only 6 members and it is not a majority union and apart
from the petitioner union two majority unions were
functioning at the respondent establishment and the
reference mentioned 66 workers are not the members
of the petitioner union and that they have not illegally
closed the factory and that they have announced the
voluntary retirement scheme only for the reason that
the production was suspended by the respondent
establishment since they have met loss due to workers
extracted various illegal actions including go-slow
over several months as against average production and
further, it is the evidence of respondent management
witness RWl that repeated communication to all the
workmen through various notices and letters to the
unions about the danger of such go-slow production of
the workmen especially in an export unit which is
sensitive to both price as well as timely deliveries
which directly impact the viability of the factory and
even then there was no improvement in productivity,
the undertaking had to cease production on 21-10-2008
and the respondent Industry was incurring loss in
its
business
because
of
their
agitation
and
uncompromising attitude coupled with other variable
factors and profit margin of the respondent started
declining considerably and therefore, the respondent
was entirely dependent on the work force to increase
not only the quantity of productions but, also the
quality of production and the respondent Industry met
with heavy loss more than 1 ½ years and the unit had
became completely unviable and there were no new
orders for production it had no options but, to suspend
the production activities with effect from 21-10-2008
and therefore, instead of closing down the factory the
respondent offered a handsome and generous voluntary
retirement scheme package to all its workers which
was far better than the legal compensation payable to
workers in the event of closure of the unit and
announced the voluntary retirement scheme and 97
workers out of 163 workers accepted the voluntary
retirement scheme out of their own will and received
monetary benefits under the voluntary retirement
scheme by submitting their resignation and only 66
workmen have not interested in the said scheme and
they are willing to be placed in any other factory of
the respondent and that therefore, they have been
transferred to other factory of the respondent and that
the transfer order were not accepted by 66 workers and
they have raised agitations in various forms including
illegal strike, gheraoing, picketing, obstructing
movement of men and materials compelling the
respondent to approach the Civil Court since, the
conciliation was failed before the Conciliation Officer.
13. In support of their contention the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.R73. Ex.Rl is
the
copy of the long-term settlement 2002-2006
Memorandum of Understanding. Ex.R2 is the Copy of
the letter from PHLTS union. Ex.R3 is the copy of the
various
notices/letter
and
warnings
given
by
respondent on the go slow adopted by petitioner and
communication by the unions on such go slow. Ex.R4
is the copy of the letter to workers by co-ordinated
union’s association regarding VRS. Ex.R5 is the copy
of the notice on VRS announcement by management.
Ex.R6 is the copy of the notices on VRS
announcement by management, VRS additional amount
by management and other benefits of VRS by
management. Ex.R7 is the copy of the notice to the
VRS opted employees and Union letter to Conciliation
Officer. Ex.R8 to Ex.R13 are the confirmation order
of the employees Ex.Rl4 is the copy of the certified
standing orders of respondent company. Ex.Rl5 is the
copy of the notice displayed on notice-board of the
respondent giving the details of transfer to 66
workers. Ex.R16 is the Registered letter addressed to
440
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
the president of the petitioner union namely,
Pannirdasse to his residence which was returned to
respondent with endorsement of “Not claimed”.
Ex.R17 is the returned postal cover addressed to
president of the petitioner union namely Pannirdasse
to his residence which was returned to respondent with
endorsement of “Refused”. Ex.R18 is the copy of the
affidavit filed by the respondent in I.A.7/2009 in
I.A.253/2008 in OS. 1476/2008 on the file of Principal
District Munsif at Puducherry for appointment of
Advocate Commissioner for shifting goods, materials
and products from the respondent's factory premises
along with counter statement filed by the petitioner.
Ex.R19 is the copy of the Order in I.A78/2009
in O.S.
1476/2008. Ex.R20 is
the Advocate
Commissioner report in LA.78/2009 in O.S.No. 1476/
2008. Ex.R21 is the copy of the union letter to
Factory Manager. Ex.R22 is the copy of the union
letter to Labour Commissioner. Ex.R23 is the copy of
the letter to Station House Officer. Ex.R24 is the copy
of the letter to Thasildar. Ex.R25 is the copy of the
report in non-cognizable offence. Ex.R26 is the copy
of the transfer orders sent to all the 66 workers
involved in present dispute. Ex.R27 is the copy of the
union letter to Government Authorities on VRS.
Ex.R28 is the copy of the union letter to Conciliation
Officer on VRS. Ex.R29 is the copy of the advisory
notice on overstay, Ex.R30 is the copy of the letter
from Conciliation Officer on service condition.
Ex.R31 is the copy of the reply to Conciliation Officer
notice 06-11-2008. Ex.R32 is the copy of the letter
to Inspector of Factories on inspection. Ex.R33 is the
copy of the letter to Conciliation Officer on Over stay.
Ex.R34 is the copy of the report from Police Station
to Labour Commissioner. Ex.R35 is the copy of the
notice on over stay. Ex.R36 is the copy of the
complaint letter to Police Station by management.
Ex.R37 is the copy of the notices on over stay. Ex.R38
is the copy of the notices on over stay. Ex.R39 is the
copy of the letter to Station House Officer on
unauthorized protests. Ex.R40 is the copy of the
notice to all the transferred employees. Ex.R41 is the
copy of the notice to enquiry from Conciliation Officer.
Ex.R42 is the copy of the reply to Conciliation Officer
notice. Ex.R43 is the copy of the notice from
Commissioner of Labour. Ex.R44 is the copy of the
letter by management on Wage dispute to Labour
Commissioner. Ex.R45 is the copy of the notice from
Commissioner of Labour. Ex.R46 is the copy of the
reply letter to Notice from LC, dated 22-12-2008.
Ex.R47 is the copy of the letter from Management to
Conciliation Officer on 2248/08/LO/AIL dispute.
Ex.R48 is the copy of the letter from Union to Labour
Commissioner. Ex.R49 is the copy of the report on
failure of conciliation. Ex.R50 is the copy of the
Government order-Labour Department reference of
ID. Ex.R51 is the copy of the show cause notice from
Labour Department. Ex.R52 is the copy of the reply
from Management on show cause notice. Ex.R53 is the
copy of the letter from Arokiadass on request for VRS.
Ex.R54 is the copy of the letter from P. Janakiraman
on request for VRS. Ex.R55 is the copy of the points
discussed during the meeting on 17-02-2010. Ex.R56
is the copy of the agreement with Maulick Leather
Crafts. Ex,R57 to Ex,R66 are the copy of the Maulick
Leather Crafts renewal letters. Ex.R67 is the copy of
the certificate of registration under Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. Ex.R68 is the
copy of the Factory Licence copy. Ex.R69 is the
computer generated list of the employees at Poothurai
Unit, who have received VRS announced by Pond’s
Exports Limited and left services. Ex.R70 is the copy
of the cessation of manufacturing operation letter
given by Pond’s Exports Limited to Deputy Director
of Industrial Safety and Health, Villupuram District,
Tamil Nadu. Ex,R71 is the copy of cessation of
manufacturing operation letter given by Pond’s Exports
Limited to Joint Director of Indsutrial Safety and
Health, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. Ex.R72 is the
copy of letter addressed by Pond's Exports Limited,
surrendering factory licence of Poothurai unit to Joint
Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Villupuram
District, Tamil Nadu, Ex.R73 is the copy of letter
addressed by Pond's Exports Limited, surrendering
factory licence of Poothurai unit copy marked to
Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health,
Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu.
14. It is the first contention of the respondent
establishment that the petitioner has only 6 members
and they could not represent for the 66 workmen and
the 66 workmen have not signed the dispute raised by
the petitioner union on 29-08-2008 and it only signed
by the office bearers and the letter exhibited under
Ex.P39 though signed by 66 workmen which was given
to the Labour Officer which is not a letter for
authorization to file the claim statement or to raise the
industrial dispute on behalf of them and that the letter
under Ex.P39 is not at all sufficient enough to
authorize the petitioner to raise the present industrial
dispute and the said Ex.P39 would not complete
requirement of sec.36 of Industrial Disputes Act to
represent the other workmen who have not singed.
On this aspect records submitted by the petitioner are
441
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
carefully perused. On perusal of records, it could be
seen that the petitioner union has exhibited the
certificate of registration of trade union and its
members list. The certificate of registration of trade
union is exhibited as Ex.Pl. Though the petitioners have
exhibited the members of the union list as Ex.P2 it
does not authorize by anybody else, just the petitioner
union has listed the members along with the token
number and even the said workmen have not signed in
the list or authorize by anybody to represent on behalf
of them. On perusal of Ex.P39 under which the
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer, it is learnt to this Court
that all the 66 members have signed the said document.
Furthermore, the Ex.P54 is the reference which is sent
to this Court attached with the annexure and the
Secretary of the Labour Department has signed the
same and that therefore, the contention raised by the
respondent management that the trade union has no
authority to represent 66 workers is not sustainable
and it is to be held that the union can represent the 66
workers.
15. The main contention of the petitioner union is
that the members of the union the 66 workers have
been
mala fidely transferred by the respondent
management from the respondent factory to other
States with an intention to compel them to accept the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme announced by the
respondent management. On the other hand, it is the
contention of the respondent management that the
petitioner members had extracted various illegal
activities and go slow over several months as against
average production and therefore, the company met
with a loss and the production chart of the year 2006
and 2007 would reveal the considerable reduction in
productivity level and in October, 2008 the last average
production of about 16 pairs for a day which was
agreed to in the 12(3) settlement in 2002 it came
down to 3.31 pairs per man while the expected average
production of 16 pairs per man and since the
respondent management has met with loss it suspend
the production and announced Voluntary Retirement
Scheme. The main allegation of the petitioner union
is that on 18-04-2008 they have made charter of
demands before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) for
revision of wages and other allowances. The respondent
management engaged contract workers in the direct
manufacturing unit along with the permanent workers
for a meager wage of ` 4,000 per month whereas, the
workers who rendered 15 to 20 years where paid
` 10,000 to ` 15,000 per month and that the respondent
management did not want to engage permanent workers
and while dispute is pending the respondent
management voluntarily has announced voluntary
retirement scheme and compelled the petitioner union
members to opt voluntary retirement scheme by
suspending
the
production
with
effect
from
21-10-2008 and threatened the workers that the
factory will be closed and the service will be
transferred to other State if, they failed to opt voluntary
retirement scheme in the month of October, 2008.
16. On this aspect, evidence and documents are
carefully perused. It is not disputed by either sides that
these petitioners are the permanent workers of the
respondent factory and they have raised the industrial
dispute for revision of wages before the Conciliation
Officer and that was pending before the Conciliation
Officer and the respondent management suspended
production from 21-10-2008 due to the loss occurred
to them and they transferred 66 workers to various
branches of the factory for which the petitioners have
raised the industrial dispute. It is not in dispute that
apart from the petitioner union two other union were
functioning at the respondent establishment and the
respondent establishment has suspended its production
and announced voluntary retirement scheme and
admittedly, the respondent has not closed down the
factory. It is the case of the respondent management
that they have transferred the workers on 05-11-2008
on their request to other state and there is no illegal
transfer since it was opted by the workers and the
standing order of the company provide for such
transfer and the terms and conditions of the
appointment order also provides to transfer of the
workmen.
17. The respondent management has exhibited the
notices issued to the petitioner workmen to improve
the production of the industry from 14-03-2007 to
17-09-2008 under Ex.R3 and these notices would go
to show that the respondent management has
communicated the repeated notices to improve the
production of the factory and the said notice have been
displayed at the factory premises since the petitioner
workmen have
indulged in go-slow agitation. The
respondent management has also asked the petitioner
workmen not to indulge in go-slow agitation and to
improve the production and it is also learnt from
records that the Company has met with the loss for
more than 1½ years due to the low production and that
therefore, the respondent has suspended its production
activities with effect from 21-10-2008 and announced
voluntary retirement scheme. The company has only
suspended production activities and announced
voluntary retirement scheme in which 97 out of 163
workers were accepted the voluntary retirement
scheme and their benefits have been settled under the
442
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
said scheme on their resignation. Since, the respondent
management has suspended the production activities
and the factory was not functioning the 66 workmen
have been transferred to some other sister concerns
of the respondent establishment. But, it is the case of
the petitioner union, that the respondent management
has not obtained any prior permission from the
Government to close the factory under section 25(o)
of the Industrial Disputes Act and only to victimize
the members of the union workers who have demanded
for wage revision has announced suspension of
production and announced Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and transferred the workers who have not
opted Voluntary Retirement Scheme and in support of
his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 II LLJ 783
(Mad) wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has
held that,
“15. Under section 25-J (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, only the terms rendered by the
employer in respect of the provisions of ChapterV-A
and V-B. If, they are more favourable, that alone is
protected. Otherwise, section 25-J(l) over rides
inconsistent provisions contained in any other law
for the time being in force. Therefore, the argument
that the present partnership firm which is running
the Mill has no role for the closure and that the
settlement between the individual workers and the
Management is binding on them does not stand to
reason.
16. Further, when Section 25-O makes its clear
that the workmen are entitled to get wages if, there
is no prior permission or when the permission is
refused, the Parliament itself has given a declaratory
relief to the workers and therefore, it is unnecessary
even for the workers to raise a dispute in such
contingencies. If, there is no prior permission
before effecting the closure, the workmen can even
apply directly to the State Government for
appropriate revenue recovery certificate under
section 32/76 with effect from March 5, 1976. The
Supreme Court vide its judgment in Fabril Gasosa
V. Labour Commissioner and others AIE 1997 SC
954 : (1997) 3 SCC 150 : 1997-1-LLJ-872 has held
that in such cases the workmen can apply directly
to the State Government for the Revenue Recovery
Certificate without any judicial adjudication on the
issue relating to closure. Therefore, the contention
made by the petitioner's Counsel that the Tribunal
ought to have gone into the merits of the closure
does not stand to reason...”
From the above observation of the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras, it is clear that the workers are
entitled for wages if any, permission is not obtained for
closure. But, in this case, it is the contention of the
respondent management that they have not closed the
factory and they have suspended their production and
announced Voluntary Retirement Scheme and since
there is no retrenchment or termination, there is no
employer- employee relationship is broken down by the
respondent and they have only transferred the
employees to some other establishments of the
respondent management and that there is no closure
and hence, section 25-o would not attract and prior
permission is not required to the respondent
management since they have not closed the factory.
18. The another contention of the respondent
management is that the charter of demand of wage
revision sought of by the petitioner union is
unreasonable and hence, it is not accepted by the
respondent management and to pressurize the
management the workers of the Industry resorted
agitation by which the respondent management has met
with the loss. On this aspect, the evidence of PW1 is
carefully considered which runs as follows :
“Ex.R3
go-slow misconduct
pairs per day
shoesmeterial supply
meterial supply
Ex.P16
go-slow
go-slow
VRS announce
go-slow
VRS scheme announce
VRS scheme
Ex.R.4Ex.R.4
”
443
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
From the above evidence of PWl, it is clear that
for a period of January-2007 to April-2008, the
production was only 3.5 pairs per day which was
disclosed in Ex.R3 and further, it reveal from Ex.RS
that notice has been
given to the workers on
14-03-2007 as a reminder stating that production is not
improved deteriorating day by day and further, it
reveals that in the month of February-2007 the
production level achieved in the factory was below the
expected level and though they were keeping sufficient
raw materials in the factory on 13-03-2007, the total
production is only 10,219 pairs which is against 930
pairs per day and the management has requested all the
employees to co-operate with the management for
effective function of the factory by producing
maximum number of pairs. Ex.R3 would further reveal
that various notices have been sent to the workers
which would go to show that production level of the
factory was reduced and the management has declared
that management has met with loss and that therefore,
it is not in dispute that the production level was
reduced in the factory since the union has started go-
slow strike from January-2007. In such circumstances,
the Ex.P17 marked by the petitioner would go to show
that respondent company has met a loss of ` 22,1703,00
for the period 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2007 and heavy
loss of ` 64,315.00 for the period 01-01-2008 to
31-03-2009. Therefore, it is established by the
respondent management that company has met with the
loss and since that there was go-slow strike of the
workers from the period of January-2007, the
respondent has declared Voluntary Retirement Scheme
to the workers of the respondent establishment on
25-10-2008 as the company has suspended the
production at their factory on 25-10-2008 and decided
to settle the workers under Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and since these petitioners have not accepted
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme the respondent
management was compelled to transfer these members
of the union to other establishments of the respondent
management.
19. It is the further case of the respondent
management that they could not accommodate the
66 workmen at Puducherry and hence, they have been
transferred to other factories in the nearby states and
that therefore, the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
challenging the transfer of 66 workmen. It is not
denied by the petitioner workmen that the Company
has met with a loss and the production was reduced in
the year 2007 and 2008. Further, the petitioner union
has exhibited the profit and loss account of the
respondent firm as Ex.P17 which would go to show that
the respondent establishment has met a loss of
` 22,173,000 for the period from 01-10-2007 to
31-12-2007 and the respondent establishment has met
with loss of
` 64,315,000 in the period from
01-01-2008 to 31-03-2009 due to the low production
in the respondent establishment.
20. As rightly pointed out by the respondent Counsel
that the management has not terminated any employee
though they have met a loss at the respondent
establishment due to go-slow in production by the
workers and the respondent management has only
transferred these petitioners to other respondent
establishments and has not retrenched them from
service. Furthermore, it is the case of the respondent
management
that
these
petitioners
have
been
transferred only on the terms and conditions of the
appointment that they could be transferred to any other
place wherein, the respondent establishments are
situated. On this aspect, the learned Counsel for the
respondent pointed out that even as per the standing
order of the respondent establishment which is
exhibited as Ex.R14 the employees can be transferred
to any other establishments which are conducting by
the respondent management and the petitioner union
members after announcement of the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme have submitted an application to
the respondent establishment stating that they are not
willing to get Voluntary Retirement Scheme and that
they have to be transferred to other establishments of
the respondent establishment and they have given
consent to transfer them to any other establishments
of the respondent management. On this aspect, the
evidence of PW1 is carefully considered which runs
as follows :
“Ex.R8, R9. R10, R11, R12, R13
A. Paul Mary George,
K. Dhayanidhi, S. Arokiaraj, B. Vijayakumar and
S. Dhandapani
Ex.R8
Ex.R14
(Standing Order)
444
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
(transfer
order)
W.P.No.
22319/2009
??Writ
PetitionWrit Petition
writ
Petition
?
?
?
Ex.R15
”
From the above evidence, it is clear that
appointment
order
issued
by
the
respondent
management has terms and conditions in which the
respondent management has reserved a right to
transfer the workman to anywhere else wherever, the
respondent establishment conducting business and
wherein, the signature of the employees were obtained
by the management and further evidence would reveal
the fact that standing order of the factory would permit
the respondent establishment to transfer them to any
other factory which are conducting by the respondent
management and as the respondent management has
suspended the production of the factory without
terminating any employee or given any retrenchment
it has announced
only Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and rest of the 66 workers have transferred
to other factories of the respondent establishment.
Furthermore, it is learnt from the above evidence that
as per the rule 16 of the standing order, the workers of
the respondent management can be transferred to other
factories which are situated even outside the
Puducherry unit and further it is also clear from the
evidence that in the appointment order of the members
of the petitioner union, the respondent management
has reserved their right to transfer them to any other
factories and those appointment orders which are
exhibited as Ex.R8 to Ex.R13 would reveal the fact that
the respondent management can transfer the employees
to other factories of the respondent management and
that therefore, the transfer of 66 workers is not against
the standing order of the company or against the terms
and conditions of the appointment order of the
workers.
21. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the judgment reported in CDJ 2015
MHC 790, wherein, the Hon'ble Madras High Court
has observed that,
“Petitioner is a company engaged in the
manufacture of shoes - company suspended its
operation - Employees Union took up the mater
before
the
Joint
Commissioner
of
Labour-
settlement between the petitioner Management and
the Employees Union was entered - some workmen
were reengaged on restructured wages in the
petitioner company and the remaining more workers
accepted the compensation in lieu of agreeing
cessation of employment - Labour Court has
allowed all the computation petitions filed by the
workers and directed the petitioner company to pay
monetary value as prayed for by them -
Held that suspension of operations was declared
till the date of signing of the settlement - in order
to wriggle out the financial constrains and adverse
market conditions, the petitioner management was
not in a position to continue the business operation,
has genuinely resorted to suspension of operation
-petitioner management has declared suspension of
operation in order to negotiate with the respondent/
workers and as expected by it, the Union -
settlement is a valid one - it is settled law that the
workmen, having received the amounts in full, quit
all their claims, cannot question the same later and
once an agreement was entered - once the
agreement is acted upon, there was a performance
of the terms and once it is so performed, even in
part, would attract the principle of equitable
estoppels - Petitions are allowed.”
From the above observation, it is clear that
whenever the management is not in a position to
continue the business operation has genuinely resorted
to suspension of operation in order to negotiate with
445
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the workers. In this case also, the respondent
management has announced Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and has transferred the workers who have not
opted Voluntary Retirement Scheme and that therefore,
the act of the respondent management declaring
suspension of production is not against the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes, Act and that therefore, it
is just and necessary to hold that transfer order issued
by the respondent management to 66 workers is
bona fide while the respondent management has
suspended the production without terminating the
employees and announced Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and transferred the employees who have not
accepted Voluntary Retirement Scheme and therefore,
it is held that the transfer of 66 workers is not
mala fide and it is just and necessary to hold that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union over
transfer of 66 workmen by the respondent management
is not justified. As this Tribunal has held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union over
transfer of 66 workers by the respondent management
is not justified, it is just and necessary to decide
whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief.
From the above discussions already made by this
Tribunal, it is clear that the 66 members of the
petitioner union have been totally transferred since the
respondent management has suspended their operation
of production and that there is a chance to restart the
production operation of the respondent establishment
and hence, it can be ordered by this Tribunal that if the
suspension of production of the respondent factory is
revoked and the factory is restarted these petitioners
have to be given employment at the respondent factory
and that they have to be accommodated at the
respondent establishment with the same seniority by
transferring them from the unit of the factory where
they have been now transferred.
22. On Point No.2 :
The next point is to be decided is that whether the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union, over
closure of the unit by the management is legal and
justified or not. It is contended by the petitioner
union that the act of the respondent management
suspending the production of the factory and
shifting the same to Vazhudhavur factory would
amount to closure and the closure of the factory by
the respondent management is illegal. On the other
hand, it is contended by the respondent management
that they have not closed down the factory and that
they have only suspended its production and
relationship of employer - employee have not been
broken out so far since the workers have been only
transferred to other units of the respondent
management.
23. On this aspect, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner has argued that when the dispute raised by
the petitioner union, over the wage revision is pending
before the Conciliation Officer, the act of the
respondent management without prior permission of
the Conciliation suspended the production from
21-10-2008 amount to lock-out of the factory and
then the factory was closed with effect from
30-10-2008 and since the members of the petitioner
union are rendered unemployment it is to be inferred
that the factory was illegally closed on 30-10-2008
and that the respondent management has closed down
the factory to victimize the workers who have raised
the dispute before the Conciliation Officer for wage
revision and in support of his argument the learned
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment reported in 1958(1) SCC 312 wherein, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that,
“...........Therefore, the true test is that when it is
claimed that the employer has resorted to closure
of industrial activity, the Industrial Court in order
to determine whether the employer is guilty of
unfair labour practice must ascertain on evidence
produced before it whether the closure was a device
or pretence to terminate services of workmen or
whether it is bona fide and for reasons beyond the
control of the employer. The duration of the
closure may be a significant fact to determine the
intention and bona fides of the employer at the time
of closure but, is not decisive of the matter. To
accept the view taken by the Industrial Court would
lead to a startling result in that if, an employer who
has resorted to closure, bona fide wants to reopen,
revive and re-start the industrial activity, he cannot
do so on the pain that the closure would be
adjudged a device or pretence. Therefore, the
correct approach ought to be that when it is claimed
that the employer is not guilty of imposing a
lock out but, has closed the industrial activity, the
Industrial Court before which the, action of the
employer is questioned must keeping in view all the
relevant circumstances at the time of closure
decide and determine whether the closure was a
bona fide one or was a device or a pretence to
determine the services of the workmen. Answer to
this question would permit the Industrial Court to
come to the conclusion one way or the other. ......”
and further the learned Counsel for the petitioner
has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2012(3)
LLN 358 (Mad) wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras has held that,
446
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
“.........19. It is clearly pleaded that it is a factory
covered by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act and in as much as a prior approval under
section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was not
obtained, it is a clear case of illegal retrenchment
and the workers are entitled to be continued in
service. Though the Labour Court was wrong in
stating that it cannot go into any incidental
question, namely, whether the workman has assigned
permanent status in terms of Act 46 of 1981, that
need not be gone into at this stage. Under section
3 of Act 46 of 1981, the workers are deemed to be
become permanent without there being any order of
any Court and it is a satisfactory declaration
conferred on the workers. The fact that the other
workers have not challenged the Award is not a
conciliation for denying the relief to the present
workman. ...”
and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon the judgment reported in 1986(1) LLN 490
wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held
that,
“A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sections 25T,
25O and 25K - Unfair labour practice - Marketing
division of a company closed down without
complying with the provisions of section 25-O of
Industrial Disputes Act - Requirement of section
25-K of engaging of not less than 100 workmen in
the industrial establishment stood fulfilled in view
of the total number of workmen employed in the
marketing division and factory of the company-
Both
the units
having constituted a single
establishment-Termination
of
services
of
the
workmen in contravention of terms of existing
settlement between the employer and workmen
amounts
to
unfair
labour
practice
of
not
implementing the settlement - Reinstatement with
back wages ordered. ............”
24. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the
respondent has argued that the respondent management
has not closed down the factory and they have
temporarily suspended the production and the
relationship of employer-employee has not been
broken out since the workers have only been
transferred to other units of the respondent management
and hence, it could not be termed as closure and that
the respondent management has not retrenched any
workman from their factory and it announced only
Voluntary Retirement Scheme and 97 workers out of
163 workers were settled and that the rest of the
workers who have not opted Voluntary Retirement
Scheme alone have been transferred to other units of
the respondent establishment. Further, in support of
his argument, the learned Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the judgment reported in CDJ 2015
MHC 4789, wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court
has held that,
“The third respondent suspended the Factory
Operation without serving mandatory notice as per
law, hence, it goes against it. However, considering
the present situation, the third respondent had
settled the benefits under the voluntary retirement
scheme for 123 employees out of 185 total
workforces. Hence, it is near impossible to run the
factory with such a meager strength of workers.
The third respondent/management has offered
employment to the petitioner at the Virudhunagar
Factory, which is co-unit of the Pallavaram unit, on
the same status salary, etc., The third respondent has
also offered the usual voluntary retirement benefits
as per the terms and conditions on par with the
co-employees numbering 123.
The highly competent Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the employees are willing to
join at the Pondicherry unit. However, the highly
competent Counsel appearing for third respondent
replied that 62 employees cannot be accommodated
at the Pondicherry Unit since there is surplus
employees who are working at the Pondicherry unit.
Therefore, this Court cannot compel the third
respondent to provide employment to the employees
in the petitioner union at the Pondicherry unit.
Likewise this Court cannot compel the third
respondent/management to restore the original
position of the factory in order for the running of
the same, since the third respondent has given two
options to the employees viz., either the employees
can join at the Virudhunagar unit or receive benefits
under the voluntary retirement scheme of the
management.
On considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and arguments advanced by the highly
competent Counsels on either side and on perusing
the typed-set of papers and the views of this Court
as mentioned above (i) to (v), this Court dismisses
the above writ petitions since the management has
come forward to protect the employees of the
petitioner union by way of providing the same jobs
at their co-unit at Virudhunagar or even prepared to
pay benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme
and to treat the employees with their co-employees
on par. Therefore, there is no prejudice to the
petitioner union whatsoever.......”
447
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
and further, the learned Counsel for the respondent
has also relied upon the judgment reported in CDJ
2015 MHC 790, wherein, the Hon'ble Madras High
Court has held that,
“In the present case, the petitioner management
declared suspension of operation on 12-11-2004
and admittedly, the petitioner management has not
resorted to termination of its employees. However,
even presuming that there was a closure as contended
by the respondent workers, it is relevant to
determine whether such closure was device or a
pretence to terminate the service of the workmen
or whether it is bona fide and far beyond the control
of the employer, has to be decided on the evidence
produced before the Court. On a perusal of the
entire material and evidence as the award passed by
the Labour Court, this Court finds that the Labpur
Court has not given any cogent reasons that the
alleged closure resorted to by the petitioner
management is not bona fide and tainted with
mala fide intention to terminate the services of the
workmen and the workers have not alleged that the
so-called closure is not genuine one and merely
alleging that the closure is illegal without assigning
any reasons, it cannot be construed that it is illegal
closure when the employer has proved that the
suspension of operation was for bona fide reasons.
On overall consideration of the facts and evidence
available on record, this Court could analyze that in
order wriggle out the financial constrants and
adverse market conditions which were prevailing
during the material period due to which, the
petitioner management was not in a position to
continue the business operation, has genuinely
resorted to suspension of operation and a notice to
that effect was put on board on 12-11-2004.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner management has resorted to only
suspension of operation and not closure as
contended by the learned Counsel for the
respondent/workmen. The decision relied upon by
the learned Counsel for the respondents/workmen
in Sri Arunachaleswarar Mills (cited Supra), cannot
be made applicable to the facts of the present case
in view of the fact that in the present case, the
petitioner management has only resorted to
suspension of operation and not closure, whereas,
the abovesaid decision deals with the closure and
since the management therein had resorted to
closuire without prior permission, this Court held
that the same was not binding on the workmen and
the settlement relied on by the management could
not be upheld as it was contrary to the statutory
provisions. It js well settled law that the closure or
stoppage of the whole or part of the business is the
function of the management which is entirely in the
discretion of the employer carrying on the business.
The industrial adjudication cannot interfere with the
discretion exercised by the employer in such a
matter and it has no power to direct the employer
to continue the whole or part of the business which
the employer has decided to shut down. However,
it is no doubt true and settled that if, the employer
resorted to closure, it is mandatory on his part to
comply with all the requirements as envisaged under
the Act..”
From the above observations of the Hon’ble High
Court, it is clear that mere suspending the factory
production is not a closure and offering of
employment in some other factory of the respondent
establishment on the same status and salary would not
amount to closure. In this case, the respondent
management has only suspended its production and not
retrenched any employee and not terminated any
employee from the factory and further, the respondent
management has only transferred these workers to
some other factory of the respondent establishment.
From the above citations relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that if, the
employer has closed the factory without bona fide
intention then it can be termed as unfair labour
practice. But, in this case, it is established by the
respondent management that they have met with loss
in the year 2007 and 2008 since, the production level
was drastically reduced and the same was also admitted
by the petitioner side and the documents filed on the
side of the petitioner would go to show that there was
a huge loss to the respondent establishment in the
year 2007 and 2008 and further, it is observed by the
Hon'ble High Court in the above-mentioned judgment
relied Upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that if the employer closed down the factory with
compliance of section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes
Act and committed termination of service of the
workmen in contravention of terms of existing
settlement, then it can be termed that the respondent
management has committed unfair labour practice.
But, in this case no one had been terminated from
service by the respondent management and out of
163 workers, 97 workers have opted for Voluntary
Retirement Scheme and 66 workers who were willing
to get continuous employment only transferred to
some other industries of the respondent establishment
and that therefore, the citations relied upon by the
448
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
petitioner would not support the case of the petitioner.
On the other hand, the citations relied upon by the
respondent would scorely applicable to this case since
in this case also the production of the factory was
suspended and the remaining workers who have not
opted Voluntary Retirement Scheme have been transferred
to some other industries which are maintained by the
respondent management.
25. As already discussed above that the respondent
management has established that they have met with a
huge loss since there was go-slow strike of the
workers and production was drastically reduced from
13.00 pairs to 3.50 pairs, it is clear that suspension
of production ordered and Voluntary Retirement
Scheme announced by the respondent management is
bona fide and is not announced with any mala fide
intention and that therefore, the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union that there was an illegal
closure is not justified and hence, the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union is liable to be held as
unjustified.
26. In the result, the industrial disputes raised by
the petitioner union over transfer of 66 workers and
closure of the unit by the respondent management are
not justified. However, Award is passed directing the
respondent management to accommodate the members
of the petitioner union who are mentioned in the
reference at the respondent establishment whenever
the respondent establishment starts its production by
revoking the order of suspension of production by
giving first preference to the members of the
petitioner union who have joined in the respective
transferred post within one month from the date of
this Award. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 18th day of December, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
—03-07-2013 S. Pannirdasse
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
— 1995
Copy
of
the
petitioner
union registration certificate.
Ex.P2
—
—
Copy of the petitioner union
members list.
Ex.P3
—
—
Copy
of
the
documents
relates to salary structure of
the
Executive
of
the
respondent management.
Ex.P4 —04-04-2000 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
charter of demand
submitted to the respondent
management.
Ex.P5
— 2000
Copy of the counter demand
raised by the respondent
management.
Ex.P6
— 2000
Copy of the Minutes of
meeting
before
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P7—30-04-2002
Copy of the Conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P8—05-06-2002
Copy of the Government
reference.
Ex.P9—02-10-2002
Copy of the claim statement.
Ex.P10—24-10-2002 Copy of the letter of the
individual worker accepting
the 18(1) settlement.
Ex.P11 —09-03-2011 Copy of the order passed by
the Hon’ble Court in W.P.
No. 25952 of 2008.
Ex.P12—07-03-2008 Copy of the charter of
demand submitted by the
petitioner union on behalf
of its 81 members.
Ex.P13—31-03-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union’s
letter
to
the
respondent
management
claiming majority status.
Ex.P14—21-05-2008 Copy of the conciliation
notice on the petitioner
union
dispute
dated
18-04-2008.
Ex.P15
—
—
Copy of the Licence issued
by
the
Inspector
of
Factories to the respondent
under the Factories Act.
Ex.P16
—
—
Copy of the delivery challan
stands in the name of
respondent which shows
the respondent engaging
manufacturing activity in
the name of Aroma and
Malic Leathers.
449
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P17
—
—
Copy of the profit and loss
account of respondent and
Form
23AC
submitted
before the company Law
Board.
Ex.P18—21-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
objection to
the
Inspector of Factories.
Ex.P19—27-08-2008 Copy of the trade union
complaint
to
the
PW
authority.
Ex.P20—24-09-2008 Copy of the trade union
complaint to the
PWA
authority.
Ex.P21—07-10-2008 Copy of the High Court
order in WP. No. 24521of
2008.
Ex.P22—25-10-2008 Copy
of
the
VRS
application issued by the
respondent.
Ex.P23 —
—
Copy of the letter issued by
the respondent on receipt
of the VRS application.
Ex.P24 —
—
Copy of the details of the
resigned
employed
in
Aroma and Malic.
Ex.P25—14-10-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
complaint
to
the
Commissioner
of Labour,
Conciliation
O fficer
regarding
production in
third party unit.
Ex.P26—23-10-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
complaint
to
the
Commissioner
of Labour,
Conciliation
Officer
regarding
production in
third party unit.
Ex.P27—23-10-2008 Copy of the petitioner
union
complaint
to
the
Commissioner
of
labour
regarding lock out.
Ex.P28—24-10-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union complaint regarding
removal of machinery.
Ex.P29—29-10-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union complaint regarding
closure
of
production
planning control and lock
out.
Ex.P30—31-10-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
objection
to
the
respondent.
Ex.P31—31-10-2008 Copy of the petitioner
union complaint to the
Superintendent of Police.
Ex.P32—31-10-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
complaint
the
Inspector of Police.
Ex.P33—01-10-2008 Copy of the news published
in the Dinakaran regarding
removal of machinery to
the respondent factory.
Ex.P34—01-11-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
complaint
to
the
Government
regarding
removal of machinery and its
courier receipt.
Ex.P35—20-11-2008 Copy of the objection letter
to
the
Commissioner
of
Labour regarding shifting of
factory.
Ex.P36—20-11-2008 Copy of the objection lette
to the Commissioner of
Labour regarding shifting
of factory.
Ex.P37—16-11-2008 Copy of the objection letter
of the HUL Employees
Union.
Ex.P38—02-12-2008 Copy of the objection letter
of the HUL TEA Union.
Ex.P39—06-11-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
complaint to the
Conciliation Officer, etc.,
regarding
transfer
of
workmen.
Ex.P40—06-11-2008 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
complaint to the
Conciliation Officer, etc.,
regarding
transfer
of
workmen.
Ex.P41—06-02-2009 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union complaint regarding
closure of factory.
Ex.P42—13-02-2009 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Commissioner of Labour,
Secretary to the Labour
Department.
450
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
Ex.P43—21-05-2008 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice.
Ex.P44—06-11-2008 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice.
Ex.P45—21-11-2008 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice.
Ex.P46—16-12-2008 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice.
Ex.P47—30-12-2008 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice.
Ex.P48—13-01-2009 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice.
Ex.P49—21-05-2008 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice and dispute,
dated 18-04-2008 raised by
the petitioner union for
charter of demand for wage
revision.
Ex.P50—27-11-2008 Copy of the conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P51—20-02-2009 Copy of the conciliation
failure report over the
dispute
of
closure
of
factory.
Ex.P52—24-03-2009 Copy of the Government
reference.
Ex.P53—01-12-2010 Copy of the High Court
order in Writ
Petition
No. 26180 of 2008, 23319/
2009, 399/2010.
Ex.P54—08-04-2011 Copy of the Government
reference as per the High
Court.
Ex.P55 —
—
Copy of the report of the
Inspector of Factories.
Ex.P56—24-02-2009 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer notice.
Ex.P57 —
—
Copy of the list of
machinery removed from
the factory.
Ex.P57A —
—
Copy of the memorandum
of
Ground
filed
in
CRP.PD. No. 294 of 2011.
Ex.P58—09-04-2009 Copy of the Commissioner’s
show cause notice to the
respondent.
Ex.P59 —
—
Copy of the news published
in the daily news paper.
Ex.P60 —
—
Copy of the ESI treatment
refusal letter.
Ex.P61—29-01-2010 Copy of the news published
in the Dinathanthi regarding
profit of the respondent
company.
Ex.P62—21-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
letter
to
the
Director,
Lab our
Department,
New Delhi.
Ex.P63—21-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
letter to the Secretary to
the Government, Labour
Department, New Delhi.
Ex.P64 —
—
C o p y
o f
t h e
acknowledgment card to
letter, dated 21-05-2010.
Ex.P65—24-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
S e c r e t a r y
t o
t h e
G o v e r n m e n t
L a b o u r
Department, Puducherry.
Ex.P66—21-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union complaint to the
Inspector of Factories.
Ex.P67—28-02-2002 Copy of the Award of the
Labour Court in I.D. 8 of
2008 and I.D. No. 4 of
2001.
Ex.P68 —
—
Copy of the transfer letter.
Ex.P69 —
—
Copy of the details of the
transfer workmen submitted
to the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P70—17-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
respondents.
Ex.P71—17-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
respondents.
Ex.P72—17-05-2010 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
respondents.
Ex.P73—14-08-2009 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Inspector of Factories.
Ex.P74—31-03-2010 Copy of the Form 20B
451
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P75—31-03-2011 Copy of the Form 20B.
Ex.P76—31-03-2012 Copy of the Form 20B
Ex.P77—22-04-2013 Copy of the declaration
Form
submitted
by
respondent before Central
Excise Department.
Ex.P78—22-04-2013 Copy of the export Invoice
of 3rd respondent.
Ex.P79—22-04-2013 Copy of the export invoice-
cum-Delivery challan.
Ex.P80—22-04-2013 Copy of the export invoice-
cum-Delivery challan.
Ex.P81—22-04-2013 Copy of the export invoice-
cum-Delivery challan.
Ex.P82—01-04-2010 Copy of the Form 23 AC.
Ex.P83—31-03-2011 Copy of the Form 23 AC.
Ex.P84—01-04-2011 Copy of the Form 23 AC.
Ex.P85—31-03-2012 Copy of the Form 23 AC.
Ex.P86—27-07-2012 Copy of the packing list
in Poothurai Factory.
Ex.P87—27-07-2012 Copy of the iinvoice- cum-
Delivery challan.
Ex.P88—10-07-2012 Copy of the invoice.
Ex.P89—10-07-2012 Copy of the respondent
Declaration
submitted
before
Central
Excise
Department.
Ex.P90—27-07-2012 Consignee
copy
of
respondent factory.
Ex.P91—28-07-2012 Copy
of
the
Tax
information
of
the
respondent factory.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW1—18-02-2015
Youvarajan
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
—24-10-2002 Copy of the long-term
&
settlement 2002-2006
07-02-2003 Memorandum of understanding.
Ex.R2 —11-10-2008 Copy of the letter from
PHLTS union.
Ex.R3 —14-03-2007 Copy of the various notices/
to
letter and warnings given by
17-09-2008 respondent on the go slow
adopted by petitioner and
communication
by
the
unions on such go slow.
Ex.R4—22-10-2008
Copy
of
the
letter
to
workers
by
coordinated
union’s
association
regarding VRS.
Ex.R5—21-10-2008
Copy of the notice on
VRS
announcement
by
management.
Ex.R6 —22-10-2008 Copy of the-
23-10-2008 1. notice on VRS announcement
23-10-2008 by management.
2. notice on VRS additional
amount by management.
3. notice on other benefits
of VRS by management.
Ex.R7 —25-10-2008 Copy of the notice to the
29-10-2009VRS opted employees and
Union letter to Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.R8 —01-06-1997 Confirmation order of an
employee (Pannirdasse).
Ex.R9 —14-04-2007 Confirmation order of an
employee
(Paul
Marie
George).
Ex.R10—31-12-1998 Confirmation order of an
employee (Dhayanidhi).
Ex.R11—31-12-1998 Confirmation order of an
employee (Aroquiaradjou).
Ex.R12—31-12-2001 Confirmation order of an
employee (V. Vijayashankar).
Ex.R13—31-07-1996 Confirmation order of an
employee (Dhandapani).
Ex.R14 —
—
Copy
of
the
certified
standing orders of respondent
company.
Ex.R15—05-11-2008 Copy
of
the
notice
displayed on notice-board
of the respondent giving the
details of transfer to 66
workers.
Ex.R16—06-11-2008 Registered letter addressed
to the President of the
petitioner union namely,
Pannirdasse to his residence
which
was
returned to
respondent with endorsement
of “Not claimed”.
452
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 April 2018
Ex.R17—06-11-2008 Returned
postal
cover
addressed to president of
the petitioner union namely,
Pannirdasse to his residence
which
was
returned to
respondent with endorsement
of “Refused”.
Ex.R18—09-01-2009 Copy of the affidavit filed
by
the respondent in I.A.
7/2009 in I.A. 253/2008 in
OS. 1476/2008 on the file
of Principal District Munsif
at Puducherry for appointment
of Advocate Commissioner
for shifting goods, materials
and
products
from
the
respondent’s factory premises
along with counter statement
filed by the petitioner.
Ex.R19—12-01-2009 Copy of the Order in I.A78/
2009 in O.S.1476/2008.
Ex.R20—02-02-2009 Advocate
commissioner
report in I.A.78/2009 in
O.S. No. 1476/2008.
Ex.R21—31-10-2008 Copy of the union letter to
Factory Manager.
Ex.R22—01-11-2008 Copy of the union letter to
Labour Commissioner.
Ex.R23—05-11-2008 Copy of the letter to Station
House Officer, Mettupalayam
Police Station.
Ex.R24—05-11-2008 Copy of the letter to Tahsildar.
Ex.R25—06-11-2008 Copy of the report in
Non-cognizable offence.
Ex.R26—05-11-2008 Copy of the transfer orders
sent to all the 66 workers
involved in present dispute.
Ex.R27—06-11-2008 Copy of the union letter to
Government Authorities on
VRS.
Ex.R28—06-11-2008 Copy of the union letter
to Conciliation Officer on
VRS.
Ex.R29—06-11-2008 Copy of the advisory notice
on overstay.
Ex.R30—06-11-2008 Copy of the letter from
Conciliation
Officer
on
service condition.
Ex.R31—24-11-2008 Copy
of
the
reply
to
Conciliation Officer notice
06-11-2008.
Ex.R32—07-11-2008 Copy
of
the
letter
to
Inspector of Factories on
inspection.
Ex.R33—07-11-2008 Copy
of
the
letter
to
Conciliation
Officer
on
over stay.
Ex.R34—07-11-2008 Copy of the report from
Police Station to Labour
Commissioner.
Ex.R35—07-11-2008 Copy of the notice on over
stay.
Ex.R36—07-11-2008 Copy of the complaint
letter to Police Station by
management.
Ex.R37—07-11-2008 Copy of the notices on over
stay.
Ex.R38—08-11-2008 Copy of the notices on over
stay.
Ex.R39—08-11-2008 Copy of the letter to station
House
Officer
on
unauthorized protests.
Ex.R40—15-11-2008 Copy of the notice to all the
transferred employees.
Ex.R41—21-11-2008 Copy of the notice to
enquiry from Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.R42—24-11-2008 Copy
of
the
reply
to
Conciliation Officer notice.
Ex.R43—22-12-2008 Copy of the notice from
Commissioner of Labour.
Ex.R44—02-01-2009 Copy
of the letter by
management on wage dispute
to Labour Commissioner.
Ex.R45—22-12-2008 Copy of the notice from
Commissioner of Labour.
Ex.R46—05-01-2009 Copy of the reply letter to
Notice from LC, dated
22-12-2008.
Ex.R47—22-01-2009 Copy of the letter from
Management to Conciliation
Officer on 2248/08/LO©/
AIL dispute.
Ex.R48—13-02-2009 Copy of the letter from
U n i o n
t o
L a b o u r
Commissioner.
453
3 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R49—20-02-2009 Copy of
the report on
failure of conciliation.
Ex.R50—24-03-2009 Copy of the Government
order - Labour Department
reference of ID.
Ex.R51—09-04-2009 Copy of the show cause
notice
from
Labour
Department.
Ex.R52—27-04-2009 Copy of the reply from
Management on show cause
notice.
Ex.R53—04-02-2009 Copy of the letter from
Arokiadass on request for
VRS.
Ex.R54—30-04-2009 Copy of the letter from
P. Janakiraman on request
for VRS.
Ex.R55—17-02-2010 Copy of the points discussed
during
the
meeting
on
17-02-2010.
Ex.R56—01-09-1999 Copy of the agreement with
Maulick Leather Crafts.
Ex.R57—01-08-2004 Copy
of
the
Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R58—01-08-2008 Copy
of
the
Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R59—31-08-2010 Copy
of
the
Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R60—18-08-2011 Copy
of
the
Maulick
Leather
Crafts
renewal
letter.
Ex.R61—01-10-2003 Copy of the agreement with
Auroma Leather Crafts.
Ex.R62—04-09-2004 Copy of the Auroma Leather
Crafts renewal letter.
Ex.R63—31-12-2007 Copy of the Auroma Leather
Crafts renewal letter.
Ex.R64—26-12-2009 Copy of the Auroma Leather
Crafts renewal letter.
Ex.R65—31-12-2010 Copy of the Auroma Leather
Crafts renewal letter.
Ex.R66—31-12-2011 Copy of the Auroma Leather
Crafts renewal letter.
Ex.R67—16-01-1997 Copy of the certificate of
Registration under Contract
Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970.
Ex.R68 —
—
Copy
of
the
Factory
Licence copy.
Ex.R69 —
—
Computer generated list of
the employees at Poothurai
unit, who have received
VRS announced by Pond’s
Exports Limited and left
services.
Ex.R70—09-02-2017 Copy of the cessation of
manufacturing
operation
letter
given
by
Pond’s
Exports Limited to Deputy
Director
of
Industrial
Safety
and
Health,
Villupuram
District,
Tamil Nadu.
Ex.R71—09-02-2017 Copy
of
cessation
of
manufacturing
operation
letter
given
by
Pond’s
Exports Limited to Joint
Director of Indsutrial Safety
and
Health,
Villupuram
District, Tamil Nadu.
Ex.R72—17-02-2017 Copy of letter addressed by
Pond’s Exports Limited,
surrendering factory licence
of Poothurai unit to Joint
Director of Industrial Safety
and
Health,
Villupuram
District, Tamil Nadu.
Ex.R73—17-02-2017 Copy of letter addressed by
Pond’s Exports Limited,
surrendering
facto ry
licence of Poothurai unit
copy marked to Deputy
Director of Industrial Safety
and Health Villupuram
District, Tamil Nadu.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.