La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 18-00
Prix : ` 18-00
Price :
` 18-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 522
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 522
Award of the Labour Court
.. 522
de Tribunal.
.. 530
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 530
Government Notifications
.. 530
.. 537
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 537
Tender notices
.. 537
.. 539
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 539
Dangerous Establishments
.. 539
.. 540
Annonces
.. 540
Announcements
.. 540
[ 521 ]
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 : 24-4-2018
Price : ` 18-00
2018 }
|
24 {
No.
17
Poudouchéry
Mardi
24
Avril
2018 (4 Vaisakha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
24th
April
2018
522
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 April 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 32/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 8th March 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 03/2014, dated
08-01-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. Vinayaga Mission
Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, against the
petitioner union Vinayaga Mission Medical College 85
Hospital Ozhiyargal Sangam over non-payment of
Bonus 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 08th day of January, 2018
I.D. (T) No. 03/2014
N. Ramar,
Rep. the V.M.M.C. and Hospital
Ozhiyargal Sangam,
No. 42, Stalin Nagar,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Vinayaga Mission Medical
College and Hospital,
Kezhakasakudimedu,
Kottucherry (PO)
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 17-11-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,
Representative for the petitioner and Thiru R. Ilancheliyan,
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. 70/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 21-04-2014 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union Vinayaga Mission Medical College
and Hospital Ozhiyargal Sangam, against the
management M/s. Vinayaga Mission Medical
College and Hospital, Karaikal, over non-payment
of Bonus to its employees is justified?
(ii) If justified, what relief they 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 of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner union stated that the respondent
management had not given bonus from its inception
till date to its employees. Hence, the petitioner
union raised the industrial dispute on 01-08-2013
for 20% bonus stating that for many years the
respondent management had not given bonus to the
employees, which is against the Payment of Bonus
Act and therefore, the petitioner seeks for 20%
bonus to all workers. The petitioner union relied
upon the Judgments reported in Banglore Water
Supply Vs. Rajappa (AIR 1978 SC 548) and Christian
Medical College Vs. Government of India (1983 II
LLJ) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and stated that
in view of the observation made in the abovesaid
Judgments the respondent management is purely an
industry as per law and is highly a profit oriented
concern and thereby the respondent management is
responsible to pay 20% bonus to all its employees.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent management denied the averments made
by the petitioner in the claim statement except those
that are specifically admitted and stated that the
dispute raised by one Ramar in the guise of a trade
union and the said Ramar is not an employee employed
523
24 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
in the respondent institution. He is an purely an
outsider and he has no any legal right to raise dispute
against the respondent under the Industrial Disputes
Act and the rules made thereunder. Though the Act
envisages representation by an outsider under section 36
of the Act, it does not contemplate any authority to
raise any dispute against the employer. The petitioner
of this case is neither a workman nor has been duly
authorized by the members of the alleged union who
are necessarily to be the employees in the respondent’s
institution and therefore, the petitioner does not have
any locus standi either to represent or to raise this
dispute and the petition is liable to be dismissed in
limine and further stated that the Payment of Bonus
Act, 1956 is applicable to every factory and every
other establishment wherein 20 or more persons are
employed. Though few State Governments have
separate provisions, reference will have to be made to
the respective State Legislature. However, section 32
of the Payment of Bonus Act has specific provisions
providing for non application of the Act to certain
classes of employees. section (v) (b) and (c) provide
for non applicability of the Act to the Universities and
Educational Institutions including Hospitals, Chambers
of Commerce and Social Welfare Institutions etc.,
section 32(v) (b) categorically states that employees
employed by Universities and other educational
institutions are not covered under the provisions of
the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 section 32(v) (c)
stated that employees employed by institutions
(including Hospitals, Chambers of Commerce and
Social Welfare Institutions) establishment not for the
purposes of profit, are exempted from payment of
Bonus Act, 1965. The provisions of the payment of
Bonus Act, 1965 make it clear that as per section (v) (b)
and 32(v) (b) of the Act, employees of Universities
and other Educational Institutions and Hospitals,
establishments not with the aim of earning profit are
not be covered under this Act. The main consideration
of section 32(v) (c) is for institutions/establishments,
functioning not for the purposes of profit. As far as
the claim on the basis of Banglore Water Supply Vs.
Rayappa and Christian Medical College Hospital cases
are concerned the Banglore water supply case has given
wide connotation to the definitions of workmen and
nothing has any relevance to the claim for the bonus.
However, in the matter of Christian Medical College
Hospital the grounds on which the provisions of the
payment of Bonus Act, 1965 was made applicable was
entirely difference. The Hon’ble Madras High Court
in its order in the Writ Appeal No. 642/2002 has not
declared suo motto that all the Medical College and
Hospital are to be covered under the payment of Bonus
Act, 1965. It was decided in the case of Christian
Medical College that the employees were covered
under the Payment of Bonus Act on the basis of
different grounds that the hospital was run earlier to
the beginning of the College. The respondent is an
institution imparting medical education under the
norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India.
Therefore, the Christian Medical College case cannot
be equated with the claim of the petitioner union.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5
were marked and no evidence has been let in and no
documents has been marked on the side of the
respondent.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union
against the respondent management over
non-payment of Bonus to its employees is justified
or not and if justified what is the relief entitled to
them?
6. Both sides are heard. The pleadings of the
parties, the evidence let in and the exhibits marked on
the side of the petitioner are carefully considered. On
both sides, written arguments were filed and the same
was carefully considered.
7. In order to prove the case the petitioner union
has examined PWl and it is the evidence of PWl that
the members of the petitioner union are working at the
respondent
establishment
which
is
a
Medical
College-cum-Hospital functioning at Karaikal wherein,
550 students and 20 medical higher studying students
are studying and that the management also conducting
the Nursing College by collecting fees from them and
also conducting Hostel and 125 Professors and 135
Doctors are working at the respondent establishment
and that the management has paid ` 7,000 for regular
employees and ` 1,000 for daily rates employees as
exgratia and has not paid bonus which cannot be
tolerable and it is the further evidence of PW1 that he
is the Honourary President of the union and he is
having right to raise the industrial dispute under
section 36 of the industrial dispute and that the
contention of the respondent management that the
Honourary President cannot represent the petitioner
union cannot be accepted and that the another contention
of the respondent management that as per section
32(V) (b) of the Bonus Act employees of Universities,
Educational Institutions and Hospital are not entitled
524
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 April 2018
for bonus are not acceptable and that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has declared that all the workers of the
educational institutions are entitled for bonus since
educational institutions are also an industry and that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court also has directed to pay
bonus to the Christian Medical College workers and
that therefore, educational institutions are also not
exempted under section 32(v) (b) of the Act after the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that
therefore, the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union over the non-payment of bonus to the members
of the petitioner union for 20% of bonus is to be
declared as justified.
8. In support of their contention the petitioner
union has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The copy of the
dispute raised by the petitioner union before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated 01-08-2013 as
Ex.P1. The copy of the letter given by the respondent
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated 26-08-2013
as Ex.P2. The copy of the letter given by the
respondent to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated
11-10-2013 as Ex.P3. The copy of conciliation failure
report, dated 07-02-2014 as Ex.P4. The copy of the
reference sent by the Government on 21-04-2014 as
Ex.P5. These documents would go to show that the
Honourary President of the union raised the industrial
dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on
01-08-2013 for which the respondent has sent a reply
to the Conciliation Officer that the educational
institutions are exempted to pay the bonus to the
workers and that therefore, the conciliation was failed
and the conciliation failure report was submitted by
the Conciliation Officer on 07-02-2014 and the same
was referred by the Government for adjudication on
21-04-2014 to this Tribunal.
9. From the evidence of the petitioner union it is
clear that it is the case of the petitioner union that the
person, the Honourary President of the petitioner
union can raise the industrial dispute on behalf of the
petitioner union under section 36(a) of the Act and
Educational Institutions and Medical Colleges are
declared as industry by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
that therefore the Educational Institutions and Medical
Colleges are having liability to pay the bonus to its
workers.
In
support
of
their
contention
the
representative of the petitioner union PW1 has stated
in his evidence as well as in the argument that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Banglore Water
Supply and Severage board Vs. Rajappa and others case
has held that the workers of the educational institutions
and Medical College Hospitals are entitled for bonus
as the medical college and Educational Institutions are
also come under the definition of industry.
10. On the other hand, to prove their case the
respondent has not examined any witnesses on their
sides and has not exhibited any documents in support
of their contention. From the pleadings of the
respondent management it is clear that it is the first
contention of the respondent management that Ramar
who has raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer in the name of trade union has no
locus standi since the said Ramar is not a employee
working under the respondent establishment and he is
an outsider and he does not have any legal right to
raise the industrial dispute against the respondent
management and that the said Ramar has not been
authorized by the members of the petitioner union to
raise the dispute. But, the representative of the
petitioner union PW1 has stated in his evidence that
he is the Honourary President of the petitioner union
and he is an office bearer of the trade union and he is
having locus standi to raise the industrial dispute
against the respondent establishment.
11. On this aspect evidence and documents are
carefully considered. It is learnt from Ex.P1 that the
representative of the petitioner union Ramar has raised
the industrial dispute even before the Conciliation
Officer stating that he is the Honourary President of
the union in the letter pad of the union and the
Conciliation Officer also has acted upon the said
application of the V.M.M.C and Hospital Ozhiyargal
sangam. Further, the failure report which is exhibited
as Ex.P3 also would reveal the fact that industrial
dispute was raised against the respondent management
for non payment of bonus to the employees of the
respondent establishment under Ex.P1. The respondent
management has not disputed before the Conciliation
Officer that the person who has raised the industrial
dispute is not having locus standi to raise the same as
he was not authorized by the union and the management
was silent before the conciliation regarding the locus
standi to represent the petitioner union while industrial
dispute was pending. Further, it is not disputed by the
respondent management that Ramar is not the
Honourary President of the petitioner union. The
Honourary President also is the office bearer of the
trader union and any one of the office executive of the
trade union can raise the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer and that therefore the contention
raised by the respondent management is not
sustainable.
12. It is the another contention of the respondent
management that the provisions of the Payment of
Bonus Act, 1965 makes it clear that as per sec.32(v)
(b) and 32(v) (c) of the Act, employees of the
Universities and other Educational Institutions and
525
24 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Hospitals, establishments not with the aim of earning
profit are not to be covered under the Act. On this
Aspect the provision of the Payment of Bonus Act are
carefully considered which runs as follows:
“....32. Act not to apply to certain classes of
employees. - Nothing in this Act shall apply to -
(i) 1[****] employees employed by the Life
Insurance Corporation of India;
(ii) seamen as defined in Clause (42) of
Section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958
(44 of 1958);
(iii) employees registered or listed under any
scheme
made
under
the
Dock
Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of
1948), and employed by registered or listed
employees;
(iv) employees employed by an establishment
engaged in any industry carried on by or under
the authority of any department of the Central
Government or a State Government or a local
authority;
(v) employees employed by -
(a) the Indian Red Cross Society or any
other institution of a like nature (including its
branches);
(b) Universities and other Educational
Institutions;
(c) institutions
(including
Hospitals,
Chamber of Commerce and Social Welfare
Institutions) established not for purposes of
profit;
From the above provision it is clear that
Universities and other educational institutions which
are not established for the purpose of profit alone are
exempted to pay bonus to their employees.
13. Further the learned representative of the
petitioner has also relied upon the Judgment reported
in (1978) 2 SCC 213, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that,
“.........(1) ‘Industry’ as deined in the sub-section
has a wide import.
(a) Where there is (i) systematic activity, (ii)
organized by cooperation between employer and
employee (the direct and substantial element is
chimerical; and (iii) for the production and/or
distribution of goods and services calculated to
satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or
religious but, inclusive of material things or
services geared to celestial bliss), prima facie,
there is an industry in the enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful
objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the
public, joint, private or other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the
decisive test is the nature of the activity with
special emphasis on the employer-employee
relations.
(d) If, the organization is a trade or business
it does not cease to be one because of
philanthropy animating the undertaking.
(2) Although the sub-section uses the words of
the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning
cannot be magnified to overreach itself.
(a) ‘Undertaking’ must have a contextual and
associated meaning as explained in Banerji’s
case; so also service, calling and the like. Hence
all organized activity possessing the triple
elements of systematic activity, organized
co-operation between employer and employee and
production and distribution of goods and services
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes,
although not trade or business. This takes into the
fold of industry, undertakings, callings, services
and adventures “analogous to the carrying on of
trade or business”. All features other than the
methodology of carrying on the activity, namely,
in
organizing
the
cooperation
between
employer-employee may be dissimilar but, it
does not matter if, on the employment terms
there is analogy. ......”
and further the learned Counsel for the petitioner
also has relied upon the Judgment reported in (1987)
4 SCC 691 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that,
“......Having regard to the right of the minorities
guaranteed under Article 30(1) and the necessary for
having a general law which regulates the relationship
between employers and workmen and after
balancing the two interests it must be held that
sections 9-A, 10, 11-A, 12 and 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act are applicable to the minority
educational institutions like the Christian Medical
College and Hospital at Vellore also in as much as
these provisions of the Act do not interfere with the
right guaranteed under Article 30(1) to minority
educational institutions .........”
From the above observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that Universities and
Educational Institutions also an industry and that
therefore the employees of the Educational Institutions
526
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 April 2018
are also entitled for bonus. Furthermore, in this case
it is not established by the respondent management that
they are giving education on free of cost and medical
treatment was given without receiving any fees i.e., on
free of cost. Further, it is not disputed by the
respondent
management
that
members
of
the
petitioner union are not working less than 30 days at
the respondent establishment and it is stated by the
petitioner union that they are working for several years
and they have not been paid bonus by the respondent
management.
14. Further, the Conciliation Officer has stated in
the conciliation failure report under Ex.P4 that the
respondent establishment is a highly profit oriented
concern and therefore, the respondent establishment
is not exempted from the payment of bonus to their
employees. Hence, it is clear that respondent
establishment is running for the profit and therefore
the respondent establishment is not exempted from the
liability of payment of bonus to the workers and that
therefore, the members of the petitioner union are not
exempted to receive the bonus and they are entitled for
bonus as claimed by them and as such, it is to be held
that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union against the respondent management over
non-payment of Bonus to its employees is justified.
15. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over non-payment of
Bonus to its employees is justified and Award is passed
directing the respondent management to pay Bonus to
its workers for the period from 2012-2013 in
accordance with the law.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 08th day of January, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
—01-12-2015— N. Ramar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —01-08-2013—Copy of the dispute raised
by the petitioner union
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P2 —26-08-2013—Copy of the letter given by
the respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P3 —11-10-2013—Copy of the letter given by
the respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P4 —07-02-2014—C o p y o f c o n c i l i a t i o n
failure report.
Ex.P5 —21-04-2014—Copy of the reference sent
by the Government.
List of
respondent’s witnessess: Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 33/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 8th March 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 02/2008, dated
31-01-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. Bharathiar College
of Engineering and Technology, Karaikal and Bharathiar
College of Engineering and Technology Non-Teaching
Staff Union-over charter of demands such as wage
revision, bonus, etc., has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government, (Labour).
527
24 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM.,M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 2018
I.D. (T) No. 02/2008
The Secretary,
Bharathiar College of Engineering and
Technology Non-Teaching Staff Union,
Gnanajothi Illam,
4th Lane Kuthalam Pet Road,
Seniar Kulam Street,
Karaikal-609 602.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Employer,
M/s. Bharathiar College of
Engineering and Technology,
Thiruvettakudy,
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 18-01-2018 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R. Mugundhan,
Counsel for the petitioner, Thituvalargal L. Swaminathan
and I. Ilankumar, Counsels 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. l7/2008/Lab./AIL/J,
dated 12-02-2008 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Bharathiar
College
of
Engineering
and
Technology
Non-Teaching Staff Union, over charter of demands
such as wage revision, bonus, etc., against the
management
of
M/s.
Bharathiar
College
of
Engineering and Technology, Karaikal is justified or
not?
(ii) To what relief, the workers 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 of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
The petitioner is a registered under the Trade
Unions Act, 1926 with Reg. No. 1488/RTU/2007.
The petitioner espouses the cause of its members
employed in the respondent College, The petitioner
has about 160 members in the respondent College.
On 12-09-2006 the petitioner union placed a charter
of demands such as annual increment, leave facility,
medical
reimbursement
scheme,
Employees
Provident Funds Act, uniform and liveries, supply of
soaps and towels, appointment of cleaners, Festival
advance, bonus, identity card, pay slip, over time
allowance and wages with the respondent college. The
above said demands were placed with the
management and since they refused to conciliate
and settle the matter amicably the dispute has been
referred. The non-teaching staffs are unable to make
both ends meet. The service conditions in the
respondent College are far below the statutory
standards which resulted the employees are put to
great hardship and prejudice. The employees are not
being paid appropriate wages and given the benefits
like bonus, festival advance, leave facilities,
medical reimbursement which in term affects the
morale of the employee and also is right to
livelihood
guaranteed
under
Article
21
of
Constitution of India. Further, it results in
exploitation of labour and also deprivation of the
wages earned by the employees. The non issuance
of the identity card, pay slips, over time wages,
providing uniform, and soaps and towels is affecting
the conditions of service. The respondent being an
Engineering and Technology Institution is involved
in industrial activity while imparting technical
education. They maintain labs and machines to train
the students. The employees are involved in the
process of maintain the machines and equipments,
various
chemicals
are
also
being
stored.
Equipments functioning in high temperature are
also being used to teach the students. It is
systematic and perennial thereby falling under the
definition of industry. The respondent management
controls the entire activities of the union. The
minimum requirements specified under Factories
Act 1948 towards safety, health, cleanliness and
attendance ought to be complied with the
respondent College. The petitioner union had placed
the charter of demands over wage revision, etc., before
the respondent management, but, the same is not
considered in a genuine manner by the respondent
management. In other technical institutions the
employees are given better service conditions. The
Government college staffs are in a better position.
Though the staffs are doing the same work they are
not enjoying same or similar service conditions.
The benefits of Pay Commission are not available
to the employees. It is arbitrary and irrational.
528
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 April 2018
Education being public duty, the employees is
entitled to better service conditions and parity in
employment. The demands are justified and
reasonable and the denial of the same is unjust.
Therefore the petitioner union prayed this Court to
hold that the demands of the petitioner regarding
wage revision, bonus, etc., as placed in their charter
of demands, dated 12-09-2006 is justified and to
direct the respondent College to grant all to benefits
in monetary terms.
3. Even after granting sufficient opportunities to
file the counter statement the respondent have not
filed any counter and hence, this Court has posted the
case for enquiry without passing any ex parte order
against the respondent and in the course of enquiry on
the side of the petitioner PW1 was examined and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. Though sufficient
opportunities were given to the respondent no evidence
has been let in and no exhibit has been marked on their
side. Both sides are heard. The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in and the exhibits marked on
the side of petitioner are carefully considered. On the
side of the respondent, after the case was resumed for
order has filed written argument and the same is
carefully considered. The respondent has stated in the
written argument that they have filed counter on
29-03-2012. But, on perusal of records it is learnt to
this court that no such counter was filed by the
respondent.
4. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union against the respondent management, over
charter of demands such as wage revision, bonus,
etc., is justified or not and if, justified what is the
relief entitled to them.
5. In order to prove their case the president of the
petitioner union was examined as PW1 and he has
deposed that their union is the registered one and the
members of the petitioner union are in service at the
respondent College and that the union has 160
members and that the union has placed a charter of
demands regarding annual increment, leave facility,
Medical reimbursement scheme, Employees Provident
Funds Act, uniform and liveries, supply of soaps and
towels, appointment of cleaners, festival advance,
bonus, identity card, pay slip, over time allowance and
payment of wages in time before the respondent
management
on
12-09-2006
and
since,
the
management refused to conciliate and settle the matter
amicably they have raised the industrial dispute before
the Conciliation Officer and as the conciliation was failed,
the conciliation failure report was sent to the
Government on 24-07-2007 and this case has been
referred by the Government to this Tribunal to decide
the dispute. In support of their case the petitioner
union has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Ex.P1 is the copy
of the Office Order of the respondent College, dated
29-06-2006. Ex.P2 is the copy of the letter of the
union given to the Labour Officer, Karaikal, on
07-12-2006. Ex.P3 is the copy of the letter of the
union given to the Labour Officer, Karaikal, on
06-10-2006. Ex.P4 is the copy of the pay revision
memorandum of the Union, dated 12-09-2006. Ex.P5
is the copy of the letter of the union given to
respondent on 12-10-2006. Ex.P6 is the copy of
G. O. Rt. No. l7/2008/Lab./AIL/J, dated 12-02-2008
regarding conciliation failure report No. 24/2006,
dated 24-07-2007 from the Labour Officer, Karaikal.
Ex.P7 is the copy of the G.O. Ms. No. 11/Lab./AIL/G/
2015, dated 09-10-2015 regarding revision of
minimum rates of wages for employment in Hospitals
and Nursing Homes. Ex.P8 is the list of the present
members of the petitioner union, dated 14-10-2017.
Ex.P9 is the copy of the salary slips of a house
keeping employee namely, K. Chitra (15 Nos.). Ex.P10
is the copy of the Order passed on 27-07-2017 by the
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, directing to
pay wages to the employees.
6. These documents would go to show that the
petitioner union has submitted the charter of demands
for wage revision,
etc., before the respondent
management and on 29-06-2006 the management has
raised the Dearness Allowance to 50% from
01-07-2006 and has cancelled the HRA and that the
petitioner union has made representation before the
Labour Officer, Karaikal over demand for pay revision
memorandum and that the union has also sent a
reminder letter on 06-10-2006 to the Labour Officer,
Karaikal and that the union has sent a letter on
12-10-2006 to the management intimating that they are
constrained to go on strike if, the demands are not
settled by the management and that the conciliation
proceedings was ended in failure and the reference has
been sent to this Court on the failure report of the
Conciliation Officer. The documents further would go
to show that Lab Assistants, Attenders, Drivers and
House-Keeping Staffs are members of the petitioner
union and that they are receiving salary from ` 6,000
to
` 3,500 and that one
House-Keeping
Staff
receiving ` 3,500 per month as salary and that the
Asst. Inspector of Labour has filed an application
before the Authority under the Minimum Wages
529
24 April 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Act, 1948 wherein, it was ordered and directed by the
Authority that to pay notified Minimum Wages i.e.,
` 7,545 as monthly wages or ` 296 per head per day
from 01-04-2016 and ` 7,697 as monthly wages or
` 296 per head per day from 01-01-2017 and also
directed to settle the pay difference between the
notified minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act
and that therefore, the main contention of the
petitioner union is that they have been paid even
minimum to the Minimum Wages Act.
7. On the other hand, though the respondent has not
filed counter objection, has cross examined PW1 and
it was suggested by the respondent management that
the petitioner union has failed to establish that PW1
is the president of the petitioner union since no
document is filed to prove the fact that PW1 is the
president of the petitioner union. Further, it was
contended through cross examination by the respondent
management by putting suggestion that members of the
petitioner union have not represented properly through
authenticated person and PWl has no locus standi to
represent on behalf of the union and that the members
of the petitioner union are not entitled for any wage
revision. However, it is not disputed by the respondent
management that the petitioner union has submitted
charter of demands before the respondent management
and their demands was not considered by the
management and that therefore, the petitioner union
has raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer.
8. Further, it is established by the petitioner union
through documents that the charter of demands for
wage revision, etc., submitted by the petitioner union
was not accepted by the respondent management and
hence, the petitioner union has raised the industrial
dispute before the Labour Conciliation Officer and on
failure of conciliation, the failure report was
submitted by the Labour Conciliation Officer. While
the facts are so, the respondent has filed a written
argument wherein, it is contended that a person who
has filed the claim statement had left the service of
respondent College in the year 2009 itself and the
same was accepted by PW1 in his evidence and PW1
also was dismissed from service on 20-03-2008 and
hence the members of the petitioner union are not
entitle for any relief as none of the workers employed
in the respondent College were examined as witness
and PW1 has no locus standi to depose before this
Court for the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union and that the petitioner union has not filed
Registration Certificate of the union and it is further
contended by the respondent that the claim has to be
rejected on the ground that the petitioner union had
not chosen to examine any of the workers who are
employed in the respondent College.
9. On perusal of records and evidence of PW1,
it is clear that the President of the union has given
evidence on behalf of union and that it is not disputed
by the respondent management that he is not the
President of the union and even no counter statement
has been filed by the respondent to deny the said
averment that he was the President of the union.
Further, the pay revision memorandum of the union
exhibited under Ex.P4 would reveal the fact that the
union has asked for pay revision by submitting a
memorandum for annual increment, leave facility,
festival advance, bonus and the claim of the petitioner
union that annual increment at the rate of 3%, leave
facility, payment of contribution of Employees
provident fund, bonus, identity card, pay slip, over
time allowance, payment of wages on or before 5th of
every succeeding month are reasonable and are
mandatory needs that are to be done by the
management under the enactments and that therefore,
the abovesaid demands are the reasonable demands
made by the petitioner union.
10. Admittedly, the demands raised by the petitioner
union
were
not
accepted
by
the
respondent
management and then only the petitioner union has
raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer which was referred before this Court by the
Government. The contention of the respondent
management in the argument that none of the workers
who are employed at the respondent have given
evidence cannot be accepted since at the time of
raising the industrial dispute PW1 and others are in
the employment at the respondent College as workers.
However, the claims in respect of implementation of
medical reimbursement scheme, uniform and liveries,
supply of soaps and towels, appointment of cleaners
and festival advance are not to be given by the
management under any enactment and only it is to be
given by the management for creating the industrial
harmony and that therefore, it is to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over charter of demands
such as annual increment at the rate of 3%, leave
facility, payment of contribution of employees
provident fund, bonus, identity card, pay slip, over
time allowance and payment of wages on or before 5th
of every succeeding month are justified and in respect
of other demands are not justified and the petitioner
union workers are entitled only for demands such as
annual increment at the rate of 3%, leave facility,
payment of contribution of Employees Provident fund,
bonus, identity card, pay slip, over time allowance and
payment of wages on or before 5th of every
succeeding month and as such the petition is liable to
be partly allowed.
530
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 April 2018
11. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondent management over charter of
demands such as annual increment at the rate of 3%,
leave facility, payment of contribution of Employees
provident fund, bonus, identity card, pay slip, over
time allowance and wages are justified and demands in
respect of medical reimbursement scheme, uniform
and liveries, supply of soap and towels, appointment
of cleaners and festival advance are not justified and
Award is passed directing the respondent management
to give benefits such as annual increment at the rate
of 3%, leave facility, payment of contribution of
employees provident fund, bonus, identity card, pay
slip, over time allowance and payment of wages on or
before 5th of every succeeding month to the workers
of the petitioner union. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 31st day of January 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW1
— 15-09-2017 — Manickam
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl — 29-06-2006 — Copy
of
the
Office
Order of the respondent
College.
Ex.P2 — 07-12-2006 — Copy of the letter of the
union given to the Labour
Officer, Karaikal.
Ex.P3 — 06-10-2006 — Copy of the letter of the
union given to the Labour
Officer, Karaikal.
Ex.P4 — 12-09-2006 — Copy of the pay revision
memorandum of the union.
Ex.P5 — 12-10-2006 — Copy of the letter of
the
union
given
to
respondent.
Ex.P6 — 12-02-2008 — Copy of G.O. Rt. No. l7/
2008/Lab./AIL/J, regarding
conciliation failure report
No. 24/2006, dated 24-07-2007
from the Labour Officer,
Karaikal.
Ex.P7 — 09-10-2015 — Copy of the G. O. Ms.
No. 11/Lab./AIL/G/2015,
regarding
revision
of
minimum rates of wages
f o r e mp l o y me n t i n
Hospitals and Nursing
Homes.
Ex.P8 — 14-10-2017 — List
of
the
present
members of the petitioner
union.
Ex.P9 — —
Copy of the salary slips
of a ho use keep ing
employee namely K. Chitra
(15 Nos.).
Ex.P10— 27-07-2017— Copy of the order passed
by the authority under the
Minimum Wages Act,
directing to pay wages to
t h e
e m p l o y e e s
o f
respondent.
List of
respondent’s witnessess: Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT
(HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION)
(G.O. Ms. No. 13, Puducherry, dated 10th April 2018)
ORDER
In compliance with the directives issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India, in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 350 of 1993 in the matter of Islamic Academy
of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and
Others, dated 14-08-2003, ‘Fee Committee’ to determine
the fee structure in the Unaided Private Professional
Educational Institutions functioning in the Union
territory of Puducherry was constituted vide (1) G.O.
Ms. No.14, dated 6-3-2015 of the Chief Secretariat
(Education), Puducherry, (2) G.O. Ms. No.31, dated
22-12-2016 of the Chief Secretariat (Higher and
Technical Education), Puducherry,