La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 29-00
Prix : ` 29-00
Price :
` 29-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 644
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 644
Award of the Labour Court
.. 644
de Tribunal.
.. 667
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 667
Government Notifications
.. 667
.. 671
Avis de saisis-arrét
.. 671
Notice of attachment
.. 671
.. 672
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 672
Tender Notices
.. 672
.. 673
Etablissements dangereux
.. 673
Dangerous establishments
.. 673
.. 677
Annonces
.. 677
Announcements
.. 677
[ 643 ]
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 : 29-5-2018
Price : ` 29-00
2018 }
|
29 {
No.
22
Poudouchéry
Mardi
29
Mai
2018 (8 Jyaistha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
29th
May
2018
644
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 46/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 22nd March 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 04/2012 and
No. 07/2014, dated 12-01-2018 of the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of
the Industrial Dispute [I.D (T) No. 04/2012]
between the management of M/s Hindustan Unilever
Limted, Tea Factory, Puducherry and HLL Tea Workers
Welfare Union, over charter of demands such as wage
revision,
annual
increment,
HRA,
Educational
allowance, HBA and other allowances, etc., and Industrial
Dispute [I.D (T) No. 07/2014] between the management
of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limted, Tea Factory,
Puducherry and HLL Tea Workers Welfare Union and
Hindustan Unilever Tea Unit Employees Union, over
disparity in wages and incentives 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.
Friday, the 18th day of January 2018
I.D(T). No. 04/2012 and I.D (T). No. 07/2014
I.D(T). No. 04/2012
HLL Tea Workers Welfare Union,
Reg. No. 1483/RTU/2007,
No. 29, A.V. Dhandapani Nagar,
Kanniyakoil, Bahoor,
Pondicherry,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Mr. S. Rajendirane.
. . Petitioner
I.D(T). No. 07/2014
1. HLL Tea Workers’ Welfare Union,
Reg. No. 1483/RTU/2007,
No. 34, Madha Koil Street,
Thavalakuppam, Kattupalayam Post,
Puducherry-605 007,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mr.S. Rajendirane.
2. Hindustan Unilever Tea Unit
Employees Union,
Reg. No. 1648/RTU/2010,
Rep. by its President,
No. 44, Ellaiamman Kovil Street,
Korkadu Post, Villianur,
Puducherry-605 110.
. . Petitioners
Versus
I.D(L). No. 04/2012 & I.D(L). No. 07/2014
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,
Tea Factory, Rep. by its Factory Manager,
No. 3, Cuddalore Main Road,
Kirumampakkam,
Puducherry-607 402
. . Respondent
These industrial disputes coming on 04-12-2017
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalargal P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A.Mithun
Chakaravarthy, Advocates for the petitioners and
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan,
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:
COMMON AWARD
L.D(T). No. 04/2012
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 61/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 29-03-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by HLL Tea
Workers Welfare Union against the management of
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Private Limited, Tea
Factory, Puducherry, over charter of demands such
as wage revision, annual increment, HRA, educational
allowance, HBA and other allowances, etc., is justified?
(ii) If justified, 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?
645
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
I.D(T). No. 04/2014
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 83/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 12-05-2014 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the HLL Tea
Workers’ Welfare Union and Hindustan Unilever Tea
Unit Employees Union against the management of
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Private Limited, Tea
Factory, over the 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013
entered with another union during the pendency of
the industrial dispute before the industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry is justified ?
(b) Whether the act of the said management in
showing disparity in wages and incentives among
the workmen who have signed and not signed the
18(1) settlement and individual Bond are justified?
(c) Whether the claim of the union workmen for
equal wages and incentive on par with the other
workmen and to extend the benefits of 12(3)
settlement, dated 07-05-2007 till a new wage
settlement is entered is justified?
(d) Whether the management has adopted any
unfair labour practice among the union workmen
under section 25(T) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947? If so, what remedy the workmen are
entitled to
(e) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The brief averments of the claim statement in
L.D(T). No. 04/2012 filed by the petitioner is as
follows:
The respondent is a multinational company of
unilever group, U.K carrying on business through the
Indian entity Hindustan Unilever Limited, a company
registered under the Indian companies Act. The
respondent company deals in variety of consumer
goods and has established brand name for various
products. Since, the Government of Puducherry with
intent, object to promote Industrialization in the
Union Territory, announced substantial Sales tax
concession, power concession and substantial
subsidies to attract industrial investment from
leading player. The respondent availing aforesaid
benefits, concession in the year 1997 set up Tea
unit at Kirumapakkam, Bahour Commune, Puducherry,
similarly the respondent set up several other factory
viz., HUL Personal Products at Vadamangalam, HUL
Detergent, Vadamangalam, HUL Footwear, etc., at
Puducherry. The petitioner union members arc
permanent workers of the HUL Tea unit situated at
No. 9, Cuddalore Road, Kirumampakkam, Puducherry.
The petitioner union was formed for welfare,
betterment of the workers. The wage and other
allowance of the workers of the Tea factory are
determined by the wage settlement time to time
entered between the petitioner union and the
respondent management. The petitioner trade union
representing majority workers, recognized by the
respondent management, entered into last wage
settlement, dated 07-05-2007 for 4 years period,
the same was expired on 06-05-2011 before expiry
of the said wage settlement, the petitioner union by
its letter of demand, dated 11-02-2011 raised the
demand of wage revision before the respondent
management. The respondent management did not
consider the wage demand of the petitioner union,
on the other hand with an intent to threaten the
workers and suppress their wage demand posed
a counter demand to increase the machine speed
from 29 units to 39 units with the existing
workforce, and also demanded the workers to accept
the proposed erection of auto machine which was
likely to lead retrenchment of existing workers. The
petitioner union objected the counter demand.
There are several sitting of negotiation talk between
the petitioner and the respondent over the demand
and counter demand. Since, the respondent offer
very lesser wage increase and persisted the
petitioner to concede the counter demand, in the
negotiation talk no amicable settlement was arrived
and the negotiation talk was ended in vain.
Thereafter, on 15-06-2011, the petitioner union
raised industrial dispute over the wage revision
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.
The petitioner union raised the industrial dispute
over the charter of demand for wage revision and
other allowances, for the period covering from
07-05-2011 under basic wages, annual increment,
fixed dearness allowance, variable dearness allowances,
house
rent
allowance,
education
allowance,
conveyance allowance, social security and medical
assistance, house building advance, sanction of
personal loan, provision of food tiffin/lunch,
excursion allowance, life insurance facility, death
benefit, grades, profit sharing, festival advance and
gifts, co-operative society, sick leave, casual leave,
annual leave, marriage leave, encashment of earned
leave, rest room, birth day gift, supply of soap,
biscuit and towel, etc., festival holiday benefit, rain
coat, family day and sports day, social security for
punished workers, gift for completion of 15 years
646
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
service, voluntarily retirement scheme, factory
shifting, transfer
for employee,
transfer of
employee, half day leave, recreation club, factory
closure,
retrospective
effect
and
supply
of
agreement and copies of agreement. While pending
the said dispute before the Conciliation Officer,
several Indian companies in Pondicherry region like
NCR Limted, Godrej Consumer Product, in their
wage settlement with the trade union increased the
wage revision to their workers average of more
than
` 6,000 per month. Though the petitioner
union produced the said wage settlement and
demanded wage increase at least on par with the
abovesaid Indian companies on Industry-cum-
regional basis, the respondent did not shown any
interest to negotiate with the petitioner union
before the Conciliation Officer, on the other hand,
in order to undermine the effort collective
bargaining of the petitioner union, followed delay
tactics and attempted to form management, puppet
union, and simultaneously negotiated with the rival
union which had no majority strength of workers.
But, fortunately all the efforts of management
ended in vain. The petitioner union understood the
delay tactics of the respondent management insisted
failure report, then the respondent management by
written letter, dated 29-08-2011 offered a sum of
` 2,806 per month as a final amount of wage
increase inclusive of all wage component. Since, the
said wage increase offered by the respondent not
even equated with the wage increase given by the
other industries, namely, NCR Private Limited,
Godrej Consumer Products, the petitioner union did
not accepted it. Eventually, the conciliation was
ended in vain. The petitioner union members are
permanent workers of the respondent factory
working for more than 10 to 15 years continuous
length of service. Initially they were appointed at
` 10 basic pay per clay and gross monthly salary was
` 600 to 1,000, after 15 years length of continuous
service, and after several negotiation, wage
settlement now they are getting basic pay ` 1,000
to ` 1,800 per month for unskilled workers. At present
the respondent is following method in fixing the
basic wage of the W-1 category worker in entry
level is ` 15 per day, the same was restricted
maximum ceiling of ` 64 per day. In the last wage
settlement, dated 07-05-2007 entry level in W-1
category workman was given increase of ` 2 per day
in basic wage which comes in a month of 26
working days a sum of ` 442 No. of days 26 X
Basic pay ` 15 per day = ` 390) + (No. of days
26 X increase Basic Pay ` 2 per day = ` 52). The
remaining portion of wage has been paid by wage of
fixed DA up to 576 points ` 1,350 per month and
` 1,365 as allowance which includes HRA,
conveyance allowance, canteen, nightshift, education
allowance, medical allowances, performance allowance,
attendance allowances. In totaling basic plus other
allowance for he workers in Grade W-1 has paid
` 2,975 per month and worker Grade W-3 has been
paid ` 3,230 per month which could not even meet
the requirement of statutory minimum wages fixed
to the industries in Puducherry Union Territory.
The major portion of the meager wage of the
workers has been paid by way of allowances,
particularly by way of production, incentive linked
with the production which might vary individual to
individual, efficiency, diligent, some time season to
season and also it vary with variation in the rate of
supply of raw material or with the Assistance
obtainable from machinery or vary by nature
interference. The abovesaid variation normally do
not even ensure the minimum wage to the individual
workers, the petitioner union members are poor
workers, though they have been employed in
multinational company, they have been paid very
meager wage. In comparing other Indian companies
who engaged in manufacturing of consumer
products like Godrej consumer. The petitioner
union member are paid very meager wage, which is
not even sufficient to maintain their substance, the
workers of the respondent had not even owned
house even after putting 15 years of length of
service in the respondent management. The workers
have been exploited by the respondent by paying
very meager wage. Comparing the workers
condition of the respondent factory, with the other
companies in the Puducherry factory, the workers
condition is very pathetic and they have not paid
wage to meet the present cost of living. Even a very
small amount offered by the respondent as wage
increase, they had not added the same in the basic
pay and they have been paying it as allowance.
Though the petitioner union workers rendered 15 years
of service in comparing their basic pay with workers
of the other companies in the Pondicherry region
it reflects vast difference, the workers has been paid
very low basic pay. Since the basic wage is taken to
calculation for determining the statutory benefits
the respondent deliberated, intentionally following
one or other method has not increased the basic pay
of the workers. The other multinational companies
in India paying better wage and other allowances to
647
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
then-workers, the respondent had not come forward
to pay the wage on par with the Indian companies
which is running the business in the very some
Puducherry Union Territory and present formula
followed by the respondent in revising the wage is
unacceptable. About 99% of the workforce are
married and have children and also parents to
support. Therefore, for a family of four, to support
itself in Puducherry is preset cost of living the
following would be the
cost. Rent:
` 5,000,
Provision: ` 4,500, Milk ` 750, Education: ` 4,000,
Vegetab les: ` 2 ,0 0 0 , C o o king gas: ` 400,
Electricity: ` 700, Transport ` 2,000, Medical Expenses
` 5,000, Cloth: ` 800, Festival expenses: ` 2,500,
Entertainment expenses: ` 1,500, Social activities:
` 2,500, Total: ` 31,650. In order to equate the
said cost, the wage has to he increased under all
heads so as to commensurate the present cost of
living. In Godrej Consumer Products Limited,
Puducherry the workers are being paid gross salary
of ` 32,471.58 considering the present cost of
living and need of the workers. In comparing the
said industry the respondent having sound financial
position, paying capacity and it can accommodate
the demand of the worker to lead their decent life
in the present cost of living. The standard that
should guide the quantum of wage revision and
facilities are Industry-cum-region basis, financial
capacity of the employer and the following standard
also to be considered which are under the needs of
the workman and his dependents, the wage level of
the Supervisory, Executive and Managerial staff and
upwards, the overall expenditure pattern of the
respondent management on various counts, the part
history of how the workmen were exploited and
having to survive with exploited wages. The respondent
company’s yardstick for paying wages to the
production workforce is exploitative. The salary
structure of the chairman, Vice-Chairman, Executive
Company Staff, will show the paying capacity of the
respondent, and it justify the demand of the workers
who are engaged in direct production activity.
Before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), the
respondent management by his letter, dated 29-08-2009
agreed to increase wage to a sum of ` 2,806 per
month, which inclusive all wage component as
initial payout. After the expiry of last wage
settlement on 06-05-2011 for the past one year, the
petitioner union members are suffering untold
hardship without wage increase. Since, the
respondent themselves agreed to increase the said
amount as initial payout in existing wage, the said
amount announced by the respondent may be
provided as interim relief of wage increase, pending
disposal of this dispute and no prejudice will cause
to the respondent or anyone. The petitioner has
strong case to succeed in their demand wage
increase and in any event the respondent cannot
dispute their paying capacity in paying the admitted
increase of wage before Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Since, the respondent himself agreed to pay the said
amount as initial payout in the existing wage, it can
be awarded as interim relief. Therefore, the
petitioner prayed this Court to pass an Award
revising the wages in terms of the charter of
demands, dated 10-02-2011 with retrospective
effect from 07-05-2011.
3. The brief averments of the counter in I.D(T).
No. 04/2012 filed by the respondent is as follows:
The respondent denied all the averments
contained in the claim petition except those that are
specifically admitted and stated that on 04-03-2013
it entered into a Long-term settlement for a period
of 4 years with the National Employee Trade union
(NETU) under section 18 (1) of Industrial Disputes
Act, wherein, all issues relating to increment of
wages and all other incidental privileges have been
mutually agreed upon between respondent and the
said union. The respondent widely circulated 18(1)
settlement,
dated 04-03-2013 amongst all its
workers by placing said settlement in the notice-board.
Respondent took all the pain and efforts to
explain the benefits under 18(1) settlement, dated
04-03-2013 to each of the workers who had
approached it with details. Each of the worker was
given full freedom to accept or to avoid the 18(1)
settlement. Slowly but, steadily, the workers started
realizing the benefits of 18(1) settlement and they
started giving individual acceptance to 18(1)
settlement, irrespective of their union affiliation.
Respondent extended benefits of 18(1) settlement
to all those workers who had given written letters
to it accepting the said settlement. There was
absolutely no force, inducements, threat, coercion
or enticement to any workers to accept the
settlement. The workers had voluntarily come
forward to accept the settlement and enjoy its
benefits. On this date 110 workers out of 124
workers have given written consent accepting and
ratifying the terms and conditions of 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013. The 110 workers had
relinquished right to contest the present ID and
have agreed to individually withdraw their claim.
Based on such individual request, the terms of
648
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
settlement, dated 04-03-2013 was extended to
every signatory and all the benefits under the said
settlement are given to them. All the members and
office bearers of the other union namely, Hindustan
Unilever Tea Employees Union (HULTEA) has also
accepted 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013. The
18(1) settlement shall be extended only on the date
of its acceptance, on specific demands from
individual workers for ex gratia for the differential
period between the date of 18(1) settlement and
date of acceptance, respondent agreed for the same
and respondent paid ex gratia amount of ` 84,950 to
each of the individual workers accepting terms of
settlement subject to the deduction made for their
absence. All the amount are credited to the accounts
of individual works and they have also utilized those
benefits. Respondent has also paid revised wages as
per the new settlement, dated 04-03-2013 with
effect from 01-04-2013, 89% of the entire work
force in respondent’s factory have accepted and
ratified the 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Only the few disgruntled office bearers of the
petitioner and their loyalists, who are numbering
few have refused to accept the 18(1) settlement and
are continuing to litigate the matter. Once a wage
structure is accepted by a majority of workers in
a factory and such wage structure is successfully
implemented for more than 2 years 9 months and
benefits have been given to majority of workers
based on such wage structure, there cannot be
a different wage fixation for a miniscule minority
workers as what is good and applicable to majority
is also good and applicable to minority workers.
The petitioner who represents only a miniscule of
workers cannot insist on a separate wage structure
on the basis of the Charter of demand, dated
10-02-2011. The increments under the 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013 on wage is closely
linked to two important components which are
(a) Performance Linked Incentive Scheme [PLIS]
annexed as Annexure-K in the said settlement, and
(b) increased machine speed and manning as given
in Annexure-K of the said settlement. As per the
new 18(1) settlement, there is an average increase
of 11% in productivity than what was agreed under
previous settlement, dated 07-05-2007. This increase
in productivity is strictly within the statutory period
of 8 hours of work and any extra work is being
suitably compensated by way of OT as per statutory
provisions. The workers could achieve increase in
productivity because of (a) their zeal to earn more,
(b) introduction of latest state of art operating
technology, (c) improving the quality and efficiency
of machines, (d) the excellent maintenance of
machines, (e) improvement in blending
and
processing techniques and packing patterns,
(g) effective management of time and manpower,
(h) reduction in wastages, (i) Raw material,
packing material and (j) start up and shut down
time. The workers who have signed 18(1) settlement
are achieving approximately 11% more production
within the statutory time of 8 hours of work and
without any additional discomforts and are thus
earning handsomely. The average gross salary of
workers who have singed the new 18(1)
settlement is to the tune of ` 17,049 excluding
retrials. However, the workers who have not signed
said 18(1) settlement continue to give production
as per old settlement, dated 07-05-2007 and draw
wages according to the said old settlement.
The petitioner union which is fighting for wage
increase is not advising its workers to earn such
increase by producing more within the statutory
period. The workers who have not, signed the new
settlement are able to reach the maximum level of
productivity as per 12(3) settlement, dated
12-05-2007 within 5 to 6 hours of their employment
and once they reach such maximum level, they
withdraw from the machines and spend the
remaining time idling in the factory. The respondent
has specific data in the form of log book which
shows the exact amount of time each worker spends
on the machine. Inspite of being capable of
producing more than what was agreed under previous
settlement, dated 07-05-2007 due to various
factors, petitioner is instigating the workers to
deliberately refuse increase production and is
demanding wage revision without any value
addition to respondent. Such negative mindset of
petitioner union is the primary reason for failure
of all negotiations regarding wage revision. The
petitioner is not willing to accept PLIS but, is only
demanding wage increment which is neither legal
nor moral. The said settlement is open to petitioner
union who are hardly 14 workers even as on this
date and if, they are willing to sign the same with
all
the
benefits,
privileges,
liabilities
and
responsibilities attached to the said settlement, the
respondent is willing to extend the said settlement
with immediate effect. Since, the issue of wage
revision is fully and finally settled and majority of
the individual workers have accepted the terms of
settlement, dated 04-03-2013, the present dispute
has become infructuous and hence, the same is liable
649
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
to be dismissed. Petitioner has not justified with
any semblance of evidence as to how they are
eligible for wage revision. Minimum wages for
respondent’s industry or any tea blending and
manufacturing industry is not fixed by Government
of Puducherry. As on 10-02-2011 when the charter
of demand for wage revision was submitted by
petitioner union, the minimum floor level wages
in Puducherry was ` 115 per day. But, the minimum
gross wages drawn by workers in lowest grade in
May, 2011 was more than ` 10,000 which was
substantially higher than minimum floor level wages
on that date. The petitioners are bound to prove
their case regarding entitlement of wage revision
and cannot demand it as a matter of right without
proving their eligibility to such wage revision. None
of the industries that are being quoted by petitioner
manufactures, the product that is produced by the
respondent. The fundamental principle of wage
revision is industry-cum-region basis, where the
wage structure prevailing in the similar industries
in the region is taken as a bench mark for deciding
the wage revision issue. Hence, the very comparison
of wages settlement of such industries to respondent
company is incorrect. The petitioner is not comparing
wage details of other manufacturing giants in
Puducherry like Asian Paints, MRF Ltd., Whirlpool
India Limited, TVS Lucas, Sundaram Fasteners, TTK
Limited, etc., which are also located in Puducherry.
Before fixing wages, this Court will have to be
appraised of the existing wage patterns in all these
industries in Puducherry which can give a broader
indication of wages paid by these similar sized
industries. The respondent unit was established
during November 1997. Employees were recruited
and confirmed in service post completing their
training period around 1999. After post confirmation,
they were given standard wages, for Assistant
Operators - the basic started with ` 15 per day and
for Operators, the basic started with ` 25 per day.
In addition to this, FDA and VDA are part of their
PF wages. The average basic of Assistant Operator
unskilled worker as mentioned by petitioner union
as on August 2012 is ` 2,036. In addition to this,
they are paid ` 2,114 as FDA and ` 1,675 as VDA
and hence, the total PF wages paid is around
` 6,815. During 2007 LTS, the Pay Scale slab of Wl
was increased to ` 97. The per day increment was
increased from ` 2 to ` 5.50. During 2007 LTS the
Pay Scale for W1 was increased from ` 64 to ` 97
per day. Similarly for W3 the Pay Scale was increased
from ` 95 to ` 143 per clay. The respondent is
paying FDA for 588 points and not 576 points which
is ` 2,114 per month. In addition to this VDA is
paid for points above 588 at the rate of ` 5 per
point. Currently VDA is ` 3,040 per month. The total
allowances for Wl worker is ` 2,975 per month and
for W3 worker it is ` 3,175 per month. The average
incentive earned across all grade is around ` 2,889
per month. Hence, per month the total gross wages
for WL1 worker is around ` 12,679 and for W3
worker is around ` 13,965. Out of which PF wages
amounts to ` 6,815 per month for Wl and ` 7,901
per month for W3 which is well above the minimum
wages fixed to the Industries in Puducherry.
The respondent is paying fair wages to its workmen
and also providing them reasonable service
conditions, which is far better and superior than that
is prevalent in similar industries in the region.
As many as three long-term settlement including
the present LTS were signed between respondent and
its workers including the petitioner. Even in the
present 18(1) settlement, dated 4th March 2013
wages and allowances paid to the workmen of the
respondent factory is fair and reasonable and
compared favourably with those obtaining in similar
other establishments in the region. Any wage
revision cannot be viewed in isolation, ignoring the
increase in productivity, especially when the
respondent continues to carry out rationalization,
modernization and standardization of its plants and
machineries for increasing its products. Hence, the
Tribunal
should
consider
improvement
in
productivity and take into consideration the wages
prevailing in establishments which are engaged in
the manufacture of tea or other beverages of similar
size as that of respondent before any relief by way
of increase in wages could be considered. The claim
statement is devoid of merits, hicks bona fides and
is liable to be dismissed.
4. The brief averments of the claim statement in
I.D.(T). No. 07/2014 filed by the petitioner is as
follows:
The 1st petitioner is a registered trade union,
registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and its
Registration No. l483/RTU/2007. The members of
the 1st petitioner union are permanent workers
working in the respondent factory. The 1st
petitioner having 96 members out of 121 total
permanent workers. As such the 1st petitioner is a
majority trade union representing majority permanent
workers of the respondent factory. Till 2013 there
were only two trade union namely HLL Tea Workers
650
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
welfare union and Hindustan Unilever Tea Unit
employees union which represent the cause of
entire workers of the respondent factory. The service
condition of the workers and their wage are
determined, revised time to time based on the
long-term wage settlement signed between the
respondent management and the workers’ representative
i.e., Majority trade union. As such, the 1st petitioner
being majority trade union in the past addressed the
grievance of the workers negotiated the revision of
wages and other service condition of the workers
with the respondent management signed a just and
fair long-term settlement.
The last long-term
settlement, dated 07-05-2007 for four years period
was signed between the 1st petitioner and the
respondent management in the presence of Labour
Officer (Conciliation) under section 12(3) of the
Industrial Dispute Act. This settlement was come to
expire in the month of May, 2011. In the said
settlement itself, the 1st petitioner and respondent
had agreed to extent the said settlement till the new
settlement signed between the parties to the said
settlement. Accordingly, the said 12(3) settlement
is still in force binding all the parties to the
settlement as well as other workers, other minority
trade union. The 1st petitioner, on expiry of 4
years duration as agreed in the said 12(3)
settlement, dated 07-05-2007 submitted a fresh
charter of demand for revision of wage and other
allowances of the workers working in the
respondent factory. The respondent did not consider
the demand of the 1st petitioner. Hence, the 1st
petitioner raised the said issue of revision of wage
as an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation). While pending the said Industrial
dispute the respondent with help of eight workers
formed a management puppet union in the name and
style of National Employees Trade Union and got
registered the same and thereafter, the respondent
themselves drafted the terms and conditions of
long-term settlement and got signed with the management
newly formed trade union which had only eight
members. After signing such a 18(1) settlement with
a National Employees Trade Union the respondent
threatened all the individual workers and used all
sort of unfair labour practice against them to adopt
and accept the terms and conditions of the said
18(1) settlement. Further, the persons who had
signed 18(1) settlement were given wage increase
and all other benefits. On the other hand the workers
who had not signed or adopted the terms of said
18(1) settlement were denied wage increase and
they were discriminated from the workers who
signed 18(1) settlement. In this regard the
petitioner union preferred a complaint before the
Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer advised
the respondent not to show any discrimination
among the workers in payment of wage and follow
the terms of 12(3) - settlement till the wage dispute
pending before the Industrial Tribunal is resolved
between the parties and further advised the
respondent management not to obtain any signature
in the 18(1) settlement or obtain any Bond from the
workers against the interest of petitioner union
workers. The respondent did not pay any heed on the
advice of the Conciliation Officer and they continued
their illegal activity and obtained a Bond, signature
from the individual workers to adopt the said 18(1)
settlement against them. The respondent formed the
management puppet union in order to undermine the
petitioner union activities and their collective
bargaining power. The settlement signed with NETU
trade union without any negotiation or discussion
with the majority workers or their representative is
illegal, unfair and it is against the interest of the
larger working class of the respondent factory. The
said settlement deprives the workers right which
already accrued under the 12(3) settlement. The wage
structure fixed in the 18(1) settlement is very
meager in compare to the other industries in that
region. The wage increase was given unilaterally
without consultation or negotiation with the
individual works or their representative. The wage
increase offered by the respondent in the said 18(1)
settlement is not sufficient to the workers to meet
the present escalated cost of living. The said 18(1)
settlement is unfair and illegal and it will not bind
the petitioner union workers and therefore, prayed
this Court to pass an Award holding that 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013 signed between the
respondent and NETU trade union while pending the
industrial dispute I.D. No. 4 of 2012 is unfair,
illegal and it will not bind the petitioners unions’
members, the act of the management showing
disparity in wages and incentive among the workers
who have signed and not signed 18(1) settlement and
obtained an individual Bond are illegal and against
the terms of Equal Remuneration Act and against
industrial principles of equal work equal pay, the
petitioner union workers are entitled equal wages
and incentive on par with the other workers and the
service condition of the workers agreed in the
12(3) settlement, dated 07-05-2007 shall be
extended, adhered by both parties to the said
651
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
settlement till the wage dispute I.D. No. 4 of 2012
pending before this Tribunal is resolved and the
respondent committed unfair labour practice under
Schedule V part I clause l(c), 2 (a), 2 (b), 3, 13 of
the Industrial Dispute Act.
5. The brief averments of the counter in I.D(T). No.
07/2014 filed by the respondent is as follows:
The respondent denied all the averments
contained in the claim petition except those that are
specifically admitted and stated that disputes
referred by the Government of Puducherry,
especially the 1st and 4th references regarding
justification of 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013
and unfair labour practice is beyond the jurisdiction
of this Tribunal. Neither the validity or justification
of 18(1) settlement nor the issue of unfair labour
practice are enumerated under Third Schedule and
therefore, they cannot be a subject matter of dispute
that could be adjudicated by Industrial Tribunal under
section 7 (A), read with Third Schedule of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Claim of unfair labour
practice, the Industrial Disputes Act provides a
special and specific procedure under section 25(T)
and 25(U) of Chapter 5(C) of the Industrial Dispute
Tribunal. It is purely a matter of determination by
the Executive Officers of the Labour Department and
the Labour Department can only initiate criminal
prosecution under section 34 of the ID Act.
Petitioners have not chosen to implead the other
signatory of the 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013
namely National Employees Trade union even
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation). Petitioners
have no locus standi and privity to challenge 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013 as they are not
parties to the said settlement, therefore, they cannot
question its validity, genuineness or justification of
said settlement on any grounds before any Forum.
Records clearly reveal that the 1st petitioner union
represents only a minuscule of workmen. There is
no legal impediment in signing 18(1) settlement
with another consenting trade union during
pendency of present dispute. section 18(2) of the
I.D. Act makes it clear that an agreement under
18(1) is enforceable through Court of law.
Therefore, respondent was well within our legal
rights to enter into an 18(1) settlement with a
registered union and the same cannot become
unjust, unfair or unreasonable by any means. All the
members and office bearers of the 2nd petitioner
have accepted the 18(1) settlement. Only a hand full
of 14 workers, who are the office bearers of the
1st petitioner union are adamant and have not
accepted the said settlement. There was absolutely
no force, inducements, threat, coercion or enticement
to workers signing individual consent, letter
accepting 18(1) settlement. The individual workers
in their individual wisdom have understood the
benefits that flow from 18(1) settlement, dated
04-03-2013 and have volunteered to claim the
benefits of the said settlement out of their own will
and volition and they have received all the
monetary benefits under the said settlement. They
continue to receive the benefits, and perform the
corresponding obligation under 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013 even after expiry of two years
from the date when the said settlement was signed.
None of the workers accepting 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013 and receiving the benefits there
under have lodged any protest or objections with
respect to extension of the said settlement to them
or regarding change in service conditions. Even the
office bearers of 2nd petitioners union namely,
R. Anandhu, President, A. Vengadesan, Secretary
and V. Ruthramurthy, Teasurer have also given
individual consent letters for extension of the
benefits of 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2012 and
they too continue receive full benefits under the
said settlement. The 18(1) settlement is binding on
the unsigned members of the petitioner unions
because the same is accepted by overwhelming
majority of 89% of the workers including the office
bearers of the 2nd petitioner and only a miniscule
of 14 out of 121 workers are objecting to the same.
The disparity in wages between the workers who
have not accepted 18(1) settlement and those who
have accepted is only by virtue of application of
specific terms and conditions of 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013 and not otherwise. When the said
settlement is not binding on the petitioners, even
the benefits flowing out of such settlement will not
be payable to them. The 18(1) settlement, dated
04-03-2013 has brought in change in service
conditions of the signatories and they earn more
because they produce more either collectively or
individually. Those who have not signed the 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013 are not obliged by
the production and productivity parameters agreed
under 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013 and their
service conditions are continued to be regulated by
the earlier settlement, dated 07-05-2007. The petitioners
demand for equal pay on par with those who have
signed the 18(1) settlement, dated 04-08-2013
without a corresponding obligations of equality in
652
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
service condition as per 18(1) settlement, dated
04-03-2013 would be unfair, unjust and against the
ethos of industrial jurisprudence and Indian
Constitution. There is absolutely no unfair labour
practice by the respondent. The petitioners have no
locus to seek a declaration on unfair labour practice.
None of the provisions enlisted by petitioners are
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case. The claim petition filed by petitioners is
devoid of merits, lacks bona fides and is liable to be
dismissed.
6. As per order in I.A. No. 162/2014 the enquiry
was conducted jointly in I.D. (T). No. 04/2012 along
with other I.D. (T). No. 07/2014 and in the course of
enquiry, on the side of the petitioner PW.1 was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P53 were marked and on
the side of the respondent management RW.1 was
examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R20 were marked.
7. The point for consideration is:
I.D(T). No. 4/2012 :
Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union in I.D(T). No. 4/2012 against the
respondent management over charter of demands
such as wage revision, annual increment, HRA,
educational allowance, HBA and other allowances,
etc., is justified or not and if, justified what is the
relief entitled to the petitioner union?.
I.D(T). No. 7/2014:
Whether the industrial dispute raised by 1st and
2nd petitioner unions against the respondent
management over the 18(1) settlement arrived at
between the management and another union on
04-03-2013 during the pendency of the industrial
dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
and the claim of the union workmen for equal wages
and incentive on par with the other workmen and to
extend the benefits of 12(3) settlement, dated
07-05-2007 till a new wage settlement is entered
are justified or not and whether there is disparity
in wages and incentives among the workmen who
have signed and not signed the 18(1) settlement and
individual Bond and whether there was any unfair
labour practice adopted by the management among
the union workmen under section 25(T) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not.
8. Both sides are heard. The pleadings of the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the
exhibits marked on by either side are carefully
considered. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
argued that, the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner is reasonable and the petitioners are entitled
for wage revision and other attendance benefits as
claimed by them and also entitled for equal wages and
incentives on par with the other workmen and to
extend the benefits of 12(3) settlement, dated 07-05-2007
and the Tribunal has to justify the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioners for charter of demand and for
equal wages as claimed in the claim petitions. On other
hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent argued
that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as
claimed by them and the industrial dispute raised by
the petitioners are unjustified and the petitioners are
not entitled for any benefits as claimed in the charter
of demand. On the side of the respondent written
argument was filed and the same was carefully
considered. In support of his case the learned Counsel
for the respondent relied upon the Judgments reported
in CDJ 1976 SC 099, CDJ 2005 Kar HC 403, CDJ
2005 SC 843, CDJ 2005 BHC 334, CDJ 2001 BHC
326, CDJ 1981 SC 130, CDJ 2002 BHC 1320, CDJ
2011 MHC 1435, CDJ 1996 SC 240, CDJ 1978 SC
028, CDJ 2011 BHC 611, CDJ 2004 BHC 2013, AIR
1978 SC 982, CDJ 1993 MHC 276, CDJ 1997 BHC
017, 1969 (1) LLJ 61 Kerala.
9. It is the case of the petitioner in I.D(T). No.
4/2012 that the members of the petitioner union are
working at the respondent establishment and that there
was a settlement between the management and the
workers from time to time and that the petitioner
union is the majority union recognized by the
respondent management, entered into last wage
settlement, dated 07-05-2007 for 4 years period and
the same was expired on 06-05-2011 and therefore, the
petitioner union has sent a letter of demand to the
respondent management on 11-02-2011 and demanded
for wage revision which was not considered by the
respondent management with an intention to threaten
the workers, and suppress the demand of the workers
posed a counter demand to increase the machine speed
from 29 units to 39 units with the existing workforce,
and also demanded the workers to accept the proposed
erection of auto machine which was likely to lead
retrenchment of existing workers for which the
petitioner
union
objected
and
the
respondent
management has not offered wage increase and hence,
no amicable settlement was arrived in the negotiation
talk and that therefore, the industrial dispute was raised
by the petitioner union on 15-06-2011 before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry for wage
revision and other allowances, for the period covering
from 07.05.2011 and when the said industrial dispute
653
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
was pending before the Conciliation Officer, some
other companies have entered their wage settlement
with the trade union and the wage was revised to their
workers average of more than ` 6,000 per month and
even though the same was produced before the
respondent management to increase the wage at least
on par with the abovesaid Indian companies on
Industry-cum-regional
basis
the
respondent
management did not shown any interest to negotiate
with the petitioner union before the Conciliation
Officer and subsequently, the management has
negotiated with the rival union which had no majority
strength of workers and offered a sum of ` 2,806 per
month as a final amount of wage increase inclusive of
all wage component which is not even equated with the
wage increase given by the other industries and the
petitioner union did not accepted it.
10. It is the further case of the petitioner union that
petitioner union members are in service for more than
10 to 15 years continuous length of service and their
gross monthly salary was ` 600 to 1,000 and even
after 15 years length of continuous service and after
several negotiation their salary was raised to
` 1,000
to ` 1800 per month for unskilled workers and that in
the last wage settlement entered on 07-05-2007 entry
level in W-1 category workmen were given increase
of ` 2 per day in basic wage and that therefore, they
have been paid only ` 2,975 per month and Grade W-3
workers have been paid ` 3,230 per month which
could not even meet the requirement of statutory
minimum wages fixed to the industries in Puducherry
Union Territory and the major portion of the meager
wage of the workers have been paid by way of
allowances, particularly by way of production
incentive in comparing other Indian companies who
engaged in manufacturing of consumer products and,
the petitioner union member are paid very meager
wage, which is not even sufficient to maintain their
substance and the workers of the respondent
establishment cannot even owned house even after
putting 15 years of length of service in the respondent
management.
11. It is the further case of the petitioner union that
the respondent management has exploited the workers
by paying very meager wage and that though the
petitioner union workers rendered 15 years of service
in the respondent establishment the workers have been
paid very low basic pay since the basic wage is taken
to calculation for determining the statutory benefits
and other companies are paying better wage and other
allowances to their workers and the respondent
management had not come forward to pay the wage on
par with the other companies which is running the
business in the very same Puducherry Union Territory
and that therefore, the present formula followed by
the respondent in revising the wage is unacceptable and
as per the cost of living the workers are required
` 31,650 to run their family and that therefore, the
wages has to be increased under all heads so as to
commensurate the present cost of living and the
company in the name of Godrej Consumer Products
Limited, Puducherry is paying the salary of ` 32,471.58
to
their
workers
and
though
the
respondent
management is having sound financial position and,
paying capacity the demand of the worker can be given
and wage can be revised and that the respondent
management has agreed to increase wage to a sum of
` 2,806 per month, which inclusive all wage component
and therefore, prayed this Court to pass an Award
revising the wages in terms of the charter of demands,
dated 10-02-2011 with retrospective effect from
07-05-2011.
12. Further, the petitioner union along with 2nd
petitioner union in I.D(T). No. 07/2014 has raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer over
the 18(1) settlement which was entered on 04-03-2018
with another union by the respondent management
during the pendency of the industrial dispute for wage
revision wherein, the conciliation was failed and the
reierence has been sent to this Tribunal to decide the
said dispute and the 1st petitioner union has filed the
claim statement praying to declare that the 18(1)
settlement arrived at, between the respondent
management and National Employees Trade Union
(NETU) on 04-03-2013 while pending dispute in
I.D.(T). No. 04/2012 is unfair and illegal and it would
not bind the petitioner union members and to declare
that there was some disparity in wages and incentives
among the'workers who have singed and not signed the
settlement and obtained an individual Bond are illegal
and against the terms of Equal Remuneration Act and
against industrial principles of equal work equal pay
and to declare that members of the petitioner union are
entitled for equal wages and incentive on par with the
other workers and the service condition of the workers
agreed in the 12(3) settlement, dated 07-05-2007 and
to declare that the respondent management has
committed unfair labour practice under schedule V part I
clause 1(c), 2 (a), 2 (b), 3, 13 of the Industrial Dispute
Ac t s t a ti n g t h a t t h e 1 s t p e t i t i o n e r u n i o n i s
a registered trade union having 96 members out of 121
total permanent workers and it is a majority trade
654
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
union representing majority permanent workers of the
respondent factory and that till 2013 there were only
two trade unions namely, HLL Tea Workers Welfare
Union and Hindustan Unilever Tea Unit Employees
Union which represent the cause of entire workers of
the respondent factory and that the service condition
of the workers and their wage are determined, revised
time to time based on the long-term wage settlement
signed between the respondent management and the
workers' representative of the majority trade union and
that the last long-term settlement arrived at between
them on 07-05-2007 for four years period before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) under section 12(3) of the
Industrial Dispute Act which came to expire in the month
of May, 2011 and that the 1st petitioner union and the
respondent management had agreed to extend the said
settlement till the new settlement, arrived between
them.
13. It is further stated by the petitioner union that
after the expiry of 4 years duration as agreed in the
said 12(3) settlement the union has submitted a fresh
charter of demand for revision of wage and other
allowances of the workers working in the respondent
factory and that the respondent did not consider the
demand of the 1st petitioner union and that therefore,
the union has raised the industrial dispute before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) regarding revision of
wages and while so with the help of eight workers the
respondent has formed a management puppet union in
the name and style of National Employees Trade Union
and got registered the same and thereafter, the
respondent themselves entered the settlement between
them under section 18(1) settlement of the Act and
threatened all the individual workers by using all sort
of unfair labour practice against them to adopt and
accept the terms and conditions of the said 18(1)
settlement and that the workers who had not signed or
adopted the terms of said 18(1) settlement were
denied wage increase and they were discriminated from
the workers who signed 18(1) settlement and that
therefore, a complaint was preferred before the
Conciliation Officer who has advised the respondent
that to avoid discrimination among the workers in
payment of wage and follow the terms of 12(3)
settlement till the wage dispute pending before the
Industrial Tribunal is resolved between the parties and
further advised the respondent management not to
obtain any signature in the 18(1) settlement or obtain
any Bond from the workers against the interest of
petitioner union workers and that the respondent did
not pay any heed on the advice of the Conciliation
Officer and that the respondent management has
formed the management puppet union in order to
undermine the petitioner union activities and their
collective bargaining power and that the settlement
arrived at between the NETU trade union with the
management without any negotiation or discussion
with the majority workers or their representative is
illegal unfair and against the interest of the larger
working class of the respondent factory and that the
wage structure fixed in the 18(1) settlement is very
meager in compare to the other industries in that
region and that the wage increase was given unilaterally
without consultation or negotiation with the individual
workers or their representative and the wage increase
offered by the respondent under 18(1) settlement is
not sufficient to the workers to meet the present
escalated cost of living and hence, the settlement
under section 18(1) is illegal and it will not bind the
petitioner union workers.
14. To establish the case of the petitioner unions
in joint trial PW.l was examined and he has stated that
the averment made in the claim statement in this case
as part and parcel of the evidence and in support of
their case the petitioner unions has exhibited Ex.P1 to
Ex.P53. Ex.P1 is the copy of petitioner's union
Registration Certificate. Ex.P2 is the copy of petitioner’s
union members list. Ex.P3 is the copy of charter of
demand submitted by the petitioner union on
10-02-2011 and its covering letter. Ex.P4 is the copy
of respondent letter for receipt of the petitioner
charter of demand. Ex.P5 is the copy of claim
statement filed by the petitioner’s union before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) over the dispute of charter
of demand of wage revision and other allowances.
Ex.P6 is the copy of Conciliation Officer. notice
over the dispute of charter of demand raised by the
petitioner union. Ex.P7 is the copy of respondent
reply to the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P8 is the copy of
respondent reply to the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P9
is the copy of petitioner’s union memo filed by the
Conciliation Officer. Ex.P10 is the copy of petitioner’s
union complaint to Commissioner of Labour. Ex.P11
is the copy of petitioner’s union complaint to Labour
Officer (Conciliation). Ex.P12 is the copy of petitioner’s
union complaint to respondent management. Ex.P13 is
the copy of respondent’s letter to the Conciliation
Officer. Ex.P14 is the copy of petitioner union letter
to the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P15 is the copy of
failure report issued by the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P16 is the copy of petitioner’s union letter to
the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P17 is the copy of
655
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Government notification. Ex.P18 is the copy of Court
notice in ID. No. 4 of 2012. Ex.P19 is the copy of
financial performance (10 years record performance).
Ex.P20 is the copy of wage settlement arrived between
NCR Corporation India Limited (Vs.) and its workman.
Ex.P21 is the copy of revised pay structure of the
employees of NCR for October, 2011. Ex.P22 is the
copy of Pay Slip of the employees of the respondent
namely, V. Sivasakthi. Ex.P23 is the copy of pay slip
of the employees of the respondent namely, V. Ayyanar.
Ex.P24 is the copy of wage settlement entered between
the MRF Limited, Puducherry and its workman during
2011-2015. Ex.P25 is the copy of wage settlement
entered between the Godrej Consumer Products,
Puducherry and its workman during 2010-2012.
Ex.P26 is the copy of pay structure of employees of
Godrej. Ex.P27 is the copy of wage settlement
LUCKAS TVS, Puducherry, Ex.P28 is the copy of
petitioner union raised an industrial dispute ID. No.
819 of 2013. Ex.P29 is the copy of petitioner union
raised an industrial dispute ID. No. 1706 of 2013
before Labour Officer (Conciliation). Ex.P30 is the copy
of conciliation notice - ID. No. 819 of 2013. Ex.P31
is the copy of petitioner union letter to the
Conciliation Officer, Ex.P32 is the copy of petitioner
union letter to the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P33 is the
copy of conciliation notice - ID. No. 1706 of 2013.
Ex.P34 is the copy of petitioner union letter to the
Conciliation Officer. Ex.P35 is the copy of petitioner
union letter to the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P36 is the
copy of petitioner union letter to the Factory
Manager. Ex.P37 is the copy of petitioner union letter,
to the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P38 is the copy of
petitioner union letter to the Chief Inspector of
Factories. Ex.P39 is the copy of the petitioner union
letter to the Commissioner, Labour Department.
Ex.B40 is the copy of show cause notice to the
E. Devarasu. Ex.P41 is the copy of Devarasu letter to
the respondent, Conciliation Officer. Ex.P42 is the
copy of S. Murugan letter to the Commissioner of
Labour. Ex.P43 is the copy of V. Venketesan letter to
the Commissioner of Labour. Ex.P44 is the copy of
V. Venketesan Medical Certificate. Ex.P45 is the copy
of respondent management letter to V. Venketesan,
Token No. 29. Ex.P46 is the copy of K. Aathinarayanan
letter to the Commissioner of Labour. Ex.P47 is the
copy of show cause notice to the T.N. Rajendra Kumar.
Ex.P48 is the copy of T.N. Rajendra Kumar reply to
show cause notice, dated 05-11-2014. Ex.P49 is the
copy of show cause notice to the R. Sakthimurugan.
Ex.P50 is the copy of Sakthi Murugan reply to show
cause notice, dated 05-11-2014. Ex.P51 is the copy
of
conciliation
failure
report.
Ex.P52
is
the
Government reference. Ex.P53 is the copy of Court
notice in ID. No. 7 of 2014 raised by the petitioner
union.
15. On the other hand, on the side of the
respondent the Senior Executive HR of the respondent
company was examined as RW.1 who has been
authorized by the respondent management to give
evidence on behalf of the respondent Factory and he
has stated in his evidence that the respondent
management entered into a long-term settlement for
a period of 4 years with the National Employee Trade
Union (NETU) on 04-03-2013 under section 18 (1) of
Industrial Disputes Act in which all issues relating to
increment of wages and all other incidental privileges
have been mutually agreed upon between respondent
management and the members of the said union and the
said settlement was circulated amongst all its workers
by placing it in the notice-board and all the workers
have realized the benefits of 18(1) settlement and they
have given individual acceptance to 18(1) settlement,
irrespective of their union affiliation and they have
voluntarily come forward to accept the settlement and
they have enjoyed its benefits and all the members of
the union including the office bearers of the union
were offered their acceptance and obtaining the
benefits of the settlement and the benefits of the 18(1)
settlement was given to every individual who have
signed the settlement and all the members and office
bearers of Hindustan Unilever Tea Employees Union
have also accepted 18(1) settlement which was entered
on 04-03-2013 and benefits were extended to person
who have accepted the said settlement from the date
of their acceptance and the respondent management has
the paid ex gratia amount of ` 84,950 to each of the
individual workers, who have accepted the terms of
settlement and amount were credited to the accounts
of individual worker and they are receiving revised
wages as per 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013 with
effect from 01-04-2013 and that 89% of the entire
work force in respondent's factory have accepted and
ratified the 18(1) settlement and only the few
disgruntled office bearers of the petitioner and their
loyalists have refused to accept the 18(1) settlement
and are continuing to litigate the matter.
16. It is the further evidence of RW.1 that majority
have accepted the wage structure and the said of workers
in a factory settlement arrived at under section 18(1)
was implemented for more than 4 years and benefits
were given as per new settlement and as per the new
18(1) settlement, there is an average increase of 11%
656
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
in productivity than the earlier settlement and the
workers who have signed the settlement have achieved
approximately 11% more production within the
statutory time of 8 hours of work and the members of
the petitioner union gave their letters on 06-08-2013
and they have categorically refused to increase the
production in terms of settlement executed under
section 18(l) of the Act and that they have been fighting
for wage increase and petitioner union has instructed
the workers to deliberately refuse to increase the
production and the respondent management has already
offered ` 2,806 as an initial payment of wages and that
the 18(1) settlement was always open to the petitioner
union members who are hardly 14 members accepted
the same with all the benefits, privileges, liabilities and
responsibilities attached to the said settlement and
that the respondent was willing to extend the said
settlement and that therefore, the workers who have not,
accepted the 18(1) settlement are not given the
benefits of the said settlement because the said
settlement was expired and another wage settlement
was entered between the majority union and since the
earlier settlement was lapsed.
17. It is the further evidence of RW.l that the
petitioner has not justified with any semblance of
evidence as to how they are eligible for wage revision
and the wages being paid by the respondent is
substantially higher than the minimum floor level
wages and the petitioners are bound to prove their case
regarding entitlement of wage revision and cannot
demand it as a matter of right without proving their
eligibility to such wage revision and that the similar
companies are not giving the wage revision to the tune
of ` 6,000 and the said companies are manufacturing
the products that are not produced by the respondent
factory and hence, the wage revision where the wage
structure prevailing in the similar industries in the
region is taken as a bench mark for deciding the wage
revision issue and the other allegations of the
petitioner union are denied by him.
18. Further, RW.l has deposed with regard to the
industrial dispute in I.D(T). No.7/2014 that references
regarding justification of 18(1) settlement, dated
04-03-2013 and unfair labour practice is beyond the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the disputes
enumerated under Third Schedule alone can be
adjudicated by this Tribunal and that validity of
justification of 18(1) settlement are not enumerated
under Third Schedule and therefore, it cannot be a
subject matter of dispute that could be adjudicated by
the Tribunal under section 7(A), read with Third
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and that
Tribunal has no power to decide the claim under
section 25(T) and 25(U) of chapter 5(C) of the
Industrial Dispute Tribunal and it can direct only
remedial measures for such unfair labour practice
initiate criminal prosecution under section 34 of the
ID Act and that the petitioners has not added the union
who have signed the 18(1) settlement in the present
dispute and hence, it cannot be challenged without
adding them as a party to the proceedings and this
dispute is not maintainable for misjoinder of
necessary party since the petitioners have not
impleaded the signatory of the said settlement namely,
National Employees Trade Union and that the
petitioners have no privity to challenge 18(1)
settlement since they are not parties to the said
settlement and it cannot be questioned by any other
parties who are not signatory of the said settlement
and the Judicial forum have encouraged the settlement
of dispute between the parties even after passing of
Award with intention to permit and that 18(1)
settlement is fair and the petitioners cannot blame the
respondent management and the union and presently
there are 4 registered trade union in the factory and
the workers welfare union alone submitted a charter
of demands and another union Hindustan Unilever
Employees Tea Union employees did even submitted
their
charter
of
demand
and
the
respondent
management also have submitted their own charter of
demand
which
was
essential
on
productivity
improvement, balance and other issues and bilateral
negotiations were held between the respondent
management and Hindustan Unilever Employees Tea
union employees on various dates and the majority of
the workers of the respondent factory and the office
bearers of the Hindustan Unilever Employees Tea
Union and that there is no unfair labour practice
committed by the respondent management and 18(1)
settlement is not applicable to the petitioner since the
petitioner union are not doing production in terms of
the settlement as per own letters, dated 07-08-2013
and they are not entitled to claim the benefits flowing
out of such settlement and that therefore, prayed to
dismiss the claim petition.
19. In support of their evidence, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R20. Ex.R1 is
the letter of authorization of Mr.Karthik. Ex.R2 is the
copy of 18(1) settlement signed between the respondent
and National Employee Trade Union (NETU). Ex.R3 is
the copy of letter given by 110 workers accepting the
18(1) settlement, and assuring to withdraw the case
657
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
ID. Nos. 4/2012 and 25/2012. Ex.R4 is the copy of
tabular column showing, the details of revised salary
structure and ex gratia paid to individual workers post
signing of LTS declaration by individual workers in
terms of settlement. Ex.R5 is the copy of salary
receipts of 4 workers who have accepted the 18(1)
settlement as proof of ex gratia paid. Ex.R6 is the copy
of the letter given by the petitioner’s union informing
the management that they shall produce only as per
12(3) settlement, dated 07-05-2007. Ex.R7 is the
copy of letter given by the Hindustan Unilever Tea
Division Employees Union informing the management
that they shall produce only as per 12(3) settlement,
dated 07-05-2007. Ex.R8 is the copy of 18(1)
settlement signed between the respondent and three
union namely, National Employee Trade Union
(NETU), Hindustan Unilever Tea Unit Employees
Union, and Hindustan Unilever Tea Development Union.
Ex.R9 is the copy of the letters given by 92 workers
accepting the 18(1) settlement. Ex.R10 is the excel
sheet showing the machine speeds, its capacity and the
comparative statements of workers who signed the
12(3) settlement in the year 2007 and 18(1) settlement
in the year 2013. Ex.R11 is the copy of Pay Slip of
Mr. Veerabuthiran, (W-l) (Token No. 014) for the month
of January 2014 who has signed the 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013. Ex.R12 is the copy of Pay Slip of
Mr. Murugaperumal, (W-2) (Token No. 42) for the
month of January 2014 who has signed the 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013. Ex.R13 is the copy of
Pay Slip of Mr. Palani, (W-3)(Token No. 113) for the
month of January 2014 who has signed the 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013. Ex.R14 is the copy of
Pay Slip of Mr. C. Veloudham, (W-4)(Token No. 11)
for the month of January 2014 who has signed the
18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013. Ex.R15 is the
copy of Pay Slip of Mr. T.S. Karthikeyan, (W-l)(Token
No. 77) for the month of January 2014 who has signed
the 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013. Ex.R16 is
the copy of Pay Slip of Mr. R. Murugan, (W-2) (Token
No. 16) for the month of January 2014 who has
signed the 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R17 is the copy of Pay Slip of Mr. S. Murugan,
(W-3) (Token No. 07) for the month of January 2014
who has signed the 18(1)
settlement,
dated
04-03-2013. Ex.Rl8 is the copy ot Pay Slip of
Mr. Duraisamy, (W-4)(Token No.04) for the month of
January 2014 who has signed the 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013. Ex.Rl9 is the copy of details of
rationalization and modernization done from 2009 to
2013. Ex.R20 is the copy of the details of cushions
given; in calculating OEE.
20. Discussion on I.D(T). No. 4/2012:
From the pleadings and evidence of both the
parties and the exhibits marked on either sides it is
clear that following facts are admitted by either side
that the members of the petitioner union are the
workers of the respondent, establishment and
already they have entered 12(3) wage settlement on
07-05-2007 for 4 years period and thereafter, the
petitioner union has sent a letter demanding the
respondent management for wage revision and
negotiations were done between them and the
matter has not been amicably settled and that
therefore, the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
over charter of demands and on failure of
conciliation the reference has been sent to this
Court by the Government. It is also an admitted fact
that while the industrial dispute is pending before
this Tribunal the respondent management has entered
another settlement under section 18(1) of the Act
on 04-03-2013 with another union and so far the
petitioner union has not accepted the said 18(1)
settlement and the petitioner union along with
another union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer challenging the
said 18(1) settlement executed between the
respondent management and another union of the
respondent factory and the said industrial dispute
in I.D.(T). No. 7/2014 also pending before this Court
for disposal. It is not in dispute that the respondent
management has entered wage settlement on
07-05-2007 for the period of 4 years under section
12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and after expiry
of the period of 4 years the management has to
revise the wage by entering the another settlement
and it is also not disputed that the petitioner union
has submitted charter of demands before the
respondent management and the same has not been
accepted by the respondent management and
thereafter, the industrial dispute was raised by the
petitioner union over charter of demand for revision
of wages and during the pendency of the said
industrial
dispute
before
this
Tribunal
the
respondent management has entered settlement,
under section 18(1) of the Act which was also
challenged by the petitioner union along with
another union. Hence, it is to be decided by this
Tribunal, whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union against the respondent management
over charter of demands such as wage revision,
annual increment, HRA, Educational allowance,
HBA and other allowances, etc., is justified or not.
658
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
21. It is contended by the petitioner union that the
respondent management has not considered the
demands of the petitioner union for wage revision and
the management with an intention to threaten the
workers and suppress their wage demand posed a
counter demand to increase the machine speed from
29 units to 39 units with the existing workforce and
also demanded the workers to accept the proposed
erection of auto machine which was likely to lead
retrenchment of existing workers and the respondent
management has not offered wage increase and
therefore, there is industrial dispute before the
conciliation since the some other companies have
entered wage settlement with the trade union and wage
was revised to their workers average of more than
` 6,000 per month and even the same was produced
before the respondent management to increase the
wage at least on par with the abovesaid Indian
companies
on
Industry-cum-regional basis,
the
respondent did not shown any interest to negotiate with
the petitioner union.
22. In order to establish their contention the
petitioner union has submitted Ex.P1 to Ex.P53. The
documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 would go to show that the
petitioner union has submitted a charter of demands to
the respondent management on 10-02-2011 wherein,
they have demanded revision of basic wages, annual
increment, fixed dearness allowance, variable dearness
allowances, house rent allowance, education allowance,
conveyance allowance, social security and medical
assistance, house building advance, sanction of
personal loan, provision of food, tiffin/lunch,
excursion allowance, life insurance facility, death
benefit, etc., and thereafter, the petitioner union has
raised an industrial dispute wherein the conciliation
proceedings were done by the Conciliation Officer by
sending notices over the dispute regarding charter of
demands to the respondent, management wherein, the
respondent management has also submitted a reply to
the Conciliation Officer and the petitioner union has
submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Labour
as well as to the Conciliation Officer and to the
respondent and the conciliation was failed and the
conciliation
failure
report
was
submitted
on
04-10-2011 and the said conciliation failure report was
exhibited under Ex.P15 which would go to show that
the respondent management has not accepted the
charter of demand for wage revision and the
respondent management has discussed the complete
productivity details
withi
the
union and
the
management has accepted for wage increase of
`
2,806 as final amount inclusive of all wage
component and hence, the conciliation authority has
advised the union to hold the talks with the union and
though repeated advises were given, the union did not
yield to consider the authority’s advise and the union
insisted the Conciliation Officer to sent failure report
as the management failed to consider the claim of the
petitioner union. The other documents exhibited by
the petitioner union would go to show that NCR
Corporation India Limited, MRF Limited, Godrej
Consumer Products, LUCKAS TVS has entered wage
settlement with its workers which reveals that there
was a wage settlement increasing the pay of the
workers within the region of Puducherry and that the
respondent management has issued various memos to
the employees and some of the workers have given
letter to the Labour Commissioner that the respondent
management has threatened them to accept the 18(1)
settlement executed with another union.
23. On the other hand, it is the main contention of
the respondent management that they have entered
18(1) settlement with the majority of workers and the
said settlement was accepted by 110 workers out of
total 124 workers and only 14 workers the office
bearers of the petitioner union alone have not
accepted the 18(1) settlement and as the majority
union has accepted the 18(1) settlement and they are
getting the revised wage as agreed in the settlement
and also they are giving the productivity as agreed in
the settlement, this petitioner union cannot sought for
another wage revision as claimed by them. In support
of their contention the respondent management has
exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R20. The documents Ex.R1 to
Ex.R20 would go to show that the respondent
management has entered settlement in the year 2007
and thereafter, they have entered settlement under
section 18(1) of the Act with National Employees
Trade Union on 04-03-2013 and that the respondent
management has 124 permanent workers and the
undertaking given by the individual employees under
Ex.R3 would reveal the fact that each and every
employee has given letter of undertaking to accept the
18(1) settlement and they have received the copy of
the above settlement entered on 04-03-2013 and that
they have decided to withdraw the dispute raised by
them in I.D.(T). No. 4/2012 and I.D.(T). No. 25/2012
and the said undertaking were given by 110 workers out
of 124 permanent workers and the respondent
management has exhibited the Salary Slip of the
workers who have accepted the 18(1) settlement as the
proof for ex gratia paid and the document Ex.R8
would go to show that on 20-12-2016 the 18(1)
settlement was signed with three union. National
Employee Trade Union, Hindustan Unilever Tea Unit
Employees Union and Hindustan Unilever Tea
Development Union for revision of wages and the office
659
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
bearers of the union have also accepted the settlement,
dated 20-12-2016 after the expiry of earlier
settlement entered on 04-03-2013 which expires on
03-02-2017 by the respondent management.
24. The main contention of the petitioner union is
that they are the majority union. Admittedly, in this
case there are 3 union while the industrial dispute was
raised by the petitioner union and it is established
before this Court that most of the employees i.e., 110
out of 124 have accepted the settlement entered under
section 18(1) of the Act on 04-03-2013 while this
industrial dispute is pending. On this aspect the
evidence of PW.1 is carefully considered which runs
as follows :
“
”
From the above evidence it is clear that PW.l has
admitted the fact that in the respondent establishment
the permanent workers are only 122 as on 04-03-2013,
It is also clear from Ex.R3 that 110 employees have
accepted the 18(1) settlement and they have also given
undertaking to withdraw the dispute. Further, it is clear
from the above evidence that the petitioner union has
not exhibited the 18(1) settlement and PW.l has admitted
that the members of the petitioner union have not
exhibited the 18(1) settlement and they have not received
any wages as per the 18(1) settlement and they are
receiving the salary only under earlier 12(3) settlement
and it is also admitted by PW.l that no proof of
membership list was filed before this Court to establish
that how many workers are the members of the petitioner
union since 110 workers have accepted the 18(1)
settlement while the industrial dispute is pending.
25. In support of his contention the learned
Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
Judgment reported in CDJ 1976 SC 099, wherein, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that,
“...........The settlement has to be accepted or
rejected as a whole and we are unable to reject it
as a whole as unfair or unjust. Even before this Court
the 3rd respondent representing admittedly, the large
majority of the workmen has stood by this
settlement and that is a strong factor which it is
difficult to ignore. As stated elsewhere in the
judgment, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact
that all workmen of the company have accepted the
settlement. Besides, the period of settlement has
since expired and we are informed that the employer
and the 3rd respondent are negotiating another
settlement with further improvement. These factors,
apart from what has been stated above and the need
for industrial peace and harmony when a union
backed by a large majority of workmen has accepted
a settlement in the course of collective bargaining
have impelled us not to interfere with this
settlement...........”
Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent has
also relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 2005
Kar HC 403, wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka
High Court hasiheld that,
“...........It is clear a unrecognized union will not
have right to participate in the process of collective
bargaining with the management/employer over the
issues concerning the workmen in general. The Supreme
Court has further pointed out, in essence, the
distinction between the two categories of trade
unions is that while the recognized union has the
right to participate in the discussions/negotiations
regarding general issues affecting all workmen/
employees and settlement if any, arrived at as a
result of such discussion/negotiations is binding on
all workmen/employees, whereas, a non-recognized
union cannot claim such a right, but, it has the right
to meet and discuss with the management/employer
about the grievances of any individual member in
domestic inquiry or departmental enquiry and
proceedings before the Conciliation Officer and
adjudicator.............”
660
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
and also relied upon the Judgment repotted in CDJ
2005 SC 843, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that,
“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - section 2(K)
section 10 and section 18 - Settlement - A plain
reading of the reference made by the Central
Government would show that it does not refer to any
dispute or apprehended dispute between the Bank
and the Federation (second respondent). It does not
refer to any demand or claim made by the
Federation or alleged refusal thereof by the Bank.
In such circumstances, it is not possible to hold that
on account of the settlement, dated 18-08-1996
arrived at between the Bank and the Association
(third respondent), any dispute or apprehended
dispute has come into existence between the Bank
and the Federation (second respondent). The action
of the Bank in asking for a receipt from those
employees, who are not members of the Association
(third respondent) but, wanted to avail of the benefit
of the settlement, again does not give rise to any
kind of dispute between the Bank and Federation
(second respondent). Thus, the reference made by
the Central Government by the order, dated 29-12-1997
for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal is wholly
redundant and uncalled for - There is no industrial
dispute in existence nor there is any apprehended
dispute between the appellant - Bank and the
Federation (second respondent) and as such there is
absolutely no occasion for making any reference
for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The
reference being wholly futile, the same deserved to
be quashed..............”
and also relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ
1981 SC 130, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that,
“...........If, the settlement had been arrived at by
a vast majority of the concerned workers with their
eyes open and was also accepted by them in its
totality, it must be presumed to be just and fair and
not liable to be ignored while deciding the reference
merely because a small number of workers (in this
case 71, i.e., 11.18 per cent) were not parties to it
or refused to accept it, or because the Tribunal was
of the opinion that the workers deserved marginally
higher emoluments than they themselves thought
they did. A settlement cannot be weighed in any
golden scales and the question whether it is just and
fair has to be answered on the base is of principles
different from those which come into play when an
industrial dispute in under adjudication. In this
connection we cannot do better then quote
extensively from Herbertson Limited Vs. Workmen
of the Herbsertson Limited and Others, (Wherein,
Goswami, J. speaking for the Court observed.
“Besides, the settlement has to be considered in
the light of the conditions that were in force at the
time of the reference. It will not be correct to judge
the settlement merely in the light of the Award
which was pending appeal before this Court. So far
as, the parties are concerned there will always be
uncertainly with regard to the result of the litigation
in a Court proceeding. When, therefore, negotiations
take place which have to be encouraged, particularly
between labour and employer, in the interest of
general peace and well being there is always give
and take. Having regard to the nature of the dispute,
which have to he encouraged, particularly between
labour and employer, in the interest of general peace
and well being there is always give and take. Having
regard to the nature of the dispute, which was raised
as far back as 1968, the very fact of the existence
of litigation with regard to the same matter which
was bound to take some time must have influenced
both the parties to come to some settlement. The
settlement has to be taken as a package deal and
when labour has gained in the matter of wages and
if, there is some reduction in the matter of dearness
allowance so far as the Award is concerned, it cannot
be said, that the settlement as a whole is unfair and
unjust. ...........”
and also relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ
2002 BHC 1320, wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court has held that,
“...........No doubt, it was contended that under
Clause 6 of the settlement, the company was
required to take action. It such action not taken, it
is open to the Appellant to take appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law. The fact,
however, remains that the settlement which was
arrived at between the parties, which has been relied
upon by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single
Judge, is a settlement under sub-sec.(1) of S.18 of
the Act. Obviously, therefore, the employees covered
by such settlement under sub-sec.(1) of S.18 is an
independent class and if certain benefits have been
granted in favour of those employees, no complaint
can be made by the members of the other union and
on that basis, no relief can be granted.............”
and also relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ
2011 MHC 1435, wherein, the Hon’ble Madras
High Court has held that,
661
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
“...........The observation made by the learned
Single Judge that the Management could not
enforce section 18(1) Settlement against non-signatories,
correspondingly, the workmen unless sign the
settlement could not seek enforcement of the same,
is the proposition of law as laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court. Hence, this contention
of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants
lacks merit and cannot be accepted. ..........”
From the above observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court it is clear
that if, the large majority of the workmen have
accepted the settlement and if, the period of settlement
has also expired and also executed any other further
settlement and if, the majority of the workmen have
executed the settlement in the course of collective
bargaining, then the Court cannot interfere with other
settlement and it is also clear from the above
observations that when there are multiple unions in an
industry if the settlement have arrived at by the vast
majority of the workers and the same was also
accepted by them in its totality and it must be
presumed that to be just and fair and not liable to be
ignored while deciding the reference merely because
a small number of workers were not added to it and
refused to accept it. In this case, it is also admitted
by the respondent management that they have entered
18(l) settlement with the majority of the permanent
workers i.e., 110 workers have accepted the settlement
out of 124 permanent workers and that therefore, the
petitioner union cannot seek for any further wage
revision than the 18(1) settlement which was accepted
by the majority of workers.
26. It is learnt from records that this industrial
dispute has been raised even earlier to the 18(1)
settlement. At the time of raising the industrial dispute
no settlement was arrived at between any of its
members though the earlier 2007 settlement was
ended in the year 2011. Further, the workers have right
to raise the dispute before the respondent management
as well as before the Conciliation Officer for wage
revision. In this case the petitioner union has raised
the charter of demand before the Conciliation Officer
for wage revision and that therefore, the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner union on the said date
cannot be rejected as unjustified and it is the right of
the workers of the respondent establishment to raise
the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
for wage revision as it was agreed by the management
in the earlier 2007 settlement that the wage has to be
increased and revised from 2011. But, the workers of
the respondent Industry cannot seek further wage
revision than the 18(1) settlement since it was
accepted by the majority of the workers of respondent
establishment.
27. It is the main contention of the .respondent
management that members of the petitioner union
could not be given benefits of the 18(1) settlement
since they have not accepted the same. Further, the
settlement provides the clause that benefits of the
settlement would be given only after acceptance of
18(1) Settlement. It cannot be accepted that the
members of the petitioner union who raised the
industrial dispute are not entitled for the benefits of
18(1) settlement since even prior to the 18(1)
settlement arrived between the respondent management
with another union the petitioner union has raised the
said industrial dispute for wage revision and that
therefore, the contention raised by the respondent
management that the petitioner union are not entitle
for benefits of the 18(1) settlement cannot be
accepted. Furthermore, it is learnt from records that
the Hon’ble High Court has granted interim relief of
` 2,806 per month to the 13 workers who have not
accepted the 18(1) settlement and therefore, as the
majority of the workers have accepted the 18(1)
settlement, the members of the petitioner union are
also entitled for benefits of 18(1) settlement though
they have not accented. Considering the above facts and
circumstances of this case, it is to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over charter of demands
such as wage
revision, annual increment,
HRA,
educational allowance, HBA and other allowances, etc.,
is justified and Award has to be passed by directing the
respondent management to give all the benefits of the
18(1) settlement to all the 13 members of the
petitioner; union who have not so far accepted the
18(1) settlement.
28. Discussion on I.D(T). No. 7/2014:
In this case, it is to be decided whether the
dispute raised by the 1st and 2nd petitioner union
against the respondent management over the 18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013 entered with another
union during the pendency of the industrial dispute,
before the industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, the act
of the management in showing disparity in wages
and incentives among the workmen who have signed
and not signed the 18(1) settlement and individual
bond are justified and the claim of the union
workmen for equal wages and incentive on par with
the other workmen and to extend the benefits of
12(3) settlement, dated 07-05-2007 till a new wage
settlement is entered are justified or not and
whether there has been any unfair labour practice
among the union workmen under section 25(T) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been adopted
by the respondent management.
662
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
29. It is the main contention of the petitioner
unions that they have raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer and on failure the
dispute has been referred before this Tribunal by the
Government and is pending and while so, the
respondent management has created a puppet union and
entered the 18(1) settlement under section 18(1) of
the Act with National Employees Trade Union and the
respondent management threatened all the individual
workers and used all sort of unfair labour practice
against them to adopt and accept the terms and
conditions of the said 18(1) settlement and the
respondent management has given wage increase and
other benefits only to the workers who have signed the
18(1) settlement and the workers who have not signed
or adopted the 18(1) settlement were denied wage
increase and they were discriminated from the workers
who signed the 18(1) settlement and the respondent
management has formed the management puppet union
in order to undermine the petitioner union activities
and their collective bargaining.
30. It is the contention of the respondent management
that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide neither
the validity of the 18(1) settlement nor the issue of
unfair labour practice and under section 25(T) and
25(U) of Chapter 5(C) of the industrial dispute the
claim of unfair labour practice could be a matter of
determination by the Executive Officers of the Labour
Department and the petitioners have not add or implead
the other signatory of the 18(1) settlement namely,
National Employees Trade Union for seeking
declaration that the 18(1) settlement as invalid and
since the majority of the workers have accepted
the 18(1) settlement the petitioners have no locus
standi to challenge the 18(1) settlement and they could
not questioned the validity or genuineness of the
settlement. The members of the petitioner union and
even some of the office bearers of the second
petitioner union had accepted the 18(1) settlement and
rectified the settlement and that therefore, the claim
of the petitioner is unsustainable.
31. In support of their contention the learned
Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the
Judgment reported in CDJ 2005 BHC 334, wherein, the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that,
“................. A settlement between the management
and Union would be binding on the parties unless
terminated. An Industrial Tribunal definitely cannot
go into the issue of the validity of the settlement
in the absence of parties to the settlement. The
Award on that count is liable to be set aside.
Normally, when a settlement has been entered into
and another union disputes the said settlement on
whatsoever ground the normal test that the Industrial
Tribunal must apply is whether the settlement can
be said to be unfair and answer the same accordingly.
If, it so holds then it can pass an Award in terms of
the reference. It cannot set aside a binding
settlement. If, the Tribunal proposes to by pass a
settlement and if, it has such jurisdiction then the
least that has to be done is to notice the union which
entered into the settlement and thereafter, give an
opportunity to the said Union before making an
award which according to it to be just and equitable.
That has not been done in the case. The interest of
justice would be met if, the impugned Award is set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the
Industrial Tribunal for reconsiderations. If, the
Industrial Tribunal proposes to answer the issues on
the matter of settlement entered into Coordination
Committee and the respondent No.l and/or to issue
directions that the said settlement is not fair and,
therefore, not binding or is constitutionally
impermissible it would be bound to issue notice to
the parties which entered, into the settlement
according to law. ...........”
and the learned Counsel for the respondent has also
relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 2001
BHC 326, wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has held that,
“.............Another argument of Mrs. Doshi is that
nothing would survive if, the settlement are held to
be fair and proper. Since, there is no challenge on
any ground, I fail to understand, how the union can
question the fairness and propriety of these
settlement. As far as the union is conceded, it is a
third party and a stranger. The fairness and propriety
of the settlement can be adjudged between the
signatories of such settlement. It would be open to
any of the Field Force employees to say that the
said settlements were not fair and just to him. The
union cannot say that such settlements were not fair
and just. More so, there is no even a whisper of any
ground on which such a settlement can be said to
be not fair and just. Mrs. Doshi has further submitted
that the settlements are contrary to the 1957
agreement and therefore, these settlements are not
permissible. I have perused the terms of the 1957
agreement, which is a letter written by the company
to the union. I do not see any clause in the said
letter which prohibits the parties from arriving at
such a settlement. Besides, the Field Force employees
have accepted the validity of the termination of 1957
agreement and it does not come in their way to have
an amicable settlement with the company.............”
663
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
From the above observations of the Hon’ble
High Court, it is clear that Tribunal cannot go into the
issue of validity of the settlement in the absence of
the parties to the settlement. Admittedly, in this case,
the union which entered into the 18(1) settlement with
the respondent management namely, National Employees
Trade Union has not been added as the party to the
proceedings and furthermore, these petitioners are not
the signatories of the 18(1) settlement and they have
also not accepted the same though, the majority of the
workers have entered and executed individual Bond by
giving undertaking which are exhibited as Ex.R3. From
the above observations it is also clear that the
petitioners are the 3rd party to the said settlement and
the fairness and propriety of the settlement can be
adjudged between the signatories of such settlement
i.e., who signed the settlement. In this case the
signatories of the 18(1) settlement have not been
impleaded and added to this proceeding and as such the
reference made by the Government without adding or
impleading the National Employees Trade Union who
have entered the 18(1) settlement with the respondent
management is not sustainable.
32. Furthermore, evenafter knowing the fact that the
said 18(1) settlement has been entered only by the
members of the National Employees Trade Union the
petitioner unions have failed to implead them as a
party to the proceedings is untenable and if any, order
is passed without hearing the members of the National
Employees Trade Union who have entered the 18(1)
settlement and who are the signatories of the 18(1)
settlement would be stood as violation of principles
of natural justice and also the violation of
constitutional right and therefore, the claim statement
filed by the petitioner union is not sustainable for
non-jointer of proper parties to the proceedings and also
against the principles of natural justice since, if any,
order is passed in favour of the petitioner it would
automatically affects the members of the said union
and therefore, it is to be held that the industrial dispute
raised by the 1st and 2nd petitioner union against the
respondent management over the 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013 entered with another union during
the pendency of the industrial dispute before the
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry is not justified.
33. Further, as it is decided by this Tribunal that the
18(1) settlement has been signed by the majority of
the workers is a valid one and it has already been
decided that the petitioner union members are entitled
for the benefits of 18(1) settlement there could not
be any disparity in wages and other claims in respect
of equal wages and incentives on par with the other
workmen and extention of 12(3) settlement till the
execution of new settlement would not arise and
further, absolutely the petitioner unions have failed to
establish that there was unfair labour practice
committed by the respondent management. Furthermore,
as it is decided by this Tribunal that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner union against the
respondent management over the 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013 entered with another union during
the pendency of the industrial dispute before the
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, is not justified, the
question of disparity of wages and other claims made
by the petitioner unions are not sustainable and as
such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
34. I.D(T). No. 4/2012
In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed
and the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union against the respondent management over
charter of demands such as wage revision, annual
increment, HRA, Educational allowance, HBA and
other allowances, etc., is justified and Award is
passed directing the respondent to give all the
benefits of the 18(1) settlement to all the members
of th petitioner union who have not so far accepted
the said settlement. No cost.
In I.D.(T). No. 7/2014
In the result, the claim petition is dismissed and
the industrial dispute raised by 1st and 2nd
petitioner unions against the respondent management
over 18(1) settlement, dated 04-03-2013 entered
with National Employees Trade Union during the
pendency of the industrial dispute before this
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry and for other reliefs
are not justified. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 12th day of January, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1
—09-01-2017 S. Rajendirane
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —06-03-2007 Copy of the petitioner’s
union Registration Certificate.
664
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
Ex.P2 —
Copy of the petitioner’s
union members list.
Ex.P3 —10-02-2011 Copy of the charter of
demand submitted by the
petitioner union and its
covering letter.
Ex.P4 —15-02-2011 Copy of the respondent
letter for receipt of the
petitioner charter of demand.
Ex.P5 —15-06-2011 Copy of the claim statement
filed by the petitioner’s
union before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) over
the dispute of charter of
demand of wage revision
and other allowances.
Ex.P6 —20-07-2011 Copy of the Conciliation
Officer
notice
over
the
dispute
of
charter
of
demand
raised
by
the
petitioner union.
Ex.P7 —04-08-2011 Copy of the respondent
reply to the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P8 —29-08-2011 Copy of the respondent
reply to the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P9 —29-08-2011 Copy of the petitioner’s
union memo filed by the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P10—06-09-2011 Copy of the petitioner’s
union
complaint
to
Commissioner of Labour.
Ex.P11—06-09-2011 Copy of the petitioner’s
union complaint to Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P12—06-09-2011 Copy of the petitioner’s
union
complaint
to
respondent management.
Ex.P13—08-09-2011 Copy of the respondent’s
letter to the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.Pl4—22-09-2011 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P15—04-10-2011 Copy of the failure report
issued by the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P16—30-11-2011 Copy of the petitioner’s
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P17—29-03-2012 Copy of the Government
notification.
Ex.P18—14-05-2012 Copy of the Court notice in
ID. No. 4 of 2012.
Ex.P19 —
Copy
of
the
financial
performance
(10
years
record performance).
Ex.P20—08-12-2011 Copy
of
the
wage
settlement arrived between
NCR
corporation
India
Limited
(Vs.)
and
its
workman.
Ex.P21— Oct., 2011 Copy of the revised pay
structure of the employees
of NCR.
Ex.P22— July, 2012 Copy of the Pay Slip of the
employees of the respondent
namely, V. Sivasakthi.
Ex.P23— July, 2012 Copy of the Pay Slip of the
employees of the respondent
namely, V. Ayyanar.
Ex.P24— 2011-2015 Copy
of
the
wage
settlement entered between
the
MRF
Limited,
Puducherry
and
its
workman.
Ex.P25—2010-2012 Copy
of
the
wage
settlement entered between
the
Godrej
Consumer
Products, Puducherry and
its workman.
Ex.P26 —
Copy of the pay structure of
employees of Godrej.
Ex.P27 —
Copy
of
the
wage
settlement LUCKAS TVS,
Puducherry.
Ex.P28 —15-04-2013Copy of, the petitioner
union raised an industrial
dispute ID. No. 819 of 2013.
665
29 May 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P29—19-08-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union raised an industrial
dispute ID. No. 1706 of
2013 before Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P30—13-08-2013 Copy of the Conciliation
Notice - ID. No. 819 of 2013.
Ex.P31—30-08-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P32—12-09-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P33—07-08-2013 Copy of the Conciliation
Notice ID. No. 1706 of
2013.
Ex.P34—21-08-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P35—23-08-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P36—21-10-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union letter to the Factory
Manager.
Ex.P37—21-10-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P38—21-10-2013 Petitioner union letter to
the Chief
Inspector of
Factories.
Ex.P39—21-10-2013 Copy
of
the
petitioner
union
letter
to
the
Commissioner,
Labour
Department.
Ex.P40—14-08-2013 Copy of the show cause
notice to the E. Devarasu.
Ex.P41—15-08-2013 Copy of Devarasu letter to
the respondent, Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P42—19-08-2013 Copy of S. Murugan letter
to the Commissioner of
Labour.
Ex.P43—19-08-2013 Copy of V. Venketesan
letter to the Commissioner
of Labour.
Ex,P44—19-08-2013 Copy of V. Venketesan
Medical Certificate.
Ex.P45—04-09-2013 Copy of the respondent
m a n a g e m e n t l e t t e r t o
V. Venketesan, Token
No. 29.
Ex.P46—19-08-2013 Copy of K. Aathinarayanan
letter to the Commissioner
of Labour.
Ex.P47—05-11-2014 Copy of the show cause
notice to the T.N. Rajendra
Kumar.
Ex.P48 —
Copy
of
T.N.Rajendra
Kumar reply to show cause
notice, dated 05-11-2014.
Ex.P49—05-11-2014 Copy of the show cause
n o t i c e
t o
t h e
R. Sakthimurugan,
Ex.P50 —
Copy of Sakthi Murugan
reply to show cause notice,
dated 05-11-2014.
Ex.P51—17-12-2013 Copy of the conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P52—12-05-2014 Copy of the Government
reference.
Ex.P53 —
Copy of the Court notice in
ID. No. 7 of 2014.
List of
respondent’s witness:
RW.1 —22-05-2017 Karthik
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.1
—04-05-2017 Letter of authorization of
Mr. Karthik.
Ex.R2 —04-03-2013 Copy of 18(1) settlement
signed between the respondent
and
National
Employee
Trade Union (NETU).
Ex.R3 —04-03-2013 Copy of letter given by 110
workers
accepting
the
18(1) settlement and assuring
to withdraw the case ID.
Nos. 4/2012 and 25/2012.
Ex.R4 —04-03-2013 Copy of tabular column
showing
the details of
revised salary structure and
ex gratia paid to individual
workers post signing of
LTS
declaration
by
individual workers in terms
of settlement.
666
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[29 May 2018
Ex.R5 —04-03-2013 Copy of salary receipts of
4 workers who have accepted
the 18(1) settlement as
proof of ex gratia paid.
Ex.R6 —06-08-2013 Copy of the letter given by
the
petitioner’s
union
informing the management
that they shall produce only
as per 12(3) settlement,
dated 07-05-2007.
Ex.R7 —07-08-2013 Copy of letter given by the
Hindustan Unilever Tea
Division Employees Union
informing the management
that they shall produce only
as per 12(3) settlement,
dated 07-05-2007.
Ex.R8 —20-12-2013 Copy of 18(1) settlement
signed
between
the
respondent and three union
namely, National Employee
Trade
Union
(NETU),
Hindustan Unilever Tea
Unit Employees Union, and
Hindustan Unilever Tea
Development Union.
Ex.R9 —20-12-2013 Copy of the letters given by
92 workers accepting the
18(1) settlement.
Ex.R10 —
Excel sheet showing the
machine speeds its capacity
and
the
comparative
statements of workers who
signed the 12(3) settlement
in the year 2007 and 18(1)
settlement in the year 2013.
Ex.R11 —
Copy of pay slip of
Mr. Veerabuthiran, (W-l)
(Token No. 014) for the
month of January 2014 who
has,
signed
the
18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R12 —
Copy of pay slip of
Mr. Murugaperumal, (W-2)
(Token No. 42) for the
month of January 20l4 who
has
signed
the
18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.Rl3 —
Copy of pay slip of
Mr. Palani. (W-3)(Token
No. 113) for the month of
January 2014 who has
signed the 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.Rl4 —
Copy of pay slip of
Mr. C.Veloudbam, (W-4)
(Token No. 11) for the
month of January 2014 who
has
signed
the
18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R15 —
Copy of
Pay
Slip of
Mr. T.S. Karthikeyan, (W-l)
(Token No. 77) for the
month of January 2014 who
has
signed
the
18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R16 —
Copy of pay slip of
Mr.
R.Murugan,
(W-2)
(Token No. 16) for the
month of January 2014 who
has
signed
the
18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R17 —
Copy of pay slip of
Mr. S. Murugan, (W-3)
(Token No. 07) for the
month of January 2014 who
has
signed
the
18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R18 —
Copy of pay slip of
Mr.
Duraisamy,
(W-4)
(Token No. 04) for the
month of January 2014 who
has
signed
the
18(1)
settlement, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R19 —
Copy
of
details
of
r a t i o n a l i za t i o n
a n d
modernization done from
2009 to 2013.
Ex.R20 —
Copy
of
the
details
of
cushions given in calculating
OEE.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.