La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 20-00
Prix : ` 20-00
Price :
` 20-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 686
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 686
Award of the Labour Court
.. 686
de Tribunal.
.. 694
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 694
Government Notifications
.. 694
.. 703
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 703
Tender Notices
.. 703
.. 705
Annonces
.. 705
Announcements
.. 705
[ 685 ]
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 : 5-6-2018
Price : ` 20-00
2018 }
|
5 {
No.
23
Poudouchéry
Mardi
5
Juin
2018 (15 Jyaistha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
5th
June
2018
686
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 June 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 49/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 25/2016, dated
06-02-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between Management
of M/s. Goutham Metals, Puducherry and Thiru S. Manohar,
Puducherry over non-employment Award of the Labour
Court, Puducherry 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.
Tuesday, the 06th day of February 2018
I.D (L). No. 25/2016
S. Manohar,
No. 70, Malliga Theatre Street,
Samiyar Thope, Villianur,
Puducherry-605 110.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Gouthan Metals,
R.S. No. 21/3, Next to Ponlait (Milk Dairy),
Kurumbapet,
Puducherry-605 110.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before
Pre-negotiation sitting in the presence of Thiru Saravanan,
Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru Mohan Ilayaraja,
Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 106/AIL/Lab./T/2016,
dated 25-11-2016 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru S. Manohar
against the management of M/s. Goutham Metals,
Kurumbapet, Puducherry, over his non-employment
is justified? If justified what relief he is entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money, if it can be so computed?
2. It is to be decided that whether the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
Management over his non-employment is justified or
not. The petitioner claimant has filed a claim
statement and the respondent has filed a Counter
statement before this Court.
3. While the case was posted for cross examination
of PW.1 the joint compromise memo has been filed by
both the parties stating that the matter has been
amicably settled between them. As per the settlement
arrived at between the parties, a Demand Draft for a
sum of ` 65,000 (Rupees sixty five thousand only) is
paid to the petitioner by the respondent management.
Since the parties reported that the matter is settled
between them, the reference is closed and an Award
has to be passed in terms of the settlement.
4. In the result, Award is passed as per the terms
of the Joint compromise memo filed by the parties and
it will form part of the Award. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 06th day of February, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
BEFORE THE HON’BLE LABOUR COURT,
PUDUCHERRY
I.D(L). No. 25/2016
S. Manohar
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Gouthan Industries.
. . Respondent
687
5 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 50/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 04/2010, dated
21-02-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute
between the Management of M/s. Vinayaka Missions
Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal and Vinayaka
Mission Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, Karaikal, over
wage revision and other charter of demand such as
basic pay, DA, HRA, risk allowance, transport
allowance, washing allowance, etc., on par with UGC
employees/6th Central Pay Commission report 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.
Wednesday, the 21st day of February, 2018
I.D. (T). No. 02/2010
The President/Secretary,
Vinayaka Mission Thozhilalar
Munnetra Sangam,
No. 10/36, Masthan Palli Street,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
M/s. Vinayaka Missions Medical
College and Hospital,
Keezhakasakudymedu, Kottucherry (P.O),
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 06-02-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R. Mugundhan,
Counsel for the petitioner and Thiru R. Ilancheliyan,
Counsel for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood
over for consideration till this day, this Court passed
the following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 136/AIL/Lab./J/2010,
dated 18-06-2010 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Vinayaka
Mission Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, Karaikal
against the management of M/s. Vinayaka Missions
Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal, over wage
revision and other charter of demands such as basic
pay, DA, HRA, risk allowance, transport allowance,
washing allowance etc., on par with UGC employees/
6th Central Pay Commission report is justified or
not?
(ii) If justified, what relief the petitioner union
is entitled to ?
(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner union had entered into a
settlement on 01-12-2005 for the period of three
years with the respondent management. The settlement
was approved by this Tribunal and passed an Award to
that effect. The same was confirmed by the Hon’ble
High Court, Chennai. The abovesaid settlement
expired on 30-11-2008. The petitioner union is one
of the major unions in the respondent College.
After the expiry of the earlier settlement, they
placed a charter of demands on 02-03-2009 before
the Labour Officer, Karaikal seeking wage revision
such as Basic Pay, DA,HRA, risk allowance,
transport allowance, washing allowance etc., on par
with UGC employees and Central Pay Commission
report. The management did not come forward to
settle the matter, the conciliation ended in failure.
The Labour Officer had given failure report on
02-03-2010. Thereafter, the Government referred
the dispute to this Tribunal on 18-06-2010. The
688
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 June 2018
respondent Medical College and Hospital is private
institution with 600 beds and it is bigger than
Government Hospital, Karaikal. The respondent
institution is making profits through fees collected
from the students apart from that getting fees from
the patient and getting profits through “Kalaingar
Kapeedu Thittam” and collecting charges from ESI
for giving treatment to their patients. The respondent
is having well financial capacity to pay the workers
reasonable minimum wage but, the respondent is
paying below the minimum wage is illegal under the
Constitution of India. The Teaching Staffs are
getting more wages. It is very settled principle that
no industry has a right to exist unless it is able to
pay its workmen at least a bare minimum wage, he
would have no right to conduct his enterprise on
such terms. The payment of minimum wages is
statutory requirement and it should be paid to the
workers. The respondent did not follow MCI
regulations and also UGC prescribed scales. The
petitioner union submitted charter of demands over
revised pay should be granted to the employees with
effect from 01-12-2008, Pay Fixation Formula,
Annual Increment, House Rent Allowance, Deafness
Allowance, Shift Allowance, Nursing Allowance,
Dark
Room
Allowance,
Chemical
Handling
Allowance, Emergency Call Duty Allowance,
Operation
Theatre
Allowance,
Vaccination
Allowance, Festival Advances, Canteen Subsidy,
Rest Room, Creches, Recreation Club, Uniform and
Foot wear Allowance, Stitching Charge, Washing
Allo wance Transport Allowance, Transpo rt
Facilities,
Leave
Provisions,
Earned
Leave,
Maternity Leave, Promotion Policy Pay Percentage,
Electrical Licence Allowance, Funeral Expense and
pending Demands. The respondent ought to grant
the benefits given by Government to its employees
doing a similar nature of work and on the basis of
6th CPC report. They ought to be a model employer
as they are a University, they should grant benefits
to its employees. The respondent should not evade
its responsibility to pay the minimum wages to the
non-teaching staffs. Dearness Allowance is not paid
to the workers eventhough, it is part and parcel of
cost of necessities. The minimum wage must
provide not merely for the bare subsistence of life
but, for the preservation of the efficiency of the
worker. All the demands made by the Petitioner
Union are Justifiable.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent stated that the demands of the
petitioner are quite arbitrary and not maintainable
under the law and the petitioner claim of salary and
other benefits on par with Government Servants and
fixation of wages in respective Bands as
recommended by the 6th Pay Commission are
unjustified and further stated that the respondent
Medical College and Hospital is private medical
college run by the TKVTSSMEC trust and to impart
education to the students it is running a hospital in
Karaikal. The salary and other day to day expenses
are met with the regulated fees collected from the
students and it is not getting any grant from
Government or any
other
authorities. The
respondent institution is also not a ‘state’ within the
meaning of the Constitution of India. The
respondent herein have paid wages and extended
other benefits taking into account the general nature
of work and such wages and benefits are
comparatively more than that of what is, being paid
at various private medical colleges prevailing in
Puducherry. While fixing wages the standard of
living, the standard of employees, their educational
background, experience, skill set and other
parameters have been considered as yardstick.
During the past several years, the respondent used to
negotiate the salary and other benefits with the non-
teaching staff union and entered into settlements
under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and the last
settlement was made on 24th May 2006. In
pursuance of the abovesaid settlement, all the
employees were given substantial pay hike.
Subsequently, a promotion policy was also
introduced and about fifty percent of the employees
have been given general promotions with substantial
monetary benefits. The respondent has also agreed
to give five percent promotion to the employees
every year. The Respondent management entered
into Settlements/Memo of understanding with the
Vinayaka Missions Medical College Hospital non-
teaching staff union in which the petitioner union
was also members. However, after enjoying all the
benefits they have started a new union in the name
and style of Vinayaka Mission Thozhilaalar
Munnetra Sangam by isolating themselves from
the Vinayaka Missions non-teaching staff union.
Overruling all the above petitioner union have
689
5 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
demanded salary and other benefits on par with the
recommendations made by the 6th Pay Commissions
and also raised some fresh issues contrary to the
terms already accepted. The respondent is a private
establishment and the petitioner does not have any
legal right to demand salary and other benefits on
par with the Government institutions. As far as the
6th
Pay
Commission
recommendations
are
concerned, it shall apply to persons appointed to
civil services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the union whose pay is debited to the civil
establishments of the Government. The members of
the petitioner union are coming under the category
of non-teaching employees in the respondent
Medical College and Hospital. The University
Grants Commission has not fixed any norms for non
teaching categories of employees employed in the
private medical colleges. Therefore, the petitioner's
claim for revision of salary as per UGC & MCI
norms does not arise. As far as the claim of the
petitioner union for equal pay on par with
Government
Hospital/College
or
Government
owned institutions is a question of law. Equal pay on
par with Government or the Government institutions
is a concept which requires its applicability and in
the absence of the same the claim is not
maintainable. In this case the very concept of the
demand is contrary to law and applicability and
therefore, the total claim of the petitioner is
absolutely untenable. The members of the petitioner
union are coming within the definition of
“workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act and the
very nature of employment, service conditions and
other benefits are to be decided only by mutual
negotiation
under
the
collective
bargaining
mechanism available under the said Act. The service
conditions of the petitioner union have already been
regularized in terms of settlement entered in 2006.
The above settlement was arrived at after protracted
negotiations with the non-teaching staff union after
discussing the pros and corns at all levels and
therefore, it is quite unnecessary to review again.
The petitioner union submitted a charter of demand,
dated 02-03-2009 for which the respondent was
prepared to go for further revision of wages to a
reasonable level and gave a proposal for upward
revision vide letter, dated 24-06-2009 before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation). The respondent is
having open mind to negotiate the issue based on the
proposal
already
submitted.
However,
the
petitioner’s claim for revision of wages and other
benefits on par with Government Servants or
Government Institutions are quite arbitrary and there
is no justification or justifiable ground in the
claim. The petitioner has submitted demands for
various benefits and also promotion and other
benefits in respect of some individuals by para 6 of
the claim statement. All the employees in the
petitioner union are being paid more than the
minimum wages fixed by the Government of
Puducherry and also revising the wages and other
benefits periodically and a promotion policy was
also accepted. Hence, consideration of individual
cases as claimed by the petitioner will not be
conducive in the
interest of other employees.
Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that the
respondent is paying very low salary is absolutely
false and what is already paid is reasonable
comparing to similar private Medical Colleges
existing in Puducherry and prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 were marked. Both
sides are heard. The pleadings of the parties, the
evidence let in by either sides and the exhibits marked
on both sides are carefully considered.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over wage
revision and other charter of demands such as Basic
Pay, DA, ERA, Risk Allowance, Transport Allowance,
Washing Allowance
etc., on par with UGC
employees/6th Central Pay Commission report is
justified or not and if justified, what is the relief
entitled to the petitioner union?
6. It is the dispute raised by the petitioner union
over the charter of demands made by the workers for
the pay revision on par with the University Grants
Commission employees in the pay structure of the
Sixth Pay Commission recommedations. In order to
prove the case of the petitioner union the Secretary of
the union was examined as PW.1 and it is the evidence
of the PW.1 that the earlier settlement arrived at
between the petitioner union and the respondent
management was came to an end on 30-11-2008 and
that therefore, the union has made a charter of demands
690
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 June 2018
to the management on 02-03-2009 asking the
management to revise the salary from 01-12-2008 for
which the management has not given proper reply and
that therefore, they raised the industrial dispute before
the Conciliation Officer and even then that there was no
amicable negotiation and hence, the failure report was,
submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the
Government on 02-03-2010 and the Government has
referred the matter to this Court and that the respondent
management has denied the request of the union to pay
the wages to the employees as per recommendations of
the Sixth Central Pay Commission and in the Pay Scale
of University Grants Commission and that the
respondent management had accepted the demand of
the petitioner to pay ` 3,000 as interim relief to the
employees and that the respondent management has
entered the settlement with the another union which
was in the hands of the management on 31-01-2012
and they compelled the members of the other union to
accept the same and as the petitioner union is the majority
union the settlement arrived at between the management
and the puppet union could not bind the members of
the petitioner union and that though the respondent
management has agreed to negotiate the matter before
this Court and it has not come forward to negotiate the
same and that the respondent management as per the
settlement arrived at between the puppet union on
31-01-2012 has given minimum enhancement of wages
to the employees under which pay has not been
properly revised by the management which could not be
accepted by the members of the other union and the
said settlement has also not been arrived by the
acceptance of the members of the petitioner union and
that the pay revision given by the management to the
workers could not be accepted and it is the further
evidence of PW.1 that their union alone has entered the
12(3) settlement with the management for the period
2005-2008 as per the order passed in I.D. No. 03/2005
by this Tribunal under which all the employees of the
respondent establishment have enjoyed the benefits
and thereafter, only in the year 2008 the said union
have been divided into three and this petitioner union
has named Vinayaga Mission Tholilalar Munnetra
Sangam and that the petitioner union has raised the
charter of demands for wage revision, increment,
house rent allowance, dearness allowance, shift
allowance, payment care allowance, nursing allowance,
dark room allowance, chemical handling allowance,
festival advance, canteen subsidy, rest room, child care
facility, etc., and that the petitioners are entitled for
revised pay as per the demands.
7. In support of their case the petitioner union has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Ex.P1 is the copy of 18(1)
settlement. Ex.P2 is the copy of MOU between
management and union. Ex.P3 is the copy of
submission of Pay Anomalies for rectification. Ex.P4
is the copy of I.D. No. 3/2005. Ex.P5 is the copy of
promotion policy. Ex.P6 is the copy of promotion
request to the management. Ex.P7 is the copy of
charter of demands. Ex.P8 is the copy of pay structure.
Ex.P9 is the copy of minutes of the meeting. Ex.P10
is the copy of written reply to Labour Officer on
24-06-2009, Ex.Pll is the copy of complaint of unfair
labour on 07-07-2009. Ex.P12 is the copy of release
of interim relief. Ex.P13 is the copy of unfair labour
practice. Ex.Pl4 is the copy of reply to Labour Officer.
On 23-07-2009. Ex.P15 is the copy of failure report,
dated 02-03-2010. Ex.P16 is the copy of reference,
dated 25-06-2010. Ex.P17 is the copy of 18(1)
settlement, dated 07.02.2012. Ex.P18 is the copy of
receiving wages with objection.
8. The documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 would go to
show that there was memorandum of understanding
arrived at between the management and the
Non-teaching Staff Union on 27-04-2006 and the said
settlement would evident that fixation of pay and
increment will take effect from 01-12-2005 and that
the petitioner union members are entitled for the
arrears of wages for the period from 01-12-2005 to
31-03-2006 in four installments and before that the
said Non-Teaching Staff Union has raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer which was
failed and the same was referred by the Government to
this Tribunal which was taken in I.D. No. 03/2005
against the management for the wage revision and
while the said industrial dispute was pending that there
was a settlement arrived at between the parties under
section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that
therefore, the industrial dispute was closed and Award
was passed in terms of the settlement arrived at under
section 18(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that
though the minority has objected for the same and
prayed to implead them as party to the dispute which
was rejected by this Tribunal and that the petitioner
union has asked for promotion to some of the
employees who have affected while considering
promotion and thereafter, the petitioner union has
submitted
another
charter
of
demand
to
the
management on 02-03-2009 for revision of wages and
allowances and also for other facilities and reliefs and
691
5 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
it is also learnt from the records that there was
negotiation between the management and the petitioner
union regarding pay anomaly and for promotion and the
respondent management has submitted the reply to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) for the charter of demand
raised by the petitioner union and on 23-07-2009 the
petitioner union has also submitted a letter to the
Conciliation Officer giving reply to the allegations of
the management and while so on 06-08-2009 the
respondent management has given interim relief of
`
3,000 to them per month with effect from
December-2008 and the failure report was sent by the
Conciliation
Officer
to
the
Government
on
02-03-2010 and the management also has sent a
intimation to the petitioner union on 07-02-2012
stating that there was a settlement arrived at between
the Management and Non-Teaching Staff Union under
section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act alleging
that the management was entered into settlement with
the majority union and to intimate the members of the
petitioner union to accept the same and to receive the
enhanced salary for the month of January-2012 as per
the terms of settlement arrived at between them for
which the petitioner union has sent a letter to the
management agreeing to receive the salary as per 18(1)
settlement with their objection.
9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
respondent management that they are private Medical
College running under the Trust to impart education to
the students it is running a Hospital in Karaikal and
salary and other day to day expenses are met with the
regulated fees collected from the students and no grant
from the Government or any other authorities are
received by the respondent Institution and that the
petitioner union is the minority union and they have
entered into the settlement for wage revision with the
majority union functioning in the name of Non-Teaching
Staffs Employees union which have majority
support of the employees and this petitioner union
represented only a few employees and it is not
supported by the employees of the respondent
establishment and that the wages and benefits given by
the respondent was comparatively more than that of
what was being paid by various Medical Colleges and
the petitioner union demanded salary and other
benefits on par with the recommendations made by the
Sixth Pay Commission and as the respondent institute
is the private one it is impossible to accept their
demands on par with the Government Institutions and
that therefore, the petitioner union members are not
entitle for any wage revision as claimed by them.
10. In order to prove their contention, the
respondent has examined RW.l and he has stated that
petitioner union is the minority union and they have
entered settlement with the majority union under
section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for wage
revision and all the demands of the petitioner union
cannot be given to them since their institution is a
private one and it has not received any grant from any
University or any other Government Institution and is
running only under fee received from the students and
the demands of the petitioner union for salary and
other benefits on par with the recommendations made
by the Sixth Pay Commission is not possible since, it
is the private establishment and it was highly
impossible to accept the demand on par with the
Government Institution and that the majority union has
expressed their willingness to settle the issue by
mutual negotiation in I.D. No. 11/2009 and accordingly,
the settlement was arrived for revision of wages and
other benefits and entered into settlement on
31-01-2012 under section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and the respondent management also has
prepared to extend the benefits of the said settlement
to all employees and the members of the this
petitioner union have also accepted the monetary and
other benefits and continue to enjoy till now and the
said I.D. No. 11/2009 was closed on compromise
memo and Award was passed in terms of settlement
arrived at between the parties on 03-07-2013 and that
the members of the petitioner union are also receiving
all the monetary and other benefits has not come
forward to withdraw the dispute and having been
received all the benefits and hence, they are not having
any right to continue the case and the claim made by
the petitioner union is not sustainable.
11. In support of their case the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. Ex.R1 is
the photocopy of memorandum of understanding, dated
27-04-2006. Ex.R2 is the photocopy of memorandum
of settlement, dated 24-05-2006. Ex.R3 is the photocopy
of memorandum of understanding, dated 08-08-2008.
Ex.R4 is the photocopy of memorandum of settlement,
dated 31-01-2012. Ex.R5 is the photocopy of
memorandum of settlement, dated 06-04-2015. Ex.R6
is the photocopy of Award passed in I.D(T). 11/2009,
dated 03-07-2013. Ex.R7 is the photocopy of office
memorandum 6th Pay Commission, dated 29-08-2008.
12. From the pleadings and evidence let in by
either sides it can be inferred that following facts are
admitted by either sides that the members of the
petitioner union are working at the respondent
692
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[5 June 2018
establishment and the respondent establishment is
having three unions and the majority union has entered
into settlement with the respondent management and
the benefits of the said settlement was also received by
the members of the petitioner union and the dispute
raised by the majority union I.D. No. 11/2009 was
disposed by accepting the settlement arrived at between
the respondent management and the majority union who
have raised the industrial dispute in I.D. No. 11/2009
and thereafter, the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute. It is also learnt from Ex.R6 copy of
the Gazette publication wherein, Award passed by this
court I.D. No. 11/2009 was published would reveal that
on 03-07-2013 the said I.D. was disposed by this
Tribunal and it also would evident that there was 18(1)
settlement arrived at between the union and the
respondent management and as per the terms of the
said settlement Award was passed and the copy of the
18(1) settlement would form part of the said Award
and it is also learnt from Ex.P18 the letter given by the
petitioner union to the management that the members
of the petitioner union have accepted the benefits and
pay revision given by the management to the employees
under section 18(1) of the Act. It is also not in dispute
that the members of the petitioner union has availed
the benefits as per the settlement.
13. The petitioner union has claimed revision of
wages to its members on par with the University Grants
Commission in the pay structure of Sixth Pay
Commission report. Though, the petitioner has claimed
the wage no evidence has been let in by the petitioner
union the PWl that how they are entitled to get the pay
revision on par with the employees in the pay structure
of Sixth Pay Commission and they did not also
produced any documents how they are entitled for the
pay on par with the employees of the UGC scale in the
pay structure of Sixth Pay Commission. The petitioner
union has filed the claim petition sought for an Award
directing the management to pay wage revision in the
tune with UGC scale line and on par with the
employees of the Medical College in the revised pay
structure of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.
The petitioner has not at all submitted any document to
prove the claim that the respondent management is
liable to give pay revision on par with the employees
of the Medical Colleges in the revised pay structure of
Sixth Pay Commission i.e., the petitioner union has not
adduced any evidence that how they are entitled for the
pay revision on par with the employees of the medical
Colleges under University Grants Commission in the
pay structure of Sixth Pay Commission. They have not
adduced any evidence that how they are entitled for
UGC wages on par with the UGC employees or Sixth
Pay Commission recommendations. However, the
petitioner union has asked to revise their salary on par
with the employees of the Medical Colleges in the pay
structure of Sixth Pay Commission. It is not supported
with any documents to show that how they are entitle
for Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.
14. As rightly pointed out by the respondent
management that no evidence has been adduced by the
petitioner union that how much pay has been fixed for
the non teaching staffs of the Medical colleges in the
pay structure of Sixth Pay Commission and that
therefore as the petitioners have failed to establish that
they are entitled for the pay revision on par with the
employees of the Medical College in the revised pay
structure of sixth pay commission and hence it is to be
held that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union against the respondent management over charter
of demands and pay revision on par with employees of
Medical Colleges in the revised pay structure of 6th
Central Pay Commission is not sustainable and that
therefore, the claim of the petitioner union for
revision of pay on par with the employees of the
Medical Colleges in the pay structure of the sixth pay
commission recommendations is rejected and the
claim petition in respect of the same is liable to be
dismissed and the petitioners are not entitled for such
wage revision on par with the employees of the
Medical Colleges in the pay structure of Sixth Pay
Commission recommendations.
15. However, the petitioner union has asked for the
pay revision on par with the UGC scale. On this aspect
Medical College Regulations Part II of the regulation
has been referred which runs as follows:
“man power programme : including department-
wise requirements of teaching staff (full-time),
technical, administrative and ancillary staff,
category-wise recruitment criteria and salary
structure, etc., (minimum as per UGC scale)”
From the above regulation, it is clear that whenever
new colleges are opened they have to pay minimum
scale, if, University Grants Commission has fixed any
pay for any category of non-teaching staffs. The
learned Counsel for the respondent management has
argued that no such pay has been fixed by the
University Grants Commission for the non-teaching
693
5 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
staffs of the Medical Colleges. The petitioner union
also has not filed any document to prove that what the
pay is fixed by the University Grants Commission for
the non-teaching staffs of the Medical Colleges as per
the Regulations, 1993 and no pay structure is produced
by the petitioner union under UGC scale. Hence, an
Award can be passed directing the respondent
management to give pay revision under UGC scale to
the members of the petitioner union.
16. In the result, petition is partly allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over wage revision and
other charter of demands such as Basic Pay, DA, HRA,
risk allowance, transport allowance, washing allowance
etc., on par with UGC employees/6th Central Pay
Commission report is not justified and the petitioners
are not entitled for the pay revision on par with the
employees who were given pay in pay structure of Sixth
Pay Commission and however, Award is passed
directing the respondent management to give wage
revision to the members of the petitioner union on par
with the minimum UGC scale if any, fixed by the
University Grants Commission from the date of dispute
raised by the petitioner union. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 21st day of February, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 07-11-2017 Vengatesan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl — 16-04-2005 Copy of 18(1) settlement.
Ex.P2 — 27-04-2006 Copy of MOU between
management and union.
Ex.P3 — 30-06-2006 Copy of submission of Pay
Anomalies for rectification.
Ex.P4 — 29-03-2007 Copy of I.D. No. 3/2005.
Ex.P5 — 08-08-2008 Copy of promotion policy.
Ex.P6 — 07-01-2009 Copy of promotion request
to the management.
Ex.P7 — 02-03-2009 Copy of charter of demands.
Ex.P8 — 13-03-2009 Copy of pay structure.
Ex.P9 — 21-03-2009 Copy of minutes of the
meeting.
Ex.P10—24-06-2009 Copy of written reply to
Labour Officer.
Ex.P11—07-07-2009 Copy of complaint of unfair
labour.
Ex.P12—06-08-2009 Copy of release of interim
relief.
Ex.P13—23-07-2009 Copy
of
unfair
labour
practice.
Ex.P14—23-07-2009 Copy of reply to Labour
Officer.
Ex.P15—02-03-2010 Copy of failure report.
Ex.P16—25-06-2010 Copy of reference.
Ex.P17—07-02-2012 Copy of 18(1) settlement.
Ex.P18—10-02-2012 Copy of receiving wages
with objection.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 19-12-2017 S. Mohan
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1— 27-04-2006 Photocopy of memorandum
of understanding.
Ex.R2— 24-05-2006 Photocopy of memorandum
of settlement.
Ex.R3— 08-08-2008 Photocopy of memorandum
of understanding.
Ex.R4— 31-01-2012 Photocopy of memorandum
of settlement.
Ex.R5— 06-04-2015 Photocopy of memorandum
of settlement.
Ex.R6— 03-07-2013 Photocopy of Award passed
in I.D (T). 11/2009.
Ex.R7— 29-08-2008 Photocopy
of
office
memorandum
(6th
Pay
Commission.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.