La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 18-00
Prix : ` 18-00
Price :
` 18-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 834
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 834
Award of the Labour Court
.. 834
de Tribunal.
.. 846
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 846
Government Notifications
.. 846
.. 852
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 852
Tender Notices
.. 852
.. 855
Annonces
.. 855
Announcements
.. 855
[ 833 ]
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 : 10-7-2018
Price : ` 18-00
2018 }
|
10 {
No.
28
Poudouchéry
Mardi
10
Juillet
2018 (19 Asadha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
10th
July
2018
834
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 July 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 59/Lab./AIL/T/2018
Puducherry, dated 11th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 21/2007, dated
28-2-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between Management of
M/s. Somkan Marine Foods Limited, Yanam and
Thiru K.S. Chakravarthy, Yanam over non-employment
of 8 workers viz. Tvl. 1. K. Srinivasa Rao, Electrician,
2. K. Ganapathi Rao, Electrician, 2. Md. Ali, Paking Helper,
4. M. Venkanna Babu, Packing Helper, 5. B. Namasivaya,
Stores Assistant, 6. K. Ravibabu, Lab Assistant,
7. V.V.V.S.N. Swamy, Welder, 8. M.C.C. Srinivasa Rao,
Maintenance Assistant 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.
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 28th day of February, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 21/2007
K.S. Chakravarthy,
The President,
Somkan Staff and Workers Union,
Regd. No. 1444/RTU/2006,
8-321, 1st Cross Road,
Zicria Nagar, Yanam-533 464.
. . Petitioner
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
M/s. Somkan Marine Foods Limited,
Adavipolam, Yanam.
2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mumbai.
3. The Standard Chartered Bank,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mumbai - 400 001.
4. The Managing Partner,
M/s. Image Feeds,
D.No. 5-1-063, Adavipolam,
Yanam.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 30-01-2018
before me for
final
hearing
in
the
presence
of Thiru R.S. Zivanandam, Advocate for the petitioner
and Tvl. L. Sathish, S. Ulaganathan, S. Velmurugan,
V. Veeraragavan and E. Karthik, Advocates for the
respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the
case records, after having stood over for consideration
till this day, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 72/2007/Lab./AIL/J,
dated 28-03-2007 for adjudicating the following:—
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the President
of Somkan Staff and Workers Union (Regd. No. 1444/
RTU/2006), Yanam over the non-employment of
8 workers viz., Tvl. K. Srinivasa Rao, Electrician,
2. K. Ganapathi Rao, Electrician, 3. Md. Ali, Packing Helper,
4. M. Venkanna Babu, Packing Helper, 5. B. Namasivayya,
Stores Assistant, 6.K. Ravibabu, Lab Assistant,
7. V.V.V.S.N. Swamy, Welder, 8. M.C.C. Srinivasa Rao,
Maintenance Assistant is justified or not?
(ii) To what relief they are entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner union, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner union is functioning at Yanam and it
is a registered union. The members of the union are
workers of first respondent establishment. The
petition mentioned workers are working in the industry
under various categories from the year 2001. The
petition mentioned workers were not been informed
that they are casual workers of the industry. The
respondent with arbitrary power kept the workmen at
his mercy depriving of the appointment orders, status
and privileges of the permanent workmen and such act
come under unfair labour practice on part of the
respondent as per the provisions of the Industrial
Dispute Act. Therefore, the 8 workmen along with
835
10 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
some
other
union
members
submitted
one
representation to Conciliation Officer to obtain
minimum benefits. Thus the workmen caused the
displeasure of the employees and they had terminated.
They were terminated from 20-07-2006 by the
respondent without any rhyme or reason which is
against Natural Justice. Therefore, they have to be
reinstated with back wages. The petitioner union raised
a conciliation of Industrial Dispute on 21-07-2006.
On receipt of the representation, the conciliation was
initiated and ended in a failure. No charges were
framed against any of the workers before their
dismissal from the service of the company nor were
any of them given a reasonable opportunity to explain
their circumstances alleged against them. Therefore,
there has been contravention of the principles of
Natural Justice. Hence, dismissal is bad, not justified
and should be liable to be set aside. The first
respondent employed more than 100 workmen and they
come under the definition of Industrial Employment
(Standing orders) Act to regulate the conditions of
discharge, disciplinary etc., of the workmen employed
in the Industry. The number of workmen employed in
the industry during the period was 132 employees for
the year 2001-2002 and 135 workers for the year
2002-2003. This was submitted by the enquiry report
of the Commissioner E.P.F. Therefore, prescribed
model standing orders shall be deemed to be adopted
in the industry. The punishment against 8 workmen
completed contradicting model standing orders.
Therefore, the act of the employer was actuated by
mala fides. No workers have rejected and refused to
regularise their service. The appointment orders had
either not been refused or rejected. The draft
appointment orders on white papers without date and
date of appointment were only has declined to accept
as out spoken conciliation. The workers had no
intentions to work or continue to work in the company
is not justified. It is most arbitrary. The management
has failed to produce registers of wages, muster roll
and other registers to substantiate their contention that
the workers are casual workmen. Finding report of the
Commissioner E.P.F suggests that the workmen are
working since 2001. There are no lapses in their
service since joining. The management did not deny,
they are not employed in work. Therefore, the
petitioner union members are the regular workers of
the management and they cannot be simply terminated.
3. The brief averments in the counter and
additional counter filed by the first respondent are
as follows :
The respondent emphatically denied the averments
in the claim petition and stated that the petitioner
union is a minority union and does not represent any
other worker except the 8 temporary casual workman
listed in claim petition. The union is not authorised by
its general body to raise the present industrial dispute
therefore, the union does not have the right to file the
present claim petition. On these preliminary grounds
the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. There are
other industrial disputes raised by other casual
workers of the respondent which are pending before
this Hon’ble Court. They are I.D. 29/06, I.D. 06/ 07,
I.D. 19/07, I.D. 17/ 07, I.D. 16/07, I.D. 26/ 07, I.D. 32/ 07
and I.D. 3/2008. In I.D. 29/06 the claim statement
was filed on 23-02-07, but, Mr. Chakravarthy has not
signed the claim petition, instead some other
individual whose name is not mentioned in the said
claim petition has filed the same. Similarly I.D. 3/2008
is filed by one Mr. Nageswararao, claiming himself to
be the President of the same Union, the other
industrial disputes in I.D. 06/07, 19/07 are filed by
individual workers. There cannot be two or more
Presidents for one union which shows that neither
Mr. Charkravarty nor any other person has any authority to
raise the present industrial dispute as the Union itself
is defunct and is not in existence. The Union therefore,
cannot covert an individual dispute into an industrial
dispute by espousing the cause of the workers, who
have not authorised the Union to represent them. The
petitioner union is relying solely upon the report of
Enforcement Officer of EPF, Rajamundry, to claim
that they are the employees of respondent
organization. The Enforcement Officer's report is
challenged by Respondent in an enquiry proceeding
No. 248/2007 before the Assistant P.F Commissioner.
Even the said enquiry was not conducted in a free and
fair manner and therefore, the respondent had to seek
for judicial intervention by filing Writ Petition No.
14506/2006 and 17714/2006 before the Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh where the gross illegalities
committed by the Assistant P.F. Commissioner
Rajamundry were seriously reprimanded by the
Hon'ble High Courtand, the assessment based on that
was cancelled by ordering a reenquiry by the Authority.
Therefore, the petitioner union is not entitled to rely
upon the said report. The genuineness and veracity of
the Enforcement Officer’s report, dated 29-06-2006 is
itself sub-judis before a quasi judicial forum and
unless the report’s validity is upheld by appropriate
forum, no reliance can be placed upon the said report
by the petitioner to seek employment or any other
benefit under the same. The EPF Enforcement Officer's
report, dated 29-06-2006 is primarily based on a
general insurance policy taken by the respondent
on 25-08-2001. In the year 2001 the Respondent
employeda Personnel Officer, by name Mr. P.V. Acharyulu
836
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 July 2018
who was forced to resign from M/s. Siris Agro
Limited, Meftakur, Yanam. Along with him the said
Personnel Officer brought some workers from the said
Company who were also terminated for various
misconducts. The respondent then did not know the
background of the said workers and employed around
30 workers on purely seasonal as contract jattu labour
for a period of about 3 months. The workers so
employed were all taken as Jattu workers strictly for
the period of about 3 months. All the workers were
paid on daily rated basis. In order to provide some
social security to the workers employed, the respondent
took Janata Insurance Policy with M/s. National
Insurance Company, Yanam, with noble intentions of
providing monetary reliefs to those temporary jattu/
casual workers who would get injured during the course
of employment besides persons engaged by vendors
and handling agents of the job work giving company.
Since, the minimum statutory period accident policy
with any Insurance Company was one year, the
respondent was forced to take the said policy for one
year. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that
since the policy was for one year, the workers whose
names also are found in the said list of Janata Policy
were employed for that whole year. The initial period
of three months, the respondent suspended its
operations in the month of November 2001 and
discharged all these workers. The factum of suspension
of operation was also intimated to the Labour Department.
Thereafter, again for the next season of three months
starting from June 2002, the respondent availed the
services of some jattu workers. As matter of routine
the said policy was also renewed for the next year. The
workers whose names are found in the Insurance Policy
list were engaged only on temporary basis in the year
2001-2002 and 2002-2003 for a period of three
months i.e., from September to November 2001 and
again from June to August 2002 for purposes of
meeting seasonal demands. Because of its internal
administrative problems the management cut its
operation and production for nearly three years from
March 2003 to January 2006. During the period when
there was no production, the respondent discharges all
its casual/jattu workers. Even when the unit was closed
due to lack of job work orders, some employees were
kept on roll for the purposes of maintenance of
machineries and equipments. The application by the
petitioner union was made on behalf of the 8 Workers
who actually rejected and refused order of permanent
employment. By refusing to accept the order of
permanent employment, the petitioners’ intention is
other than for any relief under the industrial dispute.
More than 59 number of workers have fortified the
contention of the respondent that they were employed
only from January 2006, which is evidenced by the
affidavits filed by those workers. There is absolutely
no clue as to what basis the P.F. Enforcement Officer
has ascertained the dates of joining of the 97 workers
mentioned in his chart including that of petitioners.
Infact, the Enforcement Officer has verbatim accepted
the version of petitioner Union, including the dates
given by them as date of their joining without asking
for any further evidences of employee - employer
relationship for any ulterior reasons. The Enforcement
Officer has only acted as mouth piece of the union and
has without any basis accepted the contentions of the
so called union. The entire report together with the
methodology adopted by the Enforcement Officer in
deciding the number of employees of the respondent
company ordered to be reviewed and re assessed and
there is every chance of the said report being rejected
in full in appropriate forum. All the petitioner jattu/
contra workmen were appointed for casual work needs
except one contract workman Mr. B. Namassivaya who
is employed from March 2004 till he rejected offer
permanent employment in the Company. The
petitioners, who claims that they have been working in
respondent's company is bound to prove by concrete
documentary evidence to support their case and cannot
rely upon the report of Enforcement Officer. By
application of section 9 and 13 of Sarfasi Act 2002
as well as section 529 (A) of the Companies Act 1956,
it is the duty of the secured creditor to address to the
grievances of the workers of Debtor Company.
Therefore, the Banks i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
and the Standard Chartered Bank are added as
necessary parties as 2nd and 3rd respondents for the
disputes raised by the petitioners and no obligations
can be cast upon this respondent. Therefore, prayed
this Court to dismiss the claim petition against this
respondent.
4. The petitioner union has raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer only against the
first respondent management and as the said
establishment was taken over by Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited and The Standard Chartered Bank, they have
been added as second and third respondents in their
claim petition and the fourth respondent M/s. Image
Feeds has purchased the first respondent in auction
held before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and thereafter
the fourth respondent was impleaded as party to the
proceedings and subsequently the case against the
second and third respondents was exonerated by the
petitioner and the fourth respondent was impleaded as
party and amended claim petition was filed by the
petitioner union.
837
10 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
5. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
4th respondent are as follows:
The fourth respondent denied all the averments
contained in the claim petition except those that are
specifically admitted and stated that the contents of
the counter statement and additional counter statement
filed by the 1st respondent may be treated as part and
parcel of this counter statement and further stated that
it is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sea
food and other allied products. The petitioners cannot
claim reinstatement or back wages against the fourth
respondent because the first respondent company was
never directly purchased by this respondent. The
factory and the other movable and immovable assets
of the first respondent at Yanam had been taken in
possession by consortium of Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited and the Standard Chartered Bank and all the
assets belonging to first respondent were brought for
auction sale under the Sarfaesi Act. The fourth
respondent purchased only the land, the building and
the machinery of first respondent’s factory at Yanam
as a non-functional and inoperative. A sale certificate
to that effect is issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited on 25-02-2015. Therefore, at the time when
this respondent purchased the first Respondent's
factory asset, it was a closed and non-functional unit
without any workers, staffs or any manpower. The
fourth respondent never had any agreement with the
first respondent or any other person to employ the
workers of first respondent. The fourth respondent,
after purchasing the land, building and machineries of
first respondent had spent over 1.5 - 2 crores in
upgrading the equipment and machinery and making the
factory functional. It started its factory operations
only from 1st May, 2015. The fourth respondent was
and is under no legal or moral obligation to employ
any of the workers of the erstwhile owners of the
factory purchased by it as this respondent is free to
employ its own manpower and run the factory upon its
terms and conditions. The fourth respondent had
therefore, selected its own workforce, including some
workers who were engaged by first respondent. But,
such employment was purely based on this
respondent’s fresh terms and conditions and as fresh
recruiters and not in continuity of their employment
with the first respondent. It is a completely new and
independent entity and it has purchased only the land,
building and machineries of the first respondent and
that too from the Banks, which had taken over
possession of the said assets from the first respondent
for non-payment of their debts under the Sarfaesi Act.
The petitioners, who claims to be the workers under
the erstwhile first respondent management, has no
locus standi to make any claims of employment or
even monetary compensations with the fourth
respondent under any statute, rules, regulations or
contract and hence, the present industrial dispute is
liable to be dismissed.
6. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10
were marked and on the side of the respondents RW.1
and RW.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R29 were
marked. Both sides are heard. The pleadings of the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and exhibits
marked on both sides are carefully considered. On both
sides written arguments were filed and the same were
also carefully considered. In support of his contention
the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon
the Judgments reported in CDJ 2008 SC 218, CDJ
2005 SC 604, CDJ 2002 SC 162, CDJ 1963 SC 212,
CDJ 2008 MHC 3631, CDJ 2009 Kar HC 442, CDJ 1990
Kar HC 368 and CDJ 2016 Raj HC 380. On perusal
of the records it is learnt that the Ex.R1 and Ex.R2
was marked through cross examination of PW.1 and
subsequently while RW.1 was examined by the first
respondent, instead of marking documents as Ex.R3 to
Ex.R18 it was mistakenly marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R18
and hence, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 which was marked through
RW.1 was rectified and marked as Ex.R2A and Ex.R2B
today for the sake of convenience to dispose the case.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
union has relied upon the Judgment reported in 2013
LAB I.C. Page No. 2073 wherein it was stated that
section 25. FF comes into play only in case of
transfer of ownership or management of an undertaking
to a new employer and not limited to some activities
of the undertaking. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondent managements has filed a written
argument stating that the petitioner union has no locus
standi to raise the industrial dispute since the union
has not filed any documents to show that it is the
registered union representing the 10% of the total
employees of erstwhile first respondent management
and eight workers listed in the reference were the
members of the petitioner union and has not produced
any documents and general body meeting of the said
union has not passed any resolution authorising its
Officers to raise the present industrial dispute. The
another contention of the respondent managements is
that the petition mentioned workers are only
temporary employees of the first respondent
establishment and the names of the said workers does
not find in the muster roll of the first respondent
838
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 July 2018
establishment and that it is not established by the
petitioners that they had been in service for more than
240 days in a year though they are having burden to
prove the same the petitioners have failed to prove the
same.
8. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union over non-employment of 8 workers viz.,
Tvl. K.Srinivasa Rao, Electrician, 2. K. Ganapathi Rao,
Electrician, 3. Md. Ali, Packing Helper, 4. M. Venkanna
Babu, Packing Helper, 5. B. Namasivayya, Stores
Assistant, 6. K. Ravibabu, Lab Assistant, 7. V.V.V.S.N.
Swamy, Welder, 8. M.C.C. Srinivasa Rao, Maintenance
Assistant against the first respondent management is
justified or not? and if justified, what is the relief
entitled to the said workers.
9. It is the case of the petitioner union that the
members of the petitioner union are the workers of the
first respondent establishment and the members of the
petition mentioned 8 workers were working at first
respondent establishment under various categories
from the year 2001 and the said workers along with
some other union members have made one
representation to Conciliation Officer to obtain
minimum benefits and they were terminated from
20-07-2006 by the first respondent without any reason
and hence, the union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer on 21-07-2006 and the
conciliation was failed and the conciliation failure
report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the
Government and that the first respondent management
has removed the workers without calling for any
explanation for proposed punishment without
conducting any domestic enquiry and the said workers
have been terminated from service without giving any
charge sheet, without conducting any domestic enquiry,
and without alleging any misconduct and without
following the principles of natural justice and it is the
further case of the petitioner union that while the
dispute is pending the first respondent company was
took over by the second and third respondent Banks
and the first respondent company was taken under sale
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the fourth
respondent being the successful bidder the company
was transferred in his name as the fourth respondent
became the employer of the members of the petitioner
union and that the workers of the first respondent
establishment who have completed the service not less
than one year are entitled to notice and compensation
in accordance with the provisions of section 25F as if
the workman had been retrenched and that therefore,
the fourth respondent is responsible for the workers
of the first respondent establishment.
10. In support of their case the petitioner union has
examined PW.1 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Ex.P1
is the representation of workers on 21-07-2006.
Ex.P2 is the copy of representation of the workers to
the regional P.F. Commission. Ex.P3 is the copy of
representation of Union President on 24-07-2006.
Ex.P4 is the copy of report of the Regional P.F.
Commissioner, Rajahmundry on 20-07-2006. Ex.P5
is the copy of reply by the management on 08-08-2006.
Ex.P6 is the copy of reply given by the management
on 18-09-2006. Ex.P7 is the failure report of the
conciliation, dated 18-09-2006. Ex.P8 is the true
proceedings copy on 31-05-2006. Ex.P9 is the copy of
representation given by the Union President on
24-02-2006. Ex.P10 is the copy of licence issued to
K. Srinivas Roa on 23-06-2015.
11. The evidence of PW.1 and the documents
marked on the side of the petitioner union would go
to show that the petitioner union has submitted an
application before the Assistant Labour Inspector on
21-07-2006 stating that the first respondent
management has done victimisation and unfair labour
practices on their union members for claiming their
minimum benefits by sending out from their services
and the workers of the first respondent company has
also sent a letter to the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner intimating non-providing of Employees
Provident Fund benefit since five years till the date of
victimisation and that the petitioner union has
submitted an requisition to the Assistant Inspector of
Labour to confirm in written whether the first
respondent management is taken prior permission
from the Labour Department for change in service,
suspension or termination of the union executive
members without notice and that the Regional
P.F. Commissioner has submitted an enquiry report
on 20-07-2006 and that the first respondent
management has given reply to the Assistant Inspector
of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer stating that the
petition mentioned workers were employed as
temporary casual workmen as temporary basis and they
were not employed in any permanent vacancy and they
were offered regularisation of their services with
effect from 01-01-2006 which they rejected and
refused and the management discarded their names
from further engagement or employment as temporary
casual workmen since they have no intention to work
or continue to work in the company and the petitioner
union has raised an industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer wherein the petitioner union has
stated that for representing to the EPF, Commissioner
and to the Labour Department for their benefits the
839
10 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
management is doing victimisation and unfair labour
practices on their union people and the petition
mentioned workers are send out from their services on
21-07-2006 without any notice and the first
respondent management has stated in the conciliation
that the petition mentioned employees were employed
as temporary casual workmen and were not permanent
employees and in pursuance of settlement entered on
29-12-2005 the management was pleased to regularise
their services which they rejected and refused and the
management discarded their names from further
engagement or employment as temporary casual
workmen since, they have no intention to work or
continue to work in the company and the conciliation
was failed after negotiation and the report was
submitted by the Enforcement Officer on 31-05-2006
and that licence which was valid up to 31-03-2016 was
issued to K. Srinivas Rao, the Managing partner of the
fourth respondent establishment by Yanam Municipality.
Therefore, it is clear that the petition mentioned
workers are the employees of the first respondent
establishment.
12. It is the main contention of the first respondent
that the first respondent establishment has become sick
and unviable and it is reeling under the debt borrowed
from the second and third respondent Banks who have
purchased credit outstanding of the first respondent
company and taken over symbolical possession of the
factory under the Sarfaesi Act and it was sold by the
second and third respondent in an auction held and the
said property was sold through Debt Recovery Tribunal
in which the first respondent factory was purchased by
the fourth respondent.
13. It is the contention of the fourth respondent
that movable and immovable assets of the first
respondent company alone have been taken by the
fourth respondent management and that the fourth
respondent never had any agreement with the first
respondent or any other person to employ the workers
of the first respondent and that the fourth respondent
started factory operation from 01-05-2015 and that no
legal or moral obligation to employ any of the workers
of the erstwhile owners of the factory purchased by it
as the fourth respondent is free to employ its own man
power and run the factory upon its terms and the fourth
respondent had therefore, selected its own workforce,
including some workers who were engaged by the first
respondent and such employment was purely based on
the fourth respondent's fresh terms and conditions and
not in continuity of their employment with the first
respondent and it is the further contention of the
fourth respondent that their factory is completely new
and independent entity and it has purchased only the
land , building and machineries of the first respondent
and that too from the Banks which had taken over
possession of the said assets from the first respondent
for non-payment of their debts under the Sarfaesi Act
and that therefore, they are not liable to engage the
workers who were in service at the first respondent
establishment after purchasing the same from Debt
Recovery Tribunal i.e., they have no legal or moral
obligation to engage the workers of the first
respondent establishment and not having any liability
on the workers of the first respondent establishment.
14. The RW.1 the Personnel Officer in the first
respondent establishment has stated in his evidence
that all the office bearers of the union have already
resigned and left from the first respondent company
and no one is in employment of the company since
2006 and that the petitioner union is the minority
union never represented any other worker except 8 to
10 workers and has not authorised by its general body
to raise the present industrial dispute and the petition
mentioned employees K. Srinivasa Rao, K. Ganapathi
Rao, Md. Ali, M. Venkanna Babu, B. Namasivayya,
K. Ravibabu, V.V.V.S.N. Swamy, M.C.C. Srinivasa Rao
were refused to accept the order of permanent
employment and therefore, they were debarred from
claiming any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act.
15. In support of their evidence the first
respondent management has exhibited Ex.R1 to
Ex.R18. Ex.R1 is the copy of conciliation
proceedings. Ex.R2 is the settlement dues sent to
employees on 28-07-2006. Ex.R2A is the copy of
letter of authorisation given to Mr. Arjuna Babu
Personnel Officer of 1st respondent company. Ex.R2B
is the xerox copy of the full and final settlement voucher
signed by Mr. K.S. Chakravarthy, dated 28-07-2007.
Ex.R3 is the xerox copy of the death register of the
year of 2012. Showing the date of death of
Chakravarthy. Ex.R4 is the xerox copy of the paper
publication issued by the respondent in Eenaadu News
paper on 02-05-2006. Ex.R5 is the xerox copy of the
letter dated 21-07-2006 issued to the 8 petitioners
which is refused to receive by them. Ex.R6 is the copy
of the muster roll of the first respondent company for
the period January-2006 to May-2006. Ex.R7 is the
xerox copy of the Possession notices given by Kotak
Mahindra Bank Limited and Standard Chartered Bank
(2 Nos.). Ex.R7 is the xerox copy of the sale notice
published by Kotak Mahindra Bank in the local news
paper. Ex.R9 is the xerox copy of the order in Writ
840
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 July 2018
petition No. 4299/2011 issued by Hon'ble High Court
of Andhra Pradesh, dated 18-05-2011. Ex.R10 is the
xerox copy of the order in WP.No.14506/2006 before
the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 17-07-2006.
Ex.R11 is the xerox copy of the Interim order in
WP. No. 17714/2006 before the Hon'ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court, dated 25-08-2006. Ex.R12 is the
xerox copy of the order in WP. No. 17714/2006
before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated
11-09-2007. Ex.R13 is the xerox copy of the order
in WP. No. 8115/2009 before the Hon'ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court, dated 21-04-2009. Ex.R14 is the
copy of the orders passed by EPF Appellate Tribunal
New Delhi, dated 17-09-2009. Ex.R15 is the xerox
copy of the orders passed in WP. No. 22615/2009 by
Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 22-10-2009.
Ex.R16 is the xerox copy of the letter given by IARC
to the Kotak Mahindra Bank intimating about the
taking over of liabilities of first respondent to
Standard Chartered Bank on 06-07-2012. Ex.R17 is
the xerox copy of the wire notice sent by the Registrar
of the Hon'ble High Court at Andhra Pradesh. Ex.R18
is the xerox copy of the letter given by IARC to the
first respondent intimating about the taking over of
liabilities of 1st respondent to Standard Chartered
Bank on 06-12-2011.
16. The documents exhibited by the first respondent
would reveal the fact that K.S. Chakravarthy has
received full and final settlement of ` 15,600 and
the management discard the employment of the
petition-mentioned workers as they refused the order
of regularisation and the said eight workers have been
discharged from service on 21-07-2006 and that the
possession notice was given by second respondent
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and third respondent
Standard Chartered Bank and sale notice was issued by
the said Banks in the news paper.
17. The RW.2 the Assistant Admin of the fourth
respondent has stated in his evidence that they have
purchased the plant and machineries of the first
respondent company in a bank auction under the
Sarfaesi Act and the first respondent owed huge debt
to consortium of banks, and the movable and
immovable assets of the first respondent company
were taken in possession by consortium of banks and
all the assets were brought for auction sale under the
Sarfaesi Act and the fourth respondent has purchased
only the land, the building and the machineries of the
first respondent firm at Yanam as a non-functional and
inoperative unit which remained closed before their
purchased and a sale certificate to that effect was
issued by second respondent Bank on 25-02-2015 and
at the time when they purchased the first respondent's
factory assets, the factory was closed and non-
functional unit without any workers, staffs or any man
power and they have not had any agreement with the
first respondent or any other person to employ the
workers of the first respondent establishment and that
they have started work only from 01-05-2015 and that
they have no legal or moral obligation to employ any
of the workers of the erstwhile owners of first
respondent and that they are free to employ their own
manpower and run the factory upon their terms and
conditions and that the fourth respondent is completely
new and independent entity and they have purchased
only the land, building and machineries of the first
respondent and that too from the consortium of banks,
which had taken over possession of the said assets
from the first respondent and the petition-mentioned
workers are not in service while they purchased the
factory and machineries and they have no obligations
to employ them in their rolls and pay monetary
benefits under any statue, rules, regulations or contract.
18. In support of their evidence the fourth
respondent management has exhibited Ex.R19 to
Ex.R29. Ex.R19 is the copy of the acknowledgment
of registration of firm certificate of M/s. Image Feeds,
dated 26-09-2014. Ex.R20 is the copy of the
partnership deed entered between the partners of
M/s. Image Feeds, dated 22-09-2014. Ex.R21 is the
copy of the purchase of movable and immovable
mortgaged properties at Yanam from Kotak Mahindra
Bank by M/s. Image Feeds, dated 17-12-2014. Ex.R22
is the copy of the PAN card of M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R23 is the copy of the licence issued by Yanam
Municipality in favour of M/s. Image Feeds, dated
23-06-2015. Ex.R24 is the copy of the sale certificate
issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank in favour of
M/s. Image Feeds, dated 25-02-2015. Ex.R25 is the
copy of factory licence of M/s. Image Feeds. Ex.R26
is the copy of the acknowledgment receipt issued by the
Kotak Mahindra Bank to M/s. Image Feeds for delivery
of movable properties at Yanam on 09-03-2015.
Ex.R27 is the copy of the acknowledgment receipt
issued by the Kotak Mahindra Bank to M/s. Image
Feeds for certifying the sale proceeds and handing
over the sale property, dated 08-04-2015. Ex.R28 is
the copy of no objection letter issued by Kotak
Mahindra Bank to Inspector of factories for
transferring factory licence in favour of M/s. Image
Feeds on 02-06-2015. Ex.R29 is the copy of letter
of autho rizatio n given to S. Prasad, Assistant
Admin of M/s. Image Feeds on 08-11-2017.
841
10 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
19. The documents filed by the fourth respondent
would reveal the fact that the fourth respondent was a
partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act
and partnership deed was entered between the partners
and the fourth respondent has purchased the movable
and immovable properties of the first respondent
establishment and licence was also issued in favour of
the fourth respondent and sales certificate was also
issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank in favour of the fourth
respondent and acknowledgment receipt for the
delivery of the movable properties of the first
respondent was issued by the Kotak Mahindra Bank in
favour of the fourth respondent and sales proceedings
were certified by the Bank.
20. The first contention of the respondents is that
the petitioner union has no locus standi to raise the
industrial dispute on behalf of the workers since they
are not atleast having 10% of the workers of the first
respondent establishment. However, it is not
established by the respondents that petitioner union is
having only 10% of the workers. Further, it is learnt
from Ex.P9 the conciliation failure report that such
plea that this petitioner union has no locus standi to
represent the petition mentioned workers has not been
taken up before the Conciliation Officer and
furthermore, even the office bearers of the union can
raise the industrial dispute and that therefore, the
contention raised by the respondents that the
petitioner union has no locus standi is not sustainable.
21. From the above evidence and document, it is
clear that the petition mentioned workers are the
workers of the first respondent establishment. The
Ex.P6 would evident that the petition mentioned
workers were working at the first respondent
establishment and they have been given regularization
by the first respondent management with effect from
01-01-2006 and the petition mentioned workers have
refused the same since they had been in service for
about five years and therefore, it is to be inferred that
the petition mentioned workers are working at first
respondent establishment for more than five years and
furthermore, the first respondent management has not
come forward to produce the attendance register for
the period from 2001-2006 and therefore, it is to be
inferred that the petition mentioned workers were
working for more than 240 days in an year and that
therefore, the petition mentioned workers are to be
treated as permanent workers of the first respondent
establishment.
22. As the petitioners are the worker of the first
respondent establishment and it was represented by the
first respondent management before the Conciliation
Officer that they discarded the names of the petition
mentioned workers from further engagement or
employment it is clear that no domestic enquiry was
conducted against the petition mentioned workers by
the first respondent management and even does not
give any show cause notice. Further, the first
respondent management has not followed any
procedure and not conducted any departmental enquiry
before discharge them from service though they had
been in service for about five years. The worker can
be removed from service if, he has committed any
misconduct or misbehavior only after conducting the
domestic enquiry. Admittedly, in this case no domestic
enquiry was conducted by the first respondent
management before discharging the said employees.
Therefore, the first respondent management is liable to
reinstate them since it has not followed the principles
of natural justice in terminating the petitioners.
Furthermore, at the time of raising the industrial
dispute by the petitioner union over non-employment
of petition mentioned workers against the first
respondent management, the first respondent
establishment was the existing factory and that
therefore, it is to be held that the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union over non-employment of
petition mentioned workers against the first respondent
management is justified as the first respondent
establishment has not properly terminated the petition
mentioned workers in accordance with the principles
of natural justice and hence, the petition mentioned
workers are entitled for reinstatement at the first
respondent establishment. However, the first
respondent establishment was taken over by the second
and third respondent Banks and sold to the fourth
respondent management and hence, the petition
mentioned workers cannot be reinstated in the first
respondent establishment.
23. As it is held by this
Tribunal that the
petition-mentioned workers are the workers of the
first respondent establishment and they have not been
properly terminated by the first respondent
management by conducting domestic enquiry in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioners against
the first respondent management is absolutely
justifiable one, it is the question to be decided by this
Tribunal that whether the fourth respondent who have
purchased the first respondent establishment at the
Debt Recovery Tribunal is having any legal obligation
of giving employment or giving compensation to the
workers of the first respondent establishment for the
service rendered by them to the first respondent
establishment or not. On this aspect the evidence let
in by either sides and exhibits marked on both sides
or arguments putforth by either sides are carefully
considered.
842
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 July 2018
24. It is learnt from the records that while the
industrial dispute is pending the first respondent
establishment has been taken away by second and third
respondents and the fourth respondent has purchased
the first respondent factory in the auction sale at Debt
Recovery Tribunal
i.e., the ownership and the
management of the first respondent establishment was
transferred due to the purchase and therefore, it is to
be decided whether the fourth respondent management
is liable to pay reinstatement and other benefits to the
workers of the first respondent establishment. On this
aspect the section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act
has been referred which runs as follows:
“S.25FF. Compensation to workmen in case of
transfer of undertakings. Where the ownership or
management of an undertaking is transferred,
whether by agreement or by operation of law, from
the employer in relation to that undertaking to a
new employer, every workman who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year in that
undertaking immediately before such transfer shall
be entitled to notice and compensation in
accordance with the provisions of S.25-F, as if, the
workman had been retrenched:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply
to a workman in any case where there has been a
change of employers by reason of the transfer, if–
(a) the service of the workman has not been
interrupted by such transfer;
(b) the terms and conditions of service applicable
to the workman after such transfer are not in
any way less favourable to the workman than
those applicable to him immediately before
the transfer; and
(c) the new employer is, under the terms of such
transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to
the workman, in the event of his retrenchment,
compensation on the basis that his service has
been continuous and has not been interrupted
by the transfer."
From the above provision, it is clear that
management of an undertaking is transferred whether
by agreement or by operation of law from the
employer in relation to that undertaking to a new
employer, every workman who has been in continuous
service for not less than one year in that undertaking
immediately before such transfer shall be entitled to
notice and compensation in accordance with the
provisions of S.25-F, as if, the workman had been
retrenched. In this case the management of the
undertaking was transferred by purchase i.e., by
operation of law from the employer of the first
respondent to new employer and hence, the petition-
mentioned workers are entitled for notice and
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. But, no such notice was issued by the fourth
respondent and no compensation has been given to the
workers as they had been in service at the time of
transfer of ownership to the fourth respondent from
the management of first respondent establishment.
25. It is contended by the fourth respondent that the
fourth respondent cannot be compelled with the
responsibility of reinstatement or payment of any
benefits since they have purchased the plant and
machineries of the first respondent under an auction
purchase on 17-12-2014 from the Banks and hence, the
fourth respondent has no legal obligation to employ
any employees of the erstwhile first respondent and
therefore, the petition mentioned workers absolutely
are not entitled for any reinstatement in the fourth
respondent establishment or cannot seek any
compensation from the fourth respondent and in
support of his argument the learned Counsel for the
respondents relied upon the Judgment reported in
CDJ 2009 Kar HC 442-M. Shashikumar
Vs.
Management of BPL Ltd., wherein, the Hon'ble High
Court has held that,
“31. In view of the above discussion, as a matter
of fact, neither the first respondent nor the second
respondent company was under any legal obligation
to offer employment to the employees of the
transferor company. In that view of the matter, the
only legal claim they can have access to is
retrenchment compensation………”
The learned Counsel further argued that as per the
above citation the fourth respondent management has
no legal obligation to offer employment to the
petitioners i.e., the employees of the transferor of
company and they can claim only retrenchment
benefits and that the petitioners are not having any
right to claim of any relief of reinstatement or
compensation either from the first respondent
management
or
from
the
fourth
respondent
management since the petitioners are the temporary
workers and the first respondent establishment is not
more existence as the company as it had became sick
and completely closed as early as in the year 2012 and
the fourth respondent has purchased only from the
Banks under the Sarfaesi Act and it has purchased only
the plant and machineries of the first respondent
establishment without other liability and none of the
petitioners are the permanent workers of the first
843
10 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
respondent establishment to claim any right of any
reemployment from the fourth respondent and that
therefore, the fourth respondent has no legal obligation
to reinstate the petitioners as claimed by them.
26. The learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents has further argued that the fourth
respondent establishment as a purchaser transferee
management has no liability to pay any compensation
or to give any employment to the petitioners as they
have purchased the property from the second and third
respondent Banks in an auction held by them and that
the fourth respondent as a purchaser, they have no
liability to reemploy the workers of the first
respondent establishment and they will not pay any
compensation under section 25FF of the Act since the
workers are not the employees of the fourth
respondent establishment and in support of his
argument the learned Counsel for the respondent has
relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 2009 Kar
HC 442 wherein, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court
has observed that,
“……..18. That being the position in law under
section 25ff, the former employees of the company
who were not absorbed by the Corporation can
hardly make out a claim against the transferee
corporation either for compensation on termination
of their service following the transfer or for
reemployment. The claim at any rate of the
employee in List II as against the Corporation under
section 25FF was clearly misconceived.
19. The learned Counsel Sri. B.C. Prabhakar
appearing for second respondent contends that the first
respondent company cannot manufacture colour
television anymore as entire unit of colour television
is transferred to the second respondent, therefore, it
cannot continue any employment to its employees and
had offered compensation in terms of Sec. 25FF of the
Act. He further contends that the offering of
compensation in terms of Sec. 25FF of the Act alone
was required to the complied with by the 1st
respondent and nothing else. It was also submitted that
459 employees out of 496 employees of the first
respondent without any grievance whatsoever have
joined the second respondent company under fresh
employment after receiving compensation from the
first respondent………”.
and further, the learned Counsel for the respondent has
relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 1990 Kar
HC 368 wherein, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court
has observed that,
“…….Section 25ff makes a reference to section
25f for that limited purpose, and therefore, in all
cases to which section 25ff applies, the only claim
which the employees of the transferred concern can
legitimately make is a claim for compensation
against their employers. No claim can be made
against their employers. No claim can be made
against the transferee of the said concern. (17) The
scheme of the proviso to section 25ff emphasizes
the same policy. If, the three conditions specified
in the proviso are satisfied, there is no termination
of service either in fact or in law, and so, there is
no scope for the payment of any compensation.
That is the effect of the proviso. Therefore, reading
section 25ff as a whole, it does appear that unless
the transfer falls under the proviso, the employees
of the transferred concern are entitled to claim
compensation against the transferor and they cannot
make any claim for re-employment against the
transferee of the undertaking. Thus, the effect of the
enactment of section 25ff is to restore the position
which the Legislature had apparently in mind when
section 25ff was originally enacted on September
4, 1956. By amending section 25ff, the Legislature
has made it clear that if, industrial undertakings are
transferred, the employees of such transferred
undertakings should be entitled to compensation,
unless, of course, the continuity in their service or
employment is not disturbed and that can happen if,
the transfer satisfies the three requirements of the
proviso. …...…. (18) In Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. The workmen and
another it is reiterated that on a transfer of
ownership or management of an undertaking, the
employment of workmen engaged by the said
undertaking comes to an end, and compensation is
made payable because of such termination. In all
cases to which section 25ff applies, the only claim
which the employees of the transferred concern can
legitimately make is a claim for compensation
against their employers. No claim can be made
against the transferee of the said concern.……… ”.
From the above observations of the Hon'ble High
Court, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to
claim only the compensation from the undertaking
where they have served as workers and they cannot
claim compensation or reemployment at the transferee
undertaking. But, in this case the first respondent
establishment was taken over by the second and third
respondent Banks and subsequently, the said
undertaking was sold in an auction held by them and
844
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 July 2018
sales certificate was issued by the Bank and that
therefore, the fourth respondent cannot be compelled
to pay any compensation to the employees of the first
respondent establishment. However, the petition
mentioned workers are entitled for compensation
from the first respondent establishment and the
management of the first respondent establishment has
to pay retrenchment compensation to the petition
mentioned workers under section 25FF of the Act.
27. Further, the second and third respondent Banks
have taken over the first respondent establishment for
their debt and sold it to the fourth respondent and
hence, the petition mentioned workers also could claim
the compensation from the said Banks. But, it is learnt
from the records that the second and third respondent
Banks have been exonerated who have sold the first
respondent establishment in an auction sale and the
sale amount was received by them and the excess
amount if any, is kept by the said Banks the petition
mentioned workers are having liberty to receive
compensation from the said Banks by taking
appropriate steps against the Banks and the first
respondent management. Eventhough, this Tribunal
cannot pass any Award against the second and third
respondent Banks since they sold the first respondent
establishment to the fourth respondent management
and received the sale consideration and therefore, an
Award has to be passed in favour of the petition
mentioned workers to get compensation from the first
respondent establishment and the management of the
first respondent establishment is liable to pay
retrenchment compensation to the petition-mentioned
workers by calculating the period of service and the
salary obtained by them from the date of joining till
the date of taken over the possession of the first
respondent establishment by the second and third
respondent Banks and that therefore, the claim against
the fourth respondent is rejected and hence, the claim
petition filed against the fourth respondent is also
liable to be rejected.
28. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union over non-employment of 8 workers viz.,
Tvl. K. Srinivasa Rao, K. Ganapathi Rao, Md. Ali,
M. Venkanna Babu, B. Namasivayya, K. Ravibabu,
V.V.V.S.N. Swamy, M.C.C. Srinivasa Rao, against the
first respondent management is justified and an Award
is passed directing the first respondent management to
pay compensation to the petition-mentioned workers
by calculating the period of service rendered by them
and the salary obtained by them from the date of
joining till the date of taken over the possession of the
first respondent establishment by the second and third
respondent Banks and further, the petition-mentioned
workers are at liberty to receive the compensation
from the second and third respondent Banks by taking
appropriate steps against the Banks and the first
respondent management and in respect of claim against
the fourth respondent is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 28th day of February, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
—26-04-2010— Ravi Babu
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
—21-07-2006— Representation
of
workers.
Ex.P2
—
–
— Copy of representation
of
the workers to the
regional P.F. Commission.
Ex.P3
—24-07-2006— Copy of representation
of Union President.
Ex.P4
—20-07-2006— Copy of report of the
Regional
P.F.
C o m m i s s i o n e r ,
Rajahmundry.
Ex.P5
—08-08-2006— Copy of reply by the
management.
Ex.P6
—18-09-2006— Copy of reply given by
the management.
Ex.P7
—18-09-2006— Failure report of the
conciliation.
Ex.P8
—31-05-2006— True proceedings copy.
Ex.P9
—24-02-2006— Copy of representation
given
by
the
Union
President.
Ex.P10 —23-06-2015— Copy of licence issued to
K. Srinivas Roa.
List of Respondents witnessess:
RW1
—20-06-2014— Arjuna Babu
RW2
—08-11-2017— S. Prasad
845
10 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of Respondents exhibits:
Ex.R1
—29-11-2005— Copy
of
conciliation
proceedings.
Ex.R2
—28-07-2006— Settlement dues sent to
employees.
Ex.R2A—
–
— Copy
of
letter
of
authorization given to
Mr.
Arjuna
Babu,
Personnel Officer of 1st
respondent company.
Ex.R2B—28-07-2007— Xerox copy of the full
and final settlement voucher
signed
by
Mr.
K.S.
Chakravarthy.
Ex.R3
—
–
— Xerox copy of the death
register of the year of
2012. Showing the date
of death of Chakravarthy.
Ex.R4
—02-05-2006— Xerox copy of the paper
publication issued by the
respondent in Eenaadu
News paper.
Ex.R5
—21-07-2006— Xerox copy of the
letter issued to the
8 petitioners
which is
refused to receive by
them.
Ex.R6
— Jan,2006 — Copy of the muster roll of
May, 2006
the
first
respondent
company.
Ex.R7
—
–
— Xerox
copy
of
the
Possession notices given
by Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited
and
Standard
Chartered Bank (2 Nos.).
Ex.R8
—
–
— Xerox copy of the sale
notice published by Kotak
Mahindra Bank in the
local newspaper.
Ex.R9
—18-05-2011— Xerox copy of the order
i n W r i t P e t i t i o n
No. 4299/2011 issued by
Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.R10 —17-07-2006— Xerox copy of the order
in WP.No. 14506/2006
before the Hon'ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court.
Ex.R11 —25-08-2006— Xerox
copy
of
the
Interim order in WP.No.
17714/2006 before the
Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh
High Court.
Ex.R12 —11-09-2007— Xerox copy of the order
in WP.No. 17714/2006
before the Hon'ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court.
Ex.R13 —21-04-2009— Xerox copy of the order
in
WP.No.
8115/2009
before the Hon'ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court.
Ex.R14 —17-09-2009— Copy of the orders passed
by EPF Appellate Tribunal
New Delhi.
Ex.R15 —22-10-2009— Xerox copy of the orders
passed in WP.No. 22615/
2009 by Andhra Pradesh
High Court.
Ex.R16 —06-07-2012— Xerox copy of the letter
given by IARC to the
Kotak Mahindra Bank
intimating
about
the
taking over of liabilities
of first respondent to
Standard Chartered Bank.
Ex.R17 —
–
— Xerox copy of the wire
notice
sent
by
the
Registrar of the Hon'ble
High Court at Andhra
Pradesh.
Ex.R18 —06-12-2011— Xerox copy of the letter
given by IARC to the first
respondent
intimating
about the taking over of
liabilities
of
1st
respondent to Standard
Chartered Bank.
Ex.R19 —26-09-2014— Copy
of
the
acknowledgment
of
registration
of
firm
certificate of M/s. Image
Feeds.
Ex.R20 —22-09-2014— Copy of the partnership
deed entered between the
partners of M/s. Image
Feeds.
846
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[10 July 2018
Ex.R21 —17-12-2014— Copy of the purchase of
movable and immovable
mortgaged properties at
Yanam from Kotak Mahindra
Bank by M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R22 —
–
— Copy of the PAN card of
M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R23 —23-06-2015— Copy
of
the
licence
issued
by
Yanam
Municipality in favour of
M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R24 —25-02-2015— Copy
of
the
sale
certificate
issued
by
Kotak Mahindra Bank in
favour of M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R24A—
–
— Copy of factory licence
of M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R25 —09-03-2015— Copy
of
the
acknowledgment receipt
issued
by
the
Kotak
M a h i n d r a B a n k t o
M/s. Image Feeds for
delivery
of
movable
properties at Yanam.
Ex.R26 —08-04-2015— Copy
of
the
acknowledgment receipt
issued
by
the
Kotak
M a h i n d r a B a n k t o
M/s. Image Feeds for
certifying the sale proceeds
and handing over the sale
property.
Ex.R27 —02-06-2015— Copy of the no objection
letter issued by Kotak
Mahindra Bank to Inspector
of factories for transferring
factory licence in favour
of M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R28 —08-11-2017— Copy
of
letter
of
authorization given to
S. Prasad, Assistant Admin
of M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R29 —08-11-2017— Copy
of
letter
of
authorization of Mr. S. Prasad.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
}|{
S.
III,
S.
S.
(i)