La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 21-00
Prix : ` 21-00
Price :
` 21-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 894
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 894
Award of the Labour Court
.. 894
de Tribunal.
.. 906
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 906
Government Notifications
.. 906
.. 915
Avis de saisis-arrét
.. 915
Notice of attachment
.. 915
.. 915
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 915
Tender Notices
.. 915
.. 916
Etablissements dangereux
.. 916
Dangerous Establishments
.. 916
.. 917
Annonces
.. 917
Announcements
.. 917
.. 922
Corrigendum
.. 922
Corrigendum
.. 922
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India under
No. 10410
Registered No. PY/44/2018-20
WPP No. TN/PMG(CCR)/WPP-88/2018-20
Dated : 24-7-2018
Price : ` 21-00
2018 }
|
24 {
No.
30
Poudouchéry
Mardi
24
Juillet
2018 (2 Sravana 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
24th
July
2018
[ 893 ]
894
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 July 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 62/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 11th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 29/2012, 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 4 workers
Thiruvalarkal 1. Somalingeswarudu, N.S. Prasad,
S. Nagaeswara Roa, G. Prasad-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. 29/2006
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.
. .
Respondents
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
& E. Karthik, Advocates for the respondents, 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. 171/2006/Lab./AIL/J,
dated 30-11-2006 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the non-employment of four workers viz.,
Thiruvalargal (1). I. Somalingeswarudu, (2) N.S. Prasad,
(3) S. Nageswara Roa, (4) G. Prasad by the management
of M/s. Somkan Marine Foods Limited, Yanam, 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, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner union is functioning at Yanam and it
is a registered union. The members of the petitioner union
are workers of respondent establishment M/s. Somkan
Marine Foods Limited, at Yanam. The workers 1 and 4 are
engaged as Maintenance Assistants from 16-6-2001,
02-03-2003 and 09-04-2001 respectively and 3 engaged
as an Operator in water treatement from 24-05-2001.
The respondent depriving the workers of the status and
privileges of permanent workmen. Therefore, the
workers submitted one representation in this regard to
Assistant Inspector of Labour, Yanam on 04-10-2005
and a complaint was made before the Provident Fund
Commissioner, Rajamundry, Andhra Pradesh State, over
non extension of Provident Fund against the management
on 24-02-2006. Even since the respondent having
developed grouse against the Union members and is
waiting for an opportunity to cause irreparable loss in
one way or the other. In the line of achieving their
malicious goal of wreak vengeance the respondent
declined workers and denying their entry by the security
on 24-04-2006. The petitioner union raised a conciliation
of industrial dispute on 24-04-2006. On receipt of the
895
24 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
representation, the conciliation was initiated and was
ended in a failure. The Conciliation Officer gave his
failure report to Secretary to Government (Labour).
When the matter was pending before the Secretary to
Government the respondent removed the workers
without
calling
for
explanation
for
proposed
punishment and without conduct inquiry against Natural
Justice. Therefore, the petitioner union come before
this Court as a reference as stated above. Hence, the
petitioner Union prays before this Court to decide the
matter on the following grounds. The workers above-
mentioned 4 in numbers had worked from 5 years. They
are not been informed that they were casual labour.
However, the discharge of work carried by the workers
to the satisfaction of the Management with unblemished
records. But, they are terminated from 08-08-2006 by
the respondent on discipline reasons without rhyme
which is against natural justice. Therefore, they have to
be reinstated with back wages. No charges were framed,
no enquiry was conducted and without calling for
explanation for proposed punishment the respondent
issued dismissal order. The termination is illegal and
void abinitio. In the absence of domestic enquiry in
this regard, the act of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal
to be set aside. The workers had worked continuously
since 5 years with permanent status of workmen under
section 25(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. But,
the management did not deny that they are not engaged
in work since 5 years. Therefore, the petitioner union
members are the regular workers of the management
and they cannot be simply terminated. All the four
workers are continued for long years manifestly to
deprive them of the status of permanent employee. This
amounts unfair labour practice on the part of the
management. During the pendency of industrial dispute
before the Secretary to Government (Labour) as which
the subject matter of the dispute directly connected
with decline to work of such workers without maintain
status quo or without obtain prior permission of the
Secretary to Government (Labour) the respondent
dismissed the workers. This was a contravention
section 33(1) (a) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 on the
part of the management. Therefore, the awarded
punishment is not sustained under law. Thiru C. Ramesh,
S/o. C. Malakondaiahnaidu was empowered by the
Chairman of the company to represent submit, receives
all necessary documents pertaining to the company at
any Government forums. But, Thiru L. Satyanarayana,
Personal Officer a titular participated in the conciliation.
Therefore, the representation of Thiru L. Satyanarayana
and his contention were not valued under law. The
contention of the management that the workers
themselves left out the factory without any intimation/
found absent hereby denied. If the contention is true
the petitioner ought to have give show cause letters
before the termination. This was not done by the
management. Therefore, the contention of the
respondent vitiated since, it is against natural justice.
Further, the contention of the management that the
workers have refused to accept of regularisation orders
hereby denied. It is a new defense. During the conciliation
in connection with workers representation, dated 09-10-2005
the management accepted before the Conciliation
Officers to regularise the service of 27 workmen from
their date of joining. After, the workers are aware that
the regularisation orders were not very similar to the
ones which the management issued earlier. Therefore,
the letters turned down before the Conciliation Officer
in compliance with the management. Therefore, the
petitioner union prays this Court to reinstate the above
said workmen with back wages from the date of illegal
termination on 08-08-2006 along with all benefits.
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 impugned three
workers namely, Somalingeswarudu, S. Nageswara Rao,
and G. Prasad were engaged by the respondent as casual
worker in various departments of the respondent
management. The 4th worker N.S. Prasad joined the
respondent as apprentice on 01-11-2003 for a period
of 12 months. Their status as casual workers have been
accepted and admitted by the petitioner in their claim
statement itself except by N.S. Prasad. The petitioners
are put to strict proof of the date of employment and
their claim of having worked more than 5 years as
claimed in the petition. None of the workers have ever
completed 240 days of continuous services in any of
the year they worked and therefore, they cannot claim
that they have worked for 5 continuous years. They were
therefore, never entitled to claim regularisation or
permanent status. The petitioner union had given a
letter, dated 04-10-2005 to Assistant Labour Officer/
Conciliation Officer, claiming permanent status to
number of casual workers including the impugned
workers in the resent case. During the conciliation
proceedings, the Conciliation Officer suggested the
respondent to regularise some of its workers. Though,
the said workers were not legally entitled to claim
regularisation, in order to maintain industrial peace and
out of sympathetic consideration, the respondent
accepted the suggestions of Conciliation Officer and
896
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 July 2018
offered regularisation of posts to 32 workers including
the 3 workers namely, S. Nageswara Rao, Godasi Prasad,
I. Sojmalingeswarudu involved in the present dispute.
As such a memorandum of settlement on 29-12-2005
by virtue of which many workers accepted the
regularization and joined duty. However, the 3 workers
herein have refused accept the regularisation order,
dated 09-01-2006 on some false pretext as has been
admitted by them in their claim statement. The respondent
therefore, continued with them as casual workers.
The 4 workers being casual workers were obliged to
do any work given by the respondent and cannot dictate
terms to the respondent that they will do only one
particular nature of job. They were employed by the
respondent as helpers in various sections of its factory
on casual basis. As such on 21-04-2016, when the
workers came for work, the respondent directed them
to report to duty at pillet Mill section, they refused to
work in the said section and argued with the
respondent's officials that they be retained in the same
unit as they were working prior to their transfer. The
respondent had informed the petitioner in clear terms
that workers are bound to work in any of the units
allotted to them by the respondent and directed the
workers to report to duty at their places of transfer.
Instead of reporting to work at their respective places
of transfer, the Petitioner Union submitted a letter to
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 24-04-2006 that
they were prevented from discharging their duties in
their places of work prior to their transfer. They have
categorically written in their representation to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) that they will not report
to duty till the Labour Officer directs them to do so.
It is therefore evident from their own Letter that they
did not report to duty since 24-04-2007 they have not
come to work. As such, since, their absence from work
was unauthorised and without any intimation to the
respondent, the respondent removed their names from
the list of casual workers and intimated the same to
the concerned workers vide their letter of discharge,
dated 08-08-2006. The said letters was purposefully
evaded by the 2 workers and as such it have returned to
the respondent, and were received by 2 workers namely,
S. Nageswara Rao, I. Somalingeswarudu. The petitioners
have never been terminated from services. They were
discharged from services because of the continuous,
unauthorised and uninformed absence from duty. The
respondent has not alleged any misconduct on the part
of 4 discharged workers and therefore, there was
absolutely no requirement of framing any charges and
conducting any domestic enquiry. It was a case of
discharge simplicitor of 4 workers without casting any
stigma on their services. As the said 4 workers were
casual employees, who were not willing to work at the
places of their transfer and as the said temporary casual
workmen abstained from duty without intimation, the
respondent had no other options but to discharge them
of their services. The petitioners do not have tiny lien
over employment and therefore, they cannot claim
reinstatement. The claim of the petitioner for reinstatement
is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Further, it is stated
that the 1st respondent management respondent
company has become sick and unviable and it is reeling
under the debt borrowed from the Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited and the Standard Chartered Bank. The two
Banks who have purchased credit outstanding of this
respondent's company from CDC and SCICI latter
changed as ICICI and now the Banks have taken over
symbolical possession of the factory and all the properties
of this respondent under the Sarfesi Act 2002. The said
Banks have also issued publication for auction and sale
of this respondent company in its ‘as-is-where-is’
condition. The Standard Chartered Bank has since
assigned the debts along with all securities pertaining
to this respondent in favour of International Assets
Reconstruction Company Private Limited. This
respondent filed an application under Debt Recovery
Tribunal Visakhapatnam in S.A. 193/2010, which
granted stay on sale of the factory, posting the case to
be heard on 28 Jun 2011. The order of the DRT has
been suspended by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai where an application was preferred by Kotak
Mahindra Bank Limited against the said order before
the Debt Recovery Appeal Tribunal, Chennai vide N.A.
603/2010 and the same is pending adjudication. The
Writ Petition is also pending before the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 4299/2011. 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. In the unlikely event of any award being
passed by this Court having monetary implications on
this respondent, it shall only be satisfied by Kotak
Mahindra Bank Limited and the Standard Chartered Bank
as secured creditors 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
897
24 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the Standard chartered Bank, they have been added as
second and third respondent in their claim petition and
the fourth respondent M/s. Image Feeds has purchased
the first respondent in the 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.
5. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
fourth 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 petitioner 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 worker 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.
Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the claim
petition against the fourth respondent.
6. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex. P1 to Ex. P12
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
and RW.2 were examined and Ex. R1 to Ex. R34 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.
On both sides written arguments were filed and the
same were also carefully considered. In support of his
contention the learned Counsel for the respondent has
relied upon the Judgments reported in CDJ 2008 SC
218, CDJ 2005 SC 604, CDJ 2002 SC 162, CDJ 2008
MHC 3631, CDJ 1990 Kar HC 368, CDJ 2009 Kar HC
442 & CDJ 1963 SC 212. On perusal of the records it
is learnt that the first respondent has exhibited Ex.R1
to Ex.R24 through RW.1 and subsequently while RW.2
was examined by fourth respondent, instead of marking
documents as Ex.R25 to Ex.R35 it was mistakenly
marked as Ex.R24 to Ex.R34 and hence, the Ex.R.24
which was marked through RW.2 was rectified and
marked as Ex.R24A 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 in to 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
898
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 July 2018
representing the 10% of the total employees of
erstwhile first respondent management and four
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 name of the said workers does not find in the muster
roll of the first respondent 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 four workers
viz., Tvl. (1) I. Somalingeswarudu, (2) N.S. Prasad,
(3) S. Ageswara Roa, (4) G. Prasad by the respondent
management is justified or not and if justified, what is
the relief entitled to them.
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 petitioner union namely, I. Somalingeswarudu,
N.S. Prasad. S. Nageswara Roa, G. Prasad were working
at first respondent establishment from 2001 and the
said workers have made representation for the status
of permanent workmen to the Assistant Inspector of
Labour on 04-10-2005 and also they have made
complaint before the Provident Fund Commissioner
over non extension of Provident Fund against the
management on 24-02-2006 and hence, the respondent
management was waiting for an opportunity to cause
irreparable loss to the said workers and on 24-04-2006
the workers have been restrained to enter into the first
respondent Industry by their security and hence, they
have raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer on 24-04-2006 on the same day
and the conciliation was failed and the conciliation
failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer
to the Government and while the said matter was
pending before the Government 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. P12. Ex.P1
is the representation of workers, dated 04-10-2005.
Ex.P2 is the letter to Commissioner of Employees
Provident Fund, Rajahmundry, dated 24-02-2006. Ex.P3
is the copy of settlement before Conciliation Officer,
Yanam, dated 29-11-2006. Ex.P4 is the copy of letter
issued by the Chairman. Ex.P5 is the copy of the letter
submitted before the Conciliation Officer, Yanam by
the Factory Manager, dated 29-12-2005. Ex.P6 is the
copy of the letter submitted by the President to Assistant
Inspector of Labour, Yanam on 24-04-2006. Ex.P7 is the
copy of representation made by the workers on
24-04-2006. Ex.P8 is the letter to Managing Director
by the Conciliation Officer on 14-06-2006. Ex.P9 is
the failure of Conciliation report, dated 17-07-2006.
Ex. P10 is the proof of the date of joining collected by
the Enforcement Officer, Provident Fund from National
Insurance Company. Ex.P11 is the letter regarding
names of employees discarding, dated 08-08-2006.
Ex.P12 is the copy of licence issued to K.Srinivas Roa.
11. The documents and evidence of PW.1 would go
to show that the workers of the first respondent
establishment has submitted an application before the
Assistant Labour Inspector on 04-10-2005 stating that
they are working at the first respondent establishment
and the management is not paying any bonus for the
workers and that though workers have working for more
than five years they have not been given permanent
status and their service has not been regularised by the
management and they have not get any benefit of
Provident Fund, ESI and leave benefits and the
petitioner union has also sent a letter to the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner stating that the first
respondent establishment was breaking many rules and
899
24 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
laws and that the workers of the respondent
establishment has submitted an application wherein, the
conciliation proceedings was taken place between the
first respondent management and the workmen of the
petitioner union on 29-12-2005 and they entered into
compromise and the same was signed by both the parties
and thereafter, in the conciliation the management was
pleased to accept the demands of the petitioner union
and the petition mentioned four workers were given
permanent status with effect from 01-01-2006
on 29-12-2005 and the petitioner union has raised the
industrial dispute before the Assistant Inspector of
Labour stating that the worker Nageswara Roa who was
attending duty in ‘A’ Shift was forcefully stopped by
the security without any written instruction and on the
same day the petition mentioned four workers have
given representation to the management regarding
refusal for admission to duty and the conciliation was
failed after negotiation and the report was submitted
by the Enforcement Officer on 30-06-2006 and Ex.P12
would evident that licence which was valid up to
31-03-2016 was issued to K. Srinivas Roa, the Managing
partner of the fourth respondent establishment by
Yanam Municipality.
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 and the petitioner union has
no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute as it has no
10% of workers of the first respondent establishment.
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 manpower 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 let 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 Somalingeswarudu, S. Nageswara Roa and
G. Prasad were working only as casual workers in
various departments of the first respondent company
and 4th worker N.S. Prasad joined in their company as
apprentice on 01-11-2003 for a period of 12 months
through District Industries Center, Yanam and
thereafter, he was also engaged as casual worker and
they have not served about 5 years as stated by the
petitioner union and none of the workers have never
completed 240 days of continuous services in any of
the year they worked and that some of the workers have
been regularised by the management in the conciliation
proceedings, dated 04-10-2005 in order to maintain
industrial peace though the said workers have not
legally entitled to claim regularisation and the petition
mentioned workers have been regularised on the
suggestions of the Conciliation Officer and memorandum
of settlement arrived on 29-12-2005 and 32 workers
have accepted the regularisation and joined duty and
the petition mentioned four workers have not accepted
the regularisation under order dated 09-01-2006 and
that the four workers being casual workers and they will
do only one particular nature of job and they have
served as helpers in various section of their factory on
casual basis and they have directed to report to duty at
pellet mill section as helpers on 21-04-2006 and they
900
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 July 2018
have refused to work in the said section and the petition
mentioned four workers have not reported to work at
the respective places of transfer and the petitioner
union has submitted a letter to the Labour Officer
conciliation on 24-04-2006 that workers were
prevented from discharging their duty in their places
of work prior to their transfer and that therefore, the
first respondent has removed the name of petition
mentioned workers from the list of casual workers and
intimated the same on 08-08-2006 and that the petition
mentioned workers have not been terminated from
service and they have discharged from services because
of their continuous unauthorised and uninformed
absence from duty and hence, they are not entitle for
any reinstatement or back wages as claimed by them
since they are casual workers and apprentice.
15. In support of their evidence the first respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex. R24. Ex.R1 is
the copy of letter of authorization given to Mr. Arjuna
Babu, Personnel Officer of 1st respondent company on
30-04-2014. Ex.R2 is the order issued by DIC
Sub-Office, Yanam to respondent on 30-10-2003. Ex. R3
is the memorandum of settlement signed by Management
and its workers, dated 29-12-2005. Ex.R4 is the
Conciliation Report, dated 29-12-2005. Ex.R5 is the
order of regularisation given to 4 workers on 09-01-2006.
Ex. R6 is the transfer order given to 4 workers. Ex.R7
is the letters submitted by petitioner union to Labour
Officer (Conciliation) on 24-04-2006. Ex.R8 is the
letter of discharge simplicitor to four workers
on 08-08-2006. Ex.R9 is the registered post of
acknowledgment. Ex.R10 is the return covers. Ex.R11
is the copy of the muster roll of the respondent
company for the period from January 2006 to May, 2006.
Ex.R12 is the original letter given by M/s. Regency
Ceramics Limited to the respondent confirming employment
of Somalingeswarudu and one G. Prasad Rao
on 06-03-2010. Ex.R13 is the xerox copy of the
Possession notices given by Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited and Standard Chartered Bank (2 Nos.). Ex. R14
is the xerox copy of the sale notice of Kotak Mahindra
Bank in the local newspaper. Ex. R15 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.R16
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.R17 is the xerox
copy of the order in WP. No. 17714/2006 before the
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 1-09-2007.
Ex. R18 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. R19 is the copy of the orders
passed by Employees Provident Funud Appellate
Tribunal New Delhi, dated 17-09-2009. Ex. R20 is the
xerox copy of the orders passed in WP. No. 22615/2009
by Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 22-10-2009. Ex. R21
is the xerox copy of the order in Writ Petition No. 4299/
2011 issued by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
dated 18-05-2011. Ex. R 22 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. R23 is the xerox copy of the wire notice sent by
the Registrar of the Hon’ble High Court at Andhra
Pradesh. Ex. R24 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 there was
settlement arrived at between the workers of the first
respondent establishment and the first respondent
management under section 12(3) of the Act and the
same was signed by the workers and the first respondent
management on 29-12-2005 and the regularisation of
the petition mentioned four workers was accepted by
the first respondent management according to the
conciliation proceedings and the said four workers have
been transferred to some other departments for which
the petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and the said four
workers have been discharged from service on 08-08-2006
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 newspaper.
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 purchase 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
901
24 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
workers, staffs or any manpower 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.R24A to
Ex.R34. Ex.R24A is the copy of the acknowledgment
of registration of firm certificate of M/s. Image Feeds,
dated 26-09-2014. Ex.R25 is the copy of the
partnership deed entered between the partners of
M/s. Image Feeds, dated 22-09-2014. Ex.R26 is the
copy of the purchase of moveable and immovable
mortgaged properties at Yanam from Kotak Mahindra
Bank by M/s. Image Feeds, dated 17-12-2014. Ex.R27
is the copy of the PAN Card of M/s. Image Feeds. Ex.R28
is the copy of the licence issued by Yanam Municipality
in favour of M/s. Image Feeds. Ex.R29 is the copy of
the sale certificate issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank in
favour of M/s. Image Feeds. Ex.R30 is the copy of
factory licence of M/s. Image Feeds. Ex.R31 is the
copy of the acknowledge receipt issued by the Kotak
Mahindra Bank to M/s. Image Feeds for delivery of
movable properties at Yanam. Ex.R32 is the copy of
the acknowledgement receipt issued by the Kotak
Mahindra Bank to M/s. Image Feeds for certifying the
sale proceeds and handing over the sale property.
Ex.R33 is the 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.R34 is the copy of letter of authorisation
given to S. Prasad, Assistant Admin of M/s. Image Feeds.
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 documents, it is
clear that the claim petition mentioned four workers
are the workers of the first respondent establishment
and their service has been regularised by the first
respondent establishment under Ex.R5 according to the
decision taken by the first respondent management in
the conciliation proceedings as they have been in
service for about five years. It is evident from Ex.P9
the conciliation failure report that in the conciliation
the representative of the first respondent management
has stated before the Conciliation Officer that at no
point of time the management stopped the petition
mentioned workmen from service and they have been
only transferred from their respective department to
another department for better prospects but all the
workmen had themselves left out the factory without
any intimation.
22. As the petition mentioned workers are the
workers of the first respondent establishment and it was
represented by the first respondent management before
the Conciliation Officer that this petition mentioned
workers have voluntarily left out the factory without
any intimation 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 for the unauthorised absence and
for not joining at transferred place. Further, the first
902
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 July 2018
respondent management has not followed any procedure
and not conducted any departmental enquiry before
discharge them from service though they have been in
service for about five year and their service have been
regularised under Ex.R5. The workers have to be
removed from service if, they have 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 four
employees. Therefore, the first respondent management
is liable to reinstate them since it has not followed the
principles of natural justice in terminating the petition
mentioned workers. 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 four 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 four 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 by
conducting domestic enquiry in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union over non-employment of
petition mentioned workers 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 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.
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.,
903
24 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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 first respondent relied upon
the Judgment reported in CDJ 2009 Kar HC 442 -
M. Shashikumar Vs. Management of BPL Limited,
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 existences 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 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 re-employment.
The claim at any rate of the employee in List II as
against the Corporation under sec. 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 any more 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 section 25FF of the Act. He further contends that
the offering of compensation in terms of section
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,
904
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 July 2018
“……..Section 25ff makes a reference to section
25ff 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 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
reemployment 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 Limited, 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 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. Even
though this Tribunal cannot pass any Award against the
second and third respondent Banks since they sold the
first respondent establishment to the fourth respondent
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 (1). I. Somalingeswarudu,
(2) N.S. Prasad, (3).S.Nageswara Roa, (4).G.Prasad
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.
905
24 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Dictated to 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—08-04-2010 — Ravi Babu
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1—04-10-2005 — Representation of workers.
Ex.P2—24-02-2006 — Letter to Commissioner of
Employees Provident Fund,
Rajahmundry.
Ex.P3—29-11-2006 — Copy of settlement before
Conciliation Officer, Yanam.
Ex.P4
— Copy of letter issued by the
Chairman.
Ex.P5—29-12-2005 — Copy of the letter submitted
before the Conciliation
Officer, Yanam by the
Factory Manager.
Ex.P6—24-04-2006 — Copy of the letter submitted
by the President to Assistant
Inspector of Labour, Yanam.
Ex.P7 —24-04-2006— Copy of representation made
made by the workers.
Ex.P8—14-06-2006 — Letter to Managing Director
by the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.P9—17-07-2006 — Failure of Conciliation
report.
Ex.P10
— Proof of the date of joining
collected by the Enforcement
Officer, Provident Form from
National Insurance Company.
Ex.P11—08-08-2006—Letter regarding names of
employees discarding.
Ex.P12—23-06-2015—Copy of licence issued to
K. Srinivas Roa.
List of respondent’s witnessess:
RW.1— 20-06-2014— Arjuna Babu
RW.2—20-06-2014—
S. Prasad
List of respondent’s exihibits:
Ex.R1 —30-04-2014— Copy of letter of
authorisation given to
Mr. Arjuna Babu Personnel
Officer of 1st respondent
company.
Ex.R2 —30-10-2003— Order
issued
by
DIC
Sub-Office, Yanam to
respondent.
Ex.R3 —29-12-2005— Memorandum of Settlement
signed by Management
and its workers.
Ex.R4 —2912.2005— Conciliation report.
Ex.R5 —09-01-2006— Order of regularisation
given to 4 workers (4 Nos.).
Ex.R6
— Transfer order given to 4
workers (4 Nos.).
Ex.R7 —24-04-2006— Letters submitted by
petitioner union to Labour
Officer Conciliation (4 Nos.).
Ex.R8 —08-08-2006— Letter of discharge
simplicitor to four workers
(4 Nos.).
Ex.R9—
— R e g i s t e r e d
P o s t
o f
acknowledgment.
Ex.R10—
— Return covers.
Ex.R11— Jan, 2006— Copy of the muster roll of
May, 2006
the respondent company.
Ex.R12—06-03-2010—Original letter given by
M/s. Regency Ceramics
Limited to the respondent
confirming employment of
Somalingeswarudu and one
G. Prasad Rao.
Ex.R13—
—
Xe ro x co p y o f t he
Possession notices given
by Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited and Standard
Chartered Bank (2 Nos.).
Ex.R14—
—
Xerox copy of the sale
notice of Kotak Mahindra
Bank in the local
newspaper.
Ex.R15—17-07-2006—Xerox copy of the order in
WP. No. 14506/2006 before
the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh
High Court.
906
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[24 July 2018
Ex.R16—25-08-2006—Xerox copy of the Interim
order in WP. No. 17714/
2006 before the Hon’ble
Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Ex.R17—11-09-2007—Xerox copy of the order in
WP.No.17714/2006 before
the Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court.
Ex.R18—21-04-2009—Xerox copy of the order in
WP. No. 8115/2009 before
t h e
H o n ’ b l e
A n d h r a
Pradesh High Court.
Ex.R19—17-09-2009—Copy of the orders passed
by EPF Appellate Tribunal
New Delhi.
Ex.R20—22-10-2009—Xerox copy of the orders
passed in WP. No. 22615/
2009 by Andhra Pradesh
High Court.
Ex.R21—18-05-2011—Xerox copy of the order in
Writ petition No. 4299/
2011 issued by Hon’ble
Hig h Co ur t o f And h ra
Pradesh.
Ex.R22—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.R23—
— Xerox copy of the wire
notice sent by the Registrar
of the Hon’ble High Court
at Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.R24 —06-12-2011—Xerox copy of the letter
given by IARC to the first
re sp o n d en t i nti mati ng
about the taking over of
liabilities of 1st respondent
to Standard Chartered
Bank.
Ex.R24A—26-09-2014—Copy of the acknowledgment
of registration of firm
certificate of M/s. Image
Feeds.
Ex.R25 —22-09-2014—Copy of the partnership
deed entered between the
partners of M/s. Image
Feeds.
Ex.R26 —17-12-2014—Copy of the purchase of
moveable and immovable
mortgaged properties at
Yanam from Kotak Mahindra
Bank by M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R27—
—
Copy of the PAN Card of
M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R28 —23-06-2015—Copy of the licence issued
by theYanam Municipality in
favour of M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R29 —25-02-2015—Copy of the sale certificate
issued by Kotak Mahindra
Bank in favour of M/s. Image
Feeds.
Ex.R30—
— Copy of factory licence of
M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R31—
— Copy of the acknowledge
receipt issued by the Kotak
Mahindra Bank to M/s. Image
Feeds for delivery of
movable properties at Yanam.
Ex.R32—
— 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.
Ex.R33—
— Copy of the no objection
lett er is sued b y Ko t ak
Mahindra Bank to Inspector
of factories for transferring
factory licence in favour of
M/s. Image Feeds.
Ex.R34 —08-11-2017—Copy of letter of
authorisation given to
S. Prasad, Asst. Admin of
M/s. Image Feeds.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 108/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 2nd July 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that
an industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. V Care Pharcos, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and
Thiru Sakthivel, Korkadu Post, Puducherry, over
reinstatement with back wages, in respect of the matter
mentioned in the Annexure to this order;