La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 28-00
Prix : ` 28-00
Price :
` 28-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1098
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1098
Award of the Labour Court .. 1098
de Tribunal.
.. 1109
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1109
Government Notifications .. 1109
.. 1128
Avis de saisis-arrêt
.. 1128
Notice of attachment
.. 1128
.. 1128
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1128
Tender notices
.. 1128
.. 1129
Etablissements dangereux
.. 1129
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1129
.. 1131
Annonces
.. 1131
Announcements
.. 1131
.. 1136
Corrigendum
.. 1136
Corrigendum
.. 1136
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 : 4-9-2018
Price : ` 28-00
[ 1097 ]
2018 } | 4 {
No.
36
Poudouchéry
Mardi
4
Septembre
2018 (13 Bhadra 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
4th
September
2018
1098
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 September 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 80/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 16th May 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 36/2012, dated
02-04-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute
between the Management of M/s. Soundararaja Mills,
Karaikal and Nedungadu Soundararaja Mill Thozhilalar
Sangam, CITU, Karaikal, over termination of 123
workers by way of voluntary retirement scheme has
been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department’s
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L., dated 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Deputy Labour Commissioner.
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 02nd day of April, 2018
I.D. (T) No. 36/2012
Nedungadu Soundararaja Mill
Thozhilalar Sangam,
CITU (Reg.No.126/72P),
Rep., by its General Secretary,
No. 14, Thennur, Rajiv Nagar,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Employer,
Soundararaja Mills,
Nedungadu, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 12-03-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru N. Ramar, representative for the petitioner and
Thiru G. Jagadharaj, Advocate for the respondent, upon
hearing both sides, upon perusing the case records,
after having stood over for consideration till this day,
this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by
the Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 17/2004/
Lab./AIL/J, dated 03-02-2004 for adjudicating the
following:-
(i) Whether the termination of 123 workers by
the Management of M/s. Soundararaja Mills Limited,
by way of voluntary retirement service scheme is
justified or not?
(ii) To what relief, the petitioners are entitled to ?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
The above reference originally taken on file by the
District Court at Karaikal which was being functioned
as Labour Court in industrial dispute No.03/2004 and
subsequently when this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court established in the year 2012, the case has been
transferred to this Court and this case was taken on file
by renumbering it as Industrial Dispute (L). No. 36/2012.
2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
All the 123 workers, on whose behalf the industrial
dispute is raised, are members of the petitioner union
which is registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 with
Registration No. 126/72. A substantial number of the
workers employed by the respondent mills are the
members of the petitioner union. The respondent is a
Textile Mills in Karaikal which was established in the
year 1966. Admittedly, the mill is doing well.
According to the petitioner union, the respondent
employed 1100 workers of which only 300 were
permanent. According to the respondent management,
they employed 750 workers
in all including
apprentices. Out of the 1100 workers, nearly 700 are
apprentices and badlis 100 contract workers. Only 300
are permanent workers. The permanent workers get about
` 5,000 to ` 6,000 per month whereas, the badlis are
paid about ` 1,200 per month on daily wage basis.
There is not a single woman worker who is permanent.
All the women workers are only apprentices. A good
portion of the work is got done through them. There is
1099
4 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
a separate settlement under section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act 1947, only with reference to
women workers. According to this settlement, they are
paid a daily wage and they have no provident fund, ESI.,
gratuity. At the end of 3 years these women worker are
supposed to be given ` 20,000 for marriage. But, this
is not given even at the end of 5 years. Thus, a
substantial portion of the work is got done through
women workers, who are being exploited. Since, most
of the permanent workers are male, and the management
has got to pay ` 5,000 to ` 6,000, according to textile
agreement, they wanted to get rid of the male workers
and get the work done through women works by further
exploiting them. Therefore, between the period
1997-2002, the respondent harassed the male workers
in such a way that the end of the day tokens used to be
taken away. When they asked for the tokens, they were
asked to go to the Labour Officer. When they went to
the Labour Officer, they were directed to meet the
Spinning Master. They told these permanent workers
that it was more profitable to engage women workers.
Therefore, they asked the male workers to accept the
compensation and go out. They told that if, the workers
do not resign and take some voluntary reirement
service amount and go out, they will be sent out in other
ways in which case they were told there will not be any
compensation. In this process, 123 workers mentioned
in the Annexure were got rid off by getting forced
letters of resignation or voluntary reirement service
of them 90 are permanent workers and 33 are badli
workers. The respondent management told the badlis
that they are not going to make any worker permanent
hereafter and if, would be better for them to accept the
compensation and go out. Otherwise they stated that
know-how to send them out. As stated the management
had not made permanent any badli workers during the
period 2001-2002. But, after sending out 33 badli
workers, and after persisted demands made by both
union and several public organization of Nedungadu, the
management made 20 badli workers as permanent
during the year 2003. There are about 100 more
permanent male workers, who have been sent out in this
fashion and are remaining outside. The Labour Officer
wanted to stop with this 123 for the present. The others
are eagerly waiting outside, so that they also can pursue
the matter once the result in this dispute is known.
These 123 workers had put in long years of service.
There was not a single complaint against them. They
have families and they are middle aged and they had
many more years of service to go. There was no
compelling reason for them to either resign or go under
the voluntary retirement scheme. It was really forced
on them. Even according to the respondent there is no
settlement with any union agreeing to a voluntary
retirement scheme. In fact, the managements case itself
is that there was an oral settlement with INTUC union.
There was no such oral settlement nor was any scheme
put up on the notice-board. Different workers were paid
different amounts depending upon the whims and
caprice of the management which would not be the case,
if, there was really a scheme. Even the INTUC Union
with whom the management claims to have entered into
an oral settlement issued pamphlet on 23-01-2003
questioning this forced termination. On 26-01-2003,
there was a huge public meeting at Nedungadu organised
by various associations and trade unions questioning
this mass forced termination. It must be stated that in
Karaikal, the respondent mills has been one of the major
sources of employment. With this kind of termination,
numbers of families have been thrown to the streets.
These 123 workers had been representing to the
respondent to provide them employment. They were
questioning their termination. The respondent tried to
appease some of the workers by paying some more
money. The management also tried to evade the issue
by stating that they would talk to the Managing Director.
This way the matter got postponed. Not finding any
tangible solution, the workman raised the present
dispute. They were represented by the petitioner. Later,
the petitioner raised the dispute. The 1st batch of such
representation was made on 24-1-2003. The petitioner
explained as to how they were harassed and forced to
resign or go under the voluntary reirement service. The
workers who were working the Spinning department
were forced to go and work in the Carding department
where there was a lot of dust. The workers who were
in the Maintenance department were asked to go and
work in the Spinning department, where they did not
know the work. Later, they were found fault with for
not doing the work. In umpteen ways they were
harassed. Another batch of workers gave representation
on 01-04-2003 and 09-04-2003 requesting for
reinstatement or atleast extra compensation. The 33
badli workers made representation and demanded
permanency. This was not a case of resignation or one
going under voluntary reirement service. on his own.
It will be clear from the case relating to serial No. 18
Mr. Evarist. The management stated that he resigned
on 16-08-2001 and he was paid ` 64,000 by way of gratuity
and ` 43,000 by way of voluntary reirement service.
The worker immediately protested on 18-08-2001 by
sending a letter by registered post stating that he had
only sent an ESI leave letter by registered post and the
management had foisted a resignation on him. Using
1100
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 September 2018
a resignation letter had obtained from him in the month
of May 2001 by threat and intimidation when he
was rejoining duty after absenting a day in May 2001.
If really, this worker Evarist had resigned, there was no
reason why they should have given him voluntary
retirement service compensation. He had also
immediately protested. All this speaks volumes about
the conduct of the management and the unfair labour
practice restored to by them. On the petitioner union
raising a dispute, the Labour Officer initiated conciliation
by his letter, dated 05-03-2003. The management sent
3 replies, dated 25-03-2003, 04-06-2003 and 04-07-2003.
The petitioner submitted a reply, dated 07-07-2003. The
management took up every conceivable point in the
conciliation. They stated that the petitioner union had
no representative capacity which is not correct.
A substantial number of the workers employed in the
respondent Mills are members of the petitioner union.
The 123 workmen, by themselves would constitute
a substantial number. Since, under section 2-A
non-employment is deemed to be an Industrial Dispute
Act, the question of substantial number does not arise
under section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The respondent management in their reply, date 04-06-2003,
have stated that 108 out of 110 workers except
Prabakaran and N. Chandrasekaran, had gone on their
own. In the case of other two, according to the
management Prabakaran accepted additional compensation
of
` 25,000 on 03-02-2000 by signing a 12(3)
settlement if, it was a case of voluntary retirement under
a scheme it is not clear as how additional compensation
was paid. It only shows that the respondent was trying
to patch up for having forced a resignation or imposed
voluntary reirement scheme on the workers. On 07-07-2003,
the petitioner union sent a reply stating that it was all a
case of forced resignation. The following circumstances
will show that it is not a case of either voluntary
resignation or voluntary retirement. The reference
itself stated weather the ‘termination of 123 workers
by way of voluntary reirement service is justified. 90
of 123 workers were all the male permanent workers
who were getting ` 5,000 to ` 6,000 per month. They
were middle aged and had families. There was no reason
for them to resign or go under voluntary reirement
service. It is not as if, the workmen had better alternative
jobs on hand. Most of the workers who were doing the
work were female workers who were getting hardly
` 1,500 with no statutory benefits like ESI. privident
fund, gratuity. None of them had gone on voluntary
reirement scheme. It only shows that management
wanted to get rid of the permanent workers and got the
work done through female workers. There was no
written agreement regarding voluntary reirement
service. and it was also not put up on the notice-board.
If, orally a voluntary reirement service.had been
offered and it was there, different amounts would not
have been given to workers without any basis. The
respondent in their letter, dated 25-07-2003 has stated
that there was a oral settlement with INTUC. If, that
was so, there was no reason as to why the INTUC should
have distributed pamphlets about forced termination,
demanding reinstatement. What the management have
done is clearly an act of unfair labour practice under
V Schedule to Industrial Dispute Act 1947, item No. 5
which is an act of victimisation. There cannot be a more
telling example for unfair labour practice and
victimization than this case. The number speaks for
itself. Therefore, the petitioner prayed this Court to answer
the reference holding that the termination of 123
workers is illegal, unjustified and an act of victimisation
and consequently direct the management to reinstate
the workmen concerned with full back wages, continuity
of service and all other attendant benefits.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent denied all the allegations and
averments contained in the claim statement except
those which are specifically admitted. The respondent
would raise a preliminary objection that the present
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union is not
maintainable in law. The respondent employs about 750
workmen under various categories including the staff.
At all relevant times, when the voluntary retirement
scheme was being implemented, the INTUC and LPF
were alone the recognised trade unions and the CITU
is not recognized by the respondent. The respondent
entered into several settlements in the past, with these
two recognised unions both under secton 18(1) and
12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The CITUC
has never been a party to such settlements, because it
has no membership among the workman of the
respondent Mill. In fact, all the 123 workmen, who are
parties to the present dispute, were members of the
INTUC till the last date when they resigned under the
voluntary retirement scheme and settle their accounts
by receiving from the respondent the gratuity voluntary
retirement scheme benefit and ex gratia. None of them
was a member of the CITUC and paid the membership
subscription. Only after a few of the 123 resigned
persons raised 2 A industrial disputes, the petitioner
union approached the other resigned persons by making
them false promises that they would obtain for them
form the respondent further substantial amounts and
1101
4 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
believing their false promises, the resigned persons
supported it. This subsequent development after all 123
resigned persons have received without any reservation
their gratuity, voluntary retirement scheme benefit
and ex gratia from the respondent giving full acquaintance.
Therefore, neither individual resigned person nor the
petitioner union on their behalf can raise a valid
industrial dispute against the respondent. The petitioner
union had never enjoyed any substantial following
among the workmen of the respondent and thus the
petitioner has no locus standi at all to raise an
industrial dispute under section 2(k) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 and on which ground alone, the
present dispute raised by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed. The respondent begs to raise another
preliminary objection that the petitioner Union has not
followed the statutory and mandatory legal procedure
to raise the present dispute in that it has not conducted
a General Body meeting of its so called members, who
were workmen of the respondent nor the workmen
attending the meeting passed any resolution authorising
the General Secretary N. Ramar to raise the present
dispute against the respondent. The petitioner union
failed to produce any document before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) in this regard. It is well settled
law that an industrial dispute raised by the union without
following these legal procedures is unsustainable in law
and liable to be rejected and on which ground also the
present industrial dispute raised by the petitioner is
liable to be rejected. The respondent would raise,
another preliminary objection that as per recent
decisions of the Higher Courts including the Hon’ble
Apex Court that when the worker accepts the voluntary
retirement scheme benefits after his resignation or
even as part of the voluntary retirement scheme
benefits from his employer, he cannot raise any
industrial dispute alleging that his service was
terminated by the employer against his wish and on
which ground also the present industrial dispute raised
by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The respondent
prayed to treat the abovesaid objections as preliminary
issues and decide the very maintainability of the present
dispute raised by the petitioner union. It is further
stated that the allegations and averments contained in
the claim statement are baseless, false and lacking in
bona fides. The 123 resigned persons were till their
resignation under the voluntary retirement scheme were
members of INTUC. They were paying membership
subscription to the INTUC trade union until the date of
their leaving the respondent Mill under the voluntary
retirement scheme. None of them is a member of the
petitioner union and their subsequent support to the
petitioner union because of its false promises would
not make them its members under the provisions of the
Trade Unions Act, 1926. There are only 750 employees
on the pay roll of the Mill including staff members
about 50. It is a well established practice in textile
Mills to employ badlis to meet certain contingencies,
and badlis are a recognised category in the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act and the Standing
Orders certified thereunder. As regards women workers,
it is submitted that there has been a long standing and
much overdue claim from women organisations that
women should be given equal opportunity in
employment in service as well as manufacturing sector.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in its judgment,
dated 08-12-2000 has quashed section 66(l) (b) of the
Factories Act as ultravires of the Constitution of India
and held that women workers could be employed even
in the full night shift subject to certain safeguards.
Therefore, the question of exploiting women workers
as alleged by the petitioner does not at all arise. As a
matter of fact, young women are taken by the
respondent as apprentices and during the period of
apprenticeship training, they were paid stipend as in the
case of male apprentices, and in addition, on
completion of training period, the women apprentices
are each paid ` 20,000 as a lumpsum for the benefit of
their marriage and future. This apprenticeship training
scheme followed in the respondent mill can not be
termed as “unfair labour practice”. On the other hand
this system promotes gender equality and social
justice. The respondent had never harassed its workmen
as alleged by the petitioner. Admittedly, 123 persons
in the present dispute have voluntarily and in their won
volition without any persuasion or pressure resigned
their job from the respondent Mill under the voluntary
retirement scheme because the terms of the voluntary
retirement scheme were attractive in terms of monetary
benefits. According to the voluntary retirement scheme
workers with 15 years service and less in the respondent
mill were paid double the gratuity, while workers having
more service were paid gratuity as per law and in
addition double gratuity for 8 years service. All the
concerned persons resigned under voluntary retirement
scheme accepted not only the gratuity but also the
voluntary retirement scheme benefits and settled their
accounts fully and finally by giving valid acquittance.
These amounts were paid by account payee cheques,
which were enchased by the 123 resigned persons. The
123 persons who resigned under the voluntary
retirement scheme and settled all their accounts had
also
settled
their
employees
provident
Fund
accumulations standing to their credit in their
1102
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 September 2018
respective accounts. Thus the employee-employer
relationship between the 123 persons and the
respondent has irrevocably ceased and therefore, neither
they nor any trade union on their behalf can raise a valid
industrial dispute against the respondent under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is
too late in the day for the 123 persons to allege now
that they had not resigned from service but their
services were terminated by the respondent. Section 4
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 section 4(1) of
the Act stated grauity shall be payable to an employee
on the termination of this employment after he has
rendered continuous service for not less than five years
on his superannuation, on his retirement or resignation,
or on his death or disablement due to accident or
disease. The case as regards 123 persons involved in
the present dispute falls under C1. (b) of section 4(l)
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Because, they
voluntarily resigned under the voluntary retirement
scheme. Having settled their gratuity amount as per the
provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,
together with their employees provident fund accounts,
they cannot turn back and allege that they have not
resigned under the voluntary retirement scheme but,
their services were terminated illegally by the
respondent. If, there was any truth in their allegation
they would not have settled their gratuity and
employees provident fund account and received
amounts along with the benefits offered under the
voluntary retirement scheme and encashed the account
payee cheques received by them, but, they would have
raised an industrial dispute under section 2A of the
Industrial Disputes Act or approach their Trade Union,
the INTUC in which they were members instead of
receiving all the benefits, giving valid receipts. The
mere fact that neither they individually raise any dispute
under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act against
the respondent nor their union viz the INTUC espoused
their cause by raising a dispute under section 2 (k) of
the Industrial Disputes Act would conclusively prove
that the present dispute had been raised by the petitioner
CITU with ulterior motive, mala fide intention solely
with a view to harass the respondent management.
The mala fide intention and the ulterior motive of
petitioner union would be further confirmed by the
contention of the failure report, dated 25-07-2003
submitted by the Labour Officer, Karaikal to the
Commissioner of Labour, Pondicherry. In the said
report, the Labour Officer has categorically stated that
out of 123 petitioners, 37 petitions reveal that they were
forced by the respondent to resign from service under
voluntary
retirement
scheme
and
pleaded
for
reinstatement, while the remaining 86 petitioners
wanted ` 2,00,000 as terminal benefits as per the oral
assurance of the respondent. It appears therefore, that
the intention of the resigned persons was mainly to
extract more money from the respondent under the
pretext that they were forced to resign by the
respondent management. Thus, the allegation of the
petitioner that the voluntary retirement scheme was
forced on these 123 persons is utterly baseless and
false and contrary to facts and material evidence. The
resignation by the 123 persons started from 28-03-1997
and ended as on 02-01-2003. During this long period
of early 5 years the INTUC never expressed any
reservation or dissent as regards the voluntary
retirement scheme. Nor even the CITU raised any
dispute during this period. The President of the INTUC
branch union put up a notice only on 25-06-2004 on
the union notice-board due to certain grudge he
harboured against the respondent. The respondent
therefore, issued a show cause notice, dated 26-06-2004
to him and he tendered his unqualified apology, dated
27-06-2004 admitting that what he said in the notice
was not true and prayed for condonation. Accepting his
unqualified apology, he was severely warned for his
misconduct by order, dated 01-07-2004 and the matter
was treated as closed. In the face of these admitted
facts, the allegation of the petitioner that the INTUC
was also against the voluntary retirement scheme is
absolutely baseless, incorrect and misleading. No
employee who resigned under voluntary retirement
scheme and accepted all the monetary benefits available
under the scheme by giving valid acquittance, can
validly and legally repudiate his resignation and
seek re-employment, and the employer has no
obligation whatsoever either to pay more money or
consider reinstatement of any of the resigned workmen.
As provided under the certified standing orders and
bilateral settlements, some workers might have been
transferred from one department to another under
certain
circumstances
and
for
administrative
contingencies. It is well settled law that this kind of
administrative contingency or policy would not amount
to harassment or unfair labour practice as alleged by
the petitioner. Higher Courts have categorically held
that it is an inherent condition in the contract of
employment that employees are liable for transfer not
only form department to department within the same
unit but, even to factories outside the State under the
same management provided their service conditions and
emoluments are not affected. Mr. Evarist serial No.18
in the annexure to the claim statement received
` 64,825 towards gratuity and ` 43.217 under the
1103
4 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
voluntary retirement scheme and after his resignation
of his job and settled his account including his
employees provident fund account. At the instigation
of some outsider he tried to repudiate his resignation,
but subsequently, he settled all his accounts by giving
valid acquittance severing all his connection with the
respondent. In these circumstances, the attempt on the
part of the petitioner to cite this solitary matter against
the respondent is naive and futile. It is true that a
worker, who is discharged, dismissed, retrenched or
otherwise terminated can raise an industrial dispute
under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, but, a
trade union without any membership can not legally
raise an industrial dispute under section 2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act in respect of members of the
other trade unions and that too without following the
statutory and mandatory provisions of law. The Trade
union cannot legally raise an industrial dispute in
respect of workmen, who resigned under voluntary
retirement scheme, accepted all the monetary benefits
under the scheme and settled all their accounts fully
and finally by giving valid stamped acquaintance on
behalf of non-members solely with a view to harass the
employer with ulterior motive with mala fide intention
as in the present case. M. Prabakaran had resigned his
job in the respondent mill not under the voluntary
retirement scheme and his resignation was accepted.
He raised an individual dispute before the Labour
Officer and in the course of conciliation, a settlement
was arrived at under section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Under the terms of the settlement, the
management paid ` 25,000 to him and he accepted the
amount and settled his accounts. This matter has
nothing to do with the present dispute. The amount of
` 25,000 is not an additional sum given to M. Prabakaran
under the voluntary retirement scheme as alleged by
the petitioner. This amount was paid to him in full
and final settlement of all his claims and he accepted
to receive the same as per clause 2 of the 12(3)
settlement. As regards N. Chandrasekaran, he continued
in service in the Mill. Hence, allegations of the
petitioner in this regard is baseless and misconceived.
The permanent workers are paid wages and dearness
allowance as per the settlements in force in the
respondent mill. While the badlis are paid consolidated
wages as per the terms of the bilateral settlement in
force, the apprentices are paid stipend in accordance
with the terms of the apprenticeship training scheme.
Therefore, the question of exploitation or unfair labour
practice as alleged by the petitioner does not at all
arise. The voluntary retirement scheme is a recognized
policy not only in Industry but, also in all other trade
and service sectors, which has been necessitated by the
introduction of new mechanism, information technology
and computerization and global trade practice to which
India is no exception. As regards employment of
women, it is in accordance with the national policy
accepted by Higher Courts as well as the Central and
State Governments. The clock cannot be put back in
the changing circumstances of world phenomena as
wished by the petitioner CITU Union, which is
interested only in class war and not in the economic
progress of the nation. The plea of victimization raised
repeatedly in the claim statement by the petitioner is
absolutely baseless and completely devoid of any merit
or substance. Firstly there cannot be any victimization
extending benefits to the 123 persons, who voluntarily
resigned
through voluntary
retirement
scheme.
Secondly it is well settled law that a person who raises
the plea of victimization should prove it to the hilt.
In the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence
to support the allegation of victimization as raised by
the petitioner. Hence, this plea of victimization falls to
the ground and is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the
respondent prayed this Court to dismiss the claim
petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 to PW.6 was examined and Ex. P1 to
Ex.P32 were marked and on the side of the respondent
RW.1 was examined and Ex. R1 to Ex. R16(series) were
marked. Both side arguments were heard. When the
case was posted for order it is learnt to this Court that
the documents filed on the side of the petitioner Ex.P1
to Ex. P24 as well as the documents filed on the side
of the respondent Ex.R1 to Ex.R15 were misplaced by
the staff of this Court which could not be traced out
even after taking severe steps to secure it and therefore,
under office order the disciplinary proceedings was
initiated against the concerned staff. Since, the case
was pending for more than 15 years and the same was
originally taken on file by the District Court at Karaikal
which was being functioned as Labour Court in
industrial dispute No. 03/2004 and subsequently, when
this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was
established in the year on 11-08-2012, the case has
been transferred to this Court and the case was
renumbered asindusttrial dispute (L). No. 36/2012 and
that as there was a direction to dispose all the five year
old cases within 31st March, 2018 after giving due
notice to both the parties and on their endorsement that
they have no objection to reconstruct the documents,
some of the documents have been reconstructed on
consent of both the parties. However, the documents
1104
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 September 2018
Ex. P10, Ex. P14, Ex. P16, Ex. P24 and Ex. R6 could
not be reconstructed since both the parties have not
produce the copy of the said documents and both the
parties have endorsed that they have no objection to
pronounce the final order without reconstructing the
said documents and therefore, further arguments were
heard.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondent management over termination
of 123 workers is justified or not and if justified, what
is the relief entitled to them.
6. On the point:
The pleadings of the parties, the evidence let in by
both sides and the exhibits marked on either side are
carefully considered. On both sides written arguments
were filed and the same were also carefully considered.
It is the case of the petitioner union that the 123
workers for whom the industrial dispute was raised are
the members of the petitioner union which is the
registered union and majority of the workers of the
respondent mill are the members of the petitioner union
and that the respondent management has 1100 workers
of which only 300 were permanent and others are
apprentices and badlis and the permanent workers were
paid ` 5,000 to ` 6,000 per month and others were paid
only ` 1,200 per month on daily wage basis and that the
respondent management between the period 1997-2002
harassed the workers to accept the compensation and
go out and they had been told if the workers do not
resign and take the voluntary retirement service amount
and go out they would be sent out in other way and that
therefore, reference mentioned 123 workers were get
rid off by getting forced letters of resignation and they
have been given voluntary retirement out of which 90
workers are permanent and 33 are badli workers and
the management had not made any badli worker
permanent as stated during the period 2001-2002 and
made 20 badli workers are permanent during the year
2003 and the management has compelling the workers
to resign or go under voluntary retirement scheme and
the workers have been really forced by the management
and that without any settlement with the union the
respondent management has forcibly got the resignation
letters from the employees and they have been settled
different amounts depending upon the whims and
caprice of the management and all the above 123 workers
have been terminated from service and that there was
huge public meeting on 26-03-2003 questioning this
mass
forced
termination
of
the
respondent
establishment and that therefore, the petitioner union
has raised the industrial dispute before the Labour
Conciliation Officer which was failed and subsequently
the matter has been referred to this Court by the
Government to adjudicate the same.
7. In order to prove their case the petitioner union
has examined PW.1 to PW.6. PW.1 has reiterated all
the averments in the claim statement in his evidence.
The other witnesses PW.2 to PW.6 in their evidence
have stated that they were the workers of the respondent
establishment and also on whose behalf the industrial
dispute was raised by the petitioner union and all of
them have stated all the facts which are stated in the
claim petition and their main evidence is that the
respondent
management
has
forcibly
obtained
resignation letter from them by giving pressure and by
creating several troubles and it is further evidence that
the signatures have been obtained by the management
only by coercion and that the workers have not been
given one month notice for their removal and the
respondent management has only to retrench the male
workers and to appoint female workers has given
several troubles to the workers and thereby they have
forced the workers to give resignation.
8. In support of their case the petitioner union has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. Ex.P1 is the copy of the
letter sent by the petitioner union to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation). Ex.P2 is the copy of the letter sent by
the respondent to the Labour Department. Ex.P3 is the
copy of the letter sent by the respondent to the Labour
Department. Ex.P4 is the copy of the letter sent by
PW.1 Ramar, Secretary CITU to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation). Ex.P5 is the copy of the standing order
of the respondent mill. Ex.P6 is the copy of the notice
of the union. Ex.P7 is the copy of the agreement
entered between one Sumathi and the respondent
management. Ex.P8 is the copy of the notice of the
union regarding meeting. Ex.P9 is the copy of the
registration certificate. Ex.P11 is the copy of the letter
given by the Puduvai Mill Thozhilalar Sangam to the
petitioner union. Ex.P12 is the Puduvai Mill
Thozhilalar Sangam member's list. Ex.P13 is the copy
of the letter given by the petitioner union to the Labour
Department. Ex.P15 is the copy of the meeting
proceedings. Ex.P17 is the copy of the reply given by
the respondent before the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P18 is the copy of conciliation failure report. Ex.P19
is the copy of Government reference. Ex.P20 is the
copy of the notice given by the Labour Officer. Ex. P21 is
the copy of the order passed in A.S. No.13/2005.
Ex.P22(series) are the authorization given by the
1105
4 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
petitioners.
Ex.P23(series)
are
the
petitioners
membership forms. Ex.P25 is the copy of the form
submitted before the Labour Department. Ex. P26 is
the copy of the dispute raised by 123 resigned workers
of the Mill. Ex. P27 is the copy of the order passed in
W.P. No. 15958 of 2003. Ex. P28 is the copy of the
12(3) settlement. Ex. P29 is the copy of complaint
filed by one Yacob and FIR. Ex. P30 is the copy of the
order of the Mill. Ex. P31 is the copy of the attendance
register. Ex. P32 is the copy of the enquiry notice.
These documents would go to show that the reference
mentioned 123 workers of the respondent establishment
have joined in the petitioner union in the month
February 2003 and the applications to join as
members in the petitioner union are given by the
said 123 workers for the period from 05-02-2003 to
10-02-2003 and they have also given letter to the
Secretary of the petitioner union to raise the industrial
dispute on the same day when they applied for
membership and thereafter, the union has raised the
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on
behalf of the said 123 employees and that there was a
meeting of members of the petitioner union and
conciliation proceedings were taken place which was
failed and conciliation failure report was submitted by
the Conciliation Officer on 25-07-2003 and thereafter,
the Government has referred the matter to this Court
for adjudication of the said dispute.
9. On the other hand, it is the main contention of
the respondent management that the reference
mentioned 123 workers have been resigned their job
under voluntary retirement scheme and they have given
resignation letters and voluntary retirement scheme was
announced by the respondent management in between
March 1997 to June, 2000 and the said 123 workers
were given voluntary retirement and they have obtained
all the service benefits along with the gratuity and other
legal benefits and at the relevant point of time when
the voluntary retirement scheme was implemented
INTUC and LPF unions are alone recognized trade
unions and the petitioner CITU union has no
membership among the workmen of the respondent mill
and all the 123 workers were the members of the INTUC
union and all of them have resigned under voluntary
retirement scheme and all the amounts were settled and
that gratuity and voluntary retirement scheme benefits
and ex gratia were paid to them and none of them were
the members of the CITU union and they never paid
membership subscription and that therefore, the
petitioner union has no locus standi to raise this
industrial dispute and further, no general body meeting
of the union with these so called members were
attending the meetings and passed any resolution
authorizing the General Secretary to raise the present
dispute.
10. Further, it is the another contention of the
respondent management that when the said workers
accepted the voluntary retirement scheme benefits after
their resignation and received all the benefits from the
employer then they cannot raise any industrial dispute
alleging that their services were terminated by the
employer against their wishes and all the 123 workers
mentioned in the claim petition have resigned their
employment under voluntary retirement scheme were
the members of INTUC union and they were paying
membership subscription to the INTUC union until they
were leaving the respondent management under the
voluntary retirement scheme and none of them are the
members of the petitioner union and only on the false
promise of the union that they would obtain
reinstatement and further substantial amount from the
respondent establishment now, they have been supporting
the case o f the p etitio ner unio n and the said
123 workers have received the gratuity benefits as they
have resigned under voluntary retirement scheme and
all the gratuity amount also have been settled under the
provisions of payment of gratuity Act which could be
paid only on the termination of the employees who have
completed the service not less than 5 years and
accepting the same when they received the gratuity
whenever resigned the employment from the respondent
establishment and that there is no victimization as stated
by the petitioner union. To establish their case the
respondent management has examined RW.1 and RW.1
has reiterated all the averments in the counter statement
in his evidence.
11. In support of their contention, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R16(series).
Ex.R1 is the copy of the letter given by PW.2
Arunachalam to the respondent. Ex.R2 is the copy of
the letter given by the respondent to PW.2 Arunachalam.
Ex.R3 is the signature of PW.2 Arunachalam in Form-I.
Ex.R4 is the signature of PW.2 Arunachalam for receipt
of cash. Ex.R5 is the copy of P.F settlement form-19
given by PW.2 Arunachalam. Ex.R7 is the copy of the
letter given by the respondent before the Labour
Department. Ex.R8 is the signature of PW.4
Nageshwara Roa in resignation letter. Ex.R9 is the
signature of PW.4 Nageshwara Roa in the resignation
acceptance letter. Ex.R10 is the signature of PW4
Nageshwara Roa in Form-I. Ex. R11 is the copy of three
stamp receipts given to PW.4 Nageshwara Roa. Ex.R12
1106
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 September 2018
is the copy of form-19 given by PW.4 Nageshwara Roa.
Ex.R13 is the copy of letter given by PW.6 Pakkirisamy
to the respondent management. Ex.R14 is the copy of
letter given by respondent management to PW.6
Pakkirisamy. Ex.R15 is the copy of P.F. settlement
form-19 given by PW.6 Pakkirisamy. Ex.R16 (series)
are the resignation letters given by the petitioners.
12. From the pleadings of both the parties, the
evidence let in by either side and the documents
exhibited by either side it is learnt to this Court that
the following facts are admitted by either sides that
the reference mentioned 123 workers were in service
at the respondent establishment and they have received
the service benefits from the respondent establishment
and their employment has come to an end after getting
the benefits and these 123 workers originally in INTUC
union when they have received the benefits from the
respondent Mill and subsequently, they have given
application to the petitioner union in the year 2003 to
join them as members of the petitioner union and on
the same day they have executed the letters authorizing
the union to raise the industrial dispute against the
termination of their employment on the foot of the
alleged resignation obtained on coercion and thereafter,
the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner CITU
union and conciliation proceedings were taken place
and even after several negotiation the conciliation was
failed and the Conciliation Officer has submitted the
failure report to the Government and thereafter, the
matter was referred to this Court for adjudication
regarding the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioners.
13. It is the only contention of the petitioner union
that all the alleged resignation letters were obtained
by the respondent management only on coercion and
the 123 workers have not actually given consent for
voluntary retirement and they have not voluntarily
resigned from their service. On the other hand, it is
contended by the respondent management that these
123 workers have given resignation under voluntary
retirement scheme without any coercion that so, why
the 123 workers have sent resignation letters to the
respondent management which were accepted by the
management and benefits were given under the cheque
and all the cheque amount have been collected by 123
employees. Even as per the case of the petitioner union
these 123 workers have submitted their resignation on
threat of the respondent management by giving so much
troubles to the workers and the workers have been
compelled to give resignation to left the company after
getting benefits of the voluntary retirement scheme and
therefore, it is to be decided by this Court that whether
123 workers have voluntarily given resignation and
whether they have voluntarily received the benefits of
the service. It is not disputed by the petitioner union
that reference mentioned 123 workers have not given
resignation to the respondent management and they have
not received any benefits from the respondent
establishment and left the service and therefore, the
only matter to be decided by this Court that whether
the signature in the resignation was obtained by the
management by threat or by coercion.
14.
On perusal of Ex.R16 series the resignation
letters given by the 123 workers under voluntary
retirement scheme, it is clear that all the workers have
given resignation and the same were accepted by the
management and thereafter, the management has also
given benefits according to their service after getting
the receipt for the same and further, it is learnt from
the said Ex.R16 series that workers have given
application form to get the PF settlement amount and
the same was settled by the provident fund department
after accepting the fact that 123 workers have resigned
their job from the respondent establishment and their
services were terminated. Ex.R16 series further, would
reveal the fact that resignation letters of the workers
were given in between the period from 1998 to 2002
and further, it reveals the fact that some of the
employees were given resignation in the year 1998 and
some of them were given resignation in the year 1999
and some were given resignation in the year 2000 and
some of them have resigned their job in the year 2001
and some of the employees were resigned in the year
2002 and benefits were given to them then and there
that is immediately after their resignation and their
resignations were accepted by the respondent
management and amount was paid according to their
service. These resignation letters and voluntary
retirement scheme were being taken place for the
period of 5 years that is in between 1998 to 2002 and
this would go to show that some of the workers have
retired from service in the year 1998 and they have not
raised any industrial dispute till 2003 and some of the
workers have retired from service in the year 1999 and
they have also not raised any industrial dispute till 2003
and some of them have left their service in the year
2000 to 2002 and they have also not raised any
industrial dispute and that the said workers have not
made any complaint or submitted any application before
the Labour Officer or Police that their signature were
obtained by the respondent management on threat or
coercion and all of them have received all the benefits
1107
4 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
and provident fund amount. It is the evidence of the
RW.1 that the benefits were given only under cheque
to 123 workers and the same is not denied by the
petitioner union and it is pertinent to note that these
123 workers have come with this dispute in the month
of February 2003 when they have joined in the
petitioner union and raised the industrial dispute that
the respondent management has obtained their signature
on coercion and on threatening after five years from
resignation. These facts alone shows that the petitioner
union has voluntarily raised the industrial dispute
stating that these 123 workers have been removed from
service by obtaining their signature on coercion while
none of the employees have made any complaint or even
submitted any application to the Labour Officer or any
other department that they have been threatened or
coerced to get the resignation letters.
15. Furthermore, the documents exhibited under
Ex.P22 would go to show that all the 123 workers have
joined in the petitioner union only in the month of
February 2003 and the documents under Ex. P23 would
go to show that at the same time they have given letters
to the union to raise the industrial dispute for
reinstatement since, their resignations were given by
them on compulsion of the respondent management and
these documents would go to show that only with the
intention to raise the industrial dispute the said workers
have joined in the petitioner union in the month of
February 2003 in which the industrial dispute has been
raised
by
the
union
against
the
respondent
establishment. These facts of giving application to the
petitioner union after five years of their resignation
and 5 years after getting employment benefits from the
respondent establishment through the cheque by putting
the same in collection would go to show that only with
the intention to raise the industrial dispute for
reinstatement it has been stated by the workers as well
as the petitioner union that the resignations were
obtained by the respondent management on coercion.
If, the resignation letters were obtained by the
respondent management on coercion or threat the
workers ought to have made complaint to the Police
or to the Labour Officer at the time of threat and
further, the 123 workers have not stated that why they
have not made any complaint or why they have not raised
this contention at the point of time or at the earliest
opportunities that is immediately after their resignation
alleged to have been obtained by the management in
between 1998 to December 2002.
16. Furthermore, the respondent management by
exhibiting the resignation letters, the documents for
the settlement and PF application given by the
employees to get the provident fund amount has proved
the prima facie that these workers have been terminated
from the Mill under voluntary retirement scheme.
While so, the burden is on the petitioners that these
resignation letters were obtained by the respondent
management on coercion and on compulsion. It is not
established by the petitioner union that why these 123
workers have not raised nay complaint or dispute till
four years that is from the date of resignation in the
year 1998, 1999 and 2000 and that therefore, the
petitioner union has failed to establish to prove their
contention that the resignations were obtained by the
respondent management only by means of threatening
and on the compulsion of the respondent management
and that therefore, the petitioner union has failed to
establish their case that these 123 workers have
terminated from service without their willingness and
the respondent management has obtained their
signatures by deceitful means by coercion or under
threatening and that therefore, the entire case of the
petitioner union fails and it cannot be accepted and
hence, it is decided that the termination of 123
employees by the respondent management is justified
and that therefore, it is to be held that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner union against the
respondent management over termination of 123
employees is not justified and as such the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the
2nd day of April, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1
— 09-10-2009 — N. Ramar
PW.2
— 01-07-2011— Arunachalam
PW.3
— 26-09-2011 — Amirthagadesan
PW.4
— 11-04-2012 — Nageshwara Rao
PW.5
— 12-12-2012 — Amirthalingam
PW.6
— 29-08-2013 — Pakkirrisamy
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 18-03-2003 — Copy of the letter sent by
the petitioner union to
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
1108
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 September 2018
Ex.P2 — 25-03-2003 —
Copy of the letter sent
by the respondent to the
Labour Department.
Ex.P3 — 04-07-2003 —
Copy of the letter sent
by the respondent to
the Labour Department.
Ex.P4 —07-07-2003 —
Copy of the letter sent by
PW.1 Ramar, Secretary
CITU to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P5 — 01-09-1996 —
Copy of the standing
order of the respondent
mill.
Ex.P6 — 25-06-2004 —
Copy of the notice of
the union.
Ex.P7 — 01-01-2001 —
Copy of the agreement
entered
between
one
Sumathi
and
the
respondent management.
Ex.P8 — 23-01-2003 —
Copy of the notice of
the
union
regarding
meeting.
Ex.P9 — 13-10-1972 — Copy of the registration
certificate.
Ex.P10— 08-11-2002 — Copy of the resolution
to
passed to by the union.
12-11-2003
Ex.P11— 01-01-2003 — Copy of the letter given
by
the
Puduvai Mill
Thozhilalar Sangam to
the petitioner union.
Ex.P12— 2003 —
Puduvai Mill Thozhilalar
Sangam member’s list.
Ex.P13—10-01-2003 —
Copy of the letter given
by the petitioner union
to the Labour Department.
Ex.P14— 06-03-2003— Copy of the minutes of
the meeting.
Ex.P15— 15-03-2003 — Cop y of the meeting
proceedings.
Ex.P16— 18-03-2003 — Copy of the petition
filed by the union.
Ex.P17— 04-06-2003 — Copy of the reply given by
the respondent management
before
the
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P18— 25-07-2003 — Copy
of
conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P19— 03-02-2004 — Copy of Government
reference.
Ex.P20— 26-08-2003 — Copy of the notification
by Labour Officer.
Ex.P21— 23-02-2006 — Copy of the order passed
in A.S. No.13/2005.
Ex.P22—Series —
Authorization given by
the reference mentioned
workers to raise the
dispute.
Ex.P23—Series
— Reference mentioned
workers
Membership
Forms.
Ex.P24—Series
— Subscription
amount
paid
books
of
the
petitioners.
Ex.P25—29-09-2006 — C o p y o f t h e Fo r m- E
submitted
before
the
Labour Department.
Ex.P26—
Copy of the dispute
raised by 123 resigned
workers of the mill.
Ex.P27—13-08-2003 — Copy of the order passed
in W.P.No.15958 of 2003.
Ex.P28—26-08-2008 — Copy
of
the
12(3)
settlement.
Ex.P29—26-08-2010 — Copy of complaint filed
by one Yacob and FIR.
Ex.P30—30-06-1988 — Copy of the order of
the Mill.
Ex.P31—
Copy of the attendance
register.
Ex.P32— 21-04-2000 — Copy of the enquiry
notice.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1
— 17-11-2017 — Adinarayanasamy.
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 —
08-07-2002— Copy of the letter given
by PW.2 Arunachalam
to the respondent.
1109
4 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R2 —
08-07-2002— Copy of the letter given
by the respondent to
PW.2 Arunachalam.
Ex.R3 —
S i g n a t u r e
o f
P W.2
Arunachalam in Form-I.
Ex.R4 —
S i g n a t u r e
o f
P W.2
Arunachalam for receipt
of cash.
Ex.R5 —
Copy of provident fund
settlement Form-19 given
PW.2 Arunachalam.
Ex.R6 —
C o p y
o f
v o l u n t a r y
retirement scheme by
V i c e - P r e s i d e n t
(Technical).
Ex.R7 —
Copy of the letter given
by the respondent before
the Labour Department.
Ex.R8 —
Signature
of
PW.4
N a g e s h w a r a R o a i n
resignation letter.
Ex.R9 —
24-04-2000— Signature
of
PW.4
N a g e s h w a r a R o a i n
t h e
r e s i g n a t i o n
acceptance letter.
Ex.R10—
S i g n a t u r e o f P W. 4
Nageshwara
Roa
in
Form-I.
Ex.R11—
Cop y o f three stamp
receipts given to
PW.4 Nageshwara Roa.
Ex.R12— 20-06-2000— Copy of Form-19 given
by PW.4 Nageshwara Roa.
Ex.R13—25-03-2002 — Copy of letter given by
PW.6 Pakkirisamy to the
respondent management.
Ex.R14—25-03-2002 — Copy of letter given by
respondent management to
PW.6 Pakkirisamy.
Ex.R15—
Copy of provident fund
settlement Form-19 given
by PW.6 Pakkirisamy.
Ex.R16—
Copy of the resignation
(series)
l e t t e r s g i v e n b y t h e
petitioners.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
[(iii)-]
H.
A.
Ca.
E
E