La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 36-00
Prix : ` 36-00
Price :
` 36-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1138
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1138
Award of the Labour Court .. 1138
de Tribunal.
.. 1150
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1150
Government Notifications .. 1150
.. 1181
Etablissements dangereux
.. 1181
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1181
.. 1184
Annonces
.. 1184
Announcements
.. 1184
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 : 11-9-2018
Price : ` 36-00
[ 1137 ]
2018 } | 11 {
No.
37
Poudouchéry
Mardi
11
Septembre
2018 (20 Bhadra 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
11th
September
2018
1138
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 September 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 81/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 16th May 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 25/2012, dated
26-03-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between management
of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited., Tea Factory,
Kirumapakkam, Puducherry and HLL Tea Workers
Welfare Union and Hindustan Unilever Tea unit
Employees Union over charter of demands has been
received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read
with the Notification issued in Labour Department's
G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated, 23-5-1991, it is
hereby directed by the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Monday, the 26th day of March, 2018
I.D. (T) No. 25/2012
1. HLL Tea Workers Welfare Union,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Reg. No. 1483/RTU/2007,
No. 34, Madha Koil Street,
Korkkumedu, Thavalakuppam,
Kattupalayam Post,
Puducherry.
2. Hindustan Unilever Tea unit
Employees Union,
Rep., by its President,
Reg. Office at No. 44, Ellaiamman
Koil Street, Korkaadu
and Post, Villianur,
Puducherry-110
. . Petitioners
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,
Tea Factory, No. 9(3), Cuddalore Road,
Kirumapakkam,
Puducherry-607 402.
. .
Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 06-03-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalarkal P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun
Chakkaravarthy, Counsel for the petitioners, and
Thiruvalarkal L. Sathish, T. Pravin, V. Veeraragavan,
Advocates for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,
upon perusing the case records, after having stood
over for consideration till this day, this Court passed
the following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 141/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 23-08-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the unions HLL
Tea Workers Welfare Union and Hindustan Unilever
Tea Unit Employees Union against the management
of M/s. HUL Tea Factory, Puducherry, over charter
of demands to advise the management such as
(i) not to procure the blended tea outside the
factory and carry the manufacturing process of
blending of tea in the factory as per licence granted
to the factory,
(ii) to pass necessary order not to alter the
weight of the blended tea bag to 550 kgs. against the
agreed terms of the 12(3) settlement that too
without issuing prior notice to the workers as
required under section 9 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
(iii) to withdraw the suspension order, charge
memo against the worker Thiru S. Rajendirane and
(iv) to pass necessary order to lift the illegal
lockout against the entire worker and pay wage to
the workers during the period of illegal lockout is
justified?
(b) Whether the dispute raised by the unions
against the management of M/s. HUL Tea Factory
regarding the lockout declared by the management
is illegal is justified? If so, to give appropriate
direction?
(c) To what other relief the workmen represented
by the unions are entitled to?
1139
11 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
2. The petitioner unions have submitted the claim
statement before this Court stating that they are the
registered trade union in the respondent establishment
who engaged in manufacturing process of blending of
packaging of tea and that settlement was arrived on
07-05-2007
for
4
years
period
between
the
management and the petitioner unions with regard to
the wage revision and other allowances and certain
other issues relating to the service conditions of the
workers and the respondent management did not
consider the petitioners demand and suppress the
demand of the petitioners and the negotiation was
failed and therefore, the petitioner unions raised an
industrial dispute over the charter of demand for wage
revision and other allowances before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) which was ended in failure and the
same was pending before this Court and while pending
of the said dispute the respondent without consulting
with the workers or with the trade union unilaterally
decided to increase the production level and retrench
the existing man power by means of rationalization and
all of sudden they stopped the manufacturing process
of blending of Tea and procured the blended tea
directly from the market and thereby, the considerable
number of workers employed in the manufacturing
process were rendered jobless and were kept idle and
their services were likely to reduce the workers
working in Tea pack area, the tea weight of the tea pack
which was used in the packing area was increased from
300 kgs. to 550 kgs. and without giving any notice to the
workers and the Trade union, automatic packing
machines, cranes, etc., in the factory was installed
likely to retrenchment of work force and the increase
of tea bag weight was likely to harm the workers who
were handling and lifting the tea bags from ground
floor to machine hopper area and therefore, the same
was objected by the employees and the workers
Vijayakumar and M. Sathyanathan were forced to lift
the 550 kgs. jumbo bag of blended tea to the machine
hopper area, due to over weight the tea bag and the
crane fell down on the workers and they got struck
under the crane and subsequently, they have been
rescued and later they sent to hospital for treatment
and immediately the respondent stopped the production
and expelled out the workers working in the said shift
and the factory main gate was closed and no workers
were permitted to enter into the factory from 23-05-2012
general shift and the Inspector of factory conducted
spot inspection and passed an order prohibiting the
respondent to handle 550 kgs. blended tea bag in the
packing area as it is unsafe to the workers and the
respondent management coerce the workers and
victimize the office bearer of the petitioner union
and the Secretary of the first petitioner union
Thiru Rajendirane was suspended from service from
24-05-2012 alleging that he had not allowed the respondent
to remove the crane and 550 kgs. blended tea bag which
was involved in the accident and that the petitioner
union secretary Thiru Rajendirane had nothing to do
with the accident and the workers strongly condemn
the victimization act of the respondent against the said
secretary of the first petitioner union and an industrial
dispute was raised before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) over the issue of procurement of blended
tea outside the factory, alteration of weight of the
blended tea bags in the packing area and to declare the
illegal lockout of the respondent factory from 24-05-2012,
the issue over the suspension, charge memo
victimization against the worker Thiru S. Rajendirane
and that the stoppage of manufacturing process of
blending of Tea and procured the blended Tea outside
the factory and installation of automatic machines and
increase the weight of tea bags from 300 kgs. to 550 kgs.
in the name of rationalization certainly lead to
retrenchment of existing workers and it shall not be
done without giving prior notice to the workers or
trade union and that the said Thiru Rajendirane has not
committed any misconduct as alleged by the respondent
management and though the said Thiru Rajendirane is
the protected workman the act of the respondent
management is unfair labour practice and only to
victimize the members of the petitioner union the
action has been taken by the management and therefore,
they have prayed to pass an award holding that the
stoppage of manufacturing process of blending of tea
and procurement the blended tea outside factory and
alter the weight of blended teabag from 300 kgs. to
550 kgs. and installing automatic machine, without
giving any prior notice to the workers trade union is
illegal and violation of section 9 and section 33 A of
Industrial Disputes Act and also prayed to pass an
award holding that the suspension and charge memo
against the worker Thiru Rajendirane is illegal and the
lockout of the respondent factory from 24-05-2012 is
also illegal and to pay wages to union members.
3. On the other hand, the respondent management
has filed the counter statement stating that the
petitioner unions have no locus standi to raise the
industrial dispute in view of majority of its workers
have already agreed to close the present dispute after
the comprehensive settlement of all their disputes with
the respondent management and that the petitioner
trade unions do not even have the required strength
of the members and they have only 14 workers as its
1140
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 September 2018
members inclusive of its office bearers and when the
pendency of this dispute, workers of respondent
factory formed yet another registered union by name
National Employees Trade Union and they entered into
a comprehensive Long Term Settlement on 04-03-2014
with the respondent management resolving all their
disputes on wage revision and other issues and the said
settlement is operative for the next four years and until
such time a new settlement is signed and the said
settlement was signed by 10 office bearers of said
union which was specifically, agreed by the said Union
that they shall take all steps to close the dispute in
ID(T). No. 4/2012 and ID(T). No. 25/2012 and the said
Long Term Settlement was individually accepted and
ratified by 107 workers out of 121 permanent workers
by giving individual letters on various dates and they
have also individually agreed to close the industrial
disputes since the majority of 107 workers out of 121
workers have settled their disputes and grievances
pertaining to the present industrial dispute with
the respondent management and that the said
Thiru Rajendirane is apprehensive of facing a free and fair
domestic enquiry for the grave charges of misconduct
levelled against him and once the majority of workers
have agreed to withdraw the present industrial dispute
the office bearers of the petitioner unions cannot
agitate the present dispute for their individual benefits
against the wishes of majority workers and insist on
adjudication of dispute on merits and the dispute shall
be deemed to have been settled and closed by mutual
consensus between the respondent and majority of its
workers and hence, the disputed has to be dismissed
as settled out of Court and that the charge-sheet and
suspension of the said Thiru Rajandrane is not an
industrial dispute and it has not become infructuous
and that the blending activities were never stopped in
toto and there was never any retrenchment of workers
and that the respondent had introduce new machines
increased the weight of baggage in tea packing area
from 300 kgs. to 550 kgs. is true and that the
accusations and statements made by petitioners posing
a dangerous picture because of such increase in the
weight are sheer exaggerations and distortion of actual
facts and that the respondent is fully justified and
authorized to introduce any new machines and alter the
manufacturing process to increase its productivity and
pave way for higher income to its workers and that on
23-05-2012 the 550 kgs. of bag slipped from the crane
because of excess weight and it fell on two workers,
who were rendered unconscious and were taken to
hospital is denied and it is a false statement made by
the petitioner unions in the present claim petition
which is in total contrast to their stand in Civil Suit in
OS. No. 809/2011 and that there are lot of variations
between claim statement made by the petitioner unions
and the petition presented by petitioners to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) and there is glaring contradictions
in the statements of petitioners on different occasion
exposes the evil mindset of petitioner unions and their
untrustworthiness and that the respondent expelled the
workers from the factory main gate and prohibited the
workers from entering into the factory from 23-05-2012
and there was an illegal lock out by the respondent is
denied and it is totally false and perverse and that the
workers alone conducting illegal strike and threatening
the workers who dared resume work and there was no
lockout committed by the respondent.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P39
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R24 were marked. Both
side arguments were heard. The pleadings of the
parties, the evidence let in by both sides and the
exhibits marked on either side are carefully
considered. On the side of the respondent written
argument was filed and the same was also carefully. In
support of his contention the learned Counsel for the
respondent has relief upon the Judgment reported in
CDJ 2011 MHC 1952, CDJ 2013 Cal HC 667 and
(1995 1 LLJ 246).
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner unions
against the respondent management, over the charter of
demands to advise the management such as not to
procure the blended tea outside the factory and carry
the manufacturing process of blending of tea in the
factory as per licence granted to the factory and not
to alter the weight of the blended tea bag to 550 kgs.
against the agreed terms of the 12(3) settlement that
too without issuing prior notice to the workers as
required under section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes
Act and to withdraw the suspension order, charge memo
issued against the worker Thiru Rajendirane and to lift
the illegal lock out against the entire worker and pay
wage to the workers during the period of illegal
lockout and to declare that the respondent management
has committed illegal lockout is justified or not and
if, justified, what is the relief entitled to them.
6. On the point:
In order to prove the case of the petitioner union
the Secretary of the first petitioner union was
examined as PW.1 and he has stated all the facts which
are in the claim statement. The vital evidence of the
PW.1 is that 121 permanent workers were working at
1141
11 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the respondent establishment apart from the contract
workers and there was a settlement arrived at between
the management and the petitioner union on 07-05-2007
for the period of four years which came to an end on
06-05-2011 and the petitioner union has submitted the
charter of demands on 11-02-2011 which was not
considered by the management and the industrial
dispute was raised while it was pending in violation of
12(3) settlement the respondent management has
changed the service condition by allowing 550 kgs.
blended tea bag and therefore, the union has raised its
objection on 24-10-2011 which was not accepted by
the management and that therefore, the complaint was
made before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on
06-03-2012 for the change of service condition made
by the management and on 23-05-2012 in the second
shift workers Vijayakumar and Sathyanathan and one
crane operator Arulraj were forced to handled the 550 kgs.
blended tea bag which was fell down at about 04.50 p.m.,
and they have sustained injuries and therefore, the
workers and the union secretary Thiru Rajendirane
have objected to handle the said tea bags and it was
informed to the Labour Department and submitted the
report to the Labour Inspector on 24-05-2012 and
therefore, on 24-05-2012 the factory was inspected by
the Factory Inspector and issued show cause notice to
the management and therefore, the respondent
management has issued notice to him on 29-05-2012
and issued memo to him asking explanation and on
31-05-2012 the dispute was raised before the
Conciliation Officer and he replied for the memo on
02-06-2012 along with the explanation and thereafter,
the Factory Inspector has passed an order against the
respondent management restraining them to handle
550 kgs. blended tea bags on 11-06-2012 and that the
management has issued the domestic enquiry notice on
26-06-2012 and therefore, the petitioner union has
raised the industrial dispute wherein, the conciliation
negotiation was taken place and subsequently failed
and that the respondent management took disciplinary
proceedings and commenced domestic enquiry
on 14-07-2012 and the reference has been sent by the
Government to this Tribunal regarding the above
dispute and the act of the respondent management is
only to victimize him and therefore the Hon'ble High
Court was pleased to stay the domestic enquiry
on 05-06-2013 and thereafter on 06-11-2013 the
report of the domestic enquiry was served by the
management to him.
7. In support of their oral evidence the petitioner
unions have exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P39. Ex.P1 is the copy
of the union registration certificate, dated 06-10-2010.
Ex.P2 is the copy of petitioner union complaint to
respondent and Labour Officer, dated 24-10-2011. Ex.P3
is the copy of petitioner union complaint to Labour
Officer, dated 06-03-2012. Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are the copy
of petitioner union's members namely Arulraj,
Vijayakumar and Sathyanathan letters to the respondent,
dated 23-05-2012. Ex.P7 is the copy of petitioner
union complaint to the Inspector of Factories, dated
24-05-2012. Ex.P8 is the copy of petitioner union
complaint to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated
24-05-2012. Ex.P9 is the copy of petitioner union
office bearer namely Thiru Rajendirane suspension
order, dated 24-05-2012. Ex.P10 is the copy of petitioner
union letter to the respondent, dated 24-05-2012. Ex.P11
is the copy of petitioner union letter to the respondent,
dated 24-05-2012. Ex.P12 is the copy of Inspector of
Factories inspection report, dated 25-05-2012. Ex.P13
is the copy of Inspector of Factories letter to the
management (Show cause notice), dated 25-05-2012.
Ex.P14 is the copy of petitioner union office bearer
namely Thiru Rajendirane charge-sheet-cum-show
cause notice, dated 29-05-2012. Ex.P15 is the copy
of petitioner union raised dispute before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) ID.(LOC) No.1463 of 2012 on
31-05-2012. Ex.P16 is the copy of petitioner union
office bearer Thiru S. Rajendirane reply to the
charge-sheet on 02-06-2012. Ex.P17 is the copy of
conciliation notice, dated 04-06-2012. Ex.P18 is the
copy of Inspector of Factories (Prohibition order),
dated 11-06-2012. Ex.P19 is the copy of petitioner
union general body meeting passed a resolution on
24-06-2012. Ex.P20 is the copy of Thiru Rajendirane
domestic enquiry notice, dated 26-06-2012. Ex.P21 is
the copy of conciliation failure report in I.D. No.1463/
2012/LO(c)/AIL, dated 27-06-2012. Ex.P22 is the copy
of Enquiry Officer notice, dated 05-07-2012. Ex.P23
is the copy of Thiru Rajendirane reply to the Enquiry
Officer and respondent, dated 14-07-2012. Ex.P24 is
the copy of Thiru Rajendirane reply to the Enquiry
Officer, dated 10-08-2012. Ex.P25 is the copy of
Enquiry Officer notice and enquiry proceedings, dated
18-08-2012. Ex.P26 is the copy of Government
reference, dated 23-08-2012. Ex.P27 is the copy of
Thiru Rajendirane reply to the Enquiry Officer,
respondent, dated 05-08-2012. Ex.P28 is the copy of
Court notice, dated 17-09-2012. Ex.P29 is the copy
of Enquiry Officer notice, dated 20-09-2012. Ex.P30
is the copy of Enquiry Officer notice and enquiry
proceedings, dated 20-10-2012. Ex.P31 is the copy
of Enquiry Officer notice and attachment, dated
25-01-2013. Ex.P32 is the copy of Thiru Rajendirane
reply to the Enquiry Officer, dated 02-02-2013.
Ex.P33 is copy of respo ndent letter to the
Thiru Rajendirane, dated 06-11-2013. Ex.P35 is the copy
of legal notice to the respondent, dated 11-11-2013.
1142
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 September 2018
Ex.P36 is the copy of High Court passed an order in
WP.No.15079 of 2013 on 25-07-2014. Ex.P37 is the
copy of respondent's enquiry notice, dated 05-09-2014.
Ex.P38 is the copy of Thiru Rajendirane reply to the
respondent, dated 11-10-2014. Ex.P39 is the copy of
the letter given by the respondent to the President of
HLL Tea Workers Welfare union, dated 28-06-2017.
8. The above documents would evident that the
petitioner union has made a complaint to the
management on 24-10-2011 that without negotiating
the workers the management has raised the weight of
the blended tea bag from 300 kgs. to 550 kgs. against
the terms of the 12(3) settlement and on 06-03-2012
the union has raised an industrial dispute for the said
change of service condition that raising the blended
tea bag from 300 kgs. to 550 kgs. and some of the
employees
namely
Arulraj,
Vijayakumar
and
Sathyanathan have made a complaint to the manager of
the respondent establishment that they would not handle
550 kgs. bags and thereafter, the union has made a
complaint on 24-05-2012 to the Inspector of Factories
regarding the alleged accident and show cause notice
was issued by the Inspector of Factories to the
respondent management on 25-05-2012 regarding the
contravention alleged to have been committed by the
factory stating that the management has not provided
adequate
information,
instruction,
training
and
supervision as are necessary to ensure health and
s a fe t y wh i l e h a n d l i ng t h e j u mb o b a g s a n d
Thiru Rajendirane was given charge-sheet-cum-show
cause notice and on 31-05-2012 the petitioner unions have
filed the claim statement before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) to withdraw the suspension order,
charge memo against the worker Thiru Rajendirane in
connection with the abovesaid incident of entire
workers and to lift the illegal lockout and the said
Thiru Rajendirane submitted explanation for the charge
memo and that the conciliation was failed and further
it is learnt from the records that the Inspector of
Factories has inspected the factory of the respondent
and has issued an order prohibiting further, handling of
materials of 550 kgs. jumbo bags under section 92 of
the Factories Act and thereafter on 24-06-2012 the
general body meeting was conducted by the union and
passed a resolution to ask the management to withdraw
the suspension order passed against the worker
Thiru Rajendirane and to withdraw the charge memo and
on 26-06-2012 domestic enquiry notice was issued to
Thiru Rajendirane by the management and the
conciliation proceedings were failed for which the
Labour Department has submitted the report on 27-06-2012
and that the worker Thiru Rajendirane has submitted a
reply on 02-02-2013 before the Enquiry Officer.
9.
On the other hand the respondent management
has examined the Senior Executive-HR of the
respondent as RW.1 who has stated all the facts stated
in the counter statement and in support of their case
the respondent management has exhibited Ex.R1 to
Ex.R24. Ex.R1 is the copy of chief affidavit filed by
HLL Tea Workers Welfare union (Tea Division) in
OS. No.809/2012, dated 03-07-2012. Ex.R2 is the
copy of written statement filed by HLL Tea Workers
Welfare union (Tea Division) in OS. No. 809/2012,
dated 02-07-2012. Ex.R3 is the copy of plaint filed
by HLL Tea Workers Welfare union (Tea Division) &
Hindustan Unilever Theyilai Pirivu Thozhilalar sangam in
OS.No.809/2012. Ex.R3 is the copy of docket order in
I.A. No.1555/2012 in OS.No.809/2012, dated 03-07-2012.
Ex.R5 is the copy of memorandum of settlement under
section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
dated 07-05-2007. Ex.R6 is the copy of respondent
factory licence. Ex.R7 is the copy of letter of
authorization to Mr.Karthick working as Sr. Executive
HR in respondent factory, dated 10-04-2017. Ex.R8
is the copy of the certified standing orders of the
respondent's factory, dated 15-03-2004. Ex.R9 is the
copy of the reply letter given by respondent to
Conciliation Officer over the issue of alleged change
in service conditions given by 1st petitioner union,
dated 14-06-2011. Ex.R10 is the copy of the reply,
letter given by the respondent to 1st petitioner
referring to notice of usage of 550 kgs. tea bag process
and its Tamil translation, dated 23-01-2012. Ex.R11
is the copy of the reply letter given by the respondent
to the 1st petitioner over the implementation of
550 kgs. tea bags with its Tamil translation. Ex.R11 is
the copy of the reply letter given by the respondent to
the Conciliation Officer in respondent to complaint
given by 1st petitioner union alleging violation of
12(3) settlement, dated 07-05-2007. Ex.R13 is the
copy of the reply letter given by the management to
Inspector of Factories concurring to make suitable
changes for using 550 kgs. bags, dated 12-04-2012.
Ex.R14 is the copy of reports of examination done by
expert Engineers and valuers on Hopper feeding EOT
crane, dated 19-05-2012. Ex.R15 is the copy of the
letter given by respondent to Conciliation Officer
informing him about the illegal strike by the
petitioners commenced by them alongwith photos
(4 Nos.) on 24-05-2012. Ex.R16 is the copy of the
letter given by the respondent to SHO Kirumambakkam
for providing protection to respondent's factory in view
of illegal strike by petitioner union on 24-05-2012.
Ex.R17 is the copy of reports of examination done by
expert Engineers and valuers on Hopper feeding EOT
crane, dated 24-05-2012. Ex.R18 is the copy of the
1143
11 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
equipment breakdown service report given by the
Cranedge India Pvt., Ltd., to respondent, dated 26-05-2012.
Ex.R19 are the copies of the notices issued by respondent
to employees warning them of consequences of illegal
strike by petitioner union from 23-05-2012 to 28-06-2012.
Ex.R20 is the copy of the reply letter given by the
respondent to the show-cause notice of Inspector of
factories, dated 25-02-2012. Ex.R21 is the copy of the
letter given by the respondent to Labour Commissioner
informing him about the ongoing illegal strike by
petitioners, dated 15-06-2012. Ex.R22 is the copy of
the 18(1) settlement arrived between the respondent
and National employees trade union, dated 04-03-2013.
Ex.R23 are the copies of the individual undertaking
given by 107 employees accepting 18(1) settlement,
dated 04-03-2013 from 05-03-2012 to 13-05-2014.
Ex.R24 are the copies of the minutes of the meeting
between the respondent and the joint negotiation
committee comprising of three out of four unions in
respondent's factory.
10. The above documents would evident that the
respondent management has filed a Suit in O.S.No. 809/2012
before the III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry
for the order of permanent injunction against the union
restraining them to conduct any strike, agitation,
demonstration, raising any slogans within the premises
or within the area of 500 metres from the entrance of
this factory in the month of July, 2012 and that there
was a memorandum of settlement executed between
the union and the management on 07-05-2007 and that
the respondent establishment has certified standing
order and that there was conciliation proceedings
wherein, the respondent management has submitted
several reply letters and that there was failure in crane
machines and that was examined by the expert
engineers and valuers and report was given by them and
equipment breakdown report was also given by them
and notices were issued to the employees against the
alleged illegal strike by the management warning them
of consequences of illegal strike by petitioner union
and that the management has replied for the show cause
notice issued by the Factory Inspector and it was
reported
by
the
management
to
the
Labour
Commissioner informing about the ongoing strike by
the members of the petitioner union and on 04-03-2012
the settlement under section 18(1) was arrived at
between the employees of the respondent establishment
and National Employees Trade Union and individual
undertakings were given by 107 employees accepting
the 18(1) settlement on various dates from 05-03-2012
to 13-05-2014 and meeting was held between the
respondent and the joint negotiation committee
comprising of three out of four unions in the
respondent's factory.
11. Though the respondent management to disprove
the case of the petitioner union exhibited Ex.R1 to
Ex.R24, out of which Ex.R22 to Ex.R24 are the vital
documents. Ex.R22 is the copy of 18(1) settlement
arrived at between the respondent management and
National Employees Trade Union wherein, it has been
elaborately discussed regarding earlier dispute raised
by the other petitioner union and conciliation
proceedings was taken place and conciliation report
was submitted by the conciliation on 29-03-2012 and
that there was a negotiation taken place based on the
representation of the employees, dated 25-02-2013
regarding their charter of demands, dated 02-03-2013
and settlement was arrived at between the parties and
signed by them on 04-03-2013 and wages were revised
and settlement was signed with regard to the scale of
pay, production incentives, bonus, festival advance,
uniform, leave, annual increment and to give increase
in the basic pay of the permanent employees, dearness
allowances and other allowances. Ex.R23 is the vital
document wherein, 107 employees have signed
individually agreed and accepted the settlement
executed between the National Employees Trade Union
and the management and individual undertakings were
executed by them to the management agreeing and
accepting the terms and conditions of the 18(1)
settlement arrived at between the said parties and the
said document would reveal that out of 121 employees
except 14 all other employees of the respondent
establishment have agreed to the said 18(1) settlement
wherein it was also agreed by 107 employees that to
with draw the dispute raised by them in I.D. (T) No. 4/2012
and I.D. (T) No. 25/2012. Ex.R24 would reveal that
there was a meeting between the employees of the
respondent establishment and the respondent management
and they have negotiated the above dispute and
settlement under section 18(1) of the Act was arrived
at between them. Therefore, the main contention of
the respondent management that they have entered
18(1) settlement with the majority of 107 workers out
of 121 workers and the office bearers of the petitioner
unions alone have not accepted 18(1) settlement and
as the majority of the union members have accepted
the settlement and employees are receiving the revised
wages as agreed in the settlement after agreeing to
withdraw the dispute in I.D. (T) No. 4/2012 and I.D. (T)
No. 25/2012, these petitioner unions have no right to
continue the dispute seeking relief which are prayed
in the claim statement.
12. It is an admitted fact that there were 121
permanent workers working at the respondent
establishment and the documents exhibited by the
respondent would go to show that out of 121 workers
1144
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 September 2018
107 workers have agreed the 18(1) settlement wherein,
they have given an undertaking to withdraw the
industrial dispute raised by them in I.D. (T) No. 25/2012.
However, the said settlement is only with regard to the
wage revision and not regard to the other reliefs
claimed by the petitioners in the claim statement.
Therefore, now it is to be decided that whether the
petitioners are entitled for the relief as claimed before
the Conciliation Officer and whether the respondent can
be directed to not to procure the blended tea outside
the factory and carry the manufacturing process of
blending of tea in the factory as per licence granted
to the factory and whether prohibited order can be
passed that not to alter the weight of the blended tea
bag to 550 kgs. against the agreed terms of the 12(3)
settlement that too without issuing prior notice to the
workers as required under section 9 A of the Industrial
Disputes Act and to withdraw the suspension order,
charge memo given against the worker Thiru Rajendirane
and whether the order can be passed to lift the illegal
lock out against the entire workers and pay wage to the
workers during the period of illegal lockout of the
respondent factory.
13. It is the main contention of the respondent
management that there is no contractual prohibition in
procuring blending tea from outside the factory in the
licence of the respondent and the 12(3) settlement
marked under Ex.R5 does not prohibit the respondent
establishment from procuring the blending tea from
outside. On this aspect 12(3) settlement was carefully
perused. The said settlement would reveal the fact that
the said prohibition does not find in the settlement that
the respondent establishment should not procure
blended tea outside the factory and the licence which
is exhibited as Ex.R6 also does not find any such
prohibition that the factory should not be permitted to
procure blended tea from outside. Since, there is no
prohibition in licence or in the 12(3) settlement the
respondent management cannot be prohibited by this
Tribunal not to procure the blended tea outside the
factory and not to carry the blended tea and neither the
employees of the union nor the workers have made any
complaint to the management that objecting to
procurement of blending tea from outside and
absolutely there is no evidence that there was any
retrenchment of workers due to such procurement of
blending tea from outside and that therefore, it is
decided that the dispute raised by the petitioner unions
that to advise the management not to procure the
blended tea factory is not sustainable as there is no
condition in the licence that the factory should not
bring any blending tea from the outside of the factory.
14. It is the second demand of the petitioner unions
that without giving notice under section 9 of the
Industrial Disputes Act the respondent management
altered the weight of the blended tea bag to 550 kgs.
against the agreed terms of 12(3) settlement. It is an
admitted fact that the respondent management has
without giving notice under section 9A of the Act has
increased the weight of the blending bags from 300 kgs.
to 550 kgs. If, there is any change of service condition
the management has to give statutory notice under
section 9A of the Act. It is the further case of the
petitioners unions that change of weightage from 300 kgs.
to 550 kgs. is against the agreed terms of 12(3)
settlement and notice was not given under section 9A
of the Act. The said 12(3) settlement was exhibited
as Ex.R5. The petitioner has not at all stated in which
clause under the 12 (3) settlement such prohibition
was accepted by the management and they have not
come forward to even exhibit the said 12(3) settlement
on their side. On the other hand the respondent
management has exhibited the said 12(3) settlement as
Ex.R5 and it is also admitted by PW.1 the Secretary
of the petitioner union that such clause is not found
in the 12(3) settlement prohibiting the management
from increasing the weight of blending tea bags from
300 kgs. to 550 kgs. The learned Counsel for the
respondent has pointed out in his argument that the
clause 5 of the said settlement specifically empowers
the respondent management to introduce the new bags
and change the packing materials. The clause 5 of the
12(3) settlement is carefully perused which runs as
follows:
"The union appreciates the fact that in order to
remain competitive in the rapidly changing market
place, it is absolutely essential to respond to changes,
in the shortest possible time. It is specifically
understood that there could be changes in packing
materials, introduction of new packs/new products/new
machines, changes in layout/machine speeds/work
methods/process/capacity of equipment, etc,, during
the operative period of this settlement. As in the past,
union would agree to extend its support and commits
itself to ensure that all such changes are implemented
and stabilized within 15 days".
From the above clause (5) of the 12(3) settlement
it is clear that under the 12(3) settlement empowers
the management to implement changes in packing
materials, new packs new products, new machines, lay
out, work methods, process, capacity of equipment
during the period of the settlement and that therefore,
the respondent management is permitted by the
1145
11 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
employees to alter the package materials and size and
increase the capacity of the packing materials. Since,
it was agreed by the employees under 12(3) settlement
that the change can be made by the management for
which the notice under section 9A of the Act is not
necessary and therefore, no notice is required to change
such process i.e., increasing the weightage of blending
tea bag from 300 kgs. to 550 kgs. Further, as rightly
pointed out by the respondent management that even
after such change the majority of the 107 workers out
of 121 workers have entered the 18(1) settlement and
accepted such change and undertake to withdraw the
disputes raised by them and that therefore, it is decided
that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
unions that to pass necessary order not to alter the
weight of the blended tea bags to 550 kgs. against the
agreed terms of the 12(3) settlement that too without
issuing notice to the workers as required under
section 9A of the Act is also not sustainable.
15. This reference also has been referred to this
Tribunal to decide the issue raised by the petitioner
unions that whether the suspension order and charge
memo issued by the management against the secretary
of the petitioner union Thiru Rajendirane is
sustainable or not and whether it can be ordered to
withdraw. It is the case of the petitioner unions that
on 23-05-2012 the weight of 550 kgs. of blended tea
jumbo bags and crane fell on the workers due to over
weight and workers got struck under the crane and the
bag and they have been rescued by other workers and
the management has stopped the production and coerce
the workers and to victimize the office bearers of the
petitioner union particularly the secretary of the first
petitioner union namely Thiru Rajendirane was
suspended from service from 24-05-2012 alleging
that he had not allowed the respondent management to
remove the crane and the 550 kgs. blended tea bag
which involved in the accident and the secretary had
nothing to do with the accident and he has only
objected the respondent to remove the crane machine
and tea bag so as to facilitate the Inspector of
Factories to enquire into the cause of accident and
safety of the workers and that therefore, the union has
raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), over the issue of procurement of blended
tea outside the factory, alteration of weight of the
blended tea bags in the packing area and the issue over
the suspension, charge memo victimization against the
worker Thiru S. Rajendirane. On the other hand, it is
stated by the respondent management that the
petitioner unions have no locus standi to challenge the
suspension as the suspension was not inflicted on him
by way of punishment and it was only suspension
pending enquiry and such suspension is not an
industrial dispute that can be challenged before this
Tribunal and it would not affect the service condition
of delinquent employee and he was suspended only
after considering the gravity of situation pending
enquiry and he was instigating the workers to go on
illegal strike and he was disrupting the peaceful
functioning of the factory and he commenced illegal
strike from 24-05-2012 which stalled the entire
activities of the respondent factory.
16. On perusal of Ex.P14 - the copy of charge-sheet-
cum-show cause notice issued to the said Thiru Rajendirane
by the respondent management on 29-05-2012 which
would reveal the fact that the said Thiru Rajendirane
has only questioned the removal of the crane and bag
after the alleged accident and he asked the Production
Manager of the factory that not to remove the crane
and 550 kgs. blended tea bag alleged to have fell down
in the said accident. It is not disputed by the
respondent management that such accident has not
taken place on 23-05-2012. As the secretary of the
union the said Thiru Rajendirane has asked the
management the Production Manager that not to
remove the same since they have sought for relief
from the Inspector of Factories and that therefore, the
allegation levelled against the Secretary of the first
petitioner union Thiru Rajendirane is not at all
sufficient to suspend the said Thiru Rajendirane from
service as he was the secretary of the first petitioner
union and having the right to ask the management that
not to remove the crane and 550 kgs. blended tea bag
which is alleged to have been fell down on the said
date in the accident till the arrival of Factory Inspector
to whom they lodged the complaint. Furthermore, the
suspension order passed by the respondent management
which is exhibited as Ex.P9 would reveal the fact that
even without hearing the said Thiru Rajendirane and
without issuing memo or show cause notice to him the
said Thiru Rajendirane was suspended by the
management which is against the principles of natural
justice and there was no urgency to suspend him from
service while he was asking the management that not
to remove the crane as well as the 550 kgs. blended
tea bag and therefore, the industrial dispute raised by
the petitioner unions with regard to the withdrawal of
the suspension order of the said Thiru Rajendirane has
to be justified and the relief sought for by the
petitioner unions that to pass an order to withdraw the
suspension order and charge memo can be ordered and
1146
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 September 2018
as such the order of suspension issued by the
respondent management under Ex.P9 and charge-memo
issued by the respondent management issued by the
respondent management under Ex.P14 ordered to be
withdrawn.
17. The yet another main contention of the
petitioner unions is that the respondent management
has declared illegal lockout from 24-05-2012 and this
reference has been sent to this Tribunal also to decide
the issue that whether the industrial dispute raised by
the petitioner unions to pass necessary order to lift the
illegal lockout against the entire workers and pay wage
to the workers during the period of illegal lockout and
to declare that the lockout is illegal is justified or not.
It is stated in the claim petition by the petitioner
unions that when the workers of the petitioner unions
protested against the respondent management to use
550 kgs. blended tea bags in the packing area and
objected to continue the packing with 550 kgs. bags
and demanded enquiry by the Inspector of Factories
the respondent management has stopped the production
and expelled out the workers working in the said shift
and the factory main gate was closed and no workers
were permitted to enter into the factory from
23-05-2012 general shift. On the other hand, it is contended
by the respondent management that the Secretary of
the first petitioner union Thiru Rajendirane has
instigated some of the workers to go on illegal strike
with effect from 24-05-2012 and they have not
announced any lockout as stated by the petitioners and
it is the argument of the respondent management that
Ex.R15 to Ex.R17 and Ex.R20 would reveal the fact
that the petitioner union has instigated the workers to
go on illegal strike with effect from 24-05-2012 and
that therefore, the suit in O.S. No. 809/2012 was filed
by the respondent management and the said suit plaint
was exhibited as Ex.R1 wherein the petitioner union
has filed the written statement which is exhibited as
Ex.R2. On this aspect the evidence of PW.1 in his
cross examination is carefully perused which runs as
follows :
" ....... (Illegal
lockout)
claim statement
Illegal lockout
claim statement of proof affidavit
Ex.P15first shift
first
shift
Ex.P15para
Ex.P10page
Ex.P10
lockout
Ex.P10 and
Ex.P11
lockoutEx.P10
and Ex.P11
Ex.P10
and
Ex.P11
……….."
From the above evidence, it is clear that PW1 has
admitted that they have announced strike on 24-05-2012
and it was also evident from Ex.P15 that they have
involved in strike from 24-05-2012 and the respondent
management has made a complaint to the Sub-Inspector
of Police on 24-05-2012 to provide vigilance outside
1147
11 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the factory gate and it is also evident from Ex.R19 that
notices were issued by the respondent management to
the employees on various dates warning them of
consequences of illegal strike by petitioner union and
the evidence of PW.1 also would go to show that the
workers of the petitioner union have involved in the
strike and the same was corroborated by Ex.P10
wherein it has been stated by the petitioner union to
the management of the factory that they have decided
to undergo strike. The another letter issued to the
management on 24-05-2012 by the petitioner union is
exhibited as Ex.P11 wherein the union has stated that
since the accident had happened on 23-05-2012 they
have decided to undergo strike and these letters under
Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 would not contain the contention
that the respondent management has declared any
lockout or announced any lockout as stated by the
petitioner unions on 24-05-2012 as alleged in the
claim statement.
18. Furthermore, the petitioner unions have not at
all stated anywhere else in the claim petition when the
lockout begins and when it was closed by the
respondent management and further, it is not stated by
the petitioner unions that how much period that the
workers have not been paid wages by the management
for the said alleged lockout period. Furthermore, the
petitioner unions have not established that how much
workers have been retrenched from employment and
how much workers have been rendered jobless and
were kept idle by the management while they had been
in the factory and none of the workers were examined
to establish that they have not given employment and
they were refused any employment by the management.
It is clearly established by the respondent management
that the respondent management has not declared any
lockout as stated by the petitioner unions and that
therefore, since there is no lockout was declared by
the respondent management it is just and necessary to
hold that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
unions against the respondent management that to
declare the lockout by the respondent management is
illegal one and to pass an order directing the
respondent management to pay wages to the workers
on the lockout period does not arise.
19. In the result,
(i) the petition is partly allowed and the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner unions against the
respondent management over the suspension order and
charge memo against the worker Thiru S. Rajendirane
is justified and Award is passed directing the
respondent management to withdraw the suspension
order and charge-memo issued against the said
Thiru Rajendirane and;
(ii) the petition is partly dismissed and the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner unions against the
respondent management over other demands to advise
the management such as not to procure the blended tea
outside the factory and carry the manufacturing
process of blending of tea in the factory as per licence
granted to the factory, to pass necessary order not to
alter the weight of the blended tea bag to 550 kgs.
against the agreed terms of the 12(3) settlement that
too without issuing prior notice to the workers as
required under section 9 of the I.D. Act, 1947, to pass
necessary order to lift the illegal lock out against the
entire worker and pay wage to the workers during the
period of illegal lock out and the lockout declared by
the management is illegal are not justified and the
petitioners are not entitled for any relief as claimed
in the claim statement in respect of the above issues.
No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 26th day of March, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 03-12-2015 — S. Rajendirane
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 06-10-2010— Copy
of
the
union
registration certificate.
Ex.P2 — 24-10-2011 — Copy of petitioner union
complaint to respondent
and Labour Officer.
Ex.P3 — 06-03-2012— Copy of petitioner union
complaint
to
Labour
Officer.
Ex.P4 — 23-052012—
Copy
of
petitioner
union's member namely,
Arulraj letter to the
respondent.
Ex.P5 — 23-05-2012— Copy of petitioner union
Member
namely,
Vijayakumar letter to the
respondent.
Ex.P6 — 23-05-2012— Copy of petitioner union
Member
namely,
Sathyanathan letter to
the respondent.
1148
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 September 2018
Ex.P7 — 24-05-2012
— Copy of petitioner union
complaint
to
the
Inspector of Factories.
Ex.P8 — 24-05-2012— Copy of petitioner union
complaint to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P9—24-05-2012 — Copy of petitioner union
office bearer namely Thiru
S. Rajendirane suspension
order.
Ex.P10—24-05-2012— Copy of petitioner union
letter to the respondent.
Ex.P11—24-05-2012— Copy of petitioner union
letter to the respondent.
Ex.P12—25-05-2012— Copy of Inspector of
Factories inspection report.
Ex.P13—25-05-2012— Copy of Inspector of
Factories letter to the
management
(Show
cause notice).
Ex.P14—29-05-2012— Copy of petitioner union
office bearer namely Thiru
S. Rajendirane charge-
sheet-cum-show
cause
notice.
Ex.P15—31-05-2012— Copy of petitioner union
raised dispute before the
Labour
Office
(Conciliation) ID.(LOC)
No.1463 of 2012.
Ex.P16—02-06-2012— Copy of petitioner union
office bearer namely Thiru
S. Rajendirane reply to
the charge-sheet.
Ex.P17—04-06-2012— Copy
of
conciliation
notice.
Ex.P18—11-06-2012— Copy of Inspector of
Factories
(Prohibition
order).
Ex.P19—24-06-2012— Copy of petitioner union
general body meeting
passed a resolution.
Ex.P20—26-06-2012— Copy of Thiru S. Rajendirane
domestic enquiry notice.
Ex.P21—27-06-2012— Copy
of
conciliation
failure
report
in
I D . N o . 1 4 6 3 / 2 0 1 2 /
LO(c)/AIL.
Ex.P22—05-07-2012— Copy of Enquiry Officer
notice.
Ex.P23—14-07-2012— Copy of Thiru S. Rajendirane
reply to the Enquiry
Officer and respondent.
Ex.P24—10-08-2012— Copy of Thiru S. Rajendirane
reply to the Enquiry
Officer.
Ex.P25—18-08-2012— Copy of Enquiry Officer
notice
and
enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.P26—23-08-2012— Copy
of
Government
reference.
Ex.P27—05-08-2012— Copy of Thiru S. Rajendirane
reply to the Enquiry
Officer, respondent.
Ex.P28—17-09-2012— Copy of Court notice.
Ex.P29—20-09-2012— Copy of Enquiry Office
notice.
Ex.P30—20-10-2012— Copy of Enquiry Office
notice
and
enquiry
proceedings.
Ex.P31—25-01-2013— Copy of Enquiry Office
notice and attachment.
Ex.P32—02-02-2013— Copy of Thiru S. Rajendirane
reply to the Enquiry
Officer.
Ex.P33—05-06-2013— Copy of High Court
passed
an
order
in
MP.No.1 of 2013 in
WP.No. 15079 of 2013.
Ex.P34—06-11-2013— Copy of respondent letter
to the Thiru S. Rajendirane.
Ex.P35—11-11-2013— Copy of legal notice to
the respondent.
Ex.P36—25-07-2014— Copy of High Court
passed
an
order
in
WP.No.15079 of 2013.
Ex.P37—05-09-2014— Copy
of
respondent's
enquiry notice.
1149
11 September 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P38—11-10-2014
— Copy of Thiru S. Rajendirane
reply to the respondent.
Ex.P39—28-06-2007— Copy of the letter given
by the respondent to the
President of HLL Tea
Workers Welfare union.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1— 29-04-2017
Karthick.
List of respondent’s Exhibits:
Ex.R1— 03-07-2012— Copy of chief affidavit
filed by HLL Tea Workers
Welfare union (Tea Division)
in OS.No.809/2012.
Ex.R2— 02-07-2012— Copy of written statement
filed by HLL Tea Workers
Welfare
union
(Tea
Division) in OS.No.809/
2012.
Ex.R3— 02-06-2012— Copy of plaint filed by
HLL Tea Workers Welfare
union (Tea Division)
& Hindustan Unilever
Theyilai
Pirivu
Thozhilalar sangam in
OS.No.809/2012.
Ex.R4— 03-07-2012— Copy of docket order in
I.A.No.1555/2012
in
OS.No.809/2012.
Ex.R5— 07-05-2007— Copy of memorandum of
settlement under section
12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Ex.R6— -
Copy
of
respondent
factory licence.
Ex.R7— 10-04-2017— Copy
of
letter
of
authorization
to
Mr.
Karthick working as
Sr. Executive HR in
respondent factory.
Ex.R8— 15-03-2004— Copy of the certified
standing orders of the
respondent's factory.
Ex.R9—14-06-2011 — Copy of the reply letter
given by respondent to
Conciliation
Officer
over the issue of alleged
change
in
service
conditions given by 1st
petitioner union.
Ex.R10—23-01-2012
— Copy of the reply letter
given by the respondent
to
1st
petitioner
referring to notice of
usage of 550 kgs. tea bag
process and its Tamil
translation.
Ex.R11—24-02-2012— Copy of the reply letter
(wrongly
given by the respondent
mentioned
to the 1st petitioner over
as
the implementation of
24-10-2012)
550 kgs. tea bags with its
Tamil translation.
Ex.R12—20-03-2012— Copy of the reply letter
given by the respondent
to
the
Conciliation
Officer in respondent to
complaint given by 1st
petitioner union alleging
violation
of
12(3)
s e t t l e m e n t , d a t e d
07-05-2007.
Ex.R13—12-04-2012— Copy of the reply letter
given by the management
to Inspector of Factories
concurring
to
make
suitable
changes
for
using 550 kgs. bags.
Ex.R14—19-05-2012— Copy
of
reports
of
examination
done
by
expert Engineers and
valuers
on
Hopper
feeding EOT crane.
Ex.R15—24-05-2012— Copy of the letter given
by
respondent
to
Conciliation
Officer
informing him about the
illegal strike by the
petitioners commenced
by
them
along
with
photos (4 Nos.).
Ex.R16—24-05-2012— Copy of the letter given
by the respondent to
SHO
Kirumambakkam
for providing protection
to respondent's factory
in view of illegal strike
by petitioner union.
Ex.R17—24-05-2012— Copy
of
reports
of
examination
done
by
expert Engineers and
valuers
on
Hopper
feeding EOT crane.
1150
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 September 2018
Ex.R18—26-05-2012
— Copy of the equipment
breakdown
service
report
given
by
the
Cranedge India Pvt. Ltd.,
to respondent.
Ex.R19—23-05-2012— Copies of the notices
to
issued by respondent to
28-06-2012
employees warning them
of consequences of illegal
strike by petitioner union.
Ex.R20—05-06-2012— Copy of the reply letter
given by the respondent
to the show cause notice
of Inspector of factories,
dated 25-02-2012.
Ex.R21—15-06-2012— Copy of the letter given
by the respondent to
Labour
Commissioner
informing him about the
ongoing illegal strike by
petitioners.
Ex.R22—04-03-2013
— Copy
of
the
18(1)
settlement
arrived
between the respondent
and National Employees
Trade Union.
Ex.R23—05-03-2012— Copies of the individual
to
undertaking given by 107
13-5-2014
employees accepting 18(1)
s e t t l e m e n t ,
d a t e d
04-03-2013.
Ex.R24— –
Copies of the minutes of
the meeting between the
respondent and the joint
negotiation
committee
comprising of three out
of
four
unions
in
respondent's factory.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
&
[(iii)]
H.
A.
Ca.
}|{,