La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 25-00
Prix : ` 25-00
Price : ` 25-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1262
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1262
Award of the Labour Court .. 1262
de Tribunal.
.. 1273
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1273
Government Notifications
.. 1273
.. 1284
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1284
Tender Notices
.. 1284
.. 1285
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 1285
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1285
.. 1286
Annonces
.. 1286
Announcements
.. 1286
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 : 2-10-2018
Price : ` 25-00
[ 1261 ]
2018 } | 2 {
No.
40
Poudouchéry
Mardi
2
Octobre
2018 (10 Asvina 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
2nd
October
2018
1262
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 October 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 88/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 7th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 28/2017, dated
19-04-2018 of the of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the Industrial
Dispute between the management of M/s. Swadeshi Cotton
Mills, Puducherry and Puducherry Textile Mills Labour
Union, over non-payment of pending category increment
for 4 workers viz., Thiruvalargal R. Ramakrishnan,
R. Sivanandan, N. Munisamy @ Jeevanandam and
Adinarayanan 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.
Thursday, the 19th day of April 2018.
I.D. (L) No. 28/2017
The President,
Puducherry Textile Mills Labour Union,
49, Rodier Mill Street, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry-605 004.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills,
P.O.Box No. 3,
Marai Malai Adigal Salai,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial dispute coming on 02-04-2018 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R.S. Zivanandam,
Advocate for the petitioner, the respondent being called
absent and set-ex parte, upon hearing the petitioner and
perusing the case records, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No. 70/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 02-05-2017 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union, Puduchery Textile Mills Labour Union,
Puducherry against the management of M/s. Swadeshi
Cotton Mills, Puducherry (A Government of Puducherry
undertaking), Puducherry, over non-payment of
pending category increment for 4 workers viz.,
Tvl. R. Ramakrishnan, R. Sivanandan, N. Munisamy
@ Jeevanandam and Adinarayanan is justified or not?
If justified, what relief they are entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
The petitioner is a registered trade union and it
raised this industrial dispute against the respondent
Mill by espousing the cause of the individual workers
namely, Thiruvalargal R.Ramakrishnan, R. Sivanandan,
N. Munisamy @ Jeevanandam and Adinarayanan.
The worker Munisamy @ Jeevanandam was worked
as Winder Skilled 3 and he was paid salary for this
category as Basic pay of ` 3,470. He was promoted
as Jobber by the respondent Mill on 01-01-2014.
However, his salary as per Jobber category Special
Grade I is ` 3,730 whereas, eventhough he was
promoted as Jobber, his salary was not fixed but, he
was paid only winder category salary G.I. i.e., ` 3,650
when he was promoted in the month of January 2014,
the same salary was paid to the promoted category
of Jobber G.I. This is unjustified. He is eligible to
draw Jobber G.I salary from the month of January
2014 i.e., ` 3,730. Therefore, he may be adjudged
eligible for higher salary. The salary difference is ` 80.
Hence, it must be fixed with annual increment from
January 2014 to till date i.e., November 2017 to the
tune of ` 60 per year alone with category fixation
increment. Hence, he prays for the relief as stated
above. The worker R. Ramakrishnan, who was a
1263
2 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
retired as a Jobber and superannuated on 14-07-2014.
He was promoted as a Jobber from the month of
November 2013. Before that he was acted as a
Jobber in a vacant post from the month of February
2013. He was also paid acting salary for the post of
Jobber. Whereas, after his promotion from November
2013, he was once again paid the same salary was
received by him in a previous month for the post of
Simplex Tenter. But, the increment pay was paid, but,
no category salary was paid to him. In fact, he was
retired in the midst of July 2014. He is eligible for
the category salary from the month of February 2013
to up to his superannuation which comes totally 18
months. The worker Sivanandan, S/o. Rangasamy,
has raised this dispute individually through a letter,
dated 27-10-2014 and his cause was also exposed by
the petitioner union through a letter, dated
13-11-2014 expressing the category salary has not
been fixed or either paid eventhough he was
promoted in the category of Jobber on 01-01-2014.
The said worker who has discharged the Job of the
worker from the month of September 2013 in view
of he worked as acting jobber. This was also
reflected in the payment slip during the month of
September, 2013 and also October, 2013 inspite of
the post has not been filed during the said period.
He was also eligible for month of November and
December, 2013 when he worked as a acting Jobber.
There is a discrepancy in the preparation of the
salary slip and payment of salary. The said worker
was promoted as a Jobber from the post of Reserve
Piecer to the Jobber on 01-01-2014. He was
superannuated only on 29-11-2014. He raised this
dispute individually and also through union before
he was superannuated. Hence, he is asking the
disparity of payment scale from the month of
November, 2013 to November, 2014. During the
conciliation, the management strict on with their
contention that this worker is not eligible for fixation
of category salary since he was superannuated. He is
not demanding more than 12 months of withheld
category salary. The worker Aadhi Narayanan who
was also promoted as Winding Jobber from the month
of 01-01-2014. But, he was not paid category-wise
salary and category increment. He was superannuated
only in the month November 2014. Therefore, he is
eligible for category salary ` 80 per month along
with yearly increment salary ` 60. It is the meager
amount and the respondent management adamantly
making a plea ineligible for fixation of salary in
view of his superannuation. His cause was also
exposed by the petitioner union within time before
he was superannuated. Therefore, he is also eligible
to claim the relief of category fixation pay. This
dispute by the petitioner union with the respondent
management is a simple dispute which can be
decided with the documents submitted. Each worker
is claiming only a sum of ` 80 per month along with
increment salary of ` 60 per month which is monetarily
met by the management with open mind. The worker
Munusamy @ Jeevanandam is an existing employee
and he is a continuing worker with the respondent.
But, his case is not considered during the conciliation.
But, no explanation has been submitted by the
management for this case. For the other 3 workers
the management is taking a plea, that they are
superannuated employees. There their case cannot
be considered, which is highly deplorable against the
natural justice. Once he discharged his work as a
Jobber even for a month he could not denied a
category salary with yearly increment. This is a
verdict given by the intervention of Chief Minister
of Puducherry during the meeting held in the
chamber of him on 11-01-2011. There was also a
12(3) settlement arraigned in between the petitioner
union and management on 14-02-2011, wherein, it was
categorically mentioned in para No. 4 of the
agreement of settlement that ‘Category’, ‘Grade’,
‘Basic Salary’ which is called as IDA wage pattern.
Also has been decided in the Annexure No. 2 of this
settlement. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner
union on behalf of the abovesaid workers is justified
and they are eligible to draw category-wise payment
of ` 3,730 per month from the month of January,
2014 along with increment salary of ` 60 per month
and one time category fixation salary also to the tune
of ` 80 in the basic pay of category fixation.
Therefore, the union prayed this union to pass an
Award in favour of the petitioner union to direct the
respondent management to rectify anomaly pay the
fixation.
3. The respondent after receipt of the notice has
appeared in person before this Court and despite several
opportunities, the respondent did not turn up before this
Court to file their counter objection and hence, the
respondent was set ex parte. In the course of enquiry,
on the side of the petitioner PW.1 was examined and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. Heard.
4. The point for determination is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner union
against
the
respondent
management
over
non-payment of pending category increment for
abovesaid 4 workers is justified or not and if,
justified what is the relief entitled to the petitioners.
1264
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 October 2018
5. It is the evidence of the petitioner PW1 that the
employees Thiruvalargal R. Ramakrishnan, R.Sivanandan,
N. Munisamy @ Jeevanandam and Adinarayanan were
given promotion as Jobber with effect from 01-01-2014
and eventhough their cadre has been changed they are
not paid the wages of the post of Jobber and paid only
in the grade of skilled Grade-III and in connection with
the above request was sent by the workers to the
management and that the union has also submitted a
request representation to the management and however,
the management has not taken any action till date
regarding the demand of the petitioners and therefore,
the union has raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer, over non-payment of pending
category increment for the abovesaid four workers
against the respondent management and the conciliation
was failed and this reference has been sent to this Court
for proper adjudication.
6. In support of their case, the petitioner union has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Ex.P1 is the copy of minutes
of the meeting, dated 11-01-2011. Ex.P2 is the copy of
12(3) settlement. Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are the copy of salary
receipts of Sivanandam, Ramakrishnan and Munisamy
@ Jeevanandam. Ex.P6 is the letter to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) by the management. Ex.P8 is the
copy of failure report of the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
7. From the above evidence and documents, it is
clearly established by the petitioner union that the
petitioners are eligible to with draw the Jobber G.I
salary from January-2014 at the rate of ` 3,730 and
they are entitled for increment as claimed in the claim
petition and that the claim of the union on behalf of the
workers Thiruvalargal R. Ramakrishnan, R. Sivanandan,
N. Munisamy @ Jeevanandam and Adinarayanan is
justified and they are eligible to draw category-wise
payment of ` 3,730 per month from the month of
January-2014 along with increment salary of `60 per
month and one-time category fixation salary also to the
tune of ` 80 in the basic pay of category fixation as
claimed in the claim petition. Further, despite several
opportunities, the respondent did not turn up before this
Court to file their counter objection and hence, the
respondent was set ex parte. Considering the fact that
the petitioner union has established their case, it is to be
held that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union against the respondent management, over non-payment
of pending category increment for 4 workers viz.,
Thiruvalargal R. Ramakrishnan, R.Sivanandan, N. Munisamy
@ Jeevanandam and Adinarayanan is justified and the
petitioners are entitled for the claim as prayed by them
and as such the petition is liable to be allowed.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management, over non-payment of pending
category increment for 4 workers viz., Thiruvalargal
R. Ramakrishnan, R. Sivanandan, N. Munisamy @
Jeevanandam and Adinarayanan is justified and an
Award is passed by directing the respondent management
to pay increment to the abovesaid four workers as per
their category. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the
19th day of April, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1— 02-04-2018
—
D. Ravi.
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 11-01-2011 — Copy of minutes of meeting.
Ex.P2
— 14-02-2011 — Copy of 12(3) settlement.
Ex.P3
— —
— Copy of salary receipt of
Sivanandam.
Ex.P4
— —
— Copy of salary receipt of
Ramakrishnan.
Ex.P5
— —
— Copy of salary receipt of
Munisamy @ Jeevanandam.
Ex.P6
— 05-07-2014 — Copy of 3 letter sent by
03-06-2014
the petitioners to the
28-05-2014
management.
Ex.P7
— 13-01-2016 — Letter to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) by
the management.
Ex.P8
— 24-02-2017 — Copy of failure report
of the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
List of respondent’s witness: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
1265
2 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 89/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 7th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 12/2017, dated
19-04-2018 of the of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the Industrial
Dispute between the management of M/s. AML Steel
Limited, Puducherry and Thiru Vellaiyan, Puducherry,
over reinstatement with full back wages, continuity in
service and all other attendant benefits 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 23-05-1991, 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.
Thursday, the 19th day of April 2018.
I.D. (L) No. 12/2015
Vellaiyan,
S/o. Kalivaradhan,
No.30, Mariamman Koil Street,
Eripakkam Nathamedu,
Kariyamanikkam post,
Nettapakkam,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
AML Steel Limited,
No. 33/5, Eripakkam Village,
Nettapakkam,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 23-03-2018 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R.T. Shankar,
Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru A. Karunamoorthy,
Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing and upon
perusing the case records, after having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under
section 2A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act,
2010 praying to pass an Award directing the respondent
management to reinstate the petitioner with full back
wages, continuity of service and all other attendant
benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined in
the respondent establishment in the month of May, 1996
as Office Attender and he was paid ` 1,500 at initial
and recently the respondent management had raised his
salary at ` 4,500 per month and that he has asked for
wage increase on par with minimum wages and it was
denied by the management and that by an act of
victimization and motivation the respondent management
issued order of transfer to him to report duty at Head
Office, Chennai with immediate effect and that he
reported duty on 25-10-2013 at 12.30 p.m., as directed
by the management at the Chennai Head Office and also
singed in the entry note maintained by the security and
that the management has not allowed him to enter inside
the factory and asked to sit outside the factory premises
and thereafter, asked to report him on 26-10-2013 and
that as instructed by the management he reported to
duty on 26-10-2013 and again he was not allowed to
enter the factory premises and therefore, after three days
he returned to his original work place at Puducherry
unit and that the management denied employment to
him and not allowed him to enter the factory and
therefore, he raised an industrial dispute against the
respondent management on 03-12-2013 before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) and that the management by
an Act of victimization and motivation denied employment
as he requested for the salary increase and implement
as it was not paid and bonus was also not paid to him
and that out of 300 employees only 10 employees were
on roll and other employees were engaged on contract
system against the Contract Act and all the said
employees more than 280 workmen belongs to North
India and that the respondent management so far not
extend the benefit of ESI and EPF to their workmen and
also so far the management have not extended the
benefit of leave salary, over time allowances, weekly
holiday, bonus, etc., which are statutory benefits under
1266
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 October 2018
the Social Security Acts and that the respondent
management not maintaining any records such as
attendance register, wage register, leave register, etc.,
to their workmen and that all the workmen including
the petitioner working for more than 12 hours per day
and no allowances were paid under the Act and that in
the conciliation proceedings the respondent management
eventhough participated not extended their co-operation
and not submitted any reply in this regard and they have
not submitted any valid reason for denial of employment
to him and in the conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation
Officer was advised the respondent management to
provide employment to the petitioner as there is no
valid reason for denial of employment and it was
against the principles of natural justice and Industrial
Disputes Act and the same was ended in vain and that
the respondent management has no right to transfer the
petitioner to different regions and hence, the transfer
order issued by the respondent management is arbitrary
and illegal one and also against the Industrial Disputes
Act and therefore, he had approached the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), at Puducherry on 03-12-2013 and however,
there is no amicable settlement was arrived within the
period of 45 days and therefore, as per the Amended Act
he is constrained to file this petition before this Court
and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity of services and all other attendance benefits.
3. On the other hand the respondent management
has filed the counter statement denying the averments
made by the petitioner in the claim petition except those
that are specifically admitted by them in the counter
statement and stated that the petitioner has been
working in the company since 1996 and during October,
2013 as there was a shortage of staff in the Head Office,
Chennai-600 086 the petitioner being an experienced
person was transferred to the Head Office and communication
was sent to the petitioner on 25-10-2013 informing him
that he is transferred to the Head Office AML Tower,
No. 9, 6th Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086 due
to administrative reasons and he was granted one week
time with pay for reporting to new station and further
stated that the petitioner though acknowledged their
letter on 25-10-2013 failed to report within the time
granted and he did not sent any communication, which
resulted in a lot of confusion and hence, the respondent
was forced to issue a show cause notice, dated 20-11-2013
directing the petitioner to join duty immediately failing
which disciplinary action would be initiated for
disobedience and no reply was submitted to the respondent
for the show cause notice and instead the petitioner
went directly to the Labour Officer, Labour Department,
Puducherry on 03-12-2013 with false particulars that
work was not given and not allotted and further stated
that the petitioner was not satisfied with the working
condition he would not have continued to work for 17
long years and proper records and Register has been
maintained and thus, it is not wrong to transfer a
workman, if, there is a need by the management and
that this cannot be construed to be mala fide and there
has been no violation any provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and prayed this Court to dismiss the
claim petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner WW1 was examined and Ex.W1 to Ex.W8
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW1
was examined and no documents were marked by them.
Argument was heard.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent management, over
reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service
and all other attendant benefits is justified or not and
if justified, what is the relief entitled to the petitioner.
6. On the point:
The pleadings of the parties, the evidence let in
by either sides and the documents marked on the side
of the petitioner are carefully considered. On the
side of the respondent management written argument
was filed and the same was also carefully considered.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has
argued that they have established that the petitioner
was working at the respondent establishment for
about 15 years as an Office Attender and transfer
order was given to the petitioner by the respondent
management with a direction to report before the
Head Office at Chennai and as per the order, the
petitioner has appeared on 25-10-2013 at the
respondent Head Office at Chennai wherein, the
signature of the petitioner was obtained and the
petitioner was asked to sit outside the factory and
thereafter, the petitioner was asked to report on the
next day i.e., 26-10-2013 and on which date also the
petitioner was refused to enter into the factory
premises and after three days the petitioner returned
to the original work place i.e., the factory at
Puducherry, wherein, also the petitioner was refused
to enter the factory by the respondent management
and hence, the petitioner has raised the Industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer.
7. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing
for the respondent management has argued that the
petitioner was actually transferred to Head Office of the
1267
2 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
respondent establishment at Gopalupuram, Chennai but,
the petitioner has not reported there and that the
contention raised by the petitioner that he was not
allowed to enter into the Head Office premises is totally
baseless and in order to avoid the legal action for
non-obeying the transfer order the petitioner has raised
the present industrial dispute.
8. From the pleadings of both the parties and on
perusal of the claim statement filed by the petitioner
and the counter statement filed by the respondent
management it is noticed that the following facts are
admitted by either sides that the petitioner was working
at the respondent establishment from the year 1996 and
he was transferred to the Head Office at Chennai by the
respondent management on 25-10-2013 and he was
granted one week time with pay for reporting at the new
station and a show cause notice was issued to him on
20-11-2013 and the petitioner has raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 03-12-2013
and it is also noticed from the pleadings that no charge
has been framed against the petitioner for not reporting
duty at Head Office and no disciplinary enquiry was
conducted and no written order of termination was
given to the petitioner.
9. In order to prove his case the petitioner has
examined himself as WW1 and it is the evidence of the
WW1 that he had been in service at the respondent
establishment as an Office Attender from May, 1996
and working for about 17 years without any remarks
and he has been granted only ` 4,500 as salary by the
respondent management even he has completed 17 years
of service at the respondent office as an Office
Assistant and he has requested for wage increase for
which the management has denied to pay even the
minimum wages to the petitioner and has started all sort
of unfair labour practice against the petitioner and he
was transferred by the respondent management by an
order, dated 25-10-2013 to the Head Office at Chennai
with immediate effect and though he has reported
immediately on the same day on 25-10-2013 at the
respondent Head Office at Chennai and also signed in
the entry note maintained by the security the
management has not allowed him to enter inside the
factory and directed him to report on 26-10-2013 and
though, the petitioner has reported as directed by the
respondent management on 26-10-2013, again the
petitioner was not allowed to enter the factory premises
and was instructed to go out the factory and thereafter,
he has returned to the original work place at Puducherry
wherein, the respondent management has denied
employment to him by not allowing him to enter the
factory and that therefore, he raised an industrial
disputed before the Conciliation Officer against the
respondent management.
10. In support of his evidence the petitioner has
exhibited the copy of the letter of transfer order given
by the respondent to the petitioner on 25-10-2013 as
Ex.W1, the letter of Notice given by the respondent to
the petitioner on 20-11-2013 as Ex.W2, the dispute
raised by the petitioner before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) on 03-12-2013 as Ex.W3, the letter given
by the petitioner before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) on 01-07-2014 as Ex.W4, the failure
report submitted by the Labour Officer - Conciliation,
Puducherry on 01-12-2014 as Ex.W5, the experience
letter given by the respondent to the petitioner on
30-04-2013 as Ex.W6, the copy of the ESIC card given
by Employee’s State Insurance Corporation to the
petitioner on 01-12-2003 as Ex.W7, the copy of the
EPF slip given by the Employee’s Provident Fund to
the petitioner for various financial years of 2001-2002,
2005-2006 and 2006-2007. These documents would go
to show that the petitioner was working at the
respondent management from May, 1996 and he was
working for about 17 years and he has been transferred
by the respondent management on 25-10-2013 to
Chennai Head Office and subsequently, on 20-11-2013
he was directed to report before the respondent
management at Chennai and thereafter, he has raised the
industrial dispute before the conciliation on 03-12-2013
and the conciliation was failed and the reference has
been sent to this Court and while he was in employment
at the respondent establishment, he has been paid ESI
contribution by the respondent management and also
given ESIC card and for the financial year 2001-2002,
2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the petitioner has also been
paid Provident Fund amount.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner has been transferred
from Puducherry to Chennai Head Office on
25-10-2013 and it is the case of the petitioner that he
appeared on 25-10-2013 at the respondent Head Office
at Chennai as directed by the respondent management
under the transfer order but, he has not been allowed
to enter the factory and he has been asked to appear
on the next day on which day also he was not allowed
to enter into the factory and hence, he has returned to
the original working place at Puducherry wherein, also
he has denied employment.
12. On the other hand, it is contended by the
respondent management that the petitioner has not
appeared before the respondent office at Chennai as per
the order of transfer, dated 25-10-2013 and that
1268
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 October 2018
therefore, he has been given show cause notice on
20-11-2013 to report before the respondent Head Office
at Chennai and due to the administrative reason alone
he has been transferred for which he has not obeyed and
that therefore, he is not entitled for the order of
reinstatement. In support of their contention the
respondent management has examined the Accountant
of the respondent establishment as RW1 and it is the
evidence of the RW1 that whenever any shortage of
manpower arises resulting transfer of workers from one
unit to other unit and the transfer would be effected on
administrative grounds and that the petitioner was
transferred to Head office at Chennai on 25-10-2013
and even after giving one week time with pay for
reporting to new station the petitioner has failed to
report within the time granted before the Head Office
at Chennai and that since he has not reported to duty
at Head Office, Chennai the show cause notice was
issued on 20-11-2013 directing the petitioner to report
for duty at Head office, Chennai and however, he has
not reported so far and that the petitioner has not
preferred to sent any reply for such notice which shows
his disobedient attitude. In support of their oral
evidence the respondent has not at all produced any
documents on their side and no document has been
marked as an exhibit.
13. From the evidence of RW1 it is clear that even
the petitioner has not turned up for duty as directed in
the notice, the respondent management has not at all
framed charge against the petitioner and no disciplinary
action was taken against the petitioner by appointing
an Enquiry Officer. It is not the case of the respondent
management that they have initiated any disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner workman for his non
appearance at the Head Office as per the transfer order
and a charge-memo was served on him and an Enquiry
Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer filed any
report before the respondent management finding any
guilty against the petitioner workman and the petitioner
has been terminated from service on the finding of the
Enquiry Officer. As the petitioner is the permanent
workman of the factory since he has served as an
attender at the respondent management for about 17 years,
it is the duty cast upon the respondent to adopt
procedure laid down under the labour laws and the
opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner
workman to defend his case by conducting domestic
enquiry for his non-appearance at the respondent Head
Office at Chennai as directed by them and to conduct
the domestic enquiry by an Enquiry Officer by taking
evidence and marking exhibits by giving opportunity to
the petitioner to defend his case. But, in this case
nothing is done by the respondent management for
terminating the petitioner workman from the respondent
establishment and that therefore, the refusal of
employment to the petitioner without adopting any
proper steps in accordance with law by following the
principles of natural justice which would go to show
that the respondent management has committed unfair
labour practice as stated by the petitioner and that
therefore, it is to be held that the Industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management, over reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits is
justified and the petitioner is entitled for the order of
reinstatement as claimed by him in the claim petition.
14. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management-over reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity of service and all other attendant benefits is
justified, it is to be decided whether the petitioner is
entitled for back wages as claimed by him. There is
no evidence that the petitioner is working so far in any
other industry and that there is no proof exhibited
before this Court that he is working anywhere else.
The respondent has not proved the fact that the
petitioner has been working in any other establishment
after his termination. However, the petitioner could
have served at any other industry after his termination.
Considering the above-facts and circumstances, this
Court decides that the petitioner is entitled only for
50% back wages with continuity of service and other
attendant benefits
15. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management-over reinstatement with back
wages is justified and Award is passed directing the
respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in
service within one month from the date of this Award
and further directed the respondent management to pay
50% back wages to the petitioner from the date of
termination till the date of reinstatement with continuity
of service and other attendant benefits. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 19th day of April, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
1269
2 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1— 01-02-2016
—
K. Vellaiyan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.W1 — 25-10-2013 — Letter of Transfer order
given by the respondent
to the petitioner.
Ex.W2 — 20-11-2013 — Letter of Notice given by
the respondent to the
petitioner.
Ex.W3 — 03-12-2013 — Dispute raised by the
petitioner before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.W4 — 01-07-2014 — Letter
given
by
the
petitioner before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.W5 — 01-12-2014 — Failure report submitted
by the Labour Officer -
Conciliation, Puducherry.
Ex.W6 — 30-04-2013 — Experience letter given
by the respondent to the
petitioner.
Ex.W7 — 01-12-2003 — Photocopy of the ESIC
Card given by Employee’s
State Insurance Corporation
to the petitioner.
Ex.W8 — Several
— Photocopy of the EPF
dates
Slip
given
by
the
Employee’s
Provident
Fund to the petitioner for
various financial years of
2001-2002, 2005-2006
and 2006-2007.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW1
—
22-01-2018 — P. Gnanvelu
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 91/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 7th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 14/2014, dated
17-04-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Jayaprakash Narayan
Co-op. Spinning Mills, Karaikal and Thiru M. Yesuadiyan,
Karaikal, over reinstatement with back wage 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,
Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 14/2014
Thiru.M. Yesuadiyan,
No. 36, Gandhi Nagar,
Varichikudi, Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Jayaprakash Narayan Co-op.
Spinning Mills,
Keezhemanni, Neravy,
Karaikal-609 604.
. . Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 27-03-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru N. Ramar, Representative for the petitioner and
Thiru C. Balasubramaniyan, 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. 32/AIL/Lab./J/2014,
dated 05-03-2014 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru M.Yesuadiyan against the management of
M/s. Jayaprakash Narayan Co-op. Spinning Mills, over
reinstatement with back wages is justified?
1270
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 October 2018
(b) If justified, what relief he is entitled to ?
(c) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner was joined as trainee at the
respondent Mill on 28-08-1996. Subsequently, he was
regularized in the spinning department as sider with effect
from 15-05-2000. He was paid ` 9,000 as monthly
salary. While so, from 05-03-2009 the petitioner was
affected by illness and went on ESI leave. Then since
the petitioner was affected by Jaundice and was under
medical treatment he was not able to attend the work.
While so, on 01-09-2010, when the petitioner returned
to duty after cure of disease with medical certificates,
the management refused to offer work stating that he
was terminated from service. The petitioner made
several requests to the respondent management for his
employment. But, the management refused to offer
employment without any valid reasons. Hence, the
petitioner raised the industrial dispute before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 10-06-2013 for which
the respondent management has filed the reply stating
that the petitioner has been removed from service on
16-04-2009. The petitioner came to know that he was
terminated from service only on the said date. The
petitioner has not received any show cause notice
which alleged to have been sent by the management on
01-04-2009 and he also not received any letter from
the respondent establishment regarding his termination
of service alleged to have been sent by the management
on 16-04.2009. No enquiry has been conducted by the
management as per clause 20, 21 of the certified
standing order of the respondent establishment. The
alleged termination is against the principles of natural
justice without giving any opportunity and without
conducting any enquiry against the petitioner. The
petitioner has prayed for reinstatement with back
wages.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent did not admitted any of the
averments and allegations contained in the claim
petition except those that are specifically admitted and
stated that the respondent Mill is a Society and its main
object is "no gain no loss" and it has been runs under
the control of Puducherry Government. The petitioner
had joined the respondent Society in the year 1996 and
the respondent Society had permanent the employee
on 15-05-2000. The petitioner work a Spinning Piecer
and his card number is 139. The petitioner was always
a chronic absentee and was taking leave without any
permission. The petitioner since his joining in the
respondent society till 16-04-2009 had taken 913 days
leave. The above absence attitude of the petitioner
clearly shows the petitioner has no interest in his work.
The respondent Society has sent several warning and
show cause notice to the petitioner and all such notice
are duly received by the petitioner. However, after that
also the petitioner did not turn his earns. Finally,
the petitioner does not co-operate the respondent
on 16-04-2009 the respondent society has take steps and
treated as left out of his service and the copy also sent
through post. The allegation stated in the petitioner in
his petition is false. The petitioner did not produce any
medical certificate or any medical record for his long
absence. The petitioner has not come with clean hands
before this Court. The petitioner’s unauthorized absence
affected the respondent Society a huge loss. The issue of
chronic absenteeism has become a very serious in
respondent’s Society, the production activities and
disturbing
its
work schedules and manpower
allotments. The high percentage of unauthorized
absenteeism clearly indicated that the workers of
respondent Society were taking their employment
casually and the leniency shown by the respondent in
the past in not taking stringent disciplinary action was
an encouraging factor. Apart from financial loss, it was
also leading to frustration amongst the regular
employees as the absenteeism was causing additional
burden of work on those employees. The claim petition
is devoid of merits, lacks bona fide and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the petitioner
no witness has been examined and only Ex.P1 to Ex.P8
were marked on consent and on the side of the respondent
RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked.
Both side arguments were heard.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management, over reinstatement with
back wages is justified or not and if justified, what is
the relief entitled to the petitioner?
6. On the point :
The pleadings of the parties, the evidence let in by
respondent and the exhibits marked on both sides are
carefully considered. On both sides, written arguments
1271
2 October 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
were filed and the same were carefully considered.
In support of his case, the learned representative for
the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment reported
in 1996 (1) LLJ 1/96, Pg.152. On the side of the
petitioner no oral evidence has been adduced and on
consent Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. Ex.P1 is the
copy of offer of appointment issued by the respondent
to the petitioner on 22-07-1996. Ex.P2 is the copy of
order of appointment on regular basis issued by the
respondent to the petitioner on 15-05-2000. Ex.P3
(series) is the copy of ESI medical certificates issued
to the petitioner for the period 05-03-2009 to
18-03-2009. Ex.P4 (series) is the copy of medical
certificates issued to the petitioner for the period
18-03-2009 to 01-09-2010. Ex.P5 is the copy of
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 10-06-2013. Ex.P6 is
the copy of letter given by the respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) on 12-08-2013. Ex.P7 is the copy
of conciliation failure report, dated 14-11-2013. Ex.P8
is the copy of the certified standing order of the Mill.
These documents would go to show that the petitioner
was appointed at the respondent establishment on
22-07-1996 and he had been in service and his service
became permanent on 15-05-2000 and he has taken
medical treatment for the period from 05-03-2009 to
01-09-2010 and he had been given several prescriptions
and thereafter, he has raised the industrial dispute for his
non-employment on 10-06-2013 before the Conciliation
Officer and conciliation proceedings were taken place
and the management has appeared before the
conciliation proceedings and the conciliation was failed
and the matter has been referred to this Court and the
respondent establishment is having certified standing
order.
7. On the other hand, to disprove the case of the
petitioner the respondent management has examined the
Supervisor of the respondent Mill as RW.1 and he has
stated in his evidence that the petitioner was working at
the respondent Mill since from 1996 and he was made
permanent from 15-05-2000 and that the petitioner was a
chronic absentee and was taking leave without any
permission and he has taken 913 days leave since his
joining in the respondent Society till 16-04-2009 and
several warnings has been issued against the petitioner
and since the petitioner has not turned up for service from
18-03-2009 the show cause notice was sent to the
petitioner on 01-04-2009 for which the petitioner has not
given any reply to the management and therefore, he has
been removed from service on 16-04-2009 as per the
standing order of the respondent Mill. In support of their
oral evidence the respondent management has exhibited
Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. Ex.R1 is the statement of unauthorized
absence chart which would go to show that the petitioner
has unauthorizedly absent for 913½ days but, the said
statement is not supported by any documentary evidence
or any attendance register. Ex.R2 is the copy of termination
order issued against petitioner on 16-04-2009 which
would go to show that the petitioner was terminated from
service on 16-04-2009. Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 are the copy of
the registers to show the dispatching of letters regarding
explanation notice and termination order but, both the
documents have not been supported by any documentary
evidence for the proof of receipt of the same by the
petitioner. Ex.R5 is the copy of authorization letter on
22-04-2017. Further, these documents would reveal the
fact that the charge memo has not been issued to the
petitioner for the alleged unauthorized absence and no
Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic
enquiry against the petitioner and no domestic enquiry was
conducted and no findings were given by the Enquiry
Officer and without affording any opportunity to the
petitioner to putforth his case by conducting domestic
enquiry the petitioner was terminated from service.
8. On perusal of evidence and documents it is clear
that no charges has been framed against the petitioner for
his unauthorized absence and no opportunity was given
to the petitioner and no domestic enquiry was conducted
to putforth his defence. Further, it is admitted by the
respondent management in their evidence that the
petitioner was terminated without conducting domestic
enquiry. The petitioner has exhibited the standing order
of the respondent Mill under Ex.P8 which would reveal
the fact that clause 20 of the standing order deals with the
misconduct of the employee and clause 21 deals with the
enquiries by officer i.e., a neutral person appointed by the
Factory Manager in this behalf and the Factory Manager
shall have powers to award punishment and clause 22 deals
with the punishment for misconduct and particularly no
order of punishment shall be made unless the workman
concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct
against him and the enquiry in accordance with the
principles of natural justice is conducted.
9. In this case, admittedly, no such domestic enquiry
proceedings were conducted by the management by
appointing Enquiry Officer and no opportunity was given
to the petitioner in accordance with the standing order of
the respondent Mill and that therefore, it is clear that the
1272
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[2 October 2018
respondent management has not followed the standing
order and the petitioner has also not been given sufficient
opportunities to putforth his case by giving an opportunity
of an enquiry which would be conducted by a neutral
person and to find the truth of the charges levelled against
him and that therefore, the order of termination of the
petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and
also against the provisions of the standing order of the
respondent Mill and that therefore, the alleged termination
order passed against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and
is liable to be set aside and therefore, it is to be held that
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management, over reinstatement with back
wages is justified and the petitioner is entitled for the
order of reinstatement as claimed by him.
10. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management, over reinstatement with back wages is
justified, it is to be decided whether the petitioner is
entitled for back wages as claimed by him. There is no
evidence that the petitioner is working so far in any other
industry and that there is no proof exhibited before this
Court that he is working anywhere else. The respondent
has not proved the fact that the petitioner has been
working in any other establishment after his termination.
However, the petitioner could have served at any other
industry after his termination. Considering the above facts
and circumstances, this Court decides that the petitioner
is entitled only for 25% back wages with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over reinstatement with back
wages is justified and Award is passed directing the
respondent management, to reinstate the petitioner in
service within one month from the date of this Award and
further directed the respondent management to pay 25%
back wages to the petitioner from the date of termination
till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service and
other attendant benefits. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this
the 17th day of April, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses: Nil.
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 22-07-1996 — Copy of offer of appointment
issued by the respondent to
the petitioner.
Ex.P2 — 15-05-2000 — Copy of order of appointment
on regular basis issued by
the respondent to the
petitioner.
Ex.P3 — 05-03-2009 — Copy of medical certificates
(series)
to
issued to the petitioner.
18-03-2009
Ex.P4 — 18-03-2009 — Copy of medical certificates
(series)
to
of the petitioner.
01-09-2010
Ex.P5 — 10-06-2013 — Copy of industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P6 — 12-08-2013 — Copy of letter given by the
respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P7 — 14-11-2013 — Copy
of
conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P8 — 23-03-2003 — Copy of the certified
standing order of the Mill.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 20-07-2017 — Kumaresan
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 — —
— Statement of unauthorized
absence chart.
Ex.R2 — 16-04-2009 — Copy of termination order
issued against petitioner.
Ex.R3 — —
— Copy of register to show
the dispatching of letter
regarding
explanation
notice.
Ex.R4 — —
— Copy of register to show
the dispatching of letter
regarding
termination
order.
Ex.R5 — 22-04-2017 — Copy of authorization letter.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.