La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 15-00
Prix : ` 15-00
Price : ` 15-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1436
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1436
Award of the Labour Court .. 1436
de Tribunal.
.. 1446
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1446
Government Notifications
.. 1446
.. 1450
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1450
Tender Notices
.. 1450
.. 1450
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 1450
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1450
.. 1451
Annonces
.. 1451
Announcements
.. 1451
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 : 6-11-2018
Price : ` 15-00
[ 1435 ]
2018 } |
6 {
No.
45
Poudouchéry
Mardi
6
Novembre
2018 (15 Kartika 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
6th
November
2018
1436
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 November 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 106/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 20th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 38/2015, dated
21-05-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Siechem Technology
Private Limited, Puducherry and Thiru S. Manikandan,
Villupuram District, over non-employment has been
received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the
notification issued in Labour Department's G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Deputy Labour Commissioner.
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Monday, the 21st day of May, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 38/2015
Thiru S. Manikandan,
Mariamman Koil Street,
Thiruchittrambalam Village and Post,
Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Siechem Technology
Private Limited,
R.S. No. 104/8 and 105/7,
Sedarapet Main Road,
Puducherry-605 001.
. . Respondent.
This Industrial Dispute coming on 27-04-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Tvl. P.R. Thiruneelakandan, A.Mithun Chakkaravarthy
and R. Harinath, Advocates for the petitioner and
Thiru M. Vinayamoorthy, 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. 76/AIL/Lab./J/2015,
dated 01-06-2015 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru S.Manikandan against the management of
M/s.
Siechem
Technology
Private
Limited,
Puducherry, over non-employment is justified?
If justified, what relief he is entitled to?
(b) 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 appointed as Driver on 20-10-2011
in the respondent establishment. Even since he has
been continuously working as a Driver, as such he
is a workman as define in section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. While the petitioner was in
service on 06-11-2013, the respondent without any
reasonable cause and without assigning reason
simply denied employment to the petitioner. After
the denial of employment the petitioner approached
the respondent and its Administrative Officer
requesting
them
to
provide
re-employment
considering
his
poor
family
conditions.
The
Administrative Officer of the respondent promised to
give employment to the petitioner obtained a
signature of the petitioner in blank papers to provide
re-employment. But, he has not given re-employment
to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the denial of
employment, the petitioner raised an industrial
dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on
10-02-2014.
On
receipt
of
the
same
the
conciliation notice was issued on 13-05-2014
to the petitioner and the respondent. The
conciliation meeting was held for several hearings,
but, the respondent management has chosen neither
appear nor file any statement before the Conciliation
Officer. Hence, the Conciliation Officer submitted
the failure report on 13-05-2015. After the
conciliation was ended in failure the petitioner was
informed that the respondent management sent letter
to the Conciliation Officer stating that the petitioner
resigned from his service accepting full and final
settlement. The petitioner has never resigned from
service and he had not received any settlement to end
his service with the respondent establishment.
1437
6 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The denial of employment to the petitioner with
effect from 06-11-2013 is an unfair labour practice
and illegal it is liable to be set aside. The petitioner
is entitling to reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity of service, and all other attendant
benefits. The denial of employment to the petitioner
without any reasonable cause and without any notice
to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and clear act of
violation of principles of natural justice and violation
of model standing order and it is clear act of unfair
labour practice as enumerated in Schedule 5 part 1
clause (a), (b), (d), (f) and16 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The denial of employment in violation
of section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute which is
illegal. At the time of termination he was paid
` 7,739 per month as wage and from the date of
denial of employment the petitioner has not been
gainfully employed anywhere in any establishment.
Therefore, the petitioner prays this Court to pass an
Award holding that the denial of employment to the
petitioner with effect from 06-11-2013 is an act of
unfair labour practice, illegal and consequently,
direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his
service with full back wages, continuity of service
and all other attendant benefits.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent denied all the allegations made in
the claim statement except those that are specifically
admitted in the counter and stated that the petition
filed by the petitioner workman is not maintainable
either in law or on facts hence, it is liable to be
dismissed in limine. The relief prayed by the
petitioner is legally and factually not maintainable.
The claim made by the petitioner is not maintainable
under law, and it is frivolous, vexatious, and it is
liable to be dismissed even without any basic
consideration. The petitioner worked as a Driver in
the respondent's company and he received his salary
every month from the respondent. While in service,
the petitioner himself expressed his desire on his
own volition to quit from service and submitted the
resignation letter. The petitioner assigned reason in
the resignation letter for his resignation, as he has
got some personal work. The petitioner's request
was considered by the respondent in his favour.
The petitioner himself had written/executed his
resignation letter in own handwriting on 05-12-2013,
and submitted the same before the respondent. Even
in the same resignation letter, he clearly claimed a
sum of ` 28,118 as his full and final settlement
amount. The petitioner is an educated person and he
has put his signature in English, after properly
writing the resignation letter. In such circumstances,
the allegation made by the petitioner that the
respondent obtained his signature in some blank
papers to provide re-employment, but, he was not
given the employment is a baseless allegation and
there is no iota of truth in it. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot turn around and say that he was
denied employment without assigning any reason.
When a person voluntarily resigned his job from the
employment, the question of assigning reason by the
employer does not arise, since, the action arise out
of the willingness of the petitioner and not on the
desire of the respondent. The petitioner voluntarily
resigned from service on 05-12-2013, and claimed
the total settlement of ` 28,118 on the same day. The
petitioner's total claim amount was settled by the
respondent on 20-12-2013. The petitioner himself
received the amount from the respondent and duly
acknowledged the same by giving a receipt. If, this
respondent had really denied employment without
assigning any reason to the petitioner, he ought to
have challenged the same immediately, as possible,
whereas, after lapse of 15 days, he had received the
entire settlement benefits amount as requested by
him from this respondent. Further, the petitioner
never endorsed his objection in the full settlement
receipt. In fact, the full settlement receipt was
written in his ownhandwriting. The petitioner has
not come with clean hands before this Court.
Therefore, the question of denial of employment does
not arise at all. After receiving the notice from the
Conciliation Officer, the respondent deputed his
administrative officer to follow the case. In fact, she
had appeared some of the hearing and filed
adjournment application also. Whereas, she had not
appeared for the main enquiry. The fact was
explained to the Conciliation Officer through the
respondent letter, dated 08-06-2015. In the
meantime, the matter was referred before this Court
by the Conciliation Officer. There is no will full
intension on the part of this respondent for his of
non-appearance before the Conciliation Officer. The
respondent had acted within the purview of Labour
Law and he has not committed any unfair labour
practice as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner
voluntarily expressed to resigning job from the
company and submitted the resignation letter, the
petitioner's request was considered by the respondent
in his favour. Therefore, the question of re-employment
does not arise at all. The petitioner has already
received all benefits in cash from the respondent.
Therefore, the relief of re-employment with full back
wages does not arise. Therefore, the petition is liable
to be dismissed.
1438
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 November 2018
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were
marked and on the side of the respondent RW.1 was
examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. Both sides
are heard.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether, the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over non- employment
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 exhibits marked on both sides
are carefully considered. In order to prove the case
of the petitioner the petitioner was examined himself
as PW.1 and it is the evidence of the PW.1 that he
was working at the respondent establishment from
20-10-2011 as Driver and he was denied employment
from 06-11-2013 and after the denial of employment
he approached the respondent and its Administrative
Officer requesting them to provide re-employment
and the Administrative Officer of the respondent
promised him to give employment and obtained a
signature of him in blank papers to provide
re-employment but, they have not given re-employment
to him and that therefore, he raised an industrial
dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
on 10-02-2014 and conciliation notice was issued
on 13-05-2014 to him and the respondent and the
conciliation meeting was held and even then the
respondent management has not appear before the
Conciliation Officer and hence, the Conciliation
Officer submitted the failure report to the
Government on 13-05-2015 and it is the further
evidence of the PW.1 that after, the conciliation was
ended in failure it was informed to him that the
respondent
management
sent
letter
to
the
Conciliation Officer stating that the petitioner
resigned from his service accepting full and final
settlement while he was not actually resigned his
service and he has not received any settlement from
the respondent management.
7. In support of his oral evidence the petitioner has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Ex.P1 is the copy of the
petitioner letter to the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P2 is the copy of the conciliation notice. Ex.P3 is
the copy of the petitioner letter to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation). Ex.P4 is the copy of the conciliation
failure report. Ex.P5 is the copy of the respondent letter
to the Conciliation Officer. Ex.P6 is the copy of the
Government reference. Ex.P7 is the copy of the petitioner
letter to the management. Ex.P8 is the copy of the A.D.
Card, acknowledged by the management. Ex.P9 is the
copy of the petitioner letter to the Conciliation Officer.
8. On the other hand to disprove the case of the
petitioner the Administrative Officer of the respondent
establishment was examined as RW.1 and she has stated
in her evidence that the allegation made by the
petitioner that the petitioner was denied employment
without any reasonable cause and without assigning
reason is totally false and actually the petitioner himself
expressed his desire on his own volition to quit from
service and submitting his resignation letter stating that
due to some personal reasons and his request was
considered by the management in his favour and
resignation was accepted by the management and that
the resignation letter was written by the petitioner in
his own handwriting on 05-12-2013 and he claimed a
sum of `28,118 towards his full and final settlement
amount and that therefore, the petitioner voluntarily
resigned from service on 05-12-2013 and claimed the
total settlement of ` 28,118 on the same day and the
claimed amount was settled by the respondent
on 20-12-2013 and the petitioner himself received the
amount from the respondent and duly acknowledged the
same by giving a receipt and the petitioner has received
all the benefits from the company and that therefore,
the relief of re-employment with full back wages does
not arise.
9. In support of their oral evidence, the respondent
management has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. Ex.R1 is
the copy of the resignation letter submitted by the
petitioner. Ex.R2 is the copy of the full settlement
receipt. Ex.R3 is the copy of the letter sent by the
respondent to the Labour Officer. Ex.R4 is the copy
of the letter sent by the respondent to the Labour
Officer. Ex.R5 is the copy of the letter sent by the
respondent to the Labour Officer.
10. From the pleadings of both the parties, the
evidence let in by either side and the documents marked
on both sides it can be noticed that following facts are
admitted by either side that the petitioner was working
at the respondent establishment as Driver from 20-10-2011
till 06-11-2013 and thereafter, the petitioner was not in
service at the respondent establishment and he has
raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer on 10-02-2014 and conciliation was failed and
the reference has been made to this Court by the
Government to adjudicate the same. According to the
petitioner his employment was denied by the
management with effect from 06-11-2013 without any
1439
6 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
reasonable cause and without assigning any reason and
he approached the management Administrative Officer
and requested him to provide re-employment and the
Administrative Officer of the management promised to
give employment to the petitioner and obtained his
signature in the blank papers to provide re-employment
and subsequently, the management has not given
re-employment to him and that therefore, he raised the
industrial dispute.
11. Per contra, the respondent management has stated
that this petitioner voluntarily has expressed his desire
on his own willingness to quit from service and
submitted the resignation letter stating that he has got
some personal work and the said resignation letter was
accepted by the management and the petitioner also
claimed a sum of ` 28,118 towards his full and final
settlement amount and the said full and final settlement
amount was given to the petitioner and the respondent
management also denied the allegation that they
obtained the signature of the petitioner in the blank
papers and that therefore, the only question to be
decided by this Court is that whether, the petitioner has
resigned the job or whether, the respondent management
has obtained the signature of the petitioner in the blank
papers. On this aspect the evidence and documents are
carefully considered.
12. Except the oral evidence of the petitioner that
the Officer of the respondent management has obtained
the signature in the blank papers and filled it on their
own choice and denied employment from 06-11-2013
no documentary evidence is putforth before this Court
or no supporting witness is examined to support the
corroborative evidence of PW.1. Admittedly, the
petitioner was in service at the respondent establishment
for 2 years. It is learnt from the records that the petitioner
has given letter to the Conciliation Officer on 10-02-2014
stating that the respondent management has terminated
him from service without giving any opportunity though
he had been in service for about 2 years as a Driver in
the respondent establishment and thereafter conciliation
notice was given to the respondent management
on 13-05-2014 stating that the conciliation proceedings
would be held on 28-05-2014 and thereafter, the
petitioner has given a letter on 18-06-2014 to the
Conciliation Officer wherein, he has stated that the
management has obtained some signature in the blank
papers by giving assurance to re-employ him. Further,
it is also learnt from Ex.P5 the letter given by the
respondent management to the Conciliation Officer on
02-06-2015 that the management has replied to the
Conciliation Officer that this petitioner has given
resignation letter written by him on his own hand
writing on 05-12-2013 and the respondent management
has also made full and final settlement amount to the
petitioner with all dues on 20-12-2013 and the same
was acknowledged by the petitioner and hence, there is
no prima facie case for re-employment to the petitioner
and it is also learnt from Ex.P5 that the said letter was
given by the management along with the copy of the
resignation letter and the copy of the receipt of the full
settlement amount.
13. The respondent management has exhibited the
resignation letter of the petitioner as Ex.R1. The
signature in the said letter is not denied by the
petitioner and it is alleged by the respondent
management that this letter was written by petitioner's
own handwriting and only on his willingness it was
submitted to the management. From Ex.R1 it is learnt
to this Court that the petitioner has asked the final
settlement to the tune of ` 28,118 from the respondent
management. Further, it is learnt from Ex.R2, the receipt
given by the petitioner on 20-12-2013 that the petitioner
has acknowledged that he has received ` 28,118 from
the management towards his full and final settlement
for the service rendered by him at the respondent
establishment. Further, the petitioner PW.1 in his
evidence has stated as follows:
“
`
”.
1440
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 November 2018
From the above evidence it is clear that it was
suggested by the respondent management to the
petitioner that he has given resignation letter to them
and the same was written by him on his own hand
writing for which the petitioner has stated that he does
not know Tamil to read and write and subsequently he
has stated that he has studied upto 10th standard in
Tiruchitrambalam Kootroad Gandhi Higher Secondary
School in Tamil medium and he passed all the subjects
by writing examination in Tamil. Therefore, it is clear
that only to suppress the facts that he has given
resignation letter first the petitioner denied that he does
not know Tamil to read or write and subsequently,
without no other way he admitted the fact that he has
studied upto 10th standard in Tamil and passed all other
subjects by writing examination in Tamil.
14. Furthermore, the evidence of the petitioner that
the respondent management has obtained signature in
the blank papers by deceitful means while he was
asking re-employment to him is not supported by any
evidence and in contra it is elicited by the respondent
management in the cross-examination that this
petitioner has totally suppressed the fact that he has
given resignation letter on his own volition to the
respondent management on his own handwriting and
has acknowledged the receipt of the full and final
settlement stating lie that he does not know Tamil to
read and write while he has completed 10th standard
in Tamil medium. Further, it is pertinent to note that
the petitioner has not at all stated in the Ex.P1 the letter
which was given at the first instance by the petitioner
to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and under which the
industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner that the
respondent management has obtained signature in the
blank papers in a deceitful means by giving assurance
that they would be given re-employment to him. Hence,
it is clear that the petitioner has utterly failed to
establish his plea that the respondent management has
obtained his signature in the blank papers in a deceitful
means by giving assurance to him that he would be
re-appointed and the respondent management has denied
employment from 06-11-2013 since the respondent
management has clearly established the fact that the
petitioner has given resignation letter on 05-12-2013
and obtained full and final settlement on 20-12-2013
and he was not denied employment and actually he has
left the service on his own willingness by giving
resignation letter to the management and that therefore,
it is to be held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent management over, his
non-employment is not justified and the petitioner is not
entitled for any relief as prayed by him.
15.In the result, the petition is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on
this the 21st day of May, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 09-03-2017 —S. Manikandan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —10-02-2014 —Copy of the petitioner
letter
to
the
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P2 —13-05-2016 —Copy of the conciliation
notice.
Ex.P3 —18-06-2014 —Copy of the petitioner
letter
to
the
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P4 —13-05-2015— Copy of the conciliation
failure report.
Ex.P5 —02-06-2015 —Copy of the respondent
letter to the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P6 —01-07-2015 —Copy of the Government
reference.
Ex.P7 —13-01-2014 —Copy of the petitioner
letter to the management.
Ex.P8 — –
—Copy of the A.D card,
acknowledge
by
the
management.
Ex.P9 —18-06-2014 —Copy of the petitioner
letter to the Conciliation
Officer.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW1
—09-01-2018—Usha @ Usharani
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 —05-12-2013 —Copy of the resignation
letter submitted by the
petitioner.
Ex.R2 —20-12-2013 —Copy of the full settlement
receipt.
Ex.R3 —08-06-2015 —Copy of the letter sent by
the respondent to the
Labour Officer.
1441
6 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.R4 —01-06-2015 —Copy of the letter sent by
the respondent to the
Labour Officer.
Ex.R5 —02-06-2015— Copy of the letter sent by
the respondent to the
Labour Officer.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 113/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 26th July 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 08/2017, dated
13-06-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puduchcrry in respect of the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia
(India) Private Limited, Puducherry and Chemcrown
Exports and Suolificio Linea Italia (India) Private
Limited Thozilalargal Sangam over non-payment of 20%
bonus and ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the year 2015-2016
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. SENDIL KUMAR, B.A., B.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 13th day of June, 2018.
I.D. (T) No. 08/2017
The President,
Chemcrown Exports and
Suolificio Linea Italia (India) Private
Limited Thozilalargal Sangam,
42, Cuddalore Road,
Bharathi Mill Thittu,
Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-605 004.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia (India)
Private Limited,
19/1 and 4/4, Mylam Pondy Road,
Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 011.
. .
Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 11-06-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru R.T. Shankar, Advocate for the Petitioner, Tvl. K. Babu
and S. Karthikeyan, Advocates for the respondent
on record and subsequently, the respondent called absent
and for non-filing of Counter, the respondent was
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. 58/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 19-04-2017
of the
Labour Department, Pondicherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent viz.,
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the union
workmen Chamerown Exports and Suolificio Linea
Italia Private Limited Thozilalargal Union, Puducherry
against the Management of M/s. Suolificio Linea
Italia (India) Private Limited, Puducherry, over
non-payment of 20% bonus and ` 10,000 as
ex gratia for the year 2015-2016 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 union is a registered Trade Union
under the provision of the "Trade Unions Act, 1926;
vide, Registration No. l338/RTU/2003, which raised
an industrial dispute for demanding of 20% Bonus
and ` 10,000 as ex gratia as per "The Payment of
Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 6 of 2016",
for the year 2015-2016. The respondent Company is
a Company incorporated under the provision of the
"Indian Companies Act, 1913" and it is having a
factory functioning at Sedarapet for the past 11
years, in which more than 250 employees are
working. The petitioner union demanded 20% bonus
with ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the 2015-2016 for
which the respondent management refused to pay the
same. Therefore, the petitioner union filed their
representation before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
1442
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 November 2018
Puducherry on 03-10-2016 stating that they are
working in the respondent establishment and they
have requested the Management to disburse bonus
within the month of October at the rate of 20% bonus
and ex gratia at ` 10,000 as per the Bonus Act.
During the course of conciliation proceedings, the
Union demanded 20% bonus with ex gratia of
` 10,000 under the revised provisions of "The Payment
of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 6 of 2016"
recommended by the Central Government. But, the
respondent management has not agreed and filed
reply statement stating that they are ready to pay
8.33% bonus with a ceiling of ` 7,000 along with
ex gratia of an amount of ` 3,000. The petitioner
union not agreed the same. Therefore, the dispute is
not settled before the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
and ended in failure. The respondent Company is
governed by the Payment of Bonus Act and it
maintains a single balance sheet and a single P and
L A/c for the Company as a whole and bonus is
declared on the basis of the Company's balance-sheet
and the P and L A/c and in accordance with the
Payment of Bonus Act. The respondent management
denied the legitimate bonus of 20% and ex gratia
payment of ` 10,000 to the workmen of the
petitioner union, while the same is paid to the Staff/
Managers of the same company. The respondent
company is a highly profitable company and it is one
of the biggest companies operating in India and
making huge profits of crores and crores of rupees
and thereby, they are having massive surplus fund
and these profits are made from the sweat and blood
of the labours. The other companies which is located
in the same region with much lesser profits pay huge
amounts of 20% as bonus and ex gratia to its
employees. The respondent management willfully,
wantonly and deliberately denied and refused to
grant 20% bonus with ex gratia of ` 10,000 to
their employees. The workmen were not being given
a fair share of the profits of the company. It is
illegal and against the Payment of Bonus Act. The
respondent company is a big industrial establishment
and there is no other similar establishment of that
size in that region. The volume of business of the
respondent company is many more times more than
the competitive companies and the respondent
company is financially sound. While being so, the
respondent company adamantly has not paid the 20%
bonus with ` 10,000 as ex gratia without any valid
reason, which was paid previous year. Therefore, the
petitioners pray to direct the respondent company to
pay 20% Bonus as per "The Payment of Bonus
(Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 6 of 2016" with
` 10,000 as ex gratia to their employees for the year
2015-2016 and the same may be continued in future.
3. Though the Counsels for the respondent filed
vakalat, despite several opportunities, no Counter was
filed on behalf of the respondent 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.Pl to Ex.P3 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 20% bonus and ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the year
2015-2016 is justified or not and if justified, what
is the relief entitled to the petitioners?
5. On the point:
The claim statement filed by the petitioner union,
the evidence let in and exhibits marked by it have
been carefully perused. In order to prove their case,
the petitioner union has examined PW.1. The PW.1
has deposed to the effect that the petitionerunion is
a registered Trade Union and the Trade Union
demanded 20% bonus with ` 10,000 as ex gratia for
the year 2015-2016 and the same was refused by the
management without any valid reason and therefore,
the petitioner union has raised an industrial dispute
before the Labour Conciliation Officer and the
conciliation was ended in failure and hence, the
matter has been referred by the Government to this
Court for adjudication.
6. To buttress the evidence of PW.1, the petitioner
union has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The Ex.P1 is the
copy of letter submitted by the Trade Union on 03-10-2016
before the Labour Officer. The Ex.P2 is the copy of
letter submitted by the respondent management on
24-10-2016 before the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
And, Ex.P3 is the copy of conciliation failure report,
dated 21-12-2016.
7. From the above evidence and documents, it is
clearly established by the petitioner union that the
petitioner union demanded the management to pay 20%
bonus with ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the year 2015-2016.
But, the management has not paid the 20% Bonus with
` 10,000 as ex gratia without any valid reason which
was paid for the past several years and therefore, the
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute before
the Conciliation Officer and the conciliation proceedings
were failed and therefore, this reference has been made
1443
6 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
to this Court to decide whether the dispute raised by
the petitioner union over non-payment of 20% bonus
and ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the year 2015-2016 is
justified or not.
8. Even though, the Counsels for the respondent has
filed vakalt, despite several opportunities, no Counter
was filed on behalf of the respondent and hence, the
respondent was set ex parte on 07-03-2018. By the
non-appearance of the respondent and non-filing of
counter, adverse inference could also be drawn against
the respondent. On a careful perusal of the evidence of
the PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, it could be held that the
petitioner union has proved their case and as such, it
is to be held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union against the respondent management
over non-payment of 20% bonus and ` 10,000 as
ex gratia for the year 2015-2016 is justified and the
petitioners are entitled for the order as claimed by them
and as such, the petition is liable to be allowed.
9. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner Union against
the respondent management over non-payment of 20%
bonus and ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the year 2015-2016
is justified and Award is passed directing the respondent
management to pay. 20% bonus as per “The Payment
of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 6 of 2016”
with ` 10, 000 as ex gratia to their employees for the
year 2015-2016. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the
13th day of July, 2018.
G. SENDIL KUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 11-06-2018 — Pachamuthu
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1— 03-10-2016 — Copy of letter submitted by
the Trade Union before the
Labour Officer.
Ex.P2— 24-10-2016 — Copy of letter submitted by
the respondent management
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P3— 21-12-2016 — Photocopy of conciliation
failure report.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Nil.
G. SENDIL KUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 114/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 26th July 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 49/2017, dated
08-06-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puduchcrry in respect of the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Mars Pest Management
Systems (India) Private Limited, Puducherry and
Thiru S. Augustin, Puducherry, over non-employment
with back wages 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. SENDIL KUMAR, B.A., B.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Friday, the 08th day of June, 2018.
I.D. (L) No. 49/2017
Thiru S. Augustin,
S/o. Sengolraj,
No. 56, Easwaran Koil Street,
Marie Oulgaret,
Puducherry-605 010.
. . Petitioner
1444
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 November 2018
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Mars Pest Management
Systems (India) Private Limited,
Puducherry Branch, No. 20, 45 Feet Road,
Vengateswara Nagar,
Puducherry-605 011.
. .
Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 07-06-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru A.K. Thirumurugan, 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. 136/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 05-09-2017 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
Thiru S. Augustin, Puducherry against the management
of M/s. Mars Pest Management Systems (India)
Private Limited, Puducherry, over non-employment
with back wages is justified or not? If justified, what
relief he is entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was
appointed as a Senior Technician in the respondent's
company on 12-03-2012. After completion of his
probation period of 6 months, he was regularised as a
permanent staff of the company with effect from 01-09-2012
with all facilities and benefits at the Pay Scale of
` 6,500 per month. It was gradually increased and now
fixed as ` 10,550 per month. In the month of
November-2016, he came to know that his Provident
Fund including his contribution was not duly paid with
the authorities, inspite of deduction from his salary and
his Provident Fund Number given by the management
is also false and the last paid installment of Provident
Fund contribution was also disproportionate to his paid
salary as on 11-11-2013 and hence, he approached the
Commissioner of Provident Fund for his intervention
in this matter and subsequently, he came to know that
the respondent had rectified the dues of his Provident
Fund and that right from 10-01-2017, the respondent
had not allotted any duty to him as being annoyed of
the complaint preferred by him as against the
respondent at the Provident Fund Authority for his
regularisation of his Provident Fund and he was lastly
attending his duty at Hotel Accord, Puducherry along
with his co-workers till 31-12-2016 and on 10-0-2017,
when he was reporting to duty to his superior, the
Branch Manager refused to employ him for no reason
and such act of refusal to allot duty to him would
amount to refusal of duty or other wise termination
which is highly improper, illegal and such a practice of
management is a tactics to terminate the duty and the
respondent unlawful act of termination of labour is a
victimization to settle the score as against his complaint
at the Provident Fund Office, which is against the
common natural justice and labour law. After his
termination of duty, his family is suffering for their
livelihood and hence, he approached the Labour
Conciliation Officer for his relief on 01-02-2010 vide
No. 166/LD/AIL/2017 and that the respondent management
has flouted out of the principles of natural justice
by neither issuing show-cause notice nor conducting
any enquiry, whatsoever, to find him guilty, but,
dismissed him out of service, arbitrarily and the
respondent management had not even replied for the
last.request made by the petitioner vide his personal
letter, dated 20-01-2017, issued through his Advocate
to show cause the reason for his termination.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that the
termination is void as it is illegal and against the
principles of natural justice on the ground that the
respondent management has terminated him on 10-01-2012
without following mandatory provisions of law, the
labour enactment and that the respondent management
has not coined any reason for the termination of him
which is against the principles of natural justice and
he caused a personal letter on 20-01-2017, wherein, he
sought for employment from the respondent company for
his no fault; but, he has been abruptly terminated from
service without any justification. Then he raised an
industrial dispute on 01-02-2017 having failed in his
attempt in person through the letter to get back his
employment before the Conciliation Officer, Puducherry
and the respondent has neither replied to his letter nor
responded to the summons of the Conciliation Officer,
Puducherry and by the ignorant act of the respondent
management, the Conciliation Officer has held the
proceedings as failure and reported on 05-09-2017,
vide letter No. 136/AIL/Lab./T/2017 and also caused
notification in the Official Gazette and therefore, the
petitioner prayed this Court to pass an Order by
rejecting the oral Order of termination by the respondent
management against the petitioner by declaring that the
termination of the petitioner, dated 10-01-2017, is void,
1445
6 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
illegal, improper and to
order the
respondent
management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of
service with full back wages and other attendant benefits
till the date of reinstatement.
4. This Court has issued notice to the respondent.
But, it was not claimed by the respondent. The respondent
called absent on 05-01-2018 and he was set ex parte.
In the course of enquiry, the petitioner has been
examined himself as PW.1 and has marked the
documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Heard.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management, over non-employment with
back wages is justified or not and if justified, what
is the relief entitled to the petitioner?
6. On the point:
The claim statement filed by the Petitioner, the
evidence let in and exhibits marked by him have
been carefully perused. The petitioner/PW.1 has
deposed to the effect that on 12-03-2012, he was
appointed as a Senior Technician in the respondent's
Company and he was regularised as a permanent
staff of the company with effect from 01-09-2012
and in the year 2016, he had made a complaint to
the authority about the non-payment of his Provident
Fund and to seek relief entitled to him, for which the
respondent management to victimize him, has
terminated his service without any justification and
against which, he has raised an industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer and the conciliation
was ended in failure and the matter has been referred
by the Government to this Court for adjudication.
7. To buttress his evidence, the Petitioner has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The Ex.P1 is the copy of
complaint given by Petitioner to the Provident Fund
Commissioner (mentioned as Superintendent). Ex.P2 is
the copy of Order of regularisation issued by the
respondent, dated 02-11-2012. Ex.P3 is the copy of
Identity Card of the petitioner issued by the respondent.
Ex.P4 is the copy of application to the Conciliation
Officer sent by the petitioner, dated 01-02-2017 and,
Ex.P5 is the copy of reference issued by the Labour
Department, dated 05-09-2017.
8. From the above evidence and documents, it is
clearly established by the petitioner that he was
working at the respondent establishment as a permanent
staff and he has been terminated from service without
following any procedure laid down under the Industrial
Disputes Act by the respondent, for which he has raised
the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
and the conciliation proceedings were failed and that
therefore, this reference has been made to this Court
to decide whether, the dispute raised by the petitioner, over
non-employment with back wages is justified or not.
9. Despite, notice was sent to the respondent, he did
not claim it and did not appear before this Court to file
his counter objection and consequently, the respondent
was set ex parte on 05-01-2016. On a careful perusal
of the evidence of the petitioner/7 PW.1 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P5, it could be held that the petitioner has proved
his case. As such, it is to be held that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management, over his non-employment with back wages
is justified and the petitioner is entitled for the Order
of reinstatement as claimed by him and as such, the
petition is liable to be allowed.
10. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management, over his non-employment with back wages
is justified, it is to be decided whether the petitioner
is entitled for back wages as claimed by him.
Absolutely, there is no evidence let in by the petitioner
to prove that he has not worked or is not working in
any other industry. It could be inferred that no one can
feed himself without any earning. The petitioner should
have served at any other industry after his termination.
Therefore, 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.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management, over non-employment with
back wages is justified and Award is passed directing
the respondent management to reinstate the petioner in
service within one month from the date of this Award
and further directing 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 Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the
08th day of June, 2018.
G. SENDIL KUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 07-06-2018 — Augustin
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1— —
Copy of complaint given by
petitioner to the Provident
Fund Commissioner.
1446
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 November 2018
Ex.P2— 02-11-2012 — Copy
of
Order
of
regularisation issued by the
respondent.
Ex.P3 — —
Copy of Identity Card of the
petitioner issued by the
respondent.
Ex.P4— 01-02-2017 — Copy of application to the
Conciliation Officer sent by
the petitioner.
List of respondent’s witness: Nil.
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil.
G. SENDIL KUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 7/Tr. Sectt./2018,
Puducherry, dated 24th October 2018)
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of section 13 of the Puducherry Motor Vechicle Taxation
Act 1967 (Act 5 of 1967), the Lieutenant-Governor,
Puducherry, is pleased to extend the time limit up to
30-11-2018 for payment of Motor Vechile Tax for the 3rd
quarter of the financial year 2018-19 i.e., from 1-10-2018
to 31-12-2018 in respect of all Transport Vechiles used
or kept for use in the Union teritorry of Puducherry.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
DR. A.S. SIVAKUMAR,
Joint Secretary to Government (Transport).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (FISHERIES)
(G.O. Ms. No. 19/Fy, Puducherry dated 24th October 2018)
ORDER
Selvi M. Shamshad, Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare,
Puducherry is admitted into retirement with effect from
the afternoon of 31-10-2018 on attaining the age of
superannuation.
(By order)
N. GANDHIRAJAN,
Under Secretary to Government (Fisheries).
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
(SECRETARIAT WING)
(G.O. Ms. No. 44, Puducherry, dated 24th October 2018)
NOTIFICATION
O n a t t a i n i n g t h e a g e s u p e r a n n u a t i o n ,
Thiru A. Madhavan, Vice-Principal, V.V.R. Government
Technical Higher Secondary School, Lawspet,
Puducherry, is admitted into retirement, with effect
from the afternoon of 31-10-2018.
(By order)
P. EJOUMALE,
Under Secretary to Government
(School Education).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 110/F2/A2/2018,
Puducherry, dated 24th October 2018)
NOTIFICATION
O n a t t a i n i n g t h e a g e s u p e r a n n u a t i o n ,
Thiru C. Essoudosse, Store Superintendent, Buildings
and Roads (Central) Division, Public Works Department,
Puducherry, is admitted into retirement, on the afternoon
of 31-10-2018.
(By order)
V. JEEVA,
Under Secretary to Government (Finance).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 148/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 24th October 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Detergent Factory,
Vadamangalam, Puducherry and Thiru K. Rajaram,
Ariyur, Puducherry, over revocation of prolonged
suspension with wage dues in respect of the matter
mentioned in the Annexure to this order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it
is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;