La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 14-00
Prix : ` 14-00
Price : ` 14-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1458
Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 1458
Award of the Labour Court .. 1458
de Tribunal.
.. 1464
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1464
Government Notifications
.. 1464
.. 1469
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1469
Tender Notices
.. 1469
.. 1469
Annonces
.. 1469
Announcements
.. 1469
.. 1476
Corrigendum
.. 1476
Corrigendum
.. 1476
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 : 13-11-2018
Price : ` 14-00
[ 1457 ]
2018 }
|
13 {
No.
46
Poudouchéry
Mardi
13
Novembre
2018 (22 Kartika 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
13th
November
2018
1458
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 November 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 115/AIL/Lab.T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 26th July 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) 54/2017, dated 19-06-2018
of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry
in respeet of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited,
Puducherry and Thiru S. Senthil Kumar, Neyveli 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,
Tuesday, the 19th day of June, 2018.
I.D. (L) No. 54/2007
Thiru S. Senthil Kumar,
109 E.No. 8G, Type-1 Quarters,
Block-5, Neyveli TS,
Cuddalore District-607 803.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited,
R.S. No. 131, 131/1-4, Kattukuppam,
Manapet Post, Cuddalore Road,
Puducherry-607 402.
. .
Respondent.
This Industrial Dispute coming on this day
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru S. Parthasarathi, Advocate for the petitioner,
Tvl. L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar, 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 Pondicherry vide G.O. Rt.
No. l67/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 24-10-2017 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. Senthil Kumar against the management of
M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Limited, Puducherry,
over non-employment and back wages is justified or
not? If justified, what is the relief 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 had been in service at the
respondent establishment for more than 18 years
from 1997. The petitioner, during his service, did not
give room for any wrongs and worked by accepting
and implementing all legal orders of the respondent
management. In the respondent establishment, 83
permanent workers in the name of Line Supervisor,
15 permanent workers in the name of Grade M7,
10 permanent workers in the name of Grade M6,
410 workers in the name of Grade M and 2000 contract
labourers were working. The Grade M workers, 410
in numbers only were joined and acted in the trade
union. There is no remark at all against the petitioner
so far by the respondent management during his
period of service. The petitioner was given promotion
by the respondent management in the year 2007, after
10 years of service as Grade S and wage increment
was also given for the said year. Thereafter, the wage
increment was denied to the petitioner for the year
2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The petitioner demanded
the respondent management to pay the wage
increment time and again. But, the same was not
considered by the respondent management.
3. It is further stated that in the year 2010, the
respondent management had transferred the petitioner to
Maraimalai Nagar, Chennai Branch. Wherein, also, the
Petitioner was serving excellently. Based on that, the
Petitioner was given wage increment for the said year.
While being so, in view is family situation, the petitioner
requested for transfer to Puducherry. Since, the respondent
management has not given properly. on 30-09-2011, the
petitioner has sent a letter of requisition transfer to the
Assistant Vice-President, Head Office at Mumbai through,
1459
13 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
e-mail. Based on that, the petitioner was transferred to
Karaikal by the respondent management. Since, the
petitioner
got
transfer
order
by straightforwardly
contacting the Head Office at Mumbai, the respondent
management denied the wage increment to the petitioner
by vengeance. Meanwhile, in the year 2015, the workers
of the respondent establishment were given wage
increment as a result of Wage Increment Settlement. But,
the wage increment was not given to the petitioner.
When it was questioned by the petitioner, the respondent
management stated that the petitioner is not a member
of the Trade Union and based on the Wage Increment
Settlement entered between the Management and the
Trade Union, the wage increment was implemented and
wage increment will be implemented later to the
petitioner and similar workers. But, thereafter also, the
wage increment was not given to the petitioner. The
respondent management has given show-cause notices
to the petitioner on 14-06-2016 and also on 29-01-2016
stating that his performance was not satisfactory. In the
above said notices, it was commonly mentioned that the
performance of the petitioner in the year 2014-2015 was
not satisfactory and the said notices did not mention
about the details that on what basis the performance of
the petitioner was not satisfactory. The petitioner has
given a detailed explanation through his letter, dated
05-02-2016 to the abovesaid notices. While so, the
petitioner was terminated by the respondent management
on 08-03-2016 without any notice and without assigning
any reason. The act of termination by the respondent
management is against the Sec.25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
It is further stated that on 10-03-2016. the petitioner
has raised an industrial dispute over his termination
before the Labour Officer, Puducherry. Wherein,
on 31-05-2016, the respondent management has filed
reply statement by stating that, the petitioner is not a
workman, he was working as Officer in the respondent
establishment and therefore, he has no right to raise the
industrial dispute and he was dismissed as his
performance, during the year 2012-2015, was not
satisfactory. The petitioner has never been in service
as Officer at the respondent establishment and the
respondent management has never given the powers of
Officer to the petitioner. The petitioner was served as
a worker. The respondent management has never issued
any show-cause notice before 14-01-2016 to the
petitioner. After the requisition submitted by the
petitioner regarding wage increment, the respondent
management has given show-cause notices. While
pending of the industrial dispute, on 20-04-2016, the
respondent management has sent a letter along with
a cheque for ` 80,323 for full and final settlement to
the petitioner. The petitioner has returned the cheque
through a letter, dated 27-04-2016. As the management
did not accord for any amicable settlement, on 22-10-2017
the Conciliation Officer has sent a Conciliation Failure
Report. The petitioner has lastly drawn ` 16,151 as his
salary. The petitioner and his family suffered a lot after
his termination. The petitioner has not committed any
misconduct and the respondent management has not
taken any disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner. As the petitioner has claimed his legal
benefits of wage increment, the respondent management
to victimize the petitioner terminated his service from
08-03-2017. It is against the principles of natural
justice. Therefore, the petitioner prayed this Court to
pass an Order to set aside the Order of termination
passed by the respondent management against the
petitioner and to Order the respondent management to
reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with
full back wages and other attendant benefits.
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.l was examined and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. Heard.
4. The point for determination is:
Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent management, over
non-employment and back wages is justified or not,
and if justified, what is the relief entitled to the
petitioner?
5. On the point:
The claim statement filed by the petitioner, the
evidence let in and exhibits marked by him have
been carefully perused. In order to prove his case,
the petitioner has been examined himself as PW.l.
The petitioner/PW.l has deposed to the effect that he
had been in service at the respondent establishment
for more than 18 years from 1997. He, during his
service, did not give room for any wrongs and
worked by accepting and implementing all legal
orders of the
respondent management.
In the
respondent establishment, 83 permanent workers in the
name of Line Supervisor, 15 permanent workers in
the name of Grade M7, 10 permanent workers in
the name of Grade M6, 410 workers in the name of
Grade M and 2000 contract labourers were working.
The Grade M workers, 410 in numbers only were
joined and acted in the trade union. There is no
remark at all against him so far by the respondent
1460
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 November 2018
management during his period of service. He was
given promotion by the respondent management in the
year 2007 after 10 years of service as Grade S and
wage increment was also given for the said year.
Thereafter, the wage increment was denied to the
petitioner for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. He
demanded the respondent management to pay the
wage increment time and again. But, the same was
not considered by the respondent management.
It is deposed that in the year 2010, the respondent
management had transferred him to Maraimalai
Nagar, Chennai Branch. Wherein, also, he was
serving excellently. Based on that, he was given
wage increment for the said year. While being so, in
view of his family situation, the petitioner requested
for transfer to Puducherry. Since, the respondent
management has not given .proper reply, on 30-09-2011,
he has sent a letter of requisition for transfer to the
Assistant Vice-President, Head Office at Mumbai
through e-mail. Based on that, he was transferred to
Karaikal by the respondent management. Since, he
got transfer Order by straightforwardly contacting
the Head Office at Mumbai, the respondent
management denied the wage increment to the
petitioner by vengeance. Meanwhile, in the year
2015, the workers of the respondent establishment
were given wage increment as a result of Wage
Increment Settlement. But, the wage increment was
not given to the petitioner. When it was questioned
by the petitioner, the respondent management stated
that the petitioner is not a member of the Trade
Union and based on the Wage Increment Settlement
entered between the management and the Trade
Union, the wage increment was implemented and
wage increment will be implemented later to the
petitioner and similar workers. But, thereafter also,
the wage increment was not given to the petitioner.
The respondent management has given show-
cause notices to the petitioner on 14-06-2016
and also on 29-01-2016 stating that his performance
was not satisfactory. In the abovesaid notices, it was
commonly mentioned that the performance of the
petitioner in the year 2014-2015 was not satisfactory
and the said notices did not mention about the
details that on what basis the performance of the
petitioner was not satisfactory. The petitioner has
given a detailed explanation through his letter, dated
05-02-2016 to the abovesaid notices. While so, the
petitioner was terminated by the respondent
management on 08-03-2016 without any notice and
without assigning any reason. The act of termination
by the respondent management is against the
Sec.25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It is further deposed that on 10-03-2016, the
petitioner has raised an industrial dispute over his
termination before the Labour Officer, Puducherry.
Wherein, on 31-05-2016, the respondent management
has filed reply statement by stating that, the
petitioner is not a workman, he was working as
Officer in the respondent establishment and
therefore, he has no right to raise the industrial
dispute and he was dismissed as his performance,
during the year 2012-2015, was not satisfactory.
The petitioner has never been in service as Officer
at the respondent establishment and the respondent
management has never given the powers of Officer
to the petitioner. The petitioner was served as a
worker. The respondent management has never
issued any show-cause notice before 14-01-2016 to
the petitioner. After the requisition submitted by the
petitioner regarding wage increment, the respondent
management has given show-cause notices. While
pending of the industrial dispute, on 20-04-2016, the
respondent management has sent a letter along with
a cheque for ` 80,323 for full and final settlement
to the petitioner. The petitioner has returned the
cheque through a letter, dated 27-04-2016. As the
management
did not accord for any amicable
settlement, on 22-10-2017 the Conciliation Officer
has sent a Conciliation Failure Report. The petitioner
has lastly drawn ` 16,151 as his salary. The petitioner
and his family suffered a lot after his termination.
The petitioner ha not committed any misconduct and
the respondent management has not taken any
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
As the petitioner has claimed his legal benefits of
wage increment, the respondent management to
victimize the petitioner terminated his service from
08-03-2017. It is against the principles of natural
justice. Therefore, the petitioner prayed this Court
to pass an Order to set aside the Order of termination
passed by the respondent management against the
petitioner and to Order the respondent management
to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service
with full back wages and other attendant benefits.
6. To buttress his evidence, the petitioner PW.1 has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The Ex.P1is the copy of the
letter sent by the petitioner to the respondent management
on 21-12-2012. The Ex.P2 is the copy of show-cause
notice issued by the respondent management to the
petitioner on 29-01-2016. The Ex.P3 is the copy of the
letter sent by the petitioner to the respondent
management on 05-02-2016. The Ex.P4 is the copy of
termination order issued by the respondent management
to the petitioner on 08-03-2016. The Ex.P5 is the copy
1461
13 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
of industrial dispute raised by the petitioner before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 10-03-2016. The Ex.P6
is the copy of proceedings of the respondent
management, dated 20-04-2016. The Ex.P7 is the copy
of the letter sent by the petitioner to the respondent
management on 27-04-2016. And Ex.P8 is the copy of
reply statement filed by the respondent management on
31-05-2016 before the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
7. From the above evidence and documents, it is
clearly established by the petitioner that he was
working at the respondent establishment as a worker
and he has been terminated from service without
following any procedure laid down under the Industrial
Disputes Act by the respondent management, 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.
8. Even though, the Counsels for the respondent has
filed Vakalat, despite several opportunities given,
no Counter was filed on behalf of the respondent and
hence, the respondent was set ex parte on 21-05-2018.
The crux of the defence of the respondent management
is that the petitioner is not a workman and he was
working as Officer in the respondent establishment.
As such, he has no right to raise the industrial dispute.
He was dismissed as his performance, during the year
2012-2015, was not satisfactory. If, the case of the
respondent management as stated above is true,
definitely, they would have appeared, filed their counter
and defended their case. Hence, by the non-appearance
of the respondent, non-filing of counter and non-
prosecution, 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.P8, it could be
held that the petitioner has proved his case and as such,
it is to be held that the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner against the respondent management over
non-employment and back wages is justified and the
petitioner is entitled for the Order as claimed by him
and as such, the petition is liable to be allowed.
9. As this Court has decided that the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent
management, over non-employment and 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.
10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management, over non-employment and
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 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
19th day of June, 2018.
G. SENDIL KUMAR,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 18-06-2018 — S. Senthil Kumar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1— 21-12-2012 — Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent management.
Ex.P2— 29-01-2016 — Copy of show-cause notice
issued by the respondent
management
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.P3— 05-02-2016 — Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent management.
Ex.P4— 08-03-2016 — Copy of termination order
issued by the respondent
management to the petitioner.
Ex.P5— 10-03-2016 — Copy of industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P6— 20-04-2016 — Copy of proceedings of the
respondent management.
1462
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 November 2018
Ex.P7— 27-04-2016 — Copy of the letter sent by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondent management.
Ex.P8— 31-05-2016 — Copy of reply statement filed
by the respondent management
before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
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. 116/AIL/Lab.T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 26th July 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 09/2017, dated
13-06-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puduchcrry in respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Suolifieio Linea Italia (India) Private
Limited, Puducherry and Chemcrown Exports and Suolificio
Linea Italia (India) Private Limited Thozilalargal Sangam,
Puducherry, over non-payment of 20% bonus and ` 10,000
as ex gratia for the year 2014-2015 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. 09/2007
The President,
Chemcrown Exports and
Suolificio (India) Private
Linea Italia 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 Pondicherry vide G.O. Rt.
No. 59/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 20-04-2017 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent viz.,
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the union
workmen Chemcrown 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 2014-2015 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 Act", for the year 2014-2015. 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
1463
13 November 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
working. The petitioner union demanded 20% bonus
with ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the 2014-2015 for
which the respondent management refused to pay the
ex gratia and paid 20% bonus only for a sum of
` 8,400 arbitrarily and unilaterally. Therefore, the
petitioner union filed their representation before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, 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 Bonus Act. But, the
respondent management has not agreed and paid
20% bonus only for a sum of ` 8,400. Therefore,
the petitioner union not agreed the same. 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 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 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 ex gratia
for a sum of ` 10,000 without any valid reason,
which was paid previous year. Therefore, the
petitioners pray to direct the respondent company
to pay ` 10,000 as ex gratia to their employees for
the year 2014-2015 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.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked. Heard.
4. The point for determination is:
Though, the reference
was
made
to
decide
whether 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 2014-2015 is justified or not, and if
justified, what is the relief entitled to the petitioners,
the petitioner union has filed their claim petition for
the relief of seeking direction to the respondent
management to Pay ` 10,000 as ex gratia to their
employees for the year 2014-2015. Therefore, the
point for consideration is that whether the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner union against the respondent
management, over non-payment of ` 10,000 as ex gratia
for the year 2014-2015 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 petitioner union is a
registered trade union and the trade union demanded
20% bonus with ` 10,000 as ex gratia for the year
2014-2015 and the same was refused by the
management and the management paid 20% bonus
only for a sum of ` 8,400 and therefore, the petitioner
union has raised an industrial dispute before the
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.l, the Petitioner
Union has exhibited Ex.Pl to Ex.P3. The Ex.P1 is the
copy of letter submitted by the Trade Union on 13-10-2015
before the Labour Officer. The Ex.P2 is the copy of
letter submitted by the trade union on 13-10-2015
before the respondent management. And, Ex.P3 is the
copy of conciliation failure report, dated 21-1-2016.
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 ` l0,000 as ex gratia for the
year 2014-2015. But, the management has paid 20%
bonus only for a sum of ` 8,400 and has not paid the
ex gratia amount of ` 10,000 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
1464
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[13 November 2018
proceedings were failed and therefore, this reference
has been made to this Court to decide whether the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner Union against
the respondent management 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 ` l0,000 as ex gratia for the
year 2014-2015 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
` l0,000 as ex gratia for the year 2014-2015 is justified
and Award is passed directing the respondent management
to Pay ` l0,000 as ex gratia to their employees for the
year 2014-2015. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the
13th day of June, 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— 13-10-2015 — Copy of letter submitted by
the trade union before the
Labour Officer.
Ex.P2— 13-10-2015 — Copy of letter submitted by
the trade union before the
respondent management.
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
CHIEF SECRETARIAT
(ANIMAL HUSBANDRY)
(G.O. Ms. No. 08/AH.,
Puducherry, dated 24th October 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Government of India has launched a Scheme "Dairy
Processing and Infrastructure Development Fund (DIDF)",
a Central Sector Scheme sponsored by the Department
of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry
of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
2. In order to implement the Scheme, approval of the
Lieutenant-Governor is accorded to constitute the State
Project Screening and Review Committee (SPSRC)
in the Union territory of Puducherry consisting with the
following Members namely:-
(i)
The Secretary (Animal Husbandry),
. . Chairperson
Puducherry.
(ii)
The Registrar of Co-operative
. . Member
Societies, Government of
Puducherry.
(iii) Director (Agriculture), Government
. . Member
of Puducherry.
(iv)
The Director, Animal Husbandry . . Member
and Animal Welfare, Government
of Puducherry.
(v)
The Managing Director, PONLAIT,
. . Member
Puducherry.
(vi)
Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Institute
. . Member
of Veterinary Education and
Research (RIVER), Puducherry.
(vii) A Representative from Finance
. . Member
Department (not below the rank
of Under Secretary), Government
of Puducherry.
(viii) The Assistant General Manager,
. . Member
NABARD, Puducherry.
(ix)
A Representative from DADF,
. . Member
to be nominated by Government
of India.
(x)
A Representative from NDDB/
. . Member-
NCDC, to b e no minated b y
Convener.
Government of India.