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
.. 234
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 234
Award of the Labour Court .. 234
de Tribunal.
.. 238
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 238
Government Notifications
.. 238
.. 245
Avis d’Adjudication
.. 245
Tender Notice
.. 245
.. 246
Annonces
.. 246
Announcements
.. 246
.. 252
Addendum
.. 252
Addendum
.. 252
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 : 19-3-2019
Price : ` 14-00
[ 233 ]
2019 }
|
19 {
No.
12
Poudouchéry
Mardi
19
Mars
2019 (28 Phalguna 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
19th
March
2019
234
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 March 2019
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 31/AIL/Lab./T/2019,
Puducherry, dated 28th February 2019)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 24/2017, dated
20-11-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills, Puducherry
and M/s. Sri Bharathi Mill Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu
Sangam, Puducherry, over correction of date of birth in
the service register of Thiru S. Vasudevan 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 C. KUMAR SARAVANAN, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Tuesday, the 20th day of November, 2018
I.D. (T) No. 24/2017
The President,
Sri Bharathi Mill Thozhilalar
Urimai Padukappu Sangam,
No. 61/2, First Floor, Aswini Hospital (Opp.),
Vazhuthavur Road, Koundenpalayam,
Puducherry-605 009.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills,
(A Government of Puducherry Undertaking),
P.O. Box. No. 10, Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry-605 004.
. . Respondent.
This Industrial Dispute coming on 14-11-2018 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru K. Velmurugan,
and Mrs. P. Preethi, 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.
170/AIL/Lab./T/ 2017, dated 08-11-2017 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 of
Sri Bharathi Mills Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu
Sangam, Puducherry, against Sri Bharathi Mills (PTC),
over correction in date of birth of the service register
of Thiru S. Vasudevan is justifiable or not? If justified,
what is the relief entitled to?
2. The facts giving rise to this industrial dispute as
stood exposited from the claim petition filed by the
petitioner under rule 10B(1) of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 runs thus:-
The petitioner workman by name S. Vasudevan,
s/o. Srinivasan is a member of the petitioner union.
The workman Vasudevan has joined in the respondent
management on 01-12-1983 and is presently working
as SBO in the respondent Mills. The date of birth of
the petitioner workman is 09-09-1959 and he has
submitted all his relevant documents to the
respondent management at the time of joining. His
date of birth i.e., 09-09-1959 finds place in all the
documents of the petitioner workman namely, Transfer
Certificate, Passport, Driving Licence, Mark List of
the petitioner workman, Aadhaar Card and Identity
Card issued by the Kabadi Association. The petitioner
workman has recently come to know that the
respondent management has mistakenly entered the
date of birth of the petitioner as 09-01-1959 instead of
09-09-1959. As such, the petitioner workman has
given representation, dated 22-07-2016 to the
respondent management for correction of his date of
birth in the service records maintained by the
respondent management. The respondent management
has refused to act upon the representation. Hence,
the petitioner union has raised industrial dispute
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,
for correction of his date of birth in the service records
maintained by the respondent management.
235
19 March 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
It is further stated that the act of the respondent
management in entering the date of birth as 09-01-1959
seems to be purely clerical error/mistake for which
the petitioner workman should not be victimized. If,
the date of birth of the petitioner workman is corrected
in the service records of the respondent management,
no prejudice will be caused to the respondent
management. However, the respondent management
has refused to act upon the legitimate request of the
petitioner workman for the reasons best known to it.
A similar case for date of birth correction was filed
against the respondent management by the INTUC
union before the Labour Court, Puducherry under
I.D(L). No. 1/2014 and on 29-01-2016, the Award was
passed by the Labour Court, Puducherry directing the
respondent management to correct the date of birth
in all the service records of the respondent. In
pursuance of the said Award, the respondent
management has carried, out the said date of birth
correction in all the service records. However, the
request of the petitioner workman is not acted upon
by the respondent management. Therefore, the
petitioner prays this Court to direct the respondent
management to correct the date of birth of the
petitioner workman S. Vasudevan, s/o. Srinivasan as
09-09-1959 in all his service records maintained by
the respondent management in the interest of justice.
3 The point for consideration is:
(1) Whether the correct date of birth of the
petitioner is 09-09-1959 as per his testimonials and
School records which has been wrongly entered into
the service records as 09-01-1959 maintained by the
respondent management?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief of
correcting his date of birth as 09-09-1959 in the service
records maintained by the respondent management?
(3) Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
4. This Court has issued notice to the respondent.
Though, it was claimed by the respondent, called absent
on 09-01-2018 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
the petitioner side and documents perused.
5
On this Points No. 1 and 2:-
According to the petitioner the employee
S. Vasudevan, s/o. Srinivasan is a permanent workman
of the respondent management who is working as
workman and is member of the petitioner’s union and
he has joined the management on 01-12-1983 and now,
he is working as SBO in the respondent’s Mills. It is
pleaded that his date of birth have been wrongly
entered as 09-01-1959 into the service registers, which
is maintained by the respondent. The correct date of
birth is 09-09-1959 of the employee Mr. S.Vasudevan,
s/o. Srinivasan whereas, it is wrongly recorded
as 09-01-1959. The said worker made several
representations to correct his date of birth, but, the
management corrected his date of birth, but, the
management has refused to correct his date of birth.
So, this industrial dispute has been raised. As such,
the petitioner union raised industrial dispute before
the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, for the
correction of date of birth in the service records, which
is maintained by the management. Now, the question
would arise that whether the dispute raised by the
Union of Sri Bharathi Mills Thozhilalar Urimai
Padukaapu Sangam, Puducherry (INTUC), against the
management of Sri Bharathi Mills (PTC), Puducherry,
over change of correction of the date of birth in the
Service Register of Thiru S. Vasudevan as 09-01-1959
instead of 09-09-1959 as per records is justified or
not? If justified, what relief he is entitled to?
6. The concerned employee, namely, Thiru S. Vasudevan
is a member of the petitioner union who has been
examined as PW.1. He has categorically stated that he
was employed as workman and he has joined on
01-12-1983, now, working as SBO under the management
Mills. At that time of appointment, he represented the
particulars all his particulars and relevant documents to
the respondent management but, the entries in the
service records and his date of birth as 09-01-1959 was
wrongly entered into by the officials of the management.
Though, he made several representations, the respondent
management was not amenable to correct the erroneous
particulars. Anyhow, the management was kind enough
to be corrected the petitioner’s date of birth. It is
submitted that the petitioner’s date of birth is 09-09-1959,
but, it was mistakenly entered as 09-01-1959 in the service
records. On representation given by the petitioner, dated
22-07-2016 to the management for correction of his date
of birth in the service records maintained by the
respondent is to correct the date of birth, but, the same
was not suitably corrected. Further, it is stated by the
petitioner-PW. that the management has refused to acted
upon, in spite of representation made by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner in order to prove his correct date of
birth has, the petitioner has produced some documents.
The photo copy of School Transfer Certificate as Ex.P1,
dated 21-07-2013, photocopy of the Passport as Ex.P3,
dated 12-10-2012, photocopy of Driving Licence as Ex.P3,
236
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 March 2019
dated 13-08-2001, photocopy of the School Mark List of
the petitioner as Ex.P4, dated 21-07-2013, Photocopy of
the Identity Card of the petitioner workman issued by
the Kabadi Association, Puducherry, dated 02-03-1984
as Ex.P5, photocopy of the Aadhaar Card of the workman,
dated 29-05-2012 is as Ex.P6, photocopy of the
representation given by the petitioner-workman to the
respondent management, dated 22-07-2016 is as Ex.P7,
photocopy of the Award passed by the Hon’ble Labour
Court, Puducherry in I.D(L) No. 1 of 2014, dated 29-01-2016
as Ex.P8. In all this documents petitioner’s date of birth
is recorded as 9th September, 1959.
8. The petitioner-PW.1 has specifically contended
that the Industrial Tribunal having jurisdiction to correct
the date of birth and the similar case has been decided,
which was filed against the respondent management by
the INTUC Union before the Industrial Tribunal under
I.D(L) No. 1 of 2014, dated 29-01-2016, which is evidenced
from Ex.P8 and the Award has been passed by the Tribunal
directing the management to correct the date of birth in
all service records of the respondent. So, it is clear that
when the petitioner was appointed as a workman, his
date of birth as 09-01-1959 were recorded mistakenly
instead of 09-09-1959 by the respondent management.
9. Further, the testimonials of the petitioner, it is
crystal clear that the management was not perused the
records properly which were produced by the petitioner/
workman at the time of his entry into service. Further, it
is contended that not only the petitioner, but, some other
employees had also the same problem of wrong entries
in their service registers and they approached the Courts
and after getting favourable order got corrected their
date of birth. It is admitted that apart one employee
Mr. K. Gunasekaran approached this Court by raising an
industrial dispute and it has been referred as per the
G.O. Rt. No.174/AIL/Lab./J/2013, dated 11-12-2013 for
adjudication in I.D(L) No. 1 of 2014 with reference to
correction of his date of birth and it was allowed on
29-01-2016 and the copy of the order has been produced
and referred for perusal under Ex.P8. So, it is inferable
that at the time of appointing employees, the respondent
management did not exercise due care while recording
their bio-data and other particulars of the employees or
workmen. So, the wrong date of birth is reflected in the
petitioner’s service registers. So, this documents which
were produced by the workman would substantiate the
contention of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has let in relevant and precise
documentary evidence to substantiate his contention
that his correct date of birth is only on 09-09-1959. The
genuineness of correct date of birth is as Ex.P1, Ex.P2,
Ex.P3 and P4 have been specifically proved by the
petitioner workman. Of course, the date of birth of the
workman has been recorded as 09-09-1959 in his Identity
Card issued by the Kabadi Sangam, Puducherry is marked
as Ex.P5 and the petitioner’s Aadhaar Card marked as
Ex.P6 which were already discussed. Purely on the basis
of entries found in service records as already discussed
date of birth of the worker has been wrongly mentioned
as 09-01-1959 instead of 09-09-1959 in his service records
maintained by the management M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills,
Puducherry.
11. The burden is on the petitioner to prove his correct
date of birth by adducing relevant reliable evidence. The
petitioner has let in relevant documentary evidence,
namely, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondent has not come
forward to arise any objection to the documentary
evidence namely, Ex.P1 to ExP.8, produced by the
petitioner to show his correct date of birth as 09-09-1959.
But, the petitioner has stated that though he made several
oral representations, the respondent management was
not amenable and finally corrected his date of birth.
Ultimately, on behalf of the said employee, the petitioner
union has raised the industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer and since the conciliation failed the
same has been referred to this Court for adjudication.
The petitioner workman has filed his claim statement
under rule 10B(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules 1957.
12. Section 10(2A) in the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947 reads as follows :
“An order referring an industrial dispute to a
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under this
section shall specify the period within which such
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall
submit its Award on such dispute to the appropriate
Government: Provided that where such industrial
dispute is connected with an individual workman, no
such period shall exceed three months: Provided
further that where the parties to an industrial dispute
apply in the prescribed manner, whether jointly or
separately, to the Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal for extension of such period or for any other
reason, and the Presiding Officer of such Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal considers it
necessary or expedient to extend such period, he may
for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such
period by such further period as he may think fit:
Provided also that in computing any period specified
in this sub- section, the period, if any, for which the
proceedings before the Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal had been stayed by any injunction
237
19 March 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
or order of a Civil Court shall be excluded: Provided
also that no proceedings before a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal shall lapse merely on
the ground that any period specified under this
sub-section had expired without such proceedings
being completed”.
13. Regarding maintainability of the industrial
dispute for the relief of correction of date of birth the
learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out 6th item of
the Second Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
empowers this Tribunal/Labour Court to adjudicate the
dispute. The sixth item of the Second Schedule says “All
matters other than those specified in the third schedule”.
Section 2(k) defines an industrial dispute means “any
dispute or difference between employers and employers
or between employers and workmen or between workmen
and workmen which is connected with the employment
or non-employment or the terms of employment or with
the conditions of labour or any persons.” Now, there is
difference regarding date of birth of the employee between
employee himself and the employer which is connected
with the terms of employment. So, the petitioner trade
union is entitled to raise this industrial dispute regarding
the wrong entry of date of birth of one of it’s member
employee since the same is connected with employment.
The Conciliation Officer also taking note of this point
has referred this dispute to this Court for adjudication. It is
pertinent to note that the petitioner has already exhausted
his remedy before the respondent management, it was
ended in vain. So, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
has got jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute and
to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.
14. The respondent management has not raised any
serious objection to carry out correction regarding date
of birth of the petitioner. As the petitioner, personally
has made a request under Ex.P7, dated 22-07-2016, seeking
to correct date of birth but, the respondent management
declined to correct his date of birth. Now, the petitioner
has produced all relevant documentary evidence to show
that his correct date of birth is 09-09-1959 which has
been mistakenly entered as 09-01-1959 in the service
registers maintained by the respondent management.
So, under such circumstances on appreciating oral and
documentary evidence adduced on the petitioner side,
I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as
claimed in the industrial dispute. Accordingly, I answer
Point No. 1 that the correct date of birth of the Workman
Thiru S.Vasudevan is 09-09-1959 and the same has been
mistakenly entered into the service records as 09-01-1959
maintained by the respondent management and
consequently I answer Point No. 2 that the petitioner is
entitled for the relief of correcting date of birth of the
said workman as 09-09-1959 instead of 09-01-1959.
Point No. 3
15. For the foregoing reasons discussed above and
as answered for the Points No. 1 and 2, and I conclude
that this industrial dispute has derserves to be allowed
and the Court is decided Point No. 3 accordingly.
16. In the result, the industrial dispute (Labour) is
allowed and the respondent/management is hereby
directed to correct and carry out the date of birth of the
petitioner/workman Thiru S.Vasudevan, s/o. Srinivasan,
is as 09-09-1959, presently working as SBO in the
management mill, in all his service records maintained
by the respondent/management.
The Order typed by me in Laptop, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of
November, 2018.
C. KUMAR SARAVANAN,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Labour Court, Puducherry.
Petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 09-05-2018 K. Mohandoss (Petitioner)
Petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —
21-07-1973 Xerox Copy of School Transfer
Certificate of the petitioner
workman S. Vasudevan.
Ex.P2 —
12-10-1992 Xerox Copy of the Passport
of the petitioner workman.
Ex.P3 —
13-08-2001 Xerox
Copy of
Driving
Licence of the petitioner
workman.
Ex.P4 —
21-07-1973 Xerox Copy of School Mark
List of the petitioner workman.
Ex.P5 —
02-03-1984 Xerox Copy of Identity Card
of the petitioner workman
issued by Kabadi Association,
Puducherry.
Ex.P6 —
29-05-2012 Xerox Copy of Aadhaar Card
of the petitioner workman.
Ex.P7 —
22-07-2016 X e r o x
C o p y
o f
t h e
representation given by the
petitioner workman to the
respondent management.
Ex.P8 —
29-01-2016 Xerox Copy of Award passed
by the Hon’ble Labour
Court, Puducherry in I.D. (L)
No. 1/2014.
C. KUMAR SARAVANAN,
Presiding Officer (FAC),
Labour Court, Puducherry.