La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 13-00
Prix : ` 13-00
Price :
` 13-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
996
Sentence arbitral du travail
..
996
Award of the Labour Court
.. 996
de tribunal.
.. 1001
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1001
Government Notifications
.. 1001
.. 1005
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 1005
Tender Notices
.. 1005
..
1008
Etablissements dangereux
.. 1008
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1008
..
1009
Annonces
.. 1009
Announcements
.. 1009
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 : 31-12-2019
Price : ` 13-00
[ 995 ]
2019 }
|
31 {
No.
53 Poudouchéry
Mardi
31
Décembre
2019 (10 Pausa 1941)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
31st
December
2019
996
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[31 December 2019
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 128/AIL/Lab./T/2019,
Puducherry, dated 6th December 2019)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 15/2018, dated
28-8-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Jothi Chlorate Limited, Karaikal
and Thiru M. Srinivasan, Karaikal, over reinstatement
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
AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., L.L.M.,
Presiding Officer,
Wednesday, the 28th day of August, 2019
I.D. (L) No. 15/2018
M. Srinivasan,
S/o. Mohan,
No. 7, Odhi Chetty Street,
T.R. Pattinam,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Manager,
M/s. Jothi Chlorate Limited,
R.S. No. 56/3, Polagam Village,
T.R. Pattinam,
Karaikal.
. .
Respondent.
This industrial dispute coming on 22-08-2019 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,
representative 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:
A W A R D
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 30/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
dated 06-03-2018 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru M. Srinivasan, Karaikal, against the management
of M/s. Jothi Chlorate Limited, Karaikal, over
reinstatement with back wages are justifiable or not?
If justified, what is the relief entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The notice for the respondent has been duly served
to the respondent, even then this respondent has not
appeared before this Court and hence, he was set
ex parte on 08-05-2018 itself.
3. In the course of enquiry, the petitioner by name
Srinivasan was examined in ex parte as PW.1 on 01-02-2019
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked.
4. The point for determination is :
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru M. Srinivasan against the management of
M/s. Jothi Cholrate Limited, Karaikal, over reinstatement
with back wages are justifiable or not? If justified,
what is the relief entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if, any awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
5. Heard the petitioner side and the records were
perused. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as
Lab Chemist in the respondent company on 01-08-2008,
with monthly salary of ` 12,000 and the respondent
company has paid a sum of ` 4,200 through Bank and the
remaining amount was paid in cash directly to the
petitioner and the respondent company failed to comply
the benefits under the provisions of Labour Act to its
workers and it has failed to give Restricted Holidays,
National Holidays, Weekly Holidays, casual leave, earned
leave to its employees. Further, it has been stated that
the respondent company failed to get the subscription
amount from its employees under the Scheme of PF and
ESI. The company has not provided the abovesaid
benefits, even though, it was requested by this
petitioner. Further, it has deducted one and half day
salary from its employees to those who has availed more
than 3 days leave. In the meanwhile, this petitioner has
availed ESI leave from 17-09-2016 to 30-09-2016. The
respondent company has failed to sign the ESI leave
application and refused to give sanction to get the
benefits under ESI leave Scheme. Therefore, this
petitioner met the office bearers of the respondent
company and he was threatened by the company officials
997
31 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
and thereby it has directed this petitioner that ‘he should
not to come to the company’. Therefore, this petitioner
has raised the Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation
Officer on 13-02-2017. Further, it is stated that the
respondent company has filed a false reply, stating that
this petitioner was irregular in service and not coordinate
with the company and thereby causing loss to the
respondent company. It was also replied by the company
that this petitioner has availed a hand loan of ` 1,00,000
from the company for his marriage proposals. This
petitioner has made suitable reply for the abovesaid
contentions also. The respondent company has obtained
the signature from this petitions during the year 2013 to
provide the benefits of the ESI and PF benefits. Even
though, those benefits were not given to this petitioner
by the company, this respondent company has
conveniently used the abovesaid signature to create a
forged document as if, this petitioner has availed a hand
loan of ` 1,00,000 from the company. The Conciliation
Officer has conducted several rounds of Conciliation.
Finally, it has filed its negative report. Since, the
respondent company has adopted unfair labour practices
and it was brought to the knowledge of the Conciliation
Officer, the respondent company has removed this
petitioner from service. This petitioner has not stopped
his service from the company on his own volition and he
was removed from his service from the respondent
company without following the procedure enumerated
in the labour legislation. This petitioner is facing much
hardship due to non-employment for the past 2 years
and hence, the prayers made in the claim statement has
to be awarded in favour of this petitioner.
6. This petitioner has deposed as PW.1 Ex.P1 is the
certificate issued by this respondent. It shows that the
petitioner was appointed on 01-08-2008. Ex.P2 shows that
he has worked in respondent company as Lab Chemist.
Ex.P3 shows that his name was entered in ESI Corporation
as an employee of the respondent company and he has
availed the ESI leave from 17-09-2016 to 30-09-2016. Ex.P5
shows that this petitioner has raised the industrial dispute
against the respondent company for its unfair Labour
Practices before the Conciliation Officer on 13-02-2017.
As per the reply filed by the respondent company before
the Conciliation Officer, this petitioner has joined duty
during the year 2013, whereas, no documents was
produced before the Conciliation Officer in this aspect.
But, the petitioner has filed Ex.P1, which shows that he
was appointed on 01-08-2008 itself. Therefore, the plea
of this petitioner that he was an employee from 01-08-2008
stands proved. At the same time, the plea raised by the
respondent company before the Conciliation Officer
stands failed. This petitioner has deposed that the
document, dated 27-09-2017 was a fabricated one. The
abovesaid document was marked as Ex.P11 in this case.
As per the plea taken by the respondent company before
the Conciliation Officer, this petitioner was appointed in
the year 2013. If, it is true, definitely it may not provide
the hand loan of `1,00,000 during the year 2014, i.e.,
within a short span of one year it may not offer such a
hand loan. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondent
company before the Conciliation Officer, that this
petitioner has taken the hand loan of ` 1,00,000 was
also found to be baseless. Further, the respondent
company has not given its sanction to this petitioner, to
get his benefit under the provision of ESI Act, for the
leave period from 17-09-2016 to 30-09-2016. Further, this
petitioner was terminated from service during the
pendency of conciliation proceedings. Thus, this
petitioner has produced oral and documentary evidences
to prove the plea taken in this petition. Whereas, the
respondent company has not come forward to conduct
this case, even after the service of the notice. From and
out of the unchallenged oral evidence of PW1 and the
documents, this Court found that the respondent
company has adopted the unfair labour practices against
this petitioner/worker and violated the provisions of the
abour legislation, over his non-employment and hence,
this Court held that this petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages and all other benefits as
claimed by him.
7. In the result, this petition is allowed and it is held
that the respondent/management has adopted the unfair
labour practices against this petitioner by violating the
provisions of labour legislation, Industrial Disputes Act,
over the illegal termination of this petitioner is justified
and an Award is passed directing the respondent to
reinstate this petitioner in its company within one month
from the date of this order with full back wages,
continuity of service and all other monetary benefits to
which this petitioner is entitled.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on
this the 28th day of August, 2019.
V. PANDIARAJ ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 — 01-02-2019
Srinivasan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 11-01-2009
Experience
Certificate
given by the respondent
management
to
the
petitioner.
Ex.P2 —
Copy of Indian Overseas
Bank Statement.
998
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[31 December 2019
Ex.P3 —
Copy of ESI medical
records from 17-09-2016 to
30-09-2016.
Ex.P4 — 24-08-2017
Cop y of Pud ucherry
Gazette Publication.
Ex.P5 — 13-02-2017
Copy
of
requisition
submitted
before
the
La b o ur D e p a r tme n t ,
P u d uc h e r r y
b y
t h e
petitioner to reinstate him.
Ex.P6 — 10-08-2017
Copy of Conciliation report
issued by the
labour
Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P7 — 31-08-2017
Copy of letter submitted by
the
petitioner
to
the
Lab o ur
De p artment,
Puducherry.
Ex.P8 — 02-11-2017
Copy of letter submitted by
the
petitioner
to
the
Lab o ur
De p artment,
Puducherry.
Ex.P9 — 08-12-2017
Copy of letter submitted
b y
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t
management to the Labour
Department, Puducherry.
Ex.P10 — 11-11-2014
Copy of failure report
submitted by the Labour
Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry to Government
of Puducherry.
Ex.P11 — 27-09-2017
Copy of forged document
created by the respondent
management for sum of
` 1,00,000 obtained by the
petitioner from respondent
management.
Ex.P12 — 16-11-2015
Copy of notification issued
by the Government of
Puducherry to refer the
industrial
dispute
to
Labour Court, Puducherry
for adjudication.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil
V. PANDIARAJ ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 129/AIL/Lab./T/2019,
Puducherry, dated 6th December 2019)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 7/2018, dated
29-10-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, in
respect of the
industrial
dispute
between the
management of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited,
Sedarapet, Puducherry and
Larsen and Toubro
Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry, 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
AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., L.L.M.,
Presiding Officer ,
Tuesday, the 29th day of October, 2019
I.D. (T) No. 07/2018
The Secretary,
Larsen and Toubro Thozilalar Sangam,
No. 14, Kurinji Nagar,
Kamarajar Nagar,
Gorimedu, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited,
Sedarapet, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 30-09-2019 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru Durai
Arumugam, representative 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:
999
31 December 2019]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 23/AIL/Lab./T/2018,
dated 15-02-2018 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union Larsen and Toubro Employees Union,
Puducherry against the management of M/s. Larsen
and Toubro Private Limited, situated at ECC Division,
Mylam Road, Sedarapet, Puducherry, over the transfer
of Thiru N. Thandapani, Technical/Commercial
Supervisor from Puducherry to Raipur are justifiable
or not? If justified, what is the relief entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The notice for the respondent has been duly served
to the respondent, even then this respondent has not
appeared before this Court and hence, he was set ex parte
on 13-06-2018 itself.
3. Brief of the petition:
The respondent establishment is functioning at
Sedarapet Industrial Estate at Puducherry for the past
30 years and it is having more than 72 permanent
employees in its factory in TLT section. The petitioner
trade union has filed a charter of demands before the
Conciliation Officer on 02-12-2011. During the
pendency of abovesaid charter of demands before the
Conciliation Officer the respondent has threatened the
office bearers of the trade union to prevent their
effective functioning for the welfare of the employees.
In these circumstances, the respondent management
has transferred the workman/office bearer of the trade
union by name Mr. Thandapani on 04-01-2012 and he
was directed to attend duty in the factory at Raipur in
the State of Chattisgarh. It is a total violation of
provision under 33 (1) (a), 33 (2) (a), 33 (3) (a) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The abovesaid Thandapani
was transferred due to vengeance by the management.
Further, the petitioner trade union has also raised an
industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
on 19-01-2012 regarding the denial of OTLS. (One time
lumpsum grant) and regarding the transfer of
Mr. Thandapani. In order to help the abovesaid
process the Conciliation Officer also conducted the
proceedings of conciliation in a delayed manner.
The petitioner trade union has app roached
the Hon’ble High Court regarding the transfer of
Mr. Thandapani and finally, it has observed that the
petitioner trade union has to approach the Industrial
Tribunal for its grievance. The respondent management
has transferred Mr. Thandapani unnecessarily and
against the standing order, though there exists
shortage of labours at Puducherry Factory. Hence,
this petition has been filed against the respondent
management with a prayer to cancel the transfer order
and to place him in the original place at Sedarapet
Factory with subsequent monetary benefit.
4. In the course of enquiry, the Secretary of the trade
union by name Kolanjinathan was examined in ex parte
as PW1 on 10-04-2019 and Ex. P1 to Ex. P10 were marked.
Thereafter, he was again recalled and re-examined on
20-09-2019 and Ex. P11 and Ex. P12 were also marked on
the date.
5. The point for determination is :
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
trade union against the management of M/s. Larsen
and Toubro Private Limited, situated at ECC Division,
Mylam Road Sedarapet, Puducherry, over, the transfer
of Thiru N. Thandapani, Technical/Commercial
Supervisor from Puducherry to Raipur is justifiable or
not? and if justified, what is the relief entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
6. The Trade Union Secretary by name, Kolanjinathan
examined himself as PW.1, wherein, he has deposed that
Mr. Thandapani was an active member of the Trade Union
and he was executive member of the Trade Union and he
has been transferred to Raipur from Puducherry as a
measure of victimization by the management and it was
done during pendency of the Industrial Dispute with
respect to the charter of demands, dated 02-12-2011.
He has further, deposed that the act of the respondent
management is nothing but, a pure victimization act in
order to prevent the active participation of the abovesaid
Thandapani in trade union activities. The petitioner has
produced the Ex. P2 to show that there was a charter of
demands filed by the trade union on 02-12-2011 before
the Conciliation Officer, based on which an Industrial
Dispute was raised. The abovesaid charter of demands
was kept pending by the Conciliation Officer from
02-12-2011. The abovesaid Thandapani was transferred
on 04-01-2012 as per Ex. P4. The exhibits P2 and P4 would
goes to shows that during the pendency of conciliation
proceedings, the workman/office bearer of the trade
union by name, Mr. Thandapani was transferred against
the provision under section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. As per section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, no employee shall be transferred
during the pendency of proceeding before Conciliation
Officer, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal.
1000
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[31 December 2019
Further, as per section 33 (3) (a) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, the protected workman cannot be transferred
without prior permission of the respective authorities.
Here, in this case, also while the proceedings regarding
the charter of demands were pending before the
Conciliation Officer from 02-12-2011, the workman/office
bearer, by name, Thandapani the protected workman has
been transferred on 04-01-2012. Therefore, it becomes
clear violation of section 33 (3) (a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act by the management. Further, he has been
transferred as per Ex. P5. On perusal of Ex. P5 it was found
that no reasons was adduced for his transfer.
Furthermore, there was nothing mentioned under which
standing order he has been transferred to the Factory at
Raipur in Chattis. Hence, this Court found that the
transfer order was not on any genuine reason or on the
basis of any valid standing order of the management.
Hence, the prayer for cancellation of the transfer order
and to place him in the original position at Puducherry
factory, and seeking the monetary benefits from the date
of transfer becomes justifiable one. The respondent has
not come forward to justify his action of transfer. Further,
it has not come forward to deny the allegations levelled
against the management and it has not come forward
to rebut the allegations levelled against the management.
The unchallenged version of the petitioner was also
supported by the documentary evidences such as Ex.P2,
Ex. P4 and Ex. P5. Hence, considering the unchallenged
oral evidence of PW1 supported by the Ex. P2, Ex. P4 and
Ex. P5 this Court come to the conclusion that the transfer
order to the abovesaid Thandapani was not a justifiable
one and the prayer made by the petitioner trade union
against the respondent management found to be
justifiable one. Therefore, the industrial dispute raised
by this petitioner trade union is found justifiable and it
is ordered that the workman by name Thandapani was
entitled for all the monetary benefits from the date of his
transfer order and he was entitled to be placed in his
original position as Technical/Commercial Supervisor at
Sedarapet Factory in Puducherry from the date of this
order.
7. In the result, this petition is allowed. No cost.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribe by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the
29th day of October, 2019.
V. PANDIARAJ ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 10-04-2019
Kolanjinathan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 01-03-2010
Copy of the certificate of
Registration of Trade Union.
Ex.P2
— 02-12-2011
Copy of the charter of
demand with copy of L Form.
Ex.P3
— 19-01-2012
Copy of the petition filed
before the Conciliation
Officer regarding the
transfer of Mr. Dhandapani.
Ex.P4
— 19-01-2012
Copy of the letter submitted
to the Conciliation Officer
regarding OTLS.
Ex.P5
— 04-01-2012
Copy of the transfer order of
the Mr. Dhandapani.
Ex.P6 — 20-10-2016
Copy of the order in W.A.
No. 1189/12.
Ex.P7
— 28-02-2012
Copy of the order in W.P.
No. 4611/12.
Ex.P8
— 09-02-2017
Copy of letter submitted by
the petitioner union to the
Conciliation Officer regarding
Transfer of Mr. Dhandapani.
Ex.P9 —
Copy of the shift schedule in
TLT - fabrication section.
Ex.P10 — 24-12-2018
Copy of the letter regarding
the details of the office
bearers of the trade union.
Ex.P11—
07-12-2011
Notice of the enquiry from
the Conciliation Officer to
the trade union.
Ex.P12—
07-08-2013
Failure report submitted by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry to Government
of Puducherry regarding the
charter of demand, dated
02-12-2011.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil.
List of respondent’s exihibits: Nil.
V. PANDIARAJ ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.