La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 6-00
Prix : ` 6-00
Price : ` 6-00
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 : 28-4-2020
Price : ` 6-00
[ 293 ]
2020 }
|
28 {
No.
17
Poudouchéry
Mardi
28
Avril
2020 (8 Vaisakha 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
28th
April
2020
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
294
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 294
Award of the Labour Court
.. 294
de tribunal.
..
299
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 299
Government Notifications
.. 299
..
300
Annonces
.. 300
Announcements
..
300
294
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 April 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 35/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 4th March 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 13/2012, dated
30-10-2019 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Regency Ceramics Limited,
Yanam and M/s. Regma Packaging (P) Limited, Yanam
and Regency Ceramics Officers and Workers Union,
Yanam, over lock out has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present: Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC.,L.L.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 30th day of October 2019.
I.D. (T) No. 13/2012
The President/Secretary,
Regency Ceramics Officers and
Workers Union,
D. No. 2-9-047,
Tota Street, Yanam.
. . Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Managing Director,
Regency Ceramics Limited,
Yanam.
2.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Regma Packaging (P) Limited,
Yanam.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me for
final hearing in the presence of Thiru D. Nageshwara Rao,
Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru L. Sathish.
Advocate for the respondent, up on hearing both sides
and up on perusing the case records, this Court passed
the following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government of Puducherry as per the G.O. Rt. No. 101/
AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 07-06-2012 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the workers of
Regency Ceramic Limited and Regma Packaging (P)
Limited, Yanam, represented by Regency Ceramics
Officers and Workers Union against the management
of M/s. Regency Ceramics Limited, Yanam and
M/s. Regma Packaging (P) Limited, Yanam, regarding
the lock out declared by the management is illegal is
justified? If justified, what relief the petitioner
workmen are entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. It is to be decided that whether the industrial
dispute raised by workers of Regency Ceramic Limited
and Regma Packaging (P) Limited, Yanam, represented by
Regency Ceramics Officers and Workers Union against
the management of M/s. Regency Ceramics Limited,
Yanam and M/s. Regma Packaging (P) Limited, Yanam,
regarding the lock out declared by the management is
illegal is justified are not.
3. Brief averments of the petition:
The first respondent is a Public Limited Company
and the 2nd respondent is subsidiary unit. The first
respondent has its branch at Karaikal also. The
members in the trade union are the employees in the 1st
and 2nd respondent company. The 1st respondent
has attempted to prevent the formation of trade
union from the year 1989 itself. However, in the year
January 2011 the members of the trade union
attempted to form a new trade union, knowing the
abovesaid facts, the 1st respondent has transferred
9 Office
Bearers from Yanam to Karaikal
manufacturing unit. It was opposed by the other
employees. In this regard, conciliation meeting was
held before the Conciliation Officer on 21-01-2011 and
subsequently on 24-01-2011. However, it ends in vain
due to non cooperation by the respondent management.
4. In the mean while the trade union has got its
registration on 25-01-2011. The respondent management
has adopted so many unfair labour practices against the
employees of the company. It has not provide bonus
and salary increment, it has extracted work from the
employees for more than statutory hours, it has acted
in a mala fide manner and threatened the Office Bearers.
295
28 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
It has also tried to make divisions among the employees.
In the meanwhile, the trade union has submitted a
request on 18-04-2011 seeking permission to celebrate
the May day celebrations. The management has granted
its permission vide its notice, dated 24-01-2012 and it
has declared 01-05-2011 as paid holiday. Thereafter, the
May day celebrations were successfully celebrated by
the trade union with its members in a private place
which is 200 meters away from the factory. Knowing the
abovesaid facts of grand success of May day
celebrations, the respondent has sent a telegram on
02-05-2011 to the Unions with false allegations that its
member had deliberately absent from attending the work
on 01-05-2011. Thereafter, the management started to
take revenging actions against the workers. As the first
instance, it has dismissed 49 women workers and 9 men
workers, totaling 54 workers in a single stroke against
the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act. The above
action of dismissal was shown with a intention to
threaten the workers who joined in the trade union.
Furthermore, the abovesaid action of dismissal was
taken as a measure to eradicate the union as if, it had
done during 1989.
5. However, the trade union has filed a representation
before the Assistant Labour Inspector, Yanam, against
the illegal termination of 54 workers. Thereafter, the
Conciliation ends in vain and the industrial dispute is
in pending before this Court. In the mean while, during
May 2011, the trade union has filed a charter of
demands before the respondent management. The
management refuses to attend the same it has not made
any initiative steps for talks. Therefore, the trade union
took the matter before the Assistant Labour Inspector,
for conciliation. At this juncture, the management
refused to attend the conciliation proceedings whereas,
it has filed Writ Petition against the trade union and
get injunction order. Thereafter, the injunction order was
lifted during January 2012. Therefore, again the trade
union has filed charter of demand before the
management during August 2012. The management did
not respond it. Therefore, again the trade union
approached the Conciliation Officer with the request of
increment in pay and equal bonus like that of Karaikal
unit. The management failed to consider the same.
6. Furthermore, the management gave a false
assurance if, production was increased then it can
consider the request made by the trade union. Though
the production activities were increased, the
management failed to comply its assurance. Thereafter,
the management tried to threaten the workers by saying
that they will ruin their future. To create the fear among
the workers the respondent management has suspended
the Office Bearers during the month of December 2011.
Furthermore, it has not allowed the workers to enter
into the premises and it has not allotted any work to
the workers which resulted in keeping idle in the work
premises by all the workers. This practices of keeping
idle which began during December 2011 continued till
02-01-2012. The management failed to pay the December
2011 salary to the workers. Furthermore, the management
imposed the condition to its workers that they have to
sign an undertaking which is illegal. All the 700
permanent workers refused to sign it. Therefore, the
management has directed its security people to allow
those workers who have signed the undertaking and it
has also directed the security people not to allow other
workers, who failed to sign in the undertaking.
7. In this regard, the trade union has made a
representation before the Assistant Labour Inspector on
05-01-2012. In these circumstances, in order to protect
their interests, the members of the trade union resorted
to sit in campaign against the unfair labour practices at
the out skirts of Yanam town. While so, on 27-01-2012
the Yanam Police at the inducement of respondent
management come to spot and stood in campaign and
suddenly swooped Mr. M.S. Murali Mohan in a Jeep to
the Police Station and beated him with black and blue.
under the inducement of the management and as such
he collapsed in the Police Station itself. Subsequently,
the violence erupted in the Regency factory area and
in some other place of the management. An unknown
furious mob attacked the president of the factory by
name Mr. K.G. Chandra Shekar and he succumbed to the
injuries. This untoward incidents occurred immediately
after the union founder succumbed to death. Members
of the furious mob involved in the violence were not
known to the workers and no one know from where they
have came and indulged in such activity in the violence,
except the lives of the persons nothing had happen and
no damage has happened to the respondent factory or
its machinery.
8. In this situation, the management has declared the
lock out of the 1st respondent management on
31-01-2012 and lock out of the 2nd respondent was
declared on 02-02-2012 without any notice. The lock out
declared by the management is illegal. The management
has falsely issued a lock out notice. The allegations of
non-cooperation, illegal strike, loss of production,
destruction of machinery are all false. These things has
happened only due to the non-payment of salary for the
month of December 2011 and January 2012. The
non-cooperation to the workers by the management is
296
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 April 2020
also a cause for abovesaid instance. The petitioner
trade union has made a representation before the Labour
Authorities during March 2012, denying all the
allegations of the respondent management.
9. The respondent management failed to attend the
Conciliation Proceedings which resulted in the failure
of Conciliation Proceedings during April 2012. Hence,
the declaration of lock out by the management has to
be declared as illegal and unjustifiable. However, the
respondent management has to be directed to reopen
the factory without causing any injustice to all the
workmen by directing them to pay all the legal monetary
benefits, hence, this petition has to be allowed.
10. Brief of the counter averments:
All
the
allegations
levelled
against
the
respondents were denied as false except those are
specifically admitted hereunder. The petitioner Union
has deliberately suppressed their Criminal Act of
destroying the respondent factory. The petitioner
Union hired rowdies and professional criminals to
bring down the entire activities of the factories and
caused damages to the tune of ` 224.77 crores to
ashes. The first respondent has established its unit
in Yanam region in the year 1983. It has made very
modest output of 15,000 sq. mtr. per day in the field
of ceramic floor, wall and industrial tiles
manufacturing. The factory has three rotational shifts
and one general shift.
11. In the year 1982 the 2nd respondent unit was
established at Yanam, in the field of manufacturing
corrugated cotton boxes for the purpose of packing the
ceramic tiles manufactured in the 1st respondent. In the
year 1999, the 1st respondent had expanded its business
by making production from 15,000 sq. mtr. to 36,000 sq. mtr.
per day. It has provided best possible working conditions
to its workers with best salary package and it has
provided healthy working atmosphere also. It has
offered various welfare measure to its workers, such as,
bonus, gratuity, supplying subsidized food, snacks,
beverages, free education for children of workmen in
School and in Junior College, Medical, Accident and
Life Insurance also. Women workers were provided with
gold ornaments, cash, and rice at the time of their
marriage.
12. During January 2011, a handful of workmen
nurtured a grievance and wanted to precipitate a
confrontation. With the support of a sitting Member of
Parliament of the nearby constituency the petitioner
Union was formed. Right from the beginning the
Office Bearers have confrontation with the management,
at the time of the dealings with the management. On
17-08-2011 the trade union has filed a charter of
demands with unrealistic and impractical claims and
threatened that they will adhere to indefinite strike. While
the negotiation was in progress, the employee by name,
Mr. M. Murali Mohan was dismissed from his service
for the proven misconduct of theft. But, the trade union
has resorted to demonstrations, go-slow, sabotage and
etc., and demanded to reemploye the abovesaid
Mr. Murali Mohan. The negotiation was conducted on
16-09-2011 in this regard.
13. On 05-12-2011, a section of workers resorted to
strike, demonstration, gherao, sabotage, slogan shouting
and etc., at the insistence of provoked employees. They
damaged some of the machineries and the conveyor
belt. Disciplinary action was taken against the 5 workmen
and they were placed under suspension. In this regard
various negotiations were held between the management
and the Union in the presence of the Administrator of
Yanam. Even then, the trade union has not cooperated
and it has continued its belligerent attitude of
deliberate stay in strike, go-slow, sabotage and etc.
Warning notice were issued by the management in the
notice-board from 18-12-2011 to 27-2-2011. In this regard,
a meeting was fixed by the Labour Commissioner on
22-12-2011. While the discussion was on the charter of
demands in the meeting, the union representatives
insisted about the revocation of 5 suspended workmen.
The management did not heed to such request, and
therefore, the trade union once again engaged in their
belligerent activities against the management. They
prevented the willing workers from resuming duty and
they have prevented the movement of goods from the
factory. On 02-01-2012, the first respondent requested
the agitating workers to sign in an undertaking, that
they will maintain peace while attending the work, but,
the members of the trade union were adamant and they
have not complied the same. On 24-01-2012, a modified
undertaking was prepared in the presence of the Yanam
Administrator and the first respondent agreed to
discuss all the other issues by March 2012. Even then,
the workmen were adamant on the issue of suspension
of 5 employees from the factory. Further, they demanded
the reinstatement of Mr. Murali Mohan also. Therefore,
the respondent management approached the Hon’ble
High Court by filing a Civil Suit in C.S. No. 93/2011 and
obtained favourable orders. Even then, the petitioner
Union did not respond to it. On 25-01-2012, a meeting
was held with the Administrator of Yanam. At that time
also, the trade union demanded for reinstatement of
Murali Mohan and the meeting ended in failure as no
understanding was arrived at.
297
28 April 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
14. Due to that the trade union and its members
planned to go to more aggressive form of action against
the management by resorting to physical violence
against the office and its Office Bearers and against the
workmen who were willing to work. On 27-01-2012,
at about 07.30 a.m., a group of workmen along with the
Office Bearers of the Union and some unidentified
people assembled infront of the main gate of the factory
near Buddha Park and prevented the willing workmen
against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in IA.
No. 5697/2011 in C.S. No. 93/2011. The Police got
information and came there and took up a group of
persons to the Police Station. At that time, the dismissed
workman Murali Mohan and 30 other persons went to
the Police Station and resorted to Dharna inside the
Police Station. At that time, Mr. Murali Mohan had
made a complained of chest pain, but, the workman
surrounding him did not allow the Police to take him to
the hospital, which resulted in collapse of Mr. Murali
Mohan. On hearing the death of Mr. Murali Mohan, the
striking workman attacked the Police Station and the
Police personnel. Simultaneously, the other group of
workman proceeded to the house of the first respondent’s
president Mr. K.C. Chandrasekar and mercilessly beat
him with iron rods, which resulted in his death. Further,
the workman also went to the houses of various Office
Bearers, attacked them physically and damaged the
valuable house hold belongings to them. They caused
damage to the ceramic factory, Regency Glazes Ltd.-I,
Regency Glazes Ltd. - II, Regma Paper Products and also
Regency Transport Carriers Ltd. They caused extensive
damages to the properties of the -School, Junior College
and the College of Education.
15. They caused extensive damage to the factory
building, machinery, equipments, fitting, pipelines
electrical installations and every other consumer items
to the tune of ` 170.14 crores. The respondent has to
incur a sum of ` 200 crores for its resumption to its
normality. The respondent had submitted a claim for
`160.46 crores from the Insurance Company, but, it has
not given a fruitful result. Therefore, the respondents
were forced to declare lock out with effect from
31-01-2012 as a reaction to such brutal destruction to
life, limb and properties of the respondent management.
16. Thereafter, the Government of Puducherry issued
G.O. on 10-04-2013 declaring that the lock out as illegal
and directed this respondent to lift the lock out. The
respondent has filed a Writ Petitions against the G.O.
of Government of Puducherry in Writ Petition No.12613/
2013 and 12614/2013. The Hon’ble High Court is directed
to form an Expert Committee and sought for its report.
The Committee has filed its report, dated 06-06-2015
wherein, it has listed the extensive damage caused to
the respondent factory, buildings, machineries,
equipments, raw materials, finished goods and etc.
It has clearly opined that the factories of the respondent
is beyond repair and based on the report the G.O., dated
10-04-2013 issued by the Government of Puducherry was
squashed by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras. The
respondent suffered a massive jolt and irreparable loss.
It has lost its Dynamic Personality/President/Key
Administrator Mr. K.C. Chandrasekar, who was near and
dear to the Managing Director of the respondent.
17. The management has completely lost his financial
backbone due to extensive and unimaginable destructions
of its property beyond any scope for repair/
reconstruction or renovation. The company has lost its
valuable clients. It was unable to pay its financial
liability borrowed from the Banks to the tune of
` 113.02 crores. It has lost his business. It has lost his
Educational Institutions with the damage, to tune of
` l.5 crores in the arson and looting on 27-0l-2012. It
has lost its goodwill and reputation in the market. It was
impossible for the respondent to even think of restart
its units. It is impossible to restart its units, unless the
Insurance Companies and the Government side
subsidizes were given to its expectations.
18. The respondent has taken out the decision of
lock out only due to the massive violence and brutal
attack to the factory and it is not illegal and it is the
legally, ethically and morally justifiable steps taken by
the respondent. Unless, the closure is announced on
3l-0l-2012 there may not any safeguard to further loss
of life, limb and properties. The grim situation still in
existence in and around of the factory. There is no
scope for repairs, reconstructions and renovations of
any kind of production activities. The respondent has
not acted against the Industrial rules and regulations.
The Act of the respondent is fully justifiable and not
against the Industrial Dispute Act. The respondent is
ready to provide a reasonable compensation to its
workers as per the relevant provisions of law and held
in serious of negotiations with the workers individually
and in group. As many as 312 staffs and workers
received their full and final settlement amount after
submitting their resignations before the first respondent
Similarly, 18 staff and workers received their full and
final settlement amount after submitting their
resignations before the second respondent. Since, the
lock out declared by the respondents are perfectly legal,
this petitione has to be dismissed as the petitioners are
not entitled for any relief.
298
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[28 April 2020
19. In the course of the enquiry PW.1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 was marked. PW.1 has deposed in
his chief examination in support of their claim statement
and the case stand pending for cross of PWl. At this
stage, the abovesaid industrial dispute was dismissed
for non-prosecution on 13-1l-2017. Thereafter, it has
been restored as per the order in I.A. No. 50/2018 on
30-10-2019. While the case stands posted for cross of
PWl the counsel for both parties represented that the
entire matter is likely to be settled and on that
representation, the abovesaid case was adjourned
periodically. On 30-10-2019 both parties have jointly
filed the joint compromise memo along with the copy
of settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, dated 24-10-2019. On perusal of the
abovesaid settlement, this Court has found that both
parties have mutually agreed for the terms of settlement
and they have signed the terms of settlement with their
full consent in the presence of the Labour Commissioner
at Puducherry in the Conciliation Proceedings.
20. As per the terms of settlement the trade union
has agreed to withdraw of the four cases vide I.D. Nos.
11/2012, 12/2012, 13/2012 and 14/2012 which is pending
before this Tribunal. Both parties have agreed, not to
raise any dispute with respect to each other.
Furthermore, the members of the trade union in the list
of Annexure-I have agreed to get the plot allotted to
them as per MOU, dated 31-05-2019. The terms of
settlement shows that the Industrial Dispute raised
between the parties have been peacefully and amicably
settled and therefore, this Court found that there is no
need to proceed further in this regard in this Industrial
Dispute. Hence, the abovesaid settlement under section
12(3) dated 30-10-2019 along with its Annexure-I were
received by this Tribunal and as per the tripartite
settlement made between the parties before the Labour
Commissioner-cum-Chief Conciliation Officer, Puducherry,
this reference is closed.
21. In the result, this reference is closed as per the
terms of settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, dated 31-10-2019. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this 30th day of October, 2019.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 23-08-2017 A.V.V. Sathyanarayanan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
— 31-01-2012 Copy of the notice of the
lock out of Regency Ceramics
Limited, Yanam.
Ex.P2
— 02-02-2012 Copy of he notice of the
lock out of Regma Packaging
(P) Limited, Yanam.
Ex.P3
— 25-01-2011 Covering letter of Registered
Trade Union, along with
copy of Certificate.
Ex.P4 —
Representation of petitioners
Union
submitted
AIL,
Yanam.
Ex.P5
— 12-12-2012 Copy of Conciliation notice
issued by the Commissioner
of Labour.
Ex.P6
— 10-12-2011 Representation
of
the
petitioner Union submitted
to the R.A.O., Yanam.
Ex.P7
— 17-08-2011 Representation
of
the
petitioner Union submitted
on charter of demands to
respondent.
Ex.P8
— 03-01-2012 Representation
of
the
petitioner Union submitted
to the Commissioner of
Labour.
Ex.P9
— 09-01-2012 Representation
of
the
petitioner Union submitted
to R.A.O., Yanam.
Ex.P10 — 09-05-2012 Representation submitted to
Secretary of Labour by AIL,
Yanam.
Ex.P11 — 07-06-2012 Reference of Notice.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.