Amflºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ
La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
∂]ÔV´D ÿ√u≈ ÿkπX|
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
sÁÈ : ` 11-00
Prix : ` 11-00
Price : ` 11-00
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 : 12-5-2020
Price : ` 11-00
[ 317 ]
®ı
Amflºƒˆ
ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\
2020 }
º\ |
12 {
No.
19
Poudouchéry
Mardi
12
Mai
2020 (22 Vaisakha 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
12th
May
2020
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^..
318
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 318
Award of the Labour Court
.. 318
de tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
323
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 323
Government Notifications
.. 323
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
330
Etablissements dangereux
.. 330
Dangerous Establishments
..
330
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
332
Annonces
.. 332
Announcements
..
332
318
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 May 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 37/Lab./AIL/T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 4th March 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 12/2012, 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 the employees of M/s. Regency
Ceramics Limited, Yanam, over charter of demands 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., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 30th day of October 2019.
I.D. (L) No. 12/2012
The Employees,
M/s. Regency CeramicsLimited,
D. No. 2-9-047,
Tota Street,
Yanam.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Regency Ceramics 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 etitioner and Thiru L. Sathish.
Advocate for the respondent, upon 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. 100/
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, Yanam against the
management of M/s. Regency Ceramics Limited,
Yanam over charter of demands such as (i) to grant
Dearness Allowance; (ii) to implement regular
increment at regular period; (iii) to regularize all the
workmen employed directly/intermediary such as
casual, loading and unloading; (iv) to revise the
wages to ` 8,500 per month, etc., are 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 the workers of Regency Ceramic Limited,
Yanam, against the management of M/s. Regency
Ceramics Limited, Yanam, over charter of demands such
as (i) to grant Dearness Allowance; (ii) to implement
regular increment at regular period; (iii) to regularize all
the workmen employed directly/intermediary such as
casual, loading and unloading; (iv) to revise the wages
to ` 8,500 per month, etc., are not?
3. Brief of the petition:
The petitioners were employed by the respondent
company. It was established in the year 1984. It has
business transactions with Indian Railways, Sahara,
Reliance, ITC and Kamineni Hospitals, etc. It has
manufactured Ceramic tiles used for floors, walls and
the exteriors for office and homes. It has more than
3000 workers. It has branch unit at Karaikal. Out of
3000 workers, 900 employees were permanent. Further,
76 workers were temporary and trainees. Further,
casual workers were also engaged by the management.
The employees were receiving very meager salaries
which is less than wages mentioned in the minimum
wages Act. Though, the respondent management earn
much profits it has given 8.33% of bonus only.
The respondent management never allowed the
workers to form Trade Union. Those who tried to form
Trade Union, were removed from service by the
management in the year 1989 itself. The orders passed
by the Hon’ble High Court was not comply by the
respondent management in this regard. In the mean while,
the employees In the respondent management, during
January 2011, joined together to form a Trade Union
319
12 May 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
in the name of Regency Ceramics Officers and
Workers Union and applied to the Registrar to register
the same. It was also prevented by the management
by tyrannical methods and it has transferred nine
Officer Bearers from Yanam to Karaikal Units. The
other workers/employees made several requested and
made protest against the transfer order, but, it ends
in vain. Therefore, the workers approached the
Labour Officer, Puducherry and submitted a list of
demands consisting of terms and conditions of the
workers, and sought to implement the Labour Laws.
In this regard, the conciliation meeting was held on
21-01-2011 and 24-01-2011, the Higher Officers of
Government, labour side and the respondent side
participated in the Conciliation Proceedings.
Thereafter, the transfer orders was restricted to 3 Office
Bearers alone. In the same meeting the management
requested for time to consider, the list of demands,
dated 22-01-2011. In the mean while, the Trade Union
was formed on 25-01-2011 as per the orders of the
Registrar of Trade Union. Thereafter, on 18-04-2011
the trade union has requested the management to
permit them to celebrate the May day celebration
during May 2011. The management has also declared
01-05-2011 as public holiday and the notice was
issued on 21-04-2012 by the management. The May
Day celebration was celebrated in a successful
manner. Knowing this, the management illegally
dismissed the 54 workers, among them, majorities
were women workers. The management has violated
the provisions under section 25-F of the Industrial
Dispute Act. In addition to that the management has
arbitrarily removed 50 workers in the month of May
2011. Therefore, the Trade Union has approached the
Authorities for Conciliation, at that time the
management has approached the Hon’ble High Court
and get orders in their favour against the Conciliation
Proceedings. Finally, the Writ Petition was ordered
against the management during January 2012 by
lifting the suspension, against of the Trade Union.
Thereafter, Trade Union and its workers filed a
Charter of demands before the respondent management,
one of the demand was to increase the wages
minimum up to ` 8,500 per month, the other demand
was to implement the Scale of Pay with regular
increment on regular period of interval. Further, the
petitioner Union demanded for Dearness Allowance
which was denied by the respondent management
for all these years. The other demand was to
regularize all the workers in the factory it was also
demanded to stop the appoint under the head of
Casual Labours in the factory. It has also demanded
not to appoint the workers on contract basis. The
charter of demands was taken into consideration
during August 2011 by the Conciliation Authorities.
However, the management has not cooperated for
conciliation proceedings in an adamant manner.
The management has falsely alleged that there was
some financial constraint, hence, the conciliation
proceedings ends in vain and therefore, the industrial
dispute has been raised for the following demands
(i) to grant Dearness Allowance; (ii) to implement
regular increment at regular period of interval; (iii)
to regularize all the workmen employed in the factory
either directly or indirectly; (iv) to raise the wages
up to ` 8,500 per month, etc. and hence, the
employees prayed to allow this application.
4. Brief of the counter averments:
The respondent management has established a
plant in Yanam during 1983. It was under profit during
2004-2005. Thereafter, it was forced to face the
business competitors such as RAK Ceramics,
Karuturi Ceramics, Silical Ceramics, Centini Ceramics
and Vennar Ceramics. The abovesaid companies had
national and international level business market.
So, the management was under compulsion to face
the competition. During 2004-2005, the company has
met a loss of ` 118 lakhs. During 2005, it has
earned ` 5 lakhs as profits. Therefore, it has faced
continuous loss and it was up to the tune of ` 15.44
crores during 2010-201l. In the mean time, it has
established its Unit at Karaikal during 2002 also. The
management has to given its attention for its
stabilization at that time, the Trade Union has also
given much hardship to the respondent management
in one way or in other way. Due to the negative
attitude of the Trade Union against the management
at Yanam there was an unrest happened during the
year January 2012, which resulted into violence in the
respondent factory and it consumed the life of the
President (Operations) by name K.C. Chandrasear on
27-0l-2012. Due to the violence, extensive damage
were caused to the company properties and
machineries which resulted in dead halt. Therefore,
the lock out was declared on 31-01-2012. The
management has to make very huge investment for
replacement of machinery and equipments. The
financial support from the Bank and the Financial
institutions were also stopped. Therefore, under
these circumstances the claims made by the
petitioners were unable to be meet out by the
respondent management. Hence, considering the
scenario at this stage, the refence has to be
answered against the workmen.
320
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 May 2020
5. In the course of the enquiry PWl was examined
and Ex.Pl to Ex.P10 were marked. PW1 has deposed in
her chief examination in support of her claim statement
and the case stand pending for cross of PWl. At this
stage, the abovesaid industrial dispute was dismissed
for non-prosecution on 13-11-2017. Thereafter, it has
been restored as per the order in I.A. No. 49/2018 on
30-10-2019. While the case stands posted for cross of
PW1, 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.
6. As per the terms of settlement the Trade Union
has agreed to withdraw of the four cases vide I.D.
No. 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 MOD, 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
section12(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.
7. In the result, this reference is closed as per the
terms of settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes 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 Chinna Babu
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.Pl
— 07-02-2012 Copy of original notification
issued
by
the
Under
Secretaary (Labour) for
failure of Conciliation.
Ex.P2
— 22-01-2011 Copy of the Demand Notice
issued to the DGM (HR)
Regency Ceramics, Yanam.
Ex.P3
— 18-01-2011 Copy of the transfer order of
the AVVS Narayana.
Ex.P4
— 21-01-2011 Copy of the Minutes of the
meeting.
Ex.P5
— 25-01-2011 Copy of the Certificate of
Registration along with
covering
letter
by
the
Registrar of Trade Unions.
Ex.P6 —
Copy of the comments by the
management for the demands
made by the workers Union.
Ex.P7
— 09-05-2012 Copy of letter written by the
Assistant
Inspector
of
Labour, to the Secretary
(Labour), Government of
Puducherry.
Ex.P8
— 21-05-2011 Copy of the letter addressed to
the Chairman and MD of
Regency Ceramics Ltd., by
the General Secretary, Regency
Workers Union.
Ex.P9
— 21-05-2011 Copy of the letter addressed
to the Dy. G.M., Regency
Ceramics Ltd., Yanam by the
General Secretary, Workers
Union.
Ex.P10 — 17-08-2011 Copy of letter addressed to
the Chairman and MD of
Regency Ceramics Ltd.,
Yanam by the workers of
Regency Ceramics Union,
Yanam.
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
321
12 May 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 38/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 5th March 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 11/2012, 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 Thiru B. Sivaram Sastry and
53 workers, M/s. Regency Ceramic Limited, Yanam, over
non-employment has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L., dated 23-05-1991, 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., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 30th day of October 2019.
I.D. (T) No. 11/2012
Thiru B. Sivaram Sastry and 53 workers,
M/s. Regency Ceramic Limited,
D.No. 2-9-047,
Tota Street, Yanam.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Regency Ceramic 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 as per the G.O. Rt. No. 98/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 07-06-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru B. Sivarama
Sastry and other 53 workers (as mentioned in the
Annexure), against the management of M/s. Regency
Ceramics Limited, Yanam, over their non-employment
are justified or not? If justified, what relief the
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 the Thiru B. Sivarama Sastry and other
53 workers against the respondent Management, over
their non-employment are not?
3. Brief of the petition:
The respondent by name M/s. Regency Ceramics
Limited, Yanam, is a public limited company having
its units at Yanam as well as Karaikal. It was
established in the year 1983. It has business
activities in the field of Construction. It has
manufactured Ceramics tiles, used for floor, walls in
Homes and Office. It has engaged huge number of
employees under the category of permanent,
temporary, casual status, etc. The respondent has
adopted unfair Labour Practices against its
employees. It has tried its best to prevent the
formation of Trade Union from the year 1983 itself
and those who had tried for it, were removed from
service under the iron hands of the management.
After a long battle, the Trade Union was formed on
25-01-2011, before that the Trade Union has filed its
charter of demands, consisting of permanency of
workers. In the mean while, the respondent had
transferred the main Office Bearers in the Trade
Union and it was also questioned by this Trade
Union, but, it ends in vain. Therefore, the matter was
referred to Conciliation Officer. The conciliation
meeting was held on 21-01-2011, but, it ends in failure
and the failure report was sent to the Government.
Thereafter, the reference was sent to this Tribunal.
In the mean while, the Trade Union has sought of
permission to celebrate the May Day on 01-05-2011.
In this aspect the representation was made on
18-04-2011. Thereafter, the management has given its
consent to celebrate the May Day on 21-04-2012 as
it has no other go except to give its permission. After
that the respondent has came to know the May Day
celebration was successfully celebrated by the Trade
Union All the workmen concerned in the respondent
322
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 May 2020
unit participated in the May Day celebrations.
Due to that grand success of May Day celebration,
the management has involved in vengeance activities
and it was strictly opposed by the Trade Union. In
this connection, the management has arbitrarily
dismissed 54 workers from the factory. Therefore, the
Trade Union has made representation before the
Conciliation Officer at Puducherry during August
2011. It was also comes to an end during April 2012
with its failure report. The management has arbitrarily
dismissed the 54 workmen from the factory, who were
the members of the Trade Union. It is an unjustified
activity done by the management. It is illegal in the
eye of law. Therefore, this petitioner has filed this
application for reinstatement with continuity of
service, backwages and all other benefits and hence,
prayed to allow this application.
4. Brief of the counter averments:
The allegations levelled by the petitioner were
denied by this respondent. The respondent unit
having kiln, which has to be operated on 24X7X365
days basis as a continuous process. During the May
Day celebrations, the contract employees had
attended the duty. Therefore, they were removed
from the service by the contractors, there is no
employer employee relationship between this
petitioner and the respondent. Since, the petitioners
is not an employee under this respondent he cannot
seek any remedy before this Tribunal. This petitioner
is a contract employee under the registered contractor
of this respondent factory. Since, the 54 workmen
who were not an employee under this respondent the
allegation of arbitrary termination by this respondent
is also not correct. This respondent has no role to
play in the non-employment of these 54 workmen.
Since, the petitioner was employed under the
contract, contractors by name, Dasaih Naidu, Sri
Ramalu and Sri Kola Baskara Rao were to be added
as necessary parties to this case. The claim raised
by this petitioner against this respondent cannot
stand hold. In the mean while, there was an orgy
violence took place on 27-01-2012 in the factory
premises and the members of the petitioners Union
caused heavy damages to the properties of the
respondent management and it had also resulted in
death of Chief Executive and one workman Machcha
Murali Mohan. The petitioner has suppressed the
abovesaid facts and hence, it has to be dismissed.
5. In the course of the enquiry PW1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 was marked. PWl has deposed in
her chief examination in support of their claim statement
and the case stand pending for cross of PW1. At this
stage, the abovesaid industrial dispute was dismissed
for non-prosecution on 13-11-2017. Thereafter, it has
been restored as per the order in IA. No. 48/2018 on
30-10-2019. While the case stands posted for cross of
PW1, 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.
6. 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.
7. In the result, this reference is closed as per the
terms of settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes 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
Thulasi
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 09-05-2012
Copy of letter written by
Assistant
Inspector
of
Labour, Yanam, to the
Secretary,
Government
(Labour) in respect of failure
of conciliation.
323
12 May 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P2
— 25-05-2011
Copy of requisition given by
workers Union to the MD/
Chairman.
Ex.P3
— 31-05-2011
Copy of requisition given by
workers Union to the MD/
Chairman for non-employment.
Ex.P4 —
Copy of requisition of the
workers Union addressed to
the Assistant Inspector of
Labour, Yanam.
Ex.P5
— 25-05-2011
Copy of requisition of the
workers Union to MD/
Chairman.
Ex.P6
— 25-05-2011
Copy of requisition of the
workers Union to MD/
Chairman.
Ex.P7
— 25-05-2011
Copy of requisition of the
workers Union to MD/
Chairman.
Ex.P8
— 25-05-2011
Copy of requisition of the
workers Union to MD/
Chairman.
Ex.P9
— 07-06-2012
Copy of notification of the
Labour
Department
of
Abstract.
Ex.P10 —
Annexure
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
LAW DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 8/LD-2020, Puducherry, dated 16th April 2020)
NOTIFICATION
In pursuance of section 6 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act No. 53 of 1952), the list of Notaries
practicing in the Union territory of Puducherry, as on 1st January, 2020, are as mentioned in the Appendix together
with their residential and professional addresses, and qualifications are published for information of the
general public.
J. JULIET PUSHPA,
Secretary to Government (Law).
APPENDIX
List of Notaries in the Union territory of Puducherry as on 1-1-2020
Sl.
Name of the Notary
Residential and
Qualification
Area in which
Date of expiry
No.
Professional Address
he/she is
of Certificate
authorized
of Practice
to practice
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Thiruvalargal:
1
S.S. Thanasekaran
No. 290, First Floor,
M.A., M.L.
Puducherry
06-10-2020
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Puducherry-605 001.
2
A. Kanniappan
No. 40, IV Cross Street,
B.A., B.L.
Puducherry
06-10-2020
Venkata Nagar,
Puducherry-605 011.
3
A.M. Amirtharaj
No. 38, Labourdonnais Street,
B.A., B.L.
Puducherry
01-11-2024
Puducherry-605 001.