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 : ` 8-00
Prix : ` 8-00
Price : ` 8-00
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 : 9-6-2020
Price : ` 8-00
[ 379 ]
®ı
Amflºƒˆ
ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\
2020 }
Û[ |
9 {
No.
23
Poudouchéry
Mardi
9
Juin
2020 (19 Jyaistha 1942)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
9th
June
2020
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^..
380
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 380
Award of the Labour Court
.. 380
de tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
384
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 384
Government Notifications
.. 384
∞È ∂§s©AÔ^d
..
386
Vente publique
.. 386
Auction Notices
.. 386
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
386
Etablissements dangereux
.. 386
Dangerous Establishments
..
386
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
388
Annonces
.. 388
Announcements
..
388
380
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[9 June 2020
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 42/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 17th March 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas,an Award in I.D. (T) No. 11/2019, dated
21-01-2020 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between
the management of M/s. Puducherry Institute of
Medical Sciences, Kalapet, Puducherry and Union
Workmen represented by Puduvai Maruthuva Vingana
Niruvana Thesia Thozhilargal Sangam, INTUC-PIMS,
Puducherry, over non-payment of bonus for the year
2017-2018 as per the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 in
respect of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this
order;
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.
Tuesday, the 21st day of January, 2020.
I.D. (T) No. 11/2019
The Secretary,
Puduvai Maruthuva Vingana Niruvana
Thesia Thozhilalargal Sangam INTUC - PIMS,
No. 28, Saint Therese Street,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Puducherry Institute of
Medical Sciences, Kalapet,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing, in presence of Thiru L. Sathish, Counsel
for the respondent, on record, the petitioner remained
absent, no representation has been made on his behalf,
up on perusing the 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. 55/AIL/Lab./T/2019, dated 09-04-2019 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 represented by Puduvai Maruthuva
Vingana Niruvana Thesia Thozhilalargal Sangam
INTUC-PIMS, Puducherry, against the management
of M/s. Puducherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Kalapet, Puducherry, over non-payment of bonus for
the year 2017-2018 as per the Payment of Bonus Act,
1965 is justified or not? If justified, what relief the
Union Workmen are entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the
petitioner called absent. No representation. Claim
Statement not filed from 06-08-2019 itself. Hence, this
reference is dismissed for default. No Cost.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 21st day of January, 2020.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 43/AIL/Lab./T/2020,
Puducherry, dated 17th March 2020)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 13/2017, dated
31-01-2020 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, in
respect of the Industrial Dispute between the management
of M/s. Mahe Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society
Limited, Mahe and Thiru Vadakkan Vijayan (Weavers)
and 22 workers as stated in the Annexure, over enhancement
of wages has been received;
381
9 June 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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 AT
PUDUCHERRY
CAMP COURT SITTING AT MAHE
Present : Thiru V. PANDIARAJ, B.SC., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer.
Friday, the 31st day of January, 2020.
I.D. (T) No. 13/2017
Vadakkan Vijayan (Weavers) and 22 workers,
M/s. Mahe Handloom Weavers
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
No. P.375, P.O. Naluthara, Pallor,
Mahe, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Mahe Handloom Weavers
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
No. P.375, P.O. Naluthara, Pallor,
Mahe, Puducherry.
2. The President,
M/s. Mahe Handloom Weavers
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
No. P.375, P.O. Naluthara, Pallor,
Mahe, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 03-01-2020 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru T. Ashok
Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal
A.P. Ashokan and D. Soundararajan, Counsel for the
respondent, up on hearing, up on perusing the case
records, after having stood over for consideration till
this day, 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. 80/
AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 17-05-2017 for adjudicating the
following:
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the 23 workers
of Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Mahe,
against the management of M/s. Handloom Weavers
Co-operative Society, Mahe, over enhancement of
wages is justified or not? If justified, what relief they
are entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The brief averment of the petition filed by the
petitioner:-
(i) The respondent in this dispute is a Co-operative
Society engaged in the business of Handloom
Weaving. The workman/petitioners involved in this
dispute are the employees as weavers in the
respondent’s establishment. Despite, they have got
long and continuous service they were paid very
meager and nominal wages which is far below the
National Floor Level Wages, which in turn also far
below the minimum wages fixed for the handloom
industry. The respondent/establishment fixed the
wages for each item of piece of goods originally at a
very meager and nominal rate. Thereupon, the
enhancement of wages was also made at very meager
and nominal rate. As per which, the petitioners/
workmen were getting ` 60 to ` 80 per day. The
employees employed in various other sections were
getting wages in between ` 700 to ` 900 per day.
These petitioners are struggling very hard for their
day to day life. They are having the right to claim
enhancement of wages from the respondent
management. They approached the Regional
Administrator and M.L.A. of Mahe, but, it ended in
vain. These petitioners filed a complaint before the
Assistant Inspector of Labour-cum-Conciliation
Officer, Mahe on 22-09-2016. He has made several
rounds of conciliation. The respondent management
stated that, it is only a Primary Society and the Apex
Society is Pontex and it is supplying materials to it
for manufacturing handloom goods and that wages
were fixed by Pontex and paid by it only. The
Conciliation Officer advised the management to take
steps to provide wage as ` 160 per day to the
workmen as an interim measure with effect from
01-07-2005. Then he issued the letter to the Pontex
as requested by this management. The Conciliation
Officer waited for more than one and half months,
but, there was no response from Pontex and hence,
he has submitted the failure report to the Government.
These petitioners are the employees of the
management and the relationship of employer and
employee, exists between the management and
this petitioners. The management is liable to pay
fair and reasonable wages to these petitioners.
The Pontex is not Apex Society of this management.
382
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[9 June 2020
The respondent/management denied the fair wages
in an unjustified manner. These petitioners/workmen
are entitle for enhanced rate of wages of ` 160 per
day from 01-07-2003 to 21-09-2016. Further, they are
entitled to get the difference of wages for the
abovesaid period. These petitioners/workmen are
entitle to get a minimum salary of ` 500 per day from
22-09-2016 onwards and they are entitled for 10% of
enhanced wages every year on the consolidated pay.
They are also entitled for difference is wages from
22-09-2016 till the date of Award, hence, this petition
has to be allowed.
3. The brief averment of the counter filed by the
respondent:-
(i) All the averments and the claim made in the
claim statement is denied as false and this respondent
is not at all responsible to pay the same as claimed
in the claim petition. The respondent Society is having
23 workmen, out of which 13 workers were working as
in-shed workers and the remaining workers are
working as out-shed workers and they are doing their
work from their houses during their free time. The
respondent/management is receiving yarn from the
Pontex, Puducherry and they are paying prescribed
wages to the workers. Originally the workmen worked
at their flexible timings and their performance are not
equal and the workmen used to weave 3 to 10 pieces
of finished goods, like towel, per day. It was very
much low than the expected performance of a worker
considering the availability of yarn and infrastructure.
There is no target fixed for these petitioners and they
can do work as per their wishes. The Pontex has paid
the wages to these petitioners and this management
is not having any control over these petitioners.
Further, these petitioners are getting Additional
allowances as follows:
(a)
Increase in DA at the rate of 10% every year.
(b)
The in-shed workmen are eligible for ESI
facility and out-shed workmen are paid medical
allowance @ ` 100 p.m.
(c)
Gift coupon of ` 1,500 during Pongal festival.
(d)
Free sarees and blouse to female, and dothi
and towel to male members.
(c)
Group insurance to a tune of ` 60,000 to
members.
(f)
Wage incentive @ 30% of wages subject to a
ceiling of ` 7,500.
(g)
Children Education Allowance from ` 400 to
` 2,000 per annum from I Std to College level.
(h)
Government contribution to thrift fund @ 12%
of their wages.
(i)
Rain season subsidy of ` 1,500.
(j)
Superannuation pension of ` 2,100 p.m.
(k)
` 10,000 As grant to deceased member from
Handloom Weavers Welfare Fund.
(ii) The raw materials and the wages were supplied
by the Apex authority of this management namely,
Pontex to these petitioners. As this management is
doing the job as per the direction of the Pontex it
cannot act according to his own decision, hence, the
claims cannot be claimed from this respondent, which
can be claimed from the Pontex under the control of
Government of Puducherry, hence, this petition has
been dismissed.
4. No oral evidence and documents were adduced on
both sides. Both side Counsels argued their cases as
per the plea raised in their statements.
5. Points for consideration:
Whether the dispute raised by the 23 workers of
Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Mahe,
against the management of M/s. Handloom Weavers
Co-operative Society, Mahe, over enhancement of
wages is justified or not? If justified, what relief they
are entitled to? To compute the relief if any, awarded
in terms of money if, it can be so computed?
6. On the point:
The petitioner side Counsel argued that these
petitioners/workmen were employed under the
respondent management and they were paid lesser
wages and they were entitled for enhancement of
wages and they are coming under the control of the
respondent management and therefore, their claim
has to be answered in their favour.
7. The respondent side Counsel argued that these
petitioners are not coming under the control of the
respondent management and they are coming under the
control of Pontex, the Apex Society and therefore, the
claim cannot stand hold and hence, he prayed to dismiss
the claim made by these petitioners.
8. The petitioners have stated that they were
employed under the respondent management and they
were paid very meager and nominal wages. They have
further stated that their salary was very much less than
that of the National Floor Level Wages, which in turn
far below than that of the minimum wages prescribed
under the Minimum Wages Act. Further, they have
stated that they were entitle for enhancement of wages
and hence, this industrial dispute has to be answered
in their favour. In order to prove the pleadings as
narrated above in their claim statement, nobody has
come forward to adduce evidence in their favour. That
is no oral evidence was adduced by these petitioner to
383
9 June 2020]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
support their claim. Furthermore, no single document was
filed to substantiate their claim. Thus, it is found that
though they have made claims, they have not come
forward to prove their pleadings by evidences and
documents. Hence, merely on the basis of their pleading
alone, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that
they have proved their case. Hence, on the basis of no
evidence and no documents, this claim petition found
to be fit for dismissal.
9. At this juncture, this Court inclined to mention
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in 2005 LLR 737.
The abovesaid judgment was rendered by the Bench
containing 3 Judges, wherein, it was held that
“pleadings of the parties are no substitute for the
proof and when a particular plea is controverted by
a party, the other party has to produce the evidence
in support of its contention”.
10. Here, in this case, the petitioners failed to come
forward to adduce any evidence to substantiate their
claim. Furthermore, they have not produce any document
to show their employment and receipt of wages. It
shows their failure of proving their case prima faciely.
Furthermore, their employment was denied by the
respondent management, even after that they have not
come forward to adduce evidence. Therefore, this Court
was unable to come to the conclusion that the
petitioners/workmen proved their case as per the
abovesaid judgment.
11. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LP No. 283/2013,
two well recognized tests has to be applied to find out
the principal employer.
(i) Whether the principal employer pays the
salary.
(ii) Whether the principal employer controls and
supervise the works of the employees.
12. Here, in this case the respondent has pleaded
that Pontex is the Apex authority and they are the
primary Society. Further, it has pleaded that the materials
and the wages were supplied by the Pontex, Therefore,
in order to testify the same both parties have to appear
and give evidence on their side i.e., both parties have
to produce their documents to substantiate their claims.
Then only this Court can apply the abovesaid test and
it can find out whether this respondent/management is
giving salary or not? and then the respondent is having
control over the petitioner/employees. Since, no
evidence was adduced on both sides, this Court was
unable to apply the abovesaid tests to find out the
principal employer. Hence, on that score also this
industrial dispute becomes fit for dismissal for lack of
evidence.
13. In the result, this industrial dispute is dismissed.
No cost.
Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced, by me in the open Court on
this the 31st day of January, 2020.
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesses: Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits: Nil
List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil
ANNEXURE
(1)
(2)
1. Vijayan
2. Susila
3. Shobha
4. P. Susitra
5. M. Sasi
6. Pradeepan
7. M. Seena
8. P. Beena
9. P. Shiyamala
10. P.D. Chandri
11. Thondan Chandri
12. Sadi Paroli
13. K. Usha
14. T. Latha
15. P. Rajeevan
16. P. Radha
17. M. Devan
18. K. Prema
19. V. Susitra
20. P.V. Prasita
21. T. Rajini
22. C. Sheeba
23. Pushpavalli
V. PANDIARAJ,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.