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
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
Registered No. PY/44/2021-23
[197]
®ı
Amflºƒˆ
ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\
2022 }
\VÏfl |
15 {
No.
11 Poudouchéry
Mardi
15
Mars
2022 (24 Phalguna 1943)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
15th
March
2022
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ .. 198
Sentence arbitr al du Travail
.. 198
Award of the Labour Court .. 198
de Tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
.. 208
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 208
Government Notifications
.. 208
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
.. 221
Annonces
.. 221
Announcements
..
221
]Ú›>D
.. 224
Corrigendum
.. 224
Corrigendum
.. 224
198
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2022
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 18/AIL/Lab./T/2021,
Puducherry, dated 7th February 2022)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 01/2018, dated
17-12-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. A & F Overseas Trade
Limited, Uruvaiyar and Tmt. K. Sundari, Uruvaiyar, over
non-employment due to shifting of factory 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)
D. MOHAN KUMAR,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.
Presiding Officer.
Friday, the 17th day of December 2021.
I.D. (L) No. 01/2018
in
C.N.R. No. PYPY060000972018
1. Sundari (Died)
Rep. by her next friend/legal heir
2. Karthikeyan
3. Suganthi
4. Sugumar
. . Petitioners
Amended as per order, dated 09-09-2021 passed in
I.A.No. 02/2021.
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. A & F Overseas Trade Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial dispute coming on 22-11-2021 before
me for final healing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
R.T. Shankar, A. Ashok Kumar, L.K. Saravanan,
B. Balamurugan and P. Suresh, Counsels for the
petitioners and Thiru S. Sankaralingam, Counsel for the
respondent, upon hearing both sides, perusing the case
records, after having stood over for consideration till
this day, this Court delivered the following:
AWARD
This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 189/AIL/Lab./T/2017,
dated 30-11-2017 for adjudicating whether the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner Tmt. K. Sundari,
w/o. Karthikeyan, Uruvaiyar against the management of
M/s. A & F Overseas Trade Limited, Uruvaiyar
Puducherry, over non-employment due to shifting of
factory is justified and if justified, what relief the
petitioner is entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Brief averments made in the claim statement of
the petitioner:
The petitioner is working as an operator in the
respondent company since, 1992 and her last drawn
wages is ` 5,850 per month. The petitioner was
served in the respondent management in processing
of leather using chemicals for the past 25 years, due
to which she was suffered by chronic diseases she
has served in the respondent management in the past
25 years with a meager salary as ` 5,850 per month.
When petitioner was taking treatment for her ill
health the respondent management closed the factory
on 07-05-2016 and shifted to a new place without prior
approval of the Government of Puduchcrry, which is
violative of sections 25-N and 25-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Due to the illegal closure of the
respondent company the petitioner lost her
employment and she was not in a position to
continue her employment. The petitioner raised
dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Labour
Department Puducherry, but, the same was ended in
failure and hence, the matter was referred to this
Court for adjudication. The closure of the respondent
factory and shifting the same somewhere else
resulted in closure of industrial undertaking which
involves termination of employment of the petitioner.
The petitioner pray for direction to the respondent
management to pay the closure compensation entitled
to the petitioner and also to pay the full and final
settlement for her 25 years of service amounting to
` 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs only).
199
15 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent company M/s. A & F Overseas
Trade limited is a registered company engaged in
manufacturing shoe uppers of job work basis for
large manufacturers. Due to heavy competition in the
market and global recession, the respondent company
could not perform well and became a sick industrial
undertaking. The respondent company has declared
as a sick unit under section 22(1) of the Sick
Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
The respondent company continued its operation in
spite of sickness and the respondent company never
thought of topping his manufacturing activity in the
interest of the workmen.
(ii) The respondent company was constrained to
repay the secured creditors and through sale of the
land and superstructure of the factory owned by the
company. In the said circumstances, the respondent
company was constrained to move its factory to
another premises in the same locality. After finding
the suitable location in the same locality and after
informing the workman well in advance on 07-05-2016
and 05-07-2016. On the said date circulars were
issued to all workmen informing the shifting of the
factory to the nearest place. All the workmen except
the petitioner has fully cooperated with the
management and peacefully continued their job.
There is neither retrenchment of workers nor closure
of the factory. All the workers are continued to be
employed in the respondent company on the same
terms and conditions with continuity of service and
attendant benefits. The interest of the workmen were
totally protected with no reduction of wages and
there is no financial burden on the workmen. There
is no transfer, dismissal, retrenchment and there is
no transfer of employer also. Free transportation to
factory and thereafter, to workers residences has
been continued in the new location also. The
petitioner along with an ulterior motive has
approached the Conciliation Authority with false
allegations. The Conciliation Authority without
dismissing the false claim of the petitioner had
chosen to issue a failure report. The petitioners case
is purely a grievance of an individual and that too
an imaginary grievance about her non-employment.
(iii) In fact, the petitioner has been willfully and
wantonly absenting herself to duty from 29-07-2016.
The respondent has informed all the Government
Authorities regarding to the proposed shifting of the
factory as early as an 07-07-2016. Thus, there is not
closure of the respondent factory and what had been
done for the respondent is only legal shifting of the
factory premises, the other employees of the
respondent management continued their employment
with the respondent factory with all benefit. The
transportation bills for the period June 2016 to
September 2016 would clearly reveal that the
workmen were carried out from their residences to the
factory and from the factory to the residences at free
of cost. The occupational disease has stated by the
petitioner is only hypothetical and there is no medical
proof. In fact, the petitioner on her own volition has
willfully and wantonly absented herself in the
respondent factory and the respondent neither closed
the factory nor retrenchment. Since, the petitioner
was neither dismissed nor refused to give
employment by the respondent, she is not entitled
for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
4. On the petitioner side, Sundari was examined as
PW.1 and through her proof affidavit was filed, Ex.P1
to Ex.P8 were marked. On the respondent side RW.1
Xavier Albin was examined, Ex.R1 to R11 were marked.
5. Points for consideration:
Whether the non-employment of petitioner
Tmt. K. Sundari in the respondent management is
justified? If so, what are the relief entitled to the
petitioner?
6. In the evidence of PW.1, Tmt. Sundari, she has
deposed that she was working as an operator in the
respondent company from the year 1992 for a meager
salary of ` 5,850 per month. Since, the petitioner worked
for more than 25 years, she was affected by disease and
she has approached the ESI hospital. The respondent
management closed the factory on 07-05-2016 and
shifted the same to some other place without previous
permission of the Government. The petitioner therefore,
was constrained to raise the dispute before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) for arriving at amicable settlement,
but, there was no conclusion reached before the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) and he has filed a failure report.
The petitioners served with the respondent management
for more than 25 years. The respondent management
closed the factory and shifted to somewhere else, as a
result, the closure of an industrial undertaking involve
the termination of the employment of the petitioner. The
petitioner prayed for closure compensation under
section 25 FFF(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and also
prayed for full and final settlement of the monetary
relief.
7. Thiru Xavier Albin, Commercial Manager of the
respondent management was examined as RW1. In his
evidence he has deposed that the respondent
200
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2022
management is a company registered under the Indian
Companies Act and having factory at Puducherry. The
company engaged in manufacturing shoe uppers on a
job work basis, for the large scale manufacturers. Due
to heavy market competition and global recession, the
respondent company was not able to perform well and
became a sick industrial undertaking. The Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has also
declared the respondent company as a sick industrial
unit. The respondent company was struggling to pay
the secured creditors for safeguard the assets of the
respondent company. The respondent left with no other
alternative was constrained to move the factory to
another premises in the same locality. The company
ensure that none of the workman suffer loss of wages
due to shifting of the company. The company has also
issued circulars, dated 07-05-2016 and 05-07-2016. After
gaining total confidence from the workers side the
company was shifted to the neighborhood. All workmen
except the petitioner has fully cooperated for the
shifting of the factory and they are continued to serve
with the respondent management. There was neither
retrenchment of workers nor closure or sale of factory
and all the workers are continued to be employed in the
factory on the same terms and conditions and moreover
of the interest all the workers are totally protected with
continuity of service and there is no reduction of wages
or allowances. The petitioner alone on imaginary motive
has approached the Conciliation Authority with
imaginary allegations and claims. It is unfortunate on
the part of the Conciliation Authority by dismissing the
false claim of the petitioner has chosen to issue a
failure report for adjudication before the Court. The
respondent has also informed all Governmental
Authorities about the proposed shifting of the factory.
8. RW.1 further deposed that local shifting of the
factory would not amount to closure of the factory.
What has been done is only a local shifting of the
factory and entire workmen were informed well in
advance. It is not correct to say that the respondent
does not obtained prior approval of the Government.
Moreover, the claim of the petitioner regarding
occupational disease is only hypothetical in the
absence of medical evidence. Even in the case of
occupational disease she is fully protected under the
ESI Scheme by virtue of the coverage of Insurance,
hence, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that
the petitioner joined the respondent company in the
year 1992 and worked as a machine operator. Ever since,
the date of her appointment, she was working well to
the satisfaction of the respondent management. The
petitioner has completed 25 years of service with the
respondent management and has suffered due to
occupational chronic diseases for which she has
regularly got treatment. The petitioner all along worked
for a meagre salary of ` 5,850 per month. When the
petitioner was attending the hospital for medical
checkup the respondent management has closed the
factory on 07-05-2016 without getting prior approval
from the Government. The respondent management with
an ulterior motive has shifted the factory address in
order to create the situation that the employees
themselves come forward to relinquish their job.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submit that the closure of factory without permission
of the Government would be violative of section 25-N
and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent
management has never issued any circular individually
to the employees about the intended shifting of the
company. Moreover, the respondent management has
not consulted the employees who are about 250 in
numbers. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submit that the attendance register for the months of
June 2016 to October 2016 marked as Ex.R9 would go
to show that the large number of employees were found
absent in those three months due to uncertain condition
prevail in the company. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner further submit that the order of Board of
Industrial for Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) was,
dated 30-01-2001 stating that the petitioner company is
a sick industrial unit where as the respondent has taken
initiative for the shifting of the premises only in the year
2016. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submit that Ex.R6 and R7 documents are no way
connected with the permission sanctioned by the
Government of Puducherry for shifting of the factory.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit
that the respondent management has not cooperated
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to reach a
amicable settlement. In Ex.R4 failure report, dated
14 -09-2017 the Labour Officer (Conciliation) made an
observation that there was no cooperation from the
management to proceed, further, the matter was referred
for adjudication. The failure report of the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) has made it clear that the respondent
management never intended to give a solution to the
dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submit that the respondent management of their own
has shifted the factory and there was no individual
communication to any of the employees. The respondent
management has not considering the legitimate right of
the employees has acted in a lethargic manner and has
shifted the factory in violation to the principles laid
down in Industrial Diaputes Act.
201
15 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that there is no mention in the appointment order of the
petitioner that the nature of her job is transferable.
There is no rules in the company standing orders that
the employees employed in the company are liable to
be transfered from one place to another. The respondent
management has failed to produce the company
standing orders since, the same is against their case.
The petitioner and other employees were compelled to
be an absent from duty due to the inhuman act of the
respondent management. The non-employment of the
petitioner is not the choice of the petitioner and she
has not relieved from the service of the company on
her own volition. The non-employment of the petitioner
is nothing but retrenchment as defined under section
2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act. All the petitioners are
entitled for retrenchment compensation under section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and also the
petitioner is entitled for full and final settlement for her
25 long years of service in the respondent management.
13. The learned Counsel for the respondent
management submit that the respondent company has
faced heavy competition in the business and due to
global recession they could not perform well and there
was a production loss. Since, the secured creditors of
the respondent company has moved for liquidation
proceedings. The respondent management tried for
viable option to settle the issue. Since, there was no
other alternative to settle the issue, the respondent
ultimately decided to sell the properties and to shift the
factory to Poraiyur, Puducherry in order to ensure that
all the employees are safeguarded and their interest is
protected. The learned Counsel for the respondent
management further submit that before effecting such
local shifting all the employees were informed through
Ex.R2 and R3 circulars, dated 07-05-2016 and 05-07-2016
respectively. All the employees except the petitioner
understood the difficult situation faced by the
respondent company and agreed to continue to work
in the new factory premises which is only 2.5 kilometers
away from the existing premises.
14. The petitioner even before the shifting of the
factory has absented herself from attending the
company from 29-07-2016. The petitioner has not filed
any documents to show that she was suffering from
chronic diseases which are occupational in nature. If,
at all the petitioner was suffered due to occupational
disease she would have got treatment in the ESI
hospital since, he was issued with ESI card Ex.R11. The
learned Counsel for the respondent management further
submit that when all the employees has accepted for
the shifting of the premises, the petitioner has
approached the Labour Officer (Conciliation) for
Conciliation. Even before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) she has not accepted to continue her job,
but, want full and final settlement which itself show that
the petitioner is not intended to continue further as an
employee.
15. The learned Counsel for the respondent
management further submit that when the respondent
has offered for employment in the newly shifted factory
with the same terms and conditions. The petitioner has
not opted to accept the offer given by the management
from which it is clear that there was no retrenchment
on the part of the respondent management. It is only a
local shifting and not a transfer of a company and
hence, the respondent management is not liable to pay
any compensation under section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent
further submit that except the petitioner all other
employees are still continued to work in the newly
shifted premises with continuity of service and with
same terms and conditions. The petitioner without
understanding the fact has given a false complaint
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation). The Labour
Officer (Conciliation) without dismissal of the complaint
preferred by the petitioner has sent a failure report
which is not at all tenable. It is further submitted that
the respondent got previous permission from the
Director of Industries, Government of Puducherry and
District Industries Centre which is evident from the
Ex.R6 and R7. The learned Counsel for the respondent
submit that Ex.R9 attendance for the staff members for
the period June 2016 to October 2016 would goes to
show that other employees were regularly present. Due
to the mis-apprehension of the petitioner she has left
the respondent company from 29-07-2016 and thereafter,
she has not attended the duty. On the respondent
management side a notice was issued on her for which
there was no response from the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the job security of the employees were
ensured by the management and there was no loss of
employment to any of the employees. The petitioner
unnecessarily has approached the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) without any justifiable basis and she is
not entitled for the protection guaranteed under section
25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and she is not
entitled for any compensation from the respondent
management.
16. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions. The petitioner Tmt. Sundari as per the
appointment order was appointed in the year 1996. In
Ex.R11 ESI Card issued to the petitioner the date of
appointment was mentioned as 02-07-1992. There is no
dispute that the petitioner was all along worked as
202
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2022
machine operator. The respondent company since face
severe loss due to stiff competition in the market as to
settle the secured creditors hence, the respondent
company has moved the BIFR and got an order that the
respondent factory is a sick unit. Since, the settlement
talks with the secured creditors was not fructified the
respondent has initiated selling the property of the
factory and settled the creditors which would ultimately
safeguard the interest of the workmen by shifting the
factory to nearby premises. The respondent management
has issued Ex.R2 and R3 circulars, dated 07-05-2016 and
05-07-2016 intimating the idea of transferring the factory
to the nearest premises. According to the respondent
except the petitioner all the other employees of the
respondent has agreed for the said proposal and has
joined in the newly shifted factory with all benefits as
they have received earlier. The terms and conditions of
the employment was also same as in the earlier factory.
In all the ways the respondent company has protected
the interest of the workmen by arranging transport
facility from the residences to the factory and from the
factory to the residences.
17. The respondent has also submitted the Ex.R6
letter submitted to the Director of Industries as to the
proposal to shift the company premises. Ex.R7 filed by
the respondent to show that the proposal for shifting
was already intimated to the District Industries Centre.
The petitioner being dissatisfied with the move of the
respondent company the same to some other place has
filed a representation before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation). The respondent management has also
appeared before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and
filed the reply, dated 07-05-2016 that there was no loss
of employment or retrenchment out of shifting their
premises. The Conciliation proceedings was ended in
failure and the matter was referred to this Court for
adjudication. The petitioner has addressed Ex.P2 letter,
dated 26-04-2016 to the Manager Administration for job
protection and continuity of service. From the evidence
of RW.1 it is clear that the company was shifted on
07-05-2016 there is no evidence available on record that
the respondent has discussed or negotiated with the
workmen regarding the shifting of the factory. Ex. R3
and R4 the circulars were issued only on 05-07-2016 and
14-09-2017 and the first circular was issued only on the
date of shifting. This Court has perused the Ex.R6 and
R7 which cannot be considered to be the permission
granted by the Government for shifting of the factory
premise. On perusal of Ex.R9 attendance registers the
petitioner has absented from duty from 29-07-2016.
18. This Court has considered the attention of the
petitioner that the proposal for shifting of the factory
has create shock waves in the mind of the workman and
they got frustrate due to the sudden and untimely
decision of the respondent management to shift the
factory premises. The respondent has not produced the
appoint order of the petitioner or the company standing
order that the employment of the petitioner is subjected
to transfer. Though the respondent has stated that they
have issued notice to the petitioner for their absence
the said notice was not filed before this Court. On the
other hand, the evidence of the petitioner she has stated
that the respondent intimidated her not to come to work
and the petitioner has no knowledge about the circulars
circulate to the workmen regarding shifting of the
factory. The respondent has not issued any written
order of termination.
19. The petitioner is a protected workmen under
section 33 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the
non-employment of the petitioner in the circumstances
discussed above would certainly amount dismissal from
service. The petitioner being a protected workmen is
entitled for compensation under section 25FFF of the
Industrial Disputes Act “Compensation to workmen in
case of closing down of undertakings: where an
undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever,
every workman who has been in continuous service for
not less than one year in that undertaking immediately
before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (20) be entitled to notice and compensation
in accordance with the provisions of section 25F, as if
the workman had been retrenched.
Provided that where the undertaking is closed
down on account of unavoidable circumstances
beyond
the
control
of
the
employer,
the
compensation to be paid to the workman under clause
(b) of section 25F, shall not exceed his average pay
for three months.
(i)
financial difficulties (including financial
losses); or
(ii)
accumulation of indisposed stocks; or
(iii) the expire of the period of the lease or licence
granted to it; or
(iv)
in case where the undertaking is engaged in
mining operations, exhaustion of the
minerals in the the area in which such
operations are carried on,
shall not be deemed to be closed down on account of
unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the
employer within the meaning of the proviso to this
sub-section”.
203
15 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
20. From the discussions made supra, this Court
come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled
for notice and compensation which was not done so in
the present case. During the course of trial the petitioner
Tmt. Sundari, expired and her legal heirs were brought
on record. Being the legal heirs of the petitioner they
are entitled to receive the compensation.
21. From the evidence of both sides and the
documents filed in support of both sides, it is clear that
the service of the petitioner ends abruptly. The
petitioner having served for about 25 years her service
should not be deprived without holding proper enquiry.
22. In support of fixing compensation to the
petitioner the learned Counsel for the petitioner has
invited this Court attention to the Judgment of Division
Bench of Our Hon’ble High Court in Meenakshi
Sundaram vs. The Presiding Officer and another
reported in 2020 LLR 1003 wherein, Hon’ble High Court
held “since, the services of the appellant had been
terminated, without there being any valid termination
order, we find that interest of justice would be served
by further increasing the compensation from ` l,25,000
to ` 2,00,000”.
23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also
invited this Court attention to the Judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Shetty vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. case reported
in 1957 II LLJ 696 “that computation has relation only
to the date from which reinstatement of the workman
has been ordered under the award and the Industrial
Tribunal will have to take into account the terms and
conditions of the employment, the tenure of service, the
possibility of termination of employment at the instance
of either party, the possibility of retrenchment by the
employer or resignation or retirement by the workman
and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist”. In
yet another case our Hon’'ble High Court in the
Management of DCM Hyundai Limited vs. The Presiding
Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and others
considering the workmen who has serviced for more
than 5 years of their tenure has come to an end abruptly
as directed the management to pay a sum of ` 2,00,000.
In the present case, the petitioner has claimed
` 10,00,000. This Court is of the considered opinion that
there is no justification for claiming monetary relief of
` 10,00,000 as full and final settlement.
24. This Court has carefully considered that the
petitioner was worked in the leather unit of the
respondent management for about 25 years and her
services come to an end abruptly which has to be
necessarily compensated, this Court have guided by the
case laws discussed above and in the facts and
circumstances of the case deem it fit to award just
compensation of ` 2,00,000 to the petitioners i.e., legal
heirs of the petitioner Tmt. Sundari.
25. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The
respondent management is directed to pay compensation
of ` 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh only) to the petitioners
within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this Award.
No costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 17th day of December 2021.
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 02-01-2019
Sundari
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 14-09-2017
Photocopy of the Failure
Report.
Ex.P2
— 26-04-2016
Photocopy of the letter
sent by the petitioner.
Ex.P3 —
Photocopy of the ESIC
Card.
Ex.P4
— 28-04-2016
Photocopy of the letter
sent by the petitioner.
Ex.P5
— 24-08-2016
Photocopy of the letter
sent by the petitioner.
Ex.P6
— 03-10-2016
Photocopy of the letter
sent by the petitioner.
Ex.P7
— 30-03-1996
Photocopy
of
the
appointment order issued by
the Management to the
petitioner.
Ex.P8
— 07-05-2016
Photocopy of the circular
issued by the Management.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1
— 08-08-2019
Xavier Albin
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1
— 30-01-2001
Attested copy of BIFR
Registration
Certificate
bearing Registration No.
359/2000.
Ex.R2
— 07-05-2016
Attested
copy
of
the
circular of the respondent.
204
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2022
Ex.R3
— 05-07-2016
Attested
copy
of
the
circular of the respondent.
Ex.R4
— 14-09-2017
Conciliation Authority’s
letter to the Government of
Puducherry in Registration
No. 679/LO(C).AIL/2016.
Ex.R5 —
Attested
copy
of
the
Attendance Registers for
July 2016, August 2016 and
September 2016.
Ex.R6
— 07-07-2016
Attested
copy
of
the
respondent’s letter to the
Director
of
Industries,
Government of Puducherry.
Ex.R7
— 01-08-2016
Attested
copy
of
the
Endorsement of the District
Industries
Center,
Puducherry
as
per
Endorsement No. 26/DIC/EI/
IGB-VCP/16-17.
Ex.R8
— 23-07-2016
Attested
copy
of
the
Government
of
India,
Ministry of MSME, Udyog
Aadhaar Memo.
Ex.R9 —
Attested
copy
of
Attendance Registers for
June 2016 and October 2016.
Ex.R10 —
Transportation Bills of
various transporters for the
months of June 2016, July
2016 August 2016 and
September 2016 (Nos. 26).
Ex.R11 —
Copy of the ESI card of the
petitioner bearing Insurance
No. 5511076687.
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 19/AIL/Lab./T/2021,
Puducherry, dated 9th February 2022)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 25/2019, dated
30-12-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between
the management of M/s. Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Krishi
Vigyan Kendra, Kurumbapet, Puducherry and the union
workmen represented by Puducherry State Federation
NR Congress Thozhilalar Sangam, Koundarpalayam,
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 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
D. MOHAN KUMAR,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 30th day of December 2021.
I.D. (L) No. 25/2019
in
C.N.R. No. PYPY060000412019
1. K. Sumathi
2. S. Ramesh
3. V. Subramani
4. K. Chandira
5. R. Usha
6. K. Papathiammal
7. M. Veerappan
8. A. Sasireka
9. C. Mangalatchumy
10. A. Muthulakshmi
11. E. Loganayagi
12. P. Krishnaveni
13. D. Valli @ Rani
14. J. Ilamathi
15. S. Umamaheswari
16. G. Suresh
17. R. Narayanan
18. R. Ramar
19. V. Ariraman
20. A. Malathi
205
15 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
21. A. Janarthanan
22. R. Sulochana
23. S. Gunavathi
24. N. Gandhimathi
25. K. Premkumari
26. T. Karnan
27. D. Datchinamoorthy
28. R. Sethuraman
29. S. Jayaganesh
30. P. Ranjith
31. M. Suresh
32. D. Arul
33. R. Murugan
34. S. Manimegalai
35. B. Babishila
36. E. Punniavalli
37. C. Ramesh
38. M. Purushothaman
39. R. Balaji
40. B. Vignesh .
41. R. Vinothkumar
42. M. Senthamarai
43. A. Santhammal
44. P. Balavinayagam
45. P. Thairiyalakshmi
46. M. Thamizhvani
47. A. Vennila
48. K. Sundaramurthy
49. K. Pazhanivel
50. S. Rasu
51. D. Kalaivani
52. R. Ammumuthammal
53. P. Janakulatchumy
54. R. Saravanan
55. A. Lingammal
56. S. Velvizhi
57. S. Saritha
58. J. Sheela
59. D. Latchumy
60. K. Devi
61. S. Sarala
62. J. Vanaja
63. L. Indhumathi
64. S. Ambiga
65. S. Parthasarathi
66. C. Vimala
67. R. Ravisankar
68. G. Poorani
69. S. Jayagirija
70. B. Emabin
71. N. Nithiya
72. R. Dhanalakshmi
73. V. Dinakaran
74. N. Ezhilarasan
75. K. Sudhagar
76. S. Baskaran
77. K. Manavalan
78. S. Vijaya
79. S. Sathiya
80. A. Raja
81. M. Rajakumari
82. S. Manibalan
83. M. Jayalakshmi
84. P. Sumithra
85. P. Santhi
86. N. Pushpa
87. S. Selvamani
88. A. Kavithalatchumy
Represented by The President,
Puducherry State Federation NR Congress
Thozhilalar Sangam,
No. 61/2, Vazhudavur Road
Opp. to Aswini Hospital,
First Floor, Koundarpalayam,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioners
Versus
The Principal-cum-Programme Coordinator,
Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Kurumbapet, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 22-12-2021 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
K. Velmurugan and P. Preethi Counsels for the petitioners,
Thiru M. Nakeeran, Counsel for the respondent, the
respondent being called absent and set exparte, upon
hearing the petitioner and perusing the case records,
this Court delivered the following:
206
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2022
AWARD
This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.
No. 71/AIL/Lab./T/2019, dated 09-05-2019 of the Labour
Department Puducherry, to resolve the following dispute
between the petitioners and the respondent viz.,
(a) Whether
the
dispute
raised
by
the
Union workmen represented by Puducherry State
Federation NR Congress Thozhilalar Sangam,
Koundanpalayam, Puducherry, against the management
of M/s. Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Kurumbapet, Puducherry, over regularization of
88 daily rated employees as listed in Annexure-I
is Justified or not? If justified, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Brief averments made in the claim Statement of
the petitioner:
The respondent organization was established in
the year 1974 and functioning under the control of
Government of Puducherry. The respondent
organization is having about 250 Acres of land in
which they are carrying out Agricultural Research
and also cultivation activities. On account of the
vacancies arose in the respondent organization due
to Superannuation of the senior workers and also due
to establishment of new branches the 88 workers
who are represented by the petitioner union was
appointed by the respondent organization from the
year 2008-2015. All the petitioners worked for more
than 240 days in every year without any bad remarks.
The respondent organization without filling up the
permanent posts has employed the petitioners on
daily rated basis and extracting their work for about
10 years with minimum wages. Besides several
representations given by the petitioners the
respondent has not regularised the services of the
petitioner moreover, the respondent has not extended
the benefits of ESI and EPF to the petitioners. The
respondent has also not issued identity card to the
petitioners hence, the petitioners union has
submitted the representation, dated 29-07-2016 to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry for suitable
action. On the respondent side they have filed reply
statement, dated 30-05-2017, 10-08-2018. The
Conciliation ended in failure and the failure report,
dated 11-11-2019 was submitted by the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), to the Government of Puducherry. All
the petitioners were worked with the respondent
organization for more than 240 days in every year
from the date of their appointment. The respondent
organization without regularising the services of the
petitioners has utilized their hard work for about 10
years which is illegal and against the principle of
estopel. Hence, the petitioner pray for passing of an
Award directing the respondent organization to
regularization of services of the 88 workmen whose
details are given in the Annexure.
3. Points for consideration:
(i) Whether the 88 daily rated employees working
with Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Puducherry are entitled for regularization?
4. On the respondent side they have entered
appearance and subsequently respondent was
set ex parte. On the petitioner side Tvl. K. Mohandoss,
s/o. Karunakaran, was examined in Chief and through
him EX.Pl to EX.P5 were marked.
5. In the evidence of PW.1 he has deposed that all
the 88 workers are appointed by the respondent
management from the year 2008-2015 onwards. Ever
since, the date of appointment the workers were
discharged their duties honestly without any black mark
whatsoever. The respondent management without taking
steps who regularise the services of the petitioner as
extracted work for more than 10 years with minimum
wages. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner has
preferred a representation, dated 29-07-2016 to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, but, the same
was not fructified. Based on the failure report filed by
the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, the
present case was referred to the Court by the
Government for adjudication. The petitioner further
deposed that there about 88 vacancies available with
the respondent management, but, they have not chosen
to regularize the services of the petitioners and still
keeping them as daily wages workers which is against
the established principles of Labour jurisprudence. The
petitioner pray for regularising the service of the 88
workmen.
6. Ex.P1, dated 29-07-2016 is the representation
submitted by the Union to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry and Ex.P2 is the counter
statement filed by the respondent management wherein,
they have stated that the petitioners failed to establish
in the petition that there exists an Industrial Dispute
between the petitioner and the respondent and the
petitioners were engaged only on daily rate basis and
they are seasonal labourers and not against any vacant
post and therefore, they are not entitled to claim the
benefit of regularization with the respondent
management. Ex.P3 is the failure report, dated 11-01-2019
207
15 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
submitted by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry. Ex.P4 is the Government Gazette and Ex.P5
is the details of labours engaged as casual labours after
27-02-2009. In Ex.P5 list there are about 128 names were
identified. However, the petition is filed by union only
in respect of 88 persons.
7. The respondent has not denied that the petitioners
were engaged with respondent from the year 2008-2015
regularly till date. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submit that all the petitioners were engaged by the
respondent for more than 240 days every year and they
are entitled for regularization. This Court has carefully
considered the submission made by the learned Counsel
for the petitioners and documents filed in respect of the
contention. The petitioners were engaged in the
respondent management from the year 2008-2015 and
they are regularly engaged for the Agricultural work
which is perennial in nature.
8. Under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
“workman” means, any person (including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory
work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied and for the purposes
of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who has
been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose
dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute”.
9. All the petitioners were worked for more than 240
days in each calendar year ever since, date of entry into
service hence, they have the protection under section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner has invited this Court
attention to the Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in 2003(4) LLN 425 BC (Uttar Pradesh
Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Company Limited vs.
Ramanuj Yadav and others relied on by the Counsel for
the management is extracted hereunder:
“The decision in the case on Mohan Lal does not
lay down that if, a workman had worked for more than
240 days in any number of years and if, during the
year of his termination, he had worked for the said
number of days, he would not be entitled to the
benefit of S.25 B. The question with which we are
concerned was not under consideration in Mohan Lal
case. If, the view-point propounded by the management
is accepted, then in every year the workman would
be required to complete more than 240 days. If, in
anyone year the employer gives him actual work for
less than 240 days, the service of the workman can
be terminated without compliance of S.6N of the UP
Act, despite his having worked for number of years
and for more than 240 days in each year except the
last. Such an intention cannot be attributed to the
UP Act.”
“From the above decision, the Apex Court makes
it clear that section 25-B(2)(a) of the I.D. Act protects
the workman who rendered more than 240 days of
service in any of the years preceding the 12 months
from the date of the termination, but, failed to render
240 days of service in the last 12 months preceding
the date of termination”. “I have therefore, no
hesitation to hold that the termination of the
petitioner is illegal and void abinitio. The Award of
the Labour Court holding otherwise is erroneous and
is liable to be set aside.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has
invited this Court attention to the Judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases
552 Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki
Vishwavidyalaya vs. United Trades Congress and
Another held “A feeble attempt, however, was made by
the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
2 to state that he had been appointed against a
permanent vacancy. In his written statement, he did not
raise any such contention. It does not also appear from
the records that any offer of appointment was given to
him. It is inconceivable that an employee appointed on
a regular basis would not be given an offer of
appointment or shall not be placed on a scale of pay.
We, therefore, have no hesitation in proceeding on the
premise that Respondent 2 was appointed on daily
wages. The Industrial Court in passing the impugned
award proceeded on the premise that Respondent 2 had
been working for more than 240 days continuously from
the date of his engagement. It is now trite that the same
by itself does not confer any right upon a workman to
be regularized in service. Working for more than 240
days in a year was relevant only for the purpose of
application of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 providing for conditions precedent
to retrench the workmen. It does not speak of
acquisition of a right by the workman to be regularized
in service”.
11. From the discussions above made this Court is
of the considered opinion that the petitioners were
established that they are workmen as defined under
section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no
objection raised by the respondent that the petitioners
were worked for more than 240 days every year from
the date of their appointment. Moreover, the nature of
208
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[15 March 2022
work is perennial in nature and there is also regular
vacancy available with the respondent management.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the services
of the petitioners must be regularized by the respondent
management as per the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act and as per the established principles of
labour laws.
12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The
respondent management is directed to regularize the
services of 88 petitioners represented by Puducherry
State Federation NR Congress Thozhilalar Sangam,
within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this Award.
No costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 30th day of December 2021.
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 14-12-2021
Mohandoss
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1
— 29-07-2016
Xerox
copy
of
the
representation given by the
petitioner to the Labour
Officer
(Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P2
— 30-05-2017
Xerox copy of the reply
submitted by the respondent
to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) Puducherry.
Ex.P3
— 11-01-2019
Xerox copy of the failure
report submitted by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
Ex.P4
— 19-11-2013
Xerox copy of the Official
Gazette
of
Puducherry
publishing
the
Award
passed by this Court in I.D.
No. 32/2011.
Ex.P5
— 29-01-2015
Xerox copy of the RTI reply
containing
details
of
appointment
of
the
petitioner
workmen
in
respondent
management
issued by the respondent.
List of respondent’s witness: Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Nil
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 23/Lab./AIL/T/2022
Puducherry, dated 18th February 2022)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Tex Bond Nonwovens, R.S.No. 2/1, 2/2, Plot
No. A-27-30, PIPDIC Electronic Park, Thirubuvanai,
Mannadipet Commune, Puducherry-605 107 and
Tmt. P, Jagathambal and 11 others, over payment of full
and final settlement in lieu of employment in respect of
the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government,
it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of
1947), it is hereby directed by Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said dispute be referred to the
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, for adjudication. The
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, shall submit the Award
within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as
stipulated under sub-section 2-A of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with
rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. The party raising the dispute shall file a statement
of claim complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses to the Labour Court, Puducherry,
within 15 days of the receipt of the order of reference
and also forward a copy of such statement to each one
of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
ANNEXURE
(a) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
12 women workers against M/s. Tex Bond
Nonwovens, R.S.No. 2/1, 2/2, Plot No. A-27-30,
PIPDIC Electronic Park, Thirubuvanai, Mannadipet
Commune, Puducherry-605 107, over full and final