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
[225]
®ı
Amflºƒˆ
ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\
2022 }
\VÏfl |
22 {
No.
12 Poudouchéry
Mardi
22
Mars
2022 (1 Chaitra 1944)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
22nd
March
2022
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
226
Sentence arbitr al du Travail
.. 226
Award of the Labour Court .. 226
de Tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
238
Notifications du Gouvernement
.. 238
Government Notifications
..
238
∞È ∂§s©Ad
..
250
Vente publique
.. 250
Auction notice
..
250
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
250
Annonces
.. 250
Announcements
..
250
226
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 March 2022
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 20/AIL/Lab./T/2021,
Puducherry, dated 9th February 2022)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No.03/2015, dated
29-12-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute between
the management of M/s. Hindustan National Glass &
Industrial Limited, Puducherry and its workman Tmt.
A. Krishnaveny, over non-employment and non-payment
of settlement 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.
Wednesday, the 29th day of December 2021.
I.D. (L) No. 03/2015
in
C.N.R. No. PYPY060000772015
A. Krishnaveni,
Eripakkam New Colony,
Kariyamanickam Post,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan National Glass &
Industrial Ltd.,
Thondamanatham Village,
Villianur-Sedarapet Main Road,
Puducherry.
2. M. Manoharan (Contractor),
No. 12, Car Street,
Thondamanatham,
Puducherry.
. . Respondents
This Industrial dispute coming on 14-12-2021 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal B.
Mohandoss, P. Manivannan, K. Ilango K. Indrajith,
Kruthiga Devi, Vijayasanthi, Velmurugan and Sunder
Rajan, Advocates for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal
L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan and V. Veeraragavan,
Advocates for the 1st respondent, Thiru S. Karthikeyan,
Advocate for the 2nd respondent upon hearing both
sides, upon 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. 6/AIL/Lab./J/2015,
dated 02-02-2015 for adjudicating whether the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner Tmt. Krishnaveni,
w/o. Anbazhagan, against the management of
M/s. Hindustan ational Glass and Industrial Limited,
Puducherry, over non-employment and non-payment of
settlement benefits 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. The case of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner joined as house keeper in the 1st
respondent management in the year 1994. She was
directly appointed by the 1st respondent management
and as assigned work in the pantry section. The 1st
respondent management engaged in manufacturing
glass bottles. At the time of appointment, the
petitioner’s salary was fixed at ` 300 per month by
the1st respondent management. Right from the
beginning the 1st respondent management has
exercised absolute control and supervision over the
work of the petitioner. The 1st respondent
management has also deducted ESI contribution from
the salary of the petitioner. The workers in the 1st
respondent management have resorted to strike
during January 2006. The petitioner was prevented
from egressing out of the administrative block by the
workers. At that time from 25-01-2006 to 11-02-2006,
the petitioner stayed inside the factory premises and
prepared food for the managerial staffs. In the annual
statement slips of provident fund the name of the
2nd respondent was mentioned as employer. The
petitioner never worked under the 2nd respondent
and the 2nd respondent is a total stranger to the
petitioner. On the respondent side it was stated that
it was a mistake and will be rectified in due course
after submitting proper application. The 1st
respondent has mistaken the claim of the petitioner
227
22 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
and tried to retrench her from the service by
assigning false reasons. There after the petitioner
was transferred to ACL Department (printing section
on bottles) for sweeping and clearing machines
during 2013 since, the ACL Department was kept in
locked condition for 6 months. The dust particles has
caused allergy and she was suffered from severe
cough and sneezing. Hence, the petitioner visited ESI
Dispensary for treatment where she was advised to
take bed rest for 3 days. After the expire of 3 days
ESI leave, the petitioner went to the factory where she
was not permitted to enter the factory. It is informed
by the security person that it was order of HR and
VP. Her last drawn salary is ` 3,840 per month.
Aggrieved over the action of the 1st respondent, the
petitioner has made representation to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) Puducherry on 02-12-2013. The
1st respondent filed his reply statement, dated
28-05-2014 since, there was no amicable settlement,
the Labour Officer (Conciliation) has sent a failure
report having extracted work from the petitioner for
more than 20 years. The respondent was come with
a different stand that the petitioner is only a contract
workers. The 2nd respondent is in collusion with the
1st respondent to defect the cause of the petitioner.
The petitioner prays to direct the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in her original employment
with back wages and continuity of service.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
1st respondent is as follows:
The petitioner is not a workman under the 1st
respondent and there is no employer employee
relationship between the petitioner and the 1st
respondent. The petitioner was an employee of the
2nd respondent Mr. Manoharan, who is a contractor
as such the petitioner is not entitled to raise any
Industrial Dispute as against the 1st respondent. The
1st respondent has entrusted the work of pantry and
general housing on contract to 1st respondent
Mr. Manoharan. The petitioner Krishnaveni was
engaged by the 2nd respondent contractor in
fulfillment of the contractual obligation with the 1st
respondent company. Since, the contractor
Mr. Manoharan is not independently covered under
the ESI Act, the 1st respondent being the Principal
employer has covered the petitioner under the ESI
Act. The 2nd respondent who is the licensed
contractor of manpower supply has appointed the
petitioner under his employment and all along
governing the service conditions of the petitioner. It
is submitted that the 1st respondent came to know
about the dispute raised by the petitioner only after
the notice received from the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) Puducherry. The 1st respondent deny
all other allegations raised by the petitioner and pray
for dismissal of the Industrial Dispute.
4.
The brief averments in the counter filed by the
2nd respondent i as follows:
The 2nd respondent is one of the contractor
supplying manpower to the 1st respondent company
on contractual obligation with the 1st respondent.
The 2nd respondent has engaged the petitioner as
contract worker. The petitioner was worked under the
2nd respondent till November 2013. The 2nd
respondent has paid wages to the petitioner and
remitted her monthly contribution to the Provident
Fund Authority. Since, the 2nd respondent was not
having separate ESI Code, the petitioner was given
ESI coverage under the ESI Code of the 1st
respondent. The 1st respondent management does
not have any legal relationship in respect of the
petitioner who was engaged by the 2nd respondent
contractor after 12-11-2013 the petitioner did not
report the duty. Only during Conciliation Proceedings
before Labour Officer (Conciliation), the 2nd
respondent came to know about the Industrial
Dispute raised by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent
has totally denied the allegations raised by the
petitioner before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry. The petitioner discontinued her
employment with 1st respondent on her own and has
not reported to duty till date. The 2nd respondent
submitted that the petitioner cannot make any claim
against the 1st respondent and she is not entitled to
any compensation or any interest as claimed in the
petitioner and pray for dismissal of the petition.
5. The points for consideration are:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Tmt. Krishnaveni against the 1st respondent
management over non-employment and over
non-payment of settlement benefits is justified?
6. On the petitioner side, the petitioner Tmt.
Krishnaveni, was examined as PW.1 and her chief
affidavit was filed through her Ex.P1 to P7 were marked.
In the evidence of PW.1, she has deposed that he was
joined in the 1st respondent which was previously
known as OBL during the year 1994. Ever since, the date
of appointment the petitioner was assigned work in the
Administration Section of the 1st respondent company
where she used to provide Coffee to the staff members
and other Managerial Persons. At the time of appointment
the petitioner salary was fixed at` 300 per month. The
1st respondent management has not given any leave or
weekly off to the petitioner. From the beginning,
228
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 March 2022
the 1st respondent management has exercised absolute
control and supervision over the works of the petitioner.
The 1st respondent management has also deducted ESI
contribution from her salary. In January 2006, when the
workers have resorted to strike the petitioner was stayed
inside the 1st respondent factory and did all house
keeping works like preparing breakfast, lunch and
dinner to the managerial staffs. The petitioner was given
festival bonus and other allowances periodically on par
with permanent workers by the 1st respondent
management. The petitioner was sought to see the name
of the 2nd respondent as employer in the Annual
Statement, the petitioner never worked with the 2nd
respondent and the 2nd respondent is the total stranger
to the petitioner since, the petitioner has requested the
1st respondent to correct the name of the employer. The
1st respondent management was annoyed and transfer
her to ACL Department which was kept in a locked
condition for more than six months. Since, the petitioner
was engaged in cleaning process she was suffered from
severe cough and sneezing for which she was under
treatment in the ESI hospital. The petitioner properly
informed about leave to the respondent management.
After treatment when the petitioner returned to work she
was not permitted by the security persons to enter inside
the factory premises. The request of the petitioner was
not considered by the respondent management. Finally,
the petitioner has made representation, dated
02-12-2013 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, for amicable settlement of issue. The 2nd
respondent in collusion with the 1st respondent
management is supporting the case of the 1st
respondent. The petitioner claim for damages for
non-employment at ` 2,00,000.
7. RW.1 Thiru Srinivasan, Deputy Manager, H.R. and
Administration in the Respondent company M/s. HNGL.
On the respondent management side Ex.R1 to R23 were
marked. In the evidence of RW.1 he has deposed that
the petitioner is not a workman under the 1st
respondent management and there does not exist any
employer employee relationship between the 1st
respondent and the petitioner. The petitioner was
employer of the 2nd respondent Thiru M. Manoharan.
The petitioner has no locus standi to raise any
conciliation or Industrial Dispute against the 1st
respondent management. The petitioner was not
appointed by the 1st respondent and her name was not
available in the rolls of the respondent management of
the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent management
has not permitted the services of the petitioner. The 1st
respondent management has entrusted the work of
pantry and general housing to one Mr. Manoharan who
is the contractor the petitioner was engaged in the 2nd
respondent Mr. Manoharan, in fulfillment of his
contractual obligation with the 1st respondent
management. The wages and other conditions of the
services are fixed by the 2nd respondent Mr. Manoharan,
who is the employer of the petitioner. Since, the 2nd
respondent is not independently covered under the ESI
Act. The 1st respondent who is the principal employer
in view of the obligations has covered the petitioner
under the ESI Code of the 1st respondent management
from 13-11-2013 onwards the petitioner was not present
for any work with the 1st respondent management and
the reasons were not informed to the 1st respondent
management. The 1st respondent management denied
that the petitioner joined in the services of the OBL
Company during the year 1994 and the RW.1 denied all
other evidence of the PW.1 is baseless and false. The
1st respondent has no necessity to retrench the
petitioner and the 1st respondent has never informed
the petitioner that her services are not required any
more.
8. In the evidence of RW2 Thiru Padmanaban Iyer,
he has deposed he was working a Secretary to
Vice-President of the 1st respondent management, he
has deposed that the 2nd respondent is the authorised
contractor of our erstwhile company M/s. ACE Glass
Containers Limited for supply of manpower for loading
and unloading. The supply of manpower resources for
loading and unloading and other allied activities were
periodically renewed by the 1st respondent management.
The petitioner was not directly employed by the 1st
respondent and she was employed by the 2nd
respondent. The 1st respondent has nothing to do with
employment or non-employment of the petitioner. The
petitioner has to workout her remedies with the 2nd
respondent and her employment is nothing to do with
the 1st respondent management. RW.1 and RW.2 prayed
for the dismissal of the petition.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stoutly
argued that the petitioner was employed in the year 1994
in the respondent management which was previously
known as OBL Company. The petitioner was assigned
work in the pantry section where the petitioner used to
provide Tea and Coffee to the staff and managerial
persons. The respondent management has exercised
absolute control and supervision over the works of the
petitioner. The petitioner having studied only up to
6th standard she is not well versed with Labour
legislation and rules and regulations of the Act. The 1st
respondent management has given her festival
allowance and other allowance periodically on par with
permanent employees. The 1st respondent management
has also deducted PF contribution from the salary of
the petitioner. The petitioner never worked under the
2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is a total
229
22 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
stranger to the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has
raised her voice as to the incorporation of 2nd
respondent name in the PF slip as employer the
management has decided to retrench her from the
services of the company. After the petitioner given an
oral representation that she will not further question
about the employer she was transfered to ACL
Department by the 1st respondent. The petitioner have
worked for full days in the ACL Department which was
kept in a locked condition for several months. The
petitioner was infected with severe cough and sneezing
and the petitioner got treatment at ESI hospital where
she was advised to take rest for three days. The
petitioner has also submitted her ESI leave service to
the management. However, when she returned to duty
after her ESI leave she was prevented by the security
person from entering into the company. Aggrieved by
the act of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has given
representation, dated 02-12-2013 to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry for which the 1st respondent
has filed his counter on 28-05-2014. In the said counter,
the 1st respondent denied employer employee
relationship between the 1st respondent and the
petitioner, it was further contended by the 1st
respondent that the petitioner is an employee of the 2nd
respondent contractor.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stoutly
argued that ever since, 1994, the petitioner was served
in the company of the 1st respondent and the 1st
respondent is her appointing authority. The monthly
salary was periodically disbursed by the 1st respondent
to the petitioner, the 1st respondent deducted her ESI
and PF contributions and therefore, the 1st respondent
cannot denied the fact that the petitioner was directly
appointed by the 2nd respondent.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has
invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of
RW.1 wherein, RW.1 has deposed that he has not
inspected the records maintained by the erstwhile
management of OBL in the 1994. Moreover, the 1st
respondent completely suppressed the agreement
entered in between 1st respondent and 2nd respondent
in the year 2005. RW.1 further deposed that there are
previous agreement prior to 2005, but, the same were
not filed before this Court. Moreover, the 1st
respondent failed to produce the list of 220 contract
labours who worked under the 1st respondent. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
the 1st respondent has not produced material
documents which are essential for the just decision of
case and hence, the petitioner pray for adverse inference
to be taken by the Court in this regard. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner has invited this attention of
this Court to the cross-examination of RW.1 where he
deposed that they have not filed any documents to
show that the Contractor Manohar was engaged by the
1st respondent to do works apart from loading and
unloading work. In Ex.R21 list the name of the 2nd
respondent found place. In Ex.R22 Rule 4 contemplates
the nature of duties performed by the employees which
is clearly stated in Rule 3. Even in rule 3 the nature of
duties of the contract labourers was not clearly defined
and ear marked in Ex.R23. The nature of work is defined
as loading of finished goods and unloading of raw
materials. Moreover, the 1st respondent has not stated
that he was permitted by the Inspector of Factories for
supply of manpower for house keeping and pantry
section.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submit that in the event of any transfer of management
the purchaser company will get the list of contractors
and the list of contract employees. Further, the 1st
respondent has not filed the list of contractors details
and the list of contract worker. The learned Counsel for
the petitioner submit that in Ex.R22, the party of the 1st
part appoints the party of the 1st part for the services
provided in Clause (3) for the term in return for the
payment agreed upon this agreement. As per Ex.R21 and
R22 the supply of labour by the 2nd respondent was
only for loading and unloading operations. The licence
granted to the 2nd respondent do not give blanket
permission to the petitioner for engagement of workers
in the house keeping and pantry section which are
beyond the purview of loading and unloading. The
petitioner submit that Ex.R21 to R23 cannot be relied
upon since, they were creator for the purpose of
defrauding the interest of the petitioner. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner further submit that the 1st
respondent in order to avoid legal claim has manipulated
the records and fictitiously created R2 as the contractor
of the 1st respondent as if, there exists employer and
employee relationship between the petitioner and the
2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has effective
control over the work done by the petitioner and pray
for grant of relief as prayed in the claim petition.
13. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
submit that the petitioner was not directly appointed
by the 1st respondent management and she was not
assigned work in pantry section of the respondent
management. It is the 2nd respondent who is the
registered contractor under the 1st respondent has
engaged the services of the petitioner. In the
Conciliation proceedings before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry, the petitioner has not seek
for reinstatement, but, the claim is for settlement of her
dues, the same was indicated in the failure report, dated
14-11-2014 submitted by the Labour Officer
230
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 March 2022
(Conciliation), Puducherry. The petitioner has also filed
an application before the gratuity authority for
settlement of her gratuity. The conduct of the petitioner
clearly established that she was never interested for
seeking-reemployment, but, only the due entitled for her.
14. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
submit that out of Ex.P1 to P7 nothing related to her
appointment with the 1st respondent. The petitioner
claim her employment with 1st respondent only on the
basis of ESI contribution deposited by the 1st
respondent. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
further submit that the petitioner has to establish by
cogent evidence that she was appointed by the 1st
respondent directly. In this respect, the learned Counsel
for the 1st respondent has invited this Court attention
to the judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
Rajnandgaon Vs. Bharat Lal & Another reported in CDJ
2010 SC 1161 held that “Two of the well-recognized tests
to find out whether the contract labour are the direct
employees of the principal employer are, (i) whether the
principal employer pays the salary instead of the
contractor and (ii) whether the principal employer
controls and supervise the work of the employee. In this
case, the Industrial Court answered both questions in
the affirmative and as a consequence held that first
respondent is a direct employee of the appellant.
On a careful consideration, we are of the view that
the Industrial Court committed a serious error in
arraiving at those findings. In regard to the first test
as to who pays the salary, it placed the onus
wrongly upon the appellant, it is for the employee
to aver and prove that he was paid salary directly
by the principal employer and not the contractor. The
first respondent did not discharge this onus. Even
in regard to second test, the employee did not
establish that he was working under the direct
control and supervision of the principal employer”.
15. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
further submit that the claim of the petitioner regarding
her employment status only on the basis of ESI
payment by the 1st respondent is not at all tenable.
Payment of ESI contribution does not confer the status
of direct employment on a contract worker. In fact the
1st respondent has paid the ESI contribution in respect
of the petitioner is due to the statutory obligation
imposed on the 1st respondent by the ESI Act. Section
2(9) of ESI Act 1948: “Employee means any person
employed for wages in or in connection with the work
of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies
and;
(i) who is directly employed by the principal
employer, on any work of, or incidental or preliminary
to or connected with the work of, the factory or
establishment, whether such work is done by the
employee in the factory or establishment or
elsewhere; or
(ii) who is employed by or through an immediate
employer, on the premises of the factory or
establishment or under the supervision of the
principal employer or his agent on work which is
ordinarily part of the work of the factory or
establishment or which is preliminary to the work
carried on in or incidental to the purpose of the
factory or establishment”. Section 38 of ESI Act
“subject to the provision of this Act all employees
in factories or establishment to which this act applies
established insured the manner provided by this
Act”.
16. Since, the second respondent does not have any
separate ESI Code as per section 40 and 41 of the ESI
Act it is the responsibility of the principal employer to
pay the ESI contribution to all the employees. In section
40 of the ESI Act it cast the primary responsibility of
the being all ESI contribution for all employees whether
employed directly or through immediate employer upon
the principal employer. Section 41 of the ESI Act
mandates that the principal employer to recover
contribution paid for the contract employees from the
immediate employer. The learned Counsel for the 1 st
respondent has invited this Court attention to the
judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena Vs. Udhe India Ltd. reported in CDJ 2007
BHC 2170 held that “the entire payment of salary was
made by the contractor. The workmen have agreed that
salary slips were never issued by the Company. From
1992, the provident fund contribution is paid by the
Contractor. It is no doubt true that up to year 1992, the
company was paying the contribution. However, as
rightly pointed out by Mr. Cama, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Company that
primary responsibility and liability of making this
contribution is on the registered employer under the
provisions of section 40 of the ESI Act and regulation
30 of the P.F. Scheme, 1952. Therefore, the emphasis
which was led by Mr. Bhat, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Union, on payment of these
contribution by the Company up to 1992 does not
change the relationship between the Contractor and the
workmen. Mr. Bhat had strenuously urged that the firm
was registered with the P.F. Authorities only in 1992.
That does not, in my view, change the fact that the
231
22 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
liability, in any case, till the registration of the firm by
the Contractor was on the Company. This being a
statutory liability, it was not open for the Company to
shirk from this statutory responsibility and, therefore,
it had no other alternative, but, to make the said
payment. This factor, in my view, therefore, could not
be a circumstance which could be taken against the
company”.
17. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
submit that there exists a legally valid agreement
between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent for
supply of manpower which is evident from Ex.R22. Ex.R2
and R20 are letters of addition to the earlier agreement,
dated 26-06-2001 for providing pantry assistant, etc. The
1st respondent has got Certificate of Registration given
to the erstwhile respondent management for engaging
contract workers. The learned Counsel for the 1st
respondent further submit that Ex.R5 is the muster roll
maintained by the 2nd respondent for the month of April
2013 to November 2013 where we can find the name of
the petitioner Krishnaveni. In Ex.R6 wage register
maintained by the 2nd respondent for the period from
April 2013 to November 2013 the workers including the
petitioner were signed in the wage register maintained
by the 2nd respondent. Ex.R7, R8 and R9 related to the
allocation of separate EPF code for the employees of
the 2nd respondent and the Ex.R8 is the Challan for the
payment of EPF contribution to his workers. Ex.R9 is
the statement of accounts for the deposit of EPF
contribution by the 2nd respondent to the credit of the
petitioner. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
submit that Ex.R7 to R9 categorically established that
the 2nd respondent who is the registered contractor has
subsequently got separate EPF code. Moreover, the
2nd respondent who has participated in the Conciliation
proceedings has clinching by admitted that the
petitioner is his employee. The learned Counsel for the
1st respondent further submit that the there is no plea
in the claim petition that the contract between the 1st
and 2nd respondent is sham and nominal which are
credit with a view to defraud the interest of the
petitioner. In this respect, the learned Counsel for the
respondent has invited this Court attention to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Steel Authority
of India Limited vs. Union of India and others reported
in CDJ 2006 SC 797 held that “it is not disputed before
us that the matter relating to abolition of contract labour
being governed by the provisions of the 1970 Act, the
Industrial Court will have no jurisdiction in relation
thereto. It is also not in dispute that the decision of
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority
of India Ltd. (supra) governs the field”.
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and
others reported in CDJ 2019 SC 697 held that “therefore,
this Hon’ble Court’s power to decide as to whether the
contract for supply of manpower between the
management and contractor is sham or not is
unquestionable. However, for such an exercise to be
carried out, the worker must first accept this he was
engaged through a contractor, but, such contract is
sham, when the plea of the worker is that he is direct
employment of management, there is no scope for the
Industrial Tribunal to decide upon the question of
genuineness of the Contract”.
19. The evidence of RW.1 would go to show that the
contract between the 1st respondent and 2nd
respondent is genuine one. Ex.R22 the agreement for
supply of manpower and Ex.R2 the letter understood to
the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent for supply
of pantry as is stant will clearly establish that the
contract between 1st respondent and 2nd respondent
for the supply of manpower not only for loading and
unloading but, also pantry and allied activities. The
learned Counsel for the 1st respondent invited this
Court attention of that the 1st respondent has exercised
confirm of supervision over the work of the petitioner
is the real test for conforming whether the petitioner is
the worker under the 1st respondent management in
Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited vs. Mahendra Prasad
Jakhmola and Others reported in CDJ 2019 SC 697 held
that “we, now, come to some of the judgments cited by
Shri Sudhir Chandra and Ms. Asha Jain. In General
Manager, (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills,
Rajnandgaon vs. Bharat Lala and Another’ [2011 (2)
S.C.T. 198: 2011 (1) SCC 635], it was held that the well
recognised tests to find out whether contract labourers
are direct employees are as follows: 1. It is now well
settled that if, the industrial adjudicator finds that the
contract between the principal employer and the
contractor to be a sham, nominal or merely a camouflage
to deny employment benefits to the employee and that
there was in fact a direct employment, it can grant relief
to the employee by holding that the workman is the
direct employee of the principal employer. Two of the
well-recognized tests to find out whether the contract
labourers are the direct employees of the principal
employer are; (i) whether the principal employer pays
the salary instead of the contractor and (ii) whether the
principal employer controls and supervises the work of
the employee. In this case, the Industrial Court
answered both questions in the affirmative and as a
consequence held that the first respondent is a direct
employee of the appellant.
232
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 March 2022
The expression ‘control and supervision’ were
further explained with reference to an earlier judgment
of this Court as follows:
The expression ‘control and supervision’ in the
context of contract labour was explained by this
Court in International Airport Authority of India vs.
International Air Cargo Workers’ Union thus: (SCCP.
388, paras 38-39) “38 ... if the contract is for supply
of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the
contractor will work under the directions, supervision
and control of the principal employer but, that would
not make the worker a direct employee of the principal
employer, if, the salary is paid by a contractor, if the
right to regulate the employment is with the
contractor and the ultimate supervision and control
lies with the contractor”.
20. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Cement Corporation of India vs. Presiding Officer
reported in 2010 LLR 704 held that “In this case, the
Labour Court had assumed the character of the contract
agreement with respondent No. 2 and 3 as a sham one
too lightly without actually examining whether the
management had an oblique motive or a deliberate intent
to create a fraud on the statute or the obligations
created under any of the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act. A sham transaction is indeed a specie of
fraud. Such fraudulent intent cannot be inferred only
by the fact that the management retained some degree
of control over the workmen under the contract basis.
After all, the contract labour had not been working
outside the factory. They were within the factory and
inevitably there has to be some manner of control and
hamogenous approach of the management at least, in
so far as extending minor privileges like health and
hygiene. If, the management had provided shoes or
uniform or if, they had provided medical facilities, it
should be rather seen as appropriate acts of the
management without making needless distinctions even
for benefits that ought to have been extended on a
humane principle between workmen directly employed
and workmen employed through contractors. In this
case, acts of munificence and graceful acts of the
management have been wrongly characterized as
instances of sham and fraudulent behaviour. In National
Thermal Power corporation & others vs. Badri Singh
Thakur & others (2008) 9 SCC 377, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was considering the claim of workmen seeking
absorption in NTPC, when the corporation had been
registered under section 7 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act and the contractor had
also been licensed under the Act. The Court held the
CLRA Act governed the field in view of the supremacy
of the Central Act over MP Industrial Relations Act and
held so long as there was no prohibition under section
10 of the Act for engaging contract labour, there was
no question of regularising the services of the labour
directly under the management. The issue is akin to
considering whether the contract labour could be seen
as directly engaged by the management. The Labour
Courts’s Award, in so far as it finds that the contract
was ham and finding that all the workmen were to be
treated as directly engaged by the management is
erroneous and accordingly set aside”.
21. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
further submit that in respect of employer and employee
relationship the Courts have been taken consistent
view. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has
invited this Court attention to the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Smt. Chandrakala,
w/o. Lalaji Misal and Others vs. Marathwada Medical
Research and Rural Development Institution Ltd.
reported in CDJ 2015 BHC 2336 held that “For the sake
of clarity, it needs to be noted that the CLRA Act, 1970
and the Rules thereunder are aimed at regulating the
deployment of contract labourers. If, the contract
labourers are performing work similar to the work
performed by the regular employees, their wage
structure has to be similar. The contractor has to pay
wages directly to the contract labourer, but, in the
presence of a representative of the Principal Employer.
The contractor has to raise a bill for service charges
and the wages of the labourers are paid from such
payments made by the Principal Employer to the
contractor. If, the contractor does not deposit the PF
contibutions, the Principal Employer is mandatet to pay
the same issuance of identity cards/admit cards would
not mean that a direct relationship is established
between the labourers and the Principal Employer.
Abolition of contract labour system by the competent
authority does not lead to the automatic absorption of
the contract labourers in the service of the Principal
Employer.
As such, merely because there was supervision
by the representative of the Principal Employer on
the work activities of the contract labourers would
not tantamount to the laborers being the employees
of the Principal Employer”.
22. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
further submit that the contract between the 1st
respondent and 2nd respondent for house keeping and
pantry service is quite legal and the Registration
Certificate granted to the 1st respondent for engagement
of 2nd respondent as a contractor does not specifies
233
22 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
house keeping and the pantry services is one of the
areas whether contractor can be supply by the 2nd
respondent. It would not entitle the petitioner from
claiming direct employment status under the 1st
respondent.
23. In this respect, the learned Counsel for the 1st
respondent has invited the Court attention to the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. K.V. Shramik Sangh
and Others reported in CDJ 2002 SC 309 held that” it
appears to us that the High Court proceeded to
conclude that the labour contract was not genuine and
the workers of the Union were employees of the
Corporation because the Corporation and the
contractors did not comply with the provisions of the
CLRA Act. Conclusion that the contract was sham or it
was only camouflage cannot be arrived at as a matter
of law for non-compliance of the provisions of the CLRA
Act, but, a finding must be recorded based on evidence
particularly when disputed by an Industrial Adjudicator
as laid down in various decisions of this Court
including the Constitution Bench judgment in SAIL.
The material referred to relates to the complaints
of the Union, recommendations of the Labour
Commissioner, Labour Minister and the Labour
Contract Advisory Board in regard to abolition of
contract labour under Section 10 of CLRA Act, but,
that material could not be a foundation or basis to
say that the labour contract was sham, camouflage
or a devised to deny the statutory benefits to the
workers”.
24. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has
also invited this Court attention to the Judgment of
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana Court in Food Corporation
of India vs. Presiding Officer reported in CDJ 2007 PHC
499 held that “Section 10 of the CLRA Act, then
employment of the contract labour through the
contractor is not prohibited. If, by engaging the
contract labour and by prohibiting the services of the
contract labour by the contractor to the principal
employer, the provisions of Section 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act have been violated, the only consequences
of those violations will be as envisaged under sections
23 and 25 of the CLRA Act and the contract labour
engaged in violation of the provisions of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act cannot be deemed to be the
employees of the principal employer 923. In view of the
said legal position, there is no force in the contention
of learned Counsel for the workmen that in view of the
fact that the management Corporation was not having
certificate of Registration under Section 7 of the CLRA
Act and the labour contractor was not having any
licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act on the date
when the workmen were employed, the workmen should
be deemed to be the direct employees of the Management
Corporation”. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
further submit that the petitioner having failed to
establish the employer and employee relationship
between the 1st respondent and the petitioner and
having failed in proving the fact that the petitioner was
directly employed by the 1st respondent, she is not
entitled for any relief and pray for dismissal of the
petition.
25. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submission made by both side learned Counsel and the
exhibits filed in respect of their contentions and also
the written argument filed by both sides. The claim of
the petitioner is that she was directly employed by the
1st respondent in the 1994 when the management of the
1st respondent company was run by erstwhile OBL
company. The petitioner has also contended that she
was assigned work in the administration section and
also worked in the pantry section. In order to prove that
she was directly appointed by the 1st respondent the
petitioner has filed Ex.P1 ESI Certificate wherein the
name of employer is mentioned as M/s. HNG India
Limited, Villianur, wherein, the date of appointment of
the petitioner is mentioned as 18-09-2004. In Ex.P2 which
is the application for the acceptance of medical
treatment the 1st respondent name is mentioned as
name of the employer. The petitioner has also submitted
Identity Card issued by the ESI Department on
09-12-2014 the petitioner has sought for certain
information by way of RTI (Right to Information Act)
to the ESI Department. Ex.P5, dated 06-01-2015 is the
reply given by the ESI Corporation wherein, the ESI
Corporation has given information that the 1st respondent
has paid contribution from 10/2008 to 11/2013 to the
petitioner. On the contrary the respondent stoutly
denied that the petitioner was a direct employee under
the 1st respondent and stoutly denied the employer
employee relationship between the 1st respondent and
the petitioner. Our Hon’ble Apex Court in CDJ 2010 SC
1161 held to well recognized test to find out whether
contract labours are the direct employees of the
principal employer, the first test is whether the principal
employer pays the salary in respect of the contractor
and the second test is whether the principal employer
controls and supervised the work of the employee. In
so far the first test is concerned the petitioner has not
filed any appointment order given by the 1st
respondent at the time of joining the company. Even
though the petitioner has claim that she is working from
1994 with the 1st respondent management she has not
filed any monthly salary slip issued by the 1st respondent.
234
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 March 2022
But, on the respondent side they have filed Ex.R5 which
is register of muster roll for April 2013 which was
maintained by contractor and counter signed by the 1st
respondent in which the name of the petitioner is found
place. Ex.R6 is the register of wages maintained by Thiru
Manohar the 2nd respondent for the period April 2013
in which the petitioner has signed for the receipt of
wages. Ex.R6 categorically established that the
petitioner has received salary only from the 2nd
respondent. In respect of the second test the petitioner
has not flied any documents that she was working
under the direct control of supervision of the 1st
respondent. Even though the petitioner has not
examined any additional witness to prove the said fact.
26. It is well established principles of evidence that
the burden of proving the fact lies on the party who
asserts the same. In this case, it is the petitioner who
plead that she was directly appointed by the 1st
respondent and she is receiving the salary from the 1st
respondent and her works are under the direct
supervision of the 1st respondent. Hon’ble Alahabad
High Court in Subodh Kumar vs. Presiding Officer
Labour Court-II Meerut and another reported in CDJ
2012 ALL HC 071 held that “there cannot be any dispute
to the well settled principle of law that in any proceedings
the burden to prove a fact lies on the party which pleads
the same and not on the party who denies it”.
27. Our Hon’ble Apex Court in Kanpur Electricity
Supply Company Ltd. vs. Shamim Mirza reported in
(2009) 1 SCC 20 held “It is trite that the burden to prove
that a claimant was in the employment of a particular
management, primarily lies on the person who claims to
be so but, the degree of proof, so required, varies from
case to case. It is neither feasible nor advisable to lay
down an abstract rule to determine the employer-
employee relationship,. It is essentially a question of
fact to be determined by having regard to the cumulative
effect of the entire material placed before the
adjudicatory forum by the claimant and the
management”.
The ratio of judgments laid down in the said
judgment is of no benefit to the petitioner in the
present case, as the burden of proving the fact of
employment, i.e., master-servant relationship lies
upon him as he asserts the same in affirmation while
the employer denied it..”. The above precedents of
our Hon’ble Apex Court and Alahabad High Court
made it clear the burden of proving the relationship
of master and servant relies upon the present who
assert it particularly when the same was denied by
the employer.
28. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in his
vibrant argument submit that the 1st respondent has
paid ESI contribution and EPF contribution to the
petitioner. Without master and servant relationship the
1st respondent could not have deposit contribution of
ESI and EPF in respect of the petitioner. In this respect,
the attention of the Court is invited to section 2(9) of
ESI Act and also section 40 and 41 of the ESI Act
wherein the ESI mandate that the principal employer
shall pay in respect of every employee whether timely
employed by him or through immediate employer.
Section 41 of the ESI Act empowers the principal
employer to recover the contribution paid for contract
employees from the immediate employer.
29. Since, the 2nd respondent does not have a
separate code under ESI Act. The 1st respondent
management has paid the same and recovered from the
2nd respondent since the ESI Act is a beneficial
legislation. It direct the principal employer to pay the
contribution in respect of the employee working under
the management whether timely or through the
contractor. Ex.R7 to R9 makes it clear that the 2nd
respondent has alloted separate code for EPF for the
employees under him. Ex.P9 is the statement of account
for deposit of EPF contribution by the 2nd respondent
in respect of the petitioner. Time and action Our Hon’ble
Apex Court and our Hon’ble High Court repeatedly held
in Catena of decision that payment of ESI and EPF
contribution are the statutory liabilities of the principal
employer and the payment of EPF and ESI contribution
alone does not make a workmen to be directly employed
by the principal employer.
30. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended
that Ex.R22 the agreement entered between the 1st
respondent and the 2nd respondent, dated 01-10-2011
is created for the purpose of defrauding the legitimate
interest of the contract workers. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner further submit that what are all the
duties allocated to the contract labourers was stated in
Ex.R22. On the perusal of Ex.R22 there is no such terms
and conditions enlisted. In orders Ex.R23 is concerned
the contract labours are engaged in loading of finished
goods and unloading of raw materials. In the evidence
of RW.1 he has clearly admitted that they have not
intimated the factory inspected that the 2nd respondent
was engaged for supply of manpower for house keeping
and pantry section also. Moreover, during transfer of
management the 1st respondent has got the list of
contractors and list of contract workers, but, the same
was not filed before this Court for the reason well known
to the 1st respondent for which adverse inference has
to be taken against the 1st respondent. On the
235
22 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
respondent side, they have marked Ex.R2 and Ex.R20
which are the letter of addition of contract agreement,
dated 26-06-2001 for Pantry Assistant, Guest House
made and Guest House Assistant. On the side of the
1st respondent it was contended that the petitioner
having failed to plead that the contract between the 1st
and 2nd respondent were sham and nominal cannot
question the validity of the agreements letter. In this
respect, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
CDJ (2007) PHC 499 held “In my opinion, the aforesaid
observations do not advance the case of the workmen.
If, an industrial establishment is permitted to employ
contract labourer through a contractor, engaging of
such contract labour must be bona fide. Incase, it is
found that engaging of contract labour was not bona
fide and it was a mere camouflage then in those cases,
the contract labour employed by the principal employer
is to be treated as employee of the principal employer,
who can be directed to regularise service of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. This is not the
case of the workmen here. It is not the case of the
workmen either in the pleading or during the course of
arguments that their engagement through contract
labour was not bona fide and it was a mere camouflage.
Rather their case is that they were directly employed
by the Management Corporation. Therefore, no benefit
can be given to the workmen on the basis of the
aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court..”
It is thus clear that unless the petitioner admits
that he was engaged through a contractor, which was
sham and bogus, there cannot be an adjudication on
the genuineness and bona fides of the said contract”.
31. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent
contended that since, the 2nd respondent did not have
necessary license for house keeping and supply of
manpower to pantry section. The petitioner must be
deemed to be a direct employee of the 1st respondent
is not all tenable. As per Ex.R21 the 2nd respondent is
authorised to provide contract labourers only for
loading and unloading at the initial stage, but, the same
was subsequently modified under Ex.R3 as loading of
finished goods and unloading of raw materials. The
engagement of the service of the contract who does not
have Registration Certificate for house keeping and
pantry service is only a violation of section 23 of the
Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act and it
does not confer any right upon of the petitioner to claim
direct employee status.
32. From the aforestated analysis, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioner was
employed in the 1st respondent management in pantry
section. The petitioner has not concretely established
the employer employee relationship between the 1st
respondent and the petitioner. The payment of EPF and
ESI contribution were made by the 1st respondent, but,
the same would not confer any status on the petitioner
that she was directly employed under the 1st
respondent. The 2nd respondent who is the contractor
has admitted in his counter that due the contractual
obligation with the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent
has engaged the petitioner as contract worker. The 2nd
respondent further submitted that the petitioner
Krishnaveni was worked under the respondent till
November 2013. The 2nd respondent has paid the wages
to the petitioner and also remitted her monthly PF
contribution till her last working day. The 2nd
respondent further submit that the petitioner was
engaged by the 2nd respondent and her service
conditions were under the control of the 2nd respondent
only. From the averments made in the counter, the 2nd
respondent completely admitted that the petitioner was
engaged by him in order to fulfill the contractual
obligation with the 1st respondent. From the above,
it is clear that the petitioner was all along worked in
the 1st respondent company and she was engaged as
a contract labour by the 2nd respondent.
33. Our Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the
Appalling and exploitative nature of the contract
labours in Vacuum Refinery Company vs. Their workman
(1959) II LLJ 435 Bombay workmen observed that the
contract labour should not be employed where:
“(a) the work is perennial and must go on from
day to day,
(b) the work is incidentally to and necessary for
the work of the factory,
(c) the work is sufficient to employee considerable
number of whole time workmen.
(d) the work is being done in must concerns
through regular workmen”. From the evidence of
PW.1 it came to light that she was employed during
the year 1994 with erstwhile management of OBL and
continued to be a worker even after the management
was taken over by the respondent company. The
petitioner has not proved the employer and employee
relationship between the 1st respondent, but, one
cannot denied that the 1st respondent is the principal
employer for all practicable purposes. The contract
labour system ensure that the workmen were paid
much lower wages than that of what they are entitled
and direct employment. From the system of contract
Labour ultimately leads to the exploitation of the
labour clause. On considering the nature of work
appointed by the petitioner it is perennial in nature
236
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 March 2022
and the long period of the petitioner would throw
light that the requirement for employment of the
petitioner was continued for several years. However,
without employing her as a permanent employee all
along kept her as contract labour is certainly not in
accordance with established principles of law.
34. The petitioner was not allowed entry into the
respondent management in which she has worked for
several years is really a pitiable state of affairs and
always there exists lack of job security to the contract
workers. It is the Judiciary to uphold the concept of
social justice and right to live with dignity as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted by
the petitioner side that she was a widow and suffering
for her livelihood and lives in penury.
35. The 1st respondent being a principal employer
having utilized the hard labour of the petitioner through
2nd respondent for several years cannot simply stated
that the 1st respondent is nothing to do with
non-employment of the petitioner. Being the principal
employer the 1st respondent is duty bound to verify
whether the contract employees are properly paid salary
and the conditions of the services are properly
maintained by the contractor. The petitioner is without
any employment from the year 2013. The 1st respondent
having engaged the petitioner through 2nd respondent,
the 1st respondent is equally liable to redress the
wrong committed by the contractor who is the agent of
the 1st respondent for the purpose of engaging the
labourers. This Court feels that the petitioner would
have uffered a lot due to her sudden non employment
for which she has to be provided with just
compensation. At the distance of time from 2013, this
Court is not inclined to pass any orders in respect of
her further employment. It is sufficient to provide her
with compensation. There is no straight jacket formulate
in awarding just compensation. This Court considering
the overall circumstances and the present day living
conditions and cost of living is inclined to fix quantum
of compensation at ` 2,00,000 only. Out of ` 2,00,000
compensation amount the 1st respondent being the
principal employer is directed to pay a sum of ` 1,00,000
and the 2nd respondent being the contractor who has
engaged the services of the petitioner is required to pay
a sum of ` 1,00,000 as compensation. The petitioner is
not entitled for any other reliefs.
36. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The
petitioner is entitled for compensation of ` 2,00,000
(Rupees two lakhs only). The 1st respondent and 2nd
respondent are directed to pay sum of ` 1,00,000
(Rupees one lakh only) each to the petitioner as
compensation within a period of eight 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 29th day of December 2021.
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1
— 20-06-2017
Krishnaveni
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —
Temporary Identity Certificate
issued by the Employees
State Insurance Corporation
showing the petitioner as
Employee
of
the
1st
Respondent Company.
Ex.P2
— 08-03-2013
Certificate of re-employment
issued by the Employees
State Insurance Corporation
and counter signed.
Ex.P3 —
Identity
Card
of
the
petitioner issued by the
Employees State Insurance
Corporation.
Ex.P4
— 09-12-2014 Application for seeking
information under RTI Act,
2005 submitted by the
petitioner to the Employees
State Insurance Corporation.
Ex.P5
— 06/09-01-
Reply issued by Employees
2015
State Insurance Corporation
to the petitioner.
Ex.P6
— 28-05-2014
Reply submitted by the 1st
respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P7
— 14-11-2014 Failure Report submitted by
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation) to the Secretary
to Government (Labour),
Puducherry.
List of respondent’s witnesses:
RW.1
— 05-12-2017
P. Srinivasan
RW.2
— 09-08-2019
S. Padmanabhan Iyer
237
22 March 2022]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.Rl
— 02-12-2013
Photocopy of the letter
with documents submitted
by the petitioner to the
Labour
Commissioner,
Labour
Department,
Puducherry.
Ex.R2
— 07-04-2005
Photocopy of letter by 1st
respondent
to
2nd
respondent
regarding
amendment to agreement.
Ex.R3
— 27-11-2006
Photocopy of Inter Office
memo of 1st respondent.
Ex.R4
— 07-07-2008
Photocopy
of
License
issued by Inspector of
Factories Government of
Puducherry
to
2nd
respondent.
Ex.R5
— April 2013
Photocopy of Muster Roll
to
of 2nd respondent.
November
2013
Ex.R6
— April 2013
Photocopy of Wage Register
to
of 2nd respondent.
November
2013
Ex.R7
— 14-02-2006
Photocopy of Letter by
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner
to
2nd
respondent.
Ex.R8
— 02-07-2013
Extract
of
Electronic
Challan-cum-Return of 2nd
Respondent for the wage
month of June 2013.
Ex.R9
— 21-04-2014
Photocopy of Statement of
Accounts
of
Petitioner
issued by EPF Organization.
Ex.R10 — 21-01-2014
Photocopy of Letter by
Inspector of Factories to 1st
respondent with Annexure of
petition.
Ex.R11 — 24-01-2014
Photocopy of reply by 1st
respondent to Inspector of
Factories.
Ex.R12 — 03-01-2014
Photocopy of reply by 1st
respondent
to
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.R13 — 11-06-2014
Photocopy of Letter by 1st
respondent
to
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.R14 — 11-06-2014
Photocopy of reply by 2nd
respondent
to
Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.R15 — 14-02-2014
Photocopy of Notice issued
to 1st respondent by the
Controlling Authority under
the Payments of Gratuity
Act.
Ex.R16 — 14-11-2014
Photocopy of report of
Failure
issued
by
the
Conciliation Officer.
Ex.R17 — 02-02-2015
Photocopy of Notification
issued
by
the
Labour
Department, Puducherry.
Ex.R18 — 15-09-2006
Photocopy
of
12(3)
Settlement between 1st
respondent
and
its
Permanent Workmen.
Ex.R19 — 16-06-2011
Photocopy
of
12(3)
Settlement between 1st
respondent
and
its
Permanent Workmen.
Ex.R20 — 10-11-2006
Copy of letter sent by the
1st respondent office to the
Labour
Inspector,
Puducherry.
Ex.R21 — 31-08-2007
Copy of the letter along with
application for amendment
and annexure submitted by
1st respondent before the
Registering Authority under
the Contract Labour (R&A)
Act 1970.
Ex.R22 — 01-10-2011
Copy of Agreement between
the 1st respondent and 2nd
respondent for supply of
contract workers.
Ex.R23 — 24-09-2012
Copy of amendment carried
out in Registration Certificate
vide No. 3/90/CL/Registration,
dated
26-03-1990
with
respect to increase and
decrease of number of
contract workers in 1st
respondent company.
R. BHARANIDHARAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.