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

[577]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2022 }

gÔ¸‚ |

2 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Août

2022 (11 Sravana 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

2nd

August

2022

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^..

578

Sentence arbitral du travail

.. 578

Award of the Labour Court

.. 578

de tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

582

Notifications du Gouvernement

.. 582

Government Notifications

.. 582

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

589

Annonces

.. 589

Announcements

589

578

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 August 2022

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 109/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 27th June 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 07/2017, dated

04-03-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute

between the management of M/s. Dr. Miltons

Laboratories Private Limited, Puducherry and its

Union Workmen represented by Indiya Thozhirsanga

Maiyam (CITU), Puducherry, over illegal closure and

non-employment of S. Arulvizhi and 26 others as listed

in Annexure-I;

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. 20/9/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.

ANNEXURE – I

Sl.

Name

No.

(1)

(2)

Tmt./Selvi :

S. Arulvizhi

S. Boomadevi

J. Revathi

G. Nalini

H. Shanmugapriya

M. Katheravi

L. Banumathi

M. Rajeswari

A. Thamizharasi

10.

I. Deivakanni

11.

E. Shanthi

12.

S. Lakshmi

13.

R. Kavitha

14.

S. Meenabai

15.

A. Vimala

16.

D. Valli

17.

G. Mahalakshmi

18.

P. Suseela @ Usha

19.

V. Veerammal @ Pushpa

20.

S. Muniammal @ Jamuna

21.

I. Saraswathy

22.

M. Kannagi

23.

S. Lakshmi

24.

S. Amsaveni @ Guna

25.

M. Maidhili

26.

P. Deivanai

27.

K. Valli

(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 4th day of March 2022.

I.D. (T) No. 07/2017

C.N.R. No. PYPY06000033-2017

The Secretary,

Indiya Thozhirsanga Maiyam (CITU),

No. 42, Cuddalore Road,

Near Bharathi Mill

Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

(Representing the following list of employees)

Sl.

Name

No.

(1)

(2)

Tmt./Selvi :

Priya @ Shanmugapriya

Kathiravi

Arulvizhi

Lakshmi

Soucila

Boomadevi

Banumathi

(1)

(2)

Tmt./Selvi :

579

2 August 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Meena @ Meenabai

Thamizharasi

10.

Maithely

11.

Deivanai

12.

Revathi

13.

Nalini

14.

Vimala

15.

Valli

16.

Rajeswari

17.

Kavitha

18.

Santhi

19.

Mahalakshmi

20.

Saraswathy

21.

Pushpa @ Veerammal

22.

Jamuna @ Muniammal

23.

Kannagi

24.

Valli

25.

Guna @ Amsaveni

26.

Lakshmi

27.

Deivakanni.

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Dr. Miltons Laboratories Private Limited,

R.S. No. 55/3, VTK Building,

Perambai Road, Moolakulam,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 28-02-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Tvl. R.T. Shankar,

L.K. Saravanan, A. Ashok Kumar, B. Balamurugan

and P. Suresh, Counsels for the petitioner, Tvl. B. Mohandoss,

P. Manivannan, Indrajith, K. Velmurugan, K. Sundarajan,

J. Kaliranthinam, S. Vijayasanthi, T. Vijayasanthi and

K. Mohanapriya, Counsels for the respondent, the

respondent being called absent and set ex parte, upon

hearing the petitioner and perusing the case records,

this Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No. 38/AIL/LAB/T/2017, dated 05-04-2017 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by Union

Workmen represented by Indiya Thozhirsanga

Maiyam (CITU), Puducherry against the management

of M/s. Dr. Miltons Laboratories Private Limited,

Puducherry, over illegal closure and non-employment

of S. Arulvizhi and 26 others as listed in Annexure-I

are justified or not? If, justified what relief the

employees listed in Annexure -1 are entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. The averments made in the claim Statement:

The petitioner union is the only recognized union

representing the employees of the respondent

management. The respondent management is a

Pharmaceuticals company engaged in production of

medicines. The respondent management directly

recruited the petition mentioned employees and

appointed in various posts like Operator, Packer and

Helper, etc., on various dates. The employees were

worked in the respondent management for more than

5 years. The respondent management has not

provided statutory benefits like E.S.I, E.P.F, Uniform,

Identity Card and safety materials. The respondent

management has also paid less wages to the

employees hence, the women employees started

M/s. Dr. Milton Laboratories (P) Limited Thozhilalargal

Sangam. The petitioner Union raised industrial

dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) for

absorbing and regularizing them and providing

minimum wages and all other statutory benefits.

(ii) The respondent management contended

that the employees are contract employees and

they are working under the contractor namely,

Mr. Muthukrishnan appear before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) on 25-04-2013 and strongly objected

that he never supplied any employees to the

respondent management. The respondent management

agreed before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) that

they will initially regularize 10 employees and rest of

them will be regularized periodically. The respondent

management deliberately prolonged the regularization

process and therefore, the petitioner Union again

approached the Labour Officer (Conciliation). During

the pendency of conciliation proceedings the

management has shifted all the machinery from

Moolakulam site to Sanniyasikuppam Village

overnight and lock out the factory permanently at

Moolakulam Village. The respondent illegally lock out

the Moolakulam factory without informing the

employees and Government Officials which is illegal.

The respondent has also pasted a notice at

Moolakulam factory gate on 26-04-2016 that the

(1)

(2)

Tmt./Selvi :

580

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[2 August 2022

factory is closed temporarily. Before the Conciliation

Officer, the respondent management assured to give

continuous work to the petitioners in the new factory

at Sanniyasikuppam with transport facilities. Under

such circumstances, the Commissioner of Labour,

Puducherry, passed an Order, dated 05-08-2016 that

the following workers who are members of the

petitioner Union and were working in the

respondent’s establishment prior to the closure of the

unit in question shall be reengaged into the new

factory

situated

the

same

region

Sanniyasikuppam Village, Puducherry, by the

respondent management with same terms and

conditions on which they had been engaged at the

time of the dispute was raised.

(iii) When the petitioners went to new factory at

Sanniyasikuppam they were not allowed inside by the

respondent management. The employees were also

assaulted by anti-social elements on the inducement

of the respondent management. In the said incident

happened on 09-07-2016 women workers were beaten

up heavily. On 01-09-2016 the management agreed to

pay salary dues for the period from May 2016 to July

2016, but, not agreed for reinstatement. When the

dispute is pending before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) the respondent adamantly change the

service conditions of the employees. The respondent

management without giving 9-A statutory notice and

without obtaining permission from the appropriate

Government illegally closed the Moolakulam unit.

(iv) The petitioners were directly working in the

production department and doing the perennial

nature of work. The petitioners work along with

permanent workers of the respondent management.

The petitioners have worked for more than 240 days

of service within a period of 12 calendar months.

However, the respondent has not observed and

regularized the petitioners for the reason best known

to them. The closure of the factory without

regularizing the services of the petitioners is

violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act

and against the principles of natural justice. The

respondent management is liable to reinstate the

petitioners with full back wages and continuity of

service. The petitioners are not gainfully employed

in any other establishment. The respondent denied

the employment to the petitioners without any

justifiable basis. The respondent is liable to pay

wages for the period from July 2016 to till the date

of reinstatement. The petitioner prays for

reinstatement of the petitioner employees with

continuity of service and with full back wages.

3. On the respondent side Thiru Mohandoss has

filed vakalat for respondent. Since, the counter was not

filed for a long time, the respondent was set ex parte

on 06-03-2018. Further, the petitioner was not appeared

before this Court for several hearings and hence, this

Court has passed an order that the petition is dismissed

for default on 17-10-2018. Further, as per the order in

I.A. 109/2019, dated 24-02-2020 this case is restored.

4. Points for consideration:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for

reinstatement in the respondent management with

continuity of service and back wages?

5. On the petitioner side Tmt. Priya @ Shanmugapriya

was examined and her chief examination affidavit was

filed. Through her Ex.P1 to P13 were marked. In the

evidence of PW.1 she has deposed herself and other

employees were worked in the respondent management

from 2007 till March 2016 and they were appointed

directly by the respondent management. Since, the

respondent management has not extended the statutory

benefits the petitioners have formed a new Trade Union

namely, M/s. Dr. Milton Laboratories Private Limited

Thozhilalargal Sangam affiliated to CITU. The petitioner

in her evidence further deposed that before the

Conciliation Officer the respondent has agreed for the

regularization of the employees of the petitioner Union

but, not regularized as promised. PW.1 further deposed

that the petitioner has all of a sudden shifted the factory

at Moolakulam to Sanniyasikuppam and failed to give

an employment to the petitioners. The respondent has

also illegally declared a lock out without paying the

salary dues of the petitioners properly. The factory was

shifted without giving notice to the employees and

without giving information to the Government

Departments. The nature of work attended by the

petitioners is perennial in nature and all the petitioners

were worked in the respondent management for more

than 240 days in each year and their employment ought

to have regularized by the respondent management. The

petitioners pray for reinstatement with continuity of

service and back wages.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submission. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the details of Conciliation

proceedings before the Conciliation Officer on various

dates. In Ex.P5 order, dated 05-08-2016 the Labour

Commissioner, Puducherry, has ordered the respondent

establishment to engage the petitioners in the respondent

management with same terms and conditions on which

they had been engaged at the time of dispute raised.

Since, the Conciliation before the Labour Officer failed,

the Labour Officer (Conciliation) has given failure

report, dated 22-12-2016. Based on the failure report

581

2 August 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

submitted by the Labour Officer (Conciliation) the

present industrial dispute was referred before this Court

for adjudication. Though the respondent has entered

appearance by filing vakalat the respondent was not

chosen to file counter and the respondent was set

ex parte. The averments of the petition was not

contradicted by the respondent by filing counter. The

respondent has not denied the employer employee

relationship between the petitioner and respondent. The

respondent management failed to regularized the

petitioners even against the promise of the respondent

made before the Conciliation Officer. The nature of work

attended by the petitioner is perennial in nature. The

petitioners are not gainfully employed in any other

establishment from the date of lock out of the company.

7. According to the petitioners they are working for

more than 240 days in every calendar year with the

respondent management for several years and the

non-regularization of the petitioners is nothing but, an

arbitrary exercise of discretion which is not only against

the principles of natural justice but, also against the

established principles of law. From the above made

discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the petitioners having served in the respondent

management for several years they need to be

regularized with all benefits.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The

respondent management is directed to reinstate the

petition mentioned 27 employees in the new factory

situated at Sanniyasikuppam Village with continuity of

service and with full back wages, and all other attendant

benefits 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 4th day of March, 2022.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner witness:

PW.1 — 28-02-2022

Tmt. Priya @ Shanmugapriya

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.Pl

— 29-01-2013

Photocopy of the Conciliation

Proceedings.

Ex.P2 — 08-01-2016

Photocopy of the Conciliation

Proceedings.

Ex.P3 — 23-05-2016

Photocopy of the Conciliation

Proceedings.

Ex.P4 — 14-06-2016

Photocopy of the letter

submitted by the petitioner

union, before the Labour

O ff i c e r,

C o n c i l i a t i o n ,

Puducherry.

Ex.P5 — 05-08-2016

Photocopy of the order

passed

the

Labour

Commissioner, Puducherry.

Ex.P6 — 21-07-2016

Photocopy of the letter

submitted by the petitioner

union, before the Labour

O ff i c e r,

C o n c i l i a t i o n ,

Puducherry.

Ex.P7 — 01-08-2016

Photocopy of the letter

submitted by the petitioner

union, before the Labour

O ff i c e r,

C o n c i l i a t i o n ,

Puducherry.

Ex.P8 — 17-05-2016

Photocopy of the Closure

letter submitted by the

respondent

management,

before

the

Joint

Chief

Inspector

Factories,

Puducherry.

Ex.P9 — 01-06-2016

Photocopy of the letter

submitted by the respondent

management,

before

the

Labour Officer, Conciliation,

Puducherry.

Ex.P10 — 22-12-2016

Photocopy of the Failure

report submitted by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P11 — 05-04-2017

Photocopy of the reference

letter

issued

the

Government of Puducherry.

Ex.P12 — 29-07-2016

Inspection Order or Notice

issued by the Inspector of

Factories to the respondent

management.

Ex.P13 — 04-03-2015

Show cause notice issued by

the Department of Drugs

Control, Puducherry.

List of respondent’s witness: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.