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

[43]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

ƒ™kˆ |

17 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2023 (27 Pausa 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

17th

January

2023

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

Notifications du Gouvernement

Government Notifications

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

Etablissements dangereux

Dangerous Establishments

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

Annonces

Announcements

]Ú›>D

Corrigendum

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 January 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 168/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 19/2018, dated

30-08-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the

management of M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals

Limited, Puducherry and Shasun Chemicals Staff

Union, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry, over grant of

financial reward of ` 1,00,000 each to the retired

employees as listed in Annexure-I on account of

transfer of undertaking of the management of

M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited to M/s. Strides

Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited.

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.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. Sofana Devi, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Tuesday, the 30th day of August, 2022.

I.D. (T) No. 19/2018

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000077-2018

The President,

Shasun Chemical Staff Union,

No. 20, Cuddalore Road,

Ariyankuppam,

Puducherry-605 007.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager,

M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited,

R.S.No.33 & 34, Mathur Road,

Periya Kalapet,

Puducherry-605 014.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 05-08-2022

before me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru

S. Lenin Durai, Counsel for the Petitioner and

Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, S. Velmurugan, E. Karthik and

S. Sudarasanan, 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:

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the

Government as per the G.O. Rt. No. 127/AIL/Lab./T/2018,

dated 23-08-2018 for adjudicating whether the industrial

dispute raised by Shasun Chemical Staff Union,

Ariyankuppam, Puducherry, against the management of

M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Puducherry,

over grant of financial Reward of ` 1,00,000/- each to the

retired employees as listed in Annexure - I on account of

transfer of undertaking of the management of M/s. Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited to M/s. Strides Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited, is justified or not? If justified,

what relief they are entitled to?

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

of money, if, it can be so computed?

2. Brief averments made in the claim statement of the

petitioner are as follows:

Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited is a Pharmaceuticals

company yielding huge profit. It is one of the huge

concern in India. This company is functioning for

several years in Periya Kalapet, Puducherry. The year

turn over for 2014 to 2015 is ` 13,288.55 million dollars.

After deducting the tax, it yielded profit of ` 237.55

million dollars i.e., ` 23,75,50,000. The respondent

company also received a Central Government Award

by name "Stalwart of Indian API Industry" in the year

2015. The respondent company was transferred to

other International Company and changed its name as

"M/s. Solara Active Pharma Science Limited". Before

this transfer, a industrial dispute raised before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation), for some benefits to the

workers. Pending enquiry, this transfer happened

without any prior permission from the Labour Officer

(Conciliation). While transferring the company from

one management to another management, it is a

convention to give rewards to the employees and such

practice is prevailing in Puducherry State. Thus, the

respondent company is liable to give `1,00,000 cash

reward to the 13 retired employees listed in the Claim

Petition. Hence, the Petition.

17 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the

respondent are as follows:

Firstly, the Petitioner has no locus standi to raise

an industrial dispute either before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) or before this Court and the same is

liable to be dismissed on the following grounds.

(a) Petitioner has raised a dispute against a

company which does not exist. There was and is

company

name

Strides

Shasun

Pharmaceuticals Limited and hence, no claim can be

raised against such non-existent company.

(b) Petitioners are not workers within a definition

of Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act as they

had retired from their services of their employer

namely, Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited and

Strides Shasun Limited. Thus, there is no employer

and employee relationship between the petitioners

and respondent at the time when the present

dispute raised.

definition of Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act

as the period for which the petitioner claims

compensation for 13 members, they were not

workers of any Respondent organization.

(d) The present dispute is raised by a Union

which has no presence in the Respondent's factory.

None of the workers of Respondent Union are

members of Petitioner Union. The person who filed

the ID claiming to be President of the Petitioner

Union has never been its President. Therefore, the

Petitioner Union or the person who has filed the

present ID claiming himself to be President of

Petitioner Union has no locus to file the present

dispute.

2. The very cause title of the reference and claim

petition is defective. One M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals

Limited, was engaged in the business of manufacturing

tablets and Pharmaceuticals products. The said company

was merged with M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited by way of

a Scheme of Amalgamation by order of Hon’ble High

Court in Company Petition No. 149/2015, dated

16-06-2015. The Amalgamated Company was then named

as M/s. Strides Shasun Limited and it was registered with

Registrar of Companies vide Certificate of Incorporation,

dated 18-11-2015. The name of M/s. Strides Shasun

Limited was changed to M/s. Strides Pharma Science

Limited and it was approved by Registrar of Companies

vide Certificate of Incorporation, dated 18-07-2018. If,

Petitioner Union claims to be representing workers of

Respondent, these facts must be known to them. Hence,

the very nomenclature of Respondent in the cause title

of Petitioner is erroneous and it needs to be suitably

amended and if not, the same shall be dismissed.

3. Without prejudice, Respondent specifically denies that,

(i) The total business value of the respondent for

the year of 2014-2015 is 13,288.55 Million dollars or

1,328 Crores 85 Lakhs 50 Thousand and net profit of

237.55 Million Dollars or 23 Crores 75 lakhs and 50

Thousand after excluding the tax.

(ii) The amalgamation of respondent's company

with M/s. Solara Active Pharma Science Ltd. is against

the law.

(iii) The amalgamation of this respondent's

company was done during pendency of the

conciliation proceeding which is not valid under

section 33 (a) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

(iv) In order to encourage the employees, the

practices of extending financial rewards to the

employees on transfer of profitable company from one

management to another management are prevailing in

Puducherry.

(v) The management is to extend the financial

reward to the tune of ` 1,00,000 to 13 retired

employees and to help them for their peaceful

retired life. All the aforementioned allegations/

averments in the claim statement are absolutely false,

baseless and concocted by petitioner and Petitioner

is put strict proof of each of the aforementioned

averments.

4. The present industrial dispute is outrageous,

vexatious and has absolutely no legal, moral are ethical

grounds for being entertained as a dispute, let alone an

industrial dispute. The present claim petition is a classic

example of how a Trade Union Exploits its powers and

raises absolutely frivolous disputes with no legal or moral

justification. The very reference of these kinds of

disputes also reflect total lack of application of mind of

both Labour Officer, Conciliation and Government, which

ought to have discarded the dispute at its very inception,

as being totally baseless.

5. The claim of petitioner is on behalf of 13 retired

employees seeking ` 1,00,000 per head as a gratuitous

payment which is unknown to law. Petitioner claims that

there is a practice of paying compensation by a transferee

company to employees of Transferor Company. Such

claims of petitioner is ridiculous to say the least and even,

the state missionaries like the Labour Officer Conciliation

did not inform the Unions about the frivolity in its claim

and has mechanically failed the dispute when there was

none and referred it to this Court.

6. The claim of petitioner Union is absolutely illegal,

as there is no contractual or moral obligation on the part

of transferee company to pay any compensation under

any name whatsoever to any of the workers of transferor

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 January 2023

company, except such of those obligations that are

mutually agreed between transferor and transferee under

scheme of transfer. A transferee company does not even

have a legal obligation of continue with employment of

workers of transferor company, unless specifically agreed.

Even transferor is not under any obligation to make any

gratuitous payments over and above statutory payments

mandated under various labour welfare legislations.

Therefore, the demand for ` 1,00,000 to 13 workers, who

had already retired either from their employer or

transferee of their employer is totally unjustified.

7. The claim of petitioner that there is a convention

of paying lump sum ex gratia is hereby stoutly denied

and Petitioner is put to strict proof. Assuming with

admitting that such amount were ever paid by any

transferee company, it could have been purely gratuitous

or out of mutual understanding, which cannot be

demanded as a matter of right by Petitioner, unless there

is statutory or contractual mandate.

8. The contention of petitioner that transfer of a

company during pendency of a labour conciliation

proceeding is violative of Section 33 (a) of Industrial

Disputes Act is misleading and against the very letter and

spirit of the said provision. The contention that Solara

Active Pharma Science Limited purchased Strides Shasun

Pharmaceutical Limited is by itself a wrong statement.

9. All the 13 retired employees on whose behalf

present case is filed by petitioner were employees of

M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited. Majority of them

retired from their respective services even before M/s. Strides

Arcolab Limited took over the said company. Infact,

Petitioner admits such retirement and has filed an

application before Controlling Authority under Payment

of Gratuity Act disputing calculations in gratuity amount

paid by M/s. Strides Shasun Limited. The details of date

of superannuation of 13 retired workers and the other

particulars are listed henceforth.

Sl.

Applicant’s Name

P.G.No.

Retired

Gratuity

Arrears

No.

paid

claimed

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Muthusamy (Employee Code 20020215)

P.G.No. 30/2017

25-06-2014

3,50,356

1,45,985.00

Ramachandran (Employee Code 20010110)

P.G.No. 31/2017

29-11-2013

3,68,769

1,03,392.92

Mohan (Employee Code 20020215)

P.G.No. 32/2017

27-11-2012

2,88,680

4,63,446.00

Achuthan (Employee Code 20020057)

P.G.No. 33/2017

30-05-2015

5,47,379

14,089.00

Mohamod Samuilla (Employee Code 20020050) P.G.No. 34/2017

30-09-2012

2,90,170

1,45,985.00

Krishnamoorthy (Employee Code 20020215)

P.G.No. 35/2017

06-08-2012

3,63,462

4,43,120.00

Poomalai (Employee Code 10008)

P.G.No. 36/2017

01-05-2008

1,78,044

2,00,186.00

V. Pandiyan (Employee Code 20042)

P.G.No. 37/2017

12-06-2014

2,12,912

1,45,985.00

A. Uduman Ali (Employee Code 20020216)

P.G.No. 38/2017

31-12-2015

6,03,126

73,539.00

Veerabadhran (Employee Code 20010309)

P.G.No. 39/2017

24-04-2013

4,03,846

3,15,202.00

P. Veeraragavan (Employee Code 20010078)

P.G.No. 40/2017

04-09-2014

4,38,173

1,45,985.00

Y. John Arthur (Employee Code 20020116)

P.G.No. 41/2017

10-02-2014

1,73,608

4,26,254.00

Devadass (Employee Code 20010109)

P.G.No. 42/2017

31-01-2016

4,77,923

4,02,815.00

1 0 . I t i s t h u s c l e a r t h a t o n t h e d a t e w h e n

M / s . Shasun

Pharmaceutical

Limited

was

amalgamated to M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited, as many

as 11 workers had already retired from the services of

erstwhile Company. Therefore, they can have no claims

of any nature after they cease to be employees of M/s.

Shasun Pharmaceutical Limited. The remaining two

workers who were in employment as on 16-6-2015 were

taken on roll by new management of this respondent and

they continued with this employment till their date of

superannuation. Under such circumstances, there is no

question of seeking lump sum compensation by an

employee who accepted the employment of transferee

company and continued to work under it. It could thus

be seen that the claim of compensation claimed by the

petitioner is atrocious and has no legal or contractual

17 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

basis hence, the same is liable to be dismissed with

exemplary cost. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

4. The point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for over grant of

financial reward of `1,00,000 each to the retired

employees as listed in Annexure - I on account of

transfer of undertaking of the management of M/s.

Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited to M/s. Strides

Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited?

5. On points:

On the petitioner side, Mr. Poomalai / the Executive

Committee member of Petitioner Union and who is

also the 10th Petitioner herein was examined as PW1

and Exs. P1 to P2 were marked. On the respondent side,

RW1 was examined and Exs. R1 to R7 were marked.

6. On the Point :

This is a claim application moved by the Petitioner

Union for over grant of financial reward of ` 1,00,000

each to the retired employees as listed in Annexure - I

on account of transfer of undertaking of the

management of M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited

to M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. In order

to substantiate Petitioner Union's claim, through PW1.

Ex.P1 the copy of the balance sheet showing profit

and loss statement for the year 2014-15 and Ex.P2

the failure report of Labour Officer (Conciliation)

marked. According to the Petitioner Union, M/s. Shasun

Pharmaceutical Limited is a very well-known

Multinational Firm and functioning at Kalapet for many

more years. It has been acquired by Multinational

Company and functioning in the name of ‘Strides

Shasun Pharmaceutical Limited’. Recently another one

Multinational Company has acquired the said Firm. In

order to encourage the employees, the practices of

extending financial rewards to the employees on

transfer of profitable company from one management

to another management are prevailing in Puducherry.

Hence, this claim petition filed for an order directing

to order ` 1,00,000 to 13 retired employees towards the

financial reward.

7. This ID has been objected as follows:-

(i) Dispute against a company which does not

exists. No company by name Strides Shasun

Pharmaceutical Limited and hence, no claim can be

raised against a non existent company.

(ii) As per Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act

retired employees from the services are no longer

employee and no employer-employee relationship exists.

(iii) Present dispute does not come under the

definition of 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act for the claim

period where the said 13 members were not workers.

(iv) The petitioner filed has no locus standi to file.

(v) The present claim petition is an example of how

a Trade Union exploits its powers and raises absolutely

frivolous disputes with no legal or moral justification.

(vi) The claim of the petitioner seeking gratuitous

payment which is unknown to law.

(vii) The gratuitous payment purely gratuitous or

out of mutual understanding, which cannot be

demanded as a matter of right by petitioner, unless

there is a statutory or contractual mandate.

(viii) The 13 petitioners were employees of M/s. Shasun

Pharmaceutical Limited. Majority of them retired from

service even before M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited took

over the said company. An application before

Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act

disputing calculations in the gratuity amount.

(ix) On the date when M/s. Shasun Pharmaceutical

Limited amalgamated to M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited,

11 workers already retired from service of erstwhile

company. The remaining two workers were continued

with this employment till their date of superannuation.

(x) No question of lump sum compensation by an

employee who accepted the employment of transferee

company and continued his work.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by

learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the oral as well as documentary evidence produced

on the Petitioner side, nothing has been elucidated that

they have the right to claim the lump sum compensation

as the gratuitous payment/financial reward which is

unknown to law. As rightly pointed out in the counter

that the gratuitous payment purely gratuitous or out of

mutual understanding, which cannot be demanded as a

matter of right by petitioner, unless there is a statutory

or contractual mandate.

9. Further, the 13 Petitioners who claim under this

reference were employees of M/s. Shasun Pharmaceutical

Limited. Majority of them retired from service even before

M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited took over the said company.

Admittedly, most of them got retired even before

M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited took over the said company.

An application pending before Controlling Authority

under payment of Gratuity Act disputing calculations in

the gratuity amount. On the date when M/s. Shasun

Pharmaceutical Limited amalgamated to M/s. Strides

Arcolab Limited, 11 workers already retired from service

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 January 2023

of erstwhile company. The remaining two workers were

continued with this employment till their date of

superannuation.

10. The Petitioner Union's case is that while

transferring the company from one management to

another management, it is a convention to give rewards

to the employees and such practice is prevailing in

Puducherry State. The well-known Latin maxim Ubi jus,

ibi remedium - meaning 'where there is a right, there is a

remedy', postulates that where law has established a right

there should be a corresponding remedy for its breach.

The right to a remedy is one of the fundamental rights

historically recognized in all legal systems. It is a general

and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right,

there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law

whenever that right is invaded. Mere convention/Practice

prevailing in one State does not create a right to claim

the same and not binding. Even there is such a

convention prevailing, it cannot be claimed as a matter

of right.

11. The other contentions made on the side of the

management that on the date when M/s. Shasun

Pharmaceutical Limited amalgamated to M/s. Strides

Arcolab Limited, 11 workers already retired from service

of erstwhile company and the remaining two workers were

continued with this employment till their date of

superannuation. Therefore, there is no question of lump

sum compensation by an employee who accepted the

employment of transferee company and continued his

work and as the retired employees from the services are

no longer employee and no employer employee

relationship exists and this dispute does not come under

the definition of 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act because

of the admitted facts that for the claim period where the

said 13 members were not workers. The petitioner Union

has placed their claim as prevailing convention/practice,

which shall not be enforceable. The Petitioner Union

failed to show that they have right to claim or at least a

legitimate expectation, which can be claimed before the

Court of law. Thus, a claim under the cover of mere so

called convention/practice prevailing in one State cannot

be claimed as a matter of right. Therefore, the point for

consideration is answered as against the petitioner Union

and they are not entitled for any relief under this reference.

In the result, reference is unjustified and the

Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. The industrial

dispute as raised by the Petitioner Union is dismissed.

No cost.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 30th day of August, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner witness:

PW1

— 27-01-2020

Mr. N. Poomalai

List of petitioner side exhibits:

Ex.P1 — —

Photocopy of the computer

printout

relating

consolidated

financial

statements for the year

ended March 31, 2015.

Ex.P2

— 11-07-2018

Photocopy of the failure

report submitted by Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Government of Puducherry.

List of respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 06-09-2021

Mr. Balamurugan

List of respondent side exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 23-08-2021

Letter

Authorization

issued to RW1 by the

Respondent Company to

adduce evidence before this

Court.

Ex.R2

— 16-06-2015

Photocopy of the order

passed

Comp.

petition.No.149/2015 by the

Honourable High Court of

Madras.

Ex.R3

— 18-11-2015

Photocopy of Certificate of

incorporation pursuant to

change

name

Respondent

Management

issued

Ministry

Corporate

Affairs,

Government of India.

Ex.R4

— 18-07-2018

Photocopy of Certificate of

incorporation pursuant to

change

name

Respondent

Management

issued

Ministry

Corporate

Affairs,

Government of India.

Ex.R5

— 25-03-2017

Photocopy of Certificate of

incorporation pursuant to

change

name

Respondent

Management

issued

Ministry

Corporate

Affairs,

Government of India.

Ex.R6

— —

Photocopy of the petition

(series)

filed before Controlling

Authority,

Payment

Gratuity Ac,t 1972 by the

petitioners.

17 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R7

— —

Photocopy of the counter

(series)

filed before Controlling

Authority,

Payment

Gratuity Act, 1972 by the

respondent Management.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 169/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 01/2021, dated

30-08-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of the Industrial dispute

between the Management of M/s. Matrix Stampi

Limited, Puducherry and the Union workmen

represented by All India United Trade Union Centre,

Ariyankuppam, Puducherry, over non-payment of legal

dues such as bonus, gratuity etc., to Tvl. M. Boopalan

and S. Janarthanan.

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.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. Sofana Devi, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Tuesday, the 30th day of August, 2022.

I.D. (T) No. 01/2021

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000024-2021

The State President,

All India United Trade Union Centre,

No. 85, Veerampattinam Street,

Chettiarkadai Bus Stop,

Ariyankuppam,

Puducherry-605 007.

. .

Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

No.19/1 & 4/4, Mailam Road,

Sedarapet Post,

Puducherry-605 111.

. .

Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-08-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

S. Lenindurai @ Kalimuthu and M. Ruthra, Counsels for

the petitioner, Respondent remained exparte and after

hearing the petitioner side and perusing the case

records, this Court delivered the following:

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No.53/AIL/LAB/T/2021, dated 05.08.2021 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 All India United Trade Union

Centre, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry against the

Management of M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Puducherry, over non-payment of legal dues such as

bonus, gratuity etc., to Tvl. M. Boopalan and

S. Janarthanan is justified or not? If justified, what

relief they are entitled to?

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

of money, if, it can be so computed?

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner:

Petitioner Union has filed the claim petition. The

Respondent Company is a leather factory functioning

for more than past 27 years. In the Respondent

Company, there are more than 100 employees are

working. The said Respondent Company has no

licencse to run the company such as from Electricity

Board and without any standing order. No tax has been

paid so far by the Respondent Company and thus, it

is cheating the Government by evading payment of tax.

While being so, the Respondent Company removed

some employees who were working in its company for

several years. But, the Respondent Company did not

give the salary arrears, gratuity, bonus, leave salary

etc., till date. So, the employees have given a petition

to the Respondent Company with these demands on

01-11-2019. The Respondent Company received the

petitions from the employees but did not give any

reply or explanations to the employees. On 21-11-2019,

the employees submitted their demands before Labour

Officer (Conciliation) and raised the Labour Industrial

Dispute. On receipt of the same, the Labour Officer

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 January 2023

(Conciliation) issued enquiry notice on 06-12-2019 to

the parties. Several hearings of enquiry conducted by

the Labour Officer (Conciliation). But, the Respondent

Company did not come forward to give any reply,

explanation and they did not appear before the Labour

Officer (Conciliation) proceedings. The attitude of the

Respondent Company is against the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and principles of natural

justice. The said attitude is against the Schedule V

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus amounts

to Unfair Labour Practice. Hence, the Labour Officer

(Enforcement) passed an order dated 30-01-2020 for

the Respondent Company to disburse the gratuity

amount to the employees. But, the Respondent

Company till date did not come forward to comply the

order. Hence, the prayer to disburse salary arrears,

gratuity, bonus, leave salary etc., with accurred

interest to the employees namely S. Janarthanan and

M. Boopalan. Hence, the claim.

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and

Respondent. Petitioner appeared and engaged an

Advocate to represent him. Whereas, the Respondent

not appeared. Hence, the Respondent Company was

set ex parte on 20-10-2021. Claim petition filed by the

Petitioner.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioners - Workmen are entitled for

the prayer of directing the Respondent to disburse the

salary arrears, gratuity, bonus, leave salary, etc., with

accurred

interest

the

employees

namely,

S. Janarthanan and M. Boopalan as prayed in the claim

petition?

5. On Point:

Petitioner/President of the Petitioner Union

examined himself as PW1. Ex.P1 to P6 were marked.

Since, Respondent set ex parte, cross-examination not

done on PW1.

6. On the point:

This is an I.D.(T) filed by the Trade Unions and the

against the management company for non-payment

of legal dues such as bonus, gratuity, etc., to the

2 workmen. Notice were served on both the parties

to the I.D. Petitioner/All India United Trade Union

Centre appeared whereas, the Respondent namely

Managing Director, M/s. Matrix Stampi Ltd., remained

absent. Hence, the Respondent set ex parte on

20-10-2021. Petitioner was examined Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were

marked.

7. On close perusal of PW.1 evidence, I am able to

find that workmen namely; Mr. M. Boopalan and

Mr. S. Janarthanan resigned their services from the

Respondent Company after several years of their

employment. But, according to the Petitioner Union,

the Respondent Company did not settle the benefits

such as gratuity, bonus to the abovesaid resigned

workmen. So, the Petitioner Union filed a petition

before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry

on 21-11-2019 for Conciliation. In the said conciliation,

the Petitioner Union sought for reliefs to the four

workmen including these two workmen. The said

petition preferred before Labour Officer (Conciliation)

dated 21-11-2019 marked as Ex.P1. The notices were

ordered by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry to both the parties dated 06-12-2019. The

Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry has filed a

failure report, dated 17-06-2021 (Ex. P3) at page 2

unnumbered para 2 stating that “The Management has

refused to settle the statutory benefits consequent on

their resignation, i.e., gratuity, bonus, leave salary, etc.,

The Petitioner Union has filed a representation on

21-11-2019 requesting to grant the statutory benefit

to the abovesaid four workers instead of employment.

But, the Management has not yet turned up either to

settle the statutory benefits or reply to the

representation. Necessary notice of enquiry for

conciliation was issued to both parties for joined

discussions towards an amicable settlement of the

dispute. During the conciliation, the management

has filed a reply statement, dated 13-12-2019 and

a copy of the same received by the Union in which

stated that they are closing a settlement of their

Ex-employees who worked with them after getting

NOC or as per the notice period which is as per their

appointment terms.” And at page 3 unnumbered

para 2, it has been further mentioned that, “Conciliation

enquires were posted on various dates to reach an

amicable settlement. Mr. M. Boobalan, affected worker

only appeared for the enquiries with Union and the

Management has not turned up to attend the enquiry

for more than 13 hearings and the management has not

filed any written statement about their stand in this

regard, which shows that the adamant attitude of the

management and not ready to settle his dispute in this

forum. Following continuous absence on the

management side the Petitioner requested to failure the

issue. As there is no possibility to make an amicable

settlement between the parties, finally the matter was

ended in failure as an ex parte”.

8. Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are the Notice for payment of

gratuity issued by the office of the Labour Officer

(Enforcement), Government of Puducherry, dated

30-01-2020 to the Respondent Company. The said

Gratuity Application in G.A.No. 119/2019 and

G.A.No. 120/19 respectively, was ordered on 30-01-2020

17 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

directing the Respondent to pay the applicants namely,

Janarthanan and Boobalan a sum of ` 2,55,198 and

` 4,80,000 respectively towards gratuity with simple

interest @ 10% per annum from 31-03-2019 and from

01-07-2019 respectively till the date of payment. Even

in that Ex.P5 & Ex.P6, I could able to find that the

Respondent failed to appear inspite of service of

notice and the Respondent was set ex parte. Therefore,

even before the controlling authority under the

payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-cum-Labour Officer

(Enforcement), Government of Puducherry, the

Respondent Company has not chosen to appear and

submit their side. Therefore, from all the exhibits, i.e,,

P.1 to P.6 this Court could clearly comes to the

conclusion that the Respondent Company never

appeared before any forums such as Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry, Labour Officer

(Enforcement), Puducherry and before this Industrial

Tribunal, despite several notices issued to the

Respondent Company for making his appearance and

submission so as to decide the industrial dispute.

9. As discussed above, I hold that Petitioner Union

has categorically proved its case by way of adducing

oral evidence and by marking documentary evidences.

The case of the Petitioner Union has not been

rebutted by the Management Company and it remained

absent. Therefore, from all angles, this Court decide

the point for determination in favour to the Petitioner

Union to the effect that Respondent Company is

directed to pay the legal dues such as bonus, gratuity,

etc., to Mr. M. Boobalan and Mr. S. Janarthanan and

thus the industrial dispute referred is justified.

In the result, the Industrial Dispute raised by the

Petitioner Union is justified and the Respondent

Management is hereby directed to pay the legal dues

such as bonus, gratuity, etc., to Mr. M. Boobalan and

Mr. S. Janarthanan as prayed in the claim petition.

No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on

this the 30th day of August, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 01-06-2022

Mr. Sivakumar

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — 21-11-2019

Photocopy of the petition in

Form L to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government

of Puducherry.

Ex.P2 — 06-12-2019

Photocopy of the Notice

Enquiry/Conciliation.

Ex.P3 — 17-06-2021

Photocopy of the Failure

report by the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government

of Puducherry.

Ex.P4 — 05-08-2021

Photocopy of the summon

i s s u e d

b y

L a b o u r

Commissioner.

Ex.P5 — 30-01-2020

Form – R, order copy of

G.A.No.119/2019 passed by

Controlling Authority under

the payment of Gratuity Act,

1972.

Ex.P6 — 30-01-2020

Form – R, order copy of

G.A.No.120/2019 passed by

Controlling Authority under

the payment of Gratuity Act,

1972.

List of respondent’s witness: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 183/Lab./AIL/T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 22nd December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s Suolificio Linea Italia (India) Private Limited and

Chemcrown Exports and Suolificio Linea Italia (India)

Private Limited, Thozhilalargal Sangam (Affiliated with

CITU), over payment of bonus for the year 2018-19, 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 (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV

of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to