[309]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

310

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 310

Award of the Labour Court .. 310

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

314

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 314

Government Notifications

.. 314

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

317

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 317

Tender Notice

317

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

319

Etablissements dangereux

.. 319

Dangerous Establishments

319

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

320

Annonces

.. 320

Announcements

320

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

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

∞©´_ |

11 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Avril

2023 (21 Chaitra 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

11th

April

2023

310

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 April 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 09/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 24th January 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 09/2020, dated

12-12-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of Dispute between the

Tmt. K. Hemamalini, Villianur, Puducherry against the

management of M/s. DXN Manufacturing (India) Private

Limited, Thiruvandar Koil, Mannadipet Commune,

Puducherry, over non-employment and compensation of

` 7,00,000 with 24% interest 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. 20/9/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.

Monday, the 12th day of December, 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 09/2020

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000041-2020

K. Hemamalini,

No. 7, Third Cross Street,

First Main Road,

Puducherry-605 110.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. DXN Manufacturing (India) Private Limited,

R.S Nos. 141/4 and 142/5, Whirlpool Road,

Thiruvandar Koil, Mannadipet Commune,

Puducherry-605 102.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 07-11-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

S. Nagarajan and A.P. Ilangovan, Counsels for the

Petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, S. Velmurugan and

E. Karthik, Counsels for the Respondent, Reported No

Instruction, Court Notice sent and same served on the

Respondent, Respondent remained ex parte 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. 78/AIL/Lab./T/2020, dated 15-07-2020 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Tmt. K. Hemamalini, Villianur, Puducherry against the

Management of M/s. DXN Manufacturing (India)

Private Limited, Thiruvandar Koil, Mannadipet

Commune, Puducherry over non-employment and

compensation of ` 7,00,000 with 24% interest is

justified or not? If justified, what relief the Petitioner

is entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner Workman was joined as operator in

the Respondent Management company on 01-04-2002

and the Petitioner kept maintained her good conduct

and best service to the fullest satisfaction of the

Respondent Management being a regular employee

ever since of joining to the employment as operator

under the Respondent Management. The Respondent

company was engaged in manufacturing a herbal

capsules in the name and style of “R.G. & G.L.” and

being a multinational company was having surge of

customers over the world for the reason of the health

product of the Respondent company.

(ii) The Respondent Management was engaged

more than 60 employees in a shift per day for

manufacturing process and apart from other employees

for operational purpose. Few employees among other

were taken effort for formation of Union in the year

2006 and by name “DXN Herbal Manufacturing

(India) Private Limited Labour Union”. 17 employees

were targeted by the Respondent Management for

pangs of death i.e., victimization for the sole reason

that they were being stubborn to membership to the

said Union. 17 employees were terminated from

service without any valid cause and reason except

their bare eager for membership into the Union. The

said dispute was referred to Labour Officer,

Conciliation from time to time.

311

11 April 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(iii) On 01-03-2011 at about 05.30 p.m the

Respondent Management was surprisingly displaced

a notice on the board that “The Office of Management

will not function from 02-03-2011 and the services of

notice mention employees are not required from

02-03-2011 and their terminal benefits will be settle

down on 08-03-2011 at the Office”. The statutory

machineries viz., the Labour Commissioner and

Conciliation Officer took cognizance upon the

unlawful

act

the

Respondent

Management

immediately. The Respondent Management was failed

to appear before the officials many hearing and

bluntly ignored them. On around 08-04-2011, the

Respondent Management filed its counter before the

Conciliation Officer in respect of the said Industrial

Dispute. Vide the said counter, the Respondent

Management stated that due to certain unavoidable

circumstances had forced the Management to cease

to run the factory and in view the Management has

proposed to transfer the staff and their workmen to

Himachal Pradesh unit.

(iv) Some of the employees filed a civil suit vide

O.S. No. 45/2011 before the Sub Court, Puducherry

against the Respondent Management and won the suit

vide Judgment and decree, dated 12-04-2012. In view

of the vengeance target the Respondent Management

assailed a baseless allegation against the Petitioner

vide charge-sheet, dated 02-01-2010 and 29-06-2010

for the reason of slow down the work. A similar

charge-sheet was launched upon many employees

who showed their sheer inclination for membership

into the Union. Apart from the said issue was got the

shape of Industrial Dispute before this Court vide

I.D.No. 21/2011 and I.D.No. 10/2020. In fact the

present Petitioner was party to the Industrial

Dispute I.D.No. 10/2020. Whilst pending the above

disputes before this Court, the Respondent

Management desired for tripartite agreement under

section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act so as to

evade and escape from the stringent liabilities for

illegal closure of the company and illegal termination

of the employees including non-employment, etc.

(v) Accordingly on 04-12-2017, a settlement under

section 12(3) arrived between the Respondent

Management and its labour Union in the presence of

the Labour Commissioner. A final settlement including

terminal benefits was decided for all the employees as

a compensation measure against the illegal closure,

non-employment, termination, unfair labour practice,

victimization etc. In view of arrival of settlement the

Respondent Management was uniquely decided to

cease the service of employees against the amount

agreed for compensation towards the employees.

Accordingly an amount of ` 3,50,000 (Rupees three

lakhs fifty thousand only) was decided as

compensation quantum for each employees

irrespective of their status. The requisite condition

for the said settlement was cessation of employment

of all employees against the effect of illegal closure

and the Management was not intent to reopen the

said factory forever.

(vi) Whereas the present nomenclature as to refusal

for employment with the Respondent Management @

` 3,50,000 as compensation and who are willing to

continue the service similar to the Petitioner was paid

nothing. Hence the discriminative classification for

settlement of compensation among the employees who

were set to same foot for same dispute upon same

issue but the ramified amount for compensation

among the employees was irrational and illogical.

(vii) The Petitioner opted to continue service with

Respondent Management. However, the Petitioner was

not in a position to join and report duty in lieu of the

12(3) settlement against her personal inconvenience

upon her 17 year old daughter was supposed to stay

alone at home when the Petitioner is about to report

duty as directed by the Respondent Management.

Pertinently the Petitioner was very recently shifted her

rented home almost 15 kilometers away from the

erstwhile home. Apart from that the Petitioner was lone

lady to care and cater her 17 years old daughter since

her husband was in employment out of the state.

Accordingly vide letter, dated 21-12-2017, the

Petitioner requested time for same. However vide

letter, dated 28-12-2017, the Respondent Management

informed the Petitioner that merely 5 days only would

be given to join and report duty and in case of her

failure within the set time the Management would

consider that she is not interested to continue as its

employee and resigned the job. In addition Respondent

Management sought the bank details of the Petitioner

to deposit the one time compensation/terminal benefits

@ ` 40,000.

(viii) As a response to the Respondent Management’s

letter content, the Petitioner submitted her letter,

dated 02-01-2018 for seeking one month time for

joining duty. The Respondent Management was not

in function yet then in lieu of the 12(3) settlement,

dated 04-12-2017 for the reason that the Respondent

Management and the factory unit was completely

closed down for more than 7 years continuously. The

Respondent Management was stepped into the shoes

of various authorities for sanctioning the orders to

resume the work at the closed factory premise viz.,

the electricity, water, municipal tax, environmental

clearance, underground water, measuring the safety

clearance etc.

312

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 April 2023

(ix) The letter, dated 09-01-2018 refused the request

of the Petitioner for one month time and allowed just

days time to join the duty. The Petitioner had exposed

her uncontrollable situation and against which she

sought considerable time around one month vide letter

dated 02-02-2018 to the Respondent Management.

Whereas against receipt of the above letter from the

Petitioner, the Respondent Management vide its letter,

dated 02-02-2018 by terminating the Petitioner from

the employment along with a Demand Draft bearing

No. 078389 dated 01-02-2018 for ` 40,000 as one time

compensation/terminal benefit. The Petitioner was

insisted to receive the said termination letter by the

Respondent Management along with the Demand

Draft. But, the Petitioner was however refused the

termination letter and the Demand Draft unlawfuly

assailed by the Respondent Management. But with no

option against irksome insistence of the Respondent

Management, the Petitioner received the same with

objection as to no prejudice to her legal rights upon

litigation lie on the cause of action for the present

Industrial Dispute.

(x) The pre mediated decision of the Respondent

Management for terminating her employment by

ceasing the employment and loosing the lieu over

employment in an unjust and unlawful manner

pertinently in lieu of effect of 12(3) settlement, dated

04-12-2017 between the Management and its Labour

Union after long illegal closure and illegal termination

of the employment of the employees. In precise the

act of the Respondent Management is shear

victimization to the Petitioner and her employment

rights as per Industrial Dispute Act.

(xi) The letter, dated 18-05-2018 the Petitioner

submitted an appropriate complaint as to the Industrial

Dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry with the request for reinstatement to the

employment with compensation of ` 7,00,000. The

Respondent Management vide letter, dated 10-05-2019

replied to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) upon the

Industrial Dispute of the Petitioner and through with

stoutly refused the demands of the Petitioner and

sought a failure report from the Conciliation Officer.

Against which a reply by the Petitioner vide letter,

dated 05-08-2019 was submitted before the Labour

Officer (Conciliation).

(xii) The Labour Officer (Conciliation) vide his

proceedings No. 740/LO(C)/AIL/018, dated 16-03-2012

submitted the failure report upon the Industrial

Dispute raised by the Petitioner vide her petition,

dated 18-05-2018.

(xiii) An illegal termination of the Petitioner’s

employment by the sole Respondent herein pertinently

without conducting even a domestic enquiry against

the Petitioner who infact was regular employee

working since, 01-04-2002 i.e., for more that 15 years.

The Petitioner was drawn her wage around ` 6,500

after deducting the admissible contribution viz., the

ESI, the P.F etc., before the effect of the 12(3)

settlement, dated 04-12-2017. Whereas ` 10,500 was

fixed as her wage in lieu of the 12(3) settlement, dated

04-12-2017 apart from other allowances admissible

under the Respondent Management from time to time.

Hence, the claim for the reinstatement.

3. Respondent Company was set ex parte on

11-08-2022.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner Workman is entitled for the

prayer of reinstatement and compensation of

` 7,00,000 with 24% interest as prayed in the Claim

Petition?

5. On the Point:

Respondent counsel reported no instruction on

20-07-2022. Court notice ordered and served on the

Respondent. Since service sufficient, Respondent

called but not appeared on 11-08-2022. Hence,

Respondent Management set ex parte. Proof affidavit

of the Petitioner filed and Ex.P1 to P11 marked.

6. Heard the Petitioner counsel. Perused the case

records and Ex.P1 to P11 marked on the side of the

Petitioner.

7. The prayer in the Industrial Dispute is for

reinstatement with back wages and other benefits along

with the compensation of ` 7,00,000 with 24% interest

over the illegal termination and non-employment of

the Petitioner with cost. According to the Petitioner, in

I.D.No. 21/2011 and I.D.No. 10/2020 in which the

Petitioner was the party. Pending above said IDs,

Management and Labour Union entered into a settlement

under section 12(3) on 04-12-2017 in the presence of

Labour Commissioner. In view of the settlement, the

Respondent Management agreed for compensation of

` 3,50,000 for cessation of employment of employees

against the effect of illegal closure and the Management

was not intended to reopen the factory for work. But

the employees who are willing to continue the service

including the Petitioner was paid nothing. The

discriminative classification for settlement of

compensation among the employees who were on the

same position but refused the compensation among the

employees was irrational and illogical.

313

11 April 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

8. According to the Petitioner, she opted to continue

the service with Respondent Management and not in a

position to join immediately due to her personal

inconvenience. The same was informed to the

Management vide her letter, dated 21-12-2017 requesting

time for joining. The Respondent Management granted

only 5 days time for reporting duty vide its letter, dated

28-12-2017. Again the Petitioner vide her letter, dated

02-01-2018 sought for one month time for joining the

duty. The Respondent Management refused the request

vide letter dated 09-01-2018 but given 5 days time for

joining duty. Again the Petitioner sought one month time

to the Respondent Management vide her letter

02-02-2018. Whereas, the Respondent Management vide

its letter, dated 02-02-2018 had terminated the Petitioner

from the employment with the Demand Draft, dated

01-02-2018 for ` 40,000 as one time compensation/

terminal benefits. The Petitioner has received the same

with objection. The above decision of the termination of

the Respondent Management is pre-mediated decision

and against the 12(3) settlement. The Petitioner had

approached the Labour Officer Conciliation. The

Respondent Management filed their objections, dated

10-05-2019.

9. It is submitted by the Petitioner Counsel that

` 10,500 was fixed as her wage in lieu of the 12(3)

settlement dated 04-12-2017 apart from other allowances

admissible under the Respondent Management from time

to time.

10. Though the Petitioner has agreed to join the

Respondent Management but she could not make it

immediately due to her personal inconvenience. This

version of the Petitioner has not been rebutted by the

Respondent Management. When Respondent Management

had disbursed ` 3,50,000 to the employees those who

quit the job as per the Settlement under section 12(3) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, in absence of any rebuttal

pleadings, evidence and proof, this Court is not in a

position to reject the claim of the Petitioner. But, at the

same time, this Court is not inclined to order the relief

as such claimed by the Petitioner in this claim petition in

toto. On considering the facts and circumstances, this

Court finds that before the closure, the Petitioner had

received ` 6,500 as Wage after all deductions. Hence,

taking into account as per the 12(3) settlement though

the Petitioner has agreed to join the Respondent

Management but she could not make it immediately due

to her personal inconvenience, it is just and proper that

if ordered the same compensation of ` 3,50,000 which

was paid by the Respondent Management to the

employees those who quit the job, be paid to the

Petitioner herein with accrued interest. Since, ` 40,000

already paid to the Petitioner Workman, the same shall

be deducted from the said compensation. Thus the point

for determination is decided accordingly.

11. In the result, the Reference is justified and the

Industrial Dispute is partly allowed with the effect that

the Respondent Management is hereby directed to pay

` 3,10,000 (Rupees Three lakhs and ten thousand only)

which was paid by the Respondent Management to the

employees those who quit the job, to the Petitioner herein

with accrued interest at the rate of 9% from the date of

their job cessation i.e., 02-02-2018 till the date of this

Award and thereafter 6% from the date of the Award till

the date of realization. Other Claims claimed by the

Petitioner in the claim petition is rejected. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this

the 12th day of December, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 14-09-2022

Tmt. Hemamalini

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — 21-12-2017

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P2 — 28-12-2017

Photocopy of the letter by

the Respondent to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P3 — 02-01-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P4 — 09-01-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the Respondent to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P5 — 02-02-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P6 — 02-02-2018

Photocopy of the Letter by

the Respondent to the

Petitioner intimating job

cessation.

Ex.P7 — 01-02-2018

Photocopy of the Demand

Draft No. 078389 (Axis

Bank).

Ex.P8 — 18-05-2018

Original document of the

Industrial Dispute complaint

of the Petitioner before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

314

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 April 2023

Ex.P9 — 10-05-2019

Photocopy of the reply of

Respondent Management

before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.P10 — 05-08-2019

Photocopy of the re joinder

of the Petitioner before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P11 — 04-12-2017

Photocopy of the 12(3)

Settlement.

List of Respondent’s Witness: NIL

List of Respondents’s Exhibits: NIL

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 37/Lab./AIL/T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 21st March 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management of

M/s. Shree Mother Plast India Private Limited, Puducherry

and Thiru L. Gasperraj, over his non-employment along

with back wages and other attendant benefits, 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. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV

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

Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred

to the Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication. The

Labour Court, Puducherry, shall submit the Award

within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as

stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with

rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957. The party raising the dispute shall file a statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses to the Labour Court, Puducherry,

within 15 days of the receipt of the order of reference

and also forward a copy of such statement to each one

of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

ANNEXURE

(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Thiru L. Gasperraj, represented by Shree Mother

Plast Employees Union, against the management of

M/s. Shree Mother Plast India Private Limited,

Puducherry, over his non-employment is justified or

not? If justified, to give appropriate direction?

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

of money if, it can be so computed.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 38/Lab./AIL/T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 21st March 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management of

M/s. Manatec Electronics Private Limited, Karikalampakkam,

Puducherry and Thiru P. Narasingaperumal, over his

non-employment along with other attendant benefits,

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. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV

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

Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred

to the Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication. The

Labour Court, Puducherry, shall submit the Award

within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as

stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with

rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957. The party raising the dispute shall file a statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses to the Labour Court, Puducherry,

within 15 days of the receipt of the order of reference

and also forward a copy of such statement to each one

of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.