[421]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

422

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 422

Award of the Labour Court .. 422

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

436

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 436

Government Notifications

.. 436

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

438

Etablissements dangereux

.. 438

Dangerous Establishments

438

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

441

Annonces

.. 441

Announcements

441

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 }

º\ |

23 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mai

2023 (2 Jyaistha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

23rd

May

2023

422

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 May 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 54/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 25th April 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 07/2019, dated

03-03-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of dispute between M/s. PONTEX,

the Puducherry State Weavers Co-operative Society

Limited, No. P.57, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady,

Puducherry and the Union workmen represented by

AITUC Pontex Thozhilalargal Sangam, Mudaliarpet,

Puducherry, over non-payment of salary dues from

01-02-2017 to the Union workmen 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.

Friday, the 3rd day of March 2023.

I.D. (T) No. 07/2019

CNR. No. PYPY060000272019

1. M. Buvaneswari

2. P. Kuttan

3. S. Karpagam

4. H. Annalakshmi

5. S. Murugan

6. M. Jaiganesh

7. D. Nedunchezhian

8. S. Pannerselvam

9. M. Badmanaban

10. M. Rajasekar

11. A. Murugan

12. D. Nagarajane

13. G. Gunamathy

14. S. Jenitha Campane

15. A. Leema Arokiamary

16. R. Vadivelan

17. M. Sivakumar

18. S. Kumaresan

19. V. Sekar

20. M. Malarkodi .

21. B. Padmavathy

22. R. Sudha

23. K. Arumugam

24. P. Saravanan

25. N. Mohanraj

26. R. Thanigaivelu

27. R. Buvaneswari

28. S. Kathirvelu

29. P. Annamalay

30. D. Rajavelu

31. K. Ramesh

32. M. Iroudayaradjou

33. S. Balaji

34. D. Kumar

Represented by its The Secretary,

AITUC Pontex Thozhilalargal Sangam,

No.49, Rodier Mill Street,

Mudaliarpet,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioners

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Pontex,

The Puducherry State Weavers Co-operative

Society Limited,

P.57, Industrial Estate,

Thattanchavady,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 22-02-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru Gubendran

Gunabalan, Counsel, for the Petitioners, Thiruvalargal

L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan, E. Karthik and

S. Sudarsanan, Counsels, for the Respondent, up on

hearing both sides and perusing the case records, this

Court delivered the following:

423

23 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 39/AIL/Lab./T/2019, dated 11-03-2019 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Union

workmen represented by AITUC Pontex Thozhilalargal

Sangam, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry, against the

Management of M/s. Pontex, the Puducherry State

Weavers Co-operative Society Limited, No. P57,

Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady, Puducherry, over

non-payment of salary dues from 01-02-2017 to the

Union workmen are justified or not? If justified,

what relief the Union workmen 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 Petitioners are working in the Pondicherry

Co-operative Textile Processing Society Limited, from

the year 2013 as employees in various designations.

All 34 employees were received salary from the

Respondent Management till August 2013. The

Texpro Management has not paid the 23 months

salaries to the abovesaid 34 employees from

September 2013 to March 2015 and October 2015 to

January 2016. The Texpro Management has also

collected EPF and ESI and other amounts from the

salary of the employees.

(ii) Due to continuous loss in the business of

Texpro, it was windup by an order, dated 02-02-2016

by the Registrar of Co-operatives Societies, Government

of Puducherry. All the Petitioners were relieved from

the service of Texpro on 04-02-2016 without paying

23 months arrears of salary.

(iii) The Government of Puducherry has taken a

policy decision for the welfare of the 34 Petitioner

employees and started a separate Dyeing Unit and

appointed all the 34 Petitioner employees in the

Dyeing Unit in the same designation vide a separate

Memorandum 11-02-2016. In the said Memorandum,

the Pondicherry State Weaver’s Co-operative Society

Limited, Pontex, has mentioned the designation, Pay

Scale, other conditions, etc., Prior to the liquidation,

on 21-08-2015, the Union and the Managing Director,

Texpro had entered into an agreement regarding job

security, salary and handing over of properties of

Texpro to Pontex. As per the agreement, all the

Petitioners were reappointed in Pontex and salary

was also given as mentioned in the appointment

order.

(iv) All the 34 employees were joined the Pontex

Management on 11-02-2016 and got salary till the

month of January 2017. The Petitioners were also

obtained loan and the loan amount was recovered

from their salary by the Respondent.

(v) The Petitioners have approached the Conciliation

Officer, Labour Department, Puducherry, through

AITUC Pontex Thozhilalargal Sangam. In order to

save the livelihood of the workers, the Government

has taken a policy decision to undertake the said

Society with above workers under the Pontex

Administration and order for having engaged by

absorption in the Dyeing Unit of the Pontex. The new

Managing Director Tmt. P. Padmavaty denied paying

salaries to the 34 employees for the past 32 months

and bonus for three years and also not remitted the

subscription of ESI and EPF in respect of Dyeing

Unit workers. The 32 months salary is pending for

the above Dyeing Unit employees, but, on the other

hand 5 months salary is pending for other Unit

employees. The present Managing Director is acting

against the policy decision of the Government and

refused to treat the 34 employees as employees of

Pontex, which is unfair labour practices under

section 9 and 13 of Schedule 5 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

(vi) Since, the Conciliation was not effective, all

the Petitioners raised industrial dispute before this

Tribunal. In the conciliation proceedings the

Management expressed its inability to settle the issue

due to heavy financial crisis prevailing in Pontex.

Apart from the above 34 employees, 7 more senior

employees are also working in the Pontex and they

are senior regular employees and they have filed a

separate case before the Hon’ble High Court, Chennai

for their own grievances. No nexus between these

34 employees and the other 7 senior employees. Hence,

the 34 Petitioner employees are filing this case for

their own remedy by omitting the senior employees.

Hence, the Petitioners employees prays to direct the

Respondent to pay the arrears of salary for 23 months

(for the period from September 2013 to March 2015

and October 2015 to January 2016) to each employee

as mentioned in Annexure-I, which was not paid by

the Pondicherry Co-operative Textile Processing

Society Limited (Texpro); direct the Respondent to

pay the arrears of salary for the period from February

2017 to September 2019 (32 months) to each employee

as per Annexure-II; direct the Respondent to pay the

arrears of bonus for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018

(3 years); direct the Respondent to pay the

subsequent salary from the month of October 2019

to till the date of disposal of the claim petition;

424

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 May 2023

directing the Respondent to pay the monthly salary

to the employees on or before 10th of every month

as per the Payment of Wages, Act 1936. Hence, the

Petition.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

Respondents are as follows:

A. Competency of the Union to raise Industrial

Dispute

(a) The very industrial dispute raised by the

Petitioner Union, both before the Labour Officer

Conciliation (shortly referred as LOC) and before

this Court is liable to be rejected in limine as the

Petitioner Union is not competent to raise the

Industrial Dispute and represent the interest of the

34 workers for whom the present dispute is filed.

(b) Section 36 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act

reads 36. Representation of parties: (1) A workman

who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be

represent in any proceeding under this Act by

(a) Any member of the executive or office bearer

of a registered Trade Union of which he is a

member, (b) Any member of the executive or other

office bearer of a federation of Trade Unions to

which the Trade Union referred to in clause (a) is

affiliated; (c) Where the worker is not a member

of any Trade Union, by any member of the

executive or other office bearer of any Trade

Union connected with, or by any other workman

employed in the industry in which the worker is

employed and authorized in such manner as may

be prescribed.

that; A worker can be represented only by an

office bearer of registered Trade Union or a

registered federation to which such registered

Trade Union is affiliated, (ii) Such worker must be

a member of such Trade Union, (iii) If, a worker is

not a member of the Trade Union which raises the

dispute on his behalf, a written letter of

authorization must be given by him to the office

bearer of the Trade Union to raise industrial

dispute on his behalf.

(d) The Petitioner Union is not a registered

Trade Union and there is no proof that the

Petitioner Union is a part of any federation.

Therefore, Petitioner has no legal sanctity or locus

standi to raise any industrial dispute and represent

the interests of the workers in the present dispute.

(e) Petitioner Union has no presence in the

Respondent’s Society. The person who signed the

claim petition claiming to be Secretary of the

Petitioner Union is not an employee of

Respondent and he has not filed any letter of

authorization from 34 workers involved in the

present dispute to raise the industrial dispute

before Labour Officer (Conciliation) or file the

claim petition before this Hon’ble Court on their

behalf. There is no proof that all the 34 workers

are members of the Petitioner Union. Therefore,

the Petitioner Union of the person who has filed

the present industrial dispute, claiming himself to

be the Secretary of Petitioner Union has no locus

standi to raise the present dispute.

(ii) B. Lack of inherent jurisdiction

(a) Puducherry State Weavers Co-operative

Society Limited (Pontex) is a Co-operative Society

registered under the Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act, 1972 and Rules, 1973. The Society

is functioning as an Apex Society, having its area

of operation in entire Union territory of Puducherry.

(b) The bye-laws of Respondent and all its

subsidiary regulations regulating the service

conditions of the employees of the Society are

applicable to all its employees. Chapter-IX of

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Act

and more particularly section 84 of the Act

provides for an elaborate, self contained

mechanism for redressal of all disputes between

the employees and management of Co-operative

Societies. It also prescribes the Forum before

whom such disputes can be raised as well as the

appellate and revisional authorities for challenging

the orders from such forum. Thus, section 84 of

the Act constitutes a comprehensive redressal

mechanism for all the grievances of the employees

of Co-operative Society against the management.

It thus tacitly excludes the jurisdiction of Labour

Court, constituted under the Industrial Disputes

Act. The very dispute referred to this Tribunal for

want of inherent jurisdiction and the tacit ouster

of jurisdiction under section 84 of the Pondicherry

Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

raise and contest the present industrial dispute

and the lack of inherent jurisdiction of this

Tribunal may be taken up as preliminary issue and

the same shall be decided before delving into the

merits of the case.

(iii) 2. Claim not maintainable on facts

(a) Even on facts, the claim raised by the

Petitioner Union is not maintainable and hence,

Petitioner Union or any of 34 workers it represents

425

23 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

are not entitled to the reliefs claimed. Petitioner’s

1st relief for payment of arrears of salary for

23 months from September 2013 to March 2015

and from October 2015 to January 2016 to each

employee as mentioned in the Annexure-I of claim

petition, which was allegedly not paid by the

Pondicherry Co-operative Textile Processing

Society Limited (Texpro) is incapable of being

granted by this Court atleast against Respondent.

Admittedly, the workers listed in the claim petition

were employed with Texpro during the said period.

Texpro was an independent registered Society and

the wages for the said period, if, it is still unpaid,

must be paid only by the said Society. Admittedly,

the said Society was dissolved in the manner

known to law and liquidator was appointed for

completing the formalities of winding up the said

Society. If, the workers of erstwhile Texpro has any

pending arrears of wages payable by their

erstwhile Society, it must be claimed only against

the said Society or the liquidator appointed for the

said Society and not against the Respondent.

(b) Second to Fifth reliefs for arrears of salary

from February 2017 to September 2019 (32 months);

arrears of bonus for the year 2016, 2017 and 2018

(3 years) and for continuous payment of wages

and bonus from October 2019 onwards are also

without any merits and deserves to be dismissed.

(e) The Pondicherry State Weavers Co-operative

Society (Pontex), the Respondent herein is an Apex

Co-operative Society in which 13 Primary Weavers

Co-operative Societies are affiliated as member

Society.

(iv) It is a Government undertaking which was

started for the welfare and upliftment of hand loom

fabric producers in Puducherry. The Government of

Puducherry is also a member in the Co-operative

Society like other individual members as it holds a

share in the Society. Government of Puducherry gives

financial assistance to the Co-operative Societies in

the form of rebate, furniture subsidy, loan for

construction of godown, etc. Hence, for all the

financial aids, Respondent Society is dependent on

the aids and subsidies of the Government of

Puducherry.

(v) Prior to 2003, it ran a Dyeing Unit within its

premises with some workers, who were not qualified

as dyers, but, had some experience in the field. On

05-02-2003, a separate Co-operative Society by name

“The Pondicherry Co-operative Textile Procession

Society Limited (Texpro)” was registered and the said

Society started its functioning on 14-02-2003.

Records reveal that the Tripartite Agreement, dated

18-02-2003 was signed between the then Managing

Director of Respondent, the President of newly

started Texpro Society and Thiru P. Lakshmanasamy,

Honorary President of Pontex Co-operative Labour

Union, whereby, it was resolved to absorb 17

employees working in the Dyeing Unit of the

Respondent by Texpro and admitted them as members

of Texpro, (since, it was a Society where individual

workers could be admitted as members) with other

conditions of service. Thus, all those 17 employees

became the members-cum-employees of Texpro.

(vi) In the said agreement at Para No. 5, it was

agreed that in future, if, the newly started Society

(Texpro) was changed or not continued to function,

the dye house workers sent to the Texpro should be

taken back by the Pontex Administration. Thus, even

as per the said agreement Respondent was under the

obligation of take back 17 workers who had been

made members of Texpro and not all the other workers

or members in the event of the closure of Texpro.

(vii) Texpro functioned as a separate entity

though within the premises of the Respondent. The

dyeing machineries used by Respondent were given

to Texpro for dyeing activities, Further, “Texpro”

undertook the work of Dyeing of Gray Yarn for

“PONTEX” and “PONFAB”, and the charges for the

dyeing was paid by the Pontex and PONFAB to

Texpro upon mutually agreed terms and conditions.

(viii) The Texpro Society always functioned as an

independent, separate Co-operative Society and

handled all its administrative affairs independently

without any interference or indulgence of the

Respondent. It had its own Elected Committee for

management of the Society, the accounts of the

Society was maintained separately, the Final Audit

of the Society was conducted by the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies separately and the Final Audit

Report containing the Financial Statements namely

the trading account, profit and loss account and the

balance sheet of the Society was issued by the

Registrar for every year from 2003 to 2015.

(ix) Texpro also sustained huge financial loss and

was unable to meet its statutory commitments and

hence, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide

proceedings No. 5/l/13/RCS/Hdlms/B3/2014/382,

dated 07-07-2015, issued a Show Cause Notice under

section 126(1) of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies

Act, 1972 calling for explanation from the Texpro

Society as to why Society should not be liquidated

under the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act,

426

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 May 2023

1972 and Rules 1973. The General Body of the Texpro

Society passed a resolution on 20-07-2015 in which

the workers involved in present dispute also

participated and unanimously passed a resolution

accepting the proposal of the Registrar for

liquidation and submitted a letter to the RCS on

23-07-2015. The Office of the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, after considering the General

Body Resolution and the letter submitted by the

Texpro Society, ordered for winding up of the Texpro

vide Order No. 5/l/13/RCS/Hdlms/B3/2014/382, dated

02-02-2016 under 126 of the PCS Act, 1972. It also

appointed a liquidator to look after the affairs of the

Society vide separate order on the same date under

section 127(1) of the PCS Act, 1972 to complete the

winding up proceedings of Texpro.

(x) The workers listed in the claim petition and the

Management of Texpro also accepted the RCS order

issued under section 126 and 127 of the PCS Act,

1972 and passed a resolution on 04-02-2016, resolving

to terminate all the 43 employees from Texpro with

effect from 04-02-2016 due to the liquidation of the

Society. When a Society is woundup through judicial

proceedings, Liquidator appointed for the Society

takes over entire activities of the Society in

accordance with the procedure laid down in the

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and

Rules, 1973, and all grievances of anyone including

that of the employees and members of such

liquidated Society shall be addressed and redressed

by the liquidator only. Therefore, payment of arrear

of salary for 23 months (for the period from

September 2013 to March 2015 and October 2015 to

January 2016 to each employee as mentioned in the

Annexure-1 which was allegedly not paid by Texpro

is a dispute between the workers of Texpro and the

Liquidator appointed for Texpro and all claims to that

effect shall be raised before and handled by the

Liquidator only and they cannot be made against

Respondent.

(xi) After liquidation of Texpro, the workers Texpro

exerted immense pressure upon the Respondent to

absorb them. Respondent was under no legal

obligation to do so. In fact, it was not in a position

to absorb even a single additional worker as the

Respondent was already burdened with excess staffs

in Pontex and it was reeling under tremendous

financial and existential crisis as that point of time.

Its net loss for financial year 2015-2016 was to the

tune of ` 1762.05 lakhs. Respondent was already

employing 93 workers in Pontex and it was finding it

extremely difficult to pay the salary of those

employees or comply with its statutory liabilities. In

fact, the employees of Respondent through their

recognized Trade Unions protested absorption of

43 workers of Texpro in Pontex and even filed a Writ

Petition before the Hon'ble High Court in WP.

No. 5665 of 2016, which was disposed of on

16-02-2016, where, the Hon’ble High Court has

directed the Respondent to consider the representation

of the Union, dated 16-02-2016 to decide the matter.

But, the Respondent’s Management was subjected

to tremendous pressure from all quarters including

the political quarters to give some kind of employment

to 43 workers of Texpro.

(xii) After several round of discussions with the

employees of both the Societies namely, Pontex and

Texpro and after lot of political interventions and

agitations, Respondent had to reluctantly agree for

employing 43 workers as fresh employees of Pontex,

purely on ad hoc basis for a duration of only 2 years

from the date of their recruitment. Based on the said

decision, the then Managing Director of Respondent

Society, submitted a proposal on 05-02-2016 to the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, requesting him

to give permission to Respondent to restart its

Dyeing Unit and for taking the employees of the

Texpro as Pontex employees as fresh employees

on fresh terms and conditions, including revised Pay

Scale. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies

accorded permission to Respondent to start a

separate Dyeing Unit, to function within the aegis

of Pontex vide Order, dated on 10-02-2016.

(xiii) As soon as permission was received from the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Respondent

engaged all the 43 workers including the 34 involved

in the present dispute fresh appointment order vide

Order No. Pontex/ADMN-2016, dated 11-02-2016. The

letter of appointment to each of 43 workers

specifically provided that it was purely temporary

and ad hoc basis on probation for a period of two

years from the date of joining duty. Clause 1 and 2

appointment order of all the 43 workers of Texpro read

as follows;

1. The appointment is purely temporary and

ad hoc and the appointee will be placed on

probation for a period of two years from the date

of joining duty.

2. The Society is at its discretion to extend the

probationary period either during or at the end of

your original or extended probationary period(s).

The appropriate will continue to be a probationer

until confirmed in writing by the Society.

427

23 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(xiv) Thus, the aforesaid clauses in the appointment

order of all the 43 workers including the 34 workers

involved in the present case, makes it abundantly

clear that they shall be employed only for two years

on temporary basis and on completion of their

probation period of 2 years, unless the probation

period of those workers are extended or they are

given an order of confirmation, their appointment

shall be ceased to be effective from 11-02-2018 and

they shall not be considered to be on the rolls of the

Respondent. Only with the express conditions, all

the 43 workers of erstwhile Texpro was taken in

employment by the Respondent.

(xv) With the permission of the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, the Dyeing Unit of Respondent

was once again started, but, the Dyeing Unit could

not be run continuously by Respondent beyond

16-02-2016 because of the ever mounting financial

burden of the Respondent. The Respondent Society,

which was already reeling under extreme economic

crisis, was not able to take the additional burden of

the expenditure introduced by commencement of the

Dyeing Unit. The Respondent managed to pay salary

to the 43 workers appointed on ad hoc basis till

February 2017 with great difficulties, but, could not

do so thereafter. The mounting financial crisis forced

the Respondent to not only reduce its production of

textiles, but, also substantially reduce the dyeing

process and ultimately stop it completely with effect

from May 2017. The workers of the Dyeing Unit were

literally without any work from May 2017. No

attendance register were maintained/signed by the

Respondent and also Service book of 34 employees

are not in under the custody of the Respondent.

(xvi) Therefore, none of the 43 workers employed

in the Dyeing Unit on ad hoc basis remained idle

since, till date. Therefore, there was absolutely no

point or purpose in extending the ad hoc appointment

given to 43 workers beyond the 2 years period specified

in their appointment order, dated 11-02-2016, which

expired on 10-02-2018 and therefore, their temporary

ad hoc probationary appointment was not extended

by the Management after 10-02-2018. Hence, effective

10-02-2018, all the 34 workers involved in the present

dispute ceased to be employees of Respondent by

automatic expiry of their letter of ad hoc appointment.

Hence, the Petitioner Union cannot claim that 34 workers

interested in the present dispute are still in employment

of the Respondent from 11-02-2018 onwards. Their

claims for wages after 11-02-2018 and continuity of

service or for bonus beyond the period of their

employment is not sustainable in view of automatic

severance of employment on completion of the

ad hoc service period on 11-02-2018. The Petitioner

Union has admitted that Respondent had paid them

their salary till February 2017 and therefore, their

claim for wages can at best be adjudicated till

11-02-2018 only.

(xvii) As regards, the claim for wages for the

period from March 2017 to 11-02-2018, even that is

not payable by the Respondent to all the 34 employees

as listed in the claim petition. The employee listed

in Sl.No. 16 of the claim statement by name

Mr. R. Vadivelan admits that he was employed as

Assistant Shift Supervisor and obviously his nature

of employment was to supervise the works of the

42 workers. The salary fixed for Mr. R. Vadivelan as

Assistant Shift Supervisor was ` 17,243 and hence,

he does not falls within the purview of workman as

defined under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act

and hence, his claims cannot be adjudicated by this

Court. The Union has no locus standi to represent

the interest of the said Supervisor before this Court.

Hence, his claims must be automatically rejected by

this Court.

(xviii) Similarly, the workers listed in Sl.No. 28 to 34

of claim petition have categorically admitted that they

were employed only on daily wages, meaning that

they earn their wages only on performance of day’s

work. Therefore, they are entitled to claim wages

only for the days they have actually worked in the

Respondent’s organization. None of the workers

listed in Sl.No. 28 to 34 were given any employment

on any days from March 2017 onwards and they did

not work even on a single day during the said

period. Further, the Dyeing Unit was completely

stopped from May 2017 and hence, no activities in

the Dyeing Unit were carried out by the Respondent.

Hence, these workers are not entitled to claim any

wages for the days when they have not worked.

(xix) As regards the rest of the workers, it is

further submitted that once the Dyeing Unit came to

a grinding halt with effect from May 2017. Therefore,

all the 34 workers listed in the claim petition remained

idle and hence, by application of the principle ‘no

work no pay’, they have not earned their wages

during the said period. Hence, none of the workers

listed in the claim petition are eligible for any wages

atleast from May 2017, when the Dyeing Unit was

completely closed by the Respondent.

428

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 May 2023

(xx) The contention of Petitioner Union that the

Writ Petition filed by 6 workers before the Hon'ble

High Court has no bearing to the present case is not

acceptable. The six workers who have filed the Writ

Petition were the erstwhile employees of Respondent,

who migrated to Texpro upon its formation. As per

the agreement, dated 18-02-2003 all those migrated

workers will be taken back by Pontex upon closure

of Texpro. All those 6 workers were taken on roll of

Respondent with effect from 01-02-2016 as fresh filed

a Writ Petition No. 27932 of 2018, before the Hon’ble

High Court, Chennai, challenging the order of

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated 10-02-2016.

The said Writ Petition is still pending and any

findings of Hon’ble High Court in the said Writ

Petition shall have direct and substantial impact upon

the present case.

(xxi) The allegations of Petitioner’s Union that

Respondent has disbursed the salaries to other unit

employees, but, wantonly refusing to pay the monthly

salary to the Dyeing Unit employees and showing

discrimination is untrue and uncalled for Workers

employed from Texpro have ceased to be employees

of Respondent with effect from 11-02-2018. Hence,

there is no question of paying any salary to them

after the said period. Even for the earlier period,

Respondent never showed any discrimination

between the employees taken on ad hoc basis from

Texpro and the regular staffs of Pontex. All the

34 workers involved in present dispute were and are

aware of the fact that since, 2015, production of

Petitioner had fallen down drastically. The

Respondent was and is already overstaffed and even

as on February 2016, when 43 workers of Texpro were

appointed, it was reeling under extreme financial

crisis. Inspite of that salary was paid to them till

January 2017 to workers employed from Texpro.

During the same period, Respondent was due to pay

` 50,49,871 toward a arrears to the regular workers

of Pontex and its statutory dues were to the tune of

` 31,05,406. In addition, the income of Respondent

had also dried up and even the dues payable by

Government and its subsidiaries were not cleared and

mounted to ` 706.89 lakhs as on 31-03-2019. All the

Government grants, subsidies and other financial aids

from Government had also dried up and Respondent’s

total accumulated loss as on 31-03-2019 was

` 2801.57 lakhs. As on 31-03-2019, Respondent was

in arrears to the tune of ` 265.14 lakhs towards the

salary of its own workers and its statutory liability

such as ESI, EPF, Electricity, water consumption were

to the tune of ` 60,39,644. Thus, the entire share

capital of Respondent has already got eroded and it

has absolutely no financial solvency to take any

further economic load on itself. Only under such

circumstances it had to stop all its dyeing activities

and stop payment of salary to the ad hoc temporary

workers. There was never any bias by Respondent

to any of its workers.

(xxii) Since, all the 34 workers listed in claim

petition were only temporary employees and their

period of employment was only for 2 years and since,

their period of employment expired on 11-02-2018,

none of the workers can claim to be in employment

of Respondent after 11-02-2018 and they are not

eligible for any wages or any other benefits after

11-02-2018. Even for, the periods between February

2017 to 11-02-2018, the Respondent are not eligible

for wages as they did not earn their wages in view

of lack of any work. Hence, the claim petition is liable

to dismissed.

4. Points for consideration

(i) Whether the Respondent has to pay the arrears

of salary for 23 months for the period from

September 2013 to March 2015 and October 2015 to

January 2016 to all the Petitioners?

(ii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to receive

the arrears of salary from February 2017 to September

2019 and consequently?

(iii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for the

arrears of bonus and other attending benefits?

5. On Point

The President of the Petitioner ’s Union

Mr. S. Murugan examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P46

were marked. On Respondent side Mr. E. Selvarasu,

Managing Director of the Respondent Company

examined as RW1. Through him Ex.Rl to R8 were

marked.

6. On the point

The reference is for non-payment of salary dues

from 01-02-2017 to the Union Workmen 41 in number

annexed in Annexure No. 1 along with the reference.

Whereas, the claim petition has been filed by Union

for 34 workmen out of 41 workmen. The exact prayers

sought in the claim petition are to direct the

Respondent to pay the arrears of salary for 23 months

i.e., from September 2013 to March 2015 and October

2015 to January 2016; to direct the Respondent to pay

the arrears of salary for the period from February

2017 to September 2019 to each employee; directing

the Respondent to pay the arrears of Bonus for the

year 2016, 2017 and 2018; to direct the Respondent

to pay the subsequent salary from October 2019 to

429

23 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

till the date of disposal of this ID and to direct the

Respondent to pay a monthly salary on or before 10th

of every month as per the Payment of Wages Act.

7. The case of the Respondent Management is that

due to huge financial loss, the expro which is an

independent, separate Co-operative Society handling all

its administrative affairs independently without any

interference of the Respondent Company namely,

Pontex, was liquidated by due process of law vide order

No. 5/l/13/RCS/Hdlms/B3/2014/382, dated 02-02-2016

under 126 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies

Act, 1972. As per the order a liquidator to look after the

affairs of the Texpro Society appointed to winding up

the proceedings of Texpro. It is an admitted fact by both

the Parties.

8. The further admitted fact by both of the Parties

to the dispute is that a resolution was passed on

04-02-2016 resolving to terminate all the 43 employees

from Texpro with effect from 04-02-2016 due to the

liquidation of the Society.

9. According to the Respondent Society, the

payment of arrears of salary for 23 months (from

September 2013 to March 2015 and October 2015 to

January 2016) which was allegedly not being paid by

the Texpro Society, can be asked only from the Texpro

Society. The workers of Texpro Society ought to have

placed the above prayer for arrears of the salary for the

relevant period to the Society where they worked. Their

right to sue for arrears due if any, for such period is

only as against the Liquidator appointed for Texpro. The

relief ought to have sought only before the Liquidator

who has been duly appointed by the Competent

Authority. Hence, the first relief claimed in the claim

petition is not maintainable as against the Respondent

Pontex Society.

10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further

submits that as per the direction given by the Hon’ble

High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 5665/2016, dated

16-02-2016, the representations of the Union, dated

16-02-2016, considered by the Respondent Pontex

Society and after several rounds of discussions with the

employees of both the Societies namely, Pontex and

Texpro, the Respondent Pontex Society agreed for

43 workers as fresh employees of Pontex, purely on ad hoc

basis for a duration of only 2 years from the date of

their recruitment. A fresh appointment order had issued

vide Order No. Pontex/Admn-2016, dated 11-02-2016. The

said appointment order of all the 43 workers including

the 34 workers in the claim petition makes clear that they

shall be employed only for 2 years on temporary basis

and on completion of their probation period of 2 years,

unless the probation period are extended or an order of

confirmation given, their appointment shall be ceased

from 11-02-2018 and they shall not be considered to be

on the rolls of the Respondent Society. However, the

learned Counsel for the Respondent fairly conceded

during the arguments that the Respondent Society has

to pay the salary for the remaining Probation Period for

the workers placed under the Probation.

11. The first and foremost argument placed by the

Respondent Management is that the Petitioner Union

is not a registered Trade Union and there is no proof

produced to show that the Petitioner Union is a part of

any federation. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing

the Respondent Management would argue that as per

section 36 (1) of ID Act, the Petitioner Union has no

legal sanctity or locus standi to raise any ID and

represent the interest of the 34 worker’s. During

arguments the learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent Management brought to the attention of

the Court with regard to the glance left and unfilled

while describing the details of the 34 workers in the

claim petition and thus, he stated that without the

knowledge of the 34 workers, this Petitioner Union

raised this dispute on behalf of them. That is the reason

their descriptions are found to be incomplete in the

claim petition.

12. In support of his contention, the Respondent

Counsel also referred and relied upon the following case

laws:

(i) CDJ 2006 SC 684

In Parents Teachers Association and Others vs.

Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and

Others, AIR 2001 Rajasthan 35, speaking for the

Bench, Chief Justice Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, in paras

12 and 13 observed as under:

12. The appellant-Petitioners have not placed before

this Court any document to show that the Parents-

Teachers Association is a registered'and recognized

association...........

......... The provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act with reference to the registration of Trade

Unions. Section 2(q)(q) defines Trade Union which

means a Trade Union registered under the Trade

Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926). section 36 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 says that the workman

who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be

represented in any proceedings under this Act by

any member of the executive or other office bearer

of a registered Trade Union of which he is a member

or by any member of the executive or other office

bearer of a federation of Trade Unions to which the

Trade Unions referred to in clause A is affiliated.

430

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 May 2023

(ii) CDJ 2013 Cal HC 377

The word “Registered Trade Union” is of great

significance and can imbibe within it’s contour the

Trade Union Register under the Trade Union Act

and not otherwise. The said section further takes

care of the interest of the workmen who is not a

member of a Trade Union to be represented by any

member of the executive or other office bearer of

any Trade Union connected with or by other

workmen employed in the industry in which the

worker is employed. In any of such eventualities,

the representation is to be made through a Trade

Union registered under the Trade Union Act and

not through any Association or Union which is

not recognized under the said Act.

(iii) CDJ 1993 BHC 385

Similarly, it is equally necessary to find out the

locus of the appellant to raise a dispute in its

capacity as a federation of Trade Unions on behalf

of the employees of the Bank. It has come to light

during arguments that the appellant Federation is

not a Registered Body under the Trade Unions

Act, 1926. It is hence not a ‘Trade Union’ within

the meaning of section 2(h) of the said Act. The

definition includes any federation of two or more

Unions. In the absence of it being a Registered

Body, the appellant is incompetent to raise or

made any demand for an on behalf of the

employees so as to fall within the scope and ambit

of the ‘industrial dispute’ as defined under section

2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If, the

appellant is not in a position to raise an “industrial

dispute” it has no locus standi to seek the

privilege of negotiating those demands, which is

the privilege of only registered Trade Unions or

a group of workmen under the Industrial Disputes

Act. The appellant, admittedly, not being a

registered Trade Union is not a juristic person and

hence, also incompetent to file the Writ Petition.

In the view which we have taken, we do not feel

that it is necessary to decide whether the act of

unfair labour practice is an industrial dispute and

whether the second Respondent is an employer for

enabling the appellant to raise an industrial

dispute against them.

(iv) CDJ 2010 All HC 147

The Petitioner has categorically raised a

preliminary objection to the effect that the

Respondent No. 2 is not competent to espouse the

cause of workers, but, the Tribunal without

recording any finding on this crucial aspect has

passed the impugned order, the order is totally

uninformed of reasons and cannot be sustained

in law, specially in view of Apex Court decision in

the case of Workman of Dharam Pal Prem Chandra

vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chandra AIR 1966 SC 182:

1965-I-LLJ-668, wherein, it has been laid down that

an individual dispute become industrial dispute

only if, it is sponsored by the Union of workmen

and such Union fairly claims to be working in

representative capacity on behalf of such workers.

Therefore, unless the workers are shown to. be

members of Union, the Union cannot be competent

to espouse their case.

(v) CDJ 2013 MHC 1449

For the purpose of advancing their cause, if,

they do not register as a Trade Union in terms of

section 2 (qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act, they

will have no locus standi to come before this

Court. section 2 (qq) of the I.D Act defines the

Trade Union, which reads as follows:

[(qq) “Trade Union” means, a Trade Union

registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926

(6 of 1926)]

Para 17. The question whether such an unregistered

Union can masquerade as a Trade Union came to be

considered by the Supreme Court vide Judgment in

B. Srinivas Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply

and Drainage Board Employees’ Association,

reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2). The following

passages found in paragraphs 38 and 39 may be

usefully extracted below:

“38. ......... Chapter-III of the Trade Unions Act,

1926 sets out rights and liabilities of the registered

Trade Unions. Under the said enactment, an

unregistered Trade Union or a Trade Union whose

registration has been cancelled has no manner of

right whatsoever, even the rights available under the

ID Act have been limited only to those Trade Unions

which are registered under the Trade Unions Act,

1926 by insertion of clause 2 (qq) in the ID Act with

effect from 21-08-1984 defining a Trade Union to

mean, a Trade Union registered under the Trade

Unions Act, 1926.

39. The High Court, in our opinion, miserably

failed and gravely erred in holding that Respondents

1 and 2 have locus standi to question the appointment

of the appellant in the light of the change of law that

has been brought about by insertion of section 2

(qq) of the ID Act and having regard to the

provisions of Chapter-III of the Trade Unions Act,

1926......”

Para 18. It is only when a Trade Union is registered

under the Trade Unions Act, it has the benefit of

check-off facility and also complain in case of

431

23 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

discrimination regarding employer’s unfair labour

practice which is set out in the Fifth Schedule of the

I.D. Act. The V Schedule, Part-I deals with the

employer’s partiality towards granting of favour to

anyone or several Trade Unions and complaint about

employers’ sponsoring Trade Unions. Therefore, the

impugned circulars in limiting the check-off facility

only to Trade Unions functioning in the insurance

industries is reasonable and well within the legal

norms set out above. The Petitioner cannot have any

locus standi to challenge the same in the absence of

it not being a Trade Union as defined under section

2 (qq) of the I.D. Act.

13. The learned Counsel added further on the same

point that the Petitioner Union has no presence in the

Respondent’s Society. The signatory of the claim

petition filed in this case claiming to be the Secretary

of the Petitioner Union is not an employee of the

Respondent Management. No authorization filed before

this Court or even before the Labour Officer (Conciliation)

by him to represent the 34 workers herein. Further, there

is no proof filed to show all the 34 workers are the

members of the Petitioner Union. Hence, he concluded

that in absence of such authorisation, the individual

dispute cannot be treated as industrial dispute.

14. On perusal of the claim statement, I could able

to find that it was signed by one Nedunchezhian, who

is said to be the Secretary (AITUC), Pontex Thozilalargal

Sangam/Petitioner herein. When there was a specific

defence made by the Respondent Management about

the locus standi of the Petitioner to file the claim

statement as well as to raise the industrial dispute, it is

the bounden duty of the Petitioner Union to produce

documents to comply with the situations regarding

locus standi as prescribed under section 36(l) of

Industrial Disputes Act. On going through the exhibits

filed on the side of the Petitioner Union, I don’t find

any such documents to show that the Petitioner Union

is a registered Trade Union, or a member of the

registered federation nor any authorization given by the

34 workers in favour of the Petitioner Union to act and

conduct the industrial dispute on behalf of them.

15. The said defence taken by the Respondent

Management has been elaborately dwelt upon during

the cross-examination made by the Respondent

Management on Petitioner side witness namely, PW1.

For better appreciation, I would like to extract the

relevant portion of PW1 cross-examination hereunder:-

“\–>V´Ï ƒ∫Ô›]_ ÂV[ >ÁÈkÏ. ÂV[ >ÁÈkÏ

®[√>uz g>V´D ®m°D >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ.

\–>V´Ï ƒ∫ÔD AITUC Pontex ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ƒ∫ÔD

®[Æ Amﬂºƒˆl_ ƒ∫Ô›Á> √]° ÿƒFm^º·V\V

®[≈V_ ÿƒF]Ú¬˛º≈VD. ∂>uÔV™ gkðD ®m°D

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. ®∫Ô^ \–s_, √]° ®ı

®m°D

z§©∏¶©√¶s_ÁÈ.

AITUC

®[√m

Federation, ∂>Vkm ƒ∫Ô›]uz ®_ÈVD ƒ∫ÔD

gzD. ®∫Ô^ \–>V´Ï ƒ∫ÔD AITUCá_ member

®[√>uz ®Õ> g>V´xD >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. √]°

ÿƒFB©√‚¶ ƒ∫ÔD>V[ ÿ>Vau>VkVÁk ®ø©√

xΩ•D ®[≈VKD ∂Õ> kÁÔl_ √]° ÿƒFB©√¶V>

\–>V´Ï ƒ∫ÔD ®ø©∏•^· ÷Õ> ÿ>Vau>VkV

ƒ‚¶©√Ω ∞uÆ¬ÿÔV^·›>¬Ô>_È ®[≈V_ ƒˆB_È.

÷Õ> ÿ>Vau>VkVÁk ®ø©Ak>uz, ®∫Ô^ ƒ∫ÔD

ÿ√Vm zø Ì‚Ω yÏ\V™D ∞>Vkm º√V‚¶>V ®[≈V_

º√V‚º¶VD. g™V_, ∂Á> ÂV∫Ô^ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ.

÷Õ> ÿ>Vau>VkVs_ ƒV‚E ∂π¬Ô ®™¬z ∂]ÔV´D

∂π¬Ô©√‚¶>V ®[≈V_ ÂV[ \–>V´Ï ƒ∫Ô›][

>ÁÈkÏ ®[≈ xÁ≈l_ ƒV‚E ∂π¬˛º≈[ ®[Æ

ƒV‚E √]Èπ¬˛≈VÏ. g™V_, ∂>uÔVÔ g>V´D ®m°D

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ g\VD. Claim Statementá_

c^· ÁÔÿBø›m ®[–Á¶B>_È. ∂m ®∫Ô^

ƒ∫Ô›][ ÿƒBÈV·Ï- ÿÂ|ﬁÿƒaB[ ®[√kÚÁ¶Bm.

º�√Ω ÿÂ|ﬁÿƒaB[ \–>V´Ï ƒ∫Ô›][ ÿƒBÈV·Ï

®[√>uz g>V´D ®m°D >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ.

º�√Ω ÿÂ|ﬁÿƒaB–¬z ÿƒBÈV·Ï ®[≈ xÁ≈l_

Claim

Statement

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFB

∂]ÔV´D

kw∫Ô©√‚¶>uzD ®Õ>s> gkðxD >V¬Ô_

ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. ÷Õ> kw¬z 34 Â√ÏÔ^, ®∫Ô^

\–>V´Ï

ƒ∫Ô›Á>

ºƒÏÕ>kÏÔ·V_

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFB©√‚¶ ÿ>Vau>VkV. º�√Ω 34 Â√ÏÔ”D,

®∫Ô^

\–>V´Ï

ƒ∫Ô›][

cÆ©∏™ÏÔ^>V[

®[√>uz g>V´D ®m°D >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ.

16. It is pertinent to note that the claim statement

was filed by the person namely, Mr. Nedunchezhian

claiming to the Secretary of the Petitioner Union.

Whereas, the oral evidence given on the Petitioner side

is the person by name S. Murugan who claims himself

to be the President of the Petitioner Union and also

mentioned as peon in Pontex. Both the President and

Secretary have appeared before this Court, but, none

filed any piece of paper to show that Petitioner Union

is a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act.

From the above referred oral evidence, it is made clear

that no proof placed before this Court to show that

Petitioner Union is a registered Trade Union or the

member in the Federation of Trade Unions. Nor any

proof to show that the Petitioner Union has been

authorized by the 34 workers to raise the said industrial

dispute. As already discussed that in absence of any

such proof, I hold that Petitioner Union has no locus

standi to raise the industrial dispute on behalf of the

workers. Hence, the industrial dispute raised by the

Petitioner Union suffers on that count also.

432

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 May 2023

17. In the reference the Petitioner Union sought for

payment of salary dues from 01-02-2017. In the claim

statement, the first prayer sought by the Petitioner

Union for directing the Respondent Society to pay the

arrears of salary for 23 months (from September 2013 to

March 2015) and (October 2015 to January 2016) which

was not paid by Texpro.

18. The learned Counsel for the Respondent

Management has strongly objected for the above relief

of salary arrears to be paid for the relevant period (from

September 2013 to March 2015) and (October 2015 to

January 2016) for the reason that at that particular point

of time the Respondent Management herein namely,

Pontex was not the employer and the 34 workers

involved in the dispute herein were also not the

employees under the Pontex Society. That being the

case the arrears of salary claiming to be due cannot be

sought from the Respondent Pontex Society. Secondly,

he would argue that even if, there is any salary due to

be paid for the said period the workers can only sought

from the Texpro Society where they were employed at

that point of time. Furthermore, he would submit that it

is an admitted fact on both sides that Texpro Society

was woundup and Liquidator has been appointed by the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies and on that angle

also their prayer for salary arrears for the relevant period

ban only be made before the Liquidator appointed with

regard to Texpro Society.

19. On perusal of the records and oral evidence, I find

substance with the above arguments made by the

Counsel for the Respondent Management. Ex.P1 is the

copy of the Appointment Order issued by Texpro, dated

28-09-2019. Ex.P3 is the copy of the winding orders of

Texpro, dated 02-02-2016. Ex.P13 is the copy of Gazette

Notification for liquidation of Texpro Society, dated

16-02-2016. Under Ex.P13, Mr. R. Rangababu,

Co-operative Officer/Liquidator, shall take into his

custody all the properties, effects and actionable claims

to which the said Society is or appears to be entitled

and complete the liquidation proceedings as per law.

The said notification publishing the winding up orders

(Ex.P13) and winding orders of the Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, Government of Puducherry

(Ex.P3) were exhibited by the Petitioner Union itself as

their side documents. The specific defence taken by the

Respondent Management herein, is that when subsequent

to the winding up of erstwhile Texpro Society,

Respondent is the different Management Society

employed the workers by way of fresh appointment, and

hence, the Respondent Pontex Management is no way

responsible/liable to pay the salary arrears said to have

been due to the workers of Texpro from Texpro Society.

On the other hand no documentary evidence produced

to substantiate that they are entitled for first relief of

the salary arrears from the hands of Pontex Society.

Further, when the Liquidator has been appointed the

workers of the Society which was woundup by due

process of law by the orders of Competent Authority,

their relief of salary arrears if any, for the period said

to have been worked under the woundup company is

only before the Liquidator. Therefore, with regard to the

first relief of claiming salary arrears for the period (from

September 2013 to March 2015) and (October 2015 to

January 2016) cannot be ordered and maintainable

against the Respondent Pontex Society and thus, the

first relief is rejected.

20. Admittedly, the Texpro and Pontex are the

Societies registered under Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act, 1926. The said Act is a self contained

Statute and remedies are very well available when there

is any dispute or violation of Rules and Regulations.

Sec. 84 of the Co-operative Societies Act deals with the

Settlement of Disputes. Sec. 128 of the Societies

Registration Act says about the procedure for

Appointment and powers of liquidator. Sec. 130 of the

Act dealt with bar of Civil Suits.

21. The next specific defence taken by the Respondent

Management is that as per Sec. 84 of Co-operative

Societies Act, the settlement of disputes arising other

than the disciplinary action can be raised only before

the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

22. In this case, the Petitioner Union has raised

industrial dispute over the salary dues and arrears of

bonus and for subsequent salary till the date of

disposal of the claim. It is also undisputed fact that after

winding up of Texpro Society the 34 workers involved

in this dispute with some other employees of the Texpro

were given fresh appointment in the Pontex Respondent

Society. The said Appointment Order were marked as

Ex.P14 to Ex.P44. On perusal of those exhibits (the

Appointment Orders) issued to individual workers by

the Pontex Respondent Society, dated 11-02-2016, it is

made clear that the said Appointment is purely

temporary and ad hoc and they had placed on probation

for a period of two years from the date of joining duty.

Therefore, their employment under the Pontex

Respondent Society was effected only in the February

2016 as per their own exhibits. Further, they were

employed on temporary and ad hoc basis for two years

as probationers.

23. When there is any dispute between the Society

and members with regard to the business of the Society,

such dispute can be raised only before the competent

authority created and constituted under the Statute.

433

23 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Here, a special Statute namely, the Puducherry

Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 provides under section

84 of Act 1972, for Settlement of disputes between the

Society and the member when it touches the business

of the Society. Further, there is a clear bar of Civil Suits

which includes industrial disputes before the Tribunal

when there is a self contained statute providing for an

effective remedy and redressal for the said nature of

disputes. Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972

provides under sections 139-Co-operative Tribunal;

140-Appeals; 141-Revision; 142-Review; 143-Execution

of orders passed in appeal, revision or review; 144-Bar

of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts. From the provisions of

the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act, it is very

clear the if, there is no disciplinary action then the

dispute cannot be termed as industrial dispute to be

referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

24. In the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Madars

High Court S. Subbaiah vs. Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, dated 26-11-2020 it has been observed and

held that,

“Para 32. It is not as if, there is no remedy

available to the employees, and when an effective

alternative remedy is available to the employees of

the Co-operative Societies and there is no doubt, the

same is to be exhausted under the law, and the Writ

Courts need not entertain the Writ Petition.

Para 33. This Court is of the firm opinion that

every institution created through and under the

Statute is to be respected and the jurisdiction and

powers provided under the Statute shall be allowed

to be exercised by the competent authorities. Thus,

intermittent intervention is not preferable, and the

competent authorities shall be allowed to exercise

their Quasi Judicial powers in accord with the

provisions of the Act. The competent authorities are

also having wide powers to correct the irregularities

and illegalities under the Act.

Para 34. The concept of democracy includes

democracy of the institution functioning under the

Statute also. All must have a say in decision making,

which can be direct or indirect. Thus, any restraint

from exercising the powers under normal circumstances

will affect the very principles. It is the duty of the

institution to respect other institutions in respect of

exercise of power. No doubt in the event of any gross

injustice the same can be questioned under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However,

such circumstances are exceptions and cannot be

allowed in a routine manner. Thus, this Court is of

the opinion that on each and every occasion, the

employees of the Co-operative Societies cannot be

permitted to file a writ directly, without exhausting

the remedy available, more specifically, under section

153 of the Act.

Para 35. In this view of the matter, the case on

hand is a case where the terminal benefits are not

settled and settlement of terminal benefits is

undoubtedly part of service conditions and all

terminal benefits are to be settled in accordance with

the Bylaws and the Co-operative Societies Act. The

Bylaws are approved by the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies and as per section 78 and 79 of the Act, a

separate account has been created in the respective

Central Co-operative Banks and the same is operated

by the respective Co-operative Societies and all such

Co-operative Societies are governed by the Bylaws

of Co-operative Societies.”

25. By applying the above ratio to the present set of

facts, it is squarely applicable. This ID filed for payment

of salary arrears due. The arrears of salary is undoubtedly

part of service conditions and this issue of benefits are

to be settled in accordance with the Bye-laws and the

Co-operative Societies Act. It is not as if, there is no

remedy available to the employees, when an effective

alternative remedy is available to the employees of

Co-operative Societies and there is no doubt the same

is to be exhausted under the law.

26. Therefore, from all angles, I conclude that (i) the

Petitioner Union has no locus standi to expouse the

dispute of 34 workers (individual dispute) as industrial

dispute in the absence of any documentary proof to

substantiate that they are the registered Trade Union

or the member of the Federation of registered Trade

Union or Authorized by the 34 members to act on their

behalf in this industrial dispute, (ii) Even otherwise, as

far as the first relief regarding the salary arrears said to

have been due from the period September 2013 to March

2015, undisputedly the workers were not the employed

under the Pontex Society (Respondent herein) at that

relevant period and as they were not the employers

under the Pontex Society during the relevant period

they are not entitled for the relief sought from the

Respondent Pontex Society. If at all, they have any relief

during the relevant point of time as claimed in the claim

petition their relief is only before the Liquidator

appointed by the competent authority. (iii) With regard

other reliefs as claimed in the claim petition, being the

employers of the registered Co-operative Society, they

ought to have approached the competent authority

constituted under the Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act. (iv) Puducherry Co-operative Societies

Act is a self contained Statute having exclusive provisions

for settlement of disputes, bar of Civil Suits, etc.,

434

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 May 2023

the reliefs sought by the Petitioner Union as an

industrial dispute before this Tribunal cannot be

maintainable as the reliefs sought in the claim petition

as against the Respondent Management no doubt to be

exhausted under the Puducherry Co-operative Societies

Act. Thus, the points for the determination are decided

as against the Petitioner.

27. In the result, the referance is unjustified and the

industrial dispute is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 3rd day of March, 2023.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 20-07-2022

Murugan, President of the

Petitioner Union.

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 28-09-2005

Photocopy of Appointment

Order issued by Texpro.

Ex.P2

— 21-08-2015

Photocopy of Agreement

between

Union

and

Management.

Ex.P3

— 02-02-2016

Photocopy of Winding Up

orders for Texpro.

Ex.P4

— 04-02-2016

Photocopy of Dismissal

Order issued by Texpro.

Ex.P5

— 10-02-2016

Photocopy of Order for

Engagement

Texpro

Employees to Pontex.

Ex.P6

— 11-02-2016

Photocopy of Memorandum

for Appointment.

Ex.P7

— 24-06-2019

Photocopy of Letter for

Recovery of Loan.

Ex.P8

— 26-06-2018

Photocopy of Notice of

Attachment issued by EPF

Office.

Ex.P9

— 06-02-2017

Photocopy of Complaint to

Lieutenant-Governor.

Ex.P10 — 03-11-2017

Photocopy of Complaint to

Conciliation Officer.

— 25-10-2018

Photocopy

Letter

referred for Adjudication.

Ex.P12 — 11-03-2019

Photocopy of Government

order for Adjudication.

Ex.P13 — 16-02-2016

Photocopy

Gazette

Notification for Liquidation.

Ex.P14 — —

Photocopy of Service

Records of M. Buvaneswari

(6 sheets).

Ex.P15 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of P. Kuttan (7 sheets).

Ex.P16 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of S. Karpagam (6 sheets).

Ex.P17 — —

Photocopy

Service

Records of H. Annalakshmi

(6 Sheets).

Ex.P18 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of S. Murugan (6 sheets).

Ex.P19 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of M. Jaiganesh (6 sheets).

Ex.P20 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of D. Nedunchezhiyan

(4 sheets).

Ex.P21 — —

Photocopy

Service

Records of S. Pannerselvam

(7 sheets).

Ex.P22 — —

Photocopy

Service

Records of M. Badmanaban

(6 sheets).

Ex.P23 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of M. Rajasekar (3 sheets).

Ex.P24 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of A. Murugan (7 sheets).

Ex.P25 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of D. Nagarajane (6 sheets).

Ex.P26 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of G. Gunamathy (6 sheets).

Ex.P27 — —

Photocopy

Service

Records of S. Jenitha Campane

(6 sheets).

Ex.P28 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of A. Leema Arokiamary

(6 sheets).

435

23 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P29 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of M. Sivakumar (7 sheets).

Ex.P30 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of S. Kumaresan (5 sheets).

Ex.P31 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of V. Sekar (6 sheets).

Ex.P32 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of M. Malarkodi (6 sheets).

Ex.P33 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of B. Padmavathy (4 sheets).

Ex.P34 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of R. Sudha (6 sheets).

Ex.P35 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of K. Arumugam (6 sheets).

Ex.P36 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of P. Saravanan (6 sheets).

Ex.P37 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of N. Mohanraj (7 sheets).

Ex.P38 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of S. Kathirvelu (2 sheets).

Ex.P39 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of P. Annamalay (4 sheets).

Ex.P40 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of D. Rajavelu (2 sheets).

Ex.P41 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of K. Ramesh (2 sheets).

Ex.P42 — —

Photocopy

Service

Records of M. Iroudayaradjou

(2 sheets).

Ex.P43 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of S. Balaji (1 sheet).

Ex.P44 — —

Photocopy of Service Records

of D. Kumar (2 sheets).

Ex.P45 — —

Photocopy

list

Employees – Annexure-I

(with Arrears).

Ex.P46 — —

Photocopy

list

Employees – Annexure-II

(with Arrears).

List of respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 08-11-2022

E. Selvarasu, Managing

Director of the Respondent

Management (Pontex).

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 26-11-2021

Photocopy of the Byelaws

of the Respondent Society.

Ex.R2

— 18-02-2003

Photocopy of the Tripartite

Agreement signed between

the Respondent with the

President Texpro Society (3

pages).

Ex.R3

— 02-02-2016

Photocopy of the letter

submitted by the Texpro

Society,

ordered

for

winding up of the Texpro

vide Order No. 5/l/13/RCS/

Hdlms/B3/2014/382 and the

General Body resolution of

the Texpro Society on

04-02-2016.

Ex.R4

— —

Photocopy of the Audit

Certificates of Respondent

for the Financial years

2015-2016,

2016-2017,

2017-2018, 2018-2019 and

2019-2020 (1 to 70 pages).

Ex.R5

— 06-02-2016

Photocopy of the letters

given by the Petitioners

seeking employment with

Respondent Society (35

Nos.).

Ex.R6

— 16-02-2016

Photocopy of the Order

passed in Writ Petition in

WP. No. 5665 of 2016 by the

Hon’ble High Court of

Madras.

Ex.R7

— —

Photocopy of the Appointment

Order of Petitioner Workers

(66 pages).

Ex.R8

— 23-07-2018

Photocopy of the Writ

Petition No. 27932 of 2018,

before the Hon’ble High

Court Chennai, challenging

the Order of Registrar of

Co-operative

Societies,

dated 10-02-2016 and the

Counter

filed

the

Respondent’s Society.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.