[887]
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
888
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 888
Award of the Labour Court .. 888
de Tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
894
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 894
Government Notifications
.. 894
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
899
Etablissements dangereux
.. 899
Dangerous Establishments
..
899
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
902
Annonces
.. 902
Announcements
..
902
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 }
ΩƒD√Ï |
26 {
No.
52
Poudouchéry
Mardi
26
Décembre
2023 (5 Pausa 1945)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
26th
December
2023
888
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 December 2023
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 104/AIL/Lab./T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 1st December 2023)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 4/2016, dated
18-05-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect
of the industrial dispute between the management of
M/s. MAS Computer Forms, PIPDIC Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam, Puducherry and Thiru N. Punniyakodi,
over non-employment and other settlement benefits, 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 23-5-1991, 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.
Thursday, the 18th day of May, 2023
I.D. (L) No. 04/2016
CNR. No. PYPY06-000038-2016
N. Punniyakodi,
S/o. Nagappan,
No. 7, Solai Nagar,
Muthialpet,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
MAS Computer Forms,
C-91, 16th Cross,
PIPDIC Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 16-05-2023 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
A. Kanniappan and K. Balaji, Counsels for the Petitioner,
Thiru B. Mohandoss, Counsel for the Respondent, and
after hearing the both sides and perusing the case
records, this Court delivered the following:
AWARD
This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No. 25/AIL/Lab./T/2016, dated 21-04-2016 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following
dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent,
viz.,
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru N. Punniyakodi,
against the Management of M/s. MAS Computer
Forms, PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettuapalaym,
Puducherry, over his non-employment and other
settlement benefits are 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 averred
in the petition
(i) The Petitioner was working as Supervisor from
the year 1990 in M/s. Vetri Carbons which is a
manufacture of Carbon Papers. The said company
M/s. Vetri Carbons was later renamed as Ganesh
Carbons, Ganesh Computer Carbons and lastly as
Hayagriv Carbons. The said company M/s. Hayagriv
Carbons was purchased in the year 2002, by the
Respondent Company. The Managing Director of
Respondent Company called the Petitioner and asked
him to continue to work in Hayagriv Carbons and
assured to pay the salary that the Petitioner was
drawing earlier. The Petitioner continued to work as
Supervisor in Hayagriv Carbons. Suddenly in the
month of December 2009, the said Hayagriv Carbons
was closed and the Respondent called the Petitioner
and orally informed him that Petitioner’s service
stand terminated with effect from 31-12-2009. No
reasons for the termination and no notice of
termination to the Petitioner sent Considering his
family situation and having no other option, the
Petitioner gave a resignation letter under coercion,
but, the Petitioner continued to work in the
Respondent Company from 01-01-2010 and collected
the outstanding dues to both Hayagriv Carbons and
MAS Computer Forms company from its customers
such as Girija Enterprices, Sakthi Traders, Sindhu
Agencies, S.S. Computers and Yasmin Traders. The
Respondent paid salary to the Petitioner only till
December 2009.
889
26 December 2023]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(ii) In the year 2012, MAS Computer Forms was
closed and the Managing Director of the Respondent
Company paid retrenchment benefits and other
benefits such as Gratuity, Bonus, etc., and retrenched
other employees and co-workers of the Petitioner.
The Respondent assured that he will not terminate
the service of the Petitioner and requested the
Petitioner to look after the collection of outstanding
dues of MAS Computers. Believing his words, the
petitioner continued to work in Respondent Company
and collected the company's outstanding dues till
2013. After collection work was over, when the
Petitioner approached the Respondent for job and
arreras of salary from January 2010. the Respondent
refused to gite any job'and stated that Petitioner
stands terminated from service. The Petitioner is
56 years old and he is unable to secure a job due to
his age. The Petitioner was last drawing a salary of
` 9,500+` 1,850 as House Rent Allowance till
December 2009. The Petitioner gave a Police
complaint dated 07-11-2013 against the Respondent,
but, the Police advised the Petitioner to approach the
Labour
Department
or
Court
and
issued
Non-Cognizance Report dated 13-11-2013.
(iii) The Petitioner gave petition to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) on 18-12-2013 and 15-07-2014.
But, since the Respondent did not appear before the
Labour Officer, the Conciliation talks failed.
Therefore, the Petitioner prayed that this Court may
be pleased to pass an order directing the Respondent
to reinstate the Petitioner in service with back wages
from January 2010 till date of reinstatement and
directing the Respondent to regularize the services
of the Petitioner. Hence, the petition.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the
Respondent is as follows
The business establishment MAS Computer Forms
is only a partnership firm of which Thiru K. Mohan
and Thiru Sengupta are partners and it is not a
private limited company. As such the cause title of
the Respondent restablishment as described by the
Petitioner is wrong and needs rectification. The
Respondent has no knowledge about the “Petitioner’s
working as Supervisor from the year 1990 in M/s. Vetri
Carbons and his subsequent employment under
Ganesh Carbons and Ganesh Carbons as the
Management of the Respondent establishment had
nothing to do with the said establishments. When,
the Petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer
through representation dated 18.02.2013, he stated
that he had been employed in Hayagriv Carbons
from the year 1990 onwards which was an utter lie.
As such the Respondent filed reply version, dated
22-03-2014 to the Conciliation Officer pointing out
that the Industrial undertaking by name Hayagriv
Carbons was started only in the year 1997 (vide
Permanent Registration Certificate No. 590306028
dated 11-12-1998, issued by Director of Industries,
Pondicherry) and the date of commencement of
production of the above industry was 29-12-1997.
When, the above facts were proved by the
Respondent before the Conciliation Officer, the
Petitioner accepted the same. That is why before this
Court, he has not taken the plea that he was
employed in Hayagriv Carbons from the year 1990
onwards.
(ii) The Industrial undertaking by name Hayagriv
Carbons was taken over by the new Management on
16-08-2002 in which Mr. Jayaraman and Mrs. Kalpana
Mohan were partners which was originally conducted
by Mr. Jayaraman alone. As per the records
maintained by the said undertaking, the Petitioner
N. Punniyakodi was employed only from 16-08-2002
onwards upto 31-10-2009. After closure of the
undertaking Hayagriv Carbons, its machineries were
purchased by MAS Computers Forms and only
because of the trade relationship between the
Hayagriv Carbons and MAS Computer Forms, the
Petitioner Punniyakodi was given employment in
MAS Computer Forms from 01-11-2009, on
humanitarian grounds. The Petitioner Punniyakodi
did not come for employment after 31-12-2009 and he
did not submit any leave letter nor did he give any
information to the Respondent Management
regarding his absence subsequently. The Petitioner
submitted letter of resignation dated 13-01-2010
requesting the Management to settle his accounts as
he had to go to his native Village and requested the
Management to settle his accounts by payment of
the amounts due in his account to his wife P. Selvi.
The Petitioner used to collect the dues from the
various customers until he left his employment but
he has not handed over the amounts collected from
the customers to the Respondent.
(iii) The Management is not at fault in termination
of employment, as the Petitioner voluntarily choose
to put an to his employment by submitting his
resignation. The management has paid the arrears of
Wages, Leave Salary and other allowances due to
him. However, his termination benefits could not be
granted on account of his obligation to pay the
amounts due to the company. The Respondent
establishment was closed in the year 2012, but, the
Petitioner has made several mis-statement of facts in
this regard. The Respondent would like to submit
890
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 December 2023
that in accordance with the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it issued closure notice
and closed the Industry with effect from 11-06-2012.
It was challenged by the Registered Trade Union,
namely, the Pondicherry Branch of INTUC through
representation dated 19-06-2012. Thereafter the
Conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) which endered in settlement
under section 12(3) of the ID Act resulting in
Payment of compensation to all the 22 workmen who
were in the payrolls of the Respondent Establishment.
Since, the Petitioner’s service with the Respondent
Establishment came to an end on 31-12-2009 itself by
virtue of his resignation, the notice of closure did
not refer to him. The abovesaid Trade Union did not
include the name of the Petitioner in the list of
employees eligible to get closure compensation. The
Petitioner is estopped from disputing the resignation
letter, he having requested the Respondent to settle
his accounts by paying the same to his wife and it
was acted upon by the Management.
(iv) There is no question of reinstatement of the
Petitioner with back wages as there was no
termination of services of the Petitioner by the
Respondent. Granting of the relief of reinstatement
is not possible as the very establishment is not in
existence, it having been closed in the year 2012
itself. Similarly, the prayer for regularizing the
services of the Petitioner deserves dismissal as a
person can be regularized only in a post which he
holds. Hence, the claim petition is liable to dismissed.
4. The brief averments of the additional counter
filed by the Respondent is as follows
Recently, the Respondent company has some to
know that the Petitioner did not come for employment
from January 2010 onwards only on account of his
active involvement in the business of sale of one time
carbon paper under the name and style of Lakshmi
Hayagriv Carbons. His wife Selvi being its sole
proprietor. The above business place is the same in
which originally establishment Hayagriv Carbons
dealing with one-time carbon paper was ruuntil
31-10-2009. The Petitioner was engaged in the
business activities in connection with Lakshmi
Hayagriv Carbons from the year 2010 onwards. But,
the Petitioner has suppressed the same and has made
a fraudulent claim against the Respondent for
reinstatement with back wages, alleging the
employment under the Respondent until the year
2013. The Respondent would like to point out that
the Petitioner has made a false claim with the ulterior
motive of getting unjust enrichment.
5. Reply Statement filed by the Petitioner side on
11-07-2022.
6. Industrial Dispute was taken on file under the
reference made by the Labour Department, Government
of Puducherry, over non-employment and other
settlement benefits. Both parties appeared in this
industrial dispute. Claim statement filed. Counter also
filed. In enquiry, PW1 was examined in Chief. No
exhibits were marked on the side of the Petitioner. Cross
examined. When, the matter is posted for further
Petitioner side evidence, as he did not produce further
witnesses on his side, it was closed by ihis Court on
11-10-2019. While, the matter was pending for
Respondent side evidence, petition to receive additional
counter filed in I.A. 02/2020 and same was allowed on
11-05-2020. Additional counter received. Reply
statement liied on 11-07-2022. Opportunities for
adducing additional evidence given. On Petitioner side
endorsement made as No additional evidence.
Respondent side evidence closed by this Court on
12-09-2022 as sufficient opportunities given to the
Respondent side. On petition, Respondent side
reopened as per the order passed in LA. 05/2023. RW1
examined. Ex. Rl to R13 marked. RW1 cross partly done.
When, the matter was posted for cross continuation of
RW1, the matter has been settled between the parties
and the Joint Compromise Memo entered between them
and same filed before this Court.
7. Heard both on 11-05-2023. Joint Compromise
Memo filed and submitted by both the Counsels
appearing for the parties of this Industrial Dispute that
Petitioner agreed to receive a sum of ` 60,000 towards
full and final settlement of the claim, payable by the
Respondent in 12 monthly installments of ` 5,000 per
month on or before 15th of every month. In view of the
Joint Compromise Memo and the submissions made by
both the parties and their respective Counsel. Award is
passed to the effect that Industrial Dispute is closed
as settled between the parties as per Joint Compromise
Memo, dated 11-05-2023. The said Joint Compromise
Memo, dated 11-05-2023 entered between the parties
shall form part and parcel of the Award. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 18th day of May, 2023.
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
891
26 December 2023]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —
07-03-2018
Thiru N. Punniyakodi
List of petitioner’s exhibits : Nil
List of Respondent’s witness:
RW1
— 24-01-2023
Tmt. Bhuvaneswari, Ex.
Executive, H.R., Department
of Respondent Management.
List of Respondent’s Exhibits:
Ex.R1 — 11-12-1998
Photocopy
of
the
Permanent
Registration
Certificate.
Ex.R2 — 11-12-1998
Photocopy of the Certificate
of
Commencement
of]
business in respect of
establishment
Hayagriv
Carbons.
Ex.R3 — 31-12-2002
Photocopy of the Deed of
Partner
between
the
Partners in respect of the
Firm Hayagriv Carbons.
Ex.R4 — 01-08-2003
Photocopy
of
the
Partnership
Retirement
Deed between the Partners
in respect of the Firm
Hayagriv Carbons.
Ex.R5 — —
Photocopy of the ESI
Corporation
declaration
form
relating
to
the
Petitioner showing his date
of appointment in the
Respondent as 01-11-2009.
Ex.R6 — —
Photocopy of the Salary
Statement for the month of
December 2009 in respect of
Employees of the Respondent.
Ex.R7 — 13-01-2010
Photocopy
of
the
Resignation letter submitted
by the Petitioner to the
Respondent.
Ex.R8 —
Photocopy
of
the
Allowance Statement for
the months of December
2009 to January 2010.
Ex.R9 — 13-01-2010
Photocopy of the Cash/
Bank Debit Voucher for
settling Leave Salary of the
Petitioner by the Respondent.
Ex.R10 — 14-08-2009
Photocopy of the Invoice
raised by Hayagriv Carbons
in favour of Mrs. Yasmeen
Traders.
Ex.R11 — —
Photocopy of the TIN
verification in respect of
business
of
Lakshmi
Hayagriv Carbons.
Ex.R12 — —
Photocopy of the letter,
dated 13-01-2014 sent by
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation)
to
the
Respondent enclosing copy
of the representation dated
18-12-2013 of Petitioner.
Ex.R13 — 26-04-2014
Photocopy of the reply
submitted
by
the
Respondent to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 105/AIL/Lab./T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 1st December 2023)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 22/2022, dated
15-05-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, in
respect of Dispute between the “Gencor Pacific Auto
Engineering Thozhilalargal Naam Thamizhar Thozhirsangam”,
against the management of M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto
Engineering Private Limited, Puducherry, over unfair
labour practice to Transfer of Thiru T. Jayakumar 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).
892
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 December 2023
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Tmt. V. SOFANA DEVI, M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 15th day of May 2023.
I.D. (T) No.22/2022
CNR. No. PYPY06-000044-2022
The President/Secretary,
Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering
Thozhilalargal Naam Thamizhar
Thozhirsangam,
(Reg. No. 1887/RTU/2021),
No. 21, Bank Street, Thirubuvanai,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering
Private Limited,
Plot No. A-25, PIPDIC Industrial Estate,
Electronic Park, Thirubuvanai,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial dispute coming on 20-04-2023 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
K. Velmurugan and P. Preethi, Counsels for the Petitioner,
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan,
E. Karthick, S. Sudarsanan and E. Madhivanan, Counsels
for the Respondent, and after hearing the both sides
and perusing the case records, this Court delivered the
following:
AWARD
This Industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.
No. 43/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 21-03-2022 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,
(a) Whether the Dispute raised by the Petitioner’s
Union
“Gencor
Pacific
Auto
Engineering
Thozhilalargal Naam Thamizhar Thozhirsangam”,
against the Management of M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto
Engineering
Private
Limited,
Thirubuvanai,
Puducherry, alleging that the Management has
indulged in unfair labour practice, against the Union
over transfer of Thiru T. Jayakumar, Secretary of the
Union by way of victimization is legal and justified?
If justified, to give appropriate direction to what
remedies to be entitled in this dispute?
(b) Whether the demand of the said Union over
non-recognition of Trade Union by the Management
of M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering Private
Limited, Puducherry is justified or not? If justified,
to give appropriate direction.
2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner averred
in the claim petition:
On 28-12-2009 the Petitioner was appointed as
Operator by the Erstwhile management of
G.J. Engineering. Later the Management of
G.J. Engineering was taken over by the present
Respondent i.e., M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering
Private Limited and considering the unblemished
services of the Petitioner, the Respondent management
absorbed by the Respondent in its company vide
transfer-cum-revised appointment letter, dated
21-01-2011. The Petitioner along with other workmen
in the factory took initiative to start a Trade Union
during the month of April, 2021 and thereby Trade
Union by name M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering
Thozhilalargal Naam Thamizhar Thozhir Sangam was
registered before the Registrar of Trade Union,
Puducherry vide Registration No. 1887/RTU/2021.
(ii) The Plant head of the Respondent Factory
started threatening the office bearers and other
members of Petitioner’s Union saying that he will
transfer them to some other unit if they continue the
Trade Union activities any more further. The act of
the Respondent Management in curbing the lawful
trade union activities of the Petitioner Union is
unjustifiable, improper and illegal. An Advocate
notice, dated 10-06-2021 addressed both to the office
of the Labour Commissioner, Puducherry and to the
Plant Head of the Respondent Factory. Subsequently,
the Petitioner Union has given charter of demands
to the Plant Head of the Respondent Factory but he
willfully refused to receive the same. The Petitioner
has sent another Advocate notice, dated 21-06-2021
along with the charter of demands so as to hold
negotiation talks and thereby to arrive an amicable
settlement. The Respondent issued a reply notice,
dated 23-06-2021 with false and frivolous allegations.
The Petitioner Union has also given their
representation, dated 21-06-2021 to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, raising various
charter of demands and thereby initiated the present
Industrial Dispute.
(iii) Pending Conciliation proceedings, the
Respondent with a mala fide intention and without
any administrative exigencies has issued transfer
order, dated 02-07-2021 to the Petitioner on
05-07-2021 through registered post and ordered the
893
26 December 2023]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Petitioner to report to duty at Oragadam Unit,
Chennai from 07-07-2021 onwards without any
breathing time and thereby altered the service
conditions of the Petitioner discarding the provisions
of Industrial Dispute Act.
(iv) The Petitioner has filed Writ Petition before
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras under W.P. No.
16148/2021 against the illegal transfer of the
Respondent Management. The Hon’ble High Court
of Madras on 03-08-2021 has granted interim
injunction till 24-08-2021 against the Respondent
Management from altering the service conditions.
The Hon’ble High Court vide Order, dated 26-08-2021
has held that “if at all the 3rd Respondent/
Management intends to alter the service conditions
of the members of the Petitioner Union, such an
action shall be in accordance with law”.
(v) Meanwhile domestic enquiry proceedings
were conducted from 12-08-2021 onwards. Domestic
enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper
manner. The Enquiry Officer without proper
appreciation of oral and documentary evidences
let-in by the Petitioner has mechanically submitted
his enquiry report, dated 31-12-2021 to the
Management concluding that most of the charges
against the petitioner were duly proved. The
Respondent Management vide letter, dated 06-01-2022
sought explanation from the Petitioner workman
furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. The Petitioner
has sent letter, dated 10-01-2022 through registered
post to the Plant Head of the Respondent Management
informing him that he has received the letter, dated
06-01-2022 by registered post only on 08-01-2022
alone and his Trade Union advisor was out of station
due to his personal works and hence the Petitioner
sought 15 days time to submit his detailed
explanation.
(vi) The Petitioner Workman has submitted his
explanation letter, dated 20-01-2022 refuting all the
charges levelled against him. The Respondent
Management has issued Dismissal order, dated
22-01-2022, against the Petitioner and thereby
imposed major punishment of Termination of services.
The Petitioner Union has raised the present
Industrial Dispute before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation) Puducherry, over illegal transfer of the
Petitioner Workman by the Respondent Management.
The Labour Officer (Conciliation) submitted his
failure report on 03-02-2022, following which the
Government of Puducherry, through the Labour
Department has made the reference of the dispute.
Hence, the petition.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the
Respondent is as follows:
Law thus, clearly mandates a trade union to have
atleast 10% of total strength of workers engaged in
any establishment or industry as its members for it
to function as Trade Union and when the Trade
Union looses such requisite numbers, its registration
is required to be cancelled under section 10(c) of
Trade Unions Act. Petitioner does not represent even
two or three workers of Respondent and hence, it has
no locus to seek recognition. Respondent has
already initiated steps for cancellation or registration
of Petitioner vide its letter, dated 13-11-2021.
(ii) The Petitioner doesn’t have the locus standi
to continue functioning as a Trade Union for it to
raise any industrial dispute. Petitioner in its claim
petition has not even pleaded the dates on which it
sought management's recognition and the date when
Respondent denied it. For an industrial dispute to be
referred to this Court for adjudication, there must
have been a demand made by the Union and it must
have been, denied by.the Respondent Management.
(iii) First of all, the allegation of unfair labour
practice cannot be raised as an industrial dispute for
adjudication before this Court. That there was
absolutely no mala fide intention on the part of the
Respondent in transferring Mr. Jayakumar to its Unit
No.1 to Oragadam, Chennai. It is true that Petitioner
Union got itself registered on 24.05.2021. However,
the intimation about formation of the trade union was
never given by the Petitioner directly. It received
such intimation only in July 2021 when the
Respondent received the original registration
certificate from the Labour Department and a notice
from Petitioner’s Advocate, dated 21-06-2021. Charter
of demands, demanding wage revision and other
benefits, even without holding the bare minimum
representative capacity and that too at a time when
the entire world was grappling with Covid and
Nationwide lockdown. The Petitioner also issued a
legal notice, filed writ petition and created all possible
troubles to the respondent to ensure that
Respondent factory do not function smoothly.
(iv) The transfer of T. Jayakumar has absolutely
no links or connection with the formation of Union
or any of the disputes raised by its Office bearers.
The transfer was purely innocuous for administrative
reasons and it was well within the powers of the
Respondent to transfer T. Jayakumar. He was in fact
transferred only because his service were required
at Oragadam unit of the Respondent. The transfer
was purely for administrative reasons and in terms
of contract of employment between Respondent and
T. Jayakumar.
894
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[26 December 2023
( v ) C l a u s e 1 o f t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n o f
Mr. Jayakumar’s letter of appointment, dated
21-01-2011 as “Your (Petitioner) initial place of work
will be at our factory at PIPDIC Industrial Estate,
Thirubuvanai, Puducherry. However, the Management
of the company reserved its right to transfer or
depute you to any of its branches or factories or its
group companies in India or abroad at its sole
discretion and at its own terms irrespective of them
existing on the date of your appointment or not or
established thereafter. You may be given adequate
notice and helped to transit depending upon the
needs and demands of the circumstances”.
(vi) Mr. T. Jayakumar, who is an education youth
and who have previously worked in another
organization had read the entire offer of engagement,
understood scope of his employment, accepted the
same without demur or reservation by signing the
appointment order. Thus, the Petitioner was fully
aware that his job is transferable depending upon the
requirements of other units of Respondent. Therefore
there was absolutely no ill will or ill intentions in
transferring the Petitioner T. Jayakumar. Transfer is
an incident of service and the Petitioner is liable to
serve at all such places where the Respondent needs
his services and merely because Petitioner union had
raised a charter of demand and Mr. T. Jayakumar
happened to be a Secretary of the Union, it does not
proscribes the Respondent from transferring him as
per the terms of employment, especially, when his
presence was required at that point of time.
(vii) There is absolutely no mala fides in transfer
of Mr. T. Jayakumar as it has been done only in terms
of contract of employment with the Petitioner. The
contention of Petitioner that Mr. Jayakumar was
thereafter dismissed from service after a full fledged
domestic enquiry for his failure to receive the
transfer order and reporting to duty at the place of
transfer is not only false but totally irrelevant for the
purpose of this dispute. Hence, the claim petition is
liable to dismissed.
2. Notice served to both parties. Petitioner and
Respondent appeared through their Counsel. Claim
Statement filed. Counter also filed. The matter has been
posted to 09-05-2023 for enquiry. On 03-05-2023 an
application to advance the hearing filed by the
Respondent Counsel. The said application allowed on
04-05-2023 as there was no objection on the Petitioner
side. Hence, hearing was advanced to 04-05-2023 from
09-05-2023.
3. On 04-05-2023, both parties present with their
respective Counsel. Memo filed by the Petitioner to
record the settlement under section 18(1) of the ID Act.
The said Settlement also enclosed along with hearing
advance petition. Heard both on the settlement. Copies
of the Identity proof filed by the parties. In the memo
filed by the Petitioner requested for close the Industrial
Dispute as settled out of Court. In which notice has
given to the Respondent. In the said notice the
Respondent Counsel submitted as the matter is
comprehensively settled. Reference cannot be closed
and requested to pass an Award in terms of under
section 18(1) Settlement. Matter is posted on 10-05-2023
for hearing both the Counsel.
4. Heard both on 10-05-2023. In view of the memo
and the settlement ended between the parties under
section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, Award is
passed to the effect that Industrial Dispute is closed
as settled between the parties under section 18(1) of
Industrial Disputes Act. The Settlement, dated
02-05-2023 entered between the parties under section
18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall form part
and parcel of the Award. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 15th day of May, 2023.
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness: NIL
List of petitioner’s exhibits: NIL
List of respondent’s witnesses: 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. 97/Lab./AIL/T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 29th November 2023)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited, Katterikuppam,
Puducherry and All India United Trade Union Centre,
over payment of Bonus for the year 2019-20 to
Thiruvalargal S.Vinayagamurugan and 40 other Workmen
in respect of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to
this order;