[95]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

104

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 104

Government Notifications

.. 104

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

107

Annonces

.. 107

Announcements

107

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

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2024 }

ƒ™kˆ |

30 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2024 (10 Magha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

30th

January

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 January 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 116/AIL/Lab./S/2023,

Puducherry, dated 06th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 30/2022, dated

21-08-2023, of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of Dispute between the M/s. Leo Fasteners, Puducherry

and Thiru K. Ganapathy, over his non-employment 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. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 21st day of August, 2023.

I.D. (L). No. 30/2022

CNR. No. PYPY06-000094-2022

Ganapathy,

S/o Kumar,

No. 92, Annai Priyadharshini Street,

Jeevanandapuram,

Lawspet,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Leo Fasteners,

No. A-27/A, Industrial Estate,

Thattanchavady,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 21-08-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

L. Vinoba, K. Sundarrajan, V. Vijayababu and

K. Muthukumaran, Counsel for the Petitioner and

Thiru K. Parthiban, Counsel for the Respondent, and

after perusing the case records, this Court delivered the

following:

ORDER

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 149/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 06-09-2023 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve trie following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

K. Ganapathy, against the Management of M/s. Leo

Fasteners, Thattanchavady, Puducherry, over his

non-employment with continuity of service and other

attendant benefits is justified or not? If justified,

what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. Today when the case came up for hearing,

Petitioner called absent no representation on Petitioner

side inspite of several, adjournments. Claim statement

not filed though posting as last chance. Therefore, this

Court finds that there is no any purpose to keep this

reference pending.

In the result, this reference is closed for non-prosecution.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 21st day of August, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 117/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 08th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 08/2017, dated

13-09-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of dispute between the M/s. Jeevan Diesel and

Electricals Limited and Jeevan Diesel and Electricals

Limited Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani, Puducherry,

over non-payment of wages and illegal lock-out 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).

30 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 30th day of September, 2023.

I.D. (L). No. 08/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000107-2017

The President,

Jeevan Diesel and Electricals Limited,

Thozhilalar Viduthalai Munnani,

R.S. No. 55/1,

Cuddalore Main Road,

Kattukuppam,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Jeevan Diesel and Electricals Limited,

Unit-II, R.S.No. 55/1,

Cuddalore Main Road,

Kattukuppam,

Manapet,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 22-08-2023 before me

for final hearing in the presence of Thiru N. Vinayagam,

Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal A. Mithun

Chakkaravarthy, V. Arjun Prasad Rao and V. Jayabal,

Counsel for the Respondent, upon hearing both sides,

upon perusing the case records, after having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court passed the

following:

ORDER

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 26/Lab./AIL/T/2017, dated 15-03-2017 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

Union Jeevan Diesel and Electricals Limited, Thozhilalar

Viduthalai Munnani, Puducherry, against the

Management of M/s. Jeevan Diesel and Electricals

Limited, Puducherry, over non- payment of wages and

illegal lock-out is justified or not? If not justified,

what relief the Union Workmen are entitled to?

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. The averments set out in the claim petition is as

follows:

The Union Members namely, Thiruvalargal

1. S. Vijayamurthy-Electrician, 2. D. Mullaivalavan-

Wireman, 3. S. Gnanasekaran-Fitter, 4. L. Paul

Ebanzeer-Technician, 5. D. Velmurugan-Wireman,

6. E. Arul Raj -Store Assistant, 7. P. Venkatachalapathy-

Electrician, 8. S. Karthikeyan-Painter, 9. R. Rajasekar-

Wireman, 10. J. Vasu-Fitter and 11. L. Lakshminarayanan-

Welder are working in the Respondent's factory for

the past ten years.

(ii) From June 2015 the Respondent has not

disbursed the salary to the said employees and the

Respondent has been taking steps to close the

factory i.e., illegal lock-out. On 27-08-2015 the

Petitioner’s Union requested the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) to intervene the dispute and take

action for the disbursement of the salary and to stop

the illegal lock-out by the Respondent.

(iii) The Respondent in their reply letter, dated

15-09-2015 stated the factory will not generate

without any business and the working production

and AMC Service, etc., were zero, which is strictly

not true because the Petitioner’s Union never

stopped the work and the completed the work given

by the Respondent in spite of the non-payment of

wages. The Workers had done the factory related

works (cleaning/maintenance) and outside DG set

work as per the Respondent's instructions.

(iv) The Conciliation proceedings held on

29-09-2015, the workers Union insisted for

disbursement of the pending salary from June to

September 2015 but, the Respondent once again said

there is no production which is not true because the

Petitioner's Union were regularly attending the work

in the factory premises and also followed the

instruction of the service works by submitting the

“On duty-out station slip”.

(v) The Conciliation proceedings held on

16-10-2016 the Respondent once again stated that

“No Work No Salary”. The Petitioner’s Union stated

that they want four months pending salary, but, the

Respondent refused to disburse the same. The

Respondent blankly refused to pay the arrears of

salary but, hiring contractors from outside for urgent

work though the Petitioner’s Union had never

informed that they will not work due to non-payment

of pending wages. The Petitioner’s Union did the 20

and 25 KVA DG set work as assigned by the

Respondent but, the Respondent paid only 15 days

salary for the month of October 2015.

(vi) During the Conciliation proceedings held on

27-10-2015 the Labour Officer has directed the

Respondent to pay the pending salary and bonus

amount to be paid to the workers before Deepavali.

The Respondent expected the workers to complete

the pending orders and they stopped taking new

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 January 2024

orders. This clearly explains that the Respondent’s

intention is to close the factory. The marketing team

also were idle and the sales was also nil in the

corresponding months but, the Respondent regularly

paid them without arrears, but, the Respondent refuse

to pay the pending salary to the working Union

labourers.

(vii) The Respondent stated to the Labour Officer

that only when the 2 DG set of 1 x 125KVA, 1 x 24

KVA get dispatched to the customers the payment

can be collected and only then the salary can be paid

to the workers. That is not true because for the past

the 20 years the marketing procedure of the factory

is that, only after getting full payment from

customers only then the DG sets will be dispatched

to the customers.

(viii) The conciliation proceedings held on

11-01-2016 the workers demanded the four and half

months’ salary along with the January salary for

Pongal and also due to the heavy floods. The

conciliation proceedings held on 21-01-2016 the

Respondent accepted to pay the Union workers

salary for the month of January 2016 vide 11 cheques

of State Bank of India, Karnataka, after dispatching

the DG set, but, the Petitioner’s Union refused and

demanded payment before the dispatching of DG

sets. Further, the workers were not ready to accept

the cheques, as so many cheques issued earlier by

the Respondent bounced previously. The workers

Union demanded payment by way of online and

currency and the Respondent disagreed to the same

and hence, dispatch of DG set got held up.

(ix) The Union workers felt that just coming and

going without work is not fair for them and the

Respondent has informed that the company has

turned to BIFR level and the workers demanded full

and final settlement, PF/ESI, pending payment and

asked the Respondent to relieve them. The

Respondent blames the Petitioner’s Union for the loss

of the company and blamed the Petitioner’s Union

and insisted that the workers should bear the loss

of the company.

(x) The final proceedings held on 29-03-2016, the

Respondent instructed the workers to look for

alternative jobs and the Petitioner’s Union did not

agree to that and demanded immediate settlement for

the service period. Due to failure of conciliation the

dispute has been refused to this Court for

adjudication. Hence, the Petitioner’s Union prayed for

regarding payment of arrears, wages and illegal lock

and for necessary monetary reliefs entitled by the

employees as per law.

3. The averments in the counter filed by the

Respondent is as follows:

The Respondent is a private company and

manufacturing the DG set and in Pondicherry Unit

the Respondent has allocated the work to the workers

as per order of the customer and the Respondent has

given the wages as per order received by the

Respondent. Totally 10 to 20 employees has been

worked in the Respondent company except 3 to 4

employees all other not permanent employees and

further submits that the Petitioner has stated the list

of employees are the probationary workers of the

Respondent company.

(ii) From the starting of company to till January

2015 the company was running successfully and the

employees were paid the wages without any due and

the Management and workers relationship has been

in good manner. The Respondent has paid bonus,

festival allowance and other requirement of the

workers.

(iii) After January 2015 the Respondent has not

receive the orders regularly from the customer while

in this situation the Respondent has never put the

burden to the workers further Management has paid

the wages and other benefits has been paid by the

Respondent while so the same situation in Gujarat

(another unit) due to that the Management has made

heavy loss because of no order has received from

the customer in this situation the Management has

applied for Sick Industrial Companies before

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Board for

Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi

and the issue has been pending till date.

(iv) The Respondent has not received order

regularly. The Respondent received orders from the

customer in once in a three months in this situation

the Respondent has orally stated to the all workers

that the Respondent will pay the wages according

to order receive by the Respondent meanwhile the

Petitioners has change their behaviour and they

stated to delay the works and the Respondent was

not able to deliver the orders to customer in time due

to that the Respondent has not receive the payment

in time from the customers due to that Respondent

got financial crisis and the Petitioner have realise the

financial situation of the Respondent and they have

not done the works in time and further that workers

has not done the Annual Maintenance Contract

(AMC).

(v) The Petitioners did not obey the Respondent

words and further the Respondent has paid wages

till January 2016 without any due. The Respondent

30 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

never stopped the wages to the workers at any point

of time but, the Petitioners has falsely stated in the

claim statement that the Respondent has not paid the

wages to workers on October 2015 to January 2016.

(vi) There is no intention to close the factory

because the Respondent has not receive the orders

regularly therefore, the Respondent has orally stated

to the all workers including the Petitioners that “No

Work No Pay” has been followed by the Respondent

in that major workers are quit the job and they given

final settlement by the Respondent. Hence, prayed

for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Point for determination:

1. Whether the reference has to be dismissed on

the ground that the 11 workmen are represented by

an unregistered Union?

2. Whether the lock-out done by the respondent

management is an illegal lock-out?

3. Whether the dispute raised by petitioner union

over non-payment of wages and illegal lock-out is

justified?

4. To what reliefs the workmen are entitled for?

5. Mr. Vijayamaruthi, President of Union was

examined as PW.1 and Exs. P1 to P18 were marked.

On the Respondent side Mr. Charles Kuzhandai Raj,

Store Incharge of Respondent Management was

examined as RW.1 and through RW.1 Exs. R1 to Ex.R4

were marked.

6. On points 1 to 4:

The contention of the petitioner union is that the

eleven workmen were working in the respondent’s

company in various cadre for the past 10 years and

while so from June 2015 onwards the respondent has

not disbursed salary to the abovesaid workmen and

further were taking steps to close the factory without

following the procedure as contemplated under

Industrial Disputes Act and thereby the same is

nothing but, an illegal lock-out. The further

contention of the petitioner union is that on

27-08-2015 the petitioners union had given

representation to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to

intervene in the dispute and to take necessary action

to disburse the salary and to stop illegal lock-out for

which the respondent had given reply, dated

15-09-2015 stating that the respondent is unable to

generate income without any production work and

AMC service but, infact the same is not true because

the workmen did not stop the work at any point of

time and were doing the assignment work given to

them inspite of non-payment of wages. The

petitioner’s Union further contended that in the

conciliation proceedings held on 29-09-2015, the

Union had insisted for disbursement of salary from

June 2015 to September 2015, but, still the

respondent repeated the same reason and again on

16-10-2016 in the Conciliation proceedings the

respondent stated that “no work no salary” and while

so the abovesaid workmen did 20 and 25 KVA DG set

but, the respondent had paid only 15 days salary for

the month of October 2015.

7. The petitioner’s further contention is that in the

Conciliation proceedings held on 27-10-2015 the Labour

Officer has directed the respondent to pay salary and

bonus amount before Deepawali for which the

respondent stated that only after 2 DG set of 1 X 125

KVA and 1X 24KVA are dispatched it is possible to pay

the salary arrears and further in the Conciliation

proceedings held on 11-01-2016 the workers demanded

for 4 ½ months salary along with the salary for January

2016 and later when the respondent accepted to pay the

salary arrears by way of 11 cheques, the petitioner union

refused to receive the same since the earlier cheques

issued by the respondent were bounced and further the

respondent without settling the dues to the workmen

had informed the workers to look for an alternative jobs

and therefore, the present claim petition is filed for

payment of arrears, wages and monetary reliefs for

illegal lock-out.

8. On the other hand the respondent contended that

the petitioner’s union was not recognized by the

respondent and further after January 2015 the

respondent did not receive regular orders and therefore,

the respondent followed “No work No pay” and paid

wages as and when the respondent received the orders

but, the employees became adamant and delayed the

works due to which supply of products could not be

made in time and further the respondent has paid wages

till January 2016 through online and the respondent has

no intention to close the factory.

9. Thus, in this case the first contention of the

respondent is that the Petitioner Union is an

unregistered one and not recognized by the respondent

company and therefore, the petitioner Union has no

locus standi to represent the 11 workmen and the case

is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The learned

Counsel for respondent to substantiate this contention

has relied upon the following citations:

1. Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/

1639298, dated 25-02-2008 of the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras held that “In as much as the petitioner is

not a registered body and the details of its members

having not been disclosed, we are of the considered

view that the present Writ Petition is not

maintainable”.

100

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 January 2024

2. AIR 2001 Raj 35, of the Hon’ble High Court of

Rajasthan held that “Since, the above conditions are

not fulfilled such an unregistered association cannot

file Writ Petition in respect of the legal rights of the

said association for the alleged breach of

fundamental right as the association itself has no

fundamental right of its own”.

10. The PW.1 during his cross-examination has

deposed as follows:

Jeevan Diesel Electricals Limited ÿ>VaÈV·Ï

s|>ÁÈ x[™M ®[√m ®∫Ô^ RMB[ ÿ√B´VzD.

º�√Ω,

ƒ∫ÔD

>uº√VÁ>B

º>]kÁ´

√]°

ÿƒFB©√¶s_ÁÈ. º�√Ω, ƒ∫Ô›]_ ÂV[ >V[

>ÁÈkÏ. ÂV[ ∂ÀkVÆ º>ÏÕÿ>|¬Ô©√‚¶>uÔV™

gkð›Á> ÷Õ> kw¬˛_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. ÷Õ>

kw¬˛_ ÔVð©√‚|^· 11 ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔπ[ º�√Ω

ƒ∫Ô›]_ cÆ©∏™ÏÔ^ ®[√Á> ÔV‚¶ gkðD

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. º�√Ω 11

cÆ©∏™ÏÔ^ \V>ﬂƒÕ>V kÛ_ ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m

®[√Á> ÔV‚¶ gkðD >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈V_

ƒˆ>V[.

11. Thus, the P.W.1 during his cross-examination has

categorically admitted that the petitioner Union has not

been registered and further, admitted that he has not

produced any documents to substantiate that the 11

workmen involved in this case had paid subscription

to the petitioner Union. Therefore, from the evidence

of P.W.1 it is found that the petitioner Union is an

unregistered one. According to section 2(qq) of

Industrial Disputes Act “Trade Union” means a Trade

Union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926.

Admittedly in this case the petitioner Union has not yet

been registered as per section 2 (qq) of the Trade Union

Act. In the said context it becomes necessary to

determine whether this reference can be represented by

the petitioner’s Union on behalf of the 11 workmen and

further, whether the reference has to be dismissed on

the ground that the 11 workmen are represented by an

unregistered Union. This Court at this juncture relies

upon the following citations:

12. The question regarding maintainability of the

reference, at the instance of unregistered Union, came

up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in State of Bihar versus Kripa Shankar Jaiswal, reported

AIR 1961, Supreme Court (Vol. 1) 306 wherein it was

held as follows:

“It would be an erroneous view if it were said that

for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is

a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by

a recognized Union or that all the workmen of an

industrial establishment should be parties to it.

A dispute becomes an industrial dispute even where

it is sponsored by a Union which is not registered

as in the instant case or where the dispute raised by

some of the workmen because in either case the

matter falls within Ss 18(3)(a) and 18(13) (d) of the

Act”. The binding nature of an award or a settlement

as contemplated under section 18 in clauses, inter alia

all parties to the Industrial dispute that include all

persons who were employed in the establishment or

part of the establishment, as the case may be, to

which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute

and all persons who subsequently become employed

in that establishment or part.

13. The Supreme Court in 1972 (I) LLJ 507 Pradip

Lamp Works, Patna Vs. Workmen of Pradip Lamp Works,

Patna and another has held that: “It cannot be said that

merely because the dispute was not sponsored by the

registered Union it was not an industrial dispute. Even

though the new Union was not registered there was

evidence to show that substantial number of workmen

who are members of the new union espoused the

dispute relating to the dismissal of ten workmen and

that legal position is that espousal of a dispute before

a reference is made even by a minority Union having a

membership of substantial number of workmen is

sufficient to make such a dispute an industrial dispute.

It was therefore, held that the dispute espoused by the

new unregistered Union was an Industrial Dispute that

the reference was Competent.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy

Electricals Limited, Vs. All India Trade Union Congress

(1979) has held that: “The fact that a Trade Union is

not registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, does

not disentitle it from raising an Industrial Dispute. The

right to raise an Industrial Dispute is a fundamental

right guaranteed by Article 1991 (c) of the Constitution

of India. The registration of a trade union is only a

procedural requirement and does not confer any

substantive right on the Trade Union”.

15. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Kerala State

Electricity Board Vs. All Kerala Electricity Board

Employees Union (2002) has held that: “The registration

of a trade union is not a condition precedent for raising

an Industrial Dispute. An unregistered Trade Union can

also raise an Industrial Dispute”.

16. Thus, in the light of above citations it is clear

that a dispute espoused by a unregistered Union also

constitutes to be a Industrial Dispute and therefore, it

cannot be held that the reference of dispute at the

instance of unregistered Union is invalid one and

further, in Industrial Dispute cases it becomes

necessary to determine whether there exists workman

and employer relationship and whether the subject

matter of reference is really an industrial dispute or not.

101

30 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

17. At this juncture for better appreciation it would

be appropriate to extract section 2(k) and 2A of

Industrial Disputes Act.

Section 2 (k) “industrial dispute” means any

dispute or difference between employers and

employers or between employers and workmen, or

between workmen and workmen, which is connected

with the employment or non- employment or the terms

of employment or with the conditions of labour, of

any person;

Section 2A-Dismissal, etc., of an individual

workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute:-

Where any employer discharges, dismisses,

retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an

individual workman, any dispute or difference

between that workman and his employer connected

with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination is deemed to be an

industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other

workman or any Union of workmen is a party to the

dispute.

18. In this case from the claim statement filed by the

petitioner Union and counter statement filed by the

respondent and from the evidence of R.W.1 and from

Exs. P7 series to P17 series it is found that the 11

workmen involved in this case have proved that there

exists the relationship of employer and workmen and

further there exists a dispute in the nature of “Industrial

Dispute”. When such being so in the light of above

citations cited supra, the industrial dispute which is

espoused by an unregistered Union and further the

reference having made by the Labour Officer Conciliation

being a valid one, this Court is bound to answer the

reference.

19. The another contention of the respondent is that

the 11 workmen in this case are represented by an

unregistered Union and the same is unsustainable

because the workmen can be represented only by the

Office bearers of registered Trade Union. This Court

finds that as per section 36 of Industrial Dispute Act

the representation of a workmen can be done by:

Representation of Parties; (1) A workman who is

a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented

in any proceeding under this Act by:

(a) any member of the executive or other 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;

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

authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) An employed who is a party to a dispute

shall be entitled to be represented in any

proceeding under this Act by-

(a) an officer of an association of employers of

which he is a member;

(b) an officer of a federation of association of

employers to which the association referred to in

clause (a) is affiliated;

association of employers, by an officer of any

association of employers connected with, or by

any other employer engaged in, the industry in

which the employer is engaged and authorised in

such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be

represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation

proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings

before a Court.

(4) In any proceeding before a Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute

may be represented by a Legal Practitioner with the

consent of the other parties to the proceedings and

with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or

National Tribunal, as the case may be.

20. Therefore, as per section 36 (1)(c) of Industrial

Disputes Act a workman can be represented by other

office bearer of any Trade Union connected with or by

any other workman employed in the industry in which

the worker is employed. In this case the industrial

dispute is represented by an office bearer of a Trade

Union and furthermore, the dispute is espoused by an

unregistered Union and this Court also has already held

that the reference by the Labour Officer Conciliation is

a valid one and therefore in such circumstances this

Court is bound to answer the reference. Apart from that

even otherwise the president of the petitioner Union is

one of the workman employed in the same company

where other 10 workmen are working. Therefore, even

otherwise the president as one of the workman working

in the same company is entitled to represent the other

10 workmen in this case.

21. That apart on perusal of Ex.P6 Failure report

issued by the Labour Officer Conciliation it is found

that the respondent at no point of time has raised before

102

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 January 2024

the Labour Officer Conciliation that the petitioner

Union is an unregistered or unrecognised one. Further

more, when the P.W.1 has adduced evidence before this

Court the respondent has not raised any objection that

the P.W.1 has neither locus standi to represent the 11

workmen nor to adduce evidence on behalf of the 11

workmen but on the other hand has allowed to complete

the cross examination by suggesting to P.W.1 that the

petitioner Union is an unregistered one and therefore

petitioner Union has no locus standi to represent the

11 workmen. Thus, it is found that the respondent for

the first time during cross-examination of P.W.1 has

raised objection by posing questions to the P.W.1 that

the petitioner Union is an unregistered one and cannot

represent the 11 workmen. This Court on taking into

consideration of above discussions, holds that the

objection raised by the respondent that the petitioner

Union cannot represent the 11 workmen holds no water

for the reasons as assigned above.

22. The other contention of the petitioner Union is

that the 11 workmen were not paid salary from June 2015

and further the respondent was taking steps for

temporary closure of factory and the same is nothing

but, an illegal lock-out. Whereas, the contention of the

respondent is that after January 2015 there were no

regular orders and therefore, the respondent had

followed “No work no pay” and had paid salary as and

when the respondent received orders but, the workmen

became adamant and started to delay the works and

thereby the respondent was unable to deliver the

products in time. The respondent further, contended

that the respondent has paid salary upto October 2015

through online and there is no intention for the

respondent to close the factory.

23. This Court on perusal of Ex. P2 finds that it is

stated that the respondent company do not have any

production and therefore, is closing one factory for time

being and further has directed the security service not

to allow the 11 workmen to enter inside the factory.

Further, the respondent also in the counter statement

has stated that the respondent after January 2015 did

not receive any orders regularly from the customer and

the R.W.1 during his cross-examination has deposed

that he is still working as store-incharge in the

respondent company and at present only two persons

are working the respondent company. Therefore, from

the above it can be inferred that the respondent has

initiated temporary closure and the same is nothing,

but, a lock-out as contended by the workmen. This

Court finds that Industrial Disputes Act contemplates

the procedure for lock-out but, in this case the

respondent without adopting any such procedure is

found to have prevented the entry of the workmen into

the factory and also has not provided employment and

wages. The contention of the respondent that it was

informed to the workmen that salary will be paid as and

when the orders are received and further, the workmen

have to wait for the work without any salary and till

the respondent generate revenue by supplying the

products is found to be unacceptable one.

24. Thus, in the said facts and circumstances the

lock-out done by the respondent is nothing but an

illegal lock-out. When that being so, the workmen are

entitled for salary during the said periods. According

to petitioner it is contended that the 11 workmen were

not paid salary from June 2015 but during the pendency

of Conciliation proceedings for the month of October

2015 was paid by the respondent. Whereas the

respondent contends that salary upto January 2016 were

made through online. The petitioner as per Ex. P18 has

proved that they have been paid salary for the month

of October and November 2015 but the respondent has

not produced any documents to prove the payment of

salary upto January 2016 as contended by the

respondent. Hence, this Court holds that the respondent

is liable to pay salary to the 11 workmen for the period

from June 2015 on wards except for the month of

October 2015 and November 2015 since the salary for

the said months have been disbursed.

25. It is contention of the respondent that BIFR

proceedings have been initiated as against the

respondent company and to substantiate the same Ex.R1

is relied. On perusal of Ex.R1 it is found that on

17-07-2015 a letter is addressed by Registrar of Board

for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction seeking for

certain particulars from the respondent, but, however it

is found that on 23-01-2019 the respondent has sold a

part of its immovable property and therefore, the

contention of the respondent that as against respondent

factory BIFR proceedings were initiated is unacceptable

one. In view of above discussions it is held that

Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as against the

respondent management over illegal lock-out is justified

and as such this Court holds that the 11 workmen are

entitled for arrears of salary for the period from June

2015 onwards excluding the month of October 2015 and

November 2015 since the salary for the said months

have been disbursed.

In the result this petition is allowed by holding that

the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as against

the respondent management over illegal lock- out is

justified and the respondent management is directed to

pay the arrears of salary for the period from June 2015

onwards excluding the month of October 2015 and

November 2015 within two months from the date of this

Award. There is no order as to costs.

103

30 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Dictated to the Stenographer directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 13th day of September, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 30-01-2020

Thiru Vijayamaruthi, President

of Union.

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

—

Photocopy of the letters

sent by the applicants to

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation) (13 Nos.).

Ex.P2

— 29-08-2016

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Respondent to

the Contractor Swasthik

Security Services, Puducherry,

regarding the subject of

closure of Jeevan Diesels

and Electricals Limited.

Ex.P3

— 29-03-2016

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Respondent to

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.P4

— 22-01-2016

Photocopy

the

Complaint given by the EPF

Officer, Puducherry to the

Superintendent of Police

(South),

Mettupalayam,

Puducherry.

Ex.P5

— 15-03-2017

Photocopy

the

Notification, dated 15-03-2017

in G.O. Rt. No. 26/AIL/Lab./

T/2017.

Ex.P6

— 31-10-2016

Photocopy of the Failure

Report

issued

the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P7

— —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of S.Vijayamaruthi-

Electrician (14 Sheets).

Ex.P8

— —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of D. Mullaivalavan-

Wireman (10 Sheets).

Ex.P9

— —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of S. Gnanasekaran-

Fitter (10 Sheets).

Ex.P10 — —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of L. Paul Ebanezar-

Technician (10 Sheets).

Ex.P11 — —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of D. Velmurugan-

Wireman (7 Sheets).

Ex.P12 — —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of E. Arul Raj-

Store-Assistant (8 Sheets).

Ex.P13 — —

P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

Series

S e r v i c e R e c o r d s o f

P. Ve n g a t a c h a l a p a t h y -

Electrician (9 Sheets).

Ex.P14 — —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of S. Karthikeyan-

Painter (11 Sheets).

Ex.P15 — —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of R. Rajasekar-

Wireman (10 Sheets).

Ex.P16 — —

Photocopy of the Service

Series

Records of J. Vasu-Fitter

(12 Sheets).

Ex.P17 — —

P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

Series

S e r v i c e R e c o r d s o f

L . L a k s h m i n a r a y a n a n -

Electrician (3 Sheets).

Ex.P18 — —

Photocopy of the Salary

Series

Records (7 Sheets).

List of respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 28-02-2022

Mr. Charles Kuzhandai Raj,

Store-Incharge

the

Respondent Management.

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 17-07-2015

Photocopy of the Notice

sent by Ministry of Finance

to the Respondent.

Ex.R2

— 03-03-2016

Photocopy of the Bank

Payment

Slip

for

the

Employee.

Ex.R3

— 23-01-2019

Photocopy of the Sale Deed

of the Respondent.

Ex.R4

— 03-02-2018

Authorization Letter issued

the

Respondent

Management.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.