[181]
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
182
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 182
Award of the Labour Court .. 182
de Tribunal
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^/
..
188
l’ Notifications/Orders du
.. 188
Government Notifications/ .. 188
gÁðÔ^
Gouvernement
Orders
Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^
..
192
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 192
Tender Notices
.. 192
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
193
Etablissements dangereux
.. 193
Dangerous Establishments
..
193
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
194
Annonces
.. 194
Announcements
..
194
]Ú›>D
..
198
Corrigendum
.. 198
Corrigendum
.. 198
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 }
∏©´kˆ |
27 {
No.
9
Poudouchéry
Mardi
27
Février
2024 (8 Phalguna 1945)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
27th
February
2024
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
182
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2024
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 124/AIL/Lab./T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 11th December 2023)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 12/2019, dated
12-05-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect
of dispute between the M/s. Shree Mother Plast India
Private Limited, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and
Thiru T. Sivakumar, Madagadipet Post, Puducherry,
over 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 23-05-1991, 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 12th day of May, 2023.
I.D. (L). No. 12/2019
CNR. No. PYPY06-000018-2019
Sivakumar,
S/o. Thulasingam,
No. 48, Main Road, DBG Nagar,
Kalitheerthalkuppam,
Madagadipet Post,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
vs.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Shree Mother Plast India Private Limited,
Nos. A-43 to A-48,
PIPDIC Electronic Park,
Thirubuvanai, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 12-05-2023 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Asokkumar,
Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiru R. Ilancheliyan,
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. 23/AIL/Lab./T/2019, dated 11-02-2019 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following
dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents,
viz.,
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner
T. Sivakumar, Madagadipet Post, Puducherry, against
the Management of M/s. Shree Mother Plast India
Private Limited, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry,
over non-employment is justified or not? If justified,
what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner averred
in the claim petition:
The Petitioner was worked as Machine Operator
under the Respondent Management M/s. Shree
Mother Plast India Private Limited, Puducherry,
for the past 15 years as permanent worker. The
Respondent Management is manufacturer of spare
parts/bed mould for whirlphool washing machine and
Godrej Products functioning at Puducherry. The
Respondent management with arbitrary power kept
the workmen at his mercy depriving of privileges of
the permanent workmen and such act comes under
unfair labour practice on the part of the Respondent
as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(ii) The Respondent issued show cause notice on
11-08-2014 for flimsy reason which is utterly false and
fabricated; the explanation was submitted by the
Petitioner on 08-09-2014 and on 18-09-2014. The
Respondent dissatisfied with explanation issued the
charge sheet on 15-11-2014 and initiated enquiry on
05-01-2015. As a result of enquiry, the Petitioner was
found guilty, and then the Petitioner was terminated
from service on 28-11-2017. Therefore, the Petitioner
raised conciliation on 25-01-2018. On receipt of the
representation, conciliation was initiated and ended
in failure.
(iii) Grounds of the Petition:
The Petitioner is working as Machine Operator
under the Respondent Management M/s. Shree
Mother Plast India Private Limited, Puducherry,
for the past 15 years as permanent worker. The
worker carried out the work to the satisfaction
of the management with flawless records.
183
27 February 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
The Respondent issued Suspension-cum-Show
Cause Notice on 11-08-2014, further, the Petitioner
was resisted from entering the industry premises
on 30-08-2014 and on 04-09-2014. Subsequently
charge-sheet was issued on 15-11-2014 and
initiated the enquiry on the 05-01-2015. The
Petitioner was suspended without seeking
explanation and all along this period, he was not
paid salary or subsistence allowance. The
Respondent without any reason terminated the
Petitioner which is against natural justice.
(iv) The Petitioner has joined as Member in the
“Shri Mother Plast Employees Union” which has
been established for protecting the worker’s rights
from the management. The Respondent management
was dissatisfied due to the involvement of the
Petitioner in the Union activities right from the
initiation of the Trade Union, the Respondent
Management treated the Petitioner unpleasant and
took unfair action against the Petitioner.
(v) The agitation was staged on behalf of
“Puthiya Jananayaga Thozhilalar Munnani” on
05-08-2014 for demanding eradication of contract
labour system under the contract labours Regulation
and Abolition Act, 2009. The Petitioner as a Member
of the Employees Union extended his Cooperation
and participated in the agitation. The participants
including women and children took part in the
agitation the labour contractors of Thirubuvanai in
order to dilute the demand attacked the participants
in the agitation with the support of hooligans, so,
an untoward incident took place in the agitation.
(vi) Even though, participants were attacked the
contractors with the support of political and muscle
power managed to register F.I.R. against the affected
participants. The Station House Officer, Thirubuvanai
Police Station registered a case against 20 and others
vide F.I.R. No. 90/2014. Due to his participation in
the agitation he was also added in the complaint, the
affected participants also approached the Police for
registering the complaint but, the same was refused
due to influence only on direction from the Court,
the complaint was registered.
(vii) The Respondent Management was already
dissatisfied with the Union activity of the Petitioner
and took this opportunity and suspended the
petitioner on 11-08-2014 without seeking any
explanation. Consequently the Petitioner was resisted
from entering the industry premises on 30-08-2014
and on 04-09-2014. The Petitioner submitted
a representation was addressed to the Respondent
Management on 08-09-2014 explaining the untoward
incident took place in the agitation. Further, the
Petitioner is not an offender and moreover, the
agenda in the agitation is common issue due to
involvement of political and muscle influence an
untoward incident took place otherwise than that
there is no personal association.
(viii) The Respondent Management without
considering the explanation of the Petitioner, dated
08-09-2014 issued the charge-sheet on 15-11-2014 and
initiated enquiry on 05-01-2015. The charge-sheet
does not find any substance it is fabricated only
put out the Petitioner from the Respondent/
Management for his involvement in the Union
activities. The Enquiry Officer never tendered any
reasonable opportunity to the worker to explain his
reasons for charges levelled against him. The enquiry
proceedings was unilateral without considering the
Petitioner to explain his reasons. Therefore, the Act
of the Respondent is against the Principles of Natural
Justice. Hence, the termination of the Petitioner is
not justified and liable to be set aside.
(ix) The evidence adduced by the Respondent
Management in the enquiry is not convincing and
the complaints are not reasonable, they are
fabricated only in order to suppress real fact. The
evidences were created with ulterior motive to
terminate the workmen at once. The management after
submission of the proper evidences by the workmen
refused to accept the same. The attitude of the
Respondent Management is put out of service of the
workmen due to his involvement in Union activities.
(x) In the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry
Officer acted unilaterally in support of the
Management, she refused to record the statements
and evidence of the Petitioner. When this was
agitated by the Petitioner several times, so this act
of the Enquiry Officer prevented the Petitioner to
bring out the truth. The Management issued the
charge-sheet on 15-11-2014 and initiated the enquiry
on 05-01-2015. The method adopted by Enquiry
Officer is very hared and no justice finds place in it.
The Enquiry Officer acted for the benefit of the
Management all along the enquiry proceeding and
there is no fair play of justice in the enquiry
proceedings. The main object of the enquiry is to put
out the workmen who indulged in Union activities,
which displeasured the Respondent Management.
The punishment is also not as per the Standing
Orders, the whole proceeding is only to put out the
184
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2024
workman. Therefore, the Petitioner prays for
reinstatement with continuity of service and pay full
back wages from the date of termination till the date
of reinstatement. Hence, the petition.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the
Respondent as follows:
The Petitioner was working in the Respondent
Company as an Operator and he was arrested by the
Thirubuvanai Police Station for indulging in criminal
Acts under sections 147, 148, 307, 323 r/w 149 IPC
on 05-08-2014. The Petitioner was under the Judicial
custody for about 20 days. However, the Petitioner
has not intimated the fact to the Management and
was on unauthorized absent from 06-08-2014.
Therefore, action was initiated for his unauthorized
absence and also for the suppression of facts.
Considering the general attitude and behavior of the
Petitioner, he was placed under suspension pending
enquiry with a view of conducting the enquiry in a
peaceful atmosphere. The Petitioner was also given
subsistence allowance during the period of
suspension under the Industrial Employment
Standing Orders Act, 1946.
(ii) Domestic Enquiry was conducted by an
independent Enquiry Officer during suspension
period. The Enquiry Officer had conducted her
enquiry in an unbaised manner by giving due
opportunities to the Petitioner and submitted her
report, dated 13-05-2017 stating that the charges
levelled against the Petitioner was proved.
Accordingly, a second show cause notice, dated
12-07-2018 was issued to the Petitioner communicating
the proposed punishment. The reply given by the
Petitioner was not satisfactory. Since, the management
considered it as a fit case for termination, the
Petitioner’s services were terminated in proportion to
the misconduct committed by him with effect from
01-12-2017.
(iii) The disciplinary action was taken under the
Certified Standing Orders of the company for the
misconduct committed by the Petitioner. Therefore,
the action taken by the management was completely
by the book and had no ulterior motive. The
punishment given to the Petitioner was in proportion
to the misconduct committed by him. The allegations
of the Petitioner mentioned in his petition are
vexatious and not maintainable. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Notice to both parties given. Both appeared
through their Counsel. Claim petition filed on the side
of the Petitioner/Workman. Counter also filed by the
Respondent/Management. On Petitioner side, PW1
examined in chief and Ex.P1 to P8 marked. PW1 was also
cross-examined by the Respondent/Management
Counsel. Petitioner side evidence closed with PW1. On
Respondent/Management side, RW1 examined in chief
and Ex.R1 to R21 marked. He was also cross-examined
by the Petitioner Counsel. Through RW1 during his
cross-examination, Ex.P9 was marked on Petitioner side
as his exhibits. Respondent side evidence also closed
with RW1. The case was posted for arguments.
5. When the case posted for hearing both side
arguments, both argued their respective cases and when
the arguments was in part and posted for reply on
either side, both the parties filed Joint Compromise
Memo signed by both the parties and their Counsel, as
the ID has been settled between them under section
18(1) settlement. The said copy of 18(1) settlement also
enclosed along with the Joint Compromise Memo.
6. Heard both on the Joint Compromise Memo,
perused the Joint Compromise Memo and Settlement
under section 18(1) and same recorded.
7. In view of the Joint Compromise Memo and the
Settlement arrived under section 18(1) of Industrial
Disputes Act between the parties of the Industrial
Dispute, the Award is passed as industrial dispute is
closed as mutually settled between the parties as per
the Settlement entered between them under section
18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act. The Joint Compromise
Memo and Settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial
Disputes Act, dated 06-05-2023 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 12th day of May, 2023.
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —
06-07-2022
Sivakumar
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.P1
— 13-08-2014
Photocopy of the letter to
the Respondent Management
by the Petitioner’s mother.
Ex.P2
— 20-08-2014
Photocopy of the letter to
the Respondent Management
by the Petitioner’s mother
along with A/D Card.
185
27 February 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P3
— 30-08-2014
Photocopy of the letter to
the Respondent Management
by the Petitioner along with
A/D Card.
Ex.P4
— 04-09-2014
Photocopy of the letter to
the Respondent Management
by the Petitioner along with
A/D Card.
Ex.P5
— 28-08-2014
Photocopy of the Order in
Crl.O.P. No. 22614/2014 of
the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras.
Ex.P6
— 04-04-2015
Photocopy of the letter
given by the Petitioner to
the Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P7
— 16-06-2016
Photocopy of the letter
given by the Petitioner to
the Enquiry Officer.
Ex.P8
— 08-09-2014
Photocopy of the letter to
the Management by the
Petitioner.
Ex.P9
— 07-07-2012
Photocopy of the letter to
the Management by the
Petitioner Union.
List of Respondent’s witness:
RW1
— 14-11-2022
Sivamuthu, Senior Executive
of the Respondent Management.
List of Respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1
— 05-08-2014
Photocopy of the FIR filed
by Thirubuvanai Police
Station (Page 1 to 2).
Ex.R2
— 06-08-2014
Photocopy of the News
published in Malai Malar
Newspaper. (Pg. 4).
Ex.R3
— 06-08-2014
Photocopy of the News
published
in
Tamizh
Murasu (Pg. 3).
Ex.R4
— 11-08-2014
Photocopy of the Show
C a u s e
N o t i c e - c u m -
Suspension Order issued
by the Respondent.
Ex.R5
— —
Photocopy of the Postal
Cover refused and returned
to the Management.
Ex.R6
13-08-2014
Photocopy of the letter
Series
sent by the Petitioner’s
mother to the Respondent
and it was received on
18-08-2014 with postal
cover.
Ex.R7
— 20-08-2014
Photocopy of the letter
Series
sent by the Petitioner’s
mother to the Respondent
and it was received on
18-08-2014 with postal
cover.
Ex.R8
— 08-09-2014
P h o t o c o p y o f t h e
Series
Memorandum issued by the
Respondent with A/D Card.
Ex.R9
— 16-09-2014
P h o t o c o p y o f t h e
Series
Memorandum issued by the
Respondent with A/D Card.
Ex.R10 — 15-11-2014
Photocopy of the Charge-
Series
Sheet
with
Enquiry
Intimation issued by the
Respondent with A/D Card.
Ex.R11 — 18-05-2017
Photocopy of the Enquiry
Report.
Ex.R12 — 15-06-2017
Photocopy of the 2nd show
Series
cause notice issued by the
Respondent with A/D Card.
Ex.R13 — 23-06-2017
P h o t o c o p y o f t h e
Series
requisition letter sent by
the Petitioner for time
extension to give his reply
along with RPAD.
Ex.R14 — 26-06-2017
Photocopy of the reply
letter
sent
by
the
Respondent for granting
time for Petitioner’s reply.
Ex.R15 — 10-07-2017
Photocopy
of
the
requisition letter sent by
the Petitioner for time
extension to give his reply.
Ex.R16 — 12-07-2017
Photocopy of the reply
letter
sent
by
the
Respondent for granting
time for Petitioner’s reply
with postal receipt and A/D
Card.
186
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2024
Ex.R17 — 23-08-2017
Photocopy of the reply
letter
given
by
the
Petitioner
along
with
Certificate and postal cover.
Ex.R18 — 28-11-2017
Photocopy
of
the
Termination Order issued by
the
Respondent
with
cheque for one month pay
with A/D Card.
Ex.R19 — —
Photocopy of the Certified
Standing Order of the
Company.
Ex.R20 — 08-09-2014
Photocopy of the letter
sent by the Petitioner to the
Respondent Management
with postal cover.
Ex.R21 — 18-09-2014
Photocopy of the letter
sent by the Petitioner to the
Respondent Management
with postal cover.
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 125/AIL/Lab./T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 11th December 2023)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 30/2022, dated
15-05-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, in
respect of Dispute between the M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto
Engineering Private Limited, Puducherry and the
petitioner’s Union Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering
Thozhilalargal Naam Thamizhar Thozhir Sangam, over
charter of demands regarding wage revision, protection
of service conditions of workers and other allowances,
etc., has been received;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with
the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed
by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said
Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
(By order)
P. RAGINI,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Tmt. V. SOFANA DEVI, M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 15th day of May, 2023.
I.D. (T). No. 30/2022
CNR. No. PYPY06-000065-2022
The President/Secretary,
Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering Thozhilalargal
Naam Thamizhar Thozhirsangam,
No. 21, Bank Street, Thirubuvanai,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Vs.
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 15-05-2023 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
K. Velmurugan and P. Preethi, Counsel for the Petitioner,
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, T. Pravin, S. Velmurugan,
E. Karthick, S. Sudarsanan and E. Madhivanan, 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. 95/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 10-06-2022 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, over
charter of demands regarding wage revision,
protection of service conditions of workers and other
allowances, etc., is justified or not? If justified, to
give appropriate direction to what remedies to be
entitled in this dispute?
(b) Whether the stand taken by the Management
of M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering Private
Limited, Puducherry, regarding non-recognition of
the Petitioner’s Union duly registered under the
Trade Unions Act, 1926 is legal and justified?
If justified, to give appropriate direction.
187
27 February 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(c) 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 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) The Respondent Management has filed its
reply, dated 03-08-2021 with vague and evasive reply.
The Petitioner Union has raised the present industrial
dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry, in respect of revision of their wages and
also for recognition of their Trade Union by the
Respondent Management. 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
at least 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 standi 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.
The charter of demands for wage revision and other
benefits is not supported, endorsed or backed by any
of the workers including the so called members of
the Union. The revised wage structure accepted by
all the current workers shall prevail over the charter
of demands of Petitioner Union and it cannot insist
on adjudication of their demand for wage revision.
Therefore, the charter of demands raised by the
Petitioner has become infructuous.
(iii) The essential elements for demand for wage
revision shall be region-cum-industry principle and
the cost of living index of the particular region. Once
again the Petitioner has not given any comparative
details on these vital aspects essential for the
Tribunal to even consider the demand for wage
revision. Hence, the gross wages that is being paid
by Respondent is much more than the minimum
wages fixed by the Government. Respondent gives a
standard annual increment of 7% to 10% to all its
worker in the normal circumstances. Apart from the
standard wages, it also pays monthly production and
sale incentives at 7% of gross wages based on
performance of workers. 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.
188
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[27 February 2024
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
Industrial Dispute 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 witness
:
Nil
List of Respondent’s exhibits
:
Nil
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 04/Lab./AIL/T/2023,
Puducherry, dated 04th January 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Vinayaka Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,
Keezhakasakudimedu, Karaikal and the Union workmen
represented by the Union for all Staff in Vinayaka
Mission’s Medical College and Hospital P.K. Salai,
Karaikal, over regularization of Fixed Term Contract
Staff as Permanent Staff in respect of the matter
mentioned in the Annexure to this Order;
And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is
necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV
of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to
Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred
to the Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication.
The Labour Court, Puducherry, shall submit the Award
within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as
stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with
rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,
1957. The party raising the dispute shall file a statement
of claim complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses to the Labour Court, Puducherry,
within 15 days of the receipt of the order of reference
and also forward a copy of such statement to each one
of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
ANNEXURE
(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
union workmen represented by Union for all Staff in
Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital,
P.K. Salai, Karaikal, against the Management of
M/s. Vinayaka Mission’s Medical College and
Hospital, Keezhakasakudimedu, Karaikal, over
regularization of the ‘Fixed Term Contract Staff’
engaged in the designations as listed in Annexure-I
as Permanent Staff is justified or not?
(ii) If justified, what relief the Union workmen
entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief in terms of money if, it
is so be computed?
(By order)
P. RAGINI,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
ANNEXURE-I
Sl.
Designation
No.
(1)
(2)
1
Assistant Medical Record Officer
2
Speech and Hearing Assistant
3
Emergency Technician