[131]
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
132
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 132
Award of the Labour Court .. 132
de Tribunal.
..
140
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 140
Government Notifications
.. 140
..
144
Annonces
.. 144
Announcements
..
144
La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
2025 }
|
11 {
No.
10
Poudouchéry
Mardi
11
Mars
2025 (20 Phalguna 1946)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
11th
March
2025
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
132
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 March 2025
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 15/AIL/Lab./S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 17th February 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 09/2019, dated
11-07-2024, of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the
M/s. Puducherry State Co-operative Bank Limited
(No. 78), Puducherry and Bharata Makkal Sasana Urimai
Iyakkam, Puducherry, over refusal of employment of
Thiru Djeaboubalane 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)
S. SANDIRAKUMARAN,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 11th day of July 2024.
I.D. (L). No. 09/2019
CNR. No. PYPY06-000015-2019
The President,
Thiru B. Chandramohan,
Bharatha Makkal Sasana Urimagal Iyakkam,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Vs.
The Managing Director
Puducherry State Co-operative Bank Limited (No.78),
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of Thiru B. Mohandoss,
Counsel appearing for petitioner and Thiru C. Pragagarane,
Counsel for the respondent and upon hearing the
learned Counsel for Petitioner and respondent and on
perusing the entire records of the case, having stood
over for consideration till this date, 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. 19/Lab./AIL/T/2019, dated 08-02-2019 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the
following dispute between the Petitioner and the
Respondent, viz., -
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Bharatha
Makkal Sasana Urimai lyakkam, Puducherry, against
the management of M/s. Puducherry State
Co-operative Bank Limited No. P78, Puducherry, over
refusal of employment of Thiru Djeaboubalane can
be exhausted under the Puducherry Co-operative
Societies Act, 1972 or under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947?
(ii) If, the remedy can be exhausted under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, what relief
Thiru Djeaboubalane is entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed.
2. The averments set forth in the claim statement is
as follows:
(i) The Petitioner is a Registered Association
working for the protection of rights of people
irrespective of their caste, religion and political party.
The present claim pertains to the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner association on behalf of
Thiru M. Djeaboubalane, working as messenger in
The Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank Limited P78.
The subject matter of the dispute also relates to non-
employment of the workman Thiru M. Djeaboubalane
for whom the respondent management has not
allotted any duties despite the workman’s willingness
to perform his duties as a messenger and the
respondent has willfully refused to provide work to
him on the ground of pendency of disciplinary
proceedings against
him, that too
without
suspending/terminating him.
(ii) The management of The Pondicherry State
Co-operative Bank Limited, framed charges of
misconduct under the show-cause notice, dated
4-11-2013 and by the said notice the workman
Thiru M. Djeaboubalane was directed to submit his
explanation for unauthorized absence from duty from
01-02-2003 to 28-02-2003 and 01-04-2003 to 05-12-2003
and 19-01-2004 to 30-06-2009 and from 01-04-2010 to
till the date of issuance of the show-cause notice and
to submit the details of action taken by the Hon’ble
Court in respect of the arrest warrant issued to him
on 9th August 2002. He was also asked to state as
to why disciplinary action should not be initiated
against him as per the regulations governing the
service conditions of the Employee’s of the
133
11 March 2025]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Respondent Bank. The workman submitted his reply,
dated 21-11-2013 and in the said reply he has denied
the charge of unauthorized absence for the period
referred to in the show-cause notice. He has also
denied the receipt of any show-cause notice, dated
20-08-2002 as referred to in the show-cause notice,
dated 04-11-2013 alleging that the management of the
bank instructed him to submit explanation regarding
the arrest warrant before 04-09-2002. As such the
workman requested the management to produce the
copy of the show-cause notice, dated 20-08-2002
alleged to have been sent to him along with the mode
of sending the same to the Workman along with the
acknowledgment by the Workman for the receipt of
the same. In the reply he also added that the arrest
warrant was relating to a civil case in respect of his
personal debt and it had nothing to do with his
conduct as an employee of the Bank and hence, there
was no basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings
against him in this regard.
(iii) The respondent without accepting the
explanation submitted by the workman had respondent
proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings further
by appointing Mr. R. Parthasarathy, Advocate
Puducherry, as Enquiry Officer. The Learned Enquiry
Officer submitted his report, dated 19-04-2017,
holding the workman guilty of violating Rule 51 of
the Staff Regulations governing the service conditions
of the employees of the Bank by his absence of duty
without obtaining permission of the managing
director of the bank and by his failure to join duty
after he has been certified to be fit for joining duty
and with regard to the second charge of issue of
arrest warrant by a Civil Court, the Enquiry Officer
has given a finding of not guilty, stating that the
workman has not violated Rule 54 of the Staff
Regulations governing the service conditions of the
employees of the Bank.
(iv) The respondent issued show-cause notice,
dated 15-06-2017 enclosing copy of the enquiry
report referred to above and directing the workman
to submit his objection for the enquiry report. It was
also stated there on that on the workman’s failure to
submit objections the disciplinary authority shall
proceed with appropriate disciplinary action as per
the staff regulation. As the petitioner had already
raised industrial dispute against the respondent in
the matter of disciplinary proceedings against him
and it was pending before the Labour Officer
Conciliation, he has not submitted any reply
separately to the management. However the workman
submitted his objections for the enquiry report to the
Conciliation Officer, who in turn handed over copy
of the same to the representative of the respondent
management who appeared before the Conciliation
Officer.
(v) The workman originally submitted representation,
dated 13-10-2014 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation)
requesting interference in to the industrial dispute
against the management of the bank. In that the
workman pointed out the justification for his claim
for employment in the bank, as he was not suspended
pending enquiry. To his surprise and shock, the
respondent did not submit any reply at all for his
representation to the Conciliation Officer. This made
the workman to approach the Conciliation Officer
through letter, dated 12-01-2015 seeking submission
of failure report on account of non-cooperation by
the respondent. Subsequently the workman submitted
rejoinder, dated 05-02-2015 reiterating his request for
advice to the respondent for reemploying the
workman and to settle his dues. Even thereafter, no
progress was shown by the management for several
years. The Respondent pressurized the Conciliation
Officer not to keep the conciliation proceeding for
long as a result of which the workman has suffered
both physically and mentally for years together. From
the failure report, dated 18-12-2018 of the Conciliation
Officer, the workman has come to know that the
respondent management has filed reply statement,
dated 26-10-2018 in which vexatious plea has been
taken to the effect that the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not apply to the
employees of State Co-operative Bank and the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court is excluded when a
comprehensive remedy is available under the
Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.
(vi) The issue raised by the respondent alleging
that the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 do not apply to the employees of the State
Co-operative Bank is misconceived one. It is also
basic principle of law that plea of lack of jurisdiction,
to prove there is presumption regarding jurisdiction
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 burden lies
on the person who takes same. Another principle of
law is that of the Labour Court Constituted when the
dispute raised between the dispute between workman
and employer which is constitutes an industrial
dispute, It is significant to note that as per section
2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute
between workman and employer which is connected
with the non-employment the employment of the
workman amounts to industrial dispute. Hence, the
dispute
raised
by
the
petitioner
regarding
non-employment of the workman is maintainable
before this Hon’ble Court. Moreover as per section 7
of the I.D. Act R/W 2nd schedule the Hon’ble Labour
Court has got jurisdiction to decide all matters other
than those specified in the 3rd Schedule. As the
134
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 March 2025
Schedule, this Hon’ble Court can very well adjudicate
the claim made by the Subject matter of claim does
not fit in any of the matters specified in the 3rd
schedule, this Hon’ble Court can very well adjudicate
the claim made by the petitioner.
(vii) The other contention of the respondent that
“the workman is permitted to file an application
before the Managing Director of the bank for getting
reliefs under the rules and regulation of the bank and
is also permitted to file appeal petition before the
Administrator of the Bank, if affected by the final
orders of the disciplinary authority” is not valid in
law and cannot be maintained. In this case the
respondent has not passed any final order in the
disciplinary proceedings after the enquiry report and
therefore, there is no chance for the workman to take
resort to internal remedy available under the rules
and regulations of the bank. Even otherwise, as per
the principles of Labour Law there is no obligations
imposed on the workman to exhaust the administrative
remedy available under the service rules.
(viii) It is a basic principle of Labour Law that the
burden of proof always lies on the shoulders of the
Management to prove the charges of misconduct
framed under the charge sheet/show-cause notice
issued by the Management. It is noteworthy that to
find fault with the workman for his unauthorized
absence from duty under four different spells of time
starting from 01-02-2003 and ending with 4-11-2013,
the management has not at all produced any
document to prove his absence from duty for the
above period by the petitioner. For proving the
charge of unauthorized absence it is obligatory to
prove the factum of absence from duty at first by
producing documents relating to attendance of the
workman. In the case on hand the respondent has
miserably failed to prove the absence for the above
stipulated period by producing attendance register
or wages register or any other relevant documents.
For non-production of the attendance register or
other relevant documents by the management,
adverse inference has to be drawn against it.
(ix) The workman without prejudice to his
contention regarding burden of proof, has submitted
documents marked as Exhibits W4 to W7 showing
his getting salary from the management for the
period of unauthorized absence partly covered under
the charge-sheet, dated 04-11-2013. The entire record
of disciplinary proceedings clearly establishes the
fact that there has been an arbitrary exercise of
disciplinary proceedings by respondent bank, a
co-operative institution registered under the
Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972,
according to the sweet will and pleasure of its
Officers. The damage suffered by the petitioner on
account of non-employment from the year 2004
onwards by the unlawful act of the respondent
cannot be calculated in terms of money. Hence, the
petition.
3. The averments set forth in the counter is as
follows:
(i) The Puduchery Co-operative Bank Limited, is
a registered society, registered under the Puducherry
Co-operative Societies Act 1972 and Rules 1973 made
thereunder. The petitioner is no way connected to
the respondent bank and is not recognized Iyakkam
in the bank and there are some other registered and
recognized associations for the welfare of the bank
staff started on their own. Therefore, the petitioner
has no locus standi to file this dispute and this
petition may be dismissed in liminie. The Petitioner
filed this dispute petition stating that the petitioner
is a Registered Association working for the
protection of rights of people irrespective of their
caste, religion and political party. The petitioner
association is no way connected to the respondent
bank and the issue to be decided is whether the
petitioner association is empowered to file this
dispute under Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
(ii) As for as the employee Thiru Djeaboubalane
is concerned he was not dismissed, retrenched or
otherwise terminated from the service of the
individual and the petitioner also not stated about
any Impugned order, issued by this Respondent and
therefore, the dispute raised will not comes under
section 2 the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner
not challenged any impugned order of this
respondent bank in the claim statement. Since, no
orders have been passed by the disciplinary
authority of the respondent bank. The preliminary
issue is whether the dispute raised by the Bharatha
Makka Sasana Urimai Iyakkam, Puducherry, against
the management of M/s. Puducherry State
Co-operative Bank Limited, No. P 78, Puducherry,
over refusal of employment of Thiru Djeaboubalane
can be exhausted under the Puducherry Co-operative
Societies Act, 1972 or under the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947? As per section 2 (k) there should be a
factum of dispute not merely a difference of opinion.
It has to be exposed by the Union in writing at the
commencement of the dispute. In Jadhav JH Vs
Forbes Gobak Limited (2005) 1 LL.B. 1089 (SC) it was
held that, a dispute relating to a single workman may
be an industrial dispute if, either it is exposed by the
Union or by a number workmen irrespective of the
reason on the union exposing the cause of workman
not the majority of the union. In Express Newspaper
135
11 March 2025]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Private Limited Vs First Labour Court West Bengal
and others (1959-1960) 17 FJR 413 (Cal) it was held
that a dispute is an industrial dispute even where it
is sponsored by the union which not registered but,
the Trade Union must not be on unconnected with
the employer or the industry concerned. The
Petitioner Association is not it Trade Union and not
connected in no way to this respondent Bank.
Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is
without jurisdiction. In view of the above the first
reference made by the Government may be decided
in favour of the respondent.
(iii) This respondent submits that an individual
dispute even though not sponsored by other
workmen or exposed by the Union would be deemed
to be an industrial dispute if it covers any of the
matter mentioned in section 2 (A). So far as the
subject matter of the dispute is concerned 2(A) does
not bring about any change. The provisions of the
section 2 (k) alone determine that question.
Therefore, section 2 (A) can be treated as an
explanation to 2(k).
(iii) As per section 84 of Puducherry Co-operative
Societies Act, if any dispute touching the
constitution of the committee or the Management
or the business of a registered Society arises:-
(a) among members, past members past
members and deceased members; or
(b) between a member, past member or person
claiming through a past member or
deceased member and the society; or
(c) between the society or its committee and
any past committee any officer, agents or
servants or any past officer, nominee,
heirs or legal representative of any
deceased Officer, deceased agent, or
deceased servant of the society; or
(d) between the society and any other
registered society:
* such dispute shall be referred to the
Registrar for decision.
* for the purposes of this section a
dispute shall include:-
(i) a claim by a registered society for any debt
or demand due to it from a member, past member
or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a
deceased member whether such debt or demand
be admitted or not; and
(ii) a claim by a registered society against a
member, past member or the nominee heir or legal
representative of a deceased member for the
delivery of a possession to the society of land or
other immovable property resumed by it for breach
of the conditions of assignment or allotment of
such land or other immovable property:
provided that no dispute relating to, or in
connection with, any election to a committee shall
be referred under this sub-section till the date of
the declaration of the result of such election. The
Registrar may, on receipt of such reference decide
the dispute himself or transfer it for disposal to
any person subordinate to and empowered by him.
(iv) This respondent submit that in the Rule 64
of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Rules 1973,
it is stated that the period of limitation for referring
a dispute mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall be regulated
by the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act 1963,
as if the dispute were a suit and the Registrar of a
Civil Court. As per section 145 of the Puducherry
Co-operative Societies Act 1972 it is stated that the
Tribunal, the Registrar, the arbitrator or any other
person deciding a dispute and the liquidator of a
society shall have all the powers of a Civil Court
while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure
1908. As per section 139, Section 140 of The
Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972 empowered
the Government to Constitute as many Tribunals
(Co-operative Tribunals) as may be necessary for the
purpose of this Act under section 139, and if any
person aggrieved by the order of the disputes,
except the Election Disputes, decided by the Registrar
or the person empowered under the Act can file an
appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal under
section 140 of the Act. In Puducherry the Hon’ble
Principal District Judge Court is functioning as the
Co-operative Tribunal. As per section 144 of the
Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972
“No order or award passed, decision or action taken
or direction issued under this Act by an arbitrator,
a liquidator, the Registrar or an Officer authorized or
empowered by him, the Tribunal or the Government
or any Officer subordinate to them, shall be liable to
be called in question in any Court.”
(v) This respondent submit to state that in view
of the above provisions the Petitioner should have
first go to the Registrar Court under section 84 of
the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972,
since it is a dispute between the management of
the Co-operative respondent society, and the servant
working in respondent society. The claim is not about
the final orders passed by this respondent bank
136
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 March 2025
against the petitioner on the disciplinary matter
which is still pending. As per Rule 51 of the
subsidiary Regulations Governing the service
conditions of the employees of the Puducherry State
Co-operative bank limited it is stated as follows:-
Not to absent from duty without permission or to
be late in attendance:
(a) An employee shall not absent himself from
duty without obtaining permission of the
Competent Authority.
(b) An employee who absents himself from
duty without leave or over stays his leave except
under circumstances beyond his control for which
he must tender satisfactory explanation shall not
be entitled to draw any pay and allowances during
such absence or overstay and further be liable for
such disciplinary measures as the Competent
Authority may impose. An employee of the bank
shall not absent himself from duty without
obtaining proper permission from the Competent
Authority and if an employee so absents himself
or overstays his leave, he will be liable for
disciplinary action together with other punishments
that may be imposed by the Competent Authority
namely this Respondent of the Bank.
(vi) Thiru M. Djeabouballan not followed any of
the above provisions and not joined duty and he was
not suspended or terminated or given any other
punishment till date in any manner based on the
disciplinary enquiry report. There is no time-limit
prescribed for the disciplinary authority to decide the
disciplinary proceedings in the bank regulations. The
petitioner approached the Labour Conciliation Officer
before passing any orders by the disciplinary
authority, in order to delay the matter and gain time.
Further, the petitioner has approached the Labour
Conciliation and during the discussion before the
Conciliation Officer, the Management respondent
bank come forward with some suggestions for
amicable settlement, considering his health condition,
which was not accepted by the Petitioner, and
therefore, the Officer given failure report.
(vii) In this case no final order is passed against
the petitioner based on the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him. Therefore, this petition is a
premature one. Further, the petitioner also not
referred any impugned order in his claim petition, and
could not be produced as no final order is issued so
for by the Bank. The Petitioner in order to gain time
from passing the final orders on the disciplinary
proceedings, by filing conciliation petition before the
Labour Officer Conciliation and labour dispute before
this Court, and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner
is not sustainable. When there is a dispute arise
regarding not giving employment, between the
management of a co-operative society and the
servant/employee of the society, it can be referred
to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under
section 84 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies
Act 1972. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the
claim petition with exemplary costs.
4. Points for consideration:
1. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union is justified?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the relief
as prayed in the claim petition?
3. Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner is maintainable before this Court?
5. On points 1 to 3:
Heard both sides on the issue of jurisdiction.
On perusal of case records it is found that the
above dispute has been raised stating that one
Thiru M. Djeaboubalane while working in the
Puducherry State Co-operative Bank as a messenger
was an habitual unauthorised absentee from duty
from 01-2-2003 to 28-2-2003 and from 01-04-2003 to
05-12-2003 and from 19-01-2004 to 04-11-2013 and
therefore, disciplinary action was initiated as against
him and charge-sheet was issued and enquiry was
conducted by appointing an Advocate as an Enquiry
Officer and in the enquiry charges were proved and
when necessary action based upon the Enquiry
report was intended to be initiated the abovesaid
Thiru M. Djeaboubalane had approached the
Conciliation Officer and later as the conciliation
failed the dispute has been referred to this Court to
decide the following points:
(i) Whether the dispute raised by Bharatha
Makkal Sasana Urimai Iyakkam, Puducherry, against
the management of M/s. Puducherry State
Co-operative Bank Limited No. P78, Puducherry, over
refusal of employment of Thiru Djeaboubalane can
be exhausted under the Puducherry Co-operative
Societies Act, 1972 or under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947?
(ii) If, the remedy can be exhausted under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, what relief
Thiru Djeaboubalane is entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed.
6. The records further reveals that on behalf of the
petitioner a claim statement was filed which states that
based upon disciplinary proceedings and enquiry report
no further final orders had been passed and in the claim
petition the petitioner has sought for the following
reliefs:
137
11 March 2025]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(a) Declaring that the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the respondent through charge-sheet,
dated 04-11-2013 against the petitioner is null and
void;
(b) Directing the respondent to provide employment
to the petitioner as messenger with back wages for
the period of non-employment with continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits;
(c) Awarding damages for non-employment to the
tune of 10,00,000 payable by the respondent; and
(d) Granting such other relief as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice.
7. The records further reveals that it is at this stage
the respondent herein has filed a counter terming as
preliminary counter stating that while referring the
dispute to this Court the first point raised for
determination is that whether the refusal of employment
to Thiru M. Djeaboubalane can be exhausted under the
puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972 or under
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947? and therefore, after
this point is determined the respondent would file
counter and additional counter.
8. It is the specific contention of the respondent
herein that the petitioner association is not a Trade
Union and no way connected to the respondent bank
and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner
Association is without any jurisdiction. The other
contention of the respondent is that section 84 of
Puducherry Co-operative Society Act empowers the
Registrar to decide the disputes and further as per Rule
64 of Puducherry Co-operative Societies Rules 1973 the
time-limit for referring the dispute is provided and
likewise as per section 145 of Puducherry Co-operative
Society Act it is stated that the Registrar has all powers
that of Civil Court and section 144 of Puducherry
Co-operative Society Act states that an order or award
passed by a Registrar shall not be questioned in any
Court. Thus, the prime contention of the respondent is
that this Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the
present dispute and as such this dispute is not
maintainable.
9. The learned Counsel for petitioner to substantiate
that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute
has relied upon the following citations:
(i) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
etc., Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, CDJ 1978 SC 236 -
Held that the Co-operative Societies are industries
coming under the definition of section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case,
the respondent bank has been registered as a
Co-operative Society under the Puducherry
Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. As such the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to
the resolution of the industrial disputes through the
machineries provided under the Industrial Dispute
Act is applicable to the claim of the petitioner.
(ii) Allahabad District Co-operative Limited
Versus Hannuman Dutt Tewari, CDJ 1981 SC 317 -
Held that disputes relating to conditions of service
of the workmen employed by the Co-operative
Society cannot be held to be disputes touching the
“Business of the Society” as per the provisions of
section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies
Act. As such the ratio of the above case is applicable
to the present case in which the term “Business of
the Society” under section 84 of the Puducherry
Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 is interpreted.
(iii) Workmen of Orissa Police Co-operative
Syndicate Vs. State of Orissa, 1982 II 139 (Orissa
H.C.) - Held that the dispute between employees of
a Co-operative Society registered under Orissa
Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and the Society
cannot be resolved by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies under section 68. Industrial Tribunal
constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has jurisdiction to decide the same Reverting to the facts
of the present case, the provisions of section 84 of the
Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act is pari materia
to those of section 68 of the Orissa Co-operative act
and hence, the ratio of the above case is applicable
to the claim of the petitioner. So, this Hon’ble Court
has got jurisdiction.
10. This Court finds that in this case the employee
namely Thiru Djeaboubalane is found to have been
working at Puducherry State Co-operative Bank and for
the charge of unauthorized absenteeism a charge-sheet
has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter
domestic enquiry has been conducted and while further
action could be taken based on Enquiry Report the
petitioner has approached Conciliation Officer
and thereafter, this reference has been made to this
Court. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the said
Thiru Djeaboubalane is working at Co-operative Society
Bank and his dispute is that he was not provided any
work and thereby contends that there is refusal of
employment. Hence, in the said circumstances it has
become necessary to determine whether the petitioner
can devise his remedy under Industrial disputes Act or
Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972.
11. This Court finds that Industrial Disputes Act 1947
applies to any industrial dispute concerning any
industry and therefore, it becomes mandatory to
determine whether the Puducherry Co-operative Society
Bank comes within the ambit of term “Industry”.
138
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 March 2025
The learned Counsel for respondent raised an objection
that the reference is beyond the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court in as much as the Co-operative Society
Bank is not an industry and the workmen on whose
behalf the petitioner Association are espousing their
cause are not workmen under the Industrial disputes
Act and therefore, the reference is bad. What amounts
to an industry has been succinctly laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage
Board Vs. A.Rajappa.
12. This Court at this juncture relies up on the
following citations:
(i) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Vs. A. Rajappa 1978 (ii) SCC Page 213 it has been held
below:
7.(1). ‘Industry’, as defined in section 2(j) has a
wide import.
(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized
by Cooperation between employer and employee
(the direct and substantial element is chimerical)
(iii) for the production and/or distribution of
goods and services calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but
inclusive of material things or services geared to
celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale prasad
or food), prima facie, there is an ‘industry’ in that
enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful
objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public,
joint, private and other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the
decisive test is the nature of the activity with
special emphasis on the employer-employee
relations.
(d) If, the organization is a trade or business
it does not cease to be one because of
philanthropy animating the undertaking.”
(11) Although section 2(j) uses words of the
widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning
cannot be imagined to overreach itself.
“(a) ‘Undertaking’ must suffer a contextual
and associational shrinkage as explained in
Banerji and in this judgment; so also, service,
calling and the like.This yields the inference
that all organized activity possessing the triple
elements in I (supra), although not trade or
business, may still be ‘industry’ provided the
nature of the activity, viz., the employer-
employee basis, bears resemblance to what we
find in trade or business. This takes into the
fold of ‘industry’ undertakings, callings and
services, adventures ‘analogous to the carrying
on the trade or business’. All features, other
than the methodology of carrying on the
activity viz., in organizing the Cooperation
between employer and employee, may be
dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the
employment terms there is analogy.”
(iv) The dominant nature test:
(a) Where a complex of activities, some of
which qualify for exemption, others not,
involves employees on the total undertaking,
some of whom are not ‘workmen’ as in the
University of Delhi caseor some departments
are not productive of goods and services if
isolated, even then, the predominant nature of
the services and the integrated nature of the
departments as explained in the Corporation of
Nagpur will be the true test. The whole
undertaking will be ‘industry’ although those
who are not ‘workmen’ by definition may not
benefit by the status.
(b)
Notwithstanding the previous clauses,
sovereign functions, strictly understood,
(alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare
activities or economic adventures undertaken
by Government or Statutory Bodies.
(c) Even in a departments discharging
sovereign functions, if there are units which
are industries and they are substantially
severable, then they can be considered to come
within section 2(j).
(d) Constitutional and competently enacted
legislative provisions may well remove from the
scope of the Act categories which otherwise
may be covered thereby.”
(ii) Mgt. Of Som Vihar Apt. Owners Housing ... vs
Workmen, Indian Engg. and General Mazdoor on
22 February, 2001.
Equivalent citations: (2001)ILLJ1413SC, (2002)9
SCC 652, AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2530, 2002(9)
SCC 652, 2002 AIR SCW 2746, 2002 LAB. I. C.
2468, 2001 LAB LR 599, 2001 (1) JT (SUPP) 67,
(2001) 3 LAB LN 815, (2002) 1 SCT 207, 2002 SCC
(L&S) 1099, (2001) 1 LABLJ 1413, (2001) 4 SERVLR
649, (2001) 4 SUPREME 559 it has been held as
follows:
It is clear when personal services are rendered
to the members of a society and that society is
constituted only for the purposes of those
members to engage the services of such
employees, we do not think its activity should be
139
11 March 2025]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
treated as an industry nor are they workmen. In
this view of the matter so far as the appellant is
concerned it must be held not to be “industry”.
Therefore, the award made by the Tribunal cannot
be sustained. The same shall stand set aside.
Considering the overall purpose of existence of
the society and the nature of services rendered
by it, by applying the dominant nature test
succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in
Bangalore Water Supply, it is but a foregone
conclusion that the society is not an industry in
any true sense of the word as applied under
section 2(j) of the Act.
(iii) M/s. Arihant Siddhi Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd vs
1(A)Pushpa Vishnu More And Others on 22 June,
2018.
Equivalent citations: AIR ON LINE 2018 BOM
994, (2018) 159 FACLR 271, (2018) 2 CURLR 931,
(2019) 4 LAB LN 99, (2020) 164 FACLR 304 the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as follows:
This Court, in its judgment in the case of
M/s. Shantivan-II Housing Society Vs.
Smt. Manjula Govind Mahidal has considered
whether a Co-operative Housing Society can be
termed as an industry within the meaning of
section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act
merely because it carries on some commercial
activity, not as its predominant activity, but, as
an adjunct to its main activity. This Court has
held that such society is not an industry. In
a case like this, that is to say, where there is
a complex of activities, some of which may
qualify the undertaking as an industry and
some would not, what one has to consider is
the predominant nature of services or activities.
If the predominant nature is to render services
to its own members and the other activities are
merely an adjunct, by the true test laid down
in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, the undertaking
is not an industry.
As held by the Supreme Court in 2 1978(ii)
SCC Page 213 when there are multiple activities
carried on by an establishment, what is to be
considered is the dominant function. In the
present case, merely because the society
charged some extra charges from a few of its
members for display of neon signs, the society
cannot be treated as an industry carrying on
business of hiring out of neon signs or allowing
display of advertisements.
13. Thus, this Court in the light of above citations
finds that when there are complex of activities, some of
which may qualify the undertaking as an industry and
some would not, what one has to consider is the
predominant nature of services or activities. If the
predominant nature is to render services to its own
members and the other activities are merely an adjunct,
by the true test laid down in the case of Bangalore
Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A.Rajappa, the
undertaking is not an industry.
14. Hence, on placing reliance upon the above
citations and above discussions holds that as the
employer herein being Co-operative Society Bank this
Court holds that the same does not fall within the ambit
of definition “industry” and when such being so the
invoking of Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable
and thereby this Court holds that this Court has no
jurisdiction to try the dispute raised by the petitioner
and the dispute raised by the petitioner is not justified.
15. Thus, this Court holds that the very reference
to this Court to decide the dispute raised by the
petitioner herein is not maintainable. Consequently the
determination of other points stated in the reference
also does not deserves any consideration.
In the result this I.D. petition is dismissed as not
maintainable. There is no order as costs.
Partly typed by the Stenographer, Partly typed by me
in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open
Court on this the 11th day of July, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of witnesses examined on petitioner’s side :
WW1 — 28-11-2022
Mr. M.Djeaboubalane
List of exhibits on petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.W1 —
Xerox Copy of the full text of the
section
84
of
the
Puducherry
Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.
Ex.W2 —
Xerox Copy of the Regulations
Governing the Service Condition of the
Employees of the Pondicherry State
Co-operative Bank Limited, framed
under Bye-Law No., 35(C).
List of witnesses examined on respondent side : NIL
List of exhibits of respondent side : NIL
G. T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
140
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[11 March 2025
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 16/AIL/Lab./S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 17th February 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 19/2023, dated
19-09-2024, of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the
M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,
Karaikal and the Union workmen Tmt. R. Kamali and
13 others represented by the Union for all staff in
Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,
Karaikal, over granting promotion 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)
S. SANDIRAKUMARAN,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Tmt. G. T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 19th day of September, 2024
I.D(T). No. 19/2023
C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000082-2023
The Secretary,
Union for all Staff in Vinayaga Mission’s
Medical College and Hospital,
No. 9, MGJ Nagar-1st Cross,
PK Salai, Karaikal-609 602.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
M/s. Vinayaga Mission Medical
College and Hospital,
Keezhakasakudimedu, Kottucherry,
Karaikal-609 609.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute came upon this day for hearing,
the petitioner being remained absent and in the
presence of Thiru R. Ilancheliyan, Counsel for the
Respondent, upon perusing the records, this Court
passed the following:
ORDER
1. This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt. No.
77/AIL/Lab./T/2023, dated 08-09-2023, of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,-
(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
Union workmen, represented by union for all staff in
Vinayaga Missions Medical College and Hospital,
Karaikal, against the management of M/s. Vinayaga
Mission’s Medical College, Karaikal, over granting
promotion to Tmt. R. Kamali and 13 others as listed
in annexure as Stores Officer from the date of
granting promotion to their junior Thiru P. Kumar as
Store officer is justified or not ? If justified, what
relief the Union workmen listed in annexure are entitled
to ?
(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Today, the case came up for hearing. A counsel
who undertook to file vakalath for petitioner
represented that the petitioner is not co-operating for
the case. The petitioner having choosen to raise this
Industrial Dispute has neither appeared in person or
through a Counsel from the date of first hearing. Hence,
the same is recorded and this petition is closed for
non-prosecution.
In the result, this reference is closed for
non-prosecution. There is no order as to costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 19th day of September, 2024.
G. T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND WAQF
(G.O. Ms. No. 01/CHRI/T.4/2025/117,
Puducherry, dated 04th February 2025)
ORDER
Adverting to the Orders, dated 30-06-2023 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in
W.P. Nos: 34726 of 2022 and 3241 of 2023 and G.O. Ms.
No. 1/CHRI/T.2/2023, dated 14-07-2023, and in exercise