[967]



SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS



Page

..

968

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 968

Award of the Labour Court .. 968

de Tribunal.



979

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 979

Government Notifications

.. 979



980

Etablissements dangereux

.. 980

Dangerous Establishments

980



981

Annonces

.. 981

Announcements

981



La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry



Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority







2025 }

|

23 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Décembre

2025 (2 Pausa 1947)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

23rd

December

2025

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

968

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 December 2025

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 64/AIL/Lab./S/2025,

Puducherry, dated 5th December 2025)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 54/2017, dated

13-06-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of a Dispute between M/s. Godrej

Consumer Products Limited, R.S.No. 131,131/1-4,

Kattukuppam, Manapet Post, Cuddalore Road,

Puducherry-607 402 and Thiru S. Senthil Kumar, 109E.

No. SG, Type – 1 Quarters, Block – 5, Neyveli TS,

Cuddalore District-607 803, over non-employment and

back wages have 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.

Friday, the 13th day of June 2025.

I.D. (L). No. 54/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000083-2017

Thiru S. Senthil Kumar,

109 E.No. 8G, Type - 1 Quarters,

Block - 5, Neyveli TS,

Cuddalore District-607 803.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited,

R.S.Nos. 131 and 131/1-4, Kattukuppam,

Manapet Post, Cuddalore Road,

Puducherry-607 402.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on this day before me

for hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Parthasarathi,

Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan

and I. Ilankumar, Counsels for the Respondent upon

hearing both sides and perusing the case records, after

having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court passed the following:

AWARD

1. This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 163/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 24-10-2017 of the Labour

Department, Pondicherry to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,

(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Thiru S. Senthil Kumar against the Management of

M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited, Puducherry

over non-employment and back wages is justified or

not? If justified, what is the relief entitled to?

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

of money, if it can be so computed.

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the

Petitioner are as follows :

The Petitioner had been in service at the

Respondent Establishment for more than 18 years

from 1997. The Petitioner, during his service, did not

give room for any wrongs and worked by accepting

and implementing all legal Orders of the Respondent

Management. In the Respondent Establishment,

83 permanent workers in the name of Line Supervisor,

15 permanent workers in the name of Grade M7,

10 permanent workers in the name of Grade M6,

410 workers in the name of Grade M and 2000

contract labourers were working. The Grade M workers,

410 in numbers only were joined and acted in the

Trade Union. There is no remark at all against the

Petitioner so far by the Respondent Management

during his period of service. The Petitioner was given

promotion by the Respondent Management in the

year 2007 after 10 years of service as Grade S and

wage increment was also given for the said year.

Thereafter, the wage increment was denied to the

Petitioner for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

The Petitioner demanded the Respondent Management

to pay the wage increment time and again but, the same

was not considered by the Respondent Management.

(ii) That in the year 2010, the Respondent

Management had transferred the Petitioner to

Maraimalai Nagar, Chennai Branch. Wherein, also, the

Petitioner was serving excellently. Based on that, the

Petitioner was given wage increment for the said year.

While being so, in view of his family situation, the

Petitioner requested for transfer to Puducherry. Since,

the Respondent Management has not given proper

969

23 December 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

reply, on 30-09-2011, the Petitioner has sent a letter

of requisition for transfer to the Assistant Vice

President, Head Office at Mumbai through e-mail.

Based on that, the Petitioner was transferred to

Karaikal by the Respondent Management. Since, the

Petitioner got transfer Order by straight forwardly

contacting the Head Office at Mumbai, the

Respondent Management denied the wage increment

to the petitioner by vengeance. Meanwhile, in the

year 2015, the workers of the Respondent

Establishment were given wage increment as a result

of Wage Increment Settlement. But, the wage

increment was not given to the Petitioner. When it

was questioned by the Petitioner, the Respondent

Management stated that the Petitioner is not a

member of the Trade Union and based on the Wage

Increment

Settlement

entered

between

the

Management and the Trade Union, the wage

increment was implemented and wage increment will

be implemented later to the petitioner and similar

workers. Thereafter also, the wage increment was not

given to the Petitioner. The Respondent Management

has given show cause Notices to the Petitioner on

14-06-2016 and also on 29-01-2016 stating that his

performance was not satisfactory. In the abovesaid

Notices, it was commonly mentioned that the

performance of the Petitioner in the year 2014-2015

was not satisfactory and the said Notices did not

mention about the details that on what basis the

performance of the Petitioner was not satisfactory.

The Petitioner has given a detailed explanation

through his letter, dated 05-02-2016 to the abovesaid

Notices. While so, the Petitioner was terminated by

the Respondent Management on 08-03-2016 without

any notice and without assigning any reason. The

act of termination by the Respondent Management

is against the Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes

Act.

(iii) That on 10-03-2016, the Petitioner has raised

an industrial dispute over his termination before the

Labour Officer, Puducherry. Wherein, on 31-05-2016,

the Respondent Management has filed Reply

Statement by stating that, “the Petitioner is not a

workman, he was working as Officer in the

Respondent Establishment" and therefore, he has no

right to raise the industrial dispute and he was

dismissed as his performance, during the year 2012-

2015, was not satisfactory. The Petitioner has never

been in service as Officer at the Respondent

Establishment and the Respondent Management has

never given the powers of Officer to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner served as a worker. The Respondent

Management has never issued any show cause

Notice before 14-01-2016 to the Petitioner. After the

requisition submitted by the Petitioner regarding

wage increment, the Respondent Management has

given show cause Notices. While pending of the

industrial dispute, on 20-04-2016, the Respondent

Management has sent a letter along with a cheque

for 80,323 for full and final settlement to the

Petitioner. The Petitioner has returned the cheque

through a letter, dated 27-04-2016. As the

Management did not accord for any amicable

settlement, on 22-10-2017; the Conciliation Officer

has sent a Conciliation Failure Report. The Petitioner

has lastly drawn 16,151 as his salary. The Petitioner

and his family suffered a lot after his termination.

The Petitioner has not committed any misconduct

and the Respondent Management has not taken any

disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. As

the Petitioner has claimed his legal benefits of wage

increment, the Respondent Management to victimize

the petitioner terminated his service from 08-03-2017.

It is against the principles of natural justice.

Therefore, the Petitioner prayed this Court to pass

an Order to set aside the Order of termination passed

by the Respondent Management against the

Petitioner and to Order the Respondent Management

to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service

with full back wages and other attendant benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the

respondent are as follows :

The Industrial Dispute raised by the Claim

Petitioner herein is per se not maintainable either on

Law or on facts. That Thiru. S. Senthil Kumar is a

Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering and was

previously employed in M/s. Shasayee Industries

Limited as Junior Engineer in the Machine Shop

Department with effect from 05-08-1988 to 07-10-1991.

That the petitioner submitted an Application dated

20-09-1996 to the M/s. Godrej Hi - Care Limited,

Puducherry that he has experience in the mechanical

field clearly emphasizing the being Diploma Holder

in Mechanical Engineering and requested for suitable

Job. That the Management had offered the post of

Maintenance Supervisor with a Gross Salary of

2,500 per month through Order, dated 02-04-1997.

Thereafter the Management had issued a Letter dated

08-11-1997 highlighting the terms and conditions of

the appointment which is self-explanatory that the

Petitioner is not a Workman as defined under Section

2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Being an Officer

on Supervisory level, the Petitioner also executed an

Agreement on confidentiality and non-competition

with M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited which would again

establish the fact that the Petitioner is not a

970

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 December 2025

Workman. Confirmation order, dated 23-02-1998 for

the post of Supervisor-Maintenance was issued to

the petitioner by the management and testimonial

was issued on 21-02-2007 which confirms the status

of Supervisor-Maintenance since, 04-04-1997. Further,

the Petitioner was promoted as Officer-Production in

the year 2007.

(ii) While being so, the performance of the

Petitioner was remained unsatisfactory for the

financial years 2012-2015 and in spite of

opportunities accorded, the improvement never

seems to have taken place and the Superiors of the

Petitioner through their internal note clearly

highlighted the unsatisfactory performance of the

Petitioner for the said financial years. So, he was

called upon to explain as to why the services should

not be terminated through Show Cause Notice, dated

29-01-2016 to which the Petitioner had submitted a

detailed letter dated 05-02-2016 in Tamil was not

satisfactory to the management and so he was

terminated from Service with effect from 09-03-2016

in terms of the terms and conditions of the

Employment vide Letter, dated 08-03-2016 and the

same was sent through Registered Post. The Learned

Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry in a usual

manner

had

entertained

this

Petition

non-employment at the initial instance and thereafter

submitted failure of Conciliation to the Secretary to

Government (Labour), Puducherry who in turn had

referred the Industrial Dispute for adjudication

before this Court. That the Petitioner has no locus

standi to raise an industrial dispute as against the

Termination of Services, dated 09-03-2016. Since, the

Petitioner is not a Workman, the provisions of the

standing order would not be applicable to him . That

the Petitioner being Officer-Production in the

Respondent Management would not fall under the

definition of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act and this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this

dispute. That the Petitioner was terminated from

services due to unsatisfactory performance only

based on the terms and conditions of employment

and not as depicted by the Petitioner. Therefore this

Petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of

merits, non-maintainable on the ground of

jurisdiction.

4. Points for determination :

1. Whether the petitioner was working as a

workman or officer (production) in the cadre of officer

in the respondent company?

2. Whether the termination of petitioner by

respondent is valid?

3. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner

over his non-employment and back wages is

justified?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs

as claimed in the claim petition?

5. To what other reliefs?

5. On the side of the Petitioner, PW1 was examined

and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked, PW2 was examined and

Exs.P9 to P22 were marked and PW3 was examined and

no exhibits were marked. On the side of Respondent,

during the cross-examination of PW1, Exs.R1 to R28

were marked and during the cross-examination of PW2,

Exs.R29 to R31 were marked, RW1 was examined and

Ex.R32 to R36 were marked.

6. On point No’s.1 to 5 :-

The contention of the petitioner is that in the

respondent company there were 83 permanent

employees in the designation of Line supervisor and

50 permanent employees in the grade M7 and 10

permanent employees in grade M6 and 410

employees in Grade-M and 2000 contract employees

and from the said employees the Grade-M employees

alone were attached to the Trade Union and the

nature of work for the petitioner in the respondent

company is that he was directly involved in the work

of production and inspect the produced products and

rectify the defects occurred then and there at time

of production and help in restarting the production

activity and planning to get good yield in the

production. The further contention of the petitioner

is that the petitioner had joined in the respondent

company in the year 1997 and worked in the

respondent company without any blemish records

and further for 10 years the petitioner was working

in the Grade S and later in the year 2007 the petitioner

was promoted and given increment and later the

petitioner was denied increment for the year

2008-2009, 2009-2010 in spite of various

representations and while so, the petitioner was

transferred to Maraimalai Nagar and based upon his

performance the petitioner was given increment and

in the said circumstances due to the family situation

the petitioner had to seek transfer to Puducherry, but,

as there was no any proper response from the

management the petitioner had sent his requisition

letter for transfer through E-mail to the Head Office

at Mumbai and thereupon the petitioner was

transferred to Karaikal.

7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that

as the petitioner had directly contacted the Head Office

and obtained transfer, the management began to treat

971

23 December 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

the petitioner with vengeance and denied any wage

revision thereafter onwards and further when, wage

revision was given to all the employees as per wage

settlement in the year 2015 the petitioner was denied

wage revision stating that the wage revision was given

based on the settlement arrived between the

management and the Trade Union and thereby the wage

revision was given only to those employees who were

the members of Trade Union and the petitioner was not

given any wage revision since, he was not the member

of the said Trade Union and therefore, the petitioner

gave a representation, dated 21-12-2015 for wage

revision and the management after receiving the same

has issued show cause notice, dated 14-01-2016 and

29-01-2016 seeking explanation from the petitioner

stating that the performance of the petitioner for the

period 2014-2015 was not satisfactory and later the

petitioner had submitted his explanation on 05-02-2016

but, the management terminated the petitioner from

service on 08-03-2016 without any prior intimation and

due enquiry and the management took a stand before

the Labour Officer (Conciliation) stating that the

petitioner is not a workman and was working in the cadre

of an officer and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled

to get any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter for brevity referred as Industrial Dispute

Act) but, infact, though the designation of the petitioner

was officer production but the petitioner at no point of

time was neither working as an officer nor was given

any powers that of an officer and he worked only as a

workman and further during the pendency of

conciliation proceedings, the respondent had sent a

cheque for a sum of 80,323 along with the letter, dated

20-04-2016 stating that the said sum was given as full

and final settlement but the petitioner had returned the

said cheque to the management along with his letter,

dated 27-04-2016 since, he was victimized by the

respondent without any prior intimation and proper

enquiry.

8. Whereas, the contention of the respondent is that

the Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner is not

maintainable since, the petitioner is not a workman and

was working only as an officer in the respondent

company. The respondent further contended that

initially the petitioner was working as Supervisor-

Maintenance and subsequently in the year 2007, the

petitioner was promoted as officer-production and

thereafter the performance level of the petitioner for the

financial years 2012-2015 were not satisfactory and

therefore, a show cause notice dated 29-01-2016 was

issued to the petitioner for which the petitioner had

submitted a detailed letter, dated 05-02-2016 and as the

petitioner failed to improve himself in spite of several

opportunities provided to him and as the reply given

by the petitioner was unsatisfactory the petitioner was

terminated from service with effect from 09-03-2016. It

is the further contention of the respondent that as the

petitioner was not a workman, the provisions of

standing order would not be applicable to the petitioner

and infact the petitioner would be governed by the

terms and conditions of the employment order.

9. In this case, the fact that the petitioner was

appointed in the respondent company in the year 1997

as Supervisor-Maintenance as per Ex.R5 and promotion

of the petitioner in year 2007 as Officer (Production) in

grade M7 as per Ex.R6 and termination of the petitioner

on 8-3-2016 as per Ex.R21 and the petitioner at the time

of termination was in the post of Officer (Production)

in grade M7 is admitted by both parties. The parties are

at dispute by contending that according to the

petitioner though his designation was of Officer

(Production) in grade M7 but, the petitioner neither

worked as an officer nor given any powers exercised

by an officer and he worked only as a workman and

therefore the petitioner has locus standi to raise this

dispute and the other contention of the petitioner is that

without

affording

proper

intimation,

proper

opportunities and without any due enquiry as

contemplated under the Industrial Dispute Act, the

petitioner was terminated from the service.

10. Per contra, the core contention of the respondent

is that at the time of termination the petitioner was

posted as Officer (Production) in grade M7 and the said

post is an officer cadre post and therefore the petitioner

not being a workman as contemplated under section

2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act is not entitled to raise this

dispute or seek any relief under the Industrial Dispute

Act. The next contention of the respondent is that as

the petitioner was posted as Officer (Production) in

grade M7, the provisions of model standing order is not

applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is

governed by the terms and conditions of employment

order that is Ex.R5 which states that the service of the

petitioner can be terminated without notice or salary

in lieu of notice at the discretion of the management.

11. Thus, according to the petitioner he was working

as workman and according to the respondent the

petitioner was not a workman but on other hand was

working as an officer. The points upon which the

petitioner relies to substantiate that he was a workman

is as follows:

(i) Though the designation of the petitioner was

Officer (Production) in grade M7 but the petitioner

neither worked as an officer nor given any powers

exercised by an officer and he worked only as a

workman.

972

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 December 2025

(ii) The petitioner was not given any power of

appraisal or to approve or reject the leave

applications of employees working in the respondent

company.

(iii) The petitioner was not authorised to take any

disciplinary action against the employees working in

the respondent company.

(iv) Though the employees were working as

workmen but the respondent management to prevent

the workmen from joining in any Trade Union and

also with an intention to deceive its workmen from

getting the legally entitled benefits and privileges has

given various attractive designations such as Officers,

Supervisors and Administrative officers.

12. The learned Counsel for petitioner has relied

upon the following citations :

1. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 548

Anand Regional Coop Oil

. . Appellant

Seedsgrowers’ Union Ltd.

Versus

Shaileskumar Harshadbhai

. . Respondent

Shah

A. Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 –

S.2(s) (iv) – Whether the employee worked in a

supervisory capacity and was not a workman – Test

to determine – Supervision - Concept of Held, not

only the nature of his work but also the terms of

appointment in the job are relevant considerations –

Supervision contemplates direction and control –

Hence, in determining the nature of work, essence

of the matter should be considered and the

designation of the employee or the name assigned

to his class should not be given undue importance –

Primary duties performed by him are more important –

Existence of subordinates whose work is required to

be supervised is a sine qua non to prove supervisory

work – An employee in charge of a section and that

too a small one in the quality control department of

an oil seedgrowers' cooperative society, without any

authority to initiate departmental proceedings

against the subordinates, held, did not fall within the

scope of S.2(s)(iv) – Words and phrases –

“supervision”

2. (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 293

D.P. Maheshwari

. . Appellant

Versus

Delhi Administration and

. . Respondents

others

Labour and Services – Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 – Section 2(s) – Occasional entrustment of

supervisory, managerial or administrative work will

not take a person, mainly discharging clerical duties,

out of the purview of section 2(s).

3. (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 214

S.K. Verma

. . Appellant

Versus

Mahesh Chandra and

. . Respondents

another

Labour and Services – Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 – section 2(s) – Development Officers of L.I.C.

are ‘workmen’ – Designation or name of post not

decisive – Factors to be considered - Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.

4. (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 490

Sharad Kumar

. . Appellant

Versus

Government of NCT of Delhi . . Respondents

and others

Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 –

Ss. 2(s), (k), 10(1) and 12(5) and (4) – Workman – If a

particular person is - How and by whom to be

determined – Held, has to be determined on the basis

of types of his duties and not merely on the

designation of his post – The question requires

examination of factual matters for which materials

including oral evidence have to be considered -

Hence, the appropriate Government exercising its

administrative jurisdiction under S. 10(1) read with

S.12(5), ID Act for the limited purpose of determining

whether the dispute was an industrial dispute within

S. 2(k), could not claim the power to adjudicate upon

such a question and could not merely on the basis

of the designation hold that an Area Sales Executive

was not a workman – Such a question should be

decided by Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court on

the basis of materials produced by the parties –

Hence, Supreme Court directing the State Government

to refer to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court the

question of legality of termination of Service of Area

Sales Executive as well as the question whether he

was a workman under the Act.

13. The learned Counsel for respondent stressed

upon the following points to substantiate that the

petitioner was not a workman and was only an officer:

(i) The petitioner was a holder of Diploma in

Mechanical Engineering (Ex.R1).

973

23 December 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(ii) That the petitioner prior to joining in the

respondent company was previously working in cadre

as Junior Engineer in Machine shop Department at

Seshasayee Industries Ltd., as per Ex.R3.

(iii) As per Ex.R5 appointment order, dated

8-11-1997, it was stated that the petitioner will be a

member of Management grade placed under

classification ‘S’.

(iv) As per Ex.R6, the petitioner was promoted as

“Officer (Production)” in grade “M7” with effect

from 01-02-2007 and had been working in the said

post till the date of termination on 08-03-2016.

(v) In Ex.R32, the Integrated Management System

Manual of the respondent company the Roles,

Responsibility, Authority and Accountability for an

Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive-production is depicted

as follows:

Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive – PRODUCTION

Responsibility

– To plan and perform production under

controlled conditions.

– To ensure availability of approved

equipment’s.

– To

establish

and

maintain

the

implemented system with continual

improvement in performance.

– To ensure suitable maintenance of

equipment’s for smooth processing.

– To run pilot batches of newly developed/

designed products.

– To comply with IMS standards and

documented procedures.

– To control non-conformity of product and

take

appropriate

action

avoid

occurrence of the same.

– To ensure safe and suitable working

environment including PPEs supply.

– To assist in Production trial runs and

validation process.

– To identify training needs for production

staff and workers.

– To improve and maintain QACI, SHMS

RRI and TPM requirements.

– To coordinate with Manpower contractor

(external) for Manpower management on

daily basis.

Authority:

– To decide and allocate manpower for the

production process.

– To ensure IMS requirements are in place.

– To approve or reject leave request of

workers based

the

production

requirement.

Accountability:

– Zero lost time incidents and reduction of

non LTI’s towards zero.

– To ensure safe working environment in

the unit.

– He is authorized to take disciplinary

actions against the workers deviating

safety protocols.

(vi) The petitioner has participated in the Audit

meeting while working at Karaikal unit as Officer

(Production) and the same can be evidenced in

Ex.R34 wherein, the petitioner has signed the register

by stating his designation and Department.

(vii) Performance Improvement Programme (PIP)

was conducted by the respondent management for

the Management staffs and not for a workman to

improve their performances and thereby the petitioner

was directed to take care of store activity independently

and the same could be evidenced from Ex.R35.

(viii) The petitioner was not a member of any

Trade Union recognised by the respondent company

till the date of his termination. As per Ex.R18 the

united Godrej Consumer products staffs and workers

Union has addressed a letter, dated 07-03-2016 to

management stating that in the year 2016 the

petitioner had joined as member in the said trade

union. Thus, when the petitioner was working from

the year 1997 onwards, the petitioner never become

member of any Trade Union and only in the year 2016

that is at the verge of his termination the petitioner

had joined as a member in the Trade Union which

would evince that the petitioner was working only

as an officer and that was the reason he had not

joined in any Trade Union as a member at the earliest

point of time.

(ix) The name of the petitioner does not find place

in the list of beneficiaries annexed along with the

wage revision settlement Ex.R31 executed between the

Trade Union and management on 27-11-2014 and the

same has been admitted by P.W.2 the secretary of the

Trade Union and P.W.3 the Executive member of the

Trade Union.

974

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 December 2025

(x) The salary components received by the

petitioner would differ from the salary components

fixed for a workman as per Ex.R31 Memorandum of

Settlement under section 12(3) ID Act entered

between Management and Trade Union on

27-11-2014.

14. The learned Counsel for respondent has relied

upon the following citations :

1. 1994 AIR 1824, 1994 SCC(3) 510, 1994 AIR SCW

1736, 1994(3) SCC 510, (1994) 68 FACLR 1101, (1994)

IJR 316 (SC), 1994 2 LAB LN 450, 1994 LABLR 1 321,

(1994) 3 SCT 312, (1994) 2 SCJ 451, 1994 SCC (L&S)

776, 1994 UJ (SC) 1 735, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 851, (1994)

2 SCR 333 (SC), (1994)2 CURLR 359, (1994) 56 DLT

384, (1994) 85 FJR 1, (1994) 3 PUN LR 492, (1994) 2

ANDHWR 26, (1994) 2 SERVLR 35, (1994) 2 LABLJ

1153, (1994) 3 JT 151 (SC), AIR 1994 SUPREME

COURT 1824.

S.K. Maini

. . Petitioner

Vs.

Carona Sahu Co. Ltd

. . Respondent

It should be borne in mind that an employee

discharging managerial duties and functions may

not, as a matter of course, be invested with the power

of appointment and discharge of other employees. It

is not unlikely that in a big set-up such power is not

invested to a local Manager but such power is given

to some superior officers also in the management

cadre at divisional or regional level. The unit in a

local shop may not be large but management of such

small unit may fulfil the requirements and incidences

of managerial functions. On a close scrutiny of a

nature of duties and functions of the Shop Manager

with reference to the admitted terms and conditions

of service of Shri Maini, it appears to us that the

High Court was justified in holding that the appellant

was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

2. In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate

Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023.

M/s. Bharati Airtel Limited

. . Appellant

Versus

A.S Raghavendra

. . Respondent

24. A bare perusal of the above makes it crystal

clear that absence of power to appoint, dismiss or

conduct disciplinary enquiries against other

employees was not the only reason for the Court to

conclude in Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) that the

appellant therein was a “workman”. At this juncture,

we may note that although Ved Prakash Gupta

(supra) was decided by a 3-Judge Bench, in a later

judgment by a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in SK

Maini v M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited, (1994)

3 SCC 510, it was held that “….it should be borne in

mind that an employee discharging managerial duties

and functions may not, as a matter of course, be

invested with the power of appointment and

discharge of other employees. It is not likely that in

a big set-up such power is not invested to a local

manager but such power is given to some superior

officers also in the management cadre at divisional

or regional level ….” The judgment in SK Maini

(supra) is innocent of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra),

but we do not find any inconsistency in the

statement of low laid down in SK Maini (supra),

given our reading of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) as

enunciated hereinabove.

25. That being said, in our considered view, mere

absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold

disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would

not and could not be the sole criterion to determine

such an issue.

15. Therefore, in this case it becomes incumbent to

first decide whether the petitioner was working as a

workman as contended by the petitioner or officer as

contended by the respondent and incase if the

petitioner is held to be a workman then this Court has

to necessarily determine the issue as to whether the

termination of the petitioner was valid and likewise if it

is held that the petitioner is not a workman then this

Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised

by the petitioner. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Apex

Court in a catena of decisions has held if an employee

is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative

capacity then under section 2(s) (iii) of I.D.Act he would

not be regarded as a workman. Similarly if an employee

is working in a supervisory capacity as per section 2(s)

(iv) of I.D.Act then he would not be a workman if his

wages exceed

1,600 per mensem. The said Sub-clause,

inter alia, provides that if his functions are mainly of

managerial nature, by reason of the powers vested in

him, then such an employee would also not be regarded

as a workman. Further it has been held that while

determining the nature of the work performed by an

employee, the essence of the matter should call for

consideration and undue importance need not be given

for the designation of an employee or the name

assigned to the employee and what is needed to be

asked is as to what are the primary duties the employee

performs. Thus, this Court finds that the designation

of an employee need not be given any weightage and

what is important is the nature of duties being performed

by an employee.

975

23 December 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

16. Similarly, the determinative factor is the main

duties of the employee concerned and not some works

incidentally done by him/her. Therefore, if an employee

is mainly doing supervisory work but, incidentally or

for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical

work, then the employee should be held to be doing

supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of

manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that

some supervisory or other work is also done by the

employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working

time is devoted to some supervisory works, the

employee will come within the purview of ‘workman’ as

per section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Thus, keeping in touchstone of the above

principles, it has to be necessarily determined whether

the petitioner was a workman or not. It is the specific

contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that the

nature of work for the petitioner in the respondent

company is that he was directly involved in the work

of production and inspect the produced products and

rectify the defects occurred then and there at time of

production and help in restarting the production activity

and planning to get good yield in the production and

further he never worked as an officer or were given any

powers that could be exercised by an officer. Whereas,

the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent

is that the petitioner was a holder of Diploma in

Mechanical Engineering and further the petitioner prior

to joining in the respondent company was previously

working in cadre as Junior Engineer in Machine shop

Department and therefore the petitioner again joined in

the respondent company in the cadre of officer. This

Court finds that the said contention of the learned

Counsel for respondent is found to be of no relevance

for the reason that since, because a person was a

diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and earlier

had worked as a junior engineer cannot be a reason to

conclude that the person will never work or do the

works of a workman and he will work only as an officer.

It is always the option of the parties concerned to

choose any type of job.

18. Likewise no doubt from the records it is found

that the petitioner during his service period from 1997

onwards has not chosen to become a member of the

Trade Union and as per Ex.R18 the petitioner has became

a member of the Trade Union in the year 2016 only that

is in the year of his termination. Yet, this Court finds

that the not becoming a member in the Trade Union does

not automatically mean an employee is not a workman

because the Trade Union membership is required for

collective bargaining and that does not become a

decisive factor to decide whether an employee is a

workman and further an employee is a workman or not

has to be determined by the nature of work done by

the concerned employee and not decided based upon

the membership status.

19. Next on perusal of Ex.R6 it is found that the

petitioner was promoted as “Officer (Production)” in

grade “M7” with effect from 01-02-2007 and further it is

an admitted fact that the petitioner continued to work

in the said post till his termination on 08-03-2016.

The petitioner during his chief and cross-examination

as P.W.1 and further the P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their

evidences have deposed that though the designation

of the petitioner was Officer-production but the

petitioner was working only as a workman and the

management to prevent and deceive its workmen from

getting the legally entitled benefits and privileges has

given various attractive designations such as Officers,

Supervisors, and Administrative Officers to its workers.

20. This Court finds that P.W.2 and P.W.3 being an

office bearers of a Trade Union cannot contend that the

management to deceive its workers from getting benefits

under the ID Act has assigned attractive designations

in the name of supervisor and officer to its employees

who were working as workmen because the Trade

Union is formed for the collecting bargaining for the

benefits of workmen and in such case when demands

has been place for wage revision and wage settlement

has been entered as per Ex.R31 on 27-11-2014 then if

really the said contention of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were true

then agitating the said action of the management the

Trade Union would have raised objection and dispute

but no such documents have been produced except

Ex.P14 copy of claim petition in I.D.(T).No. 9/2006 which

pertains to the issue of designation given to employees

as supervisor. The records further reveals that the

petitioner has not produced the copy of the Award

passed in I.D.(T).No. 9/2006 so as to ascertain the

findings held in the said case. Even otherwise it is

found that the said industrial dispute pertains to the

issue of supervisor and not for the officer cadre as

contended in this case.

21. The respondent has produced Ex.R32 the

Integrated Management System Manual of the

respondent

company

specifying

the

Roles,

Responsibility, Authority and Accountability for an

Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive-production. In Ex.R32 it

is stated as follows:

Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive-PRODUCTION

Responsibility

– To plan and perform production under

controlled conditions.

– To ensure availability of approved equipment’s.

976

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 December 2025

– To establish and maintain the implemented

system with continual improvement in

performance.

– To ensure suitable maintenance of equipment’s

for smooth processing.

– To run pilot batches of newly developed/

designed products.

– To comply with IMS standards and

documented procedures.

– To control non-conformity of product and

take appropriate action to avoid occurrence

of the same.

– To ensure safe and suitable working

environment including PPEs supply.

– To assist in Production trial runs and

validation process.

– To identify training needs for production

staff and workers.

– To improve and maintain QACI, SHMS RRI

and TPM requirements.

– To coordinate with manpower contractor

(external) for manpower management on daily

basis.

Authority

– To decide and allocate manpower for the

production process.

– To ensure IMS requirements are in place.

– To approve or reject leave request of workers

based on the production requirement.

Accountability

– Zero lost time incidents and reduction of non

LTI’s towards zero.

– To ensure safe working environment in the

unit.

– He is authorized to take disciplinary actions

against the workers deviating safety

protocols.

22. This Court from Ex.R32 finds that the

Responsibility, Authority and Accountability for the

cadre of officer production, Executive production,

Senior Executive-production is found to be one and the

same. This Court on considering the nature of

Responsibility, Authority and Accountability stipulated

for the cadre of officer (production) finds that said

nature of work as stipulated in Ex.R32 cannot be a work

of a workman. Similarly, from Ex.R31 wage settlement

recorded under section 12(3) of ID Act on 27-11-2014

this Court finds that the name of the petitioner does

not find place in the said settlement. Had it been true

that the petitioner was a workman then naturally the

name of the petitioner would have been reflected in the

list of beneficiaries annexed along with Ex.R31 wage

settlement recorded under section 12(3) of ID Act on

27-11-2014.

23. Likewise from Ex.R35 it is found that the

petitioner was incharge of store stocks and is found to

have sent details of stock availability and daily stock

statements and this nature of work shows that he was

given responsible position that of in the cadre of officer.

That apart the petitioner in Ex.R13 in his letter, dated

21-12-2015 addressed to Deputy General-Manager has

stated as follows:































24. Thus, in Ex.R13 the petitioner himself has

admitted that there were workers working under him.

Further, from Ex.R34 it is found that the petitioner has

attended the Audit meeting at Karaikal unit in the month

of September 2013 by affixing his signature and

designation. An employee in the cadre of workman will

not be attending the Audit meeting and only an officer

who has been assigned with responsibility and having

control over the other workers will be attending the

Audit meeting. The contention of the petitioner that he

was not given power to appoint, dismiss or hold

disciplinary inquires against an employee cannot be a

criterion to hold that the petitioner was a workman and

similarly the contention of the petitioner that the

respondent has not produced any documents to

substantiate that the petitioner had sanctioned or

rejected the leave application of employees also cannot

be ground to hold that the petitioner was a workman.

This Court from the exhibits produced by both parties

and from the evidences adduced by both parties and

from the above discussions holds that the nature of

work performed by the petitioner was that of an officer

and not of a workman. Hence, this Court holds that the

petitioner was not a workman and thereby does not fall

977

23 December 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

within the ambit of definition of workman as

contemplated under section 2(s) of I.D. Act and further

holds that the dispute raised by the petitioner before

this Court is found to be not maintainable and the

dispute raised before this Court is not justified. Since,

the dispute raised by the petitioner is held to be not

maintainable, this Court finds that the other issue

regarding the termination validity does not arise for

consideration. Therefore, this Court holds that the

petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief before this

Court.

In the result, this petition is dismissed by holding

that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner is not

maintainable. There is no order as to costs.

Partly typed by the Stenographer, partly typed by me

in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this the 13th day of June, 2025.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witnesses:

PW1 —

03-09-2019

Thiru S. Senthil Kumar

PW2 —

11-02-2020

Thiru Sekar

PW3 —

21-01-2025

Thiru M.K.K. Saravanan

List of petitioner’s side exhibits :

Ex.P1

— 21-12-2012

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Petitioner to the

Respondent Management.

Ex.P2

— 29-01-2016

Photocopy of show cause

Notice

issued

the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner.

Ex.P3

— 05-02-2016

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Petitioner to the

Respondent Management.

Ex.P4

— 08-03-2016

Photocopy of Termination

Order

issued

the

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner.

Ex.P5

— 10-03-2016

Photocopy of industrial

dispute

raised

the

Petitioner before the Labour

Officer Conciliation.

Ex.P6

— 20-04-2016

Photocopy of proceedings of

the Respondent Management.

Ex.P7

— 27-04-2016

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Petitioner to the

Respondent Management.

Ex.P8

— 31-05-2016

Photocopy

Statement filed by the

Respondent Management

before the Labour Officer

Conciliation.

Ex.P9

— 02-08-2014

Photocopy of the Trade

Union Registration Certificate.

Ex.P10 — 16-02-2005

Photocopy of the letter

submitted by the Union

before the Conciliation

Officer.

Ex.P11 — 07-03-2006

Photocopy of the Orders

passed by Hon’ble High

Court of Madras in W.P.No.

362/2006.

Ex.P12 — 21-03-2006

Photocopy of the letter

submitted by the Union

before the Conciliation

Officer.

Ex.P13 — 30-11-2006

Photocopy of the G.O.

referred

the

Industrial

Dispute to the Court.

Ex.P14 — —

Photocopy of the Claim

petition

filed

the

petitioner in ID(T)-09/2006

in Labour Court.

Ex.P15 — 28-03-2017

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued to

Thiru Kalyankumar by the

respondent management.

Ex.P16 — 20-04-2005

Photocopy

the

Suspension order issued to

Thiru Rajasekaran.

Ex.P17 — 22-04-2013

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued to

Thiru Mahadevan.

Ex.P18 — 16-05-2014

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued to

Thiru Mahadevan.

978

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 December 2025

Ex.P19 — 05-12-2014

Photocopy of the second

show cause notice issued to

Thiru Mahadevan.

Ex.P20 — 01-09-2018

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Union to the

Respondent Management.

Ex.P21 — 01-09-2018

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Respondent

Management to the Union.

Ex.P22 — 15-09-2016

Photocopy of the minutes

of meeting between the

respondent

management

and Union.

List of Respondent’s witnesses:

RW1

—

14-03-2022 Thiru M. Sugumar

List of Respondent’s side Exhibits:

Ex.R1

— —

Photocopy of Diploma in

Mechanical

Engineering

Certificate of the Petitioner.

Ex.R2

— —

Photocopy of the Bio-data

of the petitioner submitted

the

respondent

management.

Ex.R3

— 09-11-1991

Photocopy

the

Experience certificate of the

petitioner for the period

from

05-08-1988

07-10-1991 Ex.R4 02-04-1997

Photocopy of the offer

letter for the post of

Maintenance Supervisor.

Ex.R5

— 08-11-1997

Photocopy

the

Appointment order of the

petitioner.

Ex.R6

— 27-02-2007

Photocopy of the promotion

order to the post of Officer

(Production) in Grade-M7.

Ex.R7

— 19-06-2008

Photocopy of the Transfer

order to CONSO Unit,

Kattukuppam with effect

from 01-07-2008.

Ex.R8

— 10-11-2009

Photocopy of the Transfer

order to Karaikal unit with

effect from 15-09-2009.

Ex.R9

— 28-01-2010

Photocopy of the Transfer

order to Maraimalai Nagar

with effect from 01-02-2010.

Ex.R10 — 19-05-2010

Photocopy of the Job not

satisfactory letter issued to

the

petitioner

the

respondent management.

Ex.R11 — 15-05-2012

Photocopy

the

Job

unsatisfactory letter issued

to the petitioner by the

respondent management.

Ex.R12 — 23-05-2013

Photocopy

the

Job

unsatisfactory letter issued

to the petitioner by the

respondent management.

Ex.R13 — 21-12-2015

Photocopy of the Reply

letter to management by the

petitioner.

Ex.R14 — 14-01-2016

Photocopy of the Reply

letter to petitioner by the

management.

Ex.R15 — 29-01-2016

Photocopy of the show

cause notice issued to the

petitioner by the respondent

management.

Ex.R16 — 05-02-2016

Photocopy of the reply to

the show cause notice by

the petitioner.

Ex.R17 — —

Photocopy of the Union

subscription fee August

2015 to March 2016 (Pg. 20

to 23).

Ex.R18 — 07-03-2016

Photocopy of the petitioner

claim letter submitted to the

respondent management by

the Union.

Ex.R19 — 21-03-2016

Photocopy of the Reply

letter to the Union leader by

the management.

Ex.R20 — —

Photocopy of the Salary

slip from September 2015 to

February 2016 (Pg. 68 to 73).

Ex.R21 — 08-03-2016

Photocopy

the

Termination order of the

petitioner.

Ex.R22 — 10-03-2016

Photocopy of the letter to

the management by the

petitioner.

Ex.R23 — 10-03-2016

Photocopy of the letter

submitted before Labour

Conciliation Officer by the

petitioner.

979

23 December 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R24 — 27-04-2016

Photocopy of the letter

through full and final

settlement returned to the

management.

Ex.R25 — —

Photocopy of the reply

submitted

before

the

Labour Conciliation Officer

by the management (Pg. 54

to 56).

Ex.R26 — 18-07-2016

Photocopy of the reply

submitted filed before the

Labour Conciliation Officer

by the petitioner (Pg. 57 to

60).

Ex.R27 — 14-09-2017

Photocopy of the Failure

report (Pg. 61 to 65).

Ex.R28 — 24-10-2017

Photocopy of the Gazette

Publication.

Ex.R29 — 01-02-2018

Photocopy of the letter to

the management by Thiru

Kalyankumar.

Ex.R30 — —

Photocopy of the Union

Members

list

and

subscription details.

Ex.R31 — —

Photocopy of the Settlement

12(3) for 2013-2016.

Ex.R32 — —

Photocopy of the document

in Page No. 17 of the Roles,

responsibility, authority and

accountability

for

Officer-Production of the

Integrated

Management

System Manual.

Ex.R33 — 26-12-2015

Photocopy of the e-mail of

S.Senthil Kumar regarding

the shift reports.

Ex.R34 — —

Photocopy of the Infosec

(Information

Security)

System Audit conducted on

27-09-2013 at Karaikal by

BSI Certification.

Ex.R35 — —

Photocopy of the e-mails,

dated

22-02-2014

and

21-03-2014 of the Petitioner

herein.

Ex.R36 — 03-03-2016

Photocopy of the Internal

Note of the Respondent

Management.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HOME DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 80, Puducherry, dated 05th December 2025)

NOTIFICATION

Consequent to the regular promotion of Thiru R. Subhash to the post of PPS (Entry Grade) with effect from

01-01-2018 vide G.O.Ms. No. 65, dated 26-09-2025 of the Home Department, Puducherry and in supersession to the

G.O. Ms. No. 10, dated 29-01-2024 of the Home Department, Puducherry, a revised Final Seniority List of Selection

Grade Officers in Puducherry Police Service (PPS) Cadre, shall be as indicated as hereunder:–

Sl. Seniority

Name of

Present place

Date of