Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 204 views

    2K Petition Before The Labour Office at Kuralagam

    Uploaded by

    mouli
    1) The document is a counter statement submitted by Lifestyle International Private Limited (Respondent No. 1) in response to an industrial dispute filed by Bahujan Samaj Trade Union. 2) Respondent No. 1 argues that the industrial dispute is not maintainable because the terminated workers were employed by Delux Cargo India Private Limited (Respondent No. 2) under a service agreement, not by Respondent No. 1 directly. 3) Respondent No. 1 requests that the industrial dispute be rejected as not fit for conciliation and not maintainable under the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2K Petition Before The Labour Office at Kuralagam

    Uploaded by

    mouli
    204 views4 pages
    1) The document is a counter statement submitted by Lifestyle International Private Limited (Respondent No. 1) in response to an industrial dispute filed by Bahujan Samaj Trade Union. 2) Respondent No. 1 argues that the industrial dispute is not maintainable because the terminated workers were employed by Delux Cargo India Private Limited (Respondent No. 2) under a service agreement, not by Respondent No. 1 directly. 3) Respondent No. 1 requests that the industrial dispute be rejected as not fit for conciliation and not maintainable under the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947.

    Original Title

    2K petition before the labour office at kuralagam.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The document is a counter statement submitted by Lifestyle International Private Limited (Respondent No. 1) in response to an industrial dispute filed by Bahujan Samaj Trade Union. 2) Respondent No. 1 argues that the industrial dispute is not maintainable because the terminated workers were employed by Delux Cargo India Private Limited (Respondent No. 2) under a service agreement, not by Respondent No. 1 directly. 3) Respondent No. 1 requests that the industrial dispute be rejected as not fit for conciliation and not maintainable under the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    204 views4 pages

    2K Petition Before The Labour Office at Kuralagam

    Uploaded by

    mouli
    1) The document is a counter statement submitted by Lifestyle International Private Limited (Respondent No. 1) in response to an industrial dispute filed by Bahujan Samaj Trade Union. 2) Respondent No. 1 argues that the industrial dispute is not maintainable because the terminated workers were employed by Delux Cargo India Private Limited (Respondent No. 2) under a service agreement, not by Respondent No. 1 directly. 3) Respondent No. 1 requests that the industrial dispute be rejected as not fit for conciliation and not maintainable under the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR – II

    (CONCILIATION) KURALAGAM

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.A/1017/18

    Bahujan Samaj Trade Union,

    37, Sadayappadoss Street,

    Perambur,

    Chennai – 600011 ……Petitioner/Labour Union

    -Vs-

    1. Lifestyle International Private Limited.,

    Thiru. Rajamani,

    Deputy General Manager,

    No. 31/1, Poochi Athipattu,

    Senkundrum, Thiruvalluvar Salai,

    Chennai – 600052 …….Respondent No. 1

    2. Delux Cargo India Private Limited,

    Rep by its Managing Director,

    No. 31/1, Poochiathipedu,

    Red Hills, Thiruvallur Road,

    Chennai – 600052 …….Respondent No. 2

    COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE LIFESTYLE


    INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED (RESPONDENT NO.1)

    The 1st respondent have received the copy of the letter dated
    29.04.2019 filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II
    (conciliation) Kuralaram, by Bahujan Samaj Trade Union .
    1
    1. The 1st respondent have read the petition raised by the petitioner
    union in the Industrial Dispute under section 2(K) of the Industrial
    Dispute for charter of demands, before the conciliation officer. The
    1ST respondent do not admit any of the allegations made therein
    and request your goodself to save my statements that are
    expressly/ specifically admitted hereunder. The petitioner union is
    put to strict proof of the allegations that are not expressly/
    specifically admitted.
    2. The industrial dispute have been raised by the petitioner union,
    claims that they have been terminated from employment and the
    termination of employment was illegal and they are entitled for all
    benefits including backwages and services continuity. This is done
    with ulterior motive against the 1st respondent for the reasons best
    known to them and hence the same is liable to be rejected as not
    maintainable under the industrial dispute act, 1947.
    a. The 1st respondent & 2nd respondent executed a Service
    Agreement dated 23 august 2018. The agreement executed
    between 1st and 2nd respondent is solely for the provision of
    services by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. All the
    employees or other personnel (including their contracted
    manpower) deployed by 2nd respondent for the provisioning of
    the services shall be employees of respondent and under no
    circumstances shall they be construed or considered to be
    employees or agents of 1st respondent.
    b. It is submitted that in the agreement in Para 36 “Service
    Provider assures lifestyle that the manpower deployed by Service
    Provider shall always be deemed to be the employees of Service
    Provider and lifestyle shall not be held accountable for any acts

    2
    done by the said manpower appointed by Service Provider and
    service Provider hereby undertakes full responsibility for its
    employees and hereby agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified
    Lifestyle for and against any claims made on their behalf.”
    c. It is further submitted that in the petition filed before the
    Assistant Commissioner, it was mentioned that the 1st
    respondent was a factory, and it had been employing the
    contract labourers. For as the Lifesytle International Private
    Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956,
    and have entered into the service agreement with various
    contractors for rendering different services which are temporary
    and can be canceled at any point of time in accordance with the
    terms of agreement, by which the employment of contract
    labourers supplied by the contractors also comes to end. Thus
    the employment of the unskilled contract labourers through the
    contractors is a temporary labour.
    3. It is submitted that the unskilled labourers (man power) supplied
    by the 2nd respondent was only for the work of loading and
    unloading in the warehousing unit which belong to the 1st
    respondent.
    4. Hence the 23 demands of the union (the petitioner union herein)
    from the 1st respondent are factually incorrect. As the labourers
    (contract labourers) are employee of the 2nd respondent and any
    conflict, demand, relief, disengagement, wages, or any disputes in
    concern with the contact labourers under the 2nd respondent, is
    solely responsible.

    3
    For the foregoing reasons, the 1st respondent pray this
    Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to reject the industrial dispute as
    not fit for conciliation and as not maintainable under the Industrial
    Dispute Act, 1947 and requsest your goodself to drop further actions
    in the industrial dispute filed in I.D.No.A/1017/18 and thus render
    justice.

    You might also like