HINDUSTAN UNILEVER EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the trade union with registration No. 1534/RTU/08 functioning in the second respondent factory. The petitioner union has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent Inspector of Factories to consider the complaint, dated 20.2.2009 sent by the union and to take action against the second respondent for removing "Optional Lock System" in the computerised attendance system maintained in the second respondent factory and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to keep all statutory records and registers prescribed under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules made thereunder.

(2.) When the matter came up on 28.10.2009, Ms. Mala, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) took notice. Subsequently, on behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit, dated 12.2.2009 was filed. Thereafter, the second respondent entered appearance and they have also filed counter affidavit, dated 26.1.2010. Pending the writ petition, no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner union.

(3.) In their complaint, dated 20.2.2009, apart from several other issues, it was stated that for computerising the Time Attendance System (TAS), permission will have to be required from the Inspector of Factories and pursuant to the said permission, the computerised system was introduced from the year 2003-2004. In the software utilised by the second respondent, whenever the workmen registered their names, it was programmed in such way that registration will be directly rejected. Utilising the said programme and with a view to victimise the workers, the registration was locked. Therefore, the petitioner union stated that such procedure was illegal and they should discontinue the TAS computerised system and that the original card system should be introduced. The Software used by the second respondent should be completely investigated and the Optional Lock System which is for their whims and fancies must be removed. After sending representation, the petitioner union also invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and sought for certain information from the first respondent. Pursuant to the query made by the union, the first respondent informed them that their complaint is under process. They have not sought for any reply from the second respondent.