ANGLO-FRENCH MILLS Vs. MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is by the Anglo-French Mills, Pondicherry, represented by its manager, and involves questions of considerable interest relating to labour law as it prevails in Pondicherry. For the purpose of clarification, we may state that there is a Labour Code which governs the relationship between employment organizations and workers in Pondicherry, an authorized translation of the French text which has been issued by the International code came into force, as far as Pondicherry is concerned, there were proceedings of mutual discussion and conciliation, upon all aspects of the relationship between employment and labour, authorized by the State. This has resulted in what is known as the Chakravarthi award, which is named after the deputed officer, who held the enquiry. Admittedly, organizations like the Anglo-French Mills (appellant) have framed standing orders for employees in pursuance of this award, which have also been revised and approved by the Arbitration Commission for Textile Mills. The result is, in brief, that (1) the Labour Code, (2) the Chakravarthi award, and (3) the standing orders, are the sources of authority for all problems a rising out of the relations between employment and labourers in textile mills in Pondicherry.

(2.) WE may here add that labour appeals coming up to this Court, after the Pondicherry Administration Act has come into force, are of two kinds: (a) individual, and (b) collective. The present is an appeal In respect of an Individual case, and the procedure is some-what different with regard to collective disputes. In cases like the present, the dispute is initially dealt with by a labour court generally consisting of a single-member, namely, the tribunal du travail. Appeals from those decisions are heard by the Court of first instance (tribunal depremiere instance ). From these decisions, special appeals in Cassation were originally instituted in the Paris Court, and are now instituted before this Court.

(3.) THE facts which have given rise to the present dispute are very simple. The respondent is a certain Muniammal, and though she has not appeared in this Court to contest the appeal by the Anglo-French Mills (appellant), we have considered the matter fully, in the light of the principles which may be involved in the cause. It is clear from the record that, on 6 August 1962, at 10-30 a. m. , there was a quarrel between two women, namely, Thaiyanayagi, employed as a sweeper in the engineering sections, and this Muniammal (respondent ). One Sengani, another worker, made a report about the occurrence. From the statement of Thaiyanayagi, it appears that Muniammai (respondent) referred to her in vile language, during the course of the quarrel, as a woman of loose morals. She then added that Thaiyanayagi was a person who should deliberately eat her own son. Saying this, Muniammal is supposed to have beaten Thaiyanayagi with a basket, and also to have caused an injury to her finger. It is not in dispute that the strange conduct of Muniammal on this occasion, and her cannibalistic curse pronounced on her opponent, led to certain suspicions concerning the mental health of the worker. Ultimately, the case of Muniammal was referred to two medical officers of the appellant mills. The report of the two medical officers, namely, Dr. J. Mariadasu and Dr. K. C. Pavitran, is brief, almost cryptic. It is to the following effect: Smt. Muniammal is of unsound mind and it is not desirable to keep her in employment in her own interest.