Hindustan Unilever Employees Union, Pondicherry v. Inspector of Factories, Pondicherry and Ors.
(2010) 127 FLR 585 (Mad)
In the High Court of Madras
W.P. No. 20876 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Before Justice K. Chandru
Decided on June 08, 2010

Relevancy of the case: Electronic Attendance System in a labour dispute.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 4)
• The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 9A, 12)
• The Right to Information Act, 2005
• The Puducherry Factories Rules, 1964 (Rule 97-102, 104)
• The Factories Act, 1948 (Section 111A)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, in this case, is the trade union functioning in the factory of the second respondent. The union has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent i.e. Inspector of Factories to consider the complaint sent by the union.
• Furthermore, the petition seeks to take action against the second respondent for removing the “Optional Lock System” in the computerised attendance system maintained in the second respondent’s 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.
• The software utilised by the second respondent programmed for the registration of the workers directly rejected their registration. Utilising the said programme and with a view to victimising the workers, the registration was locked.
• Therefore, the petitioner union stated that such a procedure was illegal that they should discontinue the Time Attendance System (TAS) computerised system and that the original card system should be introduced.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench noted that in the settlement signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workmen agreed to the introduction of the TAS system of attendance.
• Since the petitioner union already agreed to the introduction of the TAS system of attendance by a settlement. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioner to question the same.
• Even otherwise, under Rule 104 of the Puducherry Factories Rules, 1964, the Chief Inspector of Factories can grant an exemption in respect of any of the provisions contained under Rules 97 to 102 in respect of any factories subject to such conditions. Moreover, Section 4 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 grants legal recognition of electronic records.
• Furthermore, the bench found it unnecessary to entertain the writ petition with the limited prayer sought by the petitioner union.

Final Decision

• The bench thus, ruled that Respondent 2’s action is legal and is not without the authority of law.