KERALA GAZETTE

tIcf Kkddv

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

B[nImcnIambn {]kn≤s∏SpØp∂Xv

©

Government of Kerala

tIcf k¿°m¿

2013

No.

\º¿

Vol. II

hmeyw 2

16th July 2013

2013 Pqsse 16

25th Ashadha 1935

1935 BjmVw 25

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, TUESDAY

Xncp-h-\-¥-]p-cw, sNmΔ

29

Regn. No. KERBIL/2012/45073

dated 5-9-2012 with RNI

Reg. No. cPn. \º¿

KL/TV(N)/634/2012-14

}

}

PART I

Notifications and Orders issued by the Government

Labour and Rehabilitation Department

Labour and Rehabilitation (A)

ORDERS

(1)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 942/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 31st May 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between the Manager,

Harrison Malayalam Limited, Arapetta Estate, Kadoora

Division, Meppadi P. O. and the workman of the above

referred establishment represented by Sri Rajendran,

S/o Balan Nair, Thekkekuttiyil Veedu, Vellarmala P. O. in

respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Industrial

Tribunal will pass the award within a period of three

months.

ANNEXURE

Whether there is denial of permanency to 10

workers namely S/S. Beena, Vijaya Lekshmi,

Sarasu, Santha, Sreedevi, Manomani, Sarasu,

Sumathi, Shajith and Kunheerumma by the

management is justifiable? If not, what relief they

are entitled to?

(2)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 950/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between (1) Sri Sabu Marattu,

Marattu Veedu, Puthen Chantha P. O., Vakathanam,

Kottayam, (2) Smt. Sosamma Chacko, Kuzhiyil Veedu,

Puthenchantha P. O., Vakathanam, Kottayam and

the workman of the above referred establishment

Sri Jacob Andrews, Pezhummoottil Veedu, Puthenchantha

P. O., Vakathanam, Kottayam in respect of matters

mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki (Peermedu). The

Industrial Tribunal will pass the award within a period of

three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment to

Sri Jacob Andrews, Rubber Tapper by the

employers is justifiable? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to ?

(3)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 951/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between (1) The Managing

Director, Excel Glasses Limited, Pathirappally, Alappuzha

(2) The General Manager, Excel Glasses Limited,

Pathirappally, Alappuzha and the workmen of the above

referred establishment represented by (1) The General

Secretary, Excel Glasses Employees Association (C.I.T.U.),

Pathirappally, Alappuzha, (2) The General Secretary,

Glasses Factory Workers Congress (I.N.T.U.C.),

Pathirappally, Alappuzha, (3) The General Secretary, Excel

Glasses Employees Union (A.I.T.U.C.), (4) The General

Secretary, Excel Glasses Working Employees Association

(B.M.S.), Pathirappally, Alappuzha, (5) The General

Secretary, Excel Glasses Labour Union (U.T.U.C./B.),

Pathirappally, Alappuzha in respect of matters mentioned

in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The Labour Court will

pass the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the lockout declared in Excel Glass

Limited, Pathirappally, Alappuzha with effect from

27-12-2012 by the Management is justifiable ?

If not, what are the reliefs the workmen are

entitled to?

(4)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 952/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between the Principal,

Navadeep Public School, Vettilathazham, Decent Mukku

P. O., Kollam and the workmen of the above referred

establishment represented by the Secretary, Quilon District

Motor & Mechanical Workers Union, C.I.T.U. Bhavan,

Kollam in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to

this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Labour Court, Kollam. The Labour Court will pass

the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denialof employment to

Sarvasree

K.

Thulaseedharan

Pillai,

T. Thulaseedharan Pillai, G. Lohidaswan,

B.

Mohanan

Pillai,

G.

Mohanan,

B. Radhakrishna Pillai, Drivers and Smt. J. Rema,

S. Bindu, B. Jayakumari, S. Sindhu, Cleaners by

the management of Navadeep Public School,

Decentmukku, Kollam is justifiable? If not, what

relief they are entitled to ?

(5)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 953/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between the Manager,

Gundumallai Estate, K.D.H.P. Company Private

Limited, Munnar and the workmen of the above referred

establishment represented by the General Secretary, High

Range Estate Supervisors & Employees Union

(U.T. E. C.), Room No.V. C. 9, Vanitha Shopping Complex,

Vandiperiyar-685 533 in respect of matters mentioned in

the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said Industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the industrial Tribunal Idukki (Peermade). The

Industrial Tribunal will pass the award within a period of

three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the dismissal of Sri Francis P. F.

No. 4813 of Gundumallai Estate, KDHP Co. Ltd.,

Munnar by the Management is justifiable ? If not,

what relief he is entitled to?

(6)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 954/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between the Managing

Director, Sree Ramakrishna Charitable Hospital,

Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram and the workman

of the above referred establishment represented

by Sri T. L. Ramanpilla (Working President),

Thiruvananthapuram District Private Hospital Employees

Union, T. C. 2/1203, P. R. A. 97, K. K. Lane, Pottakuzhi,

Thiruvananthapuram in respect of matters mentioned in

the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Labour Court, Kollam. The Labour Court will pass

the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment to

Sri B. S. Sivaprasad by the Management of

Sri Ramakrishna

Charitable

Hospital,

Sasthamangalam is justifiable? If not, what are the

reliefs he is entitled to?

(7)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 955/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between Sri M. K. Khader,

Usman Enterprises, C.M.S. College Road, Kottayam and

the workman of the above referred establishment

Sri P. A. John, Puthuparampil House, Mallusseri P. O.,

Kottayam in respect of matters mentioned in the

annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki (Peerumede). The

Industrial Tribunal will pass the award within a period of

three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment to

Sri John P. A., Salesman, by the employer is

justifiable? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?

(8)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 956/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between the Headmaster,

Periyakanal Aided L. P. School, Periyakanal and the

workmen of the above referred establishment represented

by the General Secretary, Highrange Estate Supervisors &

Employees Union (U.T.E.C.), Vandiperiyar in respect of

matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki (Peerumede). The

Industrial Tribunal will pass the award within a period of

three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment to

Sri Arogyaswamy, the noon meal cook,

Periyakanal Aided L. P. School by the Headmaster

is justifiable? If not, what relief he is entitled to?

(9)

G. O. (Rt.) No. 957/2013/LBR.

Thiruvananthapuram, 1st June 2013.

Whereas, the Government are of opinion that

an industrial dispute exists between the Proprietor,

Lekshmen, Cashew, Nellikkunnam, Kottarakkara and the

worker

of

the

above

referred

establishment

Smt. Y. Leela, Paramukalil Vadakkethil Veedu,

Mylattumpoika, Chepra P. O., Kottarakkara in respect of

matters mentioned in the annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of Government it is

necessary to refer the said industrial dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercis of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947

(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government hereby direct

that the said industrial dispute be referred for adjudication

to the Labour Court, Kollam. The Labour Court will pass

the award within a period of three months.

ANNEXURE

Whether the denial of employment of

Smt. Y. Leela, Shelling Worker by the

management, Lekshmen Cashew, Nellikkunnam is

justifiable or not? If not, what relief the worker is

entitled to get?

By order of the Governor,

RAMANKUTTY, C.

Under Secretary to Government.