103

15 February 2011]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

15

9/7/1

Ryot Wet

Salma Beevi, W/o. Jakkriya

0

07

15

16

9/7/2

Ryot Wet

Amutha, W/o. Subramanian

0

05

35

17

9/8

Ryot Wet

1.

Muhamadhu Natchiyal, W/o. Ahamadu Maricar;

0

03

50

2.

Khathja Natchiyal, W/o. Abdul Khathar.

18

10/2

Ryot Wet

Annal Girishdi, W/o. Yovan

0

49

50

19

10/3

Ryot Wet

Present Trustee, Uthirapathi Swamy Temple,

0

34

00

Thiruchengatankudi.

20

10/4

Ryot Wet

Present Trustee, Sadayupureeswarar Swamy

0

36

00

Temple, T. R. Pattinam.

21

10/5/2

Ryot Wet

1.

Kalavathy, D/o. Panchatcharam;

0

42

37

2.

Varalatchumy, D/o. Panchatcharam;

3.

Vijayaletchumy, D/o. Panchatcharam;

4.

Kalasalingam, S/o. Selvaraj;

5.

Letchumy, W/o. Selvaraj.

Total . .

7

60

37

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

G. RAGESH CHANDRA,

Special Secretary to Government.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

H.

A.

Ca.

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G. O. Rt. No. 15/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 28th January 2011)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Award in I.D. No. 2/2009, dated 23-11-2010

of the Labour Court, Karaikal in respect of the

industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,

Karaikal and Tmt. C. Latha, W/o. Citrarasu, Karaikal over

non-employment has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the

n o t i f i c a t i o n i s s u e d i n L a b o u r D e p a r t m e n t ’s

G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that

the said Award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

G. MALAR KANNAN,

Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KARAIKAL

Present : Tmt. R. MARGARET ROSALINE, M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (District Judge),

Karaikal.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of November 2010

I.D. No. 2/2009

Tmt. C. Latha, W/o. Citrarasu,

No. 34, Anthoniar Koil Street,

Keezha Oduthurai, Karaikal.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Management,

M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College

and Hospital, Keezhakasakudi Medu,

Kottucherry, Karaikal.

. . Respondent

This case coming on 23-1-2010 in the presence of

Thiru R. Suresh, advocate for the petitioner and

Thiru R. Ilancheliyan, advocate for the respondent and

petitioner being called absent and on hearing the

respondent and on perusing the case records, this court

passed the following :

104

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[15 February 2011

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government under section 10(1)(c)of

the Industrial Disputes Act in G.O. Rt. No. 63/AIL/Lab./J/2009,

dated 13-4-2009 in and by which the following

references were made to this court for adjudication :

(a) Whether the dispute raised by Tmt. C. Latha,

W/o. Citrarasu, No. 34, Anthoniar Koil Street,

Keezha Oduthurai, Karaikal, against the management

of M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and

Hospital, Karaikal over non-employment is justified

or not ?

(b) If justified, to what relief, the petitioner is

entitled to ?

(c) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed ?

2.

Petitioner called absent. No claim statement filed.

Hence industrial dispute closed. No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court

on this the 23rd day of November, 2010.

R. MARGARET ROSALINE,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Karaikal.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G. O. Rt. No. 16/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 28th January 2011)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Award in I.D. No. 6/2005, dated

16-11-2010 of the Labour Court, Karaikal in respect

of the i n d u s t r i a l

d i s p u t e

b e t w e e n

t h e

management of M/s. Soundararaja Mills, Karaikal

and Thiru K. Sandanam, over non-employment has

been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the

n o t i f i c a t i o n i s s u e d i n L a b o u r D e p a r t m e n t ’s

G. O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that

the said Award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

G. MALAR KANNAN,

Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KARAIKAL

Present : Tmt. R. MARGARET ROSALINE., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (District Judge),

Karaikal.

Tuesday, the 16th day of November 2010

I.D. No. 6/2005

Thiru K. Sandanam,

No. 5, Perumal Koil Street,

Nedungadu, Karaikal.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Employer,

M/s. Soundararaja Mills Limited,

Nedungadu, Karaikal.

. . Respondent

This case coming on 16-11-2010 in the presence of

Thiru V. Govindasamy, advocate for the petitioner and

Thiru R. Thimbiraj, advocate for the respondent and on

hearing both sides, and on perusing the case records,

this court passed the following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government under section 10(1)(c) of

the Industrial Disputes Act in G.O. Rt. No. 174/2005/

Lab./AIL//J, dated 15-9-2005 in and by which the

following references were made to this court for

adjudication :

(a) Whether the non-employment of Thiru K. Sandanam

by the management of M/s. Soundararaja Mills,

Karaikal is justified or not?

(b) To what relief, the worker is entitled to?

(c) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed ?

2.

Memo. filed by petitioner stating that the matter

has been settled out of court by receiving two cheques

for ` 40,000 in lieu of re-employment and in full quit.

Hence industrial dispute dismissed as not pressed.

No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on

this the 16th day of November 2010.

R. MARGARET ROSALINE,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Karaikal.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 17/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 28th January 2011)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Award in I.D. No. 13/2009, dated 20-11-2010

of the Labour Court, Karaikal in respect of the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Jayaprakash

105

15 February 2011]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Narayan Co-op. Spinning Mills, Karaikal and

Thiru S. Essouradjane over non - employment has been

received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with

the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated, 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed

by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

G. MALAR KANNAN,

Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KARAIKAL

Present : Tmt. R. MARGARET ROSALINE., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (District Judge),

Karaikal.

Saturday, the 20th day of November 2010

I.D. No. 13/2009

Thiru S. Essouradjane,

No. 32, Madha Koil Street,

Vadamattam, Nedungadu,

Karaikal.

. .

Petitioner

Versus

The Management,

M/s. Jayaprakash Narayan

Co-op. Spinning Mills Limited,

No. P. 545, Keezhamanai,

Neravy, Karaikal.

. .

Respondent

This case coming on 20-11-2010 in the presence of

Thiru N. Ramar for the petitioner, and the respondent

being called absent and set ex parte, and on hearing

the petitioner, and on perusing the case records, this

court passed the following:

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government under section 10(1)(c) of the

Industrial Disputes Act in G.O.Rt. No. 140/AIL/Lab/J/2009,

dated 12-10-2009 in and by which the following

references were made to this court for adjudication.

(a) Whether

the

termination of the services of

Thiru S. Essouradjane by the management of

M/s. Jayaprakash Narayan Co-op. Spinning Mills,

Karaikal is justified or not ?

(b) If not justified, to what relief, the workman is

entitled to?

(c) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. Order passed. As the petitioner has proved his

claim through Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, the award is passed

directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into

service from the date of this order. However there is

no order as to back wages as the petitioner has not

worked. No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on

this the 20th day of November 2010.

R. MARGARET ROSALINE,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Karaikal.

————

List of witnesses examined by the petitioner :

P.W.1 — Essuradjane

List of exhibits marked by the petitioner :

Ex.P. 1 — Memorandum, dated 10-5-1997 issued

to the petitioner by the respondent company.

Ex.P. 2 —Office order, dated 20-6-2000 issued to

the petitioner by the respondent company.

Ex.P. 3 —Xerox copy of medical certificate.

Ex.P. 4 —Called for explanation from the petitioner,

dated 18-5-2007.

Ex.P. 5 —Termination order, dated 16-7-2007

Ex.P. 6 —Failure report, dated 17-8-2009.

Ex.P. 7 —Reference made by Labour Department,

dated 12-10-2009.

R. MARGARET ROSALINE,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Karaikal.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 21/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 3rd February 2011)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Award in I.D. No. 4/2010, dated 19-10-2010

of the Labour Court, Karaikal in respect of the

industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,

Karaikal and Tmt. T. Minnalkodi, over non-

employment has been received;

106

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[15 February 2011

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the

n o t i f i c a t i o n i s s u e d i n L a b o u r D e p a r t m e n t ’s

G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that

the said Award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

G. MALAR KANNAN,

Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KARAIKAL

Present : Tmt. R. MARGARET ROSALINE, M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

[Additional District Judge], Karaikal.

Tuesday, the 19th day of October 2010

I.D. No. 4/2010

Tmt. T. Minnalkodi,

No. 9, Pandaravadai,

Kurumbagaram, Nedungadu, Karaikal. . . Petitioner

Versus

The Management,

M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College

and Hospital, Keezhakasakudi Medu,

Kottucherry, Karaikal.

. . Respondent

This case coming on 19-10-2010 hearing before the

petitioner appeared in person and being called absent

and Thiru R. Illanchelian, advocate for the respondent

and on hearing him and upon perusing the case records,

this court passed the following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government under section 10(1)(c)of the

Industrial Disputes Act in G.O. Rt. No. 96/AIL/Lab./J/2010,

dated 11-5-2010 in and by which the following

references were made to this court for adjudication :

( a ) W h e t h e r t h e d i s p u t e r a i s e d b y

T m t . T. Minnalkodi, against the management of

M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and

Hospital, Karaikal over non-employment is justified

or not ?

(b) If justified, to what relief, the petitioner is

entitled to ?

(c) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed ?

2.

Petitioner called absent. No claim statement filed.

No representation made. In spite of giving sufficient

time, the petitioner has not chosen to file her claim

statement. Hence the reference is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court

on this 19th day of October 2010.

R. MARGARET ROSALINE,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Karaikal.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 22/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 3rd February 2011)

NOTIFICATION

W h e r e a s , t h e Aw a r d i n I . D . N o . 5 / 2 0 09,

dated 20-10-2010 of the Labour Court, Karaikal in

respect of the industrial dispute between the management

of M/s. Ulaga Nayaki Amman Steels, Karaikal and

Thiru R. Adaikalaraj, Karaikal over non-employment has

been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the

no t i f i c a t i o n i s s u e d i n L a b o u r D e p a r t m e n t ’s

G.O. Ms.No.20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour), that the

said Award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry,

(By order)

G. MALAR KANNAN,

Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KARAIKAL

Present : Tmt. R. MARGARET ROSALINE, M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

[Additional District Judge], Karaikal.

Wednesday, the 20th day of October 2010.

I.D. No. 5/2009

R. Adaikalaraj,

No. 10/5, Valliammai Nagar,

Lemaire Street, Karaikal.

. .

Petitioner

107

15 February 2011]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Versus

The Employer/Management,

M/s. Ulaga Nayaki Amman Steels,

Keezhavur, Thirunallar. . . Respondent

This case coming on 20-10-2010 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Thiru V. Govindasamy,

advocate for the petitioner and Thiru S. Suriyamoorthy,

advocate for the respondent and upon hearing both

sides, and perusing the case records, this court

delivered the following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government under section 10(1)(c) of

the Industrial Disputes Act in G.O. Rt. No. 80/AIL/Lab./J/2009,

dated 3-6-2009 in and by which the following references

were made to this court for adjudication.

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru R. Adaikalaraj,

Karaikal against the management of M/s. Ulaga Nayaki

Amman Steels, Karaikal over his non-employment

is justified or not?

(2) If justified, to what relief, he is entitled to?

(3) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. Petitioner called absent. No representation made.

No claim statement filed in spite of giving sufficient time.

Hence the industrial dispute is closed.

Written down and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 20th day of October 2010.

R. MARGARET ROSALINE,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Karaikal.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 23/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 3rd February 2011)

NOTIFICATION

W h e r e a s , t h e Aw a r d i n I . D . N o . 6/ 2 0 09,

dated 27-10-2010 of the Labour Court, Karaikal in

respect of the industrial dispute between the management

of M/s. Ulaga Nayaki Amman Steels, Karaikal and

Thiru R. Sekar, Karaikal over non-employment has been

received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the

no t i f i c a t i o n i s s u e d i n L a b o u r D e p a r t m e n t ’s

G. O. Ms. No.20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour), that the

said Award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

G. MALAR KANNAN,

Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KARAIKAL

Present : Tmt. R. MARGARET ROSALINE, M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court

[Additional District Judge], Karaikal.

Wednesday, the 27th day of October 2010

I.D. No. 6/2009

R. Sekar,

No. 10, Pidari Koil Street,

Andiappan Thidal, Thirunallar.

. .

Petitioner

Versus

The Employer/Management,

M/s. Ulaga Nayaki Amman Steels,

Keezhavur, Thirunallar. . . Respondent

This case coming on 27-10-2010 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Thiru V. Govindasamy,

advocate for the petitioner and Thiru S. Suriyamoorthy,

advocate for the respondent and upon hearing both

sides and perusing the case records, this court

delivered the following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government under section 10(1)(c) of the

Industrial Disputes Act in G. O. Rt. No. 81/AIL/Lab./J/2009,

dated 3-6-2009 in and by which the following references

were made to this court for adjudication.

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru R. Sekar,

Karaikal against the management of M/s. Ulaga Nayaki

Amman Steels, Karaikal over his non-employment is

justified or not?

(2) If justified, to what relief, he is entitled to?

(3) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. Claimant called absent. No claim statement filed.

No representation. Hence the industrial dispute is

closed.

Written down and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 27th day of October 2010.

R. MARGARET ROSALINE,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Karaikal.