125
22 February 2011]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 35/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 10th February 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D. No. 1/2010, dated 17-9-2010 of
the Labour Court, Karaikal in respect of the industrial dispute
raised by the Bharathiyar College of Engineering and
Technology Non-Teaching Staff Union, Karaikal against the
management of M/s. Bharathiyar College of Engineering and
Technology, Karaikal over change in the conditions of service
of the workers like withdrawal of canteen facility 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 23-5-91, 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, the17th day of September 2010.
I.D.No. 1/2010
The Honorary President,
Bharathiyar College of Engineering and
Technology Non-teaching Staff Union,
Gnanajothy Illam,
4th Lane, Kothalampet Road,
Senior Kulam Street, Karaikal.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
Bharathiyar College of Engineering and
Technology, Thiruvettakudi,
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This case coming on 17-9-2010 hearing before the petitioner
and the respondent being called absent, 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(l)(c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act in G.O.Rt.No. 156/AIL/LAB/J/2009, dated
10-12-2009 in and by which the following references were
made to this court for adjudication.
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Bharathiyar
College of Engineering and Technology Non-Teaching
Staff Union, Karaikal against the management of
M/s. Bharathiyar College of Engineering and Technology,
Karaikal over change in the conditions of service of the
workers like withdrawl of canteen facility is justified or not?
(b) If justified, to give appropriate directions?
2. RPAD served on petitioner. No representation made.
Hence industrial dispute is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 17th day of September 2010.
R. MARGARET ROSALINE,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Karaikal.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 36/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 10th February 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in LD. No. 9/2008, dated 20-11-2010
of the Labour Court, Karaikal in respect of the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Nallathur
Co-operative Milk Society Ltd., Nallathur and
Tmt. G. Veeramani Dania 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 23-5-91, 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. 9/2008
Thiru G. Veeramani Dania,
Mela Velangudi, Nanilam T.K.
Thiruvarur District.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Nallathur Co-operative Milk Society Ltd.,
Nallathur P.O., Nedungadu,
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
126
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[22 February 2011
This case coming on 12-11-2010 in the presence of
Thiru P. Muthukrishnan, advocate 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(l)(c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act in G.O.Rt.No. 147/AIL/Lab/J/2008 , dated 18-9-2008
in and by which the following references were made to this
court for adjudication.
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Tmt. G. Veeramani
Dania against the management of M/s. Nallathur
Co-operative Milk Society Ltd., Nallathur, Karaikal over
non-employment is justified or not?
(b) To what relief, Tmt. G. Veeramani Dania 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 her claim
through the Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.8, the award is passed directing the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner forthwith without back
wages but with continuity of service. 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 :
PW1—G. Veeramani Dania
List of exhibits marked by the petitioner :
Ex.P1— Office order, dated 30-6-1995 issued to the
petitioner by the respondent society.
Ex.P2—Proceedings of the respondent, dated 0-10-1998
Ex.P3—Notice, dated 13-12-2007 issued by the
respondent.
Ex.P4—Explanation by the petitioner, dated 4-1-2008.
Ex.P5—Xerox copy of reply given by the petitioner,
dated 18-1-2008.
Ex.P6—Letter by petitioner to the Conciliation
Officer, dated 13-2-2008.
Ex.P7—Letter by the respondent to the Conciliation
Officer, dated 28-5-2008
Ex.P8—Failure report, dated 9-7-2008.
R. MARGARET ROSALINE,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Karaikal.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 20/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 3rd February 2011)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that
an industrial dispute has raised by Hindustan Unilever
Employees Union against the management of
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Detergent Division,
Vadamangalam, Puducherry over change of service
conditions of their workmen in respect of the matter
mentioned in the Annexure to this order;
And whereas in the opinion of the Government, it is
necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated
vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab., dated 23-5-1991 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to exercise the powers
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947),
it is hereby directed by Secretary to Government (Labour),
that the said dispute be referred to the Industrial
Tribunal, Puducherry for adjudication. The
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry shall submit the award
within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as
stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with
rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.
The party raising the dispute shall file a statement of
claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses to the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry
within 15 days of the receipt of the order of reference
and also forward a copy of such statement to each
one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
ANNEXURE
(a) Whether the dispute raised by Hindustan
Unilever Employees Union (Registration No. 1534/
RTU/2008), Puducherry against the management of
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Detergents
Division, Vadamangalam, Puducherry over change of
service conditions of their workmen without adhering
section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
violation of 12(3) settlement, dated 10-5-2007
is justified or not?
(b) If not justified, what relief, their workmen are
entitled to? And what conditions should be
adopted?
(By order)
G. MALAR KANNAN,
Joint Secretary to Government (Labour).