802

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[20 August 2013

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 114/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 6th August 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D. No. 14/2011, dated 30-5-2013

of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the

industrial dispute between the PONCOSM Workmen

Association, Puducherry against the Managing Director,

Pondicherry Co-operative Sugar Mills, Puducherry over

seeking amendment of recruitment rules for the post of

Cane Assistant(Regular) from the Cane Yard Supervisors,

Shift Time-keepers and Junior Clerks (Total 22 workers)

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)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Puducherry.

Thursday, the 30th day of May 2013

I.D. No. 14/2011

The President,

PONCOSM Workmen Association

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

Pondicherry Co-operative Sugar Mills,

Lingareddipalayam, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 30-5-2013 for final

hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal

L. Sathish, N. Krishnamurthy, T. Pravin and

V. Veeraragavan, Advocates

for

the

petitioner,

Thiruvalargal K. Palaniappaan and R. Asvani

Palaniappaan, Advocates for the respondent, upon

hearing both sides, upon perusing the case records,

after having stood over for consideration till this day,

this court passed the following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.

No. 110/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 27-5-2011 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,

(1) Whether

the

dispute

raised

the

PONCOSM Workmen Association against the

management of M/s. Pondicherry Co-operative

Sugar Mills seeking amendment of recruitment rules

for the post of Cane Assistant (Regular) from the

post of the Cane Yard Supervisors, Shift Time-keepers

and Junior Clerks (Total 22 workers, as mentioned in

the Annexure) is justified or not?

(2) If justified, to what relief, the 22 workmen are

entitled to?

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

of money, if it can be so computed.

2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has

averred as follows:

The petitioner union represents the workmen

Puducherry

Co-operative

Sugar

Mills,

Lingareddipalayam, Puducherry and the present

dispute is concerned with 22 workmen, the details of

which are as follows:-

1. T. Sarathy, Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal)

2. M. Kandasamy, Shift Time-keeper (Seasonal)

3. N. Chidambaram, Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal)

4. D. Veerappan, Shift Time-keeper (Seasonal)

5. M. Ravichandran, Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal)

6. T. Palanisamy, Shift time-keeper (Seasonal)

7. D. Soundararajan, Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal)

8. G. Parthasarathy, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

9. G. Ponnurangam, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

10. R. Kuttiyapillai, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

11. R. Murali, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

12. R. Rajasekaran, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

13. M. Karunanithy, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

14. V. Vaikundavasagan, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

15. S. Janakiraman, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

16. S. Pandurangan, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

17. R. Kuppareddy, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

18. V. Venkatesan, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

19. C. Subramaniyan, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

20. P. Ramachandran, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

21. I. Thirumurugan, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

22. Kumar Ram, Junior Clerk (Seasonal)

803

20 August 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

The Cane Assistant is classified as Clerical

Grade-III post. The Cane Yard Supervisors and the

Shift Time-keepers are also classified as Clerical

Grade-III and the Junior Clerk (Seasonal) is classified

as Clerical Grade-IV post. But the distinction

between the Cane Assistant and the Cane Yard

Supervisors and the Shift Time-keepers is that Cane

Assistant is a regular post, whereas, Cane Yard

Supervisors and the Shift Time-keepers are seasonal

posts. Thus the seasonal workers are most

prejudiced and outcast in any sugar mills. It is

therefore, essential that every sugar mills must have

appropriate recruitment rules to ensure that the

seasonal workers are promoted or transferred to the

post of their caliber which are regular in nature to

ensure industrial peace and harmony to do complete

justice to all its workers.

Ironically the recruitment rules of the respondent

provides for Cane Farm Maistry (Regular), Aerated

Steam Therapy Operator (Regular) and Afforestation

Maistry (Regular) as feeder posts for the post of

Cane Assistant. All the above three posts are

classified in semi-skilled category in the pay scale

of ` 900-15-1,050-20-1,250.

The Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal), Show

Time-keepers (Seasonal) and Junior Clerks (Regular)

are—

(a) classified as skilled workers

(b) placed in the higher category

(d) educationally better qualified experienced

than the Cane Farm Maistry (Regular), Aerated Steam

Therapy Operator (Regular) and Afforestation

Maistry (Regular), but for promoting/transferring/

deputing to the post of Cane Assistant (Regular), the

post of Cane Farm Maistry (Regular), Aerated Steam

Therapy Operator (Regular) and Afforestation

Maistry (Regular) which is lower in grade, scale of

pay and educational qualification is considered

ahead of the Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal), Shift

Time-keepers (Seasonal) and Junior Clerks (Regular).

Cane Farm Maistry (Regular), Aerated Steam

Therapy Operator (Regular) and Afforestation

Maistry (Regular) are all regular posts enjoying full

salary and full terminal benefits. Not only that, they

only promotion avenue to the post of Junior Clerk

(Regular) as it is a feeder post to Cane Yard

Supervisor and Shift Time-keepers. But the Cane

Yard Supervisor and Shows Time-keepers and Junior

Clerk have absolutely no promotion avenue to any

posts and all the above referred 22 workers are

languishing in the same position for more than

20 years as seasonal workers, drawing only half

wages for six months of the year. All Cane Yard

Supervisor (Seasonal), Show Time-keepers (Seasonal)

and Junior Clerks (Regular), who have the requisite

qualifications for the post of Cane Assistant

(Regular) must therefore be considered for transfer

ahead of Cane Farm Maistry, Aerated Steam Therapy

Operator and Afforestation Maistry.

The faulty recruitment rules of the respondent

prescribing the lower grade post as feeder post for

Cane Assistant ahead of the higher grade post of

Cane Yard Supervisors, Shift Time-keepers and

Junior Clerks has resulted in extreme injustice to the

said 22 workers, as they have been deprived of any

promotions for the past 25 years. Hence, this

industrial dispute is filed to direct the respondent

to amend its recruitment rules for promotion/

transfer/deputation to the post of Cane Assistant

(Regular) and provide for absorption of Cane Yard

Supervisors (Seasonal), Shift Time-keepers (Seasonal)

and Junior Clerks (Regular) for the post of Cane

Assistant (Regular) and consider the said 22 workmen,

having necessary educational qualification for Cane

Assistant to the existing vacancies of Cane

Assistant (Regular) on seniority-cum-merit basis.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has

stated as follows:-

The prayer of the petitioner is untenable. If the

recruitment rules framed for the post of Cane

Assistant (Regular) is found on adjudication to be

either nor proper or unjust, such recruitment rules

can only be set aside leaving the matter open to the

respondent mills to appropriately framed the

recruitment rules for the said post. This court

cannot interfere either in policy making or in the

process of administration by directing the mills to

amend the recruitment rules for the post of Cane

Assistant (Regular) in a particular manner. The

workers belongs to the categories of Cane Farm

Maistry (Regular), Aerated Steam Therapy Operator

(Regular) and Afforestation Maistry (Regular) are to

be made as parties to the dispute as they are

necessary parties. The recruitment rules for the

respondent mills was framed by constituting a

committee under the Chairmanship of the then Law

Officer by inviting representations from all sections

of staff, employees’ union, employees’ association

and individuals and considering all the pros and

cons. The recruitment rules applicable to Junior Clerk

(Seasonal), Shift Time-keeper (Seasonal) and Cane

Yard Supervisor (Seasonal) do not prescribe any

technical educational qualification or technical

experience and consequently the said three posts

are non-skilled. The workers from these three non-

804

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[20 August 2013

skilled posts have chances of selection as Senior

Clerks, Assistant Store-keeper and Typist all falling

under Clerical Grade III. The recruitment rules for

the post of Cane Assistant (Regular) prescribe

technical educational qualification and technical

experience. The workers falling under technical

category and non-technical category are not

inter-changeable, nor the workers from the non-technical

category can be transferred to the post of technical

category even in cases, where the grade and the

time scale of both the categories is the same.

Industrial activity of the respondent is seasonal

in nature and consequently having regard to the

nature of the work assigned to every post, certain

posts are bound to be seasonal and therefore the

workers falling under the seasonal post cannot claim

the same right and privileges of those falling under

regular category. Consequently, as claimed by the

petitioners, the recruitment rules for the post of

Cane Assistant cannot be amended in such a way

to just accommodate the petitioners and make them

regular workers. Hence, they pray for dismissal of

the industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On the side of the

respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but marked

Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 in the cross-examination of PW1.

5. The point for determination is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

6. On the point :

There is no dispute that the Cane Assistant

is classified as Clerical Grade-III post in the pay scale

of ` 1,200-30-1,500-35-1,850, the Cane Yard Supervisors

and the Shift Time-keepers are also classified as

Clerical Grade-III in the same pay scale of Cane

Assistant and the Junior Clerk (Seasonal) is classified

as Clerical Grade -IV post in the pay scale of ` 1,050-

25-1,300-30-1,600, but the distinction between the Cane

Assistant and the Cane Yard Supervisors and the Shift

Time-keepers is that Cane Assistant is a regular post,

whereas, Cane Yard Supervisors and Shift Time-keepers

are seasonal posts. There is also no dispute that the

recruitment rules of the respondent provides for Cane

Farm Maistry (Regular), Aerated Steam Therepy

Operator (Regular) and Afforestation Maistry (Regular)

as feeder posts for the post of Cane Assistant and all

the above three posts are classified in semi-skilled

category in the pay scale of ` 900-15-1,050-20-1,250.

There is also no dispute that Cane Farm Maistry

(Regular), Aerated Steam Therapy Operator (Regular)

and Afforestation Maistry (Regular) are all regular

posts enjoying full salary and full terminal benefits,

whereas, the Cane Yard Supervisors and the Shift

Time-keepers will have work only for six months during

seasons and for the next six months, they will be laid

off on half salary.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the Cane

Yard Supervisor and Show Time-keepers and Junior

Clerks have absolutely no promotion avenues to any

posts and all the above referred 22 workers are

languishing in the same position for more than 20

years as seasonal workers, drawing only half wages

for six months of the year and all Cane Yard Supervisor

(Seasonal), Show Time-keepers (Seasonal) and Junior

clerks (Regular), who have the requisite qualifications

for the post of Cane Assistant (Regular) must therefore

be considered for transfer ahead of Cane Farm Maistry,

Aerated Steam Therapy Operator and Afforestation

Maistry. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner,

the Secretary of the petitioner union was examined as

PW1. PW.1 in his evidence has deposed that the

neighbouring mills of Chengalvarayan Co-operative

Sugar Mills in Tamil Nadu prescribes promotion policy

for the post of Cane Assistant by selecting the

workers of higher grade on a preferential basis ahead

of other workers which is more logical and reasonable.

8. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is

that this court cannot interfere either in policy making

or in the process of administration by directing the

mills to amend the recruitment rules for the post of

Cane Assistant (Regular) in a particular manner and

therefore the terms of reference are misleading and

consequently the reference itself is bad in law.

9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has no

power or authority to decide the legality, validity and

propriety of the reference made to it and it is the duty

of the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute and to

pass appropriate award. In order to support his claim,

he relied upon the following decisions:-

CDJ 2007 MHC 4233 (Madras High Court):

“Industrial Tribunal is the creation statute

and it gets jurisdiction on the basis of the reference.

It cannot go into the question on validity of the

reference.”

(2002) 4 GLR 3093 (Gujarat High Court):-

“However, it is a settled law that once the reference

has been made to the Labour Court for adjudication

of the dispute, then the Labour Court has no power

or authority to decide the legality, validity and

propriety of the reference made to it. The Labour

Court cannot examine the legality, validity and

propriety of such reference as an appellate or higher

forum over the decision taken by the authority.

805

20 August 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

On the contrary, it is the duty of the Labour Court

to adjudicate the dispute and to pass appropriate

award.”

10. The present dispute was originally raised by

the petitioners before the Labour Officer (Conciliation).

The respondent attended the conciliation, but they did

not claim that such a dispute cannot be raised before

the Labour Officer (Conciliation). The conciliation

failed and based on the failure report, the appropriate

Government satisfied itself that there exists an

industrial dispute between the petitioner and the

respondent, which is capable of being adjudicated by

this court and hence referred it to this court with

specific mandate to decide the justification of demand

raised by the petitioners for amendment of recruitment

rules. The reference is not to decide whether the

Labour Court has powers to adjudicate the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioner. The said reference

can only be answered by this court on the merits of

the subject matter and the validity of the said reference

cannot be questioned before this court, as held in the

above decisions.

11. The contention of the learned counsel for the

respondent is that the Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal),

Shift Time-keeper (Seasonal) and Junior Clerks (Seasonal)

are non-technical categories and they do not subscribe

to technical educational qualifications whereas, Cane

Farm Maistry, Aerated Steam Therapy Operator

(Regular) and Afforestation Maistry (Regular) are the

technical posts and therefore the petition mentioned

workers, who are non-technical categories cannot seek

promotion in technical categories.

12. The Cane Assistant Regular is a Clerical Grade-III

with a pay scale of ` 1,200-30-1,500-35-1,850. Similarly

the posts of Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal), Shift

Time-keeper (Seasonal) are also Clerical Grade-III with

a pay scale of ` 1,200-30-1,500-35-1,850. But the posts

of Cane Farm Maistry (Regular), Aerated Steam

Therapy Operator (Regular) and Afforestation Maistry

(Regular) as feeder posts for the post of Cane Assistant

and all these posts are classified in semi-skilled

category in the pay scale of ` 900-15-1,050-20-1,250.

Hence, the post of Cane Assistant (Regular) and that

of Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal), Shift Time Keeper

(Seasonal) are identical in nature except for the fact

that the former is regular post but the latter two are

seasonal. Merely because a technical certificate is

prescribed for the post of Cane Assistant, it cannot

become a technical post. Therefore, either promotion

or transfer or deputation from Cane Yard Supervisor

(Seasonal) and Shift Time-keeper (Seasonal) to the post

of Cane Assistant shall be obvious and shall be

preferred at least for those candidates, who are

possessing the requisite technical qualification

required for Cane Assistant (Regular).

13. On the side of the petitioner, the recruitment

rules for Cane Assistant and other posts has been

marked as Ex.P1. Column 13 of Ex.P1 specifically

provides that whenever persons in feeder post are not

found suitable for being promoted as Cane Assistants,

then eligible in service candidates from other sections

in pay scale of ` 1,200-30-1-500-35-1,850 shall be

considered and thereafter persons in the lower grades

also can be considered gradewise”. As stated above,

the Cane Yard Supervisor (Seasonal) and Shift

Time-keeper (Seasonal) are in the requisite pay scale

and it is mandatory for the respondents to consider

them for promotion/transfer to the posts of Cane

Assistants as per the above recruitment rules.

However, the respondent has not promoted or

transferred any of the Cane Yard Supervisor and Shift

Time-keeper to the posts of Cane Assistant (Regular).

14. The learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that this court cannot interfere either in

policy making or in the process of administration by

directing the mills to amend the recruitment rules for

the post of Cane Assistant (Regular) in a particular

manner. In this regard it is pertinent to refer the

following decision which is relevant to this case:-

1962 AIR(SC) 486:–

Bidi Bidi leaves and apos; and Tobacco

Merchants Association Versus State of Bombay:-

“It is well settled that industrial adjudication under

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) is given wide powers and jurisdiction to

make appropriate awards in determining industrial

disputes brought before it. An award made in an

industrial adjudication may impose new obligations on

the employer in the interest of social justice and with

a view to secure peace and harmony between the

employer and his workmen and full co-operation

between them. Such an award may even alter the terms

of employment, if it is thought if and necessary to do

so. In deciding industrial disputes the jurisdiction of

the tribunal is not confined to the administration of

justice in accordance with the law of contract.

Mukherjee, J. as he then was, has observed in The

Bharat Bank Limited, Delhi Versus Employees’ of the

Bharat Bank Limited, Delhi (1950 SCR 459, 513), the

Tribunal “Can confer rights and privileges on either

party which it considers reasonable and proper, though

they may not be within the terms of any existing

agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect

to the contractual rights and obligations between them

which it considers essential for keeping industrial

peace.” Since the decision of the Federal Court in

Western India Automobile Association Versus Industrial

Tribunal, Bombay (AIR 1949 F.C.111, 1949 F.C.321),

it has been repeatedly held that the jurisdiction of

industrial tribunals is much wider and can be

806

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[20 August 2013

reasonably exercised in deciding industrial disputes

with the object of keeping industrial peace and

progress [(Vide: Rohtas Industries Limited, Versus

Brijnandan Pandey (1956 S.C.R.800); The Patna Electric

Supply Company Limited, Versus Patna Versus The

Patna Electric Supply Workers’ Union (1959 Supp. 2

S.C.R. 761)]. Indeed, during the last ten years and more

industrial adjudication in this country has made so

much progress in determining industrial disputes

arising between industries of different kinds and their

employees that the jurisdiction and authority of

industrial tribunals to deal with such disputes with the

object of ensuring social justice is no longer seriously

disputed. But it is necessary to remember that no

claim can be made for such broad jurisdiction power

by the respondent when it purports to issue a

notification under the provisions of the Act. These

powers

and

authority

would

necessarily

conditioned by the relevant provisions under which it

purports to act and the validity of the impugned

notification must therefore be judged not by general

considerations of social justice or even considerations

for introducing industrial peace; they must be judged

solely and exclusively by the test prescribed by the

provisions of the statute itself.”

2005(3) LLN. 719 (Madras) :

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Chennai Versus Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour

Court, Madras and Another:-

“The whole approach of industrial law is that the

employer and employee do not stand on an equal

bargaining position. Industrial law recognises that the

workers are in a weaker position than the employers

who have financial resources, management skills,

connections, etc. Hence the whole object of industrial

law is to help the weaker section in the society (the

workmen) and given them protection from exploitation.

There can be no estoppel against a person, who

accepts his designation as an apprentice, but later on

raises a plea that in fact he was not an apprentice but

was doing the work of a workman.”

1982 I L.L.J. 33 S.C.:

Workmen of M/s. Williamson Magor and

Company Limited Versus William Magor and

Company Limited:

“This court in the case of K.C.P. Employees

Association, Madras Versus Management of KCP

Limited, Madras and other reported in (1977 I L.L.J.

322) observed:

“In industrial law, interpreted and applied in the

perspective of Part-IV of the Constitution, the

benefit of reasonable doubt, on law and facts, if

there be such doubt must go to the weaker section,

labour. The Tribunal will dispose of the case making

this compassionate approach but without over

stepping the proved facts.”

As per the first decision cited above, the Labour

Court is much wider and can be reasonably exercised

in deciding industrial disputes with the object of

keeping industrial peace and progress. As per the

second and third decisions cited above, the employees

of the respondent, who are from weaker section of the

society, should not be exploited by tho management,

those who are in higher position. In this case, the

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the faulty recruitment rules of the respondent

prescribing the lower grade post as feeder post for

Cane Assistant ahead of the higher grade post of Cane

Yard Supervisors, Shift Time-keepers and Junior Clerks

has resulted in extreme injustice to the said 22

workmen as they have been deprived of any

promotions for the past 25 years and it is shameful that

the workers in junior category and in lower pay scale

are being promoted ahead of the 22 members, which is

unjust and demotivating not only that it affects the

petitioner’s members monetarily too. Considering the

arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and considering the facts that the petition

mentioned workmen are languishing in the same

position for more than 20 years as seasonal workers

drawing only half wages for six months of the year and

being guided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

above decision, I feel that the amendment of

recruitment rules of the respondent for the post of

Cane Assistant will pave way to them for better

prospects and accordingly, the respondent is hereby

directed to amend its recruitment rules for promotion/

transfer/deputation to the post of Cane Assistant

(Regular) and consider the petition mentioned

workmen for the post of Cane Assistant (Regular) to

the existing vacancies on seniority-cum- merit basis.

This point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, the industrial dispute is allowed

and the respondent is directed to amend its recruitment

rules for promotion/transfer/deputation to the post of

Cane Assistant (Regular) and consider the petition

mentioned workmen for Cane Assistant (Regular) to

the existing vacancies on seniority-cum-merit basis.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there is no

order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this 30th day of May 2013.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

807

20 August 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

List of witnesses examined for the petitioner:

PW.1 — 15-9-2012 - Pandurangan

List of witnesses examined for the respondent: Nil

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner:

Ex.P1 — Photocopy of the recruitment rules of

respondent.

Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter given by member of

petitioner’s union, dated 18-12-2008.

Ex.P3 — Copy of the letter, dated 2-12-2008 given

by the petitioner union to Lieutenant-

Governor.

Ex.P4 — Copy of the letter given by the

petitioner’s union to the respondent,

dated 28-2-2009.

Ex.P5 — Copy of the letter given by petitioner

union to the respondent, dated 28-10-2009.

Ex.P6 — Copy of the letter given by petitioner

union, dated 30-3-2009 to Labour Officer.

Ex.P7 — Copy of the letter, dated 5-11-2009 given

by petitioner union to respondent.

Ex.P8 — Copy of the letter, dated 9-1-2010 given

by petitioner union to respondent.

Ex.P9 — Copy of the letter, dated 28-2-2010 given

by the petitioner union to the Labour

Department.

Ex.P10 — Copy of the letter, dated 1-2-2010 given

by the respondent to Labour Department.

Ex.P11 — Copy

the

letter

given

Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar

Mills, dated 13-5-2010.

Ex.P12 — Copy of the letter given by respondent

to Chengalvarayan Co-opeative Sugar

Mills.

Ex.P13 — Copy of the failure report, dated

10-12-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the respondent:

Ex.R1 — Copy of the recruitment rules for the post

of Cane Yard Supervisor .

Ex.R2 — Copy of the recruitment rules for the post

of Shift Time-keeper.

Ex.R3 — Copy of the recruitment rules for the post

of Junior Clerk.

Ex.R4 — Copy of the recruitment rules for the post

of Cane Assistant.

Ex.R5 — Copy of the recruitment rules for the post

of Cane Farm Maistry.

Ex.R6 — Copy of the recruitment rules for the post

of Aerated Steam Therapy Unit Operator.

Ex.R7 — Copy of the recruitment rules for the post

of Maistry (Afforestation).

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

ETAT DE PUDUCHÉRY

SERVICE DE L’ENSEIGNEMENT

No. (Exam.) 35/Edn./DD/FE/EC.

Puduchéry, le 14 Juin 2013.

PROGRAMME LIMITATIF SUR LEQUEL SERONT SUBIES LES EPREUVES DU BREVET ELEMENTAIRE EN

2013-2014

I. MORALE ET INSTRUCTION CIVIQUE

La devise républicaine.

La déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen

Les principes de base de la constitution de l’lnde.

Ecologie - Conservation de la nature et lutte contre la pollution de la nature.

Le respect de la pensée et de la religion - La tolérance.

Le patriotisme et lutte contre le terrorisme.

L’intégration nationale.

Devoir de participer à la vie nationale par l’nformation exacte, par le vote de l’acception des charges-publiques,

par la conlribution aux dépenses du service publique, par l’acception des sacrifices, par le sentiment nationale.