GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY 15. T.A. ∂றÔ©✓ஜ
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
16. S. ∞ø\ÁÈ
17. A. ஸÚ›,˺ம_ . . \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^.
(G.O. Rt. No. 149/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 30th October 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I. D. No. 11/2009, dated 26-7-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Ramiah Spinners Limited, Puducherry and Thiru S. Raman and 16 others 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)
S. THAMMU GANAPATHY, Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
ÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ïÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ïÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ïÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ïÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ï ¿ ஸ \ ஜ ≈ னு இ¿ ஸ \ ஜ ≈ னு இ¿ ஸ \ ஜ ≈ னு இ¿ ஸ \ ஜ ≈ னு இ¿ ஸ \ ஜ ≈ னு இ யு அ fl º ƒ ˆயு அ fl º ƒ ˆயு அ fl º ƒ ˆயு அ fl º ƒ ˆயு அ fl º ƒ ˆ ஒஜஆÁÈ : ஸÚ. அ·நுஇ º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இ ®னு.∞.இ
®னு.®_.இ∏.˜.Ω.®fl.பÏ.Ω..ெஇ ,ÁÈÁ\ ,ஏ∫ணனு ∂முமÈÏ. 2013áபனு பı| ாÁÈ \ஏ,னு 26áபனு Âஏ^ ÿம^π¬˛றÁ\
ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ®ı 11/2009
1 . S. ´ஏ\ஜ
2 . ∂Ú^
3 . ´ ஏ ஒ
4 . ∂´ƒஜ
5 . M. ÿƒ_மÂஏ,ஜ
6 . P. Ôஏıœ✓ஜ
7. N. ÿ¤Ôலƒஜ
8 . ∂ˆ˛Úðைஜ
9 . L. டீெ™ஏÏ
10. N. வு´ஏƒஏவ
1 1 . M. Ê–மஏƒஜ
12. K. \ஏˆடீ©✓ஜ
13. K. ÔஏÏ›ஸºÔடீஜ
14. V. ¤ஏ™˛´ஏ\ஜ
®ஸÏ
º\Èஏı ÷டீ¬ணÂÏஇ M/s. ி ´ஏÁ\டீஏ ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸ ழ'.இ \அÁ´á14.
. . ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï.
÷Õ,› ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ 25á7á2013 ∂ஜÆ ÷Æஸ ளƒஏ´Áð¬ÔஏÔ ®ஜ ஒஜ மÕ,º✓ஏஅஇ 1இ 2இ 3இ 8 \ரÆனு 1 0 ப ˛ டீ \ – , ஏ ´ Ï Ô ^ , ´ © ∏ _ இ ம ற ¬ ண Á´Q Ï ஸÚ. M. ÁமணÕ› ∂மÏÔ^ ப¤´ஏ˛•னுஇ 6இ 7இ 11 ஒ,_ 17 மÁ´டீஏ™ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ,´©∏_இ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô© ∏´ஸறுஸ ஸÚ. அÁ´. பÆஒÔனு ∂மÏÔ^ ப¤´ஏ˛•னு \ரÆனு ®ஸÏ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ மற¬ணÁ´QÏÔ^ ஸÚ. ºÔஏ. \Ëமıðஜஇ ஸÚ. ´ஏ\˛Úðைஜ \ரÆனு ஸÚ. G. ˛Úðைஜ ப˛ºடீஏÏ ப¤´ஏ˛•னு ®|›அÁ´›, மஏ,∫ÔÁ·¬ ºÔ'ÁÔ ÿƒகுஅனுஇ மற¬ண ƒனு✓Õ,\ஏ™ பமð∫ÔÁ·© ✓Ω›அ© ✓ஏÏ›அனுஇ ÷அ Âஏ^ மÁ´ட_ ✓ˆÊÈÁ™ட_ ÷ÚÕ, ∏ஜ™Ï ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு மற∫ணனு
ல Ï ம னுல Ï ம னுல Ï ம னுல Ï ம னுல Ï ம னு
1947áபனு மÚ¶›ஸடீ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆÔ^ ƒ'¶னு ∏ˆ° 2Aáஜ ˇµ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ,\¬ண ✓Ë›ÿ,ஏ¶Ïflநு ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ∂Á™›அ ƒமுÁÔÔ"¶–னுஇ *ı|னு ✓Ëட_ ∂\Ï›, ºமı|ÿ\ஜÆ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரண உ›,´ள¶¬ ºÔஏˆ ÷Õ,› ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுஅ^·ஏÏÔ^.
2. 1இ2இ3இ8 \ரÆனு 10 \–,ஏ´ÏÔπஜ ,´©∏_ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^· ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \–ளஜ ∑Ú¬Ôனு ∏ஜமÚ\ஏÆ:
\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^இ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÆம™›ஸ_ ªயடீÏÔ^ பமÏ. 17á2á2007 ஒ,_ ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏÔ றுÏமஏÔனு து¶©✓'|ள'¶அ. ✓fi∑ள_ ±_ ,டீஏˆ›அ ÷Õஸடீஏ ஒøமஅனு ∂–©✓©✓'| மÚனு ÿ,ஏயÁÈfl ÿƒகு, ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÏமஏÔனுஇ 17á2á2007 ஒ,_ ÷டீரÁÔ ளஸÔ"¬ண© யு≈னு✓ஏÔ°னுஇ ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏÔ°னுஇ து¶©✓'|ள'¶அ. ∏ஜ™Ïஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï அÁ≈ ∂முமÈÔ›ஸ_ ¶Õ, ƒ\´ƒ º✓fl∑ ம ஏ Ï › Á , • னு º , ஏ _ ள • ர Æ இ ƒ \ ´ ƒ ஒ § ம § ¬ Á Ô மற∫Ô©✓'|ள'¶அ. 1áபனு \–,ஏ´Ï று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ பமஏÏ. 2áபனு \–,ஏ´Ï Áமı¶Ï ®ஜ≈ ✓,ளட_ 1á4á2004 ஒ,_ று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπடீஏÔ°னுஇ 3áபனு \–,ஏ´Ï ப©º´'¶Ï ®ஜ≈ ✓,ளட_ 1á1á1990 ஒ,முனுஇ 8áபனு \ரÆனு 10áபனு \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ வ¥ஜ ப©º´'¶ÏÔ·ஏÔஇ று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ·ஏÔ°னுஇ ஒÁ≈ºடீ 1á7á1998 \ரÆனு 11á7á1998 ஒ,_ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ,™Ï.
3. \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ÔΩ™ உÁற©✓ஏπÔ^ \ரÆனு Â_Èள,\ஏÔஇ ®Àள, ணÁ≈•வஜ§ ✓Ë ÿƒகுஅ மÕ,™Ï. ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô றுÏமஏ˛Ô^ நுȈஜ Ì'|fl ƒஸடஜ º✓ˆ_இ நுÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔπ¶னு மரயுÆ›ஸஇ ´ஏ˜™ஏ\ஏ ÔΩ,னு ÿ✓≈©✓'|இ ணÁ≈Õ, ÿ,ஏÁÔ ÿÔஏ|›அ " ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı'" ÿƒகுஅ^·,ஏÔ ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈஇ து|ம,ரண ,¬Ô உıÁ\டீஏ™ Ôஏ´ðனு ∞அ°வ_ÁÈ. பÔºமஇ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண ∂π¬Ô ºமıΩடீ ƒனு✓·12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1021 ✓ஏ¬˛› ÿ,ஏÁÔ \ரÆனு ∂Á™›அ ✓ΩÔÁ·•னு \ரÆனு ÷ற©¨| \ரÆனு ∂Á™›அ ƒமுÁÔÔÁ·•னுஇ 17á2á2007 ஒ,_ ∂π¬Ô உˆடீமÏ பமஏÏ. பÔºமஇ ÷ற©¨| ÿ,ஏÁÔடீஏÔ ŒÀÿமஏÚ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ணனு ,Èஏ '✓ஏகு 2இ00இ000 (÷´ı| È'ƒனு '✓ஏகு) ∂π¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™ ∏´ஏÏ›ஸ¬Ô©✓|˛≈அ.
4. 6இ 7இ 11 ஒ,_ 17 மÁ´டீஏ™ \–,ஏ´ÏÔπஜ ,´©∏_ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^· ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \–ளஜ ∑Ú¬Ôனு ∏ஜமÚ\ஏÆ :
\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^இ 13á7á1991இ 2á5á2000இ 5á6á2000இ 5á9á2000இ 4á2á2002இ 10á2á2002இ 12á3á2002 \ரÆனு 16á7á2000 ப˛டீ º,ஸÔπ_இ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ·ஏÔ ✓ˬணfl ºƒÏÕஅஇ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈட_இ து¶©✓|னு மÁ´இ நு≈©✓ஏÔ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ,ஏÏÔ^. ✓È மÚ¶∫Ô·ஏÔ ƒனு✓· உடீÏ° ÷_Èஏ,,ஏ_இ , ∫ Ô ^ º Ô ஏ ˆ ¬ Á Ô Ô Á ·© ✓ ர § º✓ƒஇ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ôனு ∞ர✓|›ஸ றுÏமஏÔ›அ¶ஜ º✓fl∑ மஏÏ›Á, ¶›ஸ™Ï. ப™ஏ_இ ®Àள, ஒஜº™ர≈ஒனு ÷_ÁÈ. ஸœÿ´™ 26-6-2006 ∂ஜÆ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈÁடீ து|ம,ஏÔ ∂§ள›அ ÿ\டஜ ºÔ'Ω_ ºÂஏ'œ¸ Œ'¶©✓'|இ ºÔ'|னு து¶©✓'¶அ. ÷Õ, ƒ'¶ளº´ஏ,\ஏ™ து|,ÁÈ ®ஸÏ›அ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ º✓ஏ´ஏ'¶னு ÿƒகு,™Ï. ÷Õ,© º✓ஏ´ஏ'¶›Á, மமுளற¬Ôfl ÿƒகுடீ º✓ஏ´ஏ'¶›Á, ஒஜஆஜÆ ÿƒகு, ஒ¬˛டீ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ணஇ " ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı'" ®ஜ≈ ÿ✓டீˆ_ நுÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ✓ðனு ✓'|மஏ¶ஏ ÿƒகு,™Ï.
5. \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ *ı|னு " ºமÁÈ \'|º\ ºமı|னு" ®ஜÆ ºÔஏˆ ƒ\´ƒ ∂ஸÔஏˆ ஒஜஆÁÈட_ ÿ,ஏயர,ஏமஏ ®ø©∏™Ï. ÷Õ,› ,ஏமஏள_ உ¶ஜ✓ஏ| ∞ர✓¶ள_ÁÈஇ ÿ,ஏயர ,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு ∏ˆ° 25(O)(1)áஜ ✓Ω 90 Âஏ'Ô"¬ண ஒஜயுஇ ∂´நு¶னு ∂–\ஸ ºÔஏ´ ºமı|னு. ∂∫Ù™னுஇ ஒஜ ∂–\ஸ ÿ✓≈ஏ\_ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈÁடீ துΩடீஅ ƒ'¶ளº´ஏ,\ஏணனு. பÔºமஇ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண *ı|னு ✓Ëடீπ›அ இ ✓Ë ÿ,ஏ¶Ïflநுஇ ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ✓ˆÔஏ´∫ÔÁ·•னு ∂π¬Ô உ›,´ள¶ ºமı|னு. º\முனுஇ ÿ,ஏயர ,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு 1947á_ ∏ˆ°25(R)(1)áஜ ண§©∏'¶✓Ω றுÏமஏÔ›ஸஜ உˆÁ\டீஏ·Ú¬ண 6 \ஏ, நுÁ≈ ,ı¶Á™ \ரÆனு ` 5இ000 ∂π¬ணனு✓Ω உ›,´ள¶ºமı|னு.
6. 1இ 2இ 3இ 8 \ரÆனு 10 \–,ஏ´ÏÔπஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \–Áம ப'ºƒ∏›, ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகு, ®ஸÏ\–ளஜ ∑Ú¬Ôனு ∏ஜமÚ\ஏÆ :
ƒ'¶©✓Ω•னு ƒ∫ÔஸÔπஜ✓Ω•னுஇ ÷னு\– ,^"✓Ω ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ ºமı|னு. ∂´நு™ஏ_ ∂–©✓©✓'¶ ✓ˆÕஅÁ´ உ›,´ள_இ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண ºமÁÈ \Ƭԩ✓'¶அ ƒˆடீஏ? ®ஜ✓அ \'|º\ ண≈©∏¶©✓'¶அ. ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ து¶©✓'¶அ ✓ர§ ®Àள, ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆனு ∂ஸ_ ண§©∏¶©✓¶ஏ,,ஏ_இ " ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏÔ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ துΩடீஅ" ®ஜ≈ ÌரÆ ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,_È. 1981áனு மÚ¶னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈட_இ யுஅflºƒˆ \ஏறுÈனுஇ உÆÁமடீஏÆ ®ஜ≈ ˛´ஏ\›ஸÈ ÿ,ஏ¶∫Ô©✓'¶அ. 2003-2004 மÚ¶›ஸ_ ÿ✓Ú›, ¶ைனு ∞ர✓'¶அ. ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^இ ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏ™ ¶மΩ¬ÁÔÔπ_ ~|✓'|இ ÿ\அ ºமÁÈ ÿƒகு,_இ ∂ஸÔ ள|©யு ®|›,_இ ✓Ë ºÂ´›ஸ_ ✓Ë ÿƒகுடீஏ\_ ÷Ú›,_இ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ˇµ ✓Ωடீஏ\_ ÷Ú›,_இ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ÿƒஏ›அ¬ÔÁ· ºƒ,©✓|›,_ ப˛டீ ¶மΩ¬ÁÔÔ·ஏ_ ÿ,ஏ¶Õஅ ¶ைனு ∞ர✓'¶அ. ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· ®Àம·ºமஏ ºÔ'|¬ÿÔஏı|னுஇ ∂மÏÔ^ ,∫Ô^ ÿƒடீ_✓ஏ'Á¶ \ஏர§¬ ÿÔஏ^·ஏ,,ஏ_ Ô,மÁ¶©யு (Èஏ¬á∂°') ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶அ. ºமÆ மயடஜ§ 17-2-2007á_ று´Õ,´\ஏÔ து¶ ∞அமஏ™அ.
7. து¶©✓'|ள'¶அ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_இ ®Àள,\ஏ™ உர✓›ஸ ÿƒடீ_✓ஏ|Ô"னு ÿƒடீ_✓¶ள_ÁÈ. உˆ\னு \ரÆனு ஒÁ≈டீஏ™ ƒஏஜ§,µÔ^இ ∂Õ,Õ,› அÁ≈ட¶னு ƒ\Ï©∏¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ,¬Ô ÷ற©¨| ∂π¬Ôஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண உ›,´மஏ,னு ,´©✓'|இ ∂ஸÔ✓'ƒ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ஒø ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı' ÿ,ஏÁÔ ÿ✓ரÆ Ôð¬ண ஒΩ›அ¬ÿÔஏı¶™Ï. º\முனு 4இ 5 \ரÆனு 9 \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ∂›ÿ,ஏÁÔÁடீஇ ÷Àமற¬ண றுமுÁமட_ ÷Ú¬ணனுº✓ஏº, ÿ✓ரƬÿÔஏı¶™Ï. ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔÁ· மரயுÆ›ஸடீ,ஏÔ ÌÆமஅஇ ∏ஜ நுÕ,Á™•¶ஜ ∞ர✓'¶ Ìர≈ஏணனு. ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈடஜ Ô'Ω¶ஒனுஇ " ƒஏகு ∑©∏ˆனு ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸ ழவÿ¶'" ®ஜ✓மÚ¬ண¬ ˛´டீ›ஸரண¬ ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔπஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \– ,^"✓Ω ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ ºமı|னு.
8. 6இ 7இ 11 ஒ,_ 17 மÁ´ \–,ஏÏÔπஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \–Áம ப'ºƒ∏›அ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகு, ®ஸÏ\–ளஜ ∑Ú¬Ôனு ∏ஜமÚ\ஏÆ :
Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏ^·©✓'¶ ƒ∫ÔஸÔÁ·› ,ள´ \ர≈ ƒ∫ÔஸÔ^ \Ƭԩ✓|˛ஜ≈™. \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^இ ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ ÷ÚÕஅ மÕ,ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜ✓அனுஇ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï வ_ \–,ஏ´Ï ̧டீ ÷¶›ஸ_ ÷டீ∫˛ மÕ,அ ®ஜ✓அனு Œ©யு¬ ÿÔஏ^·©✓|˛≈அ. 150 ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ ÷ÆஸடீஏÔ ✓Ë யுˆÕஅ மÕ,,ஏÔ ÌÆனு ÌரÆனு \Ƭԩ✓|˛≈அ. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï வ_ழ_இ \–,ஏ´ÏÔπ_ ŒÚ நுÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔπஜஇ Œø∫ˇ™fl ÿƒடீ_Ô·ஏ_இ பÁÈ து|னு றுÁȬண› ,^·©✓'¶அ ®ஜ✓அ ✓ர§ ஒஜ™§ள©யு ,´©✓'¶அ. பÁÈ ÷டீ∫Ôஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ, உıÁ\ றுÈம´னு உðÏÕஅஇ நுÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ´ஏ˜™ஏ\ஏ ÿƒகுஅ ,∫Ô"¬ணˆடீ ÿ,ஏÁÔடÁ™ ÿ✓ரÆfl ÿƒஜÆள'¶™Ï. ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ ´ஏ\ஜ \ரÆனு 16 º✓Ï \'|º\ பÁÈ து¶ÁÈ ப'ºƒ∏›அ ÿ,ஏயர,ஏமஏ ®ø©∏™Ï. ƒ\´ƒ ஒ§ம§¬ÁÔட_ ண§©∏¶©✓'¶ 17 º✓ˆ_இ ®னு. ∂´ƒஜ (\–,ஏ´Ïá4)இ ÿƒ_மÂஏ,ஜ (\–,ஏ´Ïá5)இ \ரÆனு குெடீ™ஏÏ (\–,ஏ´Ïá9)இ ப˛ºடீஏÏஇ றுÏமஏÔ›அ¶ஜ ƒ\´ƒனு ÿƒகுஅÿÔஏı| ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı' ∞ர✓|›ஸ¬ ÿÔஏı¶ஏÏÔ^. º\முனு ®¸. ´ஏ\ஜஇ ®_ . ∂Ú^இ ®¸. ´ஏஒ ப˛ºடீஏÏ ÿ,ஏயர,ஏமஏ ®ø©✓ள_ÁÈ. ƒ'¶©✓ΩடீஏÔஇ ÷Õ, பÁÈ து¶©✓'|^·அ. ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ உˆ\னுஇ ÷டீ¬ணÂÏ ✓ஸ° ®ıஇ ÷®¸இெ ∏.®©.இ ளர✓Á™ மˆஇ ®¬Áƒ¸ மˆ உ^π'¶ ∂Á™›அ உˆÁ\ÔÁ·•னு ∞ரÔ™ºம ,ணÕ, அÁ≈ட¶னு Œ©✓Á¶¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ து¶©✓'¶ ∏≈ணஇ ∂∫ண *ı|னு ºமÁÈ ,´ ºÔஏÚமஅ ƒ'¶©✓Ω ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,_È. ºமÆ ÿ✓டீˆ_இ றுÏமஏÔ›Á, ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ¶›ஸ மÚம,ஏÔ ÌÆமஅ ƒˆடீ_È. பÔºமஇ \–,ஏ´ÏÔπஜ ÷னு\– ,^"✓Ω ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ ºமı|னு.
9. ÷னு\–ள_ லÏ°¬ண ®øனு ®øள™ஏ¬Ô^ :
÷ Ú , ´ © யு ƒ னு \ , › அ ¶ ஜ இ \ – , ஏ ´ Ï , ´ © ∏ _ இ S. ∞ø\ÁÈ (\–,ஏ´Ïá16) ®ஜ✓மÏ \. ƒஏ. 1-பÔ ளƒஏˆ¬Ô©✓'| \ . ƒ ஏ . ப . 1 ஒ , _ \ . ƒ ஏ . ப . 8 ப ம ð ∫ Ô · ஏ Ô ண§ஓ| ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶அ. S. ´ஏ\ஜ (\–,ஏ´Ïá1) ®ஜ✓மÏ \.ƒஏ. 2áபÔ ளƒஏˆ¬Ô©✓'| \.ƒஏ.ப. 9 ஒ,_ \ஏ.ƒஏ.ப.14 பமð∫Ô·ஏÔ ண§ஓ| ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶அ. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÏமஏÔ›ஸஜஇ ணø\ ∂முமÈÔ றுÏமஏÔ ∂முமÈÏஇ M. Qஏ™ºƒÔ´ஜ ®ஜ✓மÏ ®.\.ƒஏ. 1áபÔ ளƒஏˆ¬Ô©✓'| ®. ƒஏ. ப.1 ஒ,_ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 35 பமð∫Ô·ஏÔ ண§ஓ| ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶அ.
1022 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 2013®ø ள™ஏ¬Ô^:
1. பÁÈÁடீ று´Õ,´ து¶_ ÿƒகு, உ¶ஜ ÷ற©¨¶ஏÔ றுÏமஏÔனு ∂π¬Ô ஒர✓'¶ ÿ,ஏÁÔÁடீ 1இ 2இ 3இ 8 \ரÆனு 10 \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^இ ÿ✓≈ \Æ›,அ ƒˆ,ஏ™ஏ?
2. 6இ 7இ 11 ஒ,_ 17 மÁ´டீஏ™ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ✓Ë› ÿ,ஏ¶Ïflநுஇ ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ƒமுÁÔÔ^ ÿ✓≈ உˆடீம´ஏ?
3. ®©✓ˆÔஏ´னு \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண¬ ˛Á¶¬ணனு?
®ø ள™ஏ¬Ô^ 1 \ரÆனு 2 :
®ஸÏ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈÁடீ 1988áபனு பı|இ யுஅflºƒˆ \ஏறுÈனுஇ உÆÁமடீஏÆ ®ஜ≈ ˛´ஏ\›ஸ_ ப´னு∏›அ ∂ஸ_ ÷Õ, \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ உ^π'¶ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^இ ✓Ë யுˆÕஅ மÕ,,ஏÔ°னுஇ ƒனு✓· உடீÏ° ✓ர§ º✓fl∑ மஏÏ›Á, ¶›, ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ôனு ப´னு∏›அ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ Áம¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ º✓fl∑ மஏÏ›Á, ÂÁ¶ÿ✓ர≈ஸமுனு ®Àள, ஒஜº™ர≈ஒனு ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ஸœÿ´™ 26á6á2006á_ றுÏமஏÔனு பÁÈÁடீ ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏÔ து¶ ºÂஏ'œ¸ Œ'Ωடீ,ஏÔ°னு \. ƒஏ. 1. \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ. 2. ப˛ºடீஏÏ ,™அ ∏´ஏ\ð ✓›ஸ´›ஸ_ ண§©∏'ΩÚÕ,™Ï º\முனு ÷›,ண து¶_ ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏ™அ ®ஜÆனு º\முனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔπ_ ŒÚ ∏ˆள™Á´ மரயுÆ›ஸ ´ஏ˜™ஏ\ஏ ÔΩ,னு ÿ✓ரÆ ✓ðனு ÿÔஏ|›அ "ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı'" ÿƒகு, ள,ஒனு ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏ™,ஏணனு ®ஜÆனு ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô ƒ'¶©✓Ωஇ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண ✓Ë›ÿ,ஏ¶Ïflநு \ரÆனு ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·›அ¶ஜ *ı|னு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô உ›,´ள¶ ºமı|னு ®ஜÆனு \. ƒஏ. 1 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.2 ப˛ºடீஏÏ ,™அ ∏´\ஏð ✓›ஸ´›ஸ_ ண§©∏'ΩÚÕ,ஏÏ.
10. 6áமஅ \–,ஏ´Ï P. Ôஏıœ✓–¬ண ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ ∂Á¶டீஏ· ∂'Á¶ \ரÆனு 1á10á1997á_ ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ றுடீ\™ உ›,´°இ று´Õ,´ ºமÁÈ உ›,´° \. ƒஏ. ப 1 ஒ,_ \.ƒஏ.ப 3. ®™°னுஇ ÷›ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ண§›அ ∂´நு¶னு ண§©∏¶©✓'¶ 10á6á2009 º,ஸட'¶ ∂´ƒஏÁðடஜ ÂÔ_ \. ƒஏ. ப. 4 ®™°னுஇ ÷›ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒஏÏ✓ஏÔ ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›ஸழÚÕஅ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ \ரÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ∂–©∏டீ ºÂஏ'œ¸ ÂÔ_ \.ƒஏ.ப. 5 ®™°னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï பÁÈ ✓ஸ° ƒஏஜ§,µ ÂÔ_ \. ƒஏ. ப. 6 ®™°னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï பÁÈடஜ \அÁ´ ∂முமÈÔ ✓ஸ° ƒஏஜ§,µ \.ƒஏ.ப.7 ®™°னு MCA "(Ministry of Corporate Affairs) Website" \.ƒஏ ப.8 ®™°னு ƒ\´ƒ ∂முமÈÏÔπ¶னு றுÏமஏÔனு ள·¬Ô ∂π›, ÂÔ_Ô^ \.ƒஏ ப 9. ஒ,_ \.ƒஏ.ப 11 மÁ´ ®™°னு \–,ஏ´Ï ´ஏ\ஜ ƒ\´ƒ ∂ஸÔஏˆ¬ண ∂π›, \–ளஜ ÂÔ_ \.ƒஏ.ப. 12 ®™°னுஇ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô Á\டீனு பÁðடீÏ ∂மÏÔ"¬ண ∂π›, ÔΩ,னு \.ƒஏ. ப. 13 ®™°னு 13á6á2008á_ ƒ\´ƒ º✓fl∑மஏÏ›Á,¬ண ∂Áற¬Ô ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï அÁ≈¬ண ∂–©✓©✓'¶ ÂÔ_ \.ƒஏ ப.14 ®™°னு Ôı|^·™.
11. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÆம™›ஸஜ ƒஏÏ∏_ ƒஏ'நுடீனு ∂π›, ®.\.ƒஏ.1 ,™அ ∏´\ஏð ✓›ஸ´›ஸ_ ண§©∏|ÁÔட_இ ÷Õ, ப Á È ட _ ÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ï ∏´flƒÁ™Ô^ ∞ ர ✓ ' | ƒ ˆ ம ´ ÷ டீ ∫ Ô ஏ \ _ ஒ¶∫˛டÚÕ,,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï Œ›அÁறடீஏÁ\ º✓ஏ¬Ôஏமுனுஇ உர✓›ஸ ∏´flƒÁ™டீஏ_ வ_ Âநு›அ º✓ஏÔ¬ÌΩடீ றுÁÈட_ ®ஸÏ✓ஏϬԩ✓'| ∂,ரணˆடீ பºÈஏƒÁ™Áடீ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரண ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னு ∂,™ஏ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 2 துÈனு Ô,மÁ¶©யு (Èஏ¬á∂°') ºÂஏ'œ¸ 28á6á2006á_ ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ 30á6á2006 ஒ,_ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ பÁÈ ÷டீ∫Ôள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனுஇ பÔºம 17á2á2007 ஒ,_ பÁÈÁடீ று´Õ,´\ஏÔ து¶©º✓ஏம,ஏÔ ∂π›, ,ஏ¬ˇஅ ®.ƒஏ.ப.5 ®™°னு ÷flÛµறுÁÈட_ து¶_ ∂§ள©யு¶ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷ற©¨'|› ÿ,ஏÁÔ ஒ,ழடீமரÁ≈ 43 ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ∂–©∏டீ,ஏÔ°னு ∂மரÁ≈ ∂Õ,› ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ ÿ✓≈ \Æ›அள'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ƒ\´ƒ ∂முமÈÏ ஒஜயு ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ Áம›, ∏≈ண 26 Â✓ÏÔ^ Ôð¬ண லÏ›அ¬ÿÔஏı| ÿƒஜÆ ள'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ *ı|னு ÷டீ∫Ôஏ, ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈட_இ \–,ஏ´ÏÔÁ· ✓Ëடீ\Ï›, மஏகு©யு ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ண§©∏'ΩÚÕ,ஏÏ.
12. ®ஸÏ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ பமð∫Ôπ_இ பÁÈ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ ÷டீ∫Ôஏ, றுÁÈ ∞ர✓'¶,ஏ_ து|ம,ஏÔ ண§©∏'| ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô›ஸரண ∂–©✓©✓'¶ 10á5á2006á_ ∂π›, ÔΩ, ÂÔ_இ Ô,மÁ¶©யு (Èஏ¬ ∂°') ºÂஏ'œ¸ இ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï அÁ≈¬ண றுÏமஏÔனு ∂–©∏டீ ÔΩ,னு \ரÆனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï அÁ≈¬ண ∂–©∏டீ ள·¬Ôனு 14á12á2006á_ பÁÈ து¶©º✓ஏம,ஏÔ ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ ºÂஏ'œ¸ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï அÁ≈•¶ஜ ∞ர✓|›ஸ¬ÿÔஏı¶ ÔΩ,© º✓ஏ¬ணம´›அ¬Ô^இ உˆ\னு ´›அ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ உ›,´°Ô^இ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ உ›,´°Ô^ ப˛டீÁமÔ^ ®.ƒஏ ப.1 ஒ,_ ®.ƒஏ. ப.13 மÁ´ ®™°னு Ôı|^·™. ∂´ƒஜஇ ÿƒ_மÂஏ,ஜ \ரÆனு குெடீ™ஏÏ ப˛டீ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ"¬ணனு றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரணனு ∞ர✓'¶ "ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı'" ÂÔ_Ô^ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 14 ஒ,_ ®.ƒஏ. ப 16 மÁ´ ®™°னு "ƒஏகு ∑©∏ˆனு ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸" ®ஜ≈ றுÆம™›ஸரண பÁÈ ÷ÚÕ, ÷¶›Á, 13á12 2007á_ ளர✓Á™ ÿƒகு, ˛´டீ✓›ஸ´ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப 17 ®™¬ ÔıΩÚÕ,™. ´ஏ\ஜ ஒ,_ ஸÚ›,˺ம_ மÁ´ 14 ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ"¬ண பÁÈ து¶ÁÈÿடீஏ'Ωஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ"¬ண Ôð¬ÁÔ› லÏ›அ ∂மÏÔ"¬ணˆடீ ✓ðனு Á✓ƒ_ ÿƒகும,ஏÔ ண§©∏'|இ 17á2á2007á_ ŒÀÿமஏÚமÚ¬ணனு ÔஏºƒஏÁÈ துÈனு ÿ,ஏÁÔ ∂–©∏டீ,ஏÔ Ôı¶ ✓ஸ°› ,✓ஏ_Ôπஜ ÂÔ_Ô^ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 18 பணனு. ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ"¬ணஇ ✓ஸ°› ,✓ஏ_ துÈனுஇ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸ¶வÚÕஅ ∂–©✓©✓'|இ ஸÚ©∏ ∂–©✓©✓'¶ உÁ≈Ô^ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 19 ஒ,_ ®.ƒ.ப. 32 மÁ´ பணனு. பÁÈ ´›அ ப™,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚÕ, website ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 33 ®™°னுஇ ∞©´_ 2006 ஒ,_ ∏©´மˆ 2007áஜ ƒனு✓·© ✓'Ωடீ_ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 34 ®™°னுஇ ÷Õ, பÁÈ ளர✓Á™ ÿƒகுடீ©✓|ம,ஏÔ "The Hindu" Âஏπ,ய_ ÿÔஏ|›, ள·னு✓´ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 35 பணனு.
13. ÷Àமற¬ண› ÿ,ஏ¶ÏயுÁ¶டீ 10á6á2009 º,ஸட'¶ ∂´நு,ய_ ண§©∏'|^· ∂§¬ÁÔடஜ✓Ω ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï பÁÈட_ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ, ஸÚ ®¸. ´ஏ\ஜ உ^π'¶ 17 ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ"னு 1991 ஒ,_ ÿமÀºமÆ º,ஸÔπ_ ✓Ëடீ\Ï›,©✓'| ✓Ë ÿƒகுஅ மÕ,ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜÆனு ªஸடீ உடீÏ° ✓ர§ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô›ஸஜ துÈனு º✓fl∑மஏÏ›Á, ¶Õ,,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∏ஜ™Ï 17á2á2007á_ ÷›ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ து¶©✓'|ள'¶,ஏÔ°னு \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ Ì≈©✓|னு ÌரƬÔ^ \Ƭԩ✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔπஜ Œ›அÁறடீஏÁ\ º✓ஏ¬˛™ஏ_ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ து¶ ∞அமஏ™,ஏÔ றுÏமஏÔ› ,´©∏_ Ì≈©✓|ம,ஏ_ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ºÔஏÚமஅ º✓ஏÈ ÷னு\– ∂–\ஸ¬Ô ÷டீமு\ஏ? ®™ Âஏனு பகு° ÿƒகுடீ ºமıΩ•^·அ.
14. ÷›ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ÿ,ஏ¶Ï✓ஏÔ ,´©∏™ÏÔ"¬ண^ ÂÁ¶ÿ✓ர≈ º✓fl∑மஏÏ›Á,ட_இ ∑ஒÔ\ஏ™ ÛµறுÁÈ ∞ர✓¶ஏ,,ஏ_ 24á12á2008á_ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï அÁ≈ட™´ஏ_ ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶இ ƒ\´ƒ ஒ§ம§¬ÁÔடஜ º✓ˆ_இ ∂´∑இ12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1023 ÷›ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÁ≈› லϬÔஇ ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›ஸரண ✓ˆÕஅÁ´ ÿƒகுஅ^·அ. ∂,ஜ∏≈ணஇ ÷Àமற¬˛_ ண§©∏¶©✓'¶ 17 ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔπ_இ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ·ஏ™ 4. ∂´ƒஜஇ 5. ÿƒ_மÂஏ,ஜஇ \ரÆனு 9. குெடீ™ஏÏ ப˛ºடீஏÏ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரணனு ∂மÏÔ"¬ணனு ÷Á¶ºடீ ∞ர✓'¶ Œ©✓Õ,›ஸஜ º✓ˆ_ ƒ\´ƒனு ∞ர✓'| ∂னுதுஜÆ º✓Úனு ÿƒஜÆள'¶,ஏÔ ÷Ú,´©∏™Ï ƒஏÏ∏முனு ÿ,ˆள¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏ_இ ∂னுதுஜÆ º✓Ï ✓ர§ ÷னு\–ள_ ®Õ,© ✓ˆÔஏ´ உ›,´°னு ∏≈©∏¬Ô› º,Áமட_ÁÈ ®ஜÆ ÔÚ, ஒΩ˛≈அ.
15. \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ண§©∏|ÁÔட_ ÷Õ, பÁÈ•னுஇ ºÔஏள_✓'Ωட_ உ^· பÁÈ•னு Œº´ ,ÁÈÁ\ ∂முமÈÔனு \அÁ´Áடீ¬ ÿÔஏı| ÷டீ¬Ô©✓|ம,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷Õ, பÁÈ Â¶ை›ஸ_ ÷டீ∫Ô மஏகு©º✓ ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ∂´∑ ∂π¬ணனு ƒமுÁÔÔ^ ˛Á¶›,மÁ´ யுஅflºƒˆட_ ÷டீ∫˛டீ ÷Õ, பÁÈ ,ரº✓ஏஅ து¶©✓|னு º✓ஏஅ ÷Õ, பÁÈ º✓ஏÈ ÷ஜÿ™ஏÚ ºÔஏள_✓'Ω பÁÈÁடீஇ ,∫Ô^ Œº´ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸஜ ˇµ ÷டீ¬˛ மÚனு றுÏமஏÔ›ஸ™Ïஇ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண பÁÈட_ ƒ'¶©✓Ω ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô உˆடீமÏ ®ஜÆனு ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ. º\முனுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ மஏஸ|ÁÔட_ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï பÁÈடஜ ÿ✓டீÚனு ,ரº✓ஏஅ ÷டீ∫˛ மÚனு பÁÈடஜ ÿ✓டீÚனு "ி ´ஏÁ\டீஏ ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸ ழவÿ¶'" ®ஜº≈ உ^·அ ®ஜÆனுஇ ÷ÕறுÏமஏÔனு '✓©π¬ ழவÿ¶'' ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ 'ி ´ஏÁ\டீஏ ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸ ழவÿ¶'' ®ஜ≈ ÿ✓டீˆ_ \'|º\ ஒ,‹| ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ மஏகு©யு^·,ஏÔ°னு ÿ,ˆள›,ஏÏ. யுஅflºƒˆ \ரÆனு ºÔஏள_✓'Ωட_ உ^· பÁÈÔπஜ றுÏமஏÔனு \ரÆனு Ô'|©✓ஏ| \அÁ´ ,ÁÈÁ\ ∂முமÈÔ›ஸ_ ÷ÚÕஅ ,ஏஜ ÿƒகுடீ©✓|˛≈அ ®™ ®.\.ƒஏ. 1 Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏı|^·ஏÏ. றுÏமஏÔ ✓ஸ° ƒ'¶›ஸ_இ ✓ஸ•னு றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரணஇ Œº´ Balance Sheets ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ மஏகு©யு^·,ஏÔ°னுஇ ºÔஏள_✓'Ω பÁÈடழÚÕஅ º✓flநுஒ›அஇ மƒÕ› \ரÆனு நுÈÏ யுஅflºƒˆ பÁÈட_ மÕஅ ºமÁÈ ÿƒகு,,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ. 1 ƒஏ'நுடீ›ஸ_ ̧•^·Á, ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு Ôமஆ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆ Ì§™ஏÏ. ÷›,ண Ôஏ´ð∫Ô·ஏ_இ பÁÈடஜ உˆÁ\இ றுÏமஏÔனு ப˛டீÁம Œº´ ,ÁÈÁ\டஜ ˇµ உ^·,ஏ_ யுஅflºƒˆட_ ÿƒடீ_✓'¶ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï பÁÈ•னு ºÔஏள_✓'Ωட_ ÷டீ∫˛மÚனு பÁÈ•னு Œº´ ,ÁÈÁ\டஜ ˇµ ÿƒடீ_✓'| மÚமÁ, Âஏனு ∂§ம,ஏ_இ ,∫Ô^ Ô'நு¬Ôஏ´ÏÔÁ· *ı|னு \–ள_ ண§©∏'¶✓Ω ✓Ëடீ\Ï›, மஏகு©யு^·,ஏÔ மஏ,ஏΩ™ஏÏ. ˇµÔı¶ ஒஜலÏ©யுÔÁ· ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ.
"No hard and fast rule can be laid down for the decision of the question" and each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. In some cases the two activities each of which by itself comes within the definition of industry are so closely linked together that no reasonable man would consider them as independent industries. There may be other cases where the connection between the two activities is not by itself sufficient to justify an answer one way or the other, but the employer's own conduct in mixing up or not mixing up the capital, staff and management may often provide a certain answer".
2011-II-LJ-102
It was impossible to lay down any one test as on absolute and invariable test for all cases it observed that the real purpose of these tests would be to find out the true relation between the parts, branches, units, etc. This court however mentioned certain tests which might be useful in deciding whether two units form part of the same establishment. "Unity of ownership, unity of management and control, unity of finance and unity of labour, unity of employment and unity of functional "integrality" were the tests which the court applied in that case". It is obvious there is an essential difference between the question whether the two units form part of one establishment for the purposes of section 25E(iii) and the question whether they form part of one single industry for the purposes of calculation of the surplus profits for distribution of bonus to workmen in one of the units. Some assistance can still nevertheless be obtained from the enumeration of the tests in that case. Of all these tests the most important appears to us to be that of functional "integrality" and the question of unity of finance and employment and of labour. Unity of ownership exists ex-hypothesis. Where two units belong to a proprietor there is almost always likelihood also of unity of management. In all such cases therefore the court has to consider with care how far there is "functional integrality" meaning thereby such functional interdependence that one unit cannot exist conveniently and reasonably without the other and on the further question whether in matters of finance and employment the employer has actually kept the two units distinct or integrated".
The Management. TI Diamond Chain Ltd., MTH Road.
Chennai - Vs. - The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour
Court, Chennai.
.... "Industrial Dispute Act (14 of 1947) - Section 25-FFF and 25-O -Closure of Undertaking - On facts HELD, "No Functional Integrality existed between industrial establishment and undertaking closed - Award of Labour Court holding workmen of closed writ entitled to reinstatement and benefits, set aside.
1960 -1 - LJ - 497
The Management of Pratap Press. New Delhi - Vs. -
Secretary, Delhi Press Workers Union and its workmen.
.... "The question whether the two activities in which the single owner is engaged are one industrial unit or two distinct industrial units is not always easy of solution.
16. ,∫Ô^ பÁÈ 26á6á2006á_ ஒÁ≈டீஏ™ ∂§ள©யு ∂–©✓©✓'|இ ∏ஜ து¶©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ,∫Ô^ பÁȬணˆடீ றுடீ\™னு ÿ,ஏ¶Ï✓ஏÔ ∂மð∫Ô^ ∂Á™›அனு Œ©✓Á¶›அ ∂,ரணˆடீ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 9 ஒ,_ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 13 மÁ´டீஏ™ பமð∫Ô^ துÈனு உÆஸ✓|›,©✓|ம,ஏÔ°னு ®.\.ƒஏ. 1 ̧•^·,ஏமுனுஇ º\முனு ®.ƒஏ.ப. 17 ளர✓Á™ ºÂஏ'œ¸áஜ துÈனு ƒஏகு ∑©∏ˆஒ¬ண ளர✓Á™ ÿƒகு,,ஏÔ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^·அ. ப,Èஏ_இ ÷flÛµறுÁÈட_ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண *ı|னு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ÷டீÈஏஅ ®™ ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ. ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶©✓Ω பÁÈÁடீ துΩடீ º✓ஏஅ ∂ஸ_ ✓Ë யுˆÕஅ மÕ, ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ "ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı'" ÿ,ஏÁÔÁடீ ✓ÈÏ ÿ✓ரÆ ÿƒஜÆ ள'¶ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜÆனுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï உ^π'¶ 17 º✓ÏÔ"¬ணனுஇ ∂›ÿ,ஏÁÔ ÔஏºƒஏÁÈ துÈனு ∂–©✓©✓'|னுஇ ∂Á, ÿ✓≈ஏ\_ ஸÚ©∏ ∂–©∏•^·ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜÆனு ÷›,ண ÿƒடீ_ ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,_È ®ஜÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ண§©∏'¶ஏÏ.
1024 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 20132005-I-LLJ-853.SC
Maruti Udyog Ltd., -Vs. - Ram Lal and Others
.... Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would apply in a case of transfer or closure (as per section 25-FF and 25-FFF) only for the purpose of computation of compensation and for no other purpose. The expression 'as if ' in sections 25-FF and 25-FFF envisaged only the abovesaid limited purpose.
2010-111-LLJ-487 (P and H)
Ajit Kumar and Others - Vs. - The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court and Another.
17. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï பÁÈஇ 1988á_ ஒ,ழ_ ÿ,ஏ¶∫Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∏ஜ™Ï 1995á_ ºÔஏள_✓'Ωட_ ÷´ı¶ஏமஅ பÁÈ ÿ,ஏ¶∫˛டீ,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷Õ, ÷Ú பÁÈÔ"º\ "ி ´ஏÁ\டீஏ ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸ ழவÿ¶'" ®ஜ≈ ÿ✓டீˆ_ \அÁ´ட_ உ^· ˛Úðைஏயு´னு ÔஏÈஆட_ ∂முமÈÔ›Á, ,ÁÈÁ\ட¶\ஏÔ ÿÔஏı| ÿƒடீ_✓'| மÚம,ஏÔ°னுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ Ì≈©✓'¶அ. ÷Õ, ÷´ı| பÁÈÔ"னுஇ ÿமÀºமÆ பÁÈÔ^ ®ஜÆனு ÷ Õ , ப Á È Ô π ஜ று Ï ம ஏ Ô ∫ Ô ^ இ , ஆ › , ஆ டீ ஏ Ô ÿƒடீ_✓'|மÚம,ஏÔ°னுஇ ŒÚ பÁȬணனு \ரÿ≈ஏÚ பÁȬணனு ÿ,ஏ¶Ï∏_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ®|›அÁ´¬Ô©✓|˛≈அ. º\முனுஇ ∂மÏ ண§©∏|ÁÔட_இ ✓ÈÔஏÈ\ஏÔ ∑ð∫˛¬ ˛¶Õ, ÷Õ, பÁÈஇ Ô,மÁ¶©யு (Èஏ¬á∂°') ÿƒகுஅ ÔÁ¶நுடீஏÔ ✓ËயுˆÕ, 43 ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔπ_இ 14 Â✓ÏÔÁ·› ,ள´ \ர≈மÏÔ^ "ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı'" ÿƒகுஅ ÿÔஏı¶™Ï ®™°னு ®|›அÁ´¬Ô©✓'¶அ.
.... Where the undertaking itself is closed, the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G or 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will not be made applicable therefore, the workmen are not entitled for the compensation paid under the above sections.
2007 - III - LLJ. 777. SC
District Red Cross Society - Vs. - Babita Arora and
Others.
.... The Supreme Court observed that Maternity Hospital was functioning as a district entity (unit of the appellant). Due to financial stringency it had to be closed. Other units of the appellant, such as Family Planning Centre, etc., were functioning as separate entities. The mere fact that those units were not closed down could not lead to the inference that termination of respondent's service was illegal for non- compliance of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
CDJ 2004 SC 868
18. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ று´Õ,´\ஏÔ து¶©✓'|ள'¶அ ®ஜ✓,Á™ \.ƒஏ. 1 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ. 2 ƒஏ'நுடீÏÔ^ Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏı|^·™Ï. சுஆ'á1 ®ஜ≈ யுஅÁம பÁÈ•னுஇ சுஆ'á2 ®ஜ≈ ºÔஏள_✓'Ω பÁÈ•னு \அÁ´Áடீ ,ÁÈட¶\ஏÔ¬ ÿÔஏı| "ி ´ஏÁ\டீஏ ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸ ழவÿ¶'" ®ஜ≈ யுஅ றுÆம™›ஸஜ ÿ✓டீˆ_ ÷டீ∫˛ மÚம,ஏÔ°னு Ì≈©✓'¶ ÔÚ›அ¬Ô^ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏ^·© ✓|˛ஜ≈™. 14 Â✓ÏÔÁ·› ,ள´ \ர≈ ∂Á™›அ› ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"னு Ôð¬ÁÔ ஒΩ›அ¬ÿÔஏı| ÿƒஜÆள'¶ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜÆ \–,ஏ´Ï ƒஏ'நு Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏı|^· றுÁÈடமுனு \ரÆனு ÷Õ, பÁÈடஜ றுÈனு \ரÆனு ®Õஸ´∫Ô^ துஜ≈ஏனு Â✓Ú¬ண ளரÔ©✓'¶அனுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ \Ƭԩ✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ÷flÛµறுÁÈட_ \–,ஏ´Ï ºÔஏÚனு ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,_È ®™ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ®|›அÁ´›அ^·ஏÏ.
Management of Gordon Woodrofe Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
- Vs. - Presiding Officer. Principal Labour Court and
Others.
19. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï பÁÈடஜ ∂Á™›அ உˆ\∫Ô"னு ƒ´ı¶Ï ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶,ரண ப,ஏ´\ஏÔ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 9 ஒ,_ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 13 மÁ´டீஏ™ பமð∫Ô^ உ^·™. ÷Õ, பமð∫Ôπஜ✓Ω¬ணஇ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈடஜ உˆÁ\ ஒ,Èஏ™ ∂–\ஸÔ^ ∂Õ,Õ,› அÁ≈Ô"¬ண ஸÚ©∏ Œ©✓Á¶¬Ô©✓'¶º,ஏ|இ ®.ƒஏ.ப. 17 ˛´டீ© ✓›ஸ´›ஸஜ துÈனு துஜ≈ஏனு Â✓Ú¬ண பÁÈடஜ ®Õஸ´∫Ô"னு ளரÔ©✓'¶,ஏÔ ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. ,ஏ∫Ô^ மஏ∫˛டீ Ô¶Á™ ÿƒமு›, ஒΩடீஏ,,ஏ_இ ÷Õ, பÁÈடஜ ÿƒஏ›அ ∞È›ஸரண மÕ,,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∂,ஜ ∂§ள©யு ®.ƒஏ.ப. 35 துÈனு ஸ™›,ஏπ_ ÿமπடீஏ˛ உ^·,ஏÔ°னுஇ º\முனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ®|›அÁ´¬Ô©✓'¶அ. பÁÈடஜ உர✓›ஸ ணÁ≈Õஅ ÿ,ஏயழ_ ¶ைனு ∞ர✓'¶ றுÁÈட_ பÁÈÁடீ து¶ ºமıΩடீ ÛµறுÁÈ ∞ர✓'¶,ஏ_ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´´ஏ_இ ÷›ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ"¬ண ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ÷டீÈள_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு ∏ˆ° 25F \ரÆனு 25H ∏ˆளஜ✓Ωஇ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண© ✓ˆÔஏ´னு ∂π¬Ô ÷டீÈஏஅ ®ஜÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ. ∂,ரண ப,´மஏÔ ˇµ¬Ôı¶ ஒஜலÏ©யுÔÁ· ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ.
.... In the instant case also, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the closure of the establishment was legally justifiable and the management had a required under the law, offered apart from the compensation payable for the closure, all other statutory dues which some of the employees collected without demur and in the case of respondent-workmen eventhough the same were offered on time, they did not accept it, therefore, the question of paying any additional ex gratia compensation which is not contemplated under the statue, does not arise. This court in the case of N.S.Giri (supra) held : "An Award under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be inconsistent with the law laid down by the Legislature or by the Supreme Court that the Labour Court or for that matter the High Court had no authority in law to direct payment of any additional sum by way of ex gratia payment otherwise than what is provided under the statute when the act of the management in closing down the establishment is found to be valid and all legally payable amounts have been paid or offered in12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1025 time. In such a situation, contrary to the statute, the principle of social justice cannot be invoked since the Legislature would have already taken note of the same while fixing the compensation payable...
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 sec. 25 H. re-employment of retrenched workmen
2011 -11 - LLJ. 102 (Mad)
Management, TI Diamond Chain Ltd. -Vs. - Presiding
Officer, Principal Labour Court. Chennai and Others.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of functional integrality- between two business units, closure of one will not sustain claims of its workmen for reinstatement.
Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity (Subs. By Act 36 of 1964, sec. 16, for certain words (w.e.f. 15-12-1964) [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
In the High Court of Madras.
2013 -111 - LLJ. (Madras), dated July, 2013
..... The various factors are to be considered to find out if there is an existence of functional integrality between the two entities. However, in the case on hand, it is noted that no such factors had existed. The factories had independent existence, eventhough they had been managed by the same company. One was not dependent on the other. In fact, they had separate ESI codes, separate employees unions, and the employees had been governed by the separate agreements entered into with the management. There is no transfer of employees from one entity to other and they were manufacturing different products. The employees, who had been have service in one entity, would not be possessing the skills to be employed in the other entity.
In such circumstances, the learned single Judge had rightly held that there were serious flaws in the award of the Labour Court, dated 31-10-2005. The findings of the Labour Court, here based on extraneous factors, which were irrelevant and alien to the issues that had arise for its consideration. Therefore, the learned single Judge had rightly set aside the award of the Labour Court, dated 31-10-2005.
ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு ∏ˆ° 25-F \ரÆனு 25-H ப˛டீÁம ˇµÔı¶மஏÆ மÁ´டீƬԩ✓|˛≈அ.
20. "º\ர✓Ω ∏ˆ° 25-F-_ ŒÚ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈட_ ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ÷டீÈஏ, ÛµறுÁÈ ∞ர✓|னு º✓ஏஅஇ ∂Õ,› ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈட_ ✓Ë யுˆÕ, Â✓ÏÔ"¬ணஇ ŒÚ \ஏ, ஒஜ™§ள©யு ∂π›அஇ ŒÀÿமஏÚ மÚ¶ ✓ˬÔஏÈ›ஸரணனுஇ ŒÀÿமஏÚ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ¬ண 15 Âஏ'Ô"¬ணˆடீ ƒனு✓·›Á, ÷ற©¨¶ஏÔ ∂π¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™ ண§©∏¶©✓|˛≈அ." 21. ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔπஜ Œ›அÁறடீஏÁ\டீஏ_ உர✓›ஸட_ ∑ð¬Ôனு ∞ர✓'|^· றுÁÈட_இ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ Â¶ை›ஸ_ ÷டீ∫˛டீ,ஏ_இ Ô¶Á™fl ÿƒமு›, ÷டீÈஏ,,ஏ_ ®.ƒ.ப.35 ∂§ள©யு ÿமπ©✓|›ஸஇ பÁÈடஜ ƒ'¶ ¶மΩ¬ÁÔ துÈனு து¶©✓'|ள'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∂,™ஏ_ ÷ற©¨| Œஜº≈ ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண ✓ˆÔஏ´\ஏÔ ∂Á\•னு ®ஜÆனு ®ஸÏ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 sec. 15 F. Conditions
precedent to retrenchment of Workmen
No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until - (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (Proviso omitted by Act 49 of 1984, sec.3 (w.e.f 18-8-1984).
(b) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay(Subs. by Act 36 of 1964, sec. 14, for "for every completed year of service", (w.e.f. 15-12-1964) [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months, and
22. ÷னு\– ƒ∫ÔஸÔÁ· ºÂஏ¬ணனு º✓ஏஅஇ ஒ,ழ_ 1988á_ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ சுஆ'á1 ®™ ப´னு∏¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∏ஜ™Ï 1995áனு பı| ºÔஏள_✓'Ωட_ சுஆ'á2 ®ஜÆ ப´னு∏¬Ô©✓'|இ ,ரº✓ஏஅ Â_È றுÁÈட_ ∂Õ, பÁÈ ÿƒடீ_✓|ம,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷ÀளÚ பÁÈÔ"º\இ "ி ´ஏÁ\டீஏ ¸∏ஜ™Ï¸ ழனுÿ¶'" ®ஜ≈ ÿ✓ஏஅ றுÆம™›ஸஜ ˇµ \அÁ´இ ˛Úðை ÂÔˆ_ ,ÁÈÁ\ட¶\ஏÔ ÿÔஏı| ÿƒடீ_✓|ம,ஏÔ°னு ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. ÷Õ, பÁÈ று´Õ,´ து¶_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶∏≈ணஇ ÷ஜÿ™ஏÚ ,ஆ சுஆ'¶ஏÔ ÿƒடீ_✓'|மÚனு ºÔஏள_✓'Ω பÁÈட_ ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ƒ'¶›ஸ_ ÷¶வ_ÁÈ ®™ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ண§©∏¶©✓'¶அ. ÷Õ, பÁÈ•னுஇ ºÔஏள_✓'Ω பÁÈ•னு ÿமÀºமÆ றுÏமஏÔ ∂முமÈÔ∫ÔÁ·¬ ÿÔஏıΩÚ©✓,ஏÔ ƒ∫ÔஸÔ^ ÷_ÁÈ. ÷Àள´ı| பÁÈÔ"¬ணனு ,ஆ›,ஆºடீ Ôð¬ண ✓ஏÏ›அ Balance Sheet ,ஆ›,ஆºடீ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓|ம,ஏÔ°னு பமð∫Ô^ ÷_ÁÈ. ÷ÀளÚ பÁÈÔ"¬ணஇ ,ஆ›,ஆºடீ ÷.®¸..ெ ºÔஏ| ÷_ÁÈ. º\முனுஇ ,ஆ›,ஆடீஏÔ Œ©✓Õ,∫Ô^ ∞ர✓'¶,ஏÔஇ ®Àள, பமð∫Ô"னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ÷_ÁÈ. பÔºம ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ∑'Ω¬Ôஏ'¶©✓'¶ ஒஜலÏ©யுÔ^இ ÷Àமற¬ண ƒ∫ÔஸÔ"¬ண ÿ✓ஏÚÕஅம,ஏÔ ÔÚ,ஒΩடீள_ÁÈ. ÷›,ண ÛµறுÁÈட_இ யுஅflºƒˆட_ உ^· சுஆ'á1 பÁÈஇ று´Õ,´\ஏÔ து¶©✓'¶ஏமுனுஇ ÷Õ, பÁÈடஜ ,ÁÈÁ\ ∂முமÈÔ›ஸஜ ˇºற ÷டீ∫ணனு ÷ஜ–னு ŒÚ பÁÈடீஏ™ சுஆ'á2 ºÔஏள_✓'Ω பÁÈட_ ✓Ëயுˆடீ ,டீஏ´ஏÔ உ^· \–,ஏ´ÏÔπஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔÁடீ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶©✓Ω று´ஏÔˆ¬Ô ÷டீÈஏஅ. ∞ரÔ™ºம சுஆ'á2 ºÔஏள_✓'Ω பÁÈடழÚÕஅ º✓fl∑ஒ›அஇ மƒÕ› \ரÆனு நுÈÏ ÷Õ, யுஅÁம பÁÈட_ ✓Ë யுˆÕஅ மÕஅ^·ஏÏÔ^ ®™ \.ƒஏ.1 ƒஏ'நுடீனு ∂π›அ^·,ரண ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு \Æ©யு ƒஏ'நுடீனு ∞அனு ÷_ÁÈ. ÷flÛµறுÁÈட_இ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ 6இ 7 \ரÆனு 11 ஒ,_ 17 மÁ´டீஏ™ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ,∫Ô^ ✓Ë ÿƒகு, சுஆ'á11026 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 2013 ளƒஏˆ¬Ô©✓'¶ ƒஏ'நுÔπஜ ✓'Ωடீ_
\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ :
\.ƒஏ.1 — S. ∞ø\ÁÈ (\–,ஏ´Ïá16)
\.ƒஏ.2 — S. ´ஏ\ஜ (\–,ஏ´Ïá1)
து¶©✓'¶ஏமுனுஇ ºÔஏள_✓'Ωட_ உ^· சுஆ'á2áள_ ✓Ë யுˆடீ ∂–\ஸ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆ ºÔஏÚமஅ ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,ஏÔºம உ^·,ஏÔ Âஏஜ ÔÚஅ˛º≈ஜஇ பÔºமஇ 6இ 7 \ரÆனு 11 ஒ,_ 17 மÁ´டீஏ™ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ணஇ ºÔஏள_✓'Ωட_ உ^· பÁÈட_ ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆ ÷,™ஏ_ உ›,´ள¶©✓|˛≈அ. ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^இ ÷Õ, பÁÈ று´Õ,´ து¶_ ÿƒகுஅ உ¶º™ ,™¬ண *ı|னு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆ ºÔ'|¬ÿÔஏı¶,ஏ_இ ∂மÏÔ"¬ண ∏ஜƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ƒமுÁÔÔ^ ∂π¬Ô றுÏமஏÔனு Ô¶Á\©✓'|^·அ ®ஜ✓Á, Âனு\ஏ_ ∂§டீ ஒΩ˛≈அ.
23. 1இ 2இ 3இ 8 \ரÆனு 10 \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ று´Õ,´ து¶_ ÿƒகு, உ¶ஜஇ ÷ற©¨¶ஏÔ றுÏமஏÔனு ∂π¬Ô ஒர✓'¶ ÿ,ஏÁÔ '✓ஏகு 75இ000 வÔ°னு ணÁ≈மஏ™அ ®ஜÆ Ì§ 2006áபனு மÚ¶னு ஒ,_ º✓ஏ´ஏΩ மÚம,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∂ஜÆ ஒ,_ ∂›ÿ,ஏÁÔÁடீ று´Õ,´ Áம©∏_ ம∫˛ட_ Áம›ஸÚÕ,ஏமுனுஇ ÷ஜÆ '✓ஏகு 1இ50இ000 (ŒÚ È'ƒ›அ னுெ✓அ பட´னு '✓ஏகு) ®™¬ ÌΩடÚ¬ணனு ®ஜÆனு ÷flÛµறுÁÈட_ ÷மரÁ≈ÿடீ_Èஏனு ÔÚ›ஸ_ ÿÔஏı| ,∫Ô"¬ண› ,Èஏ '✓ஏகு 2இ00இ000 ÷´ı| È'ƒனு '✓ஏகு) ÷ற©¨¶ஏÔ ∂π¬Ôºமı|னு ®™ ,∫Ô^ \–ள_ ºÔஏˆ•^·™Ï. ÷னு\– ƒ∫ÔஸÔπஜ ÛµறுÁÈÔÁ·¬ ÔÚ›ஸ_ ÿÔஏı| ✓ஏϬணனுº✓ஏஅஇ ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ *ı|னு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™ ºÔஏ´ள_ÁÈ ®™ ÿ,ˆ˛≈அ. ப™ஏ_இ ∏ˆ° 25áFáஜ✓Ω ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ÷ற©¨'Á¶ ÿ✓≈ ஒÁ≈டீஏ™ \ரÆனு ∞ரƬÿÔஏ^·¬ÌΩடீ ÷ற©¨'| ÿ,ஏÁÔ ÿ✓≈ உˆடீமÏÔ^ ®™ Âஏஜ ÔÚஅ˛º≈ஜ. பÔºம 1இ2இ3இ8 \ரÆனு 10 ப˛டீ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண ,Èஏ '✓ஏகு 1இ60இ000 (ŒÚ È'ƒ›அ ∂Æ✓அ பட´னு '✓ஏகு) ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ∂π¬Ô உ›,´ள|மº, ƒˆடீஏ™அ ®™ Âஏஜ ÔÚஅ˛º≈ஜ. ÷Àமற¬ண றுமுÁமட_ ÷ÚÕ,º✓ஏஅ 4-மஅ \–,ஏ´Ï ∂´ƒஜஇ 5áமஅ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿƒ_மÂஏ,ஜ \ரÆனு 9áமஅ \–,ஏ´Ï குெடீ™ஏÏ ப˛ºடீஏÏ ®ஸÏ \–,ஏ´Ú¶ஜஇ º✓நு ƒÏம ∂¶¬Ô ÿƒ'Ω_ÿ\ı' ÿƒகுஅ ÿÔஏı¶,ஏÔஇ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,ஜ ®ஸÚÁ´ட_ ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ. º\முனுஇ ∂னுதுமÚனு ÷Àமற¬˛_ ப¤´ஏÔஏ\ºÈºடீ ÷ÚÕஅ^·™Ï. ®™ºமஇ ∂மÏÔ"¬ண ®Àள, ✓ˆÔஏ´ஒனு ˛Á¶¬Ô மஏகு©∏_ÁÈ ®™ Âஏஜ ÔÚஅ˛º≈ஜ.
ஒΩள_இ ÷Õ,› ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ✓ணஸடீஏÔ ∂–\ஸ¬Ô©✓|˛≈அ. 1இ 2இ 3இ 8 \ரÆனு 10áமஅ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ÷ற©¨¶ஏÔ ,Èஏ '✓ஏகு 1இ60இ000 (ŒÚ È'ƒ›அ ∂Æ✓அ பட´னு '✓ஏகு) ÿ✓≈ உˆடீமÏ பமÏ ®™°னு 6இ 7இ 11 ஒ,_ 17 மÁ´டீஏ™ \–,ஏ´ÏÔ"¬ண ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï *ı|னு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆனு ∏ஜ ÿ,ஏ¶Ïflநுஇ ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ƒமுÁÔÔÁ· ∂மÏÔ^ ÿ✓≈ உˆடீமÏÔ^ ®™°னு உ›,´ள¶©✓|˛≈அ. ÷னு\– 4இ 5 \ரÆனு 9 \–,ஏ´ÏÔÁ·© ÿ✓ஏÆ›அ ,^"✓Ω ÿƒகுடீ©✓|˛≈அ. ÿƒÈ°› ÿ,ஏÁÔ ÷_ÁÈ.
®ஜ™ஏ_ ÿƒஏ_È©✓'|இ ,'¶flƒ´ஏ_ ,'¶fl∑ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|இ 2013áபனு பı| ாÁÈ \ஏ,னு 26áபனு Âஏ^ ∂Áமடீ§டீ ✓Ô´©✓'¶அ.
அ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இ ,ÁÈÁ\ ,ஏ∫ணனு ∂முமÈÏஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னுஇ யுஅflºƒˆ.
®ஸÏ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ :
®.\.ƒஏ.1 — M. Qஏ™ºƒÔ´ஜ (ணø\ ∂முமÈÔ றுÏமஏÔ ∂முமÈÏ).
ண§ட¶©✓'¶ பமð∫Ôπஜ ✓'Ωடீ_ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ :
®ı º,ஸ பமð ளம´னு \.ƒஏ.ப.1 — ŒÚ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπடஜ ∂Á¶டீஏ· ∂Á¶டஜ ÂÔ_இ (P. Ôஏıœ✓ஜ \–,ஏ´Ïá6).
\.ƒஏ.ப.2 — Œ Ú ÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ π ட ஜ ✓ Ë றுடீ\™ உ›,´° ÂÔ_இ (P. Ôஏıœ✓ஜ \–,ஏ´Ïá6).
\.ƒஏ.ப.3 — ŒÚ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπடஜ ✓Ë று´Õ,´ உ›,´° ÂÔ_இ (P. Ôஏıœ✓ஜ \–,ஏ´Ïá6).
\.ƒஏ.ப.4 23-6-2009 ∂´ƒஏ_ ✓ˆÕஅÁ´¬Ô©✓'¶ ÂÔ_.
\.ƒஏ.ப.5 12-6-2009 ÷ Õ ¿ ஸ \ ஜ ≈ › , ஏ _
∂–©✓©✓'¶ ∂§ள©யு ÂÔ_.
\.ƒஏ.ப.6 31-8-2011 Copy of company master
details-Roc, Puducherry.
\.ƒஏ.ப.7 31-8-2009 Copy of company master
details-Roc,Chennai.
\.ƒஏ.ப.8 — Copy of name availability
List - In MCA Website.
\.ƒஏ.ப.9 31-12-2007 Statement of preliminary r e m a r k s s u b m i t t e d b y management.
\.ƒஏ.ப.10 8-3-2008 Copy of the letter sent to Labour Officer by management.
\.ƒஏ.ப.11 21-5-2008 Copy of the letter sent to Labour Officer by management.
\.ƒஏ.ப.12 1-11-2007 Copy of the letter given by petitioner before the Labour Conciliation Officer.
\.ƒஏ.ப.13 25-7-2008 Copy of the letter given by CITU Union to the Labour Commissioner.
\.ƒஏ.ப.14 13-6-2008 Notice given by the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
®ஸÏ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ :
®.ƒஏ.ப.1 — 10-5-2006 Copy of the notice displayed in the notice-board.
12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1027®.ƒஏ.ப.2 28-6-2006 Copy of Lock-out notice, ®.ƒஏ.ப.3 7-8-2006 Copy of the petition submitted by Sri Ramiah Spinners Thozilalar Sangam to the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
®.ƒஏ.ப.4 29-08-2006 Copy of explanation submitted by respondent company to the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
®.ƒஏ.ப.5 14-12-2006 Copy of notice of closure.
®.ƒஏ.ப.6 — Returned registered cover
(8 Nos).
®.ƒஏ.ப.7 30-11-2007 Copy of notice sent by the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
®.ƒஏ.ப.8 31-12-2007 Copy of explanation submitted by respondent company to the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
®.ƒஏ.ப.9 7-2-2008 Copy of cancellation of licence issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories.
®.ƒஏ.ப.10 25-4-2008 Copy of the letter sent to the Commissioner, Villianur Commune Panchayat.
®.ƒஏ.ப.11 25-04-2008 Copy of the letter sent to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range III-E, Puducherry.
®.ƒஏ.ப.12 25-4-2008 Copy of the letter sent by the Director of Industries, Thattanchavady, Puducherry.
®.ƒஏ.ப.13 29-4-2006 Copy of the letter sent to the Commercial Tax Officer, Puducherry.
®.ƒஏ.ப.14 2-3-2009 Copy of Memorandum of settlement between respondent company and M. Arasan.
®.ƒஏ.ப.15 11-2-2010 Copy of memorandum of settlement between respondent company and M. Selvanathan.
®.ƒஏ.ப.16 18-11-2010 Copy of Memorandum of settlement between respondent company and I. Iyyannar.
®.ƒஏ.ப.17 13-12-2007 Copy of sale deed executed by respondent company in favour of Sai Supreme Spinners.
®.ƒஏ.ப.18 — Closure compensation with cheque sent to remaining 14 workers.
®.ƒஏ.ப.19 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker A. Thiruthanivel (Petitioner 17).
®.ƒஏ.ப.20 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker S. Ezhumalai (Petitioner 16).
®.ƒஏ.ப.21 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker D. Azhagappan (Petitioner 15).
®.ƒஏ.ப.22 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker V. Janakiraman (Petitioner 14).
®.ƒஏ.ப.23 20-6-2013 Closure compensation letter r e t u r n e d b y w o r k e r V. Karthikeyan (Petitioner 13).
®.ƒஏ.ப.24 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker K. Mariyappan (Petitioner 12).
®.ƒஏ.ப.25 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker M. Srinivasan (Petitioner 11).
®.ƒஏ.ப.26 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker N. Veerasamy (Petitioner 10).
®.ƒஏ.ப.27 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker R. Arikrishnan (Petitioner 8).
®.ƒஏ.ப.28 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n
letter returned by worker N. Jagadeesan (Petitioner 7).
®.ƒஏ.ப.29 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker P. Kandeepan (Petitioner 6).
®.ƒஏ.ப.30 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker S. Ramu (Petitioner 3).
®.ƒஏ.ப.31 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n letter returned by worker M. Arul (Petitioner 2).
®.ƒஏ.ப.32 20-6-2013 C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i o n
letter returned by worker S. Raman (Petitioner 1).
®.ƒஏ.ப.33 — Copy of the cancellation
of TIN. No. of the respondent company.
®.ƒஏ.ப.34 — Wage register of respondent
company.
®.ƒஏ.ப.35 ó— Sale notice.
அ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இஅ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இ ,ÁÈÁ\ ,ஏ∫ணனு ∂முமÈÏஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னுஇ யுஅflºƒˆ.
1028 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 2013GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 150/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 30th October 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I. D.(T) No. 2/2011, dated 7-8-2013 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Superfil Products Ltd., Puducherry and Superfil Products Workers Union, Villianur, Puducherry, over wage disparity and privileged leave to 6 workmen 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).
————
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the Superfil Products Workers Union against the management of M/s. Superfil Products Ltd., Puducherry seeking privileged leave and wage benefits to 6 of its workmen viz., (1) Paavadai, (2) Jayachandiran, (3) Baskar, (4) Swaminathan, (5) Anjapuli and (6) Theepanjan viz., who were not covered under the existing 12(3) settlement is justified or not?
(2) If justified, what relief they are entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed?
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal.
2. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent and when the matter was posted for filing counter, the respondent was called absent. A perusal of docket order reveals that the above industrial dispute was posted for counter to 19-6-2013, 1-7-2013, 10-7-2013, 18-7-2013, 25-7-2013, 29-7-2013 and 1-8-2013. In spite of several opportunities given, the counter was not filed on the side of the respondent. On 1-8-2013 no counter was filed on the side of the respondent and he was called absent and set ex parte. Then the matter was posted for examination of the petitioner today. Today, the petitioner was examined as PW. and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. Ex.P1 to Ex.P46 have not been challenged by the respondent. Claim proved. Hence, the petition is allowed with costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of August 2013.
Wednesday, the 7th day of August 2013
I.D. (T) No. 2/2011
The President, Superfil Products Workers Union, Villianur, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
Versus
PW.1 — 7-8-2013 — Thiruneelakandan List of witness examined for the respondent : Nil The Managing Director, Superfil Products Ltd., Puducherry.
. . Respondent List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, N. Krishnamurthy, T. Pravin and V. Veeraragavan, Advocates for the petitioner, Thiru M. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the case records, 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. 32/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 8-2-2011 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the petitioners and the respondent, viz., Ex.P1 — Copy of the resolution passed by General Body of union.
Ex.P2 — Copy of extra calculations made by the petitioner.
Ex.P3 — Copy of calculation of differential salary.
Ex.P4 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Anjapulli, dated 2-4-2005.
Ex.P5 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Anjapulli, dated 1-11-2006.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Anjapulli, dated 1-1-2007.
12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1029Ex.P7 — Copy of the letter given by respondent to Anjapulli, dated 24-12-2007.
Ex.P8 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Anjapulli, dated 27-8-2008.
Ex.P9 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Anjapulli, dated 1-1-2009.
Ex.P10 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to R. Pavadai, dated 1-1-2009.
Ex.P11 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Pavadai, dated 1-7-2008.
Ex.P12 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Pavadai, dated 24-12-2007.
Ex.P13 — Copy of the letter given by respondent to Raja, dated 1-1-2007.
Ex.P14 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Raja, dated 1-11-2006.
Ex.P15 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Raja dated 2-4-2005.
Ex.P16 — Copy of the letter given by the petitioner union to Labour Officer, dated 11-5-2009.
Ex.P17 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Theepanjan, dated 2-4-2005.
Ex.P18 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Theepanjan, dated 1-11-2006.
Ex.P19 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Theepanjan, dated 1-1-2007.
Ex.P20 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Theepanjan, dated 24-12-2007.
Ex.P21 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Theepanjan, dated 1-7-2008.
Ex.P22 — Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Theepanjan dated 1-1-2009.
Ex.P32— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Swaminathan, dated 1-1-2007.
Ex.P33— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Swaminathan, dated 24-12-2007.
Ex.P34— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Swaminathan, dated 1-7-2008.
Ex.P35— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Swaminathan, dated 1-1-2009.
Ex.P36— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Jayachandran, dated 2-4-2005.
Ex.P37— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Jayachandran, dated 1-11-2006.
Ex.P38— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Jayachandran, dated 1-1-2007.
Ex.P39— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Jayachandran, dated 24-12-2007.
Ex.P40— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Jayachandran, dated 1-7-2008.
Ex.P41— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Jayachandran, dated 1-1-2009.
Ex.P42— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Baskaran, dated 2-4-2005.
Ex.P43— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Baskaran, dated 1-11-2006.
Ex.P44— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Baskaran, dated 1-1-2007.
Ex.P45— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Baskaran, dated 1-7-2008.
Ex.P46— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Baskaran, dated 1-1-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent : Nil.
Ex.P23 — Copy of the Tamil translation given by the respondent, dated 3-7-2010.
T. MOHANDASS,
Ex.P24 — Copy of the letter given by the petitioner union to Labour Officer, dated 20-7-2010.
Ex.P25— Copy of the failure report, dated 30-9-2010.
Ex.P26— Copy of the memorandum of settlement, dated 12-11-2008.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Ex.P27— Copy of the letter given by the petitioner union to Labour Officer, dated 7-5-2009.
(G.O. Rt. No. 152/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 30th October 2013)
Ex. P28— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Vijayan, dated 1-7-2008.
Ex.P29— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Vijayan, dated 6-1-2009.
Ex.P30— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Swaminathan, dated 2-4-2005.
Ex.P31— Copy of the letter given by the respondent to Swaminathan, dated 1-11-2006.
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 25/2011, dated 30-7-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Abirami Soap Works, Puducherry and its workman Thiru S.P. Paraman, over non-employment has been received;
1030 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 2013Now, 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).
————
power, with the help of union, agitated against the respondent. The petitioner agitated before the respondent for all the basic amenities and needs of the workers through the union, by which he gathered the displeasure of the management.
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Tuesday, the 30th day of July 2013
I.D. No. 25/2011
S.P. Paraman . . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, Abirami Soap Works, Korkadu, Puducherry.
. . Respondent This industrial dispute coming on 25-7-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal L. Vinoba and S. Ashok Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner, Thiru R. Ilancheliyan and Ms. R. Thilagavathi, 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. 165/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 25-8-2011 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz., (1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru S.P. Paraman against the management of M/s. Abirami Soap Works, Puducherry, over non-employment is justified?
(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioner is 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 was working in the respondent industry for the past eight years as permanent worker from 2004. The respondent with arbitrary The respondent management taking into consideration of this act of the petitioner, isolated him and resisted from entering the premises of the industry on 11-5-2009 stating that he is under unauthorised absence from 1-5-2009 and subsequently from 10-6-2009 he was terminated by the respondent without any reason, which is against natural justice. The petitioner is unaware of the reasons for which he was terminated from services and further no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to know the charges levelled against him. No charges were levelled against the worker and no enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was dismissed from service without adducing any reasons, which shows the high handed attitude of the management. Therefore the act of the respondent is against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the dismissal of the petitioner is not justified and liable to be set aside.
3. In the counter statement, the respondent has stated as follows:
The petitioner was working in the respondent company on daily wages and was engaged on need based. Subsequently, the daily wage was converted as consolidated salary with effect from 1-3-2009 without any prejudice to his employment as temporary workman.
The petitioner was continuously absent with effect from 1-5-2009 without any intimation or prior permission and therefore his name was removed from the muster roll of the company with effect from 10-6-2009.
The respondent is engaging more than 100 workers and in every case, this kind of voluntary abatement of duty is encouraged, it will cause adverse effect and will set a bad precedent to the other workers. Therefore, the petitioner's request for employment in the Puducherry factory was not accepted by the respondent management. But they are ready to reinstate the petitioner in Chennai branch as permanent worker with 10% revision of wages and rejected the claim of the petitioner only for back wages and continuity of service. Hence, there was no means in refusing employment to the petitioner by this respondent. Further the petitioner having accepted to join in Chennai before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and now disputing that he was removed from service against the principle of natural justice is not maintainable. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the industrial dispute.
12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 10314. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.
of service. As the petitioner insisted to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, the present industrial dispute is referred to this court.
5. The point for determination is:
Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?
6. On the point:
The contention of the petitioner is that on 10-6-2009 he was terminated by the respondent without any reason, which is against natural justice and he is unaware of the reasons for which he was terminated from service and further no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to know the charges levelled against him and no charges were levelled against the worker and no enquiry was conducted. In order to prove his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner did not report for duty since 1-5-2009, however he was advised to report for duty vide letter dated 26-5-2009 and even after receiving the said letter, he did not report for duty and hence his name was removed from the muster roll of the company with effect from 10-6-2009. On the side of the respondent, the General Manager of the respondent company was examined as RW.1.
8. On the side of the respondent, the copy of the 9. When the said industrial dispute was pending for cross-examination of RW.1, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a memo stating that the petitioner and the respondent have come for an amicable settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, as per which the petitioner has agreed to receive a sum of ` 1,25,000 (Rupees one lakh and twenty-five thousand only), which includes gratuity and other benefits. In order to prove the same, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed the copy of the receipt, issued by the respondent to the petitioner, which confirm the said fact. The copy of the 18(1) settlement was also filed and the same was recorded by this court. Hence, the award is passed as per the settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, this point is answered.
10. In the result, the award is passed as per the settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act entered into between the parties. The 18(1) settlement will form part of the award. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of July 2013.
T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
failure report was marked as Ex.R1. A perusal of Ex.R1 reveals that during the conciliation, both the petitioner and the respondent has submitted their defence and the PW.1 — 5-6-2013 — Paraman
List of witness examined for the respondent :
conciliation proceedings were held on several rounds and the conciliation authority advised the management to consider the plea of the petitioner for reinstatement RW.1 — 25-6-2013 — Sanjay Madan
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
and after several rounds of discussions, the management agreed to reinstate the petitioner in Chennai branch with 10% of revision in wages and the petitioner stated that he will be put to financial difficult if he is transferred to Chennai as his family has settled down in Puducherry. Hence, he requested the management to consider him for re-transfer to Puducherry branch with continuity of service. The conciliation authority advised the management to reinstate the petitioner in Chennai branch and to consider his transfer to Puducherry branch after ten months. A perusal of failure report further reveals that the petitioner stated that he is ready and willing to join in Chennai branch and reinstated for back wages and continuity of service. On the other hand, the management stated that they are ready to reinstate the petitioner in Chennai branch as 'Permanent workman' with 10% revision in wages and rejected the claim of the petitioner for back wages and continuity Ex.P1 — Representation to the Manager with certificate of posting, dated 15-5-2009.
Ex.P2 — Representation to the Manager with certificate of posting, dated 15-6-2009.
Ex.P3 — Representation to Managing Director, dated 25-8-2009.
Ex.P4 — Representation to labour conciliation, dated 29-12-2010.
Ex.P5 — Identification certificate issued by VAO, Nallathur.
Ex.P6 — ESI Id card of Dharman
Ex.P7 — ESI Id card of Paraman
Ex.P8 — Bonus paid cover in the name of Dharma for the year 2007.
1032 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 2013Ex.P9 — Bonus paid cover in the name of Dharma for the year 2008.
Ex.P10 — Salary paid cover in the name of Dharma for the month May 2009.
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Thiru D. Soundararajan, Advocate for the petitioner, Thiru G. Krishnan, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the case records, this court passed the following:
List of exhibits marked for the respondent :
Ex.R1—Copy of failure report, dated 27-5-2011
T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
AWARD
This industrial dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt. No. 197/AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 14-11-2012 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz., LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(1) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner Tmt. R. Jean D' Arc against the management of M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited, Puducherry over non-employment is justified or not?
(G.O. Rt. No. 153/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 30th October 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the award in I. D. No. 92/2012, dated 6-8-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the Managing Director, Hidesign India (P) Ltd., Puducherry and its worker Tmt. R. Jean D' Arc, Puducherry 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)
S. THAMMU GANAPATHY, Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
(2) If justified what relief, the petitioner is entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed?
2. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent and the counter was filed on their side. Then the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and posted the matter for cross-examination of PW.1. Even after giving sufficient opportunities, PW.1 was not cross-examined by the respondent. The respondent was called absent and there is no representation from them and hence he was set ex parte. Hence, the industrial dispute is allowed with costs and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and other statutory benefits.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of August 2013.
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
Tuesday, the 6th day of August 2013
PW.1 — 15-7-2013 — R. Jean D'Arc
I.D. No. 92/2012
List of witness examined for the respondent : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
Tmt. R. Jean D' Arc, W/o. Rayappa Santhanam, 6, Last Street, K.C. Nagar, Nellithope, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner Ex.P1 — Copy of the purported letter signed on 8-11-2012 by the petitioner.
Versus
The Managing Director, Hidesign India (P) Ltd., Odhiyampet, Puducherry. . . Respondent Ex.P2 — Copy of purported settlement form, dated 16-2-2012.
Ex.P3 — Copy of e-mail correspondence between management officials, dated 23-2-2012.
12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1033Versus
Ex.P4 — C o p y o f s t a t e m e n t o f s e t t l e m e n t by respondent to the petitioner, dated 24-2-2012.
Ex.P5 — Copy of letter by petitioner to Labour Conciliation Officer, dated 13-3-2012.
Ex.P6 — Copy of the letter by the petitioner to Labour Conciliation Officer, dated 27-6-2012.
The Management of Vinayaga Mission Medical College and Hospital, Kottucherry, Karaikal
. . Respondent List of exhibits marked for the respondent : Nil
T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY This industrial dispute coming on 20-6-2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal C.K. Chandrasekar and R. Rajavel, Advocates for the petitioner, Thiru R. llanchezhiyan and Tmt. R. Thilagavathy, Advocates for the respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the case records, after having stood over till this day, this court passed the following:
AWARD
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 156/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 31st October 2013)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an award in I.D. (T) No. 11/2009, dated 3-7-2013 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the Vinayaga Mission Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal and Vinayaga Mission Medical College and Hospital Non-Teaching Staff Union, Karaikal, over wage revision and other demands on par with 6th Pay Commission 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).
————
This industrial dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt. No. 91/AIL/Lab./J/2009, dated 26-6-2009 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz., (1) Whether the demand of the Vinayaga Mission Medical College and Hospital Non-Teaching Staff Union, Karaikal and against the management of M/s. Vinayaga Mission Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal over wage revision and other demands on par with 6th Central Pay Commission is justified or not?
(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioners are entitled to?
(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal.
Wednesday, the 3rd day of July 2013
I.D. (T) No. 11/2009
Vinayaga Mission Medical College and Hospital Non-Teaching Staff Union, rep. by its President/Secretary, 25/1, Perumal Koil Street, Varichikudy Post, Karaikal . . Petitioner The petitioner had entered into a settlement dated 1 - 1 2 - 2 0 0 5 w i t h t h e r e s p o n d e n t m a n a g e m e n t . The settelement was approved by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The settlement expired on 30-11-2008. After the expiry of the previous settlement, the petitioner placed a charter of demands, dated 23-1-2009 before the Labour Officer, Karaikal seeking enhanced pay allowances and other facilities on par with the 6th Central Pay Commission directives to the technical, non-technical staff and ministerial staff of similar institutions coming under the Union territory of Puducherry/Health and Family Welfare Services of Government. The conciliation ended in failure as the management was unwilling to submit to the claim. The Labour Officer finally reported failure of conciliation on 1-6-2009. The Government have referred the dispute based on the failure report submitted as per section 12(4) of Industrial Disputes Act.
1034 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 20133. The respondent in his counter has stated as follows:-
The respondent Medical College and Hospital is a private medical college run by the TKVTSSMEC Trust and to impart education to the students, it is running a hospital at Karaikal. The salary and other day-to-day expenses are met with the regulated fees collected from the students and it is not getting any grant from the Government or any other authorities. The respondent institution is also not a 'State' within the meaning of the Constitution of India.
terms of settlement entered in 2006. The said settlement was arrived at after protracted negotiation with the petitioner union after discussing the pros and corns at all levels and therefore, it is quite unnecessary to review again. Hence, there is no justification in the demand of the petitioner union over wage revision and other demands on par with 6th Central Pay Commission either under law or on fact. Hence, the respondent prays for dismissal of the industrial dispute.
4. On the side of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P38 were marked. On the side of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
4. The respondent have paid wages and extended other benefits taking into account the general nature of work such wages and benefits are comparatively more than that of what is being paid at various private medical colleges prevailing in Puducherry. During the past several years, the respondent used to negotiate the salary and other benefits with the petitioner union and entered into settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and last settlement was made on 24th May 2006. In pursuance of the above said settlement, all the employees were given substantial pay hike. Subsequently a promotion policy was also introduced and about 50% of the employees have been given general promotion with substantial monetary benefits. The respondent have also agreed to give five per cent promotion to the employees every year which was also accepted by the petitioner union. Now overruling all the above, the petitioner union have demanded salary and other benefits on par with the recommendations made by the 6th Pay Commission.
As far as the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are concerned, it shall apply to persons appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union, whose pay is debited to the civil establishments of the Government. The members of the petitioner union are coming under the category of non-teaching employees in the respondent Medical College and Hospital. The University Grants Commission and the AICTE recommend the revision of pay and other allowances only to the teaching categories and conspicuously no norms have been fixed for non-teaching categories of employees employed in the private medical colleges. Therefore, the petitioner claim for revision of salary as per UGC & MCI norms does not arise.
As far as the petitioner union is concerned, they are all coming within the definition of 'Workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act and the very nature of employment, service conditions and other benefits are to be decided only by mutual negotiation under the collective bargaining mechanism available under the said Act. The service conditions of the petitioner union have already been regularised in Whether this petition can be allowed?
6. On the point:
The contention of the petitioner is that they had entered into a settlement, dated 1-12-2005 with the respondent management and the settlement was approved by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the settlement expired on 30-11-2008 and after the expiry of the previous settlement, they placed a charter of demands, dated 23-1-2009 before the Labour Officer, Karaikal seeking enhanced pay and allowances and other facilities on par with the 6th Central Pay Commission directives to the technical, non-technical staff and ministerial staff of similar institutions coming under the Union territory of Puducherry/Health and Family Welfare Services of Government and the conciliation ended in failure as the management was unwilling to submit to the claim. In order to prove their claim, the Secretary of the petitioner union was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 were marked. Apart from PW.1, the active member of the petitioner union was also examined as PW.2 to support the case of the petitioner, who has marked Ex.P33 to Ex.P38.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the University Grants Commission and the AICTE recommend the revision of pay and other allowances only to the teaching categories and conspicuously no norms have been fixed for non-teaching categories of employees employed in the private medical colleges. Therefore, the petitioner claim for revision of salary as per UGC & MCI norms does not arise. In order to prove their claim, the Manager, Legal and Administration of the respondent institution was examined as RW.1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked.
8. When the industrial dispute was posted for argument, the President of the petitioner union filed a Memo. of Settlement and submitted that they and the12 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1035 respondent management arrived at for consensus for upward revision of salary and other benefits and entered into a settlement, dated 31-1-2012 under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9. When the industrial dispute came up today, Thiru C. Murugesan, Secretary of the petitioner union present and Thiru S. Mohan, Personnel Officer of the respondent management present. The learned counsel for the respondent present. Memo. with copy of the settlement under section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act filed by the petitioner union Secretary, as the dispute is settled between the parties. Award is passed as per the settlement arrived between the parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.
10. In the result, the award is passed as per the settlement arrived between the parties. The copy of the 18(1) settlement will form part of the award. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of July 2013.
T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
————
Ex.P11 — Letter issued by the college, dated 29-6-2004.
Ex.P12 — Circular issued by the respondent, dated 26-3-2005.
Ex.P13 — Newspaper advertisement, dated 18-1-2006 Ex.P14 — Circular
Ex.P15 — Circular issued by the respondent college, dated 5-12-2006.
Ex.P16 — Circular, dated 21-11-2006
Ex.P17 — Advertisement issued by Health Department, dated 24-8-2007.
Ex.P18 — Letter received under RTI Act, dated 1-7-2008.
Ex.P19 — Circular of the college, dated 26-8-2008.
Ex.P20 — Circular issued by the college, dated 8-5-2009.
Ex.P21 — Receipt issued to a person, dated 14-5-2009.
Ex.P22 — Medicine prescription, dated 15-5-2009.
Ex.P23 — Circular issued by the college, dated 10-6-2009.
Ex.P24 — Press statement regarding 6th Pay Commission Pay, dated 4-8-2009.
List of petitioner's witnesses :
PW.1 — 7-1-2011 — C. Murugesan
PW.2 — 8-3-2011 — Adhitthan
Ex.P25 — Order granting interim relief, dated 6-8-2009.
Ex.P26 — Copy of pay receipt issued to Bageerathan during October 2009.
List of respondent's witness:
RW.1 — 28-3-2011 — D. Murugesan
Ex.P27 — Receipt, dated 10-11-2009
Ex.P28 — Press report about respondent college in Dinakaran.
List of petitioner's exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Charter of demands, dated 23-1-2009 Ex.P2 — Conciliation failure report
Ex.P3 — Regulations of Medical Council of India Ex.P4 — Appreciation letter issued by the respondent college, dated 24-8-2000.
Ex.P5 — Circular issued by the respondent, dated 3-4-2001.
Ex.P6 — Circular issued by the respondent college, dated 21-1-2002.
Ex.P7 — Circular issued by the respondent college, dated 15-2-2002.
Ex.P8 — Letter issued by the respondent, dated 21-2-2002.
Ex.P9 — Circular issued by the college, dated 27-2-2003.
Ex.P10 — Letter issued by the respondent, dated 28-5-2004.
Ex.P29 — MCI permission particulars
Ex.P30 — Advertisement by Prist University Ex.P31 — Interview given by Vice-Chancellor of respondent.
Ex.P32 — UGC regulations for medical colleges.
Ex.P33 — Request submitted to the Labour Officer, dated 28-1-2011.
Ex.P34 — Salary slip issued to a Pharmacist December 2010.
Ex.P35 — Show cause notice issued to a member by the management, dated 3-1-2011.
Ex.P36 — Show cause notice issued to a member, dated 28-12-2010.
Ex.P37 — Circular issued by the management regarding changed shift timings, dated 29-12-2010.
Ex.P38 — Notice issued by the management, dated 22-1-2011.
1036 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [12 November 2013List of respondent's exhibits:
Ex.B1 — Photocopy of the charter of demand, dated 23-1-2009.
Ex.B2 — Copy of the reply submitted to the Labour Officer, dated 17-4-2009.
Ex.B3 — Copy of Indian Medical Council Act, dated 30-12-1956.
Ex.B4 — Copy of the notification by the Medical Council of India.
Ex.B5 — Copy of draft notification of revision of pay scales by UGC.
Ex.B6 — Copy of notification by UGC for institutions deemed to be universities.
Ex.B7 — Copy of fixation details to employees by the respondent.
Ex.B8 — Copy of 18(1) settlement between parties, dated 24-5-2006.
Ex.B9 — Copy of MoU regarding promotion policy, dated 8-8-2008.
Ex.B10 — Copy of proposed revision of salary to the petitioner union.
Ex.B11 — Details of various benefits extended to the petitioner.
And whereas, it is considered that the conduct of the said Shri V. Vijayaraghavan, Assistant Engineer, Government Automobile Workshop, Puducherry which has led to his conviction and the gravity of the charge is such as to warrant the imposition of major penalty;
And whereas, Shri V. Vijayaraghavan, Assistant Engineer, Government Automobile Workshop, Puducherry was given an opportunity of personal hearing and offer his written explanation;
And whereas, the said Shri V. Vijayaraghavan, Assistant Engineer, Government Automobile workshop, Puducherry has given a written explanation which has been duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority hereby removes the said Shri V. Vijayaraghavan, Assistant Engineer, Government Automobile Workshop, Puducherry from service.
[By order of Special Secretary (Tr.)-cum-Disciplinary
Authority]
R. CHANDIRASEKARAN,
T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
Under Secretary to Government (Tr.).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING) TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT
(G.O. Ms. No. 72, dated 28th October 2013)
No. 231/Tr. Sectt./2013.
Puducherry, the 30th September 2013.
ORDER
NOTIFICATION
In pursuance of the Order No. 14046/111/2012. UTS-I, dated 4-10-2013 of the Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and on having reported for duty in this A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o n t h e f o r e n o o n o f 1 4 - 1 0 - 2 0 1 3 , Shri Chandraker Bharti, I.A.S., (AGMU:1996), is appointed as Secretary to Government and allotted the subjects "Finance, Planning, Industries, Agriculture, Forests and Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare" with immediate effect.
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
CHETAN B SANGHI,
Whereas, Shri V. Vijayaraghavan, Assistant Engineer, Government Automobile Workshop, Puducherry has been convicted on a criminal charge and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of ` 1,000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under section 7 of Prevention of Curruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of ` 1,000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the said Act by the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 2010 on 6-3-2012;
Chief Secretary to Government.