1020
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 November 2013
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(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>VaÈV·Ï
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D,
¿]\[≈D,
¿]\[≈D,
¿]\[≈D,
¿]\[≈D, Amflºƒˆ
Amflºƒˆ
Amflºƒˆ
Amflºƒˆ
Amflºƒˆ
x[MÁÈ :
]Ú. m·E, º\VÔ[>V¸, ®D.∞.,
®D.®_.,∏.˜.Ω.®fl.gÏ.Ω.n.,
>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ.
2013ágD gı| hÁÈ \V>D 26ágD ÂV^
ÿk^π¬˛wÁ\
ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ®ı 11/2009
1 . S. ´V\[
2. ∂Ú^
3. ´Vx
4. ∂´ƒ[
5. M. ÿƒ_kÂV>[
6. P. ÔVıœ√[
7. N. ÿ¤Ôyƒ[
8. ∂ˆ˛Úið[
9. L. nB™VÏ
10. N. T´VƒVt
1 1. M. Ê–kVƒ[
12. K. \VˆB©√[
13. K. ÔVÏ›]ºÔB[
14. V. ¤V™˛´V\[
15. T.A. ∂wÔ©√[
16. S. ∞ø\ÁÈ
17. A. ]ڛ>˺k_
. .
\–>V´ÏÔ^.
®]Ï
º\ÈVı ÷B¬zÂÏ,
M/s. p ´VÁ\BV ¸∏[™Ï¸ o‚.,
\mÁ´á14.
. .
®]Ï\–>V´Ï.
÷Õ>› ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ 25á7á2013 ∂[Æ ÷Æ]
sƒV´Áð¬ÔVÔ ®[ x[ kÕ>º√Vm, 1, 2, 3, 8 �ÆD
10 g˛B \–>V´ÏÔ^ >´©∏_, kw¬zÁ´QÏ
]Ú. M. ÁkzÕ› ∂kÏÔ^ g¤´V˛•D, 6, 7, 11 x>_ 17
kÁ´BV™ \–>V´ÏÔ^ >´©∏_, ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô© ∏´]W]
]Ú. mÁ´. gÆxÔD ∂kÏÔ^ g¤´V˛•D �ÆD ®]Ï
\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ kw¬zÁ´QÏÔ^ ]Ú. ºÔV. \Ëkıð[,
]Ú. ´V\˛Úið[ �ÆD ]Ú. G. ˛Úið[ g˛ºBVÏ
g¤´V˛•D ®|›mÁ´›> kV>∫ÔÁ·¬ ºÔ‚ÁÔ ÿƒFmD,
kw¬z ƒD√Õ>\V™ gkð∫ÔÁ·© √Ω›m© √VÏ›mD,
÷m ÂV^ kÁ´l_ √ˆÊÈÁ™l_ ÷ÚÕ> ∏[™Ï
÷Õ¿]\[≈D kw∫zD
y Ï k D
y Ï k D
y Ï k D
y Ï k D
y Ï k D
1947ágD kÚ¶›]B ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆÔ^ ƒ‚¶D
∏ˆ° 2Aá[ ˇµ \–>V´ÏÔ^ >\¬z √Ë›ÿ>V¶ÏflE
∏[ ƒD√·D �ÆD ÷>´ ∂Á™›m ƒKÁÔÔ”¶–D,
*ı|D √Ël_ ∂\Ï›> ºkı|ÿ\[Æ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï
WÏkVÔ›]uz c›>´s¶¬ ºÔVˆ ÷Õ>› ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ
>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^·VÏÔ^.
2. 1,2,3,8 �ÆD 10 \–>V´ÏÔπ[ >´©∏_ >V¬Ô_
ÿƒFB©√‚|^· ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ \–s[ ∑Ú¬ÔD ∏[kÚ\VÆ:
\–>V´ÏÔ^, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÆk™›]_ ªaBÏÔ^
gkÏ. 17á2á2007 x>_ ƒ‚¶›]uz© A≈D√VÔ WÏkVÔD
J¶©√‚|s‚¶m. √fi∑s_ ±_ >BVˆ›m ÷Õ]BV xøkmD
∂–©√©√‚| kÚD ÿ>VaÁÈfl ÿƒF> ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔD,
17á2á2007 x>_ ÷BuÁÔ s]Ô”¬z© A≈D√VÔ°D,
ƒ‚¶›]uz© A≈D√VÔ°D, J¶©√‚|s‚¶m. ∏[™Ï,
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈ ∂KkÈÔ›]_ ¶Õ> ƒ\´ƒ º√fl∑
k V Ï › Á > • D º > V _ s • u Æ , ƒ \ ´ ƒ x § k § ¬ Á Ô
kw∫Ô©√‚|s‚¶m. 1ágD \–>V´Ï W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈVπ
gkVÏ. 2ágD \–>V´Ï Ákı¶Ï ®[≈ √>sl_
1á4á2004 x>_ W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈVπBVÔ°D, 3ágD
\–>V´Ï g©º´‚¶Ï ®[≈ √>sl_ 1á1á1990 x>KD,
8ágD
�ÆD
10ágD
\–>V´ÏÔ^
t¥[
g©º´‚¶ÏÔ·VÔ, W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈVπÔ·VÔ°D, xÁ≈ºB
1á7á1998 �ÆD 11á7á1998 x>_ √ËAˆÕm kÕ>™Ï.
3. \–>V´ÏÔ^
ÔΩ™
cÁw©√VπÔ^
�ÆD
Â_Ès>\VÔ,
®Às>
zÁ≈•t[§
√Ë
ÿƒFm
kÕ>™Ï. ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô WÏkV˛Ô^ EȈ[ Ì‚|fl ƒ]l[
º√ˆ_, EÈ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔπ¶D kuAÆ›], ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ>D
ÿ√≈©√‚|, zÁ≈Õ> ÿ>VÁÔ ÿÔV|›m “ ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚”
ÿƒFm^·>VÔ ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m. ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ, J|k>uz
>¬Ô
cıÁ\BV™
ÔV´ðD
∞m°t_ÁÈ.
gÔºk,
®]Ï\–>V´Ï \–>V´ÏÔ”¬z ∂π¬Ô ºkıΩB ƒD√·
1021
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
√V¬˛› ÿ>VÁÔ �ÆD ∂Á™›m √ΩÔÁ·•D �ÆD
÷w©¨| �ÆD ∂Á™›m ƒKÁÔÔÁ·•D, 17á2á2007
x>_ ∂π¬Ô cˆBkÏ gkVÏ. gÔºk, ÷w©¨|
ÿ>VÁÔBVÔ ŒÀÿkVÚ \–>V´ÏÔ”¬zD >ÈV ‘√VF
2,00,000 (÷´ı| È‚ƒD ‘√VF) ∂π¬Ô ºkı|D ®™
∏´VÏ›]¬Ô©√|˛≈m.
4. 6, 7, 11 x>_ 17 kÁ´BV™ \–>V´ÏÔπ[ >´©∏_
>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√‚|^· ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ \–s[ ∑Ú¬ÔD
∏[kÚ\VÆ :
\–>V´ÏÔ^,
13á7á1991,
2á5á2000,
5á6á2000,
5á9á2000, 4á2á2002, 10á2á2002, 12á3á2002 �ÆD
16á7á2000 g˛B º>]Ôπ_, ÿ>VaÈVπÔ·VÔ √ˬzfl
ºƒÏÕm, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_, J¶©√|D
kÁ´, E≈©√VÔ √ËAˆÕm kÕ>VÏÔ^. √È kÚ¶∫Ô·VÔ
ƒD√· cBÏ° ÷_ÈV>>V_, >∫Ô^ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÔÁ·©
√u§ º√ƒ, ÿ>Vauƒ∫ÔD ∞u√|›] WÏkVÔ›m¶[ º√fl∑
kVÏ›Á> ¶›]™Ï. g™V_, ®Às> x[º™u≈xD
÷_ÁÈ. ]œÿ´™ 26-6-2006 ∂[Æ ÿ>VauƒVÁÈÁB
J|k>VÔ ∂§s›m ÿ\l[ ºÔ‚Ω_ ºÂV‚œ¸ Œ‚¶©√‚|,
ºÔ‚|D J¶©√‚¶m. ÷Õ> ƒ‚¶sº´V>\V™ J|>ÁÈ
®]Ï›m
ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^
º√V´V‚¶D
ÿƒF>™Ï. ÷Õ>©
º√V´V‚¶›Á> kKsw¬Ôfl ÿƒFB º√V´V‚¶›Á> x[M[Æ
ÿƒF> x¬˛B ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z, “ ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚” ®[≈
ÿ√Bˆ_
EÈ
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z
√ðD
√‚|kV¶V
ÿƒF>™Ï.
5. \–>V´ÏÔ^ *ı|D “ ºkÁÈ \‚|º\ ºkı|D”
®[Æ ºÔVˆ ƒ\´ƒ ∂]ÔVˆ x[MÁÈl_ ÿ>Vau>VkV
®ø©∏™Ï. ÷Õ>› >VkVs_ c¶[√V| ∞u√¶s_ÁÈ,
ÿ>Vau >Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶D ∏ˆ° 25(O)(1)á[ √Ω 90 ÂV‚Ô”¬z
x[A, ∂´E¶D ∂–\] ºÔV´ ºkı|D. ∂∫Ù™D, x[
∂–\]
ÿ√≈V\_
ÿ>VauƒVÁÈÁB
JΩBm
ƒ‚¶sº´V>\VzD. gÔºk, \–>V´ÏÔ”¬z *ı|D
√ËBπ›m , √Ë ÿ>V¶ÏflE, ∏[ ƒD√·D �ÆD ÷>´
√ˆÔV´∫ÔÁ·•D ∂π¬Ô c›>´s¶ ºkı|D. º\KD,
ÿ>Vau >Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶D 1947á_ ∏ˆ°25(R)(1)á[ z§©∏‚¶√Ω
WÏkVÔ›][ cˆÁ\BV·Ú¬z 6 \V> EÁ≈ >ı¶Á™ �ÆD
` 5,000 ∂π¬zD√Ω c›>´s¶ºkı|D.
6. 1, 2, 3, 8 �ÆD 10 \–>V´ÏÔπ[ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ \–Ák
g‚ºƒ∏›> ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF> ®]Ï\–s[ ∑Ú¬ÔD
∏[kÚ\VÆ :
ƒ‚¶©√Ω•D ƒ∫Ô]Ôπ[√Ω•D, ÷D\– >^”√Ω ÿƒFB©√¶
ºkı|D. ∂´E™V_ ∂–©√©√‚¶ √ˆÕmÁ´ c›>´s_,
\–>V´ÏÔ”¬z ºkÁÈ \Ƭԩ√‚¶m ƒˆBV? ®[√m \‚|º\
z≈©∏¶©√‚¶m. ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ J¶©√‚¶m √u§ ®Às>
ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆD ∂]_ z§©∏¶©√¶V>>V_, “ ƒ‚¶›]uz©
A≈D√VÔ ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ JΩBm” ®[≈ ÌuÆ ∞uÔ›>¬Ô>_È.
1981áD kÚ¶D ®]Ï\–>V´Ï ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_, Amflºƒˆ
\VWÈD, cÆÁkBVÆ ®[≈ ˛´V\›]È ÿ>V¶∫Ô©√‚¶m.
2003-2004 kÚ¶›]_ ÿ√Ú›> Âi¶D ∞u√‚¶m.
ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^, ƒ‚¶›]uz© A≈D√V™ ¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔπ_ ~|√‚|,
ÿ\m ºkÁÈ ÿƒF>_, ∂]Ô s|©A ®|›>_, √Ë ºÂ´›]_
√Ë ÿƒFBV\_ ÷Ú›>_, ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^ ˇµ √ΩBV\_ ÷Ú›>_,
ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ
ÿƒV›m¬ÔÁ·
ºƒ>©√|›>_
g˛B
¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ·V_ ÿ>V¶Õm Âi¶D ∞u√‚¶m. ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·
®Àk·ºkV ºÔ‚|¬ÿÔVı|D, ∂kÏÔ^ >∫Ô^ ÿƒB_√V‚Á¶
\Vu§¬ ÿÔV^·V>>V_ Ô>kÁ¶©A (ÈV¬á∂°‚) ÿƒFB©√‚¶m.
ºkÆ kal[§ 17-2-2007á_ W´Õ>´\VÔ J¶ ∞mkV™m.
7. J¶©√‚|s‚¶m ®[√>V_, ®Às>\V™ cu√›]
ÿƒB_√V|Ô”D ÿƒB_√¶s_ÁÈ. cˆ\D �ÆD xÁ≈BV™
ƒV[§>µÔ^, ∂Õ>Õ>› mÁ≈l¶D ƒ\Ï©∏¬Ô©√‚¶m. >¬Ô
÷w©¨| ∂π¬Ô, ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z c›>´kV>D >´©√‚|,
∂]Ô√‚ƒ ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^ xø ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚ ÿ>VÁÔ ÿ√uÆ
Ôð¬z xΩ›m¬ÿÔVı¶™Ï. º\KD 4, 5 �ÆD 9
\–>V´ÏÔ^ ∂›ÿ>VÁÔÁB, ÷Àkw¬z WKÁkl_
÷Ú¬zDº√Vº> ÿ√uƬÿÔVı¶™Ï. ÿ>VaÈVπÔÁ·
kuAÆ›]B>VÔ ÌÆkm, ∏[ EÕ>Á™•¶[ ∞u√‚¶
Ìu≈VzD. ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl[ Ô‚Ω¶xD, “ ƒVF ∑©∏ˆD
¸∏[™Ï¸
otÿ¶‚”
®[√kÚ¬z¬
˛´B›]uz¬
ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚¶m. ÷D\–>V´ÏÔπ[ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ \– >^”√Ω
ÿƒFB©√¶ ºkı|D.
8. 6, 7, 11 x>_ 17 kÁ´ \–>VÏÔπ[ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ \–Ák
g‚ºƒ∏›m ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF> ®]Ï\–s[ ∑Ú¬ÔD
∏[kÚ\VÆ :
Œ©A¬ÿÔV^·©√‚¶ ƒ∫Ô]ÔÁ·› >s´ �≈ ƒ∫Ô]Ô^
\Ƭԩ√|˛[≈™. \–>V´ÏÔ^, √ËBV·ÏÔ·VÔ ÷ÚÕm
kÕ>VÏÔ^ ®[√mD, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï t_ \–>V´Ï ̧B
÷¶›]_ ÷B∫˛ kÕ>m ®[√mD Œ©A¬ ÿÔV^·©√|˛≈m. 150
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ ÷Æ]BVÔ √Ë AˆÕm kÕ>>VÔ ÌÆD ÌuÆD
\Ƭԩ√|˛≈m. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï t_o_, \–>V´ÏÔπ_ ŒÚ EÈ
ÿ>VaÈVπÔπ[, Œø∫ˇ™fl ÿƒB_Ô·V_, gÁÈ J|D
WÁȬz› >^·©√‚¶m ®[√m √u§ x[™§s©A >´©√‚¶m.
gÁÈ ÷B∫ÔV\_ ÷ÚÕ> cıÁ\ WÈk´D cðÏÕm, EÈ
ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^ ´V˜™V\V ÿƒFm >∫Ô”¬zˆB ÿ>VÁÔlÁ™
ÿ√uÆfl ÿƒ[Æs‚¶™Ï. ÿ>VaÈVπ ´V\[ �ÆD 16 º√Ï
\‚|º\ gÁÈ J¶ÁÈ g‚ºƒ∏›m ÿ>Vau>VkV ®ø©∏™Ï.
ƒ\´ƒ x§k§¬ÁÔl_ z§©∏¶©√‚¶ 17 º√ˆ_, ®D. ∂´ƒ[
(\–>V´Ïá4), ÿƒ_kÂV>[ (\–>V´Ïá5), �ÆD nFB™VÏ
(\–>V´Ïá9), g˛ºBVÏ, WÏkVÔ›m¶[ ƒ\´ƒD
ÿƒFmÿÔVı| ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚ ∞u√|›]¬ ÿÔVı¶VÏÔ^.
º\KD ®¸. ´V\[, ®_ . ∂Ú^, ®¸. ´Vx g˛ºBVÏ
ÿ>Vau>VkV ®ø©√s_ÁÈ. ƒ‚¶©√ΩBVÔ, ÷Õ> gÁÈ
J¶©√‚|^·m. ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ cˆ\D, ÷B¬zÂÏ √]° ®ı,
÷®¸n, ∏.®©., su√Á™ kˆ, ®¬Áƒ¸ kˆ c^π‚¶ ∂Á™›m
cˆÁ\ÔÁ·•D
∞uÔ™ºk
>zÕ>
mÁ≈l¶D
Œ©√Á¶¬Ô©√‚¶m. ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ J¶©√‚¶ ∏≈z, ∂∫z
*ı|D ºkÁÈ >´ ºÔVÚkm ƒ‚¶©√Ω ∞uÔ›>¬Ô>_È. ºkÆ
ÿ√Bˆ_, WÏkVÔ›Á> ®]Ï\–>V´Ï ¶›] kÚk>VÔ ÌÆkm
ƒˆB_È. gÔºk, \–>V´ÏÔπ[ ÷D\– >^”√Ω ÿƒFB©√¶
ºkı|D.
9. ÷D\–s_ yÏ°¬z ®øD ®øs™V¬Ô^ :
÷ Ú > ´ © A ƒ D \ > › m ¶ [ , \ – > V ´ Ï > ´ © ∏_ ,
S. ∞ø\ÁÈ (\–>V´Ïá16) ®[√kÏ \. ƒV. 1-gÔ sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚|
\ . ƒ V . g . 1 x > _ \ . ƒ V . g . 8 g k ð ∫Ô · V Ô
z§X| ÿƒFB©√‚¶m. S. ´V\[ (\–>V´Ïá1) ®[√kÏ
\.ƒV. 2ágÔ sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚| \.ƒV.g. 9 x>_ \V.ƒV.g.14
gkð∫Ô·VÔ z§X| ÿƒFB©√‚¶m. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_
®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›][, zø\ ∂KkÈÔ WÏkVÔ ∂KkÈÏ,
M. QV™ºƒÔ´[ ®[√kÏ ®.\.ƒV. 1ágÔ sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚| ®. ƒV.
g.1 x>_ ®.ƒV.g. 35 gkð∫Ô·VÔ z§X| ÿƒFB©√‚¶m.
1022
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 November 2013
®ø s™V¬Ô^:
1. gÁÈÁB W´Õ>´ J¶_ ÿƒF> c¶[ ÷w©¨¶VÔ
WÏkVÔD ∂π¬Ô xu√‚¶ ÿ>VÁÔÁB 1, 2, 3, 8 �ÆD
10 \–>V´ÏÔ^, ÿ√≈ \Æ›>m ƒˆ>V™V?
2. 6, 7, 11 x>_ 17 kÁ´BV™ \–>V´ÏÔ^ √Ë›
ÿ>V¶ÏflE, ∏[ ƒD√·D �ÆD ÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔ^ ÿ√≈
cˆBk´V?
3. ®©√ˆÔV´D \–>V´ÏÔ”¬z¬ ˛Á¶¬zD?
®ø s™V¬Ô^ 1 �ÆD 2 :
®]Ï \–>V´Ï ÿ>VauƒVÁÈÁB 1988ágD gı|,
Amflºƒˆ \VWÈD, cÆÁkBVÆ ®[≈ ˛´V\›]_ g´D∏›m
∂]_ ÷Õ> \–>V´ÏÔ^ c^π‚¶ ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^, √Ë
AˆÕm kÕ>>VÔ°D, ƒD√· cBÏ° √u§ º√fl∑ kVÏ›Á> ¶›>
ÿ>Vauƒ∫ÔD g´D∏›m ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ Ák¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ°D,
º√fl∑ kVÏ›Á> ÂÁ¶ÿ√u≈]KD ®Às> x[º™u≈xD
÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ]œÿ´™ 26á6á2006á_ WÏkVÔD gÁÈÁB
ƒ‚¶›]uz© A≈D√VÔ J¶ ºÂV‚œ¸ Œ‚ΩB>VÔ°D \. ƒV. 1.
�ÆD \.ƒV. 2. g˛ºBVÏ >™m ∏´V\ð √›]´›]_
z§©∏‚ΩÚÕ>™Ï º\KD ÷›>z J¶_ ƒ‚¶›]uz©
A≈D√V™m ®[ÆD º\KD ÿ>VaÈVπÔπ_ ŒÚ ∏ˆs™Á´
kuAÆ›] ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ>D ÿ√uÆ √ðD ÿÔV|›m
“ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚” ÿƒF> s>xD ƒ‚¶›]uz© A≈D√V™>VzD
®[ÆD
ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô
ƒ‚¶©√Ω,
\–>V´ÏÔ”¬z
√Ë›ÿ>V¶ÏflE �ÆD ∏[ ƒD√·›m¶[ *ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô
c›>´s¶ ºkı|D ®[ÆD \. ƒV. 1 �ÆD \.ƒV.2 g˛ºBVÏ
>™m ∏´\Vð √›]´›]_ z§©∏‚ΩÚÕ>VÏ.
10.
6ákm \–>V´Ï P. ÔVıœ√–¬z ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶
∂Á¶BV· ∂‚Á¶ �ÆD 1á10á1997á_ ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶ WB\™
c›>´°, W´Õ>´ ºkÁÈ c›>´° \. ƒV. g 1 x>_ \.ƒV.g 3.
®™°D, ÷›ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ z§›m ∂´E¶D z§©∏¶©√‚¶
10á6á2009 º>]l‚¶ ∂´ƒVÁðl[ ÂÔ_ \. ƒV. g. 4
®™°D, ÷›ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ƒVÏ√VÔ ÷Õ¿]\[≈›]oÚÕm
\–>V´ÏÔ^ �ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´Ú¬z ∂–©∏B ºÂV‚œ¸
ÂÔ_ \.ƒV.g. 5 ®™°D ®]Ï\–>V´Ï gÁÈ √]° ƒV[§>µ
ÂÔ_ \. ƒV. g. 6 ®™°D ®]Ï\–>V´Ï gÁÈl[ \mÁ´
∂KkÈÔ √]° ƒV[§>µ \.ƒV.g.7 ®™°D MCA
“(Ministry of Corporate Affairs) Website” \.ƒV g.8
®™°D ƒ\´ƒ ∂KkÈÏÔπ¶D WÏkVÔD s·¬Ô ∂π›>
ÂÔ_Ô^ \.ƒV g 9. x>_ \.ƒV.g 11 kÁ´ ®™°D \–>V´Ï
´V\[ ƒ\´ƒ ∂]ÔVˆ¬z ∂π›> \–s[ ÂÔ_ \.ƒV.g. 12
®™°D, ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô Á\BD gÁðBÏ ∂kÏÔ”¬z
∂π›> ÔΩ>D \.ƒV. g. 13 ®™°D 13á6á2008á_ ƒ\´ƒ
º√fl∑kVÏ›Á>¬z
∂Áw¬Ô
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï
mÁ≈¬z
∂–©√©√‚¶ ÂÔ_ \.ƒV g.14 ®™°D Ôı|^·™.
11. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÆk™›][ ƒVÏ∏_ ƒV‚EBD ∂π›>
®.\.ƒV.1 >™m ∏´\Vð √›]´›]_ z§©∏|ÁÔl_, ÷Õ>
gÁÈl_ ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ∏´flƒÁ™Ô^ ∞u√‚| ƒˆk´
÷B∫ÔV\_
x¶∫˛lÚÕ>>VÔ°D,
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï
Œ›mÁwBVÁ\ º√V¬ÔVKD, cu√›] ∏´flƒÁ™BV_ t_
ÂE›m º√VÔ¬ÌΩB WÁÈl_ ®]Ï√VϬԩ√‚| ∂>uzˆB
gºÈVƒÁ™ÁB WÏkVÔ›]uz ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ°D ∂>™V_
®.ƒV.g. 2 JÈD Ô>kÁ¶©A (ÈV¬á∂°‚) ºÂV‚œ¸
28á6á2006á_ ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ°D, 30á6á2006 x>_
ÿ>V¶ÏÕm gÁÈ ÷B∫Ôs_ÁÈ ®[ÆD, gÔºk 17á2á2007
x>_ gÁÈÁB W´Õ>´\VÔ J¶©º√Vk>VÔ ∂π›> >V¬ˇm
®.ƒV.g.5 ®™°D ÷flÛµWÁÈl_ J¶_ ∂§s©A¶[
ƒD√·D �ÆD ÷w©¨‚|› ÿ>VÁÔ x>oBkuÁ≈ 43
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z ∂–©∏B>VÔ°D ∂kuÁ≈ ∂Õ>›
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ ÿ√≈ \Æ›ms‚¶>VÔ°D, ƒ\´ƒ ∂KkÈÏ
x[A ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ Ák›> ∏≈z 26 Â√ÏÔ^
Ôð¬z yÏ›m¬ÿÔVı| ÿƒ[Æ s‚¶>VÔ°D, *ı|D
÷B∫ÔV> ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_, \–>V´ÏÔÁ· √ËB\Ï›>
kVF©A ÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD z§©∏‚ΩÚÕ>VÏ.
12.
®]Ï
\–>V´Ï
>´©∏_
>V¬Ô_
ÿƒFB©√‚¶
gkð∫Ôπ_, gÁÈ ÿ>V¶ÏÕm ÷B∫ÔV> WÁÈ ∞u√‚¶>V_
J|k>VÔ z§©∏‚| ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô›]uz ∂–©√©√‚¶
10á5á2006á_ ∂π›> ÔΩ> ÂÔ_, Ô>kÁ¶©A (ÈV¬ ∂°‚)
ºÂV‚œ¸ , ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈¬z WÏkVÔD ∂–©∏B ÔΩ>D
�ÆD
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï
mÁ≈¬z
∂–©∏B
s·¬ÔD
14á12á2006á_ gÁÈ J¶©º√Vk>VÔ ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶ ºÂV‚œ¸
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï
mÁ≈•¶[
∞u√|›]¬ÿÔVı¶
ÔΩ>©
º√V¬zk´›m¬Ô^, cˆ\D ´›m ÿƒFB©√‚¶ c›>´°Ô^,
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶ c›>´°Ô^ g˛BÁkÔ^
®.ƒV g.1 x>_ ®.ƒV. g.13 kÁ´ ®™°D Ôı|^·™.
∂´ƒ[, ÿƒ_kÂV>[ �ÆD nFB™VÏ g˛B ÿ>VaÈVπÔ”¬zD
WÏkVÔ›]uzD ∞u√‚¶ “ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚” ÂÔ_Ô^ ®.ƒV.g. 14
x>_ ®.ƒV. g 16 kÁ´ ®™°D “ƒVF ∑©∏ˆD ¸∏[™Ï¸”
®[≈ WÆk™›]uz gÁÈ ÷ÚÕ> ÷¶›Á> 13á12 2007á_
su√Á™ ÿƒF> ˛´B√›]´ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒV.g 17 ®™¬
ÔıΩÚÕ>™. ´V\[ x>_ ]Ú›>˺k_ kÁ´ 14
ÿ>VaÈVπÔ”¬z gÁÈ J¶ÁÈÿBV‚Ω, ÿ>VaÈVπÔ”¬z
Ôð¬ÁÔ› yÏ›m ∂kÏÔ”¬zˆB √ðD Á√ƒ_ ÿƒFk>VÔ
z§©∏‚|, 17á2á2007á_ ŒÀÿkVÚkÚ¬zD ÔVºƒVÁÈ JÈD
ÿ>VÁÔ ∂–©∏B>VÔ Ôı¶ √]°› >√V_Ôπ[ ÂÔ_Ô^
®.ƒV.g. 18 gzD. ÿ>VaÈVπÔ”¬z, √]°› >√V_ JÈD,
WÏkVÔ›]¶tÚÕm ∂–©√©√‚|, ]Ú©∏ ∂–©√©√‚¶
cÁ≈Ô^ ®.ƒV.g. 19 x>_ ®.ƒ.g. 32 kÁ´ gzD. gÁÈ
´›m g™>VÔ ÔıΩÚÕ> website ÂÔ_ ®.ƒV.g. 33 ®™°D,
∞©´_ 2006 x>_ ∏©´kˆ 2007á[ ƒD√·© √‚ΩB_ ÂÔ_
®.ƒV.g. 34 ®™°D, ÷Õ> gÁÈ su√Á™ ÿƒFB©√|k>VÔ
“The
Hindu”
ÂVπ>a_ ÿÔV|›> s·D√´ ÂÔ_
®.ƒV.g. 35 gzD.
13. ÷Àkw¬z› ÿ>V¶ÏAÁ¶B 10á6á2009 º>]l‚¶
∂´E>a_ z§©∏‚|^· ∂§¬ÁÔl[√Ω ®]Ï\–>V´Ï
gÁÈl_ √ËAˆÕm kÕ> ]Ú ®¸. ´V\[ c^π‚¶
17 ÿ>VaÈVπÔ”D 1991 x>_ ÿkÀºkÆ º>]Ôπ_
√ËB\Ï›>©√‚| √Ë ÿƒFm kÕ>VÏÔ^ ®[ÆD ª]B
cBÏ° √u§ ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô›][ JÈD º√fl∑kVÏ›Á>
¶Õ>>VÔ°D, ∏[™Ï 17á2á2007á_ ÷›ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ
J¶©√‚|s‚¶>VÔ°D \–>V´Ï >´©∏_ Ì≈©√|D ÌuƬÔ^
\Ƭԩ√¶s_ÁÈ. ÿ>VaÈVπÔπ[ Œ›mÁwBVÁ\
º√V¬˛™V_ ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ J¶ ∞mkV™>VÔ WÏkVÔ› >´©∏_
Ì≈©√|k>V_ \–>V´ÏÔ^ ºÔVÚkm º√VÈ ÷D\–
∂–\]¬Ô ÷BK\V? ®™ ÂVD gF° ÿƒFB ºkıΩ•^·m.
14. ÷›ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ÿ>V¶Ï√VÔ >´©∏™ÏÔ”¬z^
ÂÁ¶ÿ√u≈ º√fl∑kVÏ›Á>l_, ∑xÔ\V™ ÛµWÁÈ
∞u√¶V>>V_ 24á12á2008á_ ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈l™´V_
∂π¬Ô©√‚¶, ƒ\´ƒ x§k§¬ÁÔl[ º√ˆ_, ∂´∑,
1023
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
÷›ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÁ≈› yϬÔ, ÷Õ¿]\[≈›]uz √ˆÕmÁ´
ÿƒFm^·m. ∂>[∏≈z, ÷Àkw¬˛_ z§©∏¶©√‚¶
17
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔπ_,
\–>V´ÏÔ·V™
4.
∂´ƒ[,
5. ÿƒ_kÂV>[, �ÆD 9. nFB™VÏ g˛ºBVÏ WÏkVÔ›]uzD
∂kÏÔ”¬zD ÷Á¶ºB ∞u√‚¶ Œ©√Õ>›][ º√ˆ_ ƒ\´ƒD
∞u√‚| ∂DJ[Æ º√ÚD ÿƒ[Æs‚¶>VÔ ÷Ú>´©∏™Ï
ƒVÏ∏KD ÿ>ˆs¬Ô©√‚¶>V_, ∂DJ[Æ º√Ï √u§
÷D\–s_
®Õ>©
√ˆÔV´
c›>´°D
∏≈©∏¬Ô›
º>Ákl_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÔÚ> xΩ˛≈m.
15. \–>V´Ï >´©∏_ z§©∏|ÁÔl_ ÷Õ> gÁÈ•D,
ºÔVs_√‚Ωl_ c^· gÁÈ•D Œº´ >ÁÈÁ\ ∂KkÈÔD
\mÁ´ÁB¬ ÿÔVı| ÷B¬Ô©√|k>VÔ°D, ÷Õ> gÁÈ
Âi¶›]_ ÷B∫Ô kVF©º√ ÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ∂´∑ ∂π¬zD
ƒKÁÔÔ^ ˛Á¶›>kÁ´ Amflºƒˆl_ ÷B∫˛B ÷Õ> gÁÈ
>uº√Vm J¶©√|D º√Vm ÷Õ> gÁÈ º√VÈ ÷[ÿ™VÚ
ºÔVs_√‚Ω gÁÈÁB, >∫Ô^ Œº´ WÏkVÔ›][ ˇµ ÷B¬˛
kÚD WÏkVÔ›]™Ï, \–>V´ÏÔ”¬z gÁÈl_ ƒ‚¶©√Ω
√ËBπ¬Ô cˆBkÏ ®[ÆD ®|›mÁ´›>VÏ. º\KD,
\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ kV]|ÁÔl_ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï gÁÈl[
ÿ√BÚD >uº√Vm ÷B∫˛ kÚD gÁÈl[ ÿ√BÚD
“p ´VÁ\BV ¸∏[™Ï¸ otÿ¶‚” ®[º≈ c^·m ®[ÆD,
÷ÕWÏkVÔD ‘√©π¬ otÿ¶‚’ ®[√>V_ ‘p ´VÁ\BV
¸∏[™Ï¸ otÿ¶‚’ ®[≈ ÿ√Bˆ_ \‚|º\ x>‹| ÿƒFB©√¶
kVF©A^·>VÔ°D
ÿ>ˆs›>VÏ.
Amflºƒˆ
�ÆD
ºÔVs_√‚Ωl_ c^· gÁÈÔπ[ WÏkVÔD �ÆD Ô‚|©√V|
\mÁ´ >ÁÈÁ\ ∂KkÈÔ›]_ ÷ÚÕm >V[ ÿƒFB©√|˛≈m
®™ ®.\.ƒV. 1 Œ©A¬ÿÔVı|^·VÏ. WÏkVÔ √]° ƒ‚¶›]_,
√]•D WÏkVÔ›]uz, Œº´ Balance Sheets >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB
kVF©A^·>VÔ°D, ºÔVs_√‚Ω gÁÈloÚÕm º√flEx›m,
kƒÕ› �ÆD EÈÏ Amflºƒˆ gÁÈl_ kÕm ºkÁÈ ÿƒF>>VÔ
\.ƒV. 1 ƒV‚EB›]_ ̧•^·Á> ÷Õ¿]\[≈D ÔkM¬Ô
ºkı|D ®[Æ Ì§™VÏ. ÷›>z ÔV´ð∫Ô·V_, gÁÈl[
cˆÁ\, WÏkVÔD g˛BÁk Œº´ >ÁÈÁ\l[ ˇµ c^·>V_
Amflºƒˆl_
ÿƒB_√‚¶
®]Ï\–>V´Ï
gÁÈ•D
ºÔVs_√‚Ωl_ ÷B∫˛kÚD gÁÈ•D Œº´ >ÁÈÁ\l[
ˇµ ÿƒB_√‚| kÚkÁ> ÂVD ∂§k>V_, >∫Ô^
Ô‚E¬ÔV´ÏÔÁ· *ı|D \–s_ z§©∏‚¶√Ω √ËB\Ï›>
kVF©A^·>VÔ kV>VΩ™VÏ. ˇµÔı¶ x[yÏ©AÔÁ·
®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.
2011-II-LJ-102
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.
“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”.
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”.
16. >∫Ô^ gÁÈ 26á6á2006á_ xÁ≈BV™ ∂§s©A
∂–©√©√‚|, ∏[ J¶©√‚¶>VÔ°D, >∫Ô^ gÁȬzˆB
WB\™D ÿ>V¶Ï√VÔ ∂kð∫Ô^ ∂Á™›mD Œ©√Á¶›m
∂>uzˆB ®.ƒV.g. 9 x>_ ®.ƒV.g. 13 kÁ´BV™
gkð∫Ô^ JÈD cÆ]√|›>©√|k>VÔ°D ®.\.ƒV. 1
̧•^·>VKD,
º\KD
®.ƒV.g.
17
su√Á™
ºÂV‚œ¸á[ JÈD ƒVF ∑©∏ˆx¬z su√Á™ ÿƒF>>VÔ
>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m. g>ÈV_, ÷flÛµWÁÈl_
\–>V´ÏÔ”¬z *ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô ÷BÈVm ®™
z§©∏‚|^·VÏ. ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶©√Ω gÁÈÁB JΩB
º√Vm
∂]_
√Ë
AˆÕm
kÕ>
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^
“ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚” ÿ>VÁÔÁB √ÈÏ ÿ√uÆ ÿƒ[Æ
s‚¶VÏÔ^ ®[ÆD, \–>V´Ï c^π‚¶ 17 º√ÏÔ”¬zD,
∂›ÿ>VÁÔ ÔVºƒVÁÈ JÈD ∂–©√©√‚|D, ∂Á>
ÿ√≈V\_ ]Ú©∏ ∂–©∏•^·VÏÔ^ ®[ÆD ÷›>z ÿƒB_
∞uÔ›>¬Ô>_È ®[ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï kw¬zÁ´QÏ
z§©∏‚¶VÏ.
1024
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 November 2013
17. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï
gÁÈ,
1988á_
x>o_
ÿ>V¶∫Ô©√‚¶>VÔ°D, ∏[™Ï 1995á_ ºÔVs_√‚Ωl_
÷´ı¶Vkm gÁÈ ÿ>V¶∫˛B>VÔ°D, ÷Õ> ÷Ú
gÁÈÔ”º\ “p ´VÁ\BV ¸∏[™Ï¸ otÿ¶‚” ®[≈
ÿ√Bˆ_ \mÁ´l_ c^· ˛ÚiðVA´D ÔVÈMl_
∂KkÈÔ›Á> >ÁÈÁ\l¶\VÔ ÿÔVı| ÿƒB_√‚|
kÚk>VÔ°D, \–>V´Ï >´©∏_ Ì≈©√‚¶m. ÷Õ>
÷´ı| gÁÈÔ”D, ÿkÀºkÆ gÁÈÔ^ ®[ÆD
÷Õ>
gÁÈÔπ[
WÏkVÔ∫Ô^,
>M›>MBVÔ
ÿƒB_√‚|kÚk>VÔ°D, ŒÚ gÁȬzD �ÿ≈VÚ
gÁȬzD ÿ>V¶Ï∏_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_
®|›mÁ´¬Ô©√|˛≈m. º\KD, ∂kÏ z§©∏|ÁÔl_,
√ÈÔVÈ\VÔ ∑ð∫˛¬ ˛¶Õ> ÷Õ> gÁÈ, Ô>kÁ¶©A
(ÈV¬á∂°‚) ÿƒFm ÔÁ¶EBVÔ √ËAˆÕ> 43 ÿ>VaÈVπÔπ_,
14 Â√ÏÔÁ·› >s´ �≈kÏÔ^ “ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚” ÿƒFm
ÿÔVı¶™Ï ®™°D ®|›mÁ´¬Ô©√‚¶m.
18.
®]Ï\–>V´ÏÔ^
ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ
W´Õ>´\VÔ
J¶©√‚|s‚¶m ®[√>Á™ \.ƒV. 1 �ÆD \.ƒV. 2
ƒV‚EBÏÔ^ Œ©A¬ÿÔVı|^·™Ï. RM‚á1 ®[≈ AmÁk
gÁÈ•D, RM‚á2 ®[≈ ºÔVs_√‚Ω gÁÈ•D \mÁ´ÁB
>ÁÈl¶\VÔ¬ ÿÔVı| “p ´VÁ\BV ¸∏[™Ï¸ otÿ¶‚”
®[≈ Am WÆk™›][ ÿ√Bˆ_ ÷B∫˛ kÚk>VÔ°D
Ì≈©√‚¶ ÔÚ›m¬Ô^ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ Œ©A¬ÿÔV^·©
√|˛[≈™. 14 Â√ÏÔÁ·› >s´ �≈ ∂Á™›m›
ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”D Ôð¬ÁÔ xΩ›m¬ÿÔVı| ÿƒ[Æs‚¶VÏÔ^
®[Æ \–>V´Ï ƒV‚E Œ©A¬ÿÔVı|^· WÁÈlKD
�ÆD ÷Õ> gÁÈl[ WÈD �ÆD ®Õ]´∫Ô^
J[≈VD Â√Ú¬z suÔ©√‚¶mD, \–>V´Ï >´©∏_
\Ƭԩ√¶s_ÁÈ. ÷flÛµWÁÈl_ \–>V´Ï ºÔVÚD
ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ ∞uÔ›>¬Ô>_È ®™ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©A
kw¬zÁ´QÏ ®|›mÁ´›m^·VÏ.
19. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï gÁÈl[ ∂Á™›m cˆ\∫Ô”D
ƒ´ı¶Ï ÿƒFB©√‚¶>uz g>V´\VÔ ®.ƒV.g. 9 x>_
®.ƒV.g. 13 kÁ´BV™ gkð∫Ô^ c^·™. ÷Õ>
gkð∫Ôπ[√Ω¬z, ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl[ cˆÁ\ x>ÈV™
∂–\]Ô^ ∂Õ>Õ>› mÁ≈Ô”¬z ]Ú©∏ Œ©√Á¶¬Ô©√‚¶º>V|,
®.ƒV.g. 17 ˛´B© √›]´›][ JÈD J[≈VD Â√Ú¬z
gÁÈl[ ®Õ]´∫Ô”D suÔ©√‚¶>VÔ ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m.
>V∫Ô^ kV∫˛B Ô¶Á™ ÿƒK›> xΩBV>>V_, ÷Õ>
gÁÈl[ ÿƒV›m ∞È›]uz kÕ>>VÔ°D, ∂>[ ∂§s©A
®.ƒV.g. 35 JÈD ]™›>Vπ_ ÿkπBV˛ c^·>VÔ°D,
º\KD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ ®|›mÁ´¬Ô©√‚¶m.
gÁÈl[ cu√›] zÁ≈Õm ÿ>Vao_ Âi¶D ∞u√‚¶
WÁÈl_ gÁÈÁB J¶ ºkıΩB ÛµWÁÈ ∞u√‚¶>V_
®]Ï\–>V´´V_,
÷›ÿ>VaÈVπÔ”¬z
√ËBπ¬Ô
÷BÈs_ÁÈ ®[√>V_ ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶D ∏ˆ° 25F
�ÆD 25H ∏ˆs[√Ω, \–>V´ÏÔ”¬z© √ˆÔV´D
∂π¬Ô ÷BÈVm ®[ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©A kw¬zÁ´QÏ
®|›mÁ´›>VÏ. ∂>uz g>´kVÔ ˇµ¬Ôı¶ x[yÏ©AÔÁ·
®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.
2005-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.
.... 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
Management of Gordon Woodrofe Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
- Vs. - Presiding Officer. Principal Labour Court and
Others.
.... 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 in
1025
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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...
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.
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>Vau>Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶D ∏ˆ° 25-F �ÆD 25-H g˛BÁk
ˇµÔı¶kVÆ kÁ´BƬԩ√|˛≈m.
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
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 sec. 25 H.
re-employment of retrenched workmen
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.
20. “º�√Ω ∏ˆ° 25-F-_ ŒÚ ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_
√ËBπ¬Ô ÷BÈV> ÛµWÁÈ ∞u√|D º√Vm, ∂Õ>›
ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_ √Ë AˆÕ> Â√ÏÔ”¬z, ŒÚ \V>
x[™§s©A ∂π›m, ŒÀÿkVÚ kÚ¶ √ˬÔVÈ›]uzD,
ŒÀÿkVÚ ÿ>VaÈVπ¬z 15 ÂV‚Ô”¬zˆB ƒD√·›Á>
÷w©¨¶VÔ ∂π¬Ô ºkı|D ®™ z§©∏¶©√|˛≈m.”
21. ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔπ[ Œ›mÁwBVÁ\BV_ cu√›]l_
∑ð¬ÔD ∞u√‚|^· WÁÈl_, ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ Âi¶›]_
÷B∫˛B>V_, Ô¶Á™fl ÿƒK›> ÷BÈV>>V_ ®.ƒ.g.35
∂§s©A ÿkπ©√|›], gÁÈl[ ƒ‚¶ ¶kΩ¬ÁÔ
JÈD J¶©√‚|s‚¶>VÔ°D, ∂>™V_ ÷w©¨| Œ[º≈
÷D\–>V´ÏÔ”¬z √ˆÔV´\VÔ ∂Á\•D ®[ÆD ®]Ï
\–>V´Ï >´©A kw¬zÁ´QÏ ®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.
22. ÷D\– ƒ∫Ô]ÔÁ· ºÂV¬zD º√Vm, x>o_
1988á_ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ RM‚á1 ®™
g´D∏¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ°D,
∏[™Ï
1995áD
gı|
ºÔVs_√‚Ωl_
RM‚á2
®[Æ
g´D∏¬Ô©√‚|,
>uº√Vm Â_È WÁÈl_ ∂Õ> gÁÈ ÿƒB_√|k>VÔ°D,
÷ÀsÚ gÁÈÔ”º\, “p ´VÁ\BV ¸∏[™Ï¸
oDÿ¶‚” ®[≈ ÿ√Vm WÆk™›][ ˇµ \mÁ´, ˛Úið
ÂÔˆ_ >ÁÈÁ\l¶\VÔ ÿÔVı| ÿƒB_√|k>VÔ°D
ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m. ÷Õ> gÁÈ W´Õ>´ J¶_ ÿƒFB©√‚¶∏≈z,
÷[ÿ™VÚ >M RM‚¶VÔ ÿƒB_√‚|kÚD ºÔVs_√‚Ω
gÁÈl_ √ËBπ¬Ô ƒ‚¶›]_ ÷¶t_ÁÈ ®™ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï
>´©∏_ z§©∏¶©√‚¶m. ÷Õ> gÁÈ•D, ºÔVs_√‚Ω
gÁÈ•D ÿkÀºkÆ WÏkVÔ ∂KkÈÔ∫ÔÁ·¬ ÿÔVıΩÚ©√>VÔ
ƒ∫Ô]Ô^
÷_ÁÈ.
÷Às´ı|
gÁÈÔ”¬zD
>M›>MºB Ôð¬z √VÏ›m Balance Sheet >M›>MºB
>V¬Ô_
ÿƒFB©√|k>VÔ°D
gkð∫Ô^
÷_ÁÈ.
÷ÀsÚ gÁÈÔ”¬z, >M›>MºB ÷.®¸.n. ºÔV|
÷_ÁÈ. º\KD, >M›>MBVÔ Œ©√Õ>∫Ô^ ∞u√‚¶>VÔ,
®Às> gkð∫Ô”D ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ ÷_ÁÈ.
gÔºk
®]Ï\–>V´Ï
>´©∏_
∑‚Ω¬ÔV‚¶©√‚¶
x[yÏ©AÔ^, ÷Àkw¬z ƒ∫Ô]Ô”¬z ÿ√VÚÕmk>VÔ
ÔÚ>xΩBs_ÁÈ. ÷›>z ÛµWÁÈl_, Amflºƒˆl_
c^· RM‚á1 gÁÈ, W´Õ>´\VÔ J¶©√‚¶VKD, ÷Õ>
gÁÈl[ >ÁÈÁ\ ∂KkÈÔ›][ ˇºw ÷B∫zD
÷[–D ŒÚ gÁÈBV™ RM‚á2 ºÔVs_√‚Ω gÁÈl_
√ËAˆB >BV´VÔ c^· \–>V´ÏÔπ[ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÁB
ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶©√Ω W´VÔˆ¬Ô ÷BÈVm. ∞uÔ™ºk
RM‚á2
ºÔVs_√‚Ω
gÁÈloÚÕm
º√fl∑x›m,
kƒÕ› �ÆD EÈÏ ÷Õ> AmÁk gÁÈl_ √Ë AˆÕm
kÕm^·VÏÔ^ ®™ \.ƒV.1 ƒV‚EBD ∂π›m^·>uz
®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©A \Æ©A ƒV‚EBD ∞mD ÷_ÁÈ.
÷flÛµWÁÈl_, \–>V´ÏÔ^ 6, 7 �ÆD 11 x>_ 17
kÁ´BV™ \–>V´ÏÔ^ >∫Ô^ √Ë ÿƒF> RM‚á1
1026
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 November 2013
J¶©√‚¶VKD, ºÔVs_√‚Ωl_ c^· RM‚á2ás_ √Ë
AˆB
∂–\]¬Ô
ºkı|D
®[Æ
ºÔVÚkm
∞uÔ›>¬Ô>VÔºk c^·>VÔ ÂV[ ÔÚm˛º≈[, gÔºk,
6, 7 �ÆD 11 x>_ 17 kÁ´BV™ \–>V´ÏÔ”¬z,
ºÔVs_√‚Ωl_ c^· gÁÈl_ √ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D
®[Æ ÷>™V_ c›>´s¶©√|˛≈m. ÷D\–>V´ÏÔ^,
÷Õ> gÁÈ W´Õ>´ J¶_ ÿƒFm c¶º™ >™¬z
*ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D ®[Æ ºÔ‚|¬ÿÔVı¶>V_,
∂kÏÔ”¬z ∏[ƒD√·D �ÆD ÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔ^ ∂π¬Ô
WÏkVÔD Ô¶Á\©√‚|^·m ®[√Á> ÂD\V_ ∂§B
xΩ˛≈m.
23. 1, 2, 3, 8 �ÆD 10 \–>V´ÏÔ^ W´Õ>´ J¶_
ÿƒF> c¶[, ÷w©¨¶VÔ WÏkVÔD ∂π¬Ô xu√‚¶
ÿ>VÁÔ ‘√VF 75,000 tÔ°D zÁ≈kV™m ®[Æ Ì§
2006ágD kÚ¶D x>_ º√V´VΩ kÚk>VÔ°D, ∂[Æ
x>_
∂›ÿ>VÁÔÁB
W´Õ>´
Ák©∏_
k∫˛l_
Ák›]ÚÕ>VKD, ÷[Æ ‘√VF 1,50,000 (ŒÚ È‚ƒ›m
nD√m gl´D ‘√VF) ®™¬ ÌΩlÚ¬zD ®[ÆD
÷flÛµWÁÈl_ ÷kuÁ≈ÿB_ÈVD ÔÚ›]_ ÿÔVı|
>∫Ô”¬z› >ÈV ‘√VF 2,00,000 ÷´ı| È‚ƒD
‘√VF) ÷w©¨¶VÔ ∂π¬Ôºkı|D ®™ >∫Ô^ \–s_
ºÔVˆ•^·™Ï. ÷D\– ƒ∫Ô]Ôπ[ ÛµWÁÈÔÁ·¬
ÔÚ›]_
ÿÔVı|
√VϬzDº√Vm,
÷D\–>V´ÏÔ^
*ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D ®™ ºÔV´s_ÁÈ ®™
ÿ>ˆ˛≈m. g™V_, ∏ˆ° 25áFá[√Ω ÷D\–>V´ÏÔ^
÷w©¨‚Á¶ ÿ√≈ xÁ≈BV™ �ÆD ∞uƬÿÔV^·¬ÌΩB
÷w©¨‚| ÿ>VÁÔ ÿ√≈ cˆBkÏÔ^ ®™ ÂV[ ÔÚm˛º≈[.
gÔºk 1,2,3,8 �ÆD 10 g˛B \–>V´ÏÔ”¬z >ÈV
‘√VF 1,60,000 (ŒÚ È‚ƒ›m ∂Æ√m gl´D ‘√VF)
®]Ï\–>V´Ï ∂π¬Ô c›>´s|kº> ƒˆBV™m ®™
ÂV[ ÔÚm˛º≈[. ÷Àkw¬z WKÁkl_ ÷ÚÕ>º√Vm
4-km \–>V´Ï ∂´ƒ[, 5ákm \–>V´Ï ÿƒ_kÂV>[
�ÆD 9ákm \–>V´Ï nFB™VÏ g˛ºBVÏ ®]Ï
\–>V´Ú¶[, º√E ƒÏk ∂¶¬Ô ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚ ÿƒFm
ÿÔVı¶>VÔ, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >[ ®]ÚÁ´l_ z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.
º\KD,
∂DJkÚD
÷Àkw¬˛_
g¤´VÔV\ºÈºB
÷ÚÕm^·™Ï. ®™ºk, ∂kÏÔ”¬z ®Às> √ˆÔV´xD
˛Á¶¬Ô kVF©∏_ÁÈ ®™ ÂV[ ÔÚm˛º≈[.
xΩs_,
÷Õ>›
ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ
√z]BVÔ
∂–\]¬Ô©√|˛≈m. 1, 2, 3, 8 �ÆD 10ákm \–>V´ÏÔ^
÷w©¨¶VÔ >ÈV ‘√VF 1,60,000 (ŒÚ È‚ƒ›m ∂Æ√m
gl´D ‘√VF) ÿ√≈ cˆBkÏ gkÏ ®™°D 6, 7, 11 x>_ 17
kÁ´BV™
\–>V´ÏÔ”¬z
®]Ï\–>V´Ï
*ı|D
√ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D ®[ÆD ∏[ ÿ>V¶ÏflE, ∏[ ƒD√·D
�ÆD ÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔÁ· ∂kÏÔ^ ÿ√≈ cˆBkÏÔ^
®™°D c›>´s¶©√|˛≈m. ÷D\– 4, 5 �ÆD 9
\–>V´ÏÔÁ·© ÿ√VÆ›m >^”√Ω ÿƒFB©√|˛≈m. ÿƒÈ°›
ÿ>VÁÔ ÷_ÁÈ.
®[™V_ ÿƒV_È©√‚|, >‚¶flƒ´V_ >‚¶fl∑ ÿƒFB©√‚|,
2013ágD gı| hÁÈ \V>D 26ágD ÂV^ ∂ÁkB§B
√Ô´©√‚¶m.
m.
º\VÔ[>V¸,
m.
º\VÔ[>V¸,
m.
º\VÔ[>V¸,
m.
º\VÔ[>V¸,
m.
º\VÔ[>V¸,
>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amflºƒˆ.
sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚¶ ƒV‚EÔπ[ √‚ΩB_
\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ :
\.ƒV.1
— S. ∞ø\ÁÈ (\–>V´Ïá16)
\.ƒV.2
— S. ´V\[ (\–>V´Ïá1)
®]Ï \–>V´Ï >´©∏_ :
®.\.ƒV.1 — M. QV™ºƒÔ´[ (zø\ ∂KkÈÔ WÏkVÔ
∂KkÈÏ).
z§l¶©√‚¶ gkð∫Ôπ[ √‚ΩB_
\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ :
®ı
º>]
gkð sk´D
\.ƒV.g.1
—
ŒÚ ÿ>VaÈVπl[ ∂Á¶BV·
∂Á¶l[ ÂÔ_, (P. ÔVıœ√[
\–>V´Ïá6).
\.ƒV.g.2
—
ŒÚ ÿ>VaÈVπl[ √Ë
WB\™ c›>´° ÂÔ_,
(P. ÔVıœ√[ \–>V´Ïá6).
\.ƒV.g.3
—
ŒÚ
ÿ>VaÈVπl[
√Ë
W´Õ>´ c›>´° ÂÔ_,
(P. ÔVıœ√[ \–>V´Ïá6).
\.ƒV.g.4
23-6-2009
∂´ƒV_ √ˆÕmÁ´¬Ô©√‚¶ ÂÔ_.
\.ƒV.g.5
12-6-2009
÷ Õ ¿ ] \ [ ≈› > V _
∂–©√©√‚¶ ∂§s©A ÂÔ_.
\.ƒV.g.6
31-8-2011
Copy of company master
details-Roc, Puducherry.
\.ƒV.g.7
31-8-2009
Copy of company master
details-Roc,Chennai.
\.ƒV.g.8
—
Copy of name availability
List - In MCA Website.
\.ƒV.g.9
31-12-2007
Statement of preliminary
remarks submitted by
management.
\.ƒV.g.10
8-3-2008
Copy of the letter sent to
Labour Officer by management.
\.ƒV.g.11
21-5-2008
Copy of the letter sent to
Labour Officer by management.
\.ƒV.g.12
1-11-2007
Copy of the letter given
by petitioner before the
Labour Conciliation Officer.
\.ƒV.g.13
25-7-2008
Copy of the letter given by
CITU Union to the Labour
Commissioner.
\.ƒV.g.14
13-6-2008
Notice given by the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
®]Ï \–>V´Ï >´©∏_ :
®.ƒV.g.1
—
10-5-2006
Copy of the
notice displayed in the
notice-board.
1027
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
®.ƒV.g.2
28-6-2006
Copy of Lock-out notice,
®.ƒV.g.3
7-8-2006
Copy
of
the
petition
submitted by Sri Ramiah
Spinners Thozilalar Sangam
to
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
®.ƒV.g.4
29-08-2006
Copy
of
explanation
submitted by respondent
company to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
®.ƒV.g.5
14-12-2006
Copy of notice of closure.
®.ƒV.g.6
—
Returned registered cover
(8 Nos).
®.ƒV.g.7
30-11-2007
Copy of notice sent by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation).
®.ƒV.g.8
31-12-2007
Copy
of
explanation
submitted by respondent
company to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
®.ƒV.g.9
7-2-2008
Copy of cancellation of
licence issued by the Chief
Inspector of Factories.
®.ƒV.g.10
25-4-2008
Copy of the letter sent to
the Commissioner, Villianur
Commune Panchayat.
®.ƒV.g.11
25-04-2008
Copy of the letter sent to
the
Superintendent
of
Central Excise, Range III-E,
Puducherry.
®.ƒV.g.12
25-4-2008
Copy of the letter sent by
the Director of Industries,
Thattanchavady, Puducherry.
®.ƒV.g.13
29-4-2006
Copy of the letter sent to
the Commercial Tax Officer,
Puducherry.
®.ƒV.g.14
2-3-2009
Copy of Memorandum
of settlement between
respondent company and
M. Arasan.
®.ƒV.g.15
11-2-2010
Copy of memorandum of
settlement
between
respondent company and
M. Selvanathan.
®.ƒV.g.16
18-11-2010
Copy of Memorandum
of settlement between
respondent company and
I. Iyyannar.
®.ƒV.g.17
13-12-2007
Copy of sale deed executed
by respondent company in
favour of Sai Supreme
Spinners.
®.ƒV.g.18 —
Closure compensation with
cheque sent to remaining 14
workers.
®.ƒV.g.19
20-6-2013
Closure
compensation
letter returned by worker
A. Thiruthanivel (Petitioner 17).
®.ƒV.g.20
20-6-2013
Closure
compensation
letter returned by worker
S. Ezhumalai
(Petitioner 16).
®.ƒV.g.21
20-6-2013
C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i on
letter returned by worker
D. Azhagappan (Petitioner 15).
®.ƒV.g.22
20-6-2013
C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i on
letter returned by worker
V. Janakiraman (Petitioner 14).
®.ƒV.g.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).
®.ƒV.g.24
20-6-2013
C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i on
letter returned by worker
K. Mariyappan (Petitioner 12).
®.ƒV.g.25
20-6-2013
C l o s u r e c o m p e n s a t i on
letter returned by worker
M. Srinivasan (Petitioner 11).
®.ƒV.g.26
20-6-2013
Closure compensation
letter returned by worker
N. Veerasamy (Petitioner 10).
®.ƒV.g.27
20-6-2013
Closure compensation
letter returned by worker
R. Arikrishnan (Petitioner 8).
®.ƒV.g.28
20-6-2013
Closure compensation
letter returned by worker
N. Jagadeesan (Petitioner 7).
®.ƒV.g.29
20-6-2013
Closure compensation
letter returned by worker
P. Kandeepan (Petitioner 6).
®.ƒV.g.30
20-6-2013
Closure compensation
letter returned by worker
S. Ramu (Petitioner 3).
®.ƒV.g.31
20-6-2013
Closure compensation
letter returned by worker
M. Arul (Petitioner 2).
®.ƒV.g.32
20-6-2013
Closure compensation
letter returned by worker
S. Raman (Petitioner 1).
®.ƒV.g.33
—
Copy of the cancellation
of TIN. No. of the respondent
company.
®.ƒV.g.34
—
Wage register of respondent
company.
®.ƒV.g.35
ó—
Sale notice.
m. º\VÔ[>V¸,
m. º\VÔ[>V¸,
m. º\VÔ[>V¸,
m. º\VÔ[>V¸,
m. º\VÔ[>V¸,
>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,
ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amflºƒˆ.
1028
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[12 November 2013
GOVERNMENT 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).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal.
Wednesday, the 7th day of August 2013
I.D. (T) No. 2/2011
The President,
Superfil Products Workers Union,
Villianur, Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Superfil Products Ltd.,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
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.,
(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?
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.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
PW.1 —
7-8-2013 — Thiruneelakandan
List of witness examined for the respondent : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
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.
1029
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.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.P23 — Copy of the Tamil translation given by
the respondent, dated 3-7-2010.
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.
Ex.P27— Copy of the letter given by the petitioner
union to Labour Officer, dated 7-5-2009.
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.
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.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 152/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 30th October 2013)
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 2013
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.
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
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.
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.
1031
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
4. 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.
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
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
conciliation proceedings were held on several rounds
and the conciliation authority advised the management
to consider the plea of the petitioner for reinstatement
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
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.
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 :
PW.1 —
5-6-2013 — Paraman
List of witness examined for the respondent :
RW.1 — 25-6-2013 — Sanjay Madan
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
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 2013
Ex.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.
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
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(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).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :
Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Tuesday, the 6th day of August 2013
I.D. No. 92/2012
Tmt. R. Jean D’ Arc,
W/o. Rayappa Santhanam,
6, Last Street,
K.C. Nagar, Nellithope,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
Hidesign India (P) Ltd.,
Odhiyampet, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
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:
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.,
(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?
(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.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
PW.1 — 15-7-2013 — R. Jean D’Arc
List of witness examined for the respondent : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :
Ex.P1
— Copy of the purported letter signed
on 8-11-2012 by the petitioner.
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.
1033
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P4
— Copy of statement of settlement
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.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent : Nil
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
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).
————
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
Versus
The Management of Vinayaga Mission
Medical College and Hospital,
Kottucherry, Karaikal
. . Respondent
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
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:
The petitioner had entered into a settlement dated
1-12-2005 with the respondent management.
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 2013
3. 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.
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
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:
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 the
1035
12 November 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses :
PW.1 —
7-1-2011 — C. Murugesan
PW.2 —
8-3-2011 — Adhitthan
List of respondent’s witness:
RW.1 — 28-3-2011 — D. Murugesan
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.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.
Ex.P25 — Order granting interim relief, dated 6-8-2009.
Ex.P26 — Copy
of
pay
receipt
issued
to
Bageerathan during October 2009.
Ex.P27 — Receipt, dated 10-11-2009
Ex.P28 — Press report about respondent college in
Dinakaran.
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 2013
List 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.
T. MOHANDASS,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT
No. 231/Tr. Sectt./2013.
Puducherry, the 30th September 2013.
ORDER
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;
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,
Under Secretary to Government (Tr.).
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)
(G.O. Ms. No. 72, dated 28th October 2013)
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
Administration on the forenoon of 14-10-2013,
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,
Chief Secretary to Government.