Puducherry Gazette, No. 47, 19 November 2013

1046 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [19 November 2013

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(1) Whether the demand of Thiru P. Thanakode against the management of M/s. Abirami Soap Works, over non-employment is justified?

(G.O. Rt. No. 157/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 31st October 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 15/2012, dated 23-7-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the in d u s t r i a l di s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f M/s. Abirami Soap Works, Puducherry and its workman Thiru P. Thanakode, 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, 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 as permanent worker for the past four years. The respondent with arbitrary power, kept the workmen at his mercy depriving of the appointment orders, status and privileges of the permanent workmen and such act come under unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Eventhough the petitioner is working for the past four years, he was not provided with proper salary slip, identity card and he was not allotted P.F. So the petitioner 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 23rd day of July 2013

I.D. No. 15/2012

P. Thanakode . . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, Abirami Soap Works, Korkadu, Puducherry . . Respondent This industrial dispute coming on 9-7-2013 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. 69/AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 12-4-2012 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz., On 7-10-2009 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that on 6-10-2009 two of the employees were in rest after consuming alcohol during the duty hours and when this was enquired, the petitioner along with more than 20 workers entered the Manager room and obstructed the authorities by using filthy language. On 19-10-2009 the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him. The respondent acknowledging the explanation of the petitioner suspended him from 7-10-2009. The respondent further after lapse of four months, initiated enquiry on 27-3-2010 and as a result of enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and hence on 25-10-2010 the petitioner was terminated. There is no fair play of justice in conducting the domestic enquiry and it is only organised by the respondent in order to put out the petitioner deceitfully fabricating the false e v i d e n c e s . T h e p e t i t i o n e r r a i s e d c o n c i l i a t i o n on 17-8-2011 and on receipt of the representation, the conciliation was initiated and ended in failure and therefore the petitioner came before this court on reference as stated above.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has stated as follows:

On 6-10-2009 two of the workers, namely G. Vijay and G. Elumalai were found drunk and sleeping in the rest room during working hours. Therefore, both of19 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1047

5. The point for determination is:

them were caught and brought before the General Manager of the respondent company. The petitioner, in support of those drunken worker, mobilised other workers, who were working and scuffled with the management and created law and order situation. To control the situation, the police personnel were called upon and the petitioner along with other workers forcibly sent out the drunken workers to avoid any medical examination. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he does not have any legal right to interfere in the management action and therefore, the show cause notice, dated 7-10-2009 was issued calling for his explanation. His reply was found false and evasive. Therefore, considering the grievous misconducts committed by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension with effect from 9-11-2009.

The petitioner upon issue of the suspension order, instigated the other workers and prevented them from doing their lawful duty and created law and order situation and indulged in illegal strike. Though the petitioner was placed under suspension, he forcibly entered into the factory and instigated violence and caused extensive damage to the properties of the respondent company. To control the situation, the respondent was forced to seek appropriate remedy f r o m t h e H o n ' b l e H i g h C o u r t , M a d r a s i n W.P. No. 23451/2009. However, the petitioner, disobeying the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, continued his unlawful acts and therefore the Superintendent of Police (South) passed proceedings, dated 22-11-2009 restraining the petitioner from committing such unlawful acts. Hence, for the above misconducts, the disciplinary action was taken.

The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet, dated 28-12-2009 and then the enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report, dated 23-8-2010, finding the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice, dated 22-9-2010. The petitioner gave evasive explanation and alleged only the proceedings of the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, in such a situation, his services were terminated by an order, dated 25-10-2010. In the above circumstances, the action taken by the respondent against the petitioner is well within the parameter of law and the punishment given to him is in proportion to the misconducts committed by him. Hence, the respondent prays for dismissal of the industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side of the respondent, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R17 were marked through RW.1 and Ex.R18 to Ex.R25 were marked through RW.2.

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

6. On the point:

The contention of the petitioner is that he has been working in the production section in the respondent company for the past four years as permanent worker and the respondent with arbitrary power kept the petitioner at his mercy depriving of the appointment orders, status and privileges of the permanent workman and on 7-10-2009 he was resisted from entering the industry premises and show cause notice was issued with the false allegation that he along with 20 members approached the management on 6-10-2009 and indulged in unauthorised activities which may disturb the industrial peace and the respondent's main aim is to put out him at once. In order to prove his contention, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1. PW.1 in his evidence has deposed as stated in the claim statement.

7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that on 6-10-2009 two of the workers namely G. Vijay and G. Elumalai were found drunk and sleeping in the rest room during working hours and therefore, both of them were caught and brought before the General Manager of the respondent company and the petitioner, in support of those drunken worker, mobilised other workers, who were working and scuffled with the management and created law and order situation and to control the situation, the police personnel were called upon and the petitioner along with other workers forcibly sent out the drunken workers to avoid any medical examination and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he does not have any legal right to interfere in the management action and therefore, the show cause notice, dated 7-10-2009 was issued calling for his explanation and his reply was found false and evasive and therefore, considering the grievous misconducts committed by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension with effect from 9-11-2009. In order to prove his claim, the General Manager of the respondent company was examined as RW.1.

8. According to RW.1, the charge against the petitioner is that on 6-10-2009 two of the workers, namely G. Vijay and G. Elumalai were found drunk and sleeping in the rest room during working hours and therefore, both of them were caught and brought before the General Manager of the respondent company and the petitioner, in support of those drunken worker, mobilised other workers, who were working and scuffled with the management and created law and order situation. RW.1 further deposed that the petitioner abused the respondent and spoiled the industrial harmony and peace and personally attacked the management by giving threats to the life of the executives.

1048 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [19 November 2013

9. The contention of the petitioner is that no such occurrence had occurred as stated by the respondent and the evidence was created with ulterior motive to terminate the workman at once and the respondent in order to put an end to the legitimate his union activities, fabricated the charge sheet stating that he was indulging in mischievous act.

10. On the side of the respondent, the copy of the enquiry proceedings of the employees by name Elumalai was marked as Ex.R19. A perusal of Ex.R19 reveals that for the charge against the said Elumalai that he was found drunk in the working hours, an enquiry was conducted and during the enquiry, the said Elumalai admitted that he consumed alcohol and slept in the working hours and the same was found by the General Manager, who warned him. The said Elumalai also admitted in the enquiry proceedings that since he along with 3 others were suspended, they conducted the strike and on 23-11-2009 the police came and removed the employees, who were involved in violent activities and he also assured that he will not involve any such activity and he admitted his misconduct and he did not want to continue with the enquiry proceedings. RW.1 has also marked the copy of the enquiry report of Elumalai as Ex.R21 and enquiry of report of Vijay as Ex.R24. Based on Ex.R21 and Ex.R24, the said Elumalai and Vijay have been relieved from their service and they also got their legal dues and ex gratia payments under Ex.R20 and Ex.R23. In the above circumstances, the allegation of the petitioner that no such incident occurs in the respondent factory cannot be accepted.

Ex.P16. A perusal of Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 reveals that the respondent has sent complaints to the Asst. S.I. of Police, Karikalampakkam Police Station that the petitioner and some other employees have started threatening General Manager for want of their in justify demands to meet with or to be ready to face the consequences, however, they have threatened that they also can go to any extent, even to murder the General Manager and they requested the police protection to maintain the law and order problem and to safeguard company property. Based on the said complaint, a case in Cr. No. 72/2012 u/s.502 IPC and 6 of PDPP Act was registered against the petitioner and three others as could be seen from Ex.R17. RW.1 has also produced the copy of the handbills and posters along with Ex.P13 and Ex.R16, which are unwarranted and very offensive language and the same would make a threatening call and causing personal damages to the General Manager PW.1 and other executives of the respondent company. From the documents under Ex.P5 and Ex.P13 to Ex.P14, it can be seen that the petitioner and some other employees created law and order problem and also pasted handbills and posters as against PW.1 and other executives of the respondent company. The messages spread out through the handbills under Ex.R13 and Ex.R16 create not only tension among the workers and also tarnish the image of executives of the respondent company and the act of the petitioner also tantamount to criminal intimidation, abetment and contempt, causing damage, attempting to spoil peace and tranquility, defamatory and so on. In the above circumstances, the respondent has rightly conducted the domestic enquiry against the petitioner.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry also acted biased to benefit the management and certain documents were not produced by the management, which are vital for the petitioner to disprove the charges levelled against him. He further submitted that the petitioner was not allowed to have the defence assistance of his own choice and even the petitioner is deprived of the right of cross-examining the respondent's witness.

11. In order to prove that the petitioner has created law and order problem in the factory premises along with some other employees, RW.1 has marked the copy of writ order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras as Ex.R5 and Ex.R6. A perusal of Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 reveals that the respondent has filed a writ against the petitioner and others directing the respondents No.1 to 3 in the said writ to provide police protection to their factory and also direct the striking workers including the petitioner herein to be away from 500 yards from their factory and Hon'ble High Court has allowed the said petitioner and also directed the petitioner and others to conduct the dharna and agitation beyond 100 meters from the premises of the factory.

14. On perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet under Ex.R7, calling for his explanation regarding the charges mentioned in it and then the respondent has conducted the enquiry and the petitioner has participated in the said enquiry and he was furnished with copy of all the documents filed by the management. The main argument of the petitioner is that he was not permitted to engage his co-employee by name Sivachandran to defend his 12. According to RW.1, the petitioner abused the respondent and spoiled the industrial harmony and peace and personally attacked the management by giving threats to the life of the executives and he distributed the handbills, posters and so on with an ulterior motive of instigating violence in the factory. In order to prove the said aspect, the respondent has marked the copy of the letters sent to the Asst. S.I. of Police, Karikalampakkam Police Station as Ex.P13 to19 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1049 has lost confidence on the petitioner, as the act of the petitioner is detrimental to the discipline and security of the establishment. Therefore, the above situation created a ground for loss of confidence and hence this court feels that the petitioner has lost the right of reinstatement in this case. It is pertinent to refer the following decision which is relevant to this case:

2001 3 CLR Page 592 :

case in the domestic enquiry. The said claim was refused since the domestic nquiry was pending against the said Sivachandran. The Enquiry Officer has righty rejected this plea and hence in this score the respondent cannot say that the denial of co-employee to defend his case l e a d t o v i o l a t i o n o f p r i n c i p l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e . A perusal of records further shows that on the side of the management four witnesses were examined and they were cross-examined by the petitioner and then on the side of the petitioner, three witnesses have been examined and they were also cross-examined by the management, as could be seen from the copy of the proceedings under Ex.R25, and after completion of enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report under Ex.R9 and then the respondent sent a second show cause notice under Ex.R10 calling for his explanation regarding the punishment and the petitioner submitted his reply under Ex.R11 and not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent has terminated the service of the petitioner under Ex.R12. Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 would clearly prove that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper and sufficient opportunities have been given to the respondent/petitioner, who utilised the same. In the above circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner cannot be accepted.

"Substantial contention on the merits of the case by the employer in these appeals is that the finding of loss of confidence in the employee by the labour court has been reversed in appeal by the Industrial Court on unreasonable grounds. What must be pleaded and proved to invoke the aforesaid principle is that (i) the workman is holding a position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits acts which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. All these three aspects must be present to refuse reinstatement on ground of loss of confidence. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management regarding trust-worthiness or reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved. Else, the right or reinstatement ordinarily available to the employee will be lost".

16. According to the petitioner, he was working for the past four years as permanent worker in the respondent. Eventhough the petitioner was terminated from service for the proved misconduct, his family should not get suffered. In view of the same, the petitioner can be awarded any monetary compensation, which would meet ends of justice. The point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, this industrial dispute is partly allowed and the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other statutory benefits. However the respondent is directed to pay a sum of ` 80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand only) towards monetary compensation. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of July 2013.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry.

15. The petitioner has claimed that the punishment is not proportionate to the misconduct attributed by him. But the version of RW.1 as to the messages spread out through the handbills under Ex.R13 and Ex.R16 create not only tension among the workers and also tarnish the image of executives of the respondent company and the act of the petitioner also tantamount to criminal intimidation, abetment and contempt, causing damage, attempting to spoil peace and tranquility, defamatory and so on, the management would not have imposed minimum punishment as the proved misconduct was of serious nature which resulted in loss of confidence on the petitioner. Considering the above aspects, this court feels that in the domestic enquiry fair opportunity was given to the petitioner by allowing him to cross-examine the management witnesses to defend him and the independent Enquiry Officer, having conducted a fair and proper enquiry in accordance with law by adopting the principles of natural justice, had concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him by Ex.R9, the enquiry report and hence it was not against the principles of natural justice. Since the management apprehended unsafely due to the serious misconducts of the petitioner more particularly due to the threat made by him to RW.1 and the other executives of the respondent company, the respondent1050 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [19 November 2013

List of witness examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 20-3-2013 — Thanakode

Ex.R16 — Complaint given by the respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 20-4-2012.

Ex.R17 — Copy of first information report, dated List of witnesses examined for the respondent :

RW.1 — 27-5-2013 — Sanjay Madan

RW.2 — 21-6-2013 — G. Suresh

10-5-2012.

Ex.R18 — Copy of the letter given by G. Elumalai to the respondent, dated 5-5-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

Ex.P1 — Letter of assurance by the Chairman, dated 7-2-2009.

Ex.P2 — Representation to Labour Commissioner, dated 20-3-2009.

Ex.P3 — Representation letter, dated 23-3-2009.

Ex.P4 — Representation to the Labour Commissioner, dated 4-5-2009.

Ex.P5 — Representation to Outpost Police Station, dated 6-10-2009.

Ex.P6 — Representation to Villianur Police Station, dated 14-10-2009.

Ex.R19 — Copy of the enquiry proceedings of G. Elumalai, dated 3-4-2010.

Ex.R20 — Copy of settlement of Elumalai, dated 5-5-2010.

Ex.R21 — Copy of the enquiry report of Elumalai, dated 7-5-2010.

Ex.R22 — Copy of the letter given by G. Vijay to the respondent, dated 29-4-2010.

Ex.R23 — Copy of the settlement of Vijay, dated 29-4-2010.

Ex.R24 — Copy of the enquiry report of Vijay, dated 7-5-2010.

Ex.R25 — Copy of enquiry proceedings of List of exhibits marked for the respondent :

Ex.R1 — Show cause notice issued to the petitioner, dated 7-10-2009.

Ex.R2 — Reply letter, dated 19-10-2009 submitted by the petitioner.

Ex.R3 — Suspension order issued to the petitioner, dated 7-11-2009.

Ex.R4 — Suspension order returned with postal petitioner.

T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

cover with remarks

(G. O. Rt. No. 160/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 1st November 2013)

Ex.R5 — Order of Hon'ble High Court, Madras, dated 17-11-2009

Ex.R6 — Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, dated 22-11-2009.

Ex.R7 — Charge sheet issued to the petitioner, dated 28-12-2009.

Ex.R8 — Charge sheet returned with postal cover with remarks.

Ex.R9 — Enquiry report, dated 23-8-2010 Ex.R10 — Second show cause notice issued to the petitioner, dated 22-9-2010.

Ex.R11 — Reply letter submitted by the petitioner, dated 15-10-2010.

Ex.R12 — Termination order of the petitioner, dated 25-10-2010.

Ex.R13 — Complaint given by the respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 29-9-2009.

Ex.R14 — Complaint given by the respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 18-3-2009.

Ex.R15 — Complaint given by the respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 29-12-2011.

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 32/2011, dated 30-5-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Vealan Ariviyal Nilaya Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry and the management of Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Puducherry, over non-absorption of 48 daily rated labourers on regular basis has been received;

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY, Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

19 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1051

ÿ > V a È V · Ïÿ > V a È V · Ïÿ > V a È V · Ïÿ > V a È V · Ïÿ > V a È V · Ï ¿ ] \ [ ≈ D ,¿ ] \ [ ≈ D ,¿ ] \ [ ≈ D ,¿ ] \ [ ≈ D ,¿ ] \ [ ≈ D , A m ﬂ ºA m ﬂ ºA m ﬂ ºA m ﬂ ºA m ﬂ º ƒ ˆƒ ˆƒ ˆƒ ˆƒ ˆ ஒஜஆÁÈ : ஸÚ. அ. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இ ®னு.∞.இ ®னு.®_.இ

,ÁÈÁ\ ,ஏ∫ணனு ∂முமÈÏ. 2013áபனு பı| º\ \ஏ,னு 30áபனு Âஏ^ ளடீஏற¬˛றÁ\ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ®ı 32/2011

,ÁÈமÏஇ ÿ✓ÚÕ,ÁÈமÏ Ôஏ\´ஏ¤Ï ºம·ஏı ∂§ளடீ_ றுÁÈடீ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ƒ∫Ôனுஇ யுஅﬂºƒˆá9.

. . \–,ஏ´Ï.

®ஸÏ

º\Èஏı ÷டீ¬ணÂÏஇ ÿ✓ÚÕ,ÁÈமÏ Ôஏ\´ஏ¤Ï ˛ˆ¥ ளﬁQஏஜ ºÔÕஸ´ஏஇ யுஅﬂºƒˆá9.

. . ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï.

÷Õ, º\_ஒÁ≈ஓ¶ஏ™அ 29-5-2013 ∂ஜÆ ÷Æஸ ளƒஏ´Áð¬ÔஏÔ ®ஜஒஜ மÕ,º✓ஏஅஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô© ∏´ஸறுஸ ஸÚ அÁ´. பÆஒÔனு ப¤Ï ப˛•னு \ரÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ∂´∑ மற¬ணÁ´QÏ M.V. Áம›ஸழ∫Ôனு ∂மÏÔ^ ப¤´ஏ˛•னு ®|›அÁ´›, மஏ,∫ÔÁ·¬ ºÔ'ÁÔ ÿƒகுஅனுஇ மற¬ண ƒனு✓Õ,\ஏ™ பமð∫ÔÁ·© ✓Ω›அ©✓ஏÏ›அனுஇ ÷அÂஏ^ மÁ´ட_ ✓ˆÊÈÁ™ட_ ÷ÚÕஅ ∏ஜ™Ïஇ ÷Õ, ¿ஸ \ஜ≈னு மற∫ணனு—

லÏமனு

1947áனு மÚ¶›ஸடீ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆÔ^ ƒ'¶னு ˇµ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏™Ï ,∫Ôπ_ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·› ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ,ணஸ\ஏர≈னு ÿƒகுஅ ∂,ரணˆடீ ∂முமÈÔ உ›,´° மற∫˛¶ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரண உ›,´ள¶¬ ºÔஏˆ ÷Õ,› ÿ,ஏய_ ,Ô´ஏÆ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^·அ.

2. \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^· ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \– ளம´னு ∏ஜமÚ\ஏÆ :

º\ர✓Ωஇ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ✓ıÁðட_ ∑\ஏÏ 8 மÚ¶ ÔஏÈ›ஸரண º\ÈஏÔ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ \ரÆனு ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔஇ ÷Áð©யு© ✓'Ωடீ_ 1 \ரÆனு 2á_ Ôı|^· 90 (42+48) Â✓ÏÔ^ ✓Ëடீஏர§ மÚ˛ஜ≈ஏÏÔ^. ✓ıÁðட_இ ✓_Èஏı| ÔஏÈ\ஏÔ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏﬂநுடீஏÔ 240 Âஏ'Ô"¬ணº\_ ✓Ë ÿƒகுஸÚÕஅனுஇ ✓ıÁðடஜ மற¬Ô©✓Ω ✓ÚமÔஏÈ› ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·› ஸ ™ ¬ Ì ழ ÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ï Ô · ஏ Ô ° னு இ ஸ ™ ¬ Ì ழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· று´Õ,´› ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ,ணஸ\ஏர≈னு ÿƒகுடீள_ÁÈ. ∂›அ¶ஆஜ§இ ∂மÏÔ"¬ண ÿ✓ஏஅமஏÔ ∂´∑ றுÏðடீனு ÿƒகு•னு ணÁ≈Õ,✓'ƒ¬ Ì ழ Á டீ ¬ Ì ¶ , ´ © ✓ ¶ ள _ Á È . ® ஸ Ï \ – , ஏ ´ ˆ ஜ ✓ıÁð றுÏமஏÔ\ஏ™அஇ ,™அ ✓ıÁðட_ ✓ _ È ஏ ı | Ô ஏ È \ ஏ Ô ✓ Ë ÿ ƒ கு அ ம Ú னு ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·ﬂ ƒ'¶©✓Ω ∂மÏÔÁ·› ,ணஸ\ஏர≈னு ÿƒகுஅஇ ∂,ரÔஏ™ உˆடீ பÁð \ரÆனு ªஸடீனு மற∫Ôஏ\_இ ∂Àம©º✓ஏஅ ∂Á\˛ஜ≈ ∂´∑ ∂Á\ﬂƒÏÔ^இ ∂,ஜ ƒ'¶\ஜ≈ உÆ©∏™ÏÔπஜ மƒஸ¬ºÔர✓ யுஸஅ யுஸ,ஏÔ ப'ÔÁ·© ✓ıÁðட_ றுடீவ›அ மÚ˛ஜ≈™Ï.

3. º\முனுஇ ÷©∏´ﬂƒÁ™டஜ*அ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï அÁ≈ ∂´∑ ƒ\´ƒ ∂ஸÔஏˆடஜஒஜஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ƒ∫Ô\ஏ™அ ÿ,ஏய_ ,ஏமஏ ®ø©∏டீº✓ஏஅஇ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ∂π›ஸ'¶ ∂,ஜ ✓ஸமுÁ´டஜ 2áமஅ ÔஏÈ›ஸ_ "றுÁÈடீ›ஸஜ º\ÈஏıÁ\¬ ணøளஜ (Governing Body of Kendra) ∂–\ஸடஜ§ \–,ஏ´Ï ƒ∫Ô›ஸஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔÁடீ றுÁ≈ºமர≈ ஒΩடீஏஅ" ®ஜÆ Ì≈©✓'¶அ. º\முனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÁÈடீ›ஸ_ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^· று´Õ,´› ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔπஜ ®ıË¬ÁÔ \ரÆனு ∂Àள¶∫ÔÁ· ÷'| று´©யுனு ஒÁ≈Ô^✓ர§ \–,ஏ´Ï ƒ∫Ô›ஸஜ ,ÁÈமÏ Ô¶Õ, 2010-பனு பıΩ_ ,ÔமÈ§•னு உˆÁ\ﬂ ƒ'¶›ஸஜ துÈனு ளம´∫ÔÁ·¬ ºÔஏˆடீº✓ஏஅஇ 34 ÷¶∫Ô^ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^·,ஏÔ ,Ôம_ ,´©✓'¶அ. º\முனுஇ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^· று´Õ,´› ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔπஜ ÷¶∫ÔÁ·› ,ரÔஏழÔ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·¬ÿÔஏı| று´©✓©✓|ம,ஏÔ ✓ஸÈπ¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ப™ஏ_இ ÷அமÁ´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ ✓Ëறு´Õ,´னு ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ள_ÁÈ (RTI துÈனு ÿ✓ர≈ ,Ôம_ ÔΩ, ÂÔ_ \.ƒஏ.ப. 1 பÔ ÷Áð¬Ô©✓'|^·அ). ∂|›அ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÁÈடீஏ™அ ,™அ றுÆம™னு ƒ∫Ô∫Ô^ "✓ஸமÔﬂ ƒ'¶›ஸஜ ˇµ ✓ஸ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ ŒÚ Ì'|≈° ∂Á\©✓ஏணனு. ÷,ரண ÿ,ஏய_ ,ஏமஏ ƒ'¶னு ®ஜ✓அ ÿ✓ஏÚÕ,ஏஅ" ®ஜÆ ∂´∑ ƒ\´ƒ ∂ஸÔஏˆ ஒஜ™Ï மஏஸ'¶™Ï. ப™ஏ_இ º\ர✓Ω ∂ஸÔஏˆ ✓_Èஏı| ÔஏÈனு ✓Ëÿƒகுஅ^· ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·© ✓Ëறு´Õ,´னு ÿƒகுடீºமı|ÿ\ஜ≈ ƒ∫Ô›ஸஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔÁடீ ✓ˆÊழ¬ணனு✓Ω ∂§°Æ›ஸ•^·ஏÏ. \–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ôனு ✓ıÁð› ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ÿ,ஏய_ ,ஏமஏ ƒ'¶\ஏ™அ ÿ ✓ ஏ Ú Õ அ னு ® ஜ Æ உ ﬂ ƒ ¿ ஸ \ ஜ ≈ \ π › , ல Ï © ∏ ஜ º\ரºÔஏÁ·•னு ,™அ ஒ§ம§¬ÁÔட_ (failure report) ∂ Á , ∑ ' Ω Ô ஏ ' Ω • ^ · ஏ Ï . ( ∂ ´ ∑ ƒ \ ´ ƒ ∂ ஸ Ô ஏ ˆ ட ஜ ஒ§ம§¬ÁÔடஜ ÂÔ_ \.ƒஏ.ப. 2பÔ ÷Áð¬Ô©✓'|^·அ).

4. ®™ºமஇ ÷›அ¶ஜ ÷Áð©யு© ✓'Ωடீ_ 1-_ Ôı|^· 42 ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·› ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷Áð©யு© ✓'Ωடீ_ 2á_ Ôı|^· 48 ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ,ணஸ\ஏர≈னு ÿƒகுஅ ∂,ரணˆடீ ∂முமÈÔ உ›,´° மற∫˛¶ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ✓ıÁð றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரண பÁð மற∫˛|\ஏÆ \–,ஏ´Ï ÷னு\–Áம ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுஅ^·ஏÏ.

5. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகு, ®ஸÏ\–ளஜ ∑Ú¬Ôனு ∏ஜமÚ\ஏÆ :

®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÆம™னு ÷Õஸடீ Society ƒ'¶னு 1961áஜ ˇµ ✓ஸ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ✓டரநு ∂π¬ணனு றுÆம™னு. ளமƒஏடÔ"¬ண ளﬁQஏ™©ØÏம\ஏ™ ஒÁ≈ட_ ✓È ளமƒஏடீ© ✓டÏÔÁ· ®©✓Ω© ✓டˆ|மஅ ®ஜ✓அ ✓ர§டீ ✓டரநு ∂π©✓º,ஏ| ப´ஏகுﬂநு ,·\ஏÔ°னு ÿƒடீ_✓|˛≈அ. யுஅﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑இ யுஅÿ¶_ழ ளமƒஏடீ ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÆம™னு \ரÆனு Á",´ஏ✓ஏ› ∂ˆநு ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÆம™னு ºƒÏÕஅ ∂π¬ணனு ✓ð உ,ள ÿÔஏı| ÿƒடீ_✓|˛≈அ. ளமƒஏடீ© ✓டÏÔÁ· ✓டˆ|ம,ரÔஏÔ ∂π¬Ô©✓|னு ✓டரநுடஜ ∂∫Ô\ஏÔஇ ப´ஏகுﬂநு¬ Ì¶∫Ô^ ஸ≈¬Ô©✓'| ÷©✓ணஸ ளமƒஏடீ \¬Ô"¬ÔஏÔ ÷ÕறுÆம™னு ÿ✓Úனு✓∫Ôஏர§ மÚ˛≈அ. நுÈ ✓Úம ÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ º\முனு ✓È ÿƒடீ_ ஸ'¶∫Ô^1052 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [19 November 2013 ÿƒடீ_✓|›,©✓'| மÚ˛≈அ. ÷Õ,¬ ºÔÕஸ´›ஸ_ ✓Ë¬ணºƒÚனு ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ^ ŒÚநுÈ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ \'|º\ ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô©✓|ம,ஏ_இ ÷ © ✓Ë டீ ஏ · Ï Ô ^ ள≠டீ›ஸ_ ∂´∑ ளஸÔ^ ƒˆடீஏÔ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬Ô ÷டீÈஏஅ. ஸ ™ ¬ Ì ழ ✓Ë டீ ஏ · Ï Ô Á · • னு இ º ƒ Ï ¬ ண னு º ✓ ஏ அ னு ÷மÏÔ"¬ண ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ë ∂π¬Ô ÷டீமுனு ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ ∂´∑© ✓Ëட_ ºƒÚம,ரண ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ^ ºƒÏ¬Ô ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬Ô©✓|னு ஒÁ≈Ô^ ÁÔடீஏ·©✓|மஸ_ÁÈ. ÷ À ள ≠ டீ ∫ Ô ^ இ \ – , ஏ ´ Ï ƒ ∫ Ô › ஸ _ உ ^ · ∂∫Ô›ஸ™Ú¬ண Âஜண ÿ,ˆ•னு.

6. ,∫Ô"¬ண ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ ✓Ë ,ரÔஏழÔனு ®ஜÆனு ŒÚநுÈ ÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ \'|னு ✓Ë ÷Ú¬ணனு ®ஜ✓அனு Âஜண ÿ,ˆ•னு. ®Õ,ÿமஏÚ ÛµறுÁÈடமுனு \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ று´Õ,´\ஏ¬Ô©✓¶ ÷டீÈஏஅ. ºமÁÈட_ÁÈ ®ஜ≈ஏ_ ∂ஜÆ ƒனு✓·னு ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓அ ∞ரÔ™ºம ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண› ÿ,ˆ•னு. ÷ÕறுÆம™›ஸ_இ ®Àள, ÷Á¶சுÆனு ÷ஜ§ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ \–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ëÿƒகுஅ மÚம,ஏÔ \–ள_ ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏÔ^. ŒÚநுÈ ண§©∏'¶ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ \'|னு ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔஇ ✓Ëடீஏர§மÚனு ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ^ ®மÚனு ∂´நுடீ_ ,ÁÈஓ'¶ஏ_ றுடீவ¬Ô©✓|மஸ_ÁÈ. ÷ÕறுÆம™னு º\ரÿÔஏı|மÚனு ப´ஏகுﬂநு ÂÁ¶ஒÁ≈Ô^இ பகு°¬Ì¶ ✓ˆºƒஏ,Á™Ô^இ º,ஏ'¶¬ÔÁÈ ஸ'¶னுஇ ள›அ உர✓›ஸஇ º,ஏ'¶¬ÔÁÈ ÿƒΩÔ^ உர✓›ஸஇ \ı \ரÆனு ¿Ïºƒஏ,Á™இ ம·Ï©யு *ஜÔ^ ✓ர§டீ ப´ஏகுﬂநு ப˛டீÁமÔ^ ÷∫ண º\ரÿÔஏ^·©✓|˛ஜ≈™. ÷›,ண Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔÔ^இ ŒÚ நுÈ Ô ஏ È ∫ Ô π _ , ர Ô ஏ ழ Ô \ ர Æ னு ஸ ™ ¬ Ì ழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·¬ ÿÔஏı| ŒÚநுÈ Âஏ'Ô"¬ண^ ÿƒகுஅ ஒΩ¬Ô©✓¶ ºமıΩடீÁமடீஏணனு. நுÈ Âஏ'Ôπ_ ∂ஸÔ ºமÁÈ✓" ÷Ú¬ணனுº✓ஏஅ ƒ´ஏƒˆடீஏÔ ✓Ëயுˆ•னு ªயடீÏÔ^ \ரÆவஜ§ º\முனு நுÈ ஸ™¬Ìழ ªயடீÏÔÁ·¬ ÿÔஏı| ஒΩ›அÁம¬Ô©✓|னு.

7. ÷,ரண ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ^ ✓Ëறு´Õ,´னு ºÔஏ´ஒΩடீஏஅ. ∂›,ண ✓Ëறு´Õ,´னு ÿƒகுடீ ºமı|ÿ\ஆ_ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸ_ உ^·மÏÔ^ ∂,ரÔஏ™ ÿÔஏ^ÁÔ ஒΩÁம º\ரÿÔஏ^· ºமı|னு. ∂›,ண ÿÔஏ^ÁÔ ஒΩÁம ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›ஸஜ துÈனு ∏≈©∏¬Ô ÷டீÈஏஅ ®ஜÆ ✓È லÏ©யுÔπ_ உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ÔÚ›அ¬ÔÁ·¬ Ì§•^·அ. ÷›,ண ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔÁ·© ✓ˆ,ஏ✓©✓'| று´Õ,´\ஏ¬Ô©✓¶ ºமı|ÿ\™ ஒΩ° ÿƒகு,ஏ_ ÷ÕறுÆம™னு ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ ப´ஏகுﬂநு ஒΩ°ÔÁ· º\ரÿÔஏ^· ÷டீÈஏஅ. \–,ஏ´Ï ,Ôம_ ∂§•னு உˆÁ\ﬂ ƒ'¶னு துÈனு ÿ✓ரÆ^· Ôஏழட¶∫ÔÁ·© ÿ✓ஏÆ›,மÁ´ ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·¬ ÿÔஏı| ∂©✓,ளÔ^ று´©✓©✓¶ºமı|னு. ÷Àமற¬˛_ \–,ஏ´Ï ✓_ºமÆ றுÔµ°ÔÁ· \Á≈›அ ,™¬ணﬂ ƒஏ,Ô\ஏÔ Ì§•^·ஏÏ. ÷ÕறுÆம™னு 1947áஜ ƒ'¶›ஸஜ ˇµ ÿƒடீ_✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ÷ÕறுÆம™›ஸ_ ✓Ëயுˆ✓மÏÔ"¬ண யுஅﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑© ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ^ ƒ'¶னு \'|º\ ÿ✓ஏÚÕஅனு. ,¬Ô ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›Á, ÂஏΩ ✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔ^ ✓Ëறு´Õ,´னு ÿƒகுடீ ºÔஏ´ ºமı|னுஇ ÷னு\– ,^"✓Ω ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ ºமı|னு.

8. ÷னு\–ள_ லÏ°¬ண ®øனு ®øள™ஏ¬Ô^:

®øள™ஏ¬Ô^:

(1) ÷னு\–ள_ ºÔஏˆடீ✓Ω ∂முமÈÔ பÁð மற∫˛¶ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ®ஸ´ஏÔ உ›,´ள¶ ÷டீமு\ஏ?

(2) ®©✓ˆÔஏ´னு \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண¬ ˛Á¶¬ணனு?

®øள™ஏ¬Ô^ 1 \ரÆனு 2:

\–°¶ஜ ÷Áð¬Ô©✓'¶ ✓'Ωடீ_ 1 \ரÆனு 2_ Ôı|^· 90 Â✓ÏÔ^ ∑\ஏÏ 8 மÚ¶∫Ô"¬ண º\ÈஏÔ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ✓ıÁðட_ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ \ர≈னு ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ ✓Ëÿƒகுஅ மÚம,ஏÔ°னுஇ ப™ஏ_ ∂மÏÔÁ·› ,ணஸ\ஏர≈னு ÿƒகுஅ ∂,ரÔஏ™ உˆடீ பÁð \ரÆனு ªஸடீனு மற∫Ôஏ\_ ∂Àம©º✓ஏஅ ∂Á\•னு ∂´∑ ,∫Ô^ மƒஸரºÔர✓ யுஸடீ ப'ÔÁ· றுடீவ›அ மÚமஅ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ÂÈﬂ ƒ'¶∫ÔÁ· *Æம,ஏÔ உ^·,ஏணனு ®™°னு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ·ஏÔ 8 மÚ¶ ÔஏÈ›அ¬ணனு º\ÈஏÔ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÚ˛ஜ≈ 42 ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·› ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னுஇ 48 ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ,ணஸ \ஏர≈னு ÿƒகுஅ ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô°னு ∂,ரணˆடீ பÁð மற∫˛¶ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ú¬ண உ›,´ள¶ ºமı|ÿ\™ \.ƒஏ. 1 ,™அ ∏´\ஏð ✓›ஸ´›ஸ_ ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ.

9. ,Ôம_ ∂§•னு உˆÁ\ﬂ ƒ'¶›ஸஜˇµ ÿ✓≈©✓'¶ ÔΩ, ÂÔ_ \.ƒஏ.ப.1 பணனு. ÷ஸ_ 21-1-2010á_ ÿ´ணÈÏ \¸#Ï 34 ✓,ளÔ"னுஇ ÿƒடீ_ ள·¬Ô உ,ளடீஏ·Ï 2 ✓,ளÔ"னுஇ Ô·©✓Ëடீஏ·Ï 1 ✓,ள•னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÏமஏÔ›ஸ_ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^·,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. யுஅﬂºƒˆ ƒ\´ƒ ∂முமÈÏ ஒஜ™Ï ÷Ú ,´©∏™Ú¬ணனு ÷Á¶ºடீ º✓ﬂ∑மஏÏ›Á, Â¶›ஸடீ ∏ஜ™Ï ∂´∑¬Ôπ›, ƒ\´ƒ ஒ§ம§¬ÁÔ \.ƒஏ.ப 2 பணனு. \–,ஏ´Ï ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔÁடீ ✓ˆÊழ¬Ô ∂§°Æ›,©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னு ப™ஏ_ யுஸடீ Â✓ÏÔÁ· ✓Ëட_ ∂\Ï›,¬ Ì¶ஏஅ ®™ ∂´∑ உ›,´° ÂÁ¶ஒÁ≈ட_ உ^·,ஏ_ \–,ஏ´ˆஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔÁடீ ∞ரÔ ÷டீÈஏஅ ®™ றுÏமஏÔனு Ì§டீ,ஏÔ°னு \.ƒஏ.ப2á_ ண§©∏'|^·அ.

10. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு ®.ƒஏ.1 ,ஏ¬Ô_ÿƒகு, ∏´\ஏð ✓›ஸ´›ஸ_ ண§©∏|ÁÔட_ ,∫Ô^ றுÆம™னு ÷Õஸடீ Society ƒ'¶னு 1961áஜˇµ ✓ஸ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'| ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ✓டரநுடீπ¬ணனு றுÆம™\ஏÔ உ^·,ஏமுனு ளமƒஏடÔ"¬ண ளﬁQஏ™© ØÏம\ஏÔ ✓_ºமÆ ளமƒஏடீ ✓டÏÔ^ ÿ,ஏ¶Ï✓ஏ™ ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ✓டரநுடீπ¬Ô©✓|ம,ஏÔ°னு யுஅÿ¶_ழ ÷Õஸடீ ளமƒஏடீ ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÆம™னுஇ Á",´ஏ✓ஏ› ∂ˆநு ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÆம™னு \ரÆனு யுஅﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑ ப˛ºடீஏÏÔ^ மÁ´டீÁ≈ ÿƒகு•னு ஸ'¶∫ÔÁ· றுÁ≈ºமரÆமº, ÷©✓ıÁðடஜ ºÂஏ¬Ô\ஏணனு ®™°னு ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ. º\முனு ளﬁQஏ™© ØÏம\ஏ™ உடீÏ´Ô ✓டÏÔ^ ÿƒகுடீ ளமƒஏடÔ"¬ண ✓டரநு ∂π¬Ô°னுஇ º\முனு ✓_ºமÆ ÿÂர✓டÏ19 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1053 ப´ஏகுﬂநு ÿƒகுடீ°னுஇ ளÁ,Ô^ உர✓›ஸ ÿƒகுடீ°னு º\ர✓Ω றுÆம™∫Ô·ஏ_ றுஸ Œஅ¬Ô©✓|ம,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷©✓ணஸ ளமƒஏடீ \¬Ô"¬ÔஏÔ ÿƒடீ_✓|னு ÷›ஸ'¶∫Ô"¬ண ✓ÚமÔஏÈ \ரÆனு ,ரÔஏழÔ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ \'|º\ º,Áம ®ஜÆனு ∏´\ஏð©✓›ஸ´›ஸ_ ண§©∏¶©✓'|^·அ.

11. நுÈ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ \'|º\ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ º,Áம©✓|ம,ஏ_ \ர≈ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ✓Ë ,´ ÷டீÈஏஅ ®ஜÆனு º\முனு ºமÁÈட_Èஏ Âஏ'Ôπ_ ∂›ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ƒனு✓·னு ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜ≈ ள≠டீனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ÿ,ˆடீ©✓|›,©✓'|^·அ ®ஜÆனுஇ ∂அ º✓ஏÈºம ºமÁÈட_Èஏ Âஏ'Ôπ_ ƒனு✓·னு மற∫Ô©✓|மஸ_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனுஇ ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ✓டரநு றுÆம™\ஏÔ உ^·,ஏ_ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ú¬ண© ÿ✓ஏÚÕ,ஏஅ ®ஜÆனு ,™அ ®ஸÏ\–ள_ ®.ƒஏ.1 ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ.\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ,∫Ô^ ✓ıÁðட_ ✓Ë யுˆடீள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆ ∂மÏ Ì≈ள_ÁÈ. \ஏ≈ஏÔ ºமÁÈட_Èஏ, ÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ Ìழ ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· று´Õ,´©✓|›, ஒΩடீஏஅ ®ஜÆ மஏகுÿ\ஏயடீஏÔ›,ஏஜ ÿƒஏ_ழ•^º·ஏனு ®ஜÆனு ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ. º\முனு ®.ƒஏ.1áெ ணÆ¬ண ளƒஏ´Áð ÿƒகு,º✓ஏஅ '÷அ º✓ஏஜÆ ஸ™¬Ìழ ªயடீÏÔÁ· று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னுஇ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ªயடீÏÔÁ·› ஸ™¬Ìழ ªயடீÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ∞ரÔ™ºம றுடீவ¬Ô©✓'¶ஏÏÔ·ஏ ®ஜ≈ஏ_இ ÿƒகுஸÚ¬ÔÈஏனு' ®ஜÆனு ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ.

ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÁÈடீனுஇ Á",´ஏ✓ஏ› ∂ˆநு ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÁÈடீனுஇ யுஅﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑ ப˛ºடீஏÏ ÷ÁðÕஅ ல'¶©✓|னு ஸ'¶∫ÔÁ· ÷∫ண ÿƒடீ_✓|›அமஅனு \Æ¬Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ளமƒஏடÔ"¬ண ✓டரநு ∂π¬Ô©✓|னு றுÆம™\ஏÔ உ^· ÷Õ, றுÆம™›ஸரண ÿƒÈ° ®ஜ✓º, ∂ஸÔனு ®ஜÆனு ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ º✓ஏÈ மÚமஏகு ÷_Èஏ, றுÁÈட_ ÷அ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ®™¬ ÔÚ, மஏகு©º✓ட_ÁÈ ®™ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மற¬ணÁ´QÏ மஏ,வ'¶ஏÏ. ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ (industry) ®ஜ≈ஏ_ ÿ,ஏயர ,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு 1947 ∏ˆ° 2(j)áஜ ∏ˆளமுனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ (workman) ®ஜ≈ஏ_ டீஏÏ ®ஜ✓அ ✓ர§ ∏ˆ° 2 (s)áஜ ˇøனு ˇµÔı¶மஏÆ மÁ´டீÁ≈ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^·அ.

Section 2(j) : "industry" means any business trade undertaking, manufatures or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;

Section 2(s): "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute....

14. ∏ˆ° 2(j)áஜ✓Ω ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ®ஜ✓அ ளடீஏ✓ஏ´னு ÿƒகு•னு ÷¶\ஏÔ°னுஇ உர✓›ஸ \ரÆனு ∞,ஏமஅ ÿ,ஏய_ ÂÁ¶ÿ✓Æனு ÷¶\ஏÔ°னு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ✓Ëயுˆ•னு ÷¶\ஏÔ°னு 7-4-1978á_ உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ∏≈©∏›, ÿ✓∫ÔதÏ மஏ'¶Ï ƒ©Á· ®ஸÏ ®. ´ஏ¤©✓ஏ \ரÆனு ✓ÈÏ ®ஜ≈ மற¬˛_ ✓_ºமÆ ஒஜலÏ©யுÔπ_ ÔÚ›அ¬Ô^ ளமஏஸ¬Ô✓'¶ ∏ஜ™Ï ஒΩமஏÔ ®|›ஸடீனு∏டீ ∂Õ,› லÏ©யு ÷ஜÆமÁ´ ∏ஜ✓ர≈©✓'| மÚ˛≈அ. ∂,ஜ✓Ω ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ரண ∂Àள¶›ஸ_ உர✓›ஸ \ரÆனு Èஏ✓னு \'|º\ ÷Ú¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜ≈ Ô'¶ஏடீனு ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ✓^πÔ^இ Ô_ŸˆÔ^இ \Ú›அம\Á™Ô^இ ,Ï\Ôஏˆடீ∫Ôπ_ ~|✓|னு றுÆம™∫Ô^இ ƒதுÔ ºƒÁம றுÆம™∫Ô^ ப˛டீÁமÔ"னு Ì¶ industry ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈¬ண^ மÚ˛ஜ≈™ ®ஜÆனு உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ÿ,π° ✓|›ஸடÚ¬˛≈அ. ∞,ஏமஅ ŒÚ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕ, ÿƒடீ_✓ஏ| ஒ,Èஏπ \ரÆனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ Ì'| ஒடீரநுடீஏ_ ÿƒடீ_ஒÁ≈©✓|›,©✓|னு ÷¶ஒனு Ì'|≈° ƒ∫Ô∫Ô"னுஇ ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÆம™∫Ô"னு Ì¶ industry ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈ட_ மÚ˛ஜ≈™ ®™°னு ∂›லÏ©∏_ ∑'Ω¬Ôஏ'¶©✓'|^·அ.

[1978] 2 SCC 213 :

12. \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏ஜ ∂§மஏÏÕ, ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô ∏´ஸறுஸ மஏஸ|ÁÔட_ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏﬂநுடீஏÔ 240 Âஏ'Ô"¬ண º\_ ✓_Èஏı|Ô·ஏÔ ✓Ë ÿƒகும,ஏ_ \. ƒஏ. ப. 1á_ Ôı¶ Ôஏழட¶∫ÔÁ· \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔÁ·¬ÿÔஏı| று´©✓ உ›,´ள¶ ºமıΩடீஅ ∂மநுடீ\ஏ˛≈அ ®ஜÆனு று´©✓ஏ\_ ÔஏÈனு Ô¶›அமஅஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ÂÈﬂ ƒ'¶∫Ô"¬ண ளº´ஏ,\ஏÔ உ^·அ ®ஜÆனு ∞ரÔ™ºம ÷அ º✓ஏஜ≈ Ôஏழ ✓Ëட¶∫ÔÁ·› ஸ™¬Ìழ ªயடீÏÔÁ·¬ÿÔஏı| று´Õ,´ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·› ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ÷©✓ıÁðட_ றுடீவ›அ^·ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜÆனு ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ. Bangalore water supply மற¬˛_ ÔÚ›அ Ì§டீ✓Ω ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ"னு 'ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^' ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈¬ண^ மÚ˛≈ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜÆனு º\முனு ∂மÏ ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ. ப™ஏ_ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ✓ıÁð {Ï ப´ஏகுﬂநு ✓ıÁð ®ஜÆனு ÷அ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈¬ண^ ம´ஏஅ ®ஜÆனு º\முனு \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏™Á´ று´Õ,´\ஏÔ ÿÔஏ^ÁÔ ஒΩ°ÔÁ· 'ப"ÁÔ¬ ணø' \'|º\ றுÁ≈ºமர≈ ÷டீமுÿ\ஜÆனுஇ பÔºம ÷னு\–ள_ உ^· ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔÔÁ· ∞ரÔ ÷டீÈஏஅ ®ஜÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ப¤´ஏ™ ∂´∑ மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ.

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs.

A. Rajappa and others:

13. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு றுÏமஏÔ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈¬ண^ ம´ஏஅ ®ஜÆ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ®|›அÁ´¬Ô©✓'|^·,ஏ_ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÏமஏÔனு ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈¬ண^ மÚ˛≈,ஏ? ÷_ÁÈடீஏ? ®ஜ✓Á, ,ரº✓ஏஅ Âஏனு பகு° ÿƒகுடீ ºமıΩ•^·அ. ளமƒஏடÔ"¬ண ✓டரநு•னு \ரÆனு ளﬁQஏ™©ØÏம\ஏ™ உடீÏ´Ô ✓டÏÔ^ ✓ ர § டீ ப ´ ஏ கு ﬂ நு • னு ® ஸ Ï \ – , ஏ ´ Ï று Ï ம ஏ Ô › ஸ _ ÿƒடீ_✓|›,©✓|ம,ஏÔ ÌÆனு ÌரÆÔ^ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ \Æ¬Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. º\முனுஇ யுஅÿ¶_ழ ÷Õஸடீ ளமƒஏடீ The Supreme Court overruled the decisions given in the earlier cases and laid down the following conclusions:

(a) If there is systematic activity, organised by co-operation between employer and employee for the production of distribution of goods and services, to satisfy human want "prima facie" then it is an industry.

1054 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [19 November 2013

(b) The venture may be in the public, joint, private or other sector and the absence of profit motive is irrelevant.

(c) It is important that there is employer-employee relationship. Even if the organisation is for philanthropic purposes, it is an 'industry'.

(d) An organised activity possessing all the above elements although there is no trade of business, is 'industry',

(e) The following are included under the term 'industry', if they fulfil the above conditions:

(i) Professions

(ii) Clubs

(iii) Educational Institutions

(iv) Co-operatives

(v) Research Institutions

(vi) Charitable projects.

(f) A pious or altruistic mission may employ many persons but there is no master and servant relationship.

(g) If there is mixture of activities, consisting of 'industrial and non-industrial' services then the dominance nature of services will decide whether it is an industry or not.

(h) Strict sovereign functions are exempted and not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies.

(i) In departments discharging, sovereign functions if there are units which are industries and if they are severable they are considered industries.

Thus, the bangalore water supply and Sewage Board Vs. A. Rajappa overruled and the provisions decisions and the definition of the term 'industry' has since been modified.

15. º\ர✓Ωஇ ஒஜலÏ©∏_ ஒΩ° Ì§டீ உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ப´ஏகுﬂநு றுÆம™∫Ô"னுஇ ,Ï\ ¸,ஏ✓™∫Ô"னுÌ¶ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶©✓Ω¬ண industry ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈¬ண^ மÚம,ஏÔ ÔÚ›அ Ì§•^·அ. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ✓ıÁðட_ ளமƒஏடீ ப´ஏகுﬂநு ÿƒகுமஅஇ ளமƒஏடÔ"¬ண உடீÏ ´Ô ✓டÏÔ^ ம·Ïﬂநு✓ர§டீ ✓டரநு ∂π©✓அனு பணனு ®™ ®.ƒஏ.1 Ì§™ஏÏ. ,™அ ∂முமÈÔ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸ_ று´Õ,´ \¸#Ï ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ 90 º✓Ï ,ரº✓ஏஅ ºமÁÈ ÿƒகும,ஏÔ°னு Ì§™ஏÏ. உடீÏ ´Ô ✓டÏ மÁÔÔ^ ✓டˆ|மஅ ✓ர§டீ ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ✓டரநு ∂π¬ணனு ✓ıÁðடீஏÔ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ ÿƒடீ_✓|ம,ஏÔ°னு ®.ƒஏ.1 ÌÆ˛≈ஏÏ. ✓Ëயுˆ•னு \¸#Ï ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ"¬ண ƒ'¶ØÏம\ஏÔ ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©✓¶ºமıΩடீ ள|©யுÔ^ ,´©✓|னு ®™°னு Ì§™ஏÏ. ∂மÏ ,™அ ✓ıÁðட_ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ ளமƒஏடீ ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ∂அ ÿ,ஏ¶Ï✓ஏ™ ✓டரநு ∂π©✓,ஏÔ°னு º\முனுஇ ∑\ஏÏ 90 Â✓ÏÔ"¬ணº\_ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ உ^·,ஏ_ ÷ÕறுÆம™னு º\ர✓Ω ஒÕÁ,டீ லÏ©∏_ Ôı¶ ÔÚ›அ¬Ôπஜ✓Ω ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு ∏ˆ° 2(s)-ஜ✓Ω மÚம,ஏÔºம ∂§டீஒΩ˛≈அ. \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ÿƒஏ_È©✓'¶ ✓'Ωடீ_ 1இ 2á_ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னுஇ ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ·ஏÔ°னு ÷Ú©✓அ ✓ர§•னு ÔÚ›அ¬ண ப'ºƒ✓Áð ŒஜÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ˆடீ✓|›,ள_ÁÈ. ப™ஏ_இ ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ºமÁÈடÚÕ,ஏ_ \'|º\ ºமÁÈ ,´©✓|னு ®ஜÆனுஇ ºமÁÈட_ÁÈ ®ஜ≈ஏ_ ƒனு✓·னு ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனுஇ நுÈ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ \'|º\ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ✓Ë,´©✓|னு ®ஜÆனு \–ள_ ºÔஏˆடீ ✓ˆÔஏ´›Á, ∂π¬Ô ºமı|ÿ\ஆ_ ✓ıÁðடஜ ப"ÁÔ¬ ணø \'|º\ ஒΩ° ®|¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™°னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ.

16. \–ள_ ண§©∏¶©✓'¶ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ✓È மÚ¶∫Ô·ஏÔ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÚம,ஏ_ 240 Âஏ'Ô"¬ண º\ÈஏÔ ✓ËயுˆÕ,,ஏÔ று'∏¬Ô©✓'|^·,ஏÔ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ®|›அÁ´¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ப™ஏ_இ ∏ˆ° 2(s)-ஜ ✓ Ω ¬ ண \ – , ஏ ´ Ï Ô ^ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ· ஏ Ô ✓ Ë யு ˆ Õ அ மÕ,,ரÔஏ™ ப,ஏ´னு ®அ°னு ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீள_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ ∂மÏÔ^ 240 Âஏ'Ô"¬ணº\ÈஏÔ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ,,ஏÔ று'✓ðனு பÔள_ÁÈ ®™ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ®|›அÁ´¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ÷னு\–ள_இ Ôı¶ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ஸ™¬ÌழÔ·ஏÔºமஏஇ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ·ஏÔºமஏ ,∫Ô^ ✓ıÁðட_ ✓Ëயுˆடீள_ÁÈ ®™ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ஸ'¶ம'¶\ஏÔ ண§©∏¶ள_ÁÈ. ƒ'¶©✓Ω ÷டீ∫ணனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÏமஏÔ›ஸ_ ®›,Á™ Â✓ÏÔ^ ®Õ,© ✓,ளட_ ✓Ëயுˆ˛≈ஏÏÔ^ ®ஜÆனு ®Àம·° ƒனு✓·னு ÿ✓ÆமஏÏÔ^ ®ஜ✓,ரணனு ✓ஸºம|Ô^ ✓´ஏ\ˆ¬Ô©✓¶ மஏகு©∏Ú¬˛≈அ. \–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ✓ர§டீ பமð∫Ô^ ®அ°னுஇ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ப¤Ï ✓|›,©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ÷ÀமஏÆஇ ப¤Ï ✓|›,©✓¶ஏ,அ ŒÚ ÿ✓Ú›, ணÁ≈டீஏணனு. ƒஒ,ஏடீ›ஸஜ ˇµ›,'Ω_ மஏµÕஅமÚனு ஸ™¬Ìழ \ரÆனு ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ∂©✓ıÁðட_ ✓ËயுˆÕ,அ ✓ர§டீ பமð∫ÔÁ· ப¤Ï ÿƒகுமஏÏÔ^ ®™ Âஏனு ®ஸÏ✓ஏÏ¬Ô ÷டீÈஏஅ. º\முனுஇ ∏ˆ° 2(s)-ஜ ✓Ω¬ண ✓டரநுÿ✓Æனு Â✓Úனு 'ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ' பமஏÏ ®ஜÆனு ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈட_ ✓Ëயுˆ•னு ÔΩ™ ºமÁÈ ÿƒகு•னு Â✓Úனு 'ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ' பமஏÏ ®ஜÆனுஇ º\முனு º\ர✓ஏÏÁம º✓ஏஜ≈ அÁ≈Ôπ_ ~|✓'| ✓Ë ÿƒகு✓மÏÔ"னு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ பமஏÏ ®ஜÆனுஇ ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ•னு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπºடீ பமஏÏ ®ஜÆனு ✓_ºமÆ ஒஜலÏ©யுÔ^ ∑'Ω¬Ôஏ'ΩடÚ©✓Á, Âஏனு Ôம™›ஸ_ ÿÔஏ^· ºமıΩடீஅ ∂மநுடீ\ஏ˛≈அ.

17. ÷Àமற¬˛_ ண§©∏'¶ ஸ™¬Ìழ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^இ ✓Ë ˛Á¶¬ணனு ÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ ∂மÏÔ"¬ண ✓Ëடீπ›அ ƒனு✓·னு ,´©✓|னு ®ஜÆனுஇ ✓Ëட_Èஏ, ÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ ∂மÏÔ"¬ண ƒனு✓·னு ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ®.ƒஏ.1áஜ Ìர§ஜ துÈனு ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. ŒÚ நுÈ ✓ÚமÔஏÈ∫Ôπ_ \'|º\இ நுÈ ப´ஏகுﬂநு \ரÆனு ✓டரநு ஸ'¶∫Ô^ ÂÁ¶ÿ✓Æம,ஏ_இ ∂ © ✓ Ú ம Ô ஏ È › ஸ _ \ ' | º \ நு È ÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ï Ô Á · ✓Ëடீ\Ï›ஸ¬ÿÔஏ^மஅ மற¬Ôனு ®™°னு ∂Õ,மÁÔட_ ✓ Ú ம Ô ஏ È ✓ Ë டீ \ Ï › , © ✓ ' ¶ ÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ π Ô " ¬ ண ∂©✓ÚமÔஏÈ›ஸ_ \'|º\ ƒனு✓·னு ∂π¬Ô©✓|னு ®ஜÆனு ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. ÷Õ, ÷Ú மÁÔடீஏ™ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"னு19 November 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1055 ÷©✓ıÁðடஜ ÂÈ–¬ÔஏÔ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ ,∫Ô^ உ¶_ உÁற©Á✓ ∂π›அ மÚனுº✓ஏஅஇ ,ரº✓ஏஅ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^· று´Õ,´ ✓Ëடீஏ·Ï ✓,ள¬ண ,∫ÔÁ· றுடீவ¬Ôºமı|னு ®ஜÆ ºÔஏÚ˛≈ÏÔ^. ,ரº✓ஏஅ ✓ıÁðட_ \.ƒஏ.1áஜ✓Ω¬ண ✓,ளÔ^ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^·,ஏÔ°னு ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. º\முனுஇ ®.ƒஏ.1. ÌÆÁÔட_ ,ரº✓ஏஅ 45 ✓Ëட¶∫Ô^ ÷©✓ıÁðட_ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^·,ஏÔ ÿ,ˆள›,ஏÏ.

18. ஒ,Èஏπá ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ உ≈° ∑துÔ\ஏÔ ÷Ú¬ணனுº✓ஏஅ \'|º\ உர✓›ஸ ÿ✓Ú¬Ôனுஇ ளடீஏ✓ஏ´ உடீÏ° ∞ர✓'| Âஏ| ஒஜº™≈ மஏகு©∏Ú¬˛≈அ. ÷›,Úð›ஸ_இ ∞ரÔ™ºம ✓Ëÿƒகு•னு ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ"¬ண ºமıΩடீ ∂Á™›அ ƒமுÁÔÔÁ·•னு ∂π›அ ,ஜஆÁ≈மஏ™ மஏµ¬ÁÔ மஏøனுº✓ஏஅ,ஏஜ ,∫Ô^ ✓Ëட_ ∂மÏÔ^ ஒø Ôம™னு ÿƒமு›, ஒΩ•னு. ∂ஸÔஏ´ மÏ¬Ô›ஸஜ பஸ¬Ô ÿƒடீ_✓ஏ| ,ÁÈ#¬Ô¬ Ì¶ஏஅ ®ஜ≈ ®ıð›ஸஜ ∂Ω©✓Á¶ட_ ,ஏஜ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ÂÈﬂ ƒ'¶∫Ô^ ÷டீர≈©✓'|^·™. ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^இ ƒஒ,ஏடீ›ஸஜ ∂Ω›,·›ஸ_ ÷Ú¬ணனுº✓ஏஅ ∂மÏÔ^ ஒ,Èஏπ¬ண ®ஸ´ஏÔ ºÂ´ΩடீஏÔ º✓ஏ'Ωட¶ ÷டீÈஏஅ; ப™ஏமுனுஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ÂÈƒ'¶∫ÔÁ· ,∫Ô"¬ண ƒஏ,Ô\ஏÔ ✓டீஜ✓|›ஸ¬ÿÔஏı| வுðஏ™ ƒﬂƒ´°Ôπமுனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ ~|✓¶¬Ì¶ஏஅ. ÷›,Úð›ஸ_ ˇµÔı¶ ஒஜ லÏ©யுÔÁ· றுÁ™°Ì≈ ளÚனுயு˛º≈ஜ.

2005 (3) L.L.N. 719 (Madras):

National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,

Chennai Vs. Presiding Officer, I Additional

Labour Court, Madras and another:

19. ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^இ ஸ™¬Ìழ \ரÆனு ✓ÚமÔஏÈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ·ஏÔ ÷©✓ıÁðட_ ✓Ë ÿƒகுஅ மÚம,ரணˆடீ ப,ஏ´னு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ✓ıÁðட_ Áம›ஸÚ¬Ô மஏகு©∏Ú¬˛≈அ. ∞ரÔ™ºமஇ ÷©✓ıÁðடஜ ம · Ï ﬂ நு ¬ Ô ஏ Ô ✓ Ë ÿ ƒ கு • னு ÷ › ÿ , ஏ ய È ஏ · Ï Ô ^ ÷©✓ıÁðட_ உ^· ✓ËÔ^ ✓ர§டீ ளம´∫Ô^ ∂Á™›அனு ÿ,ˆÕஅ ✓டரநு•னு ÿ✓ர≈மÏÔ·ஏÔ ÷Ú¬˛≈ஏÏÔ^. ÷›,ண ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· ∞ரÔ™ºம ÷,ரண ஒஜ™ஏ_ ÷ © ✓ı Áð ட _ று ´ Õ , ´ \ ஏ ¬ Ô © ✓ ' | ^ · , ஏ Ô Ì Æ னு \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு ÌரÆ \Æ¬Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ∂›,ண உˆÁ\Áடீ ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ºÔஏÚமஸ_ ளடீ©யு ∞அவ_ÁÈ. ÷ÁமÔÁ·› ,ள´ ºமÆ யுஸடீ Â✓ÏÔÁ· று ´ Õ , ´ ✓ , ள Ô π _ º ƒ Ï ¬ Ô ∂ – \ ஸ › , ஏ _ ÷©✓ıÁðடீஏ·ÏÔπஜ ®ஸÏÔஏÈனு ºÔ^ள¬ண§டீஏÔ மஏகு©யு^·அ. º\முனுஇ ÷©✓ıÁðடஜ ப"ÁÔ¬ ணøளஜ ஒΩளஜº✓ˆ_ ,ஏஜ று´Õ,´©✓Ëடீஏ·ÏÔÁ· றுடீவ¬Ô ÷டீமுனு ®ஜ≈ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மஏ,னு ∞ரணனு ∂·ள_ ÷_ÁÈ. ÷›ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔ^ ºÔஏÚமஅº✓ஏ_ று ´ Õ , ´ \ ஏ ¬ Ô ப Áð ∏ ≈ © ∏ ¬ Ô ® ஸ Ï \ – , ஏ ´ Ú ¬ ண உ›,´ள¶ ÷டீÈஏஅ ®ஜÆனுஇ ∞ÿ™ஆ_இ ∂›,ண ஒΩ° ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு 'Policy decision' பணனு ®ஜÆனுஇ ∂›,ண ஒΩÁம ÷©✓ıÁðடஜ 'ப"ÁÔ¬ ணø' \'|º\ ஒΩ° ÿƒகுடீ ÷டீமுனு ®ஜÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ப¤´ஏ™ ∂§மஏÏÕ, ∂´∑ மற¬ணÁ´QÏ மஏஸ'¶ஏÏ. ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ 'ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^' ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈¬ண^ மÚம,ஏÔ Âஏனு ∂§˛ஜ≈º✓ஏஅ ∂மÏÔ"¬ணˆடீ ÿ,ஏய_ ƒஏÏÕ, ∏´ﬂƒÁ™Ô^ ✓ர§ லÏ›அ¬ÿÔஏ^· ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶©✓Ω ✓ˆÔஏ´னு ºÔஏ´ ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›Á, ∂டி˛டீஸ_ ∏´ﬂƒÁ™ ÷Ú©✓,ஏÔ Âஏனு ∂§டீ ஒΩடீள_ÁÈ. º\முனுஇ ÷›,ண ºÂ´∫Ôπ_ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ,™அ Ô¶Á\டÁ™ ƒதுÔ ¿ஸ Ôıºðஏ'¶›ஸ_ ✓ஏÏ›அ ஒ,Èஏπáÿ,ஏயÈஏπ ÷Á¶ºடீ ∂Á\ஸ ∞ர✓|›அனு ºÂஏ¬Ô›ஸ_ ÿƒடீ_✓¶ ºமı|னு ®™ உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ÔÚ›அ Ì§•^·Á, Âஏனு Ôமஆ¬Ô› ,ம≈¬ Ì¶ஏஅ. ÷›,Úð›ஸ_இ ˇµÔı¶ உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈ லÏ©Á✓ ÔÚ›ஸ_ ÿÔஏ^· ºமıΩடீஅ ∂மநுடீ\ஏ˛≈அ.

1962 AIR (SC) 486, 1961 (2) LLJ 3:

Bidi, Bidi Leaves and apos; and Tobacco

Merchants Association Vs. State of Bombay:

"The whole approach of industrial law is that the employer and employee do not stand on an equal bargaining position, industrial law recognises that the workers are in a weaker position than the employers who have financial resources, management skills, connections etc. Hence the whole object of industrial law is to help weaker section in the society (the workmen) and given them protection from exploitation. There can be no estoppel against a person, who accepts his designation as an apprentice, but later on raise a plea that in fact he was not an apprentice but was doing the work of a workman".

1982 I LLJ 33 S.C.:

Workmen of M/s. Williamson Magor and Co.

Ltd., Vs. William Magor and Company Limited:

"This court in the case of K.C.P. Employees Association, Madras Vs. Management of K.C.P. Limited, Madras and other reported in (1977 I LLJ 322) observed:

"In industrial law, interpreted and applied in the prospective of Part-IV of the Constitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt, on law and facts, if there be such doubt must go to the weaker section, labour. The Tribunal will dispose of the case making this compassionate approach but without over stepping the proved facts".

.....It is well settled that industrial adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) is given wide powers and jurisdiction to make appropriate awards in determining industrial dispute brought before it. An award made in an industrial adjudication may impose new obligations on the employer in the interest of social justice and with a view to secure peace and harmony between the employer and his workmen and full co-operation between them. Such an award may even alter the terms of employment if it is thought if and necessary to do so. In deciding industrial disputes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not confined to the administration of justice in accordance with the law of contract Mukherjee. J,1056 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [19 November 2013 º\ர✓Ω உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு Ì§•^· ∂§°Æ›,_Ô^ ✓டீ™ரÆ© º✓ஏணனு மஏகு©யு உ^·அ ®ஜ✓Á,•னு Âஏனு \™ஸ_ ÿÔஏ^· ºமı|னு. ÷º,º✓ஏஜ≈ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· ÷©✓ıÁðட_இ ®ரÔ™ºம று´Õ,´\ஏ¬Ô©✓'ΩÚ¬ணனு º✓ஏஅ ∂º, ∂·°ºÔஏÁÈ ÔÚ›ஸ_ÿÔஏı| ÷›ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·•னு ✓Ëடீ\Ï›அமஸ_ ®Àள, நு¬Ôமுனு ÷Ú©✓,ஏÔ Âனு\ஏ_ ÔÚ, ஒΩடீள_ÁÈ. ∏ˆ° 2(j)ஜ✓Ω ÷©✓ıÁðஇ ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ∏ˆ° 2(j)ஜ✓Ω ÷னு\–,ஏ´ÏÔ^ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔ^ ®ஜ≈ மÁ´டீÁ≈ட_ மÚம,ஏமுனுஇ º\முனு ÿ,ஏ.,. ƒ'¶னு ÷´ı¶ஏனு ∂'¶மÁðட_ Ôı¶✓Ω \–,ஏ´Ï ∂'¶மÁð 6-_ Ôı¶ ƒ´›அ©✓Ω \–,ஏ´ÏÔÁ· \–ள_ ºÔஏˆடீ✓Ω ✓Ëட_ ✓Ëறுடீவ¬Ô ✓ˆÔஏ´னு ∂π¬ÔÈஏனு ®™ Âஏஜ ÔÚஅ˛º≈ஜ.

ஒΩள_இ \–°¶ஜ ÌΩடீ ÷Áð©யு ✓'Ωடீ_ 1 \ரÆனு 2 ப˛டீமர§_ Ôı|^· ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ· ✓Ëது©யு ∂Ω©✓Á¶ட_ ÔஏழடீஏÔ உ^· று´Õ,´ ✓,ளÔπ_ று´©✓ உ›,´ள¶©✓|˛≈அ. *,ஒ^· ✓'Ωடீ_ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔÁ·•னு ✓Ëது©யு ∂Ω©✓Á¶ட_ \–ள_ ºÔஏˆடீ✓Ω ,ணஸ\ஏர≈னு ÿƒகுஅ ∂,ரணˆடீ பÁð மற∫˛|\ஏÆ உ›,´ள¶©✓|˛≈அ. ÿƒÈ°›ÿ,ஏÁÔ ÷_ÁÈ.

T. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இ ,ÁÈÁ\ ,ஏ∫ணனு ∂முமÈÏஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னுஇ யுஅﬂºƒˆ.

————

\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_:

\.ƒஏ.ப.1 — H. ´ஏ\˛Úðைஜ (ƒ∫Ô றுÏமஏ˛)

ண§ட¶©✓'¶ பமð∫Ôπஜ ✓'Ωடீ_ as he then was, has observed in The Bharat Bank of Ltd., Delhi V. Employees The Bharat Bank Limited, Delhi [(1950) S.C.R.459,513] the Tribunal 'can confer rights and privileges on either party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace. "Since the decision of the Federal Court in Western India Automobile Association V. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay [A.I.R. (1949) F.C. 111, (1949) F.C.321], it has been repeatedly held that the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals is much wider and can be reasonably exercised in deciding industrial disputes with the object of keeping industrial peace and progress (vide: Rohtas Industries, Ltd., V. Brijnandan Pandey [1959 S.C.R. 800]: the Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd., V. The Patna, S. E l e c t r i c S u p p l y Wo r k e r s U n i o n [ 1 9 5 9 ] S u p p . 2 S.C.R. 761]. Indeed, during the last ten years and more industrial adjudication in this country has made so much progress in determining industrial disputes arising between industries of different kinds and their employees that the jurisdiction and authority of industrial tribunals to deal with such disputes with the object of ensuring social justice is no longer seriously disputed. But, it is necessary to remember that no claim can be made for such broad jurisdictional power by the respondent when it purports to issue a notification under the provisions of the Act. These powers and authority would necessarily be conditioned by the relevant provisions under which it purports to act, and the validity of the impugned notification must therefore be judged not by general considerations of social justice or even considerations for introducing industrial peace: they must be judged solely and exclusively by the test prescribed by the provisions of the statute itself.....

\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_:

®ı º,ஸ பமð ளம´னு

\.ƒஏ.ப.1 2á2á2010 RTI துÈனு ÿ✓ர≈ ,Ôம_ ÔΩ,

ÂÔ_.

\.ƒஏ.ப.2 30á12á2010 ∂´∑ ƒ\´ƒ ∂ஸÔஏˆடஜ ஒ§ம§¬ÁÔ

ÂÔ_.

®.ƒஏ.ப.1 8á5á2013 Authorisation letter (✓ˆÕஅÁ´¬ ÔΩ,னு).

T. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இº\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இ

,ÁÈÁ\ ,ஏ∫ணனு ∂முமÈÏஇ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னுஇ யுஅﬂºƒˆ.

20. º\ர✓Ω ஒஜலÏ©∏_ உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ÔÚ›அ ÌÆனுº✓ஏஅ "ŒÚ லÏமனு" மற∫ணனுº✓ஏஅ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπá ஒ,Èஏπ ÷Á¶ºடீ ÷Ú,´©∏ஜ Œ›அÁற©யு¶ஜ ∂Á\ஸடீஏ™ ÛµறுÁÈ ∞ர✓¶°னு ƒதுÔ ¿ஸ ˛Á¶›ஸ¶°னு ஒ,Èஏπ நுÈ Ô¶Á\Ô^ பர§¶ ºமı|னு ®ஜÆ ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு உ›,´ள¶Èஏனு ®™ ÔÚ›அ Ì§•^·அ. ∂∫Ù™னுஇ ஒ,Èஏπ¬ண உ›,´ள¶¬ ÌΩடீ ∂ஸÔஏ´னு ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ƒ'¶னு ∂π›அ^·,ஏÔ Ì§டீ உﬂƒ ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ,¬Ôƒ\டீ›ஸ_ ,¬Ô ºÂ´›ஸ_ ÷›,ண உ›,´°ÔÁ· ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ∏≈©∏¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™ ÔÚ›அ Ì§•^·Á, Âஏனு Ôமஆ¬Ô ºமı|னு. பÔºமஇ "ப"ÁÔ¬ ணø" ஒΩ° ®©º✓ஏஅ ÿ,ˆள¬ணனு ®ஜ✓அ ✓ர§ ∞அனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï Ì≈ள_ÁÈ. ∂º, றுÁÈட_ ள'| ள'¶ஏ_இ ÷º, றுÁÈ ¿Ω›அ றுÏமஏÔனு º\முனு ÔஏÈனு Ô¶›, மஏகு©யு உ^·அ. ÷›,Úð›ஸ_ ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு ,¬Ô உ›,´Áம ∏≈©∏¬Ôள_ÁÈடீஏடஜஇ