1046

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 November 2013

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(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

industrial dispute between the management of

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).

————

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.,

(1) Whether the demand of Thiru P. Thanakode

against the management of M/s. Abirami Soap Works,

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 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.

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

evidences. The petitioner raised conciliation

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 of

1047

19 November 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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.

5. The point for determination is:

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.

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.

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 to

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.

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

1049

19 November 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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

lead to violation of principles of natural justice.

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.

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 respondent

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 :

“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.

1050

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 November 2013

List of witness examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 20-3-2013 — Thanakode

List of witnesses examined for the respondent :

RW.1 — 27-5-2013 — Sanjay Madan

RW.2 — 21-6-2013 — G. Suresh

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

the

Labour

Commissioner, dated 4-5-2009.

Ex.P5 — Representation

Outpost

Police

Station, dated 6-10-2009.

Ex.P6 — Representation to Villianur Police

Station, dated 14-10-2009.

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

the

petitioner, dated 7-11-2009.

Ex.R4 — Suspension order returned with postal

cover with remarks

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.

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

10-5-2012.

Ex.R18 — Copy of the letter given by G. Elumalai

to the respondent, dated 5-5-2010.

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

enquiry

proceedings

petitioner.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

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

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;

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).

1051

19 November 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D,

¿]\[≈D,

¿]\[≈D, Amﬂº

Amﬂº

Amﬂºƒˆ

ƒˆ

x[MÁÈ :

]Ú. m. º\VÔ[>V¸, ®D.∞., ®D.®_.,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ.

2013ágD gı| º\ \V>D 30ágD ÂV^ sBVw¬˛wÁ\

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ®ı 32/2011

>ÁÈkÏ,

ÿ√ÚÕ>ÁÈkÏ ÔV\´V¤Ï ºk·Vı

∂§sB_ WÁÈB ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ƒ∫ÔD,

Amﬂºƒˆá9.

. . \–>V´Ï.

®]Ï

º\ÈVı ÷B¬zÂÏ,

ÿ√ÚÕ>ÁÈkÏ ÔV\´V¤Ï ˛ˆ¥

sﬁQV[ ºÔÕ]´V,

Amﬂºƒˆá9.

. . ®]Ï\–>V´Ï.

÷Õ> º\_xÁ≈X¶V™m 29-5-2013 ∂[Æ ÷Æ]

sƒV´Áð¬ÔVÔ ®[x[ kÕ>º√Vm, \–>V´Ï >´©∏_

ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô© ∏´]W] ]Ú mÁ´. gÆxÔD g¤Ï

g˛•D

�ÆD

®]Ï\–>V´Ï

>´©∏_

∂´∑

kw¬zÁ´QÏ M.V. Ák›]o∫ÔD ∂kÏÔ^ g¤´V˛•D

®|›mÁ´›> kV>∫ÔÁ·¬ ºÔ‚ÁÔ ÿƒFmD, kw¬z

ƒD√Õ>\V™ gkð∫ÔÁ·© √Ω›m©√VÏ›mD, ÷mÂV^

kÁ´l_ √ˆÊÈÁ™l_ ÷ÚÕm ∏[™Ï, ÷Õ> ¿]

\[≈D kw∫zD—

yÏkD

1947áD kÚ¶›]B ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆÔ^ ƒ‚¶D ˇµ

\–>V´Ï >´©∏™Ï >∫Ôπ_ √ÚkÔVÈ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·›

]™¬Ìo ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D ]™¬Ìo ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·

W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D >z]\Vu≈D ÿƒFm ∂>uzˆB

∂KkÈÔ c›>´° kw∫˛¶ WÏkVÔ›]uz c›>´s¶¬ ºÔVˆ

÷Õ>› ÿ>Va_ >Ô´VÆ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m.

2. \–>V´Ï >´©∏_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©√‚|^· ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ

\– sk´D ∏[kÚ\VÆ :

º�√Ω, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï √ıÁðl_ ∑\VÏ 8 kÚ¶

ÔVÈ›]uz º\ÈVÔ √ÚkÔVÈ �ÆD ]™¬Ìo

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ, ÷Áð©A© √‚ΩB_ 1 �ÆD 2á_

Ôı|^·

(42+48)

Â√ÏÔ^

√ËBVu§

kÚ˛[≈VÏÔ^. √ıÁðl_, √_ÈVı| ÔVÈ\VÔ

ÿ>V¶ÏﬂEBVÔ 240 ÂV‚Ô”¬zº\_ √Ë ÿƒF]ÚÕmD,

√ıÁðl[ kw¬Ô©√Ω √ÚkÔVÈ› ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·›

] ™¬ Ì o ÿ > V a È V · Ï Ô · V Ô ° D , ] ™¬ Ì o

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·

W´Õ>´›

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D

>z]\Vu≈D ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. ∂›m¶M[§, ∂kÏÔ”¬z

ÿ√VmkVÔ ∂´∑ WÏðBD ÿƒF•D zÁ≈Õ>√‚ƒ¬

ÌoÁB¬Ì¶ >´©√¶s_ÁÈ. ®]Ï\–>V´ˆ[

√ıÁð

WÏkVÔ\V™m,

>™m

√ıÁðl_

√_ È V ı |

Ô V È \ V Ô

√Ë

ÿ ƒ F m k Ú D

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·ﬂ ƒ‚¶©√Ω ∂kÏÔÁ·› >z]\Vu≈D

ÿƒFm, ∂>uÔV™ cˆB gÁð �ÆD ª]BD

kw∫ÔV\_,

∂Àk©º√Vm

∂Á\˛[≈

∂´∑

∂Á\ﬂƒÏÔ^,

∂>[

ƒ‚¶\[≈

cÆ©∏™ÏÔπ[

kƒ]¬ºÔu√ A]m A]>VÔ g‚ÔÁ·© √ıÁðl_

WBt›m kÚ˛[≈™Ï.

3. º\KD, ÷©∏´ﬂƒÁ™l[*m ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈

∂´∑ ƒ\´ƒ ∂]ÔVˆl[x[, \–>V´Ï ƒ∫Ô\V™m

ÿ>Va_ >VkV ®ø©∏Bº√Vm, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï ∂π›]‚¶

∂>[ √]KÁ´l[ 2ákm ÔVÈ›]_ “WÁÈB›][

º\ÈVıÁ\¬ zøs[ (Governing Body of Kendra)

∂–\]l[§

\–>V´Ï

ƒ∫Ô›][

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÁB

WÁ≈ºku≈

xΩBVm”

®[Æ

Ì≈©√‚¶m.

º\KD

®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÁÈB›]_ ÔVoBVÔ c^· W´Õ>´›

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔπ[ ®ıË¬ÁÔ �ÆD ∂Às¶∫ÔÁ·

÷‚|

W´©AD

xÁ≈Ô^√u§

\–>V´Ï

ƒ∫Ô›][

>ÁÈkÏ

Ô¶Õ>

2010-gD

gıΩ_

>ÔkÈ§•D

cˆÁ\ﬂ ƒ‚¶›][ JÈD sk´∫ÔÁ·¬ ºÔVˆBº√Vm,

34 ÷¶∫Ô^ ÔVoBVÔ c^·>VÔ >Ôk_ >´©√‚¶m.

º\KD, ÔVoBVÔ c^· W´Õ>´› ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔπ[

÷¶∫ÔÁ·›

>uÔVoÔ

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·¬ÿÔVı|

W´©√©√|k>VÔ √]Èπ¬Ô©√‚¶m. g™V_, ÷mkÁ´

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ √ËW´Õ>´D ÿƒFB©√¶s_ÁÈ (RTI

JÈD ÿ√u≈ >Ôk_ ÔΩ> ÂÔ_ \.ƒV.g. 1 gÔ

÷Áð¬Ô©√‚|^·m). ∂|›m ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÁÈBV™m

>™m WÆk™D ƒ∫Ô∫Ô^ “√]kÔﬂ ƒ‚¶›][ ˇµ √]°

ÿƒFB©√‚¶ ŒÚ Ì‚|≈° ∂Á\©√VzD. ÷>uz ÿ>Va_

>VkV ƒ‚¶D ®[√m ÿ√VÚÕ>Vm” ®[Æ ∂´∑ ƒ\´ƒ

∂]ÔVˆ x[™Ï kV]‚¶™Ï. g™V_, º�√Ω ∂]ÔVˆ

√_ÈVı| ÔVÈD √ËÿƒFm^· ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·©

√ËW´Õ>´D ÿƒFBºkı|ÿ\[≈ ƒ∫Ô›][ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÁB

√ˆÊo¬zD√Ω ∂§°Æ›]•^·VÏ. \–>V´Ï ÿ>Vauƒ∫ÔD

√ıÁð› ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z ÿ>Va_ >VkV ƒ‚¶\V™m

ÿ√VÚÕmD ®[Æ cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈\π›> yÏ©∏[

º�ºÔVÁ·•D >™m x§k§¬ÁÔl_ (failure report)

∂Á> ∑‚ΩÔV‚Ω•^·VÏ. (∂´∑ ƒ\´ƒ ∂]ÔVˆl[

x§k§¬ÁÔl[ ÂÔ_ \.ƒV.g. 2gÔ ÷Áð¬Ô©√‚|^·m).

4. ®™ºk,

÷›m¶[

÷Áð©A©

√‚ΩB_

1-_

Ôı|^· 42 √ÚkÔVÈ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·› ]™¬Ìo

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D,

÷Áð©A©

√‚ΩB_

2á_

Ôı|^· 48 ]™¬Ìo ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ· W´Õ>´

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D >z]\Vu≈D ÿƒFm ∂>uzˆB

∂KkÈÔ c›>´° kw∫˛¶ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï √ıÁð

WÏkVÔ›]uz

gÁð

kw∫˛|\VÆ

\–>V´Ï

÷D\–Ák >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^·VÏ.

5. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF> ®]Ï\–s[ ∑Ú¬ÔD

∏[kÚ\VÆ :

®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÆk™D ÷Õ]B Society ƒ‚¶D

1961á[ ˇµ √]° ÿƒFB©√‚¶ g´VFﬂE �ÆD √luE

∂π¬zD WÆk™D. skƒVlÔ”¬z sﬁQV™©ØÏk\V™

xÁ≈l_ √È skƒVB© √lÏÔÁ· ®©√Ω© √lˆ|km

®[√m

√u§B

√luE

∂π©√º>V|

g´VFﬂE

>·\VÔ°D ÿƒB_√|˛≈m. Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑, Amÿ¶_o

skƒVB g´VFﬂE WÆk™D �ÆD Á«>´V√V›

∂ˆE g´VFﬂE WÆk™D ºƒÏÕm ∂π¬zD √ð

c>s ÿÔVı| ÿƒB_√|˛≈m. skƒVB© √lÏÔÁ·

√lˆ|k>uÔVÔ ∂π¬Ô©√|D √luEl[ ∂∫Ô\VÔ,

g´VFﬂE¬ Ì¶∫Ô^ ]≈¬Ô©√‚| ÷©√z] skƒVB

\¬Ô”¬ÔVÔ ÷ÕWÆk™D ÿ√ÚD√∫ÔVu§ kÚ˛≈m.

EÈ √Úk ÔVÈ∫Ôπ_ º\KD √È ÿƒB_ ]‚¶∫Ô^

1052

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 November 2013

ÿƒB_√|›>©√‚|

kÚ˛≈m.

÷Õ>¬

ºÔÕ]´›]_

√Ë¬zºƒÚD √ËBV·ÏÔ^ ŒÚEÈ √ÚkÔVÈ∫Ôπ_

\‚|º\ √ËBπ¬Ô©√|k>V_, ÷©√ËBV·ÏÔ^

s≠B›]_ ∂´∑ s]Ô^ ƒˆBVÔ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬Ô ÷BÈVm.

]™¬Ìo √ËBV·ÏÔÁ·•D, ºƒÏ¬zDº√VmD

÷kÏÔ”¬z >uÔVoÔ √Ë ∂π¬Ô ÷BKD ®[√>V_

∂´∑© √Ël_ ºƒÚk>uz √ËBV·ÏÔ^ ºƒÏ¬Ô

ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬Ô©√|D xÁ≈Ô^ ÁÔBV·©√|k]_ÁÈ.

÷Às≠B∫Ô^,

\–>V´Ï

ƒ∫Ô›]_

c^·

∂∫Ô›]™Ú¬z Â[z ÿ>ˆ•D.

6. >∫Ô”¬z ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶ √Ë >uÔVoÔD ®[ÆD

ŒÚEÈ ÔVÈ∫Ôπ_ \‚|D √Ë ÷Ú¬zD ®[√mD Â[z

ÿ>ˆ•D.

®Õ>ÿkVÚ

ÛµWÁÈlKD

\–>V´ÏÔ^

W´Õ>´\V¬Ô©√¶ ÷BÈVm. ºkÁÈl_ÁÈ ®[≈V_

∂[Æ

ƒD√·D

÷_ÁÈ

®[√m

∞uÔ™ºk

√ËBV·ÏÔ”¬z› ÿ>ˆ•D. ÷ÕWÆk™›]_, ®Às>

÷Á¶RÆD ÷[§ ÿ>V¶ÏÕm \–>V´Ï √ËÿƒFm

kÚk>VÔ

\–s_

z§©∏‚|^·VÏÔ^.

ŒÚEÈ

z§©∏‚¶

√ÚkÔVÈ∫Ôπ_

\‚|D

>uÔVoÔ

√ËBV·ÏÔ·VÔ, √ËBVu§kÚD √ËBV·ÏÔ^ ®kÚD

∂´EB_ >ÁÈX‚¶V_ WBt¬Ô©√|k]_ÁÈ. ÷ÕWÆk™D

º�ÿÔVı|kÚD g´VFﬂE ÂÁ¶xÁ≈Ô^, gF°¬Ì¶

√ˆºƒV>Á™Ô^, º>V‚¶¬ÔÁÈ ]‚¶D, s›m cu√›],

º>V‚¶¬ÔÁÈ ÿƒΩÔ^ cu√›], \ı �ÆD ¿ÏºƒV>Á™,

k·Ï©A *[Ô^ √u§B g´VFﬂE g˛BÁkÔ^ ÷∫z

º�ÿÔV^·©√|˛[≈™. ÷›>z Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^, ŒÚ EÈ

Ô V È ∫Ô π _

> u Ô V o Ô

\ u Æ D

] ™¬ Ì o

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·¬ ÿÔVı| ŒÚEÈ ÂV‚Ô”¬z^ ÿƒFm

xΩ¬Ô©√¶ ºkıΩBÁkBVzD. EÈ ÂV‚Ôπ_ ∂]Ô

ºkÁÈ√”

÷Ú¬zDº√Vm

ƒ´VƒˆBVÔ

√ËAˆ•D

ªaBÏÔ^

�Æt[§

º\KD

EÈ

]™¬Ìo

ªaBÏÔÁ·¬ ÿÔVı| xΩ›mÁk¬Ô©√|D.

7. ÷>uz >uÔVoÔ √ËBV·ÏÔ^ √ËW´Õ>´D

ºÔV´xΩBVm. ∂›>z √ËW´Õ>´D ÿƒFB ºkı|ÿ\M_

WÏkVÔ›]_ c^·kÏÔ^ ∂>uÔV™ ÿÔV^ÁÔ xΩÁk

º�ÿÔV^· ºkı|D. ∂›>z ÿÔV^ÁÔ xΩÁk

¿]\[≈›][ JÈD ∏≈©∏¬Ô ÷BÈVm ®[Æ √È

yÏ©AÔπ_ cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D ÔÚ›m¬ÔÁ·¬ Ì§•^·m.

÷›>z √ËBV·ÏÔÁ·© √ˆ>V√©√‚| W´Õ>´\V¬Ô©√¶

ºkı|ÿ\™ xΩ° ÿƒF>V_ ÷ÕWÆk™D ÿ>V¶ÏÕm

g´VFﬂE xΩ°ÔÁ· º�ÿÔV^· ÷BÈVm. \–>V´Ï

>Ôk_ ∂§•D cˆÁ\ﬂ ƒ‚¶D JÈD ÿ√uÆ^·

ÔVol¶∫ÔÁ·© ÿ√VÆ›>kÁ´ ]™¬Ìo ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·¬

ÿÔVı| ∂©√>sÔ^ W´©√©√¶ºkı|D. ÷Àkw¬˛_

\–>V´Ï √_ºkÆ WÔµ°ÔÁ· \Á≈›m >™¬zﬂ

ƒV>Ô\VÔ Ì§•^·VÏ. ÷ÕWÆk™D 1947á[ ƒ‚¶›][

ˇµ ÿƒB_√¶s_ÁÈ. ÷ÕWÆk™›]_ √ËAˆ√kÏÔ”¬z

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑© √ËBV·ÏÔ^ ƒ‚¶D \‚|º\ ÿ√VÚÕmD.

>¬Ô ¿]\[≈›Á> ÂVΩ √ËBV·ÏÔ^ √ËW´Õ>´D

ÿƒFB ºÔV´ ºkı|D, ÷D\– >^”√Ω ÿƒFB©√¶

ºkı|D.

8. ÷D\–s_ yÏ°¬z ®øD ®øs™V¬Ô^:

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_, \–>V´Ï >´©A ƒ∫Ô WÏkV˛

\.ƒV.1gÔ

sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚|

\.ƒV.g.1

�ÆD

gkð∫Ô·VÔ z§X| ÿƒFB©√‚¶m. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

WÏkVÔ›][ ÔıÔVË©√V·Ï �ÆD Ôð¬ÔV·´V™

Ek. ÷·∫ºÔV ®[√kÏ ®.\.ƒV.1 gÔ sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚|

®.ƒV.g.1ágÔ z§X| ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m.

®øs™V¬Ô^:

(1) ÷D\–s_ ºÔVˆB√Ω ∂KkÈÔ gÁð kw∫˛¶

®]Ï\–>V´Ú¬z ®]´VÔ c›>´s¶ ÷BK\V?

(2) ®©√ˆÔV´D \–>V´Ú¬z¬ ˛Á¶¬zD?

®øs™V¬Ô^ 1 �ÆD 2:

\–°¶[ ÷Áð¬Ô©√‚¶ √‚ΩB_ 1 �ÆD 2_

Ôı|^· 90 Â√ÏÔ^ ∑\VÏ 8 kÚ¶∫Ô”¬z º\ÈVÔ

®]Ï\–>V´Ï √ıÁðl_ √ÚkÔVÈ �≈D ]™¬Ìo

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ √ËÿƒFm kÚk>VÔ°D, g™V_

∂kÏÔÁ·› >z]\Vu≈D ÿƒFm ∂>uÔV™ cˆB gÁð

�ÆD ª]BD kw∫ÔV\_ ∂Àk©º√Vm ∂Á\•D ∂´∑

>∫Ô^ kƒ]uºÔu√ A]B g‚ÔÁ· WBt›m kÚkm

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÂÈﬂ ƒ‚¶∫ÔÁ· *Æk>VÔ c^·>VzD

®™°D ÿ>VaÈVπÔ·VÔ 8 kÚ¶ ÔVÈ›m¬zD º\ÈVÔ

√ËAˆÕm kÚ˛[≈ 42 √ÚkÔVÈ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·›

]™¬Ìo

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D,

]™¬Ìo

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·

W´Õ>´

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D

>z]

\Vu≈D ÿƒFm √ËBπ¬Ô°D ∂>uzˆB gÁð

kw∫˛¶ ®]Ï\–>V´Ú¬z c›>´s¶ ºkı|ÿ\™

\.ƒV. 1 >™m ∏´\Vð √›]´›]_ z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.

9. >Ôk_ ∂§•D cˆÁ\ﬂ ƒ‚¶›][ˇµ ÿ√≈©√‚¶ ÔΩ>

ÂÔ_ \.ƒV.g.1 gzD. ÷]_ 21-1-2010á_ ÿ´zÈÏ \¸#Ï

34 √>sÔ”D, ÿƒB_ s·¬Ô c>sBV·Ï 2 √>sÔ”D,

Ô·©√ËBV·Ï 1 √>s•D ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_ ÔVoBVÔ

c^·>VÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. Amﬂºƒˆ ƒ\´ƒ ∂KkÈÏ x[™Ï

÷Ú >´©∏™Ú¬zD ÷Á¶ºB º√ﬂ∑kVÏ›Á> Â¶›]B ∏[™Ï

∂´∑¬Ôπ›> ƒ\´ƒ x§k§¬ÁÔ \.ƒV.g 2 gzD. \–>V´Ï

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÁB √ˆÊo¬Ô ∂§°Æ›>©√‚¶>VÔ°D g™V_

A]B Â√ÏÔÁ· √Ël_ ∂\Ï›>¬ Ì¶Vm ®™ ∂´∑ c›>´°

ÂÁ¶xÁ≈l_ c^·>V_ \–>V´ˆ[ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÁB ∞uÔ

÷BÈVm

®™

WÏkVÔD

Ì§B>VÔ°D

\.ƒV.g2á_

z§©∏‚|^·m.

10. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©A ®.ƒV.1 >V¬Ô_ÿƒF> ∏´\Vð

√›]´›]_ z§©∏|ÁÔl_ >∫Ô^ WÆk™D ÷Õ]B Society

ƒ‚¶D 1961á[ˇµ √]° ÿƒFB©√‚| g´VFﬂE �ÆD

√luEBπ¬zD WÆk™\VÔ c^·>VKD skƒVlÔ”¬z

sﬁQV™© ØÏk\VÔ √_ºkÆ skƒVB √lÏÔ^ ÿ>V¶Ï√V™

g´VFﬂE �ÆD √luEBπ¬Ô©√|k>VÔ°D Amÿ¶_o

÷Õ]B skƒVB g´VFﬂE WÆk™D, Á«>´V√V› ∂ˆE

g´VFﬂE WÆk™D �ÆD Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑ g˛ºBVÏÔ^

kÁ´BÁ≈

ÿƒF•D

]‚¶∫ÔÁ·

WÁ≈ºkuÆkº>

÷©√ıÁðl[ ºÂV¬Ô\VzD ®™°D z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.

º\KD sﬁQV™© ØÏk\V™ cBÏ´Ô √lÏÔ^ ÿƒFB

skƒVlÔ”¬z √luE ∂π¬Ô°D, º\KD √_ºkÆ ÿÂu√lÏ

1053

19 November 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

g´VFﬂE ÿƒFB°D, sÁ>Ô^ cu√›] ÿƒFB°D º�√Ω

WÆk™∫Ô·V_ W] Œm¬Ô©√|k>VÔ°D, ÷©√z] skƒVB

\¬Ô”¬ÔVÔ ÿƒB_√|D ÷›]‚¶∫Ô”¬z √ÚkÔVÈ �ÆD

>uÔVoÔ

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^

\‚|º\

º>Ák

®[ÆD

∏´\Vð©√›]´›]_ z§©∏¶©√‚|^·m.

11. EÈ √ÚkÔVÈ∫Ôπ_ \‚|º\ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^

º>Ák©√|k>V_ �≈ √ÚkÔVÈ∫Ôπ_ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z

√Ë >´ ÷BÈVm ®[ÆD º\KD ºkÁÈl_ÈV ÂV‚Ôπ_

∂›ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z ƒD√·D ÷_ÁÈ ®[≈ s≠BD

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z ÿ>ˆB©√|›>©√‚|^·m ®[ÆD, ∂m

º√VÈºk ºkÁÈl_ÈV ÂV‚Ôπ_ ƒD√·D kw∫Ô©√|k]_ÁÈ

®[ÆD, g´VFﬂE �ÆD √luE WÆk™\VÔ c^·>V_

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶D ®]Ï\–>V´Ú¬z© ÿ√VÚÕ>Vm ®[ÆD

>™m ®]Ï\–s_ ®.ƒV.1 z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.\–>V´Ï >´©A

ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^ >∫Ô^ √ıÁðl_ √Ë AˆBs_ÁÈ

®[Æ ∂kÏ Ì≈s_ÁÈ. \V≈VÔ ºkÁÈl_ÈV> ÔVÈ∫Ôπ_

Ìo

÷_ÁÈ

®[ÆD

√ÚkÔVÈ

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·

W´Õ>´©√|›>

xΩBVm

®[Æ

kVFÿ\VaBVÔ›>V[

ÿƒV_o•^º·VD ®[ÆD z§©∏‚|^·VÏ. º\KD ®.ƒV.1án

zÆ¬z sƒV´Áð ÿƒF>º√Vm ‘÷m º√V[Æ ]™¬Ìo

ªaBÏÔÁ· W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D, √ÚkÔVÈ

ªaBÏÔÁ·› ]™¬Ìo ªaBÏÔ·VÔ°D ∞uÔ™ºk

WBt¬Ô©√‚¶VÏÔ·V ®[≈V_, ÿƒF]Ú¬ÔÈVD’ ®[ÆD

z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.

12. \–>V´Ï >´©∏[ ∂§kVÏÕ> ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô ∏´]W]

kV]|ÁÔl_

\–>V´Ï

ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô

ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^

ÿ>V¶ÏﬂEBVÔ 240 ÂV‚Ô”¬z º\_ √_ÈVı|Ô·VÔ √Ë

ÿƒFk>V_ \. ƒV. g. 1á_ Ôı¶ ÔVol¶∫ÔÁ· \–>V´Ï

>´©A ÿ>VaÈVπÔÁ·¬ÿÔVı| W´©√ c›>´s¶ ºkıΩBm

∂kEB\V˛≈m ®[ÆD W´©√V\_ ÔVÈD Ô¶›mkm,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÂÈﬂ ƒ‚¶∫Ô”¬z sº´V>\VÔ c^·m ®[ÆD

∞uÔ™ºk ÷m º√V[≈ ÔVo √Ël¶∫ÔÁ·› ]™¬Ìo

ªaBÏÔÁ·¬ÿÔVı|

W´Õ>´

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D

√ÚkÔVÈ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·› ]™¬Ìo ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D

÷©√ıÁðl_ WBt›m^·VÏÔ^ ®[ÆD ®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.

Bangalore water supply kw¬˛_ ÔÚ›m Ì§B√Ω

÷D\–>V´ÏÔ”D ‘ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^’ ®[≈ kÁ´BÁ≈¬z^

kÚ˛≈VÏÔ^ ®[ÆD º\KD ∂kÏ ®|›mÁ´›>VÏ. g™V_

®]Ï\–>V´Ï √ıÁð {Ï g´VFﬂE √ıÁð ®[ÆD ÷m

ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ ®[≈ kÁ´BÁ≈¬z^ k´Vm ®[ÆD º\KD

\–>V´Ï >´©∏™Á´ W´Õ>´\VÔ ÿÔV^ÁÔ xΩ°ÔÁ·

‘g”ÁÔ¬ zø’ \‚|º\ WÁ≈ºku≈ ÷BKÿ\[ÆD, gÔºk

÷D\–s_ c^· ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÔÁ· ∞uÔ ÷BÈVm ®[ÆD

®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_ g¤´V™ ∂´∑ kw¬zÁ´QÏ

®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.

13. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©A WÏkVÔ ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ ®[≈

kÁ´BÁ≈¬z^ k´Vm ®[Æ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_

®|›mÁ´¬Ô©√‚|^·>V_ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔD ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ

®[≈ kÁ´BÁ≈¬z^ kÚ˛≈>V? ÷_ÁÈBV? ®[√Á>

>uº√Vm ÂVD gF° ÿƒFB ºkıΩ•^·m. skƒVlÔ”¬z

√luE•D �ÆD sﬁQV™©ØÏk\V™ cBÏ´Ô √lÏÔ^

√u§B g´VFﬂE•D ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_

ÿƒB_√|›>©√|k>VÔ ÌÆD ÌuÆÔ^ \–>V´Ï >´©∏_

\Æ¬Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ. º\KD, Amÿ¶_o ÷Õ]B skƒVB

g´VFﬂE WÁÈBD, Á«>´V√V› ∂ˆE g´VFﬂE WÁÈBD,

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑ g˛ºBVÏ ÷ÁðÕm y‚¶©√|D ]‚¶∫ÔÁ·

÷∫z ÿƒB_√|›mkmD \Æ¬Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ. g´VFﬂE �ÆD

skƒVlÔ”¬z √luE ∂π¬Ô©√|D WÆk™\VÔ c^·

÷Õ> WÆk™›]uz ÿƒÈ° ®[√º> ∂]ÔD ®[ÆD

ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ º√VÈ kÚkVF ÷_ÈV> WÁÈl_ ÷m

ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ ®™¬ ÔÚ> kVF©º√l_ÁÈ ®™ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

>´©A kw¬zÁ´QÏ kV>t‚¶VÏ. ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ (industry)

®[≈V_ ÿ>Vau >Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶D 1947 ∏ˆ° 2(j)á[ ∏ˆsKD

ÿ>VaÈVπ (workman) ®[≈V_ BVÏ ®[√m √u§ ∏ˆ°

2 (s)á[ ˇøD ˇµÔı¶kVÆ kÁ´BÁ≈ ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m.

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)á[√Ω ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ ®[√m sBV√V´D

ÿƒF•D ÷¶\VÔ°D, cu√›] �ÆD ∞>Vkm ÿ>Va_

ÂÁ¶ÿ√ÆD

÷¶\VÔ°D

ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^

√ËAˆ•D

÷¶\VÔ°D 7-4-1978á_ cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D ∏≈©∏›> ÿ√∫ÔjÏ

kV‚¶Ï ƒ©Á· ®]Ï ®. ´V¤©√V �ÆD √ÈÏ ®[≈ kw¬˛_

√_ºkÆ x[yÏ©AÔπ_ ÔÚ›m¬Ô^ skV]¬Ô√‚¶ ∏[™Ï

xΩkVÔ ®|›]BD∏B ∂Õ>› yÏ©A ÷[ÆkÁ´ ∏[√u≈©√‚|

kÚ˛≈m. ∂>[√Ω ÿ>VauƒVÁÈ ®[√>uz ∂Às¶›]_

cu√›] �ÆD ÈV√D \‚|º\ ÷Ú¬Ô ºkı|D ®[≈

Ô‚¶VBD

÷_ÁÈ

®[ÆD

√^πÔ^,

Ô_ŸˆÔ^,

\Ú›mk\Á™Ô^, >Ï\ÔVˆB∫Ôπ_ ~|√|D WÆk™∫Ô^,

ƒJÔ ºƒÁk WÆk™∫Ô^ g˛BÁkÔ”D Ì¶ industry ®[≈

kÁ´BÁ≈¬z^ kÚ˛[≈™ ®[ÆD cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D ÿ>π°

√|›]lÚ¬˛≈m. ∞>Vkm ŒÚ ÿ>V¶ÏÕ> ÿƒB_√V| x>ÈVπ

÷¶xD Ì‚|≈° ƒ∫Ô∫Ô”D, g´VFﬂE WÆk™∫Ô”D Ì¶

[1978] 2 SCC 213 :

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs.

A. Rajappa and others:

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.

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.

g´VFﬂE

WÆk™∫Ô”D,

>Ï\

¸>V√™∫Ô”DÌ¶

kÚk>VÔ ÔÚ›m Ì§•^·m. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï √ıÁðl_

skƒVB g´VFﬂE ÿƒFkm, skƒVlÔ”¬z cBÏ ´Ô

®.ƒV.1 Ì§™VÏ. >™m ∂KkÈÔ WÏkVÔ›]_ W´Õ>´

\¸#Ï ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ 90 º√Ï >uº√Vm ºkÁÈ

ÿƒFk>VÔ°D Ì§™VÏ. cBÏ ´Ô √lÏ kÁÔÔ^ √lˆ|km

√u§B g´VFﬂE �ÆD √luE ∂π¬zD √ıÁðBVÔ

ÿ>V¶ÏÕm ÿƒB_√|k>VÔ°D ®.ƒV.1 ÌÆ˛≈VÏ. √ËAˆ•D

√ıÁðl_ ÿ>V¶ÏÕm skƒVB g´VFﬂE �ÆD ∂m

Â√ÏÔ”¬zº\_ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ c^·>V_ ÷ÕWÆk™D

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ƒ‚¶D ∏ˆ° 2(s)-[√Ω kÚk>VÔºk

1, 2á_

√ÚkÔVÈ

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D,

]™¬Ìo

ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ·VÔ°D

÷Ú©√m

√u§•D

ÔÚ›m¬z

g‚ºƒ√Áð Œ[ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï ÿ>ˆB√|›>s_ÁÈ.

g™V_, ]™¬Ìo ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z ºkÁÈlÚÕ>V_

®[≈V_ ƒD√·D ÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD, EÈ √ÚkÔVÈ∫Ôπ_

®[ÆD

\–s_

ºÔVˆB

√ˆÔV´›Á>

∂π¬Ô

ºkı|ÿ\M_ √ıÁðl[ g”ÁÔ¬ zø \‚|º\

kw¬zÁ´QÏ ®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.

16. \–s_

z§©∏¶©√‚¶

ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^

√È

kÚ¶∫Ô·VÔ √ËAˆÕm kÚk>V_ 240 ÂV‚Ô”¬z

√Ω¬z \–>V´ÏÔ^ ÿ>VaÈVπÔ·VÔ √ËAˆÕm

kÕ>>uÔV™ g>V´D ®m°D >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ

®[√>V_ ∂kÏÔ^ 240 ÂV‚Ô”¬zº\ÈVÔ √ËAˆÕm

kÕ>>VÔ W‘√ðD gÔs_ÁÈ ®™ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

]™¬ÌoÔ·VÔºkV,

√ÚkÔVÈ

ÿ>VaÈVπÔ·VÔºkV

>∫Ô^

√ıÁðl_

√ËAˆBs_ÁÈ

®™

÷B∫zD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›]_ ®›>Á™ Â√ÏÔ^

ƒD√·D

ÿ√ÆkVÏÔ^

®[√>uzD

√]ºk|Ô^

ÿ√Ú›>

zÁ≈BVzD.

ƒx>VB›][

ˇµ›>‚Ω_

kVµÕmkÚD ]™¬Ìo �ÆD √ÚkÔVÈ ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^

g¤Ï ÿƒFkVÏÔ^ ®™ ÂVD ®]Ï√VÏ¬Ô ÷BÈVm. º\KD,

∏ˆ° 2(s)-[ √Ω¬z √luEÿ√ÆD Â√ÚD ‘ÿ>VaÈVπ’

gkVÏ ®[ÆD ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_ √ËAˆ•D ÔΩ™

ºkÁÈ ÿƒF•D Â√ÚD ‘ÿ>VaÈVπ’ gkVÏ ®[ÆD,

º\KD º�√VÏÁk º√V[≈ mÁ≈Ôπ_ ~|√‚| √Ë

ÿƒF√kÏÔ”D ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^ gkVÏ ®[ÆD, ]™¬Ìo

ÿ>VaÈVπ•D ÿ>VaÈVπºB gkVÏ ®[ÆD √_ºkÆ

ÿÔV^· ºkıΩBm ∂kEB\V˛≈m.

√Ë ˛Á¶¬zD ÔVÈ∫Ôπ_ ∂kÏÔ”¬z √ËBπ›m

∂kÏÔ”¬z ƒD√·D ÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ®.ƒV.1á[ Ìu§[

JÈD ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m. ŒÚ EÈ √ÚkÔVÈ∫Ôπ_ \‚|º\,

EÈ g´VFﬂE �ÆD √luE ]‚¶∫Ô^ ÂÁ¶ÿ√Æk>V_,

√ËB\Ï›]¬ÿÔV^km kw¬ÔD ®™°D ∂Õ>kÁÔl_

ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m. ÷Õ> ÷Ú kÁÔBV™ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”D

1055

19 November 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

W´Õ>´ √ËBV·Ï √>s¬z >∫ÔÁ· WBt¬Ôºkı|D

®[Æ

ºÔVÚ˛≈ÏÔ^.

>uº√Vm

√ıÁðl_

\.ƒV.1á[√Ω¬z

√>sÔ^

ÔVoBVÔ

c^·>VÔ°D

ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m. º\KD, ®.ƒV.1. ÌÆÁÔl_ >uº√Vm

ÿ>ˆs›>VÏ.

18. x>ÈVπá ÿ>VaÈVπ c≈° ∑JÔ\VÔ ÷Ú¬zDº√Vm

\‚|º\ cu√›] ÿ√Ú¬ÔD, sBV√V´ cBÏ° ∞u√‚|

ÂV|

x[º™≈

kVF©∏Ú¬˛≈m.

÷›>Úð›]_,

∞uÔ™ºk √ËÿƒF•D ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z

ºkıΩB

∂Á™›m ƒKÁÔÔÁ·•D ∂π›m >[MÁ≈kV™

kVµ¬ÁÔ kVøDº√Vm>V[ >∫Ô^ √Ël_ ∂kÏÔ^

xø Ôk™D ÿƒK›> xΩ•D. ∂]ÔV´ kÏ¬Ô›][ g]¬Ô

ÿƒB_√V| >ÁÈ#¬Ô¬ Ì¶Vm ®[≈ ®ıð›][

∂Ω©√Á¶l_

>V[

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï

ÂÈﬂ

ƒ‚¶∫Ô^

÷Ú¬zDº√Vm ∂kÏÔ^ x>ÈVπ¬z ®]´VÔ ºÂ´ΩBVÔ

º√V‚Ωl¶ ÷BÈVm; g™VKD, ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÂÈƒ‚¶∫ÔÁ·

>∫Ô”¬z

ƒV>Ô\VÔ

√B[√|›]¬ÿÔVı|

TðV™

ƒﬂƒ´°ÔπKD ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ ~|√¶¬Ì¶Vm. ÷›>Úð›]_

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

National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,

Chennai Vs. Presiding Officer, I Additional

Labour Court, Madras and another:

“The whole approach of industrial law is that the

employer and employee do not stand on an equal

bargaining position, industrial law recognises that

the workers are in a weaker position than the

employers who have financial resources, management

skills, connections etc. Hence the whole object of

industrial law is to help 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”.

19. ÷D\–>V´ÏÔ^, ]™¬Ìo �ÆD √ÚkÔVÈ

ÿ>VaÈVπÔ·VÔ

÷©√ıÁðl_

√Ë

ÿƒFm

kÚk>uzˆB g>V´D ®]Ï\–>V´Ï √ıÁðl_

k·ÏﬂE¬ÔVÔ

√ËÿƒF•D

÷›ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^

∂Á™›mD ÿ>ˆÕm √luE•D ÿ√u≈kÏÔ·VÔ ÷Ú¬˛≈VÏÔ^.

÷›>z ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ· ∞uÔ™ºk ÷>uz x[™V_

cˆÁ\ÁB

÷D\–>V´ÏÔ^

ºÔVÚk]_

sB©A

∞mt_ÁÈ. ÷ÁkÔÁ·› >s´ ºkÆ A]B Â√ÏÔÁ·

W´ Õ > ´

√> s Ô π _

º ƒ Ï ¬ Ô

∂– \ ] › > V _

∂·s_ ÷_ÁÈ. ÷›ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ^ ºÔVÚkmº√V_

c›>´s¶ ÷BÈVm ®[ÆD, ∞ÿ™M_, ∂›>z xΩ°

\‚|º\ xΩ° ÿƒFB ÷BKD ®[ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

>´©∏_

g¤´V™

∂§kVÏÕ>

∂´∑

kw¬zÁ´QÏ

kV]‚¶VÏ. ÷D\–>V´ÏÔ^ ‘ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^’ ®[≈

kÁ´BÁ≈¬z^

kÚk>VÔ

ÂVD

∂§˛[≈º√Vm

∂kÏÔ”¬zˆB ÿ>Va_ ƒVÏÕ> ∏´ﬂƒÁ™Ô^ √u§

∂§B

xΩBs_ÁÈ.

º\KD,

÷›>z

ºÂ´∫Ôπ_

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D >™m Ô¶Á\lÁ™ ƒJÔ ¿]

ÔıºðV‚¶›]_ √VÏ›m x>ÈVπáÿ>VaÈVπ ÷Á¶ºB

∂Á\] ∞u√|›mD ºÂV¬Ô›]_ ÿƒB_√¶ ºkı|D ®™

cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D ÔÚ›m Ì§•^·Á> ÂVD ÔkM¬Ô›

>k≈¬ Ì¶Vm. ÷›>Úð›]_, ˇµÔı¶ cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈

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

Bidi, Bidi Leaves and apos; and Tobacco

Merchants Association Vs. State of Bombay:

.....It is well settled that industrial adjudication

under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) is given wide powers and

jurisdiction to make appropriate awards in

determining industrial 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

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. Electric

Supply Workers Union [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

761]. Indeed, during the last ten years and more

industrial adjudication in this country has made so

much progress in determining industrial disputes

arising between industries of different kinds and

their employees that the jurisdiction and authority of

industrial tribunals to deal with such disputes with

the object of ensuring social justice is no longer

seriously disputed. But, it is necessary to remember

that no claim can be made for such broad

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.....

ÌÆDº√Vm “ŒÚ yÏkD” kw∫zDº√Vm ÿ>VaÈVπá

ÛµWÁÈ ∞u√¶°D ƒJÔ ¿] ˛Á¶›]¶°D x>ÈVπ EÈ

Ô¶Á\Ô^ gu§¶ ºkı|D ®[Æ ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D

c›>´s¶ÈVD ®™ ÔÚ›m Ì§•^·m. ∂∫Ù™D,

x>ÈVπ¬z c›>´s¶¬ ÌΩB ∂]ÔV´D ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ

ƒ‚¶D ∂π›m^·>VÔ Ì§B cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D >¬Ôƒ\B›]_

>¬Ô ºÂ´›]_ ÷›>z c›>´°ÔÁ· ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D

ÿ>ˆs¬zD ®[√m √u§ ∞mD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï Ì≈s_ÁÈ.

∂º> WÁÈl_ s‚| s‚¶V_, ÷º> WÁÈ ¿Ω›m WÏkVÔD

º�√Ω cﬂƒ ¿]\[≈D Ì§•^· ∂§°Æ›>_Ô^

\™]_ ÿÔV^· ºkı|D. ÷º>º√V[≈ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·

∂º> ∂·°ºÔVÁÈ ÔÚ›]_ÿÔVı| ÷›ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔÁ·•D

®[ÆD ∏ˆ° 2(j)[√Ω ÷D\–>V´ÏÔ^ ÿ>VaÈVπÔ^ ®[≈

kÁ´BÁ≈l_ kÚk>VKD, º\KD ÿ>V.>. ƒ‚¶D

÷´ı¶VD ∂‚¶kÁðl_ Ôı¶√Ω \–>V´Ï ∂‚¶kÁð

√Ël_ √ËWBt¬Ô √ˆÔV´D ∂π¬ÔÈVD ®™ ÂV[

ÔÚm˛º≈[.

ÿƒÈ°›ÿ>VÁÔ ÷_ÁÈ.

2013áD gı| º\ \V>D 28áD ÂV^ ∂ÁkB§B

√Ô´©√‚¶m.

T. º\VÔ[>V¸,

º\VÔ[>V¸,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amﬂºƒˆ.

————

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

\.ƒV.g.1

— H. ´V\˛Úið[ (ƒ∫Ô WÏkV˛)

®.\.ƒV.1

— Ek.. ÷·∫ºÔV (®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›][

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

®ı

º>]

gkð sk´D

\.ƒV.g.1 2á2á2010

RTI JÈD ÿ√u≈ >Ôk_ ÔΩ>

ÂÔ_.

\.ƒV.g.2 30á12á2010

∂´∑ ƒ\´ƒ ∂]ÔVˆl[ x§k§¬ÁÔ

ÂÔ_.

®.ƒV.g.1 8á5á2013

Authorisation letter (√ˆÕmÁ´¬

ÔΩ>D).

T. º\VÔ[>V¸,

º\VÔ[>V¸,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amﬂºƒˆ.