Puducherry Gazette, No. 49, 03 December 2013

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Oulgaret

Number and Name of Revenue Village : 38-Saram.

Sl. Re-survey Nature of Name of the land owners/ Extent No. No. land interested persons to be acquired (1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5)

H. A. Ca.

1 217/3/C Dry The Present Trustee, 0 24 78 2 217/5 Wet R. Sellakutti,

Throwpathy Amman Koil.

0 04 00

S/o. Ramasamy Chettiar.

Total . . 0 28 78

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DR. S.B. DEEPAK KUMAR, I.A.S., Special Secretary (Revenue).

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 30/2012

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

V. ÅûÇ¢

. . ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

(G.O. Rt. No. 163/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 6th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the common award in I.D. Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33/2013, dated 27-6-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Sisco Latex Limited, Puducherry and I. Ilakkiya, V. Valli, S. Nathiya, A. Vijayan and S. Vanaja 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).

————

¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ, ÒÐ¡¢.¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ, ÒÐ¡¢. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ, ÒÐ¡¢.¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ, ÒÐ¡¢. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ, ÒÐ¡¢.

ÓýÉ¢¨Ä: ¾¢Õ. Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š,±õ.²., ±õ.±ø., ¾¨Ä¨Á ¾¡íÌõ "ÖÅÄ÷. 2013-õ ¬ñÎ ƒ¤ý Á¡¾õ 27õ ¿¡û Ţ¡Æ츢ƨÁ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 29/2012

I. þÄ츢¡ . . ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

±¾¢÷

§ÁÄ¡ñ þÂìÌ¿÷, º¢Š§¸¡ §Äð¼ìŠ Ä¢Á¢¦¼ð, ÒÐ¡¢-9.

. . ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

±¾¢÷

§ÁÄ¡ñ þÂìÌ¿÷, º¢Š§¸¡ §Äð¼ìŠ Ä¢Á¢¦¼ð, ÒÐ¡¢-9.

. . ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 31/2012

S. ¿¾¢Â¡ . . ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

±¾¢÷

§ÁÄ¡ñ þÂìÌ¿÷, º¢Š§¸¡ §Äð¼ìŠ Ä¢Á¢¦¼ð, ÒÐ¡¢-9.

. . ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 32/2012

A. Å¢ƒÂý . . ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

±¾¢÷

§ÁÄ¡ñ þÂìÌ¿÷, º¢Š§¸¡ §Äð¼ìŠ Ä¢Á¢¦¼ð, ÒÐ¡¢-9.

. . ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 33/2012

S. ÅɃ¡ . . ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

±¾¢÷

§ÁÄ¡ñ þÂìÌ¿÷, º¢Š§¸¡ §Äð¼ìŠ Ä¢Á¢¦¼ð, ÒÐ¡¢-9.

. . ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷.

Å¢º¡Ã¨½ "¾¢¸¡¡¢ "Å÷¸Ç¢¼õ ¦¸¡ÎòÐ, þò¦¾¡Æ¢ü ºí¸ò¨¾ô À¾¢× ¦ºöÂì ܼ¡Ð ±É ¦¾¡¢Å¢ò¾Ð ¯ðÀ¼ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ²üÀÎò¾¢ÂÐ. þÐ §À¡ýÈ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã¡¢ý ÀÄ þ¨¼äÚ¸ÙìÌ ¬¾¡ÃÁ¡¸ ÀÄ ¸Ê¾ ¿¸ø¸û þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ý À¡÷¨ÅìÌ þíÌ ºÁ÷ôÀ¢ì¸ôÀðÎûÇÐ.

þó¾ ³óÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú¸û, 26-6-2013 "ýÚ þÚ¾¢ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ì¸¡¸ ±ýÓý Åó¾§À¡Ð, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ à ô À ¢ ø Å Æ ì Ì ¨ à " ÷ ¾ ¢ Õ Å ¡ Ç ÷ ¬ ÷ . Ê . „ í ¸ ÷ ¬ƒÃ¡¸¢Ôõ ÁüÚõ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ ¾ ¢ Õ Å ¡ Ç ÷ " à Š¢ ó ¾ Í ô À ¢ à Á ½ ¢  õ Á ü Ú õ §ƒ.±.±Š. º¾£‰ ÌÁ¡÷ ¬¸¢§Â¡÷¸û ¬ƒÃ¡¸¢Ôõ ±ÎòШÃò¾ Å¡¾í¸¨Çì §¸ð¨¸ ¦ºöÐõ, ÅÆìÌ ºõÀó¾Á¡É ¬Å½í¸¨Çô ÀÊòÐô À¡÷òÐõ, þÐ ¿¡û Ũâø À¡¢º£Ä¨É¢ø þÕó¾ À¢ýÉ÷, þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ ÅÆíÌõ—

¦À¡Ðò¾£÷Åõ

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ (¾¢Õò¾õ) ºð¼õ, 2010 (24 of 2010), À¢¡¢× 2A-ý ¸£ú ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾í¸ÙìÌ À½¢ò¦¾¡¼÷, À¢ý ºõÀÇõ ÁüÚõ þ¾Ã "¨ÉòÐ ºÖ¨¸¸Ù¼Ûõ, Á£ñÎõ À½¢Â¢ø "Á÷ò¾ §ÅñΦÁýÚ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ ¯ò¾ÃÅ¢¼ì §¸¡¡¢Ôõ ÁüÚõ þ¾Ã À¡¢¸¡Ãí¸û §¸¡¡¢Ôõ þó¾ò ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÉ.

2. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¢ý ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇ

§¸¡¡¢ì¨¸ ÁÛì¸Ç¢ý ÍÕì¸õ À¢ý ÅÕÁ¡Ú:

ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û "¨ÉÅÕõ, §ÁüÀÊ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢ÚÅÉò¾¢ø ¿¢Ãó¾Ã ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸Ç¡¸ô À½¢Ò¡¢óÐ Åó¾¡÷¸û. §ÁÖõ, "º¢Š§¸¡ §Äð¼ìŠ" ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ºí¸ò¾¢ø º¢Ä÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸¢¸Ç¡¸×õ ÁüÚõ ÀÄ÷ ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸Ç¡¸×õ þÕóÐ Åó¾¡÷¸û. À¾¢¨ÉóÐ ¬ñθ¡ÄÁ¡¸ §Å¨Ä ¦ºöÔõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ Ü¼ º¡¢Â¡É ºõÀÇõ ÅÆí¸¡Áø, 10 Á½¢ §¿Ãò¾¢üÌõ §Áø §Å¨Ä Å¡í¸¢ Åó¾¡÷¸û. ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¸û ºð¼ò¾¢ø ¦º¡øÄôÀ𼨾§Â¡ (") ÒÐ¡¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä Å¢¾¢¸Ç¢ø ¦º¡øÄô ÀðÎûǨ¾ô §À¡Ä§Å¡ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ, ͸¡¾¡Ãõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Äý, §Å¨Ä §¿Ãõ ÁüÚõ ºõÀÇòмý ÜÊ ŢÎӨȸû §À¡ýÈ ±¨¾Ôõ ¦ºö¡Áø ¦¸¡ò¾Ê¨Á¸Ç¡¸ ¨ÅòÐ §Å¨Ä Å¡í¸¢ Åó¾¡÷¸û.

4. þ¨Å¦ÂøÄ¡õ ÓÈ¢ÂÊòÐ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¯ûÇ¢ð¼ 65-ìÌõ §ÁüÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ´ýÚ §º÷óÐ ¾í¸Ùì¦¸É "º¢Š§¸¡ §Äð¼ìŠ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ºí¸õ" ±Ûõ ´Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸î ºð¼õ 1926-ý ¸£ú 26-03-2012 "ýÚ ÒÐ¡¢ "ú¢¼õ À¾¢× ¦ºö¾É÷ (¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ À¾¢× ±ñ1692/RTU/2012). þ¾¨Éì ¸ñÊòÐ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷, "ý§È "¨ÉòÐò ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸¢¸¨ÇÔõ, ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸¨ÇÔõ "¨ÆòÐ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ ´Õ Å¡Ãò¾¢üÌû ¸¨Äì¸ §ÅñÎõ, þø¨Ä¦ÂÉ¢ø ¯í¸û "¨ÉŨÃÔõ ¦ÅǢ¢ø à츢 ±È¢óÐŢΧšõ ±É Á¢ÃðÊÉ¡÷¸û. ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý Á¢Ãð¼ÖìÌ "ÊÀ½¢Â¡¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸¢¸û ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¦ºöÐÅÕõ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸¨Ç ÀðÊÂÄ¢ðÎ "¾¡ÅÐ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ "ÊôÀ¨¼ ź¾¢Â¡É ESI, EPF, À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ, ͸¡¾¡Ãõ, ¦¾¡ÆÄ¡Ç÷ ¿Äý, §Å¨Ä §¿Ãõ ÁüÚõ ºõÀÇòмý ÜÊ ŢÎӨȸû §À¡ýÈ Åº¾¢ ܼ ¦ºöÐ ¾ÃôÀ¼¡¾¾¡ø ºõÀó¾ôÀð¼ ШȸÙìÌ Ò¸¡÷ ¸Ê¾í¸¨Ç 29-9-2011 "ýÚ "ÛôÀ¢É÷. þ¾¨Éò ¦¾¡¼÷óÐ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ Å¢§Ã¡¾ §À¡ì¨¸ ¸¨¼À¢Êò¾Ð. "¾¡ÅÐ, 2011 ¬õ ¬ñÎ ¦ºô¼õÀ÷ Á¡¾î ºõÀÇò¨¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ 10 ¬õ §¾¾¢ìÌû ÅÆí¸¡Áø ²Á¡üÈ¢ÂÐ. þ¨¾ò ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ ÒÐ¡¢ ºõÀÇ ¸ðÎôÀ¡ðÎ "¾¢¸¡¡¢ Óý 17-10-2011 "ýÚ ÅÆìÌ ¦¾¡Îò¾Ð. "¨¾ ²üÚ즸¡ñ¼ "¾¢¸¡¡¢ ÅÆìÌ ±ñ 3/2011-¬¸ À¾¢× ¦ºöРŢº¡Ã¨½ ¿¼ò¾¢É¡÷. þùÅ¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ ¸ÄóÐ ¦¸¡ñ¼Ð. ¬É¡ø, ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ý Óý ¬ƒÃ¡¸¡Áø §¾¡ýÈ¡ ¾ÃôÀ¡¸ (ex parte)¬ÉÐ. þùÅÆ쨸 Å¢º¡¡¢ò¾ ÒÐ¡¢ ºõÀÇì ¸ðÎôÀ¡ðÎ "¾¢¸¡¡¢ ´Õ Å¡Ã ¸¡Äò¾¢üÌû ºõÀÇò¨¾ì ¦¸¡ÎìÌÁ¡Ú 11-11-2011 "ýÚ ¯ò¾ÃÅ¢ð¼¡÷. À¢ýÉ÷ ºõÀÇõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ ÅÆí¸ôÀð¼Ð.

3. þ¾É¡ø, Á¢¸×õ À¡¾¢ôÀ¨¼ó¾ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ´ýÚ §º÷óÐ ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷× ÁüÚõ À½¢ ¿¢Àó¾¨É¸û ºõÀó¾Á¡É (service conditions) §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã¡¢¼õ 18-08-2011 "ýÚ ÅÆí¸¢É¡÷¸û. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦ºÅ¢¦¸¡ÎòÐ §¸ð¸¡¾¾¡ø, ÒÐ¡¢ "ú¢ý ºÁú "¾¢¸¡¡¢ Óý 14-09-2011, 21-11-2011 ÁüÚõ 13-12-2011 ¬¸¢Â §¾¾¢¸Ç¢ø ºÁ÷ôÀ¢ò¾É÷. ºÁú "¾¢¸¡¡¢ þò¾¡Å ¡ ì ¸ ¨ Ç I.D. No. 2766/2011 ¬¸ À¾¢× ¦ºöÐ ºÁú §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾¸¨Ç ¿¼ò¾¢É¡÷. þó¾ì §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸û ºõÀó¾Á¡¸ §Àº ¾í¸Ùì¦¸É ´Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ "¨ÁìÌõ ÓÂüº¢Â¢ø ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¯ûǢ𼠦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ®ÎÀð¼É÷. ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ "¨ÁòÐì ¦¸¡ñÊÕìÌõ §À¡§¾ "¨¾ò ¾Îì¸ Àø§ÅÚ þ¨¼äÚ¸¨Ç ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ²üÀÎò¾¢ÂÐ. "¾¡ÅÐ, "¨ÉòÐò ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨ÇÔõ Á¢ÃðÊ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ §Åñ¼¡õ ±É ±Ø¾¢ ¨¸¦Â¡ôÀõ ¦ÀüÚ "¨¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ô À¾¢×¦ºö Ţº¡Ã¨½ ¿¼òÐõ

5. "Îò¾¾¡¸, À¢ôÃÅ¡¢ Á¡¾îºõÀÇò¨¾ Á¡÷î 10 §¾¾¢ìÌ §ÁÄ¡¸¢Ôõ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÅÆí¸Å¢ø¨Ä. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ 29-2-2012 "ýÚ ¦¸¡Îò¾ §ÅÚ ´Õ Ò¸¡¨Ã ²üÚ ¬ö× ¦ºö Åó¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬öÅ¡Ç÷ "Å÷¸û 12-3-2012 "ýÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ÁüÚõ ¬Å½í¸¨Ç ¬ö× ¦ºö¾¡÷. 2012 ¬õ ¬ñÊý À¢ôÃÅ¡¢ Á¡¾ ºõÀÇõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ ÅÆí¸ôÀ¼¡¾¨¾ì ¸ñÎ ¯¼§É ºõÀÇò¨¾ ÅÆí¸ ¨Åò¾¡÷. §ÁÖõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¸û ºð¼ôÀÊ ²üÀÎò¾ôÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä Å¢¾¢¸Ç¢ø ¦º¡øÄôÀð¼ 10-ìÌõ §ÁüÀð¼ Å¢¾¢Á£Èø¸¨Çì ¸ñÎÀ¢ÊòÐ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ 19-3-2012 "ýÚ "ȢŢôÒ "ÛôÀ¢ÔûÇ¡÷¸û. "Îò¾¾¡¸, ¦¾¡Æ¢ü ºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦À¡ÕÇ¡Ç÷ ¾¢ÕÁ¾¢ ÅÍó¾Ã¡§¾Å¢ "Å÷¸¨Ç ÒÐ¡¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¢ø þÕóÐ ¦ºý¨É¢ø ¯ûÇ "ÖÅĸò¾¢üÌ 18-2-2012 "ýÚ þ¼Á¡üÈõ3 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1121 ¦ºö¾Ð ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ À½¢Â¢¼ Á¡üÈÁ¡Ìõ. "¾¡ÅÐ, ´Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ §À¡Ð "¾¢ø ºõÀó¾ôÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý À½¢ ¿¢Àó¾¨É¸Ç¢ø ±ó¾Å¢¾ Á¡üÈò¨¾Ôõ ¦ºöÂìܼ¡Ð ±É ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºð¼õ, 1947-ý À¢¡¢× 33(1) (a) & (2) (a)-ø ¦¾Ç¢Å¡¸ ¦º¡øÄôÀðÊÕ츢ÈÐ.

6. "Îò¾¾¡¸, ¿£Ä¡Å¾¢ ±ýÛõ ¦Àñ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ Á¸ô§ÀÚ Å¢ÎôÒ ÓÊóÐ §ÁÖõ ´Õ Å¡Ãõ Å¢ÎôÀ¢ø þÕó¾§À¡Ð, "ÛÁ¾¢ÂüÈ Å¢ÎÓ¨È ±Îò¾¡÷ ±ÉìÜÈ¢ ¿£Ä¡Å¾¢¨ÂÔõ §ÁÖõ, Í¸ó¾¢ ÁüÚõ §¸¡Á¾¢ ¬¸¢Â ¦Àñ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç "ÛÁ¾¢ÂüÈ Å¢ÎÓ¨È ±ÉìÜÈ¢ ±ó¾Å¢¾ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ÔÁ¢ýÈ¢, ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷× ºõÀó¾Á¡É ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ §À¡§¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºð¼õ 1947, À¢¡¢× 33 (2)(B)-ý ÀÊ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾Á¡¸ §Å¨Ä ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾Ð. ¦ ¾ ¡ Æ ¢ Ä ¡ Ç ÷ ¿ £ ¾ ¢ Á ý È ò ¾ ¢ ý Ó ý À ¡ ¸ Å Æ ì Ì ±ñ I.D(L) No.18, 19, 20/2012 ¬¸ À¾¢ÂôÀðÎ ¾üºÁÂõ Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ø ¯ûÇÐ. þ󿢨Ä¢ø, ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý ÌÅ¡Ä¢ðÊ §Á§Éƒ÷ ¾¢ÕÁ¾¢ ¬ñ¼¡û "Å÷¸¨Ç ²Å¢Å¢ðÎ §ÁðÎôÀ¡¨ÇÂõ ¸¡Åø ¿¢¨ÄÂò¾¢ø ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¡É "ôÀ¡Å¢ ¦Àñ¸Ç¡É ÁïÍÇ¡, º¡ó¾¢, ºò¾¢ÂÅ¡½¢, ®ŠÅ¡¢, ºÃÍ, º¡ó¾¢ ÁüÚõ ¿Å¿£¾õÁ¡û ¬¸¢§Â¡÷¸û Á£Ð, ¾¢ðʾ¡¸ ¦À¡ö Ò¸¡÷ ¦¸¡ÎòÐ ãýÈ¡õ ÅƢӨȨÂì ¨¸Â¡ñÎ "ý§È/"ô§À¡§¾ Ó¾ø ¾¸Åø "Ȣ쨸 (FIR) §À¡¼ôÀð¼Ð. þ¨¾§Â ¸¡Ã½Á¡¸ì ÜÈ¢ "ó¾ 7 ¦Àñ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨ÇÔõ 5-3-2012 "ý§È ¾ü¸¡Ä¢¸ À½¢¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼É÷.

7. À¢ÈÌ, ÀÄ ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈðθ¨Çì ÜÈ¢ 10-3-2012 "ýÚ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸ÙìÌ ÌüÈðÎ Àò¾¢¡¢ì¨¸ ÅÆí¸ôÀð¼Ð. §ÁÖõ, Å¢º¡Ã¨½¨Â §¾¡ýÈ¡ò¾ÃôÀ¡¸ ¿¼ò¾¢ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸ÙìÌ 5-3-2012 Ó¾ø ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÐŢ𼾡¸ ÜÈ¢ ¸Ê¾ò¾¢ý ãÄõ ¦¾¡¢Å¢ì¸ôÀð¼Ð. þ¾ü¸¢¨¼Â¢ø, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ Óýɽ¢ ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸û "¨ÉŨÃÔõ 12-3-2012 ÁüÚõ 14-3-2012 "ý¨È §¾¾¢¸Ç¢ø À½¢Â¢¼ Á¡üÈõ ¦ºö ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¯ò¾Ã× À¢ÈôÀ¢ò¾Ð. þ¾¨É, "¨ÉòÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ùõ ±ùÅ¢¾ À¢ÃÉ¢ýÈ¢ Á¡üÈôÀð¼ þ¼ò¾¢üÌ ¦ºýÚ À½¢¦ºö¾¡÷¸û. §ÁÖõ, ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ "¨ÉòÐ Óýɽ¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌõ 19-4-2012 "ýÚ ºõÀÇôÀ¢Êò¾ò¾¢üÌ ¿¢Â¡Âõ ¯ûÇÐ §À¡ø ´Õ ¸Ê¾ò¨¾ 14 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý Å£ðÊü§¸ "ÛôÀôÀð¼Ð. "ì¸Ê¾ò¾¢üÌ À¾¢ø "Ç¢òÐ "¨ÉòÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸Ùõ ¾í¸ÇÐ À½¢¸¨Ç º¢ÈôÀ¡¸ ¦ºö¾É÷.

8. "Îò¾ì¸ð¼Á¡¸ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷, Á¡÷î 2012 Á¡¾î ºõÀÇò¨¾, §Å¨Ä º¡¢Â¡¸ ¦ºöÂÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ÉìÜÈ¢ º¾Å¢¸¢¾ (pro rata basis) "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø À¡¾¢ì̧Áø À¢ÊòÐ즸¡ñÎ Á£¾õ ¦¸¡Îò¾É÷. "¨¾Ôõ, ²ôÃø 2012 Á¡¾õ ¦¸¡Î츧Šþø¨Ä. þ¾É¡ø, "¨ÉòÐò ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ùõ ´ýÚ §º÷óÐ 13-05-2012 "ýÚ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢¼õ ӨȢ𼾡ø, "Å÷¸û ¿¡¨Ç 14-5-2012 "ýÚ ¯Ú¾¢Â¡¸ ºõÀÇõ "Ç¢ô§À¡õ ±ýÚ ÜȢɡ÷¸û. ¬É¡ø, 14-05-2012 "ýÚ "¨ÉòÐ §Á§Éƒ÷¸Ùõ ¦ÅǢ¢ø ¦ºýÚÅ¢ð¼É÷, ºõÀÇÓõ ¦¸¡Îì¸ô À¼Å¢ø¨Ä. þÐ ºõÀó¾Á¡É ÁۨŠ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬öÅ¡Ç¡¢¼õ ¦¸¡ÎòРŢº¡¡¢ò¾ §À¡Ð ºõÀÇõ ¦¸¡Î측Áø §À¡É¨¾ ¯Ú¾¢ ¦ºöÐ, "¨¾ ¯¡¢Â "¾¢¸¡¡¢Â¢¼õ ÅÆìÌ ¦¾¡ÎòÐ ¦ÀüÚ즸¡ûÙÁ¡Úõ À¾¢ÄÇ¢ò¾¡÷. "Îò¾ì¸ð¼Á¡¸, 15-05-2012 "ýÚ ¸¡¨Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä š¢Ģø ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ (Ä¡ì-"×ð) ¸Ê¾Óõ Àì¸ò¾¢ø ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý HR §ÁÄ¡Ç÷ ¾¢Õ. ºì¾¢§Åø "Å÷¸û ¨¸¦Â¡ôÀÁ¢ð¼ offer ¸Ê¾Óõ ´ð¼ôÀðÊÕó¾Ð. "¾¢ø ¦ºðÊø¦Áñð §ÅñΧš÷, ±ØòÐô â÷ÅÁ¡¸ ±Ø¾¢ ¦¸¡Îì¸ Å¢Õõҧš÷ ¸£ú¸ñ¼ ¦¾¡¨Ä§Àº¢Â¢ø ¦¾¡¼÷Ò¦¸¡ûÇ×õ, ±É À½ò¾¡¨º ¸¡ð¼ôÀð¼Ð. ²¦ÉÉ¢ø, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸ÙìÌ À½ò¨¾ì ¦¸¡ÎòÐ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠦺öÐÅ¢ðÎ Ò¾¢Â ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎ §Å¨Ä Å¡í¸ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¾¢ð¼Á¢ð¼Ð. ¬É¡ø, ´Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ ܼ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠧸ðÎ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡¡¢¼õ ¸Ê¾õ ¦¸¡Îì¸Å¢ø¨Ä.

9. þ¾É¡ø, §ÁÖõ ¬ò¾¢Ãõ "¨¼ó¾ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¡É þÄ츢¡, ÅûÇ¢, ¿¾¢Â¡, Å¢ƒÂý, ÅɃ¡ ¬¸¢§Â¡÷¸¨Ç ±ó¾Å¢¾ ÓýÉȢŢôÀ¢ýÈ¢, Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ýÈ¢, ¾ýɢ¡¸ ¯ñ¨ÁìÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É ÓüÈ¢Öõ ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈðθ¨Ç ÍÁò¾¢ 22-5-2012 "ýÚ Ó¾ø §Å¨Ä¨ÂÅ¢ðÎ ¿£ì¸¢Å¢ð¼¾¡¸ ¦º¡øÄ¢ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸§Á ´ù¦Å¡Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌõ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠦺öÐ À½ò¨¾ ÊÁ¡ñð Êáôð ±ÎòÐ "ÛôÀ¢ÔûÇÐ. þò¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ §Áñ¨ÁÁ¢Ì þò¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ý ÓýÀ¡¸ ÅÆìÌ ¦¾¡.¾¡.±ñ. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33/2012 ¬¸ À¾¢ÂôÀð¼Ð.

10. §¸¡ÀÁ¨¼ó¾ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÌÅ¡Ä¢ðÊ §Á§Éƒ÷ ¾¢ÕÁ¾¢ ¬ñ¼¡û "Å÷¸¨Ç Á£ñÎõ ²Å¢Å¢ðÎ ÀÄ ¦À¡öÂ¡É ¾ÃÁüÈ ÌüÈðθ¨Ç ÍÁò¾¢ 30-ìÌõ §ÁüÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨ÄìÌû "ÛÁ¾¢ì¸ì ܼ¡Ð ±ýÚõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¨Â ¯¼§É ¾¢È츧ÅñÎõ ±É ÜÈ¢ ¦ºý¨É ¯Â÷¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø W.P. No.14223/2012-³ ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐ þýÚõ ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø ¯ûÇÐ. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ºð¼ôÀÊ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú¸¨Ç ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø¾¡ý Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀ¼ §ÅñÎõ. ¬É¡ø, "¨¾ ¾Å¢÷òÐ §¿ÃÊ¡¸ ¯Â÷¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºö¾ ÀÄ ÅÆì̸¨Ç "alternative remedy" ¯ûǾ¡¸ ÜÈ¢ ¾ûÙÀÊ ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ. ¯¾¡Ã½Á¡¸, ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸§Á 2011-ø ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºö¾ W.P. No. 23622/2011 ÁÛ 2012 ¬õ ¬ñÎ ¬¸Šð Á¡¾õ ¾ûÙÀÊ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼Ð. ¦ºý¨É ¯Â÷¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ãáø/¨¸Â¡Ç¡ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¨Âò ¾¢Èì¸ §¸¡¡¢ ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÂôÀð¼ þÕ writ petition-¸Ùõ ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ §À¡§¾ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ (Ä¡ì-"×ð) ¦ºö¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¨Â ¿¢÷Å¡¸§Á ¾¡É¡¸ Óý ÅóÐ ¸¼ó¾ 26-06-2012 "ýÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¨Â ¾¢Èó¾Ð. ¬É¡ø, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸û 30-ìÌõ §ÁüÀ𧼡¨Ã §Å¨ÄìÌ "ÛÁ¾¢ì¸Å¢ø¨Ä.

11. "ýÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¦Á¢ý§¸ðÊø ÀÄò¾ §À¡Ä£Š À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ §À¡ðÎ ´Õ "ȢŢôÒ ¸Ê¾Óõ ´ð¼ôÀðÊÕó¾Ð. "ì¸Ê¾ò¾¢ø, ÅÕõ 25-06-2012 §¾¾¢ Ó¾ø ¿ÁÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ÅÆì¸õ §À¡ø þÂíÌõ ±ýÀ¨¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ ¦¾¡¢Å¢òÐì ¦¸¡û¸¢§È¡õ ±ýÚõ, §ÁÖõ, ¯Â÷¿£¾¢ÁýÈ ¾¨¼ ¯ò¾Ã× (M. P. No.1/2012 IN WP.1376/2012) ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø ¯ûǾ¡ø ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¦ºÂø¸Ç¢Öõ ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢Öõ ®ÎÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û "¨ÉÅÕõ §Å¨ÄìÌ ¯û§Ç Åà "ÛÁ¾¢ì¸Á¡ð¼¡÷¸û ±ýÀ¨¾ ¦¾¡¢Å¢òÐ즸¡û¸¢§È¡õ ±Éì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¢ý ¦ÀÂ÷¸û "¾¢ø ¸ñÊÕó¾Ð.

12. §ÁÖõ, §ÁüÀÊ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾¾¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ¾ýÅ¢ÕôÀò¾¢ý §À¡¢ø þÉ¢ ±ô§À¡Ðõ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¦ºÂø¸Ç¢Öõ, ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢Öõ ®ÎÀ¼Á¡ð§¼¡õ ±ýÚ ±ØòÐ ãÄÁ¡¸ ¯Ú¾¢ "Ç¢ò¾¡ø, ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ "¨¾ À¡¢º£Ä¨É ¦ºöÔõ ±ýÀ¨¾Ôõ ¦¾¡¢Å¢òÐ즸¡û¸¢§È¡õ ±ýÈ "ȢŢôÒ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾Á¡É¾¡Ìõ. "ȢŢôÀ¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û "¨ÉÅÕõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¢ø ¾£Å¢ÃÁ¡¸ ®ÎÀ𼾡ø, ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈðθ¨Ç ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÍÁò¾¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨ÄìÌû "ÛÁ¾¢ì¸Å¢ø¨Ä. §ÁÖõ, ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¸¾Å¨¼ô¨À ¾¡É¡¸ ÓýÅóÐ ¿£ì¸¢, 25-6-2012 Ó¾ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ø ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸û "øÄ¡¾ À¨Æ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ÁüÚõ ¿¢¨È Ҿ¢Â ¾ü¸¡Ä¢¸ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç ¨ÅòÐ ¯üÀò¾¢ §Áü¦¸¡ñÎ, "ó¾ 30 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ ÁðÎõ "§Å¨Ä ¦¸¡Îì¸ ÁÚôÀÐ" (refusal of employment) ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾Á¡É¾¡Ìõ. þùÅÆìÌ, þó¾ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø ÅÆìÌ ¦¾¡.¾. ±ñ. 85/2012 ¬¸ À¾¢× ¦ºöÂôÀð¼Ð.

13. §Áü¸ñ¼ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã¡¢ý þò¾¨É ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¦ºÂø¸¨Ç ±øÄ¡õ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºð¼õ, 1947 -ý Schedule - V -ø ¯ûÇ Item No. (1) a, b, c, (4) a, e, f, (5) a, b, c, d, e, f, g, (6), (7), (9), (10), (11), (14), (15), (16) -ý ÀÊ ÀðÊÂÄ¢ðÎ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºð¼õ, 1947 À¢¡¢× 25 T, 25 U ÁüÚõ 26(2)-ý ¸£ú 30-05-2012 "ýÚ ÒÐ¡¢ "ÃÍ Óý ´Õ Ò¸¡÷ ¸Ê¾õ ºÁ÷ôÀ¢ì¸ôÀðÎûÇÐ. "¾¢ø, þó¾ò ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¢ý ӾġǢ ¾¢Õ. "§º¡ì Àƒ¡ˆ Á£Ð ÌüÈÅ¢Âø ¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºð¼ôÀÊ ÒÐ¡¢ "ÃÍ ÌüÈ ÅÆìÌò ¦¾¡¼Ã §ÅñÎõ "øÄÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦À¡Ðî ¦ºÂÄ¡ÇÃ¡É ¾¢Õ.Íó¾Ãã÷ò¾¢ "Å÷¸û ÅÆìÌ ¦¾¡¼Ã "¾¢¸¡Ãõ ¦¸¡Î츧ÅñÎõ ±É Ò¸¡÷ ¦¸¡Îì¸ôÀðÎûÇÐ. "ì¸Ê¾ò¨¾ô ¦ÀüÚ즸¡ñ¼ ÒÐ¡¢ "ÃÍõ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ show cause notice 22-6-2012 §¾¾¢Â¢ðÎ "ÛôÀôÀðΠŢº¡Ã¨½Â¢ø ¯ûÇÐ.

14. ¬¸, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ ¬ÃõÀ¢ò¾ ´§Ã ¸¡Ã½òÐ측¸, ºí¸ò¾¢ý ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸û "¨ÉŨÃÔõ Àø§ÅÚ ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈðθ¨Ç ÍÁò¾¢, "ìÌüÈ𨼠¿¢åÀ¢ì¸ Å¢º¡Ã¨½¨Â Өȡ¸ ¿¼ò¾¡Áø, ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾Á¡¸×õ þÂü¨¸ ¿¢ÂÁÅ¢¾¢¸ÙìÌõ ÁüÚõ 1947 ¬õ ÅÕ¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú¸û ºð¼ôÀ¢¡¢× 33 (2) (B)-ø ¦º¡øÄôÀðÎûǨ¾ô §À¡ø À¢ýÀüÈ¡Áø ¿¢Ãó¾Ã À½¢¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÐûÇÐ. §ÁÖõ, ´Õ Á¡¾ ºõÀÇÓõ ÅÆí¸ôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷× ÅÆí¸ì§¸¡¡¢ ÒÐ¡¢ "ú¢ý ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºÁú "¾¢¸¡¡¢ Óý 13-12-2011 "ýÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ±ñ 2766/2011/LO(C)/AIL ±ØôÀ¢ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¨¼¦ÀüÚ Åó¾Ð. §ÁÖõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ¿¨¼¦ÀüÚÅÕõ ÒÐ¡¢ "ÃÍ ºÁú "¾¢¸¡¡¢Óý ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºð¼õ 1947, À¢¡¢× 33 (2) (b)-ý ¸£ú ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ Å¢¾¢¸¨Ç À¢ýÀüÈ¡Áø ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾Á¡É À½¢¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÐûÇÐ. §ÁÖõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ Áò¾¢Â Å¢¾¢¸û 1975 Å¢¾¢ 60(2)-ø ¯ûÇ ÀÊÅõ K¨Å ºÁ÷ôÀ¢òÐ þÐŨà "ÛÁ¾¢Ôõ ¦ÀÈÅ¢ø¨Ä.

15. §ÁÖõ, ÅÕ¨¸ôÀ¾¢Å¢ý ºÖ¨¸¨Â (attendence benefits) ÅÆí¸ §ÅñÎõ ÁüÚõ, þùÅÇ× ¦¸¡Î¨Á¸¨ÇÔõ ¾Îì¸ ¾ÅȢ ÒÐ¡¢ "ú¢ý ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ШȨÂî º¡÷ó¾, ºõÀó¾ôÀð¼ "¾¢¸¡¡¢¸û Á£Ð Ð¨È ¡£¾¢Â¡É ¾Ìó¾ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Îì¸ ÒÐ¡¢ "ÃÍìÌ ÅÆ¢¸¡ðÊ ¯ò¾ÃÅ¢¼ §ÅñÎõ. ¦¾¡¼÷óÐ "unfair labour practice" ¦ºöÐ ÅÕõ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý ӾġǢ ¾¢Õ. "§º¡ì Àƒ¡ˆ "Å÷¸ÙìÌ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ ºð¼õ 1947, À¢¡¢× 25-U-Å¢ø ¦º¡øÄôÀðÊÕ¸¢ýÈ penalty for committing unfair labour practices ¬É 6 Á¡¾ º¢¨È ¾ñ¼¨É ÁüÚõ å. 1,000 "Àá¾Á¡¸ ¾ñ¼¨É ÅÆí¸ §ÅñÎõ. §ÁÖõ, þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ ¿¢Â¡ÂÁ¡ÉÐ ÁüÚõ ӨȡÉÐ ±ýÚ ¸ÕÐõ þ¾Ã À¡¢¸¡Ãí¸¨Ç ÅÆí¸¢ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡ÃÕìÌ ¯ò¾Ã× ÅÆí¸¢ÎÁ¡Ú ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û þõÁۨŠ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐûÇ¡÷¸û.

16. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºö¾ ±¾¢÷ÁÛÅ¢ý ÍÕì¸õ À¢ý ÅÕÁ¡Ú :

´ôÒ즸¡ûÇôÀð¼ ºí¸¾¢¸¨Çò ¾Å¢Ã ÁüÈÅü¨È ÁÛ¾¡Ã§Ã ¿¢ÕÀ¢ì¸ §ÅñÎõ. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢ÚÅÉõ º¢Ú ¦¾¡Æ¢ø ¦ºöÔõ ¿¢ÚÅÉÁ¡Ìõ. 1997 Ó¾ø þó¿¢ÚÅÉõ ÁÕòÐÅ ¯À¸Ã½õ ¾Â¡¡¢òÐ ÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ. þó¾ ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦À¡ÕÇ¡ÉÐ, Å£ðÎ ¯À§Â¡¸ò¾¢üÌõ, Å£ðÎ ¯À§Â¡¸ ºó¨¾ìÌõ ÁüÚõ ¦ÅÇ¢¿¡ðÎ ºó¨¾ìÌõ "ÛôÀôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ¸¼ó¾ 16 ÅÕ¼Á¡¸ ÍÓ¸Á¡É Ýú¿¢¨Ä¢ø ±ó¾Å¢¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û À¢Ãɸû þýÈ¢ þó¿¢ÚÅÉõ þÂí¸¢ ÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ. þõÁÛ ºð¼ôÀÊÔõ ºí¸¾¢¸Ç¢ý ÀÊÔõ ¿¢¨Äì¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ. À¢¡¢× 33 þõÁÛ×ìÌ ¦À¡Õó¾¡Ð. I.D. No. 2766/11 ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÓýÉ÷ 22-5-2012 "ý§È ÓÊÅ¡¸¢Å¢ð¼Ð. ¬É¡ø, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û 22-10-2012 "ýÚ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼¡÷¸û. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û "ʨÁ¸û §À¡Ä ¿¼ò¾ôÀΞ¡¸×õ, ´Õ ¿¡¨ÇìÌ 10 Á½¢ §¿Ãò¾¢üÌ §Áø §Å¨Ä ¦ºöž¡¸×õ, º¡¢Â¡É ºõÀÇõ ÅÆí¸ôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ ÜÚõ ÜüÚì¸û ÁÚì¸ôÀθ¢ýÈÉ.

17. þó¿¢ÚÅÉò¾¢ø ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦ºöÂôÀÎõ º¡¾Éí¸û ¯Â¢÷¸¡ìÌõ ÁÕóРŨ¸ ¦¾¡¼÷Ò¨¼Â¾¡Ìõ. ¯Â¢÷¸¡ìÌõ ¯À¸Ã½í¸¨Çò ¾Â¡÷ ¦ºöž¡ø À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ ¸Á¢ðÊ "¨ÁòÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸ÙìÌ À¢üº¢Ôõ "È¢×õ Ò¸ð¼ôÀðÎ ÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸Ç¢ý §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨ÇÔõ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ²ü¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚ ÜÚõ ÜüÚ ÁÚì¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ.

§¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ "ÖÅÄ÷ ãÄõ þó¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý À¡÷¨ÅìÌ Åó¾ À¢ÈÌ ¿¼ó¾ þÕ ¾ÃôÒ Üð¼ò¾¢ø ºõÀÇõ º£Ã¨ÁôÒ ¦ºö ¸¡Ä "Ÿ¡ºõ §¾¨Å¦ÂÉ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÜÈ¢ÂÐ. ¬É¡Öõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦ºöÐ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ "Øò¾õ ¾óÐ §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç ¯¼§É ¿¢¨È§ÅüÈì ÜÈ¢É÷. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¡ø ºð¼õ ´Øí¨¸ º¡¢ ¦ºö ¸¡ÅøШÈ¢ø Ò¸¡÷ "Ç¢ì¸ôÀð¼Ð. §ÁÖõ, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ùõ ÁüÈÅ÷¸Ùõ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ Óý I.D. No. 1762/2011 ÁüÚõ COD No. 2766/2011 ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐ ¾í¸û ¯¡¢¨Á¸û §¸¡¡¢É÷. ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ ¬ÃõÀ¢ì¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¾¨¼ ¦ºö¾¾¡¸ ÜÚÅÐ º¡¢ÂøÄ. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ "ÖÅĸõ ÓýÉ÷ ÀÄ Ó¨È ºõÀÇõ º£Ã¨ÁôÒ ÀüÈ¢ §ÀîÍ Å¡÷ò¨¾ ¿¨¼¦ÀüÈÐ. ¬É¡Öõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨ÄìÌû ´Õ "º¡¾¡Ã½ Ýú¿¢¨Ä¨Â ¯Õš츢 À½¢ ¦ºö ŢÕõÒõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Çò ¾Îò¾É÷.

18. ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ Óýɧà 3-10-2011 "ýÚ ¿¼ó¾ §ÀîÍ Å¡÷ò¨¾Â¢ø ºõÀÇõ åÀ¡ö 400 º£Ã¨ÁôÒ ¦ºö ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò ¾¨ÄÅ÷ ´ôÒ즸¡ñ¼ À¢ýÛõ, Á£ñÎõ À½¢ìÌ ÅÃÅ¢ø¨Ä. ºÃì̸¨Ç ²üÚÁ¾¢ ¦ºö þÂÄ¡¾ Ýú¿¢¨Ä ²üÀ𼾡ø ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¯Â÷¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø writ petition 23622/2011 ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ±ùÅ¢¾ þ¨¼ïºÖõ ¦ºöÂì ܼ¡Ð ÁüÚõ þÆôÒõ ²üÀÎò¾ì ܼ¡Ð ±É þ¨¼ì¸¡Ä ¾¨¼ ¯ò¾Ã× §¸¡¡¢ ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐ "¾ý À¢ýÉ÷ ¾¢ÕõÀô ¦ÀÈôÀð¼Ð. 10-11-2012 "ýÚ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦ºö¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¾¡§É Óý ÅóÐ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢¼õ §Àº¢, ¾¡í¸û ¦ºö¾ ¾ÅÚ¸¨Ç ¯½÷󾾡¸×õ, þÉ¢ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦ºö Á¡ð§¼¡õ ±É ¯Ú¾¢ÂÇ¢òÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü ºí¸ò¾¢Ä¢ÕóРტɡÁ¡ ¦ºö¾É÷. þîºí¸¾¢¸¨Ç 15-11-2012ø ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷¸ÙìÌ ¦¾¡¢ÂôÀÎò¾ô Àð¼Ð. ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ì ¸¨Äì¸ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ Á¢Ãðʾ¡¸ ÜÚÅÐ º¡¢ÂøÄ. þ±Š³ ÁüÚõ þÀ¢±ô ¬¸¢Â ¦¾¡¨¸¸û º¡¢Åà ¦ºÖò¾ôÀðÎ ÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ.

19. þ±Š³ ¬öÅ¡Ç÷ 27-3-2012 "ýÚ À¡÷¨Å¢ðÎ º¡ýÚ ÅÆí¸¢ÔûÇ¡÷. ¦ºô¼õÀ÷ 2011õ ¬ñÎì¸¡É ºõÀÇõ À½¢ ¦ºöÀÅ÷¸ÙìÌ 1-9-2011 Ó¾ø 10-9-2011ìÌû ¾ÃôÀð¼Ð. À¢ôÃÅ¡¢ 2012ì¸¡É ºõÀÇõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬öÅ¡Ç÷ ÅóÐ À¡÷¨Å¢ð¼ À¢ÈÌ ¾¡ý ¾ÃôÀð¼Ð ±ýÈ¡ø º¡¢ÂøÄ. ºõÀÇõ Å¡í¸ ÁÚò¾ ÁüÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Çò ¾Å¢Ã ÁüÈÅ÷¸ÙìÌ ºõÀÇõ ÅÆí¸ôÀðÎÅ¢ð¼Ð. 5-3-2012 "ýÚ ´Øí¸£Éò¾¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ 7 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¾ü¸¡Ä¢¸ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀ𼧾¡Î "Å÷¸û Á£Ð Ó¾ø ¾¸Åø "Ȣ쨸 (FIR) À¾¢× ¦ºöÂôÀð¼Ð.

20. ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò ¾¨ÄÅ÷¸Ç¢ý ÐñξÖìÌ ¬Ç¡¸¢ ºõÀÇò¨¾ Å¡í¸ ÁÚò¾Å÷¸û, ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¯üÀò¾¢ ̨Èó¾Ð. ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬öÅ¡Ç¡¢ý ¾¨Ä£ð¼¡ø ÁðΧÁ ºõÀÇò¨¾ 12-3-2012 "ýÚ Å¡í¸¢ì ¦¸¡ñ¼¡÷¸û. 30-3-2012, 19-3-2012 ¬¸¢Â §¾¾¢¸Ç¢ø "ÛôÀôÀð¼ ¸¡Ã½õ §¸¡Õõ "ȢŢôÒ¸ÙìÌ ¾ì¸ Å¢Çì¸õ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬öÅ¡ÇÕìÌ "ÛôÀôÀðΠŢ𼾡ø, §Áø ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Îì¸ôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä. þùÅ¢„Âí¸¨Ç ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Á¨ÈòÐÅ¢ð¼¡÷¸û.

21. À½¢Â¢¼ò¾¢ø ¾ÉìÌ ÁÉ "Øò¾õ ¯ûǾ¡¸ ¾¢ÕÁ¾¢ ÅÍó¾Ã¡§¾Å¢ ¦º¡ýɾ¡ø ÁðΧÁ "Å÷¸Ç¢ý ¿Äý ¸Õ¾¢ ¦ºý¨É ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨ÄìÌ Á¡üÈôÀð¼¡÷. "¾É¡ø "Å¡¢ý Á¡Ú¾ø ¯ò¾Ã× ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ºð¼ò¾¢üÌ Å¢§Ã¡¾Á¡É¾øÄ. "ÅÕ¨¼Â À¡Ð¸¡ôÒìÌ Á¢Ãð¼ø ±Ð×õ þø¨Ä. ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ ¦¸ð¼ ¦ÀÂ÷ ²üÀÎòÐõ §¿¡ì¸òмý ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û þùÅÆ쨸 Óý ¨Å츢ýÈÉ÷.

22. ¿£Ä¡Å¾¢, §¸¡Á¾¢, ÁüÚõ Í¸ó¾¢ ¬¸¢Â ãŨÃÔõ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾¾¢ø ±ó¾Å¢¾ À¢ÃÉÔõ þø¨Ä. "ÐÀüÈ¢ I.D. No. 18,19 ÁüÚõ 20/2012 ±É ÅÆìÌò ¦¾¡¼÷óÐ þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø ¯ûÇÐ. ¾Ãì¸ðÎôÀ¡ðÎ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷ ¾¢ÕÁ¾¢ À¢. ¬ñ¼¡û ±ýÀŨà ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ àñÊ 7 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û Á£Ð ¦À¡ö Ò¸¡÷ ¦¸¡Îì¸ôÀð¼Ð ±ýÚ ÜÚõ ÜüÚ ÁÚì¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. "ó¾ò ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û Á£Ð ´ØíÌ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Îì¸ôÀðÎ, "Å÷¸û Å¢º¡Ã¨½ìÌ ¬ƒÃ¡¸¡Áø §À¡É¾¡ø ´Õ¾¨ÄôÀ𺠯ò¾Ã× À¢ÈôÀ¢ì¸ôÀð¼Ð.

23. ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ãò¾ ¯ÚôÀ¢É÷¸û 2-3-2012 "ýÚ §À¡Ã¡ð¼ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û §ÅñΦÁý§È ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ±ýÈ ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø ¯üÀò¾¢Â¢ø ¿¢÷½Â¢ì¸ôÀð¼ ¿¢¨Ä¨Â "¨¼Â ÓÊÂÅ¢ø¨Ä. ÀÄ Ó¨È Å¡ö¦Á¡Æ¢Â¡¸ ÜÈ¢Ôõ, "ȢŢôÒ ÀĨ¸Â¢ø "ȢŢôÒ ¦ºöÐõ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾¾¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ÍÓ¸ Ýú¿¢¨ÄìÌ "Å÷¸û ÅÃÅ¢ø¨Ä. ¯Â¢÷¸¡ìÌõ ¯À¸Ã½í¸û ¸¡Äò§¾ ¾Â¡÷ ¦ºöÐ "ÛôÀôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÈ¡ø ÀÄ §¿¡Â¡Ç¢¸û À¡¾¢ì¸ôÀÎÅ¡÷¸û.

24. ÅÆì¸Á¡É ¯üÀò¾¢ "ǨŠ¿¢¨Ä¿¢Úò¾ 12-3-2012 ÁüÚõ 14-3-2012 ¬¸¢Â ¾¢Éí¸Ç¢ø machine operator-¸û §ÅÚ Ð¨ÈìÌ Á¡Ú¾ø ¦ºöÂôÀð¼É÷. "Å÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ¼ Á¡ð§¼¡õ ±ýÚ ¦º¡ýɾ¡ø À¨Æ þ¼ò¾¢üÌ §Å¨Ä ¦ºö Á¡Ú¾ø ¦ºöÂôÀð¼É÷. ¬É¡Öõ, ÍÓ¸ Ýú¿¢¨Ä ²üÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä. "¾É¡ø, 19-4-2012ø ¸¡Ã½õ §¸¡Õõ "ȢŢôÒ ¾ÃôÀð¼Ð. Å¢ƒÂý, ¿¾¢Â¡, Å¢. ÅûÇ¢, ÅɃ¡ ÁüÚõ ³. þÄ츢¡ ¬¸¢§Â¡÷ ¾£Â ±ñ½õ ¦¸¡ñÎ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ¼¡¾ À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸¨Ç À½¢ ¦ºö Ţ¼¡Áø ¾Îò¾É÷. "¾É¡ø, §Á¡ºÁ¡É ºð¼õ ´ØíÌ À¢Ãî¨É ²üÀ𼾡ø 15-5-2012ø ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ (lock-out) ¦ºö §¿¡¢ð¼Ð. ¬¸§Å, þò¾Ì §Á¡ºÁ¡É ´Øí¸£Éò¾¡Öõ ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É ¦ºÂø¸Ç¢ø þó¾ 5 §ÀÕõ ®ÎÀ𼾡ø 22-5-2012 "ýÚ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼É÷.

25. 2012õ ÅÕ¼ò¾¢ý Á¡÷î, ²ôÃø ÁüÚõ §Á Á¡¾ò¾¢ý Á¡¾îºõÀÇõ º¡¢Â¡¸ ¦¸¡Îì¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÈ ÜüÚ ÁÚì¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø º¾Å£¾ "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø (pro rata basis) ºõÀÇõ ÅÆí¸ôÀÎõ ±ýÚõ ÀÄ ±îº¡¢ì¨¸¸û "Ç¢ì¸ôÀðÎõ 2-3-2012 "ýÚ Ó¾ø ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºö ¦¾¡¼í¸¢É÷. þРŢ„Âõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿ÄòШÈìÌ ¸Ê¾õ ãÄõ ¦¾¡¢Å¢ì¸ôÀð¼Ð. À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø ºõÀÇõ þÉ¢ Å¢¸¢¾¡îº¡Ã "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø (pro rata basis)1124 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [3 December 2013 "Ç¢ì¸ôÀÎõ ±ýÚ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÜÈ¢, "í¹Éõ "Ç¢ì¸ Óý Åó¾ §À¡Ð, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ºõÀÇõ ¦ÀÈ ÁÚò¾¾¡ø À¾¢×ò ¾À¡Ä¢ý ãÄõ ¸¡§º¡¨Ä "ÛôÀôÀð¼Ð. ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷× ÁüÚõ ºõÀÇ º£Ã¡ö× ÀüÈ¢ 16-4-2012 "ýÚ ¿¼ó¾ §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾Â¢ø ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦º¡ýÉ º¢Ä ¸Õòи¨Ç ÀÄ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ²üÚì ¦¸¡ñ¼É÷.

26. ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ÌÚ¸¢Â ¸¡Äò¾¢üÌ ÁðΧÁ þÕó¾¡Öõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ô À¢Ã¾¢¿¢¾¢¸ÙìÌ À½õ ¦¸¡ÎòÐ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠦺öÂô §À¡Å¾¡¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ Á¢Ãðʾ¡¸§Å¡ ÁüÚõ Ò¾¢Â ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç §º÷òÐ즸¡ûÇô §À¡Å¾¡¸§Å¡ ºí¸¾¢¸û þø¨Ä. ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠦾¡¨¸ìÌ Å¢ÕôÀõ ¯ûÇÅ÷¸û ÅÃÄ¡õ ±É "ȢŢôÒ ÀĨ¸Â¢ø ¸ñÊÕó¾Ð. º¢Ä÷ ²üÚ즸¡ûÇ¡Áø ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É ¦ºÂø¸Ç¢ø ®ÎÀðÎ ¯üÀò¾¢ìÌ Àí¸õ ²üÀÎò¾¢Âмý ¾í¸û §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸ÙìÌ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ À½¢Â §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚõ "Øò¾õ ¦¸¡Îò¾É÷. 9-5-2012 "ýÚ ¿¼ó¾ ´Õ Üð¼ò¾¢ø '¿¢÷Å¡¸ þÂìÌ¿¨Ã' Å¢ƒÂý ±ýÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ ¾ûÇ ÓÂüº¢òÐ ¾¡ì̾ø ¿¼ò¾¢É¡÷.

27. 11-5-2012 "ýÚ ¸¡¨Ä 9.30 Á½¢ Ó¾ø Á¡¨Ä 6 Á½¢ Ũà '§ÁÄ¡ñ¨Á §ÁÄ¡Ç÷ ÁüÚõ ¯üÀò¾¢ §ÁġǨÃÔõ', §ÁÄ¡Ç¡¢ý "¨È¢ø ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡¸ "¨¼òÐ ¨Åò¾É÷. "¾ýÀ¢ÈÌ, ÀÄÓ¨È §ÀîÍ Å¡÷ò¨¾ ¿¼ó¾¾¢ø "Å÷¸¨Ç Å£ðÎìÌî ¦ºøÄ "ÛÁ¾¢ò¾É÷. ¸¡Åø ШÈìÌ Ò¸¡÷ ¾ó¾¡ø ¸Îõ Å¢¨Ç׸¨Çî ºó¾¢ì¸ §¿¡¢Îõ ±ýÚ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷¸¨Ç Á¢ÃðÊÉ÷. "Îò¾ ¿¡û, "ó¾ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷¸û À½¢ìÌ Åà ÁÚò¾É÷. 12-5-2012 "ýÚ ¾Ãì¸ðÎôÀ¡ðÎ §ÁġǨà "ÅÃÐ "¨È¢ø ¨ÅòÐ Á¢Ãðʾ¡ø ÁÚ¿¡û "ÅÕõ À½¢ìÌ ÅÃÅ¢ø¨Ä.

28. S. ¿¾¢Â¡, ÅûÇ¢, ÅɃ¡ ÁüÚõ þÄ츢¡ ¬¸¢§Â¡÷ ÁüÈ "§Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ¼¡¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç" àñʾ¡ø À½¢ ¦ºö¾ þ¼ò¾¢ø "¨Á¾¢Â¢øÄ¡¾ Ýú¿¢¨Ä ¯ÕÅ¡¸¢ÂÐ. þó¾ô ¦Àñ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¯üÀò¾¢ §ÁġǨÃì ¸¢ñ¼ø ¦ºöÐ ¾¨Ã¢ø ¯ð¸¡Ã ¦º¡ýÉ¡÷¸û. §ÁÖõ, S. ÅɃ¡ ±ýÈ ¦Àñ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢, ¾¡§É ¾£ìÌÇ¢òÐ즸¡û§Åý ±ýÚõ "ôÀÊî ¦ºöЦ¸¡ñ¼¡ø, ¿¢÷Å¡¸ þÂìÌ¿÷ ÁüÚõ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷ º¢¨È¢ø ¾ûÇôÀÎÅ÷ ±ýÚõ ÜȢɡ÷. 14-5-2012 "ýÚ V. ÅûÇ¢ ÁüÚõ I. þÄ츢¡ ¬¸¢§Â¡÷ À½¢ ¦ºöÔõ À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸¨Ç, "ÅàÈ¡¸ô §Àº¢Ôõ "Å÷¸Ç¢ý ¨¸Â¢ø þÕóÐ À½¢Â¢ø ÀÂýÀÎò¾ôÀÎõ ¬Ô¾í¸¨Çô À¢Îí¸¢Ôõ ÁüÚõ Á¢ýº¡Ãò¨¾ò ÐñÊòÐõ À½¢ ¦ºö Ţ¼¡Áø ¾Îò¾É÷.

29. ̨Èó¾ ¸¡Äò¾¢ü§¸ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ þÕ󾾡ø, À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸¨Ç Á¢Ãð¼Å¢ø¨Ä. Ò¾¢Â ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç ¿¢ÂÁ¢ìÌõ §¿¡ì¸òмý '¦ºðÊø¦Áñð' ±ýÈ "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ÉÕìÌ À½õ ¦¸¡Îì¸ Å¢ø¨Ä. "¨Á¾¢Â¢øÄ¡¾ Ýú¿¢¨Ä¢Õ󾾡ø ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¨¼¦ÀÈÅ¢ø¨Ä. ¬É¡ø, ¸¨¼º¢Â¡¸ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠦾¡¨¸ Ũ硨ÄãÄõ "ÛôÀôÀð¼Ð.

30. ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒìÌô À¢ÈÌ 25-6-2012ø Á£ñÎõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¾¢Èì¸ôÀð¼Ð. ¬É¡Öõ, ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ±ýÈ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦¾¡¼÷ó¾Ð. Å¢¸¢¾¡îº¡Ã ºõÀÇõ ÁðÎõ ¾ÃìÜÎõ ±ýÚ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÜȢ¾¡ø, º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ºõÀÇõ Å¡í¸ ÁÚò¾¾¡ø, ¸¡§º¡¨Ä À¾¢×ò ¾À¡ø ãÄõ ºõÀÇõ "ÛôÀôÀð¼Ð. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸Ç¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø, "¨Á¾¢Â¡É Ýú¿¢¨Ä ²üÀÎò¾ §ÅñÊÔûÇÐ. "¾É¡ø ÁðΧÁ ¯ò¾ÃÅ¡¾õ §¸¡ÃôÀ𼧾 ¾Å¢Ã À½¢ ÁÚì¸ôÀ¼ Å¢ø¨Ä. ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ±ó¾Å¢¾Á¡É ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸Ç¢Öõ ®ÎÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä. þõÁÛÅ¢üÌ ãÄ측ýõ ±Ð×õ þø¨Ä, þõÁÛ ¾ûÙÀÊ ¦ºöÂôÀ¼ §ÅñÎõ.

31. þõÁÛÅ¢ø ¾£÷×ìÌ ±Øõ ±ØŢɡì¸û:

ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ I. þÄ츢¡ ±ýÀÅ÷ Á.º¡.1¬¸ ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ 29/2012ø Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀðÎ, Á.º¡.¬.1 Ó¾ø 74 ¬Å½í¸Ç¡¸ ÌȢ£Π¦ºöÂôÀð¼Ð. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ V. ÅûÇ¢ ±ýÀÅ÷ Á.º¡.1¬¸ ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ 30/2012ø Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼¡÷. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ S. ¿¾¢Â¡ ±ýÀÅ÷ Á.º¡.1¬¸ ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ 31/2012ø Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼¡÷. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ A. Å¢ƒÂý ±ýÀÅ÷ Á.º¡.1¬¸ ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ 32/2012ø Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼¡÷. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ S. ÅɃ¡ ± ý À Å ÷ Á.º¡.1¬¸ ¦¾¡.¾. ±ñ 33/2012ø Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼¡÷. þó¾ 5 ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¢ý ÜüÚõ ´§Ã ºí¸¾¢¸¨Çì ÌȢ츢ýÈÉ. ¬¾Ä¡ø, þó¾ 5 ÁÛì¸Ùõ Ü𼡸 Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼Ð, ÁüÚõ ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ 29, 30, 31, 32 ÁüÚõ 33/2012ø E. Íó¾Ãã÷ò¾¢ ±ýÀÅ÷, Á.º¡.2¬¸ Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼¡÷.

±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø, ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ 29, 30, 31, 32 Á ü Ú õ 3 3 / 2 0 1 2 ø ± ¾ ¢ ÷ Á Û ¾ ¡ à ÷ ¿ ¢ ÷ Å ¡ ¸ ò ¾ ¢ ý , P. ºì¾¢§Åø ±ýÀÅ÷ ±.Á.º¡.1¬¸ Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀðÎ, ±.º¡.¬1 Ó¾ø 42 ¬Å½í¸Ç¡¸ ÌȢ£Π¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ. M. À¡Ä¡ƒ¢ ±ýÀÅ÷ ±.Á.º¡.2 ¬¸ Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀðÎ, ±.º¡.¬.43 Ó¾ø 55 ¬Å½í¸Ç¡¸ ÌȢ£Π¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ. S. ¸¢Õ‰½ý ±ýÀÅ÷ ±.Á.º¡.3 ¬¸×õ, L. ͸ý¡ ±ýÀÅ÷ ±.Á.º¡.4 ¬¸×õ, P. ¬ñ¼¡û ±ýÀÅ÷ ±.Á.º¡.5 ¬¸×õ Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼¡÷¸û.

þó¾ ³óÐ ÁÛ츨ÇÔõ Ü𼡸 Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¦ºö§ÅñÊ 13-3-2013 "ýÚ þÕ¾ÃôÒ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷¸Ç¢ý ºõÁ¾ò¾¢ý §À¡¢ø ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÂôÀð¼ ÜðÎì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¨½ À¾¢× ¦ºöÂôÀðÎ ¦À¡Ðò¾£÷Åõ ÅÆí¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ.

±ØŢɡì¸û:

(1) þõÁÛì¸û ²ü¸ò¾ì¸Ð ¾¡É¡?

(2) ±ôÀ¡¢¸¡Ãõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸ÙìÌì ¸¢¨¼ìÌõ?

32. ±ØŢɡì¸û 1 ÁüÚõ 2:

ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸ÙìÌ Á£ñÎõ À½¢ò¦¾¡¼÷ ÁüÚõ ÓØ ºõÀÇòмý, þ¾Ã ºÖ¨¸¸Ù¼ý À½¢ ÅÆí¸ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚõ, ÒÐ¡¢ "ú¢ý ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û º¡÷ó¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸¢¨ÂÔõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Ä ºð¼í¸Ç¢ý ÀÊ ¾ñÊì¸ §ÅñÎõ ±Éì §¸¡¡¢ þõÁÛì¸¨Ç ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐûÇÉ÷. þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÁìÌì ¸¢¨¼ì¸ §ÅñÊ ¯¡¢¨Á¸Ù측¸ 2011 Ó¾ø Àø§ÅÚ §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç "Ç¢òÐ "¾ý §À¡¢ø3 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1125 ¾ì¸ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Î측¾¾¡ø ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Ä "ÖÅÄ¡¢¼Óõ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ØôÀ¢Â¾¢ý §À¡¢ø §¸¡Àõ ¦¸¡ñ¼ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸¨Ç ±ùÅ¢¾ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ÔÁ¢ýÈ¢ ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈðθ¨Çî ÍÁò¾¢ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾¾¡¸×õ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûǾ¡Ìõ. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ´ù¦Å¡Õ ÁÛì¸Ç¢Öõ Á.º¡.1 ÁüÚõ Á.º¡.2 ¬¸¢§Â¡÷ Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀðÎ Á.º¡.¬.1 Ó¾ø Á.º¡.¬.74 ŨÃÂ¡É Å½í¸û ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ±.Á.º¡.1 Ó¾ø ±.Á.º¡.5 ¬¸¢§Â¡÷ Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀðÎ ±.º¡.¬.1 Ó¾ø ±.º¡.¬.55 ŨÃÂ¡É ¬Å½í¸û ÌȢ£Π¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ.

12-9-2011 Ó¾ø ºð¼ Å¢§Ã¡¾ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀð¼¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, "¾É¡ø ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ¡¢¼õ 11-10-2011 §¾¾¢Â¢ð¼ ¸Ê¾õ ¾ÃôÀð¼Ð ±ýÚõ ºõÀÇõ ¾í¸ÙìÌ ¦ºô¼õÀ÷ 2011ìÌ ¾ÃÅ¢ø¨Ä ±É Ò¸¡÷ ¦¸¡Îò¾¢Õó¾¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ¬É¡ø 1-9-2011 Ó¾ø 11-9-2011 Ũà ÁðΧÁ "Å÷¸û ºõÀÇõ ¦ÀÈ ¯¡¢ÂÅ÷¸û ±ýÚõ "¾ý À¢ÈÌ ¯¡¢Â ¿¡ð¸ÙìÌ "Å÷¸û ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸Ç¢ø ®ÎÀðÊÕó¾¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ¡¢¼õ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕó¾§À¡Ð 11-11-2011 "ýÚ Á£ñÎõ À½¢ìÌ Åà ºõÁ¾¢ò¾¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ¬É¡ø Á£ñÎõ ´Õ À¢¡¢Å¢É÷ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡¸×õ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷.

35. §ÁÖõ, "Å÷ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¨¸Â¢ø, ÅÍó¾Ã¡§¾Å¢ ±ý¸¢È ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ ¾ý Á£Ð ¦À¡öÂ¡É Ò¸¡÷¸¨Ç, ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä §ÁÄ¡Ç÷¸û ¦¸¡ÎòÐ, ¾ý¨É ÀÆ¢ Å¡íÌž¡¸ ÜȢ¾¡ø, "ÅÕìÌ Ò¾¢Â À½¢Â¢¼ò¨¾ "Ç¢ì¸ ¦ºý¨ÉìÌ Á¡üÈõ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼¡÷ ±ýÚõ, ¬É¡ø ¾ÉÐ Á¡Ú¾¨Ä ±¾¢÷òÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ "ÖÅÄ÷¸Ç¢¼õ "Å÷ ÁÛ "Ç¢ò¾¡÷ ±ýÚõ, "Ð ÀüȢ Ţº¡Ã¨½Â¢ø ºÁú ÓÈ¢× ²üÀ𼾡¸×õ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ø ´Õ À¢¡¢Å¢É÷ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Ä ºð¼í¸¨Ç Á£È¢ 2-3-2012 Ó¾ø ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼧾¡Î ¾ýÛ¼ý À½¢Ò¡¢Ôõ ÁüÈ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸¨Çò ¾Ãį̀ÈÅ¡¸ô §Àº¢Ôõ, ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºöÔÁ¡Ú Á¢ÃðÊ Åó¾É÷ ±Éì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷.

36. §ÁÖõ, ¾¢ÕÁ¾¢ ¬ñ¼¡û ±ýÈ Ð¨½ ¯¾Å¢ ¾Ãì¸ðÎôÀ¡ðÎ §ÁġǨÃò ¾Ãį̀ÈÅ¡É Å¡÷ò¨¾¸Ç¡ø §Àº¢Â¾¡¸×õ, "Ũà Á¢Ãðʾ¡¸×õ, ¾¢ÕÁ¾¢ ¬ñ¼¡û ¦¸¡Îò¾ Ò¸¡÷ §ÁðÎôÀ¡¨ÇÂõ ¸¡Åø ШÈ¢ø À¾¢× ¦ºöÂôÀ𼾡¸ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷. §ÁÖõ, §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀðÊÕó¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û À½¢ ¦ºöÔõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Çô À½¢ ¦ºö Ţ¼¡ÁÖõ ÁüÚõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¢ø "¨Á¾¢Â¢øÄ¡ ¿¢¨Ä ²üÀÎò¾¢Â¾¡¸×õ, §ÁÖõ, ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¡ø ¯üÀò¾¢ Á¢¸×õ À¡¾¢ì¸ôÀ𼾡¸×õ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÊÕó¾¡÷.

33. ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ 29/2012-ø ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ þÄ츢¡ ±ýÀÅ÷ Á.º¡.1 ¬¸ º¡ðº¢Âõ "Ç¢ò¾¡÷. ¾¡Ûõ ÁüÈ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ùõ ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷× ÁüÚõ À½¢ ¿¢Àó¾¨É¸û ¦¾¡¼÷À¡É §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Çò ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ãÄõ 18-8-2011ø ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢¼õ "Ç¢òÐõ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Î측¾¾¡ø ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÓýÒ ÁÛ ¦¸¡ÎòÐ ¾¡Å¡ ¦¾¡Îò¾¾¡¸×õ 2766/2011¬¸ À¾¢× ¦ºöÂôÀðÎ ºÁú §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾ ¿¨¼¦ÀüȾ¡¸×õ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ ²üÀÎò¾ ÓÂüº¢ìÌõ §À¡Ð ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ Àø§ÅÚ þ¨¼äÚ¸¨Ç ²üÀÎò¾¢Â¾¡¸×õ À¢ýÉ÷ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ô À¾¢× ¦ºö¾¾¡¸×õ, À¾¢× ¦ºö¾ ºí¸ò¨¾ì ¸¨Äì¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¿¢÷Àó¾õ ¦ºö¾¾¡¸×õ, ±ó¾Å¢¾ "ÊôÀ¨¼ ź¾¢Ôõ ¦ºöÐ ¾Ã¡¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý Á£Ð Àø§ÅÚ Ò¸¡÷¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¬¨½ÂÕìÌõ §ÅÚ Ð¨È¸ÙìÌõ "ÛôÀôÀ𼾡¸×õ, þ¾É¡ø ¬ò¾¢ÃÁ¨¼ó¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ Å¢§Ã¡¾ §À¡ì¨¸ ¸¨¼ôÀ¢ÊòÐ ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈðÎ츨Çî ÍÁò¾¢, 22-5-2012 "ýÚ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ²ÐÁ¢ýÈ¢ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾¾¡¸×õ, ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ºð¼ôÀÊ À¢¡¢× 33ý ÀÊìÌ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¦ºÂøÀ¡Î¸û ºð¼ò¾¢üÌ Óý¡É¨Å ±ýÚõ Á.º¡.1 ¾ÉÐ À¢ÃÁ¡½ Àò¾¢Ãò¾¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷. ¦¾¡.¾.29/2012ø ÁÛ¾¡ÃḢ I. þÄ츢¡ ±ýÀÅ÷ ÜÚõ Üü¨È "ôÀʧ ÁüÈ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¡É V. ÅûÇ¢, S. ¿¾¢Â¡, A. Å¢ƒÂý, S. ÅɃ¡ ¬¸¢§Â¡Õõ ²üÚ즸¡ñÎûÇÉ÷. §ÁÖõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦ºÂÄ÷ Á.º¡.2 ¬¸ Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼¾¢ø, þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ 5 §ÀÕõ ¾í¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾î º¡÷ó¾Å÷¸û ±ýÚõ ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷× ÁüÚõ "ÊôÀ¨¼ ź¾¢¸û §¸¡¡¢ ºð¼ò¾¢üÌ ¯ðÀðÎ §À¡Ã¡Ê Å󾾡¸×õ º¡ðº¢ÂÇ¢ò¾¢Õó¾¡÷.

37. §ÁÖõ, þ±Š³ ÁüÚõ þÀ¢±ô ¬¸¢Â ¿Äò ¾¢ð¼í¸û ¿¨¼Ó¨ÈôÀÎò¾Å¢ø¨Ä, ±É §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦ºö¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ¾ÅÈ¡É Ò¸¡¨Ã "Ç¢ò¾¢Õ󾾡¸×õ, ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡¸ º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ®ÎÀðÎ Å󾾡ø 26-4-2012 §¾¾¢Â¢ð¼ ¸Ê¾ò¾¢ý ãÄõ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ¦ºöÂô §À¡Å¾¡¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬¨½ÂÕìÌ ¸Ê¾õ ±Ø¾¢Â¾¡¸×õ, ¿¢÷Å¡¸ þÂìÌ¿ÕìÌõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌõ þ¨¼§Â ²üÀð¼ ´Õ Üð¼ò¾¢ø ¿¢÷Å¡¸ þÂìÌ¿¨Ã A. Å¢ƒÂý ±ýÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¾¡ì¸¢Â¾¡¸×õ, 11-5-2012 "ýÚ À½¢Â¡ñ¨Á §ÁġǨÃÔõ ÁüÚõ ãò¾ ¯üÀò¾¢ §ÁġǨÃÔõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¢ÖûÇ §ÁÄ¡Ç¡¢ý "¨È¢ø ¨ÅòÐ ¸¡¨Ä 9.30 Á½¢ Ó¾ø Á¡¨Ä 6 Á½¢ Ũà ¿¸ÃÅ¢¼¡Áø "¨¼òÐ ¨Åò¾§¾¡Î, ÀÄ Ó¨È §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾ ¿¼ò¾¢Â À¢È§¸, "Å÷¸û §À¡Ä¢º¢ø Ò¸¡÷ ¦¸¡Îò¾¡ø ¸Îõ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸ìÌ ¬Ç¡¸ §¿¡¢Îõ ±É "îÍÚò¾ôÀðÎ ¦ÅÇ¢§Â Å¢¼ôÀð¼É÷ ±ýÚõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Çò 34. ±.Á¡.º.1 ¾ÉÐ À¢ÃÁ¡½ Àò¾¢Ãò¾¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¨¸Â¢ø, ¾í¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ÁÕòÐÅ ¯À¸Ã½í¸û ¦¾¡¼÷À¡É ž¡É ¿À÷¸û ÀÂýÀÎòÐõ º¡¾Éí¸¨Ç 1997 Ó¾ø ¾Â¡¡¢òÐ ÅÕž¡¸×õ ´Õ ¿¡¨ÇìÌ ¦¾¡¼÷óÐ 6 shift¸Ç¢ø ¾Ä¡ 8 Á½¢ §¿Ãõ §Å¨Ä¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û À½¢ ¦ºöÐ ÅÕž¡¸×õ, 8-8-2011 "ýÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ºð¼ Å¢§Ã¡¾ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¨¾ þ¨¼Â¢¨¼§Â ¦ºö¾¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, 17-8-2011 "ýÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ø ´Õ À¢¡¢Å¢É÷ À½¢ìÌ ÅÃÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ 18-8-2011 "ýÚ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ¡¢¼õ ¦¸¡Îò¾ ÁÛÅ¢ý §À¡¢ø ¿¨¼¦ÀüÈ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ìÌô À¢ÈÌ 25-8-2011 Ó¾ø À½¢ìÌ ÅÕž¡¸ ´ôÒ즸¡ñ¼¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ¬É¡ø1126 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [3 December 2013 àñÊ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ¼ ¦ºö¾ ´Õ À¢¡¢× ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý ¦ºö¨¸ ÅÃõÒ Á£È¢Å¢ð¼Ð ±ýÚõ, À½¢ §¿Ãò¾¢ø À½¢ ¦ºö¡¾ ´Õ À¢¡¢× ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û À¡ðθû À¡Ê즸¡ñÎõ, §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ¼¡¾Å÷¸¨Ç Á¢ÃðÊ즸¡ñÎõ, ÌõÀÄ¡¸ ÅóÐ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸¨Ç À½¢ ¦ºö Ţ¼¡Áø ¾Îò¾¨¾, À¡÷ò¾ §ÁüÀ¡÷¨Å¡Ç÷ ÁüÚõ §ÁÄ¡ÇÕõ ÀÂóÐ À½¢ìÌ ÅáÁø þÕó¾É÷ ±ýÚõ, ±í¸û ¯üÀò¾¢ À¡¾¢ì¸ôÀð¼Ð ±ýÚõ, þîÝú¿¢¨Ä¢ø 15-5-2012ø ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼Ð ±ýÚõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÊÕó¾¡÷.

It is relevant that section 3 of the standing orders for certification, the Certifying Officer shall forward a copy thereof to the trade unions and to hear the trade unions in the certification proceedings. Thus, the trade union is given a right to be heard, while framing the conditions of service of the workmen. While submitting draft standing orders, section 3 of the Standing Orders Act contemplates that the draft standing orders shall be in conformity with the model standing orders. Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that it is the duty of the Certifying Officer to adjudicate on reasonableness of the provisions of the standing orders. Hence, while certifying any standing orders, the Certifying Officer, taking into account the above principles, should ensure that the workman is given assistance by the office bearer of the trade union in the domestic enquiry, to which the workman is a member….

Supreme Court of India M/s. Lokmat Newspapers

PVT. Ltd., - Vs. - Shankarprasad. Date of

Judgment: 19-7-1999.

38. §ÁÖõ, þò¾Ì Ýú¿¢¨Ä¡ø, 5 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ À½¢ ¿£ì¸ ¯ò¾Ã× 22-5-2012 "ýÚ ÅÆí¸ôÀ𼾡¸×õ, §ÁÖõ º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡¸ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ¼ Á¡ð§¼¡õ ±É ¯ò¾ÃÅ¡¾õ ¾Ã ÁÚòÐ, À½¢ ÁÚì¸ôÀ𼾡¸, ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ Óý ÁÛ ¦¸¡Îò¾¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, þùÅ¢„Âí¸¨Ç Á¨ÈòÐ þõÁÛ ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÂôÀ𼾡¸ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý ÁüÈ º¡ðº¢¸Ç¡É ±.Á.º¡.2 Ó¾ø ±.Á.º¡.5 ¬¸¢§Â¡Õõ ±.Á¡.º¡.1 ý Üü¨È "Ûº¡¢òÐ ¿¢÷Å¡¸òÐìÌ º¡¾¸Á¡¸ º¡ðº¢ÂÇ¢ò¾É÷.

39. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ "Ȣš÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ Å¡¾¢Î¨¸Â¢ø ÍÁ¡÷ 15 ÅÕ¼í¸ÙìÌ §ÁÄ¡¸ À½¢Ò¡¢Ôõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ §À¡¾¢Â ºõÀÇõ "Ç¢ì¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ "¾É¡ø ¾í¸û §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ 26-3-2012ø ¬ÃõÀ¢ì¸ôÀ𼾡¸×õ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ãÄÁ¡¸ Àø§ÅÚ §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌõ ÁüÚõ "ÃÍ Ð¨È "¾¢¸¡¡¢¸ÙìÌõ Óý ¨Åò¾¾¡¸×õ, ¤É¿¡Â¸ ӨȢø ¾í¸û §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç Óý¨ÅìÌõ §À¡Ð þ¨¾ ¦À¡ÚòÐì ¦¸¡ûÇ¡¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û Á£Ð ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈðθ¨Çî ÍÁò¾¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ô À¢¡¢ì¸ "øÄÐ ¯¨¼ì¸ ÀÄ Ó¨È¸¨Çì ¨¸Â¡ñ¼¾¡¸×õ, ¬É¡Öõ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ±ýÈ ¦À¡¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¨Â ãÊ À½ò¾¡¨ºì ¸¡ðÊ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠦾¡¨¸¨Â ¦¸¡Îì¸ ÓÂüº¢ò¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ ¦ºÂÖõ ±ÎÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ Àø§ÅÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú¸û ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ §À¡Ð Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ýÈ¢ 5 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç À ½ ¢ ¿ £ ì ¸ õ ¦ º ö ¾ Ð º ¡ ¢  ø Ä ± ý Ú õ § Á Ö õ 7 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡¸ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦ºö¾Ð º¡¢Â¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÒìÌ ¬¾ÃÅ¡¸ ¸£ú¸ñ¼ Óý¾£÷ôÒ¸û ¿¢¨É× ÜÈôÀð¼É.

... It is not in dispute in this case that the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court which was competent to deal with his complaint regarding unfair labour practice, under items 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act. Section 7 of the Act lays down the duties of Labour Court and states as under:- It shall be the duty of the Labour Court to decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices described in item 1 of Schedule IV and to try offences punishable under this Act…. Workmen of Bata India Limited, - Vs. - The Commissioner of Labour and The… ILR 2007 KAR 615. ... Therefore, without holding an enquiry and without providing an opportunity to show cause to the unilateral deduction of pro rata wages from the monthly wages payable to the employees is opposed to the principles of natural justice.

M/s. Chidambaram Shipcare Pvt. Ltd., - Vs. - The

Presiding Officer, Principal Labour, Chennai.

... Whenever, the workmen go on strike, the trade union should issue notice as per the conditions of service and in the case of public utility service, it is a must for issuing notice on strike by the unions. Section 33 of the Act provides protection to the office bearer of the trade union from being victimised by the employer, while disputes are pending adjudication or conciliation. Thus, the scheme of the Act provides a pivotal role for trade unions.

In the absence of terms of settlement, deduction can be made from the wages payable to an employee as specified in section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, Firstly, the provisions of Payment of Wages Act do not apply to the workmen in question since all of them are drawing more than Rs.1,600 as wages per month. Further, section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act do not specify deduction of pro rata wages on the ground of go-slow work. Therefore, in the absence of any provision in the settlement and also any statutory provision, it is not open for the 2nd respondent to deduct wages on pro rata basis on the ground of go-slow work….

40. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ "Ȣš÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ Å¡¾¢Î¨¸Â¢ø, ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ºð¼ôÀÊ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ¦ºöÐûǾ¡¸×õ, ºð¼ôÀÊÂ¡É §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ®ÎÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ì ¸¨Äì¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦ºÂøÀθ¢ÈÐ ±ýÀÐ º¡¢ÂøÄ ±ýÚõ3 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1127 "¨Á¾¢Â¢øÄ¡ Ýú¿¢¨Ä¨Â þó¾ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ²üÀÎò¾¢Â¾¡ø À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ¬¸§Å þõÁÛÅ¢ø §¸¡¡¢Â À¡¢¸¡Ãõ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±ýÚõ ¸£ú¸ñ¼ Óý¾£÷ôÒ¸¨Ç ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷.

Ajay Enterprises Ltd. - Vs. - The Secretary

(Labour) Govt. of NCT of Delhi, The Assistant

Labour Commissioner Govt. of NCT of Delhi and

Hotel Mazdoor Union (Regd), [2007(112)FLR981].

…I consider that while it is the duty of the employer to comply with all the labour laws, give necessary facilities to the employees, it is also obligatory on the employees to work in a manner that the business of the employer runs smoothly. If employees create hindrances in the business of the employer and resort to strike because one of the employees was charge sheeted for misconduct no fault can be found with the employer in asking for an undertaking. If the employees refuse to give an undertaking of good behavior, civilized attitude and not resorting to strike on issuance of charge sheet to one of the employees, the employer can refuse to take back such employees and this cannot be termed as lock-out. Labour unions have no fundamental right to go on strike on all issues. Strike, as a tool has to be used as a last resort for justifiable cause, after exhausting all other avenues of settlement of dispute. Strike cannot be converted into a tool of blackmail or as a shield to protect the erring employees. When the appropriate government was made aware of all facts in writing by the management, it was obliged to make a reference of the dispute as inferred from version of both the parties and not on the basis of one side story…

41. ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ À¾¢× º¡ýÈ¢¾ú Á.º¡.¬.5 ãÄõ 26-3-2012 "ýÚ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ À¾¢× ¦ºöžüÌ ÓýÒõ À¢ýÒõ "ÊôÀ¨¼ §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç Óý ¨Åò¾¾¡¸×õ þ¾¨Éô ¦À¡ÚòÐ즸¡ûÇ¡¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸Ç¢ý §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç ²ü¸ ÁÚòÐ ÀÆ¢ Å¡íÌõ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸¨Ç §Áü¦¸¡ñ¼¾¡¸×õ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ "Ȣš÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷. 21-11-2011 §¾¾¢Â¢ð¼ §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸ ÁÛ Á.º¡.¬.6 ¬Ìõ. þ째¡¡¢ì¨¸¨Â ²ü¸¡¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ 15-5-2012 "ýÚ Á.º¡.¬.7 Ä¡ì-"×𠧿¡ðËŠ ¦¸¡Îò¾À¢ýÉ÷ 30-5-2012 "ýÚ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ¡¢¼õ Ò¸¡÷ "Ç¢ì¸ôÀ𼾡¸×õ "¾ý §À¡¢ø þÕ¾Ãô¨ÀÔõ "¨ÆòРŢº¡¡¢ò¾É÷ ±ýÚõ, þò¾Ì ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸¨Çô ¦À¡ÚòÐ즸¡ûÇ¡Áø ¦¾¡Æ¢ü ºí¸ò¾¢ø ¦ºÂøÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç þ¼Á¡üÈõ ¦ºöÐõ ÁüÚõ Ð¨È Á¡üÈõ ¦ºöÐõ ÁüÚõ ¾ü¸¡Ä¢¸ À½¢ Á¡üÈõ ¦ºöÐõ ÁüÚõ ¿¢Ãó¾Ã À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÐõ, §À¡Ä¢…¢ø º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û Á£Ð Ò¸¡÷ ¦ºö ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±ÎòÐõ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÀÆ¢ Å¡í¸¢Â¾ü¸¡É ¬¾¡Ãõ Á.º¡.9 Ó¾ø Á.º¡.66 ŨáÌõ ±É×õ, §ÁÖõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÐ.

42. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ ÁüÚõ "ÊôÀ¨¼ ź¾¢ ¦ºöÐ ¾Ã¡ÁÖõ ÁüÚõ ̨Èó¾À𺠰¾¢Âõ "Ç¢ì¸ §ÅñÊ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ "Ç¢ò¾ Ò¸¡÷ ÁüÚõ "òÐ¨È "ÖÅÄ÷¸Ù¼ý ²üÀÎò¾¢ì¦¸¡ñ¼ ¸Ê¾ §À¡ìÌÅÃòÐì¸û Á.º¡.¬.67 Ó¾ø Á.º¡.¬.74 Ũà ¸ñÎûÇÐ. §ÁüÀÊ ¬Å½í¸û ãÄõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ Å¢§Ã¡¾ §À¡ì¨¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¸¨¼ôÀ¢ÊòÐ Åó¾Ð ¦¾¡¢Â ÅÕž¡¸×õ, þ¾¨É ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û §¸ûÅ¢ ±ØôÀ¢Â¾ý Å¢¨ÇÅ¡¸ À½¢ ÁÚì¸ôÀ𼾡¸×õ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ±ÎòШÃì¸ôÀð¼Ð.

43. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ "Ȣš÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ Å¡¾¢Î¨¸Â¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ø ´Õ À¢¡¢Å¢É÷ À½¢ §¿Ãò¾¢ø À½¢ ¦ºö¡Áø ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡¸ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦ºö¾¾¡¸×õ, §ÁÖõ, À½¢ ¦ºöÐ ¦¸¡ñÊÕó¾ À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸¨Ç À½¢ ¦ºöÂÅ¢¼¡Áø ¾Îò¾¾¡¸×õ, þÐ ÀüÈ¢ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÓýÉ¡ø §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾ ÀÄ Ó¨È ¿¨¼¦ÀüÈÐ ±ýÚõ ¬É¡Öõ ¦¾¡¼÷óÐ ´Õ À¢¡¢Å¢É÷ ºð¼ò¾¢üÌ ÒÈõÀ¡É ¦ºÂø¸Ç¢ø ®ÎÀðÎ Å󾾡ø, þÉ¢ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ¼Á¡ð§¼¡õ ±É ¯ò¾¢ÃÅ¡¾õ ±Ø¾¢ì¦¸¡Îò¾¡ø À½¢ìÌ ²üÚ즸¡û¸¢§È¡õ ±É ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÐ ±ýÚõ ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ÜÚÅÐ §À¡Ä ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û "ò¾Ì ¯ò¾¢ÃÅ¡¾ò¨¾ ±Ø¾¢ì¦¸¡Îì¸ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Äîºð¼í¸Ç¢ø þ¼Á¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ "ò¾Ì under taking ±Ø¾¢ ¾ÕÅÐ ±É ¾ÃôÀ¢É¡¢¨¼§Â ´ôÀó¾õ þø¨Ä ±ýÚõ "í¹Éõ ±Ø¾¢ò ¾Õž¡¸ ´ôÒì ¦¸¡ûÇÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷.

44. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ 11-10-2011ø ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ìÌ ±Ø¾¢Â ±.º¡.¬.2 ¸Ê¾ò¾¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Îõ§À¡Ð ¯í¸Ç¢ý ÓýÒ ¿¼ó¾ §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾Â¢ø ´ôÒì ¦¸¡ñ¼ ÀÊ åÀ¡ö. 400 ¿¢Å¡Ã½õ "Ç¢ì¸ ´ôÒì ¦¸¡ñÎ À½¢ìÌ ÅÕž¡¸ "Å÷¸û ¨¸¦ÂØò¾¢ð¼ À¢ýÉÕõ, À½¢ìÌ ÅÃÅ¢ø¨Ä. §ÁÖõ, 8-8-2011 Ó¾ø §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀðÎûÇÉ÷. 2¬õ Ó¨ÈÔõ ¿£í¸û "Ç¢ò¾ ¯ò¾Ã¨Å Á¾¢ì¸Å¢ø¨Ä" ±Éì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇÐ. ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ Óý 24-8-2012 "ýÚ ¿¼ó¾ ¦¾¡.¾¡. ±ñ 1762/2011 (±.º¡.3) §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾Â¢ý §À¡Ð ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡ÇÕõ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ÉÕõ §Àº¢ ÓÊ× ¦ºö¾¾ý "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø, 25-8-2011 Ó¾ø À½¢ìÌ ¦ºøž¡¸ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ´ôÒ즸¡ñ¼¾¡¸×õ, þÉ¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ºð¼ò¨¾ Á£È¡Áø, ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ Ũà ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û §Å¨ÄìÌî ¦ºøÄ "È¢×Úò¾ô À𼾡¸×õ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ¾ÉÐ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ø ±Ø¾¢ÔûǾ¡¸ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇÐ.

45. §ÁÖõ, þó¾ò ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡È¢ø ¦¾¡¼÷óÐ 2-2-2012 Ũà ÀÄ §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾¸û ¿¨¼¦ÀüȾ¢ø §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦ºöÐ Åó¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ±ó¾Å¢¾ ¿¢Àó¾¨ÉÔÁ¢ýÈ¢ 10-11-2011 Ó¾ø À½¢ìÌ ÅÕž¡¸ ´ôÒ즸¡ñ¼¾¡¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÜȢ¾¡¸ 12-12-2011 "ýÚ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ø ¯ûÇÐ. ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷× ÀüÈ¢ §ÀîÍ Å¡÷ò¨¾Â¢ø Óý§ÉüÈõ þøÄ¡¾¾¡ø ¯ûÇ¢ÕôÒ §À¡Ã¡ð¼õ 19-8-2011 Ó¾ø1128 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [3 December 2013 ¿¼ò¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ ÓÊ× ¦ºö¾¾¡¸×õ, §ÁÖõ, 2-2-2012 "ýÚ ¾ÃôÀ¢É÷¸ÙìÌû ÍÓ¸Á¡¸ §Àº¢ ¾£÷× ¸¡½ôÀð¼¾¢ø ¾¸Ã¡Ú ÓÊ×ìÌ Å󾾡¸ ±.º¡.¬.3 ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ Óý ÓÊì¸ôÀð¼Ð.

46. ÅÍó¾Ã¡§¾Å¢ ±ýÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Ä "¾¢¸¡¡¢ìÌ ±Ø¾¢Â ±.º¡.¬.5 ¸Ê¾ò¾¢ø ¾ý¨É þò¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¢ĢÕóÐ ¦ÅÇ¢§ÂüÈ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ Àø§ÅÚ þ¨¼RÚ¸û ¦ºöž¡¸×õ, ¾¡ý ´Õ ¦Àñ¨½ ¾¢ðʾ¡¸×õ "¾É¡ø "ó¾ Å¢ƒÂÄðÍÁ¢ ±ýÈ ¦Àñ ¾ü¦¸¡¨Ä ¦ºöЦ¸¡ûÇô§À¡Å¾¡¸ ¬ñ¼¡û ±ýÈ §ÁüÀ¡÷¨Å¡Ç÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ Ò¸¡÷ ¦¸¡ÎòÐûǾ¡¸×õ, "ò¾Ì ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸û ÀÆ¢ Å¡íÌõ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¡Ìõ ±É×õ "¾¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇÐ. "¾ý À¢ÈÌ ±.º¡.¬.6 ¸Ê¾ò¾¢ø, ÅÍó¾Ã¡§¾Å¢ "Å÷¸Ç¢ý ¿Äý ¸Õ¾¢ ¦ºý¨É ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨ÄìÌ "Å÷ þ¼Á¡üÈõ ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûǾ¡¸ ¸ñÊÕ츢ÈÐ. þ¾ý ¦¾¡¼÷À¡¸ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸ ¾¡Å¡ 2766/2011ýÀÊ ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ §À¡Ð ¾ý¨É À½¢ Á¡üÈõ ¦ºö¾Ð º¡¢ÂøÄ ±ýÚ ÅÍó¾Ã¡§¾Å¢ "Ç¢ò¾ Ò¸¡÷ Á.º¡.¬.7 ¬Ìõ.

47. 3-3-2012 "ýÚ 7 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý Å¢§Ã¡¾ô §À¡ì¨¸ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼ Ò¸¡÷ ¸Ê¾í¸û ±.º¡.¬.9 ¬Ìõ. þì¸Ê¾í¸Ç¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ÁïÍÇ¡, ®ŠÅ¡¢, À¢. ºò¾¢ÂÅ¡½¢, À¢. º¡ó¾¢, ±Š. º¡ó¾¢, Ê. ºÃÍ, ÁüÚõ Ô. ¿Å¿£¾õÁ¡û ¬¸¢§Â¡÷¸û À½¢ §¿Ãò¾¢ø À½¢Â¢ø "ì¸¨È ¦ºÖò¾¡Áø À½¢ ¦ºöÔõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸¨Ç ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºöÔõ ÀÊ àñÊÔõ, Á¢ÃðÊÔõ, "ÕÅÕì¸ò¾ì¸ Å¡÷ò¨¾¸Ç¡ø ¾¢ðÊÔõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷¸û. ¯üÀò¾¢ ̨ÈòÐ þÆôÒ ²üÀÎòÐõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀÎÅ÷ ±É "ȢŢôÒ ÀĨ¸Â¢ø ¸ñ¼ 3-3-2012 §¾¾¢Â¢ð¼ ¸Ê¾ ¿¸ø ±.º¡.¬.10 ¬Ìõ. ¾Ãì¸ðÎôÀ¡ðΠШ½ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷ ¬ñ¼¡û ±ýÀÅ÷ 3-3-2012 "ýÚ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ "Ç¢ò¾ Ò¸¡÷ ÁüÚõ "¾ý "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø "Ç¢ì¸ôÀð¼ Ò¸¡¡¢ý ¿¸ø ±.º¡.¬.11 ¬Ìõ.

48. ºò¾¢ÂÅ¡½¢ Ó¾ø ¿Å¿£¾õÁ¡û ŨÃÂ¡É 7 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Çò ¾ü¸¡Ä¢¸ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀ¼ô §À¡Å¾¡¸ ´ð¼ôÀð¼ "ȢŢôÀ¢ý ¿¸ø ±.º¡.¬.12 ±É×õ, 2-3-2012 Ó¾ø ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºöÐ ÅÕž¡ø ¯üÀò¾¢ ̨ÈóÐ §À¡É¾¡¸×õ, þÂø ¦¾¡¼÷ó¾¡ø ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Îì¸ôÀÎõ ±É ±.º¡.¬.13 ãÄõ "ȢŢôÒ ÀĨ¸Â¢ø 7-3-2012ø ´ð¼ôÀ𼾡¸ ¸ñÊÕ츢ÈÐ. ¯üÀò¾¢ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷ ¸¢Õ‰½ý ±ýÀÅ÷ 14-3-2012 "ýÚ À½¢Â¡ñ¨Á §ÁÄ¡ÇÕìÌ "Ç¢ò¾ ±.º¡.14 ¸Ê¾ò¾¢ø, Ó¾ø shiftø ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºö¾¾¡¸×õ, §ÁÖõ, ¸¡¨Ä 6 Á½¢ìÌ ¦¾¡¼íÌõ §Å¨Ä¨Â 9 Á½¢ìÌ ¦¾¡¼í¸¢É¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, þ¾¨É §¸ð¼ §À¡Ð "ôÀÊò¾¡ý ¦ºö§Å¡õ ±ýÚõ §ÁÖõ ¾ðÊì §¸ð¼¡ø "Ũà "ÊòРŢÎí¸û ±É ¸ñÎûÇÐ. ºÁú "ÖÅÄÕìÌ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ 14-3-2012 §¾¾¢Â ¸Ê¾ò¾¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ º¡÷ó¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø 2-3-2012 Ó¾ø ®ÎÀðÎûǾ¡ø ¯üÀò¾¢ Å¢¸¢¾¡îº¡Ã "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø ÁðΧÁ ºõÀÇõ ¾ÃôÀÎõ ±ýÚõ §ÁÖõ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ²ü¸É§Å ¿‰¼ò¾¢ø þÂí¸¢ ÅÕž¡¸×õ ±.º¡.¬.15ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÐ.

49. 2-3-2012 Ó¾ø ¯üÀò¾¢¨Â ¦ÁÐÅ¡¸ ¦ºöÂî ¦º¡øÄ¢ ÁüÈÅ÷¸Ùõ "ùÅ¡§È ¦ºöÐ ÅÕ¸¢ýÈÉ÷ ±ýÚõ "¾É¡ø ¯ÁìÌõ ÁüÈÅ÷¸ÙìÌõ Á¡Ú¾ø ¯ò¾Ã× À¢ÈôÀ¢ì¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ ±ýÚ ±.Á¡.º¡.16 ãÄõ Å¢ƒÂý, À¢Ã¸¡‰, ÀÃó¾¡Áý, "ýÀƸý, ºó¾¢Ã§º¸Ãý, ¾Á£Š "¸ÁÐ, ¦Åí¸§¼ºý ¬¸¢Â 8 ¿À÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºöÔõ ¸¡Ã½ò¾¢É¡ø ¯üÀò¾¢ À¢¡¢Å¢Ä¢ÕóÐ ÀáÁ¡¢ôÒ À¢¡¢×ìÌ Á¡Ú¾ø ¦ºöž¡¸ À¢ÈôÀ¢ò¾ 12-3-2012 ÁüÚõ 14-3-2012 §¾¾¢Â¢ð¼ ¯ò¾Ã׸û ±.º¡.¬.16 ¬Ìõ. ¯üÀò¾¢ º¡¢Åà ¾Õ¸¢§È¡õ ±ýÚ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢¼õ ÜȢ¾¢ý §À¡¢ø 19-2-2012ø ÁÚ Á¡Ú¾ø ¦ºöÐ ¯ò¾Ã× À¢ÈôÀ¢ò¾ ¯ò¾Ã× ±.º¡.¬.17 ¬Ìõ.

50. þ±Š³ ºã¸ À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ "ÖÅÄ÷ 27-3-2012 ÁüÚõ 29-3-2012 ¬¸¢Â ¿¡ð¸Ç¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¢ø À¡÷¨Å¢𼾢ø 86 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ þ±Š³ ºÖ¨¸ ÁüÚõ À¢Êò¾í¸û ¯ûÇÐ ±ýÈ ÌÈ¢ôÒ ±.º¡.¬.18 ¬Ìõ. ¾¨Ä¨Á ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬öÅ¡Ç÷ 30-3-2012ø ¬ö× ¦ºöÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ºð¼ôÀÊ ¦ºö¾ "Ȣ쨸 ±.º¡.¬.19 ¬Ìõ. ´Øí¸¡¸ À½¢ ¦ºöÐ ÅÕõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸Ç¢ý º¡÷À¡¸ ÀïºÅ÷½õ Ó¾ø 4 ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û "Ç¢ò¾ ¸Ê¾í¸Ç¢ø ¾í¸¨Ç ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºö º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û àñʾ¡ø ¯üÀò¾¢ ̨Èó¾Ð ±ýÚ ±.º¡.¬.20 ¸Ê¾í¸Ç¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇÉ. º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ÁüÚõ ºð¼ò¾¢üÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É ¦ºÂø¸Ç¢ø ®ÎÀðÎ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨ÄìÌ þÆôÒ ²üÀÎò¾¢ ÅÕž¡¸ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎ 10-4-2012, 17-4-2012 ÁüÚõ 26-4-2012 ¬¸¢Â §¾¾¢¸Ç¢ø ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¬¨½ÂÕìÌ ±Ø¾¢Â ¸Ê¾í¸û ±.º¡.¬. 21 Ó¾ø ±.º¡.¬. 23 ¬Ìõ.

51. 2-3-2012ø º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¾£Â §¿¡ì¸¢ø ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀð¼Ð Ó¾ø 15-5-2012 ¸ñ¸¡½¢ôÀ¡Ç÷¸¨Ç Á¢ÃðÊÂРŨà Àø§ÅÚ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¸Ç¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ ¸¡Ã½ò¾¢É¡ø 15-5-2012 Ó¾ø ¸¡ÄŨèȢýÈ¢ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ¦ºöÂô§À¡Å¾¡¸ ¦ÅǢ¢¼ôÀð¼ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý "ȢŢôÒ ±.º¡.¬. 24 ¬Ìõ. "¾ý ¦¾¡¼÷¡¸ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠧿¡ðËŠ, §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾ò¾¢ø ®ÎÀ¼¡¾ º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸ÙìÌ "Ç¢ì¸ôÀð¼ À½¢ ¿£ì¸ ¯ò¾Ã×, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷¸ÙìÌ "Ç¢ò¾ ¸Ê¾õ ¬¸¢Â¨Å¸û ±.º¡.¬. 25 Ó¾ø ±.º¡.¬. 34 Ũà ¸ñÊÕ츢ýÈÉ. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¸¡ÅøШÈ¢ý À¡Ð¸¡ô¨À ¿¡ÊÂÐ ±.º¡.¬.34 Ó¾ø ±.º¡.¬.42 ¬Ìõ.

52. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø ¯üÀò¾¢ ̨Èó¾¾ü¸¡É ¬¾¡Ãí¸û ±.º¡.¬. 43 Ó¾ø 55 ŨæÂÉ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÉ. §ÁüÀÊ ¬Å½í¸¨Ç §¿¡ìÌõ §À¡Ð ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ ¬Å½í¸Ç¢ø 15-5-2012ø ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ¦ºöÂô §À¡Å¾¡¸ ÜÈôÀÎõ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý "ȢŢôÒìÌ ÓýÉ÷ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸Ç¢ø ´Õ À¢¡¢Å¢ÉÕìÌõ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌõ þ¨¼§Â ÍÓ¸Á¡É ¯È× þøÄ¡Áø þÕó¾Ð, ±ýÀ¨¾ ¿¡õ þíÌ ¸ÅÉ¢ì¸ §ÅñÎõ.

53. ¦¾¡.¾¡. ºð¼õ 5-ÅÐ "ð¼Å¨½Â¢ø, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý Å¢§Ã¡¾ô §À¡ì¨¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸Óõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸Óõ ±ó¾Å¢¾ò¾¢ø ±øÄ¡õ ¨¸Â¡Çìܼ¡Ð ±ýÚ Å¨ÃÂÚì¸ôÀðÎûÇÉ. ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ "¨ÁòÐ ¾í¸Ç¢ý ¯¡¢¨Á측¸ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ºð¼ò¾¢üÌ ¯ðÀðÎ §À¡Ã¡ÎŨ¾ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ºð¼õ "ÛÁ¾¢ì¸¢ÈÐ. ¬É¡ø, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¨¾ ¬Ô¾Á¡¸ ÀÂýÀÎò¾¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ºð¼ò¨¾ Á£È¢ ¦ºÂøÀ¼ì ܼ¡Ð. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¾í¸û "ÊôÀ¨¼ ź¾¢¸û §¸¡¡¢ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢üÌ ÁÛ ¦¸¡ÎôÀÐõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ "¨ÁòÐ ¾í¸û §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸ì¸¡¸ ÓýÉȢŢôÒ ¦ºöÐ §Å¨Ä ¿¢Úò¾õ ¦ºöÅÐõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ ºð¼ò¾¢ø "ÛÁ¾¢ì¸ôÀðÎûÇ ºÃòÐì¸û ¬Ìõ.

54. "ó¾ Ũ¸Â¢ø §À¡¾¢Â ºõÀÇõ, ̨Èó¾ °¾¢Â ÀðÎÅ¡¼¡ ºð¼ôÀÊ "Ç¢ì¸ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚõ À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ "ÊôÀ¨¼ ź¾¢¸û ¦ºöоà §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚõ §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸û ¨Åì¸ôÀð¼¾¢ø "¾¢Õô¾¢ÔüÈ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ÀÆ¢ Å¡íÌõ §¿¡ì¸òмý 15-5-2012 "ýÚ ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ¦ºöÐ À¢ýÉ÷ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¡É þÄ츢¡, ÅûÇ¢, ¿¾¢Â¡, Å¢ƒÂý, ÅɃ¡ ¬¸¢§Â¡÷¸¨Ç ±ó¾Å¢¾ ÓýÉȢŢôÀ¢ýÈ¢, Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ýÈ¢, ¾ýɢ¡¸ ¯ñ¨ÁìÌô ÒÈõÀ¡É ÓüÈ¢Öõ ¦À¡öÂ¡É ÌüÈî º¡ðθ¨Çî ÍÁò¾¢ 22-05-2012 "ýÚ Ó¾ø §Å¨Ä¨ÂÅ¢ðÎ ¿£ì¸¢Å¢ð¼¾¡¸ ¦º¡øÄ¢ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸§Á ´ù¦Å¡Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¸ÙìÌõ ¦ºðÊø¦Áñ𠦺öÐ À½ò¨¾ ÊÁ¡ñð Êáôð ±ÎòÐ "ÛôÀ¢ÔûÇÐ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±ýÀÐ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¢ý Å¡¾Á¡Ìõ.

55. ±.º¡.¬. 3ý ÀÊìÌ 10-12-2011ø ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÓýÉ¡ø ¦¾¡.¾¡.1762/11 ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕó¾¾¢ø, ºõÀÇ ¯Â÷Å¢ø §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾ ¿¨¼¦ÀüÚ ÓÊÅ¢ø Á£ñÎõ À½¢ìÌ ¾¢ÕõÒž¡¸ ¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸õ ¦¾¡¢Å¢òÐûÇÐ. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºö¾ ±.º¡.¬. 8ý ÀÊ ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÓýÉ¡ø À½¢ ¿¢Àó¾¨É¸û ÀüÈ¢ §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾ 18-1-2012 "ýÚ ¬ÃõÀ¢òÐ 27-2-2012 Ũà ¿¨¼¦ÀüÈÐ. §ÁÖõ, 2011 ÁüÚõ 2012 ¸¡Äí¸Ç¢ø ¾ÃôÀ¢É÷¸Ç¢ý þ¨¼§Â ¿¨¼¦ÀüÈ ¸Ê¾ô §À¡ìÌÅÃò¨¾ô À¡÷ìÌõ §À¡Ð ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢É÷ ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡¸×õ "¾É¡ø º¢Ä À¢¡¢Å¢É÷ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Ç ´Õ À¢¡¢Å¢Ä¢ÕóÐ ÁüÈ À¢¡¢×ìÌ Á¡üȢɡ÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦ÀÕì¸õ ̨ÈÅ¡¸ þÕ󾾡ø, "Ð ÀüÈ¢ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌ ±îº¡¢ì¨¸ ¸Ê¾õ "ÛôÀôÀ𼾡¸×õ, º¢Ä ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û À½¢¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀ𼾡¸×õ ¬Å½í¸û ¸ñÎûÇÉ.

56. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý ãò¾ ¯üÀò¾¢ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¯ûǢ𼠦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ÐÀüÈ¢ þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø º¡ðº¢Âõ "Ç¢òÐûÇ¡÷. ʺõÀ÷ 2011 Ó¾ø Á¡÷î 2-3-2012 ŨÃì¸¡É ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦¾¡¼÷À¡É ¬÷.53 ÁüÚõ ¬÷.54 ¬¸¢ÂÅü¨È ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐ ¯üÀò¾¢ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ±ÎòÐ즸¡ûÙõ ¸¡Ä "Ç׸û þ¾¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷. §ÁÖõ,14-12-2011 Ó¾ø 20-3-2012 ŨÃÂ¡É ¯üÀò¾¢Â¢ý "Ç× ¬÷.55ý ÀÊìÌ ±í¹Éõ ̨ÈóÐûÇÐ ±ýÀ¨¾ ÍðÊ측ñÀ¢ò¾¡÷. þ¨¾ôÀüÈ¢ §¸ûÅ¢ ±ØôÀ¢Â §À¡Ð ±.Á.º¡.1 ºì¾¢§Åø ÁüÚõ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä §ÁġǨÃÔõ, À½¢Â¡ñ¨Á §ÁġǨÃÔõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¯ûÇ¢ð¼Å÷¸û ´÷"¨È¢ø ¨ÅòÐ "¨¼òÐ ÐýÒÚò¾¢É¡÷¸û ±É ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷. §ÁÖõ, ¯üÀò¾¢ À¢¡¢× §ÁÄ¡ÇÃ¡É ±.Á.º¡.2 ÜÚõ §À¡Ðõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¯ûǢ𼠿À÷¸û ¾Ãì¸ðÎôÀ¡ðÎ §ÁÄ¡Ç÷ ±.Á.º¡.5³ ¾Ãì ̨ÈÅ¡É Å¡÷ò¨¾¸Ç¡ø ¾¢ðÊÔõ, ¾ü¦¸¡¨Ä ¦ºöЦ¸¡ûÇ àñÊÉ¡÷ ±É º¡ðº¢Âõ "Ç¢òÐûÇ¡÷. ±.Á.º¡.4 ÜÚõ §À¡Ðõ À½¢ §¿Ãò¾¢ø §ÁÄ¡ñ¨Á þÂìÌ¿Õ¼ý ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ Å¢ƒÂý ¦ÅÈ¢¦¸¡ñÎ ¾¡ì¸ ÓÂüº¢ò¾¡÷ ±É ÜÈ¢ÔûÇ¡÷.

57. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û "¨ÉÅÕõ ÁüÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Ç §Å¨Ä ¦ºö Ţ¼¡Áø ¾ÎòÐ þÕó¾¡÷¸û ±É×õ 9-5-2012 Ó¾ø 14-5-2012 Ũà ¾ÎòÐ Åó¾¡÷¸û ±É ±.Á.º¡.4 ¾ÉÐ º¡ðº¢Âò¾¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûÇ¡÷. ±.Á.º¡.5 ÜÚõ §À¡Ðõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ "¨ÉÅÕõ 2-3-2012 Ó¾ø ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ §À¡Ð þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Ü𼡸 §º÷óЦ¸¡ñÎ ÁüÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Ç À½¢ ¦ºö Ţ¼¡Áø ¾ÎòÐ "¨Á¾¢Â¢øÄ¡ Ýú¿¢¨Ä¨Â ²üÀÎò¾¢É¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ ÜÈ¢ÔûÇ¡÷. ±.Á.º¡.1 Ó¾ø ±.Á.º¡.5 ŨÃÂ¡É º¡ðº¢Âí¸Ç¢ý ÜüÚì¸¨Ç §¿¡ìÌõ§À¡Ðõ þÕ¾ÃôÒ º¡ýÈ¡Å½í¸¨Ç §¿¡ìÌõ§À¡Ðõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡Öõ ÁüÚõ ¯Â÷ "¾¢¸¡¡¢¸Ç¢¼õ ÅÃõÒ Á£È¢ ¿¼ó¾¢Õ츢ȡ÷¸û ±ýÚõ ¦¾¡¢Â ÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ.

58. þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û 5 §ÀÕõ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ø À½¢Ò¡¢óÐ Å󾨾 ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ÁÚì¸Å¢ø¨Ä. ¬É¡ø, 22-5-2012ø þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀð¼Ð ºð¼ôÀÊ ²ü¸ì ÜÊÂо¡É¡? ±ýÀÐ ¬ö× ¦ºö §Åñʾ¡Ìõ. ´Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀ¼ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÈ¡ø "ÅÕìÌ Óý "ȢŢôÒ ¦ºöÐ, ÌüÈðÎ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¨½ ¦¸¡ÎòÐ, "¾ý "ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¼ò¾ôÀðÎ À¢ýÉ÷, À½¢ ÓÊ×ìÌ ¦¸¡ñÎ ÅÃôÀ¼ §ÅñÎõ. þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Å¢„Âò¾¢ø ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢Çì¸õ §¸¡¡¢ 19-4-2012 "ýÚ Å¨ÃÂ¡É "ȢŢôÒ¸û "ÛôÀôÀðÎûǾ¡¸ ¦¾¡¢Å¢ì¸ôÀðÎûÇÐ. ¬É¡ø "¾ý À¢ÈÌ ÌüÈðÎ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¨½ ¾ÃôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä. ´ù¦Å¡Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ìÌõ ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¨¼¦ÀÈÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¾¨É ±.Á¡.º¡.1 ¾ÉÐ À¢ÃÁ¡½ Å¡ìÌãÄò¾¢ø ÜÈ¢ÔûÇ¡÷.

59. 2-3-2012 Ó¾ø 14-5-2012Ũà ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ùõ ÁüÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸Ùõ §º÷óÐ ºð¼ Å¢§Ã¡¾ ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀð¼Ð, ¾¢ðξø, "Êì¸ ÅÕ¾ø, ¬¸¢Â ¦ºÂø¸Ç¢ø "Å÷¸û ®ÎÀð¼¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ±ó¾ì ÌüÈðÎìÌõ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¼ò¾¡Áø, À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö§¾¡õ ±ýÈ¡ø º¡¢¾¡ý ±ýÚõ ÌÚìÌ Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ø ±.Á¡.º¡.1 ´ôÒ즸¡ñÎûÇ¡÷. ±ó¾ ´Õ º¢È¢Â ¾ñ¼¨É ÅÆí¸ §ÅñΦÁýÈ¡Öõ ÌüÈðÎ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¨½ "Ç¢òРŢÇì¸õ ¦ÀüÈ À¢ÈÌ ¯ûÅ¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¼ò¾¢Â À¢È§¸ ´ÕÅÕìÌ ¾ñ¼¨É "Ç¢ì¸ ÓÊÔõ. ¬É¡ø, þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Å¢„Âò¾¢ø ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¦ºöÂôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä.

certified standing order providing for automatic termination of service for absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned leave for more than 8 days. Principles of natural justice apply and any procedure prescribed by law for termination of service must comply with principles - Hence termination of service under standing order without any domestic enquiry or without giving opportunity to employee, held, is violative of principles of natural justice….

2002 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 188 O.K.

Bhardwaj - Vs -.Union of India and Others, dated

4th October,1996

60. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ Å¡¾¢Î¨¸Â¢ø þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø ¯üÀò¾¢ ̨È× ²üÀð¼Ð ±ýÚõ ´Õ ¿¡¨ÇìÌ 38 Ä¡ð Ũà ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦ºö §ÅñÊ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û "¾üÌõ ̨ÈÅ¡¸ ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦ºö¾ §À¡Ð ¿¢÷Å¡¸ þÂìÌ¿¨Ã Å¢ƒÂý ±ýÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ ¾Ãį̀ÈÅ¡É Å¡÷ò¨¾¸Ç¡ø 30-9-2012 "ýÚ §Àº¢ÂÐõ, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û 11-5-2012ø À½¢Â¡ñ¨Á §ÁġǨÃÔõ, ãò¾ ¯üÀò¾¢ §ÁġǨÃÔõ ´Õ ¿¡û ÓØÐõ À¢½Â쨸¾¢ §À¡ø "¨¼òÐ ¨Åò¾Ðõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸Ç¢ý ´Øí¸£Éí¸Ç¡Ìõ ±É ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷. þÐ ÀüÈ¢ Å¢Çì¸õ ±.º¡.¬. 27 ãÄõ, ÅɃ¡ ±ýÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢ìÌ 22-5-2012 ø "ÛôÀôÀ𼾡¸ ¸ñÊÕ츢ÈÐ. ±.º¡.¬. 53ø Àì¸õ 165 Ó¾ø 167 Ũà ¯üÀò¾¢ 38 Ä¡ð Ũà ¸ñÊÕó¾Ð ±ýÚõ, ¬É¡ø 5-3-2012 Ó¾ø 23-3-2012 ¬¸¢Â §¾¾¢¸Ç¢ø 20 ÁüÚõ 12 Ä¡ð¸û ÁðΧÁ ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦ºöÂôÀ𼾡¸ ±.º¡.¬.54 Àì¸õ 168 ÁüÚõ 169ø ¸ñÊÕ츢ÈÐ ±ýÚõ, ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀð¼¾ý Å¢¨ÇÅ¡¸ "í¹Éõ 1-3-2012 Ó¾ø ®ÎÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ¦ºö¾ ¯üÀò¾¢ Ä¡ð ±ñ½¢ì¨¸Â¢ø ̨ÈóÐ §À¡É Å¢„Âõ ±.º¡.¬. 53, ±.º¡.¬. 48 ¬¸¢ÂÅüÈ¢ý ãÄõ ¦¾¡¢ÂÅÕž¡¸×õ, ÀÆ¢Å¡í¸¢Â¾¡¸ ÜüÚ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±ýÚõ ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷.

61. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ ¬Å½í¸Ç¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼ À¢Ã¡ºŠ Á¡É¢¼¡¢ý ¡¢ì¸¡÷Î ±.º¡.¬. 43 Ó¾ø ±.º¡.¬. 55 ŨÃÂ¡É ¬Å½í¸¨Ç §¿¡ìÌõ §À¡Ðõ, ÁüÚõ 2-3-2012 Ó¾ø ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¦¾¡¼÷À¡É ¬Å½í¸¨Ç ¬öó¾¾¢ø Á¡÷î Ó¾ø Å¡Ãò¾¢üÌ Óý Ũà ºÃ¡º¡¢Â¡¸ ´Õ ¿À÷ ¾¢Éº¡¢ 38 Ä¡ð¸û ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦ºö¾ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û "¾ýÀ¢ÈÌ, "¾üÌõ ̨ÈÅ¡¸ 12 Ä¡ð ÁüÚõ 20 Ä¡ð ±É ¯üÀò¾¢ ¦ºöÐûÇÉ÷ ±É ¦¾¡¢ÂÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ. §ÁÖõ, þÐ ÀüÈ¢ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ §¸ûÅ¢ ±ØôÀ¢Â¾üÌ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾í¸û À½¢Â¢ø Óý§ÉüÈõ ²üÀÎò¾¢ì¦¸¡ûÇ¡Áø Á¡È¡¸ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ "ÖÅÄ÷¸Ù¼ý ÓÃðÎò¾ÉÁ¡¸×õ ´Øí¸£ÉÁ¡¸×õ ¦ºÂøÀðÎûǾ¡¸ ¦¾¡¢ÂÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ. ¿¢¨Ä¨Á §Á¡ºõ "¨¼Â§Å ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Á£Ð ´ØíÌ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Îì¸ þÂÄÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ "¾É¡ø ±ùÅ¢¾ Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ýÈ¢ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾¾¡¸ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ ±ÎòШÃò¾¡÷.

62. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷, À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöžüÌ ÓýÒ, þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸¨Çô ¦À¡Úò¾Å¨Ã¢ø ÌüÈðÎ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¨½ ¾ÃôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä, ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢º¡Ã¨½Ôõ ¿¼ò¾ôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä. ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Äîºð¼í¸Ç¢ý ÀÊìÌ ´ØíÌ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Î측ÁÖõ §À¡¾¢Â Å¡öôÒ "Ǣ측ÁÖõ º¢È¢Â ¾ñ¼¨É ܼ "Ç¢ì¸ ÓÊ¡Ð. þò¾Õ½ò¾¢ø ¸£Æì¸ñ¼ Óý¾£÷ô¨À ¿¡õ ¸Õò¾¢ø¦¸¡ûÇ §ÅñÎõ.

… Departmental enquiry - Natural justice - Audi alteram partem - Whether could be dispensed with in case of minor penalties - Supreme Court agreeing with High Court's first proposition that withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect is a minor penalty but declining to accept its second proposition that giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee in case of minor penalties is not essential - Opportunity of being heard, held, could not be dispensed with even in case of a minor penalty - Though respondent contending that the compliance with the principles of natural justice was adequate but since High Court not considering the matter from the said angle, matter remitted to High Court for disposal with due regard to the principles of natural justice - Administrative Law - Natural Justice _ Audi alteram partem - Opportunity of being heard, held, essential even in case of minor penalties.

In the Supreme Court of India 1993 - II

L.L.N.575 D.K. Yadav - Vs.- J.M.A. Industries,

Ltd., dated 7th May 1993.

... They must therefore, be in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India which require that action of employer must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive- 63. ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ32/2012ý ÁÛ¾¡ÃÃ¡É Å¢ƒÂý À½¢ ¦ºö¡Áø, ÁüÈ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Ç ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä ¦ºö àñÊÔõ, §ÁÖõ, À½¢ ¦ºöÔõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸¨Ç, À½¢ ¦ºö Ţ¼¡Áø ¾Îò¾¾¡¸×õ "¾É¡ø Á.º¡.¬.16 ¯ò¾Ã× ãÄõ 12-2-2012ø À½¢ Á¡üÈõ ¦ºöÐ ÀáÁ¡¢ôÒ À¢¡¢Å¢ø À½¢ ¦ºö À½¢ò¾¾¡¸ ¸ñÎûÇÐ. 19-4-2012 §¾¾¢Â¢ð¼ Å¢Çì¸õ §¸¡Õõ ¸Ê¾í¸¨Ç Á.º¡.¬. 47, Á.º¡.¬. 50 ÁüÚõ Á.º¡.¬. 52 ¬¸¢Â ¸¡Ã½õ §¸¡Õõ "ȢŢôҸǢý ãÄõ ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ29/2012 ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ þÄ츢¡, ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ30/2012 ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ Å¢. ÅûÇ¢, ¦¾¡.¾.±ñ32/2012 ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ Å¢ƒÂý ¬¸¢§Â¡÷¸ÙìÌ "ÛôÀôÀ𼾡¸ ¸ñÊÕ츢ÈÐ. "ÅüÈ¢ø þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û §Å¨Ä §¿Ãò¾¢ø À½¢ º¡¢Åà ¦ºö¡Áø §¿Ãò¨¾ Å£½ÊòÐõ ÁüÚõ À½¢ ¦ºöÔõ À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸¨Çô À½¢ ¦ºöÂÅ¢¼¡Áø ¾ÎòÐ ¯üÀò¾¢ ̨È×ìÌ ¸¡Ã½Á¡¸ þÕóÐ ÅÕž¡ø ²ý ¯í¸û Á£Ð ´ØíÌ ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Îì¸ìܼ¡Ð ±É §¸¡ÃôÀðÎûÇÐ. þó¾ §¿¡ð˨º ¾Å¢Ã þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Á£Ð ÌüÈðÎ ¬¨½ ŨÉÂô À¼Å¢ø¨Ä. §ÁÖõ, ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¼ò¾ôÀ¼×õ þø¨Ä. ´Õ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¨Âô À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂ3 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1131 §ÅñΦÁýÈ¡ø Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¼ò¾¢ "ùÅ¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ý §À¡Ð À½¢Â¡Ç÷¸ÙìÌô §À¡¾¢Â Å¡öôÒì ¦¸¡ÎòÐ "¾ý À¢È§¸ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀ¼ §ÅñÎõ. þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Å¢„Âò¾¢ø "ò¾Ì ¿¨¼Ó¨È¸û À¢ýÀüÈÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾Ôõ À½¢Â¡ñ¨Á §ÁÄ¡ÇÃ¡É ±.Á.º¡.1 ÌÚìÌ Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ø ´ôÒ즸¡ñÎûÇ¡÷. ¬¸§Å, þÂü¨¸ Å¢¾¢¸Ç¢ý ÀÊ §À¡¾¢Â Å¡öôÒ "Ǣ측Áø ¯ûÐ¨È Å¢º¡Ã¨½Ôõ ¿¼ò¾¡Áø þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸¨Çô À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾Ð ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Äîºð¼í¸¨Ç Á£È¢Â¾¡¸, ¯ûǾ¡¸§Å ¿¡ý ¸Õи¢§Èý.

64. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ ±ÎòШÃ쨸¢ø ¸¾Å¨¼ôÒ ¦ºö¾ À¢ÈÌ, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸¨Ç ±ùÅ¢¾ Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ýÈ¢ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾Ð º¡¢ÂøÄ ±ýÚõ, §ÁÖõ ²ü¸É§Å ºÁú "ÖÅÄ¡¢¼õ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ §À¡Ð þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈ "ÛÁ¾¢ ¦ÀÈ¡Áø À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾Ð ¦¾¡.¾¡. ºð¼õ À¢¡¢× 33(2)(b)-ý ÀÊ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾ À½¢ ¿£ì¸ ¦ºÂÄ¡Ìõ ±ýÚõ, ¬¸§Å þôÀ½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºøÄ¡Ð ±É ¯ò¾ÃÅ¢¼ §ÅñÎõ ±É×õ Å¡¾¢ð¼¡÷.

65. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û, Àø§ÅÚ ´Øí¸£Éí¸Ç¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ ¿¢¨Ä¢ø ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä¢ø "¨Á¾¢ÂüÈ Ýú¿¢¨Ä þÕ󾾡ø, ¯ûÅ¢º¡Ã¨½ ¿¼ò¾ þÂÄÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀÐ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ý ÜüÈ¡Ìõ. þÕ¾ÃôÀ¢É÷¸ÙìÌû ÍÓ¸ ¯È× þø¨Ä ±ýÀ¾üÌ þÕ¾ÃôÒ ¬Å½í¸§Ç º¡ðº¢¸Ç¡¸ ¯ûÇÉ. ÀÄ §¸¡¡¢ì¨¸¸¨Ç ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾¢ ¦¸¡Îò¾ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Á£Ð ¿¼ÅÊ쨸 ±Î측¾¾¡ø, ¦¸¡Îì¸ôÀð¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ì¸û, ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕìÌõ §À¡Ð þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸¨Ç, À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÔõ §À¡Ð ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ Ó¨ÈôÀÊ "ôåÅø ÁۨŠþó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºö¾¢Õì¸ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÒ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ Å¡¾¢ð¼¡÷. §ÁÖõ, ¸£ú¸ñ¼ Óý¾£÷ôÒõ ¸¡ñÀ¢ò¾¡÷.

advance the legislative intent and serve the purpose for which it is made rather than to frustrate it. The proviso to section 33 (2) (b) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute when the relationship between them are already strained. An employer cannot be permitted to use the provision of section 33 (2) (b) to ease out a workman without complying with the conditions contained in the said proviso for any alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with the already pending industrial dispute. The protection afforded to a workman under the said provision cannot be taken away. If it is to be held that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by the employer without complying with the requirements of the said proviso is not void or inoperative, the employer may with impunity discharge or dismiss a workman…

66. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ "Ȣš÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀Ã"÷ Å¡¾¢Î¨¸Â¢ø ÀƢšíÌõ §¿¡ì̼ý ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸¨Ç À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾¾¡¸ ÜÈ¢ÂÐ º¡¢ÂøÄ ±ýÚõ, ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÓýÉ¡ø §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾ ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕó¾ §À¡Ð À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀ𼾡¸×õ, þò¾Ì À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ 33(2)(b)ý ÀÊìÌ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±ýÚõ "ôåÅø ÁÛ ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºöÐ þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø "ÛÁ¾¢ ¦ÀüÈ À¢È§¸ "ò¾Ì À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºøÖõ ±É ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ÜÚõ ÜüÚ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ. ¿¢Ö¨Å¢ø þÕó¾ ºÁú §ÀîÍÅ¡÷ò¨¾ 27-2-2012ø ÓÊ×ìÌ Å󾾡¸×õ ƒ¤ý 4õ §¾¾¢ ºÁú ÓÊÅȢ쨸 "Ç¢ì¸ôÀðÎûǾ¡¸×õ ¬É¡ø À¢¡¢× 12(6)ý ÀÊìÌ 14¿¡ð¸ÙìÌû ºÁú "Ȣ쨸 ºÁú "ÖÅÄ÷ ÓýÉ÷ "Ç¢ì¸ôÀ¼ §ÅñÎõ, "ò¾Ì " È ¢ ì ¨ ¸ ºÁú ÓÈ¢× ²üÀð¼ ¾¢Éò¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ 14 ¿¡ð¸ÙìÌû "Ç¢ì¸ôÀ¼¡¾ §À¡Ð 22-5-2012ø À¢ÈôÀ¢ì¸ôÀð¼ À½¢ ¿£ì¸ ¯ò¾Ã× ²ü¸ò¾ì¸§¾ ±É ¾ÉÐ ÅÆìÌìÌ ¬¾ÃÅ¡¸ ¸£ú¸ñ¼ Óý¾£÷ôÒ¸¨Ç ¸¡ñÀ¢ò¾¡÷.

Rajasthan High Court Alcobex Metals Ltd., - Vs.

State of Rajasthan And Ors. (2004) IIILLJ 886

Raj.

Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd., - Vs. - Shri Jai Singh

and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1183.

...The dispute raised by workmen about validity of retrenchment and unfair labour practice was clearly a dispute exclusively triable by Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act. In respect of dispute about termination of workmen have been conferred individual right to raise the dispute and get it adjudicated under section 10 of the Act. ….

…. It is well settled rule of interpretation that no part of statute shall be construed as unnecessary or superfluous. The proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an employer. He cannot disobey the mandatory provision and then say that the order of discharge or dismissal made in contravention of section 33 (2) (b) is not valid or inoperative. He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The interpretation of statute must be such that it should Labour and Industrial dismissal section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act and sections 22 and 23 of Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act - appellant (company) filed application under section 33 for dismissal of 21 workmen on ground that they participated in go- slow Tribunal observed that participation in go-slow had been established only against one workman permission given to dismiss only one workman also decided that management acted mala fide appeal by special leave observed that evidences established that 15 workmen were guilty of alleged misconduct and of these two were dead, it cannot be said that management's conduct was mala fide when it asked for adjournment of conciliation meeting Tribunals Order modified and permission granted to dismiss 13 workmen….

Bharat Iron Works - Vs. - Bhagubhai Balubhai

Patel and Ors. (1976) 1SCC518.

Labour and Industrial - jurisdictional error - sections 10 and 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - respondents were charged by management - charges denied as false - victimization pleaded by respondents on account of trade activity - order of dismissal passed - management made application under section 33 - Tribunal after recording evidences from both sides refused to grant approval holding view that there was no prima facie case - Tribunal had no jurisdiction to act as court of appeal - jurisdictional error made by Tribunal - Tribunal directed to record appropriate orders and application under section 33 to be approved.

"ôÀ½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±ýÚ ÜÚõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ ÜüÚ þùÅ¢„Âò¾¢ø ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾¡¸ "Ȣ ÓÊÂÅ¢ø¨Ä. ±.º¡.¬.7 ¾Å¢Ã §ÁÖõ 18-6-2012 "ýÚ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÀ¢ø "Ç¢ì¸ôÀð¼ ±.º¡.¬.28 ÁüÚõ 28-6-2012 "ýÚ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÒ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û "Ç¢ò¾ ±.º¡.¬.32ý Ò¸¡¡¢ý §À¡¢ø §ÁÖõ þÕ ¾¡Å¡ì¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ "ÖÅÄ÷¸Ç¢¼õ ¦¾¡¼ÃôÀ𼾡¸×õ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ±ÎòШÃì¸ôÀð¼Ð. ¬É¡ø þó¾ þÕ ¾¡Å¡ì¸Ùõ Á.º¡.1 À½¢ ¿£ì¸ ¯ò¾Ã× ²üÀð¼ ¾¢ÉÁ¡É 22-5-2012 ìÌ À¢ýÉ÷ ²üÀð¼¨Å¸Ç¡Ìõ. ¬¸§Å, 33(2)(b)ý ¸£ú þôÀ½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºøÄ¡Ð ±ýÈ Å¡¾õ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±ýÚ ¿¡ý ÓÊ× ¦ºö¸¢§Èý.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and

Anr. - Vs. - Satya Prakash, 2013(6) SCALE654.

… It could not have passed the order of reinstatement with continuity in service in favour of the respondent on the basis that initially the Appellant had committed a breach of section 33(2)(b) of the Act. It is true that the Appellant had not applied for the necessary approval as required under that section. That is why the complaint was filed by the respondent under section 33A of the Act. That complaint having been filed, it was adjudicated like a reference as required by the statute. The same having been done, and the misconduct having been held to have been proved, now, there is no question to hold that the termination shall still continue to be void and inoperative…

67. ¬Å½í¸¨Ç ¬öó¾¾¢ø 27-2-2012 "ýÚ ÅÍó¾Ã¡§¾Å¢ "Ç¢ò¾ ±.º¡.¬.7 ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¡Å¡ Ò¸¡Ã¡¸ ²üÚ "ý§È ºÁú "¾¢¸¡¡¢Â¡ø Å¢º¡Ã¨½ ¦ºöÐ, ºÁú ÓÈ¢× "ȢŢì¸ôÀðÎ, ¦¾¡¢Å¢ì¸ôÀ𼾡¸ ¦¾¡.¾¡.±ñ 2766/2011ø ºÁú ÓÊ× "Ȣ쨸¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÐ. ¦¾¡.¾¡. À¢¡¢× 12(6)ý ¸£ú ŨÃÂ¨È ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ.

69. §ÁüÀÊ, Óý¾£÷ôÒì¸¨Ç §¿¡ìÌõ §À¡Ð ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ø À½¢ Ò¡¢Ôõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û, ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢ÉÕìÌ þ¨½Â¡¸ ¿¢ýÚ º¡¢ ¿¢¸÷ ºÁÁ¡¸ §ÀÍõ ¿¢¨Ä¢ø þø¨Ä ±ýÚõ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢É¨Ã Å¢¼ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç¢¸û ÀÄÅ£É À¢¡¢¨Å º¡÷ó¾Å÷¸û ±ýÚõ, "¾É¡ø ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Äîºð¼í¸Ç¢ý ÀÄý¸û ÀÄÅ£É À¢¡¢Å¢ÉÕìÌ §À¡ö §ºÃ §ÅñÎõ ±É ¸Õ¾Óʸ¢ÈÐ. þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸¨Ç À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöžüÌ Óý §À¡¾¢Â Å¡öôÒ "Ǣ측Áø À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûǾ¡¸×õ ¦¾¡¢ÂÅÕ¸¢ÈÐ. þò¾Ì Ýú¿¢¨Ä¢ø, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸ÙìÌ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷, ¯¼§É À½¢ÂÇ¢ôÀ¾¢ø À¢Ãîº¨É þÕôÀ¾¡¸ ¿¡ý "È¢ÂÅ¢ø¨Ä. ¬É¡ø, ÅÆìÌ ºí¸¾¢¸¨ÇÔõ Ýú¿¢¨Ä¸¨ÇÔõ, §¿¡ìÌõ §À¡Ð À½¢ò¦¾¡¼÷ "Ç¢ì¸Ä¡õ ±ýÚõ À¢ý ºõÀÇõ 50% ÁðΧÁ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¦ÀÈ ¯¡¢ÂÅ÷¸û ±É ¯ò¾ÃÅ¢¼Ä¡õ ±É×õ ¿¡ý ¸Õи¢§Èý. ÁÛ ºí¸¾¢¸¨Ç §¿¡ìÌõ §À¡Ð, ÁÛÅ¢ø §¸¡¡¢ÔûÇ ÁüÈ À¡¢¸¡Ãí¸¨Çô ¦À¡ÚòÐ ÁÛ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±É ¿¡ý ¸Õи¢§Èý.

ÓÊÅ¢ø, þõÁÛ À̾¢Â¡¸ "ÛÁ¾¢ì¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸õ, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸ÙìÌ Á£ñÎõ À½¢ÂÇ¢ì¸ §ÅñÎõ ±É ¯ò¾ÃÅ¢¼ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. À½¢ò ¦¾¡¼÷ ÁüÚõ þ¾Ã ºÖ¨¸¸¨Ç ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¦ÀÈ ¯¡¢¨ÁÔ¨¼ÂÅ÷¸û ±ýÚõ ¬É¡ø 50% À¢ý ºõÀÇõ ÁðΧÁ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¦ÀÈ ¯¡¢¨ÁÔûÇÅ÷¸û ±É×õ, þ¾É¡ø ¯ò¾ÃÅ¢¼ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ¦ºÄ×ò ¦¾¡¨¸ þø¨Ä.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Duties of

Conciliation Officers S.12(6)

… 12(6) A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government. 68. §ÁüÀÊ À¢¡¢× 12(6) ¸£ú "ÃÍ 14 ¿¡ð¸ÙìÌû "Ȣ쨸¨Â þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø "Ç¢ì¸Å¢ø¨Ä. ±.º¡.¬.7 ÀüȢ "Ȣ쨸¨Â À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºö¾ §¾¾¢Â¡É 22-5-2012ìÌ ÓýÒ þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈòÐìÌ "Ç¢ò¾¾¡ø 33(2)(b)ý ÀÊìÌ À½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ¦ºøÄ¡Ð ±ýÚõ "ôåÅø ÁۨŠ¾¡ì¸ø ¦ºö¡¾¾¡ø ±ýÉ¡ø ¦º¡øÄôÀðÎ, ¾ð¼îºÃ¡ø ¾ð¼îÍ ¦ºöÂôÀðÎ, 2013 ¬õ ñÎ ƒ¤ý Á¡¾õ 27õ ¿¡û "¨ÅÂȢ À¸ÃôÀð¼Ð.

Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š,Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š,Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š,Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š,Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š,

¾¨Ä¨Á ¾¡íÌõ "ÖÅÄ÷,

¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ

————

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 29/2012

Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼ º¡ðº¢¸Ç¢ý ÀðÊÂø. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

Á.º¡.1.- I. þÄ츢¡

Á.º¡.2.- E. Íó¾Ãã÷ò¾¢ (¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦ºÂÄ÷).

±¾¢÷ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

±.Á.º¡.1 - P. ºì¾¢§Åø

±.Á.º¡.2 - M. À¡Ä¡ƒ¢

±.Á.º¡.3 - S. ¸¢Õ‰½ý

±.Á.º¡.4 - L. ͸ý¡

±.Á.º¡.5 - P. ¬ñ¼¡û

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 30/2012

Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼ º¡ðº¢¸Ç¢ý ÀðÊÂø. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

Á.º¡.1.- V. ÅûÇ¢

Á.º¡.2.- E. Íó¾Ãã÷ò¾¢ (¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦ºÂÄ÷).

±¾¢÷ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø:

±.Á.º¡.1 - P. ºì¾¢§Åø

±.Á.º¡.2 - M. À¡Ä¡ƒ¢

±.Á.º¡.3 - S. ¸¢Õ‰½ý

±.Á.º¡.4 - L. ͸ý¡

±.Á.º¡.5 - P. ¬ñ¼¡û

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 31/2012

Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼ º¡ðº¢¸Ç¢ý ÀðÊÂø. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

Á.º¡.1.- S. ¿¾¢Â¡

Á.º¡.2.- E. Íó¾Ãã÷ò¾¢ (¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦ºÂÄ÷).

±¾¢÷ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

±.Á.º¡.1 - P. ºì¾¢§Åø

±.Á.º¡.2 - M. À¡Ä¡ƒ¢

±.Á.º¡.3 - S. ¸¢Õ‰½ý

±.Á.º¡.4 - L. ͸ý¡

±.Á.º¡.5 - P. ¬ñ¼¡û

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 32/2012

Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼ º¡ðº¢¸Ç¢ý ÀðÊÂø. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

Á.º¡.1.- A. Å¢ƒÂý

Á.º¡.2.- E. Íó¾Ãã÷ò¾¢ (¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦ºÂÄ÷).

±¾¢÷ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

±.Á.º¡.1 - P. ºì¾¢§Åø

±.Á.º¡.2 - M. À¡Ä¡ƒ¢

±.Á.º¡.3 - S. ¸¢Õ‰½ý

±.Á.º¡.4 - L. ͸ý¡

±.Á.º¡.5 - P. ¬ñ¼¡û

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 33/2012

Å¢º¡¡¢ì¸ôÀð¼ º¡ðº¢¸Ç¢ý ÀðÊÂø. ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

Á.º¡.1.- S. ÅɃ¡

Á.º¡.2.- E. Íó¾Ãã÷ò¾¢ (¦¾¡Æ¢üºí¸ò¾¢ý ¦ºÂÄ÷).

±¾¢÷ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø :

±.Á.º¡.1 - P. ºì¾¢§Åø

±.Á.º¡.2 - M. À¡Ä¡ƒ¢

±.Á.º¡.3 - S. ¸¢Õ‰½ý

±.Á.º¡.4 - L. ͸ý¡

±.Á.º¡.5 - P. ¬ñ¼¡û

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 29/2012,

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 30/2012,

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 31/2012,

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 32/2012,

¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 33/2012-ø ¦À¡ÐÅ¡¸ ÌȢ¢¼ôÀ𼠬Ží¸Ç¢ý ÀðÊÂø ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø:

±ñ §¾¾¢ ¬Å½ Å¢ÅÃõ Á.º¡.¬.1 22-5-2012 Copy of the dismissal order issued by the respondent to the petitioner.

Á.º¡.¬.2 22-5-2012 Copy of the demand draft issued by the respondent to the petitioner.

Á.º¡.¬.3 18-6-2012 Copy of the petition submitted by the petitioner before the Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Á.º¡.¬.4 5-7-2012 Copy of the enquiry call letter sends by the Labour O f f i c e r ( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) , Puducherry to the petitioner.

Á.º¡.¬.5 2-3-2012 Copy of the trade union

registration certificate.

Á.º¡.¬.6 21-11-2011 Copy of the charter of demands given to the Labour Officer by the plaintiff.

Á.º¡.¬.7 15-5-2012 C o p y o f r e s p o n d e n t management lock-out notice.

Á.º¡.¬.8 15-5-2012 Copy of the complaint under section 25T, 25U and 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour O f f i c e r (C o n c i l i a t i o n ) , Puducherry.

Á.º¡.¬.9 15-5-2012 Copy of the enquiry/ conciliation call letter sends by the Labour Officer, Conciliation, Puducherry.

Á.º¡.¬.10 24-1-2012 Copy of Gomathy dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.11 24-1-2012 Copy of Suganthy dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.12 13-2-2012 Copy of Neelavathy dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.13 18-2-2012 Copy of Vasunthradevi

transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.14 12-3-2012 Copy of Prakash Department

transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.15 12-3-2012 Copy of Anbazhagan Department

transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.16 12-3-2012 Copy of Vijayan Department

transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.17 12-03-2012 Copy of Paranthaman

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.18 14-3-2012 Copy of Sundaramoothy,

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.19 14-3-2012 Copy of Venkatesan

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.20 14-03-2012 Copy of Thamee Ahamed

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.21 14-3-2012 Copy of Chandrasekar

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.22 19-3-2012 Copy of Prakash Department

transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.23 19-3-2012 Copy of Anbazhagan Department

transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.24 19-3-2012 Copy of Vijayan Department

transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.25 19-3-2012 Copy of Paranthaman

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.26 19-3-2012 Copy of Sundaramoothy

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.27 19-3-2012 Copy of Venkatesan

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.28 19-3-2012 Copy of Thamees Ahamed

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.29 19-3-2012 Copy of Chandrasekar

Department transfer order.

Á.º¡.¬.30 5-3-2012 Copy of Navaneethammal

suspend order.

Á.º¡.¬.31 5-3-2012 Copy of Sarasu suspend

order.

Á.º¡.¬.32 5-3-2012 Copy of Easwari suspend

order.

Á.º¡.¬.33 5-3-2012 Copy of S. Shanthi suspend

order.

Á.º¡.¬.34 5-3-2012 Copy of Manjula suspend

order.

Á.º¡.¬.35 5-3-2012 Copy of B. Shanthi suspend

order.

Á.º¡.¬.36 5-3-2012 Copy of Sathyavani suspend

order.

Á.º¡.¬.37 10-11-2011 Copy of respondent

Management Letter.

Á.º¡.¬.38 29-12-2011 Copy of Enquiry/Concilia- tion call letter ID. No. 2766/ 2011 sent by the Labour O f f i c e r (C o n c i l i a t i o n ), Puducherry.

Á.º¡.¬.39 19-4-2012 Copy of Nagappan show

cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.40 19-4-2012 Copy of Radha show cause

notice.

Á.º¡.¬.41 19-4-2012 Copy of Venkatesan show

cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.42 19-4-2012 Copy of Rejina show cause

notice.

Á.º¡.¬.43 19-4-2012 Copy of Deepa show cause

notice.

Á.º¡.¬.44 19-4-2012 Copy of Chandraprakash

show cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.45 19-4-2012 Copy of Anbazhagan show

cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.46 19-4-2012 Copy of Prakash show cause

notice.

Á.º¡.¬.47 19-4-2012 Copy of Ilakiya show cause

notice.

Á.º¡.¬.48 19-4-2012 Copy of Pachaiammal show

cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.49 19-4-2012 Copy of Sundaramoorthy

show cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.50 19-4-2012 Copy of Vally show cause

notice.

Á.º¡.¬.51 19-4-2012 Copy of Chandrasekar show

cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.52 19-4-2012 Copy of Vijayan show cause

notice.

Á.º¡.¬.53 19-04-2012 Copy of Thamees Ahamed

show cause notice.

Á.º¡.¬.54 3-3-2012 Copy of First Information Report, FIR No. 45/12 by SHO, Mettupalayam.

Á.º¡.¬.55 — Copy of salary bills of all employees for the month of March.

Á.º¡.¬.56 14-7-2012 Copy of Navaneethammal

dismissal order.

Á.º¡.¬.57 14-7-2012 Copy of Manjula dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.58 14-7-2012 Copy of Sathiyavani

dismissal order.

Á.º¡.¬.59 14-7-2012 Copy of B. Shanthi dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.60 14-7-2012 Copy of S. Shanthi dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.61 14-7-2012 Copy of Sarasu dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.62 14-7-2012 Copy of Easwari dismissal

order.

Á.º¡.¬.63 15-3-2012 Copy of the Letter No.Py- 2127/CIF2B/A2/2012, issued by the Inspector of Factories to the respondent.

Á.º¡.¬.64 19-3-2012 Copy of the show cause notice issued by the Inspector of Factories to the respondent.

Á.º¡.¬.65 6-6-2012 Copy of letter issued by the Inspector of Factories to the petitioner's union.

Á.º¡.¬.66 11-11-2011 Copy of the order passed by the authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

Á.º¡.¬.67 17-10-2011 Copy of the complaint letter submitted before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by the petitioner's union.

Á.º¡.¬.68 29-9-2011 Copy of complaint letter submitted before the E.S.I. office by the petitioner union.

Á.º¡.¬.69 28-9-2011 Copy of complaint letter given by submitted before the Inspector of Factories by the petitioner's union.

Á.º¡.¬.70 26-12-2011 Copy of the letter submitted by the respondent before the Labour Officer, Conciliation.

Á.º¡.¬.71 21-11-2011 Copy of the letter submitted by the respondent before the Labour Officer, Conciliation.

Á.º¡.¬.72 19-5-2012 Copy of the letter pasted by

the respondent.

Á.º¡.¬.73 23-6-2012 Copy of the letter pasted by

the respondent.

Á.º¡.¬.74 27-5-2013 Copy of the letter pasted by

the respondent.

±¾¢÷ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø:

±ñ §¾¾¢ ¬Å½ Å¢ÅÃõ ±.º¡.¬.1 5-3-2013 Copy of the authorisation

letter by respondent.

±.º¡.¬.2 11-10-2011 Copy of the letter by respondent to Labour Officer (Conciliation).

±.º¡.¬.3 10-11-2011 Copy of the Proceedings before Labour Officer (Conciliation) in I.D. No. 1762/2011.

±.º¡.¬.4 29-11-2011 Copy of the reply by respondent to Payment of Wages Authority.

±.º¡.¬.5 17-2-2012 Copy of the complaint by Vasunthradevi to Labour Welfare Officer.

±.º¡.¬.6 18-2-2012 Copy of the transfer order by respondent to Vasunthradevi.

±.º¡.¬.7 27-2-2012 Copy of the complaint by Vasunthradevi to Labour Officer (Conciliation).

±.º¡.¬.8 — Copy of the Proceedings in

No. 2766/LO(C)AIL/2011.

±.º¡.¬.9 3-3-2012 Copy of the complaint letters (7 Nos.) by non-striking worker to respondent.

±.º¡.¬.10 3-3-2012 Copy of the respondent's notice affixed on notice- board.

±.º¡.¬.11 3-3-2012 Copy of the complaint by M r s . A n d a l a n d F I R i n Cr. No. 45/12.

±.º¡.¬.12 5-3-2012 Copy of the respondent's notice affixed on notice- board.

±.º¡.¬.13 7-3-2012 Copy of the respondent's notice affixed on notice board.

±.º¡.¬.14 14-3-2012 Copy of the letter of the Production Supervisor to respondent to Personnel Manager.

±.º¡.¬.15 14-3-2012 Copy of the letter by respondent to the Labour Commissioner.

±.º¡.¬.16 13-3-2012 Copy of the transfer orders issued by respondent to 7 workers.

±.º¡.¬.17 19-3-2012 Copy of the retransfer orders issued by respondent to said 7 workers.

±.º¡.¬.18 27-3-2012 Copy of the visit note of the

Social Security Officer.

±.º¡.¬.19 30-3-2012 Copy of the reply by respondent to Chief Inspector of Factories.

±.º¡.¬.20 9-4-2012 Copy of the letters (4 Nos.) by non-striking workers to respondent.

±.º¡.¬.21 10-4-2012 Copy of the letter by respondent to Labour Commissioner.

±.º¡.¬.22 17-4-2012 Copy of the letter by respondent to Labour Commissioner.

±.º¡.¬.23 26-4-2012 Copy of the letter by respondent to Labour Commissioner.

±.º¡.¬.24 15-5-2012 Copy of the lock-out notice

by respondent.

±.º¡.¬.25 19-5-2012 Copy of the settlement offer

notice by respondent.

±.º¡.¬.36 17-5-2012 Copy of the letter requesting police protection by the respondent.

±.º¡.¬.37 — Copy of the affidavit and petition in WP. 13736/2012 filed by respondent.

±.º¡.¬.38 23-5-2012 Copy of the order MP. 1/2012

in WP. 13736/2012.

±.º¡.¬.39 25-5-2012 Copy of the letter requesting police protection by the respondents.

±.º¡.¬.40 May 2012 Copy of the photographs depicting police protection to respondent company.

±.º¡.¬.41 31-5-2012 Copy of the notice enclosing affidavit and petition in WP. 14223/2012 dated 28-05-2012 filed by non-striking workers of the respondent company.

±.º¡.¬.42 23-6-2012 Copy of the Order Mp. 1/

2012 in WP.13736/2012. ±.º¡.¬.43 14-12-2011 Process monitoring record ±.º¡.¬.44 6-1-2012 Process monitoring record ±.º¡.¬.45 22-2-2012 Process monitoring record ±.º¡.¬.46 12-12-2011

±.º¡.¬.26 22-5-2012 Copy of the representation by non-striking workers to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Labour Commissioner, Payment of Wages Authority, Inspector of Factories.

±.º¡.¬.27 17-4-2012 Copy of the termination letter by respondent to petitioners.

to

17-12-2011 Shift schedule

2-1-2012

to

±.º¡.¬.28 18-6-2012 Copy of the representation letter by petitioners to Labour Officer (Conciliation). 7-1-2012 During wilful go-slow illegal & strike by petitioners and 20-2-2012 striking workers.

to

26-2-2012

±.º¡.¬.29 — Copy of the Proceedings in No. 1652 to 1656/LOC/ AIL2012.

±.º¡.¬.30 — Copy of the Proceedings in

ID. No.1367/2012. ±.º¡.¬.31 23-6-2012 Copy of the notice by respondent to striking workers.

±.º¡.¬.32 28-6-2012 Copy of the representation by 30 striking workers to the Labour Officer (Conciliation).

±.º¡.¬.33 — Copy of the proceedings in ±.º¡.¬.47 14-12-2011, Shift-wise production -cum-

target sheet.

6-1-2012 During wilful go-slow illegal & strike by petitioners and 22-2-2012 striking workers.

±.º¡.¬.48 4-1-2012, Monthly production details 6-2-2012 for December 2011, January & 2012 and Febuary 2012.

2-3-2012

No. 1817LO(C)/AIL/2012.

±.º¡.¬.34 5-7-2012 Copy of the reply given to representation dated 18-6-2012.

±.º¡.¬.35 3-3-2012 Copy of the police complaint by respondent seeking police protection.

±.º¡.¬.49 2-4-2012 Monthly production details

for March 2012. During wilful go-slow illegal strike by petitioners and striking workers.

±.º¡.¬.50 5-3-2012 Shift schedule

to 10-3-2012 and

19-3-2012 During wilful go-slow illegal

to strike by petitioners and

24-3-2012 striking workers.

±.º¡.¬.51 5-3-2012 Process monitoring record 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,

and shift-wise production- cum- target sheet. During wilful go-slow illegal strike by petitioners and striking workers.

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L., Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Wednesday, the 15th day of May 2013

±.º¡.¬.52 20-3-2012 Process monitoring record and shiftwise production- cum- target sheet. During wilful go-slow illegal strike by petitioners and striking workers.

I.D. No. 3/2011

±.º¡.¬.53 — Stage-wise time study report December 2011, January 2012 and Febuary 2012. During wilful go-slow illegal strike by petitioners and striking workers.

±.º¡.¬.54 — Stage-wise time study report

March 2012. During wilful go-slow illegal strike by petitioners and striking workers.

±.º¡.¬.55 14-12-2011, Comparative study chart of S. Raja, S/o. Soundararajan, Sarkaasimedu, Bahour Commune, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Tea Factory, Rep. by its Factory Manager, Kirumampakkam, Puducherry. . . Respondent 6-1-2012, the first stage of production 22-2-2012, (Rubberise Main) 5-3-2012 and 20-3-2012

Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡ŠÐ. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š, ¾¨Ä¨Á ¾¡íÌõ "ÖÅÄ÷, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿£¾¢ÁýÈõ, ÒÐ¡¢.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY This industrial dispute coming on 29-4-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Thiru P.R. Thiruneelakandan and Mithun, Advocates for the petitioner, Tvl. L. Sathish, N. Krishnamurthy, T. Pravin and V. Veeraragavan, 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

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt. N o . 2 8 / A I L / L ab./ J / 2 0 1 1 , d a t e d 7 - 2 - 2 0 1 1 o f t h e Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz., (G.O. Rt. No. 164/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 7th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an award in I.D. No. 3/2011, dated 15-5-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the Managing Director, M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Tea Factory, Puducherry and its workman Thiru S. Raja, over non-employment has been received;

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru S. Raja, against the management of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited Tea Factory, Puducherry, over non-employment is justified or not?

(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:

that too in her cabin. While sitting in the cabin, he suddenly left the cabin and barged into the shop floor in utter disregard to the instructions o f H.R. Executives to refrain from doing so. In the shop floor, the Production Manager and the other executives were having discussions with the operators of Hassia machine regarding its productivity. The petitioner disrupted the meeting, started using abusive language against the executives and the manager, misbehaved with them and chided the executive by name Sundaram by using filthy language. The petitioner intimidated the said Sundaram by holding him by his shift collar and created an atmosphere of panic and pandemonium. The petitioner disturbed the normal operations of the factory. He was never invited by the management for any discussions as there was no formal meeting with the workers and it was only a discussion with the group of workers working on the machine. The executives immediately lodged a complaint against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was issued an order of suspension pending enquiry on 29-7-2009.

The petitioner was issued a detailed charge sheet on 3-8-2009 and an independent Enquiry Officer was appointed by the respondent on 5-8-2009 and his misconduct was proved in the enquiry. Since the misconduct committed by the petitioner was grave in nature, the respondent had imposed the maximum punishment of dismissal and the petitioner was dismissed on 22-6-2010. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the industrial dispute.

4. In the re-joinder statement, the petitioner has

stated as follows:

The petitioner was a Secretary of Hindustan Lever Limited Tea Workers' Welfare Union. He was informed to attend the meeting on 29-7-2009 as a representative of the trade union by the respondent management through a worker. After getting proper permission, the petitioner went inside the company and went along with H.R. Officer to the said meeting spot. In the said meeting, the T.P.M. Officer Mr. Sundaram compelled all the workers to increase the Hassia machine production and threatened them that otherwise the workers engaged in the said machine will be terminated. The threatened speech of the said officer created chaos among the workers, who attended the meeting. The petitioner as a Secretary to the trade union, intervened and told the workers to resume their work and he requested the said T.P.M. Officer to discuss all the issues with the union. The workers resumed their work and the meeting was cancelled and the petitioner also left the factory. On 3-8-2009 the respondent issued enquiry notice and the charge memo with false allegations. There is a violation in issuing the charge sheet and appointing the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not proper and as against the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report according to the wishes of the respondent, without conducting fair and proper enquiry and acted in biased manner against the petitioner. The major punishment of termination was imposed by the respondent without proper consideration of petitioner's written explanation. The termination of petitioner service is highly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The petitioner was victimised for his trade union activities and is terminated from service on false allegation. The termination of the petitioner is an unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent. The termination of the petitioner is illegal and against the provision of the model standing order and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has

The domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and tried to give instances as to how the enquiry was not fair in his opinion. Further the charge sheet was served with enquiry notice and he was not called upon to give any explanation to the charges. He was denied the opportunity to reply to the charge sheet, which is in violation of clause 39(c) of certified standing orders of the company. The petitioner denied his involvement in the past misconducts.

stated as follows:

5. In the reply statement, the respondent has stated

as follows:

The petitioner was a confirmed employee. He always exhibited his aggressive, subversive and temperamental character and would pick up unnecessary quarrels and duels with his shift supervisors, plant in-charge and other officers of the company and the respondent had warned and punished the petitioner on number of occasions.

The petitioner was given a specific charge sheet dated 28-11-2001 and domestic enquiry was conducted. After enquiry, the petitioner pleaded guilty and hence with a view to give him one more opportunity, the warning letter dated 19-11-2004 was served, which was received by the petitioner in person. Hence, the petitioner's claim that no enquiry was conducted, no opportunity was given to present his stand is false.

On 29-7-2009 at about 1.00 p.m. when the petitioner was not on duty, he came to the factory on his own accord to meet the H.R. Executive. He was permitted to meet the H.R. Executive only and3 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1139 6. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R17 were marked.

7. The point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner can be considered for reinstatement in service with accrued benefits?

8. On the point :

as the case may be, as to whether a further enquiry is called for. In the event, upon deliberations and due considerations, it is in the affirmative the enquiry follows but no otherwise. On facts, the Supreme Court held that the appointment of an Enquiry Officer even before submission of the reply of the delinquent employee to indicated the mindset of the authority that the enquiry should proceed irrespective of his reply, demonstrating that the attitude of the authority towards the delinquent was not free and fair.

2005(3) L.L.N. 187:

Ch. Appala Reddy Vs. Eastern Power

Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.:

It is submitted that petitioner herein filed an application I.A. 148/2012 for summoning 7 witnesses to prove his innocence regarding the charges proved in domestic enquiry. Those 7 witnesses were already examined in the enquiry proceedings. The respondent therefore filed I.A. 4/2013 for deciding the fairness of domestic enquiry on the premise that if the domestic enquiry is found to be fair, just and proper, there is no scope of recording further evidence regarding guilt of petitioner. Accordingly, this court took up both the applications together and allowed I.A. No. 4/2013 filed by respondent, holding that the enquiry held by respondent is just, fair and proper and need no further intervention. Simultaneously, this court has dismissed I.A. No. 148/2012 filed by petitioner for summoning witnesses. The orders passed in both the applications have attained finality. Thus this court has held that the domestic enquiry against the petitioner is fair, just and proper and needs no intervention and the same has attained its finality.

"The employee challenged the charges framed against him by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the same was not preceded by a show cause notice. This court held that the appointing authority would be in a position to apply its mind only when it calls upon the employee to explain as to the acts misconduct levelled against him and depending upon the satisfaction of the appointing authority on consideration of such explanation, the necessity to proceed further by way of an enquiry or drop further proceedings would arise. As the employer had failed to follow such procedure, the court, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in V.K. Khanna (vide Supra), set aside the charge sheet framed by the Enquiry Officer.

1997 LIC 2828:

Madan Mohan Thakur Vs. State of Nagaland and

others:

"Once rules applicable to the establishment are clear as to how enquiry is to be conducted. Such rules should be complied with.

1993 (3) SCC 433:

Babu Verghese and other V. Bar Council of Kerala

and other.:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that issuing charge sheet along with enquiry notice, without giving an opportunity to petitioner to reply to charge sheet is in violation of certified standing orders of company and hence the entire enquiry stands vitiated. He further submitted that if the charge sheet was given to the petitioner and issued a show cause notice before commencing the domestic enquiry, the petitioner would have given effective representation and explanation to the respondent and also he would have addressed the resident's mala fide intention, victimisation and unfair labour practice to his trade union and in turn the trade union would have raised the industrial dispute about the victimisation, unfair labour practice of the respondent management against the petitioner. Further he submitted that the findings of Enquiry Officer regarding the guilt of petitioner on the misconduct alleged is not proper as there is no sufficient proof for the petitioner having committed the misconduct. In order to support his claim, he relied upon the following decisions:

AIR 2001 SC 343, reported in 2010 (3) LLN.693:

State of Punjab Vs.V.K. Khanna:

"It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the concerned authority has to apply his mind upon receipt of the reply to the charge sheet or show cause "It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The certified standing order being a stator force and binding both the petitioner and the respondent, and it confers the right to the respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the workers and impose punishment, the respondent shall follow the procedure contemplated in the certified standing orders, and otherwise the respondent shall allow to reap its natural consequences.

1994 III LLJ 877:

Ganesh Rajan Servai Vs. Bennett Coleman and

Company Ltd.:

the principles of natural justice, it also means and includes that fairness in the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and there is absolutely no scope for re-appreciating the evidence on record adduced before Enquiry Officer.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the following decision:

1963 AIR 1914:

Sur Enamel And Stamping Works (P) Ltd. Vs.

Their Workmen:

"The termination orders passed against the petitioners were in contravention of the certified standing orders governing the service conditions of the petitioners. In that case, the termination orders would be void ab initio. They do not exist in the eyes of law. Such termination orders could not have been passed by the company without following the proper procedure laid down in standing order. In other words, the termination orders are not non est- AIR 670, 1985 SCR (2) 1065:

The Workmen of the Food Corporation of India

Vs. Food Corporation of India 1985:

An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the presence of the employee-in respect of the charges. (iii) the emoloyee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the Enquiry Officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report.

2007 STPL (LE) 39288 SC:

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs.

"No employer since the introduction of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and contrary to its certified standing orders as statutorily required to be drawn up under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 can dispense with the service of any workman without complying with the law in force. Any termination of service contrary to the provisions of the standing orders and provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be void."

Vinod Kumar:

10. This court has already upheld the fairness of enquiry and in deciding so, this court had taken note of the contention of petitioner and had rejected the same. The petitioner was never prevented from issuing reply to charge sheet. In fact, the petitioner himself has marked Ex. P1, which is the letter, dated 26-8-2009 in reply to the charges levelled against him and the same was also marked in the enquiry proceedings. The said reply was also considered by Enquiry Officer before giving his findings. The petitioner has not shown any prejudice in the charge sheet being served upon him along with enquiry notice. Unless prejudice is shown, an enquiry, which is otherwise fair and proper cannot be set aside for mere defects. Hence, the contention of petitioner cannot be sustained at this stage for the reasons that this court has already come to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper.

11. Further while deciding the fairness of domestic enquiry, the Labour Court will also look into the fairness in the findings of Enquiry Officer, sufficiency of evidence adduced before him and the proof of misconduct levelled against the workers. Only when all these criteria are satisfied, the labour court holds an enquiry to be fair, just and proper. Once the enquiry is held to be fair, just and proper and in accordance with "8. Labour Court, without appreciating the fact that in the absence of challenge to the legality or fairness of the inquiry report the court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the punishing authority or the quantum, held that the charge of misappropriation has not been proved against the respondent and, thus, punishment of removal from service is harsh.

10. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent had confined his case only to the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer as well as the quantum of punishment. Therefore, since the respondent had not challenged the correctness, legality or validity of the enquiry conducted, it was not open to the Labour Court to go into the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding the misconduct committed by the respondent."

The judgment makes it absolutely clear that unless the legality and validity of enquiry is not challenged by the worker, he cannot question the conclusion reached by Enquiry Officer. In the present case, the legality of domestic enquiry is specifically challenged by the petitioner and this court has held that the enquiry is proper and hence there is absolutely no scope to look into the fairness in conclusion arrived at by Enquiry Officer regarding proof of misconduct of petition.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the following decision:

1964 STPL (LE) 3026 SC:

Hind Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs.

Their Workmen:

proved in domestic enquiry and he cannot escape scot free after committing grave misconduct of assaulting an officer and that to when he was in probation as punishment for similar misconduct. In order to prove his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the following decisions:

CDJ2008 SC 670:

Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of

M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. & Another.

"33. Assault, intimidation are penal offences. A workman indulging in commission of a criminal offence should not be spared only because he happens to be a union leader, The Act does not encourage indiscipline. It will be a matter of some concern if the opinion of the Enquiry Officer can be totally ignored despite the fact that the management is precluded from adducing any fresh evidence before the Labour Court. A union leader does not enjoy immunity from being proceeded within a case of misconduct".

CD/2005 SC 250:

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade:

"It is now settled law that the tribunal is not to examine the finding or the quantum of punishment because the whole of the dispute is not really open before the tribunal as it is ordinarily before a court of appeal. The tribunal's powers have been stated by this court in a large number of cases and it has been ruled that the tribunal can only interfere if the conduct of the employer shows lack of bona fides or victimisation of employee or employees or unfair labour practice. The tribunal may in a storage case interfere with a basic error on a point of fact or a perverse finding, but it cannot substitute its own appraisal of the evidence for that of the officer conducting the domestic enquiry though it may interfere where the principles of natural justice or fair play have not been followed or where the enquiry is so perverted in its procedure as to amount to no enquiry at all.

"As noticed herein above atleast in two of the cases cited before us, i.e. Orissa Cement Ltd. (Supra) and New Shorrck Mills (Supra), this court held: "PUNISHMENT of dismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be DISPROPORTIONATE." In this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser PUNISHMENT in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to herein above."

1999-III LLJ (supp)-1455:

It is not out of context to mention here that parties to an industrial dispute can lead additional evidence before this Labour Court (apart from minimal evidence required to substantiate their pleadings and counter pleadings and mark the enquiry proceedings) only when the enquiry is found to be defective by the Labour Court. If the enquiry is found to fair and just, there is no scope for letting in additional evidence by either parties and therefore, once the enquiry of held to be fair and proper, the sufficiency of evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and the reasoning of his conclusions cannot be challenged by workman. Hence once this court has held that the enquiry is just and proper, there is absolutely no scope for the petitioner to question sufficiency of evidence before the Enquiry Officer or to contend that the charges of misconduct were not proved in the enquiry.

Venugopal V. and another Vs. Management of

Reed Relays and Electronics Ltd. Madras and

another:

14. Thus when an enquiry is held to be fair, it only means that the court is satisfied of all the aforementioned ingredients and therefore what is left to be decided is only the quantum of punishment.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the misconduct committed by petitioner is grave in nature as he has assaulted the superior officer, using abusive language and attempted to create unrest and disharmony amongst the workers. He further submitted that the petitioner intended to disrupt the production activities of the respondent and that too at the time when he was not on duty and he crossed all lines of decency and exhibited violence, which is "10...The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants relates to the award of extreme penalty of dismissal on the appellants, which according to the learned counsel for the appellants, was not called for in this case. We are unable to accept the above contention.

...in our opinion, courts should not encourage the use of indecorous or indecent and violent behavior, exhibiting thereby indiscipline. Such acts on the part of the workmen should be discouraged at any cost.

1984 AIR 914, 1984 SCR (3) 169:

Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton Cable India (P)

Ltd.:

Since the appellants were terminated from service for serious misconduct proved and established before the Labour Court, no interference is called for in the finding of the Labour Court, which is based on the evidence let in, in this case..."

(1990) 1 MLJ 355:

The Management of South India Sugars Ltd.

Vs. The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court

And Anr:

There is nothing on record to show that any previous adverse remark against the appellant had been taken into consideration by the management for awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal from service to the appellant even if he had in fact abused in filthy language Durg Singh and S.K.Bagga, we are therefore of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is "shockingly disproportionate regard being had to the charge framed against him. We are also of the opinion that no responsible employer would even impose in like circumstances the punishment of dismissal to the employee and that victimisation or unfair labour practice could well be inferred from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory. We therefore, hold that the termination of the appellant's service is invalid and unsustainable in law, and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits including continuity of service. ...."

2002(3) L.L.N. 314:

Damodaran Vs. Presiding Officer, II Additional

"There can be no doubt that the second respondent is guilty of such riotious and disorderly behaviour which would deprive him of his gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act also. Section 4 (2) (vi) of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (1), the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited if the service of such employee have been terminated for his riotous and disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part.' Section 9 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, provides that an employee shall be disqualified from receiving bonus under the Act, if he is dismissed from service for riotious or violent behaviour while on the premises of the establishment. Thus, the Legislature has taken care to discourage statutorily any riotous of violent behaviour on the part of the employee. It cannot be said that when a worker or employee is found guilty of riotous or violent behaviour, the punishment of dismissal is extreme or that it is shockingly disproportionate to his misconduct".

Labour Court, Madras and another:

"The order of dismissal imposed upon the delinquent, a Secretary of the labour union for using abusing words was grossly disproportionate and should the punishment was modified."

1983 SCC (L and amp; S) 26:

Rama Kant Misra Vs. State of Utter Pradesh;

16. The petitioner as well as the respondent have filed their written arguments along with judgments, supporting their respective contention after carful perusal of the evidence on records and the written arguments filed by both parties along with the precedents relied on by them, this court is of the considered opinion that the misconduct levelled against by the respondent stands duly proved in the defence evidence held by the respondent.

and ORS:

"Dismissal for use of indiscreet, indecent or threatening language to the superior in the course of long unblemished service is an excessive punishment."

1984(2) S.C.C. 281:

V.D. Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton Cable India (P)

Ltd.:

17. Further this court had already held vide its order dated 1-2-2013 in I.A. No. 4/2013 that the enquiry conducted by the respondent is fair and in adherence of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the only question that is left for determination is regarding the question of punishment imposed by the respondent in order to justify the punishment of dismissal the respondent as relied upon the above judgments. However it is observed that the fact and circumstances prevailing in the above referred judgments is completely different from the fact contained in the present case. Therefore, this court of the considered opinion that the judgment relied on by the respondent cannot be of any help to the respondent, on the other hand the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:

"The dismissal of a workman in the said circumstances (the allegation of use of indecent language was held to be proved) amounts to unfair labour practice requiring reinstatement with full back wages."3 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1143

1983 SCC (L and amp; S) 26:-

Ramakant Misra Vs. State of Uttra Pradesh and

Others:

use of the abusive language. No straight jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts."

1984(1) LLJ 546: (1984 Lab IC 658):-

Prakash Gupta Vs. Messrs Delton Cable India

"The unskilled workers culture is that they would raise their voice while making their grievance. The following passage in this regard in Ramakant Misra' case is usefully extracted hereunder:-

(P) Ltd.:

"The workman was a Security Inspector under the Security Officer on a total monthly salary of ` 581. He was dismissed on the charge of abusing co-worker in filthy language. There was no previous adverse remark against the workman shown and extreme penalty of dismissal was held to be disproportionately excessive and dismissal was set aside and reinstatement was ordered with full back wage."

1982 Lab IC 1790:

Rama Kant Misra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh:

"It is said that language discloses a threatening posture it is the subjective conclusion of the person, who hears the language because voice modulation of each person in the society differs and indiscreet improper, abusive language may show lack of culture but merely the use of such language on one occasion unconnected with any subsequent positive action and not preceded by any blameworthy conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, we are satisfied that the order of dismissal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the court must interfere."

1995 (6) SCC.237:

Palghat BPL and PSP Thozhilali Union Vs.

BPL India Limited:

"The workman was a low paid employee. It was alleged against him to have used threatening language. The Supreme Court considering that there being no blame-worthy conduct of the appellant during the period of 14 years' service, he rendered prior to the date of misconduct and the misconduct consists of language indiscreet, improper or disclosing a threatening posture. When it is said that language discloses a threatening posture, it is the subjective conclusion of the person, who hears the language because voice modulation of each person in the society differs and indiscreet, improper, abusive language may show lack of culture."

1989 (1) LLJ 71: (1989 Lab IC 1043):

Scooter India Limited, Lucknow Vs. Labour

Court, Lucknow:

"The Labour Court had discretion under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to consider the quantum of misconduct and the punishment. In view of the surging circumstances, viz., the workmen were agitating by their collective bargain for acceptance of their demands and when the strike was on, the settlement during conciliation proceedings, though initially agreed to, was resiled later on. They appear to have attacked the officers when they were going to the factory. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court was well justified in taking lenient view and in setting aside the order of dismissal and giving direction to reinstate the workmen with a cut of 75% of the back wages up to the date of the award. In our considered view, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court is proper and justified in the above facts and circumstances. The High Court had not adverted to these aspects of the matter, it merely had gone into the question whether the act complained of is a misconduct"

AIR 1996 (1) LLJ 982; (AIR 1996 SC 255):

Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India:

"When abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the "The Labour Court had granted reinstatement with 75 per cent back wages. The Labour Court had observed that, 'the workman had unfortunately to blame himself for much of bad blood which has developed between him and the management, and therefore, his conduct, motivated by ideals which are not relevant, has been far from satisfactory, in so far as it was rough, bordering on rudeness and with highly exaggerated sense of his duties.' This was not a case where filthy abuses have been given by educated employee to his superior. Even that case, 25 per cent back wages were denied and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the said order passed by the Labour Court, Lucknow."1144 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [3 December 2013 Ex.P4 — Termination order of the petitioner, dated 22-6-2010.

Ex.P5 — Complaint sent by the petitioner to the Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P6 — Reply sent by the respondent, dated 9-9-2010.

Ex.P7 — Standing order of the respondent company

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton Cable Private India Ltd., has held that the dismissal of an employee on charge of abuse of some office or management in the absence of any past misconduct is disproportionate to the misconduct levelled against him similar were the view of High Court in Damotharan Vs. Preceeding Officer reported in 2002(3) LLJ 314 where the High Court held that punishment of dismissal of running abusing languages is highly disproportionate.

Ex.P8 — Visitor's register, dated 29-7-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the respondent :

19. The petitioner had also relied on Scooter India limited Lucknow Vs. Labour Court Lucknow reported in 1989 (1) LLJ 71 where in the Hon'ble Court of Lucknow had held that a punishment of reinstatement with 75% back wages could be a reasonable punishment for misconduct of using abuse languages. The fact and circumstances that prevails in the above three judgments are similar to the fact and circumstances existing in the present case. Therefore, relying upon those judgments, this court of view that the punishment of dismissal for misconduct committed by the petitioner is grossly disproportionate and therefore, in exercise of its power under section 11(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, this court is inclined to interfere with the punishment given to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner can be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% of back wages. As already discussed above, the misconduct committed by the petitioner has been proved through the enquiry proceedings. Hence, I feel that the petitioner has to realise himself for the misconduct committed by him, for which the minimum punishment has to be imposed on them. Therefore, it is ordered to cut one increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2013.

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

————

Ex.R1 — Copy of the charge sheet

Ex.R2 — Signatures of the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings.

Ex.R3 — Enquiry report in English and Tamil Ex.R4 — Undated reply letter sent by the petitioner.

Ex.R5 — Original letter of authorisation to Vijaylaxmi, dated 13-3-2013.

Ex.R6 — Copy of suspension order issued to the petitioner, dated 29-7-2009.

Ex.R7 — Copy of the suspension order sent by the respondent through registered post.

Ex.R8 — Copy of the letter by Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, dated 6-8-2009.

Ex.R9 — Entire enquiry proceedings

Ex.R10 — Second show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 31-5-2010.

Ex.R11 — Letter of petitioner to the respondent, dated 8-6-2010.

Ex.R12 — Letter of respondent to the petitioner, dated 10-6-2010.

List of witness examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 7-11-2012 — Raja

Ex.R13 — Copy of termination order in English and Tamil along with courier slip and returned postal cover.

Ex.R14 — Copy of show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 5-12-2001.

List of witness examined for the respondent :

RW.1 — 13-3-2013 — R. Vijayalaxmi

Ex.R15 — Copy of show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 28-11-2001.

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

Ex.P1 — Letter, dated 26-8-2009 sent by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer.

Ex.P2 — Enquiry report

Ex.P3 — Letter, dated 17-6-2010 sent by the petitioner.

Ex.R16 — Copy of Advisor letter, dated 20-8-2002 Ex.R17 — Copy of warning letter, dated 19-11-2004.

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