1119
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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
Throwpathy Amman Koil.
2
217/5
Wet
R. Sellakutti,
0
04
00
S/o. Ramasamy Chettiar.
Total . .
0
28
78
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
DR. S.B. DEEPAK KUMAR, I.A.S.,
Special Secretary (Revenue).
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(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¡Š
Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š
Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š
Ð. §Á¡¸ý¾¡Š
Ð. §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¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú ±ñ 30/2012
V. ÅûÇ¢
. . 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÷.
1120
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
þó¾ ³óÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü¾¸Ã¡Ú¸û, 26-6-2013 «ýÚ
þÚ¾¢ Å¢º¡Ã¨½ì¸¡¸ ±ýÓý Åó¾§À¡Ð, ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û
¾ÃôÀ¢ø ÅÆį̀û÷ ¾¢ÕÅ¡Ç÷ ¬÷.Ê. „í¸÷
¬ƒÃ¡¸¢Ôõ ÁüÚõ ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÀ¢ø ÅÆį̀û÷
¾ ¢ Õ Å ¡ Ç ÷
« Ã Å ¢ ó ¾
Í ô À ¢ Ã Á ½ ¢ Â 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
ܼ
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.
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¡¢ «Ãº¢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
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.
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¡¢ «Ãº¢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.
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× ¦ºöÂ
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
«È¢Å¢ôÒ «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¡üÈõ
1121
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
¦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¢ÁýÈò¾¢ý ÓýÀ¡¸ ÅÆìÌ
±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 «È¢ì¨¸ (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¦Áñð
¦ºöÐÅ¢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.
1122
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
11. «ýÚ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¦Á¢ý§¸ðÊø ÀÄò¾
§À¡Ä£Š À¡Ð¸¡ôÒ §À¡ðÎ ´Õ «È¢Å¢ôÒ ¸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
«È¢Å¢ôÒ ºð¼Å¢§Ã¡¾Á¡É¾¡Ìõ. «È¢Å¢ôÀ¢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ð¨¼
¿¢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¡¢ «Ãº¢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¡¢ «Ãº¢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
«Ê¨Á¸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.
1123
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
§¸¡¡¢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 «Å¸¡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¢ ¦ºöÂ
Å¢ÕõÒõ ¦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¢
¦ºöÂ
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 ¦ºöÂ
Á¡ð§¼¡õ ±É ¯Ú¾¢ÂÇ¢òÐ ¦¾¡Æ¢ü ºí¸ò¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ
ტɡÁ¡ ¦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 ¬ñÎ측É
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
«È¢ì¨¸ (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 «È¢Å¢ôÒ¸ÙìÌ ¾ì¸
Å¢Çì¸õ ¦¾¡Æ¢üº¡¨Ä ¬öÅ¡ÇÕìÌ «ÛôÀôÀðÎ
Ţ𼾡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, «È¢Å¢ôÒ ÀĨ¸Â¢ø
«È¢Å¢ôÒ
¦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¢ «Ç¨Å ¿¢¨Ä¿¢Úò¾
12-3-2012 ÁüÚõ 14-3-2012 ¬¸¢Â ¾¢Éí¸Ç¢ø
machine
operator-¸û
§ÅÚ
ШÈìÌ
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 «È¢Å¢ôÒ 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
¦ºöÂ
¦¾¡¼í¸¢É÷.
þÐ
Å¢„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 «È¢Å¢ôÒ 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
Ǭ颿
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 ¯ûШÈ
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¡ ±ýÀÅ÷ 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
ÁüÚõ 33/2012ø ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¿¢÷Å¡¸ò¾¢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£Î
¦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 ÅÆį̀û÷¸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¡¢ «Ãº¢ý ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷¸û
º¡÷ó¾ ¿¢÷Å¡¸¢¨ÂÔõ, ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Ç÷ ¿Ä ºð¼í¸Ç¢ý ÀÊ
¾ñÊì¸
§ÅñÎõ
±Éì
§¸¡¡¢
þõÁÛ츨Ç
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¡¢ø
1125
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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¡ö¡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 ŨáÉ
¬Å½í¸û ÌȢ£Π¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ.
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¡÷.
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¡ø
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, «Å¨Ã 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¡÷.
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¢
ŨÃ
¿¸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
1126
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¡÷.
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 «È¢Å¡÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀û÷
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¡ö¡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 ¡ ¢ Â 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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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
«È¢Å¡÷ó¾
ÅÆį̀û÷
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 ±ýÚõ
1127
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
«¨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 «È¢Å¡÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀û÷ ±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 ŨÃ
¸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 «È¢Å¡÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀û÷
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 ŨÃ
¦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 Ó¾ø
1128
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
«È¢Å¢ôÒ 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¡¸ ´ð¼ôÀ𼠫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
«È¢Å¢ôÒ 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 «Å¨Ã «ÊòÐ
Å¢Îí¸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 «È¢ì¨¸ ±.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¢ÃðÊÂÐ
ŨÃ
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
«È¢Å¢ôÒ ±.º¡.¬. 24 ¬Ìõ. «¾ý ¦¾¡¼÷¡¸
¦ºðÊø¦Áñð
§¿¡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 «È¢Å¢ôÒìÌ 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.
1129
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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¦Áñð
¦ºöÐ
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¡ÇáÉ
±.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¢
¦ºöÂ
Å¢¼¡Áø
¾ÎòÐ
«¨Á¾¢Â¢øÄ¡ Ýú¿¢¨Ä¨Â ²üÀÎò¾¢É¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ
ÜÈ¢ÔûÇ¡÷. ±.Á.º¡.1 Ó¾ø ±.Á.º¡.5 ŨáÉ
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
«È¢Å¢ôÒ ¦ºöÐ, ÌüÈðÎ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¨½ ¦¸¡ÎòÐ,
«¾ý
«ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø
¯ûШÈ
Å¢º¡Ã¨½
¿¼ò¾ôÀðÎ À¢ýÉ÷, À½¢ ÓÊ×ìÌ ¦¸¡ñÎ ÅÃôÀ¼
§ÅñÎõ. þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û Å¢„Âò¾¢ø ¯ûШÈ
Å¢Çì¸õ
§¸¡¡¢
19-4-2012
«ýÚ
ŨáÉ
«È¢Å¢ôÒ¸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 ¯ûШÈ
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.
1130
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
60. ±¾¢÷ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷ ¾ÃôÒ ÅÆį̀û÷ Å¡¾¢Î¨¸Â¢ø
þõÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¦ÁÐ §Å¨Ä¢ø ®ÎÀ𼾡ø ¯üÀò¾¢
̨È× ²üÀð¼Ð ±ýÚõ ´Õ ¿¡¨ÇìÌ 38 Ä¡ð ŨÃ
¯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 ŨÃ
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 «Ç¢ì¸¡ÁÖõ º¢È¢Â ¾ñ¼¨É ܼ «Ç¢ì¸
ÓÊ¡Ð. þò¾Õ½ò¾¢ø ¸£Æì¸ñ¼ Óý¾£÷ô¨À ¿¡õ
¸Õò¾¢ø¦¸¡ûÇ §ÅñÎõ.
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-
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
… 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.
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 «È¢Å¢ôҸǢý 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¡¢ÅÃ
¦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 ¦ºöÂ
1131
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
§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¡ÇáÉ
±.Á.º¡.1 ÌÚìÌ Å¢º¡Ã¨½Â¢ø ´ôÒ즸¡ñÎûÇ¡÷.
¬¸§Å, þÂü¨¸ Å¢¾¢¸Ç¢ý ÀÊ §À¡¾¢Â Å¡öôÒ
«Ç¢ì¸¡Áø ¯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 ÅÆį̀û÷ ±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
ÁÛ¨Å
þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø
¾¡ì¸ø
¦ºö¾¢Õì¸
§ÅñÎõ ±ýÚ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷¸û ¾ÃôÒ ÅÆį̀û÷
Å¡¾¢ð¼¡÷. §ÁÖõ, ¸£ú¸ñ¼ Óý¾£÷ôÒõ ¸¡ñÀ¢ò¾¡÷.
Rajasthan High Court Alcobex Metals Ltd., - Vs.
State of Rajasthan And Ors. (2004) IIILLJ 886
Raj.
...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
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 «È¢Å¡÷ó¾ ÅÆį̀û÷
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 «È¢ì¨¸ 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¡÷.
Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd., - Vs. - Shri Jai Singh
and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1183.
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….
1132
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
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.
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¢× «È¢Å¢ì¸ôÀðÎ, ¦¾¡¢Å¢ì¸ôÀ𼾡¸
¦¾¡.¾¡.±ñ 2766/2011ø ºÁú ÓÊ× «È¢ì¨¸Â¢ø
ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÐ. ¦¾¡.¾¡. À¢¡¢× 12(6)ý ¸£ú
ŨÃÂ¨È ¦ºöÂôÀðÎûÇÐ.
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
«È¢ì¨¸¨Â
þó¿£¾¢ÁýÈò¾¢ø
«Ç¢ì¸Å¢ø¨Ä.
±.º¡.¬.7 ÀüȢ «È¢ì¨¸¨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
«ôÀ½¢ ¿£ì¸õ ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾øÄ ±ýÚ ÜÚõ ÁÛ¾¡Ã÷
¾ÃôÒ ÜüÚ þùÅ¢„Âò¾¢ø ²ü¸ò¾ì¸¾¡¸ «È¢Â
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.
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
«Ç¢ì¸¡Áø
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¢Ã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.
±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÷).
1133
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
±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
Officer
(Conciliation),
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
Copy
of
respondent
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
Officer (Conciliation),
Puducherry.
1134
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
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
Officer
(Conciliation),
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.
1135
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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
Mrs. Andal and FIR in
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.
1136
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
±.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¡.¬.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.
±.º¡.¬.28
18-6-2012
Copy of the representation
letter by petitioners to
Labour Officer (Conciliation).
±.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
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¡.¬.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
to
17-12-2011
Shift schedule
2-1-2012
to
7-1-2012
During wilful go-slow illegal
&
strike by petitioners and
20-2-2012
striking workers.
to
26-2-2012
±.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
±.º¡.¬.49
2-4-2012
Monthly production details
for March 2012.
During wilful go-slow illegal
strike by petitioners and
striking workers.
1137
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
±.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
and shift-wise production-
cum- target sheet.
During wilful go-slow illegal
strike by petitioners and
striking workers.
±.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.
±.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
6-1-2012,
the first stage of production
22-2-2012,
(Rubberise Main)
5-3-2012
and
20-3-2012
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, ÒÐ¡¢.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(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;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with
the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.
No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed
by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said award
shall be published in the official Gazette, Puducherry.
(By order)
S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present :
Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
Wednesday, the 15th day of May 2013
I.D. No. 3/2011
S. Raja, S/o. Soundararajan,
Sarkaasimedu, Bahour Commune,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Vs.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Tea Factory,
Rep. by its Factory Manager,
Kirumampakkam, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
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
This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No. 28/AIL/Lab./J/2011, dated 7-2-2011 of the
Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru S. 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?
1138
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred
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
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.
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 and
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 of
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 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.
5. In the reply statement, the respondent has stated
as follows:
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.
1139
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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 :
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.
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
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.:
“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.:
“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.
1140
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
1994 III LLJ 877:
Ganesh Rajan Servai Vs. Bennett Coleman and
Company Ltd.:
“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:
“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.”
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
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:
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.
Vinod Kumar:
“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.
1141
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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:
“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.
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.
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
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:
“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:
Venugopal V. and another Vs. Management of
Reed Relays and Electronics Ltd. Madras and
another:
“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.
1142
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 December 2013
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 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”.
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.
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:
1984 AIR 914, 1984 SCR (3) 169:
Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton Cable India (P)
Ltd.:
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
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;
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.:
“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.”
1143
3 December 2013]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
1983 SCC (L and amp; S) 26:-
Ramakant Misra Vs. State of Uttra Pradesh and
Others:
“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:-
“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 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
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
(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:
“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 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
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.
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.
————
List of witness examined for the petitioner :
PW.1 — 7-11-2012 — Raja
List of witness examined for the respondent :
RW.1 — 13-3-2013 — R. Vijayalaxmi
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.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
Ex.P8
— Visitor’s register, dated 29-7-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the respondent :
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.
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.
Ex.R15 — Copy of show cause notice to the petitioner,
dated 28-11-2001.
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.