1166

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 December 2013

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 165/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 18th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 35/2012,

dated 6-8-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in

respect of the industrial dispute between the management

of M/s. Superfil Products Ltd., Puducherry and its workman

Thiru C. Samidurai, over non-employment has been

received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with

the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed

by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :

Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Tuesday, the 6th day of August 2013

I.D. No. 35/2012

Samidurai

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

Superfil Products Limited,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 1-8-2013 for final

hearing before me in the presence of Thiru K. Velmurugan,

Advocate for the petitioner, Thiruvalargal M. Lakshmi

Narasimhan and P. Sakthi, 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. 138/AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 23-8-2012 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,

(1) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru C. Samidurai

against the management of M/s. Superfil Products

Limited, Puducherry, over non-employment is justified?

(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioner is

entitled to?

(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred

as follows :

The petitioner was working as Draw Twister

Operator in the respondent company since 21-4-2003

onwards. He is an executive member in the Superfil

Products Workers Union. The said union is working

for the welfare of the Superfil Products employees

and he is an office bearer of the said union by virtue

of his post as an executive member. The respondent

management through letter, dated 3-3-2010 suspended

the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-3-2010

alleging false and baseless allegations by saying that

the petitioner has purposely and intentionally caused

sabotage to the finished products by making knife

cut on the cops surface once the machine was

running. He was issued with a charge sheet and

having received the said charge sheet from the

respondent, the petitioner on 17-3-2010 submitted his

detailed explanation and also requested the

respondent to give a copy of the model standing

orders based on which the said charge sheet was

issued. But without furnishing the model standing

orders, the respondent issued an enquiry notice on

5-4-2010, which was objected by him vide his letter,

dated 10-4-2010. However, the Enquiry Officer having

read over the contents of the said letter, crumpled

the letter and thrown on the face of the petitioner

and shouted at him to walk out from the enquiry

proceedings. As such the petitioner walked out from

the enquiry proceedings and has sent the said letter

to the respondent through registered post on the

same day. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the

enquiry proceedings in the absence of the petitioner

and recorded evidence of two witnesses and also

marked certain documents as exhibits.

The respondent through letter, dated 22-4-2010

had furnished a copy of section 14 of Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 in

English version. The petitioner requested the

management to furnish the Tamil translation of the

said standing orders. However, the Tamil translation

of the model standing orders was not given to the

petitioner till date by the respondent. The petitioner

through letter, dated 8-7-2010 informed the respondent

that he will participate in the enquiry proceedings

after the receipt of Tamil translation of the model

1167

10 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

standing orders, since one cannot defend his case

effectively without knowing what are the misconducts

levelled against him. But without considering

his request, the respondent has sent a letter, dated

13-7-2010 stating that the enquiry will be conducted

on 17-7-2010 and if he do not attend the enquiry on

the said date, the management will be conducted the

enquiry ex parte. This statement of the respondent

makes it clear that the respondent is having full

control over the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry

Officer stood as a mute spectator.

The respondent through letter, dated 14-7-2010

arbitrarily and unilaterally reduced the suspension

allowance of the petitioner from 75% to 25%, despite

no fault on him. He has challenged the act of the

respondent before this court under C.P. No. 2/2011

and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner

through order, dated 24-11-2011.

On 17-7-2010 the Enquiry Officer again conducted

the enquiry proceedings in the absence of the

petitioner and examined three witnesses on the

management side, which was objected by him

through letter, dated 30-7-2010. All of a sudden the

respondent during the 3rd week of December 2010

has sent enquiry report, dated 13-12-2010 and in the

said enquiry report, all the charges levelled against

the petitioner was stated as proved. After a lapse of

ten months, the respondent had sent a show cause

notice, dated 10-10-2011 to the petitioner, asking his

explanation. The petitioner has submitted his detailed

explanation to the respondent through letter, dated

18-10-2011 requesting the management to discard the

enquiry report. However, the management without

considering the explanations put forth by the

petitioner, terminated the services of the petitioner

through letter, dated 31-1-2012.

The whole enquiry proceeding conducted by the

Enquiry Officer was a biased one completely in

favour of the respondent management. Thus the

order of dismissal is illegal, unlawful bad in law and

against the principles of labour jurisprudence.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has

stated as follows:-

The petitioner had cut yarn in production by use

of hacksaw blade and had thus destroyed quality of

product in reduction. Such deliberate acts are open

sabotage inside factory. Thus respondent issued a

charge sheet to the petitioner and the petitioner had

sent explanation, dated 17-3-2010 on denials of each

of the contents in charge. Then the enquiry was

commenced and proceeded as per law. The petitioner

was in deliberate delay by seeking postponements

by false allegations in every hearing in enquiry.

Hence, the respondent had issued a notice on

14-7-2010 to the petitioner to show cause as to why

the said allowance should not be reduced to 1/4th

of basic DA and CA from July 2010. Then the enquiry

report of 3-8-2010 was submitted and its copy was

sent to the petitioner. Then the notice of 10-10-2011

was sent to the petitioner to show cause as to why

he should not be punished by termination of job.

Then the petitioner was terminated the services

through letter, dated 31-1-2012. The proceedings in

enquiry were completed on grant of many

opportunities and in due compliances of all principles

of natural justice as per relevant precedents under

applicable law. Thus such report is prima facie

correct and proper and is to be so upheld as justice

as per precedents and law. Hence, the respondent

prays for dismissal of the industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 were marked. On the side of the

respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R7

were marked.

5. The point for determination is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

6. On the point:

This reference has been made by the Government to

decide whether the dispute raised by Thiru C. Samidurai

against the management of M/s. Superfil Products

Limited, Puducherry, over non-employment is justified?

On the appearance of the petitioner and the management,

they filed their respective claim statements and the

counter.

7. On hearing both sides and on perusing the

records, it reveals that the petitioner has been dismissed

by the respondent. The petitioner alleged and averred

in his claim statement that the domestic enquiry has not

been conducted by the Enquiry Officer as prescribed by

law in a neutral manner and he has conducted the

domestic enquiry in a biased manner without giving any

opportunity, which are entitled for the delinquents as

per law as well as by the principles of natural justice

and moreover the Enquiry Officer has not heard his

contentions and the enquiry report has also been

submitted with unjustified findings. It was stated by the

petitioner that in fact he has not committed any

misconduct as alleged by the respondent, but the

management had taken action by way of issuing show

cause notice and by way of conducting domestic

enquiry without following the principles of natural

justice and on wrong conclusion by the Enquiry Officer

the management dismissed the said workman.

9. The respondent filed a counter before this court

that they have followed the principles of natural justice

while charging the delinquents and conducting the

1168

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 December 2013

domestic enquiry by a neutral Enquiry Officer and on

proved charges alone, the petitioner had been

dismissed from his services as per the principles of

natural justice and even in the domestic enquiry, the

petitioner had been allowed to be assisted by his co-

employee and though the petitioner has been given fair

chance to peruse the records as well as to cross-

examine the witnesses, who were examined on the side

of the management in the domestic enquiry, he failed

to utilise the same. The respondent stated that the

Enquiry Officer has decided the enquiry in an ex parte

manner and on considering the documents as well the

evidences of the management witnesses, he had rightly

come to the conclusion that the charges of the petitioner

were proved and on the conclusion of the report

submitted by the Enquiry Officer the petitioner has been

terminated from his services by way of punishment for

the misconduct committed by him and hence, there is

no scope to intervene in the order of this management

by the Labour Court.

10. At this stage when I peruse the domestic enquiry

report relating to the petitioner, we can understand that

the petitioner was advised to participate in the enquiry,

which was scheduled to be conducted on 10-4-2010 at

11.00 a.m at the factory premises under Ex.P4. But the

petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings

and he sent a letter, dated 10-4-2012 under Ex.P9

submitting his objections for non-furnishing the copy

of the model standing order by the respondent and

requesting the management to furnish the same. Since

the copy of the said model standing order has not been

furnished to the petitioner, he has not participated in

the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer

proceeded to conduct the enquiry proceedings in an

ex parte manner. On the side of the respondent

management, five witnesses were examined in the

enquiry against the petitioner and the said witnesses

have not been cross-examined by the petitioner. Based

on the evidence of the said witnesses, the Enquiry Officer

held that all the charges framed against them are proved.

11. The contention of the petitioner is that by his

letter, dated 10-4-2010 submitting his objections for

non-furnishing the copy of the model standing order

by the respondent and requested the respondent to

furnish the same, but the respondent without furnishing

the model standing order proceeded with the enquiry

in an ex parte manner, which is total violation of the

principles of natural justice.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent would contend that the petitioner had

walked out of proceedings by stating to the Enquiry

Officer that he would not care for enquiry and that his

union would go to court.

13. It is a fundamental principle that both sides

should be heard audi alteram partem i.e. hear the other

side and it is often considered that it is broad enough

to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing must

be an unbiased hearing. One of the essential ingredients

of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a

proper notice i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice

should be clear and precise so as to give the other party

adequate information of the case he has to meet and

make an effective defence. Generally, a notice to be

adequate must contain the following:

(1) Time, place and nature of hearing;

(2) Legal authority under which hearing is to be

held;

(3) Statement of specific charges, which a person

has to meet.

14. In this case, the petitioner was served with

notice under Ex.P4 dated 5-4-2010. In Ex.P4, the date

of enquiry is mentioned as 10-4-2010. When the enquiry

was scheduled to be conducted on 10-4-2010, it is for

the respondent to send the notice to the petitioner well

in advance so as to prepare himself to defend the

enquiry proceedings. But the material on record would

show that the petitioner had not been furnished with

proper notices intimating him the date, time and place

of hearing well before time.

15. Further the respondent has not given the copy

of the standing orders in Tamil to the petitioner, despite

several representations made by the petitioner to that

effect. Ex.P9, Ex.P11 and Ex.P14 prove the fact that the

respondent has not given the Tamil version of the model

standing orders to the petitioner. The petitioner being

a worker, is having right to ask all the correspondences

in the vernacular language (Tamil language), as he is

not aware of English language. As such the respondent

is not allowed to escape from its liability in furnishing

the Tamil translation of the model standing orders.

16. The allegation of the respondent is that the

petitioner had walked out from the enquiry proceedings.

But RW.1 during his cross-examination has stated that

the Enquiry Officer has not given a complaint to the

management regarding the said incident. Moreover, the

respondent has not issued any show cause notice to

the petitioner regarding the above allegation at any

point of time. If the said allegation is true, definitely

the management would have called for an explanation

from the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice, but

the respondent has not done so. Hence, the said

allegation of the learned counsel for the respondent has

not been established by them.

17. Apart from the above, it has to be seen that the

Enquiry Officer by name V. Venkataraman is none other

than the legal consultant of the respondent and he has

1169

10 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

signed in 12(3) settlement on behalf of the management

entered into between the management and its workers

union. This is evident from the copy of Memorandum

of Settlement under Ex.P24 and the same was also

admitted by RW.1 during his cross-examination.

Thus it is crystal clear that the Enquiry Officer played

an active key role in the affairs of the respondent

management and hence he is personally biased

favouring

the

respondent

during

the

enquiry

proceedings, as rightly pointed out by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

18. The letters addressed by the respondent to the

petitioner were marked as Ex.P10, Ex.P13 and Ex.P15. In

all those letters, the respondent has stated that

“if the petitioner opts not to attend the enquiry for any

reasons, the management will be left with no option but

to conduct and conclude the enquiry ex parte”.

Generally when a domestic enquiry is conducted by the

Enquiry Officer, all the correspondences with regard to

the enquiry proceedings should be sent by him only to

the petitioner. But the above statement of the respondent

makes it clear that the respondent management is

having full control over the enquiry proceedings.

Though the enquiry is purported to have been conducted

by Venkataraman, the real Enquiry Officer in the present

case is the respondent, as rightly pointed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

19. A perusal of records would further show that

the respondent management through their letter,

dated 14-7-2010 under Ex.P16 has arbitrarily reduced the

suspension allowance of the petitioner from 75% to 25%

and the petitioner has challenged the said act of the

respondent before this court in C.P. No. 2/2011 and the

same was allowed in favour of the petitioner through

order, dated 24-11-2011 under Ex.P25 and the

respondent has deposited the entire amount as ordered

before this court. Thus it is evident that the respondent

in order to humiliate and harass the petitioner, reduced

the suspension allowance arbitrarily. Hence, the

contention of the learned counsel for the respondent

that the petitioner was delaying the enquiry

proceedings in intents and acts to continue getting of

75% of then drawn wages as subsistence allowance

cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to refer the following

decision, which is relevant to this case:-

2002(3) L.L.N. 327

“Domestic enquiry - Attender in hospital, served

with charge memo - No subsistence allowance paid

to him till final order was passed about 10 years later -

He went before concerned authority under Payment

of Subsistence Allowance Act - Though a direction

was given to employer to pay subsistence allowance,

nothing came to be paid - It is also admitted position

that against that order, an appeal was filed and the

appeal was dismissed and yet no subsistence

allowance was paid - Held, the whole enquiry is

vitiated and rendered non est as per the established

law laid down by Apex Court - That workman's civil

suit was pending has not nothing to do with payment

of subsistence allowance.”

As per the above decision, if the subsistence

allowance is not paid to the employee by the employer,

the whole enquiry is vitiated. In the case on hand, as

already stated, the petitioner has proved that the

respondent has paid the reduced subsistence allowance

to him. In the above circumstances, the non-payment

of appropriate suspension allowance during the

suspension period amounts to violation of principles of

natural justice and hence, the termination order passed

thereto is invalid and liable to be set aside. Accordingly,

this point is answered.

20. In the result, the industrial dispute is partly

allowed and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement

with continuity of service, 50% of back wages and other

statutory benefits. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 6th day of August 2013.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

List of witness examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 7-6-2013— Samidurai

List of witness examined for the respondent :

RW.1 — 8-7-2013— Mahendran, Production Manager

of respondent company.

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

Ex.P1

— Suspension letter sent by the respondent,

dated 3-3-2010.

Ex.P2

— Charge sheet issued by the respondent,

dated 9-3-2010.

Ex.P3

— Copy of the explanation letter by the

petitioner, dated 17-3-2010.

Ex.P4

— Enquiry notice sent by the respondent,

dated 5-4-2010.

Ex.P5

— Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner,

dated 10-4-2010.

Ex. P6 — Acknowledgment card

Ex.P7

— Letter, dated 22-4-2010 sent by the

respondent to the petitioner.

1170

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 December 2013

Ex.P8

— Letter, dated 29-4-2010 sent by the

respondent to the petitioner.

Ex.P9

— Copy of the letter, dated 10-5-2010 sent

by the petitioner.

Ex.P10 — Letter, dated 21-5-2010 sent by the

respondent.

Ex.P11 — Copy of the letter, dated 1-7-2010 sent

by the petitioner to respondent.

Ex.P12 — Acknowledgment card

Ex.P13 — Letter, dated 1-7-2010 sent by the

respondent to the petitioner.

Ex.P14 — Copy of the letter, dated 8-7-2010 sent

by the petitioner.

Ex.P15 — Letter, dated 13-7-2010 sent by the

respondent to the petitioner.

Ex.P16 — Letter, dated 14-7-2010 sent by the

respondent to the petitioner

Ex.P17 — Letter, dated 30-7-2010 sent by the

respondent to the petitioner.

Ex.P18 — Copy of the letter, dated 13-8-2010 sent

by the petitioner.

Ex.P19 — Enquiry report, dated 13-12-2010

Ex.P20 — Show cause notice by the respondent to

the petitioner, dated 10-10-2011.

Ex.P21 — Copy of the explanation letter, dated

18-10-2011 sent by the petitioner.

Ex.P22 — Dismissal order sent by the respondent,

dated 31-1-2012.

Ex.P23 — Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner,

dated 29-2-2012.

Ex.P24 — Copy of Memorandum of Settlement,

dated 12-11-2008.

Ex.P25 — Copy of order passed by the Labour

Court, dated 24-11-2011.

Ex.P26 — Copy of the letter given by the union to

the respondent, dated 13-6-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the respondent :

Ex.R1 — Copy of the charge sheet and its Tamil

translation, dated 8-3-2010.

Ex.R2 — Copy of the letter and its Tamil

translation, dated 29-4-2010.

Ex.R3 — Copy of the letter sent by the

respondent, dated 21-5-2010.

Ex.R4 — Copy of the letter/notice sent by the

respondent, dated 1-7-2010.

Ex.R5 — Copy of the letter and its Tamil

translation, dated 13-7-2010.

Ex.R6 — Copy of the show cause notice by

respondent, dated 14-7-2010.

Ex.R7 — Copy of show cause notice, dated

10-10-2011.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 166/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 18th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 16/2012, dated 23-7-2013

of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the industrial

dispute between the Managing Director, M/s. Power

Soaps Ltd., Puducherry and Tmt. B. Veeralakshmi, over

non-employment has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with

the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O.

Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby

directed by Secretary to Government (Labour) that the

said award shall be published in the official gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :

Thiru T. MOHANDASS, M.A., M.L.,

Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of July 2013

I.D. No. 16/2012

B. Veeralakshmi

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

Power Soaps Limited,

Korkadu, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 9-7-2013 for final

hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal

L. Vinoba and S. Ashok Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner

1171

10 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

and Thiru R. Ilancheliyan and Ms. R. Thilagavathi,

Advocates for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,

upon perusing the case records, after having stood over

for consideration till this day, this court passed the

following :

AWARD

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No. 70/AIL/Lab./J/2012, dated 12-4-2012 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,

(1) Whether the demand of Tmt. B. Veeralakshmi

against the management of M/s. Power Soaps

Limited, over non-employment is justified?

(2) If justified, to what relief the petitioner is

entitled to?

(3) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred

as follows:

The petitioner was working in the respondent

industry as permanent worker for the past eight years.

The respondent with arbitrary power, kept the workman

at his mercy depriving of the appointment orders, status

and privileges of the permanent workman and such act

come under unfair labour practice on the part of the

respondent as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

Eventhough the petitioner is working for the past four

years, she was not provided with proper salary slip,

identity card and she was not allotted P.F. So the

petitioner with the help of union, agitated against the

respondent. The petitioner agitated before the

respondent for all the basic amenities and needs of the

workers through the union, by which she gathered the

displeasure of the management.

On 7-7-2010 a show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner stating that on 26-6-2010 the petitioner

objected the co-employees in performing their work and

this was questioned by one of the workers namely

Murugan. The petitioner had quarrel with the said

Murugan which ended in physical scuffle. The petitioner

submitted her explanation denying the charges levelled

against her. The respondent received the said explanation

and suspended the petitioner temporarily from service

on 17-8-2010.

The respondent initiated enquiry on 27-3-2010 and

as a result of enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty

and hence on 31-1-2011 the petitioner was terminated.

There is no fair play of justice in conducting the

domestic enquiry and it is only organised by the

respondent in order to put out the petitioner deceitfully

fabricating the false evidences. The petitioner raised

conciliation on 19-7-2011 and on receipt of the

representation, the conciliation was initiated and ended

in failure and therefore the petitioner came before this

court on reference as stated above.

3. In the counter statement, the respondent has

stated as follows:

The petitioner was working as daily rated employee

and she was in the habit of committing various

misconducts. With a view of spoiling the industrial

harmony and peace, on 26-6-2010 the petitioner advised

some of the workers to slow down the production and

not to co-operate with the management. On that day,

one of the other workmen interfered as not to do such

illegal acts for which, she abused the said workman and

entered into quarrel in the work place. The petitioner

as such was in the habit of doing such unlawful acts

and indulged in instigating illegal strike from 4-5-2009

to 7-5-2009 for which an enquiry was conducted and

upon proving the charges levelled against her, she was

given minor punishment vide order, dated 12-12-2009.

Since the petitioner had not changed her attitude

and again entered into quarrel with the co-workers,

a show cause notice, dated 7-7-2010 was issued.

The petitioner instead of giving reply, she made a counter

claim against the said co-worker stating that he was

scolded her by telling her caste name outside the

factory. Since the explanation given by her was not

satisfactory, she was issued a charge sheet, dated 22-7-2010

and was ordered for domestic enquiry through an

independent Enquiry Officer. When the enquiry was

pending she was engaged outsiders and threatened the

management, for which she was placed under

suspension with effect from 18-8-2010. The Enquiry

Officer conducted the enquiry and the charges framed

against her were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The

petitioner was issued a notice, dated 24-12-2010

communicating the proposed punishment. In the reply,

the petitioner has made various allegations against the

Enquiry Officer. Hence, her explanation was not

accepted and her services were terminated vide letter,

dated 31-1-2010. In the above circumstances, the action

taken by the respondent against the petitioner is well

within the parameter of law and the punishment given

to her is in proportion to the misconducts committed

by her. Hence, the respondent prays for dismissal of the

industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined

and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. On the side of the

respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R15

were marked.

5. The point for determination is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

1172

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 December 2013

6. On the point :

According to the petitioner, on 7-7-2010 a show

cause notice was issued to her stating that on 26-6-2010

she objected the co-employees in performing their work

and this was questioned by one of the workers by name

Murugan and she had quarrel with him which ended in

physical scuffle and she submitted her explanation

denying the charges levelled against her and the

respondent suspended her temporarily from service on

17-8-2010 and the respondent initiated the enquiry

proceedings from 10-8-2010 and as a result of the

enquiry, she was found guilty and hence she was

terminated from service on 31-1-2011. In order to prove

her claim, she examined herself as PW.1.

7. PW.1 in her evidence has deposed that eventhough

she was working for the past eight years, she was not

provided with proper salary slip, identity card and she

was not allotted P.F. and hence the workers with the

help of union, agitated against the respondent and the

respondent management, taking into consideration of

this act, isolated her and resisted her from entering the

premises of the industry on 7-7-2010 stating that she

has indulged in unauthorised activities which may

disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the industry and

further all the requests and the pleas of the workman

has been refused and rejected by the management

without adducing fair opportunity to her to establish

her reasons.

8. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is

that she was in the habit of committing various

misconducts and with a view of spoiling the industrial

harmony and peace, on 26-6-2010 the petitioner advised

some of the workers to slow down the production and

not to co-operate with the management and on that day,

one of the other workmen interfered as not to do such

illegal acts for which, she abused the said workman and

entered into quarrel in the work place and the petitioner

as such was in the habit of doing such unlawful acts

and indulged in instigating illegal strike from 4-5-2009

to 7-5-2009 for which an enquiry was conducted and

upon proving the charges levelled against her, she was

given minor punishment vide order, dated 12-12-2009.

In order to prove their contention, the General Manager

of the respondent company was examined as RW.1.

9. But it is the case of the petitioner that one

Thirumurugan, who is the Secretary of the union, which

is recognised by the management, had quarrelled with

her by touching her caste, which ended in physical

scuffle. In order to prove her case, she has marked the

copy of the letter addressed to the General Manager of

the respondent company as Ex.P7, Copy of the letter

addressed to the Superintendent of Police as Ex.P8,

Copy of the complaint addressed to Women Commission

as Ex.P9 and copy of the FIR of PCR Cell as Ex.P10.

A perusal of those documents reveals that the

petitioner has given complaint against the said

Thirumurugan to take action against him for insulting

her by touching her caste with the respondent

management and since they have not taken any action,

she has given complaint to the Karikalampakkam Police

and as they have also not taken any action, she filed a

complaint to the Superintendent of Police and Women

Commission and then only her complaint has been

registered by the PCR Cell Police.

10. The respondent has issued a charge sheet to the

petitioner based on the complaint given by the said

Thirumurugan under Ex.R1 that the petitioner advised

some of the workers to slow down the production and

not to co-operate with the management and when some

of the workers asked her about her illegal act, she

abused them and entered into quarrel in the work place

and the said workers complained him about the said act

of the petitioner and when he questioned her, she

scolded him in a filthy language by holding his shirt.

Based on the said complaint received from the said

Thirumurugan, the action was taken against the

petitioner by issuing a charge sheet and conducting the

domestic enquiry. But at the same time, when the

petitioner has given complaint against the said

Thirumurugan under Ex.P7 with the General Manager of

the respondent company for insulting her by touching

her caste, they have not taken any action against him.

This would arise a doubt that since the said

Thirumurugan is a Secretary of the union, which is

recognised by the management, as stated by the

petitioner, the respondent has not taken any action

against him and they levelled false charges against her.

11. Further one of the witnesses on the side of the

respondent management by name Seetha was cited as

third witness. But she has not been examined as a

witness to prove the misconduct committed by the

petitioner. But the learned counsel for the respondent

has submitted that as the said Seetha was threatened

by the petitioner, she could not appear before the

Enquiry Officer on fear with the petitioner. In order to

support his claim, the respondent has marked the copy

letter written by the said Seetha to the respondent

management as Ex.R9. In Ex.R9 it has been stated that

the petitioner has advised her to slow down the

production and when she questioned the same, the

petitioner scolded her in a filthy language and for the

said incident, she was cited as a witness and on coming

to know about the same, the petitioner threatened her

not to give evidence against her in the enquiry

proceedings and hence on fear with the petitioner, she

could not appear in the enquiry directly. But the said

Seetha has not been examined before this court as a

witness on the side of the respondent. Without

examining the said Seetha, Ex.R9, the alleged letter

1173

10 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

written by her, cannot be taken into consideration. All

the witnesses cited on behalf of the respondent

management have deposed about the act of the

petitioner as mentioned in the charge sheet. There is

nothing wonder that the said witnesses have deposed

as against the petitioner and in favour of the

respondent, since they are the management witnesses.

Admittedly the said Thirumurugan is the office bearer

of the union and the petitioner is also one of the office

bearers of the other union. The petitioner has alleged

that the union in which the said Thirumurgan was the

office bearer, is recognised by the management. Though

there is no evidence produced by the petitioner to

support her said version, the non-taking of action

against the said Thirumurgam, against whom the

complaint was filed by the petitioner, would confirm the

said fact. In the above circumstances, the evidence of

the management witnesses in the enquiry proceedings

is not sufficient to prove the misconduct committed by

the petitioner and the said witnesses have also to be

examined before this court to substantiate their

contention. In the above circumstances, the action taken

by the respondent against the petitioner based on the

enquiry report cannot be accepted.

12. According to RW.1, the petitioner after her

termination, she was in the habit of making offensive

and unlawful acts against the respondent by way of

distributing handbills and posters to the workers and

pasting notices in the compound-wall and was in the

habit of attempting to abet the workers to spoil the

peace and tranquility for which a complaint was given

to Karikalampakkam Police Station, which was marked

as Ex.R15. A perusal of Ex.R15 reveals that the said

complaint was given to the police against eight workers

including the petitioner. Whether any action has been

taken by the police against the petitioner based on the

said complaint, has not been explained by the

respondent. Further the respondent has marked the

copy of the writ petition as Ex.R14. A perusal of Ex.R14

reveals that the respondent management filed a writ

petition against 9 persons for injunction and the same

was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. But

the petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings.

Hence, Ex.R14 and Ex.R15 are not support to the case

of the respondent. In the above circumstances, for the

reasons stated above, it is a fit case to this court to

exercise the power given under section 11-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 to interfere with the

penalty of termination order passed by the respondent

management. Hence, this court has come to the

conclusion that the order of termination passed by the

respondent is illegal and the same is liable to be set

aside. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13. In the result, the industrial dispute is allowed, the

petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity

of service, 50% of back wages and other statutory

benefits. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 23rd day of July 2013.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

List of witness examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 22-3-2013 — Veeralakshmi

List of witness examined for the respondent :

RW.1 —

5-6-2013 — Sanjay Madan

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

Ex.P1

— Letter of assurance by the Chairman,

dated 7-2-2009.

Ex.P2

— Representation to Labour Commissioner,

dated 20-3-2009.

Ex.P3

— Representation letter, dated 23-3-2008.

Ex.P4

— Representation to Labour Commissioner,

dated 4-5-2009.

Ex.P5

— Representation to Outpost Karikalampakkam,

dated 6-10-2009.

Ex.P6

— Representation to Villianur Police

Station, dated 14-10-2009.

Ex.P7

— Representation to Factory General

Manager, dated 8-7-2010.

Ex.P8

— Complaint to Mettupalayam Police

Station, dated 1-9-2010.

Ex.P9

— Complaint to Women Commission, dated

3-9-2010.

Ex.P10 — Copy of the FIR, dated 28-12-2010

Ex.P11 — Representation to Factory General

Manager, dated 18-1-2011.

List of exhibits marked for the respondent :

Ex.R1 — Complaint given by Thirumurugan,

dated 26-6-2010.

Ex.R2

— Memo. given by the respondent, dated

12-12-2009.

Ex.R3

— Show cause notice issued by the

respondent, dated 7-7-2010.

Ex.R4

— Letter

given

the

petitioner,

dated 8-7-2010.

Ex.R5

— Explanation given by the petitioner,

dated 15-7-2010.

Ex.R6

— Charge sheet, dated 22-7-2010.

Ex.R7

— Suspension

order

given

the

respondent, dated 17-8-2010.

Ex.R8

— Enquiry proceedings

Ex.R9

— Letter, dated 29-9-2010 given by the

Seetha.

1174

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 December 2013

Ex.R10 — Enquiry report, dated 17-12-2010.

Ex.R11 — Second show cause notice, dated 24-12-2010

Ex.R12 — Explanation given by the petitioner,

dated 18-1-2011.

Ex.R13 — Termination order, dated 31-1-2011

Ex.R14 — Order of Hon’ble High Court, Madras,

dated 17-11-2009.

Ex.R15 — Complaint given by the respondent to

Karikalampakkam Police, dated 29-12-2011.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 167/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 18th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 52/2012, dated 2-8-2013

of the Labour Court (Karaikal Camp), Puducherry in

respect of the industrial dispute between the

management of M/s. Soundararaja Mills Limited,

Nedungadu and its workman Thiru S. Amirthalingam, over

non-employment has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the

notification issued in Labour Department's G.O. Ms.

No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed by

Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said award

shall be published in the official gazette, Puducherry.

(By order)

S. THAMMU GANAPATHY,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amﬂºƒˆ

(ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ xÔVD)

x[MÁÈ :

]Ú. m. º\VÔ[>V¸, ®D.∞., ®D.®_.,

∏.˜.Ω.®ﬂ.gÏ.Ω.n.,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ.

2013ágD gı| gÔ¸‚ \V>D 2ágD ÂV^ ÿk^π¬˛wÁ\

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ®ı 52/2012

]Ú. ®¸. ∂tÏ>o∫ÔD

. . \–>V´Ï.

®]Ï

WÏkVÔD,

ÿƒ·Õ>´´V¤V t_¸ otÿ¶‚,

ÿÂ|∫ÔV|.

. . ®]Ï\–>V´Ï.

÷Õ> \– 2-8-2013 ∂[Æ ÷Æ] sƒV´Áð¬ÔVÔ

®[x[ kÕ>º√Vm, \–>V´Ï >´©∏_ ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô©

∏´]W] ]Ú. N. ´V\Ï g¤Ï g˛•D �ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

>´©∏_ kw¬zÁ´QÏÔ^ M. ÷·ﬁÿƒaB[ �ÆD

R. >D∏´VÎ ∂kÏÔ^ g¤´V˛•D ®|›mÁ´›> kV>∫ÔÁ·¬

ºÔ‚ÁÔ ÿƒFmD, kw¬z ƒD√Õ>\V™ gkð∫ÔÁ·©

√Ω›m©√VÏ›mD, ÷mÂV^ kÁ´l_ √ˆÊÈÁ™l_

÷ÚÕ> ∏[™Ï, ÷Õ> ¿]\[≈D kw∫zD—

yÏkD

1947áD kÚ¶›]B ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆÔ^ ƒ‚¶D ∏ˆ° 11(1)

�ÆD 11(3) ˇµ \–>V´Ï, >™¬z *ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô

ºkı|ÿ\[ÆD √Ë›ÿ>V¶ÏﬂE, ∏[ƒD√·D �ÆD

÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔ”D ∂π¬Ô ºÔVˆ•D, WÏkVÔ›]uz

c›>´s¶¬

ºÔVˆ

÷Õ>›

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m.

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

\– ∑Ú¬ÔD ∏[kÚ\VÆ :

ÂV[ 14á5á1990 x>_ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï t_o_

Assistant D.E.OákVÔ √Ël_ ºƒÏÕm ®Às>

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|t[§ √ËAˆÕm kÕº>[. 2 xÁ≈ √>s

cBÏ° ÿ√uº≈[. \V>ﬂƒD√·D ‘√VF 8,500 ÿ√uÆ

kÕº>[. 5á4á2010 ∂[Æ s|©A ®|›ms‚|

\ÆÂV^ ºkÁÈ¬zﬂ ÿƒ[≈º√Vm ÔËM ƒˆBVÔ

ºkÁÈ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. ∂©º√Vm √kÏ Ô‚ g™m.

º\KD

UPS

ºkÁÈ

ÿƒFBV>>V_,

ºkÁÈ

>Á¶ÿ√u≈m. º\ÈV·Ï ®[Á™ intercom JÈD

ÿ>V¶ÏA ÿÔVı| k´ﬂÿƒV[™VÏ. ÂV[ ÿƒ[≈º√Vm

®[Á™¬ ºÔV√\VÔ, ∂E∫Ô\V™ kVÏ›Á>Ô·V_

“production report ®|¬ÔV\_, ®[™ AΩ∫˛‚|

÷Ú¬˛≈VBV?” ®[Æ ]‚Ω™VÏ. ÔËM ºkÁÈ

ÿƒFBV>>V_, ƒD√·©√‚ΩB_ >BVÏÿƒFm ÿÔVıΩÚ©√>VÔ

ÿƒV[º™[. c∫Ô”¬z ƒD√·D x¬˛B\V? c[

ƒD√·›Á>

ÂV[

WÆ›m˛º≈[

®[Æ

ÿƒV_o

´V˜™V\Vs_ ÁÔÿBø›m© º√V‚| {Ω©º√V ®[ÆD

÷_ÁÈÿB[≈V_

ƒD√·D

�ÆD

ÿƒ‚Ω_ÿ\ı‚

∂Á™›Á>•D WÆ›]s|ºk[ ®[ÆD t´‚Ω ®[Á™

∂Ω¬Ô kÕ>VÏ. ÂV[ √BÕm c^πÚÕm ÿkπºB

kÕms‚º¶[.

3. 7á4á2010 ∂[Æ ®™m ºkÁÈ �ÆD √VmÔV©A

ºkı|D ®[ÆD \VÏﬂ \V> ƒD√·›Á> ÿ√uÆ›>´

ºkı|D

®[ÆD

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ

®ø©∏º™[.

18á5á2010á_ ∞u√‚¶ º√ﬂ∑kVÏ›Á>l_ ®™¬z >´ ºkıΩB

ƒD√·›Á> >´ºkı|D

®™

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï

∂]ÔVˆ

∂§°Æ›]™VÏ. 4á6á2010á_>V[ ƒD√·D ÔVÈÕ>Vµ›]

®™¬z› >´©√‚¶m. ÂV[ √Ël_ Œø∫ÔVÔ ºkÁÈ

ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ∂>™V_ ]ı|¬Ô_K¬z \Vu≈D

ÿƒFB©√‚¶>VÔ°D 6á4á2010á_ ÂVº™ ÿkπºB§s‚º¶[

®[ÆD

WÏkVÔD

15á6á2010

º>]l‚¶

ÔΩ>›]_

z§©∏¶©√‚ΩÚÕ>m. ÷¬zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô^, ÿ√VFBV™mD

Ôu√Á™BV™mD gzD ®[Æ 30á6á2010 º>]l‚¶

®™m

\Æ©A

ÔΩ>›]_

Ì§lÚÕº>[.

WÏkVÔD

1175

10 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

ÿƒV[™√Ω, ÂV[ ]ı|¬Ô_K¬z ºkÁÈ¬zﬂ ÿƒ_È

\Æ›>>V_ ´V˜™V\V ÿƒFBﬂ ÿƒV_o ÔΩ>D ºÔ‚|

]ı|¬Ô_K¬z \Vu≈, WÁÈBVÁðl_ ∂]ÔV´D

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆÔ^

ƒ‚¶D

1947

∏ˆ°

25(f)¬z

®]´V™>VzD. gÔºk, ®™¬z *ı|D ºkÁÈBπ¬Ô

ºkı|D ®[ÆD, √Ë› ÿ>V¶ÏﬂE, ∏[ ƒD√·D �ÆD

÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔÁ·•D ∂π¬Ô ºkı|D ®[ÆD c›>´°

∏≈©∏¬Ô ºkı|D.

4. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >V¬Ô_ ÿƒF> ®]Ï\–s[ ∑Ú¬ÔD

∏[kÚ\VÆ :

\V≈V™Ák

®[√>V_

\–

>^”√Ω

ÿƒFB©√¶

ºkı|D.

\–>V´Ï

6á4á2010á_

>[Á™

kVFÿ\VaBVÔ

ºkÁÈÁBs‚|

WÏkVÔD

ƒ\´ƒ

x§°

8á9á2010á_

∂π›>

∏[™Ï

19á4á2010á_ ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ>D ∂π›>VÏ. ∂kÚÁ¶B

´V˜™V\V

∞uÔ©√‚|,

∂kÚÁ¶B

Ôð¬zÔÁ·

xΩ›m¬ÿÔV^·

WÏkVÔD

Ì§Bm.

∂>[∏[™Ï,

\–>V´Ï gÁÈ¬z k´s_ÁÈ. ÷Às≠B∫ÔÁ·

\–>V´Ï \Á≈›m ÷D\–Ák >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^·VÏ.

6á4á2010á_

ÔËM

÷B∫Ôs_ÁÈ

®[ÆD

∂Ω¬Ô kÕ>>VÔ°D ∂>™V_ √BÕm t_ÁÈ s‚|

ÿkπºB kÕ>>VÔ°D *ı|D ºkÁÈ �ÆD

A≈D√V™Ák. WÏkVÔD ®Õ>ﬂ ÛµWÁÈlKD ∂kÁ´

√Ë ¿¬ÔD ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ. \–>V´Ï ´V˜™V\V

ÿƒFm ∂m ∞uÆ¬ÿÔVı¶ ∏[ gÁÈ¬z kÕm >™m

Ôð¬zÔÁ· xΩ›m¬ÿÔV^· \–>V´Ï k´s_ÁÈ.

∂kÚ¬z ºƒ´ºkıΩB √Ë¬ÿÔVÁ¶, kÚ∫ÔVÈ

ºkı|D.

5. ÷D\–s_ yÏ°¬z ®øD ®øs™V¬Ô^ :

ÿ√Ïƒ™_ º\º™¤´V™ A. ¤V[ ∂\_´VÎ ®[√kÏ ®. \. ƒV. 1

ÿƒFB©√‚¶m.

®øs™V¬Ô^ :

(1) ÷D\– ∞uÔ›>¬Ôm >V™V ?

®øs™V¬Ô^ 1 �ÆD 2 :

>™¬z *ı|D ºkÁÈ•D, √Ë› ÿ>V¶ÏﬂE, ∏[ ƒD√·D

�ÆD ÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔÁ·•D, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔD ∂π¬Ô

ºÔVˆ ÷D\–Ák \–>V´Ï >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^·VÏ. \–>V´Ï

14-5-1990 x>_ ÔËM ÷B¬zÂ´VÔ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

6-4-2010 ∂[Æ ºkÁÈ¬zﬂ ÿƒ[≈º√Vm ÔËM ƒˆk´

÷B∫Ôs_ÁÈ

®[ÆD

∂>™V_,

>™m

√Ë

ÿƒFmÿÔVıΩÚÕ> º√Vm >[Á™ º\ÈV·Ï ∂Áw›m

]‚ΩB>VÔ°D º\KD ´V˜™V\V ÁÔÿBø›m º√V‚|s‚|

ÿkπºB kÕm s‚¶>VÔ°D, º\KD, >[Á™ √akV∫zD

ºÂV¬Ô›m¶[ ]ı|¬Ô_ t_K¬z \Vu≈D ÿƒFk>VÔ°D

>V[ ]ı|¬Ô_K¬z ÿƒ[Æ √ËÿƒFB \Æ›>]™V_,

´V˜™V\V ÔΩ>D ºÔ‚| t´‚Ω ÿkπºBu§B>VÔ°D ÌÆD

\.ƒV. 1 ÌuÆ ƒˆ>V™V, ®[√Á> ÂVD gF° ÿƒFB

ºkıΩ•^·m.

6. \–>V´Ï \. ƒV. 1 gÔ g¤´V˛ ƒV‚EBD ∂π¬ÁÔl_

\. ƒV. g.1 x>_ \. ƒV. g.12 kÁ´BV™ gkð∫ÔÁ·

>V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^·VÏ. \–>V´Ï Programmer, Assistant Data

Entry Operator �ÆD Data Entry Operator ®™ √>s

cBÏ° ÿ√u≈>uÔV™ J[Æ ∂Á¶BV· ∂‚Á¶l[ ÂÔ_

\. ƒV. g.1 gzD. >[Á™ º\ÈV·Ï t´‚ΩB>V_>V[

√BÕm kÕms‚º¶[ ®[ÆD >™¬z *ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô

7-4-2010_ \–>V´Ï ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈ ∂KkÈÚ¬z

®ø]B ÔΩ> ÂÔ_ \. ƒV. g. 2 gzD. \–>V´Ï ÿ\m ºkÁÈ

ÿƒFm ƒˆBV™ ºÂ´›]uz √Ë¬z k´V\_ ÷ÚÕm kÕ>VÏ

®[ÆD º\KD, 6-4-2010 x>_ ÿƒV_o¬ÿÔV^·V\_

WÏkVÔD 15-6-2010_ ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ∂KkÈÚ¬z, WÏkVÔD

2010 ƒD√·›Á> ∂π¬ÔV\_ ÷ÚÕ> WÏkVÔD, ∂›ÿ>VÁÔ

∂π¬Ô ºkı|D ®[Æ ƒ\´ƒ ∂KkÈÏ ∂§°Æ›]B

∏[™ÚD ∂π¬ÔV\_ ÔVÈ>V\>D ÿƒFm 21-6-2010_ ∂Õ>

√V¬˛› ÿ>VÁÔ ∂π›>>VÔ°D, º\KD >[Á™ t´‚Ω

WÏkVÔD ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ>›Á> ÿ√uÆ¬ÿÔVı¶>VÔ°D,

*ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô c›>´s¶ºkı|D ®[ÆD

30-6-2010_ \–>V´Ï, ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈¬z ∂π›> ÔΩ>

ÂÔ_ \. ƒV. g. 4 gzD. �ÆD 9-8-2010_ *ı|D

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ∂KkÈÚ¬z, \–>V´Ï ∂π›> ÔΩ> ÂÔ_

\. ƒV. g. 5 gzD. ƒ\´ƒ x§k§¬ÁÔ ÂÔ_ \. ƒV. g. 6

gzD.

∂]ÔVˆÔ^, ÿ√Vm º\ÈV·Ï ∂Á≈¬z ∂Áw›mﬂ ÿƒ[Æ

º√V‹ƒVÚ¬z ∂π›> AÔVÏ �ÆD x.>. ∂§¬ÁÔ \. ƒV.

g. 7 gzD. 18-4-2010_ \–>V´ˆ[, Am\Á™ AzswV

∂¶z Ák›>>uÔV™ ´Êm (4) ÂÔ_Ô^ \. ƒV. g. 9 gzD.

�ÆD ΩƒD√Ï 1-12-2010 x>_ 31-1-2011 kÁ´¬ÔV™

ÿ>VÁÈº√E Ô‚¶ð ∏_ �ÆD ∂>uÔV™ ´Êm \. ƒV. g. 10

gzD. \V>ﬂƒD√· ´Êm \. ƒV. g. 11 ®™°D LIC-l_

\–>V´Ï >[ √VoE ƒ´ı¶Ï ÿƒF>>uÔV™ ƒV[§>µ ÂÔ_

\. ƒV. g. 12 ®™°D ÔıΩÚ¬˛[≈™. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

WÏkVÔ, √Ïƒ™_ º\º™¤Ï ®. \. ƒV. 1 gÔ ƒV‚EBD

1176

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[10 December 2013

z§©∏|ÁÔl_

\–>V´Á´

®©º√VmD

®kÚD

t´‚¶s_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ∂kÏ >V™VÔ √Ë¬z k´V\_ ÷ÚÕm

s‚¶VÏ ®[ÆD \–>V´Ï >Vº™ x[kÕm ´V˜™V\V

ÿƒFms‚¶VÏ ®[ÆD ∂>™V_ ∂kÚ¬zﬂ ºƒ´ºkıΩB

\–>V´Ï ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ> ÂÔ_ ®. ƒV. g. 1 ®™°D ∂Õ>

´V˜™V\V ÔΩ> ∂ƒ_ ®. ƒV. g. 2 ®™°D ÔıΩÚÕ>™.

g>V´D ®m°D ®, \. ƒV. 1 >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ.

8. \–>V´Ï

>´©A

ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô©

∏´]W]

kV]|ÁÔl_,

\–>V´Á´

WÏkVÔ

º\ÈV·Ï

t´‚ΩB>V_ √BÕm \–>V´Ï ÿkπºB kÕ>VÏ ®[ÆD

º\KD, >™¬z √ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D ®[Æ \.ƒV.g.2

JÈD ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ Ák›>VÏ ®[ÆD \–>V´Ï >™m

√ËlÁ™ ƒˆk´ ÿƒFBs_ÁÈ ®[≈ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬ÿÔ™

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ ÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD º\KD, \VÏﬂá2010¬zˆB

ƒD√·D >´s_ÁÈ ®[Æ ƒ\´ƒ ∂KkÈˆ¶D ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ

®Às>

Œø∫z

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ•D

®|¬ÔV\_,

\–>V´Ú¬z

√Ë\Æ©A

ÿƒFm^·>V_,

÷D\–

∂–\]¬Ô©√¶¬Ì¶Vm

®™

®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.

®]Ï\–>V´Ï

>´©A

∂§kVÏÕ>

kw¬zÁ´QÏ

®[ÆD 6á4á2010á_ >Vº™ x[kÕm √ËÁB s‚|

ºkπºB§B \–>V´Ï, ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ∂KkÈˆ¶D \–

ÿÔV|›>∏[,

14á9á2010á_

®.ƒV.g.2

´V˜™V\V

ÔΩ>›Á>

∂π›>>V_,

∂Õ>

´V˜™V\V°D

÷BÈVm ®[ÆD ®|›mÁ´›>VÏ

9. \–>V´Ï

1990

x>_

√ËÿƒFm

kÕm,

6á4á2010 x[AkÁ´ ®Às> zÁ≈•t[§ √Ë ÿƒFm

Programmer-´VÔ √Ël_ ºƒÏÕm ∏[™Ï 2 xÁ≈

∂‚Á¶Ô^

(3)

ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m.

gÔºk,

6á4á2010 ∂[Æ >[Á™ t´‚ΩB>V_, √BÕm ÿkπºB

\.ƒV.g.2

JÈD

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï

mÁ≈¬z

\–

∂π›m^·>VÔ

ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m.

∂D\–s[º√ˆ_

ƒ\´ƒ ∂KkÈÏ, sƒV´Áð ÿƒFm ∂π›> \.ƒV.g.6á_

xΩkπ›m^·VÏ. 1á9á2010 º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.6 ƒ\´ƒ

14á9á2010 ∂[Æ ®.ƒV.g.2 ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ>›Á>

∂π›>>VÔ ®.\.ƒV.1 ƒV‚EB›][º√Vm Ì§•^·VÏ.

s·¬Ôs_ÁÈ. >™m ÿƒVÕ> ºkÁÈ �ÆD z|D√

ÛµWÁÈ ÔV´ð\VÔ >™m ºkÁÈÁB ´V˜™V\V

ÿƒF˛º≈[

®[Æ

®.ƒV.g.2ás_

ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m.

®.ƒV.g.2á_ Ôı¶ ÁÔÿBø›m >[–Á¶Bm ÷_ÁÈ

®[º≈V ∂_Èm ∂Õ> ®.ƒV.g.2 ÔΩ>›Á> ®Õ>ﬂ

ÿ√u≈VÏ

®[º≈V

\–>V´Ï

Ì≈s_ÁÈ.

÷›>z

ÛµWÁÈl_ ®.ƒV.g.2 ÔΩ>›Á>, \–>V´Ï >Vº™

®ø]¬ ÿÔV|›>>VÔ ÂD\V_ ∂§B xΩ˛≈m. ®.ƒV.g.2

ÔΩ>D

ƒ‚¶©√Ω

ƒV‚EBD

÷_ÁÈ.

g™VKD,

ƒ∫Ô]ÔÁ·•D

ÛµWÁÈl_

√VÏ¬zDº√Vm ®.ƒV.g.2 ÔΩ>D \–>V´´V_ x[kÕm

ÁÔÿBø›]‚|¬

ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚¶m

®[ÆD

gÔºk,

\–>V´Ú¬z *ı|D √ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D ®[≈

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ ∞uÔ›>¬Ô>VÔ ÷_ÁÈ.

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô”D ÷_ÈV\_ ∂kÏ √Ë ÔVÈ›]_ √Ë

ÿƒFm^·VÏ ®™›ÿ>ˆ˛≈m. \–>V´ˆ[ ´V˜™V\V

kÕ]ÚÕ>

\–>V´ˆ[

zÁ≈l_ÈV>

ºƒÁkÁB¬

ÔÚ›]_ÿÔVı|, \–>V´Ú¬z, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔD,

ÔËƒ\V™ ÿ>VÁÔ ∂π¬Ô c›>´s¶ÈVD ®™ ÂV[

ÔÚm˛º≈[. ∂Õ>kÁÔl_ √VÏ¬zDº√Vm, ®Õ>s>

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô”D ÷_ÈV\_ √ËÿƒF> \–>V´Ú¬z,

∂π¬Ô ºkı|D ®™ ÂV[ ÔÚm˛º≈[. √Ë¬ÿÔVÁ¶

º√V[≈ ÿ¶Ït™_ ÿ√M∏‚¸ (termninal benefits)

ÔÚm˛º≈[.

11. xΩs_,

\–

√z]BVÔ

∂–\]¬Ô©√|˛≈m.

(1.50 È‚ƒD) ÿ√≈ cˆBkÏ ®™°D ÷›ÿ>VÁÔÁB

ÿƒÈ°› ÿ>VÁÔ ÷_ÁÈ.

®[™V_

ÿƒV_È©√‚|,

>‚¶ﬂƒ´V_

>‚¶ﬂ∑

m. º\VÔ[>V¸,

º\VÔ[>V¸,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amﬂºƒˆ.

————

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

\.ƒV. 1

— ®¸. ∂tÏ>o∫ÔD.

®.\.ƒV.1

— A. ¤V[ ∂\_´VÎ (WÏkVÔ›][

ÿ√Ïƒ™_ º\º™¤Ï).

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

\.ƒV.g.1

—

ÿ>VaÈVπl[ √>s cBÏ°¬ÔV™

∂Á¶BV· ∂‚Á¶ ÂÔ_

1177

10 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

\.ƒV.g.2 7á4á2010

ÿ>VaÈVπ, ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈¬z

ºkÁÈ ºÔ‚| ÿÔV|›> ÔΩ> ÂÔ_.

\.ƒV.g.3 15á6á2010

WÏkVÔD, ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈¬z

ÿÔV|›> ÔΩ> ÂÔ_.

\.ƒV.g.4 30á6á2010

ÿ>VaÈVπ, ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈¬z

ÿÔV|›> ÔΩ> ÂÔ_.

\.ƒV.g.5 9á8á2010

WÏkVÔD, ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈¬z

ÿÔV|›> ÔΩ> ÂÔ_.

\.ƒV.g.6 1á9á2010

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï mÁ≈l[ ƒ\´ƒ xΩ°

∂§¬ÁÔ ÂÔ_.

\.ƒV.g.7 26á8á2010

∂Ω›m t´‚ΩBm ƒD√Õ>\VÔ

ÿÂ|∫ÔV| ÔVk_ WÁÈB x>_

>Ôk_ ∂§¬ÁÔ ÂÔ_

\.ƒV.g.8

—

ÿ>VaÈVπl[ Am\Á™ Az

\.ƒV.g.9

—

ÿ>VaÈVπ Ô¶[ kV∫˛B>uÔV™

∂¶z Ê‚|Ôπ[ sk´ ÂÔ_.

\.ƒV.g.10

—

ÿ>VaÈVπ¬z BSNL WÏkVÔD

ÿ>VÁÈº√E¬z √V¬˛› ÿ>VÁÔ

\.ƒV.g.11

—

2007- 2008 year bonus slip.

\.ƒV.g.12

—

LIC Policy surrender statement.

®.ƒV.g.1 14á9á2010

\–>V´ˆ[ ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ>D

®.ƒV.g.2 14á9á2010

\–>V´ˆ[ ´V˜™V\V ÔΩ> ÂÔ_.

m. º\VÔ[>V¸,

º\VÔ[>V¸,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amﬂºƒˆ.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND

DISASTER MANAGEMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 13, dated 13th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

The Government of India, Department of

Information Technology, New Delhi have recently

approved the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) and

in pursuance of this policy e-Governance initiatives

are contemplated on a massive scale as enunciated

in the National Common Minimum Programme. The

NeGP vision aims to make all Government services

accessible to the common man in his locality, through

common service delivery outlets and ensure

efficiency, transparency and reliability of such

services at affordable costs to realise the basic needs

of the common man.

2. In pursuance of the said policy guidelines of

the

Government

India,

sanction

the

Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry has been conveyed

for constitution of a Society known as “Puducherry

District e-Governance Society”.

3. (i) The Memorandum of Association, rules and

regulations framed for establishing the said society

viz., “Puducherry District e-Governance Society” has

been approved for registration under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 to administer the implementation

of the e-District Projects and for this purpose the

appointment of the District Collector, Puducherry as

Chairperson of the “Puducherry District e-Governance

Society” has been approved for implementing the

e-Governance Plan in the Puducherry District of this

Union territory of Puducherry.

(ii) The implementation of the e-District projects

shall be carried out in a speedy and time bound

manner under the Chairmanship of District Collector,

Puducherry by the said society viz., “Puducherry

District e-Governance Society" (PDeGS) registered as

a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

The PDeGS in keeping the objects setforth will carry

out various functions relating to the information and

communication technologies.

4. The objective of the Puducherry District

e-Governance Society (PDeGS) is to administer the

implementation of e-District, a Mission Mode Project

(MMP) for the overall benefit of the citizens and

public by setting up the necessary administrative,

financial, legal and technical framework, implementation

mechanism and resources in the district of

Puducherry. The PDeGS, Puducherry will function as

per the guidance of the Directorate of Information

Technology and Puducherry e-Governance Society,

Puducherry. It will also facilitate to provide necessary

training to Government officials/end users and

required awareness programme/training to citizen.

5. Roles and responsibilities of PDeGS;

The PDeGS would—

(i) Implement e-District project and coordinate

amongst the various stakeholders at field

level.

(ii) Provide commitment and support to bringing

in the process changes.

(iii) Provide overall guidance to the projects at

district level.

(iv) Work closely with the selected system

integrator / implementing

agency

undertake the field work, comprehend the

requirement, document the observations,

prepare roadmap and redesign the processes.