Puducherry Gazette, No. 51, 17 December 2013

1212 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY 2. \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^· ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \–ளஜ ∑Ú¬Ôனு:

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 170/Lab/AIL/J/2013, dated 25th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the a ward in I.D. No. 14/2012, dated 18-7-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the i ndustrial dispute between the management of M/s. Superfil Products Ltd., Puducherry and Thiru N. Muthukumaran, 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 ஒஜஆÁÈ : ஸÚ. அ·நு. º\ஏÔஜ,ஏ¸இ®னு.∞.இ ®னு.®_.இ ∏.˜.Ω.®ﬂ.பÏ.Ω..ெஇ ,ÁÈÁ\ ,ஏ∫ணனு ∂முமÈÏ. 2013áபனு பı| ாÁÈ \ஏ,னு 18áபனு Âஏ^ ளடீஏற¬˛றÁ\ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆ ®ı 14/2012

N. ஒ›அ¬ண\´ஜஇ யுஅﬂºƒˆá9.

. . \–,ஏ´Ï.

®ஸÏ

றுÏமஏÔ ÷டீ¬ணÂÏஇ M/s. Û©✓Ï வ_ யு´ஏ¬'¸ ழவÿ¶'இ யுஅﬂºƒˆá9.

. . ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï.

÷Õ, \–மஏ™அ 9-7-2013 ∂ஜÆ ÷Æஸ ளƒஏ´Áð¬ÔஏÔ ®ஜஒஜ மÕ,º✓ஏஅஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ஸÚ. K. ºம_ஒÚÔஜஇ ப¤Ï ப˛•னு \ ர Æ னு ® ஸ Ï \ – , ஏ ´ Ï , ´ © ∏ _ ம ற ¬ ண Á ´ Q Ï ஸÚ. ®னு. È'∑வÂ´நுனு\ஜ ∂மÏÔ^ ப¤´ஏ˛•னு ®|›அÁ´›, மஏ,∫ÔÁ·¬ ºÔ'ÁÔ ÿƒகுஅனுஇ மற¬ண ƒனு✓Õ,\ஏ™ பமð∫ÔÁ·© ✓Ω›அ©✓ஏÏ›அனுஇ ÷அÂஏ^ மÁ´ட_ ✓ˆÊÈÁ™ட_ ÷ÚÕ, ∏ஜ™Ïஇ ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈னு மற∫ணனு—

உ›,´°

1947áனு மÚ¶›ஸடீ ÿ,ஏயர,Ô´ஏÆÔ^ ƒ'¶னு ∏ˆ° 11(1) \ரÆனு 11(3)áஜ ˇµ \–,ஏ´Ïஇ ,™¬ண *ı|னு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|ÿ\ஜÆனு ✓Ë›ÿ,ஏ¶Ïﬂநுஇ ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ƒமுÁÔÔ"னு ∂π¬Ô ºÔஏˆ•னுஇ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகு, \–.

\–,ஏ´Ï 18á8á1997á_ "¸மஏ¸ஸ¬ ∏·ÿ\ı'¸ ∏Á´ºம' ழவÿ¶'" ®ஜ≈ றுÆம™›ஸ_ ∞நு ப©º´'¶´ஏÔ ®Àள, ணÁ≈•னு ÷ஜ§ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ,ஏÏ. ∏ஜ™Ïஇ ∂ÕறுÆம™›Á, ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÆம™னு ®|›அ¬ ÿÔஏı¶அ. யுஸடீ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸஜˇøனு \–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ Â_ÈஒÁ≈ட_ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ,ஏÏ. \–,ஏ´Ï "¸மஏ¸ஸ¬ ∏·ÿ\ı'¸ ∏Á´ºம' ழவÿ¶'" ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ƒ∫Ô›Á, ஒ,ழ_ ப´னு∏›அ ∏ஜ™Ï ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ∂ÕறுÏமஏÔ›Á, ®|›அ¬ÿÔஏı¶ ∏≈ண ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ ∂›ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô›Á, ,ÁÈமÏ ®ஜ≈ ஒÁ≈ட_ Â¶›ஸ மÕ,ஏÏ. ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·ÏÔπஜ ÂÈ–¬ÿÔ™ ÷ﬂƒ∫Ôனு ÿƒடீ_✓'| மÕ,அ. றுÏமஏÔ›ஸஜ ÿ,ஏ_ÁÈ ,ஏ∫Ôஏ\_ ,ÁÈமÏ ✓,ளடழÚÕஅ \–,ஏ´Ï ளÈ˛ ∂ﬂƒ∫Ô›ஸஜ றுÏமஏÔ உÆ©∏™´ஏÔ ÿƒடீ_✓'| மÚ˛≈ஏÏ. 2009áபனு மÚ¶னு றுÏமஏÔனு Èஏ¬∂°' ÿƒகு,Á, \–,ஏ´Úனு ÿ , ஏ ய ர ƒ ∫ Ô ஒ னு ✓ _ º ம Æ ∂ மு ம È Ï Ô π ¶ னு ஒÁ≈ட'¶,ஏ_ ÷னு\–,ஏ´Ï *அனுஇ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ôனு *அனுஇ றுÏமஏÔனு ளº´ஏ,© º✓ஏ¬ÁÔ¬ ÔÁ¶©∏Ω›அ மÕ,அ. ∂,ஜ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏﬂநுடீஏÔஇ உ^ºÂஏ¬Ô›அ¶ஜ \–,ஏ´Ï º\முனுஇ நுÈ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô உÆ©∏™ÏÔÁ·•னு ÿ✓ஏகுடீஏ™ Ôஏ´ð∫Ôπஜº✓ˆ_ றுÏமஏÔனு ✓Ë ¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு,அ.

3. ÷Àமற¬˛_இ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð ,´ஏ\_ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›ஸ \–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^·ஏÏ. றுÏமஏÔனு லடீ ®ıðனு ÿÔஏı|னு \ரÆனு ஒஜº✓ லÏ\ஏஆ›,✓Ω \–,ஏ´Á´ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீºமı|னு ®ஜ≈ ®ıð›ஸ_ ÿƒடீ_✓'|^·,ஏÔ Âஜண ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð ®ஜ✓அ {Ï ∂Ω©✓Á¶டீஏ™ பமðனு பணனு. ∂ஸ_ ®Õ, Œø∫ˇ™›ஸ_ ∂மÏ ~|✓'¶ஏÏ ®ஜÆ ண§©∏'ΩÚ¬Ô ºமı|னு. உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð¬ண ∂Ω©✓Á¶ பமð\ஏ™ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð ∂π¬Ô©✓¶ஏ\ºÈºடீ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶ÕஸÚ©✓அ ளº™ஏ,\ஏ™அ. 24á4á2010இ 3á5á2010 \ரÆனு 31á5á2010 ப˛டீ º,ஸÔπ_ ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ ள·¬Ô¬ ÔΩ,∫Ôπஜ º✓ˆ_,ஏஜ ÷Õ, ளƒஏ´Áð ÂÁ¶ÿ✓ர§Ú¬˛≈அ. ÷Õ, ºÂஏ'œ¸Ôπ_ \–,ஏ´Ï Œø∫ˇ™›ஸ_ ~|✓'¶,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚ¬Ôள_ÁÈ. ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|Ô^ ✓ர§•னு ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ள·¬Ôள_ÁÈ.

4. ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔÔ^ º✓ஏஸடீ மஏகு©யு ∂π¬Ô©✓¶ஏ\_ ÷டீரÁÔ றுடீஸ¬ண ஒ´ðஏÔ ÂÁ¶ÿ✓ரÆ^·™. ∏Áற©Øஸடீஒனு ,´©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ∏Áற©Øஸடீனு ,´ஏ\_ ளƒஏ´Áð¬ண \–,ஏ´Á´ ம´ மரயுÆ›, ÷டீÈஏஅ. ÿ✓ஏகுடீஏ™ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|ÔÁ·¬ ண§©∏'|இ Ôஏ´ðனு ºÔஏÚனு ÔΩ,∫Ô^ ∂–©✓©✓'|^·™. 5á5á2010இ 8á5á2010இ 15á5á2010 ப˛டீ ÔΩ,∫Ô·ஏ_ 26á6á2010 ∂ஜÆ ✓ஏஅÔஏ©யு ∂முமÈÏÔπ¶னு ,™அ 3á6á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ள·¬Ô¬ ÔΩ,›Á, \–,ஏ´Ï ,Õ,º✓ஏஅ ∂Á,இ ∂ ம Ï ÿ✓≈ \Æ›அள'¶ஏÏ. ப™ஏ_இ ƒÔ ªயடீÏ S. ✓´Õ,ஏ\ஆ¶னு ÿÔஏ|›அ ∂Á, உர✓›ஸ º\Èஏ·ˆ¶னு ,´ ஒடீரநு›அº✓ஏஅ ∂Á,•னு ÿ✓≈ \Æ›அள'¶ஏÏ. ÷Õ, உıÁ\Áடீ று'∏¬Ô ✓ஏஅÔஏ©யு ∂முமÈÏஇ உர✓›ஸ º\Èஏ·Ï \ரÆனு17 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1213 ✓´Õ,ஏ\ஜ ப˛ºடீஏÁ´ \–,ஏ´Ï ளƒஏˆ¬Ô ஒΩ•னு ®ஜ✓Á, ள·¬˛இ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ ÿ,ˆள¬Ô ºமı|னு. ப™ஏ_இ ŒÚ,ÁÈ©✓'ƒ\ஏÔ ளƒஏ´Áð ஒΩ¬Ô©✓'|^·அ.

5. \–,ஏ´ˆஜ 22á4á2010இ 30á4á2010 ப˛டீ º,ஸட'¶ ÔΩ,∫ÔÁ· பகு° ÿƒகுடீஏ\_ ÷னு\–,ஏ´Á´ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீºமı|னு ®ஜ≈ உ^ºÂஏ¬Ôனு ÿÔஏı|இ ÷Àளƒஏ´Áð ÂÁ¶ÿ✓ரÆ^·அ. º\முனுஇ ∂ஸÔ✓'ƒ ,ı¶Á™டீஏÔ ✓Ë ¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶அ ƒ'¶›ஸரண ஒ´ðஏ™ உ›,´மஏணனு. ƒ'¶©✓Ωடீஏ™ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔÔÁ· ஒ¶¬˛ \–,ஏ´Á´ ✓யமஏ∫Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜ≈ உ^ºÂஏ¬Ô›அ¶ஜ ÿ✓ஏகுடீஏ™ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|ÔÁ· மÁ™Õஅ ÷டீரÁÔ ளஸÔ"¬ண© யு≈னு✓ஏÔ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›ஸ \–,ஏ´Á´ ✓Ë ¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுஅ^·™Ï. \–,ஏ´ˆஜ Ô¶ை∫ÔÁ·•னு ºம,Á™•னு ✓ð›,ஏ_ ~|ÿƒகுடீ ஒΩடீஏஅ. ,™அ மடீ,ஏ™ ÿ✓ரº≈ஏÏÔ^இ ƒºÔஏ,´ÏÔ^ \ரÆனு ƒºÔஏ,ˆ ப˛ºடீஏÁ´ ✓´ஏ\ˆ¬Ô ºமıΩடீ Ô¶Á\ட_ உ^·ஏÏ. ,ரº✓ஏஅ ஸ™ƒˆ மஏµ¬ÁÔÁடீ Â¶›, ÷டீÈஏ, றுÁÈட_ உ^·ஏÏ. \–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÷டீரÁÔ றுடீஸÔ"¬ண© யு≈னு✓ஏ™அ. பÔºமஇ ÷னு\–Áம ,^"✓Ω ÿƒகுடீ ºமı|னு. 15á7á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ✓Ë ¿¬Ô உ›,´° ƒ'¶›ஸரண© யு≈னு✓ஏ™அ \ரÆனு உ›,´° ¿¬Ô´° ÿƒகுஅ \–,ஏ´Á´ ∂Á™›அ ƒமுÁÔÔ^ \ரÆனு ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு ப˛டீÁமÔ"னு ∂π›அஇ *ı|னு ÿƒÈ° ÿ,ஏÁÔடீπ›அஇ ✓Ëடீ\Ï›, ºமı|னு ®™ ∏´ஏÏ›ஸ¬Ô©✓|˛≈அ.

6. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகு, ®ஸÏ\–ளஜ ∑Ú¬Ôனு :

Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏ^·©✓'¶ ƒ∫ÔஸÔÁ·› ,ள´ \ர≈மரÁ≈ \–,ஏ´º´ று'∏¬Ô ºமı|னு. \–ள_ Ôı¶ ƒ∫ÔஸÔ^ ∂Á™›அனு உıÁ\¬ண© யு≈னு✓ஏ™Áம \ரÆனு ƒ'¶©✓Ω ∞ரÆ¬ÿÔஏ^·¬ÌΩடீÁமடீ_È. ®Àள, ஒஜ ∂§ள©யு ÷ஜ§•னு \ரÆனு ஒஜ ∂–\ஸடஜ§•னு ºமÁÈ¬ண ம´ஏ\_ ÷Ú©✓,Á™ மற¬Ô\ஏÔ ÿÔஏıΩÚÕ,ஏÏ. º\முனுஇ ∂மÚ¬ண ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©ÿ✓ர≈ ºமÁÈடÁ™ﬂ ƒˆடீஏÔ ÿƒகுடீஏ\_ ÷Ú›,_ \ரÆனு ºமÁÈ ÿƒகுடீ \Æ›,_ º✓ஏஜ≈ Œø∫ˇ™ﬂ ÿƒடீ_Ôπ_ ~|✓'¶ஏÏ. ∂,™ஏ_இ உıÁ\Áடீ ∂§டீ உ^ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›,©✓'¶º✓ஏஅ ∂மÏ ளƒஏ´ÁðடÁ™ ஒøÁ\டீஏÔ யு≈¬ÔË›,,ஏ_இ ŒÚ,ÁÈ©✓'ƒ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›,©✓'¶அ. 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ ள|©யு ளıð©✓னு ∂_Èஅ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,µÔº·ஏ றுÏமஏÔ›ஸரண¬ ÿÔஏ|¬Ôள_ÁÈ. ப,Èஏ_இ 31á5á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏˆடீ ºÂஏ'œ¸ ∂–©✓©✓'| ∂,ரணனு ®Õ,ள, ள·¬Ôº\ஏ ∂_Èஅ பமð∫Ôº·ஏ ÿÔஏ|¬Ôஏ,,ஏ_இ *ı|னு உ^ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›, 5á6á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ÔΩ,னு துÈனு ,Ôம_ ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ளƒஏ´Áðட_ ÔÈÕஅ ÿÔஏı¶ \–,ஏ´Ïஇ ள|©யு ளıð©✓º\ஏஇ \Ú›அம நு˛ﬂÁƒ ÿ✓ர≈,ரÔஏ™ ப,ஏ´º\ஏ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீஏ\_ ,ஆடீஏÏ \Ú›அமﬂ ƒஏஜ§,µ \'|னு ƒ\Ï©∏›,ஏÏ.

7. ÷.®¸..ெ \Ú›அம Ôஏ©¨'Ωஜˇµ ✓ஸ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπடீஏ™ \–,ஏ´Ïஇ ÷.®¸..ெ \Ú›அம \Á™ÔπºÈஏ ∂_Èஅ ∂´∑ \Ú›அம\Á™டºÈஏ ®Õ,ள, நு˛ﬂÁƒ•னு ÿ✓≈ஏ\_ ,ஆடீஏÏ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,µ \'|னு ÿÔஏ|›அ^·அ ஸÚ©ஸÔ´\ஏ™,ஏÔ ÷_ÁÈ. º\முனுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ,ஆடீஏÏ \Ú›அம\Á™ட_ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ நு˛ﬂÁƒ ÿ✓ரÆ ∂,ஜ ளம´∫Ô^இ \ÚÕஅÔ^ º✓ஏஜ≈ பமð∫ÔÁ· ƒ\Ï©∏›,ஏ_இ ள|©யு ®|›,,ரÔஏ™ Ôஏ´ð∫Ô·ஏÔ Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏ^· ஒΩ•னு. ப™ஏ_ 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ 31á5á2010 மÁ´ ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏˆடீ ºÂஏ'œ¸ ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©✓'|இ ∂,ரண \–,ஏ´Ï ள·¬Ôனு ∂π¬Ôஏ\_ 15á6á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ண§©✓ஏÁð துÈனு உ^ளƒஏ´Áð✓ர§டீ ,Ôம_ ÿ✓ர≈°¶ஜ 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ 18á6á2010 மÁ´ உ¶_றுÁÈ ƒˆட_Èஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ,,ஏÔ°னு ∂,ரÔஏ™ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,Áற ளƒஏ´Áðட_ ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶அ ®ஜ✓அஇ \–,ஏ´Ï*அ றுÏமஏÔனு ®|›, Œø∫ண Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔடÁ™ ஒ§டீΩ¬ணனு ºÂஏ¬Ô›ஸ_ ,´©✓'¶அ. ∞ÿ™ஆ_இ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿÔஏ|›, \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,µ ∞ரÆ¬ÿÔஏ^·©✓¶ஏ\_இ \–,ஏ´Ï யுˆÕ, ணர≈∫Ôπஜ ,ஜÁ\Áடீ¬ ÔÚஸ று´Õ,´ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶º, Œயடீ ºமÆ ®Õ, உ^ ºÂஏ¬Ô›அ¶–னு று´Õ,´ ✓Ë ¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ள_ÁÈ.

8. º\முனுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï Ì§•^·மஏÆ 15á7á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏˆடீ ºÂஏ'œ¸ ∂–©✓©✓'¶ றுÁÈட_ ∂மˆ¶வÚÕஅ ®Õ, ள·¬Ôஒனு ம´ஏ, றுÁÈட_ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´´ஏ_ 24á7á2010 ∂ஜÆ று´Õ,´ ✓Ë¿¬Ô உ›,´° ∏≈©∏¬Ô©✓'| ∂Õ,¬ ÔΩ,\ஏ™அ 24á7á2010 ∂ஜÆ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ✓ஸ° ,✓ஏ_ துÈனு ∂–©✓©✓'|^·அ. ®™ºமஇ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ®ஜ✓அ ∂மÏ யுˆÕ, ணர≈∫Ôπஜ ∂Ω©✓Á¶ட_ மற∫Ô©✓'¶ÿ,ஜÆனுஇ ∂மÏ ,™அ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \–ள_ ºÔஏˆடீமஏÆ *ı|னு ºமÁÈºடீஏஇ ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·º\ஏ ÿÔஏ|¬Ô› º,Áமட_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´´ஏ_ ÿ,ˆள›அ¬ÿÔஏ^·©✓|˛≈அ. ப,Èஏ_இ \–,ஏ´ˆஜ ºÔஏˆ¬ÁÔ \– ,^"✓Ω ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ºமı|னு.

9. ÷னு\–ள_ லÏ°¬ண ®øனு ®øள™ஏ¬Ô^ :

®øள™ஏ¬Ô^ :

(1) ÷னு\– ∞ரÔ›,¬Ôஅ,ஏ™ஏ ?

(2) ®©✓ˆÔஏ´னு \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண¬ ˛Á¶¬ணனு ?

®øள™ஏ¬Ô^ 1 \ரÆனு 2 :

®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÆம™›ஸ_ 1997 ஒ,_ ∞நு ப©º´'¶´ஏÔ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ, \–,ஏ´Ïஇ ƒ'¶ளº´ஏ,\ஏÔ 15á7á2010á_ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶அ ƒˆடீ_È ®ஜÆனு ∂,™ஏ_இ *ı|னு ,ஜÁ™ ✓Ë›ÿ,ஏ¶Ïﬂநுஇ ∏ஜƒனு✓·னு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ƒமுÁÔÔ"¶ஜ றுÏமஏÔனு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™°னு ண§©∏'| \–,ஏ´Ï ÷னு\–Áம ,ஏ¬Ô_ ÿƒகுஅ^·ஏÏ. ✓Ëட_ ºƒÏÕ, Âஏ^ஒ,_ Â_È ஒÁ≈ட_ ✓Ëÿƒகுஅ மÕ,,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô›ஸ_ ,ÁÈம´ஏÔ ÷ÚÕஅ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÔπஜ ஒஜº™ர≈›ஸரÔஏÔ ÿƒடீ_✓'¶Á, ÿ✓ஏÆ›அ¬ÿÔஏ^·ஏ, றுÏமஏÔனுஇ ,™¬ண ✓ÈமÁÔட_ ∂ø›,னு ÿÔஏ|›,,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∂,™ஏ_ ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô› ,ÁÈமÏ1214 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013 ✓,ளÁடீ ´ஏ˜™ஏ\ஏ ÿƒகு,,ஏÔ°னு ÿ,ஏயரƒ∫Ô ÿƒடீ_✓ஏ'Ω™ஏ_இ ∂ஸÚ©ஸடீர≈ றுÏமஏÔனுஇ ÿ✓ஏகுடீஏ™ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|ÔÁ· மÁ™Õஅஇ ளƒஏ´Áð ŒஜÁ≈ ÷டீரÁÔ றுடீஸÔ"¬ண© யு≈னு✓ஏÔ Â¶›ஸஇ ,ஜÁ™ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு,,ஏÔ°னுஇ ,™¬ண ∏Áற©Øஸடீனு மற∫Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ,™அ ∏´\ஏð ✓›ஸ´›ஸ_ \–,ஏ´Ï ண§©∏'ΩÚÕ,ஏஏÏ.

10. 20á4á2010 º,ஸட'¶ Ôஏ´ðனு ºÔஏÚனு ∂§ள©யு \.ƒஏ.ப.1á_ \–,ஏ´Ï ƒ™மˆ 2010 ஒ,_ ∞©´_ 2010 மÁ´ ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ள|©யு ®|›,அ ணர≈னு ®™°னு 2 Âஏ'Ôπ_ ✓ஸ_ ∂π¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™°னு ÔıΩÚÕ,அ. \–,ஏ´Ï ∂π›, 22á4á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ள·¬Ô ÔΩ,னு \.ƒஏ.ப.2á_இ ,ஏஜ உர✓›ஸ ∏ˆள_ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÚம,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷∫ண^· Û µ று Á È Ô ஏ ´ ð \ ஏ Ô உ ¶ _ று Á È ∂ Ω ¬ Ô Ω ✓ஏஸ©யு¬ண^·ஏ™,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷அ ÿ,ஏ¶Ï✓ஏÔ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,µ ƒ\Ï©∏›அ^·,ஏÔ°னு ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ. 23á4á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண றுÏமஏÔனு ∂π›, \.ƒஏ.ப.3 ÔΩ,›ஸ_இ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿ\¥Á™ ÿ´Ω ÿƒகுஅ ÷டீ¬ணனுº✓ஏஅஇ ∂ÆÕஅº✓ஏ™ ±_ÔÁ· *ı|னு ƒˆÿƒகுடீ ÿƒஏஜ™ஸ_இ ஒΩடீஏஅ ®ஜÆ Ì§ள'¶,ஏ_இ ÷மÏ*அ ∞ஜ Œø∫ண Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔ ®|¬Ô¬Ì¶ஏஅ? ®™ ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏ´©✓'¶அ. 24á4á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.4 ண§©✓ஏÁðட_ \.ƒஏ.ப.2 ள·¬Ôனு ஸÚ©ஸÔ´\ஏÔ ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›, உ›º,நு¬Ô©✓'|^·,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. 3á5á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.5 ண§©✓ஏÁðட_ \–,ஏ´Á´ 30á4á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ள·¬Ôனு ஸÚ©ஸÔ´\ஏÔ ÷ _ Á È ® ஜ ✓ , ஏ _ உ ^ ள ƒ ஏ ´ Á ð Â ¶ › , உ›º,நு¬Ô©✓'|^·,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. 31á5á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.6 ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏˆடீ ºÂஏ'œ¸ 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ✓Ë¬ண ம´ஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ,,ரÔஏÔ துஜÆ ஸ™∫Ô"¬ண^ ள·¬Ôனு \–,ஏ´Ï ∂π¬Ô ºமı|னு ®™ Ôı|^·அ. 19á6á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.7 \–,ஏ´ˆஜ ÔΩ,›ஸ_ 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ 18á6á2010 மÁ´ ,™¬ண உ¶_ றுÁÈ ƒˆட_Èஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ,,ஏÔ°னு ÷¬ÔΩ,›அ¶ஜ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,µ ∂π›அ^·,ஏÔ°னு \–,ஏ´Ï ண§©∏'|^·ஏÏ.

11. 19-6-2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.8 ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆடஜ ண§©∏_ றுÏமஏÔ› ,´©யு ÷´ı| ƒஏ'நுடீ∫Ôπஜ மஏ¬ணதுÈ∫Ô^ ✓ஸ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^·,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. 26á6á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.9 ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆடஜ ∂§¬ÁÔட_இ றுÏமஏÔ ,´©யு ƒஏ'நு \ரÆனு \–,ஏ´ˆஜ ƒஏ'நுடீனு ✓ஸ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. 9á7á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.10 \–,ஏ´ˆஜ ÔΩ,›ஸ_இ உ^ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶Õஅ ஒΩÕஅ 15 Âஏ'Ô^ ப˛•னு ,Ôம_ ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனுஇ ,ஏஜ ºமÁÈ¬ண ம´ ,டீஏ´ஏÔ ÷Ú¬˛º≈ஜ ®ஜÆனு ண§©∏¶©✓'|^·அ. 9á7á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.11 ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆடஜ ∂§¬ÁÔட_ றுÏமஏÔனு ∑\›ஸடீ \–,ஏ´Ï*,ஏ™ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬Ô^ று'✓ðனு ப™,ஏÔ¬ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. 12á7á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔ \.ƒஏ.ப.12á_ 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ \–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ë¬ண ம´ஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ,,ரÔஏ™ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| று'✓ð\ஏ™,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. 15á7á2010 º,ஸட'¶ \.ƒஏ.ப.13 ள·¬Ôனு º Ô ஏ ˆ டீ º Â ஏ ' œ ¸ ∞ ஜ \ – , ஏ ´ Ú ¬ ண று ´ Õ , ´ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ,ı¶Á™டீஏÔ மற∫Ô¬Ì¶ஏஅ? ®™ ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏ´©✓'|^·அ. 15á7á2010 º,ஸட'¶ று´Õ,´ ✓Ë¿¬Ô உ›,´° \.ƒஏ.ப. 14 பணனு. \–,ஏ´Ï 22á12á2010á_ றுÏமஏÔ›அ¬ண ∂π›, ளıð©✓¬ ÔΩ,னு \.ƒஏ.ப.15 பணனு. ƒ \ ´ ƒ ∂ மு ம È Ï று Ï ம ஏ Ô › ஸ ர ண ∂ – © ∏ டீ ∂§ள©யு \.ƒஏ.ப. 16 ®™°னுஇ 23á2á2012 º,ஸட'¶ ƒ\´ƒ ஒ§ம§¬ÁÔ \.ƒஏ.ப. 17 ®™°னு \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ பமð∫Ô^ ÔıΩÚÕ,™.

12. 28á7á2005 º,ஸட'¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð ®.ƒஏ.ப.1 பணனு. \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ 23á11á2005 º,ஸட'¶ ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ô உ›,´° ®.ƒஏ.ப.12 பணனு. ,ஜ *அ^· ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬ண மÚÕஅ˛º≈ஜ ®ஜÆ 4á3á2006 ∂ஜÆ \–,ஏ´Ï ®øஸ›,Õ, ÔΩ, ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப.3 பணனு. 15á7á2009இ 16á7á2009 ப˛டீ º,ஸÔπ_ ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ✓Ë¬ண ம´ஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ,,ரண ®ﬂƒˆ¬ÁÔ ÿƒகுஅ ∂–©∏டீ 21á7á2009 º,ஸட'¶ ÔΩ,னு ®.ƒஏ.ப.4 பணனு. ,™அ ண§©✓ஏÁðட_ Û©✓ÏÁமƒÏ ÿƒஏஜ™✓Ω ºமÁÈ ÿƒகுடீஏ\_ \–,ஏ´Ï ÷ÚÕ,அ Œø∫ˇ™னு ®™ 5á5á2010இ 8á5á2010 \ரÆனு 12á5á2010 ப˛டீ º,ஸÔπ_ ÿÔஏ|›, ண§©✓ஏÁðÔπ_ Ôı|^·அ. ∂Áம ®.ƒஏ.ப.5இ ®.ƒஏ.பÔ.6 \ரÆனு ®.ƒஏ.ப.8 பணனு. 10á5á2010á_ \–,ஏ´Ï ÁÔÿடீø›ஸ'| ∂ﬁƒ_ Œ©யுÁÔ ∂'Á¶டஜ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப.7 பணனு. \–,ஏ´Ï ளƒஏ´Áð¬ண 31á5á2010 ∂ஜÆ ப¤´ஏÔ ºமı|னு ®™ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ 24á5á2010á_ ∂–©∏டீ ÔΩ, ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப.9 பணனு. 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ ✓Ë¬ண ம´ஏÁ\¬ண ºÔஏˆடீ ∂§ள©யு¬ண ள·¬Ôனு ∂π¬Ôஏ,,ஏ_ ளƒஏ´Áð ÿƒகுடீ உ›º,நு¬Ô©✓'|^·,ஏÔ 15á6á2010á_ றுÏமஏÔனு ∂–©∏டீ ண§©✓ஏÁðடஜ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப.10 பணனு. 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ ®Àள, ஒஜ™§ள©யுவஜ§ \–,ஏ´Ï ºமÁÈ¬ண ம´ள_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ ளƒஏ´Áð¬ண உ›,´ள¶©✓'|^·,ஏÔ°னு \ரÆனு ,¬Ô ÷.®¸..ெ ƒஏஜ§,µ ∂π›அ ளƒஏ´Áð¬ண ப¤´ஏÔ 21á6á2010á_ ∂–©✓©✓'¶ றுÏமஏÔ ண§©✓ஏÁðடஜ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒஏ.ப.11 பணனு.

13. ÷னு\–,ஏ´Ï ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ÿ,ஏயரƒஏÁÈட_ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ,,ஏÔ¬ Ì≈©✓|னு ÌரÆ ∞ரÆ¬ÿÔஏ^·©✓|˛≈அ. ப™ஏ_இ \–,ஏ´Ï*அ மÁ™டீ©✓'|^· ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|Ô^இ \–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ë ÔஏÈ›ஸ_ நுÈ Œø∫ˇ™∫Ôπ_ ~|✓'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∂,™ஏ_ ∂மÏ*அ மÁ™டீ©✓'¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬ÔÁ·© ÿ✓ஏÆ›அ ®|¬Ô©✓'¶ Œø∫ண Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔÔ^ ÿ,ஏ¶Ï✓ஏÔஇ Â¶Õ, உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð ஒÁ≈டீஏÔ º\ரÿÔஏ^·©✓'¶,ஏ? ®ஜ✓,Á™ Âஏனு ,ரº✓ஏஅ ப´ஏடீºமıΩ•^·அ. \–,ஏ´Ï ƒ™மˆ 2010 ஒ,_ ∞©´_ 2010 மÁ´ ®Àள, ஒஜ™§ள©யுனு ÷ஜ§ ∂ஸÔ\ஏ™ ள|©யு ®|›அ^·,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ.ப.1 துÈனு ∂π¬Ô©✓'¶ Ôஏ´ðனு ºÔஏÚனு ∂§ள©யு¬ண ∏ஜ™Ï ∂§ள©யு ∂–©✓©✓'|^·அ. ∂,ரண \.ƒஏ.ப.2 துÈனு ✓ஸ_∂π›, \–,ஏ´Ïஇ ∞நு ∏·ஏıΩá_ 2008 மÁ´ ,ஏஜ ✓ËயுˆÕஅ மÕ,,ஏÔ°னு ப™ஏ_ ƒ™மˆ 2009 ஒ,_ உர✓›ஸ ∏ˆள_ ✓Ëயுˆ•னு ÛµறுÁÈ ✓ஏஸ©யு ∞ர✓|ம,ஏÔ°னு ண§©∏'ΩÚÕ,ஏÏ. º\முனுஇ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,µ ƒ\Ï©∏›,,ஏÔ°னு \.ƒஏ.ப.2á_ ÔıΩÚÕ,அ.

14. º\முனுஇ \.ƒஏ.ப.3á_ Ôı¶✓Ω 23á4á2010á_ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿ\¥Á™ ÿ´Ωÿƒகுஅ ÷டீ¬ணனுº✓ஏஅஇ ப´னு✓›ஸ_ ∂ÆÕஅº✓ஏ™ ±_ÔÁ· ƒˆÿƒகுடீ ÿƒஏஜ™º✓ஏஅ ஒΩடீஏஅ ®ஜÆ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿƒகுடீ\Æ›,அ ணர≈\ஏணனு ®ஜ≈17 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1215 ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| பணனு. \.ƒஏ.ப.1 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.3 ப˛டீமர§_ Ôı¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬ÔÁ· ண§›அ \–,ஏ´Ï ∂π›, ள·¬Ôனு ஸÚ©ஸÔ´\ஏÔ ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›, உ›º,நு›அ^·,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ.ப.4 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.5 துÈனு றுÏமஏÔனு ண§©✓ஏÁð ∂–©∏ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆடீஏÔ மற¬ணÁ´QÏ ஸÚ\ஸ பÏ. ஸÈÔமஸ றுடீவ¬Ô©✓'|^·,ஏÔ ÔıΩÚÕ,அ.

15. துஜ≈ஏமஅ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'¶ஏÔஇ 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ ®Àள, ஒஜ™§ள©யுனு ÷ஜ§ \–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ë¬ண 31á5á2010 மÁ´ ம´ள_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_இ ÷அ✓ர§ றுÏமஏÔனு ∂–©∏டீ \.ƒஏ.ப.6 ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏˆடீ ºÂஏ'œ¸¬ண ✓ஸ_ ∂–©∏டீ \–,ஏ´Ï ,™¬ண 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ 18á6á2010 மÁ´ உ¶_றுÁÈ ƒˆட_Èஏ,Á,© ✓ர§ ∞ரÔ™ºம றுÏமஏÔ›ஸ¶னு ÔΩ,னு ÿÔஏ|›,Á, றுÏமஏÔனு ∞ரÔ \Æ›அள'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ,ரº✓ஏஅ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,ø¶ஜஇ ºமÁÈ¬ண ம´ ,டீஏ´ஏÔ உ^·,ஏÔ°னுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ∂π›, \.ƒஏ.ப.7 ÔΩ,னுஇ றுÏமஏÔ›,ஏ_ 19á6á2010 ∂ஜÆ ÿ✓≈©✓'¶,ஏÔ ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ. \.ƒஏ.ப.1 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.3 ப˛டீமர§_ Ôı¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬ÔÁ·© ÿ✓ஏÆ›அ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ 19á6á2010á_ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›ஸடீ,ஏÔ°னு ∂Õ, ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶¬ÔளÚ©✓,ஏÔ ண§›அ ,✓ஏ_ ∂–©∏•னு ∂ஜÆ ÔஏÁÈ 10.40 மÁ´ ளƒஏ´Áðட_ ÔÈÕஅÿÔஏ^·ள_ÁÈ ®ஜ≈ ÛµறுÁÈட_இ றுÏமஏÔ› ,´©யு ƒஏ'நு பÏ. ÷·ம´ƒஜ \ரÆனு பÏ. ∏´✓ஏÔ´ஜ ப¤´ஏ˛ ƒஏ'நுடீனு ∂π›,ஏÔ°னுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ப¤´ஏÔஏ,,ஏ_ ŒÚ,ÁÈ©✓'ƒ\ஏÔ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›ஸ ஒΩ¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ.ப.8 ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔட_ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ.

16. \.ƒஏ.ப.6á_ Ôı¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|ÔÁ·© ÿ✓ஏÆ›அ 26á6á2010á_ Â¶Õ, உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áðட_ \–,ஏ´Ï ,™¬ண உ,ளடீஏÔஇ ºÔ. ஒ›அƒஏவ ®ஜ✓மÁ´ ∂Áற›அ¬ÿÔஏı| ளƒஏ´Áðட_ ப¤´ஏ™,ஏÔ°னு றுÏமஏÔ› ,´©∏_ பÏ. ÷·ம´ƒ–னு \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ \–,ஏ´Úனு ளƒஏˆ¬Ô©✓'| ∂§¬ÁÔ ƒ\Ï©∏©✓,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ.ப.9 ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆடஜ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔட_ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. \.ƒஏ.ப.1இ \.ƒஏ.ப.3 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.6 ப˛டீ துஜÆ ºÂஏ'œ¸ÔÁ·•னுஇ \–,ஏ´´ஏ_ ÷Áற¬Ô©✓'¶ Œø∫ˇ™∫Ô"¬ண ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏ´©✓'¶™. ∂Àள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏ´©✓'|இ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔட_ ள·¬Ôனு \.ƒஏ.ப.4 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.5 ப˛டீமர§_ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. \.ƒஏ.ப.8 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.9 ப˛டீ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔÔ"¬ண ஒஜ™Ïஇ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð மற∫Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ள·¬ÔனுºÔஏˆடீ ÔΩ,∫Ô"¬ண∏≈ணஇ ÷Àமற¬˛_ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð மற∫Ô©✓¶ஏ\_இ ºÂ´ΩடீஏÔ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ 19á6á2010 \ரÆனு 26á6á2010 ப˛டீ º,ஸÔπ_ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›ஸ ஒΩ›ஸÚ©✓,ஏÔ ÿ,ˆ˛≈அ. º\முனுஇ \.ƒஏ.ப.8áஜ✓Ω¬ண Â¶›,©✓'¶ 19á6á2010 º,ஸட'¶ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áðட_ \–,ஏ´Ï ப¤´ஏÔள_ÁÈ. 19á6á2010 ∂ஜÆ \–,ஏ´Ï ப¤´ஏÔ ºமı|னு ®ஜÆ றுÏமஏÔ› ,´©∏_ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ,Ôம_ ÿÔஏ|›,ஏ´ஏ ®ஜ✓,ரண பமðனு ®அ°னு ÷_ÁÈ.

17. ÷ﬂÛµறுÁÈட_இ 19á6á2010 º,ஸட'¶ ளƒஏ´Áðட_ \–,ஏ´Ï ப¤´ஏÔஏ,,ஏ_ ŒÚ,ÁÈ©✓'ƒ உ›,´° ∏≈©∏¬Ô©✓'|^·அ. பÔºமஇ \.ƒஏ.ப.1 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.3á_ Ôı|^· ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|Ô^ ண§›அஇ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð மற∫Ôஏ\முனுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ ஒஜஆÁÈட_ 19á6á2010 ∂ஜÆ ப¤´ஏÔ º✓ஏஸடீ மஏகு©யு ∂π¬Ôஏ\முனுஇ ∂மƒ´Ôஸட_ ŒÚ,ÁÈ©✓'ƒ உ›,´° \.ƒஏ.ப.8 ஒஜஆÁÈ¬ண லÏ\ஏஆ¬Ô©✓'¶அ ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,ஏÔ ÷_ÁÈஇ ®™ ∂§டீஒΩ˛≈அ. \.ƒஏ.ப.6áஜ✓Ω¬ண 31á5á2010á_ ∂–©✓©✓'¶ ºÂஏ'œநு_ ƒஏ'¶©✓'|^· ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'Ω_ 17á5á2010 ஒ,_ \–,ஏ´Ï ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ✓Ë¬ண ம´ஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ,,ஏÔ¬ Ôı|^·,ரணனுஇ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð மற∫Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ப™ஏ_இ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ ஒஜஆÁÈ¬ண \–,ஏ´Ï 26á6á2010á_ ப¤´ஏ˛இ ,\அ றுÁÈÁடீ ®|›அ¬Ì§•^·ஏÏ. \Ú›அம ƒஏஜÆ¶ஜ ,ஏஜ ∂–©∏டீ ள|©யு ÔΩ,›Á, ÿÔஏ|›,–©∏டீº✓ஏஅ ∂Á, றுÏமஏÔனு மஏ∫Ô \Æ›,,ஏÔ°னு ளƒஏ´Áðட_ \–,ஏ´Ï Ì§•^·,ஏÔ°னு ÿ,ˆடீமÚ˛≈அ.

18. \.ƒஏ.ப.1 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப.3á_ ண§©∏¶©✓'¶ Œø∫ˇ™∫Ô^ ÿ,ஏ¶Ï✓ஏÔ Â¶Õ, ளƒஏ´Áðட_ ƒ™மˆ 2010 ஒ,_ ∞©´_ 2010 மÁ´ \–,ஏ´Ï ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ✓Ë¬ண ம´ள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆ றுÏமஏÔ› ,´©∏_ ƒ\Ï©∏›, 1 ஒ,_ 9 மÁ´டீஏ™ பமð∫Ôπஜ✓Ω¬ண று'∏¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ.ப.11 ள ƒ ஏ ´ Á ð ∂ § ¬ Á Ô ட _ ண § © ∏ ¶ © ✓ ' | ^ · அ . ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›ஸ_ ƒஏ'நுடீனு ∂π›, \.ƒஏ.ப.1 ணÆ¬ண ளƒஏ´Áðடஜº✓ஏஅ \.ƒஏ.ப.1 ∂§ள©∏_ உ^· ƒ∫ÔஸÔ^ உıÁ\ ®ஜÆனுஇ ƒ™மˆ 2010 ஒ,_ ∞©´_ 2010 மÁ´ ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ள|©யு ®|›º,ஜ ®ஜ≈ஏ_ ƒˆ,ஏஜ ®ஜÆனு Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏı|^·ஏÏ. பÔºமஇ \.ƒஏ.ப.1á_ ண§©∏'¶✓Ω ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ƒ™மˆ 2010 ஒ,_ ∞©´_ 2010 மÁ´ \–,ஏ´Ï ள|©யு ®|›,,ஏÔ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ ஒΩ° ÿƒகுஅ^·அ ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,ஏÔºம உ^·அ. \.ƒஏ.ப.3 ∂§ள©∏_ ண§©∏'¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'Á¶© ÿ✓ஏÆ›,மÁ´ட_ Û©✓ÏÁமƒÏ ∏´✓ஏÔ´ஜ ÿƒஏஜ™ ✓ËடÁ™ \–,ஏ´Ï ÿƒகுடீஏ,,ஏ_இ ºமÆ Â✓Ï Áம›அ ∂Õ, ºமÁÈÁடீ ÿƒகுஅ ஒΩ¬Ô©✓'¶அ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ ÷¬ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|னு று'∏¬Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔட_ Ôı|^·அ. ÷Õ, ÷´ı¶ஏமஅ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'Á¶© ÿ✓ஏÆ›, மÁ´ட_ Û©✓ÏÁமƒÏ ∏´✓ஏÔ´Á™› ,ள´ ºமÆ ƒஏ'நுடீ∫Ô^ ளƒஏ´Áðட_ ளƒஏˆ¬Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ∂Õ, Û©✓ÏÁமƒÏ ∏´✓ஏÔ´Á™இ ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›ஸ_ ŒÚƒஏ'நுடீஏÔ ஒஜஆÆ›,©✓¶ள_ÁÈ.

19. \.ƒஏ.ப.6áஜ✓Ω¬ண ண§©∏¶©✓'|^· துஜ≈ஏமஅ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ÿ✓ஏÆ›,மÁ´ \–,ஏ´Ï ÷.®¸..ெ \Ú›அம \Á™டழÚÕஅ ®Õ,ள, \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,øனு ƒ\Ï©∏¬Ôஏ\_இ ,ஆடீஏÏ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,Áற ∂π¬Ô ஒர✓'¶,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∂,™ஏ_ \–,ஏ´ˆஜ ƒ\ஏ,ஏ™னு ∞ரÆ¬ÿÔஏ^·¬ÌΩடீ,ஏÔ ÷_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_இ ÷¬ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|னு று'∏¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ.ப.12 ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔட_ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈அ. \–,ஏ´Ï ÷Õ¿ஸ\ஜ≈›ஸ_ ƒஏ'நுடீனு ∂π¬ÁÔட_இ ,™அ உ¶_றுÁÈ ƒˆட_Èஏ\_ º✓ஏ™,ஏ_ \'|º\இ ள|©யு ®|›அ©º✓ஏ™,ஏÔ Ì§™ஏÏ. ÷.®¸..ெ ∂∫Ô›ஸ™´ஏÔ ÷Ú¬ணனு \–,ஏ´Ïஇ ÷.®¸..ெ \Ú›அம\Á™ட_ நு˛ﬂÁƒ ÿ✓ர≈,ஏÔ ÿ,ˆடீள_ÁÈ. ÷Õ, ÛµறுÁÈட_ ,ஆடீஏÏ \Ú›அமˆ¶னு ÿ✓ர≈ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜ§,ø¬ணஇ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ ∂ஸÔ ஒ¬˛டீ›அமனு ∂π¬Ô ÷டீÈள_ÁÈ.

1216 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013

20. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு ,ஏ¬Ô_ÿƒகு, ®.ƒஏ.ப.1 ஒ,_ ®.ƒஏ.ப.4 மÁ´டீஏ™ பமð∫Ô^ ÷னு\–ள_ ÿƒஏ_È©✓'¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬Ô"¬ண ÿ,ஏ¶Ï∏_Èஏ,ÁமÔ·ஏணனு. ∞ரÔ™ºமஇ \–,ஏ´Ï*அ நுÈ Œø∫ˇ™∫ÔÁ·¬ ண§›அ ®.ƒஏ.ப.1 ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©✓'|இ ®.ƒஏ.ப.2á_ ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏˆ•^·ஏÏ. 23á11á2005 ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ô›ஸ_ ÷ÚÕ,ஏÏ ®ஜÆனு 4á3á2006á_ \ஜஆ©யு ÔΩ,னு ®.ƒஏ.ப.3 துÈனு ÿÔஏ|›,ஏÏ ®ஜÆனு ®.ƒஏ.ப.4 துÈனு \–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ë¬ண ƒˆடீஏÔ ம´ள_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ ®ﬂƒˆ¬ÁÔ ண§©✓ஏÁð 27á1á2009á_ ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னு ®.ƒஏ.\.1 ƒஏ'நுடீனு ∂π›,ஏÏ. ÷Õ, ®.ƒஏ.ப.1 ஒ,_ ®.ƒஏ.ப.4 மÁ´டீஏ™ ƒ∫ÔஸÔ^ ÷Àமற¬ண¬ண ÿ,ஏ¶ÏயுÁ¶டீ,ஏÔ Âனு\ஏ_ ÔÚ,ஒΩடீள_ÁÈ.

From the above, this court finds two reasons in favour of the second respondent, namely, (i) the conduct of the petitioner management is not continuously paying the subsistence allowance to the second respondent employee during the crucial period of enquiry is not only in violation of the principles of natural justice, but also will prove fatal to the dismissal order.

22. ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மற¬ணÁ´QÏ மஏஸ|ÁÔட_இ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§ ✓Ë¬ண ம´ஏ\_ ÷ÚÕ,அ Ô|Á\டீஏ™ Œø∫ˇ™னு பணனு ®ஜÆனு ÷›,ண ÿƒடீ_ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áðட_ று'∏¬Ô©✓'|இ ∂›,ண Œø∫ˇ™›ஸரÔஏÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ உ›,´° ƒˆடீஏ™º, ®ஜÆனு மஏஸ'¶ஏÏ. º\முனுஇ ஒஜ™§ள©∏ஜ§•னு ஒஜ∂–\ஸடஜ§•னு ✓Ë¬ணம´ஏ\_ ÿமπÂஏ'|¬ணﬂ ÿƒஜÆள'|இ ∏ஜ™Ï ✓Ë¬ண ம´ ளÚனுயுனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏπஇ ŒÚ \Ú›அம ƒஏஜÆ¶ஜ ✓Ë¬ண ப¤´ஏணனு ÿƒடீ_ ÔıΩ¬Ô›,¬Ô,ஏணனு ®™°னுஇ ∂›,ண Â✓Á´ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு,அ ƒˆºடீ ®™ ˇµÔı¶ ஒஜலÏ©∏_ ஒΩ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶,ஏÔ°னு மஏஸ'|இ ˇµÔı¶ஒஜ லÏ©யுÔÁ· ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ.

CDJ 2011KarHC554 :

A. Ganesh Reddy -Vs.-The Chief Traffic Manager,

BMTC, Central Office, Bangalore, dated 25-5-2011.

21. \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©யு மற¬ணÁ´QÏ மஏஸ|ÁÔட_இ \–,ஏ´Ï ,™அ உ¶_றுÁÈ ƒˆட_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ரண ŒÚ Â✓Ï துÈனு ÔΩ,னு ÿÔஏ|›அ ∂–©∏டீ,ஏÔ°னுஇ ÷Àமற¬˛_ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð ,´©✓¶ள_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_இ ண ர ≈ ﬂ ƒ ஏ ' | ண § © ✓ ஏ Áð ∂ π ¬ Ô ஏ , Û µ று Á È ட _ Ôஏ´ðனுºÔஏÚனு ºÂஏ'œ¸ ∂–©∏டீ∏≈ண ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| மÁ™டீஏ\_ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆÁடீ றுடீவ›அஇ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔ ƒ\Ï©∏›,∏ஜ™Ï ∂Õ, ∂§¬ÁÔடஜ ∂Ω©✓Á¶ட_ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு,அ ÷டீரÁÔ றுடீஸ¬ண யு≈னு✓ஏ™அ ®ஜÆ ®|›அÁ´›,ஏÏ. º\முனுஇ \–,ஏ´Á´ ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு, றுÏமஏÔனுஇ ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ô ÔஏÈ›ஸ_ ∏Áற©Øஸடீனு ,´ள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ÷ﬂÛµறுÁÈட_ ÷டீரÁÔ றுடீஸ ƒ'¶னு \ரÆனு ÿ,ஏயÈஏ·Ï ÂÈﬂƒ'¶∫Ô^ ∏≈©∏¬Ô©✓'|^·™ ®ஜÆனு ®|›அÁ´›அ ˇµÔı¶ ஒஜலÏ©யுÔÁ· றுÁ™°ÌÏÕ,ஏÏ.

CDJ 2012 DHC 224 :

Management of D.T.C- Vs.- Dhan Singh Dated

23-2-2012.

.... Court held - respondent/workman had sent the intimation about his sickness from his home but that could not reach the Depot in time and also given justification for not reporting for duty during the period and the respondent/workman's absence was willful or it was due to justified reasons and management had not even produced in the enquiry the decision taken on the workman's application therefore, there was lack of enquiry and do not find any merit and held dismissed.

CDJ 2013 MHC 2606 :

The Management of Meenakshipettai Cotton and

Silk Weavers Co-operative Society, Cuddalore

District -Vs.- The Deputy Commissioner of Labour

(Minimum Wages), Chennai and Another, dated 9-4-2013.

.... In this context, the law is well settled that "the payment of subsistence allowance to an employee under suspension was not a bounty but a right. No justifiable ground was made out by the respondents for non-payment of the subsistence allowance. The appellant was unable to appear in the enquiry on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. It was a clear case of breach of principles of "Natural Justice".

.... Petitioner, a driver in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation, remained absent from duty without prior permission and sanction of leave, leading to disciplinary proceedings by issue of articles of charge - Enquiry Officer appointed, charge proved - Disciplinary Authority, held the petitioner guilty of the charge of unauthorised absence and there being no material placed by the petitioner to justify the defence of absence from service due to treatment for jaundice, coupled with the fact that the past record of service of the petitioner disclosed imposition of minor punishment on many occasions in the past for similar such proved misconduct of unauthorized absence, by order, dismissed the petitioner from services - Labour Court, held the petitioner guilty of the misconduct of unauthorized absence and keeping in mind the past record of service, disclosing extenuating circumstances of absence from service leading to imposition of minor punishment, declined to interfere with the punishment of dismissal by the award - Hence, petition by the workman - court held - sufficient cause was not shown for the inordinate delay and declined to exercise its extraordinary discretion under Act, and cannot be found fault with - award impugned of the Labour Court does not call for interference - writ petition, devoid of merit, is rejected.

17 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1217

CDJ 2010 BHC 2679

1998 6 Supreme Court Cases 651, dated 30-7-1998.

M.A. Azim -Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport

State of U.P.-Vs.-Shatrughan Lal and Another.

Corporation, dated 21-12-2010.

.... Industrial Disputes Act - sections 10, 12 and 25-F - Service -remaining absent without leave for long period was clearly regrettable and no establishment can function if it allows its employees to behave in such a manner that the employees absent from duty without leave and leave the country without permission. The story cooked by the petitioner that he was ill and after recovery from the ailment he went abroad to accompany his father-in- law as per advice of the Medical Officer clearly appears to be concocted and disbelieved which showing any indulgence or leniency would be adding premium on dishonesty. Thus, the punishment of dismissal/removal from service is proper....

24. ÷னு\–ள_இ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண \.ƒஏ.ப.1, \.ƒஏ.ப. 3 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப. 6 ப˛டீ ºÂஏ'œ¸Ôπஜ º✓ˆ_ துஜÆ Œø∫ˇ™∫Ô^ ண§›அ ள·¬Ôனு ºÔஏ´©✓'ΩÚÕ,அ. ∂,Á™ ÿ,ஏ¶ÏÕஅ \.ƒஏ.ப. 4 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப. 5 ண§©✓ஏÁðÔ^ துÈனு றுடீவ¬Ô©✓'¶ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆஇ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›ஸ \.ƒஏ.ப. 8 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப. 9 ப˛டீ ∂§ள¬ÁÔÔÁ· ÿÔஏ|›ஸÚÕ,ஏÏ. \.ƒஏ.ப8 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப. 9 ∂§¬ÁÔÔπஜ ∂Ω©✓Á¶ட_ துஜÆ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|Ô"னு று'✓ðனு ப™,ஏÔ°னுஇ ∂,™ஏ_ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு,,ஏÔ \.ƒஏ.ப. 14 ✓Ë¿¬Ô உ›,´° 15á7á2010á_ ∏≈©∏¬Ô©✓'|^·அ. ப™ஏ_இ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|Ô^ ண§›அ \.ƒஏ.ப. 1இ \.ƒஏ.ப. 3 \ரÆனு \.ƒஏ.ப. 6 ப˛டீ ºÂஏ'œ∑Ô^ ÿÔஏ|›, ∏ஜ™Ï ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð மÁ™டீ©✓¶ள_ÁÈ. ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð மÁ™Õஅ ∂¬ண§©✓ஏÁðÁடீ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ƒஏÏ° ÿƒகுஅஇ º\முனு º✓ஏஸடீ மஏகு©யு ∂π›,∏ஜ™Ïஇ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂ஸÔஏˆ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶›, ºமı|னு. ÷›,Úð›ஸ_இ ˇµÔı¶ ஒஜலÏ©யு¬ÔÁ· Âஏனு Ôம™›ஸ_ ÿÔஏ^மஅ ∂மநுடீ\ஏ˛≈அ.

... If the appellant-State did not intend to give copies of documents to the respondent, it should have been indicated to the respondent in writing that he might inspect those documents. Merely saying that the respondent could have inspected the documents at any time is not enough. He has to be informed that the documents, of which copies were asked by him, may be inspected. Access to records must have been assured to him...

25. º\ர✓Ωஇ ✓ஏனுº✓ உடீÏ¿ஸ\ஜ≈ லÏ©∏_ ÔÚ›அ ÌÆனுº✓ஏஅ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬Ô^ ÿ,πமஏÔ°னு யுˆ•னு✓Ω•னு ÷Ú¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆனு ÿ,πள_Èஏ\_ ண§©∏'¶ Œø∫ˇ™னு✓ர§ று'✓ðனு பÔஏ,º✓ஏஅஇ ஒஜÌ'Ωºடீ லÏ\ஏஆ›,✓Ω ÿ,ஏயÈஏπÁடீ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு,,ஏÔºம ÿÔஏ^· ÷டீமுனு ®™°னு ÔÚ›அ Ì≈©✓'ΩÚ¬˛≈அ. ப™ஏ_இ ÷னு\–,ஏ´Ï ÿ✓ஏÆ›அ ∂›,ண ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð ÿÔஏ|¬Ô©✓¶ள_ÁÈ ®ஜ✓,ஏ_ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð Â¶மΩ¬ÁÔ ஒÁ≈டீஏÔ ÂÁ¶ÿ✓≈ள_ÁÈ ®ஜº≈ Âஏனு ÔÚ,ஒΩ˛≈அ. º\முனுஇ \–,ஏ´Ï ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'ΩÚÕ,ஏமுனுஇ ∂மÚ¬ண ∏Áற©Øஸடீனு ∂¬ÔஏÈ›ஸரண ,´©✓¶ள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆனு ®.\.ƒஏ.1 ,™அ ணÆ¬ண ளƒஏ´Áðட_ Œ©யு¬ÿÔஏı|^·ஏÏ. \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_ ∑'Ω¬Ôஏ'¶©✓'¶ லÏ©யு¬Ôπஜ✓Ωஇ ∏Áற©Øஸடீனு ƒ'¶©✓Ωஇ ,ரÔஏழÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ ÔஏÈ›ஸ_இ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ¬ண றுÏமஏÔனு ∏Áற©Øஸடீனு ,Úமஅ Ô¶Á\ பணனு. \–,ஏ´Ï *அ ƒஏ'¶©✓'|^· ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬Ô^ ✓ர§டீ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'| ண§©✓ஏÁð மÁ™Õஅ ,´ஏ\முனுஇ ∏Áற©Øஸடீனு ,´ஏ\முனுஇ ÂÁ¶ÿ✓ர≈ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð ºÂÏÁ\டீஏÔ°னுஇ றுடீஏடீ\ஏÔ°னு ÂÁ¶ÿ✓≈ள_ÁÈ ®ஜº≈ Âஏஜ ÔÚஅ˛º≈ஜ.

2006 (1) L.L.N.326 : Bombay, dated 15-9-2004.

Anil Kumar Chopra-Vs.-Engineers India Ltd.

and Others.

Termination of service - Charges vague and not substantiated -Documents not furnished prior to enquiry - Entire evidence in support of the petitioner - employee glossed over - Held, it had resulted in miscarriage of justice - Decision-making process was not only faulty but biased and established that decision was pre-determined - Petitioner directed to be reinstated with back wages...

26. ÷னு\–,ஏ´Ïஇ Œø∫ˇ™›ஸ_ ~|✓'|இ ∂,™ஏ_ ∂மÏ *அ^· ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬Ô^ று'✓ð\ஏ™,ஏÔ ளƒஏ´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔட_ Ì≈©✓'ΩÚÕ,ஏமுனுஇ ∂¬ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬ÔÁ·© ÿ✓ஏÆ›அ ∂ஸÔ✓'ƒ ,ı¶Á™டீஏÔ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ ºமı|னு ®ஜÆ றுÏமஏÔனு ஒΩ°ÿƒகு,அ ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô,ஏÔ ÷_ÁÈ. ŒÚ ÿ,ஏயÈஏπ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓¶ ºமı|னு ®ஜ≈ஏ_இ ∂மÏ *அ மÁ™டீ©✓'¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬Ô^ Ô|Á\டீஏ™,ஏÔ ÷Ú¬Ô ºமı|னு. ப™ஏ_இ ÷னு\–,ஏ´Ï *அ ∑\›,©✓'¶ ணர≈ﬂƒஏ'|¬Ô^ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகு•னு ∂·ளரண Ô|Á\டீஏ™,ஏÔ ÷Ú©✓,ஏÔ Âஏனு ∂§டீ ஒΩடீள_ÁÈ. º\முனுஇ உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð ÂÁ¶ÿ✓ர≈ ள,னு ÷டீரÁÔ றுடீஸ¬ண \ஏ≈ஏÔ உ^·,ஏ_இ ºÂÏÁ\டீஏÔ°னு றுடீஏடீ\ஏÔ°னு உ^அÁ≈ ளƒஏ´Áð ÂÁ¶ÿ✓≈ள_ÁÈ ®ஜÆ ∞ரÿÔ™ºம ஒΩ° ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|^·,ஏ_இ ÷னு\–,ஏ´Á´ ✓Ë¿¬Ôனு ÿƒகுடீ©✓'¶ உ›,´° ∞ரÔ›,¬Ô›,_È. ∂,™ஏ_இ \–ﬂƒ∫ÔஸÔ^ \ரÆனு ÛµறுÁÈÔÁ·¬ ÔÚ›ஸ_ÿÔஏı| \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ✓Ë ÿ,ஏ¶Ïﬂநு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ƒமுÁÔÔ"¶ஜ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆனு ப™ஏ_ ஒÕÁ,டீ ✓Ë¬ÔஏÈ ம´ÈஏரÁ≈ ÔÚ›ஸ_ÿÔஏı| \–,ஏ´Ï 50% ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \'|º\ ÿ✓≈ உˆடீமÏ ®ஜÆனு Âஏஜ ÔÚஅ˛º≈ஜ.

1218 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013

ஒΩள_இ \–,ஏ´Ú¬ண ✓Ë›ÿ,ஏ¶Ïﬂநு \ரÆனு ÷,´ ƒமுÁÔÔ"¶ஜ ®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï றுÏமஏÔனு ✓Ëடீπ¬Ô ºமı|னு ®ஜÆனு \–,ஏ´Ï 50% ∏ஜ ƒனு✓·னு \'|º\ ÿ✓≈ உˆடீமÏ ®ஜÆனு உ›,´ள¶©✓|˛≈அ. ÿƒÈ°› ÿ,ஏÁÔ ÷_ÁÈ.

®ஜ™ஏ_ ÿƒஏ_È©✓'|இ ,'¶ﬂƒ´ஏ_ ,'¶ﬂ∑ ÿƒகுடீ©✓'|இ 2013áனு பı| ாÁÈ \ஏ,னு 18áனு Âஏ^ ∂Áமடீ§டீ ✓Ô´©✓'¶அ.

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

————

ளƒஏˆ¬Ô©✓'¶ ƒஏ'நுÔπஜ ✓'Ωடீ_ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_:

\.ƒஏ. 1 — N. ஒ›அ¬ண\´ஜ

®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_:

®.\.ƒஏ.1 — \ºÔÕஸ´ஜ

ண§ட¶©✓'¶ பமð∫Ôπஜ ✓'Ωடீ_ \–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_:

\.ƒஏ.ப.1 20-4-2010 Show cause notice issued by the respondent management to the petitioner.

\.ƒஏ.ப.2 22-4-2010 Photocopy of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the respondent management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.3 23-4-2010 Show cause notice issued by the respondent management to the petitioner.

\.ƒஏ.ப.4 24-4-2010 Photocopy of the memo. issued by the respondent management to the petitioner.

\.ƒஏ.ப.5 3-5-2010 Photocopy of the memo. issued by the respondent management to the petitioner.

\.ƒஏ.ப.6 31-5-2010 Photocopy of the show cause notice issued by the respondent management to the petitioner.

\.ƒஏ.ப.7 19-6-2010 Carbon copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the respondent management along with the medical certificate.

\.ƒஏ.ப.8 19-6-2010 Photocopy of the enquiry

proceedings sheet.

\.ƒஏ.ப.9 26-6-2010 Photocopy of the enquiry

proceedings sheet.

\.ƒஏ.ப.10 9-7-2010 Photocopy of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the respondent management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.11 9-7-2010 Photocopy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer Mrs. Thilagavathi.

\.ƒஏ.ப.12 12-7-2010 Photocopy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer Mrs. Thilagavathi.

\.ƒஏ.ப.13 15-7-2010 Show cause notice issued by the respondent management to the petitioner.

\.ƒஏ.ப.14 15-7-2010 Dismissal order issued by the respondent management to the petitioner.

\.ƒஏ.ப.15 22-12-2010 Photocopy of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

\.ƒஏ.ப.16 20-7-2011 Photocopy of the notice of enquiry/conciliation sent by the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to the Government.

\.ƒஏ.ப.17 23-2-2012 Photocopy of the failure report submitted by the Labour Officer (Conciliation) to the Government.

®ஸÏ\–,ஏ´Ï ,´©∏_:

\.ƒஏ.ப.1 28-7-2005 Photocopy of charge sheet, issued to Muthukumaran by Superfil Products Limited, Puducherry.

\.ƒஏ.ப.2 23-11-2005 Photocopy of intimation of suspension, issued to Muthukumaran by Superfil Products Limited, Puducherry.

\.ƒஏ.ப.3 4-3-2006 Photocopy of apologize letter b y M u t h u k u m a r a n t o management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.4 21-7-2009 Photocopy of warning memo./ letter issued to Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.5 5-5-2010 Photocopy of memo. [with COP & and postal receipt] issued to 7-5-2010 Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.6 8-5-2010 Photocopy of memo. issued to Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.7 10-5-2010 Photocopy of acknowledgment card signed by Muthukumaran on receipt of memo. of 8-5-2010.

\.ƒஏ.ப.8 12-5-2010 Photocopy of memo. [with COP & and postal receipts], issued to 13-5-2010 Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.9 24-5-2010 Photocopy of intimation letter for hearing of enquiry [with postal receipt] issued to Muthukumaran by Enquiry Officer.

17 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1219

\.ƒஏ.ப.10 15-6-2010 Photocopy of memo. [with postal receipt] issued to Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒஏ.ப.11 21-6-2010 Photocopy of memo. [with COP receipt] issued to Muthukumaran by management.

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

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY This industrial dispute coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Thiru R.T. Shankar, Advocate for the petitioner and Thiruvalargal K. Babu, C. Arivajagne, Advocates for the respondent, upon perusing the case records, this court passed the following:

AWARD

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

This industrial dispute filed under sub-rule (1) of rule 10-B of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 to direct the respondent management to absorb and regularise the petition mentioned employees with the respondent management after completion of service period of 240 days from their respective date of joining.

(G.O. Rt. No. 171/Lab/AIL/J/2013, dated 25th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, t h e a ward in I . D . ( T ) N o . 3 1 / 2 0 1 2 , dated 3-9-2013 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in respect of the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Suolificio Linea Italia (India) Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry and Chemcrown Exports and Suolificio Linea Italia (P) Ltd. Thozhilalargal Sangam, over regularisation of 24 employees has been received;

(By order)

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

————

2. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent. Though Thiru K. Babu, Advocate filed Vakalath for respondent, no counter was filed on their side in spite of several opportunities given. A perusal of records reveals that the above matter was posted for filing of counter by the respondent to 5-7-2013, 19-7-2013, 30-7-2013, 5-8-2013 and 14-8-2013. When the case came up for filing of counter to 21-8-2013 the repondent was called absent and set ex parte. One Balasundaram was examined as PW. 1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 were marked. The petitioner's side documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 pertaining from the year 2005 to 2011. Claim of the petitioner is proved. Hence, the respondent is directed to absorb and regularise the petition mentioned exployees with the respondent management after completion of service period of 240 days from their respective date of joining.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of September 2013.

T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUDUCHERRY

————

List of witness examined for the petitioner :

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

Industrial Tribunal.

PW.1 — 3-9-2013 — D. Balasundaram List of witness examined for the respondent : Nil.

Tuesday, the 3rd day of September 2013

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

I.D. (T) No. 31/2012

The President, Chemcrown Exports and Suolificio Linea Italia Thozhilalargal Sangam. . . Petitioner Ex.P1 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 1st employee.

Ex.P2 — Identity card and EPF slip of the 1st employee.

Versus

The Managing Director, Suolificio Linea (India) Italia Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry . . Respondent Ex.P3 — ESIC card issued by ESIC to the first employee, dated 1-12-2006.

Ex.P4 — E S I C c a r d i s s u e d b y E S I C t o t h e 3rd employee, dated 27-4-2005.

1220 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013

Ex.P5 — ESIC card issued by ESIC to the 5th employee, dated 15-6-2005.

Ex.P6 — Appointment letter issued by the respondent to 6th employee, dated 1-9-2005.

Ex.P7 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 7th employee.

Ex.P8 — E S I C c a r d i s s u e d b y E S I C t o t h e 8th employee, dated 7-4-2006.

Ex.P9 — E S I C c a r d i s s u e d b y E S I C t o t h e 9th employee, dated 29-11-2006.

Ex.P10 — ESIC temporary identity certificate issued by ESIC to the 10th employee.

Ex.P11 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 12th employee.

Ex.P12 — E S I C c a r d i s s u e d b y E S I C t o 13th employee, dated 21-12-2006.

represented by Indiraji National Textile Uzhaipalar Congress, over non-payment of back wages consequent to restoration of the permanent status has been received;

(By order)

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

————

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Ex.P13 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 14th employee.

Ex.P14 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 15th employee.

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

Friday, the 19th day of July 2013.

I.D. No. 31/2010

Ex.P15 — ESIC temporary identity certificate issued to 16th employee, dated 2-5-2007.

Ex.P16 — E S I C c a r d i s s u e d b y E S I C t o 18th employee, dated 5-5-2009.

Ex.P17 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to The President, Indiraji National Textiles Uzhaipalar Congress.

. . Petitioner

Versus

19th employee.

Ex.P18 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 20th employee.

Ex.P19 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 21st employee.

Ex.P20 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to 22nd employee.

Ex.P21— Conciliation failure report, dated 21-9-2012 The Managing Director, Bharathi Mills, Puducherry.

. . Respondent List of exhibits marked for the respondent : Nil.

T. MOHANDASS, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY This industrial dispute coming on 3-7-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Thiruvalargal L. Annadoure and P.L. Andre Selva, Advocates for the petitioner, Thiru K. Ravikumar, Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the case records, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

AWARD

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

This industrial dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt. No. 179/AIL/Lab./J/2010, dated 27-8-2010 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz., (G.O. Rt. No. 172/Lab./AIL/J/2013, dated 27th November 2013)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 31/2010, dated 19-7-2013 o f t h e L a b o u r C o u r t , P u d u c h e r r y, i n r e s p e c t o f the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills, Puducherry and Thiru J. Thangappan (1) Whether the demand of Thiru J. Thangappan represented by Indiraji National Textile Uzhaipalar Congress for payment of back wages consequent to his restoration to the permanent status by the management of Sri Bharathi Mills, Puducherry is justified or not?

(2) If so, to give appropriate directions?

17 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1221

2. The petitioner, in his claim statement, has averred as follows:

One Thangappan has been working in Colour Warehouse for the past 29 years and while has been on duty, he got injured in the eye as a result of which, he has been constrained to take treatment for the ailment and he has been operated in the eye and hence he has been constrained to take leave of absence. While he has been on ESI leave, the Personnel Officer has contrived in such a way that the worker should be treated as unauthorised absentee and dismissed from service. The Time-keeper in the time office has been instructed strictly that he should not receive the worker's leave letter and further the Personnel Officer himself has noted against the name of the worker Thangappan in the time record that leave letter should not be received from him, if he presented any letter. When the propriety of the act on the part of the management has been pointed out, the Personnel Officer has demoted the worker from permanent status to temporary status in the muster roll.

The petitioner trade union has taken up the issue before the Labour Conciliation, Labour Department, where the respondent management has realised the error committed by it and revoked the order and again put him in the permanent category and further the management has offered to give continuity of service, but it has refused to give back wages. Since the conciliation process having become futile, the Government has referred the matter before this court for determination of the claim of the worker.

The petitioner has taken treatment from ESI Hospital and availed accident leave for three days from 25-6-2004 to 27-6-2004 and evidencing treatment having been taken the worker had produced medical certificate for his absence, but the management had refused to receive and accept it but on the contrary, the management had issued a show cause notice, alleging that absenteeism has been up to 29-6-2004 for eight days. In response to the said show cause notice, the said Thangappan had submitted his reply for his absence. The management since not satisfied with the cause shown by the worker, had conducted a domestic enquiry in a biased and prejudged manner and as a result of which, the worker was demoted from permanent status to temporary status. The worker has requested the management to set aside the order of demotion and provide him employment in the original status and he has also sought grant of full wages for the period but the management had declined the relief. The worker is entitled to get the back wages and other benefits. Hence, this industrial dispute is referred to this court.

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

The worker Thangappan was habitual absentee for a very long period and has been punished for many of the misconducts. In the last instance, the worker had taken unauthorised leave from 21-6-2004 to 29-6-2004. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the worker on 30-6-2004 and he had issued a reply, dated 1-7-2004 claiming that he was in ESI Hospital from 25th June 2004 to 27th June 2004 and he will after properly work. Unsatisfied with the reply of the worker, as per the rules of mills, the respondent had conducted an inquiry on 12-7-2004. Again another show cause notice, dated 19-7-2004 was issued to the worker. On 23-7-2004 the worker Thangappan had issued a reply to the said show cause notice and dissatisfied with the reply and based on the enquiry report, dated 15-7-2004, the respondent vide order, dated 29-7-2004 demoted the worker from permanent status to Babli substitute worker and had asked him to join duty from 2-8-2004. But the worker had not joined duty as directed by the respondent, but instead had approached the Conciliation Officer on 20-9-2004. The conciliation ended in failure and after the failure of conciliation, the respondent had, out of good gesture, issued a letter to the worker asked him to join duty as per the order, dated 29-7-2004. But he insisted the condition that he will come to work only if he is given back wages. However, on a notice, dated 22-5-2010 issued by the respondent, the worker sent a reply, dated 25-5-2010 stating that he will join duty from 26-5-2010, but had again claimed back wages and other benefits.

On 7-6-2010 the worker had issued a letter stating that he is ready to join duty and as per the order of the respondent, dated 8-6-2010, the worker was permitted to work as a permanent worker with effect from 9-6-2010 on a condition that he does not claim any back wages or other benefits. The worker had accepted the terms and conditions and had signed the order as a token of acceptance and is working from 9-6-2010.

The notification, dated 7-8-2010 by which the matter was referred to this court, originated from the conciliation failure report, dated 24-4-2010. The original dispute was against the demotion of the worker from permanent to temporary and the same was conciliated and then the conciliation failed and the respondent had offered to restore the permanent status of the worker on a condition that there will be no back wages and the same was accepted by the worker and he has signed as a proof of acceptance. Now that the original dispute itself has been settled,1222 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013 there cannot be a notification based on a conciliation failure report or a factual report settled. Hence, the notification is prima facie wrong and there cannot be an industrial dispute for this case. In the above circumstances, the respondent prays for dismissal of the industrial dispute.

4. On the side of the petitioner, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. On the side of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R36 were marked.

demoting the petitioner as Babli and in spite of receiving the order on 7-8-2004, the petitioner did not report to duty from 8-8-2004 till date.

8. In order to prove the contention of the respondent, the Head Time-keeper of the respondent mill was examined as RW.1. RW.1 in his evidence has deposed that the petitioner was an habitual absentee for a very long period and has been punished for many of the misconducts, details of which are as follows:-

5. The point for determination is:

Whether the industrial dispute can be allowed?

6. On the point:

The contention of the petitioner is that he has been working in the respondent mill in Colour Warehouse Department for 29 years and while he was engaged in his duty, he got injury in his eyes and as instructed by the respondent management, he took treatment at ESI Hospital, Puducherry and availed accident leave for three days from 25-6-2004 to 27-6-2004 and then he produced the medical certificate for the absence, but the management refused to receive the same and issued a show cause notice to him, alleging absenteeism up to 29-6-2004 i.e. about eight days. The petitioner has further contended that he then gave his reply and the management received the reply, but not satisfying with the reply initiated, the domestic enquiry as against him and the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and based on the enquiry report, the management demoted him from permanent status to temporary status and as a result, he holding 4th position in seniority was pulled down to 30th position in junior list and he prayed to revoke the order of demotion and provide employment in the original status and also to pay full wages for the period, the management refused to provide work.

7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has been unauthorisedly absent for work without any prior intimation and he is being an habitual and chronic absentee and his earlier attendance records will show how the petitioner has been absented for more number of days every year and also the misconduct committed by him during his period of service and even after giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to improve his attendance record, he has not bothered to correct his attitude and set right his attendance record. The respondent further contended that the petitioner has the usual practice of unauthorisedly absenting from work and then produces the medical certificate belatedly after entry has been made in the muster rolls of the mill and likewise from 21-6-2004 to 29-6-2004 the petitioner has been absented and for such absence, the disciplinary action was initiated and order, dated 29-7-2004 was issued (1) Absent on 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 17th and 18th August 1985, for which warning notice was issued on 16-9-1985 under Ex.R1.

(2) Absent on 16th, 21st and 28th October 1985, for which warning notice was issued on 13-10-1985 under Ex.R2.

(3) Continuously absent for eight days from 19th to 27th March 1987, for which warning notice was issued on 4-4-1987 under Ex.R3.

(4) Refused to work baler on 8-11-1989, for which an order was issued on 11-11-1989, confirming "RW" marked for two hours on 8-11-1989 under Ex.R4.

(5) Refused to work as cloth examiner on 14-12-1989, for which an order was issued on 1-1-1990, confirming "RW" marked for 3½ hours on 14-12-1989 under Ex.R5.

(6) Refused to use the time punching card machine for punching time in his time card, for which a warning notice was issued on 24-12-1991 under Ex.R6.

(7) Absented for nine days in February 1993, for which ` 5 fine imposed as per order, dated 25-3-1993 under Ex.R7.

(8) Absented for eight days in March 1993, for which he was suspended for one day on 11-5-1992 as per order, dated 22-4-1993 under Ex.R8.

(9) Sleeping during working hours on 3-8-1993, for which ` 5 fine was imposed under Ex.R9.

(10) Left mills at 12.30 p.m. unauthorisedly without any information on 28-5-1997 and caused production loss and as per order, dated 9-6-1997, the suspension period was confirmed as punishment and allowed to work on 10-6-1997 under Ex.R10.

(11) On 21-6-1997 during working hours came to main gate and ordered food from outsider and took it department, for which a warning notice was issued on 21-6-1997 under Ex.R11.

(12) Not returning to work after lunch interval on 19-7-1997, for which he was suspended for seven days as per confirming order, dated 13-8-1997 under Ex.R12.

17 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1223

(13) Sleeping during working hours on 14-4-1998, for which he was suspended for one day on 15-6-1998, as per order, dated 17-6-1998 under Ex.R13.

(14) Absent for ten days in January 2000, 16 days in February 2000 and 4 days in March 2000, for which suspension period from 12-4-2000 to 13-4-2000 was confirmed as punishment and then permitted to work under Ex.R14.

(15) Absent for 47 days from January to June 2001 for which, a warning notice was issued on 13-10-2001 under Ex.R15.

(16) Absent from 31-1-2003 to 8-2-2003, for which a warning notice was issued on 11-3-2003 under Ex.R16.

(17) 10 days absent in August 2003, for which he was warned personally on 18-9-1993.

(18) Absent from 22-9-2003 to 7-10-2003, for which enquiry was conducted and finally order was passed on 26-11-2003 confirming the break in service under Ex.R18.

From the above, it can be seen that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on various dates, for which memo/warning letters have been issued under Ex.R1 to Ex.R18. These documents have not been challenged by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was absent unauthorisedly on various dates right from the beginning and even after giving sufficient opportunities to him to improve his attendance records, he has not bothered to correct his attitude and set right his attendance record.

9. On the side of the petitioner, the President of the trade union was examined as PW.1 and he examined himself as PW.2. According to PW.2, he got injured in the eye as a result of which, he has been constrained to take treatment for the ailment and he has been operated upon in the injured eye and he has been experiencing excruciating pain in the operated eye and therefore he has been constrained to take leave. PW.2 further deposed that he availed for three days from 25-6-2004 to 27-6-2004 and evidencing treatment having been taken, he has produced the medical certificate for the absence, but the management has refused to receive and accept it but on the contrary, the respondent has issued a show cause notice alleging that absenteeism has been up to 29-6-2004 for about eight days.

10. To prove the fact that the petitioner has sustained injuries on his eyes during the course of employment, he marked the report for information of Medical Board, ESI Corporation as Ex.P18 and the injury report by the Insurance Medical Officer as Ex.P19 during the course of cross-examination of RW.1.

A perusal of Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 reveals that on 2-3-2004 while he was on duty, he sustained employment injury, which is simple in nature.

11. On the other hand, RW.1 has stated that the petitioner has taken unauthorised and uninformed leave from 21-6-2004 to 29-6-2004 and hence, on 30-6-2004 a show cause notice under Ex.R19 was issued and the petitioner had issued a reply, dated 1-7-2004 under Ex.R20, claiming that he was in ESI. Hospital from 25th to 27th June 2004 and he will herein after properly work and unsatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, as per the rules of the mills, they caused an enquiry to be conducted and issued a notice of enquiry, dated 6-7-2004 under Ex.R21.

12. On the side of the petitioner, Branch Manager of ESI Corporation was examined as PW.4. PW.4 in his evidence has deposed that there is no record to show that the petitioner has taken ESI leave from 25-6-2004 to 27-6-2004. But the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Labour Department was examined as PW.3. PW.3 has marked the copy of the ESI leave on 25-6-2004 and 26-6-2004, granted by ESI Hospital, copy of the charge sheet, copy of the enquiry proceedings, copy of the second show cause notice, copy of the demotion letter and copy of the standing order of the respondent mill as Ex.P13 series, copy of the muster rolls from January 2004 to November 2004 as Ex.P14, copy of the reply to the demotion order as Ex.P15 and copy of the conciliation proceedings as Ex.P16.

13. Though the petitioner has admitted that he was absent from 21-6-2004 to 29-6-2004, he submitted the ESI leave only for the period on 25-6-2004 and 26-6-2004 as could be seen from the copy of the ESI leave letter under Ex.P13 series. The petitioner has not submitted any leave letter for the period from 21-6-2004 to 24-6-2004 and from 27-6-2004 to 29-6-2004. According to the respondent, the said leave letter under Ex.R13 was submitted only on 1-7-2004, which was not denied by the petitioner. Hence, this court has come to the conclusion that the period from 21-6-2004 to 24-6-2004 and from 27-6-2004 to 29-6-2004 has to be treated as unauthorised absent, as there is no prior sanction or any leave letter submitted by the petitioner for the said period.

14. RW.1 in his evidence has stated that the petitioner had taken unauthorised leave from 21-6-2004 to 29-6-2004 and hence, on 30-6-2004 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Ex.R19 and he issued a reply, dated 1-7-2004 under Ex.R20, claiming that he was in ESI Hospital from 25-6-2004 to 27-6-2004 and not satisfying with the reply sent by the petitioner, they had conducted the inquiry and issued a notice of enquiry, dated 6-7-2004 under Ex.R1 and the enquiry was conducted on 12-7-2004. RW.1 has marked the1224 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013 copy of the enquiry proceedings, dated 12-7-2004 as Ex.R22 and copy of the enquiry report as Ex.R23. A perusal of Ex.R22 and Ex.R23 reveals that the enquiry was conducted on 12-7-2004 for the unauthorised absence of the petitioner from 21-6-2004 to 29-6-2004 and the petitioner participated in the said enquiry and has submitted that he was in ESI leave from 25-6-2004 to 27-6-2004 and submitted the leave letter only on 1-7-2004. A perusal of Ex.R22 and Ex.R23 further reveals that the petitioner has also admitted the unauthorised absent from 21.6.2004 to 24-6-2004 and 28-6-2004 and 29-6-2004 and he gave assurance that he will attend duty properly in future and as the petitioner has admitted the charge against him, the enquiry was closed on the same day itself and found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him.

15. RW.1 further deposed that they issued a second show cause notice under Ex.R24 to the petitioner calling for his explanation and the petitioner issued a reply, dated 23-7-2004 under Ex.R25 and dissatisfied with the replies and based on the enquiry report, dated 15-7-2004, they had vide order, dated 29-7-2004 under Ex.R26, demoted the petitioner from permanent status to Babli substitute worker.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has tried to victimise the petitioner by placing him in the status of unskilled labour and the Conciliation Officer has advised the respondent to consider the plea raised by the petitioner and persuaded the management to give the back wages and on further conciliation talks, the respondent management has agreed to employ him on his original status but they have not ready to pay the back wages due to him.

17. In the above circumstances, it is pertinent to refer the copy of the failure report sent by the Conciliation Officer, which has been marked as Ex.P4 and the copy of the conciliation proceedings as Ex.P16 on the side of the petitioner. A perusal of Ex.P4 and Ex.P16 reveals that during the conciliation, the Labour Officer (Conciliation) advised the management in lieu of depromotion that the petitioner's plea may be considered and also advised the management to take back the petitioner in his original status as the punishment given to the petitioner is not proportionate. The Labour Officer, further advised the management that as the leave application was produced by the petitioner for the absented period of 21-6-2004 to 29-6-2004, there is no need to impose any punishment as against the petitioner, but the management stood on their counter reply and was not ready to discuss further in this regard. Then the matter was posted on several hearings to conciliate and arrive as a settlement amicably. But neither of the parties showed any interest in concluding the dispute though equal opportunities were given.

18. A perusal of Ex.P4 and Ex.P16 further reveals that on another occasion the management strongly objected over the pending issue of depromotion and back wages and other statutory benefits and stated that they have not objected for the employment and hence there exist no dispute. The petitioner stated that he would hold bilateral discussion in regard to the employment and report the status during the conciliation. As per the version of the management, the Labour Officer also advised the petitioner to join the duty without any delay and the management was also advised to consider the plea of the petitioner regarding the back wages and to discuss the matter with the Managing Director and report at the earliest. The management representative finally stated that the Managing Director is not ready to consider anything related to back wages and also take the petitioner back on his original status but will be given employment only as per the order, dated 29-7-2004. The management further stated that the union has not turned up to hold discussion with the management in regard to the dispute as advised by the conciliation authority. But the petitioner was repeatedly requesting time to report settlement after having discussion with the management. The management very clearly stated that they are not ready to pay the back wages to the petitioner and that they can only provide employment as per the order, date 29-7-2004. The management further stated that in spite of sufficient time given to the petitioner, he neither turned up for duty nor come forward to hold bilateral discussion regarding the dispute and hence insisted to failure the industrial dispute and as there is no result obtained even after several conciliation, the industrial dispute is ended in failure.

19. From the above, it can be seen that the Labour Officer (Conciliation) has taken much effort in solving the issues and conducted conciliation on various dates from the year 2004 to 2010 and as per the advise of the Labour Officer, the respondent has taken back the petitioner on his original status with continuity of service and sent a letter, dated 8-6-2010 under Ex.P34 to the petitioner to join duty within two days from the date of receipt of the said letter with a condition not to claim the back wages and other statutory benefits and accepting the said order, the petitioner has joined on his original status from 9-6-2010.

20. Now this court has to reiterate the following points, which have to be taken into consideration before deciding the issues of back wages and other statutory benefits:-

(a) The petitioner was a habitual absentee for a very long period right from the beginning and has been punished for many misconducts, which have been proved by the respondent through Ex.R1 to Ex.R18.

17 December 2013] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 1225

List of witness examined for the respondent :

RW.1 — 13-3-2013 —Sugumaran, Head Time-keeper

of respondent mill.

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

(b) The petitioner has not reported for duty from 21-6-2004 to 24-6-2004 and on 27-6-2004 and 28-6-2004, for which prior sanction was obtained or any leave letter given by him to the respondent and the same has been admitted by the petitioner during the course of enquiry.

(c) The respondent has taken back the petitioner on his original status with a condition not to claim any back wages and other statutory benefits and on accepting the said conditions, the petitioner joined duty on 9-6-2010.

21. From the oral evidence of RW.1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.R1 to Ex.R36, the respondent has established that the petitioner has not reported for duty from 28-6-2004 to 8-6-2010 and without reporting for duty for the said period, the petitioner cannot ask for back wages and other statutory benefits, when the misconduct of the petitioner has been proved through the domestic enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no action can be taken when a worker was unauthorised absent within 10 days as per the standing orders of the respondent mill and in this case, the petitioner has absent only for 21-6-2004 to 28-6-2004 and even in the said period, the ESI leave letter has been submitted for two days on 25-6-2004 and 26-6-2004 and hence, the action taken against the petitioner is illegal. But as already stated, the petitioner was not regular in attending the duty not only for the said period, but also in various period right from the beginning of the service of the petitioner, as could be proved through Ex.R1 to Ex.R18. In the above circumstances, I feel that for non-working period, the petitioner cannot claim back wages and other statutory benefits. Accordingly, this point is answered.

22. In the result, the industrial dispute is dismissed.

No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of July, 2013.

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

————

Ex.P1 — Photocopy of the representation, dated 13-2-2008.

Ex.P2 — Photocopy of the representation, dated 19-1-2009.

Ex.P3 — Photocopy of the representation, dated 21-1-2009.

Ex.P4 — Report of failure, dated 23-4-2010.

Ex.P5 — Photocopy of the representation, dated 8-5-2010 sent by the petitioner.

Ex.P6 — Photocopy of the representation, dated 25-5-2010 sent by the petitioner.

Ex.P7 — Photocopy of the representation, dated 7-5-2010 sent by the trade union.

Ex.P8 — Photocopy of the letter, dated 22-5-2010.

Ex.P9 — Representation given by the trade union, dated 13-2-2008.

Ex.P10 — Order, dated 8-6-2010.

Ex.P11 — Photocopy of the representation, dated 7-7-2010.

Ex.P12 — Authorisation letter, dated 11-1-2013.

Ex.P13— Copy of the ESI leave, copy of the series enquiry proceedings and copy of the show cause notice

Ex.P14 — Copy of the muster roll from January 2004 to November 2004.

Ex.P15 — Copy of the representation, dated 24-1-2005 sent by the petitioner.

Ex.P16 — Copy of the conciliation proceedings Ex.P17 — Copy of the witness summons, dated 19-12-2012.

Ex.P18 — Report for Information of Medical Board Ex.P19 — Injury report

List of exhibits marked for the respondent :

Ex.R1 — Copy of warning notice, dated 16-9-1985 List of witnesses examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 31-8-2012 —Balaram

PW.2 — 6-12-2012 —Thangappan

PW.3 — 11-1-2013 —R. Ananthi, Assistant Inspector

of Labour.

PW.4 — 24-1-2013 —Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager,

ESI Corporation.

by the respondent.

Ex.R2 — Copy of the warning notice, dated 13-10-1985 by the respondent.

Ex.R3 — Copy of the warning notice, dated 4-4-1987 by the respondent.

Ex.R4 — Copy of the order, dated 11-11-1989 issued by the respondent.

1226 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [17 December 2013

Ex.R5 — Copy of the order, dated 1-1-1990 issued by the respondent.

Ex.R6 — Copy of the warning notice, dated 24-12- 1991 to the petitioner.

Ex.R7 — Copy of the order, dated 25-3-1993 issued to the petitioner.

Ex.R8 — Copy of the order, dated 22-4-1993 issued to the petitioner.

Ex.R9 — Copy of the order, dated 3-8-1993 to the petitioner.

Ex.R10 — Copy of the order, dated 9-6-1997 issued to the petitioner.

Ex.R11 — Copy of the warning notice, dated 21-6-1997 by the respondent.

Ex.R12 — Copy of the suspension order, dated 13-8-1997.

Ex.R13 — Copy of the suspension order, dated 17-6-1998 by the respondent.

Ex.R14 — Copy of the order, dated 13-4-2000 to the petitioner

Ex.R15 — Copy of t h e warning notice, dated 13-10-2001.

Ex.R16 — Copy of the warning notice, dated 11-3- 2003 by the respondent.

Ex.R17 — Copy of the second show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 20-11-2003.

Ex.R18 — Copy of the final order, dated 26-11-2003 confirming break in service.

Ex.R19 — Copy of the show cause notice, dated 30-6-2004 to the petitioner.

Ex.R20 — Copy of the reply, dated 1-7-2004 by the petitioner.

Ex.R21 — Copy of the notice of enquiry, dated 6-7-2004 by the respondent.

Ex.R22 — Copy of the proceedings in enquiry, dated 12-7-2004.

Ex.R23 — Copy of the proceedings in enquiry, dated 15-7-2004.

Ex.R24 — Copy of the show cause notice, dated 19-7-2004 issued to the petitioner.

Ex.R25 — Copy of the letter, dated 23-7-2004 to the respondent.

Ex.R26 — Copy of the order, dated 29-7-2004 confirming demotion.

Ex.R27 — Copy of the representation, dated 20-9-2004.

Ex.R28 — Copy of the conciliation failure report, dated 23-4-2010.

Ex.R29 — Copy of the letter, dated 4-5-2010 to the petitioner.

Ex.R30 — Copy of the letter, dated 8-5-2010 by the petitioner to the respondent.

Ex.R31 — Copy of the letter, dated 22-5-2010 issued by the respondent.

Ex.R32 — Copy of the letter, dated 25-5-2010 by the petitioner to the respondent.

Ex.R33 — Copy of the letter, dated 7-6-2010 issued by the petitioner to respondent.

Ex.R34 — Copy of the order, dated 8-6-2010 issued by the respondent to petitioner.

Ex.R35 — Copy of the notice, dated 5-7-2010 issued by Conciliation Officer.

Ex.R36 — Copy of the reply, dated 6-7-2010 issued by the respondent to Conciliation Officer.

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

யுஅﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑ ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ \uÆD k¬‡A mÁ≈ (∂´∑ gÁð ✓È kÁÔ ®ı 32/ ÷ƒW /ºÔV.4/2013, ÂV^ 2013 } Û[ | 29 {)

பÁð

யுஅﬂºƒˆ \ஏறுÈனுஇ º,∫Ôஏகுஸ'|இ ∂Ú^வண ம´நு›ஸ ளÂஏடீÔÏ º,ம¸,ஏ™›ஸரணஇ ∂´∑ பÁð ✓ÈமÁÔ ®ı 1/÷ƒறு/ºÔஏ.4/2010இ Âஏ^ 27á1á2010áஜ துÈனு {Ï ∂≈∫ÔஏமÈÏ மஏˆடீனு ∂Á\¬Ô©✓'¶அ. ÷Àம≈∫ÔஏமÈÏ மஏˆடீ›ஸஜ ✓,ள¬ÔஏÈனு ஒΩமÁ¶Õஅ ள'¶அ.

3. ®™ºமஇ 1972áபனு பı| யுஅﬂºƒˆ ÷Õஅ ƒ\டீ றுÆம™∫Ô^ ƒ'¶னுஇ 4 (1)áபனு ∏ˆளஜˇµ மற∫Ô©✓'|^· ∂ஸÔஏ´∫ÔÁ·ﬂ ÿƒமு›ஸஇ º\ரÌ§டீ º,∫Ôஏகுஸ'|இ ∂Ú^வண ம´நு›ஸ ளÂஏடீÔÏ º,ம¸,ஏ™›ஸரணஇ ∏ஜமÚனு Õெஅ Â✓ÏÔÁ·¬ ÿÔஏı¶ {Ï ∂≈∫ÔஏமÈÏ மஏˆடீ›Á, ∂´∑ உ¶™ΩடீஏÔ ∂Á\¬˛≈அ.á

ஸÚமஏ·ÏÔ^:

(1) G. ✓È´ஏ\ஜஇ ,/ÿ✓. ºÔஏளÕ,ƒஏவஇ . . ,ÁÈமÏ ®ı 33இ ✓¤Á™ \¶›அ வுஸஇ º,∫Ôஏகுஸ'|இ யுஅﬂºƒˆ.

(2) N. ƒஏனு✓மதுÏ›ஸஇ ,/ÿ✓. Â¶´ஏ¤ஜஇ . . அÁð› ®ı 33இ º\'|› ÿ,Úஇ ,ÁÈமÏ º,∫Ôஏகுஸ'|இ யுஅﬂºƒˆ.

(3) V. \"ஏº,மஜஇ ,/ÿ✓. ºமடிஇ . . ÿƒடீÈஏ·Ï ®ı 15இ ÿ✓ஏஸÁÔ வுஸஇ யுஅÂÔÏஇ º,∫Ôஏகுஸ'|இ யுஅﬂºƒˆ.