1212

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 December 2013

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

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

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. No. 14/2012, dated

18-7-2013 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect

of the industrial 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

x[MÁÈ : ]Ú. m·E. º\VÔ[>V¸,®D.∞., ®D.®_.,

∏.˜.Ω.®ﬂ.gÏ.Ω.n.,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ.

2013ágD gı| hÁÈ \V>D 18ágD ÂV^ sBVw¬˛wÁ\

ÿ>Vau>Ô´VÆ ®ı 14/2012

N. x›m¬z\´[,

Amﬂºƒˆá9.

. . \–>V´Ï.

®]Ï

WÏkVÔ ÷B¬zÂÏ,

M/s. Û©√Ï t_ A´V¬‚¸ otÿ¶‚,

Amﬂºƒˆá9.

. . ®]Ï\–>V´Ï.

÷Õ>

\–kV™m

9-7-2013

∂[Æ

÷Æ]

sƒV´Áð¬ÔVÔ ®[x[ kÕ>º√Vm, \–>V´Ï >´©∏_

kw¬zÁ´QÏ ]Ú. K. ºk_xÚÔ[, g¤Ï g˛•D

\ u Æ D ® ] Ï \ – > V ´ Ï > ´ © ∏_ k w ¬ z Á ´ Q Ï

]Ú. ®D. È‚∑tÂ´ED\[ ∂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—

c›>´°

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

�ÆD

11(3)á[

ˇµ

\–>V´Ï,

>™¬z

*ı|D

√ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|ÿ\[ÆD √Ë›ÿ>V¶ÏﬂE, ∏[ ƒD√·D

�ÆD ÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔ”D ∂π¬Ô ºÔVˆ•D, >V¬Ô_

ÿƒF> \–.

2. \–>V´Ï

>´©∏_

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFB©√‚|^·

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ \–s[ ∑Ú¬ÔD:

\–>V´Ï 18á8á1997á_ “¸kV¸]¬ ∏·ÿ\ı‚¸

∏Á´ºk‚ otÿ¶‚” ®[≈ WÆk™›]_ ∞E g©º´‚¶´VÔ

®Às> zÁ≈•D ÷[§ √ËAˆÕm kÕ>VÏ. ∏[™Ï,

∂ÕWÆk™›Á> ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÆk™D ®|›m¬

ÿÔVı¶m.

A]B

WÏkVÔ›][ˇøD

\–>V´Ï

ÿ>V¶ÏÕm

Â_ÈxÁ≈l_

√ËAˆÕm

kÕ>VÏ.

\–>V´Ï “¸kV¸]¬ ∏·ÿ\ı‚¸ ∏Á´ºk‚ otÿ¶‚”

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ƒ∫Ô›Á> x>o_ g´D∏›m ∏[™Ï

®]Ï\–>V´Ï ∂ÕWÏkVÔ›Á> ®|›m¬ÿÔVı¶ ∏≈z

ÿ>V¶ÏÕm

∂›ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô›Á>

>ÁÈkÏ

®[≈

xÁ≈l_ Â¶›] kÕ>VÏ. ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔπ[ ÂÈ–¬ÿÔ™

÷ﬂƒ∫ÔD ÿƒB_√‚| kÕ>m. WÏkVÔ›][ ÿ>V_ÁÈ

>V∫ÔV\_ >ÁÈkÏ √>sloÚÕm \–>V´Ï sÈ˛

∂ﬂƒ∫Ô›][

WÏkVÔ

cÆ©∏™´VÔ

ÿƒB_√‚|

kÚ˛≈VÏ. 2009ágD kÚ¶D WÏkVÔD ÈV¬∂°‚

ÿƒF>Á> \–>V´ÚD ÿ > V a u ƒ ∫Ô x D √_ º k Æ

∂K k È Ï Ô π ¶ D

xÁ≈l‚¶>V_

÷D\–>V´Ï

*mD, ÿ>Vauƒ∫ÔD *mD, WÏkVÔD sº´V>©

º√V¬ÁÔ¬ ÔÁ¶©∏Ω›m kÕ>m. ∂>[ ÿ>V¶ÏﬂEBVÔ,

c^ºÂV¬Ô›m¶[ \–>V´Ï º\KD, EÈ ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô

cÆ©∏™ÏÔÁ·•D ÿ√VFBV™ ÔV´ð∫Ôπ[º√ˆ_

WÏkVÔD √Ë ¿¬ÔD ÿƒF>m.

3. ÷Àkw¬˛_, zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð >´V\_

c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð Â¶›] \–>V´Ï √Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒFB©√‚|^·VÏ. WÏkVÔD yB ®ıðD ÿÔVı|D

�ÆD x[º√ yÏ\VM›>√Ω \–>V´Á´ √Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒFBºkı|D ®[≈ ®ıð›]_ ÿƒB_√‚|^·>VÔ

Â[z ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m. zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð ®[√m

{Ï

∂Ω©√Á¶BV™

gkðD

gzD.

∂]_

®Õ>

Œø∫ˇ™›]_ ∂kÏ ~|√‚¶VÏ ®[Æ z§©∏‚ΩÚ¬Ô

ºkı|D.

c^mÁ≈

sƒV´Áð¬z

∂Ω©√Á¶

gkð\V™ zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð ∂π¬Ô©√¶V\ºÈºB

sƒV´Áð Â¶Õ]Ú©√m sº™V>\V™m. 24á4á2010,

3á5á2010

�ÆD

31á5á2010

g˛B

º>]Ôπ_

∂π¬Ô©√‚¶ s·¬Ô¬ ÔΩ>∫Ôπ[ º√ˆ_>V[ ÷Õ>

sƒV´Áð ÂÁ¶ÿ√u§Ú¬˛≈m. ÷Õ> ºÂV‚œ¸Ôπ_

\–>V´Ï Œø∫ˇ™›]_ ~|√‚¶>VÔ ÔıΩÚ¬Ôs_ÁÈ.

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô^ √u§•D sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ \–>V´Ú¬z

s·¬Ôs_ÁÈ.

4. sƒV´Áð

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

º√V]B

kVF©A

∂π¬Ô©√¶V\_ ÷BuÁÔ WB]¬z x´ðVÔ ÂÁ¶ÿ√uÆ^·™.

∏Áw©Ø]BxD >´©√¶s_ÁÈ. ∏Áw©Ø]BD >´V\_

sƒV´Áð¬z \–>V´Á´ k´ kuAÆ›> ÷BÈVm.

ÿ√VFBV™

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|ÔÁ·¬

z§©∏‚|,

ÔV´ðD

ºÔVÚD

ÔΩ>∫Ô^

∂–©√©√‚|^·™.

5á5á2010,

8á5á2010, 15á5á2010 g˛B ÔΩ>∫Ô·V_ 26á6á2010

∂[Æ √VmÔV©A ∂KkÈÏÔπ¶D >™m 3á6á2010 º>]l‚¶

s·¬Ô¬ ÔΩ>›Á> \–>V´Ï >Õ>º√Vm ∂Á>, ∂k Ï

ÿ√≈ \Æ›ms‚¶VÏ. g™V_, ƒÔ ªaBÏ S. √´Õ>V\M¶D

ÿÔV|›m ∂Á> cu√›] º\ÈV·ˆ¶D >´ xBuE›mº√Vm

∂Á>•D ÿ√≈ \Æ›ms‚¶VÏ. ÷Õ> cıÁ\ÁB

W‘∏¬Ô √VmÔV©A ∂KkÈÏ, cu√›] º\ÈV·Ï �ÆD

1213

17 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

√´Õ>V\[ g˛ºBVÁ´ \–>V´Ï sƒVˆ¬Ô xΩ•D

®[√Á> s·¬˛, \–>V´Ú¬z sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ

ÿ>ˆs¬Ô

ºkı|D.

g™V_,

ŒÚ>ÁÈ©√‚ƒ\VÔ

sƒV´Áð xΩ¬Ô©√‚|^·m.

5. \–>V´ˆ[

22á4á2010,

30á4á2010

g˛B

º>]l‚¶ ÔΩ>∫ÔÁ· gF° ÿƒFBV\_ ÷D\–>V´Á´

√Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒFBºkı|D ®[≈ c^ºÂV¬ÔD ÿÔVı|,

÷ÀsƒV´Áð

ÂÁ¶ÿ√uÆ^·m.

º\KD,

∂]Ô√‚ƒ

>ı¶Á™BVÔ √Ë ¿¬ÔD ÿƒFB©√‚¶m ƒ‚¶›]uz

x´ðV™

c›>´kVzD.

ƒ‚¶©√ΩBV™

ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔÁ· x¶¬˛ \–>V´Á´ √akV∫Ô ºkı|D

®[≈ c^ºÂV¬Ô›m¶[ ÿ√VFBV™ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|ÔÁ·

kÁ™Õm ÷BuÁÔ s]Ô”¬z© A≈D√VÔ sƒV´Áð

Â¶›] \–>V´Á´ √Ë ¿¬ÔD ÿƒFm^·™Ï. \–>V´ˆ[

Ôi¶∫ÔÁ·•D ºk>Á™•D √ð›>V_ ~|ÿƒFB xΩBVm.

>™m kB>V™ ÿ√uº≈VÏÔ^, ƒºÔV>´ÏÔ^ �ÆD ƒºÔV>ˆ

g˛ºBVÁ´ √´V\ˆ¬Ô ºkıΩB Ô¶Á\l_ c^·VÏ.

>uº√Vm ]™ƒˆ kVµ¬ÁÔÁB Â¶›> ÷BÈV> WÁÈl_

c^·VÏ. \–>V´Ï √Ë¿¬ÔD ÷BuÁÔ WB]Ô”¬z©

A≈D√V™m.

gÔºk,

÷D\–Ák

>^”√Ω

ÿƒFB

ºkı|D. 15á7á2010 º>]l‚¶ √Ë ¿¬Ô c›>´°

ƒ‚¶›]uz© A≈D√V™m �ÆD c›>´° ¿¬Ô´° ÿƒFm

\–>V´Á´ ∂Á™›m ƒKÁÔÔ^ �ÆD ∏[ ƒD√·D

g˛BÁkÔ”D ∂π›m, *ı|D ÿƒÈ° ÿ>VÁÔBπ›m,

√ËB\Ï›> ºkı|D ®™ ∏´VÏ›]¬Ô©√|˛≈m.

6. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒF>

®]Ï\–s[

∑Ú¬ÔD :

Œ©A¬ÿÔV^·©√‚¶ ƒ∫Ô]ÔÁ·› >s´ �≈kuÁ≈

\–>V´º´ W‘∏¬Ô ºkı|D. \–s_ Ôı¶

ƒ∫Ô]Ô^ ∂Á™›mD cıÁ\¬z© A≈D√V™Ák

�ÆD

ƒ‚¶©√Ω

∞uÆ¬ÿÔV^·¬ÌΩBÁkB_È.

®Às> x[ ∂§s©A ÷[§•D �ÆD x[

∂–\]l[§•D ºkÁÈ¬z k´V\_ ÷Ú©√>Á™

kw¬Ô\VÔ

ÿÔVıΩÚÕ>VÏ.

º\KD,

∂kÚ¬z

ÿÔV|¬Ô©ÿ√u≈ ºkÁÈlÁ™ﬂ ƒˆBVÔ ÿƒFBV\_

÷Ú›>_ �ÆD ºkÁÈ ÿƒFB \Æ›>_ º√V[≈

Œø∫ˇ™ﬂ

ÿƒB_Ôπ_

~|√‚¶VÏ.

∂>™V_,

cıÁ\ÁB ∂§B c^sƒV´Áð Â¶›>©√‚¶º√Vm

∂kÏ sƒV´ÁðlÁ™ xøÁ\BVÔ A≈¬ÔË›>>V_,

ŒÚ>ÁÈ©√‚ƒ sƒV´Áð Â¶›>©√‚¶m. 17á5á2010

x>_

s|©A

sıð©√D

∂_Èm

\Ú›mk

ƒV[§>µÔº·V

WÏkVÔ›]uz¬

ÿÔV|¬Ôs_ÁÈ.

g>ÈV_, 31á5á2010 º>]l‚¶ s·¬ÔD ºÔVˆB

ºÂV‚œ¸ ∂–©√©√‚| ∂>uzD ®Õ>s> s·¬Ôº\V

∂_Èm gkð∫Ôº·V ÿÔV|¬ÔV>>V_, *ı|D

c^sƒV´Áð Â¶›> 5á6á2010 º>]l‚¶ ÔΩ>D

JÈD >Ôk_ ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚¶m. sƒV´Áðl_ ÔÈÕm

ÿÔVı¶ \–>V´Ï, s|©A sıð©√º\V, \Ú›mk

E˛ﬂÁƒ ÿ√u≈>uÔV™ g>V´º\V >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFBV\_

>MBVÏ \Ú›mkﬂ ƒV[§>µ \‚|D ƒ\Ï©∏›>VÏ.

7. ÷.®¸.n. \Ú›mk ÔV©¨‚Ω[ˇµ √]° ÿƒFB©√‚¶

ÿ>VaÈVπBV™

\–>V´Ï,

÷.®¸.n.

\Ú›mk

\Á™ÔπºÈV

∂_Èm

∂´∑

\Ú›mk\Á™lºÈV

®Õ>s>

E˛ﬂÁƒ•D

ÿ√≈V\_

>MBVÏ

\Ú›mk

ƒV[§>µ \‚|D ÿÔV|›m^·m ]Ú©]Ô´\V™>VÔ ÷_ÁÈ.

º\KD,

\–>V´Ï

>MBVÏ

\Ú›mk\Á™l_

ÿ>V¶ÏÕm E˛ﬂÁƒ ÿ√uÆ ∂>[ sk´∫Ô^, \ÚÕmÔ^

º√V[≈ gkð∫ÔÁ· ƒ\Ï©∏›>V_, s|©A ®|›>>uÔV™

ÔV´ð∫Ô·VÔ Œ©A¬ÿÔV^· xΩ•D. g™V_ 17á5á2010

x>_ 31á5á2010 kÁ´ s·¬ÔD ºÔVˆB ºÂV‚œ¸

ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚|, ∂>uz \–>V´Ï s·¬ÔD ∂π¬ÔV\_

15á6á2010 º>]l‚¶ z§©√VÁð JÈD c^sƒV´Áð√u§B

>Ôk_ ÿ√u≈°¶[ 17á5á2010 x>_ 18á6á2010 kÁ´

c¶_WÁÈ

ƒˆl_ÈV\_

÷ÚÕ>>VÔ°D

∂>uÔV™

\Ú›mk

ƒV[§>Áw

sƒV´Áðl_

>V¬Ô_

ÿƒFB©√‚¶m ®[√m, \–>V´Ï*m WÏkVÔD ®|›>

Œø∫z Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔlÁ™ x§BΩ¬zD ºÂV¬Ô›]_

>´©√‚¶m. ∞ÿ™M_, \–>V´Ï ÿÔV|›> \Ú›mk

ƒV[§>µ

∞uÆ¬ÿÔV^·©√¶V\_,

\–>V´Ï

AˆÕ>

zu≈∫Ôπ[ >[Á\ÁB¬ ÔÚ] W´Õ>´ √Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒFB©√‚¶º> ŒaB ºkÆ ®Õ> c^ ºÂV¬Ô›m¶–D

W´Õ>´ √Ë ¿¬ÔD ÿƒFB©√¶s_ÁÈ.

8. º\KD, \–>V´Ï Ì§•^·kVÆ 15á7á2010

º>]l‚¶ s·¬ÔD ºÔVˆB ºÂV‚œ¸ ∂–©√©√‚¶

WÁÈl_

∂kˆ¶tÚÕm

®Õ>

s·¬ÔxD

k´V>

WÁÈl_ ®]Ï\–>V´´V_ 24á7á2010 ∂[Æ W´Õ>´

√Ë¿¬Ô c›>´° ∏≈©∏¬Ô©√‚| ∂Õ>¬ ÔΩ>\V™m

24á7á2010 ∂[Æ \–>V´Ú¬z √]° >√V_ JÈD

∂–©√©√‚|^·m. ®™ºk, √Ë¿¬ÔD ®[√m ∂kÏ

AˆÕ> zu≈∫Ôπ[ ∂Ω©√Á¶l_ kw∫Ô©√‚¶ÿ>[ÆD,

∂kÏ >™m ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ \–s_ ºÔVˆBkVÆ *ı|D

ºkÁÈºBV, ∏[ ƒD√·º\V ÿÔV|¬Ô› º>Ákl_ÁÈ

®[ÆD ®]Ï\–>V´´V_ ÿ>ˆs›m¬ÿÔV^·©√|˛≈m.

g>ÈV_,

\–>V´ˆ[

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ

\–

>^”√Ω

ÿƒFB©√¶ºkı|D.

9. ÷D\–s_ yÏ°¬z ®øD ®øs™V¬Ô^ :

\–>V´Ï

>´©∏_,

\–>V´Ï

N. x›m¬z\´[

\.ƒV.1ágÔ

sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚|

\.ƒV.g.1

x>_

gkð∫Ô·VÔ z§X| ÿƒFB©√‚¶m. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

>´©∏_, ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔ›][ cu√›] º\ÈV·´V™,

\ºÔÕ]´[

®[√kÏ

®.\.ƒV.1ágÔ

sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚|

®.ƒV.g.1 x>_ 11 gkð∫Ô·VÔ z§X| ÿƒFB©√‚|^·m.

®øs™V¬Ô^ :

(1) ÷D\– ∞uÔ›>¬Ôm>V™V ?

(2) ®©√ˆÔV´D \–>V´Ú¬z¬ ˛Á¶¬zD ?

®øs™V¬Ô^ 1 �ÆD 2 :

®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÆk™›]_ 1997 x>_ ∞E g©º´‚¶´VÔ

√ËAˆÕm kÕ> \–>V´Ï, ƒ‚¶sº´V>\VÔ 15á7á2010á_

√Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒFB©√‚¶m ƒˆB_È ®[ÆD ∂>™V_, *ı|D

>[Á™ √Ë›ÿ>V¶ÏﬂE, ∏[ƒD√·D �ÆD ÷>´

ƒKÁÔÔ”¶[ WÏkVÔD √ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D ®™°D

z§©∏‚| \–>V´Ï ÷D\–Ák >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^·VÏ.

√Ël_ ºƒÏÕ> ÂV^x>_ Â_È xÁ≈l_ √ËÿƒFm

kÕ>>VÔ°D, ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô›]_ >ÁÈk´VÔ ÷ÚÕm

ÿ>VaÈVπÔπ[ x[º™u≈›]uÔVÔ ÿƒB_√‚¶Á>

ÿ√VÆ›m¬ÿÔV^·V> WÏkVÔD, >™¬z √ÈkÁÔl_

∂ø›>D ÿÔV|›>>VÔ°D, ∂>™V_ ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô› >ÁÈkÏ

1214

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 December 2013

√>sÁB

´V˜™V\V

ÿƒF>>VÔ°D

ÿ>Vauƒ∫Ô

ÿƒB_√V‚Ω™V_, ∂]Ú©]Bu≈ WÏkVÔD, ÿ√VFBV™

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|ÔÁ· kÁ™Õm, sƒV´Áð Œ[Á≈ ÷BuÁÔ

WB]Ô”¬z© A≈D√VÔ Â¶›], >[Á™ √Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒF>>VÔ°D, >™¬z ∏Áw©Ø]BD kw∫Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ

®[ÆD

>™m

∏´\Vð

√›]´›]_

\–>V´Ï

z§©∏‚ΩÚÕ>VVÏ.

10. 20á4á2010 º>]l‚¶ ÔV´ðD ºÔVÚD ∂§s©A

\.ƒV.g.1á_ \–>V´Ï ƒ™kˆ 2010 x>_ ∞©´_ 2010 kÁ´

x[™§s©∏[§ s|©A ®|›>m zu≈D ®™°D 2 ÂV‚Ôπ_

√]_ ∂π¬Ô ºkı|D ®™°D ÔıΩÚÕ>m. \–>V´Ï

∂π›> 22á4á2010 º>]l‚¶ s·¬Ô ÔΩ>D \.ƒV.g.2á_,

>V[ cu√›] ∏ˆs_ √ËAˆÕm kÚk>VÔ°D, ÷∫z^·

Û µ W Á È

Ô V ´ ð \ V Ô

c ¶ _ W Á È

∂Ω¬ Ô Ω

√V]©A¬z^·V™>VÔ°D, ÷m ÿ>V¶Ï√VÔ \Ú›mk ƒV[§>µ

ƒ\Ï©∏›m^·>VÔ°D

z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.

23á4á2010

º>]l‚¶ \–>V´Ú¬z WÏkVÔD ∂π›> \.ƒV.g.3

ÔΩ>›]_, \–>V´Ï ÿ\¥Á™ ÿ´Ω ÿƒFm ÷B¬zDº√Vm,

∂ÆÕmº√V™ ±_ÔÁ· *ı|D ƒˆÿƒFB ÿƒV[™]_,

xΩBVm ®[Æ Ì§s‚¶>V_, ÷kÏ*m ∞[ Œø∫z

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ ®|¬Ô¬Ì¶Vm? ®™ s·¬ÔD ºÔV´©√‚¶m.

24á4á2010 º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.4 z§©√VÁðl_

\.ƒV.g.2 s·¬ÔD ]Ú©]Ô´\VÔ ÷_ÁÈ ®[√>V_

sƒV´Áð Â¶›> c›º>E¬Ô©√‚|^·>VÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m.

3á5á2010

º>]l‚¶

\.ƒV.g.5

z§©√VÁðl_

\–>V´Á´ 30á4á2010 º>]l‚¶ s·¬ÔD ]Ú©]Ô´\VÔ

÷_ÁÈ

®[√>V_

c^sƒV´Áð

Â¶›>

c›º>E¬Ô©√‚|^·>VÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. 31á5á2010

º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.6 s·¬ÔD ºÔVˆB ºÂV‚œ¸ 17á5á2010

x>_ x[™§s©∏[§ √Ë¬z k´V\_ ÷ÚÕ>>uÔVÔ

J[Æ ]™∫Ô”¬z^ s·¬ÔD \–>V´Ï ∂π¬Ô ºkı|D

®™ Ôı|^·m. 19á6á2010 º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.7

\–>V´ˆ[ ÔΩ>›]_ 17á5á2010 x>_ 18á6á2010 kÁ´

>™¬z c¶_ WÁÈ ƒˆl_ÈV\_ ÷ÚÕ>>VÔ°D ÷¬ÔΩ>›m¶[

\Ú›mk

ƒV[§>µ

∂π›m^·>VÔ°D

\–>V´Ï

z§©∏‚|^·VÏ.

11. 19-6-2010 º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.8 sƒV´Áð

∂]ÔVˆl[ z§©∏_ WÏkVÔ› >´©A ÷´ı| ƒV‚EB∫Ôπ[

kV¬zJÈ∫Ô^ √]° ÿƒFB©√‚|^·>VÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m.

26á6á2010 º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.9 sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆl[

∂§¬ÁÔl_, WÏkVÔ >´©A ƒV‚E �ÆD \–>V´ˆ[

ƒV‚EBD √]° ÿƒFB©√‚¶>VÔ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. 9á7á2010

º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.10 \–>V´ˆ[ ÔΩ>›]_, c^sƒV´Áð

Â¶Õm xΩÕm 15 ÂV‚Ô^ g˛•D >Ôk_ ÷_ÁÈ ®[ÆD,

>V[ ºkÁÈ¬z k´ >BV´VÔ ÷Ú¬˛º≈[ ®[ÆD

z§©∏¶©√‚|^·m. 9á7á2010 º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.11

sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆl[ ∂§¬ÁÔl_ WÏkVÔD ∑\›]B

\–>V´Ï*>V™ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô^ W‘√ðD g™>VÔ¬

ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. 12á7á2010 º>]l‚¶ sƒV´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔ

\.ƒV.g.12á_ 17á5á2010 x>_ x[™§s©∏[§ \–>V´Ï

√Ë¬z k´V\_ ÷ÚÕ>>uÔV™ zu≈ﬂƒV‚| W‘√ð\V™>VÔ

ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. 15á7á2010 º>]l‚¶ \.ƒV.g.13 s·¬ÔD

º Ô V ˆ B º Â V ‚ œ ¸ ∞[ \ – > V ´ Ú ¬ z W ´ Õ > ´

√Ë¿¬ÔD >ı¶Á™BVÔ kw∫Ô¬Ì¶Vm? ®™ s·¬ÔD

ºÔV´©√‚|^·m. 15á7á2010 º>]l‚¶ W´Õ>´ √Ë¿¬Ô

c›>´° \.ƒV.g. 14 gzD. \–>V´Ï 22á12á2010á_

WÏkVÔ›m¬z ∂π›> sıð©√¬ ÔΩ>D \.ƒV.g.15

gzD. ƒ\´ƒ ∂KkÈÏ WÏkVÔ›]uz ∂–©∏B

∂§s©A \.ƒV.g. 16 ®™°D, 23á2á2012 º>]l‚¶ ƒ\´ƒ

x§k§¬ÁÔ \.ƒV.g. 17 ®™°D \–>V´Ï >´©∏_

gkð∫Ô^ ÔıΩÚÕ>™.

12. 28á7á2005 º>]l‚¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð

®.ƒV.g.1 gzD. \–>V´Ú¬z ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶ 23á11á2005

º>]l‚¶ >uÔVoÔ √Ë¿¬Ô c›>´° ®.ƒV.g.12 gzD. >[

*m^· zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬z kÚÕm˛º≈[ ®[Æ 4á3á2006

∂[Æ \–>V´Ï ®ø]›>Õ> ÔΩ> ÂÔ_ ®.ƒV.g.3 gzD.

15á7á2009, 16á7á2009 g˛B º>]Ôπ_ x[™§s©∏[§

√Ë¬z k´V\_ ÷ÚÕ>>uz ®ﬂƒˆ¬ÁÔ ÿƒFm ∂–©∏B

21á7á2009 º>]l‚¶ ÔΩ>D ®.ƒV.g.4 gzD. >™m

z§©√VÁðl_ Û©√ÏÁkƒÏ ÿƒV[™√Ω ºkÁÈ ÿƒFBV\_

\–>V´Ï ÷ÚÕ>m Œø∫ˇ™D ®™ 5á5á2010, 8á5á2010

�ÆD

12á5á2010

g˛B

º>]Ôπ_

ÿÔV|›>

z§©√VÁðÔπ_

Ôı|^·m.

∂Ák

®.ƒV.g.5,

®.ƒV.gÔ.6 �ÆD ®.ƒV.g.8 gzD. 10á5á2010á_

\–>V´Ï ÁÔÿBø›]‚| ∂ﬁƒ_ Œ©AÁÔ ∂‚Á¶l[ ÂÔ_

®.ƒV.g.7 gzD. \–>V´Ï sƒV´Áð¬z 31á5á2010

∂[Æ g¤´VÔ ºkı|D ®™ \–>V´Ú¬z sƒV´Áð

∂]ÔVˆ 24á5á2010á_ ∂–©∏B ÔΩ> ÂÔ_ ®.ƒV.g.9

gzD. 17á5á2010 x>_ √Ë¬z k´VÁ\¬z ºÔVˆB

∂§s©A¬z s·¬ÔD ∂π¬ÔV>>V_ sƒV´Áð ÿƒFB

c›º>E¬Ô©√‚|^·>VÔ 15á6á2010á_ WÏkVÔD ∂–©∏B

z§©√VÁðl[ ÂÔ_ ®.ƒV.g.10 gzD. 17á5á2010 x>_

®Às> x[™§s©At[§ \–>V´Ï ºkÁÈ¬z k´s_ÁÈ

®[√>V_ sƒV´Áð¬z c›>´s¶©√‚|^·>VÔ°D �ÆD

>¬Ô ÷.®¸.n. ƒV[§>µ ∂π›m sƒV´Áð¬z g¤´VÔ

21á6á2010á_ ∂–©√©√‚¶ WÏkVÔ z§©√VÁðl[ ÂÔ_

®.ƒV.g.11 gzD.

13. ÷D\–>V´Ï ®]Ï\–>V´Ï ÿ>VauƒVÁÈl_

√ËAˆÕm kÕ>>VÔ¬ Ì≈©√|D ÌuÆ ∞uÆ¬ÿÔV^·©√|˛≈m.

g™V_, \–>V´Ï*m kÁ™B©√‚|^· zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô^,

\–>V´Ï

√Ë

ÔVÈ›]_

EÈ

Œø∫ˇ™∫Ôπ_

~|√‚¶>VÔ°D,

∂>™V_

∂kÏ*m

kÁ™B©√‚¶

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬ÔÁ·© ÿ√VÆ›m ®|¬Ô©√‚¶ Œø∫z

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^ ÿ>V¶Ï√VÔ, Â¶Õ> c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð

xÁ≈BVÔ º�ÿÔV^·©√‚¶>V? ®[√>Á™ ÂVD >uº√Vm

g´VBºkıΩ•^·m. \–>V´Ï ƒ™kˆ 2010 x>_ ∞©´_

2010 kÁ´ ®Às> x[™§s©AD ÷[§ ∂]Ô\V™ s|©A

®|›m^·>VÔ \.ƒV.g.1 JÈD ∂π¬Ô©√‚¶ ÔV´ðD

ºÔVÚD ∂§s©A¬z ∏[™Ï ∂§s©A ∂–©√©√‚|^·m.

∂>uz \.ƒV.g.2 JÈD √]_∂π›> \–>V´Ï, ∞E

∏·VıΩá_ 2008 kÁ´ >V[ √ËAˆÕm kÕ>>VÔ°D

g™V_ ƒ™kˆ 2009 x>_ cu√›] ∏ˆs_ √ËAˆ•D

ÛµWÁÈ √V]©A ∞u√|k>VÔ°D z§©∏‚ΩÚÕ>VÏ. º\KD,

\Ú›mk

ƒV[§>µ

ƒ\Ï©∏›>>VÔ°D

\.ƒV.g.2á_

ÔıΩÚÕ>m.

14. º\KD, \.ƒV.g.3á_ Ôı¶√Ω 23á4á2010á_

\–>V´Ï ÿ\¥Á™ ÿ´ΩÿƒFm ÷B¬zDº√Vm, g´D√›]_

∂ÆÕmº√V™ ±_ÔÁ· ƒˆÿƒFB ÿƒV[™º√Vm xΩBVm

®[Æ \–>V´Ï ÿƒFB\Æ›>m zu≈\VzD ®[≈

1215

17 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

zu≈ﬂƒV‚| gzD. \.ƒV.g.1 �ÆD \.ƒV.g.3 g˛Bku§_

Ôı¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬ÔÁ· z§›m \–>V´Ï ∂π›> s·¬ÔD

]Ú©]Ô´\VÔ ÷_ÁÈ ®[√>V_ c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð Â¶›>

c›º>E›m^·>VÔ \.ƒV.g.4 �ÆD \.ƒV.g.5 JÈD

WÏkVÔD z§©√VÁð ∂–©∏ sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆBVÔ

kw¬zÁ´QÏ ]Ú\] gÏ. ]ÈÔk] WBt¬Ô©√‚|^·>VÔ

ÔıΩÚÕ>m.

15. J[≈Vkm zu≈ﬂƒV‚¶VÔ, 17á5á2010 x>_ ®Às>

x[™§s©AD ÷[§ \–>V´Ï √Ë¬z 31á5á2010 kÁ´

k´s_ÁÈ ®[√>V_, ÷m√u§ WÏkVÔD ∂–©∏B

\.ƒV.g.6 s·¬ÔD ºÔVˆB ºÂV‚œ¸¬z √]_ ∂–©∏B

\–>V´Ï >™¬z 17á5á2010 x>_ 18á6á2010 kÁ´

c¶_WÁÈ ƒˆl_ÈV>Á>© √u§ ∞uÔ™ºk WÏkVÔ›]¶D

ÔΩ>D ÿÔV|›>Á> WÏkVÔD ∞uÔ \Æ›ms‚¶>VÔ°D,

>uº√Vm \Ú›mk ƒV[§>ø¶[, ºkÁÈ¬z k´ >BV´VÔ

c^·>VÔ°D, \–>V´Ï ∂π›> \.ƒV.g.7 ÔΩ>D,

WÏkVÔ›>V_

19á6á2010

∂[Æ

ÿ√≈©√‚¶>VÔ

ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m. \.ƒV.g.1 �ÆD \.ƒV.g.3 g˛Bku§_

Ôı¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬ÔÁ·© ÿ√VÆ›m sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ

19á6á2010á_ sƒV´Áð Â¶›]B>VÔ°D ∂Õ> sƒV´Áð

Â¶¬ÔsÚ©√>VÔ z§›m >√V_ ∂–©∏•D ∂[Æ ÔVÁÈ

10.40 kÁ´ sƒV´Áðl_ ÔÈÕmÿÔV^·s_ÁÈ ®[≈

ÛµWÁÈl_, WÏkVÔ› >´©A ƒV‚E gÏ. ÷·k´ƒ[ �ÆD

gÏ. ∏´√VÔ´[ g¤´V˛ ƒV‚EBD ∂π›>VÔ°D, \–>V´Ï

g¤´VÔV>>V_ ŒÚ>ÁÈ©√‚ƒ\VÔ sƒV´Áð Â¶›]

xΩ¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ \.ƒV.g.8 sƒV´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔl_

ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m.

16. \.ƒV.g.6á_ Ôı¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|ÔÁ·© ÿ√VÆ›m

26á6á2010á_ Â¶Õ> c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áðl_ \–>V´Ï

>™¬z

c>sBVÔ,

ºÔ.

x›mƒVt

®[√kÁ´

∂Áw›m¬ÿÔVı| sƒV´Áðl_ g¤´V™>VÔ°D

WÏkVÔ› >´©∏_ gÏ. ÷·k´ƒ–D \–>V´Ï >´©∏_

\–>V´ÚD sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚| ∂§¬ÁÔ ƒ\Ï©∏©√>VÔ

\.ƒV.g.9 sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆl[ sƒV´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔl_

ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. \.ƒV.g.1, \.ƒV.g.3 �ÆD \.ƒV.g.6

g˛B J[Æ ºÂV‚œ¸ÔÁ·•D, \–>V´´V_ ÷Áw¬Ô©√‚¶

Œø∫ˇ™∫Ô”¬z s·¬ÔD ºÔV´©√‚¶™. ∂Às·¬ÔD

ºÔV´©√‚|, sƒV´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔl_ s·¬ÔD \.ƒV.g.4

�ÆD \.ƒV.g.5 g˛Bku§_ ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. \.ƒV.g.8

�ÆD \.ƒV.g.9 g˛B sƒV´Áð Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ”¬z

x[™Ï, zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð kw∫Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ.

s·¬ÔDºÔVˆB ÔΩ>∫Ô”¬z∏≈z, ÷Àkw¬˛_ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|

z§©√VÁð kw∫Ô©√¶V\_, ºÂ´ΩBVÔ sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ

19á6á2010 �ÆD 26á6á2010 g˛B º>]Ôπ_ c^mÁ≈

sƒV´Áð Â¶›] xΩ›]Ú©√>VÔ ÿ>ˆ˛≈m. º\KD,

\.ƒV.g.8á[√Ω¬z Â¶›>©√‚¶ 19á6á2010 º>]l‚¶

c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áðl_ \–>V´Ï g¤´VÔs_ÁÈ.

19á6á2010 ∂[Æ \–>V´Ï g¤´VÔ ºkı|D ®[Æ

WÏkVÔ› >´©∏_ sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ \–>V´Ú¬z >Ôk_

ÿÔV|›>V´V ®[√>uz gkðD ®m°D ÷_ÁÈ.

17. ÷ﬂÛµWÁÈl_, 19á6á2010 º>]l‚¶ sƒV´Áðl_

\–>V´Ï

g¤´VÔV>>V_

ŒÚ>ÁÈ©√‚ƒ

c›>´°

∏≈©∏¬Ô©√‚|^·m. gÔºk, \.ƒV.g.1 �ÆD \.ƒV.g.3á_

Ôı|^· zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô^ z§›m, zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð

kw∫ÔV\KD, \–>V´Ï sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ x[MÁÈl_

19á6á2010 ∂[Æ g¤´VÔ º√V]B kVF©A ∂π¬ÔV\KD,

∂kƒ´Ô]l_

ŒÚ>ÁÈ©√‚ƒ

c›>´°

\.ƒV.g.8

x[MÁÈ¬z yÏ\VM¬Ô©√‚¶m ∞uÔ›>¬Ô>VÔ ÷_ÁÈ,

®™ ∂§BxΩ˛≈m. \.ƒV.g.6á[√Ω¬z 31á5á2010á_

∂–©√©√‚¶ ºÂV‚œE_ ƒV‚¶©√‚|^· zu≈ﬂƒV‚Ω_

17á5á2010 x>_ \–>V´Ï x[™§s©∏[§ √Ë¬z

k´V\_ ÷ÚÕ>>VÔ¬ Ôı|^·>uzD, zu≈ﬂƒV‚|

z§©√VÁð kw∫Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ. g™V_, sƒV´Áð

∂]ÔVˆ x[MÁÈ¬z \–>V´Ï 26á6á2010á_ g¤´V˛,

>\m WÁÈÁB ®|›m¬Ì§•^·VÏ. \Ú›mk ƒV[Æ¶[

>V[ ∂–©∏B s|©A ÔΩ>›Á> ÿÔV|›>–©∏Bº√Vm

∂Á> WÏkVÔD kV∫Ô \Æ›>>VÔ°D sƒV´Áðl_

\–>V´Ï Ì§•^·>VÔ°D ÿ>ˆBkÚ˛≈m.

18. \.ƒV.g.1 �ÆD \.ƒV.g.3á_ z§©∏¶©√‚¶

Œø∫ˇ™∫Ô^ ÿ>V¶Ï√VÔ Â¶Õ> sƒV´Áðl_ ƒ™kˆ 2010

x>_ ∞©´_ 2010 kÁ´ \–>V´Ï x[™§s©∏[§ √Ë¬z

k´s_ÁÈ ®[Æ WÏkVÔ› >´©∏_ ƒ\Ï©∏›> 1 x>_ 9

kÁ´BV™ gkð∫Ôπ[√Ω¬z W‘∏¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ \.ƒV.g.11

s ƒ V ´ Á ð

∂§ ¬ Á Ô l _

z § © ∏¶ © √‚ | ^ · m .

÷Õ¿]\[≈›]_ ƒV‚EBD ∂π›> \.ƒV.g.1 zÆ¬z

sƒV´Áðl[º√Vm \.ƒV.g.1 ∂§s©∏_ c^· ƒ∫Ô]Ô^

cıÁ\ ®[ÆD, ƒ™kˆ 2010 x>_ ∞©´_ 2010 kÁ´

x[™§s©∏[§ s|©A ®|›º>[ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[

®[ÆD Œ©A¬ÿÔVı|^·VÏ. gÔºk, \.ƒV.g.1á_

z§©∏‚¶√Ω x[™§s©∏[§ ƒ™kˆ 2010 x>_ ∞©´_

2010 kÁ´ \–>V´Ï s|©A ®|›>>VÔ sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ

xΩ° ÿƒFm^·m ∞uÔ›>¬Ô>VÔºk c^·m. \.ƒV.g.3

∂§s©∏_ z§©∏‚¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚Á¶© ÿ√VÆ›>kÁ´l_

Û©√ÏÁkƒÏ ∏´√VÔ´[ ÿƒV[™ √ËlÁ™ \–>V´Ï

ÿƒFBV>>V_, ºkÆ Â√Ï Ák›m ∂Õ> ºkÁÈÁB ÿƒFm

xΩ¬Ô©√‚¶m ®[√>V_ ÷¬zu≈ﬂƒV‚|D W‘∏¬Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ

®[Æ sƒV´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔl_ Ôı|^·m. ÷Õ>

÷´ı¶Vkm zu≈ﬂƒV‚Á¶© ÿ√VÆ›> kÁ´l_ Û©√ÏÁkƒÏ

∏´√VÔ´Á™› >s´ ºkÆ ƒV‚EB∫Ô^ sƒV´Áðl_

sƒVˆ¬Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ. ∂Õ> Û©√ÏÁkƒÏ ∏´√VÔ´Á™,

÷Õ¿]\[≈›]_ ŒÚƒV‚EBVÔ x[MÆ›>©√¶s_ÁÈ.

19. \.ƒV.g.6á[√Ω¬z z§©∏¶©√‚|^· J[≈Vkm

zu≈ﬂƒV‚| ÿ√VÆ›>kÁ´ \–>V´Ï ÷.®¸.n. \Ú›mk

\Á™loÚÕm

®Õ>s>

\Ú›mk

ƒV[§>øD

ƒ\Ï©∏¬ÔV\_, >MBVÏ \Ú›mk ƒV[§>Áw ∂π¬Ô

xu√‚¶>VÔ°D,

∂>™V_

\–>V´ˆ[

ƒ\V>V™D

∞uÆ¬ÿÔV^·¬ÌΩB>VÔ ÷_ÁÈ ®[√>V_, ÷¬zu≈ﬂƒV‚|D

W‘∏¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ \.ƒV.g.12 sƒV´Áð ∂§¬ÁÔl_

ÔıΩÚ¬˛≈m. \–>V´Ï ÷Õ¿]\[≈›]_ ƒV‚EBD

∂π¬ÁÔl_, >™m c¶_WÁÈ ƒˆl_ÈV\_ º√V™>V_

\‚|º\, s|©A ®|›m©º√V™>VÔ Ì§™VÏ. ÷.®¸.n.

∂∫Ô›]™´VÔ

÷Ú¬zD

\–>V´Ï,

÷.®¸.n.

\Ú›mk\Á™l_ E˛ﬂÁƒ ÿ√u≈>VÔ ÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ. ÷Õ>

ÛµWÁÈl_ >MBVÏ \Ú›mkˆ¶D ÿ√u≈ \Ú›mk

ƒV[§>ø¬z, sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ ∂]Ô x¬˛B›mkD

∂π¬Ô ÷BÈs_ÁÈ.

1216

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 December 2013

20. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©A >V¬Ô_ÿƒF> ®.ƒV.g.1 x>_

®.ƒV.g.4 kÁ´BV™ gkð∫Ô^ ÷D\–s_ ÿƒV_È©√‚¶

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô”¬z ÿ>V¶Ï∏_ÈV>ÁkÔ·VzD. ∞uÔ™ºk,

\–>V´Ï*m EÈ Œø∫ˇ™∫ÔÁ·¬ z§›m ®.ƒV.g.1

zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚|, ®.ƒV.g.2á_

s·¬ÔD ºÔVˆ•^·VÏ. 23á11á2005 >uÔVoÔ √Ë¿¬Ô›]_

÷ÚÕ>VÏ ®[ÆD 4á3á2006á_ \[M©A ÔΩ>D ®.ƒV.g.3

JÈD ÿÔV|›>VÏ ®[ÆD ®.ƒV.g.4 JÈD \–>V´Ï

√Ë¬z ƒˆBVÔ k´s_ÁÈ ®[√>V_ ®ﬂƒˆ¬ÁÔ

z§©√VÁð 27á1á2009á_ ÿÔV|¬Ô©√‚¶>VÔ°D ®.ƒV.\.1

ƒV‚EBD ∂π›>VÏ. ÷Õ> ®.ƒV.g.1 x>_ ®.ƒV.g.4

kÁ´BV™ ƒ∫Ô]Ô^ ÷Àkw¬z¬z ÿ>V¶ÏAÁ¶B>VÔ

ÂD\V_ ÔÚ>xΩBs_ÁÈ.

21. \–>V´Ï >´©A kw¬zÁ´QÏ kV]|ÁÔl_,

\–>V´Ï >™m c¶_WÁÈ ƒˆl_ÁÈ ®[√>uz ŒÚ Â√Ï

JÈD ÔΩ>D ÿÔV|›m ∂–©∏B>VÔ°D, ÷Àkw¬˛_

zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð >´©√¶s_ÁÈ ®[√>V_,

zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð ∂π¬ÔV> ÛµWÁÈl_

ÔV´ðDºÔVÚD ºÂV‚œ¸ ∂–©∏B∏≈z zu≈ﬂƒV‚|

kÁ™BV\_ sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆÁB WBt›m, sƒV´Áð

∂§¬ÁÔ

ƒ\Ï©∏›>∏[™Ï

∂Õ>

∂§¬ÁÔl[

∂Ω©√Á¶l_ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒF>m ÷BuÁÔ WB]¬z

A≈D√V™m ®[Æ ®|›mÁ´›>VÏ. º\KD, \–>V´Á´

>uÔVoÔ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒF> WÏkVÔD, >uÔVoÔ √Ë¿¬Ô

ÔVÈ›]_ ∏Áw©Ø]BD >´s_ÁÈ ®[ÆD ÷ﬂÛµWÁÈl_

÷BuÁÔ WB] ƒ‚¶D �ÆD ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÂÈﬂƒ‚¶∫Ô^

∏≈©∏¬Ô©√‚|^·™ ®[ÆD ®|›mÁ´›m ˇµÔı¶

x[yÏ©AÔÁ· WÁ™°ÌÏÕ>VÏ.

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”.

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. ®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©A kw¬zÁ´QÏ kV]|ÁÔl_,

ÿ>VaÈVπ x[™§s©∏[§ √Ë¬z k´V\_ ÷ÚÕ>m

Ô|Á\BV™ Œø∫ˇ™D gzD ®[ÆD ÷›>z ÿƒB_

c^mÁ≈

sƒV´Áðl_

W‘∏¬Ô©√‚|,

∂›>z

Œø∫ˇ™›]uÔVÔ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒFB©√‚¶ c›>´°

ƒˆBV™º> ®[ÆD kV]‚¶VÏ. º\KD, x[™§s©∏[§•D

x[∂–\]l[§•D √Ë¬zk´V\_ ÿkπÂV‚|¬zﬂ

ÿƒ[Æs‚|, ∏[™Ï √Ë¬z k´ sÚDAD ÿ>VaÈVπ, ŒÚ

\Ú›mk

ƒV[Æ¶[

√Ë¬z

g¤´VzD

ÿƒB_

ÔıΩ¬Ô›>¬Ô>VzD ®™°D, ∂›>z Â√Á´ √Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒF>m ƒˆºB ®™ ˇµÔı¶ x[yÏ©∏_ xΩ°

ÿƒFB©√‚¶>VÔ°D kV]‚|, ˇµÔı¶x[ yÏ©AÔÁ·

®|›mÁ´›>VÏ.

CDJ 2011KarHC554 :

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

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

.... 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

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.

1217

17 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

CDJ 2010 BHC 2679

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

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....

23. x[™§s©∏[§ √Ë¬z k´V\_ ÷Ú¬zD

ÿ>VaÈVπl[ ÿƒB_ ÔıΩ¬Ô›>¬Ôm ®™°D √Ë¬z

k´V\_, x[∂–\]l[§, ÿkπÂV‚|¬zﬂ ÿƒ[Æs‚|

*ı|D √Ël_ ºƒ´ ºkı|D ®[≈ c^ºÂV¬ÔD

ÿÔVı| kÕ> ÿ>VaÈVπl[ ÿƒBÁÈ ƒV>V´ð\VÔ

®|›m¬ÿÔV^· ÷BÈVm ®[ÆD ∂›>z Â√Á´ √Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒF>m ƒˆºB ®™°D º�√Ω x[yÏ©∏_ ÔÚ›m¬

Ì≈©√‚¶m.

24. ÷D\–s_, \–>V´Ú¬z \.ƒV.g.1, \.ƒV.g. 3

�ÆD \.ƒV.g. 6 g˛B ºÂV‚œ¸Ôπ[ º√ˆ_ J[Æ

Œø∫ˇ™∫Ô^ z§›m s·¬ÔD ºÔV´©√‚ΩÚÕ>m. ∂>Á™

ÿ>V¶ÏÕm \.ƒV.g. 4 �ÆD \.ƒV.g. 5 z§©√VÁðÔ^

JÈD WBt¬Ô©√‚¶ sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ, sƒV´Áð Â¶›]

\.ƒV.g. 8 �ÆD \.ƒV.g. 9 g˛B ∂§s¬ÁÔÔÁ·

ÿÔV|›]ÚÕ>VÏ. \.ƒV.g8 �ÆD \.ƒV.g. 9 ∂§¬ÁÔÔπ[

∂Ω©√Á¶l_

J[Æ

zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô”D

W‘√ðD

g™>VÔ°D, ∂>™V_ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒF>>VÔ \.ƒV.g. 14

√Ë¿¬Ô c›>´° 15á7á2010á_ ∏≈©∏¬Ô©√‚|^·m.

g™V_, zu≈ﬂƒV‚|Ô^ z§›m \.ƒV.g. 1, \.ƒV.g. 3

�ÆD \.ƒV.g. 6 g˛B ºÂV‚œ∑Ô^ ÿÔV|›> ∏[™Ï

zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð kÁ™B©√¶s_ÁÈ. zu≈ﬂƒV‚|

z§©√VÁð kÁ™Õm ∂¬z§©√VÁðÁB \–>V´Ú¬z

ƒVÏ° ÿƒFm, º\KD º√V]B kVF©A ∂π›>∏[™Ï,

sƒV´Áð ∂]ÔVˆ c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð Â¶›> ºkı|D.

÷›>Úð›]_, ˇµÔı¶ x[yÏ©A¬ÔÁ· ÂVD Ôk™›]_

ÿÔV^km ∂kEB\V˛≈m.

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...

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

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

... 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�√Ω, √VDº√ cBÏ¿]\[≈ yÏ©∏_ ÔÚ›m

ÌÆDº√Vm zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô^ ÿ>πkVÔ°D Aˆ•D√Ω•D

÷Ú¬Ô ºkı|D ®[ÆD ÿ>πs_ÈV\_ z§©∏‚¶

Œø∫ˇ™D√u§ W‘√ðD gÔV>º√Vm, x[Ì‚ΩºB

yÏ\VM›>√Ω ÿ>VaÈVπÁB √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒF>>VÔºk

ÿÔV^· ÷BKD ®™°D ÔÚ›m Ì≈©√‚ΩÚ¬˛≈m. g™V_,

÷D\–>V´Ï ÿ√VÆ›m ∂›>z zu≈ﬂƒV‚| z§©√VÁð

ÿÔV|¬Ô©√¶s_ÁÈ ®[√>V_ c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð

Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ xÁ≈BVÔ ÂÁ¶ÿ√≈s_ÁÈ ®[º≈ ÂVD

ÔÚ>xΩ˛≈m. º\KD, \–>V´Ï >uÔVoÔ √Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒFB©√‚ΩÚÕ>VKD, ∂kÚ¬z ∏Áw©Ø]BD ∂¬ÔVÈ›]uz

>´©√¶s_ÁÈ

®[ÆD

®.\.ƒV.1

>™m

zÆ¬z

sƒV´Áðl_ Œ©A¬ÿÔVı|^·VÏ. \–>V´Ï >´©∏_

∑‚Ω¬ÔV‚¶©√‚¶ yÏ©A¬Ôπ[√Ω, ∏Áw©Ø]BD ƒ‚¶©√Ω,

>uÔVoÔ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒFB©√‚¶ ÔVÈ›]_, ÿ>VaÈVπ¬z

WÏkVÔD ∏Áw©Ø]BD >Úkm Ô¶Á\ gzD. \–>V´Ï *m

ƒV‚¶©√‚|^· zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô^ √u§B zu≈ﬂƒV‚|

z§©√VÁð kÁ™Õm >´V\KD, ∏Áw©Ø]BD >´V\KD,

ÂÁ¶ÿ√u≈ c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð ºÂÏÁ\BVÔ°D,

WBVB\VÔ°D ÂÁ¶ÿ√≈s_ÁÈ ®[º≈ ÂV[ ÔÚm˛º≈[.

26. ÷D\–>V´Ï, Œø∫ˇ™›]_ ~|√‚|, ∂>™V_ ∂kÏ

*m^· zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô^ W‘√ð\V™>VÔ sƒV´Áð

∂§¬ÁÔl_ Ì≈©√‚ΩÚÕ>VKD, ∂¬zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬ÔÁ·©

ÿ√VÆ›m ∂]Ô√‚ƒ >ı¶Á™BVÔ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒFB©√¶

ºkı|D ®[Æ WÏkVÔD xΩ°ÿƒF>m ∞uÔ›>¬Ô>VÔ

÷_ÁÈ. ŒÚ ÿ>VaÈVπ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒFB©√¶ ºkı|D

®[≈V_, ∂kÏ *m kÁ™B©√‚¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô^

Ô|Á\BV™>VÔ ÷Ú¬Ô ºkı|D. g™V_, ÷D\–>V´Ï

*m ∑\›>©√‚¶ zu≈ﬂƒV‚|¬Ô^ √Ë¿¬ÔD ÿƒF•D

∂·suz Ô|Á\BV™>VÔ ÷Ú©√>VÔ ÂVD ∂§B

xΩBs_ÁÈ. º\KD, c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð ÂÁ¶ÿ√u≈

s>D ÷BuÁÔ WB]¬z \V≈VÔ c^·>V_, ºÂÏÁ\BVÔ°D

WBVB\VÔ°D c^mÁ≈ sƒV´Áð ÂÁ¶ÿ√≈s_ÁÈ

®[Æ

∞uÿÔ™ºk

xΩ°

ÿƒFB©√‚|^·>V_,

÷D\–>V´Á´

√Ë¿¬ÔD

ÿƒFB©√‚¶

c›>´°

∞uÔ›>¬Ô›>_È. ∂>™V_, \–ﬂƒ∫Ô]Ô^ �ÆD

ÛµWÁÈÔÁ·¬ ÔÚ›]_ÿÔVı| \–>V´Ú¬z √Ë

ÿ>V¶ÏﬂE �ÆD ÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔ”¶[ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï

√ËBπ¬Ô ºkı|D ®[ÆD g™V_ xÕÁ>B √Ë¬ÔVÈ

k´ÈVuÁ≈ ÔÚ›]_ÿÔVı| \–>V´Ï 50% ∏[ ƒD√·D

\‚|º\ ÿ√≈ cˆBkÏ ®[ÆD ÂV[ ÔÚm˛º≈[.

1218

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[17 December 2013

xΩs_, \–>V´Ú¬z √Ë›ÿ>V¶ÏﬂE �ÆD ÷>´

ƒKÁÔÔ”¶[ ®]Ï\–>V´Ï WÏkVÔD √ËBπ¬Ô

ºkı|D ®[ÆD \–>V´Ï 50% ∏[ ƒD√·D \‚|º\ ÿ√≈

cˆBkÏ ®[ÆD c›>´s¶©√|˛≈m. ÿƒÈ°› ÿ>VÁÔ

÷_ÁÈ.

®[™V_ ÿƒV_È©√‚|, >‚¶ﬂƒ´V_ >‚¶ﬂ∑ ÿƒFB©√‚|,

2013áD gı| hÁÈ \V>D 18áD ÂV^ ∂ÁkB§B

√Ô´©√‚¶m.

m. º\VÔ[>V¸,

º\VÔ[>V¸,

>ÁÈÁ\>V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amﬂºƒˆ.

————

sƒVˆ¬Ô©√‚¶ ƒV‚EÔπ[ √‚ΩB_

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

\.ƒV. 1

— N. x›m¬z\´[

®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

®.\.ƒV.1

— \ºÔÕ]´[

z§l¶©√‚¶ gkð∫Ôπ[ √‚ΩB_

\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

\.ƒV.g.1

20-4-2010 Show cause notice issued by

the respondent management to

the petitioner.

\.ƒV.g.2

22-4-2010

Photocopy

the

submitted by the petitioner to

the respondent management.

\.ƒV.g.3

23-4-2010

Show cause notice issued by

the respondent management to

the petitioner.

\.ƒV.g.4

24-4-2010

Photocopy of the memo. issued

by the respondent management

to the petitioner.

\.ƒV.g.5

3-5-2010

Photocopy of the memo. issued

by the respondent management

to the petitioner.

\.ƒV.g.6

31-5-2010

Photocopy of the show cause

notice issued by the respondent

management to the petitioner.

\.ƒV.g.7

19-6-2010

Carbon copy of the letter

submitted by the petitioner to

the respondent management

along

with

the

medical

certificate.

\.ƒV.g.8

19-6-2010

Photocopy of the enquiry

proceedings sheet.

\.ƒV.g.9

26-6-2010

Photocopy of the enquiry

proceedings sheet.

\.ƒV.g.10

9-7-2010

Photocopy

the

letter

submitted by the petitioner to

the respondent management.

\.ƒV.g.11

9-7-2010

Photocopy of the enquiry

report submitted by the Enquiry

Officer Mrs. Thilagavathi.

\.ƒV.g.12

12-7-2010

Photocopy of the enquiry report

submitted by the Enquiry

Officer Mrs. Thilagavathi.

\.ƒV.g.13

15-7-2010

Show cause notice issued by

the respondent management to

the petitioner.

\.ƒV.g.14

15-7-2010

Dismissal order issued by the

respondent management to the

petitioner.

\.ƒV.g.15 22-12-2010 Photocopy

the

letter

submitted by the petitioner to

the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

\.ƒV.g.16

20-7-2011

Photocopy of the notice of

enquiry/conciliation sent by the

Labour Officer (Conciliation) to

the Government.

\.ƒV.g.17

23-2-2012

Photocopy of the failure report

submitted by the Labour

Officer (Conciliation) to the

Government.

®]Ï\–>V´Ï >´©∏_:

\.ƒV.g.1

28-7-2005

Photocopy of charge sheet,

issued to Muthukumaran by

Superfil Products Limited,

Puducherry.

\.ƒV.g.2 23-11-2005 Photocopy of intimation of

suspension,

issued

Muthukumaran by Superfil

Products Limited, Puducherry.

\.ƒV.g.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.

\.ƒV.g.4

21-7-2009

Photocopy of warning memo./

letter issued to Muthukumaran

by management.

\.ƒV.g.5

5-5-2010

Photocopy of memo. [with COP

and postal receipt] issued to

7-5-2010

Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒV.g.6

8-5-2010

Photocopy of memo. issued to

Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒV.g.7

10-5-2010

Photocopy of acknowledgment

card signed by Muthukumaran

on receipt of memo. of 8-5-2010.

\.ƒV.g.8

12-5-2010

Photocopy of memo. [with COP

and postal receipts], issued to

13-5-2010

Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒV.g.9

24-5-2010

Photocopy of intimation letter

for hearing of enquiry [with

postal receipt] issued to

Muthukumaran by Enquiry

Officer.

1219

17 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

\.ƒV.g.10 15-6-2010

Photocopy of memo. [with

postal receipt] issued to

Muthukumaran by management.

\.ƒV.g.11

21-6-2010

Photocopy of memo. [with COP

receipt] issued to Muthukumaran

by management.

m. º\VÔ[>V¸,

º\VÔ[>V¸,

>ÁÈÁ\ >V∫zD ∂KkÈÏ,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ¿]\[≈D, Amﬂºƒˆ.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

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

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the award in I.D. (T) No. 31/2012,

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;

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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUDUCHERRY

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

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal.

Tuesday, the 3rd day of September 2013

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

The President,

Chemcrown Exports and Suolificio

Linea Italia Thozhilalargal Sangam.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

Suolificio Linea (India)

Italia Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry

. . Respondent

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

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.

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.

————

List of witness examined for the petitioner :

PW.1 — 3-9-2013 — D. Balasundaram

List of witness examined for the respondent : Nil.

List of exhibits marked for the petitioner :

Ex.P1

— Pay slip issued by the respondent to

1st employee.

Ex.P2

— Identity card and EPF slip of the 1st

employee.

Ex.P3

— ESIC card issued by ESIC to the first

employee, dated 1-12-2006.

Ex.P4

— ESIC card issued by ESIC to the

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

— ESIC card issued by ESIC to the

8th employee, dated 7-4-2006.

Ex.P9

— ESIC card issued by ESIC to the

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 — ESIC card issued by ESIC to

13th employee, dated 21-12-2006.

Ex.P13 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to

14th employee.

Ex.P14 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to

15th employee.

Ex.P15 — ESIC temporary identity certificate

issued to 16th employee, dated 2-5-2007.

Ex.P16 — ESIC card issued by ESIC to

18th employee, dated 5-5-2009.

Ex.P17 — Pay slip issued by the respondent to

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

List of exhibits marked for the respondent : Nil.

T. MOHANDASS,

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,

Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(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

of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect of

the industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills, Puducherry and Thiru J. Thangappan

represented by Indiraji National Textile Uzhaipalar

Congress, over non-payment of back wages consequent

to restoration of the permanent status 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.

Friday, the 19th day of July 2013.

I.D. No. 31/2010

The President,

Indiraji National Textiles

Uzhaipalar Congress.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

Bharathi Mills,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

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

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.,

(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?

1221

17 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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.

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

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:-

(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.

1223

17 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(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 the

1224

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

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.

1225

17 December 2013]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(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.

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.

————

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.

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 :

Ex.P1