La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 14-00
Prix : ` 14-00
Price :
` 14-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 1220
Sentence arbitral du travail
.. 1220
Award of the Labour Court .. 1220
de tribunal.
.. 1226
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 1226
Government Notifications .. 1226
.. 1227
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 1227
Tender notices
.. 1227
.. 1228
Etablissements dangereux
.. 1228
Dangerous Establishments
.. 1228
.. 1231
Annonces
.. 1231
Announcements
.. 1231
[1219]
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India under
No. 10410
Registered No. SSP/PY/44/2015-17
WPP No. TN/PMG(CCR)/WPP-88/2015-17
Dated : 7-11-2017
Price : ` 14-00
2017 }
|
7 {
No.
45
Poudouchéry
Mardi
7
Novembre
2017 (16 Kartika 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
7th
November
2017
1220
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 November 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 144/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 4th October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(L)No.47/2012, dated
20-7-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the Management of
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat, Thirunallar, Karaikal
and Thiru P. Selvaraj, Karaikal 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 the Secretary to Government (Labour) that
the said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,
Puducherry.
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government
(Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
(Camp Court sitting at Karaikal)
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Tuesday, the 20th day of July, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 47/2012
P. Selvaraj,
S/o. Pakkiri,
No. 2, Colony pet,
Colony Street,
Ambagarathur,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat,
Thirunallar.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 23-2-2017 before
me for hearing, Thiruvalargal. V. Govindasamy, M. Uma
Maheswari and J.Senthil Raghavan, Advocates for the
petitioner and Thiru R. Thambiraj, Counsel for the
respondent, both remained absent and no representation
having been made on their behalf, upon perusing the case
records, after having stood over for consideration till this
day, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by
the Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. 58/AIL/
Lab./J/2010, dated 23-3-2010 for adjudicating the
following:-
(a) Whether
the dispute raised by Thiru Selvaraj
against the management of M/s. Thirunallar Commune
Panchayat, Thirunallar, over non-employment is
justified or not?
(b) If justified, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
The above reference originally taken on file by
the District Court at Karaikal which was being functioned
as Labour Court in industrial dispute No. 2/2010 and
subsequently when this Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court established in the year 2012, the case has
been transferred to this Court and this case was taken on
file by renumbering it as industrial didpute (L). No. 47/2012.
2. The brief averments of the Claim Statements filed
by the petitioner are as follows:-
The petitioner was initially appointed by the
respondent as a sweeper and has been continuously
working as Sweeper for more than 240 days per year
since 5-12-2006 till 3-12-2008 and his monthly salary
was ` 1,650 and subsequently he was directed to
clean the Village Panchayat Office building at
Nallambal everyday and to keep the drinking water in
important places and then he was directed to go to the
graveyard maintained by Commune Panchayat at
Ambagarathur for the purpose of rearing and watering
trees and it is specific order issued by the Commune
Panchayat, Thirunallar, order dated 5-12-2006 vide
No. 6/3/Administration/TCP/2006 and eventhough the
petitioner was working at Village Panchayat Office at
Nallambal, his salary was paid only by the respondent
management and the respondent has maintained an
attendance register at Nallambal Village Panchayat
Office and he has also paid salary on receiving the
signature in the salary register book and both the
documents has been under the custody of respondent
and the petitioner was not given salary for the months
of September, October and November, 2008 and when
it was demanded by the petitioner the respondent simply
1221
7 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
refused to pay the salary without any justifiable reason
and also directed him not to attend the duty from the
month of December, 2008 onwards and the petitioner
therefore denied employment from December, 2008
onwards without any justifiable reason and also not
permitted to sign in the attendance register.
3. The brief averments of the counter statement filed
by the respondent are as follows :-
It is stated by the respondent that the respondent
Commune Panchayat is designed as M/s.Thirunallar
Commune Panchayat to attract the Industrial Disputes
Act and that the Commune Panchayats in the Union
territory of Pondicherry are constituted under the self
contained Act namely “The Pondicherry Village and
Commune Panchayat Act, 1973” and therefore, the very
claim of Industrial Dispute does not arise in this matter
and further stated that the petitioner was never been
appointed as Commune Panchayat Employee and he was
only a casual labourer engaged for day-to-day works
and this type of employment was seasonal one according
to the requirement of the Sanitary Maistry and the man
power taken by the Maistry and found in the Muster
Roll will be an employee in the Commune Panchayat
Service and further stated that the petitioner was
working less than 240 days in a calendar year and the
payment of wages was for 172 days in the year 2007,
130 days only in the year 2008 till 29-11-2008 and
that the petitioner never worked in the Commune
Panchayat or even under the supervision of the Maistry
continuously for 240 days in any calendar year and
therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he was an
employee of the Commune Pachayat and as there was
no Employer and Employee relationship between the
respondent and the petitioner.
4. In the course of the enquiry on the side of the
petitioner, PWI was examined, and EX. PI to Ex. P3
were marked and on the side of the respondent no oral
evidence was let in and no documents were exhibited.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner over
non-employment against the respondent panchayat is
justified or not and whether the petitioner is entitled
for any relief as claimed by him?
6. In this case, after the examination of the
petitioner PWl in the enquiry he was fully cross-
examined by the respondent panchayat and subsequently
the respondent panchayat has not produced any witness
on their side even after granting several opportunities
by this Court and hence, this court has closed the
evidence of the respondent side and posted the case
for arguments and even after giving sufficient
opportunities both the parties have not appeared before
this Court to put-forth their arguments and that therefore,
this court has closed the arguments and posted the case
for orders with a liberty to file written argument if any,
but, even then no argument was filed by either side.
7. It is the evidence of the petitioner PWl that he
was initially appointed as a Sweeper at the respondent
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat on 5-12-2006 and he
was working till 3-12-2008 for more than 240 days per
year and subsequently he was directed to go to the
graveyard maintained by Commune Panchayat at
Ambagarathur for the purpose of rearing and watering
trees and on 5-12-2006, the Thirunallar Commune
Panchayat has ordered him to do work at Village
Panchayat Office at Nallambal and the payment was
made by the respondent Thirunallar Commune
Panchayat and the respondent has also maintained an
attendance register in the Panchayat Office at
Nallambal Village and that they have paid the salary and
getting signature of the petitioner in the salary register
book and the documents even under the custody of the
respondent and subsequently for the months of
September, October and November, 2008 the salary was
not given to the petitioner and when it was demanded
by the petitioner the respondent simply refused to pay
the salary without any reason and also directed him not
to attend the duty from December, 2008 and the
petitioner was also not permitted to sign in the
attendance register.
8. In support of his evidence the petitioner PW1 has
exhibited Ex. P1 to Ex. P3. The copy of the notification
issued by Thirunallar Commune Panchayat, dated 5-12-2006
was exhibited as Ex. Pl which would go to show that
the petitioner Selvaraj was appointed as a Sweeper and
he was directed to work at Nallambal Village Panchayat
Office and he was also directed to clean the office in
the morning and to provide water and to do the usual
work allotted to him and the said notification would
also go to show that several persons including the
petitioner was working at Ambagarathur Village
Panchayat Office, Nallambal Village Panchayat Office,
Sethur Village Panchayat Office, Sellur Village
Panchayat Office, Karukadkudi Village Panchayat
Office, Surakudi Village Panchayat Office, Thirunallar
North Village Panchayat Office, Thirunallar South
Village Panchayat Office, Pettai Village Panchayat
Office wherein, the petitioner was directed to do the
work at Nallambal Village Panchayat Office Ex.P2 is
the copy of the letter sent by the petitioner on
1222
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 November 2017
10.12.2008 which would reveal the fact that the
petitioner has sent a requisition on 10.12.2008 to the
District Legal Services Authority at Karaikal to appoint
an Advocate to file a case before the Labour Court. Ex.
P3 is the copy of the letter sent by the Legal Services
Authority on 16-4-2009 to the Commissioner,
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat which would go to
show that the Taluk Legal Services Authority has sent a
notice to the Thirunallar Commune Panchayat asking
him to appear before the Conciliation Committee
along with the related documents.
9. On the other hand, the respondent has not let any
evidence on their side but, it is stated by the respondent
panchayat in their counter statement that the petitioner
was never been appointed as a employee by the
respondent and he was only a casual labourer engaged
for day to day works and he was working less than 240 days
in a calendar year and the payment of wages was for
172 days in the year 2007, 130 days only in the year 2008
till 29-11-2008 and that therefore, it is to be decided
whether the petitioner is the employee of the
respondent and whether he has completed 240 days
in a calendar year at the respondent preceding to
his termination. On this aspect, records are perused.
10. On perusal of documents except Ex.PI-
notification issued by the respondent Thirunallar
Commune Panchayat appointing the petitioner as a
Sweeper to do the work at Nallambal Village Panchayat
Office, no document is before this Court to prove the
fact that the petitioner was working at the respondent
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat as per the
notification issued by the respondent Commune
Panchayat and furthermore, no document is filed before
this Court by the petitioner to establish the fact that he
had been in service for about 240 days in the year
at the respondent Thirunallar Commune Panchayat
preceding to his termination. The petitioner has not at
all filed any document in support of his case to establish
that he has attended the work till 2008 as stated in the
claim petition and furthermore, it is the case of the
petitioner that he was initially appointed at Thirunallar
Commune Panchayat as a Sweeper and he has been
continuously working from 5-12-2006 to 3-12-2008
at the monthly salary of ` 1,650. But, nothing is before
this Court to prove the fact that he was working at
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat for the period from
5-12-2006 to 3-12-2008 at the salary of ` 1,650 and
furthermore, the petitioner has stated in his claim
petition that the respondent Commune Panchayat has
not paid the salary for the months of September,
October and November, 2008 but, no document is filed
before this Court to prove the fact that he had been in
service for the said months at the respondent Commune
Panchayat and furthermore, the petitioner has not at all
established that he had been in service even for a month
at the respondent establishment by filing the document.
11. In Judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 1639-
Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Market Society Limited,
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that,
“.....It is a well-settled principle of law that the
person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship
of employer and employee, the burden would be
upon him...”.
and the Judgment in Gopal Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that,
“.....We agree with the respondent that the onus
to prove the relationship of employer-employee was
on the appellant as held by the Supreme Court in
Workmen of Nilgiri Co-operative Market Society
Limited. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Supre). The appellant
could not produce appointment letter or any other
document to show the relationship of employer and
employee....”
and also the Judgment reported in 2015-III-LLJ-337
(P&H), LNIND 2015 PNH 8216, Wherein, Hon’ble
High Court has been held that,
“Daily Wager-Reinstatement-Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Act 1947), Sections 25-G and 25-H-
Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement of respondent
No. 2-petitioner contends respondent daily wager
cannot be reinstated for failing to complete requisite
number of working days-Whether Sunday can also
be included to calculate days of employment in case
of daily-wager and whether daily-wager is entitled
to, reinstatement-held, in a case of a daily-wager,
Sunday and other holidays are not to be counted
because he is not paid any salary for that day-
Workman has not worked for requisite days and his
service is terminated in violation of section 25-G
and 25-H of Act 1947-Since, workman/respondent
No. 2 has not completed requisite days, therefore,
he is not entitled to any compensation as well as
reinstatement-Petition allowed”.
From the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that the
onus to prove the relationship of employer-employee
and completion of requisite number of working days is
only on the petitioner who has pleaded that he is the
1223
7 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
employee of the respondent establishment and has been
working more than 240 days per year. But, in this case,
the petitioner has not exhibited any documents to prove
the fact that he is working at the respondent Commune
Panchayat for about 240 days in a year as an employee
and nothing is before this Court to prove the fact that
the petitioner was working at the respondent Panchayat
for about 240 days in a year as an employee.
Furthermore, the petitioner has not stated in his claim
statement whether he was appointed as a permanent
workman or temporary or casual labour and therefore,
the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that he
had been in service at the respondent Commune
Panchayat for about 240 days in a year as an employee.
12. Furthermore, though the petitioner has
exhibited Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 he has utterly failed to
establish the fact that he was working at the respondent
Commune Panchayat for about 240 days in a year as an
employee. As already discussed by this Court that the
onus to prove the relationship of employee-employer
and completion of requisite number of days is on the
petitioner who has claimed the relief and has pleaded
that he was the employee of the respondent
establishment and was working more than 240 days per
year. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove the prima
facie case that he has served at the respondent
management and worked as a employee for about 240
days in the year preceding his termination to infer that
he is the employee of the respondent Commune
Panchayat for about 240 days and therefore, the
petitioner has totally failed to establish that he is the
employee of the respondent Panchayat and has
completed requisite number of working days and
therefore, he is not entitled for any order of
reinstatement as claimed by him and therefore, the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner before the
Conciliation Officer over the non-employment is to be
declared as unjustified and no relief can be granted to
the petitioner and hence, the claim petition filed by the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 20th day of July, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1—29-6-2011
P. Selvaraj
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — Copy of the notification issued by the
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat, dated
5-12-2006.
Ex.P2 — Copy of the letter sent by the petitioner
to the Free Legal Aid Cell, dated
10-12-2008.
Ex.P3 — Copy of the letter sent by the Legal
Services authority to the Commissioner,
Thirunallar Commune Panchayat, dated
16-4-2009.
List of respondent’s witnessess: Nil.
List of respondent’s exihibits: Nil.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 146/Lab./AIL/T/2017,
Puducherry, dated 5th October 2017)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Award in I.D.(L)No.77/2012, dated
20-7-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect
of the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. Midas Group of Retread Company, Karaikal and
the Secretary, Midas Group of Retread Tyre Company
Oozhiyargal Sangam, Karaikal, over illegal lock-out
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 the Secretary to Government
(Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the
Official Gazette, Puducherry.
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
1224
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[7 November 2017
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
(Camp Court sitting at Karaikal)
Present:Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM.,M.L.,
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 77/2012
The Secretary,
Midas Group of Retread Tyre Company
Oozhiyargal Sangam,
North Vanjure, T.R. Pattinam,
Karaikal.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
Midas Group of Retread Company,
Kizhavanjore,
T.R. Pattinam, Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 23-2-2017
before me for hearing in the presence of Thiru
N. Ramar, representative for the petitioner union and
Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar, Counsels,
for the respondent and subsequently the respondent
being called absent and set ex parte, upon hearing the
petitioner and after perusing the records, after having
stood over till this day, this
Court passed the
following:
AWARD
1. This industrial dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No.l52/AIL/Lab./J/2012,
dated 30-08-2012 for adjudicating the following:-
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Midas
Group of Retread Tyre Company Oozhiyargal
Sangam against the management of M/s. Group of
Midas Retread Tyre Company, Keezhavanjore,
Karaikal regarding the lock-out declared by the
management is illegal is justified? If so to give
appropriate direction?
(b) To
what
other
relief
the
workmen
represented by the union are entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The brief averments of the claim statement
filed by the petitioner is as follows:-
The petitioner union members were working at
the respondent establishment and about 120 workers
were employed in the respondent establishment and
that the respondent management and the members
of the petitioner union had entered into an
agreement on 11-2-2009 under section 18(1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act for the period of three
years and the agreement extended for one more
year till 31-12-2012 and that the respondent
management has wantonly allotted the security work
to the 13 permanent labourers against the provision
of the said agreement and hence, the petitioner
union raised their objection against the respondent
management
and
that
on
12-4-2012,
the
respondent management issued a show cause notice
to 13 labourers and though the petitioner union
have given a suitable reply for the same the
respondent management have not at all taken any
steps and the matter was taken to the Labour
Department wherein, the settlement talks were
going on, the respondent management has declared
lay-off on 20-4-2012 and that therefore, the
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer against the lock out
on 25-4-2012 and that the respondent management
has to victimize the workers allotted the work of
security to 13 labourers and has declared lock out
of the factory stating that the workers have not
accepted the said job allotted to them and the
engagement of the said 13 labourers as a security
is a violation of provision of settlement arrived
under section 18(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act
entered between the respondent management and
the workers and that therefore, the lock out declared
by the respondent management is against the law
and that therefore, the members of the union are
entitled for the compensation for the illegal
lock out.
3. Despite of due service of notice to the
respondent management, they have appeared through
their Counsel and even after granting sufficient
opportunities, they have failed to file their counter and
on 23-9-2016, the respondent management called
absent and that there was no representation for the
respondent management and counter is also not filed
by the respondent management hence, the respondent
management was set ex parte.
4. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
sangam against the respondent
management
regarding the lock out declared by the respondent
management is illegal is justified or not and
whether the petitioner sangam is entitled for the
relief as claimed by them?
5. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and Ex. P1 to P7 were
marked. Heard.
1225
7 November 2017]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
6. From the oral evidence of the PW1 and the
exhibits marked by the petitioner union Ex.P1 to P7,
it is established by the petitioner that the respondent
management has entered into the settlement with the
workers on 11-2-2009 for the period of 3 years and
the said settlement was extended for one more year
till 31-12-2012 with the enhancement of salary and
the respondent management has wantonly allotted the
security work to the 13 labourers against the
agreement provided under the settlement
under
section 18(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act entered
between the respondent management and the workers
without giving any notice to the union, the respondent
management has declared the illegal lay-off from
9-4-2012 to 21-4-2012 and that therefore, the
petitioner union has raised the industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer at Karaikal and on
12-4-2012, the respondent management has given the
show cause notice to 13 labourers stating that they
have failed to do the work allotted to them as security
and violated the provision of the settlement arrived
under section 18(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act by
refusing the work allotted to them, but, it is not true
that the petitioner workers have refused to do the
work allotted to them, actually they have ready to do
the work allotted to them and though the workers have
ready to do the work only to victimize the workers
the respondent management has given the said show
cause notice to the 13 workers and furthermore, they
have declared lay-off for the period from 9-4-2012
without giving any notice to the union and thereafter,
the factory was illegally closed on 20-4-2012 and
that therefore, on 25-4-2012, the petitioner union
raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer, Karaikal.
7. The documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 also would
evident that the respondent management has declared
lay-off of the factory on 9-4-2012 and the industrial
dispute was raised by the petitioner union on
9-4-2012 and that the respondent management have
illegally closed the factory without giving any notice
and hence from the evidence and the documents, it is
clear that the
industrial
dispute raised by the
petitioner union against the management of the
respondent regarding the lock out is justified and the
lock out declared by the respondent management is
held as illegal and that therefore, the members of the
petitioner union are entitled for the compensation for
the illegal lock out and therefore, the petition is
liable to be allowed.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondent management is justified and it
is held that the lock out declared by the respondent
management is illegal and hence, the members of the
petitioner union are entitled for the compensation of
the illegal lock out and Award is passed by directing
the respondent management to pay compensation to
the members of the petitioner union in accordance
with the law for the illegal lock out. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court
on this the 20th day of July, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness :
PW1 — 4-11-2016 —
Thangadurai
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.P1— Copy of the Lay-off notice of the
r e s p o n d e n t
ma n a g e me n t ,
d a t e d
7-4-2012,
Ex.P2— Copy of the letter of the petitioner’s
Sangam addressed to the Labour Officer,
Karaikal, dated 9-4-2012.
Ex.P3— Copy of the notice of lock out of the
r e s p o n d e n t
m a n a g e m e n t ,
d a t e d
20-4-2012.
Ex.P4— Copy of the letter of the petitioner’s
Sangam addressed to the Labour Officer,
Karaikal, dated 25-4-2012.
Ex.P5— Copy of the letter of the respondent
management in connection with the
lock out, dated 25-4-2012.
Ex.P6— Copy of the failure report of the Labour
Officer, Karaikal, dated 8-8-2012.
Ex.P7— Copy of the Notification of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, dated 30-8-2012.
List of respondent’s witnesses : Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits : Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry.