La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 21-00
Prix : ` 21-00
Price :
` 21-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 366
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 366
Award of the Labour Court
.. 366
de Tribunal.
.. 372
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 372
Government Notifications
.. 372
.. 382
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 382
Tender Notices
.. 382
.. 385
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 385
Dangerous Establishments
.. 385
.. 389
Annonces
.. 389
Announcements
.. 389
[ 365 ]
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India under
No. 10410
Registered No. PY/44/2018-20
WPP No. TN/PMG(CCR)/WPP-88/2018-20
Dated : 20-3-2018
Price : ` 21-00
2018 }
|
20 {
No.
12
Poudouchéry
Mardi
20
Mars
2018 (29 Phalguna 1939)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
20th
March
2018
366
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[20 March 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Rt. No. 09/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 5th February 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 13/2015, dated
22-12-2017 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of
the industrial dispute between Thiru L. Karunanithi @
Karunakaran against the management of M/s Hidesign India
Private Limited, Puducherry, over amendment of retirement
age from 55 to 58 years 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.
(By order)
S. MOUTTOULINGAM,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Thiru G. THANENDRAN, B.COM, M.L.,
Presiding Officer,
Friday, the 22nd day of December, 2017
I.D. (L) No. 13/2015
L. Karunanithi @ Karunakaran,
D-Block, No.20,
Jawahar Nagar, Boomiyanpet,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited,
Odhiyampet Village,
Puducherry-605 110.
. .
Respondent.
This Industrial Dispute coming on 23-11-2017 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy and
R. Harinath, Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru G. Krishnan,
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
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the
Government as per the G. O. Rt. No. 31/AIL/Lab./J/2015,
dated 13-04-2015 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) W he t h er th e d i s p u t e r a is e d b y T h ir u
L. Karunanithi @ Karunakaran against the management
of M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited, Puducherry
over amendment of retirement age from 55 to 58
years is justified? If justified, what relief he is
entitled to ?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments in the claim statement of the
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
It is stated that the petitioner is a workman
employed in respondent factory at Puducherry, he
had completed 30 years of continuous service in the
respondent factory. While so, the respondent vide letter,
dated 04-08-2014 terminated the petitioner's service with
effect from 30-08-2014 as he had reached superannuation
at his age of 55 on 14-08-2014. Aggrieved by the same
he had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour
Officer, Conciliation on 14-08-2014 itself. While pending
the said dispute the respondent without approval of the
Labour Officer, Conciliation denied employment from
30-08-2014. The said dispute raised by the petitioner
ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer
submitted his failure report on 21-01-2015 to the
Government of Puducherry and the Government has
referred the said dispute before this
Court for
adjudication and further stated that at the time of the
petitioner's initial appointment he was not issued any
written appointment order and further at the time of
his initial engagement there was no certified standing
order in the respondent establishment and the model
standing order framed under the Industrial Employment
Standing
Order (Central) Rules applicable to the
respondent establishment and accordingly, as stated in
schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment Standing Order
(Central) Rules, the age of retirement of workmen is 58
years unless contrary agreed between the workmen and
the employer under agreement or settlement or Award.
As far as superannuation of employee is concerned, there
was no agreement or settlement or Award between the
respondent and his workers
or their Trade
union
representative or petitioner. In the absence of such
arrangement stipulating the age of retirement the age of
retirement was followed as 58 years as stated in the
Industrial Employment Model Standing Order. The certified
standing order shall be in conformity with the Industrial
Employment Standing Standing Order Act and the Rules
367
20 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
made thereunder and considering section (2)g and
section 3(2) of the Industrial Employment Standing Order
Act, the certified standing order should be relating to the
matter set out in the schedule
of the
Industrial
Employment Standing Orders Act. The schedule contains
only 11 items which does not includes matter relating to
superannuation
or
retirement
age
of the
workers.
Therefore, the additional item provided in the model
standing orders namely, clause 3- Age of retirement
applicable to all industrial Establishment. Accordingly, the
age of superannuation of workers is 58, unless contrary
is agreed between the employer and the workmen by
way of an agreement or settlement or otherwise the age
of the retirement is settled by way of industrial award.
Therefore, the respondent is barred from submitting any
draft standing order not in conformity with the Industrial
Employment Standing Order Act, Rules and further, the
Certifying Officer also have no authority or jurisdiction
to certify any standing order not in conformity with the
model standing order or contrary to the model standing
order and that if, any standing order certified not in
conformity with the model standing order or in contrary
with the Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, the
Rules, the model standing order, the Act and the Rules
prevail over the certified standing order and the employer
and employees are bound by the model standing order and
the certified standing order not in conformity with the
the model standing order would not be existence in the eye
of law and therefore, the respondent relying the alleged
certified Standing order and denied employment to the
petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and against the provision of
Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, the Rules,
model standing order and further stated that the due age
of the superannuation of the petitioner is 58 years which
fall on 30-08-2017 and the termination of petitioner's
service at 55 years of age is illegal and therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to reinstatement of service with full
backwages, continuity in service and all other attendant
benefits. The petitioner's last drawn was ` 10,500 per
month. After he was illegally denied employment he has
not been gainfully employed anywhere in any
establishment. Therefore, prayed this Court to pass an
Award holding that the denial of employment to the petitioner
from 30-08-2014 is illegal as the age of retirement is 58
years and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner
in his service with effect from 30-08-2014 with
continuity of service with full backwages and all other
attendant benefits.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The claim statement filed by the petitioner is false and
vexatious and do not deserve any consideration either
legally or factually. The workmen employed by the
respondent are governed by the certified standing orders
which was certified by the Commissioner of Labour and
Certifying Officer for the Union territory of Puducherry
as early as on 31th October, 1993 after giving due notice
to the Hidesign Labour Union, Puducherry which is trade
union registered under the Trade Unions Act with
Registration No. RTU/657/89. The management and the
said union participated in the enquiry and after following
the procedure as contemplated under section 5(2) of the
Act, the draft standing order submitted by the management
was certified after making necessary modifications
therein. The union in which the petitioner was also a
member had participated in the proceedings for the initial
certification however, did not prefer any appeal as against
the certification of the existing standing orders which was
certified on 31-10-1993 though, an appeal was contempt
under the Act. The standing orders of the respondent duly
certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act dealt inter alia with the provisions relating
to retirement of workers. The retirement age of 55 was
fixed taking into account of the nature of job performed
by the workers which required good eyesight, nimbleness
of the fingers, good memory and speed and as one gets
older, the above attributes begin to diminish and this
affects the efficiency of the workers and the workmen
above the age of 55 would not be capable of performing
their duties in the expected manner owing to problems in
eye vision and other physical in capabilities and the union
which actively participated in the enquiry taking into
consideration of these factors had also agreed for fixing
the age of 55 as retirement age. It is settled law that every
amendment to the Model Standing Orders does not, perse,
become applicable to an industrial establishment, which
has Certified Standing Orders. The retirement age of 55
as per the provisions of the existing certified standing
order would continue unless certification of amendment
as contemplated under the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act is made and until then the workmen
of the respondent units including the petitioner herein
would continue to be governed by their certified standing
orders. The existing certified standing orders of the
respondent in respect of retirement, till modified in the
manner provided by law, is binding on the petitioner and
therefore, the retirement of the petitioner in terms of the
existing certified standing orders of the respondent units
is valid in law. The existing standing orders came into
operation from 1993 and since then many workmen were
superannuated on completion of 55 years of age without
any discrimination and the petitioner employed
subsequent to the certification was thus governed by the
age of superannuation as fixed under the certified standing
orders and therefore, he was rightly retired with effect
from 30-08-2014 and the petitioner is not entitled for
368
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[20 March 2018
any relief as sought by him in the claim statement. Further,
he can not also take advantage of the modification in the
retirement age done at the instance of the union since the
order of the Certifying Officer was challenged by the
management in S.O.A. No. 2 of 2015 before the Hon'ble
Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act and the same is pending. The
question of denial of employment would not arise since
the petitioner was relieved from the services on
superannuation in terms of the existing certified standing
orders of the respondent company.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the petitioner
PW.1 and PW.2 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were
marked and on the side of the respondent RW.l was
examined and Ex.Rl to Ex.R3 were marked.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management over amendment of retirement
age from 55 to 58 years is justified or not and whether
the petitioner is entitled for order of reinstatement at the
respondent establishment or not?
6. Both sides are heard. The submission of both the
parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the exhibits
marked on both sides are carefully considered. On the
side of the respondent written argument was filed and the
same is carefully considered. In support of his argument,
the learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon
the Judgment reported in CDJ 2009 Ker HC 905.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that he had completed
30 years of continuous service at the respondent factory
and on 04-08-2014 he received a letter that he had been
terminated from service with effect from 30-08-2014 as
he had reached superannuation at his age of 55 on 14-08-
2014 against which he has raised an industrial dispute
before the Labour Officer, Conciliation on 14-08-2014
and while pending dispute the respondent management has
denied employment without approval of the Labour
Officer, Conciliation and the dispute raised by the
petitioner before the Labour Officer, Conciliation was
failed and the failure report was submitted to the
Government of Puducherry and the Government has
referred the said dispute to this Court and that he is
entitled for service up to 58 years as per Industrial
Employment Standing Order (Central) Rules applicable
to the respondent establishment and further, while at the
time of appointment, no appointment order was given to
him and that there was no agreement entered between the
respondent management and workmen regarding the age
of retirement and in the absence of such arrangement
stipulating the age of retirement the age of retirement was
followed as 58 years as per Industrial Employment Model
Standing Order and therefore, the petitioner has to be
given service up to 30-08-2017 for 58 years and hence,
the termination of petitioner's service at 55 years of age
is illegal and the respondent management cannot deny the
right of the petitioner and hence, he has to be
reinstated with backwages and he has to be permitted
to serve till 30-08-2017.
8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the
petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and he has
deposed that he was illegally denied employment with
effect from 30-08-2014 and that he has filed the claim
statement before this Court and that has been treated as
part and parcel of the evidence and prayed to reinstate
him in service at the respondent establishment with effect
from 30-08-2014 as prayed for in the claim statement.
In support of his evidence, the co-employee of the
petitioner has been examined as PW.2. It is the evidence
of PW.2 that he also had been in service at the respondent
establishment and that at the time of initial appointment
there is no certified standing order in the respondent
establishment and subsequently, the age of retirement was
reduced from 58 years to 55 years stating that they have
obtained certificate of standing order to that effect from
the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment
Standing Order Act to reduce the age of retirement and
that therefore, the workers approached the Certifying
Officer to enhance the same and the Certifying Officer
has also modified the standing order on 29-10-2015 that
the retirement is only at 58 years of age and that the act
of the respondent management reduced the age of
retirement from 58 years to 55 years is contrary to the
Model Standing Order and the same is illegal.
9. In support of his case Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked
on the side of the petitioner.
Ex.P1 is the copy of the PF
Receipt of the petitioner. Ex.P2 is the copy of the ESI ID
Card of the Petitioner. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Pay Slip of
the Petitioner for the month of January, 2014. Ex.P4 is
the copy of the Retirement Order issued by respondent
to petitioner. Ex.P5 is the copy of the respondent notice
to petitioner. Ex.P6 is the copy of the petitioner's letter
to respondent, Commissioner of Labour, Labour Officer,
Conciliation and its Postal AD Card. Ex.P7 is the copy of
the petitioner letter to certifying officer under Industrial
Employment standing Order Act. Ex. P8 is the copy of
the petitioner letter to respondent and its postal receipt,
postal AD Card. Ex.P9 is the copy of the petitioner's letter
to Labour Officer, Conciliation. Ex.P10 is the copy of
the Conciliation Failure Report. Ex.P 11 is the copy of
the Government reference. Ex.P12 is the copy of the
Court Notice in ID.L.13 of 2015. Ex.P13 is the copy
369
20 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
of the Order passed by the Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Certifying Officer regarding age of retirement. These
documents would reveal the fact that the petitioner had
been in service at the respondent establishment up to
August, 2014 and the information regarding the order of
retirement was served to him on 04-08-2014 and the
petitioner has raised the industrial dispute before the
Labour Conciliation Officer on 13-08-2014 and he has
submitted an application to the Certifying Officer under
Industrial Employment Standing Order Act on 14-08-2014
and he has sent a letter to the Labour Officer, Conciliation
on 07-11-2014 wherein, the conciliation was failed and
failure report was submitted to the Government and the
same was referred to this Court and the Commissioner of
Labour-cum-Certifying Officer has passed an order
enhancing the age of retirement from 55 years to 58 years
on 29-10-2015 in the standing order of the respondent
establishment.
10. On the other hand, to prove their case the
respondent management has examined RW.1 and he has
deposed that he is the authorized representative of the
respondent management and that on 31-10-1993, the
standing order of the respondent establishment was
certified by the Commissioner of Labour, wherein, it is
stated that he passed the said order after giving reasonable
opportunity to the union as well as the management and
he
certified
the
same
after
making
necessary
modifications therein in accordance with section 5(3) of
the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act and the
retirement age was fixed as 55 years and that the nature
of job performed by the workers in the respondent
company requires good eyesight, nimbleness of the
fingers, good memory and speed and as one gets older,
the above attributes begin to diminish and this affects the
efficiency of the workers and the workmen above the age
of 55 would not be capable of performing their duties in
the effective manner owing to problems in eye vision and
other physical in capabilities and the union which actively
participated in the enquiry taking into consideration all
these factors had also agreed for fixing the age of 55 as
retirement age and that from 1993 many workmen were
superannuated on completion of 55 years of age without
any discrimination and the petitioner also employed
subsequent to the certification and that therefore, the
petitioner was rightly retired with effect from 30.08.2014
and the petitioner is not entitled for any reinstatement as
claimed by him and that he cannot take advantage of the
modification in the retirement age done at the instance
of the union since the order of Certifying Officer was
challenged by the management in S.O.A. No. 02 of 2015
before this Tribunal.
11. In support of their case the respondent management
has exhibited Ex.Rl to Ex.R3. Ex.Rl is the certified true
copy of the Extract of the resolution passed at the meeting
of the Board of Directors of respondent Company. Ex.R2
is the copy of the certified standing orders of the
respondent company. Ex. R3 is the copy of memorandum
of appeal in S.O.A.2/2015. From the oral evidence of
RW.1 and the exhibits marked on the side of the
respondent it is established by the respondent management
that the respondent company has certified standing order
from 31-10-1993 and that the respondent management
has filed a Appeal against the order of the Commissioner
of Labour who has modified the standing order.
12. From the evidence of both the parties it can be seen
that the following facts are admitted by either sides.
Originally the respondent management has certified
standing order from 31-10-1993 wherein, the retirement
age was only 55 years to the workers of the respondent
establishment and as per standing order the date of
retirement of the petitioner was 30-08-2014 and
subsequent to the intimation given to him the petitioner
has raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer and the union also has filed the petition before
the Labour Commissioner to modify the standing order
of the respondent establishment and after hearing both
sides the learned Commissioner has passed an order
enhancing the retirement age as 58 years against which
the respondent management has filed an Appeal before
this Court challenging the said order enhancing the age
of retirement from 55 years to 58 years. Now, it is to be
decided
whether
the
petitioner
is
entitled
for
reinstatement as claimed by him in the claim statement
and whether he is entitled to work till 58 years as claimed
by him. On this aspect, the evidence and records are
carefully considered.
13. The evidence of PW.1 in his cross examination
is carefully considered which runs as follows :
“
370
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[20 March 2018
”
From the above evidence, it is clear that the age of
retirement was 55 years and the petitioner also has been
retired from service at the age of 55 years and he has also
submitted a requisition to the management to raise the
retirement age from 55 to 58 and he has also given a letter
to the Commissioner of Labour-cum-Certifying Officer
to instruct the respondent management to modify the
retirement age in the standing order. Further, the evidence
of PW.2 in his cross examination is also carefully
considered which runs as follows :
“
”.
From the above evidence, it is clear that the
Commissioner of Labour-cum-Certifying Officer has
enhanced the age of retirement from 55 years to 58 years
by modifying the standing order and the management has
also filed an Appeal before this Court and more than 50
workers have been retired from service after completion
of 55 years of age.
14. Admittedly, the petitioner was not terminated by
the respondent management and only he was given
retirement on 30-08-2014 and thereafter, the order has
been passed by the Commissioner of Labour modifying
the standing order to the effect that enhancing the
retirement age from 55 years to 58 years on 29-10-2015.
While the petitioner was in service as per the standing
order, the age of retirement is only 55 years and not
58 years. Furthermore, it is clear from the contention of
the petitioner that he sought for order of reinstatement
only on the foot of the order of Labour Commissioner
modifying the standing order of the respondent
establishment to enhance the retirement age. However,
the same was challenged by the respondent management
before this Court and the same is also posted for orders
today wherein, this Court has also decided the Appeal today
which was filed challenging the modification of the
standing order in which the age of retirement was enhanced
from 55 years to 58 years and the Appeal was allowed by
this Tribunal and the said order of Commissioner of labour
was set aside by this Court since, the said modification
order was passed by the Labour Commissioner in violation
of the 12(3) settlement arrived at between the workers
union and the respondent management on 31-01-2012
under memorandum of settlement.
15. Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 2009 Ker
HC 905, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has observed
that,
"The unions agree that during the period of operation
of this settlement, they shall not raise any demand having
financial burden on the Corporation other than bonus
provided that this clause shall not affect the rights and
obligations of the parties in regard to matters covered
under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In that case also the Certifying Officer allowed the
modification. The appellate authority affirmed the
revision with a slight modification. Affirming the judgment
of the High Court relying on clauses 19 and 21 of
the memorandum of settlement, the Supreme Court held
thus in paragraphs 9 and 10:
371
20 March 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
"9. The settlement does not make any specific mention
about the age of retirement. Clause 19 of the settlement,
however, provides that such terms and conditions of
service as are not changed under this settlement shall
remain unchanged and operative for the period of the
settlement. The age of retirement prescribed by clause
20 of the certified standing orders was undoubtedly a
condition of service which was kept intact by clause 19
of the settlement. 10. ............The argument that the upward
revision of the age of superannuation will not entail any
financial burden cannot be accepted. The High Court
rightly points out : "Workmen who remain in service for a
longer period have to be paid a large amount by way of
salary, bonus and gratuity than workmen who may newly
join in place of retiring men". The High Court was,
therefore, right in concluding that the upward revision of
the age of superannuation would through an additional
financial burden on the management in violation of clause
21 of the settlement. Therefore, during the operation of
the settlement it was not open to the workmen to demand
a change in clause 20 of the certified standing orders
because any upward revision of the age of superannuation
would come in conflict with clauses 19 and 21 of the
settlement. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
conclusion reached by the High Court is unassailable."
The clauses quoted above from Exts.P7, P8 and P9
settlements between the parties in this case are in
pari materia with clauses 19 and considered by the
Supreme Court. It is not disputed before me that the
petitioner company is in dire financial straits. It is also
not disputed before me that the last of the settlement was
in force at the time of passing the impugned orders.
Therefore, the ration of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Barauni Refinenary's case (Supra) squarely applies to
the facts of this case on all fours. Therefore, I have no
option but, to decide this case in accordance with the ration
of that decision.
Therefore, following the decision of the Supreme
Court, I allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned
orders to the extent it allows the modification of clause
48 of Ex.P1 standing orders.
However, the wages paid to the employees who
continued in service by virtue of the interim orders of
this Court for the period subsequent to their attaining
55 years shall not be recovered from them. The extended
period of service till today shall be treated as extension
granted in exercise of the discretion of the management
as provided in clause 48 of Ext.P1 standing orders."
From the above observation of the Hon'ble High Court,
it is clear that whenever there is settlement between the
employer and employees and no modifications can be
made in the standing order against the clause of the
settlement arrived at between the employer and employees
giving additional financial burden on the management. It
is clear that enhancement of retirement age of the worker
in the Industry which would create financial burden to the
Industry since the entire employee has to be given more
wages than the new workers and if, the entire workman is
in service for longer period they have to be paid large
amount of wages, bonus and gratuity than the workmen
who may newly joined in the place of retiring man which
would give additional financial burden on the management
in violation of the settlement arrived under section 12(3)
of the ID Act. Furthermore, more than 50 workers have
been retired from service at the age of 55 as per the
standing order. As per the above observation of the Hon'ble
High Court, the said Appeal in S.O.A. No. 02 of 2015 was
allowed by this Court and the order of the Commissioner
of Labour enhancing the age of retirement from 55 years
to 58 years was set aside by this Court. As this Court allows
the said Appeal and set aside the order of the
Commissioner of Labour, this claim petition filed by the
petitioner automatically become infractuous that is the
petitioner would not seek any remedy on the foot of the
said modification of the standing order since, the age of
retirement is 55 years as per the standing order of the
respondent establishment and that therefore, it is to be
held that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over amendment of
retirement age from 55 to 58 years is unjustified and as
such, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed
by him in the claim statement and the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
16. In the result, the petition is dismissed by holding
that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against
the respondent management over amendment of retirement
age from 55 to 58 years is unjustified and the petitioner
is not entitled for any order of reinstatement at the
respondent establishment as claimed by him in the claim
statement. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 22nd day of December, 2017.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
372
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[20 March 2018
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
PW.1 —12-01-2017 — L. Karunanithi @
Karunakaran
PW.2
—01-03-2017 — C. Appadurai
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 2009-2010— Copy of the PF Receipt of
the petitioner.
Ex.P2 — 2009-2010— Copy of the ESI ID Card of
the petitioner.
Ex.P3 —January, —
Copy of the Pay Slip of the
2014
Petitioner, 2014
Ex.P4 —04-08-2014—
Copy of the Retirement
Order
issued
by
respondent to petitioner.
Ex.P5 —06-08-2014— Copy of the respondent
notice to petitioner.
Ex.P6 —13-08-2014— Copy of
the petitioner's
letter
to
respondent,
Commissioner of Labour,
L a b o u r
O f f i c e r ,
Conciliation and its Postal
AD Card.
Ex.P7 —14-08-2014— Copy of the petitioner
letter
to
Certifying
Officer under Industrial
Employment
Standing
Order Act.
Ex.P8 —04-09-2014— Copy of the petitioner
letter to respondent and its
postal receipt, postal AD
Card.
Ex.P9 —07-11-2014— Copy of the petitioner's
letter to Labour Officer,
Conciliation.
Ex.P10—21-01-2015— Copy of the Conciliation
Failure Report.
Ex.P11—09-04-2015 — Copy of the Government
reference.
Ex.Pl2—10-07-2015 — Copy of the Court Notice
in ID.L. 13 of 2015.
Ex.P13—29-10-2015 — Copy of the Order passed
by the Commissioner of
Labour-cum-Certifying
Officer regarding age of
retirement.
List of petitioner’s witness:
RW.1—22-05-2017
— T. Rajkumar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 —16-12-2015 — Certified true copy of the
Extract of the resolution
passed at the meeting
of the Board of Directors
of respondent Company.
Ex.R2 —31-10-1993 — Copy of the certified
standing orders of the
respondent company.
Ex.R3 —17-11-2015 — Copy of memorandum of
appeal in S.O.A. 2/2015.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court,
Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LAW DEPARTMENT
(G. O. Ms. No. 3/LD/2018, Puducherry, dated 26th February 2018)
NOTIFICATION
In pursuance of section 6 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act No. 53 of 1952), the list of Notaries
practicing in the Union territory of Puducherry as on 26th February, 2018 are as mentioned in the Appendix together
with their residential and professional addresses and qualifications are published for general information of
the public.