La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 24-00
Prix : ` 24-00
Price :
` 24-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 738
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 738
Award of the Labour Court
.. 738
de Tribunal.
.. 749
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 749
Government Notifications
.. 749
.. 760
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 760
Tender Notices
.. 760
.. 761
Etablissements dangereux
.. 761
Dangerous Establishments
.. 761
.. 763
Annonces
.. 763
Announcements
.. 763
[ 737 ]
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 : 19-6-2018
Price : ` 24-00
2018 }
|
19 {
No.
25
Poudouchéry
Mardi
19
Juin
2018 (29 Jyaistha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
19th
June
2018
738
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 June 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 54/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No.38/2012, dated
08-02-2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in
respect of the industrial dispute between the management
of M/s. Soundararaja Mills Limited, Nedungadu, Karaikal
and Thiru S. Sagayaraj, over non-employment-Award of
the Labour Court, Puducherry, 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.
Thursday, the 08th day of February, 2018
I.D. (L) No. 38/2012
The Secretary, CITU,
No. 14, Thennur,
Surakudy Post,
Thirunallar.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Employer,
M/s. Soundararaja Mills Limited,
Nedungadu.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 05-01-2018
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiru N. Ramar, Representative for the petitioner and
Thiru G. Jagadharaj, 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. 72/2006/Lab./AIL/J,
dated 12-05-2006 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the termination of Thiru S. Sagayaraj
by the management of M/s. Soundararaja Mills
Limited, Nedungadu, Karaikal, is justified or not?
(ii) If not, what relief, he is entitled to?
(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in
terms of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The petitioner union has filed a claim statement
stating that the delinquent employee S. Sagayaraj was
working as Doffer in the respondent establishment
from 1987 and he had been receiving ` 6,000 per
month as wage as a permanent worker and the
management has announced the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme without consulting with the labourers and that
the respondent threatened, foisted a false case against
the permanent workers and introduced Voluntary
Retirement Scheme and only ` 40 was given to female
employees who working as daily wages and that the
delinquent employee who belonged the INTUC union
against these practices of the respondent and has taken
all the steps against the respondent management and as
the said union failed to take any steps against the
respondent, he joined in the petitioner union and acted
not only against the respondent management and also
taken steps against the Vice-President of the
respondent for misappropriating ` 60 lakhs from the
Employees Co-operative Society by filing a Writ
Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Chennai
through his trade union and that the respondent asked
and compelled the delinquent to resign from the
petitioner union otherwise he should be terminated
from service, but, the delinquent worker failed to heed
the words of the respondent and that the respondent
awaited to take action against the delinquent by way of
victimisation and that the delinquent was on medical
leave and while he went to the respondent mill for
submitting, the ESI Certificate the management has
refused to accept the leave letter of the delinquent and
threatened him to withdraw the complaint from Police
which was given by his brother and that the delinquent
has not accepted for the same and that to prevent him
from action of the respondent the delinquent has sent
letters to various Government Officers, respondent
management and also to trade union leaders and that
while attending duty on 15-11-2003, the respondent
management has without giving any written order has
refused to permit the delinquent to enter into the
industry and that therefore, the delinquent has sent a
telegram to the Labour Officer and that on 17-11-2003
739
19 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the delinquent has submitted a application to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation) and the same was taken on file
on 23-11-2003 by the Conciliation Officer and that the
respondent management as a measure of self defence
foisted a false case that the delinquent made bassless
and false allegations against the officers of the
respondent mill and suspended him pending enquiry by
foisting false charge and that one Advocate Elanchezhian
was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the
domestic enquiry against the delinquent for which the
delinquent has sent a letter stating that since, he has
raised a industrial dispute before the conciliation and
is pending the Enquiry Officer should not conduct
domestic enquiry and instead of the letter the Enquiry
Officer proceeded with the enquiry and that the
respondent without considering his past record of
service issued the dismissal order which is against the
principles of natural justice and disproportionate to the
misconduct committed by the delinquent.
3. On the other hand, the respondent management
has filed a counter statement stating that the petitioner
union has not followed the statutory and mandatory
legal procedure to raise the present dispute and has not
conducted a General Body meeting and passed any
resolution authorising the Secretary N. Ramar to raise
the present dispute against the management and that
therefore, the claim statement has to he rejected on
that ground and it is also stated by them that the delinquent
Sagayaraj has sent a letter stating false allegations
against, the Vice-President of the respondent as well as
the respondent mill and its officers in the public to the
Vice-Present (Technical) of the respondent under copy
to 18 others and that the show cause notice was issued
with suspension on 14-11-2008 and as the explanation
submitted by the delinquent was not at all satisfactory
and unacceptable, the respondent decided to hold full
fledged domestic enquiry and accordingly, he has been
served enquiry notices in advance and after receiving
the enquiry notice the delinquent sent letters making
baseless and false allegations against the respondent
and the Enquiry Officer instead of attending the
domestic enquiry proceedings and that the delinquent
failed to attend the enquiry and that therefore, he was
set ex parte and the Enquiry Officer has no other option
except proceeded with enquiry proceedings and
recorded oral and documentary evidence on the side of
the management and closed the domestic enquiry on
07-02-2004 and submitted his report and findings on
01-03-2004 in which he found the delinquent Sagayaraj
guilty of the charges levelled against him and thereafter,
the notice was issued to the delinquent on 19-03-2004
enclosing with the report of the Enquiry Officer and
that the explanation given by the delinquent on
02-04-2004 was contrary to the facts, quite unsatisfactory
and unacceptable and that therefore, the delinquent was
dismissed from service by order, dated 02-04-2005 in
the large interest of industry.
4. After filing of the counter, this Court has decided
the issue that whether the respondent management has
conducted the domestic enquiry fairly and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the
course of enquiry to decide the preliminary issue,
on the side of the management witness was examined
and some of the documents were marked and during the
cross examination of management witness some of the
documents were marked on the side of the petitioner
and after hearing both sides this Court has held on
12-10-2011 that the domestic enquiry conducted by
the respondent management is not valid and is in
violation of principles of natural justice, and thereafter,
no oral evidence has been let in and no exhibits has
been marked by either sides in the further enquiry.
Both side arguments were heard. On both side written
arguments were filed and the same were carefully
considered. In support of his case the learned Counsel
for the respondent has relied upon the Judgment
reported in 1967-68 Vol.33 FJR 151(SC) - Firestone
Tyre and Rubber Co. Private Limited, Vs. Their
workmen and AIR 1972 SC 2452.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the termination of S. Sagayaraj by the
respondent management is justified or not and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union
against
the
respondent
management
over
termination of S. Sagayaraj from service is justified
or not and if justified, what is the relief entitled
to the worker S. Sagayaraj?.
6. This reference has been made to this Tribunal to
decide whether the termination of S. Sagayaraj by the
respondent management is justified or not. The first
contention of the respondent management is that the
petitioner union has not followed the statutory and
mandatory legal procedure to raise the present dispute
and the union has not conducted the General Body
meeting to raise the industrial dispute and the
Secretary who raise the industrial dispute has not been
authorised by the union. But, on perusal of records, it
is learnt to this Court that the Secretary of the CITU
union Ramar has raised the industrial dispute for the
members of the union. The office bearer of the union
can raise the industrial dispute. It is not disputed by the
respondent management that, the said Ramar is not the
Secretary of the union and they have not raised the
such plea before the Conciliation Officer and that
therefore, the contention raised by the respondent
management that the Secretary has no locus standi to
represent the union and has no right to raise the
industrial dispute is not sustainable.
740
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 June 2018
7. The second contention of the respondent
management is that the domestic enquiry conducted by
the management is valid. However, as this Court has
already held that on 12-10-2011 that the alleged
domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent
management against the worker Sagayaraj as invalid
and not in accordance with the principles of natural
justice and the same was not challenged before the
Hon’ble High Court and no further evidence was taken
by the respondent management to establish and to
prove that rhe domestic enquiry was conducted in.
accordance with the principles of natural justice and is
valid in law, no further discussion is necessary to held
that the termination on the foot of the said invalid
domestic enquiry which was not conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice is
invalid and totally in violation of the labour laws and
that therefore, as this Court has already held that the
domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent
management is invalid one and the further action taken
by the respondent management on the foot of the said
invalid domestic enquiry by which the petitioner was
terminated is totally not acceptable and also not
sustainable and that therefore, it is held that the
respondent management has failed to establish that the
domestic enquiry was conducted fairly without any bias
and in accordance with the principles of natural justice
and hence, it is to be held that the termination of
S. Sagayaraj by the respondent management is not
justified and the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
union over termination of service of S. Sagayaraj by
the respondent management is justified and as
such the worker S. Sagayaraj is entitled for order of
reinstatement as claimed by the petitioner union.
8. As this Court has decided that termination of
S. Sagayaraj by the respondent management is not
justified and the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner union against the respondent management
over termination of S. Sagayaraj from service is
justified, it is to be decided whether the petitioner is
entitled for back wages as claimed by him. There is no
evidence that the said workman is working so far in any
other industry and that there is no proof exhibited
before this Court that he is working anywhere else.
The respondent has not proved the fact that the
petitioner has been working in any other establishment
after his termination. However, the petitioner workman
could have served at any other industry after his
termination. Further, as the worker S. Sagayaraj is
having 16 years of service and has been illegally
terminated by respondent management, he is entitled for
back wages, considering the above facts and
circumstances, this Court decides that the petitioner
is entitled only for 30% back wages with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
termination of service of S. Sagayaraj by the respondent
management is not justified and the industrial dispute
raised by the petitioner union against the respondent
management over termination of service of S. Sagayaraj
is justified and Award is passed directing the respondent
management to reinstate the petitioner in service
within one month from the date of this Award and
further directed the respondent management to pay
30% back wages from the date of termination till the
date of reinstatement with continuity of service and
other attendant benefits. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 08th day of February, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witnesses:
— Nil
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
— Nil
List of respondent’s witnesses: — Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits:
— Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 55/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 14/2009, dated
08-02-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute
between the Management of M/s. Vinayaka Missions
Medical College and Hospital, Karaikal and Vinayaka
Mission's Staff Welfare Union, Karaikal, over charter
of demands and pay revision on par with employees of
Government Medical Colleges in the revised Pay
Structure of 6th Central Pay Commission, has been
received;
741
19 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
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.
Thursday, the 08th day of February, 2018
I.D (T). No. 14/2009
The President/Secretary,
M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Staff Welfare Union,
No.19, 4th Cross, Nehru Nagar,
Thalatheru (PO),
Karaikal-609 605.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
Vinayaga Missions’ Medical College and Hospital,
Keezhakasakudymedu, Kottucherry (PO),
Karaikal.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 23-01-2018 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru G. Mohan
Keerthi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru
K. Ilancheliyan, 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. l35/AIL/Lab./J/2009,
dated 24-09-2009 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the demand of the
Vinayaga
Mission’s Staff Welfare Union, Karaikal against the
management of M/s. Vinayaga Missions’ Medical
College and Hospital, Karaikal, over charter of
demands and pay revision on par with employees of
Government Medical Colleges in the revised Pay
Structure of 6th Central Pay Commission is
justified or not?
(ii) If justified, to what relief the petitioners are
entitled to?
(iii) 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:
The charter of demands was submitted by the
petitioner union on 18-12-2008 to the Chairman of
the respondent University and followed by that two
reminders were sent on 02-03-2009 and 07-03-2009.
On 02-03-2009, the management informed the union
about the meeting on 02-03-2009 through letter. On
03-03-2009, it was informed by the management that
the meeting proposed to be held on 02-03-2009 was
cancelled. On 08-03-2009 the union received the
letter, dated 06-03-2009 by the management
intimating that the meeting will be conducted on
13-03-2009 at 4.00 p.m. in the chamber of the
Director of the Hospital. While so the management
addressed a letter to the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Karaikal on 12-03-2009 contending that the union
would not attend the negotiation to be held on
13-03-2009. On 21-04-2009 the union through its
letter exposed the evil designs of the management in
making a false complaint to the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Karaikal. Actually, the union attended
the conciliation meeting on 13-03-2009. On being
driven from pillar to post the union left with no
other option, has raised the industrial dispute on
16-03-2009 before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Karaikal and on failure of the conciliation the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Karaikal has submitted
a failure report on 07-07-2009 to the Government.
The union has addressed a letter to the Secretary to
Government (Labour), bringing out the irregularities
in the failure report. Earlier to this, the another staff
union by name Vinayaka Mission’s Medical College
and Hospital non-teaching Staff Union raised an
industrial dispute for revision of wages before the
Labour Conciliation Officer and the dispute was
ended in failure and the same was referred to the
Industrial Tribunal by the Government and the
dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal as
I.D. (T). No. 3 of 2005. The executive members of
the said union were however won over by the
respondent management. The said union and the
management effected 18(1) settlement on 24th May,
2006 which was against the wishes of the members.
742
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 June 2018
About 38 members left the union and formed a new
union by name M/s. Vinayaka Mission’s Staff
Welfare Union, the petitioner union. The petitioner
union has made an application before the Labour
Tribunal, Puducherry in I.A. No. 28 of 2006 in I.D.
No. 3 of 2005 to implead the union as necessary
party in which the Labour Tribunal has dismissed the
I.A. on 20-03-2007. On 29-03-2007 the Award was
passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Puducherry.in
terms of 18(1) settlement effected on 24-05-2006
against which the union has filed Writ Petitions in
WP. No. 23027/2007 and WP. No. 23360/2007
praying to call for the records of the I.D. No. 3/2005
and to quash the Award and also prayed to fix the Pay
Structure on par with guidelines of U.G.C. in which
the Hon’ble High Court has directed the union to
present a charter of demand afresh by its order,
dated 15-12-2008. The union submitted the charter
of demands on 18-12-2008. The management
instead of entering upon negotiation has driven the
staff of this union from pillar to post. The
management has suspended the Executives and
Members of the petitioner on false and frivolous
charges. Some protected workmen are also placed
under suspension. The act of management is in total
violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The management has no standing order of its own
and the terms of the appointment also do not spell
out the requirement of section 33(2) of the
Industrial Dispute Act. The trade union is making a
separate complaint to the Industrial Tribunal under
section 33 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
The management in order to crush the lawful activity
of the petitioner union and other unions of the
workmen in the Vinayaka Mission Medical College
and Hospital in Karaikal have also purchased the
Kottucherry Police Station of Karaikal and made
them register an FIR in Cr.No.105/2009, dated
10-10-2009 under section 143, 324 and 506(2)
IPC. A suit was also filed by the respondent
management before the Court of District Munsif of
Salem against the petitioner union and the executive
members with the prayer to declare the registration
of
the trade unions as illegal and with other
consequential relief and subsequently the suit was
withdrawn as not pressed. The management had also
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by
way of Writ wherein the Hon'ble High Court passed
an order on 04-09-2009 by grant of interim
injunction against the trade union restraining them
from protesting within 500 meters of the College
premises. The charter of demand carries the demand
for revision of pay, payment of arrears, demand for
leave, as casual leave, earned leave, medical leave,
maternity leave, paternity leave and also claims
promotion, travelling allowance, dearness allowance
and house rent allowance and the demands are
genuine and requires to be effected forthwith. As
per regulations of the Medical Council Act, the
establishment of new Medical Colleges, opening of
higher course of study, they have to give salary
minimum as per UGC scale. The management has
indulged in unfair labour practice to crush the
activities of the union and to wreak vengeance
against the members of the union.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent is running Medical College at
Karaikal and to impart practical education and also
running a teaching Hospital. There are about two
hundred and seventy permanent employees in the
non-teaching category. The non-teaching employees
are having three unions namely, Vinayaka Missions
Medical College and Hospital Non-Teaching Staff
Union, Vinayaka Missions Staff Welfare Union and
Vinayaka Missions Tholilalar Munnettra Sangam.
Out of the three unions the petitioner union is
having not even ten percent as its members as
required under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The
petitioner union is a rival and spilted group from the
Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital
Non-Teaching Staff Union. The approach and attitude
of the petitioners union towards the respondent
management were always aggressive, violent and not
in the general interest of the institution and other
employees as a whole. The petitioner union has not
even come forward to furnish its list of members
for purpose of recognition and negotiation when it
was demanded. Some of the members belonging to
the petitioner union indulged in violent acts when
the dispute was pending before this Tribunal. They
entered into direct action taking the law in their
own hands threatened the management and
committed various serious misconducts. Therefore,
the respondent was constrained to take disciplinary
action with in the parameter of law. The disciplinary
actions taken by the respondent management were
only for their direct involvement and misconducts
not connected with this dispute. The application for
approval under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 was already filed by the
respondent and the petitioner under section 33A was
filed by the petitioner alleging dismissal of its
743
19 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
members in contravention of the said Act. The
demands raised by other two unions for revision of
wages and other benefits were pending before this
Tribunal vide I.D. No. 11 of 2009 and I.D.No.4 of
2010. The said two unions enjoy majority support
of the non-teaching employees and petitioner union
does not represent substantial number of employees.
Though, the petitioner union is having a right to
represent for grievances of its individual members
it does not have any legal right to prefer any
common demand such as wage revision and other
benefits to all the employees and if, any decision is
taken on the basis of their demand it would be
prejudicial to the interest of the majority
employees. The claim made by the petitioner union
need no separate consideration and if, at all necessary,
the petitioner union is obliged to agree and adopt
any award that may be passed by this Tribunal in I.D.
No. 11 of 2009 and I.D. No. 4 of 2010 only.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW.1 was examined and Ex.Pl to Ex.P54
were marked. On the side of the respondent, evenafter,
sufficient time/opportunities given for his side
evidence, the respondent called absent and no oral or
documentary evidence has been adduced and hence,
this Court has closed the evidence of the respondent
and posted the case for argument. Both sides are heard.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
union against the respondent management over
charter of demands and pay revision on par with
employees of Government Medical Colleges in the
revised pay structure of the 6th Central Pay Commission
is justified or not and if justified, what is the relief
entitled to the petitioner union ?
6. This dispute has been raised by the petitioner
union over the charter of demands made by the
petitioner union for the pay revision on par with the
employees of the Government Medical Colleges in
the revised Pay Structure on the Sixth Central Pay
Commission. In order to prove their case the President
of the petitioner union has been examined himself as
PW.1 and it is the evidence of the PW.1 that the charter
of demands was submitted by the petitioner union on
18-12-2008 to the Chairman of the respondent University
and followed by that two reminders were sent on
02-03-2009 and 07-03-2009 and that on 02-03-2009
the management informed the union about the meeting
on 02-03-2009 through letter and on 03-03-2009 it
was informed by the management that the meeting
proposed to be held on 02-03-2009 was cancelled and
that on 08-03-2009, the union received the letter, dated
06-03-2009 by the management intimating that the
meeting will be conducted on 13-03-2009 at 4.00 p.m.,
in the chamber of the Director of the Hospital and
while so the management addressed a letter to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Karaikal on 12-03-2009
contending that the union would not attend the
negotiation to be held on 13-03-2009 and that on
21-04-2009 the union through its letter exposed the
evil designs of the management in making a false
complaint to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Karaikal
and that actually the union attended the conciliation
meeting on 13-03-2009 and that being driven from
pillar to post the union left with no other option, has
raised the industrial dispute on 16-03-2009 before the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Karaikal and on failure
of the conciliation the Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Karaikal, has submitted a failure report on 07-07-2009
to the Government and that the union has addressed a
letter to the Secretary to Government (Labour), bringing
out the irregularities in the failure report.
7. It is the further evidence of the PW.1 that previously
another staff union by name Vinayaka Mission’s
Medical College and Hospital non-teaching staff union
raised an industrial dispute for revision of wages
before the Labour Conciliation Officer and the dispute
was ended in failure and the same was referred to the
Industrial Tribunal by the Government of Puducherry
and the dispute was pending before the Industrial
Tribunal as I.D(T). No. 3 of 2005 and that the executive
members of the said union were however won over by
the respondent management and that the said union and
the management effected 18(1) settlement on 24th May,
2006 which was against the wishes of the members and
that about 38 members left the union and formed a new
union by name M/s.Vinayaka Mission’s Staff Welfare
Union the petitioner union and that the petitioner
union has made an application before the Labour
Tribunal, Puducherry in I.A. No. 28 of 2006 in I.D. No.
3 of 2005 to implead the union as necessary party in
which the Labour Tribunal has dismissed the I.A on
20-03-2007 and on 29-03-2007 the Award was passed
by the Industrial Tribunal at Puducherry in terms of
18(1) settlement effected on 24-05-2006 against
which the union has filed the Writ Petitions in WP.
No. 23027/2007 and WP. No. 23360/2007 praying to
call for the records of the I.D. No. 3/2005 and to
quash the Award and also prayed to fix the Pay
Structure on par with the guidelines of U.G.C. in which
the Hon’ble High Court has directed the union to
present a charter of demand afresh by its order, dated
744
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 June 2018
15-12-2008 and hence, the union submitted the charter
of demands on 18-12-2008 and that the management
instead of entering upon negotiation has driven the
staff of this union from pillar to post and the
management has suspended the Executives and
Members of the petitioner on false and frivolous
charges and some protected workmen are also placed
under suspension and the act of management is in total
violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
8. It is the further evidence of the PW.1 that the
management has no standing order of its own and the
terms of the appointment also do not spell out the
requirement of section 33(2) of the Industrial Dispute
Act and the trade union is making a separate complaint
to the Industrial Tribunal under section 33 (A) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and that the management
in order to crush the lawful activity of the petitioner
union and other unions workmen in the Vinayaka
Mission Medical College and Hospital in Karaikal,
have also purchased the Kottucherry Police Station of
Karaikal and made them register an FIR in Cr.No. 105/
2009, dated 10-10-2009 under section 143, 324 and
506(2) IPC and a suit was also filed by the respondent
management before the Court of District Munsif of
Salem against the petitioner union and the executive
members with the prayer to declare the registration of
the trade unions as illegal and with other consequential
relief and subsequently, the suit was withdrawn as not
pressed and that the management had also approached
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by way of Writ,
wherein, the Hon'ble High Court passed an order on
04-09-2009 by grant of interim injunction against the
trade union restraining them from protesting within
500 meters of the College premises and the charter of
demand carries the demand for revision of pay,
payment of arrears, demand for leave, as casual leave,
earned leave, medical leave, maternity leave, paternity
leave and also claims promotion, travelling allowance,
dearness allowance and house rent allowance and the
demands are genuine and requires to be effected
forthwith and that as per regulations of the Medical
Council Act, the establishment of new
Medical
Colleges, opening of higher course of study, they have
to give salary minimum as per UGC Scale and that the
management has indulged in unfair labour practice to
crush the activities of the union and to wreak
vengeance against the members of the union.
9. In support of their oral evidence the petitioner
union has exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P54. Ex.P1 is the copy
of claim statement in I.D(T). No. 3 of 2005 filed by
Vinayaka Mission Medical College and Hospital,
non-teaching staff union. Ex.P2 is the copy of
memorandum of settlement under section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, between management and the
trade union. Ex.P3 is the copy of order in I.A. No. 28/
2006 in I.D(T). No. 3/2005 by Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry. Ex.P4 is the copy of Award in I.D. No. 3/
2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry. Ex.P5 is
the copy of common Order in WP. No. 23360 and
23027 of 2007 and M.P. No. l of 2007 and 1 of 2008
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Ex.P6 is the
copy of demands submitted by the petitioner union to
the management. Ex.P7 is the copy of reminder to the
charter of demand by the petitioner union to the
management. Ex.P8 is the copy of letter by the
management to the petitioner union. Ex.P9 is the copy
of letter by the management to the petitioner union.
Ex.P10 is the copy of letter by the management to the
petitioner union. Ex.P11 is the copy of second
reminder by the petitioner union to the management.
Ex.Pl2 is the copy of letter by the petitioner union to
the management. Ex.P13 is the copy of industrial
dispute raised by the management against the
petitioner union to the Labour Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.P14 is the copy of letter notice of enquiry/
conciliation address to the petitioner union by the
Labour Officer (Conciliation). Ex.P15 is the copy of
the letter by the trade union to the Labour officer
(Conciliation), Ex.P16 is the copy of the letter by the
petitioner union to the Labour Officer. Ex.P17 is the
copy of failure report by the Labour Officer to the
Secretary to the Government, Puducherry. Ex.P18 is
the copy of letter by the petitioner union to the
secretary to the Government. Ex.P19 is the copy of
notification of the Labour Department. Ex.P20 is the
copy of Gazette carrying the notification of I.D.
Ex.P21 is the copy of the establishment of new
Medical Colleges, opening of higher courses of study
and increase of admission capacity in Medical
Colleges Regulations, 1993 (The Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956). Ex.P22 is the copy letter by
Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College and Research
Institute to the Secretary (Health) Puducherry, copy
marked to the Joint Secretary of the petitioner union
carrying the information about Medical Colleges of
Puducherry. Ex.P23 is the copy of the plaint filed by
the management before the Court of District Munsif of
Salem. Ex.P24 is the copy of order of High Court,
Chennai. Ex.P25 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.
105/2009 of Kottucherry Police Station, Karaikal.
Ex.P26 is the copy of letter by Medical Council of
India. Ex.P27 is the copy of calculation of wage
revision of workman S. Joseph Thaman. Ex.P28 is the
copy of calculation of wage revision of workman
U. Sivakumar. Ex.P29 is the copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman S. Kanagaraj. Ex.P30 is the
745
19 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
copy-of calculation of wage revision of workman
D.S. Mercy. Ex.P31 is the copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman S. Nilavazhagy. Ex.P32 is
the copy of calculation of wage revision of workman
G. Baskaran. Ex.P33 is the copy of calculation of wage
revision of workman R. Kesavathy. Ex.P34 is the copy
of calculation of wage revision of workman K. Sivanesan.
Ex.P35 is the copy of calculation of wage revision of
workman G. Vijayalakshmi. Ex.P36 is the copy of
calculation of wage revision of workman R. Radha.
Ex.P37 is the copy of calculation of wage revision of
workman S. Leena. Ex.P38 is the copy of calculation
of wage revision of workman G. Suba. Ex.P39 is the
copy of calculation of wage revision of workman
R. Assai Thambi. Ex.P40 is the copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman T. Velmayil. Ex.P41 is the copy of
calculation of wage revision of workman R. Dhandapani.
Ex.P42 is the copy of calculation of wage revision
of workman R. Ganesan @ Mariyappan. Ex.P43 is the
copy of calculation of wage revision of workman
R. Balasubramanian. Ex.P44 is the copy of calculation
of wage revision of workman K. Veerapandiayn.
Ex.P45 is the copy of calculation of wage revision of
workman C. Devabalanchandar. Ex.P46 is the copy of
calculation of wage revision of workman N. Kamaraj.
Ex.P47 is the copy of calculation of wage revision
of workman M. Arokianathan. Ex.P48 is the copy of
calculation of wage revision of workman B. Albert
Tremot Anand. Ex.P49 is the copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman V. Senthilkumar. Ex.P50 is
the copy of calculation of wage revision of workman
F. Mariasamy Ilias. Ex.P51 is the copy of calculation
of wage revision of workman D. Elamcazhuthi. Ex.P52
is the copy of calculation of wage revision of workman
C. Anthony Kuber. Ex.P53 is the copy of calculation
of wage revision of workman K. Boopathi, Ex.P54 is
the copy of calculation of wage revision of workman
M. Haji Mohammed.
10. On the other hand, the respondent has not
examined any witness on their side. It is the contention
of the respondent management that the respondent is
running Medical College at Karaikal and to impart
practical education and also running a Teaching Hospital
and there are about two hundred and seventy permanent
employees in the non-teaching category and that the
non-teaching employees are having three unions
namely, Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital
Non-Teaching Staff Union, Vinayaka Missions Staff
Welfare Union and Vinayaka Missions
Tholilalar
Munnettra Sangam and out of the three unions the
petitioner union is having not even ten percent as its
members as required under the Trade Unions Act,
1926 and that the petitioner union is a rival and spilted
group from the Vinayaka Missions Medical College
and Hospital non-teaching staff union and the approach
and attitude of the petitioner union towards the
respondent management were always aggressive,
violent and not in the general interest of the institution
and other employees as a whole and that the petitioner
union has not even come forward to furnish its list of
members for purpose of recognition and negotiation
when it was demanded and that some of the members
belonging to the petitioner union indulged in violent
acts when the dispute was pending before this Tribunal
and they entered into direct action taking the law in
their own hands threatened the management and
committed various serious misconducts and therefore,
the respondent was constrained to take disciplinary
action with in the parameter of law and that the
disciplinary
actions
taken
by
the
respondent
management were only for their direct involvement
and misconducts not connected with this dispute and
the application for approval under section 33(2)(b) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was already filed by
the respondent and the petition under section 33A was
filed by the petitioner alleging dismissal of its
members in contravention of the said Act and that the
demands raised by other two unions for revision of
wages and other benefits were pending before this
Tribunal vide I.D. No. 11 of 2009 and I.D. No. 4 of
2010 and that though, the petitioner union is having a
right to represent for grievances of its individual
members it does not have any legal right to prefer any
common demand such as wage revision and other
benefits to all the employees.
12. From the evidence and averments it is clear that
it is not disputed by the respondent management that
petitioner union has raised a dispute over charter of
demands regarding wage revision and two other unions
also has raised dispute over charter of demands for the
same demand of wage revision and the case was
pending in I.D. No. 11 of 2009 and I.D. No. 4 of 2010
along with this I.D. No. 14/2009 and it is also not
disputed by either sides that this Court has disposed
I.D. No. 11 of 2009 on 03-07-2013 on the foot of the
settlement arrived at between the Vinayaka Missions
Medical College and Hospital Non-Teaching Staffs
Union and the respondent management and in view of
the settlement arrived at between the parties this
Tribunal has passed an Award as per the terms of
settlement arrived at between them and the copy of the
18(1) settlement would form part of the Award.
12. The documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P54 exhibited by
the petitioner union would reveal the fact that the
dispute regarding charter of demands for wage revision
was filed by the non-teaching staff union of the
respondent establishment in I.D(T). No. 3/2005 and
that there was settlement executed between the
746
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 June 2018
management and the trade union on 16-04-2005 against
which the petitioner union has filed a Writ Petition
before the Hon’ble High Court in which this petitioner
union has sought for the relief to quash the orders
assed therein the industrial dispute and consequently
direct the respondent management to pay wages due to
the petitioner union in accordance with the pay
structure followed by the Government Hospital,
Karaikal and as fixed by the UGC with effect from the
date of members of the petitioners joining their
service with all consequential benefits arising there
from and it is also learnt from Ex.P5 the order of the
Hon’ble High Court that since, the period of settlement
is over and new settlement has to be arrived which was
represented before the Hon’ble High Court by the
management and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased
to direct the petitioner union to submit the charter of
demands and the same has to be considered by the
management while entering into the new settlement and
it is also directed to the management that if, the
petitioner union submitted any charter of demand the
same shall also be considered while considering the
demand of the majority union and it is also learnt from
Ex.P21 that establishment of new Medical Colleges,
opening of higher course of study and increase of
admission capacity in Medical College Regulations,
1993 which has been stated the man power programme
including department-wise requirements of teaching
staff -full time, technical, administrative and ancillary
staff, category-wise recruitment criteria and salary
structure, etc., minimum as per UGC scale.
13. However, admittedly, as per the case of the
petitioner union the majority has entered into the
18(1) settlement and this petitioner union is the
minority union and the majority union has also entered
the settlement and it is clear from the evidence of
PW.1 that out of 244 non-teaching staffs the petitioner
union is having only 28 members and it is also has been
admitted by PW.1 the Secretary of the union that their
union is not the majority union and on perusal of Ex.P5
- the order of the Hon'ble High Court which would
reveal that though, the petitioner union has sought for
the relief of wage revision on par with the UGC scale
the Hon’ble High Court has not granted any relief and
in stead of that directed the petitioner union to file the
charter of demand and no relief has been granted in
respect of wage revision. Further, on perusal of
Medical College Regulations Part II of the regulation
runs as follows:
“manpower programme : including department-
wise requirements of teaching staff (full-time),
technical,
administrative
and
ancillary
staff,
category-wise recruitment criteria and salary
structure, etc., (minimum as per UGC scale)”
From the above regulation, it is clear that whenever
new Colleges are opened, they have to pay minimum
scale if, University Grant Commission has fixed pay for
any category of non-teaching staffs. The learned
Counsel for the respondent management has argued
that no such pay has been fixed by the University Grants
Commission for the non-teaching staffs of the Medical
College. The petitioner also has not filed any document
to prove that what the pay is fixed by the University
Grant Commission for the non-teaching staffs of the
Government Medical Colleges as per the Regulations,
1993 and no pay structure is produced by the petitioner
union under UGC scale.
14. Further, the petitioner has raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer claiming wage
revision from the management and pay revision on par
with the employees of the Government Medical
Colleges in the pay revised structure of Sixth Pay
Commission. But, the petitioner union has filed the
claim petition sought for an Award directing the
management to pay wage revision in the tune with UGC
Scale line and on par with the employees of the
Government Medical College in the revised Pay
structure of the Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations.
The petitioner has not at all submitted any document to
prove the claim that the respondent management is
liable to give pay revision on par with the employees
of the Government Medical Colleges in the revised
Pay Structure of Sixth Pay Commission i.e., the petitioner
union has not adduced any evidence that how they are
entitled for the pay revision on par with the employees
of the Government Medical Colleges. Though, they
have let evidence that they are entitled for UGC scale
they have not raised the industrial dispute to revise the
salary on par with the UGC scale instead of that the
petitioner union has asked to revise their salary on par
with the employees of the Government Medical
Colleges in the Pay Structure of Sixth Pay Commission.
15. Furthermore, the petitioner union has not at all
established that how they are entitled for revised pay
structure of the Sixth Pay Commission. The petitioners
have exhibited the Medical College Regulation Rules
for support of their case and they claimed for wage
revision as per the UGC Scale. But, the reference has
not been sent to this Court to decide whether they are
entitled for UGC Scale as claimed by them. As rightly
pointed out by the respondent management that no
evidence has been adduced by the petitioner union that
how much pay has been fixed for the non-teaching
staffs of the Medical Colleges and that therefore, as
the petitioners have failed to establish that they are
entitled for the pay revision on par with the employees
of the Government Medical College in the revised Pay
747
19 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Structure of Sixth Pay Commission it is to be held that
the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union
against the respondent management over charter of
demands and pay revision on par with employees of
Government Medical Colleges in the revised Pay
Structure of 6th Central Pay Commission is not sustainable
and that therefore, the claim of the petitioner union for
revision of pay on par with the employees of the
Government Medical Colleges in the Pay Structure of
the
Sixth
Pay
Commission recommendations is
rejected and the claim petition in respect of the same
is liable to be dismissed and the petitioners are not
entitled for such wage revision on par with the
employees of the Government Medical Colleges.
16. However, the petitioners have established that
they are entitled to get the minimum UGC Scale as per
the Medical College Regulations. But, the said
regulations does not provide pay revision on par with
the employees of the Government Medical Colleges in
the structure of Sixth Pay Commission. Hence, the
petitioners are entitled only to get the pay on par with
the UGC Scale if any, fixed by the University Grants
Commission for the non-teaching staffs of the Medical
Colleges and therefore, it is to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over the charter of
demands and pay revision on par with the employees of
Government Medical Colleges in the revised pay
structure of 6th Central Pay Commission is not
justified. But, an Award can be passed directing the,
respondent management to give pay revision under
UGC scale to the members of the petitioner union.
17. In the result, petition is partly allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union against
the respondent management over charter of demands
and pay revision on par with the employees of
Government Medical Colleges in the revised Pay
Structure of 6th Central Pay Commission is not
justified and however, Award is passed directing the
respondent management to give wage revision to the
members of the petitioner union on par with the
minimum UGC scale if any, fixed by the University
Grant Commission from the date of dispute raised by
the petitioner union. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 08th day of February, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witnesseses:
PW.1
—03-12-2010 Devabalanchandar
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —21-11-2005 Copy of claim statement in
ID(T).No.3 of 2005 filed by
Vinayaka Mission Medical
College and Hospital, non-
teaching staff union.
Ex.P2 —16-04-2005 Copy of memorandum of
settlement under section
18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes
Act,
between
management and the trade
union.
Ex.P3 —20-03-2007 Copy of order in I.A. No.
28/2006 in I.D(T). No. 3/
2005 by Industrial Tribunal,
Puducherry.
Ex.P4 —29-03-2007 Copy of Award in I.D. No. 3/
2005 by the Industrial
Tribunal, Puducherry.
Ex.P5 —15-12-2008 Copy of Common Order
in WP. No. 23360 and
23027 of 2007 and M.P.
No. 1 of 2007 and 1 of
2008 by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras.
Ex.P6 —18-12-2008 Copy of demands submitted
by the petitioner union to
the management.
Ex.P7 —02-03-2009 Copy of reminder to the
charter of demand by the
petitioner union to the
management.
Ex.PS —02-03-2009 Copy of the letter by the
management
to
the
petitioner union.
Ex.P9 —03-03-2009 Copy of the letter by the
management
to
the
petitioner union.
Ex.P10—06-03-2009 Copy of the letter by the
management
to
the
petitioner union.
Ex.P11—08-03-2009 Copy of second reminder by
the petitioner union to the
management.
Ex.P12—10-03-2009 Copy of the letter by the
petitioner union to the
management.
748
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[19 June 2018
Ex.P13—12-03-2009 Copy of industrial dispute
raised by the management
against the petitioner union
to
the
Labour
Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P14—13-03-2009 Copy of letter notice of
e n q u i r y / c o n c i l i a t i o n
address to the petitioner
union by the Labour Officer
(Conciliation).
Ex.P15—16-03-2009 Copy of the letter by the
trade union to the Labour
Officer (Conciliation).
Ex.Pl6 —21-04-2009 Copy of the letter by the
petitioner union to the
Labour Officer.
Ex.P17—07-07-2009 Copy of failure report by
the Labour Officer to the
Secretary to the Government,
Puducherry.
Ex.P18—15-07-2009 Copy
of letter
by
the
petitioner union to the
Secretary to the Government.
Ex.P19—24-09-2009 Copy of notification of the
Labour Department.
Ex.P20—13-10-2009 Copy of Gazette carrying
the notification of I.D.
Ex.P21—
1993 Copy of the establishment
of new Medical Colleges,
opening of higher courses
of study and increase of
admission
capacity
in
Medical Colleges regulations,
1993 (The Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956).
Ex.P22—11-02-2009 Copy
of
the
letter
by
Perunthalaivar
Kamaraj
Medical College and Research
Institute to the Secretary
(Health) Puducherry, copy
marked
to
the
Joint
Secretary of the petitioner
union
carrying
the
information about Medical
Colleges of Puducherry.
Ex.P23—30-10-2009 Copy of the plaint filed by
the management before the
Court of District Munsif of
Salem.
Ex.P24—24-09-2009 Copy of order of High Court,
Chennai.
Ex.P25—29-09-2009 Copy of FIR in Crime No.
105/2009
of
Kottucherry
Police Station, Karaikal.
Ex.P26—14-09-2007 Copy of letter by Medical
Council of India.
Ex.P27—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
S. Joseph Thaman.
Ex.P28—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
U. Sivakumar.
Ex.P29—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
S. Kanagaraj.
Ex.P30—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
D.S. Mercy.
Ex.P31—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
S. Nilavazhagy.
Ex.P32—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
G. Baskaran.
Ex.P33—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
R. Kesavathy.
Ex.P34—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
K. Sivanesan.
Ex.P35—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
G. Vijayalakshmi.
Ex.P36—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
R. Radha.
Ex.P37—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
S. Leena.
Ex.P38—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
G. Suba.
Ex.P39—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
R. Assai Thambi.
Ex.P40—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
T. Velmayil.
749
19 June 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P41—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
R. Dhandapani.
Ex.P42—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
R. Ganesan @ Mariyappan.
Ex.P43—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
R. Balasubramanian.
Ex.P44—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
K. Veerapandian.
Ex.P45—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
C. Devabalanchandar.
Ex.P46—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
N. Kamaraj.
Ex.P47—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
M. Arokianathan.
Ex.P48—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
B. Albert Tremot Anand.
Ex.P49—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
V. Senthilkumar.
Ex.P50—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
F. Mariasamy Ilias.
Ex.P51—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
D. Elamcazhuthi.
Ex.P52—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
C. Anthony Kuber.
Ex.P53—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
K. Boopathi.
Ex.P54—01-12-2009 Copy of calculation of
wage revision of workman
M. Haji Mohammed.
List of respondent’s witnesses:— Nil
List of respondent’s exhibits: — Nil
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUCHERRY
No. 650/CEO/Exam Cell/2018.
Puducherry, the 29th May 2018.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby notified that the following candidates have lost their original S.S.L.C. Mark Certificates and
beyond the scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates. If, anyone
finds the original mark certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations
(Sec.), College Road, Chennai-600 006 for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.
Sl.
Name of the
Register No.,
Sl. No. of
School in which
No.
applicant
session and
the mark
studied last
year
certificate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
Thiru C. Thamizharasan 1681728, March 2016
—
Amalorpavam Higher Secondary School,
Puducherry.
2
Thiru D. Vadivelan
336679, April
1997
—
T.T. Thiru Vi. Ka. Government High
School, Puducherry.
V. RANGANATHAN,
Chief Educational Officer.