La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
` 20-00
Prix : ` 20-00
Price :
` 20-00
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
.. 806
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 806
Award of the Labour Court
.. 806
de Tribunal.
.. 811
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 811
Government Notifications
.. 811
.. 823
Avis de Saisis-arrêt
.. 823
Notice of Attachment
.. 823
.. 823
Avis d’Adjudications
.. 823
Tender Notices
.. 823
.. 824
Etablissements Dangereux
.. 824
Dangerous Establishments
.. 824
.. 827
Annonces
.. 827
Announcements
.. 827
[ 805 ]
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 : 3-7-2018
Price : ` 20-00
2018 }
|
3 {
No.
27
Poudouchéry
Mardi
3
Juillet
2018 (12 Asadha 1940)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
3rd
July
2018
806
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 July 2018
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 58/Lab./AIL/T/2018,
Puducherry, dated 9th April 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 3/2015, dated
13-03-2018 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute
between the Management of M/s. State Express
Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Limited, Puducherry
and Thiru Sellapan, S/o. Karupannan, Puducherry, over
non-payment of overtime wages, weekly holiday wages
from the period 1994 to 2012 and retirement benefits
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.
Tuesday, the 13th day of March, 2018
I.D (T). No. 3/2015
Sellapan,
S/o. Karupannan,
No. 26, 1st Main Road,
East Gate Nagar,
Nainarmandapam,
Mudaliarpet,
Pondicherry-605 004.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation
(Tamil Nadu) Limited,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 16-01-2018 before me
for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R. Raja Prakash,
Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru R. Soupramanien,
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. 87/ AIL/Lab./J/2015,
dated 03-08-2015 for adjudicating the following:-
(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
Thiru K. Sellapan against the management of
M/s. State Express Transport Corporation, Pondicherry
Branch (Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking),
Puducherry, over non-payment of overtime wages,
weekly holiday wages from the period 1994 to 2012
and retirement benefits is justified?
(ii) If justified, what relief the petitioner is
entitled for?
(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 petitioner joined as a Bus Conductor on
21-02-1981
vide EDP3086 in the respondent
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu
Government Undertaking) which was subsequently
changed as State Express Transport Corporation
(Tamil Nadu) Ltd., and worked 31 years 5 months
10 days and got retirement on 31-07-2012 from the
Puducherry Branch. The petitioner further stated
that respondent is the branch office of respondent
Corporation at Puducherry and it is registered with
the Labour Department, Puducherry and during his
tenure of employment with the respondent, the
petitioner was not allowed to enjoy the benefit of
overtime wages at twice the rate of ordinary wages
as per section 26 (1) and (3) of the Motor Transport
Workers Act, that respondent paid only 1 ½ time
overtime wages which was later fixed as ` 75 for
one hour without any basis and according to the
wishes and that completely neglected to pay
overtime wages as per the Motor Transport Workers
Act, 1961 and therefore, the petitioner filed petition
on
01-12-1994
before
the
Labour
Officer
(Enforcement), Labour Department, Puducherry to
take action against the
respondent transport
807
3 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
corporation to enforce section 26 of the Motor
Transport Workers Act, 1961 and that despite of the
above representation given before the Labour
Department, the respondent did not come forward
either to give any reply for the enforcement of
MTW Act or to settle the issue and the same was
pending long time for enquiry and in the mean time,
the petitioner got retirement and gave a complaint on
04-04-2014 before the same Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Labour Department, Puducherry and
in that enquiry the respondent did not gave any reply
and therefore, the conciliation ended in failure. The
petitioner further stated that he has worked more
than 8 hours and worked as overtime work as per
Act and entitled for a sum of ` 2,46,414 and a
sum of ` 2,43,223 towards weekly off duty worked
days, a sum of ` 1,38,783 towards the Medical
Leave Surrender Allowances before 01-09-1998 of
his employment as per the SECT(TN) management
order towards the pending salary proceedings order
79989/2/SETC/1999 dated 09-06-1999, a sum of
` 16,267 towards the Earned Leave Surrender salary
after his retirement, a sum of ` 31,510 towards the
Social Welfare Fund amount and the respondent has
not come forward to pay the above sums even at the
time of his retirement and also not paid a sum of
` 600 towards the arrears of the salary for the
period of November, 2010 as per the Pay Settlement
and moreover a sum of ` 313 has been illegally
recovered by the respondent and the petitioner is
entitled for the above sum as per the LT. No. 1499/
P2/SETC(TN)/Pdy, dated 02-08-2011 and that a sum
of ` 262 has been illegally deducted from his salary
in the month of June, 2011 and that the respondent
marked as ‘A’(absent) in his weekly off on
27-01-2011 and deducted a sum of ` 786 from his
salary which the petitioner is entitled to receive
from the respondent and as per proceeding No. 694/
P2/SETC/Pdy/08, dated 12-03-2008, the petitioner
is entitled for 7 days duty joining time and instead
of which he was allowed only one day and marked 6
days earned leave without the permission and
consent of the petitioner and therefore, the
respondent is liable to allow the enjoy duty join time
of 7 days and that the respondent has taken revenge
on the petitioner because he was fighting for his
legal cause and the respondent did not come forward
to give any promotion as Checking Inspector and
promoted one B.Narayanan, Conductor, EDP3282
who is a junior to the petitioner in the service and
pay, the said Narayanan belongs to ADMK Trade
Union and the petitioner belongs to CITU Trade
Union and the management has moved indifferently
and partially with bias nature as against the petitioner
which are against the Labour Laws and Constitution,
if, the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the
Checking Inspector, he would have received more
salary and pension amount gratuity would have been
increased, that the respondent had purposely and
wantonly taken this view and also paid low amount
towards the retirement benefit amount and he has
filed a complaint before the Hon’ble District
Consumer Redressal Forum at Puducherry in C.C.
No. 39/2013 and the respondent paid only the part
principal P.F. amount and the matter is pending
before the said Authority for the further payment
and interest amount for P.F which the petitioner is
legally entitled too, that because of the attitude of
the respondent, the petitioner suffers a lot in all
walks of his life and the petitioner is also entitled
to receive interest @ 18% p.a from the respondent
from 01-08-2012 as the respondent had neglected
to pay the eligible sum to the petitioner and also
denied the basic legal right of the petitioner and
disobeyed the order of Hon’ble
High Court
Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 2132 and
2133/1958, dated 09-12-1993. Hence, the petitioner
prays this Court to pass a order by directing the
respondent to pay the sum claimed by the petition as
per the Annexure appended with the claims of sum
of
`
6,78,157 with interest 18% p.a from
01-08-2012 with the back wages if, the petitioner
would have promoted as Checking Inspector and got
more salary and pension on par with the promotion
made to Mr. B. Narayanan, Conductor, 3282 by
fixing the promotion also and separate calculation
has been made in Annexure for a sum of ` 3,00,000
and cost.
3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows :
The respondent denied all the allegations
contained in the claim statement of the petitioner
and it is contended that the Head of Office at
Chennai has appointed the petitioner and as per
terms and conditions of the petitioner and the
management, only Channai alone is the competent
jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and further
stated that the bus operating is only for the welfare
of the people and furthermore, the corporation
itself is under severe financial crunch and the
corporation cannot act beyond the statutory norms
as stipulated in the Act and that the petitioner, who
was worker at the relevant caused several problems
808
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 July 2018
to the corporation and there are several charges/
complaints against him and further the petitioner
does not possess sufficient qualification for the
promotion and the said Narayanan has completed
degree and as per statutory rules and seniority, the
promotion was given to him. Hence, the respondent
prays this Court to dismiss the petition.
4. In the course of enquiry on the side of the
petitioner PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P29
were marked and on the side of the respondent RW1
was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 were marked. Both
sides are heard. Records are perused. On both sides
written arguments were filed and the same were
carefully considered.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner
against the respondent management over non-payment
of overtime wages, weekly holiday wages from the
period 1994 to 2012 and retirement benefits is
justified or not and if justified, what is the relief
entitled to the petitioner?
6. In order to prove his case the petitioner has
examined himself as PW1 and he has reiterated the
petition averments in his evidence that he joined as a
Bus Conductor on 21-02-1981 in the respondent
Transport Corporation, and he got retirement on
31-07-2012 at Puducherry Branch and that the
petitioner was not allowed to enjoy the benefit of
overtime wages at twice the rate of ordinary wages as
per section 26(1) and (3) of the Motor Transport
Workers Act and that the respondent has paid only 1 ½
time overtime wages and later it was fixed as ` 75 for
one hour without any basis and that the respondent
management completely neglected to pay the overtime
wages as per the Act and the respondent management
has also not paid the wages for the days in which the
petitioner was working in weekly holidays and the
respondent management also has not paid the
retirement benefits i.e., the Medical Leave Surrender
allowances and arrears of the salary for the period of
November, 2010 as per the Pay Settlement and the
amount which was illegally recovered by the
respondent management to the tune of ` 313 and a sum
of ` 262 has been illegally deducted from his salary in
the month of June 2011 and Social Welfare Fund
amount of ` 31,510 and the said amount were not paid
by the management though the petitioner has made a
requisition to pay the same.
7. In support of his oral evidence the petitioner has
exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. Ex.P1 is the copy of the
Judgment, dated 09-12-1993 in Writ Petition No.
2132/1995 of the Hon’ble High Court Judicature at
Madras wherein, it has been held that in addition to the
compensatory holidays the workers are entitled for
wages as per S.26 of the Act. Ex.P2 is the original
order in PW Case No. 2/1997 which would reveal the
fact that the petitioner has filed a petition before the
Labour Commissioner Authority under the payment of
wages Act wherein, the Authority of the payment of
wages has passed an order that the provision under
section 1(6) of the Payment of Wages Act the
authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no
jurisdiction to try over this case for final disposal.
Ex.P3 is the original letter No. 465/55393/PIO/RTI/
2011, dated 06-03-2012 which would reveal the fact
that the respondent management has paid the overtime
wages at the rate of ` 75 per hour on the expectations
of the representatives of the union in the respondent
corporation. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of Circular
Memo No. 260/E8/SETC/07, dated 11-09-2009 which
states that the drivers who are working on weekly
holidays would be paid ` 179 and the Conductors
would be paid ` 178 as remuneration and the Branch
Offices were permitted to pay the same who have
availed weekly holidays. Ex.P5 is the copy of the
complaint No. 692/LO(e)/AIL-IV-2000 given to the
Labour Officer (Enforcement) on 21-08-2000. Ex.P6
is the copy of the registration certificate issued by the
Labour Department. Ex.P7 is the copy of the complaint
No.1375/LO(e)AIL-I/2013 given to the Labour Officer
(Enforcement) on 13-06-2013 regarding non-payment
of wages. Ex.P8 are the original proceedings No. 107/
P2/TTC/92, dated 28-03-1992 and Original Memo No.
694/P2/SETC(TN)/Pdy/08, dated 12-03-2008 which
would evident that the petitioner was relieved from
Puducherry and transferred to Salem on 28-03-1992
and the petitioner was asked to join the transferred
post on 02-04-1992.
8. Further, the document Ex.P9 is the original
proceedings No. 1016/S2/TTC/92, dated 10-08-1993
which would evident that the petitioner was transferred
to Puducherry from Salem on 10-08-1993 with a
direction to report before the Puducherry office.
Ex.P10 is the original proceedings No. 1882/P2/TTC/
97, dated 06-03-1997, dated 06-03-1997 which would
evident that overtime wages has been fixed by the
respondent corporation. Ex.P11 is the copy of the pay
settlement pending 2010 November. Ex.P12 to Ex.P27
are original salary slips of the petitioner from the year
1997 to 2012 which would go to show that the
respondent corporation has issued salary slip to the
petitioner wherein, the total working days, casual leave
availed by the petitioner and compensatory off taken
by the petitioner are mentioned. Ex.P28 is the copy of
809
3 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the reply given by the Information Officer, SETC,
Chennai on 31-05-2013 which would evident that the
respondent corporation has not paid an amount of
` 31,510 towards social welfare fund. Ex.P29 is the
copy of the proceeding, dated 09-06-1999 which
would evident that the respondent corporation has
permitted the workers to surrender medical leave while
they are retiring from service.
9. The
main
contention
of
the
respondent
corporation is that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate this issue since the petitioner was
appointed only at Chennai and as per terms and
conditions of the petitioner and the management,
Chennai alone is the competent jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issue and that the bus operating is only
for the welfare of the people and the corporation itself
is under severe financial crunch and the corporation
cannot act beyond the statutory norms as stipulated in
the Act.
10. In support of their contention the respondent
has examined RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. It is
the evidence of RW1 that the petitioner was appointed
only at Chennai and as per the terms and conditions, the
Tribunal at Chennai is having jurisdiction to adjudicate
the issue and this Tribunal is not having competent
jurisdiction to decide the issue and that the petitioner
has caused several problems to the respondent
corporation and there are several charges and
complaints against him and the petitioner does not
possess sufficient qualification for the promotion and
RW1 has denied all the allegations stated in the claim
statement. In support of their contention the
respondent corporation has exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.
Ex.R1 is the copy of final settlement of P.F. with
enclosed cheque, dated 27-07-2015. Ex.R2 is the copy
of letter relating to CSR issued by SETC (HR Section),
dated 08-09-2017. Ex.R3 is the letter regarding
Medical leave and Earned leave, dated 06-09-2017.
Ex.R4 is the letter relating to salary certificate
enclosed with salary slip November, 2011 and June,
2011, dated 06-09-2017. Ex.R5 is the letter regarding
settlement towards Social Welfare fund, dated
06-09-2017. Ex.R6 is the letter regarding parawar
request, dated 19-07-2017.
11. The documents exhibited by the respondent
would go to show that the respondent corporation has
settled the EPF amount of the petitioner through IOB
cheque for
`
5,14,058 on 20-07-2015 and the
requisition of the petitioner to promote as Checking
Inspector was
negativated and intimated to the
petitioner on 08-09-2017, after his retirement and the
Branch
Manager
of
the
respondent
transport
corporation has received intimation from the Head
Office of respondent transport corporation that the
petitioner has surrendered 135 days of medical leave
and also surrendered 11 days of earned leave and he has
permitted to receive ` 1,28,626 towards the same and
it is also intimated to the Branch Manager by the Head
Office that no salary has been deducted from the salary
of the petitioner as stated by the petitioner and it was
stated by the Head Office to the Branch Manager that
whenever, the joining instruction is given to the worker
who have been transferred from District to District the
joining time is only upto 5 days and within District it
is only 3 days and no joining time will be given in the
transfer on request.
12. The
first
contention
of
the
respondent
corporation is that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner since he
was working under Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation,
the respondent herein and the said corporation is
having Head Office at Chennai and the petitioner was
also appointed at Chennai. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner was working at Puducherry Branch of the
respondent transport corporation and while he was
working at Puducherry he has raised the industrial
dispute and the same was referred by the Government
to this Tribunal and that therefore, this Tribunal has
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as the cause of
action for the dispute arose at Puducherry and hence,
the contention raised by the respondent corporation
that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the
above industrial dispute is not sustainable and the said
contention is also untenable.
13. The second contention of the respondent
corporation is that the petitioner is not entitled for
over time wages at twice the rate of ordinary wages as
per Motor Transport Workers Act and he is also not
entitled for weekly holiday wages for the period from
1994 to 2012 and other retirement benefits. The
petitioner has claimed that he is entitled for twice the
rate of regular wages for the overtime work. It is
evident from Ex.P4 the letter issued by the respondent
corporation on 11-09-2009 that the respondent
corporation itself has sent a circular to the Branch
Managers directing to pay ` 178 to the Conductors who
are working at weekly holidays and doing overtime
work. The petitioner has exhibited the Judgement of
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras under Ex.P1 from
which it is clear that motor transport workers are
entitled for extra wages as per Act apart from the
compensatory holiday if, they worked in the rest days
810
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[3 July 2018
to prevent the dislocation of bus service and though
the worker has taken compensatory holiday that will
not disable the worker from seeking extra wages as per
sec.26 of the Act and it is also clear from the
observation of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in
Judgement under Ex.P1 that if, the motor transport
worker is required to work on any day of rest under
sub-sec.(2) of sec.19, he shall be entitled for wages at
the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect
of the work done on the day of rest. From the above
observation it is clear that if, motor transport worker
is working overtime he would be entitled for twice the
wage as claimed by the petitioner.
14. The section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers
Act is referred which runs as follows :
“26. Extra wages for overtime.. (1) Where an
adult motor transport worker works for more than
eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the
first provision to section 13 or where he is required
to work on any day of rest under sub-section (2) of
section 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate
of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the
overtime work or the work done on the day of rest,
as the case may be,
(2) Where an adult motor transport worker works
for more than eight hours in any day in any case
referred to in the second proviso to section 13, he
shall be entitled to wages in respect of the overtime
work at such rates as may be prescribed,
(3) Where an adolescent motor transport worker
is required to work on any day of rest under sub
section (2) of sub-section 19, he shall be entitled to
wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages
in respect of the work done on the day of rest,
(4) For the purposes of this section, “ordinary
rate of wages” in relation to a motor transport
worker means his basic wages plus dearness
allowance.”
From the above provision it is clear that the
transport workers are entitled for twice the rate of
regular wages whenever they done overtime. In this
case, it is not disputed by the respondent management
that they have paid only ` 75 per hour as overtime
wages and earlierly it was paid only one and half time
of rate of regular wages instead of twice the regular
wage and therefore, the respondent corporation has to
pay the over time wages at the rate of twice the regular
wages and that therefore, it is to be held that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over non-payment of overtime
wages, weekly holiday wages for the period from 1994
to 2012 and retirement benefits is justified. However,
the petitioner has claimed overtime wages for the
period from January 1984 to 2012 and in support of
his claim the petitioner has filed the annexure for
calculating the overtime wages while the reference is
only to decide the overtime wages for the period from
1994 to 2012 and furthermore, the annexure filed by
the petitioner for claiming the overtime wages as well
weekly holiday wages is not supported by any
documentary evidence and that therefore, this Tribunal
cannot pass an Award in favour of the petitioner as
claimed in the claim petition to the tune of ` 6,78,157
since the calculation was not supported by any
documentary evidence.
15. In the result, the petition is allowed and the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the
respondent management over non-payment of overtime
wages, weekly holiday wages for the period from 1994
to 2012 and retirement benefits is justified and Award
is passed directing the respondent corporation to pay
overtime wages at the rate of twice the regular wages
to the petitioner after deducting the amount if any,
already paid to him as overtime wages and also
directed the respondent management to pay weekly
holiday wages for the period from 1994 to 2012 along
with retirement benefits if any. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 13th day of March, 2018.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW1
—28-04-2016 Chellappan
List of petitioner’s exhibits:
Ex.P1 —09-12-1993 Copy of the Judgment in
Writ Petition Nos. 2132/
1995 of the Hon’ble High
Court Judicature at Madras.
Ex.P2
—
Original order in PW Case
No. 2/1997.
Ex.P3 —06-03-2012 Original letter No. 465/
55393/PIO/RTI/2011.
Ex.P4 —11-09-2009 Attested copy of Circular
Memo No. 260/E8/SETC/07.
811
3 July 2018]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Ex.P5 —21-08-2000 Copy of the complaint
No. 692/LO(e)/AIL-IV-2000
given to the Labour Officer
(Enforcement).
Ex.P6
—
Copy of the registration
certificate issued by the
Labour Department.
Ex.P7 —13-06-2013 Copy of the complaint
No. 1375/LO(e)AIL-I/2013
given to the Labour Officer
(Enforcement).
Ex.P8 —28-03-1992 Original proceedings No.
107/P2/TTC/92.
12-03-2008 Original Memo No. 694/P2/
SETC(TN)/Pdy.
Ex.P9 —10-08-1993 Original proceedings
No. 1016/S2/TTC/92.
Ex.P10—06-03-1997 Original proceedings
No. 1882/P2/TTC/97.
Ex.P11
—
Copy of the pay settlement
pending 2010 November.
Ex.P12—
1997 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (10 Nos.).
Ex.P13—
1998 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P14—
1999 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P15—
2000 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P16—
2001 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P17—
2002 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (11 Nos.).
Ex.P18—
2003 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P19—
2004 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (11 Nos.).
Ex.P20—
2005 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (10 Nos.).
Ex.P21—
2006 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P22—
2007 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (11 Nos.).
Ex.P23—
2008 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P24—
2009 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P25—
2010 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P26—
2011 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (12 Nos.).
Ex.P27—
2012 Original salary slips of the
petitioner (5 Nos.).
Ex.P28—31-05-2013 Copy of the reply given by
the Information Officer,
SETC, Chennai.
Ex.P29—09-06-1999 Copy of the proceeding.
List of respondent’s witness:
RW1
—22-09-2017 C. Jayakumar
List of respondent’s exhibits:
Ex.R1 —27-07-2015 Copy of final settlement of
P.F. with enclosed cheque.
Ex.R2 —08-09-2017 Copy of letter relating to
CSR issued by SETC (HR
Section).
Ex.R3 —06-09-2017 Letter regarding Medical
leave and Earned leave.
Ex.R4 —06-09-2017 Letter relating to salary
certificate enclosed with
salary slip November, 2011
and June, 2011.
Ex.R5 —06-09-2017 Letter regarding settlement
towards
Social
Welfare
fund.
Ex.R6 —19-07-2017 Letter regarding parawar
request.
G. THANENDRAN,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
HOME DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 29, Puducherry, dated 13th June 2018)
NOTIFICATION
Under rule 7 (2) (a) of the Pondicherry Police Service
Rules 2003, the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry, is
pleased to appoint the following officers on regular
basis in the Entry Grade of Puducherry Police Service
with effect from 17-5-2018 onwards as per the
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion
Committee held on 17-5-2018:-