Puducherry Gazette, No. 5, 01 February 2022

Registered No. PY/44/2021-23 Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under No. 10410 Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry The Gazette of Puducherry

∂]ÔV´D ÿ✓u≈ ÿkπX| Publiée par Autorité Published by Authority ®ı Amﬂºƒˆ ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\ 2022 } ∏©´kˆ | 1 {

No. 5 Poudouchéry Mardi 1 Février 2022 (12 Magha 1943)

No. Puducherry Tuesday 1st February 2022

ÿ✓VÚ·¶¬ÔD SOMMAIRES CONTENTS

Page ✓¬ÔD Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ .. 58 Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 58 Award of the Labour Court .. 58

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 62 Notifications du Gouvernement .. 62 Government Notifications .. 62 Œ©✓ ∂§s©AÔ^ .. 63 Avis d' appel d' offres .. 63 Tender Notice . 63 g✓›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^ .. 64 Etablissements dangereux .. 64 Dangerous Establishments .. 64

.. 65 Announcements .. 65 ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 65 Annonces

[57]58 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [1 February 2022 GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 91/Lab./AIL/T/2021,

Puducherry, dated 27th December 2021)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 21/2020, dated 17-11-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between Management of M/s. Solara Active Pharma Sciences Limited, Periyakalapet, Puducherry, and Union workmen represented by Illanthalaivar Ragul Gandhi Puducherry Shasun Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam, Periyakalapet, Puducherry, over unfair practice 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 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette, Puducherry.

(By order)

D. MOHAN KUMAR, Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

This Industrial Dispute coming on this day before me for hearing, in the presence of Thiruvalargal S. Kathirvel, R. Lakshmanan, B. Sendhil and P. Seetharaman, Counsels for the petitioner and Thiru N. Devadass, Counsel for the respondent upon perusing the records, this Court passed the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt. No. 110/AIL/Lab./T/2020, dated 05-11-2020 of the Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent viz.,- (i) Whether the dispute raised by the Union workmen represented by Illanthalaivar Ragul Gandhi Puducherry Shasun Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam, Periyakalapet, Puducherry, against the management of M/s. Solara Active Pharma Sciences Limited, Periyakalapet, Puducherry, over unfair labour practice is justified or not? If justified, what relief the Union workmen are entitled to?

(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed?

2. Today, when the case came up for hearing, petitioner called absent. Respondent Counsel present. Claim statement not filed for several hearings. Petitioner called absent. No representation. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 17th day of November, 2021.

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L. Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 17th day of November 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

I.D. (L) No. 21/2020

in

CNR. No. PYPY060000552020

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 92/Lab./AIL/T/2021,

Puducherry, dated 28th December 2021)

The President, Illanthalaivar Ragul Gandhi Puducherry Shasun Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam, No. 110, Murugan Koil Street, Periyakalapet, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

NOTIFICATION

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s. Solara Active Pharma Sciences Limited, R.S. No. 33 and 34, Mathur Road, Periyakalapet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 24/2018, dated 06-10-2021 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between Management of M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited, Puducherry, and Thiru K. Krishnamurthy, Navarkulam, Puducherry, over reinstatement with back wages and unfair labour practice Puducherry has been received;

1 February 2022] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 59

(By order)

D. MOHAN KUMAR, Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed?

2. Today, when the case came up for hearing, both side present. It is represented by both sides that the matter is amicably settled between them. They have filed joint compromise memo based on the settlement arrived between the parties on 30-09-2021 as per section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Joint compromise memo filed by them is recorded. Award passed in terms of compromise memo. Joint compromise memo and settlement, dated 30-09-2021 shall form part of the Award. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY Present : Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L. Presiding Officer.

on this 6th day of October, 2021.

Wednesday, the 6th day of October 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

I.D. (L) No. 24/2018

in

CNR. No. PYPY060000452018

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 1/Lab./AIL/T/2021,

Puducherry, dated 4th January 2022)

Thiru K. Krishnamurthy, No. 51, Gurusithananda Street, Villianur Main Road, Navarkulam, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited, No. 6, St. Martin Street, Puducherry.

. . Respondent This Industrial Dispute coming on this day before me for hearing, in the presence of Thiru R. Mugundhan, Counsel for the petitioner, Thiru G. Krishnan, Counsel for the respondent, upon perusing the records, this Court passed the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arise out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt. No. 72/AIL/Lab./T/2018, dated 04-05-2018 of the Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following dispute between the petitioner and the respondent viz.,- (i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner Thiru K. Krishnamurthy, Navarkulam, Puducherry, against the management of M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited, Puducherry, over reinstatement with back wages and unfair labour practice is justified or not? If justified, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No.19/2020, dated 22-11-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute b e t w e e n M a n a g e m e n t o f M / s . S r i B h a r a t h i M i l l s (A Government of Puducherry Undertaking), Mudaliarpet, Puducherry and the Union workmen represented by Sri Bharathi Mill Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu Sangam, Koundanpalayam, Puducherry, over regularization of Thiruvalargal K. Murugan, D. Ilavarasan and Tmt. R. Saranya 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 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette, Puducherry.

(By order)

D. MOHAN KUMAR, Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

60 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [1 February 2022

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L. Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 22nd day of November 2021.

I.D. (L) No. 19/2020

in

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000522020

The President, Sri Bharathi Mill Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu Sangam, No. 61/2, First Floor, Aswini Hospital (Opp.), Vazhudavoor Road, Koundanpalayam, Puducherry. . . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills (A Government of Puducherry Undertaking), P.O. Box No. 10, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent This Industrial Dispute coming on 10-11-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal K. Velmurugan and P. Preethi, Counsels for the petitioner, the respondent being called absent and set ex parte, upon hearing the petitioner and perusing the case records, this Court delivered the following:

workmen Thiruvalargal Murugan, s/o. Kuppan, Saranya, w/o. Saravanan and Ilavarasan, s/o. Datchinamoorthy, were appointed by the respondent management for the post of Driver, Accountant Assistant and Sales Assistant on 25-03-2012, 09-10-2013 and 10-10-2013 respectively. All the petitioners were worked more than 240 days in every year under the respondent management till the year 2020. The respendent management extracted the work from workers till 2020. The respondent management fails to regularize the services of the petitioners. The petitioner workers were provided with Provident Fund coverage and ESI coverage. The petitioners through their Union has given representation to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 13-08-2018. Since, no amicable settlement was arrived between the parties to the dispute, the Labour Officer (Conciliation) has submitted failure report, dated 20-03-2020. All the three petitioners were worked in the respondent management for about 240 days in every year. Though, there are post permanently fell vacant in the respondent management, the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to became permanent workers and their services were not regularized. The respondent management has utilized the services of the petitioners for almost about 8 years and did not chosen to regularize them. Hence, the petition is filed to regularize the services of the three workers (detailed in the Annexure).

3. Points for consideration:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt. No. 103/AIL/Lab./T/2020, dated 13-10-2020 of the Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following dispute between the petitioners and the respondent viz., (a) Whether the dispute raised by the Union workmen represented by Sri Bharathi Mill Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu Sangam, Koundanpalayam, Puducherry, against the management of M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills (A Government of Puducherry Undertaking), Mudaliarpet, Puducherry, over r e g u l a r i z a t i o n o f T h i r u v a l a r g a l K . M u r u g a n , D. Ilavarasan and Tmt. R. Saranya, is justified or not? If justified, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms of money if, it can be so computed?

(i) Whether the non-employment of the petitioners Thiruvalargal Murugan, Ilavarasan and Saranya is justified?

(ii) To what other reliefs, the petitioners are entitled to?

4. Thiru K. Mohandas, was examined as PW1 and through him proof affidavit was filed. On behalf of the petitioner Union Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked on the petitioner side. Even after the grant of several opportunities, the respondent was not turned up and the respondent was set ex parte.

2. Brief averments made in the claim Statement of

the petitioner:

The respondent Mills was indulged in spinning and weaving of threads which are required for manufacturing garments. The three petitioner 5. PW1 in his evidence deposed that the petitioners are working with the respondent management from the year 2012 in order to meet out the requirements of the respondent management. The petitioners Thiruvalargal Murugan, Saranya and Ilavarasan were appointed in the year of 2012 and 2013. All the petitioners were worked in the respondent management for more than 240 days in each year from the date of their appointment till the year 2020. The act of the respondent management in not regularising the services of the petitioners are1 February 2022] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 61 arbitrary, unlawful and not valid in law. There are several permanent posts fell vacant in the respondent company. However, the respondent management did not chosen to regularise them, despite the fact that the petitioners were worked with the respondent for the past 8 years.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to regularize the services of all the three petitioner workmen from the date of their eligibility for regularization. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 22nd day of November, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner's witness:

PW.1 — 10-11-2021 Mohandas

List of petitioner's exhibits:

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that all the three individuals are represented through the petitioner. On perusal of exhibits it will be clear that the petitioners are worked with the respondent management in various capacity for a long time. The request of the petitioners to regularize the services does not given effect by the management. Hence, the petitioners were given representation to the Labour Officer (Conciliation). Even before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) the respondent has not appeared. The respondent was not correct in not regularising the services of the petitioners though they have put in continuous services of 8 years. During which period, all the petitioners were attended duty for more than 240 days in each year.

7. This Court has carefully considered the oral submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has also considered the evidence of PW1 and the Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked through PW1. The petitioners were appointed by the respondent management on 25-03-2012, 09-10-2013 and 10-10-2013 respectively. According to the petitioners they were worked in the services of the respondent management for more than 240 days in each year. The work of the petitioners is perennial in nature and the respondent has continuously utilized the services of the petitioners for about 8 years. The petitioners given representation to the respondent management for regularising the services which was not considered by the respondent. It is learnt from the petitioners proof affidavit filed by the PW1 that several permanent post were kept vacant due to superannuation the same posts were not fell by the respondent management.

8. The petitioners are served in the respondent management for about 8 years and their services were not regularized. The respondent management ought to have regularized the services of the petitioners. Our Hon'ble Apex Court and Our Hon'ble High Court repeatedly held in number of decisions that the services of the employee who has worked in a company for more than 240 days and the nature of job is perennial in nature their services needs to be regularized. Having considered the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the regularization of the petitioners are justifiable.

Ex.P1 — 06-02-2016 Xerox copy of the Office Order issued by the respondent to the petitioner workman Murugan.

Ex.P2 — 20-01-2017 Xerox copy of the Certificate issued by the respondent to the petitioner workman Murugan.

Ex.P3 — November Xerox copy of the Pay slip of 2016 the petitioner workman

Murugan.

Ex.P4 — 18-04-2019 Xerox copy of the Office Order issued by the Nodal Officer, Transport Management to petitioner workman Murugan.

Ex.P5 — 14-06-2018 Xerox copy of the representation given by the petitioner workman Murugan to the respondent management.

Ex.P6 — 31-07-2018 Xerox copy of the representation given hy the petitioner workman Murugan to the respondent management.

Ex.P7 — 11-11-2013 Xerox copy of the ESI Identity Certificate of the petitioner workman Saranya.

Ex.P8 — 14-10-2021 Xerox copy of the Employees Provident Fund member passbook of the petitioner workman Saranya.

62 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [1 February 2022

Ex.P9 — November Xerox copy of the Pay slip of 2013 t h e p e t i t i o n e r w o r k m a n

Saranya.

Ex.P10 — 22-06-2015 Xerox copy of the representation given by the petitioner workman Saranya to the respondent management.

Ex.P11 — 06-07-2016 Xerox copy of the representation given by the petitioner workman Saranya to the respondent management.

Ex.P12 — 02-08-2018 Xerox copy of the representation given by the petitioner workman Saranya to the respondent management.

Ex.P13 — Xerox copy of the ESI Identity Card of the petitioner workman Ilavarasan.

Ex.P14 — November Xerox copy of the casual 2016 wages of the petitioner

workman Ilavarasan.

Ex.P15 — December X e r o x c o p y o f t h e P F 2013 Contribution Statement of the petitioner workman Ilavarasan.

Ex.P16 — 06-07-2016 Xerox copy of the representation given by the petitioner workman Ilavarasan to the respondent management.

Ex.P17 — 13-08-2018 Xerox copy or the representation given by the petitioner representative to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P18 — 20-03-2020 Xerox copy of the failure report submitted by the Labour Officer (Conciliation) Puducherry.

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑ ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ \uÆD k¬‡A mÁ≈ (∂´∑ gÁð ✓ÈkÁÔ ®ı 134/÷ƒW./ºÔV.3/2021/621, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÂV^ 2021 } ÛÁÈ | 29{)

gÁð

Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈD, s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[, cÆÁkBVÆ, ∂Ú^tz ]ÿ´·✓]BD\[ º>k¸>V™D, ∂´∑ gÁð ✓ÈkÁÔ ®ı 73/÷ƒW./ºÔV.3/2017, ÂV^ 21á03á2017á[ JÈD WBt¬Ô©✓'¶ ∂≈∫ÔVk_ zøs[ ✓>s¬ÔVÈD xΩkÁ¶Õ> WÁÈl_ WÏk˛¬Ô©✓'| kÚ˛≈m.

2. º\u✓Ω, gÈB›Á> ÿƒDÁ\BVÔ WÏk˛¬zD ÿ✓VÚ'| ÷À∂≈∫ÔVk_ zøsuz ✓]ÈVÔ ºkÆ ŒÚ E≈©A ∂]ÔVˆÁB WB\™D ÿƒFm WÏk˛©✓m ÷[§BÁ\BV>m ®[Æ ∂´ƒV_ ÔÚ>©✓|˛≈m.

3. ®™ºk, 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ ƒ'¶D 4(1)ágD ∏ˆs[ˇµ kw∫Ô©✓'|^· ∂]ÔV´∫ÔÁ·ﬂ ÿƒK›], Amﬂºƒˆ, ÿ✓ÚÕ>ÁÈkÏ ÔV\´V¤Ï ºk·Vı ∂§sB_ WÁÈB›]_ c>s ✓luÆÂ´VÔ ✓ Ë A ˆ • D ]Ú. x. ƒÕ]´V>´[ ∂kÏÔ^, cÆÁkBVÆ, ∂Ú^tz ]ÿ´·✓]BD\[ º>k¸>V™›]uz ƒD✓·D ÿ✓≈Vﬂ E≈©A ∂]ÔVˆBVÔ ∂´ƒV_ ÷>[ JÈD WB\™D ÿƒFB©✓|˛≈VÏ.

4. ]Ú. x. ƒÕ]´V>´[, c>s ✓luÆÂÏ, ÿ✓ÚÕ>ÁÈkÏ ÔV\´V¤Ï ºk·Vı ∂§sB_ WÁÈBD, Amﬂºƒˆ ∂kÏÔ^, º\uÌ§B º>k¸>V™›][ WÏkVÔ›Á>, ∂>[ ∂Áƒ•D, ∂ÁƒBVﬂ ÿƒV›m¬Ô^ \uÆD ÷>´ gkð∫Ô"¶[ ✓ > s s È z D ∂ ≈ ∫ Ô V k È Ï z ø s ¶ t Ú Õ m ÿ✓VÆ©º✓uÆ¬ÿÔVı|, ∂´∑› mÁ≈l_ >V[ k˛¬zD ✓>s¬z¬ Ì|>ÈVÔ°D, 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ ƒ'¶D \uÆD ∂>[ˇµ cÚkV¬Ô©✓'|^· s]Ô"¬z ÷ð∫Ô°D, º>k¸>V™›][ WÏkVÔ›Á> ÔkM›m k´ºkı|D.

5. 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ ƒ'¶D \uÆD ∂>[ ˇµ ÷Bu≈©✓'¶ s]Ô"¬z'✓'| E≈©A ∂]ÔVˆ, ]Ú¬ºÔVlÁÈ WÏk˛¬Ô Ô¶Á\©✓'¶k´VkVÏ. º\KD, E≈©A ∂]ÔVˆ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬Ô ºkıΩB EÈ x¬˛B ✓ËÔ^ ˇºw ÿÔV|¬Ô©✓'|^·™.

(i) ºÔVlK¬zﬂ ÿƒVÕ>\V™ ÔVo \Á™Ô^, ºÔVlÁÈﬂ ∑ u § • ^ · ÷ ¶ ∫ Ô ^ \ u Æ D º Ô V l _ z · ∫ Ô Á · › #Ï kVÚ>_ \uÆD ∑›>D ÿƒF>_ ÷ÁkÔÁ· c^·¶¬˛B {Ï gı¶§¬ÁÔlÁ™ ƒ\Ï©∏›>_ ºkı|D.

List of respondent's witnesses: NIL

List of respondent's exhibits: NIL

R. BHARANIDHARAN, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.

(iv) ºÔVl_ k´°, ÿƒÈ° Ôð¬zÔÁ· xÁ≈BVÔ ✓´V\ˆ›>_ \uÆD ∂¬Ôð¬˛Á™ gı|¬z ŒÚxÁ≈ Ôð¬z \uÆD ÔÚ∆ÈÔ› mÁ≈ JÈD >Ë¬ÁÔ ÿƒF>ÁÈ cÆ] ÿƒFBºkı|D.