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

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

Registered No. PY/44/2021-23

[57]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2022 }

∏©´kˆ |

1 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2022 (12 Magha 1943)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

1st

February

2022

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

Notifications du Gouvernement

Government Notifications

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

Tender Notice

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

Etablissements dangereux

Dangerous Establishments

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

Annonces

Announcements

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).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 17th day of November 2021.

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

CNR. No. PYPY060000552020

The President,

Illanthalaivar Ragul Gandhi Puducherry

Shasun Thozhilalargal Nala Sangam,

No. 110, Murugan Koil Street,

Periyakalapet,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Solara Active Pharma Sciences Limited,

R.S. No. 33 and 34, Mathur Road,

Periyakalapet,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

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.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

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

Puducherry, dated 28th December 2021)

NOTIFICATION

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

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).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 6th day of October 2021.

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

CNR. No. PYPY060000452018

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?

(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,

on this 6th day of October, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

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

Puducherry, dated 4th January 2022)

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

between Management of M/s. Sri Bharathi Mills

Government

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).

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

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:

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

regularization of Thiruvalargal K. Murugan,

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?

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

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:

(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.

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 are

1 February 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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.

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.

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:

Ex.P1

— 06-02-2016 Xerox copy of the Office

Order

issued

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

petitioner

workman

Murugan.

Ex.P5

— 14-06-2018

Xerox

copy

the

representation given by the

petitioner

workman

Murugan to the respondent

management.

Ex.P6

— 31-07-2018 Xerox

copy

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

the

Employees Provident Fund

member passbook of the

petitioner workman Saranya.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[1 February 2022

Ex.P9

— November

Xerox copy of the Pay slip of

2013

the petitioner workman

Saranya.

Ex.P10 — 22-06-2015

Xerox

copy

the

representation given by

the petitioner workman

Saranya to the respondent

management.

Ex.P11 — 06-07-2016

Xerox

copy

the

representation given by

the petitioner workman

Saranya to the respondent

management.

Ex.P12 — 02-08-2018

Xerox

copy

the

representation given by

the petitioner workman

Saranya to the respondent

management.

Ex.P13 —

Xerox copy of the ESI

Identity

Card

the

petitioner

workman

Ilavarasan.

Ex.P14 — November

Xerox copy of the casual

2016

wages of the petitioner

workman Ilavarasan.

Ex.P15 — December

Xerox copy of the PF

2013

Contribution Statement of

the

petitioner workman

Ilavarasan.

Ex.P16 — 06-07-2016

Xerox

copy

the

representation given by the

petitioner

workman

Ilavarasan

the

respondent management.

Ex.P17 — 13-08-2018

Xerox

copy

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.

List of respondent’s witnesses: NIL

List of respondent’s exhibits: NIL

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ �ÆD 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[

2. º�√Ω, gÈB›Á> ÿƒDÁ\BVÔ WÏk˛¬zD ÿ√VÚ‚|

ÔÚ>©√|˛≈m.

3. ®™ºk, 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B

∂]ÔV´∫ÔÁ·ﬂ ÿƒK›], Amﬂºƒˆ, ÿ√ÚÕ>ÁÈkÏ ÔV\´V¤Ï

ºk·Vı ∂§sB_ WÁÈB›]_ c>s √luÆÂ´VÔ

√ËAˆ•D ]Ú. x. ƒÕ]´V>´[ ∂kÏÔ^, cÆÁkBVÆ,

∂Ú^tz ]ÿ´·√]BD\[ º>k¸>V™›]uz ƒD√·D ÿ√≈Vﬂ

ÿƒFB©√|˛≈VÏ.

4. ]Ú. x. ƒÕ]´V>´[, c>s √luÆÂÏ, ÿ√ÚÕ>ÁÈkÏ

ÔV\´V¤Ï ºk·Vı ∂§sB_ WÁÈBD, Amﬂºƒˆ ∂kÏÔ^,

º�Ì§B º>k¸>V™›][ WÏkVÔ›Á>, ∂>[ ∂Áƒ•D,

∂ÁƒBVﬂ ÿƒV›m¬Ô^ �ÆD ÷>´ gkð∫Ô”¶[

√>s

sÈzD

∂≈∫ÔVkÈÏ

zøs¶tÚÕm

√>s¬z¬ Ì|>ÈVÔ°D, 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm

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^

(i) ºÔVlK¬zﬂ ÿƒVÕ>\V™ ÔVo \Á™Ô^,

ºÔVlÁÈﬂ ∑u§•^· ÷¶∫Ô^ �ÆD ºÔVl_

z·∫ÔÁ·› #Ï kVÚ>_ �ÆD ∑›>D ÿƒF>_

÷ÁkÔÁ· c^·¶¬˛B {Ï gı¶§¬ÁÔlÁ™

WÁ≈ºku≈ xø Jﬂ∑¶[ ~|√|>_ ºkı|D.

(iii) ŒÀÿkVÚ kÚ¶›]uz\V™ c›º>ƒ k´°, ÿƒÈ°

(iv) ºÔVl_ k´°, ÿƒÈ° Ôð¬zÔÁ· xÁ≈BVÔ

√´V\ˆ›>_ �ÆD ∂¬Ôð¬˛Á™ gı|¬z ŒÚxÁ≈

Ôð¬z �ÆD ÔÚ∆ÈÔ› mÁ≈ JÈD >Ë¬ÁÔ ÿƒF>ÁÈ

cÆ] ÿƒFBºkı|D.