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

[253]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2022 }

\VÏﬂ |

29 {

No.

13 Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mars

2022 (8 Chaitra 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

29th

March

2022

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

254

Sentence arbitr al du Travail

.. 254

Award of the Labour Court .. 254

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

259

Notifications du Gouvernement

.. 259

Government Notifications

259

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

265

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 265

Tender Notice

265

∞È ∂§s©Ad

267

Vente publique

.. 267

Auction notice

267

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

268

Etablissements dangereux

.. 268

Dangerous Establishments

268

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

270

Annonces

.. 270

Announcements

270

254

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[29 March 2022

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 36/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 1st March 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 04/2016, dated

08-10-2021 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial Dispute between

the management of M/s. Shoney Scientific India,

Puducherry and the employees Thiru N. Karunakaran

and 23 others as listed in the Annexure-I, over illegal

closure 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.

Friday, the 8th day of October 2021.

I.D. (T) No. 04/2016

C.N.R. No. PYPY060000372016

1. N. Karunakaran

2. M. Ezhumalai

3. A. Mounissamy

4. P. Lakshmi

5. A. Albert

6. K. Sunitha

7. S. Aroumougam

8. Tangaraj

9. S. Srinivasan

10. S. Kanchana

11. L. Mugilan

12. P. Selvi

13. P. Prema

14. S. Shakila

15. S. Kala

16. P. Pushpavalli

17. D. Logeshwari

18. B. Vijayalakshmi

19. M. Stella

20. S. Annalakshmi

21. S. Dhanalakshmi

22. R. Manimozhi

23. K. Kanagam

24. A. Sasikala

All are members of Shoney

Scientific India Thozhilalar Nala

Sangam, Reg. No.1814/TRU/2016

No. 22, Chetticulam Street,

Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Puducherry. . . Petitioners

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Shoney Scientific India,

A30/B, Industrial Estate,

Thattanchavady, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 14-09-2021 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

P.R. Thiruneela Kandan and A. Mithun Chakravarthy,

Counsels for the petitioners and Thiru Law Solvers,

Counsel for the respondent, upon hearing both sides,

upon perusing the case records, after having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the

Government of Puducherry as per the G.O. Rt. No. 96/

AIL/Lab./T/2016, dated 19-10-2016 for adjudicating the

following:-

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the employees

N. Karunakaran and 23 others against the management

of M/s. Shoney Scientific India, Puducherry, over

illegal closure is justified or not? If justified, what

relief the employees are entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioners are workmen working in the

respondent company for more than 24 years. The

respondent management is giving only meager wages

255

29 March 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

to the petitioners. The petitioners are not getting any

benefits contemplated under labour laws. The

workman who were attempted to form Trade Union

were victimized and denied employment by the

respondent. In the year 2015 the petitioners have

started Shoney Scientific India Thozhilalar Nala

Sangam on 30-09-2015 the petitioners have presented

their application before the Registrar of Trade Union

for the registration of their newly formed Trade

Union. The members of the Union were threatened

by the respondent management. The respondent

management without any prior notice suspended the

production and denied employment to the petitioners.

The respondent issued closure notice on 30-01-2016,

the respondent stated that due to market condition

and inadequate orders to carry out the manufacturing

activities, close down the factory. The respondent

still running the same line of business, the closure

of respondent factory is not real. In order to terminate

the workers and thereby prevent them to form new

Trade Union the act of the respondent is unfair

labour practice as defined under Schedule 5 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent has

issued closure notice under section 25FFA of the

Industrial Disputes Act and the respondent has not

given 60 days prior notice as contemplated in the

said section.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed are as

follows:

The respondent is the proprietorship concern

engaged in manufacturing medical devices from the

year 1987. The respondent decided to close down the

business in January 2016 due to cut throat competition

in the market, declining orders and shifting of orders

to other company. The customers of the respondent

company suddenly stopped the purchase from

respondent company. More number of manufacturers

entered in the market with cheaper products the failure

of the company did not seem sustainable. The

respondent management left with no other alternative

close down the factory with effect from 31.01.2016. The

respondent has notified the decision of closure to all

statutory authorities as provided under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent has also paid full

and final settlement of the dues to all workmen and

credited the same in their salary account. The notice of

closure was communicated to the workmen. The

workmen approached the Labour Officer for Conciliation,

but, the Conciliation ended in failure, there were

50 employees working in the respondent company for

which the respondent has categorically followed the

procedure as such the closure of the factory is not

illegal and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief

as prayed for.

4. The points for consideration are:

(1) Whether the closure of respondent factory is

legal and justified?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any

monetary benefits?

5. PW1 Thiru Karunakaran deposed that himself and

others 23 petitioners were illegally denied the

employment with effect from 31-01-2016. The averments

stated in the claim statement may be treated as part and

parcel of the proof affidavit. The petitioner has filed

Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. This Court already put brief averments

of the claim statements in the earlier paragraphs of the

order. RW1 in his evidence deposed that the respondent

is the proprietorship concern engaged in the business

of manufacturing medical devices since 1987 with 35

employees. Due to cut throat competition in the market

and three major customers has shifted to place orders

to other companies and there was also new manufactures

ventured in this field. The management has no other

alternative except to close down the Unit irrevocably.

To this effect the management has notified its decision

on 31-01-2016 to the statutory authorities and also

to the workmen. The workmen has approached the

Labour Officer (Conciliation) and raised the Industrial

Dispute by the representation, dated 02-02-2016, but,

the Conciliation ended in failure. The respondent has

duly complied with the procedure contemplated under

Industrial Disputes Act closure of undertaking were

employees are less than 50 workers. The respondent has

also deposited the monetary entitlements to the

petitioners on the date of closure. The closure of the

factory of the respondent with effect from 31-01-2016

is not illegal and there was no unfair labour practice on

the part of the respondent.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that

PW1 along with 23 other workers where in continuous

employment in the respondent company for more than

24 years. The respondent has paid only meager wages

and has not followed the Industrial Dispute Act and

other Labour Laws. When the petitioner started Union

for collective bargaining with the respondent, the same

was described by the respondent and the workmen were

threatened by the management. While so the respondent

issued closure notice on 30-01-2016 without following

the procedure contemplated in Industrial Dispute Act.

The respondent has pressurized some of the workmen

to accept the settlement. The learned Counsel for the

petitioner submit that the respondent has shifted the

machineries and raw materials to some other places and

still doing the same line of business.

256

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[29 March 2022

7. It is further submitted even before the Labour

Officer Conciliation the respondent was not co-operated

hence, the Conciliation ended in failure. The petitioners

have made several representations to the Enforcement

Officer, Labour Department, Puducherry, the Commissioner,

Labour Department, Puducherry, the Factories Inspector

in Puducherry on various dates to redress the grievances.

When the respondent removed the machineries and raw

material from the factory premises the petitioner has

given complaint to the Inspector of Police, D’Nagar

Police Station. The respondent has not followed section

25 FFA of Industrial Dispute Act and the closure of

factory without following the procedure amounts to

illegal closure and prayed for re-instatement of the

petitioners along with all entitlements.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit

that the respondent is a proprietorship concern engaged

in manufacturing medical devices. Its business is mainly

based on three major customers. Due to decline in

shifting orders and the major customers placed the

orders with some other companies. The respondent

suffered a lot and the situation cannot be reviving back.

When the situation is beyond the control of the

employer, he has issued closure notice on 31-01-2016

and on same day the statutory entitlements of the

petitioners were deposited in their salary accounts.

Since the respondent company is working with less than

50 number of workers, the respondent has got exempted

from following the principles laid down in section 25 FFA

of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for

the respondent submit that the respondent never

started a company elsewhere and the contention of the

petitioner to this effect is totally false and fictitious.

It is further submitted that out of 35 members 10 number

of employees has accepted the settlement and received

their amounts. The receipt signed by the employees

were marked as Ex.R12 to R22. The respondent has given

statutory notice to the Director, Department of

Industries to cancel their registration. The respondent

also sent notice to the Commissioner, Oulgaret Municipality

and Department of Commercial Taxes Officer, Government

of Puducherry on 30-01-2016. The respondent has sent

closure report to the Secretary to the Government of

Puducherry which was received by them on 01-02-2016.

To satisfy the requirements of law the respondent has

also sent individual closure notice to all the petitioners

and acknowledgments were marked as Ex.R1 series.

The respondent having a right to start the business

also having a right to close down the business when

the circumstances is beyond his control. The only thing

is the respondent has to follow the procedure contemplated

under law in present case. The respondent management

has strictly followed the procedure and also deposited

the compensation amount in the account of the

petitioners as such there is no illegality in the closure

of the factory.

9. This Court has carefully considered the submission

made by the petitioners and on the side of the

respondent management. PW1 Karunakaran and 23

others have raised the Industrial Dispute which is referred

to this Court for adjudication. When the petitioners has

started Shoney Scientific India Thozhilalar Nala Sangam

and has attempted to register the same with the

Registrar of Trade Union, the respondent has closed his

business to victimize the petitioners is the allegation

levelled by the petitioners. It is contended that the

petitioner side without any prior notice the respondent

suspended production and denied employment to the

petitioners. The respondent has issued notice on

31-01-2016 for closure of the factory with effect

from 31-01-2016. From the evidence of PW1 it is clear

that on 30-01-2016 when they went to the company

notice in Form Q was pasted in the company main gate.

On the perusal of the records it is seen from the Ex.P1

that Shoney Scientific India Thozhilalar Nala Sangam,

Puducherry was registered on 25-10-2016. There is no

proof filed by the petitioners that the company was

closed by the respondent as a vindictive measure since

the petitioners attempted to start Union.

10. It is clear from RW1 Thiru Rajesh Shoney that

on 31-01-2016, he has declared the closure of the factory

since, they were unable to get the required order from

the major customers and also the customers has placed

the orders with some other companies. Since, the

present market condition indicates impossibilities to

bring back on profitable line and there is no adequate

orders and there is no likelihood of revival of the factory

in future. It is clear in Ex.R1 notice, dated 31-01-2016

the salary for the month of January of 2016 notice pay

under section 25 FFA of Industrial Disputes Act, closure

compensation, gratuity proportionate bonus from

October 2015 to January 2016 and leave encashment

wherever applicable has calculated and deposited in the

salary account of all the employees which is submitted

by the PW1. The respondent has also issued R3 and

R4 notice to all the statutory authorities.

11. From the evidence of PW1 Karunakaran, it is clear

that there are only 35 employees working in the

respondent company under section 25 FFA “1. An

employer who intends to close down an undertaking

shall serve, at least sixty days before the date on which

the intended closure is to become effective, a notice,

in the prescribed manner, on the appropriate Government

257

29 March 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

stating clearly the reasons for the intended closure of

the undertaking: Provided that nothing in this section

shall apply to:

(a) an undertaking in which

(i) less than fifty morkmen are employed, or

(ii) less than fifty workmen were employed on

an average per working day in the preceding

twelve months,

(b) an undertaking set up for the construction of

building, bridges, roads, canals, dams or for other

construction work or project.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in

sub-section (1), the appropriate Government may,

if, it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional

circumstances as accident in the undertaking

or death of the employer or the like it is necessary

so to do, by order, direct that provisions of

sub-section (1) shall not apply in relation to such

undertaking for such period as may be specified in

the order”.

12. Since, the respondent company has got exemption

under section 25 FFA, the retrenchment compensation

has to be paid as per clause B of section 25 of Industrial

Disputes Act which shall not exceed his average pay for

three months. No doubt, while effecting retrenchment

it is obligatory on the part of the employer to pay

retrenchment compensation. The employer has to follow

the procedure contemplated under Industrial Disputes

Act such as the workmen must be informed about the

decision of retrenchment notice must be given to the

workmen stating the reason for closure and the workmen

must be compensated at the time of retrenchment. As

per the Ex.P1 all the employees were given notice about

closure along with reason for closure. The notice was

also pasted on the main gate of the factory premises.

The respondent has deposited the monetary entitlements

to all the petitioners in their salary account. About ten

number of employees has accepted the settlement and

has singed in the receipt which is marked as Ex.R12 to

R22. The notice of closure along with reason for closure

was communicated to all the statutory authorities.

During the pendency of the case petitioner P7, P14 and

P21 are not contesting the case which is admitted by

PW1.

13. The reasons for closure of the factory as stated

by the respondent is that there is a decline in getting

the orders and the major customers were placing their

orders with some other companies and due to the

present market condition which indicates impossibility

to bring back the company on profitable line and since

there was no likelihood to review the business in the

near future, the respondent has taken a decision of

closing down the business. This Court is of the

considered opinion that the reason stated for closure

of the factory is acceptable. The petitioners failed to

prove that the respondent has started another company

on the same line. The petitioners have also failed to

prove that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour

practice. From the discussions above made, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the respondent

M/s. Shoney Scientific India, closing its factory is

justified and there is no illegality. The respondent has

already paid the monetary entitlements with the salary

accounts of the petitioners.

14. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the

8th day of October, 2021.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 06-12-2017

N. Karunakaran

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 25-10-2016

Copy of the Certificate of

Registration

Trade

Union.

Ex.P2

— 30-01-2016

Copy of respondent closure

notice.

Ex.P3

— 01-02-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P4

— 02-02-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P5

— 02-02-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter

to the Respondent Management.

Ex.P6

— 08-02-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter

to the Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P7 —

Copy of Plaint copy of O.S.

No. 617/2016.

Ex.P8

— 11-04-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P9

— 04-05-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Conciliation Officer.

258

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[29 March 2022

Ex.P10 — 09-02-2016

Copy of Conciliation Notice.

Ex.P11 — 11-04-2016

Copy of respondent reply

to the Labour Officer

Conciliation.

Ex.P12 —

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Lieutenant-Governor.

Ex.P13 — 11-07-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Enforcement Officer.

Ex.P14 — 11-07-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P15 — 11-07-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Chief Inspector of

Factories.

Ex.P16 — 11-07-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P17 — 31-08-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P18 — 12-09-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter

the

Station

House

Officer, D’Nagar Police

Station.

Ex.P19 — 15-09-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter

to the Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P20 — 30-09-2016

Copy of petitioner’s letter to

the Labour Commissioner.

Ex.P21 — 21-09-2016

Copy of Conciliation Failure

Report.

List of respondent’s witness:

RW.1

— 19-11-2019

Rajesh Shoney

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1 —

Acknowledgment Cards

(1 to 30 Nos.)

Ex.R2

— 30-01-2016

Copy of the notice of

Closure displayed by the

management to the main

gate of the factory.

Ex.R3

— 02-02-2016

Original document of the

notice of Closure issued by

the management to the

Chief Inspector of Factories,

Labour Department.

Ex.R4

— 02-02-2016

Copy of the notice of

closure

issued

the

management to the Social

Security

Officer

ESI

Corporation, Pondicherry.

Ex.R5

— 02-02-2016

Copy of the notice of closure

issued by the management

to the Enforcement Officer,

EPF, Pondicherry.

Ex.R6

— 09-02-2016

Original document of the

notice of Enquiry issued by

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation)

the

management.

Ex.R7

— 02-02-2016

Copy of the representation

filed by the Trade Union,

before the Conciliation

Officer.

Ex.R8

— 11-04-2016

Copy of the reply filed

before the Conciliation

Officer by the management.

Ex.R9

— 01-02-2016

Copy

the

Postal

Acknowledgment Card of

the Secretary to Government

(Labour).

Ex.R10 — 01-02-2016

C o p y

o f

t h e

P o s t a l

Acknowledgment Card of the

Commissioner of Labour.

Ex.R11 — 01-02-2016

C o p y

o f

t h e

P o s t a l

Acknowledgment Card of the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.R12 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

K. Devaki.

Ex.R13 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

S. Dhanalakshmi.

Ex.R14 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

S. Aroumougam.

Ex.R15 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

S. Josephine.

259

29 March 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R16 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

A. Calaiselvy.

Ex.R17 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

B. Kalaiselvi.

Ex.R18 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

P. Anitha.

Ex.R19 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

G. Prabu.

Ex.R20 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

G. Abiramy.

Ex.R21 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

Kanakabhuzham.

Ex.R22 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Full and Final Settlement

receipt issued by the worker

S. Shakila.

Ex.R23 — 07-04-2016

Copy of the letter by the

respondent to the Director,

Department of Industries,

Government of Puducherry

to Cancel the Registration.

Ex.R24 — 25-04-2016

Original document of the

Letter by the Respondent to

the Commissioner, Oulgaret

Municipality to de-register

the Licence.

Ex.R25 — 25-04-2016

Copy of the letter by the

respondent to the Deputy

Commercial Tax Office,

Pondicherry to cancel the

VAT Registration Certificate.

Ex.R26 —

Copy of the Closure Report

Code No. PC/TB/PDY/

0000703000

the

Management.

Ex.R27 — 30-01-2016

Original document of the

Notice of Closure issued by

the Management to the

Labour Authorities, dated

30-01-2016 in Q Form.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 28/Lab./AIL/T/2022

Puducherry, dated 25th February 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between “M/s. Chemin C &

I Thozhilalar Nala Sangam, (Registration No. 1884/RTU/

2021)”, and the management of M/s. Chemin C & I

Private Limited, Puducherry, over reduction of leave in

respect of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this

order;

And whereas, in the opinion of the Government,

it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated

vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of

1947), it is hereby directed by Secretary to Government

(Labour) that the said dispute be referred to the

Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, for adjudication. The

Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, shall submit the Award

within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as

stipulated under sub-section 2-A of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with

rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957. The party raising the dispute shall file a statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses to the Industrial Tribunal,

Puducherry, within 15 days of the receipt of the order

of reference and also forward a copy of such statement

to each one of the opposite parties involved in the

dispute.

ANNEXURE

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioners

Union “M/s. Chemin C & I Thozhilalar Nala Sangam,

(Registration No. 1884/RTU/2021)”, against the