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

[533]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2022 }

ÛÁÈ |

19 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Juillet

2022 (28 Asadha 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

19th

July

2022

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^..

534

Sentence arbitral du travail

.. 534

Award of the Labour Court

.. 534

de tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

540

Notifications du Gouvernement

.. 540

Government Notifications

.. 540

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

552

Annonces

.. 552

Announcements

552

534

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 July 2022

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 104/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 27th June 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 11/2014, dated

15-03-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Soundararaja

Mills Limited, Nedungadu, Karaikal and its workman

Thiru R. Kannaiyan, over reinstatement with

back wages;

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)

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.

Tuesday, the 15th day of March 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 11/2014

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000024-2014

1. R. Kannaiyan (Died),

Rep. by his next friend/legal heir.

2. K. Nalini,

No. 21, Mill Colony,

Nedungadu, Karaikal.

. . Petitioners

Amended as per Order in I.A. No.276/2017 in I.D. (L)

No. 11/2014, dated 17-11-2017.

Versus

The Management,

Soundararaja Mills Limited,

Nedungadu, Karaikal.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 16-02-2022

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru N. Ramar, representative for the petitioner and

Thiru G. Jagadharaj, Counsel for the respondent, upon

hearing both sides, 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 as per the G.O. Rt. No. 19/AIL/Lab./J/2014,

dated 18-02-2014 for adjudicating whether the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioner Thiru R. Kannaiyan

against the management of Soundararaja Mills Limited,

Karaikal, over reinstatement with back wages is justified?

If justified, what relief, the petitioner is 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 petitioner’s husband the deceased Kannaian

joined in the respondent's organization in the

year 1983 and served as Maistry in the Department.

The respondent management received resignation

letters from the permanent employees by compulsion.

In the vacant place of permanent employees women

were employed for lesser wages without ESI and EPF

benefits. The deceased employee Kannaian refused

to give resignation letter as compelled by the

respondent management. The respondent management

assured him to pay ` 2,00,000 extra amount and also

work till retirement along with quarters. The

management has only paid ` 25,000 extra as promised

by the management, the respondent permitted the

deceased Kannaiyan to look after his Maistry, roller

covering guard for the period of 5 years and resided

in the workers quarters. The management refused to

give him employment from 03-10-2010. The

respondent management has also threatened him to

vacate the quarters. If at all, the employee resigned

voluntarily, he would have settled the accounts with

the company and vacated his quarters. The deceased

employee continued his permanent employment job

for the past 16 years and resided in the quarters.

As per the letter given by the management, dated

22-05-2005, the management is obliged to pay balance

` 75,000 and employment till the age of

superannuation.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the

respondent are as follows:

The petitioner has already resigned his job

voluntarily and received his retirement benefits

totaling ` 2,05,822 as early as on 29-12-2004 as full

535

19 July 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

and final settlement under section 18(1) with the

respondent on 06-12-2004. The management asked

him to vacate the quarters. In order to escape from

that the petitioner raised the present dispute without

any basis after a lapse of eight years. The petitioner

raised dispute before the Labour Officer as per letter,

dated 24-04-2012. No solution arrived at and the

Labour Officer has sent a failure report. The

petitioner has not raised dispute with regard to his

resignation. But, raised denial of employment from

03-10-2010 is baseless and utterly false. The

respondent never issued letter, dated 22-05-2005. The

petitioner after receiving the letters from the

respondent, dated 30-08-2011 and 12-09-2011 for

vacating the quarters has raised the present dispute

with mala fide intention. The present dispute raised

before the Labour Officer for Conciliation belatedly.

The respondent deny other allegations as false and

imaginary.

4. On the petitioner side Kannaiyan was examined

as PW.1 and through him proof affidavit was filed, Ex.Pl

to Ex.P10 were marked. On the respondent side RW.1

Kamaraj was examined, Ex.R1 to R26 were marked.

5. Points for consideration:

Whether the non-employment of petitioner

R. Kannaiyan in the respondent management is

justified and for what other relief, the petitioner is

entitled to?

6. On the petitioner side Tvl. Kannaiyan was

examined as PW.l and his chief affidavit was filed before

this Court. In his evidence PW.1 deposed that he was

joined in the services of the respondent management

in the year 1983 as Mason. The respondent management

has retrenched the permanent employees from the

company and has engaged employees for lower wages

as Scheme apprentice. The respondent has compelled

more than 700 employees who tendered resignation.

When, the petitioner has proceeded in tendering his

resignation, the respondent has promised to give him

2,00,000 amount as additional compensation and also

assured to give him employment till reach the age of 60.

Based on the assurance of the respondent, the

petitioner has tendered his resignation on 04-12-2014.

The petitioner has received a sum of ` 80,293 as gratuity

` 53,523 as Voluntary Retirement Scheme amount and

` 72,000 as compensation. For 4 years, the respondent

has given the petitioner employment in the roller

covering Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was

served as security for the monthly salary of ` 5,000. On

03-10-2010, the respondent management refused

employment to the petitioner. The respondent has also

directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters provided

for him in the factory campus. Since, there was no other

alternatives, the petitioner has approached the Labour

Commissioner (Conciliation) by raising an industrial

dispute. The respondent has filed counter, dated

22-06-2012

before

the

Labour

Commissioner

(Conciliation) stating that the contentions raised by the

petitioner are false and pray for dismissal of the

complaint. The petitioner further deposed that the

respondent has falsely stated that he was working as

security contractor with the respondent. Infact, the

petitioner was worked as Security in the respondent

factory. The petitioner is a workman under section 2(s)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After tendering

resignation, the petitioner served in the respondent

factory for about 6 years for the monthly salary of

` 5,000. The respondent has to pay the balance

retirement benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner has

every right to continue his possession in the quarters

occupied by him. The petitioner prayed for payment of

back wages for the non-employment period and also

direct the respondent for the payment of balance

amount to the petitioner and also for a direction not to

disturb his possession in the quarters.

7. On the respondent side Tvl. S. Kamaraj, Human

Resources Manager of the respondent factory was

examined as RW.l. Through him chief affidavit of RW.l

was filed. RW.l deposed that the petitioner has tendered

his resignation due to his family circumstances on

04-12-2004. The resignation was accepted by the

management on 05-12-2004. Thereafter, under section 18(1)

settlement was entered into between the petitioner and

the respondent management. The petitioner has

received a sum of ` 2,05,822 from the respondent

towards full and final settlement. The petitioner has also

signed in the receipt on 29-12-2004. There is no balance

amount payable to the petitioner thereafter. The

petitioner has falsely stated that the respondent has

paid only ` 1,25,000. The petitioner has not served in

the respondent factory as Mason for about 3 years. The

RW.l further deposed that based on continuous request

of the petitioner, he was given Security Contractor work

and the petitioner has supplied security personnel to

the factory. The petitioner was not served as a workman

after his voluntarily retirement. After the retirement, the

petitioner has received his EPF amount. After the death

of the petitioner Kannaiyan, presently his wife, the

second petitioner is receiving the EPF amount. The

petitioner being engaged as a contractor for supply of

manpower has now come with a false and frivolous plea

that he was a worker under the respondent management.

8. The representative of the petitioner in his vibrant

arguments submit that the petitioner has tendered

resignation on 04-12-2004 under Voluntary Retirement

536

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 July 2022

Service Scheme and has received the monetary dues

from the respondent. The petitioner has tendered his

resignation only on the assurance given by the

respondent that he will be permitted to occupy the

quarters till the age of 60 and a alternative employment

will be given to him by the respondent management.

Even after his retirement he continue to live in the

quarters and worked under the respondent management

by receiving a sum of ` 5,000 as salary. On 03-10-2010,

when the petitioner went to attend his regular job he

was prevented by the respondent management. Even

after repeated request, the petitioner was not given

employment and hence, he has raised an industrial

dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation). Even

after, the voluntary retirement given by the petitioner,

he was continuously engaged by the respondent and

the petitioner was worked as Mason for sometime and

working the roller of covering department for sometime

and thereafter, worked as a Security till 03-10-2010. The

petitioner was never engaged as a labour contractor by

the respondent. The petitioner was permitted by the

respondent to stay in the employees quarters provided

by the respondent. Since, the petitioner was given

reemployment by the respondent, there is an existence

of employer and employee relationship between the

petitioner and respondent. Since, the petitioner was

engaged by the respondent as Mason and also in the

roller covering department the nature of work done by

the petitioner is on par with the regular employee. The

work of the petitioner is supervised by the officials of

the respondent management and the petitioner was

continuously received ` 5,000 as salary. The representative

further contends that it is evident for the evidence of

RW.l that only employee of the respondent factory will

be allowed to stay in the quarters. The petitioner has

not received any licence from the Labour Department

for supply of labour to the respondent management and

the petitioner has not received any ESI code or PF code.

There is no agreement between the petitioner and the

respondent management for the supply of manpower to

the respondent factory. All along the petitioner after his

tendering resignation was worked in the respondent

factory continuously till 03-10-2010. The respondent

management without any justifiable reason has

retrenched him without extending any benefits entitled

to a “workman” under section 25(F) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of this

petition, the petitioner expired and his wife and

daughter were impleaded as petitioner. They are entitled

to claim the back wages for the non-employment period

and for other attendant benefits.

9. The learned Counsel for the respondent has

stoutly argued that the resignation tendered by the

petitioner was accepted by the respondent on 05-12-2004

and thereafter, under section 18(1) settlement was also

entered into between the parties. As per section 18(1)

settlement the petitioner has received ` 2,05,822 on

29-12-2004 as full and final settlement, from the

respondent. Thereafter, there is no employer and

employee relationship between the petitioner and the

respondent. The payment of amount of ` 2,05,822 is

evident from the notices issued by the petitioner on

18-09-2011 and 20-03-2012.

10. The learned Counsel for the respondent further

submit that after his resignation there is no agreement

entered into between the petitioner and the respondent.

The only agreement entered into between the petitioner

and the respondent is an agreement for the supply of

labour to the respondent factory. The petitioner has

received payments for the supply of manpower and he

has also signed in the receipt which was filed and

marked before this Court. The respondent has permitted

the petitioner to continue to occupy the quarters only

on humanitarian basis. Taking advantage of the lenience

shown by the respondent, the petitioner has continue

to occupy the quarters even after repeated demands

made by the respondent. After the death of the first

petitioner his wife has vacated the quarters and handed

over the possession to the respondent.

11. After his voluntarily retirement there is no

employer and employee relationship existed between the

petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has

supplied manpower and he was worked as a labour

contractor with the respondent factory. He was not a

"workman" as defined under section 2(s) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Counsel for the

respondent further submit that the petitioner has not

filed any document to establish that he was provided

with alternative employment after his resignation. The

petitioner has not submitted any proof for the receipt

of salary from the respondent. The petitioner failed to

establish the employer and employee relationship and

hence, is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the

petition and pray for dismissal of the petition.

12. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submissions made on both sides. There is no

disagreement between the parties that the petitioner

served in the respondent organization as Mason from

the year 1983. According to the petitioner, he has

resigned his job on the completion of the respondent

and also on the assurance given by the respondent that

he will be given alternative employment as well as

compensation package of ` 2,00,000 apart from their

emoluments entitled for the petitioner. The resignation

letter, dated 04-12-2004 given by the petitioner was

accepted by the respondent on 05-12-2004. Consequent

537

19 July 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

to 18(1) settlement, dated 06-12-2004 which is marked

as Ex.R3. The petitioner has received the sum of ` 80,293

towards gratuity, ` 53,529 towards Voluntary Retirement

Scheme settlement and the sum of ` 72,000 as

compensation. All the above amounts were received by

the petitioner and he has also signed receipt, dated

29-12-2004 towards full and final settlement. The

petitioner has also received the EPF amount.

13. On the petitioner side it was contented the

petitioner was forced to resign his job and he was also

given an assurance by the respondent that he will be

permitted to occupy the quarters till the age of 60 and

he will be provided with alternative employment till the

age of 60. The petitioner submit he was working as a

Mason and in the roller covering department after his

resignation and finally he served as security guard for

the monthly salary of ` 5,000.

14. On the respondent side it was contented that the

Ex.R12 service certificate was issued to the petitioner

from 01-04-1983 to 04-12-2004. The learned Counsel

during the course of argument submit that the alleged

service certificate, dated 21-01-2005 marked as Ex.R13

is a concocted document which was created by the

petitioner to substantiate his claim. The learned Counsel

has invited this Court attention to Ex.R9, R10 and R11

to establish that the petitioner was worked as contractor

under the respondent management for the supply of

man power. Eventhough, there is no specific agreement

and there is no licence obtained by the petitioner for

the supply of labour to the respondent, the Ex.R9, R10

and R11 clearly shows that the petitioner has given

quotation for the supply of Security Guards for various

periods.

15. Since, the petitioner was prevented from the

entering the factory premises from 03-10-2010, he has

made several representative to the respondent

management to consider his request for reinstatement.

Only thereafter, the petitioner has preferred

representation to the Labour Officer, (Conciliation) in

Ex.P5, dated 23-08-2012. Since, the conciliation process

was ended in failure, the Labour Officer (Conciliation)

has given failure report, dated 03-09-2013 marked as

Ex.P9.

16. On 30-08-2011, the respondent has issued notice,

dated 30-08-2011 in Ex.R16 to vacate the quarters. The

reminder notice, dated 21-09-2011 in Ex.Rl7 was also

issued by the respondent. In Ex.R18, the reply was

given by the petitioner wherein, he has stated that after

his resignation he joined in the services of the

respondent management and he worked in the

department of roller controller for about 6 years and

thereafter served as Security Officer for one year. In the

month of September 2010 the petitioner was prevented

by the respondent from entering the factory premises

without any justifiable reason. According to the

petitioner immediately after employment, he was

engaged by the respondent to serve as Mason and in

the roller covering department. The petitioner further

submit that during those periods he has received a sum

of ` 5,000 as salary. The petitioner having claimed the

back wages along with other entitlements it is just and

necessary that the petitioner has to prove that he was

a workman under the respondent management.

17. The prime test to prove the employer and

employee relationship is the control of the management

over the employee in all the stages of work. Moreover,

the petitioner has to prove that he has received salary

from the employer. On the respondent side Ex.P1 to

Ex.P10 were marked. The petitioner has not filed any

reappointment order or salary slip issued by the

respondent management for the relevant period. The

petitioner has not proved his employment by examining

other co-workers who were worked in the respondent

management at the relevant period. Mere occupation in

the residential quarters allotment with the respondent

will not give the petitioner the status of “workman”. On

the contrary, on the respondent side the security bills

and quotations signed by the petitioner for service

charges for providing security arrangement were marked

as Ex.R9, R10 and R11. Except Ex.R20 which is the

management reply wherein, the management has stated

the petitioner was provided with temporary employment

with roller covering department from 01-08-2009 to

30-09-2010. There is no other piece of evidence available

to establish the fact that the petitioner served in the

respondent as mason and roller cover department for

6 years after his resignation. Similarly, there is no piece

of evidence available to prove the fact that the petitioner

was employed as Security Guard for the monthly salary

of ` 5,000 for the last one year.

18. From the discussions above made this Court is

of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not

established that he was a “workman” under the

respondent management. The petitioner failed to prove

the employer, employee relationship between the

petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner failed to

prove the alleged fact of his continuous working with

the respondent management for about 6 years after his

resignation. In so far as, the factum of receipt of the

monetary entitlements is concerned the petitioner has

received a total sum of ` 2,05,822 as full and final

settlement as his retirement benefits on 29-12-2004. On

the same day, the petitioner has signed the receipt

Ex.R4, dated 29-12-2004 towards full and final settlement

as such there is no pending dues entitled to the petitioner.

538

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 July 2022

The petitioner has already vacated the quarters.

The petitioner is not entitled for any back wages or any

other retirement benefits.

19. In the result, this Court hold the petitioner is not

entitled for any claim made in the claim petition and the

petition is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 15th day of March, 2022.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 30-11-2015

Kannaiyan

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 24-04-2012

Letter sent by the petitioner

to the Labour Officer.

Ex.P2

— 22-01-2005

Copy

the

Service

Certificate issued by the

respondent management to

the petitioner.

Ex.P3

— 10-04-2012

Copy of the Advocate

notice

sent

the

respondent management to

the petitioner to vacate the

resident.

Ex.P4

— 22-06-2012

Copy of the letter sent by

the respondent management

to the Labour Officer.

Ex.P5

— 23-08-2012

Copy of the letter sent by

the petitioner to the Labour

Officer.

Ex.P6

— 27-09-2012

Copy of the letter sent by

the respondent management

to the Labour Officer.

Ex.P7

— 01-01-2001

Copy of the Apprentice

Training Agreement.

Ex.P8

— 26-08-2008

Copy

the

12(3)

Agreement.

Ex.P9

— 03-09-2013

Photocopy of the Failure

Report.

Ex.P10 — 13-02-2014

Reference sent by the

Labour Department.

List of respondent's witness:

RW.1

— 18-10-2019

Kamaraj

List of respondent's exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 04-12-2004

Copy of the resignation

letter of the petitioner

Kannaiyan.

Ex.R2

— 05-12-2004

Copy of the intimation

given by the respondent for

the

acceptance

the

resignation of the petitioner.

Ex.R3

— 06-12-2004

Copy of the 18(1) Agreement.

Ex.R4

— 29-12-2004

Copy of the acknowledgment

receipt of the petitioner.

Ex.R5

— 12-01-2005

Copy of the letter sent by

the respondent management

to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Karaikal.

Ex.R6

— 20-01-2005

Copy of the acknowledgment

card.

Ex.R7

— 28-01-2005

Copy of the E.P.F. Pension

withdrawal Form : 10-D of

the petitioner.

Ex.R8

— 15-02-2005

Copy of the E.P.F. Scheme

Form-19 of the petitioner.

Ex.R9

— 10-07-2009

Copy of the quotation given

the

petitioner

for

providing security in the

respondent management.

EX.R10 — 03-11-2009

Copy of the bill submitted

the

petitioner

for

receiving contract charges

for providing security in the

respondent management.

EX.R11 — 04-02-2010

Copy of the bill submitted

the

petitioner

for

receiving contract charges

for providing security in the

respondent management.

Ex.R12 — 22-01-2005

Copy

the

Service

Certificate issued by the

respondent management.

Ex.R13 — 22-01-2005

Fabricated Service Certificate

by petitioner.

Ex.R14 — 07-07-2007

VAT

Tin

Registration

Certificate obtained from

CTO Office, Karaikal.

539

19 July 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R15 — 03-01-2007

VAT

Tin

Registration

Certificate obtained from

DCTO-II Office, Dindigul.

Ex.R16 — 30-08-2011

Copy of the letter sent by

the respondent management

to the petitioner to vacate

the residents.

Ex.Rl7 — 21-09-2011

Copy of the reminder letter

the

respondent

management

the

petitioner to vacate the

residents.

Ex.R18 — 28-09-2011

Copy of the Advocate

notice of the petitioner to

the respondent management.

Ex.R19 — 20-03-2012

Copy

the

second

Advocate Notice of the

petitioner to the respondent

management.

Ex.R20 — 10-04-2012

given

the

respondent management to

the petitioner.

Ex.R21 — 24-04-2012

Copy of the petition given

by the petitioner to the

Labour Officer, Karaikal.

Ex.R22 — 22-06-2012

Copy of the reply given by

the respondent management

to the Labour Officer,

Karaikal.

Ex.R23 — 23-08-2012

Copy of the petition given

by the petitioner to the

Labour Officer, Karaikal.

Ex.R24 — 27-09-2012

given

the

respondent management to

the Labour Officer, Karaikal.

Ex.R25 — 03-09-2013

Copy of the Failure Report

of the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.R26 — 29-07-2009

Copy of letter issued by the

respondent management to

the petitioner for obtaining

Man

Power

Contract

Licence from the Labour

Department.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 105/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 27th June 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 38/2018, dated

09-05-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Puducherry Distilleries

Limited, Puducherry and Indiya Thozhirsanga Maiyam

(CITU), Mudaliarpet, Puducherry – over promotion of

Thiru P. Chandramohan as Junior Operator with effect

from 23-11-2009 and to grant him subsequent promotion

to the post of Senior Operator with all monetary and

service benefits;

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 M. ELAVARASAN, B.SC., LLB.,

Presiding Officer (FAC).

Monday, the 09th day of May 2022.

I.D.(L). No. 38/2018

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000080-2018

The Secretary,

Indiya Thozhirsanga Maiyam (CITU),

No. 42, Cuddalore Road,

Bharathi Mill Thittu,

Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

Puducherry Distilleries Limited,

Arrack Blending and Bottling Unit,

R.S.Nos. 144 and 145, Ariyapalayam,

Villianur, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

540

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 July 2022

This Industrial Dispute coming on this day before

me for hearing, in the presence of Thiruvalargal

R.T. S h a n k a r, A . A s h o k k u m a r, P. S u r e s h a n d

B. Balamurugan, Counsels for the petitioner and

Thiru B. Mohandoss, 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. 129/AIL/Lab./T/2018, dated 30-08-2018 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following dispute

between the petitioner and the respondent, viz., -

(i) Whether the dispute raised by Indiya

Thozhirsanga Maiyam (ClTU), Mudaliarpet, Puducherry,

against the Management of M/s. Puducherry

Distilleries Limited, Puducherry, over promotion of

Thiru P. Chandramohan as Junior Operator with effect

from 23-11-2009 and to grant him subsequent

promotion to the post of Senior Operator with all

monetary and service benefits is justified or not?

(ii) If justified, what relief P. Chandramohan is

entitled to?

(iii) 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, not

press filed and stating that the matter has been settled

out of the Court and the case may be dismissed as not

pressed. Memo recorded. In view of Memo, the petition

is dismissed as not pressed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 09th day of May 2022.

M. ELAVARASAN,

Presiding Officer (FAC),

Employees State Insurance Court,

Puducherry.

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ �ÆD k¬‡A mÁ≈

(∂´∑ gÁð √ÈkÁÔ ®ı 19/÷ƒW/ºÔV.3/2022

ÂV^ 2022 } \VÏﬂ | 28{.)

gÁð

Amﬂºƒˆ \ V W È D , Amﬂºƒˆ k‚¶V´D, s_oB˚Ï

ÿÔVDR[,

∂Ú^tz

\VˆBD\[, nB™VÏ, ∏¶VˆBD\[ gÈB›]uz, ∂´∑

gÁð √ÈkÁÔ ®ı 23/÷ƒW/ºÔV.3/2008, ÂV^

15á06á2010á[

JÈD

{Ï

∂≈∫ÔVkÈÏ

kVˆBD

xΩkÁ¶Õms‚¶m.

2. ÷ÕWÁÈl_,

º�z§©∏‚¶

º>k¸>V™›Á>

ºkıΩBm ÷[§BÁ\BV>˛≈m.

3. ®™ºk, 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B

∂]ÔV´∫ÔÁ·ﬂ ÿƒK›], Amﬂºƒˆ, s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[,

nB™VÏ, ∏¶VˆBD\[ gÈB›]uz ˇµÔı¶ nÕm

Â√ÏÔÁ·¬ ÿÔVı¶ {Ï ∂≈∫ÔVkÈÏ kVˆB›Á> ∂´∑

c¶™ΩBVÔ ∂Á\¬˛≈m.

]ÚkV·ÏÔ^ :

. . >ÁÈkÏ

®ı 27, nB™VÏ ºÔVl_ ÿ>Ú,

G.N. √VÁ·BD, ∂ÚD√VÏ›>A´D,

s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[, Amﬂºƒˆ.

(2) A. √›\ÂV√[, >/ÿ√. gÆxÔD,

. . mÁð›

®ı 11, Â|›ÿ>Ú, G.N. √VÁ·BD,

>ÁÈkÏ

s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[, Amﬂºƒˆ.

(3) V. ÂV´VBð[,

. . ÿƒBÈV·Ï

>/ÿ√. ÿkıËƒVt,

®ı 28, \VˆBD\[ ºÔVl_ ÿ>Ú,

G.N. √VÁ·BD,

s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[,

Amﬂºƒˆ.

(4) J. \Vˆ, Ô/ÿ√. ÿ¤Ôyƒ[,

. . ÿ√VÚ·V·Ï

®ı 15, \VˆBD\[ ºÔVl_ T],

G.N. √VÁ·BD,

s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[, Amﬂºƒˆ.

. . cÆ©∏™Ï

®ı 40, \VˆBD\[ ºÔVl_ ÿ>Ú,

G.N. √VÁ·BD º√‚,

s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[, Amﬂºƒˆ.

4. A]B ∂≈∫ÔVkÈÏ kVˆBD º>k¸>V™›][

÷ > ´

g k ð ∫Ô ” ¶ [

xÕÁ>B ∂≈∫ÔVkÈÏ

kVˆB›]¶tÚÕm c¶™ΩBVÔ ÿ√uÆ¬ÿÔV^”\VÆ

∂§°Æ›>©√|˛≈m.

5. 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^

∂≈∫ÔVkÈÏ kVˆB›]™Ï ]Ú¬ºÔVlÁÈ WÏk˛¬Ô¬

(i) ºÔVlK¬zﬂ ÿƒVÕ>\V™ ÔVo \Á™Ô^, ºÔVlÁÈ

∑u§•^· ÷¶∫Ô^ �ÆD ºÔVl_ z·∫ÔÁ·

#ÏkVÚ>_/∑›>D ÿƒF>_ ÷ÁkÔÁ· c^·¶¬˛B ŒÚ

(ii) Â[ÿÔVÁ¶BV·ÏÔ·V_

º�ÿÔV^·©√|D

√ËÔÁ· WÁ≈ºku≈ xø Jﬂ∑¶[ ~|√|>_ ºkı|D.

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