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

[653]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2022 }

gÔ¸‚ |

30 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Août

2022 (8 Bhadra 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

30th

August

2022

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

654

Sentence arbitral du travail

.. 654

Award of the Labour Court

654

de tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

659

Notifications du Gouvernement

.. 659

Government Notifications

.. 659

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

667

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 667

Tender notices

.. 667

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

669

Etablissements dangereux

.. 669

Dangerous Establishments

669

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

672

Annonces

.. 672

Announcements

672

654

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 August 2022

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 124/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 29th July 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 17/2018, dated

23-03-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between

Thiru A. Sudhakaran, S/o. Appasamy, Keezhakasakudy,

Karaikal, against the management of M/s. Karaikal

Market Committee, Thirunallar Road, Karaikal, over

reinstatement of the petitioner with back wages,

attendant benefits has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with the

Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms. No.

20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed by

the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. MUTHU MEENA,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Thiru R. BHARANIDHARAN, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of March 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 17/2018

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000113-2018

A. Sudhakaran (42),

S/o. Appasamy,

No. 28, lyyanar Koil Street,

Ammaiyar Nagar, Keezhakasakudy,

Karaikal.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Secretary,

Karaikal Market Committee,

Thirunallar Road, Karaikal.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 17-03-2022 before me

for final hearing in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,

Representative for the petitioner and Thiru M. Nakkeeran,

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

The Industrial Dispute has been filed by the

petitioner represented by Thiru N. Ramar, Secretary of

CITU, State Union, Karaikal, for adjudication of the

industrial dispute raised by the petitioner Thiru

A. Sudhakaran against the Managing Director, Market

Committee, Karaikal, over reinstatement of the petitioner

with back wages along with other attendant benefits

is justified? If justify, 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 petition of the

petitioner:

The petitioner was joined as worker in the

respondent Market Committee on voucher payment.

He received ` 7,000 as monthly salary. The Karaikal

Market Committee has established for the welfare of

farmers in that area. The Market Committee procure

the yield from the farmers and kept in its safe

custody till the yields get fair price. The respondent

has also established Uzhavar Sandhai for selling the

fruits and vegetables directly by the farmers. In the

year 2005 about 32 persons were employed by the

Chairman as voucher employees and they were

promoted as CLR Casual Labours during 2010 to 2015.

They were againt promoted as daily rated employees

during the year 2015-2016. They were further

promoted as Multi Task Service workmen from the

year 2016. The petitioner was also engaged on the

same basis during the year 2009. The petitioner was

utilised for cleaning and packing the agricultural

products and safeguarding the same from cattles and

rats, maintaining the farm in the Market Committee.

The petitioner was also worked as Driver for the LMV

and HMV vehicles. The petitioner was also served as

Office Boy continuously.

On 23-08-2016 the respondent administration

refused employment to the petitioner. Hence, the

petitioner has raised industrial dispute on 28-11-2017

before the Labour Officer and no conciliation steps

were taken. The petitioner has continuously worked

for seven years. His service was terminated by the

respondent without any notice or charges which is

against the provisions of section 25(F) of Industrial

655

30 August 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Dispute Act. The respondent is duty bound to

reinstate the petitioner with back wages and

attendant benefits.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the

respondent are as follows :

The Karaikal Market Committee is an Autonomous

Body to do service to the farmers of Karaikal District,

established under Pondicherry Agricultural Produce

Markets Act 1973. There are 10 regular staffs and

32 numbers of full-time casual labourers working in

the Market Committee. There were another 32 casual

labourers who were temporarily engaged by the

organization based on demand of work and their

employment was approved by the Government of

Puducherry as per the "Casual Labourers Engagement

and Regulation Scheme 2009". But, the engagement

of petitioner was purely on temporary basis to do

menial work such as paddy procurement for Food

Corporation of India and paid ` 200 as daily wages.

Now, the procurement of Food Corporation of India

is discontinued. Their engagement is without the

approval of the General Body and the same is illegal

because, they have been engaged without reference

to employment exchange. The petitioner was engaged

as wage labourer and there is no question of

termination of services. The work of the organization

is seasonal in nature and engaging the petitioners

permanently is not at all feasible. The respondent is

not making any profit and struggling to pay monthly

salary to the regular employee.

4. On the petitioner side Rengarajan was examined

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

Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 were marked. On the respondent

side Thiru R. Ganesan was examined as RW.1 and

Thiru Mohammad Dasir was examined as RW.2, Ex.R1 to

R3 were marked.

5. Points for consideration :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement

with back wages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits in the respondent organization?

6. On the petitioner side Mr. Sudhakaran petitioner

was examined as PW.1 and the chief affidavit was filed.

In the evidence of PW.1, he has deposed that he has

joined in the Karaikal Market Committee on 01-09-2009.

He has worked in the regulated Market Committee, the

Uzhavar Sandhai and weigh bridge. He has also served

as Driver for the Chairman and the Secretary, and

received monthly salary of ` 7,000 per month. The

32 daily wage labourers were employed by the Chairman

in the year 2005. On the same basis the petitioner was

also appointed by the Chairman in the year 2009 and

continuously working for seven years. On 23-08-2016

when the petitioner went to the respondent organization

to attend his regular work. He was prevented by the

management from attending his work. The petitioner has

made several request to the respondent for the

consideration of his reinstatement. The same was not

considered by the respondent management. Left with no

other alternative the petitioner has raised industrial

dispute on 28-11-2017 before the Labour Department,

Puducherry. Since, there was no action taken by the

Labour Officer within 45 days, the petitioner has filed

the petition under section 2(A) of Industrial Dispute

Act. The averments made in the counter is not at all

acceptable and the respondent has denied employment

to the petitioner since, there was no approval granted by

the General Body. Moreover, the respondent cannot

deny employment to the petitioner side stating the

financial crisis. The respondent has retrenched the

petitioner without issuing any notice and without

framing any charges. The unemployment of the

petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and

also the principles laid down under section 25(F) of the

Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner is suffering

without any work and without any salary and is

suffering to run his family. The petitioner prayed for

reinstatement with back wages and other attendant

benefits.

7. On the respondent side Thiru Ganesan, the

Secretary of Karaikal Market Committee, was examined

as RW.1 and through him chief affidavit of RW.1 was

filed. The respondent Committee has a strength of

10 regular staffs and 32 full-time casual labourers. The

32 casual labourers are regularized with the approval of

the Government as prescribed under the Casual

Labourers Engagement and Regulation Scheme, 2009.

The petitioner was engaged through menial works for a

daily wage of ` 200 by the Chairman. The services of the

petitioner was discontinued since, the services of the

petitioner is no more required. Even, at the time of

engagement it was made without considering the

financial position of the Committee and without actual

requirement at all. The petitioner was engaged against

the frame work of the Scheme, 20 09 and without the

approval of the Government, the same is illegal. The

petitioner engagement requires no termination and there

is no need to follow the provisions of section 25(F) of

the Industrial Dispute Act and pray for dismissal of the

petition.

8. RW.2 Thiru P. Mohammad Dasir who was retired

as Deputy Agricultural Director has deposed that based

on the resolution passed by General Body of the Market

Committee. The employee will be engaged by the

656

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 August 2022

respondent organization. Such resolution was sent to

the Revenue Department of the Puducherry Government

for consent in the year 2008 to 2010. The 32 employee

were in the services of the Karaikal Market Committee.

Thiruvalargal Sudhakaran, Rangaraj and Vijayakumar

were worked as voucher payment casual labourers from

01-09-2009 based on the recommendation of the Member

of Legislative Assembly. The said absorption was made

by the Chairman of the Market Committee. The Principal

Secretary of Agriculture Department of Puducherry has

ordered to relieve the petitioner and other two persons.

On the basis of the order of the Principal Secretary they

were relieved from the services on 23-08-2016 and pray

for dismissal of the complaint.

9. The representative appeared on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed in

the respondent regulated Market Committee from

01-09-2009 for the monthly salary of ` 7,000. The

regulated Market Committee was established to procure

and protect the agricultural produces of the farmers of

Karaikal region. The petitioner was engaged in cleaning,

maintenance and also sales division. He was also

served as Office Assistant as well as Driver for the LMV

and HMV vehicles.

10. It was further, submitted that there are yet

another 32 voucher employees engaged by the

Chairman in the year 2005. The said 32 voucher payment

employees were regularized by the respondent. The

petitioner initially received ` 85 as wage per day and

subsequently he has received ` 150, ` 200 and ` 270 per

day and finally received a sum of ` 7,000 per month,

when he was retrenched from the services on

23-08-2016. The representative of the petitioner has

further argued the petitioner was employed by the

Chairman of the regulated Market Committee and his

sendees were continuously utilised by the respondent

form 01-09-2009. Evidence of PW.2 categorically

established that the petitioner was employed by

Thiru Sathiyaseelan, Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

It was further submitted that the respondent has not

served any notice, not conducted any enquiry against

the petitioner. The termination of the petitioner was not

even informed to him by letter. It was further argued on

the petitioner side that the other employee by name

Tvl. Manikandan, Ramkumar were already reinstated

by the respondent consequent to the Award passed by

this Court. The representative of the petitioner has

invited this Court attention to the judgment of Hon'ble

Patna High Court reported in 1995 (1) LLJ 973 and

submit, the petitioner has served for 240 days in each

year from the date of his engagement and hence, his

removal from service would come under section 2 (oo)

of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since, the respondent

has not followed the procedure contemplated under

section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, the order of

removal from service is not at all maintainable. He has

further referred to order of the Hon'ble High Court of

Madras in W.A.No. 183/1996 and C.M.No. 2734/

1996, dated 15-03-1996 and submit that even if, the

appointment of a workman is not in accordance with law,

the management cannot refuse to follow the provisions

of 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act.

11. On the petitioner side it was further contented

that the petitioner was served in the respondent

organization till 23-08-2016. The services of the

petitioner is of perennial nature and the petitioner has

received salary from the Market Committee and the

relationship of employer and employee was proved. In

the evidence of PW.1, he has categorically deposed that

the subsequent to his termination of employment, he

was not in gainful service in any other establishment.

Even, the respondent has not pleaded and proved that

the petitioner was in gainful employment. In the

circumstances the petitioner being a workman and the

respondent is entitled for reinstatement along with back

wages and other attendant benefits.

12. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit

that the 32 voucher paid employee were regularized by

the Government of Puducherry as per the Casual

Labours Engagement and Regulation Scheme, 2009. But,

the engagement of the petitioner was purely on

temporary basis to do menial work such as procurement

of paddy for Food Corporation of India, which is a

seasonal work. Now, the procurement by the Food

Corporation of India stands discontinued. The

engagement of the petitioner is without the approval of

the General Body of the respondent organization. The

petitioner was not engaged through Employment

Exchange. He is only a casual labour not engaged on

regular basis and the respondent is not duty bound to

follow the procedure contemplated under section 25(F)

of the Industrial Disputes Act.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent submit

that the Government of Puducherry has issued a Gazette

Notification, dated 27-02-2009, wherein, it is stated with

"all other designation e.g., Daily Wager, CLR etc., will

be discontinued from the date of notification of the

Scheme". In the said Gazette, it is further notified no

casual labourer will be engaged for attending to work of

the regular nature, for which a regular post exist or can

be created.

14. The learned Counsel for the respondent submit

that the petitioner was engaged on 01-09-2009 and his

engagement is against the Gazette Notification of the

Government of Puducherry.

657

30 August 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

15. The learned Counsel for the respondent invited

this Court attention to the G.O. Ms. No. 66/F3/2008,

dated 24-10-2008 issued by the Finance Department

marked as Ex.R2 where in it is specifically notified "no

daily rated posts should henceforth, be created by the

institutions without the specific written approval of the

Government." The engagement of the petitioner is not

in accordance with Ex.R1 and R2 and he was removed

from services on 23-08-2016 as per the order of Secretary

of Agriculture since, his employment would found to be

illegal.

16. The learned Counsel further submit that the

petitioner was not regularly absorbed by the respondent

and he never worked for more than 240 days in each

year. The petitioner is only a casual labour engaged on

daily rated basis according to the needs and at no

stretch of imagination he can be termed as "workmen"

as defined at the section 2(S) of Industrial Disputes Act.

The petitioner has not proved that he has received

monthly salary of ` 7,000 per month and he failed to

prove the employer and employee relationship. In the

circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the

benefits under section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement with

back wages along with other attendant benefits. Since,

the Market Committee is not a profit making

organization and the respondent is struggling to pay

the monthly salary to its regular employee.

17. This Court has carefully considered the rival

submission made by both sides and perused to the

documents marked on either side.

18. The petitioner was engaged as voucher paid

employee on 01-09-2009 by the then Chairman of the

Market Committee. The petitioner was utilized for

cleaning, maintenance, procurement of paddy and also

as Driver. According to the petitioner he was initially

paid ` 85, ` 150, ` 200 and ` 270 as daily wages on finally

he has received a sum of ` 7,000 a monthly salary. Since,

the petitioner was denied employment without any

justifiable reason he has raised industrial dispute before

the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 28-11-2017 for

conciliation. Since, the conciliation proceedings were

not commenced within 45 days, the petitioner has

proceeded to file this petition under section 2(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has served with

the respondent organization for about 7 years without

any break except the permitted holidays. The petitioner

was utilized by the respondent for driving the vehicle of

the Chairman and the Managing Director.

19. A set off 32 employees who were engaged by the

then Chairman in the year 2005 as voucher paid

employee were specifically given promotions and finally

regularized as per the scheme formulated in the year

2009. The respondent denied employment to the

petitioner and two others who are employed on

01-09-2009 by the Chairman of the respondent

organization on the basis that their engagement is

against Ex.R1 and R2. RW.2 in the evidence deposed

that in the absence of the Chairman, the Managing

Director of the Market Committee who is the District

Collector of Karaikal will hold additional charge. All

along from the date of his engagement, the petitioner

was paid salary by the Market Committee after getting

proper permission of the Agricultural Director.

20. The RW.2 has also admitted the petitioner was

worked in the respondent organization till 23-08-2016.

The respondent has furnished information, dated

09-11-2016 under RTI wherein, the respondent has

admitted that the petitioner was appointed based on the

permission granted by the Chairman. In Ex.P1 para 203

which is office note submitted by the Secretary to the

Chaiman-cum-Director of Agriculture, it is stated that

"The continuous engagement of thee persons is

essential during the samba harvest season and further

they may be deployed in Karaikal Market Committee

premises for house helping and maintenance of Rural

Godowns hence, the engagement of abovesaid person

on voucher payment basis may be approved besides it

is proposed to increase their wages from ` 100 to ` 150

for 29 days from July 2010". The above stated statement

would go to show that the continuous engagement of

the petitioner and other two persons is essential during

samba harvest season. The petitioner was utilized for

the procurement of paddy, cleaning and maintenance of

godowns protection of the agricultural producers from

the catties and insects, served as a Office Boy and also

as a diver. The nature of employment does not require

special skill however, the nature of work has not

seasonal but, perennial in nature. No doubt, the

petitioner has received his salary from the respondent

after the approval of the Director of Agriculture and he

has worked for about 7 years continuously without

break from 01-09-2009 to 23-08-2016 except permitted

holidays. The petitioner can be well fit in within the

definition of "workmen" under section 2(S) of the

Industrial Dispute Act.

21. The respondent without any give notice and

without conducting proper enquiry has relieved him

from the services on 23-08-2016 without affording any

opportunity to the petitioner which is against the

principles of natural justice and against the established

principles laid down in section 25(F) of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

22. In the evidence of PW.1 he has deposed that he

is suffering without any employment from the date of his

relieving from the respondent organization. The

petitioner is not gainfully employed in any other

658

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[30 August 2022

establishment and the contrary was not proved by the

respondent. From the discussion about made this Court

is of the considered opinion that the non-employment of

the petitioner is not justifiable on any grounds. Since,

the petitioner is not in gainful employment is entitled for

reasonable back wages and other attendant benefits.

23. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The

respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner within

8 weeks from the date of this Award. The petitioner is

entitled to receive 30% of last drawn salary as back

wages from the date of his termination till the date of his

reinstatement. The petitioner is also entitled to

continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 23rd day of March, 2022.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —

15-07-2018

A. Sudhakaran

List of petitioner's exhibits:

Ex.P1 —

28-11-2017

Industrial dispute raised by

the employee before the

Labour Department.

Ex.P2 —

09-11-2016

The information received by

the employee through RTI

from the respondent.

List of respondents witnesses:

RW.1 —

18-09-2019

R. Ganesan

RW.2 —

07-01-2020

P. Mohammad Dasir

List of respondents exhibits:

Ex.Rl

—

27-02-2009

Copy of the Gazette of

Puducherry.

Ex.R2 —

24-10-2008

Copy of the G.O. Ms. No.

66/F3/2008.

Ex.R3 —

09-07-2010

Copy of the order of the

Chairman-cum-Director of

Agriculture, regarding the

engagement of 3 persons.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 128/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 2nd August 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D.(L) No.08/2000, dated

21-03-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Aringar Anna

Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, T.R. Pattinam,

Karaikal, over without giving preference to the

retrenched employee has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with

the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/91/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. MUTHU MEENA,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

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

Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 21st day of March 2022

I. D. (L) No. 08/2000

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000001-2000

Thiru T. Arangasamy

. .

Petitioner

Versus

The President,

Aringar Anna Primary Agricultural

Co-operative Bank,

T.R. Pattinam, Karaikal.

. .

Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on this day before me

for hearing, in the presence of Thiru K. Velmurugan,

Counsel, for the petitioner and Tvl. L. Sathish, S. Velmurugan,

E. Karthik and S. Sundarsanan, Counsel, for the

respondent, upon perusing the records, this Court

passed the following:

659

30 August 2022]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O.

Rt.No.92/2000/Lab./AIL/L, dated 24-07-2000 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.–

(i)

Whether the act of filling up of the vacancies

by the Management of M/s. Arignar Anna

Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank,

T.R. Pattinam, Karaikal, without giving

preference to the retrenched employee viz.,

Thiru T. Arangasami is justified or not?

(ii)

To what relief/benefits, the said workman 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,

petitioner called absent. No representation for the

petitioner. The petitioner is continuously not present

before this Court despite specific direction. Today,

the case is posted for appearance of the petitioner

as no further adjournment. The Counsel for the

respondent is present. The petition is dismissed for

non-prosecution by the petitioner.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court,

on this the 21st day of March, 2022.

R. BHARANIDHARAN,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 125/Lab./AIL/T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 29th July 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. Rentokil PCI Pest Control Private Limited, Anna

Nagar, Puducherry and the Puducherry Pest Control

India Private Limited Thozhilalargal Urimai Padukappu

Sangam, over non-employment of Thiruvalargal

K. Logeswaran and S. Dhanasegar, 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 Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication. The

Labour Court, 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 Labour Court,

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 industrial dispute raised by

the Petitioner’s Union Puducherry Pest Control India

Private Limited Thozhilalargal Urimai Padukappu

Sangam, over non-employment of Thiruvalargal

K. Logeswaran and S. Dhanasegar, is justified or not?

If justified, what relief they are entitled to?

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

money if, it can be so computed?

(By order)

P. MUTHU MEENA,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 126/Lab./AIL/T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 2nd August 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. S & S Power Switchgear Equipment Limited,

Sedarapet, Puducherry and the S & S Power Switchgear

Limited Employees Welfare Union, over charter of

demand regarding wage revision and other allied welfare

measures 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;