Registered No. PY/44/2021-23 Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under No. 10410 Amflºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry The Gazette of Puducherry
∂]ÔV´D ÿ✓u≈ ÿkπX| Publiée par Autorité Published by Authority ®ı Amflºƒˆ ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\ 2023 } ƒ™kˆ | 31 {
No. 5 Poudouchéry Mardi 31 Janvier 2023 (11 Magha 1944)
No. Puducherry Tuesday 31st January 2023
ÿ✓VÚ·¶¬ÔD SOMMAIRES CONTENTS
Page ✓¬ÔD Page
\Vk'¶ ¿]✓]BV_ ®|¬Ô©✓|D .. 86 Procédure du Magistrate de District .. 86 Procedings of the District .. 86
Magistrate
º\_¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ .. 96 Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 96 Award of the Labour Court .. 96
de Tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 101 Notifications du Gouvernement .. 101 Government Notifications .. 101 ∞È ∂§s©Ad .. 104 Vente publique .. 104 Auction notice .. 104 g✓›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^ .. 105 Etablissements dangereux .. 105 Dangerous Establishments .. 105
.. 106 Announcements .. 106 ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 106 Annonces
[85]96 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [31 January 2023
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 175/AIL/Lab./T/2022,
Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 16/2018, dated 15-09-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the management of M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, Puducherry and Shasun Chemical Staff Union, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry, over inclusion of apprentice period for counting the terminal benefits of Thiru. John Arthur.
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. 20/9/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)
P. RAGINI, Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
The General Manager, M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, R.S.No. 33 & 34, Mathur Road, Periyakalapet, Puducherry-605 014.
. . Respondent This Industrial dispute coming on 06-09-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Tvl. S. Kalimuthu @ L e n i n D u r a i , C o u n s e l f o r t h e P e t i t i o n e r a n d Tvl. L. Sathish, S. Velmurugan, E. Karthik and S. Sudarasanan, 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.118/AIL/LAB/T/ 2018, dated 31-07-2018 for adjudicating whether the industrial dispute raised by Shasun Chemical Staff Union, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry, against the Management of M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Puducherry, over inclusion of apprentice period for counting the terminal benefits of Thiru. John Arthur is justified or not? 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?
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
2. Brief averments made in the claim Statement of the
Present : Tmt. V. Sofana Devi, M.L.
Petitioner are as follows:
Presiding Officer.
Thursday, the 15th day of September, 2022
I.D. (T) No. 16/2018
C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000070-2018
The President, Shasun Chemical Staff Union, No. 20, Cuddalore Road, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry-605 007.
. . Petitioner
Vs.
The petitioner Mr. Y. John Arthur had worked in the respondent company from 07-09-1991 to 11-02-2014 for 23 years 1 month and 4 days till his superannuation. The respondent company had given him the gratuity amount by calculating the service period of the petitioner as 20 years only, not for 23 years. For which the reason stated by the respondent company is that the petitioner employee had worked from 07-01-1991 to 30-09-1993 only as apprentice i.e., 2 years 8 months and 23 days for the such apprentice31 January 2023] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 97 period the gratuity amount cannot be paid and thus, such period of his apprenticeship had not been included while calculating the gratuity. This calculation excluding the apprenticeship period amounts to an adverse impact on the calculation of petitioner/ employee's pension benefits, gratuity and other benefits. The refusal to include the apprentice period for the purpose of calculating the gratuity of the respondent company amounts to violation of Industrial Disputes Act. Under section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, apprentice also included under the category of workman. Hence, the respondent company is liable to pay ` 26,040 to the petitioner employee towards the gratuity for the period 07-01-1991 to 30-09-1993. Hence, the petition.
(b) Petitioner already filed a petition before Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity, Puducherry in PG.No.41/2017 raising the dispute of miscalculation. Having approach the competent authority for Payment of Gratuity, petitioner cannot approach this court also for computation of gratuity, whether for the same period or for some other period.
3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the
respondent are as follows:
(i) Petitioner has raised a dispute against a company which does not exist. There was and is no company by name Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited and hence, no claim can be raised against such no-existent company.
(c) Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, even an apprentice is worker. Even assuming petitioner was an apprentice from 07-01-1991, to the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity in PG. No. 41/2017, the petition for computation of gratuity is still not entertainable. Petitioner cannot invoke section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act for making a claim of gratuity when section 2 (e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a special Statute governing payment of gratuity defines the terms worker/employee.
(d) As per section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, for computing payment of gratuity, apprentice are excluded from definition of term worker/employee and apprentice is not eligible for gratuity and period served by the worker/employee as apprentice cannot be calculated for payment of gratuity.
(iv) Petitioner has no locus to raise the present ID and the Government of Puducherry ought not to have referred the dispute to this Court.
(v) Petitioner was employed and got superannuated on 10-02-2014 and he was paid gratuity by the erstwhile management to the tune of ` 1,73,608. It is absolutely false to claim the petitioner ever worked as on apprentice and hence, the petitioner has to prove the same. The petitioner has not claimed that he was worked as apprentice before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity in PG.No.41/2017, which confirms that claims are absolutely bogus. Hence, the claim of the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Points for consideration are:
(ii) The very cause title of the reference and claim petition is defective. One M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, was engaged in the business of manufacturing tablets and pharmaceutical products. The said company was merged with M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited by way of a scheme of Amalgamation by the order of Hon'ble High Court in company petition No.149/2015, dated 16-06-2015. The Amalgamated company was then named as M/s. Strides Shasun Limited and registered with Registrar of company vide certificate of incorporation, dated 18-11-2015. Again it was changed to M/s. Strides Pharma Science Limited and approved by Registrar of company vide certificate of incorporation dated 18-07-2018. Hence, the nomenclature of the respondent in the cause title of the petition is erroneous and needs to be amended.
(iii) The present ID is raised by petitioner's Union on behalf of one Mr. John Arthur seeking payment of gratuity from 07-01-1991 to 30-09-1993, i.e., for 2 years 8 months and 23 days as apprentice in the erstwhile company of the respondent is not maintainable and liable to be rejected on following grounds:–
(a) All issues pertaining to payment of gratuity can be decided only by the special authority constituted under section 3 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, this Court has no inherent jurisdiction to decide this petition.
(1) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for inclusion of apprentice period for counting the terminal benefits of Thiru. John Arthur and whether he is entitled for ` 26,040 towards gratuity amount for the apprentice period from the respondent company as prayed in the claim ?
(2) To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?
5. On Points :
On the Petitioner side, Mr. Y. John Arthur / the Petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and Exs. P1 and P2 were marked. On the respondent side,98 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [31 January 2023 Mr. Balamurugan, Assistant Manager, HR of the respondent company was examined as RW1 and Ex. R1 to Ex.R7 were marked.
6. On the Points:
Three points of defence that have been raised on the side of the respondent company are:– (i) Petitioner has raised a dispute against a company which does not exist. The very cause title of the reference and claim petition is defective. The nomenclature of the respondent in the cause title of the petition is erroneous.
(ii) All issues pertaining to payment of gratuity can be decided only by the special authority constituted under section 3 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, this Court has no inherent jurisdiction to decide this petition. Petitioner already filed a petition before Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity, Puducherry in PG.No.41/2017 raising the dispute of miscalculation. Having approach the competent authority for Payment of Gratuity, petitioner cannot approach this Court also for computation of gratuity, whether for the same period or for some other period. The petitioner has not claimed that he was worked as apprentice before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity in PG.No.41/2017, which confirms that claims are absolutely bogus. Hence, the claim of the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(iii) Petitioner cannot invoke section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act for making a claim of gratuity when section 2 (e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a special Statute governing payment of gratuity defines the terms worker/employee. As per section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, for computing payment of gratuity, apprentice are excluded from definition of term worker/employee and apprentice is not eligible for gratuity and period served by the worker / employee as apprentice cannot be calculated for payment of gratuity.
7. As far as the first defence is concerned, the ID raised as against the General Manager, M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, Puducherry. According to the respondent company, one M/s. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, was engaged in the business of manufacturing tablets and pharmaceutical products. The said company was merged with M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited by way of a scheme of Amalgamation by the order of Hon'ble High Court in company petition No.149/2015, dated 16-06-2015. The Amalgamated company was then named as M/s. Strides Shasun Limited and registered with Registrar of company vide certificate of incorporation, dated 18-11-2015. Again it was changed to M/s. Strides Pharma Science Limited and approved by Registrar of company vide certificate of incorporation, dated 18-07-2018.
8. In support of his above contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondent referred his documents marked as EX.R4 to EX.R7 in order to substantiate the above defence. From these Exhibits, I shall see that since 18-07-2018, the company name is M/s. Strides Pharma Science Limited. This ID has been raised in the year 2018 under the reference, dated 30-07-2018 as against the General Manager, M/s. Strides Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, Puducherry, even much before that the said company was merged with M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited by way of a scheme of Amalgamation and the order of Hon'ble High Court in company petition No.149/2015, dated 16-06-2015 (EX.R4). The Amalgamated company was then named as M/s. Strides Shasun Limited and registered with Registrar of company vide certificate of incorporation, dated 18-11-2015. Again it was changed to M/s. Strides Pharma Science Limited and approved by Registrar of company vide certificate of incorporation, dated 18-07-2018. The above objection raised by the Respondent Management that despite the wrong in describing the cause title was indicated in the counter statement of the Respondent Management, the petitioner has not come forward to amend the nomenclature of the company in its Claim Petition as M/s. Strides Pharma Science Limited is sustainable.
9. According to the second and third defence are concerned, when the Petitioner already could file a petition before Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity, Puducherry in PG. No.41/2017 raising the dispute of miscalculation what prevented him to raise this present issue of claiming gratuity for the apprenticeship period in the same proceedings or before the same forum. Photocopy of the petition filed by Mr. John Arthur in PG.41/2017 before Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity is marked as EX.R2, on respondent company side. It has not been denied by the petitioner at any occasions before this Court. To the contrary, he admitted while he was cross examined by the respondent Counsel that, he filed PG.41/2017 before Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity for correct calculation of Gratuity. For the better appreciation, the relevant portion of PW1 oral evidence during his cross-examination is reproduced hereunder :
ÂV[ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm^· \>ƒVg.2ág™ 07-01-1911 º>]l'¶ Shasun drugs WÆk™ Appointment order for the post of Apprentice training ®[≈ c›>´s_ 3-km Clause-_ ®™¬z \V>D º>VÆD ` 250 ®[–Á¶B apprentice ÔVȬÔ'¶›]uz31 January 2023] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 99 Association vs. S.C. Sekar and others, (2009)2 SCC 784, it has been observed that the Superior Courts of this Country must discourage forum-shopping".
11. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent would stress upon that all issues pertaining to payment of gratuity can be decided only by the special authority constituted under section 3 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, this Court has no inherent jurisdiction to decide this petition. He would also argue that the petitioner cannot invoke section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act for making a claim of gratuity when section 2 (e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a special statue governing payment of gratuity defines the terms worker / employee.
stiphend-gÔ kw∫Ô©✓|D ®[ÆD ºkÆ ÷>´ Allowance- Ôº·V, bonus ∂_Èm ÷>´ \u≈ W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ"¬z kw∫Ô¬ÌΩB ✓ð ✓È[Ôº·V kw∫˛¶ ÷BÈVm ®[Æ sˆkVÔ z§©∏¶©✓'|^·m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. º\u✓Ω W✓Õ>Á™ÔÁ™ ∞uƬÿÔVı|>V[, º\u✓Ω Shasun WÆk™›]_ apprentice training-gÔ ºƒÏÕº>[ ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. º\u✓Ω \>ƒVg.2á|¶[, ÂV[ º\u✓Ω WÆk™›]_ W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈVπBVÔ ÿƒFB©✓'¶ ∏[™Ï, ∏©´kˆ 2014-D gı|¬zˆB \V>fl ƒD✓· ✓'ΩB_ s✓´›Á> ÷Áð›m^º·[ ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂Õ> ✓'ΩBo_ ÂV[ ✓Ël_ ºƒÏÕ> ÂV^ 01-10-1993 ®[Æ z§©∏¶©✓'|^·m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ÂV[ ✓Ël_ ÷ÚÕ> ÔVȬÔ'¶›]_, ®[–Á¶B ✓Ël_ ºƒÏÕ> º>] 01-10-1993 ®™ z§©∏¶©✓'ΩÚ©✓m >kÆ ®™ g'ºƒ∏›m, ®ø›mJÈ\V™ \– ∞º>–D ÿÔV|›º>™V ®[≈V_ ˛Á¶BVm. ®™¬z kw∫Ô©✓'¶ Bonus, EPF ∏Ω›>D \uÆD ÷>´ ƒKÁÔÔ^ 01-10-1993 º>]ÁB Á\B\VÔ Ák›m Ôð¬˛¶©✓'| kw∫Ô©✓'|^·m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. Payment of Gratuity Authority-l¶D ®™¬z kw∫Ô©✓'¶ gratuity zÁ≈›m kw∫Ô©✓'|^·>VÔ Ì§ ŒÚ \–Ák >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFm ∂m PG.No.41/2017 ®[≈ ®ıË_ WKÁkl_ c^·m ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ®™¬z ∂Õ> kw¬˛[ stage ✓u§ ÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ. ∂Õ> \–s_ ®™¬z apprentice ÔVÈ›]uzˆB gratuity kw∫Ôs_ÁÈ ®[Æ ºÔ'|^º·™V ®[≈V_ ®™¬z ÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ. ∂Õ> kw¬z x>o_ >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB©✓'¶ kw¬z ®[ÆD, ∂>[ ∏[™º´ ÷Õ> ÿ>Vau>VkV ®ø©✓©✓'¶m ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ®™¬z ∂m ✓u§B s✓´Dÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ, Gratuity ƒD\Õ>\VÔ ÷´ı| ÿkÀºkÆ ÷¶∫Ôπ_ xÁ≈X|/\– >V¬Ô_ ÿƒFB ®™¬z ∂ÚÔÁ>l_ÁÈ ®[≈V_ ®™¬z ÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ. Gratuity ƒ'¶›]_ ®ÀkVÆ gratuity kw∫Ô©✓¶ ºkı|D ®™ ∂π¬Ô✓'ΩÚ¬zD s✓´∫Ô^ z§›m ®™¬z ÿ>ˆBVm. Payment of Gratuity Act-✓Ω apprentice training ÔVȬÔ'¶›]uz gratuity kw∫˛¶ ÷BÈVm ®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ®™¬z ∂m ✓u§ ÿ>ˆBVm.
12. Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act 'employee' means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but, does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. As per section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, for computing payment of gratuity, apprentice are excluded from definition of term worker/employee and apprentice is not eligible for gratuity and period served by the worker/employee as apprentice cannot be calculated for payment of gratuity. He also relied upon the following case-laws on this aspect.
(i) In a case reported in CDJ 2006 APHC 683 :
It is held in Page 5 that, "the payment of Gratuity Act is a self contained Code. It provides for deciding the liability of an employer, to pay gratuity, and the manner of calculation thereof. Section 8 of the Act prescribes the procedure for recovery of amount payable as gratuity". It reads as under:
10. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that having approach the competent authority for Payment of Gratuity, petitioner cannot approach this Court again for computation of gratuity, whether for the same period or for some other period. Further, he would contend that the petitioner has not claimed that he was worked as apprentice before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity in PG. No. 41/2017. Thus, he concluded his argument on this point that party can choose either of the forms but, not the two forums for the same relief and relied on a case-law on this aspect. In a case reported in CDJ 2014 SC 1238:
A Section 8 : Recovery of Gratuity :- If, the amount of gratuity payable under this Act is not paid by the employer, within the prescribed time, to the person entitled thereto, the controlling authority shall, on an application made to it in this behalf by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall recover the same, together with compound interest thereon (at such rate as the Central Government may, by notification, specify) from the date of expiry of the prescribed time, as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto.
It is held in Page 4, Para 13 that: "............. in Chetak Construction Limited, vs. Om Prakash and others, 1998(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 644: (1998) 4 SCC 577, wherein, this Court has observed that a litigant cannot be permitted 'choice' of the 'forum' and every attempt at 'forum- shopping' must be crushed with a heavy hand. In Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank shareholders Welfare100 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [31 January 2023 Provided that the controlling authority shall, before issuing a certificate under this section, give the employer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the issue of such certificate.
Provided further that the amount of interest payable under this section shall, in no case exceed the amount of gratuity payable under this Act.
This provision does not admit of, any doubt that the only method to recover the amount of gratuity is, to approach the controlling authority, section 14 of that Act gives an overriding effect upon the provisions contained in any other enactment. In State of Punjab vs. Labour Court, Jalandhar AIR 1979 SC 1981 the recovered by initiating proceedings under section 33 C (2) of the Act.
(ii) In a case reported in CDJ 1979 SC 037:
It is held in Page 3 that, "......... The third contention raised by the appellant is that the employee respondents were not entitled to apply under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of the gratuity, and should have, if at all, applied under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is urged that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a self-contained code incorporating all the essential provisions relating to payment of gratuity which can be claimed under that Act, and its provisions impliedly exclude recourse to any other statue for that purpose. The contention has force and must be accepted".
(iii) In a Order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 3490/2019:
than an apprentice. Payment of Gratuity Act is a special enactment provides for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Petitioner has also approached the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity in PG.No.41/2017 for alleged miscalculation of his gratuity for the period of his regular employment, i.e., 01-10-1993 to till his superannuation, dated 10-02-2014. No reason stated by the petitioner about why he did not seek for the payment of gratuity amount for his apprentice period before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity in PG.No. 41/2017. From the documents produced by the petitioner himself such as Photocopy of the appointment order for the post of Apprentice Trainee issued by M/s. Shasun Drugs, Puducherry and photocopy of salary slip of the petitioner for the month of February 2014 (EX.P2), Photocopy of the petition filed by Mr. John Arthur in PG.41/2017 before Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity (EXR2) and from oral admissions of the petitioner as PW1 before this Court, it is clearly proved that he was joined the company Shasun Drugs on 07-01-1991 as an apprentice vide appointment order EX.P2 and his date of joining as regular employee was only on 01-10-1993 and same has been reflected in his salary slip for the month of February 2014, marked along with his Apprentice Appointment Order EX.P2. Therefore, he was joined and worked only as Apprentice from 07-01-1991 to 30-09-1993 for 2 years 8 months 23 days. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, apprentice is excluded for payment of gratuity. Further, when there is a special enactment under which an authority is appointed for deciding the issue on gratuity and anything incidental thereto and the petitioner having approached same authority for alleged miscalculation, but, not made any claim regarding the gratuity for his apprentice period before such authority which has been specially empowered to decide the issue under the special statute, is highly fatal to his claim. Without making such claim before the said authority and subsequently claiming the same before this Labour Court is not maintainable.
14. From the above discussions and findings, the point for consideration is decided as against the Petitioner employee and consequently he is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the claim petition.
It is held in Page 3 - Para 4 that : "This Court is of the considered view that for the facts and circumstances of the instant case, a period of two years from 27-11-1983, i.e., up to 26-11-1985 will have to be treated as an apprentice period for which, the third respondent is not entitled for any gratuity amount in terms of section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Accordingly, the proportionate gratuity amount for the apprentice period from 27-11-1983 to 26-11-1985 will have to be reduced from and out of the gratuity amount awarded by the second respondent in its order, dated 09-11-2017 in P.G.No.68/2016. In so far as, the other findings of the Authorities below are concerned, this Court does not find any infirmity in the same and are hereby confirmed".
13. From the above, it is made clear that under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, there is an express exclusion that employee means any person other
In the result, the reference is unjustified and the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The industrial dispute as raised by the Petitioner is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
31 January 2023] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 101Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of September, 2022.
Ex.R2 — – Photocopy of the petition filed by Mr. John Arthur in
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
PG.41/2017 before Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity.
Ex.R3 — – Photocopy of the counter statement filed by the respondent in PG.41/2017.
List of petitioner witness:
PW1 — 13-02-2020 Mr. John Arthur
Ex.R4 — 16-06-2015 Photocopy of the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in company petition
No.149/2015.
List of petitioner side exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 13-02-2020 Form - F issued in favour of representative by name
Mr. Durai Arumugam.
Ex.P2 — 07-01-1991 Photocopy of the appointment order for the
post of Apprentice Trainee issued by M/s. Shasun Drugs, Puducherry and
photocopy of salary slip of the petitioner for the month of February 2014.
Ex.R5 — 18-11-2015 Photocopy of the certificate o f I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f
M/s. Strides Shasun Limited issued by Registrar of Companies, Puducherry.
Ex.R6 — 18-07-2018 Photocopy of the name of M/s. Strides Shasun Limited was changed to M/s. Strides
Pharma Science Limited and it was approved by Registrar of Companies vide
certificate of Incorporation.
List of respondent's witness:
Rw1 — 06-09-2021 Mr. Balamurugan Ex.R7 — 25-03-2017 Photocopy of the Certificate of Incorporation of M/s. Strides List of respondent side exhibits:
Pharma Science Limited to Solara Active Pharma Science Limited.
V. SOFANA DEVI,
Ex.R1 — 21-08-2021 Letter of Authorization authorizing Mr. Balamurugan to depose evidence in the
present ID on behalf of respondent company.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), KARAIKAL
NO. 0601/DDSE/KKL/E3(Exam)/2022/528.
Karaikal, dated 06th January 2023.
NOTIFICATION
It is hereby notified that the following candidates have lost their original Higher Secondary Course (I-Year and II-Year)/S.S.L.C. Examination Mark Certificates beyond the scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates. If, anyone finds the original Mark Certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (Sec.), College Road, Chennai – 600 006 for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.