[85]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

\Vk‚¶ ¿]√]BV_ ®|¬Ô©√|D ..

Procédure du Magistrate de District ..

Procedings of the District

º\_Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

Magistrate

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

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

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

106

Annonces

.. 106

Announcements

106

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

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

ƒ™kˆ |

31 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2023 (11 Magha 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

31st

January

2023

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).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. Sofana Devi, M.L.

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 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

@ Lenin Durai, Counsel for the Petitioner and

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?

2. Brief averments made in the claim Statement of the

Petitioner are as follows:

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 apprentice

31 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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.

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.

(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.

(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.

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:

(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,

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 ÔVÈ¬Ô‚¶›]uz

31 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

stiphend-gÔ kw∫Ô©√|D ®[ÆD ºkÆ ÷>´ Allowance-

Ôº·V, bonus ∂_Èm ÷>´ �≈ W´Õ>´ ÿ>VaÈV·ÏÔ”¬z

kw∫Ô¬ÌΩB √ð √È[Ôº·V kw∫˛¶ ÷BÈVm ®[Æ sˆkVÔ

z§©∏¶©√‚|^·m ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. º�√Ω W√Õ>Á™ÔÁ™

∞uÆ¬ÿÔVı|>V[, º�√Ω Shasun WÆk™›]_ apprentice

training-gÔ

ºƒÏÕº>[

®[≈V_

ƒˆ>V[.

º�√Ω

\>ƒVg.2á|¶[, ÂV[ º�√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>

ÔVÈ¬Ô‚¶›]_, ®[–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 �ÆD ÷>´ 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 ÔVÈ¬Ô‚¶›]uz gratuity kw∫˛¶ ÷BÈVm

®[Æ ÿƒV[™V_ ®™¬z ∂m √u§ ÿ>ˆBVm.

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:

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

Welfare

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.

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:

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.

100

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:

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

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.

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.

101

31 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 15th day of September, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner witness:

PW1

— 13-02-2020

Mr. John Arthur

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

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.

List of respondent’s witness:

Rw1

— 06-09-2021

Mr. Balamurugan

List of respondent side exhibits:

Ex.R1 — 21-08-2021

Letter of Authorization

authorizing Mr. Balamurugan

to depose evidence in the

present ID on behalf of

respondent company.

Ex.R2 — –

Photocopy of the petition

filed by Mr. John Arthur in

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.

Ex.R4 — 16-06-2015

Photocopy of the Orders

passed by the Hon'ble High

Court in company petition

No.149/2015.

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

was

approved

Registrar of Companies vide

certificate of Incorporation.

Ex.R7 — 25-03-2017

Photocopy of the Certificate

of Incorporation of M/s. Strides

Pharma Science Limited to

Solara

Active

Pharma

Science Limited.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

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.