Puducherry Gazette, No. 9, 28 February 2023

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 } ∏©´kˆ | 28 {

No. 9 Poudouchéry Mardi 28 Février 2023 (9 Phalguna 1944)

No. Puducherry Tuesday 28th February 2023

ÿ✓VÚ·¶¬ÔD SOMMAIRES CONTENTS

Page ✓¬ÔD Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ .. 196 Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 196 Award of the Labour Court .. 196

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 202 Notifications du Gouvernement .. 202 Government Notifications .. 202 ∂´∑ ∂§s©AÔ^ .. 204 Notices du Gouvernement .. 204 Government Notices .. 204

.. 207 Announcements .. 207 ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^ .. 207 Annonces

[195]196 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [28 February 2023 GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 02/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 5th January2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 05/2017, dated 26- 10-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of dispute between the management of M/s. Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Kalapet, Puducherry and Puducherry State Federation N.R. Congress Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry, over non-employment and regularisation of 6 Scavengers (i) Tmt. K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammale, (iii) S. Indirani, (iv) E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and (vi) G. Maragadam.

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 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said Award shall be published in the Official Gazette, Puducherry.

(By order)

This Industrial Dispute coming on 03-10-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal K. Velmurugn & P. Preethi, Counsels for the Petitioner and Thiru. M. Nakkeeran, Government Pleader, Counsel for the Respondent, Respondent remaining absent set ex-parte, upon hearing Petitioner side and perusing the case records, this Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt. No. 21/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 24-02-2017 of the Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent, viz., (a) Whether the dispute, raised by Puducherry State Federation N.R. Congress Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry, against the management of M/s. Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Kalapet, Puducherry, over non-employment and regularisation of 6 Scavengers (i) K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammalle, (iii) S. Indirani, (iv) E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and (vi) G. Maragadam are 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?

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner:

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.

Wednesday, the 26th day of October, 2022

I.D. (L) No. 05/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000110-2017

The President/Secretary, Pondicherry State Federation N.R Congress Thozhilalar Sangam, No. 61/2, 1st Floor, Aswini Hospital Opposite, Vazhudhavur Road, Koundanpalayam,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner The Petitioner Union is a registered Trade Union having RTU No. 1803/2013 and is functioning for the welfare and upliftment of the working class in the Puducherry region. As such the Petitioner Union had raised the above industrial dispute on behalf of 6 workmen namely; (i) K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammalle, (iii) S. Indirani, (iv) E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and (vi) G. Maragadam (hereinafter Petitioner workmen) claiming the relief of reinstatement and regularisation. The Respondent management is a prominent Engineering College in the Puducherry region for about 33 years imparting Engineering studies which is well known for its standard and quality. The 2568 students from Puducherry and other States, 2136 students are pursuing B.Tech. and 432 students are pursuing M.Tech. Degree. To cater the above students, the Respondent Management has employed 153 teaching staff, 286 non-teaching staff and 445 office staff including the Petitioner workmen raised the above industrial disputes.

Versus

The Principal, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pillaichavady, Kalapet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent (ii) The Petitioner workmen involved in the above industrial disputes was appointed by the Respondent management on 01-01-2002. After the appointment, all the Petitioner workmen were allotted work to clean the toilets used by the students and staffs, cleaning the roads inside28 February 2023] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 197 the Respondent campus, cleaning the hostel rooms, etc., The right from the date of their appointment all the Petitioner workmen had discharged their duties in a sincere and honest manner to the Respondent management without any blackmark whatsoever. The Petitioner workmen used to work all around the day and used to avail leave only on rare occasions and thus, they worked for more than 300 days in every year with the Respondent Management. Though there are regular permanent vacant posts in the Respondent Management so as to absorb the Petitioner workmen, the Respondent Management did not chosen to regularise them for the reasons best known to it.

(iii) Though the Respondent management had utilized the services of the Petitioner workmen for about 15 years, it did not conferred the permanent status upon the Petitioner workmen and also the Respondent has not provided the monetary welfare benefits which is enjoyed by the other permanent workmen.Though the Petitioner workmen have made several requests upon the Respondent management to regularise them, the Respondent management has not acted upon. The Respondent management employed the Petitioner workmen with very minimal wages mentioned below:

Period Rate of

daily wage 01-01-2002 to 31-12-2005 ` 65 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2009 ` 80 01-01-2010 to 31-12-2013 ` 125 01-01-2014 onwards ` 200 (iv) The Respondent management vide letters, dated 28-09-2015 and 14-10-2015 regularised the services of some 25 workmen who were joined in the service during the year 2010 only. The act of the Respondent management in regularising the 25 workmen who were joined during the year 2010 and neglecting to regularise the 6 Petitioner workmen who joined on 01-01-2002 i.e., having 8 years seniority is arbitrary, illegal and unlawful. The 2 daily rated watchman by name (i) V. Vetriselvam and (ii) N. Ravi who were appointed in 2005 by PCDWDAP Limited, has been regularised from 25-08-2015 vide order, dated 10-09-2015 which is also an Government Autonomous Body. They had given representation, dated 25-01-2016 to the Respondent requesting regularisation of their services but, no steps has been taken in furtherance thereof. Similarly, the Petitioner workmen had given representations, dated 15-02-2016 to the Chief Secretary, Secretary to Government (Higher and Technical Education), Chairman of Pondicherry Engineering College and to the Respondent requesting regularisation of their services. The Petitioner painfully submits that none of the said competent authorities took any steps to regularise the 6 Petitioner workmen.

(v) The aggrieved by the act of the Respondent request of management, the Petitioner workmen raised industrial dispute before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, vide representation, dated 17-03-2016 claiming regularisation of the 6 workmen in the services of the Respondent management. However, on 01-06-2016 during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the Respondent management arbitrarily terminated the services of the 6 workmen without following any procedures of law which tantamount to unfair labour practice. The Respondent has not given any single pie to the Petitioner workmen towards compensation and for appreciation of the services rendered by them for all these 15 years. The Respondent management has filed its reply, dated 06- 07-2016 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, stating false and vexatious reasons. When they informed about the illegal termination to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, the said authority advised the Respondent management to reinstate the 6 Petitioner workmen in their respective services. However, the Respondent refused to take the advice of the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry and told that only if, the 6 Petitioner workmen unconditionally withdraw the industrial dispute and also waive their rights for regularisation, they will be given employment in the Respondent management. Since, the Respondent management did not chosen for amicable settlement, the above dispute ended in failure and hence, the said industrial disputes was referred to this Court for adjudication.

(vi) The Petitioner submits that the act of the Respondent management is not regularising the 6 Petitioner workmen after utilizing their 15 years of hard work and service is against the principle of estoppels. Similarly, the act of the Respondent management in showing disparity in regularising the services of the workmen joined in service during the year 2010 and neglecting the legitimate request of the Petitioner workmen who were having 8 years seniority is unconstitutional and against the Fundamental right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The act of the Respondent management, the Petitioner workmen are suffering great hardship and severe mental agony. Till date all the Petitioner workmen are unemployed and they are starving to their day to day needs because of the illegal termination of the Respondent management. Thus, in light of the above propositions of law and also various judicial-pronouncements in this regard the termination of the Petitioner workmen is arbitrary, null and void, illegal, invalid, improper and hence, liable to be set aside.

(vii) Hence, the Petitioner prays to reinstate the 6 Petitioner workmen in their original employment with full back wages, continuity in service and all other attendant benefits from 01-06-2016 onwards till date of reinstatement; to direct the Respondent management to regularise the198 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [28 February 2023 services of the 6 Petitioner workmen with retrospective effect and to give them the back wages, continuity of services and all attendant benefits thereof; to award compensation of `10,00,000 for the mental agony, hardship suffered by the Petitioner due to the illegal termination by the Respondent with interest at 18% from the date of petition till date of realisation.

of deciding the industrial dispute referred to this Court. The Institution, as such, has not power to decide upon the creation or regularisation of posts. Therefore, the present reference of the alleged dispute, without making the Society as a party through its proper representative, is not maintainable.

3. Brief averments made in the counter:

The Respondent is not the person to be used or to take decisions relating to creation of posts and to regulate recruitments. The Pondicherry Engineering College established and maintained and its administration and management are being carried on by the Engineering College (Pondicherry) Society (Registered No. 40/84), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The said Society and its Institutions are managed by a Governing Body.

(ii) Rule 3 of the Rules and Regulations of the Engineering College (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prescribe the Authorities of the Society. Rule 3 stated that-

"3. Authorities of Society:- The following shall be the authorities of the Society, namely:-

(a) The General Body;

(b) The Governing Body and the Executive Committee; and

(c) Such other Committees as have been appointed under these present and other authorities as may be appointed by the General Body from time to time specifying their duties, powers and functions".

(iii) The composition of the Governing Body is called the Board of Governors, Engineering College (Pondicherry) Society (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and rule 11 (2) (n) of the rules empowers the Board only to create posts and to regulate recruitment of staff of the Society and its Institutions. A Standing Committee, "Staff (Non-Teaching) Selection Committee" has also been constituted by the Board for the purpose of selection of non-teaching staff. Rule 11 (2) (u) prescribed that the Board shall be the person to sue and defend all legal proceedings on behalf of the Society.

(iv) As prescribed by the rules, the Society only can be deemed to be the employer as the definition clause, 2(g), of the Service Bye-laws defines that "Employee" means a person in the service of the Society in any post.

(v) Therefore, the Pondicherry Engineering College, an Institution established and maintained by the Society, cannot be deemed to be the employer for the purpose (vi) It is denied that the 6 persons claiming regularisation by the Petitioner were appointed by the Respondent management on 01-01-2002 or on any other date as claimed by the Petitioner. The said 6 persons were engaged by a labour contractor between 2000 and 2004 for road cleaning works and subsequently, on their offer, they were engaged for daily worker at the rate of ` 85 per day to do cleaning work for three days in a week, for a maximum number of 13 days in a month and were paid through hand receipts/vouchers. From March 2006 till November 2009, there was a break in service and in the same month itself they were again engaged for the same number of days at the same rate of work till June 2010. Subsequently the rate were raised to ` 125 per day and number of days were increased to 22 days till August 2012. From September 2012 the rates were raised to ` 200 per day. However, it is denied that there are regular, permanent vacant posts to absorb the said 6 persons. Till date there are no sanctioned posts as against their engagement to consider regularisation.

(vii) The creation and sanctioning of posts are issues and policy matters within the purview and powers of the Society and the Respondent herein has no power to create posts or to regularise the 6 persons claiming through the Petitioner. The said persons cannot be said or deemed to be holders of a post, since; a regular appointment could be made only by making appointment consistent with the requirements of the Society and by the Society only.

(viii) The Petitioner Union's claim for regularisation of its members merely because they have been engaged for a considerable period of time cannot be granted in light of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if, the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules.

(ix) The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that "The employees before us were engaged on daily payment in the Department concerned on a rate that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are28 February 2023] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 199 working on daily payment formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules".

(x) The Respondent denies the averment that all the six persons claiming regularisation belong to Scheduled Castes. To the best of the knowledge and information of the Respondent three of them only are from Scheduled Castes and one from MBC and the remaining two are from Scheduled Castes from Tamil Nadu. Even assuming that posts are created as against the engagement of the 6 persons the Recruitment Rules cannot be framed in a manner to accommodate them with reference to age and minimum educational qualifications.

recruitment in Government of Puducherry vide G.O. No. G. 24011/1/2017-18/Fl(B), dated 2nd January 2018 issued by, Finance Department, Government of Puducherry highlighting the Economy measures and rationalisation of expenditure to face the emerging financial challenges.

(xii) The Petitioner cannot seek relief citing appointments not related or equated to the six persons whose cause is espoused by the Petitioner.

(xiii) It is denied that the six persons represented by the Petitioner were illegally terminated. Their services, were no longer required by the Society and therefore, their engagement was discontinued which cannot be deemed to be termination. There was no discharge or dismissal consequent to any misconduct and assuming that it was discharge it was a simple discharge only requiring no redressal. It is denied that the Respondent has done anything which can be termed arbitrary, illegal or improper to treat the disengagement of the six persons as null and void.

(xiv) There was no original employment to grant the relief of reinstatement as prayed for by the Petitioner. As already submitted the question of regularisation does not arise in the case of the six persons represented by the Petitioner Union. The Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and much less the sum of ` 10,00,000 or any part of it as claimed by the Petitioner and as the dispute is not adversarial there can be no costs also.

(xv) The Petitioner's claim, has no merit and the dispute itself has been raised speculatively aiming for unjust enrichment which is evident from the claim of ` l0,00,000. As already submitted, the reference of the dispute against the Respondent herein is improper and no enforceable Award can be passed as against the Respondent herein. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Points for consideration:

Whether the Puducherry State Federation N.R. Congress T h o z h i l a l a r S a n g a m , P u d u c h e r r y i s e n t i t l e d for non-employment and regularisation of 6 scavengers (i) K. Indirani, (ii) T. Muniammalle, (iii) S. Indirani, (iv) E. Jagatha, (v) M. Anjalai and (vi) G. Maragadam?

6. On point:

(xi) The demand for regularisation is not sustainable for the following reasons: (a) No appointment order was issued as against any existing post specifying the terms and conditions of service, (b) The six persons were engaged by the Estate Officer when contingency required, (c) There are no regular posts to accommodate the said six persons, (d) They have no educational qualification to accommodate them in any Group 'C' post. Engagement in Group 'D' posts are against the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and involve policy decisions. (e) The existing ratio of non-teaching staff as against the teaching staff is being questioned by the AICTE, (f) As the Institution is owned by the Society and funded by the Government of Puducherry, independent decisions cannot be taken by the Institution in matters having financial implications and the Government itself had to be made a party to the proceedings under the circumstances, (g) There exists a ban on direct PW1 Mr. Mohandas examined Ex. Pl to Ex. Pll marked. Since Respondent did not come forward to cross-examine PW1, the Respondent was set ex parte on 24-02-2022.

200 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [28 February 2023

7. On the Point:

The relief sought in the claim petition is to reinstate the six Petitioner-workmen in their original employment with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits from 01-06-2016 onwards till the date of reinstatement; to regularise the services of the said six Petitioner workmen with retrospective effect and to give them the back wages, continuity of services and all attendant benefits; to award ` 10,00,000 with interest @ 18% from the date of petition till the date of realisation as compensation for the mental agony, hardship suffered by the Petitioners due to illegal termination.

8. As per the claim Statement, the Petitioner workmen were appointed by Respondent management on 01-01-2002 for doing the work of cleaning the toilets, roads inside the Respondent campus, hostel rooms etc., The Petitioner workmen had discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the Respondent management without any black marks. Petitioner workmen worked for more than 300 days in every year. Though there are regular permanent vacant post in the Respondent management to observe the Petitioner workmen, the Respondent management did not chosen to regularise them. But, the Respondent management vide letters, dated 28-09-2015 and 14-10-2015 regularised the services of some 25 workmen who joined during 2010 and Respondent management neglected to regularise the six Petitioner workmen, which is illegal and unlawful.

management, dated 06-07-2016 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) filed and marked as Ex. P2. On perusal of Ex. P2, I could able to find that the Respondent management has listed out the reasons for not accepting the workmen's claim for regularisation. The counter reply given by the Petitioner Union on Ex. P2 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation) on 24-08-2016 was filed and marked as Ex. P3. The Petitioner Union has elaborately given its reply that the reasons mentioned by the management in Ex.P2 for not giving regularisation as improper and false. Further, in Ex. P3 Petitioner Union has stated at page 3 of Ex.P3 that during the hearing before Labour Officer (Conciliation) held on 23-05-2016, both the Petitioner Union and the Respondent management were present and participated in the Conciliation talks. In that meeting, the representatives of management had stated that since the Principal of the College was out of station, the reply regarding the claim for regularisation of the said six Petitioner workmen will be duly given after getting instructions from the Principal and thereby requested to adjourn the matter to 20-06-2016. That being so, meanwhile all of a sudden the six Petitioner workmen were terminated on 01-06-2016 illegally. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would also argue that when the Conciliation proceedings were pending before Labour Officer (Conciliation), having participated and sought time for filing their reply, the Management in the mean time before giving a reply, had terminated all the six Petitioner workmen for whom the Conciliation proceedings were pending.

11. Ex. P4 is the Failure report of the Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated 06-01-2014. On perusal of Ex. P4 also, I could find that the six Petitioner workmen were terminated pending Conciliation proceedings. The said fact has been stated by the Labour Officer, (Conciliation) in his Failure report. Ex. P4 at page 6 unnumbered 1st and 2nd para. Further, at page 30 of the Ex. P4 it is mentioned that,

"During the course of Conciliation proceedings

held on various dates, the management prays further

time for discussion with higher officials and to report.

9. Despite the representations given by the Petitioner workmen requesting regularisation of their services, there were no responses. Aggrieved by that, Petitioner workmen raised industrial dispute before Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry vide representation dated 07-03-2016. Pending Conciliation proceedings the Respondent management arbitrarily terminated the services of the six Petitioner-workmen on 01-06-2016 without following any procedures which amounts unfair labour practices. When the illegal termination was informed to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, he advised the Respondent management to reinstate the six Petitioner-workmen. For which the Respondent management informed the Conciliation A u t h o r i t y t h a t i f , t h e s i x P e t i t i o n e r w o r k m e n unconditionally withdraw the ID and they waive their rights for regularisation only, they will be given employment in the Respondent management. Hence, it was referred to this Court.

Further course of proceedings on 01-09-2016, on

16-09-2016 and 26-09-2016, the Management also

stated that as the direction regarding continuous

service of 6 workers working as daily rated workers

pending before the Law Department for vetting and

also prays short time to report to the Conciliation

Authority.

10. On the side of the Petitioner workmen, representation given to Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated 17-03-2016 with the prayer to regularise the six Petitioner workmen retrospectively from 31-12-2006 with financial benefits etc., filed and marked as Ex. Pl. The reply to Ex. Pl submitted by the Respondent28 February 2023] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 201

University's Case (Supra). The right of the Respondents

for regularisation has been correctly recognised by the

High Court."

During the course of Conciliation proceedings

held on 03-10-2016, workers/Petitioner insisted that

to take immediate action in this regard. The management

stated that as the matter is pending for the direction

before the Law Department, they are unable to reply

before the Conciliation Authority regarding the

continuous service of the 6 workers. The Union not

accepted the above statement of the management and

also stated that the management follow the delay

tactics and hence, insist to failure this issue and to

take further steps for adjudication. As an amicable

settlement could not be reached before this forum, the

matter is ended in failure".

12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted the two case laws during his arguments to substantiate his contention which are as follows:

(i) CDJ 2018 SC-463– the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India-in Chennai Port Trust Vs. The Chennai Post Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association and Others held on dated 27-04-2018 that, 13. In addition to the above referred documents, the Petitioner Union has also filed and relied Ex. P5- photocopy of the extract of attendance of Petitioner workmen for the period 01-04-2016 to 30-04-2016; Ex.P6-Photocopy of the attendance of Petitioner workmen for the month of April, 2016; Ex.P7-photocopy of the appointment letter of Mr. Anbarasan as helper on contract basis in the Respondent establishment; Ex.P8-photocopy of office o r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e R e s p o n d e n t r e g u l a r i s i n g Mr. Anbarasan; Ex.P9- photocopy of the memorandum issued by the Respondent regarding regularisation of consolidated staffs; Ex.Pl0-photocopy of the RTI Application submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent; Ex.Pl1-RTI reply given by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

14. Though the Respondent management filed their counter refuting the claims of the Petitioner, they did not come forward to cross-examine the Petitioner witness PW1. .Respondent remained absent and set ex parte on 24-02-2022. From the exhibits i.e., P1 to P11 and as discussed above, I hold that Petitioner Union has categorically proved its case by way of adducing oral evidence and by marking documentary evidences. The case of the Petitioner Union has not been rebutted by the Management Company and it remained absent. Therefore, from all angles this Court decides the point for determination in favour of the Petitioner Union to the effect that Respondent management is directed to reinstatement the six Petitioner workmen and thus, the industrial dispute referred is justified.

"15-(a) The canteen has been there since the

inception of the appellant's factory, (b) The workmen

have been employed for long years and despite a

change of contractors, the workers have continued to

be employed in the canteen, (d) The wages of the

canteen workers have to be reimbursed by the

appellant, (e) The supervision and control on the

canteen is exercised by the appellant through its

authorised officer, as can be seen from the various

clauses of the contract between the appellant and the

contractor, (f) The contractor is nothing but an agent

or a manager of the appellant, who works completely

under the supervision, control and directions of the

appellant, (g) The workmen have the protection of

continuous employment in the establishment.

(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India- in Civil Appeal No.4443 of 2021, held that, "the point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether t h e d a i l y w a g e r s / R e s p o n d e n t s a r e e n t i t l e d f o r regularisation of their services.

15. In the result, the Reference is justified. The industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner Union is partly allowed to the effect that the Respondent management is hereby directed to reinstate the six Petitioner-workmen in their original employment with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits from 01-06-2016 onwards till the date of reinstatement; to regularise the services of the said six Petitioner workmen with retrospective effect and to give them the back wages, continuity of services and all attendant benefits. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 26th day of October, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Puducherry.

By an order, dated 17-10-2011, persons similarly

situated to the Respondents were absorbed by being

given the benefit of regularisation. The Division Bench

of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory

approach of the University in conferring the benefit of

regularisation to some and not to all those daily wagers

who are eligible. There is no error in the Judgment of

the High Court which warrants interference by this

Court. Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the

schemes have been eagerly awaiting regularisation as

per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural

202 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [28 February 2023

List of petitioner's witness:

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY CHIEF SECRETARIAT (FISHERIES) PW.1 —20-08-2019 Mohandas

List of petitioner's exhibits:

(G.O. Ms. No. 6/Fy.,

Puducherry, dated 06th February 2023)

Ex.P1 — 1 7 - 0 1 - 2 0 1 6 — P h o t o c o p y o f t h e representation given by the Petitioner to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P2 — 0 6 - 0 7 - 2 0 1 6 — P h o t o c o p y o f t h e reply submitted by the Respondent to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P3 — 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 0 1 6 — P h o t o c o p y o f t h e representation given by the Petitioner to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P4 — 0 6 - 0 7 - 2 0 1 7 — P h o t o c o p y o f t h e f a i l u r e r e p o r t s u b m i t t e d b y t h e L a b o u r O f f i c e r ( C o n c i l i a t i o n ) , Puducherry.

Ex.P5 — April 16—Photocopy of the extract of attendance of the Petitioner workmen for the period 01.04.2016 to 30-04-2016.

Ex.P6 — April 16—Photocopy of the attendance of the Petitioner workmen for the month of April, 2016.

Ex.P7 — 12-08-2010—Photocopy of the Appointment Letter of Mr. Anbarasan as helper on contract basis in the Respondent establishment.

Ex.P8 — 14-10-2015—Photocopy of office o r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e R e s p o n d e n t regularising Mr. Anbarasan.

Ex.P9 — 2 8 - 0 9 - 2 0 1 5 — P h o t o c o p y o f t h e m e m o r a n d u m i s s u e d b y t h e Respondent regarding regularisation of consolidated staffs.

Ex.P10 — 06-12-2017—Photocopy of the RTI A p p l i c a t i o n s u b m i t t e d b y t h e Petitioner to the Respondent.

Ex.P11 — 21-01-2018—RTI reply given by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

NOTIFICATION

Tmt. J. Mary Santhi, Deputy Director of Fisheries (Inland), Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare, Puducherry, is admitted into retirement with effect from the afternoon of 28-02-2023 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(By order)

S. MURUGESAN, Under Secretary to Government, (Fisheries).

————

gÁð

Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈD, Amﬂºƒˆ k'¶V´D, ÔVÕ] T], p ºk>AZ¸k´Ï, p k´>´V¤©ÿ✓Ú\V^ º>k¸>V™›]uz, ∂ È k È Ô z § © ✓ V Áð ®ı 5 2 4 8 / ÷ ƒ W . / º Ô V . 5 / 2004/ 5 2 0 , Â V ^ 1 3á 12 á 2 0 2 1á [ J È D W B \ ™ D ÿ ƒ F B © ✓ ' ¶ ]Ú. B. ƒ´kð[, c>sBV·Ï, >ÁÈÁ\ﬂ ÿƒBÈÔD ∂kÏÔ^ º\uÔı¶ º>k¸>V™›Á> WÏk˛¬zD✓Ω ✓Ë¬Ô©✓'¶VÏ. ∂kˆ[ ✓Ë¬ÔVÈD {´Vı| xΩkÁ¶Õ> WÁÈl_, º\u✓Ω º>k¸>V™›Á> ÿƒDÁ\BVÔ WÏk˛¬zD ÿ✓VÚ'| ºkÆ {Ï A]B WÏkVÔ ∂]ÔVˆÁB WBt¬Ô ºkıΩBm ∂kEB\V™>VÔ¬ ÔÚ>©✓|˛≈m.

List of respondent's witnesses: Nil

2. ®™ºk, 1972ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ ƒ'¶D 9(1)ágD ∏ˆs[ˇµ kw∫Ô©✓'|^· ∂]ÔV´∫ÔÁ·ﬂ ÿƒK›], Amﬂºƒˆ, ]Úk^"kÏ ∂´∑ ÿ✓ıÔ^ º \ _ W Á È © ✓ ^ π l _ s ˆ ° Á ´ B V · ´ V Ô ✓ËAˆ•D ]Ú. ˛. pWkVƒ[, >/ÿ✓. ˛ÚiðJÏ›] ®[✓kÁ´, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÔVÕ] T], p ºk>AZ¸k´Ï, p k´>´V¤© ÿ✓Ú\V^ º>k¸>V™›]uz, WÏkVÔ ∂]ÔVˆBVÔ ∂´ƒV_ ÷>[ JÈD WB\™D ÿƒFB©✓|˛≈VÏ.

List of respondent's exhibits : Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI, Presiding Officer (FAC), Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.

3. ]Ú. ˛. pWkVƒ[ ∂kÏÔ^, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÷Õm ƒ\B WÆk™∫Ô^ ƒ'¶D, 1972á[✓Ω, Amﬂºƒˆ, ÔVÕ] T], p ºk>AZ¸k´Ï, p k´>´V¤©ÿ✓Ú\V^ º>k¸>V™›][ ÿÔ·´k WÏkVÔ ∂]ÔVˆ¬z cı¶V™ ÿ✓VÆ©A¬ÔÁ· c¶™ΩBVÔ º✓uÆ¬ÿÔVı|, ∂´∑› mÁ≈l_ >V[ k˛¬zD