[257]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

258

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 258

Award of the Labour Court .. 258

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

262

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 262

Government Notifications

.. 262

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

265

Etablissements dangereux

.. 265

Dangerous Establishments

265

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

266

Annonces

.. 266

Announcements

266

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 }

\VÏﬂ |

21 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mars

2023 (30 Phalguna 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

21st

March

2023

258

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[21 March 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 05/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 19th January 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 08/2020, dated

12-12-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Puducherry, in respect of the Dispute between

the Tmt. V. Rajeswari, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry, and

the management of M/s. DXN Manufacturing (India)

Private Limited, Thiruvandarkoil, Mannadipet Commune,

Puducherry, over non-employment and compensation of

` 7,00,000 with 24% interest 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. 20/9/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.

Monday, the 12th day of December 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 08/2020

CNR. No. PYPY06-000040-2020

Tmt. V. Rajeswari,

No. 10, Madhi Street,

Thirubuvanai Palayam,

Thirubuvanai,

Puducherry-605 107.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. DXN Manufacturing (India)

Private Limited,

R.S. Nos. 141/4 and 142/5,

Whirlpool Road,

Thiruvandar Koil,

Mannadipet Commune,

Puducherry-605 102.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 07-11-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

S. Nagarajan and A.P. Ilangovan, Counsels, for the

Petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, S. Velmurugan and

E. Karthik, Counsels for the Respondent, Reported No

Instruction, Court Notice sent and same served on the

Respondent, Respondent remained ex parte and after

hearing the 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. 70/AIL/Lab./T/2020, dated 15-07-2020 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Tmt. V. Rajeswari, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry against

the Management of M/s. DXN Manufacturing (India)

Private Limited, Thiruvandar Koil, Mannadipet

Commune, Puducherry, over non-employment and

compensation of ` 7,00,000 with 24% interest 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 facts of the case of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner Workman was joined as operator in

the Respondent Management company on 07-04-2002

and the Petitioner kept maintained her good conduct

and best service to the fullest satisfaction of the

Respondent Management being a regular employee

ever since of joining to the employment as operator

under the Respondent management. The Respondent

company was engaged in manufacturing herbal

capsules in the name and style of “R.G. & G.L.”, and

being a multinational company was having surge of

customers over the world for the reason of the health

product of the Respondent company.

(ii) The Respondent Management was engaged

more than 60 employees in a shift per day for

manufacturing process and apart from other

employees for operational purpose. Few employees

among other were taken effort for formation of Union

in the year 2006 and by name “DXN Herbal

Manufacturing (India) Private Limited, Labour Union.

17 employees were targeted by the Respondent

Management for pangs of death, i.e., victimization

for the sole reason that they were being stubborn to

membership to the said Union. 17 employees were

terminated from of service without any valid cause

259

21 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

and reason except their bare eager for membership

into the Union. The said dispute was referred to

Labour Officer, Conciliation from time to time.

(iii) On 01-03-2011 at about 05.30 p.m. the

Respondent Management was surprisingly displaced

a notice on the board that “The Office of Management

will not function from 02-03-2011 and the services of

notice mention employees are not required from

02-03-2011 and their terminal benefits will be settle

down on 08-03-2011 at the Office”. The statutory

machineries, viz., the Labour Commissioner and

Conciliation Officer took cognizance upon the

unlawful act, the Respondent Management immediately.

The Respondent Management was failed to appear

before the officials many hearing and bluntly ignored

them. On around 08-04-2011, the Respondent

Management filed its counter before the Conciliation

Officer in respect of the said Industrial Dispute. Vide

the said counter, the Respondent Management stated

that due to certain unavoidable circumstances had

forced the Management to cease to run the factory

and in view, the Management has proposed to

transfer the staff and their workmen to Himachal

Pradesh unit.

(iv) Some of the employees filed a Civil Suit vide.

O.S. No. 45/2011 before the Sub-Court, Puducherry,

against the Respondent Management and won the

Suit vide Judgment and Decree, dated 12-04-2012. In

view of the vengeance target, the Respondent

Management assailed a baseless allegation against

the Petitioner vide Charge-sheet, dated 22-06-2010 for

the reason of slow down the work. A similar charge

sheet was launched upon many employees who

showed their sheer inclination for membership into

the Union. Apart from the said issue was got the

shape of Industrial Dispute before this Court vide

I.D. No. 21/2011 and I.D. No. 10/2020. In fact the

present Petitioner was party to the Industrial Dispute

vide I.D. No. 10/2020. Whilst pending the above

disputes before this Court, the Respondent

Management desired for tripartite agreement under

section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act so as to

evade and escape from the stringent liabilities for

illegal closure of the company and illegal termination

of the employees including non-employment, etc.

(v) Accordingly, on 04-12-2017, a settlement under

section 12(3) arrived between the Respondent

Management and its Labour Union in the presence

of the Labour Commissioner. A final settlement

including terminal benefits was decided for all the

employees as a compensation measure against the

illegal closure, non-employment, termination, unfair

labour practice, victimization, etc., In view of arrival

of settlement, the Respondent Management was

uniquely decided to cease the service of employees

against the amount agreed for compensation towards

the employees. Accordingly, an amount of ` 3,50,000

(Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) was decided

as compensation quantum for each employees

irrespective of their status. The requisite condition

for the said settlement was cessation of employment

of all employees against the effect of illegal closure

and the Management was not intent to reopen the

said factory forever.

(vi) Whereas, the present nomenclature as to

refusal for employment with the Respondent

Management @ ` 3,50,000 as compensation and who

are willing to continue the service similar to the

Petitioner was paid nothing. Hence, the discriminative

classification for settlement of compensation among

the employees who were set to same foot for same

dispute upon same issue but, the ramified amount for

compensation among the employees was irrational

and illogical. The Petitioner opted to continue

service with Respondent management. However, the

Petitioner was not in a position to join and report

duty in lieu of the 12(3) settlement against her

personal inconvenience upon her matrimonial dispute

including the civic life of her children. Accordingly,

vide letter, dated 21-12-2017, the Petitioner requested

time for joining duty against her warranted reasons.

(vii)The letter, dated 28-12-2017, the Respondent

Management informed the Petitioner that merely

5 days only would be given to join and report duty

and in case of her failure within the set time, the

Management would consider that she is not

interested to continue as its employee and resigned

the job. In addition, Respondent Management sought

the Bank details of the Petitioner to deposit the one

time compensation/terminal benefits @ ` 40,000.

(viii) As a response to the Respondent

management’s letter content, the Petitioner submitted

her letter, dated 03-01-2018 for seeking one month

time for joining duty. The Respondent Management

was not in function yet then in lieu of the 12(3)

settlement, dated 04-12-2017 for the reason that the

Respondent Management and the factory unit was

completely closed down for more than 7 years

continuously. The Respondent Management was

stepped into the shoes of various authorities for

sanctioning the orders to resume the work at the

closed factory premise, viz., the electricity, water,

Municipal tax, environmental clearance, underground

water, measuring the safety clearance, etc.

260

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[21 March 2023

(ix) The letter, dated 09-01-2018 refused the

request of the Petitioner for one month time and

allowed just days time to join the duty. The Petitioner

had exposed her uncontrollable situation and against

which she sought considerable time around one

month vide letter, dated 03-01-2018 to the Respondent

management. Again, the Petitioner vide letter, dated

01-02-2018 sought time for joining muster role.

Whereas, against receipt of the above letter from the

Petitioner, the Respondent Management vide its letter,

dated 02-02-2018 by terminating the Petitioner from

the employment along with a Demand Draft bearing

No. 078388, dated 01-02-2018 for ` 40,000 as one time

compensation/terminal benefit. The Petitioner was

insisted to receive the said termination letter by the

Respondent Management along with the Demand

Draft. But, the Petitioner was however refused the

termination letter and the Demand Draft unlawfuly

assailed by the Respondent management. But, with

no option against irksome insistence of the Respondent

management, the Petitioner received the same with

objection as to no prejudice to her legal rights upon

litigation lie on the cause of action for the present

Industrial Dispute.

(x) The pre-mediated decision of the Respondent

Management for terminating her employment by

ceasing the employment and loosing the lieu over

employment in an unjust and unlawful manner

pertinently in lieu of effect of 12(3) settlement, dated

04-12-2017 between the Management and its Labour

Union after long illegal closure and illegal termination

of the employment of the employees. In precise, the

act of the Respondent Management is shear

victimization to the Petitioner and her employment

rights as per Industrial Dispute Act.

(xi) The letter, dated 18-05-2018 the Petitioner

submitted an appropriate complaint as to the

Industrial Dispute before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry, with the request for

reinstatement to the employment with compensation

of ` 7,00,000. The Respondent Management vide

letter, dated 10-05-2019 replied to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) upon the Industrial Dispute of the

Petitioner and through with stoutly refused the

demands of the Petitioner and sought a failure report

from the Conciliation Officer. Against which a reply

by the Petitioner vide letter, dated 05-08-2019 was

submitted before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

(xii) The Labour Officer (Conciliation) vide his

proceedings No. 742/LO(C)/AIL/2018, dated 16-03-2012

submitted the failure report upon the Industrial

Dispute raised by the Petitioner vide her petition,

dated 18-05-2018. An illegal termination of the

Petitioner’s employment by the sole Respondent

herein pertinently without conducting even a

domestic enquiry against the Petitioner who infact

was regular employee working since, 07-04-2002, i.e.,

for more that 15 years. The Petitioner was drawn her

wage around ` 6,500 after deducting the admissible

contribution, viz., the ESI, the P.F etc., before the

effect of the 12(3) settlement, dated 04-12-2017.

Whereas, `10,500 was fixed as her wage in lieu of

the 12(3) settlement, dated 04-12-2017 apart from

other allowances admissible under the Respondent

Management from time to time. Hence, the claim for

the reinstatement.

3. Respondent Company was set ex parte on

11-08-2022.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the prayer

of reinstatement and compensation of ` 7,00,000 with

24% interest as prayed in the Claim Petition?

5. On the Point:

Respondent Counsel reported no instruction on

20-07-2022. Court notice ordered and served on the

Respondent. Since, service sufficient, Respondent

called but, not appeared on 11-08-2022. Hence,

Respondent Management set ex parte. Proof affidavit

of the Petitioner filed and Ex.P1 to P12 marked.

6. Heard the Petitioner Counsel. Perused the case

records and Ex.P1 to P12 marked on the side of the

Petitioner.

7. The prayer in the Industrial Dispute is for

reinstatement with back wages and other benefits along

with the compensation of ` 7,00,000 with 24% interest

over the illegal termination and non-employment of the

Petitioner with cost. According to the Petitioner, in I.D.

No. 21/2011 and I.D. No. 10/2020 in which the Petitioner

was the party. Pending abovesaid IDs, Management

and Labour Union entered into a settlement under

section 12(3) on 04-12-2017 in the presence of Labour

Commissioner. In view of the settlement, the Respondent

Management agreed for compensation of ` 3,50,000 for

cessation of employment of employees against the

effect of illegal closure and the Management was not

intended to reopen the factory for work. But, the

employees who are willing to continue the service

including the Petitioner was paid nothing. The

discriminative classification for settlement of

compensation among the employees who were on the

same position, but, refused the compensation among the

employees was irrational and illogical.

261

21 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

8. According to the Petitioner, she opted to continue

the service with Respondent Management and not in a

position to join immediately due to her personal

inconvenience. The same was informed to the

Management vide her letter, dated 21-12-2017, requesting

time for joining. The Respondent Management granted

only 5 days time for reporting duty vide its letter, dated

28-12-2017. Again, the Petitioner vide her letter, dated

03-01-2018 sought for one month time for joining the

duty. The Respondent Management refused the request

vide letter, dated 09-01-2018, but, given 5 days time for

joining duty. Again, the Petitioner sought one month

time to the Respondent Management vide her letter

01-02-2018. Whereas, the Respondent Management

vide its letter, dated 02-02-2018 had terminated the

Petitioner from the employment with the Demand Draft,

dated 01-02-2018 for ` 40,000 as one time compensation/

terminal benefits. The Petitioner has received the same

with objection. The above decision of the termination

of the Respondent Management is pre-mediated

decision and against the 12(3) settlement. The Petitioner

had approached the Labour Officer Conciliation. The

Respondent Management filed their objections, dated

10-05-2019. The Labour Officer Conciliation submitted

the Failure report on 16-03-2019.

9. It is submitted by the Petitioner Counsel that

` 10,500 was fixed as her wage in lieu of the 12(3)

Settlement, dated 04-12-2017 apart from other allowances

admissible under the Respondent Management from

time to time.

10. Though the Petitioner has agreed to join the

Respondent Management, but, she could not make it

immediately due to her personal inconvenience. This

version of the Petitioner has not been rebutted by the

Respondent

Management.

When

Respondent

Management had disbursed ` 3,50,000 to the employees

those who quit the job as per the Settlement under

section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in absence

of any rebuttal pleadings, evidence and proof, this

Court is not in a position to reject the claim of the

Petitioner. But, at the same time, this Court is not

inclined to order the relief as such claimed by the

Petitioner in this claim petition in toto. On considering

the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that before

the closure, the Petitioner had received ` 6,500 as wage

after all deductions. Hence, taking into account as per

the 12(3) settlement though the Petitioner has agreed

to join the Respondent Management, but, she could not

make it immediately due to her personal inconvenience,

it is just and proper that if, ordered the same compensation

of ` 3,50,000 which was paid by the Respondent

Management to the employees those who quit the job,

be paid to the Petitioner herein with accrued interest.

Since, ` 40,000 already paid to the Petitioner Workman,

the same shall be deducted from the said compensation.

Thus, the point for determination is decided accordingly.

11. In the result, the Reference is justified and the

industrial dispute is partly allowed with the effect that

the Respondent Management is hereby directed to pay

` 3,10,000 (Rupees three lakhs and ten thousand only)

which was paid by the Respondent Management to the

employees those who quit the job, to the Petitioner

herein with accrued interest at the rate of 9% from the

date of their job cessation, i.e., 02-02-2018 till the date

of this Award and thereafter, 6% from the date of the

Award till the date of realization. Other claims claimed

by the Petitioner in the claim petition is rejected. No

costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this

12th day of December 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 14-09-2022

Tmt. V. Rajeswari

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 21-12-2017

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P2

— 28-12-2017

Original document of the

letter by the Respondent to

the Petitioner.

Ex.P3

— 03-01-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P4

— 09-01-2018

Original document of the

letter by the Respondent to

the Petitioner.

Ex.P5

— 01-02-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P6

— 02-02-2018

Original document of the

letter by the Respondent to

the Petitioner intimating

job cessation.

Ex.P7

— 01-02-2018

Photocopy of the Demand

Draft No. 078388 (Axis Bank).

Ex.P8

— 10-05-2019

O r i g i n a l d o c u m e n t o f

the reply of Respondent

Management before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

262

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[21 March 2023

Ex.P9

— 05-08-2019

Original document of the

rejoinder of the Petitioner

before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.P10 — 16-03-2020

Photocopy of the Failure

Report by Labour Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.P11 — 15-07-2020

Photocopy

the

Notification of the Labour

Department, Government of

Puducherry.

Ex.P12 — 04-12-2017

Photocopy of the 12(3)

Settlement.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE

(SECRETARIAT WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 17/DI&C(SW)/T1/2022-23,

Puducherry, dated 28th February 2023]

NOTIFICATION

In pursuance of Article 7 of the Articles of Association

of the Puducherry Distilleries Limited (PDL) and in

accordance with the powers vested under Articles 10

and 13 of the Articles of Association of PDL, the

Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is pleased to

reconstitute the Board of Directors of Puducherry

Distilleries Limited (PDL), Puducherry, as follows with

immediate effect and until further orders.

1. Secretary to Government

. . Chairman

(lndustries and Commerce).

2. Secretary to Government (Labour)

. . Director

3. Secretary to Government (Excise)

. . Director

4. Director (Industries and Commerce) . . Director

5. Managing Director, Puducherry

. . Director

Distilleries Limited.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

V. MOKAN KUMAR,

Under Secretary to Government

(lndustries and Commerce).

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (AGRICULTURE)

(G.O. Ms. No. 20/Ag., Puducherry, dated 1st March 2023)

NOTIFICATION

(Addendum)

The following clause shall be added at 2.1

Composition of State Level Consultative Committee

(SLCC) as Sl.No. XIV of the G.O. Ms. No. 14/Ag.,

dated 12-08-2020 of the Chief Secretariat (Agriculture),

Puducherry.

Representative of SFAC/NAFED/NCDC/ . . Member

any other Implementing Agency as

appointed by the Government of India

from time to time.

The following clause shall be added at 2.3 Composition

of District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC) for

Puducherry District as Sl.No. XI of the G.O. Ms. No. 14/Ag.,

dated 12-08-2020 of the Chief Secretariat (Agriculture),

Puducherry.

Representative of SFAC/NAFED/NCDC/ . . Member

any other Implementing Agency as

appointed by the Government of India

from time to time.

The other conditions contained in the Government

Order remain unaltered.

(By order)

SUNDARA RAJAN. P,

Deputy Secretary to Government

(Agriculture).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HEALTH SECRETARIAT

(G.O. Ms. No. 11, Puducherry, dated 06th March 2023)

NOTIFICATION

The Lieutenant-Governor of Puducherry is pleased

to confirm the services of the following 5 Dieticians and

to appoint them substantively in their entry grade with

effect from the dates indicated against their names:–

Sl.

Name of the

Entry grade

Date of

No.

officials

in which

confirmation

confirmed

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

M. Kayalvizhi

Dietician

19-06-2017

R. Kavitha

Dietician

22-06-2017