[295]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

\Vk‚¶ ¿]√]BV_ ®|¬Ô©√|D ..

296

Procédure du Magistrate de District .. 296

Procedings of the District

296

º\_Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

Magistrate

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

298

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 298

Award of the Labour Court .. 298

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

302

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 302

Government Notifications

.. 302

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

304

Etablissements dangereux

.. 304

Dangerous Establishments

304

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

306

Annonces

.. 306

Announcements

306

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 }

∞©´_ |

4 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Avril

2023 (14 Chaitra 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

4th

April

2023

298

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[4 April 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 07/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 19th January 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 07/2020, dated

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

Puducherry, in respect of dispute between Tmt. S. Vani,

Arumbarthapuram, Puducherry against 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. 07/2020

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000039-2020

Tmt. S. Vani,

No. 139, Main Road,

Arumbarthapuram,

Puducherry-605 110.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. DXN Manufacturing (India) Private Limited,

R.S. No. 141/4 & 142/5, Whirlpool Road,

Thiruvandarkoil, Mannadipet Commune,

Puducherry-605 102.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 07-11-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvaragal

S. Nagarajan & 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 exparte and after

hearing the Petitioner side and perusing the case records,

this Court delivered the following:

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.

No.69/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. S. Vani, Arumbarthapuram, Puducherry against

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 is

justified or not? If justified, what relief the Petitioner

is entitled to?

299

4 April 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(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 26-03-2002

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 a herbal

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

being a multi-national company was having surge of

customers over the world for the reason of the health

product of the Respondent Management.

(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 victimization for the sole reason that

they were being stubborn to membership to the said

Union. 17 employees were terminated from service

without any valid cause 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 for 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 25-06-2010 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 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.

(vii) 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

300

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[4 April 2023

12(3) settlement against her personal inconvenience

upon her two school going kids and her husband was

in employment out of the State. Accordingly, vide letter,

dated 21-12-2017, the Petitioner requested time for

same. However vide 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

02-01-2018 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.

(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 02-02-2018 to the Respondent management.

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. 078387, 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 premediated 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 Disputes 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.740/LO(C)/AIL/018, 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 26-03-2002 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 Workman 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

301

4 April 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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

Respondent Management set ex parte. Proof affidavit

of the Petitioner filed and Ex.P1 to P13 marked.

6. Heard the Petitioner Counsel. Perused the case

records and Ex.P1 to P13 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.

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

02-01-2018 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

02-02-2018. 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 u/s. 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

the 12th day of December, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

302

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[4 April 2023

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 14-09-2022

Tmt. Vani

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — 21-12-2017

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P2 — 28-12-2017

Photocopy of the letter by

the Respondent to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P3 — 02-01-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P4 — 09-01-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the Respondent to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P5 — 02-02-2018

Photocopy of the letter by

the

Petitioner

the

Respondent.

Ex.P6 — 02-02-2018

Photocopy of the Letter by

the Respondent to the

Petitioner intimating job

cessation.

Ex.P7 — 02-02-2018

Photocopy of the Demand

Draft No. 078387 (Axis Bank).

Ex.P8 — 18.05.2018

Original document of the

Industrial Dispute complaint

of the Petitioner before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P9 — 10-05-2019

Original document of the

Respondent

Management before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P10 — 05-08-2019

Photocopy of the rejoinder

of the Petitioner before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P11 — 16-03-2020

Failure Report by Labour

Officer (Conciliation).

Ex.P12 — 15-07-2020

Notification of the Labour

Department, Government of

Puducherry.

Ex.P13 — 04-12-2017

Photocopy of the 12(3)

Settlement.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of Respondents’s Exhibits: Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

(G.O. Ms. No. 18, Puducherry, dated 15th March 2023)

NOTIFICATION

The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is pleased

to appoint Thiru Dwij Goel, who has been allotted to

the Pondicherry Civil Service by Department of

Personnel and Training, Government of India on the

basis of the results of Civil Services Examination, 2021,

to the Grade-II of Pondicherry Civil Service, with effect

from the forenoon of 06-03-2023, subject to the

conditions mentioned in the letter of Offer of

Appointment, No.A.19011/19/2022/DPAR/SS-I(2) dated,

05-12-2022.

2. The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is also

pleased to order that Thiru Dwij Goel will be a

Probationer in the Pondicherry Civil Service (PCS) for a

period of two years from the forenoon of 06-03-2023.

3. Thiru Dwij Goel, PCS Probationer, shall take the

Oath of Allegiance before the Deputy Secretary to

Government (Establishment), Chief Secretariat,

Puducherry and furnish Surety Bond in the prescribed

proforma within ten days from the date of this

Notification.

4. Thiru Dwij Goel, PCS Probationer, is directed to

report before the District Collector, Puducherry, for field

training in Revenue Department. He shall undergo

Foundation Training Course in the Directorate of

Training, Union Territory Civil Service (UTCS), Delhi,

as and when the next batch commences for a period as

may be prescribed by Union Territory Civil Service

(UTCS). He shall also pass ‘Tamil Course for Non-Tamil

PCS Officers’ conducted by the Puducherry Institute of

Linguistics and Culture, Puducherry.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 32/Lab./AIL/T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 17th March 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. Shree Mother Plast India Private Limited,

Puducherry and Thiru A. Ayyappan, over his

non-employment along with back wages and other

attendant benefits, in respect of the matter mentioned

in the Annexure to this order;