[607]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

608

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 608

Award of the Labour Court .. 608

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

610

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 610

Government Notifications

.. 610

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

619

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 619

Tender Notices

.. 619

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

620

Annonces

.. 620

Announcements

620

]Ú›>D

626

Corrigendum

.. 626

Corrigendum

.. 626

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 }

gÔ¸‚ |

15 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Août

2023 (24 Sravana 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

15th

August

2023

608

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[15 August 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 66/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 1st August 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 12/2021, dated

30-08-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Puducherry and Thiru R. Ramesh Raja, Sedarapet,

Puducherry, over non-employment;

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)

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.

Tuesday, the 30th day of August, 2022

I.D. (L) No. 12/2021

CNR. No. PYPY06-000023-2021

R. Ramesh Raja,

No. 2/698, Velayudham Nagar,

Irumbai Road,

Thiruchitrambalam Cross Road,

Vanur Taluk,

Villupuram District.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Nos. 19/1 and 4/4, Mailam Road,

Sedarapet Post,

Puducherry-605 111.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-08-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

S. Lenindurai @ Kalimuthu and M. Ruthra, Counsels for

the Petitioner, Respondent remained ex parte and after

hearing the petition 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. 52/AIL/Lab./T/2021, dated 03-08-2021 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Thiru R. Ramesh Raja, Sedarapet, Puducherry against

the Management of M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Puducherry, over non-employment 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:

(i) The Petitioner Workman was working as a

Driver in the Respondent company from 01-12-2014

and discharging his duties without any adverse

remarks. While being so, on 15-12-2018 when the

Petitioner Workman was attending his work, the HR

of the Respondent company informed orally that the

Petitioner Workman was terminated from the service

and demanded his sign in the Settlement receipt.

Petitioner Workman denied to sign in it and asked

for reason for his termination. But, Respondent

company did not give any reply. The Petitioner

Workman approached the Respondent company

many times but, there was no response. The

Petitioner Workman has moved a Petition before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation) against the respondent

on 24-12-2018. He has also given Petition before the

Labour Commissioner on 29-04-2019. On receipt of the

Petition, the Labour Officer (Concillation) issued

summons to both the parties, dated 27-02-2019. In

spite of repeated notice/summons, the respondent did

not appear for the enquiry.

(ii) The Respondent company without having any

Standing Order, running the company with more than

100 employees. The Respondent company used to

suspend the employees without reason. The

Respondent company has also not paid any tax to

the Commune Panchayat. The Respondent Company

had obtained the signatures from the employees by

using force and threat over the blank papers. The said

act of the respondent is against the law and Principles

of Natural Justice. Petitioner Workman is suffering

from 15-12-2018 without employment till date.

Refusing to give employment to the Petitioner

Workman without any reason amounts to Unfair

Labour Practices. Hence, the claim for the

reinstatement.

609

15 August 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and

Respondent. Petitioner appeared and engaged an

Advocate to represent him. Whereas, the respondent

not appeared. Hence, the Respondent company was set

ex parte on 20-10-2021. Claim Petition filed by the

Petitioner.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner Workman is entitled for the

prayer of reinstatement as prayed in the Claim

Petition?

5. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW1. Ex.Pl to P6

were marked. Since respondent remained ex parte,

PW1 not cross-examined.

6. On the point:

The Petitioner Workman has filed his chief

examination affidavit reiterating his contention made

in his Claim Petition as

* He was working as a Driver in the Respondent

company from 01-12-2014 and discharging his

duties without any adverse remarks.

* On 15-12-2018 HR of the Respondent company

informed him orally that the Petitioner Workman

was terminated from the employment and

demanded to sign in the settlement receipt.

* Respondent Company did not give any reply

to the Petitioner for refusing employment.

* The Petitioner Workman gave Petition before

the Conciliation Officer against the respondent

on 24-12-2018 and before the Labour

Commissioner also on 29-04-2014.

* In spite of repeated notice/summons, the

respondent did not appear before either of them

for the enquiry.

* No Standing Order for the Respondent

Company functioning with more than 100

employees. The Respondent Company used to

suspend the employees without any reason.

* The Respondent Company had obtained the

signatures from the employees by using force

and threat over the blank papers. The said act

of the respondent is against the law and the

Priniciples of Natural Justice.

* It is a clear case of Unfair Labour Practices.

7. The Respondent Company despite notice from the

Court served on him remained absent before the Court

from the first hearing.

8. On perusal of the case records available before

this Court, I could able to find that the Respondent

company did not only appear before this Court, but, it

also not appeared either before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) or Labour Commissioner, despite notices

issued for appearance of the Respondent company for

conciliation.

9. The Documents marked on the side of the

Petitioner -Workman would show and substantiate the

fact of absence of the Respondent company before all

the abovesaid proceedings. The Photocopy of the

Petition to the Conciliation Officer, dated 24-12-2018

(Ex. P1), the Photocopy of the summon, dated

27-02-2019, Ex. P2, the Photocopy of the Petition to the

Labour Commissioner, dated 29-04-2019 (Ex.P3), the

Photocopy of the before the Conciliation Officer by the

Union, dated 30-09-2019 (Ex. P4), the Photocopy of the

report by the conciliation, dated 17-06-2021 (Ex.P5); and

the Photocopy of the Notice, dated 03-08-2021 (Ex.P6)

were exhibited on the Petitioner Workman in support of

his case.

10. In the report Ex.P5, it has been categorically

mentioned by the Labour Officer (Conciliation) that,

“enquiries were posted on various dates to reach an

amicable settlement. The Petitioner has only appeared

for the enquiries and the management has not turned

up to attend the enquiry even a single day and the

management has not filed any written statement about

their stand in this regard. Following continues absent

on the management side, the Petitioner has requested

the conciliation authority to failure the issue and to take

appropriate remedy over his claim”.

11. The dispute raised by the Petitioner Thiru R. Ramesh

Raja, Sedarapet, Puducherry against the management of

M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited, Puducherry is for

reinstatement. According to the Petitioner Workman, he

was orally informed by the HR Manager of the

Respondent company that he was terminated from

service. So, no document filed to that effect.

12. Therefore, from all the exhibits i.e., P1 to P6 this

Court could clearly comes to the conclusion that the

Respondent company never appeared before any forums

such as Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,

Labour Officer (Enforcement), Puducherry and before

this Industrial Tribunal, despite several notices issued

to the Respondent company for making appearance and

submitting their side so, as to decide the industrial

dispute.

13. As discussed above, I hold that Petitioner

Workman has categorically proved its case by way of

adducing oral evidence and by marking documentary

evidences. The case of the Petitioner Workman has not

been rebutted by the Management Company and it

610

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[15 August 2023

remained absent. Therefore, from all angles this Court

decide the point for determination in favour to the

Petitioner Workman to the effect that Respondent

company is directed to reinstatement the workman

Mr. R. Ramesh Raja and thus, the industrial dispute

referred is justified.

In the result, the industrial dispute raised by the

Petitioner Workman is justified and the Respondent

Management is hereby directed to reinstatement the

workman Mr. R. Ramesh Raja with full back wages,

Bonus for 2019, Salary for December 2018, Leave salary

with continuity of service as prayed in the Claim

Petition. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 30th day of August, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —

13-06-2022 Thiru R. Ramesh Raja

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — 24-12-2018

Photocopy of the Petition

to the Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P2 — 27-02-2019

Photocopy of the Notice of

Enquiry/Conciliation.

Ex.P3 —

29-04-2019

Photocopy of the Petition to

the Labour Commissioner,

Government of Puducherry.

Ex.P4 —

30-09-2019

Photocopy of Petition by

AIUTUC, to Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government

of Puducherry.

Ex.P5 —

17-06-2021

Photocopy of the report by

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Government

of Puducherry.

Ex.P6 —

03-08-2021 Photocopy of the Notification

in G.O. Rt. No. 52/AIL/Lab./

T/2021.

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

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 15/AIL/Lab./G/2022,

Puducherry, dated 21st July 2023)

NOTIFICATION

The following Draft of the Proposal for revision of

minimum rates of wages payable to the employees

employed in Chemical Industries in the Union territory

of Puducherry, which the Lieutenant-Governor of

Puducherry proposes to make in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3,

read with sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Minimum

Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act 11 of 1948), is hereby

published as required under clause (b) of sub-section (1)

of section 5 of the said Act, for information of all the

persons likely to be affected thereby and notice is

hereby given that the said Draft Proposal will be taken

up for consideration by the Government of Puducherry,

after the expiry of sixty days from the date of publication

of the said Proposal in the Official Gazette of Government

of Puducherry.

2. Any objections or suggestions, which may be

received from any person with respect to the Proposal

before the expiry of the period specified above, will be

considered by the Government of Puducherry.

3. Objections or suggestions should be addressed to

the Secretary to Government, Labour Department,

Puducherry.

DRAFT PROPOSAL

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of

sub-section (1) of section 3, read with sub-section (1)

of section 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central

Act 11 of 1948), the Lieutenant-Governor of Puducherry,

is pleased to revise the minimum rates of wages payable

to the categories of employees employed in Chemical

Industries in the Union territory of Puducherry, as

specified in the Schedule hereunder:

EMPLOYMENT IN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES

THE SCHEDULE

Sl.

Classes of employees

Minimum rates of

No.

wage per month

(8 hours work

per day)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Technical Staff

(1) Technical Manager (Chemical/

17,750

Mechanical/Electrical/Civil/

Instrumentation).