[871]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

872

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 872

Award of the Labour Court .. 872

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

..

877

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 877

Government Notifications

.. 877

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

..

879

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 879

Tender Notices

.. 879

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

..

881

Etablissements dangereux

.. 881

Dangerous Establishments

..

881

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

..

882

Annonces

.. 882

Announcements

..

882

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 }

ΩƒD√Ï |

19 {

No.

51

Poudouchéry

Mardi

19

Décembre

2023 (28 Agrahayana 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

19th

December

2023

872

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 December 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 99/AIL/Lab./S/2023,

Puducherry, dated 30th November 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 04/2023, dated

21-08-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of Dispute between the M/s. Nithya Packaging Private

Limited, Puducherry and Thiru P. Sivaraman, over

reinstatement along with attendant benefits 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. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 21st day of August, 2023.

I.D. (L). No. 04/2023

CNR. No. PYPY06-000030-2023

P. Sivaraman,

S/o. Pakkiri,

No. 13, Mariamman Koil Street,

Thirukanji Pet, Kilinjikuppam,

Villianur, Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Nithya Packaging Private Limited,

R.S. Nos. 258/1 and 258/2,

I.O.C. Gas Plant Road,

Othiampet Village,

Villianur Commune, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 21-08-2023

before me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru

R. Ilancheliyan, Counsel, for the Respondent, and after

perusing the case records, this Court delivered the

following:

ORDER

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 12/Lab./AIL/T/2023, dated 07-02-2023 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

P. Sivaramam, against the Management of M/s. Nithya

Packaging Private Limited, Puducherry, over

reinstatement along with attendant benefits 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. Today when the case came up for hearing, no

representation on Petitioner side inspite of several

adjournments. The Petitioner has not filed Claim

statement inspite of posting as last chance. Therefore,

this Court opines that there is no purpose to keep this

reference pending without any progress.

In the result, this reference is closed for non

prosecution.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 21st day of August, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 100/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 30th November 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 34/2023, dated

02-05-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of the Dispute between the M/s. AJ Higher Secondary

School, Puducherry and Thiru Baskaran, Villupuram,

over to reinstate the petitioner in his original

employment with full back wages, continuity in service

and all other attendance benefits 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.

873

19 December 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2023.

I.D. (L). No. 34/2022

CNR. No. PYPY06-000105-2022

Baskaran,

No. 88/1, Vinayagar Koil Street,

Kalinjikuppam and Post,

Villupuram.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Principal,

AJ Higher Secondary School,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 24-04-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thjiruvalargal

K. Velmurugan and P. Preethi, Counsels, for the

Petitioner, Thjiruvalargal N. Kannan, I. Ilankumar and

M. Radjesvary, Counsels, for the Respondent,

Respondent remained ex parte as counter not filed and

after hearing the Petitioner side and perusing the case

records, this Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This petition filed under section 2(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to direct the Respondent

Management to reinstate the Petitioner in his original

employment with full back wages, continuity in service

and all other attendant benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner

The Respondent Management was initially started

an educational institution by name New Generation

School situated at Kakayanthope, Ariyankuppam,

Puducherry and thereby imparted high quality of

education to its students. Due to overwhelming

response from the public, the Respondent

Management upgraded itself and started a new school

during the year 2012 by name A J Higher Secondary

School at I.N. Palayam, Puducherry which is also

well known for its high quality and standard

education imparting for the students in Puducherry.

The Respondent Management is getting enormous

profits every year through the Tuition fees,Term fees.

Transport fees and other miscellaneous fees from the

students. The Respondent Management has engaged

permanent teaching and non-teaching staffs in this

regard.

(ii) That on 17-07-2017 Petitioner was appointed

as Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator by the

Respondent Management to look after the audit and

other financial related transactions in the AJ Higher

Secondary School. The Respondent Management for

the reasons best known to it, has not issued any

appointment order to the Petitioner. The Petitioner

was directly appointed by the Respondent

Management and he was working under the direct

control find. supervision of Respondent Management

and furthermore the Respondent is the paymaster of

the Petitioner who used to pay the monthly salary

through petitioner’s Bank Account. Hence, the

Employer and Employee relationship exists between

the Petitioner and Respondent Management. Since,

from the inception of his services, he was discharging

his duties in a sincere and honest manner without

any sort of black mark whatsoever. Initially the

Petitioner received a sum of ` 15,000 per month as

salary and the last drawn wage of the Petitioner

during the year 2010 was at ` 16,088 per month.

(iii) The Respondent Management has given

annual increment for only 1 year to the petitioner but

failed to give any annual increment for the last

4 years, despite several requests of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has thus lead a miserable life with the

meager income given by the Respondent Management

to battle the heavy surge in the cost of living. The

Petitioner was always loyal and honest to the

Respondent Management and discharged his duties

in a sincere and effective manner.

(iv) The shock and surprise on 29.01.2022

the Manager of the Respondent Management has

orally instructed the Petitioner not to come for work

hereafter without assigning any reasons. Though, the

Petitioner has requested the Manager to revoke the

oral termination explaining his financial conditions,

the said Manager refused to heed to the Petitioner’s

requests. The Respondent Management without

considering Petitioner’s family background, past

unblemished services of the Petitioner, legitimate

requests of the Petitioner, etc., was very adamant in

874

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 December 2023

terminating the services of the Petitioner without

following the Principles of Natural Justice. Till date

the Petitioner remains unemployed and his whole

family is starving to their daily bread. His last drawn

wages in the Respondent Management is ` 16,088

per month.

(v) The Petitioner is a permanent regular workman

who has rendered about 5 years of continuous

unblemished service to the Respondent Management.

This being so, the Respondent Management without

issuing any show-cause notice, not conducting any

domestic enquiry, without giving any written

suspension/dismissal order arbitrarily on oral

instruction terminated the services of the Petitioner

Workman. The above act of the Respondent

Management is illegal, unjust, invalid, improper and

against the Principles of Natural Justice. The

Petitioner was ever ready and willing to do his job,

but it is the Respondent Management who has

refused to give any sort of work to the Petitioner

Workman from 29-01-2022 onwards. There is no fault

or misconduct committed by the Petitioner against

the Respondent Management and the Respondent

Management with an ulterior motive terminated the

service of the Petitioner Workman.

(vi) The cardinal principle under the labour

jurisprudence that before inflicting punishment upon

the delinquent employee, the Management is

supposed to seek his explanation about the proposed

punishment to the charge-sheeted employer and only

thereafter, any punishment could be inflicted,

Whereas in the case on hand, the Respondent

Management has not followed the above mandatory

procedure, but, straightway terminated the services

of the Petitioner Workman.

(vii) Aggrieved by the act of the Respondent

Management, the Petitioner through letters, dated

01-06-2022 has given representation to the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, to intervene in

this issue and thereby advise the Respondent

Management to reinstate the Petitioner Workman in

his original employment and provide him all

statutory benefits. The Respondent Management

officials after receipt of the notice from the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, appeared before

the conciliation enquiry and gave evasive reply with

false allegations vide letter, dated 01-08-2022 and

27-09-2022. Since, the Labour Office could not reach

amicable settlement between the parties. Hence, the

claim for the reinstatement.

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and

Respondent. Petitioner appeared and engaged an

Advocate to represent him. Though the Respondent has

engaged his Advocate, but, not chosen to file its

counter after sufficient time given by this Court. Neither

Respondent Management appeared nor represented by

its Counsel. Hence, the Respondent Management was

set ex parte on 04-04-2023. Claim Petition filed by the

Petitioner.

4. Point for determination

Whether the Petitioner Workman is entitled for the

prayer of reinstatement iiiul other benefits as prayed

in the Claim Petition?

5. On point

Respondent remained ex parte as counter not

filed. Proof affidavit of Petitioner filed, he himself

examined as PW1. Ex.P1 to P9 were marked.

6. On the point

The present ID in JD(L). 34/2022 filed by way of

claim petition under section 2(A) of ID Act, 1947.

According the Petitioner, he was appointed as

Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator on 17-07-2017

by the Respondent Management and since then he

was working under the control and supervision of the

Respondent Management on monthly salary paid by

the Management to Petitioner’s Bank Account.

Initially the Petitioner received ` 15,000 per month

as salary and last drawn wage during the year 2021

was ` 16,088 per month. No ESI, EPF implemented by

the Respondent Management and no accounts for

the same were created by the Respondent

Management to extend the benefits to its employees.

Initially annual increment granted but later on failed

to give increments. On 29-01-2021 the Petitioner was

orally instructed not to come to work without

assigning any reasons. The Petitioner remained

unemployed till date. The Respondent Management

without issuing any show cause notice, conducting

domestic enquiry and any written Suspension Order

orally refused to give employment.

7. To substantiate that the Petitioner was an

employee of the Respondent Management, on Petitioner

side Ex.P5 the photocopy of the Conduct Certificate

issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner Workman

marked. On perusal of this document, I could find that

the present Petitioner Workman namely, Baskaran was

serving as Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator in the

Respondent Management from July 2017 till the date of

the Certificate (22-12-2021). Ex.P6 the Photocopy of the

Identity Card issued by the Respondent Management

to the Petitioner also shown that Petitioner Workman

was working under the Respondent School.

875

19 December 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

8. In addition to the above documents the Petitioner

Workman has filed Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 are his Pay Slips for

(September - 2021, October 2021 and November 2021

respectively) issued by the Respondent School. It also

shows that his monthly salary is ` 16,088 Apart from

this, on Petitioner Workman side the representation

given to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated

01-06-2022 filed as Ex.P1 requesting for re-ernployment

in the Respondent School. Ex.P2 is the reply given by

the Respondent School before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation). On perusal of Ex.P2, though the

Respondent has raised some allegations against the

Petitioner Workman has not chosen to appear before

this Court to substantiate the same.

9. Notice was ordered by this Coun to the

Respondent School for its appearance. Respondent

Management appeared but not chosen to file its counter.

Several adjournments were given for filing counter by

the Respondent Management. Despite the conditional

order, the Respondent Management did not come

forward to file its counter. Hence, the Respondent

Management was set ex parte on 04-04-2022.

10. The allegations made in the reply Ex.P2 given by

the Respondent Management before the conciliation

proceedings were said to be occurred in 2020. Whereas,

the Respondent Management refused employment for

Petitioner Workman on 29-01-2022. Ex.P7 to P9 are the

Pay Slips for the month of September 2021 to November

2024 respectively, produced by the Petitioner Workman

to substantiate that he was in employment under the

Respondent School till 2021. Therefore, from the

available recordi Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 this Court finds that the

Petitioner Workman has proved his case and the

Respondent Management remained ex parte and has not

filed its version of defence to shatter the claim and the

evidence produced by the Petitloner, Therefore, from the

above discussions and findings, I decide the point for

determination in favour of the Petitioner workman.

11. 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. Baskaran with full back wages with

continuity of service and all attendant benefits as

prayed in the Claim Petition. With costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 2nd day of May, 2023.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —

18-04-2023

Thiru Baskaran

List of petitioner’s exhibits :

Ex.P1

— 01-06-2022

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry

with acknowledgment.

Ex.P2 —

01-08-2022

Photocopy of the reply

given by the Respondent

Management to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P3 —

23-08-2022

Photocopy of the re-joinder

of the Petitioner before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry

with

acknowledgment.

Ex.P4 —

27-09-2022

Photocopy of the additional

reply given by the Respondent

Management to the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P5 —

22-12-2021

Photocopy of the Certificate

issued oRespondent to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P6 —

—

Photocopy of the Identity

Card

issued

by

the

Respondent

to

the

Petitioner.

Ex.P7 —

September, Photocopy of the Pay Slip of

2021

the Petitioner issued by the

Respondent Management.

Ex.P8 —

October,

Photocopy of the Pay Slip of

2021

the Petitioner issued by the

Respondent Management.

Ex.P9 —

November,

Photocopy of the Pay Slip of

2021

of the Petitioner issued by

the Respondent Management.

List of Respondent’s witness: Nil

List of Respondent’s Exhibits: Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

876

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[19 December 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 101/AIL/Lab./S/2023,

Puducherry, dated 30th November 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 13/2022, dated

11-08-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, in

respect of Dispute between the M/s. Soundararaja Mills

Limited Nedungadu, Karaikal and the Union Worker

Thiru F.Kennady, represented by Soundararaja Mills

Thozhilargal Nalvazhu Sangam, Nedungadu, over

non-payment of VRS benefits 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. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Friday, the 11th day of August, 2022.

I.D. (T). No. 13/2022

CNR. No. PYPY06-000030-2023

F. Kennady,

Rep. by Soundararaja Mills Thozhilalargal

Nalvazhvu Sangam, Kamarajar Salai,

Nedungadu, Karaikal.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Soundararaja Mills Limited,

S.540, Kamarajar Salai,

Nedungadu, Karaikal.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on this day before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru N. Ramar,

Representative, for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal

G. Jagadharaj, Counsel, for the Respondent, upon

perusing the case records, after having, stood over till

this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 54/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 01-04-2022 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve trie following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the

Union Workman Thiru F. Kennady, represented by

Soundararaja Mills Thozhilalargal Nalvazhvu

Sangam, Nedungadu, against the Management of M/s.

Soundararaja Mills Limited, S540, Kamarajar Salai,

Nedungadu, Karaikal, over non-payment of the

VRS amount of ` 1,50,000 to Thiru F. Kennady as

per clause 7 of the 12(3) Settlement, dated 26-08-2008

is justified or not?

(b) If justified, what relief Thiru F. Kennady is

entitled to?

(c) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. Today when the case came up for pending I.A.,

IA.02/2023 is closed. Petitioner and counsel for

Respondent present. The Petitioner filed memo stating

that the Petitioner is withdrawing the Industrial Dispute.

The Petitioner further contended that as per 12(3)

settlement the management agreed to pay ` 1,50,000 if

the employees opt for VRS and therefore claiming the

said amount Industrial Dispute was raised, but, now the

Petitioner does not want to proceed with Industrial

Dispute(T) 13/2022, but, on the other hand wants to

initiate proceedings under section 33(C)(1) of Industrial

Dispute Act.

3. The learned Counsel for Respondent submitted

that though the Petitioner can be permitted to withdraw

the above Industrial Dispute b|tit cannot be given

liberty to file fresh case thereafter.

4. This Court finds that it is the case of Petitioner

workman that he is entitled for ` 1,50,000 based on 12(3)

Settlement and therefore, he wants to withdraw the

above Industrial Dispute and to resort for his remedy

under Section 33(1) (C) of Industrial Dispute Act.

5. This Court further finds that being workman it is

for the workman to is decide under which of the legal

resort he can sort out his remedy. Therefore, simply

because the present Industrial Dispute is permitted to

be withdrawn cannot be a bar to grant liberty for filing

a fresh case. Hence this Court on recording the memo

is inclined to dismiss the Industrial Dispute raised by

the Petitioner.

In the result, the memo filed by Petitioner is recorded

and Industrial Dispute(T) No. 13/2022 is dismissed on

withdrawn with liberty to file fresh case under the

provisions applicable to Petitioner. There is no order as

to costs.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 11th day of August, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.