[157]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

158

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 158

Award of the Labour Court .. 158

de Tribunal

∂´∑ gÁðÔ^/

163

l’ Orders/Notifications du

.. 163

Government Orders/

.. 163

∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

Gouvernement

Notifications

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

173

Annonces

.. 173

Announcements

173

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\

2024 }

∏©´kˆ |

20 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Février

2024 (1 Phalguna 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

20th

February

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

158

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[20 February 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 122/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 11th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 39/2022, dated

04-05-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, in

respect of the industrial dispute between the M/s. ATC

Chemicals India Private Limited, Puducherry and All

India United Trade Union Centre (AIUTUC),

Puducherry, over payment of Bonus to Thiruvalargal

Prasanth Kumar Behra and 4 others 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of May, 2023

I.D. (L) No. 39/2022

CNR. No. PYPY06-000116-2022

The President/Secretary,

All India United Trade Union Centre (AIUTUC),

No. 117, 1st Floor, Cuddalore Road,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. ATC Chemicals India Private Limited,

RS.No. 14/4-15/10-B, Kaviarasan Road,

Sedarapet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 04-05-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Sivakumar,

Secretary of the Petitioner Union, 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. 179/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 20-12-2022 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

industrial dispute between the Petitioners and the

Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether any Employer - Employee relationship

exists between the workers namely, Thiruvalargal

Prasanth Kumar Behra and 4 others, represented

by the Union AITUC and the Management of

M/s. ATC Chemicals India Private Limited, Puducherry.

(b) If so, whether the dispute raised by the All

India United Trade Union Centre against the

Management of M/s. ATC Chemicals India Private

Limited, Puducherry, over non-employment of

5 workmen namely Thiruvalargal (1) Prasanth Kumar

b e h r a , ( 2 ) N a b i n P a r i d a , ( 3 ) B a l a r a m D a s ,

(4) Beemasendas @ Rajudas and (5) Kamalesh

Sharma along with back wages and other attendant

benefits is legal and justified? If justified, what relief

the workmen are entitled to?

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner:

The Respondent Company is a Chemical Factory

functioning with the workmen above 60 in numbers,

without following any Labour Welfare Legislations

and thereby violating the rights and benefits of the

Workmen. The Respondent Management never

issued any Identity Card, Appointment Order,

Regularization Order, Salary Pay Slip, Overtime

Salary, Festival Bonus, etc., to the workmen working

under the Respondent Management. There is no

precautionary measures or machineries provided by

the Respondent Management in order to protect the

workmen who are working in the Respondent Factory.

Sl.

Name of the

Nature of

Date of

No.

Employees

Work

Appointment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Balaram Das

Spray Drier

01-10-2007

Gagan Parida

Production

01-03-2008

Harikrishna Nayak

Blender

01-03-2008

Narayan Nayak

Blender

01-02-2010

Prasant Behera

Store

01-02-2010

Bhimasen Das

Store

01-02-2010

Akshay Pradan

Production

01-02-2011

159

20 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Nabin Parida

Production

01-03-2011

Sanjaykumar Das

Store

01-12-2013

Rajkishore Rana

Store

01-04-2014

Kamalesh Sharma

Store

01-04-2014

Anil Sharma

Maintenance

01-03-2015

Sonukumar

Store

01-12-2017

Balaram Behera

Blender

01-04-2018

Durga Kumar

Production

01-05-2019

Rajesh

Store

01-05-2019

Madankumar Sha

Blender

01-09-2019

Rabindra Dos

Store

01-10-2019

Pramodkumar Sha

Store

01-10-2019

Haladhar Nayak

Blender

01-11-2019

(ii) The Respondent Management did not provide

any documents such as Identity Card, Appointment

Order, Regularization Order, Salary Pay Slip, Overtime

Salary, Festival Bonus, etc., to the above-mentioned

20 workmen. In connection to this, there were several

rounds of negotiations held between the workmen

and Respondent Management. As all ended in vein,

the Petitioner Union approached the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) on 07-07-2020 and raised the industrial

dispute. The Respondent Management does not

follow any rules and regulations prescribed under

Labour Welfare Legislations and Factories Act, 1948.

All the workmen employed in the Respondent

Management are permanent employees. The Respondent

Management is employing the contract employees for

carrying out chemical and hazardous work which are

purely skilled in nature. It is a gross violation of the

provisions under the Factories Act, 1948.

(iii) In the Conciliation proceedings on the

petition filed by the Petitioner Union, the Respondent

Management was instructed to produce some

registers relating to Attendance, Salary, Overtime,

Bonus, Accident and Leave before Labour Officer

(Conciliation). But, the Respondent Management did

not produce the same. The above-mentioned

20 workmen are permanent workers of the Respondent

Management and the same can be seen from the

agreement, dated 07-11-2020 entered between

Respondent Management and Petitioner Union.

Respondent Management has issued Identity Card,

Appointment Order, Regularization Order, Salary Pay

Slip, Overtime Salary, etc., to the other employees.

But, it refused to extend those benefits to the petition

mentioned 20 workmen, which is totally biased and

amounts to unfair labour practice. Hence, the petition.

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and

Respondent. Petitioner appeared. Whereas, the

Respondent has not appeared. Service sufficient.

Respondent called absent and set ex parte on 14-02-2023.

Claim petition filed by the Petitioner on same day.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner Workmen are entitled for

the prayer for issuance of Identity Cards, Appointment

Order, Regularization Order and Monthly Salary Pay

Slip as prayed in the Claim Petition?

5. On point:

Petitioner/Secretary of the Petitioner Union

examined himself as PW1. Ex.P1 to P8 were marked.

Since, Respondent set ex parte, no counter and

cross-examination done on PW.1. Heard the Petitioner.

6. On the point:

The

Labour

Department,

Government

Puducherry referred this industrial dispute for

reinstatement of 5 workmen as mentioned in the

reference with back wages and attendant benefits

and to decide whether any employer employee

relationship between the said 5 workmen and

Respondent Management. Claim petition filed by the

Petitioner Union wherein it is sought for the issuance

of Identity Card, Appointment Order, Regularization

Order, Salary Pay Slip, etc., to the 20 workmen

mentioned in the claim petition. Respondent set

ex parte for his non appearance. Proof affidavit filed

by the Petitioner Union and the same taken on file.

Along with the proof affidavit, the Petitioner Union

has filed eight documents as exhibits.

7. Heard the Petitioner Union. During arguments the

Petitioner Union represented that presently the 5 workmen

mentioned in the reference have reinstated by the

Respondent Management and they got back their

employment. Hence, the relief of reinstatement does not

arise. Further, he also stated in the claim statement as

well as in the proof affidavit filed by the Petitioner

Union that the prayer of the Petitioner Union is only

with regard to an order directing the Respondent

Management to issue Identity Cards, Appointment

Order, Regularization Order and Salary Pay Slip to the

workmen. Memo also filed by the Petition Union during

arguments to this effect. It is a case of the Petitioner

Union that some of the employees working under the

Respondent Management were issued with the said

documents such as Identity Cards, Appointment Order,

Regularization Order and Salary Pay Slip. Only the

20 workmen mentioned in the list found in the claim

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

160

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[20 February 2024

statement have not been issued with Identity Cards,

Appointment Order, Regularization Order and Salary Pay

Slip. On Petitioner side Ex.P4 which is the minutes of

the meeting held on 07-11-2020 produced, wherein the

terms and conditions of the settlement as per demand,

dated 21-09-2020 are listed out. In the Ex.P4 it is

mentioned that Labourers are agreed to come back to

work in factory from 09-11-2020. Ex.P6 is a claim

submitted by the Petitioner Union before the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), wherein the demand of issuance

of Identity Cards, Appointment Order, Regularization

Order and Salary Pay Slip were placed along with

request for reinstatement. Since the prayer for issuance

of Identity Cards, Appointment Order, Regularization

Order and Salary Pay Slip to the workmen has been duly

raised before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), though

presently the workmen were given re-employment as

seen from the memo filed by the Petitioner Union, this

Court felt that the claim of the Petitioner Union seeking

for an order directing the Respondent Management to

issue Identity Cards, Appointment Order, Regularization

Order and Salary Pay Slip as proper and maintainable.

8. The Respondent Management did not appear

before this Court nor submitted its version of objection

on the claim petition filed by the Petitioner Union.

Having remained ex parte, the Respondent Management

has not chosen to rebut the evidence and the claim filed

by the Petitioner Union and the claim remained

un-rebutted and un-shattered. Being the employers

working under the Respondent Management, it is the

bounden duty of the Respondent Management to issue

Identity Cards, Appointment Order, Regularization Order

and Salary Pay Slip to its workmen. Hence, the point

for determination is decided accordingly in favour of

the Petitioner Union and the claim is allowed.

9. In the result, the industrial dispute raised by the

Petitioner Union is justified. As the 5 workmen

mentioned in the reference were already reinstated, the

Respondent Management is hereby directed to issue the

Identity Cards, Appointment Order, Regularization Order

and Monthly Salary Pay Slip to the workmen in accordance

with law as prayed in the claim petition. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 04th day of May, 2023.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 — 22-03-2023 Thiru

Sivakumar,

State

Secretary, AIUTUC, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — 07-07-2020 Photocopy of the Form-L to

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P2 — 12-10-2020 Photocopy

the

RTI

Application submitted to The

Deputy Labour Commissioner

-cum-Public

Information

Officer.

Ex.P3 — 19-10-2020 Photocopy of the Form-3

(reply to the RTI) given to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P4 — 07-11-2020 Photocopy of the Minutes of

the

meeting

held

07-11-2020.

Ex.P5 —

11-11-2020 Photocopy of the RTI reply

given to the Petitioner (in

Tamil).

Ex.P6 —

21-02-2020 Photocopy of the Letter

given by the Petitioner Union

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P7 —

10-10-2022 Photocopy of the Failure

Report.

Ex.P8 —

20-12-2022 Photocopy

the

Government Order issued

against the Failure Report.

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. Rt. No. 123/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 11th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 38/2022, dated

22-06-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of the industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited, Sedarapet, Puducherry and

Thiru Mohan Kumar, over, his non-employment with

back wages has been received;

161

20 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

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.

Thursday, the 22nd day of June, 2023

I.D. (L) No. 38/2022

CNR. No. PYPY06-000113-2022

Thiru Mohan Kumar,

S/o. Mannangatti,

No. 3, Vinayagar Koil Street,

Ramalingam Nagar,

Muthialpet,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Rs. No. 19/1 and 4/4,

Mylam-Pondy Road,

Sedarapet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 05-06-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

A. Mithun Chakravarthy and R. Jayaraman, Counsels

for the Petitioner, 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 Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 159/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 20-12-2022 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

Thiru M. Mohan Kumar against the Management of

M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited, Sedarapet, Puducherry,

over his non-employment along with back wages

and other attendant benefits is justified or not?

If justified, what relief he 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 is a workman, employed in the

Respondent establishment at Puducherry and from

06-09-2011 onwards he was receiving monthly wages

from the Respondent Management with deduction of

EPF and ESI. The Petitioner was in service he had

discharged his duty efficiently without any adverse

remarks.

(ii) That on 28-11-2018, the Respondent

Management had issued a show cause notice to the

Petitioner with false allegation and for the same, the

Petitioner has given reply on 01-12-2018 and the

Respondent has again issued another show cause

notice with new false allegation on 05-12-2018 and

for the same, the Petitioner has given reply on

06-12-2018. The Petitioner is no way connected to

the false allegation, after receiving the reply by the

Respondent, surprisingly, the Respondent on

06-03-2021 the Respondent had issued a Termination

Order to Petitioner without any reasonable cause and

without assigning reason simply denied employment

to the Petitioner. After denial of employment, the

Petitioner approached the Respondent in person and

also made several requests to the Respondent to

provide employment but, the Respondent did not pay

any heed on the request of the Petitioner. Further,

the Respondent has sent a cheque of ` 44,120 along

with the Termination Order and the petitioner has

returned the same to the Respondent. The act of the

Respondent is a clear act of victimization, which

amount to unfair labour practice.

(iii) The termination of Petitioner Mohan Kumar

on 06-03-2021 is an unfair labour practice and illegal

and it is liable to be set-aside. The Petitioner is

entitled to reinstate with full back wages, continuity

of service, and all other attendant benefits. The

termination of Petitioner Mohan Kumar without any

reasonable cause to the Petitioner is arbitrary, illegal

and clear act of violation of principles of natural

justice and violation of model standing order and it

is clear of unfair labour practice as enumerated in

Schedule V part I clause (a), (b), (d), (f) and 16 of

the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, denial of

employment in violation of section 25(F) of the

Industrial Disputes Act which is illegal.

(iv) The Petitioner was employed in the year 2011.

Ever since till, he was illegally terminated from

service he had been continuously working in the

Respondent establishment. The Respondent terminated

162

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[20 February 2024

the Petitioner from service on certain misconduct, but,

before terminating the Petitioner, the Respondent had

not conducted any enquiry to prove the charge

against the Petitioner but, without conducting

enquiry terminated the service of the Petitioner which

is violation of Industrial Employment Standing Order

applicable to the Respondent establishment and

therefore, the termination order is illegal.

(v) The Petitioner from date of joining till he

terminated from service he has rendered more than

9 years continuous service and therefore, the

termination of the Petitioner service in violation of

provision of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes

Act is illegal. Hence, the claim for the reinstatement.

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and

Respondent. Petitioner appeared and engaged an

Advocate to represent him and filed Claim Statement,

but, the Respondent inspite of receipt of notice has

remained

absent

and

hence,

the

Respondent

Management was set ex parte on 18-01-2023.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner Workman is entitled for the

prayer of reinstatement and other benefits as prayed

in the Claim Petition?

5. On Point:

Respondent remained ex parte and the Petitioner

filed Proof affidavit and examined himself as PW1.

Exs.P1 to P9 were marked.

6. On the point:

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in his

argument submitted that ever since the date of his

appointment on 06-09-2011 the Petitioner has

discharged his duties without any adverse remarks

and without any misconduct. The learned Counsel

for Petitioner further submitted that while so on

28-11-2018, the Respondent Management had issued

a show cause notice to the Petitioner with false

allegation and for the same, the Petitioner has given

reply on 01-12-2018 and the Respondent has again

issued another show cause notice with new false

allegation on 05-12-2018 and for the same, the

Petitioner has given reply on 06-12-2018, but,

surprisingly after lapse of three years on 06-03-2021,

the Respondent had issued a Termination Order to

Petitioner without any reasonable cause and without

assigning reason simply denied employment to the

Petitioner. The learned Counsel for Petitioner further

submitted that the Respondent Management without

conducting proper domestic enquiry has terminated

the Petitioner from service and the same is unknown

to the labour jurisprudence and therefore, pray for

reinstatement of the Petitioner in the services of the

Respondent management with continuity of service

and all other attendant back wages.

7. This Court has carefully considered the evidence

of PW1 exhibits marked on the Petitioner side and the

arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner side. Since, the Respondent management has

not considered the request of the Petitioner, it is found

that the Petitioner has approached the Labour

Conciliation Officer and later the Conciliation also ended

in failure hence, the reference has been made to this

Court for adjudication.

8. This Court finds that though the Respondent

management has raised various allegations as against

the Petitioner in the documents filed by the Petitioner

it is found that there is no any document to show that

proper enquiry has been held with regard to the said

allegations. Further, it is not the case of the Respondent

that the petitioner was gainfully employed

somewhere else.

9. The Petitioner is found to be in the services of

the Company for about 9 years. The Respondent

management has not followed the principles of law and

the principles of natural justice before terminating the

services of the Petitioner. The Petitioner who was in the

services of the Respondent company would have

certainly affected by the unexpected termination of his

employment. Under Article 21 of the Constitution the

right to life includes right to live with human dignity

one cannot live with human dignity when his

employment is at peril. This Court is of the considered

opinion that the Respondent management having failed

to follow the principles of law and the principles of

natural justice is liable to reinstate the Petitioner with

continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant

benefits.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The Respondent

Management is directed to reinstate the Petitioner with

continuity of service. The respondent management is

further directed to pay his back wages with full back

wages and all other attendant benefits. There is no

order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 22nd day of June, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

163

20 February 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 — 24-05-2023 Thiru Mohan Kumar

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 —

Photocopy of the Identity

Card of the Petitioner issued

the

Respondent

Management.

Ex.P2 —

Photocopy of the ESI Card of

the Petitioner.

Ex.P3 —

Photocopy of the EPF Card

of the Petitioner.

Ex.P4 — 28-11-2018 Photocopy of the show

cause Notice issued by the

Respondent to the Petitioner.

Ex.P5 — 05-12-2018 Photocopy of the show

cause Notice issued by the

Respondent to the Petitioner.

Ex.P6 — 06-03-2021 Photocopy

the

Termination Order issued by

the

Respondent

the

Petitioner.

Ex.P7 — 06-12-2018 Photocopy of the reply to

the show cause Notice by the

Petitioner.

Ex.P8 — Nov. 2018

Photocopy of the Salary Slip

of the Petitioner.

Ex.P9 — 12-09-2022 Photocopy

the

Conciliation Failure Report.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits: Nil

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND WAQF

(G.O. Ms. No. 48/CHRI/T.4/2023,

Puducherry, dated 03rd January 2024)

ORDER

Adverting to the Orders, dated 30-06-2023 of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in

W.P. Nos. 34726 of 2022 and 3241 of 2023, and G.O. Ms.

No. 1/CHRI/T.2/2023, dated 14-07-2023 and in

exercise of the powers conferred under the

Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972,

Thiru K. Ayanar, s/o. Kaliamoorthi, Primary School

Teacher, MGGMS, Nellithope, Puducherry, is hereby

appointed as Temple Administrative Officer of Arulmigu

Sri Sundara Vinayagar Sri Muthumariamman Thirukoil,

Thimmanaickanpalayam, Ariyankuppam Commune

Panchayat, Puducherry, on honorary basis. The Temple

Administrative Officer shall administer the said

Devasthanam as envisaged in the provisions of the

Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 and

the rules framed thereunder.

Important duties and responsibilities of the Temple

Administrative Officer are given below :

(i) To take over the administration of the said

Devasthanam along with movable and immovable assets;

(ii) Submission of compliance report on taking

over of the administration of the temple along with

the details of movable and immovable properties

with a period of fifteen days from taking over the

administration;

(iii) Submission of annual report on maintenance

of movable and immovable assets including the cleaning

and desilting of temple ponds;

(iv) To coordinate and facilitate the completion of

work undertaken by donors as per rule 13 (9);

(v) Submission of annual budget by March as per

rule 13 of the Act;

(vi) To maintain accounts as per sections 14 to 17

of Hindu Religious Institutions Act and to get the

accounts audited annually by the Directorate of

Accounts and Treasuries, Puducherry;

(vii) Shall ensure that the Poojas and Festivals are

conducted according to the customs followed by the

Devasthanam;

(viii) Shall collect all debts and funds due to the

Institution and secure them from the loss or risk of loss;

(ix) Shall ensure that appropriate proceedings are

instituted to effect all debts and funds due to the

Institution or recovery thereof and also to defend such

action against the Institution in respect of the property

of the Institution;

(x) Shall not connive at or facilitate any act or

conduct of another person which would involve a

breach of trust or occasion risk or loss to the property

belonging to the Institution;

(xi) Shall strictly conform to and carry out the

terms and shall not encumber the properties of the

Institution by persistently incurring expenditure beyond

the limits of the income of the property of the

Institution;