[199]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

200

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 200

Award of the Labour Court .. 200

de Tribunal

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

205

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 205

Government Notifications

.. 205

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

213

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 213

Tender Notices

.. 213

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

216

Annonces

.. 216

Announcements

216

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 }

\VÏﬂ |

5 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mars

2024 (15 Phalguna 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

5th

March

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

200

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[5 March 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 126/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 11th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 35/2018, dated

06-07-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of Dispute between the M/s. Lanson Motors Private

Limited, Bahour, Puducherry and the Union workmen

represented by United Labour Federation, Thambu

Chetty Street, Chennai, over providing safety in supply

of food to the workers in the working place/canteen 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.

Thursday, the 6th day of July 2023.

I.D. (L). No. 35/2018

CNR. No. PYPY06-000072-2018

The Secretary,

United Labour Federation,

No. 149, Thambu Chetty Street,

C.J. Complex, IV-Floor,

Chennai.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Lanson Motors Private Limited,

R.S.Nos. 53/1A and 53/3,

Kirumampakkam Village,

Bahour, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 06.07.2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru R. Vignesh,

Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal K. Babu and

S. Karthikeyan, Counsels for the Respondent upon

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. 124/AIL/Lab./T/2018, dated 29-08-2018 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Union

workmen represented by United Labour Federation,

Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai, against the

Management of M/s. Lanson Motors Private Limited,

Bahour, Puducherry, over providing safety in supply

of food to the workers in the working place/canteen

are justified or not? If justified, what relief the Union

workmen are entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. On perusal of case records it is found that this

reference has been made with regard to dispute raised

by Petitioner to provide safety in supply of food to the

workers in the working place/canteen. The records

reveals that the Petitioner and Respondent have filed

claim stateiresit and counter statement respectively and

the case stood posted for enquiry. It is at this stage

the Petitioner has endorsed that he is withdrawing the

ciaim petition. Hence, on recording the same, this Court

is inclined to dismiss this case.

In the result, the reference is disposed and the claim

petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this

6th day of July, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 10/AIL/Lab./S/2024,

Puducherry, dated 24th January 2024)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 11/2018, dated

31-10-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of the industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited, Puducherry and

Thiru T. Ramadassan, Kottakarai, Vanur Taluk, over

non-employment has been received;

201

5 March 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.

Tuesday, the 31st day of October, 2023

I.D. (L) No. 11/2018

CNR. No. PYPY06-000107-2018

T. Ramadassan,

Mariamman Koil Street,

Kottakarai, Bharathipuram,

Irumbai, Auroville Post,

Vanur Taluk, Tamil Nadu.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited,

ECC Division Mailam Road,

Sedarapet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-09-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

P.R. Thiruneelakandan and A. Mithun Chakkaravarthy,

Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal M. Vaikunth,

R. Vikneshraj and R. Elamparudhi, Counsel for the

Respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the

case records, after having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court passed the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 22/AIL/Lab./T/2018, dated 13-02-2018 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

T. Ramadassan, Mariamman Koil Street, Kottakarai,

Bharathipuram, Irumbai, Auroville Post, Vanur Taluk,

Tamil Nadu, against the Management of M/s. Larsen

and Toubro Private Limited, situated at ECC Division

Mailam Road, Sedarapet, Puducherry, over refusal of

employment are justifiable or not? If justified, what

is the relief entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. The averments in the claim petition filed by the

petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as an operator in the

RRM section of Respondent Factory at Puducherry

from the year 2005 onwards and received monthly

salary directly from the respondent management with

deduction of EPF and ESI subscriptions. The

petitioner has also served as oil furnace operator,

billet yard operator and also served in the production

management section and quality control section.

While, the Petitioner was in service on 28-10-2016,

the respondent management 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 sent letter through registered post

requesting them to provide employment considering

his poor family conditions but, the respondent did

not heed to the request of the petitioner. The

Petitioner aggrieved by the denial of employment,

raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), dated 16-03-2017. On receipt of the

same the Conciliation Officer issued notice to the

Petitioner and the respondent. The conciliation

meeting was held on several hearing, but, the

respondent management has chosen neither appear

not file any statement before the Conciliation Officer.

Hence, the Conciliation Officer submitted the failure

report, dated 02-01-2018. The denial of employment

to the Petitioner without any reasonable cause and

without any notice 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 act of unfair labour practice as

enumerated in Schedule V part I clause (a), (b), (d),

(f) and 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act,. Further, the

denial of employment in violation of section 25(F) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, which is illegal. At the

time of termination the Petitioner was paid ` 9,100 as

monthly wages and from the date of denial of

employment the Petitioner has not been gainfully

employed anywhere in any establishment. Hence, the

Petitioner prays to hold that the denial of

employment to the petitioner as illegal and direct the

respondent management to reinstate the Petitioner

into service with effect from 28-10-2016 with

continuity of service with full back wages and all

other attendant benefits.

202

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[5 March 2024

3. The averments in the counter filed by the

Respondent is as follows:

The respondent company namely, Larsen and

Toubro Limited is a Multi National Company,

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which

is having factories in all over Union Territory in India

as well other countries in the world. The respondent

company is in the business of manufacturing of the

transmission line tower component and its factory is

situated at Mailam Road, Sedarapet, Puducherry. The

opponent engages permanent employees’ for

attending to various manufacturing operation carried

out in the factory. The factory is duly registered

under the provisions of “The contract labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Puducherry

Rules made thereunder.

(ii) The respondent company is engaging several

contractors for the purpose of carrying out various

miscellaneous jobs in the company premises and in

turn the contractors were engaging/employing their

direct workmen for the purpose of fulfilling their

contractual obligations at the premises of the

company and the Licensing Authority, Puducherry,

has also duly issued licenses in favour of several

contractors under the provisions of contract Labour

Act, 1970 and among them A. Selvam is one of

Licensed Contractor. All the contract workmen

deployed by the contractors are working under their

direct supervision and control and apart from the

capacity of Principal Employer, the opponent is not

having any liability or obligation with the contract

workmen including the present Petitioner.

(iii) The petitioner was employed by A. Selvam

and obtaining the salary on monthly basis without

any dispute/demur. Therefore, it is clear that the

Petitioner was employed under the Supervision and

control of the contractor and further, the master and

servant relationship exist between the aforesaid

contractor and the Petitioner and it is he who denied

employment to the Petitioner and the respondent

does not have any role in it.

(iv) Therefore, the Petitioner has to implead

licensed contractor A. Selvam as necessary party in

this dispute and should ask for relief only against

him but, the Petitioner raised the above dispute

conveniently without impleading the contractor.

Hence, the dispute is liable to dismissed for

non-joinder of necessary party. The responsibility of

covering all contract employees, including the

Petitioner under the provisions of various beneficial

legislations such as EPF and MIS Act, 1952, ESI Act,

1947 lies with the respondent management as

otherwise the respondent management is liable to

face criminal prosecution by the respective

Departments for not covering them under those

beneficial legislations and therefore, the Petitioner

was covered under EPF and MIS Act, 1952 and ESI

Act, 1947 by the respondent company. Therefore,

just because he was covered under EPF and MIS Act,

1952 and ESI Act 1947 by the respondent company

it will not confer any right on the contract labourers,

including petitioner to claim permanent status on par

with regular employees those, who were directly

appointed by the respondent company after due

selection. Hence, prays for dismissal of the claim

petition.

4. Points for determination:

(1) Whether the Petitioner is a workman of

respondent?

(2) Whether the Petitioner is a contract labour of

respondent?

(3) Whether the relationship of employer and

employee exists only between the contractor

A. Selvam and Petitioner?

(4) Whether the denial of employment by the

respondent is illegal?

(5) Whether the dispute raised by Petitioner over

his non employment is justified?

(6) To what other reliefs the Petitioner is entitled

for?

5. Mr. Ramadasan was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1

to P17 were marked and through cross examination of

P.W.1 Ex.R1 was marked. On the Respondent side

Mr. Kannan, Manager, IR and Adminstation of the

Respondent Management was examined as R.W.1 and

no exhibits were marked through him.

6. On points 1 to 6:

The contention of the Petitioner is that he was

appointed in the respondent company as operator in

RRM section in the year 2005 and was receiving

wages from the respondent company after deduction

of EPF and ESI subscriptions and further the

petitioner had worked as oil furnace operator, billet

yard operator and also worked in the production

management section and quality control section and

thereby was continuously working in respondent

company and while so, on 28-10-2016 the respondent

without any reasonable cause and without assigning

any reason has denied employment to the Petitioner.

The further contention of the petitioner is that the

203

5 March 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

petitioner subsequently approached the respondent

on several occasions requesting to provide

employment but, the respondent did not heed to the

request of petitioner and therefore the petitioner has

raised Industrial Dispute before Labour Officer

(Conciliation) and thereafter, as the dispute could not

be resolved the dispute has been referred to this

Court. In this case it is the specific contention of the

petitioner that at the time of termination the petitioner

was receiving a sum of ` 9,100 as monthly wages

from the respondent company and further, the denial

of employment by the respondent is nothing but an

unfair labour practice and violation of section 25(F)

of Industrial Dispute Act.

7. Per contra, the respondent contends that the

respondent company had engaged several contractors

for the purpose of carrying out various miscellaneous

jobs and in turn the contractors were employing their

workmen for fulfilling the contractual obligations to the

respondent company and further, all the contract

workmen deployed by the contractors were working

under the direct supervision and control of the

contractors and the respondent being a principal

employer has no any obligation towards the contract

workmen. The further contention of the respondent is

that the petitioner is one such contract workmen

employed by one of its contractor by name A. Selvam

who is a licensed contractor of respondent company and

further the Licensing Officer, Pondicherry, has issued

licence to the said A. Selvam and therefore the master

and the servant relationship exists only between the

said contractor and the petitioner and therefore, in such

context employment of petitioner with the respondent

does not arise at all and it is the said contractor who

has denied employment to the petitioner for which the

respondent is not liable. The yet another contention of

the respondent is that to avoid criminal prosecution and

to cover the petitioner under beneficial legislation it

was the responsibility of the respondent to cover all

contract employees including the petitioner under EPF

and ESI Act and therefore, EPF and ESI were deducted

from the wages of the petitioner and the same does not

confer any right upon the petitioner to claim permanent

status on par with regular employees and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the

claim petition.

8. This Court, from the contentions raised by the

petitioner and respondent, finds that it is the specific

case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the

respondent company in the year 2005 as an operator and

was receiving wages from the respondent and

thereafter, was working in the respondent company till

he was denied employment on 28-10-2016 and therefore,

the denial of employment by the respondent is illegal

and hence seeks for the relief of reinstatement with all

attendant benefits and whereas the contention of the

respondent is that the petitioner was a contract workman

employed by one A. Selvam, who is a licensed

contractor of the respondent company and therefore,

there does not exists any employer and employee

relationship between the respondent and petitioner, and

when such being so, the petitioner is not liable to seek

any relief of reinstatement from the respondent

company.

9. The petitioner during his cross-examination as

P.W.1 has deposed the respondent company has not

issued any Appointment Order in favour of the

petitioner and further deposed that he was not

appointed directly by the respondent company but on

the other hand the petitioner had joined in the

respondent company through one Natarajan, who was

working as a Supervisor in the respondent company.

Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1 it could be inferred

that there is no any appointment order issued by the

respondent company in favour of the petitioner.

However, the petitioner to substantiate that he had

worked in respondent company has produced Ex.P3

which is a merit certificate issued by the respondent

during the month of May 2009 in favour of the

petitioner. The R.W.1 during his cross-examination

admitted that Ex.P3 is a Merit certificate issued by the

respondent company in favour of the petitioner and

further deposed that CL-RM (PRODN) as mentioned in

Ex.P3 denotes that the petitioner was working in

production department as contract labourer Rolling Mill

and further deposed that as per Ex.P4, the respondent

has deducted PF subscription for the year 2009 to 2010.

Therefore, this Court from the Exs.P3 and P4 and from

the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 finds that the

petitioner has substantiated that he had been working

in the respondent company during the year 2009.

However, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he

was working in the respondent company from the

year 2005 but, the petitioner has not produced any

documents to substantiate the same. Hence, this Court

on considering the above discussions concludes that

the petitioner has proved that during the year 2009 he

had been working in the respondent company.

10. The another contention of the petitioner is that

he had been working in the respondent company till he

was denied employment on 28-10-2016. The respondent

has produced Ex.R1 through cross-examination of

P.W.1. On perusal of Ex.R1 it is stated as Register of

wages for the month from May 2016 to October 2016.

Thus, even as per the respondent case it is found that

the respondent has admitted that the petitioner was

204

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[5 March 2024

working in the respondent company during the month

of October 2016 but, the only contention is that the

petitioner was working as contract labour under one

contractor by name A. Selvam. Therefore, this Court

finds that the petitioner has proved his contention that

he had been working in the respondent company till

27-10-2016.

11. This Court finds that when the petitioner has

proved that he had been working in the respondent

company till 27-10-2016 then, it is for the respondent

company to prove its contention as contended in the

counter that the petitioner was only a contract workman

employed by the licensed contractor of respondent

company. This Court further finds that when the plea

of contract labour is raised then the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 comes into play

and it is for the respondent company to prove that the

establishment was registered as per section 7 of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

and further the alleged contractor was issued licence

by the Licensing Officer as per section 13 of Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and further

there was a contract entered between the licensed

contractor and the respondent company agreeing to

deploy contract labours to the respondent company.

12. In this case though the respondent in the

counter has stated that the Licensing Officer, Pondicherry

has issued licence to the contractor A. Selvam but, the

respondent has not produced any licence that stands

in favour of said A. Selvam. Furthermore, the R.W.1

during his cross-examination has deposed and admitted

that the respondent company has not produced any

contract entered between the respondent company and

A. Selvam and also has not produced any contract

extension document entered between the respondent

and A. Selvam and likewise has not produced any

document to substantiate that there was money

transaction between the respondent company and

A. Selvam. On the other hand, the respondent company

has produced Ex.R1 in which it is stated as register of

wages for the month of May 2016 to October 2016.

13. Though the petitioner during his cross-examination

has admitted that the signature as found in Ex.R1 is that

of his signature but this Court finds that when the

respondent company contends that the petitioner is a

contract workman of one A. Selvam and the said

A. Selvam is a licensed contractor of the respondent

company then it is for the respondent company to prove

the same by production of licence issued by the

Licensing Officer in favour of said A. Selvam and

also by production of contract entered between the

A. Selvam and respondent company with regard to the

deployment of contract workmen by the contractor to

the respondent company but, in this case none of the

said document is produced by the respondent. Moreover

the respondent has also not produced any document

to prove the transaction that had taken place between

A. Selvam and respondent company towards the

settlement of wages to the contract labours deployed

by the said A. Selvam. Apart from that in Ex.R1 though

a seal of A. Selvam, Contractor is available but, the

licence number of the said contractor is not available

and the same is admitted by R.W.1 during his

cross-examination. Thus, this Court finds that the

respondent has miserably failed to prove that one

A. Selvam is the contractor of respondent company and

the petitioner is a contract workman under direct

supervision and control of said A. Selvam and further

has deployed the petitioner to the respondent company.

14. Furthermore, it is admitted by R.W.1 that the

petitioner was working in production department and

more particularly in the Rolling Mill division. The R.W.1

during his cross-examination has deposed that the work

nature of petitioner was one of unskilled nature and

denied that the working nature of petitioner was a skilled

one but from the evidences of P.W.1 and R.W.1 this

court finds that the petitioner was working in the

production department in the Rolling Mill division and

therefore, the nature of work carried by the petitioner

amounts to Core activity and of perennial nature. When

such being so, the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition Act) 1970 prevents the principal employer

from engaging a contract labour to do the core activity

of the establishment. Hence, in the said discussions,

this Court holds that the petitioner has to be treated

as workman directly employed by the principal employer

of the establishment that is by the respondent company

and thereby there exists master and servant relationship

between the petitioner and respondent and hence, in

the said context the denial of employment by the

respondent amounts to unfair labour practice and illegal

one. Thus, in view of above discussions, this Court

holds that the Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner

as against the respondent management over his

non-employment is justified and as such this Court

holds that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as

claimed by him.

In the result this petition is allowed by holding that

the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as against

the respondent management over his non-employment

is justified and the respondent/management is directed

to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from

28-10-2016 with full back wages and other attendant

benefits within two months from the date of this Award.

There is no order as to costs.

205

5 March 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 31st day of October, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 — 13-07-2022 Thiru Ramadasan

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 —

—

Photocopy of the Petitioner’s

ESI Identity Card.

Ex.P2 — 20-02-2014 Photocopy of the Certificate

issued by the ESI to the

Petitioner.

Ex.P3 —

2009

Photocopy of the Merit

Certificate issued by the

Respondent to the Petitioner.

Ex.P4 — 06-07-2010 Photocopy

the

EPF

Annual Contribution of the

Petitioner.

Ex.P5 — 12-08-2016 Photocopy of the Petitioner’s

shift punch time.

Ex.P6 — 08-07-2015 Photocopy of the Material

Requisition Slip.

Ex.P7 — 03-05-2016 Photocopy of the Material

Requisition Slip.

Ex.P8 — 10-07-2016 Photocopy of the Material

Requisition Slip.

Ex.P9 —

—

Photocopy of the Furnace Oil

Inspection Report.

Ex.P10 —

—

Photocopy of the Furnace Oil

Inspection Report.

Ex.P11 —

—

Photocopy of the Product

Inspection Report.

Ex.P12 —

—

Photocopy of the Product

Inspection Report.

Ex.P13 —

—

Photocopy of the Product

Inspection Report.

Ex.P14 — 16-03-2017 Photocopy of the letter sent

by the Petitioner to the

Respondent Management with

postal receipt as unclaimed.

Ex.P15 — 06-04-2017 Photocopy of the letter sent

by the Petitioner to the

H.R., Assistant Manager of

the Respondent Management

with

postal

receipt

unclaimed.

Ex.P16 — 06-09-2017 Photocopy of the Notice of

enquiry/conciliation.

Ex.P17 — 02-01-2018 Photocopy

the

Conciliation Failure Report.

List of respondent’s witness:

RW 1 — 28-10-2022 Mr. Kannan, Manager, IR and

Admin. of the Respondent

Management.

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1 — Photocopy of the Register of Wages for

the month of May, 2016.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 06/Lab./AIL/S/2023,

Puducherry, dated 10th January 2024)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. MRF Limited, Puducherry and Thiru G.

Gnanavel, over his non-employment along with all other

attendant benefits in respect of the matter mentioned

in the Annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is

necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated

vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV

of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to

Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred

to the Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication.

The Labour Court, Puducherry, shall submit the Award

within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as

stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with