[297]
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
298
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 298
Award of the Labour Court .. 298
de Tribunal
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
303
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 303
Government Notifications
.. 303
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
309
Annonces
.. 309
Announcements
..
309
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 }
∞©´_ |
16 {
No.
16
Poudouchéry
Mardi
16
Avril
2024 (27 Chaitra 1946)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
16th
April
2024
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
298
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[16 April 2024
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 31/AIL/Lab./T/2024,
Puducherry, dated 12th March 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 28/2015, dated
20-12-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect
of the dispute between the management of M/s. Poorvika
Mobile World Limited, Puducherry and its workman
Thiru N. Narayanasamy over non-employment and
disablement compensation 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)
S. SANDIRAKUMARAN,
Under Secretary to Government (Labour).
————
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 20th day of December, 2023
I.D. (L) No. 28/2015
CNR. No. PYPY06-000075-2015
Narayanasamy,
S/o. Nagappan,
No.10, Murugal Koil 2nd Street,
Pudhu Nagar,
Katterikuppam and Post,
Mannadipet Commune,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Poorvika Mobile World Limited,
No. 181, Anna Salai,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 15-11-2023
before me for final hearing in the presence of
Thiruvalargal L. Rajendiran and R.T. Shankar, Counsel
for the Petitioner and Thiruvalargal R. Rajaprakash and
V. Veeraragavan, 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. 52/AIL/Lab./J/2015, dated 18-06-2015 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
N. Narayanasamy against the Management of
M/s. Poorvika Mobile World, Puducherry over his
non-employment is justified? If justified, what relief
petitioner is entitled to?
(b) Whether the claim of the petitioner for the
reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him
for his treatment at PIMS, since he met with an
accident during the course of employment and his
claim of disablement compensation as per Act is
justified? If justified, what relief the petitioner is
entitled to?
(c) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments set forth in the claim petition is
as follows:
(i) The petitioner was working from 24-07-2010
under the respondent management, i.e., Poorvika
Mobiles World Limited, at No. 181, Anna Salai,
Puducherry. As per the instructions of the respondent
management to have advertisement work at
marakanam he along with another employee attended
the company work at marakanam and after completing
the work, while returning to Puducherry at
Annumanthai he met with an road traffic accident
during the course of employment on 16-06-2013 at
about 2.00 p.m. and sustained serious spinal injury.
(ii) The
petitioner
family
contacted
the
respondent/management and they assured to extend
medical benefits and to provide employment to the
petitioner and also for reimbursement of the medical
expenses as there was no insurance coverage under
E.S.I. Act and the petitioner was admitted at PIMS
hospital for treatment. The petitioner undergone
surgery as inpatient for more than 15 days and after
surgery he was bedridden and took treatment as
outpatient for nearly four months.
299
16 April 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
(iii) The petitioner approached the management to
provide employment after the medical checkup and
as the Doctor certified him fit to perform his
duty. The management did not allow him to enter
the mobile shop and also refused to provide
employment and to refund the medical expenses. The
accident occurred only during office hours and the
management registered in E.S.I. only in the month of
February 2014 and only in the month of February the
petitioner submitted his family photo and the E.S.I.
temporary identity certificate provided only on
21-03-2014.
(iv) As there was no ESI coverage at the time of
accident, the petitioner had no right to claim benefit
under ESI Act for medical treatment. The petitioner
sustained injury only at the time of advertisement
work at Marakanam. Therefore, the petitioner
requested to provide employment with all legal
benefits and also provide medical expenses incurred
by his family members at PIMS hospital and also
disabled compensation as applicable under the Act.
(v) The management even though assured to
provide the employment during hospitalization of the
petitioner, but, refused to provide employment when
he approached for employment and compensation.
Therefore, he raised an Industrial Disputes before the
Labour Officer conciliation, Puducherry vide
representation, dated 13-03-2014 and 11-07-2014.
During the course of conciliation, there is no
representation from the management of Poorvika
Mobiles Limited, at Puducherry. As there is no
cooperation on the part of the management, the
conciliation proceedings ended in failure and referred
the matter to this Court.
3. The averments set forth in the counter is as
follows:
(i) The present Industrial Dispute as well as the
claim petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable
under Law. From the bare perusal of claim petition,
it is alleged that the respondent has not paid the ESI
contribution, therefore, the petitioner was not
beneffited under ESI Act. If, such the actual
grievance of petitioner, he ought to have approached
the ESI Corporation, Puducherry, for the alleged
non-payment of contribution by respondent. On the
other hand, the petitioner is also claiming
compensation and disablement compensation for the
alleged employment injuries sustained by him during
the course of employment. If, such is the actual facts
and grievance, the petitioner ought to have
approached the authority appointed under ESI Act.
Therefore, the present ID is not maintainable and
further, this Court may conduct the preliminary
enquiry on the above contentions before conducting
the full trial in the above Industrial Dispute.
(ii) The petitioner approached the ESI corporation
with a claim of refund of expenditures, who in turn
refused to entertain such claim citing that he has not
approached the ESI Hospital at first instance, but,
has taken complete treatment at PIMS Hospital
without getting approval from ESIC. The petitioner
is not in a position to file any claim petition under
Motor Vehicles Act as there is no FIR. Petitioner
devised a plan and opted to file such frivolous
petition against the respondent.
(iii) The petitioner is employed by respondent as
sales executive and it is true that he was assigned
an advertisement work at Marakanam on 16-06-2013
along with two other employees namely, Thiruvalargal
R. Thulasiraman and P. Vasanthakumar with a clear
and categorical instruction to go by bus to
Marakanam, but, the petitioner breached the very
condition imposed and went in two wheeler that too
in triples without wearing helmet and therefore, the
petitioner himself is liable for injuries sustained to
him and hence, the respondent is not liable to pay
any compensation.
(iv) The petitioner is covered under the ESI Act.
The ESI number was provided to him as early as from
27-04-2011, which is mentioned even in his monthly
salary slip. The truth of the matter is immediately
after the accident the petitioner was taken to PIMS
hospital. The other two employees intimated the
respondent about the accident and the Branch
Manager visited the petitioner at PIMS Hospital and
given a sum of ` 10,000 towards advance. The
respondent is not only paying ESI contribution to
its employees but also taking private insurance with
New India Assurance Co. Limited. The petitioner
submitted a claim of ` 15,588 to the respondent, who
in turn processed his claim form with its insurance
company and settled a sum of ` 8,391 from the
insurance and the respondent settled ` 6,265 to the
petitioner. But, with ulterior motives to extract and
extort money from respondent, the petitioner now
filed the present petition.
(v) The petitioner informed the respondent that
he could not immediately report to duty and he
requested the respondent to grant leave which was
accepted and paid monthly salary to petitioner till
December, 2013. The petitioner approached the
respondent with a request of employment who in turn
employed the petitioner on the same role which was
continued for 5 days by petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner himself has claimed that he could not stand
for long hours therefore, he is given up his
employment with respondent. Hence, it is very clear
that the respondent has not terminated the petitioner,
300
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[16 April 2024
but, it was the petitioner who informed the
respondent that he is moving from the respondent
because of the reason that he could not stand
for long. The respondent is still willing to
provide employment to petitioner by application
of principle of “No Work No Pay”. The petitioner
is now working in a private company at NRS mobile,
Villianur as Lava Promoters. Hence, the claim of
petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
4. Points for determination:
1. Whether the accident has occurred during the
course of employment and the injury sustained by
the petitioner is an employment injury?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the
petitioner?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for disablement
compensation as claimed by the petitioner?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief
of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of
service and all other attendant benefits?
5. Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner
over his non-employment is justified or not?
6. To what other relief the Petitioner is entitled to?
5. On the side of Petitioner, the Petitioner himself
was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P10 was marked.
On the respondent side Mr. L. Ezhilarasan Branch
Manager of Respondent Management was examined as
R.W.1 and through him Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.
Mr. Dr. G. Parabakaran was examined as RW2 and Ex.C1
was marked through him.
6. On points 1 to 6:
The contention of the petitioner is that when the
petitioner was working in the respondent shop, the
respondent management had instructed the petitioner
to do advertisement work on 16-6-2013 in a place
called Marakanam along with two other employees
and thereby, the petitioner went to Marakanam along
with two employees and after completion of
advertisement work when the petitioner was
returning to Puducherry, the petitioner had met with
road accident and thereby sustained serious spinal
injury and the said accident had taken place during
the course of employment and when the family
members of the petitioner had immediately contacted
the respondent management it was assured by the
respondent to extend medical benefits to the
petitioner and to reimburse the medical expenses and
provide employment to the petitioner. Further, the
contention of the petitioner is that the father of the
petitioner had admitted the petitioner as inpatient in
the PIMS Hospital as there was no insurance
coverage under ESI Act and had spent several lakhs
amount for the treatment of the petitioner and later
when the petitioner recovered from the accidental
injuries and approached the respondent for work the
respondent has refused to provide job to the
petitioner and also refused to provide medical
expense and further, the respondent management got
registered with ESI only in the month of February,
2014 and provided ESI temporary Identity Card to the
petitioner on 21-03-2014 and therefore, the
respondent is liable to pay medical expense and
compensation and employment to the petitioner as
the respondent management had not paid the ESI
subscription properly and there was no ESI coverage
during the time of accident.
7. Whereas, the contention of the respondent is that
it is true that the respondent had assigned an
advertisement work at Marakanam on 16-06-2013 to the
petitioner and other two of its employees namely,
Thiruvalargal R. Thulasiraman and P. Vasanthakumar
with clear instructions to go by bus, but, the petitioner
had breached the said conditions and traveled in a two
wheeler with the said two employees without wearing
helmet and thereby the petitioner himself is liable for
the injuries sustained by him and hence, the respondent
is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
The further contention of the respondent is that the
petitioner is covered under ESI Act because the
respondent is not only paying ESI subscription, but,
also has taken private insurance to its employees and
thereby the petitioner ought to have taken treatment at
ESI hospital, but, has taken treatment at PIMS Hospital
at his own risk for which the respondent is not liable
to pay any medical expenses and further the respondent
has paid an advance amount of ` 10,000 at PIMS
Hospital and that apart when the petitioner has raised
claim for ` 15,588 the insurance company has settled a
sum of ` 8,391 and the respondent had paid ` 6,265
directly to the petitioner. It is the further contention of
the respondent that as the petitioner could not
immediately report to the duty the respondent on
humanitarian ground has paid monthly salary to the
petitioner till December, 2013 and later when, the
petitioner approached the respondent for work the
respondent had provided work to the petitioner but it
was the petitioner who himself has left the job stating
that he could not stand in the shop for hours, but,
however still the respondent is willing to provide
employment to the petitioner on the principle of
“No Work No Pay”.
8. In this case, the respondent admits that the
respondent management has instructed the petitioner
to do advertisement work at Marakanam on 16-06-2013
301
16 April 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
along with its two employees, but, contends that it was
the specific instruction of the respondent to the
petitioner that the petitioner had to commute by bus,
but, the petitioner violated the said instruction and had
travelled in a two wheeler along with the two other
employees without wearing helmet and thereby, it
cannot be said that the petitioner has sustained
employment injury. When, it is the specific contention
of the respondent that the respondent had instructed
the petitioner and two of its employees to commute by
bus then it is for the respondent to prove the same. The
respondent in this case has not examined either the
other two employees who traveled with the petitioner
or the concerned official who gave instruction to the
petitioner. That apart the R.W.1 during his cross-
examination has deposed that the respondent
had conducted enquiry as to why the other two
employees namely, Thiruvalargal R. Thulasiraman and
P. Vasanthakumar had travelled with the petitioner in a
two wheeler and further, deposed that the enquiry was
not conducted by issuing written notice regarding the
same.
9. This Court finds that had it been true that the
petitioner and other two employees were directed to
commute by bus to Marakanam and the employees have
breached such condition then the respondent at the
earliest point of time ought to have initiated enquiry or
call for explanation from the other two employees for
such conduct, but, in this case no such documents has
been produced to substantiate that the respondent has
taken action against the employees for alleged breach
of instructions. Therefore, in the said context this Court
finds that the contention of the respondent that the
respondent had instructed the petitioner and other two
employees to commute for advertisement work at
Marakanam by bus is found to be an after thought and
evasive one and stands unproved.
10. As the accident has occurred during the course
of employment and the injuries sustained by the
petitioner is also out of and in the course of his
employment this Court holds that the injury sustained
by the petitioner is employment injury. Now, the next
question that arises for consideration is whether the
petitioner ought to have taken treatment at ESI hospital
and not in a private hospital. The contention of the
respondent is that the respondent had been paying ESI
contribution and therefore, the petitioner ought to have
taken treatment at ESI Hospital. Whereas, the
contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has
not paid the ESI contribution regularly and further, only
in the month February, 2014 the respondent has
registered with ESI Corporation and thereafter has
issued ESI temporary Identity Certificate only on
21-03-2014.
11. The petitioner to substantiate the same has
produced Ex.P5 ESI temporary Identity Certificate and
on perusal of the same it is found that it is dated
31-03-2014. When, it is the contention of the respondent
that as stated in Ex.P5 the date of registration of
respondent concern with ESI Corporation was on
27-04-2011 and thereafter onwards the ESI contribution
was regularly paid to ESI Corporation and as on date
of accident there was the ESI benefits coverage then it
is for the respondent to substantiate the same. The
respondent during the cross-examination of P.W.1 has
suggested that in the salary receipt issued by the
respondent the ESI number details are available, the
P.W.1 by way of reply has deposed that the P.W.1 was
not given any salary receipt at any point of time and
he was given only Ex.P5 ESI temporary Identity
Certificate after completion of all treatments.
12. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P5 ESI
temporary Identity Certificate it could be inferred that
the case of the petitioner is that at the time of accident
he was not issued any ESI Identity Card and there was
no any ESI benefit coverage and further, the respondent
has not issued any salary receipt with ESI details to the
petitioner at any point of time. Whereas, the contention
of the respondent by way of cross-examination of P.W.1
is that in the salary receipt issued to the petitioner the
ESI details will be available. The respondent to
substantiate that in the salary slip issued by the
respondent the ESI details are available has produced
Exs.R2 to R7. On perusal of Exs.R2 to R7 it is found that
they are Salary receipt for the Month of May 2013 to
August 2013 and, November and December 2013 and
further, in the said salary receipt the ESI number is also
mentioned.
13. However, this Court finds that R.W.1 during his
cross-examination has deposed that the respondent
while disbursing salary used to affix stamp and obtain
the signature of the concerned employees in the Salary
receipt but on perusal of Exs.R2 to R7 it is found that
in the salary receipt there is either such stamps have
been affixed or signature of the petitioner is available.
The R.W1 during his cross-examination has admitted the
same and has deposed that Exs.R2 to R7 were
downloaded documents. This Court finds that when it
is the specific contention of the respondent that the
respondent used to affix stamps and obtain signature
of its employees in the salary receipt then in such case
the same ought to have been produced before this
Court, but, the respondent on other hand has produced
salary receipts which are stated to be downloaded one
and thereby this Court concludes that the genuineness
of Exs.R2 to R7 are doubtful and cannot be relied by
this Court.
302
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[16 April 2024
14. Therefore, this Court holds that the respondent
has failed to prove that ESI contribution was regularly
paid by the respondent and further, during the period
of accident ESI benefits coverage was available to the
petitioner. Hence, in the said context, this Court holds
that the respondent cannot contend that the petitioner
ought to have taken treatment at ESI Hospital and not
at PIMS Hospital. Hence, as the injury sustained by the
petitioner was of employment injury this Court holds
that the respondent is liable to pay the medical expense
and loss of income to the petitioner. The petitioner has
produced Ex.P8 bills issued by PIMS. On perusal of
Ex.P8 it is found that the total medical bills amount
comes to ` 22,926. The R.W.1 during his re-examination
has deposed that apart from ` 10,000 the respondent has
reimbursed 80% of Medical bills to the petitioner
through Medi Assist Company. This Court on perusal
of evidence of R.W.1 finds that the petitioner has not
disputed the same by way of further examination of
R.W.1. Further, more the petitioner has produced Ex.P10
letter issued by PIMS Hospital to Medi Assist India
certifying that at the time of accident the petitioner was
not under the influence of Alcohol and to do the
needful. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1
and Ex.P10 it could be inferred that the medical claim of
petitioner is found to have been settled through Medi
Assist India. Therefore, out of medical bills amount of
` 22,926 the respondent is found to have settled 80%
of bill amount that is ` 18,340 and hence, the respondent
is liable to pay balance medical bills amount of ` 4,586
to the petitioner.
15. As per Ex.P3 Discharge Summary, there is no any
finding that the petitioner when brought to hospital was
under the influence of alcohol and further, in Ex.P10 it
is clearly stated by the PIMS Hospital that the petitioner
was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of
admission. Therefore, the contention of the respondent
that at the time of accident the petitioner was under the
influence of alcohol is found to be an after thought
defence taken by the respondent. Similarly, the
contention of the respondent that the petitioner had
travelled in the two wheeler in triples and without
wearing helmet also stands unproved by the
respondent.
16. The yet another contention of the petitioner is
that the petitioner is entitled for loss of income from
the respondent. As per the evidence of P.W.1 during
cross-examination it is deposed that the respondent has
paid 50% of salary to the petitioner till December, 2013.
However, it is found that the petitioner has neither
deposed the quantum of monthly salary nor produced
any document to substantiate his monthly salary.
Therefore, in the said context this Court is unable to
compute and conclude any loss of income for the period
from July, 2013 to December, 2013. As per Ex.C1 the
percentage of disability is shown as 10%. Therefore, this
Court finds that it would be appropriate to direct the
respondent to pay a consolidated amount of ` 50,000
towards disability.
17. It is the case of petitioner that when he
approached the respondent in the month of February,
2014, the respondent refused to give employment to the
petitioner and whereas, it is the contention of the
respondent that it was the petitioner who had
abandoned the work stating that he was unable to stand
in the shop for hours and further, the respondent is
willing to provide employment to the petitioner at any
time on the basis of “No work No pay” but, the
respondent has not produced any document to
substantiate the same. The R.W.1 also admitted that the
respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner
as to why the petitioner has not reported to duty. Hence,
in the said circumstances the contention of the
respondent that the petitioner himself has abandoned
the work stands unproved. Therefore, this Court holds
that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of
reinstatement with back wages.
18. Now, coming to the aspects of back wages and
other attendant benefits is concerned, this Court finds
that in this case the respondent has not proved that
the Petitioner was gainfully employed anywhere else
and earning income. However, it is found that the
Petitioner was sustaining his day to day life even in this
situation and the same could not be done without any
income. Hence, this Court on considering the
circumstances, deems fit that the Petitioner is entitled
for 30% back wages with continuity of service and
other attendant benefits. Thus, the points are answered
accordingly.
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 within two
months from the date of this Award and further, directed
to pay 30% of back wages from January, 2014 to till the
date of reinstatement with continuity of service and
other attendant benefits and further, directed to pay the
balance medical expense of ` 4,586 and compensation
of ` 50,000 towards temporary disablement. There is no
order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 20th day of December, 2023.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
303
16 April 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
List of petitioner’s witness :
PW1
— 26-04-2018 Thiru Narayanasamy
(Petitioner herein).
List of petitioner’s exhibits :
Ex.P1 — 05-12-2014 Photocopy of the Conciliation
Failure Report.
Ex.P2 — 18-06-2015 Reference of the Labour
Department, Puducherry.
Ex.P3 — 24-06-2013 Photocopy of the Discharge
Summary issued by the PIMS
Hospital.
Ex.P4 — 04-01-2014 Payment Voucher issued by
the Respondent.
Ex.P5 — 31-03-2014 Photocopy of the ESI Temporary
Identity Certificate.
Ex.P6 — 23-07-2010 Photocopy of the Appointment
Letter
issued
by
the
Respondent.
Ex.P7 —
—
Photocopy of the PIMS
Hospital Medical Records.
Ex.P8 —
—
Photocopy of the PIMS
Hospital Medical Records.
Ex.P9 —
—
Photocopy of the Identity
Card
issued
by
the
Respondent.
Ex.P10 — 21-06-2013 Photocopy of the No drunk
letter
issued
by
PIMS
Hospital, Puducherry.
List of respondent’s witnesses :
RW1
— 10-10-2019 Mr. Ezhilarasan, Branch
Manager of the Respondent
Management.
RW2
— 19-07-2023 Mr. Dr. Prabakaran, H.O.D.,
I.G.P.G.I, Puducherry.
List of respondent’s exhibits :
Ex.R1 — 10-10-2019 Photocopy
of
the
Authorization letter.
Ex.R2 — 14-03-2014 Photocopy of the Salary Slip
of the petitioner for the
month of May 2013.
Ex.R3 — 14-03-2014 Photocopy of the Salary Slip
of the petitioner for the
month of June 2013.
Ex.R4 — 14-03-2014 Photocopy of the Salary Slip
of the petitioner for the
month of July 2013.
Ex.R5 — 14-03-2014 Photocopy of the Salary Slip
of the petitioner for the
month of August 2013.
Ex.R6 — 14-03-2014 Photocopy of the Salary Slip
of the petitioner for the
month of November 2013.
Ex.R7 — 14-03-2014 Photocopy of the Salary Slip
of the petitioner for the
month of December 2013.
Ex.R8 — 27-04-2011 Photocopy of the ESIC
Employees details of the
petitioner.
List of court’s exhibits :
Ex.C1 — 11-08-2022 Disability Certificate issued
by
the
Medical
Board,
I.G.G.G.H.
and
P.G.I.,
Puducherry.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 38/Lab./AIL/S/2024,
Puducherry, dated 21st March 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute has arisen between the management
of M/s. Indian Red Cross Society, Health Department,
Puducherry and the Mission Director, Puducherry State
Health Mission, Puducherry, against the Puducherry,
Karaikal and Yanam Health Departments, 108 Ambulance
Service
Drivers Association,
Puducherry,
over
Regularization 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 23-05-1991 of
the Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the
powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)
of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act XIV of 1947), it is hereby directed by the