[421]
ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
√¬ÔD
Page
Page
ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..
422
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 422
Award of the Labour Court .. 422
de Tribunal.
∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^
..
428
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 428
Government Notifications
.. 428
Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^
..
428
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 428
Tender Notices
.. 428
g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^
..
431
Etablissements dangereux
.. 431
Dangerous Establishments
..
431
ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^
..
432
Annonces
.. 432
Announcements
..
432
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 }
Û[ |
4 {
No.
23
Poudouchéry
Mardi
4
Juin
2024 (14 Jyaistha 1946)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
4th
June
2024
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
422
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 June 2024
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 51/AIL/Lab./S/2024,
Puducherry, dated 23rd April 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 13/2023,
dated 31-01-2024 of the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry,
in respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Bahadur Security Force,
Puducherry and Thiruvalargal M. Sengeni and K. Durai,
over payment of pending wage increase, bonus and
other 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)
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 31st day of January, 2024
I.D. (T) No. 13/2023
CNR. No. PYPY06-000056-2023
President/Secretary,
All India United Trade Union Centre
(AIUTUC), Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Bahadur Security Force,
Represented by Partners T. Lakshmi
and A. Ravi, Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on 25-01-2024 before
me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal
S. Sivakumar, Secretary of 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. 48/Lab./AIL/T/2023, dated 30-03-2023 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
All India United Trade Union against the
management of M/s. Bahadur Security Force,
Puducherry, over payment of pending wage increase,
bonus and other benefits to Thiruvalargal Sengeni
and K. Durai from the year 01-01-2006 to 21-03-2018
(12 years of service) and 01-01-2006 to 02-03-2019
(13 years of service) amounting to ` 1,20,000 and
` 1,30,000 respectively, totalling ` 2,50,000 along
with 12% interest is legal and justified? If justified,
what relief they are entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. The averments set forth in the petition is as
follows:
That in the respondent establishment there are
more than 150 workmen, but, the said establishment
did not provide proper allowances and benefits as
adumbrated under Labour laws to the workers and
in the said establishment one Thiru M. Sengeni and
Thiru K. Durai joined on 01-01-2006 and worked as
security, and later resigned the job on 21-03-2018 and
02-03-2019 respectively. Thiru M. Sengeni and
Thiru K. Durai should have been not provided with
bonus @ ` 8,000 per year from the date of joining
till the date of resignation nearly for 12 and 13 years
respectively, which comes to ` 96,000 and ` 1,04,000
respectively, with 12% interest and also with salary
increment @ ` 2,000 per year for 12 and 13 years
respectively, which comes to ` 24,000 and ` 26,000
respectively, with 12% interest, totalling ` 1,20,000
and ` 1,30,000 respectively, but, the respondent
establishment failed to provide necessary benefits
and allowances to the said workmen and their attempt
to settle the issues before Labour Officer,
Conciliation also ended in failure and therefore, the
present dispute has been raised.
3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and
Respondent. The Secretary of the Petitioner’s Union
appeared 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 21-08-2023.
423
4 June 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
4. Point for determination:
Whether the Petitioner Workmen are entitled for
the relief as prayed in the claim petition?
5. On Point:
Respondent remained ex parte and the Petitioner
filed Proof Affidavit and examined himself as P.W.1
and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked.
6. On the point:
The contention of the petitioner Union is that in
the respondent establishment there are more than
150 workmen but, the said establishment did not
provide proper allowances and benefits as
adumbrated under Labour Laws to the workers and
in the said establishment one Thiru M. Sengeni and
Thiru K. Durai joined on 01-01-2006 and worked as
security and later resigned the job on 21-03-2018 and
02-03-2019 respectively, but, the respondent
establishment failed to provide necessary benefits
and allowances to the said workmen and their attempt
to settle the issues before Labour Officer, Conciliation
also ended in failure and therefore, the present
dispute has been raised.
7. In this case, the respondent inspite of receipt of
notice has remained ex parte. This Court on perusal of
evidence of P.W.1 finds that it is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner workmen are entitled for
bonus at ` 8,000 per year and ` 2,000 towards yearly
increment and therefore, as the workman Sengeni
worked for the period from 01-01-2006 to 21-03-2018 and
workman K. Durai worked for the period from 01-01-2006
to 02-03-2019 they are entitled for the bonus arrears for
the said period which totals at ` 96,000 and ` 1,04,000
and increment arrears at ` 24,000 and ` 26,000
respectively.
8. This Court on perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and
exhibits relied by the petitioner holds that the petitioner
has proved the claim and further, the evidence of P.W.1
remains unchallenged and unrebutted by the respondent.
Hence, this Court holds that the petitioner workmen are
entitled for the bonus arrears and wage increment
arrears as claimed in the petition. Similarly, as the
respondent establishment has failed to pay the claimed
amount in time, this Court holds that the petitioner is
entitled to claim the said amount with interest at the rate
of 9% p.a. Thus, the dispute raised by the petitioner is
held to be justified.
In the result, this industrial dispute petition is
allowed with modification and the respondent
management is directed to pay bonus and wage
increment arrears for the period from 01-01-2006 to
21-03-2018 at ` 96,000 and ` 24,000 respectively, to
workman Thiru M. Sengeni and to pay bonus and wage
increment arrears for the period from 01-01-2006 to
02-03-2019 at ` 1,04,000 and ` 26,000 respectively, to
workman Thiru K. Durai with interest at 9% p.a. There
is no order as to costs.
Partly typed by the Stenographer, partly typed by me
in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open
Court on this 31st day of January, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness :
P.W.1 — 13-12-2023 Thiru S. Sivakumaran
List of petitioner's exhibits :
Ex.P1 — 23-12-2021 Photocopy of the Form-L
Ex.P2 — 20-07-2020 Photocopy of the Letter from
the Registrar of companies
(7 pages).
Ex.P3 — 25-04-2022 Photocopy of the Letter to
Labour Officer, Conciliation
by petitioner Union.
Ex.P4 — 04-07-2022 Photocopy of the letter to
Labour Officer, Conciliation
by petitioner Union.
Ex.P5 — 30-08-2022 Photocopy of the letter to
Labour Officer, Conciliation
by petitioner Union.
Ex.P6 — 17-11-2022 Photocopy of the letter to
Labour Officer, Conciliation
by petitioner Union.
Ex.P7 — 30-01-2023 Photocopy of the Failure
Report.
Ex.P8 — 30-03-2023 Photocopy of the Notification.
List of respondent’s witnesses : Nil
List of respondent's exhibits : Nil
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
424
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 June 2024
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 52/AIL/Lab./T/2024,
Puducherry, dated 23rd April 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 26/2022,
dated 18-01-2024 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in
respect of the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s. Siva Valli Vilas Jewellers, Bharathi
Street, Puducherry and Thiru G. Murugan, Saram,
Puducherry, over to reinstate the petitioner with his
usual employment of appraiser with full back wages and
all the 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)
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.
Thursday, the 18th day of January, 2024
I.D. (L) No. 26/2022
CNR. No. PYPY06-000089-2022
Thiru G. Murugan,
S/o. Govindasamy,
Hindu aged 50 years,
Residing at No. 234, Naveena Garden,
Kuyavarpalayam, Saram,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Branch Manager,
Siva Valli Vilas Jewellers,
Having business at No. 157,
Bharathi Street,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming on this day before
me for hearing in the presence of Thiru J. Mayakrishnan,
Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal V. Govindaradjou,
Counsel for the Respondent and upon hearing both
sides and perusing the entire records and having stood
over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered
the following:
AWARD
This Petition filed under section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to pass an award to direct the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner with his usual
employment of appraiser with full back wages and all
the benefits and without any absence towards his
service for the said refusal period of the employment
and for the costs.
2. The averments in the claim petition filed by the
petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed by the respondent
concern as Appraiser on 07-07-2012 and on, and from
the date of appointment he was serving at the said
concern without any remark at all and towards his
employment he was given Employee Code number as
11234 and he is also member of the Association under
No. 731 and in the said Association he was acting
for the past 15 years as one of the members. The
respondent management to curtail the continuation
of employment, has suddenly dismissed the petitioner
on 18-10-2021 for the reasons as if, he valued the
gold without any notice in written.
(ii) In fact, the petitioner has not committed any
fault or defect towards the employment, but, due to
continuation of job for more than 10 years the
management had suddenly and surprisingly
dismissed the petitioner from the employment
purposely. The act of the management is against the
Labours Act and natural justice and therefore, the
said management has to answer for the same. Right
from the oral refusal of the petitioner from the
employment the petitioner had approached the
respondent and they has also assured to make
arrangements for reinstatement, but, they are
prolonging the same for the reasons best known to
them.
(iii) The petitioner issued legal notice to the
respondent on 05-05-2022 and the same was
acknowledged by the respondent, but they have not
come forward to reinstate the petitioner, whereas
issued reply, dated 24-06-2022 with false allegations
and invented story and therefore, after issuance of
said notice, the petitioner had also issued notice to
425
4 June 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
the Conciliation Officer, Labour Department,
Puducherry, on 30-05-2022 but, there was no
response, Hence, the petition.
3. The averments in the counter filed by the
Respondent is as follows:
The respondent submits that the present petition
filed by the Petitioner praying to reinstate him as an
appraiser in the respondent's shop with full back
wages with all benefits with continuity of service is
liable to be dismissed in liminie. The Petitioner is not
a workman as defined under section 2 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further, the
respondent's Jewellery Shop is not an industry as
defined under section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
In the absence of such relationship the application
filed by the Petitioner under section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable in Law.
If, at all the Petitioner has got any grievance he has
to approach the concerned authority appointed by
the Government of Puducherry under Pondicherry
Shops and Establishment Act and not by way of
raising a dispute before this Court.
(ii) The respondent submits that “Siva Valli Vilas
Jewellers” is a company registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and doing
business like making, selling jewels and diamonds.
The petitioner served only on a contract basis and
not a regular employee, as alleged by the petitioner.
On many occasions the petitioner has abruptly sent
the customers by valuing their jewels at low costs,
who are approaching the shop, for exchanging their
old jewels with new ones. While receiving the old
jewels the respondent has instructed the Petitioner
to send those customers to the respondent for
negotiation, however, the petitioner has failed to do
the same for the reasons best known to him and
because of the act of the petitioner, the respondent's
business was much affected resulting loss of
customers.
(iii) On 17-10-2021 by the act of the petitioner
failed to consider the request of the customer for
enhancement of amount for his old jewels and further,
the petitioner has also failed to inform the customer
to approach the respondent for enhancement and due
to the said act, the customer has left the shop
abruptly. That after seeing the customer leaving the
shop, the respondent questioned the act of the
petitioner with regard to the customer who has left
the shop in this regard, but, the petitioner has kept
quiet and from the next day onwards the petitioner
has not turned up for work. Therefore, the allegations
made by the petitioner are incorrect, false and
mischievous without any iota of truth. Hence, prays
for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Points for determination:
1. Whether the petitioner is a workman of
respondent?
2. Whether the respondent shop is an Industry
as defined under section 2 of the Industrial Disputes
Act?
3. Whether the petitioner was employed on
contract basis?
4. Whether the dispute raised by petitioner over
his non-employment is justified?
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs
as claimed in the claim petition?
5. Mr. Murugan was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1
to P7 were marked. On the Respondent side Mr. Ganesan,
Manager, of the Respondent Jewellery Shop was
examined as R.W.1 and Exs. R1 to R5 were marked
through him.
6. On points 1 to 5:
The contention of the petitioner is that he was
appointed in the respondent shop as appraiser on
07-07-2012 and from the date of appointment he was
serving without any remarks and further, he is also
one of the member of the association for past 15 years
and while so, the respondent has suddenly dismissed
the petitioner on 18-10-2021 for the reason that the
valuation of the gold made by the petitioner was
improper and therefore, the petitioner has issued
legal notice to the respondent on 05-05-2022 to
provide job to the petitioner, but, the respondent on
receipt of the said legal notice failed to provide job
and issued reply notice, dated 24-06-2022 with false
allegations and hence, the petitioner has raised the
present industrial dispute as against the respondent.
7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is
that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under
section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act and further, the
respondent's Jewellery Shop is not an industry as
defined under section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act and
therefore, the present industrial dispute raised by the
petitioner is not maintainable and if at all, the petitioner
has any grievances, it is for the petitioner to approach
the authority appointed by the Government of
Puducherry under the Pondicherry Shops and
Establishments Act. Further the contention of the
respondent is that while the petitioner was working in
the respondent shop the petitioner has abruptly sent
a customer by valuing the jewels at low costs when
the customer had approached for exchange of old
jewels for new one and thereby the act of the petitioner
has affected the respondent’s business and further, on
17-10-2021 when a customer had approached for
426
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 June 2024
enhancement of amount for old jewels, the petitioner
has failed to inform the customer to approach the
respondent and thereby, the customer was constrained
to leave the shop abruptly and when the same was
questioned by the respondent, the petitioner has kept
quite and from the next day onwards the petitioner has
not turned up for work and therefore, the contention of
the petitioner that the respondent has dismissed the
petitioner from service is false and incorrect one.
8. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
was working in the respondent shop as appraiser, but,
it is the specific case of the respondent that the
petitioner is neither a workman as defined under
section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act nor the
respondent’s shop is an Industry as defined under
section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act and therefore, the
very maintainability of industrial dispute as raised by
the petitioner is unsustainable one. This Court, on
perusal of records finds that the respondent is a
Jewellery Shop and therefore, it becomes pertinent to
determine whether the Jewellery shop would come
within the ambit of Industry as defined under
section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act.
9. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to extract
the definition of Industry as defined under section 2(j)
of Industrial Dispute Act for better appreciation.
Section 2(j) : Industry : Industry means, any
business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling
of employers and includes any calling, service,
employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen.
Therefore, as per section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute
Act, this Court finds that an Industry is defined as any
business, trade or undertaking, manufacturing or calling
of employers and includes any calling, service,
employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen.
10. In the present case it is admitted fact that the
respondent shop is doing the business of making and
selling of jewels and diamonds and the same has been
admitted by R.W.1 in his chief examination affidavit
where it is stated as follows:
“I submit that Siva Valli Vilas Jewellery is company
registered under the provision of the Company
Act, 1956 and doing business like making, selling
jewels and diamonds”.
Therefore, from the evidence of R.W.1 it can be
inferred that the respondent shop deals with making and
selling of gold jewels and diamonds and therefore, the
respondent shop is found to have been carrying the
business and trade. Therefore, in the said context the
respondent shop is found to fall within the ambit of
section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act.
11. The next point that arises for consideration is
whether the petitioner is a workman under the
respondent. The term workman is defined under
section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act which reads as
follows:
Section 2(s) : workman : Workman means, any
person (including an apprentice) employed in any
industry to do any manual, unskilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward, whether the terms of employment be express
or implies, and for the purpose of any proceedings
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but, does not include any such person–
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950
(45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),
or the Navy Act, 1957, or the Army Act 1950
(46 of 1950), or Navy Act, 1957; or
(ii) who is employed in the Police service or as
an Officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory
capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand
rupees) per mensem or exercises, either by the
nature of the duties attached to the Office or by
reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature.
12. Therefore, as per the definition of workman as
adumbrated under section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute
Act, a workman means any person employed in any
industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward and does not included who is employed mainly
in a managerial or administrative capacity. In this case,
it is a admitted fact that the petitioner was working as
an appraiser and the respondent also in the evidence
as well as in the counter has stated that the petitioner
worked as an appraiser. Hence, as the petitioner did not
work in the managerial or administrative capacity, this
Court holds that the petitioner fits under the definition
of workman as defined under section 2(s) of Industrial
Dispute Act.
13. The other contention of the respondent is that
the petitioner was employed on contract basis but, to
prove the same the respondent has not produced any
documents which are required for engaging a person on
contractual basis. Further more, the nature of the work
427
4 June 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
done by the petitioner is appraiser which is of perennial
in nature and also of core activity of the establishment.
As per the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, a workman cannot be
employed to do any core activity of an establishment
and also work of perennial in nature. In this case the
nature of work done by the petitioner being an
appraiser, this Court finds that the work of the petitioner
is of core activity of the establishment which is very
much required for running of day to day business of
the respondent's shop and further, perennial one.
Hence, in the said context, the contention of the
respondent that the petitioner was appointed on
contractual basis and not on a regular employee is found
to be untenable and unsustainable one.
14. Now coming to the contention of the respondent
that the petitioner has undervalued the old jewels of
the customers and thereby, the act of the petitioner
affected the business of the respondent and further, on
17-10-2021, the petitioner did not consider the request
of the customer to enhance the amount for the old
jewels and thereby, the customer has left the shop and
when the same was questioned by the respondent the
petitioner has kept quite and from the next day onwards
the petitioner has not turned up is concerned, this
Court finds that the same is unacceptable and unproved
one. Had such occurrence had taken place then the
respondent shop being registered under Companies Act
is bound to question the employee by way of written
notice or by initiating disciplinary action against the
petitioner. Here, in this case, no such action is found
to have been taken by the respondent. There is nothing
on record to show that the petitioner himself as
abandoned the job and the respondent has issued any
notice calling for explanation for such conduct of the
petitioner. Hence, this Court finds that the contention
raised by the respondent is unsustainable one and the
contention of the petitioner that the respondent failed
to provide job to the petitioner without any basis is
found to be acceptable one and thereby, the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner is found to be justifiable
one.
In the result the industrial dispute is allowed and the
respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with
full back wages and all the benefits thereon. There is
no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
18th day of January, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner’s witness :
P.W.1 — 09-01-2023 Thiru G. Murugan
List of petitioner's side exhibits :
Ex.P1 — 08-04-2022 Copy of the Aadhaar Card of
the petitioner.
Ex.P2 — 07-07-2022 Copy of the Identity Card of
the petitioner towards his
employment.
Ex.P3 — 05-05-2022 Copy of the Legal notice by
the petitioner.
Ex.P4 — 30-05-2022 Copy of the Legal notice by
the petitioner to the Labour
Department, Puducherry.
Ex.P5 — 24-06-2022 Copy of the Reply by the
respondent.
Ex.P6 — 01-06-2022 Original Acknowledgment
Card.
Ex.P7 —
–
Copy of the Bank Passbook
of G. Murugan.
List of respondent’s witness :
RW.1 — 13-10-2023 Thiru S. Ganesan
List of respondent's side exhibits :
Ex.R1 —
–
Original Document of the
Authorization Letter.
Ex.R2 —
–
Copy of the Memorandum of
Association and Articles of
Association of Siva Valli Vilas
Jeweller Private Limited,
Puducherry.
Ex.R3 — 21-04-2023 Copy of the Registration
Certificate
issued
by
Government of India.
Ex.P4 — 01-03-2021 Copy of the Trade Licence
issued
by
Pondicherry
Municipality.
Ex.P5 — 10-10-2023 Copy
of
the
Computer
printout
of
Petitioner's
Attendance for the period
April to October, 2021 along
with
Certificate
under
section 65 B of Evidence Act.
(May 2021 shop closed due
to COVID-19).
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.