[461]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

462

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 462

Award of the Labour Court .. 462

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

464

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 464

Government Notifications

.. 464

Œ©√ ∂§s©AÔ^

468

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 468

Tender Notices

.. 468

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

469

Etablissements dangereux

.. 469

Dangerous Establishments

469

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

470

Annonces

.. 470

Announcements

470

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[ |

18 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Juin

2024 (28 Jyaistha 1946)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

18th

June

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

462

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[18 June 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 54/AIL/Lab./S/2024,

Puducherry, dated 23rd April 2024)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 44/2017,

dated 31-01-2024 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in

respect of the industrial dispute between the management

of M/s. Sri Manakular Motors, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry

and Manakular Motors Thozhilalar Sangam, Puducherry,

over non-employment of 61 workers 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. (L) No. 44/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000073-2017

The Secretary

Manakular Motors Thozhilalar Sangam,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Sri Manakular Motors,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 25-01-2024

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru D. Ilamparithi, Counsel for the Petitioner,

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. 125/Lab./AIL/T/2017, dated 09-08-2017 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

Manakular Motors Thozhilalar Sangam against the

Management of M/s. Sri Manakular Motor,

Mudaliarpet, Puducherry, over his non-employment

of 61 workers namely, 1. R. Gopathi, 2. R. Santhosh,

3. G. Selvakumar, 4. A. Nataraj, 5. N. Kambadasan,

6. D. Patchaiyappan, 7. P. Prasad, 8. R. Muthukumaran,

9. S. Narasimman, 10. N. Ganapathy, 11. T. Sivaperumal,

12. C. Vengadesan, 13. R. Iyyappan, 14. R. Varadarajan,

15. R. Arokiadass, 16. M. Krisidiyan Mayee,

17. P. Saravanan, 18. K. Karthikeyan, 19. R. Arumugam,

20. V. Veeramuthu, 21. R. Ganesh, 22. S. Karthikeyan,

23. S. Manikandan, 24. G. Srinivsan, 25. N. Senthilkumar,

26. M. Sathish, 27. R. Umapathy, 28. M. Balamurugan,

29. G. Kandan, 30. E. Anandan, 31. S. Karunakaran,

32. A. Ramkumar, 33. A. Arivu, 34. E. Rajkumar,

35. R. Vadivel, 36. L. Veerabalan, 37. Anandakumar,

38. M. Dheenadayalan, 39. S. Vernkatesan, 40. K. Vallavan,

41. G. Pradeeswaran, 42. S. Balasundaram,

43. K. Kannadasan, 44. R. Vijayavely, 45. S. Kamalakannan,

46. T. Parthiban, 47. S. Nagaraj, 48. K. Ramesh,

49. R. Tamizhselvan, 50. M. Sakthivel, 51. M. Vadivel,

52. T. Moova, 53. J. Kabeerkhan, 54. M. Murugan,

55. S. Raja, 56. P. Pughanthi, 57. R. Sankar,

58. V. Venkatachalam, 59. G. Ganesan, 60. S. Kandasamy

and 61. A. Saravanan, is justified or not? 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:

The Petitioner Manakular Motors Thozhilalar

Sangam having 61 number of workers working in the

respondent company for more than 10 years and there

is no remark at all as against the petitioners so far.

The petitioners performed all works assigned by the

respondent more than 12 hours without any safety,

health, statutory leave or welfare and also the

workers were getting very low salary, hence, the

workers demanded wage increase/revision and E.S.I.,

E.P.F. benefits from the respondent management but

they were not ready to increase the wages.

A Memorandum of settlement with the workers

entered on 22-01-2015 to pay all the pending bonus,

463

18 June 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

wages and incentive within a period of 20 working

days starting from 24-01-2015 was not obeyed and

further, the management lodged a false FIR against

the innocent workers with the help of Mudaliarpet

Police Station, Puducherry.

(ii) The respondent ignored the demands raised

by the workers and thereby, the respondent started

all sort of unfair labour practice as against the

petitioners. The respondent management had

threatened and simply thrown out the workers from

the employment from 2014 onwards without any

charges and reason which is against the principles

of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner approached

the Labout Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, for

reinstatement and the same ended in vain. The

management utilized the workers like slave and

exploited their tender age and not considered their

welfare and all other benefits which are enumerated

in the labout laws. The respondent management denied

the employment to the petitioners without following

the mandatory procedures which is enumerated in the

labour laws which is absolutely illegal and therefore,

the respondent is liable to reinstate the petitioners

with full back wages and continuity of service.

(iii) The respondent after accumulating huge

wealth from the business, had sold the company and

settled and the company is now not in existence at

Pondicherry, the respondent by eating valuable work

and life of the claimant created such wealth and

hence, liable to compensate the claimants for loss of

their life. Hence, the petitioners pray for reinstatement

with full back wages and continuity of service or in

the event of impossibility of reinstatement to give

appropriate compensation.

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 06-12-2022.

4. Point for determination:

Whether, the Petitioner Workmen are entitled for

the prayer of reinstatement with consequential

benefits or in the event of impossibility of reinstatement

for compensation 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 P4 were marked.

6. On the point:

The contention of the petitioner Union is that in

the petitioner sangam, there are 61 members who are

workmen working in the respondent management.

The further contention of the petitioner is that the

abovesaid workmen have more than 10 years of

service, but, the respondent management without

providing overtime allowances and without following

safety, healthy and statutory leave was extracting

work from the workers by paying low salary and

therefore, workmen demanded wage revision and

other benefits and during the conciliation proceedings,

the management agreed to settle the issues of bonus,

wages and incentives as per settlement, dated

22-01-2015, but, later failed to settle the issues and

therefore, the petitioner got direction to register FIR

as against the management for misappropriation of

P.F. amount and hence, the respondent resorted to

all unfair labour practices and refused to provide

employment to the members of the petitioner Sangam.

The further contention of the petitioner is that the

conciliation proceedings also ended in failure and

therefore, the present industrial dispute was 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 respondent has adopted unfair labour

practice by not providing employment to 61 workmen.

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.

In this case, though the petitioners have stated in the

claim petition that the business has been sold, but, to

substantiate the same nothing has been produced and

apart from that inspite of said averments the petitioners

have sought for the relief of reinstatement with

consequential benefits. Hence, this Court on considering

the above submissions holds that the petitioner

workmen are entitled for the claim as made in the claim

statement. Thus, the dispute raised by the petitioner is

held to be justified.

In the result, this industrial dispute petition is allowed

and the respondent management is directed to reinstate

the petitioner workmen with full back wages and

continuity of service and all attendant benefits. There

is no order as to costs.

464

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[18 June 2024

Partly typed by the Stenographer, partly typed by me

in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this the 31st day of January, 2024.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness :

PW1

— 19-12-2022 Thiru R. Santhosh

List of petitioner's exhibits :

Ex.P1 — 22-06-2017 Photocopy of the notice of

enquiry/conciliation issued

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.P2 — 22-01-2015 Photocopy of the Memorandum

of Settlement arrived between

the Respondent and petitioner

in conciliation.

Ex.P3 — 31-08-2015 Photocopy of the FIR in

Crime No.:82/2015 against the

respondent.

Ex.P4 — 29-04-2015 Certified copy of Form-A

certificate of respondent

company.

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

COMMERCIAL TAXES SECRETARIAT

(G.O. Ms. No. 3, Puducherry, dated 31st May 2024)

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation,

Thiru M. Pugazhendi, Assistant Commissioner (ad hoc

basis) of the Commercial Taxes Department,

Puducherry, is admitted into retirement on the

afternoon of 31-05-2024.

(By order)

L. MOHAMED MANSOOR,

Additional Secretary to Government

(Commercial Taxes).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

(SECRETARIAT WING)

(G.O. Ms. No. 05, Puducherry, dated 6th June 2024)

ORDER

The Notice of voluntary retirement given, under

rule 48 (A) of Central Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1972, by Thiru J. Augustine, Vice-Principal,

NKC Government Girls Higher Secondary School,

Kurusukuppam, Puducherry, is accepted. Accordingly,

he is admitted into voluntary retirement with effect

from the afternoon of 31-07-2024.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

F.P. VERBINA JAYARAJ,

Under Secretary to Government

(School Education).

cwkÏÔÁ´ ÂÔ´V‚E

cwkÏÔÁ´ ÂÔ´V‚E, Amﬂºƒˆ

, Amﬂºƒˆ

F. No. 25-81/AE-IV/JE(6)/OM/2021-22.

÷Æ] ∂§s©A

[1973ágD gıΩ[ Amﬂºƒˆ ÂÔ´V‚EÔ^ ƒ‚¶›][ ∏ˆ° ®ı 256 (1)á[ √Ω]

ÿkπl¶©√‚¶m.