476
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[25 June 2024
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 55/AIL/Lab./S/2024,
Puducherry, dated 23rd April 2024)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 20/2023, dated
03-01-2024 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect
of dispute between the M/s. Berger Paints India Limited,
Puducherry and All India United Trade Union Centre,
over his non-employment of Thiru P. Kuppusamy 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 03rd day of January, 2024.
I.D. (L). No. 20/2023
CNR. No. PYPY06-000074-2023
The Secretary,
All India United Trade Union Centre
(AIUTUC),
No. 117, 1st Floor,
Cuddalore Road,
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Berger Paints India Limited,
No. 53/56, Pandasozhanallur Village,
Nettapakkam Commune,
Puducherry-605 106.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 03-01-2024 before
me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner
workman having appeared in person and Thiruvalargal
L. Sathish, S. Sudarsanan and E. Madhivanan, Counsels
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. 63/Lab./AIL/T/2023, dated 12-04-2023 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following
dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the All India
United Trade Union Centre, against the management
of M/s. Berger Paint India Limited, Puducherry, over
non-employment of Thiru P. Kuppusamy along with
back wages is justified or not? If justified, give
appropriate direction?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. This Court on perusal of case records finds that
the reference has been made by Labour Officer
(Conciliation), in respect of the dispute raised by
the petitioner Trade Union, over the non-employment
of Thiru P. Kuppusamy with effect from 21-10-2021 with
back wages. On perusal of failure report, this Court finds
that the case of the petitioner Union is that the workman
of the petitioner Union had been working in the
respondent company since 02-06-1997 and while so,
the petitioner workman sent a petition, dated 21-10-2021
to the management to take action against one
Thiru Srinivasan, Supervisor, but, the management
instead of taking action against the said Srinivasan had
suspended the petitioner workman from service on
21-10-2021 and thereafter without proper Departmental
inquiry has terminated the petitioner workman.
Therefore, the petitioner workman has raised the
industrial dispute for reinstatement and as the dispute
could not be settled before the Conciliation Officer, the
reference is made to this Court.
3. In this case, notice were issued to both parties
and on 16-10-2023, the learned Advocate Mr. L. Sathish
has filed Vakalath for respondent and on 11-12-2023
the petitioner workman was present and the case was
adjourned to 03-01-2024 for filing Vakalath for
the petitioner Union.
4. Today, the worker who was said to have been
terminated by the respondent management namely,
P. Kuppusamy has appeared in person and the learned
Counsel for the respondent has filed memo stating that
after negotiations and deliberations the 18(1) settlement,
has been entered on 03-01-2024 between the petitioner
477
25 June 2024]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
workman and the respondent management. The learned
Counsel for respondent has filed copy of 18(1) settlement
entered between workman and the respondent
management. This Court to satisfy the genuineness of
the settlement produced before the Court has questioned
the abovesaid Mr. P. Kuppusamy and he accepted that
the signature as found in 18(1) settlement is that of his
signature and further admitted that in lieu of the said
settlement he has received full and final settlement from
the respondent company, except Provident Fund and
Gratuity for which steps has been initiated.
5. Hence, this Court, on considering the 18(1)
settlement entered between both parties, finds that the
points of dispute for adjudication referred by Labour
Officer (Conciliation) has become infructuous and does
not deserve any consideration. Thus, the 18(1) settlement
filed by the parties is hereby recorded.
In the result this Industrial Dispute is disposed in
terms of the settlement arrived under section 18(1) of
the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 and the Award is
passed accordingly. The settlement entered under
section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act by both the
parties shall form part and parcel of the Award. There
is no any order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this 03rd day of January, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND WAQF
(G.O. Ms. No. 67/CHRI/T.3/2024/199,
Puducherry, dated 11th March 2024)
ORDER
Adverting to the Order, dated 30-06-2023 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in
W.P. nos. 34726 of 2022 & 3241 of 2023 and G.O. Ms.
No. 1/CHRI/T.2/2023, dated 14-07-2023, and in
exercise of the powers conferred under the
Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972,
Thiru T. Manivannan, s/o. Tanigassalame, Trained
Graduate Teacher, Pandit Duraisamy Government High
School, Pethuchettipet, Puducherry, is hereby appointed
as Temple Administrative Officer of Arulmigu
Sivasubramaniyaswamy and Arulmigu Balamuthumariamman
Devasthanam,
Lawspet,
Oulgaret
Municipality,
Puducherry, on honorary basis. The Temple Administrative
Officer shall administer the said Devasthanam as
envisaged in the provisions of the Puducherry Hindu
Religious Institutions Act, 1972 and the rules framed
thereunder.
Important duties and responsibilities of the Temple
Administrative Officer are given below :
(i) To take over the administration of the said
Devasthanam along with movable and immovable assets;
(ii) Submission of compliance report on taking
over of the administration of the temple along with
the details of movable and immovable properties
with a period of fifteen days from taking over the
administration;
(iii) Submission of annual report on maintenance
of movable and immovable assets including the cleaning
and desilting of temple ponds;
(iv) To coordinate and facilitate the completion of
work undertaken by donors as per rule 13 (9);
(v) Submission of annual budget by March as per
rule 13 of the Act;
(vi) To maintain accounts as per sections 14 to 17
of Hindu Religious Institutions Act and to get the
accounts audited annually by the Directorate of
Accounts and Treasuries, Puducherry;
(vii) Shall ensure that the Poojas and Festivals are
conducted according to the customs followed by the
Devasthanam;
(viii) Shall collect all debts and funds due to the
Institution and secure them from the loss or risk of loss;
(ix) Shall ensure that appropriate proceedings are
instituted to effect all debts and funds due to the
Institution or recovery thereof and also to defend such
action against the Institution in respect of the property
of the Institution;
(x) Shall not connive at or facilitate any act or
conduct of another person which would involve a
breach of trust or occasion risk or loss to the property
belonging to the Institution;
(xi) Shall strictly conform to and carry out the
terms and shall not encumber the properties of the
Institution by persistently incurring expenditure beyond
the limits of the income of the property of the
Institution;
(xii) Shall not in any way make use of the property
of the Institution or of his position as Temple
