[117]
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
118
Sentence arbitral du Travail
.. 118
Award of the Labour Court .. 118
de Tribunal.
..
124
Notifications du Gouvernement .. 124
Government Notifications
.. 124
..
125
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
.. 125
Tender Notices
.. 125
..
126
Annonces
.. 126
Announcements
..
126
La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
2025 }
|
4 {
No.
9
Poudouchéry
Mardi
4
Mars
2025 (13 Phalguna 1946)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
4th
March
2025
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
118
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 March 2025
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 12/AIL/Lab./S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 17th February 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 02/2024, dated
12-08-2024, of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of the dispute between the
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited, (Metal Shop
Unit), Puducherry and L&T Jananayaga Thozhilalargal
Sangam over payment of Bonus @ 20% and Ex gratia
@ 20% for the year 2021-22 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.
Monday, the 12th day of August, 2024
I.D(T). No. 02/2024
C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000015-2024
The Secretary,
L&T Jananayaga Thozhilalargal Sangam,
(Affiliated to AICCTU),
Puducherry.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited,
(Metal Shop Unit),
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute came upon this day for hearing,
the petitioner being remained absent and in the
presence of Thiru B. Mohandoss, Counsel for the
respondent, upon perusing the records, this Court
passed the following:
ORDER
1. This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.
No. 106/AIL/Lab./T/2023, dated 05-12-2023, of the
Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,-
(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the
petitioners Union L & T Jananayaga Thozhilalargal
Sangam (Affiliated with AICCTU), Puducherry,
against the Management of M/s. Larsen and Toubro
Private Limited, (Metal Shop Unit), over payment of
maximum bonus @ 20% and Ex gratia amount @ 20%
to the workers Thiruvalargal A. Dinakaran and 14
others (as mentioned in the annexure) for the year
2021-22 is legal and justified? If justified, to give
appropriate direction?
(ii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. Today, the case came up for hearing. No
representation on petitioner side. The petitioner has not
choosen to appear inspite of receipt of notice from this
Court. Further, inspite of adjourning this case for
appearance of petitioner, still the petitioner has neither
appeared nor choosen to represent this case through a
counsel. Hence, the same is recorded.
In the result this reference is closed for
non-prosecution.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 12th day of August, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 13/AIL/Lab./S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 17th February 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 44/2022, dated
08-08-2024, of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the M/s.
Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,
Kottucherry Post, Karaikal and the Vinayaga Mission
Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, over Promotion of
Thiru R.Pandian and 3 others has been received;
119
4 March 2025]
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)
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 08th day of August, 2024
I.D(T). No. 44/2022
CNR.No. PYPY06-000092-2022
The President/Secretary,
Vinayaga Mission
Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam,
No. 30, Kamaraj Nagar,
Karaikal - 609 602.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Management,
M/s. Vinayaga Mission‘s
Medical College and Hospital,
Keezhakasakudimedu, Kottucherry (PO),
Karaikal- 609 609.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 02-08-2024 before me
for final hearing in the presence petitioner union members
appeared in person and Tvl. R. Ilancheliyan, 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
1. This industrial dispute arises out of the reference
made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.
No. 144/AIL/Lab./T/2022, dated 01-09-2022, 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
Vinayaga Missions Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam,
Karaikal against the management of M/s. Vinayaka
Missions’s Medical College and Hospital,
Karaikal, over promotion of 4 workers namely,
1. Thiru R. Panidan 2. Tmt. P. Indrani 3. A. Vanitha
and 4. Sarathirajan are justified? If justified, to what
relief the workmen represented by the Union are
entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms
of money if, it can be so computed?
2. This case taken up before camp Court.
Representative of petitioners and Counsel for
respondent are present. Memo filed by petitioners
Union stating that the petitioners workmen intends to
have negotiation talks through their Union with the
management and therefore, the petitioners want to
withdraw the case. Perused memo filed by petitioner’s
union and the same is recorded.
In the result, this reference is closed in terms of
memo filed by petitioner’s Union. The memo shall form
part parcel of this Award. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on
this the 08th day of August, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 14/AIL/Lab./S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 17th February 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 29/2019,
dated 28-08-2024 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the
M/s. Hotel Vijendira, Puducherry and Thiru Raghuvaran
and 2 others, Puducherry, over reinstatement with
continuity of service and other attendant 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).
120
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 March 2025
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY
Present : Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,
Presiding Officer.
Wednesday, the 28th day of August, 2024
I.D. (L) No. 29/2019
CNR. No. PYPY06-000054-2019
1. Raghuvaran
2. Manohar
3. Mohamad Rafik
. . Petitioners
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hotel Vijendira,
No. 108, Kamarajar Salai,
Puducherry.
. . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of Tvl. R.T. Shankar, Counsel
appearing for petitioner and Tvl. M.V. Vaithilingam, Counsel
for the respondent and upon hearing the Learned
Counsel for petitioner and respondent and on perusing
the entire records of the case, having stood over for
consideration till this date, this Court delivered the
following:
AWARD
This Petition filed under section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Amended Act, 2010 (24 of 2010) Act 1947 to
pass an Award to direct the respondent to reinstate the
petitioners with full back wages, continuity of Service
and all other attendance benefits and for the costs.
2. The averments setforth in the claim petition is as
follows :
The respondent is running a Hotel Business in
which more than 25 employees are working, however,
no employees were confirmed/permanent employees,
for the reasons best known to them. This industrial
dispute arose between the abovesaid 3 petitioners
and one Mr. Sathishkumar totally 4 employees and
the respondent Management of M/s. Hotel Vijendira.
The petitioner’s raised industrial dispute before the
Labour Officer, Conciliation, Puducherry on
25-07-2018 for their illegal termination. Within the
period of 45 days there is no amicable settlement
arrived before the Labour Officer, Conciliation,
Puducherry and therefore, the petitioners are
constrained to file this petition before this Court for
adjudication.
(ii) The petitioners joined with the respondent
company on various dates and they continued their
work with the respondent factory very honestly and
to the entire satisfaction of the respondent
management without any remarks or blemish at all.
The petition mentioned employees had worked for
more than 5 years with lesser wages and the
respondent management engaged the petition
mentioned employees to do the perennial nature of
work in full time that is 12 hours in a day and all
working days in a month and the petitioners has been
directly working in the front office management and
room service thereby the respondent management
extended the benefits of ESI to the petitioners but,
not provided EPF Scheme, and the petitioner
workmen were having requisite experience and
qualification and they have been working for a long
period that is from 2012 with the respondent
management.
(iii) The petitioners have been working for a long
period as a permanent worker with the respondent
management and they have worked more than
240 days of service within a period of 12 calendar
months. Hence, the petitioners are deemed to be
permanent workmen as per Labour Laws; however,
the respondent management had not absorbed and
regularized the petitioners for the reasons best
known to them.
(iv) The petitioners worked more than 5 years with
the respondent management for the same nature of
work and similar number of hours like permanent
employees, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
regularisation as per Labour Laws and therefore, the
petitioners had forced the respondent management
to absorb and confirm their employment. But, the
respondent management denied it and therefore the
petitioners are made and effort to form a Trade Union
for their legitimate right. While, this is the situation
to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the
respondent management not permitted them to do
their normal work and stopped them at the main
entrance on 12-07-2018 by the Vijayarav with an
ulterior motive without issuing any termination order
or statutory notice and he had pasted a notice in
their notice-board stating that the petitioners are not
permitted to enter the Hotel.
(v) The
respondent
management
without
regularizing the petitioner orally terminated and
threw out the petitioners as against the Labour Laws.
The Act committed by the respondent management
is a violation of section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act and against the Principals of Natural
121
4 March 2025]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
justice and all the statutory provisions are clearly
willfully violated by the respondent management
being subjected to exploitation everyday with
respondent to the petitioners pay and service
conditions. The respondent management denied the
employment to the petitioners for their permanent
status and is absolutely illegal and against the law
and therefore the respondent is liable to reinstate the
petitioners with full back wages and continuity of
service. Hence the petition.
3. The averments setforth in the counter filed by the
Respondent is as follows :
The respondent submits that the second
petitioner Manoharan joined his work as Front Office
Assistant on 18-03-2017 and colluded with the first
petitioner and he himself relieved from his job along
with first petitioner on 12-07-2018. Therefore, the
petitioners allegation that the petition mentioned
employees had worked for more than 5 years with
lesser wages and the respondent management
engaged the petition mentioned employees to do the
perennial nature of work in full time, i.e., 12 hours in
a day and all working days in a month and the
petitioner has been directly working in the front
office management and room service thereby the
respondent management extended the benefit of ESI
to the petitioners but not provided EPF Scheme are
totally false. The first petitioner has worked for only
for two years three month and second petitioner
worked only less than two years and the third
petitioner worked only less than three years and they
not worked continuously without break. The EPF
scheme not covered for the reason that unless more
than 20 employees engaged the EPF scheme will not
apply. The petitioner worked 240 days within
12 calendar months is totally false, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be deemed to be permanent
workman and therefore, the petitioners are not
entitled for regularisation as per Labour Laws.
(ii) The petitioners were not terminated from
service as alleged by them. Only the first petitioner
has been sent without service on 12-07-2018, since,
he was in drunken mood and not able to work
therefore, there is no any termination from service.
The respondent came to know the first petitioner
running a lodge under lessee and earned more than
50,000 per month. Even during his employment he
is having travel business and thereby evaded to
come to the respondent hotel for doing his job. The
second petitioner doing business with his uncle by
having heavy vehicle lorry and earning
30,000 per
month. The third petitioner consumed alcohol and
abused one Anand and beaten him which is exhibited
in the CCTV footage. The allegation that the
respondent management orally terminated the
petitioner which is violation of section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act and against the Principal of
Natural Justice and willfully violated all the statutory
provisions are totally false imaginary and invented
for the purpose of filing this vexatious petition.
(iii) The respondent management utilized the
petitioners like a slave for a long time and exploited
the tender age and not considered the welfare and
all other benefits and also refused their permanent
status and liable to reinstate with full back wages and
continuity of service is all false. Since the petitioner
requested the D’ Nagar Police Station on 18-07-2018
to settle the dues as one time settlement of their
wages for which the D’ Nagar Police concerned
Station House Officer requested the respondent to
settle the dues and on the same day the respondent
settled all the dues in front of Station House Officer
D’ Nagar and obtained the signature for full and final
settlement, therefore, the question of reinstate with
full back wages continuity of service and all other
attendance benefits are not entitled, hence, prays for
dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Points for determination :
1. Whether the petitioners were illegally terminated
by the respondent?
2. Whether the respondent has settled all the dues
to the petitioners?
3. Whether the petitioners were gainfully employed
elsewhere?
4. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioners
over their non-employment is justified?
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs
as claimed in the claim petition?
5. Mr. Raghuvaran was examined on the side of
petitioner as P.W.1 and through chief examination of
P.W.1, Exs.P1 to P3 were marked and through cross-
examination of P.W.1, Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. On the
Respondent side Mr. T.S. Vijaya Rao was examined as
R.W.1 and through chief examination of R.W.1, Exs. R4
and R5 were marked.
6. On points 1 to 5 : The contention of the
petitioners is that the respondent/management is
running a hotel business with more than 25 employees
but none of the employees were confirmed permanent
status and the petitioners herein had been working as
a permanent workers in the respondent hotel for more
than 240 days within a calendar period of 12 months
122
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 March 2025
and requested the respondent to regularize their service
but the respondent refused to confirm their employment
and hence, the petitioners have attempted to form a
Trade Union to claim their legitimate right and while so,
the respondent management on 12-07-2018 stopped the
petitioners at main entrance and thereby, without
issuing any termination order the respondent have
terminated the petitioners which is in violation to
section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence,
the present industrial dispute has been raised by the
petitioner for reinstatement with full back wages and
continuity of service.
7. On the other hand, the contention of the
respondent is that at no point of time the respondent
had employed more than 11 workers and thereby the
EPF Scheme was not applicable to the respondent hotel
but however the respondent had extended the ESI
benefits to the workers. The further contention of the
respondent is that the first petitioner was employed as
Front Office Assistant from 01-04-2016 with a monthly
salary of
8,820 and while so, on 11-07-2018 the first
petitioner had come to the respondent hotel in an
inebriated condition during night shift and did not work
properly and thereby complaints were received from the
customers and nearby tenants and therefore, the
respondent came to the hotel and enquired the first
petitioner about his illegal activities for which the first
petitioner had abused and threatened the respondent
and the neighboring tenants and took along with him
the second and third petitioner and also threatened
another room boy by name Sathish Kumar and later all
of them went away from the hotel by themselves without
informing the respondent and but thereafter the said
Sathish Kumar alone had joined to the work on
10-11-2018.
8. The further contention of the respondent is that
the second petitioner had joined in the respondent hotel
as Front Office Assistant on 18-03-2017 and he had
colluded with the first petitioner and left the job on his
own along with the first petitioner on 12-07-2018 and
similarly the third petitioner also went away with the
first petitioner on 11-07-2018 and did not join for the
work from 12-07-2018 onwards. It is further contention
of respondent that in a earlier occasion on 11-09-2017
the third petitioner after consuming alcohol had abused
and beaten one of the worker by name Anand who was
working at Front Office and for which the same is
available in CCTV footage. The respondent vehemently
contended that the first petitioner had worked only for
two years and three months and the second petitioner
had worked for less than two years and the 3rd
petitioner had worked for less than three years and all
the three petitioners have abandoned the job by
themselves from 12-07-2018 onwards.
9. In this case the fact of employment of the
petitioners in the respondent hotel stands admitted by
the respondent but the respondent denies the fact that
the petitioners were illegally terminated by the
respondent. It is the specific contention of the
respondent that the petitioners themselves got relieved
from the work from 12-07-2018 onwards and they are
gainfully employed elsewhere. Whereas, the contention
of the petitioners is that when the petitioners have
demanded to regularise their services, the respondent
prevented them from entering into the hotel on
12-07-2018 and thereby they were not provided any
work from 12-07-2018 onwards. However, during the
cross-examination of RW.1 the learned Counsel for the
petitioners has suggested to the RW.1 that since the
petitioners have demanded to issue ESI Card, the
respondent management became antagonized and
thereby had terminated the petitioners. Thus, the reason
for termination as stated by the petitioners in the claim
statement as well as during cross-examination of RW.1
is found to be on different aspects. However in this case
it has to be determined whether the petitioners were
illegally terminated as contended by the petitioners.
10. It is the contention of the petitioners that they
had been in service for more than five years. The
respondent in the counter has stated that the first
petitioner had worked in the respondent Hotel for two
years and three months and the second petitioner for
less than two years and third petitioner for less than
three years. The RW.1 during his cross-examination has
deposed that the first petitioner was working in the
respondent management as Front Office Assistant from
01-04-2016 onwards and second petitioner was working
as Front Office Assistant from 18-03-2017 onwards and
third petitioner was working as Room boy from
01-06-2012 and later he stopped to work and again
joined in the respondent Hotel as room boy from 2017
onwards. Thus, in this case the petitioners were found
to have worked for more than 240 days within the period
of 12 calendar months. Further, the nature of work as
admitted by the respondent is also found to be of
perennial in nature. Therefore, in such case the
petitioners were not only entitled for regularisation but,
also their service could be terminated only after
following the procedures enumerated under Industrial
Disputes Act.
11. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances even in
case of any misconduct on the part of the petitioners
the same has to be dealt by the respondent only as per
the procedures stipulated under Industrial Disputes
Act. In this case it is the contention of the respondents
that the first petitioner came to the hotel to attend for
123
4 March 2025]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
his work on 11-07-2018 in an inebriated condition and
when this was questioned by the respondent, the first
petitioner abused and threatened the respondent and
neighbour tenants with dire consequences and took
away with him the second and third petitioners and
thereafter onwards the petitioners have not reported for
work. It is an admitted fact by the respondent that either
for the alleged misconduct of the petitioners the
respondent management had initiated any disciplinary
proceedings or has issued any show cause notice to
the petitioners for their long or unauthorized absence
and therefore in such context the respondent is found
to have not taken any action as per the procedure
contemplated under Industrial Disputes Act.
12. Similarly in respect of the incident alleged to
have occurred on 11-07-2018 it is found that the
respondent has not lodged any Police complaint either
as against the first petitioner or as against the second
and third petitioners and likewise for the incident dated
11-09-2017 as narrated in the counter it is found that
no Police complaint has been lodged by the respondent
but on the other hand the RW1 during his cross-
examination has deposed that the respondent had
enquired and reprimanded the concerned petitioners
orally. However, the respondent through RW1 has
produced Ex.R1/copy of the FIR to substantiate that a
case has been lodged as against first petitioner but, on
perusal of Ex.R1 it is found that it is a case lodged by
one Kuppan against the first petitioner for some
occurrences took place in front of Eswaran Koil,
Oulgaret, Puducherry. Therefore, the Ex.R1 is found to
be a copy of FIR in respect of some occurrence not
related to the respondent management. Similarly, when
the respondent contended that the respondent has
CCTV footage for the occurrence, dated 11-09-2017 as
stated in the counter it is found that the respondent
has not produced any such footage to substantiate
such allegations. Nevertheless, even in case of such
allegations also the respondent can take action only as
per procedures established by law.
13. When the respondent specifically contends that
the respondent at no point of time had terminated the
work of the petitioners and it was the petitioners who
have abandoned their job but, at the same time the
respondent contends that the petitioners have received
one time settlement at D’ Nagar Police Station on
18-07-2018 and produced Ex.R2 to substantiate that the
petitioners have received final settlement from the
respondent. Therefore, when the alleged occurrence as
per the respondent is stated to have occurred on
11-07-2018 then contention of the respondent that the
petitioners were settled by way of one time settlement
at D' Nagar Police Station on 18-07-2018 is nothing but
an illegal attempt of termination or retrenchment which
is totally against the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act. Further, from the above it could be inferred that
the statement of respondent that the respondent never
terminated the petitioners and it was the petitioners who
have abandoned their job is totally a futile attempt made
by the respondent for the purpose of this case.
14. Apart from that on perusal of Ex.R2 it is stated
as pay register for July 2018 and in which the pay details
for the month of July 2018 is stated and therefore, the
same cannot be taken as full and final settlement done
by the respondent and further, it is against the
procedures contemplated under Industrial Disputes Act.
Hence, in the said context, this Court finds that no
importance can be attached to Ex.R2. Therefore, this
Court from the above submissions and discussions
finds that non-employment contended by the petitioners
is nothing but an illegal termination done by the
respondent without following any due procedures as
contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus,
this Court from the above discussions finds that the
industrial dispute raised by the petitioners are justified.
15. Regarding the claim of back wages is concerned,
it is the contention of the respondent that the
petitioners are gainfully engaged in a business and in
other establishments but to substantiate the same and
therefore, this Court finds that the respondent has failed
to prove that the petitioners were gainfully employed
elsewhere. However, this Court finds that all along the
petitioners were able to sustain their life and the same
cannot be done without any earnings. Hence, this Court
on considering the same finds that the petitioners could
be given 30% of back wages.
In the result this petition is allowed and the
Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners into
service within two months from the date of this award
and further directed to pay 30% of back wages from the
date of termination till the date of reinstatement with
continuity of service and other attendant benefits. There
is no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 28th day of August, 2024.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
124
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[4 March 2025
List of petitioner’s witness :
PW.1 — 15-02-2022 Thiru. Raguvaran
List of petitioner's side exhibits :
Ex.P1 — 25-07-2018 Photocopy of the Dispute
raised by the petitioner No. 1
before the Labour Officer –
Conciliation.
Ex.P2 — 25-07-2018 Photocopy of the Dispute
raised by the petitioner No. 2
before the Labour Officer –
Conciliation.
Ex.P3 — 25-07-2018 Photocopy of the Dispute
raised by the petitioner No. 3
before the Labour Officer –
Conciliation.
List of respondent’s witness :
RW.1 — 19-10-2022 Thiru. T.S. Vijaya Rao
List of respondent's side exhibits :
Ex.R1 — 15-04-2018 Photocopy of the FIR No. 40/
2018 under sections 294(b),
323, 324 r/w 34 IPC of the
Reddiarpalayam Police Station
on the complaint of one
Kuppan.
Ex.R2 — 18-07-2018 Signature
of
the
first
petitioner marked in the Pay
register for July, 2018.
Ex.R3 — July, 2018
Photocopy of the attendance
of the petitioners.
Ex.R4 — 2003
P h o t o c o p y
o f
t h e
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t
o f
Registration of Firms as
No. 255/003
of
the
respondent.
Ex.R5 — 18-07-2018 Photocopy of the full final
settlement of wages and
relieving their services, copy
of all the petitioner before the
Station
House
Officer
D' Nagar, entire documents.
.
G. T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
(SECRETARIAT WING)
(G.O. Ms. No. 7/Ind.&Com./T3/2024-25/178,
Puducherry, dated 18th February 2025)
NOTIFICATION
The Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development
and Investment Corporation Limited (PIPDIC),
a Government of Puducherry undertaking has requested
for transfer of Government land at Sedarapet/Karasur
Villages as described in the Annexure measuring an
extent of 303 HA-14A-02CA belonging to the Directorate
of Industries and Commerce, Puducherry, for Comprehensive
Industrial Development at Sedarapet/Karasur Villages in
the Union territory of Puducherry.
2. The Director, Directorate of Industries and
Commerce, Puducherry, has furnished necessary
particulars of land detailed in Annexure attached to the
Government Order which was acquired for setting up
of Special Economic Zone.
3. It was decided by the Council of Ministers,
Puducherry, to transfer the land to PIPDIC, Puducherry
for Comprehensive Industrial Development at Sedarapet/
Karasur Villages to an extent of 303 HA-14A-02CA.
4. The Government of Puducherry, has approved the
proposal for transfer of the said land to the PIPDIC,
Puducherry subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) The proposed land should be used only for
Comprehensive Industrial development.
(ii) PIPDIC shall not use the land for any purpose
other than for industrial development.
(iii) The land records shall be mutated in the name
of PIPDIC.
(iv) PIPDIC shall issue Share Certificates for
70.18 crores to the Government of Puducherry.
(v) Transparent mechanism as per Rules/Guidelines
shall be followed for the allotment of the land.
(vi) PIPDIC shall get approval of the Government
through Industries and Commerce Department in the
finalization of Master Plan as well as allotment in
respect of the Sedarapet-Karasur Industrial Estate.
(vii) Steering Committee chaired by Chief Secretary
shall be formed to oversee the process of allotment
of plots.
5. In exercise of the powers conferred under the
rules 309 and 310 of the General Financial Rules, 2017,
approval of the Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is