[1]
SOMMAIRES
CONTENTS
Page
Page
..
2
Sentence arbitral du Travail
..
2
Award of the Labour Court ..
2
de Tribunal.
..
9
Notifications du Gouvernement ..
9
Government Notifications
..
9
..
22
Avis d’ appel d’ offres
..
22
Tender Notices
..
22
..
22
Annonces
..
22
Announcements
..
22
La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry
The Gazette of Puducherry
Publiée par Autorité
Published by Authority
2026 }
|
6 {
No.
1
Poudouchéry
Mardi
6
Janvier
2026 (16 Pausa 1947)
No.
Puducherry
Tuesday
6th
January
2026
Registered with the Registrar
of Newspapers for India
under No. 10410
2
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 January 2026
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 65/LAB/AIL/S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 05th December 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 02/2024, dated
13-05-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
P ud ucherry, in respect o f a dispute between
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Detergent Division),
NH 45A, Vadamangalam, Puducherry-605 102 and Hindustan
Unilever Patali Thozhirsangam, over reinstatement of
Thiru M. Karthikeyan with back wages, continuity of
service and 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 23-5-1991, 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.
Tuesday, the 13th day of May, 2025.
I.D. (L). No. 02/2024
CNR. No. PYPY06-000009-2024
The President / Secretary,
Hindustan Unilever Patali Thozhirsangam,
No. 11, Om Ganapathy Nagar,
Achariyapuram, Villianur,
Puducherry-605 110.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,
(Detergent Division),
NH 45A, Vadamangalam,
Puducherry-605 102.
. .
Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on this day before me
for hearing in the presence of petitioner and
Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, S. Velmurugan, E. Karthik,
S. Sudarsanan, E. Madhivanan, Ritula Nizam,
V. Ravisankar and N. Nandakumar, Counsels for the
Respondent and upon hearing both sides 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. 93/Lab./AIL/T/2023, dated 29-11-2023 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,
(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Hindustan
Unilever Patali Thozhirsangam, against the
Management of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,
Detergent Division, Vadamangalam, Puducherry, over
reinstatement of Thiru M. Karthikeyan along with
back wages, continuity of service and other attendant
benefits is justified or not? If justified, give appropriate
directions.
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed.
2. Workman present and gave a letter stating that
relating to same issue involved in this case, the
workman Karthikeyan has filed petition under section
2A of Industrial Disputes Act and the same is pending
before this Court in ID(L) No. 27/2024 and hence, this
reference to be closed as the issue involved in ID(L)
No. 2/2024 and ID(L) No. 27/2024 are one and the same.
Hence, the letter given by the workman Karthikeyan
is recorded and this Court on recording the abovesaid
letter is inclined to close this reference.
In the result, this reference is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 13th day of May, 2025.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 66/AIL/Lab./S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 5th December2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 01/2016, dated
31-07-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry in respect of dispute between M/s. Deepak
3
6 January 2026]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Cables (India) Ltd., No.7, Whirlpool Road, Thiruvandar
Kovil, Puducherry-605 102 and United Labour Federation,
No.149, Thambu Chetty Street, C.J. Complex, IV Floor,
Chennai-600 001, over charter of demands 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 23-5-1991, 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 31st day of July, 2025
I.D. (T) No. 01/2016
CNR. No. PYPY06-000036-2016
The President,
United Labour Federation,
No.149, Thambu Chetty Street,
C.J. Complex, IV Floor,
Chennai - 600 001.
. . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd.,
No.7, Whirlpool Road,
Thiruvandar Kovil,
Puducherry- 605 102.
. . Respondent
This Industrial Dispute coming before me for hearing
in the presence of Thiru P. Chandrasekar, Counsel for
the Petitioner and Thiru B. Mohandoss, K. Velmurugan,
J. Kalirathinam, S. Vijayasanthi, Kanjanamala,
R. Anbumathy, A. Asha, Indrajith and T. Vijayasanthi,
Counsels for Respondents, upon hearing both sides,
after perusing the case records, after having stood over
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. 43/AIL/Lab./T/2016, dated 30-05-2016 of the Labour
Department, Puducherry to resolve the following
dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent,
viz.,
(a)Whether the dispute raised by the United
Labour Federation against the management of
M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd., Thiruvandar Kovil,
Puducherry, over charter of demands such as revision
of Basic Pay at 5,000, Annual increment at 1,000,
House Rent Allowance at
3,000, Conveyance
Allowance at 2,000, Educational Allowance at
1,000 and other allowances, etc., are justified or
not? If justified, what relief the Union workmen
are entitled to?
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. The Brief averments set forth in the claim
statement filed by the petitioner is as follows:
That the petitioner Union is a Trade Union,
registered under the Trade Unions Act representing
both organized and unorganized sectors in Tamil Nadu
and Pondicherry. The respondent management is
a company registered under the companies Act.
The respondent management involved in the
business of manufacture and sale of ACSR/
Aluminium Conductors and the company started the
commercial production in November 2000. That the
workers of the respondent management did not have
any genuine Trade Union representatives and in
absence of the same, the management had been
exploiting the workmen in various measures. Then
by realizing the necessary of genuine Trade Union
functioning, and in order to protect their Trade
Union rights, the workmen of the respondent joined
as members of the petitioner Union. That the
petitioner Union is the only Trade Union in the
respondent management and the workers were not
paid revised wages for past four years and as the
respondent management did not come forward to
resolve the dispute for wage revision and fixation of
Dearness Allowances etc., by way of bilateral
negotiations, the petitioner union was constrained to
raise a dispute under section 2(k) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Officer
(Conciliation), Puducherry on 08-09-2015. That the
respondent management filed their reply stating that
on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the
control of the employer, the respondent was unable
to comply with the demands and so the Conciliation
4
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 January 2026
Officer has issued the Conciliation failure report on
11-02-2016. Pursuant to which the Government issued
Government Order referring the said issues for
adjudication by this Court.
(ii) That the members of the petitioner Union are
employed as operators in the factory of the respondent
management at Puducherry. That the members of the
petitioner Union have been paid basic wages ranging
from 7,870. Most of the workers are residing in and
around Pondicherry and cost of living in that area is
extremely high. That the basic wages paid to the workers
by the respondent management is inadequate to even
meet out the bare minimum necessities of themselves and
their families. That no comparable manufacture
Aluminium conductor industries are situated in that area.
There are other factories in and around Pondicherry
were workers are paid much higher wages. That the
respondent company is running on a substantial profit
and the turnover also is high and hence, considering the
same the basic wages to the workers in the respondent
factory has to be increased. That the Dearness
Allowances should be adequate to compensate workers
for the rise in the cost of living, cost of education, cost
of transport, cost of fuel, cost of electricity, cost of
medical treatment and cost of provisions etc., and should
reflect the real rise in cost of living. It is necessary to
give annual increment to all the workers every year. That
the workers have to work in all the shifts in the
respondent factory, the workers have to look for rental
premises nearby places to the factory. That the prevailing
rate of a residential accommodation is high expensive in
and around respondent factory and in order to secure
decent accommodation for the workers and their
families, the workers would need a minimum of 3,000
per month as House Rent Allowance. That the workers
are not being paid towards conveyance allowance which
is difficult to commute to work. That the respondent
management has to provide any transport facility to the
workers and the workers of the respondent management
are not paid the educational allowance to the worker.
That the worker has to maintain clean and hygienic health
and to get quality washing powder and it requires
minimum 500 per month. That the members of the
petitioner Union will share per day wage as death benefit
to their family of a workman died during service and
double
amount
of
workers
contribution
from
management to be paid to the legal heirs of that deceased
workman and thereby demands Funeral help to be
paid to parents of workman at 5,000 and in case
death of workman 10,000. From November to January
being rainy season and workers are involved in all shifts,
so, demanded for rain coat to each workman per year.
That the each worker needs 3 sets of uniform per year
with 500 as stitching charges in the month of January
and 2 sets of small towel per year and three big size
Hamam soap, ½ kilo coconut oil, 1 kilo Horlicks to be
provided every month. Hence, this claim petition.
3. The brief averments set forth in the Counter
Statement filed by the respondent is as follows:
That the respondent company is involved in
manufacture
and
sale
of
ACSR/Aluminium
Conductors and the company started the commercial
production in November 2000. The respondent
company was performing satisfactory till 2012-13 and
the company was paying monetary benefits and
salaries in time to the satisfaction of all employees
during the period. But, unfortunately the company
could not perform well from the Financial year
2013-14 on account of unavoidable circumstances
beyond the control of the employer and which had
resulted in negative performance of the company. It
is basic principle of Law that the capacity of industry
to pay the monetary benefits is a material criterion
in the adjudication process in the matter of demands
made by the workers. Similarly, the fault or mistakes
committed by the workmen resulting in negative
performance of the company cannot be ignored while
deciding the validity of the demands made by the
workmen. That the quality issues with Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited and subsequent poor
performance in supplies due to quality issues and
financial issues, Power Grid Corporation Limited has
blacklisted and banned the respondent company from
participating in the tenders for new orders. Due to
strained liquidity, the company was finding it
difficult to execute supplies in timely manner to clear
backlog of orders in hand and the company faced
levies and penalties impacting its revenues and cash
flows. Thus, the net sales in the company had
drastically got reduced over the last 3 years, which
has resulted in losses during the previous financial
years and losses continued during the financial year
2015-16.
(ii) Irrespective of the financial issues, the
company has been paying the salaries (with some
delay from last few months) to the employees by
arranging the money from bank even though, there
was no output from the company because of the said
circumstances beyond the control of the company,
it has not been able to pay the wages and other
statutory payment in time. That the respondent was
kind enough to increase the wages of the
employees in the year 2012-2013 (w.e.f 01-07-2012)
which was valid for 2 years, despite the company’s
5
6 January 2026]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
bad financial situation due to quality issues and
expected ban from supplying the materials and
participating from the new tenders. That through
notice
of
retrenchment,
dated
12-01-2016,
retrenchment of 39 workmen done to avoid
deterioration of the company. That inability of the
respondent management to satisfy the demands made
by the petitioner Union was clearly explained through
representation, dated 21-12-2015 submitted to the
Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry. That
wages due, to the workmen from November 2016 have
not been paid by the respondent for want of funds
and similarly the statutory dues like ESI & PF
Contribution have not been paid from April, 2016
onwards. In such a situation it will against the public
interest to ask the respondent to pay more. That if,
the demands made by the workmen are satisfied,
balance of convenience in the matter of granting
relief claimed by the workmen and similar other
factors linked with larger interest of the workforce,
have to be taken into consideration and if by granting
the reliefs claimed by the petitioner, the industry is
forced to retrench workmen further or to close the
industry. That the satisfaction of the demands made
by the petitioner is beyond the capacity of the
respondent.
(iii) That as per the sound principles of Labour
Law in the matter of fixation of wages, the Industry-
cum-Region Principle is recognized one. As the
respondent company engaged in the manufacture of
ACSR/Aluminium Conductors cannot be compared
with industries involved in the manufacture of
difference products. That there is no law which
mandates en employer to pay a sum of 5,000 per
month as basic wages like the provisions of the
Minimum Wages Act. Similarly there is no legal right
for the workmen to get a sum of 1,000 as annual
wage increment and there is no obligation on the part
of the employer. As it is a collective dispute it is
covered by section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. That the petitioner Union should prove
its authority to represent the workmen of the
respondent. That the name and description of the
workmen for whom the claim has been made, has not
been disclosed in the claim petition. That the
respondent has already retrenched 39 workmen and
the petitioner has no authority raise the demand on
behalf of retrenched workers, as if, they are still in
service. Out of 39 workmen retrenched, 11 of have
settled their accounts with the respondent and
peitioner Union has no authoriy to represent them.
Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The brief averments set forth in the Additional
Counter Statement filed by the respondent is as follows:
That subsequent to the commencement of the enquiry
in the main ID, the creditor State Bank of India,
Bangalore filed application before the Hon’ble National
Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench seeking to
initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under
the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankrupty Code,
2016. The Hon’ble Tribunal passed orders, dated
23-08-2018 declaring moratorium prohibiting, among
other things, the institution of suits or continuation of
pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate
Debtor including execution of any judgment, decree
or order in any Court of Law, Tribunal, Arbitration
Panel or other authority. Subsequently, the Hon'ble
Tribunal passed orders on 04-07-2019 appointing
Shri Ravindra Beleyur as Liquidator to liquidate the
Corporate Debtor namely the respondent company and
directed the said liquidator to take speedy steps to
conclude the liquidation process. With the directions
of the Hon’ble Tribunal, the liquidator has taken
possession of the Corporate Office at Bangalore and
the factory premises at Puducherry belonging to the
respondent company. That the liquidator has sealed the
factory premises and all industry operations on the part
of the respondent company have come to an end. That
the orders passed by the Hon'ble National Company
Law Tribunal and acts of the liquidator have got
a bearing on the claim made by the petitioner in the ID
and the very maintainability of the claim made by the
petitioner is at stake. Therefore, it is prayed for
dismissing the claim made by the petitioner on account
of the subsequent developments and with directions to
work out their remedy by raising their claim before the
liquidator appointed by the National Company Law
Tribunal, Bengalaru Bench in its order, dated 23-08-2018
or in the alternative pass order for closing the reference
made by the appropriate Government under section 10
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. On the side of the petitioner P.W.1 was examined
and Exs. P1 to P4 were marked and on the side of
respondent no witness was examined and no exhibit was
marked.
6. Points for determination:
1. Whether the dispute raised by United Labour
Federation against the management of M/s. Deepak
Cables (India) Ltd., Thiruvandar Kovil, Puducherry,
over charter of demands such as revision of basic
pay at 5,000, Annual increment at 1,000, House
Rent Allowance at 3,000, Conveyance Allowance
at 2,000, Educational Allowance at 1,000 and
other allowances etc., are justified or not?
6
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 January 2026
2. If justified, to what relief the Union workmen
are entitled to?
7. On points 1 & 2:
The contention of the petitioner Union is that the
workers of the respondent management were not paid
revised wages for the past four years and the
members of the petitioner Union have been paid basic
wages ranging from 7870 and the said basic wages
paid were inadequate to meet the costs of bare
minimum necessities and whereas, in other factories
in and around at Puducherry are paying higher wages
than the basic wages paid by the respondent
company and further, the Dearness Allowance are not
adequate to meet out the rise in the cost of living
and therefore, considering the contentions raised
by the petitioner Union, the basic wages for the
workers of respondent company has to be increased
by another 5,000 and to enhance the house
rent allowance from 3000 and conveyance
allowance at 2000 and educational allowance at
1000 and washing allowance of 500 and to
provide death benefits to the family members and
legal heirs of the deceased workman and to provide
funeral help in case of death of the workman and in
case of death of the parents of the workman and to
provide rain coat, uniform, stitching charge, coconut
oil, horlicks, towel and soap allowances with effect
from 01-01-2015.
8. The respondent in the counter contended that the
subject matter of the dispute pertains to terms and
conditions of employment of workmen of the respondent
company and therefore, it is a collective dispute covered
under section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act and hence,
in such case, the petitioner Union has to prove its
authority to represent the workmen of the respondent
company. The respondent further contended that the
respondent company was running in huge financial loss
and apart from that due to quality issues with
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and subsequent
poor performances in supplies due to quality issues, the
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited had blacklisted
and banned the respondent company from participating
in the tenders for new orders and thereby there was no
any orders from any vendors and the company net sales
has drastically gone down resulting in huge loss from
the financial year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and
from the year 2013 onwards there was no production
and further when the respondent company had
approached its lead lender State Bank of India for
restructuring of its debt under the CDR mechanism the
Bank accounts of respondent company was attached by
the Income-tax Department and the company was
struggling to make payments to various Government
Departments and everything went beyond the control
of the respondent company and the company was
struggling to disburse the wages in time and yet in the
midst of all problems the company has increased wages
in the year 2012-2013 with effect from 01-07-2012 and
thereby in the said circumstances the respondent
management has explained through representation,
dated 21-12-2015 its inability to meet out the demands
raised by its employees.
9. In this case, on the side of petitioner, the P.W.1
was examined in chief and was cross-examined in part
and later was posted for further cross-examination of
P.W.1 by respondent on various hearing dates and while
so, the learned Counsel for respondent on 29-10-2019
has filed additional written statement stating that after
commencement of enquiry in this case, the creditor State
Bank of India, Bangalore had filed application before
the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru
Bench seeking to initiate corporate insolvency
Resolution Process under the provisions of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 and subsequently
on 04-07-2019 Shri Ravindra Beleyur was appointed as
Liquidator to liquidate the Corporate Debtor namely the
respondent company and the said Liquidator was
directed to take speedy steps to conclude the
liquidation process and thereupon the liquidator has
taken possession of the Corporate office at Bangalore
and factory premises at Puducherry and sealed the
factory premises. The learned Counsel for respondent
thereafter has represented that in view of subsequent
events took place as stated in the additional counter it
is not possible for the learned Counsel for respondent
to further cross-examine the P.W.1. Hence, this Tribunal
has recorded the same and thereby has closed the
evidence of P.W.1 and evidence on the side of the
petitioner and later as the respondent did not choose
to adduce any oral or documentary evidence this
Tribunal has closed the evidence on the side of the
respondent.
10. Thus, in the said back drops, this Tribunal has
taken up this case for disposal. The first contention of
the respondent is that the subject matter of dispute
pertains to terms and conditions of employment of
workmen of the respondent company and therefore, it
is a collective dispute covered under section 2(k) of
Industrial disputes Act and hence, in such case the
petitioner Union has to prove that it has authority to
represent the workmen of the respondent company. This
Tribunal finds that as per section 36 of Industrial
Disputes Act 1947, a workman who is a party to the
dispute can be represented in any proceeding under the
7
6 January 2026]
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by any member of the
executive or office bearer of any Trade Union. The
petitioner Union has produced Ex. P1 which states
that the petitioner Union is raising dispute regarding
the charter of demands on behalf of members of the
Trade Union functioning in the respondent company
and further, the P.W.1 examined on the side of petitioner
Union has categorically deposed during his chief
examination that he has been authorised to depose
evidence on behalf of the petitioner Union. To disprove
the same no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the respondent and thereby the said
contention of the respondent is found to be evasive
one.
11. The next contention is that the Liquidator
representing the respondent company has filed
documents to substantiate that the respondent
company is undergoing liquidation process as per the
provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
2016 and also filed memo stating that as per the order
of Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru
Bench on 04-07-2019, the Liquidator namely Shri Ravindra
Beleyur was appointed to liquidate the Corporate Debtor
namely the respondent company and further, the
Liquidator has been directed to take speedy steps to
conclude the liquidation process. This Tribunal on
perusal of records finds that in this case the liquidation
process pertaining to the respondent company has been
commenced by way of order of Hon’ble National
Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, dated
23-08-2018. Whereas this reference is made to this
Tribunal from the Labour Department on 30-05-2016.
Hence, this Tribunal without bearing to the proceedings
of Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru
Bench is constrained to determine the merits of the claim
made by the petitioner Union in the claim statement.
12. Admittedly the above industrial dispute has been
raised by the petitioner Union over charter of demands
raised by the workers of the respondent company. The
petitioner Union by way of charter of demands are
seeking for increase in basic wages and increase in
house rent allowance at 3,000 and transport allowance
at 2,000, educational allowance of 1,000, washing
allowance of 500 and demand of death benefits to the
legal heirs of deceased workman, funeral help, rain coat,
uniform and stitching charges, coconut oil, horlicks,
towel and soap allowances from the period from
1-1-2015.
13. It is the specific contention of respondent that
the Net sales of the respondent company has
drastically gone down resulting in huge loss from the
financial year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and from
the year 2013 onwards there is no production and
everything went beyond the control of the respondent
company and company was struggling to disburse the
wages in time and yet in the midst of all problems the
company has increased wages in the year 2012-2013
with effect from 01-07-2012.
14. This Tribunal on perusal of cross-examination of
P.W.1 finds that the P.W.1 during his cross-examination
has deposed as follows:
Thus, it is found that the P.W.1 himself has admitted
that the respondent company was in loss from 2013
onwards. Further, it is an admitted fact that the
respondent company has been taken and sealed by the
Liquidator appointed by the Hon'ble Company Law
Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench and the company is in
liquidation process under the provisions of Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Hence, this Tribunal
considering the above facts and further considering the
facts set out in the counter statement filed by the
respondent company finds that when the respondent
company was admittedly running in loss from 2013
onwards and was struggling to make payment of wages
in time to its workmen cannot be expected to burden
more beyond its financial capability by implementing the
charter of demands raised by the workmen of the
respondent company more particularly when the
respondent company is under liquidation process.
Hence, this Tribunal finds that the dispute raised by
the petitioner Union is not justified and this Tribunal
is inclined to dismiss the claim petition.
In the, result the claim petition and the industrial
dispute raised by the petitioner Union is dismissed.
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 the 31st day of July, 2025.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.
————
List of petitioner’s witness:
PW.1 —
09-04-2018 Thiru D. Prakash
8
LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT
[6 January 2026
List of petitioner’s side exhibits:
Ex.P1 — 08-09-2015
Photocopy of the Charter
Demands raised by the
Petitioner
before
the
Conciliation Officer (Pg.
1-7).
Ex. P2 — 11-02-2016
Photocopy
of
the
Conciliation Failure Report
(Pg. 8-14).
Ex. P3 — 30-05-2016
Photocopy of the
Government of Puducherry
Labour
Department
Reference (Pg. 15-16).
Ex. P4—
09-07-2017
Photocopy of the Resolution
of the Petitioner Union
(Pg. 17-18).
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
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 67/AIL/Lab./S/2025,
Puducherry, dated 05th December 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 16/2024, dated
17-06-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the M/s.
Chandraprabhu Enterprises Private Limited, Puducherry
and Thiru. M. Dhinakaran @ Babu, Puducherry, over his
non-employment 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 23-5-1991, 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.
Tuesday, the 17th day of June, 2025.
I.D. (T). No. 16/2024
CNR. No. PYPY06-000032-2024
Thiru M. Dinakaran @ Babu,
S/o. R. Mannangatti,
No. 48, Hospital Street,
Ramanathapuram,
Puducherry.
. .
Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Chandraprabhu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,
B- 143, 19th Cross,
Mettupalayam Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam,
Puducherry- 605 009
. .
Respondent
This Industrial Dispute came up for hearing, both the
Petitioner and Respondent being remained absent set
ex parte, upon perusing the records, 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. 07/Lab./AIL/S/2024, dated 10-01-2024 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
Thiru M. Dinakaran @ Babu against the management
of M/s. Chandraprabhu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,
Puducherry, over reinstatement along with other
attendant benefits is justified or not? If justified, give
appropriate directions.
(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms
of money, if it can be so computed?
2. Notice served to respondent. No representation
on respondent side, vakalath not filed, respondent
called absent set ex parte on 07-01-2025.
3. No representation on petitioner side inspite of
posting this case as finally. Petitioner called absent.
In the result, this industrial dispute is dismissed for
non- prosecution.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 17th day of June, 2025.
G.T. AMBIKA,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Puducherry.