[27]



SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS



Page

..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

de Tribunal.



Notifications du Gouvernement ..

Government Notifications



Avis d’ appel d’ offres

Tender Notices



Etablissements dangereux

Dangerous Establishments



Annonces

Announcements



La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry



Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority







2026 }

|

13 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2026 (23 Pausa 1947)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

13th

January

2026

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[13 January 2026

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 68/AIL/LAB/S/2025,

Puducherry, dated 05th December 2025)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 16/2019, dated

06-06-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of dispute between M/s. Auro

Electronics,

Thattanchavady

Industrial

Estate,

Puducherry and Thiru A. Vijayaraghavan, Puducherry, over

non-employment 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.

Friday, the 06th day of June, 2025.

I.D. (L). No. 16/2019

CNR. No. PYPY06-000022-2019

Thiru A. Vijayaraghavan,

No. 24, Pudhu Theru,

Vinoba Nagar,

Puducherry-605 008.

. .

Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Auro Electronics,

A-2, Thattanchavady Industrial Estate,

Puducherry-605 009.

. .

Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming before me for

hearing in the presence of Thiru M. Ganesh, Counsel

for the Petitioner and Thiru R. Thirumavalavan and

R. Ramachandiran, Counsels for the Respondent were

remained absent set 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. 37/AIL/Lab./T/2019, dated 11-03-2019 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 A.Vijayaraghavan, Puducherry against the

management of M/s. Auro Electronics, Thattanchavady

Industrial Estate, Puducherry, over non-employment

is justified or not? If justified, what relief the

petitioner is 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 claim petition is

as follows:

That the petitioner was working with the

respondent for the past 9 years without any blemish

and there is no remark at all by the respondent.

While being so, on 11-04-2018 at about 8.00 a.m.

when the petitioner was cleaning his hands and legs

during the course of employment, Kalidoss who was

the co-worker made a quarrel with the petitioner

unlawfully. In this regard, the Kalidoss made a

complaint before the Baskaradoss, later the said

Manager demanded to give a apology letter

accordingly apology letter was given to him. Later that

petitioner was suspended for the period of one week.

After the suspended period, the petitioner had

approached the management, the said Manager

revealed that the petitioner was suspended from the

service by the management. That there is no remark

against the petitioner into his employment but the

respondent purposely suspended the petitioner from

the service. That the petitioner moved to Conciliation

against the respondent, but, the respondent had not

came forward to settle this matter amicably. This act

of the respondent against law, natural justice and

against the Employees Act and procedures and

therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstate along

with full back wages, benefits, service benefits etc.

Hence the petition.

3. The averments set forth in the counter statement

is as follows:

The respondent company is an Engineering based

Industry involved in manufacturing/fabricating

m a c h i n e s . O n 1 6 - 0 7 - 2 0 0 9 , t h e p e t i t i o n e r

A. Vijayaraghavan joined as helper and continued to

be in same designation till he left the company on

18-04-2018. On 11-04-2018, the respondent had

13 January 2026]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

received the written complaint from Kalidoss who was

a Co-worker against the petitioner that, the petitioner

had assaulted Kalidoss and caused injury in his neck

and threatening him with dire consequences. In this

regard, the respondent decided to initiate disciplinary

action against the petitioner and a show cause notice

was issued to petitioner on 13-04-2018 and called for

explanation. That the petitioner had replied to the

show cause notice on 16-04-2018 and accepted the

fault and apologized for his misconduct. Since, the

offenses are serious and grave in nature, the

respondent decided to conduct enquiry on the

charges levelled against the petitioner and on

18-04-2018 placed the petitioner under suspension

pending enquiry and intimated the same to him. The

petitioner has refused to receive the said notice and

started pressuring the respondent through his

influences to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings

to be initiated against him. That the petitioner after

refused to receive the suspension notice did not

approached the management and had raised this

dispute. That the respondent acted as per the

provisions of the act and only by an detailed enquiry

the charges levelled against the petitioner had to be

reasoned out and till such period, the respondent

was ready to pay the subsistence allowance. Since

the charges are pertaining to co-worker without any

enquiry into the charges and permitting the petitioner

to work will affect the moral of other workers. Hence,

the claim of the petitioner is premature, liable to the

dismissed.

4. In this case, though respondent has filed counter

but later has remained ex parte. On the side of

Petitioner P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were

marked.

5. Point for determination:

Whether the Industrial Dispute raised by the

petitioner against the respondent management over

non-employment and back wages is justified or not

and if justified what is the relief the petitioner is

entitled for?

6. On point:

The contention of the petitioner is that the

petitioner had been working in the respondent firm

for the past nine years and while so on 11-4-2018 at

about 8 a.m during the course of employment one of

the co-worker had quarreled with the petitioner and

also complained the same to the respondent

management and thereafter the petitioner was

suspended for one week and subsequently was

terminated from service without any enquiry.

7. In this case, the petitioner was examined in chief

as P.W1 and thereafter the case was posted for cross-

examination of P.W.1 and when such being so, the

respondent has remained ex parte. On perusal of case

records it is found that the petitioner had been working

in the respondent firm from 16-07-2009 onwards and

while so on 18-04-2018, the petitioner was placed under

suspension pending enquiry for the allegation of serious

misconduct. It is the contention of the petitioner that

without any enquiry, the petitioner had been terminated

from service.

8. The case records reveals that the respondent has

remained ex parte and thereby the case of the petitioner

remains unchallenged and unrebutted. This Court on

considering the submissions of the petitioner finds that

the termination of the petitioner by the respondent is

nothing but an illegal termination since the same has

been 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 petitioner is justified.

9. Regarding the claim of back wages is concerned,

this Court finds that the respondent has failed to prove

that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere.

Hence, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled

for back wages.

In the result, this petition is allowed and the

Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner into

service within two months from the date of this Award

and further directed to pay 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.

Partly typed by the Stenographer, Partly typed by me

in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this 06th day of June 2025.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

—

20-09-2024

Thiru A. Vijayaraghavan

List of petitioner’s exhibits :

Ex.P1

—

04-03-2011

Photocopy of the Salary

slip for the year of 2011.

Ex.P2

—

05-05-2012

Photocopy of the Salary

slip for the month of April

2012.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[13 January 2026

Ex.P3 —

04-05-2013

Photocopy of the Salary

slip for the month of April

2013.

Ex.P4

—

02-07-2015

Photocopy of the Salary

slip for the month of June

2015.

Ex.P5

—

03-06-2016

Photocopy of the Salary

slip for the month of May

2016.

Ex.P6

—

02-09-2017

Photocopy of the Salary

slip for the month of

August 2017.

Ex.P7

—

03-02-2018

Photocopy of the Salary

slip for the month of

January 2018.

Ex.P8

—

13-04-2018

Photocopy of the Show

cause notice.

Ex.P9

—

29-05-2018

Photocopy of the Letter

to Labour officer.

Ex.P10 —

06-02-2019

Photocopy of the Notice

of enquiry issued by

Labour officer.

Ex.P11 —

23-01-2019

Photocopy

the

Memorandum issued by

the Under Secretary.

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. 69/Lab./AIL/S/2025,

Puducherry, dated 5th December2025)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 05/2023, dated

21-07-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of Dispute between M/s. Hidesign

India Private Limited, No. 244/1, Odiampet, Villianur

Commune, Puducherry-605 110 and Hidesign India

Private Limited, Labour Union, No. 244/1, Odiampet

Village, Villianur Commune, Puducherry-605 110, over

breach of settlement of wage revision and other allied

welfare measures 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.

Monday, the 21st day of July, 2025

I.D. (T) No. 05/2023

CNR. No. PYPY06-000033-2023

The Secretary,

Hi-design India Private Limited,

Labour Union,

No. 244/1, Odiampet Village,

Villianur Commune,

Puducherry-605 110.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Hi-design India Private Limited,

No. 244/1, Odiampet,

Villianur Commune,

Puducherry- 605 110.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming before me for

hearing in the presence of Thiru A.K. Thirumurugan,

Counsel for the Petitioner and Thiru G. Krishnan,

Counsel for Respondent, 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. 14/Lab./AIL/T/2023, dated 07-02-2023 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.-

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Hidesign

India Private Limited, Labour Union over breach of

12(3) settlement over wage revisions and other allied

welfare measures has been arrived on 07-01-2021

before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) by the

13 January 2026]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

management M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited,

Puducherry, is justified or not? If justified, to give

appropriate direction?

(b) During the pendency of settlement arrived

between the same parties, whether the demand of the

Hidesign India Private Limited, Labour Union for new

Charter of demands towards wage revision and other

allied welfare measures during subsistence of 12(3)

settlement arrived on 07-01-2021 which would remain

in force up to 30-09-2024 is legal and justified? If

justified, to give appropriate direction?

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:

The petitioner Union is the only Union functioning

in the respondent Management registered under the

Trade Union Act of 1926. That the respondent

management is a private limited company established

under the Companies Act and registered at Puducherry,

involved in the process of manufacturing the finished

leather goods like Bags, Belts, etc., and created a

good reputation of the leather companies at

Puducherry. The respondent Management is employed

330 number of permanent employees in addition to

the 500 members of contract labours. That the

respondent management used to make separate

periodical agreements of Wages, Bonus and working

conditions vide separate settlements with the

petitioner Union under section 18(1)/12(3) of

Industrial Dispute Act. An agreement was lastly

entered between the petitioner Union and the

management under section 12(3) of Industrial Dispute

Act, dated 07-02-2017, for payment of bonus, wages

and service conditions which was valid till

30-09-2017. Even though, the said previous settlement

had expired, the terms and conditions of the previous

settlement will continue and till the new settlement

comes to force. Subsequently on 20-01-2020 a 12(3)

agreement was entered between the management and

Union, which was subsequently breached by the

management, wherein the terms and conditions found

in the 12(3) agreement of 2017 is extended in

20-01-2020. Whereas, even after expiry of 17 months

the charter of demands raised in the Conciliation

proceedings were not been granted to the petitioner’s

Union. Thereafter, the said agreement cannot be

renewed due to outbreak of corona but, there was

an agreement between the petitioner Union and the

respondent management during the pandemic period

that the petitioner Union shall not claim the welfare

benefits due to lock down and other loss in view to

the management due to pandemic and the respondent

management shall extend the benefits to its

employees after the restoration of normalcy of

Covid-19. Whereas, even after resumption of

normalcy most of the benefits to salary and other

demands have not been implemented. While so a

representation was submitted to management for the

aforesaid demands of the year 2021-2022 in

accordance of agreement, dated 07-01-2021. The

respondent management was not ready to enforce

the same and refused stating the reason of past loss

to company during the pandemic period.

(ii) Aggrieved by the act of the management the

petitioner Union vide their representation, dated

24-05-2022 raised an industrial dispute against the

management of M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited,

Puducherry, over breach of settlement of wage

revision and other allied welfare measures. As per the

terms and condition of 12(3) settlement, dated

07-02-2014, it was mutually agreed that medical

examination will be carried out once in every year.

But, it was carried out only once during the year 2015

and thereafter no medical examination was done up

to May 2022 and as a result most of the workers had

died due to cancer and other occupational diseases,

some of the workers were suffering from various

health issues. Moreover, the management had

breached the 12(3) settlement, dated 07-01-2021

arrived for wage revision and allied welfare measure,

wherein, it was assured to extend all the benefits in

accordance with 12(3) signed during, 2017. But, for

the past 17 months, the management has not provided

the petition mentioned welfare measures. Medical

checkup mentioned at Serial No. 13 was not carried

out for the past 5 years and in turn cost of the

workers are suffering from various health issues

which amount to violation of 12(3) settlement.

Moreover, they denied the averment of the management

that they came forward to have medical checkup

through ESI. Further, arrears have not been settled

to nearly 30 workers in accordance with Sl.No.1 of

12(3) settlement, dated 07-01-2021. Furthermore, it

was agreed at Sl.Nos. 3 and 4 that after restoration

of normalcy of COVID-19, all the welfare benefits

would be extended. But, till date some of the benefits

have not been extended even after passing of 1 ½

years. Furthermore, Educational incentive agreed at

Sl.No.6, banana at Sl.No. 10, Bonus Sl.No. 12 and

medical checkup at Sl.No. 13, uniform and stitching

charges at Sl.No. 15 has not been extended. That, the

management of M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited,

Puducherry, has failed to implement the 12(3) settlement,

dated 07-01-2021 including the terms and conditions

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[13 January 2026

agreed in the 12(3) settlement signed during 2017. Due

to non-implementation of the 12(3) settlement they

have constraint to put forth the new demands. As

the claimed allowances concerned they are all only

common welfare measures to be extended to the

members of the petitioner’s Union as they were

already in force prior to COVID-19 pandemic and due

to pandemic measures they were temporarily

suspended on the agreement of Union and

management to restore the same after the normalcy

of Covid. Whereas, the respondent management

unfairly failed to do so.

(iii) That the demand of raising the retirement age

is concerned, as per section 13-B of the Industrial

Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 and the rules

framed thereunder in The Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, it clearly

specified in Schedule I-B (3) is obviously stated that

the “Age of Retirement” the age of retirement or

superannuation of a workman shall be as may

be agreed upon between the employer and the

workman under an agreement or as specified in a

settlement or Award which is binding on both the

workman and the employer. Where there is no such

agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on

completion of 58 years of age by the workman. The

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

is a special law in regard to matters enumerated in

the schedule. As per prevailing labour laws in India,

the Industrial Tribunal has to fix the retirement age

as 58 to 60 to the employees working under the

respondent management, otherwise the employees

working under the respondent management put into

irreparable loss and hardships. The management is

advised to incorporate a clause namely “Prevention

of Sexual Harassment of Women at work place” which

is a mandatory clause as per the directions of the

Supreme Court of India. As per Schedule I of the

Model Standing Orders in respect of Industrial

Establishments provided under the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946,

“A workman may be granted casual leave of absence

with or without pay not exceeding 10 days in the

aggregate in a calendar year. Therefore, it is prayed

to direct the respondent management to fix the age

of superannuation is 58 or 60 to the Employees

Working under the respondent management and to

implement the 12 (3) settlement benefits, dated

07-01-2021 from its due date and to extend the

medical benefits to the employee and to award the

costs of the petition. Hence, the petition.

3. The brief averments set forth in the Counter

Statement filed by the respondent is as follows:

That a settlement first reached under section 18(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act and then sealed under

section 12(3) of the Act in the course of Conciliation

Proceedings is binding in nature on all workmen in

the establishment since it was signed not only by

the representatives of the petitioner Union but, also

by the representatives of the respondent management

and Conciliation Officer. This fair and reasonable

tripartite settlement, dated 07-01-2021 is binding even

upon workers who are not parties to the dispute.

The age of superannuation in the respondent

company is 55 years as per the certified Standing

Orders of the Company but the petitioner Union filed

an application before the Commissioner of Labour-

cum-Certifying Officer to enhance the age of

superannuation as 58 years which was strongly objected

by the respondent management. The Commissioner

of Labour-cum-Certifying Officer by order, dated

29-10-2015 modified the certified Standing Orders of

the company by enhancing the age of superannuation

as 58 years from 55. As against the said order the

respondent management preferred Standing Order

Appeal No. 2 of 2015 before this Court and by Order,

dated 22-12-2017 this Hon’ble Court has set aside

the order enhancing the age of superannuation as 58

years from 55 years and thereby the age of

superannuation in the respondent company has been

confirmed as 55 years by this Court. The respondent

Union has not preferred any appeal and hence, the

order dated 22-12-2017 passed by this Court

regarding the age of superannuation in the respondent

company has become final and conclusive. Therefore,

the relief sought to direct the respondent management

to fix the age of superannuation is 58 or 60 to the

employees working under the respondent management

is nothing but, an abuse of process of Court and Law

and hence, the relief sought in this regard is legally

untenable. That the petitioner union is fully aware

that the benefits under 12(3) settlement has already

been implemented by the respondent management.

After restoration of normalcy subsequent to COVID-19

pandemic impact welfare measures were implemented

gradually in consultation with petitioner Union in

terms of 12(3) settlement and referring certain

benefits not covered under 12(3) settlement and

alleging its non-implementation is against the

mutually agreed terms of 12(3) settlement which

would remain in force up to 30-09-2024. That the full

medical care given under the ESI hospitals and

through tie-up arrangements with private hospitals

is highly beneficial to the employees and whenever

the respondent management came forward for medical

examination for its employees through ESI hospital

the union has not cooperated and made unworkable

and impracticable suggestions and caused impediment

13 January 2026]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

for medical examination. The petitioner Union has

already submitted charter of demands on 11-03-2024

wherein, they have not whispered anything about the

alleged non-implementation of the terms of 12(3)

settlement, dated 07-01-2021 and the Industrial

Dispute raised by an after thought deserves no

consideration either factually or legally. Therefore,

it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition with cost in

the interest of justice.

4. Points for determination:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as

claimed in the petition?

5. On points:

No representation on Petitioner side, Counsel for

Respondent present. On perusal of case records it is

found that, this case is pending for enquiry from

09-10-2024 onwards without any progress and

representation on the side of Petitioner. Hence,

this Court is inclined to dismiss this petition.

In the result this Industrial Dispute petition is dismissed

for non prosecution. There is no order as to costs.

Written amd pronounced by me in open Court, on

this 21st day of July 2025.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 70/AIL/Lab./S/2025,

Puducherry, dated 5th December2025)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 09/2025, dated

26-05-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the

M/s. Thermoplastic India Ltd., Puducherry and

R. Thanigachalam, Puducherry, over einstatement with

continuity of services, back wages 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.

Monday, the 26th day of May, 2025

I.D. (L) No. 09/2025

CNR. No. PYPY06-000018-2025

Thiru R. Thanigachalam,

S/o. Ramu,

No.75, Palli Street,

Kattukuppam, Manapattu Post,

Bahour Commune,

Puducherry-607 402.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Thermoplastic India Ltd.,

A, 13, Rural Industrial Estate,

Kattukuppam,

Puducherry-607 402.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming before me for

hearing in the presence of Thiru Giri Nagu Kumar,

Lavanya Thirumalai and R.P. Dharun Singh, Counsels

for the Petitioner, no representation on respondent side

is set ex parte, upon hearing and 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. 04/AIL/Lab./T/2025, dated 28-01-2025 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 R. Thanigachalam against the management of

M/s. Thermoplastic India Ltd., Puducherry, over

reinstatement with continuity of services, back wages

and other attendant benefits is justified or not?

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[13 January 2026

(b) If justified, give appropriate directions.

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:

The petitioner had joined to work in the

respondent company on 15-12-2007. The respondent

company, Thermoplastics India Ltd., is the sister

concern of Morgan Industries Limited. Due to

financial instability in the respondent company, the

petitioner and co-workers were transferred on

deputation to its sister concerns functioning at

Pillayarkuppam, Cuddalore and Bangalore. From

January 2024, the respondent company had started

its functioning and the petitioner was called back

from deputation to work. During his deputation

period of July 2016 to March 2021 salary was not paid

properly to him. Therefore, the petitioner and

co-workers had filed claim petition in P.W.A. No. 9/2017

before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act,

1936 in respect of unpaid wages for 57 months. The

respondent company had agreed to Pay Salary dues

along with the monthly salary. Accordingly the

respondent management had paid only 13 months of

57 months salary dues. Hence, the petitioner had

questioned

the

management

regarding

the

non-payment of wages for the remaining period. So

he was orally informed by the management that he

was transferred to the Cuddalore Branch without any

letter. On 15-05-2024 without prior memo order, the

respondent had issued show cause notice to the

petitioner with false allegation and subsequently the

petitioner had submitted his reply on 22-05-2024. On

23-05-2024, again the respondent had informed the

petitioner that he was transferred to Cuddalore plant.

That the petitioner had requested to provide the

transfer order in writing, which was rejected by the

management. The petitioner also asked reason for the

said transfer when the management was functioning

well. Moreover, during his deputation period, the

petitioner

got

accident

and

the

respondent

management had not provided any medical assistance

and promised to get medical insurance and received

medical receipts from the petitioner. But no aid was

done till date. On 19-06-2024, the petitioner was

served with show cause notice with false allegations.

The petitioner had submitted his reply on 26-06-2024.

However, the respondent management has terminated

the petitioner from service on 25-07-2024 and gave a

Cheque for 77,833. The petitioner had worked for

more than 18 years in the respondent management

with more than 240 days in a year. The said dismissal

was against the Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and the against the principle of natural

justice. Hence the petition.

3. Notice to the respondent served. No representation

on respondent side. Respondent called absent set ex parte

on 13-05-2025.

4. Points for determination:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief

of reinstatement with continuity of service, back

wages and other attendant benefits?

2. To what other reliefs?

5. On points Nos.1 and 2:

The contention of the petitioner is that the

petitioner had joined in the respondent company

operator-slitting on

15-12-2007 and

the

respondent company is the sister concern of Morgan

Industries Limited and later due to some financial

crunch, the workers were transferred to its sister

concerns functioning at Pillayarkuppam, Cuddalore

and Bangalore on deputation basis and while so, the

workers were not paid their wages properly and

therefore, the workers had filed claim petition in

P.W.A. No. 9/2017 before the Authority under

payment of wages Act, 1936 in respect of unpaid

wages for 57 months and later the management had

paid 13 months salary dues and thereby the petitioner

had questioned the management regarding the

non-payment of wages for the remaining period and

therefore, the respondent to victimize the petitioner

had issued show cause notice with false allegation

to the petitioner and subsequently the petitioner had

submitted his reply on 22-05-2024 and when such

being so, the respondent had informed the petitioner

that he was transferred to Cuddalore plant and

hence, the petitioner had requested the management

to issue the transfer order in writing and also asked

as to why he was transferred to Cuddalore plant when

the plant at Puducherry was functioning well and

hence, the management again issued a show cause

notice and thereafter the petitioner had submitted his

reply but however the respondent management has

terminated the petitioner from service.

6. On the side of petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and

Exs. P1 to P17 have been marked. In this case it is the

contention of the petitioner that since, because he had

questioned regarding unpaid salary dues and also

regarding his transfer and further insisted the

respondent management to provide the transfer order

in writing, the respondent to victimize the petitioner has

issued show cause notice and thereafter inspite of reply

being furnished by the petitioner, has terminated the

petitioner from service without conducting any due

13 January 2026]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

enquiry. In this case, the respondent has remained

ex parte inspite of receipt of summons from this Court

and thereby the case of the petitioner remains

unchallenged.

7. This Court from the above discussions and the

evidences adduced and the documents relied by the

petitioner finds that the petitioner has clearly established

that he was working under the respondent and he was

terminated from the service without following any

procedure laid down under the Industrial Disputes Acts.

As such the dispute raised by the petitioner is found

to be justified. As the petitioner is held to entitled for

the relief of reinstatement, now it becomes necessary

to decide whether the petitioner is entitled for back

wages. In this case there is no any evidence or

documents to prove that the petitioner was employed

for gain in any place. Hence, this Court holds that the

petitioner is entitled for the relief of back wages as

claimed by him.

In the result the petition is allowed and the industrial

dispute raised by the petitioner against the Respondent

Management over non employment and reinstatement

with continuity of services, back wages and other

attendant benefits is justified and Award is passed by

directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into

service within one month from the date of Award and

further the respondent is directed to pay full back wages

from the date of termination to till the date of

reinstatement with continuity of service and other

attendant benefits. 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 26th day of May 2025.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —

21-05-2025 R. Thanigachalam

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex. P1 — 07-12-2007

Photocopy

the

Appointment order of the

petitioner.

Ex. P2 — 27-08-2008 Photocopy of the Increment

Order of the petitioner.

Ex. P3—

10-07-2013

Photocopy of the Increment

Order of the petitioner.

Ex.P4 — 30-08-2014

Photocopy of the Increment

Order of the petitioner.

Ex. P5 — 30-10-2017

Photocopy of the Petition-

PWA. No. 09/2017 filed by

the petitioner in Labour

Welfare Office.

Ex. P6 — 27-11-2017

Photocopy of the reply

filed by the respondent for

PWA. No. 09/2017 in Labour

Welfare Office.

Ex. P7 — 29-12-2014

Photocopy of the Transfer

Order to the Petitioner,

issued by the respondent.

Ex. P8 —

Photocopy

the

Respondent shares for the

year 2023.

Ex. P9 — 15-05-2024

Photocopy of the first show

cause notice given by the

respondent.

Ex. P10— 22-05-2024

Photocopy of the reply

given by petitioner to the

1st show cause notice.

Ex. P11— 19-06-2024

Photocopy of the second

show cause notice given by

the respondent.

Ex. P12— 26-06-2024

Photocopy of the reply

given by the petitioner to

the 2nd show cause notice.

Ex. P13— 25-07-2024

Photocopy

the

Termination Order and

Final settlement given by

respondent.

Ex. P14— 18-11-2024

Photocopy of the Failure

report.

Ex. P15—

Photocopy of the CP. No.

02/2024 filed by the

petitioner in the Hon’ble

Labour Court, requesting

for salary arrears.

Ex. P16— 30-07-2024 Photocopy of the objection

letter by the petitioner to

the respondent after the

final settlement.

Ex. P17—

Photocopy of the Transfer

Order

given

the

petitioner filed by the

respondent in the Labour

Department.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.