Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry

∂]ÔV´D ÿ√u≈ ÿkπX|

Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

Registered No. PY/44/2021-23

[65]

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

ƒ™kˆ |

24 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2023 (4 Magha 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

24th

January

2023

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

Notifications du Gouvernement

Government Notifications

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

Etablissements dangereux

Dangerous Establishments

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

Annonces

Announcements

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 170/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (T) No. 20/2020, dated

29-10-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of the Industrial dispute

between the Management of M/s. Puducherry State

Health Society, Puducherry and the Union workmen

represented by Puducherry Health Mission Employees’

Association, Puducherry, over non-payment of bonus

for the year 2018-2019.

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)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. Sofana Devi, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Saturday, the 29th day of October, 2022.

I.D. (T) No. 20/2020

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000057-2020

The Secretary,

Puducherry Health Mission Employees’ Association,

No.7- 8, Moovendar Street,

Mullai Nagar,

Puducherry 605 005.

…

Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Puducherry State Health Society,

Victor Simonel Street,

Old Maternity Hospital Building,

Puducherry – 605 001.

…

Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 13-09-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Tvl. R.T. Shankar,

P. Suresh and B. Balamurugan, Counsels for the Petitioner,

Respondent remained ex parte and after hearing the Petitioner

side and perusing the case records, this Court delivered

the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference made

by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt. No.112/

AIL/LAB/T/2020 dated 06.11.2020 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following dispute

between the Petitioners and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Union Workmen

represented by Puducherry Health Mission Employees’

Association, Puducherry against the Management of

M/s. Puducherry State Health Society, Puducherry, over

non-payment of bonus for the year 2018–2019 is 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. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner:

Petitioner Union has filed the claim petition and

demanded the Respondent management of Puducherry

State Health Mission to pay the bonus for the year 2018-2019

vide the letter No.21/PHMEA/2019, dated 29-10-2019,

but, the Respondent management has failed to disburse

the bonus for the year 2018–2019. The bonus is defined

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as deferred wage. The

State Health Mission Employees who are contractual

staff engaged by the Management over the years are

also entitled to the statutory one month wage as bonus

as per service conditions applicable to contractual

employees for all accounting years.

(ii) The Respondent Society is engaged the Petitioner

Union members on contract basis to do the work and

they have been getting ad hoc bonus as applicable to

the Government employees i.e., 30 days wages computing

monthly wages to be the maximum of ` 7000 whereas,

they are eligible to be paid minimum bonus of 8.33%

(one month salary including dearness allowance, restrict

to ` 7,000 p.m.) under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

(iii) The Respondent management suddenly stopped

the Payment of Bonus for the year 2018–2019 to the

Petitioner Union staff, in this context, Conciliation

meetings were conducted on various dates and the

Respondent management has stated that the proposal

regarding the payment of bonus was not agreed by

the Health Secretary, Puducherry and a new proposal

for the year 2018–2019 has been sent to the authorities

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

not yet received therefore, the enquiry was finally posted

on 24-09-2020. On that day the Respondent management

stated that non-approval of ex gratia/ad hoc bonus

by the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs they are

not in position to release Bonus for the year 2018-2019

further vide letter No.PSHM/S32020-2021/137, dated

24-09-2020.

(iv) The Respondent institution has replied in

Conciliation proceedings that the Pondicherry State

Health Society is a non-profit oriented organization which

is funded by Central Government and State Government

in the ratio of 60:40 respectively. The Pondicherry State

Health Society released the ex gratia/ad-hoc bonus

every year and accounted the expenditure within the

available funds. During the financial year 2019-2020,

the file was initiated for providing ex-gratia to the

Pondicherry State Health Society employees due to

paucity of funds and non-approval of Ministry of Health

and Family Welfare clarifications seeking from

Government of India for release of ex gratia on 29-10-2019

vide reference No. PSHM/S3/2019-2020. So, bonus for

the year could not be paid. Finally, both the parties

attended the Conciliation proceedings on 24-09-2020

and stood on their own stand while the Union insisted

for bonus, the Management denied it and the matter

is ended in failure on 24-09-2020.

(v) The permanent employees working in the

Respondent management has been paid bonus for

year 2018–2019. When the Respondent management is

governed under the Industrial Disputes Act, the

applicability of the Bonus Act is not obligatory but, it

is statutory. For the reason that financial position of

the Respondent management in the past was not sound

enough, the denial of the bonus to the Petitioner Union

members is inequitable, unfair and unjust.

(vi) The Respondent management has to pay the

bonus to the Petitioner Union staff, but, not paid it.

Apart from that, no exemption under Section 36 of the

Act has been obtained by the Respondent management,

and a factual position with regard to the applicability

of the Act and it is not open to the Respondent to

resile from it and put forth a contrary position. The

other Government Institutions which is located in the

same region paid bonus to their staffs, but, the

Respondent management willfully wantonly and

deliberately denied and refused to grant bonus to their

employees and the same is illegal and against the Payment

of Bonus Act. Hence, the claim.

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and Respondent.

Petitioner appeared and engaged an Advocate to represent

him. Whereas, the Respondent not appeared. Hence, the

Respondent company was set ex parte on 08-07-2022. Claim

petition filed by the Petitioner.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Union Workmen entitled for payment

of bonus for the year 2018–2019 ?

5. On Point:

Petitioner/Secretary of the Petitioner Union

examined himself as PW1. Ex. P1 to P8 were marked.

Since Respondent set ex parte, no counter and cross-

examination done on PW1. Heard the learned Counsel

for the Petitioner.

6. On the point:

This is an I.D.(T) filed by the Health Mission

Employees Association against the management

company for non payment of bonus for the year

2018–2019, to the employees of the Petitioner Union.

Notice were served on both the parties to the I.D. The

Petitioner/Puducherry Health Mission Employees

Association appeared whereas the Respondent namely

Managing Director, M/s. Puducherry State Health

Society, Puducherry remained absent. Hence the

Respondent set ex parte on 08-07-2022. Petitioner was

examined Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked.

7. Heard the Petitioner Counsel. Perused the available

records.

8. During the arguments, the learned Counsel appearing

for the Petitioner retriated the averments contained in his

claim statement. No counter statement filed on the side

of the Respondent. Hence, the Respondent was set ex parte

on 08-07-2022. In support of Petitioner’s claim, Petitioner

himself examined as PW1 before this Court. Through him

8 documents were marked. Ex.P1 is the failure report, dated

28-09-2020 submitted by Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry, to the Secretary to Government (Labour),

Puducherry. From which this Court could able to find

that many number of Conciliation sittings were conducted

on various dates. The Management also has submitted

their version before Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry which can be understood from the Failure

Report Ex.P1 and the relevant portion is as follows:-

“The Pondicherry State Health Society released the

ex gratia/ad hoc bonus every year and accounted the

expenditure within the available funds. During the

financial year 2019-2020, the file was initiated for

providing ex gratia to the Pondicherry State Health

Society employees due to paucity of funds and

non-approval of ministry of Health and Family Welfare

clarifications seeking from Government of India for

release of ex gratia on 29-10-2019 vide reference

No.PSHM/S3/2019-2020, bonus for the year could not

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

be paid. Finally, both the parties attended the Conciliation

proceedings on 24-09-2020 and stood on their own

stand while the Union insisted for bonus the

management denied it and the matter is ended in failure

on 24-09-2020”.

9. Ex. P2 is the Notification on the Failure Report. Ex.P3,

Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the representations given

by the Petitioner Association to various Authorities

requesting for payment of bonus for the Financial Year

2018-2019.

10. Ex.P8 is the reply, dated 24-09-2020 given by the

Mission Director, Pondicherry State Health Society,

Government of Puducherry (Respondent) addressed to

the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry in the

Conciliation proceedings. On close and careful perusal

of it, this Court shall see the reply of Government of India

for the proposal made by Respondent as follows:

“Government of India reply that the approval given to

Puducherry is over and above the resource envelope, the

HR (service delivery + programme management) is almost

42% leaving less amount for other programs and instructed

to pay the bonus from Unian Teritory resources”.

11. Further, “the MOHFW, New Delhi has informed that

setting a precedent of this kind should be avoided in NHM

as other States may also propose the same. Due to

non-approval of ex gratia/ad-hoc bonus by MOHFW and

paucity of funds, the PSHS is not in a position to release

the ad hoc bonus/ex gratia to the employees for the

financial year 2018-2019. Based on the above facts the

representation of Puducherry State Health Mission

Employees Association may be disposed off”.

12. From the above reply given by the Respondent

Society, it is admitted that the Respondent Society had

released the ex gratia/ad hoc bonus every year and accounted

the expenditure within the available funds. Only during

2019-2020 when the file was initiated for providing ex gratia

to the Pondicherry State Health Employees, due to paucity

of funds and non-approval of Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare, a clarification was sought from Government of

India. From the documentary evidence, it is learnt that

said proposal was declined for the reason that the approval

given to Puducherry is over and above the resource envelope

and the HR is almost 42% leaving less amount for other

programmes. Further, in the same Ex.P8 it is mentioned

that Government of India has also instructed the Government

of Puducherry to pay the bonus from Union Territory

resources. Therefore, it is not that the Petitioner employees

are not entitled for bonus for the financial year 2018-2019.

From the available documents, this court could not find

anywhere in the replies given by the Respondent Society

that Petitioner employees are not entitled for any bonus.

In all their replies given with regard to the bonus claim

made by the Petitioner employees Association the

Respondent Society has said that due to paucity of funds

and non-approval of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

they were not in a position to disburse the bonus for the

said financial year. Even the Government of India while

giving reply to the proposal placed by the Respondent

Society, instructed to pay the bonus from Union Teritory

resources. Therefore, by way of documentary evidence,

the Petitioner Association has categorically proved that

they are entitled for the bonus as claimed in the claim

petition. The Respondent Society neither filed any counter

nor appeared before this Court to rebutt the documentary

evidences as well as oral evidence placed on the Petitioner

side. Therefore, from the documentary evidences placed

before this Court, the point for determination is decided

in favour of the Petitioner Association.

13. In the result, the Reference is justified and the

Industrial Dispute is allowed. The Respondent Society

is directed to pay the legally entitled bonus for the Financial

Year 2018-2019 to the Petitioner Association Employees.

No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 29th day of October, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 27-07-2022

Mr. R. Pragatheeswaran

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 28-09-2020

Photocopy

the

Conciliation Failure Report.

Ex.P2

— 06-11-2020

Photocopy

the

Notification.

Ex.P3

— 31-01-2020

Photocopy of the dispute

raised by the Petitioner

before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government

of Puducherry.

Ex.P4

— 21-08-2020

Photocopy of the Petitioner

Union letter sent to the

Health Minister Office,

Government of Puducherry

received them on 21-08-2020.

Ex.P5

— 29-10-2019

Photocopy of the Petitioner

Union letter sent to the

Secretary to Government,

(Puducherry State Health

Mission), Puducherry.

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P6

— 03-11-2020

Photocopy of the Petitioner

Union letter sent to Director

of Puducherry, State Health

Mission received by them

on 03-11-2020.

Ex.P7

— 06-11-2019

Photocopy of the Petitioner

Union letter sent to the

Health Minister Office to

Government.

Ex.P8

— 24-09-2020

Photocopy

the

Respondent Letter sent to

Conciliation

Officer,

Puducherry.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 171/AIL/Lab./T/2022, dated 15th December2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 05/2022, dated

18-10-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of All India United Trade Union

Centre, against the management of M/s. Matrix Stampi

Limited, Sedarapet, Puducherry, over reinstatement with

back wages and continuity of service to Thiruvalargal

S. Kavinraj and 29 workers;

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. 20/91/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)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. SOFANA DEVI, M.L.,

Presiding Officer.

Tuesday, the 18th day of October, 2022

I.D. (L) No. 05/2022

CNR. No. PYPY06-000019-2022

The President/Secretary,

All India United Trade Union Centre,

No. 117, 1st Floor, Cuddalore Road,

Puducherry-605 110.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

No. 19/1 & 4/4, Mylam-Pondy Road,

Sedarapet, Puducherry - 605 111.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 22-09-2022

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru S. Sivakumar, Representative for the Petitioner,

respondent remained ex parte and after hearing the

Petitoner side and persuing the case records, the Court

delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry, vide G.O. Rt.

No. 30/Lab./AIL/T/2022, dated 25-02-2022 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner's

Union “All India United Trade Union Centre” against

the Management of M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Sedarapet, Puducherry, over reinstatement with back

wages and continuity of service to Thiruvalargal

S. Kavinraj and 29 workers (as mentioned in Annexure)

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. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner:

The respondent company is a leather factory functioning

for several years with one hundred labourers without

following labour welfare laws and thereby deny all the

benefits and rights to its labourers. The respondent

company never furnished with any orders for appointment,

regularization, salary slips to its labourers. But, it extracts

additional over time work from the labourers without paying

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

for the same and not paid any bonus too. The

respondent company do not maintain registers for

attendance, salary, leave, over time, bonus etc., properly.

No certified standing order so far framed by the respondent

company. When this was brought to the knowledge of

Labour Commissioner by the petitioner Union through

several letters, the respondent Management did not respect

any of the notices issued by the Labour Commissioner. So,

the Labour Commissioner has issued a final notice on

08-09-2021. Despite the final notice, respondent

Management did not appear before the Labour

Commissioner nor framed its own Standing Order till date.

This attitude of the respondent management has adversely

affected the welfare of the labourers. Hence, in order to get

their rights protected and for benefits under labour welfare

laws, labourers themselves, formed a Union in the name

and style of Matrix Stampi Ltd., workers Union and same

has been registered and its Registartion No. 1850/2019.

(ii) On 07-11-2018, the labourers jointly has given a

petition before Labour Commissioner for several demands.

The Labour Officer (Conciliation) issued a notice, dated

08-11-2018 calling both the parties to appear on 13-11-2018

before him for conciliation talks. The respondent

management participated in the enquiry but, did not give

any proper reply. Further, the respondent Management did

not appear before Labour Officer (Conciliation) for several

hearings. The respondent management issued a Termination

Order, dated 26-03-2019 and terminated the services of

Mr. Ponnarasan (who is the President of the Union) with

false allegations. Along with the said Termination Order a

cheque, dated 23-03-2019 was also enclosed. While the

enquiry is pending before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Termination Order issued to Mr. Ponnarasan, the President

of Union is against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act and clear violation of section 33(1) (B) and 2 (B) of

Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The Termination Order was

received by the petitioner Mr. Ponnarasan subject to

objection but, he returned the cheque on 03-04-2019 to the

respondent management. Thereafter, the respondent

management

never

appeared

before

the

Labour

Commissioner and Labour Officer (Conciliation) for the

enquiry. Meanwhile, four other office bearers of the Union

were also illegally terminated with false allegations. The said

actions of the respondent management lead to indirect

retrenchment of the labourers. Considering the same, the

Labour Commissioner has passed an Order, dated

12-04-2019 directing the respondent Management to

reinstate the terminated labourers with full back wages. The

respondent management did not implement the order

passed by the Labour Commissioner. The respondent

Management is running four factories in a single

compound. Never paid tax to the Commune Panchayat.

The said act of the management is against Schedule - V, IV

section 11, 25 Q and 25 T of Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

Hence, the claim petition is filed to reinstate the

petitioners Mr. C. Ponnarasan who was terminated on

26-03-2019, Mr. M. Banish, Mr. M. Himanshu Puhan who

were terminated on 19-03-2019 and Mr. D. Senthil

Kumar, Mr. K. Ganapthi who were terminated on 23-09-2020

with back wages, continuity of service and other benefits.

3. Notice served to both the Petitioner and Respondent.

Petitioner appeared and engaged an Advocate to

represent him. Whereas, the respondent not appeared.

Hence, the Respondent Company was set ex parte on

07-06-2022. Claim petition filed by the Petitioner.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner Union is entitled for an order

to reinstate the petitioners Mr. C. Ponnarasan who was

terminated on 26-03-2019, Mr. M. Banish, Mr. M. Himanshu

Puhan who were terminated on 19-03-2019 and

Mr. D. Senthil Kumar, Mr. K. Ganapthi who were

terminated on 23-09-2020 with back wages, continuity

of service and other benefits?

5. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW1. Ex. P1 to P9

were marked. Since respondent remained ex parte, no

counter filed.

6. On the point:

The Petitioner Workman has filed his chief

examination affidavit reiterating his contention made in

his Claim Petition. The Respondent Company despite

notice from the Court served on him remained absent

before the Court from the first hearing.

7. On perusal of the case records available before

this Court, I could able to find that the Respondent

Company appeared before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) and filed its reply, dated 08-04-2019 and

denied the allegations raised by the Union in their

representation EX. P1. Further, the management has

stated that the disciplinary action was initiated against

the few employees based on the grave and serious

misconduct committed by them.

8. In the said Ex. P4, the Labour Commissioner has

observed that, “the basic issue which let to all the

above stated developments is keeping of dogs in the

factory premises. Further, as there are no Certified

Standing Orders as per the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the domestic enquiry

conducted/initiated against the workmen does not hold

good and stands vitiated. Hence, the delinquents

ought to be reinstated in service.

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Now, therefore, after careful consideration of the

arguments put forth by both the parties, the

Management of M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Sedarapet, Puducherry is directed (i) to remove the

dogs immediately; (ii) to reinstate Thiruvalargal

S. Pransanth, M. Banish, K. Sankardoss, M. Himansu

Puhan, U. Vinothkumar, J. Jayamoorthy, D. Balaji,

Prafulla Puhan, and C. Ponnarasan; (iii) to reimburse

the illegal wage deductions made to the employees

and (iv) to frame the mutually agreed Standing

Orders".

9. The photocopy of the final notice, dated 08-09-2021

(Ex. P5) issued by the Certifying Officer, Labour

Department to expedite the process of certification to

comply with the provisions within a period of 7 days

of receipt of this notice failing which the Deputy Labour

Commissioner will invoke penal provision under section

13 of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946,

the photocopy of the Failure Report, dated 31-01-2022

(Ex. P6) submitted by the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry. In the report Ex. P6 it has been mentioned

by the Labour Officer (Conciliation) that, “the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry has conducted

conciliation proceedings on various dates with both

the management representative and the petitioners

union.

During

the

course

conciliation

proceedings held on 28-01-2020, the Union

representative stated that during the pendency of

conciliation, the management has taken action against

the workmen/members and illegally retrenched 21

workmen is unwarranted. Further, the Management

has sent settlement amount by mode of cheque without

willing on the part of workmen, which is in violation

of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Therefore, the Union insisted for withdrawal of all

cheque and to reinstate all the workers with back

wages. On the other hand, the management objected

all the averments of the Union and they have done all

the activities only in accordance with the Acts and

Rules. Further, during the proceedings held on

25-10-2021, the Conciliation Authority advised the

Union to file the list of workmen affected due to

non-employment. The All India United Trade Union

Centre filed a rejoined, dated 03-12-2021 and

requested for back wages and continuity of service to

the enlisted Thiruvalargal L. Kavinraj and 29 workers.

Since, the Management has filed to attend the

conciliation proceedings for several times and not even

filed a suitable reply to the dispute raised by the

petitioners' Union inspite of several notices issued for

conciliation. The matter was ended in failure on final

hearing held on 03-12-2021, as there was no

possibility for an amicable settlement between the

parties to this dispute. Accordingly, the dispute may

be referred for further adjudication to get their relief

and actual remedies before the Court of law".

10. The photocopy of the Abstract, dated 25-02-2022

(Ex. P7), the photocopy of the Termination order of the

Ponnarasan dated 26-03-2019 (Ex. P8) and the

photocopy of the letter sent by Ponnarasan to the

respondent management, dated 03-04-2019 (Ex. P9) were

exhibited on the Petitioner Union in support of its case.

11. The dispute raised by the Petitioner Union

against the Management of M/s. Matrix Stampi Limited,

Puducherry is for reinstatement. According to the

Petitioner Union the petitioners were terminated from

the services of the respondent Management vide

Termination Order, dated 26-03-2019 without conducting

domestic enquiry. This has been admitted by the

management in its Termination order dated 26-03-2019

EX. P8. Along with the said Termination Order a

cheque, dated 23-03-2019 was also enclosed. The

contention of the Petitioner Union that when the enquiry

is pending before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Termination Order issued to Mr. Ponnarasan, the President

of Union is against the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act and clear violation of section 33(1) (B)

and 2 (B) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947, is seems to be

maintainable. The termination order was received by

the petitioner Mr. Ponnarasan subject to objection, but,

he returned the cheque on 03-04-2019 to the respondent

management. The Respondent did not appear before this

Court to rebutte the contentions of the Petitioner Union.

12. Therefore, from all the exhibits i.e., P1 to P9 and

as discussed above, I hold that Petitioner Union has

categorically proved its case by way of adducing oral

evidence and by marking documentary evidences. The

case of the Petitioner Union has not been rebutted by

the Management Company and it remained absent.

Therefore, from all angles this Court decides the point

for determination in favour to the Petitioner Union to

the effect that Respondent Company is directed to

reinstatement the workmen Petitioners Mr. C. Ponnarasan

Mr. M. Banish, Mr. M. Himanshu Puhan, Mr. D. Senthil

Kumar, and Mr. K. Ganapthi and thus, the industrial

dispute referred is justified.

13. In the result, the industrial dispute raised by the

Petitioner Union is justified and the Respondent

management is hereby directed to reinstatement the

petitioners Mr. C. Ponnarasan who was terminated on

26-03-2019, Mr. M. Banish, Mr. M. Himanshu Puhan who

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

were terminated on 19-03-2019 and Mr. D. Senthil Kumar,

Mr. K. Ganapathi who were terminated on 23-09-2020

with back wages, continuity of service and other

benefits as prayed in the claim petition. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 18th day of October, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1 —

06-09-2022 Thiru Sivakumar

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 —

07-11-2018 Photocopy of the claim

petition of the petitioner to the

Labour Commissioner, Puducherry.

Ex.P2 —

19-12-2018 Photocopy of the letter by

the Union to the Labour Officer,

Conciliation.

Ex.P3 —

08-04-2019 Photocopy of the letter by

the respondent Management to the

Labour Commissioner Puducherry.

Ex.P4 —

Photocopy of the Order of the

Labour Commissioner, Puduchery.

Ex.P5 —

08-09-2021 Photocopy of the Final

Notice.

Ex.P6 —

3 1 - 0 1 - 2 0 2 2 P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

Failure Report.

Ex.P7 —

25-02-2022

P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

Abstract.

Ex.P8 —

26-03-2019

P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

Termination Order of the Ponnarasan.

Ex.P9 —

03-04-2019

P h o t o c o p y o f t h e

letter sent by Ponnarasan to the

respondent management.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of respomndent’s exhibits : Nil

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer (FAC),

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 174/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 15th December 2022)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 92/2012, dated

22-08-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute between

the Manging Director, Hidesign India (P) Limited,

Puducherry and its worker Tmt. R. Jeane D’ Arc,

Puducherry - over non-employment.

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)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. V. Sofana Devi, M.L.

Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 22th day of August, 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 92/2012

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000037-2012

R. Jeane D’ Arc

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. Hidesign India Private Limited,

Puducherry-605 110.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on 18-08-2022

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru R.T. Shankar, Counsel for the Petitioner and Thiru

G. Krishnan, Counsel, for the respondent, upon hearing

both sides and after perusing the case records, the

Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the

Government as per the G.O. Rt. No.197/AIL/LAB/J/2012,

dated 14-11-2012 for adjudicating whether the industrial

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

dispute raised by the petitioner Tmt. R. Jeane D' Arc

against the Management of M/s. Hidesign India Private

Limited, Puducherry, over her 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. Brief averments made in the claim Statement of the

petitioner:

The Petitioner Work-Woman joined the respondent

company on 12-11-1991. The Petitioner has availed

maternity leave for 3 months from 01-07-2009. She

intimated the maternity leave to the ESI Hospital and

the certificate of the ESI Hospital submitted to the

respondent company. Since the baby born with heart

ailment the petitioner extended her leave even after

the expiry of the said maternity leave, by informing

the Section Officer R.K., Section Supervisor

Mr. Suresh. They also informed the petitioner to

approach the personal officer Ms. Akila. The

petitioner as instructed, met Ms. Akila, the Personal

Officer and Mr. Iyyappan regarding her leave. On their

advise, petitioner gave a letter in writing stating the

reason for the extension of her leave. She has handed

over the said leave letter to the Superior Personal

Officer Mr. Rajkumar. Unfortunately the baby died on

09-10-2011 because of heart ailment, despite medical

treatment. So, the petitioner has not attended the

work from 01-07-2009 to 07-12-2011. On 08-12-2011,

petitioner went to work in respondent company after

meeting Akila, the Personal Officer Muniammal the

Section Head, R.K. Garments Head, Mr. Loorthnathan,

and Mr. Athalbur, the head, who were present at that

time informed her to sign in some papers for her long

absence. The said two letters which were prepared

by them were signed by the petitioner on the good

faith without going through the same. Since, the

petitioner was under stress due to her baby's death,

she was not in a condition to look into the content of

the letters. After signing those letters she joined duty

on 08-12-2011. Previously she was getting ` 3,775 as

monthly salary but, after 08-12-2011 she was given

with a monthly salary of ` 3,450. She demanded

for bus fare to the Section Supervisor and the Head

Personnel. While that being so on 15-02-2012, while

the petitioner was doing her work in the respondent

company, the Personal Officer and other officials of

respondent company had obtained the signature from

the petitioner in some papers and handed over a

cheque to her. Petitioner received the cheque with a

misconception that they were giving the difference

of salary due to her as she requested. But, after

receiving the cheque, she was informed by the

respondent company not to come to work hereafter.

The petitioner filed the petition before Labour Officer

(Conciliation), but, ended in failure. The Petitioner

work-woman worked for more than 20 years in the

respondent company and never opted to resigned her

job. But, taking advantage of the signed letters, the

respondent company submitted before the Conciliation

Officer that the petitioner herself resigned the job and

also received the final and full settlement by way of

cheque. Hence, the petition.

3. The brief averments in the counter filed by the

respondent are as follows:

(i) The Management has not terminated the

services of the petitioner illegally without any reason.

The Management has not obtained her signature in

the letter dated 08-12-2011 taking advantage of the

mental agony caused to her by the death of her

daughter and the letter dated 08-12-2021 was not

illegal. The petitioner was denied employment from

16-02-2012 are totally false. The petitioner has availed

maternity leave for 3 months from 01-07-2009. But,

even after the expiry of the said leave, Petitioner

remained absent from 01-10-2009 continuously,

without any intimation or application seeking leave.

On humanitarian grounds, the management has not

issued any disciplinary action against her for the

continuous and prolonged absence. The petitioner

has chosen to come to the factory on 08-12-2011 after

remaining unauthorizedly absent for more than 2 years

continuously. When she was asked to furnish

satisfactory explanation for such absence, she

admitted her unauthorized absence and requested for

leniency. She also represented that her health

condition deteriorated due to mental tension and

stress caused by the death of her child. Further, she

also requested to permit her to do the light work as

casual in the same department till she recovers. The

management sympathetically considered her request

and instead of taking severe disciplinary action for her

prolonged absence, allowed her to work as a casual

from 08-12-2011 as a temporary arrangement.

(ii) Thereafter, on 14-01-2012 the petitioner had

approached the Management and voluntarily

submitted her resignation letter stating that she could

not continue with her services due to the death of her

daughter and requested for full and final settlement

of her accounts. Management accepted her

resignation and decided to relieve her on the expiry

of one month notice period as required to be given

by the workman. The Petitioner has been relieved

from the services on 16-02-2012 and a sum of ` 31,653

was paid towards full and final settlement of her

accounts by way of cheque dated 16-02-2012 bearing

No. 680035 drawn on HDFC Bank, Pondicherry. The

Petitioner has also subsequently encashed the same.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

(iii) On voluntarily submission of resignation and

subsequent full and final settlement of accounts on

16-02-2012 the employer and employee relationship

between the respondent and the petitioner has come

to an end. The Petitioner's request contained in the

letter of resignation was unconditional and was

accepted by the management and thus brought an end

to the contract of service and therefore, the question

of reinstatement did not arise. The Petitioner was not

dismissed or discharged or terminated or retrenched,

but, was relieved from the services after acceptance

of her resignation tendered on her own accord and free

Will. An employee who was tendered an unconditional

resignation voluntarily and made full and final

settlement of accounts cannot maintain an application

for reinstatement and other benefits.

(iv) The resignation was entirely voluntary and

unconditional on the part of the petitioner to give up

her employment for the reasons stated in the letter of

resignation. The allegations made in the claim

statement are created with imagination and after

thought and deliberated concocted to harass the

respondent company. Hence, prayed for dismissal.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner work-woman is entitled for

the prayer of reinstatement as prayed in the claim

petition?

5. On Point:

On petitioner side, Petitioner himself examined as

PW1. Ex.P1 to P6 (P3 on objection) were marked. PW2

examined. On respondent side RW1 examined. Ex.R1

to Ex.R4 were marked.

6. On the point:

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent/

management argued that on voluntarily submission of

resignation and subsequent full and final settlement

of accounts on 16-02-2012, the employer and the

employee relationship between Hidesign India Private

Limited and the petitioner has come to an end and the

claim of the petitioner does not deserve any

conciliation.

7. Whereas on the side of the Petitioner, the learned

Counsel would submit that without knowing the content

of the resignation letter Ex.P1, the Petitioner work-woman

signed in it. It was not written by the petitioner work-

woman. The Petitioner work-woman only signed Ex.P1

without knowing it as it was her resignation. Further, it

was submitted that Petitioner work-woman received the

cheque under the impression that only balance arrear

amount of her salary was tendered to her by way of a

cheque. Only because of that reason, the Petitioner work-

woman received the said cheque. Further, the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner work-woman would rely and

refer the oral evidences of PW1 and PW2 in this regard.

8. On the Petitioner side the following case laws

referred and relied upon:

(1) The Honourable Supreme Court of India -in

Civil Appeal No. 5036/2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.

20995/2017 Central Bank of India and others Vs.

Drageendra Sigh Jadon. held that the Tribunal had

granted the relief of reinstatement, but, without

backwages. When the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High

Court (both the single and double bench) found the

termination of service as wrongful, the employer

cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully

dismissal the respondent from service, to deny him the

benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to

which the employer would have been entitled, if, he

had attended to his duty.

(2) The Hon’ble High Court Punjab and

Harihana - Civil Writ Petition. No 17687/2009 date of

decision 01-07-2013 - in Shree Pal Kaushik Vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court -cum- Industrial

Tribunal - I, Gurgaom and another.it is held that, under

coercion, employee was forced to sign the resignation

at gun point on some blank papers. When the

document

itself

clouded

compelling

circumstances the Labour Court had a duty to examine

all the attending circumstances leading to settlement

and then to pronounce on it.

9. On perusal of the case records and the available

evidences before this Court, I would say that the oral

evidence given by PW2 is only a hearsay in nature and

it cannot help anyway for determining the issue on hand.

Evidence given by PW2 has no way useful to the

Petitioner to prove her version. Further, Ex.P3 the photo

copy of the e-mail conversation in the Respondent

Management marked with objection at the time of marking.

No witness examined to prove the content of the Ex.P3

as well as its geneunity and thus, it could not be looked into.

10. On perusal of PW1/ the Petitioner work-woman's

examination before this Court, I find that in her chief

examination affidavit, she has reiterated what she has

pleaded in her claim statement. On perusal of Ex.P1, the

resignation letter I could able to see that the resignation

letter addressed to Special Officer, Hi design. As

admitted by the Petitioner work-woman, it was signed by

the Petitioner work-woman. In Ex.P1 the resignation

letter, it has been mentioned that the Petitioner work-

woman was working for the past 20 years in the

respondent company and now since her daughter died

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

due to illness, she could not able to continue her work

so she requested to settle her accounts and to give her

benefits. In which the management official also signed

with date 14-01-2012 with an endorsement ‘Resignation

is accepted and relieve her on expiry of one month notice

period’. The resignation letter marked on either side as

the Ex.P1 and Ex.R2 respectively. The Petitioner work-

woman herself admitted the execution of the resignation

letter Ex.P1, but, the only denial she made is that she

did not know that it was a resignation letter at the time

of her signing. But, interestingly she received a cheque

for ` 31,653 dated 16-02-2012. The copy of the cheque

along with the copy of the acknowledgment receipt

signed by the Petitioner work-woman were marked on the

side of the Petitioner work-woman as Ex.P2. On perusal

of Ex.P2, I could find that it was an unconditional

resignation by the Petitioner work-woman from the

service. In the receipt Ex.P2 it has been clearly mentioned

that ‘I have resigned unconditionally from the service

on my own initiative. I further say that the management

has offered me and I have accepted today a sum of

` 31,653. Receipt of which I acknowledge hereby in full

and final settlement of all my dues, incentives and

claims’. It is pertinent to note the Last two lines in Ex.P2,

which thus runs as, ‘This has been readout and explained

to me in vernacular, and I sign this of my free will, without

any fear, threat or correction’. In ExP2- the

acknowledgment receipt, the Petitioner work-woman

signed in two places one on the stamp and another below

the stamp. The copy of the cheque was also enclosed

with wherein it could be inferred that the Petitioner work-

woman had received the said cheque on 25-02-2012 and

the endorsement to that effect is also found place in the

copy of the cheque marked as Ex.P2. Therefore, the

defence taken by the Petitioner work-woman that she had

signed in Ex.P1 the resignation letter and Ex.P2 the

acknowledgment receipt and cheque without knowing

the content and received the cheque with a mistaken

belief that it was her arrear amount, do not stand even

for a while.

11. Further it is not the Petitioner work-woman's

defence that the management wrongly guided her or

misrepresented her or under coercion, or by using of

threat or force had obtained her signature in the

resignation. It was not at all her case. Her only version

is that she signed in EX.P1 under the belief and faith that

the management will provide her employment with same

salary which was paid her earlier. In absence of oral as

well as documentary evidence, the above version of the

Petitioner Work-woman could not be accepted and thus

not maintainable.

12. Further, it is also categorically admitted by the

Petitioner Work-woman that she had encashed the

cheque amount by presenting the cheque in the Bank

immediately after her resignation. PW1 the Petitioner

work-woman in her evidence categorically deposed that

she had presented the cheque in the Bank and en-cashed

` 31,653 from the respondent management account. For

better appreciation, the relevant portion of PW1 cross

examination has been extracted as follows: ‘Ex.P1

gkð›]_ >uƒ\BD ®[ \Ô^ c¶_WÁÈ ƒˆl_ÈV\_

÷≈Õms‚¶>V_

®[™V_

ÿ>V¶ÏÕm

ºkÁÈ¬z

k´xΩBs_ÁÈ ®™m Ôð¬ÁÔ ƒˆ√VÏ›m >´ºkı|D

®™ z§©∏¶©√‚|^·m ®[≈V_ g\VD. g™V_ ∂Á>

ÂV[ √Ω›m √VÏ¬Ôs_ÁÈ. º�Ôı¶ Ex.P1 º>]l_

®[Á™ ºkÁÈl_ ÷ÚÕm s| s¬Ôs_ÁÈ. ∂>[

∏≈z 16-02-2012 ∂[Æ>V[ ®[Á™ ºkÁÈl_

÷ÚÕm s|s›>VÏÔ^ ®[≈V_ g\VD. ∂[Á≈B

º>]l_ ` 31,653á¬ÔV™ ÔVºƒVÁÈ ÿÔV|›m ®[M¶D

ÿ√≈©√‚¶ ÁÔÿBV©√D >V[ Ex.P3 ®[≈V_ ƒˆ>V[. ∂Õ>

ÔVºƒVÁÈÁB ®[–Á¶B k∫˛l_ ÿƒ›] √ðD

ÿ√uÆÿÔVıº¶[’. Therefore, from the above evidence,

it is made clear that the Petitioner work-woman’ had

resigned her service from the respondent management

vide Ex.P1(Ex.R2) and she had also received a full and

final settlement from the respondent management of all

her dues vide Ex.P2. Ex.P1 (Ex.R2), the resignation letter

was given on 14-01-2012 and after one month notice

period the Management had relieved the Petitioner

work-woman from service by settling all her dues, benefits

and claims that she was entitled to from the respondent

Management. The Petitioner work-woman had also

encashed the cheque amount immediately by presenting

the cheque in the Bank.

13. The same has been categorically admitted by the

Petitioner work-woman as PW1 during cross examination

as follows, ‘®™¬z g‚ºƒ√Á™ ÷Ú¬zD º√Vm ∞[ ∂Õ>

ÔVºƒVÁÈÁB WÏkVÔ›]uz ]Ú©∏ ÿÔV|¬Ôs_ÁÈ

®[≈V_ ∂>uÔV™ sk´D ÿ>ˆBs_ÁÈ ®[√>V_ ∂Õ>

ÔVºƒVÁÈÁB WÏkVÔ›]uz ]Ú©∏ ∂–©√s_ÁÈ.

ÔVºƒVÁÈ ®>uz ÿÔV›>VÏÔ^ ®[≈ sk´D ®™¬z

xøÁ\BV™ ÿ>ˆÕm>V[ ÂV[ ÿ√uÆ ÿÔVıº¶[

®[≈V_ ÔVºƒVÁÈÁB ÿÔV|›> ∏≈z ºkÁÈÁB s‚|

¿¬˛s‚º¶VD ®[Æ ÿƒV[™VÏÔ^’. According to the

Petitioner work-woman, the Management while giving

the cheque had disclosed her not to come to work

hereafter. If, that being so, what prevented the Petitioner

work-woman to give back the cheque immediately to the

management there itself on the very same day. In case

if, the management had refused to receive back the

cheque, the Petitioner work-woman has been expected to

or could send back the cheque to the management by

way of post or other means. But, here from the above

version of the petitioner, this Court could able to infer

that the Petitioner work-woman had never tried to give

back the cheque which was handed over by the

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

management to her towards the full and final settlement.

No where the Petitioner work-woman has pleaded nor

proved that she had taken steps to hand over the cheque

back to the respondent Management. No proof exhibited

before this Court to show her inclination to give back

the cheque or repay the cheque amount to the

respondent Management. To the contrary, the Petitioner

work-woman had presented the cheque immediately into

the Bank and en-cashed the amount which was given by

the respondent Management towards the full and final

settlement. As already discussed above the amount of

` 31,653 which is a huge amount comparatively to the

so called arrear amount due to the petitioner and at any

stretch of imagination it cannot be considered as an

amount of arrears of petitioner work-woman’s salary as

alleged by the Petitioner work-woman. Therefore, this

Court holds that the defence in this regard put forth by

the Petitioner work-woman is nothing, but, purely an

after thought.

14. The case laws relied on the side of the petitioner

work-woman are not applicable to the present situation

on hand. Here it is the case of resignation, not a case of

termination. Further, the Petitioner work-woman had not

pleaded nor it is the case of the petitioner work-woman

that she signed the resignation under any threat or force

used by the Management Company. Therefore, on the

whole, the contentions found in the claim petition

deserves to be rejected. Thus, the point for the

determination is answered accordingly as against the

Petitioner work-woman.

15. From the above discussions and findings,

I decide that the Petitioner work-woman had resigned

her service from the Respondent Management vide ExP1,

received all her legal dues vide Ex P2 Cheque and the

Petitioner is no more a work-woman of the respondent

Management and thus she is not entitled for any relief of

reinstatement as prayed in the claim petition. Thus, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any remedy from this Court

and this Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Industrial Dispute raised by the

Petitioner/Work-Woman against the Management is

decided as unjustified and hence this Industrial Dispute

is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 22th day of August, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner witnesses:

PW1

— Mrs. R. Jean D' Are

PW2

— Mr. Appadurai

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — —

Attested

photocopy

purported letter signed on

(08-11-2012) by petitioner to

respondent.

Ex.P2 — 16-02-2012

Attested

photocopy

purported settlement Form

(along with copy of cheque

by petitioner to respondent).

Ex.P3 — 23-02-2012

Attested photocopy of

E-Mail Correspondence

between management official

of respondent. (subject to

objection)

Ex.P4 — 24-02-2012

Attested

photocopy

statement of settlement by

respondent

company

petitioner.

Ex.P5 — 13-03-2012

True copy of letter by

petitioner

Labour

Conciliation Office, Puducherry.

Ex.P6 — 27-06-2012

True copy of letter by

petitioner

Labour

Conciliation Office, Puducherry.

List of respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 13-07-2022

Mr. T. Rajkumar

List of Respondents’s Exhibits:

Ex.R1 — 12-04-2013

Certified true copy of the

extract of the resolution

passed at the meeting of the

Board

Directors

respondent company.

Ex.R2 — 14-01-2012

Copy of resignation letter of

respondent/petitioner.

Ex.R3 — 27-03-2012

Copy of remarks submitted

by the petitioner/respondent

before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation).

Ex.R4 — 01-10-2012

Copy of conciliation failure

report.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

mÁð \Vk‚¶ g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF) ∂KkÈÔD, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_

®ı 9642, 5097/\VƒVg/ÔVÁ´/Ê3/2022.

∂§s¬ÁÔ

[Amﬂºƒˆ WÈ \VMB s] 1975, s] 60(iii)-[ ˇµ]

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´ƒV_ >∫Ô”¬z Œ©√Á¶ ÿƒFB©√‚¶ ˇµ¬ÔVbD WÈsk´∫Ô”Á¶B ÷¶›]_ >V∫Ô^ T| Ô‚¶V\ºÈV

∂_Èm zΩlÚ¬ÔV\ºÈV ÷Ú©√>[ JÈD >∫Ô”¬z kw∫Ô©√‚¶ WÈ Œ©√Á¶ gÁðl_ ÔVð©√|D

W√Õ>Á™ (2)án >V∫Ô^ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬ÔV>Á> ∂§B°D.

kˆÁƒ

Œ©√Á¶ ÿ√u≈kˆ[ ÿ√BÏ

\Æ/ÂÔ´

WÈ›][

WÈ Œ©√Á¶

®ı

�ÆD xÔkˆ

∂·Ák ®ı

√´©√·°

gÁð ®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«.

ƒV.

24.

24. ˇwºkπ

ˇwºkπ

ˇwºkπ kÚkVF

kÚkVF

kÚkVF ˛´V\D

˛´V\D

1. ]Ú\] ∏∏¤V[, Ô/ÿ√. «BV›√V‚ƒV.

G/4/138

295/06á07

2. ]Ú\] √´Ô›W«V, Ô/ÿ√. xÔ\m ∂©m_ÔV>Ï.

G/4/258

178/07á08

3. ]Ú. ∂©m_ ´«\V[, >/ÿ√. ∂©m_ÔV>Ï;

G/4/259

100A/07á08

]Ú\] ÿƒFm ∂ÁÈ¬ÔM, Ô/ÿ√. ∂©m_ ´«\V[.

g>ÈV_, ÷Àk§s©A ˛Á¶¬Ô©ÿ√u≈ 15 ÂV‚Ô”¬z^ >∫Ô”¬z kw∫Ô©√‚¶ ÷¶›]Á™ ∞[ ∂´ºƒ ]ÚD√

®|›m¬ÿÔV^·¬Ì¶Vm ®[√>uÔV™ ÔV´ð∫ÔÁ· ÷ÀkKkÈÔ›]uz› ÿ>ˆs¬zD√Ω ºÔ‚|¬ÿÔV^·©√|˛≈m,

÷m ÿ>V¶Ï√VÔ >V∫Ô^ ÔÚ›m ∞º>–D ÿ>ˆs¬Ô sÚD∏™V_ º�z§©∏‚¶ ÔVÈ¬ÿÔ|suz^ ˇµ¬ÁÔÿBV©√t‚|^·

∂]ÔVˆl¶D xÁ≈l¶ÈVD.

z§©∏‚¶ ÔVÈ¬ÿÔ|suz^ >V∫Ô^ ºÂˆºÈV ∂_Èm ÔΩ>D kVlÈVÔºkV >∫Ô·m ÔÚ›Á>› ÿ>ˆs¬ÔVsΩ_,

>∫Ôπ¶D ÔÚ›m¬Ì≈ ∞mD ÷_ÁÈ ®™¬ ÔÚ>©√‚| ÷>uz º\_ ®Õ> ∂§s©At[§ >∫Ô”¬z kw∫Ô©√‚¶

WÈ Œ©√Á¶ gÁð ´›m ÿƒFB©√|D.

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, 2022 } ΩƒD√Ï | 15 {,

J .

J . g>Ïi,

g>Ïi,

mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (AGRICULTURE)

(G.O. Ms. No. 16/Ag., Puducherry,

dated 06th January 2023)

NOTIFICATION

The Notice of voluntary retirement given under F.R.56

(k)(1) by Tmt. V. Kumuda, Superintendent, Government

Agricultural Engineering Workshop, Department of

Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Puducherry, is accepted.

2. Accordingly, she is admitted into voluntary retirement

with effect from the forenoon of 01-03-2023.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

SUNDARARAJAN. P,

Deputy Secretary to Government (Agriculture).

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

No. 324/DSE/HSW/EC/MATRIC/2023.

Puducherry, dated 09th January 2023.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby informed that the original Matric

Examination Mark Certificate bearing Serial No. 0688174

under Register Number 904320 of March 2007, in respect

of Selvi. Maheswari K, an ex pupil of St. Joseph of

Cluny Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Lawspet,

Puducherry, is reported to have been lost beyond the

scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken

to issue duplicate certificate. If, anyone finds the

original Mark Certificate, it may be sent to the

Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (SEC),

College Road, Chennai-600 006, for cancellation as it is

no longer valid.

Dr. V. G. SIVAGAMI,

Joint Director Directorate of School Education.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

NO. 325-338/DSE/HSW/EC/SSLC/2023.

Puducherry, dated 09th January 2023.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby notified that the following candidates have lost their original S.S.L.C. Examination Mark

Certificates beyond the scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates. If,

anyone finds the original Mark Certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations

(SEC), College Road, Chennai-600 006, for cancellation as it is/they are no longer valid.

Sl.

Name of the

Sl. No. of

School in which studied last

No.

applicant

session and

the Mark

year

Certificate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Tmt./Selvi/Thiru :

1. Vinitha S

5008650

March

2015

5311787

Government High School, Kombakkam,

Puducherry.

2. Vimalraj Dunette

1663536

March

2017

8332856

Petit Seminaire Higher Secondary School,

M.G. Road, Puducherry.

3. Latheka G K

4938244

March

2020

11967572

New Modern Vidhya Mandir Higher Secondary

School, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

4. Praveen S

602679

March

2012

6986713

Amalorpavam Higher Secondary School,

Vanarapet, Puducherry.

5. Veeramanikandan V

601829

March

2010

8163522

Bharathi Government Higher Secondary School,

Bahour, Puducherry.

6. Dineshkumar I

1662798

March

2017

8344615

KSP Higher Secondary School, Kathirkamam,

Puducherry.

7. Stalin G @ Shalluma

533025

March

2007

—

Government High School, Karaiyambuthur,

and

Puducherry.

908731

March

2008

—

Private study

8. Nelson U

1676602

March

2016

6758954

Thanthai Periyar Government Girls’ Higher

Secondary School, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry.

9. Dhiwan T

1684610

March

2016

—

Subramania Bharathi Higher Secondary School,

Thirukkanur, Puducherry.

10. Soupramaniane A

324637

April

1992

0441098

Government Higher Secondary School, Kalapet,

and

Puducherry.

557802

April

1993

1354794

Private study

11. Dhinesh V

1176006

June

2011

9868772

Private study

12. Thamizharasan V

503409

March

2006

3594313

Wiseman Higher Secondary School, Mudaliarpet,

Puducherry.

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

13. Vinothkumar V

479002

April

2004

1433365

Government Higher Secondary School, Ariyur,

Puducherry.

14. Kandhan S

6322696

March

1999

—

SR Subramanian Government High School,

Saram, Puducherry.

Dr. V. G. SIVAGAMI,

Joint Director of School Education.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

NO. 868-881/DSE/HSW/EC/HSC/2023.

Puducherry, dated 09th January 2023.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby informed that the following candidates have lost their original Higher Secondary Examination

Mark Certificates beyond the scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates.

If, anyone finds the original Mark Certificate(s), it/they may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of Secondary

Examinations (Hr.Sec.), College Road, Chennai – 600 006, for cancellation, as it is/they are no longer valid.

Sl.

Name of the

Sl. No. of

School in which

No.

applicant

session and

the Mark

studied last

year

Certificate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Tmt./Selvi/Thiru :

1. Soundaria B

567331

March

2016

11566940

St. Patrick Matric Higher Secondary School,

Puducherry.

2. Parvin Banu R

576403

March

2011

5982669

Thiruvalluvar Government Girls’ Higher

Secondary School, Puducherry.

3. Vijay Mic S

908349

March

2016

11544402

Private study

and

969943

March

2017

12733151

Private study

4. Raghavi A

570437

March

2016

11260616

New Modern Vidhya Mandir Higher Secondary

School, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

5. Vijayalakshmy S

545795

March

2013

7980946

Ilango Adigal Government Higher Secondary

School, Muthiraiyarpalayam, Puducherry.

6. Vinitha S

599498

March

2017

12539278

Theerar Sathiyamoorthy Government Higher

Secondary School, Murungapakkam, Puducherry.

7. Bharathkumar R

1578867

March

2018

—

Navalar Nedunchezhian Government Higher

and

Secondary School, Lawspet, Puducherry.

7029366

June

2018

—

Private study

8. Dechen Dolkar

742402

March

1991

A 2057670

Immaculate Heart of Marys Higher Secondary

School, Puducherry.

9. Senthilkumar R

681550

March

1995

AB 1393903

Jeevanandam Government Higher Secondary

School, Karamanikuppam, Puducherry.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Tmt./Selvi/Thiru :

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

10. Pavithra G

3568630

March

2018

1766222

Annai Sivagami Government Girls’ Higher

and

Secondary School, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.

4848921

March

2019

2766374

11. Praveen S

594914

March

2010

8176141

Amalorpavam Higher Secondary School,

Puducherry.

12. Sathish K

449043

March

2006

2206237

Calve College Government Higher Secondary

School, Puducherry.

13. Thamizharasan V

487392

March

2008

3697726

Calve College Government Higher Secondary

School, Puducherry.

14. Vinothkumar V

453090

March

2006

0554825

KK Government Higher Secondary School,

and

K.T. Kuppam, Puducherry.

166222

June

2006

0591956

Private study

Dr. V.G. SIVAGAMI,

Joint Director of School Education.

————

cwkÏÔÁ´ ÂÔ´V‚E, Amﬂºƒˆ

F.No. 51-62/A.E-I/JE(O)/O.M./2022-23.

∂§s©A

ÂÔ´V‚El[ ƒ‚¶D, ∏ˆ° 256 ∂]ÔV´›][√Ω ÂÔ´V‚E ÿ√Vm T]Ô·VÔ ∂§s¬Ô c›º>E›m^·m. º�√Ω, T]Ôπ[

cˆÁ\BV·ÏÔ^ ∂_Èm kVˆ∑>V´ÏÔ^ ∂_Èm ∞º>–D ÿ>V¶ÏAÁ¶BkÏÔ”¬z (∂_Èm) ÂÔÏ ∏ˆÁk ºƒÏÕ>kÏÔ”¬z

kˆÁƒ kÚkVF ˛´V\D/

cˆÁ\BV·ÏÔπ[ ÿ√BÏ

\Æ ∂·Ák

√‚¶V

∂·°

z§©A

®ı

c‚˛´V\D

(gkð©√Ω)

®ı

(]ÁƒÔ^)

¿·D

∂ÔÈD √´©√·°

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

]Ú\]/ÿƒ_s :

ƒ.*.

cwkÏÔÁ´ kÚkVF ˛´V\D

JÈz·D,

>¬Ô¬z‚Á¶

JÈz·D,

>¬Ô¬z‚Á¶

JÈz·D,

>¬Ô¬z‚Á¶

JÈz·D,

>¬Ô¬z‚Á¶

JÈz·D,

>¬Ô¬z‚Á¶

ƒVÁÈ (A)

\ˆ ÿwVºƒ¨[ ÿ>º´¸

132/2A/1

288

21.90

6.10

1058

˛w¬zá

(k¶¬z) (º�z)

º�z

24.80

6.10

ƒVÁÈ

(ÿ>uz) (˛w¬z)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Tmt./Selvi/Thiru :

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

ƒVÁÈ (A’)

\ˆ ÿwVºƒ¨[ ÿ>º´¸

132/2A/1

288

150.00

6.10

1058

˛w¬zá

(k¶¬z) (º�z)

º�z

150.30

6.10

ƒVÁÈ

(ÿ>uz) (˛w¬z)

ƒVÁÈ (B)

\ˆ ÿwVºƒ¨[ ÿ>º´¸

132/2A/1

288

38.00

6.10

233

k¶¬zá

(º�z) (k¶¬z)

ÿ>uz

38.40

6.10

ƒVÁÈ

(˛w¬z) (ÿ>uz)

ƒVÁÈ (C)

\ˆ ÿwVºƒ¨[ ÿ>º´¸

132/2A/1

288

42.00

6.10

258

k¶¬zá

(º�z) (k¶¬z)

ÿ>uz

42.60

6.10

ƒVÁÈ

(˛w¬z) (ÿ>uz)

ƒVÁÈ (D)

\ˆ ÿwVºƒ¨[ ÿ>º´¸

132/2A/1

288

44.20

6.10

273

k¶¬zá

(º�z) (k¶¬z)

ÿ>uz

45.40

6.10

ƒVÁÈ

(˛w¬z) (ÿ>uz)

¤kÔÏ ÂÔÏ, 2023 } ƒ™kˆ | 19 {,

A. ∑º´i´VÎ,

∑º´i´VÎ,

gÁðBÏ.

\ıðVΩ©√‚|

ÿÔVDR[

ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m,

√ﬁƒVB›m,

√ﬁƒVB›m, Amﬂºƒˆ

Amﬂºƒˆ

g√›>V™

WÆk™∫Ô^

g√›>V™

WÆk™∫Ô^

g√›>V™

WÆk™∫Ô^

g√›>V™

WÆk™∫Ô^

g√›>V™

WÆk™∫Ô^

∂§s©A

∂Á\›m¬ÿÔV^· ÷¬ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›][ ∂–\] ºkı|˛≈VÏ.

kˆÁƒ

sıð©√>V´ˆ[

WÆk™D ∂Á\Õm^·

c›º>E¬Ô©√‚|^·

º>ÁkBV™

g‚Ôπ[

®ı

ÿ√BÏ �ÆD xÔkˆ

÷¶›][ xÔkˆ

WÆk™› >BVˆ©A/

t[ ]≈[

®ıË¬ÁÔ

ÿƒFxÁ≈

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

]Ú\] B. \VÈ],

M/s. p º´VN>V t›´V

®ı 253. Ú›´JÏ]

˛´V–_¸,

¸˛´V© ÿ\‚ΩˆB_¸

(ÿ√Vm √Ë

T], s.n.∏. ÂÔÏ,

\Æ ∂·Ák ®ı 165/2,

>BVˆ›>_.

xÁ≈Ô^).

s. \ðÿkπ,

\>ÔΩ©√‚|,

s_oB˚Ï,

Amﬂºƒˆ.

Amﬂºƒˆá605 110.

1973ágD gı|, Amﬂºƒˆ ˛´V\D �ÆD ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m¬Ô^ ƒ‚¶›][ JÈ\VF Amﬂºƒˆ Œ[§B›m

∏ˆ° 11á[√Ω ÷›ÿ>Va_ WÆk™›Á> WÆ°k]™V_ cı¶VzD g‚ºƒ√ÁðÔ^ ∞º>–D ÷ÚÕ>V_, ∂kuÁ≈ ÷Õ>

]ÚAkÁ™, 2023 } ¤™kˆ | 05{,

ºk.

ºk. ®a_´V¤[,

®a_´V¤[,

gÁðBÏ.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

]Ú\]/ÿƒ_s :

ƒ.*.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

MANNADIPET COMMUNE PANCHAYAT, PUDUCHERRY

Thirubuvanai, dated 05th January 2023.

Dangerous Establishments

NOTICE

The undermentioned person has requested permission for setting up a new industry within the Mannadipet

Commune Panchayat limits, as detailed below.

Sl.

Name and address

Address of the

Industry

Power

No. of

No.

of the applicant

industry site

proposed

required

workers

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1 Tmt. B. Malathy,

M/s. Sree Rohitha

Manufacture/Activity

120.00 H.P.

9 Nos.

No. 253, Rudramurthy Street,

Mithra Granules,

of “reprocessing of

(General

VIP Nagar,

R.S. No. 165/2,

plastic scrap materials”.

shift).

V. Manavely, Villianur,

Madagadipet,

Puducherry-605 110.

Puducherry.

In conformity with rule 11 of the Pondicherry Commune Panchayats (Grant of Licences and Permissions)

Rules, 1976, promulgated of this Union Territory by the Puducherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, 1973,

objections, if any, to the setting up of the above proposed industry, are invited to reach the Commissioner, within

ten days from the date of publication of this notice in the Official Gazette.

The objections received within the specified period will be considered by the Mannadipet Commune

Panchayat.

V. EJILERADJANE,

Commissioner.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Ramakrishnan, son of Gothandabani, Indian inhabitant,

aged 38 years and presently residing at the house

bearing Door No. 12, Gandhi Nagar, Sannyasikuppam,

Thirubuvanai, Puducherry-605 107, do hereby solemnly

and sincerely affirm, to whomsoever it may concern as

follows:

That I am the deponent herein. I state that in my

Birth Certificate under Registration No. T/1984/00044,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Ramakrishnan’.

In my School Transfer Certificate under Admission

No. 5946/9.6.94, my name has been mentioned along

with initial as ‘G. Ramakrishnan’.

Through a publication in the Government of

Puducherry Gazette, vide No. 33 of the year 2016,

I have changed my said name for numerological

reasons as ‘Amuthasethu’, as such in my Aadhaar Card

under No. XXXX XXXX 3426 and in my Elector’s

Photo Identity Card under No. BQG0224691, my name

has been mentioned as ‘Amutha Sethu (∂x> ºƒm)’.

In the details of the family members in the Family

Ration Card under No. 391243, my name has been

mentioned as ‘∂x>ºƒm’.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the

abovesaid names are referred, identified and relate

to one and the same person that is me, the deponent

herein.

I state that hereinafter, I shall be known

and identified only by the name ‘Ramakrishnan

(´V\˛Úið[)’ for all purposes.

I state that what are all stated in the above

paragraphs is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information.

Solemnly and sincerly affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 6th day of

January 2023.

562195

G. ´V\˛Úið[

´V\˛Úið[

´V\˛Úið[.

24 January 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

AFFIDAVIT

I, G. Prem Kumar, son of P. Gopi, Indian inhabitant,

aged 29 years and presently residing at the house

bearing Door No. 01, Angalamman Kovil Street, Nallavadu,

Ariyankuppam Commune, Puducherry-605 007, do

hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm, to whomsoever it

may concern as follows:

That I am the deponent herein. I state that in my

Birth Certificate under Registration No. COC/1993/02/

016/002335/0, my name has been mentioned as

‘G. Prem Kumar’.

In my School Transfer Certificate under Admission

No. 14128/2007-08, my name has been mentioned as

‘G. Premkumar’.

In my Elector’s Photo Identity Card under

No. SQY0041202, my name has been mentioned as

‘Vivack (sºk¬)’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No. XXXX XXXX 1599,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Premkumar

(∏º´Dz\VÏ)’.

In my PAN Card under No. HGFPP4397P, my name

has been mentioned as ‘Premkumar’.

In my Passport under No. W8467284, my surname

has been mentioned as ‘Gopi’ and my given name has

been mentioned as ‘Premkumar’.

In the details of the family members in the

Family Ration Card under No. 445211, my name has

been mentioned as ‘sºk¬’.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the

abovesaid names are referred, identified and relate

to one and the same person that is me, the deponent

herein.

I state that hereinafter, I shall be known and identified

only by the name ‘G. Prem Kumar (ºÔV. ∏º´D z\VÏ)’

for all purposes.

Hence, I state that what are all stated in the above

paragraphs is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 9th day of

January 2023.

562196

G. PREM KUMAR.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, S.Kumar, son of Sadasivam, Indian inhabitant, aged

61 years and presently residing at the house bearing

Door No. 7, Sellaperumal Koil Street, Kuyavarpalayam,

Puducherry-605 013, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm, to whomsoever it may concern as follows:

That I am the deponent herein. I state that in my

Record Sheet under Ad. No. 1566, issued by the

Headmaster, P.U.B School, Thudiyalur, my name has

been mentioned as ‘S. s¤Bz\VÏ’.

In my Elector’s Photo Identity Card under

No. SCO0164772, my name has been mentioned as

‘Kumar (z\VÏ)’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No. XXXX XXXX 3712,

my name has been mentioned as ‘S Kumar (S z\VÏ)’.

In the Driving Licence under No. TN32 19820

000058, my name has been mentioned as ‘Kumar. S’.

In the Birth Certificate of my elder daughter, by

name Kamatchi under Registration No. PM/M/1988/

8393, my name has been mentioned as ‘Kumar’ and

in the Birth Certificate of my younger daughter, by

name Gnanasoundari, under Registration No. PM/C/

1991/94, my name has been mentioned as ‘Vijayakumar’

and in the Birth Certificate of my son, by name

Krishnavel, under Registration No. PM/N/1993/26, my

name has been mentioned as ‘S. Kumar’.

In my Savings Bank Passbook of State Bank of India,

Agri Development Branch, Puducherry, my name has

been mentioned as ‘Kumar. S’.

In the Family Ration Card Details under No. 424306,

my name has been mentioned as ‘ƒ. z\VÏ’.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the

abovesaid names are referred, identified and relate

to one and the same person that is me, the deponent

herein.

I state that what are all stated in the above

paragraphs is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 25th day of

November 2022.

562197

S. Kumar.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Poorani, wife of Kaliyavarathan, aged 62 years,

residing at No. 17, Second Vanniar Street, Kanuvapet,

Villianur, Puducherry-605 110, do hereby solemnly and

sincerely affirm and state on oath as follows:

I submit that my name ‘Poorani’ is found in my

Aadhaar Card issued by the Unique Identification

Authority of India, bearing No. XXXX XXXX 0948,

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[24 January 2023

the name ‘Poorani’ is found in my Elector’s Photo

Identity Card, issued by the Election Commission of

India, bearing No. TLS0186478, the name ‘Ø´Ë’ is

found in my Family Ration Card, issued by the

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Puducherry, bearing No. 332883, the name

‘Pazaniammal’ which is found in my son Thirumudi

Udayar’s Birth Certificate, Registered in the Villianur

Commune Panchayat, under registration No. V/1983/

00381, on 08-07-1983 and the name ‘Pazhaniammal @

Purani’ which is found in my son Tirunavukarasar’s

Birth Certificate, registered in the Villianur Commune

Panchayat under Registration No. R/1989/00344, on

10-07-1989 are belonging and referring me only. I do

affirm that hereafter I shall be known only as

‘Poorani’.

Hence, I hereby declare that I shall at all times

hereafter in all records, deeds and writings and in all

proceedings, dealings and transactions, private as

well as upon all occasions whatsoever use and sign

the name of ‘Poorani’ as my name in place and in

substitution of my former name.

I state that the abovesaid facts are true to the best

of my knowledge, belief and information.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 02nd day of

January 2023.

562198

K. Ø´Ë

Ø´Ë

Ø´Ë.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, G. Nadana Udayar, son of Govindasamy, residing

at No. 325, Lenin Street, Kuyavarpalayam, Saram,

Puducherry-605 013, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm and state on oath as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and I am well aware

of the facts of my deposition.

That my name is entered as ‘Nadanassababady’

in my Marriage Certificate vide Registration No. 140/

1959/PDM, dated 21-09-1959 issued by Pondicherry

Municipality, Puducherry.

That my name is entered as ‘Nadana Udayar’ in

my PAN Card in Registration No. ASZPN7052Q,

issued by Income-tax Department, Government of India.

That my name is entered as ‘G Nadanaudayar’

in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 5932, issued

by Unique Indentification Authority of India.

That my name is entered as ‘Natanam’ in my

Electoral Identity Card No. PY/01/007/042340, issued

by Election Commission of India.

That my name is entered as ‘Â¶™ cÁ¶BVÏ’

in my Family Ration Card No. 143175, issued by the

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Government of Puducherry.

That my name is entered as ‘Nadanam’ in my son’s

Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 1045, issued by

Unique Indentification Authority of India.

That my name is entered as ‘Natanaudayar’ in my

son’s Elector’s Photo Identity Card No. SCO0109496,

issued by Election Commission of India.

That my name is entered as ‘Nadanasabapathy’

in my son’s Passport bearing No. F9491080, issued

by Regional Passport Authority, Chennai.

That my name is entered as ‘G. Nadanasabapathy’

in my son’s Community Certificate issued by Taluk

Office, Government of Puducherry.

That my name is entered as ‘Nadanasabapathy’

in my son’s Birth Certificate No. P/1962/00308, issued

by Pondicherry Municipality, Government of

Puducherry.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

names are referred, identified and relate to one and

the same person that is me, the deponent herein.

That the above particulars are true and correct to

the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 09th day of

January 2023.

562199

G. NADANA UDAYAR.

online publication at “https://styandptg.py.gov.in”

Published by the Director, Government Press, Puducherry.

No legal responsibility is accepted for the publication of advertisement regarding change of names and other private

notifications in the Gazette. Persons notifying the same will remain solely responsible for the legal consequences and

also for any other misrepresentations, etc.