[211]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ŒÚEÈ WÈ©√z]ÔÁ·

212

Acquisition de certain terrains

.. 212

Acquisition of certain lands ..

212

ÁÔBÔ©√|›m>_

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

220

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 220

Award of the Labour Court .. 220

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

230

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 230

Government Notifications

.. 230

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

233

Annonces

.. 233

Announcements

233

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

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2023 }

\VÏﬂ |

7 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mars

2023 (16 Phalguna 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

7th

March

2023

212

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

kÚkVF �ÆD º√ˆ¶Ï º\ÈVıÁ\› mÁ≈, Amﬂºƒˆ

∂´ƒVÁð (√ÈkÁÔ) ®ı 01/2023/1012.

x>MÁÈ ∂§s¬ÁÔ

(2013ágD gı| WÈD ÁÔBÔ©√|›m>_, \ÆkVµkπ©A �ÆD \ÆzΩB\Ïs_ WBVB\V™

÷w©¨| �ÆD ÿkπ©√Á¶›>[Á\ cˆÁ\ ƒ‚¶›][ 11 ∏ˆÁk ºƒÏÕ> (1) c‚∏ˆs[ ˇµ)

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ \Vk‚¶D, ]ÚÂ^·VÆ >VK¬ÔV, ]ÚÂ^·VÏ kÚkVF ˛´V\›]_, 0.75.19 ÿ«¬º¶Ï √´©√·°^·

WÈD ŒÚ ÿ√Vm ºÂV¬Ô›]uÔVÔ ∂>Vkm “º√´·D á ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ ÷Á¶ºB A]B ∂ÔÈ ÷´l_ √VÁ> ∂Á\¬zD

]‚¶›][ ˇµ ]ÚÂ^·VÆ ÷´l_ WÁÈB Ô‚|\V™D �ÆD BVÏ| ∂Á\©√>uz” º>Ák©√|˛≈m ®™ Amﬂºƒˆ

∂´∑¬z º>V[Æ˛≈m ®[√>V_, ƒx>VB >V¬Ô ÔË©A ∂Á\©√>V_ (SIA Unit) ƒx>VB >V¬Ô \]©¨‚| gF°

ÿƒFB©√‚|, ƒ‚¶›][ 4ágD ∏ˆs[ ˇµ cÁ´¬Ô©√‚¶kVÆ E≈©A ÿƒBÈÏ (kÚkVF) ∂kÏÔ·V_ ∂Á\¬Ô©√‚¶

ŒÚ zøkV_ x>MÁÈ gF° ÿƒFB©√‚¶m/∂§¬ÁÔ Œ[Æ ƒ\Ï©∏¬Ô©√‚¶m. ÷Õ> ƒx>VB >V¬Ô ÔË©A

∂§¬ÁÔBV™m ∞uÔ™ºk ÿkπl¶©√‚|^·m.

√V]¬Ô©√‚¶ z|D√∫Ôπ[ \ÆkVµkπ©A �ÆD \ÆzΩB\Ï° ºÂV¬Ô›]uÔVÔ ƒVÏA/mÁð g‚EBÏ

(kÚkVF), ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, ∂kÏÔ^ WÏkV˛BVÔ √ËB\Ï›>©√‚|^·VÏ. g>ÈV_, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ \Vk‚¶›][ ]ÚÂ^·VÆ

˛´V\›]_ 00.75.19 ÿ«¬º¶Ï √´©√·°^· WÈ∫ÔÁ· º�z§©∏‚¶ ºÂV¬Ô›m¬ÔVÔ ÁÔBÔ©√|›>o[ ˇµ

÷Ú¬˛≈m. ∂>[ s·¬Ô\V™ skˆ©A ∂Ωl_ kÚ\VÆ:

I – WÈ∫Ô^

k‚¶D : ]ÚÂ^·VÆ

kÚkVF ˛´V\D : 21 á ]ÚÂ^·VÆ

kˆÁƒ ∂·Ák cˆÁ\ WÈ›][

∂¬ÔÁ≈•^· Â√ˆ[

ÁÔBÔ©√|›>o[

®_ÁÈÔ^

®ı

JÈ›][ kÁÔ

ÿ√BÏ �ÆD xÔkˆ

ˇµ √´©∏¶D

kÁÔ

(ÿ«¬º¶ˆ_)

ÿ>

º\

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

]Ú./]Ú\]/ÿƒ_s :

ÿ«. gÏ. ƒV.

20/4B/2 ºÔVl_ Â[ÿƒF 1. xÔ\m ÷¸\Vl_ @

20/

20/9

20/8

WÈD

x›m \Á´¬ÔVBÏ,

4B/1

>/ÿ√. xÔ\m ÷›Z¸;

2. \ﬁ∑·V,

Ô/ÿ√. ºƒÔÏ.

21/9B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

>uÔVÈ >Ï\ÔÏ›>V,

21/9A

21/13

21/9A

ÿk^Á· ∏^Á·BVÏ

21/14

ºÔVl_.

21/11B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. ºƒV\∑Õ>´D ∏^Á·,

21/11A

>/ÿ√. \Vˆx›m ∏^Á·;

2. ºkDA;

Ô/ÿ√. mÁ´ƒVt.

23/5B

√‚¶V

A[ÿƒF

>uÔVÈ >Ï\ÔÏ›>V,

23/19

23/5C

23/5A

ÿk^Á· ∏^Á·BVÏ

ºÔVl_.

23/8B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. Ák›]BÂV>[,

23/14 23/8A

23/13

>/ÿ√. \ÔVº>k nBÏ;

2. ]BVÔ´V¤[,

>/ÿ√. \ÔVº>k nBÏ.

213

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

23/9/A

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. zÚƒVt ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

23/10

23/

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ;

9B/2

2. ´V\ÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ;

3. ∂™Õ>˛Úið ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ.

23/9/B2

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

º>k˛,

23/10,

23/

23/14

Ô/ÿ√. √V¸Ô´[.

23/15

9B/1

23/10

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. zÚƒVt ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

199

198

23/15

23/9A,

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ;

23/9B/2

2. ´V\ÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ;

3. ∂™Õ>˛Úið ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ.

198/1

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. zÚƒVt ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

199

198/3B 198/16

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ;

2. ´V\ÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ;

3. ∂™Õ>˛Úið ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ,

>/ÿ√. ƒVtÂV> ƒV¸]ˆBVÏ.

10. 198/3B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. √ﬁƒÂV>D,

199

198/17 198/3A

198/1,

>/ÿ√. ÿƒ_Èÿ√Ú\V^

198/16

∏^Á·;

2. √Ïk>›>D\V^,

Ô/ÿ√. xÚºÔƒ[;

3. ∑©´\ËB[,

>/ÿ√. ºƒV\∑Õ>´ ∏^Á·;

4. ÿk∫Ô¶VƒÈD ∏^Á·,

>/ÿ√. ÿƒ_Èÿ√Ú\V^ ∏^Á·;

5. Ô_BVË,

Ô/ÿ√. ƒV\JÏ›].

11.

200/1B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

ÿƒ_k´V∑,

200/ 200/2B

199

>/ÿ√. ´V¤\VË¬ÔD.

12. 200/2B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

ÊMkVƒ[,

200/ 200/4B

199

200/1B

>/ÿ√. ÂV´VBðƒVt @

]Ú\ÁÈ∏^Á·.

13. 200/4B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

AM>k^π,

200/

206

199

200/2B

Ô/ÿ√. ´V\ƒVt.

14. 206/2B

ºÔVl_ Â[ÿƒF

>uÔVÈ >Ï\ÔÏ›>V,

206/

206/5

206/

206/3B

WÈD

p >Ï√V´ıºB¸k´Ï

º>k¸>V™D.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

]Ú./]Ú\]/ÿƒ_s :

ÿ«. gÏ. ƒV.

214

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

15. 206/3B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. xÔ\m ƒ‹D ´V°›>Ï,

206/

206/5

199

200

>/ÿ√. ∂i≠D ´V°›>Ï;

2. ƒD∑_ ˇ>V,

Ô/ÿ√. «V≠V Ôo¬z_;

3. ´Û_ ¨s,

Ô/ÿ√. º≠¬ >V∆m.

16. 217/1B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. ]ÚÂV´VBð[,

217/1A 217/2C

185

217/11

>/ÿ√. √ﬁƒÂV>D ∏^Á·;

2. ´V¤∑ºÈVﬂƒ™V,

Ô/ÿ√. >DA´VÎ.

17. 217/2B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. ´V¤∑ºÈVﬂƒ™V,

217/

217/1A, 217/1B

217/11

>/ÿ√. >DA´VÎ;

217/1B

2. ´V¤VD\V^ ƒ°ˆ @

gº´V¬˛Bº\ˆ,

Ô/ÿ√. ∂Ú·V™Õ>

x>oBVÏ.

18. 217/2C

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. ´V¤∑ºÈVﬂƒ™V,

217/

217/12

185

217/1B

>/ÿ√. >DA´VÎ;

2. ´V¤VD\V^ ƒ°ˆ @

gº´V¬˛Bº\ˆ,

Ô/ÿ√. ∂Ú·V™Õ>

x>oBVÏ.

19. 217/6B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

ƒÕ]´V,

217/

217/8A,

217/

217/12

Ô/ÿ√. E>D√´D.

217/8B

20. 217/8B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

ƒD√Õ>D @

217/

217/8A,

217/

185,

]ÚQV™ƒD√Õ>D,

6A,

217/9,

13,

217/12

>/ÿ√. ´›]™ƒVt ∏^Á·.

217/

217/13

185

21. 217/10B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

ºkÈV•> x>oBVÏ,

217/9,

253

185

>/ÿ√. xÚÁÔB x>oBVÏ.

217/13,

217/10A

22. 253/13B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF

ºkÈV•> x>oBVÏ,

253/

253

253/26

>/ÿ√. xÚÁÔB x>oBVÏ.

13A

14B

23. 253/14B

√‚¶V

Â[ÿƒF 1. Âº¶ƒ[,

253/

252

254

253/13B

>/ÿ√. ∏ﬂÁƒÔV´[;

14A

2. ˝kV,

Ô/ÿ√. ∂ÆxÔD.

24. 253/22B

√‚¶V

\Á™

√wMºk_ ∏^Á·,

253/

254

253/27

>/ÿ√. Ák›]o∫ÔD

22A

23B

∏^Á·.

25. 253/23B

√‚¶V

\Á™

ÁkBVAˆ x>oBVÏ,

253/

254

253/22B

>/ÿ√. xÚÁÔB x>oBVÏ.

23A

24B

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

]Ú./]Ú\]/ÿƒ_s :

ÿ«. gÏ. ƒV.

215

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

26. 253/24B

√‚¶V

\Á™

ƒ°Õ>´´V∑,

253/

254

253/23B

>/ÿ√. ∂ÚðVﬂƒÈD∏^Á·.

24A

ÿ\V›>D

0 0

7 5

1 9

II – \´∫Ô^

(21 á ]Ú^·VÆ kÚkVF ˛´V\D)

\´∫Ô^

kˆÁƒ

\Æ ∂·Ák

√´©A

kÁÔ

®ıË¬ÁÔ

®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«.

gÏ.

ƒV.

No./Nos.

21/11/B

ÿ>[Á™\´D

21/11/B

\V\´D

21/11/B

ºk©√\´D

III – Ô‚¶Á\©AÔ^

(21 á ]Ú^·VÆ kÚkVF ˛´V\D)

Ô‚¶Á\©A

kˆÁƒ

\Æ ∂·Ák

√´©A

kÁÔ

∂Ω›>· √´©A

®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«.

gÏ.

ƒV.

No./Nos.

21/11/B

zΩlÚ©A Ô‚Ω¶D

23/9/B

√z] zΩlÚ©A Ô‚Ω¶D

÷Õ> ∂§s¬ÁÔBV™m, 2013ágD gı| WÈD ÁÔBÔ©√|›m>_, \ÆkVµkπ©A �ÆD \ÆzΩB\Ïs_

WBVB\V™ ÷w©¨| �ÆD ÿkπ©√Á¶›>[Á\ cˆÁ\ ƒ‚¶›][ (ƒ‚¶D ®ı : 30/2013) 11ágD ∏ˆs[

(1)ágD c‚∏ˆ° kÁÔxÁ≈Ôπ[ ˇµ ÿ>V¶ÏAÁ¶B ∂Á™kÚ¬ÔVÔ°D ÿkπl¶©√|˛≈m.

WÈ›][ ]‚¶ kÁ´√¶\V™m ƒVÏA/mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF) �ÆD WÈ gÏ˜> ∂]ÔVˆ, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_

∂KkÈÔ›]_ √VÏÁk¬z Ák¬Ô©√‚|^·m. ∂Á> ®Õ>ÿkVÚ ºkÁÈ ÂVπKD ºkÁÈ ºÂ´›]_ √VÏÁkl¶ÈVD.

WÈ›]–^ OÁwk>uz, WÈ ∂·Ák ÿƒFk>uz, WÈD ®>Á™•D ƒ\WÁÈ©√|›mk>uz, WÈ›>Ω \ıÁð

∂ÔµÕÿ>|©√>uz

∂_Èm

mÁ·

÷|k>uz

�ÆD

º�ÿƒV[™

ƒ‚¶›][

12ágD

∏ˆs_

z§›mÁ´¬Ô©√‚|^·kVÆ ∂kÏÔ”Á¶B √ËÁB cˆBkVÆ º�ÿÔV^k>uz› º>ÁkBV™ ∏≈ ∂Á™›m

ÿƒB_√V|ÔÁ· ÿƒFk>uz ƒVÏA/mÁð \Vk‚¶ g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF) �ÆD WÈ gÏ˜> ∂]ÔVˆ, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_

�ÆD ∂k´m ∂KkÈÔ √ËBV·ÏÔ”¬z ÷Õ> ∂´ƒV_ ∂]ÔV´\π¬Ô©√|˛≈m.

ƒ‚¶›][ 11ágD ∏ˆs[ (4)ágD c‚∏ˆs[ ˇµ ÷Õ> ∂§s¬ÁÔ ÿkπl¶©√‚¶ º>]loÚÕm g‚EBˆ[

x[ Œ©A>o[§ WÈ›][ kËÔ Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ ®Á>•D ÿƒFB ∂_Èm kËÔ Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔ WÔµk>uz ÔV´ð\VÔ

÷Ú¬Ô¬Ì¶Vm. ∂>Vkm ∂Õ> WÈ›Á> su√Á™ ÿƒF>_, sÁÈ¬z kV∫z>_ ∂Õ> WÈ›][ *m s_È∫ÔD

®Á>•D cÚkV¬z>_ Ì¶Vm.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

]Ú./]Ú\]/ÿƒ_s :

ÿ«. gÏ. ƒV.

216

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

÷Õ> WÈ ÁÔBÔ©√|›m>K¬z \Æ©AÔ^ ∞º>–D ÷Ú©∏[ ∂Õ> \Æ©AÔ·V™Ák ∂¬ÔÁ´•^· Â√´V_

÷ﬂƒ‚¶›][ 15ágD ∏ˆs[ ˇµ kÁÔÿƒFB©√‚¶kVÆ, ÷Õ> ∂§s¬ÁÔ ÿkπl¶©√‚¶ º>]loÚÕm 60 (∂Æ√m)

ÂV‚Ô”¬z^ ƒVÏA/mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF) �ÆD WÈ gÏ˜> ∂]ÔVˆ, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, ∂kÏÔπ[ x[A >V¬Ô_

ÿƒFBÈVD.

Amﬂºƒˆ, 2023 } ∏©´kˆ | 17 {,

(mÁðWÁÈ g”Âˆ[ gÁð©√Ω)

Dr. ]. ∂Úı,

]. ∂Úı,

]. ∂Úı, ÷.g.√.,

∂´∑ ÿƒBÈÏ (kÚkVF).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, PUDUCHERRY

(G.O. Ms. No. 01/2023/1009, Puducherry, dated 17th February 2023)

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION

(under section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013)

Whereas, it appears to the Government that an extent of 00.75.19 H.A.C., lands at 21-Thirunallar Revenue

Village in the Karaikal District, are required for public purpose, namely “Construction of Railway Station with yard

arrangements at Thirunallar under New Broad Gauge line between Peralam-Karaikal”. Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

Study was carried out by SIA Unit and a report submitted/preliminary investigation was conducted by a team

constituted by the Special Secretary( Revenue) as laid down under section 4 of the Act. The Social Impact Assessment

report was already published.

The Sub/Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal, is appointed as the Administrator for the purpose of

rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families. Therefore, it is notified that for the abovesaid project in

21-Thirunallar Revenue Village of Karaikal District , the lands measuring to an extent of 00.75.19 H.A.C., whose

detailed description is as follows, is under acquisition:-

I – LANDS

Taluk : Thirunallar

Revenue Village : 21 - Thirunallar.

Sl.

Re-survey Type of Type of Name of the land-owners/

Extent to

Boundaries

No.

title

land

interested persons

be acquired

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

Ca.

20/4B/2

Temple Ryot Wet 1. Mohamed Ismail @

20/4B/1 20/4B/1

20/9

20/8

Land

Muthu Maraikayar,

S/o. Mohamed Idris;

2. Manjula,

W/o. Sekar.

21/9B

Patta

Ryot Wet

Present Trustee,

21/9 A

21/13

21/13,

21/9 A

Vellai Pillaiyar Kovil.

21/14

21/11B

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Somasundaram Pillai,

21/11A

S/o. Marimuthu Pillai;

2. Vembu,

W/o. Duraisamy.

217

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

23/5B

Patta

Ryot Dry

Present Trustee,

23/19

23/5C

23/5A

Vellai Pillaiyar Kovil.

23/8B

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Vaithinathan,

23/14

23/8A

23/13

S/o. Mahadeva Iyyar;

2. Thiyagarajan,

S/o. Mahadeva lyyar.

23/9/A

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Gurusamy Sasthriyar,

23/10

23/9B/2

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar;

2. Ramanatha Sasthriyar,

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar;

3. Ananthakrishna Sasthriyar,

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar.

23/9/B2

Patta

Ryot Wet

Devaki,

23/10, 23/9B/1

23/14

W/o. Baskaran.

23/15

23/10

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Gurusamy Sasthriyar,

199

198

23/15

23/9 A,

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar;

23/9B/2

2. Ramanatha Sasthriyar,

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar;

3. Ananthakrishna Sasthriyar,

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar.

198/1

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Gurusamy Sasthriyar,

199

198/3B

198/16

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar;

2. Ramanatha Sasthriyar,

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar;

3. Ananthakrishna Sasthriyar,

S/o. Saminatha Sasthriyar.

10. 198/3B

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Panchanatham,

199

198/17 198/3A

198/1,

S/o. Sellaperumapillai;

198/16

2. Parvaththammal,

W/o. Murugesan;

3. Subramaniyan,

S/o. Somasundaram Pillai;

4. Venkadasalam Pillai,

S/o. Sellaperumal Pillai;

5. Kalyani,

W/o. Samamoorthi.

11. 200/1B

Patta

Ryot Wet

Selvarasu,

200/1A 200/2B

199

S/o. Rajamanickam.

12. 200/2B

Patta

Ryot Wet Srinivasan,

200/2A 200/4B

199

200/1B

S/o. Narayanasamy @

Thirumalaipillai.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

Ca.

218

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

13. 200/4B

Patta

Ryot Wet

Punithavalli,

200/4A

206

199

200/2B

W/o. Ramasamy.

14. 206/2B

Temple Ryot Wet

The Present Trustee,

206/2A

206/5

206/3B

Land

Sri Dharbaraneeswarar

Devasthanam.

15. 206/3 B

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Mohamed Salim Ravuthar, 0

206/3A

206/5

199

200

S/o. Asham Ravuthar;

2. Samsul Geetha,

W/o. Hasha Kalickal;

3. Rasul Beevi,

W/o. Sheik Dawood.

16. 217/1B

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Thirunarayanan,

217/1A 217/2C

185

217/11

S/o. Panjanatham Pillai;

2. Rajasulachana,

W/o. Thamburaj.

17. 217/2B

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Rajasulachana,

217/2A 217/1A, 217/1B

217/11

W/o. Thamburaj;

217/1B

2. Rajammal Souri @

Arokiyamary,

W/o. Arulantha Muthaliar.

18. 217/2C

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Rajasulachana,

217/2A

217/12

185

217/1B

W/o. Thamburaj;

2. Rajammal Souri @

Arokiyamary,

W/o. Arulantha Muthaliar.

19. 217/6B

Patta

Ryot Wet

Chandra,

217/6A 217/8A, 217/8B

217/12

W/o. Chidambaram.

217/8B

20. 217/8B

Patta

Ryot Wet

Sambantham @

217/6A, 217/8A, 217/13,

185

Thirungna Pillai,

217/8A

217/9,

185

217/12

S/o. Rathinasamy Pillai.

217/13

21. 217/10B

Patta

Ryot Wet

Velayutha Muthaliar,

217/9,

253

185

S/o. Murugaiya Muthaliar.

217/13,

217/10A

22. 253/13B

Patta

Ryot Wet

Velayutha Muthaliar,

253/13A 253/14B

253

253/26

S/o. Murugaiya Muthaliar.

23. 253/14B

Patta

Ryot Wet 1. Natesan,

253/14A

252

254

253/13B

S/o. Pitchaikaran;

2. Jeeva,

W/o. Arumugam.

24. 253/22B

Patta Ryot Manai

Pazhanivel Pillai,

253/22A 253/23B

254

253/27

S/o. Vaithilingam Pillai.

25. 253/23B

Patta Ryot Manai

Vaiyaburi Mudaliar,

253/23A 253/24B

254

253/22B

S/o. Murugaiya Mudaliar.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

Ca.

219

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

26. 253/24B

Patta Ryot Manai

Soundrarasu,

253/24A 253/26

254

253/23B

S/o. Arunachalampillai.

Total

II – TREES

(21 - Thirunallar Revenue Village)

Trees

Sl.

Re-survey

Extent

Variety

Number

No.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Ca.

No./Nos.

21/11/B

Coconut Tree

21/11/B

Mango Tree

21/11/B

Neem Tree

III – STRUCTURES

(21 - Thirunallar Revenue Village)

Structure

Sl.

Re-survey

Extent

Type

Plinth area

No.

in sq.mt.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Ca.

No.

21/11/B

Residential Building

23/9/B

Partial Residential Building

This notification is made under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Right to fair Compensation

and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No. 30 of 2013), to all whom it may

concern.

A plan of the land may be inspected in the Office of the Sub/Deputy Collector (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition

Officer, Karaikal on any working day during the working hours.

The Government is pleased to authorise the Sub/Deputy Collector (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal,

to enter upon and survey land, take levels of any land, dig or bore into the sub-soil and do all other acts required for the

proper execution of their work as provided and specified in section 12 of the said Act.

Under sub-section (4) of section 11 of the Act, no person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of

land, i.e., sale/purchase, etc., or create any encumbrances on such land without prior approval of the Sub/Deputy Collector

(Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal, from the date of publication of the notification.

Objections to the acquisition, if any, may be filed by the person interested within 60 (sixty days) from the date of

publication of this notification as provided under section 15 of the said Act before the Sub/Deputy Collector(Revenue)-

cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

Dr. ARUN, T. I.A.S.,

Secretary to Government (Revenue).

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi :

Ca.

220

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 03/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 5th January 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 48/2017 dated

22-11-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, in respect of Dispute between the

management of M/s. Ramanathapuram Co-operative Milk

Producers Society, Puducherry and its workman Thiru

S. Murugan, Puducherry, over reinstatement with back

wages;

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.

Tuesday, the 22nd day of November 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 48/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000079-2017

Murugan, s/o. Srinivasan,

No. 53, Manjalai Street,

Ramanathapuram,

Thondamanatham Post,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Ramanathapuram Co-operative

Milk Producers Society Limited,

No. P.440, Ramanathapuram,

Thondamanatham Post,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 08-11-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar, Counsel for the

Petitioner, Thiruvalargal C. Prabagarane, K. Karpaganadan

and S. Chandrasekaran, Counsels for the Respondent,

and after hearing the both sides and perusing the case

records, this Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 135/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 29-08-2017 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by Petitioner

Thiru S. Murugan, Puducherry, against the Management

of M/s. Ramanathapuram Co-operative Milk

Producers Society Limited, Puducherry over

reinstatement with back wages is justifiable 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 averred

in the claim petition:

The

then

Board

Directors

the

Ramanathapuram Co-operative Milk Producers’

Society passed a Resolution on 12-04-1985 for

Appointment of a Measurer to the Society.

Accordingly the name of the Claim Petitioner was

proposed in the said Board Meeting which had given

its consent for his Appointment as Measurer with

effect from 01-05-1985 with pay of ` 125 per month.

Upon satisfaction of the performance in the post of

Measurer, the Petitioner was promoted to the next

higher post of Milk Tester and was paid ` 1,200 per

month. Thereafter, the Petitioner was accorded with

further promotion and was designated as paid

Secretary of the Society with effect from 01-01-1996

carrying the pre-revised Scale of Pay of ` 1,500-3,500.

(ii) In this milieu, the Petitioner was issued with

an Office Order, dated 22-09-2001 by the then

Administrator of the Ramanathapuram Co-operative

Milk Producers Society fixing the duties and

responsibilities. When the matter stood thus,

Mr. R. Jayamurthy who was deputed from the

Co-operative Department to act as the Administrator

of the Society in the absence of the elected Board

of Directors, called for an explanation from the

Petitioner pertaining to certain corrections noticed in

the ledger/register maintained for the purpose of

making entries to the supply of Milk by the Members

of the Society by his letter, dated 01-06-2002.

221

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(iii) The then Administrator Mr. R. Jayamurthy

without any prima facie grounds and due to certain

external compulsions, issued a Memorandum, dated

25-06-2002 to the Petitioner alleging three baseless

charges and directed the Petitioner to submit an

explanation to the said memorandum on or before

28-06-2002. Before the Petitioner could apply his

mind on the baseless charges, the then Administrator

Mr. R. Jayamurthy with a predetermined mind and

without waiting for any explanation had issued the

Order of Suspension, dated 29-06-2002 and the

Petitioner had to face Suspension with effect from

01-07-2002 and no Subsistence Allowance was paid

during the entire period of Suspension.

(iv) The Petitioner had approached the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature, Madras in W.P. No. 49211/

2006 challenging the Order of Suspension by clearly

stating that the Petitioner was not paid Subsistence

Allowance for nearly 52 months and Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature by its Order, dated 12-12-2006

directed the Society to pay the Subsistence

Allowance which is also not paid till date. While so,

the then President of the Society Mr. S. Munisamy

had reinstated the Petitioner with a condition that he

should withdraw W.P. No. 49211/2006 and should also

not seek Subsistence Allowance from 01-07-2002 to

11-02-2007 and accordingly the Petitioner was

reinstated on 12-02-2007 based on the Resolution of

the Board of Society dated 11-02-2007. Meanwhile,

another team of Board of Directors assumed the

Office of the Society and the then President without

any cause of action/reasons had suspended the

Petitioner again on 04-03-2008. Charge memorandum,

dated 30-06-2008 is only about the so-called

commissions that took place from the year 1998 –

2001 which suffers from delay and latches and hence

the entire Charge Memorandum is vitiated for the

purpose of victimizing the Claim Petitioner.

(v) The Enquiry Officer had conducted an ex parte

enquiry without affording a reasonable opportunity

to the petitioner and based on the ex parte Enquiry

Report, dated 22-09-2008 followed by the Board

Resolution, dated 22-09-2008, the Petitioner was

dismissed from service on 30-09-2008 and till date is

without any employment suffering for the next day

meal, was reduced to penury coupled with lot of

family difficulties which could not expressed in terms

of words and was not in a position to apply his mind

to the illegal Order of dismissal from services and

also the breach of trust committed by the Society and

became sole victim for the Political game played by

the Board of Directors of the Society.

(vi) After recovering slightly from the mental

trauma and as nothing progressed, the Petitioner was

left with no other alternative than to knock the

doors of the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry on 09-11-2016 under Section 2-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, to issue Notice to the

Ramanathapuram Co-operative Milk Producers

Society,

Ramanathapuram,

Thondamanatham,

Puducherry to conciliate on the illegal Order of

dismissal, dated 30-09-2008 and prayed to issue a

direction to the Society to reinstate into services with

all back wages and attendant benefits.

(vii) The then Administrator of the Respondent

Society without application of mind had filed the

reply statement, dated 29-11-2016 before the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry and had stated

that “there exists no necessity in the Society to

employ additional staff to run the Society. The

Society is not in a position to reinstate the Petitioner

into services of the Society”. To the said reply

statement, the Petitioner had submitted his

objections, dated 10-12-2016 in which it has been

clearly emphasized that the Respondent Society had

dismissed the Petitioner based on an improper

enquiry report by stating a flimsy and whimsical

reason that the Petitioner was an additional staff who

had rendered regular service and further stating that

there was no revenue to incur the recurring

expenditure of the Respondent Society such as staff

salary, transportation, electricity charges cannot be

a sound reason for non-employment of the Petitioner

in the Respondent Society.

(viii) It is a clear case of victimisation,

non-application of mind of the Respondent Society.

As there was no consensus between the Petitioner

and the Respondent Society on the ground of

re-employment, the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry had submitted a Report of failure of

Conciliation through letter, dated 21-07-2017

addressed to the Secretary to Government (Labour),

Government of Puducherry which was subsequently

published in the Gazette vide Notification, dated

29-08-2017 of Under Secretary to Government

(Labour), Government of Puducherry.

(ix) The Petitioner was made a scape-goat by the

Ramanathapuram Co-operative Milk Producer’s

Society herein for not withdrawing W.P. No. 49211/

2006 and was again suspended from service on

04-03-2008 is a clear case of arbitrariness and

victimization. Hence, the order of Suspension, dated

04-03-2008 and the consequent Order of Termination,

dated 30-09-2008 are mala fide without any

222

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

prima facie grounds. The Enquiry Officer without

affording a reasonable opportunity had conducted an

ex parte enquiry based on the dictums of the then

Board of Directors which is evident from the Enquiry

Report and was terminated from service on

30-09-2008. Thus, the principles of natural justice of

Audi Alteram Partem (No one should be condemned

unheard) had taken a specific beating in this case.

The Enquiry Officer had submitted the Enquiry

Report, dated 22-09-2008 and the order of

Termination, dated 30-09-2008 based on the said

Enquiry Report depicts the fanciful speculation made

out by the Respondent Society in terminating the

Petitioner in a hurried manner.

(x) Hence, the Petitioner prays to direct the

Respondent Society to reinstate the Petitioner into

service with all attendant and consequential benefits

incidental thereto from the date of Termination, dated

30-09-2008 till the date of Petitioner’s reinstatement

into services. Hence the Petition.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

respondent are as follows:

The Ramanathapuram Co-operative Milk Producers

Society is a registered Co-operative Society,

registered under the Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act 1972 and the Rules 1973 made there

under. The registered Co-operative society has got

its own Bye-laws and also registered Subsidiary

Regulations Governing the Service Conditions of the

Employees of the Ramanathapuram Co-operative

Milk Producers Society. Further, the Petitioner was

an employee of the said Society when he was

dismissed from the Society on 30-09-2008, and

therefore, all the provisions contained in the

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972, and

Rule 1973, the Bye-laws of the Society and the

Society Regulations Governing the Service

Conditions of the Employees of the said Society, are

applicable to him also.

(ii) The approved Subsidiary Regulations

Governing the Service conditions of the employees

of the Ramanathapuram Co-operative Milk Producers

Society got various provisions relating to the service

conditions, and also how to suspend an employee

from the Society, powers to appoint the Enquiry

Officer, Presenting Officer and also the procedure to

conduct the Disciplinary Enquiry and how the show

cause notice to be issued to the employees of the

society before giving the punishment in the

disciplinary proceedings, etc., In the Subsidiary

Regulations it is also given who is the competent

Authority to take a disciplinary case, and

accordingly the President of the Society is the

Competent Authority to take disciplinary action

against the employees and in the said Subsidiary

Regulations it is also stated that to whom an Appeal

on the punishment imposed can be filing and the

points to be covered in the Appeal petition, etc.

(iii) According to the provisions contained in the

Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service

Conditions of the employees of the society at page 25,

rule 24(2), the President of the Society is the

Competent Authority to initiate and decide on any

disciplinary proceedings, against the employees of

the Society, following the procedures prescribed in

rule 31 of the Subsidiary Regulations and if the

employee aggrieved by the punishment given by the

President of the Society then those employees can

file an Appeal before the Committee of Management

of the Society, under rule 27 of the said Subsidiary

Regulations Governing the Service Conditions of the

employees of the Society. In the Subsidiary

Regulations under Rule 26, the appointing authority

(the President) of the society may place an employee

under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings

against the employee.

(iv) The Petitioner was dismissed by a Termination

Order on 30-09-2008 after conduct of Disciplinary

Enquiry by a third person and after following all the

procedures enumerated in the Subsidiary Regulations,

by the President of Society, who is the competent

authority to take disciplinary action, as state above.

The Petitioner on receipt of the Termination Order not

filed any appeal before the Committee of

Management of the society as per the procedure

contemplated in the Subsidiary Regulations, under

rule 27, but filed a petition before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry straight away only on

09-11-2016 under section 2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act i.e., after a lapse of 8 years and one

month and 8 days and on failure of the Conciliation,

now this dispute is before this Court.

(v) The Petitioner without exhausting the alternate,

effective and efficacious remedy available in the form

of Appeal before the Committee of Management of

the Society, or Revision under Section 141 of the

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972, before

the Registrar of Co-operative Societies filed petition

before the Conciliation Officer in the Labour

Department. It is a well settled law that an aggrieved

employee should first exhaust the alternate, effective

and efficacious remedy at the lower lever before

coming for higher forum. Similarly, it is up to the

delinquent employee to prefer Revision before the

223

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the

Administrative side or comes under the Industrial

Disputes Act under the labour laws. Whereas the

delinquent employee, the Petitioner should have filed

an appeal petition before the Committee of

Management of the Society, as stated in the

subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service

Condition of the Society, before stepping into the

other alternate forum to get his grievance redressed,

which was not done by the Petitioner, and for that

only reason the Dispute petition should be dismissed

in limine.

(vi) The Petitioner was dismissed from the service

of the Society on 30-09-2008 after conducting the

disciplinary enquiry in which the Petitioner was not

participated in spite of the summon issued by the

Enquiry Officer to participate in the enquiry. The

Petitioner filed the petition before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry only on 09-11-2016 that is

after a lapse of 8 years, 1 month and 9 days, it shows

that the Petitioner has accepted the punishment of

dismissal. Further, the Petitioner has also not

submitted any Appeal Petition before the Committee

of Management of the Society under the provisions

of the Subsidiary Regulations, and also not submitted

any representation/reply for the show cause notice

issued to him, to show cause why punishment should

not be imposed to him. Therefore, the dismissal order

issued by the President of the Society to the

Petitioner, is legally correct and therefore there is no

need to set-aside the impugned order.

(vii) The Petitioner even after receipt of the

dismissal order, not submitted any representation to

consider his dismissal and stated any reason for not

participated in the Disciplinary Enquiry, to the

Disciplinary authority namely the President of the

Society. It means the Petitioner accepted the

dismissal order and only after a period of 8 years, he

has initiated to file a petition in this regard before

the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry under

the Labour law. It shows that the Petitioner has

accepted the dismissal order and kept quiet for a long

period of 8 years and more and therefore he is

estopped, from filing this dispute petition before this

Court.

(viii) The application referred to in sub-section (2)

shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before

the expiry of 3 years from the date of discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise Termination of

service as specified in sub-section (1). The dispute

petition is filed after more than 8 years of the

dismissal and therefore liable to be dismissed in

limine.

(ix) The Petitioner himself given a letter accepting

to forgo the Subsistence Allowance the Petitioner

accepted to withdraw the case filed before the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras under

W.P. No. 49211/2006 during the discussion held by

the President and the Committee of management of

the society and submitted a letter in this regard on

10-02-2007, stating that he will withdraw the case filed

by him before the Hon’ble High Court, but, the

Petitioner not acted accordingly and the President of

the Society given reminder letters to the Petitioner

but he has not responded for the same but continued

to work in the Society and received the salary for the

period worked in the Society. The Hon’ble High Court

of Madras dismissed the W.P.49211/2006 stating the

reason that “dismissed for non-prosecution” on

27-06-2014.

(x) As per the Bye-law of the Society only a

member who have participated in the business of the

Society, i.e., supply of Milk and the prescribed liter

of the Milk in the previous financial year and then

only his/her name can be included in the Eligible

voter list. Those members name found in the Eligible

voter list alone can contest in the election and/or

vote for the Director Post. The main cause for the

Law and Order situation arise in the area of operation

of the Village is the President included the name of

one C. Vijayalatchumi Member No. 31 in the voter list

by falsification and correction of the members

payment and procurement ledgers, so as to show

that, she is eligible to voter and contest in the

Society election. The same was done by the Petitioner

for the reason known to him. Due to the illegal and

unwarranted things done in the ledgers, a quarrel

was started among the members, since she contested

and her nomination also accepted. The elections was

stopped and therefore the new Committee of

Management of the Society could not enter into the

office and therefore, Administrator was appointed to

the Society to look after the day to day affairs of the

Society by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

The Administrator, assumed office and checked the

accounts of the society and found out that the paid

Secretary made corrections in the members milk

payment registers, by overwriting, striking out the

figures written earlier, and removing the written

letters by blade and erase the same, etc., Therefore,

he issued a memorandum to the petitioner on

01-06-2002 and again on 25-06-2002. The

Memorandum, dated 25-06-2002 served in person by

the Administrator of the Society was not received by

the Petitioner and refused to receive the same, which

is insubordination and disobedience of the orders of

the superior which amount to be Misconduct under

224

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

the Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service

Condition of the employees of the Society. Since the

Paid Secretary the Petitioner, not submitted any reply

till 29.06.2002 the Petitioner was suspended from the

service of the Society with effect from 29-06-2002.

(xi) After the election was conducted and new

committee of Management assumed office and the

President of Society, continued the matter stated

above and issued a memorandum to the Petitioner on

16-10-2002 as the Paid Secretary, he is responsible

for the maintenance of the Ledgers/documents of the

Society, stating that the reply called for by the

Administrator was not submitted till date, and

therefore further time of 7 days was given to the

petitioner, to submit his explanation for the show

cause notice issued to him. The Petitioner, the Paid

Secretary of the Society who was under suspension,

not responded for the memorandum issued calling for

his explanation, by the President of the Society,

which also amounts to insubordination and

disobedience of the orders of the superior leads to

Misconduct under the Subsidiary Regulations

Governing the Service Condition of the employees

of the Society.

(xii) The Petitioner was called for and the matter

was discussed before the Deputy Registrar (Milk)

and arrived a solution, and accordingly the

Petitioner, Thiru S. Murugan submitted a letter, dated

10-02-2007 to the President of the Society with the

following conditions:

(1) The case Number W.P.49211/2006 filed by

him before the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature, will be withdrawn by him.

(2) Milk tester posted to be given to him with

effect from 16-02-2007.

(3) Basic pay should be fixed as ` 1,360.

(4) Subsistence Allowance for the period from

01-07-2002 to 30-09-2002 that is for the month

of July, August and September should be

given.

(5) Bonus for the year 2001-2002 to be paid to

him.

(6) Salary for the month of June 2022 to be paid.

(7) Bonus for the period from 01-04-2002 to

30-09-2002 to be paid.

(8) The amount to be paid by him to the Society

will be paid by him.

(9) The Subsistence Allowance for the period

from 01-10-2002 to 15-02-2007 will not be

asked or claimed by the Petitioner.

(xiii) Based on the letter of Thiru S. Murugan, and

the decision taken by the committee of Management

of the Society, Office Order was issued to the

petitioner on 15-02-2007 appointing him as the Milk

Tester in the Society with effect from 16-02-2007.

The Petitioner also accepted the order and

received and acknowledged the same. The Petitioner

Thiru S. Murugan also submitted a letter on

15-02-2007 accepting to work as the Milk Tester with

effect from 16-02-2007.

(xiv) The first condition of withdrawing the Writ

Petition by the Petitioner was not fulfilled by him in

spite of the Management executed the conditions like

payment of Subsistence Allowance, Bonus, Salary

and Posting as the Milk Tester etc., to him. The Writ

Petition is found to be dismissed for non-prosecution

only on 27th June 2014. The Petitioner not

responded and given any reply. The Petitioner is the

habit of non respond to any letter/memorandum

issued to him from the beginning of the memorandum

issued by the Administrator till the Petitioner was

dismissed from the service of the Society.

(xv) Since, the Petitioner not submitted any reply

it was decided to initiate the Disciplinary action, and

therefore, a memorandum of charges was issued to

him vide memorandum, dated 30-06-2008. On perusal

of the Enquiry Report, submitted by the Enquiry

Officer on 22-09-2008, page 4 of the Enquiry Report

it is understood that the Petitioner was not appeared

for the enquiry on 29-07-2008 up to 1.45 A.m and

therefore, in the interest of natural justice one more

chance was given and instructed to appear on

06-08-2008, but, the Petitioner delinquent official not

appeared for the enquiry and therefore, the Enquiry

Officer concluded the enquiry without the presence

of the Petitioner. On perusal of the Enquiry Report

the Enquiry Officer stated that out of 13 charges

framed 12 charges are proved and one charge

regarding his qualification and appointment only

partly proved. Out of 13 charges 12 charges are

found to be proved. This Respondent also submits

that all the charges are found to be proved by

documentary evidence.

(xvi) Even if it is taken as the old commissions

taken place from 1998 to 2001, the Petitioner not

denied by way of documentary evidence to show that

the irregularities was not done by him at least in the

claim petition. The petition filed under Section 2 A

of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 only on

09-11-2016, that is after a lapse of 8 years, 1 month

and 9 days of the final orders issued to the Petitioner.

225

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

The Petitioner filed the petition only on 09-11-2016

and therefore, the amendment of section 2 in the year

2010 is applicable and accordingly, the application

referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the

Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three

years from the date of discharge, Dismissal,

Retrenchment or otherwise Termination of service as

specified in sub-section (1). The Respondent

therefore prays that this Court may dismiss the

petition as a time barred one. By issuing proper

charge memorandum, conducted enquiry and based

on the findings of the Enquiry Report, speaking show

cause notice was issued by the President, and since

the Petitioner not responded for the show cause

notice, proper final orders on the basis of the merit

of the case was issued and therefore, the legal order

issued to the Petitioner dismissing from the service

of the Society, is maintainable under the law.

Therefore, the prayer to direct the Respondent

Society to reinstate the claim Petitioner into service

with all attendant and consequential benefits

incidental thereto from the date of Termination, dated

30-09-2008 till the date of the Petitioners reinstatement

into services should be dismissed in limine.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner employee is entitled for

an order of reinstatement with full back wages and

all attendant and consequential benefits as claimed

in the claim petition?

5. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1

to P15 were marked. On Respondent side no witness

examined. Ex.R1 to R14 were marked during the

cross-examination of PW.1. Written Arguments filed

on Respondent side.

6. On the point:

On the side of the Respondent Management of

the Society, it is contended that the petition under

section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act moved by the

Petitioner before the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry directly on 09-11-2016, i.e., after a lapse

of 8 years 1 month and 8 days. On failure, the

dispute is referred by the Government of Puducherry

to this Court under the reference. Therefore, he

concluded that application under section 2-A of

Industrial Disputes Act, it should be made before the

expiry of 3 years from date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in sub-section (1). Thus, he prayed to

dismiss this application which was filed after 8 years

of his dismissal.

7. Petition under section 2-A of Industrial Disputes

Act filed by the Petitioner before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government of Puducherry, on

09-11-2016. Whereas, he was dismissed from service on

30-09-2008. The Conciliation was ended in failure. Based

on the Failure report, the said reference made by the

Labour Department, Government of Puducherry to this

Court on 29-08-2017. These are admitted positions on

either side.

8. On close and careful perusal, I could find that

section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act has been

inserted and thereafter amended by inserting

sub-section 1 and 2. As per the Amendment which was

made in the year 2010, the dismissed employee can

directly approach the Labour Officer (Conciliation) for

his relief by way of filing an application under section

2-A of Industrial Disputes Act. The dismissed employee

can approach directly the Labour Court after expiry of

45 days from the date of application under section 2-A

of Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation). This Amendment in the year 2010 which

enables the dismissed worker to approach the Labour

Court directly without waiting for the result of the

Conciliation beyond 45 days. Only in such

circumstances, to avail this protection to approach the

Labour Court directly, the dismissed worker ought to

have approach the Labour Court within 3 years from the

date of his dismissal. But, in this case, the dismissed

worker filed an application under section 2-A of

Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government of Puducherry and waited

for the decision in the said conciliation. Since, the

Labour Officer (Conciliation), submitted a Failure Report,

the present reference was made to this Court for

disposal. Petitioner herein did not rush to this Court

pending conciliation proceedings. Only the Government

has referred the industrial dispute under sub-section (1)

of sec 10 of Industrial Disputes Act after the conciliation

ended in failure. Therefore, the Respondent argument

that industrial dispute should be filed within 3 years

from the date of dismissal does not applicable in the

instant case and the objection in this regard made on

the side of the Management Society is not sustainable

and thus rejected.

9. The next point of defence placed on the side of

Management Society is that the Petitioner has come to

this Court with an inordinate delay, i.e., 8 years from

the date of his dismissal. Admittedly, his date of

dismissal was 30-09-2008. He approached the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, only on 09-11-2016.

During arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for

Petitioner submitted a case law reported in 1999 (2) SCR

505 wherein, it is held that “the provisions of Article 137

226

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not

applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial

Disputes Act and that the relief under it cannot be

denied to the workman nearly on the ground of

delay.......... No reference to the Labour Court can be

generally questioned on the ground of delay alone.

Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing,

the Tribunal, Labour Court or Board, dealing with the

case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to

grant back wages to the workmen till the date he raised

the demand regarding this illegal retrenchment/

termination or dismissal.”

10. On this point of delayed demand, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Sri. Prabhakar vs. Joint

Director, Sericulture ... on 7th September, 2015 held that,

Para 40. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we

summarise the legal position as under:

Para 41. An industrial dispute has to be referred

by the appropriate Government for adjudication and

the workman cannot approach the Labour Court or

Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases

which are covered by section 2-A of the Act.

Reference is made under section 10 of the Act in

those cases where the appropriate Government forms

an opinion that ‘any industrial dispute exists or is

apprehended’. The words ‘industrial dispute exists’

are of paramount importance unless there is an

existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is

apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may

arise in near future), no reference is to be made. Thus,

existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is

a sine qua non for making the reference. No doubt,

at the time of taking a decision whether a reference

is to be made or not, the appropriate Government is

not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of

reference is only an administrative function. At the

same time, on the basis of material on record,

satisfaction of the existence of the industrial dispute

or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is

necessary. Such existence/apprehension of industrial

dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though

it will be only subjective satisfaction based on

material on record. Since, we are not concerned with

the satisfaction dealing with cases where there is

apprehended industrial dispute, discussion that

follows would confine to existence of an industrial

dispute. Dispute or difference arises when one party

make a demand and other party rejects the same. It

is held by this Court in number of cases that before

raising the industrial dispute making of demand is a

necessary pre-condition. In such a scenario, if, the

services of a workman are terminated and he does

not make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging

wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within

reasonable time and raises the same after considerable

lapse of period, whether it can be said that industrial

dispute still exist. Since, there is no period of

limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the

dispute even belatedly. However, if, the dispute is

raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to

whether such a dispute still exists? Thus,

notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does

not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that

there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he

has to demonstrate that even if, considerable period

has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such

delay has not resulted into making the industrial

dispute seized to exist. Therefore, if, the workman is

able to give satisfactory explanation for these laches

and delays, and demonstrate that the circumstances

discloses that issue is still alive, delay would not

come in his way because of the reason that law of

limitation has no application. On the other hand, if,

because of such delay dispute no longer remains

alive and is to be treated as “dead”, then it would

be non-existent dispute which cannot be referred.

…......where there was no agitation by the workman

against his termination and the dispute is raised

belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained,

it would be presumed that he had waived his right

or acquiesced into the act of termination and,

therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it

had become stale and was not an ‘existing dispute’.

In such circumstances, the appropriate Government

can refuse to make reference. In the alternative, the

Labour Court/Industrial Court can also hold that

there is no “industrial dispute” within the meaning

of section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can

be granted.

Para 42. To summarise, although, there is no

limitation prescribed under the Act for making a

reference under section 10(1) of the Act, yet it is for

the ‘appropriate Government’ to consider whether it

is expedient or not to make the reference. The words

‘at any time’ used in section 10(1) do not admit of

any limitation in making an order of reference and

laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings

under the Act. However, the policy of industrial

adjudication is that very stale claims should not be

generally encouraged or allowed in as much as

unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as,

apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from

the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time,

it is necessary also to take into account the

unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the

employers’ financial arrangement and to avoid

dislocation of an industry.

227

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Para 43. On the application of the aforesaid

principle to the facts of the present case, we are of

the view that High Court correctly decided the issue

holding that the reference at such a belated stage,

i.e., after fourteen years of termination without any

justifiable explanation for delay, the appropriate

Government had not jurisdiction or power to make

reference of a non-existing dispute.

11. By applying the above dictum held by our

Hon’ble Apex Court in the present case, the time taken

for the petitioner to approach the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) was more than 8 years from the date of

his dismissal without any justifiable explanation for

delay. From the available records, it could be seen that

the delay or laches remain unexplained. The claim

Petitioner failed to give satisfactory explanation for

these laches and delays. He has also failed to

demonstrate that the industrial dispute is still alive

and delay would not come in his way because of the

reason that law of limitation has no application. Under

these facts and circumstance, I hold that reference at

such a belated stage, i.e., after 8 years of termination

without any justifiable explanation for delay is not

maintainable.

12. Next, comes the question, whether when there

is a specific provision for Appeal on any order such as

dismissal in the Regulations/Rules of the Respondent

Milk Co-operative Society, the Petitioner employee of

the said Co-operative Society can file an industrial

dispute directly and approach the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) without exhausting the efficacious

alternative remedy available under the Regulation of the

Respondent Co-operative Society is the short but

complex question.

13. On this point, it is contended on the side of the

Respondent Management of the Society that the

Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service

Conditions of the employees of the Society at page 25,

Rule 24(2), the President of the Society is the Competent

Authority to initiate and decide on any disciplinary

proceedings, against the employees of the Society,

following the procedures prescribed in Rule 31 of the

Subsidiary Regulations and if, the employee aggrieved

by the punishment given by the President of the Society

then those employees can file an Appeal before the

Committee of Management of the Society, under Rule 27

of the said Subsidiary Regulations Governing the

Service Conditions of the employees of the Society. In

the Subsidiary Regulations under Rule 26, the

Appointing Authority (the President) of the Society

may place an employee under suspension pending

disciplinary proceedings against the employee. He also

referred the same during his arguments.

14. Thus, it is submitted that the Petitioner without

exhausting the alternate, effective and efficacious

remedy available in the form of Appeal before the

Committee of Management of the Society, or Revision

under section 141 of the Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act 1972, before the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies filed this dispute petition before the

Conciliation Officer in the Labour Department. It is a

well settled law that an aggrieved employee should first

exhaust the alternate, effective and efficacious remedy

at the lower lever before coming for higher forum.

Similarly, it is up to the delinquent employee to prefer

Revision before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

under the Administrative side or comes under the

Industrial Disputes Act under the Labour laws.

15. Further, it is argued that the condition of

withdrawing the Writ Petition by the Petitioner was not

fulfilled by him in spite of the Management executed

the conditions like payment of Subsistence Allowance,

Bonus, Salary and Posting as the Milk Tester, etc., to

him. The W.P.49211/2006 is found to be dismissed for

non-prosecution only on 27th June 2014 (Ex.R8). The

Petitioner had not responded and given any reply. The

Petitioner is the habit of non-responding to any Letter/

Memorandum issued to him from the beginning of the

Memorandum issued by the Administrator till the

Petitioner was dismissed from the service of the Society.

Since, the Petitioner had not submitted any reply it was

decided to initiate the Disciplinary Action, and

therefore, a Memorandum of charges was issued to him

vide Memorandum, dated 30-06-2008. It is further

submitted by the Respondent Society Counsel that on

perusal of the Enquiry Report, submitted by the Enquiry

Officer on 22-09-2008, it is understood that the Petitioner

was not appeared for the enquiry on 29-07-2008 and

therefore, in the interest of natural justice one more

chance was given and instructed to appear on

06-08-2008, but, the Petitioner delinquent official not

appeared for the enquiry and therefore, the Enquiry

Officer concluded the enquiry without the presence of

the Petitioner. In the Enquiry Report it is stated that

out of 13 charges framed 12 charges are proved and one

charge regarding his qualification and appointment only

partly proved.

16. Further, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the

Respondent Milk Society even if, it is taken as the old

commissions taken place from 1998 to 2001, the

Petitioner not denied by way of documentary evidence

to show that the irregularities was not done by him at

least in the claim petition. The petition filed under

section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only

on 09-11-2016, that is after a lapse of 8 years, 1 month

and 9 days of the final orders issued to the Petitioner.

228

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

By issuing proper charge Memorandum, conducted

enquiry and based on the findings of the Enquiry

Report, speaking show cause notice was issued by the

President, and since the Petitioner not responded for

the show cause notice, proper final orders on the basis

of the merit of the case was issued and therefore, the

legal order issued to the Petitioner dismissing from the

service of the Society, is maintainable under the law.

17. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the

parties and perused the material available on record on

this issue. Factually, in the present case, the disciplinary

proceeding against the employee was initiated and the

Enquiry Report was submitted wherein, the charges

Nos. 1 and 12 were found to be proved. Since, there

was no question of recording of any disagreement with

the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, a show

cause notice (Ex.R13) was subsequently served upon

the Petitioner and thereby Petitioner was given an

opportunity for personal hearing as well. But, he did

not participate in the Domestic Enquiry and no

explanation offered to the Respondent Society.

Thereafter, an order of punishment was passed by the

Society. No explanation given by the Petitioner on the

show cause notice issued upon him on the charges. No

explanation given on the show cause notice issued

upon him on the point of Punishment. It is also not

proved by the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer

without affording a reasonable opportunity had

conducted an ex parte enquiry based on the dictums

of the then Board of Directors.

18. I find that the Termination order passed by the

President of the Society, dated 30-09-2008 Ex.R14 is an

appealable order under Regulation 27 (1) of the

Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service

Conditions of the employees of the Society. Any person

who feels aggrieved by any decision or order passed

by the Adjudicating Authority, is required to file an

appeal before the Appellate Authority (The Board)

within a period of 60 days. I further find that the order

which is assailed before this Court, can be challenged

before the Appellate Authority. The grounds which

have been urged before this Court, can also be raised

by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

19. Thus, from perusal of Regulation 27 (1) of the

Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service

Conditions of the employees of the Society, it is evident

that if aggrieved with the punishment passed by the

President of the Society, Petitioner ought to have

preferred an Appeal before the Board for further

adjudication. But, no Appeal preferred by him as

against his Termination order Ex.R14. In view of the fact

that the Petitioner has had an alternative efficacious

remedy to raise the dispute under Regulation 27 (1) of

the Subsidiary Regulations Governing the Service

Conditions of the employees of the Society, but, failed

to prefer the same, the Claim Petitioner has failed to

show to this Court that he is entitled for the claim of

reinstatement. Having not participated in the Enquiry

proceedings and left the matter to be decided and slept

over on his opportunities to give explanations while it

was called for by the Management of the Society on

various occasions even thereafter, i.e., after the lapse

of more than 8 years from the date of his dismissal, in

absence of any reason for such an inordinate delay,

the claim for reinstatement made by the Petitioner is not

maintainable on any valid grounds. Moreover, the

domestic enquiry held and 12 charges out of 13 were

proved according to EX.P7 (Enquiry Report). It clearly

speaks about the opportunities given for the Petitioner

to submit his defence version before the Enquiry

Officer, but, he who failed to utilize the same for no

reasons. Even in his claim Petition he did not state the

reason for his non-participation in the Domestic enquiry.

From EX.P6, it could be seen that the enquiry was

conducted by following the Principles of Natural

Justice. Hence, from all the above discussions and

findings, I am not inclined to pass any order in his

favour. Thus, the point for determination is decided as

against the Claim Petitioner.

20. In the result, the Reference is decided as

unjustified and the industrial dispute is dismissed.

No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 22nd day of November 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 20-01-2020

Murugan

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1

— 12-12-2006

Photocopy of the Order

passed in W.P. No. 49211/

2006.

Ex.P2

— 12-02-2007

Photocopy of the Letter

issued by Ramanathapuram

Co-operative Milk Producers

Society to the Registrar

(Co-operative Department,

Puducherry).

229

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.P3

— 15-02-2007

Photocopy of the Office Order

issued by Ramanathapuram

Co-operative Milk Producers

Society to the Petitioner

S. Murugan.

Ex.P4

— 24-02-2008

Photocopy of the letter

issued by Ramanathapuram

Co-operative

Milk

Producers Society to the

Petitioner S. Murugan.

Ex.P5

— 04-03-2008

Photocopy

the

Suspension Order issued

by the Ramanathapuram

Co-operative

Milk

Producers Society to the

Petitioner S. Murugan.

Ex.P6

— 30-06-2008

Photocopy of the Charge

Memorandum given to

S. Murugan (under Suspension).

Ex.P7

— 22-09-2008

Photocopy of the Enquiry

Report.

Ex.P8

— 22-09-2008

Photocopy of the Second

Show Cause notice.

Ex.P9

— 30-09-2008

Photocopy of the Order of

Termination issued by

t h e R a m a n a t h a p u r a m

Co-operative Milk Producers

Society.

Ex.P10 — 09-11-2016

Photocopy of the petition,

filed u/s. 2-A of ID Act, by

the Petitioner before the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P11 — 29-11-2016

Photocopy of the reply

statement filed by the

Respondent

before

the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P12 — 10-12-2016

Photocopy

the

objections filed by the

Petitioner before the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P13 — 19-01-2017

Photocopy

the

Additional Reply Statement

by the Respondent before

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P14 — 21-07-2017

Photocopy of the Failure

Report.

Ex.P15 — 29-08-2018

Photocopy of the Reference

notice issued by the Labour

Department, Puducherry in

G.O.Rt.No.135/AIL/Lab./

2017.

List of respondent’s witnesses: Nil

List of respondent’s exhibits:

Ex.R1

— —

Photocopy of Bye-laws of

the Society.

Ex.R2

— —

Photocopy of the Transfer

Certificate of the Petitioner

S. Murugan.

Ex.R3

— 30-06-2008

Photocopy of the Charge

Memorandum given to

S. Murugan.

Ex.R4

— 16-10-2002

Photocopy of the Show

Cause notice.

Ex.R5

— 29-06-2002

Photocopy of the Suspension

Order

issued

the

Petitioner.

Ex.R6

— —

Photocopy of the Order

issued to the Petitioner for

terminating from the service

of the Society with effect

from 01-10-2022.

Ex.R7

— —

Photocopy of the Affidavit

filed by the Petitioner

before the Hon'ble High

Court, Madras.

Ex.R8

— 20-12-2006

Photocopy of the Order in

W.P.49211/2006 passed by

the Hon'ble High Court,

Madras.

Ex.R9

— 10-02-2007

Photocopy of the letter

sent by the Petitioner to

t h e

P r e s i d e n t

o f

the

Ramanathapuram

C o - o p e r a t i v e

M i l k

Producers Society.

Ex.R10 — 15-02-2007

Photocopy of the Office

O r d e r

i s s u e d

b y

t h e

R a m a n a t h a p u r a m

Co-operative

Milk

Producers Society to the

Petitioner.

230

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

Ex.R11 — 24-02-2008

Photocopy of the letter

s e n t b y t h e P r e s i d e n t

o f

R a m a n a t h a p u r a m

C o - o p e r a t i v e

M i l k

Producers Society to the

Petitioner.

Ex.R12 — 18-07-2008

Photocopy of the letter

s e n t b y t h e P r e s i d e n t

o f

R a m a n a t h a p u r a m

C o - o p e r a t i v e

M i l k

P r o d u c e r s S o c i e t y t o

S. Rajangam.

Ex.R13 — 22-07-2008

Photocopy of the notice of

hearing issued by the

Enquiry Officer to the

Petitioner.

Ex.R14 — 30-09-2008

Photocopy

the

Termination Order of the

Petitioner issued by the

President, Ramanathapuram

C o - o p e r a t i v e

M i l k

Producers Society.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT

(HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION)

(G.O. Ms. No. 10, Puducherry, the 21st February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred under Central

Civil Service Rules (CCA) 1965, the Disciplinary

Authority imposed the major penalty of ‘Compulsory

Retirement’ under rule 11 of Central Civil Service (CCA)

Rules on Dr. A. Arul Jothi, Assistant Professor of History,

Tagore Government Arts and Science College,

Puducherry, with immediate effect, vide Order No. C.

13011/06/2020-CVO/379, dated 31-01-2023 of the Chief

Vigilance Office, Confidential and Cabinet Department,

Puducherry.

2. Accordingly, Dr. A. Arul Jothi, Assistant Professor

of History, Tagore Government Arts and Science College,

Puducherry, is admitted into ‘Compulsory Retirement’

with effect from the afternoon of 31-01-2023.

(By order)

M. V. HIRAN,

Under Secretary to Government,

(Higher and Technical Education).

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 12/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 22nd February 2023]

NOTIFICATION

The Notice of voluntary retirement given under

rule 48-A of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972

by Tmt. S. Santhi, Superintendent, Department of

Women and Child Development, Puducherry, is

accepted.

2. Accordingly, she stands retired from service with

effect from the afternoon of 23-01-2023.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government (Personnel).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 13/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 22nd February 2023]

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation, the following

Superintendents shall retire from service with effect from

the afternoon of 28-02-2023.

Sl.

Name of the Official and

No.

Department/Office

(1)

(2)

Thiru V. Senguttuvan, Superintendent,

Directorate of School Education,

Puducherry.

Thiru A. Saktynarayanane, Superintendent,

Department of Art and Culture,

Puducherry.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government (Personnel).

231

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

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

®ı 1308/\VƒVg/ÔVÁ´/Ê3/2023.

∂§s¬ÁÔ

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

W√Õ>Á™ (2)án >V∫Ô^ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬ÔV>Á> ∂§B°D.

kˆÁƒ

ÂÔ´/\Æ

WÈ›][

WÈ Œ©√Á¶

®ı

�ÆD xÔkˆ

∂·Ák ®ı

√´©√·°

gÁð ®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«. g.

ƒV.

®ı 14, ˇwÔVƒVzΩ kÚkVF ˛´V\D

1/2á13/111

158/04á05

∂]ÔVˆl¶D xÁ≈l¶ÈVD.

∑.

∑. √V¸Ô´[,

√V¸Ô´[,

mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 23/Lab./AIL/T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 23rd February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. REIL Electricals India Limited, Puducherry and

REIL Employees Union, over charter of demands

regarding wage revision and other allied welfare

measures, in respect of the matter mentioned in the

Annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is

necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated

vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV

of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to

Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred

to the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, for adjudication.

The Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, shall submit the

Award within 3 months from the date of issue of

reference as stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of

section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in

accordance with rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. The party raising the dispute shall

file a statement of claim complete with relevant

documents, list of reliance and witnesses to the

Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, within 15 days of the

receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy

of such statement to each one of the opposite parties

involved in the dispute.

232

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

ANNEXURE

(i) Whether the dispute raised by the REIL

Employees Union, against the management of

M/s. REIL Electricals India Limited, Puducherry,

over charter of demands with regard to wage revision

and other allied welfare measures is justified or not?

If justified, to give appropriate direction?

(ii) To what other relief, the workmen represented

by the Union are entitled to?

(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 24/Lab./AIL/T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 23rd February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. Superfil Products Private Limited, Puducherry

and the Superfil Products Workers Union, over leave

entitlement, in respect of the matter mentioned in the

Annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is

necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated

vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV

of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to

Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred

to the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, for adjudication.

The Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, shall submit the

Award within 3 months from the date of issue of

reference as stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of

section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in

accordance with rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. The party raising the dispute shall

file a statement of claim complete with relevant

documents, list of reliance and witnesses to the

Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry, within 15 days of the

receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy

of such statement to each one of the opposite parties

involved in the dispute.

ANNEXURE

(i) Whether the dispute raised by the Superfil

Products Workers Union, against the management of

M/s. Superfil Products Private Limited, Uruvaiyar,

Mangalam Road, Puducherry, over leave entitlement

to Thiruvalargal (1) K. Muthusamy, (2) M. Umapathy,

(3) C. Murugan and (4) S. Anjapuli, for a period of

2 days during May 2020 and 2 days during June 2020

is justified or not?

(ii) If justified, to what relief, the workers

represented by the Union are entitled to?

(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 25/Lab./AIL/T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 23rd February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Government is of the opinion that an

industrial dispute has arisen between the management

of M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering Private Limited,

Puducherry and the Petitioner Thiru T. Jayakumar, over

his non-employment with continuity of service along

with back wages and other attendant benefits, in respect

of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this order;

And whereas, in the opinion of the Government, it is

necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority delegated

vide G.O. Ms. No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to exercise the powers

conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV

of 1947), it is hereby directed by the Secretary to

Government (Labour) that the said dispute be referred

to the Labour Court, Puducherry, for adjudication. The

Labour Court, Puducherry, shall submit the Award

within 3 months from the date of issue of reference as

stipulated under sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in accordance with

rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957. The party raising the dispute shall file a statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses to the Labour Court, Puducherry,

233

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

within 15 days of the receipt of the order of reference

and also forward a copy of such statement to each one

of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

ANNEXURE

(i) Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner

Thiru T. Jayakumar, against the management of

M/s. Gencor Pacific Auto Engineering Private Limited,

Thirubuvanai, Puducherry, over non-employment

with continuity of service along with back wages and

other attendant benefits is justified or not?

(ii) If justified, to what relief, the petitioner is

entitled in this dispute?

(iii) To compute the relief if any, awarded in terms

of money if, it can be so computed.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (POWER)

DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 11, Puducherry, dated 24th February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation,

Thiru S. Pazhanisamy, Executive Engineer (CDC), Rural

(South) O&M, Electricity Department, Puducherry, is

admitted into retirement with effect from the afternoon

of 31-03-2023.

(By order)

S. MURUGESAN,

Under Secretary to Government (Power).

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sivapragasam, K, son of Kothandapani, Service

No. JC-724480A NB/Sub, aged 63 years, residing

at No. 26, 7th Cross Extension, Rainbow Nagar,

Puducherry-605 011, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm and state on oath as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and made this

affidavit on behalf of me.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasam K’

in my Pension Payment Order, issued by the Office

of the Principal, C.D.A. (Pensions), Allahabad,

bearing PPO No. S/052059/2000 (ARMY).

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasam K’

(Construction Helper) in my Government of

Puducherry, issued by the Directorate of Accounts

and Treasuries bearing PPO No. DAT/Pen-I/A2/2020/

PPO No. NPS-550/478, dated 29-06-2020.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasam K’

in my Discharge Certificate Book, issued by the

Indian Army.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasam K’

in my ECHS Card, issued by ECHS Bhavan,

New Delhi bearing No. CH 0000 0346 2686,

dated 08-05-2019.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasame’

in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card, issued by

the Election Commission of India bearing

No. KVY0411017, dated 19-10-2020.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasam K’

in my Transfer Certificate, issued by the Jeevanandam

Government High School, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry

bearing Sl.No. 27265, dated 22-05-1978.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragassame’

in my Bank Passbook, issued by the Indian Bank,

Bussy Street Branch, Puducherry bearing Account

No. XXXXX4322, dated 04-02-2000.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragassame K’

in my Aadhaar Card, issued by the Unique Identification

Authority of India bearing No. XXXX XXXX 3869.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasam’

in my PAN Card, issued by the Income-tax Department,

Government of India bearing No. ECPPS2627C, dated

04-02-2017.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragassame’

in my Birth Certificate issued by Pondicherry

Municipality, Puducherry bearing No. PM/P/1960/

000175, dated 24-05-1960.

I state that my name is entered as ‘K Sivapragasam’

in my Grocery Card, issued by the Government of

India bearing No. GB05030676130200R02.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Sivapragasam K’

in my Indentity Card, issued by the Kendriya Sainik

Board, Ministry of Defence, Puducherry, bearing

No. PDY-0 1-1680.

in my Family Ration Card, issued by the Department

of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry

bearing No. 126175, dated 19-03-2020.

Hence, I submit that the names described in the

above records as ‘Sivapragasam K’, ‘K Sivapragasam’,

one and the same person i.e., myself only.

234

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

F i n a l l y, I d e c l a r e m y c o r r e c t n a m e i s

‘Sivapragassame K’ only.

The above statements in the foregoing paragraphs

is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 21st day of February 2023.

562246

K. SIVAPRAGASAM.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Vadivelan, presently transgender, previously son

of Iyyavu and Loganayagy, at present residing at the

house situated at No. 49, Mariamman Kovil Street,

Panayadikuppam, Puducherry-605 106, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm to whomsoever it may

concern as follows:

That I am the deponent herein. I state that I was

born as a male, as such in my Certificate of Birth,

under Registration No. C/1996/00011, registered with

the Bahour Commune Panchayat, Puducherry my

name has been mentioned as ‘Vadivelan’.

In my Secondary School Leaving Certificate under

Sl.No. SEC9452579, in my Higher Secondary Course

Certificate under Sl.No. HSG7981883, and in my

School Transfer Certificate under Admission No. 5137,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Vadivelan.I’.

In the College Transfer Certificate under Serial

No. 976485, my name has been mentioned as

‘I.Vedivelan’.

Further, I state that later, I have transformed myself

into third gender through proper surgery and became

a transgender, as such In the Sex Reassignment

Surgery (male to female) Certificate, dated 20-06-2017,

issued by the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and

Research Institute, Puducherry, my name has been

mentioned as ‘Rithika’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No. XXXX XXXX 0065,

and in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card under

No. AJJ0065177, my name has been mentioned as

‘Rithika (ˆ]¬ÔV)’.

In my Savings Account Passbook, issued by the

Indian Bank, Microsate Branch, my name has been

mentioned as ‘Rithika’.

In my PAN Card under No. BACPL5121L, my name

has been mentioned as ‘Rithika’.

In the Family Ration Card under No. 471058, my

name has been mentioned as ‘ˆ]¬ÔV’.

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 henceforth I shall be known and

identified only the name with initial as ‘I.Rithika’

(n.ˆ›]¬ÔV) 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 sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 22nd day of

February 2023.

562248

I. VADIVELAN.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, C.Djiva, son of Codandabani, residing at

No. A1, First Floor, Ganapathi Ramaraja Apartment,

Third Cross Street, Ganapathi Nagar, Thanthai Periyar

Nagar Extension, Nellithope, Puducherry-605 005, do

hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as

follows:

That I am the deponent herein and I well known

the facts of my deposition.

I state that in my Birth Certificate, dated 29-09-2016

bearing No. 78/1999, issued by Registrar of Births and

Deaths, Ariyankuppam Commune Panchayat,

Puducherry, my name has been mentioned as ‘Djiva’.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘C Djiva,

in my Aadhaar Card bearing No. XXXX XXXX 5324,

issued by the Unique Identification Authority of

India and the name ‘Djiva’ has been mentioned in my

Elector’s Photo Identity Card bearing No.

ZHN0207571, issued by Electoral Registration Officer,

Kathirkamam Assembly Constituency, Puducherry.

Further, in my Savings Account Passbook of

Indian Bank bearing No. XXXXX344-2, my name has

been entered as ‘Jeeva C’.

Further, I state that in my ICICI Demat Account,

bearing No. XXXXXX3861, my name has been

entered as ‘C Jeeva’.

Further, I state that in my NSDL Demat Account,

bearing ID No. XXXXX8576, my name has been

entered as ‘C Jeeva’.

Further, I state that the abovesaid names viz.,

‘C Djiva’, ‘Djiva’, ‘Jeeva C’ and ‘C Jeeva’ are

referring one and the same person that is myself only.

Further, I state that henceforth, I will be known

and called only as ‘C.Djiva’.

235

7 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

I submit that the above contents are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and

information, and nothing has been concealed

thereon.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 21st day of February 2023.

562249

C. DJIVA.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Pravesh Saaye, son of Narayanassamy, Indian

inhabitant, aged 21 years and residing at the house

bearing Door No.12, Raja Rajeswari Street, Thamizh Thai

Nagar, Vanarapet, Puducherry-605 001, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm to whomsoever it may

concern as follows:

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

Certificate under Registration No. PM/C/2001/002368,

in my Driving Licence under DL No. PY01 20180005360

and in my PAN Card under No. FKOPP4149E, my

name has been mentioned as ‘Pravesh Saaye’.

In my Copie D’ Acte de Naissance and in my

Extrait de l’a acte de naissance, under acte No. 6/2002,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Pravesh-Saaye

Amourdalingam’.

In my Secondary School Leaving Certificate under

Sl No. SEC8332717 and in my Grade Sheet, under Folio

No. BBE13574, my name has been mentioned as

‘Pravesh Saaye .N’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No. XXXX XXXX 5410,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Pravesh Saaye

(∏´ºki ƒVF)’.

In my Passport, issued by the Republique

Francaise, under No. 19EK77912, my surname has

been mentioned as ‘Amourdalingam’ and my given

name has been mentioned as ‘Pravesh-Saaye’.

In my Overseas Citizen of India, Certificate of

Registration under No. A2047704, my surname

has been mentioned as ‘Amourdalingam’ and my

given name has been mentioned as ‘Pravesh Saaye’.

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 22nd day of

February 2023.

562250

PRAVESH SAAYE.

————

cÆ]ÿ\Va© √›]´D

(21-02-2023), Amﬂºƒˆá605 004, x>oBVÏº√‚Á¶,

÷_È›]_ kE¬zD ∂ÚðVﬂƒÈD ∂kÏÔπ[ z\V´Ï

Ô_BVð∑Õ>´D (Calianasoundirame) g˛B ÂV[

∏≈Õ> √]° ®ı 56/1953á_ ‘Calianasoundirame’

®[ÆD,

AmÁk

x>ÈVkm

Ì|>_

\Vk‚¶

kw¬z ®ı O.S.450/94á_ ‘Calianasoundirame’

®[ÆD, ®™m ÿ\‚ˆ¬zºÈ≠[ \VuÆﬂ ƒV[§>a_

‘Kalyanasundaram’ ®[ÆD, ®™m ÿ\‚ˆ¬zºÈ≠[

º>Ï° ƒV[§>a_ ‘Kalianasundram.A’ ®[ÆD,

>tµÂV|

∂´∑

Ì‚|≈°

Œ[§BD

∂π›>

ƒV[§>µ ®ı N.R.5820á_ ‘Kalyanasundaram.A’

®[ÆD, ®™m g>VÏ ∂Á¶BV· ∂‚Á¶ ®ı XXXX

XXXX 0991á_ ‘Kalyanasundaram’ ®[ÆD, ®™m

®ı UEB0210799á_ ‘Kalyanasundaram’ ®[ÆD,

®ı 18693á_

‘A.Kalyanasundaram’ ®[ÆD,

kÚ\V™ kˆ›mÁ≈ kw∫˛B ®™m PAN Card No.

ALQPK5533Pá_ ‘A.Kalyanasundaram’ ®[ÆD,

®™m

]Ú\ð

ƒV[§>µ

®ı

69/1985á_

‘Arunachalam Calianasoundiram’ ®[ÆD �ÆD

096035á_

‘Ô_BVð∑Õ>´D’

®[ÆD

®[–Á¶B ÿ√BÏÔ^>V[, ÿkÀºkÆ Â√ÏÔ”Á¶B

ÿ√BÏÔ^ ÷_ÁÈ ®[Æ ÷>[JÈD cÆ]Bπ¬˛º≈[.

÷MkÚD ÔVÈ∫Ôπ_ ÂV[ ‘A. Kalyanasundaram

º�√Ω ÂV[ ∂π›> cÆ]ÿ\Va ƒD√Õ>\VÔ

∏uÔVÈ›]_ ∞º>–D E¬Ô_Ô^ ∞u√‚¶V_ ®™m

ÿƒVÕ> ÿƒÈs_ yÏ›m¬ÿÔV^ºk[ ®[ÆD, ∂´∑

®[ÆD ÷>[JÈD cÆ]Bπ¬˛[º≈[.

Amﬂºƒˆ ƒV[ÆÁ´QÏ x[MÁÈl_ 2023ágD

562252

A. KALYANASUNDARAM.

236

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[7 March 2023

AFFIDAVIT

I, B Jameel, son of B. Babu, Muslim, aged 34 years,

residing at No.21, Ramsing Street, Shanmugam Nagar,

Ariyankuppam, Puducherry-605 007, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on oath as

follows:

That my name is mentioned as ‘Jameel’ in my Birth

Certificate under Registration No. PM/M/1989/000164,

dated 04-01-1989, issued by Pondicherry

Municipality, Puducherry, in my Aadhaar Card No.

XXXX XXXX 8783, issued by the Unique

Identification Authority of India, in my Elector ’s

Photo Identity Card No. ZQJ0027508, issued by

Election Commission of India, in my PAN Card No.

CRRPJ1901P, issued by Income-tax Department,

Government of India and in my Bank Passbook vide

Account No. XXXXX1229, issued by Indian Bank,

Ariyankuppam Branch, Puducherry.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘B. Jagan’ in

my Secondary School Leaving Certificate bearing

Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, and in my

Transfer Certificate Admission No. 44, Serial No. 829,

issued by Indira Gandhi College of Arts and Science,

Kathirkamam, Puducherry, Affiliated to Pondicherry

University.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘B Jagan’ in

my Higher Secondary Course Certificate bearing

Examination, Government of Tamil Nadu.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Jagan B’ in

my Consolidated Statement of Marks bearing

University, Puducherry.

I state that my name is mentioned in our Family

Ration bearing Card No. 365461 as ‘ÿ¤*_’ issued by

the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs, Government of Puducherry.

Hence, I do hereby declare that the abovesaid

names viz., ‘Jameel’, ‘B. Jagan’, ‘B Jagan’, ‘Jagan B’

and ‘ÿ¤*_’ are referring one and the same person

that is myself only.

I state that I am always writing and signing my

name as ‘Jameel’ on all records, papers and all affairs

of my life.

The above deposition is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material

has been concealed thereon.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 24th day of February 2023.

562253

B. JAMEEL.

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.