[237]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

\Vk‚¶ ¿]√]BV_ ®|¬Ô©√|D ..

238

Procédure du Magistrate de District .. 238

Procedings of the District

238

º\_Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

Magistrate

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

244

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 244

Award of the Labour Court .. 244

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

249

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 249

Government Notifications

.. 249

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

251

Etablissements dangereux

.. 251

Dangerous Establishments

251

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

251

Annonces

.. 251

Announcements

251

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 |

14 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mars

2023 (23 Phalguna 1944)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

14th

March

2023

244

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 March 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 04/AIL/Lab./T/2022,

Puducherry, dated 05th January 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 30/2017, dated

28-11-2022 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry, the in respect of the Dispute between the

Management of M/s PASIC, Puducherry and

Thiru M. Anandan, 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.

Monday, the 28th day of November, 2022.

I.D. (L) No. 30/2017

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000037-2017

Thiru M. Anandan,

No. 13, Illupai Thoppu Street,

Veema Nagar, Thilaspet,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. Puducherry Agro Service and

Industries Corporation LImited (PASIC),

Agro House, Thattanchavady,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial dispute coming on 09-11-2022 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru. P. Sankaran,

Counsel, for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal B. Mohandoss,

P. Manivannan, Indrajith, K. Velmurugan, K. Sundarajan,

P. Kalirathinam, S. Vijayasanthi, T. Vijayashanthi and

K. Manopriya, Counsels, for the Respondent, and after

hearing the both sides and perusing the case records,

this Court delivered the following:

245

14 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No.74/AIL/LAB/T/2017, dated 02-05-2017 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry, to resolve the

following dispute between the Petitioner and the

Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

Thiru M. Anandan against the Management of

M/s. Puducherry Agro Service and Industries

Corporation Limited (a Government of Puducherry

undertaking), Puducherry, over reinstatement with

back wages 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 averred

in the claim petition:

The Petitioner had joined in service of the

Respondent Corporation (PASIC) on 03-08-2007 as

voucher paid and subsequently as daily rated labour

from 01-07-2009 and was without any remark till he

was disengaged from service on 10-05-2014 after

nearly 7 years. The Petitioner was indisposed on

09-04-2014 due to fracture and was unable to move

anywhere as the Doctor had advised him rest for 30

days from 09-04-2014 and issued fitness from

09-05-2014. The Petitioner has informed his superior

Mr. Krishnamoorthy, Farm Supervisor, over phone

about his fracture and inability to attend duty.

Further, the Petitioner could not join duty as the pain

continued even though fitness was given by the

Doctor and he had to extend leave up to 22-05-2014.

(ii) The Petitioner has sent the leave letter along

with the Medical Certificate by Registered post to the

Respondent Management and reported for duty on

23-05-2014. But, the Petitioner was not allowed to join

duty and he was made to wait and approach different

authorities including the Respondent Management.

Despite his repeated approach and requests over a

long period of time, he was constrained to sent

representation to the Grievances Cell of the Hon’ble

Prime Minister of India, New Delhi, upon which it

seems that the same has been transmitted to the

Respondent who in turn gave a written reply to the

petitioner vide letter No. 6/1/5/4/Pasic/Esst./FTCC/

2015-2016/8822 dated 05-02-2016 stating that the

Petitioner has been disengaged from service with

effect from 10-05-2014 due to unauthorized absence

and then the Petitioner had been informed by the

Officials of the Respondent Corporation accordingly.

(iii) The question of unauthorized absence does

not arise since the Petitioner had informed his

superior over phone about his ill-health and leave and

only because he was not allowed to join duty.

(iv) That there was no willful unauthorized absence

by the Petitioner and it happened by the circumstances

beyond his control. There was Medical Certificate also

for the proof of condition for the period from

09-04-2014 to 09-05-2014 and so his absence could not

be treated as unauthorized absence. The Respondent

failed to issue any show cause notice asking for

explanation for his absence or intimation about the

disengagement from service to the Petitioner except

the letter consequent to the representation made the

Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Grievances Cell rendering

the disengagement arbitrary and illegal. The Petitioner

was forced to approach the Labour Officer

(Conciliation) where the Respondent has alleged other

issues like nature of job, status of job and staff service

rules, 1988 for which the Petitioner is in no way

answerable since the only question to be considered

is whether the Petitioner committed unauthorized

absence or not.

(v) Respondent is supposed to conduct Domestic

Enquiry under the Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946 failure of which amounts to unfair,

unjust, biased, arbitrary, unlawful against natural

justice rendering the disengagement of the Petitioner

to be set aside and the Petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages

and all attendant benefits. The Petitioner was working

nearly for the past 7 years without any remark and he

is the only bread winner of his family with no other

source of income for his livelihood as there is no

availability of suitable alternative employment also for

his survival. Therefore, the petitioner prays to direct

the respondent for the reinstatement of the Petitioner

with continuity of service, back wages and all other

attendant benefits. Hence the Petition.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

Respondent as follows:

The Petitioner was initially engaged as Voucher

Paid with effect from 03-08-2007 and was made daily

rated labour with effect from 01-07-2009. However,

there was no termination of his services by the

Respondent Management.

(ii) The Petitioner was only Daily Rated Casual

Employee and he was engaged on day-to-day basis

depending upon exigencies of work prevailing in the

organization. His employment was need based one

without any assurance for continuance of employment.

The above casual labour were not recruited in a formal

246

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 March 2023

manner in accordance with Rules and Regulations

relating to appointment. Such person employed does

not have right to hold the post in PASIC. His

conditions of service cannot be equated to regular

employees as well as permanent employees appointed

in accordance with Recruitment Rules. Under such

circumstances, he cannot have any grievance for his

non-employment.

(iii) The Petitioner did not report to duty from

09-04-2018 onwards till 09-05-2014 without submitting

leave letter or any information regarding his absence.

Later, only on 21-05-2014, the Petitioner submitted

leave letter on medical grounds for the above period

of absence. As the non-employment of Mr. Anandan

was by his own absence and as there was not

termination of his services, he cannot have any

grievance. The question of reinstatement does not

arise since he was engaged only to do casual work

on account of exigencies of work and as per PASIC

Staff Service Rules, 1988 ‘Employee’ means, a person

who is in the whole time employment of the

Corporation, but, does not include persons employed

on daily wages.

(iv) The Petitioner has to prove the allegations in

the claim petition that his absence was on medical

grounds. He is also obliged to state the reason why

he has not communicated to the Management for long

for nearly 11/2 months up to 22-05-2014, when he

states that he sustained fracture as early as on

09-04-2014 and he got fitness Certificate as early as

on 09-05-2014. There is nothing on record to prove

that the Petitioner has sought permission for his

absent so as to make it authorized one.

(v) The daily rated casual employees cannot claim

treatment on par with regular employees. Continuous

engagement of daily-rated casuals for years together

cannot confer on them right to regularization so as to

make them included in their cadre strength. They do

not have right to hold the post and hence, cannot

claim protection when their services are disengaged

by their employer.

(vi) The Petitioner has stated the provisions of

the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

regarding conducting of Domestic Enquiry. The

Respondent has not framed any charge of misconduct

against the Petitioner and only for taking disciplinary

action against the workmen for misconduct Domestic

Enquiry is needed for imposing punishment on the

charged official. That there was no punishment

imposed by way of termination by the Respondent.

As the non-employment of the Petitioner is not by way

of termination by the Respondent by continuous

absence by the petitioner, there is no question of

reinstatement. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

4. Rejoinder petition filed by the Petitioner

against the Counter Statement:

The burden of proof lies on the Respondent to

define the meaning of refusal of employment or

non-employment or disengagement from service or

abandonment of service or removal of name of the

Petitioner from attendance register for anauthorized

absence.

(ii) The Petitioner was only daily rated casual

employee and he was engaged on day-to-day basis

depending upon exigencies of work whereas, he

contradict the same in which he admits the continuous

engagement of the Petitioner as daily rated casual for

years together which is illegal and cannot come under

the definition of casual labour.

(iii) The Respondent does not disclose in what

way the petitioner was disengaged or under whatever

mode removed from service. In fact, the Petitioner

applied for Medical leave with proper Medical

Certificate, dated 21-05-2014 for which the Respondent

never replied for the same and also that only after the

petitioner had sent a representation to the Prime

Minister’s Grievances Cell vide Letter, dated

20-06-2015 received on 29-06-2015 by the PMO

Grievances Cell, the Respondent has given reply,

dated 05-02-2016 that is after nearly 2 years which

clearly proves the Respondents attitude of ignoring

law as a responsible Chief Executive of a Public

Undertaking like PASIC. Hence, the Petitioner prayed

to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner

with back wages, continuity of service and all other

attendant benefits and costs.

5. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for an order of

reinstatement with back wages and other reliefs as

claimed in the claim petition?

5A. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9 were marked. On Respondent side, Thiru

Sivashanmugam, the Managing Director of the

Respondent Management, was examined as RW1 and

Ex.R1 marked.

6. On the point:

This present industrial dispute is for reinstatement

of the claim Petitioner Mr. M. Anandan, who was

disengaged on 10-05-2014. According to the claim

Petitioner, he suffered from a bone fracture on

09-04-2014 and he was under medical treatment from

09-04-2014 till 09-05-2014. He informed about his

inability to attend the work to his superior

247

14 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Mr. Krishnamoorthy, Farm Supervisor. He also

produced Fitness Certificate on 09-05-2014. Since, he

suffered pain, he extended his leave further till

22-05-2014. He joined duty on 23-05-2014 with the

Medical Leave Certificate. But the Management did

not allow him to join. By way of reply to grievance

petition addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister,

Management gave a reply dated 05-02-2016 that he

was disengaged from the service for the reason of his

unauthorized absence. The claim Petitioner urged that

it was not an unauthorized absence. He duly informed

about his inability to work to his Superior. Further, it

was contended that no show cause notice issued to

him by the Management before his disengagement

from services. No domestic enquiry under provisions

of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948

conducted. So, he approached the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Government of Puducherry. The matter

failed and the failure report dated 19-02-2016 filed by

the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Government of

Puducherry.

7. In order to substantiate the averments contained

in the claim petition, PW1 the Claim Petitioner himself

deposed before this Court and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 marked.

The learned Counsel for Petitioner relied on the case law

reported in CDJ 2000 SC 541. On the other hand, the

Respondent Management has contended that

disengagement of the claim Petitioner done only because

of his own absence. Since, the claim Petitioner engaged

by the Respondent Management only as a daily rated

labour for doing causal work, no question of terminating

him from the services of the Respondent Management.

Consequently, there is no question of reinstatement as

claimed. On the side of the Respondent Management it

is strongly contended that the claim Petitioner did not

inform anybody about his absence orally or in writing.

Further, he submitted his leave only on 21-05-2014 on

Medical grounds for his absence from 09-04-2014 to

09-05-2014. Thus, he did not intimate the Respondent

Management about his leave for 1 and 1/2 months. Thus,

he concluded that since he was engaged for doing casual

work as daily rated labour and his initial engagement was

as voucher paid worker, there is no question of

Termination, conducting of Domestic Enquiry, and

issuance of Show Cause notices to the petitioner for his

unauthorized absence. The learned Counsel for the

Respondent Management referred and relied upon the

following case-laws during arguments: (i) (2016) 1 SCC

(L & S) 186 Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University

Vs. Akhilesh Kumar; (ii) (2019) 2 SCC(L &S) 37; (iii)(2019)

2 SCC(L &S) 98 and iv) (2011) 1 SCC(L&S) 659.

8. Heard both. On perusal of case records it could be

seen from Ex.P1 that Medical Certificate, dated

09-04-2014 as well as Medical Fitness Certificate, dated

09-05-2014 issued to the Claim Petitioner are found in a

single sheet. But, Medical Certificate for the leave is

dated 09-04-2014 whereas, the Fitness issued by the

Doctor is dated 09-05-2014. Except Ex.P1 there is no

records pertaining to Medical Treatment produced by the

Claim Petitioner to prove the genuinity of the reasons

stated for his absence during such period. Ex.P2 is a

similar Medical Certificate and Fitness Certificate in a

single sheet both bear the same date 20-05-2014.

As stated above no medical records shown in this regard

to support Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Ex.P3, dated 21-05-2014, the

copy of the leave letter seeking leave from 10-05-2014 to

22-05-2014.

Ex.P4

the

photocopy

the

acknowledgment card to prove the service of Ex.P3 on

Respondent Management. Ex.P5 is the reply given by the

Respondent Management to the Claim Petitioner stating

the reason for his disengagement. In said Ex.P5 it is

clearly mentioned that Petitioner has submitted the leave

letter on Medical grounds for the period of his

unauthorized absence from 09-04-2014 to 09-05-2014,

only on 21-05-2014 (Ex.P3) that is after he has been

disengaged from service due to unauthorized absence for

a continuous period of nearly one month and due to

which the works suffered due to his negligence and

dereliction of duty.

9. Ex.P6, the representation given by the claim

Petitioner to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), dated

19-02-2016. Ex.P7 is the reply statement dated 09-06-2016

given by the Respondent Management for Ex.P6. Ex.P8

is the Failure Report, dated 22-02-2017. Ex.P9 is the

Notification of Failure report. Except this no other oral

witnesses or documentary evidences filed to substantiate

that the claim petitioner suffered injury and was in need

of Medical rest for such period. Further, no proof

produced on the side of the Claim Petitioner to show that

he duly informed the Respondent Management about his

absence in time. Further, there is no reason found any

where in the claim petition or in the oral evidence adduced

by him about the delay in producing Medical Certificate.

In absence of this above evidences or proof, I find that

the claim Petitioner was remained absent for a long period

that is more than one month without any satisfactory

reason for his absence that to without any intimation to

his employer about his inability to attend the work, which

amounts to unauthorized absence.

10. In Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 the Certificates said to have

been issued for the period his absence, the Claim

Petitioner’s designation is mentioned as DRL that is

Daily Rated Labour. It is also the case of the Respondent

Management that he was only engaged as daily rated

labourer for the day to day work basis depending upon

exigencies of work prevailing in the Respondent

Management. Therefore, the argument made on the side

of the Respondent Management as well as RW1 evidence

248

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 March 2023

that issuance of Show Cause notice, initiating Domestic

Enquiry and issuance of Termination Order not at all

required for the daily rated labourer for disengagement

for his unauthorized absence, holds good and

sustainable.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in RBI vs.

S. Mani reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100 held that in law 240

days of continuous service by itself does not give right

to claim permanence. Further, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Himanshu Kumar

Vidyarthy vs. State of Bihar reported in 1997 IV ADSC

196 that admittedly they were not appointed to the posts

in accordance with the rules, but, were engaged on the

basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees

working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their

disengagement from service cannot be construed to be

a retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act. The

concept of ‘retrenchment’ therefore, cannot be stretched

to such an extent as to cover these employees. Although

by way of definition of workman u/s.2(s) of Industrial

Disputes Act ‘daily wage’ worker also falls within the

definition of workman it cannot be said that daily wages

have all the rights and duties which are available to the

regular employee of the Respondent Management.

12. The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh

reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458 that persons who were

employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par

with persons in regular service holding similar posts.

Daily rated workers are not required to possess the

qualification prescribed for regular workers, nor do they

have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the time

of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in

which the regular employees are selected. In other words

the requirement for selection are not as rigorous. There

are also provisions relating to regular service such as

the liability of a member of the service to be transferred,

and this being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of

the authorities as prescribed, which the daily rated

workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore,

be equated with regular workmen for the purpose for their

wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of regular Pay

Scale of the regularly employed.

13. In view of the decision in Magarasem vs. State of

UP and others reported in 2002 (2) AWC 1712 the daily

wagers engaged without any written appointment order

could be terminated without any written order. Therefore,

daily and casual workers who are engaged in disregard

of all rules cannot be allowed to continue when there is

no work and their engagement is not required. Daily

wagers are deployed on temporary assignment only

and not on sanctioned posts and even if, completion of

240 days work by daily wager cannot attribute status of

casual workman under Industrial Disputes Act and as

such it does not create right to claim for reengagement

as claimed in the petition.

14. From the above discussions that no oral witnesses

produced nor documentary evidences filed to

substantiate that the claim petitioner suffered injury and

was in need of Medical rest for such period. Further, no

proof produced on the side of the Claim Petitioner to

show that he duly informed the Respondent Management

about his absence in time. Further, there is no reason

found in the claim petition or in the oral evidence adduced

by him about the delay in producing Medical Certificate.

In absence of these above evidences or proof, I find that

the claim Petitioner was remained absent for a long period

that is more than one month without any satisfactory

reason for his absence that to without any intimation to

his employer about his inability to attend the work, which

amounts to un-authorised absence. On the whole, I don't

find any justification in the reference made before this

Court. Thus, the point for the determination is decided

as against the Claim Petitioner.

15. In the result, the reference is decided as unjustified

and 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 28th day of November, 2022.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 06-02-2019

Thiru Anandan

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.P1 — 09-04-2014

Photocopy of the Medical

Leave Certificate and

09-05-2014

Medical Fitness Certificate

of the Petitioner issued by

the I.G.M.C and Research

Institute, Puducherry.

Ex.P2 — 20-05-2014

Photocopy of the Medical

Leave Certificate and

Medical Fitness Certificate

of the Petitioner issued by

the Rani Hospital, Puducherry.

Ex.P3 — 20-05-2014

Photocopy of the Leave

Letter of the Petitioner.

Ex.P4 — 21-05-2014

Photocopy of the Postal

Acknowledgment Card.

249

14 March 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

————

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

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

®ı 8809/\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.

Ex.P5 — 05-02-2016

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Respondent

Management to the Petitioner.

Ex.P6 — 19-02-2016

Photocopy of the reply

letter given by the Petitioner

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P7 — 09-06-2016

Photocopy of the reply letter

given by the Respondent

to the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry.

Ex.P8 — 22-02-2017

Photocopy of the Failure

Report given by the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P9 — 02-05-2017

Photocopy of the Notification

of the Labour Department,

Puducherry.

List of respondent’s witnesses:

RW1

— 05-07-2022

Thiru K. Sivashanmugam,

Managing Director, PASIC,

Puducherry.

List of Respondents’s Exhibits:

Ex.R1 — --

Photocopy of the PASIC

(Staff Service) Rules, 1988.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT

SECRETARIAT

[G.O. Ms. No. 05/2023-WCD(SW-IV)/342,

Puducherry, dated 24th February 2023]

NOTIFICATION

The Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is pleased to

constitute a Steering Committee in the Union territory

of Puducherry, comprising the following Officers,

for effective implementation of distribution of fortified

rice and scaling up of fortification of rice under

Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)/Mid-Day

Meals (MDM)/Public Distribution System (PDS).

1. Chief Secretary to Government

. . Chairman

2. Secretary to Government (Finance)

. . Member

3. Secretary to Government

. . Member

(Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs)

4. Secretary to Government

. . Member

(Health and Family Welfare)

5. Secretary to Government

. . Member

(School Education)

6. Secretary to Government

. . Member

(Women and Child Development)

7. Representative of Food Corporation . . Member

of India (FCI) to be nominated by

CMD, FCI.

The terms of reference of the Committee shall be

as under:–

(i) To ensure coordination/monitoring with the

Line Departments for effective implementation of

distribution of fortified rice under ICDS/MDM/PDS.

(ii) To periodically review the progress and

provide

inputs/suggestions

resolving

the

challenges/issues that may emerge during the process

of implementation of the distribution of fortified rice

under ICDS/MDM/PDS.

(iii) To help in scaling up of fortification of rice

under ICDS/MDM/PDS across the Union territory of

Puducherry through the concerned Departments.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

P. MUTHU MEENA,

Under Secretary to Government,

(Women and Child Development).