[383]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

384

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 384

Award of the Labour Court .. 384

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

392

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 392

Government Notifications

.. 392

Œ©√∂§s©AÔ^d

395

Avis d’ appel d’ offres

.. 395

Tender notices

.. 395

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

398

Annonces

.. 398

Announcements

398

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 }

º\ |

9 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mai

2023 (19 Vaisakha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

9th

May

2023

384

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 21/AIL/Lab./T/2023,

Puducherry, dated 17th February 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 31/2018, dated

07-01-2023 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Puducherry in respect of Dispute between the

M/s. MRF Limited, Nettapakkam Commune, Puducherry

and Thiru V. Vignesh, Villupuram District over non-

employment has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with

the notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

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

Presiding Officer.

Saturday, the 07th day of January, 2023.

I.D. (L) No. 31/2018

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000061-2018

Vignesh S/o. Veerappan,

Palliputhupattu,

Mandagapattu Post,

Villupuram District,

Tamil Nadu.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director,

M/s. MRF Limited,

No. 1, Eripakkam Village,

Nettapakkam Commune,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-12-2023 before

m e f o r f i n a l h e a r i n g i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f

Thiru T. Veeraselvam, Counsel for the Petitioner,

Thiruvalaragal L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar,

Counsel for the Respondent, and after hearing the both

sides and perusing the case records, this Court delivered

the following:

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No.107/AIL/LAB/T/2018 dated 21-06-2018 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. V. Vignesh, Villupuram District against the

Management of M/s. MRF Limited, Nettapakkam

Commune, Puducherry over non-employment is

justified or not? If justified, what relief the Petitioner

is entitled to?

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

of money, if, it can be so computed?

2. Brief facts of the case of the Petitioner averred in

the claim petition:

The Petitioner had worked at M/s. MRF Limited

Puducherry in apprenticeship training from 01-06-2008

onwards and on 02-08-2010 a criminal case under

section 381 of IPC was registered by the Station

House Officer, Nettapakkam Police Station,

Puducherry, alleging that the Petitioner had stolen the

Laptop from the Respondent Company and that he

was trying to sell the same at Thirubuvanai Bus Stop,

Pondicherry and he was remanded to Judicial custody.

The Petitioner has approached the Respondent

Management to join duty, but, the Respondent

Management refused to give employment to the

Petitioner stating that criminal case is pending against

him and due to long absenteeism, the Respondent

Management terminated the Petitioner from service on

20-08-2010. The said absence of the duty by the

Petitioner was due to the complaint made by the

Respondent Management. The Respondent Management

lodged the complaint on 02-08-2010 and he was

arrested by the Police and remanded to Judicial

custody till 20-08-2010 and the Petitioner was not

failed to attend the duty on his own. After trial the

Judicial Magistrate Court has decided that the

Petitioner had not stolen the Laptop of the

Respondent Management and as such, on 20-10-2016

the Petitioner was discharged/acquitted from the

criminal case vide Judgment passed in CC 380/2010

by the Judicial Magistrate-I Court, Puducherry. The

Petitioner sent a Registered post to the Respondent

Management for reinstatement of him, but, the

Respondent Management did not respond the

Petitioner’s plea. Therefore, the Petitioner had

385

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

approached the Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Pondicherry for non-employment of the Petitioner and

they conducted an enquiry between parties and on

16-05-2018, it was decided by the Labour Department

that as there was no possibility to make an amicable

settlement between the Petitioner and the Respondent

Management, the matter was ended in failure in the

last proceedings held on 19-01-2018 and referred the

matter for adjudication.

(ii) The Petitioner had completed Higher

Secondary Course (12th Standard). The Petitioner

does not require any kind of money/compensation

which may be given by the Respondent Management,

but, he needs reinstatement in the Respondent

Management company. Because, the Petitioner was

not able to join in any other company with the bad

name that he had stolen the computer from the

Respondent Management though he was acquitted

from the alleged charges. In order to maintain his

family, he is having wife and children and his aged

parents, he wants employment in the Respondent

Management and if, the case of this Petitioner is not

considered by the Respondent Management, then the

Petitioner will be stranded into streets. The Petitioner

is having every right to get reemployment in the

Respondent Management as he has not committed

any theft and it was decided by the Court that he is

not guilty of the offences. The Petitioner undertakes

that he would attend the duty sincerely and he would

abide by the employment conditions of the

Respondent Management at all times in the event of

giving employment to the Petitioner by the

Respondent Management. Hence, the Petitioner prays

to direct the Respondent Management to reinstate

the Petitioner in the Respondent Management in the

similar post/job or any other suitable job and other

attendant charges, perks and allowances. Hence, the

petition.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

respondents are as follows:

The claim Petitioner Vignesh was issued with

an order of apprenticeship dated 01-06-2008 at

MRF Limited, Eripakkam, Nettapakkam Commune,

Puducherry, as an Apprentice Trainee under the

Apprenticeship Scheme of the Respondent

Management. As per the terms of the order of

Apprenticeship issued to the claim Petitioner

herein, the Apprenticeship Training will be for a

period of 42 months in 4 spells and the claim

Petitioner was initially engaged for a period of

6 months with effect from 01-06-2008. During the

period of each spell, the Respondent Management

will assess the performance of the Apprentice

Trainee as envisaged in the Training Scheme and

based on the assessment he will be moved to the

next spell of training.

(ii) The clause 3 of the Certified Standing

Order of the M/s. MRF Limited, Puducherry,

speaks about the classification of workman and

clause 3.6 deals with Apprenticeship under

Company Training Scheme and accordingly:

“Company Training Scheme/Trainee means a

Learner who is paid stipend and whose terms and

conditions are governed by the provisions of the

Apprentices Act, 1961 and the amendments

thereof or one who is recruited to undergo

Apprenticeship as per Company’s Scheme either

as Production Apprentice or Engineering

Apprentice or Apprentice for Service Department.

The Apprenticeship period will be for 42 months

comprising 4 spells, the first spell is for 6 months

and the remaining 3 spells each are for one year

duration and the Company is not obliged to

employ after the Conclusion of their Apprenticeship.

At the expiry of any spell each Trainee will be

assessed and evaluated and on satisfactory

completion of the Training in each spell, the Trainee

will be put on to Training for next spell. On completion

of the total Apprenticeship period the Services will

and automatically terminated. However, they may be

considered for the post of Probationer on satisfactory

completion of Training by the Company at its

discretion depending upon the exigencies and vacancy

position. The Status as an Apprentice will not change

until it is changed by the company in writing.....”

(iii) Being the Certified Standing Order of the

Respondent Management, the said clause 3.6 is

applicable to the claim Petitioner Vignesh and this

clause is in vogue for all the factories of the

Respondent Management located in Goa, Medak,

Kottayam and Puducherry.

(iv) The Termination of the Trainee (Apprentice)

either by efflux of time or the Trainee not reporting

for training or the Trainee indulging in, in-disciplinary

activities during the training period, the aggrieved

trainee cannot claim continuation of training or

reinstatement as a matter of right as the apprentice

cannot re-designate himself as a workman on par with

the regular workmen. The individual Apprenticeship

Order dated 01-06-2008 issued to the claim Petitioner

as mentioned supra would speak for itself on the terms

and conditions of Apprenticeship Training in the

Respondent Management and hence, the relief sought

by the claim Petitioner lacks merit, substance and

deserves no consideration even remotely.

386

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

(v) Therefore, in all probabilities, the reference to

adjudicate on the claim of the claim Petitioner who is

an Apprentice Trainee is bad under Law and cannot

be entertained by this Court and the present Industrial

Dispute deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

(vi) The Apprenticeship Act did not make provision

for NAC Apprenticeship for any trade connected with

Tyre industry, the Respondent Management was

obliged to evolve its own Training Scheme. As the

workmen have to be imparted knowledge about

various types of materials, parts, machines, processes,

etc., it was felt that the Training should be “on the

job training” for a period lasting 42 months, of which

after initial orientation, the first level of training will

be for six months to be followed by three different

spells of training each lasting one year. There are no

ITI Courses regarding manufacturing of Tyres and

only the Respondent Management had to impart

Training. The Respondent’s Management being in

Union territory of Puducherry, the Model Standing

Orders framed by the Central Government were

applicable. Clause 2 (g) of the Model Standing Orders

framed by the Central Government defines an

Apprentice to mean “a learner who is paid allowance

during the period of his training” and no period has

been stipulated for the period of Apprenticeship.

(vii) In the year 2001, the Respondent Management

submitted Draft Standing Orders for certification.

Taking note of the system of training prevailing in the

Respondent’s establishment and also in the absence

of mention of any trade connected with the Tyre

Industry dealt with under the Apprenticeship Act,

provision was made to define Apprentices as

“Apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act 1961,

under Company Trading Scheme/Trainee” (Clause 3.6).

Based on the Joint Memorandum between the Unions

and the Respondent Management on 10-07-2003, the

Standing Orders were certified. After certification of

the Standing Orders on 10-07-2003, the Respondent

Management has been engaging trainees in terms of

the Certified Standing Orders.

(viii) During the period of his training the claim

Petitioner Vignesh was lethargic and envisaged the

least interest in learning the job and was irregular in

his attendance which was also intimated through

Phonogram, dated 23-06-2010 through Inter-Office

Memorandum dated 28-05-2010 of the Truck Curing

Department to the Manager-Truck, it has been referred

about the in-disciplinary actions of the claim

Petitioner Vignesh in not obeying the orders of the

superiors and the claim Petitioner Vignesh had

remained unauthorizedly absent from Training

continuously from 02-08-2010 onwards.

(ix) The Respondent Management herein had

registered a complaint as against the claim Petitioner

and two others on 02-08-2010 before the Station House

Officer, Nettapakkam Police Station, Puducherry, under

FIR No.85/2010 regarding the theft/selling of Laptop

stolen from the Truck Curing Department of the

Respondent Management and the claim Petitioner

along with two other employees were arrested and

remanded. A Criminal case u/s.340, 414 IPC r/w 34 IPC

was registered against the claim Petitioner and the

other two employees of the Respondent Management

who were remanded to judicial custody and released

on bail. Since, the claim Petitioner had not reported

for duty from 02-08-2010, the Respondent

Management had terminated the Apprenticeship

Trainee from the service with effect from 20-08-2010

for willfully abandoning the training as referred to in

Order dated 20-08-2010.

(x) The claim Petitioner after a period of nearly

7 years had submitted a petition dated 19-05-2017 to

the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, by

admitting the fact that he was arrested on 02-08-2010

and was remanded to Kalapet Jail and later released

on bail and stated that the Respondent Management

had terminated his Apprenticeship Training on

20-08-2010 citing, the reasons of long absenteeism.

Further, the Criminal Case initiated against the claim

Petitioner under C.C380/2010 had ended in acquittal

and therefore, requested the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry,

intervene

for

reinstatement into services.

(xi) The Respondent Management has submitted

a detailed response dated 18-09-2017 by highlighting

about the terms and conditions of the Apprenticeship

Order and as the claim Petitioner remained

unauthorizedly absent from training from 02-08-2010,

the Respondent Management had terminated the

Apprenticeship Training on 20-08-2010.

(xii) The Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry,

failed the Conciliation and referred the matter for

adjudication. The claim Petitioner is estopped from

seeking reinstatement for training as the Respondent

Management had invoked the clauses of the

Apprenticeship order issued to the claim Petitioner

for termination of the training as it is an admitted fact

that the claim Petitioner did not report for training

from 02-08-2010 onwards. The claim petition cannot

be entertained as the claim Petitioner was terminated

from training only on the ground of unauthorized

absence from 02-08-2020 onwards and not otherwise.

(xiii) Merely because the Criminal Case under

C.C.380/2010 had ended in acquittal on 20-10-2016,

it cannot be considered as a ground for automatic

387

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

reinstatement for continuation of the Apprenticeship

Training. Further, the claim Petitioner was terminated

even before the completion of 42 months of training

period for remaining unauthorizedly absent from

02-08-2010 onwards as admitted by the Petitioner and

there cannot be any continuation of training after

a period of nearly 7 years from the termination

of training period.

(xiv) Even assuming without admitting, the terms

and conditions of the Apprenticeship Order stipulate

that “the Company does not guarantee any automatic

confirmation in Services at the end of Apprenticeship

period”. The claim Petitioner was terminated from

training for the reasons stated in the letter dated

20-08-2010 which is in the midst of the training period

and has no locus-standi to claim it as a matter of right

and discipline cannot be compromised even remotely

even during the period of Apprenticeship.

(xv) The claim Petitioner while joining as

apprentice in the Respondent Management and is no

estopped from challenging the said Clauses of the

Apprenticeship Order and on the date of the

Termination they continued to be as Apprentices

only. The claim Petitioner was not issued with any

Written Order of Probation and therefore, the relief

for reinstatement cannot be entertained. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Point for determination:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for an order to

reinstate him in the Respondent Management in the

similar post/job or any other suitable job and other

attendant charges, perks and allowances as claimed

in the claim petition?

5. On Point:

Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to

P5 were marked. During cross examination of PWl, on

respondent side Ex.Rl to R9 were marked. One

Jeyakumar, Deputy Manager (HR) of Respondent

Company examined as RW1. Through him Ex.Rl0 to

R14 were marked.

6. On the Point:

This Industrial Dispute has been referred over

non-employment of the claim Petitioner. According

to the Petitioner, he was an Apprentice under the

Respondent Company from 01-06-2008. While so, on

02-08-2010 a criminal case was registered against him

under section 381 of IPC charging him that he had

stolen a Laptop from the Respondent Company. The

Respondent Management terminated him from service

on 20-08-2010 for the reason of long absenteeism and

pending Criminal Case. After a full trial, the said

Criminal Case was ended in acquittal thereby

acquitting the Petitioner from the charges on

20-10-2016. He therefore, approached the Respondent

Management for his reinstatement. But, it was

declined. Thereafter, he approached the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry and the same is

ended in failure. Thus, the dispute has been referred

before this Court.

7. It is contended on the side of the Petitioner that

though he was acquitted from the alleged criminal

charges. Petitioner is not able to join any other

employment with the stigma attached due to the

allegations made by the Respondent Management. Thus,

he prayed for reinstatement in the Respondent

Management with all other benefits.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

also referred and relied upon CDJ 1994 SC 1065 wherein,

it is observed that after the apprentice period, the

employee was made to work in a C Grade job against a

clear vacant which occurred due to a transfer of a person

who was working in the said job. The Labour Court held

that he was a workman and the same was set aside by

the Hon’ble High Court. But, in the Civil Appeal, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reinstated the employee

and held that he is a workman and thereby confirmed the

Judgment of the Labour Court. This referred case is not

applicable to the present case on hand. In the above

referred case apprentice period was over and the

employee was working in the vacant post of Grade C.

Whereas, in the present case, the claim Petitioner had

joined

apprentice

and

not

completed

his

apprenticeship. During his apprenticeship training, his

Apprenticeship period got ceased. Hence, this case is

not applicable to the present case.

9. Other case laws relied on the Petitioner side which

has been reported in CDJ 2003 GHC 182 wherein, the

Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has observed that, no

training was given to the workman under the Apprentice

Act and he should be considered as workman under

section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman

was appointed in 1989 and his services terminated in

1990 under the provisions of Apprentice Act 1961 but,

the agreement of Apprentice has not been registered, it

was held as that he was an workman. CDJ 2005 MHC

815- The whole object of Industrial Law is to help the

weaker section in the society (the workmen) and give

them protection from exploitation. In our opinion, there

can be no estoppel against a person who accepts his

designation as an apprentice, but later on raises a plea

that in fact he was not an apprentice but was doing the

work of a workman. CDJ 1994 SC 709 and CDJ 1994

SC 1065.

388

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

10. Whereas, in this case there is an Apprentice

Appointment Order and the Respondent Management

evolves its own Training Scheme. As the workmen have

to be imparted knowledge about various types of

materials, parts, machines, processes, etc., the Training

imparted “on the job training” for a period lasting 42

months. Admittedly, the training was not completed.

Before the completion of training, the claim Petitioner’s

service got terminated due to his long absenteeism.

Hence, the case laws relied by the Petitioner counsel are

not applicable to the present case in hand.

11. On the other hand, it is contended by the

Respondent Management that Petitioner was issued

with an Order of Apprenticeship on 01-06-2008 as an

Apprentice Trainee under the Apprenticeship

Scheme of the Respondent Management. As per the

Apprenticeship Training Order, the claim Petitioner has

to undergo 42 months training in 4 spells. During each

spell the Respondent Management will assess the

Performance of the Apprentice trainee as envisaged in

the training scheme and based on the assessment, he

will be moved to the next spell.

12. It is also contended that as per clause 3.6 of the

Certified

Standing

Order

the

Respondent

Management on completion of the total Apprenticeship

period, the services will stand automatically terminated.

May be considered for the post of Probationer on

satisfactory completion of training by the company at

its discretion depending upon the exigencies and

vacancy position. The status as an apprentice will not

change until it is changed by the company in writing.

Termination of the trainee (Apprentice) either by efflux

of time or the trainee not reporting for training or the

trainee indulging in, in-disciplinary activities during the

training period, the aggrieved trainee cannot claim

continuation of training or reinstatement as a matter of

right as the Apprentice cannot redesignated himself as

a workman on par with regular workman.

13. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent Management relied upon High Court of

Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application

No. 15497 of 2007-Shankarbhai LebabhaiVankar vs.

Executive Engineer, wherein, it is held that “In present

petition, the Petitioner has challenged award dated

05-04-2007 passed by the learned Labour Court in

Reference (LCH) No. 163 of 2002 whereby the learned

Labour Court rejected the reference in light of the

finding of fact that the claimant was engaged as

Apprentice under provisions of the Apprentices Act,

1961 (‘the Act’ for short) and that, therefore, the

claimant cannot be termed ‘workman’ and consequently,

the reference would not be maintainable and cannot be

adjudicated”. In this case, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

has confirmed the finding of Labour Court that the

claimant was engaged as Apprentice under provisions

of Apprentice Act 1961 and that therefore, he cannot

be termed as “workman” under Section 2(s) ID Act, 1947

the reference cannot be entertained. Next case laws

relied is Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors. vs. Sakattar Singh

on 29 November 2000 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Appeal (Civil) 12795 1996; In

Chandubhar Punjabhai Talpada vs. Deputy Executive

Engineer decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat

at Ahmedabad.

14. Therefore, it is first and foremost to decide that

whether the Apprentice involves in this Industrial

Dispute falls under the category of workman as defined

under section 2(s) of ID Act? Under the provisions of

section 2(s) of ID Act, Apprentice is included in the

category of workman. The opening words of section 2(s)

of ID Act is such it specifically denotes that any person

including an Apprentice is a workman. Therefore, under

ID Act an Apprentice is a workman. Whereas, the

standing order of Respondent Management filed and

marked as Ex.Rl through PW1 during cross-examination.

In the Certified Standing Order Ex.Rl, the clause 3.6 runs

thus, “Apprentice under Apprenticeship Act 1961, under

Company Training Scheme/Trainee” means a learner

who is paid a stipend and whose terms and conditions

are governed by the provisions of the Apprentices Act,

1961 and amendments thereof or one who is recruited

to undergo Apprenticeship as per the company scheme

either as Production Apprentice or Engineer Apprentice

or Apprentices for Service Department. The status as

an Apprentice will not change until it is change by the

company in writing. During the time of Apprenticeship

they will receive only stipend. At the expiry of any spell

trainee will be assessed and evaluated and on

satisfactory completion of the training in each spell, the

trainee will be put on training for the next spell. On

completion of the total Apprenticeship period, the

services as an Apprentice will stand automatically

terminated. However, they may be considered for the

post of probationer on satisfactory completion of

training by the company at its discretion depending

upon the exigencies and vacancy position. Further, in

the same Ex.R1 Standing Orders for employees of the

Respondent Management in Clause 22.0 Termination of

Employment: Clause 22.1 subject to the provisions

relating to the misconduct as provided in this service

conditions, the service of the workman may be

terminated by the company for a reasonable cause

giving one month notice in writing or wages in lieu

389

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

thereof. However, no notice/wages in lieu thereof shall

be necessary in case of a Probationary/Casual/

Temporary/Apprentice/Trainee/Part-time workman.

15. As per section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961

Apprentices are trainees and not workers. -Save as

otherwise provided in this Act,–

(a) every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship

training in a designated trade in an establishment

shall be a trainee and not a worker; and

(b) the provisions of any law with respect to

labour shall not apply to or in relation to such

apprentice.

According to section 2(r) in The Apprentices Act,

1961-18 [(r) “worker” means, any person who is

employed for wages in any kind of work and who gets

his wages directly from the employer, but, shall not

include an apprentice referred to in clause (aa)].

16. Hence, from the above provisions of the

Apprenticeship Act 1961, an Apprentice is not a

workman whereas, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, a

workman includes an Apprentice. But, when an

apprentice is appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961

he is not a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. An apprentice, after completion of

his apprenticeship is not having any legal right to

demand regularization from the employer. As per

provision of the Apprentices Act, 1961, an apprentice

is a trainee and not a worker/workman. The Provisions

of labour laws shall not be applicable to an apprentice

for seeking any relief from the management under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appointment letter,

indicating that petitioner was engaged as apprentice in

trade of Lineman against stipend under the Act of 1961

by entering into required contract which was informed

to Apprenticeship Adviser, is a sufficient proof to

establishment that the petitioner was an apprentice

and not a workman. Shankarbhai Lebabhai Vankar vs.

Executive Engineer and Ors. 2017 (Guj. H.C.)

17. The Apprentices Act, 1961 is a special Act as

regards, the regularization and training condition of the

Apprentices are concerned. Only for the purpose of

Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade

Unions, the Rules, 1994, which adopts the definition of

‘workman’ as provided in section 2(s) of the I.D. Act,

1947 shall be special laws and the Apprentices Act, 1961

is a general law in that field. Therefore, The I.D. Act, 1947

and Rules, 1994 must prevail over the Apprentices

Act, 1961 only so far the issue as to whether an

apprentice is a workman for the purpose of verification

of membership and recognition of Trade Union is

concerned (M/S Larsen & Toubro Limited vs State Of

Orissa and Others... Opp.... on 4 March, 2011).

18. In Maya Mathew vs. State Of Kerala and Ors. on

18 February, 2010, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that

Special Rules being later in point of time would prevail

over the General Rule. When the rule making authority

being aware of existence of provisions concerned of

General Rules, and it chooses to subsequently make a

contrary provision in Special Rules, it is to be inferred

that the subsequent rule was intended to prevail over

the General Rule.

19. Therefore, the claim Petitioner who was appointed

as Apprentice under Apprenticeship Act, 1961 by the

Respondent Management cannot be placed under the

workman category. As discussed above as per the

Apprenticeship Act, 1961 Apprentice is not a workman

under section 18 and 2(r) of the Act. Though section

2 (s) of ID Act includes an Apprentice as workman only

for the purpose of Verification of Membership and

Recognition of Trade Unions, the Rules, 1994, which

adopts the definition of'workman1 as provided in

Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, an apprentice appointed

under Apprenticeship Act 1961 as found in this case

cannot be termed as workman for the purpose of the

regularization and training condition of the Apprentices

are concerned. Therefore, the claim Petitioner is not

a workman.

20. In National Small Industries Corporation Limited

case, the point for decision was whether in view of

section 18 of the Act, 1961. the 1st Additional Labour

Court, Chennai, was justified in holding that the

respondent who had been appointed as an apprentice

by the appellant therein was a ‘workman’ within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the

termination of the respondent's apprenticeship was in

violation of section 25-F of the I.D. Act and

consequently he was entitled to reinstatement and

continuity in service with all back wages and other

concessions accrued to him. The Hon’ble Apex Court

held that even if, it is accepted that respondent was a

‘workman’ within the meaning of the I.D. Act on

account of contractual tenure his case would come

within the exception of Clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act thereof. In such case also the provision of

section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 would have no

application to the respondent’s case.

21. Since he is not a workman and his employment

was under contract i.e., Apprentice Order Ex.Pl. Even

if, it is considered as workman, he comes under the

exception clause of 25(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief

under section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act.

390

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

22. The next point needs consideration is whether

stigma attached to him on the issuance of Termination

order Ex.R6. Termination of the claim Petitioner’s

services as Apprentice was made under Ex.R6. On close

and careful perusal of Ex.R6, I don’t find anywhere

about the allegation of Criminal charges nor Criminal

case as a reason for his termination. The reason stated

for the cessation of Apprenticeship period with

immediate effect is due to continuous unauthorized

absence from 02-08-2010. It is also mentioned in Ex.R6

that during the Apprenticeship period, the claim

Petitioner was not showing interest in learning the job.

Therefore, as per clause 8 of the Apprenticeship

Appointment Order Ex.P1 during each spell of the

training, Apprenticeship is liable to be terminated by the

company without notice or assigning any reason

thereto. In Clause 13 of Ex.Pl Apprenticeship

Appointment Order it is mentioned that the claim

Petitioner will be subject to the Standing Orders and

the Rules and Regulations of the company as are

inforce from time to time. Similarly, in Clause 15 of Ex.Pl

there is a clear mention that if guilty at any time of

neglect of work, insubordination, indulgence or

abetment of any misconduct involving moral turpitude

or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the

Appointment, the company shall have the right to

terminate the appointment without notice or

compensation in lieu of notice.

23. On the Respondent Management side, Ex.R10,

R3 and R4 are marked to show that he was not a regular

attendee of training work during his Apprenticeship

period. Ex.R4 is a leave letter of the claim Petitioner

seeking leave on 22-07-2010 and 25-07-2010. In which

the Claim Petitioner has given assurance that he will not

go on leave in future. Ex.R3 is a phonogram issued by

the Officer - HR of the Respondent Management to the

claim Petitioner informing his unauthorized absence

from 16-06-2010 to 23-06-2010 and intimating to report

HR Department immediately or else action will be taken.

Ex.R10 is inter office memorandum, dated 28-05-2010

regarding disciplinary’ lagging wherein, it is mentioned

about the claim Petitioner’s insubordination and

arrogant behaviour at work place. Though, these

exhibits were marked on the Respondent side, but, in

the Termination Order Ex.R6, dated 20-08-2010, nothing

mentioned against the claim Petitioner so as to attach

any stigma against him. The only reason stated in the

Termination Order Ex.R6 is his unauthorized long absent.

Therefore, as per the Apprenticeship Appointment Order

Ex.P1 and the Standing Order Ex.R1, the Respondent

Management has the discretion to terminate the period

of Apprenticeship if, there is any violation of terms and

conditions found therein under the contract Ex.P1.

24. In Sk. Akbar Alii vs State Of Odisha And Others

on 9 March, 2022 it has observed “in Southern Railway

Officers’ Association vs. Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24,

wherein, it was observed that acquittal in a criminal case

by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an

order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority as the position of law is well settled that an

order of dismissal can still be passed even if, the

delinquent had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

Another decision in Inspector General of Police vs.

Samuthiram (2013) I SCC 598 was also referred to by the

Supreme Court in Heem Singh case to hold that unless

the accused has an honourable acquittal in the criminal

case as opposed to an ordinary one shall not affect the

decision in the disciplinary proceeding leading to an

automatic reinstatement. The meaning of the expression

‘honourable acquittal’ was under consideration before

the Supreme Court in RBI vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal

(1994) I SCC 541 and in that case, it was held that mere

acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement

in service and the acquittal has to be honourable, which

means, the accused is said to be fully acquitted of blame

or exonerated and the aforesaid decision was also

quoted with approval in Heem Singh case. In fact, the

celebrated and judgment legal classicus on the subject

is of the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India

AIR 1964 SC 787 in which it was held that even in the

case of acquittal, departmental proceeding may follow

where the acquittal is other than honourable. In Dalbir

Singh case (supra), the Supreme Court affirmed the view

that a disciplinary action cannot be stifled unless the

foundation is based on a false case or no evidence.

Again in State of Assam vs. Raghava Rajgopalchari 1972

SLR 44 (SC), the Supreme Court borrowed the view

expressed in Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor ILR

(1934) 61 Cal. .168, wherein, the expression ‘honourably

acquitted’ was elaborated upon and defined.

Para 10. Referring to the decisions discussed herein

above, the Court is of the view that notwithstanding

an order of acquittal which does not fully and

completely exonerate the delinquent from a criminal

charge, it would not entitle him to claim that the

disciplinary proceeding should be dropped or for that

matter, the punishment imposed as result to be set aside.

The terminologies, such as, ‘ordinary acquittal’ and

‘honourable acquittal’, as observed by the Supreme

Court, have emerged from judicial pronouncements. In

case, where the Court records that the accused has been

falsely implicated and that there was absolutely no

evidence to connect him to the crime, then it is treated

as an ‘honourable or clean acquittal’. However, if, for

various reasons, such as, lack of evidence, benefit of

doubt, prosecution witnesses turned hostile or star

391

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

witness resiled during trial, it would only result in an

acquittal and not an acquittal honourably. There is no

tenebrosity in the settled principles of law that if, there

is acquittal on certain grounds like benefit of doubt, etc.

from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude,

it would not automatically entitle exoneration from the

disciplinary action.

It is reiterated that an acquittal which is due to want

of evidence is not an honourable acquittal. If, after full

consideration of evidence, the same is disbelieved and

the prosecution said to have miserably failed to prove

the charges; or it is held to be false case; or neither to

be a false case nor acquitted on the ground of benefit

of doubt, under such circumstances, an acquittal may

have to be held as honourable or acquittal of all blame”.

25. Therefore, by applying the above ratio and on

perusal of Ex.P4, the Judgment in the Criminal Case,

I find that it is not first of all acquittal as a false case

or the claim Petitioner was falsely implicated in the said

offence. Therefore, on perusal of the Judgment Ex.P4,

I would say that it is not a honorable acquittal. Further,

mere acquittal and discharging from the criminal charges

by the Court will not automatically create a right for the

claim Petitioner to be reemployed as an Apprentice for

the reason that he was not terminated from the services

of Apprenticeship due to his criminal charge. His

termination was on the reason of long absenteeism, not

as he involved in a criminal case. Therefore, the

acquittal from the criminal charge will not help the claim

Petitioner any way to get the relief in his favour.

26. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent referred and relied upon a case law wherein

it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Appeal (Civil) 3791 of 2003, dated 09-03-2005

that no evidence was led by the Respondent-Workman

that he had made any effort to seek reinstatement or

complained against the termination. Here in the instant

case also the claim Petitioner has approached the

Respondent Management only in 2017 (Ex.P3), after 7

years from the date of his Termination Order. No proof

produced to show that he approached immediately after

his termination. Therefore, the case law relied also

squarely applicable to this case.

27. From the above discussions and findings, I hold

that the claim Petitioner is not a workman as per the

Apprenticeship Act 1961, he is not entitled for any

reliefs under the provision of section 25(F) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, his termination of services from

the Apprenticeship was only due to long unauthorized

absenteeism and Respondent Management has shown

that it got discretion to discontinue the Apprenticeship

during the period of Apprenticeship as envisaged under

the Apprenticeship Appointment Order Ex.P1 and

Standing Order Ex.R1. Thus, the Termination Order

Ex.R6 holds good and not liable to be set aside. Thus,

the point for determination is decided as against the

claim Petitioner.

28. In the result, the Reference is 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 07th day of January, 2023.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW1

— 18-12-2019

Thiru. Vignesh

List of petitioner’s exhibits:

Ex.Pl

— 01-06-2008

Photocopy

the

Apprenticeship order issued

by the General Manager of

Respondent.

Ex.P2 — 02-08-2010

Photocopy

the

FIR

Registered

against

the

Petitioner on the Complaint

of the Chief Security Officer,

MRF Limited.

Ex.P3 — 06-04-2017

Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to

the General Manager of the

Respondent.

Ex.P4 — 20-10-2016

Photocopy of the Judgment

in CC 380/2010 against; ithis

Petition and 2 others.

Ex.P5 — 16-05-2018

Photocopy of the Failure

Report given by the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry

List of respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 08-07-2022

Jeyakumar

List of Respondents’s Exhibits:

Ex.R1 — —

Certified Standing Order

of MRF Limited, Puducherry.

Ex.R2 — 31-07-2008

Photocopy of the letter on

revision of stipend to the

Claim Petitioner.

392

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

Ex.R3 — 23-06-2010

Photocopy of the Phonogram

sent to the Claim Petitioner.

Ex.R4 — —

Photocopy of the letter

seeking permission for Leave.

Ex.R5 — 20-10-2016

Photocopy of the Judgment

in CC 380/2010 of the

Judicial Magistrate - I,

Puducherry.

Ex.R6 — 20-08-2010

Photocopy of the Termination

Order issued to the Claim

Petitioner.

Ex.R7 — 07-06-2017

Notice of Remarks of the

Labour Officer (Conciliation)

Puducherry under No.755/

LO(C)/AIL/2017 along with

letter dated 19-05-2017 of

the Claim Petitioner.

Ex.R8 — 18-09-2017

Photocopy of the reply of

the Respondent Management

to the Notice of Remarks

dated 07-06-2017

Ex.R9 — 16-05-2018

Photocopy of the Failure

Report

the

Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.R10 — 28-05-2010

Photocopy of the Inter

Office Memorandum of the

Truck Curing Department to

the Manager - Truck.

Ex.R11 — 08-07-2010

Photocopy of the e-mail of

the Chief Security Officer to

the

officials

the

Respondent Management.

Ex.R12 — 19-08-2010

Photocopy

the

Inter-Office Memorandum.

Ex.R13 — 23-08-2010

Photocopy of the letter of

the Plant Manager of the

Respondent Management to

the Judicial Magistrate -I,

Puducherry.

Ex.R14 — 21-06-2018

Photocopy of the Order of

the Under Secretary to the

Government of Puducherry.

V. SOFANA DEVI,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court,

Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARAIKAL

NO. 1714/CEO/KKL/E3(Exam)/2023/774.

Karaikal, dated 19th April 2023.

NOTIFICATION

It is hereby informed that the following candidate has lost her original SSLC Mark Certificate beyond the

scope of recovery, the necessary steps have been taken to issue duplicate certificates. If, anyone finds the original

Mark Certificate, it may be sent to the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (Sec.), College Road, Chennai –

600 006 for cancellation, as it is no longer valid.

Sl.

Name and address

Sl. No. of

Permanent

School in which

No.

of the applicant

session and

the mark

registration

studied last

year

certificate

No.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ms. Saraswathi. J

1851951, April 2013

2295217

—

Karma Veerar Kamarajar Government

High School, Kurumbagaram,

Karaikal.

K. RAJASEKARAN,

Chief Educational Officer.

393

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

NO. 893-897/DSE/HSW/EC/HSC/2023.

Puducherry, dated 25th April 2023.

NOTIFICATION

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

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

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

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

Sl.

Name of the

Serial No. of the

School in which studied last

No.

applicant

session and year

Mark Certificate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Thiru/Tmt./Selvi:

Prasanthraj, M.

573871

–

Chevalier Sellane Higher

March-2015.

Secondary School, Kalapet,

Puducherry.

Manikandan, S.

563619

9108027

Government Higher

March-2014.

Secondary School, Ariyur,

Puducherry.

Kanmani Roja, P.

357312

5513316

Manimegalai Government Girls’

April-1998.

Higher Secondary School,

Nellithope, Puducherry.

Ranjithkumar, R.

533095

4700739

Sri V Ramamurthi Government

March-2007.

High School, Madukarai,

Puducherry.

Karthikeyan, J.

550041

7999268

Aditya Vidhyashram Higher

March-2013.

Secondary School, Poraiyur,

Puducherry.

Dr. V.G. SIVAGAMI,

Joint Director (School Education).

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HOME DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 16, Puducherry, dated 21st April 2023)

NOTIFICATION

As per the G.O. Ms. No. 52, dated 13-10-2022 of the

Home Department, Puducherry, Government of

Puducherry, have declared holiday for Ramzan

(Id-ul-Fitr) on 21-04-2023. Since, Ramzan (Id-ul-Fitr) is

celebrated in the Union territory of Puducherry and

Tamil Nadu on 22-04-2023 as per the Notice, dated

21-04-2023 of Government Town Kazi, Puducherry,

the Lieutenant-Governor, is pleased to declare that

Saturday, the 22nd April, 2023 will also be a Holiday for

all Government Offices including all Public Sector

Undertakings, Educational Institutions (Including

Professional Colleges) and Institutions coming under

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in all regions of

Union territory of Puducherry.

(By order)

M.V. HIRAN,

Under Secretary to Government.

394

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 31/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 26th April 2023]

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation,

Thiru V. Velusamy, Superintendent, Central Office, Public

Works Department, Puducherry, stands retired from

service with effect from the afternoon of 31-03-2023.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government (Personnel).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 32/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 26th April 2023]

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation, the

following Superintendents and Private Secretary, shall

retire from service with effect from the afternoon of

30-04-2023.

Sl.

Name of the official, designation and

No.

Department/Office in which working

(1)

(2)

Thiru./Tmt.

M. Vengadapathy, Superintendent,

Directorate of Social Welfare,

Puducherry.

G. Ravichandran, Superintendent,

Police Department,

Puducherry.

G. Amsaveni, Superintendent,

Chief Secretariat,

Puducherry.

M.N. Preetha, Superintendent,

Office of the Chief Educational Officer,

Mahe.

R. Sethuraman, Private Secretary,

Chief Secretariat,

Puducherry.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government

(Personnel).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

(SECRETARIAT WING)

(G.O. Ms. No. 4, Puducherry, dated 27th April 2023)

ORDER

Sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is conveyed for fixing the revised concessional rent for

leasing out of the AFT ground, Puducherry and Helipad Ground, Lawspet, Puducherry, as detailed in the Annexure.

2. The rate will be reviewed once in three years. Allotment will be subject to the condition that there should

be no leasing out of the grounds in part and it should be for the whole area of the ground.

3. Allotment of the above grounds to the Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings will be on

free of cost basis, whenever required by them.

4. There shall be no concession allowed in rental amount fixed for any other reasons such as reduced

collection of Entry Fee, No Entry Fee to the School students, etc.,

5. In addition to the concessional rent, Service tax at the rates as applicable from time to time shall also be

levied on the rental amount.

395

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

6. Approval of the Competent Authority shall be taken before giving effect to the rates recommended as

above.

7. The revised concessional rent shall be in effect from the date of issue of this Government Order.

8. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their I.D.No. 1288/FC/FD/F4/A4/2022-23,

dated 08-11-2022.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

F.P. VERBINA JAYARAJ,

Under Secretary to Government (School Education).

ANNEXURE

Sl.

Name of

Rent per day

No.

the Ground

Commercial

Non-Commercial

Existing

Marginal

Municipal

Revised

Existing

Marginal

Municipal

Revised

Rate

increase

Charges (*)

Rate per

Rate

increase

Charges @ Rate per

@ 10%

day

@ 10%

10% to the

day

to the

(in `)

enhanced

(in `)

enhanced

rate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

1. AFT Ground

75,000

7,500

8,250

90,750

40,000

4,000

4,400

48,400

2. Helipad Ground 38,000

3,800

4,180

45,980

20,000

2,000

2,200

24,200

(*) To be deposited in the Bank Account of the Municipalities concerned by the Administrative Department.

Sl.

Name of

Revised rent for Circus Units

No.

the Ground

Existing Rate

Marginal increase

Municipal Charges

Revised Rate per

@ 10%

@ 10% to the

day (in `)

enhanced rate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

AFT Ground

10,000

1,000

Nil

11,000

Helipad Ground

5,000

500

Nil

5,500

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

∂´∑ ÿ√Vm \Ú›mk\Á™, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_

Œ©√Õ>©A^π ∂§s©A

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_,

∂´∑

ÿ√Vm

\Ú›mk\Á™l_

√B[√|›>©√‚|

√ø>Á¶Õ>

WÁÈl_

÷Ú¬zD

ÿ√VÚ‚ÔÁ· (ÿ√VÚ^Ôπ[ √‚ΩB_ ÷ÀkKkÈÔ ÿƒF]

√ÈÁÔl_ Œ‚¶©√‚|^·m). ∂ÁkÔ^ “c^·mác^·√Ωá

c^· ÷Ú¬zD WÁÈlºÈºB” kV∫zk>uz ∂´∑

x›]Á´l¶©√‚¶ Œ©√Õ>©A^πÔ^, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, ∂´∑ ÿ√Vm

\Ú›mk\Á™ \Ú›mk ÔıÔVË©√V·Ï ∂kÏÔ·V_

k´ºkuÔ©√|˛[≈™.

2. JΩ ∂´¬z x›]Á´l¶©√‚¶ cÁ≈l[ º\_

“√ÈkÁÔ©√‚¶

c√ºBVÔ©√|›>©√‚¶

ÿ√VÚ‚ÔÁ·

kV∫zk>uÔV™

Œ©√Õ>©A^π”

®[Æ

z§©∏‚|

∂¬ºÔVΩ‚¶ Œ©√Õ>©A^π kÚ˛≈ 24á05á2023 ∂[Æ

396

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

x[√Ô_ 11.00 \Ë¬z^ ÷ÀkKkÈÔ›]uz kÕm

ºƒ´ºkı|D. ÿ√VÚ‚Ô^ kV∫˛¬ÿÔV^k>uÔV™ sÁÈ

ÿ\V›>\VÔ (in lot) z§©∏¶ ºkı|D. ∂ÁkÔ^ ∂[Æ

\VÁÈ 4.00 \Ë¬z kÚÁÔ>Õ]Ú¬zD Œ©√Õ>>V´ÏÔ^

x[MÁÈl_ ]≈¬Ô©√|D. ∂]Ô\V™ ÿ>VÁÔ ºÔVÚ√kº´

ÿ√VÚ‚ÔÁ·

kV∫zk>uÔV™

Œ©√Õ>>V´´VÔ

∂§s¬Ô©√|kÏ. Œ©√Õ>©A^π ]≈¬Ô©√|D ÂV^ ∂´ƒV_

s|xÁ≈ ÂV·VÔ ∂§s¬Ô©√‚¶V_ ∂|›> ºkÁÈ ÂV^

Œ©√Õ>©A^π ]≈¬Ô©√|D ÔÁ¶E ÂV·VÔ ÔÚ>©√|D.

3. Œ©√Õ>D ºÔVÚ√kÏÔ^ x[Ák©A› ÿ>VÁÔBVÔ

` 20,000

(‘√VF

÷Ú√>Vl´D

\‚|D)

k∫˛

kÁ´ºkVÁÈÁB, \Ú›mk ÔıÔVË©√V·Ï, ∂´∑ ÿ√Vm

\Ú›mk\Á™, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, ®[≈ ÿ√BÚ¬z ®|›m, >›>D

Œ©√Õ>©A^πÔ”¶[ ÷Áð›]Ú¬Ô ºkı|D. Œ©√Õ>

su√Á™l_ ÿku§BÁ¶Õº>VÚ¬z x[Ák©A›ÿ>VÁÔ

Œ©√Õ> su√Á™ xΩÕ>°¶[ ]Ú©∏¬ ÿÔV|¬Ô©√|D.

4. º\ºÈ z§©∏‚|^· ÔVÈ ÿÔ|suz©∏[ kÚD

Œ©√Õ>©A^πÔ”D, x[ Ák©A› ÿ>VÁÔ ÷_ÈV>

Œ©√Õ>©A^πÔ”D ∞uÆ¬ÿÔV^·©√¶\V‚¶Vm.

5. Œ©√Õ>›ÿ>VÁÔÁB•D

∂>uzı¶V™

∂´∑

WÏðBD ÿƒF> su√Á™ kˆÁB•D ºƒÏ›m ÿ\V›>\VÔ

ÿƒK›]B∏[ ÿ√VÚ‚ÔÁ· ®|›mﬂÿƒ_È ∂–\]¬Ô©√|kÏ.

ÿku§ÿ√u≈ Œ©√Õ>¬ÔV´ÏÔ^ ∂©ÿ√VÚ‚ÔÁ· >[ ÿƒVÕ>

ÿƒÈs_ 24 \Ë ºÂ´›]uz^ ∂©A≈©√|›> ºkı|D.

>k§™V_ x[Ák©A› ÿ>VÁÔ ]Ú©∏›>´©√¶\V‚¶Vm.

6. ∂´∑

WÏðl›m^·

ÿ√VÚ‚Ôπ[

\]©A

ÿ√VÚ‚Ôπ[ >´D √u§ºBV, ®ıË¬ÁÔ √u§ºBV

ºÔVÚ√kÏÔ^ √‚ΩBo_ c^· ÿ√VÚ‚ÔÁ· \Ú›mk

ÔVÁÈ 11.00 \Ë¬z √VÏÁkl¶ÈVD.

®Õ>

ŒÚ

Œ©√Õ>©A^πÁBºBV

∂_Èm

®_ÈVkuÁ≈•º\V ®Õ>s> ÔV´ðxD Ì≈V\_ ∞uÔºkV

∂]ÔV´D

cı|.

∂m

ƒD√Õ>\VÔ

\Ú›mk

\Ú›mk Ôı

ÔVË©√V·Ï.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL

KARAIKAL

Karaikal, dated 18th April 2023.

TENDER NOTICE

Sealed tenders are invited offering the rate for the

sale of old/unserviceable articles as detailed in the

Annexure belonging to this Hospital, in “as-is-where-is”

condition. The Annexures are displayed in the

Notice Board of the Government General Hospital,

Karaikal.

2. The sealed tenders should be addressed to the

Medical Superintendent, Government General Hospital,

Karaikal duly superscripted on the envelope as “Tender

for the purchase of old/unserviceable articles” and to

reach the undersigned on or before 24-05-2023 at 11.00 am.

The rate should be quoted for lot only. The tenders

will be opened at 4.00 pm on the same day in the

presence of the tenderers who are present. In case, the

prescribed date happens to be a public holiday, the

tender will be conducted on the next working day.

3. The intending tenderers should deposit an amount

of ` 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) through

Demand Draft in favour of the Medical Superintendent,

Government General Hospital, Karaikal, as earnest

money deposit. The earnest money deposit of the

unsuccessful tenderers, will be refunded after the tender

sale is completed. Tenders without earnest money

deposit will not be taken into consideration.

4. Tenders received after the stipulated date and time

will summarily be rejected.

5. The successful tenderer should pay the full amount

with the applicable Sales tax, etc., immediately and clear

the tendered articles within 24 hours at his/her own

risk, failing which the earnest money deposit will be

forfeited.

6. No claim on the quantity and quality of the articles

will be admitted once the tender is accepted. If, the

tender amount is less than the asset value of the

materials, the re-tender will be conducted.

7. The intending tenderers may inspect the articles

mentioned in the Annexure on 23-05-2023 only with the

prior permission of the undersigned.

8. The undersigned reserves the right to accept or

reject any full or part of the tender without assigning

any reason thereof.

9. In case of any dispute, the decision of the

undersigned will be the final.

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT.

397

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

OFFICE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER (CONCILIATION)

PUDUCHERRY

Puducherry, dated 03rd May 2023.

TENDER-CUM-PUBLIC AUCTION NOTICE

Sealed tenders are invited for the disposal of

obsolete, unserviceable and unused items available in

the Office of the Labour Officer (Conciliation), No. 15,

First Floor, Nehru Nagar. Puducherry, offering the

highest rate per lot mentioned in the Annexure-I (dead

stock items) and Annexure-II (e-waste items) for sale by

the undersigned in “as- is-where-is” condition.

Terms and Conditions

1. There should be a separate sealed tenders

addressed to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), Office

of the Labour Officer (Conciliation), No. 15, First Floor,

Nehru Nagar, Puducherry-605 011 superscripted as–

I. “Tender for obsolete, unused and unserviceable items”

for the items in Annexure-I

(a) Last date for submission of sealed : 29-05-2023

tender either by post or in person

at 1.00 p.m.

(Monday)

(b) Date and time of opening the sealed: 29-05-2023

tenders

at 4.00 p.m.

` 300

(Rupees three hundred only).

(and)

II. “Tender for e-Waste items”

for the items in Annexure-II

(a) Last date for submission of sealed : 29-05-2023

tender either by post or in person

at 1.00 p.m.

(Monday)

(b) Date and time of opening the sealed : 29-05-2023

tenders.

at 3.00 p.m.

` 100

(Rupees one hundred only)

2. The tenders for e-waste items in Annexure-II will

be accepted only from the Government Authorized

e-Waste Dismantlers as per the condition stipulated vide

Circular No. l486/PPCC/e-waste/JSA/2016/523, dated

09-08-2016 of Department of Science and Technology

and Environment, Puducherry.

3. The intending tenderers can inspect both the dead

stock items and e-waste items during the office hours

between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. up to 26-05-2023 with

the permission of the undersigned at the Office of the

Labour Officer (Conciliation), No. 15, First Floor, Nehru

Nagar, Puducherry-605 011, from the date of publication

of this Gazette notification.

4. The tender received after the due date, time and

without Earnest Money Deposit will be rejected.

5. The sale will be effected only to the highest

amount quoted by the tenderer. If, the total value of the

rate offered by the highest tenderer is found to be lesser

than the upset price fixed by the Condemnation

Committee, then the public auction will be conducted

on the spot, keeping the highest tender amount as

minimum bid amount.

6. Other than the tenderer/bidder or his/her

authorized person, no one will be admitted at the time

of opening of the tender and auction. No claim on the

quantity and quality of the articles will be admitted once

the tender/auction is admitted.

7. Each tenderer/bidder should enclose his/her

self-attested photocopy of Valid GST Registration

Certificate, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card/Valid Driving

Licence. If, any exemption from payment of GST an

undertaking should be submitted along with the tenders.

8. The successful tenderer/bidder should pay the full

amount immediately in cash along with GST extra as

applicable as per rules and clear the items within 24

hours at his/her/their own risk. This office will not be

in anyway held responsible for safe custody or any loss

of sold articles, failing which the Earnest Money

Deposit amount will be forfeited.

9. The Earnest Money Deposit of the unsuccessful

tenderers/bidders will be returned immediately after the

tender/auction sale is over/finalized.

10. The undersigned reserves the right to accept or

reject any/all tenders/bids without assigning any reason

thereof. If, the undersigned not satisfied/in case of any

dispute, the decision of the undersigned will be the

final.

D. VENKATESSAN,

Labour Officer (Conciliation).

ANNEXURE-I

Sl.

Furniture and dead stock items

Quantity

No.

(1)

(2)

(3)

No./Nos.

1 Wooden table with drawer

2 Wooden almirah with glass door

398

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

3 Folding chair (Steel)

4 Typewriter (English)

5 Steel stool

6 Plastic chair

7 Rolling chair

8 Numbering machine

9 Water filter

10 Steel-table with drawer

11 Steel almirah

12 Pedastal fan

13 Ceiling fan

14 Clock

15 Steel waste box

16 BSA bicycle

17 BSA bicycle

18 BSA bicycle

19 Lock

20 Steel-table tray

21 Venteak racks (small)

22 Wooden complain Box

23 Hammer

24 Pad lock

25 Name-board big

26 Name-board small

27 Aristocrat suitcase

ANNEXURE-II

Sl.

Particulars of e-Waste items

Quantity

No.

(1)

(2)

(3)

No./Nos.

1 Computer system (including Monitor,

Keyboard, CPU).

2 UPS

3 UPS

4 Printer (Wipro)

5 Dot matrix TVS printer

6 Printer canon

7 Printer EPSON

8 BSNL Phone

AFFIDAVIT

I, M. Gugan, father and natural guardian of

Siddhanth Subrahmanyan M G, (Minor), residing at

No. 50, Mariamman Koil Street, Kathirkammam,

Puducherry-605 009, date of birth 23-12-2020, son of

Gugan and Sathya, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm and state on oath as follows:

That I am the deponent herein on behalf of my

minor son and as such I am well acquainted with the

facts of this affidavit deposed hereunder.

I state that my minor son namely, ‘Siddhanth

Subrahmanyan M G’, was born to us on 23-10-2020,

at PIMS, Kalapet, Puducherry and the same was

registered under Registration No. OM/K/2020/579,

before Office of the Sub-Registrar of Births and

Deaths, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry, his name

has been entered as ‘Siddhanth Subrahmaniyan M G’.

Further, I state that as per my son’s Astrology, his

name is ‘Siddhan M G’.

Further, I state that I intent to change and

henceforth’ my son will be known and called only as

‘Siddhan M G’, as he is adopting the name as

mentioned in his Astrology document issued by Sri

Lalithambigai Jodhidalayam, Puducherry.

I submit that the above contents are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and

information, and nothing has been concealed.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary

Public at Puducherry, on this 18th day of April 2023.

562308

M. GUGAN.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Karthik, son of Paranthaman, aged about 31 years

and residing at Door No. 62, Periya Street,

Lingareddypalayam, Katterikuppam, Puducherry-605 502,

do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on

oath as follows:

(1)

(2)

(3)

No./Nos.

(1)

(2)

(3)

No./Nos.

399

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

That I am the deponent herein.

I submit that in my Birth Certificate No. K/1992/

127, my name is mentioned as ‘Karthik’, dated

28-10-1992, issued by the Registrar of Births and

Deaths,

Mannadipet

Commune

Panchayat,

Puducherry.

Further, I submit that in my Aadhaar Card

No. XXXX XXXX 3401, my name is mentioned as

‘Karthik’, issued by the Unique Identification

Authority of India.

Further, I submit that in my Electoral Identity Card

No. XDQ0038257, my name is mentioned as ‘Karthik’,

issued by the Election Commission of India.

Further, I submit that in my Indian Passport

No. V7532616, my name is mentioned as ‘Karthik’,

issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chennai,

Republic of India, dated 24-02-2022.

Further, I submit that in my PAN Card No. CJEPK3841E,

my name is mentioned as ‘Karthik’, issued by the

Income-tax Department, Government of India.

Further, I submit that as I converted myself from

Hindu religion to Muslim religion that is in my

Religious Conversion Certificate vide Ref.F.No.34/Town

Kazi/2022, my name is mentioned as ‘Ibrahim’, issued

by the Government Town Kazy, No.3, Anbu Nagar,

Arasur, Sulthanpet, Villianur, Puducherry, dated

31-10-2022.

Thus, both the names viz., ‘Karthik’ and ‘Ibrahim’

are referring one and the same person i.e., myself

only.

I hereby declare that I shall at all times hereafter

in all records, deeds and writings and in all

proceedings, dealings and transactions, private as

well as upon all occasions whatsoever use and sign

my name as ‘Ibrahim’ in place and in substitution of

my former names.

I hereby verify and confirm that what has been

stated above is true to best of my knowledge and

correct, and nothing material facts have concealed

thereon.

Signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on

this 25th day of April, 2023.

562316

KARTHIK. P.

AFFIDAVIT

I, N. Tirougnanasambandame, son of Natarajan, aged

46 years and residing at No.45, Main Road, Thirukanji,

Kilinjikuppam Post, Villianur, Puducherry-605 110, do

hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on oath

as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and I am well

known aware of the facts of the deposition.

I state that my name is mentioned as

‘Tirougnanasambandame’ in my Birth Certificate vide

Registration No.208/1976, dated 27-08-1976, issued

by Villianur Commune Panchayat, Puducherry, in my

Elector’s Photo Identity Card No. TLS0169730, issued

by Election Commission of India and in my Marriage

Certificate vide Registration No.14/2008/MGM,

issued by Villianur Commune Panchayat, Puducherry.

I state that my name is entered with initial as

‘N Tirougnanasambandame’ in my Aadhaar Card

No. XXXX XXXX 5663, issued by the Unique

Identification Authority of India.

I state that my name is entered with initial as

‘N Tirougnanasambandame’ in my PAN Card

No. AVEPT0373N, issued by the Income-tax

Department, Government of India.

I state that my name has been mentioned as

‘N.Thirougnanasambandam’ in my Service Book,

issued by the Police Department, Government of

Puducherry.

Further, I state that my name is entered as

‘Tirougnanasambandame N’ in my Bank Passbook of

State Bank of India, Puducherry Main Branch,

Puducherry.

Hence, I do hereby declare that the abovesaid names

i.e., ‘Tirougnanasambandame’, ‘N Tirougnanasambandame’,

‘N.Thirougnanasambandam’ and ‘Tirougnanasambandame N’

are referring one and the same person, i.e., myself

only.

Henceforth, I am always writing and signing my

name as ‘N.Tirougnanasambandame’ for all records,

papers and all affairs of my life.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary

Public at Puducherry, on this 26th day of April, 2023.

562319

N. TIROUGNANASAMBANDAME.

400

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

AFFIDAVIT

I, Balasuresh V, son of Varadharajan, Hindu, aged

34 years, residing at No. 10, First Cross, Rajaiyyer Thottam,

Kuyavarpalayam, Puducherry-605 013, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on oath as

follows:

That my daughter’s name is mentioned as

‘Shrivardhini B’ in her Birth Certificate vide

Registration No. O/2016/02237, dated 02-09-2016,

issued by Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.

I state that my daughter’s name is mentioned as

‘Shrivardhini’ in her Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX

1617, issued by Unique Identification Authority of

India.

I state that my daughter’s name is mentioned as

‘ƒıxÔk^π’ in her Astrology, issued by Jothidar

R. Kannan, Sri Ram Jothidalaya, Puducherry-605 013.

Whereas, I state that all the abovesaid names of

my daughter viz., ‘Shrivardhini B’, ‘Shrivardhini’ and

‘ƒıxÔk^π’ are denoting one and the same

person, they referring my minor daughter only.

I state that I am always writing and signing my

daughter’s name as ‘Sanmugavalli B’ (‘ƒıxÔk^π B’)

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 20th day of April 2023.

562321

BALASURESH.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Soccalingame, son of Vadivelou, residing at No. 65,

Sevatha

Counder

Street,

Muthirayarpalayam,

Puducherry-605 009, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm and state on oath as follows:

That in my Birth Certificate vide Registration

No. O/1976/830, issued by Oulgaret Municipality,

Puducherry, in my Aadhaar Card vide No. XXXX

XXXX 0452, issued by Unique Identification Authority

of India, in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card vide

No. NOG132399, issued by Election Commission of

India and in my Marriage Certificate vide No. 2485,

issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry, my

name has been mentioned as ‘Soccalingame’.

In my Secondary School Examination Mark Sheet,

issued by Central Board of Secondary Education vide

Certificate Serial No. 92 000067106 and Certificate

Serial No. 92 000306129, in my Migration Certificate

vide Seril No. Mig/92 000092473, issued by Central

Board of Secondary Education, in my Certificate vide

No. SSE/92/000179651, issued by Central Board of

Secondary Education and in my Employment

Exchange Identity Card vide Registration No. 6960/92,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Sokalingam .V’.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

names are referred, identified and relate to one and

the same person that is myself the deponent herein. I

state that hereafter, I shall be known and identified

only by the name ‘Soccalingame’.

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 affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 19th day of April 2023.

562322

V. SOCCALINGAME.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Selvi Vijaya Kumari, wife of Selvam, aged 66 years,

residing at No. 78, 3rd Cross Street, Paris Nagar,

Moolakulam, Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry-605 010, 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 ‘Selvi Vijaya

Kumari’ in my husband’s Pension Payment Order,

issued by the Office of the Dy. C.D.A. (Army) CDA

Allahabad, bearing PPO No. S/011113/89 (Army).

I state that my name is entered as ‘Vijayakumari’

in my Aadhaar Card, issued by the Unique

Identification Authority of India, bearing No. XXXX

XXXX 0694.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Vijayakumari’

in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card, issued by the

Election Commission of India, bearing No. UEB0206581,

dated 27-05-2020.

401

9 May 2023]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

I state that my name is entered as ‘Vijayakumari’

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

Government of India, bearing No. BOMPV1502D,

dated 15-09-2018.

I state that my name is entered as ‘s¤Bz\Vˆ’ in

my Family Ration Card, issued by the Department of

Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry,

bearing No. 022302, dated 15-07-2005.

I submit that the names described in the above

records as ‘Selvi Vijaya Kumari’, ‘Vijayakumari’ and

‘s¤Bz\Vˆ’ are referring one and the same person,

they denoting myself only.

Finally, I declare that my correct name is ‘Vijayakumari’

only. Further, I will not insist any correction in future.

The above statements in the abovesaid paragraphs

are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 27th day of April 2023.

562323

VIJAYAKUMARI.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Selvam G, son of Ganapathy aged 68 years, residing

at No. 78, 3rd Cross Street, Paris Nagar, Moolakulam,

Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry-605 010, 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 ‘G Selvam’ in

my Discharge Certificate Book, issued by the Indian

Army.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Selvam G’ in

my Pension Payment Order, issued by the Office of

the Dy. C.D.A. (Army) CDA Allahabad, bearing PPO

No. S/011113/89 (Army).

I state that my name is entered as ‘G Selvam’ in

my Aadhaar Card, issued by the Unique Identification

Authority of India, bearing No. XXXX XXXX 9007.

I state that my name is entered as ‘Selvam’ in my

Elector’s Photo Identity Card, issued by the Election

Commission of India, bearing No. UEB0206631, dated

27-05-2020.

I state that my name is entered as ‘G Selvam’ in

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

Government of India, bearing No. AHRPG2099R, dated

04-04-2023.

I state that my name is entered as ‘G Selvam’ in

my Pension Bank Passbook, issued by the State Bank

of India, Reddiyapalayam, Puducherry, bearing

Account No. XXXXXXX8401, dated 08-06-1996.

I state that my name is entered as ‘ÿƒ_kD’ in my

Family Ration Card, issued by the Department of Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry,

bearing No. 022302, dated 15-07-2005.

I submit that the names described in the above

records as ‘G Selvam’, ‘Selvam G’, Selvam’ and ‘ÿƒ_kD’

are referring one and the same person, they denoting

myself only.

Finally, I declare that my correct name is ‘G Selvam’

only. Further, I will not insist any correction in future.

The above statements in the above-said paragraphs

are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 27th day of April 2023.

562324

SELVAM.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Gandhi Nesan, son of Masilamani, Indian

inhabitant, aged 50 years and residing at the house

bearing Door No. 95, Vanathu Chinnappar Koil Street,

Saint Paulpet, Puducherry-605 008, do hereby solemnly

and sincerely affirm to whomsoever it may concern as

follows:

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

Electoral Identity Card under No. KVY0623751, my name

has been mentioned as ‘Gandinesan (ÔVÕ]ºÂƒ[)’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No.xxxx xxxx 6675, my

name has been mentioned as ‘Gandhi Nesan

(ÔVÕ]ºÂƒ[)’.

In my Marriage Invitation, my name has been

mentioned as ‘M. ÔVÕ]ºÂƒ[’.ë

In my Community Certificate under No.

EC77786D6A687C86, my name has been mentioned as

‘Gandhinesan (ÔVÕ]ºÂƒ[)’.

402

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[9 May 2023

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.

In the Birth Record of my elder son, by name

Santhakumar, under Registration No. J/2002/7746,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Gandhinesan’.

In the Birth Record of my younger son by name

Peremkumar, under Registration No. J/2005/9789, my

name has been mentioned as ‘Nehru Dasan’.

In the Family Ration Card under No. 355687, my

name has been mentioned as ‘ÔVÕ]ºÂƒ[’.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

names are referred, identified and relating one and

the same person, that is me, the deponent herein.

I state that hereafter, I shall be known and

identified only by the name with initial and spelling

as ‘Gandhi Nesan (ÔVÕ]ºÂƒ[)’ 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 26th day of

April 2023.

562325

M. GANDHI NESAN.