[61]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

\Vk‚¶ ¿]√]BV_ ®|¬Ô©√|D ..

Procédure du Magistrate de District ..

Procedings of the District

º\_Â¶kΩ¬ÁÔÔ^

Magistrate

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

Sentence arbitral du Travail

Award of the Labour Court ..

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

Notifications du Gouvernement ..

Government Notifications

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

Annonces

Announcements

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

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2024 }

ƒ™kˆ |

23 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Janvier

2024 (3 Magha 1945)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

23rd

January

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

No. 9531/DRDM/C3/PAWN/2023/7045.

Puducherry, dated 13th December 2024.

ORDER

Present :

E. Vallavan, I.A.S.,

District Collector-cum-District Magistrate.

Sub.

DRDM – The Puducherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966 – Public Auction – Sale of unredeemed

and time barred jewels – Permission Order – Issued – Reg.

Ref.

: 1. Application of Thiru Suresh Kumar, Pawn Banker (L.No. 380), No. 62-A, Thalavaveerasamy

Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

2. Consent letter of Thiru B. Karthikeyan, 39A/32, Srinivasan Street, Thirupathiripuliyur,

Cuddalore Taluk – Authorized Auctioneer, dated 07-09-2023.

3. Report of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Puducherry vide Letter No. 6005/DC(R)N/

A7/PB/2023/3067, dated 06-12-2023.

Whereas, an application, dated 07-09-2023 was received from Thiru Suresh Kumar, Pawn Banker (L.No.

380), No. 62-A, Thalavaveerasamy Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry, a licensed Pawn Broker requesting permission

of the District Magistrate to sell unredeemed and time barred articles in public auction;

2. And whereas, the list of unredeemed time barred articles submitted by the Pawn Broker was forwarded

to the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Puducherry, for causing physical verification of the articles and ascertain

that they remain unredeemed after the time allowed for redemption;

3. And whereas, the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Puducherry, has furnished the report vide

reference (3) cited, stating that the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry, had conducted physical verification of the

articles that are unredeemed and time barred pledged with Thiru Suresh Kumar, Pawn Banker (L.No. 380), No. 62-A,

Thalavaveerasamy Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry and reported that the articles mentioned in the application remained

unredeemed past the time allowed and the articles are kept in the licensed premises itself except the three items

vide Catalogue Nos. 217, 326 and 396 of the list, which were redeemed subsequently, after the application of the

Pawn Broker cited at reference (1);

4. And whereas, the rule 12 of the Puducherry Pawn Brokers Rules, 1966 prescribes detailed procedure on

auctioning of pledges;

5. Now, therefore, Thiru B. Karthikeyan, Thirupathiripuliyur, Authorised Auctioneer, is permitted to conduct

within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, the sale of time barred and unredeemed pledged articles, as

shown in the list enclosed and available with the Pawn Broker, Thiru Suresh Kumar, Pawn Banker (L.No. 380), No.

62-A, Thalavaveerasamy Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry, in public auction in the licensed premises of the Pawn

Broker at the above address, as per the list approved and sent to the Pawn Broker and the Auctioneer, except the

three items vide Catalogue Nos. 217, 326 and 396 of the list, which were redeemed. The Pawn Broker and Auctioneer

shall observe the above formalities detailed as required under the rules framed under the Puducherry Pawn Brokers

Act, 1966, before conducting the sale of time barred and unredeemed pledged articles in the public auction:

Sl.No.

Details of

Number of articles

articles

(Catalogue)

Gold

294

Silver

181

Others

—

Total

475

E. VALLAVAN, I.A.S.,

District Collector-cum-District Magistrate.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 114/AIL/Lab./S/2023,

Puducherry, dated 06th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 12/2018, dated

17-08-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of dispute between the M/s. Brightenex Private Limited,

Thattanchavady, Puducherry and Thiru A. Deiveegan,

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. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Thursday, the17th day of August, 2023

I.D. (L). No. 12/2018

CNR. No. PYPY06-000111-2018

A. Deiveegan,

S/o. Anthonisamy,

No. 16-A, Raja Nagar,

Semmandalam,

Cuddalore District,

Tamil Nadu.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Brightenex Private Limited,

No. A-16, Industrial Estate,

Thattanchavady,

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-07-2023 before me

for final hearing in the presence of Thiru P. Saravanan,

Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal Vrintha Mohan,

E. V. Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, L.K. Karki and

P. Srikandan, Counsels for the respondent and after

hearing the both sides and perusing the case records,

this Court delivered the following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 25/AIL/Lab./T/2018, dated 27-02-2018 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents,

viz.,

(a) Whether the dispute raised by Thiru A. Deiveegan,

s/o. Anthonisamy, No. A-l6, Raja Nagar, Semmandalam,

Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu against the Management of

M/s. Brightenex Private Limited, No. A-16, Industrial

Estate, Thattanchavady, 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 averments stated in the claim petition filed

by the Petitioner is as follows:

The Petitioner was working in the Respondent

Company as employee from 27-11-1994 onwards to

till the date of dismissal from service on 30-05-2017

for about 23 years in the Respondent’s Unit of

Brightenex Private Limited in Bold and Nuts

manufacturing Factory at Puducherry.

(ii) The Petitioner was working as Cell Leader

(informally called as Supervisor) in the M/s. Brightenex

Private Limited, Thattanchavady, Puducherry,

continuously for 23 years with utmost satisfaction

of the Management and without giving any room for

remarks and while so the Management has transfered

the Petitioner to Raw Material Store from the

Machine Operator Division and then transferred to

Scrap Area in order to reduce his importance in the

working sections and without any valid reasons. Due

to his family circumstances the Petitioner obeyed the

orders of the Management and put his hard work in

the said employment.

(iii) The Petitioner workmen is informally called as

Supervisor and he was actually working in a position

as Cell Leader. The Respondent Management issued

the salary slip to the Petitioner with Designation as

Cell Leader. Therefore, the Petitioner’s employment

status and Designation as “Cell Leader” is considered

as “Workman” as per Labour Act.

(iv) The alleged statement by the Respondent/

Management that the Petitioner was working as

Supervisor and therefore, this industrial dispute is

not maintainable is invented maliciously to defeat the

bona fide claim of this innocent Petitioner/Workman.

(v) On one occasion, the barrels containing waste

oil and waste solutions were loaded in the lorry

under his supervision through Thiru Ayyanar, Forklift

Operator to dispatch the same to Viswas Lubes

Company on 25-05-2017. When Thiru Arunachalam

(Contract Labour) was also there and on completion

of the loading work the Petitioner returned back to

his place at 10.00 a.m. after an hour, he came to know

that Thiruvalargal A.K. Sha and A. Saravanan

checked the loaded barrels in the lorry and found

3 numbers of cane containing diesel and the

Petitioner rushed immediately to the spot. In the

spot enquiry, the Petitioner informed that he does not

know how those diesel canes found available in the

loaded lorry at the time, Thiru Arunachalam, Contract

labour he himself admitted that he handed-over those

diesel canes to the load men and also took

responsibility for such wrongdoings, but, the

Management did not take their statement into

account for consideration.

(vi) Thiru A.L. Sha, Managing Director directly

conducted the enquiry with the Petitioner and others

viz., Thiruvalargal A.K. Sha and A. Saravanan. The

Petitioner clearly informed the facts of the incidents

to the Managing Director and on completion of the

enquiry the Managing Director obtained signature of

the Petitioner and 2 others in a Written-Statement and

thereafter, he continued his work in the Company as

usual. On 30-05-2007 at 3.00 p.m. Tmt. Bhuvaneswari,

in-charge of H.R. Department has informed that he

was terminated from service with effect from

30-05-2017 and instructed to receive the order to this

effect and sign in the settlement paper, after getting

two months salaries.

(vii) The Petitioner was refused to receive the

Termination Order as his Superior Thiru Sivaprakasarn

was on leave, but, the same was sent by post to his

address and the post was received by the Petitioner’s

family members on 02-06-2017. The Management

made a conspiracy with pre-planned idea to expel the

Petitioner from the Company. Therefore, the

Petitioner has requested the Conciliation Authority

to take this case on file and issued necessary

instructions to the Management to revoke the

Termination Order and to reinstate him into service.

(viii) No reasonable opportunities were given to

the Petitioner and even no reasonable time-duration

were given to this Petitioner for establishing his

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

defense and innocent. The proceedings were

conducted in a hurried manner and his oral and

documentary evidences were not allowed to be

submitted in accordance with Labour laws. In order

to achieve its illegal-objects for the termination of

the Petitioner, “the Respondent’s company violated

the principles of natural justice, equity, ethics and

good conscience and passed a non-speaking order

of unlawful termination without wages thrust upon

this innocent Petitioner.

(ix) The Petitioner was appointed and designated

as Cell Leader in the Respondent Company till the

last date of the Respondent's illegal termination and

the said work comes under the category of workmen

and therefore, the dispute between the Respondent/

Management and the victimized Petitioner/Workmen

attracted the industrial dispute under the Industrial

Disputes Act. Hence, this petition to set-aside the

biased Termination Order, dated 30-05-2017 passed

against the Petitioner by the Respondent’s Company

and direct the Respondent Company to reinstate the

Petitioner to his employment with all his back wages,

promotions and all other Labour and Employment

benefits.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the

Respondent is as follows:

The Petitioner was employed as a Supervisor with

the Respondent Management and thus is not a

“workman” as per the Labour Laws and thus the

Petitioner has no locus standi to raise the industrial

dispute against the Respondent.

(ii) The Petitioner was appointed as “Supervisor

Trainee” in the Respondent Management on

27-05-1994 and thereafter, he was confirmed as

“Supervisor” by the Respondent Management on

28-05-1996. That on 18-03-2010 he was issued as work

responsibility order which included, “Maintaining

inward and outward scrap stock register Department

wise and type wise separately”.

(iii) While this being so, on 25-05-2017, the

Petitioner was caught red handed for stealing diesel

from the company scrap yard and since the Petitioner

had committed the offence of theft the Respondent

Management due to sympathy towards the Petitioner

who had worked for nearly 23 years has not lodged

any Police Complaint against the Petitioner and

decided to let the Petitioner by terminating his

service.

(iv) Thereafter, the Respondent Management

issued a Termination Letter to the Petitioner on

30-05-2017 and as the same was refused the

Respondent Management sent the letter of

Termination along with its covering letter, dated

30-05-2017 to the Respondent through registered post

with Acknowledgement Card and the same was

received by the Petitioner on 02-06-2017.

(v) Thereafter, the Respondent Management

received a letter, dated 07-06-2017 from the Labour

Officer (Conciliation), Government of Puducherry

regarding a representation given by the Petitioner to

it on 06-06-2017. The Respondent Management sent

a reply to the Labour Officer (Conciliation), through

Registered post with AD Card, dated 30-06-2017.

(vi) Thereafter, the Respondent Management has

sent a show cause, dated 04-11-2017 to the Petitioner

and the same was duly served to the Petitioner

through registered post with AD Card on 07-11-2017.

subsequently Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate was

appointed an Enquiry Officer on for the offences

done by the Petitioner.

(vii) The Enquiry Officer had conducted a fair

enquiry by following principles of natural justice and

had intimated to the Petitioner about the time, date

and place of enquiry as 24-10-2018 at 4.30 p.m. at the

office of the Advocate through post as early as on

10-10-2018, but, the Petitioner after receiving the

notice failed to appear and thus the enquiry was

reposted to 30-10-2018 and again the Petitioner failed

to appear and explain his case. Therefore, the

Enquiry Officer was constrained to set the Petitioner

ex parte and as the Petitioner has failed to use the

opportunity given to him the adverse inference has

to be made that the Petitioner is accepting his crime

and faults. The Enquiry Officer submitted his

Enquiry Report on 12-06-2019.

(viii) Thereafter, the Respondent Management has

sent a final show cause notice to the Petitioner on

04-10-2019 and the same was received by the

Petitioner vide AD Card, dated 06-10-2019. The

Respondent Management has followed all the

Principles of natural justice and has given ample

opportunity to the Petitioner to prove his innocence

and as beyond all reasonable doubts the act of theft

done by the Petitioner was proved he was rightly

terminated from service for his misconduct.

(ix) The Petitioner was removed from the services

for the grave misconduct of theft, and further as the

same was proved beyond reasonable doubt in an

independent and impartial domestic enquiry.

Therefore, the dismissal of Petitioner from service is

fully justified and warrants non interference of this

Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

4. Point for determination:

1. Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

is maintainable before this Court?

2. Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner

over his non-employment is justified or not?

3. If justified, to what relief the Petitioner is

entitled to?

5. On the side of Petitioner, the Petitioner himself

was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to P11 and through

cross-examination of PW.1 Exs. R1 to R8 was marked.

On Respondent side Mr. Nagarathinam, Head - H.R of

Respondent Management was examined as RW.1 and

through him Exs.R9 to R12 were marked. Mr. Saravanan,

Senior Executive - Administration - Purchase Department

was examined as RW.2. No exhibits were marked through

him.

6. On the points 1 to 3:

The facts of the case as put forth by the Petitioner

is as follows:

That the Petitioner was working in the Respondent

company as Cell leader but, informally he was called

as “Supervisor” and further the Petitioner was working

continuously for 23 years with utmost satisfaction

of Respondent Management and while so the

Petitioner was transferred to raw material store from

the machine operation division and then to scrap area

without any valid reasons and to reduce the

importance of the Petitioner but, still the Petitioner

had obeyed the orders of the Respondent

Management considering his family circumstances.

The Petitioner further submits that on 25-05-2017

barrels containing waste oil and solutions were

loaded in the lorry under the supervision of

Petitioner through one Ayyanar Forklift operator and

Arunachalam Contract Labour and later upon

inspection by A.K. Shah - Finance Manager and

Mr. A. Saravanan, Senior Executive it was found that

two barrels of fresh diesel was loaded in the vehicle

and thereafter, the Petitioner on coming to know

about the same had rushed to the spot and during

spot enquiry the Petitioner had informed that he does

not know as to how the diesel canes were loaded in

the lorry but, one Arunachalam Contract labour had

admitted that he had handed over those diesel cans

to the load men and took the responsibility, but, the

Management did not take into consideration of the

statement of said Arunachalam. The Petitioner further

states that thereafter, A.L. Sha, the Managing

Director has directly conducted the enquiry and on

30-05-2017 the incharge of HR. Department had

informed that the Petitioner was terminated from the

service with effect from 30-05-2017. It is the prime

contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner having

completed 23 years of service in the Respondent

Company was planned to be expelled from the

Respondent Company and thereby the above case

was foisted against the Petitioner and the Petitioner

was not given reasonable opportunity to establish

his defense and the proceedings were conducted in

an hurried manner and therefore, the termination is

an illegal one.

7. On the other hand the first contention of the

Respondent Management is that the Petitioner was

employed as supervisor and therefore, the Petitioner is

not a workman and has no locus standi to approach this

Court. The other contention of the Respondent is that

the Petitioner was caught red handed while stealing

diesel from the company scrap yard and thereby the

Petitioner had committed the offence of theft, but,

however the Management out of sympathy upon the

Petitioner who had completed 23 years of service in the

Respondent Management has not lodged any police

complaint against the Petitioner and decided to let the

Petitioner by terminating his service by issuing

Termination Letter on 30-05-2017. The Respondent

further submits that thereafter a letter, dated 07-06-2017

was received from the Labour Department and

subsequently the Respondent Management had issued

charge-sheet, dated 04-11-2017 and the same was served

upon the Petitioner on 07-11-2017 and later had

appointed an Enquiry Officer, but, however the

Petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and

explain his case and therefore, the Petitioner was set

ex parte and Enquiry Report was issued stating the

charge was proved and thereafter, final show cause

notice was issued to the Petitioner on 04-10-2019, but,

the Petitioner even after receipt of the same has not

submitted any reply and therefore, the Petitioner was

terminated from service since the Petitioner failed to

prove his innocence regarding the act of theft done by

the Petitioner. The conduct of the Respondent warrants

maximum punishment and therefore, he was terminated

from service.

8. In this case the first contention of the Respondent

is that the Petitioner was employed as a “Supervisor”

and therefore, the Petitioner does not fall within the

ambit of definition of workman and therefore, the

Petitioner has no locus standi to approach this Court.

Whereas, the contention of the Petitioner in the claim

statement as well as in his evidence is that he was

informally called as supervisor, but, he was working only

as a Cell Leader and further the Respondent Management

had issued salary slip to the Petitioner with designation

as Cell Leader and the said Designation is considered

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

as workman as per Industrial Disputes Act. The

Respondent to substantiate that the Petitioner was

employed and working as a supervisor has relied upon

Ex.R1 Appointment Letter with service standing orders

which has been admitted by the Petitioner in his cross-

examination. Whereas, the Petitioner has relied upon

Ex.P11 Pay Slip pertaining to the month he was

terminated that is Pay Slip for the month of May 2017

wherein the Designation is stated as Cell Leader.

9. The R.W.1 examined on the side of Respondent

Management has not denied the designation as stated

in Ex.P11 and further during his cross-examination has

deposed as follows:

\–>V´Ú¬z kw∫Ô©√|D Leave, Permission,

Increment g˛BkuÆ¬z ]Ú. Ek∏´ÔVƒD á Head

Incharge ®[√kÏ >V[ Signing Authority ®[≈V_

g\VD. \–>V´Ï ºkÁÈ ÿƒF•D º√Vm Scrap, Fork

Lift Operation and Maintenance, Diesel Barrel

Maintenance g˛BkuÆ¬z ]Ú. Ek©∏´ÔVƒD á Head

Incharge >V[ ÿ√VÆ©A ®[≈V_ g\VD. ÷m

ƒD\Õ>\VÔ \–>V´Ï >[MﬂÁƒBVÔ ®Õ> xΩ°D

®|¬Ô xΩBVm ®[≈V_ g\VD \–>V´Á´ º√VÈ

DME √Ω›>k´ÔÁ· x>o_ ®∫Ô^ ÿ>VaƒÁÈl_

Machine Operatorá´VÔ EÈ ÔVÈD √ËB\Ï›mºkVD.

∂©º√Vm>V[ ∂kÏÔ^ ∏[M‚| Supervise ÿƒFB

xΩ•D, \–>V´Á´ º√V_ Diploma √Ω›>kÏÔÁ·

Term Employee ®[ÆD ∏[M‚| Probation 01,

Probation 02, Cell Leader ∏[M‚| Supervisor-gÔ

√>s cBÏ° ∂π¬Ô©√|D.

10. Thus, the RW.1 during his cross-examination has

deposed that the Head incharge, in respect of the

section where the Petitioner works that is Scrap, Fork

Lift operation and Maintenance, Diesel Barrel

Maintenance is one Thiru Sivaprakasam and further the

said Sivaprakasam is the signing Authority to grant,

Leave, permission, increment for the Petitioner and

further deposed that for the persons like Petitioner who

have studied DME would be initially employed as Term

employee, then as Probation 01, Probation 02, Cell leader

and then would be promoted as Supervisor. Thus as per

the evidence of R.W.1 after working as Cell Leader the

promotion would be given to the post of Supervisor.

Hence, as per the evidence of R.W.1 it could be found

that the post of Supervisor is a promotional post which

would be given after the post of Cell Leader and further

the post of Cell Leader and the post of Supervisor are

distinct one. Though as per Ex.R1 Appointment Letter

issued on 08-12-1997 it is stated that the Petitioner is

appointed as Supervisor Trainee, but, in the last Pay

slip of the Petitioner that is for the month of May 2017

the designation is stated as Cell Leader. Hence, from

Ex.P11 pay slip for the Month of May 2017 it could be

inferred that the Petitioner was working as Cell Leader

in the Respondent company. When it is the evidence

of R.W.1 that from the post of Cell Leader the promotion

to the post of Supervisor would be given and further

the Petitioner posting as per last pay slip that is Ex.P11

the designation of the Petitioner was Cell Leader and

further one Sivaprakasam was Head Incharge of the

section where the Petitioner worked then it is for the

Respondent to prove that the work of the Petitioner was

in supervisory category because section 2(s) of

Industrial Dispute Act provides for the exceptions to

the definition “Workman” in (iii) and (iv) of the said

section which states as follows:

“mainly in managerial or administrative capacity”

or being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws

wages exceeding the prescribed limit(s); and

exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached

to the office or by reason of the powers vested in

him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

11. Thus, as per 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act,

the definition of “workman” means, any person

(including an apprentice) employed in any industry to

do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether

the terms of employment be express or implied and for

the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in

relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such

person who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of

that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or

retrenchment has led to that dispute, but, does not

include any such person who is employed mainly in a

managerial or administrative capacity or who, being

employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages

exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem

or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached

to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him,

functions mainly of a managerial nature.

12. Therefore, the exception makes explicit that if a

workman is not discharging any supervisory function

then the exception will not apply. In the present case

the Petitioner as per Ex.P11 pay slip for the month of

May 2017 is found to be employed as Cell leader and

as per the evidence of both sides the Petitioner was in

charge of loading and unloading the barrels containing

waste oil and waste solution in a lorry through one

Ayyanar Forklift operator. Thus, from Ex.P11 Pay Slip

and the nature of work done by the Petitioner it is found

that the Management has miserably failed to prove that

the Petitioner was discharging “managerial/supervisory/

administrative” functions. When that being so, this

Court from the evidences of both sides holds that the

Petitioner falls well within the definition of “Workman”

as per section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and

does not fall in any of the exceptions of the said

section.

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

13. The next question that arises for consideration

is whether the Petitioner was terminated from the

employment after conducting proper enquiry by

providing ample opportunity to disprove the charge

against him and further by following the principles of

natural justice. It is the case of the Respondent that on

25-05-2017 the Petitioner while loading waste oil and

solution through Ayyanar Forklift operator and casual

labour Arunachalam has attempted to steal diesel from

the company through trucks carrying the waste oil and

solutions and after the theft was discovered the

Petitioner was asked for written explanation, but, the

Petitioner was unable to offer any explanation as to how

the diesel cans were found in the lorry after the

Petitioner had checked and released the lorry and

further during the enquiry proceedings the Petitioner

has failed to appear and wantonly left ex parte and

therefore after following all the principles of natural

justice the Petitioner was dismissed from the service.

14. Whereas

the Petitioner contends that the

Petitioner was working continuously for 23 years with

utmost satisfaction of Respondent Management and

while so the Petitioner was transferred to Raw material

store from the machine operation Division and then to

scrap area to reduce his importance in the working

section but due to family circumstances he obeyed the

orders of the Management and while so on 25.05.2017

the waste oil and waste solutions were loaded in the

lorry through one Ayyanar Forklift operator and

Arunachalam contract labour under his supervision and

after completion of the loading work the Petitioner has

returned to his place and later after an hour he came to

known that A.K. Shah - Finance Manager and Mr. A.

Saravanan - Senior Executive have checked the loaded

barrels in the lorry and found that two barrels of fresh

diesel was loaded in the vehicle and thereafter the

Petitioner on coming to know about the same had

rushed to the spot and in the spot enquiry the

Petitioner informed that he does not know as to how

the diesel cans were loaded but one Arunachalam

Contract labour had admitted that he had handed over

those barrels to the load men and took the

responsibility but the Management did not take into

consideration of the statement of said Arunachalam.

The Petitioner further states that thereafter, A.L. Sha,

the Managing Director has directly conducted the

enquiry and on 30-05-2017 the incharge of HR

department informed that the Petitioner was terminated

from service with effect from 30-05-2017. The Petitioner’s

prime contention is that the Petitioner having completed

23 years of service the Management had planned to

expel the Petitioner from the Respondent company and

further the Petitioner was not given reasonable

opportunity to establish his defense and innocence all

the proceedings were conducted in an hurried manner.

15. Thus, the core point that arises for consideration

is whether the principles of natural justice has been

followed during the enquiry proceedings and further,

whether the Petitioner was given reasonable

opportunity to prove his defence before dismissal from

employment. On perusal of Ex.R9 the statement of fact

stated to have been recorded by A.K. Shah - Finance

Manager of Respondent company it is found that the

date of occurrence of alleged theft of two Jerry Can

containing fresh diesel in the lorry loaded with barrels

of waste oil and waste solution for sale and disposal to

Visves Lub is on 25-05-2017. Similarly, on perusal of

Ex.P2 it is stated that on 30-05-2017 the Management

has decided to terminate the Petitioner from service with

effect from 30-05-2017. The contention of the Petitioner

is that on 25-05-2017 there was spot enquiry by A.K. Shah -

Finance Manager and A. Saravanan - Senior Executive

and thereafter A.L. Sha Managing Director had

conducted the enquiry with the Petitioner and

subsequently on 30-05-2017 at 3 p.m. the Petitioner was

informed that he was terminated from service with effect

from 30-05-2017. Thus, from the above it could be

inferred that alleged occurrence of theft is stated to

have occurred on 25-05-2017 and later after spot enquiry

on 25-05-2017 and after enquiry by the Managing

Director the Petitioner on 30-05-2017 was terminated

from service with effect from 30-05-2017.

16. Further, from the documents relied by the

Petitioner and Respondent it is found that as per Ex.P3

on 06-06-2017 the Petitioner thereafter has approached

Labour Officer (Conciliation) and as per Ex.P6 Charge

sheet, dated 04-11-2017 was sent to Petitioner and as

per Ex.R11 the Respondent Management on 08-10-2018

has appointed Mr. S. Asokumar, Advocate as Enquiry

Officer and as per Ex.R8 on 12-06-2019 the Enquiry

Officer has prepared his Enquiry Report and as per

Ex.R7 series letter, dated 22-10-2019 the Respondent

Management based on Enquiry report has upheld the

Termination order, dated 30-05-2017 and dismissed the

Petitioner from employment. Thus, it is found that

initially the Respondent Management without serving

charge sheet and without appointing an Enquiry Officer

and without conducting due enquiry and without

following principles of natural justice and without the

Enquiry Report has terminated the Petitioner on

30-05-2017 itself and thereafter the Petitioner is found

to have approached Labour Officer (Conciliation) as per

Ex.P3 letter, dated 06-06-2017 and thereafter, charge

sheet is found to have sent to the Petitioner and Enquiry

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

Officer was appointed and Enquiry was conducted and

subsequently as per Ex.R7 series on 22-10-2019 the

Termination order initially done on 30-05-2017 was

upheld and the Petitioner was dismissed from the

service.

17. However, it is the contention of the Respondent

Management that after the Petitioner was served with

charge sheet, dated 04-11-2017 the Petitioner inspite of

receipt of notice of hearing from the Enquiry Officer has

failed to appear for the Enquiry and wantonly left the

enquiry ex parte and therefore after following all the

principles of natural justice and after giving sufficient

opportunity to the Petitioner to prove his innocence

regarding it came to be concluded that the act of theft

was proved beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby

the Petitioner was terminated from service for his grave

misconduct. The Petitioner also during his cross

examination admitted that he was served with Ex.P9

notice of hearing from the Enquiry Officer and further

inspite of receipt of Ex.P9 he had not appeared before

Enquiry Officer. Thus from the evidence of Petitioner it

is found that the Petitioner inspite of knowing about

the enquiry proceedings has failed to appear before

Enquiry Officer and left the enquiry proceedings ex parte

and thereafter Enquiry Officer has prepared the Enquiry

Report Ex.R8 on 12-06-2019 and again the Petitioner was

called upon to give his written explanation to the

Enquiry Report as per Ex.R6 series letter, dated

04-10-2019, but, again the Petitioner has not responded

and therefore as per Ex.R7 series letter, dated 22-10-2019

the termination of Petitioner on 30-05-2017 was upheld

and the Petitioner was dismissed from his employment.

18. This Court on perusal of above Ex.P9 notice of

hearing for the enquiry sent by the Enquiry Officer and

Ex.R6 series letter sent by the Respondent Management

to the Petitioner, finds that no doubt the Petitioner was

aware of Enquiry proceedings and Enquiry Report but

still the Petitioner has failed to appear before Enquiry

Officer and give written explanation for the Enquiry

Report and thereby the Petitioner is found to have left

the enquiry proceedings ex parte and thereby, the

contention of the Respondent at the outset that during

the enquiry proceedings the Petitioner was given

opportunity to disprove the case against him and

further, all principles of natural justice was followed

during the enquiry proceedings and also while passing

orders based on Enquiry Report is found to be

acceptable one. However, at this juncture it becomes

necessary to consider whether the procedure adopted

by the Respondent from the beginning till the passing

of dismissal order was proper and without any bias and

further free and fair opportunity was given to the

Petitioner to dispel the charge against him.

19. On perusal of Ex.P2 it is found that the

Respondent Management initially has terminated the

Petitioner from service with effect from 30-05-2017

without conducting due enquiry. The reason stated by

the Respondent is that as per the provisions of the

Industrial Employment (SO) Central Rules 1946 under

section 14(2) of Schedule 1 based on the grievous

misconduct the Petitioner can be terminated from

service without notice, this Court on perusal of Ex.R1

Appointment letter with Service Standing Orders finds

that it is stated that for theft, fraud or dishonesty in

conjunction with the employer’s business or property

the Sanction Category is 5 and as per Sanction Category

5 for first offence the punishment is Termination. Thus,

as per the Service Standing Orders of Respondent

Management the punishment prescribed for theft for the

very first time itself is termination but however in the

standing order there is no any statement that the

punishment of termination can be provided without

affording opportunity to the employee. Thus, even for

providing the punishment of termination it is mandatory

for the Respondent Management to follow the

principles of natural justice by affording opportunity to

the Petitioner to disprove the charge during the enquiry

proceedings. In this case the Enquiry Officer to conduct

enquiry as against the Petitioner was appointed as per

Ex.R11 on 08-10-2018 and thereafter, enquiry is found

to have commenced and the Enquiry Report Ex.R8 is

found to have been prepared on 12-06-2019.

20. Thus, from the above discussions it is found that

the Petitioner is found to have been punished initially

without any due enquiry as early as on 30-05-2017 by

terminating him from the service and thereafter in the

said continuous status of termination the Enquiry is

found to have been commenced by appointing Enquiry

Officer on 08-10-2018 and thereafter the Enquiry Report

is found to have been emerged on 12-06-2019.

Therefore, in the said context this Court finds that the

very fairness of the enquiry itself is doubtful because

when the Petitioner was already punished by the

Respondent Management as early as on 30-05-2017 and

further when the said termination continued to be in

force than in such case the contention of the

Respondent that fair enquiry by following principles of

natural justice was held is found to be unacceptable

one. This Court opines that principles of natural justice

requires that the Petitioner must be given all

opportunity to establish his innocence and must also

be placed in a situation which does not give any room

for fear and must also give hope that there would be a

fair enquiry. However in this case all procedures with

regard to appointment of Enquiry Officer and further the

enquiry proceedings is found to have been conducted

later point of time that is more particularly after the

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Petitioner was punished by terminating him from the

employment. Therefore, in the said context though the

Petitioner has not explained during his cross-examination

the reason for his non-appearance before the Enquiry

Officer, but, still from the beginning the procedure

adopted by the Respondent during the enquiry

proceedings is found to be one sided since, the

Petitioner was already punished by way of termination

and further in the said status of termination the

Petitioner was compelled to attend the enquiry for the

name sake so as to make it appear that all due

procedures were followed by the Respondent

Management so as to justify; and confirm the earlier

punishment of termination which was imposed prior to

the Enquiry and Enquiry Report.

21. Furthermore even after Enquiry Report, dated

12-06-2019 the Respondent while passing orders as per

Ex.R7 series letter, dated 22-10-2019 based on Enquiry

Report is found to have again upheld the Termination

order passed on 30-05-2017 that is the punishment

given prior to the enquiry. Thus, this Court finds that

the Respondent Management has not passed any final

order independently based on the Enquiry Report, but,

on the other hand has attempted to justify and legalise

the punishment which was given to the Petitioner prior

to enquiry. Thus, viewed in any angle this Court finds

that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry

in a fair manner by following the principles of natural

justice. Therefore, this Court finds that the enquiry

conducted by the Respondent Management through the

Enquiry Officer is not a valid one and thereby the

termination of the Petitioner by the Respondent based

on the Enquiry Report is found to be unsustainable and

illegal one. In view of above discussions it is held that

Industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner as against the

Respondent Management over his non-employment is

justified and as such this Court holds that the Petitioner

is entitled for reinstatement as claimed by him.

22. Now coming to the other aspects of back wages

and other attendant benefits is concerned, this Court

finds that in this case the Respondent has not proved

that the Petitioner was gainfully employed any where

else and earning income. However it is found that the

Petitioner was sustaining his day to day life even this

situation and the same could not be done without any

income. Hence, this Court on considering the

circumstances, deems fit that the Petitioner is entitled

for 30% back wages with continuity of service and

other attendant benefits. Thus, the points are answered

accordingly.

In the result this petition is allowed by holding

that the Industrial Dispute raised by the Petitioner

as against the Respondent Management over his

non-employment is justified and the Respondent

Management is directed to reinstate the Petitioner

into service within two months from the date of this

award and further directed to pay 30% of back wages

from the date of termination till the date of

reinstatement with continuity of service and other

attendant benefits. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 17th day of August, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness:

PW.1

— 26-02-2020

Thiru Deiveegam

List of petitioner’s exhibits :

Ex.P1

— 30-05-2017

Photocopy of the letter

issued by the Respondent

to the Petitioner.

Ex.P2

— 30-05-2017

Photocopy of the letter

issued by the Respondent

to the Petitioner.

Ex.P3

— 06-06-2017

Photocopy of the letter

Submitted by the Petitioner

before the Conciliation

Officer.

Ex.P4

— 30-06-2017

Photocopy of the reply

letter submitted by the

Respondent

before

the

Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P5

— 05-07-2017

Photocopy of the notice

issued by the Conciliation

Officer regarding enquiry to

the Petitioner and the

Respondent.

Ex.P6

— 04-11-2017

Photocopy of the Charge

Sheet issued by the

Respondent

the

Petitioner through RPAD.

Ex.P7

— 29-01-2018

Photocopy of the Failure

report given by the

Conciliation Officer.

Ex.P8

— 27-02-2018

Photocopy of the

Notification issued by

the

Government

Puducherry.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

Ex.P9

— 10-01-2018

Photocopy of the Enquiry

notice

issued

the

Enquiry Officer by name Mr.

Ashok Kumar, Advocate to

the Petitioner.

Ex.P10 — 24-10-2018

Photocopy of the Enquiry

notice issued by the

Enquiry Officer by name

Mr. Ashok Kumar.

Ex.P11 — —

Photocopy of the Pay slip

of the Petitioner for the

Month of May 2017.

List of Respondent’s witness:

RW1

— 14-10-2022 Thiru Nagarathinam, Head -

HR of the Respondent

Management.

RW2

— 02-03-2023

Thiru Saravanan, Sr. Executive

Officer (Purchase) of the

Respondent Management.

List of Respondent’s Exhibits:

Ex.R1

— 08-12-1997

Appointment Letter with

Service Standing Order

issued by the Respondent

Management

the

Petitioner.

Ex.R2

— 18-03-2010

Office copy of the Petitioner’s

Work responsibility.

Ex.R3

— 30-05-2017

Termination order issued by

Respondent Management to

the Petitioner.

Ex.R4

— 30-05-2017

Respondent Management

Series

sent the Termination letter

to the Petitioner’ residential

address through Registered

post with AD Card.

Ex.R5

— 04-11-2017

Respondent Management

Series

sent a Charge Sheet to the

Petitioner’

residential

address through Registered

post with AD Card.

Ex.R6

— 04-10-2019

Respondent Management

Series

sent a show cause notice to

the Petitioner’ residential

address through Registered

post with AD Card.

Ex.R7

— 22-10-2019

Respondent Management

Series

sent a Final notice to the

Petitioner’

residential

address through Registered

post with AD Card.

Ex.R8

— 12-06-2019

Photocopy of the Enquiry

Report submitted by the

Enquiry Officer Mr. Ashok

Kumar.

Ex.R9

— 25-05-2017

Spot Inspection Report

signed by the Employee

and Inspection Officer.

Ex.R10 — 30-06-2017

Letter addressed to Labour

Officer (Conciliation) by the

Management

regarding

dispute

raised

Deiveegam.

Ex.R11 — 08-10-2018

Letter of the Management

appointing Enquiry Officer

along with acknowledgment

of receipt by an Advocate.

Ex.R12 — 24-08-2022

Authorization letter for

deposing evidence in ID(L).

12/2018.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 115/AIL/Lab./S/2023,

Puducherry, dated 06th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas,an Award in I.D (L) No. 05/2019, dated

21-08-2023 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect

of Dispute between the M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private

Limited, Sedarapet, Puducherry and Thiru K. Kamalakannan,

Puducherry, over reinstatement with back wages has

been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

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

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

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

No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-5-1991, it is hereby directed by

the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

P. RAGINI,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present :Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 21st day of August, 2023.

I.D. (L). No. 05/2019

CNR. No. PYPY06-000005/2019

K. Kamalakannan,

Mahalakshmi Nagar,

Vinothkumar Complex,

Thiruchitrambalam Kootroad,

Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited,

Sedarapet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 21-08-2023 before

me for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal

K. Velmurugan and P. Preethi, Counsel for the Petitioner

and Thiruvalargal B. Mohandoss, K. Velmurugan,

J. Kalirathinam, S. Vijayasanthi, Kanjanamala,

R. Anbumathy, A. Asha and Indrajith, Counsels for the

Respondent, and after perusing the case records, this

Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

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

No. 10/AIL/Lab./T/2019, dated 28-01-2019 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz.,

(a) Whether the Dispute raised by the Petitioner

K. Kamalakannan, Puducherry, against the Management

of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Private Limited,

Sedarapet, 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. Today when the case came up for hearing, no

representation on Petitioner’s side inspite of posting for

steps for amendment as no further adjournments. Further

more, the Petitioner is not present for several hearing dates.

Hence, this reference is closed for non prosecution.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 21st day of August, 2023.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

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

No. 7924/DCR/KKL/LGR/MVP/C3/2022-23.

∂§s¬ÁÔ

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

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

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

W√Õ>Á™ (2)án >V∫Ô^ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬ÔV>Á> ∂§B°D.

kˆÁƒ

Œ©√Á¶ ÿ√u≈kˆ[ ÿ√BÏ

ÂÔ´/\Æ

WÈ›][

WÈ Œ©√Á¶

®ı

�ÆD xÔkˆ

∂·Ák ®ı

√´©√·°

gÁð ®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«. g.

ƒV.

28, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ kÚkVF ˛´V\D

]Ú\] ˝™›m, Ô/ÿ√. >V°m.

F/1/205

265/94

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

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

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

∂]ÔVˆl¶D xÁ≈l¶ÈVD.

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

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

WÈ Œ©√Á¶ gÁð ´›m ÿƒFB©√|D.

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, 2023 } ΩƒD√Ï | 18 {,

QV.

QV. ¤V[ƒ[,

¤V[ƒ[,

mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF).

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

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

®ı 3820/\VƒVg/ÔVÁ´/Ê3/2023.

∂§s¬ÁÔ

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

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

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

W√Õ>Á™ (2)án >V∫Ô^ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬ÔV>Á> ∂§B°D.

kˆÁƒ

Œ©√Á¶ ÿ√u≈kˆ[ ÿ√BÏ

ÂÔ´/\Æ

WÈ›][

WÈ Œ©√Á¶

®ı

�ÆD xÔkˆ

∂·Ák ®ı

√´©√·°

gÁð ®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«. g.

ƒV.

25, ºÔVs_√›m kÚkVF ˛´V\D

]Ú. xÔ\m R∑©, >/ÿ√. ÿ\Fy[ ≠V;

D/1/135

729/2000

]Ú\] gl≠V ¨s, Ô/ÿ√. xÔ\m R∑©.

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

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

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

∂]ÔVˆl¶D xÁ≈l¶ÈVD.

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

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

WÈ Œ©√Á¶ gÁð ´›m ÿƒFB©√|D.

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, 2023 } ΩƒD√Ï | 18 {,

QV.

QV. ¤V[ƒ[,

¤V[ƒ[,

mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF).

————

Amﬂºƒˆ ∂´∑

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

®ı 8820,4624/\VƒVg/ÔVÁ´/Ê3/2023.

∂§s¬ÁÔ

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

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

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

W√Õ>Á™ (2)án >V∫Ô^ ÔÁ¶∏Ω¬ÔV>Á> ∂§B°D.

kˆÁƒ

Œ©√Á¶ ÿ√u≈kˆ[ ÿ√BÏ

ÂÔ´/\Æ

WÈ›][

WÈ Œ©√Á¶

®ı

�ÆD xÔkˆ

∂·Ák ®ı

√´©√·°

gÁð ®ı

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«. g.

ƒV.

28, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ kÚkVF ˛´V\D

]Ú. gº´V¬˛BÂV>[,

F/37/251

140/07á08

>/ÿ√. xÚºÔƒ[;

]Ú\] º¤V¸∏[ >™ÿƒ_s,

Ô/ÿ√. gº´¬˛BÂV>[.

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

28, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ kÚkVF ˛´V\D

]Ú. ºÈVÔ´V¤[, >/ÿ√. ∑©∏´\ËB[;

F/3/211

81/98

]Ú\] c≠V ´VË, Ô/ÿ√. ºÈVÔ´V¤[.

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

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

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

∂]ÔVˆl¶D xÁ≈l¶ÈVD.

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

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

WÈ Œ©√Á¶ gÁð ´›m ÿƒFB©√|D.

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, 2023 } ΩƒD√Ï | 21 {,

QV.

QV. ¤V[ƒ[,

¤V[ƒ[,

mÁð g‚EBÏ (kÚkVF).

————

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ÿ«. g.

ƒV.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 55/FD/F2/A2/2023-24,

Puducherry, dated 26th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

O n a t t a i n i n g t h e a g e o f s u p e r a n n u a t i o n ,

Thiru M.J. Udhaiya Bhaskaran, Junior Accounts Officer,

Office of the Executive Engineer, Special Buildings

Division-I, Public Works Department, Puducherry, is

admitted into retirement on the afternoon of 31-12-2023.

(By order)

RATNAGHOSH KISHOR CHAURE,

Deputy Secretary to Government (Finance).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HEALTH SECRETARIAT

(G.O. Ms. No. 64, Puducherry, dated 27th December 2023)

NOTIFICATION

The Notice of voluntary retirement given by

Dr. M. Narayanan, Specialist (Senior Administrative

Grade), Rajiv Gandhi Government Women and Children

Hospital, Puducherry under “rule 43 (1) of Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 2021” is accepted.

2. Accordingly, he is admitted into voluntary

retirement with effect from the afternoon of 05-03-2024.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

K. CANDANE @ SIVARADJANE,

Under Secretary to Government (Health).

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 88/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 27th December 2023]

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation, the

following Senior Private Secretary and Superintendents,

shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon

of 31-12-2023.

Sl.

Name of the Official, Designation and

No.

Department/Office in which working

(1)

(2)

Tmt./Selvi/Thiru:

Sarojini Kundora, Senior Private Secretary,

Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

R. Calaivanane, Superintendent,

Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

P. Sivaganesh, Superintendent,

Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

(By order)

M. KANNAN,

Under Secretary to Government.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÷w©¨‚|¬ Ì|>_

gÁðBÏ ¿]\[≈D

(ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÷w©¨‚| ƒ‚¶D, 1923 ˇµ)

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ∂]ÔVˆ

∂]ÔVˆ

∂]ÔVˆ ∂KkÈÔD,

∂KkÈÔD,

∂KkÈÔD, ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_

W.C. ®ı 1/2018.

∂§s¬ÁÔ

p´VD ÷[Û´[¸ ÔDÿ√M otÿ¶‚, ®ı 27, 100 ∂Ω

º´V|, ∑Õ>´´V¤ ÂÔÏ, x>oBVÏº√‚, Amﬂºƒˆ, 1923ágD

gı| ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÷w©¨‚|ﬂ ƒ‚¶›][ ∏ˆ° 8(1)á[ ˇµ

` 12,00,000 (‘√VF √Mÿ´ı| ÷È‚ƒD \‚|D)

ÿ>VÁÔlÁ™ Ák©¨‚| ÿƒFm^·VÏ ®[√>VKD;

2. ÷Õ>

ÿ>VÁÔBV™m

10-01-2018

∂[Æ

]Ú. x. ÿƒ_kD �ÆD ]Ú. \. √wM, x>_ �ÆD

÷´ı¶VD

®]Ï\–>V´ˆ¶D

ÔVÈﬁÿƒ[≈

]Ú. ÿƒ·. ∂§kwÔ[, >/ÿ√. ÿƒ·Õ>´´V¤[ ∂kÏÔ^

®È¬‚ZEB[ √Ël_ ~|√‚ΩÚÕ>º√Vm \´ð s√›]uz

c^·V™>V_ ∂k´m kVˆ∑>V´ÏÔ”¬z Âi¶ ~¶VÔ

ÿÔV|¬Ô©√¶ ºkıΩ•^·m ®[√>VKD;

3. ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_ \Vk‚¶D, ]ÚÂ^·VÏ, ÔÚ¬Ô∫zΩ á

÷Á·B∫zΩ ˛´V\D, ®ı 49, ˛w¬z ÿ>Ús_, kE¬zD

]Ú\] ∂. ÿ¤Bz\Vˆ, ]Ú ∂. ÿƒ·Õ>´´V¤[, ]Ú\]

ÿƒ·. ƒº´V¤V �ÆD (Á\™Ï) ∂. ∂¤F, (Á\™Ï)

∂. kÏ¥M ®[√kÏÔ^ ÔVÈﬁÿƒ[≈ ]Ú. ÿƒ·. ∂§kwÔ[

g>´s_ kVµÕ>kÏ >V[ ®[√Á>ﬂ ƒV[ÆÁ´›m^·VÏ

®[√>VKD;

4. ®™ºk,

>uº√Vm

º�ÿƒV[™

÷w©¨‚|›

ÿ>VÁÔlÁ™ º�√Ω ÔVÈﬁÿƒ[≈ ®È¬‚ZEB[

] Ú . ÿ ƒ · . ∂§ k w Ô [ ∂k Ï Ô π [ g > ´ s _

kVµÕm kÕ>kÏÔ”¬z ]Ú\] ∂. ÿ¤Bz\Vˆ,

]Ú ∂. ÿƒ·Õ>´´V¤[, ]Ú\] ÿƒ·. ƒº´V¤V �ÆD

(Á\™Ï) ∂. ∂¤F, (Á\™Ï) ∂. kÏ¥M g˛ºBVÚ¬z

√∫ˇ‚| ∂π¬Ô ÔÚ>©√‚|^·m ®™, ÿ√Vm\¬Ôπ[

>ÔkK¬ÔVÔ ∂§s¬ÁÔ ÿƒFB©√|˛≈m. ÷Àk§s¬ÁÔl_,

ÔVÈﬁÿƒ[≈ ®È¬‚ZEB[ ÿƒ·. ∂§kwÔ[ ∂kÏÔπ[

g>´s_ kVµÕm kÕ>kÏ ®™ cˆÁ\¬ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔ

®ø©AD

®kÿ´VÚkÚD

÷Õ>

∂§s¬ÁÔBV™m

∂Kk_xÁ≈ ∂´E>a_ ÿkπl¶©√‚¶ º>]loÚÕm

ŒÚ\V> ÔVÈ ∂·suz^ ÿ>V¶ÏAÁ¶B gkð∫Ô^

∂Á™›m¶[ ŒÚ sıð©√D JÈD ÷Õ> ¿]\[≈›]_

cˆÁ\¬ ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÁB x[M¶ÈVD. cˆB º>]¬z©

∏≈z

ÿ√≈©√¶ÈV˛≈

cˆÁ\¬

ºÔVˆ¬ÁÔÔ^

ÔÚ>©√¶\V‚¶Vm.

ÔVÁ´¬ÔV_, ÂV^ 2023 }, ΩƒD√Ï | 27 {.

ÿk.

ÿk. ´s,

´s,

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ∂]ÔVˆ �ÆD

ÿ>VaÈV·Ï ÷w©¨‚| Ì|>_ gÁðBÏ.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL

COMMISSIONER

(Under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923)

OFFICE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER

KARAIKAL

W.C. No. 1/2018.

Karaikal, dated 27th December 2023.

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, the Management, M/s. Sriram General

Insurance Co. Limited, has deposited a sum of

` 12,00,000 (Rupees twelve lakhs only) under section 8(1)

of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

2. Whereas, the said amount payable to the

d e p e n d e n t s o f T h i r u S . A r i v a z h a g a n ( l a t e ) ,

s/o. A. Soundararajan, who met with fatal accident on

10-01-2018 arising out of and in the course of

employment as an Electrician working under 1st

respondent, while working on erection of new electrical

post in Karaikal region. When he and his co-employee

(Balasubramanian) were working to fix the new cement

pole, the crane operator, the 2nd respondent without

exercising care and caution made the old pole to touch

the electrical line without any protection. Consequently,

passing of electric shock both were thrown away and

Arivazhagan had died.

3. And whereas, Tmt. A. Jeyakumari, w/o. S. Arivazhagan

(late), residing at No. 49, East Street, Ilayangudi,

Karukangudi, Thirunallar-609 607, Karaikal District,

appeared before this Court and deposed an oath that

she is only dependent at the time of the death of the

employee Thiru S. Arivazhagan (late).

4. Now, therefore, it is notified for the information

of the public that it is proposed to disburse the said

compensation amount to the aforesaid dependents.

Tmt. A. Jeyakumari, Thiru A. Soundararajan,

Tmt. S. Saroja and (minor) A. Ajay, (minor) A. Varshini.

As such whoever claims to be the dependents of the

deceased workmen Thiru S. Arivazhagan at the time of

his death, may claim by an application in this Court

within a period of one month from the date of

publication of this notification in the Official Gazette

with all relevant documents, claim received after the date

will not be considered.

V. RAVI,

Labour Officer-cum-Additional Commissioner

for Employees’ Compensation.

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POWER) DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 52, Puducherry, dated 02nd January 2024)

NOTIFICATION

In partial modification of the G.O. Ms. No. 35, 04-11-2022 of the Industrial Development (Power)

Department, Puducherry and in pursuance of Article 80 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the

Puducherry Power Corporation Limited, Karaikal, the Lieutenant-Governor, Puducherry, is pleased to appoint the

following Officers as Directors in the Board of Directors of the Puducherry Power Corporation Limited.

Sl.

Name of the Officers appointed in the

Outgoing Directors

No.

Board of Directors of the Corporation

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri Ashish Madhaorao More, I.A.S.,

Shri P. Jawahar, I.A.S.

Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance & Industries).

Shri Rajeev Kumar Mittal,

Shri. OM Kant Shukla,

Director, TE & TD Division,

Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

S. MURUGESAN,

Under Secretary to Government (Power).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

(SECRETARIAT WING)

(G.O. Ms. No. 58, Puducherry, dated 03rd January 2024)

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation, the

following Vice-Principals are admitted into retirement

with effect from the afternoon of 31-01-2024.

Sl.

Name of the

Name of the Institution

No.

Vice-Principals

(1)

(2)

(3)

Thiru/Tmt.:

1 P. Purushothaman

Jawaharlal Nehru Government

Girls’ Higher Secondary School,

Mahe.

2 G. Latha

Maraimalai Adigal Government

Higher Secondary School,

Embalam, Puducherry.

3 Thiru N.M. Saminathan

Kannagi Government Girls’

Higher Secondary School,

Villianur, Puducherry.

(By order)

F.P. VERBINA JAYARAJ,

Under Secretary to Government (School Education).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT

(HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION)

(G.O. Ms. No. 01, Puducherry, dated 05th January 2024)

NOTIFICATION

O n a t t a i n i n g t h e a g e o f s u p e r a n n u a t i o n

Dr. R. Parivallal, Assistant Professor in Psychology,

Tagore Government Arts and Science College,

Puducherry, shall retire on the afternoon of 31-01-2024.

(By order)

V. SOUMYA,

Under Secretary to Government

(Higher and Technical Education).

(1)

(2)

(3)

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR

(REVENUE)-NORTH-CUM-LICENSING AUTHORITY

No. 8397DCRN/Rev./A7/2023/55.

Puducherry, dated 08th January 2024.

ORDER

Whereas, Thiru Deepak Fashliwal, s/o. Kaluram Jain,

now residing at No. 40, Ground Floor, 7th Cross

Extension, Rainbow Nagar, Puducherry, was issued with

Pawn Broker Licence bearing No. 724 on 25th July 2023

to carry on the business at No. 13, Velrampet Main Road,

Netha Nagar, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry under the

provision of Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966;

And whereas, the applicant has now requested this

authority to cancel the Pawn Broker licence issued to

him since he is willing to settle down in his native

place. Further, he has also stated that he did not

conduct any business under Pawn Brokers Act, from the

date of issue of Licence to him. In this regard, the

Tahsildar, Puducherry Taluk, conducted a field inspection

and verified the Account Book, Pawn tickets, Safety

Locker of the pawn broker, etc.

And whereas, upon conduct of the enquiry the

Tahsildar, Puducherry Taluk, has reported that the said

Licence Holder has not conducted any pawn business

since issue of Licence to him.

Therefore, I M. Kandasamy, Deputy Collector

(Revenue)-North-cum-Licensing Authority, Puducherry,

under the Puducherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966 in

exercise of the provisions of section 14-A(l)(b) of the

Puducherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966, for the reasons

mentioned above, hereby cancel the Pawn Broker

licence issued to Thiru Deepak Fashliwal, s/o. Kaluram

Jain bearing Licence No. 724.

M. KANDASAMY,

Deputy Collector (Revenue) North.

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (WORKS)

(G.O. Ms. No. 02, Puducherry, dated 12th January 2024)

NOTIFICATION

O n a t t a i n i n g t h e a g e o f s u p e r a n n u a t i o n ,

Thiru R. Manickavasagam, Assistant Engineer, who

was holding the post of Executive Engineer, SBD-II,

Public Works Department, Puducherry, on CDC basis,

is admitted into retirement on the afternoon of 31-12-2023.

(By order)

P. EJOUMALE,

Under Secretary to Government (Works).

AFFIDAVIT

I, M. Shantha, wife of Moorthy, residing at No. 22,

Velan Nagar, Velrampet, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-

605 004, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath

as follows:

That my name has been entered as ‘Perera Sainte

Anne’ in my Birth Certificate vide Registration No.

PM/P/1962/000062, issued by Pondicherry Municipality,

Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘Perera

Sainte Anne’ in my Marriage Certificate vide

Registration No. 7/OMC/1990, issued by Oulgaret

Municipality, Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as

‘Saintanne’ in my son Pragadeesh’s Birth Certificate

vide Registration No. O/1995/1786, issued by Oulgaret

Municipality, Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as

‘Saintanne’ in my daughter Dharshini’s Birth

Certificate vide Registration No. OM/0/1993/000451,

issued by Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘M Shantha’

in my Aadhaar Card vide No. XXXX XXXX 5054,

issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘Shantha’

in my PAN Card vide No. LTDPS5916A, issued by

Income-tax Department, Government of India.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘Shantha’

in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card vide No. IBI0206235,

issued by Election Commission of India.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘ƒVÕ>V’

in the Family Ration Card vide No. 118692, issued by

the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs, Puducherry.

Hence, I declare that all the abovesaid names viz.,

‘Perera Sainte Anne’, ‘Saintanne’, ‘M Shantha’,

‘Shantha’ and ‘ƒVÕ>V’ are referring one and the same

person, i.e., myself only.

I declare that what are all stated above is true and

there is no suppression or misrepresentation of the

facts.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 02nd day of January 2024.

562607

M. SHANTHA.

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

AFFIDAVIT

I, M.Lourduraj, son of K.Munisamy, aged 36 years,

residing at No. 31, Vaithilinga Chetty Street,

Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-605 004, 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 myself.

I state that my name is entered as ‘M Lourduraj’

in my Aadhaar Card, issued by Unique Identification

Authority of India bearing No. XXXX XXXX 5862.

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

my Electoral Identity Card, issued by Election

Commission of India bearing Card No. IBI0010090.

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

my Birth Certificate, issued by Pondicherry

Municipality, Puducherry bearing Registration

No. M/1987/02816, dated 19-05-1987.

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

my PAN Card, issued by Income-tax Department,

Government of India bearing No. AIAPL2413J.

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

my Driving Licence, issued by the Transport

Department bearing No. PY01 20120009133.

I state that my name is entered as ‘ŸÏm ´VÎ’ in

the Family Ration Card, issued by the Department of

Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry,

bearing No. 102617.

I submit that the names described in the above

records as ‘M Lourduraj’, ‘Lourduraj’ and ‘ŸÏm ´VÎ

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

only.

I wish to change my name as ‘Vinoth Raj’ according

to Numerology.

Finally, I declare that my correct name is ‘Vinoth

Raj’.

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 03rd day of January 2024.

562608

M. LOURDURAJ.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Antoine Govindou @ Babuantoine @ Babu @

Antoine, son of Govindarassou Govindou, Hindu,

aged about 51 years, presently residing at No. 10,

2nd Cross Street, Raja Nagar, Orleanpet, Puducherry-

605 013, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm, and

state on oath as follows:

1. That I am the deponent herein and I am well

aware of the facts and circumstances of my declaration.

2. That my name is ‘Antoine Govindou’, ‘Babu @

Antoine’ @ ‘Babu Antoine’.

3. I state that I was born on 18-01-1972 and my

birth was duly registered before the Oulgaret

Municipality, Puducherry vide Registration No. OM/0/

1972/000070, dated 21-01-1972.

4. I state that my name ‘Antoine Govindou’ has

been mentioned in my Biith Certificate, issued by

Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.

5. I state that my name ‘Babuantoine’ has been

mentioned in my Driving Licence issued by the

Transport Department, Government of Puducherry.

6. I state that my name ‘Babu @ Antoine’ has

been mentioned in Judgment passed by the Hon’ble

Principal District Munsif at Puducherry vide O.S.No. 323/

2007, dated 20-07-2007.

7. I state that my name ‘Babu @ Antoine’ has

been mentioned in the Decree passed by the Hon’ble

Principal District Munsif at Puducherry vide in

O.S.No. 323/2007, dated 20-07-2007.

8. I state that due to difference in the names found

in the above documents, confusions prevail over

while approaching various Authorities. ‘Antoine

Govindou’, ‘Babu @ Antoine’ and ‘Babuantoine’ are

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

That the content of the above declaration is true

to the best of my knowledge, belief and information

and nothing material has been concealed therein.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 22nd day of December 2023.

562609

G. ANTOINE GOVINDOU.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, P Nadesan alias Babou, son of Patchaippan, aged

53 years and residing at No. 29, Third Cross Street,

Brindavanam, Puducherry-605 013, do hereby solemnly

affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I state that my name has been entered as

‘P Nadesan alias Babou’ in my Aadhaar Card under

No. XXXX XXXX 3634, issued by Unique Identification

Authority of India.

2. I state that my name has been entered as

‘√ Âº¶ƒ[ ® √VA’ in the Family Ration Card under

No. 485313, issued by the Department of Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

3. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Nadesan @ Babou’ in my Electoral Identity Card

under No. PY/01/007/030674, issued by Election

Commission of India.

4. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Nadesan alias Babou’ in my daughter’s Aadhaar

Card under No. XXXX XXXX 7617, issued by Unique

Identification Authority of India.

5. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Natesan @ Babu’ in my daughter’s Birth Certificate

vide Registration No. M/2009/00703, dated 19-01-2009,

issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.

6. I declare that all the abovesaid names viz.,

‘P Nadesan alias Babou’, ‘√ Âº¶ƒ[ ® √VA’, ‘Nadesan

@ Babou’ and ‘Natesan @ Babu’ are referring one

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

7. That I hereby declare that I shall at all times

hereafter in all records, deeds and writings and in all

proceedings, dealings and transactions, private as

well as upon all occasions whatsoever use and sign

the name of ‘P Nadesan alias Babou’ as my name in

place and in substitution of my former name.

8. I declare that what are all stated above is true

and there is no suppression or misrepresentation

of the above facts.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 04th day of

January 2024

562610

P. Âº¶ƒ[

Âº¶ƒ[

Âº¶ƒ[ @ √VA.

√VA.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Jancy Rani S, wife of George Augustin Raj, aged

36 years and residing at No. 9, Vaigai Street, Vallalar

Nagar, Nainarmandabam, Puducherry-605 004, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm, and state on oath as

follows:

That I am the deponent herein and I am well aware

of the facts of my deposition.

I state that my daughter’s name is mentioned as

‘J.G. Mithulya Marie’ in her Birth Certificate vide

Registration No. P/2020/00070, dated 21-01-2020,

issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.

I state that my daughter’s name is mentioned as

‘G.J. Mithulya (t›m_BV)’ in her Astrological Report,

issued

Sri Agathiyar

Jothida

Nilayam,

Puducherry-605 004.

I state that both the abovesaid of my daughter

names viz., ‘J.G. Mithulya Marie’ and ‘G.J. Mithulya

(t›m_BV)’ are denoting one and the same person

that is referring my daughter only.

I state that hereafter, she always writing and

signing her name as ‘G.J. Mithulya (t›m_BV)’ on

all records, papers and all affairs of my daughter’s life.

The above deposition is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge, belief and nothing material has

been concealed therein.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 09th day of October 2023.

562611

JANCY RANI S.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Krishnakumary, wife of P.K. Rajendran, Hindu, aged

about 60 years and residing at Plot No. 30-C, Velrampet

Main Road, Velrampet, Mudaliarpet Post, Puducherry-

605 004, do hereby swear and state on oath as follows :

That I am the deponent herein and aware of the facts

and contents as the recitals found in this affidavit.

I state that my name has been mentioned as

‘G. Kirouchenacoumary’ in my Secondary School

Leaving Certificate, dated 07-06-1978 bearing Serial No.

044340, issued by The Headmistress, Immaculate Heart

of Mary’s Girls’ High School, Puducherry.

I state that due to inadvertence, my name has been

mistakenly mentioned as ‘˛Úiðz\Vˆ’ in the

Family Ration Card, dated 05-07-2005, bearing No.

119891, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs, Puducherry and followed that my

name has been mentioned as ‘Krishnakumary’ in my

Elector’s Photo Identity Card, dated 14-10-2020

bearing No. IBI0135525, issued by Election Commission

of India.

I state that my name has been mentioned as

‘R Krishnakumary’ in my Aadhaar Card, dated

27-03-2021 bearing No. XXXX XXXX 9108, issued by

Unique Identification Authority of India.

I state that my name has been mentioned as

‘Krishna Kumary. R’ in my Scool Identity Card,

issued by the Principal, Wiseman Higher Secondary

School, Velrampet, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry and also

in the Pay Slip, my name has been mentioned as

‘R. Krishnakumary’.

Hence, I hereby declare that my names viz.,

‘G. Kirouchenacoumary’,

‘˛Úiðz\Vˆ’,

‘R. Krishnakumary’, ‘R Krishnakumary’ and ‘Krishna

Kumary. R’ are referring one and the same person i.e.,

myself only.

I state that what are all sworn in this affidavit by me

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,

belief and information, and nothing material facts

have been concealed and suppressed thereon.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 19th day of

December 2023.

562612 R. KRISHNAKUMARY.

23 January 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

AFFIDAVIT

I, R. Heerachandran, son of Ramadasse, aged 34 years

and residing at No. 96, 3rd Cross Street, Sabthagiri Nagar,

Karuvadikuppam, Lawspet Post, Puducherry-605 008,

do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Heerachandran’ in my Birth Certificate under

Registration No. PM/M/1989/8999, issued by

Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.

2. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Heerachandran R’ in my S.S.L.C. Mark Sheet, under

Certificate No. SEC. 5813007 issued by the Secretary,

State Board of School Examinations, Tamil Nadu.

3. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Heerachandran R’ in my School Transfer Certificate

under Admission No. 12663, issued by the Headmistress,

Thamizh Thendral Thiru.Vi. Ka. Government High School,

Puducherry.

4. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Heerachandran’ in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card

under No. ATT0012658, issued by Election Commission

of India.

5. I state that my name has been entered as

‘R. Heerachandran’ in my Aadhaar Card No. xxxx xxxx

9310, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.

6. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Heerachandran’ in my PAN Card No. AOVPH9664N,

issued by the Income-tax Department, Government of

India.

7. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Heerachandran’ in my Indian Passport No. J3724362,

issued by Regional Passport Office, Chennai.

8. I state that my name has been entered as

‘R Heerachandran’ in my Bank Passbook, issued by

Indian Bank, Lawspet Branch, Puducherry.

9. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Heerachandran’ in my Certificate for Conversion of

Religion from Hindu to Muslim vide Ref. F.No.36/Town

Kazi/2022, issued by Government Town Kazi,

Puducherry after my religion conversion, I have been

changed my name as ‘Abubackar’ from my original

name ‘Heerachandran’ in the said Certificate.

10. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Abubackar’ in my Marriage Certificate under S.M. No.

138/2017, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret,

Puducherry.

11. I state that my name has been entered as

‘∂A√¬ÔÏ’ in our Family Ration Card No. 458243, issued

by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs, Puducherry and again due to religion

conversion, I have changed my name from

‘Í´VƒÕ]´[ to ∂A√¬ÔÏ’ vide Ref. No. DCS/PR/02/

00062927, dated 14-09-2017.

12. I declare that all the abovesaid names viz.,

‘Heerachandran’, ‘R Heerachandran’, ‘Abubackar’ and

‘∂A√¬ÔÏ’ are referring one and same person, that is

me only. I state that henceforth, I shall be known and

identified only by the name ‘Heerachandran alias

Abubackar’ 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, and nothing

material facts have been concealed thereon.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 03rd day of

January 2024.

562613 R. HEERACHANDRAN.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mourthy, son of Muthu, residing at No. 22, Velan

Nagar, Velrampet, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-605 004, do

hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows :

That my name has been entered as ‘Mourty’ in my

Birth Certificate vide Registration No. P/1964/00817,

issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘Moorty’

in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card vide No. IBI0201426,

issued by Election Commission of India.

I state that my name has been entered as

‘M Mourthy’ in my Aadhaar Card vide No. XXXX XXXX

9856, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.

I state that my name has been entered as

‘M Mourthy’ in my PAN Card vide No. AGOPM3991J,

issued by Income-tax Department, Government of

India.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘Mourty’

in my Marriage Certificate vide Registration No. 7/OMC/

1990, issued by Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘Mourthy M’

in my Driving Licence vide No. PY01 19940002092,

issued by the Transport Department, Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as

‘M. Mourthy’ in my Transfer Certificate vide Admission

No. 588, issued by Calve College Government Higher

Secondary School, Puducherry.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘Mourthy M’

in my Passbook of State Bank of India vide Account

No. XXXXXXX1491.

I state that my name has been entered as ‘JÏ›]’

in my Family Ration Card vide No. 118692, issued by

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Puducherry.

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[23 January 2024

I state that my name has been entered as ‘M. Murthy’

in my Appointment Order vide No. l-14/ED/EEIII/Estt/

A3/88, dated 26-12-1988.

Hence, I declare that all the abovesaid names viz.,

‘Mourty’, ‘Moorty’, ‘M Mourthy’, ‘Mourthy M’,

M. Murthy’ and ‘JÏ›]’ are denoting one and the

same person i.e., myself only.

I declare that what are all stated above is true and

there is no suppression or misrepresentation of the

facts.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 05th day of January 2024.

562614 M. MOURTHY.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Noel Stanley Udhayakumar, son of Siriapushpam

Henry Theodore, Indian inhabitant, aged 58 years and

residing at the house bearing Door No. 66, 2nd Cross

Street, Priyadharshini Nagar, Gorimedu, Puducherry-

605 006, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm,

to whomsoever it may concern as follows;

That I am the deponent herein. I state that in

my Certificate of Birth under Registration No.

K/1965/00017, my name has been mentioned as ‘Noel

Stanley Udhayakumar’.

In my Secondary School Cumulative Record Book

under Serial No. 13007, my name has been mentioned

as ‘Stanley.H.T’.

In the Degree of Master of Commerce in Banking

and Insurance Management Certificate under

mentioned as ‘Stanley Theodore H’.

In my Electoral Identity Card under No. JTP0561118,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Stanley Theodore

(¸º¶[o ]ºBV¶Ï)’.

In the PAN Card under No. CXBPS8408L, my

name has been mentioned as ‘Stanley Theodore’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No. XXXX XXXX 0866,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Noel Stanley

Udhayakumar (ºÂVB_ ¸¶V[o c>Bz\VÏ)’

In my Marriage Register Book, my name has been

mentioned as ‘Stanley’.

In the particulars of members, in my Family Ration

Card under No. 159895, my name has been mentioned

‘ºÂVB_ ¸¶V[o c>Bz\VÏ’.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the above

mentioned names are referred, identified and relate

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

herein.

I state that hereafter, I shall be known and

identified by the name as ‘Noel Stanley Udhayakumar

(ºÂVB_ ¸¶V[o c>Bz\VÏ)’ 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 09th day of

January 2024.

562618 NOEL STANLEY UDHAYAKUMAR.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kaliammal, daughter of Munusamy, Indian, aged

22 years

residing

No. 42,

Savadi

Street,

Melasubrayapuram, Thirunallar, Thirunallar Commune,

Karaikal District, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm, and state on oath as follows :

1. I submit that I am a deponent herein and I am

residing in the above-mentioned address. I am the

holder of my Aadhaar Card vide No. XXXX XXXX

6645 for the proof of the same.

2. I submit that I was born on 30-03-1999 and my

birth has been registered with the Karaikal

Municipality, Karaikal.

3. On faith of Islamic religion, I have converted

myself to Islamic religion on 22-12-2023.

4. I hereby relinquish my birth name ‘Kaliammal’

and hereafter, I shall be known, called, identified and

referred only as ‘Nasriya (Â¸ˆBV)’.

5. Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the

abovesaid facts are true to the best of my knowledge,

belief and faith.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary

Public at Karaikal, on this 28th day of December 2023.

Ack No. 026 KALIAMMAL.

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.