[131]



SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS



Page

..

132

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 132

Award of the Labour Court .. 132

de Tribunal.



140

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 140

Government Notifications

.. 140



144

Annonces

.. 144

Announcements

144



La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry



Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority







2025 }

|

11 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mars

2025 (20 Phalguna 1946)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

11th

March

2025

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

132

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 15/AIL/Lab./S/2025,

Puducherry, dated 17th February 2025)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 09/2019, dated

11-07-2024, of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the

M/s. Puducherry State Co-operative Bank Limited

(No. 78), Puducherry and Bharata Makkal Sasana Urimai

Iyakkam, Puducherry, over refusal of employment of

Thiru Djeaboubalane 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)

S. SANDIRAKUMARAN,

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, the 11th day of July 2024.

I.D. (L). No. 09/2019

CNR. No. PYPY06-000015-2019

The President,

Thiru B. Chandramohan,

Bharatha Makkal Sasana Urimagal Iyakkam,

Puducherry.

. . Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director

Puducherry State Co-operative Bank Limited (No.78),

Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute coming on this day before me

for hearing in the presence of Thiru B. Mohandoss,

Counsel appearing for petitioner and Thiru C. Pragagarane,

Counsel for the respondent and upon hearing the

learned Counsel for Petitioner and respondent and on

perusing the entire records of the case, having stood

over for consideration till this date, 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. 19/Lab./AIL/T/2019, dated 08-02-2019 of the

Labour Department, Puducherry to resolve the

following dispute between the Petitioner and the

Respondent, viz., -

(i) Whether the dispute raised by Bharatha

Makkal Sasana Urimai lyakkam, Puducherry, against

the management of M/s. Puducherry State

Co-operative Bank Limited No. P78, Puducherry, over

refusal of employment of Thiru Djeaboubalane can

be exhausted under the Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act, 1972 or under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(ii) If, the remedy can be exhausted under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, what relief

Thiru Djeaboubalane is entitled to?

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

of money if, it can be so computed.

2. The averments set forth in the claim statement is

as follows:

(i) The Petitioner is a Registered Association

working for the protection of rights of people

irrespective of their caste, religion and political party.

The present claim pertains to the industrial dispute

raised by the petitioner association on behalf of

Thiru M. Djeaboubalane, working as messenger in

The Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank Limited P78.

The subject matter of the dispute also relates to non-

employment of the workman Thiru M. Djeaboubalane

for whom the respondent management has not

allotted any duties despite the workman’s willingness

to perform his duties as a messenger and the

respondent has willfully refused to provide work to

him on the ground of pendency of disciplinary

proceedings against

him, that too

without

suspending/terminating him.

(ii) The management of The Pondicherry State

Co-operative Bank Limited, framed charges of

misconduct under the show-cause notice, dated

4-11-2013 and by the said notice the workman

Thiru M. Djeaboubalane was directed to submit his

explanation for unauthorized absence from duty from

01-02-2003 to 28-02-2003 and 01-04-2003 to 05-12-2003

and 19-01-2004 to 30-06-2009 and from 01-04-2010 to

till the date of issuance of the show-cause notice and

to submit the details of action taken by the Hon’ble

Court in respect of the arrest warrant issued to him

on 9th August 2002. He was also asked to state as

to why disciplinary action should not be initiated

against him as per the regulations governing the

service conditions of the Employee’s of the

133

11 March 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Respondent Bank. The workman submitted his reply,

dated 21-11-2013 and in the said reply he has denied

the charge of unauthorized absence for the period

referred to in the show-cause notice. He has also

denied the receipt of any show-cause notice, dated

20-08-2002 as referred to in the show-cause notice,

dated 04-11-2013 alleging that the management of the

bank instructed him to submit explanation regarding

the arrest warrant before 04-09-2002. As such the

workman requested the management to produce the

copy of the show-cause notice, dated 20-08-2002

alleged to have been sent to him along with the mode

of sending the same to the Workman along with the

acknowledgment by the Workman for the receipt of

the same. In the reply he also added that the arrest

warrant was relating to a civil case in respect of his

personal debt and it had nothing to do with his

conduct as an employee of the Bank and hence, there

was no basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings

against him in this regard.

(iii) The respondent without accepting the

explanation submitted by the workman had respondent

proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings further

by appointing Mr. R. Parthasarathy, Advocate

Puducherry, as Enquiry Officer. The Learned Enquiry

Officer submitted his report, dated 19-04-2017,

holding the workman guilty of violating Rule 51 of

the Staff Regulations governing the service conditions

of the employees of the Bank by his absence of duty

without obtaining permission of the managing

director of the bank and by his failure to join duty

after he has been certified to be fit for joining duty

and with regard to the second charge of issue of

arrest warrant by a Civil Court, the Enquiry Officer

has given a finding of not guilty, stating that the

workman has not violated Rule 54 of the Staff

Regulations governing the service conditions of the

employees of the Bank.

(iv) The respondent issued show-cause notice,

dated 15-06-2017 enclosing copy of the enquiry

report referred to above and directing the workman

to submit his objection for the enquiry report. It was

also stated there on that on the workman’s failure to

submit objections the disciplinary authority shall

proceed with appropriate disciplinary action as per

the staff regulation. As the petitioner had already

raised industrial dispute against the respondent in

the matter of disciplinary proceedings against him

and it was pending before the Labour Officer

Conciliation, he has not submitted any reply

separately to the management. However the workman

submitted his objections for the enquiry report to the

Conciliation Officer, who in turn handed over copy

of the same to the representative of the respondent

management who appeared before the Conciliation

Officer.

(v) The workman originally submitted representation,

dated 13-10-2014 to the Labour Officer (Conciliation)

requesting interference in to the industrial dispute

against the management of the bank. In that the

workman pointed out the justification for his claim

for employment in the bank, as he was not suspended

pending enquiry. To his surprise and shock, the

respondent did not submit any reply at all for his

representation to the Conciliation Officer. This made

the workman to approach the Conciliation Officer

through letter, dated 12-01-2015 seeking submission

of failure report on account of non-cooperation by

the respondent. Subsequently the workman submitted

rejoinder, dated 05-02-2015 reiterating his request for

advice to the respondent for reemploying the

workman and to settle his dues. Even thereafter, no

progress was shown by the management for several

years. The Respondent pressurized the Conciliation

Officer not to keep the conciliation proceeding for

long as a result of which the workman has suffered

both physically and mentally for years together. From

the failure report, dated 18-12-2018 of the Conciliation

Officer, the workman has come to know that the

respondent management has filed reply statement,

dated 26-10-2018 in which vexatious plea has been

taken to the effect that the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not apply to the

employees of State Co-operative Bank and the

jurisdiction of the Labour Court is excluded when a

comprehensive remedy is available under the

Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

(vi) The issue raised by the respondent alleging

that the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 do not apply to the employees of the State

Co-operative Bank is misconceived one. It is also

basic principle of law that plea of lack of jurisdiction,

to prove there is presumption regarding jurisdiction

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 burden lies

on the person who takes same. Another principle of

law is that of the Labour Court Constituted when the

dispute raised between the dispute between workman

and employer which is constitutes an industrial

dispute, It is significant to note that as per section

2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute

between workman and employer which is connected

with the non-employment the employment of the

workman amounts to industrial dispute. Hence, the

dispute

raised

the

petitioner

regarding

non-employment of the workman is maintainable

before this Hon’ble Court. Moreover as per section 7

of the I.D. Act R/W 2nd schedule the Hon’ble Labour

Court has got jurisdiction to decide all matters other

than those specified in the 3rd Schedule. As the

134

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

Schedule, this Hon’ble Court can very well adjudicate

the claim made by the Subject matter of claim does

not fit in any of the matters specified in the 3rd

schedule, this Hon’ble Court can very well adjudicate

the claim made by the petitioner.

(vii) The other contention of the respondent that

“the workman is permitted to file an application

before the Managing Director of the bank for getting

reliefs under the rules and regulation of the bank and

is also permitted to file appeal petition before the

Administrator of the Bank, if affected by the final

orders of the disciplinary authority” is not valid in

law and cannot be maintained. In this case the

respondent has not passed any final order in the

disciplinary proceedings after the enquiry report and

therefore, there is no chance for the workman to take

resort to internal remedy available under the rules

and regulations of the bank. Even otherwise, as per

the principles of Labour Law there is no obligations

imposed on the workman to exhaust the administrative

remedy available under the service rules.

(viii) It is a basic principle of Labour Law that the

burden of proof always lies on the shoulders of the

Management to prove the charges of misconduct

framed under the charge sheet/show-cause notice

issued by the Management. It is noteworthy that to

find fault with the workman for his unauthorized

absence from duty under four different spells of time

starting from 01-02-2003 and ending with 4-11-2013,

the management has not at all produced any

document to prove his absence from duty for the

above period by the petitioner. For proving the

charge of unauthorized absence it is obligatory to

prove the factum of absence from duty at first by

producing documents relating to attendance of the

workman. In the case on hand the respondent has

miserably failed to prove the absence for the above

stipulated period by producing attendance register

or wages register or any other relevant documents.

For non-production of the attendance register or

other relevant documents by the management,

adverse inference has to be drawn against it.

(ix) The workman without prejudice to his

contention regarding burden of proof, has submitted

documents marked as Exhibits W4 to W7 showing

his getting salary from the management for the

period of unauthorized absence partly covered under

the charge-sheet, dated 04-11-2013. The entire record

of disciplinary proceedings clearly establishes the

fact that there has been an arbitrary exercise of

disciplinary proceedings by respondent bank, a

co-operative institution registered under the

Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972,

according to the sweet will and pleasure of its

Officers. The damage suffered by the petitioner on

account of non-employment from the year 2004

onwards by the unlawful act of the respondent

cannot be calculated in terms of money. Hence, the

petition.

3. The averments set forth in the counter is as

follows:

(i) The Puduchery Co-operative Bank Limited, is

a registered society, registered under the Puducherry

Co-operative Societies Act 1972 and Rules 1973 made

thereunder. The petitioner is no way connected to

the respondent bank and is not recognized Iyakkam

in the bank and there are some other registered and

recognized associations for the welfare of the bank

staff started on their own. Therefore, the petitioner

has no locus standi to file this dispute and this

petition may be dismissed in liminie. The Petitioner

filed this dispute petition stating that the petitioner

is a Registered Association working for the

protection of rights of people irrespective of their

caste, religion and political party. The petitioner

association is no way connected to the respondent

bank and the issue to be decided is whether the

petitioner association is empowered to file this

dispute under Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

(ii) As for as the employee Thiru Djeaboubalane

is concerned he was not dismissed, retrenched or

otherwise terminated from the service of the

individual and the petitioner also not stated about

any Impugned order, issued by this Respondent and

therefore, the dispute raised will not comes under

section 2 the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner

not challenged any impugned order of this

respondent bank in the claim statement. Since, no

orders have been passed by the disciplinary

authority of the respondent bank. The preliminary

issue is whether the dispute raised by the Bharatha

Makka Sasana Urimai Iyakkam, Puducherry, against

the management of M/s. Puducherry State

Co-operative Bank Limited, No. P 78, Puducherry,

over refusal of employment of Thiru Djeaboubalane

can be exhausted under the Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act, 1972 or under the Industrial Disputes

Act 1947? As per section 2 (k) there should be a

factum of dispute not merely a difference of opinion.

It has to be exposed by the Union in writing at the

commencement of the dispute. In Jadhav JH Vs

Forbes Gobak Limited (2005) 1 LL.B. 1089 (SC) it was

held that, a dispute relating to a single workman may

be an industrial dispute if, either it is exposed by the

Union or by a number workmen irrespective of the

reason on the union exposing the cause of workman

not the majority of the union. In Express Newspaper

135

11 March 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Private Limited Vs First Labour Court West Bengal

and others (1959-1960) 17 FJR 413 (Cal) it was held

that a dispute is an industrial dispute even where it

is sponsored by the union which not registered but,

the Trade Union must not be on unconnected with

the employer or the industry concerned. The

Petitioner Association is not it Trade Union and not

connected in no way to this respondent Bank.

Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is

without jurisdiction. In view of the above the first

reference made by the Government may be decided

in favour of the respondent.

(iii) This respondent submits that an individual

dispute even though not sponsored by other

workmen or exposed by the Union would be deemed

to be an industrial dispute if it covers any of the

matter mentioned in section 2 (A). So far as the

subject matter of the dispute is concerned 2(A) does

not bring about any change. The provisions of the

section 2 (k) alone determine that question.

Therefore, section 2 (A) can be treated as an

explanation to 2(k).

(iii) As per section 84 of Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act, if any dispute touching the

constitution of the committee or the Management

or the business of a registered Society arises:-

(a) among members, past members past

members and deceased members; or

(b) between a member, past member or person

claiming through a past member or

deceased member and the society; or

any past committee any officer, agents or

servants or any past officer, nominee,

heirs or legal representative of any

deceased Officer, deceased agent, or

deceased servant of the society; or

(d) between the society and any other

registered society:

* such dispute shall be referred to the

Registrar for decision.

* for the purposes of this section a

dispute shall include:-

(i) a claim by a registered society for any debt

or demand due to it from a member, past member

or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a

deceased member whether such debt or demand

be admitted or not; and

(ii) a claim by a registered society against a

member, past member or the nominee heir or legal

representative of a deceased member for the

delivery of a possession to the society of land or

other immovable property resumed by it for breach

of the conditions of assignment or allotment of

such land or other immovable property:

provided that no dispute relating to, or in

connection with, any election to a committee shall

be referred under this sub-section till the date of

the declaration of the result of such election. The

Registrar may, on receipt of such reference decide

the dispute himself or transfer it for disposal to

any person subordinate to and empowered by him.

(iv) This respondent submit that in the Rule 64

of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Rules 1973,

it is stated that the period of limitation for referring

a dispute mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall be regulated

by the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act 1963,

as if the dispute were a suit and the Registrar of a

Civil Court. As per section 145 of the Puducherry

Co-operative Societies Act 1972 it is stated that the

Tribunal, the Registrar, the arbitrator or any other

person deciding a dispute and the liquidator of a

society shall have all the powers of a Civil Court

while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure

1908. As per section 139, Section 140 of The

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972 empowered

the Government to Constitute as many Tribunals

(Co-operative Tribunals) as may be necessary for the

purpose of this Act under section 139, and if any

person aggrieved by the order of the disputes,

except the Election Disputes, decided by the Registrar

or the person empowered under the Act can file an

appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal under

section 140 of the Act. In Puducherry the Hon’ble

Principal District Judge Court is functioning as the

Co-operative Tribunal. As per section 144 of the

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972

“No order or award passed, decision or action taken

or direction issued under this Act by an arbitrator,

a liquidator, the Registrar or an Officer authorized or

empowered by him, the Tribunal or the Government

or any Officer subordinate to them, shall be liable to

be called in question in any Court.”

(v) This respondent submit to state that in view

of the above provisions the Petitioner should have

first go to the Registrar Court under section 84 of

the Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972,

since it is a dispute between the management of

the Co-operative respondent society, and the servant

working in respondent society. The claim is not about

the final orders passed by this respondent bank

136

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

against the petitioner on the disciplinary matter

which is still pending. As per Rule 51 of the

subsidiary Regulations Governing the service

conditions of the employees of the Puducherry State

Co-operative bank limited it is stated as follows:-

Not to absent from duty without permission or to

be late in attendance:

(a) An employee shall not absent himself from

duty without obtaining permission of the

Competent Authority.

(b) An employee who absents himself from

duty without leave or over stays his leave except

under circumstances beyond his control for which

he must tender satisfactory explanation shall not

be entitled to draw any pay and allowances during

such absence or overstay and further be liable for

such disciplinary measures as the Competent

Authority may impose. An employee of the bank

shall not absent himself from duty without

obtaining proper permission from the Competent

Authority and if an employee so absents himself

or overstays his leave, he will be liable for

disciplinary action together with other punishments

that may be imposed by the Competent Authority

namely this Respondent of the Bank.

(vi) Thiru M. Djeabouballan not followed any of

the above provisions and not joined duty and he was

not suspended or terminated or given any other

punishment till date in any manner based on the

disciplinary enquiry report. There is no time-limit

prescribed for the disciplinary authority to decide the

disciplinary proceedings in the bank regulations. The

petitioner approached the Labour Conciliation Officer

before passing any orders by the disciplinary

authority, in order to delay the matter and gain time.

Further, the petitioner has approached the Labour

Conciliation and during the discussion before the

Conciliation Officer, the Management respondent

bank come forward with some suggestions for

amicable settlement, considering his health condition,

which was not accepted by the Petitioner, and

therefore, the Officer given failure report.

(vii) In this case no final order is passed against

the petitioner based on the disciplinary proceedings

initiated against him. Therefore, this petition is a

premature one. Further, the petitioner also not

referred any impugned order in his claim petition, and

could not be produced as no final order is issued so

for by the Bank. The Petitioner in order to gain time

from passing the final orders on the disciplinary

proceedings, by filing conciliation petition before the

Labour Officer Conciliation and labour dispute before

this Court, and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner

is not sustainable. When there is a dispute arise

regarding not giving employment, between the

management of a co-operative society and the

servant/employee of the society, it can be referred

to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under

section 84 of the Puducherry Co-operative Societies

Act 1972. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the

claim petition with exemplary costs.

4. Points for consideration:

1. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner

union is justified?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the relief

as prayed in the claim petition?

3. Whether the industrial dispute raised by the

petitioner is maintainable before this Court?

5. On points 1 to 3:

Heard both sides on the issue of jurisdiction.

On perusal of case records it is found that the

above dispute has been raised stating that one

Thiru M. Djeaboubalane while working in the

Puducherry State Co-operative Bank as a messenger

was an habitual unauthorised absentee from duty

from 01-2-2003 to 28-2-2003 and from 01-04-2003 to

05-12-2003 and from 19-01-2004 to 04-11-2013 and

therefore, disciplinary action was initiated as against

him and charge-sheet was issued and enquiry was

conducted by appointing an Advocate as an Enquiry

Officer and in the enquiry charges were proved and

when necessary action based upon the Enquiry

report was intended to be initiated the abovesaid

Thiru M. Djeaboubalane had approached the

Conciliation Officer and later as the conciliation

failed the dispute has been referred to this Court to

decide the following points:

(i) Whether the dispute raised by Bharatha

Makkal Sasana Urimai Iyakkam, Puducherry, against

the management of M/s. Puducherry State

Co-operative Bank Limited No. P78, Puducherry, over

refusal of employment of Thiru Djeaboubalane can

be exhausted under the Puducherry Co-operative

Societies Act, 1972 or under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(ii) If, the remedy can be exhausted under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, what relief

Thiru Djeaboubalane is entitled to?

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

of money, if it can be so computed.

6. The records further reveals that on behalf of the

petitioner a claim statement was filed which states that

based upon disciplinary proceedings and enquiry report

no further final orders had been passed and in the claim

petition the petitioner has sought for the following

reliefs:

137

11 March 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(a) Declaring that the disciplinary proceedings

initiated by the respondent through charge-sheet,

dated 04-11-2013 against the petitioner is null and

void;

(b) Directing the respondent to provide employment

to the petitioner as messenger with back wages for

the period of non-employment with continuity of

service and all other attendant benefits;

tune of 10,00,000 payable by the respondent; and

(d) Granting such other relief as this Hon’ble

Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of

the case and in the interest of justice.

7. The records further reveals that it is at this stage

the respondent herein has filed a counter terming as

preliminary counter stating that while referring the

dispute to this Court the first point raised for

determination is that whether the refusal of employment

to Thiru M. Djeaboubalane can be exhausted under the

puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972 or under

the Industrial Disputes Act 1947? and therefore, after

this point is determined the respondent would file

counter and additional counter.

8. It is the specific contention of the respondent

herein that the petitioner association is not a Trade

Union and no way connected to the respondent bank

and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner

Association is without any jurisdiction. The other

contention of the respondent is that section 84 of

Puducherry Co-operative Society Act empowers the

Registrar to decide the disputes and further as per Rule

64 of Puducherry Co-operative Societies Rules 1973 the

time-limit for referring the dispute is provided and

likewise as per section 145 of Puducherry Co-operative

Society Act it is stated that the Registrar has all powers

that of Civil Court and section 144 of Puducherry

Co-operative Society Act states that an order or award

passed by a Registrar shall not be questioned in any

Court. Thus, the prime contention of the respondent is

that this Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the

present dispute and as such this dispute is not

maintainable.

9. The learned Counsel for petitioner to substantiate

that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute

has relied upon the following citations:

(i) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

etc., Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, CDJ 1978 SC 236 -

Held that the Co-operative Societies are industries

coming under the definition of section 2(j) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case,

the respondent bank has been registered as a

Co-operative Society under the Puducherry

Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. As such the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to

the resolution of the industrial disputes through the

machineries provided under the Industrial Dispute

Act is applicable to the claim of the petitioner.

(ii) Allahabad District Co-operative Limited

Versus Hannuman Dutt Tewari, CDJ 1981 SC 317 -

Held that disputes relating to conditions of service

of the workmen employed by the Co-operative

Society cannot be held to be disputes touching the

“Business of the Society” as per the provisions of

section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies

Act. As such the ratio of the above case is applicable

to the present case in which the term “Business of

the Society” under section 84 of the Puducherry

Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 is interpreted.

(iii) Workmen of Orissa Police Co-operative

Syndicate Vs. State of Orissa, 1982 II 139 (Orissa

H.C.) - Held that the dispute between employees of

a Co-operative Society registered under Orissa

Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and the Society

cannot be resolved by the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies under section 68. Industrial Tribunal

constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

has jurisdiction to decide the same Reverting to the facts

of the present case, the provisions of section 84 of the

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act is pari materia

to those of section 68 of the Orissa Co-operative act

and hence, the ratio of the above case is applicable

to the claim of the petitioner. So, this Hon’ble Court

has got jurisdiction.

10. This Court finds that in this case the employee

namely Thiru Djeaboubalane is found to have been

working at Puducherry State Co-operative Bank and for

the charge of unauthorized absenteeism a charge-sheet

has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter

domestic enquiry has been conducted and while further

action could be taken based on Enquiry Report the

petitioner has approached Conciliation Officer

and thereafter, this reference has been made to this

Court. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the said

Thiru Djeaboubalane is working at Co-operative Society

Bank and his dispute is that he was not provided any

work and thereby contends that there is refusal of

employment. Hence, in the said circumstances it has

become necessary to determine whether the petitioner

can devise his remedy under Industrial disputes Act or

Puducherry Co-operative Societies Act 1972.

11. This Court finds that Industrial Disputes Act 1947

applies to any industrial dispute concerning any

industry and therefore, it becomes mandatory to

determine whether the Puducherry Co-operative Society

Bank comes within the ambit of term “Industry”.

138

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

The learned Counsel for respondent raised an objection

that the reference is beyond the jurisdiction of the

Labour Court in as much as the Co-operative Society

Bank is not an industry and the workmen on whose

behalf the petitioner Association are espousing their

cause are not workmen under the Industrial disputes

Act and therefore, the reference is bad. What amounts

to an industry has been succinctly laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board Vs. A.Rajappa.

12. This Court at this juncture relies up on the

following citations:

(i) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Vs. A. Rajappa 1978 (ii) SCC Page 213 it has been held

below:

7.(1). ‘Industry’, as defined in section 2(j) has a

wide import.

(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized

by Cooperation between employer and employee

(the direct and substantial element is chimerical)

(iii) for the production and/or distribution of

goods and services calculated to satisfy human

wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but

inclusive of material things or services geared to

celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale prasad

or food), prima facie, there is an ‘industry’ in that

enterprise.

(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful

objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public,

joint, private and other sector.

decisive test is the nature of the activity with

special emphasis on the employer-employee

relations.

(d) If, the organization is a trade or business

it does not cease to be one because of

philanthropy animating the undertaking.”

(11) Although section 2(j) uses words of the

widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning

cannot be imagined to overreach itself.

“(a) ‘Undertaking’ must suffer a contextual

and associational shrinkage as explained in

Banerji and in this judgment; so also, service,

calling and the like.This yields the inference

that all organized activity possessing the triple

elements in I (supra), although not trade or

business, may still be ‘industry’ provided the

nature of the activity, viz., the employer-

employee basis, bears resemblance to what we

find in trade or business. This takes into the

fold of ‘industry’ undertakings, callings and

services, adventures ‘analogous to the carrying

on the trade or business’. All features, other

than the methodology of carrying on the

activity viz., in organizing the Cooperation

between employer and employee, may be

dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the

employment terms there is analogy.”

(iv) The dominant nature test:

(a) Where a complex of activities, some of

which qualify for exemption, others not,

involves employees on the total undertaking,

some of whom are not ‘workmen’ as in the

University of Delhi caseor some departments

are not productive of goods and services if

isolated, even then, the predominant nature of

the services and the integrated nature of the

departments as explained in the Corporation of

Nagpur will be the true test. The whole

undertaking will be ‘industry’ although those

who are not ‘workmen’ by definition may not

benefit by the status.

(b)

Notwithstanding the previous clauses,

sovereign functions, strictly understood,

(alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare

activities or economic adventures undertaken

by Government or Statutory Bodies.

sovereign functions, if there are units which

are industries and they are substantially

severable, then they can be considered to come

within section 2(j).

(d) Constitutional and competently enacted

legislative provisions may well remove from the

scope of the Act categories which otherwise

may be covered thereby.”

(ii) Mgt. Of Som Vihar Apt. Owners Housing ... vs

Workmen, Indian Engg. and General Mazdoor on

22 February, 2001.

Equivalent citations: (2001)ILLJ1413SC, (2002)9

SCC 652, AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2530, 2002(9)

SCC 652, 2002 AIR SCW 2746, 2002 LAB. I. C.

2468, 2001 LAB LR 599, 2001 (1) JT (SUPP) 67,

(2001) 3 LAB LN 815, (2002) 1 SCT 207, 2002 SCC

(L&S) 1099, (2001) 1 LABLJ 1413, (2001) 4 SERVLR

649, (2001) 4 SUPREME 559 it has been held as

follows:

It is clear when personal services are rendered

to the members of a society and that society is

constituted only for the purposes of those

members to engage the services of such

employees, we do not think its activity should be

139

11 March 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

treated as an industry nor are they workmen. In

this view of the matter so far as the appellant is

concerned it must be held not to be “industry”.

Therefore, the award made by the Tribunal cannot

be sustained. The same shall stand set aside.

Considering the overall purpose of existence of

the society and the nature of services rendered

by it, by applying the dominant nature test

succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in

Bangalore Water Supply, it is but a foregone

conclusion that the society is not an industry in

any true sense of the word as applied under

section 2(j) of the Act.

(iii) M/s. Arihant Siddhi Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd vs

1(A)Pushpa Vishnu More And Others on 22 June,

2018.

Equivalent citations: AIR ON LINE 2018 BOM

994, (2018) 159 FACLR 271, (2018) 2 CURLR 931,

(2019) 4 LAB LN 99, (2020) 164 FACLR 304 the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as follows:

This Court, in its judgment in the case of

M/s. Shantivan-II Housing Society Vs.

Smt. Manjula Govind Mahidal has considered

whether a Co-operative Housing Society can be

termed as an industry within the meaning of

section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act

merely because it carries on some commercial

activity, not as its predominant activity, but, as

an adjunct to its main activity. This Court has

held that such society is not an industry. In

a case like this, that is to say, where there is

a complex of activities, some of which may

qualify the undertaking as an industry and

some would not, what one has to consider is

the predominant nature of services or activities.

If the predominant nature is to render services

to its own members and the other activities are

merely an adjunct, by the true test laid down

in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, the undertaking

is not an industry.

As held by the Supreme Court in 2 1978(ii)

SCC Page 213 when there are multiple activities

carried on by an establishment, what is to be

considered is the dominant function. In the

present case, merely because the society

charged some extra charges from a few of its

members for display of neon signs, the society

cannot be treated as an industry carrying on

business of hiring out of neon signs or allowing

display of advertisements.

13. Thus, this Court in the light of above citations

finds that when there are complex of activities, some of

which may qualify the undertaking as an industry and

some would not, what one has to consider is the

predominant nature of services or activities. If the

predominant nature is to render services to its own

members and the other activities are merely an adjunct,

by the true test laid down in the case of Bangalore

Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A.Rajappa, the

undertaking is not an industry.

14. Hence, on placing reliance upon the above

citations and above discussions holds that as the

employer herein being Co-operative Society Bank this

Court holds that the same does not fall within the ambit

of definition “industry” and when such being so the

invoking of Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable

and thereby this Court holds that this Court has no

jurisdiction to try the dispute raised by the petitioner

and the dispute raised by the petitioner is not justified.

15. Thus, this Court holds that the very reference

to this Court to decide the dispute raised by the

petitioner herein is not maintainable. Consequently the

determination of other points stated in the reference

also does not deserves any consideration.

In the result this I.D. petition is dismissed as not

maintainable. There is no order as costs.

Partly typed by the Stenographer, Partly typed by me

in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this the 11th day of July, 2024.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of witnesses examined on petitioner’s side :

WW1 — 28-11-2022

Mr. M.Djeaboubalane

List of exhibits on petitioner’s exhibits :

Ex.W1 —

Xerox Copy of the full text of the

section

the

Puducherry

Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

Ex.W2 —

Xerox Copy of the Regulations

Governing the Service Condition of the

Employees of the Pondicherry State

Co-operative Bank Limited, framed

under Bye-Law No., 35(C).

List of witnesses examined on respondent side : NIL

List of exhibits of respondent side : NIL

G. T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

140

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 16/AIL/Lab./S/2025,

Puducherry, dated 17th February 2025)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (T) No. 19/2023, dated

19-09-2024, of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Puducherry, in respect of dispute between the

M/s. Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,

Karaikal and the Union workmen Tmt. R. Kamali and

13 others represented by the Union for all staff in

Vinayaga Mission’s Medical College and Hospital,

Karaikal, over granting promotion 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)

S. SANDIRAKUMARAN,

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, the 19th day of September, 2024

I.D(T). No. 19/2023

C.N.R. No. PYPY06-000082-2023

The Secretary,

Union for all Staff in Vinayaga Mission’s

Medical College and Hospital,

No. 9, MGJ Nagar-1st Cross,

PK Salai, Karaikal-609 602.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

M/s. Vinayaga Mission Medical

College and Hospital,

Keezhakasakudimedu, Kottucherry,

Karaikal-609 609.

. . Respondent

This industrial dispute came upon this day for hearing,

the petitioner being remained absent and in the

presence of Thiru R. Ilancheliyan, Counsel for the

Respondent, upon perusing the records, this Court

passed the following:

ORDER

1. This industrial dispute arises out of the reference

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

77/AIL/Lab./T/2023, dated 08-09-2023, of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, viz.,-

(i) Whether the industrial dispute raised by the

Union workmen, represented by union for all staff in

Vinayaga Missions Medical College and Hospital,

Karaikal, against the management of M/s. Vinayaga

Mission’s Medical College, Karaikal, over granting

promotion to Tmt. R. Kamali and 13 others as listed

in annexure as Stores Officer from the date of

granting promotion to their junior Thiru P. Kumar as

Store officer is justified or not ? If justified, what

relief the Union workmen listed in annexure are entitled

to ?

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

of money if, it can be so computed?

2. Today, the case came up for hearing. A counsel

who undertook to file vakalath for petitioner

represented that the petitioner is not co-operating for

the case. The petitioner having choosen to raise this

Industrial Dispute has neither appeared in person or

through a Counsel from the date of first hearing. Hence,

the same is recorded and this petition is closed for

non-prosecution.

In the result, this reference is closed for

non-prosecution. There is no order as to costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on

this the 19th day of September, 2024.

G. T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND WAQF

(G.O. Ms. No. 01/CHRI/T.4/2025/117,

Puducherry, dated 04th February 2025)

ORDER

Adverting to the Orders, dated 30-06-2023 of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in

W.P. Nos: 34726 of 2022 and 3241 of 2023 and G.O. Ms.

No. 1/CHRI/T.2/2023, dated 14-07-2023, and in exercise

141

11 March 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

of the powers conferred under the Puducherry Hindu

Religious Institutions Act, 1972, Thiru A. Kamalajothy,

s/o. Ayyanarappan, LDC, Executive Engineer, Division-I,

Electricity Department, Puducherry, is hereby appointed

as Temple Administrative Officer of Arulmigu Sri

Mariamman, Pillaiyar and Drowbathaiyamman Devasthanam,

Ariyankuppam, Puducherry, on honorary basis. The

Temple Administrative Officer shall administer the said

Devasthanam as envisaged in the provisions of the

Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 and

the rules framed thereunder.

Important duties and responsibilities of the Temple

Administrative Officer are given below

(i) To take over the administration of the said

Devasthanam along with movable and immovable assets;

(ii) Submission of compliance report on taking

over of the administration of the temple along with

the details of movable and immovable properties

with a period of fifteen days from taking over the

administration;

(iii) Submission of annual report on maintenance

of movable and immovable assets including the cleaning

and desilting of temple ponds;

(iv) To coordinate and facilitate the completion of

work undertaken by donors as per rule 13 (9);

(v) Submission of annual budget by March as per

rule 13 of the Act;

(vi) To maintain accounts as per sections 14 to 17

of Hindu Religious Institutions Act and to get the

accounts audited annually by the Directorate of

Accounts and Treasuries, Puducherry;

(vii) Shall ensure that the Poojas and Festivals are

conducted according to the customs followed by the

Devasthanam;

(viii) Shall collect all debts and funds due to the

Institution and secure them from the loss or risk of loss;

(ix) Shall ensure that appropriate proceedings are

instituted to effect all debts and funds due to the

institution or recovery thereof and also to defund such

action against the institution in respect of the property

of the institution;

(x) Shall not connive at or facilitate any act or

conduct of another person which would involve a

breach of trust or occasion risk or loss to the property

belonging to the Institution;

(xi) Shall strictly conform to and carry out the

terms and shall not encumber the properties of the

Institution by persistently incurring expenditure beyond

the limits of the income of the property of the

Institution;

(xii) Shall not in any way make use of the property

of the Institution or of his position as Temple

Administrative Officer, for his self-interest or private

advantage; and shall be personally responsible for the

exercise of his judgment and for performance of his duty

and he cannot, therefore, escape responsibility by

leaving to another person the exercise of judgment or

the performance of that duty.

The Temple Administrative Officer shall hold office

for a period of three years from the date of its

appointment, unless in the meanwhile removed or

dismissed or on resignation is accepted or otherwise

cease to be Temple Administrative Officer.

(By order)

A. SIVASANKARAN,

Under Secretary to Government (Temples).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT

(HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION)

(G.O. Ms. No. 03, Puducherry, dated 20th February 2025)

ORDER

In compliance with the directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 350 of 1993 in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education and

Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, dated 14-08-2003, “Fee Committee” to determine the fee structure in the

Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions functioning in the Union territory of Puducherry was

constituted vide G.O. Ms. No. 26, dated 28-07-2023 of the Chief Secretariat (Higher and Technical Education),

Puducherry.

142

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

2. On the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court, Madras, the Lieutenant-Governor,

Puducherry, is pleased to appoint Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala, Judge (Retired), High Court, Madras as the

Chairperson of the “Fee Committee” for the purpose of fixation of fee structure in the Unaided Private Professional

Colleges in the Union territory of Puducherry, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charges

vice Honourable Justice Tmt. S. Kannammal, Judge (Retired), High Court, Madras, who had been appointed earlier

vide G.O. Ms. No. 26, dated 28-07-2023 of the Chief Secretariat (Higher and Technical Education), Puducherry, had

relinquished the post of Chairperson of the Fee Committee with effect from 26-07-2024, consequent on her

appointment as Judicial Member, Tamil Nadu Lokayukta by the Honourable High Court of Madras vide Letter, dated

26-07-2024 of Tmt. S. Kannammal, Judge (Retired), High Court, Madras.

3. The terms and conditions of appointment of the Chairperson, Fee Committee are as specified below:

(a)

Term

Three years from the date of assumption of the charges or till the necessity

thereof ceases, whichever is earlier.

(b)

Particulars of sittings

Honorarium

Sitting fees

8 sittings and above

40,000 per month.

3,500 per sitting.

7 sittings and below

20,000 per month.

3,500 per sitting.

(c)

Accommodation

Free facility of temporary Government accommodation in guest house, during

sittings.

(d)

Travelling Allowance

Travelling Allowance or A/C car will be provided during the sittings and for

to and fro journeys between the place of residence and Puducherry.

If, own car is utilised for the above purpose, they are entitled to claim the

admissible mileage allowance for the road journey as per rules in force. The above

claim shall be as applicable to the Judges of the High Court, Madras.

(e)

Pension or Gratuity

The Chairman, Fee Committee, shall not be entitled for pension or gratuity for his

tenure in the Fee Committee.

(f)

Daily Allowance

The Chairman of Fee Committee is eligible for DA on par with Hon’ble Judges

of the High Court, Madras for sittings each day.

4. The Director of Higher and Technical Education, Puducherry, is declared as the Drawing and Disbursing

Officer for the purpose of drawing the pay and to meet out other expenses relating to the above-mentioned Fee

Committee during its tenure.

5. The expenditure on the payment of honorarium, sitting fees, other allowances and conveyance charges

to the Chairman shall be debitable to the Head of Account “2203 – Technical Education – 001 – Direction and

Administration 001(02) – Directorate of Higher and Technical Education – 001(02) Puducherry region (28) Professional

Services and (11) Domestic TE” in the budget.

6. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their I.D No. 17774/FC/FD/F4/A4/

2024-2025, dated 10-01-2025.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

V. SOUMYA,

Under Secretary to Government

(Higher and Technical Education).

143

11 March 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

(SECRETARIAT WING)

(G.O. Ms. No. 52, Puducherry, dated 21st February 2025)

NOTIFICATION

O n a t t a i n i n g t he a ge o f s up e r a nnua t i o n,

Thiru K. Chandran, Vice-Principal, Government Higher

Secondary School, Thiruvandarkoil, Puducherry, is

admitted into retirement with effect from the afternoon

of 31-03-2025.

(By order )

F P VERBINA JAYARAJ,

Under Secretary to Government

(School Education).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HEALTH SECRETARIAT

(G.O. Ms. No. 5, Puducherry, dated 25th February 2025)

NOTIFICATION

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

Tmt. M. Sornamala, Assistant Nursing Superintendent,

Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital and

Postgraduate Institute, Puducherry, is deemed to have

been admitted into retirement with effect from the

afternoon of 31-01-2025.

(By order )

S. MURUGESAN,

Under Secretary to Government (Helath-I).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HOME DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Ms. No. 05, Puducherry, dated 27th February 2025)

NOTIFICATION

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

Thiru P. Balachandiran, Superintendent of Police,

Karaikal (North), Police Department, Puducherry, shall

retire from Government services on the afternoon of

28-02-2025.

(By order )

M.V. HIRAN,

Under Secretary to Government (Home).

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 9/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 28th February 2025]

NOTIFICATION

O n a t t a i ni ng t he a ge o f s up e r a nnu a t i o n ,

Thiru R. Sedouramane, Superintendent, Department of

Women and Child Development, Puducherry, shall retire

from service with effect from the afternoon of 28-02-2025.

(By order )

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government (Personnel).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (WORKS)

(G.O. Ms. No. 38, Puducherry, dated 28th February 2025)

NOTIFICATION

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

Thiru M. Balasubramanian, Assistant Engineer,

presently holding the post of Superintending Engineer

on CDC basis, Circle-II, Public Works Department,

Puducherry, is admitted into retirement on the afternoon

of 28-02-2025.

(By order )

SUNDARARAJAN. P,

Joint Secretary to Government (Works).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT (WORKS)

(G.O. Ms. No. 39, Puducherry, dated 28th February 2025)

NOTIFICATION

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

Thiru B. Soundararadje, Assistant Engineer, presently

holding the post of Executive Engineer on CDC basis,

Buildings and Roads (North) Division, Public Works

Department, Puducherry, is admitted into retirement on

the afternoon of 28-02-2025.

(By order )

SUNDARARAJAN. P,

Joint Secretary to Government (Works).

144

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

AFFIDAVIT

I, Coquilamballe, daughter of Peroumal Cavoundar,

wife of Janakiraman, Hindu, aged about 60 years,

residing at No. 20, 4th Cross Street, Kavikuyil Nagar,

New Saram, Puducherry- 605 013, do hereby solemnly

and sincerely affirm, to whomsoever it may concern as

follows:

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

my Birth Certificate, issued by Oulgaret Municipality,

Puducherry under Registration No. A/1965/00014,

dated 05-03-1965, my name is mentioned as

‘Coquilamballe’.

2. In my Aadhaar Card, issued by Unique

Identification Authority of India under No. XXXX

XXXX 0916, dated 22-12-2011, in my PAN Card under

No. FBUPK3191L, issued by the Income-tax

Department, Government of India and in my Elector’s

Photo Identity Card, issued by Election Commission

of India under No. RNV0175877, dated 02-01-2020, in

my first son’s (Madhan) Birth Certificate, issued by

the Sub-Registrar, Pondicherry Municipality,

Puducherry under Registration No. PM/C/1987/1820,

dated 31-08-1987 and my second son’s (Janarthan)

Birth Certificate, issued by Pondicherry Municipality,

Puducherry under Registration No. PM/C/1990/157,

dated 17-01-1990 and in my daughter’s (Janitha) Birth

Certificate, issued by Pondicherry Municipality,

Puducherry under Registration No. PM/M/1991/3157,

dated 16-04-1991, in all these documents, my name

has been mentioned as ‘Kokilambal’.

3. In my Family Ration Card, issued by the

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Puducherry, under Card No. 015564, dated 15-07-2005,

my name is mentioned as ‘’.

4. I state that I received the Certificate of Identity,

issued by the Hon’ble Principal District Munsif

Court, Puducherry vide C.M.P.No. 123/2024, dated

01-10-2024, that all my names i.e., ‘Coquilamballe’,

‘Kokilambal’ and ‘’ are denoting one

and the same person that is myself only.

5. Therefore, I do hereby declare that all these

names i.e., ‘Coquilamballe’, ‘Kokilambal’ and

‘’ are referred, indentified and relate to

one and the same person, that is myself only. And

my correct name is ‘Coquilamballe’ in future and I

will use my name as ‘Coquilamballe’ only.

I state that what are all stated in the above

paragraphs is true and there is no suppression or

misrepresentation of the facts.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 21st day of

February 2025.

768215

J. .

AFFIDAVIT

I, Thamizharasi, daughter of Venkatasalam alias

Thevarassou, wife of Pandurangan, Indian inhabitant,

aged about 53 years and residing at the house bearing

Door No. 2B, Vannangulathu Street, Govindapet,

Thattanchavady, Puducherry-605 009, 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. OM/O/

1971/000736 and in my Secondary School Leaving

Certificate under Certificate Sl.Nos. SEC 2910882, and

SEC 4287211, my name has been mentioned as

‘Thamijarassy’.

In my Transfer Certificate under Admission No.

3862/HS/84-85, my name has been mentioned as

‘Thamijarassy. T’.

In my Employment Exchange Identity Card under

Registration No. PY011000169304, my name has been

mentioned as ‘Thamijarassy D’.

In my Elector’s Photo Identity Card under No.

KVY0658963, my name has been mentioned as

‘Thamizharasi ()’.

In my Aadhaar Card, under No. XXXX XXXX 5554,

my name has been mentioned as ‘P Thamizharasi

()’.

In the Office Order under No. 12956-II/IGMC&RI/

Estt./A4/MPW/2023/1156, dated: 05/04/2023, issued

by Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research

Institute, Puducherry, my name has been mentioned

as ‘Thamizharasi. P’.

In the Identity Card under No. MPWC-0674,

my name has been mentioned as ‘P. Tamizharasi’.

In the Family Ration Card under No. 343892, my

name has been mentioned as ‘’, issued by

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Puducherry.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

namesviz., ‘Thamijarassy’, ‘Thamijarassy. T’,

‘Thamijarassy. D’, ‘Thamizharasi’, ‘P. Thamizharasi’,

‘Thamizharasi. P’, ‘P. Tamizharasi’, ‘’and

‘’are referred, identified and relate to one

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

I state that what are all stated in the abovesaid

paragraphs are 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 24th day of

February 2025.

768216

P. 

145

11 March 2025]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Vanaja, wife of Selvam, aged about 58 years,

residing at No. 25, Second Cross Street, Venkateswara

Nagar, Saram, Puducherry-605 013, 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.

1. I state that my name is entered as ‘Vanadja’ in

my Birth Certificate, bearing Registration No. P/1967/

00439, issued by Pondicherry Municipality,

Puducherry.

2. I state that my name is entered as ‘Vanaja. L’

in my School Transfer Certificate vide Admission

No. 1915, issued by the Government Girls’ High School,

Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.

3. I state that my name is entered as ‘Vanaja

(’ in my Aadhaar Card bearing No. XXXX

XXXX 5894, issued by Unique Identification Authority

of India.

4. I state that my name is entered as ‘Vanaja’ in

m y Elector ’s Photo Identity Card bearing No.

DNX0410050, issued by Election Commission of India.

5. I state that my name is entered as ‘Vanaja’ in

my PAN Card bearing No. AMDPV8238J, issued by

the Income-tax Department, Government of India.

6. I state that my name is entered as ‘S. Vanaja’ in

my Identity Card, issued by Pondicherry Market

Committee, Puducherry.

7. I state that my name is entered as ‘Vanaja S’ i n

my B a nk P a s s b o o k be a r i ng SB Ac c oun t No.

XXXXXXX0756, issued by State Bank of India,

Thattanchavady Branch, Puducherry.

8. I state that my name is entered as ‘’ in

our Family Ration Card bearing No. 399570, issued

by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs, Puducherry.

Hence, I submit that the names described in the

above records as ‘Vanadja’, ‘Vanaja. L’, ‘Vanaja’,

‘S. Vanaja’, ‘Vanaja S’ and ‘’ are referring one

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

Finally, I declare that my name is ‘Vanaja’.

The above statements in the foregoing paragraphs

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 25th day of February 2025.

768217

S. VANAJA.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kavipriya, daughter of Murugan, wife of

Mohammed Jaffer, Hindu, aged about 23 years and

residing at No. 42, Iyyanar Koil Street, Embalam,

Puducherry-605 106, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm, and state on oath as follows:

1. That I am the deponent herein.

2. I state that as per my Birth Certificate, bearing

Registration No. M/2002/18524, dated 23-12-2002,

issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths,

Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry, my name is

mentioned as ‘Kavipriya’.

3. I state that as per my Elector’s Photo Identity

Card S.No. YBP0232256, dated 19-01-2021, issued by

the Election Commission of India, my name is

mentioned as ‘Kavipriya’.

4. I state that as per in my Aadhaar Card bearing

No. XXXX XXXX 4593, dated 28-02-2012, issued by

Unique Identification Authority of India, my name is

mentioned as ‘M Kavipriya’.

5. I state that as per my Provisional Certificate

S.No. 309364, dated 15-12-2023, issued by Pondicherry

University, Kalapet, Puducherry, my name is mentioned

as ‘Kavipriya M’.

6. I state that as per in my PAN Card bearing

No. LBHPK9746C, dated 15-12-2002, issued by the

Income-tax Department, Government of India,

my name is mentioned as ‘M Kavipriya’.

7. I state that as per in my Transfer Certificate

Admission S.No. 25506, dated 20-06-2023, issued by

the Principal, Bharathidasan Government College for

Women, Puducherry, my name is mentioned as

‘Kavipriya’.

8. I state that as per my Marriage Invitation, dated

02-02-2025, my name is mentioned as ‘M 

’.

9. I state that as per my Marriage Certificate vide

Registration No. 20/84P, dated 07-02-2025, issued by

the Secretary, Waqf Muhammadhia Pallivasal,

Sulthanpet, Puducherry, my name is mentioned as

‘’.

10. I state that as per in my Family Ration Card

bearing No. 322989, issued by the Department of Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry, my name

is mentioned as ‘’.

11. I state that as per my convertion vide

Certificate C.C.No. 237: 43/2024, dated, 10-12-2024,

issued by the Government Town Kazi, Sulthanpet,

Puducherry, my name is mentioned as ‘Afrah’.

146

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[11 March 2025

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

names i.e., ‘Kavipriya’, ‘M. Kavipriya’, ‘Kavipriya M’,

‘M. ’, ‘’,

‘Afrah’ and ‘’ are referred, identified

and relate to one and the same person i.e., myself

only. Hereinafter, I shall be known and identified only

by the name ‘Áfrah’ for all purposes.

I declare that what are all stated above is true and

there is no suppression or misrepresentation of the

said facts.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 24th day of February 2025.

768218

KAVIPRIYA.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Ajeethkumar, presently transgender, previously son

of Manohar and Mahalakshmi, at present by residing

at the house situated at Door No. 40, Vellavari Street,

Samipillaithoottam, Puducherry-605 008, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm, in favour of the

whomsoever it may concern as follows:

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

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

under Registration No. PM/C/2004/2666, issued by

Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry, my name has

been mentioned as ‘Ajeethkumar’.

In my application submitted for issuance of

Permanent Caste Certificate under Application

No. PEPRD 000001985, my name has been mentioned

as ‘Ajeethkumar M’.

In my Elector’s Photo Identity Card under

No. RNV0244202, my name has been mentioned as

‘Ajeethkumar ’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No. XXXX XXXX 4296,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Ajeethkumar

’.

In the Family Ration Card, under No. 473693,

my name has been mentioned as ‘’.

Further, I state that I have later transformed to

third gender through proper surgery and became a

transgender, as such in the Certificate, dated

25-02-2025, issued by the Dr. Kumaran’s Multi

Speciality Hospital, my name has been mentioned as

‘Ajeethkumar @ Ashvitha’.

Further, in the Discharge Summary under I.P.

No. 6974, dated 30-10-2024, issued by the Dr. Kumaran’s

Multi Speciality Hospital, my name has been mentioned

as ‘Ashvitha’.

Therefore, I do hereby state that all the abovesaid

names are referred, identified and relate to one and

the same person, that is me the deponent herein.

I state that Henceforth I shall be known and

identified by the name ‘Ashvitha ()’ only for

all purposes.

I state that what are all stated in the above

paragraphs are 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 27th day of

February 2025.

768220 M AJEETH KUMAR.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, J. Banumathi, wife of Jeevarajan (late), aged about

64 years and residing at No. 19, First Main Road,

Kumaran Nagar Extension, Lawspet, Puducherry-

605 008, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath

as follows: