Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under No. 10410
La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry The Gazette of Puducherry
➢ ➢ Publiée par Autorité Published by Authority ▪ ➢ 2025 } | 23 {
No. 51 Poudouchéry Mardi 23 Décembre 2025 (2 Pausa 1947) No. Puducherry Tuesday 23rd December 2025
➢ SOMMAIRES CONTENTS
Page Page
➢ .. 968 Sentence arbitral du Travail .. 968 Award of the Labour Court .. 968
de Tribunal.
• .. 979 Notifications du Gouvernement .. 979 Government Notifications .. 979 .. 980 Etablissements dangereux .. 980 Dangerous Establishments .. 980
.. 981 Announcements .. 981 .. 981 Annonces
[967]968 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025 GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY LABOUR DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Rt. No. 64/AIL/Lab./S/2025, Puducherry, dated 5th December 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Whereas, an Award in I.D (L) No. 54/2017, dated 13-06-2025 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry, in respect of a Dispute between M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited, R.S.No. 131,131/1-4, Kattukuppam, Manapet Post, Cuddalore Road, Puducherry-607 402 and Thiru S. Senthil Kumar, 109E. No. SG, Type – 1 Quarters, Block – 5, Neyveli TS, Cuddalore District-607 803, over non-employment and back wages have 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.
Friday, the 13th day of June 2025.
I.D. (L). No. 54/2017 CNR. No. PYPY06-000083-2017 Thiru S. Senthil Kumar, 109 E.No. 8G, Type - 1 Quarters, Block - 5, Neyveli TS, Cuddalore District-607 803. . . Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited, R.S.Nos. 131 and 131/1-4, Kattukuppam, Manapet Post, Cuddalore Road, Puducherry-607 402.
. . Respondent This Industrial dispute coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Thiru S. Parthasarathi, Counsel for the Petitioner, Thiruvalargal L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar, Counsels for the Respondent upon hearing both sides and perusing the case records, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference made by the Government of Pondicherry vide G.O. Rt. No. 163/AIL/Lab./T/2017, dated 24-10-2017 of the Labour Department, Pondicherry to resolve the following dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, viz., (i) Whether the dispute raised by the Petitioner Thiru S. Senthil Kumar against the Management of M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited, Puducherry over non-employment and back wages is justified or not? If justified, what is the relief entitled to?
(ii) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed.
2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner are as follows :
The Petitioner had been in service at the Respondent Establishment for more than 18 years from 1997. The Petitioner, during his service, did not give room for any wrongs and worked by accepting and implementing all legal Orders of the Respondent Management. In the Respondent Establishment, 83 permanent workers in the name of Line Supervisor, 15 permanent workers in the name of Grade M7, 10 permanent workers in the name of Grade M6, 410 workers in the name of Grade M and 2000 contract labourers were working. The Grade M workers, 410 in numbers only were joined and acted in the Trade Union. There is no remark at all against the Petitioner so far by the Respondent Management during his period of service. The Petitioner was given promotion by the Respondent Management in the year 2007 after 10 years of service as Grade S and wage increment was also given for the said year. Thereafter, the wage increment was denied to the Petitioner for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The Petitioner demanded the Respondent Management to pay the wage increment time and again but, the same was not considered by the Respondent Management.
(ii) That in the year 2010, the Respondent Management had transferred the Petitioner to Maraimalai Nagar, Chennai Branch. Wherein, also, the Petitioner was serving excellently. Based on that, the Petitioner was given wage increment for the said year. While being so, in view of his family situation, the Petitioner requested for transfer to Puducherry. Since, the Respondent Management has not given proper23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 969 Notice before 14-01-2016 to the Petitioner. After the requisition submitted by the Petitioner regarding wage increment, the Respondent Management has given show cause Notices. While pending of the industrial dispute, on 20-04-2016, the Respondent Management has sent a letter along with a cheque for 80,323 for full and final settlement to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has returned the cheque through a letter, dated 27-04-2016. As the Management did not accord for any amicable settlement, on 22-10-2017; the Conciliation Officer has sent a Conciliation Failure Report. The Petitioner has lastly drawn 16,151 as his salary. The Petitioner and his family suffered a lot after his termination. The Petitioner has not committed any misconduct and the Respondent Management has not taken any disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. As the Petitioner has claimed his legal benefits of wage increment, the Respondent Management to victimize the petitioner terminated his service from 08-03-2017. It is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Petitioner prayed this Court to pass an Order to set aside the Order of termination passed by the Respondent Management against the Petitioner and to Order the Respondent Management to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service with full back wages and other attendant benefits.
3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the
respondent are as follows :
reply, on 30-09-2011, the Petitioner has sent a letter of requisition for transfer to the Assistant Vice President, Head Office at Mumbai through e-mail. Based on that, the Petitioner was transferred to Karaikal by the Respondent Management. Since, the Petitioner got transfer Order by straight forwardly contacting the Head Office at Mumbai, the Respondent Management denied the wage increment to the petitioner by vengeance. Meanwhile, in the year 2015, the workers of the Respondent Establishment were given wage increment as a result of Wage Increment Settlement. But, the wage increment was not given to the Petitioner. When it was questioned by the Petitioner, the Respondent Management stated that the Petitioner is not a member of the Trade Union and based on the Wage Increment Settlement entered between the Management and the Trade Union, the wage increment was implemented and wage increment will be implemented later to the petitioner and similar workers. Thereafter also, the wage increment was not given to the Petitioner. The Respondent Management has given show cause Notices to the Petitioner on 14-06-2016 and also on 29-01-2016 stating that his performance was not satisfactory. In the abovesaid Notices, it was commonly mentioned that the performance of the Petitioner in the year 2014-2015 was not satisfactory and the said Notices did not mention about the details that on what basis the performance of the Petitioner was not satisfactory. The Petitioner has given a detailed explanation through his letter, dated 05-02-2016 to the abovesaid Notices. While so, the Petitioner was terminated by the Respondent Management on 08-03-2016 without any notice and without assigning any reason. The act of termination by the Respondent Management is against the Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(iii) That on 10-03-2016, the Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute over his termination before the Labour Officer, Puducherry. Wherein, on 31-05-2016, the Respondent Management has filed Reply Statement by stating that, "the Petitioner is not a workman, he was working as Officer in the Respondent Establishment" and therefore, he has no right to raise the industrial dispute and he was dismissed as his performance, during the year 2012- 2015, was not satisfactory. The Petitioner has never been in service as Officer at the Respondent Establishment and the Respondent Management has never given the powers of Officer to the Petitioner. The Petitioner served as a worker. The Respondent Management has never issued any show cause
The Industrial Dispute raised by the Claim Petitioner herein is per se not maintainable either on Law or on facts. That Thiru. S. Senthil Kumar is a Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering and was previously employed in M/s. Shasayee Industries Limited as Junior Engineer in the Machine Shop Department with effect from 05-08-1988 to 07-10-1991. That the petitioner submitted an Application dated 20-09-1996 to the M/s. Godrej Hi - Care Limited, Puducherry that he has experience in the mechanical field clearly emphasizing the being Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering and requested for suitable Job. That the Management had offered the post of Maintenance Supervisor with a Gross Salary of 2,500 per month through Order, dated 02-04-1997. Thereafter the Management had issued a Letter dated 08-11-1997 highlighting the terms and conditions of the appointment which is self-explanatory that the Petitioner is not a Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Being an Officer on Supervisory level, the Petitioner also executed an Agreement on confidentiality and non-competition with M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited which would again establish the fact that the Petitioner is not a970 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025 3. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner over his non-employment and back wages is justified?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs
as claimed in the claim petition?
5. To what other reliefs?
Workman. Confirmation order, dated 23-02-1998 for the post of Supervisor-Maintenance was issued to the petitioner by the management and testimonial was issued on 21-02-2007 which confirms the status of Supervisor-Maintenance since, 04-04-1997. Further, the Petitioner was promoted as Officer-Production in the year 2007.
5. On the side of the Petitioner, PW1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked, PW2 was examined and Exs.P9 to P22 were marked and PW3 was examined and no exhibits were marked. On the side of Respondent, during the cross-examination of PW1, Exs.R1 to R28 were marked and during the cross-examination of PW2, Exs.R29 to R31 were marked, RW1 was examined and Ex.R32 to R36 were marked.
6. On point No's.1 to 5 :-
(ii) While being so, the performance of the Petitioner was remained unsatisfactory for the financial years 2012-2015 and in spite of opportunities accorded, the improvement never seems to have taken place and the Superiors of the Petitioner through their internal note clearly highlighted the unsatisfactory performance of the Petitioner for the said financial years. So, he was called upon to explain as to why the services should not be terminated through Show Cause Notice, dated 29-01-2016 to which the Petitioner had submitted a detailed letter dated 05-02-2016 in Tamil was not satisfactory to the management and so he was terminated from Service with effect from 09-03-2016 in terms of the terms and conditions of the Employment vide Letter, dated 08-03-2016 and the same was sent through Registered Post. The Learned Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry in a usual manner had entertained this Petition of non-employment at the initial instance and thereafter submitted failure of Conciliation to the Secretary to Government (Labour), Puducherry who in turn had referred the Industrial Dispute for adjudication before this Court. That the Petitioner has no locus standi to raise an industrial dispute as against the Termination of Services, dated 09-03-2016. Since, the Petitioner is not a Workman, the provisions of the standing order would not be applicable to him . That the Petitioner being Officer-Production in the Respondent Management would not fall under the definition of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this dispute. That the Petitioner was terminated from services due to unsatisfactory performance only based on the terms and conditions of employment and not as depicted by the Petitioner. Therefore this Petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits, non-maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction.
4. Points for determination :
The contention of the petitioner is that in the respondent company there were 83 permanent employees in the designation of Line supervisor and 50 permanent employees in the grade M7 and 10 permanent employees in grade M6 and 410 employees in Grade-M and 2000 contract employees and from the said employees the Grade-M employees alone were attached to the Trade Union and the nature of work for the petitioner in the respondent company is that he was directly involved in the work of production and inspect the produced products and rectify the defects occurred then and there at time of production and help in restarting the production activity and planning to get good yield in the production. The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had joined in the respondent company in the year 1997 and worked in the respondent company without any blemish records and further for 10 years the petitioner was working in the Grade S and later in the year 2007 the petitioner was promoted and given increment and later the petitioner was denied increment for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 in spite of various representations and while so, the petitioner was transferred to Maraimalai Nagar and based upon his performance the petitioner was given increment and in the said circumstances due to the family situation the petitioner had to seek transfer to Puducherry, but, as there was no any proper response from the management the petitioner had sent his requisition letter for transfer through E-mail to the Head Office at Mumbai and thereupon the petitioner was transferred to Karaikal.
1. Whether the petitioner was working as a workman or officer (production) in the cadre of officer in the respondent company?
2. Whether the termination of petitioner by
7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that as the petitioner had directly contacted the Head Office and obtained transfer, the management began to treat respondent is valid?
23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 971by the petitioner was unsatisfactory the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 09-03-2016. It is the further contention of the respondent that as the petitioner was not a workman, the provisions of standing order would not be applicable to the petitioner and infact the petitioner would be governed by the terms and conditions of the employment order.
9. In this case, the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent company in the year 1997 as Supervisor-Maintenance as per Ex.R5 and promotion of the petitioner in year 2007 as Officer (Production) in grade M7 as per Ex.R6 and termination of the petitioner on 8-3-2016 as per Ex.R21 and the petitioner at the time of termination was in the post of Officer (Production) in grade M7 is admitted by both parties. The parties are at dispute by contending that according to the petitioner though his designation was of Officer (Production) in grade M7 but, the petitioner neither worked as an officer nor given any powers exercised by an officer and he worked only as a workman and therefore the petitioner has locus standi to raise this dispute and the other contention of the petitioner is that without affording proper intimation, proper opportunities and without any due enquiry as contemplated under the Industrial Dispute Act, the petitioner was terminated from the service.
the petitioner with vengeance and denied any wage revision thereafter onwards and further when, wage revision was given to all the employees as per wage settlement in the year 2015 the petitioner was denied wage revision stating that the wage revision was given based on the settlement arrived between the management and the Trade Union and thereby the wage revision was given only to those employees who were the members of Trade Union and the petitioner was not given any wage revision since, he was not the member of the said Trade Union and therefore, the petitioner gave a representation, dated 21-12-2015 for wage revision and the management after receiving the same has issued show cause notice, dated 14-01-2016 and 29-01-2016 seeking explanation from the petitioner stating that the performance of the petitioner for the period 2014-2015 was not satisfactory and later the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 05-02-2016 but, the management terminated the petitioner from service on 08-03-2016 without any prior intimation and due enquiry and the management took a stand before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) stating that the petitioner is not a workman and was working in the cadre of an officer and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for brevity referred as Industrial Dispute Act) but, infact, though the designation of the petitioner was officer production but the petitioner at no point of time was neither working as an officer nor was given any powers that of an officer and he worked only as a workman and further during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the respondent had sent a cheque for a sum of 80,323 along with the letter, dated 20-04-2016 stating that the said sum was given as full and final settlement but the petitioner had returned the said cheque to the management along with his letter, dated 27-04-2016 since, he was victimized by the respondent without any prior intimation and proper enquiry.
10. Per contra, the core contention of the respondent is that at the time of termination the petitioner was posted as Officer (Production) in grade M7 and the said post is an officer cadre post and therefore the petitioner not being a workman as contemplated under section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act is not entitled to raise this dispute or seek any relief under the Industrial Dispute Act. The next contention of the respondent is that as the petitioner was posted as Officer (Production) in grade M7, the provisions of model standing order is not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of employment order that is Ex.R5 which states that the service of the petitioner can be terminated without notice or salary in lieu of notice at the discretion of the management.
11. Thus, according to the petitioner he was working as workman and according to the respondent the petitioner was not a workman but on other hand was working as an officer. The points upon which the petitioner relies to substantiate that he was a workman is as follows:
(i) Though the designation of the petitioner was Officer (Production) in grade M7 but the petitioner neither worked as an officer nor given any powers exercised by an officer and he worked only as a workman.
8. Whereas, the contention of the respondent is that the Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner is not maintainable since, the petitioner is not a workman and was working only as an officer in the respondent company. The respondent further contended that initially the petitioner was working as Supervisor- Maintenance and subsequently in the year 2007, the petitioner was promoted as officer-production and thereafter the performance level of the petitioner for the financial years 2012-2015 were not satisfactory and therefore, a show cause notice dated 29-01-2016 was issued to the petitioner for which the petitioner had submitted a detailed letter, dated 05-02-2016 and as the petitioner failed to improve himself in spite of several opportunities provided to him and as the reply given972 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025 (ii) The petitioner was not given any power of appraisal or to approve or reject the leave applications of employees working in the respondent company.
(iii) The petitioner was not authorised to take any disciplinary action against the employees working in the respondent company.
(iv) Though the employees were working as workmen but the respondent management to prevent the workmen from joining in any Trade Union and also with an intention to deceive its workmen from getting the legally entitled benefits and privileges has given various attractive designations such as Officers, Supervisors and Administrative officers.
12. The learned Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following citations :
1. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 548 Anand Regional Coop Oil . . Appellant Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd.
Versus
Shaileskumar Harshadbhai . . Respondent Shah
A. Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – S.2(s) (iv) – Whether the employee worked in a supervisory capacity and was not a workman – Test to determine – Supervision - Concept of Held, not only the nature of his work but also the terms of appointment in the job are relevant considerations – Supervision contemplates direction and control – Hence, in determining the nature of work, essence of the matter should be considered and the designation of the employee or the name assigned to his class should not be given undue importance – Primary duties performed by him are more important – Existence of subordinates whose work is required to be supervised is a sine qua non to prove supervisory work – An employee in charge of a section and that too a small one in the quality control department of an oil seedgrowers' cooperative society, without any authority to initiate departmental proceedings against the subordinates, held, did not fall within the scope of S.2(s)(iv) – Words and phrases – "supervision"
2. (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 293 D.P. Maheshwari . . Appellant
Versus
Delhi Administration and . . Respondents others
Labour and Services – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) – Occasional entrustment of supervisory, managerial or administrative work will not take a person, mainly discharging clerical duties, out of the purview of section 2(s).
3. (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 214 S.K. Verma . . Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Chandra and . . Respondents another
Labour and Services – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – section 2(s) – Development Officers of L.I.C. are 'workmen' – Designation or name of post not decisive – Factors to be considered - Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.
4. (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 490 Sharad Kumar . . Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi . . Respondents and others
Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Ss. 2(s), (k), 10(1) and 12(5) and (4) – Workman – If a particular person is - How and by whom to be determined – Held, has to be determined on the basis of types of his duties and not merely on the designation of his post – The question requires examination of factual matters for which materials including oral evidence have to be considered - Hence, the appropriate Government exercising its administrative jurisdiction under S. 10(1) read with S.12(5), ID Act for the limited purpose of determining whether the dispute was an industrial dispute within S. 2(k), could not claim the power to adjudicate upon such a question and could not merely on the basis of the designation hold that an Area Sales Executive was not a workman – Such a question should be decided by Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court on the basis of materials produced by the parties – Hence, Supreme Court directing the State Government to refer to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court the question of legality of termination of Service of Area Sales Executive as well as the question whether he was a workman under the Act.
13. The learned Counsel for respondent stressed upon the following points to substantiate that the petitioner was not a workman and was only an officer:
(i) The petitioner was a holder of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (Ex.R1).
23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 973(ii) That the petitioner prior to joining in the respondent company was previously working in cadre as Junior Engineer in Machine shop Department at Seshasayee Industries Ltd., as per Ex.R3.
(iii) As per Ex.R5 appointment order, dated 8-11-1997, it was stated that the petitioner will be a member of Management grade placed under classification 'S'.
(iv) As per Ex.R6, the petitioner was promoted as "Officer (Production)" in grade "M7" with effect from 01-02-2007 and had been working in the said post till the date of termination on 08-03-2016.
(v) In Ex.R32, the Integrated Management System Manual of the respondent company the Roles, Responsibility, Authority and Accountability for an Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive-production is depicted as follows:
Authority:
– To decide and allocate manpower for the production process.
– To ensure IMS requirements are in place.
– To approve or reject leave request of workers based on the production requirement.
Accountability:
– Zero lost time incidents and reduction of non LTI's towards zero.
– To ensure safe working environment in the unit.
– He is authorized to take disciplinary actions against the workers deviating safety protocols.
Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive – PRODUCTION
Responsibility
– To plan and perform production under controlled conditions.
(vi) The petitioner has participated in the Audit meeting while working at Karaikal unit as Officer (Production) and the same can be evidenced in Ex.R34 wherein, the petitioner has signed the register by stating his designation and Department.
– To ensure availability of approved
equipment's.
– To establish and maintain the implemented system with continual improvement in performance.
(vii) Performance Improvement Programme (PIP) was conducted by the respondent management for the Management staffs and not for a workman to improve their performances and thereby the petitioner was directed to take care of store activity independently and the same could be evidenced from Ex.R35.
– To ensure suitable maintenance of
equipment's for smooth processing.
– To run pilot batches of newly developed/
designed products.
– To comply with IMS standards and documented procedures.
– To control non-conformity of product and take appropriate action to avoid occurrence of the same.
– To ensure safe and suitable working environment including PPEs supply.
– To assist in Production trial runs and validation process.
(viii) The petitioner was not a member of any Trade Union recognised by the respondent company till the date of his termination. As per Ex.R18 the united Godrej Consumer products staffs and workers Union has addressed a letter, dated 07-03-2016 to management stating that in the year 2016 the petitioner had joined as member in the said trade union. Thus, when the petitioner was working from the year 1997 onwards, the petitioner never become member of any Trade Union and only in the year 2016 that is at the verge of his termination the petitioner had joined as a member in the Trade Union which would evince that the petitioner was working only as an officer and that was the reason he had not joined in any Trade Union as a member at the earliest point of time.
– To identify training needs for production
staff and workers.
– To improve and maintain QACI, SHMS RRI and TPM requirements.
– To coordinate with Manpower contractor (external) for Manpower management on daily basis.
(ix) The name of the petitioner does not find place in the list of beneficiaries annexed along with the wage revision settlement Ex.R31 executed between the Trade Union and management on 27-11-2014 and the same has been admitted by P.W.2 the secretary of the Trade Union and P.W.3 the Executive member of the Trade Union.
974 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025(x) The salary components received by the petitioner would differ from the salary components fixed for a workman as per Ex.R31 Memorandum of Settlement under section 12(3) ID Act entered between Management and Trade Union on 27-11-2014.
14. The learned Counsel for respondent has relied
upon the following citations :
we may note that although Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) was decided by a 3-Judge Bench, in a later judgment by a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in SK Maini v M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited, (1994) 3 SCC 510, it was held that "….it should be borne in mind that an employee discharging managerial duties and functions may not, as a matter of course, be invested with the power of appointment and discharge of other employees. It is not likely that in a big set-up such power is not invested to a local manager but such power is given to some superior officers also in the management cadre at divisional or regional level …." The judgment in SK Maini (supra) is innocent of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra), but we do not find any inconsistency in the statement of low laid down in SK Maini (supra), given our reading of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) as enunciated hereinabove.
1. 1994 AIR 1824, 1994 SCC(3) 510, 1994 AIR SCW 1736, 1994(3) SCC 510, (1994) 68 FACLR 1101, (1994) IJR 316 (SC), 1994 2 LAB LN 450, 1994 LABLR 1 321, (1994) 3 SCT 312, (1994) 2 SCJ 451, 1994 SCC (L&S) 776, 1994 UJ (SC) 1 735, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 851, (1994) 2 SCR 333 (SC), (1994)2 CURLR 359, (1994) 56 DLT 384, (1994) 85 FJR 1, (1994) 3 PUN LR 492, (1994) 2 ANDHWR 26, (1994) 2 SERVLR 35, (1994) 2 LABLJ 1153, (1994) 3 JT 151 (SC), AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1824.
S.K. Maini
. . Petitioner
Vs.
25. That being said, in our considered view, mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine such an issue.
Carona Sahu Co. Ltd . . Respondent
It should be borne in mind that an employee discharging managerial duties and functions may not, as a matter of course, be invested with the power of appointment and discharge of other employees. It is not unlikely that in a big set-up such power is not invested to a local Manager but such power is given to some superior officers also in the management cadre at divisional or regional level. The unit in a local shop may not be large but management of such small unit may fulfil the requirements and incidences of managerial functions. On a close scrutiny of a nature of duties and functions of the Shop Manager with reference to the admitted terms and conditions of service of Shri Maini, it appears to us that the High Court was justified in holding that the appellant was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate
Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023.
M/s. Bharati Airtel Limited . . Appellant
Versus
A.S Raghavendra . . Respondent
24. A bare perusal of the above makes it crystal clear that absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary enquiries against other employees was not the only reason for the Court to conclude in Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) that the appellant therein was a "workman". At this juncture,
15. Therefore, in this case it becomes incumbent to first decide whether the petitioner was working as a workman as contended by the petitioner or officer as contended by the respondent and incase if the petitioner is held to be a workman then this Court has to necessarily determine the issue as to whether the termination of the petitioner was valid and likewise if it is held that the petitioner is not a workman then this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held if an employee is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity then under section 2(s) (iii) of I.D.Act he would not be regarded as a workman. Similarly if an employee is working in a supervisory capacity as per section 2(s) (iv) of I.D.Act then he would not be a workman if his wages exceed 1,600 per mensem. The said Sub-clause, inter alia, provides that if his functions are mainly of managerial nature, by reason of the powers vested in him, then such an employee would also not be regarded as a workman. Further it has been held that while determining the nature of the work performed by an employee, the essence of the matter should call for consideration and undue importance need not be given for the designation of an employee or the name assigned to the employee and what is needed to be asked is as to what are the primary duties the employee performs. Thus, this Court finds that the designation of an employee need not be given any weightage and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by an employee.
23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 97516. Similarly, the determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done by him/her. Therefore, if an employee is mainly doing supervisory work but, incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, then the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of 'workman' as per section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Thus, keeping in touchstone of the above principles, it has to be necessarily determined whether the petitioner was a workman or not. It is the specific contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that the nature of work for the petitioner in the respondent company is that he was directly involved in the work of production and inspect the produced products and rectify the defects occurred then and there at time of production and help in restarting the production activity and planning to get good yield in the production and further he never worked as an officer or were given any powers that could be exercised by an officer. Whereas, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent is that the petitioner was a holder of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and further the petitioner prior to joining in the respondent company was previously working in cadre as Junior Engineer in Machine shop Department and therefore the petitioner again joined in the respondent company in the cadre of officer. This Court finds that the said contention of the learned Counsel for respondent is found to be of no relevance for the reason that since, because a person was a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and earlier had worked as a junior engineer cannot be a reason to conclude that the person will never work or do the works of a workman and he will work only as an officer. It is always the option of the parties concerned to choose any type of job.
18. Likewise no doubt from the records it is found that the petitioner during his service period from 1997 onwards has not chosen to become a member of the Trade Union and as per Ex.R18 the petitioner has became a member of the Trade Union in the year 2016 only that is in the year of his termination. Yet, this Court finds that the not becoming a member in the Trade Union does not automatically mean an employee is not a workman because the Trade Union membership is required for collective bargaining and that does not become a decisive factor to decide whether an employee is a workman and further an employee is a workman or not has to be determined by the nature of work done by the concerned employee and not decided based upon the membership status.
19. Next on perusal of Ex.R6 it is found that the petitioner was promoted as "Officer (Production)" in grade "M7" with effect from 01-02-2007 and further it is an admitted fact that the petitioner continued to work in the said post till his termination on 08-03-2016. The petitioner during his chief and cross-examination as P.W.1 and further the P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their evidences have deposed that though the designation of the petitioner was Officer-production but the petitioner was working only as a workman and the management to prevent and deceive its workmen from getting the legally entitled benefits and privileges has given various attractive designations such as Officers, Supervisors, and Administrative Officers to its workers.
20. This Court finds that P.W.2 and P.W.3 being an office bearers of a Trade Union cannot contend that the management to deceive its workers from getting benefits under the ID Act has assigned attractive designations in the name of supervisor and officer to its employees who were working as workmen because the Trade Union is formed for the collecting bargaining for the benefits of workmen and in such case when demands has been place for wage revision and wage settlement has been entered as per Ex.R31 on 27-11-2014 then if really the said contention of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were true then agitating the said action of the management the Trade Union would have raised objection and dispute but no such documents have been produced except Ex.P14 copy of claim petition in I.D.(T).No. 9/2006 which pertains to the issue of designation given to employees as supervisor. The records further reveals that the petitioner has not produced the copy of the Award passed in I.D.(T).No. 9/2006 so as to ascertain the findings held in the said case. Even otherwise it is found that the said industrial dispute pertains to the issue of supervisor and not for the officer cadre as contended in this case.
21. The respondent has produced Ex.R32 the Integrated Management System Manual of the respondent company specifying the Roles, Responsibility, Authority and Accountability for an Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive-production. In Ex.R32 it is stated as follows:
Officer/Executive/Sr.Executive-PRODUCTION Responsibility
– To plan and perform production under controlled conditions.
– To ensure availability of approved equipment's.
976 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025– To establish and maintain the implemented system with continual improvement in performance.
– To ensure suitable maintenance of equipment's for smooth processing.
– To run pilot batches of newly developed/ designed products.
– To comply with IMS standards and documented procedures.
– To control non-conformity of product and take appropriate action to avoid occurrence of the same.
– To ensure safe and suitable working environment including PPEs supply.
– To assist in Production trial runs and validation process.
– To identify training needs for production staff and workers.
– To improve and maintain QACI, SHMS RRI and TPM requirements.
– To coordinate with manpower contractor (external) for manpower management on daily basis.
Authority
– To decide and allocate manpower for the production process.
– To ensure IMS requirements are in place.
– To approve or reject leave request of workers based on the production requirement.
Accountability
– Zero lost time incidents and reduction of non LTI's towards zero.
– To ensure safe working environment in the unit.
– He is authorized to take disciplinary actions against the workers deviating safety protocols.
22. This Court from Ex.R32 finds that the Responsibility, Authority and Accountability for the cadre of officer production, Executive production, Senior Executive-production is found to be one and the same. This Court on considering the nature of Responsibility, Authority and Accountability stipulated for the cadre of officer (production) finds that said nature of work as stipulated in Ex.R32 cannot be a work of a workman. Similarly, from Ex.R31 wage settlement recorded under section 12(3) of ID Act on 27-11-2014 this Court finds that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the said settlement. Had it been true that the petitioner was a workman then naturally the name of the petitioner would have been reflected in the list of beneficiaries annexed along with Ex.R31 wage settlement recorded under section 12(3) of ID Act on 27-11-2014.
23. Likewise from Ex.R35 it is found that the petitioner was incharge of store stocks and is found to have sent details of stock availability and daily stock statements and this nature of work shows that he was given responsible position that of in the cadre of officer. That apart the petitioner in Ex.R13 in his letter, dated 21-12-2015 addressed to Deputy General-Manager has stated as follows:
▪ ▪ ▪ ➢▪ ➢ ▪ ▪ ▪ ➢
24. Thus, in Ex.R13 the petitioner himself has admitted that there were workers working under him. Further, from Ex.R34 it is found that the petitioner has attended the Audit meeting at Karaikal unit in the month of September 2013 by affixing his signature and designation. An employee in the cadre of workman will not be attending the Audit meeting and only an officer who has been assigned with responsibility and having control over the other workers will be attending the Audit meeting. The contention of the petitioner that he was not given power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquires against an employee cannot be a criterion to hold that the petitioner was a workman and similarly the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has not produced any documents to substantiate that the petitioner had sanctioned or rejected the leave application of employees also cannot be ground to hold that the petitioner was a workman. This Court from the exhibits produced by both parties and from the evidences adduced by both parties and from the above discussions holds that the nature of work performed by the petitioner was that of an officer and not of a workman. Hence, this Court holds that the petitioner was not a workman and thereby does not fall23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 977 within the ambit of definition of workman as contemplated under section 2(s) of I.D. Act and further holds that the dispute raised by the petitioner before this Court is found to be not maintainable and the dispute raised before this Court is not justified. Since, the dispute raised by the petitioner is held to be not maintainable, this Court finds that the other issue regarding the termination validity does not arise for consideration. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief before this Court.
In the result, this petition is dismissed by holding that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner is not maintainable. There is no order as to costs.
Partly typed by the Stenographer, partly typed by me in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of June, 2025.
G.T. AMBIKA, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.
List of petitioner's witnesses:
PW1 — 03-09-2019 Thiru S. Senthil Kumar PW2 — 11-02-2020 Thiru Sekar
PW3 — 21-01-2025 Thiru M.K.K. Saravanan List of petitioner's side exhibits :
Ex.P1 — 21-12-2012 Photocopy of the letter sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent Management.
Ex.P2 — 29-01-2016 Photocopy of show cause Notice issued by the Respondent Management to the Petitioner.
Ex.P3 — 05-02-2016 Photocopy of the letter sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent Management.
Ex.P4 — 08-03-2016 Photocopy of Termination Order issued by the Respondent Management to the Petitioner.
Ex.P5 — 10-03-2016 Photocopy of industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner before the Labour Officer Conciliation.
Ex.P6 — 20-04-2016 Photocopy of proceedings of
the Respondent Management.
Ex.P7 — 27-04-2016 Photocopy of the letter
sent by the Petitioner to the
Respondent Management.
Ex.P8 — 31-05-2016 Photocopy of Reply
Statement filed by the
Respondent Management
before the Labour Officer
Conciliation.
Ex.P9 — 02-08-2014 Photocopy of the Trade
Union Registration Certificate.
Ex.P10 — 16-02-2005 Photocopy of the letter
submitted by the Union
before the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P11 — 07-03-2006 Photocopy of the Orders
passed by Hon'ble High
Court of Madras in W.P.No.
362/2006.
Ex.P12 — 21-03-2006 Photocopy of the letter
submitted by the Union
before the Conciliation
Officer.
Ex.P13 — 30-11-2006 Photocopy of the G.O.
referred the Industrial
Dispute to the Court.
Ex.P14 — — Photocopy of the Claim
petition filed by the
petitioner in ID(T)-09/2006
in Labour Court.
Ex.P15 — 28-03-2017 Photocopy of the show
cause notice issued to
Thiru Kalyankumar by the
respondent management.
Ex.P16 — 20-04-2005 Photocopy of the
Suspension order issued to
Thiru Rajasekaran.
Ex.P17 — 22-04-2013 Photocopy of the show
cause notice issued to
Thiru Mahadevan.
Ex.P18 — 16-05-2014 Photocopy of the show
cause notice issued to
Thiru Mahadevan.
978 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025Ex.P19 — 05-12-2014 Photocopy of the second show cause notice issued to Thiru Mahadevan.
Ex.P20 — 01-09-2018 Photocopy of the letter sent by the Union to the Respondent Management.
Ex.P21 — 01-09-2018 Photocopy of the letter sent by the Respondent Management to the Union.
Ex.P22 — 15-09-2016 Photocopy of the minutes of meeting between the respondent management and Union.
List of Respondent's witnesses:
RW1 — 14-03-2022 Thiru M. Sugumar List of Respondent's side Exhibits:
Ex.R1 — — Photocopy of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Certificate of the Petitioner.
Ex.R2 — — Photocopy of the Bio-data of the petitioner submitted to the respondent management.
Ex.R3 — 09-11-1991 Photocopy of the Experience certificate of the petitioner for the period from 05-08-1988 to 07-10-1991 Ex.R4 02-04-1997 Photocopy of the offer letter for the post of Maintenance Supervisor.
Ex.R5 — 08-11-1997 Photocopy of the Appointment order of the petitioner.
Ex.R6 — 27-02-2007 Photocopy of the promotion order to the post of Officer (Production) in Grade-M7.
Ex.R7 — 19-06-2008 Photocopy of the Transfer order to CONSO Unit, Kattukuppam with effect from 01-07-2008.
Ex.R8 — 10-11-2009 Photocopy of the Transfer order to Karaikal unit with effect from 15-09-2009.
Ex.R9 — 28-01-2010 Photocopy of the Transfer order to Maraimalai Nagar with effect from 01-02-2010.
Ex.R10 — 19-05-2010 Photocopy of the Job not satisfactory letter issued to the petitioner by the respondent management.
Ex.R11 — 15-05-2012 Photocopy of the Job unsatisfactory letter issued to the petitioner by the respondent management.
Ex.R12 — 23-05-2013 Photocopy of the Job unsatisfactory letter issued to the petitioner by the respondent management.
Ex.R13 — 21-12-2015 Photocopy of the Reply letter to management by the petitioner.
Ex.R14 — 14-01-2016 Photocopy of the Reply letter to petitioner by the management.
Ex.R15 — 29-01-2016 Photocopy of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent management.
Ex.R16 — 05-02-2016 Photocopy of the reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner.
Ex.R17 — — Photocopy of the Union subscription fee August 2015 to March 2016 (Pg. 20 to 23).
Ex.R18 — 07-03-2016 Photocopy of the petitioner claim letter submitted to the respondent management by the Union.
Ex.R19 — 21-03-2016 Photocopy of the Reply letter to the Union leader by the management.
Ex.R20 — — Photocopy of the Salary slip from September 2015 to February 2016 (Pg. 68 to 73).
Ex.R21 — 08-03-2016 Photocopy of the Termination order of the petitioner.
Ex.R22 — 10-03-2016 Photocopy of the letter to the management by the petitioner.
Ex.R23 — 10-03-2016 Photocopy of the letter submitted before Labour Conciliation Officer by the petitioner.
23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 979Ex.R24 — 27-04-2016 Photocopy of the letter through full and final settlement returned to the management.
Ex.R25 — — Photocopy of the reply submitted before the Labour Conciliation Officer by the management (Pg. 54 to 56).
Ex.R26 — 18-07-2016 Photocopy of the reply submitted filed before the Labour Conciliation Officer by the petitioner (Pg. 57 to 60).
Ex.R27 — 14-09-2017 Photocopy of the Failure
report (Pg. 61 to 65).
Ex.R28 — 24-10-2017 Photocopy of the Gazette
Publication.
Ex.R29 — 01-02-2018 Photocopy of the letter to the management by Thiru Kalyankumar.
Ex.R30 — — Photocopy of the Union Members list and subscription details.
Ex.R31 — — Photocopy of the Settlement
12(3) for 2013-2016.
Ex.R32 — — Photocopy of the document in Page No. 17 of the Roles, responsibility, authority and accountability for an Officer-Production of the Integrated Management System Manual.
Ex.R33 — 26-12-2015 Photocopy of the e-mail of S.Senthil Kumar regarding the shift reports.
Ex.R34 — — Photocopy of the Infosec (Information Security) System Audit conducted on 27-09-2013 at Karaikal by BSI Certification.
Ex.R35 — — Photocopy of the e-mails, dated 22-02-2014 and 21-03-2014 of the Petitioner herein.
Ex.R36 — 03-03-2016 Photocopy of the Internal Note of the Respondent Management.
G.T. AMBIKA, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
HOME DEPARTMENT
(G.O. Ms. No. 80, Puducherry, dated 05th December 2025)
NOTIFICATION
Consequent to the regular promotion of Thiru R. Subhash to the post of PPS (Entry Grade) with effect from 01-01-2018 vide G.O.Ms. No. 65, dated 26-09-2025 of the Home Department, Puducherry and in supersession to the G.O. Ms. No. 10, dated 29-01-2024 of the Home Department, Puducherry, a revised Final Seniority List of Selection Grade Officers in Puducherry Police Service (PPS) Cadre, shall be as indicated as hereunder:–
Sl. Seniority Name of Present place Date of Category Whether Date of Remarks No. No. the Officer of working birth promotee regular
or direct appointment
recruitee in the grade (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Thiru/Tmt./Selvi:
1. 8 Mahesh Kumar Barnwal* inducted to IPS and 01-12-1972 General Promotee 01-01-2007 Nil
now working in
Arunachal Pradesh.
980 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Thiru/Tmt./Selvi:
2. 9 Praveen Kumar Tripathi* inducted to IPS and 10-01-1981 General Promotee 01-01-2018 Nil now working in New Delhi.
3. 9-A Subhash DC, IRBn 20-09-1981 General Promotee 01.01.2018 Nil 4. 10 Rachna Singh SP (Traffic - NE) 01-10-1980 General Promotee 01-01-2020 Nil * Subsequently inducted into IPS
(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)
M.V. HIRAN, Under Secretary to Government (Home).
➢
➢▪➢➢ ➢
▪ ➢ ▪
➢
S M/s. Kanagavalli Hollow " Block Works, " ▪ ▪j ➢ ▪ ➢
➢
J M/s. New Cars India SK Motors, " ▪ ▪←➢ " ➢
➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ▪ ➢ ➢
➢➢
K 23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 981
BAHOUR COMMUNE PANCHAYAT, PUDUCHERRY
Bahour, dated 04th December 2025.
Dangerous Establishments
NOTICE
The undermentioned persons have requested for permission to set up the following industries within the Bahour Commune Panchayat limits, as detailed below.
No. of the applicant
Sl. Name and address Address of the Industry Power No. of industry site proposed required workers (1) (2)
(3)
(4) (5) (6) 1. Tmt. S. Kanagavalli M/s. Kanagavalli Hollow Block Works, "Manufacturing 3 H.P. 3 (Proprietor), Re-survey No. 82/3/j, Plot No. 26, of hollow block No. 19, Mariamman Koil Street, Villianur Main Road, bricks". Aranganur, Bahour Commune, Nirnayapet, Bahour Commune, Puducherry-607 402. Puducherry.
2. Thiru J. Gopalakrishnan M/s. New Cars India SK Motors, "Purpose of 3 H.P. 8 (Proprietor), No. 35, Manapet Road, Car service and No. 85, Cuddalore Main Road, Manapet (Kanniakoil), spare parts Mudaliarpet, Bahour Commune, sales". Puducherry-605 004. Puducherry-607 402.
In conformity with rule 11 of the Puducherry Commune Panchayats (Grant of Licences and Permissions) Rules, 1976, promulgated in this Union Territory by the Puducherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, 1973, objections, if any, to the setting up of the above industries, are invited to reach the Commissioner, Bahour Commune Panchayat within fifteen days from the date of publication of this notice in the Official Gazette.
The objections so received within the specified period will be considered by this Commune Panchayat.
K. SADASIVAM, Commissioner.
I state that my name is mentioned as 'Sohan AFFIDAVIT
Paharia T' in my India Driving Licence, DL No. PY01 19800021650, issued by Transport Department,
Puducherry.
I, Sohan Lal Jain Paharia, residing at No. 12, First Cross Street Extension, Rainbow Nagar, Puducherry-605 011, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm as follows:
I state that my name is mentioned as 'T Sohan That I am the deponent herein.
Paharia' in my Blue Dart Express Limited, Share Certificate, Regd.Folio No.(s) BDT02508, Certificate
No. 0046858.
I state that my name is mentioned as 'Sohan Lal Jain Paharia' in my Aadhaar No. XXXX XXXX 4762, issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India.
I state that my name is mentioned as 'T Sohan
Paharia' in my Blue Dart Express Limited, Share Certificate, Regd.Folio No.(s) BDT02508, Certificate
No. 099973.
I state that my name is mentioned as 'Sohan Lal Jain' in my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. RNV0214965, issued by the Election Commission of India.
I state that my name is mentioned as ' ' in my Family Ration Card No. 147087, issued by Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer
Affairs, Puducherry.
I state that my name is mentioned as 'Sohan Lal Jain Paharia' in my Permanent Account Number (PAN) AADPJ9979Q, issued by Income-tax Department, Government of India.
982 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025I state that my name is mentioned as 'Sohan Lal Jain Paharia' in my Savings Bank Passbook Account No. XXXXXXX3449, issued by the Indian Bank, Kamaraj Salai Branch, Puducherry.
Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid names are referred, identified and relate to one and the same person that is me, the deponent herein.
Further, I declare that hereinafter, for all my official and private purposes. I shall be called and known only as 'Sohanlal Jain Paharia'.
That the above particulars are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 27th day of November 2025.
768735 T. SOHAN LAL JAIN PAHARIA.
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, Gee da Veer a Venkata Satyanar ayana, son o f Sri Geeda Krishna Murthy, aged about 59 years, Aadhaar No. XXXX XXXX 5773, residing at Door No. 7-2-002, Geeda Lane, Yanam, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
That my name is mentioned as 'Geeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana' in my Aadhaar Card bearing No. XX XX X XX X 5773, in my Family Ration Card bearing No. 13503, in my Study-cum-Conduct Certificate of M. G. G, Boys High School, Yanam in Admission No.584 and in my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. XEK0340547, my name is mentioned as 'Geeda Veera Venkata Satyanaryana' issued by the Election Commission of India.
My name is mentioned as 'Veeravenkata Satyanarayana Geeda' in my PAN Card No.AEYPG0948K.
My name is mentioned as 'Geeda V V Satyanarayana' in my Secondary School Certificate, issued by Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh.
My name is mentioned as 'G V V Satyanarayana' in my Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad (A.P).
In view of the above, I am having four different names, therefore, I declare that the names 'Geeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana', 'Veeravenkata Satyanarayana Geeda', 'Geeda V V Satyanarayana' and 'G V V Satyanarayana' referring one and the same person, i.e., myself only.
I intend to continue my name as 'Geeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana'. Therefore, for the purpose of evidencing such determination, I declare that I shall at all times hereafter in all the records, deeds and writings, and in all proceedings, dealings and transactions private as well as public and upon all occasions whatsoever use and sign the name of 'Geeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana' as my name. Expressly authorize and request all persons at all times hereafter to designate and address me by such assumed name of 'Geeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana' accordingly.
Hence, I am giving this affidavit before a Notary Public at Yanam on 19-11-2025. Further, I assure that the statements given by me is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I am liable for the penal action, if, the above statement given by me is proved to be false.
Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public at Yanam on this 19th day of November 2025.
768736 GEEDA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA.
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, Jesintha Margarate, wife of Arokiyadass, Aadhaar No. XXXX XXXX 8167, aged about 60 years and residing at No.12, School Opposite Street, Kurumbapet, Thattanchavady, Puducherry - 605 009, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm on oath as follows:
That I am the deponent herein.
I submit that in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 8167, my name is mentioned as 'Jesintha A' , dated 18-01-2012, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.
I submit that my name is mentioned as 'Jesintha Margarate' in the Register of Baptisms, issued by the Parish Priest, St. Xavier 's RC Church, Mugaiyur Village and Post, Kandachipuram Taluk, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu.
I submit that in my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. YSW0087981, my name is mentioned as 'Jesintha', dated 07-01-2016, issued by Election Commission of India.
I submit that my name is mentioned as '➢↔ ' in our Family Ration Card No. 477785, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.
23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 983Thus, all the names viz., 'Jesintha A', 'Jesintha Margarate', 'Jesintha' and '➢↔ ' are referring one and the same person, i.e., myself only.
I hereby declare that I shall at all times hereafter in all records, deeds and writings and in all proceedings, dealings and transactions, private as well as upon all occasions whatsoever use and sign my name of 'Jesintha Margarate' in place and in substitution of my former names.
I hereby verify and confirm that what has been stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, correct and nothing material facts have been concealed therein.
Signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 27th day of November 2025.
768737 A. JESINTHA MARGARATE.
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, Irusamma, wife of Manimaran, Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 3588, Hindu, aged about 37 years and residing at No. 133, Tsunami Nagar, M. Pudukuppam, Puducherry-607 402, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm, and state on oath as follows:
That I am the deponent herein.
I submit that in my Birth Certificate under Registration No. PM/C/1988/2627, my name is mentioned as 'Irchamma', dated 03-11-1988, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.
I submit that in my Marriage Certificate Serial No. 2202114611, my name is mentioned as 'Irchamma', dated 20-05-2018, issued by the Registrar Office, Bahour, Puducherry.
I submit that in my son name of Prathish's Birth Certificate vide Registration No. OM/K/2009/1067, my name is mentioned as 'Kanimozhi', Registration dated 31-12-2009, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.
I submit that in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 3588, my name is mentioned as 'Irusamma', dated 08-09-2013, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.
I submit that in my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. XYA0704171, my name is mentioned as 'Iruchamma', dated 02-02-2022, issued by Election Commission of India.
I submit that in my Bank Passbook Account No. XXXXXXX4263, my name is mentioned as 'Irusamma M', dated 01-10-2021, issued by Puduvai Bharathiar Grama Bank, Kattukuppam, Puducherry.
I submit that in my Court Order, O.S.No. 1105/2024, CNR No. PYPY05-001631-2024, my name was corrected as 'Irchamma' instead of 'Kanimozhi', dated 16-06-2025, issued by the Hon'ble III Additional District Munsif at Puducherry.
I submit that my name is mentioned as '' in my Family Ration Card No. 321184, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.
Thus, all the names viz., 'Irchamma', 'Kanimozhi', 'Irusamma', 'Iruchamma', 'Irusamma M' and '' are referring one and the same person, i.e., myself only.
I hereby declare that I shall at all times hereafter in all records, deeds and writings, and in all proceedings, dealings and transactions, private as well as upon all occasions whatsoever use and sign my name of 'Irchamma' in place and in substitution of my former names.
I hereby verify and confirm that what has been stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, correct and nothing material facts have been concealed therein.
Signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 27th day of November 2025.
768740 M..
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, E. Manimaran, son of Ejoumale, (Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 2512), Hindu, aged about 49 years and residing at No.133, Tsunami Nagar, M.Pudukuppam, Puducherry-607 402, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm, and state on oath as follows:
That I am the deponent herein.
I submit that in my Birth Certificate under Registration No. 23/1976, my name is mentioned as 'Manimarbane', dated 14-02-1976, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.
I submit that in my Marriage Certificate Serial No. 2202114611 of year 2021, my name is mentioned as 'Manimarane', dated 20-05-2018, issued by the Sub-Registrar Office, Bahour, Puducherry.
984 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025I submit that in my son Prathish's Birth Certificate vide Registration No. OM/K/2009/1067, my name is mentioned as 'Vijayakumar' , dated 31-12-2009, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.
I submit that in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 2512, my name is mentioned as 'E Manimaran', dated 03-01-2012, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.
I submit that in my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. SWC0168021, my name is mentioned as 'Manimaran', dated 02-11-2020, issued by Election Commission of India.
I s ub mi t t ha t i n m y I n d i a D r i v i n g L i c e n c e No. 20055069, dated 18-05-2005 PY-01, my name is mentioned as 'Manimaran', dated 18-05-2005, issued by the Transport Department, Government of Puducherry.
I submit that in my Court Order, in O.S.No. 1105/2024, CNR. No. PYPY05-001631-2024, my name was corrected as 'Manimaran' instead of 'Vijayakumar', d a t e d 1 6 - 0 6 - 2 0 2 5 , i s s u e d b y t h e H o n ' b l e III Additional District Munsif at Puducherry.
I submit that my name is mentioned as '' in my Family Ration Card No.321184, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.
Thus, all the names viz., 'Manimarbane', 'Vijayakumar ', 'E Manimaran', 'Manimaran', 'Manimarane' and ''' referring one and the same person, i.e., myself only.
I hereby declare that I shall at all times hereafter in all records, deeds and writings and in all proceedings, dealings and transactions, private as well as upon all occasions whatsoever use and sign my name as 'E Manimaran' in place and in substitution of my former names.
I hereby verify and confirm that what has been stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, correct and nothing material facts have been concealed therein.
Signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 26th day of November 2025.
768741 E. .
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ramkumar, son of Lakshmanan, Hindu, aged about 32 years, residing at No. 30, Thiruvalluvar Street, Govindasalai, Puducherry, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
That I am the deponent herein.
I state that my name is entered as 'V L Raamkumaar' in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 7649. My name is entered as 'Ramkumar' in my Birth Certificate vide Registration No. M/1993/01659, my name is entered as '' in my Family Ration Card No. 068243. My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar' in my India Driving Licence No. PY 01 20120001370. My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar' in my Passport No. N1699531.
My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar V L' in my 10th Mark List vide Register No. 913301. My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar V L' in my 12th Standard Mark List vide Register No. 576985. My name is entered as 'Ramkumaar' in my School PIC Form Certificate No. PY/TOP/37/0034325. My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar V L' in my Higher Secondary Transfer Certificate No. 2011/267. My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar V L' in my MBA Convocation Serial No. 735418. My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar. V. L.' in my Provisional Certificate Registration No. 11CO0443.
My name is entered as 'VL Raamkumaar' in my Registration Identity Card of Department of Food Safety No. 23521001000378. My name is entered as 'L.' in my Settlement Deed Document No. 30576 of 2016 Book 1 page 1 of 7. My name is entered as 'Ramkumar' in my LIC Policy No. 733188791 and my name is entered as 'L. Ram Kumar' in my LIC Policy No. 733022952, the said name 'Raamkumaar' is also found in my Electoral Identity Card No. TMC0032250.
My name is entered as 'Raamkumaar' in my PAN Card No. BEKPR5073M and my name is mentioned as 'Raamkumaar V L' in my Passbook of Indian Overseas Bank, respectively.
I state that I have changed my name as 'Jeeva' as per numerological and horoscopes reasons.
I state that I will henceforth be known and called only as 'Jeeva'. I do hereby abandon the use of my former names 'Ramkumar ', 'V.L. Raamkumaar', 'Raamkumaar' and 'Raamkumaar V L'.
I do hereby declare that what are all stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing material have been concealed therein.
Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 28th day of November 2025.
768742 V.L.RAAMKUMAR.
23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 985AFFIDAVIT
I , M a l l a d i M a n i , s o n o f M a l l a d i T u k a r a m , aged about 20 years, (Aadhaar No. XXXX XXXX 3922) and re si di ng at D oo r No . 5- 8-18 6, G ir i yampe t a , Yanam, do hereby solemnly 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 name has been mentioned as 'Pemmadi Charmin', son of Devanandam and in my Aadhaar Card bearing No. XXXX XXXX 3922, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.
I state that my name has been mentioned and entered as 'Malladi Mani, son of Malladi Tukaram', in my Secondary School Certificate issued by Central Board of Secondary Education, Registration No. M123/59326/0027, Roll No. 20136507.
I state that my name has been mentioned as 'Mani' in the Family Ration Card bearing No. 21938, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Yanam.
I state that my name has been mentioned as 'Malladi Mani', son of Malladi Tukaram in Adoption Deed, bearing Document No. 1654/2025, Registered under Office of the Sub-Registrar , Yanam.
Further, I state that all the three names viz., 'Pemmadi Charmin', son of Pemmadi Devanadam, 'Malladi Mani' son of Malladi Tukaram and 'Mani' son of Malladi Tukaram are referring one and the same person, i.e., myself only.
Finally, I declare that my correct name is 'Malladi Mani I'.
I state that hereinafter, I shall be known and identified only by the name 'Malladi Mani' for all purposes.
That the above particulars are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 26th day of November 2025.
768744 M. MANI.
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, V. A. Gilburt son of Abraham, Indian, Christian, aged about 56 years, residing at No. 2, 2nd Cross, Valluvar Nagar, Kanapathychettikulam, Puducherry- 605 014, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm, and state as follows:
That I am the deponent herein and I am well aware of the facts of my deposition.
2. My name is entered as 'Gilburt . V. A.' and my father's name is entered as 'V. K. Abraham' in my School Transfer Certificate, dated 02-04-1984, issued by S.N.D.P. High School, Chathankary Thiruvella, Pathanamthitta District.
3. My name is entered as 'V.A. Gilburt' '' and my father's name as 'Abraham (' in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 3362.
4. My name is entered as 'Gilbert's V.A' and my father's name as Abraham in my Driving Licence No. PY01 19940002311, issued by Government of Puducherry.
5. My name is entered as 'Gilbert ' and my father's name as 'Abraham (' in my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. GKY0614420, issued by Election Commission of India.
6 . M y n a m e i s e n t e r e d a s ' ' i n my Family Ration Card No. 24220, issued by Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.
7. My name is entered as 'Gilburt' and my father's name as 'Abraham' in my PAN Card No. AXUPG3921F.
8. My name is entered as 'Gilburt V A' in my Passbook of Canara Bank, Pondicherry Engineering College Campus Branch, vide Savings Account No. XXXXXXXX1329.
9. My name is entered as 'V A Gilbert' and my father's name as 'V K Abraham' in my Lost Document Report for Passport, issued by Tamil Nadu Police in LDR No. PP948202500492.
10. My father's name is entered as 'V. K. Abraham' in his Death Certificate, dated 30-04-2003, issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Tiruvalla Municipality, Government of Kerala.
11. I decalre that all the names viz.,'Gilburt V. A.', 'V. A. Gilburt', 'Gilbert V.A', 'Gilbert', 'Gilburt', 'V A Gilbert', Gilburt V A, '', ' and '' are referring one and the same person, i.e., myself only.
12. Similarly, I declare that my father's name viz., 'Abraham', V. K. Abraham', 'V K Abraham', '', '' are denoting one and the same person that is my father only.
The above deposition is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
986 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 05th day of December 2025.
768751 V. A. GILBURT.
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, Udhayarani, wife of Sanjeeth Kumar, Hindu, Indian, aged about 29 years residing at No. 1, Kottucherrymedu, Kottucherry Commune, Karaikal-609 609, Karaikal District, Puducherry State, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as follows:
That my name is registered as 'Udhayarani' in my Birth Certificate Registration No. 80, dated 01-04-1996, issued by Kottucherry Commune Panchayat, Karaikal.
That my name is mentioned as 'Udhayarani J' in my Transfer Certificate Register No. 17352230, issued by the Department of Computer Science- Karaikal Campus, Pondicherry University, Puducherry.
That my name is entered as 'Udhayarani J' in my Marriage Certificate Sl. No. TMR/Cuddalore Joint II/ 578/2025.
That my name is mentioned as 'Udhayarani' in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 4666, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.
T ha t my n ame is e nt er ed a s 'Ud ha ya ra ni ' i n my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. SJU0072975, issued by Election Commission of India.
That my name is entered as '' in the Family Ration Card No. 419204, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Karaikal.
The abovesaid names are referring one and the same person, i.e., myself only.
Hereafter, I will be known and called only as 'Udhayarani'.
Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public at Karaikal, on this 15th day of November 2025.
768752
UDHAYARANI.
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, Poumavathy, daughter of Sinouvasan, wife of Sugumar, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at No. 20, Sowri Nagar, Dharmapuri, Puducherry-605 009, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
That I am the deponent in this affidavit and well acquainted with the contents of the same. I have the permanent residence at Puducherry.
My n a m e ' Poumavathy' daughter of Sinouvasan wife of Sugumar is mentioned in my Birth Certificate, duly registered before the Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry, registered on 21-08-1969 registration No. OM/O/1969/000545.
2. My name is mentioned in my Marriage Certificate as 'S. Poomavathi' Sl. No. 2/1995, issued on 6-1-1995, issued by Sub-Registrar Office, Oulgaret, Puducherry.
3. My name is mentioned in my Family Ration Card as '' under No. 452318, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Puducherry.
4. My name is mentioned in my Aadhaar Card as 'Boomavathy' wife of Sugumar, No. XXXX XXXX 2495, on 29-01-2018, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.
5. My name is mentioned in my Elector's Photo Identity Card as 'Boomavathy' wife of Sugumar under No. NOG0199067.
6. My name is mentioned in my PAN Card as 'Boomavathy' daughter of Sreenivasan, issued by Income-tax Department, Government of India, under No. EFZPB5949K.
7. My name is mentioned as 'Boomavathy' in my PBGB Bank Account No. XXXX9499.
8. My name is mentioned in my elder son Balasubramaniam's Birth Certificate as 'Boomavathy', issued by P ondicherry Municipality, Puducherry on 09-07-2013.
9. My name is mentioned in my second son Ramesh's Birth Certificate as 'Boomavathy', issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry on 21-11-2024.
That the abovesaid different names viz., 'Poumavathy', 'S. Poomavathi', '' and 'Boomavathy' are denoting one and the same person, that is myself only.
I do affirm and state that the abovesaid facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, information and nothing material facts have been concealed therein.
Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 05th day of December 2025.
768756 S..
23 December 2025] LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT 987AFFIDAVIT
I, Ejilarassy, wife of Elangovan, aged about 61 years, presently residing at No. 90, First Cross Extension, Bharathi Nagar, Karuvadikuppam, Puducherry-605 008, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
That I am the deponent herein and I am well aware of the facts of my deposition.
That my name is mentioned as 'Ejilarassy'in my Birth Certificate, issued by Pondicherry Municipality, Puduchery vide Registration No. PM/P/1964/442 and in my PAN Card, issued by the Income-tax Department, vide No. AAWPE4367Q and in my Elector's Photo Identity Card, issued by Election Commission of India vide Card No. HKD0301465.
That my name is mentioned as 'V Ezhilarassy' in my Savings Account Passbook, issued by Indian Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Puducherry vide Account No. XXXXX4967.
That my name is mentioned as 'Ejilarassy. V' in my Secondary School Leaving Certificate vide Serial No. A1182447.
That my name is mentioned as 'Ezhilarasi I' in my Aadhaar Card, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India vide No. XXXX XXXX 0524 and in my DBS Savings Account Passbook vide Account No. XXXXXXXX1138 / XXXXX2484, issued by DBS Bank, Puducherry.
That my name is mentioned as 'Ezhilarasi' in my Indian Passport, issued by Regional Passport Office, Chennai vide Passport No. X6185057.
That my name is mentioned as '▪' in our Family Ration Card, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry vide Card No. 061388.
Hence, I do hereby state that all the abovesaid names viz., 'Ejilarassy', 'V Ezhilarassy', 'Ejilarassy V', 'Ezhilarasi I', 'Ezhilarasi' and '▪'are referred, identified and relate to one and the same person, that is myself only.
I state that hereinafter, I shall be known, called and identified only by the name as 'Ejilarassy' for all purposes.
Signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 09th day of December 2025.
768757 EJILARASSY.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sivasakthi, daughter of Mani, residing at No. 62, 1st Cross Street, Vallalar Nagar, Ottampalayam Road, Pappanchavady, Puducherry- 605 004, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm as follows:
That I am the deponent herein and well aware of the facts of my deposition.
That my name is mentioned as 'Sivasakthi' in my Birth Certificate No. C/2000/00749, issued by the Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.
That my name is mentioned as 'M Sivasakthi' in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 0428, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.
That my name is mentioned as 'Sivasakthi' in my Elector's Photo Identity Card No. IBI0091082, issued by Election Commission of India.
T h at my na me i s mentioned a s 'Sivasakthi M' in my 10th Mark Sheet Register No. 5010971, issued by the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (SEC), Tamil Nadu.
That my name is mentioned as 'Sivasakthi M' in my B.Sc. Nursing Consolidated Mark Sheet No. 17N01434, issued by Pondicherry University.
That my name is mentioned as 'Sivasakthi M' in my B.Sc. Nursing Provisional Certificate No. 0082501, issued by Pondicherry University, Puducherry.
That my name is mentioned as 'Siva Sakthi M' in my Nursing Registration No. 259601, issued by The Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Government of Tamil Nadu.
That my name is mentioned as 'Sivasakthi' in my Passport No. Y1873601, issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chennai.
That my name is mentioned as '' in my Family Ration Card No. 422373, issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.
That my name is mentioned as 'Sivasakthi' in my PAN Card No. QKXPS1280M, issued by Income- tax Department, Government of India.
Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid names are referred, identified and relate to one and the same person, that is myself the deponent herein.
Further, I declare that hereinafter, for all my official and private purposes, I shall be called, known and distinguished only by the name 'Sivasakthi M'.
988 LA GAZETTE DE L'ETAT [23 December 2025That the above particulars are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 11th day of December 2025.
768760
M. SIVASAKTHI.
————
AFFIDAVIT
I, Nishanthini, daughter of Sukumaran, wife of Gokul Sundhara Murthy, Indian inhabitant, aged 32 years and residing at Plot Nos. 45 and 46, 4th Cross Street, Vasan Nagar, Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm to whomsoever it may concern as follows:
That I am the deponent herein. I swear this affidavit on behalf of my 4 years old minor son by name 'Lohith'.
I state that in the Birth Certificate of my said minor son issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry registered with it under Registration No. OM/E/2021/8089 and in his Passport, issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chennai, my said minor son's name has been mentioned as 'Lohith'.
I state that due to mandatory requirement, it becomes necessary to add his father's name 'Gokul' as suffix to his name 'Lohith' as 'Lohith Gokul' as such, I have changed my said minor son's name as 'Lohith Gokul'.
I declare that hereafter, my said minor son shall be known and identified along with his father's name as suffix as 'Lohith Gokul ()' 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 15th day of December 2025.
768768 S. NISHANTHINI.
No leg a l res p on s i b i li t y i s a c c ep t e d for t h e p u b l i c a t i on o f a d ve rt i s em en t reg a rd i n g c h a n ge of n a m es a n d ot h er p r i v a t e n oti fi ca t i ons i n t h e Ga zet t e. P erson s not i fyi n g t h e s a m e wi l l rem ai n solely r esp on s i b le for th e lega l c on seq u enc es a n d also for any other misrepresentations, etc.
online publication at "https://styandptg.py.gov.in" Published by the Director, Government Press, Puducherry.