Panaji, 14th June, 2018 (Jyaistha 24, 1940)

SERIES II No. 11

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Order

No. 8/121/2018-19/D.Agri/60

Ref.: Order No. 8/121/2015/Depu-ATMA/D.Agri/213

dated 11-01-2018.

Government is pleased to curtail the deputation

period of Shri Girish A. Kenkre, against the post

Deputy Project Director (ATMA-South), in the pay

scale of PB-III Rs. 15,600-39,100+5,400 Grade Pay in

the pay matrix at level 10 and repatriated him

back to this Department.

Upon repatriation, Shri Girish A. Kenkre is posted

as Agriculture Officer (South-I), District Agriculture

Office, South, Margao in place of Smt. Vaibhavi

Dessai who is transferred to District Agriculture

Office, North, Tonca-Caranzalem, Goa.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 04th June, 2018.

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]

211

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Order

No. 8/1/FISH/TS II/SZ/2017/RCS/893

Read: 1) Show Cause Notice No. 17-242-2006/

/ARSZ/FISHERIES/212 dated 21-4-2017.

2) This office Order No. 8/1/FISH/TS-II/SZ/

/2017/RCS/668

dated

19-05-2017

appointing a Committee of Administrator

in terms of Section 67A(1) of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 to

streamline the affairs of the South Goa

Mechanized Boat Owners Co-op. &

Marketing Society Ltd., Cutband, Velim,

Salcete-Goa.

3) Letter No. SGMBOCMSL/COA/13 dated

20-11-2017, received from Chairman of

Committee of Administrator of the South

Goa Mechanized Boat Owners Co-op. &

Marketing Society Ltd., Cutband, Velim,

Salcete-Goa.

4) This office Order No. 8/1/FISH/TS-II/SZ/

/2017/RCS/3829 dated 29-12-2017

extending the term of Committee of

Administrator.

In exercise of powers vested in me under Section

67A(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

I, Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar of Co-op. Societies,

Government of Goa, hereby extend the term of

Committee of Administrators appointed vide Order

referred to at Sr. No. 2, hereinabove for another

period of six months with retrospective effect from

23-05-2018 or till constitution of full fledged Board

of Directors with due process of law, whichever is

earlier.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 4th June, 2018.

Note:-

There are three Extraordinary issues to the

Official Gazette, Series II No. 10 dated 07-06-2018

as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 07-06-2018 from pages 203

to 204 regarding Notice of Election and Public

Notice from Department of Panchayati Raj &

Community Development.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 08-06-2018

from pages 205 to 206 regarding Order &

Notification from Department of Elections.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 13-06-2018

from pages 207 to 210 regarding Order &

Notifications from Department of Elections.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

212

Department of Finance

Revenue & Control Division

Notification

No. 38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(59)

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section

99 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,

read with the rules made thereunder, the

Government of Goa hereby constitutes the Goa

Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling consisting

of the following officers as it’s members, namely:-

(a) Commissioner of State Tax, Goa State.

(b) Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune

Zone.

This Notification shall come into force with

immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sushama D. Kamat, Under Secretary, Finance

(R&C).

Porvorim, 11th June, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-II/356

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

25-04-2018 in Case No. A-IT/19/11 in reference

No. IT/04/07 is hereby published as required by

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 30th May, 2018.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Case No. A-IT/19/11

Ref. No. IT/04/07

M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited,

Plot Nos. 128-139 & 324-326,

Kundaim Industrial Estate,

Kundaim, Goa-403 115.

…

Applicant

V/s

Mr. Yogesh Amonkar,

Emp. No. 134,

Dignem, Vithalnagar,

Surla, Goa 403 505.

…

Opponent

Applicant represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G. K.

Sardessai.

Opponent represented by Shri Subhash Naik Jorge.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 25th day of the month

of April of the year 2018)

This is an application filed by the Applicant

under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant is as

follows:

The Applicant is a Company registered under

Companies Act, 1956. The Opponent was employed

with the Company as a workman. The Opponent

was issued a Show-cause Notice dated 18-02-2011

alleging various misconducts and requiring him to

submit his explanation, if any. The Opponent

submitted the explanation dated 05-03-2011 and

the management did not find it satisfactory and he

was charge-sheeted vide letter dated 20-4-2011.

The Opponent was entitled for earned leave at the

rate of one day for every 20 days of attendance as

per the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 for first

240 days of attendance and thereafter it would

accrue at the rate of one day for every 12 days

worked on which he has earned full wages during

a calendar year; causal leave of 8 days in a calendar

year and he is also eligible for 3 days sick leave in

a calendar year subject to sanction by the superiors.

3. The Opponent was habitually and frequently

absenting from duties without any authorization

from his superiors continuously for many days, from

time to time. The attendance record indicates that

he had remained unauthorizedly absent for about

183 days from 01-12-2009 to 31-03-2011 as indicated

in the table mentioned in Para 3 of the Claim

statement. The Opponent has been orally and in

writing counseled on 14-07-2010, 13-12-2010 and

8-3-2011 for said unauthorized absence and issued

advisory letters dated 9-3-2011 and 5-4-2011 and

was issued a show-cause notice dated 18-02-2011.

The Opponent has been severally informed about

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

213

their concerns regarding his attendance which is

not consistent with the philosophy of the Company

and as expected from his position. The Opponent

had given reasons on some occasions like “met

with an accident-operated”, “Father not well”,

“Payment not sufficient” and “Leg fractured” which

are not substantiated by the Opponent.

4. The Opponent has not shown any

improvement in his attendance record despite of

repeated counseling and has been habitually

remaining absent without any authorization during

periods prior to periods mentioned in the said table

for which he has been served warning dated

22-05-2006, Show-cause Notice dated 22-5-2007,

Written Notices dated 18-12-2007, 14-12-2009 and

13-11-2008 and Final Notice dated 16-5-2009. The

Opponent despite all the opportunities given to

him for well over 5 years to improve his attendance

has willingly ignored the warnings, written notices

and have continued his habitual unauthorized

absence. The Opponent has grossly neglected his

work/duties by remaining habitually and

unauthorisedly absent on so many occasions, not

only upsetting and disrupting the production plans

in particular but also, adversely affecting the

discipline of working in the Department. The act of

misconduct on the part of Opponent is serious and

of grave nature warranting appropriate disciplinary

action against him.

5. The management conducted an enquiry into

the above charges by the Enquiry Officer, Shri A.

M. Gaikwad in an impartial manner and every

opportunity was given to the Opponent to defend

the charges leveled against him and the Opponent

fully participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer submitted his findings dated 16-5-2011 and

after appreciating the evidence on record held the

Opponent guilty of the charges. The Applicant

considered the proceedings of the enquiry and the

findings of Enquiry Officer dated 16-5-2011 and

concurred with the same. The management

considered the past record of the Opponent and

did not find any extenuating circumstances. The

Opponent was served with a show-cause notice

dated 20-6-2011 as to why he should not be

dismissed from service. The Opponent filed his

reply dated 4-7-2011. The Applicant after carefully

perusing the contents of the said reply and going

through the proceedings of the enquiry and the

findings of the Enquiry Officer did not find the

explanation satisfactory in view of gravity of proved

misconduct and considering that the Opponent

had remained on unauthorized absence for 64 days

since 1-4-2011 till 26-7-2011 in addition to the

charge sheeted period and had remained on

unauthorized absence for a total of 374 days since

January 2007 till 26-7-2011, the Applicant decided

to dismiss the Opponent from service and

accordingly, dismissed the Opponent vide letter

dated 26-11-2011. Hence, the application.

6. In the Written statement, the Opponent has

claimed that he has been working as a permanent

workman of the Applicant Company for a decade

and is governed under the provisions of Certified

Standing Orders of the Company. The action of the

Applicant in dismissing the Opponent from service

is illegal and unjustified. The enquiry conducted

by the Applicant was in violation of principles of

natural justice and the charges leveled have not

been proved. The punishment of dismissal imposed

on the Opponent is too harsh, severe and

disproportionate to the charges leveled against

him.

7. Rejoinder to the written statement of the

Opponent came to be filed by the Applicant

denying the case put forth by the Opponent.

8. Based on the above averments of the

respective parties, the following issues were framed

at Exb. 7.

1) Whether the Applicant proves that

the domestic enquiry held against the

Opponent is fair and proper?

2) Whether the Applicant proves that

the charges of misconduct are proved

prima-facie against the Opponent?

3) Whether the Applicant proves that the order

of dismissal passed against the Opponent is

just and proper?

4) Whether the Opponent proves that the

authorized signatory has no authority to

move the present application and only the

Factory Head i.e. the Factory has been

powers to move the application on behalf of

the company?

5) Whether the approval be accorded

u/s 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act to the action of the

Applicant of dismissing the Opponent from

the service?

6) What Award?

9. It is a matter of record that preliminary issues

No. 1 and 2 were answered vide Order dated

17-3-2017 at Exh. 20 and held that domestic enquiry

initiated against the workman, Shri Yogesh

Amonkar is fair and proper. It was also observed

that the charges of misconduct leveled against

Opponent by Applicant are proved to the

satisfaction of the Tribunal.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

214

10. The Applicant in support of issues Nos. 3, 4,

5 and 6 has examined Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh

and produced on record affidavit in evidence at

Exh. 22. He also produced a copy of letter of

authorization dated 1-7-2011 at Exb. 23 and a copy

of extract of the meeting of BOD along with Power

of Authority dated 25-5-2010 at Exh. 24 colly. The

Opponent has not examined any witnesses.

11. Heard arguments. Notes of Written

arguments came to be placed on record by the

Opponent.

12. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 3

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 4

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 5

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 6

…

As per Final order

REASONS

Issues Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6:

13. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for Applicant

has submitted that the Opponent has been

habitually remaining absent without any

authorization and despite all the opportunities

given to him for well over five years to improve his

attendance, he has willingly ignored the warnings,

written notice and had grossly neglected his duties

not only absenting and disrupting the production

plan in particular but adversely affecting the

discipline of working of the department, due to

which the production activities have suffered from

time to time and the act of misconduct on the part

of Opponent is very serious and of grave nature

warranting disciplinary action against him. He

further submitted that the enquiry was conducted

in an impartial manner and every opportunity was

given to the Opponent to defend the charges

leveled against him and he fully participated in

the enquiry and after considering the past record

of the Opponent and the findings of the Enquiry

Officer and the other documents, the Applicant

dismissed the Opponent with effect from 26-11-2007

and the action taken by the Applicant is therefore

fair and proper. In support thereof, he relied upon

the case of (i) Hombe Gowda Educational Trust

and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2006)

1 SCC 430.

14. Per contra, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the

Opponent has submitted that the punishment of

dismissal imposed on the Opponent is highly unjust

and disproportionate taking into account the facts

and circumstances of the case and also allegation

levelled in the chargesheet and/or evidence on

record of the enquiry proceedings and taking into

account the past records of the workman. He

further submitted that after introduction of Section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal

has wide powers to set aside the punishment of

dismissal and re-appreciate the evidence on record

and give lesser punishment and/or compensation

taking into accounts the facts and circumstances

of the case. He further submitted that it is a fit

case where dismissal ought to be set aside and

proportionate lesser punishment be imposed in the

interest of justice and in support thereof, he relied

upon the cases of (i) Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs.

Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour)

and Ors, 1985 SCR (1) 866 and (ii) Senapathy

Whiteley Ltd. vs. Karadi Gowda and Another,

(1999) 9 SCC 259.

15. Admittedly, vide Award(Part) dated 17-3-2017

while answering issues No. 1 and 2, it was held

that the enquiry conducted against the Opponent

is fair, proper and just and that the charges leveled

against the Opponent are proved to the satisfaction

of the Tribunal. It was alleged by the Applicant

that the Opponent was habitually and frequently

absenting from duties without any authorization

and that the Opponent had been orally as well as

in writing counseled for the said unauthorized

absence and issued advisory letters as well as show

cause notice and also informed about their

concerns regarding his attendance which is not

consistent with the philosophy of the company

and as expected from his position and inspite of

that he had not shown any improvement in his

attendance record and has been habitually

remaining absent without any authorization over a

period of five years and had ignored the warnings,

written notices and have continued his habitual

unauthorized absence and has grossly neglected

his duty not only upsetting and disrupting the

production plans but also affecting the discipline

of the working in that department.

16. It is well settled that the discretion which

can be exercised by the Tribunal under Section

11-A of Industrial Disputes Act in interfering with

the quantum of punishment awarded by the

management, where the workman concerned is

found guilty of misconduct, is available only on

the existence of certain factors, like punishment

being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct

so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the

existence of any mitigating circumstances which

require the reduction of sentence or the past

conduct of the workman and in the absence of

such factors existing, the Tribunal cannot by way

of sympathy alone exercised the power under

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

215

Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment

as held in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra

Ltd. vs. N. B. Narawade, 2005 I CLR 803 SC. The

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment when

it is a discharge or dismissal can be exercised by

the Court only when it is satisfied that the

discharge or dismissal is not justified or that it

finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly

disproportionate to the charges proved.

Punishment of termination can be said to

be disproportionate, if it would appear

unconscionable and actuated by malice. The

jurisdiction vested with the Court to interfere with

the punishment is not to be exercised capriciously

or arbitrarily. It is also well settled that

when charges proved are grave vis-à-vis the

establishment, interference with the punishment

of dismissal is not justified. In short, the jurisdiction

to interfere with the punishment should be

exercised only when the punishment is shockingly

disproportionate to the charges proved or that it is

unconscionable and actuated by malice as held in

the case of L&T Komatsu Ltd. vs. N. Udayakumar,

2008 I CLR 978.

17. The Opponent has not led any evidence to

prove that the punishment of dismissal imposed

on him is unjust and disproportionate taking into

the facts and circumstances of the case as well as

the allegations leveled against him or that it is a

fit case where dismissal ought to be set aside.

There are no allegations made against Applicant

that the punishment is harsh or disproportionate

to the misconduct committed by him having regard

to the past record. On the contrary, the Opponent

has accepted the charges regarding absenteeism

and that he received various advisory letters from

the management and that he tried to improve his

attendance but he did not improve. He also

admitted that he was given last opportunity to

improve his attendance, which clearly shows that

he was given several opportunities to improve his

attendance but inspite of that he was habitually

absent without any improvement. The prolonged

absence coupled with the past record shows that

the workman does not deserve any leniency.

Moreover, when disciplinary proceedings have

been initiated and findings of fact have been

recorded in such enquiry, they cannot be interfered

with unless findings are based on no evidence or

are perverse. The past record of Opponent is so

bad that it is impossible to show any leniency to

the workman and that it will amount to misplaced

sympathy which would be premium over wrong

doings of not coming to work, which is the prime

duty of the Opponent.

18. There is therefore the order of dismissal

passed against the Opponent is just and proper

and the action of the management in dismissing

Opponent is legal and the punishment is

proportionate considering the gravity of

misconduct and his past record, which is in terms

of law. The reliance placed by Shri Subhash Naik

Jorge on the cases referred above is not applicable

as the said cases turned on its own facts. The

Opponent has not made out any case nor shown

that the punishment has been disproportionate,

arbitrary, perverse or actuated by malice or that it

is shockingly harsh nor it is shown the authorized

signatory has no authority to move the present

application and that only the Factory Head i.e. the

Factory has powers to move the application on

behalf of the company and therefore, approval has

to be accorded under Section 33(2)(b) of the

Industrial Disputes Act to the action of the

Applicant of dismissing the Opponent from service.

It is therefore, above issues are answered in the

negative.

19. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The application for approval filed by

Applicant stands granted.

(ii) Consequently, approval is accorded to the

action of the Applicant in dismissing the

Opponent from service vide order dated

26-11-2011 as contemplated under Section

33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-II/357

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa

on 25-04-2018 in reference No. IT/69/03 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 30th May, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

216

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/69/03

Workmen,

Rep. by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Shetye Sankul, 3rd Floor,

Tisk, Ponda, Goa.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s Sky Pack Plantation Pvt. Ltd.,

Mandrem, Shachee,

Bhatelem, Mandrem,

Pernem, Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.

Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.

K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 20th day of the month

of April of the year 2018)

By Order dated 21-10-2003, bearing No. 28/43/

/2003-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s Sky Pack Plantation Pvt. Ltd., Mandrem,

Pernem-Goa, in refusing employment to the

following workmen with effect from 9-6-2003,

is legal and justified?

(1) Mr. Jayendra Sawant, Labourer.

(2) Mr. Sudhakar S. Shetye, Labourer.

(3) Mr. Vidhyadhar S. Shetye, Labourer.

(4) Mr. Bharat S. Shetye, Labourer.

(5) Mr. Deepak A. Sawant, Labourer.

(6) Mr. Arjun D. Kerkar, Labourer.

(7) Mr. Dilip R. Deolkar, Labourer.

(8) Mr. Dyaneshwar N. Haldankar, Labourer.

(9) Mr. Ramakant M. Korgaonkar, Labourer.

(10) Mr. Rajendra S. Sonurlekar, Labourer.

(11) Mr. Yeshwant V. Morudkar, Labourer.

(12) Mrs. Baya S. Sonurlekar, Labourer.

(13) Mrs. Laxmi Y. Morajkar, Labourer.

(14) Mrs. Sarita H. Sawant, Labourer.

(15) Mrs. Indira M. Talwar, Labourer.

(16) Mrs. Neerabai V. Shetye, Labourer.

(17) Mrs. Mali C. Shetye, Labourer.

(18) Mrs. Sukhada L. Sawant, Labourer.

(19) Mrs. Bhima S. Kanolkar, Labourer.

(20) Mrs. Milan C. Korgaonkar, Labourer.

(21) Mrs. Meera Govind Shetye, Labourer.

(22) Mrs. Yeshashri Sawant, Labourer.

(23) Mr. Gopal Dabhale, Labourer.

(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/69/2003 and registered A/D notices were

issued to both the parties. Upon appearance,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exh. 3 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exh. 6.

3. In short, the case of Party I in the claim

statement is that the Party II is a company having

its plantation at Shachee, Bhatelem, Mandrem,

Pernem. The Party I is a registered Trade Union and

is representing all the employees of Party II. In the

first week of June 2003, all the workmen employed

by Party II have joined the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh and on information of the workers joining

the Union, the Party II started threatening the

workmen to leave the Union and when their

attempts failed, the services of 23 workmen were

illegally terminated by refusing to allow them to

resume duty on 9-6-2003. The Party I workmen then

approached the Union and vide letter dated

9-6-2003 addressed to Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Mapusa sought immediate

intervention in the matter and on receipt of the

complaint, the Assistant Labour Commissioner

called both the parties for joint discussion on

several occasions but due to adamant attitude of

the employer, settlement could not be arrived at

and the matter ended in a failure.

4. The management of M/s Sky Pack Plantation

Pvt. Ltd. has developed a very big farm in the

Village Mandrem of about 9,00,000 Sq. mts. and has

planted more than 6,000 Arecanut trees, more than

2,000 Coconut trees, more than 1,000 Pineapple

trees, 700 Mango trees, 300 Papaya trees and more

than 500 Banana trees. Besides, there are medicinal

plants and other trees. The Party I workmen were

engaged in the said plantation for carrying out

manual work such as digging the soil, cultivating

the plants, watering, giving fertilizer, pesticide and

other medicines and besides the above work, they

were also doing the work of cleaning of bushes,

operating the pumps, watering the plants,

collecting the fruits and other farm work and all

the workers were reporting every day and the duty

hours were from 8.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and from

1.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and that their attendance

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

217

were marked and were paid monthly. The workmen

were working continuously from the date of joining

till the date of refusal of employment and have

worked for more than 240 days before the refusal

of their employment. The management has not

conducted any enquiry nor issued any memo or

chargesheet for any misconduct nor offered any

retrenchment compensation and notice pay in

accordance with the provision of Industrial

Disputes Act. The action of the management in

refusing the employment is illegal, unjustified and

bad in law. The workmen are unemployed and are

undergoing hardship due to unemployment. Hence,

the reference.

5. In the written statement, Party II has claimed

that Party I workmen are not “workman” as defined

under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

There is no employer-employee relationship

between Party I and Party II. There is no termination

of service of Party I by Party II. The said property

under Survey No. 99/0 was acquired by Party II and

the part of the said property was developed by

making the land able for plantation, cultivation

and growth of various kinds of trees. The Party II

entrusted the operations in the plantation area to

specified contractors who engaged on the roll as

labourers on daily wages depending upon the job.

The contractors paid their wages, exercised

disciplinary control over them, distributed work

and performed such other duties and obligations

in relation to such workers. None of the persons

referred to in the reference were engaged by them

for carrying out manual work such as digging the

soil, etc. The Party II had not retrenched the

workmen in the reference and therefore the

question of payment of any retrenchment

compensation and notice pay in accordance with

the provision of Industrial Disputes Act does not

arise. There is no refusal of employment and

therefore there is no requirement of conducting

enquiry or paying legal dues to Party I workmen.

6. In the rejoinder at Exh. 7, the Party I denied

the case put forth by Party II in written statement.

It is claimed that the Party II directly engaged the

Party I workmen and the workmen in reference did

all the cultivation and their maintenance. The

Party II has admitted in the Civil Suit that the

workmen were engaged by Party II and the Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Pernem requested the

Commissioner, Labour and Employment on 9-6-2003

to intervene in the matter of illegal refusal of

employment to 23 workmen by Plaintiff Company.

7. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 8 are as

follows:

(1) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

workmen were

employed with the Party II

at its farm situated at Mandrem, Pernem,

Goa?

(2) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

workmen were

refused employment by

the Party II with effect from 09-06-2003 in

violation of the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the

I.D. Act, 1947?

(3) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

action of the Party II in refusing employment

to the workmen w.e.f. 09-06-2003 is illegal

and unjustified?

(4) Whether the Party II proves that the

workmen are not “Workman” as defined

under Sec. 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947?

(5) Whether the Party II proves that the dispute

referred is not an industrial dispute?

(6) Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

(7) What Award?

8. In support of the case, Party I examined

Shri Puti Gaonkar, General Secretary of the Union

and produced on record a copy of Unionization

letter dated 9-6-2003 signed by 23 workmen at

Exh. W-1 and a copy of letter dated 9-6-2003 of

dispute raised by the Union at Exh. W-2. The Party

I also examined Shri Jayendra L. Sawant as second

witness and produced on record a copy of

certificate dated 5-4-2000 at Exh. 17. On the other

hand, Party II examined Shri Jitendra Deshprabhu

who has filed affidavit in evidence. The Party I

produced on record through the said witness a

copy of Order dated 17-12-2004 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in W. P. No. 202/2004 at Exb. 23,

a copy of certificate dated 5-4-2000 issued by

Shri H. Y. Karapurkar at Exh. 24 and a copy of

minutes of proceedings held before Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Mapusa at Exh. 25.

9. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments

came to be placed on record by Party I as well as

Party II.

10. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

Partly in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2

…

Partly in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 3

…

Partly in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 4

…

Partly in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 5

…

In the Negative.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

218

Issue No. 6

…

As per Final order.

Issue No. 7

…

As per Final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 1 & 4:

11. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Party I has

submitted that all the workmen were employed

with the Party II on their plantation and were

illegally terminated without following due process

of law as they joined Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh.

He further submitted that careful reading of para

2 and 3 of the written statement establishes that

all the workers in the plantation were directly

employed by Party II. The denial in para 2 and 3 of

the written statement is not specific and is nothing

but imaginary which proves employment of

Party I at the plantation. The Party I have also

produced on record a certificate dated 5-4-2000 of

one Jayendra Sawant which shows that Party I

were engaged by Party II to work on their

plantation. He further submitted that the Party I in

the claim statement has mentioned the duties that

were being carried out by the workmen at the

plantation and that they were paid monthly which

shows that the Party I workmen were directly

employed by Party II. The wage register and

attendance register are always with Party II. He

further submitted that there should be only

material and not evidence as required by the

Evidence Act. In support of his contention, he relied

upon the cases of (i) Ananda Bazar Patrika Ltd.

vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2016) 3 CLR

192 and (ii) Food Corporation of India Workers’

Union vs. Food Corporation of India and Another,

(1996) 9 SCC 439.

12. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has

submitted that Party II has entrusted the operation

in the plantation area to specialized contractors

who engaged labourers on daily wages depending

upon the job and the contractor paid their wages,

exercised disciplinary control over them and

distributed the work and performed such other

duties and obligations in relation to such workers.

He further submitted that Party I workmen were

never engaged by them and that burden of proving

employer-employee relationship is on the Party I

who set up a plea of existence of relationship of

employer and employee and the question whether

the relationship between the parties is one of

employer and employee is a pure question of fact

which has to be proved by the Party I workmen

and in support thereof, he relied upon the cases of

(i) Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd.

vs. State of T. N. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 514

and (ii) Nirtubai Jayantilal Mahule (Smt.) vs. Head

Master & Ors., 2014(6) Bom.C.R. 425.

13. It is well settled as held in the case of Food

Corporation of India Workers’ Union, supra, that

there should be only ‘material’ and not ‘evidence’

as required by the Evidence Act. The phrases in

the Evidence Act viz. “duly proved”, “legally

proved”, or proved “beyond reasonable doubt” is

not required under Industrial Disputes Act in the

matter of marshalling or considering the material

placed before it. The only question is whether on

weighing the probabilities, the material placed by

the Party was acceptable or rendered probable.

There also cannot be any dispute as held in the

case of Ananda Bazar Patrika Ltd. supra, that the

definition of ‘workman’ in the Act of 1947 is an

inclusive definition. Every person employed in an

industry for a consideration is to be considered as

a workman for the purposes of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 save and except the categories

of persons specified to be exempted from the

purview of such section. To come within the

definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a person has to

establish that there is a relationship of master and

servant or in other words employer-employee

relationship and such relationship must be for a

consideration.

14. It is well settled that burden of proof is on

the workman to establish employer-employee

relationship and where a person asserts that he is

a workman of the company and it is denied by the

company, it is for him to prove the fact and not for

the company to prove that he was not an employee

of the company but of some other person. The

relevant factors to be taken into consideration to

establish an employer-employee relationship as

held in the case of M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corp.

vs. Pragatisheel Engineering, passed in Writ

Petition No. 5167 of 1999 on 11-5-2016 by the

Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court would include,

inter alia: (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who

pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the

authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take the

disciplinary action; (v) whether there is continuity

of service and (vi) extent of control and supervision

i.e. whether there exists complete control and

supervision.

15. Having regard to the above position of law,

it is apposite to scan whether the Party I are the

workman employed by Party II at its farm at

Mandrem, Pernem, Goa and whether there is

employer-employee relationship between them. The

Party I has examined Shri Puti Gaonkar who has

claimed that in the first week of June, 2003 all 23

workmen mentioned in the reference have joined

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and on their joining the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

219

Union informed Party II and Labour Commissioner

vide their letter dated 6-6-2003 and on receiving

the information, the Party II started threatening

the workmen and on 9-6-2003, the services of 23

workmen were illegally terminated by refusing

them to resume the duty. They thereafter

approached the Union who addressed a letter dated

9-6-2003 to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa

for intervention; however no settlement could be

arrived at. The Party I workmen were not paid any

retrenchment compensation or legal dues. In the

cross examination, it was denied that the persons

whose names are mentioned in the affidavit are

not the employees of Party II and that there is no

employer-employee relationship between the said

persons and Party II and the said persons were not

doing the said work.

16. The Party I also examined Shri Jayendra

Sawant. He has claimed that he had initially joined

as a labour and thereafter promoted as a

Nurseryman and all the workers continuously

worked since the date of their joining and that the

Party II was not paying them minimum wages and

other benefits and after refusal of their employment,

the workmen approached the Union and addressed

a letter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Mapusa. He also claimed that all the workers

mentioned in the reference were doing manual

work of the farm such as planting the trees,

watering the plants, harvesting, etc. and at the

time of refusal of the services, the management did

not conduct any enquiry. In the cross examination,

he denied that he was not working for Party II

since 1995 and that the workmen named in the

reference have not worked for Party II and that

there is no employer-employee relationship

between the workmen and the Party II and that

Party II was not maintaining any muster roll of the

workers named in the reference.

17. Admittedly, except said Shri Jayendra

Sawant, no other workmen mentioned in the

reference have been examined to prove employer-

-employee relationship and they are the workmen

working for Party II. Shri Jayendra is not the office

bearer of the Union nor has been authorised by the

Union or the workers to make the statement or to

depose on their behalf. Nothing prevented the

other workmen to step into the witness box or to

authorise Shri Jayendra on their behalf. Shri Puti

Gaonkar has also not produced any authority or

resolution or Bye-laws to show under what

authority he has verified the claim statement and

deposed in the matter. The evidence of Shri Puti

Gaonkar clearly shows that he had no personal

knowledge about the activities in the farm. No

documents have been produced on record

establishing employer-employee relationship of

workmen of Party I at serial No. 2 to 23, although

it has been claimed by Shri Jayendra in the

affidavit that Party II was maintaining the muster

roll and that their attendance was marked and

were paid weekly nor privity of contract between

the employer and employee, except Jayendra has

been proved by producing appointment letters,

muster roll or any other record to show that the

Party I workmen were selected, appointed and were

working under the supervision and control and

were being paid their remuneration by Party II.

18. Needless to mention, the Party I has produced

on record certificate dated 5-4-2000 at Exh. 17/24

issued by the Executive Director, Shri H. Y.

Karapurkar of Party II to Shri Jayendra Sawant who

is at Serial No. 1 of the Schedule of reference that

he was engaged as agriculture worker on

company’s farm at Pernem since 1995 and during

the course of last five years he had gained vast

experience in raising of vegetable crops and also

planting of various horticulture crops. The said

certificate shows that Shri Jayendra was engaged

in farm since 1995. Said Shri Karapurkar has not

been examined disputing the said certificate. The

witness, Shri Jitendra Deshprabhu has admitted

that the certificate was issued on humanitarian

ground as he wanted an experience certificate to

produce before some authority, but claimed that

he was never their employee. It is however not

understood why certificate was issued by

Shri Karapurkar, if he is not their workmen. Only

Shri Karapurkar could have shed light on the aspect

of issuing the certificate by him. It is never the

case in the written statement that the certificates

were issued on humanitarian grounds. The said

certificate clearly shows that Shri Jayendra was

employed by Party II in their farm at Mandrem,

Pernem.

19. It is also a matter of record that the Party II

had filed a Regular Suit bearing No. 20/2003 against

Shri Jayendra Sawant and 5 others at Pernem along

with an application for temporary injunction which

came to be dismissed on 11-9-2003 and aggrieved

by said order, the Plaintiff/Party II challenged it

before Ld. Additional District Judge, Panaji which

also came to be dismissed and that the Plaintiff/

/Party II filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 202/2004

before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and that the

Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 17-12-2004 at

Exb. 23 also rejected the Petition summarily while

observing that Shri Jayant L. Sawant and 5 others

were engaged by Party II as daily wagers and they

were discontinued after some tenure which ran

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

220

into 5 to 6 years and that they raised dispute

regarding their alleged illegal termination as well

as payment of wages, etc. and that as employer did

not pay any attention they started obstructing at

the gate of the Plaintiff/Party II on account of which

there was some disturbance and that the cause of

action for the suit arose from the industrial dispute

and that both the parties had also approached the

Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes

Act.

20. Shri Jitendra Deshprabhu in the cross

examination has admitted that Party II had filed

the suit with an application for temporary

injunction but he claimed that the same was to

restrain those people who represented the work

contractor and who were threatening the Manager

of Party II farm, which fact is not pleaded by him

nor the same is borne out of record, which in any

case, runs counter to the order dated 17-12-2004 of

the Hon’ble High Court at Exb. 23. He, however

clarified that he was not personally handling the

matter and does not know what order was passed

by the District Court and Hon’ble High Court,

however admitted that the order of Hon’ble High

Court is at Exb. 23. The above facts therefore clearly

show that Shri Jayendra L. Sawant mentioned in

the reference have been working for Party II and

had worked continuously from the date of joining

as mentioned in the para 3 of the affidavit in

evidence till the date of termination, which is more

than 240 days before the refusal of the employment

21. Be that as it may, the materials on record

including the above documents produced by

Party I and on weighing the probabilities clearly

indicate that Shri Jayendra Sawant mentioned at

Sr. No. 1 in the reference was working for Party II,

otherwise there was no necessity for Party II to file

the Civil Suit against him and others including an

application for injunction, besides the fact that the

Party II had issued a certificate to Shri Jayendra,

which goes to show that Shri Jayendra was directly

recruited by Party II in their farm for doing the

agricultural work as mentioned in the certificate.

The certificate produced by Party I at Exh. 17 have

not been shown to be false nor has the management

refuted the oral testimony of Shri Jayendra. The

said certificate has also been admitted by Shri

Jitendra Deshprabhu in the cross examination. The

Party I have thus proved that Shri Jayendra was

employed with Party II at its farm at Mandrem and

that he was the ‘workman’ as defined under Section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Nonetheless, the Party I has failed to prove that

the other workmen mentioned at serial No. 2 to 23

are the workmen working for Party II or that there

was any employer-employee relationship between

them for lack of any evidence adduced on record.

22. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has submitted

that the Party I workmen have not proved that

they have worked for 240 days and that no

document in support of the said plea has been

produced. He further submitted that the workmen

has failed to discharge the burden of proving as

the initial burden of establishing the factum of

continuous work for 240 days in a year was on the

workmen, however as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv.

Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I, it is well settled in the

case of Sarita S. Melwani (Mrs) vs. Pallavi V.

Talekar & Ors., 2008 (1) Mh. LJ 522 that for

workers who have been in employment from long,

their case would be covered under Section 25-B(1)

and there is no need for such workers to prove that

they have actually worked for 240 days in the last

preceding 12 months prior to the date of

termination. Shri Jayendra has claimed that he was

working with Party II from 23-4-1995 which fact

has been reflected in the certificate at Exb. 17,

which clearly shows that said Jayendra was in

employment from long and therefore as held in the

case of Sarita S. Melwani, supra, the case of said

Shri Jayendra who had been in employment from

long, would be covered under Section 25-B(1) of

the Act and therefore there was no need to prove

that he actually worked for 240 days in the last

preceding twelve months prior to the termination

and therefore, the above contention of Ld. Adv.

Shri G. K. Sardessai cannot be accepted. The

Party I having proved that Shri Jayendra was the

workman working with Party II and that he was

refused employment w.e.f. 9-6-2003 in violation of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the

above issue No. 1 and 4 are answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2 & 3:

23. The Party I have claimed that the workmen

were refused employment by Party II w.e.f.

9-6-2003 in violation of the provisions of Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the

action of the Party II in refusing employment with

effect from that date is illegal and unjustified. Both

Shri Puti Gaonkar and Shri Jayendra Sawant have

stated that on the information that the workers

have joined the Union, the Party II has started to

threaten the workmen and that on 9-6-2003,

illegally terminated their services by refusing to

allow them to resume the duty. They also claimed

that they approached the Union and raised a

dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Mapusa and that the action of refusal of the services

is illegal. The Party I however failed to prove that

the other workmen, except Shri Jayendra were

working with Party II and they have refused the

employment from 9-6-2003 or that its action against

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

221

them is illegal and unjustified. The Party I has

however proved that Shri Jayendra was the

workman working with Party II and that there was

employer-employee relationship between them. The

Party I has thus proved that Shri Jayendra was

refused employment and the action of Party II in

refusing employment to him from 9-6-2003 is illegal

and unjustified. The above issue No. 2 and 3 are

therefore answered partly in the affirmative.

Issue No. 5:

24. The Party II in the written statement has

averred that the dispute raised by Party I before

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa is not an

industrial dispute and therefore, the Commissioner

acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction in

entertaining a non-existent dispute. Shri Jitendra

Deshprabhu in Para 11 of his affidavit has reiterated

the same. He, however admitted that he is not

aware of the proceedings before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Mapusa and has no

knowledge if any representative of Party II had

attended the proceedings before Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Mapusa as many years have passed.

He also stated that he does not recollect if he had

written any letter to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Mapusa stating that the dispute

raised by Party I does not amount to an industrial

dispute. No evidence has been led by Party II that

the dispute referred is not an industrial dispute

under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 and therefore, the issue No. 5 is answered in

the negative.

Issue No. 6 & 7:

25. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I has

submitted that in the cases of wrongful

termination/refusal of employment, reinstatement

with back wages is the normal rule and the length

of service of the workmen is also important as in

the present case they were in service for 8 years

and are entitled for minimum wages as per

Government of Goa Minimum Wages Notification

bearing No. 28/29/2001-lab dated 27-6-2003

published in Official Gazette where an adult farm

servant was entitled for a minimum wage of Rs.

2,756/- per month. He further submitted that

Judicial notice of the said Notification may be taken

while considering grant of relief to the present

workmen and in support of his contention, he relied

upon the said Notification and the case of Deepali

Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak

Mahavidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC

324. As against that, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai

has submitted that the Party I has failed to

discharge employer-employee relationship and

therefore the Party I are not entitled to the reliefs

as prayed for.

26. The question therefore is what reliefs

the Party I/workman, more particularly, said

Shri Jayendra is entitled to, once it is held that the

refusal/termination is illegal, whether said

Shri Jayendra is entitled for re-instatement with

full back wages and continuity in service with

consequential benefits attached to the post or

adequate monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages.

27. It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble

Apex Court that relief by way of reinstatement

with back wages is not automatic, even if

termination of an employee is found to be illegal or

is in contravention of the prescribed procedure

and that monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages in cases of such a

nature may be appropriate. It is also well settled

that the Court in appropriate cases grant

compensation in lieu of reinstatement keeping in

view the length of service rendered by a workman,

the wages that he was receiving during that

period, which would meet the ends of justice. In

the instant case, the Party I workman, namely

Shri Jayendra was working with Party II since 1995

till 9-6-2003 as Nurseryman on daily wages for

nearly 8 years and the said termination had taken

place about 15 years ago. Shri Jitendra Deshprabhu

has stated in the cross examination that the

plantation of Party II was closed. There is nothing

on record that agriculture operations are going on

in the said farm after refusal of employment of

Party I/workman. There is also no dispute that Shri

Jayendra is daily wager and therefore is not entitled

to reinstatement in service at this distance of time,

as held in the case of Santosh R. Shirodkar vs.

Sanquelim Municipal Council, through its Chief

Officer, 2017 0 Supreme(Mah) 1579.

28. There is no dispute that Shri Jayendra was

summarily terminated without paying any legal

dues as stipulated under Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Shri Jayendra in his

affidavit has not disclosed the wages he was

earning at the time of refusal of employment/

/termination. There also cannot be any dispute that

the Notification issued by the Government of Goa

bearing No. 28/29/2001-lab dated 27-6-2003 of

Series I No. 13 shows that the Adult Farm Servant

would get Rs. 2756/- per month as all inclusive

minimum rate of wages. Therefore, considering that

Shri Jayendra had put in services of about 8 years

on the date of termination and that he was earning

around Rs. 2,756/- per month as minimum wages,

it would translate into salary of Rs. 33,072/- per

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

222

annum and making a reasonable allowance for

appropriate escalation, an average salary of

Rs. 35,000 per annum can be reckoned for the

purposes of arriving at the amount of compensation,

which would be around Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five

lakhs twenty five thousand only) representing

wages for about 15 years and considering that the

Party II has violated provisions of Section 25-F of

the Act, so also the nature of appointment, the

length of service and the time taken to settle the

dispute, ends of justice would be met, if said

Shri Jayendra is paid a lumpsum monetary

compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs

twenty five thousand only), which would be just,

proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances

of the case. Hence, the above issues are answered

accordingly.

29.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

The present reference stands partly

allowed.

(ii)

It is hereby held that the action of the

management of M/s Sky Pack Plantation

Pvt. Ltd., Mandrem, Pernem-Goa, in refusing

employment to the Party I workman at

Sr. No. 1, Shri Jayendra L. Sawant with

effect from 9-6-2003, is illegal and

unjustified.

(iii)

The Party II is directed to pay monetary

compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five

lakhs twenty five thousand only) to the

Party I workmen at Sr. No. 1, Shri Jayendra

L. Sawant within 60 days of the publication

of the Award, failing which the Party II

shall pay an interest @ 9% per annum.

(iv)

The Party I workmen at Sr. No. 2 to

Sr. No. 23 are not entitled for any relief.

(v)

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-II/358

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa

on 20-04-2018 in reference No. IT/70/03 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 30th May, 2018.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/70/03

Workmen,

Rep. by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Shetye Sankul, 3rd Floor,

Tisk, Ponda, Goa.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s Sky Pack Plantation Pvt. Ltd.,

Mandrem, Shachee,

Bhatelem, Mandrem,

Pernem, Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.

Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.

K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 20th day of the month

of April of the year 2018)

By Order dated 21-10-2003, bearing No. 28/43/

/2003-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s Sky Pack Plantation Pvt. Ltd., Mandrem,

Pernem-Goa, in terminating the services of

S/Shri Suresh Sawant, Uday Sawant, Ladu

Shetye, Rajaram Parab, Santosh Sawant and

Chandrakant Korgaonkar, all workers, with

effect from 1-9-2002, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

223

2. On receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/70/2003 and registered A/D notices were

issued to both the parties. Upon appearance,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exh. 3 and Party

II filed a Written statement at Exh. 5.

3. In short, the case of Party I in the claim

statement is that the Party II is a company having

its plantation at Shachee, Bhatelem, Mandrem,

Pernem. The Party I is a registered Trade Union and

is representing all the employees of Party II. In the

second week of Sept. 2002, the six workmen in the

reference approached the Union as their services

were illegally terminated by Party II w.e.f. 01-09-2002

and in order to complete the formalities, six

workmen became the members of the Union and

thereafter vide letter dated 18-9-2002 raised an

industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Mapusa. The Assistant Labour

Commissioner called both the parties for joint

discussion on several occasions but the employer

did not attend the proceedings and hence, the

matter ended in a failure. The Party I workmen

were employed by Party II at their big farm at

Mandrem, Pernem and were working continuously

since 1995 onwards till the date of illegal

termination. The workers were doing the manual

work such as planting the trees, watering the

plants, harvesting, etc. The Party II was maintaining

the muster roll and their attendance were marked

and they were paid monthly. The management has

not issued any memo or chargesheet for any

misconduct nor conducted any enquiry at the time

of termination of their services nor paid any

compensation or legal dues. Hence, the reference.

4. In the written statement, Party II has claimed

that Party I workmen are not “workman” as defined

under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

There is no employer-employee relationship

between Party I and Party II. There is no termination

of service of Party I by Party II. The said property

under survey No. 99/0 was acquired by Party II and

the part of the said property was developed by

making the land able for plantation, cultivation

and growth of various kinds of trees. The Party II

entrusted the operations in the plantation area to

specified contractors who engaged labourers on

daily wages depending upon the job. The

contractors paid their wages, exercised

disciplinary control over them, distributed work

and performed such other duties and obligations

in relation to such workers. None of the persons

referred to in the reference were engaged by them

for carrying out manual work such as digging the

soil, etc. the Party II had not retrenched the workers

in the reference and therefore, the question of

payment of any retrenchment compensation and

notice pay in accordance with the provision of

Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. There is no

refusal of employment and therefore there is no

requirement of conducting enquiry or paying legal

dues to Party I workmen.

5. In the rejoinder at Exh. 6, the Party I denied

the case put forth by Party II in written statement.

6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 7 are as

follows:

(1) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

workmen were employed with the Party II at

its Farm at Mandrem, Pernem, Goa, since

the year 1995?

(2) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

Party II terminated the services of the

workmen w.e.f. 01-09-2002 in violation of the

provision of Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947?

(3) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

action of the Party II in terminating the

services of the workmen w.e.f. 01-09-2002 is

illegal and unjustified?

(4) Whether the Party II proves that the

workmen are not “Workman” as defined

under Sec. 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947?

(5) Whether the Party II proves that the dispute

referred is not an industrial dispute?

(6) Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

(7) What Award?

7. In support of his case, Party I examined

Shri Puti Gaonkar, General Secretary of the Union.

The Party I also examined Shri Jayendra L. Sawant

and produced on record a copy of certificate dated

5-4-2000 at Exh. 16 and a copy of letter dated

6-6-2003 at Exh. 17. On the other hand, Party II

examined Shri Jitendra Deshprabhu who has filed

affidavit in evidence. The Party I produced on

record through the said witness, a copy of order

dated 17-12-2004 passed by the Hon’ble High Court

in W. P. No. 202/2004 at Exb. 23, a copy of certificate

dated 5-4-2000 issued by Shri H. Y. Karapurkar at

Exh. 24 and a copy of minutes of proceedings

held before Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Mapusa at Exh. 25.

8. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments

came to be placed on record by Party I as well as

Party II.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

224

9. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

In the Negative

Issue No. 2

…

In the Negative

Issue No. 3

…

In the Negative

Issue No. 4

…

In the Affirmative

Issue No. 5

…

In the Negative

Issue No. 6

…

As per Final order

Issue No. 7

…

As per Final order

REASONS

Issue No. 1 & 4:

10. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Party I has

submitted that the six workmen were employed

with Party II on their plantation and were illegally

terminated without following due process of law

as they joined Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. He

further submitted that careful reading of Paras 2

and 3 of the written statement establishes that all

the workers in the plantation were directly

employed by Party II. The denial in para 2 and 3 of

the written statement is not specific and is nothing

but imaginary which proves employment of Party

I at the plantation. He further submitted that the

Party I in the claim statement has mentioned the

duties that were being carried out by the workmen

at the plantation and that they were paid monthly

which shows that the Party I workmen were

directly employed by Party II. The wage register

and attendance register are always with Party II.

He further submitted that there should be only

material and not evidence as required by the

Evidence Act. In support of his contention, he relied

upon the cases of (i) Ananda Bazar Patrika Ltd.

vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2016) 3 CLR

192 and (ii) Food Corporation of India Workers’

Union vs. Food Corporation of India and Another,

(1996) 9 SCC 439.

11. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has

submitted that Party II has entrusted the operation

in the plantation area to specialized contractors

who engaged labourers on daily wages depending

upon the job and the contractor paid their wages,

exercised disciplinary control over them and

distributed the work and performed such other

duties and obligations in relation to such workers.

He further submitted that Party I workmen were

never engaged by them and that burden of proving

employer-employee relationship is on the Party I

who set up a plea of existence of relationship of

employer and employee and the question whether

the relationship between the parties is one of

employer and employee is a pure question of fact,

which has to be proved by the Party I workmen

and in support thereof, he relied upon the cases of

(i) Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd.

vs. State of T. N. and Others and (ii) Nirtubai

Jayantilal Mahule (Smt.) vs. Head Master & Ors.,

2014(6) Bom.C.R. 425.

12. It is well settled as held in the case of Food

Corporation of India Workers’ Union, supra, that

there should be only ‘material’ and not ‘evidence’

as required by the Evidence Act. The phrases in

the Evidence Act viz. “duly proved”, “legally

proved”, or proved “beyond reasonable doubt” is

not required under Industrial Disputes Act in the

matter of marshalling or considering the material

placed before it. The only question is whether on

weighing the probabilities, the material placed by

the Party was acceptable or rendered probable.

There also cannot be any dispute as held in the

case of Ananda Bazar Patrika Ltd. supra, that the

definition of ‘workman’, in the Act of 1947 is an

inclusive definition. Every person employed in an

industry for a consideration to be considered as a

workman for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 save and except the categories of persons

specified to be exempted from the purview of such

section. To come within the definition of workman

under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, a person has to establish that there is a

relationship of master and servant or in other words

employer-employee relationship and that such

relationship must be for a consideration.

13. It needs no mention that burden of proof is

on the workman to establish employer-employee

relationship and where a person asserts that he is

a workman of the company and it is denied by the

company, it is for him to prove the fact and not for

the company to prove that he was not an employee

of the company but of some other person. The

relevant factors to be taken into consideration to

establish an employer-employee relationship as

held in the case of M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corp.

vs. Pragatisheel Engineering, passed in Writ

Petition No. 5167 of 1999 on 11-5-2016 by Hon’ble

Chhattisgarh High Court would include, inter alia:

(i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the

salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to

dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action;

(v) whether there is continuity of service and

(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether

there exists complete control and supervision.

14. Having regard to the above position of law,

it is apposite to scan whether the Party I are the

workman employed by Party II at its farm at

Mandrem, Pernem, Goa and whether there is

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

225

employer-employee relationship between them. The

Party I has examined Shri Puti Gaonkar on behalf

of the Union. He has claimed that the Party I

workmen were the members of the Union and that

the dispute was raised by the Union before the

office of the Labour Commissioner. He also stated

that the workers were doing manual work in the

farm such as planting the trees, watering the

plants, etc. and that they worked continuously from

the date of joining till their termination and the

management did not pay any legal dues in

accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. He, however denied the suggestion

that the persons whose names are mentioned in

the affidavit are not the employees of the Party II

and there is no employer-employee relationship

between the said persons and Party II and that

Party II had neither refused the employment nor

terminated the services of the persons concerned.

15. The Party I also examined Shri Jayendra

Sawant. He has claimed that he had initially joined

as a labour and thereafter promoted as a

Nurseryman and all the workers continuously

worked since the date of their joining and that the

Party II was not paying them minimum wages and

other benefits and after refusal of their employment,

the workmen approached the Union and addressed

a letter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Mapusa. He also claimed that all the workers

mentioned in the reference were doing manual

work of the farm such as planting the trees,

watering the plants, harvesting, etc. and at the

time of refusal of the services, the management did

not conduct any enquiry. In the cross examination,

he denied that the workmen have not worked for

Party II and there is no employer-employee

relationship and that Party I was not maintaining

any muster roll of the workers named in the

reference.

16. None of the Party I workmen have been

examined to prove the existence of employer-

-employee relationship between Party I and

Party II. Shri Jayendra Sawant is not the office

bearer of the union nor has been authorised by the

union or the workers to make the statement or to

depose on their behalf. Shri Puti Gaonkar has also

not produced any authority or resolution or

Bye-laws to show under what authority he has

verified the claim statement and deposed in the

said matter. The evidence of Shri Puti Gaonkar

clearly shows that he had no personal knowledge

about the activities in the farm. No documents

have been produced on record establishing

employer-employee relationship, although it has

been claimed by Shri Jayendra in the affidavit that

Party II was maintaining the muster roll and that

their attendance was marked and were paid

weekly nor privity of contract between the

employer and employee has been proved by

producing appointment letters, muster roll or any

other record to show that the Party I workmen

were selected, appointed and were working under

the supervision and control and were being paid

their remuneration by Party II. The documents,

namely certificate dated 5-4-2000 at Exb. 17 pertains

only to Shri Jayendra Sawant, who is not Party to

the reference and therefore does not support the

case of Party I.

17. Moreover, the copy of the order dated

17-12-2004 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 2004 at

Exb. 23 also does not prove that Party I workmen

were working for Party II as the same was filed

against Shri Jayendra L. Sawant and 5 others, whose

names are not disclosed to the Court. The minutes

of the proceedings at Exb. 25 mentions the name

of six workmen, however no corresponding

documents have been produced by Party I workmen

to prove relationship of master and servant between

members of Party I and Party II. The Party I therefore

failed to establish the factors enumerated above

for establishing employer-employee relationship

and that they are the ‘workman’ as defined under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that

they were employed with Party II at its farm since

the year 1995. The submission of Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.

Gaonkar as stated above therefore cannot be

accepted having any merits. It is therefore, issue

No. 1 and 4 are answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2 & 3:

18. The Party I has claimed that the Party II have

terminated the services of the workmen in w.e.f.

01-09-2002 in violation of the provisions of Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the

action of the Party II in terminating the services of

the workmen is illegal and unjustified. However,

the Party I have failed to prove the employer-

-employee relationship or that they were direct

employees of the principal employer. They have

also failed to prove that the Party II paid their

weekly wages and also controlled and supervised

their work. It needs no mention that the Party I

workmen have failed to prove that the wages were

paid by Party II or that the principal employer

controlled and supervised their work. The Party I

having failed to prove that Party II have terminated

their services w.e.f. 01-09-2002 and that the action

of Party II is illegal and unjustified, the above issue

No. 2 and 3 are answered in the negative.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

226

Issue No. 5:

19. The Party II in the written statement has

submitted that the dispute raised by Party I before

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa is not an

industrial dispute and therefore, the Commissioner

acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction in

entertaining a non-existent dispute. Shri Jitendra

Deshprabhu in Para 11 of his affidavit has reiterated

the same. He, however admitted that he never

attended the matter when it was before ALC,

Mapusa and is not aware if letter dated 9-6-2003

was addressed to ALC, Mapusa by the authorised

signatory of Party II and has no knowledge if any

representative of Party II had attended the

proceedings before ALC, Mapusa as many years

have passed. He also stated that he does not

recollect if he had written any letter to ALC,

Mapusa stating that the dispute raised by Party I

does not amount to an industrial dispute. No

evidence has been led by Party II that the dispute

referred is not an industrial dispute under Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and

therefore, the issue No. 5 is answered in negative.

Issue No. 6 and 7:

20. The Party I having failed to prove they are

the ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act employed with Party II at

its farm at Mandrem, since the year 1995 and

that the Party II terminated their services w.e.f.

01-09-2002 and that the said action is illegal and

unjustified, the Party I workmen are not entitled

for any relief.

21. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

The present reference stands dismissed.

Consequently, the Party I workmen are not

entitled for any relief.

(ii)

No order as to costs.

(iii)

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

———uuu———

Department of NRI

Office of the Commissioner of NRI Affairs

Order

No. Comm/NRI/511/18-19/205

Whereas, the Government vide Notification No. COMM/NRI/617/17-18/16 dated 05-01-2018 has framed

a Scheme called Goa Welfare/Pension Scheme for Seafarers, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the said

scheme) under which financial assistance in the form of gross pension is sanctioned to the beneficiaries.

Whereas, in terms of Clause 6 of the said scheme, 141 applications as indicated in the list annexed

hereto were approved by the Competent Authority for sanction in terms of the recommendations received

from the three member Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Commissioner for NRI Affairs.

Now therefore, the said 141 applicants are hereby cleared for grant of pension in terms of Clause 7(1)

of the said Scheme. The expenditure shall be met from Demand No. 02; Budget Head 2052; Secretariat

General Services; 00; 800–Other Expenditure; 03–Welfare/Pension Scheme for Seafarers; 50–Other Charges

(Plan).

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Padma Jaiswal, IAS, Secretary (NRI Affairs).

Porvorim, 31st May, 2018.

_______

ANNEXURE

Sr.

Name

Address

Form

Amount Recommended

No.

Smt. Jasmelina Ana

H. No. 110, St. Francis Vaddo,

1407

Rs. 500/- from April, 2017.

Fernandes

Sant Estevam, Tiswadi-Goa,

Tel. 2288315/9881283263

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

227

Shri Saluzinho

H. No. 1500/A, Salemaddem,

5016

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Benedicto Policqarpo

P. O. Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa,

Coutinho

Tel. 9011545749

Shri Santan Agnelo

H. No. 1091, Madel, Curtorim,

1443

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

D’Silva

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2787632/9075890408

Smt. Volga Fernandes

H. No. 1293, Shanti Niwas,

5010

Rs. 500/- from September,

Voddy, Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

2016.

Tel. 2763706/8408971886

Smt. Socorra Nhely

H. No. 407/1, Panzorcone,

5018

Rs. 500/- from May, 2016.

Curcinha Coutinho

Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

E Gomes

Tel. 286319/9822184220

Smt. Maria Isabella

H. No. 162, Adaovado, Majorda,

0781

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Ratos

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9657960180

Shri Ligrio Fernandes

H. No. 500/A, Comba Central,

5020

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Panzorconi, Cuncolim,

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 7507644512/9049131953

Smt. Joanita Catarina

H. No. 738, Biunsa, Cuncolim,

1485

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Vas e Dias

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2763093/9673751500

Shri Aniceto Servulo

H. No. 93, Novangully, Varca,

2154

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Jesus Nepomociano

Salcete-Goa

Gomnes

Tel. 9623910892

10.

Shri Julhey Brasil

H. No. 658, Pimplafol, Ambelim,

1934

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Vas

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9822142903

11.

Smt. Maria Esmeralda

H. No. 1016, St. Estevam, Goa

1595

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Menezes

Tel. 2288571/9527366370

12.

Shri Diago Fernandes

H. No. 138/A, Branza House,

1563

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Culsabhatt, Chandor,

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 7774965290

13.

Shri Cruz Patrocinho

H. No. 421/C, Coldem,

1661

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Coutinho

P. O. Navelim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9923282519

14.

Smt. Benedita Travasso

H. No. 719, 1st fatrade,

5015

Rs. 500/- from May, 2017.

P. O. Varca, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2845764/9823973738

15.

Shri Rui Victoria

H. No. 619/B, Passagem,

5017

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Joaquim Cardozo

Assolna, Goa

Tel. 8879452592

16.

Smt. Josefa Rosa Antao

H. No. 744, Collosso, Guirdolim,

5041

Rs. 500/- from April, 2015.

Chandor, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2784452/9881584489

17.

Smt. Luiza Afonso

H. No. 696, Bairo Palmar,

1589

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

St. Estevam, Goa,

Tel. 2287405

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

228

18.

Shri Antonio Agostinho

H. No. 223, Tolleaband,

1411

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Savio Pereira

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 7507684177

19.

Shri Silvester Diniz

H. No. 99, Coleamoddi, Amona,

3271

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Quepem-Goa

Tel. 982214513

20.

Smt. Martinho Leitao

H. No. 808, 2nd Fatrade,

1403

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

e Coutinho

Varca, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9922946417/2844478

21.

Smt. Brigida Edina Dias

H. No. 865, Palmar, St. Estevam,

5033

Rs. 500/- from May, 2017.

Tiswadi-Goa

Tel. 2287994/9689449076

22.

Shri Anthony Fernandes

H. No. 88, Cotto, Near Church

5063

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fatorpa, Goa

Tel. 9637836289/7057903567

23.

Shri Joao Dias

H. No. 35, Totmadem, Assolna,

5031

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2774439/9623268539

24.

Shri Teodosio G.

H. No. 109, Dandvaddo, Sirlim,

1497

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Gomendes

Dramapur, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2862057/9527776879

25.

Shri Menino J.A.G.

H. No. 200, Rodrigues ward,

1918

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Pereira

Cavelossim, South Goa

Tel. 9987838588

26.

Shri Jose Rasario

H. No. 556/A, Alemao, Xirro,

5088

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Ferrao

Carmona, South Goa

Tel. 9767248064

27.

Shri Estevao Roque

H. No. 142/1, Near Railway

5052

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Rodrigues

Gate, Velsao, Cansaulim, Goa

Tel. 2754192/9881607111

28.

Shri Antonio Menino

H. No. 408/B, 4th Ward, Colva,

5065

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

South Goa

Tel. 2788110/9763795550

29.

Shri Dioguinho Moises

H. No. 133, Sonar Bhat,

5091

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Goes

Quepem, South Goa

Tel. 9657176503/9923450991

30.

Shri Romaldo Aleixinho

H. No. 583, Orel, Assolna,

5056

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2773094/9850458774

31.

Shri Francis Afonso

H. No. 37, Duncolim, Seraulim,

5006

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Colva, South Goa

Tel. 2780759/9922294177

32.

Smt. Maria Cardozo

H. No. 55, St. Francis Colony,

5045

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Quepem, South Goa

Tel. 9822886426

33.

Smt. Sebastina Leitao

H. No. 176, Coddeawaddo,

5054

Rs. 500/- from July, 2017.

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9822589475

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

229

34.

Smt. Ninfa B. Colaco

H. No. 87/B, Silvas Vaddo,

5107

Rs. 500/- from June, 2017.

Velim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9423323511/2774379

35.

Smt. Santana Fatima

H. No. 552, Sonaulem, Shiroda,

5079

Rs. 500/- from August, 2017.

Menezes

North Goa

Tel. 2306802/9890512262

36.

Smt. Anunciacao

H. No. 770, 2nd Fatrade, Varca,

5059

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

South Goa

Tel. 9049830153

37.

Smt. Zita D’Souza

H. No. 422, Dandora, Cuncolim,

5071

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9673590942

38.

Smt. Ana Joaquina

H. No. 33/2, Acsona Ward,

5034

Rs. 500/- from June, 2017.

Pereira

Utorda, Majorda, South Goa

Tel. 9921974772/7083861953

39.

Smt. Aleixinha

H. No. 283, Laxette Uddo,

5101

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Varca, South Goa

Tel. 9049023844

40.

Smt. Constanciana

H. No. 797, Nuem Cola,

5087

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Canacona, South Goa

Tel. 9689467557/9881010305

41.

Shri Floriano Goes

H. No. 117, Condy, Quepem

5061

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

South Goa

Tel. 9922367578/9922252959

42.

Smt. Maria A. C.

H. No. 18, Pale, Velsao,

5117

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Moraes

Cansaulim, Goa

Tel. 9764330249/9890838783

43.

Shri Francisco Militao

H. No. 125, Novangully, Varca,

5113

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Vaz

Salcete, Goa

Tel. 9146160693

44.

Smt. Filomena

H. No. 178, Alamol Gudi,

5040

Rs. 500/- from September,

Fernandes

Paroda, Mullem, South Goa

2015.

Tel. 8411978455/9881281260

45.

Shri Joel Antonio

H. No. 602, Pedda, Nomeio Varca,

5120

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Rodrigues

South Goa

Tel. 8308213593/2772417

46.

Shri Joaquim Camilo

H. No. 848, Zuzegall, Cuncolim,

5007

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

S. Cardoso

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9545385573/9764787124

47.

Shri Mariano Jose

H. No. 124, Novangully,

5095

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Varca, South Goa

Tel. 2779453

48.

Smt. Justina Piedade

H. No. 142/1, Moddem Vaddo,

5094

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Moraes

Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 7218720559

49.

Shri Paulo S. Gonsalves

H. No. 329, Moll Avedem,

3483

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Quepem-Goa

Tel. 9823937624/9923058232

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

230

50.

Shri Aleixo Cipriano

H. No. 10/32/24/1, Varcondem,

2200

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Albuquerque

Ponda-Goa

Tel. 9850545212/9921871474

51.

Shri Conceicao Piedade

H. No. 57, Pedda Uttordoxi,

5043

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Varca, South Goa

Tel. 2772328/8550912566

52.

Smt. Fatima De Sa E

H. No. 2257, Comba Paricotto,

5085

Rs. 500/- from March, 2017.

Teixeira

Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9604810626

53.

Smt. Milagrina

H. No. 71, Near Health Center,

1750

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Gonsalves

Borimol, Quepem-Goa

Tel. 9527857522/9823459110

54.

Smt. Lodovina Juliana

H. No. 465, Tambdeg, Carmona,

5081

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

D’Silva

South Goa

Tel. 2844907/9922619352

55.

Smt. Sancia Fernandes

H. No. 101, Novangully, Varca,

5126

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

South Goa

Tel. 8550906182

Smt. Branca Jaques

H. No. 248, Ranallem, Arossim,

5069

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Cansaulim, Goa

Tel. 2884099/9011384593

57.

Smt. Maria Aurita

H. No. 46/A, Near St. Esteven

5151

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

D’Costa

Chapel, Velsao, Cansaulim-Goa

Tel. 9423317663/9527992957

58.

Smt. Ivy Igada Telles

H. No. 641, Xirro, Carmona,

1567

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

South Goa

Tel. 2844181/7798099285

59.

Shri Pio Peter Vas

H. No. 579, Pedda no Meio,

5160

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Varca, South Goa

Tel. 2772456/8407994225

60.

Shri Walter Soares

H. No. 927, Molanguinim,

5064

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Cuncolim, South Goa

Tel. 9822164503/2866118

61.

Shri Fransquinho

H. No. 174, Oiliazotte, Sarzora,

5093

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Dias

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2864132/9158436872

62.

Smt. Mellacia Loretina

H. No. 1012, Tollecanto, Velim,

0628

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

D’Costa

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9689027472

63.

Shri Elias Angelo

H. No. 169/A, Azuband,

5077

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Castanha

Novangully, Varca, Goa

Tel. 9822583212

64.

Smt. Conceicao Da

H. No. 219, Socovaddo,

5076

Rs. 500/- from June, 2017.

Silva E Cardozo

Ambelim, Assolna-Goa

Tel. 2775157/7066110881

65.

Shri Pedro Peter

H. No. 26, Karally, Paroda,

5099

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Vanceslau Rodrigues

Quepem-Goa

Tel. 2869566/9822134260

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

231

66.

Shri Antonio C. P. L.

H. No. 874, Carxeta, Velim,

5103

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2773778/9503595696

67.

Smt. Flora Ana Piedade

H. No. 436, Damdora, Cuncolim,

5001

Rs. 500/- from May, 2017.

Fernandes

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9767737921

68.

Shri Taciano Andrade

H. No. 18, Caeiro Wado, Velim,

5078

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 7875678434

69.

Shri John Dias

H. No. 1034, Bacbhatt, Raia,

5124

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

South Goa

Tel. 78881488/9822143210

70.

Shri Antonio B. Mendes

H. No. 279, 2nd Palvem,

5097

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9763824090

71.

Shri Peter Francis

H. No. 800/1, Cutbona, Velim,

5147

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Cardoz

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 7507889702

72.

Smt. Ejita Fernandes

H. No. 3/73/3, Comba Paricotto,

1694

Rs. 500/- from October, 2017.

Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9921689844/9850123932

73.

Shri Francisco A. S.

H. No. 180, Ranvaddo,

3516

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Rogtao

Betalbatim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 8975155084

74.

Smt. Vionacia Fernandes H. No. 160, Palcutta Football

5203

Rs. 500/- from November, 2017.

Ground, Orlim, Goa

Tel. 2778097/7507802311/

/9527992740

75.

Shri Zalmes J. T. Lopes

H. No. M-78, Housing Board

5060

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Colony, Gogol, Margao-Goa

Tel. 2752342/8308503396

76.

Smt. Maria F. Ragtao

H. No. 161, Ranvaddo,

3517

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Betalbatim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9921138674/9850151689

77.

Shri Paulo Juliano

H. No. 192, Calvaddo, Varca,

5152

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Rodrigues

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9049270476/7507057464

78.

Shri Antonio Mario

H. No. 714/B, 1st Fatrade,

5206

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Varca, South Goa

Tel. 9673400643

79.

Shri Anastasio

H. No. 41/1, Colleamoddi,

1293

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Amona, Quepem-Goa

Tel. 9673241941

80.

Shri Lenson Moises

H. No. 697, Dandevaddo,

5067

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Rodrigues

Nr. Corporation Bank,

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9075767431

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

232

81.

Shri Jose Fernandes

H. No. 355, 2nd Palvem,

5146

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2864190/9881810752

82.

Smt. Clivia Francisca

H. No. 428, Tamdeg, Carmona,

5110

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Filomena C. E Miranda

South Goa

Tel. 9850286191

83.

Shri Joaquim Nicolau

H. No. 73, MJ. Cottage,

5141

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Pacheco

Zorriwaddo, Nr. Nagesh Auto

Garage, Navelim, South Goa

Tel. 2752943/9221819831

84.

Shri Pedro A. Fernandes

H. No. 2/343, Bathiem,

5181

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9881886360

85.

Shri Pedro Antonio

H. No. 3, Near GPS Molcarnem,

5068

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Rodrigues

Quepem-Goa

Tel. 2678227/8847750158

86.

Smt. Sebastina

H. No. 39/1, Naik Waddo,

5164

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Velim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2773616/9689027534

87.

Smt. Josinha

H. No. 1763, Buring, Savorcotto,

5125

Rs. 500/- from October, 2017.

Mascarenhas

Cuncolim-Goa

Tel. 7798674396

88.

Smt. Alexandrina E

H. No. 293, Near Railway Station,

5144

Rs. 500/- from October, 2017.

D’Costa

Ultima Parte, Calata, Majorda-Goa

Tel. 2881079/9623021113

89.

Smt. Ana Maria

H. No. 1133, New Durga,

5118

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

D’Soza

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9850472502/9881461678

90.

Shri Andre A. Rodrigues

H. No. 26/1, Pale Velsao,

5070

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Cansaulim-Goa

Tel. 2884061/9881392737

91.

Smt. Piedade Pereira

H. No. 163, Goleaband, Velim

5167

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9049027779/9822477305

92.

Shri Joao N. Diniz

H. No. 939, Sibrete, Velim,

5176

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2773683/9881238856

93.

Shri Joao M. S. Dias

H. No. 1639, Tambdighat,

5188

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Usgao, Ponda-Goa

Tel. 9404531708/9923749177

94.

Shri Pedro Dias

H. No. 2, Nwewaddo,

5169

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Molcarenem, Quepem-Goa

Tel. 2678211/8975370894/

/9552915087

95.

Shri Franclino F. X.

H. No. 86, Nr. Police Station,

5072

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Goes

Condy, Quepem-Goa

Tel. 2662032/9673555475

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

233

96.

Shri Antonio Gabriel

H. No. 597, Bandfoll,

5089

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Dias

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9657962437

97.

Shri Benjamin X.

H. No. 592-B, Murda, Cuncolim,

5037

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Torcato

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9850398487/2774701

98.

Smt. Santolina

H. No. 224, Copelabatt, Deao

5086

Rs. 500/- from October, 2017.

Fernandes e Luis

Quepem-Goa

Tel. 8975766185

99.

Shri Agnelo L. M. Da

H. No. 514, Minfoll,

5175

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Costa

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9420197026/2863662

100.

Shri Aleixinho Santa

H. No. 108, Novangully,

1619

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Tereza De Menino

Varca, Salcete-Goa

Jesus Fernandes

Tel. 9158347478

101.

Shri Constantino

H. No. 802, Nuem Cola,

5042

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Antonio Pereira

Canacona-Goa

Tel. 9881457894/9604237848

102.

Shri Lazaro Joao Da

H. No. 159, Palcutta, Orlim,

0897

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Costa

South Goa

Tel. 9922560940/9860038451

103.

Shri Manuel Joaquim

H. No. 1165, Mazil Vaddo,

5133

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Benaulim, South Goa

Tel. 9689579566/2771718

104.

Shri Hipolito Francisco

H. No. 124/A, Novangully,

1434

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Conceicao Fernandes

Varca, South Goa

Tel. 9049068290

105.

Smt. Pasquela Luizinha

H. No. 1000, Moddi Mandopa,

5008

Rs. 500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Navelim, South Goa

Tel. 9890310119/9623346861

106.

Shri Winston Anthony

Flat No. T-5, 3rd Floor, Madhuban 4455

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Dias

Complex, St. Inez, Panaji-Goa

Tel. 7768964916

107.

Shri Alelui Luis

H. No. 26, Zambaulim, Rivona,

1556

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Rodrigues

Quepem, South Goa

Tel. 9673581837

108.

Shri Vitor Ricardo

H. No. 311, Gonsai, Maina,

5005

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Carneiro

Curtorim-Goa

Tel. 8698455954

109.

Shri Arcanjo Francisco

H. No. 337, Near Civil Court,

5004

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Xavier Da Silva

Borimol, Quepem-Goa

Tel. 8975277933

110.

Shri Epifanio Salvador

H. No. 271, Bondorim, Behind

5003

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Afonso

Bondorim Bus Stop, Dramapur,

South Goa

Tel. 2765413/9657959760

111.

Shri Perpetuo Basilio

H. No. 86, Acsona, Seraulim,

1869

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Do Rosario Fernandes

South Goa

Tel. 2780753/9823179526

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

234

112.

Shri Wellington Soares

H. No. 7/A, Mollanguininim,

1417

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2763502/9850520213

113.

Shri Avelino Rodrigues

H. No. 677, Sonar Bhatt,

5025

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Quepem, South Goa

Tel. 8975388950/9075829070

114.

Shri Caetano Bento

H. No. 1, Ontir, Verna,

5024

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Fernandes

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 89757185821/9730506982

115.

Smt. Socoriana Pereira

H. No. 39/A, Igramol, Deao,

5038

Rs. 2500/- from June, 2017

e Fernandes

Quepem, South Goa

Tel. 9823456311

116.

Shri Jezuita Gabriel

H. No. 173/1, Fatima Wado,

1734

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Cardozo

Rivona, P. O. Quepem,

South Goa

Tel. 7588923322/7083770798

117.

Shri Milquez Pinto

H. No. 1137/A, Horta, Baradi,

5036

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Velim, South Goa

Tel. 99213113672774979

118.

Shri Evan Andrew

H. No. 837, P. O. Velim, Carxeta,

0851

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Newton Fernandes

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2758317/9923652771

119.

Shri Francisco Xavier

H. No. 1852, Amrut Nagar,

5062

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Antao

Chowgule College, Gogol,

Fatorda, Margao, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9049559524

120.

Shri Antony Socorro

H. No. 17/B, Capsontor,

5050

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Dias

Seraulim, South Goa

Tel. 2788820/9833279806

121.

Smt. Bela Fernands

H. No. 1673, Canon B, Falierio

5035

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Road, Ambaji, Fatorda,

Margao-Goa

Tel. 8975828251/9822982569

122.

Shri Alfredo S. B. De

H. No. 64, Capsantor, Seraulim,

1825

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Sousa

South Goa

Tel. 2788816/9763820405/

/9702136384

123.

Shri Jose Mario D’Costa

H. No. 300, Moll2, Guirdolim,

5092

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Chandor, South Goa

Tel. 9767377129

124.

Shri Zacarias V.

H. No. Villa B3, CD Neighbour-

5149

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Mazarello

hood, Gogol Housing Board,

Margao-Goa

Tel. 9892280232/9881343012

125.

Shri Julio Gomes

H. No. 19/1, Ratwado, Navelim,

5143

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

South Goa

Tel. 7030654946/9921646872

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

235

126.

Shri Pedro Fernandes

H. No. 1958, Masconi, Cuncolim,

5207

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9823971343/8007444764

127.

Shri Reginaldo T.

H. No. 318, Capleam Waddo,

5159

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Dourado

Ambelim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9867449633/9130593722

128.

Smt. Albertina Pereira

H. No. 92, Morod P. O Piedade,

5032

Rs. 2500/- from January, 2018.

Tiswadi-Goa

Tel. 9850475847

129.

Shri Antonio M. F. F.

H. No. 411, Mulleavaddo,

1933

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

X. Diniz

Assolna-Goa

Tel. 9923036166

130.

Shri Glorio Fabiao Dias

H. No. 190, Zoglawado,

5205

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Quepem-Goa

Tel. 7038156240

131.

Shri Joe Fernandes

H. No. 658, Gorcomorod, Velim,

5178

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9930935378/2773921

132.

Smt. Maria A. F. A.

H. No. 71, Nr. St. Anthony Cross,

2772

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Miranda

Dramapur, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 8007125952/9822715132

133.

Shri Menino X.

H. No. 623, Pedda, Dumotem,

1551

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Cardozo

Varca-Goa

Tel. 9823711470/2772442

134.

Shri Sebastiao Simao

H. No. 438, Goddar, Macasana,

1404

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Raposo

Salcete-Goa

Tel. 8554059801/2786853

135.

Shri Victor Anthony

H. No. 1076/D, Casa De Felia,

5055

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Cardozo

Palmar Grande, Bamaddo,

Chinchinim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9833902827

136.

Shri Antonio J. Piedade

H. No. 30/1, Ratwado, Navelim,

5057

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Gonsalves

South Goa

Tel. 8806048795

137.

Shri Antonio Vicente

H. No. 188, Piedade, Divar,

1548

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

D’Sa

Maddant, Tiswadi-Goa

Tel. 7744045354/2280757

138.

Shri Lawrie H. Pereira

H. No. 135, Gomes Ward,

1544

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Cavelossim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 2871690/9420297627

139.

Shri Milagres Luis

H. No. 550, Mazilvaddo, Nagao,

1406

Rs. 2500/- from April, 2018.

Britto

South Goa

Tel. 9545333624

140.

Shri Placido Cardoso

H. No. 167, Godgal, Ambaulim,

5074

Rs. 1000/- from April, 2018.

Quepem, South Goa

Tel. 9527430042/9604749144

141.

Shri Richelieu Candolina H. No. 281, Vaz Dourados,

5157

Rs. 1000/- from April, 2018.

Rodrigues

Ambelim, Velim, Salcete-Goa

Tel. 9823586550/2773595

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

236

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 6/11/2010-PER (part)/1777

On the recommendation of the Goa Service Board

and with the approval of the Government, the

transfer and posting of the following Junior Scale

Officer of Goa Civil Service is ordered, with

immediate effect and in public interest:-

Sr.

Name and present

Posted as

No. posting of the officer

Smt. Sangeeta Naik,

Deputy Chief Electoral

Assistant Chief

Officer. She shall hold

Electoral Officer

the charge of Assistant

Chief Electoral Officer

in addition to her own

duties.

The salary of the above officer shall be debited

against the Budget Head, Demand No. 06;

2015–Elections; 00–; 102–Electoral Officers;

01–Chief Electoral Officer, 01–Salaries (N.P.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 1st June, 2018.

________

Order

No. 22/3/2015-PER/1799

Read: Order No. 22/03/2015-PER dated 17-12-2015.

Whereas on the recommendation of Local

Departmental Promotion Committee held on

15-12-2015, the Governor of Goa was pleased to

promote on ad hoc basis, Junior Scale Officers of

Goa Police Service to the post of Senior Scale

Officers of Goa Police Service in the Pay Band-3

Rs. 15,600-39,100 with grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-, with

immediate effect vide order read in the preamble;

And whereas, the Local Departmental Promotion

Committee had kept the recommendation of Shri

Shamba M. Sawant, Dy. S. P., in the sealed cover

since the disciplinary proceedings were

contemplated against him;

And whereas, Shri Shamba M. Sawant, filed a

Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

at Goa for issue of direction to open the sealed

cover;

And whereas, the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay at Goa passed an order dated 30-03-2017

in Writ Petition No. 751 of 2016 to open sealed

cover and thereafter consider the petitioner’s

eligibility for promotion and proceed to act in the

recommendation therein by notional promotion and

grant the benefits and reliefs in accordance with

law;

And whereas, pursuant to the direction of

Hon’ble High Court, the sealed cover was opened

and in accordance with the recommendation of

the Local Departmental Promotion Committee, the

Government is pleased to promote Shri Shamba M.

Sawant on ad hoc basis to the post of Senior Scale

Officer of Goa Police Service in the Pay Band-3

Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 6600/- with

retrospective effect from 17-12-2015;

And whereas, the Directorate of Vigilance vide

memorandum No. ACB/VIG/Com-33/2014/2860

dated 19-10-2016 issued a chargesheet to Shri

Shamba M. Sawant on 19-10-2016;

And whereas, in terms of Rule 4(ii) of O. M.

No. 11012/9/86-ESTT(A) dated 24-12-1986 issued by

Department of Personnel and Training, Government

of India, if the Officer has not completed more than

one year on ad hoc service and if Disciplinary

Proceedings are initiated against him within a

period of one year from his ad hoc promotion, he

has to be reverted back to his original position;

And whereas, considering the above mentioned,

Shri Shamba M. Sawant is reverted back to the

substantive post of Junior Scale Officer of Goa

Police Service with effect from 20-10-2016;

Now therefore, pursuant to the above

instructions, Shri Shamba M. Sawant, shall be

entitled for arrears of pay and allowances for a

period from 17-12-2015 to 19-10-2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 5th June, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Sports & Youth Affairs

Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs

Order

No. SAG/ED/FA to I League Clubs/2017-18/68

Consequent upon Government approval, the

following Committee is formed to review the

performance of the Football Club(s) from Goa which

participate in the professional League/Tournaments

recognized and hosted by the All India Football

Tournament seeking financial assistance from

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

237

Government/Sports Authority of Goa under the

approved Scheme of the Government on the said

subject.

Secretary (Sports)

— Chairman.

Director of Sports & Youth Affairs

— Member.

Executive Director, SAG

— Member.

Jt. Director (Accounts), SAG

— Member.

Jt. Director (Coaching), SAG

— Member.

Under Secretary (Finance

— Member.

Expenditure)

The Committee will have powers to co-opt/invite

any expert in Football to guide the committee in

case there is a necessity.

The Committee will meet every six monthly to

review the progress made by the Club(s).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

V. M. Prabhu Desai, Director (Sports & Youth

Affairs) & Joint Secretary (Sports).

Panaji, 5th June, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Transport

Directorate of Transport

Notification

No. D. Tpt/5/25/89-TPT/PF/2018/3438

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 68 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) read

with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

(Act No. 10 of 1987), the Government of Goa, hereby

amends the Government Notification No. D. Tpt/5/

/25/89-TPT/PF/2017/5174 dated 23-10-2017,

published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 35,

dated 30-11-2017 (hereinafter referred to as the

“principal Notification”) as follows, namely:-

In the Principal Notification,–

(i) under the heading “(II) (A) Regional

Transport Authority for Panaji”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Panaji” the

expression “Dy. Director of Transport (North),

Panaji” shall be substituted;

(ii) under the heading “(II) (B) Regional

Transport Authority for Mapusa”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Mapusa”

the expression “Dy. Director of Transport

(North), Panaji” shall be substituted;

(iii) under the heading “(II) (C) Regional

Transport Authority for Bicholim”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Bicholim”

the expression “Dy. Director of Transport

(North), Panaji” shall be substituted;

(iv) under the heading “(II) (D) Regional

Transport Authority for Pernem”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Pernem”

the expression “Dy. Director of Transport

(North), Panaji” shall be substituted;

(v) under the heading “(II) (E) Regional

Transport Authority for Margao”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Margao”

the expression “Dy. Director of Transport

(South), Margao” shall be substituted;

(vi) under the heading “(II) (F) Regional

Transport Authority for Vasco”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Vasco” the

expression “Dy. Director of Transport (South),

Margao” shall be substituted;

(vii) under the heading “(II) (G) Regional

Transport Authority for Quepem”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Quepem”

the expression “Dy. Director of Transport

(South), Margao” shall be substituted;

(viii) under the heading “(II) (H) Regional

Transport Authority for Canacona”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Canacona”

the expression “Dy. Director of Transport

(South), Margao” shall be substituted;

(ix) under the heading “(II) (I) Regional Transport

Authority for Dharbandora”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM,

Dharbandora” the expression “Dy. Director

of Transport (South), Margao” shall be

substituted;

(x) under the heading “(II) (J) Regional

Transport Authority for Ponda”, for the

expression “Dy. Collector & SDM, Ponda” the

expression “Dy. Director of Transport (South),

Margao” shall be substituted;

This Notification shall come into force with

immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Additional

Secretary (Transport).

Panaji, 5th June, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 11

14TH JUNE, 2018

238

Department of Women & Child Development

Directorate of Women & Child Development

Notification

No. 2-103(69)-2017/DW&CD/2037

Whereas vide Notification dated 18-06-2015

No. 2-103 (69)-2014/DW&CD/03577, the Government

has constituted Child Welfare Committee (CWC),

South Goa with term of 3 years from the date of its

constitution. The term of the said committee

expiring on 23-06-2018.

The Government now on recommendation of

Selection Committee constituted under Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model

Rules, 2016 (Rule 87) read with relavant provisions

of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 (Section 27) herewith

constitutes Child Welfare Committee, South as

given below w.e.f. 22-06-2018. The CWC, South shall

take over/hand over complete charge on or before

22-06-2018.

Sr.

Name & address of the

Designation

No.

candidates

1. Ms. Lida Matilda Almeida Joao,

Chairperson.

H. No. 1001, Bainfol,

Assolna, Salcete-Goa.

Mobile No. 9422643930

2. Mr. Yashvantrao Balvantrao

Member.

Tavde, C/o H. No. 25, Matyewada,

Borim, Ponda-Goa.

Mobile No. 7507711397

3. Adv. Gopal Vishnu Malik,

Member.

A/5 Mallya Apartments,

Ganganagar, Curti, Ponda-Goa

Mobile No. 9921893331

4. Mrs. Milly Andrade,

Member.

H. No. 154, Vidyanagar,

Borda, Margao-Goa

Mobile No. 9850749303

1. The tenure of Child Welfare Committee shall

be 3 years to be reckoned w.e.f. 22-06-2018.

2. The non-official members are entitled to a

sitting allowance of Rs. 1500/- per sitting

per day subject to fulfillment of other

conditions. There will be no separate

TA/DA.

3. The CWC, South shall have sittings as

provided under Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Section

28) and as per procedure provided under

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Model Rules, 2016 (Rule 16).

4. The CWC, South shall have office/sitting in

the premises of the Apna Ghar, Merces,

Tiswadi, Goa and shall have jurisdiction

over Child Care Institutions situated in

South Goa.

5. The CWC, South shall submit the quarterly

information as per procedure provided

under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (Rule 17).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dipak Desai, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary,

(Women & Child Development).

Panaji, 6th June, 2018.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 28.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—85/150–06/2018.