Panaji, 21st June, 2018 (Jyaistha 31, 1940)
SERIES II No. 12
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies &
ex officio Joint Secretary
__
Order
No. 50/3/(56)/ELEC/BOD/GSEC/RCS/SZ/16/1026
Read: Letter No. 18-55-86/Elec/ARSZ/Credit/
/Vol.IV/2600 dated 16-02-2018 received
from Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
South Zone, Margao-Goa to fill the two
vacant post reserved for women Category
on the Board of Goa Shipyard Employees
Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Goa Shipyard Employees Co-op. Credit Society
Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama, Goa from the provisions of
Section 60(3)(b) of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act,
2001 for the term i.e. 2015 to 2020 by invoking the
powers under Section 126A of the Goa Co-op.
Societies Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 7th June, 2018.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
243
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Order
No. 1/13/2017-DHE/1110
Read: 1) Government Order No. 21/1/2012-HE
dated 01-08-2016.
2) Government Order No. 21/1/2012-HE/1532
dated 24-08-2016.
Government is pleased to transfer and post
Shri Kissan G. Gauns Dessai, Assistant Professor in
Computer Science, Government College of Arts,
Science and Commerce, Sanquelim-Goa on full time
basis to Government College of Arts, Science and
Commerce, Quepem-Goa from the new academic
year 2018-19 with effect from 19-06-2018 (b.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 8th June, 2018.
———uuu———
Goa Human Rights Commission
Proceeding No. 54/2017
Daily Proceeding Sheet
25-10-2017
By Inquiry Report/Order dated
Sr. No. 4
08-05-2017, this Commission made the
following recommendation:-
The State of Goa through its Chief
Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa, in
co-ordination
with
the
Chief
Conservator
of
Forests,
Forest
Department, Panaji-Goa, shall look into
the grievances of the complainant and
other similarly placed Rubber Tappers
and shall make consorted efforts
to resolve the grievances of the
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 11 dated 14-06-2018
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 14-06-2018 from pages 239
to 240 regarding Orders from Department of
Elections.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 18-06-2018
from pages 241 to 242 regarding Order from
Goa Legislature Secretariat.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
244
complainant and other Rubber Tappers
by regularizing their services and by
granting them retirement benefits in
accordance with law, without any
further delay.
By order dated 08-05-2017 (Roznama),
this Commission forwarded the Inquiry
Report to 1) The State of Goa through
its Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Porvorim-Goa and 2) The Chief Con-
servator of Forests, Forest Department,
Panaji-Goa, with a direction to
submit Action Taken Report within
90 days.
By letter dated 04-08-2017, the
Dy. Director (Administration), Office of
the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Forest Department, Panaji-
-Goa, prayed for extension of time by
30 days, which was granted.
The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Forest Department, Panaji-Goa
has not submitted Action Taken Report
even though more than two months
have passed after granting extension
of time.
The Chief Secretary, Government of
Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa, has also
not submitted Action Taken report.
The Chief Secretary, Government of
Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa, and the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Forest Department, Panaji-Goa, shall
submit Action Taken Report within 60
days.
A. D. Salkar,
J. A. Keny,
Acting Chairperson,
Member,
Goa Human Rights
Goa Human Rights
Commission.
Commission.
_____
Government of Goa
Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Forest Department
Gomantak Maratha Samaj Bldg.,
Panaji-Goa
No. 1-V-70-2016-18/164 Dated 10-04-2018
To,
The Under Secretary,
Goa Human Rights Commission,
Old Directorate of Education Building,
1st floor, 18th June Road,
Panaji-Goa.
Sub.:- Action Taken Report on regularization
of Rubber Tappers.
Sir/Madam,
With reference to your Notice No. 54/2017/1606
dated 16-03-2018 it is to state that this department
had already informed you vide letter No. 1-V-70-
-2016-17/4134 dated 06-11-2017 (copy enclosed) that
proposal for regularization and settlement of
pension of Rubber Tappers has been forwarded to
the Government for consideration.
Further it is to inform that the decision of the
Government is still awaited.
Yours faithfully,
P. D. Halarnkar,
Dy. Director (Administration).
Copy to: The Under Secretary (Forest),
Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa.
———
Government of Goa
Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Forest Department
Gomantak Maratha Samaj Bldg.,
Panaji-Goa
No. 1-V-70-2016-17/4134 Dated 06-11-2017
To,
The Under Secretary,
Goa Human Rights Commission,
Old Directorate of Education Building,
18th June Road,
Panaji-Goa.
Sub.:- Regarding regularization of service of
Rubber Tappers.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter
No. Proceeding No. 54/2017/977 dated 26-10-2017
and to inform you that Forest Department had
submitted a proposal for regularization and
settlement of pension for Rubber Tappers to the
Government for consideration and the Government
decision is awaited in this regard (copy enclosed).
This is for your kind information.
Yours faithfully,
P. D. Halarnkar,
Encl: As above Dy. Director (Administration).
Copy to: The P. S. to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim-
-Goa with the request to bring it to the
kind notice of Chief Secretary.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
245
Proceeding No. 131/2014
Daily Proceeding Sheet
13-11-2017
Complainant is present along with Adv.
Sr. No. 21
Aires Rodrigues. Adv. K. L. Bhagat for
is present Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3.
Respondent No. 4 is not present.
Adv. F. Gomes is present for Respondent
No. 5.
Shri Thomas Braganza, Junior Engineer,
is present for Respondent No. 6.
Adv. R. Parab is present for Respondent
No. 7.
The Director of Panchayats/Respondent
No. 2 had earlier filed a memorandum
giving direction to the Village
Panchayats to submit status report,
which is now taken on record.
The Respondent No. 5 and 7 have filed
Status Reports today.
We have heard the parties.
We have also gone through the entire
records of this case.
It would suffice to give recommen-
dations to the Director of Municipal
Administration and the Director of
Panchayats to take appropriate steps
to provide burial grounds and
crematorium grounds in all municipal
areas and Village Panchayat areas,
respectively.
Accordingly, we recommend that the
Director of Municipal Administration
and the Director of Panchayats shall
take urgent steps to ensure that the
crematorium grounds and burial
grounds are made available to all the
persons in the respective Municipal
areas and Village Panchayat areas so
that the basic human rights of all the
persons are protected.
The Director of Municipal Adminis-
tration and Director of Panchayats
shall submit Action Taken Report in
terms of Section 18(e) of Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, within 60
days.
The proceeding is disposed off.
A. D. Salkar,
J. A. Keny,
Acting Chairperson,
Member,
Goa Human
Goa Human
Rights Commission.
Rights Commission.
______
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(Municipal Administration)
Collectorate Building, Ground Floor,
Panaji-Goa 403001
Telephone Nos.: 0832-2427708
Fax: 0832-2225690
E-mail id:[email protected]
Website:- www.urban.goa.gov.in
No. 1/9/2009-UDD/Part-file/3028
To,
The Under Secretary,
Goa Human Rights Commission,
Old Directorate of Education Bldg.,
Panaji-Goa.
Sub.:
Proceeding No. 131/2014 daily proceeding
Sheet
Sir,
With reference to your Daily Proceeding Sheet
disposed off No. 131/2014 dated 13-11-2017, I am
directed to place before Hon’ble Commissioner, Goa
Human Rights Commission, Panaji-Goa, the Action
Taken Report in terms of Section 18 (e) of Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993 of all the Municipalities
in Goa for your perusal.
Yours faithfully,
Chandrakant Shetkar,
Additional Director.
Action taken Report of Proceeding No. 131/2014
Sr.
Name of the Municipal Councils
Action Taken Report
No.
1
2
3
1.
Corporation of the City of Panaji
Corporation of the City of Panaji informed that this Corporation
was never a party to the Proceeding No. 131/2014 and hence
this Corporation is not in the Position to file any Action Taken
Report.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
246
2.
Mormugao Municipal Council
Mormugao Municipal Council informed that Council has
already provided with the facilities of burial grounds and
crematorium grounds, the names of the locations are here
below:
1. Hindu Crematorium, Khariwada.
2. Kabrasthan, Maimollem.
3. Hindu Crematorium, Bogda.
4. Muslim Crematorium, Bogda.
5. Believers Crematorium, Bogda.
Private Organizations
1. St. Andrew Church, Vasco.
2. Candeleria Church, Baina.
It is further informed that Council has proposed new constru-
tion/development of crematorium, Kabrasthan/Graveyard for
Hindu, Muslim and Christans at Bogda and has already
completed 80% of the construction work through Goa State
Urban Development Agency, Panaji-Goa.
3.
Ponda Municipal Council
The Council has informed that the work of the Common burial
ground will be completed by the end of January, 2018. The
work remaining is plastering, tiling, painting and fixing gate.
(The site plan and layout plan is attached for perusal. The
photocopies of the present situation are enclosed).
4.
Bicholim Municipal Council
Council inform that this Council have already earmarked
100 sq. mts. area in Sy. No. 99/3, in crematorium at Pajwada,
Bicholim, for persons not professing any faith, by fixing
boundary stone on site. Also a board is fixed on site mention-
ing the same.
(The photographs of the same are enclosed herewith for
necessary action at your end).
5.
Cuncolim Municipal Council
The Council inform that vide resolution No. 10-A of ordinary
meeting held on 7th April, 2017 has identified the land under
survey No. 340/1(p) of Village Cuncolim to make arrangement
for burials and burial grounds, cremations, cremation grounds.
The development of the said plot will be taken up through
Goa State Urban Development Agency. Land under survey
No. 340/1(P) opposite garbage treatment plant. The said
property is in possession of this Council as such land admea-
suring an area 500 sq. mts. may be marked as public burial
ground and cemeteries. Thereafter prolonged discussion it is
resolved. “Be it resolved that land a admeasuring 500 sq. mts.
from the Municipal acquired property under survey No. 340/1(P)
may be marked for public burial ground and cemeteries”.
6.
Canacona Municipal Council
Chief Officer, Canacona Municipal Council informed that the
process of indentification of land is under process and will
be placed before Council meeting to take suitable action in
the matter and informed accordingly.
7.
Quepem Municipal Council
Quepem Municipal Council has proposed the burial ground
adjacent to existing crematorium at Condy in Sy. No. 90/1
Village Quepem of Quepem Taluka vide Council Resolution
No. 9 A.O.B. dated 26-10-2016. Thereafter Council has forwarded
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
247
the proposal to the Goa State Urban Development Agency
vide letter No. QMC/MUN/TECH/2016-17/5446 dated 26-12-2016
to take up the development of existing crematorium and
proposed burial ground for use of all Community at Condy,
Quepem. Council further to informed that the GSUDA have
considered our request and the process of appointment of
consultant for the said project is in progress as per the
information of GSUDA.
8.
Sanguem Municipal Council
The council has separate arrangement/sites for cremation
ground for Hindu Community, Kabrasthan for Muslim
Community and burial ground for the Christian Community
as the above mentioned burial ground landed property are
belong to the Sanguem Municipal Council that the crematorium
ground and burial grounds are made available and basic rights
of all the persons are protected by the Council.
9.
Valpoi Municipal Council
Council inform to the President of Crematorium/Kabrasthan/
/Cemetery within the Valpoi Municipal area requesting to
earmark 100 sq. mts. of land within Crematorium/Kabrasthan/
/Cemetery under their control for burial of dead bodies of the
person who are not following any religion/faith.
10.
Sanquelim Municipal Council
Council informed that vide resolution dated 05-05-2016 resolved
for allotment of 1000 sq. mts. area for the establishment of
common facility for cremation/burial of dead in different towns
at the Garbage Treatment Plant, Harvalem for this purpose.
11.
Mhapsa Municipal Council
Council inform that the said matter is processed by NGPDA
for land acquisition and Council has asked the present status
in the said matter to the Member Secretary, North Goa
Planning and Development Authority, Panaji-Goa and Council
requested to NGPDA to furnish present status of the said land
acquisition proceedings and clarify the role of this Council
in establishing common facility for crematorium/burial of the
bodies of the persons not professing any faith.
12.
Pernem Municipal Council
Council inform that in its Council Meeting has already identi-
fied that land for burial ground in property survey No. 498/3
but the identified plot is required to be confirmed as per survey
plan for which this Council has already requested the Inspector
of Survey and Land Record on 9-11-2017. Once the plot boun-
daries are confirmed by the Survey Department this Council
as per resolution will move for land acquisition for construc-
tion of burial ground.
13.
Curchorem-Cacora Municipal
This Council is not having any burial ground in his own
Council
property and already started the procedure for land acquisition
for all community burial ground at Survey No. 170/2, at
Ghadiwada, Kakoda-Goa, as per the letter received from
Collector/District Magistrate, South Goa. Further this Council
will initiate the action on war footing to acquire the said land
under the development of the same will be given to GSUDA
and the proposed crematorium ground and burial ground will
made available at basic right of all the person will be protec-
ted by this Council.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
248
14.
Margao Municipal Council
Council inform that pursuant to the directions given by the
Goa Human Rights Commission, Council entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Mormugao Municipal
Council so as to bury the dead because it did not have a
developed place of its own to cater to the needs of such
persons. This arrangement is being continued till date
without any hassles.
In the meanwhile the land which was acquired by the Council
to set up a Kabrastan for the Muslim has also not taken shape
because of stiff opposition from various group of people.
Within this land that was supposed to be developed for the
purpose of Kabrastan, a part of it was reseved as a burial
ground for such persons who were from different faiths. In order
to solve the impending imbroglio, the Hon’ble Chief Minister
of Goa had even convened a meeting of various stateholders
on 08-09-2017 (copy of minutes enclosed).
Council has all good intentions to comply to the directions
of the Goa Human Rights Commission and the moment the
work of Kabrastan is taken up, adequate care would be taken
to ensure that a decent burial ground having an area of
1000 sq. mts. is also developed by us.
Place: Panaji-Goa.
Date:
Chandrakant Shetkar,
Additional Director.
______
No. 19/DP/HRC/Proceeding No. 131/2014/18/2268
Government of Goa,
Directorate of Panchayats,
Junta House, 3rd Floor, 3rd lift,
Panaji-Goa.
Date: 05-04-2018.
To,
The Under Secretary,
Goa Human Rights Commission,
Old Education Building,
Panaji-Goa.
Sub.: Non-submission of action taken report in proceeding No. 131/2014.
Sir/Madam,
In continuation to this office letter No. 19/DP/HRC/Proceeding No. 131/2014/2001 dated 21-03-2018,
enclosed find herewith the status report in respect of burial grounds/cremation submitted by all the
Village Panchayats through their respective Block Development Officers for information and necessary
action.
Yours faithfully,
Ajit Panchawadkar,
Director of Panchayats.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
249
Blockwise status report regarding Burial Grounds/Cremation
PONDA BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. V. P. Bandora
Place for burial
Place for cremation
Yes, some portion reserved inside the
is available
is available
crematorium at Bandora.
2. V. P. Betora-
Betora, Nirankal
Betora, Nirankal,
Panchayat has reserved portion/place
-Nirankal
Conxem, Codar
Conxem, Codar
for person not professing any faith in
each of this cremation and burial.
3. V. P. Betqui-
Kabarasthan availa-
Cremation grounds
Yes, Amayewada, Candola.
-Candola
ble in the jurisdiction
available
of V. P./cemenery not
available in the
jurisdiction of V. P.
4. V. P. Bhoma-
V. P. Bhoma-Adcolna
V. P. Bhoma-Adcolna
Yes, place/portion reserved at Bhoma
-Adcolna
at Bhoma Cremato-
at Bhoma Cremato-
crematorium and for Muslims
rium
rium
Kabrasthan facility is available at
Muslimwada, Bhoma.
5. V. P. Borim
Private Crematorium
1) V. P. Borim
Yes.
(Church Property)
crematorium
2) Christian cemetery
at Betkim-Borim
6. V. P. Cundaim
In V. P. Cundaim
In V. P. Cundaim
Yes, portion/place reserved by Village
Jurisdiction there
Jurisdiction there is
Panchayat for person not professing
is facility for burial
facility for cremation
any faith for cremation and burial in
is available in all
is available in all
all crematoriums.
crematoriums
crematoriums
7. V. P. Curti-
1 at Nagamasjid
1 at Opa (private)
No.
-Khandepar
private
1 at Kadsal (private)
1 at Murdi (private)
1 at Prabhunagar
(private)
1 at Mestwada
(private)
1 at Nagzar (private)
1 at Kelbai (private)
1 at Copperwada
(private)
Deepanagar
Deepanagar
Yes.
(Hindu cremato-
(Hindu Cremato-
rium & Kabrasthan
rium & Kabrasthan
for burial acquired
for burial acquired
by Panchayat at
by Panchayat at
Deepanagar in
Deepanagar in
Sy. No. 83/0 and
Sy. No. 83/0 and
82/0)
82/0)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
250
8. V. P. Durbhat
Yes, at Agapur &
Yes, at Agapur &
Yes.
Durbhat
Durbhat
9. V. P. Marcaim
Marcaim
Marcaim
Yes, Honso, Parampai, Mahalwada,
Dutole, Aksan, Adan, Wadal,
(All private not owned by Panchayat).
10. V. P. Pancha-
Yes, at Panai
Yes, at Panai
Yes.
wadi
11. V. P. Queula
Not available
Kapileshwari cremato- Yes.
rium, Dhavali cremato-
rium, Galashirem
crematorium
12. V. P. Querim
No
V. P. Querim
Yes.
Arla-1
Satode-1
13. V. P. Shiroda
1. Karai St. Joseph
1. Chan crematorium
Chan crematorium survey No. 527/1.
2. Soncrem
2. Tarvalem crematorium
3. Bazar (muslim)
3. Shivnathi crematorium
14. V. P. Tivrem-
Christianwada-1 No. Juwarwada-2 No.
Yes.
-Orgao
Bazarwada-1 No.
Tariwada-3 No.
Madapai-1 No.
Deulwada-1 No.
15. V. P. Usgao-
1. Galiwada
1. Galiwada
1. Galiwada Usgao.
-Ganjem
2. Zarichawada
2. Zarichawada
2. Zarichawada Usgao.
3. Gossaviwada
3. Gossaviwada
3. Gossaviwada Usgao.
4. Panchawada
4. Panchawada
4. Panchawada Usgao.
5. Barajan
5. Barajan
5. Barajan Usgao.
6. Nanus
6. Nanus
6. Cosme Nanus.
7. Ganje
7. Ganje
7. Ganje.
16. Veling-Priol-
Veling-Priol-
Veling-Priol-
Yes.
-Cuncoliem
-Cuncoliem
-Cuncoliem
1. Parpatwada Cuncoliem in ward No. 2.
2. Mangeshi in ward No. 5.
3. Mardol in ward No. 6.
4. Simepaine Mangeshi in ward No. 4.
5. Gauthan Priol in ward No. 10.
6. Magilwada Priol in ward No. 9.
17. Verem-
No
Verem-Vaghurme
Yes, Sy. No. 48/1 Sada-wada
-Vaghurme
Savoi-vere.
18. V. P. Volvoi
No burial facility
Volvoi
Yes, place is reserved at Deulwada,
is available
Volvoi.
19. V. P. Wadi-
Yes
Yes
1. Kasswada.
-Talaulim
2. Vaddem.
3. Talauli.
4. Wadi.
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
251
PERNEM BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. Agarwada-
No
Yes
No
Chopdem
2. Alorna
Yes
Yes
No
3. Arambol
Yes
Yes
No
4. Casarvarnem
No
No
No
5. Chandel-
No
Yes
No
-Hasapur
6. Corgao
Yes
Yes
No
7. Dhargal
Yes
Yes
No
8. Ibrampur-
Yes
Yes
No
-Hankhane
9. Khajne-Amere-
Yes
Yes
No
-Porascadem
10. Mandrem
Yes
Yes
No
11. Morjim
Yes
No
No
12. Ozarim
No
Yes
No
13. Paliem
No
No
No
14. Parcem
Yes
Yes
No
15. Querim-Tiracol
Yes
Yes
No
16. Tamboxem-Mopa-
No
No
No
-Ugavem
17. Torxem
No
Yes
No
18. Tuem
Yes
Yes
No
19. Virnoda
No
Yes
No
20. Warkhand-Nagzar
No
Yes
No
BICHOLIM BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. V. P. Advalpal
No
No Final Rights are
No
carried out in their
own respective places
2. V. P. Amona
No
No
No
3. V. P. Cudnem
No
No
No
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
252
4. V. P. Mayem-
No
1. Gaonkarwada
No
-Vaiginim
2. Poira
3. Sikeri
4. Vainguinim
5. Haldanwadi
6. Bhavkar-Mayem
5. V. P. Mulgao
V. P. Mulgao, facility
V. P. Mulgao, facility for
No
for burial is available
cremation is available
in Survey No. 183/0
in Survey No. 48/0
at Shivolkarwada,
at Gaonkarwada, in
Mulgao, Bicholim-
Survey No. 229/0
-Goa
at Shirodwadi and
in Survey No. 183/0 at
Shivolkarwada
6. V. P. Naroa
Burial facility is
Village Panchayat
Yes, crematorium for a person not
not available
Naroa
professing any faith is already exist
at Tirth Totewada, Naroa, Bicholim, Goa.
7. V. P. Latam-
No
At Nanoda,
No
barcem
Latambarcem
8. V. P. Salem
No
No
No
9. V. P. Harvalem
The facility for
The facility for burial
No, any portion/place reserved by the
burial is available
is available in Survey
Village Panchayat for person not
in Survey No. 74/0
No. 74/0 Pratap nagar, professing any faith in each of the
Pratap Nagar,
Harvalem in the
cremation and burial grounds is
Harvalem in the
premises of Sankhali
identified.
premises of
Municipal Council
Sankhali Muncipal
Council
10. V. P. Sirigao
Not available
Sirigao
No
11. V. P. Navelim
No
1. Mastewada, Navelim
No
2. Bharoniwada,
Navelim
3. Ghongre Maina
Navelim
12. V. P. Karapur
Karapur-Sarvan
1. Nabhik Samaj
No
Sarvan
Crematorium at
Vithalapur-Karapur
2. Smashan Bhumi at
Vithalapur
3. Kudapwada &
Ghadiwada-Karapur
Crematorium
13. V. P. Mencure-
Mencure-Dhumashe
Mencure-Dhumashe
No
-Dhumashem
Panchayat not having Panchayat not having
burial facility
cremation facility
14. V. P. Ona
No
No
No
Maulinguem
Kudchirem
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
253
15. V. P. Piligao
Private burial grounds Village Panchayat
No
is available in V. P.
Piligao
Piligao
16. V. P. Surla
No
No
No
17. V. P. Velguem
No
V. P. Velguem
No
18. V. P. Pale
No
No
No
Cotombi
QUEPEM BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. Ambaulim
Yes, Chinchwada-
Akamol-Ambaulim
No
-Ambaulim
2. Assolda
Assolda and Xelvona Assolda, Xelvona &
No
Hodar
3. Avedem-
No
V. P. Avedem-Cotombi
No
-Cotombi &
& Chaifi, cremation at
Chaifi
Odxett
4. Balli-Adnem
Nil
Nil
Nil
5. Barcem-
No
No
No
-Quedem
6. Caurem-Pirla
No
Hindu crematorium
No
Caurem
7. Fatorpa-Quital
Burial facility is
Yes, facilities for
No
available for the
cremation is available
villagers of the
in V. P. Fatorpa-Quital
V. P. Fatorpa-
-Quital in V. P.
Balli-Adnem
8. Molcornem
Molcornem and
Molcornem
No
Nagvem
9. Morpirla
No
No
No
10. Naqueri-Betul Burial facility is
Yes, facilities for
No
available for Muslim
cremation is available
& Christian villagers
in ONGC compound
of the V. P. Naqueri-
V. P. Naqueri-Betul
-Betul
11. Xeldem
Tilamol village of
Ghanemarad village
No
Xeldem
of Xeldem
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
254
TISWADI BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. Azossim
Mandur church wado Sirerand Thorley bhat
No
Mandur
Azossim church wado
2. Batim
V. P. Batim in
V. P. Batim cremation
No
Gauncer wado
in Moula
3. Carambolim
Facility available
Facility available at
No
at Pether
Caribhat
4. Chimbel
Chimbel
Chimbel
No
5. Chodan-Madel
Chodan-Madel
Chodan-Madel
No
6. Corlim
Corlim
Corlim
No
7. Cumbarjua
V. P. Cumbharjua
V. P. Cumbharjua
No
Gaundaulim
Gavantwada
8. Curca-
1) Santan-Talaulim
1. Gawali-Moula
No
-Bambolim-
near St. Anna
-Talaulim
Church
2) Curca near Rosary 2. Arcar-Curca
church
3) Bambolim near
3. Molebhat-Curca
Belem Church
4. Wadwad-Curca
5. Nauxim-Bambolim
9. Goa Velha
V. P. St. Andre burial
There is no facility
No
is one in the Church
for cremation is
Cemetry
available in this
Panchayat. The same
is done at Sulabhat,
Agassaim
10. Goltim
Facility available
Facility available
No
Navelim
11. Merces
Merces Village is
Merces Village is
No
having burial facility having crematorium
for catholic
for Hindu Samshan
community at
Bhumi Voilembhat
church property
Meshtabhat
12. Neura
Church wada, Neura- 1. Gudi wada, Neura-
No
-O-Grande
-O-Grande
2. Neura-O-Pequeno
13. St. Lawrence
St. Lawrence, Agassaim St. Lawrence, Agassaim No
14. St. Cruz
V. P. St. Cruz
V. P. St. Cruz
No
15. Sa Matias
Facility available
Facility available
No
16. Se Old Goa
Facility available
Facility available
No
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
255
17. Siridao-Palem
Siridao-Palem
Siridao-Palem
No
18. St. Estevam
V. P. St. Estevam
V. P. St. Estevam
No
19. Taleigao
Church Cemetery
ST Crematorium
No
situated in V. P.
situated at Dona
Taleigao
Paula in V. P. Taleigao
SANGUEM BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. V. P. Bhati
V. P. Bhati
V. P. Bhati
Yes, Survey No. 8, Congarem-Bhati-
-Sanguem-Goa
2. V. P. Curdi
V. P. Curdi
V. P. Curdi
No
3. V. P. Kalay
V. P. Kalay
V. P. Kalay
Yes, This Panchayat has identified the
place in survey No. 150/0 at Thorlemol-
-Kalay, Sanguem-Goa.
4. V. P. Netorlim
V. P. Netorlim
V. P. Netorlim
Yes, V. P. Netravali selected site for
person not professing any faith in
each of this cremation and burial
grounds at Jamgalin Survey No. 107
of the village Netorlim which comes
in Netravali wildlife century. Letter
is forwarded to Dy. Conservator, wild-
life of forest wildlife department,
Margao-Goa for grant of land 2000 sq.
mtrs.
5. V. P. Rivona
V. P. Rivona
V. P. Rivona
Yes, V. P. Rivona requested to Comuni-
dade of Rivona & Colomba for the
portion of land to construct burial/
/cremation ground for the person
not professing any faith in each of
this cremation and burial grounds.
6. V. P.
V. P. Sanvordem
V. P. Sanvordem
No.
Sanvordem
7. V. P. Uguem
V. P. Uguem
V. P. Uguem
Yes, site identified at Cotarli-Uguem,
Sanguem-Goa.
SATARI BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. Bhironda
Vante Village under
Sit has identify and
Yes. (Provision made in future such
Sy. No. 110/1 & 38/1 application forwarded
type of crematorium).
to Collector, Panaji for
approval of grant land
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
256
2. Cotorem
Nil
Nil
Nil
3. Dongurli
Nil
Nil
Nil
Thane
4. Guleli
Nil
V. P. Guleli
No
5. Honda
Yes
1) Narayan Nagar Honda.
6. Mauxi
No
No
Provision has made in proposal for
construction of crematorium in
Sy. No. 60/2 at Kopardem forwarded
to Chief Architect at Altinho, Panaji,
Goa.
7. Morlem
No
Yes
No
8. Nagargao
Facility not
Facility available
No
available
(01 Crematorium at
Satode in
Sy. No. 7/1)
9. Pissurlem
Not available
Village Panchayat
Some portion/place of the existing
Pissurlem (Gaonkar-
cremation will be used for the person
wada, Kumbharkhan,
not possessing any faith.
Panshem, Shantinagar)
(4 No.)
10. Poriem
No
Yes
No
11. Querim
No
Yes
No
12. Sanvordem
Nil
Nil
No
MORMUGAO BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. V. P. Chicolna
V. P. Chicolna
V. P. Chicolna
No
Bogmalo
Bogmalo
Bogmalo
2. V. P. Sancoale
Sancoale
Sancoale
N.A.
3. V. P. Chicalim
V. P. Chicalim
Not available
No
1. St. Jacinto Island
2. Chicalim
4. V. P. Verna
Verna Church Verna —
No
Holy Cross
5. V. P. Cansau-
V. P. Cansaulim-
V.P. Cansaulim-
No
lim-Arossim-
-Arossim-Cuelim
-Arossim-Cuelim
-Cuelim
(Murdi Cuelim)
(Murdi Cuelim)
6. Nagoa-Salcete Cemetery of Our
Nil
Nil
Lady of Succour and
Good Success Church,
Nagoa-Salcete, Goa
in Sy. No. 23
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
257
7. V. P. Quelossim V. P. Quelossim
V .P. Cortalim
No
8. V. P. Cortalim
V. P. Cortalim
V. P. Cortalim
No
9. Velsao-Pale-
Velsao-Pale-Issorcim, Velsao-Pale-Issorcim,
No portion/place reserved by the
-Issorcim
facility for burial
cemetry at Velsao,
Panchayat.
is available
1 crematorium at Pale,
1 cemetry at Issorcim
10. Majorda
Two, Majorda &
No
No
Utorda Calata Utorda village
BARDEZ BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. Oxel
01 cementery-
03-Hindu crematoriums
Out fo 3 Hindu crematoriums, 2 are
owned by Church
publicly used by Hindu community
of Oxel for Christian
and 1 crematorium is used by only
community
one community (saraswat samaj),
there is no separate place is reserved,
but the crematorium situated at
Kuva Tali in ward No. 4 of V. P. Oxel
is used by general public. As on date),
this Panchayat has not received any
complaint on discrimination of dead
for cremation in this crematorium, as
informed by the Sarpanch and V. P.
Members.
2. Assonora
Modlo wado, Assonora, Moitem wado,
No
Bardez-Goa
Assonora,
Bardez-Goa
3. Ucassaim
Burial belong to
Cremation belong
No
Paliem Punola
the church
to the Hindu
committee
4. Verla Canca
No
2-Hindu crematorium
No separate place is reserved. This
in V. P. Verla Canca
Panchayat had not received any
complaint on discrimination of dead
in crematorium as informed by the
Sarpanch & Village Panchayat
Members.
5. Reis-Magos
Facility available
Facility available
As per the local inquiry and informa-
in Three Kings
at Sonarbhat in
tion given by the Sarpanch separate
Church in the
the jurisdiction of
crematorium is there for Hindu.
jurisdiction of Reis-
Reis-Magos maintai-
-Magos
ned by Village
Panchayat Reis-Magos
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
258
6. Nachinola
Place available for
Village Panchayat
No
burial belongs to
Nachinola, in
Bom Jesus Church,
Sy. No. 58/1 at
Nachinola, Bardez,
Borvon waddo,
Goa
Nachinola, Bardez,
Goa
7. Sangolda
Burial facility is not
Cremation facility
No
available in V. P.
is not available
Sangolda. Burials
in V. P. Sangolda.
are done at burial
Cremation is done
ground belonging
at crematorium
to V. P. Guirim
belonging to V. P.
Pilerne
8. Penha-de-
Salvador-Do-Mundo
Penha-de-Franca
No
-Franca
and Reis Magos
Church Cementry
9. Socorro
Yes
Yes
NA
1. Burial is belongs
1. 20 point programme
to Our Lady of
Socorro
Socorro Church
2. Vaddem Socorro
(Zoswaddo)
belong to Village
2. Burial is belongs
Panchayat Socorro
to Holy Family
Church near Electri-
city Department,
Porvorim
10. Assagao
1. St. Cajetan’s
Munang at Assagao
No
Church at Assagao
2. Our Lady of Miracle
Church at Assagao
11. Nerul
Christen Cemetri
Hindu Crematorium
No
belong to Our Lady
belong to Gram
of Remedious Church
Panchayat at Nerul,
Nerul, Bardez-Goa
Bardez-Goa
12. Siolim-Marna
V. P. Siolim-Marna
V. P. Siolim-Marna
No
13. Parra
V. P. Parra
V. P. Parra
No
14. Aldona
V. P. Aldona, burial
V. P. Aldona, crema-
No, as the crematorium and burial
ground is at Aldona torium are there one
grounds do not belong to the Panchayat.
and one at Calvim
at Corjuem and other
but both are maintai- at Quitula both are
ned by the respected
maintained by their
Roman Catholic
respective committees
Committees and not
and not by the V. P.
by the V. P. as no land
as no land is available
is available
15. Salvador do
Village Panchayat
Village Panchayat
No
Mundo
Salvador do Mundo
Salvador do Mundo
at Saviour of the
at Quitla, Badem-
World Church,
Charmanas and
Gangoz, Salvador
Salem Salvador do
do Mundo
Mundo
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
259
16. Nadora
No
Yes
No
17. Siolim-Sodiem
Yes
Yes
No
18. Tivim
1. Cementary at
1. Crematorium at
No
Cansa Lourdes
ward Cansa
Chapel
2. Cementary at St.
2. Crematorium at
Christopher church,
Madel
Tivim
3. Crematorium at
Volvonem
20. Arpora-Nagoa
Available at Holy
1 available at Arpora
No
Trinity Church,
and 1 available at
Nagoa
Nagoa
21. V. P. Moira
Moira Church
Moira, Crematorium
Yes
Cemetry, Moira,
at Pirazona-Moira
Goa
22. Candolim
Burial facility is
Cremation facility
No
available in V. P.
is available in V. P.
Candolim
Candolim
23. Pilerne-Marra
Yes
3 No’s of Crematorium
No.
Village Panchayat
belongs to Hindu Samaj
Not any portion/place reserved by this
Pilerne-Marra,
at
Village Panchayat for person professing
Bardez-Goa
i) Mainem
any faith
ii) Marra (old)
iii) Marra (new)
iv) 1 No. of Burial
Ground belongs to
Christian St. John
Baptist Church,
Pilerne
24. Guirim
Yes
Yes
No
25. Bastora
No
No
No ground is identified for cremation
and burial in V. P. jurisdiction
26. Pomburpa-
Cementary
Golna Palmar, Ecoxim
As & when place are identified/place
-Olaulim
at Olaulim
Bhatn Ecoxim
will be kept reserved for cremation/
Palmar-Pomburpa
/burial of body.
27. Revora
Yes
Yes
No
Burial facility for
2 crematorium for
Christian community
Hindu community for
at Our Lady of Victory all caste or creed at
Church cemetry
Ambode, sarvem
Khairat wada and
other at Tank wada
28. Anjuna-Caisua V. P. Anjuna-Caisua
03- Hindu cremato-
No separate place is reserved for the
is having 02 burial
riums
person not professing any faith in each
grounds i.e.
of this cremation & burial grounds.
1-owned by St.
Anthony Church,
Vagator
2-Owned by St.
Michael Church,
Anjuna
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
260
29. Colvale
There is only one
There are three
There is no any reserved place in the
cemetry for burial
cremation in the
Jurisdiction of V. P. Colvale any faith
in the jurisdiction
jurisdiction of V. P.
in each of this remation and burial
of V.P. Colvale
Colvale
ground.
1) Cremation at
Tarche-Galu, Colvale,
Bardez-Goa
2) Cremation at Tuar
wado, Colvale,
Bardez-Goa
3) Cremation at
Chiclaim, Colvale,
Bardez-Goa
30. Camurlim
Burial ground at
Cremations/Cremations
No
St. Rita Church,
ground at Sateriwado,
Justawado,
Camurlim, Bardez-Goa
Camurlim,
Cremations/Cremations
Bardez-Goa
ground at Darbarwado,
Camurlim, Bardez-Goa
Cremations/Cremations
ground at Vagalim,
Camurlim, Bardez-Goa
Cremations/Cremations
ground at Khairwado,
Camurlim, Bardez-Goa
31. Sirsaim
01-owned by
01-Sirsaim Crematorium No
Miracle Church
near Railway Station &
of Sirsaim &
01-Kumaune waddo,
01- Church of
Sirsaim
Bodiem
32. Saligao
V. P. Saligao
V. P. Saligao
No
33. Pirna
Burial grounds for
1. Crematorium for
No
Christian commu-
Hindu community
nity at St. Francis
for all caste or creed
Xavier’s Church
at Devarna, Pirna
Pirna (1 No.)
2. Crematorium for
Hindu community
for all caste at
Thorli Chandai
Pirna.
CANACONA BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. V. P. Cola
One church cemetery Nil
No
at Cabo-De-Ram in
V. P. Cola (burial)
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
261
One church cemetery
at Nuvem in V. P.
Cola (burial)
2. V. P. Agonda
1
One public Hindu
No
crematorium at Keri
Woil-Agonda in
V. P. Agonda Sy.
No. 54/1
3. V. P. Shristhal
One church cemetery Nil
No
at Vadamol in V. P.
Shristhal (burial)
4. V. P. Gaon-
Nil
Nil
No
dongrem
5. V. P. Cotigao
Nil
Nil
No
6. V. P. Poingui-
One Christian
One Kurti Sadolxem,
No
nim
cemetery at
Public Cremetorium
Galgibag in
in V. P. Poinguinim
V. P. Poinguinim
in Sy. No. 131/1
in Sy. No. 173/1
(burial)
One Christian
One Karegotton, Public
cemetery at
Crematorium in Sy.
Ordhafond in V.P.
No. 230/5
Poinguinim in
Sy. No. 272/2
(Burial)
One Christian
One crematorium at
cemetery of Our
Mahalwada in
Lady of Health
V. P. Poinguinim
Church at Chiplem
V.P. Poinguinim
(Burial)
One Christian
One crematorium at
cemetery of
Goindal near high of
Our Lady of
communidade
Rosary Church
Poinguinim in V. P.
at Sadolxem in
Poinguinim (Idle)
V. P. Poinguinim
(Burial)
7. V. P. Loliem-
One Christian
One Village Panchayat
No
-Polem
cemetery of Fatima
public crematorium
Retreat Center,
at Madditolop in
Shelim in V. P.
V. P. Loliem-Polem
Loliem-Polem
(Burial)
One Christian
cemetery of St.
Sebastian Church
at Loliem in V.P.
Loliem-Polem in
Sy. No. 85/1 (Burial)
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
262
DHARBANDORA BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. V. P. Collem-
V. P. Collem-Sigao
V. P. Collem-Sigao
No such portion/place reserved for
-Sigao
person not professing any faith in
any cremation or burial grounds.
2. V. P. Molem
V. P. Molem
V. P. Molem
No such portion/place reserved for
person not professing any faith in
any cremation or burial grounds.
3. V. P. Sancor-
____
Village Panchayat
No
dem
Sancordem, Mallem
Survey No. 40/0
4. V. P. Kirlapal-
Burial facility
Cremation facility
No
-Dabal
is available
is available at
for Christian
1. Dabal
Community
2. Santon
at Dabal
3. Codli
4. Talap-Wagon
5. Karmanem
5. V. P. Dhar-
No
Yes 1) Tamsado
No
bandora
2) Pratapnagar
SALCETE BLOCK
Sr.
Name of Village
Name of V. P.
Name of V. P. where
whether any portion/place reserved
No.
Panchayats
where facility for
facility for cremation
by the V. P. for person not professing
burial is available
is available
any faith in each of the cremation
and burial grounds is identified?
If yes, provide details
1
2
3
4
5
1. Ambelim
No
No
No
2. Assolna
Passagem, Assolna
Orel, Assolna
No
3. Aquem-Baixo
Nil
Nil
Nil
4. Carmona
Carmona
NA
No
5. Cavelossim
Holy Cross Church
Cremation is not
Nil
cemetery
available
6. Chinchinim-
NA
No
No
-Deussua
7. Dramapur-
Dramapur Church
Nil
Nil
-Sirlim
Sirlim Chapel
8. Davorlim-
Nil
Nil
No
-Dicarpale
9. Navelim
V. P. Navelim Christian NA
No
Cemetery (Our Lady
of Rosary Church,
Navelim)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
263
10. Telaulim
Nil
Nil
Nil
11. Varca
Burial facility is
No cremation is
No
vailable in Varca
available in Varca
Panchayat jurisdic-
Panchayat
tion Reprovaddo
Varca Salcete-Goa
(Our Lady of Gloria
Church Cemetery)
12. Orlim
V. P. Orlim
NA
No
13. Velim
1. St. Rock Church
1. Khoirot Bapsoro
No
Tollecarto
Rangalim
2. St. Xavier Church
14. Rumdamol-
Nil
Nil
Nil
-Davorlim
15. Cana-
V. P. Cana
NA
No
-Benaulim
Benaulim
16. Betalbatim
Betalbatim Church
Nil
Nil
Cemetary
17. Camurlim
Yes, burial place
No
No
belongs to Our Lady
of Candelaria Church
18. Chandor-
Chandor Cavorim
Yes
Yes, newly constructed under Sy. No.
-Cavorim
47/1 of village Cavorim.
19. Colva
Church burial for
No crematorium
No
christians at
facility is available
1st ward Colva
20. Curtorim
1. Cementry of
No
No
St. Alex Church
2. Cementry of
St. Rita Church
21. Guridolim
This Village Pancha-
NA
NA
yat have one number
of cemetery which is
of Church Our Lady
of Bethleham
22. Macazana
1 Cementry i.e. at
Nil
Nil
St. Francis Xavier
Church at Povacao,
Macasana
23. Nuvem
NA
Nuvem
No
24. Loutolim
Yes–Loutolim
No
No
25. Paroda
Nil
Nil
Nil
26. Sao Jose De
One christian
NA
No
Areal
cementary belongs
to St. Joseph Church
(private organi-
sation) in Sy.
No. 1/3 at Igorje
waddo of village
Sao Jose de Areal
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
264
27. Seraulim
V. P. Seraulim near
No
No
Seraulim Church
which belongs to
Seraulim Church
only for Christian
community
28. Sarzora
Our Lady of Assump-
Barcemoddi Sarzora
Nil
tion Church cemetery
29. Raia
V. P. Raia
Nil
No
30. Rachol
Yes, burial place
No
No
belongs to Our
Lady of Snows
Church
———uuu———
1
2
3
4
5
Department of Home
Home—General Division
—
Notification
No. 24/07/2018-HD (G)/1764
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31
of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
(Central Act 10 of 1994), and in supersession of
the Government Notification No. 1-2(9)94-LD dated
27-07-2001, published in the Official Gazette,
Extraordinary No. 2, Series II No. 17 dated 27-07-2001,
the Government of Goa hereby specifies the Public
Prosecutors mentioned in column (2) of the
Schedule below as Special Public Prosecutors, for
the purpose of conducting cases in the Human
Rights Courts for North Goa District and South Goa
District, as specified in the corresponding entries
in column (3) of the said Schedule, constituted
vide the Government Notification No. 1-2(9)94-LD
dated 20-06-1995, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 14 dated 6th July, 1995, with
immediate effect:-
SCHEDULE
Sr.
Name of Public
Courts in which cases
No.
Prosecutor
to be conducted
1
2
3
1. Mrs. Poonam Bharne,
Public Prosecutor,
Panaji
2. Ms. Clarita Simoes,
Public Prosecutor,
Panaji
3. Shri Subhash Dessai,
Public Prosecutor,
Margao
4. Shri Ladislau Fernandes
Public Prosecutor,
Margao
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 8th June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
—
Corrigendum
No. 11/19/2018-IND/196
Read: Notification No. 11/19/2018-IND/177 dated
25th May, 2018.
In the Notification referred in preamble cited
above, at Sr. No. ii shall be substituted to read as
“Deputy Director (Administration)”, Directorate of
Industries, Trade & Commerce.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 14th June, 2018.
1
2
3
Human Rights Court
for North Goa District.
Human Rights Court
for North Goa District.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
265
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/8/2018-LAB/385
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Mohit Ispat Limited, Plot
No. 1, Navelim Industrial Estate, Navelim Village,
Bicholim, Goa, and it’s workman Shri Vishant R.
Kamat, in respect of the matter specified in the
Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said
dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-
II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section
7(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Mohit Ispat Limited, Plot No. 1, Navelim
Industrial Estate, Navelim Village, Bicholim,
Goa, in terminating the services of
Shri Vishant R. Kamat, with effect from
13-09-2017, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 14th June, 2018.
________
Order
No. 28/11/2018-LAB/386
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Chowgule Industries Private
Limited, Fatorda, Salcete, Goa, and it’s workman,
Shri Anand P. Gaonkar, Technician, represented by
the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter
referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central
Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Chowgule Industries Private Limited,
Fatorda, Salcete, Goa, in terminating
the services of Shri Anand P. Gaonkar,
Technician, with effect from 17-12-2016, is
legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 14th June, 2018.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-III/377
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
30-04-2018 in reference No. IT/14/96 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, 8th June, 2018.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/14/96
Shri Sadanand A. Gaude,
Simepaine-Mangueshi,
Mardol- Ponda-Goa.
… Workman/Party I.
V/s
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
266
M/s C.M.M. Group of
Companies (Rapidur) Pvt. Ltd.,
Curti, Ponda, Goa.
(Since dissolved), by its successor
Beiersdorf India Ltd.,
Curti, Ponda, Goa.
… Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 30th day of the month
of April of the year 2018)
By Order dated 22-02-1996, bearing No. 28/2/96-
-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 the Tribunal for
adjudication.
(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. C.M.M. Group of Companies-(Rapidur)
Pvt. Ltd., Curti, Ponda, Goa in terminating
the services of the workman Shri Sadanand
A. Gaude with effect from July, 1994 is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/14/96 came
to be registered and notices were issued to both
the parties under registered A.D. post. Upon their
appearance, Party I filed the Claim statement at
Exh. 3 and Party II filed the written statement
at Exh. 6.
3. In short, the case of Party I is that Party II
had employed him as General Attendant w.e.f.
12-8-1987 and that the CMM Group of Companies
namely Beiersdorf India Ltd., earlier Rapidur Pvt.
Ltd., Wallace Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Colfax
Laboratories and CFL Pharmaceuticals jointly
formed the M/s Cosmed Analytical and Central
Services (C.A.C.S.), a partnership firm to cater the
common services to the CMM Group of Companies
and that all the temporary workmen were in
common pool and were deployed in various CMM
Group of Companies as per their needs and were
covered by common settlements and whenever
permanent vacancies arose in the group of
companies, these temporary workers were
confirmed as per the seniority lists. The Party I was
in the employment of CMM Group of Companies
and he has worked in various companies including
the Rapidur Pvt. Ltd. and at the time of refusal of
employment, he was covered by the settlement
dated 28-2-1995.
4. It is further the case of Party I that on 28-7-1994
while returning from the duty he had taken three
empty gunny bags which were collected officially
and to protect them from rains he had wrapped
them in a waste plastic. However, upon checking,
the company falsely fabricated the charges of theft
on him and was refused the employment. It is stated
that before the refusal of his employment no enquiry
was conducted nor the principles of natural justice
were followed and therefore the termination is
illegal and unjustified. The Party I at the time of
termination was not paid any legal dues nor was
any enquiry conducted by the management. The
Party I after termination was unemployed and could
not succeed in getting the job till date and is
undergoing hardship due to the unemployment.
The termination of his services is illegal, improper
and unjustified and therefore entitled to direct the
employer to reinstate him with full back wages
with continuity of services.
5. In the written statement, the Party II,
M/s. Cosmed Analytical and Central Services has
stated that the dispute is actually between the
workman and the employer, partner of M/s. C.A.C.S.
The said employer are rendering several services
to various companies including the units of Cosme
Mathias Menezes Group and it rendered services
such as engineering and analytical for testing of
raw materials, packing materials and finished
goods with requisite Government approval
and providing temporary labour force to
pharmaceutical units from time to time. The clients
of the employer firm has business of manufacturing
products whose demands fluctuates during the
year and wherever there is sudden spurt in the
demand for particular pharmaceutical products in
the market and as some pharmaceuticals unit are
unable to cope up with such sudden increase in
demands by increasing the production levels, are
obliged to engage temporary workers to tide over
such situations which are of short duration and
the higher production demands are met by
engaging temporary workers as packers and
helpers for packing operation. The Party I workman
was appointed for meeting exigencies of limited
period on account of sudden spurt in the demand
which is of temporary nature in order to cope up
with the additional workload to be completed with
the limited time and for limited purpose which
demand is not sustained for long period. The
engagement of the temporary workmen therefore
necessarily envisages discretion of the
management of the employer and no rights are
created in favour of the workman.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
267
6. M/s. C.A.C.S. received request from
M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. to recruit some temporary
workers and M/s. C.A.C.S. found Party I as suitable
candidate for temporary appointment as temporary
worker in the unit of M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd.
and accordingly, M/s. C.A.C.S. issued a letter
of appointment dated 17-6-1994 to the Party I
as temporary worker which was effective from
2-5-1994 wherein it was stipulated that the work
is purely of temporary nature and will last up to
30-6-1994 which was based on projections of
additional and occasional demand for products.
The workman worked with M/s. Beiersdorf India
Ltd. from 2- 5-1974 to 27-7-1994 as temporary worker
for around 65½ days inclusive of leave and
corresponding holidays. The services of the
workman were discontinued on 27-7-1994 when he
was found leaving the factory with an empty
plastic bag without any gate pass. The services of
the workman as per the contract as a temporary
worker were terminated in terms of the stipulation
in the contract for temporary service. The workman
was appointed on purely temporary basis for a
particular period of time and therefore he is not
entitled to claim benefit under the Industrial
Disputes Act. The workman was not in continuous
service with the employer. There was no illegal
and unjustified action on the part of the employer.
The Employer has paid daily wages as per the
contract. The workman is not entitled for any relief.
7. It is also a matter of record that Ld. Adv. for
Party II had filed an application that M/s. Beiersdorf
India Ltd. be added as Party II in the proceedings
as according to him Rapidur Pvt. Ltd. who was a
Party to the proceedings as per the order of
reference was amalgamated with Leukoplast India
Ltd. in view of the order of Hon’ble High Court and
the same is now known as M/s. Beiersdorf India
Ltd. and by Order dated 3-8-2000, M/s Beiersdorf
India Ltd. was added as Party II(2) in the present
proceedings as it became the successor to Rapidur
Pvt. Ltd. and as such the cause title came to be
amended.
8. M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. also filed the written
statement inter-alia contending that it is engaged
in manufacturing and sale of Pharmaceutical
products which fluctuates constantly. The employer
engages temporary workers to such situation and
higher production demands are met by engaging
temporary workers. M/s. Cosmed Analytical and
Central Services are rendering various services to
the companies like Engineering, etc. and the Party
requested said M/s. C.A.C.S. to depute workers for
engagement to meet the requirement of
additional workforce due to sudden and temporary
spurt in production. The Party I workman was
accordingly deputed for a limited period to meet
the demand of the above Party which was of purely
temporary nature. The workman was found on
27-7-1994 leaving the factory with an empty plastic
bag without a gate pass. The theft was reported to
the management of M/s. C.A.C.S. by the above
Party and was informed that the services of the
Party I workman were terminated in terms of the
contract. The workman was appointed on
temporary basis for a stipulated period. The services
of the workman were dispensed with as per the
stipulation in the contract. There is no illegal and
unjustified action on the part of above Party. The
Party I workman was not their workman and
therefore there was no termination at the instance
of above Party. There is no termination of services
of Party I workman and therefore he is not entitled
for any relief.
9. In the rejoinder at Exh. 7, the Party I denied
the case put forth by Party II in written statement.
10. It is a matter of record that the Advocate for
M/s. Cosmed Analytical and Central Services has
filed an application dated 12-3-2001 claiming that
it is not a Party to the reference and that they may
be allowed to withdraw their written statement
and that the proceedings may be continued as
against M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. No objection was
given by the other side and the application was
allowed and consequently, the written statement
filed on behalf of M/s. Cosmed Analytical and
Central Services came to be withdrawn.
11. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 8 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that he was
employed with the Party II M/s. Cosme
Matias Menezes Group of Companies
(Rapidur) Pvt. Ltd., as General attendant
from 12-8-87?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that the Party
II terminated his services w.e.f. July, 1994
which is illegal and unjustified?
(3) Whether the Party II proves that the Party
I was employed with M/s. Cosmed
Analytical & Central Services as a
temporary worker w.e.f. 2-5-94 to 27-7-94?
(4) Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?
(5) What Award?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
268
12. It is a matter of record that the issue No. 3
has been recast on 19-4-2013 at Exh. 45 as follows:
(3) Whether Party II proves that they had
engaged the services of workman through
M/s. Cosmed Analytical and Central
Services as a temporary worker effective
from 2-5-1994?
13. In support of his claim, Party I Shri Sadanand
A. Gaude examined himself and produced on record
a copy of gate pass dated 22-7-1994 at Exh. W-1, a
copy of Settlement dated 28-2-1995 at Exh.W-2, a
copy of list of confirmed employees of Party II at
Exh. W-3. The Party II also produced on record
through the said witness a copy of letter dated
28-7-1994 at Exh. E-1 and a copy of letter dated
4-10-1994 addressed to the Managing Director of
Party II at Exh. E-2. The Party I also examined Shri
P. Gaonkar as second witness and produced on
record a copy of Settlement dated 27-4-1993 at
Exh. 37 and a copy of list of 225 temporary workmen
at Exh. 38. On the other hand, the Party II examined
Shri Shivdam Singh as witness No.1 and produced
on record a copy of letter dated 27-7-1994 at
Exh. 42 and a copy of Declaration dated 27-7-1994
at Exh. 43. The Party II also examined Shri Pradip
Matha as witness No. 2 and closed their case.
14. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by Party I
as well as Party II.
15. 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 Affirmative.
Issue No. 2 …
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3 …
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4 …
As per final order.
Issue No. 5 …
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 & 3:
16. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the
Party I has submitted that the fact of employment
has never been denied by Party II as it is only their
case that they deputed the services of workman
from M/s. C.A.C.S. as temporary workman by letter
bearing No. TEMP/369/94 dated 17-6-1994 which
letter was never produced. Shri Sadanand Gawde
has deposed that he has been working with
Party II since 1987, which fact has not been denied
by Party II. The fact that the Party II had engaged
the services of workman through M/s. C.A.C.S. as
temporary worker with effect from 2-5-1994 has not
been proved nor so called appointment letter dated
17-6-1994 has been produced on record. He further
submitted that the CMM Group of Companies was
signing common settlements with trade union for
the entire group and no separate settlements were
individually signed by each group of companies
and therefore, the employer is the complete group
and every member become jointly and severally
liable for labour issues and when it comes to
termination, it would be the liability of the
company, who has terminated the workman, which
is M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. and therefore the
Party I has proved the above issue No. 1 and the
Party II has failed to prove issue No. 3 and therefore,
the same may be answered accordingly.
17. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for
Party II has submitted that the witness of Party II,
namely, Pradeep Matha in his affidavit has
mentioned the relevant facts of the case which has
not been denied in the cross examination, on the
contrary it has come on record that the temporary
employees were employed in the name of
M/s. C.A.C.S. and said position has been confirmed
by the Party I himself and since the services were
not terminated by M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd., there
was no actual employer-employee relationship
between the company and Party I and any dispute
should have been raised against M/s. C.A.C.S. and
not against Party II. He further submitted that
Party I gave no objection for deletion of
M/s. C.A.C.S. and are proceedings against a wrong
company. The Party I also failed to produce the
documents such as appointment letter, salary
voucher, confirmation letter, E.S.I. Card, termination
letter, P.F. Slip, etc. to prove that he was employed
with Party II and as such, the workman has no
privity of contract with Party II. Hence, he is not
entitled for any relief as against Party II,
M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd.
18. There is no dispute that Party I was working
with Party II at the time of alleged incident. The
Party II in the written statement has stated that
the Party I was deputed by M/s. C.A.C.S. to
Party II on temporary basis. There is also no dispute
that Party II refused employment to Party I after
the alleged incident on 28-7-1994 and therefore,
the factum of employment of Party I with Party II,
M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. has been duly established
by Party I. M/s. C.A.C.S. who has earlier filed written
statement has claimed that they have inadvertently
filed the written statement which may be treated
as withdrawn and that matter be proceeded as
against M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. The Party II has
not examined any person from M/s. C.A.C.S. to
prove that Party II had engaged the services of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
269
workman through M/s. C.A.C.S. as temporary
worker with effect from 2-5-1994 as it has been
specifically alleged that the workman was
appointed as temporary workman by letter dated
17-6-1994, which letter has never been produced
and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn
as against Party II and hence, the case of Party II
that the Party I was appointed as temporary
workman cannot be believed, more particularly
when it is an admitted fact that the workman had
worked up to 28-7-1994 in the factory, while it is
the case of the employer that he worked as
temporary up to 30-6-1994, which clearly negates
its case of Party I being appointed as a temporary
workman.
19. Shri Sadanand Gaude in his deposition also
clearly stated that he was working with Party II
since 12-8-1987 with breaks in between. He also
stated that he used to be called whenever Party II
used to call for temporary workers for work as per
seniority and whenever any permanent vacancy
arose in the group of the company, the Party II
used to appoint temporary workers as per their
seniority and since May 1994 he was appointed to
a regular post with Party II and he worked in the
said post till 28-7-1994 when the alleged incident
occurred. He also stated that along with him, there
were more than 100 persons working as temporary
workmen and they were confirmed in service
according to their seniority after consultation with
the union. He has produced the settlement dated
28-2-1995 signed by the Union with the partnership
firm. He also claimed that he along with four other
employees were confirmed by Party II. In the cross
examination, he denied the suggestion that he was
employed with Party II since 2-5-1994 as a
temporary worker and that he was not employed
prior to the said date with Party II at any time. He
denied the suggestion that his services were
terminated by M/s. C.A.C.S. and there is no
employer-employee relationship between him and
Party II.
20. The Party I also examined Shri Puti Gaonkar.
He claimed that he was the General Secretary of
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and he has signed the
settlement dated 27-4-1993 on behalf of workmen
of Party II at Exh. 37 and at the time of signing of
the settlement, a list of workmen of 225 workers
was prepared by Party II and the copy of the same
was given to him which is at Exh. 38 and that
pursuant to the settlement at Exh. 37, more than
150 workmen, whose names figure in the list at
Exh. 38 were regularized as per their seniority and
that Party I workman was one of the workmen who
was regularized as per the settlement at Exh. 37.
In the cross examination, he has admitted that the
settlement at Exh. 37 was signed by the
management of CMM Group of Companies and
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. He denied the
suggestion that the settlement was signed by
M/s. B. Brown and not CMM Group of Companies
and that the terms of the settlement are not binding
on Party II, so also that the Party I was not
regularized as per the settlement at Exh. 37.
21. A little peep into the settlement dated
27-4-1993 at Exh. 37 show that it was signed
between the management of CMM Group of
Companies, Ponda and Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh
in the matter of regularization of temporary
workmen. There is no dispute that as per para 3 of
the said settlement, it is mentioned that the
workmen of the other unit could be transferred to
M/s. B. Brown and such employee will follow the
working procedure of M/s. B. Brown. Clause 7 of
the said agreement also shows that in view of the
understanding arrived at between the parties as
above, the management has agreed to take 13
workmen from the list of temporaries on probation
w.e.f. 1-4-1993. It is however not known whether
the Party I workman whose name appears at
Exh. 38 is one of the workers who have been
regularized in terms of the said settlement. Be that
is it may, the Party I has sufficiently proved that he
was in employment with Party II employer since
1987 without any appointment letter as claimed
by him in his deposition and that in May, 1994 he
was given regular appointment. It has not been
denied in the cross examination that he was in
regular appointment from 2-5-1994. The letter dated
4.10.1994 produced by the Party II at Exh. E-2
addressed by Party I to Party II clearly shows that
he had been working with CMM Group of
Companies since last 7 years without any
complaint which fortifies the case of Party I that he
has been working with CMM Group of Companies
since the year 1987.
22. The witness, Shri Pradeep Matha has claimed
that the temporary employees were employed in
the name of M/s. C.A.C.S. and the services of the
said employees were placed at the disposal of
different factories of Party II Company as per the
need. He also admitted that till 1996, different
factories of Party II in the name of M/s. C.A.C.S.,
Colfax Laboratories, CFL Pharmaceuticals, Wallace
Pharmaceuticals, Rapidur Pvt. Ltd. and Leukoplast
Pharmaceuticals were situated in one complex and
that workers working in the said different factories
were covered by one common settlement. The
evidence on record therefore clearly shows that
different factories were situated in one complex of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
270
Cosme Matias Menezes Group of Companies and
the services of the employees were placed at the
disposal of different companies including that of
Party II and that the CMM Group of Companies
was signing common settlement with the trade
unions for the entire group and no separate
settlement were individually signed by each group
of companies and that the employer is the complete
group and every member would become jointly
and severally liable for labour issues and when it
comes to termination, it would be the liability of
the company who has terminated the services as
in the case of Party I workman who was engaged
by M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. It is therefore the
Party I has proved that he was employed with
Party II i.e. CMM Group of Companies, Rapidur Pvt.
Ltd. (M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd.) from 12-8-1987 as
its employee, while, the Party II had failed to show
that they had engaged the services of Party I
workman through M/s. C.A.C.S. as temporary
worker from 2-5-1994. It is therefore, the issue
No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and the issue
No. 3 in the negative.
Issue No. 2:
23. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Party I has
submitted that the Party II has stated in the written
statement that the services of Party I were
terminated on account of theft. The witness of
Party II, Shri Shivdam Singh, Security Officer of
M/s. C.A.C.S. has stated the Party I was found
leaving the factory with an empty plastic bag
without scrap gate pass and theft was reported to
the management of Central Services by the security.
The second witness, Shri Pradeep Matha has also
deposed regarding theft of empty plastic bag by
the Party I. It is therefore clear that the ground for
termination was alleged misconduct of theft. No
domestic enquiry has been held and therefore in
absence of domestic enquiry, the punitive
discharge is illegal and void and in support thereof,
he relied upon the cases of (i) Gujarat Steel Tubes
Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, 1980
(I) LLJ 137; (ii) Shri Dattaraya Kaluram Dedge
vs. The Union of India(Uoi), 2005 (2) Bom CR 14;
and (iii) Beck and Co. India Ltd. Ankleshwar
vs. S. J. Mehta, 1999 (2) LLJ 836.
24. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for
Party II has submitted that the matter is a case of
discharge simpliciter and no termination letter was
issued by M/s. Beiersdorf India Ltd. The services of
Party I was not confirmed. The Party I was involved
in a theft of plastic bags. The Party I had a gate
pass to take three empty gunny bags but not plastic
bags. The workman was involved in the alleged
misconduct. The defence of the workman that he
has merely wrapped the three gunny bags in a
plastic bag cannot be justified considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case. He also
submitted that the relations between the Party I
and the Party II had irretrievably broken down and
they have lost confidence in the workman and is
therefore not bound to take him back. In support
of his contention, he relied upon the cases of
(i) Podar Mills (Process House) vs. Kamlakar
Ganpat Sawant, 2002 LLR 340; (ii) Depot Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, 2007
LLR 113 and (iii) Victor F Parmar vs. Elecon
Engineering Ltd. 2000 LLR 582.
25. Admittedly, the Party II terminated the
services of Party I w.e.f. 28th July, 1994 after he
was found with an empty plastic bag without a
scrap gate pass. The Party II has examined the
Security Officer, Shri Shivdam Singh who has
claimed that on 27-4-1994, the workman was found
with an empty plastic bag without a scrap gate
pass. In the cross examination, he however stated
that the plastic bag was confiscated by the Security
Supervisor, Shri A. Fernandes and that he had
written a letter at Exh. 42 claiming that the
Party I was found in possession of empty white
plastic bag without scrap gate pass and the same
was kept in the security office. He has produced a
declaration dated 27-7-1994 stating that the
Party I was found in possession of empty white
polythene bag without scrap gate pass while
leaving the factory premises. He, however claimed
that the declaration does not bear his signature
and that he was not in the factory at the time
when Shri A. Fernandes, Security Supervisor had
written to the Personnel Executive of CMM Group
and after said letter was written, Shri Fernandes
phoned him and thereafter he came to the factory
and signed the letter and that the Party I was
having a gate pass at Exh. W-1 for three empty
gunny bags. He denied the suggestion that the
Party I had told the security supervisor that he had
only wrapped the gunny bags in a scrap plastic
cover because of the rains.
26. The second witness of the management,
Shri Pradeep Matha has also stated that the plastic
bag was found with the workman without a scrap
gate pass and that the workman was found with
empty plastic bag which is bigger than the normal
size and that it was from the Production. He claimed
that he had not seen the plastic bag and that in
the report at Exh. 42, there is no mention that the
plastic bag was from Production Department. There
is however no dispute that Party I had a gate pass
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
271
at Exh. E-1 for three empty gunny bags and that
one plastic polythene bag was also found along
with the gunny bags at the security gate. He denied
the suggestion that the workman was carrying only
a scrap plastic cover and that the plastic cover
was wrapped in gunny bags only to protect them
from the rain.
27. The Party II has however not proved that the
said plastic polythene bag belonged to the
Production Department having some tangible value
and that it was dishonestly taken by the Party I. No
witnesses from the Production Department were
examined to prove that the same belonged to the
company and the workman was guilty of stealing
the said plastic polythene bag. If there was any
intention of stealing the plastic polythene bag on
the part of Party I, it would have not found wrapped
to the gunny bags. The property involved is
extremely negligible and insignificant. The
polythene bag which was the subject matter of theft
is very worthless and the charge was trivial. It needs
no mention that even under Section 79 of Indian
Penal Code, under Chapter IV, General Exceptions,
offences of trivial nature are not taken note of. Even,
if it is considered that the Party I had taken the
polythene bag, the act of taking the polythene bag
may not constitute an offence of theft and even if,
the order of termination without holding enquiry
cannot be sustained, more particularly when the
workman had put in 7 years of service with Party II
and therefore, the refusal of service by Party II on
such a trivial ground cannot be sustained. In any
event, the Party I has also not been given an
opportunity to defend himself in the domestic
enquiry nor any domestic enquiry was held by the
Party II nor any findings has been rendered that the
property belonging to Party II was stolen by
Party I and that in the process he was caught at the
security gate. Therefore, in the absence of domestic
enquiry, the punitive discharge of Party I workman
is illegal and void, besides the fact the charge of
theft of polythene bag has not been proved by
Party II.
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Gujarat Steels Tubes Ltd., supra has held that the
punitive discharge is prohibited unless an
opportunity to show cause against charges of
misconduct is afforded. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of V. P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and
Others, 2001 (1) SC 272 has also held that a
probationer or a temporary servant is entitled to
certain protection and his services cannot be
terminated arbitrarily nor his services can be
terminated in a punitive manner without complying
with the principles of natural justice. It is well
settled in the case of D. K. Yadav vs. J. M. A.
Industries Ltd., 1993 SCC (L&S) 723 that no man
should be condemned unheard in order to prevent
authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights
of the person concerned and that no decision must
be taken which will affect the right of any person
without his/her being informed of the case and
giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward
his/her case as an order involving civil
consequences must be made consistently with the
rules of natural justice and fair play.
29. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for the Party II has
submitted that Party I has not completed 240 days
of continuous service in the preceding year as
stipulated in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act to seek any relief under Industrial Disputes
Act. However, the said provision of Section 25-B
will not attract to the facts of the present case as
Section 25-B which is under Chapter V-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act is applicable only for the
cases of lay-off and retrenchment as Section 25-B
opens with the words “for the purposes of the
Chapter”. It is therefore clear that the Section
25-B applies only when claim is made under
Chapter V-A of the Act. Moreover, to take benefit
of Section 25-F under Chapter V-A, the workman
must show that he has been continuous service for
“one year or more”, which is not applicable to the
case at hand as the cases for dismissal or
misconduct with or without domestic enquiry are
covered under Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act and have no relation to Chapter V-A
and therefore the concept of 240 days as claimed
by Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar cannot be extended
to cases of punitive discharge/dismissal for
misconduct.
30. The present case is the case of punitive
discharge and therefore the question of proving
240 days does not arise as rightly submitted by Ld.
Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I. Moreover, the
alleged temporary status of Party I also makes no
difference since it is the case of punitive discharge
and not the case where Party I is claiming
permanency. The reliefs under the Industrial
Disputes Act are not dependent on whether the
workman is temporary or regular appointee. Even
assuming that the workman was a temporary
workman, the domestic enquiry is required to be
made irrespective of the number of days he worked
as evident from clause 13(2) of the Model Standing
Orders (Schedule I) of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is therefore clear
that the action of the Party II in terminating the
services was a punitive discharge and in the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
272
absence of domestic enquiry, it is patently illegal
and non-est. It is therefore, issue No. 2 is answered
in the affirmative.
Issue No. 4 & 5:
31. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I has
submitted that the Party I workmen is entitled for
reinstatement with full back wages as the illegality
of termination has been established. He further
submitted that the workman was 32 years old in
1997 when he was illegally terminated and that
today his age is 52 years and therefore has 8 years
of service left in him considering the retirement
age to be 60 years as per Model Standing Orders
of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946. He further submitted that the workman has
pleaded as well as deposed that he is unemployed
which is the only requirement under the settled
law for claiming relief for reinstatement with
back wages as held in the case of (i) Deepali
Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors., 2014 II CLR 813
and (ii) Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors., 1978 STPL(LE) 9432 SC.
32. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for
Party II has submitted that the Party I is not entitled
for any reinstatement as relief of reinstatement with
back wages is not automatic even if the termination
of the employee has been found illegal or is in
contravention to the prescribed procedure and
therefore even if the company has not complied
with the necessary procedures, reinstatement
would not follow in such cases. He also submitted
that once the employer has lost the confidence in
the employee and the bonafide loss of confidence
is affirmed, the order of punishment must be
considered to be immune from challenge and the
reinstatement cannot be directed in the case of
loss of confidence. He further submitted that in
case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important
and what is important is the loss of confidence of
the employer in employee. The Party I workman
has lost the confidence of Party II who was involved
in theft of plastic bag without any gate pass and
therefore not bound to take him back and in
support thereof, he relied upon the cases of
(i) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal,
2014 (7) SCC 177; (ii) Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and
Others vs. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co.
Ltd., 2001 II LLJ 1239.
33. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase, supra,
the Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has held that if the order of termination is void ab
initio, the workman is entitled to re-instatement
with full back-wages. The relevant Para 22 of the
decision is extracted hereunder:-
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The re-
instatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or Court that the
action taken by the employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back-wages. If the employer wants to deny
back-wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back-
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer, would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back-wages including
the emoluments.”
34. In the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd., supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
where termination of service is questioned as being
invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through
the litigation, his capacity to sustain himself
throughout the protracted litigation is itself so
precarious that he may not survive to see the day
when relief is granted. If after such prolonged
litigation the workman is not paid his back wages,
it would amount to a penalty for no fault of his. The
workman whose service has been illegally
terminated would be entitled to full back wages
except to the extent he was gainfully employed
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
273
during the enforced idleness. If the termination is
illegal or motivated it may amount to unfair labour
practice. In such circumstances reinstatement
being the normal rule, it should be done with full
back wages and the Party objecting to it must
establish the circumstances necessitating
departure. The Tribunal will then exercise its
discretion, but the discretion must be exercised in
a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for
exercising discretion must be cogent and
convincing and must appear on the face of the
record. It should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful
but legal and regular.
35. The question therefore is what reliefs the
Party I/workman is entitled to, once it is held that
the refusal/termination is illegal, whether he 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.
36. Needless to mention, ordinarily a workman
whose service has been illegally terminated would
be entitled to full back wages except to the extent
he was gainfully employed during the enforced
idealness. The Court may substitute re-instatement
by compensation on justifiable ground viz. where
the industry is closed or where the employee has
superannuated or going to retire shortly and no
period of service is left to his credit or where
workman has been rendered incapacitated to
discharge the duties and is not fit to be reinstated
or when he has lost confidence of the management
to discharge duties. The case of Party II does not
fall in any of the categories mentioned above so as
to justify compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
The Party II was 32 years of age in 1997 at the time
of his termination in the year 1997 and therefore
he would be at the age of about 53 years as of now
and hence, he has over 7 years of service left in
him considering the retirement age is 60 years in
terms of Industrial Employment (Standings Orders)
Act, 1946 as held in the case of Sirsat Lodge vs.
Mashnu Gawade, 2014(6) Mh.L.J. 263.
37. The Party I has proved that the termination
of his services were illegal and without following
the principles of natural justice. The employer has
terminated the services of Party I w.e.f. 28-7-1994
when he was refused entry into the factory. The
workman has pleaded as well as deposed that he
is unemployed which is the only requirement for
claiming relief of reinstatement with back wages
as it is well settled that when the action of the
employer is in gross violation of principles of natural
justice, the Tribunal would be fully justified in
granting full back wages. There are no pleading or
evidence on behalf of the employer that the
workman was gainfully employed after the
retrenchment. It is also well settled that in cases
of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement
with continuity of service and back wages is a
normal rule. The company is still functioning
and is carrying on business at Ponda. The other
co-employees working with the workman were
regularized in due course as per the settlement
whereas the Party I workman was terminated on
false charges of theft without conducting a
domestic enquiry and therefore the submission of
Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar that the Party II has lost
the confidence in Party I and hence, cannot be
taken back is without any merits and therefore
cannot be accepted.
38. The Party I would have received benefits of
the settlement dated 28-2-1995 at Exh. W-2, had
his services not been terminated illegally. The
Settlement dated 28-2-1995 at Exh. W-2 to which
the employer was a Party was entered under
Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
therefore binding on all the workmen. There is also
no dispute that as per the settlement at Exh. W-2,
the Party I who was the General attendant was
covered under grade IV and as per clause 3 of the
settlement, grade IV employees were drawing basic
of Rs. 720/- with flat rise Rs. 150/-, Seniority Fixed
Dearness Allowance Rs. 200/-, Fixed Dearness
Allowance Rs. 1247/-, HRA @18% of basic Rs. 1296/-,
Transport subsidy Rs. 200/-, Education allowance
Rs. 180/-, Domiciliary Treatment allowance Rs. 95/-
which total comes to Rs. 4,088/- in addition there
is VDA as agreed at page 7 of the settlement at
Exh. W-2 which will take the average salary beyond
5000/- per month. The Party II has not produced
any documents including balance sheet to show
that it is running in loss, closed down or is in
severe financial doldrums or that the Party I has
been employed or secured better permanent
employment elsewhere. The Party I having proved
that the employer terminated his services illegally
and that the termination is motivated and found to
be invalid and that the employer has taken away
his right to work, contrary to the relevant law and
has deprived him of the earnings, the Party I is
entitled for the reliefs claimed.
39. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands allowed.
(ii) It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s. C.M.M. Group of
Companies-(Rapidur) Pvt. Ltd., Curti, Ponda,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
274
Goa in terminating the services of the
workman, Shri
Sadanand A. Gaude with
effect from 28th July, 1994 is illegal
and unjustified.
(iii) The Party II is directed to reinstate the
services of Party I, Shri Sadanand A. Gaude,
with full back wages, continuity in services
and consequential benefits attached to the
post.
(iv) The Party II is directed to deposit back
wages before the Tribunal as stated above
within 60 days of the publication of the
Award, failing which the Party II shall pay
an interest @ 9% per annum.
(v) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/373
The following Order passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
10-05-2018 in reference No. C-IT/31/10 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, 06th June, 2018.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AND LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Case No. C-IT/31/10
Smt. Seema R. Khandeparkar,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
Ponda, Goa.
… Complainant.
V/s
M/s. Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari
Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Maryadit,
Ponda, Goa
… Respondent.
Complainant represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar.
Respondent represented by Ld. Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye.
ORDER
(Delivered on this the 10th day of the month
of May of the year 2018)
This is a complaint filed under Section 33-A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. In short, the case of the Complainant is
that the Complainant was working as Packer
continuously with the Respondent since 14-07-1995.
The Union on 07-5-2010 made a representation
before the Managing Director of the Respondent to
stop the illegal deduction so ordered by the
Respondent from the earned wages, however no
action was taken and it continued to illegally
deduct amounts from the earned wages and after
the receipt of the said letter, the management
started harassing and threatening the workers. The
Union thereafter raised a dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ponda to intervene
in the matter. The Managing Director called and
threatened them that if they do not withdraw the
dispute raised before ALC, Ponda, then they must
not attend the duty from the next date and if they
attend the duty they would be transferred. The
Union thereafter issued another letter dated
19-06-2010 to the Managing Director requesting
him to stop the harassment and to take necessary
action in the matter of illegal deductions and non-
payment of the minimum wages.
3. The Officer of the Respondent, Shri Satish
Prabhu informed her not to attend the duty from
27-06-2010 and orally terminated her services
without any notice or one month’s notice pay and
that no gratuity/retrenchment compensation was
paid to her at the time of refusal of her employment
as required under the law. It is also claimed that
the matter regarding regularization of her services
is pending before the Hon’ble Tribunal under
Reference No. IT/36/2003 and therefore the
Respondent have violated Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the time of refusing
her employment. The Complainant on 30-06-2010
wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the
Respondent informing him the position and
explaining him that Shri Satish Prabhu had directed
her not to join the duty and had also informed him
that the matter in respect of regularization of her
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
275
services is pending before the Industrial Tribunal
under Ref. No. IT/36/2003 and hence, the refusal of
employment is illegal. The management had not
filed any approval application nor obtained the
permission from the appropriate authority. The
refusal of employment/termination is illegal,
unjustified and bad in law and the Complainant is
entitled for reinstatement with full back wages
and continuity of service. Hence, the complaint.
4. The Respondent filed a written statement
inter-alia contending that the Complaint is not
maintainable in law and on facts of the case and
that the Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the complaint. The
Respondent is a Co-operative Society registered
under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 as applied to the State of Goa and now
governed by the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,
2001. The Hon’ble Tribunal gets jurisdiction under
Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act during
the pendency of proceedings before it and that
they have not contravened the provisions of Section
33 of the Act nor discharged or dismissed the
Complainant for misconduct or altered conditions
of her service during the pendency of proceedings
before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Complainant
through her Union raised an industrial dispute in
respect of the same matter relating to alleged
termination of her service and that the Conciliation
Officer also started conciliation proceedings
purportedly under Section 12 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and that the Complainant/Union
withdrew the said proceedings and filed the
present complaint. The Complainant has also filed
an application under Section 4 of the Goa Shops
and Establishments Act, 1973 before the Authority
appointed under the said Act.
5. The Respondent are engaged in the purchase
and sale of agricultural produce such as areca nuts,
coconuts, cashew, spices and other agricultural
products produced by its members and other
agriculturists in Goa to provide remunerative prices
to the agriculturists and horticulturists for their
produce and that they are also engaged in the sale
of consumer and other goods in order to provide
the said goods to the public at reasonable rates.
The activities of the Respondent are aimed at
reducing the dependence of farmers and the
general public on middlemen and private traders.
They also engaged in social service and that
earning profit is not its motivating force or its aim
or object. They are also engaged in educating the
farmers about advanced technology and other
matters relating to agriculture and that these
activities are carried out through its Head office
and branches situated in different parts of Goa
and for the said purpose, the Respondent has
employed workers in different grades and
categories for performing various types of functions
assigned to them from time to time.
6. The Respondent has employed some persons
who are engaged on piece rate and casual basis
and are employed for cleaning the grains, cereals
and other similar materials, weigh the said
materials and pack them in packets of specific
weights. They are paid on piece rated basis in
accordance with their output i.e. the packets
packed by them. They are neither daily rated,
weekly rated or monthly rated employees of the
Respondent. They are offered employment as and
when available. They have no fixed working hours
and they are free to attend the work as per their
convenience. Normally, they approach the office of
the Respondent in the morning hours at the time
of opening and they are allotted work, if available.
They are paid at the end of the week as per the
volume of packets packed by them. They are not
employed on any sanctioned post and they are not
entitled to any other benefit like wage scales, leave,
etc. like other regular employees. The service rules
of the society are also not applicable to them, they
being piece rated employees. The eligibility criteria
for employment of regular employees are not
applicable to them as they do not have any lien on
service or right for regular employment in the
services of the Respondent.
7. The Complainant was one of such persons
employed at its Head office branch at Ponda, Goa
on piece-rate and casual basis and that she has no
legal right for regular appointment in service of
the Respondent. It is an established practice in the
organization of the Respondent that whenever
shortages are noticed in a particular establishment,
such shortages are recovered from persons working
in that establishment by proportionately making
deductions from their wages and as the
Complainant was employed at the said Branch, it
was decided to make proportionate deductions
from her wages also as per the existing practice.
However, the Complainant and some other persons
working with her resented to the deductions and
raised a false dispute through Gomantak Mazdoor
Sangh. The Respondent has not terminated the
service of the Complainant nor discharged or
dismissed her for misconduct and that Section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act has no relation to
the present case.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
276
8. The Complainant filed a rejoinder at Exhibit
5 denying the case put forth by Respondent in the
written statement.
9. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 6 are as
follows:
(1) Whether the Party I/Applicant proves that
she was in continuous service in the
establishment of the Respondent since
17-8-97 (sic. 14-07-1995)?
(2) Whether the Party I/Applicant proves that
her services were orally terminated on
27-6-10 as the union had demanded for
payment of minimum wages?
(3) Whether the Party I/Applicant proves that
the termination is in contravention of
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act?
(4) Whether the Party I/applicant proves that
her termination is illegal and unjustified?
(5) Whether the Party II/Respondent proves
that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal
with the matter relating to the employee
of the Co-operative Societies?
(6) What relief? What order?
10. In support, the Complainant, Seema
Khandeparkar examined herself and produced on
record a copy of letter dated 6-4-2002 to the
General Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh at
Exh. 11, a copy of order of reference dated 2-7-2003
at Exh. 12, a copy of letter dated 7-5-2010 to the
Managing Director of Respondent along with notice
dated 15-4-2010 at Exh. 13, a copy of letter dated
7-5-2010 to the ALC, Ponda at Exh. 14 colly, a copy
of letter dated 15-6-2010 to ALC, Ponda regarding
minimum wages at Exh. 15, a copy of letter dated
19-6-2010 to Managing Director of Respondent at
Exh. 16, a copy of letter dated 28-6-2010 to ALC at
Exh. 17, a copy of letter dated 30-6-2010 to Managing
Director of Respondent at Exh. 18, a copy of letter
dated 28-8-2010 to the Labour Commissioner in
respect of violation of Section 25H of ID Act at
Exh. 19. The Complainant also examined Shri
P. Gaonkar and produced on record a copy of Form
6-A for the period from 1st March 2010 to Feb. 2011
at Exh. 42.
11. On the other hand, the Respondent examined
Shri Ulhas Anant Umarye as their witness and
produced on record the copies of the documents
showing wages of the packers at Exh. 23 colly, a
copy of PF contribution of the workers at Exh. 24
colly, a copy of Provident Fund returns filed by
Party II at Exh. 25 colly, a copy of Service rules of
Party II at Exh. 26, a copy of the claim statement,
written statement, rejoinder and the evidence
recorded in reference No. IT/36/03 at Exh. 27 colly,
copies of the application filed before the
Commissioner of Labour and other documents at
Exh. 28 colly, a copy of letter dated 28-6-2010 to
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ponda at Exh. 29,
a copy of letter dated 27-9-2010 to the Labour
Inspector, Ponda at Exh. 30, copies of Roznama along
with minutes of meeting held on 11-8-2010 before
Commissioner of Labour at Exh. 31 colly, a copy of
Award dated 16-4-2012 at Exh. 32, a copy of written
statement at Exh. 33, Copy of statement dated
22-6-2010 at Exh. 34, copies of P.F. Returns at
Exh. 35 colly and copies of packing register at
Exh. 36 colly.
12. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by the
parties.
13. 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 Affirmative.
Issue No. 2 …
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3 …
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 …
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 5 …
In the Negative.
Issue No. 6 …
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
14. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the
Complainant has submitted that the workman has
worked for more than 240 days in the preceding
year and therefore is in continuous service within
the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act which has been proved by documents
at Exh. 24 colly, Exh. 35 colly, 36 colly and Exh. 43.
He therefore submitted that the Complainant was
in continuous service in the establishment of the
Respondent since 17-8-1997. He further submitted
that for workers who have been in employment
from long, their cases would be covered under
Section 25-B(1) of the Act and there is no need for
such workers to prove that they have actually
worked for 240 days in the last preceding twelve
months prior to the date of termination. The
Complainant had worked for nearly 15 years and
hence her case would be covered under Section
25-B(1) and therefore, there is no need to prove
that she actually worked for 240 days before her
retrenchment and in support thereof, he relied
upon the case of Sarita S. Melwani (Mrs) vs. Pallavi
V. Talekar & Ors., 2008 (1) MhLJ 522.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
277
15. Per contra, Ld. Adv. A. V. Nigalye for the
Respondent has submitted that the term
‘continuous service’ is defined in Section 25-B of
the Industrial Disputes Act and in terms of the
said provision, a workman shall be deemed to be
in continuous service for a period of one year, if
she, during the period of 12 calendar months
preceding the date to which calculation is to be
made, has actually worked under the employer for
not less than two hundred and forty days. The
calculation in the present case, has therefore, to
be made from 26-6-2009 and the Complainant has
to prove that she has put in a service of 240 days
from 26-6-2009 till 26-6-2010 i.e. the date of her
alleged termination. He further submitted that the
Complainant has not been able to prove that she
has worked for 240 days and that the retrenchment
for non compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act is illegal. The precondition for
applicability of Section 25-F is that the workman
should be in continuous service and should have
worked for 240 days during 12 calendar months
prior to the date of termination and the burden of
proving the said issue is on the Complainant which
she has failed to establish and therefore, the above
issue may be decided against the Complainant.
16. There cannot be any dispute that the
Complainant has been working for last 15 years
continuously in the establishment of the
Respondent as packer since 14-7-95 as stated in
the claim statement. The Respondent has however
claimed that the Complainant was employed on
piece rated and casual basis and not in regular
employment. Section 25-B(1) is a deeming fiction
which includes actual days in service which has
been proved by the Complainant by producing the
documents at Exh. 24 colly, which are Employees
Provident Fund contributions for the period from
March, 2009 to Feb. 2010, Contribution of Provident
Fund from 2001 to February 2010 at Exh. 35 colly,
Packing registers at Exh. 36 colly and Form 6-A for
the period from 1st March 2010 to Feb. 2011 at Exh.
43. Moreover, Section 25-B of the Act will not attract
in the present case as Section 25-B which is under
Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is
applicable only for the cases of lay-off and
retrenchment as Section 25-B opens with the words
‘for the purposes of the Chapter’. It is therefore
clear that the Section 25-B applies only when claim
is made under Chapter V-A of the Act. Moreover, to
take benefit of Section 25-F under Chapter V-A, the
workman must show that she has been in
continuous service for ‘one year or more’, which is
not applicable to the case at hand as the cases for
dismissal or misconduct with or without domestic
enquiry are covered under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act and have no relation to
Chapter V-A and therefore, the concept of 240 days
as claimed by Ld. Adv. Shri Nigalye cannot be
extended to the present case. The Complainant
having proved that she had worked for nearly 15
years and that she was in employment from long,
her case would be covered under Section 25-B(1) of
the Act and there is no need for her to prove that
she had actually worked for 240 days in the last
preceding twelve months prior to the date of
termination. The contention of Ld. Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye as stated above therefore pales into
insignificance. The above issue No. 1 is answered
in the affirmative.
Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4:
17. Learned Adv. Shri Nigalye for the Respondent
has submitted that the first hurdle that the
workman has to cross is to show that there is a
proceedings pending in the Industrial Tribunal and
that she is a ‘person concerned’ in such a dispute
and the workman has to further prove that she has
been dismissed/discharged from service for
misconduct or there has been an alteration in
condition of her service. He further submitted that
it is not the case of any of the parties in the
proceeding that it is a case of discharge/dismissal
for misconduct, on the contrary the entire emphasis
of the Complainant is that the termination of service
is by way of illegal retrenchment and it is a change
or alteration in the condition of her service. He
further submitted that it is a settled law that the
retrenchment will not ordinarily amount to
alteration of conditions of service and that the
workman has to prove that there are malafides in
the action of the employer. The Complainant has
admitted in the cross examination that there was
an enquiry before the deductions were ordered
and that the deductions were in respect of
shortages detected in the branch in respect of all
employees. There was no malafide and therefore in
the absence of malafides, the allegation that it is
the case of retrenchment amounting to alteration
of conditions of service and consequently, breach
of Section 33 cannot be treated as established.
18. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the
Complainant has submitted and rightly so that it
is the case of the workman of oral termination
amounting to refusal of employment and the
workman has alleged as well as deposed that on
26-6-2010, Shri Satish Prabhu, Officer of the
Respondent told them not to attend the duties
from 27-6-2010 as the union had demanded
minimum wages. The Complainant has produced
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
278
on record a letter dated 30-6-2010 at Exh. 18
addressed to the Managing Director explaining
how their Officer, Shri Satish Prabhu asked them
not to come for work and that they have not been
offered legal dues. The letter was not replied to
and the employer completely ignored the said
letter. Shri Ulhas Umarye has admitted that the
Respondent has received the said letter. The
Complainant therefore has discharged the burden
of proving the oral termination. Said Shri Satish
Prabhu who has orally terminated the services of
Party I has not been examined and therefore
adverse inference has to be drawn against the
employer.
19. Needless to mention, the Union on behalf of
the workmen has raised a dispute for regularization
of their services and extension of all the benefits
to the workmen which was registered as
IT/36/2003 at Exh. 27 colly. The order of reference
mentions the name of the Complainant at Sr. No. 7
and the said reference came to be decided by
Award dated 16-4-2012 at Exh. 32. It is therefore
clear that when the alleged services of the
workmen were terminated on 26-6-2010, the dispute
regarding regularization of the services was
pending adjudication and no permission was
sought of the Tribunal before termination of their
services and hence, the action of the employer is
in contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. It is also well settled in the case of
The Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Alibhai
Karimbhai and Ors., (1977) 2 SCC 350, that when
the employer resorts to retrenchment during the
pendency of a dispute, the retrenchment amounts
to alteration of conditions of service and such a
case falls under Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act as in the instant case, the employer
refused employment during the pendency of
their dispute for regularization under reference
No. IT/36/03, which was a matter connected to
their employment and therefore, the case falls
under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act.
20. It is mandatory upon the Tribunal to
adjudicate the complaint as if it was a dispute
referred to or pending before it in accordance with
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
Complainant was refused employment as evident
from the letter at Exh. 18 addressed to Shri Satish
Prabhu and if the contents of the said letter were
false or incorrect, the employer would have replied
to the said letter which was conveniently ignored
by them. The case of the Complainant was oral
termination of the services and it does not involve
any document to that effect. Smt. Seema has
deposed with regard to oral termination and
therefore burden of proof has been sufficiently
discharged by her. Shri Satish Prabhu who has
orally terminated the services has not been
examined on factum of oral termination of services
and therefore adverse inference has to be drawn
against the employer. Shri Umarye has admitted
that the letter at Exh. 18 by Smt. Seema was
received by the management but denied that
Shri Satish Prabhu asked the complainant not to
join duty from 27-06-2010, however he could not
have known what Mr. Satish Prabhu said to the
complainant as the said conversation was exclusive
between Shri Satish Prabhu and the Complainant.
It is therefore manifestly clear that the services
of the complainant was orally terminated on
26-6-2010 on demanding payment of minimum
wages and that the said termination is in
contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
21. The evidence on record clearly shows that
the services of the Complainant were orally
terminated on 27-6-2010. The Complainant has
stated in the affidavit that she was working as a
packer and was in continuous service since
14-7-1995 which is clear from her letter dated
30-6-2010 at Exh. 18 as well as in the statement of
claim in reference No. IT/36/2003 and that the work
carried out by her was of permanent nature. She
also claimed that she was never given any
appointment letter and that the Respondent
illegally deducted their wages and therefore they
made a representation before the management to
stop the illegal deductions and soon thereafter the
management started harassing and threatening
them. She also claimed that they raised a dispute
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner to
intervene in the matter of illegal deductions and
non-payment of minimum wages and that the
Managing Director called and threatened them that
if they do not withdraw the dispute, they must
not attend the duty and eventually on 26-6-2010,
Shri Satish Prabhu informed her not to attend the
duty and as such orally terminated her services
without any notice or legal dues. She admitted
that the workers were paid on piece rated basis
and they were not given appointment letter.
22. There is no dispute that Complainant was
working as a packer with the establishment and
that they were paid daily wages on piece rated
basis and that there was no fixed duty timing for
them. She also admitted in the cross examination
that the deductions were being done as there were
shortages. She admitted that they were not given
appointment letters by the Respondent, but denied
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
279
that she is not entitled to get an appointment letter.
She denied the suggestion that they have
manipulated the documents to create evidence.
The evidence therefore clearly shows that the
Complainant was working for the Respondent and
was orally terminated on 26-6-2010 and the said
termination was in contravention of Section 33 of
Industrial Disputes Act which is illegal and
unjustified. It is therefore the contention of Ld.
Adv. Shri Nigalye for the Respondent as stated
above pales into insignificance.
23. Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye for Respondent
has submitted that the Complaint itself is not
maintainable as it has been pleaded that the union
has raised an industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer in respect of the same matter
relating to the termination of the services and the
Conciliation Officer had started proceedings
purportedly under Section 12 of the Industrial
Disputes Act and that she subsequently withdrew
the said proceedings and filed the present
complaint. He further submitted that when there
exists multiple remedies in different jurisdiction
and the party avails of a remedy in one of the
jurisdictions, the proceedings must be pursued to
its logical end and should not be given up in the
middle and start another proceeding under another
provision or in another jurisdiction and that
Complainant having availed a remedy under
Section 12, she is barred from initiating another
proceedings under Section 33-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act. He further submitted that she also
filed an application under Goa Shops and
Establishments Act at Exh. 28 colly before the
authority appointed under the said Act in respect
of same subject matter and therefore it is evident
that the Complainant has filed the proceedings in
different jurisdiction and under different
enactments in respect of the same claim which is
not permissible and in support thereof, he relied
upon the case of Agra District Co-operative Bank
Ltd., vs. Prescribed Authority, Labour Court,
U. P. and others, AIR 2001 SC 239.
24. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for
Complainant has submitted and rightly so, that
the employer has not claimed that the proceedings
under the Industrial Disputes Act are barred
because of the proceedings before the Conciliation
Officer under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes
Act which was later on withdrawn or under Goa
Shops and Establishments Act, 1973 more
particularly when Goa Shops and Establishments
Act cannot override a central legislation. The
course adopted by the Complainant of approaching
the authority under Goa Shops and Establishments
Act and subsequently filing the present complaint
has no effect on the maintainability of the
complaint filed in the present case as the doctrine
of election which mandates that a litigant must
pursue only one remedy, if many are available has
no application when both remedies are concurrent
and if there is no inconsistency between the
remedies as held in the case of Transcore vs. Union
of India and Another, (2008) 1 SCC 125 and
therefore the reliance placed by Ld. Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye on the case of Agra District Co-operative
Bank Ltd., supra is not applicable to the case at
hand as the said decision does not lay down any
principle regarding subsequent remedy being
barred. Moreover, it is nowhere the case of the
Complainant that the complaint under Section 33-A
is barred because the workman has preferred an
appeal under Shops and Establishments Act. It is
therefore the above argument of Ld. Adv. Shri
Nigalye cannot be accepted having any merits.
25. Ld. Adv. Shri Nigalye has also submitted
that Section 33-A of Industrial Disputes Act is not
applicable in cases of termination simpliciter.
Relying upon the case of Air India Corporation
vs. V. A. Rebellow, 1972(1) SCC 814, he submitted
that the ban is imposed only in regard to action for
misconduct whether connected or unconnected
with the dispute. The employer is, therefore, free
to take action against his workman, if it is not
based on any misconduct on their part. He therefore
submitted that Section 33 of the Act is not
attracted in the case of termination simpliciter. He
further submitted that merely because discharge
for misconduct is permitted with certain
restrictions, it could never have been intended to
prohibit simple discharge totally. He further
submitted that when orders being of terminated
simpliciter and the services of the workman were
not terminated on the ground of misconduct, the
application under Section 33-A is not maintainable
as held in the cases of (i) Rajasthan SRTC vs.
Satya Prakash, 2013 (9) SCC 232 and (ii) National
Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. vs. P.D Vyasa, AIR
1964 Bom 184.
26. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar has
submitted and rightly so that the mandate under
Section 33-A read with Section 33 of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 has been explained by the
Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd.
vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 244.
He also submitted that the present case of the
Complainant falls specifically under Section 33(1)(a)
which reads that no employer, during the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
280
pendency of any conciliation proceeding before
the Conciliation Officer or any proceeding before
a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in
respect of an industrial dispute shall in regard to
any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to
the prejudice of the workman concerned in such
dispute, the condition of service applicable to them
immediately before the commencement of such
proceedings; and not Section 33(1)(b) for any
misconduct connected with the dispute, since it is
the case of the workman that employer had refused
employment during the pendency of their industrial
dispute for regularization bearing No. IT/36/2003
which was a matter connected to their
employment, in which the employer has altered
the condition of service.
27. When the employer resorts to retrenchment
during the pendency of the dispute, the
retrenchment amounts to alteration of condition of
service as held in the case of Bhavnagar
Municipality, supra. The reliance placed by Ld.
Adv. Shri Nigalye on the cases above including
that of Air India Corporation, supra is not
applicable to the case at hand as in that case the
employer had clearly alleged that the pending
dispute had no connection with termination of the
workman for which a complaint under Section 33-
A was filed by him. Moreover, in the said case they
were concerned only with the ban imposed against
the order of discharge or punishment as
contemplated by clause (b) of the two sub-sections
and there were no allegations of alteration of terms
of service of complainant, unlike in the present
case as the Apex Court was not dealing with the
situation under Section 33(1)(a) and therefore the
said case does not alter the position laid down by
the Apex court in the case of Bhavnagar
Municipality, supra.
28. The reliance placed in the case of Rajasthan
SRTC, supra is also not applicable to the case at
hand as the question which arose for the
consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether
the Tribunal was right in awarding reinstatement
with continuity in service in the proceedings under
Section 33-A of the Act which arose out of initial
breach of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and the said
case was a case of misconduct and falls under
Section 33(2)(b), unlike the present case which is
under Section 33(1)(a) and therefore it is also not
applicable. The reliance placed in the case of
National Machinery Manufactures Ltd., supra also
suffers from the same shortcoming as it is not a
case under Section 33(1)(a) as the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court while discussing Section 33 has in
express terms has stated that the case does not
deal with Section 33(1)(a) and has recognised while
discussing the scope of Section 33, the absolute
bar to alter conditions of service under Section
33(1)(a). It is therefore the contention of Ld. Adv.
Shri Nigalye and the reliance placed on the
citations above cannot be accepted nor it can be
said that Section 33-A is not applicable in cases of
termination simpliciter as claimed by him.
29. Ld. Adv. Shri Nigalye has further submitted
that the allegations in the complaint regarding
the alleged breach of Section 33 are vague and
ambiguous and though in the rejoinder, a passing
reference is made regarding contravention of
Section 33(1)(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, it does
not form part of the pleadings. He further submitted
that the contention of the Complainant that in
terms of Rule 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957, there is a provision for filing
a rejoinder by party raising a dispute and therefore
a rejoinder is a part of the pleadings cannot be
accepted in view of settled position of law and in
support thereof, he relied the cases of (i) Citizen
Aster Co-operative Housing Soc. Ltd. vs. Fredrick
J. D’Souza, 2005 (2) Bom CR 647 and (ii) State of
Maharashtra vs. Prakash Patil, 2006 (1) ALL MR
567.
30. However, as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv.
Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Complainant Rule 10-B(4)
of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957,
specifically provides for submitting a rejoinder, if a
party chooses to do so to the written statement by
a party raising a dispute, unlike in Civil Procedure
Code 1908 which has no provision for filing such
a rejoinder and therefore, statutory pleadings like
the rejoinder cannot be ignored as elaborated by
her in para 4 of the rejoinder. Moreover, at para 13
of the complaint, she has clearly alleged that there
is a violation of Section 33 and at para 10 all the
foundational facts have been pleaded and since
the foundation facts have been pleaded in the
complaint, there would be no effect of whether it
is taken in the rejoinder or not and therefore, the
submission of Ld. Adv. Shri Nigalye and the reliance
placed on the above citations will pale into
insignificance. The Complainant has sufficiently
proved that her services were orally terminated on
26-6-2010 as the Union had demanded payment of
minimum wages and that her termination is in
contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act and therefore is illegal and
unjustified. It is therefore issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
answered in the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
281
Issue No. 5:
31. Ld. Adv Shri A. V. Nigalye for the Respondent
has fairly submitted that in view of the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the
case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing
Finance Corporation Limited vs Prabhakar
Sitaram Bhadange (2017) 5 SCC 623, the
Respondent does not press for issue No. 5 that the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter
relating to the employee of the Co-operative
Societies. It is therefore, the above issue No. 5 is
answered accordingly.
Issue No. 6:
32. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Complainant
has submitted that there is violation of Section 33
of Industrial Disputes Act as the services of the
Complainant have been terminated without
compliance of Section 25-F of the Act and therefore
the necessary relief should be reinstatement with
full back wages as it has come on record that the
Complainant is not gainfully employed anywhere
and is of employable age and therefore, the
Tribunal must consider relief of reinstatement with
full back wages on the basis of last drawn salary.
He further submitted that Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act gives complete discretion
to the Tribunal to give relief as it deems fit and
while doing so the Tribunal should take into
account the factors namely, long service from 1995
onwards; perennial nature of work i.e. packing; case
of victimization since removed for demanding
minimum wages; no delay in filing complaints;
workmen are of employable age; non-employment
for so many years resulted in financial deprivation,
and in line with law laid down by Apex Court in
the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors.
(2013) 10 SCC 324, the Complainant must be
reinstated with full back wages.
33. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri Nigalye for
Respondent has submitted that the Complainant
is a piece rated employee and her status is even
lower than a daily wager and it is well settled that
a daily wager is not appointed to a post and she
cannot claim reinstatement in service which would
also apply to a piece rated worker. He further
submitted that there is nothing on record even a
letter from her to the Respondent or any application
filed to that effect before the Tribunal that she
made any efforts to join the duties as claimed by
her during her cross examination. The Complainant
therefore is not entitled for any relief and in support
thereof, he relied upon the cases of (i) Santosh R.
Shirodkar vs. Sanquelim Municipal Council,
through its Chief Officer, 2017 0 Supreme(Mah)
1579; (ii) In-charge Officer and Another vs.
Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126.
34. The question therefore is what reliefs the
Party I is entitled to, once it is held that the
discharge/termination is illegal, whether the
Party I 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.
35. 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 she was receiving during that
period, which would meet the ends of justice. In
the instant case, the Complainant was working
with Respondent as packer on daily wages since
14-7-1995 on piece rated basis without any fixed
duty timing as admitted by her in the cross
examination and had put in about 15 years of
service since the date of her termination on
27-6-2010 and the said termination had taken place
about 23 years ago. None of the parties have
produced the letter of appointment or her age on
record. There is no dispute that the Complainant
is daily wage piece rated workman and therefore
is not entitled to reinstatement in service at this
distance of time as held in the case of Santosh
Shirodkar, supra.
36. There is no dispute that the Complainant
was summarily terminated without paying any
legal dues as stipulated under Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Complainant was
drawing wages of Rs. 103/- per day. Therefore,
considering that the Complainant had put in
services of about 15 years on the date of termination
and that she was unemployed for last 8 years from
the date of termination and that the Complainant
was earning around Rs. 103/- per day i.e. Rs. 2,678/-
for 26 days of the month considering that she was
daily wage piece rated worker, it would translate
into salary of Rs. 32,136/- per annum and making a
reasonable allowance for appropriate escalation,
an average salary of Rs. 35,000 per annum can be
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
282
reckoned for the purposes of arriving at the amount
of compensation, which would be around
Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs eighty thousand
only) representing wages for about 8 years and
considering that the Respondent 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 the Complainant is paid a lumpsum
monetary compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees
Two lakhs eighty thousand only), which would be
just, proper and equitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence, the above issue
is answered accordingly.
37. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The complaint stands allowed.
(ii) It is hereby held that the action of the
Respondent in refusal of employment/
/termination of the services of the
Complainant, Smt. Seema R. Khandeparkar
w.e.f. 27-06-2010 is in violation of Section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence
illegal, unjustified and bad in law.
(iii) The Respondent is directed to pay monetary
compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees
Two lakhs eighty thousand only) to the
Complainant, Smt. Seema R. Khandeparkar
within 60 days of the
publication of the
Award, failing which the Respondent shall
pay an interest @ 9% per annum.
(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Official Language
Directorate of Official Language
__
Order
No. 8/54/2017/DOL/BPY/498
Sanction of the Government is hereby conveyed to declare the following awards to the below
mentioned personalities under Bhasha Puraskar Yojana for the year 2016-2017.
Sr.
Name of the Award
Name of the person to be
Language
Honorarium & others
No.
awarded
1. Dnyanpeeth awardee Ravindra
Shri Gurunath Shivaji
Konkani
Rs. 1.00 lakh including
Kelekar Konkani Bhasha Puraskar
Kelekar
Mementoes, Manpatra,
¼KkuihBdkj jfoaæ dsGsdkj dksad.kh
Shawl & Shriphal.
Hkk’kk iqjLdkj½
2. B. D. Satoskar Marathi Bhasha
Shri Rameshchandra
Marathi
Rs. 1.00 lakh including
Puraskar ¼ck- n- lkrksLdj ejkBh
Kesharinath Kolwalkar
Mementoes, Manpatra,
Hkk’kk iqjLdkj½
Shawl & Shriphal.
3. Durgaram Upadhe Sanskrit Bhasha
Shri Gopal Shivram
Sanskrit
Rs. 1.00 lakh including
Puraskar ¼nqxkZjke mik/;s laLÑr Hkk’kk
Joshi
Mementoes, Manpatra,
iqjLdkj½
Shawl & Shriphal.
The above awards will be presented in a Special function.
This issues with the approval of the Government vide U.O. No. 10578/F dated 14-12-2017 and concurrence
of the Finance (Exp.) Department vide their U.O. No. 9934 dated 25-04-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Sneha S. Morajkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Official Language).
Panaji, 6th June, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
283
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 15/9/2003-PER(Part-I)/1839
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide its letter
No. COM/II/12/42(2)/2013/103 dated 25-05-2018, the
Governor of Goa is pleased to declare that the
following Officers in the cadre of Mamlatdar/
/Jt. Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies
to have satisfactorily completed their probation
period/to confirm them in that grade as indicated
below.
Sr.
Name of the
Date of
Date of
No.
officers
completion
completion
of probation
of probation
period
period and
confirmation
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Ravishekhar
19-10-2016
——
Nipanikar
2. Shri Sandeep S.
——
30-01-2018.
Gawde
3. Shri Raghuraj
——
30-01-2018.
Faldessai
4. Smt. Avelina Dsa E
——
30-01-2018.
Pereira
5. Smt. Durga D.
——
30-01-2018.
Kinlekar
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 7th June, 2018.
________
Order
No. 15/22/96-Per/Part-II/1901
Read: 1) Notification No. 15/22/96/PER/Part I dated
04-10-1999 published in the Official
Gazette, Series I No. 30 dated 21-10-1999.
2) Notification No. 15/22/96/PER/Part I dated
27-07-2011 published in the Official
Gazette, Series I No. 21 dated 25-08-2011.
3) Notification No. 1/25/87-PER(Pt. II) dated
06-02-2013 published in the Official
Gazette, Series I No. 46 dated 14-02-2013.
4) Letter No. COM/I/5/42(1)/97-11/265 dated
01-06-2018 of the Deputy Secretary, Goa
Public Service Commission, Panaji-Goa.
The result of the Departmental Examination of
the following Officers in the Cadre of Block
Development Officer conducted by the Goa
Public Service Commission in pursuance to the
Notifications read in preamble (1), (2) and (3) on
12-05-2018, is declared, as indicated against their
names:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Result
No.
1.
Shri Manesh Hari Kedar
Passed.
2.
Shri Shrikant Babi Pednekar
Passed.
3.
Shri Milindra Ganesh Velip
Passed.
This is issued based on the result of the above
candidates communicated by the Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter read in preamble at
Sr. No. (4).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 12th June, 2018.
________
Order
No. 15/8/2003-PER/1912
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide its letter
No. COM/II/12/42(1)/2013/105 dated 25-05-2018, the
Governor of Goa is pleased to declare that
the following Officers in the cadre of Block
Development Officer to have satisfactorily
completed their probation period and to confirm
them in that grade as follows:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Date of completion
No.
of probation period
and confirmation
1. Shri Deepak Pandharinath
20-10-2016.
Vaingankar
2. Shri Krishnakant Sakharam
13-11-2017.
Pangam
3. Shri Bhagwant Anay Karmali
13-11-2017.
4. Shri Prasiddh Prakash Naik
13-11-2017.
5. Shri Amitesh Anant Shirvoikar
13-11-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 12th June, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
284
Office Memorandum
No. 15/19/2012-PER(Part)/1900
Read: 1. Memorandum No. 15/19/2012-PER (Part)
dated 13-12-2017.
2. Order No. 15/19/2012-PER (Part) dated
09-03-2018.
Certificate of verification bearing No. 0408173246
dated 07-08-2017 issued by the Dy. Collector/
/Sub-Divisional Officer, Mapusa certifying that
Smt. Akshaya Anish Amonkar belongs to Kharvi
Community of Other Backward Class has been
verified by Vigilance Cell vide their report
No. SP/North/VCC-UNIT/107/2018 dated 06-02-2018
and also verified by the Scrutiny Committee and is
held valid as reported by the Directorate of
Social Welfare Department vide Certificate dated
14-05-2018. The caste certificate verified by the
Scrutiny Committee is accepted by the Government
and same is kept on record.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 12th June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
__
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part-III(B)/Vol.III/998
Read: Order No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/
/Part-III(B)/Vol. III/2209 dated 27-10-2017.
Whereas proposal was referred to the Goa Public
Service Commission for promotion on regular basis
to the post of Assistant Engineer (Elect.).
2. And whereas the Departmental Promotion
Committee meeting recommended 39 Junior
Engineers (Elect.) for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineers (Elect.) wherein Shri Michael
Sony, Junior Engineer (Elect.) was promoted to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Elect.) on regular basis
vide Order No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part-III(B)/
/Vol. III/2209 dated 27-10-2017 as per the
recommendation conveyed by the Goa Public
Service Commission.
3. And whereas, Shri Michael Sony, Junior
Engineer (Elect.) accepted the promotion vide his
letter dated 30-10-2017 but could not join the post
of Assistant Engineer (Elect.) as he was employed
abroad while on Extraordinary Leave.
4. And whereas, this Department vide communi-
cation No. CEE/Estt-PF-6734/558 dated 15-05-2018
requested the Goa Public Service Commission to
convey approval for cancellation of his promotion
order and recommend the name of candidate in
the waiting list to be promoted in place of
Shri Michael Sony.
5. The Commission vide their letter No. COM/I/
/11/16(2)/2016/254 dated 30-05-2018 conveyed their
approval for cancellation of promotion order in
respect of Shri Michael Sony.
6. Consequent upon approval of Commission for
cancellation of promotion order, Shri Michael Sony
shall continue to function in his substantive post
of Junior Engineer (Elect.) with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
N. Neelakanta Reddy, Chief Electrical Engineer
& ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 14th June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
—
Order
No. 7/1/2018-I/PHD/1512
Smt. Swati Lad, Drugs Inspector shall hold charge
of the post of Assistant Drugs Controller, Directorate
of Food and Drugs Administration, Bambolim-Goa,
in addition to her own duties, with immediate effect
till the posts of Assistant Drugs Controller,
Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration is
filled on regular basis, whichever is earlier.
Sanction of the Government is also accorded
for grant of charge allowance under F. R. 49 to
Smt. Swati Lad, for holding additional charge of
the posts of Assistant Drugs Controller, Directorate
of Food and Drugs Administration, in terms of
point No. 2 of O.M. No. 2/38/75-PER(Vol. III) dated
09-06-2008, subject to limits prescribed by the
Government vide Office Memorandum No. 2/38/75-
-PER(Vol. III) dated 25-08-2004.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Porvorim, 25th May, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
285
Order
No. 7/1/2018-I/PHD/1513
Smt. Medha Dessai, and Smt. Sweta Dessai, both
Assistant Drugs Controller shall hold charge of
the posts of Deputy Directors, Directorate of Food
and Drugs Administration, Bambolim-Goa, in
addition to their own duties, with immediate effect
till the posts of Deputy Director, Directorate of Food
and Drugs Administration are filled on regular
basis, whichever is earlier.
Sanction of the Government is also accorded for
grant of charge allowance under F. R. 49 to Smt.
Medha Dessai and Smt. Sweta Dessai, for holding
additional charge of the posts of Deputy Director,
Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, in
terms of point No. 2 of O.M. No. 2/38/75-PER(Vol. III)
dated 09-06-2008, subject to limits prescribed
by the Government vide Office Memorandum
No. 2/38/75-PER(Vol.III) dated 25-08-2004.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Porvorim, 25th May, 2018.
________
Order
No. 44/25/2017-I/PHD/1508
Read: Memorandum No. 44/25/2017-I/PHD dated
10-4-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM//I/5/24(2)/2017/1103 dated 8-03-2018,
Government is pleased to appoint the following
Medical Officers (Group “A” Gazetted) in the
Pay matrix under level 10 [Rs. 15,600-39,100+GP:
Rs. 5,400/- (pre-revised)] under the Directorate of
Health Services with immediate effect as per terms
and conditions contained in the memorandum cited
above.
Sr.
Name of the Doctor
No.
1
2
1. Dr. Saili Satish Pradhan.
2. Dr. Uma U. Sadekar.
3. Dr. Kalyani G. Pai.
4. Dr. Elvira Noronha.
5. Dr. Denvera Vaz.
6. Dr. Amey S. Prabhu.
7. Dr. Siddharth Sitaram Naik.
8. Dr. Nikhita Quadros.
9. Dr. Sairaj A. Naik (OBC).
10. Dr. Abhinav A. Naik (OBC).
11. Dr. Nita Anand Kambli (OBC).
12. Dr. Pratiksha P. Chodankar (OBC).
13. Dr. Amaiye Anta alias Ananta Gaonkar (OBC).
14. Dr. Valancia Maria Furtado (OBC).
15. Dr. Shawn Custodio Dias (ST).
The above doctors shall be on probation for a
period of two years with effect from the date of
their joining. The above doctors have been
medically examined by the Medical Board and
found fit.
The appointment is made subject to the
verification of their character and antecedents.
In the event of any adverse matter being noticed
by the Government on verification of their
character and antecedents, their services shall be
terminated.
Consequent upon their appointment, the
following doctors are posted at places indicated
against their names:-
Sr.
Name of the Doctor
Place of posting
No.
1
2
3
1. Dr. Saili Satish Pradhan Community Health
Centre, Valpoi vice
Dr. Abijit Wadkar
transferred.
2. Dr. Uma U. Sadekar
Family Welfare
Programme, Directorate
of Health Services, Panaji.
vice Dr. Shubatha
Kamble transferred.
3. Dr. Kalyani G. Pai
Sub-District Hospital,
Ponda against the newly
created post (revived).
4. Dr. Elvira Noronha
Sub -District Hospital,
Ponda against the newly
created post (revived).
5. Dr. Denvera Vaz
Hospicio Hospital,
Margao against the
vacant post due to the
promotion of Fr. Freda
D’Costa.
6. Dr. Amey S. Prabhu
Primary Health Centre,
Aldona against the
vacant post due to the
resignation of
Dr. Manuelina Faleiro.
1
2
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
286
7. Dr. Siddharth Sitaram
North Goa District
Naik
Hospital, Mapusa
against the newly
created post (revived).
8. Dr. Nikhita Quadros
Hospicio Hospital,
Margao against the
vacant post due to the
promotion of Dr. Lorna
Fernandes.
9. Dr. Sairaj A.
Community Health
Naik (OBC)
Centre, Canacona
against the vacant post
due to the promotion of
Dr. Vandana Dessai.
10. Dr. Abhinav A.
Hospicio Hospital, Margao
Naik (OBC)
against the vacant
post due to the
resignation of Dr. Sudan
Singbal.
11. Dr. Nita A.
North Goa District
Kambli (OBC)
Hospital, Mapusa
against the vacant post.
12. Dr. Pratiksha P.
Hospicio Hospital, Margao.
Chodankar (OBC)
13. Dr. Amaiye Anta alias
North Goa District
Ananta Gaonkar (OBC) Hospital, Mapusa
against the vacant post
due to the promotion
of Dr. Neeta Kakodkar.
14. Dr. Valancia Maria
Hospicio Hospital, Margao
Furtado (OBC)
against the vacant post.
15. Dr. Shawn Custodio
Community Health
Dias (ST)
Centre, Canacona
(RMD Maxem)
against the vacant post
due to the resignation
of Dr. Shradha Naik.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th June, 2018.
1
2
3
1
2
3
________
Order
No. 32/1/96-I/PHD/P.F./1538
Sanction of the Secretary (Health), as Head of Department is hereby accorded for continuation of the
following Group “A” and “B” posts in the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, Bambolim for
the period of one year from 01-03-2018, to 28-02-2019, as per the details given below:
Sr.
Designation
Level of pay
No. of Posts
No. & date of creation Order
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Group ‘A’ (Gazetted)
1.
Senior Scientific Officer (Food)
Level 10
01
No. 1/15/80-I/PHD dated 06-09-1980.
2.
Designated Officer
Level 02
02
No. 5/3/2011-I/PHD dated 09-07-2012.
Revival Order No. 5/3/2011-I/PHD/6064
dated 05-11-2014.
Group ‘B’ (Gazetted)
3.
Junior Scientific Officer (Food)
Level 07
01
No. PHD/12(9)/74-Creation dated
02-09-1974.
4.
Drugs Inspector
Level 07
02
No. 13/2/2001-I/PHD/Part File dated
10-06-2003.
5.
Drugs Inspector
Level 07
02
No. 5/7/2011-I/PHD dated 24-04-2013.
6.
Technical Officer
Level 07
01
No. 5/7/2011-I/PHD dated 24-04-2013.
Group ‘B’ (Non-Gazetted)
7.
Chemist (Drugs)
Level 06
01
No. 13/2/2001-I/PHD/Part File dated
10-06-2003.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
287
8.
Chemist (Food)
Level 06
01
No. 13/2/2001-I/PHD/Part File dated
10-06-2003.
9.
Chemist (Food)
Level 06
01
No. 13/2/2001-I/PHD/Part File dated
10-06-2003.
Revised vide Order No. 5/2/2005-I/
/PHD/5524 dated 12-12-2006.
10.
Chemist
Level 06
01
No. 1/1/83/PHD dated 27-08-1983.
i) Recreated vide Order No. 10/8/90-I/
/PHD dated 10-05-1991.
ii) Recreated vide Order No. 11/12/
/91-I/PHD dated 23-04-1993.
11.
Assistant Local (Health)
Level 06
02
No. 5/7/2011-I/PHD dated 24-04-2013.
Authority re-designated as
Senior Food Safety Officer vide
Order No. 5/2/2012-I/PHD
dated 21-06-2013
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 12th June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
__
Order
.
No. 34/4/2018/PCE-PWD-ADM(II)/45
Government is pleased to promote the following Superintending Engineers/Superintending Surveyor
of Works on ad hoc basis to the post of Chief Engineer in Public Works Department, Group ‘A’, Gazetted
in the Level 14 in the Pay Matrix under 7th Pay Commission with immediate effect for a period of 3 months
or till the date of retirement or till the post is filled on regular basis whichever is earlier and post them
in the places shown against their names in column No. (4) below:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Present place of posting
Place of posting on promotion
No.
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri S. M. Dhond
Superintending Engineer, Circle
As Chief Engineer, Sports Authority
Office VIII (PHE), Margao
of Goa, Panaji on deputation.
2.
Shri G. M. Naik
Superintending Engineer, JICA
As Project Director in JICA ODA Loan
Parrikar
ODA Loan Project, Altinho, Panaji
Project, Altinho, Panaji on deputation.
3.
Shri Vijaykumar
Superintending Engineer, Circle
As Chief Engineer (NHR&B), Altinho,
P. Verenkar
Office IX (NH), Altinho, Panaji
Panaji in the existing vacancy.
4.
Shri Vinay P.
Superintending Engineer, Circle
As Chief Engineer-II (Bldgs.), Altinho,
Bharne (E/M)
Office VII (M/E), Altinho, Panaji
Panaji, vice Shri Prabhakar Gupta,
CE-II transferred.
5.
Shri P. B. Sheldarkar
As Managing Director in SIDCGL,
As Managing Director, Sewerage
Panaji on deputation
Infrastructure Development Corporation
of Goa Ltd., Panaji on deputation.
1
2
3
4
5
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
21ST JUNE, 2018
288
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 46.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—94/150–06/2018.
The above ad hoc promotion will not bestow on the promoted officers any claim for regular promotion
nor the service rendered on ad hoc basis in the grade will be counted for the purpose of seniority in that
grade for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.
Their pay shall be fixed at the minimum of Level 14 in the Pay Matrix under 7th Pay Commission in
relaxation of Government of India Order (2) below FR-35.
Consequently, Shri Prabhakar Gupta, Chief Engineer-II, PWD, stands transferred and posted as Chief
Engineer-I, PWD, with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 7th June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
—
Notification
No. D.Tpt/EST/929/2018/3620
Read: D.TPT/EST/929/(Part File)/2011/1611
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central
Act 10 of 1897), the Government of Goa hereby amends the Government Notification
No. D.Tpt/ESt/929/(Part File)/2011/1611 dated 26-4-2012, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 4 dated 26-04-2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Notification”), as follows,
namely:-
In the said Notification under item “(II) North Goa District”, after entry at Serial No. 5, the following
Serial No. and the corresponding entries in the respective entry shall be inserted namely:-
“6.
District Judge–2
Motor Accident Claims
North
North Goa, Mapusa,
Tribunal, North Goa
Goa
Member
District Sitting at Mapusa
District.”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Transport).
Panaji, 15th June, 2018.