Panaji, 10th January, 2019 (Pausa 20,1940)
SERIES II No. 41
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
763
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
__
Order
No. Misc/SE/Ex-officio/2012/848
Government is pleased to depute Shri S. F. Koti,
Deputy Education Officer, North Educational Zone,
Mapusa to attend the orientation meeting for
D.E.Os/DPEOS & Principals of JNVs in Maharashtra
& Goa for JNVST-2019 scheduled on 19-11-2018 at
“Hotel Windsor Castle, Town Centre, Jalgaon Road,
CIDCO, Aurangabad-431 003.
He is permitted to leave the Headquarter for
attending the above orientation meeting.
He shall be paid T.A./D.A., for attending the
above orientation meeting by the Jawahar
Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Valpoi-North Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nagaraj G. Honnekeri, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 13th December, 2018.
Order
No. 1(2)-9-2003/SE/Part-II/846
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/15(3)/2012/260 dated 12-11-2018,
Government is pleased to promote Smt. Gauthami
Vishal Bhagat, Teacher Grade-I, Government
Multipurpose
Higher
Secondary
School,
Margao-Goa to the post in the cadre of Vice-
-Principal-Teachers Training College/Vice-Principal
Government Higher Secondary School/Headmaster-
-Government High School, Group “B” Gazetted in
“Level 10” of the Pay Matrix of 7th Pay Commission
on officiating basis under the Directorate of
Education until further orders, with immediate
effect and to post as Vice-Principal, Government
Higher Secondary School, Canacona-Goa against
the vacant post.
She shall also hold the charge of Principal,
Government Higher Secondary School, Canacona-
-Goa in addition to her own duties until further
orders thereby relieving Shri Sudesh N. Naik from
the additional charge.
The above promotion on officiating basis will
not bestow on the promoted officer any right or
claim for regular promotion and the services so
rendered on officiating basis will not count for the
purpose of seniority in that grade, or eligibility for
promotion to the next higher grade.
The Government reserves the right to cancel at
any time the promotion on officiating basis and
revert the promotee to the post from which she is
promoted without assigning any reasons.
The Principal, Government Multipurpose Higher
Secondary School, Margao-Goa shall relieve
Smt. Gauthami Vishal Bhagat immediately and
furnish her relieving report to this Directorate.
Note:-
There are three Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 40 dated 03-1-2019
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 04-01-2019 from pages 757
to 758 regarding Notice of Election and Public
Notice from Department of Panchayati Raj &
Community Development.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 07-01-2019 from
pages 759 to 760 regarding Order from
Department of Home.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 08-01-2019 from
pages 761 to 762 regarding Notifications and
Form No. 2 from Department of Elections.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
764
She shall report to the new assignment immediately and shall submit joining report to this Directorate.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nagaraj G. Honnekeri, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 13th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 1(2)-9-2003/SE/Part-II/845
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/15(3)/2012/260 dated 12-11-2018, Government is pleased to promote the following Officers
in the cadre of Teacher Grade-I/Asstt. District Education Inspector/Middle School Headmaster to the
posts in the cadre of Vice-Principal-Teachers Training College/Vice-Principal-Government Higher
Secondary School/Headmaster-Government High School, Group “B” Gazetted in “Level 10” of the Pay
Matrix of 7th Pay Commission on regular basis under the Directorate of Education with immediate effect.
1. Smt. Bharati Falari.
6.
Kum. Sarveda Ganesh Gaonkar.
2. Shri Satish Raghunath Talkar.
7.
Shri Devidas Vithoba Kotkar.
3. Kum. Lina Sonu Chari.
8.
Smt. Swati Sanjay Perni alias Kranti Datta Devidas.
4. Shri Suraj Suryakant Naik.
9.
Smt. Neeta Pahilesh Naik.
5. Shri Vishal G. Signapurkar (SC).
10.
Smt. Mamata Gauresh Naik.
They shall be on probation for a period of two years.
They shall give in writing their acceptance/refusal of above promotion to the undersigned within 10
days from the date of issue of this order, failing which, it will be treated as refusal of promotion by the
promotee officer and he/she shall be debarred for promotion for a period of one year from the date of
refusal of promotion or till next vacancy arises whichever is later, without any further intimation.
They shall exercise option for fixation of pay in terms of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1) within one month from the date
of issue of this order.
Consequent upon the above promotion, the posting on promotion/transfer of Officers is as under:-
Sr.
Name of the officer
Present place of
Place of posting on promotion/transfer
No.
posting
1
2
3
4
1.
Smt. Bharati Falari
Teacher Grade-I,
Vice-Principal, Government Higher Secondary
(Promotee)
D.I.E.T., Porvorim
School, Sakhali, Bicholim-Goa against the
vacant post.
2.
Shri Satish Raghunath
Teacher Grade-I,
Headmaster, Government High School, Sal,
Talkar (Promotee)
Government Higher
Bicholim-Goa thereby relieving Shri Achutanand
Secondary School,
V. Vernekar from the additional charge.
Vasco
3.
Kum. Lina Sonu Chari
Teacher Grade-I,
Headmaster, Government High School, Advoi,
(Promotee)
Government Higher
Satari-Goa thereby relieving Shri Ulhas Bhuto
Secondary Shool,
Gaonkar from the additional charge.
Sanquelim-Bicholim
4.
Shri Suraj Suryakant
Teacher Grade-I,
Headmaster, Government High School, Shigao,
Naik (Promotee)
Government Higher
Collem, Dharbandora-Goa vice Kum. Namrata
Secondary School,
Gokuldas Gaonkar, transferred.
Khandola
5.
Shri Vishal G.
Teacher Grade-I,
Headmaster, Government High School, Kundai,
Signapurkar (SC)
D.I.E.T., Porvorim
Ponda-Goa against the vacant post.
(Promotee)
6.
Kum. Sarveda Ganesh
A.D.E.I., Bicholim
Headmaster, Government High School, Menkurem,
Gaonkar (Promotee)
Bicholim-Goa thereby relieving Smt. Ujwala
Yuvraj Potekar from the additional charge.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
765
7.
Shri Devidas Vithoba
Teacher Grade-I,
Headmaster, Government High School, Shelop-
Kotkar (Promotee)
Government Higher
-Khurd, Satari vice Shri Riyaz Ahmed Jamadhar,
Secondary School,
transferred.
Valpoi-Satari
8.
Smt. Swati Sanjay
Teacher Grade-I,
Headmaster, Government High School, Vadenagar,
Perni alias Kranti
Government Higher
Mormugao against the vacant post.
Datta Devidas
Secondary School,
(Promotee)
Sanquelim-Bicholim
9.
Smt. Neeta Pahilesh
Teacher Grade-I,
Vice-Principal, Government Higher Secondary
Naik (Promotee)
D.I.E.T., Porvorim
School, Baina, Vasco thereby relieving Kum.
Geraldina Luiza Mendes from the additional
charge.
10.
Smt. Mamata Gauresh
Teacher Grade-I,
Headmaster, Government High School, Gothan-
Naik (Promotee)
Government Higher
wada, Ozari, Pernem-Goa vice Smt. Ujwala
Secondary School,
Yuvraj Potekar, transferred.
Pernem-Goa
11.
Kum. Namrata Gokuldas
Headmaster, Govern-
Headmaster, Government High School, Dayanand-
Gaonkar
ment High School,
nagar, Dharbandora-Goa against the vacant
Shigao, Collem,
post.
Dharbandora-Goa
12.
Shri Riyaz Ahmed
Headmaster, Govern-
Vice-Principal, Government Higher Secondary
Jamadhar
ment High School,
School, Valpoi, Satari-Goa against the vacant
Shelop-Khurd,
post.
Satari-Goa
13.
Smt. Ujwala Yuvraj
Headmaster, Govern-
Assistant Secretary, Goa Board of Secondary
Potekar
ment High School,
and Higher Secondary Education, Alto-Betim.
Gothanwada, Ozari,
Pernem-Goa
The posting of Smt. Ujwala Yuvraj Potekar, as Assistant Secretary, Goa Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education, Alto-Betim is by transfer on deputation and will be governed by the standard
terms of deputation as contained in the Government of India’s O.M. No. 6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay II) dated
17-06-2010 and circulated by the Department of Personnel, Government of Goa vide O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER
dated 20-11-2013 as amended from time to time. Her tenure of deputation shall be for 3 years.
The transfer of Officer at Sr. No. 11 above is at her own request and hence she is not entitled for
T.A./D.A. and joining time.
The transfers of Officers at Sr. No. 12 and 13 above are in public interest.
Shri Achutanand V. Vernekar, Headmaster of Government High School, Mulgao, Bicholim shall hold the
charge of the Headmaster of Government High School, Shirodwadi-Mulgao, Bicholim in addition to his
own duties until further orders thereby relieving Shri Sanjay Diukar from the additional charge.
The working arrangement of Shri Vishal G. Signapurkar as A.D.E.I., in the Planning Section of the
Directorate of Education, Porvorim effected vide Order No. 15-16-95-Adm.I/B/Vol.IV/Part-IV-A/68 dated
20-04-2015 stands withdrawn.
The Principals/Zonal officer concerned shall relieve the above promotee Officers immediately and
furnish their relieving and joining reports.
They shall report to the place of posting immediately.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nagaraj G. Honnekeri, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 13th December, 2018.
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
766
Department of Home
Home–General Division
__
Notification
No. 2/3/2002-HD(G)/Part/44
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 20 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the
Government of Goa hereby appoints Deputy
Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer, Sanguem to
be the Sub-Divisional Magistrate within the
respective jurisdiction of the South Goa District
with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 24/8/2004-LAB/12
Read: The Government Notification No. 24/6/2013-
-LAB/83 dated 29th January, 2014,
published in the Official Gazette, Series II
No. 47 dated 20-02-2014.
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Goa Labour
Welfare Fund Act, 1986 (Act 4 of 1987) and in
supersession of the Government Notification
No. 24/8/2004-LAB/405 dated 10-06-2016 published
in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 12 dated
23-06-2016 and in partial modification of the
Government Notification cited above, the
Government of Goa hereby appoints Shri Prasad
Pednekar, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Panaji,
Goa, as Secretary of the Goa Labour Welfare Board
for the purposes of the said Act, with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2019.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/09
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
12-12-2018 in Appln. No. 01/2016 is hereby
published as required under 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, 1st January, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appln. No. 01/2016
Mr. Marcelino Emeliano
Fernandes,
H. No. 309, Near Santoshimata
Temple,
New Vaddem,
Vasco-da-Gama, 403 802.
…
Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Highstreet Cruises and
Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.,
Fisheries Jetty, Ground Floor,
Fisheries Department,
Dr. Dayanand Bandodkar Road,
Panaji, Goa-403 001.
…
Opponent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Opponent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 12th day of the month
of December of the year 2018)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant/
/Party I is that the Party I is a workman appointed
as Coxswain in Marine Department vide order
dated 1-10-2009 and his services were confirmed
w.e.f. 1-4-2010 and he was promoted vide order
dated 9-12-2013 as Sr. Coxswain. The Party I applied
for leave without pay on account of medical
treatment as advised by the doctor on 12-3-2015
and the said application was duly acknowledged
by Party II and accordingly he availed two months
leave and thereafter on 14-5-2015 he approached
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
767
the HR-Manager, Dr. Vinit to resume his duties,
however he was called after couple of days and on
18-5-2015 he approached Shri John Fernandes
pertaining to his duties whereupon he was
instructed to come after four days and since all
efforts of joining the duties were unsuccessful, he
reported the General Manager, Shri Dip Saxena,
whereupon he was directed to produce the
medical certificates. The Party I submitted the
required medical certificate, however the Party II
failed and neglected to permit him to join the duties
and therefore he was constrained to approach the
Conciliation Officer pertaining to refusal of
employment which is illegal and without any cause
of action. The Conciliation Officer failed to
adjudicate the dispute referred to therein and
therefore he filed the present application. The
Party I was unemployed from the date of refusal of
employment till date. He approached several offices
for employment but was not successful in getting
the employment. The action of the employer in
refusing the employment is illegal. The Party I is
entitled for reinstatement in services with full back
wages and continuity in services. Hence, the
application.
3. The Opponent/Party II filed a written
statement inter-alia contending that the Party I is
not a workman as envisaged under the Act. The
Party I was working as Sr. Coxswain and was
Captain of the vessel and was working in managerial
capacity drawing more than Rs. 21,000/- per month.
The Party I applied for leave on the pretext that he
wanted to visit his wife who is working in London
and that he would like to apply for job in London
for better prospects. The Party II accepted the plea
and granted him unpaid leave for 30 days, however
the Party I failed to report for duties and returned
only after 45 days. The Party II however came to
know from reliable sources that he had not gone
abroad but was working with some other
organization for higher salaries. He was therefore
asked to produce his passport which he failed. The
Party I was paid upto March, 2015 on humanitarian
ground by adjusting his leave. The Party I however
came up with another excuse that he was advised
for bed rest for severe back pain for 45 days and
also produced some prescription. The behaviour of
Party I is highly suspicious. He was directed to
meet the panel of doctors at Manipal Hospital as
per the policy of the company for rejoining his
duties. The Party I thereafter never came back to
the office nor did he go to Manipal Hospital for
fitness check-up, but instead filed application
before Conciliation Officer for illegal refusal of
employment. The Party I infact voluntarily
abandoned his service and has remained absent
without informing the superiors after expiry of 30
days of unpaid leave. The Party I is not entitled for
any reliefs.
4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 6
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
5. Issues framed at Exhibit 7 are as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that he is a
Workman as envisaged under the Industrial
Disputes Act?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that the
Party II refused the employment w.e.f.
14-05-2015?
(3) Whether the Party I proves that he is
unemployed from the date of refusal till
date?
(4) Whether the Party II proves that
application under Section 2-A(2) is not
maintainable?
(5) What Relief? What Award?
6. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
himself as witness and produced on record a copy
of application dated 1-9-2015 filed before Assistant
Labour Commissioner at Exh. 10, a copy of reply
dated 10-12-2015 filed by Party II at Exh. 11, a copy
of appointment letter dated 1-10-2009 at Exh. 12, a
copy of letter of transfer dated 1-9-2013 at Exh. 13,
a copy of application of leave without pay dated
12-3-3015 at Exh. 14, a copy of confirmation letter
dated 9-12-2013 at Exh. 15 and a copy of rejoining
the duty dated 26-2-2015 at Exh. 19 and closed his
case. On the other hand, the Party II examined Shri
John Fernandes who has produced on record a
copy of CTC breakup at Exh. 22, a copy of letter
dated 1-10-2014 hiking the salary of the Party I at
Exh. 23, a copy of reply dated 10-12-2015 at Exh. 24,
a copy of missing report dated 26-2-2015 by
Party I at Exh. 25, a copy of appreciation letter
dated 9-12-2013 at Exh. 26. The Party II also
examined Shri Kavish Sangodkar as second witness
and closed its case.
7. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments
came to be placed on record by the parties.
8. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the submissions made
by the Learned Advocates for Parties. I am
reproducing herewith the issues along with their
findings and reasons thereof.
Issue No. 1
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 5
…
As per Final order.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
768
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
9. Learned Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar has submitted
that the Party I is a ‘workman’ as envisaged under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Party II has only taken a plea in reply before
the Conciliation Officer dated 10-12-2015 that
Party I is not a ‘workman’ as he was working as
Captain in the establishment of feeder boat
drawing salary of Rs. 21,000/- per month but has
not denied the refusal of employment by Party II.
The Party II has pleaded that the Party I has
abandoned the services. The Party I who has
examined himself has produced on record the
appointment letter at Exh. 12, which clearly shows
that the job of Party I as a Coxswain is of skilled
nature within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. There is no evidence on
record adduced by Party II that the Party I was
doing the work of supervisory capacity or had any
authority to sanction leave or was required to
supervise the work of one or more of the employees
working under him or that the overall nature of the
duties and responsibilities performed by the
workman are of managerial or administrative
capacity and have controlled over his subordinates
and therefore, the Party I is a workman as stipulated
under Section 2(s) of the Act.
10. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for
Party II has submitted that the Party I is not a
‘workman’ as whether a particular employee is a
workman or not depends upon the predominant
nature of duties and responsibilities performed by
him at the time of termination of his services. He
further submitted that the Party I in the cross
examination has admitted that he is supposed to
ensure that all the passengers sitting in the boat
are seated safely and ensure all the navigational
aids and machineries are well in order and that he
has to also ensure that the sailors have closed the
doors of the boat and maintain a proper
navigational watch on the boat and that all the
safety norms are maintained and that he is the
whole and sole in-charge and responsible for the
boat and the passengers, which clearly shows that
his duties are of supervisory nature, which cannot
come within the ambit and definition of workman.
He further submitted relying upon the case of
M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna
Kant Pandey passed in Civil Appeal No. 28 of
2015 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on
6-1-2015, that the dominant nature of work of
Party I being managerial or supervisor, he is not a
workman under the Act.
11. Needless to mention, the onus lies upon the
workman to prove that he satisfies the essential
ingredients of being a workman within the meaning
of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the
case of H.R. Adyanthaya & Ors. vs. Sandoz (India)
Ltd., 1994 II CLR 552, the Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court has held that a person to be a
workman under the said Act must be employed to
do the work of any categories, viz. manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical,
or supervisory. In the case of Union Carbide (India)
Ltd. vs. D. Samuel & Others, 1998 (80) FLR 684,
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay after taking a
survey of various decisions has found that some of
the tests laid down are (i) whether the employee
has power to direct or oversee the work of the
subordinates; (ii) has the power to sanction/pass
leave or recommend it; (iii) whether the employee
can examine the quality of the work and whether,
such work is performed in satisfactory manner or
not; (iv) whether the employee has the power of
assigning duties and distribution of work. It is thus
have to be seen whether the Party I was doing the
work of manual, unskilled, skilled, etc. at the time
of his refusal from the services.
12. The appointment letter dated 1-10-2009 is
produced by Party I at Exh. 12, according to which,
the Party I was appointed as Coxswain in Marine
Department and he was to carry out duties
diligently and faithfully. Shri Marcelino Fernandes
has also stated that he was appointed as Coxswain
and thereafter promoted as Sr. Coxswain. He has
also stated that he was reporting to the Shore
Manager for discharge of his duties and that the
said manager was assigning him the duties and
that he had no powers to grant the leave or assign
any work nor any person was working under him
and that the duties discharged by him were not
supervisory and that the training and guidelines
were given by the Shore Manager. In the cross
examination, he claimed that he was navigating
all the twelve cruise boats belonging to Party II
and that he has a Serang (License) issued by
Dy. Captain of Ports to navigate the cruise boats.
The letter of appointment and the nature of duties
performed by Party I of navigating the cruise boats
with the license from the department concerned is
indicative of the fact he was performing the job of
a skilled nature, which is within the meaning of a
‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Act.
13. The witness of Party II, Shri John Fernandes
has also admitted that the Party I was reporting to
him in the Marine Department and he used to
assign him the work and was sanctioning his leave.
He also admitted that the duties of Party I as
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
769
coxswain are to navigate the boat and take the
passengers safely from point to point and ensure
that all the passengers are safe and that all safety
norms are maintained. The said nature of duties as
stated by Shri John Fernandes cannot come within
the meaning of supervisory or administrative
capacity as his main duty is to navigate the cruise
boats with license. He had no power to sanction
leave or initiate disciplinary proceedings against
the workers and was not assigned the work of
writing confidential reports of the workers as
admitted by Shri John Fernandes in his cross
examination. He had no power to supervise, direct
and control the work of other employees working
under him including the sailors, although he had
to act as per their instructions. The function as a
coxswain was to navigate the cruise boats and to
ensure that the passengers are safe and reach their
destination. The sailors who are ensuring that the
doors are closed and that the passengers are safe
before navigation were working with him and not
under him. The dominant nature of the work is
navigating the cruise boats and not supervisory or
managerial work. No doubt, while navigating the
boat, the coxswain is the whole and sole in-charge
and responsible for the boat and the passengers,
but that does not mean that he was doing the
work of supervisory, administrative or managerial
capacity or headed any department.
14. Shri John Fernandes has also admitted that
Party I was reporting to him and he was assigning
him work and his duties are to navigate the boat
and take the passengers safely. The said duties
cannot be termed as the duties of supervisory,
administrative and managerial categories. The
work performed by the Party I is of skilled nature,
that of navigating the boat with necessary
permissions from Dy. Captain of Ports within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act and therefore for all the purposes, the Party I
is a ‘workman’ as envisaged under Section 2(s) of
the Act. The reliance placed on the case of
M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., supra is
entirely based on different facts as in that case the
respondent/workman was promoted as Line
Supervisor and thereafter to the post of Fleet
Executive at the time of his termination and in the
capacity of the Fleet Executive, he was assigned
15 different works which were purely of supervisory
and managerial in nature, unlike in the present
case where the Party I was admittedly navigating
the feeder boat under the license issued by
concerned authority, which falls in the skilled
category and therefore, the above citation is not
applicable to the case at hand nor it can be said
that Party I is not a workman as envisaged under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
Party I has therefore proved the above issue. Hence,
it is answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
15. Needless to mention, it is a case of the
Party I that the Party II refused the employment as
a Coxswain in Marine Department w.e.f. 14-5-2015,
while it is a case of the Party II that the Party I
voluntarily abandoned the service from April, 2015
after he was asked to produce the documents for
his and therefore, it is apposite to scan whether it
was illegal refusal of service by Party II or
voluntarily abandonment of work on the part of
the Party I.
16. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for Party II has
submitted that the Party II granted unpaid leave to
Party I from 10-1-2015 for 30 days, however he failed
to report for duties after 30 days and returned only
after 41 days i.e. on 18-2-2015. The Party II
requested the Party I to produce the documents
including passport to prove that he had indeed
gone to London, which he has failed. The Party I
thereafter changed the version and claimed that
he was advised bed rest due to back pain and has
not produced the relevant medical certificates. The
Party I thereafter was requested to meet panel of
doctors in Manipal Hospital with all medical
prescriptions but failed to get himself examined
by the doctors. The Party I thereafter never resumed
duties and infact voluntarily abandoned his service.
The condition of unemployment of Party I is self
inflicted, however he mischievously filed
application against Party II. The Party I has deposed
that the nature of his job is such that one has to
be physically fit but further claimed that he is still
under medication and therefore, it is clear that he
is not fit to resume and perform his duties and had
never approached the office of Party II or reported
the Manipal Hospital and therefore not interested
in joining the duties.
17. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar has
submitted that it is the case of Party II that it is not
refusal but a case of abandonment of services,
however it is admitted by the Party II that he had
reported for work on 18-2-2016 and was not allowed
to resume duty till he produces the relevant
documents and subjected himself for medical
examination by panel of doctors. There was
therefore no complete giving up of duties on the
part of Party I so as to indicate an intention not to
resume the same. The length of service for which
the so called abandonment claimed by Party II is
only 9 days. It is also admitted by Party II in Para
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
770
3 of the written statement that Party I was paid up
to March 2016 on humanitarian grounds by
adjusting his leave, which also clearly shows that
the so called absence was also condoned by
Party II by granting leave and therefore there was
no abandonment of service on the part of Party I
and in support thereof, he relied upon the case
of Apex Court in the matter of G. T. Lad & Others
vs. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd., AIR 1979
SC, 582.
18. It is well established by the Apex Court in
the case of G. T. Lad & Others, supra, that in order
to constitute abandonment, there must be total or
complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an
intention not to resume the same. Failure to perform
duties pertaining to an office must be with actual
or imputed intention on the part of the officer to
abandon and relinquish the office. The intention
may be inferred from the acts and conduct of a
Party and is a question of fact which could
be determined in the light of surrounding
circumstances in each case. Temporary absence is
not ordinarily sufficient to constitute abandonment
of office. When the absence of workmen from duty
was purely temporary, it cannot be construed as
their voluntary abandonment of the company’s
service. To abandon service means to detach,
unfasten, undo or untie the binding knot or link
which holds one to the office and obligations and
privileges that go with it. It is also held in the case
of Executive Engineer, HPSEBL vs. Sh. Jagdish
Chand, 2018 III CLR 807 that abandonment or
relinquishment of service is always a question of
intention and normally such intention cannot be
attributed to an employee without adequate
evidence in that behalf. In short, the employer
unilaterally cannot say that the workman is not
interested in employment and it is for this reason
that a domestic enquiry is required to be held and
the burden of proving the same is on the employer
as it is their plea that the workman abandoned the
service as it is well settled principle of law that if
a misconduct which is an abandonment of service
is the foundation of the dismissal, then the domestic
enquiry is warranted before the workman is
terminated for misconduct as in order to constitute
abandonment there must be total or complete
giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention
not to resume the same.
19. The Party I in Para 3 and 4 of the Claim
statement has stated that on 12-3-2015 he applied
for leave without pay on account of medical
treatment as advised by the doctor and the
application was duly acknowledged by the
employer and he availed two months leave and
that on 14-5-2015 he approached the HR-Manager
to resume duties but he was called after couple of
days. He thereafter met Shri John Fernandes on
18-5-2015 but was told to come after four days and
since his efforts were unsuccessful, he reported to
Shri Dip Saxena who directed to produce the
documents. The Party II in reply at para 3 of the
written statement has stated that Party I came to
meet HR-Manager to apply for leave and that the
head of department had accepted his request on
humanitarian ground. The fact that the Party I came
to meet HR-Manager on 14-5-2015 is established,
although the Party II in the said written statement
makes a claim with uncorroborated facts. Be that
as it may, the fact remains that Party I approached
HR-Manager Dr. Vinit, Shri John Fernandes and
Shri Dip Saxena to rejoin duty on 14-5-2015, but he
was not allowed to join the duty as claimed by
Party I, Shri Marcelino. He has admitted in the
cross examination that he was on leave from
7-1-2015 to 4-2-2015 without pay and that he joined
his service after expiry of leave on 5-2-2015 and
that he was not allowed to join duty and requested
to produce medical certificate and when he had
gone with medical certificate on 8-2-2015, he was
asked to bring a copy of passport. He also admitted
that as per request his leave was extended till
18-2-2015 and that he joined his duty on 19-2-2015.
20. Exhibit 19 is the leave application dated
26-2-2015 wherein his leave was extended till
18-2-2015. The documents at Exh. 20 colly are the
prescriptions dated 10-3-2015, 4-4-2015, 24-4-2015,
16-5-2015 and medical certificate dated 10-5-2015.
The Party I also admitted that he was under
medical treatment for back bone problem from
10-4-2015 to 16-5-2015 and that he was advised by
Party II to approach panel of doctors with all
medical prescriptions and obtain the medical
certificate of fitness for rejoining his duty and was
told that one of the officials of the company will
accompany him to the hospital but company did
not provide official to go to hospital. He also
admitted that he was not fit to resume duty on
16-5-2015. The medical certificate does not help
the Party II as it is nowhere its case that he
abandoned the work due to sickness. No notice
was issued to the Party I workman asking him to
join the duties. The fact remains that the Party I
approached the Party II for resuming duty but on
one ground or other they refused to entertain his
pleas. In the absence of notice asking him to join
the duties, there is no substance in the contention
raised by the Party II that the Party I was asked to
bring the documents which he failed and thereafter
never resumed duties and infact voluntarily
abandoned his service. Shri John Fernandes
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
771
however stated that he does not remember having
issued any memo to Party I for remaining absent
from duties or having issued charge sheet to Party
I for remaining absent from duties or whether any
departmental enquiry was conducted against him.
Be that as it may, the fact that the Party I had
approached the Party II for work is thus proved.
There is nothing on record that the workman was
issued memo, showcause notice or chargesheet or
that any enquiry was conducted for alleged refusal
of work/abandonment of service on the part of the
Party I.
21. Learned Advocate Shri P. Chawdikar has
stated that as per Clause (q) of appointment letter,
the absence from work and or not reporting for 7
consecutive days without obtaining prior
permission shall entitle the management to treat
the absence as abandonment, resulting in loss of
the services. He also submitted that Party I was
absent from work for 11 days without the leave
being sanctioned by Party II and therefore the said
absence has to be treated as abandonment of
service, resulting in loss of services as per the
appointment letter. However, as rightly submitted
by Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I to constitute
abandonment there must be total or complete
giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention
not to resume the same and an inference that an
employee has abandoned or relinquished service
is not easily drawn unless from the length of
service. There is no evidence in record that the
Party I abandoned or relinquished the services as
admittedly after the leave period, he had come to
join the duties as admitted by Shri John Fernandes
and he was asked to produce passport and other
documents. He was not issued a letter calling upon
the Party I to join the duties after he allegedly
abandoned his duties. Shri John Fernandes has
admitted that does not remember having issued
any memo to Party I for remaining absent from
duties. Shri Kavish Sangodkar has also admitted
that he cannot say whether any letter was issued
to Party I calling upon him to join the duties after
18-02-2015 and whether any memo/chargesheet/
/enquiry were issued to/conducted/against him
for abandoning his duties. He also admitted that
when Party I reported on 18-02-2015 they asked
him to produce the documents to substantiate his
absence and did not allow him to join the duties.
He also admitted that when Party I came after 41
days, they asked him to bring fitness certificate
which he brought, subsequently.
22. It therefore shows that the Party I had no
intention to abandon or relinquish services and
had even brought the documents to support his
absence from duties which was purely temporary
for a period of 11 days or so. The length of absence
and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate
that the employee intended to abandon the
services. There was no voluntarily abandonment of
services on the part of the Party I. It was never the
case of Party II that they invoked the Clause (q) of
the appointment letter for termination of his
services. No such memo has been issued to
Party I nor was any domestic enquiry conducted.
The Party II unilaterally cannot assert that workman
was not interested in employment and it is for this
reason that the domestic enquiry was required to
be held. No charge sheet has been issued nor have
any enquiry proceedings been conducted to justify
the plea of abandonment of services, more
particularly when it is alleged by Party II that the
Party I has abandoned his services. The burden of
proof of voluntary abandonment of service is on
Party II. It is also well established that if misconduct
is the foundation of dismissal, the domestic enquiry
is warranted. It is imperative on the part of
Party II that an enquiry has to be preceded before
the workman is terminated for misconduct. The
Party II has admittedly not conducted any enquiry
before the refusal of service to Party I and therefore
the termination of the Party I is illegal and ab
initio void and hence not sustainable in law. The
Party I has thus proved that the Party II refused
employment w.e.f 14-5-2015 and on the contrary,
the Party II has failed to prove that the Party I
willfully abandoned the services and did not
return. It is therefore, the above issue No. 2 is
answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
23. Party I Shri Marcelino has stated at para 9 of
the claim statement that he is unemployed from
the date of refusal of employment till date. The
Party I had approached several offices for
employment but was not successful in getting the
employment. The action of the employer in refusing
the employment is illegal. He has also reiterated at
Para 12 of the affidavit the said facts. It is nowhere
brought in the cross examination that he was
working elsewhere. He however admitted that he
is under medication and he has not made any
efforts to seek employment elsewhere of account
of his sickness. Be that as it may, the fact remains
that Party I is unemployed from the date of refusal
of his services till date. It is therefore issue No. 3
is answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 4:
24. The Party II has claimed that the application
is not maintainable under Section 2-A(2) of
Industrial Disputes Act, however it is not explained
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
772
as to how the said application is not maintainable.
The Party I at Para 1 of the application has stated
that he filed the application dated 1-9-2015 for
conciliation of the dispute before the Conciliation
Officer in respect of illegal refusal of employment
and the said dispute was registered as Case
No. IRM/ALC(M)/COM/(23)/2015 and requisite
notices were issued by Shri Milind Govekar, Asst.
Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer,
Panaji, Goa and the matter was fixed for appearance
of the parties, which fact has been admitted by
Party II in the written statement. There is no
dispute that the Party I has filed the application
after expiry of 45 days from the date he has made
the application to the Conciliation Officer of the
appropriate Government for conciliation of the
dispute. Admittedly, the application was made
before the Conciliation Officer dated 1-9-2015
and the present application came to be filed on
14-3-2016 which is more than 45 days and
therefore, the Party I has complied with the
mandates of Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes
Act. Moreover, Shri Kavish Sangodkar has admitted
in the cross examination that the present
application has been filed after expiry of 45 days
from the date of filing of application before the
Labour Commissioner by Party I. It is therefore, the
application filed under Section 2-A(2) is
maintainable. The Party II having failed to prove
the above issue, it is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 5:
25. The next question is what reliefs the Party I
is entitled to once it is held that the refusal of
service 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 compensation in lieu of
reinstatement.
26. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for the Party I has
submitted that in case of wrongful termination of
services, re-instatement with continuity in service
with back wages is the normal rule. He further
submitted that when an employer is found to be
wrong as a result of which the workman is directed
to be re-instated, the employer could not shirk his
responsibility of paying the wages which the
workmen is deprived of by illegal or invalid action
or 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 through the protracted litigation is itself
so precarious that he may not survive to see
the day when relief is granted. In support of
his contention, he relied upon the cases of
(i) Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees
of Hindustan, (1979) 2 SCC 80 and (ii) Shambu
Prasad vs. Presiding Officer & Ors., 2017 II CLR
223.
27. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for
Party II has submitted that the Party I is not entitled
for any relief claimed by him in the present matter.
He further submitted that the workman has no
right to claim back wages as of right only because
the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his
favour and direct reinstatement as for back wages,
the workman has to plead and prove with the aid
of evidence that he remained unemployed or non
gainful person anywhere. He further submitted that
the factors for deciding quantum of wages are
mainly non gainful employment of the workman,
time spent in litigation, last drawn wages, paying
capacity of the management at the relevant time,
financial conditions of the workman, nature of job
which was being performed by the workman, etc.
etc. and that the workmen are paid 50% of total
back wages for doing substantial justice to the
parties and in support thereof, he relied upon the
cases of (i) The management of Regional Chief
Engineer, P.H.E.D. Ranchi vs. Their Workmen
Rep. by District Secretary, 2018 LLR 1167 and
(ii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
vs. Shri Phool Chand (Dead) Through: LRs., 2018
LLR 1169.
28. There cannot be any dispute that Courts
have consistently taken the view that relief by
way of reinstatement with back wages is not
automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a
given fact situation even though the termination
of an employee is in contravention to the prescribed
procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement
has been held to meet the ends of justice when the
industry might have been closed down or in severe
financial doldrums; the workman concerned might
have secured better or other employment
elsewhere, where reinstatement is impossible and
a host of factors like (i) the manner and method of
selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper
advertisement of the vacancy or inviting
applications from the employment exchange, (ii)
nature of appointment namely, whether adhoc,
short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in
character, (iii) any special qualification required
for the job and the like should be weighed and
balanced in taking a decision regarding award of
back wages, (iv) length of service, which the
workman had rendered with the employer. If the
workman has rendered a considerable period of
service and his services are wrongfully terminated,
he may be awarded full or partial back wages
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
773
keeping in view the fact that at his age and the
qualification possessed by him he may not be in a
position to get another employment, and (v) the
nature of employment as held in the case of Deepali
Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC
324D.
29. In the instant case, although Party I has
proved that from 14-5-2015, he has been refused
employment, he would not be entitled
automatically for reinstatement and payment of
full back wages, but would be entitled for monetary
compensation, more particularly when there is no
evidence adduced on record by Party I that his
employment was permanent in character nor it
has been proved that at his age and the
qualification possessed by him, he may not be in
a position to get another employment. It is also
settled in case of The management of Regional
Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D. Ranchi, supra that back
wages cannot be claimed by the workman as of
right merely because dismissal/termination is set
aside. There is no dispute that the last drawn salary
of Party I was Rs. 21,000/- as per Exh. 24 and that
he worked for about 5 years. Therefore, considering
the above, payment of 50% back wages to the
Party I including the gratuity, leave and bonuses
would be appropriate. There cannot be any dispute
that in arriving at the amount of compensation, a
reasonable guess work and approximation, is
inherent and unavoidable. The record shows that
the Party I was out of service for 46 months, that
is from 18-2-2015 till date, which works out to be
Rs. 9,66,000/- as total back wages. He is therefore
entitled for 50% back wages as stated above, which
would work out to Rs. 4,83,000/- and in addition, he
is entitled towards gratuity of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.
27,000/- towards leave and bonuses and therefore
equity demands taking into overall consideration
that monetary compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/-
(Rupees Five lakhs sixty thousand only) would serve
ends of justice, which would be just, proper and
equitable in the facts and circumstances of the
case. Hence, the above issue is answered
accordingly.
30. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The application filed by Party I workman
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act stands allowed.
ii. It is hereby held that the action of the
Party II in refusing the services of Party I,
Shri Marcelino Fernandes with effect from
14-05-2015 is illegal and unjustified.
iii. The Party II is directed to pay monetary
compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/- (Rupees Five
lakhs sixty thousand only) within 60 days
of the publication of the Award, failing
which the Party II shall pay an interest
@ 9% per annum.
iv. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/10
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
30-11-2018 in reference No. IT/38/02 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, 2nd January, 2019.
_________
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/38/02
Workmen,
Rep. by Mormugoa Waterfront
Workers’ Union, Mukund Bldg.,
2nd Floor, P. O. Box. No. 90,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Vishal Gomantak Shipping
Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Salgaokar Chambers,
P. O. Box No. 114,
Margao-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Mrs. M.
Malar.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
774
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 30th day of the month
of November of the year 2018)
By Order dated 12-06-2002, bearing No. 28/25/
/2002-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) (A) Whether the action of the management
of M/s Vishal Gomantak Shipping Co. Pvt.
Ltd., in terminating the services of the
following workmen with effect from
17-01-2002, is legal and justified?
(1) Dinu Pednekar
Crane Operator
(2) Vinayak Sawant
Crane Operator
(3) Shekar Kaskar
Crane Operator
(4) Thomas D’Silva
Crane Operator
(5) Agnelo D’Costa
Crane Operator
(6) Yeshwant Naik
Fitter
(7) Arun Pednekar
Fitter
(8) Sunil Naik
Fitter
(9) Sanjay Salgaonkar
Helper
(10) Ajit Chadonkar
Loader Operator
(11) Chandrakant Parab
Loader Operator
(12) Luis Dias
Electrician
(13) John Fernandes
Welder
(14) Prasad Naroji
Welder
(15) Ram Mahesh Bind
Labour
(16) Mukund Korkhankar
Labour
(17) Frank Vaz
Labour
(18) Sayad Gani
Labour
(19) Nandu Naik
Labour
(20) Krishna Pednekar
Labour
(21) Joao Cabral
Labour
(22) Sahadev Mothe
Labour
(23) Digamber Mothe
Labour
(24) Gurunath Pilapkar
Labour
(25) Namdev Gavandi
Labour
(26) Mahadev Shetye
Labour
(27) Albert Marnekar
Labour
(28) Laxman Yallappa
Labour
(29) Krishna Servikar
Labour
(30) Ankush Korgaonkar
Labour
(B) Whether the action of the management
of M/s. Vishal Gomantak Shipping Co. Pvt.
Ltd., in refusing employment to the
following workmen with effect from
18-01-2002, is legal and justified?
(1) Francisco Colaco
Crane Operator
(2) Antonio F. Antao
Crane Operator
(3) Nelson Fernandes
Crane Operator
(4) Jose Fernandes
Crane Operator
(5) John P. S. Fernandes
Crane Operator
(6) Ganesh Nagzerkar
Crane Operator
(7) Joaquim Fernandes
Crane Operator
(8) Philip Fernandes
Crane Operator
(9) Vinod Naik
Helper
(10) P.R.B. Trinidade
Loader Operator
(11) Purshotam Naik
Loader Operator
(12) Vasant Rane
Welder
(13) Xavier Fernandes
Welder
(14) Vaibhav Naik
Labour
(15) Prabhakar Mamlekar
Labour
(16) Shiv Lingappa Harijan
Labour
(17) Rosario Miranda
Labour
(18) Francisco Borges
Labour
(19) Domnic Borges
Labour
(20) Paulo Colasco
Labour
(21) Soccoro Dias
Labour
(22) Manuel Colasco
Labour
(23) Pobris Colaso
Labour
(24) Michael Colaso
Labour
(25) Vishram Parab
Labour
(26) Shantaram Jadhav
Labour
(27) Arvind Pednekar
Labour
(28) Bernand Soares
Labour
(29) Suresh Naik
Labour
(30) Agustin Vaz
Shift Engineer
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?
2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/38/02 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. 4 and Party II filed the Written statement at
Exh. 6.
3. In short, the case of Party I is that the
Party I workmen had been in continuous service of
the management working on the transhipper
owned by the management of Party II also named
as Gosalia Shipping Company and Salgaocar
Engineers on their vessels ‘S. S. Sanjeevani’ at
Reddy Port (1989-90) at Mormugoa Port (1990-92)
and ‘M. V. Gosalia Prospect’ (1992-97) at Mormugao
Port and partly at Panaji Port and in 1998 till the
date of termination at ‘M.V. Sunrise’ vessel at Panaji
Port. Sometimes on 25-11-2011, the Party I workmen
presented a joint application for joining the Union
and accordingly, they were enrolled as the
members of Mormugoa Waterfront Workers Union,
Vasco-da-Gama and once the Party II came to know
that they joined the Union, it resorted to vengeful
and vindictive attitude against the workmen
and terminated their services vide letters dated
17-1-2002 and 18-1-2002 respectively.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
775
4. It is further the case of Party I that on account
of action of management, the Union raised an
industrial dispute vide its letter dated 25-01-2002
addressed to Additional Labour Commissioner and
pursuant to that, a meeting was held, however the
management admitted that the conditional
termination notices were issued to them stating
that immediate termination of the 39 workmen is
done for the reasons that they remained absent
from the work from 24-11-2001 to 17-1-2002 and as
such they were treated to have abandoned the
work and that they should report back to the work
within 10 days. The workmen informed about their
willingness to report for work and had denied the
allegation of remaining absent. However, the
conditions set down by the management including
attributing misconduct to the workmen and
forgoing their salary were false and malafide and
as such the management did not participate in the
conciliation proceedings. The Additional Labour
Commissioner submitted the failure report and as
a consequence, the Government made the present
reference.
5. The workmen enlisted in Part A of the
schedule never remained absent. The management
at no point of time issued notices to the workmen
attributing absence and/or calling upon their
explanation neither any charge sheet was issued
to them nor an enquiry conducted, much less the
due procedure observed and instead straight away
termination was ordered in flagrant violation of
principles of natural justice. The workmen enlisted
in Part B of the schedule were orally terminated
and were refused work from 18-01-2002. The said
workmen are also entitled for the same relief as in
the case of workmen enlisted in Part A of the
schedule. The above actions of the management
are illegal and the Party I workmen are entitled for
the relief claimed.
6. In the Written statement, the Party II has
claimed that the appropriate Government for the
purpose of dealing the matter is Central
Government as all the workers working for Party II
were working on ocean going vessel and therefore
the State Government is not the appropriate forum.
The Mormugao Waterfront Workers’ Union does not
represent the workers of Party II and therefore the
entire reference is bad in law. The workmen in the
reference except Mr. Antao was working on
transhipper ‘M.V. Sunrise’ and in the month of
August 2002, it was taken to Colombo for dry dock
repairs and due to economic reasons, the office of
Party II was closed from 27-11-2001 and therefore,
the workmen were asked to report for work at
Margao office and some of the workmen stopped
reporting to work and the company therefore vide
their letter dated 17-1-2002 was compelled to issue
notices of termination with a provision of a fair and
benevolent opportunity to report for work on or
before 01-02-2002 and taking said advantage, some
of the workmen reported for work and some did
not and on contrary replied by their identical letters
dated 22-1-2002 giving false facts. The workers
mentioned in Part B at no point of time refused
employment as they had not reported for work for
the reasons best known to them. The Union has
raised the dispute making false allegations against
the company. The workmen had not made out any
case for granting any relief to the workmen.
7. In the rejoinder at Exh. 7, the Party I denied
the case put forth by Party II in Written statement.
8. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 8 are as
follows:
(1) Whether the Party I/Union proves that it
has the authority to espouse the dispute of
the workmen and represent them in the
reference?
(2) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the
employer/Party II terminated the services
of the 30 workmen named in Part ‘A’ of the
reference with effect from 17-1-2002 and
that the said termination is by way of
victimization, illegal and unjustified?
(3) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the
employer/Party II terminated the services
of the 30 workmen named in Part ‘B’ of the
reference with effect from 18-1-2002 and
that the said termination is by way of
victimization, illegal and unjustified?
(4) Whether the employer/Party II proves that
the reference is not maintainable for the
reasons stated in Para (a) and (c) of the
written statement?
(5) Whether the employer/Party II proves that
the workmen named in Part A and Part B of
the schedule of reference have not
themselves reported for work?
(6) Whether the workmen are entitled to any
relief?
(7) What Award?
9. In support of his claim, Party I examined
Shri Francisco Rodrigues as WW-1 and produced
on record a copy of letter dated 25-11-2001 of
joining Union at Exh. W-1, a copy of termination
letter dated 17-1-2002 to Mr. Thomas De Silva at
Exh. W-2, a copy of letter dated 25-1-2002 to ALC,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
776
Vasco at Exh. W-3, a copy of letter dated 1-2-2002
to ALC, Vasco at Exh. W-4, a copy of failure report
dated 26-3-2002 at Exh. W-5, a copy of letter dated
27-10-2001 to Antao Francisco at Exh. W-6, a
copy of union letter dated 21-1-2002 to Party II at
Exh. W-7, a copy of union letter dated 25-1-2002 to
ALC, Vasco at Exh. W-8, a copy of letter dated
22-1-2002 to Party II at Exh. W-9, a copy of letter
dated 23-1-2002 to Mr. Thomas De Silva at Exh.
W-10, a copy of Union letter dated 8-2-2002 to ALC,
Vasco at Exh. W-11. The Party I also examined Shri
Yeshwant Surya Naik as WW-2, Shri Vishram
Tukaram Parab as WW-3, Shri Antonio Francisco
Antao as WW-4 and produced on record copies of
Form 16 from the year 1995 till 2002 and closed
their evidence. On the other hand, the Party II
examined Shri Francis D’Souza as EW-1 and
produced on record a copy of Resolution dated
28-8-2014 at Exh. 40 and closed their case.
10. It is a matter of record that total eleven
members of Party I workmen from Part A and
Part B of the schedule expired during the course of
the proceedings leaving behind their legal
representatives and they are as follows:
Part - A
(1) Dinu Pednekar alias Dinu B. Pednekar alias
Dinu Bhikaji Pote (20-10-2010)
(a) Lilawati Dinu Pote (wife)
(b) Eknath Dinu Pote (son)
(c) Nandu Dinu Pote (son)
(5) Agnelo D’Costa alias Jose Agnelo D. Costa
(13-11-2009)
(a) Ana Fancisco D’Costa (wife)
(b) Alfred D’Costa (son)
(c) Alzira D’Costa (daughter)
(7) Arun Pednekar (14-07-2006)
(a) Mrs. Amita Arun Pednekar (wife)
(b) Amit Arun Pednekar (son)
(c) Kushal Arun Pednekar (son)
(14) Prasad Naroji alias Prasad Mohan Naroji
(20-03-2003)
(a) Priya Prasad Naroji (wife)
(19) Nandu Naik alias Nandu Bhiku Naik
(14-08-2007)
(a) Bhiku Naik (father)
(b) Prema Naik (mother)
(c) Vishwanath B. Naik (brother)
(d) Jitendra B. Naik (brother)
(e) Upendra B. Naik (brother)
(25) Namdev Gavandi alias Namdev Gawandi
(16-01-2007)
(a) Mrs. Chaya Gawandi (wife)
(b) Kalpana N. Gawandi (daughter)
(c) Santosh N. Gawandi (daughter)
(29) Krishna Servikar alias Krishna Sarvekar
(6-12-2007)
(a) Kavita Sarvekar (wife)
(b) Gayatri Sarvekar (daughter)
(c) Chitrakshi Sarvekar (daughter)
Part - B
(7) Joaquim Fernandes alias Joaquim Carmelino
Fernandes (22-04-2008)
(a) Socorina Fernandes (daughter)
(b) Nazareth Fernandes (son)
(c) Duarte Fernandes (son)
(d) Rosalina Fernandes (daughter)
(e) Jalangina Fernandes (daughter)
(f) Hilda Fernandes (daughter)
(g) Sharmila Fernandes (daughter)
(h) Anita Fernandes (daughter)
(8) Philip Fernandes @ Filipe Benicio Fernandes
(18-10-2017)
(a) Mrs. Perpetua Gonsalves (wife)
(10) P.R.B. Trinidade alias Placiano Roberto
Belarmino Trindade (30-11-2012)
(a) Maria Olga Filomena Fernandes (wife)
(b) Ralph D. Trindade (son)
(c) Regulas M. Trindade (son)
(d) Ruby Gonsala Trindade (daughter)
(20) Paulo Colasco alias Paulo Colaco (12-11-2005)
(a) Pasciencia Colaco (mother)
(b) Lowrencia Colaco (sister)
(c) Francisco Colaco (brother)
(d) Cajetan Colaco (brother)
(e) Selvyn Colaco (brother)
11. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by Party I
as well as Party II.
12. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
… In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2
… In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3
… In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 5
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 6
… As per final order.
Issue No. 7
… As per final order.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
777
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
13. Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat for Party I has
submitted that Additional Labour Commissioner
had submitted a report on 26-3-2002 at Exb. W-5 to
the Secretary, Labour, Panaji with a copy to
Party I Union and Party II wherein the said Officer
has stated that the dispute of the workmen has
been raised by Party I Union and the said Union
had participated in the conciliation proceedings
throughout. The said fact is not in dispute. The
failure report of Shri S. A. Deshprabhu, Additional
Labour Commissioner clearly shows that Party I
Union had participated in the conciliation
proceedings and that Party II had filed a reply
dated 1-2-2002 at Exh. W-4 to the Additional Labour
Commissioner during the conciliation proceedings
highlighting the names of the workmen who have
been issued termination notices for not reporting
to duty from 24-11-2001 to 17-1-2002 and had not
disputed the jurisdiction of the State Government
to take up the issue of the workers.
14. There is also no dispute that the Party I
workmen had sent a letter dated 25-11-2001 at
Exh. W-1 to the General Secretary, Mormugao
Waterfront Workers Union for joining of their Union.
The Party II were also informed vide letter dated
21-1-2002 at Exh. W-7 that 63 workmen have joined
their Union and that any problem regarding the
said workers should be discussed only with them.
Exhibit W-3 is the letter written by the Union to
Assistant Labour Commissioner informing that the
32 workmen have been illegally dismissed by the
management of Party II on false charges without
enquiry. Exhibit W-8 is the letter written by the
Union to Assistant Labour Commissioner enclosing
copy of their letter to the Managing Director of
Party II along with signed letter from all the workers
of transhipper ‘M. V. Sunrise’. Exhibit W-11 is the
letter written by Union to Assistant Labour
Commissioner stating that 29 workers who have
been refused work on ‘M. V. Sunrise’ shall be
considered as part of the dispute. The said letters
therefore show that the Party I had raised a dispute
of all the 60 workmen named in the order of
reference in schedule A and B.
15. The failure report also indicates that the
dispute was raised by Party I Union and that the
Union had participated and the management
except for filing the written statement had not
participated in the conciliation proceedings as
reflected in the failure report at Exh. W-5. Shri
Francisco Rodrigues has stated that he was the
General Secretary of the Mormugao Waterfront
Workers Union and the Party I workmen were the
members of the Union since December, 2001
consequent to their application dated 25-11-2001
for joining their Union and that all the workers
were working on the transhipper called ‘M. V.
Sunrise’ which is owned by Party II. Shri Francis
D’Souza, the witness of Party II has admitted that
the workmen in schedule A and B of the order of
reference were last employed on the transhipper
‘M. V. Sunrise’ and it was owned and operated by
Party II from Panjim Port from 1999 till 2002, which
is a minor port. The documents including the letter
dated 21-1-2002 at Exh. W-7 intimating that 63
employees of Party II have joined the Party I Union
and the letter dated 25-1-2002 at Exh. W-8
enclosing their copy of letter to the Managing
Director of Party II clearly disclose that the Party II
was aware that the dispute of termination has been
raised by the workmen against Party II under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
16. Shri Francis D’Souza has admitted at Para 9
of the affidavit that the workmen referred in
schedule B have raised the dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vasco of alleged
illegal dismissal of 31 workers on the allegation
that they have been refused work, which show
that the Union had raised dispute before the
Appropriate authority in the matter of illegal
termination of the services. Needless to mention,
the present dispute is of termination of services of
workmen in schedule A and B of the order of
reference. There is also no dispute that Section
10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the
appropriate Government to refer the existing or
apprehended industrial dispute or any matter
appearing to be connected or relevant to the
dispute relating to any item specified in the second
schedule to a Labour Court or the Industrial
Tribunal for the adjudication. The present dispute
is of the termination of the services/refusal of
employment to the workmen of said transhipper
‘M. V. Sunrise’ w.e.f. 17-1-2002 and 18-1-2002. Such
a dispute can be raised by an individual workman
or by substantial number of workmen or by a Union
recognised or otherwise in the representative
capacity. The Party I has admittedly raised the
dispute before the Appropriate authority
demanding re-instatement and other benefits and
the Party II had not disputed the same before the
Conciliation Officer. The Party II has not disputed
the above referred documents produced before the
Conciliation Officer nor disputed the representative
capacity of the Union to raise the dispute on behalf
of the Union and therefore, the Union has locus
standi to represent the workmen. It is in such
circumstances, issue No. 1 has to be answered in
the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
778
Issue No. 2, 3 and 5:
17. Learned Adv. Mrs. M. Malar for Party II has
submitted that the Party I workmen abandoned
the work when they were requested to report for
work at Margao office by 1-2-2002 after Vasco office
was closed due to financial reasons vide letter
dated 23-1-2002, however none of the workmen
reported for duty and completely abandoned the
work. The workmen in their own evidence have
stated that they never reported for work as per
letter dated 22-1-2002 at Exh. W-9 and hence, the
Party II was left with no choice but to issue written
communication to the workmen as they had
willfully abandoned the employment and showed
no intention to report for work. She further
submitted that to constitute abandonment from
service, there must be total or complete giving up
of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume
the same. There is no evidence to indicate that
Party I workmen desired to join the duty and were
prevented from doing so, as inspite of intimation
they did not report to work at the head office at
Margao which shows total or complete giving up
of duties and therefore, not entitled for any
relief as held in the case of G. T. Lad & Others
vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd., (1979)
1 SCC, 590.
18. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat for Party
I has submitted that the term ‘abandonment’ means
relinquishment of an interest or claim and that
abandonment according to Black Laws Dictionary,
when used in relation to an office means ‘voluntary
relinquishment’. It must be total as to indicate an
absolute relinquishment and the failure to perform
the duties pertaining to the office must be with
actual or imputed intention, on the part of the
officer to abandon and relinquish the office. The
intention must be inferred from the acts and
conducts of the party and is a question of fact and
that temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient
to constitute an abandonment of office. He further
submitted that the Party II had sent a letter dated
17-1-2002 at Exh. W-2 to the workmen contending
absenteeism for work from 23-11-2001 to 17-1-2002
for 55 days and contended that the workmen had
abandoned the work. The said workmen had sent
replies dated 22-1-2002 at Exh. W-9 denying the
contention of Party II of not reporting for work and
claiming that they regularly reported for work for
6 days in a week and their termination is illegal.
The intention of the said workers not to abandon
the work with Party II is clear from said replies.
The reliance placed on the above citation is
applicable to the case of Party I and therefore the
above issues have to be answered accordingly.
19. It is well established by the Apex Court in
the case of G. T. Lad & Others, supra that in order
to constitute abandonment, there must be total or
complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an
intention not to resume the same. Failure to perform
duties pertaining to an office must be with actual
or imputed intention on the part of the officer to
abandon and relinquish the office. The intention
may be inferred from the acts and conduct of a
party and is a question of fact which could be
determined in the light of surrounding
circumstances in each case. Temporary absence is
not ordinarily sufficient to constitute abandonment
of office. When the absence of workmen from duty
was purely temporary, it cannot be construed as
their voluntary abandonment of the company’s
service. To abandon service means to detach,
unfasten, undo or untie the binding knot or link
which holds one to the office and obligations and
privileges that go with it. It is also well settled in
the case of Gangaram K. Medekar vs. Zenith Safe
Mfg. Co. and Ors, 1996 I CLR 172 that the onus
to prove the voluntary abandonment or not
reporting for work is on the employer and if the
employer has not adduced evidence on the same,
the benefit has to go to the workmen.
20. In short, abandonment or relinquishment of
service is always an intention which cannot be
attributed to an employee without adequate
evidence in that behalf and whether there has
been a voluntary abandonment of service or not, is
a question of fact, which has to be determined in
the light of surrounding circumstances in each
case. The employer unilaterally cannot say that
the workman is not interested in employment and
it is for this reason that a domestic enquiry is
required to be held and the burden of proving the
same is on the employer as it is their plea that the
workman abandoned the service as it is well settled
principle of law that if a misconduct which is an
abandonment of service is the foundation of the
dismissal, then the domestic enquiry is warranted
before the workman is terminated for misconduct
as in order to constitute abandonment, there must
be total or complete giving up of duties so as to
indicate an intention not to resume the same.
21. The Party I examined Shri F. X. Rodrigues,
General Secretary of Party I Union. He has deposed
that the services of workmen in reference were
dismissed by Party II vide letters dated 17-1-2002.
Exh. W-2 is a facsimile of the termination letter
issued to the workmen, so also that Exh. W-9 is the
facsimile of the letter dated 22-1-2002 written by
workmen to Party II in reply to letter dated
17-1-2002 of termination denying that the workmen
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
779
have not been reporting for work from 24-11-2001
to 17-1-2002 or that they abandoned the work and
requested to withdraw termination letters. There
is no dispute that Party II had terminated the
services of 30 workmen in Part A of the schedule
w.e.f. 17-1-2002 and 30 workmen in Part B of the
schedule, who have been alleged to have
abandoned the services w.e.f. 18-1-2002. The
management has claimed in the written statement
that the workmen in Part A and Part B of the
schedule have not reported within opportunity
period upto February, 2002 and have given the
names of the workmen who according to them
have abandoned the work/not reported within
opportunity period upto February, 2002.
22. Shri Yeshwant Naik has stated that the
workmen were actually working on the said
transhipper during the operational season and
during non-operation season; the workers were
deputed for various incidental jobs at Cortalim,
Shipyard, etc. The witnesses, Shri Vishram T. Parab
and Shri Antonio Antao have also echoed the case
of the above witness. Shri Francis D’ Souza, the
management witness has admitted in the cross
examination that every year the operations of
transhipper are from September to May of the next
year and no operations are carried on in monsoon
season. He also admitted that the said transhipper
was in operation at Panaji Port from September,
2001 to May, 2002. It is not explained by Party II as
to who were the workmen who were on duties
when the transhipper was admittedly in operation
at Panaji Port from September, 2001 to May, 2002.
No letters were also issued to the Party I workmen
for alleged non-reporting for work, which clearly
shows that the said transhipper was in operation
till May, 2002 at Panaji Port and that the workers
were working on the said transhipper during the
said period.
23. The truth that the workers were working on
the said transhipper upto 22-11-2001 was clear from
the fact that the said workers were paid their wages
upto 22-11-2001 as per clause 6 of termination letter
at Exh. W-2, whereas clause 5 of the said letter
shows that the date of abandonment is 23-11-2001
as it is alleged in the said letter that the workers
had not reported for work from 23-11-2001 to
17-1-2002 which cannot be accepted as it is the
case of Party II that they have abandoned the
work from 17-1-2002 and 18-1-2002 respectively.
Shri Francis D’Sousa has claimed that the workmen
were asked to report at Margao head office on
23-11-2001, whereas Para A of the written
statement states that the workers were asked to
report for work at head office at Margao due to
closure of Vasco office from 23-11-2001 for economic
reasons. No attendance register of the workers of
2001 showing absenteeism has been produced on
record. It is stated in Para B of the written statement
that some workers had reported for work in
response to the letter dated 17-1-2002 but the Party
II had not given the names of such workmen nor
produced any record including attendance register
of Margao head office.
24. Shri Francis D’Souza has admitted that
around 60 workers of Part A and Part B of the
schedule to the order of reference had reported for
work as per the option given in the said letter
dated 17-1-2002 at Exh. W-2. Ld. Adv. Mrs. M.
Malar for Party II has stated that the workmen who
had reported for work at Margao office were not
the part of the workmen referred in the present
reference, however the Party II has not specified
the names of the workmen in the written statement
but, on the contrary, Mr. Francis D’Souza has
admitted in the cross examination that 60 workmen
had responded and reported for work. He has also
not claimed that 60 workmen were not part of
present workmen concerned in the reference. There
is nothing on record that the workers were not
willing to work on the said transhipper from
November, 2001 to January, 2002, on the contrary
the evidence shows that the Party I workmen had
reported for work but they were not allowed to
work from 23-11-2001 on the ground that they had
absented from work w.e.f. 23-11-2001.
25. Once, it is admitted that sixty workmen from
Part A and Part B of the schedule had reported for
work as per option given in the letter dated
17-1-2001 at Exh. W-2, there is no question of
abandonment of work on the part of Party I
workmen, more particularly having regard to
documents including the letter dated 17-1-2002 of
Party II at Exh. W-2 and the reply of the workmen
at Exh. W-9 denying the same and claiming that
they reported for work 6 days a week. The intention
of Party I workmen not to abandon the work is very
clear from the said replies. It is therefore when the
intention of workmen concerned is clear to the
effect that they were ready to work, the case of
Party II that they have abandoned the work fails.
Moreover, the so called absenteeism is not for too
long period to call it voluntarily abandonment of
services and therefore, it can be safely said that
the Party II have failed to prove the abandonment,
but on the contrary the Party I have sufficiently
proved that Party II refused employment to the
workmen of Part A and Part B of the schedule of
reference and that the said refusal is illegal and
unjustified in the eyes of law.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
780
26. Be that as it may, even if it is presumed that
the allegation of Party II that the workmen were
not reporting for work w.e.f. 23-11-2001, the act on
the part of said workmen would be misconduct. It
is well settled that if misconduct is the foundation
of dismissal, then a domestic enquiry is warranted.
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. The Party
II unilaterally cannot claim that the workers were
not interested in the employment as they are
required to institute a domestic enquiry against
the workmen and prove that the workmen have
not been reporting for work/abandoned the job
before terminating the services. The contention of
Ld. Adv. Mrs. M. Malar that domestic enquiry is
not mandatory therefore cannot be accepted in
view of above facts.
27. Moreover, there is no evidence on record in
support of the contention that the Party I have
been absenting from work from 23-11-2001. Shri
Francis D’Souza has stated that he has no
knowledge regarding absenteeism of Party I
workmen nor he had produced any attendance
record. The Party II had not conducted any enquiry
before terminating the services of Party I workmen
for alleged absenteeism nor adduced any evidence
before the Tribunal to prove the same. In fact, the
witness, Shri Francis had admitted in the cross
examination that he is not aware if before issuing
the said letters of termination to the said workers,
the Party II had issued any show cause notice or
chargesheet alleging misconduct or absenteeism
or abandonment of services. He also admitted that
he had not sent any letters to the said workers in
November, 2001 or December, 2001 intimating them
that they have not been reporting for work from
23-11-2001 nor he has produced documentary
evidence in that regard. The Party I having proved
that the refusal of services of Party I workmen
named in the reference by Party II is in violation of
principles of natural justice, the said termination
of the workers named in the reference w.e.f.
17-1-2002 and 18-1-2002 respectively is illegal and
unjustified. It is therefore, issues No. 2 and 3 are
answered in the affirmative and issue No. 5 is
answered in the negative.
Issue No. 4:
28. Learned Adv. Mrs. M. Malar for Party II has
submitted that the reference is not maintainable
for the reasons stated in Para A of the written
statement namely the appropriate Government for
the purpose of dealing with the matter is the
Central Government as all the workers working for
Party II were working on a ocean going vessel
whereas the matter has been dealt by State
Government which is not an appropriate forum as
per relevant provision of Industrial Disputes Act.
However, as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat for Party I, Shri Francis D’Souza, the witness
of the management has admitted that the said
vessel ‘M. V. Sunrise’ was operating from Panjim
Port from 1998 till 2002 which is a minor port. He
has also admitted at Para 4, page 3 of the cross
examination that the said workers were reporting
at Panaji at Minor Port Office near Custom House,
Panaji and that he had to make gate passes of all
such workers who had reported at Panaji Port for
work for going to the Transhipper. There is no
dispute that Panaji Port is the Minor Port and in
terms of Section 2(A)(ii) of the Act, the appropriate
Government to refer the dispute for adjudication is
the State Government. It requires no mention that
in the cases relating to Major Ports, the appropriate
Government for adjudicating the dispute is the
Central Government in terms of Section 2(A)(i) of
the Act. The Panaji Port being the Minor Port, the
appropriate Government to refer the dispute for
adjudication is the State Government and therefore,
the present dispute referred by the appropriate
Government of State of Goa to the Tribunal for
adjudication of the dispute is proper and justified.
It is therefore the above contention of Ld. Adv.
Mrs. M. Malar cannot be accepted having any
merits and hence, the above issue No. 4 is answered
in the negative.
Issue No. 6 and 7:
29. Learned Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat for Party I has
submitted that the action of Party II in refusing
employment and terminating their services is illegal
and unjustified. The Party I workmen are therefore
entitled to reinstatement in service with full back
wages, continuity in service and other benefits.
Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat has submitted that the
Party I workmen are entitled for minimum wages
under Minimum Wages Act in scheduled
employment viz. employment in any shop and
commercial establishments other than residential
hotel, restaurant or eating house for skilled
workmen consisting of Electrician, Crane
Operators, Fitters, Welders, Shift Engineer, Loader
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
781
Operators and unskilled workers consisting of
Helpers and Labourers and in support thereof, he
has relied upon the following Notifications issued
by the Department of Labour, Government of Goa,
viz. (1) No. CL/3-11/(31)/- 99/4646 dated 18-9-2000;
(2) No. 28/29/2001/LAB dated 26-06-2003;
(3) No. 28/33/2006-LAB dated 14-03-2007;
(4) No. 24/21/2009-LAB dated 7-5-2010; (5) No. 24/
/21/2009-LAB-I dated 4-3-2013; (6) No. 24/21/2009-
-LAB-II dated 23-5-2016 and Order No. CLE/PA/
/MWA-VDA/(10)/2016/2136 dated 4-5-2017 and
Order No. CLE/PA/MWA-VDA/(10)/2016/1486 dated
16-3-2018 issued by the office of the Commissioner,
Labour and Employment. He therefore submitted
that the workers who have completed nearly
20 years of service have to be compensated
adequately.
30. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Mrs. M. Malar has
submitted that the Party I have abandoned the
services of Party II and therefore they are not
entitled for any back wages or reinstatement in
service. She further submitted that a pragmatic
view of the matter has to be taken by the Court
realizing that an industry may not be compelled to
pay to the workmen for the period during which
they apparently contributed little or nothing at all
to it and/or for a period that was spent
unproductively as a result whereof the employer
would be compelled to go back to a situation which
prevailed many years ago namely when the
workmen were retrenched. She further submitted
that the workmen did not plead that they after
their retrenchment were wholly unemployed or
were not gainfully employed during said period.
She also submitted that it is well settled that when
the workmen have not worked, they are not entitled
for any pay which is on the principle that ‘no pay
for no work’ and in support of her contention, she
relied upon the following cases: (i) Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Shri Phool
Chand (Dead) Through L.Rs, Civil Appeal No.
1756/2010 dated 20-09-2018; (ii) U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and another vs. Uday
Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479.
31. The question therefore is what reliefs the
Party I/workmen are entitled to, once it is held that
the refusal/termination is illegal, whether they are
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.
32. Needless to mention, the Court may
substitute re-instatement by compensation on
justifiable grounds 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 Party I
have proved that the refusal of their services were
illegal and without following the principles of
natural justice. The employer has terminated the
services of Party I w.e.f. 17-1-2002 for Part A workers
and 18-1-2002 for Part B workers. The workmen
have however not pleaded as well as deposed that
they were unemployed during the said period.
There is also no dispute that some of the workmen
have expired and some have already crossed the
date of superannuation. There is also nothing on
record that the workmen were permanent
workmen. The appointment letters have not been
produced on record. There is also no evidence that
Party II is still functioning and is carrying on
business at Goa. They are therefore not entitled for
reinstatement in service.
33.
The Party I have also not produced on
record the last drawn salaries of any of the workmen.
The Notifications of minimum wages relied upon
by Party II varies from Rs. 85/- to Rs. 423 from the
year 1-10-2000 till date for skilled workers and
Rs. 60/- to Rs. 310/- from the year 1-10-2000 till date
for unskilled workers. The above orders of office of
the Commissioner, Labour and Employment have
revised the rates of VDA on the basis of average
Consumer Price Index number for various
categories of employees in the Scheduled
Employment. There is no dispute that no
compensation has been paid to the Party I workmen
and that they are entitled for atleast minimum
wages and other benefits as per the said
Notifications and Orders. The workers from Part A
from Sr. No. 1 to 8 and 12 to 14 were skilled workers
and the others were unskilled workers. The workers
from Part B from Sr. No. 1 to 8, 10 to 13 and 30 were
skilled workers and others were unskilled workers.
The workmen however cannot claim entire back
wages from its employer as of right as they have to
plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after
his refusal from service, they were not gainfully
employed anywhere and had no earning to
maintain themselves and their families, which they
have failed to prove and therefore the workmen
would not get back wages in its entirety. It would
therefore be just and proper and in the interest of
justice to award the workers of Part A and Part B
of the schedule, 50% of the total back wages along
with other consequential benefits like in the case
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
782
of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
supra. It is therefore ends of justice would be met,
if the Party I workmen are paid 50% of total back
wages along with other consequential benefits to
be calculated on the basis of above Notifications
and Orders, which would be just, proper and
equitable in the facts and circumstances of the
case. Hence, the above issues are answered
accordingly.
34. It is also a matter of record that Shri Antonio
Antao at Sr. No. 2 of Part B is not entitled for any
relief as he admitted on page 6 of cross examination
that he was handed over the letter of termination
at Margao head office by Gosalia Shipping
Pvt. Ltd. Shri Francis Rodrigues has also admitted
on page 5 of the cross examination that the
termination letter dated 27-10-2001 at Exh. W-6
was issued to Antao Francisco by Gosalia Shipping
Pvt. Ltd. and that the Party II had not issued any
termination letter to Shri Antao Francisco. It is
therefore workman at Sr. No. 2 of Part B is not
entitled for any reliefs nor he can be part of the
present reference as admitted by their own witness.
35. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands partly allowed.
(ii) It is hereby held that the action of
the management of M/s Vishal Gomantak
Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., in terminating the
services of the workmen mentioned in
Part A and Part B of the schedule, except
workman at Sr. No. 2 of Part B, Shri Antonio
F. Antao, with effect from 17-01-2002 and
18-1-2002, is illegal and unjustified.
(iii) The Party II is directed to pay 50% of total
back wages along with other consequential
benefits to the Party I workmen mentioned
in Part A and Part B of the schedule, except
workman at Sr. No. 2 of Part B, Shri Antonio
F. Antao, to be calculated on the basis of
above Notifications and Orders.
(iv) The Party II is directed to deposit back
wages along with other consequential
benefits as stated above before the Tribunal
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/11
The following Interim Order passed by
the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at
Panaji-Goa on 30-11-2018 in reference No. IT/8/17
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, 2nd January, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/8/17
Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Apartments,
Tisk, Ponda-Goa.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Chowgule Industries
Pvt. Ltd.,
Campal,
Panaji, Goa-403 001.
…
Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri R.
Kinnerkar.
INTERIM ORDER
(Delivered on this the 30th day of the month
of November of the year 2018)
This Order shall dispose of the application at
Exh. 4 filed by the Party I for interim relief of
Rs. 5000/- per month per workman.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Party I is as
follows:
That the Union is representing the workmen
employed by the Party II. The Party II is a company
registered under Companies Act having business
of sales and service of vehicles of all India No. 1 car
manufacturing company namely M/s. Maruti
Udhyog Limited and Swaraj Mazada at Fatorda,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
783
Panaji, Mapusa and many other places in Goa and
that the Party II started its sales and service
activities in Goa from the year 1986 at Vasco and
since then, the Party II has expanded its business
all over the Goa with modernized sales and
service centres at Fatorda, Panaji, Mapusa, Vasco,
Canacona, etc.
3. That in the month of May, 2008 almost all the
permanent workmen employed by the Party II have
joined Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and on receipt of
the joining letters from the workers, the Sangh had
informed the management vide their letter dated
14-5-2008 that almost all the workers have joined
its Union and requested for a joint meeting and
that the Union has also informed the management
the names of the Local Committee and that as the
existing settlement was expiring on 30-6-2008, the
workers have decided to submit the Charter of
demands and accordingly, the Union has submitted
the Charter of demands vide their letter dated
10-6-2008 and that in order to avoid the confusion,
the workmen and the Union waited for the outcome
of the reference under No. IT/29/09. The Hon’ble
Tribunal was pleased to pass an Award dated
13-7-2015 in the above reference and was pleased
to consider the period of four years that is from
01-07-2008 to 30-06-2012 thereby upholding the
contention of the Union and the workmen. The final
Award dated 13-07-2015 passed by the Hon’ble
Tribunal in IT/29/09 has been affirmed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in
Writ Petition No. 739 of 2015 by its order dated
18-12-2015 and by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special
Leave Application No. 8329 of 2016 by dismissing
the appeal filed by the Party II. The Charter of
demands dated 10-6-2008 only covered the period
from 1-7-2008 to 30-6-2012. The practice in the
establishment since the first wage settlement was
to enter into wage settlements for a period of four
years and revise them thereafter and hence the
Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to consider the period
of four years duration and gave the liberty to the
workers to submit the Charter of demands from
1-7-2012.
4. Accordingly, the Union had raised the dispute
on 6-6-2016 on the Charter of demands dated
28-6-2012 covering the period from 1-7-2012 to
31-3-2016 and this was in line with the long
standing practice and custom prevailing in the
present establishment. The Hon’ble Tribunal has
granted hardly Rs. 1800/- increase per month which
is too meager to meet the day to day needs of the
workmen and that in the month of April 2012, the
Consumer Price Index was 4679 (1960=100) and
whereas in the year in the month April 2017, the
Consumer Price Index was increased to 6325
(1960=100) and therefore, there is tremendous
increase in the inflation and the wages paid to the
workmen are insufficient to meet the day-to-day
needs of the workers and due to the tremendous
increase in the Consumer Price Index and also the
tremendous increase in the inflation, the workers
are in need of immediate relief to meet the
increasing cost of living. It is also stated that
already four years have passed and to adjudicate
the Charter of demands in the reference will take
another 4 years considering the past record.
Therefore, it is urgent need to grant the interim
relief. The present wages of the workers (in all
grades) are at a level below ‘minimum wages’ and
thus the wages are to be brought to a level of at
least a ‘fair wage’ and in the alternative to the level
of ‘living wage’.
5. The employer has been in prime financial
health showing profits and thus would be in
position to bear any additional burden imposed by
way of revision of wages. There has been
tremendous increase in the inflation rate and as
such the real value of the rupee is deteriorated and
hence, the value of the wages presently paid to the
workmen is also deteriorated and workmen are put
to a great loss. The Party II revised the salary of the
officers on yearly basis and they are provided with
all the facilities and other benefits every year and
the workers are not paid even fair wages, inspite of
having the capacity of paying the living wage. The
cost of living in Goa is highest in the Country and
as such in order to meet the basic needs of the
workmen, their demand for interim relief is fair, just
and reasonable. Hence, the application filed along
with affidavit of Shri Puti Gaonkar in support
thereof.
6. The Party II filed a reply through HR-Sr.
Manager, Shri Sujay Rao inter-alia contending that
the Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain
the present reference as Award between the same
parties was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on
13-7-2015 in reference No. IT/29/09 and the present
Charter of demands is made for a prior period
starting and ending from 1-7-2012 to 31-1-2016
which cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. The
number of workmen represented by Party I Union is
miniscule as vast majority of employees are satisfied
to the total package received by them after the
Award dated 13-7-2015. The matters covered by the
previous Award cannot be referred to adjudication
during the currency of such an Award. The financial
position of the company is not sound as the major
incomes reflected in the Balance Sheet are from
interest on deposits, insurance and warranty
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
784
claimed, etc. The Union is also responsible for
instigating, provoking and disturbing the peace as
they have gone on strike causing monetary loss to
the company. The demands made in the application
are not based on settled principle of law. The Party
I has no locus standi to represent the workmen.
The expenditure on salaries and other aspects
connected with the workmen concerned are
increasing day by day without any corresponding
increase in the income generated from any of the
activities of the workmen. No case has been made
out by Party I to grant any reliefs.
7. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments
came to be placed on record by Party I as well as
Party II.
8. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I has
submitted that the power to grant interim reliefs is
settled by various decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court
which had laid down parameters for grant of
interim reliefs by the Industrial Tribunal. The prima
facie case has been spelt out by Party I workmen as
they have been deprived of wages which resulted
in cutting down the purchasing power of pay
package of the workmen and it is difficult to survive
in the present economy with prices of essential
commodities rising day by day, however salary of
the workmen has not been increased in any
substantial manner. The Consumer Price Index (CPI)
has increased by 32.07% from July 2012 to July,
2016. The workmen are at disadvantage in the
litigation which they are fighting with depleted
value of the salaries. The financial capacity of the
employer is strong. Balance of convenience is in
favour of Party I workmen as last Award dated
13-7-2015 has not been implemented and their
wages have not been revised. It is therefore interim
relief to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per workman be granted.
9. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri R. Kinnerkar for
Party II has submitted that the Party I is not entitled
for any reliefs as the Union has not produced data
of comparable concerns of industry cum region
and that the increments for the relevant period for
2012-2016 as per the work and performance have
already been paid to the workmen. The financial
burden cannot be foisted on the company as they
have been paid for the work already done by the
workers and any additional amount, if granted by
the Tribunal will be for the work not done by them
nor the same can be recovered in terms of
additional work at this stage in any form or kind.
The old Balance Sheet produced by the Union and
the documents are irrelevant and has nothing to
do with the present reference. The application for
interim relief therefore be dismissed.
10. It is well settled that the Tribunal has powers
to grant interim reliefs in terms of ‘incidental
thereto’ occurring in Section 10(4) of Industrial
Disputes Act as held in the case of Management
Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and others vs. Hotel
Workers Union, 1960 (1) SCR 476. It is also well
established that merely because Court is vested
with the powers of granting interim relief in an
application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the same would not relieve Party I
from establishing the three preconditions required
for seeking such a relief as pointed out in the
judgment in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra
Limited vs. Dwarkanath Babaji Dalvi & Anr., 2006
I CLR 902. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in
Webel Nicco Electronics Ltd. vs. Anima Roy,
1997(II) CLR 158, has laid down the parameters for
grant of interim relief by the Industrial Tribunal.
These parameters are (a) prima facie case and (b)
balance of convenience.
11. The following points therefore arise for my
determination which is mentioned along with their
findings and reasons thereof.
Points
Findings
1. Whether the Party I have
In the Affirmative
made out a prima facie case
for grant of relief claimed?
2. Whether irreparable loss
In the Affirmative
and inconvenience would
cause to Party I in case of
non grant of relief claimed?
POINT 1
12. The present reference is for the Charter
of demands raised by the Union for the years
2012-2016. The earlier Charter of demands have
been admittedly decided by an Award dated
13-7-2015 in IT/29/09 by the Tribunal wherein out
of 17 demands, only 8 demands were partially
allowed. The period of said demands was restricted
upto 2012 since the earlier settlement has expired
in the year 2008. The company, it appears has
refused to negotiate with any workmen or the Union
since 2012 and no wage increase has taken place
which resulted in the disposal of the reference
No. IT/29/09 on 13-7-2015. There is not a substantial
rise as only 8 out of 17 demands were granted by
the Tribunal. The said Award has become final
after the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa
dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Party II. There
also cannot be any dispute that the Apex Court
refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition filed
by the company. It is a matter of record that the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
785
Union had filed proceedings under Section 33-C(1)
before the Office of the Commissioner, Labour and
Employment which had been stayed by the Hon’ble
High Court and subsequently it was dismissed by
Order dated 29-10-2018. It is therefore the benefits
of the wage increase as per the Award passed by
the Hon’ble Tribunal has not been received by the
workmen concerned.
13. Needless to mention, the deprivation of
increase in wage has reduced the purchasing
power of the pay-package of the workmen. The
salary of the workmen has not increased in any
substantial manner as seen from the pay slips of
the workers at Exh. 16 colly and Exh. 17. It is well
settled that the inflation always reduces the real
value of rupee and the said factors along with
rising Consumer Price Index has to be considered.
The salary slips produced on record show that
though it appears that salaries have increased but
after the impact of inflation the increase is minimal
as in the same period the Consumer Price Index
has changed i.e. for July 2012: 212, July 2013: 235,
July 2014: 252, July 2015: 263, July 2016: 280
respectively. It is therefore, the CPI has increased
by 32.07% (Base 2001=100). Needless to mention,
the rise in the CPI as well as the impact of inflation
constitutes prima case for grant of interim relief. It
is well settled that the wages are among the major
factors in the economic and social life of the
working classes. Workers and their families depend
almost entirely on wages to provide themselves
with the three basic requirements of food, clothing
and shelter.
14. Importantly, there is no VDA paid in case of
workmen viz. Anand Naik, Nilesh Sawant, Audhut
Samant, Viplav Vasta and Dilip Kavelkar as seen
from their pay slips, despite the earlier Award dated
13-7-2015 which has fixed a figure for VDA but no
VDA is being paid to the said workers and without
VDA, the pay of the workers cannot be protected
against the rise of inflation as held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd.
v/s V.N. Dongre, (1994) 6 SCC 157. The figures
paid as ‘incentives’ and ‘adhoc’ which are again
unknown variables can be stopped/withdrawn by
the Employer at any point of time. The employer
has distorted the pay structure to the prejudice of
the workmen. The figures also show that though
HRA of 30% of basic was awarded by the Tribunal
in its Award dated 13-07-2015, HRA is not being
paid at that rate. Children Education Allowance of
200/- per month as awarded is also not being paid,
Washing allowance of 300/- per month as awarded
is also not being paid. These factors constitute a
strong prima facie case for the grant of interim
relief as rightly pointed out by Ld. Advocate Shri
Gaonkar. The financial condition of the Employer
is strong and no evidence to the contrary is
produced by Party II. The profits, before taxation in
the year 2009-10 were Rs. 19,83,51,000/- which had
increased from Rs. 10,98,58,000/- of the last year as
per the Balance Sheet. It is also a matter of record
that in the year 2010-11, the profits, before taxation
were Rs. 17,37,32,000/- which clearly show that
there is a healthy financial capacity. The above
submissions of Ld. Advocate Shri Kinnerkar
therefore pale into insignificance. The Party I
having proved a prima facie case in its favour, the
above point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT 2
15. There is no dispute that my predecessor in
Reference No. IT/29/09 vide order dated 5-4-2011
has granted Rs. 750/- per month as interim relief
from the date of application till final award and
that amount paid by way of interim relief shall be
adjusted at the time of passing of the final Award.
There is also no dispute that the Final Award came
to be passed on 13-7-2015 by which an amount of
Rs. 2,000/- and above per month has been awarded
to the workmen and that the Hon’ble High Court
as well as Apex Court have maintained the said
Award. Needless to mention, balance of
convenience is also in favour of Party I considering
the fact that the workmen is at a disadvantage in
this litigation which they are fighting with depleted
values of their salaries and that the financial
capacity of the Employer is strong. Moreover, the
last Award dated 13-07-2015 has not been
implemented by the Employer at all and therefore,
the wages has not been revised. Hence, the above
point is also answered in the affirmative.
16. The next question that arises determination
is the quantum of interim compensation to be paid.
The Party I is claiming an amount of Rs. 5000/- per
month as interim relief, however, not supported
the basis on which the said amount has been
claimed. Nonetheless, considering that the Award
has been passed on 13-07-2015 which has not been
implemented till date and that there is more than
30% increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
year from 2012 to 2016, the interim relief of
Rs. 2,500/- per month can be considered to be just
and proper, fair and reasonable which is required
to be granted from the date of filing the application.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
786
17. Having said so, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Party I at Exhibit
4 stands partly granted.
(ii) Consequently, the Party II shall pay
Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five
hundred only) to the workmen per month
as interim relief from the date of
application till final disposal of the
reference.
(iii) The arrears of interim relief shall be paid
within 3 months from the date of
publication of Interim Award.
(iv) The amount paid by way of interim relief
shall be adjusted at the time of final
disposal of the reference.
(v) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 13/19/2016-PER/018
Whereas, the Government vide order No. 13/19/
/2016-PER/2067 dated 29-06-2018 was pleased to
grant extension in services to Shri Jose Elizeu
D’Mello, Executive Engineer (Elect.), Electricity
Department for a period of six months w.e.f.
01-07-2018 to 31-12-2018 subject to Vigilance
Clearance, concurrence of Finance Department and
approval of Cabinet;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
now submitted Vigilance Clearance stating that,
no Disciplinary Proceedings/Vigilance cases
are pending or being contemplated against
Shri D’Mello.
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U.O. No. 1400053554 dated 27-09-2018 has
concurred the proposal for grant of extension of
Shri D’Mello subject to approval of cabinet;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers in its
XXXVIth meeting held on 20-12-2018 has
approved to grant ex-post facto approval for
extension in service beyond superannuation to
Shri Jose Elizeu D’Mello Executive Engineer (Elect.),
Electricity Department for a period of six months
w.e.f. 01-07-2018 to 31-12-2018.
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the order No. 13/19/2016-PER/2067 dated
29-06-2018 granting extension in service beyond
superannuation to Shri Jose Elizeu D’Mello,
Executive Engineer (Elect.), Electricity Department
for a period of six months w.e.f. 01-07-2018 to
31-12-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 28th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 13/14/2016-PER/3448
Whereas, the Government vide order No. 13/14/
/2016-PER/2378 dated 30-07-2018 was pleased to
grant extension in services to Shri N. Neelakanta
Reddy, Superintending Engineer (Elect.), Electricity
Department for a period of three months w.e.f.
01-08-2018 to 31-10-2018 subject to Vigilance
Clearance, concurrence of Finance Department and
approval of Cabinet;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has now
submitted Vigilance Clearance stating that, no
Disciplinary Proceedings/Vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Shri Reddy.
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U.O. No. 1400040448 dated 08-08-2018 has
concurred the proposal for grant of extension of
Shri Reddy subject to adherence of all Rules in
force;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers in its
XXXVIth meeting held on 20-12-2018 has approved
to grant ex-post facto approval for extension
in service beyond superannuation to Shri N.
Neelakanta Reddy, Superintending Engineer
(Elect.), Electricity Department for a period of three
months w.e.f. 01-08-2018 to 31-10-2018.
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the order No. 13/14/2016-PER/2378 dated
30-07-2018 granting extension in service beyond
superannuation to Shri N. Neelakanta Reddy,
Superintending Engineer (Elect.), Electricity
Department for a period of three months w.e.f.
01-08-2018 to 31-10-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 28th December, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
787
Order
No. 2/1/2001-PER (Part IV)/007
Shri Sharad G. Marathe, retired member of Goa
General Services, is hereby appointed as
“Ombudsman” under Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of
Rule 3 of the Goa Government Employees (Redressal
of Grievances Forum) Scheme, 2001 as amended,
with immediate effect. The term of appointment of
Shri Marathe shall be initially for a period of one
year and regulated as per the aforesaid Scheme.
Shri Marathe, before entering upon the office
shall make and subscribe before the Chief Minister
or some person authorized and appointed in that
behalf by him, oath or affirmation as required under
the Scheme.
Shri Marathe shall be paid after deducting
pension, an amount equivalent to his last drawn
salary, plus fixed travelling allowance of Rs. 3000/-
per month.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 01st January, 2019.
________
Order
No. 7/21/2017-PER/032
Smt. Nila Mohanan, IAS, Secretary (Education)
shall hold the charge of the post of Director
(Education), in addition to her duties in public
interest with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2019.
________
Order
No. 15/11/2016-PER/039
On the recommendation of Goa Services Board
and approval of the Government, Shri Dasharath
Gawas, Mamlatdar, Satari holding additional charge
of Chief Officer, Valpoi Municipal Council shall hold
charge of the post of Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Satari in
addition to his own duties, in public interest, with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2019.
Order
No. 6/9/2009-PER/Part-IV A/048
On the recommendation of the Goa Services
Board and with the approval of the Government
Ms. Margaret Fernandes, Secretary, Goa Human
Rights Commission shall hold the charge of the
post of Managing Director, Goa State Minorities
Finance and Development Corporation Limited in
addition to her own duties Secretary, in public
interest, with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 4th January, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
__
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/AE(Civil)/Part/3444
Read: 1. No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/AE(Civil)/3906
dated 01-11-2013.
2. No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/AE(Civil)/5313
dated 30-03-2015.
3. No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/AE(Civil)/1384
dated 09-08-2017.
4. No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/AE(Civil)/2976
dated 03-01-2018.
Government is pleased to extend the ad hoc
promotions in respect of following Assistant
Engineers (Civil) for the period mentioned in
column 4 below:
Sr. Name of the
Designation
Period of
No.
officers
extension
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Uday A.
Assistant Engineer 01-01-2018 to
Samant
(Civil)
12-04-2018.
2. Shri Prashant Assistant Engineer 01-01-2018 to
P. Hinde
(Civil)
29-07-2018.
3. Shri Vasudev Assistant Engineer 01-01-2018 to
N. Prabhu
(Civil)
30-07-2018.
2. The above extended ad hoc promotions shall
not bestow on the above officers, any claim for
regular appointment and services tendered by
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
788
above officers on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer
(Civil) shall not be counted for the purpose of
seniority in the grade or eligibility for promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).
3. This issues with the approval of Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/16(1)/2016/818 dated 19-11-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Reshma Mathew, Chief Electrical Engineer &
ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 2nd January, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 22/6/98-I/PHD/PF II/08
Read: 1) Government Order No. 22/6/98-I/PHD/PF II
dated 09-11-2018.
2) Government Order No. 22/6/98-I/PHD/PF
II dated 12-12-2018.
In supersession of the Government Order read
at preamble (2), Government is pleased to transfer
Dr. Shaila Devari, Health Officer from Primary Health
Centre, Pirna and post her at Primary Health Centre,
Ponda with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Porvorim, 27th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 44/27/2016-I/PHD/33
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/24(7)/2017/296 dated 12-12-2018, the
Government is pleased to declare Dr. Pallavi
Kolvalkar, Junior Radiologist under the Directorate
of Health Services as having satisfactorily
completed her probation period of two years from
12-12-2011 to 11-12-2013, and to confirm her in the
post of Junior Radiologist under the Directorate of
Health Services.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Porvorim, 31st December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 44/21/2017-I/PHD/Part-I/39
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/24(2)/2016/295 dated 12-12-2018, the Government is pleased to declare satisfactorily completion of
probation period as well as confirmation of following doctors under the Directorate of Health Services
in the posts shown against their names with effect from the date of completion of probation period, as
under:
Sr.
Name of officers
Date of probation
Post to which probation
Confirmed in the
No.
period completed
period completed and
post of
confirmed
1. Dr. Nicola Barreto
01-02-2016
31-01-2018
Junior ENT Surgeon.
2. Dr. Swayamsidha H. Andhale
01-07-2016
30-06-2018
Junior ENT Surgeon.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 27th December, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
789
Corrigendum
No. 21/8/2017-I/PHD/07
Read:
Government Order No. 22/6/98-I/PHD/II/
/2586 dated 09-11-2018.
In the Government Order read at preamble, the
name of doctor appearing as “Dr. Lorna Vaz” shall
be corrected to read as under:-
“Dr. Lorna Audrey Maria Fernandez”.
Rest of the content remains unchanged.
Maria Seomara De souza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 27th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Social Welfare
Directorate of Social Welfare
__
Notification
No. 86-2-2015-16-SDB/Part-III/5103
In exercise of the powers conferred by chapter VII
Section 26 (I), Government is pleased to constitute
a State Monitoring Committee under The
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers
and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
1. Hon’ble Chief Minister
— Chairperson,
or Minister nominated
ex officio.
by him
2. Hon’ble Minister for Social
— Member.
Welfare
3. Chairman “Goa State Commi-
— Member.
ssion for Safai Karamcharis”
4. Chairman “Goa State Commi-
— Member.
ssion for Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe”
5. Representative of National
— Member.
Commission for Scheduled
Caste and Safai Karmacharis
6. Shri Manohar Ajgaonkar,
— Member.
Hon’ble MLA, Pernem
Constituency
7. Shri Prasad Gaonkar,
— Member.
Hon’ble MLA, Sanguem
Constituency
8. Secretary (Home)
— Member.
9. Secretary (Panchayati Raj)
— Member.
10. Secretary (Urban Develop-
— Member.
ment)
11. Director General of Police,
— Member,
Panaji
ex officio.
12. Director of Panchayats
— Member,
ex officio.
13. Director of Municipal
— Member,
Administration
ex officio.
14. One representative of All
— Member.
Goa Municipal Employees
Association, St. Inez,
Panaji-Goa
15. One Women representative
— Member.
of CCP Employees Union,
Ramakant Appt., M. G. Road,
Panaji-Goa
16. One representative of Goa
— Member.
Municipal Workers Union,
Panaji-Goa
17. One Women representative
— Member.
of M/s Bapu Environmental
Social Service Organisation,
G-2, Verenkar, Durgabhat,
Ponda-Goa
18. Manager of State Bank of
— Member,
India–Lead Bank
ex officio.
19. Secretary (Social Welfare)
— Member
Secretary.
The State Monitoring Committee shall meet
every six months.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
S. V. Naik, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary
(Social Welfare).
Panaji, 4th January, 2019.
———uuu——
Department of Town and Country Planning
Office of the Chief Town Planner (Planning)
__
Notification
No. 36/1/TCP/339/2019/93
Whereas, the Chief Town Planner has notified
the Regional Plan for Goa–2021 (Part), under Section
17 read with Section 15 of the Goa, Daman and Diu
Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of
1975) (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), as
approved by the Government,—
(i) in respect of the Canacona and Pernem
Talukas vide the Government Notification
No. 29/8/TCP/2010/RP-21/4106 dated
24-11-2010, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 35 dated 25-11-2010;
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
790
(ii) in respect of the Satari Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plan of twelve Village
Panchayats and one Municipal Council,
Ponda Taluka alongwith Settlement Level
Plan of eighteen Village Panchayats
excluding Usgao Village Panchayat and
Quepem Taluka alongwith Settlement Level
Plans of eleven Village Panchayats and two
Municipal Councils with land use tables
vide the Government Notification No. 29/8/
/TCP/2010/RP-21/1952 dated 26-04-2011,
published in the Official Gazette, Series I
No. 4 dated 28-04-2011;
(iii) in respect of Bicholim Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of seventeen Village
Panchayats and two Municipal Councils,
Dharbandora Taluka alongwith Settlement
Level Plans of five Village Panchayats and
Sanguem Taluka alongwith Settlement Level
Plans of seven Village Panchayats and one
Municipal Council with Release-II Report
vide the Government Notification No. 29/8/
/TCP/2011/RP-21/3742 dated 09-09-2011,
published in the Official Gazette, Series III,
No. 24 dated 15-09-2011;
(iv) in respect of Ponda Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plan of nineteen Village
Panchayats including Usgao Village
Panchayat with land use table vide the
Government Notification No. 29/8/TCP/2011/
/RP-21/Pt. file/3983 dated 27-09-2011,
published in the Official Gazette, Series I,
No. 26 dated 29-09-2011; and
(v) in respect of Bardez Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of thirty-three Village
Panchayats, Tiswadi Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of eighteen Village
Panchayats, Marmugao Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of three Village
Panchayats and Salcete Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of thirty-three Village
Panchayats and one Municipal Council with
Release-III Report vide the Government
Notification No. 29/8/TCP/2011/RP-21/4220
dated 12-10-2011, published in the Official
Gazette, Series III No. 29 dated 20-10-2011,
(hereinafter referred to as the “said Regional
Plan”);
And whereas, the said Regional Plan came into
operation in respect of such parts/areas on and
from the date of publication of the aforesaid
respective Notifications in the Official Gazette;
And whereas, the Chief Town Planner
(Planning) has received requests from the
applicants as specified in column (2) of the Table
below, under sub-section (1) of Section 16B of the
said Act, for change of existing zone of their
respective land to the zones, as specified in
columns (6) and (7) respectively of the Table below
(hereinafter referred to as the “said requests/
/proposals”);
And whereas, the Chief Town Planner
(Planning), after carrying out such surveys and
examining the said requests/proposals, referred the
said requests/proposals alongwith his report to the
Town and Country Planning Board for its
consideration;
And whereas, the Town and Country Planning
Board has considered the said requests/proposals
and report of the Chief Town Planner (Planning)
and given its recommendations thereof as specified
in column (9) of the Table below;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the
said Act, the Chief Town Planner (Planning) hereby
notifies the requests/proposals for change of zone
in respect of the Regional Plan for Goa–2021 and
recommendations of the Town and Country
Planning Board thereof as specified in the Table
below for information of the persons likely to be
affected thereby and notice is hereby given that
the copies of the maps and note containing the
proposed changes are available for the purpose of
inspection in the office of the Town and Country
Planning Department, 2nd Floor, Dempo Tower, Patto
Plaza, Panaji-Goa for a period of two months with
effect from the date of publication of this
Notification in the Official Gazette.
All objections and/or suggestions to the said
requests/proposals and recommendations of the
Town and Country Planning Board thereof, if any,
may be forwarded to the Chief Town Planner
(Planning), 2nd Floor, Dempo Tower, Patto Plaza,
Panaji-Goa, before the expiry of the said period of
two months so that they can be referred to the
Town and Country Planning Board for its
consideration under sub-section (2) of Section 13
of the said Act.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
791
TABLE
Sr.
Name of the
Survey
Village &
Total
Existing zone
Proposed
Area
Recommen-
No.
Applicant
No. and
Taluka
area
as per RP
change of
sought
dation of
sub-division
for Goa-2021
zone
for
the Town
No.
change
and Country
of zone
Planning
Board
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
1. Fr. Diogo M.
17/8
Sao Jose
18700.00
Industrial zone
Institutio-
18700.00
Recommended
Fernandes,
de Areal
m2
(Sanad was
nal zone
m2
for provisional
Aninha
village,
issued for
approval.
Educational
Salcete
Educational
Trust
Taluka
Institution dated
18-12-2006)
2. Confraria of
50
Siridao
To propose 6 mtr. wide road
NA
NA
Recommended
Siridao Church
village,
through the property bearing
for 6.00 mts.
Tiswadi
Sy. No. 50
road as proposed.
Taluka
3. Matruchaya
32/7 &
Talaulim
4675.00
Settlement zone
Settlement
4675.00
Not recommended
Trust
31/13
village,
m2
S3
zone S2
m2
since the status
Ponda
of village Talaulim
Taluka
in Ponda Taluka
is VP2 wherein
FAR permitted
is 60 only.
4. Vrushal Estate
63/2, 3,
Chaudi
3588.00
As per Zoning
Commercial 3588.00
Recommended for
& Development 11,12
village,
m2
Plan for
zone
m2
provisional approval
Pvt. Ltd.
& 16
Canacona
Canacona
for change of zone
Taluka
Municipal Area
to settlement zone
i.e. part Regional
only, as per munici-
Plan 2001, property
pal status under
shown as
RPG-2021.
Commercial zone
and as per RP 2021
it is shown as
Paddy Field
5. Pandurang @
208/1
Dharban-
393100.00
Partly Settlement
Rectifica-
–
Recommended for
Deepak
dora
m2
zone, partly
tion of
exclusion of
Dhavlikar,
Orchard zone,
error in
triangular portion
Bandora,
partly Paddy
marking of
of the property
Ponda, Goa
Field, partly
eco-sensitive
from eco-sensitive
Natural cover
zone around
zone boundary in
zone with part
Bondla Wild
view of clarification
area under No
Life Sanctuary
in the letter dated
Development
13-6-2018 of Dy.
Slope, partly
Conservator of
Institution zone,
Forests, North
partly water
Division, Panaji.
body and
partly
Private Forest.
Property affected
by National
Highway and
1 km. Buffer
Zone of Wild
Life Sanctuary,
Error marking
in Eco-Sensitive
zone
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
792
6. Mrs. Mumtaz
24/8C
Goa Velha
200.00
Orchard zone
Settlement
200.00
Recommended for
Asif Shaikh
village,
m2
zone
m2
provisional approval
Tiswadi
for change of zone
Taluka
to Settlement as per
VP status.
7. Mr. Sudin B.
142/1
Sao Jose
61275.00
As per RPG
Total area
55000.00
Only 55000.00 sq.
Naik,
De Areal
m2
2021, the
to Settle-
m2
mts. of property is
Mr. Suhas U.
village,
property is
ment
recommended for
Naik, Mr. Nitish
Salcete
earmarked
zone
change of zone to
U. Naik,
Taluka
partly as
Settlement as per
Mr. Shirish
Industrial,
VP status.
Naik, H. No.
partly Cultivable
334, Comba,
zone and partly
Margao, Goa
as Settlement
zone
8. RNG
59/1A
Mandur
89225.00
As per RPG
Settlement
89225.00
Recommended for
Enterprises
village,
m2
2021, the
zone
m2
provisional approval
Tiswadi
property is
for change of zone
Taluka
earmarked
to Settlement as
partly as
per VP status.
Settlement S4,
partly Micro
Industrial zone
and partly
Natural cover
9. Mrs. Megha
78/5
Salvador-
Shifting
Property partly
Shifting of
NA
Recommended for
Ajgaonkar
-do-Mundo
of road
affected by
proposed
shifting of road
village,
10.00 mts.
10.00 mts.
entirely on the
Bardez
wide road
wide road
eastern side
Taluka
on the eastern
entirely on
boundary of the
side
the eastern
property under
side boundary
Sy. No. 78/5 as
proposed.
10. Mandar D.
104/2-O
Karapur
Deletion
As per RPG
Deletion of
NA
Recommended for
Kharkhande,
village,
of
2021, 30 mts.
proposed
deletion of 30.00 mts.
H. No. 96,
Bicholim
proposed
wide proposed
road
wide proposed
Kodal wada,
Taluka
road
road is passing
passing
road passing
Karapur,
through the
through
through the
Tisk
property
the property
property i.e.
Sankhalim
Sy. No. 104/2-O in
view of the actual
road alignment
plan of PWD
submitted by the
applicant which
does not cover
the property under
reference under
said proposed
road.
11. GRN
113/0
Candola
Deletion
Request for
Deletion of
NA
Recommended for
Enterprises
village,
of
deletion of
proposed
deletion of proposed
Ponda
proposed
proposed
25.00 mts.
25.00 mts. road
Taluka
road
25.00 mts.
road (Ponda
passing through
road passing
Taluka
Sy. No. 113/0 of
through
Office of
Candola village in
Sy. No. 113/0
TCP Dept.
view of availability
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
793
has approved
of alternate road
sub-division
just in the close
vide No. TPP/
vicinity and since
/Sub-Div/Org/
the said proposed
56/97/373
road is not viable
due to past
commitment of
TCP Dept. by
approving sub-
-division layout
before Notification
of RPG-2021 which
in turn may affect
the development
already allowed.
12. Anil D’Souza,
52/1-A
Tivrem,
38150.00
As per RPG-
Settlement
38150.00
Recommended for
A9 LA-Catadel
Marcel,
m2
-2021, property
Zone
m2
provisional
Colony, Dona-
Ponda
is earmarked
approval for change
-Paula, Goa
Taluka
partly as
of zone to
Orchard, partly
Settlement as per
as No Develop-
VP status.
ment Slope &
partly as
Settlement Zone
13. Gurudas C.
4/16
Moira
7850.00
As per RPG-2021, Settlement
7850.00
Only 500 sq. mts.
Kerkar
village,
m2
property is
Zone
m2
of property for
Bardez
earmarked as
personal housing
Taluka
Paddy Field
is recommmended
for change of
zone to Settlement
as per VP status,
subject to NOC
from Competent
Authority.
14. Yeshwant M.
496/1A
Anjuna
151369.90
As per RPG-2021, Settlement
151369.9
Recommended for
Sawant
village,
m2
property is
zone
m2
provisional
Bardez
earmarked partly
approval for
Taluka
as No Develop-
change of zone to
ment Slope, partly
Settlement as per
Natural Cover,
VP status.
partly Orchard
zone, partly
Crematorium and
GMS. Also, 15 mts.
proposed road is
passing through
the property
15. Shankar S.S.
121-1
Savoi-
320050.00
As per RPG-
Settlement
320050.00 Recommended for
Singbal
Verem
m2
2021, property
zone
m2
provisional
village,
is earmarked
approval for
Ponda
partly as
change of zone
Taluka
Natural cover
to Settlement
with No
as per VP status.
Development
slope. Plot is
also affected
by proposed
10.00 mtrs.
wide road
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
794
16. AA Walkar
10/0
Morjim
16000.00
As per RPG-2021, Settlement
16000.00
Recommended for
Estates Pvt.
village,
m2
property is earmar- Zone
m2
provisional approval
Ltd., Calangute,
Pernem
ked as Orchard
for change of zone
Bardez
Taluka
Zone
to settlement as
per VP status.
17. Riviera
32/1 &
Revora
21,000.00
As per RPG-
Settlement
4000.00
Only 4000.00 sq. mts.
Construction
31/4
village,
m2
2021, property
Zone
m2
is recommended
Pvt. Ltd.
Bardez
is earmarked
(Sanad is
for change of
Taluka
partly as
issued for
zone to Settlement
settlement
17475 of
as per VP status.
and partly No
Sy. No. 32/1
Development
& 31/4)
Slope
18. Adwalpalkar
44/1
Curca
27432.00
As per RPG-
Settlement
27432.00
Recommended for
Construction &
(Part)
village,
m2
2021, property
zone
m2
provisional approval
Resorts Pvt.
Tiswadi
is earmarked
for change of zone
Ltd.
Taluka
partly as
to Settlement as per
Settlement,
VP status.
partly Orchard
and partly No
Development
zone
19. M/s. Mathiyan
132/1,
Cavelossim 29875.00
As per RPG-
Settlement
29875.00
Recommended for
Hotels &
2, 4,
village,
m2
2021, property
zone
m2
provisional approval
Resorts Pvt.
& 5
Salcete
is earmarked
for change of zone
Ltd.
Taluka
partly as
to Settlement as
Orchard zone
per VP status.
and partly
paddy field.
Property under
reference falls
within 500 mts.
of HTL
20. Mr. Efigenio
132/38
Cavelossim 5000.00
As per RPG-
Settlement
5000.00
Recommended for
Dias, Plot No.
village,
m2
2021, property
zone
m2
provisional approval
41, Sancoale
Salcete
is earmarked
for change of zone
Industrial
Taluka
partly as
to Settlement as
Estate, Zuari
Orchard zone
per VP status.
Nagar
and partly as
Settlement zone.
Property under
reference falls
within 500
mts. of HTL
21. Anant
354/1
Latam-
41608.00
As per RPG-
Settlement
41608.00
Recommended for
Prabhakar
barcem
m2
2021, property
zone
m2
provisional approval
Malik,
village,
is earmarked
for change of zone
C/o Samir
Bicholim
partly as
to Settlement as
Vasudev
Taluka
Orchard zone,
per VP status.
Shirodkar,
partly Natural
Shop No. 4,
Cover and
Bicholim-
partly Irrigation
-Goa
Command area
22. Office of
Salcete
Correction of Road in Village Panchayat
–
Recommended for
Village
jurisdiction of Colva, Sernabatim,
reduction of width
Panchayat
Vanelim and Gandaulim from 15 mts.
of road from 15 mts.
Sernabatim,
to 10.00 mts. and from 10.00 mts.
to 10.00 mts. and
Vanelim, Colva
to 6.00 mts.
from 10.00 mts. to
& Gandaulim
6.00 mts. as proposed
by Panchayat.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
795
23. Shri Saptakote- 2/7
Naroa
106800.00
As per RPG-
Institutio-
13565.00
Recommended for
shwar
village,
m2
2021, property
nal zone
m2
provisional approval
Devasthan
Bicholim
is earmarked
for change of zone
Committee
Taluka
partly as Settle-
to Institutional
ment zone with
zone.
No Development
slope and partly
Natural Cover
with No Develop-
ment slope
Rajesh J. Naik, Chief Town Planner (Planning).
Panaji, 09th January, 2019.
________
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Notification
RPG/16B/01/TCP/2018-19/94
Whereas, the Chief Town Planner has notified
the Regional Plan for Goa–2021 (Part), under
Section 17 read with Section 15 of the Goa, Daman
and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974
(Act 21 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the
“said Act”), as approved by the Government,—
(i) in respect of the Canacona and Pernem
Talukas vide the Government Notification
No. 29/8/TCP/2010/RP-21/4106 dated
24-11-2010, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 35 dated 25-11-2010;
(ii) in respect of the Satari Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plan of twelve Village
Panchayats and one Municipal Council,
Ponda Taluka alongwith Settlement Level
Plan of eighteen Village Panchayats
excluding Usgao Village Panchayat and
Quepem Taluka alongwith Settlement Level
Plans of eleven Village Panchayats and
two Municipal Councils with land use
tables vide the Government Notification
No. 29/8/TCP/2010/RP-21/1952 dated
26-04-2011, published in the Official Gazette,
Series I No. 4 dated 28-04-2011;
(iii) in respect of Bicholim Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of seventeen Village
Panchayats and two Municipal Councils,
Dharbandora Taluka alongwith Settlement
Level Plans of five Village Panchayats and
Sanguem Taluka alongwith Settlement
Level Plans of seven Village Panchayats and
one Municipal Council with Release-II
Report vide the Government Notification
No. 29/8/TCP/2011/RP-21/3742 dated
09-09-2011, published in the Official Gazette,
Series III No. 24 dated 15-09-2011;
(iv) in respect of Ponda Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plan of nineteen Village
Panchayats including Usgao Village
Panchayat with land use table vide the
Government Notification No. 29/8/TCP/2011/
/RP-21/Pt. file/3983 dated 27-09-2011,
published in the Official Gazette, Series I
No. 26 dated 29-09-2011; and
(v) in respect of Bardez Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of thirty-three Village
Panchayats, Tiswadi Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of eighteen Village
Panchayats, Marmugao Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of three Village
Panchayats and Salcete Taluka alongwith
Settlement Level Plans of thirty-three Village
Panchayats and one Municipal Council with
Release-III Report vide the Government
Notification No. 29/8/TCP/2011/RP-21/4220
dated 12-10-2011, published in the Official
Gazette, Series III No. 29 dated 20-10-2011,
(hereinafter referred to as the “said Regional
Plan”);
And whereas, the said Regional Plan came
into operation in respect of such parts/areas on
and from the date of publication of the aforesaid
respective Notifications in the Official Gazette;
And whereas, the Chief Town Planner
(Planning) has received requests from the
applicants as specified in column (2) of the Table
below, under sub-section (1) of Section 16B of the
said Act, for change of existing zone of their
respective land to the zones, as specified in
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
796
columns (6) and (7) respectively of the Table below
(hereinafter referred to as the “said requests/
/proposals”);
And whereas, the Chief Town Planner
(Planning), after carrying out such surveys and
examining the said requests/proposals, referred the
said requests/proposals alongwith his report to
the Town and Country Planning Board for its
consideration;
And whereas, the Town and Country Planning
Board has considered the said requests/proposals
and report of the Chief Town Planner (Planning)
and given its recommendations thereof as specified
in column (9) of the Table below.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the
said Act, the Chief Town Planner (Planning) hereby
notifies the requests/proposals for change of zone
in respect of the Regional Plan for Goa–2021 and
recommendations of the Town and Country
Planning Board thereof as specified in the Table
below for information of the persons likely to be
affected thereby and notice is hereby given that
the copies of the maps and note containing the
proposed changes are available for the purpose of
inspection in the office of the Town and Country
Planning Department, 2nd Floor, Dempo Tower,
Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa, for a period of two months
with effect from the date of publication of this
Notification in the Official Gazette.
All objections and/or suggestions to the said
requests/proposals and recommendations of the
Town and Country Planning Board thereof, if any,
may be forwarded to the Chief Town Planner
(Planning), 2nd Floor, Dempo Tower, Patto Plaza,
Panaji-Goa, before the expiry of the said period of
two months so that they can be referred to the
Town and Country Planning Board for its
consideration under sub-section (2) of Section 13
of the said Act.
TABLE
Sr.
Name of the
Survey
Village &
Total
Existing zone
Proposed
Area sought
Recommen-
No.
Applicant
No. and
Taluka
area
as per RP
change of
for change
dation of
sub-division
for Goa-2021
zone
of zone
the Town
No.
and Country
Planning
Board
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
1. P. P. Padma-
57/0
Kundaim
209400.00 m2
Partly Institutio-
Institutio-
184094.00 m2
Approved.
nabh Shishya
village,
nal, partly
nal purpose
Sampraday
Ponda
Settlement
Viswasta
Taluka
and partly
Mandal
Orchard zone
(Reg. No. 8/16)
2. Sharada Seva
176/1
Dramapur
3840.00 m2
Paddy Field
Institutio-
3840.00 m2
Approved.
Sadhana
village,
nal zone
Pratisthan,
Salcete
(Old Age Home,
Taluka
Dharmapur),
C/o Deepam
Enterprises,
Opp. Saraswat
Bank, Comba,
Margao-Goa
3. Rosa Mystica
51/31
Aldona
6325.00 m2
Settlement
Institutio-
6325.00 m2
Approved.
Society, St.
village,
zone
nal zone
Thomas Girls
Bardez
High School,
Taluka
Cottarbhat,
Aldona, Bardez
4. Luis Issac
125/1
Betalbatim 18700.00 m2
Orchard
Settlement
18700.00 m2
Approved.
Rodrigues
village,
Zone
zone
Salcete
Taluka
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
797
5. Urmila Catcar
11/1
Usgao,
391955.00 m2
Orchard,
Settlement
391955.00 m2
Approved.
Ponda
Natural
zone
Taluka
Cover,
Settlement
6. Schubert
158/2
Bandora
7500.00 m2
Agriculture Zone.
Settlement
7500.00 m2
Approved.
Sequeira,
village,
As per RP 2001,
zone
H. No. 131,
Ponda
it was Settlement
Nr. the Church,
Taluka
Velsao,
Cansaulim,
Mormugao
7. Peer Aar
230/1
Cortalim
100000.00 m2
Partly Settlement
Settlement
100000.00 m2
Approved.
Housing
village,
and partly
zone
Development
Mormugao
Orchard zone
Pvt. Ltd.
Taluka
with part area
under no develop-
ment slopes
8. Yeshwantrao
102/1-J Carapur
8750.00 m2
Play Ground
Settlement
8750.00 m2
Approved.
B. Prabhudesai
village,
zone
alias Desai &
Bicholim
others, Sanquelim,
Taluka
Bicholim
9. M/s. Panch-
132/6
Cavelossim
2750.00 m2
Orchard zone
Settlement
2750.00 m2
Approved.
sheel
village,
zone
Conbuild Pvt.
Salcete
Ltd. Mr. Ashok
Taluka
Choudhary RV1,
Abel Homes
Jairam Nagar,
Dabolim
10. Mahadev V.
37/2
Penha-de-
1850.00 m2
Settlement
Commercial 1850.00 m2
Approved.
Parulekar,
Franca
zone
zone
Verem, Bardez,
village,
Goa
Bardez
Taluka
11. Goa Tourism
206/1-H Anjuna
8179.11 m2
Partly Orchard
Settlement
8179.11 m2
Approved.
Development
village,
zone
Corporation,
Bardez
Govt. of Goa
Taluka
12. Mario
346/1,
Calapor
4198.00 m2
Irrigation
Removal
4198.00 m2
Approved.
Fernandes,
2, 3,
village,
Command
Irrigation
Vadlem, Bhat,
& 4
Tiswadi
area
Command
Taleigao-Goa
Taluka
(correction)
area
13. Rizwan S.
4/1-B
Talaulim
355.00 m2
Partly Settle-
Settlement
355.00 m2
Approved.
Agha,
village,
ment, partly
zone
H. No. 552,
Tiswadi
orchard
Muslim Waddo,
Taluka
St. Inez, Behind
Pharmacy College,
Panaji
14. Mohammed
202/56 Dramapur
503.00 m2
Paddy field
Settlement
503.00 m2
Approved.
Zameer Ahmed
village,
zone
zone
& Mohammed
Salcete
Arif Thonse,
Taluka
Bungalow
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
798
F-1, Kalpataru
Housing Society
Ltd., Aquem
Baixo, Margao
15. Mr. Paik Velip,
8/4-A
Morpila
400.00 m2
As per RP 2021
Settlement
400.00 m2
Approved.
S/o Late Bhiva
village,
it is Natural
zone
Velip, H. No.
Quepem
Cover Zone
296/A, Vaiza-
Taluka
& RP 2001
wada, Morpirla
Settlement zone
via Cuncolim
16. Mr. Damodar
28/1-J
Borim,
504.00 m2
Orchard zone
Settlement
504.00 m2
Approved.
Gawas,
Shiroda,
zone
H. No. CL-73,
Ponda
New Vaddem,
Taluka
Vasco
17. Mr. Sadanand
43/1-k
Orgao
355.00 m2
Orchard zone
Settlement
355.00 m2
Approved.
Tari, R/o Flat
village,
No. SF-1,
Ponda
Pansekar,
Taluka
Marcela
Rajesh J. Naik, Chief Town Planner (Planning).
Panaji, 09th January, 2019.
———uuu———
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Department of Tribal Welfare
Directorate of Tribal Welfare
__
Order
No. 1/15/2010-11/ADMN/DTW/7155
Read: 1) Notification No. 1/15/2010/2011/ADMN/
/TW/899 dated 31-5-2011.
2) Notification No. 1/15/2010/2011/ADMN/
/TW/1295 dated 30-6-2011.
3) Corrigendum No. 1/15/2010/2011/ADMN/
/TW/4883 dated 13-12-2012.
4) Corrigendum No. 1-15-2010-2011/ADMN/
/TW/1767 dated 2-8-2013.
5) Addendum No. 1-15-2010-2011/ADMN/
/DTW/9415 dated 29-7-2015.
6) Order No. 1-15-2013-14/ADMN/DTW/
/6424 dated 28-11-2018.
In supersession of all above referred orders,
Government is pleased to revise/re-constitute the
District Level Committee of North Goa District of
the State of Goa constituted under the Scheduled
Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rule 7
of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006, to consider and finally approve the record
of forest rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional
Level Committee. The District Level Committee for
North Goa District shall consist of the following
members including three members nominated by
the District Panchayat namely:-
1. District Collector, North Goa — Chairperson.
2. Dy. Conservator of Forests,
— Member.
North Goa Division, Ponda/
/Concerned Deputy Conserva-
tor of Forests (Wild Life)
3. Shri Dhaku Arjun Madkaikar, — Member.
Zilla Panchayat member of
St. Lawrence Constituency
4. Smt. Mahima M. Dessai,
— Member.
ZP Zilla Panchayat member
of Corlim Constituency
5. Shri Fati Yashwant Gaonkar, — Member.
ZP Zilla Panchayat member
of Querim Constituency
6. Assistant Director of Tribal
— Member
Welfare, North Goa
Secretary.
(Head Office)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
799
The functions of the District Level Committee
are as under:
a. Ensure that the requisite information under
Clause (b) of Rule 6 has been provided to
Gram Sabha or Forest Rights Committee;
b. Examine whether all claims, especially those
of primitive tribal groups, pastoralists and
nomadic tribes, have been addressed keeping
in mind the objectives of the Act;
c. Consider finally approve the claims and
record of forest rights prepared by the
Sub-Divisional Level Committee;
d. Hear Petitions from persons aggrieved by the
orders of the Sub-Divisional Committee;
e. Co-ordinate with other districts regarding
inter-district claims;
f. Issue directions for incorporation of the forest
rights in the relevant Government records
including record of rights;
g. Ensure publication of the record of forest
rights as may be finalized; and
h. Ensure that a certified copy of the record of
forest rights and title under the Act, as
specified in Annexure II & III to these rules,
is provided to the concerned claimant and
the Gram Sabhas respectively.
This order is issued with the approval of the
Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Venancio Furtado, Director (Tribal Welfare).
Panaji, 1st January, 2019.
________
Order
No. 1/15/2010-11/ADMN/DTW/7156
Read: 1) Notification No. 1/15/2010-2011/ADMN/
/TW/901 dated 31-5-2011.
2) Corrigendum No. 1/15/2010-2011/ADMN/
/TW/1296 dated 30-6-2011.
3) Notification No. 1/15/2010-2011/ADMN/
/TW/1391 dated 07-07-2011.
4) Corrigendum No. 1/15/2010/2011/ADMN/
/TW/4882 dated 13-12-2012.
5) Corrigendum No. 1-15-2010-2011/ADMN/
/TW/1768 dated 2-8-2013.
6) Addendum No. 1-15-2010-2011/ADMN/
/TW/4267 dated 22-11-2013.
7) Addendum No. 1-15-2010-2011/ADMN/
/TW/42675 dated 22-11-2013.
8) Addendum No. 1-15-2010-2011/ADMN/
/DTW/9416 dated 29-7-2015.
In supersession of all above referred orders,
Government is pleased to revise/re-constitute the
District Level Committee of South Goa District of
the State of Goa constituted under the Scheduled
Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rule
7 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006, to consider and finally approve the record of
forest rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level
Committee. The District Level Committee for South
Goa District shall consist of the following members
including three members nominated by the District
Panchayat namely:-
1. District Collector, South Goa — Chairperson.
2. Dy. Conservator of Forests,
— Member.
South Goa Division, Margao/
/Concerned Deputy Conserva-
tor of Forests (Wild Life)/
/Dy. Conservator of Forests,
North Goa Division, Ponda/
/Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Wild Life & Eco
Tourism, North
3. Shri Govind Kust Gaonkar,
— Member.
Zilla Panchayat member of
Dharbandora Constituency
4. Shri Shanu Shankalu Velip,
— Member.
Zilla Panchayat member
of Cola Constituency
5. Smt. Pushpa Kalidas Aiya,
— Member.
Zilla Panchayat member
of Poiguinnim Constituency
6. Assistant Director of Tribal
— Member
Welfare, South Goa (Office
Secretary.
of Deputy Director,
Margao-Goa)
The functions of the District Level Committee
are as under:
a. Ensure that the requisite information under
Clause (b) of Rule 6 has been provided to
Gram Sabha or Forest Rights Committee;
b. Examine whether all claims, especially those
of primitive tribal groups, pastoralists and
nomadic tribes, have been addressed keeping
in mind the objectives of the Act;
c. Consider finally approve the claims and
record of forest rights prepared by the
Sub-Divisional Level Committee;
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
10TH JANUARY, 2019
800
d. Hear Petitions from persons aggrieved by the
orders of the Sub-Divisional Committee;
e. Co-ordinate with other districts regarding
inter-district claims;
f. Issue directions for incorporation of the forest
rights in the relevant Government records
including record of rights;
g. Ensure publication of the record of forest
rights as may be finalized; and
h. Ensure that a certified copy of the record of
forest rights and title under the Act, as
specified in Annexure II & III to these rules,
is provided to the concerned claimant and
the Gram Sabhas respectively.
This order is issued with the approval of the
Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Venancio Furtado, Director (Tribal Welfare).
Panaji, 1st January, 2019.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 38.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—312/160–1/2019.