Panaji, 3rd May, 2018 (Vaisakha 13, 1940)
SERIES II No. 5
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Finance
Revenue & Control Division
__
Order
No. 2/6/87-Fin(R&C)Part-III/845
Read: Order No. 2/6/87-Fin(R&C) Part-III dated
12-03-2018.
Consequent upon promotion of the below
mentioned Excise Inspectors of the Office of
Commissioner of Excise to the post of
Superintendent of Excise on regular basis vide order
referred to above, Government is pleased to post
them on the places shown against their names,
with immediate effect:
Sr.
Name of the
Place of posting
No.
officer
1. Smt. Rashmi
M/s. Impala Distillery and
Ajgaonkar
Brewery Ltd., Assolda,
Quepem-Goa.
2. Shri Kapil Diukar
Superintendent of Excise-II
(Head Office).
3. Shri Mahesh
Superintendent of Excise-III
Korgaonkar
(Head Office).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sushama D. Kamat, Under Secretary, Finance
(R&C).
Porvorim, 23rd April, 2018.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
99
Order
No. 6/6/2015-Fin (R&C)/872
Read: Order No. 6/13/2007-Fin(R&C) dated
15-02-2018.
Consequent upon appointment of 7 Commercial
Tax Officers (CTO) (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) vide the
Order read in the preamble above, and upon their
joining in the Office of Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Panaji, the Government is pleased to post
the following CTO’s in the respective Ward shown
against their name in column No. (4).
Sr.
Name of the C.T.O.
Date of
Posted as
No.
joining
CTO at
1
2
3
4
1. Ms. Sophia Lawrence
20-02-2018
Mapusa
Vaz
Ward.
2. Mr. Naresh Kushta
01-03-2018
Margao
Gaude
Ward.
3. Ms. Ankita Anil
01-03-2018
Panaji
Kamat
Ward.
4. Mr. Rohan Arvind
27-02-2018
Margao
Loliyekar
Ward.
5. Mr. Sirajuddin
01-03-2018
Vasco
Gulamrasul Jamadar
Ward.
6. Ms. Sweta Shankar
20-02-2018
Head
Gurav
Office.
7. Ms. Ashvita Ankush
19-02-2018
Head
Goltekar
Office.
The above CTO’s shall take charge of their
respective new postings after completion of their
field training i.e. w.e.f. 02-05-2018. They shall draw
their salary and allowances w.e.f. their respective
dates of joining in the Office of CCT, as shown
against their names in column No. (3) above.
Consequent upon the above postings and in
public interest, the Government in pleased to effect
Note:-
There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 4 dated 26-04-2018 namely,
Extraordinary dated 30-04-2018 from pages
97 to 98 regarding Notifications from Department
of Finance.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
100
transfers of the Officers in the cadre of Commercial
Tax Officers as under:-
Sr.
Name of the C.T.O.
Place of
Transferred
No.
present
& posted as
posting
CTO at
1
2
3
4
1. Mrs. Swati A. Dalvi
Panaji Ward Ponda Ward.
2. Mr. Gaurish V.
Head Office Panaji Ward.
Khedekar
Mrs. Swati A. Dalvi and Shri Gaurish V. Khedekar
on transfer shall complete their handing over/
/taking over of charge on or before 03-05-2018 and
report compliance to the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Panaji.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sushama D. Kamat, Under Secretary, Finance
(R&C).
Porvorim, 26th April, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Forest
__
Notification
No. 7-1-2009/FOR/087
The Government of Goa had constituted North
and South Goa Forest Division Committee vide
Notification No. 7-1-2009/FOR/439 dated 27-11-2012
for identification of Private Forests. As the work of
identification of Private Forests is complete, the
said Committees are hereby disband with
immediate effect.
In view of the fact that the grievances are
received from private citizens as well as NGO on
the inclusion or non-inclusion of certain areas as
private forest and in order to ensure an uniform
approach to the issue, a new Committee is hereby
constituted to review identified Private Forest areas
by these two Committees and those identified by
the earlier Sawant and Karapurkar Committees in
pursuance to the Order of Hon’ble National Green
Tribunal (WZ) dated 07-01-2016 in Application No.
18(THC)/2013(WZ) which have been finally
surveyed.
The Terms of Reference of the Private Forests
Review Committee shall be as under:-
1) The Committee shall review digitized maps
of private forest areas which have been
prepared using the Revenue Department/
/Directorate of Settlement and Land Records
and overlaid on the satellite imageries of
the Forest Survey of India for assessment of
Forest cover in Goa, conforming to the three
criteria.
2) Technical expertise of Forest Survey of India
(FSI), Bangalore could be taken in order to
ascertain the composition and canopy
density of the identified areas, if there is
any dispute.
3) The Dy. Conservator of Forests of the
concerned territorial divisions will then
carry out ground verification in respect of
such cases which are in doubt or having
ambiguity in order to prepare final report on
Private Forest areas in the State.
4) The Committee shall submit its report within
period of 3 (three) months.
The Constitution of the Private Forests Review
Committee shall be as follows:-
1. The Dy. Conservator of
— Chairperson.
Forests, Working Plan
Division, Ponda-Goa
2. Director, Settlement and
— Member.
Land Records, Panaji-Goa
or his/her nominee
3. Additional Collector of
— Member.
Revenue Department
dealing with land records of
North Goa District, Panaji-Goa
4. Additional Collector of
— Member.
Revenue Department
dealing with land records of
South Goa District, Margao-Goa
5. Asst. Conservator of Forest, — Member.
Head Quarters of North Goa
Division, Ponda-Goa
6. Asst. Conservator of Forest, — Member.
Head Quarters of South Goa
Division, Margao-Goa
7. Shri Sandeep Azrenkar,
— Member.
Environmentalist,
Margao-Goa
8. Shri Shirang Jhamble, Savoi — Member.
Verem, Goa
9. The Chief Forest Surveyor
— Member
of Forest Department
Secretary.
This issues with the approval of the Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forests).
Porvorim, 23rd April, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
101
Department of Labour
—
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/283
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on
26-03-2018 in reference No. IT/33/16 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.
Shivanee S. Borkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 25th April, 2018.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/33/16
Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Rout,
C/o. Mr. Fernando Rodrigues,
H. No. 110, Behind Vailankani
Chapel,
Sortant, Cortalim,
Goa 403 710
…
Workman/Party I.
V/s
The Managing Director,
M/s FDC Limited,
L56 & L57, Phase II-D,
Verna Industrial Estate,
Verna, Salcete,
Goa 403 722
…
Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 26th day of the month
of March of the year 2018)
By Order dated 22-07-2016, bearing No. 28/20/
/2016-LAB/547, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
(1) Whether Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Rout, Facility
Maintenances Supervisor, could be considered
as workman as defined under Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947)?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
affirmative then, whether the action of the
management of M/s FDC Limited, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete-Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri Sanjeeb
Kumar Rout, with effect from 22-08-2015 is
legal and justified?
(3) If the answer to issue No. (2) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/33/16 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exhibit 6 and
Party II filed a Written Statement at Exhibit 7.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that he was
employed with Party II at its factory at Verna in
Maintenance department by order dated 7-9-2006
with salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. The
management however did not allow him to resume
his duties w.e.f. 22-8-2015 and as such he raised
an industrial dispute before the Dy. Labour
Commissioner, Margao, but the management took
a rigid and adamant stand and did not resolve the
dispute and as such failure report was recorded
and the reference has been made by the
appropriate Government. The refusal of
employment by the management is illegal and bad
in law.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II claimed
that the Party I was merely doing the work of
administrative and supervisory nature and
therefore is not a workman as defined under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The services of Party I was not upto the expectation
of the management and therefore he was
terminated as per Clause 3 of the appointment
letter. There is no violation of principles of natural
justice and the party I is not entitled for any reliefs.
5. In the rejoinder at Exhibit 8, Party I denied the
case of the Party II reflected in the written
statement.
6. In the course of proceedings, the parties
arrived at an amicable settlement and filed consent
terms dated 26-03-2018 at Exh. 17 colly along with
a receipt towards full and final settlement of all
the claims.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
102
7. The consent terms are reproduced here-in-
-below:
1) It is agreed by the management of
the Party II that they shall pay a sum of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) in full
and final settlement of all claims of Party I
Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Rout concerned in
reference IT/33/16 arising out of his
employment including the claims made in
the present Reference.
2) The Party I shall accept the amount of
money mentioned in clause No. 1 in full
and final settlement of his all claims arising
out of his employment including the claims
in the present Reference i.e. IT/33/16. The
amount mentioned in clause No. 1 includes
all the claims inclusive of Gratuity, Bonus,
Leave
Encashment, LTA, Medical, Salary,
Subsistence Allowance, Ex-gratia, etc. and
the Party I further confirm that he shall
have no claims of whatsoever nature
against the company, even any claims
which can be computed in terms of money
including any claim of reinstatement
or re-employment or any other claims
whatsoever with the company and
undertake that he shall not raise any
dispute of whatsoever nature against the
Company in respect of the subject matter
of his employment with the Party I.
8. The above consent terms are signed by the
Party I workman, Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Rout along
with his Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik, so also Shri Jagdish
Vasta, Manager-HR and Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar
on behalf of Party II. I have gone through the
consent terms filed as above, which in my view,
are just and fair and in the interest of both the
Workman/Party I as well as Employer/Party II and
hence, the same are accepted.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The reference at the instance of Party I
Workman, stands disposed of in view of the
consent terms filed by both the parties at
Exhibit 17 colly.
ii. No order as to costs.
iii. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-Lab/Part-I/284
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
22-03-2018 in reference No. IT/65/92 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.
Shivanee S. Borkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 25th April, 2018.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/65/92
Workman,
Rep. by the Goa Trade & Commercial,
Workers Union, Velhos’ Building,
Panaji-Goa.
... Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.,
New Mandovi Bridge Site,
Patto, Panaji-Goa.
.... Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Workmen/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 22nd day of the month
of March of the year 2018)
By Order dated 21-10-1992, bearing No. 28/39/
/92-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.,
Panaji, in terminating the services of S/Shri
Yogendra Nath Yadav, Sher Singh, Mohan P.,
Rohtas and Devi Prasad with effect from
14th May, 1992 is legal and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
103
(2)
If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”
2. It is a matter of record that vide Order
No. 28/39/92-LAB dated 8-12-1992, the appropriate
Government amended the schedule of reference,
as follows:
In the schedule appended to the said Order, for
the words ‘and Devi Prasad’, the figure and words
‘Devi Prasad and Gulabchandra Verma’ shall be
substituted.
3. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/65/92 was
registered. Notices were issued to both the parties
under registered post, upon which both the parties
were served. The Party I thereafter filed a Claim
statement at Exh. 3 and the Party II filed Written
statement at Exh. 5.
4. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II is a company engaged in the business of
construction of bridges, roads, etc. all over India
and abroad. The Party II besides the project of
constructing the new Mandovi Bridge at Panaji
has also two other projects in Goa and to carry on
the activities, the Party II engaged a large number
of workers categorized into A, B and C categories.
All the workmen are initially appointed in category
C and after continuous service of three years, they
are absorbed in category B on the basis of seniority.
The Party II undertook work of constructing new
Mandovi Bridge in the year 1997 on behalf of
Government of Goa and engaged the services of
workmen who were mostly brought to Goa from
other establishments of Party II. Most of the
workmen were recruited from U.P., Bihar, etc. and
some from Goa and they were told that their
services would be regularized from the category C
to B after they put in a minimum continuous service
of three years. The daily wages offered to the
workmen ranged from Rs. 14.50 per day to Rs. 18
per day depending upon the category of work they
performed for category C initially and thereafter it
was revised from Rs. 16 per day to Rs. 20 per day
in the year 1989. The daily wages were also revised
from November, 1991 ranging from Rs. 25 per day
to Rs. 35 per day.
5. It is also claimed by Party I that the services
of 7 workmen were regularized from C category to
B category working at new Mandovi site after they
completed three years of service. However, the
other eligible workers in C category were not
regularized and were paid very low wages inspite
of their oral representation. The action of Party II
in refusing to regularize their services was a big
disappointment. The Party II thereafter issued a
notice stating that 19 workmen in category C would
be removed by way of retrenchment. The category
C workmen became members of Goa Trade and
Commercial Workers Union in October, 1991 and
took up the issue of proposed termination of 19
workmen in C category with Party II and thereafter
served a strike notice and immediately thereafter
the Party II withdrew the notice and did not go
ahead with proposed termination. The Union took
up various issues of the workmen after workmen in
category C became their members and served a
strike notice on Party II listing out various issues
and grievances of the workmen.
6. The Labour Commissioner intervened in the
matter with respect to demand that the muter roll
workers i.e. category C workers be paid on the
basis of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ as well as
regularization of category C workers and thereafter,
a settlement was arrived at on some of the demands
raised by the Union. The Party II instead of making
payments of arrears terminated the service of 6
workmen belonging to C category viz. Yogendra
Nath Yadav, Sher Singh, Mohan P., Rohtas, Devi
Prasad and Gulabchandra Verma without following
the provisions of Standing Orders and in violation
of principles of natural justice w.e.f. 14-05-1992.
The said workers had put in continuous service of
240 days and as such their services could not have
been terminated without complying with the legal
provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act. The
termination of the workmen were malafide,
vindictive and by way of victimization for trade
union activities, besides being illegal and
unjustified. Hence, the reference.
7. In the written statement, the Party II has
contended that the company appointed Project
Manager for Party II for the construction of new
Mandovi Bridge at Panaji and the Project Manager
engaged C category workmen including the
workmen in reference in accordance with Certified
Standing Orders of the Company. The workmen are
of temporary/casual nature employed for specific
period and on completion of the project, the
workmen in C category stood automatically relieved
from the services. The termination of the services
of the said workmen was on account of the fact
that the said workmen jointly filed a threatening
letter to the General Manager and approached the
place where concreting was to commence and
provoked and instigated other workmen with an
ulterior motive by interfering in the concreting
work and inspite of peaceful efforts on the part of
Party II, the Party I workmen continued squatting
near the concreting place, creating hindrance in
the work and stopped the work and pressurized
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
104
other workmen to leave the place of work thereby
entire work came to a jolting halt. The deck
concreting work was to commence from 12-5-1992
and was crucial for the bridge safety and once
concreting commence, it has to be completed
nonstop, failing which it may create technical
problem for bridge as well as endanger safety of
the workers, causing loss of life and property.
8. The Party II further claimed that the said
omission/commission on the part of the workmen
was viewed seriously as it was not only unjustified
but also illegal and gross misconduct as per the
Standing Orders. The Police had to move for
removing the workmen from the place of incident
apprehending serious law and order situation. The
said workmen were in no way concerned or
responsible for the deck concreting work but with
an ulterior motive to cause indiscipline posed a
serious problem for the safety of public sabotaging
the concreting work which was commenced at
about 4.00 p.m. on 12-5-1992 and delayed till 9.30
p.m. The Party II ordered a spot enquiry as it was
not possible to conduct a departmental enquiry.
The action of Party I in dismissing the six workmen
was fully justified in the given situation and
bonafide as well. The above acts of serious
misconducts on the part of six workmen were
viewed very seriously and continuing the said
workmen in the services was not in the interest of
public property, safety and discipline in the
organization and therefore decided to summarily
remove them from the services with effect from
14-5-1992.
9. In the rejoinder at Exh. 6, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II in the written
statement.
10. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 7 are
as follows;
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the
termination of the services of the six
workmen named in the reference by Party II
is in violation of the provisions of the
Standing Orders and the Principles of
natural justice?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that the Party II
did not comply with the mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before
termination of the services of the six
workmen named in the reference and,
therefore, the termination is illegal?
(3) Whether the Party I proves that Party II did
not obtain prior permission for termination
of the services of six workmen named in
the reference as required under Section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
therefore the termination is illegal?
(4) Whether the Party I proves that the
termination of the services of the six
workmen named in the reference by the
Management of Party II w.e.f. 14-5-1992 is
illegal and unjustified?
(5) Whether Party II proves that the services of
the six workmen named in the reference
were terminated after holding preliminary
enquiry and finding them guilty of acts of
serious misconduct?
(6) Whether Party I is entitled to any relief?
(7) What Award or order?
11. It is a matter of record that an additional
issue was framed on 4-10-2011 at Exh. 23 in place
of issue No. 5. It is as follows:
5(A) Whether the Party II proves that the
misconduct alleged against the workmen
is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
12. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
Shri Yogendranath Singh Yadav as witness No. 1
and Shri Subhash Naik Jorge as second witness.
On the other hand, the Party II examined Ms. Girija
Shankar Srivastava, Shri Harendra Kumar, Shri A. K.
Srivastava and Jitendra Pant as their witnesses.
Shri Harendra Kumar produced on record a copy of
letter dated 14-5-1992 along with enquiry report at
Exh. E-1 colly, a copy of notice dated 14-5-1992 at
Exh. E-2, a copy of letter dated 10-03-1992 along
with Notification at Exh. E-3 colly.
13. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by Party I
as well as Party II.
14. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
In the Affirmative
Issue No. 5
…
Deleted.
Issue No. 6
…
As per Final order.
Issue No. 7
… As per Final order.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
Issue No. 5(A) …
In the Affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
105
REASONS
Issue No. 5a:
15. Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye for Party II has
submitted that the evidence on record produced
by Party II to prove the above issue is beyond doubt
as Party II has examined four witnesses who have
described the incident in detail as the said
workmen had obstructed the deck concreting work
of the bridge and instigated other workers to do so
as a result of which, the commencement of work
was delayed and the work could start only after
the workmen were arrested by the Police. The
witnesses examined by the Party II, namely the
Assistant Engineer posted at the site, Shri Girija
Shankar Srivastava, the person who was looking
after the maintenance of machine, Shri Harendra
Kumar, Shri A. K. Srivastava who produced the
Notification of Government of Goa declaring the
said area as prohibited area and the Project
Manager, Shri Jitendra Kumar Pant, who stated
that the work of concreting was delayed because
of obstruction by workmen, clearly show that the
concreting of deck was obstructed by Party I
workmen and did not allow to start. Ld. Adv. Shri
Nigalye further submitted that the misconduct
committed by the workers was very serious in terms
of Clause 3, 12 and 20 of the Certified Standing
Orders. The said workmen were the leaders of the
workers who stopped the work of the project. Shri
Yogendranath has admitted that he was arrested
by Police and therefore the Party II has proved the
issue.
16. Admittedly, the burden to prove the above
issue is on Party II. The Party II has examined Shri
Girija Shankar Srivastava, Assistant Engineer
posted at the site, who stated that he was
supervising the area and about 60 to 70 workers
were working under him and the workmen under
reference were working in the mechanical section
and when the superstructure deck work was being
carried out on 12-5-1992 which involved the work
of concreting which was to be started at 2.00 p.m.,
the said workmen who were not required in the
said work of concreting, came and stopped the
work and the said concreting work was delayed
because the said persons obstructed the mixing
work. The PWD people tried to convince the Party
I workmen, however they did not listen and
ultimately the Police came and arrested the Party
I workmen and other workmen at around 8.30 p.m.
The said witness has not been shaken in the cross
examination. There is no evidence that the witness
was in inimical terms with Party I workmen. The
witness, Shri Harendra Kumar who was in-charge
of maintenance of machines has also stated that
Party I workmen came and obstructed the work
inspite of Engineers of PWD telling them not to
obstruct the said work and subsequently, the Police
arrived and took away the workers. He also stated
that the concreting work could not be started
because of obstruction of the work by the said
workers.
17. Needless to mention, the enquiry report
dated 14-5-1992 at Exh. E-1 colly produced by
Shri Harendra Kumar also shows that the Party I
workmen were involved in the said incident. The
said report reveals that the Party I workers were
the leaders of obstructing workers and they were
instigating the other workers although the said
workers were allotted duty towards Panaji side,
while the work of concreting was toward Porvorim
side. Shri Harendra has also not been shaken in
the cross examination with respect to obstruction
of the concreting work by the Party I workmen.
Shri A. K. Srivastava has produced on record the
Notification dated 10-5-1992 of the Chief Engineer,
PWD, Government of Goa addressed to Project
Manager of Party II at Exh. E-3 colly which shows
that the said area was declared as prohibited area
under Official Secrets Act, 1993 and in view of the
said Notification, no person could enter the said
area without authorization, which also is indication
of the fact the presence of Party I workmen at the
site was unwarranted. Shri Jitendra Kumar Pant,
Project Manager at the relevant time has also stated
that the Party I workmen entered the prohibited
area and obstructed the work of concreting.
He claimed that the work of concreting was
delayed because of obstruction by workers led
by Party I workmen and that Police were called
and arrested the workers, which fact is not in
dispute.
18. The evidence of Party I clearly shows that
there was obstruction of work of concreting of deck
being carried out in prohibited area led by the
Party I workmen and inspite of request by the PWD
Officials, the workers did not allow the said work,
which could be started only after police came and
arrested the workmen at 9.30 p.m. Shri
Yogendranath Yadav who has been examined by
Party I workmen has admitted in the cross
examination that he had no connection with the
deck slab concreting work which was going on at
new Mandovi site and that he was arrested by the
Police. Importantly, the incident of obstruction took
place in the prohibited area as per Notification at
Exh. E-3 colly. There is no dispute that the workers
led by Party I workmen left their place of work and
pressurized other workmen to leave their place of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
106
work and stopped the concreting work by entering
into the prohibited area. The Party I workmen
therefore committed misconduct in terms of
Certified Standing Orders at Exh. 31. The
contention of Shri Subhash Naik Jorge that
the Party I has failed to prove the incident
therefore cannot be believed. The Party
I therefore has proved the issue No. 5A in the
affirmative.
Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4:
19. It is the case of Party I that the termination
of services of six workmen named in the reference
is illegal and unjustified and in violation of
provisions of Standing Orders and principles of
natural justice and that the Party II did not comply
with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F and
25-G of the Act. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for Party
I has submitted that admittedly no enquiry was
held against the workmen under Standing Orders
in keeping with the principles of natural justice
nor the Party I paid legal dues under Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The services of the
workmen were terminated summarily without issue
of charge sheet and holding an enquiry, which is
not permitted in law and therefore, the termination
of Party I workmen ought to be set aside and in
support of his contention, he relied upon the case
of D. K. Yadav vs. J. M. A. Industries Ltd., 1993
SCC (L&S) 723.
20. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye for
Party II has submitted that the termination of
services of Party I is for misconduct and not by way
of retrenchment. The provision of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, which deals with
retrenchment of workmen and condition precedent
for valid retrenchment are not applicable to the
present case since it is the case of termination for
misconduct and not of retrenchment. Ld. Adv. Shri
Nigalye has further submitted that the materials
produced on record by the management clearly
prove that the termination of services is for
misconduct, which is of very serious nature.
According to him, it is well settled that where the
termination is for serious misconduct, the action of
the employer for dismissal of workmen is perfectly
legal and the Courts would not be justified in
interfering with the same.
21. Admittedly, no enquiry was held as required
under Certified Standing Orders of the Company
produced at Exh. 31 in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. There is no dispute
that the Party I workmen were engaged at the
construction site of new Mandovi Bridge, Panaji.
The Party I examined Shri Yogendranath Singh
Yadav. He has stated that the Party II had
undertaken the projects in Goa for construction of
Mandovi Bridge and other bridges. The workers
who were working at Mandovi Bridge were
brought from various parts of India and in Goa and
that there were about 81 workers in category C
who were the members of Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers Union and that they submitted Charter of
demands to Party II. The Party I workmen were the
executive committee members of category C
workers and he was the President of the Committee
and that their services were terminated and before
termination, no prior notice was given nor any
retrenchment compensation was paid to them.
No charge sheet or memo was ever issued to them
by Party II, although they continuously worked
without any break till the date of termination of
their services.
22. There is no dispute that there was no show
cause or charge sheet issued to the Party I workmen
nor any enquiry held. The witness of the
management, Shri Girija Shankar Srivastava, has
admitted in cross examination that the Party I
workmen were not given one month prior notice
nor
they
were
paid
any
retrenchment
compensation. He also admitted that the said six
workmen were not issued any charge sheet and
that no enquiry was held by appointing an Enquiry
officer. He also admitted that all the workmen were
working in category C and prior to termination on
14-05-1992, they had completed one year service.
The second witness, Shri Harendra Kumar, has also
admitted that all the workers were working at the
Mandovi Bridge site prior to his transfer to Goa in
1991. He however feigned ignorance as to whether
Party I were given one month notice in writing
prior to termination or whether the Party I workmen
were paid retrenchment compensation. Shri A. K.
Srivastava, however has stated that the enquiry
was conducted by Shri G. S. Srivastava and
Harendra Kumar but he did not know the result of
the enquiry nor was he aware whether one month
notice was given to the said workmen prior to
their termination or whether any retrenchment
compensation or wages in lieu of one month notice
was paid to the workmen at the time of termination
of their services.
23. Shri Jitendra Kumar Pant examined by the
management has stated that no memo or charge
sheet was issued to the six workmen because they
were not available. He stated that the report of
enquiry was submitted to him in writing which
they were enquiring into charges of misconduct,
obstructing the work, instigating the other workers
to obstruct the work. He however admitted that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
107
show cause notice was not given to the said
workmen before terminating their services as they
were not available. He, however claimed that Party
I workmen were issued charge sheet for having
committed misconduct but he was unable to
produce the records of enquiry proceedings and
the finding of enquiry officer as the records are
old. He claimed that he does not remember whether
Party I workmen had participated in the enquiry
held against them. He however denied the
suggestion that no charge sheet was issued to any
of the workmen and that no enquiry was conducted
by Assistant Engineer, Srivastava and Harendra
Kumar against Party I workmen.
24. The evidence on record therefore clearly
indicate that no departmental enquiry into the
misconduct was conducted by Party II in terms of
the Certified Standing Orders nor any records
produced of the said departmental enquiry nor any
show cause notice or charge sheet issued to Party
I workmen nor they were paid their legal dues
before termination as admitted by Shri Girija
Shankar Srivastava that the Party I workmen were
not given one month prior notice nor they were
paid any retrenchment compensation nor the said
six workmen were issued any charge sheet and
that no enquiry was held against them by
appointing an Enquiry officer. The Enquiry report
produced by Harendra Kumar at Exh. E-1 colly was
conducted without giving opportunity to Party I
workmen of putting their case forward or upon
hearing them. It is well settled in the case of D. K.
Yadav, supra relied upon by Party I workmen 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.
25. It is also held in the case of Mahinder Singh
Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC
405 that the duty to give reasonable opportunity
to be heard will be implied from the nature of the
function to be performed by the authority which
has the power to take punitive or damaging
action. Even executive authorities which take
administrative action involving any deprivation of
or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of
citizens, must take care to see that justice is not
only done but manifestly appears to be done.
They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free
from even the appearance of arbitrariness,
unreasonableness or unfairness and that they have
to act in a manner which is patently impartial and
meets the requirements of natural justice. The
procedure prescribed must be just, fair and
reasonable even though there is no specific
provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for
showing cause against action proposed to be taken
against an individual, which affects the right of
that individual.
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anoop
Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health
Division No. 1, 2010 II CLR 1, has also observed
in Para 13 that no workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for
not less than one year under an employer can be
retrenched by that employer until the conditions
enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F
of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the
employer is required to give to the workman one
month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons
for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of notice.
Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay
to the workman ‘at the time of retrenchment’,
compensation equivalent to fifteen days’ average
pay for every completed year of continuous service
or any part thereof in excess of six months and that
Section 25-F (a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory
and non-compliance thereof renders the
retrenchment of the employee nullity.
27. There is no dispute that the Party I workmen
were executive committee members and were
employed with Party II who have been in
continuous service for over 4-5 years under the
said management of Party II. There is also no
dispute that the Party II terminated the services of
Party I workmen without giving them one month
notice in writing indicating the reason for
retrenchment or paying them wages in lieu of
notice or paying the compensation at the time of
the retrenchment, infact no termination order was
issued to them and they were summarily dismissed
from service without assigning any reason by merely
affixing a notice of termination on the notice board.
Shri G. S. Srivastava has admitted that services
of the workmen were not retrenched but they
were simply terminated by displaying a notice
on the notice board. The said termination as on
14-05-1992 is in stark contravention of provisions
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act
thereby violating the mandatory provision of the
said Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
above.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
108
28. The witnesses examined on behalf of Party II
have admitted that no legal dues have been paid
nor any enquiry has been held. The Party II has not
complied with the above provisions of law. The
said provision is mandatory and that any violation
thereof renders the termination of services of the
workman illegal per se, ab initio void and non-est
rendering the action of the employer as nullity.
Needless to reiterate, there is no violation of Section
25-G of the Act nor there is any evidence that the
Party I belonged to a particular category of
workmen in that establishment and that they have
been retrenched from services by keeping the last
person in the employment in that category. The
contention of Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye as stated
above therefore cannot be accepted. The Party
I having proved that the termination of the services
of the six workmen named in the reference by
Party II is in violation of provision of Standing Orders
and principles of natural justice and that they have
not complied with mandatory provisions of Section
25-F of the Act, the said termination of the workers
named in the reference w.e.f. 14-05-1992 is illegal
and unjustified. It is therefore issues No. 1, 2 and
4 are answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
29. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge has submitted that
the Party I workmen do not press for any findings
on issue No. 3 as no evidence has been led in
support of said issue. It is therefore, issue No. 3 is
answered in the negative.
Issue Nos. 6 & 7:
30. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the Party I has
submitted that the Party II has contravened the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act before terminating the services of Party I
workmen and that the Party I workmen are
unemployed since the date of termination as
claimed by Yogendranath Yadav and Party II has
not seriously rebutted the same. Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge has further submitted that the termination
of six workmen is illegal and unjustified and
therefore they are entitled for reinstatement in
service with full back wages along with continuity
in service and costs. He submitted that the
provisions of Section 25-F have not been complied
with before termination nor any enquiry held as
required under Standing Orders of the Company
and therefore, the termination of the six workmen
is illegal and unjustified and hence, the Party I
workmen are entitled for the relief claimed. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the case
of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors., (2013)
10 SCC 324.
31. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye for
Party II has submitted that the action of Party II is
just and proper and commensurate to the
misconduct and since the misconduct is of serious
nature, the termination of services of workmen is
perfectly legal and justified and the Tribunal should
not interfere with the action of Party II. He further
submitted that the workers were project employees
and that their tenure would have come to an end
on completion of the project. The construction of
project of New Mandovi Bridge was also completed
on 21-07-1992. Hence, the relief of re-instatement
is not available for the said workers. It is also an
admitted fact that all six workmen were daily rated
workers. Such workers have no right of
reinstatement in service, as held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in a number of cases. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the cases of (i) Madhya
Pradesh Administration vs. Tribhuban, (2007) 9
Supreme Court Cases 748; (ii) Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and another vs. S. C. Sharma, (2005)
2 SCC 363; (iii) U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd.
and another vs. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1
SCC 479; (iv) Mahendra K. Raut vs. Gopalanand
Rasayan, 2014 II CLR 362 and (v) In-charge Officer
and another vs. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC
126.
32. It requires a mention here that although the
Party II has proved the misconduct against Party I
workmen, the punishment awarded against the
Party I workmen is highly disproportionate to the
charges proved. There is no dispute that the Party
I workmen obstructed the work of concreting of
span 13 of the new Mandovi Bridge for a period of
6 hours from 2.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. till they were
arrested by the Police, however there is no evidence
on record that the act of Party I workmen in
obstructing the work created any technical snag
for the bridge or endangered the safety of the
structure or caused any loss of life and property, on
the contrary, the said work was peacefully and
perfectly carried out, after the arrest of Party I
workmen. No doubt, the Party I and others have
obstructed the work while raising their demands,
which act is most reprehensible, however it does
not invite severe punishment of dismissal without
holding any enquiry by affording principles of
natural justice and payment of legal dues in terms
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
Party II although proved the misconduct, the
punishment of dismissal without holding enquiry
and
payment
of
legal
dues
is
highly
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
proved.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
109
33. The question therefore is what reliefs the
Party I is entitled to, once it is held that the
discharge/termination is illegal, whether the Party
I is entitled for reinstatement 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.
34. It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court that relief by way of reinstatement
with back wages is not automatic, even if
termination of an employee is found to be illegal or
is in contravention of the prescribed procedure
and that monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages in cases of such a
nature may be appropriate. It is also well settled
that the Court in appropriate cases grant
compensation in lieu of reinstatement keeping in
view the length of service rendered by a workman,
the wages that he was receiving during that
period, which would meet the ends of justice. In
the instant case, the Party I workmen were working
for the Party II in category C who are mainly muster
roll daily rated workmen and have put in about
4-5 years of service as revealed from para 6 of the
written statement and were terminated by notice
dated 14-05-1992 displayed on the notice board of
Party II. The evidence on record show that the
Party I workmen were terminated for their
misconduct of obstructing the concreting work
which fact has been proved and that the said
termination had taken place about 25 years ago.
None of the parties have produced the letters of
appointment nor are their ages on record. There is
no dispute that the Party I workman were muster
roll daily rated workmen and therefore, are not
entitled to reinstatement in service at this distance
of time as held in the case of Santosh Shirodkar
vs. Sanquelim Municipal Council, through its
Chief Officer, (2017) 0 Supreme (Mah) 1579.
35. There are also no pleadings that Party I
workmen have not been employed after they were
terminated nor Shri Yogendranath Yadav has stated
what efforts he and other workmen have made for
securing gainful employment and how he and other
workmen and their families sustain themselves.
There is no dispute that the Party I workmen were
summarily terminated without paying any legal
dues. There is nothing on record as to what was
the last drawn wages the Party I workmen were
drawing at the time of termination. The Party I
however has claimed in para 18 of the claim
statement that the daily wages paid to Category C
workmen in the year 1989 are ranging from Rs. 16
to Rs. 20 per day, thereafter it was revised in the
year 1991 with retrospective effect and the revised
daily wages are ranging from Rs. 25 to Rs. 35 per
day, while it is the case of the Party II that the
daily rates of wages of workmen in C category
were revised w.e.f. 1-11-1991 in terms of settlement.
However, the rates of wages mentioned in Para 18
of the claim statement has not been denied by
Party II.
36. Therefore, considering that the Party I
workmen had put in services of about 4-5 years on
the date of termination and that the Party I
workmen were earning around Rs. 30 per day
i.e. 780 for 26 days of the month considering that
they are daily rated workers, would translate into
salary of Rs. 9360 per annum and making a
reasonable allowance for appropriate escalation,
an average salary of Rs. 10,000 per annum can be
reckoned for the purposes of arriving at the amount
of compensation, which would be around Rs.
2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only)
representing wages for about 25 years and
considering that the Party II has violated provisions
of Section 25-F of the Act, so also the nature of
appointment, the length of service and the time
taken to settle the dispute, ends of justice would
be met, if the Party I workmen are paid a lumpsum
monetary compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees
Two lakhs fifty thousand only) for each workman,
which would be just, proper and equitable in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the
above issues are answered accordingly.
37. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The present reference stands partly allowed.
ii. It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s. U. P. State Bridge
Corporation Ltd. Panaji, in terminating the
services of S/Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, Sher
Singh, Mohan P., Rohtas, Devi Prasad and
Gulabchandra Verma with effect from 14th
May, 1992 is illegal and unjustified.
iii. The Party II is directed to pay monetary
compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two
lakhs fifty thousand only) for each workman
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
110
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/282
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 21-02-2018 in reference
No. IT/50/12 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.
Shivanee S. Borkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 25th April, 2018.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Case No. IT/50/12
Shri Narayan Dalai,
Rep. by Goa Trade and
Commercial Workers Union,
Panaji-Goa.
....
Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Country Club de Goa,
836/1, Soranto Vaddo, Anjuna
Bardez-Goa.
….
Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I remained absent.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri R.
Noronha.
Panaji, Dated: 21-02-2018
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by
Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947) the Government of Goa, by Order dated
21-06-2012, bearing No. 28/56/2011-LAB/326,
referred the following dispute for adjudication to
the Industrial Tribunal of Goa. The Government of
Goa, by its another order No. 28/02/2011-LAB/86
dated 09-02-2016, transferred the present dispute
from Industrial Tribunal, Panaji, Goa to this Labour
Court II, Panaji-Goa.
1. “Whether the contention of the union that
Shri Narayan Dalai, Cook has been refused
employment by the management of
M/s. Country Clube de Goa, Anjuna, Bardez,
Goa, with effect from 01-04-2011, is legal and
justified?
1. If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/50/2012 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the parties appeared. The claim
statement has been filed by the Goa Trade
Commercial Workers Union (for short ‘the union’)
on behalf of the Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), on 05-09-2012 at Exb. 5. The facts of the
case in brief as pleaded by the union are that the
Workman was appointed as a ‘Cook-Comi-III Indian’
in the food and beverages department of the
Employer/Party II (for short, ‘Employer’) situated at
Sorantowado, Anjuna, Bardez, Goa. The union
stated that the Employer is a hotel/resorts which
caters to the needs of Indian tourists as well as
foreign tourists by providing them room facilities,
restaurant facilities, housekeeping, gymnasium,
swimming pool etc. after charging certain tariff
from these visiting tourists/customers. The union
stated that the Employer employed more than 53
permanent workmen at its aforesaid hotel. The
union stated that all the workmen of the Employer
unionized themselves under the banner of Goa
Trade and Commercial Workers Union (AITUC) and
the said fact of unionization was informed to the
Employer. The union stated that ever since its
unionization, the union has espoused the cause of
these workmen before every competent forum and
authorities. The union stated that soon after the
unionization, the management of the Employer
started harassing and victimizing the unionized
workmen by adopting various illegal and unfair
labour practices. The union stated that it has filed
a detailed complaint of unfair labour practices vide
their letter dated 31-03-2011 before the office of
Labour Commissioner, Panaji, Goa. The union stated
that after resuming new Resort Manager, he
informed all the unionized workmen to resign from
its union membership. The Union stated that the
workmen has however, refused to concede to the
demand of the Resort Manager and did not resign
from its membership.
3. The union stated that on 01-04-2011, when
the Workman reported for his normal duty at the
Employer hotel at 7.00 a.m., the Resort Manager,
Mr. Nirmal Biswas informed him not to attend the
duties any further and that his services stands
terminated with immediate effect. The Union stated
that the said Manager also informed the security
guard of the Employer not to allow the Workman
to enter inside the resort. The Union stated that
from the date of joining till his illegal refusal
of employment, the Workman has worked
continuously with clean and unblemished past
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
111
service record. The Union stated that the Workman
was a permanent workman and his last drawn
salary was Rs. 4000/- p.m. The Union submitted
that the refusal of employment to the Workman
w.e.f. 01-04-2011 is illegal, unjust and bad-in-law
and smacks of malafide and malice, which is done
to harass and victimize the Workman. The Union
submitted that no notice or one month pay in lieu
of notice or compensation of whatsoever nature
was paid to the Workman. The Union submitted
that the Workman is presently unemployed. The
Union therefore prayed that the action of the
management of the Employer in refusing
employment to the Workman w.e.f. 01-04-2011 be
held as illegal, unjust and bad-in-law and the
Workman be reinstated back in service of the
Employer hotel with full back wages and continuity
in service and all other consequential benefits.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
28-11-2012 at Exb. 6. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
statement of claim filed on behalf of the Workman
that he has been illegally refused employment by
the Employer w.e.f. 01-04-2011, is false, mischievous,
frivolous, ambiguous and vexatious and same is
liable to be dismissed, that the Workman has
approached the Hon’ble Tribunal with unclean
hands by falsely stating that he has been refused
employment w.e.f. 01-04-2011, that the Workman in
his statement of claim has falsely tried to depict to
this Hon’ble Tribunal that the Employer is a highly
profit making organization which caters to the
needs of Indian as well as foreign tourists, in fact,
in reality it is only a hospitality styled resort falling
under the clubs category especially tailor made
and design to serve its esteemed guests, who are
basically Indian nationals and who in order to
procure the facilities provided by the Employer
have to be compulsorily affiliated to its membership,
that the union falsely stated that its workmen are
unionized under the banner of AITUC and that
since its unionization, they have been harassed
and victimized by adopting various illegal and
unfair labour practices, but it is a mischievous ploy
to create a non-existent industrial dispute as
dramatized and stage managed by the union.
5. The Employer stated that it is a division of
Country Club (India) Ltd., a company registered
under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office situated at Amrutha Castle,
5-19-16, Saifabad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad. The
Employer stated that its unit is having 46 rooms
strictly membership club category resort
comprising of a restaurant, swimming pool, a
gymnasium alongwith a games room besides
providing room service and housekeeping facilities.
The Employer stated that its Goa club division is
having 68 employees out of which 34 employees
are members of the said union.
6. The Employer admitted that the Workman
under reference has been employed by them in its
Goa unit on 01-10-2008 in the designation of KSTD
Helper-F&B production on a monthly salary of
Rs. 3500/-. The Employer stated that at the time of
signing the appointment letter dated 01-10-2008
and especially in Clause (2) of the appointment
letter, it is clearly stated that he could be posted/
/transferred to any offices/projects division/
/department/unit in India or abroad or in any other
establishment owned and managed by them/group
of companies depending upon the exigencies of
work. The Employer stated that after a period of
above 2 years and six months its General Manager,
vide their letter dated 30-03-2011, the Workman
has been transferred to its Medchal unit on the
same post and service conditions as there was
necessity and urgent need of Comi-III at the
transferred place. The Employer stated that in the
said letter dated 30-03-2011, the Workman was
informed that he has been relieved w.e.f. closing
hours of 01-04-2011 from the Goa unit and that his
name shall be put on the muster roll of its Medchal
unit w.e.f. 04-04-2011. The Employer stated that
the Workman was also informed that he has been
granted three days special leave with pay for
preparation and travel to its Medchal unit and
that his bus fare for travelling and other expenses
shall be reimbursed to him on actual basis
immediately on reporting at its Medchal unit. The
Employer stated that the Workman was also
advised in the letter to report at its Medchal unit
on or before 04-04-2011 at 10.00 a.m.
7. The Employer stated that on 06-04-2011 at
around 11.35 a.m. the management of the Employer
received a copy of a letter dated 31-03-2011
addressed to the Labour Commissioner, Panaji, Goa,
by the union on the subject of illegal refusal of
employment to the Workman under reference
working in F & B Production as Cook-Comi-III by
its management w.e.f. 01-04-2011, calling upon the
office of the Labour Commissioner to immediately
take cognizance of the present industrial dispute
and to instruct the management of the Employer
to allow the Workman to resume his normal duties
with immediate effect as the Workman is ready
and willing to resume his duties unconditionally.
The Employer stated that the said letter has been
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
112
prepared with most malafide intention by the
President of the union to the Labour Commissioner
only to dramatized and create a non-existent
industrial dispute, which in reality never existed
at all and that too at the behest of the Workman
who has simply refuse to abide and follow the
directions issued to him in writing by the Employer.
The Employer stated that the union has made
certain allegations, which are incorporated in its
letter dated 31-03-2011 addressed to the office of
the Labour Commissioner in a rather hasty, reckless
and lethargic manner so as make it look apparent
that the Workman who has been transferred in
accordance with its practice and policy has been
refused employment is otherwise totally false and
absurd. The Employer stated that not even a single
occasion the Workman or its union has come before
the Employer or its Resort Manager and have
brought to their notice of any of its grievances/
/objections with respect to the issue of transfer of
the Workman. The Employer stated that the transfer
of the Workman has been maliciously and
erroneously interpreted as refusal of employment
so as to show case that there exist an industrial
dispute between the Workman and the Employer
herein above. The Employer stated that the Asstt.
Labour Commissioner, Mr. Rupesh Kothambikar,
directed the Employer to maintain status quo as
the dispute has been admitted in conciliation.
The Employer submitted that the Ld. Asstt.
Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer,
Mr. Rupesh Kothambikar has acted in haste and in
total abuse of the powers vested upon him under
the I.D. Act, 1947 and has gone a step ahead and
admitted the said dispute of alleged refusal of
employment without giving them a fair and proper
opportunity of being heard on the subject of alleged
refusal of employment to the Workman, thereby
not following the principles of natural justice. The
Employer stated that on 07-04-2011, it intimated
the Workman to report to duties immediately on
receipt of the said letter as he had wilfully
remained absent from duty without permission,
sanction of leave or even information w.e.f.
01-04-2011 to till date. The Employer stated that
the Workman received the aforesaid letter on
09-04-2011, however, despite the receipt of the said
letter, the Workman for reasons best known to him
has failed to report for his work at its unit at
Medchal. The Employer stated that the conciliation
proceedings held before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer ended in
failure as both the parties stuck up to their own
stand resulting in no possibility of an amicable
settlement between them. The Employer denied
the overall case of the Workman as pleaded by him
and prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
8. Thereafter, the workman filed his rejoinder on
07-01-2013 at Exb. 08. The workman, by way of his
rejoinder, denied each and every statement,
averments and submissions made by the Employer
in its written statements which are contrary and
inconsistent to the statements, averments and a
submission made in his statement of claim and
reiterates his case as pleaded in his statement of
claim.
9. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties
hereinabove, the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-
-Labour Court framed the following issues on
23-08-2013 at Exb. 11.
1. Whether the Party I proves that the Party II
refused employment to him w.e.f. 01-04-2011?
2. Whether the Party I proves that refusal of
employment by the Party II is illegal, unjust,
bad-in-law and is done to harass and
victimize him on account of his unionization
under the banner of Goa Trade and
Commercial Workers Union?
3. What relief? What Award?
10. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1 : In the negative.
(b) Issue No. 2 : In the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3 : As per final order.
REASONS
11. Issue No. 1 and 2:
The union filed statement of claim on behalf of
the Workman. The union, in its statement of claim
filed in the present proceedings pleaded that the
Workman has been refused the employment by the
management of the Employer w.e.f. 01-04-2011 and
that the said refusal of employment to the Workman
is illegal, unjust, bad-in-law and smacks of malafides
and malice, which is done to harass and victimize
the Workman. The aforesaid pleadings made by
the union on behalf of the Workman has been
specifically denied by the Employer in its written
statement filed in the present proceedings and
pleaded that the Workman has been transferred to
its Medchal unit w.e.f. 01-04-2011 and directed
him to report for duties at its Medchal unit w.e.f.
04-11-2011. Thus, the burden to prove that the
Workman was refused the employment and that
the said refusal of employment to him is illegal,
unjust and bad-in-law, is on him.
12. To prove her case, the union filed an affidavit
in evidence of the Workman on 12-12-2016 in
support of her statement of claim. The said affidavit
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
113
in evidence of the Workman was allowed to
withdraw at the request of Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas
Naik and allowed to file a fresh affidavit in
evidence of the General Secretary of the union,
Shri Raju Mangeshkar. On 15-12-2017, Ld. Adv.
Shri Suhas Naik filed an application seeking
permission to withdraw his appearance and
discharging him from the appearance, which was
allowed after hearing both the parties. As the
General Secretary of the union, Shri Raju
Mangeshkar failed to remain present for his further
examination in chief as well as cross-examination
by the other side, the court after giving ample
opportunities to the Workman, closed the
evidence. Thus, there is as good as no evidence on
record on behalf of the union espousing the cause
of the Workman.
13. On the contrary, the Employer examined its
Asstt. Manager (Controls) Mr. Dudekula Hussaini
and produced on record certain documentary
evidence in support of its oral evidence. The said
oral as well as documentary evidence of the
Employer’s witness remained unchallenged for
want of cross-examination by the union. The said
oral as well as documentary evidence of the
Employer on record indicates that the services of
the Workman is liable to be transferred to any
offices/project division/department/unit in India or
abroad of the Company or in other establishment
owned or managed by any of our group companies
depending upon the exigencies of work in terms of
Clause 2 of the appointment letter issued to the
Workman at Exb. 19. Further, the transfer letter
dated 30-03-2011 (Exb. 20) issued to the Workman
on record indicates that services of the Workman
has been transferred to Medchal w.e.f. 04-04-2011
in the same post and service conditions as
per Clause 2 of his appointment letter dated
01-10-2008 and that he has been relieved w.e.f.
closing hours of 01-04-2011 from Goa unit and his
name will be put on the muster roll of the Medchal
unit w.e.f. 04-04-2011. The Workman has been
granted three days special leave with pay for
preparation and travel to Medchal unit. The
Workman would be reimbursed bus fare for
travelling and other expenses on actual basis for
reporting at its Medchal unit immediately on
reporting at Medchal. The aforesaid oral as well as
documentary evidence on record clearly indicates
that the Workman was not refused the employment
by the Employer but it is the case of transfer from
Goa unit to its Medchal unit on account of
necessity. No evidence of whatsoever nature has
been brought on record by the union on behalf of
the Workman pertaining to the harassment and
victimization of the Workman on account of his
unionization under the Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers Union. Hence, it is held that the union
failed to prove that the Employer refused
employment to the Workman w.e.f. 01-04-2011 or
on any other dates and as such the legality and
justifiability of refusal of employment to the
Workman does not arise. The union also failed to
prove that the Workman was harassed and
victimized by the Employer on account of his
unionization under the banner of Goa Trade and
Commercial Workers Union. The issue No. 1 and 2
are therefore answered in the negative.
In the circumstances, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the Workman Shri Narayan
Dalai, Cook has been transferred from Goa
unit to its Medchal unit on account of
necessity.
2. It is further held that the union failed to
prove that Shri Narayan Dalai, Cook has been
refused employment by the management
of M/s. Country Clube de Goa, Anjuna,
Bardez, Goa, with effect from 01-04-2011.
Therefore, the question of legality and
justifiability of refusal of employment to
Shri Narayan Dalai, Cook by the management
of M/s. Country Clube de Goa, Anjuna,
Bardez, Goa, with effect from 01-04-2011, does
not arise.
3. The Workman, Shri Narayan Dalai, is
therefore not entitled to any relief.
4. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———uuu———
Department of Mines
Directorate of Mines & Geology
__
Order
No. 01/SC-MACPS/ADM/Mines/2018/4722
Read: O.M. No. 2/7/2017/PER/746 dated 12-03-2018.
In pursuance to the Office Memorandum read at
above, the Departmental Screening Committee for
Group ‘B’ posts outside Secretariat under
Directorate of Mines and Geology is hereby
reconstituted for the purpose of considering the
cases for grant of financial up-gradation under
Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme. The
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
114
composition of Group ‘B’ Screening Committee is
as under:
1) Secretary (Mines)
— Chairman.
2) Director of Mines & Geology — Member.
3) Dy. Director of Mines &
— Member.
Geology-I
This supersedes earlier Order No. 01/219/09/
/ADM/Mines/1838 dated 15-08-2009.
Prasanna A. Acharya, Director & Addl. Secretary
(Mines & Geology).
Panaji, 24th April, 2018.
________
Order
No. 01/SC-MACPS/ADM/Mines/2018/4723
Read: O.M. No. 2/7/2017/PER/746 dated 12-03-2018.
In pursuance to the Office Memorandum read at
above, the Departmental Screening Committee for
Group ‘C’ posts outside Secretariat under
Directorate of Mines and Geology is hereby
reconstituted for the purpose of considering the
cases for grant of financial up-gradation under
Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme. The
composition of Group ‘C’ Screening Committee is
as under:
1) Director of Mines & Geology — Chairman.
2) Dy. Director of Mines &
— Member.
Geolog-I
3) Assistant Accounts Officer
— Member.
This supersedes earlier Order No. 01/SC-MACPS/
/ADM/MINES/2013/3752 dated 15-12-2015.
Prasanna A. Acharya, Director & Addl. Secretary
(Mines & Geology).
Panaji, 24th April, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 22/1/2018-PER/1345
Governor of Goa on the recommendation of Goa
Services Board is pleased to allot the charge of
Commandant IRBn to Smt. Suman Goyal, IPS, SP
(EOC) and charge of SP (Training) and Principal
PTS, Valpoi to Shri Shekhar M. Prabhudessai, SP
(HQ), in addition to their own duties with immediate
effect, in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 12th April, 2018.
Order
No. 5/2/2017-PER/1332
On the recommendation of the Goa Service Board
and with the approval of the Government, the
transfer and posting of the following Junior Scale
Officers of Goa Civil Service is ordered, with
immediate effect and in public interest:-
Sr.
Name and present
Posted as
No.
posting of the
officer
1. Shri Deepesh
Deputy Director (Admn.),
Priolkar, Deputy
Tribal Welfare.
Registrar (Admn.),
RCS
2. Smt. Deepti
Deputy Director (Admn.),
Kankonkar @
SDCT. She shall hold the
Milan Kankonkar,
charge of Deputy Registrar
Deputy Director
(Admn.), RCS in addition
(Admn.), SDCT
to own duties.
holding additional
charge of Deputy
Director (Admn.),
Tribal Welfare
All the above officers shall complete their
handing over and taking over process within 05
working days and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 24th April, 2018.
________
Order
No. 7/1/2018-PER/1337
Consequent upon superannuation of Dr. Dattaraj
Naik Parrikar, Managing Director, Goa Meat
Complex Ltd., Panaji w.e.f. 30-04-2018, Dr. Rajendra
H. Prabhu Gaonkar, Deputy Director of Animal
Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Panaji shall hold
the charge of Managing Director, Goa Meat
Complex Ltd., Panaji in addition to his own duties
w.e.f. 01-05-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 24th April, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
115
Order
No. 6/13/2017-PER/1331
On the recommendation of the Goa Service Board and with the approval of the Government, the
transfer and posting of the following Officers is ordered in public interest, with immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name and present posting
Posted as
No.
of the officer
1
2
3
1. Shri Ravi Jha, IAS, Director (IT) holding
Director, Environment.
additional charge as MD (ITG)
2. Shri Srinet Kotwale, MD, GSIDC holding
Director (IT). He shall hold the charges of MD, GSIDC;
additional charge of CEO, Goa Investment
CEO, Goa Investment Promotion & Facilitation
Promotion & Facilitation Board
Board and MD (ITG) in addition to his own duties.
3. Shri Anthony D’Souza, Joint Secretary (Revenue)
Joint Secretary (Revenue). He shall hold the charge
holding additional charge of Joint Secretary
of Director (NRI) in addition to his own duties.
(Housing)
4. Shri Shyamsundar Parab, Superintendent of
Superintendent of Central Jail. He shall hold the
Central Jail holding additional charge of
charge of Joint Secretary (Housing) in addition to
Director (NRI)
his own duties.
5. Shri Surendra Naik, Additional Collector-II,
Additional Collector-I, South Goa.
North Goa
6. Shri Vijay Paranjape, Additional Secretary
Additional Secretary (Protocol). He shall hold the
(Protocol) holding additional charge of
charges of Director, Public Grievance & Additional
Director, Public Grievance
Secretary (ARD) in addition to his own duties.
7. Shri Agnelo A. J. Fernandes, Additional
Additional Collector-II, South Goa.
Collector-I, South Goa
8. Shri Parag Nagarcenkar, Director, Environment
Director (Training), GIPARD.
9. Smt. Meghana Shetgaonkar, Director (Adminis-
Director (Administration), Education Department.
tration), Education Department holding
She shall hold the charge of Member Secretary,
additional charge of Director (Training),
Sanjay School in addition to her own duties.
GIPARD
All the above officers shall complete their handing over and taking over process within 05 working
days and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 24th April, 2018.
________
Order
No. 6/13/2017-PER/1351
On the recommendation of the Goa Service Board and with the approval of the Government, the
transfer and posting of the following Senior Scale Officers of the Goa Civil Service is ordered in public
interest, with immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name and present posting
Posted as
No.
of the officer
1
2
3
1. Shri Gopal A. Parsekar, Commissioner of
Additional Collector-II, North-Goa.
Labour & Employment
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
116
2. Shri Jayant G. Tari, Secretary, Goa Rehabili-
Commissioner of Labour & Employment. He shall
tation Board holding additional charge of
hold additional charge of Secretary, Goa Rehabili-
Director (Admn.), Kala Academy
tation Board & Director (Admn.), Kala Academy in
addition to his own duties.
All the above officers shall complete their handing over and taking over process within 05 working
days and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 25th April, 2018.
———uuu———
1
2
3
Department of Planning
South Goa Planning & Development Authority
__
Order
SGPDA/RTI-Order/176/18-19
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections (1)
and (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) (hereafter referred to
as the “said Act”) and in supersession of Order
No. 21/22-1/TCP/CIR/10/448 dated 08-02-2010,
published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated
18-02-2010, the South Goa Planning & Development
Authority hereby designates the officers specified
in column (2) and (3) of the table below as
Public Information Officer and Assistant Public
Information Officer, respectively, for the South Goa
Planning and Development Authority, for the said
Act.
TABLE
Sr.
Public Information
Assistant Public
No.
Officer
Information Officer
1
2
3
1. Shri Rosario Paul
Head Clerk/Official holding
Gomes, Planning
charge of Head Clerk.
Assistant
This order shall come into force from the date of
its publication in Official Gazette.
This order supersedes all earlier orders.
Sd/- Member Secretary, for and on behalf the
South Goa Planning & Development Authority.
Margao, 26th April, 2018.
V. No. A–203/2018.
Mormugao Planning & Development Authority
__
Order
No. MPDA/RTI/2018-19
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) (hereinafter
referred to as the “Said Act”) and in supersession
of Order No. 22/22-1/TCP/CIR/10/448 dated
08-02-2010, published in Official Gazette, Series II
No. 47 dated 18-02-2010, the Mormugao Planning
& Development Authority hereby designates the
Officers specified in column (2) and (3) of the table
below as Public Information Officer and Assistant
Public Information Officer, respectively, for the
Mormugao Planning and Development Authority,
for the said Act.
TABLE
Sr.
Public Information
Assistant Public
No.
Officer
Information Officer
1
2
3
1. Planning Assistant
Head Clerk/Official
holding charge of Head
Clerk.
This order shall come into force from the date of
its publication in Official Gazette.
Sd/- Member Secretary, for and on behalf
of the Mormugao Planning & Development
Authority.
Vasco, 27th April, 2018.
V. No. A–210/2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
117
Department of Public Health
—
Order
No. 4/29/2017-II/PHD/1151
Read: Memorandum No. 4/29/2017-II/PHD dated
13-03-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/30(3)/2017/1082 dated 21-02-2018,
Government is pleased to appoint the following
doctors to the post of Assistant Lecturer in the
Department of Nephrology in Goa Medical College
& Hospital, Bambolim-Goa on temporary basis in
the Level-10 of Pay Matrix of 7th Pay Commission
[Pay Band-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100+Grade Pay of
Rs. 5,400/- (pre-revised)] with immediate effect and
as per the terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above:-
1. Dr. Joseema Cleta Colaco.
2. Dr. Amitash Ramchandra Balekar.
The above doctors shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
They have been declared medically fit by the
Medical Board. The appointments are made subject
to the verification of their character and
antecedents. In the event of any adverse remarks
noticed by the Government on verification of their
character and antecedents, their services shall be
terminated.
The appointment is made against the vacancies
occurred due to creation of 02 posts of Assistant
Lecturer in the Department of Nephrology
in Goa Medical College & Hospital, vide Order
No. 4-11-2012-II/PHD/557 dated 13-05-2016.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 23rd April, 2018.
________
Order
No. 4/2/2013-II/PHD/Part VI/1198
Government is pleased to accept the resignation
tendered by Dr. Hanumanthu Jagannayakulu,
Professor in the Department of Cardiology, Goa
Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim-Goa
appointed on contract basis vide letter dated
09-04-2018 and he stands relieved from the said
post w.e.f. 09-04-2018 (a.n.) by surrendering one
month’s pay in lieu of notice period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 25th April, 2018.
Order
No. 2/8/2014-II/PHD/1177
Government is pleased to accept the resignation
tendered by Dr. Roma Varik, Associate Professor in
the Department of Paediatric Surgery, Goa Medical
College & Hospital, Bambolim-Goa vide letter dated
14-03-2018 and she stands relieved from the said
post w.e.f. 13-04-2018 (a.n.) on expiry of one month’s
notice.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health)/link.
Porvorim, 26th April, 2018.
________
Certificate
No. 4/18/2002-II/PHD/Vol. 2/1206
Read: Government Order No. 4/18/2002-II/PHD/
/Vol. 2 dated 09-03-2018.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Dr. Celia Valanki Fernandes, Assistant Lecturer,
Department of Physiology in Goa Medical College
appointed vide above referred Order has been
verified by the Addl. District Magistrate, South Goa
District, Margao and nothing adverse has come to
the notice of the Government.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health)/link.
Porvorim, 26th April, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
__
Order
No. 35/03/02/2018-RD/847
In exercise of the powers conferred by
Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act 2 of 1899), as in force
in the State of Goa, the Government of Goa is hereby
pleased to exempt Stamp Duty payable by
Matruchhaya, Ponda-Goa, towards purchase of land
admeasuring 4297 sq. mts. bearing survey numbers
32/7 and 31/12 of the Village Talaulim of
Ponda Taluka for a total consideration amount of
` 1 crore (Rupees one crore only) from Talaulikar
Family, on transfer of land, by way of Deed of Sale,
for the purpose of utilising the same for
rahabilitation and education of under privileged
children.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sagun R. Velip, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 26th April, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 5
3RD MAY, 2018
118
Department of Town & Country Planning
__
Order
No. 17/01/TCP/2016-17/627
Read: 1) Order No. 17/01/TC-UD/TCP/2015-16/
/4852 dated 28-11-2016.
2) Transfer Order dated 15-07-2018.
In continuation to orders read at preamble
and Government approval obtained vide Note
No. 17/01/TCP/2016-17/3068 dated 27-09-2017, the
deputation period of Shri Prakash P. Bandodkar,
Deputy Town Planner, as Member Secretary
in 37B Committee, Goa Industrial Development
Corporation, Panaji, is extended for period starting
from 24-09-2017 till 15-03-2018.
His deputation is granted as per Rules in force.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
J. Ashok Kumar, Secretary (TCP)/HOD.
Panaji, 16th March, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Water Resources
__
Order
No. 4/6/EO-WRD/2018-19/47
Read: Office Order No. 4/6-CE-EO-WRD/2013-14/49
dated 04-04-2013.
Sanction of Government is hereby conveyed for
re-constitution of the Rehabilitation Committee of
the Salauli Irrigation Project with immediate effect
as follows:
1. Minister for Water Resources,
— Chairman.
Government of Goa
2. M. L. A. Sanguem Constituency— Member.
3. M. L. A. Quepem Constituency — Member.
4. Secretary, Water Resources
— Member.
5. The Chief Engineer, Water
— Member.
Resources Department
6. The Superintending Engineer,
— Member.
Circle-IV, W.R.D.
7. Executive Engineer, W.D. X,
— Member
W.R.D., Pajimol, Sanguem
Secretary.
8. Zilla Panchayat Member,
— Member.
Rivona
9. Sarpanch, V. P. Curdi, Vaddem
— Member.
10. Sarpanch, V. P. Uguem
— Member.
11. Sarpanch, V. P. Bhati
— Member.
12. Sarpanch, V. P. Malcornem
— Member.
13. Shri Chandan Unandekar,
— Member.
Colony No.1, Vaddem
14. Shri Sunil Bhandari,
— Member.
Colony No. 3, Valkini, Vaddem
15. Shri Pauto Gaokar,
— Member.
New Vaddem, Zanodem
16. Shri Francisco Rodrigues,
— Member.
Colony No. 1, Vaddem
The committee will hold regular meetings at
least once in three months to review the progress
achieved in the rehabilitation programme of Project
Affected Persons.
This order issues with the approval of
Government vide No. Secy/WR/1117/F dated
16-04-2018 and is in suppression of Order No. 4/6-
-CE-EO-WRD/2013-14/49 dated 04-04-2013.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer & ex officio
Additional Secretary (WRD).
Porvorim, 24th April, 2018.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 20.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—37/200–05/2018.