Panaji, 16th July, 2020 (Asadha 25, 1942)

SERIES II No. 16

455

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

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Order

No. 3/3/Hort/SSS-GSHCL/2020-21/D.Agri/204

Ref.: Order No. 2/12/98-D.Agri/Part II/74 dated 03-07-2017.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 76 (i) of the Articles of Association of the Goa State

Horticultural Corporation Ltd., and in partial modification of the Government Order No. 2/12/98-D.Agri/

/Part II/74 dated 03-07-2017, the Government of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri Sagar Tilve, R/o. Palye,

Pernem, Goa, as Director on Board of Directors of the Goa State Horticultural Corporation Ltd., with

immediate effect in place of Shri Sandeep Nhanji, R/o. Palye, Mandrem.

This issues with the approval of the Government.

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

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 10th July, 2020.

________

Corrigendum

No. 2/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol.II/481

Read: Order No. 2/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol.II/423 dated 29-06-2020.

In the above referred order the Budget Head mentioned for Sr. No. 1 may be read as “2401-00-

-001-02-01” instead of “2401-00-103-02-01”.

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

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 8th July, 2020.

Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 15 dated 09-07-2020 namely, Extraordinary

dated 13-07-2020 from pages 453 to 454 regarding Order from Department of Home.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

456

Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services

Order

No. 2/2/79-AH (Part)/2020-21/1941

Government is pleased to order the transfer of the following Veterinary Officers in the Directorate of

Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services with immediate effect to the stations as indicated against their

names:-

Sr.

Name with designation

Present place

Proposed place of

Budget Head of Account

No.

of posting

posting

1. Dr. Carol Anne Misquita,

Veterinary Hospital,

Veterinary Dispensary,

2403–Animal Husbandry;

Veterinary Officer

Tonca

Varca

00–; 102–Cattle & Buffalo

Development; 05–KVS

(Non-Plan); 01–Salaries.

2. Dr. Rachel Jolsa Rowland

Veterinary Dispen-

Veterinary Hospital,

2403–Animal Husbandry;

Salema, Veterinary

sary, Varca

Tonca

00–; 001–Direction and

Officer (on contract)

Administration; 01–Direc-

tion (Non-Plan); 02–Wages.

The Officers shall not be entitled for transfer TA/DA.

The Officers shall join their new place of posting with immediate effect.

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

Dr. Santosh V. Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (AH).

Panaji, 6th July, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Education

Order

No. 1-(6)-2-2018/SE/PART FILE/281

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide letter No. COM/II/

/12/15(2)/2019/524 dated 12-06-2020, Government is pleased to lift the probation period/declare

confirmation of the following Officers against the post of Assistant Director of Education under the

Directorate of Education with effect from the date of successfully completion of their probation period

as shown in column No. 4 below against their respective names:-

Sr.

Name of the officers

Date of

Description

No.

appointment/

completion of

/promotion

probation period

1. Shri Bhagirath G. Shetye

21-09-2007

20-09-2009

Lifting of probation period

and confirmation.

2. Smt. Sylvia Fernandes

13-09-2007

12-09-2009

Lifting of probation period

and confirmation.

3. Dr. Shambhu S. Ghadi

13-09-2007

12-09-2009

Lifting of probation period

and confirmation.

4. Ms. Maria Rose Grace D’Souza

28-11-2014

27-11-2016

Lifting of probation period.

5. Shri Ishwar R. Patil

01-06-2015

31-05-2017

Lifting of probation period.

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

Vandana Rao, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Education).

Porvorim, 07th July, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

457

Certificate

No. ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/Part II/1666

Read: ACAD-III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/Part II/10949 dated 10-02-2020.

Certified that the character and antecedents of Dr. Kavita Kanayalal Chainani appointed to the post

of Associate Professor for Teaching, Learning and Educational Technology for State Higher Education

Council (Group “A” Gazetted) under Directorate of Higher Education vide above referred Order has been

verified by the Addl. District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, Office of the Collector & District Magistrate,

South Goa District, Magisterial Section, Margao-Goa and nothing adverse has come to the notice of the

Government.

Premraj K. Shirodkar, Under Secretary (Higher Education).

Porvorim, 6th July, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Forest

Order

No. 4/2/2011/FOR/134

The Government of Goa is pleased to order transfer and posting of the following Deputy Conservator

of Forests (SFS)/Assistant Conservator of Forests, with immediate effect and until further orders:-

Sr.

Name of the officer

Present posting

Transferred and

No.

and designation

posted as/charge

Shri Vikas Desai,

Dy. Conservator of Forests

(Research & Utilization), Margao

(Planning & Statistics), Panaji.

Shri Santosh H. Phadte,

Assistant Conservator of Forests,

Shall hold the charge of

Assistant Conservator of

Ponda

Dy. Conservator of Forests (Soil

Forests, Ponda

Conservation, Ponda).

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

Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forests).

Porvorim, 7th July, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Home

Home—General Division

—

Order

No. 25/2/2020-HD(G)/1494

Read: Order No. 25/2/2020-HD(G)/1057 dated 08-

05-2020.

The Government hereby withdraws with

immediate effect the powers of Executive

Magistrate conferred under Section 20(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974),

on the below mentioned officers vide order referred

in the preamble hereinabove:-

Sr.

Name of the officers, designation

No.

& department

Shri K. Parmeshwar, Asstt. Surveyor of Works,

CPO, WRD, Porvorim, Goa.

Shri Surendra V. Bongeri, Asst. Surveyor of

Works, O/o Addl. Chief Engineer (I.P.), WRD,

Porvorim-Goa.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar, Under Secretary (Home-II).

Porvorim, 2nd July, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

458

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-II/863

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

25-06-2020 in reference No. IT/51/99 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, 8th July, 2020.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

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

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/51/99

Shri Vency Lobo,

H. No. 289, Manora,

Raia, Salcete, Goa.

…

Workman/Party I

V/s

The Sr. General Manager,

M/s. M.R.F. Limited,

P.O. Box No. 1, Usgao,

Ponda, Goa.

…

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri V.

Menezes.

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

K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 25th day of the month

of June of the year 2020)

By Order dated 17-5-1999, bearing No. IRM/CON/

/P/(242)/1998/2579, the Government of Goa in

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The

Act), has referred the following dispute to the

Tribunal for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s MRF Limited, Usgao, Ponda-Goa, in

terminating the services of the workman

Shri Vency B. Lobo, with effect from

31-10-1997, is legal andjustified?

(2) If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/51/99 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 4 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

Party I has been appointed as Trainee Engineering

Workman (Mech.) since 25-4-1995 and has been in

continuous and uninterrupted service of the

company till 31-10-1997 when his services were

illegally terminated. The Party II under the guise of

calling the workman a trainee issued various letters

starting from 1-11-1995 till the date of termination

of services i.e. 31-10-1997. The company offered the

workman each time employment for three months

and thereafter gave a fresh letter of extension of

training period for another three months till the

date of termination and has kept the workman as

trainee illegally and treated him as temporary

workman when in fact on completion of 240 days

of continuous service with the company, he is

entitled to permanency of service as well as all the

benefits under the Act. The company terminated

the services without holding any enquiry for

assigning any reason for the same. The termination

of the Party I workman is illegal and in violation of

the provision of Industrial Disputes Act and also

an act of unfair labour practice under Schedule V

of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. The Party I vide letter dated 18-7-1998

demanded that he be in reinstated in service and

paid compensation. The said letter has not been

replied to by the company. The workman thereafter

approached the office of the Labour Commissioner

to take the matter in conciliation. The conciliation

proceedings however ended in failure and as such

the Conciliation Officer submitted a report of

failure of conciliation to the Appropriate

Government. The company has committed unfair

labour practices and victimization. The termination

of the Party I is illegal, improper, unjustified and

malafide. Hence, the dispute.

5. In the Written statement, the Party II has

claimed that the termination of a trainee is not an

industrial dispute. The Party I was employed vide

letter dated 25-4-1995 and was engaged as a trainee

for a period of six months only with stipend of

Rs. 42/- per day w.e.f. 25-4-1995 subject to Certified

Standing Orders and the rules and regulation made

by the company whose terms and conditions were

governed by provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

459

The company did not guarantee any automatic

confirmation in service at the end of the training

period. The performance of Party I was

unsatisfactory during the period of training. The

Party II in order to give opportunity to improve

upon his performance extended the period of

training vide letter dated 1-11-1995. The Party I

again failed to show any improvement in his

performance and he was afforded one more

opportunity and extended the training period vide

letter dated 1-2-1996 for three months. However,

despite the above opportunity, the Party I failed to

show any improvement in his performance however,

his training period was extended vide letter dated

1-5-1996 for a period of three months.

6. The performance of Party I continued to be

unsatisfactory however the Party II instead of

terminating the training period afforded yet another

opportunity and gave extension of the training

period for further period of three months vide

letter dated 1-8-1996. The Party II despite the

unsatisfactory performance was allowed to

continue his training period for three months which

was extended vide letter dated 4-10-1997 till

31-10-1997. The Party I however declined to accept

the said letter despite the fact that his training

period was allowed to continue, although found

unsatisfactory. The Party I at no stage during the

training period made any efforts to improve his

performance and therefore was left with no other

option then to terminate his services as per

Clause 1 of the trainee appointment letter. The

termination of the Party I was in accordance with

Clause XXV at Para 2 of the Certified Standing

Orders of the company. The Party II is not obliged

to confer status of permanency on the Party I

workman more so as the work performance of

Party I was unsatisfactory despite several

opportunities were afforded to him and therefore,

his termination is legal and justified.

7. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exh. 6 denying

the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

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

follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that the

termination of his service by the Party II is

by way of unfair labour practice?

(2) Whether the Party I proves that the action

of the Party II in terminating his service

w.e.f. 31-10-97 is illegal and unjustified?

(3) Whether the Party II proves that the

termination of service of a Trainee is not an

“Industrial Dispute” and hence the

reference is bad?

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

(5) What Award?

9. It is a matter of record that an additional issue

was framed on 10-7-2002 at Exh. 15. It is as follows:

1A) Whether the Party I proves that he was a

permanent workman and hence is entitled

to all the protection available to a

permanent workman under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

10. The Party I, Shri Vency Lobo examined

himself and produced on record a copy of Trainee

appointment letter dated 25-4-1995 at Exh. W-1, a

copy of interview call letter dated 30-3-1989 at

Exh. W-2, a copy of letter dated 3-10-1992 at

Exh. W-3, a copy of certificate dated 25-6-93 at

Exh. W-4, a copy of extension of training period

dated 1-11-1995, 1-2-1996, 1-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 at

Exh. W-5 colly, a copy of punch card at Exh. W-6,

a copy of travel permit at Exh. W-7 colly, a copy of

ID card at Exh. W-8, a copy of termination letter

dated 31-10-1997 at Exh. W-9, a copy of pay slips at

Exh. W-10 colly. On the other hand, Party II

examined Shri Kenneith D’Souza as witness No. 1

and produced on record copies of Performance

Review Forms of the Party I for the period from May

1995 to Oct. 1997 at Exh. 24 colly, a copy of letter

dated 31-10-1997 extending the training period at

Exh. 25, a copy of Certified Standing Orders at

Exh. 26, a copy of Review Forms, extension letters,

probationary appointment and confirmation order

in respect of Shri Gokuldas Gawade and Johny Vaz

at Exh. 27 colly. The Party II also examined Shri

Govind Mapari as a witness and produced on

record a copy of extracts of Certified Standing

Orders at Exh. 34, copies of pay slips of Party I for

the month of June, 1995, Sept, 1995, Oct. 1995, Feb.

1996, Aug. 1997 & Oct. 1997 at Exh. 35 colly, a copy

of pay slips of Rohidas Naik, Juze Andrade,

Subhash Naik and Krishnanath Mulley for the

month of July, 1997 at Exh. 36 colly, a copy of

extract of Settlement dated 20-11-1991 at Exh. 37,

a copy of statement of trainee stipend payable to

Party I at Exh. 38 and Exh. 39, a copy of letter/IOM

dated 27-2-1995 at Exh. 40 and closed its case.

11. Heard arguments. Notes of Written

arguments came to be placed on record by Party I

as well as Party II.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

460

12. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My findings to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 3

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 4

…

As per final order.

Issue No. 5

…

As per final order.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE

Issue No. 1A

…

In the Affirmative.

REASONS

Issue No. 1 and 1A:

13. Learned Advocate Shri V. Menezes for the

Party I has submitted that the Party I workman is

covered by the definition ‘workman’ under Section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act even though his

services were engaged by the Party II as Trainee

Engineering workman (Mech.), and was in

continuous and uninterrupted services with Party

II since 22-5-1995 to 31-10-1997 when his services

were illegally terminated. He further submitted that

under the guise of calling Party I a trainee issued

various letters starting from 1-11-1997 till

31-10-1997 when his services were terminated, each

letter extending his purported training period for

another three months and that by this process, the

management has committed unfair labour practices

under Fifth Schedule of the Act though the

workman has been in continuous service with Party

II and is entitled to full protection of the Industrial

Disputes Act in force, even though the Party I was

performing all duties of a regular permanent

workman in the mechanical department.

14. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for

the Party II has submitted that the Party I was

engaged as ‘Trainee Apprentice’ w.e.f. 25-4-1995,

however, the performance of the workman was

unsatisfactory and inspite of extension of periods,

he had not shown any marked improvement and

hence the training period was terminated in

accordance with Certified Standing Orders of the

company as deposed by Shri Kenneth D’Souza. The

Appraisal Forms at Exh. 24 colly clearly indicate

that the performance and attendance of Party I

workman was not found satisfactory. There is

nothing on record that the termination of his

services was by way of malafide, victimization and

unfair labour practice. It has to be seen whether

the termination of the workman during training

period amounts to retrenchment so also whether

the apprentice or a trainee is a workman under

Industrial Disputes Act or not and whether his

service period from the date of his appointment as

apprentice or trainee is liable to be counted or not

for the purpose of Section 25-F. The termination of

service of Party I is not a retrenchment as the Party

I being a trainee or apprentice was not employed

and there was no master-servant relationship. The

appointment letter did not guarantee him any

automatic confirmation in service at the end of

training period nor was any order of confirmation

passed by the management and was paid stipend

as per terms and conditions of his appointment.

Moreover, he has not raised any objection for

showing him as a trainee but continued to work

with the company. No inference can be drawn that

on completion of 240 days of continuous service, a

trainee is entitled to permanency. The termination

of workman is in accordance with terms of the

appointment and therefore legal and proper.

15. Discernibly, the Party I workman has claimed

that he has been in continuous and uninterrupted

service of the company since 25-4-1995 till

31-10-1997 when his services were illegally

terminated by the Party II and that he has been

illegally and in malafide manner continued to be

termed as a trainee and treated him as a temporary

worker when in fact on completion of 240 days of

continuous service with the company, he is entitled

to permanency of service under the law as well as

all the benefits available to a permanent workman.

In short, the Party I claims to be a workman as

defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, while it is

the case of the Party II that the Party I was engaged

as Trainee workman in accordance with certified

standing orders of the Company and was paid

stipend and that he was purely a trainee engaged

to undergo training as per the terms and condition

of his trainee appointment letter. In short, it is

claimed by Party II that the Party I was a trainee

as per the appointment letter. The dispute is

therefore whether the Party I is a workman under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or

whether he is a trainee in terms of the appointment

letter.

16. The short point for determination is whether

the Party I is a trainee/apprentice or is a workman

under Industrial Disputes Act and whether

termination of his services is as per the provisions

of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Discernibly, the ‘workman’ is defined under

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

the trainee and to decipher whether the person

employed is a ‘workman’ or merely a ‘trainee’ one

should not go by nomenclature attached to the

post, but the nature of the job, which is material.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

461

The definition of workman in the Act of 1947 is an

inclusive definition. Every person employed in an

industry for a consideration would be considered

as a workman for the purposes of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 save and except the categories

of persons specified to be exempted from the

purview of such Section. To come within the

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a person has to

establish that there is a relationship of master and

servant or in other words ‘Employer-Employee’

relationship. Such relationship must be for a

consideration. The consideration may be paid in

cash or in kind and the workman concerned should

be engaged in an industry. The nomenclature and

the period of the appointment are also immaterial.

All that a person needs to establish is that, an

employer-employee relationship or a master and

servant relationship coupled with a consideration.

18. Whereas, a ‘trainee’ on the other hand is

understood to mean that, an employee is taken

into employment for the purpose of such person

being trained in any trade or profession or calling.

User of the word ‘trainee’ does not take away

anything from an Employer-Employee relationship

existing between the trainer and the trainee. The

issue as to whether a trainee can be considered as

a workman within the provisions of Section 2(s)

was considered in the case of The Management of

Tungabhadra Sugar Works (P) Ltd., vs. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court and Anr. 1983 LAB. I. C.

1185. It has been held that any person including

a trainee or apprentice can be regarded as a

workman, if he is employed in any industry to do

any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory,

technical or clerical work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment are express or

implied. In view of the above position of law and

the evidence led by the parties, the Party I is

required to establish that he was employed in the

industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual,

supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or

reward and whether there was relationship of

employer-employee between him and the Party II.

19. The Party I, Shri Vency has examined himself

and has claimed that he was appointed as training

engineering workman by the Party II and has

produced on record the appointment letter dated

25-4-1995 at Exh.W-1. He also claimed that he was

called by the Party II for interview earlier vide

letter dated 23-3-1999 for the post of fitter under

Apprenticeship Act, 1961 on 30-3-1989 and that he

was selected for the post of fitter under the said

Act and that he completed the training period of

3 years satisfactorily. He also claimed that he was

given letter dated 3-10-1992 by the Party II stating

that his period of apprenticeship expired on

31-10-1992 on close of work and accordingly, his

apprenticeship in the trade of fitter under the Act

stood terminated and he was asked to collect his

stipend and was issued a certificate at Exh.W-4.

He further claimed that after appointing him as a

trainee, his training period was extended from time

to time vide letters dated 1-11-1995, 1-2-1996,

1-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 respectively which are at

Exh.W-5 colly. He also claimed that from the time

he appointed as trainee engineering workman, he

worked regularly, but was not given any training.

He was doing the work of maintenance of

machinery and work lifts and that the said work is

of permanent nature. The machines which were

being maintained by him are tyre building

machine, curing machine, curing crash machines,

banner cutters, bead winders, different size of fur

clips which are necessary for production of tyres.

20. The Party I, Shri Vency has also stated that

he along with other workers who are permanently

working with Party II were also carrying out the

same work which was done by him and that he

was working in shifts in same manner as the other

permanent workers were working. He was given

a punch card and he had to punch the card while

entering the factory, copy of the punch card is also

produced at Exh.W-6. He was also issued travel

permits for the purpose of traveling by bus

provided by Party II which were produced at Exh.

W-7 colly. However, the Party II terminated his

services without any reason and without a show

cause notice or a charge sheet being issued to him

prior to termination of the services. He also claimed

that he worked continuously with the Party II since

the time he was appointed as trainee engineering

workman and at no point of time, he was given in

writing by Party II alleging misconduct against

him. The Party II used to issue him pay slips during

the entire period of services which were produced

at Exh.W-10 colly. He claimed that he was paid

piece rated salary by the Party II and whenever he

worked for overtime, he was paid overtime charges

and besides that he was also paid shift allowances

and canteen subsidy for which deduction were

made from his salary towards ESI contribution,

canteen and any advance taken by him as also

towards travelling, he was being paid in the same

manner as the permanent workers have been paid

and the same deductions was being made from his

salary.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

462

21. The Party I, Shri Vency also stated the he

was not given any memo at any time by the Party

II stating that his performance was not satisfactory.

The Party II used to pay festival advance and

thereafter deduct the amount paid towards the

advance through the salary as was being done in

the case of other employees. In the cross

examination, he admitted that the reasons for

extending the period of training are mentioned.

He also claimed that he was governed by certified

standing orders of the company and that as per

Clause 25, workmen other than permanent

workmen could be discharged in terms of the

appointment letter. He also admitted that he was

not confirmed in service in writing by Party II but

claimed that he was covered under the provisions

of ESI Act and amount towards festival advance

was deducted from his salary and an amount

towards canteen facilities was deducted as he was

provided food in the canteen as well as amount

towards bus service was deducted. He also claimed

that he does not know if service increments, service

benefits, HRA, Washing Allowance, Monthly

breakdown bonus, Conveyance subsidy and

Children education fund is given to only

permanent workmen and in his pay slip, there is

no reference to thrift loan, welfare loan, welfare

contribution, consumer society and welfare fund

contribution.

22. The management examined Shri Kenneth

D’Souza, Plant Engineering Manager. He claimed

that the Party I was appointed as trainee

engineering workmen and that initial training

period was for six months and the appointment

letter was governed by Certified Standing Orders.

The performance of Party I was reviewed from time

to time and the training period was extended from

time to time vide extension letter and the

performance of Party I was reviewed in the same

manner the performance of other employees and

that the services of Party I was terminated for

unsatisfactory performance. He also claimed that

the Party I was assigned job as trainee along with

regular mechanics to learn the job. The Party I

worked in different departments and that prior to

the appointment of Party I as trainee, he was

engaged as apprentice under Apprentice Act in

the grade of fitter. In the cross examination, he

admitted that he was working in Tyre Building

Department and thereafter in the Curing

Department in the engineering side between 1995-

97 when the Party I was working with the Party II.

He claimed that he does not know that during the

said period the Party II had engaged about 200

persons designated as trainees and whether

separate register was maintained for the said

persons appointed as trainees.

23. Shri Kenneth also admitted that during the

said period no trainee was imparted training under

Apprentice Act and that the Party I was not

appointed as trainee under Apprentice Act. He

claimed that the Party II had certified during his

apprenticeship that he has satisfactorily completed

his training as a fitter and was given training in

filling and fitting and was paid under

Apprenticeship Act. He admitted that the wage

slip does not indicate that the Party I was paid

stipend and that he was paid piece rate. He also

admitted that the appointment letter at Exh. W-1

shows that he was appointed on 25-4-1995 and the

wage slips at Exh. 10 colly show that he was paid

wages from January, 1994. He also admitted that

as per wage slips the Party I was paid shift

allowance as well as overtime allowance and that

the appointment letter does not mention that he

was entitled for shift allowance or overtime

allowance and he cannot say on what basis the

Party I was paid shift allowance or overtime

allowance or canteen subsidy. He also admitted

that the confirmed employees are paid their piece

rate wages, shift allowance, overtime allowance

and canteen subsidy as per the settlement.

24. Shri Kenneth also admitted that there are no

trainees amongst the permanent workmen of the

Party I. He also admitted that the records do not

show that Party I was issued any charge sheet,

show cause and warning during the entire tenure

and that he does not know whether the attendance

records indicate that the Party I remained absent

without any authorization and that there are no

records which show that any person in particular

had reported that the work of Party I was not

satisfactory and the review forms do not specify

the basis on which the remarks on performance

are made and that he cannot say on which day, the

Party I had not come for duty or the person who

had called him for duty and on what basis the

remarks that the Party I had not come for duty

whenever required and whenever called were

made. He also stated that he is unable to state the

date or the days on which the Party I was required

or called to work and that he had refused to work.

He cannot state as to how extension letter was

issued on 1-5-1996 when the Section head had

made a remark on 3-5-1996 and the Department

head had made a remark on 9-5-1996. He was unable

to say as to what the supervisor meant when he

remarked in the performance review dated

2-10-1997 that the Party I may become a nuisance

in future. He claimed that he does not know why

the Party I was not issued any charge sheet when

termination was purely on performance basis.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

463

25. The letter of appointment dated 25-4-1995 at

Exh. W-1 although states that it is trainee

appointment and that he would be given stipend

of Rs. 42/- per day and that he will not be entitled

to any allowance or benefits, the above evidence

go contrary to the appointment letter as it indicates

that the Party I never worked as apprentice or the

trainee nor he was paid any stipend as per the

appointment letter nor there is any justification for

payment of shift or overtime allowances. It also

shows that although there was designation in the

appointment letter that he was a trainee but for all

practical purposes, the Party I was considered as

a regular employee and the above evidence

establishes such a fact. Admittedly, the nature of

duties is not mentioned in the appointment letter

issued to Party I. The evidence of Party I as well as

Shri Kenneth D’Souza clearly demonstrates that

there was no difference in the duty assigned and

performed by the Party I workman and the other

regular workmen employed by Party II. It therefore

clearly shows that the management were treating

the Party I workman as a regular workman in the

establishment and not apprentice or trainee. It is

therefore designation or nomenclature of the

Party I workman as trainee in the appointment

letter is irrelevant as he was a regular employee of

Party II.

26. Be that as it may, the Party I categorically

stated in his testimony that his service is

continuous and uninterrupted from 25-4-1995 till

31-10-1997, completing in each year more than 240

days of continuous service since his first date of

appointment and that he had worked along with

other mechanical workers doing the same work as

they did independently without supervision and

being paid on piece rate, attending all the three

shifts, day and night in a continuous process of

manufacturing of tyres and was issued bus pass

and canteen subsidy like all other permanent

workmen and that he was paid shift allowance

and overtime wages and issued pay slips similar to

that given to the permanent workmen beside

contributing towards ESI and Provident Fund. It is

also well settled in the case of Sandeep Metalcraft

(Private) Ltd., vs. Suresh D. Zanzad and another,

1994 (II) LLN 523 that when the workman has

sufficiently proved that he has been working in

the company for more than 240 days, his

appointment should be permanent and not

probationer or trainee. There is no dispute that

Party I was working continuously and

uninterruptedly from 25-4-1995 till 31-10-1997

completing in each year more than 240 days and

therefore, he cannot be termed as trainee or

apprentice.

27. There is no dispute that the Party I workmen

prior to his appointment on 2-4-1995 at Exh. W-1

had undergone apprenticeship training for a period

of three years as a fitter and on successful

completion of the training, he was issued letter

dated 3-10-1992 by Party II which is at Exh. W-3

stating that his period of apprenticeship expired

on 31-10-1992. The certificate is at Exh. W-4. It is

therefore clear that the services of workman were

engaged first under the Apprenticeship Act as a

trainee which training period was ended on

31-10-1992 and therefore the Party I workman

cannot be construed as an apprentice under the

Apprenticeship Act after that period as claimed

by Party II at Para 15(2) in the written statement

where it is stated that he was engaged as a trainee

workman and was a learner who was paid a stipend

and whose terms and conditions were governed

by the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1971. The

appointment letter does not state that he was

appointed under Apprenticeship Act. The services

of the Party I were neither engaged as a trainee

nor as an apprentice as falsely claimed by the

Party II.

28. It is settled in the case of Trambak Rubber

Industries Ltd. vs. Nashik Workers Union and

Others, (2003) 6 SCC 416 that where production

activities was carried out by the trainees for more

than one and half year and in the absence of

trainers, the trainees have to be termed as

workman. In the instant case also, the Party I was

not an apprentice and could not be a trainee under

the Certified Standing Orders of the company since

such persons according to Certified Standing

Orders are those who are permanent workmen

undergoing training in a higher post. Mr. Kenneth

D’Souza has also admitted that no training was

imparted to the workmen and that Party I was not

appointed as a trainee under Apprenticeship Act

but completed apprenticeship for three years as a

fitter. He also admitted that the Party I was paid

shift allowance, piece rate wages and overtime

just like permanent workmen and that the Party I

was never issued any charge sheet, show cause

notice or warning letter. The evidence therefore

shows that the Party I was neither an apprentice,

nor a trainee but a regular workman employed in

the industry for consideration by the Party II.

29. The Apex Court in the case of Devinder Singh

vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532

has held that part-time employee, contractual

employee, temporary or casual employee are all

workman. It is also held in the above case that the

provisions contained in Section 25-F(a) and 25-F(b)

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

464

are mandatory and termination of services of the

workman not following the provisions of the Act

amounts to an illegal termination of services. No

notice of retrenchment was given to the workman

nor any charge sheet or show cause notice for

alleged act of misconduct was issued and therefore

the action on the part of the Party II is clearly

illegal. It is also held in the case of State Bank vs.

N. S. Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 that even though

intermittent breaks are given to the workman but

when he answered the test of continuous service

under Section 25-F, he cannot be retrenched

without following the procedure under the said

provision. There is no dispute that the Party I

worked for more than 240 days since his initial

appointment and therefore covered by the

definition ‘continuous service’ under the Act. The

Party I is neither an apprentice nor a trainee but

was working as a regular workman in continuous

service of the Party II without any break and

therefore his termination is illegal for not following

the mandatory provisions of the law.

30. Moreover, the action on the part of the Party

II would constitute ‘Unfair Labour Practices’ as

defined under Fifth Schedule of Industrial Disputes

Act read with Section 2(ra) of the Act, more

particularly under item V(b) and item 10 of the

Fifth Schedule where the employer is prohibited

from engaging workers on temporary basis and

keep them on such basis in service depriving them

the status and the privilege of permanent workers.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan

Lever vs. Ashok Kate, AIR 1996 SC 285, has

formulated the question before it as to the

jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide whether

the management has committed an unfair labour

practices under the Act and the Apex Court in

combined reading of Para 11 to 13, 18, 24 and 36

concluded that the Industrial Disputes Act

prohibits unfair labour practices of the nature in

such case and such ground can be taken up before

the Tribunal as a challenge to the illegal order of

termination and decide upon. The Party I has

sufficiently proved that the Party II has committed

unfair labour practices by depriving the workers

including Party I the status and privileges of

permanent workers. It is therefore the termination

of service by Party II is by way of unfair labour

practices and therefore entitled for protection

available to the workmen under the Industrial

Disputes Act. Hence, the issue No. 1 and 1A are

answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

31. Needless to mention, the Party I has proved

that the action of the Party II in terminating his

service with effect from 31-10-1997 is illegal and

unjustified and that the termination is by way of

unfair labour practice. It is therefore the above

issue No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 3:

32. It is claimed by the Party II that the

termination of services of a trainee is not an

industrial dispute and hence the reference is bad,

however it has been held that the Party I is not the

trainee and that he is a permanent workman as

stipulated by law. There is no evidence on record

adduced by the Party II that the termination of

services of trainee is not an industrial dispute. The

management has however relied upon the Award

passed by the predecessor of Industrial Tribunal in

Ref. No. R-IT/9/78, between Shri Sakharam M.

Sawant vs. M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.,

dated 18-07-2002 in support of its contention that

the termination of Party I is in accordance with

terms of appointment letter and that the

predecessor has upheld their contention in the

said case. However, the issues involved in the said

case referred above and that of the present case

are not the same. Moreover, it is an admitted fact

that the said Award was challenged before the

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa and settled.

It is therefore the above Award will not assist the

Party II in any way. The Party II has failed to prove

that the termination of Party I is not an industrial

dispute and therefore, reference is bad. Hence, the

above issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 4 and 5:

33. The question therefore is what reliefs the

Party I is entitled to, once it is held that the

termination is illegal, whether the Party I is entitled

for re-instatement with full back wages and

continuity in service with consequential benefits

attached to the post or not.

34. Ld. Adv. Shri V. Menezes for the Party I has

submitted that the main controversy in the dispute

is whether there is violation of the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted

that in cases in which the Tribunal finds that the

employer has acted in gross violation of the

statutory provisions or principles of natural justice

or is guilty of victimization of the employee, then

Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment

of full back wages with reinstatement and

consequential benefits since the termination is in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

465

the nature of an illegal retrenchment without any

charge sheet and not for any misconduct. Per

contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for the Party II

has submitted that the Party I is not entitled for

any reliefs nor the provisions of Section 25-F is

applicable to the Party I as he was merely an

apprentice or a trainee, who is not a workman nor

there was any employer-employee relationship and

therefore, he is not entitled for any reliefs.

35. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs.

Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhylaya (D.ED)

& Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324, the Division Bench of

Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in Para 33 as

follows, which is extracted hereunder:-

“33. The propositions which can be culled out

from the aforementioned judgments are:

i) In cases of wrongful termination of service,

reinstatement with continuity of service and

back wages is the normal rule.

ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider

that while deciding the issue of back wages,

the adjudicating authority or the Court may

take into consideration the length of service

of the employee/workman, the nature of

misconduct, if any, found proved against

the employee/workman, the financial

condition of the employer and similar other

factors.

iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose

services are terminated and who is desirous

of getting back wages is required to either

plead or at least make a statement before

the adjudicating authority or the Court of

first instance that he/she was not gainfully

employed or was employed on lesser wages.

If the employer wants to avoid payment of

full back wages, then it has to plead and

also lead cogent evidence to prove that the

employee/workman was gainfully employed

and was getting wages equal to the wages

he/she was drawing prior to the termination

of service. This is so because it is settled law

that the burden of proof of the existence of

a particular fact lies on the person who

makes a positive averments about its

existence. It is always easier to prove a

positive fact than to prove a negative fact.

Therefore, once the employee shows that he

was not employed, the onus lies on the

employer to specifically plead and prove that

the employee was gainfully employed and

was getting the same or substantially similar

emoluments.

iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/

/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under

Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 and finds that even though the enquiry

held against the employee/workman is

consistent with the rules of natural justice

and/or certified standing orders, if any,

but holds that the punishment was

disproportionate to the misconduct found

proved, then it will have the discretion not

to award full back wages. However, if the

Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that

the employee or workman is not at all guilty

of any misconduct or that the employer had

foisted a false charge, then there will be

ample justification for award of full back

wages.

v) The cases in which the competent Court or

Tribunal finds that the employer has acted

in gross violation of the statutory provisions

and/or the principles of natural justice or is

guilty of victimizing the employee or

workman, then the concerned Court or

Tribunal will be fully justified in directing

payment of full back wages. In such cases,

the superior Courts should not exercise

power under Article 226 or 136 of the

Constitution and interfere with the award

passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely

because there is a possibility of forming a

different opinion on the entitlement of the

employee/workman to get full back wages

or the employer’s obligation to pay the same.

The Courts must always be kept in view

that in the cases of wrongful/illegal

termination of service, the wrongdoer is the

employer and sufferer is the employee/

/workman and there is no justification to

give premium to the employer of his

wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden

to pay to the employee/workman his dues

in the form of full back wages.

vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts

have interfered with the award of the primary

adjudicatory authority on the premise that

finalization of litigation has taken long time

ignoring that in majority of cases the parties

are not responsible for such delays. Lack of

infrastructure and manpower is the

principal cause for delay in the disposal of

cases. For this the litigants cannot be

blamed or penalized. It would amount to

grave injustice to an employee or workman

if he is denied back wages simply because

there is long lapse of time between the

termination of his service and finality given

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

466

to the order of reinstatement. The Courts

should bear in mind that in most of these

cases, the employer is in an advantageous

position vis-à-vis the employee or workman.

He can avail the services of best legal brain

for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e.,

the employee or workman, who can ill afford

the luxury of spending money on a lawyer

with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in

such cases it would be prudent to adopt the

course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works

Private Limited v. Employees of

Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited

(supra).

vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics

Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on

reinstatement the employee/workman

cannot claim continuity of service as of right

is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of

three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove

and cannot be treated as good law. This

part of the judgment is also against the

very concept of reinstatement of an

employee/workman.

36. It has been established by Party I that the

action of the management of Party II in terminating

the services of the Party I workman, Shri Vency

Dias with effect from 31-10-1197 is illegal and

unjustified. There is nothing on record that he was

gainfully employed after his illegal termination.

Needless to mention, the Party I has proved

violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act. It is also well settled that in cases of wrongful

termination of service, reinstatement with

continuity of service and back wages is a normal

rule. The company is functioning and is carrying

on business of manufacturing of tyres at Usgao.

The Party I workman was not at all guilty of any

misconduct. It is evident that the Party II has foisted

a false charge against him in order to terminate

him and also acted in gross violation of the

statutory provisions and/or principles of natural

justice and also guilty of victimizing the Party I

workman. The Party I was 29 years of age at the

time of his deposition in the year 2000. He would

be of the age of 49 years now and therefore has

many years in service. The Party I having proved

that the employer has terminated his services

illegally and that the termination is motivated and

found to be invalid and that the employer has taken

away his right to work, contrary to the relevant

law and has deprived him of the earnings, it would

amount to grave injustice to the Party I, if he is

denied the reliefs claimed including the

re-instatement, full back wages and continuity of

service including the benefits of all the settlements.

Hence, the above issues are answered accordingly.

37. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The reference stands allowed.

(ii) It is hereby held that the action of the

management of M/s MRF Limited, Usgao,

Ponda-Goa, in terminating the services of

the workman, Shri Vency B. Lobo, with effect

from 31-10-1997, is illegal and unjustified.

(iii) The Party II is directed to reinstate the Party

I, workman Shri Vency Lobo in service with

immediate effect and shall pay him an

amount equivalent to full back wages for

the period from the date of termination i.e.

31-10-1997 till date along with all

consequential benefits including all the

benefits of the settlements.

(iv) The Party II is directed to deposit the

aforesaid amount 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.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Order

No. 8/47/2020-LD(Estt)/1146

The Government of Goa hereby directs that the

lockdown period w.e.f. 22-03-2020 to 14-04-2020,

declared by the Government due to COVID-19

pandemic, during which the documents could not

be presented for registration in the Offices of the

Sub-Registrars in the State of Goa, shall not be

considered by the Sub-Registrars for the purpose

of calculating the time of presenting the document

as specified in Section 23 of the Registration

Act, 1908 (Act 16 of 1908).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 06th July, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

467

Order

No. 5/40/97-LD-Estt/1151

Whereas, the Government vide Certificate of

Practice and Notification No. 5/40/97-LD(4) dated

28-08-1997, published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 25 dated 18-09-1997, appointed

Mr. Subhashchandra Narayan Naik Karmali,

Advocate (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”)

as a Notary for the period of three years with effect

from 28-08-1997, for the area of Judicial Division

of Mormugao and thereafter vide Notification

No. 5/40/97-LD-Estt. dated 19-08-2003, published

in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 35 dated

04-09-2003, in partial modification of Certificate of

Practice dated 28-08-1997, the Government had

extended the area of Practice to the Judicial

Division of Margao, Salcete in addition to his

present jurisdiction in Judicial Division of

Mormugao taluka;

And whereas, the Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of

Practice as a Notary for subsequent 04 terms and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

expires on 27-08-2020 in the Endorsement dated

06-10-2015 issued to the Applicant. However, vide

Death Certificate dated 14-01-2020, it is informed

that the above applicant Mr. Subhashchandra

Narayan Naik Karmali, Advocate who was practicing

as a Notary expired on 02-02-2016;

And whereas, the Endorsement dated 06-10-2015

to the Certificate of Practice issued to Mr.

Subhashchandra Narayan Naik Karmali stands

withdrawn and cancelled, since the said Advocate

expired on 02-02-2016, as per the Notaries Act,

1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and Notaries Rules,

1956 (hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and

“said Rule”);

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa,

hereby removes the name of the Applicant entered

as a Notary from the Register maintained by it

under Section 4 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 07th July, 2020.

________

Order

No. 5-40-2000/LD(2)/1154

Whereas, the Government vide Certificate of

Practice and Notification No. 5-40-2000/LD(Estt.)(2)

dated 22-02-2000, published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 10 dated 08-06-2000, appointed

Mr. Ganaraj Shripad Shirsat, Advocate (hereinafter

referred as the “Applicant”) as a Notary for the

period of five years with effect from 22-02-2000, for

the area of Salcete taluka and thereafter vide

Certificate of Practice No. 5-40-2000/LD(2) dated

23-02-2005, in partial modification of Certificate of

Practice dated 22-02-2000, the Government had

extended the area of practice to the entire State

of Goa;

And whereas, the Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of

Practice as a Notary for subsequent 03 terms and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

expires on 21-02-2020 in the Endorsement dated

03-11-2014 issued to the Applicant. However, vide

Death Certificate dated 06-06-2019, it is informed

that the above applicant Mr. Ganaraj Shripad Shirsat,

Advocate who was practicing as a Notary expired

on 15-05-2019;

And whereas, the Endorsement dated 03-11-2014

to the Certificate of Practice issued to Mr. Ganaraj

Shripad Shirsat stands withdrawn and cancelled,

as per the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of

1952) and Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred

as the “said Act” and “said Rule”), since the said

Advocate expired on 15-05-2019.

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa,

hereby removes the name of the Applicant entered

as a Notary from the Register maintained by it

under Section 4 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 07th July, 2020.

________

Order

No. 9-18-2004-LD(Estt)Part II(22)/1159

Whereas, the Government vide Notification

No. 9-18-2004-LD(Estt.)Part-II(22)/619 dated

20-05-2009, published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 10 dated 04-06-2009, appointed

Mr. Fortunato De Mello, Advocate (hereinafter

referred as the “Applicant”) as a Notary for the

period of five years with effect from 20-05-2009, for

the area of Salcete taluka;

And whereas, the Government vide Certificate

of Practice dated 20-05-2009 has certified that the

Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for

a period of five years from 20-05-2009 for the area

of Salcete taluka;

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

468

And whereas, the Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of

practice as a Notary for subsequent 01 term and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

in the Endorsement dated 02-07-2014 issued to the

Applicant and has expired on 19-05-2019;

And whereas, the applicant has failed to renew

his Certificate of Practice, six months prior to expiry

of the period of validity of the said Certificate of

Practice until his period expired on i.e. 19-05-2019,

as required under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of

the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and

sub-rule (4) of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956

and also the said Applicant has failed to file his

annual returns for the last three years, which is

mandatory, as per Rule 14 of the Notaries Rules,

1956 (hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and

“said Rule”);

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa

hereby removes the name of the Applicant entered

as a Notary, from the Register maintained by it

under Section 4 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 8th July, 2020.

________

Order

No. 5-40-91/LD(1)/1160

Whereas, the Government vide Notification

No. 5-40-91/LD(1) dated 06-03-1991, published

in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 5 dated

02-05-1991 and Certificate of Practice dated

06-03-1991, appointed Mr. Wilfred Anthony Francis

Boadita, Advocate (hereinafter referred as the

“Applicant”) as a Notary for period of three years

with effect from 06-03-1991, for the area of Panaji

City and thereafter, in the Endorsement dated

07-03-1994, the area of practice had been indicated

as Panaji Judicial Senior Division;

And whereas, Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of

Practice as a Notary for subsequent 07 terms and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

in the Endorsement dated 24-03-2020 issued to the

Applicant and shall expire on 05-03-2025;

And whereas, vide letter dated 15-06-2020

addressed to the Under Secretary (Estt.), the

Applicant informed that he wishes to discontinue

his Notarial Practice w.e.f. 15-06-2020, since he is

not keeping good health and therefore the

Endorsement dated 24-03-2020 to the Certificate of

Practice issued stands withdrawn and cancelled,

w.e.f. on 15-06-2020;

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (a) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa

hereby removes the name of the Applicant entered

as a Notary from the Register maintained by it

under Section 4 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 8th July, 2020.

________

Order

No. 5/40/2000-LD(4)/1161

Whereas, the Government vide Notification

No. 5-40-2000/LD(Estt.)(4) dated 18-04-2000,

published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 5

dated 04-05-2000, appointed Ms. Sarojini da Costa

alias Maria Vanda Sarojini da Costa, Advocate

(hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”) as a

Notary for the period of five years with effect from

18-04-2000, for the area of Salcete taluka;

And whereas, the Government vide Certificate

of Practice dated 18-04-2000, has certified that the

Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for

a period of five years from 18-04-2000 for the area

of Salcete taluka;

And whereas, the Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed her Certificate of

Practice as a Notary for subsequent 02 terms and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

in the Endorsement dated 04-08-2010 issued to the

Applicant and has expired on 17-04-2015;

And whereas, the Applicant has failed to renew

her Certificate of Practice, six months prior to

expiry of the period of validity of the said Certificate

of Practice until her period expired on i.e.

17-04-2015, as required under sub-section (2) of

Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53

of 1952) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 8B of the Notaries

Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred as the “said Act”

and “said Rule”);

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa

hereby removes the name of the Applicant entered

as a Notary, from the Register maintained by it

under Section 4 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 8th July, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

469

Order

No. 8-7-2014-LD(Estt)(113)/1162

Whereas, the Government vide Notification

No. 8-7-2014-LD(Estt)(113)/1432 dated 08-07-2014,

published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 17

dated 24-07-2014, appointed Mr. Mariano Francisco

Christopher D’Souza, Advocate (hereinafter referred

as the “Applicant”) as a Notary for period of five

years with effect from 08-07-2014, for the area of

Tiswadi taluka;

And whereas, the Government vide Certificate

of Practice dated 08-07-2014 has certified that the

Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for

a period of five years from 08-07-2014 for the area

of Tiswadi taluka. However, vide letter dated

28-02-2018, the son of the above Applicant informed

that his father Shri Mariano Francisco Christopher

D’Souza, Advocate who was practicing as a Notary,

expired on 04-02-2016;

And whereas, the Certificate of Practice, issued

to Shri Mariano Francisco Christopher D’Souza,

stands cancelled, as per the Notaries Act, 1952

(Central Act 53 of 1952) and Notaries Rules, 1956

(hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and “said

Rule”), since the said Advocate expired on

04-02-2016;

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa

hereby removes the name of the Applicant entered

as a Notary, from the Register maintained by it

under Section 4 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 8th July, 2020.

Order

No. 5/40/2000-LD(Estt)(3)/1163

Whereas, the Government vide Notification

No. 5/40/2000/LD(Estt.)(3) dated 19-04-2000,

published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 5

dated 04-05-2000, appointed Mr. Ranjit Satardekar,

Advocate (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”)

as a Notary for the period of five years with effect

from 19-04-2000, for the area of Tiswadi taluka;

And whereas, the Government vide Certificate

of Practice dated 19-04-2000, has certified that the

Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for

a period of five years from 19-04-2000 for the area

of Tiswadi taluka;

And whereas, the Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of

Practice as a Notary for subsequent 02 terms and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

expired on 18-04-2015 in the Endorsement dated

01-03-2011 issued to the Applicant. Further, vide

letter dated 07-05-2019 addressed to the State

Registrar, the son of the above applicant informed

that his father Mr. Ranjit Satardekar, Advocate who

was practicing as a Notary expired on 08-02-2019;

And whereas, the Applicant has failed to renew

his Certificate of Practice, six months prior to expiry

of the period of validity of the said Certificate of

Practice until his period expired on 18-04-2015, as

required under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the

Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and

sub-rule (4) of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956

(hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and “said

Rule”);

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa

hereby removes from the Register maintained by it

under Section 4 of the said Act, the name of

Applicant entered as a Notary.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 8th July, 2020.

———uuu———

Office of the Collector, North Goa

Order

No. 31/2008/RB/RTI/118

Read: 1. Order No. 30/1/2005-RD(1) dated 06-03-2009 issued by the Revenue Department, Secretariat,

Porvorim-Goa.

2. Order No. 31/2008/RB/RTI/MC/2018/38 dated 25-07-2018 issued by Collector, North Goa District,

Panaji-Goa.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 16

16TH JULY, 2020

470

3. Order No. 11/151/09-EST/Col/691 dated 30-09-2019 issued by Collector, North Goa District,

Panaji-Goa.

In exercise of the powers vested under Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the following

officers/official of the Collectorate, North Goa are designated as Public Information Officer/Assistant

Public Information Officer Appellate Authority to receive and dispose the applications under Section 6

of the Act and adjudicate the appeals under Section 19 of the Act with immediate effect.

Sr.

Name of the Section

Name of the

Name of Public

Appellate

No.

of the Collectorate

Asst. Public

Information Officer

Authority

Information

Officer

Monitoring Cell/

Head Clerk

Dy. Collector (DRO)

Addl. Collector-III,

/DRO/Flying Squad

Bardez.

R. Menaka, IAS, Collector, North Goa District.

Panaji, 30th June, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Power

Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer

Order

No. CEE/ESTT-31-25-88/Part file/741

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/12/16(2)/2013/557 dated 25-06-2020, Government is pleased to declare the following Executive Engineers

(Elect.) as having completed satisfactorily their probation period of two years and confirmed in the grade

of Executive Engineer (Elect.) as shown in the table against their names.

Sr.

Name of the officer

Date of joining in regular

Date of completion of

No.

service as Executive Engineer

probation period

(Elect.)

Shri Rajiv R. Samant

11-12-2017

10-12-2019.

Shri Stephen Fernandes

10-11-2017

09-11-2019.

Shri Mayur P. Hede

10-11-2017

09-11-2019.

Shri Shailesh K. Naik Burye

11-12-2017

10-12-2019.

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

Raghuvir G. Keni, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 06th July, 2020.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 16.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—120/120–7/2020.