Panaji, 12th May, 2022 (Vaisakha 22, 1944)

SERIES II No. 6

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

–––

Order

No. 8/15/2021-22/D.Agri/151

Ref: Order No. 2020-11-Sanjivani/Misc/TSII/

/RCs(Part) 3415 dated 14-01-2021.

Ex-post facto approval of the Government is

hereby accorded to extend the deputation period of

Shri Chintamani B. Perni, Dy. Director of Agriculture,

against the post of Administrator at Sanjivani

Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Dharbandora for a

further period of 06 months w.e.f. 22-01-2022 to

21-07-2022.

The deputation of Shri Perni shall be governed

by the standard terms and conditions of deputation

as contained in O.M. No. 13/04/74/PER dated

12-02-1999 and as amended from time to time.

This issues with the concurrence of the

Government vide U.O. No. 599/f dated 22-04-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary

(Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 09th May, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Elections

Goa State Election Commission

–––

Corrigendum

No. 3/28/GEVP/186/2022-SEC/3138

Read: Order No. 3/28/GEVP/186/2022-SEC/2044

dated 21-03-2022 published in Extra-

Ordinary Official Gazette, Series II No. 51

dated 21-03-2022.

The Order No. 3/28/GEVP/186/2022-SEC/2044

dated 21-03-2022 stands modified as under:

1. The Assistant Returning Officer mentioned at

serial No. 5 at column No. 3 shall be read as “Awal

Karkun-I in the office of the Mamlatdar of Bicholim

Taluka, Bicholim Goa” instead of Awal Karkun in

the office of the Dy. Collector/SDO Bicholim Taluka,

Bicholim Goa. Awal Karkun-I in the office of the

Mamlatdar of Bicholim Taluka, Bicholim Goa, shall

take charge as the Assistant Returning Officer with

immediate effect.

2. The Assistant Returning Officer mentioned at

serial No. 8 at column No. 3 shall be read as “Circle

Inspector in the office of the Mamlatdar of Bardez

Taluka, Mapusa-Goa” instead of Awal Karkun in

the office of the Dy. Collector-II/SDO Bardez Taluka,

Mapusa-Goa. Circle Inspector in the office of the

Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluka, Mapusa Goa, shall

take charge as the Assistant Returning Officer with

immediate effect.

The remaining part of the order remains

unchanged.

W. V. Ramanamurthy, IAS (Retd.), Commissioner

(Goa State Election Commission).

Panaji, 11th May, 2022.

———uuu———

Goa Human Rights Commission

Office of the Goa Human Rights Commission

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 06/2013

Inquiry Report

The Complainant is an human rights activist. In

his complaint dated 08-01-2013 before this

Commission, he has alleged that on 01-01-2013 at

about 11.30 a.m. he was assaulted by Police

Inspector Shri V. Karpe when he had gone to

complain about the loud amplified music that was

going on in a Bar called Hill Top at Vagator/Anjuna

situated in a silence zone next to St. Michael’s

1221

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

1222

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

Convent School. He has further alleged that Shri

Karpe warned that the Party organisers and some

anti-social elements wanted to attack and beat him

and told him that he will support those people. He

had further stated that his friend Shri Raju Shirodkar

had come to the Police Station looking for him as he

was detained by Police Inspector Karpe for more

than three hours and the said Mr. Raju was present

at the time when he was threatened by Police

Inspector Shri Karpe.

2. Taking cognizance of the complaint, this

Commission issued notices to 1) Shri V. Karpe, Police

Inspector, Anjuna Police Station, Anjuna - Goa, 2)

The Superintendent of Police, North Goa, Porvorim,

3) The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary,

Secretariat, Porvorim - Goa and 4) the Secretary

(Home), Home Department, Secretariat, Porvorim-

Goa. In pursuance to the notices, the Respondent

No.1 filed a reply dated 08-03-2013. The Respondent

No. 2 filed a Memo dated 08-03-2013 stating therein

that the Respondent No. 2 is adopting the reply

filed by the Respondent No. 1. Similarly, the

Respondent No. 3 and 4 have also filed a Memo

dated 10-04-2013 stating therein that these

Respondents also adopt the reply filed by the

Respondent No. 1.

3. In support of his case the Complainant has

examined himself as CW1 and also examined one

Shri Rajendra R. Shirodkar as CW2 and Dr.

Jawaharlal Henriques as CW3. The Respondent

No. 1 examined himself as RW1 and examined three

more witnesses namely, Shri Anant Pawar as RW2,

Shri Mahesh Kerkar as RW3 and Shri Krishna Shetye

as RW4.

4. We have heard both the Parties. We have also

gone through the records of this case.

5. On going through the records of this case, we

find that there is substantial merit in the present

complaint filed by the Complainant (CW1). The

Complainant (CW1) in his Affidavit-in-Evidence has

stated that on 01-01-2013 he had gone to Anjuna

Police Station to complain about the loud amplified

techno music that was being played in a Bar called

“Hill Top” which is located next to St. Michael’s

Convent School. He has further stated that the Duty

Officer Shri Krishna Shetye told him that “Hill Top

had a valid permission to play music” and asked

him to come to the Police Station and verify the

same. On verification the Complainant (CW1) found

that the permission was subject to the volume of

the music not exceeding 55 decibels. He has stated

that the music that was playing on at that time

was about 150 decibels. He questioned the Police

Inspector Shri V. Karpe about the level of sound of

the music played. He has further stated that instead

of trying to redress his grievance, P. I. Shri V. Karpe

started abusing him and manhandled him besides

slapping him on his face 7-8 times and punching

him on his stomach. This incident according to the

Complainant (CW1) took place between 11.30 a.m.

till 12.00 noon on 01-01-2013. He has further stated

that as per the Orders of P. I. Shri Karpe, he was

illegally confined in the Lock-Up for about half an

hour to one hour. As per the version of the

Complainant (CW1) his friend Shri Raju Shirodkar

was aware that he was going to the Police Station

as he had left his son at his shop that morning and

had informed the said Raju Shirodkar that the

Complainant (CW1) would go to the Police Station

to check the permission given to the “Hill Top” and

to make a complaint with regard to the loud music.

The Complainant (CW1) had also stated that P. I.

Shri V. Karpe had threatened and warned him in

presence of his friend Shri Raju Shirodkar. This

witness was cross-examined by the Adv. for the

Respondents. However, cross-examination of this

witness has not revealed any results in favour of

the Respondents. It is no doubt true that several

omissions have been brought on record through

the cross-examination of this witness. However, the

said omissions are not significant in nature and are

not sufficient to discredit the evidence of the CW1.

We do not find any material infirmity in the evidence

of this witness (CW1).

6. The evidence of the Complainant (CW1) has

been corroborated by the evidence of Shri Rajendra

Shirodkar (CW2) as far as the illegal detention of

the Complainant is concerned. CW2 has stated that

on 01-01-2013 he was at his Supermarket when his

friend Mr. Cirilo D’Souza left his elder son in his

care at about 11.30 a.m. and told him that he

(Complainant) was going to the Anjuna Police

Station to check the permission given to “Hill Top”

and to make a complain with regard to loud music

being played and he would come back soon to

collect his son. He (CW2) has further stated that as

Mr. Cirilo D’Souza had not returned back till 12.45

p.m. on that day, he called the mobile number of

Mr. Cirilo D’Souza but no one answered the call. He

has also stated that thereafter he went to the Police

Station along with son of Mr. Cirilo D’Souza at about

1.20 p.m. and saw Mr. Cirilo D’Souza in the Lock-Up

and thereafter Mr. Cirilo D’Souza was released from

Lock-Up within five minutes after he reached the

Police Station. He has also stated that he heard

Police Inspector Shri Karpe threatening Mr. Cirilo

D’Souza telling him that there were many Party

Organisers and others who wanted to attack him

and other villagers protesting against loud music

and beat them up and that Police Inspectors would

support those people. The evidence of this witness

also appears to our mind to be trustworthy. The

mere fact that he is a friend of the Complainant

cannot be a ground to disbelieve his evidence

which otherwise appears to be natural and

believable.

7. The Complainant also examined Dr. Jawaharlal

Henriques (CW3) to establish that the Complainant

had sustained injuries on account of assault by

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1223

Police Inspector Shri Karpe. Dr. Jawaharlal

Henriques (CW3) had examined the said Mr. Cirilo

D’Souza on 01-01-2013 and found three minor injuries

which are described in the Medical Certificate at

Exbhibit-CW3/A. There are no grounds to disbelieve

the evidence of Dr. Jawaharlal Henriques (CW3).

8. The fact that the Complainant had lodged a

written complaint in the Police Station on the same

day soon after the incident complaining of assault

and illegal detention by Respondent No. 1 also

corroborates the allegations made by the

Complainant.

9. The Respondent No.1 (Shri Vishwesh Karpe) in

his examination-in-chief has stated that on the

relevant date and time he had left for investigation

in Anjuna Crime Case and the same is duly recorded

in Station Diary maintained by the Anjuna Police

Station. The extract of Station Diary dated

01-01-2013 at Sr. No. 40 shows that P. I. Karpe had

left for patrolling at 13.50 hrs. The entry at

Sr. No. 52 indicates that he returned at 17.15 hrs. It

may be noted that the present incident is alleged

to have taken place between 11.30 a.m. to 12.00

noon on 01-01-2013 when admittedly P. I. Shri Karpe

was at the Police Station. In his cross-examination

Shri Karpe (RW1) has generally denied all the

allegations made against him by the Complainant.

He (RW1) has denied that he had assaulted the

Complainant. He has also denied that he had

detained the Complainant at the Police Station and

that the Complainant was put in the Lock-up for

about 30 minutes.

10. The other witnesses examined on behalf of

the Respondent No. 1 (RW1) namely Shri Anant

Pawar (RW2), Shri Mahesh Kerkar (RW3) and Shri

Krishna Shetye (RW4) are police personnel and are

working under the control of Police Inspector Shri

Karpe (RW1). Shri Anant Pawar (RW2) was working

as Police Constable at the relevant time at Anjuna

Police Station. Shri Mahesh Kerkar (RW3) was

attached to Anjuna Police Station as Police

Sub-Inspector on the relevant day and Shri Krishna

Shetye (RW4) was working as Head Constable at

the Anjuna Police Station on the day of the incident.

All these witnesses have stated that the allegations

made against P. I. Shri V. P. Karpe by Mr. Cirilo

D’Souza are not correct. The evidence led on behalf

of the Respondents is not sufficient to discard the

positive evidence led by the Complainant. We are

therefore satisfied that the Complainant was

assaulted and was illegally detained at the Police

Station by the Respondent No. 1/Police Inspector,

Shri V. Karpe. This conduct on the part of Shri Karpe

is highly objectionable and is against the mandate

of law and deserves severe condemnation.

11. It is unfortunate that the Higher Officers of

the Respondent No.1 including the Secretary

(Home) have taken a very casual approach to this

case and have acted in a very mechanical manner

in dealing with this serious matter involving

personal liberty of an individual. It is pertinent to

note that the allegations made by the Complainant

against the Respondent No.1 (Shri V. P. Karpe) are

serious in nature in as much as the Complainant

who had gone to the Police Station for a public

cause was manhandled and was illegally detained

at the Police Station which amounts to infringement

of fundamental rights of the Complainant as

guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution of

India. It also amounts to violation of human rights

of the Complainant. These allegations ought to have

been properly investigated by Higher Officers of

the Respondent No. 1 It is unfortunate to note that

the Respondent No. 2 who is immediate Controlling

and Supervising Officer of the Respondent No.1 did

not choose to inquire into these serious allegations.

The Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have mechanically

adopted the reply filed by the Respondent No.1

when admittedly, the allegations are directed

against the Respondent No.1 himself. In the fitness

of the things it was incumbent upon the Higher

Officers to look into the allegations seriously which

has not been done. We express our displeasure

about the manner in which the Higher Officers

have dealt with this matter.

12. In the case of D. K. Basu v/s State of Bengal

reported In AIR 1997 Supreme Court 610, the Apex

Court has observed as follows:

“Fundamental rights occupy a place of pride in

the Indian Constitution. Article-21 provides “No

person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty

except according to procedure established by law”

Personal liberty, thus, is a secrete and cherished right

under the Constitution. The expression “life or

personal liberty” has been held to include the right

to live with human dignity and thus it would also

include within itself a guarantee against torture and

assault by the State or its functionaries.

It is further observed as follows:

“it is well accepted proposition in most of

the jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary

compensation is an appropriate and indeed an

effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable

remedy for redressal of the established infringement

of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by a

public servant and the State is vicariously liable for

their acts.“

13. Needless to say that the Complainant had to

suffer mental torture as well as physical discomfort

without any fault on his part on account of high-

handedness of the police who have apparently

misused their powers by curtailing the personal

liberty of the Complainant. We are therefore satisfied

that this is a fit case to award appropriate monetary

compensation to the Complainant by the State

Government.

14. In the facts and the circumstances of this

case, we make the following recommendation:

1226

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

Department of Labour

—

Notification

No. 28/2/2022-LAB/Part-III/181

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 21-03-2022 in case

No. LC-II/Appln/18/2020 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.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 19th April, 2022.

______

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/Appln/18/2020

Smt. Nitesh Andhare,

R/o. C/o. Shri Prakash Andhare,

H. No. 494, Dagualli,

Raia, Salcete-Goa.…..

Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Muktar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. L-128, Phase III-B,

Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna-Goa

……

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party-I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri H.

Shirodkar.

Employer/Party-II absent, marked an Ex-parte.

Panaji, Dated: 21-03-2022.

AWARD

1. By this Award, I shall disposed off the present

petition filed by the Workman u/s 2-A (2) of the I.D.

Act, 1947.

2. It is the case of the Workman/Party I (for short

the ‘Workman’), in brief as per his statement of claim

filed in the present proceedings that he was

employed by the Employer/Party II (for short, ‘the

Employer’) as ‘Store Assistant’ since 19-03-2019 till

the date of his termination. He stated that his

services have been confirmed vide letter dated

01-11-2019.

3. He stated that due to non-payment of bonus

and issues related to revision of wages and other

related issues, the workers of the Employer decided

to form the union and to pursue the issue with the

management collectively through the union. He

stated that vide letter dated 12-06-2020, the union

informed the Employer about the formation of the

union. He stated that since the formation of the union

by the workers, the Employer started harassing the

workers by one way or the other. He stated that the

Employer started targeting the individual worker and

pressuring the workers to resign from the union. He

stated that the first target of the Employer was the

President of the union, Mr. Yogesh Sondulkar, who

had raised the dispute before the Dy. Labour

Commissioner, Margao for refusal of employment and

is pending for conciliation.

4. He stated that thereafter, he was illegally

transferred from Verna Work Shop to Pilerne location

w.e.f. 29-07-2020, vide letter dated 28-07-2020. He

stated that he is the resident of Raia, Salcete-Goa

and have been working at Verna Work Shop since

joining and even during the Covid-19 Pandemic. He

stated that the Employer transferred him to Pilerne

location as a punishment for joining the union. He

stated that he therefore, telephonically requested

the HR Executive, Mr. Suraj to revoke his transfer to

which Mr. Suraj insisted me to resign from the union.

He stated that he had to incur three times more

travelling expenses for travelling to Pilerne. He

submitted that the transfer is being done under

malafide motive to pressurize him to resign from the

union and as such the act of transfer is illegal,

unjustified and the same being punitive, was required

to be revoked. He stated that vide his letter dated

14-10-2020, he had objected for the transfer for the

reasons stated therein. He stated that the Employer

has however, did not revoke his said transfer, but

surprisingly without any notice of enquiry, illegally

terminated his services, vide letter dated 23-10-2020.

He stated that vide his letter dated 10-11-2020, he

appealed before the Employer to revoke his

termination order and to reinstate him back in service

at Verna Work Shop with full back wages and

consequential benefits. He stated that the union had

taken up his termination issue before the

management. He stated that since the management

did not heed to the request of the union, the union

decided to go on strike and issued strike notice with

the demands to revoke the notice dated 24-10-2020.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Employer, the

Workman raised an industrial dispute before Dy.

Labour Commissioner, Margao-Goa, which ended in

failure.

5. He contended that he was the member of the

union and that the Charter of Demand was raised by

the union, the Employer terminated his services to

pressurize the workers to resign from the union and

to withdraw the charter of demand. He submitted

that the Employer failed to issue any memo or show-

cause notice to him about the alleged charges of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1227

abandonment of duty nor issued any charge-sheet

nor conducted any domestic enquiry. He therefore

submitted that the termination of his services

without giving opportunity of being heard is against

the principles of natural justice, biased and vindictive

to harass and pressurize him. He submitted that the

said termination of his services is illegal and

unjustified and passed without following the

principles of natural justice. The Workman therefore

prayed that he may be reinstated with full back

wages, continuity in service and all other

consequential benefits.

6. A due notice was issued to the Employer by

registered post A/D. The Employer has however, failed

to remain present on the scheduled dates of hearings

and as such an ex-parte order was passed against

the Employer after giving ample opportunities to

them.

7. Based on the pleadings of the Workman, this

Court framed the following issues on 27-08-2021.

1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he

was working for the Employer/Party II w.e.f.

19-03-2019 till termination of his services?

2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer/Party II in

terminating his services vide letter dated

23-10-2020 is illegal and unjustified?

3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he

is entitled to any relief?

4. What Order? What Award?

8. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1 :

In the Affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2 :

In the Affirmative.

As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri

H. Shirodkar, appearing for the Workman. None

remained present for the Employer. I have carefully

perused the entire records of the present case. I have

also carefully considered the submissions advanced

before me and is of the opinion as under:

REASONS:

9. To prove his case, the Workman has examined

himself and produced on record certain documentary

evidence in support of his oral evidence. The said

oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by

the Workman remained unchallenged for want of

denial.

Issue No. 1

10.

The evidence on record indicates that the

Workman was issued a letter of appointment dated

29-03-2019 by the Employer appointing him as ‘Store

Assistant’ w.e.f. 18-03-2019. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workman was confirmed in the

said post w.e.f. 01-11-2019, vide letter dated

01-11-2019 at Exb. 10. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workman was issued letter of

termination dated 23-10-2020 at Exb. 6. The evidence

on record indicates that the Workman was working

with the Employer as ‘Store Assistant’ w.e.f.

18-03-2019 till the date of his termination w.e.f.

23-10-2020. Hence, it is held that Workman proved

that he was working for the Employer as ‘Store

Assistant’ w.e.f. 18-03-2019 till the date of his

termination w.e.f. 23-10-2020. The issue No. 1 is

therefore answered in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2

11. While deciding the issue No.1 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

Workman was working with Employer as ‘Store

Assistant’ w.e.f. 18-03-2019 till the date of his

termination w.e.f. 23-10-2020.

12. The evidence on record indicates that the

Workman was the confirmed employee of the

Employer. The letter of termination issued to the

Workman at Exb.6 indicates that the employment of

the Workman with the Employer Company is

terminated due to absconding from work without any

information to official authority. The said letter of

termination further stated that the Workman has

been absconding from 03-08-2020 to 23-10-2020 and

that neither he was working nor contacting his

seniors nor responding to the correspondence done

from the office. The said letter further stated that

absence from duties without approval is a serious

misconduct as per service rules and that this could

be treated as wilful negligence and sheer indiscipline

towards duties and therefore the Employer is forced

to terminate the employment of the Workman.

13. Thus, it appears from the letter of termination

issued to the Workman at Exb. 6 that his services

have been terminated on account of misconduct of

absconding from duties as well as wilful negligence

and sheer indiscipline. The said letter of termination

issued to the Workman at Exb. 6 is in violation of the

principles of natural justice as the Workman was

neither issued any show-cause notice nor memos

nor charge-sheet nor conducted any domestic

enquiry pertaining to his alleged act of absconding

from duties, wilful negligence and sheer indiscipline

as alleged by the Employer.

14. In case of S.R. Lalmiya v/s. Secretary,

Karnataka Electricity Board, Banglore, reported

1228

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1998 0 Supreme (Kar) 549, the Hon’ble High Court

of Karnataka in para 14 of its judgment held as under:

“14. If the principles laid down by the Supreme

Court has been followed in this case, there cannot be

any doubt that even though the petitioner was not

answering the recall notices, enquiry has to be

conducted by the respondents. In the instant case,

the petitioner’s services has been terminated by the

disciplinary authority on the sole ground that

petitioner did not report for duty within the time

prescribed in the rules and in spite repeated recall

notice. In Fact to one such notice, petitioner had replied

stating that he is awaiting results of the appeal filed

by him in this court against the order of the civil court,

which refused to grant an ad interim injunction

restraining the respondents to give effect to the order

of transfer, posting the petitioner to ranebennur

sub-division. Therefore, this is not one of those cases

where the employee has disappeared from the scene

and the respondent authorities could not have served

the show-cause notice or the charge sheet on the

employee of the board making it clear, their intention

to hold domestic enquiry for the alleged lapses and

misconduct on the part of the delinquent. In my view,

if an employee does not go and report to the duty at

the directions of the employer, it may amount to

misconduct, for the reason, it would be disobedience

of lawful orders of appointing authority. For

imposition for any punishment for the acts of

commissions and commissions which may amount to

misconduct, the employer obliged to hold an enquiry,

by affording a reasonable opportunity to the accused

person for offering his defence. In my view, the employer

without even holding a summary enquiry against an

errant employee cannot come to a conclusion that the

employee has disobeyed the lawful orders of the

employer and therefore, his services are required to be

terminated. If that is allowed to happen, then, no

employee can survive in an organisation. In view of

that, the orders made by the disciplinary authority

and confirmed by the appellate authority requires to

be set aside by this court.”

15. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka in its aforesaid judgment is well

established and also applicable to the case in hand.

In the instant case, the Workman was a confirmed

employee and he was transferred to Pilerne location.

The services of the Workman were terminated on

account of default of joining the place of transfer at

Pilerne location. The said action of the Employer

amounts to violation of principles of natural justice

and hence, it is illegal and unjustified. Hence, it is

held that the action of the Employer in terminating

the services of the Workman is illegal, unjustified and

bad-in-law. The issue No. 2 is therefore answered in

the affirmative.

Issue No. 3

16. While deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

action of the Employer in terminating the services of

the Workman is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law.

There is nothing on record to show that the past

record is blameworthy. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workman is unemployed from the

date of his termination till date. Hence, the Workman

is therefore entitled for reinstatement in service with

50% of backwages alongwith continuity in service

and all consequential benefits thereof. The issue

No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.

In view of above, I pass the following order:

O R D E R

1. It is held that the action of the Employer,

M/s. Muktar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna-Goa in terminating the services of the

Workman, Shri Nitesh Andhare, ‘Store Assistant’

w.e.f. 23-10-2020 is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law.

2. It is held that the Employer, M/s. Muktar

Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Verna Industrial Estate, Verna-

Goa is hereby directed to reinstate the Workman, Shri

Nitesh Andhare, ‘Store Assistant’ alongwith 50% of

back wages with continuity in service and all

consequential benefits thereof.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Naulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

————

Notification

No. 28/2/2022-LAB/Part-III/182

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 21-03-2022 in Case No.

LC-II/Appln/17/2020 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.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 19th April, 2022.

————

THE LABOUR COURT – II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/Appln/17/2020

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1229

Smt. Yamini Naik,

R/o. C/o. Shri Janu Naik,

H. No. 196/1, Guddiwada,

Neura, Ilhas-Goa

……

Workperson/Party I.

V/s

M/s. Muktar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. L-128, Phase III-B,

Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna-Goa

……

Employer/Party II.

Workperson/Party-I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri H.

Shirodkar.

Employer/Party-II absent, marked an Ex-parte.

Panaji, dated: 21-03-2022.

A W A R D

1. By this Award, I shall disposed off the present

petition filed by the Workperson u/s 2-A (2) of the I.D.

Act, 1947.

2. It is the case of the Workperson/Party I (for short

the ‘Workperson’), in brief as per her statement of

claim filed in the present proceedings that she was

employed by the Employer/Party II (for short, ‘the

Employer’) as Housekeeping staff since 29-05-2017

till the date of her termination. She stated that her

services have been confirmed vide letter dated

01-01-2018.

3. She stated that due to non-payment of bonus

and issues related to revision of wages and other

related issues, the workers of the Employer decided

to form the union and to pursue the issue with the

management collectively through the union. She

stated that vide letter dated 12/06/2020, the union

informed the Employer about the formation of the

union. She stated that since the formation of the union

by the workers, the Employer started harassing the

workers by one way or the other. She stated that the

Employer started targeting the individual worker and

pressuring the workers to resign from the union. She

stated that the first target of the Employer was the

President of the union, Mr. Yogesh Sondulkar, who

had raised the dispute before the Dy. Labour

Commissioner, Margao for refusal of employment. She

stated that as the Employer did not attend the

conciliation proceedings and the conciliation

proceedings failed. She stated that the dispute was

referred for adjudication before the Labour Court II

and is pending for adjudication.

4. She stated that thereafter, she was illegally

transferred from Verna Workshop to Pilerne location

w.e.f. 03-08-2020, vide letter dated 27-07-2020. She

stated that she is the residence of Dongri, Pilar. She

stated that she have been working at Verna

Workshop since her joining and even during the

Covid-19 Pandemic. She stated that at the fag end of

her services, the Employer transferred her to Pilerne

location as a punishment for joining the union. She

stated that it was very difficult for her to travel from

Dongri, Pilar to Pilerne location by changing three

buses and would incurred three times more travelling

expenses for travelling to Pilerne. She stated that

her transfer at Pilerne location affected her health.

She stated that due to her age, she was prone to the

infection of Corona Virus. She stated that she

therefore, telephonically requested the HR Executive,

Mr. Suraj to revoke her transfer to which Mr. Suraj

insisted me to resign from the union. She submitted

that the transfer is being done under malafide motive

to pressurize her to resign from the union and as such

the act of transfer is illegal, unjustified and the same

being punitive was required to be revoked. She stated

that vide her letter dated 14-10-2020, she had

objected for the transfer. She stated that the Employer

has however, did not revoke her transfer, but

surprisingly without any notice for enquiry, illegally

terminated her services, vide letter dated 23-10-2020.

She stated that vide her letter dated 10-11-2020, she

appealed before the Employer to revoke her

termination order and to reinstate her back in service

at Verna Workshop with full back wages and

consequential benefits. She stated that the union

had taken up her termination issue before the

management. She stated that since the management

did not heed to the request of the union, the union

decided to go on strike and issue strike notice with

the demands to revoke the notice dated 24-10-2020.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Employer, the

Workman raised an industrial dispute before

Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao-Goa, which ended

in failure.

5. She contended that she was the member of the

union and that the Charter of Demand was raised by

the union. The Employer terminated her services to

pressurize the workers to resign from the union and

to withdraw the Charter of Demand. She submitted

that the Employer failed to issue any memo or show-

cause notice to her about the alleged charges of

abandonment of duty nor issued any charge-sheet

nor conducted any domestic enquiry. She therefore,

submitted that the termination of her services

without giving opportunity of being heard is against

the principles of natural justice, biased and vindictive

to harass and pressurize her. She submitted that the

said termination of her services is illegal and

unjustified and passed without following the

principles of natural justice. The Workperson

therefore prayed that she may be reinstated with full

back wages, continuity in service and all other

consequential benefits.

1230

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

6. A due notice was issued to the Employer by

registered post A/D. The Employer has however, failed

to remain present on the scheduled dates of hearings

and as such an ex-parte order was passed against

the Employer after giving ample opportunities to

them.

7. Based on the pleadings of the Workperson, this

Court framed the following issues on 27-08-2021.

1. Whether the Workperson/Party I proves that

she was working for the Employer/Party II w.e.f.

25-05-2017 till termination of her services?

2. Whether the Workperson / Party I proves that

the action of the Employer/Party II in terminating

her services vide letter dated 23-10-2020 is illegal

and unjustified?

3. Whether the Workperson / Party I proves that

the action of the Employer is amounts to Unfair

Labour Practices?

4. Whether the Workperson / Party I proves that

he is entitled to any relief?

5. What Order? What Award?

8. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the Affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

In the Affirmative.

(d) Issue

As per final order.

No. 4 & 5

I have heard the oral arguments of ld. Adv. Shri. H.

Shirodkar, appearing for the Workperson. None

remained present for the Employer. I have carefully

perused the entire records of the present case. I have

also carefully considered the submissions advanced

before me and is of the opinion as under:

REASONS:

9. To prove her case, the Workperson has examined

herself and produced on record certain documentary

evidence in support of her oral evidence. The said

oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by

the Workperson remained unchallenged for want of

denial.

Issue No. 1:

10. The evidence on record indicates that the

Workperson was issued the letter of appointment

dated 29-05-2017 by the Employer appointing her as

‘Housekeeper’ w.e.f. 29-05-2017 at Exb. 9. The

evidence on record indicates that the Workperson

was confirmed in the said post of ‘Housekeeper’ with

retrospective effect from 01-02-2018, vide letter dated

01-02-2018 at Exb.10. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workperson was issued letter of

termination dated 23-10-2020 at Exb. 6. The evidence

on record indicates that the Workperson was working

with the Employer as ‘Housekeeper’ w.e.f. 29-05-2017

till the date of her termination w.e.f. 23-10-2020.

Hence, it is held that Workperson proved that she

was working for the Employer as ‘Housekeeper’ w.e.f.

29-05-2017 till date of her termination w.e.f.

23-10-2020. The issue No.1 is therefore answered in

the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

11. While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

Workperson was working with Employer as

‘Housekeeper’ since 29-05-2017 till the date of her

termination w.e.f. 23-10-2020.

12. The evidence on record indicates that the

Workperson was the confirmed employee of the

Employer. The letter of termination issued to the

Workperson at Exb. 6 indicates that the employment

of the Workperson with the Employer Company was

terminated due to her absconding from work without

any information to official authority. The said letter

of termination further stated that the Workperson

has been absconded from 03-08-2020 to 23-10-2020

and that neither she was working nor contacting her

seniors nor responding to the correspondence done

from the office. The said letter further stated that

absence from duties without approval is a serious

misconduct as per service rules and that this could

be treated as wilful negligence and sheer indiscipline

towards duties and therefore the Employer is forced

to terminate the employment of the Workperson.

13. Thus, it appears from the letter of termination

issued to the Workperson at Exb.6 that her services

have been terminated on account of misconduct of

absconding from duties as well as wilful negligence

and sheer indiscipline. The said letter of termination

issued to the Workperson at Exb. 6 is in violation of

the principles of natural justice as the Workperson

was neither issued any show-cause notice nor any

memos nor charge-sheet nor conducted any

domestic enquiry pertaining to her alleged act of

absconding from duties, wilful negligence and sheer

indiscipline as alleged by the Employer.

14. In case of S.R. Lalmiya v/s. Secretary, Karnataka

Electricity Board, Banglore, reported 1998 0 Supreme

(Kar) 549, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in para

14 of its judgment held as under:

“14. If the principles laid down by the Supreme

Court has been followed in this case, there cannot

be any doubt that even though the petitioner was

not answering the recall notices, enquiry has to be

conducted by the respondents. In the instant case

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1231

the petitioner’s services has been terminated by the

disciplinary authority on the sole ground that

petitioner did not report for duty within the time

prescribed in the rules and in spite repeated recall

notice. In Fact to one such notice, petitioner had

replied stating that he is awaiting results of the

appeal filed by him in this court against the order

of the civil court, which refused to grant an ad

interim injunction restraining the respondents to

give effect to the order of transfer, posting the

petitioner to ranebennur sub-division. Therefore,

this is not one of those cases where the employee

has disappeared from the scene and the respondent

authorities could not have served the show-cause

notice or the charge sheet on the employee of the

board making it clear, their intention to hold

domestic enquiry for the alleged lapses and

misconduct on the part of the delinquent. In my

view, if an employee does not go and report to the

duty at the directions of the employer, it may

amount to misconduct, for the reason, it would be

disobedience of lawful orders of appointing

authority. For imposition for any punishment for

the acts of commissions and commissions which

may amount to misconduct, the employer obliged

to hold an enquiry, by affording a reasonable

opportunity to the accused person for offering his

defence. In my view, the employer without even

holding a summary enquiry against an errant

employee cannot come to a conclusion that the

employee has disobeyed the lawful orders of the

employer and therefore, his services are required to

be terminated. If that is allowed to happen, then,

no employee can survive in an organisation. In view

of that, the orders made by the disciplinary

authority and confirmed by the appellate authority

requires to be set aside by this court.”

15. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka in its aforesaid judgment is well

established and also applicable to the case in hand.

In the instant case, the Workperson was a confirmed

employee and she was transferred to Pilerne location.

The services of the Workperson was terminated on

account of default of joining the place of transfer at

Pilerne location. The said action of the Employer

amounts to violation of principles of natural justice

and hence, it is illegal and unjustified. Hence, it is

held that the action of the Employer in terminating

the services of the Workperson is illegal, unjustified

and bad-in-law. The issue No.2 is therefore answered

in the affirmative.

Issue No. 3:

16. The term ‘Unfair Labour Practice’ has been

defined in the Fifth Schedule of the I.D. Act, 1947

and it reads as under:

“1. On the part of the Employer and the Trade

Unions of the Employers:

1. To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce,

workmen in the exercise of their right to

organise, form, join or assist a trade union or

to engage in concerted activities for the

purposes of collective bargaining or other

mutual aid or protection, that is so to say-

(a) Threatening workmen with discharge

of dismissal, if they join a trade union.

(b) Threatening a lock-out or closure, if a

trade union is organised,

at crucial periods of trade union

organisation, with a view to under-

mining the efforts of the trade union

organisation.

2. ……………………………...….......................……

3. ……………….............................………………….

4. ……………………............................……………..

5. To discharge or dismiss workmen-

(a) By way of victimization.

(b) Not in good faith, but in the

colourable exercise of the

employer’s rights.

in a criminal case on false evidence or on

concocted evidence;

(d) For patently false reasons;

(e) On untrue or trumped up allegation of

absence without leave;

(f) In utter disregard of the principles of

natural justice in the conduct of

domestic enquiry or with undue hast;

(g) For misconduct of a minor or technical

character, without having any regard to

the nature of the particular misconduct

or the past record or service of the

Workperson, thereby leading to a

disproportionate punishment.

…………………………………...................…..

7. To transfer a workmen malafide from one place

to another, under the guise of following

management policy.

………………………………………...............

…………………....................……………

17. The Workperson has produced on record letter

of transfer dated 27-07-2020 (Exb. 7) directing her to

report at Pilerne location w.e.f. 03-08-2020. The

Workperson also produced on record her request

letter dated 14-10-2020 (Exb. 8) addressed to the

1232

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

Employer alleging that she is a resident of Dongri,

Pilar-Goa and have been working at Verna Workshop

since her joining in the Employer Company and that

she has to travel to Pilerne by changing three buses

and to incur three times more travelling expenses

and that she telephonically requested the HR

Executive, Mr. Suraj to revoke her transfer to which

he insisted her to resign from the union and then her

transfer will be revoked. The Workperson has also

produced on record a copy of letter dated 26-10-2020

(Exb.11) issued to the Managing Director of the

Employer of notice of indefinite strike in protest

against anti-labour activities of the management and

suppression of union activities and unfair labour

practices by the management of the Employer. By

the said letter dated 26-10-2020, the Goa Union of

Industrial Worker alleged that the workmen have not

been paid bonus for last many years and that the

Union Members were called in the cabin of General

Manager and were threatened of dire consequences

if the members did not resign from the union and

that some of the union members signed on some

undertaking and they were retained in the workshop

and those who refused to sign the undertaking, the

contents of which were never shown to the workers

transferred to Pilerne workshop, some of the workers

from the union are told not to join duties for 8 days

without any letters and their wages has been

deducted, specifically that of the office bearers of

the union and Mr. Suraj, HR Executives even called

wives of the workers and/or parents of the workers

and started threatening them that the workers would

lose their jobs, if they do not resign from the union.

The said act was stopped upon the intervention of

the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao.

18. The aforesaid act on the part of the Employer

clearly is in violation of Clause 1 sub clause (1, 5 and

7) of unfair Labour Practice. The aforesaid act on the

part of the management of the Employer clearly

constitutes unfair labour practices as stated in the

Fifth Schedule of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, it is held

that the Workperson proved that the action of the

Employer amounts to unfair labour practice. The

issue No. 3 is therefore answered in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 4:

19.While deciding the issue No.3 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

action of the Employer in terminating the services of

the Workperson is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law.

20. The age of the Workperson was 56 years in the

year 2021. There is nothing on record to show that

the past record is blameworthy. The evidence on

record indicates that the Workperson is unemployed

from the date of her termination till date. Hence, the

Workperson is therefore entitled for reinstatement

in service with 50% of back wages with continuity in

service and all consequential benefits thereof.

In view of above, I pass the following order:

O R D E R

It is held that the action of the Employer,

M/s. Muktar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Verna

Industrial Estate,Verna-Goa in terminating the

services of the Workperson, Smt. Yamini Naik,

Housekeeper w.e.f. 23/10/2020 is illegal,

unjustified and bad-in-law.

2 . It is held that the Employer, M/s. Muktar

Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Verna Industrial

Estate,Verna-Goa is hereby directed to

reinstate the Workperson, Smt. Yamini Naik,

Housekeeper along with 50% of back wages,

with continuity in service and all

consequential benefits thereof.

3.No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

.————

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/Part-IV/186

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

31-03-2022 in Ref. No. IT/16/2021 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.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 19th April, 2022.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bela N. Naik, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/16/2021

Workmen,

Rep. by the General Secretary

A.C.G.L. Worker’s Union,

Honda-Sattari, Goa (403 530).

…

Workmen/

/Party I

V/s

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1233

M/s Automobile Corporation

of Goa Ltd.,

Honda-Sattari,

Goa (403 530). … Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Learned

Representative Shri Subhash Naik Jorge.

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Advocate

Shri P. Chawdikar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 31st day of the month

of March of the year 2022)

By Order dated 11-10-2021, bearing No. 28/19/

/2021-LAB/499 the Government of Goa in exercise of

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

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)

(hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the

Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute

for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at

Panaji Goa, constituted under Section 7-A of the said

Act.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Automobile Corporation of Goa Limited, Honda,

Sattari, Goa to lay-off 170 workmen for the period from

01-10-2020 to 15-10-2020 without following the proper

procedure and obtaining consent of appropriate

Government, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, to what relief workmen are entitled?”.

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/16/2021 and registered AD notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

both the Parties orally submitted that talks are going

on for amicable settlement and during the course of

the proceedings filed an application for Award in

terms of settlement along with the terms of

settlement at Exhibit 4 Colly stating that they have

arrived at a settlement under Section 12(3) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and prayed that an

award be passed in terms of said settlement dated

10-03-2022. The above application has been signed

by representative of Party I, Shri Bablo C. Sawant,

President, along with other Office bearers and Shri

Subhash Naik Jorge, Representative of the Party I

Union, so also the representative of Party II, Shri

Prakash K. Naik, Head HR and Adv. P. Chawdikar on

behalf of Party II. An amicable settlement was arrived

between both the Parties on the following terms and

conditions:

CHAPTER-I

IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES

THAT:

1. COVERAGE:

The provisions of this settlement shall be

applicable to all permanent workmen who are on the

rolls of the Company and the members of AWU during

the period of this settlement for the period they

served the Company.

2. PURPOSE AND INTENT

It is known that the Automobile Industry

worldwide and the Company in particular, is going

through critical and challenging phase. The

dwindling export sales and invariable domestic sales

have put an adverse impact on the turnover of the

Company. Under such circumstances, it is very

important that the organization reacts quickly and

positively to the market challenges and succeed

through the cut throat commercial competition.

It shall be the efforts that this settlement shall

regain the viability and competitiveness. It must

reinforce the long term sustainability and prosperity

though business growth.

This will be achieved through deliberate and

significant improvements in:

Resource productivity.

Operational flexibility.

Process and product quality.

Cost effectiveness.

Performance oriented work culture.

ACGL faces the challenges of rising conversion

cost, its viability and rising standards of quality.

It shall be the efforts of each and every workman

of the Company to commit towards the commercial,

corporate and social growth of the Company.

3. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE

PARTIES

A. The Company and the Union agree to resolve

all problems/disputes/conflicts by peaceful mutual

negotiations. Should such negotiations fail for any

reason, both the parties shall seek the assistance of

legal machinery proved under the law.

B. The Union agrees to co-operate with ACGL and

support all the processes for improving the

productivity and discipline by the workmen on the

shops and on the premises of ACGL.

C. The Company recognizes the following rights

of the Union:

The Union shall have exclusive right to represent

the Workmen who are their members and be their

sole collective bargaining agent.

D. The Union recognizes the following rights of

the Company:

1. The Company shall be entitled to set up

•

1234

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

standards for job (time standards & productivity

standards) and to decide upon recruitment, selection,

promotion, increments, deployments, allotments of

shifts, working hours, timing of shifts, holidays,

weekly off and transfer of workmen from one job,

section, departments or divisions to another

irrespective of trades. The Union shall not object to

such changes unless there are compelling reasons

for such objections which shall be resolved by mutual

discussions.

2. In particular circumstances of business

exigencies, if there is a fall in business and the

Management is not in a position to provide work to

certain section of workmen, in such events first the

flexible/contractors’ workforce shall be discontinued

before the workmen are asked to proceed on leave.

In the event any workmen do not have any leave

to their credit the Management shall grant them a

prospective leave. The above clause shall be

implemented by the Management not exceeding

three times in a year and not more than five days of

duration at a time.

CHAPTER II

1. PRODUCTIVITY:

Wage Settlement is a process of “Give and Take”,

the Union and workmen duly realize that in return

for a substantial wage rise given by the Company,

the workmen have to share additional obligations

and responsibilities which would not only promote

the capacity of the Company to absorb the financial

burden caused by the wage rise but also maintain

its competitive status in the industry at healthy

levels.

1. During period of settlement the Management

expects permanent associates to produce average

three buses per day and union on behalf of

permanent associates will assure that they will

support the management in implementing the same

with suitable deployment of all Associates. At

present, all associates contribute in existing

production and support services. It is also understood

that achieving production is a collective

responsibility of management and union and the

union will fully contribute their share in maximizing

the same.

2. It is agreed by the Union that each workman

shall strive to maintain minimum 80% productivity

during the period of Settlement. The Company will

fix the base production norms for each work station/

assembly lines based on the standard process cycle

time. During the time study Union Representative

will be present. Each workmen will be required to

produce as per the pre-determined norms. The

individual case of workman who is failing to achieve

the above production, norms will be discussed with

the Union. Even after Union’s involvement, if the

concerned workman fails to achieve the stipulated

production norms, the Management will take

necessary disciplinary action.

3. It is accepted by the parties that the above

improvement in productivity will be in addition to

the improvement in productivity achieved through

operational improvement, Kaizen initiatives, waste

elimination and minimizing non-value adding

activities. All workmen shall commit to deliver the

output as per standard established from time to time

in both Kaizen and non-Kaizen areas to achieve

higher productivity. Further, as agreed in the last

agreement the National Productivity Council has

conducted study for productivity assessment and

Union will implement recommendations made by the

National Productivity Council.

CHAPTER III

WAGES/ALLOWANCES/LEAVE/DISCIPLINE

1. Workmen shall be given an average composite

wage package (including HRA and all the demanded

allowances, unless otherwise separately provided in

this settlement) of Rs. 5500/- (Rupees Five thousand

five hundred only). This wage increment will be given

as a total increment i.e. Total Cost to the company

(CTC).

a) Basic Wage:

Workmen shall be given a rise of Rs. 3300/- (Rupees

three thousand three hundred only) per month in

their basic wage with effect from 1st April, 2018.

The rise in basic wage per month as above will be

added to the basic wage as on 1st April, 2018 of the

respective workman and the amount to arrive at

applicable fitment, would be the basic wage of

workman in the company’s wage scale.

b) House Rent Allowance:

Effective from 1^st April, 2018, the House Rent

Allowance payable to the eligible workman shall be

Rs. 4571/- (Four thousand five hundred and seventy

one only) per month a rise of Rs. 1123/- (One thousand

one hundred twenty three only) per month.

c) Indirect Components:

Indirect components from 32.65% i.e. Rs.1077/- (15%

Superannuation, 12% PF and 5.65% Gratuity) of basic

wage increase in the present settlement.

2. As per Payment of Bonus Act 1965 all bargainable

employees are not in the preview of the said bonus

act since the maximum salary of bargainable

employees is more than the Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1235

Twenty one thousand) which is maximum limit

specified in the Bonus Act. However as good gesture

management shall pay minimum bonus of 8.33% and

max. Bonus as decided by the management. The ceiling

on salary of Rs. 21,000/- mentioned in the act for

eligibility may be ignored. For the purpose of Bonus

Computation, the salary shall be considered as Rs.

7000/- even if it exceeds Rs. 7,000/-. The Management

shall at its sole discretion, pay an additional amount

as ex-gratia based on the financial performance of

the year.

3. In Sandwich leave a Sunday or holiday

intervening during leave of any kind/type shall be

treated as leave in computing the number of days of

leave availed. Whereas sandwich leave have

exception of not treating a Sunday or a holiday

intervening during leave or any kind increased to 06

occasions in a year.

4. The Union expressly agrees that any illegal and

unjustifiable stoppage will lead to disciplinary

action.

5. It is accepted by both the parties that in case of

“BAND” (all India or Goa) it will be the personal

responsibility of the employees to reach the factory

by their own arrangements within the shift timing

or else the concerned employees will have to apply

for leave.

CHAPTER-IV

MOTIVATIONAL AND OTHER BENEFICIAL

SCHEMES:

1. The Management acknowledges and

understands the importance of promoting education

amongst the employee’s children. A scholarship

scheme will be implemented wherein employee’s

meritorious children of 10th& 12th standards will be

rewarded by the Company.

2. Safety at the work place is very importance

concern. The management urges the workmen and

it is hereby agreed by the Union that employees will

abide the safety norms and take all precaution to

avoid the possible accidents. To promote the safety

concern, the management shall implement “Safety

Awards” scheme wherein all the employees will be

presented as cash prize award of Rs. 250/- for not

meeting with a single accident/injury during the

given financial year.

3. The Management states that as and when any

vacancy arises in various plants of the company,

subject to merits, preference will be given to the

suitable direct blood relatives of the employees.

4. It is decided by the Management to extend

ambulance facility whereby employee and spouse,

children and parents will be provided ambulance

facility for critical and emergency hospitalization

from home to hospital on advance intimation. A

nominal fees of Rs. 20/- will be charged for availing

this facility.

5. Medical insurances scheme.

The Management of the Company and the Union

agree that the company will set aside Rs. 2000/-

(Rupees two thousand only) per workmen per annum

towards the premium for medical insurance scheme.

Any contribution towards medical insurance

premium exceeding company’s contribution of

Rs. 2000/- will be borne by the employee.

6. Advance for Emergency Hospitalization.

A workman will be eligible for an advance towards

emergency hospitalization expenditure for an

amount not exceeding Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy

five thousand only) once during the tenure of service.

The workman will have to produce documents

substantiating the expenditure. The amount shall

be recovered in 24 equal installments with 10% rate

of interest. The compensation as and when received

under insurance policy shall be adjusted against the

advance.

7. If any workmen exhausted his/her sick and

casual leave allocated to him/her then he/she can

adjust one day leave at two occasions from his

privilege leave allocated to him/her.

8. Workmen can avail privilege leave for maximum

7 occasions (Privilege leave shall be taken minimum

three days) excluding one day privilege leave

mentioned in above clause (Clause No. 7).

9. Existing bank working of one hour can be

clubbed with lunch timing either before lunch or

after lunch. Thus total bank work timing including

lunch time will be one hour thirty minutes. Workmen

after returning from bank work shall directly resume

on workstation. These benefits will be allowed for

maximum 10 workmen per day. Bank working benefit

will be allowed maximum two times a month for each

workman.

10. Workman who complete 25 years of service

with good conduct will be awarded Rs. 5000/- (Rupees

Five thousand only).

CHAPTER –V

OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT

1. The provisions of this settlement shall become

effective from 1^st April, 2018 and shall be in operation

up to 31^st March 2022 and continue thereafter until

and unless amended or superseded by any other

1236

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

subsequent Settlement as per the provision of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. All other terms and conditions of employment

as binding on the Workmen and the Company as on

the date of this Settlement shall continue to remain

in force unless they have been deleted, altered or

modified either explicitly or by implication of this

Settlement and that the rules and other procedures

of the company as existing here-to-before which have

not been changed under this Settlement shall

continue to be in force.

3. The Union and all the concerned workmen have

hereby agreed to drop all other demands forwarded

to the employer vide their letter dated 14^th March,

2018. Further they have also agreed that during the

currency of this settlement, they will not raise or

pursue or agitate for those or any other demands,

which would involve directly or indirectly financial

burden, liability or consequences on the employer.

4. During the period of settlement, all the union

committee members and the office bearers shall work

at their allocated stations. Under special

circumstances union committee members may be

relieved from their daily work activity with prior

approval from Head HR.

5.The Union & workmen reiterate their

commitment to abide by the service rules,

administrative regulations and procedure to

maintain discipline and decorum at all times to

resolve grievances, if and when they arise, by mutual

discussions, without resorting to the direct action or

agitation.

6. Both the parties agreed that they shall file

necessary application before Industrial Tribunal in

reference no. IT/16/2021/450 and IT/22/2021/522 for

passing appropriate Award in terms of this

settlement.

7. Union agrees to withdraw all cases filed against

company in Conciliation Office and Industrial

Tribunal before singing of agreement and will not

raise the said issues in future.

8. The next long term wage settlement which will

be due from 01-04-2022 will be discussed and signed

for 2 years and thereafter all the wage settlement

will be signed for a minimum of 3 years.

9. It is agreed that the arrears will be paid as early

as possible.

3. I have gone through the records of the case and

the above Memorandum of Settlement and I am

convinced that the consent terms filed by the parties

are just and fair and are in the interest of the

Workmen/Party I and Employer/Party II and therefore,

the same are accepted.

O R D E R

(i) The reference stands disposed of in view of the

consent terms filed by the parties at Exhibit 4 Colly.

(ii) No order as to cost.

(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Bela N. Naik),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/189

The following Judgement passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 25-02-2022 in case

No. LC-II/LCC/05/2021 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.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 19th April, 2022.

———

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/LCC/05/2021

Miss Ruth Olivia Coutinho,

R/o. H. No. 903,

Porvorim, Bardez-Goa

…..

Applicant

V/s

1. Hotel Mandovi,

(A unit of Mandovi Hotels Private Limited)

D.B. Bandodkar Marg,

Panaji-Goa

…..

Opponent (1)

2. Mr. Ramnath V. Quenim (Partner),

Managing Director, Hotel Mandovi,

R/o. Ashirwad, D-6, Ocean Park,

Dona Paula, Goa

…..

Opponent (2)

3. Mr. Narcinva P. Quenim (Partner),

R/o. Ramnath Prasad Building,

Near Mahalaxmi Temple,

Panaji-Goa

…..

Opponent (3)

Panaji, Dated: 25-02-2022.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1237

Applicant represented by Adv. Shri Suhas Naik.

Opponent absent, marked as Ex-parte.

J U D G M E N T

1. This Judgment and Order shall determine the

claim application of the Applicant dated 01-02-2021,

filed U/S 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

2. By the present claim application, the Applicant

claimed from the Opponent an amount of Rs. 3,57,217/-

(Rupees Three lakhs fifty seven thousand two hundred

seventeen only) being Rs. 1,49,981/- towards pending

salary, Rs. 27,417/- towards bonus, Rs. 17,417/- towards

LTA, medical allowances 2018-19 and 2019-20,

Rs. 60,000/- towards salary increase arrears and Rs.

1,02,402/- towards unutilized privileged leave (90 days).

3. The Applicant stated that the Opponent No. 1

started delaying the payment of her monthly

salaries.He stated that from October, 2019 to

February, 2020, the Opponent No.1 failed to pay her

monthly earned salaries in spite of full attendance.

She stated that she, being fed-up with the non-

-payment of her monthly earned salaries, submitted

her resignation to the Opponent No. 1 on 19-02-2020.

She stated that her resignation has been accepted

by the Opponent No. 1 and she has been relieved

from the services. She stated that the Opponent

No. 1 failed to pay her monthly salaries from October

2019 to February, 2020 amounting to Rs.1,49,981/-

(Rupees One lakh forty nine thousand nine hundred

eighty one only). She submitted that the Opponent

No. 1 also failed to pay her bonus for the year 2018-19

and for the year 2019-20 amounting to Rs. 27,417/- as

well as her medical allowance for the year 2018-2019

and for the year 2019-20 amounting to Rs. 17,417/-.

She submitted that the Opponent No.1 also failed to

pay her salary increased arrears amounting to

Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, the Opponent No.1 has failed to

pay to her a total amount of Rs. 3,57,217/- (Rupees

Three lakhs fifty seven thousand two hundred

seventeen only). She further submitted that the

Opponent No. 1 also failed to clear her legal dues

arising out of her resignation which includes her

unpaid gratuity. She submitted that as the Opponent

No.1 failed to pay her above legal dues, she made

several written communication to them. She

submitted that she is entitled to receive the aforesaid

amount of Rs. 3,57,217/-(Rupees Three lakhs fifty

seven thousand two hundred seventeen only)

alongwith interest @18% per annum from the

Opponent till the realization of the said amount. She

submitted that the Opponent No.1 is an

establishment and the Opponent No. 2 and 3 are the

partners of the Opponent No.1. The Applicant

therefore prayed that the Opponents be directed to

pay to her the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,57,217/-

(Rupees Three lakhs fifty seven thousand two

hundred seventeen only) along with interest @18%

p.a. till its realization.

4. All the Opponents have been duly served. The

Opponents have however, failed to appear before this

Hon’ble Court on the scheduled dates of hearings for

the reasons best known to them. This Hon’ble Court

marked an ex-parte against the Opponents after

giving ample opportunities to appear and pursue

their case.

5. This Hon’ble Court framed the following issues

on 14-10-2021 at Exb.4.

1. Whether the Applicant proves that he is entitled

to receive from the Opponents an amount of

Rs. 3,57,217/- (Rupess Three lakhs fifty seven thousand

two hundred seventeen only) being Rs.1,49,981/-

towards unpaid salary, Rs. 27,417/- towards bonus,

Rs.17,417/- towards medical allowances, Rs.60,000/-

towards arrears of salary increment and Rs.1,02,402/-

towards unutilized privilege leave respectively?

2. What order?

6. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the Affirmative

except Medical

Allowance and

LTA.

(b) Issue No. 2

As per final Order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri

Suhas Naik appearing for the Applicant. On the

contrary, none remained present for the Opponents.

I have carefully perused the entire records of the

present case. I have also carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas

Naik, appearing for the Applicant.

REASONS

Issue No. 1

7. By the present claim application, the Applicant

claimed a total amount of Rs. 3,57,217/- (Rupees Three

lakhs fifty seven thousand two hundred seventeen

only) being Rs. 1,49,981/- towards unpaid salary from

October, 2019 to 19-02-2020, Rs. 27,417/- towards

bonus for the year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020,

Rs.17,417/- towards medical allowances for the year

2018-2019 and 2019-2020, Rs. 60,000/- towards arrears

of salary increase for the period from 01-04-2017 to

30-11-2018 and Rs.1,02,402/- towards unutilized

privilege leave (90 days). To support her claim, the

Applicant has produced on record evidence oral as

well as documentary. The said evidence oral as well

as documentary adduced by the Applicant on record

remained unchallenged for want of denial.

1238

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

(a) Unpaid Salary:

8. The Applicant claimed from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 1,49,981/- (Rupees One lakh forty nine

thousand nine hundred eighty one only) towards her

salaries for the period from October, 2019 to February,

2020.

The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant joined in the services of the Opponent

No. 1 on 28-07-1986 as a ‘Telephone Operator/

/Receptionist’. She was subsequently promoted as

‘Junior Officer’ which was re-designated as

‘Reservation In-Charge’ and again promoted as ‘Front

Office Executive’ w.e.f. 01-01-2000 which was

re-designated as ‘House-Keeper’ w.e.f. 01-10-2000.

The evidence on record indicates that the Applicant

was again promoted as ‘Sr. Housekeeper’ w.e.f.

01-04-2011 and lastly promoted as ‘Asstt. Executive

Housekeeper’ w.e.f. 01-04-2014 which was

re-designated as Asstt. Manager-Continuous

Product Improvement’ w.e.f. 01-04-2018.

9. The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant resigned, vide her letter dated 20-01-2020

(Exb. 7) and relieved on 20-03-2020 (Exb. 8) at the

close working hours of 19-02-2020. The evidence on

record indicates that the Applicant has not been

paid her earned salaries for the month from October,

2019 till 19-02-2020. The evidence on record indicates

that the monthly net salary of the Applicant was

Rs. 32,057/- after deduction of Rs. 2077/- towards her

PF. Thus, the Applicant is entitled to receive from

the Opponent a sum of Rs. 1,48,531/-(Rupees One lakh

forty eight thousand five hundred and thirty one only)

towards her unpaid salaries for the period from

October, 2019 till 19-02-2020.

(b) Bonus:

10. The Applicant claimed a bonus of an amount

of Rs. 27,417/- for the year 2018-2019 and for the year

2019-2020.

The bonus is paid to the employee under the

Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Section 8 of the Act

provides for the eligibility of the bonus. Section 9 of

the Act provides for disqualification for the bonus.

Section 10 of the Act, provides for minimum bonus.

The provisions of Section 10 provides for the minimum

bonus of 8.33% of the salary or wage earned by the

employee during the accounting year or Rs. 100/-,

whichever is higher, whether or not the Employer

has any allocable surplus in the accounting year.

Similarly, Section 11 of the Act, provides for payment

of maximum bonus.

11. The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant has failed to produce on record relevant

materials to grant maximum bonus. In the

circumstances, the Applicant is entitled for minimum

bonus @8.33% of the salary or wage earned by the

employee during the accounting year or Rs. 100/-

whichever is higher, whether or not the Employer

has any allocable surplus in the accounting year.

12. The Applicant claimed from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 27,417/- for the year 2018-19 and for the

year 2019-20 towards bonus. Taking into

consideration the monthly net salary of the

Applicant of Rs. 32,057/-, the minimum bonus for the

year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20 @8.33%

amounts to Rs. 5,341/- (Rupees five thousand three

hundred and forty one only).

Thus, the Applicant proved that he is entitled to

receive from the Opponent No. 1 a total amount of

Rs. 5,341/- (Rupees five thousand three hundred and

forty one only) towards bonus for the year 2018-19

and for the year 2019-20.

13. The Applicant claimed LTA and medical

allowance for the year 2018-19 and for the year

2019-20 for an amount of Rs. 17,417/- (Rupees

Seventeen thousand four hundred seventeen only).

The Applicant has however, failed to produce on

record any material evidence to show that he is

entitled for LTA as well as Medical Allowance. In the

absence of any material evidence on record, this

Court cannot grant any amount towards LTA as well

as Medical Allowance to the Applicant. Hence, it is

held that the Applicant failed to prove that she is

entitled for medical allowance as well as LTA and as

such her claim towards Medical Allowance as well

as LTA stands rejected.

(d) Salary Increase Arrears:

14. The Applicant claimed an amount of

Rs. 60,000/- towards the arrears in her increase in

salary from 01-04-2017 till 30-11-2018.

The evidence on record indicates that the gross

salary of the Applicant was Rs. 32,134 w.e.f.

01-04-2017 which was subsequently increased to

Rs. 34,134/- w.e.f. 01-04 -2018 as per the salary revision

for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 dated 26-12-2018

(Exb.10). Thus, there was increase in salary of

Rs. 2000/- per month from 01-04-2017 till 30-11-2018

(for 20 months) which comes to Rs. 40,000/-. Thus,

the Applicant is entitled to receive from the

Opponent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupee forty

thousand only) towards arrears of increase in salary.

(e) Unutilized Privileged Leave:

15. The Applicant claimed an amount of

Rs. 1,02,402/- towards 90 days of her unutilized

privileged leave. The monthly net salary of the

Applicant was Rs. 32,057/- per month. Taking into

consideration the monthly salary of the Applicant,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1239

the Applicant is entitled for an amount of

Rs. 96,171/- towards her unutilized privileged leave.

Thus, the Applicant is entitled to receive from the

Opponent a sum of Rs. 96,171/- ( Rupees Ninety six

thousand one hundred and seventy one only)

towards her unutilized privileged leave.

16. In the case of New Standard Engineering

Company Limited v/s. Ashok H. Hire and Anr.,

reported in 2004 II CLR 574, the Hon’ble High Court

of Bombay, after relying upon a judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in the case of Suresh

Sakharam Chowgule and Anr. v/s. M/s. Parel Cotton

Press Factory (1994 SUPP. (3) SCC 704), held that

“though the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,

do not expressly empowered the Industrial Court to

grant interest, the court is entitled to grant interest

depending upon facts of each case”.

17. In the case of Haryana State Federation of

Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v/s.

Siri Kishan and Anr., reported in 1996 II CLR 688,the

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held

that “where the Employer has retained what was

required to be disbursed to the Workman, by denying

their rightful dues for almost a period of 12 years,

during which the value of their money has

considerably diminished due to inflation i.e.

prevalent in the country, the Labour Court is

perfectly entitled to say that the workman should be

compensated by way of payment of interest.”

18. Thus, it is settled principle of law that the

Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is empowered to

grant interest depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the instant case as

stated above, it has been proved that the Applicant

is entitled to receive from the Opponent No. 1 a total

amount of Rs. 2,90,043/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety

thousand and forty three only) towards unpaid

salaries, arrears of salary increment, unutilized

privileged leave and bonus. The Applicant is

therefore entitled to receive from the Opponent

No. 1 being Employer and Opponent No. 2 and

Opponent No.3 being partners of the Opponent

No. 1 the said amount of Rs. 2,90,043/- (Rupees Two

lakhs ninety thousand and forty three only)

alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of

passing the present order till its actual realization.

In view of above and with regards to the facts and

circumstances of the case, I pass the following order:

O R D E R

1. The present claim application of the Applicant

filed u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 is hereby allowed.

The Opponents are hereby directed to pay to the

Applicant, Ms. Ruth Olivia Coutinho, a sum of

Rs. 2,90,043/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety thousand

and forty three only) along with simple interest @9%

p.a. from the date of passing of the present order till

the actual realization of the said amount.

2. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

(Suresh N. Naulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

———

Notification

No. 24/21/2021/Lab/566

In accordance with the guidelines issued by the

Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour

& Employment, New Delhi vide D. O letter No.

M-16011/01/2019-SS-III dated 13-08-2021 for

constitution of North Goa District Level

Implementation Committee to facilitate on ground

of implementing the Registration of Unorganized

Workers at District level. The Government of Goa

hereby constitute the North Goa District Level

Implementation Committee comprising of following

members:

I. The Collector &

—

Chairperson.

District Magistrate,

North Goa

II. The Dy. Labour

—

Member

Commissioner,

Secretary.

North, Goa

III. The Chief Executive

—

Member.

Office, North Goa,

Zilla Panchayat,

North-Goa

IV.

1. The Commissioner,

—

Member.

Corporation

City of Panaji – Goa

2. The Chief Officer,

—

Member.

Mapusa Municipal

Council, Mapusa–Goa

3. The Chief Officer,

—

Member.

Pernem Municipal

Council, Pernem–Goa

4. The Chief Officer,

—

Member.

Sanquelim Municipal

Council, Sanquelim–Goa

5. The Chief Officer,

—

Member.

Valpoi Municipal Council,

Valpoi–Goa

6. The Chief Officer,

—

Member.

Bicholim Municipal

Council, Bicholim–Goa

1240

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1. The District Co-ordinator

—

Member.

(South Goa), CSC-

e-governance Services India

Ltd., Skylark Complex, Belapur,

1st Floor, Office No. 120, Plot No. 63,

Sector 11, CBD, Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400614

2. The State Informatics

—

Member.

Officer, National

Informatics Centre

‘H’ Block, Paraiso De Goa,

Porvorim–Goa

VII

1. The Block Development

—

Member.

Officer, Bardez–Goa

2. The Block Development —

Member.

Officer, Pernem–Goa

3. The Block Development

—

Member.

Officer, Bicholim–Goa

4. The Block Development

—

Member.

Officer, Tiswadi–Goa

5. The Block Development

—

Member.

Officer, Sattari–Goa

VIII

1. The Director, Directorate

—

Member.

of Social Welfare,

Government of Goa,

Panaji–Goa

2. The Director, Directorate

—

Member.

of Women and Child

Development, Government

of Goa, 2nd floor, Old Education

Dept. Building, 18th June

Road, Panaji–Goa

3. The Director, Directorate

—

Member.

of Agriculture, Krishi

Bhavan, Tonca,

Caranzalem–Goa

4. The Director, Directorate

—

Member.

of Fisheries, Government

of Goa, Dayanand Bandodkar

Marg, Panaji–Goa

5. The Director, Directorate

—

Member.

of Education,

Porvorim-Goa

1. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary, (CITU) Central

Indian Trade Union,

Vasco-da-Gama

2. The President/General

— Member.

Secretary (AITUC)

All India Trade

Union Congress,

Velho’s Building,

2nd Floor, Panaji-Goa

3. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary (GMS) Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh, G-5, Macedo

Apartment, Tisk, Ponda–Goa

4. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary (BMS), Bharatiya

Mazdoor Sangh, Kamakshi

Krupa, Tisk, Ponda–Goa

5. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary, Kamgarancho

Ekvott, Gurudatta Building,

3rd Floor, Dada Vaidya

Road, Panaji-Goa

6. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary, Indian

National Trade Union

Congress (INTUC),

Goa Branch, Panaji–Goa

7. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary, Goa Toddy

Tappers Association, Lotus

Apartment, Vasco-da-Gama

8. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary, Goa Shops

and Industrial Workers Union,

150 A, Comba Margao-Goa

9. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary, Goa Tourist

Taxi Association (GOTTA),

Opp. Municipal Garden,

Velho’s Building,

2nd Floor, Panjim–Goa

1. The President/General

—

Member.

Secretary, Mandovi

Fishermen Marketing

Co-op. Societies Limited,

Betim–Goa

The Monitoring Committee shall be responsible

for conduct of following functions:-

1. Review the progress of Registration of

Unorganised Workers against the target in the

District.

2. Review and monitoring of field level individual

Common Service Centers (CSCs) and State Seva

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1241

Kendra’s (SSK) in the district of achieving target under

eSHRAM.

3. Mobilize target sub-groups of unorganized

workers Construction Workers, Migrant Workers,

Domestic Workers, Anganwadi Workers, Agriculture

Labourers, Self-employed Workers, Street Vendors,

Small Shopkeepers, Asha Workers, Milkmen and

similar other sub-group of unorganised workers

through respective the line department within the

district for registration under eSHRAM portal.

4. Mobilize target groups of prospective

beneficiaries for registration in eHRAM through

respective labour unions/workers Associations/

/Federations/Civil Society Organization/NGOs

working for welfare of unorganised workers.

5. Plan/Ensure regular registration camps at the

district and CSC level for the unorganized workers.

6. Monitor progress of bulk registration of BOCW/

/ASHA/Anganwadi/ MGNREGA/Domestic Workers/

/Md-Way meal workers/Fishermen etc.

7. Undertake information, Education & Commu-

nication campaign with prospective beneficiaries of

eSHRAM.

8. Undertake registration drives by using mobile,

CSK/SSK vans in labour chowks, brick-kilns, labour

sites, fishermen sites, milk union collection centers

etc.

9. Implementation of District wise awareness

programs through discussions, seminars, public

meetings, students participation, universities,

colleges, media channels, news items, campaigns,

pamphlets, posters, banners, helpdesk tables in

district labour offices/skill development centers/

/strategic locations/other prominent labour

concentration areas in the district.

10. Understand and resolve public grievances

brought to the notice of the committee.

11. The committee shall meet at least once a month.

This Order shall come into force on the date of

publication in the Official Gazette.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 17th November, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

–––

Order

No. 5/40/2000-LD(Estt.)/530

Whereas, the Government vide Notification

No. 5-40-2000/LD-Estt. dated 18-12-2000, published

in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 41 dated

11-01-2001, appointed Shri Subhash Narayan Kerkar,

Advocate (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”)

as a Notary for period of five years with effect from

18-12-2000, for the area of Mormugao Taluka;

And whereas, the Government vide Certificate

of Practice dated 18-12-2000 has certified that the

Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for

a period of five years from 18-12-2000 for the area

of Mormugao Taluka;

And whereas, the Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of

Practice as a Notary for subsequent 03 term and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

in the Endorsement dated 05-02-2016 issued to the

Applicant and has expired on 18-12-2020.

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. 18-12-2020,

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 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, 04th May, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

–––

Order

No. 22/11/2018-PER/938

Read: Order No. 14020/02/2020-UTS.I dated

20-04-2022 issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to relieve Shri

Parmaditya, IPS (AGMUT: 2005), Deputy Inspector

General of Police (Crime & Range), Goa from the

State Administration with effect from 06-05-2022

(a. n.) to join his new posting at Delhi.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 2nd May, 2022.

1242

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

Order

No. 7/5/2015-PER/953

Read: 1. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/699 dated 04-04-2022.

In supersession of all orders issued in this regard, the following shall be the standing arrangement of

Link Secretary for disposal of work relating to the Departments under their charge during their absence

due to tour/training/leave/transfer unless specific orders are otherwise issued:

Sr. No.

Name & Designation

1st Link Secretary

2nd Link Secretary

Shri Puneet Kumar Goel,

Shri P. S. Reddy, IAS (2003)

Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS

IAS (1991)

Commissioner-cum-Secretary

(2008)

Chief Secretary

(Ports)

Secretary (Water Resources).

1. Vigilance/Chief Vigilance

Officer

2. Home

3. Personnel & ARD

4. PWD

5. Civil Aviation

6. Mines & Geology

7. Finance, Planning

& Statistics

8. Forest

9. Town & Country Planning

2. Shri P. S. Reddy, IAS (2003)

Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS (2008)

Shri Chokha Ram Garg,

Commissioner-cum-

Secretary (Water Resources)

IAS (2008)

-Secretary (Ports)

Secretary (Law &

1. Ports

Judiciary and Legislative

2. River Navigation

Affairs).

3. Fisheries

4. Archaeology

5. Archives

6. Legal Metrology

3. Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS (2008)

Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS (2008)

Shri Ramesh Verma, IAS

Secretary (Water Resources)

Secretary (Law & Judiciary &

(2009)

1. Water Resources

Legislative Affairs)

Secretary (Revenue).

2. Rural Development

3. Panchayats

4. Housing

5. Nodal Officer SBM (R)

& PMAY (R)

6. Art & Culture

7. Printing & Stationery

8. Public Grievances

9. Civil Supplies

10. Secretary, Goa State

Commission for Protection

of Child Rights

4. Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS (2008)

Shri Ramesh Verma, IAS (2009)

Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS

Secretary (Law & Judiciary &

Secretary (Revenue)

(2011)

Legislative Affairs)

Secretary (Education).

1. Law & Judiciary and

Legislative Affairs

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1243

2. Skill Development

& Entrepreneurship

3. Co-operation

4. Handicrafts, Textile

and Coir

5. PPP Division

6. Industries, Trade

& Commerce

5. Shri Ramesh Verma, IAS (2009)

Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS (2011)

Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS

Secretary (Revenue)

Secretary (Education)

(2011),

1. Revenue

Secretary (Urban

2. Information & Publicity

Development).

3. Labour & Employment

6. Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS (2011)

Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS (2011)

Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra,

Secretary (Education)

Secretary (Urban

IAS (2012)

1. Education

Development)

Secretary (Social Welfare).

2. Factories & Boilers

3. Tribal Welfare

4. Tourism

5. M.D. & CEO, IPSCDL

6. C.E.O., Goa CSR Authority

7. Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS (2011)

Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, IAS (2012)

Shri Y. V. V. J. Rajasekhar,

Secretary (Urban Development)

Secretary (Social Welfare)

IAS (2012)

1. Urban Development

Secretary (Power).

2. Transport

3. Science & Technology

4. CEO, ESG

5. Nodal Officer SBM (U)

and PMAY (U)

8. Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, IAS (2012)

Shri Y. V V. J. Rajasekhar, IAS (2012)

Shri Ajit Roy, IAS (2013)

Secretary (Social Welfare)

Secretary (Power)

(Secretary to Chief Minister).

1. Social Welfare

2. Provedoria

3. Official Language

4. Goa Gazetteer

5. Environment

6. Agriculture

7. Animal Husbandry &

Veterinary Services

9. Shri Y. V. V. J. Rajasekhar, IAS (2012) Shri Ajit Roy, IAS (2013)

Shri Hemant Kumar, IAS (2013)

Secretary (Power)

(Secretary to Chief Minister)

Secretary (General

1. Power

Administration).

2. New & Renewable Energy

3. Health

4. Women & Child

Development

5. Museum

1244

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

10. Shri Ajit Roy, IAS (2013)

Shri Hemant Kumar, IAS (2013)

Shri Y. V. V. J. Rajasekhar, IAS

(Secretary to Chief Minister)

Secretary (General Adminis-

(2012)

1. Secretary to Chief Minister

tration) (except Sr. No. 1)

Secretary (Power)

2. Sports & Youth Affairs

(except Sr. No. 1)

3. Information Technology

11. Shri Hemant Kumar, IAS (2013)

Shri Ajit Roy, IAS (2013)

Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, IAS

Secretary (General Adminis-

(Secretary to Chief Minister)

(2012)

tration)

(except at Sr. No. 3)

Secretary (Social Welfare)

1. General Administration

(except at Sr. No. 3).

2. Protocol

3. Commissioner of State Taxes

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

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 2nd May, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

–––

Notification

No. 42/6/2013-I/PHD/563

In exercise of the power conferred under

Section 7 of the Goa Medicare Service Personnel

and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of

Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2013

(Goa Act 24 of 2013) the Government is pleased to

constitute a committee to aid and advice the victims

of medical negligence as under:

1. Head of Department of

—

Chairperson.

Medicine, Goa Medical

College & Hospital,

Bambolim

2. Director of Prosecution

—

Member.

or his representative

Officer

3. Mr. Roland Martins,

—

Member.

Consumer Activisit,

r/o Bardez

4. Chairperson, Indian

—

Member.

Medical Association,

Goa Branch or

its representative

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 2nd May, 2022.

—––––

Order

No. 44/20/2013-I/PHD/564

Government is pleased to accept the resignation

tendered by Dr. Vidhya Sawant, Senior Gynae-

cologist on Extraordinary leave under Directorate

of Health Services under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972 w.e.f. 21-01-2021 and to relieve her from

the post of Senior Gynaecologist under Directorate

of Health Services from same date.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vikas S. N. Gaunekar, Additional Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 2nd May, 2022.

—––––

Order

No. 4/19/2002-II/PHD/Part/570

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/30(13)/2021/560 dated 21-03-2022, Gover-

nment is pleased to promote the following Assistant

Professor to the post of Associate Professor (Group

“A” Gazetted) in the Department of Anaesthesiology,

Goa Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim on

regular basis in the Level 11 of Pay Matrix {PB-3:

Rs. 15,600-39,100/- + GP: Rs. 6,600/-} and other

allowances to be fixed as per rules with immediate

effect:-

(1) Dr. Viraj Nagoji Naik Namshikar.

(2) Dr. Deependra Suresh Kamble.

The promotions are made against the vacancies

occurred due to creation of additional posts of

Associate Professor in Goa Medical College vide

Order 4/1/2018-II/PHD/1195 dated 14-08-2019 and

allotted 02 posts of Associate Professor in the

Department of Anaesthesiology vide Order No. 4/1/

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1245

/2018-II/PHD/Part-I/3383 dated 23-10-2020.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 04th May, 2022.

—––––

Order

No. 4/20/2003-II/PHD/581

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/30(4)/11/559 dated 21-03-2022, Government

is pleased to promote Smt. Reena Melanie

Fernandes, Physiotherapist to the post of Assistant

Head Physiotherapist (Group “B” Gazetted), Goa

Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim on regular

basis in the Level 7 of Pay Matrix {PB-2: Rs. 9,300-

34,800/- + GP: Rs. 4,600/-) and other allowances to

be fixed as per rules with immediate effect.

The promotion is made against the vacancy

occurred due to retirement of Smt. Shobhana

Sukhtankar w.e.f. 31-05-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 04th May, 2022.

—––––

Order

No. 4/22/2008-II/PHD/588

Ex post facto approval of the Government is hereby conveyed for the appointment of the following

doctors on contract basis for an initial period of one year with effect from the date of joining or till the

posts are filled on regular basis, whoever is earlier.

Sr.

Name of the

Designation

Remuneration

No.

selected candidate

Dr. Monteiro Ana Soraya

Junior Consultant/

Rs. 1,50,000/- per month..

Palmira Dos Remedios

/Assistant Professor in

Endocrinology

Dr. Rukma Himanshu Patnekar

Junior Consultant/

Rs. 1,50,000/- per month.

/Assistant Professor in

Endocrinology

This issues with the approval of the Personnel Department vide their U.O. No. 3011/F dated 19-11-2021

and 3272/F dated 22-12-2021 and concurrence of the Finance (R&C) Department, vide their U.O.

No. 1400937 dated 08-12-2021 and U.O. No. 1400084248 dated 24-12-2021.

This also issues with the approval of the Council of Ministers held on 27-04-2022 as conveyed by

General Administration Department vide letter No. 1/7/2022-GAD-II dated 27-04-2022.

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

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 29th April, 2022.

—–––––—

Corrigendum

No. 47/5/2011-I/PHD/Part (Vol II)(a)/577

Read: No. 47/5/2011-I/PHD/Part/520 dated 25-04-2022.

In the Government Notification dated 25-04-2022 read in preamble at serial No. (7) the name of the

Department may kindly be corrected to read as “Goa Dental College and Hospital” instead of “Goa Dental

Council and Hospital.”

Rest of the contents of the Notification remains unchanged.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 04th May, 2022.

1246

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

Department of Revenue

––

Order

No. 35/2/2013-RD/413

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b)

of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp

Act,1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899), as in force in the State

of Goa, the Government of Goa hereby permits the

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Goa Divisional

Office, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the “LIC

Goa”) to pay consolidated stamp duty of

Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only)

chargeable on sums to be insured in the insurance

policies issued by its offices in the State of Goa

with effect from 1st January, 2022 upto 31st

December, 2022 in lieu of affixing stamps upon

individual insurance policies, subject to the

following conditions, namely:-

(a) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the

insurance policies issued during the above

mentioned period falls short of the stamp

duty consolidated herein and paid to the

Government, the excess consolidated stamp

duty shall be adjusted for the next calendar

year of 2023.

(b) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the

insurance policies issued during the above

period exceeds the stamp duty consolidated

herein and paid to the Government, the

balance amount due towards the stamp duty

shall be paid to the Government Treasury

by LIC Goa latest by the first week of January,

2023.

charged on the sums insured in the

insurance policies issued by the offices of

the LIC Goa in the State of Goa during the

above period shall be submitted to the

Secretary (Revenue), Revenue Department,

Government of Goa on or before 31-12-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sapna S. N. Bandodkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 2nd May, 2022.

—––––

Notification

No. 22-7-2021-RD-I/435

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) read

with sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred

to the “said Rules”) the Government of Goa, hereby issues this Notification in accordance with Part-B of

Form I appended to the said Rules, for carrying out Social Impact Assessment in the manner and from the

date specified herein below:-

(1) Name of project developer: Directorate of Civil Aviation, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.

(2) Purpose of proposed project: Acquisition of land admeasuring 218 sq. mts. bearing survey No. 33/

/17(P) of village Uguem in Pernem Taluka for MOPA Airport Project.

(3) Land Details:

Sr.

District

Taluka

Village

Survey

Sub-Div.

Total

Area to

Title of land

No.

area

(ownership)

(sq. mt.)

acquired

(sq. mt.)

North

Pernem

Uguem

218.00

Laxman Deu

Goa

Mahale

(O)

(4) Objectives of Social Impact Assessment:

(i) To identify the process of acquiring land as per Govt. Act and decide the fair compensation

for the concerned party.

(ii) Identify the potential Social and Economic changes and conduct the Impact assessment

through onsite field investigations, public hearings and consultations.

(iii) Outline steps to mitigate or enhance negative or positive aspects of changes it at all exists.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

1247

(5) Organization to undertake the study: SIA team constituted by GIPARD, Ella, Old Goa.

(6) Whether consent of Gram Sabha and/or land owners required?: No

(7) The date of commencement of Social Impact Assessment: from the date of publication of this

Notification.

(8) The timeline for the Social Impact Assessment: 60 days from the date of publication of notification.

(9) Deliverables: will be made available in the Offices of the Collectorate North, % Deputy Collector and

SDO, Pernem, Mamlatdar of Pernem taluka, Village Panchayat Uguem, Pernem and will also be uploaded

on the official website of the Collector North.

(10) Any coercion or threat during this period will render the exercise null and void.

(11) Contact Details of the Social Impact Assessment team:

(i) Dr. M. R. K. Prasad, Professor, V. M. Salgaonkar College of Law (Team Leader).

(ii) Dr. Sreerupa Sengupta, Assistant Professor and Member of Social Sensitivity and Action, Goa

Institute of Management.

(iii) Shri Rajendra Kerkar, Environmentalist and Member of National Board of Wildlife.

(iv) Ms. Ninotchka Mendes, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Sociology, Goa University.

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

Sapna S. N. Bandodkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 09th May, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Town and Country Planning

–––

Notification

No. 27/15-2/C.C./TCP/2017-22/1041

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 4 of the Annexure-IX appended to the Goa Land

Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 and in supersession of the Government Notification

No. 27/15-2/C.C./TCP/2017-19/350 dated 13-02-2020, published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 47, dated

20-02-2020, the Government of Goa hereby re-constitutes the Conservation Committee consisting of the

following members, namely:-

1. Minister (Town and Country Planning) Secretariat,

—

Chairman.

Porvorim, Goa

2. Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa

—

Member.

3. Secretary (Town and Country Planning), Secretariat,

—

Member.

Porvorim, Goa

4. Chief Architect, PWD, Altinho, Panaji, Goa

—

Member.

5. Superintending Archaeologist, A.S.I., Goa Circle, Old Goa

—

Member.

6. Director of Archives and Archaeology, Panaji, Goa

—

Member.

7. Nominee of Indian Institute of Architects (Goa Chapter)

—

Member.

8. Nominee of Institute of Engineers–India (Goa Local Center)

—

Member.

9. Nominee of Institute of Town Planners–India (Goa Regional

—

Member.

Chapter)

10. Nominee of Confederation of Real Estate Developers

—

Member

Association of India (CREDAI), Goa

11. Shri Brian Soares

—

Member.

12. Shri Clyde D’Souza

—

Member.

1248

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 6

12TH MAY, 2022

13. The Chief Town Planner (Planning), Town and Country

—

Member Secretary.

Planning Department, Panaji

This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

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

Rajesh J. Naik, Chief Town Planner & ex officio Joint Secretary (Planning).

Panaji, 04th May, 2022.

————

Office of the Chief Town Planner (Planning)

––

Notification

No. 4-3-UDD/MLA/2012/1066

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21

of 1975) and in supersession of the Government Notification No. 4-3-UDD/MLA/TCP/2017/2841 dated

14-09-2017, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 24 dated 14-09-2017 all other earlier Notifications

issued in this regard, the Government of Goa hereby re-constitutes the Goa Town and Country Planning

Board consisting of the following members, namely:-

1. Hon’ble Minister for Town and Country Planning

—

Chairman.

2. Member of Legislative Assembly

—

Member.

3. Member of Legislative Assembly

—

Member.

4. Secretary (Town and Country Planning)

—

Member.

5. Secretary (Urban Development)

—

Member.

6. Secretary (Panchayats)

—

Member.

7. Secretary (Planning)

—

Member.

8. Secretary (Industries)

—

Member.

9. Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department

—

Member.

10. Chief Conservator of Forests

—

Member.

11. Director of Agriculture

—

Member.

12. Director of Tourism

—

Member.

13. Director of Transport

—

Member.

14. Director of Health Services

—

Member.

15. Director of Planning, Statistics and Evaluation

—

Member.

16. Director of Fisheries

—

Member.

17. Senior Divisional Engineer, South Western Railway Hubli

—

Member.

18. Representative of Ministry of Defense, Government of India

—

Member.

19. Representative of Ministry of Surface Transport, Government

—

Member.

of India

20. Representative of Ministry of Tourism, Government of India

—

Member.

21. Shri Paresh Gaitonde, Panaji

—

Member.

22. Shri Rajiv Sukhtankar, Architect, Quepem

—

Member.

23. Nominee of Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Panaji

—

Member.

24. Chief Town Planner (Planning)

—

Member Secretary.

This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

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

Rajesh J. Naik, Chief Town Planner & ex officio Joint Secretary (Planning).

Panaji, 06th May, 2022.