SERIES II No. 17

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026

Panaji, 25th July, 2024 (Sravana 3, 1946)

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

––

Notification

No. 3/Crops & PP/16/Insecticide Act/2024-25/D.Agri/416

Sub.: Notification of Appointment of Insecticide

Inspector for the State of Goa.

In exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 20 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with

Section 21, sanction of the Government is hereby

accorded for the appointment of Shri Krishnanath

B. Naik. Agriculture Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted, in

the Directorate of Agriculture, Goa to act as a

Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 16 dated 18-07-2024 namely,

Extraordinary dated 22-07-2024 from pages 339

to 340 regarding Notification from Department

of Finance.

Insecticide Inspector in the entire State of Goa and

also authorized to inspect manufacturer of

insecticides.

He shall exercise the powers as laid down in

Section 21 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and perform

duties as laid down in Rule 27 of Insecticides Rule,

1971. In addition the Insecticide Inspector is

authorized to inspect the manufacturer of

insecticides and shall also perform duties as

specified in Rule 28 of the above Rules.

This notification shall come into force from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

This notification supersedes the earlier

Notification No. 3/1/PP/6/2007-08/D. Agri/469 dated

3rd March, 2008 and Notification No. 3/1/PP/

/6/2011-12/D.Agri/149 dated 29th June, 2011.

This issue with the approval of Government vide

entry No. 1549/F dated 26-06-2024.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sandeep Fol Dessai, Director (Agriculture) &

ex officio Jt. Secretary.

Tonca-Caranzalem, 18th July, 2024.

——————

Department of Captain of Ports

––

Notification

No. MS/F-78/SMWTC/24-25/1407

Government is pleased to constitute State Maritime and Waterway Transport Committee (SMWTC) for

the State of Goa to co-ordinate with the Ministry of Port, Shipping and Waterways to explore the potential

of State Waterways Resources for development, promotion of maritime sector and economical growth of the

State.

1. Secretary (Ports), Government of Goa—Chairperson.

2. Chairperson, Mormugao Port Authority, Government of India—Member Convener.

3. Captain of Ports, Captain of Ports Department, Government of Goa—Member Co-Convener.

341

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

342

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

4. Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Goa—Member.

5. Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of Goa—Member.

6. Secretary, Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Goa—Member.

7. Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Goa—Member.

8. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Goa—Member.

9. A Representative from Regional/Zonal Office of Railways—Member.

10. A Representative from Regional/Zonal Office of NHAI—Member.

11. Commissioner, Office of Commissioner of Customs, Goa, Government of India—Member.

12. Director, Directorate General of Lighthouse and Lightships, Goa, Government of India—Member.

13. Surveyor Incharge, Mercantile Marine Department, Headland Sada, Mormugao-Goa, Government of

India—Member.

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

Octavio A. Rodrigues, ex officio Joint Secretary/Captain of Ports.

Panaji, 13th June, 2024.

————

Notification

No. MS/F-77/CS/2024-25

Government is pleased to constitute the Coastal Shipping Promotion Cell for the State of Goa to

co-ordinate with the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways on all issues related to the Coastal

Shipping, and will consist of the following members:-

1. Secretary (Ports), Government of Goa

— Chairperson.

2. Captain of Ports, Captain of Ports Department, Government of Goa

-— Nodal Officer/Member.

3. Dy. Conservator, Mormugao Port Authority

— Member.

4. Director, Department of Tourism, Government of Goa

— Member.

5. A Representative from Confederation of Indian Industry, Goa

— Member.

6. A Representative from Konkan Maritime Cluster, Goa

— Member.

7. A Representative from Goa Mineral Owners and Exporters

— Member.

Association, Goa

8. A Representative from Mormugao Ship Agents Association, Goa

— Member.

9. A Representative from Goa Barge Owners Association, Goa

— Member.

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

Octavio A. Rodrigues, ex officio Joint Secretary/Captain of Ports.

Panaji, 20th May, 2024.

——————

Department of Labour

––

Order

No. 28/43/2024-LAB/406

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Himgiri Casting Private Limited, 291, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim-Goa and

its workmen, represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the matter specified in the

Schedule hereto;

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

343

And whereas, the Government of Goa considers

it expedient to refer the said dispute for

adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14

of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the

said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under

Section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Himgiri Casting Private Limited, 291

Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa in

dismissing Shri Kamalakant Naik, Operator

and Mrs. Manda Wadikar, Housekeeping, with

effect from 15-03-2024, is legal and justified?

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

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 4th July, 2024.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2024-LAB/Part-I/447

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 18-06-2024 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/02/2021 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, 17th July, 2024.

––––

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/02/2021

Ms. Harsha Devidas Tuyenkar,

216/II/4, B-Type Colony,

MPT Quarters, Headland Sada,

Mormugao-Goa (403804). .... Workperson/Party-I.

V/s

M/s. Goa Medical College Employees

Co-op. Credit Society,

Goa Medical College Complex,

Bambolim-Goa (403202).

… Employer/Party II

Workperson/Party I represented by Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar.

Panaji, dated: 18-06-2024.

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the

Government of Goa, by Order dated 29-01-2021,

bearing No. 28/23/2020-LAB/42 referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to the Labour

Court-II at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section

7(1) of the said Act.

“(1) Whether the action of the Management of

M/s. Goa Medical College Employees

Co-op. Credit Society Limited, Bambolim,

Goa, in terminating the services of Ms.

Harsha Tuyenkar, Accounts Clerk, with effect

from 09-05-2019 is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workperson is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/02/2021 and

registered A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In

pursuance to the said notice, the Parties put in

their appearance. The Workperson/Party-I (for short

‘Workperson’), filed her Statement of Claim on

24-02-2021 at Exb. 4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the workperson was employed as an

“Accounts Clerk” by the Employer/Party-II (for short

“Employer”) w.e.f. 15-07-2016. She stated that the

Employer is a Co-operative Credit Society registered

under The Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 and

is in the business of banking. She stated that her

services were terminated w.e.f. 09-05-2019 by the

Chairman/Secretary of the Employer. She stated that

the Employer employed about eight workmen at

the time of termination of her services. She stated

that the Employer is covered under the Employees

Provident Funds (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,

1952 and all the Workmen had been contributing to

the said Fund. She stated that the Employer has

contended in the letter of termination dated

08-05-2019 that two complaints were received, one

from the shareholders and other from the Directors

of the Employer Society for not doing the proper

formality for recruitment of staff, that since no

administrative approval for recruitment of staff was

344

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

taken, the Office of the Asst. Registrar told the

Employer to follow proper procedure and since her

appointment was on temporary basis, the BOD has

unanimously decided to relieve her with immediate

effect. She stated that no misconducts were alleged

against her as per the wording of the letter of

termination.

3. She stated that she has not committed any

misconducts while she was in service. She stated

that the contention made in the letter of

termination are baseless and concocted and are

made only to get her rid. She stated that the action

of the Employer in terminating her services is

retrenched and the Employer was required to follow

the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act. She

stated that the provisions contained in Section 25F

of the said Act are required to be complied with if

the Workmen concerned had completed 240 days of

service in a period of 12 months preceding the order

of termination. She stated that she was in

continuous service of more than 240 days in each

year from the date of appointment w.e.f. 5-07-2016.

She stated that the Employer has not followed the

conditions precedent to Section 25F of the said Act

at the time of her termination and as such, the

action of the Employer is illegal and bad in law.

4. She stated that thereafter, vide her letter dated

03-07-2019, she made a demand on the Employer

informing them that their action of her termination

is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the I. D. Act,

1947 and the same is illegal and unjustified. She

stated that she also demanded that she be reinstated

in service with full back wages and continuity in

service with cost and a copy of the said letter was

endorsed to the Labour Commissioner, Government

of Goa, Panaji-Goa with a request to intervene in

the matter. She stated that the Asst. Labour

Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Panaji, Goa

has issued a conciliation which ended in failure.

She submitted that the action of the Employer in

terminating her services is illegal, unjust and in total

contravention of Section 25F and 25G of the said

Act. She stated that from the time of her termination,

she is unemployed and could not get employment

elsewhere even though she tried for the same. the

Workperson therefore prayed that this Court be hold

that their termination of services of the Workperson is

illegal, unjust and in contravention of Section 25 F

and 25G of the said Act and she be reinstated in

service with full back wages, continuity in service

and consequential benefits thereof.

5. The Employer resisted the aforesaid claim

statement of the Workperson by filing its written

statement dated 22-07-2021 at Exb. 6. The Employer,

as and by way of its, preliminary objections,

submitted that the present claim of the Workperson

in the present reference is not an “Industrial

Dispute” as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947,

that the Employer in the present reference is a

Co-operative Credit Society and is not an “Industry”

as defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that the

Workperson cannot be construed as a “Workman”

as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that this

Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the

present matter and the reference is deserves to be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and that there is

non-application of mind by the appropriate Govt.

while referring the present dispute and hence the

same needs to be rejected.

6. The Employer stated that it is an Employees

Co-operative Credit Society registered under the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 then

applicable to the State of Goa and now deemed to

be registered under the Goa Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001 and is presently governed by the

provisions of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

and rules framed thereunder. The Employer stated

that it is a Goa Medical College Employees

Co-operative Credit Society, is a Society formed by

the Employees of the Goa Medical College (GMC).

The Employer stated that it has its employees as

the only members and having object of advancing

loan to its members only and not to the general

public at large and as such, the Employer Society

cannot be termed as “Commercial Establishment”

as per the settled law. The Employer stated that it

is accepting deposits and granting loans only and

hence, even if it is assumed that its receipts exceeds

its expenditure, that by itself would not bring them

within the purview of expression “Industry” as

defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

7. The Employer admitted that the Workperson

was appointed by its then Chairman without

following the due procedure of law as provided in

the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. The

Employer stated that its then Chairman, in clear

defines of law, its bye laws and resolution passed in

the General Body Meetings and without taking the

prior permission/approval or even giving necessary

intimation to the appropriate authority under the

law appointment. The Employer stated that its

Chairman, Mr. Govind Chodankar appointed the

Workperson being his close relative thereby

violated the resolution No. 4 passed by its General

Body in its meeting held on 15-12-2005. The

Employer stated that its General Body resolved in

the said meeting that close relative of the BOD will

not be considered for employment in its Society.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

345

The Employer stated that after a span of time, the

said Chairman Mr. Govind Chodankar was

disqualified by the Registrar of the Co-operative

Society and had also declared that the acts of the

said Chairman which he has done during his tenure

are illegal. The Employer stated that they have also

received a complaint against the Workperson from

the shareholders and the members and therefore,

considering the appointment of the Workperson is

illegal ab initio, no release as prayed by her in the

present reference can be granted in her favour.

8. Without prejudice to the above contention, the

Employer stated that the Workperson was appointed

as “Accounts Clerk” on temporary basis vide

appointment letter dated 14-07-2016. The Employer

stated that the post of the Workperson was of

temporary nature and the Workperson was also

aware of the fact that her job was of temporary

nature and hence she can be relieved from her

duties as per law. The Employer stated that in terms

of the report and observation from the Registrar of

the Co-operative Societies and also the complaint

received from the shareholders and its Directors,

the services of the Workperson was discharged by

the same Chairman/authority who had appointed

her, the said fact is crystal clear from the

documents/records of the case. The Employer

denied the overall case as pleaded by the

Workperson and prayed that dismiss the present

reference for not having proper jurisdiction or to

pass an Order holding the termination of the

Workperson as legal and justified or to pass an Order

holding that the provisions of the I. D. Act, 1947 are

not applicable to the Employer or to pass any other

appropriate Order considering the facts and

circumstances of the present matter.

9. Thereafter, the Workperson filed her Rejoinder

on 17-08-2021 at Exb. 7. The Workperson, as and by

way of her Rejoinder, affirms and confirms all

statements and submissions made by her in her

Statement of Claim and denies all averments made

by the Employer in its Written Statement which are

contradictory to or inconsistent with her case as set

out in her Claim Statement.

10. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties

hereinabove, this Hon’ble Court framed the

following issues on 05-10-2021 at Exb. 10.

1) Whether the Workperson/Party-I proves that

she is a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2(s) of the

I.D. Act, 1974?

2) Whether the Workperson/Party-I proves that the

action of the Employer Society in terminating

her services w.e.f. 09-05-2019 is illegal and

unjustified?

3) Whether the Workperson/Party-II proves that

the present order of reference is not

maintainable in law in view of the reasons

stated in para 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) of

its written statement?

4) Whether the Workperson/Party-I proves that

she is entitled to any relief?

5) What Order? What Award?

11. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issues No. 1

In the negative.

(b) Issue No. 2

In the negative.

In the affirmative.

(d) Issue No. 4

In the affirmative.

(e) Issue No. 5

As per final order.

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

P. J. Kamat appearing for the Workperson as well as

Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar representing the

Employer. Both the parties also filed their synopsis

of written arguments. I have carefully perused the

entire records of the present issue. I have also

carefully considered the submissions advanced

before me.

REASONS

12. Issues No. 1 & 3:

I am deciding the issue No. 1 & 3 simultaneously

as both the said issues No. 1 & 3 are co-related to

each other.

13. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the present claim of the

Workperson in the present reference is not an

“Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.

Act, 1947, that the Employer in the present reference

is a Co-operative Credit Society and is not an

Industry as defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that

the Workperson cannot be construed as a Workman

as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that this

Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the

present matter and the reference is deserves to be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and that there is

non-application of mind by the appropriate

Government while referring the present dispute

and hence the same needs to be rejected. The

burden was therefore cast on the Employer.

14. The term “Industry” has been defined u/s 2 (j)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it reads as under:

The term “Industry” means, “any systematic

activity carried on by co-operation between an

Employer and his Workmen (whether such workmen

346

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

are employed by such Employer directly or by or

through any agency, including a contractor) for the

production, supply or distribution of goods or

services with a view to satisfy human wants or

wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely

spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not,–

Any capital has been invested for the purpose

of carrying on such activity; or

ii. Such activity is carried on with a motive to

make any gain or profit, and includes—

(a) Any activity of the Dock Labour Board

established under Section 5-A of the Dock

Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act,

1948 (9 of 1948);

(b) Any activity relating to the promotion of

sales or business or both carried on by an

establishment, but does not include–

(1) any agricultural operation except where such

agricultural operation is carried on in an

integrated manner with any other activity

(being any such activity as is referred to in the

foregoing provisions of this clause) and such

other activity is the predominant one.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-clause,

“agricultural operation” does not include any

activity carried on in a plantation as defined in

Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Plantations Labour

Act, 1951; or

(2) hospitals or dispensaries; or

(3) educational, scientific, research or training

institutions; or

(4) institutions owned or managed by organization

wholly or substantially engaged in any

charitable, social or philanthropic service; or

(5) khadi or village industries; or

(6) any activity of the Government relatable to the

sovereign functions of the Government including

all the activities carried on by the departments

of the Central Government dealing with defence

research, atomic energy and space;

(7) any domestic service; or

(8) any activity, being a profession practiced by an

individual or body of individuals, if the number

of persons employed by an individual or body of

individuals in relation to such profession is less

than ten; or

(9) any activity, being an activity carried on by

co-operative society or club or any other like body

of individuals, if the number of persons employed

by the co-operative society, club or other like body

of individuals in relation to such activity is less

than ten.]”

15. In the case of M/s. Arihant Siddhi Co-op.

Housing Society Ltd. V/s. Pushpa Vishnu More

reported in (2019) 4 LAB LN 99, the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay, in para 4 of its judgment held as

under:

“4. This Court, in its judgment in the case of

M/s. Shantivan-II Pg. 2 of 4 wp787-07.doc Co-op.

Housing Society vs. Smt. Manjula Goving Mahida1

has considered whether a co-operative housing

society can be termed as an industry within the

meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act

merely because it carries on some commercial activity,

not as its predominant activity, but as an adjunct to

its main activity. This Court has held that such

society is not an industry. In a case like this, that is

to say, where there is a complex of activities, some of

which may qualify the undertaking as an industry

and some would not, what one has to consider is the

predominant nature of services or activities. If the

predominant nature is to render services to its own

members and the other activities are merely an

adjunct, by the true test laid down in the case of

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A.

Rajappa2, the undertaking is not an industry.”

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court in its aforesaid case is also applicable to the

case in hand.

16. In the case of Tantrik Shikshan Sahakari

Sanstha, Nagpur V/s. Assit. Commissioner of

Labour cum Authority, Nagpur & ors. reported in

2017 (2) ABR 318, the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay in para 8 held as under:

“8........................ This Judgment of learned single

Judge was challenged in an appeal before the

Division Bench. The Division Bench in Shantaram

Pandurang Jadhav & others (supra), after referring

to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Management of SOM Vihar Apartment Owners

Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. (supra), affirmed

the view of the learned single Judge and observed

that when employees were engaged by a Co-operative

Society for the purpose of rendering personal service

to the members of the Society, its activities could not

be termed as an industry. This decision of the

Division Bench was therefore considered and applied

by another learned Single Judge in Shamin Ahmed

Siddique (supra). From the aforesaid decisions, it can

be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as

the Division Bench of this Court have held in clear

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

347

terms that in case of a Society that is constituted

only for the purposes of rendering services to its

members, its activities could not be treated to be the

activities of an industry and the employees therein

cannot be treated as workmen. The facts in Kiran

Industrial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. (supra) are

somewhat identical, as in said case also, there was a

prayer for grant of wages as per the provisions of the

Act of 1948. The legal position, therefore, stands

settled that a Co-operative Society formed for

rendering services to its members could not be said

to be conducting an activity having the character of

“industry”.”

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court in its aforesaid case is also applicable to the

case in hand.

17. In the case in hand, the Employer is a Goa

Medical College Employees Co-operative Credit

Society formed by the Employees of the Goa Medical

College (GMC). The said Society has its employees

as the only members and having object of advancing

loan to its members only and not to the general

public at large and as such the Employer Society

cannot be termed as “Commercial Establishment”

as per the settled law. The said Society is accepting

deposits and granting loan to its members only and

as such the Employer Society is not an “Industry”

as defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

18. The term “Workman” has been defined under

Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it reads as

under:

Section 2(s), ‘Workman’ means any person

(including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or

reward, whether the terms of employment be

expressed or implied and for the purposes of any

proceedings under this act in relation to an industrial

dispute, includes any such person who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with or a consequence of that dispute or dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has laid to that dispute,

but does not include any such person:

(1) who is subject to the AIR Force Act, 1950 (45 of

1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the

Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or

(2) who is employed in the police service or as an

Officer or other employee of a prison or

(3) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity

(4) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity

draws wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- per mensem

or exercises either by the nature of the duties

attached to the office or by reason of the powers

vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial

nature.

19. Thus, in order to prove that the Party-I is/was

a “Workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act,

1947, one has to prove that he/she was working in

industry and performing the duties of manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory work and it is not enough that he/she

was not performing the duties of supervisory,

administrative and managerial in nature.

20. In the case in hand, the Party-I was employed

in a Goa Medical College Employees Co-operative

Credit Society. The said Society has been held as

not an “Industry” as defined u/s 2(j) of the I. D. Act,

1947 and as such the Party-I is not a “Workman” as

defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

21. Similarly, the term “Industrial Dispute” has

been defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it

means, “any dispute of difference between employers

and employers, or between employers and workmen,

or between workmen and workmen, which is

connected with the employment or non-employment

or the terms of employment or with the conditions of

labour, of any person.”

22. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that

the Party-I is not a “Workman” within the meaning

of Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the

present dispute raised by the Party-I pertaining to

her non-employment w.e.f. 09-05-2019 is not an “Industrial

Dispute” within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the I. D.

Act, 1947.

23. Thus, it is held that neither the Party-I is a

“Workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947

nor the Party-I is employed in an “Industry” as

defined u/s 2(j) of the I. D. Act, 1947 and as such the

present reference of the Party-I is not an “Industrial

Dispute” as defined u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and

as such, this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to

adjudicate the present reference. The issue No. 1 is

therefore answered in the negative and issue No. 3

is answered in the affirmative.

24. Issue No. 2 & 4: While deciding the issue No. 1

hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the

conclusion that the Party-I is not a “Workman” as

defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Similarly, while

deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that neither

348

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

the Employer is an “Industry” as defined u/s 2(j) of

the I. D. Act, 1947 nor the dispute raised by the

Party-I is an “Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s 2(k)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such this Hon’ble Court

has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present

reference. The Workperson is not entitled to any

relief.

25. In view of above, the action of the Employer

Society in terminating her services w.e.f. 09-05-2019

is illegal and unjustified, does not arise. The issue

No. 2 is therefore answered accordingly. The issue

No. 4 is answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following Order:

ORDER

1. It is held that neither the Party-I is a

“Workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act,

1947 nor the Employer is an “Industry” as

defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as

such the dispute raised by the Party-I is not

an “Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s 2(k) of

the I. D. Act, 1947.

2. It is held that whether the action of the

Management M/s. Goa Medical College

Employees Co-op. Credit Society Limited,

Bambolim, Goa, in terminating services of Ms.

Harsha Tuyenkar, Accounts Clerk, with effect

from 09-05-2019, is legal and justified, does not

arise.

3. It is held that Ms. Harsha Devidas Tuyenkar is

not entitled to any relief.

No order as to cost.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

——————

Department of Public Health

––

Order

No. 4/14/2003-II/PHD/Vol IV(A)/1563

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/

/12/30(1)/2024/86 dated 11-06-2024, the Government

is pleased to declare the following Doctors as having

satisfactorily completed their probation period of

two years and to confirm them in the post of

Lecturer in the Department of Obst. & Gynaecology

in Goa Medical College, Bambolim, with effect from

the date of completion of their probation period:-

Sr.

Name of Officers

Date of

No.

completion of

probation period

Dr. Ankita Anirudha Sinai

02-06-2022

Borkar

Dr. Viraj Ramesh Naik

31-03-2023

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim, 16th July, 2024.

—––––

Order

No. 4/12/2024-II/PHD/1561

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/

/12/30(4)/2024/82 dated 11-06-2024, the Government

is pleased to declare the following Doctor as having

satisfactorily completed his probation period of two

years and to confirm him in the post of Assistant

Professor in the Department of Neuro-surgery in Goa

Medical College, Bambolim, with effect from the

date of completion of his probation period:-

Sr.

Name of Officer

Date of

No.

completion of

probation period

Dr. Abhijit Nanda Parab

17-01-2023

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim, 16th July, 2024.

—–––––—

Order

No. 4/14/2002-II/PHD/Vol.I/1562

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/30(1)/2014/91 dated 13-06-2024, Government

is pleased to promote Dr. Dattaprasad G. Samant,

Lecturer to the post of Assistant Professor in the

Department of General Surgery (Group “A”

Gazetted) in 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.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

349

The promotion is made against the vacancy

occurred due to creation of additional posts vide

Order No. 4/1/2018-II/PHD/1195 dated 14-08-2019

and 05 posts allotted of Assistant Professor in the

Department of General Surgery vide Order No. 4/1/

/2018-II/PHD/Part-1/3383 dated 23-10-2020.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim, 16th July, 2024.

—–––––—

Order

No. 7/14/91-II/PHD/Part/1329

Read: (1) Memorandum No. 7/14/91-II/Part/1930

dated 29-11-2023.

(2) Corrigendum No. 7/14/91-II/Part/1319

dated 11-06-2024.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/I/5/30(39)/2023/368 dated 26-10-2023, the

Government is pleased to appoint the following

candidates to the post of Pharmaceutical Chemist

(Group “B” Gazetted) under the Goa Medical

College, Bambolim on temporary basis in the Level-7 of

Pay Matrix (Pre-revised: Pay Band-3 Rs. 9,300-34,800 + Grade

Pay of Rs. 4,600/-) with immediate effect as per the

terms and conditions contained in Memorandum

cited above:

1. Shri Mitesh Ramnath Gaonkar.

2. Ms. Vinaya Paresh Karpe.

The above candidates shall be on probation for a

period of two years.

Shri Mitesh Ramnath Gaonkar has been declared

medically fit by the Medical Board. The character

and antecedents in respect of Shri Mitesh Ramnath

Gaonkar has been verified from the Office of the

District Magistrate, North Goa, Panaji and there are

no adverse remarks against him.

Smt. Vinaya Paresh Karpe has been medically

examined by the Medical Board and her character

and antecedents have been verified by the District

Magistrate, North Goa District, Panaji-Goa at the

time of her appointment as Assistant Pharmaceutical

Chemist under Institute of Psychiatry and Human

Behaviour vide Order No. 7/23/2018-III/PHD/1445 dated

20-09-2019 and Certificate No. 7/23/2018-III/PHD/1659

dated 11-10-2019.

The appointments are made against the

vacancies occurred due to (i) creation of post of

Pharmaceutical Chemist in Goa Medical College

vide Order No. 4/1/2018-II/PHD/1195 dated

14-08-2019; and (ii) promotion of Smt. Kirti Sanzguiri,

Pharmaceutical Chemist to the post of Senior

Pharmaceutical Chemist vide Order dated

16-02-2023.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 18th June, 2024.

——————

Department of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship

Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship

–––

Notification

No. 3/1691/ATS/2024/StateRC(NAPS-2)/875

Sub.: Constitution of State Level Implementation Review Committee for National Apprenticeship

Promotion Scheme (NAPS-2) Reg…

Government is pleased to constitute State Level Implementation Review Committee for National

Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme (NAPS-2) for State of Goa as per the directives of the Ministry.

The composition of SIRC/UTIRC as proposed by Ministry will be as follows:-

a) Director, Skill Development Department

— Chairperson.

b) Deputy Director-Skill Development Department

— Ex officio Member Secretary.

c) Director, Skill Development Mission

— Member.

d) Regional Director of the concerned Regional Directorate

— Member.

of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (RDSDE)

350

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

e) Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor

— Member.

State Engagement Officer, National Skill Development Corporation

— Member.

g) Representative from Industries Department

— Member.

h) Representative from the Department of MSMEs

— Member.

Representatives from the Departments of School, Technical

— Member.

and Higher Education

One representative each nominated by Apex Industry Association,

— Member.

if applicable (CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM, NASSCOM and PHDCCI)

k) One representative each nominated by leading MSME

— Member.

association/body, leading Industry Associations, Chamber

of Commerce, etc.

The SIRC shall be responsible for:-

a) Overall implementation and monitoring of the Scheme, including compliance with the Scheme

guidelines at the State/UT-level.

b) Reviewing State/UT-wide progress of Scheme including the work plans and budget and taking

corrective action.

c) Conducting periodic review of the progress of the Scheme at State/UT level.

d) Reviewing progress and achievement of Key Performance Indicator (KPIs) to analyze the outcome

of the Scheme at any point of time.

e) Seeking periodic reports from the District Skill Committees (DSC’s).

f) Monitoring and reviewing the progress through DSCs and reporting the progress to Slate Skill

Development & Entrepreneurship Committee (SSDEC) on Apprenticeship engagement and to MSDE.

g) Reviewing the State/UT level awareness and mobilization efforts under the scheme.

h) Co-ordinate/support Scheme impact evaluation/assessment studies at the ground level.

i) Compiling recommendations from State/UT level stakeholders for putting forward to SMRC and/or

taking necessary actions on them as may be deemed fit.

j) Any other matter as matter as may be relevant for the effective implementation of the scheme.

S. S. Gaonkar, Director (SD & E)/State Apprenticeship Advisor.

Panaji, 3rd July, 2024.

——————

Department of Town & Country Planning

–––

Notification

No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification(7)/TCP-2024/1322

Whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department is in receipt of applications under

sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) for correction

of inconsistent/incoherent zoning in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 (RPG-2021) in respect of the plots of

land as specified in detail in columns (2) to (5) of the Table below;

And whereas, the rectifications/corrections as requested in the said applications were scrutinized and

Report of the Town and Country Planning Department alongwith the reports from registered professionals

were submitted to the Government for decision;

And whereas, the Government has considered the Reports and it is of the opinion that alterations/

/modifications as specified in column (6) of the Table below corresponding to respective survey number

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

351

as specified in column (2) of said Table are necessary to be carried out to the RPG-2021 for the purpose

of rectifying inadvertent errors that have occurred, and for correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning

proposals in the RPG-2021 and it has directed the Chief Town Planner (Planning) to carry out alterations/

/modifications as specified in column (6) of the Table below to the RPG-2021;

Now, therefore, as directed by the Government and in pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the

Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975), the alterations/modifications as specified in

column (6) of the Table below corresponding to respective survey number as stated in column (2) of said

Table are hereby carried out to the RPG-2021.

TABLE

Sr.

Survey No. &

Name of

Alteration/

No.

Sub-Division No.

Village

Taluka

District

/modification carried

out to the RPG-2021

66/2 (Part), 66/3

Raia

Salcete

South

Settlement Zone.

244/8-A(Part),

Siolim

Bardez

North

Settlement Zone.

9-A(Part), 10-A(Part)

35/24

Colva

Salcete

South

Settlement Zone.

496/1-C

Latambarcem

Bicholim

North

Settlement Zone.

125/1 (Part)

Colva

Salcete

South

Settlement Zone.

191/10-A (Part)

Assagao

Bardez

North

Settlement Zone.

205/3A-1 (Part)

Dhargalim

Pernem

North

Settlement Zone.

86/18 (Part)

Marra

Bardez

North

Settlement Zone.

Rajesh J. Naik, Chief Town Planner (Planning).

Panaji, 23rd July, 2024.

————

Notification

No. 36/18/39A/Notification (3)/TCP/2024/7

Whereas, Town and Country Planning Department of the Government of Goa is in receipt of applications

under sub-section (1) of Section 39A of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) for

change of zone in the Regional Plan for Goa 2021, in respect of the plots of land as specified in detail in

the table below (hereinafter referred to as “the said Proposals”);

TABLE

Sr. No.

Survey No. & Sub-Division No.

Name of Village

48/10-AV

Cundaim, Ponda.

48/10-AL

Cundaim, Ponda.

48/10-AR

Cundaim, Ponda.

48/10-AK

Cundaim, Ponda.

48/10-AAAAB

Cundaim, Ponda.

400/1 (Part)

Latambarcem, Bicholim.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 71

Usgao, Ponda.

236/1-AC

Usgao, Ponda.

352

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 17

25TH JULY, 2024

236/1-AL

Usgao, Ponda.

10.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 33-B

Usgao, Ponda.

11.

236/1-B

Usgao, Ponda.

12.

236/1-A-G

Usgao, Ponda.

13.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 34-B

Usgao, Ponda.

14.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 66

Usgao, Ponda.

15.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 30

Usgao, Ponda.

16.

236/1 (Part) Plot No.125

Usgao, Ponda.

17.

236/1-T

Usgao, Ponda.

18.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 34-A

Usgao, Ponda.

19.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 72-B

Usgao, Ponda.

20.

236/1 (Part) Plot No. 85

Usgao, Ponda.

21.

236/1-AZ

Usgao, Ponda.

22.

41/1-B

Poinguinim, Canacona.

And whereas, in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Goa Town and Country Planning (Change of zone

of land in the Regional Plan or the Outline Development Plan) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the

“said Rules”), the Town and Country Planning Department, after scrutinizing the said proposals, had placed

such proposals alongwith it’s scrutiny reports before the Goa Town and Country Planning Board for its

recommendation/approval/decision;

And whereas, the Goa Town and Country Planning Board in it’s 202nd meeting held on 24-06-2024 has

approved the said proposals as specified in above table.

Now, therefore, as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, a notice is hereby given to the

public that the Goa Town and Country Planning Board in it’s 202nd meeting held on 24-06-2024 has

approved the said proposals for change of zones in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021, in respect of the plots

of land as specified in above table, which were placed before it under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the said Rules

and suggestions are hereby invited from the public within a period of thirty days from the date of

publication to this Notification in the Official Gazette.

Suggestions, if any, to the said proposals as approved by the Goa Town and Country Planning Board may

be forwarded to the Chief Town Planner (Planning), 2nd Floor, Dempo Tower, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa, before

the expiry of the said period of thirty days, so that the said proposals alongwith suggestions, if any received,

can be placed before the Goa Town and Country Planning Board for it’s recommendation/approval/decision

in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the said Rules.

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

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

Panaji, 23rd July, 2024.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 12.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—130/80—7/2024.