SERIES II No. 44
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026
Panaji, 30th January, 2025 (Magha 10, 1946)
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
——
Order
No. 2/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol.II/2024-25/1520
Government is pleased to order the transfer of the following Group ‘B’ Gazetted Officers of this
Directorate as indicated below against their names:
Sr. No.
Name & designation
Place of present posting
Place of posting on transfer
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Krishnanath B. Naik,
Agriculture Officer (Crops), Crops
Agriculture Officer (Plant
Agriculture Officer
& PP Section, Head Quarter
Protection), Crops & PP
Section, Head Quarter vice
Smt. Pallavi R. Shetye being
transferred.
2.
Smt. Pallavi R. Shetye,
Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection),
Agriculture Officer (Crops),
Agriculture Officer
Crops & PP Section, Head Quarter
Crops & PP Section, Head
Quarter vice Shri Krishnanath
B. Naik being transferred.
3.
Shri Prakash G. Raut,
Agriculture Officer (Extension),
Agriculture Officer, District
Agriculture Officer
(Extension & IT) Section, Head Quarter
Agriculture Office (North),
Goa Head Quarter vice Smt.
Shruti S. Dhupkar being
transferred.
4.
Smt. Shruti S. Dhupkar,
Agriculture Officer, District
Agriculture Officer
Agriculture Officer
Agriculture Office (North), Goa,
(Extension), (Extension & IT)
Head Quarter
Section, Head Quarter, vice
Shri Prakash G. Raut being
transferred.
5.
Shri Sachin G. Gaonkar,
Zonal Agriculture Office,
Zonal Agriculture Office,
Assistant Agriculture
Canacona-Goa
Quepem-Goa
vice
Shri
Officer
Mandesh K. Gaonkar being
transferred.
6.
Shri Mandesh K. Gaonkar,
Zonal Agriculture Office,
Zonal Agriculture Office,
Assistant Agriculture
Quepem-Goa
Canacona-Goa vice Shri
Officer
Sachin G. Gaonkar being
transferred.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
915
916
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
The above Officers at Sr. No. 1 to 4 shall stand
relieved from their respective post w.e.f. 31-01-2025
(a. n). The Officers at Sr. No. 5 & 6 shall stand
relieved from their respective post with immediate
effect to join their new place of posting on transfer.
This is issued with approval of Government vide
entry No. 2418 dated 09-01-2025.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sandeep B. Fol Dessai, Director (Agriculture) &
ex officio Jt. Secretary.
Tonca-Caranzalem, 15th January, 2025.
——————
Goa Human Rights Commission
Before the Goa Human Rights Commission
Panaji-Goa
––––
Proceeding No. 88/2024
Mr. Anand Rangnath Tari,
H. No. 754, Near Ferry Point,
Durbhat, Ponda, Goa 403401 …… Complainant.
v/s
The Captain of Ports,
Panaji-Goa …… Respondent.
INQUIRY REPORT
(26th August, 2024)
The complaint dated 15-04-2024, was received
from the Complainant, in respect of wrong fixation
of his pay scale and for refund of the recovery of
an amount of Rs. 54,906/- from his gratuity at the
time of his retirement on 30-04-2023.
2. On perusing the complaint, the Commission
by Order dated 10-06-2024, called for the reply
from the Respondent.
3. The Respondent filed their reply dated
18-07-2024.
4. The Commission heard the Complainant in
person and heard Shri Abhay Barve, Deputy
Hydrographic Surveyor, on behalf of the
Respondent.
5. The Commission has gone through the
complaint, the reply of the Respondent and has
considered the law on the subject.
6. The first grievance raised by the Complainant
was that when his 2nd MACPS was fixed on
07-03-2016, he had given an option to fix his pay
as per his joining date instead of normal increment
and the office did not inform him of the implication
of the wrong option selected by him. He had joined
as a Sailor, Group ‘C’ in the Captain of Ports
Department on 01-03-1989 on ad-hoc basis and was
regularized from 01-03-1989.
7. In their reply, the Respondent has stated that
the Complainant was granted 2nd MACPS w.e.f.
01-03-2009, by Order dated 28-09-2015, as per the
option exercised by him. Thereafter, he made several
applications for rectification of 02nd MACPS pay
fixation and guidance was sought from the
Directorate of Accounts, who informed that the option
once exercised is final. The Respondent informed the
Complainant about the same by letter dated
20-02-2018.
8. Again, the Complainant had made a fresh
application to the Under Secretary, Finance (R & C)
Department, who by letter dated 18-11-2022, informed
the Complainant that his request cannot be
considered and the matter stands disposed of.
9. However, the Complainant again made a fresh
application dated 18-04-2023, to the office requesting
to allow him to re-exercise option/pay i.e. to fix his
pay after accrual of normal increment in relaxation to
the Rules and the Department of Finance again
rejected the request.
10. Accordingly, in the facts of the present case,
the Commission finds that all the applications
preferred by the Complainant to correct/rectify his
02nd MACPS pay fixation were considered and
rejected by the Government Departments. In this
respect, the Commission finds that there has been no
violation of human rights of the Complainant by the
Respondent.
11. The second grievance of the Complainant is
about the wrongful deduction from his gratuity. From
the reply of the Respondent, it is seen that the
Respondent had retired from Government service on
30-04-2023 as a Sailor, Group ‘C’. They stated that
when the pension case of the Complainant was sent
to the Directorate of Accounts, it was returned with
observations including that the pay fixation of 01st
ACPS was incorrect i.e. the pay had been fixed at
Rs. 4500 instead of Rs. 4400 and the Department was
directed to examine the matter and action towards
overpayment was initiated from the Complainant.
12. The Respondent stated that the Complainant
had requested to adjust the recovery amount of
Rs. 54,906/- from his retirement gratuity and No
Demand Certificate dated 11-07-2023 was issued and
the matter of recovery was settled and the pension
case was re-submitted to the Directorate of Accounts
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
917
for his pension settlement and he had also given his
consent to recover from his pension/relief/
/gratuity any Government dues that have remained
uncovered and any excess payment made.
13. The facts of the present case bring out that
the Complainant had retired on superannuation on
30-04-2023 and after his retirement, on 11-07-2023,
No Demand Certificate was issued.
14. There is the Judgment of the High Court of
Bombay at Goa in the case of Jotiba Ishwar Mali vs
the State of Goa and others, Writ Petition No. 285
of 2024, decided by the Oral Judgment dated
03-04-2024.
15. The above case of Jotiba Ishwar Mali (supra)
was a case where an excess payment of Rs. 4,18,633/-
was recovered from the Petitioner after his
retirement on the ground that this amount was
wrongly paid to him. The High Court held that the
excess
payment
was
not
due
to
any
misrepresentation by the Petitioner and it was
because of an error on the Respondents’ part.
16. The above Judgment was based on the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the cases of the State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih,
A.I.R. 2015 SC 696 and Thomas Daniel vs State of
Kerala and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 536.
17. Both the above referred decisions hold that
where monetary benefits were given to the
employees in excess of their entitlement due to
unintentional mistakes committed by the concerned
competent authorities in determining the
emoluments payable to them and the employees
were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect
information/misrepresentation/fraud, which had led
the concerned competent authorities to commit the
mistake of making the higher payment to the
employees, no recoveries must be ordered or
enforced after the retirement of such employees.
In fact, the direction was not to recover from the
retired employees or the employees who were
due to retire within one year of the order of
recovery.
18. Guided by the above Judgments, the
Commission finds that the Respondent could not
have recovered the excess payment from his
retirement gratuity, as the excess payment was not
due to any mistake of the Complainant. The
undertaking given by him to refund any excess
payment is of no consequence, in view of the law
laid down by the Courts.
19. Guided by the Judgment of the High Court of
Bombay at Goa (supra), in the facts of the present
case, the Commission finds that the Respondent
could not have recovered the said overpayment of
Rs. 54,906/- from the gratuity amount of the
Complainant after his retirement. It is also not the
case of the Respondent that the excess payment
was due to any misrepresentation by the
Complainant.
20. Accordingly, the Commission recommends
that the Respondent shall refund the recovered
amount of Rs. 54,906/- (Rupees fifty four thousand
nine hundred and six only) to the Complainant as
expeditiously as possible and, in any case, not later
than 60 days from today. If this amount is not paid
to the Complainant within 60 days from today, it
will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum
beginning from the date of this order until the date
of payment.
21. Under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993, the Commission shall send a copy
of the Inquiry Report together with its recommendations
to the concerned Government or authority and they
shall, within a period of one month or such further
time as the Commission may allow, forward its
comments on the report, including the action taken
or proposed to be taken, to the Commission.
22. Copy of the Inquiry Report be sent to the
Respondent, calling for their comments, including
the action taken or proposed to be taken within a
period of 60 days or on or before 28-10-2024, in terms
of Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993.
Panaji, 26th August, 2024.
918
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
—––––—
Proceeding No. 32/2022
Daily Proceeding Sheet
24-04-2024
Complainant present.
Sr. No. 15
Shri Edwin Carvalho, Secretary, present
on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Sulaksha Kalekar, Head Clerk, present
on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
Application filed by the Complainant for
payment with interest.
Application filed by Respondent No. 1
that approval was received from BDO of
MACPS-I and MACPS-II of the Complainant.
Arguments heard.
Inquiry Report passed.
The Respondent No. 1 has admitted that
the amount due to the Complainant, who
is a Peon of the Village Panchayat
Betalbatim, of the first and second MACPS
has been prepared after the approval of
the BDO, Margao, by letter dated
15-04-2024.
The Commission recommends that the
amount of Rs. 2,41,221/- (Rupees two lakhs
forty one thousand two hundred twenty
one only) be paid to the Complainant by
the Respondent No. 1, within 60 days from
today along with simple interest at 6%
per annum, from 01-04-2011 till date of
final payment, along with compensation
to the Complainant of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees
five thousand only) for the hardship
caused to him.
Copy of the Inquiry Report be sent to the
Respondent No. 1 calling for their
comments, including the action taken or
proposed to be taken within a period
of 60 days or on or before 25-06-2024, in
terms of Section 18(e) of the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Desmond D’Costa)
(Pramod V. Kamat)
Acting Chairperson/Member,
Member,
Goa Human Rights Commission
Goa Human Rights
Commission
––––
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
919
Department of Labour
––
Notification
No. 28/02/2024-LAB/708
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
24-10-2024 in Case Ref. No. IT/01/2018 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, 20th November, 2024.
––––
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Presiding Officer)
Ref. No. IT/01/2018
Workmen Rep. by
The General Secretary,
All India Trade Union Congress,
Velho’s Bldg., 2nd Floor,
Opp. Municipal Garden,
Panaji-Goa .....Workmen/Party-I.
V/s
M/s Goa Glass Fibre Limited,
Colvale, Bardez-Goa .… Employer/Party II.
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri Tarzan
De Costa.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 24th day of the month of
October of the year 2024)
By Order dated 16-01-2018, bearing No. 28/35/
/2017-LAB/49, the Government of Goa in exercise of
its powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the existing dispute between the
Management of M/s. Goa Glass Fibre Ltd., Colvale,
Bardez-Goa and All India Trade Union Congress,
Panaji, Goa, referred the matter for adjudication to
the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa,
constituted under Section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Goa Glass Fibre Limited, Colvale, Bardez, Goa,
in withdrawing, with effect from January, 2016,
the benefits granted to six workmen, namely
S/Shri Mandar Parsekar, Rameshwar Shirodkar,
Vidyadhar Talashikar, Nanda Desai, Rohan
Narse and Naresh Gawde as per the terms of
Memorandum of Settlement dated 14-08-2015
signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) is legal and
justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/01/2018 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, the
Party I filed its Statement of Claim at Exhibit 7.
3. In the Statement of Claim the case of all the six
Workmen namely S/Shri Mandar Parsekar,
Rameshwar Shirodkar, Vidyadar Talashikar, Nanda
Dessai, Rohan Narse and Naresh Gawde is that they
had been appointed on 31-10-2014 in W-4 Grade by
the Party II and their services were confirmed by
Party II w.e.f 30-04-2015. Accordingly, the said six
workers became permanent team members
(workmen) of the company as on 30-04-2015.
i)
Shri Mandar Parsekar.
ii)
Shri Rameshwar Shirodkar.
iii) Shri Vidyadhar Talashikar.
iv) Shri Nanda Desai.
v)
Shri Rohan Narse.
vi) Shri Naresh Gaude.
4. The Party I stated that the Party I and the Goa
Glass Fibre Employees Union (GGFEU) entered into
the Memorandum of Settlement dated 14-08-2015. It
is stated that the benefits under the said settlement
would be applicable to “All the permanent Team
Members (Workmen) of the Company in Grade
W-0 to W-4, employed in the Plant of the Company
at Colvale, Goa” and that vide the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 14-08-2015 new pay scale will be
applicable to the said workers w.e.f. 01-05-2015 and
accordingly paid to the said six workers from
01-05-2015 to January, 2016.
5. The Party I further stated that the Party II
thereafter stopped the payments and other benefits
granted to the said workmen on the ground that as
per the terms of Memorandum of Settlement, the said
six workmen were not eligible for the new pay-scale
and other benefits. Accordingly, a dispute was raised
before the Labour Commissioner which ended in
920
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
failure due to the adamant and rigid attitude of
Party II/Company and thereafter the matter was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
6. The Party I states that they are eligible for the
benefits under the said Memorandum of Settlement
and also by virtue of a letter from the Plant Director
of the Party II informing them that vide the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 14-08-2015 the new
pay-scale will be applicable to the said workmen from
01-05-2015.
7. The Party II in their Written Statement filed at
Exhibit 8, objected the reference on merits as well as
by raising preliminary objections by submitting that
the present claim filed by the Party I cannot be
construed as an “industrial dispute” as defined
under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and as such the matter cannot be entertained by the
Industrial Tribunal and the present Union who has
filed the Claim Statement has no locus standi to file
the same or to represent these six workmen in the
present reference.
8. On merits, it is the case of Party II that all the 6
workmen have been issued appointment letters on
31-10-2014 and that all the said 6 workmen had joined
the services of the Party II/Company on 01-11-2014
and during the initial period they were probationers
and not confirmed employees of the Party II. That the
services of the said six workmen were confirmed on
30-04-2015 and that they were made as permanent
team members of the Party II/Company as on
30-04-2015. The Party II states that the settlement is
signed on 14-08-2015 and as per the Clause 1.3, the
settlement was applicable to all the Permanent Team
Members (workmen) who are under the Muster Rolls
of the Company as on 31-03-2015. The Party II states
that since the Party I/Workmen were confirmed in
services as on 30-04-2015 as per the above mentioned
clause, the said settlement dated 14-08-2015 and its
benefits shall not be applicable to them in view of
Clause 1.3 of the Settlement dated 14-08-2015.
9. The Party II submits that this settlement dated
14-08-2015 is not applicable to the Party II workers
who were on probation as on 29-04-2015 and who
were confirmed only on 30-04-2015. The Party II
therefore states that the six workmen in the reference
were not confirmed in the services of the company
as on 31st March, 2015, and therefore were/are not
eligible for the benefits of the said settlement.
10. The Party II further stated through their
amended pleading, that the communication dated
16-02-2022 & 02-01-2023 clearly suggest that the Goa
Trade Union’s Confederation or any other Union is
not having locus standi to represent, raise dispute
as well as have any right to refer the present dispute
before this Tribunal or any other Competent Forum.
11. Considering the Claim Statement of Party I and
the Written Statement filed by the Party II, following
issues were framed by this Tribunal on 11-02-2020.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Party I proves that the action of
the Party II in withdrawing the benefits
granted to six workmen mentioned in the
Schedule w.e.f. January, 2016 as per the terms
of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
14-08-2015 signed under Section 12(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal and
unjustified?
2. Whether the Party I Union proves that it has
locus standi to raise the present dispute?
3. Whether the Party II proves that reference is
not maintainable as claim of Party I is not an
“Industrial Dispute” as defined under Section
2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
4. What Relief? What Award?
12. I have gone through the records i.e. the
pleadings, the oral as well as documentary evidence
adduced by both the Parties and considering the
same my findings on the issues with reasons are as
follows:
Issue No. 1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No. 2 : In the affirmative.
Issue No. 3 : In the negative.
Issue No. 4 : As per final order.
REASONS
13. Issue No. 1: It is the case of the Party I that as on
14-08-2015 when the said Settlement was executed,
the six workmen under present reference were the
permanent Team Members (Workmen) of the
Company in Grade W-4 and under the Muster Rolls
of the Company. The said six workmen continued to
be in the service of the company after the signing of
the said Settlement dated 14-08-2015. Therefore, the
six workmen under reference are eligible for the
benefits under the said settlement.
14. It is the contention of the Party I/Workmen that
the Employer/Party II vide their letter dated
24-08-2015 informed the six workmen under the
reference that their basic salary, FDA, house rent
allowance, would be enhanced from May, 2015 as
per the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement
dated 14-08-2015. Pursuance to that, the six Workmen
under reference were paid new pay-scale to their
basic salary, FDA, house rent allowance, from May,
2015 to December, 2015. It is further contented that
the Party II did not give any notice/communication
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
921
to the six Workmen under reference that the new
pay-scales given to them under the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 14-08-2015 would be discontinued
after December, 2015.
15. Attention of this Tribunal has been drawn to
the terms of settlement signed between the
Management and the employees which terms of
settlement have been also signed by all the six
employees under the reference.
16. Under Clause 1.2 of the Terms of the Settlement
the benefits under the settlement are applicable to
all the Permanent Team Members “(Workmen) of the
Company in Grade W-0 to W-4 employed in the Plant
of the Company at Colvale-Goa. The Memorandum of
Settlement was signed on 14-08-2015 and on the said
date of Settlement all the six workers under the
reference were on the Muster Rolls of the Company/
/Plant/Party II as Permanent Team Members.
Therefore, the six workers under the reference were
eligible to the new pay-scales/benefits under the
said Settlement dated 14-08-2015 contented Ld.
Advocate Shri D’Costa on behalf of the workmen. For
better understanding, further relevant terms of
settlement are reproduced and the same reads as
under:
Terms 1.3:- “all the Permanent Team Members
(Workmen) who are under the Muster Rolls of the
Company as on 31-03-2015 and who continue to be
in the service of the Company as on the date of this
Settlement”.
18. It is to be noted that under Term 1.2 the
workmen have to be Permanent Team Members
(workmen) in the service of the Company as on the
date of the Settlement. The six workmen under
reference were Permanent Team Members (workmen)
as on the date of Settlement i.e 14-08-2015.
19.
Ld. Advocate Shri Tarzan De Costa
contended that the term “Permanent Team
Members” mentioned in Term–1.2 and 1.3 has not
been defined in the Memorandum of Settlement but
the term “Permanent Workmen” is defined in the
Schedule (Section 2-A) of the Industrial Employment
Act (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946.
Under Schedule-I Rule 2(b) “Permanent Workman”
is a workman who has been engaged on a permanent
basis and includes any person who has satisfactorily
completed a probationary period of three months in
the same or other occupation in the Industrial
Establishment.
20. Thus, it is the contention of Ld. Adv. Shri Tarzan
De Costa that the six workmen under the reference
were appointed on probationary basis on 31-10-2014
and they completed the probationary period of three
months in the same industrial establishment as on
January, 2015. Therefore, as on 31-03-2015, the six
workmen under the reference were permanent
workmen. The Memorandum of Settlement came into
effect from 01-04-2015. Hence, the contention of the
Party II/Employer that the six workmen under the
reference cannot be considered as permanent
workmen/Permanent Team Member (Workmen) as on
31-03-2015 cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted
that the Party II informed the six workmen under the
reference by letter dated 24-08-2015 that they are
eligible for new pay-scales and other benefits under
the Memorandum of Settlement dated 14-08-2015.
The said letter dated 24-08-2015 was not withdrawn
by the Management/Party II till date nor the workmen
were put to notice about the intention of the
Management to withdraw the said benefit already
availed by these workmen in pursuance to the said
letter dated 24-08-2015. The workmen under the
reference since have availed the benefit and the
Management having acted in pursuance to the letter
dated 24-08-2015 and having granted the benefits,
therefore, there does not exist any prudent ground
or any legal basis for the Management to withdraw
the new pay-scales already made applicable to these
workmen.
21. That the six workmen under the reference have
already availed the benefits of the Settlement by way
of new pay-scale and other benefits, the
Management also has deducted at source one time
amount of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only).
Therefore, the Employer/Party II estopped from doing
any act detriment to the interest of these workmen
since they have been already made the beneficiaries
of the Settlement dated 14-08-2015. In support of the
above contention, the Party I/Workmen have
examined the workman Vidyadar Talashikar as their
witness, who stated that Clause 1.3 gets applicable
to him as it mentions that the permanent workmen
who are under the Muster Rolls of the Company on
31-03-2015 and also who continued to be in the
service of the Company as on the date of Settlement
and that Exhibit 15 gets applicable to him”.
22. As against this, it is the defence of the Party II
that by inadvertence they paid the new pay scales
under the said Memorandum of Settlement dated
14-08-2015 to the six workmen under the reference
from 01-05-2015 till December, 2015. The further
defense of the Party II is that the Party I/Workmen
were not permanent workers as on 31-03-2015 and
so, they were not eligible for the new pay-scales as
stipulated in the Memorandum of Settlement dated
14-08-2015. So, according to the Party II, the six
workers under the reference were not eligible to the
new pay-scales/benefits under the said Settlement
922
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
dated 14-08-2015, as under Term 1.3 they were not
Permanent Team Members (Workmen) as on
31-03-2015.
23. In support of the above defence, the Party II
sought to place reliance on the deposition of the Party I
witness, Mr. Vidyadar Talashikar, wherein, in the
cross-examination he stated that Clause 1.3 gets
applicable to the workmen who are under the Muster
Roll of the company as on 31-03-2015. Therefore,
according to Adv. P. Chawdikar in terms of Clause
1.3, all the six workmen under the reference since
were not on the Muster Roll of the company, therefore,
are not entitled for the benefit in terms of the
Memorandum of Settlement at Exh. 15. The above
contention is not appreciated as the same witness
further in the cross-examination has stated that this
benefit also extends to the workman who continues
to be in the service of the company as on the date of
the settlement in view of Exh. 15 i.e. the Memorandum
of Settlement. Whether the benefits of Memorandum
of Settlement is applicable to these workmen or not,
shall not depend on the oral evidence brought on
record when there is a written instrument to that
effect. It is a matter of record that both the Parties to
the present reference have relied upon the
Memorandum of Settlement in support of their
respective case. Therefore, how much of oral
evidence led, if the same is contrary to the contents
of the document, that much of oral evidence cannot
be relied upon and one has to consider the written
contents of the instrument over the oral evidence.
That so much so of such oral submission shall not
brush aside the written contents of the document. In
order to find out whether the terms of the
Memorandum of Settlement were in fact applicable
to these six workmen or not, for that we need to revisit
to the applicability clause of the Memorandum of
Settlement at Exh. 15.
Applicability:
1.1 the benefits under the Settlement are
applicable to:
1.2 All the permanent Team Members (Workmen)
of the Company in Grade W-0 to W-4, employed in
the Plant of the Company at Colvale, Goa.
1.3 All the permanent Team Members (Workmen),
who are under the muster rolls of the Company as on
31st March, 2015 and who continue to be in the
service of the Company as on the date of this
settlement.
24. Thus, the sub-clause 1.2 of the applicability
clause speaks about the benefits being extended to
all the permanent team members i.e. the Workmen in
Grade W-0 and W-4 employed in the Plant. Clause 1.3
is a distinct clause, which categorize the workmen
as all the permanent team members who are under
the Muster Roll as on 31-03-2015 and who continue
to be in the service of the Company as on the date of
the settlement. From the plain reading of the
applicability clause, it appears that sub-clause 1.2
and sub-clause 1.3 are two different categories of the
workmen as both these clauses starts with all the
permanent team members (Workmen) and further
specifies the categories. There is no dispute over the
fact that the aggrieved workmen under the present
reference comes within the purview of Clause 1.2
and partially falls under Clause 1.3 as they continued
to be in the services of the Company as on the date of
the settlement.
25. Be it as it may, the Company by its own acts
and action has made the benefits of the enhanced
payment applicable to all these workmen under the
reference and the workmen have been paid the salary
in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
14-08-2015. Not only that, an amount of Rs. 3000/- has
also been deducted at source as one time wage
arrears payable to each workmen to whom this
benefit of wage revision was extended and these six
workmen have availed the said benefit by way of new
enhanced pay-scale and other benefits which fact is
also not disputed by the Management. Therefore,
there is no reason as to why a principle of estoppel
should not be made applicable to the Management.
The Company having acted upon the their letter
dated 24-08-2015 to make the terms and conditions
of the Memorandum of Settlement applicable to the
workmen and further extended the benefits to these
workmen. It is also a matter of record that the Party II/
/Company without any notice stopped the payment
of new pay-scales and other benefits to these
workmen sans any legal justification. The stand taken
by the Party II/Company that the new pay-scale and
the other benefits were made applicable to these
workmen and they having received the benefits was
by way of inadvertence is unacceptable, same being
detrimental to their rights to receive the revision in
wages. These workmen since are entitled for the
enhanced wages in terms of the Memorandum dated
14-08-2015. Therefore, the action of the Management
in withdrawing the benefits granted to the workmen
under the present reference w. e. f. January, 2016 is
illegal and unjustified and hence the issue No. 1 is
answered as affirmative.
25. Issue No. 2: According to the Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar appearing for Party II, this issue as
regards to the locus standi of Party I/Union goes to
the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is the contention
of Shri Chawdikar that the present dispute was
initially raised before the Assistant Labour
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
923
Commissioner by the All India Trade Union Congress
(AITUC). The records reveal that the dispute was
initially signed by Mr. Christopher Fonseca, the
General Secretary of the said Union. That in the month
of December, 2017 all the workmen of the Party II
Company had resigned from the said AITUC Union
in mass and the copy of the same was forwarded to
the said Union, Labour Commissioner as well as the
Management. That after resigning from the said
Union, the workmen joined the other Union i.e. Goa
Trade Union’s Confederation, where Mr. Ajeetsingh
Rane was the President. That since the Party I had
left the AITUC Union, the said Union stopped
representing the workmen but the dispute which
was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
remained as it is and hence, the present reference. It
was contended that since the present reference
currently is in the name of the AITUC Union, therefore
the present Union i.e. Goa Glass Fibre Employees
Union does not have locus standi to continue with
the dispute. It is further stated that the Claim
Statement which is before this Tribunal in the present
case is only signed by the Advocate and the same is
not signed by any of the 6 workmen nor the same has
been verified by any one of them. Ld. Advocate Shri
Chawdikar further submitted that except
Mr. Vidhyadar Talashikar, none of the other workers
deposed in the present matter which clearly shows
that they are not interested in pursuing the present
matter and as such no cognizance be taken and no
relief be given to them.
26. In support of the above contention, he placed
reliance in the case of Deepak Industries Ltd. and
Anr. V/s State of West Bengal and Ors.” It is an
admitted position that the 174 dismissed workmen
of the appellant were not members of the union
which espoused their cause before the Tribunal and
it is also an admitted position that there is no
resolution either of the general body of the workmen
of the appellant or of the executive body of the union
and it is also an admitted position that the said 174
dismissed workmen neither individually nor as a
body authorized the union to espouse their cause
before the said Tribunal. In these circumstances, the
appellant contended that there existed no Industrial
dispute within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant further
contended that there existed no union of the
workmen in the name of New Allenberry Workers’
Union. At the material time and none of the said 174
workers were the members of the said union and as
such it had no representative capacity so far as the
said employees of the appellants were concerned.
The appellant also alleged, that the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction as there was no industrial dispute and
the order of reference by the Government of West
Bengal, Labour Department, dated the 20th of
November, 1968 was incompetent.
The main question raised before the Tribunal was
that the reference was not maintainable and the
union had no authority or locus standi to sponsor or
espouse the case of the said 174 workmen of the
appellant; The learned trial Judge held that there
was evidence that the union had espoused the cause
of the said 174 discharged workmen though they
were not members of the said union and as such the
rule was discharged. But the learned Judge
expunged a portion of the judgment and order of the
Tribunal which contained disparaging remarks
against one Sri K.L. Purohit, the personnel officer of
the appellant.
Now applying the said principles to the facts of
this case it appear that from the very beginning the
appellant, that is, the management contended that
the union had no authority to represent the 174
dismissed workmen of the appellant. That was the
stand of the appellant at the conciliation proceeding
and also before the Tribunal to which the alleged
industrial dispute was referred under Section 10(1)
of the Industrial Disputes Act by the State
Government. Therefore, in such circumstances it
became incumbent on the respondent-union to
produce material and documentary evidence to show
it has the requisite authority to represent the
dismissed 174 workmen of the appellant. It is an
admitted position that the said 174 workmen were
not members of the respondent-union at the date of
the reference. It is also not disputed that none of the
said 174 employees had raised any dispute with the
appellant or supported the respondent-union in the
said reference by any documentary or other material
supports. Merely because the union was registered
under the Indian Trade Union and sometime prior to
the reference it was a party to an agreement with
the appellant representing the workmen are not
conclusive to give the alleged dispute “the character
of industrial dispute” within the meaning of Section
2K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same also
should be said about the correspondence by the
union on behalf of the dismissed workmen with the
appellant and their employees would not confer the
authority on the respondent-union to represent the
dismissed 174 employees. There must be some
material on which it can be held reasonably that the
union is duly authorized to espouse the cause of the
said 174 dismissed employees of the appellant in the
said reference. In the absence of any such material
evidence either a resolution of the members or
authorization by an individual workmen out of the
said 174 workmen or substantial number of them it
924
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
cannot be said that the respondent-union had the
capacity of authority to represent the said 174
dismissed employees of the appellant at any stage. It
is to be noted that all through the appellants were
disputing the locus standi of the union to represent
the said 174 dismissed employees and in spite of such
question being raised by the appellant the
respondent union has failed to produce any evidence
to establish or prove its authority in the reference to
represent the dismissed employees. In the absence
of authorization by individual workman or a number
of workmen out of the said 174 dismissed workmen
of the appellant or in the absence of any resolution of
the members of the respondent-union to espouse the
cause of the 174 dismissed workmen of the appellant
in the reference it cannot be said on the facts and in
the circumstances of this case that the union had
locus standi to represent the said 174 dismissed
employees of the appellant. Before the principle of
community of interest is laid down it must be proved
by material evidence that the dismissed 174
workmen of the appellant are raising a dispute with
the appellant. In the absence of such proof, the
question of community of interest cannot arise for
obvious reason that in order to be a community of
interest there must be interest existing between all
of the workmen. If the said 174 have ceased to have
any interest in the employment of the appellant after
their dismissals there cannot exist any community
of interest between the said 174 dismissed employees
and the existing employees of the appellant any
longer. In the facts of this case it must be held that
there was no industrial dispute within the meaning
of Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
the union who espoused the cause of the said 174
dismissed employees of the appellant had no valid
or legal authority to represent the dismissed
employees.”
27. Dismissing the above contention of Ld. Adv. P.
Chawdikar, Adv. Shri Tarzan De Costa submitted that
the objection as regards to the locus standi raised by
the Party II is technical in nature. That, this being a
beneficial legislation to the workmen at large, the
Tribunal is not required to follow strict rules and
regulations. As regard to the objection of the
Statement of Claim being not signed by the Union or
the workmen, it is stated that the same has been
signed by the Advocate on record. Attention of this
Tribunal has been drawn to Rule 36 and 37 of the I. D.
Act which deals with the representation of the
Parties. Rule 36 enforces the authority in favour of
the person or persons to represent a workman or a
group of workmen or an employer in any proceeding
under the Act. Rule 37 provides any Party who has
been represented by a representative, shall be bound
by the act of that representative. Further in terms of
Rule 10 (a), the Statement of Claim can be submitted
by the Employer or the Party representing the
workmen or in the case of individual workman, the
workman himself can submit the Statement. It is
further submitted that the workmen under the
present reference were the members of Goa Glass
Fibre Employees Union and who were being
represented by All India Trade Union Congress
(AITUC) that the Memorandum of Settlement has
been signed by Mr. Christopher Fonseca, the General
Secretary of All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC)
who represented the workmen and it is this Union
who had also raised the present dispute before the
Asst. Labour Commissioner. In support of the above
contention, he placed on record the application
dated 19-09-2024 and also produced on record the
minutes of the meeting dated 05-10-2017 in respect
of the said dispute raised by the committee member
of All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) before the
Asst. Labour Commissioner.
28. The main objection raised by the Party II is that
the order of reference is in the name of M/s Goa Glass
Fibre Ltd. and the workmen represented by All India
Trade Union Congress (AITUC) whereas in the Claim
Statement, the cause title reads as Goa Glass Fibre
Employees Union V/s. M/s. Goa Glass Fibre Ltd., and
that the Claim Statement has not been signed by the
Union as named in the cause title nor the same has
been signed by the All India Trade Union Congress
(AITUC), neither the same has been signed by any of
the workmen under the reference. Attention of this
Tribunal is also drawn to the order dated 31-01-2022
at Exh. 18 on the Application filed by one among the
six workmen under the reference. Shri Nanda Dessai,
one of the workmen filed application seeking
withdrawal of the Claim which Application was
dismissed for the reason more particularly mentioned
in the said order. What has been tried to impress upon
by Ld. Adv. P. Chawdikar is that the Party I has no
locus standi to raise the dispute as they are not the
members of the Union who has espoused the dispute
before the Labour Commissioner. A strong reliance
has been placed in the case of Deepak Industries Ltd.
(Supra).
29. Distinguishing the ratio laid down in the
judgment of Deepak Industries (Supra), Ld. Adv.
Tarzan De Costa submitted that the said judgment is
not applicable to the facts of the case in hand as the
workmen herein are not at all represented by any of
the Union before this Tribunal. Therefore, the
question of whether the said Union had/had not any
authority to sponsor or to espouse the cause of the
six workmen is irrelevant. In the said Judgment, the
Court has given findings pertaining to legality and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
925
illegality of the Union and whether the Union was
authorized to espouse the cause or otherwise,
whereas, in the present case the Union had
represented the present workmen up-till the stage
of conciliation proceedings before the Labour
Commissioner. However, the Union did not represent
the Party I/Workmen before the Tribunal in the
present reference. In support of the above
contention, he placed reliance in the case of Ram
Lal Guramal Textile Mills V/s State of Punjab and
Ors, Punjab and Haryana High Court (1958) II LLJ
245-Justice Bishan Narain.
30. Considering the submission made by Ld. Adv.
Shri De Costa that the workmen under reference are
being represented by the Advocate on record, this
Tribunal thought it appropriate to verify the records,
during the course of argument, however it was seen
that there was no Wakalatnama signed by all the six
workmen authorizing the Advocate on record to
represent them in the present reference. The
Wakalatnama which is on record is signed by Adv.
Ajeetsingh Rane being authorised representative of
the workmen as well as by the present Advocate on
record. That in order to rectify the error and in order
to make the records straight, the Ld. Adv. Tarzan De
Costa who has been representing the Party I/
/Workmen placed on record fresh Wakalatnama duly
signed by the Party I/Workmen except the workman,
Shri Nanda Dessai who had earlier filed an
Application seeking withdrawal of the claim. Having
done so, the Ld. Adv. Tarzan De Costa thus duly
represents all the 5 Party I/Workmen except Shri
Nanda Dessai thereby puts a full stop to the objection
as regards the locus standi of the Union i.e. the Party I
in representing the Party I/Workmen in the present
case. By signing the Wakalatnama in favour of Adv.
Shri Tarzan De Costa, the error on the face of record
has been now rectified, same being a technical issue,
thus, giving a clear authority to the Advocate on
record to represent them in the present reference.
At the risk of repetition, this Tribunal would like to
emphasize the fact that this being the legislation for
the benefit of the workmen, the reference cannot be
rejected merely because the workmen now has
resigned from the Union and are not affiliated to any
Union but wish to prosecute their Claim before this
Tribunal by engaging a legal representative. Hence,
the Issue No. II stands answered in affirmative.
31. Issue No. 3: Section 2 (K) of the I. D. Act “defines
Industrial Dispute” means any dispute or 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;”
32. It is a matter of record that the six workmen
were appointed on probation on 31-10-2014 in W-4
Grade in the Plant of the Party II. By letter dated
27-04-2015 the six workmen were confirmed in their
services that on 24-08-2015 (i.e after the said
Memorandum of Settlement dated 14-08-2015 was
executed) the six workmen were informed by the
Employer/Party II of the new pay-scales and other
benefits applicable to them with effect from
01-05-2015. The said Memorandum of Settlement
came into effect on 01-04-2015. Accordingly, the
Employer/Party II paid the six workmen under the
reference the new pay scales and other benefits
(Basic, FDA, House Rent Allowance) from May, 2015.
That, without prior notice, information and
communication, the Employer/Party II suddenly
stopped paying the six workmen under reference the
new pay-scales and other benefits (Basic, FDA, House
Rent Allowance) from Jan., 2016.
33. Therefore, the six workmen raised the dispute
of non-payment of their salary from Jan., 2016 before
the Labour Commissioner. The said dispute ended in
failure and the matter was referred to this Hon’ble
Tribunal for adjudication by virtue of Order dated
16-01-2018 bearing No. 28/35/2017-LAB/49. From the
chronology of the event stated hereinabove and the
schedule of the reference order, clearly spells out
existence of the industrial dispute and same being
referred for adjudication before this Tribunal,
therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be
construed that there is no ‘industrial dispute’
existing between the Party I/Workmen and the Party
II/Employer. The contention of the Party II that the
claim raised by the All India Trade Union Congress
cannot be pursued by the present Union in the name
of the AITUC and that the Claim Statement since not
signed and verified by the AITUC as raised by the
present Union, therefore the present reference is not
maintainable being not an ‘industrial dispute’ is a
misplaced statement and not in consonance with the
definition of Section 2(k) as canvassed by the Party II,
hence this issue stands answered in the negative.
34. Of the six workmen under the reference, one of
the workman namely Shri Nanda Dessai did not sign
the Wakalatnama authorizing Adv. Tarzan De Costa
to represent him in the present reference. It has been
brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the same
workman had filed an Application seeking
withdrawal of his Claim. The said Application of the
workman was dismissed by an order dated
31-01-2022 for the reasons mentioned in the said
order. The act of the said workman, Shri Nanda Dessai
is not productive for the welfare of the other workmen
926
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
who have been pursuing the present reference
diligently, as such said Shri Nanda Dessai cannot be
allowed to avail and enjoy the fruits/benefits of the
order passed by the Tribunal in this reference.
Hence the following Order:
ORDER
(1)
The Party I (Workmen) except Shri Nanda
Dessai are eligible for the benefit under the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 14-08-2015
consequently, the Party II is directed to pay
the benefits/new pay-scale to the remaining
five workmen named in the reference w. e. f.
January, 2016.
(2)
No order as to costs.
(3)
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
-Labour Court.
————
Notification
No. 28/02/2024-LAB/Part-I/760
The following Award passed by the Labour Court-II, at
Panaji-Goa on 04-11-2024 in Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/
/26/09 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, 18th December, 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/26/09
Shri Nilkant Saperkar & 4 Others,
Rep. by Vicco Laboratories Workers
Union, Shetye Sankul, 3rd Floor,
Tisk, Ponda-Goa .....Workman/Party-I.
V/s
M/s Vicco Laboratories Ltd.,
24/1D-2, Mologa-De-Orora,
Corlim, Tiswadi-Goa .… Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri N. Kamat
alongwith Ld. Adv. Shri V. Pangam.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G. K.
Sardessai.
Panaji, Dated: 04-11-2024.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 21-08-2009,
bearing No. 28/11/2009-LAB-I referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in turn assigned the
present dispute to this Labour Court-II, vide his
order dated 20-09-2010.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Vicco Laboratories Limited, Corlim, in
severing the employer-employee relation-
ship between the five Workmen, namely (1)
Shri Nilkant Saperkar, (2) Shri Ramnath
Gaude (3) Shri Rohidas Gaude (4) Shri
Namdev Sawant and (5) Shri Surendra
Mulgaonkar and the Employer M/s. Vicco
Laboratories Limited, Corlim, amounts to
termination of services of the Workmen with
effect from 11-09-2008, and whether such
termination is legal and justified?
(2)
Whether the demand of the Workmen for
employment with back wages and continuity
in service is legal and justified?
(3)
Depending on answers to (1) and (2) above,
what relief, the Workmen are entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/26/09 and registered A/D
notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the
said notice, the Parties put in their appearance. The
Workmen/Party-I (for short ‘Workmen’), were
represented by M/s. Vicco Laboratories Workers
Union, Tisk, Ponda, Goa, hereinafter referred to as
(“the said Union”). The Union stated that they have
filed the claim statement on 15-10-2009 at Exb. 5 on
behalf of the five workers.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded on 11-09-2008
are:-
The Managing Director and other officers of the
Employer called the above Workmen and one more
worker namely Mr. Naresh Parsekar one by one and
forced them to sign on the letter of resignation on
the false ground of theft. The Union stated that the
Workmen were pressurized and were forced to sign
the said letter of resignation. The management
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
927
threatened to file a criminal complaint against them
and destroy their future by publishing their photos
in the Local Daily Newspaper, if the letter of
resignation was not signed by them. The Union
stated that though the Workmen were called
singularly, one by one, the threats were common
against them to force them to sign the said letter of
resignation. The Union stated that the Workmen
throughout their career had no misconduct against
them. The Union stated that the Workmen was/were
forced to resign despite having worked continuously
worked for 12 years. The Workmen had no reasons to
resign from their employment in this manner. The
Union stated that the Workmen have given their
precious years to achieve the goals of the Employer
Company. The Union stated that the officer had kept
so called letter of acceptance ready. It was sent by
post. The Union stated that the force applied and
threats given by the Managing Director is against
the principles of Employment. In case of resignation
one month’s notice is to be given. The Union stated
that the Workmen had worked sincerely and achieved
for the Employer Company its brands and goodwill
in the market. The stature of the Company in the
market was due to the joint efforts of the Management
of the workers. It was stated that the Employer acted
with malafides, pressurized and threatened the
Workmen to sign the said letter of resignation. The
management falsely alleged that the Workmen are
involved in theft of the Company’s products. The
Union stated that the Employer neither issued any
charge-sheet, nor held enquiry. The Union stated that
the workers never had the intention to resign or leave
employment since they are the only earning hand in
their family, having dependent on them their old aged
parents and wife and children. The Union stated that
the Workmen only signed the said letter of
resignation under fear created by the Employer in
the presence of the official related to the company.
The Union stated that the Workmen namely Shri
Nilkant Saperkar, Shri Ramnath Gaude, Shri Rohidas
Gaude, Shri Namdev Sawant and Shri Surendra
Mulgaonkar were appointed by the Employer 12 years
ago however, no grades were given at the time of
their appointment initially. The Union stated
thatafter about 2 years the Workmen were
designated as a semi-skilled workers. The union
stated that the Workmen had worked continuously
for more than 12 years with unblemished records till
their illegal termination. The Union stated that the
said Workmen Shri Nilkant Saperkar is not married.
He is the only earning son in his family and has to
maintain his old aged parents. The Union stated that
due to the action of the management in terminating
his service by forcefully obtaining his signature on
the said letter of resignation caused by the false
allegations the Workman have faced hardship to
himself and his family. The Union stated that the
Workmen Shri Ramnath Gaude is married and is
having a child. The Union stated that the said
Ramnath is the sole bread earner in his family and
has to maintain his parents, wife and a child but, due
to the action of the management in terminating his
service by forcefully obtaining his signature on the
alleged letter of resignation on the false allegation
have cause hardship to his family. The Union stated
that the Workmen Shri Rohidas is married and is
having a school going child and he has to maintain
his family, his school going child and due to the high
cost of education and high cost of living is unable to
maintain his family due to the action of the
management in terminating his service by forcefully
obtaining his signature on the said letter of
resignation. It has caused hardship to himself and
his family. The Union stated that the Workmen
namely Shri Namdev is also married and he is the
only bread earner in his family and has to maintain
his parents and his wife, but due to the action of the
management in terminating his service by forcefully
obtaining his signature on the said letter of
resignation on the false allegation have caused
hardship to himself and family. The Union stated that
the Workmen namely Shri Surendra is married and
has a child. He is the only bread earner in his family
and has to maintain his parents, wife and child, but
due to the action of the management in terminating
his service by forcefully obtaining his signature on
the said letter of resignation on the false allegation
have caused hardship to himself and his family. The
Union stated that the said Workmen were the
Committee Members of the Trade Union of Workmen.
During the previous process of the earlier Settlement
this Workman along with other Committee Members
were terminated from their services and the
Committee were pressurized to sign the earlier
Settlement as dictated by the Employer. On signing
the earlier Settlement, they were subsequently
reinstated with continuity in service. The Union
stated that the Employer has ruined their career as
the workmen are unemployed since 11-09-2008 and
have no source of income and has to maintain their
family on whatever savings they had. The Union
stated that the malafide motive of the Employer to
terminate the service of the Workmen by hook or by
crook is reflected from the reply they have filed
before the Conciliation Officer and the letter of
dismissal letter dated 11-09-2008 of Mr. Naresh
Parsekar. The Union stated that the Workmen were
the members of the Union and that the Charter of
Demands was under negotiation. The Employer
928
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
forced the Workmen to sign the said letter of
resignation in order to pressurize the Union to sign
the Settlement as dictated by the Employer. The
Union stated that as the Workmen were called by
the Managing Director of the Employer in his chamber
singularly and one by one, Workmen not realizing
about the bad intention of the Employer secure in
obtaining hopefully the signature of the Workmen
on the said alleged letter of resignation. The Union
stated that however the management was not
successful in obtaining the signature of Mr. Naresh
Parsekar who was then dismissed from the service
on the same day i.e. on 11-09-2008. The Union stated
that the alleged resignation is not a resignation, but
a forceful and arbitrary dismissal of the Workmen
under the pretext of resignation. The Union stated
that the workers signature were obtained forcefully
on the draft dictated by the Managing Director in
his chamber without offering them an opportunity
to seek advice from the Union and without furnishing
a copy thereof. The Union stated that the Workmen
could get the copy of the alleged resignation only in
the Conciliation proceeding before the Conciliation
Officer through the reply filed by the Employer. The
Union stated that the Workmen in the absence of the
copy of said letter of resignation had to discuss the
issue with the Union. The Union stated that due to
the absence of copy of the alleged letter of
resignation, it took some time to put the proper facts
in writing. The Union stated that they never wanted
to resign from the service and want to withdraw the
alleged letter of resignation. The Union stated that
being under tremendous pressure and alone the
worker were not allowed to meet the Union
representative nor other workers. The Union stated
that they were forced to resign from the services
based on the said letter of resignation. The Union
stated that the Employer is in the habit of harassing
the Workmen by one way or the other and that during
ongoing discussion of the previous settlement, the
committee members were terminated from the
services and thereafter were reinstated with full back
wages and continuity of services. The Union stated
that the action of the management in obtaining the
signatures on the alleged letter of resignation under
threat and coercion amounts to illegal termination
of services. The Union stated that the action of the
management in terminating the services of the
Workmen under the pretext of resignation is against
the principles of natural justice, biased, and
vindictive to harass the Workmen and pressurize
them to divide from the Union activities. The Union
therefore, prayed that an Award be passed directing
the Employer to reinstate the Workmen in their
employment with full back wages and other
consequential benefits.
4. The Employer resisted the aforesaid claim
statement of the Workmen by filing its written
statement on 30-08-2010 at Exb. 6. The Employer, as
and by way of its preliminary objections, submitted
that the present reference filed by the Union is bad
in law and hence not maintainable, that the Workmen
have not given any justification for the demand/claim
praised by them, that the Workman Shri Nilkant
Saperkar and 4 others have voluntarily resigned from
their services and therefore the present reference on
the presumption, that there is a termination of
services of Workmen is ab initio void, that the present
dispute of the Workmen is not an “industrial dispute”
as defined under the I.D. Act, 1947 and that there is
non application of mind by the appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute.
5. The Employer stated that the Workmen Shri
Nilkant Saperkar and 4 others were employed by
them and that they proposed to dismiss Shri Nilkant
Saperkar and 4 others for committing theft in the
company’s premises. The Employer stated that the
Workmen namely Mr. Nilkant Saperkar, Mr. Ramnath
Gaude, Mr. Rohidas Gaude, Mr. Namdev Sawant and
Mr. Surendra Mulgaonkar were proposed to be
dismissed for commission of theft. The Employer
stated that they were called by the partner, Mr. Ajay
Pendharkar and Mr. Rataboli, the legal advisor of the
Employer in the office of the Partner Mr. Ajay
Pendharkar. The Employer stated that the said
Workmen were informed by Mr. Ajay Pendharkar and
Mr. Rataboli that for the reasons spelt out in the letter
of dismissal, the management proposed to dismiss
them from service. The Employer stated that the
letters of dismissal were handed over to the
concerned Workmen by Mr. Ajay Pendharkar. The
Employer stated that the Workmen were also
informed that apart from dismissing them from
service, the management also proposes to file
criminal complaint against them before the police
station at Old Goa. The Employer stated that all the
Workmen except Mr. Naresh Parsekar tendered
apologies, offered to submit their resignation from
service and pleaded that neither disciplinary action
be initiated against them nor a police complaint be
filed against them. The Employer stated that in view
of the offer of the resignation, the management
agreed with the concerned Workmen neither to file
a police complaint against them nor to initiate any
disciplinary action against them. The Employer
stated that the concerned Workmen Mr. Nilkant
Saperkar, Mr. Ramnath Gaude, Mr. Rohidas Gaude,
Mr. Namdev Sawant and Mr. Surendra Mulgaonkar
thereafter submitted their resignation by letters dt.
11-09-2008. The Employer stated that Workmen
accepted the said resignation and letters of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
929
acceptance of resignation dt. 11-09-2008 with
payment by way of the legal dues along with the
stamped receipt was sent to the respective residence
on the available residential address. The Employer
stated that they, were thereafter in receipt of letters
all dt. 18-09-2008 from the concerned Workmen who
had resigned and whose resignations were duly
accepted, alleging resignation under coercion and
the said letters also requested that the letter of
resignation dt. 11-09-2008 may be treated as
withdrawn and they may be allowed to join duties.
The Employer stated that they, by their letters all
dated 28-10-2008 addressed to the concerned
Workmen, denied that the resignations were by way
of compulsion or coercion and stated that the
resignations were voluntary. The Employer stated
that their resignations were accepted by the
management by their letters dt. 11-09-2008 and stated
that their requests for withdrawal of resignation
cannot be accepted. The Employer stated that all
the workers in the present reference submitted their
resignation. The Employer stated that one of their
co-worker namely Mr. Naresh Parsekar however did
not submit his resignation and they dismissed him
from service by its letter dt. 11-09-2008. The Employer
stated that as regards, the resignation of the
Workmen in the present reference, it is submitted
that the said resignations are voluntary. The Employer
submitted that the concerned Workmen admitted
the claim of theft, tendered apology and also
tendered resignation and requested them not to pay
any police action or initiate disciplinary action. The
Employer stated that after accepting the resignation
of the Workmen, they did not initiate any criminal
proceedings or disciplinary action against the
Workmen. The Employer stated that they did not
initiate any disciplinary action or any criminal
proceedings against them as they were persuaded
by the tendering of apology and the resignation of
the Workmen. The Employer stated that the contract
of service with such Workmen came to an end in the
aforesaid circumstances. The Employer stated that
though, the letters of resignation were not required
to be accepted for the contract came to an end on
the submission of resignation, they accepted the
letter of resignation and communicated the
acceptance of such resignation. The Employer stated
that with the acceptance of resignations, the contract
of employment came to an end and thus the question
of withdrawal of resignation at the later stage does
not arise. The Employer stated that as regards
Mr. Naresh Parsekar, it is submitted that the
management refrained from filing any police
complaint as initiation of such complaint would have
resulted into involvement of the resigned employee
and the management would have been accused of
resigning/withdrawing from its commitment/
/promise not to initiate criminal complaint against
employee who had resigned. The Employer stated
that the management however undertakes to
produce the necessary evidence before this Hon’ble
Court/Tribunal to establish the charges levelled by
them. The Employer stated that the management
craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to even produce
video recording recorded by them which clearly
indicates the involvement of the Workmen in the acts
of committing theft of their property. The Employer
submitted that no case has been made out by the
Workmen for granting any relief also for
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity
of services with all benefits. The Employer denied
the entire pleading made by the Union being false
and misleading and prayed for rejection of the claim
statement of the Workmen.
6. Thereafter, the Workmen filed their Re-joinder
on 20-09-2010 at Exb. 8. The Workman, by way of his
re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his submissions,
averments and statements made in his Claim
Statement to be correct and proved and denied all
the statements, averments and submissions made by
the Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to his Statement and averments made in his
Claim Statement.
7. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties
hereinabove, this Hon’ble court was pleased to frame
the following issues on 16-11-2010 at Exb. 9. The said
issues were up-dated 15-01-2019 at Exb. 66.
1. Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that
they were continuously working for the
Employer/Party II since last 12 years from
their appointment till 11-09-2008?
2. Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that
their signature have been forcefully obtained
on the letter of resignation under threat,
coercion and undue influence by the
Employer?
3. Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that the
method adopted and action taken by the
Employer/Party II in severing the employer-
-employee relationship between themselves
amounts to termination of services w.e.f.
11-09-2008?
4. Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that the
action of the Employer/Party II in terminating
the services w.e.f. 11-09-2008 is illegal and
unjustified?
4A. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that all
the Workmen committed the misconduct of
theft of their products from its factory
premises?
930
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
5. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
there does not exist any Industrial Dispute
under I.D. Act?
6. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that the
Workmen/Party I had voluntarily resigned from
their services by admitting the theft?
7. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that the
present order of reference is bad-in-law?
8. Whether the Workmen are entitled for any
relief?
9. What Order? What Award?
8. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2
:
In the affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 3
:
In the affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4
:
In the affirmative.
(e) Issue No. 4A :
In the negative.
(f) Issue No. 5
:
In the negative.
(g) Issue No. 6
:
In the negative.
(h) Issue No. 7
:
In the negative.
(i) Issue No. 8 & 9:
As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri N.
Kamat, appearing for the Workman as well as Ld. Adv.
Shri. G.K. Sardessai appearing for the Employer.
9. Ld. Adv. Shri N. Kamat, representing the
Workman, during the course of his oral arguments,
submitted that the Workman Ramnath Gaude
expired on 16-7-2012 leaving behind his widow
namely Radha Ramnath Gaude. He submitted that
all the Workmen were permanent workers of the
Employers. He submitted that all the Workmen have
worked continuously for last more than 12 years
before his illegal termination of services on the false
ground. He submitted that all the Workmen were
pressurised and forced to sign on their letter of
resignation on the false ground of theft or threat to
file a criminal complaint against them so as to destroy
their future by publishing their photos on the local
daily newspaper and defame them. He submitted
that though the Workmen were called singularly one
by one, the threats were common against them to
force to sign the alleged letter of resignation. He
submitted that after sincere working for 12 years, all
the Workmen had no reasons to resign in this manner.
He submitted that the management had kept so
called letter of acceptance ready however, it was sent
by post. He submitted that the force applied and
threats given by the Managing Director is against
the common principles of employment.That in case
of resignation one months’ notice has to be given.
He submitted that the Employer in malafide intention
so as to pressurise and threaten the Workmen to sign
the alleged resignation, falsely alleged that the
Workmen were involved in robbery of the company’s
product and that the Employer neither issued any
charge-sheet nor proved the contentions. Obviously
no enquiry was held. He submitted that all the
Workmen had no intention to resign or leave from
the job. He submitted that all the Workmen signed
the alleged letter of resignation under fear created
by the Employer in the presence of officials related
to the company. He submitted that the Workmen
were the members of the Union and that the charter
of demand was under negotiation. The Employer
forced the Workmen to sign the alleged letter of
resignation in order to pressurise the Union to sign
the Settlement as dictated by the Employer. He
submitted that the alleged resignation of all the
Workmen under reference is not a resignation but a
forceful and arbitrary dismissal of the Workmen under
the pretext of resignation. He submitted that the
Employer is in the habit of harassing the Workmen
by one way or the other and that during ongoing
discussions of the previous settlement, the
committee members were terminated from the
services and thereafter were reinstated with full back
wages and continuity of services. He submitted that
the Workmen Shri Ramnath Gaude expired leaving
behind his Widow Radha Gaude. He submitted that
the Workman Shri Surendra Mulgaonkar was
unemployed from the date of his termination till
21-09-2011 and subsequently on 22-09-2011 he got
Government Service. He submitted that (except
Ramnath Gaude who has expired) all other Workmen
are unemployed and have no source of income and
has to maintain their family in support of his oral
contention relied upon judgment. In support of his
oral contention, he relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.K. Yadav v/s.
J. M. A. Industries Ltd., reported in (1993) 3 SCC
259. He therefore submitted that the Award be passed
directing the Employer to reinstate the Workmen in
their services along with full back wages and other
consequential benefits.
10. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G.K. Sardessai,
representing the Employer, during the course of his
oral arguments submitted that admittedly all the
Workmen were in the employment of the Employer
since 01-12-1998 till the date of their resignation from
their service w.e.f. 11-09-2008. He submitted that the
management proposed to dismiss all the Workmen
for their act of misconduct of theft. He submitted
that the act of misconduct committed by the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
931
Workmen under reference are nothing but theft or
dishonesty in connection with the Employer property
on repeated basis causing financial losses to their
company. He submitted that their proven offence on
repeated basis is very serious and grave and there
are no extenuating circumstances and it warrants
extreme punishment of dismissal without notice from
services of the company. He submitted that after
noticing the misconduct theft of all the Workmen,
the management called all the Workmen under
reference and proposed to dismiss them from their
services for their act of misconduct of theft and that
Police complaint would be filed against them besides
disciplinary action. He submitted that except Shri
Naresh Parsekar, all the Workmen under reference
gave their letter of resignation which the
management accepted and relieved the Workmen
from their services. He submitted that the resignation
letters given by the Workmen have been accepted
by the management and they were also informed.
He submitted that the resignation given by the
Workmen under reference is voluntarily and cannot
be taken as being forceful coercive and under threat.
He submitted that the claim statement have been
filed by the office bearer of the Union but none of the
office bearer has stepped into the witness box nor
authorize to file the claim statement. In support of
his oral submissions, he relied upon the following
judgments of Supreme Court of India:
a)
In the case of Shri Shankar Chakravarti V/s.
Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported
in (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 371.
b)
In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and Anr. V/s Bajrang Lal
reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases
693.
c)
In the case of M/s. Indian Tourism
Development Corporation, New Delhi V/s.
Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors. reported
in 1982 LAB. I. C. 1309 of Delhi High Court.
d)
In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
V/s. Vijay Damodar Mehta and Ors. reported
in 2003 1 CLR 998 of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay.
e)
In the case of K. Haridas L. Shenoy V/s.
Jhonson and Jhonson Ltd. and Ors. reported
in 2005 1 CLR 476 of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay.
f)
In the case of Bandha Nav Bharat Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal and Ors. V/s. raghunath
Ganesh Manorikar and Ors. reported in 1992
II CLR 956 of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
g)
In the case of Laffans India (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s
Pancham Singh Rawat and Anr. reported in
2003 (I) LLN 84 of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay.
I have carefully perused the entire records of the
present case. I have also carefully considered the
submissions advanced before me and I am of the
opinion as under:
11. Issue No. 1 : The Party-I, in its para 2 of its claim
statement, stated that the party-I were employed for
last more than 12 years. The Employer, in its written
statement filed in the present proceedings, stated
that with reference to para 1 to 4 of the claim
statement it is denied that due to adamant attitude
of the Employer the matter ended in failure as
alleged. However, rest of the contents of the said
paragraph is substantially correct. Further, Shri Ajay
Pendharkar, the partner of the Employer Company,
in his cross examination clearly admitted that all the
Workmen under reference including one Shri Naresh
Parsekar were permanent worker of the Employer and
that all the Workmen under reference were working
for more than 10 years with the Employer and that it
could be possible that all the Workmen under
reference were working for more than 12 years with
the Employer. He further admits that all the Workmen
under reference were working with the Employer
continuously from the date of their appointment till
their alleged resignation from their services. In view
of the admissions by the Employer it is held that, the
Workmen proved that they were continuously
working for the Employer since last 12 years from
their appointment till 11-09-2008. The Issue No. 1 is
therefore, answered in the affirmative.
12. Issue No. 2, 3, 4 and 4A: I am deciding the issue
No. 2, 3, 4 and 4A simultaneously as the said issues of
No. 2, 3, 4 and 4A are co-related to each other. To
prove their case, the Party-I examined themselves
(except the deceased workman Shri Ramnath Gaude).
The affidavit-in-evidence filed by the Workmen under
reference are more or less same.
13. The first witness of the party-I, Shri Nilkant
Saperkar, in para 4 of his affidavit in evidence,
deposed that on 11-9-2008 the Managing Director
and other officers of the Company called him and
Co-Workmen’s Shri Ramnath Gaude, Shri Rohidas
Gaude, Shri Namdev Sawant, Shri Surendra
Mulgaonkar and Shri Naresh Parsekar one by one and
that the Employer forced us to sign on the letter of
resignation from the services of the Employers on
the false grounds of theft except said Naresh Parsekar
we all sign the alleged letter of resignation. He
deposed that he was pressurized and forced to sign
the alleged letter of resignation by the Employer
with the threat that criminal complaint would be
932
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
lodged against him and that the Employer also
threatened him by stating that they will destroy my
future by publishing the photos on the Local Daily
Newspaper and defame me. He deposed that they
were called singularly, one by one, with common
threat by the Employer with in order to sign the
alleged letter of resignation and that the Employer
did not succeed in obtaining the letter of resignation
of the said Mr. Naresh Parsekar and as such the
Employer dismissed said Mr. Naresh Parsekar from
service on the same day i.e. 11-9-2008. In his cross
examination, Mr. Saperkar deposed that the
management of the Employer factory had called us
one by one and that called all the persons named in
the present reference along with one Mr. Naresh
Paresekar were called by Management of the
Employer and besides the aforesaid person nobody
was called by the management of the Employer and
that at the relevant time there were around 50-54
Workperson with the Employer Company. He
deposed that all the said workers of the Employer
Company were members of the Union namely
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. He deposed that
while he was going to the P.O.s cabin he was told by
the security to go in the chamber of Mr. Ajay
Pendharkar, the partner of the Employer and that
when he entered in the Chamber of the Partner of
the Employer Company Mr. Ajay Pendharkar, he along
with one Mr. Rataboli, Mr. Mangirish Raikar, five
Security Guards and one Reporter with camera and
the Personnel Officer Shri Ramchandra Shirgaonkar
were present. He deposed that he was told to sit on
the chair though he refused to sit and he insisted as
to why he been called. He deposed that at the
relevant time, one Mr. Rataboli informed him that it
has come to their knowledge that he is regularly
taking away Turmeric cream/paste one of their
Employer Company and that he asked Mr. Rataboli
on what basis you were making the aforesaid
allegations against him and in the event you could
prove it he will admit the same. He deposed that
thereafter Mr. Rataboli informed him that one of the
worker of the Employer factory told them about the
fact of Turmeric cream/paste of the Employer
Company and that he insisted for disclosing the
name of the worker however, he did not. He deposed
that thereafter, the said Mr. Rataboli gave me two
options either to resign from the service or they will
lodge a police complaint against him having
committed theft of goods belonging to the Employer
Company and publish the said news in the
newspaper with the help of reporter sitting in the
chamber and that Mr. Ajay Pendharkar, the partner
of the Employer Company repeatedly informed him
that he will call the police on telephone and get it
arrested me. The aforesaid statement made in cross
examination of Mr. Nilkant Saperkar has not been
denied by the Ld. Advocate for the Employer. The
Employer also did not examine Mr. Rataboli though
his name was listed in the list of documents.
14. Upon perusal a letter of dismissal dated
11-09-2008 at Exb. 59 and 60-colly indicates that the
allegations levelled against the Workmen that since
long they have been committed theft of company’s
property namely turmeric tubes and Vajradanti
powder on almost regular basis and sometimes
inconvenience with others and that many a times
they were seen taking away the product of the
company from the workplace, but before they could
be caught red handed they were somehow hiding
the material and that in his connection they were
questioned in few occasions. The said letter further
alleged that they were found red handed robbing
the company’s property quite a few times such as,
on 06-08-2008 at 7.44 a.m. they removed turmeric
tubes of 30 gms. from the unfinished inner box from
the pecking line II and took them away and that they
immediately came back and once again took more
turmeric tubes and went away. The letter further
alleged that on 08-08-2008 at 7.38 a.m. they sent
Mr. Paresh Phadte a casual employee to remove inner
box containing turmeric tubes of 30 gms. each and
directed him to go towards powder line side and that
throughout the operation they were shielding. The
said letter finally alleged that on 9-08-2008 at 7.38
a.m. they removed some turmeric tubes of 30 gms.
each from an unfinished inner box lying on the
pecking table on turmeric line II and went towards
paste machine side. The Employer therefore by the
said letter alleged that the aforesaid act committed
by them are nothing but theft or dishonesty in
connection with Employers property on repeated
basis causing financial losses to the company and
that their proven offence on repeated basis is very
serious and grave and there are not extenuating
circumstances in their case and it warrants and
extreme punishment of dismissal without notice from
the services of the Employer as no other punishment
will meet the ends of justice and accordingly they
have been dismissed without notice from the services
of the company with immediate effect.
15. The first witness of the Employer Mr. Ajay
Pendharkar, in his oral evidence on record indicates
that the management of the Employer proposed to
dismiss all the Workmen under reference including
Mr. Naresh Parsekar for committing theft in
company’s premises and that all the Workmen under
reference were informed by him and Mr. Rataboli that
for the reasons spelt out in the letter of dismissal, the
management proposed to dismiss them from the
service. The first witness of the Employer further
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
933
deposed that the letters of dismissal were handed
over to the concerned Workmen by him and they
were also informed that apart from dismissing them
from services the management also proposes to file
criminal complaint against them before the police
station at Old Goa. In cross examination, the first
witness of the Employer deposed that no show cause
notice was given to the Workmen under reference as
it was not required. He further deposed that no such
letter of dismissal from service were issued to any of
the Workmen under reference and that the letters of
dismissal of service were in fact prepared and shown
to all the Workmen under reference as a part of legal
action to be taken against them and that as all the
Workmen under reference tendered the resignation,
there is no question of issuing that any such letter of
dismissal from service. He admits that the
management of the Employer had already taken its
decision to dismiss all the Workmen under reference
prior to the preparation of letter of dismissal at
Exb. 59 and Exb. 60-colly. He deposed that the
management had taken its decision not only to
dismiss all the Workmen under reference but also
take necessary legal action against them and that
by legal action I mean police complaint and any other
further necessary action in terms of law. He deposed
that all the Workmen under reference were in fact
practically handed over the said letters of dismissal
at Exb. w-4, Exb. 59 and Exb. 60-colly at the relevant
time in his cabin and told them about the legal action
to be taken against them. He deposed that it is not
mentioned in his affidavit in evidence about clearly
showing the Workmen the said letters of dismissal.
He deposed that he do not know if by handing over
the said letters of dismissal to all the Workmen under
reference, it means that the Employer had issued the
said letter of dismissal to them. He admits that in the
dismissal letter at Exb. 60-colly, it has been
mentioned that the dismissal shall come into effect
with immediate effect. He deposed that the letter at
Exb. 60-colly are not draft letters but it is final letter.
He deposed that at the time of termination of services
of Workmen, no option of resignation were given to
them. He deposed that the resignation letter of the
Workmen at Exb. 55-colly were issued to the
Employer individually as and when they were called
in the Chamber of M.D. on 11-09-2008. He deposed
that he accepted the said resignation at Exb. 55-colly
on the same day. He admits that as he accepted the
letters of resignation of the Workmen at Exb. 66-colly,
he do not feel requires to issue the letters at Exb.
60-colly. He deposed that he has not pleaded in its
written statement filed in the present proceedings
nor stated in his affidavit in evidence that in view of
the resignation of the Workmen at Exb. 55-colly, it
does not required to issue the letters of dismissal at
Exb. 60-colly. He deposed that at no point of time, the
Employer could catch theWorkmen under reference
red handed while allegedly taking away its material.
He deposed that he do not have any footage/
/transcript to show that all the six Workmen were
taking away the goods of the Employer out of the
factory premises. However he does possess the
transcript/footage showing all the six Workmen were
lifting and hiding the goods in the factory premises
of the Employer. He admits that in the course of his
occasional observation of live feed as also of recorded
footage, he has not noticed any incident of theft until
August, 2018. He deposed that the security personnel
could not catch the six Workmen with theft of goods
belonging to the Employer at any point of time. He
deposed that all the Workmen used to throw out the
material belonging to the Employer out of the
window so that nobody can catch them. He deposed
that he could not specify as to who out of the six
Workmen were allegedly throwing out the goods
belonging to the Employer and calling other person.
He deposed that he did not mention in his affidavit-
in-evidence that the Workmen under reference were
throwing out the goods belonging to the Employer
out of the window and that he did not mention about
suspicious persons would be called in, in his affidavit-
in-evidence. He deposed that at no point of time, he
has personally caught the Workmen under reference
red handed allegedly committing thefts of the goods
of the Employer Company or taking them out of the
factory premises. He admits that by the said
document at Exb. 60-colly, the Employer has taken
only ground of theft of the Employers property/goods
by the Workmen under reference. He admits that the
dismissal of Workmen under reference were solely
on account of alleged theft of goods of the Employer.
He admits that immediately after delivery, the said
letter of resignation by the Workmen at Exb. 26, Exb.
39, Exb. 45-colly and Exb. W/5, the Employer accepted
the said resignation on the same day by letters at
Exb.52-colly along with cheques of settlement of
dues along with stamp receipts. He admits that all
the Workmen under reference had returned their
letter withdrawing alleged letters of resignation at
Exb. 26, Exb. 39, Exb. 45-colly and Exb. W/5 after
8 days. He admits that none of the Workmen under
reference had encashed the cheques issued to them
along with letter of acceptance of resignation at Exb.
52-colly nor issued the stamp receipts. He deposed
that the Employer had not produced on record any
evidence in support of its statement made in its
aforesaid letter at Exb. 60-colly that the workers were
committing thefts on regular basis. He deposed that
he does not possess anything in writing from the
934
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
Workmen under reference in support of para 10 & 15
of his affidavit-in-evidence as regards admissions of
theft and tendering of apology. He admits that the
workers of the Employer are having their Union and
that the said Union used to raise the charter of
demand on behalf of the Workmen. He admits that
the Employer had terminated the services of its
workman Shri Surendra Murgaonkar pending the
charter of demand and that the said Murgaonkar was
reinstated in service. He admits that the Employer
has not produced any evidence in support of his
statement made in the aforesaid letters stating that
the workers were committing thefts on regular basis
and that he do not possesses any such evidence in
support of his said statement. He admits that there is
no Footage in the said CD at Exb. 53 nor he has made
any statement in his Affidavit-in-Evidence to that
effect. He admits that at no point of time the Employer
could called the Workmen under reference red
handed while allegedly taking away its material. He
admits that there is no Footage in the said CD at
Exb. 53 nor he has made any statement in his
Affidavit-in-Evidence that the Employers Products
were taken out of the factory premises or shown to
be taken out of the factory premises. He admits that
at no point of time the Employer could called the
Workmen under reference red handed while
allegedly taking away its material. He deposed that
at any time his security personnel could not catch of
six Workmen with theft goods belonging to the
Employers Company. He deposed that at no point of
time he has personal record the Workmen under
reference allegedly while committing thefts of goods
of Employer Company or actually taking them out of
the factory premises. He deposed that he do not
possess anything in writing from the Workmen under
reference in support of para 10 and 15 of his Affidavit-
in-Evidence as regards the admission of theft and
tendering of apology. Thus, the testimony of Mr. Ajay
Pendharkar has been shaken.
16. The second witness of the Employer Shri Noel
Ataide in his oral evidence record stated that he is
the proprietor of extra-eye located at Porvorim which
deals in installing CCTV Cameras, etc. He deposed
that he has installed such six CCTV Cameras in the
factory at the manufacturing areas and two CCTV
Cameras outside the manufacturing area of the
Employer Company in the month of April, 2007 and
that he used to do general checkup of CCTV Cameras
regularly. He deposed that on 21-08-2008 Mr. Ajay
Pendharkar called him and that on 22-08-2008 in the
evening he visited the factory and on the request of
Mr. Ajay Pendharkar he downloaded the recording
on the compact disc (CD) from the CCTV Cameras.
He deposed that he had the copy of the recordings of
all the clipping downloaded from the CCTV Camera
and it is available on his computer and that he had
made four CD copies of the clippings downloaded by
him and that the three CD’s were handed over to Mr.
Ajay Pendharkar and one CD retained by him. In his
cross-examination, Mr. Noel Ataide admits that he
had downloaded the clips of the video footages and
that the clips were encrypted. He deposed that for
downloading the all said clippings he has utilized
the DVR in the computer of the Director of Employer
in his cabin and the CD’s were made at the same
time. He deposed that he has not seen any footage of
the Workmen taking away the companies product
out of the Employer factory and that he is not aware
as to where the Workmen were taking away the
products of the Company and that he is not aware if
the Workmen were taking away the products under
instructions of any authority. He deposed that he is
not aware if the Workmen under reference were
carrying the employers product and what were the
contents of the said box and if there was anything of
the said box. He admits his statements made in para
14 that he had a copy of the recordings of all the
clippings downloaded from the CCTV Camera and it
is available on his computer. He deposed that he had
signed on all the four CD’s downloaded and showing
the document at Exb. 53 i.e. a DVD is the 5th copy
that was downloaded at the relevant time. He
deposed that he might have downloaded five copies
of DVD at the relevant time. He admits that he has
made statement in Affidavit-in-Evidence to that effect
that “Workmen taking away Companies Product
…………… thefts, “Workmen who were carrying
…………….. Product”, on the basis of information
given by Mr. Ajay Pendharkar and not on his personal
knowledge. The every clipping downloaded at
Exb. 53 shows that Workmen taking away Employers
Products. He deposed that “By the products used in
his para 13 of his Affidavit-in-Evidence it means
sealed boxes. He deposed that he is not certain
whether sealed boxes contained the Employers
Product or empty boxes and that considering that
they were sealed boxes he is not aware what
products were contained in the boxes or whether
the boxes contained any products. Thus, the
testimony of Mr. Noel Ataide has been shaken.
17. Thus, the aforesaid evidence on record clearly
indicates that the Employer had decided to terminate
the Workmen under reference alleging on account
of theft & therefore prepared and handed over letters
of dismissal to the Workmen. The Employer also called
Mr. Rataboli, the legal advisor, Mr. Manguirish Raikar,
five security guards, one reporter with camera and
Personnel Officer Shri Ramchandra Shirgaonkar. Mr.
Rataboli, thereafter gave threats to the Workmen
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
935
under reference either to give resignation or they
will dismiss them and also file criminal proceedings
and published their photos in the Local Newspaper
apart from holding disciplinary proceedings. Thus,
the Workmen under reference sign the resignation
letters under threat, coercion and undue influence
and immediately accepted by the Employer. Thus,
the aforesaid evidence on record the Workmen under
reference proves that their signature have been
forcefully obtained on the letter of resignation under
threat, coercion and undue influence by the
Employer. The aforesaid evidence of record proves
that the method adopted and action taken by the
Employer in severing the Employer Employee
relationship between themselves amounts to
termination of services w.e.f. 11-09-2008. The Issue
No. 2 and 3 therefore, answered in the affirmative.
18. Thus, the evidence of records clearly indicates
that the Workmen under reference were in the
employment of the Employer. The Workman under
reference never caught red handed either by the
security personnel or by the Employer or there is no
evidence to show that CCTV footage/transcript to
show that all the six Workmen under reference were
taking the goods of the Employer factory, but they
were issued dismissal letters at Exb. 59 & Exb. 60-
colly alleging that they were regularly committing
theft and that they caught red handed while robbing
the Companies product. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai
representing the Employer had relied upon certain
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay are not applicable to
the case in hand in view of the admissions by
Mr. Ajay Pendharkar and Mr. Noel Ataide. Thus, the
above evidence on records clearly indicates that the
Employer failed to prove that all the Workmen under
reference committed the misconduct of theft of their
products. The Issue No. 4A is therefore, answered in
the negative.
19. In the case of D. K. Yadav (Supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that “the Application of the
principles of natural justice that no man should be
condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority
from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the
concerned person. No decision must be taken which
will affect the right of any person without his/her right
being informed of the case and giving him/her an
opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order
involving civil consequences must be made
consistently with the rules of natural justice. ‘Civil
consequences’ covers infraction of not merely property
or personal right but civil liberties, material
deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its
comprehensive connotation everything that affects a
citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Civil
rights have been defined to be such as belonging to
every citizen of the State or Country … they include …
rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil
action …. Even an administrative order which involves
civil consequences must be made consistently with
the rules of natural justice”.
20. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is applicable to the case in hand. In the case in
hand, all the Workmen under reference were
permanent workers of the Employer. The Employer
has terminated the services of the Workmen under
reference thereby violating the principles of natural
justice without issuing any show cause notice/
/charge-sheet or held enquiry. Thus, the action of
the Employer in terminating the services of the
Workmen under reference with effect from
11-09-2008 is in violation of the principles of natural
justice and therefore it is illegal and unjustified. It is
therefore, held that the Workmen proves that the
action of the Employer in terminating their services
with effect from 11-09-2008 is illegal and unjustified.
The Issue No. 4 is therefore answered in the
affirmative.
21. Issue No. 5 & 7: While deciding the Issue No. 2
hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion and held that the signature of the
Workmen under reference have been forcefully
obtained on the letter of resignation under threat,
coercion and undue influence. Similarly, while
deciding the issue No. 3, I have discussed and come
to the conclusion that the Workmen proved that the
method adopted and action taken by the Employer
in severing the Employer/employee relation between
themselves amounts to termination of services w.e.f.
11-09-2008. Similarly while deciding the Issue No. 4,
I have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in terminating the services
of the Workmen w.e.f. 11-09-2008 is illegal and
unjustified.
22. The term “Industrial disputes” has been
defined under Section 2 (K) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and
reads as under “Industrial dispute” means any
dispute or difference between Employers and
employees, 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, or any person.
23. Thus, it appears from the dispute raised by the
Workmen under reference against the Employer
pertaining to their non-employment and hence it is
held that the Employer failed to prove that there does
not exist any “industrial dispute” under the I.D. Act.
Similarly the Employer failed to prove that the
present order of reference is bad in law. The issue
No. 5 & 7 are therefore answered in the negative.
936
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
24. Issue No. 8: While deciding the Issue No. 1
hereinabove, this Hon’ble Court discussed and come
to the conclusion that the Workmen under reference
were permanent Workmen and they were
continuously working for the Employer from the date
of their appointment. While deciding the Issue No. 3
hereinabove discussed and come to the conclusion
that the method adopted and action taken by the
Employer in severing the Employer employee
relationship between themselves amounts to
termination of services w.e.f. 11-9-2008. Similarly
while deciding the Issue No. 4 hereinabove this
Hon’ble Court discussed and come to the conclusion
that the action of the Employer in terminating the
services w.e.f. 11-09-2008 is illegal and unjustified.
In the case of D. K. Yadav (Supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court in para 14 to 16 held as under:
14. It is thus well settled law that right to life
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution would
include right to livelihood. The order of termination
of the service of an employee/workman visits with
civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her
livelihood but also career and livelihood of
dependents. Therefore, before taking any action
putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman
fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to
put forth his case is given and domestic inquiry
conducted complying with the principles of natural
justice. In D.T.C v/s D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 16 the
Constitution Bench, per majority, held that
termination of the service of a Workman giving one
month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry
offended Article 14. The order terminating the service
of the employees was set aside.
15. In this case admittedly no opportunity was
given to the appellant and no inquiry was held. The
appellant’s plea put forth at the earliest was that
despite his reporting to duty on December 3, 1980
and on all subsequent days and readiness to join duty
he was prevented from reporting to duty, nor was he
permitted to sign the attendance register. The
Tribunal did not record any conclusive finding in his
behalf. It concluded that the management had power
under Clause 13 of the Certified Standing Orders to
terminate with the service of the appellant. Therefore
we hold that the principles of natural justice must
be read into the Standing Order No. 13(2) (iv).
Otherwise it would become arbitrary, unjust and
unfair violating Article 14. When so read the
impugned action is violative of the principles of
natural justice.
16. This conclusion leads to us the question as to
what relief the appellant is entitled to. The
management did not conduct any domestic inquiry
nor gave the appellant any opportunity to put forth
his case. Equally the appellant is to blame himself
for the impugned action. Under those circumstances
50 per cent of the back wages would meet the ends
of justice. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The
award of the Labour Court is set aside and the letter
dated December 12, 1980 of the management is
quashed. There shall be direction to the respondent
to reinstate the appellant forthwith and pay him back
wages within a period of three months from the date
of the receipt of this order. The appeal is allowed
accordingly. The parties would bear their own costs.
25. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgment is applicable to the
case in hand. In the case in hand, though the
Workmen under reference were permanent workers
of the Employer company, they were issued dismissal
letter without issuing show cause notice/charge-
sheet or held any inquiry into the allegations of theft
thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
While deciding the Issue No. 4, I have discussed and
come to the conclusion that the action of the
Employer in terminating the services w.e.f.
11-09-2008 is illegal and unjustified. All the Workmen
under reference were having clean past records. The
Workmen namely Shri Nilkant Saperkar, Namdev
Sawant and Rohidas Gaude are still unemployed. The
Workmen namely Shri Nilkant Saperkar, Namdev
Sawant and Rohidas Gaude are therefore entitled for
reinstatement in service alongwith 50% back wages,
continuity in service and consequential benefits
thereof. The Workmen Shri Surendra Mulgaonkar was
unemployed till 21-09-2011 and thereafter on
22-09-2011 he got Government Service. The Workmen
Shri Surendra Mulgaonkar is therefore entitled for
50% of back wages with consequential benefits from
the date of his termination i.e. 11-09-2008 till the date
of his unemployment i.e. 21-09-2011.
26.The evidence on record indicates that the
deceased Workman late Shri Ramnath Gaude joined
in the Employer Company in the year 01-01-2000. The
legal heirs of the deceased Workman Shri Ramnath
Gaude, are therefore entitled to monetary
compensation amounting to unpaid wages and
consequential benefits thereof from the date of
termination 11-09-2008 till the date of his death i.e.
on 16-07-2012.
In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the management
of M/s. Vicco Laboratories Limited, Corlim,
in severing the Employer-Employee
relationship between the five Workmen,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
937
namely (1) Shri Nilkant Saperkar, (2) Shri
Ramnath Gaude (3) Shri Rohidas Gaude (4)
Shri Namdev Sawant and (5) Shri Surendra
Mulgaonkar and the Employer M/s. Vicco
Laboratories Limited, Corlim, amounts to
termination of services of the Workmen with
effect from 11-09-2008. It is further held that
such termination is illegal and unjustified.
2. It is held that the management of M/s. Vicco
Laboratories Ltd., Corlim, Tiswadi, Goa is
hereby directed to reinstate in service the
Workmen namely Shri Nilkant Saperkar,
Namdev Sawant and Rohidas Gaude alongwith
50% back wages, continuity in service and
consequential benefits thereof. Similarly, it is
held that the management of M/s. Vicco
Laboratories Ltd., Corlim, Tiswadi, Goa is
hereby directed to pay to the Workmen Shri
Surendra Mulgaonkar 50% of back wages with
consequential benefits from the date of his
termination i.e. 11-09-2008 till the date of his
unemployment i.e. 21-09-2011 and that the
legal heirs of the deceased Workman Shri
Ramnath Gaude, be paid monetary compensation
amounting to unpaid wages and consequential
benefits from the date of termination
11-09-2008 till the date of his death i.e. on
16-07-2012.
No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
——————
Department of Personnel
–––
Order
No. 6/5/2023-PER/229
On the recommendation of the Goa Services
Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order
transfer and posting of the following Senior Scale
Officers of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with
immediate effect:
Sr.
Name and present
Posted as
No.
posting of the Officer
1
2
3
1. Shri Gurudas S. T. Desai,
Director of Civil
State Registar-cum-Head
Aviation with
of Notary Services with
additional charge of
additional charge of
Managing Director,
1
2
3
Managing Director,
Goa Human
Goa Human Resource
Resource
Development
Development
Corporation
Corporation.
2. Shri Amir Yeshwant Parab,
State Registrar-cum-
awaiting posting
-Head of Notary
Services.
3. Shri Sachin Desai,
Director,
Director, Goa State
Environment with
Forensic Science
additional charge of
Laboratory with additional
Member Secretary,
charge of Chief Officer,
Goa Coastal Zone
Bicholim Municipal
Management
Council (under transfer)
Authority.
4. Shri Johnson B. Fernandes,
Chief
Executive
Director, Environment
Officer, Khadi and
with additional charge
Village Industries
of Member Secretary,
Board.
Goa Coastal Zone
Management Authority
Shri Amir Yeshwant Parab shall continue to hold
the charge of Under Secretary, Law (Estt.) in
addition to his own duties, until further orders.
Shri Ashutosh Apte, Director (Admn.), PWD, shall
hold the charge of Director, Goa State Forensic
Science Laboratory in addition to his own duties.
The officer appointed on ex-cadre deputation
post shall be governed by the standard terms of
deputation.
The officers shall complete handing over and
taking over process immediate effect and submit
compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2025.
—––––—
Order
No. 15/23/2023-PER/230
On the recommendation of Goa Services Board,
the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer
and posting of the following Officers in the cadre of
Block Development Officer, in public interest, with
immediate effect:
938
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
Sr.
Name and present
Posted as
No.
posting of the Officer
1
2
3
1. Shri Anil L. Dhumaskar,
BDO, Tiswadi.
BDO-I, Directorate of
Panchayats, North (HQ)
2. Shri Pretesh Babu Shetye,
BDO-I, Directorate
BDO, Tiswadi
of Panchayats,
North (HQ).
The officers shall complete handing over and
taking over process immediately and submit
compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2025.
——————
Department of Revenue
–––
Order
No. 35/2/2013-RD/1503
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9A
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. 1,95,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety
five thousand only), in lieu of payment of duty by
affixing revenue stamp on the receipts issued by
its offices in the State of Goa towards payment of
premium on life insurance policies which has been
paid vide Cheque No. 000761 dated 13-12-2024 and
various other payments made to external and
internal customers, viz., staff, agents and
contractors, etc., (hereinafter referred to as the “said
receipts”) with effect from 1st January, 2025 to
31st December, 2025, subject to the following
conditions, namely:-
(a) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the
said receipts 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 not
be refunded.
(b) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the said
receipts 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 the LIC
Goa latest by the first week of January, 2026.
(c) A detailed report of the total stamp duty
payable on the said receipts issued by the
offices of the LIC Goa, in the State of Goa, shall
be submitted to the Secretary (Revenue),
Revenue Department, Government of Goa, on
or before 31-12-2025.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vrushika Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2025.
————
Order
No. 35/11/01/2021-RD-I/1528
Read: Order No. 35/11/01/2021-RD-I dated 30-09-2024.
The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to
constitute a Committee to determine, analyze and
revise the circle rates and built up rates of
properties. The Committee shall be in force for a
period of two years and shall meet quarterly once
to review the progress.
The composition of the committee shall consist
of following members:
1. Secretary, Revenue
— Chairman.
2. Collector, North
— Member.
3. Collector, South
— Member.
4. Director of Settlement &
— Member.
Land Records
5. State Registrar, Registration
— Member.
Department
6. The Chief Town Planner
— Member.
7. Principal Chief Engineer,
— Member.
Public Works Department
8. Director of Panchayats
— Member.
9. Director of Municipal
— Member.
Administration
10. One nominated member
— Member.
of CREDAI
11. One nominated member
— Member.
of Goa Valuers Association
12. One nominated member of
— Member.
Goa Chamber of Commerce
& Industry
13. Addl./Jt. Secretary (Revenue) — Member
Secretary.
14. Special invitees as nominated by Chairman.
15. Any other person having expertise in the
subject.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
939
Terms of reference:-
1. Carry out the analysis of the current market
trends/rate and propose the revised circle
rate for land.
2. Suggest the mechanism for periodical
revision of rates.
3. Suggest ways to improve the revenue
mobilization/collection of State Government.
4. Suggestions on how to carry out ease of doing
business in Registration Department.
5. Suggest guidelines/formulas for calculations
of rates for land building etc. of different kind
(ready reckoner).
This Order shall come into force on the date of its
publication in the Official Gazette and is in
supersession to the Order read at preamble.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vrushika Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 27th January, 2025.
————
Order
No. 35/11/01/2021-RD-I/1527
Read: Order No. 35/11/01/2021-RD-I dated 30-09-2024.
The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to
constitute a Sub-Committee to assist the Committee
read in the preamble in studying various land
parameters for determination of circle rate and built
up rate. The Sub-Committee shall be in force for a
period of two years and shall meet on a bi monthly
basis.
The composition of the Sub-Committee shall
consist of following members:
i. Joint Secretary (Revenue)
— Chairman.
ii. Dy. Collector, Revenue
— Member.
for North
iii. Dy. Collector, Revenue
— Member.
for South
iv. Town Planner, TCP
— Member.
v. One representative of DSLR
— Member.
vi. One member of CREDAI
— Member.
vii. District Registrar (North),
— Member
Registration Department
Secretary.
viii. One member of Goa Chamber— Member.
of Commerce
ix. One member of Institution
— Member.
of Valuers
x. Special invitees as nominated
— Member.
by Chairman
Terms of reference:-
1. Carry out the analysis of the current market
trends/rate and propose the circle rate for
land.
2. Suggest the mechanism for periodical
revision of rates.
3. Suggest ways to improve the revenue
mobilization/collection of State Government.
4. Suggestions on how to carry out ease of doing
business in Registration Department.
5. Suggest guidelines/formulas for calculations
of rates for land building etc. of different kind
(ready reckoner).
This Order 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.
Vrushika Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 27th January, 2025.
——————
Department of Water Resources
––––
Notification(01)
No. 67-3/CE/CPO/WRD/M.I Census/2024-25/376
Consequent upon the decision of the Government
of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti, New Delhi to conduct
7th Minor Irrigation Census, 2nd Census of Water
Bodies, 1st Census of Major and Medium Irrigation
Projects and 1st Census of Springs in the country
(with respect to reference year 2022-23), the
Government of Goa is pleased to constitute a State
Level Steering Committee (SLSC) comprising of
following members for the smooth and efficient
conduct of the same in this State.
1) The Secretary (Water Resources), — Chairman.
Government of Goa
2) The Director of Planning,
— Member.
Statistics & Evaluation,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa
3) Representative from Central
— Member.
Water Commission (CWC),
Bengaluru
940
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
4) The Director, Rural Development,
— Member.
Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa
5) The Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Panchayats, Government of Goa,
Panaji-Goa
6) Representative from State
— Member.
Revenue Department,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa
7) The Joint Director, NSSO (FOD), — Member.
Regional Office, Porvorim-Goa
8) The Chief Engineer (Water
— Census
Resources), Government of Goa
Commi-
ssioner/
/Member
Secretary.
The Committee shall be responsible for looking
into all aspects related to the smooth and efficient
conduct of the 7th Minor Irrigation Census, 2nd
Census of Water Bodies, 1st Census of Major and
Medium Irrigation Projects and 1st Census of Springs
and the Committee shall meet at least once in three
months during the tenure of the census.
This is issued with the approval of the
Government vide U.O. No. 4480/F dated 26-09-2024.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
P. B. Badami, Chief Engineer (WR) & ex officio
Addl. Secretary.
Porvorim, 21st January, 2025.
————
Notification(03)
No. 67-3/CE/CPO/WRD/M.I Census/2024-25/375
The Government is pleased to appoint the
following officers for effective and smooth conduct
of 7th Minor Irrigation Census, 2nd Census of Water
Bodies, 1st Census of Major and Medium Irrigation
Projects and 1st Census of Springs (with reference
year 2022-23) which is being conducted in the
State of Goa from the year 2024-25.
1. The Chief Engineer, WRD,
— M. I. Census
Government of Goa, Porvorim
Commissioner.
2. The Surveyor of Works-
— North Goa
-Circle-I, WRD, Porvorim,
District Level
Goa
Officer.
3. The Surveyor of Works-CPO,
— South Goa
WRD, Porvorim-Goa
District Level
Officer.
4. Block Development Officers
— Block Level
(BDO)
Officers.
1.
Pernem
7. Dharbandora
2.
Bardez
8. Sanguem
3.
Bicholim
9. Quepem
4.
Sattari
10. Salcete
5.
Tiswadi
11. Cancona
6.
Ponda
12. Mormugao
Duties and responsibilities:-
1. The Census Commissioner will be the
overall incharge for the conduct of the census
in Goa State.
2. District Level Officers-North Goa and South
Goa will have overall charge of respective
districts. They will also be responsible for
overall monitoring of the census work in their
respective districts.
3. Block Development Officers (BDO) will be
responsible for appointing and allocating the
duties to the enumerators for their respective
talukas.
This is issued with the approval of the
Government vide U. O No. 4480 dated 26-09-2024.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
P. B. Badami, Chief Engineer (WR) & ex officio
Addl. Secretary.
Porvorim, 21st January, 2025.
————
Notification(02)
No. 67-3/CE/CPO/WRD/M.I Census/2024-25/377
Consequent upon the decision of the
Government of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti, New Delhi
to conduct 7th Minor Irrigation Census, 2nd Census
of Water Bodies, 1st Census of Major and Medium
Irrigation Projects and 1st Census of Springs in the
country (with respect to reference year 2022-23),
the Government of Goa is pleased to constitute a
State Level Technical Sub-committee (SLTSC)
comprising of following members for the smooth
and efficient conduct of the same in this State.
1. The Chief Engineer, Central
—
Chairman.
Water Commission, Regional
Office, Bengaluru
2. The Regional Director/
—
Member.
/Nominated Representative,
Central Ground Water Board,
Bengaluru
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2025
941
3. The Director, The Directorate
— Member.
of Planning, Statistics and
Evaluation, Government of
Goa/Nominated Representative
4. The Chief Engineer, Water
— Census
Resources Department,
Commi-
Government of Goa, Porvorim-
ssioner/
-Goa
/Member
Secretary.
The Sub-Committee will provide technical inputs
and guide the State Statistical Cell/concerned
officials for smooth and efficient conduct of the said
census for which the committee shall meet at least
once in three (03) months during the tenure of the
same.
This is issued with the approval of the
Government vide U. O. No. 4480/F dated 26-09-2025.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
P. B. Badami, Chief Engineer (WR) & ex officio
Addl. Secretary.
Porvorim, 21st January, 2025.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 27.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—346/80—01/2025.