RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410 Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026Panaji, 16th May, 2024 (Vaisakha 26, 1946) SERIES II No. 7
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Note:- There are three Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 6 dated 09-05-2024 as follows:-
(1) Extraordinary dated 10-05-2024 from pages 191 to 192 regarding Orders & Notifications from Goa State Election Commission.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 14-05-2024 from pages 193 to 194 regarding Notification from Department of Panchayati Raj and Community Development.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 15-05-2024 from pages 195 to 196 regarding Notification from Department of Panchayati Raj and Community Development.
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
—–––––—
El-Capitan Centre Co-operative Maintenance Society Ltd. Near Court Complex, Feira-Alto, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa Reg. Code Symbol No. GEN-5/NZ/Goa dated 16-03-2007
—–––––—
Final List of Members of the El-Capitan Centre Co-op. Maintenance Society Ltd.
Sr. Full name Full postal Class of Whether Remarks No. of member address member membership is
Individual/Firm/ Company/Body Corporate/Public Trust/Joint Member/Co.op Scty.
1 2
3 4 5 6
1. Dr. Luildo Marcos de Flat 1, 2nd Floor, El Capitan General Joint Membership 2F1/O12 Noronha & Mrs. Marcia Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507 Maria N. De Noronha
2. Mrs. Digambar M. Flat 2, 2nd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 2F2 Chodankar Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
3. Mr. Vikram Shantaram Flat 3, 2nd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 2F3 Kavlekar Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
4. Ms. Shirley V. Pereira e Flat 4, 2nd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 2F4/3F6 D'Souza Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
5. Mrs. Archana Anand Flat 5, 2nd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 2F5 Chanekar Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
6. Mr. Francisco Pedro Flat 6, 2nd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Joint Membership 2F6 D'souza & Mrs. Leonita Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507 Margarida D'souza OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024 1 2
3
4 5 6 7. Mrs. Cherion Francisca Flat 1, 3rd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Joint Membership 3F1 Pais & Mr. Collin Joseph Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507 Savio Pais
8. Ms. Fareen Faruk Flat 2, 3rd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 3F2 Mohammed Feira Alta, Mapusa Goa 403507
9. Mr. Nazareth Louis Coelho Flat 3, 3rd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Joint Membership 3F3/LG9 & Ms. Leolin Coelho Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
10. Mr. David D'souza, Flat 4, 3rd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Joint Membership 3F4 Mr. Dominic D'souza, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507 Mr. Donald D'souza
11. Mrs. Shobha Suresh Flat 5, 3rd Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 3F5/UG2 Mhambrey Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
12. Ms. Shahista Y. Memon Flat 1, 4th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Joint Membership 4F1 & Mr. Yusuf Memon Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
13. Dr. Shilpa Mhambrey Flat 2, 4th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 4F2 Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
14. Mr. Sameer Gaikwad Flat 3, 4th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 4F3 Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
15. Mrs. Shweta Dharmendar Flat 4, 4th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 4F4
Hirve Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
16. Mrs. Seema R. Verlekar Flat 5, 4th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 4F5
Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
17. Ms. Violet Filomena Flat 6, 4th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Joint Membership 4F6 D'souza alias Violet Lobo Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
18. Mrs. Varsha M. Narvekar Flat 1, 5th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 5F1 Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
19. Mrs. Ratnamanjiri R. Flat 2, 5th Floor, El Capitan Centre, General Individual 5F2
Sawant Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
20. Mr. Siddhart Narayan Shop 1, Lower Ground Floor, El Capitan General Joint Membership LG1
Tilve & Mrs. Harshada S. Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
Tilve
21. Ramesh M. Patel Shop 2, Lower Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual LG2
Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa, 403507
22. M/s Al-lite Traders, by Shop 3, Lower Ground Floor, El Capitan General Firm LG3/4
Its Partner, Mr. Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
Mangesh Radhakrishna
Shirodkar
23. M/s. Silimkhan Optics Shop 5, Lower Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual LG5
(now of Mr. Shamuim Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
T. Silimkhan)
24. Mr. Parshuram Dattaram Shop 6, Lower Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual LG6
Arolkar Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
25. Dr. Soid Amanulla Shop 7, Lower Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual LG7
Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
26. Mr. Dhanesh Walavalkar Shop 8, Lower Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual LG8 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
27. Adv. Lloyd Lopes Lobo Office No. 1, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O1 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa Goa 403507 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024 1 2
3 4 5 6 28. Dr. Shyamprasad Office No. 2, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Joint Membership O2/UG 7/8 Kharangate & Dr. (Mrs.) Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507 Neeta Kharangate
29. Mrs. Priyanka K. Office No. 3, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O3 Bandodkar Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
30. Mr. Ramesh Laxman Office No. 4, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O4 Gawande Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
31. Mr. Amey Singapurkar Office No. 5, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O5 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
32. Ms. Pramila Shripad Office No. 6, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O6
Daptardar Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
33. Mr. Sadanand M. Shet Office No. 7, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O7/15
Tanavade Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
34. Mrs. Ella Atai Office No. 8, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O8-9/UG1
Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
35. Mr. Ratnapal Shiva Salkar Office No. 10, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Joint Membership O10 & Mrs. Lata Ratnapal Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507 Salkar
36. Adv. Vinayak S. N. Office No. 11, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O11 Alornekar Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
37. Dr. (Mrs.) Varsha S. Office No. 13, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O13 Kamat Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
38. Mr. Venkatesh Office No. 14, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O14 Purushottom Prabhu Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa,, Goa 403507
39. Adv. Amey Arjun Phadte Office No. 16, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O16 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
40. Adv. Arjun Krishna Office No. 17, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O17
Phadte Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
41. Mrs. Shilpa Ramesh Office No. 18, 1st Floor, El Capitan General Individual O18
Verlekar Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
42. Mrs. Blanche Fernandes Shop 3, Upper Ground Floor, El Capitan General Joint Membership UG 3/4/6
& Mr. Kenneth Fernandes Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
43. Mr. Ricardo Carlos Ribeiro Shop 5, Upper Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual UG5
Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
44. Mr. Mathew Kurian Shop 9, Upper Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual UG9 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
45. Mrs. Meenakshi V. Prabhu Shop 10, Upper Ground Floor, El Capitan General Joint Membership UG10 Mahambre & Mr. Vinay Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507 P. Mahambre
46. Adv. Surendra Narulkar Shop 11, Upper Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual UG11 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
47. Adv. Satish J. Rao Shop 12, Upper Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual UG12/13 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
48. Mr. Sayed Hussain Shop 15, Upper Ground Floor, El Capitan General Individual UG14-18 Centre, Feira Alta, Mapusa, Goa 403507
Ratnapal Salkar, Chairman.
Mapusa, 18th January, 2024.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024Department of Fisheries
Directorate of Fisheries ––
Order
No. 2-1-81-FSH
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- -sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Goa Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 (Act No. 3 of 1981), the Government of Goa, having regard to the need to conserve fish, hereby prohibits fishing by fishing vessels fitted with mechanical means of propulsion and by means of trawl-net and purse-seine net, except fishing by registered motorized canoes using gill nets only, and fitted with outboard or inboard motors, of upto 10 HP capacity, as a means of propulsion, along the sea coast of the State of Goa and the territorial waters of the State of Goa, with effect from 1st June, 2024 till 31st July, 2024 (both days inclusive).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dr. Shamila Monteiro, Director and ex officio/Joint
Secretary (Fisheries).
Panaji, 8th May, 2024.
——————
Department of Labour ––
Order
No. 28/38/2024-LAB/290
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Gomantak Private Limited, Gomantak Bhavan, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa and it's workman, Shri Vithal Sukhadkar, represented by the Goa Union of Journalists, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Gomantak Private Limited, Gomantak Bhavan, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa, in refusing salary and arrears to Shri Vithal Sukhadkar, Reporter/ /Journalist, as per recommendation of Majithia Wage Board, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Asha Harmalkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 8th May, 2024.
—–––––—
O rd er
No. 28/41/2024-LAB/291
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Indoco Remedies Limited, Plant-II, L-32, 33, 34, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa and it's workman, Shri Sainath Patil, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section
(1) of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Indoco Remedies Limited, Plant-II, L-32, 33, 34, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in dismissing, Shri Sainath Patil, with effect from 03-06-2022, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Asha Harmalkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 8th May, 2024.
—–––––—
O rd er
No. 28/40/2024-LAB/292
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Watson Pharma Private Limited, Plot No. A3 to A6, Phase I-A, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa and it's workman, Shri Rahul Rajendra Parab, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it
expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers
the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-
-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Watson Pharma Private Limited, Plot No. A3 to A6, Phase I-A, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in dismissing, Shri Rahul Rajendra Parab, with effect from 10-06-2023, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Asha Harmalkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 8th May, 2024.
————
O rd er
No. 28/39/2024-LAB/293
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Himgiri Casting Private Limited, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa and it's workmen, represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Himgiri Casting Private Limited, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa in refusing employment to following sixteen workmen, with effect from 16-11-2023, is legal and justified?
Sr. No. Name of workmen Date of joining Department Designation 1 2 3 4 5 1. Bishwakarma Singh 22-10-2020 Disa Lock out Operator. 2. Chotu 01-07-2020 Melting Helper. 3. Kirum Kongari 01-10-2020 M/C shop Machine Operator. 4. Shambhu Nath 13-02-2021 Melting Helper. 5. Indrasen 13-07-2017 Melting Helper. 6. Sunita Orain 20-10-2020 Cementing Helper. 7. Ramajor Sriburary Rajbhar 01-04-2019 Casting Checking Quality Inspector. 8. Sabnus Barla 01-10-2022 Coal Shop Machine Operator. 9. Subhash Ram 01-07-2017 Casting Checking Quality Inspector. 10. Debasis Ashwin Pramanik 01-03-2018 M/C shop Machine Operator. 11. Akhileshwar Maurya 08-10-2021 Maintenance Fitter. 12. Gulshan 01-07-2020 Melting Helper. 13. Chintamani 01-10-2022 M/C shop Machine Operator. 14. Sangita Bhengra 20-10-2020 Cementing Helper. 15. Baldev 16-11-2018 Melting Operator. 16. Ravindar Maurya 01-01-2016 M/C shop Drilling Operator.
(2) If answer to issue No. (1) above is negative, then what relief the workmen are entitled to?
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Asha Harmalkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 8th May, 2024.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024Notification
No. 28/02/2023-LAB/533
The following Award passed by the Labour Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 12-07-2023 in Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/85/07 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.
Vivek Naik, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 1st August, 2023.
––––
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/85/07
The General Secretary, All Goa General Employees Union, 2nd floor, Mukund Building, P.O. Box 90, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.
............Workmen/Party-I
V/s
1. The Managing Director,
M/s. Goa Construction Housing and Finance Corporation Limited. ...Employer/Party II(1)
2. Goa Housing Board,
Porvorim, Goa ……Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Adv. Shri J. Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. C. Carvalho
Panaji, dated: 12-07-2023
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) 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 02-11-2006, bearing No. 28/36/2006-LAB/864 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa.
"(1) Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Goa Construction and Housing and Finance Federation Limited, Panaji, in retrenching the following fourteen Union with effect from the dates mentioned against their respective names, is legal and justified?
Sr. Name Date of No.
termination
1 2 3
1. Miss Nutan Govekar 09-10-2002 2. Mr. Alirio Mendonca 11-10-2002 3. Shri Rama Vishwanath 09-10-2002 4. Shri Sadanand N. Shirodkar 09-10-2002 5. Mrs. Sunita R. Kalangutkar 09-10-2002 6. Shri Kanta Dattaram 09-10-2002 7. Mr. Vinod Gurudas Borkar 09-10-2002 8. Mr. Godfry Machado 09-10-2002 9. Shri Roque Carlos Pereira 09-10-2002 10. Mr. Dinesh Chanrakant 09-10-2002 11. Shri Yeshwant V. Madkaikar 09-10-2002 12. Shri Ajit Salgaonkar 09-10-2002 13. Shri Deepak P. Varti 01-03-2004
(2) If not,
(a) What relief the workpersons are entitled
to?
(b) Whether any relief can be granted against M/s Goa Housing Board, Porvorim-Goa, to which assets and liabilities of M/s Goa Construction Housing and Finance
Corporation Ltd. have been transferred?
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was registered under Ref. No. IT/85/2007 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 filed their Statment of Claim on 30-05-2008 at Exb. 12, through All Goa General Employees Union (for short, "the said Union"). The facts of the case, in brief as pleaded by the Union are that all 14 workers involved in the present industrial dispute are members of and represented by the All Goa General Employees Union which is a duly registered Trade Union under the law. The Union stated that they were the employees of the Employer (1) in its office establishment as per their respective dates of employement. The Union stated that 10 of Workmen were purportedly terminated w.e.f. 09-10-2002 on the alleged ground of intended winding up of the Employer(1). However there was no such winding up in fact. The Union stated that two workers were subsequently terminated on 11-10-2002 and 3 workers were terminated on 01-03-2004. The Union stated that the bare perusal of the dates of termination itself shows that there was no winding up in fact. The Union stated that the Government of Goa which is the sole share holder of the entire share capital of the employer (1) only purported to transfer all the assets and liabilities of the employer (1) to the Employer (2) which is also a statutory company belonging to the Government of Goa. The OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024 purported retrenchment of the workers concerned in this dispute, they were also entitled to be re-employed on the rolls of the Employer (2). The Union stated that they are entitled for a direction from this Hon'ble Tribunal directing the Employer (2) to re-employ all the workers concerned in this dispute. The Union therefore prayed that the workers are all entitled for being reinstated in service either with Employer (1) or with its transferee Company viz. Employer (2) with full back wages, continuity in service and other consequential benefits.
3. The Employer (1) resisted the claim of the Union by filing its written statement on 30-05-2008 at Exb. 15. The Employer (1), as and by way of its reply, submitted that the present proceedings are not maintainable as the Union who are agitating before this Hon'ble Tribunal have been duly retrenched after obtaining approval of Government on payment of one month salary and that they have not protested while relieving them and accepted the retrenchment.
4. The Employer (1) stated it was a Government Corporation. The Employer (1) stated that it was suffering heavy losses and therefore has been wound up by the Government and its assets and liabilities of payments were transferred to the Employer (2). The Employer (1) stated that the liabilities towards any employee of its Corporation has not been taken over by the Employer (2) and hence the Union cannot make any claim against the Employer (2) and Employer (1) Corporation which does not exist. The Employer (1) stated that it was established under the Companies Act, 1956 on 30-09-1993 by the Govt. of Goa with the main objective to undertake housing, improvement, building Schemes and other allied activities. The Employer (1) stated that its Board of Directors were appointed by the Government from time to time. The Employer (1) stated that after its establishment, it started incurring continuous losses since, 1995-96. The Employer (1) stated that it was not able to utilize its assets and fell short in achieving its objectives for which it was created. The Employer (1) stated that the funds allotted to them for construction of low income houses by the planning commission were utilized for some other purpose like construction of HIG flats and no initiatives were taken by its officials and its directors to sell the flat or utilize the land in their possession to develop and sell. The Employer (1) stated that there was constant refrain to lack of funds because of not putting the fixed assets to proper use. The Employer (1) stated that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India then recommended the closure of the Union stated that all the 14 workers were therefore entitled to be continued in employment on the rolls of the Transferee company i.e. Goa Housing Board i.e. Employer (2), if at all there was such a transfer in actual fact. The Union stated that the business activities of the Employer (1) were never closed. The Union stated that there was no prior notice of closure. The Union stated that no information of intended closure was given by the Employer (1) to the authorities under the I.D. Act, 1947, nor was any permission sought. The Union stated that in fact the workers were subsequently given a written assurance that their services would be continued. The Union stated that this fact by itself proves that the Employer (1) is conscious of the illegality and unjustifiability of its actions. The Union stated that instead of continuing their services, they were allegedly retrenched/terminated. The Union stated that the alleged retrenchment compensation was, in fact, paid by the Employer (2). The Union stated that this itself shows that the workers were actually entitled to be continued on the roll of Employer (2). The Union stated that this all the more glaring because the entire assets and liablities of the Employer (1), (including all the on going projects of the Employer (1) were purportedly transferred to the Employer (2). The Union stated that the Govt. of Goa had in fact also taken a separate decision to continue the workers in employment, albeit in other Corporations/autonomous bodies. The Union stated that even after all the alleged retrenchment of the workers on the alleged ground of winding up of the Employer (1), the business activities of the Employer (1) still continued in full force. The Union stated that after the purported transfer all the assets and liabilities of the Employer (1) to the Employer (2) all the schemes and projects of Employer (1) have been continued by the Employer (2). The Union stated that the Employer (2) has also employed new workers on its roll in permanent, temporary and casual jobs. The Union stated that however, the Employer (2) has not re-employed the workers concerned in this dispute, despite the policy decision the Government in that respect. The Union submitted that this is illegal and contrary to their right to re-employment. The Union stated that the failure/refusal of the Employer (2) to re-employ them on the rolls of the Employer (2) is wilful and deliberate. The Union stated that the Employer (1) and the Employer (2) both were in possession of seniority list of the workers concerned in this dispute and were duty bound to transfer the services of all the said workers from the rolls of the Employer (1) to the rolls of the Employer (2) at the time of the purported transfer of the establishment. The Union stated that notwithstanding the OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024 cannot entertain. The Employer (2) submitted that the Employer (1) was a Govt. owned Corporation which was suffering heavy losses and has therefore been wound up by the Govt. and its assets and liabilities of payments have been trasferred to them. The Employer (2) submitted that the liabilities towards any employees of the Employer (1) have not been taken over by them and hence the Workmen cannot make any claims either against them or against the Employer (1) which no longer in existence. The Employer (2) therefore submitted that the reference is liable to be rejected.
Corporation. The Employer (1) stated that due to the above reasons, the Govt. of Goa also therefore took a decision to wind up the Employer (1) Corporation and transfer the housing Schemes undertaken by them to Employer (2) along with the Assets and the Liabilities. The Employer(1) stated that the Government further decided to retrench the existing staff of the Corporation by passing the retrenchment benefits under the provisions of section 25 P of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. by giving one month notice wage in lieu of notice and payment of 45 days compensation (basic+DA) for every years of continuous service. The Employer (1) stated that in addition to retrenchment compensation, the employees got the other benefits as per their admissibility. The Employer (1) stated that on 01-03-2004 by deed of transfer, all the assets and liabilities of the Employer (1) Corporation were transferred to the Employer (2) without any liability of the employees. The Employer (1) stated that in deed of transfer executed between themselves and the Employer (2) clearly stated that the Employer (2) shall not be liable for any liabilities towards any claim of any retrenched employees to absorb in Employer (2). The Employer (1) stated that thus the retrenched staff has no right to claim absorption in Employer (2). The Employer (1) stated that the it has been duly wound up as per the decision of the Government. The Employer (1) stated that the termination is done as per the law and the Union are paid one month salary and retrenchment benefits and therefore the Union are not entitled to raise any dispute. The Employer (1) stated that though Employer (2) is a statutory boby and it has its own strength of employees and rules and regulations. The employer (1) stated that there are no vacancy in Employer (2) and the union cannot claim any right to employ them in Employer (2). The Employer (1) stated that the retrenchment compensation was paid by them when it was existing. The Employer (1) stated that the land belonging to them was not all all developed and activities were not carried out. The Employer therefore prayed that the reference be rejected.
4. The Employer (2) also resisted the claim of the Union by filing its reply dated 30-03-2011 at Exb. 35. The Employer (2) as and by way of its reply, submitted that the present proceedings are not maintainable as the Workmen who are agitating before this Hon'ble Tribunal have been duly retrenched on payment of one month's salary after having obtained the approval of the Govt. The Employer (2) submitted that the workmen have not protested whilst being relieved but have accepted their retrenchment, hence the present proceedings
5. The Employer (2) stated that the Employer (1) was established under the Companies Act, 1956 on 30-09-1993 by the Govt. of Goa with the main objective of undertaking housing improvement, building schemes and other allied activities. The Employer (2) stated that the Board of Directors of the Employer (1) was appointed by the Govt. from time to time. The Employer (1) stated that after the Employer (1) was established, it began incurring losses continuously since 1995-96. The Employer (2) stated that the Employer (1) was not able to utilize its assets and fell short in achieving its objectives for which purpose it had created. The Employer (2) stated that the funds allotted to the Employer (1) for construction of low income group houses by the planning Commission were utilized for some other purposes like construction of high income group flats and no initiatives were taken by the officials of the Employer (1) and/or the Board of Directors of the Employer (1) to sell the flats or utilize the land in their possession to develop and sell the same. The Employer (2) stated that there was constant refrain to lack of funds on account of the fixed assets not being put to proper use. The Employer (2) stated that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India then recommended the closure of the Employer (1). The Employer (2) stated that due to above reasons, the Govt. of Goa also therefore took a decision to wind up the Employer (1) Corporation and transfer the housing Scheme undertaken by the Employer (1) Corporation to them along with the assets and liabilities. The Employer (2) stated that the Govt. further decided to retrench the existing staff of the Employer (1) Corporation by paying them the retrenchment benefits under the provisions of Section 25 P of the I. D. Act, 1947, i.e. by paying one month's wages in lieu of notice and payment of 45 days compensation (Basic+DA) for every year of continuous service. The Employer (2) stated that in addition to the retrenchment compensation, the employees also received the other benefits as per their admissibility. The Employer (2) stated that on 01-03-2004, by deed of OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024 transfer, all the assets and libilities of the Employer (1) Coropration were transferred to them without any liability to the employees. The Employer (2) stated that in the deed of transfer executed between the Employer (1) and themselves it has been clearly stated that the Employer (1) Corporation shall not be liable for any liabilities towards any claim of any retrenched employee to be absorbed in themselves. The Employer (2) stated that thus the retrenched Employees have no right to claim absorption in themselves. The Employer (2) stated that once the retrenchment has been undertaken by the Govt. of Goa, the retrenched Workmen are not entitled to reinstatement. The Employer (2) submitted that as per the decision of the Govt. The Employer (2) submitted that the termination has been done as per the law and the Workmen have been paid one month's salary as well as retrenchment benefits. The Employer (2) submitted that the workmen are therefore are not entiled to raise any dispute now. The employer (2) submitted that the Employer (2) is a statutory body and has own strength of employees as well as its own rules and regulations. The Employer (2) submitted that there are no vacanies in their board and the workmen cannot claim any right to be employed in the Employer(2) therefore prayed that the reference be liable to be rejected.
6. Thereafter, the union filed their Rejionder to the Written Statement of the Employer (1) on 11-08-2008 at Exb. 2.1. The Union, as and by way of its Rejoinder, submitted that the Written Statement dated 30-05-2008 is illegal and unauthoized being filed by person/organisation which is not a Party to the dispute and hence the said written statement may kindly be struck off the record and the matter be proceeded ex-parte against the Employer (1). The Union denied the overall case as pleaded in the Written statement of the Employer (1). The Union submitted that the alleged deed of transfer dt. 01-03-2004 or its alleged contents are not admitted.
7. The Union also filed their Rejoinder on 05-05-2011 at Exb. 36, to the Written Statement of the Employer (2). The Union, as and by way of its Rejoinder, submitted that maintains, reiterates, repeats and confirms all the averments made in their Statement of Claim anything contrary thereto or in consistant therewith which may be contained in the written Statement. The Union stated that any such alleged agreement or understanding between the Employer (1) Corporation and the Employer (2) is contrary to law, illegal, unjustified and in any case not binding on the Workmen or on the Union.
8. Based on the pleading filed by the parties hereinabove, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to frame the following issues:
1) Whether the Party-I/Workmen proves that the action of the Party-II/Employer in retrenching the 14 Union in the order of reference illegal and unjustified?
2) Whether the Party-I/Workmen proves that the
Employer is an existing legal entity?
3) Whether the Party-II proves that the present order of reference is not maintainable as alleged in para 1 of their reply?
3A) Whether Employer (2) proves that Employer (1) has been wound up and the agreement of transfer executed states that there is no liability on Employer (2) to accommodate any of the employees of Employer (1)?
4) Whether the Party-I is entitiled to any relief?
5) What Award?
9. My answers to the aforsaid issues are as under
1) Issues No.1 : In the Negative
2) Issue No. 2 : In the Negative
3) Issue No. 3 : In the Affirmative
4) Issue No. 3A : In the Affirmative
5) Issues No. 4 & 5 : As per final order
Reasons
10. Issues No. 1 & 3
I am deciding the Issues No. 1 & 3 simultaneously as both the said issues are co-related to each other.
Both the Employer, in its reply filed in the present proceeding, submitted that as the Workmen have been duly retrenched after obtaining approval of Government on payment of one month salary. Burden was cast on the Party-I Union to prove the Issue No. 1.
11. The term "retrenchment" has been defined u/s 2 (OO) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Section 25(FFF) provides for compensation to the Workmen in case of closing down of undertaking and it reads as under:
Section 25FFF- Compensation to the Union in
case of closing down of undetakings:-
(1) Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every Workmen who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F, as if the Workmen had been retrenched.
Provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Employer, the compensation to be paid to the Workmen under Clause (b) of Section 25F, shall not exceed his averag pay for three months.
12. Similarly Section 25F of the I.D. Act provides for condition precedent for a valid retrenchment of the Workmen and it reads as under OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024 Section 25F- No Workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous services for not less than one year under an Employer shall be retrenched by that Employer until
(a) The workmen, has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice.
(b) The Workmen has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months and
(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such author ity as may be s pecified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette).
Corporation is an existing legal entity. Issue No. 2 is therefore answered in the negative.
15. Issue No. 3 (A)
It is admitted that the order dated 06-04-2002 wherein the decision of winding up of the Employer/ Coporation was conveyed to its Managing Director. The sole witness of the Workmen, Shri Deepak Varty acknowledge and admits of being aware of the deed of transfer was executed with due approval of the Govt. of Goa. The said witness of the Workmen admitted that the Govt. has given permission for winding up of the Goa Construction Housing and Finance Corporation. In terms of clause 5 of deed of transfer, it is stated that the service of 14 employees have been retrenched by paying compensation and Employer (2) shall not be liable for any liability towards any claim of any employees to absorb this employees in Goa Housing Board. The sole witness of the Workmen admitted that the aforesaid Clause 5 of the deed of transfer has not been challenged and as such deed of transfer has attained finality. Hence it is held that the Employer (2) proved that the Employer (1) has been wound up and the agreement of transfer executed states that there is no liability on the Employer (2) to accommodate any of the employees of the Employer (1). The issue No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
16. Issue No. 4
While deciding the issue No. 1, I have discussed and held that the Workmen failed to prove that the action of the Employer in retrenching its 14 Workmen named in the order of reference is illegal and unjustified. The Workmen are not entitled to any relief. The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in the negative.
In view of above I pass the following order.
ORDER
13. Thus, Section 25 F of the I. D. Act, is mandatory for the retrenchment of any of the Workmen. In the present matter the burden was put on the Union to prove that the retrenchment of all 14 Workmen named in the order of reference is illegal and unjustified. The Workmen/Union pleaded nor supported by any material evidence that they have not been paid the retrenchment compensation as well as one month notice or one month pay in lieu of notice. The Workmen/Union failed to state the reason for invalidity of their retrenchment. The evidence on record indicates that all the retrenchment Workmen were duly paid retrenchment benefits in terms of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 by Employer (1). The evidence on record indicates that the financial books of the Corporation for the last 5 years have consistently shown losses and therefore the Govt. of Goa compelled to wind up the Corporation. It is therefore held that the Workmen failed to prove that action of the Employer (1) in retrenching its 14 Workmen named in the order of reference is illegal and unjustified. It is further held that the order of reference is not maintainable in view of the reasons stated in para 1 of the reply. The Issue No. 1 is answered in the negative and the issue No. 3 is answered in the affirmative.
14. Issue No. 2
The burden was put on the Workmen/Union to prove that the Employer is an existing legal entity. The Workmen/Union has however failed to prove that the Employer is an existing body. The evidence on record indicates that the Employer Corporation has been wound up pursuant to the order/decision of the Government of Goa as the Corporation was facing heavy losses. It is therefore held that the Workmen failed to prove that the Employer 1. It is held that the action of the management of M/s Goa Construction Housing and Finance Corporation Ltd., Panaji-Goa, in retrenching the fourteen Workmen represented by the Party-I Union with effect from the dates mentioned against their repective names, is legal and justified.
2. It is held that all the 14 Workpersons are not
entitled to any relief.
3. It is further held that no relief can be granted against M/s Goa Housing Board, Porvorim-Goa to which assets and liabilities of M/s Goa Construction and Housing and Finance Corporation Ltd have been transferred.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/- (Suresh N. Narulkar), Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024Department of Personnel
–– O rd er
No. 5/12/2017-PER/1893
Shri Shreyas D'Silva, Under Secretary, GA-II, shall hold the charge of Under Secretary, GA-I in addition to his duties as per link arrangement order on retirement on superannuation of Smt. Shaila Bhosle, w.e.f. 01-05-2024 until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 9th May, 2024.
————
No tif ic ati on
No. 5/1/2021-PER/1916
In pursuance to Rule 23 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, the Departmental Examination for the Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service mentioned in the enclosed annexure is scheduled from 18-06-2024 to 23-06-2024 at GIPARD, Ella Farm, Old Goa as per the schedule mentioned below:-
Sr. No. Description Marks Date Time 1 2
3 4 5
1. Paper-I—The Goan ethos, basic principles 100 18-06-2024 2.00 to 5.00 p.m. of Goa and general studies (without books) (Tuesday)
2. Paper-II—Legal Foundations of Government 100 19-06-2024 2.00 to 5.00 p.m. (with books)
(Wednesday)
3. Paper-III—Legal Machinery of Government 100 20-06-2024 2.00 to 5.00 p.m. (with books)
(Thursday)
4. Paper-IV—Financial Management in Government 100 21-06-2024 2.00 to 5.00 p.m. (with books)
(Friday)
5. Paper-V—Administrative skills in Government 100 22-06-2024 2.00 to 5.00 p.m. (with books)
(Saturday)
6. Paper-VI—Contemporary issues in Governance 50 23-06-2024 2.00 to 4.00 p.m. (without books)
(Sunday)
The candidates shall report to the examination center at GIPARD atleast 30 minutes before the commencement of the examination on each day, along with a valid ID proof in original/or the ID Card provided by GIPARD during the Departmental Training.
No mobile phones or any electronic gadgets will be allowed in the examination hall.
Each candidate has to write ONLY the Seat Number on his/her answer book/supplements (if any). No other details or inscription/symbols or any description which can reveal the identity of the candidate, shall be made on the answer book, etc. In such event, where the identity of the candidate is revealed, the answer book shall not be assessed and the candidate awarded NIL marks.
No material in the form of books, notes, electronic gadgets, etc. will be allowed in the examination hall for the examination which are conducted without books.
Books/reading material/class notes/powerpoint presentations will be allowed to be taken in the examination hall only for Paper II, Paper III, Paper IV and Paper V. In case candidates are carrying on themselves the relevant books/reading material/classnotes/powerpoint presentations in electronic form on laptops/tablets, then the candidate shall necessarily deposit the said laptop/tablet with the Controller of Examination at GIPARD, for the purpose of disabling all network connections etc.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024The Officer shall be declared passed in the examination, if he/she secures a minimum of 45% of the total marks in each paper.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 10th May, 2024.
————
ANNEXURE
Sr. No. Name of the Junior Scale Officer
1 2
1. Sohan Ashok Uskaikar
2. Gauresh Ashok Pilgaonkar
3. Shubham Mohan Naik
4. Ganesh Krishnakumar Barve
5. Yogiraj Prakash Gosavi
6. Ashwini Vidwal Bhagat
7. Girish Gopal Sawant
8. Sitaram Gurudas Sawal
9. Manohar Lavu Karekar
10. Shreyas Dsilva
11. Medora Eromilla D'Costa
12. Mriselda Velika Monteiro
13. Velton Peter Tellis
14. Prajeet Ramdas Chodankar
15. Vinayak Suresh Chari
16. Diksha Namdev Tari
17. Suyash Vinayak Sinai Khandeparkar
18. Vrushika Premanand Kauthankar
19. Himanshu Rajesh Patnekar
20. Deepti Dharma Gaonkar
21. Ishwar Madan Madkaikar
22. Omkar Amar Asolkar
23. Naresh Gaude
24. Pankaj Rane
25. Belwadi Samiullah Nishat
26. Mrunal Sidharth Marathe
27. Vipul Raghoba Naik Gaonkar
28. Sanjana Dipak Bandekar
29. Nadia Ashraf Ali Shekoli
30. Safal Krishna Shetye
31. Sanket Sandip Sakhardande
32. Manthan Manoj Naik
33. Sairaj Dattaram Phadte OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 7 16TH MAY, 2024 1 2
34. Amit Nagesh Sawant
35. Ratnakant Dinraj Goveker
36. Agnelo Levlino Dsouza
37. Manthan Manish Naik
38. Kaushik Dattaguru Amonkar
39. Pandurang Digambar Gad
40. Nehal Gajanan Talaunekar
41. Pratik Pandurang Porob
42. Bhimnath Purushottam Khorjuvekar
43. Jayesh Brahmanand Mayenkar
44. Ganraj Mahadev Morajkar
45. Lyndon Provanlee Cardoso
——————
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
–––
Order
No. 14-17/PCE/PWD/EO/2024-25/31
Ref.: 1) Order No. 14-17-2012/PCE-PWD-EO/04 dated 18-04-2012.
2) Order No. 14-17/PCE/PWD/EO/2021-22/244 dated 10-02-2022.
In pursuance of sub-section (1) & (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter called the "said Act"), the following Officers are designated as State Public Information Officer and Assistant State Public Information Officer for the below mentioned Offices of Public Works Department, for carrying out the functions prescribed under the said Act in partial modification to this Department's order referred above.
Sr. No. Name of Office Officer designated as SPIO Officer designated as ASPIO 1. Office of Chief Engineer-I Assistant Surveyor of Works, Junior Engineer, O/o
O/o Chief Engineer-I Chief Engineer-I.
2. Office of Chief Engineer-II Assistant Surveyor of Works, Junior Engineer, O/o
O/o Chief Engineer-II Chief Engineer-II.
3. Office of Chief Engineer Assistant Surveyor of Works, Junior Engineer, O/o (NH, R&B) O/o Chief Engineer (NH, R&B) Chief Engineer (NH, R&B).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Uttam Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer (PWD) & ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 2nd May, 2024.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery, Government Printing Press, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 13.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—54/80—5/2024.