SERIES II No. 7
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026
Panaji, 16th May, 2024 (Vaisakha 26, 1946)
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.
197
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
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
198
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
199
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.
200
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 7
16TH MAY, 2024
Department 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.
—–––––—
Order
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.
—–––––—
Order
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, 2024
201
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.
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.
————
Order
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.
202
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 7
16TH MAY, 2024
Notification
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
203
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
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
204
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 7
16TH MAY, 2024
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
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.
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
205
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
206
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
authority as may be specified by the
appropriate Government by notification in
the Official Gazette).
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
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
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, 2024
207
Department of Personnel
––
Order
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.
————
Notification
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.
208
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 7
16TH MAY, 2024
The 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
209
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.