Note: There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 3 dated 17-04-2025 as follows:-

1. Extraordinary dated 19-04-2025 from pages 133 to 140 regarding Orders and Notifications from Goa State Election

Commission.

2. Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 22-04-2025 from pages 141 to 142 regarding Notification from Department of General

Administration.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Co-operation

Notification

Read:

1. No. 1. Application Ref. No. 3593604072023420 dated 04-Jul-2023.

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001, "The Gautam Enclave Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited near Sarang

Niwas, Ward No. 3, Dabolim"-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2023-240087.

Sd/-, Santosh P. Naik, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground

Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 5th February, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"The Gautam Enclave Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited, near Sarang Niwas, Ward

No. 3, Dabolim"-Goa has been registered on 05/02/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No.

RCSSZ2023-240087 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under sub-classification "No. 7-

(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies

Rules, 2003.

Sd/-, Santosh P. Naik, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground

Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 5th February, 2024.

◆

Notification

Read:

1. No. (1) Application Ref. No. 3593825072023427 dated 27-Jan-2024.

5-2024-2023/ARSZ/HSG/3945

Date: 05-Feb-2024

5-2030-2023/ARSZ/HSG/4359

Date: 01-Mar-2024

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

143

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

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, 24th April, 2025 (Vaisakha 4, 1947)

SERIES II No. 4

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001, “The Kurtarkar Greens Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited Aquem Baixo,

Mandop Road, Salcete-Goa.”-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2023-240090.

Sd/-, Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters,

C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa 403602.

Margao, 1st March, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"The Kurtarkar Greens Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited, Aquem Baixo, Mandop

Road, Salcete-Goa."- Goa has been registered on 01/03/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No.

RCSSZ2023-240090 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under

sub-classification "No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-

operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Sd/-, Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2

(Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa 403602.

Margao, 1st March, 2024.

◆◆◆

GOA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE GOA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PANAJI–GOA

Proceeding No. 167/2024

Mr. Ashok J. Mapari,

R/o. H. No. 5/1, Moitem Assonora,

Bardez-Goa.

…

Complainant

V/s

The Captain of Ports,

Captain of Ports Department,

Panaji-Goa.

…

Respondent

INQUIRY REPORT

(06^th December, 2024)

The complaint dated 18/10/2024, was received in this Commission regarding recovery of the excess

amount from him of Rs.1,98,118/- at the time of his retirement.

On perusing the complaint, the Commission by Order dated 23/10/2024, issued notice to the

Respondent, calling for their reply.

The Respondent filed their reply on 21/11/2024 along with their documents.

The Commission heard Mr. Ashok J. Mapari, the Complainant in person and also Mr. Akshay

Shirvoikar, Accountant, on behalf of the Respondent.

The Commission has gone through the complaint, the reply of the Respondent, the documents of

the Parties and has considered the arguments as well as the law on the subject.

The Complainant was working in the Captain of Ports Department, Government of Goa as a Master,

as a Group ‘C’ worker and had retired on superannuation on 30/06/2024.

Proceeding No 167/2024

Date: 06-Dec-2024

144

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

In their reply, the Respondent had stated that upon verifying the pay fixation of the Complainant, it

was seen that he was erroneously granted higher grade pay at the time of financial upgradation

under MACPS in the grade pay of Rs. 2400/- instead of Rs. 2000/- and on verification of the

Service Book, a Corrigendum was issued vide Order dated 01/12/2021.

The Respondent has produced the letter of Payment of Pension, Gratuity and Commutation dated

26/06/2024, showing the recovery of Rs.1,98,118/-, from the retirement gratuity of the

Complainant. On behalf of the Respondent, it was submitted that the recovery was done due to

wrongful pay fixation.

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.

10.

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 and

further held as under:-

“6. Before such recovery, the principles of natural justice and fair play were not complied with.

Besides, such recovery was contrary to the principles the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down 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.

7. 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.

8. Mr. Naik pointed out that the Central Government has issued an Office Memorandum dated

02.03.2016 following the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra). By the Office Memorandum dated

07.03.2017, the Government of Goa has also adopted the Central Government’s OM dated

02.03.2016.”

11.

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.

12.

In the present case, the Complainant had retired on 30/06/2024 and just four days before his

retirement, the letter of Payment of Pension, Gratuity and Commutation dated 26/06/2024, was

issued to recover the amount of Rs.1,98,118/- from his retirement gratuity.

13.

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. 1,98,118/- from the gratuity amount of the Complainant just four days before his retirement and

without notice to him and it is not the case of the Respondent that the excess payment was due to

any misrepresentation by the Complainant. The Undertaking/Consent obtained from the

Complainant dated 30/10/2023, cannot deprive him of his rights arising from the law laid down in

the earlier referred Judgments.

14.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the Respondent shall refund the recovered amount

of Rs. 1,98,118/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred and Eighteen 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.

145

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

15.

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.

16.

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 06/02/2025, in terms

of Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Date : 06/12/2024

Place : Panaji-Goa.

Desmond D’Costa,

Pramod V. Kamat,

Acting Chairperson/Member,

Member,

Goa Human Rights Commission,

Goa Human Rights Commission.

—————

Captain of Ports Department

ORDER

No. A-33024/2024/COP/507

Sanction of the Government is hereby conveyed to refund an amount of the recovery of Rs. 1,98,118/-

(Rupees One Lakh Ninty Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighteen Only) to Shri Ashok J. Mapari, Retired,

Ex-Master of Captain of Ports Department as per Inquiry Report/Order dated 06/12/2024 in Proceeding

No. 167/2024/869 of the Goa Human Rights Commission, Panaji-Goa.

The expenditure is debitable to the Budget Head, Demand No. 67, 3051-Ports and Lighthouses, 02-

Minor Ports, 102- Port Management, 01-Port Establishment (Non Plan), 01- Salary.

This issues with the approval of Finance (Revenue & Control) Department vide U.O. No. 1400105091

dated 07/01/2025.

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

Octavio A. Rodrigues, Captain of Ports.

Panaji, 24th January, 2025.

◆◆◆

Department of Labour

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 20/03/2025

in Case Ref. No. IT/03/2016 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, 9th April, 2025.

__________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

28/02/2025-LAB/248

Date: 09-Apr-2025

146

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

(BEFORE MRS. VIJAYALAXMI SHIVOLKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

Ref. No. IT/03/2016

103 Workmen Rep. by

The General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartments,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa

…….. Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.,

Curti,

Ponda- Goa

…….. Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri. P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 20^thDay of the Month of March of the Year 2025)

By Order dated 09.09.2015, bearing No. 28/28/2015-Lab/853, 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”), referred the existing dispute between

M/s Wallace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and its workmen, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal

of Goa at Panaji Goa, constituted under section 7-A of the said Act. The Schedule of reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

(1) Whether the non-employment of the 103 workmen represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, by

the management of M/s Wallace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Curti, Ponda, Goa with effect from

02/03/2015, is a case of refusal of employment or an instance of strike by the workmen?

(2) In either case, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/03/2016 and registered A/D notices were

issued to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notices, the Party I thereafter filed the Statement of Claim

at Exhibit 4.

3. In their Statement of Claim, Party I stated that they are the 103 temporary workmen employed with

the Party II at their pharmaceutical Plant at Curti, Ponda – Goa and they have been working as packers and

doing the semi-skilled work and have been kept at daily wages for the last several years. The Party I stated

that they were employed as temporary workmen but were doing the same work as was done by permanent

workmen.

4. The Party I stated that the Party II is M/s Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and is a part of the

larger Wallace Group which is a privately owned Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Group headquartered in

Goa, India wherein the Wallace Group employs over 2300 personnel with offices and facilities in several

key locations in India and around the world. The Party I states that the products manufactured at the Plants

are all pharma products.

5. The Party I states that for the last many years, the temporary workmen were attempting to form an

Union to demand for better wages, better working conditions, permanency and for raising a demand in

relation to the unfair labour practices prevalent in the Plant of Party II at Curti, Ponda and further states

that there was an existing union formed by the permanent workers affiliated to the Goa Union of Industrial

Workers. The Party I states that the Management on the other hand had started with the policy of

reconstructing production and the Company had resorted to sub-contracting of production, shifting of

departments, Plant and production from the Plant at Curti to other units which amounted to reorganization

due to which the service conditions were adversely affected and the temporary workmen were forced to

147

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

raise a demand to the Management to cease and desist from the unfair labour practice and not to close

down the production of the existing products.

6. The Party I stated that the demands of the permanent workers were also not resolved and the

disputes between the permanent workmen and the management was in progress and on 01/03/2015,

suddenly there was a stoppage of operation at the Factory which continued till the 2^nd shift and on

02/03/2015, the Management kept all the workers out including the permanent and temporary and

thereafter, after discussions with the Management, the permanent workers were allowed to resume the duty

w.e.f. 03/03/2015 but temporary workmen were not allowed to resume the duty since 02/03/2015. The

Party I states that inorder to thwart the process of forming a Union of temporary workmen, the Party II on

02/03/2015 refused to allow the temporary workmen from entering the Factory premises. The Party I states

that they were reporting for work at the Factory of Party II from 02/03/2015 but they were not allowed to

join duties. The Party I states that thereafter, on 10/03/2015 they decided to join the Union by name

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and since then continued to be the members of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh.

7. The Party I states that the Party II refused to pay their legal dues and the permission for termination

of their employment was not obtained from the Government. The Party I states that on 10/03/2015, they

wrote a letter to the Party II raising a demand that the temporary workers who have been refused

employment be reinstated in service with continuity in service and full back wages and as there was no

reply or any action on behalf of Party II, the Party I wrote to the Labour Commissioner vide letter dated

12/03/2015 requesting intervention in the matter of refusal of employment to 103 workmen.

8. The Party I states that the dispute in respect of Charter of Demands is also pending before this

Tribunal and the workmen in this reference are connected with the said dispute. The Party I states that

before termination of their services, an application u/s 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not filed

before this Tribunal and hence the refusal of employment is in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the refusal of employment is illegal, unjustified and bad in law and that

they are entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

9. The Party I states that the act of the Party II in not regularizing the 103 workmen despite there

being vacancies amounts to unfair labour practice and also discrimination and violation of the principles of

equality. The Party I further states that before refusal of employment, the Party II did not pay or offered

them the retrenchment compensations, notice pay or any other legal dues.

10. In its Written Statement filed at Exhibit 6, the Party II submits that the Order of Reference itself is

vague and does not disclose proper cause of action and states that the Party II and the Union had signed

Settlement dated 05/04/2006. That in view of Clause-30 of the said Settlement, the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh has no locus standi to raise any dispute in connection with the temporary employment and therefore

the reference is bad-in-law. The Party II submits that the temporary workers who were required for work

on 02/03/2015 resorted to illegal and unjustified strike and stoppage of work leaving the place of work

after 1.30 p.m. on that day. Therefore, it is clear that non-employment of the temporary workmen is at the

instance of the strike resorted by the temporary workmen themselves in the 2^nd half of General Shift.

11. The Party II submits that the workmen are still continuing on the strike thereby attracting the

provisions of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which does not arise as the Management at

any point of time had not terminated or refused employment to any of the workmen. The Party II further

submits that since employment of temporary workmen was depending upon the exigency of work, at no

point of time on any day the Company has employed 103 temporary workmen. None of the workmen have

any time completed 240 days in any period of 12 months, on that ground alone the reference ought to be

rejected.

12. The Party II submits that the Employer denies that 103 workmen were employed with the Party II

Plant for the last many years as packers and were doing semi-skilled work and/or were kept at daily wages

for several years. It is submitted that these workmen worked as and when required for work and that they

were employed as temporary workmen and were not doing the same work as was done by the permanent

workmen. The Party II submits that the Party I themselves self-terminated their temporary employment and

further submitted that the demand raised by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide their letter dated

12/03/2015 for a revision of the daily wages is proof that the temporary workers stopped work in order to

press their demands and that there was no refusal of employment as alleged.

148

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

13. The Party II denies that they were indulging in any unfair labour practices and/or violating any

principles of natural justice, including the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.The Party II denies

that the Party I/Workmen have been in continuous employment with Party II and these workmen have been

employed purely on a temporary basis from time to time depending upon work requirement and the

availability of the workmen. The Party II submits that the Dy. Labour Commissioner has no powers to

direct the temporary workmen to report for duties again in view of the Settlement dated 05/04/2006. The

Employer submits that from 11/10/2015 it has shifted the manufacturing and all connected activities from

its Factory at Ponda to its site at Nalagarh in Himachal Pradesh and from that date no work is available at

its Factory at Ponda even for its permanent workers who have been asked to report to the Nalagarh site and

denies that any act of the Company amounts to unfair labour practice. The Party II further denies that it has

terminated the services of the Party I and/or that it was required to obtain permission under the Chapter V-

B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the Party I/Workmen have not made out a case

and no case exists for granting any relief/prayer as prayed for by the Party I.

14. In the Rejoinder at Exh.7 filed by the Party I/Union, the Party I denied the defence taken by Party

II in their Written Statement and maintained and reiterated the facts stated in their Claim Statement.

15. Considering the pleadings filed by both the Parties, following Issues were framed by this Tribunal

on 01/08/2016 at Exhibit 8.

Issues

1. Whether the Party I/ Workmen proves that the action of Party II/Management in refusing

employment to 103 temporary workmen w.e.f. 02/03/2015 is illegal and unjustified?

2. Whether the Party I proves that the Party II has not complied with the provisions of law and hence

refusal of employment is illegal and therefore the Party I/Workmen are entitled for re-instatement

with full back wages, continuity in service with consequential benefits?

3. Whether the Party I proves that the Party II indulged in unfair labour practices in not regularizing

the workmen and giving them artificial breaks which amounted to discrimination and violation of

principle of equality?

4. Whether Party I proves that the Party II entered into third party sub-contracting without following

the procedure laid down under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act?

5. Whether Party II proves that the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh has no locus standi to raise the alleged

demands on behalf of any temporary workmen?

6. What Relief? What Award?

16. I have gone through the records i.e. the pleadings, the oral as well as documentary evidence

adduced by both the Parties, the written synopsis filed as well as the oral arguments advanced by both the

Parties and after considering the same my findings on the issues with reasons are as follows:

Issue No. 1

In the Affirmative

Issue No. 2, 3 & 4

In the Affirmative

Issue No. 5

In the Negative

Issue No. 6

As per Final Order

Reasons

17. Issue No 1: It is in the evidence of Shri P. Gaonkar, Workmen’s witness No.1 that there were 103

temporary workmen employed with the Party II at their pharmaceutical Plant at Curti, Ponda – Goa as

packers and semi-skilled workers. That these temporary workers were employed on daily wages for several

years, however, they were doing the same work as was done by permanent workmen. He further stated that

149

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

these temporary workmen were attempting to form a Union to demand for better wages, better working

conditions, permanency in employment and raising demands in relation to the unfair labour practices

prevalent in the Plant of Party II at Curti, Ponda. The permanent workmen working in the Plant had formed

a Union affiliated to the Goa Union of Industrial Workers. It is further stated that the Party II Management

had started with the policy of reconstructing production, and pursuance to that the Company resorted to

sub-contracting of production, shifting of departments, Plant and production from the Plant at Curti to

other units which constituted re-organization of the Plant due to which the service conditions were

adversely affected. The temporary workmen therefore raised a demand with the Management to cease and

desist from the unfair labour practice and not to close down the production of the existing products.

18. WW1, Shri Puti Gaonkar further stated that the demands of the permanent workers were also not

resolved by Party II for which there was a dispute between the permanent workmen and the management.

That on 01/03/2015, suddenly there was a stoppage of operation at the Factory which continued till the 2^nd

shift and on 02/03/2015, the Management kept all the workers out including the permanent and temporary

and thereafter, after discussions with the Management, the permanent workers were allowed to resume the

duty w.e.f. 03/03/2015 but temporary workmen were not allowed to resume the duty since 02/03/2015. The

Party I states that inorder to thwart the process of forming a Union of temporary workmen, the Party II on

02/03/2015 refused to allow the temporary workmen from entering the Factory premises. The Party I states

that they were reporting for work at the Factory of Party II from 02/03/2015 but they were not allowed to

join duties. The Party I states that thereafter, on 10/03/2015 they decided to join the Union by name

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and since then continued to be the members of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh.

19. In the cross-examination, Shri Gaonkar maintained his statement that the dispute was raised in

respect of 103 workmen before the Conciliation Officer. The Party II on the other hand sought to confront

the witness by raising a defence that the list enclosed by the workmen at Exh.21Colly giving the names of

103 workmen is the personal list which is prepared by WW1 and the same is not the list as referred in the

Order of Reference. It is further the defence of the Management that the names of the workmen mentioned

in the letter dated 10/03/2015 (Exh.22Colly) is bogus and fabricated and the said letter at Exh.22Colly was

never given to the Management which suggestive defence has been denied by WW1 in the cross-

examination.

20. The other defence which the Party II raised is as regards to the Memorandum of Settlement dated

05/04/2006 signed by the General Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh at Exh.32. The Party II therefore

contented that in view of signing of the Settlement, the workmen could not have gone on strike. The other

defence which the Employer/Party II has taken is that since the names of those 103 workmen have not been

mentioned in the Order of Reference therefore the Reference itself is vague, incapable of adjudication and

nobody can substitute those names by making an application. It is further contended that the Union has

filed an application and has given the names of the 103 workmen. All the names which have been

submitted by the Union do not show that these workmen were working with the management and for how

long. Physically, Union has submitted only the names of 51 workmen who are alleged to be working with

the management for a month or so on different dates. The Employer/Party II further disputed the list

produced by the Party I along with their Statement of Claim stating that the said list is the concocted list

prepared by the Party I/Workmen.

21. The arguments of the Employer/Party II with reference to the Settlement is that the Party II had

relied upon and produced the document which is a settlement signed between the management of Wallace

Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and Mr. Puti Gaonkar has signed the

settlement as a General Secretary of the Union. The said settlement is a valid settlement which has not been

terminated by Mr. Puti Gaonkar. The entire settlement getting certain benefit to workmen and that in the

Clause-30 of the settlement clearly reads as under:-

Agreement to point No. 30:

It is agreed that after balance 14 employees no temporary/ seniority list will be maintained

henceforth and temporaries will be called depending upon work requirement and as per discretion of the

management.

150

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

22. In view of said settlement, it is very clear that the company can employ temporary workmen

without maintaining the seniority and temporaries will be called depending upon work requirement and as

per discretion of the management. In view of the said settlement, the Union does not argue that the

company cannot employ temporary workmen, because right is given by virtue of the Settlement signed

between the Parties under Section 2(p) read with 18 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is a valid

settlement.

23. Ld. Advocate, Shri Bandodkar contended that the argument canvassed by Mr. Puti Gaonkar that he

was pressurised to sign the Settlement is absolutely false and obnoxious. That no pleadings are there to

show that he was forced to sign the said Settlement nor it is being pleaded in the Statement of Claim or

Rejoinder or in the evidence that he was pressurised to sign the Settlement. According to Shri Bandodkar,

the Employer/Party II has got right to take the temporary workers as and when required.It is further

submitted that the list of 103 workmen which he has submitted is not shown in the Order of Reference.

Therefore, in view of the judgement of Rajasthan High Court in Suresh Chandra v/s. General

Manager, Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction Corporation (2002 (94) FLR 843) “It is beyond the

scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal to interfere with the order of reference and Tribunal cannot

travel beyond the terms of reference”. Ld. Advocate Shri Bandodkar contended that the documents

produced by Party I/Workmen nowhere mentionsas to how many days the workmen have worked except

mentioning the date of joining the employment. Even the date of termination has not been mentioned.

Therefore, the documents produced on record absolutely do not show that they have completed 240 days in

preceding 12 months which is mandatory to get any relief. Since the workmen have failed to discharge the

burden of proving that they have completed 240 days as per the judgement in Suresh Chandra (Supra), it

clearly shows that Party I is not a ‘workman’ in terms of the definition ‘workman’ as provided in the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, it is the contention of the Party II that the Company have all the

right to employ temporary workmen as per the Settlement dated 05/04/2006. Secondly, the Party

I/Workmen have failed to show that in terms of Section 25F, 25B and 25C they have completed 240 days in

12 calendar months. In support, the Employer/Party II placed reliance in the Case of M/s Shalimar Works

Ltd. v/s Their Workmen AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1217 it is held that “when the first reference was made,

the Tribunal would be justified in refusing the relief of reinstatement to avoid dislocation of the industry

specially so when the reference was vague inasmuch as the names of 250 workmen to be reinstated were

not sent to the Industrial Tribunal”.

24. In the case of NarangLatex and Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. v/s S. V. Suvarna (Mrs.) &Anr. 1994 II

CLR 51it has been observed that “the burden of proof – reference as regards termination of service of a

workman – Termination after domestic enquiry – whether enquiry was fair and just was the issue – on

whom is the burden or who to enter witness box first – Held that on the principle that the burden would lie

on a party would fail if no evidence is led by either of the parties, it would be for the workman to lead

evidence first in order to show that the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper and therefore the order of

dismissal is wrongful”.

25. In the case of Escorts, Ltd. v/s Presiding Officer and another 1997 (3) L.L.N.65, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India has observed that “Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Ss. 2 (oo)(bb), 25F and 25G–

Retrenchment–Definition of–Termination of services of daily–wage workman in accordance with terms of

appointment is not retrenchment–Termination of services of workman as a result of non-renewal of

contract of employment between the employer and workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein is not retrenched under S.2 (oo)-

Labour Court was in error in holding that it constituted retrenchment and hence protected by Ss.25F and

25G of the Act”.

26. As against this, the case put up by the Party I/Workmen on record through their Claim Statement

and by examining their witness is that according to Party I on 02/03/2015 all permanent workers of Party II

were on strike and after the lunch-break these workers were not allowed to enter the Factory. That on

03/03/2015, there was an understanding between the Union and the permanent workmen pursuance to

which all the permanent workmen resumed duty however the temporary workers i.e. the workers under the

reference were not allowed to resume their duty. Thus, there was a clear case of refusal of employment by

the Employer/Party II. Against this, the defence which the Party II has taken is that the temporary workers

151

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

did not resume their duty on their own and as such there was a self-termination. Contrary to the above

defence, the Management witness No.1 in their cross-examination categorically admitted that on

02/03/2015 all the permanent workers were on strike outside the Factory premises and there is a clear

admission by this witness to say that the temporary workmen were working. He further stated that on

03/03/2015 the permanent workers did not resume their duty and remained present at the Gate, however,

this witness conveniently denied knowledge when put to him that it is the permanent workers who

prevented temporary workers from coming inside the Factory. It is the further the defence of the Party II

that the letter dated 09/03/2015 (Exh.60) indicates that the temporary workers have terminated their

employment out of their own accord.

27. At one point the Management is admitting that they did not receive any letter/notice from Goa

Union of Industrial Workers’ Union or from Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh to say that the workers are going

on strike. At the same breath the Management is taking a defence that the workers under the reference

terminated their employment on their own accord. Thus, the Party II indirectly admits that these temporary

workers did not resume their duty in the second half of 2^nd of March. This version of the Management

witness No.1 again contradicts its voluntary statement whereby he stated that on 02/03/2015 in the 2^nd half

temporary workers joined the permanent workers at the Gate. When the strike was of the permanent

workers and that the temporary workers had resumed their duty in the morning in the 1^st half, then there

seems to be no reason for the temporary workers not to resume their duty in the 2^nd half and to illegally

join the permanent workers at the Gate who were on strike. Therefore, the contention of the Party

I/Workmen that on 02/03/2015 these workers were not allowed to join their duty by the Party II which act

amounted to refusal of employment does carry strong weightage.

28. On the other hand, the Party II has demolished their own defence in the cross-examination and

could not prove anything positively to suggest that there was self-termination of employment by the Party I

workmen. It is pertinent to note here that assuming without admitting that there was self-termination of

employment by these temporary workers, then there was no reason for them to raise any dispute with the

Management and thereafter take the matter before the Dy. Labour Commissioner. The record also reveals

that the Dy. Labour Commissioner vide his letter dated 14/04/2015 had advised the Management to allow

these workers to resume their duty. No doubt, the Dy. Labour Commissioner is not authorised to give any

direction to the Employer/Party II to allow the workmen to work in their Company and does not have any

power to pass any Order such as staying of transfer of such employee, approaching the Conciliation Officer

for the purpose of conciliation as contended by Ld. Advocate Shri Bandodkar and as observed in the Case

of VIP Industries Ltd. v/s VIP Industries ShramikSangh and Another 2012 LLR 925, wherein the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed that “Industrial Disputes Act, 1947–Section 33, 33A (a) and

(b)–Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957–Rules 11 and 65–Transfer of employees of appellant-

company–From Nagpur to Sinnar and Haridwar–Branch of section 33 alleged–Conciliation Officer under

section 33A passed stay order staying the transfer of such employees–Section 33A(a) does not give any

adjudicatory power to Conciliation Officer–Conciliation Officer could not have stayed the order

transferring the employees–impugned order dated 21.7.2011 suffers from a jurisdictional error – Same is

liable to be set aside and is set aside”. However, the fact remains that the Dy. Labour Commissioner

immediately constrained that there was a refusal of employment by the Employer/Party II and advised the

Management to allow these workmen to resume their duty. It is a different matter altogether that despite

such advice, the Management did not allow them to resume the duty. Thus, there is an affirmative

circumstantial evidence which favours the Party I/Workmen against the defence taken by the Management

that there was a self-termination of employment by the workers. Therefore the refusal of employment is not

far from illegal and unjust termination of employment by the Employer/Party II. Hence, this Tribunal

answers Issue No.1 in the affirmative.

29. Issue No. 2, 3& 4: It is the defence of the Employer/Party II that all the 103 workmen have not

completed 240 days and they have worked for only one month for which wage slip has been produced. It is

further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the workmen to lead evidence that they have

completed 240 days to get any relief as per section 25F, 25B and 25C of the Act to show that they have

completed 240 days in preceding 12 months. In view of that, it is submitted by Ld. Advocate Shri

Bandodkar that these workmen since working temporary cannot claim any relief in terms of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and that the temporary workmen have no lien over the employment.

152

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

30. In support of his above contention, Ld. Advocate Shri Bandodkar placed reliance on ennumber of

judgements to show that the Workmen in the present reference are not entitled to claim any benefit of their

employment with Party II as they have not completed 240 days in a year.

31. In the case of Goverdhan v/s Chief Municipal Officer 2025 LLR 28, the Madhya Pradesh High

Court has held that “Mere filing of an affidavit by the workman that he has worked for more than 240 days

during preceding 12 months cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence”.

32. In the case of Badal Prasad v/s The State (NCT of Delhi) &Anr. 2012 LLR 1125, the Delhi

High Court has held that “burden to prove 240 days’ working lies upon the

workman-ESI Card shows his date of appointment”.

33. In the case of Ashok U. Nikam v/s Tata Power Company Ltd. 2019 LLR 273, the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court has held that “Industrial Disputes Act, 1947–Section 10(1) and

25B–Reference of dispute–Rejected–Reference was at the instance of petitioner-workman–There is no case

under section 25-B (1) of Act–it was thus necessary for employee to show that his case fell within section

25-B (2)–He failed to establish that he completed continuous service of 240 days– Therefore, no fault can

be found with impugned award of Labour Court”.

34. In the case of U. P. Project Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v/s Presiding Officer, Labour

Court-1 and Anr. 2015 LLR 250, the Allahabad High Court has held that “burden of proof of working for

240 days lies on the person who pleads the same i.e., the workman”.

35. The evidence on record reveals that these workmen under the reference were working with Party II

for several years which fact has been confirmed on the basis of the Pay Slips which indicates the initial

date of appointment from the year 2005 onwards. If this is true, then it is obvious that the Company was

functioning with 80 permanent workers and more than 116 temporary workers which ratio in true sense

amounts to unfair labour practice being adopted by the Company as the Company for years together

deprived these temporary workers from the status of permanent workers and thereby deprived them of all

the benefits applicable and available to the workers on their regularisation and after giving them the status

of permanent workers. The Party II/Employer though engaged these temporary workers for years together

however, they were given breaks intermittently so as to avoid giving them the status of permanency in their

service. As such it is contented by the Workmen/Party I that the Party II engaged in unfair labour practices

and deprived these workmen from all the benefits applicable to the workmen once they are regularised in

the services.

36. Section 25B of the Act provides:

(1) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in

uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised

leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to

any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause(1) for a period of one

year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer

(a) For a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than

(i) One hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine

and;

(ii) Two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(a) For a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less

than

153

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

(i) Ninety five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) One hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

37. Thus, as per the definition of the continuous service in terms of Section 25B, a workman is said to

be in continuous service for a period prescribed thereunder under clause-2, provided, there is a cessation of

work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman, which is one of the precondition to

determine that the workman did not complete a particular period to get himself covered under the

definition of continuous service. In the present case, the evidence on record clearly indicates that despite

the Party I/Workmen being employed by the Employer/Party II since 2005, they were not regularised in

their services. As such they were deprived from getting all the benefits applicable to the permanent

workmen which act constitutes unfair labour practices on the part of the Management. The Management

witness further in his cross-examination categorically admitted that they had taken the contract labour

through M/s Mahalsa Services. Thus, this confirms that the refusal of services to these temporary workmen

by the Employer/Party II was not on account of closure of the Factory, no work in the Factory or on

account of any financial crisis. The workmen in the present case have sufficiently proved that they have

completed 1 year of continuous service in terms of Section 25B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and

therefore it was obligatory on the part of the Management to follow the mandate of Section 25F. In this

case, the Management since have terminated all the temporary workmen without complying with the

mandate of Section 25F, therefore, the termination of all these employees is illegal and void. In the case of

Deepali Gundu Survase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak, (2013) 10 SCC 324,it is held that “to prove a

case of retrenchment under Section 25F, the workman has to show that he was in ‘continuous’ service”.

38. In the case of Sarita Melwani v/s Pallavi Talekar, 2008 (2) CLR 679, the Division Bench of the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that “therefore considering the factual and legal position we are of

the view that the case of the workmen, therefore clearly falls under the provisions of Section 25B(1) and it

is not necessary for the workmen to separately prove that they had worked for a period of 240 days in the

preceding year before their termination.”

39. In the case of Jeetubha Khansangi Jadeja v/s Kutchh District Panchayat in Para 35 of the said

Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There

may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was

resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of the last come first go viz; while

retrenching such a worker, daily wage junior to him were retained. There may also be a situation that

persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such

circumstances, terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty

reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases,

reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such

a relief can be denied.”

40. The Party I has been able to prove that they were refused employment by the Party II/Employer

which act amounted to termination of their services and the Party I have been further able to prove that

they were in continuous service in terms of definition of Section 25B(1), therefore, the Employer/Party II

ought to have complied with mandatory provisions of Section 25F. Having failed to do so, the termination

of all the 103 workmen at Annexure-A to the list of documents submitted by the Party I/Workmen along

with their Statement of Claim was illegal and an act of unfair labour practice, hence, all these three Issues

stands answered in favour of Party I/Workmen in the affirmative.

41. Issue No. 5: In the case of AnzGrindlays Bank v/s General Secretary, Grindlays Bank

Employees Union, Mumbai and Others held that “the membership of Union is not a condition precedent

to espouse an industrial dispute of a workman. The Union can espouse cause of even a non-member who

approaches it for help”.

42. Considering the ratio laid down in the case above, Issue No.5 stands answered in the negative.

Hence, the following Order:

154

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

ORDER

(i)

The reference stands allowed.

(ii)

Consequently, the action of Party II/Management in refusing employment to 103

temporary workmen with w.e.f. 02/03/2015 is declared illegal and unjustified.

(iii)

The workmen be granted the relief of reinstatement with full back wages or in the

alternative all the workmen be granted all their legal dues and benefits in compliance with

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 w.e.f. 02/03/2015.

(iv)

No order as to costs.

(v)

Inform the Government accordingly

Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court.

Panaji, 20th March, 2025.

◆◆◆

Department of Personnel

Order

Read:

1. No. 22/10/2018-PER/1066 dated 15-Apr-2025.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer and post Smt. Sunita Sawant, Superintendent of Police

(South) as Superintendent of Police (ANC) with immediate effect.

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

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim.

◆

Order

The Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer and post Shri Tikam Singh Verma, IPS, Superintendent of

Police (ANC) as Superintendent of Police (South) with immediate effect.

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

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvroim.

◆

Notification

In pursuance to Rule 23 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, the Departmental Examination for the

Junior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service mentioned in the enclosed annexure is scheduled from

28/04/2025 to 30/04/2025 at GIPARD, Ella Farm, Old Goa as per the schedule mentioned below:-

22/10/2018-PER/1066

Date: 15-Apr-2025

22/10/2018-PER/1067

Date: 15-Apr-2025

5/8/2022-PER/757

Date: 11-Mar-2025

155

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

Sr.

No.

Date

Time

Paper

Venue

28/04/2025

(Monday)

10.00 a.m. to 1.00

p.m.

Paper I – The Goan ethos, basic

principles of Goa and general studies

(without books)

GIPARD,

Ella Farm,

Old Goa

28/04/2025

(Monday)

2.00 to 5.00 p.m.

Paper II – Legal foundation of

Government (with books)

29/04/2025

(Tuesday)

10.00 a.m. to 1.00

p.m.

Paper III – Legal Machinery of

Government (with books)

29/04/2025

(Tuesday)

2.00 to 5.00 p.m.

Paper IV – Financial Management in

Government (with books)

30/04/2025

(Wednesday)

10.00 a.m. to 1.00

p.m.

Paper V – Administrative skills in

Government (with books)

30/04/2025

(Wednesday)

2.00 to 4.00 p.m.

Paper VI – Contemporary issues in

Governance (without books)

The candidates shall report to the examination centre 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 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 will be 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 with

themselves the relevant books/reading material/class notes/powerpoint presentations in the electronic form

on laptops/tablets, then the Candidates shall necessarily deposit the said laptop/tablet with the Controller of

Examination at GIPARD, for the purpose of disabling all network connections, etc.

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.

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim.

156

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

ANNEXURE

Seat No.

Name of the Junior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service

001

Shri Gaurish Khedekar

002

Smt. Shama Narvekar alias Smt. Shama J. Arondekar

003

Shri Laxmikant R. Dessai

004

Smt. Varsha Parab

005

Shri Dasharath Gawas

006

Shri Laxmikant Kuttikar

007

Shri Abhijeet Uddhavrao Nikam

◆◆◆

Department of Town and Country Planning

Notification

Read:

1. No. 36/18/423/17(2)/SJDA/264/1-B/TCP/2024/194 dated 22-Apr-2025.

Whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department received Application dated 17/01/2024 of The

Congregation of the Sisters of the Little Flowers of Bethany (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”),

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

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

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

TABLE

Sr.

No.

Survey No. &

Sub Division

No.

Name of

Village

Name of

Taluka

Name of

District

Alteration/modification

carried out to the RPG-2021

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

264/1-B(Part)

Sao Jose

de Areal

Salcete

South Goa

Settlement Zone

And whereas, the rectifications/corrections as requested in the said Application by the Applicant was

scrutinized and recommendation of the Expert Committee alongwith the Report from registered

professional was submitted to the Government for decision;

And whereas, the Government considered the said Reports and it was of the opinion that

alterations/modifications as specified in column (6) of the above Table corresponding to survey numbers as

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

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

proposals in the RPG-2021 and as such 20/06/2024, the Government directed the Chief Town Planner

(Planning) to carry out alterations/modifications as specified in column (6) of the above Table to the RPG-

2021;

36/18/423/17(2)/SJDA/264/1-B/TCP/2024/194

Date: 22-Apr-2025

157

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

And whereas, the rates of processing fees and other fees for correction of inconsistent/incoherent

zoning in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 (RPG-2021) were notified vide the Government Notification No.

21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated 15/03/2023, published in Official Gazette, (Supplement), Series I

No. 50, dated 16/03/2023;

And whereas, the said Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated

15/03/2023 came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e., 16/03/2023;

And whereas, the said rates have been revised vide the Government Notification No.

21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024, published in Official Gazette, (Supplement), Series I

No. 52, dated 28/03/2024;

And whereas, the said Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024

came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e., 28/03/2024;

And whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department carried out the assessment of fee payable in

respect of the said Application dated 17/01/2024 of the Applicant as per the rate notified in the Government

Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated 15/03/2023, published in Official Gazette,

(Supplement), Series I No. 50, dated 16/03/2023, by considering the rate of fee which was applicable on

the date of receipt of the said Application i.e. 31/07/2023 and accordingly issued Assessment Order No.

36/18/423/17(2)/SJDA/264/1-B/TCP/2024/1287 dated 01/07/2024 and collected fee of Rs. 1,15,350/-

(Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only) from the Applicant;

And whereas, the Department of Finance (Revenue and Control) vide letter No. 21/9/2024-

Fin(R&C)/26193 dated 01/08/2024 and letter No. 21/9/2024-Fin(R&C)/26638 dated 24/09/2024 requested

and clarified to the Town and Country Planning Department to collect fees as published in Official Gazette

dated 28/03/2024 for all applications approved after that date i.e. 28/03/2024;

And whereas, in view of the said letters received from the Department of Finance (Revenue and

Control), the Government directed that fees to be collected as published in the Official Gazette dated

28/03/2024 for all proposals considered for assessment of fees after that date;

And whereas, in view of the aforesaid letters of the Department of Finance (Revenue and Control) and

direction of the Government, the Town and Country Planning Department re-assessed the fee payable in

respect of the said Application dated 17/01/2024 of the Applicant as per the revised rate notified in the

Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024 and accordingly issued

another Assessment Order No. 36/18/423/17(2)/SJDA/264/1-B/TCP/2024/105 dated 26/02/2025 alongwith

e-challan No. 202500145037 dated 26/02/2025 to the Applicant requesting him to deposit an additional fee

of Rs. 14,22,650/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs, Twenty Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty only) within 7

days of issue of the Order, by way of e-challan as enclosed therewith and informing that on failure to do so,

further decision as regards to correction/rectification of zone as notified vide Official Gazette, Series II No.

24, dated 12/9/2024 shall be taken for the property referred in the said Order;

And whereas, the said Assessment Order No. 36/18/423/17(2)/SJDA/264/1-B/TCP/2024/105 dated

26/02/2025 was duly received by the Applicant;

And whereas, the Applicant failed to deposit the additional fees as communicated vide Assessment

Order No. 36/18/423/17(2)/SJDA/264/1-B/TCP/2024/105 dated 26/02/2025 within stipulated time;

And whereas, the Government vide Note dated 03/04/2025 granted additional time of 7 days to make

payment as per Assessment Order dated 26/02/2025, with direction that on failure to do so, the Notification

issued with regard to the application shall be rescinded;

And whereas, the applicant was accordingly directed to deposit additional fee of Rs. 14,22,650/-

(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs, Twenty Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty only) within 7 days of issue of the

letter bearing No. 36/18/423/17(2)/SJDA/264/1-B/TCP/2024/187 dated 08/04/2025 alongwith e-challan

No. 202500257669 dated 9/4/2025 and was informed that failing to do so, the correction/rectification of

zones as notified vide Official Gazette dated 12/09/2024 shall be rescinded;

And whereas, the applicant has neglected and failed to deposit the said additional fee within the given

time as communicated vide Assessment Order dated 26/02/2025;

158

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

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

Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) read with section 21 of the General Clauses

Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), the Government Notification No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification (9)/TCP/2024/1394

dated 06/09/2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 19, dated 08/08/2024, is hereby rescinded

only to the extent of the correction/rectification of zone carried out in respect of the plot of land specified

against entry at Serial No. 1 of the Table of the said Government Notification No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification

(9)/TCP/2024/1394 dated 06/09/2024.

This Notification shall come into force with immediate effect.

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

Panaji.

◆

Notification

Read:

1. No. 36/18/394/17(2)/Verna/100/7/TCP/2024/193 dated 22-Apr-2025.

Whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department received Application dated 31/07/2023 of Mr.

Caitano Santana Xavier (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”), under sub-section (2) of section 17 of

the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) for correction of inconsistent/incoherent

zoning in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 (RPG-2021) in respect of the plot of land as specified in detail in

columns (2) to (5) of the Table below:

TABLE

Sr.

No.

Survey No. & Sub

Division No.

Name of

Village

Name of Taluka

Name of

District

Alteration/modification

carried out to the RPG-2021

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

100/7(Part)

Verna

Salcete

South

Goa

Settlement Zone

And whereas, the rectifications/corrections as requested in the said Application by the Applicant was

scrutinized and recommendation of the Expert Committee alongwith the Report from registered

professional was submitted to the Government for decision;

And whereas, the Government considered the said Reports and it was of the opinion that

alterations/modifications as specified in column (6) of the above Table corresponding to survey numbers as

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

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

proposals in the RPG-2021 and as such on 17/07/2024, the Government directed the Chief Town Planner

(Planning) to carry out alterations/modifications as specified in column (6) of the above Table to the RPG-

2021;

And whereas, the rates of processing fees and other fees for correction of inconsistent/incoherent

zoning in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 (RPG-2021) were notified vide the Government Notification No.

21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated 15/03/2023, published in Official Gazette, (Supplement), Series I

No. 50, dated 16/03/2023;

And whereas, the said Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated

15/03/2023 came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e., 16/03/2023;

36/18/394/17(2)/Verna/100/7/TCP/2024/193

Date: 22-Apr-2025

159

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 4

24TH APRIL, 2025

And whereas, the said rates have been revised vide the Government Notification No.

21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024, published in Official Gazette, (Supplement), Series I

No. 52, dated 28/03/2024;

And whereas, the said Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024

came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e., 28/03/2024;

And whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department carried out the assessment of fee payable in

respect of the said Application dated 31/07/2023 of the Applicant as per the rate notified in the Government

Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated 15/03/2023, published in Official Gazette,

(Supplement), Series I No. 50, dated 16/03/2023, by considering the rate of fee which was applicable on

the date of receipt of the said Application i.e. 31/07/2023 and accordingly issued Assessment Order No.

36/18/394/17(2)/Verna/100/7/TCP-2024/1336 dated 31/07/2024 and collected fee of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees

Forty Five Thousand only) from the Applicant;