UJ I REGD. GOA·.II I) Panaji, 9th February, 1989 IMagha 20, 19101 SERIES II No. 45 OFFICIAL GAZETIE . '-. .-- -. GOVERNM·ENT OF GOA GOVERNMENT OF GOA Revenue Department . Nofifico!l;tion . No. 22/160/S8-RD Whereas it appears·to.the ApPropriate Government (here- . in3.fter referred to' as "the Government"') that the land specified in "the Schedule (herein3!ter .refelTed to as the Usald" is likely -to be· needed for public purpose, Voiz. "Land" .i\cquisition for widening and. improvement of Curcho- l"em-Sanguet?J. road. NOW, Therefore, the Government hereby notifies, under- sub- -section (i r of 'section 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act, 189( (CentrEl-I"Act 1 ,of ,1894) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") that said land is likely to be needed for the purpose . specified above. 2. All persons interested in the said land are hereby not to .o:bstruct or interlere With- any suryeyor or - other persons employed,' upon the' said land_ for' the of the -said acqtuslUdn. .AIJ.y contract for the disposal of the said, land by' sa1e, mortgage, assignment; exchange or otherwise: or any outlay commenced or improvements made thereon without ·the -sanction of the' COllector -appointed Wlder para- graph _4, below, after the date of' the publication ·of. this .. will, under clause (seventh) of section 24 of the said Act, be disregarded by him wh.ile assessing compensation for such parts of the said land as be finally acquired. 3; If the_ Government . is satisfied that ·the said land is needed for the afores'aid purpose, a declaration to that effect under section 6 of the said A'Ct-will be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers and public notice thereof shall ,be given in due - course. If the acqUisition- is abandoned wholly or in part"t-he fact will also be,:notified in the same nl!l-nner. 4. The further appoints' under clause (c) of se.etion 3 of the said Act, the Deputy __ Collector & S. -D. O. Quepem to perform the fWlctions of a Collector So"Uth Goa District, Margao under the said Act in respect of' the said land. ' . . , 5. Gt;>vernment also authOriSes, under sUb-section __ (2) of section - 4 of the said Act, the follo\Ving ·officers to do, the acts therein in respect of the sald land. 1. The Collector, South Goa, District, Margao. 2 .. The Collector & S. D.O., Quepem. 3. The Executive 'Engineer, W. XVIII (R &. B) P.W.D.; Goa.'. . 4.' The Director' of Land Survey, Panaji. . 5. . also authorise, s1.,lb.section (2) m offIce of the_ Dy. Collector_ & S._D. 0.,. Quepem for a' of _ 30 ,days .from -the date of publication of this NotIfIcation _ in -OfficIal SCHEDULE (Description of ,the said land) Taluka: QuepeIn: Virlage: cacoda Approxbnate _ Survey No. Sub. ntv. No. Names' of the persons beUeved - to' be lntereste!1 . area ,In sq. 1: __ __ __ ____ __________ __ __ ___ 5/ 6 part "/ 3 part "/ 1 part "/ 3 part "; 5 part 10/ 5 part "/ Spart "/ 10 part "/ 9 part "/ 12 part "/ 13 part "/ 14 part 122/ (; part . "; 7 part "/ S part "j 16 part '? 17 part 13S/ 5 part "j 6 part "/ 11 part "/ 12 part "/ 16 part "; 7 part 13S/ 20 part "; 21 part "; 22 part "; ,27 part H: Shri Kashinath G. Sinai Kakodkar. H:. Shri Augusto Esteves .. H: -Shn- Anastacia·D'Souza. H: Government. H: Ra.m.a'.yeku Sawant. H: .... : ....... do- :a: Rainesh B. Sawant. H: Shree Mahadev Dev3sthan. T: Naguesh Sagun Shirodkar. H: Shree Mahadev Devasth811.- T: Shri. Ramesh Dattaram Dessa!. H: Shree Mahadev Devasthan. T: Saunlo Naik Bandekar. H: Shree Mahadev Devasthan. T: Jangdo Naik Kakodkar; H: Shree Mahadev Devasthan T: Shrl Baburao Naik Bandekar. H: Shree Mahadev Devasthan. T: Shri Babusoheb Kust Nalk. H: Shli. Mahadev Devasthan. T: Shri Vishnu Tilu Naik.; H: . Shree Mahadev Devasthan. T: Shri Gopi Shedu V""th. H: Comunidade of Gacora. T: 1. Vishnu Bhikaro Sawant. Z. Ramesh Bhikaro Sawant.- H: Had Kurado. · T': 'Shri Suresh' Vithoba Sawant. H: Shri Kurado. T: Vlthoba Sawant. H: 'Shivnath Sanvordekar. T: Shri RaIna Narayan Sawant. H: Sanvordekar. T: Mohan Laximan Porab. H: Shri Sanvordekar. T: Shri Vijaya Naik. H: Shri Jivaji Sanvordekar. T: Shri Krishna Bhikaro Naik.. H: Shri Santoba Sanvordekar. ' T: Shri Pundalik. Tilu Nalk. H: Slui Vino Karmali. T: Shri'Vino Karmali. H: Shri Venkatesh Kurchodkar. T: Slui, Antonio Barganza. H: Venkatesh Kurchodkar . T: 'Shri° Vijaya Naik.. . · H: Shri, Sarvotham Kurchodkar. T: Shri Vijaya :Naik. "; 2S part H: Shri Bhagu. T: Smt. Rita Mandea. 141/ 5 part H: Comunidade of cacora. T: - Shri Govind Murarl Sawant. "/ 9 part H: Smt. Manik Joshi. · T: Shri -Vitu B. Sawant "; 10 part H: Shri RaIna Sada Porob. T: Shri Rama Sada .Porob. "/ 11 part H: Comunldade·of Cacora. 50.00 150.00 120.00 20.00 240.00 115.00 65.00 22().00 SO.OO 1S0.00 135.00 60.00 95.00 135.00 75.00 235.00 620.00 SO.OO 45.00 55.00· 45.00 95.00 100.00 105.00 . 30.00 70.00 .8.00 92.00 25.00 30.00 20.00 2S.00
Transcript
UJ
I REGD. GOA·.II I) Panaji, 9th February, 1989 IMagha 20, 19101 SERIES II No. 45
OFFICIAL GAZETIE . '-. .-- -.
GOVERNM·ENT OF GOA
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Revenue Department
. Nofifico!l;tion
. No. 22/160/S8-RD
Whereas it appears·to.the ApPropriate Government (here. in3.fter referred to' as "the Government"') that the land specified in "the Schedule 'her~to' (herein3!ter .refelTed to as the Usald" limd~') is likely -to be· needed for public purpose, Voiz. "Land" .i\cquisition for widening and. improvement of Curchol"em-Sanguet?J. road.
NOW, Therefore, the Government hereby notifies, under- sub-section (i r of 'section 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act, 189( (CentrEl-I"Act 1 ,of ,1894) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") that ~he said land is likely to be needed for the purpose
. specified above.
2. All persons interested in the said land are hereby w~ed not to .o:bstruct or interlere With- any suryeyor or -other persons employed,' upon the' said land_ for' the purpos~ of the -said acqtuslUdn. .AIJ.y contract for the disposal of the said, land by' sa1e, ,l~ase, mortgage, assignment; exchange or otherwise: or any outlay commenced or improvements made thereon without ·the -sanction of the' COllector -appointed Wlder paragraph _4, below, after the date of' the publication ·of. this N~tification .. will, under clause (seventh) of section 24 of the said Act, be disregarded by him wh.ile assessing compensation for such parts of the said land as _m~y be finally acquired.
3; If the_ Government . is satisfied that ·the said land is needed for the afores'aid purpose, a declaration to that effect under section 6 of the said A'Ct-will be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers and public notice thereof shall ,be given in due -course. If the acqUisition- is abandoned wholly or in part"t-he fact will also be,:notified in the same nl!l-nner.
4. The G<>:vernm~nt further appoints' under clause (c) of se.etion 3 of the said Act, the Deputy __ Collector & S. -D. O. Quepem to perform the fWlctions of a Collector So"Uth Goa District, Margao under the said Act in respect of' the said land. ' . .
, 5. ~e Gt;>vernment also authOriSes, under sUb-section __ (2) of section -4 of the said Act, the follo\Ving ·officers to do, the acts spec~fied therein in respect of the sald land.
1. The Collector, South Goa, District, Margao.
2 .. The Dy~ Collector & S. D.O., Quepem.
3. The Executive 'Engineer, W. D~ XVIII (R &. B) P.W.D.; P~:mda, Goa.'. .
4.' The Director' of Land Survey, Panaji.
. 5. '~'he . ~e:~ent also authorise, u~der s1.,lb.section (2) m ~e offIce of the_ Dy. Collector_ & S._D. 0.,. Quepem for a' pen~ of _ 30 ,days .from -the date of publication of this NotIfIcation _ in -OfficIal Gazett~.
SCHEDULE
(Description of ,the said land)
Taluka: QuepeIn: Virlage: cacoda
Approxbnate _ Survey No. Sub. ntv. No.
Names' of the persons beUeved - to' be lntereste!1 . area ,In
West: Road, village boundary of Cota:rli, village,' S.- No. 150, S. No. 33, 154,149.
3
TotaJ ...... , .........••...... 19,393.00 , '
.By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
P. B~ Nadkarni, Under secretary '<Reven~e).
Panajl, 6th December, 1988.
N~tification
• No. 22/iOl/87"RD
Whereas" if appears to the' Appropriate Goveniment (hereInafter referred to as ('the Government") - that the land -specified in the ~hedule hereto (hereinafter· referred to as the "said land") is likely to be needed-for public purpose viZ. Land Acquisition for- construction' of approaches to Juva, Revora. foot Bridge at N adora. , . .
Now, Therefore, the Government be:t;'eby notifies, unde~ SUb-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,. 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the "said -Act") that the said land is- likely to be "needed for the purpose specified above.
2. .4-11 persons .interest~d in the said land are hereby , warned I:lC?t to obstruct or interfere with any su~eyor, or
-other persons employed -upon the· said lan~- fot' the purpose of- the said acquisition., Any_ contract for the' disposal of the sa.id_~and by sale; le,ase, mortgage, _aSsignment, excliange ·or otherwis~,· or any outlay" GolllIri.enced, or" -improvements
\ made_thi?reon without the sanction-of the Collector appointed under, paragraph 4 -below. after ·the- date -of the publication of this Notification. Will, under clause (seventh) 0:( sec:::tion 24 of _ the said Act, be d1sregarded by him while assessing compensation for such parts of the Said land as may _be finally' acquired. - ~
3. If the Government is satisfied th'at the s"aid. land <is needed for the aforesaid purpose, a declaration to that effect
. under ,section 6 of the said Act will be _published in the" Official Gazette _ and in two_ daily .n.ewspapers_ and public notice thereof shall, be given in clue course. I,f the acqUisition Is abandoned wholly or in part, the fact will also be notified in the same manner. '
4. The Government "further appoints. -under cl~use (c) ,of section 3 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition_ 'Officer, P. W.D. (Cell) Altinho, Panaji to perfonn the fUnctions of a Collector North _aoa District, Panaji under the said Act .in respect of the 'said land. . "
5. The GoveriUnent also authQrise._ under sub~section' (2) . . (>t. section 4. of the' said ,Act. the following officers to 'do the
acts,. specified there_~ in -re~pect of the srud land.
1. The CollectOr,. North ~~ District" panaji.
2. The Land AcquiSition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell) Altlnho, Panaji.· _ " . '
__ 3. The Executive Engineer. Works Division n (It & B) P. W~ p. Panaji.
. 4; TP,e" Director Of -Land'. Survey, 'PanajL '
6. A rough plan of the sald land Is aVailable for- inspection in' the office of_ ~e' Land AcquiSition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell) Altinho. tor a period. of 30 days from the date of publication ·of this Notification In OfflclaJGazette.
, SCHEDULE
(Description of. the sald land)
TaZuka: Bardez Village: Revom
Survey No. Names, of the persons believed - SUb. Di~.' No. to be interested ..-
1 •
12/10 part Shantabai G. Mambre. ~orth: River, Road. South: S. No. 12/10. East: Road. West: S.No. 12/10.,
Approximatf;t ...... tn ~. mts.
',~, .":
Taluka: Baroez Village: N~~ra. 65/1 part' Pandharinath KaJangutkar. 300.00-"/2 part V.nkatesh L. Bandekar. 25.00
North: (Existing Road) S. No. 65/1,2.
South: River.
East: S. No. 65/1, 2.
West: S. No. 65/1.
Total ................. . 535.00.
By order anc in the name of the Governor -of Goa.
P. S. N adkarni~ Under Secretary (Revenue).
Panajl,' 29th December, 'Hi88.
NotificlItlon
No. 22/78/87"RD
Wheteas it. app~s to the Appropriate 'Government :(hereinafter referred to as "the Government") ,that the_ larid specified In the. Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "saJd land")!s likely to be needed for publlc purpose viz. Land 'Acquisition for Widening of access to' the beach in front of ~ourist Resort at q'alangute.
Now; therefore~ 'the Government 'hereby' notIfies, under' sub~sectlon_ (1->' -of sectlon 4' of -the Land Acquisition., -Act, 1894 (CentraJ Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") that the said land is likely to be "needed for the purpose spectfied above.'
2. All persol?B -interested: in the said land are hereby warned not to obstruct or interfere with any surveyor or other persons employed upon the said land _ for the purpose of the said acquisition. Any contract, for the- disposal- -of th~ said, land . by sale, lease. mortgage, assignment. ' exch~ge or otherwise, or any outlay cornmen_ced- or improvements_ made thereon without .the - sanction- of the' Collector appointed ,under paragraph 4 below,' after the' date of the _ pubIiGatlon of this Notification, will, imder ciause (seventh) of section- 24 of the said Act, be disregaioded' by him while assessing compensation for such" parts of· the sald land as -may be finally ~ acquired. .
3. If the Government Is satisfied that the said land'is needed for the aforesaid purpose, a declaration to that effect under section 6- of the. said Act 'will be published in the Official G-azei:te and in two. daily newspapers _ and public notice thereof shall be- given h:. due course. If the acquisition is -abandoned wholly or in part, -the fact Will also be notified in the same manner •
4. The Government further appoints, under clause (c) ,of section 3 of the said Act, the Deputy CollectOr (S~D.O.) Mapusa to perform the fun.ctions of a Collector North Goa District, Panaji _under the said Act in .respect Of the said land.
. 5. The GoverI;lment also authorise, under _ sub-sectIon "(2) of section 4 of the said Act, the following officers to do the ~cts, specified therein in respect -of the -said land.
1. The COllector, North _ Goa District. panaji. 2. The Dy. --Collector. S.D.O .• Mapusa. 3. The Director 'of TOY,rum, Panaji. 4. ~e Dir"ector of ~and, Surv~YI panaj1.
S. A rough plan of the said land Is available for inspection in the office of the Deputy Collector, S.D.O., Mapusa for a period of 3Q days !\rom the. date of publication of this Notification In Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
(Descrlptloil of.the said land)
TatUka: Bardez Village: calaugute
suney NO," Names of the persons believed Sub. Dlv. No. to lie interested
1 •
176/1 part Shrl Martinho Cordeiro.
Approximate ...... In
I5q. mts:
8
. 500.00
SERIES 11 .NO • .tS:
1 2
Boundaries: North: Road.
South: S. No. 176/1. East: Road.
West: Arabian Sea .
. Total ...........•....... 500.00·
By order aild in the name ot the Governor of Goa.
P. 8. Nadkarni; Under SecretarY (Revenue).
Panajl, 16th January, 1989.
Notifi.cation
No;RD/TNC/BND/280/67/833
In pursuance -of. the proviso"to sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Goa; " Daman -and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964,· the Government her~by ," specify -the following bund/s . prescr~bed in the schedule appended hereto as protectiVe bund/s .;for" -the purpose of the said proviso:~-
SCHEDULE
. Name of the Sr. No. bund
1 2
Village
3
- ApprOXimate area
Taluka . prot~cted (in Hecta
res).
4 5
_, cantor Bund Cararnbo1iJ11.· Tiswadi 4. hectare' direct & 200 hectare indirect
By order and in the· name of the Governor of Goa ..
-,~. 8~-' Nadkarni, -Under Secretary (Revenue).
' .. "Pattaji" 27.th December, 1988.
DeSCription of the bund'
6
The bUlld is starting from the paddy field - "Cantor" and' belonging to Shri - Govlnd· M. Karmalkar and others and endiilg with the' continuation bund_ of Daddo- Cantor and running: marginal .to the crec_k of the. Cumbarjua canal.
Notificati~n·
No.RD/TNC/BND/280/67-343
-In pUrSuanc'e of "the proviso to sub-sectIon ,(3) ot' Sect~oIi _26 of the Goa~ .Daman :and Diu Agricultural-Tenancy ACt, 1964, the GQvernment hereby specify the following- bund/s prescribed ,in the" sCheduI'e appended hereto 'as protective -bund/s for the_ purpose of the said proviso: -"
SCHEDULE
'S• N<>~aineofthe ., . biuld Village
1 2
Khaildiwada" Curchorem
Approximate , area
Taluka protected " (in -Hecta-
res) "
4 5
Salcete 150 Ha.
By :order and ttl' -the name 'of the" 'Go'Verno:r 'of Goa.. "
P. 8. Nadkarnl, Under Secretary (Revenue).
Panajl, 27th December, 1938.
;;;ii:Q# ,
pescrlptioil of· .th~ bund
The approach bund and bandhara cum sluice gate TUllS across, . the' creek' of - River Zuari and protects the paddy fields namely "Surla Xet" belonging, to the Comunidade of ·Kakoda. It runs" at, a distance of 20 'm. p13.rallel to the Railway brtdge at "Kbaridiwada" at CUrbhorem, Quepem-Goa.
Notification
No. RD /TN'C,iBND/~/67 / (341)
In pursuance of the' ,proviso to su})..section. (3) Q.f . Section. 26 of the Goa, Daman_'and Dill- Agricultural __ Te_nfUlcy. Act, 1964, _the _ Government- hereby specify the following bund/s prescribed .In the' schedUle appenCied her~~'.:aiI ~:~ protectIve bund/~ 'for the purpose_ of the said proviso: - _-.< '.:~
1
Village
2 3
Birkhasan Xet Chandor and . Igorjeche:r;n Bhat
Mundem Ad Chandor
A.pproximate area:
Taluka protected ·(in Hecta
res)
4 5
Salcete ·40 Ha.
Salcete 4 Ha.
By, order and in. the name' of the GOvernor o~- Gc?a.
P., B., Nad"karni, Under Secretary (Revenue).
Panaji,_ 27th December, 1988.
•
DeSCription of the· bond
; The blind lies between property Dr. Ivan Chagas Silva -9f Girdolim on the ,West and. Shri Caftan Tales of Chandor on the East. The bund 5'0' m. 'long runs marginal to creek of- -Chandor river. . ,.... .
The bund lies between property of late Shri Linu Fernandes on East and late Shri· Aneceto 'on the West. The bund admeasuring 30 In. runs .marginal- to the creek of Chanqor •.
• •• Public HeaithDepartment
Order
No, 8/36/88-II/PHD
Read: Memorandum No .. 5-5-81-I'HD/l/Part II dated 1-12-8B.
On the. recommendation of the Departmental Selection Coriunittee -the' Governor of, "Goa is pleased to appoint- Dr. Bhaviesh R. -Shah, to, the' post of- Demonstrator in- Biochemistry Goa Medical College in the-pay !?cale of Rs._2200-75--28(){}.EB-100-4000 pu~y -on ad-~oc basis with ,immec!iate ' effect in~tially _ for .. a 'period of six months, subject to. the condi~ions stipulated »:t-' -the Memo~~mdum cited aboye.
, 2-.:: This ,appolntment :shall not qestow: on pT. Shah a .claim. for regular appointment and the service rl:ill.dered on ad-hoc. b?s:is in th~ grade Will' not count for the purpose ,of seniority in th.e' grade and for promotion to -the next higher grade .•
.' 3. This appointment is made again'st- the _post of Demonstrator-held by _Dr. (Mr~.) Neena Kharangat.~ who is promoted.
4. This appolntment is, subject to his being declared fit by the. Medical Bpard' of Goa Medical College~ Panaji, and ye,ri..; flcat~on of his antecedents and character.,: - .
Wl.leteas the qOvernl11~D:t.' of G:oa' is of the opinion -that an industrial dispute exists betwe"en the management Of Mis. DcDowell ahd Comp~ny' LimIted, ,Bethora and thei1" workm~ _represented by the Goa Trade and, Commercial Worked': Union'.in respect of the matter specified 'in the' Schedul~ annexed hereto (hereinafter refeJ;'red to as the 'said'-4ispute')j .
_ And whereas the 90vernment :of Goa considers it cxpedi~nt ~~ refer the :said .dispute for adjudication.
.. ·No~. therefore; in exercise o~ the.' powers conferred by ~I~l:1Se. (d) ,'of sub-section (1") of section 10:of the Industrial Disputes Aot., 1947 (Central. Act 14. of 1947) (he~Oiliafter
called the 'said Act'), the Government of ~oa hereby refers the said dispute ,for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of_ Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji-Goa, constituted under section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
'lWhether the a~tion of the management of Mis. McDOWell and_ CQmpany- Limited, ~ethora in terminating the services of, their workman, Shri Narayan Kurtikal' with effect -.from 19~~-198,6 is legal and justi~ied?
If ntit, to what relief the workman ~ entitled?
~Y order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
. '"Bubhash V. ,Elekar, Under' Secretary (La:t>our).
Panaji~ 22nd December, 1988.
Order
No. 28/1/79-ILD(I'art) Whereas by Gove~e~t' _Order No. 28/1/79-ILD(part;
dated 24-5-1982 (hereinafter called the .'said order').', the industrial dispute (HereInafter called ,the' 'said dispute')r bet~ w~en the Management of ,Mis Sociedade de Fomen,to Ind1,1strial Pvt. Ltd., Margao Goa and th~ir workman Mrs. T_erezInha D'Silva, H. No. 56, ,Orlim, Saicete-Goa:- was referred -for adju:' '(1ication to the _Industrial ,Tribunal, Goa, Daman and- Diu'iJ;i ternlS of clause (d) of sub-sec~ion (1) of -section_ 10-of, th'$ Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) (here' matter called t~e 'said ,Act') ; .
And whe.reas in the said Order' the -Fomerito Employees' Union, 354;' Gamba, Margao-Goa representing -the workman was not impleaded as a paJ,'ty- to the said 'dispute; ,
And :whereas the Government of G~a considers it necessary to· implea.d the said _ Fomento Employees' Union as a party to _ t~e s-aid dispute.. .
Now, therefore, in' exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of 'section 10 of the_ said Act, the Government ,of Goa hereby _amends the 'said order as follows: -
In the saie Order, for the word's and figures ,"Mrs. . Terezinha D'Silva,' H. No. 56, -Orlim, _ -Salcete Goa", 'the
words ~d figures ·'Mrs. Terezinha D'Silva, Steno typist represented by ~omento Employees' Union, 354, Comba,. Margaof
' shall be substituted. .
By order and in the name of" the, Governor- of Goa~ Sul>hash V. E!ekar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Panaji, 30th December ~ 1988.
506
Order
No. 28/17/88-ILD
Whereas ·the Government of Goa.- is 'of the opinion that' an industrial. dlspute eXists· between ·the management· of MIs. The Madgaon Urban _ Co-op. Bank Limited, Margao alid their workman:Miss Amita S. Sardesai in respect of the matter specified in the Schedul~ annexed hereto (hereinafter referre~ to as -the 'said dis:pute');
~ . . . 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 Dispute. Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 'of 1947); the Governm~ni:-' .of Goa hereby refers the _ said -dispute for "adjudication to _ the Industrial Tribunal of Goa. -Daman and -Diu, at Pariajt GOa., constituted under s'ection 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
j~Whether the, action -of the _management of Mis. -The Madgaunl Urban _ Cooperative' Bank Limited. Margao, in terminating the services of Miss Amita S. Sardessat with-'effect from. 5;'7':'1986, is legal ~d justified;'
If not, ,to what -relief the workman-is eI).titleli?"
By order and tit the name of. the Governor of Goa.
L. _J; Menezes Pais, Under Secretary (Labour).
Panaji, 12th January, 1989.
Order
... No.28/41/88-ILD .
Whereas- an industrial 'disp'llte - is purported to ep:ist pet'\V"eep' th.~ manageme,nt Of. Mis. _P-last-o-Pack, C-1, COrUm Industrial Estate and their workmen represented, by the Goa Trade and Commercial- Workers' 'Union, _Velhos Building, 2ild floor, _Panaji, Goa (hereinafter called' the 'said par'ties'), in respect of the n:tatter specified in the Schedule ,annexed h~reto. (hereinafter_ referred to- as' the 'said dispute');
And whereas in a Memorandum of settlement under sub-section (3) of section 12 -of the- Industrial Disputes Act, '1947 (Central Act-,14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the 'said Act'). the said parties had agreed' to jointly apply for _reference of the said -~spute to the Industrial Tribunal;
And_Whereas the_,satd parties have- jointly'applied in the' . preSCribed manner for a reference of the, said dispute. to
the_ Industrial _Tribunal in terms of sU~Section' _(2) o~_ section 10 of the -' said' Act-; .
'Ahd whereas· the Government _ of Goa ,is 'satisfied J;hat' the persons ~pplying represent 'the- majority·-of- ea9h par~y;'
·Now, -therefore, in exercise' of the powers conferred' by , sub--section (2) of, section 10 of- the Indus,trial Disputes. Act, 11147· (Central Act 14 of· 1947), the Government of Go.,,hereby refers the _said dispute for adjudi~ation to the IndushiaJ. Tribunal of, Goa at Panaji :',Goa const~tuted 'under, section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULEl
Whether ~he- action of:the management of M/s._ Pla~ -O-Pack, C-1', , Corlim Industrial Estate" in refusing to' concede the, following demands shown in Schedule 'At ann'exed hereto and - enumerated .in- the '_ charter of. demands- -raised by the Union _ by letter dated 1-4-1988 is justified or not'? "
If not, what r.eli~f the workmen are 'entitled', to?
SCHEDULE - 'A'
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
DEMAND No. I:
Pa-y,:..scal~ and- Grades: ~It -is demanded that each ~~rk" person be given a Flat-:rise of Rs. 200/- per month. w: e. f. -1st April, _ 1988 and the total of the' Basic Salary as:, on 31st March, 1988 plus the flat rise of Rs. 200/-,' p¢r month be fit.ted in the pay ... scales_ given below in the manner fibnents-, are . done in'the classical mould, after,' correct classification:
.·SERtEB II No. 45
Grade. Designation '. _~ay Scales-
I Helper
5 5
II Operator .Rs. 601}-25-725-31}-875-35-105O-4{)-125()
5 5 5
DEMAND No. n: 'House :Rent Allowance: - It is 'demanded that each work
man _ be 'paid a House Rent Allowance at the rate of 15% on -the Basic salary- each, 'month;
DEMAND No. ill:
Fixed' Dearness Allowance: It, is demanded that each work~ man, ,be: paid a fixed de:arnes~ allowance (FDA) of Rs. 250/- per month at AAIPCI 500 (1960-100).
DEMAND No. IV:
Variable Dearness Allowance:- --:-- It is, demanded that each workperson be paid _ a variable dearness allowance at the ,rate of Rs. 1/50, per point 'ri.se· ,over -and above AAICPI 500 (1960-100) .. The V.D.A. shall be computed once_ in .every quarter,' and paid to the workperson at the enhanced rates. .
DEMAND No. V:
Travelling and Sundry Allowances: --:-- It is demanded that each workperson be paid, a travelling allowanc-e at the rate of Rs. 5/- 'per day _ w~rked.
DEMAND No; VI:
Unifonns' and washing Ailo.wa~~s: - It is dernru;a.ded that each wor~person be issued two pairs -of Uniforms and be paid a stirn of Rs: ,25/.. per 'month.
'By order and in -the name' of the Governor o( Goa.
Bubhash V. Elekar~ Urtder' Secretary (Labour)-.
Panaji, 17~_ :Nov~inbert 1985.
Order
No. 28/2/88-ILD
The follOwing Award given by--the Illdustrial Tribunal, Goa-, Daman and Diu is hereby -published- as required under the proviSions of Section 17 of the IndUstrial ~pute 'Act~ 1947 ' (central Act XIV of 1947): .
By order' aJ?-d in th~ name 'of th~. Governor of Goa.
~ubct$h,. V. Elekar, Under Secretary (Inq:tistries and Labour).
Panaji ... 26th October, 1988.
IN THE. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Shri S. V. Nevagj, Hon'blePresiding Officer)
RefereIroe No. rr/25/79
Shri B.R. Sawant
Vis -WorkmanjParty I·
M/s V. M. Salgn~kar&Bros. Pvt. Ltd. - Employer/Party II
Workman represented by Ad". P. K. Gude.
Employer represented by Adv. G. K. Sardessal.
Panaji,Dated: 3-9-1988
AWARD
'l'his is ~ reference ~ade by the G6vt. of, Goa by its order No. IRM/CON/(48)/79/IT-16/79 Qated 21st September, 1979 with an annexure scheduled thereto which reads- as- follows: . - , '
';Whether the a~tion- of-the ~~agem,ent of Mis, V. 14 •. Salgaqnkar and Bros' Pvt. Ltq.., Vasco, in terxpinatir:lg
9TH FEBRUARY, 1989 (MAGHA20,.1910)
the services of Shri B. R. SaW'ant, w.e.f. 1-2-1979 Is legal an<;l justified; .
If the answ~r "be--iit the nega.tive: 'to what r~ief if- 8n.v. Is th'e -afqre.Sttid workman entitled to?"
2. In this Govt.reference ufs 10(1) (d) of the Industrial "Disputes Act, 1947' the short point involved is -regarding the termination .of an employee by tp.e. manageptent of P~ty- n. Mis v. M. _ Salgaonkar _ & Bros. Pvt. Ltd., V3.S:Co.- The ,Party Np. I/employee who -was in Government service ,as a Agri'cultural Officer had resigned-'from the services "and ,at: the "instance of _ the ·management of Party II .had joined the~r
_ .services as Agro..Horticulturtst at a. salary of -Rs, 455/- per month (consolidated). He was confirmed in the ·service. _His initial- appointment as per 'Exb; 'A is dated "4th Nov., 1971 .and_his. confirmation. is dated 7th Nov., 1972 and the letter ·Of termination is -dated-, Janua,ry 24; 1979 Under which his ;services were 't~nated- w.e.f.' 1st Feb.,~979.
. '3. The Party I/Workman dUring the course of his -service was i;;upposed to supervise the. Qifferent- -agriculturlU farms owned by Salgaonkars and. the properties of Salgaonkars 'which ~e. spread all, over -,Goa were to be supervised. by th«;! workman Wlth the help of workmen as well as Wlder mstruc- _ tions of the Superiors including Nagarshckar who was said to be the immediate superior of Party No~' I. Mr. Nagarshekar was ex-Mamlatda.r, of Bardez_ and was appoint_ed - by the' SalgaoJ;1kars -'as Estate, Officer in 1975. The ~ Party I' was
. ,supposed to repo,rt to, this Nagarshekar during the course of his cmployinent With Salga6nkars. Unlier instructions of Nal'"" garshekar the, workman had done the survey of the, fo~est land at Molem and demarked _the same, as the Salgaonkars wanted to start the plantation of .SugarCane,· Coconuts,' pineapples etc." The survey was completed _.within 3 months ,and (luring the sUl"Vey' the standing trees in the land were, cut and the wood was kept' in the custoay of Nagarshekl,ll"' according to' the workman. There were mango trees_ whi,Ch were probably saved from the cutting. Duri~g the. course of. the
. employment the Party I W?S to visit different farm~ which Were 'spread all. over Goa and inorder to enable, him to discharge the duties efficiently the Company had provided him with a two"wheelers ·i.e. Motor cycle and for this purpose he was being given T. A. as wel~ as' petrol allowance._ Petrol was to be purchased With the pumps with which the COJ?1pany
,.had credit facilities.
4. The worlunan claims that the two brothers namely V. M. ' . Salgaonkar ,and R. M. Salgaonkar who were, the .Chairman . .and, Vice-Chairman respectively. of" the Party II Concer:n .fell ,apart and ,the heat- of ,this reached some ,'pf the ,employees . and 'Party I claim that.-he was',_one -of_such employee-who gO't his fingers'burnt due -to' _ the heat' -generateq ~y the difference of the two brothers., This:is only an incidental reference made -by, the workman to' make -out a case ~at he is a victim o:f the circumstances and Nagaxshekar was the person whO' liad exploited ·the situation_ by back biting between the two brothers. According to - him he _ tried to meet the two brothers individually and to' explain away. this to them , including the high handedness of the Nagarshekar, 'Estate Manager who was eating' a share. out of the estate of Salgaonltars.
5. According to the -workman the blckerings between the twO' brothers led to· the dismissal which was initially initiated .by a charge 'sheet- Exb: -D-1 'dated 16-11-78 ~king him to . ·explain -away- the position' regarding ,the -consumption of petrol and the. purchase of _ petrol for ruiming- the twci wheeler. ,According -to the _ management, ' the' workman had mis-used the fac.ilities ,given to him and dispute is just regarding an amoWlt.of Rs. 217/- as per Memo-Exb. D-l. As p,er this Memo the workman has visited different farms betwe~n ' 16-9-78 to 30-10-78 and dUting this period he had underiaken
. 21 trips for which he had claimed' T. A. ranging between Rs. 10/- to' Rs~ 20/- . depending upon the distance -c~vered. -'In addition to this there was the purchase of petrol on a few· Occasions during this period and ~n all about 75 lit!:es, of petrol then'valued at-Rs. 277/~ was purchased by _the , workmatl; AccordiIlg to. the Comp!lny'reg'arding the first ,charge, the T. A. of·Rs. 217/- was'paid to'-him for travelling instead ,of the 'petrol _charge fo.r the motor cycle of the Company which he_ was using. As per the Memo th~ rules _and Standing Orders which - are quoted showed that the workman was 'entitled to' get either petrol charges or the travelling aHo_;., wance and· not both. This, according to the Company' is a gross irregularity and for this lapse on his P?tt· he was . ,directed.to- offer' his explanation to' the Administrative Mana,ger giving- the details ,of the petrol and oil pur~hased by him from the, different· Petrol-·Pumps and to' show -cause _Why he :c1~ed the. tqt.velling expenses when he _ was taking- petrol
507
dUl'ing. ;,the __ period. This is' how the :Memo Exb-D-A dated l~thNov., 1978'put the' enquiry. wheel into ,motion and thereaftera,charge sheet was . given. to .hlmon 16"H,78 and the ·formality of __ conducting' an ·_enquiry- was gone_-into· and -the letter of terniination was' served, on the workman te~ating 'his_ services w.e.f. 1-2-79; This order of ,the termination _from seIjices.,w3S challenged by ~e workman by 4king the ,.matter "before ·the ,Labour CommiSSioner and in, due course 'after' the-failure of ' the conciliation proceedings and report _to
, that 'effect the Govt: __ made the reference' to this Tribumtl and this 'reference _ received on:, 8;'10-79 is pending consideration before this -Tribunal. .
6. In the statemep.t of claim dated 1-12~79. the workman claims that he who was confirmed_ in the services has ~en dismissed by observing an empty formality of conducting .an domestic enquiry and a -workman who-was blissfull:v appOinted as an ~grict.tlture Officer in, the Govt. department .was tempted to join the-service in the private firm to:lapk after ~he fruits
· of -the Company and ultimately he Vias uitcerem?:ni~usly dismissed from services. According to, ,him the charges .levelle4
· against him are petty ,in nature ,and the explanation given by -the 'Workman about the claim Of T. A. was not accepted by the employer and was discharged from, serviCes on _ t~e lame pretext of loss of confidence even _ when the workman had given sufficient explan~tion and proof _ regarding .the petr.ol drawn on -Company's account. and which was :consumed for travelling while visiting the, different farms of the' Co~pany-o According ,.to him -the T. A. was drawn by him 'in the' normal COurse of his duty _ and there :was nothing illegal-.in the lise of Company property or funds as. all 'around ,he was .
':travelling for, the cause of the- Company namely the supervision of the_ -different farms of the' Company' spread -all over Goa. :Iri this way-he has challenged the order of ~ermination of services which he claims to pe an order of discharge. ,
7. In Teply- tc? the claim statement the Company has filed the written statement through its Manager .by name G. Mohonrao and -the writte,n statement is dated 5th June, 1980 . Initially the Company_ in the written 'statement _ has taken 2' basic obj~ctions to the tenability of the Govt. refere~ce namely that the Party ,I--is, not,a, workman within -tpe meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. That he was drawing a salary working in_the capacity of a Manager drawing salary of Rs. _tWO/- p. m. and -that -the Govt. -;referenc~ is without arty jurisi::licUon ,or' in' the- alter'native_ in the excess of its juris~ diction. Along with _ these twO' baSic objections the Company has given the history .of the case listing the duties of tl1e workman and showing the circumstances under which the
· charge- sheet dated -16-1f-78-was issued to the wor:k;man alleg-:ing theft; fraud <?-r-' disho~esty in (!onnection, with the business . or property of the employer's firm. According tQ the Company a Motor cycle was pr.oyided to the workman for which he was to use Company's fuel. The Company was receiving w~ekly statements regarding the visit of the 'workman to' different· farms 'and the statement of accounts of petrol and oil consumed for the motor cycle during the ,relevant period. The figu.,. res cover'a- period of 5lh months and ~ccording to th~ Compru;ty the amount -of travelling expenses claimed by the workman are disproportionate to the petrpl consumed for the vehicle. and in this pto~ess the workman cheated the Company by claiming .double benefits. Consequently the workman was given an· option of appearing before the. Admin.istrative Manager: and "!;O' pay back either the. t'ravellin,g allowance _~r the petrOl cost 'because he 'was not entitled' to claim both but to claim either of'the two. According to the Company_ d.ue tp this double claim ~e company Io::?t confidence -in the ,workman and the enquiry was· proceeded -With- by sending the letter, dated 16-11-78 alleging that _ the -wbrltman had _com.mitted theft, fraud _ o~.- dishon~sty iit connection with the employer.'s bUSiness or property. As per the written statement the workman gave his explanation but the- same was not to the sat~faetion of the management and so tt was directed that an enquiry should -be held -into the charges. The 'E)nquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges "of theft, . fraud .or dishonesty" in connection with employers business or pro,perty. With -these submissions the 'Company has also. given the details of the accounts shOwing how the aCcoWlt of _Rs. 295.40 was claimed in e~~ess and it is claimed that the workman,_ who; due to the nature of his work had to Vis'it' all the esta~es. of the company situ~ted' at different places inGoa ana 'who -was' alloted a- Motor cycle, exploited the pOsition .. and the fraud perpetrated by him W~S detected by the Company and' the -Company felt that it was difficult to -keep· a check on such ,repeated frauds. The Company ·therefore -lost- confidence and, trust in the workman who-had -,betrayed the trust -reposed- by the Company in him. This is how the termInation is justified by the written statemen~
!"-"--------------~"~."~"'.~ ... ",_.,-""",.,.", l
~" __ , 8~ 'NO. ,rejoirider'. was filed by', the Workman -'anq -:th'e matter. was . kept . on sine,..die·, - list by _my "Predecessor on 13-10-80 'on, th~ ,ground that he, was busy with adminIstrativ.e ~work .. Be :,i-t.·so as it, Irl;ay. After Shri' Renato :Noronha took over in 1982 he.- framed .. two preliminary isSlles: _on 9-12:';82- reading' thUS::
20'-2~,88 and:'hiS: cross exami.nation 'w'aS .oompleted- on :3·~8g. ·arid -his witness Shri A. P. Shenoy was _examiried o_n, 14--6-:88· 'and thus 't;he eral eVidence of both- part,ies- was over on that day_ 'and the'- matter was argued over on 12-:8-88. In the mean time Shri Sardessai 'for_ the employer fil.ed an app~ica- , tion seek.ing a:mendment to his written s~tement reading. thus:
'i. Whether the 'Employer/Party 'II PrOv~ that -the ,Order of Reference "is not maintainable and, is boac( in law for -the reasons < mentioned under lett~rs (-a) to (c) at page 1-2- of, their written ,statement?,
2. Whether the Workman/Party I prove that' he _is a Workman within ,the ~eaning of ,Sec. 2(s) ',of the I. D. A .• 1947? '
~"It' has to be noted here pertinently that these tw~ ptelinu.nary i$Sues are ',framed in view of the specific conte;ntion raised by' the party -II in the opening paras of t~e writteil
, ~tatement· and these were the specific. obj~ctions taken by the Party D; to the tenability of the Govt. referenee on ;th~ ground that the work _ of the -Party I -was in nature' of- a managerial or superviSOry nature ,and he who waS drawing. a. sal~ 'of more than .Rs. 500/- per month was not .a. workman. This objection _seems to, ,be, with reference to .the defination-, of the- .workman u/s 2(s) of the I. D. A.; 1947'~ The second objection was regarding the same point namely that the Party I· not -being a workman the Govt. was not' 'competent to consider his case to raise an industrial diSPllte on ,his behalf' making a rderence to the Industrial, Tribuiial. These were· the two basic' objections and the parti~ went on trial. The endorsement 'below the Memo on issues (preliminary 'issues) made by' the employer or on ',behalf of the employer· shows that the employer did not press issue No. 2 and he did not want to lead evidence on preliminary _po1nt~ From the roznama dated 12,;12-83 it is shown that the above
. statement was made on behalf of the employe;r on that daY· 'Since 12':'12':'83 . the' matter stood adjourned for the over, .aU' hearing of the matter on merits- an,d the employer's witness Shri Cordeiro was directed to, appear by isst»ng of summons, -and' he appeared. on 28-1-85. On that day - the exa;mination in chief of tl'!-e witness, was recorded· by Shri 'G. K. 'Sardessai for _ the_ ,employer: and the matter, stood adjourned,_ as seen' from the. note below the deposition ot the witness for' recC?rding a finding, of -the court on preliminary issue 1 and 2 as the. -issues, had heen dropped. The case papers show that my Pred~essor by a speaking order dated 5-2-85 held that as issue No. 2 had been, ,dropped ori account of the employer's. representatives the statement in writing, and consequently none of- the two preliminary, issues should ,-subsist. According to my' Predecessot: by dropping _of issue No. ,2 by the' employer it meant taat the empl~yer qid not press at all either of, the' ~wo preliminary issues _ concerning the defination of workman' within the meaning- of Sec" 2(s) of the Act. -Consequently laki:hg into consideration the- endorsement made ,by' the representative of the ~mployer below the_ Memo of issues he held that, both the preliminary issues 1 &. 2 be de,em:ed to have' been dropped and the, trial was - to proceed for hearing the' matter on' overall ments, This ,o~eI' was announced in', open court, and the next stage was the continuation 'of the ~vidence ,of Cordeiro who was_ crOSS exaIn.ined by Adv, Gude .on behalf. of Party I on 15~4-85. _Thereafter: the evidence, ,of the then Labour, Officer of Party n by name Alvaro Antao _ who was appointed as, the: Enquiry Officer to go into'· :the charges of Party 1_' Sawant was, recorded on 5;8-85., He produced the case paperS of t~_e enquiry . which are in _ his hand writing and they are at Exb. E-4.· .'
" .9., Thereafter the matter was adjourned for the -evidence 'of. the Star -witness_-Nagarshekar, the Ex-Mamlatdar and the Esta'te_ OffiCer' -of, :Party II. The summons were, isSUed to
,him by an ol.'der ,dated ,4~10:'85 but- actually the swnmons. was not issued till 1;1.-12-85 as Party II had not ,-depOSited the. necessary bhatt ch~rges .. However, on that' day' the evidence. of. _,_Shri Venkatesh V. Dessai for-.the_ employer was -r~corded ·and an' undertaking was given Qn-' behalf of the- employer. to .produce the_ witness 'Nagarshekar on the Aext date, of ,he~ring. On the adjourned date i.e.,'on .24-3-86 tl;1e witness Nagarshekar dido' not appear and--the manage-:m:ent. aga,in 'sought summQns to_ be issued to Nagarshekar 'and the matter- was -,adjourned to -25-6-,86 by' wh,ich tiine ~y rr~decessor _,Sh~i ~ ?1.:onha retired.
24A 41The ,Employ~r craves leave to, lead fresh evide~c~' ' in support of, the charge in the event this Hcn'ble Cou,rt is pleased- to, set aside the enquiry en any ground whatso .. ever." ' .
By this' pro~sed amendment he 'hnpltedly meant to, suggest that _ inspite of the two, earlier preliminary issues framed on -be-half of ' the employer and which were dropped even at the mst.ance of the employer, one more,preliminary issue regardingthe enquiry might arise.' ,Impliedly tihs proposed amendmen~ went to suggest that the issue may -arise. I kept this -application "for orders" because the application was filed by the Assistant of -Shri G. K .. Sardessai by name Adv. Rohit Lpboand the ,application stood adjourned for hearing- Shn Sardessai about the proposed amendment of the writteri -state; ment. However, on 12-8-88 the matter was argued over _on merits of the case and the' application- dated 5-8-88 Will- be disposed off by me after passing the award 'en the main govt._ reference namely whether the <>:rder of termination of' the, workman is legal and justified. . '
, 11._ I have traverse9. through the history' 'of the prctracted litigation which was cendtlcted before three Presiding Officers an_d the point at issue is obvioilsly the legality or otherwise of the order of termination and I ,have to dispose off' this issue by taking an over all survey of- the evidence which is ree,orded at Qifferent stages. I have~ discussed the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the complain before the Labour Commissioner giving rise to the industrial dispute which has been referred to by- the -Government. ,The main _and 'importallt asi>ect·-to be taken into consideration in this protracted matter is the charge of theft, fraud and criminal mis- . appropriation which is levelled against the worlonan ~ who worked -as Agro Horticulturist with the Party No. -II. The terms employed ~n the _ cha,rge namely,' theft, fraud and criminal misappropri~tion indicate the criminal act or l!liS:-' ;"behavi01:lr of a worman who' ,was- handlirig,· the money an~ property of. the employer. These, charges are ,no' doubt 'very serious charges. However, -the main questicn is whether such serious charges are attracted at all considering the ,facts 'o/hich are brought on record. and I shall first st~dy' these facts to see whether such a serious chaxge is attracted at all and secondly whether there is sufficient evidence to prove' the charge's beyond any reasonable doubt beca\lse in a criminal court of law such charges would warrant a conviction and imprisonment to_ jail.· '
12. The, total amount involved is Rs. 277-90 which is 'equal to 72- litres' of petrol (value prevailing_ in 1978) and/qr Rs. 217/- claimed by ,the worll:man -as travelling expenses_.
. Be it noted here _ pertinently that the petrol is purchased oil
10. The matter remaLned on sine die list till r took ever in ·Nov., '87 and the matter was again revived by issuing
,notices to the parties and ,the· evidence of management's witness Shri A. Antao 'was again recorded- oil 7-1-88 and, the, evidence of the workman Sawant was ~r4~: en
9 . occasions whIle the travelling expenses are claimed' fo~ 2~ trips at different places-in Goa. Even a cursory and casual look at these figures will show that these are all petty amounts and it "is, as if a pet hole_ is being created out of a mole: _The charges seem to have been inflated even dispropor-_ tionate ,to the so called offences committed by any person~ The. only point, made out iil the report by the Enquiry Officer, Shri A. Antao is that (a) Sawant did _net mention aU- places which he visited in the- report Exb. C (b) Sawant failed to justify' the consumption of 72 Htres of petrol and '( c) Sawant is guilty, of util~sing petrol in a quantity far above that is the_ justified requirement for ccmpany's work. These are the ~onclusions drawn by him and ,he -says ttl-at Sawant is -guilty of theft, fraud or dishonesty. Even "if _ defination of -these three offences is considered in any common parI:mce" the charges are not attracted. , For, committing theft there snoUlq: be lifting of property of others without consent of that person •. This charge is not attracted even ,by stretch of imagination because the b11ls are claimed during .the course of the officiaJ duty. There cannot be' dishonesty becaus~, he was permitted to claim travelling expenses as 'well. as petrol on ccmpany-'s account. So the charges of theft, and dishonesty meaning fraud go fut. So what -remains is criminal mis-approp\'iation and the charge win have to be proved by the- management' by ccgent evidence like ,any other fact. The_ genen~J and rhetoric say isthat the workman could-have claimed, either of the two things namely petrol for the two wheeler or travelling' expenses but not- ·both. There se'ems to, be some truth _ in th~ say of the management in this regard in _ as much as the ·-Workman has rather meekly accepted the posi;,., tlon In his. Jette.l" dated. 21-11-'18 which is at Exb. E-5. '.In
9THFElJRUARY, 1989 (MAGHA 20, 1910)
this letter, addreS~ed to the _ Administrative' Manager the workman Sawant states that he discussed tl.1e matter in the chamber. of the latter on that day _:regarding- 'petrol.fssue' and 'travelling allowance' and he was prepared _ t~' pay back either travellilig -allowance or petrol costs and he -soug~t directions of the Administrative Manager in this r~garcL Hence"it is· implicitly clear that-the workman was also aware that, ther,e 'Was- something in excess which _ he had claimed and when _ that· excess was discovered' after enquiry he meekly .. submitted and accepted over -payment showing' his willingness to reimburse the same., Hence it cannot be ~tated that the case-' of the management is not altogether baseless but the main question is whether this . attracts any _ of the StandixJ.g Orders which a,re quoted by_, the management or thl! Enquiry _ -Officer alleging theft, fraud ahd -criminal mi,s.. -appropriation. _ This is a clear and simple case of "p-xcess billing" and the person who is caught on -the wrong foot haE;, to ,return the money_which he-has' claimed either l{now" ingly or inadvertently,. This was, that way' other wise simple, matter which could, have been considered In the proper, context by the management if it had a mind to -do so. Supposing,,_-that the amount of travelling expense!=! was not jtistified the management could have deducted that amount
. from' .his nex.t,_ travelling expenses claimed or even . from -his sruary bec.ause this is a question of the aocounti3-bility Of. a ' servant who has been saddle,d with the responsibility, of traveIJlng .to different Farms of the company in the region of Goa and due to the distance he had to go'to those place~ either by Company motorcycle, his, own scooter or by any 'Other mode of travel that- was available to him. Constdering the ,volume of work and ,as many as 21, trips undertaken bY, the workman it- can- be stated that the -charges ,I(':relled against the workmE!-n _ are totally uncalled for' and -the mana-gememt rather acted' in, haste in firSt issuing the charge-~hcet and_then appointing-the so called Enquiry,Officer to conduct an enquiry-:into ,the 'so' called charg~s _of theft, fraud andcriminal mis.;.appropriation. Thi,s is_ in other words similar, to the saying ,that calling a, dog mad and then shooti.ng it. For some 'reaaons- the management had fOrmed an opinioll that the workman was unwanted person and he should be sho\Vll _his right place and for -this purpose the enquiry -was
. instituted against him _ and, the charges or, s.o called _churgel:l were held to' be proved a~ai:hst him.' At the same tir<1e it has to be noted ,that the workman is also not totally h'l-ving an unblemished part in' the whole 'epi,sode--and his actions or to say inactions have brought about the circumstances whjch have led to a domestic enquiry.
13. Before dealmg with the other aspects of the case,' r . shall incidentally cpnsider _ the aspect of domestic_ £:.nquiry about ,which Shri G.' K; Sardessai "the -learned ,COunsel for the Einployer -Sl:!ems to have somethIng_', to say, .. Relying on th,e .oft-quoted authority of t.he' Supreme Cour~ he seems to be making- out a case that the issue regarding the dop.!estic enquiry should be exhausted. first because in -the ev,mt of thE:, finding of the Court regarding the' Domestic Enquiry going against the management, the managem~nt wouhf have a right to lead evidence .to justify its action. This -qlr~stlOn'. would have arisen _ if there were specific pleadings regarding the domestic- enquiry' and if there was a specific issue regarding the .domestic enquiry- to consider whether the domestic enquiry was mir and impartial and -_ whethd~~ due and proper -opportunity was given to the workman- to plead his case. There is no such issue and the only two preiiminary.
, issue~ which, were set ~p: by the managoment were regardmg
but the romama shows that the management had tak'en adjounnnent 'On on'e count' or the ether to bring Its witnesseS. and 'ultiruately- it -closed down its_ e.vidence after the - last witness was examIned and I have already recapulated the eVidence)- of this ,witness. whose evidence does' not throw any light, on the main -charge of prOVing the, distant'e ,ot the false claim of travelling expenses or ~he petrol eon-' sumption charges. As' repeatedly stated, the.se _ are, so petty ,it-ems that they could not have ~ortned a crux of irri.portant domestie- enquiry- instituted against -the permanent workman who had put up' a service of _,9 to 10 year~. ThIs ~s how there is reason to believe that what is alleged against -the' workman by way of dis-honesty is, a simple.tip of an iceburg
, and _som'ething- mare was' intended but that something more is not forthcoming and we have. to just . consider the charge of- mis-apprQprlation of- the paltry ~mount and I _find that the management has failed_ ·to bring home this charge tothe workman by _cogent and' proper evidence. It would not be Just sufficient to say that he had not visited the diff~rent: places. When the work,- is entrusted to him the stat~ment that he viSited those places and used the vehicle has got to ,be_ aCQepted 'miless, and until the management has some evidence to c'ontravert the statements made by th~ workman. In the absence .of any such evidence the 'allegation -has many loose ends and it cannot be stated that the charge' is duly and properly proved or brought -home to the delinquent workman. The trend of the so called domestic enqUIry' Shows that the workman was _put into the doCk' amI the workman was asked to explain away the' things -wl~hout sh:owing what thIngs' he was to. explain. I have- carefully gone through the two charts regardjng the places visited by him' and the .-consumption of petrol to these two -charts' cannot be reconciled with each' other unless the fratld or ,shortcoming is pointed out by-the management. The mC'nage..;' nient has failed to prove this and just the two St:w(hng Orders namely order 20(iv) & 20(xiii) are' just quot.ed to
t allege the. charges of theft, fraud ar.d dishonesty and gross negllgence of workm'an or hab.itual negligence. The 'charg'e's' as per the _ standing· orders if proved would no do'ubt':, ttract extreme penalty of dismissal from services. However the agony of the case is that these charges just made a melltl.on of- but no, steps are taken ~ -prove the charges in c!~tail by giving the instances. Hence ·what transpires at the conclusion of the facts and evidence- is that there is an admission of _ the workman' through his . letter addressed to the Aumi ... nistrative Officer wherein he has- offered ',to reimburse the excess clalm mad,e_ by hiin ,either on account of -travellmg expenses_or,on account of the petrol consumption. Shri Gude for the workman did submit before me' that the workman had giyei:t: this writing under 'quress or threat. -This is a v€;ry hard pill to'_ swallow., The workman ,had served in a -respons~ble pOSition in a Govt. department, had voluntardy resigned from the' same and accepted the position or responsibility with. Party II. It cannot be said that' SLen a . person would meekly submit to the coercion or -threa t of the management .. Hence it has to be stated that the real 'truth has not come on record and generally this is a mitter of accountability and ,what was to be don:e was some, recovery for exc'essive billing, to, be made for the workman -and this, w.as to be done in due course of the offiCial conduction of'business where tliere was no criminal element in it and much less the 'attraction of the two impugned standing orders which I have quoted,.in the foregOing paras. Thif) -is how thE:. entire process ~onducted 'by the so called Enquiry Officer is. a futile effort to- prove the charges and before de:iling with the- other aspects I shall study the domestic enqUIryand what, are the powers of the Industrial Tribunal uls ilA of the I. D~ ,Act. .
thE' jurisdiction and at the last moment the, managemelli: did not press 'those. i,ssues. -and the management was prepared b _have an _overall hearing of the case on merits and we have . already _ noted that the actual recording of .eVIdence' ha,s spread over in a span __ of 3 years and -the matt:>.r had s"t!uck due to the recording of the eVidence of Nagar.3hekar who was alleged to have exploited- the whole, situa!ton - to hiS own _advantage. -There was an allegation against Nagarsheka~ -that he, -had committed fraud in respect of some forest material _ belonging to the Company and -in or60r to over shadow -' that:, aspec~ he ,had attempted to mllke a scape~goat of Sawant to 'subject him 'to such' an -entTuiry.· TI:le cat would have -CQme out of bag had Nagarshekar'- been
, examined_ as·.a witness for the manageplent._ It 'is-- rather interesting to note lhat Nagarshekar, shunned he witness box in).tiallY"aild at, a-l?-ter stage the'management_-itself thought it'.wise not to examine ·Nagarshekar for reasons best known to: theJ?l. This is' how' this important piece of eviden(,e is kept.' away froin' the, 'Couit and now the management hhS fi~e4 .. tp.e'·~pplication_as late as on 5-8w1988 to -seek an amendm~t ,to tp.e, Wri,tten " statement by incorporating para' 24:A . and- then 'to, aslt ~~e 'Tribunal to. permit them to lead further evtdeJ?:¢e_' in the 'matter..- In the span _ of 3 years nobody' had ~ted th¢ '~a~~genie:r;it in, leading evidence of its choiCe-
l3. Formerly. the adjudicatory jurIsdIction of the Indus,'trial Tribunal dealing With disciplinary -cM_es wa;-s merely confined to see' whether the employer' did not act malgfide in the matter of initiating the action' and -whether in indicting the 'punishment the Enquiry Officer had not violated th~ rules of natural justice ~nd his findings were not baseless 'Or perverse. In a way this was a negative approach and now the, pOSition ~as been changed after the insertion of Sec. 11A. :In the case FireStone v. Manag_ement reported in 1973 I, LLJ_ page. 278, the Supreme Court· has made -the. follOWing obserVations; "Tribunal js clothed with t.he power t.) re-appraise the evidence in the «;i".mestic, enquiry and satisfy itself whether the' said evidence relie-d on bv an employer, es~blished the misconduct alleged against a w::>rkman. Wluit w~s originally a plausiple conclusion that· could be ,drawn by an employer, fr~m the evidence has now' -giveti place_ to a satisfaction being arrived at by the_ tlibunal that the"finding of misconduct IS correct. -The -limitations iMposed'
,en the powers ,of the Tribunal by the decision.in Indian-rrQn' and Steel Co. Ltd.-- 'Case (supra) can no longer be invoked.
l?10 .--~------------------
by- ,~n employer .. - T,he _tJ:ibunal .is- now at lI:berty to consiuer pot only, whether the finding of ,misconduct recorded _ by the employer- is correct, -but als.o to differ from the said fiI'dinb" #' :a proper, case is made aut. -What' was .once. 'largely .in _~he rea~ .of satisfaction .of the employer, has -ceased t,o, :~e so, and now, i~ is the_ satisfaction .of the tribunal that fillaily. decides the matter" ~
. 14. Further it has to:'OO I.1oted that the limited jutisdict,icln as delineated by IndIan ,Iron case was' applied .only to, ('aSes -Where, the -disciplinary ,action .of discharge .or 'dismissal of· a workman was b~sed on -a _ v~lid ,enquiry. In' invalid enquiry. and no enquiry cases the Tribunal had original jurisdictIon to go into the merits. of just.if.iability of the action of discharge of dismissal. I.n the .instant case what is purport;ed to show as domestic enquiry' is no enquiry at all or at' the most 1~ is ·an· invalid enquiry. I am considering the legal p0'31tion because· the applicatipn for. amendment for written statement
. filed· by Shri Sardessai on 5-8-88 but no mention "Of the: same is made ·by him in his exhaustive argulnents . on 12-8~1988. I dO.' not know if this' is an attempt- on the part of the management to prepare a ground to say that· it had asked .for an opportunity to lead· a(1ditional evidence 'out the same was 'de:nied to it. At the cost of repetition·.1 may' say . here' that . the management had full three ye.::trs to· lead what~ver evidence it liked and the matter got stuck down for bringing the witness 'Nagarshekar for evidence but ultimately that-. attempt was <;iropped by the Mallagement. . Hence it is not ·known or shown what further evi r1ence the· ~ari:;'Lgement wants to lead af a belated stage wnen the workrruin's evidence was closed on 20-2-1988 and the arguments were· heard well after 6 mOllths; So I do not find .any substance. in the appiication dated· 5-8-88 and the' sam.e will be reje9ted simultaneously.
15. In this regard there are. many auth"Orities including the Supreme Court case in Delhi Cloth Mills v. LudhBudh Singh reported in 1972 I, LLJ page 180 •. The Supreme Court ~as dealing with ~e view~ of different Courts on the po4tt of opportunity to .lead additional evidence. The rel..!vfl.nt, obs~rvations:of.the Supreme Court read thus: "The'questipn is: whether an opportunity'to lead a.dditional evidence had been asked for ~nd had been' refused by the' Tribunal. 'In other words, it was for the employer to ask fOJ:: an opportunity,to adduce evidence in support of. his action ..l.nd it was not obligatory duty in law on the tribunal to offer an opportunity to the employer, irrespective . of whether he as:ked for it or not." The above observations ~focus the point in very clear terms. The employer was never prevented fro~ leading any evidence he liked and there was. no qup~thm of. refusing to consider the request~. However, the pr0t:0sed amendment to the'written' statement is a futile exerci.se at protracting a li.tigatio,n· which' is: already over 9 years old; Hence, upon. a . careful . consideration on the facts on record I hO,ld thiLt. there was ·.no proper domestic 'enquiry at all
. because the examination of the case papers of enquiry shows that ques~~ns were put" to, the . workman asking hiw to expla~n away the details of the T. A •. claimed and bills for purchase of petrol. They wanted the. workman to' reconcile the things and there is reason to believe that the workman' had taken som~ excess.ive payment. This controversy' cculd have been put an end to by asking the workman to reimbUrse the excessive payment or -to cut the same from his fuhire salary or th~ T."A. Bill: I.fail to understand how the ... wrong· calculations or mis-calculation. and that too' of a petty amount of about 200 rupees amounts to theft, fraud or mis-appropriation attracting the penary prov~sions of tHe' two Standing Orders on.which the entire process is· ba.sed. Hence I feel that there was some other reason 'for wh'ch the enquiry. was initiated and that reason .had not propel·ly come o~ record 'and it appears that the witness Nagarsneear has something to do with this. The non-examination' of this <
1n;lportant witness .who was.' the immediate superior of Party I has left a lacunae in ·the case of the employer and with whatever. evid~nce w"!llch is on record I am inclined to hold that,.the charge of theft, fraud or dishon~sty"iS not proved by. l~a.ding c~gent evidence. There. cannot. be any misapproprIatIon because the charge of mis~appropnation pre-supposes entru~tme~t and claim .for. T. A .. or purchase of petr,)l at Company cost does not amount to this, even by any stretch. of imagination.
16. Upon an over all conSideration of the evidence on record. and .the absence 'Of the. eviden~e' of ·NagarsheMr in particular I am. inclined to hold that the whole exercise' on
. the part of the Management is a fu.tile one and considermg the nature of the cluirge, even if it went to be heJd as proved ~he extreme penalty of dismissal is uncalled'. for ~d af the
;oM,
. SERIES II No. 45
most lesser penalty such as warning or stoppage ·o.f mere .. ment . or any other. analogous punishment would have be(m awarded. I am making these remarks in view of. the' half hearted admission of the workman regarding the ch~rges of false accounts. There i~ no doubt some. truth in· the charge that the workman had' made some claim rega!'<fuig travelling expenses or petrol charges a portion of WhlCh might not be justifiable. However, the lapses, if any, ~r so' trivial in nature that the entire .process of initially holJ1Ilg~ an enquiry and then removing the workman from service: were'· totally uncalled for. The letter Exb. 5 .written by the workt:rlan on' 21-11-78 gives a 'reference to the .discussion \Vith the Administrative Manager in his chamber between . him' and the workman and the workman had. shown his willing'1~ss to' .pay back either the. travelling allowance or the petrol cost and he sought the .. necessary instructions from him. A plain reading of this letter shows that this is othelwise a very simple matter as on 21~11-78 the Administrat've ~nag:r' 'could have .worked out the figure-may he' as per
.. hIS estImation and' could have asked the .workman t.o pay of the same and the matter would have ended ':,here only; Howev~r, the way and manner in which the further deve .. lopments have taken place in a rather indecent haste indicate that the deCision to' remove the workman from the services was aJrn"Ost a. foregone conclusion' and' the formality of following the required procedure' had to be· gone into and' a casual . look at the ellquiry' papers dated 21-12-78' ·sb0WS that the cursory examination of statement of management's·
. representative Shr.i A. .cordeiro was re.corded who 'stm:llly speaks about' the two lists of travelling expenses and loetrol slips but the same does n·ot show how there was misapp.l."'Qpri~tion. The other witness is Mr. M. G. Nagar.shekar who has shunned the witness box in the Court. He simply states' that he was never aware that Sawant' was taking petrol on. company accounts.. One' or two questions are put in' the cross examination and then his' evidence is closed. Hence. it can be said that the evidence before the Ellquiry OffIcer on .behalf. of the. Management is perfunctory·.in nature and then there is the detailed examination of Sawant Which mai!Ily confines to his, replies about the details of the bills which he has, given .. The Enquiry Officer has thEm tried to draw inferences from whatever replies' he has given about the places. Visited by hini and the distance covered by him. The Enquiry Office:r has then jumped to the conclusion' that the workman is guilty of utilising petrol in a· quantity far above that· is the justifed requirement for Com'pany's 'work. 'Hence so~c:ly on. ·the. gro!lnd that excessive quantity of· petrol was utIh.sed by Sawant for his two. wheeler, the Enquiry Officer S~rl A. Antao jumped t"O a conclUSion that Sawant is guilty of the charge of theft, fraud or dishonesty. Much comments ~~e not nee~ed on this and suffice it to state that the fhiding IS ~rong. as well as incorrect and the whole. proc.ess ~ of enquiry is improper and· deserves to . be rejected. In this context, the Adv. for Party I, Shri Gude has relied' u~'on three authorities of the Supreme Court· reported in A. I. R.
: 1985:, (S; C.). Vol. 72. In the ·aut1)orlty at page 1121 in the case of AnilKumar,· the Supreme Court has observed that the report of Enquiry Officer niust be· a reasoned one;. In another authority at pag~ 1158 in the case o~ Chandu Lal the Supreme Court found that the dismissal of the work'"1lan was on the ground of loss of' confidence and as su~n .. Ie' was not entitled to' reinsta:tement but to' compensation only. I? the 3rd .authority at page, 1046 in the case· of K; C.' J!)shl, tne charge was that of unSuitability 'and it was held .that ~e enq':liry . wa~ . not held in accordance with the principles of n~tural 'Jush.ee. In all. those cases compens~tion in lieu of remstatement was awarded and I. feel that in the instant ~ase the· workman. is' more keen on getting 'compen~tion mstead of reinstatement into service.
. It has to be noted pertinently that the· dismissal IS effc~ted &l 1979 and we are to' consider .that, matter after' a lapse' of over 9 years. A . lot of bad blood is created between the employer and employee and I feel that it· would' be in the int~rest of bo~h that compensation is awarded jn li~ll of re-mstatement. Further, there is a reason to believe that the workman is gainfully employed since the removal from service but he is not pr.epared to admit the same. It ccn..">lot be expected that.a v.e;osatile person like. the workman· who had initially served with, the'. Govt. as a Agricultural Officer would keep quiet after his re~oval from service. He wants us to. believ~ that he. Is living on the· earnings of 'his wife who IS servmg somewhere and' he has just remained idie for all these 9 years. Questions are put to him' in the cross examinations wherein it is' suggested to him that after
·tennination· from 'sel'vice he started an 'establishment in the· ' n~me and style of 'B?-avani Fa,.rm'. It is also suggested to. hlJ:?- that he has been carrying on agricultural ')perations. pnvately.~nd that. he p'"Ossesses .a·Jeep and a Trti~,'whlCh.
9TH FEBRUARY, 1989 (MAGHA 20, 1910)
are useful to him in .his Fann' activity. It is also ~uggested to him that he had given the tyres of -the truck for remoulding to Prasad Tyres at ,Ponda. He _ admits that h~ gave a cheque Of Rs. 400/- to Prasad Tyres on 9~6-~7. He states that he gave the cheque, for some other purpose and that too on behalf of his brother _ who is in Motor busines$. It is suggested that he has -a share in his brother's. business. It is also- suggested to him that he· takes private contracts and that ·he has '~ken a contract of Housing Board rega .. "'ding which ?ll arbitration proceedings is pending .in the Civil Court. The workman has no doubt denied all these suggestions but it cannot be said that the Managem'ent has invented all these theory just to beat about the bush. It is tru~ that ",'the management_ should have led 'positive evidence onthe point that the workman is' gainfully employed sinc~ t~e termination of his service. Now, .after the introduction of Sec. 11A in the - Act, the Tribunal has got wide powers- to . -consider the position and it' has descrttion to direct reinstate-' mEmt With or without -any conditions or to award any. h"sser punishment or compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Besides the three_ authorities' relied upon on behalf of Party :r-{o. I; wherein _compensation ,is awarded in lieu '-of reins~tement, I find the .direct authority on the Point m ·the case of Anglo American Tea Co. v. Workmen reported in 1961 II --LLJ. 625 wherein his lordships: Wanchoo _J. has observed that .See. 1IA vests Tribunal with discretionary jurisdiction '.to give such other relief to- the workman and -_for some valid reasons it. considers' that' reinstatement will not be fair and proper, compensation' in such a- case' is the solution for unjustjfied and premature termination of employment ..
~7. ConSid'erlng all 'fa~ts' and circums~ces' 'Of the -case I am inclined to 'hold that the order of termination effected on the -workman is not just and proper but by way of-,relief the award of compensation _would meet the, ends < of justic~. I propose to_ award him compensation at the rate' of Rs. 10(10/per year since 1979 which comes to Rs. 10000/-.· AddiUollaly _I award him Rs. 10.000/ .. as C()mpensation in' lieu of rein": statement. In -the result, I pass the follo,?,ing order:
ORDER
It is hereby held that the action of the Management of Mis V._M., Salgaoncar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd, Vas.c() da Gama, Goa, in 'terminating -the services of Shri B. R. Sawant, with ,eff~ct from. 1-2-1979 ~s ·not ,just and legal.
As relief, instead of reinstatement it. is directed that the Management of Party No.'ll do pay, an amount of -Rs."20,OOO/(Rupees ,twenty thousand only). to the workrrian as compensation for' ~proper termination _ of service'.
IIi the circumstances of· the case' the partfes are, c:tirected t.o bear, the~r own _costs. '
Inform the Govt. accordingly about the passing' of the award.
. s. V. N~gi, Presiding Officer, Ind~rial Triburial. ... Finance (Revenue 'and Control) Department
Notification
. No. 5/8/80-FinlR&C)
~n exerCise of the' powers conf,erred by section lOA 'Of the Goa, Daman and Diu Sales Tax,Act, 1964, (Act 4 of 1964). the Government of' Goa bei:~lg 'satisfied that it is expedient and necessary so; to do in, pubU~ interest, hereby exempts from the payment of sales tax and additional fax leviable under the said Act .on the _ sales of 'bus chaSSiS, -of bus bodies, of: automobile spare parts includiitg tyres, tubes and -flaps of buses and of any o~er article ·made, by' a~ dealer having his place of business within the State of Gua to the "Kadamba
. S'ubur~n T;ransport Corporation L~mited", Panaji. . ProvIded that such -dealer furnishes to the approprfate
asses~ ,authority, a declaration in the form specified hereund~r,_:isstled by a duly authu'l,'ised officer of the Kadamba Suburban ';l'i,'ansport 9orpor~tion Limited, panaji.
FORM
(Declaration_:by -the' Officer of the Kadamba Suburban ;Trati'spor~- Corporation Limited).
,
511
I, ... (name) .. '. (state designation), do hereby certify that the go'ods sold by .... (name of the dealer), holder- of Registration Certificate No. . .. ' under the Goa. Daman and Diu Sales -Tax Act, 1964, under cash -mem9/b1ll No .. ,. dated ... for ·Rs. . .. have be,en purchas_ed by the Kadamba Suburban Transport Corporation 'Limited, Panaji for its use.
'> Place: .:.' (~eat)
Date: '"
Signature:
Designation 'Of the person signing the declaration.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
E.- ,M., Nambfar;. Under Secre~ary (Fin: Exp.).
Panaji, 29th December, 1988 .
••• Finance (Expenditure) Department
Order
No. 6/22j88-Fin(Exp)
In order to attract officers with higher qualifications to. the Goa state Accounts Cadre, especially for managing ,the administration of accounts of G()vernment -CorporatioJ,t aIld public undertakings it has been decided t9 grant the following incentives for pa.ssing the Institute of Cost & .Works,Accountants and the Associate Member of the Institute of-Chartered Accountants examinat~ons:-
(a) Six ,advanced-increments to'the departmental candidates and fresh recruits qualifying in- I.C.W.A.Final and A._M.l.C.A. Examinations.
(b) Two act.vance increments to the departmental 'candidates and fresh recruit qualifyirig in the Intennediate stage of I.C.W.A. 'These increments will get absorbed in 'the six advance increments granted- after quali-: tying in the Final Exam.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
K. M. Nrumbiar, Under·Secretary (FiDance,Exp.).
Panaji, 3r!! Jatluary, 1989. .... law IEsta~nshmentl Department
Order
No. 3-4-85/LD (Part)
Read: Government Notification No. 3-4-85/LD dated "22-11-1988. .
Sanction is hereby accorded to the 'grant' of honorarium at the rate of Rs. 400/- per_m:~mth to Shri A. Venkataratnam presently holding' the post 'of Managing Director o~ Kadamba Transport Corporation, Panaji appointed as the Member 'of Administrativ~, Tribunal Goa, Daman and 'Diu, Panaji with
, effect fnjm the' date of taking over «.te charge.
The expenditure is debitable to the Budget Head 2070-0ther Administrative Services, 800 - Other Expenqitures, 02 - Administrative Tribunal, 14 :-Professional' and Special Services.
Thls is issued with the concutTence of Finance (Expenditure) Department vide their _U. O. No. 6276 dated -28-12-1988.
By order and in t'he name of the GovernOr of Go~.
Maria A. Rodrigues, Und~r Secretary (Law).
. Panaji, 9th January, 1989.
Notifjcation
No. 2-3-86/LD(I)
.'In . pu~suance -~f rule 7 of -the' Goa, Daman and Diu dVil Service (Judicial 'Branch), Rules. 1985 (hereinafter referred to a~-the Rules) read,with section 16 of the Goa,. Daman and Diu, Civil Courts Act, 1965 (Ac,t 16 of 1965), the GOvernment of Goa in consultation with the COmmittee constituted under
512
rule 7- of the Rules_is' hereby pleased to appoint Shri- Crlzanto Fernandes, Advocate, to the post of Civil Judge Junior Divi ~ sion under (Grade il) Goa, Daman ant;! Diu Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules in a purely temporary capacity with effect from the date he assumes_ charge .and his appointment will be subject to. the decision of the Writ Petition No. 8/88 and 9/88 pending With the High COurt of_ Judicature at. Bombay •. Goa Bench at Panaji. -He will draw his pay- in the scale of Rs. 200D-SO-23IJ()-EB-75-3ZOD-100-3500.
The appointment is subject _ to the terms and conditions . contairied in this Deparbneilt's Memorandum No. 2-3-86/LD (VI) dated 25-8-1988 and the proyisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Service (Judicial Branch) 'Rules, 198Q.
Shri criianto Fernandes should repo~t himself either to _'the District -and -Sessions Judge, North or South Goa as may be directed by the High Court. If he falls to join duty within one'week Of receipt of _posting order, this appointment will stand cancelled.
The seniority of the appo~tee in the 'cadre of Ciyil Judge, Junior Division will be fixed later, by the High Court.
By o~d.er and. iJ:i.. the name· 'of the Governor of Goa.
. M. Ragkuchanaer;, Law Secretary ..
Panaji, 8th 'D~cember, 1988.·
Notification
No. 4-9-84/LDf7}
Read: Government 'Notification No. 3-5-80ILD dated : 6th December; 1985.
In. 'exercise of the. powers conferred by' clause (7)' of section'2 of .the CiVil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act V of 1908). read .. with order '27. rule 8 B' of the First Schedule .to the said Code, and supersession "Of this Department's Notification dated 6th December, 1985; the. Government of Goa:· hereby appoints. Shri S. B •. Faria, Assistant Public Prosecutor,' Margao also ~s Government· Pleader with immediate effect for the purpose of conducting and 'defending all cases before ·tp.e Courts of . Dy. Collector cum-Estates Officer, Executive Magistrates, Revenue Courts. and. City .Survey Officer at Margao, until furth~r orders.
By order, and in the name of the Governor. of ,Goa •.
Maria ~. Rodrigues, . Under Secretary (Law).
Panaji; 16th December, 1988.
Notifieati(}ns by the High' Court of Judicature,
Appellate Side," B<!mbay
No. A.3918/G/S8
In.-exercise of 'the, powers cOnferred' by Section 260 (1) (c)' of the Code' of Crlminsl Procedure, 1973 (No; 2 of 1974) the Honourables; the. Chief Justice and -Judges, hereby invest the fol~owing Judici3J. Officers, with powers urtt;ler Section 260 of the said Code'. '
High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay, 22 December, 19~8.
Place of posting
Mapusa (For newly created c.ourt ~t Pernem).
Sd/-(R. G. Sindhakar)
Registrar
No. A.3945/G/83
In exercise of the powers -conferred by section- 13 of" -the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Honourables, the Chief
. Justice and 'Judges,-hereby appoint the, follow:mg persons- to' be Special Judicial. -Magistrates, within and for the local area· mentioned against each of their names,. for a perioq _.of one year with effect from 2nd January, 1989.
The Hqnourables; the Chief Justice and Judges furth~r confer outhese persons, the powers of Judicial Magistrates of, the Second Class, to ,deal with traffic offences punishable under the Motor Vehicles -Act, 1939 and the Rules made thereunder. - , .
PANAJI.DISTRICT
1. Shri -G. G. Kambli, Dy .. Collector, ~orth Goa.
2. Shd N. B. Narvenkar, Jt. Mainlatdar. Bicho-lim.
North GOa.
Bicholim Taluka.
MARGAO DISTRICT
1~ Shri 9. V. P. Dessai, ny.Collector, Ponda.
2. Shri B. D. Divekar, Jt. Mamlatdar,
3. Shri V. So Sawant, Dy. Collector, SOuth Goa.
. High Court,Appellate Side, ~omb'lY,' 22_-December. 1988.
