Sr. II No. 21 pmd - Government Printing Press · operated as shift incharge and issued gate passes,...

Panaji, 21st August, 2014 (Sravana 30, 1936) SERIES II No. 21

Reg. No. GR/RNP/GOA/32 RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Suggestions are welcome on e-mail: [email protected] 423

GOVERNMENT OF GOADepartment of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Technical Education

College Section__

Order

No. 16/326/SSR/PF/DTE/2014/1356

Read: Memorandum No. 16/139/Fill-Posts/GEC//DTE/PF.IV/729 dated 19-06-2014.

On the recommendations of the Goa PublicService Commission conveyed vide their letterNo. COM/I/5/18(2)/2012/561 dated 19-05-2014,Government is pleased to appoint Shri SurajSurendra Rane on temporary basis to the post ofProfessor in Mechanical Engineering (Group ‘A’,Gazetted) at Goa College of Engineering,Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa, with initial pay fixed at` 43,000/- in the Pay Band of ` 37,400-67,000 plusAcademic Grade Pay ` 10,000/- w.e.f. the date ofjoining as per the terms & conditions containedin the Memorandum cited above.

The appointment is against the post of Professorin Mechanical Engineering created vide orderNo. EDN/6/TECH/66 dated 03-09-1966 revivedvide order No. 16/250/Creation & Revival of postsof GEC/DTE/10/2405 dated 12-07-2010 andsubsequently revived vide order No. 16/250//Creation & Revival of posts of GEC/DTE/10/756dated 18-06-2013 (Non Plan-second post atSr. No. 2).

Shri Suraj Surendra Rane will be on probationfor a period of two years.

He should join duties within 30 days of thereceipt of this order, failing which this order isliable to be cancelled without further notice.

He has been declared fit by Medical Board, GoaMedical College & Hospital, Bambolim videcertificate No. 4/105/85-H/GMC/2014/278 dated03-07-2014. His character and antecedents havebeen verified and nothing adverse is reportedagainst him as conveyed by the Additional DistrictMagistrate, South Goa, Margao-Goa vide letterNo. 2014/555/2/MAG/154/6177 dated 30-07-2014.

By order and in the name of the Governorof Goa.

Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio AdditionalSecretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 5th August, 2014.________

Order

No. 16/323/PF/NBG/GEC/DTE/14/1357

Read: Memorandum No. 16/139/Fill-Posts/GEC//DTE/PF-IV/425 dated 26-05-2014.

On the recommendations of the Goa PublicService Commission conveyed vide their letterNo. COM/I/5/18(4)/2012/443 dated 12-02-2014,Government is pleased to appoint Shri NiteshBhicu Guinde on temporary basis to the postof Assistant Professor in Electronics &Telecommunication Engineering (Group ‘A’,Gazetted) at Goa College of Engineering,Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa, with initial pay fixed at` 37,400/- in the Pay Band of ` 37,400-67,000 plusAcademic Grade Pay ` 9,000/- w.e.f. the date ofjoining as per the terms & conditions contained inthe Memorandum cited above.

The appointment is against the post ofAssociate Professor in Electronics andTelecommunication Engineering created vide

Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the OfficialGazette, Series II No. 20 dated 14-08-2014namely, Extraordinary dated 18-08-2014 frompages 421 to 422 regarding Notificationsfrom Department of Elections (Goa StateElection Commission).

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOASERIES II No. 21 21ST AUGUST, 2014

424

order No. 16/250/Creation & Revival of posts ofGEC/DTE/10/2403 dated 12-07-2010 andsubsequently revived vide order No. 16/250//Creation & Revival of posts of GEC/DTE//10/756 dated 18-06-2013 (Non Plan-first post atSr. No. 17).

Shri Nitesh Bhicu Guinde will be on probationfor a period of two years.

He should join duties within 30 days of thereceipt of this order, failing which this order isliable to be cancelled without further notice.

He has been declared fit by Medical Board, GoaMedical College & Hospital, Bambolim vide letterNo. 4/105/85-H/GMC/2014/267 dated 30-06-2014.His character and antecedents have beenverified and nothing adverse is reported againsthim as conveyed by the Additional DistrictMagistrate, South Goa, Margao-Goa vide letterNo. 2013/24412/2/MAG/151/6180 dated 30-07-2014.




Polytechnic Section__

Order

No. 17/3/28/2008/DTE/1392

Approval of the Government is hereby conveyedfor acceptance of notice of voluntary retirementunder Rule 48(A)(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,read with F.R. (56)(k) with effect from 08-08-2014(f.n.) in respect of Smt. Pallavi K. Kelekar, Lecturerin Mechanical Engineering, GovernmentPolytechnic, Panaji.

Smt. Pallavi K. Kelekar shall stand relieved fromher duties with effect from 08-08-2014 (f.n.) fromthe post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic,Panaji.



Porvorim, 7th August, 2014.

Goa Board of Secondary and Higher SecondaryEducation

__Order

GBSHSE/EST/RTI-ORDER/2014/1672

In pursuance of the provisions of the R.T.I. Act,2005 under Sections 5(1) & 5(2), the followingofficer mentioned in column 3 is appointed asAPIO and in column 4 is appointed as PIO andthat in column 5 will be First Appellate Authority.

Sr. Area of APIO PIO FirstNo. jurisdiction Appellate

Authority

1 2 3 4 5

1. Goa Board of Assistant Joint Chairman.Secondary and Secretary SecretaryHigher Secon- (SSC) (Academic)dary Education,Alto-Betim, Goa

The order shall come into force with immediateeffect.

J. R. Rebello, Chairman.

Alto-Betim, 6th August, 2014.

V. No. A-8808/2014.

——— ———

Goa Legislature Secretariat__

Notification

No. LA/MAINT/1078/2014

In exercise of the powers vested in me by Rule269 of the “Rules of Procedure and Conduct ofBusiness of Goa Legislative Assembly” I declarethat Shri Manohar Parrikar, Hon’ble Chief Minister,Government of Goa has laid the followingdocuments on the Table of the House on the 23rdJuly, 2014.

1. Report of the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral of India for the year ended 31stMarch, 2013.

2. State Finances for the year ended 31st March,2013.

3. Appropriation Accounts 2012-13.

4. Finance Accounts 2012-2013 Volume–I.

5. Finance Accounts 2012-2013 Volume–II.

Assembly Hall, N. B. SubhedarPorvorim-Goa, Secretary,7th August, 2014. Legislative Assembly.


425

Department of Labour__

Notification

No. 28/1/2013-Lab/664

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on26-08-2013 in reference No. IT/23/98 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).


Meena Priolkar, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 27th September, 2013.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDLABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOAAT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bimba K. Thaly, Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/23/98

Shri Luis D. J. Gomes,Opp. St. Annes Church,Upper Bazaar,Ponda, Goa .... Workman/Party I

V/s

The Managing Director,M/s. Mandovi Pellets Ltd.,Near Borim Bridge,Shiroda, Goa .... Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I present at the time of evidenceand absent at the time of arguments.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P.Chawdikar.

AWARD

(Passed on this 26th day of August, 2013)

By order dated 3-4-1998, bearing No. IRM/CON//PONDA/(126)/97/8226, the Government of Goa inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section (1) of Section 10 of The IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act) has referredthe following dispute for adjudication.

“1. Whether the action of the management ofM/s. Mandovi Pellets Ltd., Near BorimBridge, Shiroda Goa, in terminating theservices of its Workman, Shri Luis D. J.Gomes, “Foreman” with effect from 6-1-1997is legal and justified?

2. If not, to what relief the Workman isentitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, a case wasregistered under No. IT/23/98 and registered ADnotices were issued to both the parties and uponservice, Party I filed the claim statement at Exb. 4and Party II filed the written statement at Exb. 5.Party I then filed the rejoinder at Exb. 6.

3. In the claim statement it is the case of Party Ithat he joined the services of Party II as an Asstt.Foreman by appointment letter dated 7-11-91 w.e.f.18-11-1991. That his duty consisted of looking afterthe ship work, carrying out electrical repairs of theshop floor, maintenance and repairs of motors,carrying out repairs on lamination attending themachine bread down and carrying out the repairsof ship-unloader, stacker reclaimers, stacker//reclan, barge, unloader, tower light etc… It isstated that Party I was actually carrying out therepair and maintenance work and was reportingto the area supervisor and the manager. It is statedthat Party I was a workman and that he had noauthority to draw any materials from the store.It is stated that his last drawn salary wasRs. 5000/- per month. It is stated that by letter dated4-1-97 Party I was advised by Party II not to attendthe duty without assigning any reasons and thatsuch refusal amounted to illegal termination ofservice. It is stated that no enquiry of whatsoevernature was carried out before termination of servicesof Party I. It is therefore the contention of Party Ithat such termination without complying with theprovisions of law is illegal, unjustified and againstthe principles of natural justice. Thus Party I raisedthe dispute before the management by letter dated14-1-1997 which was replied by the managementalleging that Party I was guilty of grievousmisconduct committed by him and justified thetermination of his services. It is stated thatthereafter the dispute was raised before the Asstt.Labour Commissioner, Ponda. However, the matterended in failure. It is stated that the chargeslevelled by Party II are false, bogus and misleadingand that Party II ought to have initiated the enquiryproceedings to prove the charges of misconductalleged against Party I. Hence Party I has prayed tohold that the action of the management interminating his services as illegal and unjustifiedand to direct the management to reinstate him hisservices with continuity of services and all the backwages, along with other reliefs.

4. In the written statement Party II has deniedthe case set up by Party I and has in short statedthat Party I was not a Workman under the Act; that


426

he was a Supervisor designated as a Foreman andin such capacity he occupied a position ofcommand and took independent decisions and wasauthorized to act independently in certain matterswithout the sanction of the superiors. It is statedthat Party I had Workmen working under him andhe distributed the work among his subordinates andexercised control over them. It is stated that Party Ioperated as shift incharge and issued gate passes,retained petty cash and indented the requisitionedmaterial from the store so also advised disciplinaryactions over his subordinates and dealt with lateattendance in the matter of subordinates. It is statedthat Party I distributed work in every shift,requisitioned manpower and overtime. Thus,according to Party II the main and principle natureof duties of Party I were of supervisory character. Itis also the case of Party II that Party I was reportingto the Manager of the Department and that he wasnot reporting to any supervisor as he himself was asupervisor designated as Foreman. It is stated thatin their reply dated 21-1-97 sent to the letter ofParty I dated 14-1-97, Party II has stated in detailthe misconducts committed by Party I which areof refusing to sign the late register as requested bythe Shift Engineer, Mr. Cernik Furtado, of abusingsaid Shri Furtado in vulgar and deformatorylanguage so also physically assaulting him withblows on his face and kicks on his body. Thus,according to Party II considering the gravity ofmisconducts committed by Party I, themanagement lost confidence in Party I andtherefore it was not in the larger interest oforganization to retain Party I in service. Hence hisservices were terminated in terms of clause 9 ofhis appointment letter dated 7-11-91. It is statedthat the termination is just, legal and proper andtherefore the reference deserves to be rejected.

5. In the rejoinder at Exb. 6, Party I has deniedthe contentions raised by Party II in the writtenstatement and has asserted its case set up in theclaim statement.

6. Based on the pleadings of both the parties,issues were framed on 22-9-98 (Exb. 7).

7. In support of his case Party I, Shri Luis Gomesexamined himself as witness No.1 and ShriJayantibhai Patel as witness No. 2. On the otherhand Party II examined its Manager (Electrical)Mr. Ramakant P. Naik and Mr. Dnyanesh Sirsat andclosed their case.

8. Party I did not appear before this court nor wasrepresented, when the matter was heard inarguments. However Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar

advanced argument on behalf of Party II. Thewritten submissions of Party II are on record at aExb. 25.

9. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the arguments advancedby Ld. Adv. for Party II. I am reproducing herewiththe issues along with their findings and reasonsthereof.

Sr. Issues FindingsNo.

1. Whether the Party I proves Does notthat the action of Party II in arise.terminating his servicesw. e. f. 6-1-97 is illegal andunjustified?

2. Whether the Party II proves In thethat the Party I is not a positive.workman as defined underthe I. D. Act, 1947 andhence reference is notmaintainable?

3. Whether the Party II proves Does notthat termination of services of arise.Party I is in accordance withclause (9) of appointmentletter dated 7-11-97?

4. Whether the Party I is entitled In theto any relief? negative.

5. What Award? As perorderbelow.

REASONS

10. Before adverting myself to the discussion onthe merits of the issues, it is worthwhile mentioningthat the basic issue is about the status of Party I i.e.if he is a Workman on otherwise. This is becausereading of the pleadings of the parties make it clearthat it is the categorical case of the Party I that heis a Workman and according to Party II, Party I wasa Supervisor designated as a Foreman and in suchcapacity was a non Workman. Thus, if it isestablished that Party I is a workman it is only thenthe decision on issue Nos. 1 & 3 would be materialwhich is otherwise if it is held that Party I falls inthe category of non Workman. It is a thereforerequired to give findings on issue No. 2 beforeanswering the other issues. It may be mentionedhere that the burden of proving that he is a workmanlies on Party I though issue No. 2 has been framedcasting such burden on Party II. In the abovecontext I would refer to the judgment in the case of


427

S. T. Galande v/s P. O. IInd Labour Court 2008 (I)CLR 656 in which the Hon’ble High Court ofBombay has observed as under:

“……… It is settled principle of law that theonus lies upon the workman to prove that hesatisfies the essential ingredients of being aworkman and, therefore, could raise anindustrial dispute……….”

11. Further, in the judgment in the case of H. R.Adyanthaya and others v/s Sandoz (India) Ltd.,1994 II CLR 552 the constitution bench of theHon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;

“…………..a person to be a workman underthe said act must be employed to do the workof any category, viz. manual, unskilled, skilledoperational, clerical, supervisory (drawingless than Rs.1,600/- p.m.) or technical. It is notenough that he is not covered by either by thefour exceptions to the definition.”

12. Thus, from the above settled propositions oflaw it becomes clear that the person claiming tobe a “Workman” must come within the ambit offirst part of definition of Section 2(s) of the Act andthat the burden to establish the same lies on theWorkman.

13. In his arguments Ld. Adv. for Party IIsubmitted that though Party I in his evidence hasspoken about the duties performed by him whichare of manual/skilled/technical nature, to bring himwithin the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, inhis cross examination the actual dominant natureof duties performed by him is brought on record andwhich makes it clear that Party I was not aworkman. He stated that what has to be consideredto find out if the person concerned is a Workman ornot is the major part of the duties performed by himand not the duties incidental to the main work,done by him.

14. In support of his above submissions Ld. Adv.for Party II relied on the judgments in the case ofBishwa Ram Ojha v/s The Management of TataIron and Steel Company Ltd., MANU/JH/0341//2009, German Remedies Ltd., v/s MichealGabriel Lopes and another 1999 (2) LLN 1999,Harish G. Zode v/s Managing Director VacuumPlant and Instruments Manufacturing 2000 ICLR 815, Mr. A. K. Patel v/s the Indian HotelsCo. Ltd., MANU/MH/0120/2005, Shrikant VishnuPalwankar v/s Presiding Officer, first LabourCourt & Another 1992 II LLJ 378 and The UnionCarbide (India) Ltd., Ramesh Kumbla & ors 1999(1) Bom.C. R. 705. Ld. Adv. for Party II made it clear

that the observations in the above judgmentsclearly indicate the nature of duties required to beperformed by an employee to come within theambit of Section 2(s) of the Act.

15. In his evidence Party I, Shri Luis Gomes hasstated that in the electrical workshop he wasdoing the work of dismantling of electrical motorsreplacing the bearings of motors, assembling themotors sent for rewinding, giving three phaseconnection to the welding machine in the plant,replacing the burnt wires/cables, replacing fusecontactors, relays, filling oil in the transformers etc.However, in his cross examination he has made itclear that he was the only person working as aForeman with Party II. It is also brought on recordin his cross examination that whenever anyaccident took place in the factory he made thereport to that effect and he has identified hissignature on the accident report dated 4-12-93(Exb.E-2). He has stated that this form which is aPrimary Report on accident, has to be filled in if anaccident takes place in the establishment. He hasalso identified his signature on the overtimerequisition slips dated 1-4-96, 10-4-96,14-4-96,18-4-96,24-4-96, 20-5-96, 31-5-96, 12-6-96, 3-7-96, 17-7-96at Exb.E-3 colly as well as dated 1-4-96, 10-4-96,14-4-96, 18-4-96, 24-4-96, 20-5-96, 31-5-96, 12-6-96,3-7-96, 17-7-96 and 19-7-96 at Exb. E-14 colly. Byreferring to the above documents at Exb. E-3 collyand E-14 colly Party I has made it clear that theseslips are in his handwriting so also that he hasrequisitioned the said overtime slips.

16. It further becomes clear from the evidenceof Party I that if any employee was late in reportingfor work, the Time Office reported the matter to theForeman and this report is made in a form.Upon being shown the late attendance form dated21-10-95 (Exb.E-4) of one Mr. C. X. Godinho, Party Ihas admitted that his advice on the subject ofMr. Godinho reporting late for duties was soughtand he has remarked as “OK” meaning thereby theconcerned employee had come late and wasallowed to report for duty. Upon being shown thelate attendance form dated 20-9-96 of oneMr. Kishore Naik at Exb.E-5 and dated 10-11-96 of oneMr. Hemant B. Naik at Exb.E-6, Party I has stated ofhaving put the relevant remarks on the same andhas made it clear that the late attendance formsare filled in by the Time Office and given to theconcerned employees who bring the same to theirplace of work and that Exb. E-4, E-5 and E-6 werehanded over to him by the concerned employees.He has also made it clear that the aforesaid personswho were working in the electrical workshop had


428

handed over to him the above forms and that onlythe Asstt. Electrician and the Helpers come to himwith such late attendance forms, if they are late inreporting for duties.

17. Upon being shown a letter dated 30-4-96(Exb.E-7) Party I has admitted that he had writtenthe same to the Time Office for allowing oneMr. G.S. Gaonkar to take his child to the doctor. Party Iwas also shown a letter dated 28-9-96 at Exb.E-8and he admitted that he wrote the said letter to theTime Office to allow one Mr. Dhaku Naik to go outfor official work. Further, upon being shown a letterdated 22-10-96 at Exb. E-9, Party I has admitted thathe wrote the same to the Time Office to allowMr. Fondu Naik, an electrician to go to the State Bankof India at Shiroda. Upon being shown a letter dated17-4-96 at Exb. E-10, Party I has admitted of havingwritten the same to the Time Office to allow oneMr. S. B. Naik an electrician to take half day leaveon that day and to leave the plant at 10:00 am. Uponbeing shown a letter dated 31-1-96 at Exb. E-11Party I has admitted of having written the same tothe Time Office bringing to their notice that oneMr. G. K. Chari had reported to him that he hadpunched the card wrongly. Upon being shown aletter dated 2-8-96 at Exb. E-12, Party I hasadmitted of having written the same to the TimeOffice stating that one Mr. S.G. Naik an electricianhad reported to him that he has mistakenlypunched the card of another employee. Party I hasstated that sometimes the employees changed theshift mutually and in this context he was shown aletter dated 15-12-95 at Exb. E-13 whereuponParty I has admitted that this letter was handedover to him by one Mr. A. M. Tendulkar informingthat he would attend the second shift instead offirst and Mr. G. K. Chari would attend the third shiftinstead of second on 16-12-95. Party I has admittedof having put remark as “OK”on this letter abovehis signature.

18. Perusal of Exb. E-2 makes it clear that Party Ihas signed the same in his capacity as Supervisorby writing his name as Supervisor and designationas Foreman. In his arguments Ld. Adv. for Party IImade it clear that the Accident report forms likethe one at Exb.E-2 are required to be the FactoriesInspector within 24 hours of occurrence of theaccident otherwise it is a criminal offence. Hestated that the responsibility of making such reportis given to the person in charge of the shift andsince Party I was working in the supervisorycapacity the burden of making such report was caston him which he used to do. I find force in the abovesubmissions of Ld. Adv. for Party II for the reasonsthat a person doing the work of manual or technical

nature would not be made responsible forforwarding such forms to the Factories Inspectorand therefore the very fact that Party I sent the format E-2 by signing on the same as Supervisor makesit clear that Party I falls in the category of nonWorkman. Ever for that matter, it is apparent fromExb. E-3 colly as well as Exb. E-14 colly which arethe overtime requisition slips of various employeesthat Party II has signed the same as requisitioningauthority. It cannot be disputed that the personsworking overtime are paid accordingly andtherefore such slips requisitioning the overtimebind the management to pay the persons workingovertime as per the actual overtime they worked.This therefore makes it clear that a duty is cast onthe requisitioning authority to inform themanagement the correct and accurate details aboutthe persons working overtime. Thus, the above dutyperformed by Party I is apparently of exercisingcontrol over the subordinates and is of supervisorynature. As regards the late attendance forms at Exb.E-4, Exb.E-5 and Exb. E-6 as rightly pointed out byLd. Adv. for Party II the concerned employees wereallowed to work despite coming late only after theremark to the required effect was put by Party I andthis inturn indicates the nature of control exercisedby Party I over his subordinates who are apparentlythe Asstt. Electricians and Helpers. Further, Exb.E-7also makes it clear that it was only upon therecommendation of Party I as shift incharge,Mr. G. S. Gaonkar was allowed to leave theestablishment so also Exb.E-8 makes it clear thatupon the recommendation of Party I as ShiftForeman Mr. Daku Naik was allowed to go out forofficial work. Similar is the case with Exb. E-9whereupon Mr. Fondu Naik was allowed to go toSBI Bank at Shiroda and as per Exb.E-10recommended by Party I as Shift Foreman Mr S.G.Naik was allowed to take the leave as stated in thesaid letter. Further in terms of Exb. E.-11 signed byParty I the mistake committed in wrongly punchingthe card by Mr. G. K. Chari was ordered to becorrected and similar is the case with Exb.E-12 withrespect to Mr. S. G. Naik which is signed by Party Ias Shift in charge. Even for that matter, videExb.E-13 the request made by Shri A.M. Tendulkarfor exchange of the shift with one Mr.G.K. Chari hasbeen accepted by Party I by putting the remark as“OK”. To my mind, the above powers exercised byParty I are definitely not in his capacity as a persondoing clerical, manual or technical work but by theperson being in charge of the shift and the oneexercising control and supervision over hissubordinates.


429

19. In his evidence Party I has stated the natureof duties performed by him (which are mentionedin para 15 above) but it deserves to be noted thataccording to Party I while doing the said work hewas being assisted by the helpers. It is equallycorrect that according to Party I he was doing thiswork as per the directions of Sight Engineer, AreaEngineer and Junior Engineer and that the helperswere being sent by the Managers. Party I has statedthat he used to enter the work done by him in shiftrecord book and has produced copy of such booksdated 31-3-96 and 14-8-95 at Exb. W-3 colly. He hasstated that whatever material was required, wasobtained by getting requisition slip signed by theauthorized officer in advance and he has producedcopy of such slip dated 15-7-97 at Exb.W-4.Nevertheless, from the nature of statementsbrought on record in the cross examination of Party Iwhich clearly indicate the supervisory work doneby Party I, it becomes clear that the dominant workdone by Party I was supervisory and therefore theabove statements of Party I are of assistance to saythat Party I is a workmen.

20. The witness of Par ty I namely, ShriJayantibhai Patel was working in the MechanicalDepartment of Party II and he retired from servicein the year 1999. He has stated that Party I wasworking as an Electrician in the ElectricalDepartments and that the Electrical andMechanical Departments were looking after theMaintenance of loading and unloading machinery.He has stated that Party I was doing the electricalmaintenance work; that he used to disconnectelectricity supply to enable the mechanics from themechanical department to carry out their work andthen used to reconnect the electricity supply. Hehas stated of having seen Party I doing the work ofremoving carbon from the motors, changingbearings, changing fans and doing other repairworks in the electrical workshop and according tohim Party I was workman. In his cross examinationShri Patel has stated that he was retired from servicecompulsorily but has denied the suggestion thathe has deposed falsely against Party II because hewas compulsorily retired from service. He hasdenied the suggestion that Party I was doing thework of supervision.

21. It may be mentioned here that the evidenceof Shri Patel has to be accepted with great cautionbecause admittedly he was retired from servicecompulsorily and therefore the chances of Shri Pateldeposing against Party II, cannot be ruled out. Thatapart, though Shri Patel has tried to impress uponthe court that the nature of the duties performedby Party I were of technical/manual nature, he has

conveniently avoided to speak about the otherduties which are apparently of supervisory natureand which are admitted by Party I in his crossexamination. Thus, to my mind even, if it is acceptedthat the duties as stated by Shri Patel as performedby Party I were of technical/manual nature, thesame in the light of the statements brought onrecord in the cross examination of Party I (relatingto the duties of supervisory nature) cannot beconsidered as the main duties of Party I. Being so,the evidence of this witness is of not muchassistance to the Party I to advance his case of hebeing a workman.

22. Shri Ramakant Naik the witness of Party IIhas reiterated the pleas taken by Party II in thewritten statement. In his cross examination it isbrought on record that Party I with the help ofelectrician used to carry out the repairs of shipunloader, stacker, reclaimer, barge unloader andtower lights. No doubt, the nature of above workappears to be manual but as observed in thejudgments relied upon Ld. Adv. Party II, theprimary duties performed by Party I are required tobe considered and not the duties incidental to themain work, to find out the actual nature of dutiesperformed by Party I. It is further brought on recordin the cross examination of Shri Naik that thecompany maintains the list of supervisory staff andhe was shown such list dated 21-3-98 at Exb.18.This witness has stated that he is not awarewhether the name of Party I does not figure in anyof the lists of supervisory staffs prepared from theyear 1994. He has stated that he does not have thelist of supervisory staff from the year 1994 onwards.It may be mentioned here that Party I wasappointed as Asstt. Foreman by letter dated7-11-91 at Exb. W-1 and subsequently he wasconfirmed in the services as Foreman vide letterdated 7-1-93 at Exb.W-2. The Party I was relievedfrom services vide letter dated 6-1-97 at Exb.W-7.Undoubtedly, Exb. 18 is dated 21-3-98 and itpertains to the list of supervisory staff authorizedfor inspection of material and signing stores issue--chits. Thus, at no stretch of imagination Exb.18which is of the year 1998 could show the name ofParty I who was relieved from services way backin January, 1997.

23. In the judgment in the case of Bishwa Ram(supra) it is observed that the test to find outwhether the employee is a workman or not is tosee the nature of primary or substantial dutieswhich the Party is assigned to perform. Thisjudgment also makes it clear that a personindisputably carries on supervisory work if he haspower of control or supervision.


430

24. Also in the judgment in the case of HarishG. Zode (supra) in which the petitioner wasworking as Asstt. Supervisor and whose serviceswere terminated, had challenged the terminationorder as in violation of Section 25F of the Act butthe respondents had averred that the petitionerwas holding the post in the capacity as Supervisorand was drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,500/- permonth. During the evidence the respondentcompany produced documentary evidence to provethat the petitioner was holding the post in asupervisory capacity and also to show that he wassupervising the post of other workers who wereworking under him amongst other evidence. Thus,it was held that the petitioner was not a workman.

25. In the judgment in the case of Mr. A. K.Patel (supra) it is observed that the designationis not conclusive and that the court must haveregard to the dominant nature of the dutiesperformed. By referring to the judgment in the caseof “Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co.of India Ltd., v/s Burma Shell ManagementStaff Association MANU/SC/0373/1970” in whichthe Apex Court was considering the status oftransport engineers it is observed that the majorpart of the duty has to be considered as comparedto the technical work which was only incidental tothe main work. One of the observations in thejudgment in the case of Burma Shell (supra) isas under “Even if the transport engineer useshis technical knowledge, it is used primarily forthe purpose of supervising the work done bythe skilled manual labourers who carry out theactual repairs, do the servicing or maintenanceor complete fabrication”.

26. In the judgment in the case of S.V. Palwankar(supra) the petitioner contended that he was aforeman mainly carrying out work of technicalnature and only incidentally doing somesupervisory work. It is however observed that if thepetitioner was employed as a technical workmanhe could not have done the duties of allocation ofjobs, assignment of work, recommendation of leave,carrying out of promotional appraisal and thereforein such situation he was not a workman. Likewisein the instant case, if one accepts the case of Party Ithat he was doing the work of manual or technicalnature it is hard to understand as to why he wasforwarding the accident report forms, overtimerequisition slips, recommending late attendanceetc. and therefore like in the above reportedjudgment Party I herein cannot be considered as aworkman.

27. In the case of Union Carbide (supra) on thebasis of oral and documentary evidence producedby the parties it is held that the respondent wasworking in supervisory capacity and merelybecause sometimes he carried out the work himselfdoes not detract from the fact that he was aSupervisor. Thus, merely because Party I was doingthe work as stated by him in para 15 above, the samecannot be construed to mean that he is a workman.

28. The observations in all the above judgmentssquarely apply to the instant case enabling thiscourt to come to the conclusion that Party I is not aworkman.

29. Even for that matter, in his cross examinationParty I has made it clear that the salary of theworkers of Party II was revised pursuant to thedemands by Mandovi Pellets Workers Union; thathe was not the member of Mandovi Pellets WorkersUnion at any time; that he does not know if themanagement had entered into any settlement withthe said union; that the union had not made ademand that his salary should also be revised andthat the management revised his salary on its own.No doubt, to be a member of the union is not aprecondition for deciding whether the personconcerned is a workman or not, however in the lightof the evidence discussed above, this factordefinitely weighs in favour of Party II. In thiscontext, observations in the judgment in the caseof German Remedies (supra) gain significance inwhich it is observed that the workman therein wasnot getting the benefits of agreement that wasentered into by the company throughrepresentation of union and had he been theworkman as claimed, then certainly he would havebeen aggrieved by this. Likewise in the instant caseif Party I was a workman he would have been themember of Mandovi Pellets Workers Union andthere would have been no reason for themanagement to revise the salary of Party I on itsown. Thus, the above aspect also leads me to drawthe conclusion that Party I is not a workman andhence my findings.

30. Issue No. 1: In view of above discussion inissue No. 2, the question of Party I proving that theaction of the Party II in terminating his servicesw.e.f. 6-1-97 is illegal and unjustified, doesnot arise.

31. Issue No. 3: Having answered issue No. 2by holding that Party I is not a workman thequestion of answering this issue does not arise forwant of jurisdiction. Hence my findings.


431

32. In the result and in view of discussion supra,I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of themanagement of M/s. Mandovi Pellets Ltd.,Near Borim Bridge, Shiroda Goa, interminating the services of its Workman,Shri Luis D. J. Gomes “Foreman” with effectfrom 6-1-1997 is legal and justified.

2. Party I, Shri Luis D. J. Gomes is thereforenot entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

(B. K. Thaly),Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal--cum-Labour-Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2013-LAB/566

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on15-07-2013 in reference No. IT/49/03 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).


Meena Priolkar, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 14th August, 2013._______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDLABOUR COURT


(Before Smt. Bimba K. Thaly, Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/49/03

Shri Vincent Coutinho (expired)& othersC/o Francisco Cardozo4th Ward, H. No. 478,Colva, Salcete-Goa ... Workman/Party I

V/s

The Director of Tourism,Department of Tourism,Tourist Home, Patto,Panaji-Goa ... Employer/Party II

Adv. Shri S. K. Manjrekar for Party I.Adv. Shri V. D. Pangum for Party II.

AWARD

(Passed on this 15th day of July, 2013)

By order dated 16-7-2003, the Government of Goain exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section (1) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act) has referredthe following dispute for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the Department ofTourism, Panaji-Goa, in terminating theservices of the following six workpersons witheffect from 6-3-2002 is legal and justified?

(1) Shri Vincent Coutinho, Labourer (expired).(2) Smt. Mungal D’ Souza, Sweeper.(3) Smt. Minguelina Barreto, Sweeper.(4) Smt. Caitana Fernandes, Sweeper.(5) Smt. Senhorina Lucas, Sweeper.(6) Shri Adelino Fernandes. Labourer.

2. If not, what relief the workpersons are entitledto?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, a case wasregistered under No. IT/49/03 and registered ADnotices were issued to both the parties and uponservice, Party I filed the claim statement at Exb. 5and Party II filed the written statement at Exb. 6.Party I then filed the rejoinder at Exb. 7.

3. It is in short the case of Party I that they wereappointed by Party II in their service and posted atColva Beach for sweeping, cleaning and otherrelated work and they were continuously workingtill the illegal termination of services by order dated6-3-02. It is their case that they were under thedirect control and supervision of TouristDepartment. It is their case that the Department ofParty II is an industry and therefore this tribunalhas jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute. Itis their case that they have completed more than240 days continuous service in a year, before thetermination. It is stated that the duty of theseworkpersons was from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and their attendance wasmarked in attendance registers. That their monthlywage bills were prepared by the concerned officialof the Department and were forwarded to the headoffice at Panaji and after receipt of the amount fromthe Panaji office, their wages were distributed everymonth. It is stated that at the time of their illegaltermination, they were drawing aroundRs.1680/- per month. It is stated that Party II videorder dated 6-3-2002 all of a sudden illegally andarbitrarily discontinued their services withimmediate effect without assigning any reasons.It is stated that this entire action is illegal,


432

unjustified and bad in law so also without followingthe provisions of the law and thus they are entitledto be reinstated in services with full back wages,continuity of services and other benefits. It is statedthat before termination of their services no showcause notice and no charge sheet was issued andeven no domestic enquiry was conducted. It isstated that Party II did not follow the principles ofnatural justice so also the provisions of Section25F, 25G and 25H were followed and this is becausejunior persons are working there and theDepartment has also taken new employees to dothe same type of job which otherwise wasperformed by these workpersons. It is stated thaton account of such illegal termination they raiseddispute before Party II by letter dated 15-3-2002 butthe Department did not take any step and thereforethe dispute was raised before the Dy. LabourCommissioner, Margao, Goa by letter dated11-4-2002 but as no settlement could arrive at,conciliation proceedings ended in failure and thematter was referred for adjudication before thisTribunal. It is also the case of Party I that there aremore than 100 employees working with Party II andhence there is violation of Chapter VB of the Act. Itis stated that from the date of termination of theirservices, the workpersons are unemployed. Party Ihas therefore prayed for an award holding that thetermination of their services is illegal, unjustifiedand to direct Party II to reinstate them in serviceswith full back wages, continuity of services andwith all consequential benefits.

4. In the written statement Party II has deniedthe case put forth by Party I and has stated thatParty I are not the Workmen and that there is noindustrial dispute; that the services of Party I wereengaged purely on contract basis and there is norelationship of employer and employee and thatParty I have worked for less than 240 days duringthe period of 12 calendar months and thereforecannot claim any relief under the Act. It is furtherthe case of Party II that Party I were engaged ondaily wages as casual labourers for sweeping thebeach and collecting garbage accumulated on thebeaches in the month of May, 1998 and fromOctober to December, 1998 and similarly for theyear 1999 they were engaged from January to Mayand November to December and in the year 2001they were engaged from January to May and fromNovember to December. In the year 2002 they wereengaged from January to 6th of March. It is statedthat the services of Party I were purely on contractbasis for the above said periods. It is stated thatthis court has no jurisdiction to try and entertainthis dispute. It is stated that there was no continuity

in service for 240 days as required under the Actand that the services were discontinued as andwhen required. It is stated that Party I do not fallwithin the purview of the term “Workman” asdefined in the Act and therefore the statutoryrequirement of issuing show cause notice, chargesheet, conducting enquiry does not arise. It isstated that Party I were not at all employed bymeans of issue of any appointment letter so alsodaily wages labourers are not given anyappointment letter as per law or otherwise and thevery fact of engaging the labourers on daily wagesdoes not create any right in them for continuousservice as alleged by the Party I. It is stated thatParty II vide its letter dated 5-7-2002 had broughtto the notice of the Dy. Labour Commissioner thatthe Party I are on contract basis. It is stated thatthere was no employer employee relationship andtherefore there was no question of followingstatutory requirements. It is stated that thequestion of preparing of seniority lists did not ariseas Party I were engaged on daily wages as andwhen required by the Department depending onthe availability of work and this is evident from thefact that the workpersons were between the agegroup of 42 to 64 years as on the date of 1st

engagement. Amongst above and other groundsParty II has prayed to reject the reference.

5. In the rejoinder Party I has controverted thecase set up by Party II and has asserted the caseprojected in the claim statement.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both theparties, the issues were accordingly framed by thiscourt.

7. In the course of the evidence Shri VincentCoutinho the workperson at Sr. No. 1 in the scheduleto reference expired. His LR’s were not brought onrecord as the learned advocate appearing for Party Istated that he could not get any details of theL. R’s. In support of their case Party I examinedSmt. Mungal D’ Souza as witness No. 1and Shri JoseRoque Gracias Flor as witness No. 2 and closed thecase. On the other hand Party II examinedMrs. Pamela Mascarenhas, Dy. Director of Party IIas their witness and closed the case.

8. Heard Learned Adv. Shri S. K. Manjrekar forParty I and Learned Adv. Shri V. D. Pangum forParty II. Learned Advocate for Party I also filed thewritten submissions.

9. In his arguments Learned Advocate for Party Isubmitted that in the letter of termination ofservices no reasons for termination are mentioned.He also stated that the nature of the work of


433

cleaning the beaches is perennial and that sincethe time of appointment of these workpersons theyhave been working continuously and are paidmonthly salary. By referring to the document suchas Exb. 27 colly and Exb. 51 colly he stated that theworkpersons worked for more than 240 days duringthe period of 12 months preceding their date of theirtermination. According to him when the paymentis made on monthly basis even the holidays andSundays are to be counted as working days. Insupport of his above submissions he relied on thejudgment in the case of Workmen of AmericanExpress...v/s Management of American ExpressAIR 1986 SC 458 and in the case of DelhiAdministration v/s Kuldip Singh and another W.P. (c) No.1413/1997 (High Court of Delhi). He alsostated that there is violation of provision of Section25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. He relied on thejudgment in the case of Devinder Singh v/sMunicipal Council, Sanaur 2011 LLR 785 tocontend that the case of Party II does not comewithin the exceptions to Section 2(oo) (bb) of theAct and therefore while terminating the services,it was incumbent upon Party II to comply with theprovisions of the Act. He then relied on thejudgment in the case of Subhash Chand v/sMunicipal Corporation of Delhi 2011 LLR 791 tocontend that there is no distinction between apermanent employee and a muster roll employeefor applicability of Section 25F of the Act. Further,he relied on the judgment in the case of DivisionalEngineer Telecom, Coaxial Cable Project,Rajahmundry v/s Mamidi Venkata Ramanaand another writ appeal Nos. 1404/1998 and434/1999 2003 II CLR 839, in MunicipalCorporation of Delhi v/s Jai Veer and another2003 III CLR 886, in Dilip P. Mehta v/s MercuryPaints and Varnishes and others W.P. No. 2384of 1999 2003 II CLR 888 to contend that when theworkmen worked for more than 240 days in acalendar year there has to be compliance ofSec. 25F of the Act. He also relied on the judgmentin the case of Mohanan v/s State of Kerala 1994 ICLR 419 to contend that Tourism Department is anindustry as defined u/s 2(j) of the Act. Further, herelied on the judgment in the case of State ofRajasthan and Sher Singh and another 2003 (4)L. L. N. 954 to contend that since Party II hereinhas suppressed the material documents on thesubject of continuous employment of theworkpersons, adverse inference deserves to bedrawn against Party II by holding that theworkpersons were in continuous employmentpreceding the date of their termination. By relyingon the judgment in the case of K. C. Sharma v/s

Delhi Stock Exchange 2005 LLR 417 and in thecase of Indian Acrylics Ltd., and another v/sPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala andothers 2011 LLR 794 he stated that like in thesecases, the compensation in lieu of reinstatementwill be appropriate in the instant case, consideringthe facts and circumstances of the case.

10. On the other hand learned Adv. for Party IIsubmitted that the Department is not an industryand therefore there is no industrial dispute and thusthis Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertainthis reference. He stated that in terms of Exb. 24dated 6-3-2002 the services of these sweeperslabourers are discontinued and not terminated.Further by inviting my attention to the pre-receiptbills at Exb. 27 colly he stated that the paymentwas made to Party I workers on daily wage basis.He also stated that there is no pleading in the claimstatement stating as to which of the persons fromamongst Party I has completed 240 days during thecalendar year preceding the date of their of calledtermination. He also by referring to Para 4 of theclaim statement where there is admission that theDepartment is an industry stated that it is a mistakeand reading of this entire para viz. a viz para 3 ofthe claim statement gives a clear indication thatsuch admission is a typing mistake and which facthas been brought on record in the evidence ofthe witness of Party II namely, M/s. PamelaMascarenhas. He stated that the employment ofParty I was purely on contract basis and thereforethe same would come to an end after it isdiscontinued and therefore these persons have noright to claim reinstatement with continuity inservices. In support of his above submissions herelied on the judgment in the case of Secretary,State of Karnataka v/s Umma Devi AIR 2006 SCJ1806. He also stated that Party I has examined onlyone workperson i.e. Mungul D’Souza and thereforeadverse inference deserves to be drawn againstParty II for non examination of other workpersonscomprising Party I except Shri Vincent Coutinho,who has expired.

11. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the arguments advanced.I am reproducing herewith the issues along withtheir findings and reasons thereof.

Sr. No. Issues Findings

1 2 3

1. Whether the Party I prove that In thethe Party II terminated their negative.services on 6-3-2002 in violationof the provisions of Sec. 25-F, Gand H of the I. D. Act, 1947?


434

2. Whether the Party I prove that In thethe action of the Party II in negative.terminating their servicesw.e.f. 6-3-2002 is illegal andunjustified?

3. Whether the Party II proves that In thethe Party I are not “Workmen” negative.under the I. D. Act and as suchthere is no industrial disputeand hence this Tribunal has nojurisdiction to entertain anddecide the dispute?

4. Whether the Party II proves In thethat there is no employer and negative.employee relationship betweenthe Party II and the Party I andhence the reference is notmaintainable?

5. Whether the Party I are entitled In the to any relief? negative.

6. What Award? As perorderbelow.

REASONS

12. Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3: All these issues areanswered together for the sake of convenience asthey are interconnected and relate to the samesubject matter i.e. termination of services of Party Iand the status of Party I i.e. whether they are“workmen” or not. It deserves to be noted thatissue No. 3 is cast by placing burden on Party II toprove that Party I are not “workmen” when infactit is for Party I to prove that they are the “workmen”,under the Act. In this context, reference is made tothe judgment in the case of S. T. Galande v/s P. O.IInd Labour Court, Pune 2008 (I) CLR 656 in whichthe Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has observed asunder:

“... ...It is settled principle of law that theonus lies upon the workman to prove that hesatisfies the essential ingredients of being aworkman and, therefore, could raise an industrialdispute....”.

13. Nonetheless, since Party II herein hasdisputed the status of Party I as “workmen”, it isrequired to see if the evidence on record establishes‘that Party I come within the definition of Section2(s) of the Act.

14. It is stated by witness No. 1 for Party I thatshe along with other workpersons in the referencejoined in the employment of Party II from 14-11-98as labourers/sweeper and they were continuouslyworking without any break and their work was ofperennial nature. She has stated that they weredoing the work of cleaning, lifting and disposal ofgarbage on Colva beach till the termination of theirservices by letter dated 6-3-02. She has producedthe said letter at Exb. 24. She has stated that theywere paid salary @Rs.56 per day on monthly basisand has produced pre-receipt bills for the month ofMay 2001, June 2001 and from August 2001 toFebruary 2002 at Exb. 27 colly. She has stated thatsome of them were signing the muster roll andregarding those who could not sign their presencewas marked as “P”. She has produced the copiesof the attendance record from August 01 to March02 at Exb. 26 colly. She has stated that they wereworking under the supervision and control of Party II.In her cross examination she has denied thesuggestion that they were not eligible to beappointed as sweepers as they had already crossedthe age bar of 35 years, fixed by the Government.She has however stated that she was born in theyear 1965. She has stated that the office room ofColva Guest house was on fire sometimes in theyear 2001 and that many items which were in theoffice were burnt in this fire.

15. Witness 2 for Party I, the Asst. Director inParty II Department has identified his signature onthe pre-receipt bills (Exb. 51 colly), of thesweepers/labourers on contract basis at Colvabeach for the month of May and June 2001. He hasstated that if he remembers correctly some whereon 5-8-2001 fire broke out in the Colva office andthe entire record got destroyed.

16. Witness of Par ty II has reiterated thestatements made by Party II in the writtenstatement. In the cross examination she has madeit clear that the admission in para 4 of the writtenstatement that Party II Department is an industryis a typographical error. She has also clarified thatno notice was issued to the Party I at the time oftermination and no compensation was paid sincethey were working as daily wages. She hasproduced the School Leaving Certificate of ShriVincent Coutinho, Baptism Certificates of MungalVital Musurkar, Senorina Lucas, Caitana Barbosaand the Birth Certificates of Minguelina Cardozo,Adelina Fernandes and Joao Vincent Coutinho atExb. 53 colly.

1 2 3


435

17. It is clear from the evidence on record thatit is not in dispute that Party I workpersons weredoing the work of cleaning, lifting and disposal ofgarbage on Colva beach till the discountenance ofservices vide letter dated 6-3-02 at Exb. 24. It is alsoclear from the documentary evidence such as pre--receipt bills at Exb. 27 colly, letter dated 27-8-02addressed by the Director of Tourism to theDy. Labour Commissioner, Margao at Exb. 30 thatthe appointment of these sweepers/labourers wason contract basis at Colva beach. It is further clearfrom the pre-receipt bills at Exb. 27 colly that themonthly payment was made to these workpersonson the basis of number of days they actually workedincluding Sundays/Holidays which means thatthese workpersons were paid on Sundays andHolidays only if they actually worked on those days.That apart, even witness No. 2 for Party I i. e. JoseRoque Gracias Flor has made it clear that theseworkers were working on daily wages but theirbills were prepared at the end of the month andthis statement having come from the witness ofParty I itself, has to be accepted without any demur.Nonetheless, merely because these work personswere employed on contract basis or that they werepaid depending upon the number of days they workedper month, is not enough to exclude them from theambit of the definition of the “workmen” u/s 2(s)of the Act. There is otherwise no dispute that theappointment of these workpersons was notpursuant to the issuance of appointment letters. Itis observed in the judgment in the case of DevinderSingh (supra) that Section 2(s) contains anexhaustive definition of the term “workman” whichincludes any person employed in any industry todo any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire orreward. It is also observed in this judgment that itis immaterial that the terms of employment are notreduced into writing and that the source ofemployment, the method of recruitment, the termsand conditions of employment/contract of service,the quantum of wages, pay and the mode ofpayment are not at all relevant for deciding whetheror not a person is a workman within the meaningof Section 2(s) of the Act. It is observed that thedefinition of workman also does not make anydistinction between full time and part timeemployee or a person appointed on contract basis.It is observed that there is nothing in the plainlanguage of Section 2(s) from which it can beinferred that only a person employed on regularbasis or a person employed for doing whole timejob is a workman and the one employed on atemporary, part time or contract basis on fixedwages or as a casual employee or for doing duty forfixed hours is not a workman.

18. Apparently, the nature of work performed byParty I is manual and unskilled work and thereforeParty I are the workmen u/s 2(s) of the Act.

19. In order to hold that Party II has violated theprovisions of Section 25F of the Act, it is for Party Ito prove that they have been in continuous servicefor not less than one year under Party II. In terms ofSection 25B(2) a workman shall be deemed to bein continuous service under an employer for aperiod of one year if the workman during the periodof 12 calendar months preceding the date withreference to which calculation is to be made hasactually worked under the employer for not lessthan 190 days in the case of workman employedbelow ground in a mine and 240 days in any othercase. In the instant case, admittedly theworkpersons were not employed below ground ina mine.

20. Undoubtedly, the services of Party I werediscontinued from 6-3-2002 (though according toParty I they were served with the notice on 8-3-02)and therefore it is for Party I to prove that theyworked for 240 days during the period of 12 monthspreceding 6-3-2002. As rightly pointed out bylearned advocate for Party I there is no specificpleading in the claim statement stating as to whichof the workpersons from amongst the six in thisreference (one expired during the pendency of theproceedings) have worked for 240 days during theperiod of 12 months preceding 6-3-2002. Exb. 27colly which are the pre-receipt bills of Party Iworkmen for the month of May 2001, June 2001 andAugust 2001 to February 2002 as well as Exb. 51colly which are the pre-receipt bills for the monthof May 2001 and June 2001 are the documentsproduced by witness No. 1 for Party I showing thenumber of days Party I workmen actually workedduring the period of 12 months preceding 6-3-2002.Calculating the days during which each of these 6persons actually worked as per Exb. 27 colly andExb. 51 colly it becomes clear that none of theseworkmen in terms of above documents haveworked for 240 days during the 12 monthspreceding 6-3-2002. Further Exb. 26 colly is theattendance report of the workpersons for theperiod from August 2001 to 8-3-2002 and evencalculating the days on which Party I workpersonsworked as per Exb. 26 colly it further becomes clearthat none of these workpersons have workedfor 240 days during the period of 12 monthspreceding 6-3-2002. The arguments of learnedadvocate for Party I to the effect that when thepayment is made on monthly basis, even Sundaysand Holidays, are required to be counted as working


436

days, cannot be accepted for the simple reason thatif such was the case there was no reason for Party IIto count the number of days on which Party Iworkmen actually worked and pay themaccordingly.

21. In the judgment in the case of Workmen ofAmerican Express (supra), the concernedworkperson joined the service of American ExpressInternational Banking Corporation as a Typists--Clerk in a temporary capacity and was employedas such with a number of short breaks, unlike theworkpersons in the instant case who wereadmittedly appointed on daily wages and whosebills were prepared at the end of the month on thebasis of number of days on which they actuallyworked. Even for that matter, in this judgment, it isobserved that the expression “actually workedunder the employer” found in Section 25B(a) of theAct comprehend all those days during which theworkperson was in the employment of theemployer and for which he/she had been paidwages either under express or implied contract ofservice or by compulsion of statute, standing ordersetc. Learned advocate for Party I did not bring tomy notice any such express or implied contract ofservice or any statute or standing order etc.between/applicable, both the parties herein, tocanvas that these workpersons were paid even forSundays and Holidays under such contract andhence these days deserve to be included whilecomputing the period of 240 days. Thus, theobservations in the above judgment cannot beapplied to the instant case and this is more becauseas pointed by me above, there is nothing in thepleadings in the claim statement indicating themanner in which Party I workpersons havecalculated 240 days of their work during the periodof 12 months preceding 6-3-02 and which ifpleaded would give opportunity to Party II to replyto the same.

22. As regards the observations in the judgmentin the case of Delhi Administration (supra)reading of this judgment makes it clear that themanagement in their written statement filed beforethe Labour Court had not really disputed the datesof employment as stated by the workman. In thisjudgment which is delivered in the writ petitionfiled by the management. His Lordship opined thatthe factual finding of the Labour Court about theworkmen having been employed by themanagement for 240 days in the preceding yearcannot be faulted with and also because it being afinding of fact the same could not be interfered within the writ jurisdiction more particularly when the

said finding was not shown to be perverse in anymanner whatsoever. It is thus in the above situationby referring to the judgment in the case ofWorkmen of American Express (supra) the abovefinding of fact was accepted. The facts in theinstant case could be easily distinguished from thefact situation in the case in the above judgmentwhich makes it clear that the observations in theabove judgment cannot be made applicable to theinstant case. Thus, the conclusion that can bedrawn from the above discussion is that Party Iworkpersons have failed to prove that each of themhave worked for 240 days during the period of 12months preceding 6-3-02. Being so, it would not beproper and justified to hold that there is violationof Section 25F of the Act, by Party II.

23. It is otherwise on record that on account ofbreaking of the fire in the office of the Party II atColva the records of Party II have been destroyed.This fact is not seriously disputed by Party II andthis is because Smt. Mungul D’Souza stated thatshe was aware that the office room of Colva guesthouse was on fire, some times in the year 2001 andthat many items which were in the office wereburnt in this fire. Even Shri Jose R.G. Flor has statedthat somewhere on 5-8-2001 fire broke out in theColva office and the entire record kept there gotdestroyed. Perusal of evidence of Ms. PamelaMascarenhas and more particularly her crossexamination reveals that there is admission on thepart of Party I that there was an incident of fire inthe office of Party II at Colva in August 2001 andthe records were destroyed. In the judgment in thecase of Sher Singh (supra) relied upon by thelearned advocate for Party I, there was admissionon the part of the management about existence ofrecord of the attendance in the possession of theDepartment and it was in such situation held thatthe workman therein had fulfilled the condition ofcontinuous employment as per Section 25B (2) ofthe Act, which was by drawing adverse inferenceagainst the Department. Since the fact situation inthe instant case is totally different from the factsituation in the above judgment, ratio in the abovecase cannot be made applicable to the case at hand.Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learnedadvocate for Party I to show the applicability ofSection 25F of the Act to the instant case, are of nohelp to Party I. Consequently it follows that Party Ihas failed to prove that the action of Party II interminating their services w.e.f. 6-3-2002 is illegaland unjustified.

24. It is clear from the evidence on record thatthe appointment of Party I workman was not


437

pursuant to issuance of appointment order and evenfor that matter the said appointment was not as perthe procedure required for filling up the posts inthe Government. That apart, it is clear from theSchool Leaving Certificate/Baptism Certificates//Birth Certificates of Party I workmen that at thetime of their first engagement they were betweenage group of 42 to 64 years and had already crossedthe age bar of 35 years fixed by the Government. Inthe judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) it isheld that unless the appointment is in terms of therelevant rules and after a proper competition amongqualified persons, the same would not confer anyright on the appointee. It is observed that if it is acontractual appointment, the appointment comesto an end at the end of the contract, if it were anengagement or appointment on daily wages orcausal basis, the same would come to an end whenit is discontinued. It is also held in this judgmentthat merely because a temporary employee or acasual wage worker is continued for a time beyondthe terms of his appointment, he would not beentitled to be absorbed in regular service or madepermanent, merely on the strength of suchcontinuance, if the original appointment was notmade by following a due process of selection asenvisaged by the relevant rules. The observationsin this judgment also indicate that while directingthat the appointments, temporary or casual, beregularized or made permanent, courts are swayedby the fact that the concerned person has workedfor some time and in some cases for a considerablelength of time and that it is not as if the person whoaccepts an engagement either temporary or casualin nature, is not aware of the nature of hisemployment as he accepts the employment witheyes open. This judgment delivered by theConstitution Bench of the Apex Court thereforeclearly indicates that the person employed withoutfollowing proper procedure or that whoseengagement is not based on a proper selection asrecognized by the relevant rules or procedurecannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectationfor being confirmed in the post. It is worthwhilepointing out at this stage that this judgment in thecase of Umadevi was considered in the case ofDevinder Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex.Court ordered reinstatement of workman with backwages though the regular procedure forengagement of workman in service was notfollowed. Reading of this judgment however makesit clear that at the time of engagement of workmanin service, Punjab Government had imposed a banon filling up of the vacancies and in such situationpursuant to a resolution, the Workman was engaged

for a particular period which period was laterextended by passing of subsequent resolutions.Thus, it was in this situation his reinstatement wasordered by the Apex Court. Therefore the factsituation in this judgment is distinguishable fromthe fact situation in the case of Umadevi. It thereforefollows from the above discussion thatdiscontinuation of services of Party I by Party II, isnot illegal and unjustified. Hence my findings.

25. Issue No. 4: In the written statement it ispleaded by Party II that the services of Party I wereengaged purely on contract basis and there is norelationship of an employer and employee andhence this reference is not maintainable. It isotherwise not disputed by Party II that theattendance of Par ty I was marked in theattendance registers; that their monthly wage billswere prepared by the concerned official of thedepartment and the same were forwarded to thehead office at Panaji and after the receipt of theamount from the Panaji office, the wages weredistributed to the workpersons every month. It istherefore clear that Party II department wasexercising control over the Party I Workman. It maybe mentioned here that the nature of the workperformed by Party I workman was such that it didnot require direct supervision and the control couldbe exercised at the end of the month while payingthe wages and hence in such situation such controlwas sufficient to establish the employer employeerelationship. Thus, merely because Party IWorkman were engaged purely on contract basiswould not be sufficient to say that there was noemployer and employee relationship between theparties.

26. It is also the contention of Party II that it isnot an industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act.It deserves to be noted that in para 3 of the claimstatement Party I has pleaded that Party II is anindustry and in reply to this para vide para 4 in thewritten statement Party II has admitted that it isan industry. However, in her cross examinationwitness of Party II has made it clear that admissionmade in para 4 of the written statement is atypographical mistake. Nonetheless, the factremains is that this so called typographical mistakeis not corrected by Party II till date. No doubt,reading of the defence of Party II in entirety gives aclear indication that it is the case of Party II that itis not an industry. However the observations in thecase of Mohanan (supra) are clear to the effect thatTourism Department of the State does not dischargesovereign functions to qualify for exemption andthat it is a department meant to promote tourism


438

to which end it has to devise means to attracttourists and ensure their convenience and safety.It is observed that basically its activities havecommercial and economic futures quite apart fromwhat the State does or is expected to do in thedischarge of its sovereign functions. Thus it is heldin this judgment that the Tourism Department isan industry as defined u/s 2(j) of the Act. This beingthe case, Party II cannot be heard to say that, it isnot an industry. Being so this court has jurisdictionto entertain this dispute. Hence my findings.

27. Issue No.5: In view of discussion supra,Party I workmen are not entitled to any relief.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of theDepartment of Tourism, Panaji-Goa, interminating the services of the following sixworkpersons with effect from 6-3-2002 islegal and justified.

(1) Shri Vincent Coutinho (expired).(2) Smt. Mungal D’Souza, Sweeper.(3) Smt. Minguelina Barreto, Sweeper.(4) Smt. Caitana Fernandes, Sweeper.(5) Smt. Senhorina Lucas, Sweeper.(6) Shri Adelino Fernandes, Labourer.

2. Party I workmen are therefore not entitledto any relief.

3. No order as to costs.


(B. K. Thaly),Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal--cum-Labour-Court.

________

Notification

28/1/2014-Lab/288The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on01-08-2013 in reference No. IT/9/12 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor ofGoa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 23rd May, 2014.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAND LABOUR COURT


(Before Ms. Bimba K. Thaly, PresidingOfficer)

Ref. No. IT/9/12Shri Shambu Gaude,H. No. 133/A, Rajinwada,Gaunem, Bandore,Ponda-Goa .... Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Aventis Pharma Ltd.,GUDC, Plot No. L-121, Phase III,Verna Industrial Estate,Verna-Goa .... Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri P. Naik.Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri M. S.Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Passed on this 1st day of August, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (for short The Act),the Government of Goa by order dated 05-01-2012bearing No. 28/46/2011-Lab-33 has referred thefollowing dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:

“(1) Whether the action of the management ofM/s. Aventis Pharma Limited, Verna Goa, indismissing from service, it’s workman,Shri Shambu B. Gaude, Operator with effectfrom 25-02-2008, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitledto?”

(2) On receipt of the reference, a case wasregistered under No. IT/9/12 and registered A. D.notices were issued to the parties. Upon receipt ofthe notice, Party I filed the claim statement atExb. 6. Party II filed the written statement at Exb.7and thereafter Party I filed the Rejoinder at Exb. 8.

3. In the claim statement, it is in short the caseof Party I that Party II is a company dulyincorporated under the company’s Act and islicenced as a factory by the appropriate authoritiesunder the Factories Act, 1947. It is stated thatParty II has not been complying with themandatory provisions of the Factories Act, 1947. Itis stated that the workman had on the variousoccasions represented to the Management aboutthe unsafe working conditions at the factory but


439

the management continued to turn a deaf ear tothe complaints of the workman. It is stated thatthe services of Party I/workman were illegallyterminated on 25-2-08 with malafide intentionwithout conducting domestic enquiry in terms ofthe standing orders. It is stated that since Party Iwas the active member/office bearer of the tradeunion, the management committed unfair labourpractice and deprived him of his livelihood. It isstated that the present dismissal order is an act ofunfair labour practice resorted to take revenge onParty I in collusion with Mrs. Renee Amonkar forcomplaining the indecent and improper behaviourof said Mrs. Renee Amonkar towards the unionizedmember workman at the shop floor. It is statedthat Party I was terminated without conductingenquiry and in breach of principles of naturaljustice. Hence the reference.

4. In the written statement Party II has deniedthe case set up by Party I and has stated thatParty I has committed serious acts of misconductand having regard to his past misconduct, Party IIwas compelled to dismiss him from serviceswithout holding any enquiry. It is stated that on19-2-2008, Mrs. Renee Amonkar, the Head ofPackaging, observed that there was scribbling onthe dispensed foil used for packing of Paracetamolfor exports to U.K. It is stated that on 20-2-2008when Party I was in the first shift, Mrs. ReneeAmonkar at about 15:05 hrs. noticed Party I alongwith the one Mr. Surya Naik sitting on dispensedmaterial in the Material Movement Corridorthough at that time he was required to be inmanufacturing area. It is stated that in the light ofthe incident of 19-2-2008, Mrs. Renee Amonkarwith Mr. Sagar Narvekar noticed some scribblingon the outer cover of another roll of foil. Thereafterboth of them noticed Party I and Mr. Surya Naiksitting on dispensed material though they wererequired to be at the place of their work. Uponquestioning Mr. Surya Naik about their presenceat that place Party I interrupted and commentedin Konkani “don’t talk to her, because she is‘sutlya’ ”. Mrs. Renee Amonkar informed thisincident to Mr. Gaurav Sharma who is the Head ofthe manufacturing, under whom Party I andMr. Surya Naik are working. Thereafter, Mrs. ReneeAmonkar called on Mr. Sathyabalam, ExecutivePacking, to continue investigation in connectionwith scribbling on dispensed foil. When Mrs. ReneeAmonkar and Mr. Satyabalam were discussing thematter, Party I along with other operators openedthe door and Party I questioned Mr. Satyabalam asto why he was clicking pictures and upon tellingby Mrs. Renee Amonkar that he had no business

to be there Party I aggressively addressed towardsthem and pointing towards Mrs. Renee Amonkar,said in a loud voice in Konkani “you want to takemy picture, I will give you my nude picture outsidethe gate and you can keep it with you.” Even aftertelling by Mr. Satyabalan that it was not the rightway to talk, Party I ignored and continued to repeatthe same words towards Mrs. Renee Amonkar. Itis stated that the above incident totallydemoralized Mrs. Renee Amonkar and the otherExecutives of the Organization. It is stated thathaving regards to the grave and serious act ofmisconduct committed by Party I, the company inthe interest of entire organization in particular thesafety and morale of lady staff, decided not toretain Party I in the services of the company andaccordingly he was dismissed vide letter dated25-2-08, without holding an enquiry. It is statedthat all the executives who have experienced//witnessed the horrible incident had in clear termsinformed the management that due to threat totheir lives and demoralization, they are notprepared to give evidence in the domestic enquiryin the presence of Party I. Thus, in suchcircumstances it was not possible for themanagement to hold domestic enquiry as thewitness themselves have opined that they are in astate of mental shock and fear psycho. It is statedthat Mrs. Renee Amonkar filed a criminal complaintagainst Party I for sexual harassment at VernaPolice Station and accordingly the case wasregistered and tried by JMFC, Margao and theHon’ble Court held Party I guilty and sentencedhim to simple imprisonment for two months forthe offence punishable under Sec. 509 IPC and topay fine of Rs. 3000/- i/d undergo S. I. for twomonths. It is stated that the Party I is a habitualindisciplined workman and that the entire act ofthe management in dismissing Party I evenwithout holding an enquiry is totally legal and fullyjustified. Thus, amongst above and other groundsParty II has prayed to reject the reference.

5. In the rejoinder Party I has denied thecontentions raised by Party II in the writtenstatement.

6. In view of the averments of the respectiveparties, following issues were framed on 21-3-2013(Exb.11). The same are as under:

1. Whether the Party I proves that the dismissalorder dated 25-2-08 issued without holding adomestic enquiry is an act of unfair labourpractice resorted to take revenge on him incollusion with Mrs. Renee Amonkar forcomplaining her indecent and improper


440

behaviour towards the unionized memberworkman at the shop floor?

2. Whether the Party I proves that throughouthis working with the Party II for about 10years, no disciplinary proceedings wereinstituted against him by the Party II?

3. Whether the Party I proves that his serviceswere illegally terminated by Party II?

4. What relief? What order?

7. In the course of further proceedings and whenthe matter reached the stage of recording evidenceof Party I, the parties filed an application atExb. 12 stating that they have settled the subjectmatter of the dispute in this reference by arrivingat the settlement. The said settlement termsincorporated in Exb. 12 read as under:

1. It is agreed between the parties that theParty II/Management of M/s. Aventis PharmaLtd., shall pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupeesfour lakhs only) to the Party I/Shri ShambuGaude, which shall include all the claims ofShri Shambu Gaude arising out of the presentreference and his employment, dismissal andresignation. The above amount shall includeall his claims of unpaid wages, gratuity,ex-gratia, bonus, leave encashment etc., if anyor any other claim/benefit which can becomputed in terms of money, including anyclaim of reinstatement or re-employment.

2. It is further agreed by the Party I that he shallsubmit his resignation stating that he hasresigned from the services of the company ofhis own free will and the Party II shall acceptthe said resignation w.e.f. 31-7-2013.

3. It is further agreed between the parties thatupon receipt of the resignation letter from theParty I, the Dismissal Letter dated25th February, 2008 issued to the Party I shallbe withdrawn by the Party II with immediateeffect.

4. It is further agreed between the parties thatthe Party II shall pay the above mentionedamount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhsonly) to the Party I vide cheque No. 021721dated 27-7-13 drawn on HDFC Bank, MargaoBranch.

5. It is further agreed between the parties thatthe Party I shall not claim any further money//benefit, which can be computed in terms ofmoney from the Management of M/s. SanofiIndia Limited (formerly Aventis Pharma Ltd.),

from the date of dismissal till the date ofresignation from the company, i.e. from 25thFebruary, 2008 to 31st July, 2013.

8. The above terms are signed by both theparties and their advocates. Vide the above terms,parties have prayed for an award in terms of thesettlement between them.

9. I have gone through the terms of thesettlement at Exb. 12 entered into between theparties towards amicable settlement of thedispute. I accept the said terms and pass thefollowing:

ORDER

1. The reference stands disposed off by consentaward in view of the consent terms filed bythe parties at Exb. 12.

2. No. order as to costs.


Sd/-(B. K. Thaly)

Presiding OfficerIndustrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court-I________

Notification

No. 28/1/2014-Lab/262

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on25-03-2014 in reference No. IT/51/03 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).


Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 05th May, 2014.________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAND LABOUR COURT


(Before Ms. Bimba K. Thaly, PresidingOfficer)

Ref. No. IT/51/03Shri Ganesh H. Naik,Represented by Goa Trade andCommercial Workers Union,Velho Building, 2nd floor,Panaji-Goa .... Workman/Party I

V/s


441

M/s. Kaybee MarineConsultants Pvt. Ltd.,Damodar Chambers, 1st floor,Vasco da Gama, Goa .... Employer/Party II

Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar present for Workman//Party I at the time of evidence and arguments.

Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar present for Employer//Party II at the time of evidence but absent at thetime of arguments.

AWARD

(Passed on this 25th March, 2014)

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ( for short The Act),the Government of Goa by order dated 16-7-03bearing No. 28/31/2003-Lab referred the followingdispute for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management ofM/s Kaybee Marine Consultant Pvt. Ltd.,Vasco da Gama, Goa in refusing employmentto their workman Shri Ganesh H. Naik,Supervisor with effect from 13-11-1996 islegal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitledto?”

(2) Upon receipt of the dispute, referenceNo. IT/51/03 was registered. Notices were issuedto both the parties under registered post, uponwhich both the parties were served. Party I filedthe claim statement at Exb. 5. Party II filed writtenstatement at Exb. 6. Rejoinder was filed by Party Iat Exb. 7.

3. It is in short the case of Party I that he wasappointed by Party II as Technician in theconsolidated salary of Rs. 1600/- per month from18-11-1987. It is stated that on 13-11-96 when heresumed duties, he was refused employment andstrictly warned not to join the duties and as suchhe approached Asstt. Labour Commissioner forconciliation. It is stated that Party II is dealingwith the repairs of the barges for which his serviceswere engaged along with other workers. It is statedthat the action of Party II in refusing employmentto him is malafide and an instance of unfair labourpractice. It is stated that before refusal ofemployment Party I was not issued charge sheetso also show cause notice nor any departmentalenquiry was conducted and he was refused theemployment without any cause and thus it isillegal and bad in law.

4. Party I has therefore prayed for an awardholding that refusal of employment to him w.e.f.13-11-96 as illegal and unjustified and to directParty II to reinstate him in service with full backwages and continuity in service.

5. In the written statement Party II has deniedthe case setup by Party I and has stated thatParty I was the ‘supervisor’ working in themanagement cadre and is not a ‘workman’ u/s. 2(s)of the Act. It is stated that Party I performedessentially and predominantly supervisory,managerial and administrative functions and hissuch duties and exercise of powers over thesubordinate excludes him from the purview of thedefination of ‘workman’ under the Act. It is statedthat Party I failed to report for work his salary wasmore than Rs. 1600/- per month and that the grades,scales and allowances applicable to him were ofthe management cadre. It is stated that Party Iwas issued salary certificate at his request whichwas used by him to purchase a motor cycle whichmotor cycle was used by Party I during office hoursfor commercial purpose for which he wasreprimanded verbally by the management. It isstated that Party I did not report for duties from12-11-96 and continued to remain absent till date.It is stated that Party I was never refusedemployment and thus the question of show causenotice or departmental enquiry does not arise. Itis stated that the Party II has suffered grave lossesas Party I failed to report for work till date. It isstated that Party I is therefore not entitled for anyrelief.

6. In the rejoinder Party I has denied thecontentions raised by Party II in the writtenstatement and has stated that in deciding whetherParty I was a workman it is essentially the dutieswhich he was discharging has to be taken intoconsideration. It is stated that the Party I had noadministrative powers such as to grant leave norany workman was working under his instructionsand directions.

7. In view of above averments of the respectiveparties, issues dated 6-7-2004 at Exb. 8 wereframed.

8. In the course of evidence Party I Shri GaneshNaik examined himself and closed his case. Onthe other hand Party II examined one Shri PankajYagnic as their witness and closed their case.

9. Heard Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I.Though Party II was represented by Adv. Shri P.Chawdikar all through out till recording of theevidence, later said advocate withdrew his


442

appearance by issuing notice to Party II anddespite service of notice, Party II did not appearbefore this court. Hence, after giving opportunityto Party II to put in its appearance, which Party IIdid not avail of, the arguments of Ld. Advocate forParty I were heard.

10. In his arguments Ld. Adv. for Party I statedthat Party I was employed as welder with Party IIand that he was not performing any supervisoryduties. He stated that Party I was reporting to theincharge of the workshop and considering thenature of duties performed by him as a welderwhich are of unskilled nature, Party I is a workmanu/s. 2(s) of the Act. He relied on the judgement inthe case of Lloyds Banks Ltd., New Delhi v/sPanna Lal Gupta & Ors AIR 1967 SC 248 tocontend that supervisor should occupy a positionof command or decision and should be authorizedto act in certain matters within the limits of hisauthority without the sanction of the manager orother supervisors. By referring to the nature ofduties performed by Party I as welder, he statedthat Party I therefore cannot be working as asupervisor. By referring to the above judgment hefurther stated that the name or the designation ofthe employee is not a determining test and whatdetermines the status is the nature and duties ofthe function assigned to the employee concerned.He further stated that Party I was refusedemployment on 13-11-96 upon which he raised adispute but according to Party II, Party I did notreport for duties from 12-11-96 and continued toremain absent which in other words means, Party Ihas abandoned the services. By referring to thejudgment in the case of Gangaram K. Medekarv/s Zenith Safe Mfg. Co. & Ors. 1996 1 CLR 172,he stated that in a case of abandonment of serviceit is a matter of intention and therefore theemployer has to hold a domestic enquiry. Byreferring to this judgment, he further stated thatwhen it is the case of the workman that his serviceswas orally terminated and the employer’s case isthat the workman abandoned the services theevidence is word against word and therefore thebenefit in such circumstances must go to theworkman because the company has to proveclearly the case of abandonment.

11. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the arguments advanced.I am reproducing herewith the issues along withtheir findings and reasons thereof:

Sr. Issues FindingsNo.

1. Whether the Party I proves In the positive.that he was refusedemployment by the Party IIfrom 13-11-96?

2. Whether the Party I proves In the positive.that the action of the Party IIin refusing employment tohim w.e.f. 13-11-96 isillegal and unjustified?

3. Whether the Party II proves Party I is athat the Party I is not a workman u/s.workman as defined under 2(s) of the Act.Sec. 2(s) of the I. D. Act,1947?

4. Whether the Party II proves In the negative.that Party I did not reportfor duties after 12-11-1996and remained absent fromthereafter?

5. Whether the Party I is As per award.entitled to any relief?

6. What Award? As per orderbelow.

REASONS

12. Issue No. 3: This issue is answered beforeanswering the other issues as it goes to the root ofthe matter. This is because, if it is established thatParty I is the workman as defined u/s 2 (s) of theAct, it is only then this court would get jurisdictionto adjudicate this reference.

13. Be that as it may, though vide issue No. 3,the burden of proving that Party I is not the‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of the Act is cast on Party II,as per the settled law said burden rests on theparty approaching the court seeking reliefs underthe Act. Reference in this context is made to thejudgment in the case of S. T. Galande v/s P. O.IInd Labour Court, Pune 2008 (I) CLR 656 inwhich the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay hasobserved that onus lies upon the workman to provethat he satisfies the essential ingredients of beinga workman and, therefore, could raise an industrialdispute. Being so, it is required to see if Party I hasdischarged the burden of proving that he is theworkman u/s 2(s) of the Act.

14. In the claim statement Party I has pleadedthat he was appointed by Party II as Technician.In the written statement it is the case of Party IIthat Party I was the supervisor working in the


443

management cadre and is not a workman. In therejoinder Party I has stated that the duties of theParty I are to be looked into to find out if he is aworkman.

15. In his evidence Party I has stated that hewas working with Party II as welder and was doingthe work of welding at the time of barge repairs.In his cross examination Party I has stated that hedid not state in claim statement that he wasappointed as a Technician. He has denied thesuggestion that he was appointed neither as aTechnician nor as a Welder and that he wasappointed as a Supervisor. Party I has also made itclear that he was not issued any appointmentletter. He has further stated that his work wascutting, fitting and welding.

16. From the nature of above evidence, it standsestablished that it is the specific case of Party Ithat he was working as technician/welder doingthe work of cutting, fitting and welding irrespectiveof the fact that in his claim statement Party I hasstated that he was working as a technician and inhis chief examination, that he was working as awelder. Nonetheless, as rightly pointed out by theLd. Advocate for Party I by referring to theobservations in the judgment in the case of LloydBank (supra), in deciding the status of anemployee, his designation is not decisive but whatis to be looked into is the nature and duty performedby him. In the above context, cross examinationof Shri Pankaj Yagnic gains significance since hehas made it clear that he as an AdministrativeExecutive, sometimes in June/July 1993 has beento the workshop of Party II and at that time he hadseen Party I working in the workshop. He hasstated that he was also incharge of the workshopwherein Party I was working. He has stated thatParty I was required to submit his leave applicationto the person incharge of the workshop who washis immediate superior. He has stated that Party Ihad to report to the said person who was inchargeof the workshop. From the nature of abovestatements of Shri Pankaj Yagnic, theAdministrative Executive of Party II, it becomesclear that Party I was working in the workshopunder the control of incharge of the workshop andthus in this sense Party I cannot be called as a‘supervisor’. The meaning of the term ‘supervisor’is highlighted in the judgment in the case ofVinayak Baburao Shinde v/s S. R. Shinde andOrs 1985 HC 318 as under:

“........... The word ‘supervise’ means to oversee,that is to look after the work done by other persons.The word ‘supervision’ occurring in section 2(s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act means supervision inrelation to work or in relation to persons. Theessence of supervision consists in overseeing by oneperson over the work of the others. This alsoinvolves a power in the persons overseeing to directand to direct and to control the work done by thepersons over him he is supervising .....”

17. Reference also deserves to be made to thejudgment in the case of Union Carbide (India)Ltd. v/s D. Samuel and Ors. 1998 (80) FLR 684in which numerous tests have been laid down tofind out whether a person is doing the supervisorywork and one of them is to see if he has power tosanction leave or recommend it or if there are otherpersons working under him. It is clear from thestatements brought on record in the crossexamination of Shri Pankaj Yagnic, that Party I hasto send his leave application to his immediatesuperior which in other words means that Party Ihad no powers to sanction leave or to recommendit, so also that Party I was working in the workshopunder the control of his incharge. Thereforeapplying the observations/tests laid down in theabove judgments, it becomes clear that Party I wasnot doing the supervisory work.

18. Be that as it may, in the cross examinationof Party I, he has stated that he was not allottingand supervising the work of the daily wagesemployees. He has denied the suggestion that hewas allotting work to daily wage employees andwas also supervising their work. Party I hasproduced the salary certificate issued to him byParty II at Exb. W-1. This certificate is dated12-1-96 and it is signed by the Manager of Party II.Reading of this certificate reveals that it ismentioned therein that Party I is an employee ofParty II company working at their Old Goaworkshop. The gross salary of Rs. 2,300/- per month,drawn by Party I as on the date of issuance of thiscertificate is also mentioned in Exb. W-1. Itdeserves to be noted that Party II has notmentioned the designation of Party I inExb. W-1. Since this certificate has been issued byParty II, nothing had prevented Party II frommentioning the designation of Party I as“supervisor”, in this certificate, instead of standingthat Party I is the employee of Party II. Thus, thiscertificate when read carefully indicates that, it infact helps Party I to establish that he is a“workman”. Being so, the fact of Party I drawingmore than Rs. 1,600/- per month at the relevanttime is of no consequence to exclude him from thedefinition of “workman” u/s 2(s) of the Act.


444

19. Party I has produced at Exb. W-2, Exb. W-3colly and Exb. W-4 the copies of the letters dated9-1-97, 5-3-97 and 8-10-97 issued by the Goa Tradeand Commercial Workers Union to Mr. V. M.Barucha of Party II, Labour Commissioner andAsst. Labour Commissioner, Vasco da Gama, Goarespectively and reading of these letters give aclear indication that the status of Party IShri Ganesh Naik is mentioned as “workman” inthese letters. It may be mentioned that these lettershave been sent basically requesting reinstatementof Party I back on his job with continuity of serviceand back wages. Party II while cross examiningParty I or in the chief examination of Shri PankajYagnic, has not denied of having received the letterdated 9-1-97 at Exb. W-2. It is therefore clear thatParty II had received the aforesaid letter anddespite it, did not send reply to it denying thestatus of Party I as “workman” as mentioned inthis letter.

20. Thus, the totality of facts discussed abovelead me to draw the only inference that Party I isa ‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of the Act. Hence my findings.

21. Issue Nos. 1 & 4: Both these issues areanswered together for the sake of convenience, asthey are interconnected.

22. It is specific case of Party I that on 13-11-96when he resumed duties, he was refusedemployment by Party II. In answer to this it is thedefence of Party II that Party I was never refusedemployment but he did not report for duties from12-11-96 and continued to remain absent till date.In the claim statement Party I has pleaded that itwas one Shri Manoj Shirodkar who did not permithim to join the duties but in the written statementParty II has stated that said Shri Manoj Shirodkarwas workshop incharge and had no authority todecide on behalf of Party II. It may be mentionedhere that in his evidence Party I Shri Ganesh Naikhas stated that on 13-11-96 he had gone to collecthis salary in the office of Party II at which timeMr. Barucha, the Manager of Party II told him not toreport for work and thus refused employment tohim. He has stated that thereafter he approachedthe Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union andMr. Raju Mangeshkar, the office bearer of the saidunion wrote letter dated 9-1-97 i.e. Exb. W2 to theManager Mr. Barucha and this letter was sent byregistered A. D. post. As pointed out by me above,Party II did not send reply to this letter nor deny ofhaving received this letter. Reading of this letterreveals that the same has been addressed to Mr. V.M. Barucha, the Manager of Party II and it is statedtherein that on 13-11-96 Party I Ganesh Naik was

refused employment by Mr. Manoj Shirodkar, whowas the incharge of Party II. It is further stated inthis letter that when Party I Ganesh Naikapproached Mr. Barucha he too refused to allowhim to resume his duties. It is worthwhile notingthat though Mr. Pankaj Yagnic has stated that Party IIdid not refuse employment to Party I, the facthowever remains is that Party II did not send replyto the letter dated 9-1-97 at Exb. W-2 which letterwas sent to it soon after i.e within two months ofso called refusal of employment to Party I byParty II.

23. No doubt, in the claim statement it is thecase of Party I that it was Mr. Manoj Shirodkar whodid not permit Party I to join the duties and in hisevidence, Party I Shri Ganesh Naik has stated thatit was Mr. Barucha who refused employment tohim and not Mr. Manoj Shirodkar but it is apparentfrom the contents of letter dated 9-1-97 (Exb. W-2)that both the above persons refused employmentto Party I Ganesh Naik. Since the contents of thisletter are not controverted by Party II despitereceipt of this letter and a documentary evidenceprevails over the oral evidence, I have no hesitationto hold that Party I was refused employment on13-11-96 by Party II.

24. Be that as it may, the corollary therefore isthat the case projected by Party II that Party I didnot report for duties after 12-11-96 and remainedabsent thereafter, fails. It may be mentioned herethat in his cross examination Shri Pankaj Yagnichas stated that Party II had orally instructed Party Ito report for duties but no cogent and convincingevidence has been produced by Party II in supportof the above statement made by Shri PankajYagnic. Nevertheless, even if one believes the caseof Party II that it was Party I Shri Ganesh Naikwho stopped reporting for duties which means thathe abandoned the duties, in terms of theobservations in the judgment in the case ofGangaram K. Medekar (supra) in case ofabandonment of service it is matter of intentionand therefore employer has to hold a domesticenquiry. It is also observed in this judgment thatif it is the case of the workman that his serviceswere orally terminated and the defence of theemployer that the workman has abandoned theservices, and even assuming that the evidence isword against word, the benefit in suchcircumstances must go to the workman becausethe company has to prove clearly the case ofvoluntary abandonment.


445

25. On the above subject, I would also refer tojudgment in the case of The Executive Engineer,Irrigation Div. I, Jaipur and Anr. v/s Nar Narain1994 L.L.R. 538, in which it is observed as under:

“The employee is always in a disadvantageousposition vis-a-vis the employer. He is not in aposition to dictate the terms of employment quathe employer. It is the sweet-will of the employerto engage a workman on the terms and conditionswhich suit the employer. However, when aworkman leaves service after working for a year ormore, the natural conduct which is expected of theemployer is to make an enquiry as to why theworkman is not coming on duty”.

26. Reference is also made to the judgement inthe case of Gaurishankar Vishwakarma v/s EagleSpring Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1987 (55) FLR 689in which it is observed that even in a case ofabandonment of service, the employer has to givea notice to the workman calling upon him toresume his duty and must hold an enquiry beforeterminating his services on that ground.

27. From the above settled prepositions of lawviz-a-viz the defence taken by Party II and thestatement made by Shri Pankaj Yagnic that Party IIhad orally instructed Party I to report for dutieswithout producing any cogent evidencesupporting the above statement, it becomes clearbeyond doubt that Party II did not give any noticeto Party I calling upon him to resume duty nor didParty II make any enquiry as to why Party I wasnot coming on duty. Thus, benefit of suchcircumstances has to go to Party I as Party II hasfailed to prove the case of abandonment of servicesby Party I.

28. It is therefore clear from the above discussionthat Party I has proved issue No. 1 whereas Party IIhas failed to prove issue No. 4. Hence my findings.

29. Issue No. 2: As Party I has proved that hewas refused employment w.e.f. 13-11-96 and as itis apparent from the records that such refusal waswithout complying with the provisions of the Actmore particularly Sec. 25 of the Act, the same isillegal and unjustified. Hence my findings.

30. Issue No. 5: The relief sought by Party I inthe present reference is of his reinstatement inservice with full back wages and continuity inservice. In his claim statement Party I has notstated that he is unemployed since the time ofrefusal of services by Party II.

31. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that theinitial burden to prove that he is not gainfullyemployed is on the person claiming back wagesand as Party I has not pleaded that he is notgainfully employed, he has therefore failed todischarge this initial burden. Reference is madeto the judgment in the case of Kendriya VidyalayaSangathan and another v/s S. C. Sharma AIR2005 SC 768 and in the case of J. K. SyntheticsLtd., v/s K. P. Agrawal and another (2007) 2SCC433 in which it is observed that when the questionof determining the entitlement of a person tobackwages is concerned, the employee has toshow that he was not gainfully employed. It isalso held that the initial burden is on the employeeand after he places materials in that regard, theemployer can bring on record materials to rebutthe claim. Since in the instant case Party I has notpleaded about unemployment, the question ofParty II bringing on record material to rebut theclaim does not arise. It therefore follows that nocase has been made out by Party I of claiming theback wages.

32. As regards the claim of Party I ofreinstatement, it deserves to be noted that Party Iis out of employment since November 1996 whichmeans that a period of around 17 to 18 years haslapsed by now. Party I therefore cannot beexpected to remain idle till date nor one canconclude that he is not earning his livelihood. Inhis cross examination, Party I has stated that hehad obtained the salary certificate at Exb. W-1 ashe wanted to avail loan at the time of his marriage.He has stated that he had obtained anothercertificate for availing loan for purchasing a motorcycle and on the basis of it he had purchased amotor cycle. No doubt, he has also stated that hedid not register this motor cycle as a pilot taxi butregistered it as a private vehicle but in the samebreath he has made it clear that after histermination he did not try to get employment atany other place though according to him it wasbecause he was not given experience certificate.Nevertheless, he has further stated that he did notask Party II for the experience certificate. The aboveevidence when read carefully gives a clearindication that Party I was not interested inemployment after he was terminated. The onlyprobable inference which could therefore be drawnfrom such attitude of Party I is that he has beenearning his livelihood which is most probably byworking as a motor cycle pilot. It is therefore insuch situation, would not be proper and justifiedto order reinstatement of Party I in service. This isalso because the relations between Party I andParty II over the period of years also must havebeen strained due to pendency of this litigation.


446

33. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in thejudgment in the case of Incharge Officer & Anrv/s Shankar Shetty 2010(9) SCC 126 and SeniorSuperintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v/sSantosh Kumar Seal & Ors AIR 2010 SC 2140,that “It is true that the earlier view of this Courtarticulated in many decisions reflected the legalposition that if the termination of an employee wasfound to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement withfull back wages would ordinarily follow. However,in recent past, there has been a shift in the legalposition and in a long line of cases, this Court hasconsistently taken the view that relief by way ofreinstatement with back wages is not automaticand may be wholly inappropriate in a given factsituation even though the termination of anemployee is in contravention of the prescribedprocedure. Compensation instead of reinstatementhas been held to meet the ends of justice.”

34. Reference also deserves to be made to thejudgment in the case of Prem Chand Sharmav/s Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. 2014 1 CLR637 in which it is observed that whenevertermination of workman is found to be illegal or incontravention of prescribed law/or rules, insteadof relief of reinstatement with back wages,reasonable amount of monetary compensationwould be appropriate relief.

35. Considering the above settled position of law,in my considered opinion, payment of monetarycompensation instead of reinstatement would bejust, proper and fair. Records reveal that Party Iwas employed with Party II in the year 1987 andhe was terminated in the year 1996. It is apparentfrom the salary certificate of Party I that in theyear 1996 his gross salary was Rs. 2,300/- permonth. It is also a matter of record that Party I hasbeen litigating the present reference for a periodof around 17 to 18 years and considering all thesefactors, in my view, the payment of lumpsum ofRs. 1,25,000/- would be reasonable and would meetthe ends of justice. Hence my findings.

36. In the result and in view of discussion supra,I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of themanagement of M/s. Kaybee MarineConsultants Pvt. Ltd., Vasco da Gama, Goa inrefusing employment to their workman, ShriGanesh H. Naik, Supervisor, with effect from13-11-96 is illegal and unjustified.

2. The Party II is directed to pay to Party Imonetary compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousandonly), within two months from the date ofpublication of Award failing which the sameshall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-(B. K. Thaly)

Presiding OfficerIndustrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court-I

——— ———

Department of Law & JudiciaryLaw (Establishment) Division

__Order

File No. 12-11-81/LD/1708

Whereas, the Government vide NotificationNo. 12-11-87/LD dated 15-02-1988, publishedin the Official Gazette, Series II No. 48 dated25-02-1988, appointed Advocate Shri Ubaldino C.Menezes Gama (hereinaf ter called as the“Applicant”) as a Notary for a period of three yearsin and throughout the area of Mormugao JudicialSenior Division with effect from 3-2-1988;

And whereas the Government vide Certificateof Practice dated 15-02-1988 has certified that theApplicant is authorized to practice as a Notary fora period of 3 years from 03-02-1988 in andthroughout the area of Mormugao Judicial SeniorDivision;

And whereas the Applicant had renewed hisCertificate of Practice as a Notary for subsequent4 terms i.e. upto 02-02-2005 and period of validityof the Certificate of Practice dated 07-04-2000issued to the Applicant expired on 03-02-2005;

And whereas the Applicant did not get hisCertificate of Practice renewed even after theexpiry of the period of validity of the saidCertificate of Practice on 03-02-2005 as requiredby sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Notaries Act,1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) (hereinafter calledas the “said Act”);

And whereas the Applicant has failed to gethis Certificate of Practice renewed;


447

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (f) ofSection 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goahereby removes from the Register maintained byit under Section 4 of the said Act, the name of theApplicant entered as a Notary.


Vasanti H. Parvatkar, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).


Order

No. 1/6/2014-LD(Estt.)/1695

Government of Goa is pleased to accept theresignation of Shri Prashant N. Kamat, asGovernment Counsel in those cases before theRevenue Courts and Judicial and Quasi JudicialAuthorities with effect from 13-06-2014. However,Shri Kamat will remain on the panel of theGovernment only to defend the cases pertainingto Land Acquisition before District Court (SouthGoa).

Shri Prashant N. Kamat shall return all the briefspending before the Revenue Courts and Judicialand Quasi Judicial Authorities with him if any, tothe concerned Departments directly underintimation to this Department.


Vasanti H. Parvatkar, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).


——— ———

Department of Personnel__

Order

File No. 13/10/2014-PER/4315

Government of Goa is pleased to grantextension in service to Shri G. P. Nathan, ProtocolAssistant, Goa Sadan, New Delhi beyond the dateof his superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.01-08-2014 to 31-07-2015.

The extension is subject to termination withoutassigning any reason at any time during theperiod of extension.


R. Aga, Under Secretary (Per-II).

Porvorim, 28th July, 2014.

Order

File No. 12/1/2013-PER (A)/4375

Smt. Maria Wanda Sequeira, Office Superinten-dent (Outside Secretariat), Directorate of Womenand Child Development, Panaji is herebytransferred and posted to the Directorate ofTechnical Education, Porvorim Goa in publicinterest.

Smt. Maria Wanda Sequeira, Office Superinten-dent should report to the Directorate of TechnicalEducation, Porvorim, Goa and submit compliancereport to this Department.


Porvorim, 31st July, 2014.________

Order

File No. 7/5/74-PER Vol. (IV)/4333

Consequent upon the retirement on superannua-tion of Dr. V. N. Jindal, Dean, Goa Medical College,Bambolim w.e.f. 31-07-2014 (a.n.), Dr. Pradeep Naik,holding the post of Professor & Head, Departmentof Ophthalmology is hereby appointed to the postof Dean, Goa Medical College on officiating basiswith immediate effect in addition to his own dutiesuntil further orders or till the post is filled onregular basis whichever is earlier.


R. Aga, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 30th July, 2014.________

Order

File No. 19/15/2014-PER/4337

In pursuance to Government of India, Ministryof Home Affairs, New Delhi, Order No. 14016/11//2014-UTS-I dated 02-06-2014, Shri Ajit, IAS(Probationer) (2013) allotted to AGMUT Cadre ishereby appointed as a Assistant Collector(Trainee) w.e.f. 07-07-2014 and posted to NorthGoa District respectively for District Training.

Shri Ajit, IAS (Probationer) joined on 07-07-2014(Monday) (b.n.) in Goa Administration for theDistrict Training.



Porvorim, 30th July, 2014.


448

Order

File No. 22/8/2007-PER/4271

The Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer the following IPS and Senior Scale Officers of Goa PoliceService, with immediate effect in public interest:-

Sl. Name and Present posting Transferred and posted asNo. designation

1 2 3 4

1. Shri Vijay Singh (IPS) 2005 S.P., South S.P., Special Investigation TeamAddl. charge Addl. charge(1) S. P. (PCR) South (1) S. P. Foreigners Regional

Registration Officer.

2. Shri Atmaram V. Deshpande (IPS) Principal, PTS, Valpoi Principal, PTS, ValpoiAddl. charge Addl. charge(1) S. P. (Training) (1) S.P. (Training)(2) Commdt. 2nd IRBN (2) S.P. (Legal & Vigilance).

3. Shri Vishram Borkar (GCS) S.P. (Head Qtrs) S.P. (Head Qtrs)Addl. charge Addl. charge(1) S.P. (M.T.) (1) S.P. (Motor Transport)(2) S.P. (Legal & Vigilance) (2) Dy. Commdt. (HG & Civil(3) Dy. Commdt. (HG & Defence). Civil Defence)

4. Shri Shekhar M. Prabhudesai (GCS) S.P. (Security) S.P. (South)Addl. charge Addl. charge(1) S.P. (FRRO) (1) S.P. (PCR), South.

5. Shri Francis A. M. Fernandes (GCS) Dy. S. P., SPCR On promotion postedAddl. charge * Commdt. 3rd IRBN(1) Dy. Commdt. * He shall continue to 1st IRBN hold the present charges till(2) SCRB the replacement is given.

6. Shri Vaman P. Tari (GCS) * Dy. S.P., Coastal Security On promotion posted asAddl. charge * S.P. (Security)(1) Dy. S.P., ANC Addl. charge(2) Dy. Commdt HG & Civil * Commdt. 2nd IRBN Defence * He shall continue to hold

the present charges till the replacement is given.

7. Shri Umesh Y. N. Gaonkar (GCS) SDPO, Porvorim On promotion posted as* S.P. Special Branch* He shall continue to hold the present charges till the replacement is given.

All the above officers shall complete the process of handing over/taking over within 3 days andsubmit compliance.

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


Porvorim, 21st August, 2014.


449

Order

File No. 13/5/2013-PER/4342

Government of Goa is pleased to grant furtherextension in service to Shri ShyamsunderKorgaonkar, Commissioner of Commercial Taxesbeyond the date of his superannuation for a periodof five months w.e.f. 01-08-2014 to 31-12-2014.




Porvorim, 31st July, 2014.________

Order

File No. 5/124/88-II/PHD/Part 5/4335

Government of Goa is pleased to grantextension in service to Dr. V. N. Jindal, Ex-Dean,GMC, Bambolim-Goa beyond the date of hissuperannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.01-08-2014 to 31-07-2015 as Professor in theDepartment of Neurosurgery.




Porvorim, 31st July, 2014.

——— ———

Department of Revenue__

Order

No. 22/24/2013-RD

Whereas, the Government of Goa, vide Notifica-tion No. 22/24/2013-RD dated 01-10-2013, issuedunder sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafterreferred to as the “said Act”), and published inthe Official Gazette, Series II No. 28 dated10-10-2013, notified that the land specified in theSchedule thereof (hereinafter referred to as the“said land”) is likely to be needed for publicpurpose viz. Land Acquisition for construction ofModern Fire Station at Bicholim (hereinafterreferred to as the “said public purpose”);

And whereas, the Government of Goaconsidered the report made by the Collector undersub-section (2) of Section 5A of the said Act andon being satisfied that the said land is needed forthe said public purpose, vide NotificationNo. 22/24/2013-RD dated 19-02-2014, issued underSection 6 of the said Act, and published in theOfficial Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated 20-02-2014,declared that the said land is required for the saidpublic purpose.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powersconferred by Section 7 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894), the Government of Goahereby directs the Collector, North Goa District,Panaji-Goa to take the order for acquisition of thesaid land.


Ashutosh Apte, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).


Notification

No. 23/34/2013-RD

Whereas, by Government Notification No.23/34/2013-RD dated 02-12-2013 published atSeries II, No. 37 of the Official Gazette dated12-12-2013 and in two local newspapers, namely,“Herald” and “Goa Doot” both dated 11-12-2013,it was notified under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), thatthe land specified in the Schedule appended tothe said Notification (hereinafter referred to as thesaid land), was needed for public purpose, viz.Land Acquisition for construction of bridge at Balliin Quepem Constituency on Balli-Fatorpa MDRroad at Balli-Quepem.

And whereas, the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) afterconsidering the report made under sub-section (2)of Section 5-A of the said Act is satisfied that theland specified in the Schedule hereto is neededfor the public purpose specified above (hereinafterreferred to as “the said land”).

Now, therefore, the Government herebydeclares under the provisions of Section 6 of thesaid Act that the said land is required for thepublic purpose specified above.

The Government also hereby appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act, the SpecialLand Acquisition Officer, GSIDC Ltd., Panaji-Goa,


450

to perform the functions of the Collector for allproceedings hereinafter to be taken in respect ofthe said land.

A plan of the said land can be inspected at theoffice of the Special Land Acquisition Officer,GSIDC Ltd., Panaji-Goa, till the award is madeunder Section 11.

SCHEDULE

(Description of the said land)

Taluka: Quepem Village: Balli

Survey No./ Names of the persons Approx./Sub-Div. No. believed to be interested area in

sq. mts.1 2 3

74/1 part Krishna Nilu Phal Dessai. 37074/2 part Dattu Nilu Naik Dessai. 180

Balsu Vithobha Phal Dessai.Pundhalik Vithobha PhalDessai.Vithal Gurguro Phal Dessai.Parnanand S. Audhi.Suresh S. Audhi.Krishna Nilu Phal Dessai.Premavati Vishnu Phal Dessai.O.R. House belongs to:Balsu Vithobha Phal Dessai.

74/4 part Dattu Nillu Naik Dessai. 360Balsu Vithobha Phal Dessai.Narayan Manju Phal Dessai.

Pundhalik Vithobha Phal Dessai.Vithal Gurguro Phal Dessai.Krishna Nilu Phal Dessai.Premavati Vishnu PhalDessai.O.R. House belongs to:Jayashri Krishna Phal Dessai& Sunanda Alies ChandraicalaVinayak Sawant.

78/1 part Raghuvir Pandhari Sinai 258Audi.

78/2 part Prabhakar Jiva Phal Dessai. 437Rama Krishna Phal Dessai.Prasad Guno Phal Dessai.Govind Modu Dessai.Tulshi Laxman Dessai.

Boundaries:

North: Road, Nallah.

South : S. No. 74/1 & 2, Nallah.

East : S. No. 74/1 & 4.S. No. 78/1 & 2.

West : Road. Total: 1605


Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-II).


www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 28.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–162/360–8/2014.

1 2 3

Date post:	04-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Sr. II No. 21 pmd - Government Printing Press · operated as shift incharge and issued gate passes,...

Documents