I BEGD. GOA - 5 1 Panaji, 31 st October, 1985 (Kartika 9, 19071 SERIES II No_ 31 OFFICIAL GAZETTE
GOVERNMENT OF GOAs DAMAN AND DIU
GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN Home Department r AND DIU General Branch/Division Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Notification Personnel Division No. 2/6/82-HD(G) Part File
Order In exercise of the ~wers conferred by the proviSO to sub-section (1) of section 58 E of the Reserve Bank of No. 1/2/83-GA & C India Act, 1934 (Central Act 2 of 1934) (hereinafter referred The Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu is pleased to to .as the "saJid Act") read with the Government of India, order the following transfer in the cadre of M:amlatdar/Jt. Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. U-l1030/3/84-UTL Mamlatdar/Block Development Officer with immediate effect dated 12~-1985. the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu and until further orders:- hereby authorises the Police Officers in-charge of the Police (i) Shri s. S. Kantak. Jt. MamIatdar, Quepem is trans stations in the Union Territory of Goa. Daman and Diu ferred and posted as Chief Officer, Sanguem Munici and who are not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, to make pal-COuncil vice.Shri A. C. Kamat transferred. a complaint in writing in respect of any offence pUnishable (it) Shrt A. C. Kamat, Chief Officer, Sanguem Municipal under sub-section (5A) of section 58 B of the said Act to Council is transferred and posted as Jt. M,amIatdar, any Court having jurisdiction. Quepem vice Shr! S. S. Kantak transferred. By order anp in the name of the Administrator . of 2. The transfer of Shr! S. S. Kantak in the Sa.nguem Muni Goa, Daman and Diu. cipal Council shall be treated as transfer on deputation. K. N. S. Nair, Under. Secretary (Home). S. Shri S. S. Kantak, Jt. Mamlatdar, Quepem shall move first and relieve 8M Kamat. Panaji, 24th October, 1985. By order and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, Daman .and Diu.
N. P. Gaunekar, Under Secretary (Personnel). Notification
Panaji, 17th October, 1985. No. 2/6/82-HD(G) Part file " • In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) General Administration and Co-ordination Division ,of section 45 T of the Reserve Bank. of India Act, 1934 . (Central Act 2 of 1934) (hereinafter referred to as the lIsaid Act"), read with the Government of India, Ministry Order of Home Affairs', Notification No. U-ll030/3/84-UTL da ted 12th June, 1985, the Admindstrator of Goa, Daman and No. PER-822/GA&C (Part) Diu hereby authorises the Pollee Officers-in-charge of Police Read: i) Order No. PER/822/SA&C dated 12-10-84. Stations in the Union terrtltory of Goa, Daman and Diu and who are not below the rank of sub-Inspector, to apply to The period of deputation of Shri U. D. Sharma, ex-Law any Court having jurisdiction to issue a search warrant Secretary to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu is extended for a further period from 1-5-1985 to 5-8-1985. under the Code of Crtminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Shr! Sh.arnia will not be entitled to draw deputation (duty) Act 2 of 1974), for issue of a warrant to search for docu allowance during this period. ments relating to acceptance of deposits in contravention of the provisions of section 45 S of the said Act, believed This issues with the approval of Government of India, to be secreted in any place within the local limits of the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide their letter No. 14016/2/84-GP(I) dated 8-10-1985. jurisdiction of such COurt.
By order and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, By order and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, Daman ,and Diu. Daman .and Diu.
N. P. Gaunekar~ Under Secretary (G. A.). K. N. 8. Nait,r~ Under Secretary (Home).
Panaji, 21st October, 1985. Panajl, 24th October, 1985. 480 SERIES II No. 31 Education Department Science, Technology and Environment Departmeni Physical ·Education Section Order
Addendum No. 3-38-85-STE No. 190/B. Bhavan/PES/DE/85/372 The Government of Goa Daman and Diu hereby consti tutes a Committee, a.s indicated below, to formulate the rules Read Govt.Order No. 190/B. Bhavan/PES/DE/85/322. dated 27-9-1985. and regulations and to recommend to the Government the names for the grant of awards to the deserving Scientists The following changes/additions have been effected in the of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu with a view above referred Govt. Order: to encouraging them for the development of Science and 1) The Finance Secretary has been nominated in place Technology: of Shrf S. K. Gandhe, Special Secretary for Planning, 1. Dr. H. N. Siddiquie, Director, National Ins~tute of Secretariat, Panaji, at Sr. No, {) 'in the above referred Oceanography, Dona Paul.a - Chairman. Govt. Order as a member by designation and Finance Secretary has been appointed as the Treasurer of the 2. Dr. J. D'Souza, Lecturer, Microbiology Department, Bpl Bhavan Board, Panaji. Post Graduate Centre, Panaji-Goa - Member. 3. Shri Kesava D,as, Scientist, National Institute of 2) The Director of Health Services has been further nominated as a member of the Bal Bhavan Board, Oceanography, Dona Paula - Member-Secretary. Panaji. in the existing vacancy. The Committee has to s~bmit its ~eport WJthin one month. By order and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, By order and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, Daman .and Diu. Daman .and Diu. L. Tochha'l.JY't'l,.g, Director of Education and Additional Secre tary to Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu (Ex-Officio). T. J. Fa'leiro;> Under Secretary (S. T. E.). panaji, 23rd October, 1985. ... Panaji, 21st October, 1985. dering the report 'made \Ulder sub-section (2) of Section 5A Revenue Department of the said Act, that the said land specified in the schedule hereto lS needed to be acquired for the public purpose speciw fled above. Notification Now, Therefore, the Government is pleased to declare No. 22/115/84-RD under the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act that the said land is required for the public purpose specified above, Whereas by Goverrunent -Notification No. 2-2/115/84-RD dated 12/6/84 published on page 242-243 of Series II, No. 2. The Government is also pleased to appoint under 12 of the Official Gazette, dated 21-6-84 it was notifieci clause (c) of Section S of the said Act, the Additional Deputy under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act" 1894 (hereinafter Collector 2~South Margao -to perform the functions of a referred to as "the said Act") that the land, specified hl the Collector for all proceedings hereinafter to be taken in res schedule .appended to the said Noti~ication (hereinafter re pect of the 'said land, and to direct him under Section 7 of ferred to as the usaid land") was likely to be needed for the the said' Act to take order for the acquisition of the said public purpose viz. L.A. for improvement of. road from Maina land, to Gaonkarwada in village Panch.ayat Kavrem ~n Quepem. S: A pian of the said land can be' inspected ,at the office And Whereas the appropriate Gqvernment (hereinafter of the said Additional Dy. Collector 2-South Margao till the, referred to as IIthe- Government") is satisfied after consi- award is made under Section 11. SCHEDULE (Description of the said land)
Taluka Village Survey No. Sub. Div. No. Names of the persons believed to he interested Area in sq. "mta
1 2 3 4 5 'j • Quepem Maina 20 2 H: Manguesh Voikunt Sinai Bende. 200.00 18 6 part :a:: Yeshwant Uttam Sinai Ambe. 25.00 18 8 part .n: Manguesh Voikunt Sinai Bende. 200.00 18 11 part R: Yeshwant Uttam Sinai Ambe. 535.00 48 1 part H: 1. Mangesh Bende. 200.00 2. Uttam Sazro Bende. 3. Gauso Uttam Sinai Bende. 48 2 part H: -Uttam Sadashiv Gaunkar. 420.00 50 1 part H: Uttam Sadashiv Gaunkar. 1400.00 51 part H: 1. Uttam Sadashiv Gaunkar. 370,00 2. Shankar Sadashiv Ga.unkar. 44 part H: 1. Uttam Sadashiv Gaunkar. 1570.00 2. Shankar Sadashiv Gaunkar. T: 1. Chandrakant Devidas. 2. Ushijuto Devidas. 3. Madi Shirjuto Devidas, Total ...... 4920.00
By order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman· and Diu. P. 8. Nadkarni;>""Under Secretary (Revenue). Panaji, 16th October, 1985.·
• ------c_'" ----:=~_c=.-:.- 31ST OCTOBER, 1985 (KARTIKA 9, 1907) 481
Notific~tion 3. If the Government is satisfied that the said land is needed for the _aforesaid purPose, a' declaration· to that effect No. 22/l37/85-RD under Section 6 of the said Act will be published . in· the Whereas it appears to the appropriate Government (here .Offici.al Gazette, in due course. If the ,acquiSition is abando inafter referred to as "the Government") that the land ned wholly or in part, the fact will be notified. specified in the schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to .as the "said land") is likely to be needed -for public purpose viz. 4. The Government is further pleased to- appoint under L.A. for construction of road Vassuwado Soriem to Wadi .clause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act the Additional Deput.y Vassuwado in V. P. Benaulim SaIcete Taluka (addl. area). Collector (2-South) Margao to perform the functions of a Collector under the said Act in respect of the· sald land. Therefore the Government is pleased to notify under sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 5. The Government is also pleased to authorise WIder sUb~ (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") that the said -section· (2) of Section 4 of the said Act, the following land is likely to be needed for the purpose specified above. officers to do the acts, speCified therein in respect of the 2. All persons interested in the said land are hereby said land. warned not to obstruct or interfere with any surveyor or 1. The Collector of Goa, Panaji. other persons employed upon the said land for the purpose of the said acquisition. Any contracts for the disposal of 2. The Additional Dy. Collector (2-South) Margao. the said land by sale, ,mortgage, assignment, exchange or 3. Th~ Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R&D) otherwise, or any outlay commenced or improvementS made P.W.D. Fatorda Margao. thereon without the sanction of the Collector .a.ppojnted in 4. The Director of Land Survey, Panaji. paragraph 4 below, after the date of the publication of this Notificati,on, will under claUse (seventh) of Section 24 of 6. A rough plan of the said land is available for inspection the said Act, be disregarded- by him while assessing compen~ in the office of the Additional Dy. Collector (2-South) sation for such parts of the said land as may be finally Margao for a period of 30 days from the date of publication acquired. of this Notification in the Official G.a:zette. SCHEDULE (Description of the s~id land)
SUb-Dh'. Approximate -Talukll Vll~age Suryey No. No. Names. of the persons believed to be interc.sled area iu sq. mt!'.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Saleete Benaulim 383 2 Luis Alberto Fernandes & Francisco Antonio. Pinto. 10.00 North: Luis Albert Fernandes & Francisco An~ tonio Pinto. South: Fabrica de Igreza de BenauUm. East: Gurudas Shankar Kenkre. West: Luis Albert Fernandes & Francisco Antonio Pinto. 5 Fabrica de Igreja de Benaulim. 135.00 North: Luis Albert Fernandes & Francisco Antonio Pinto. South: Filomena Lourenco Castelino. East: Sebastilao Gragorio Luis. West: Fabrica de Igreja de Benaulim. 6 Sebastiao Gregorio Luis. ·80.00 North: Gurudas Shanka.r Kenkre. South: Ricardina -Fernandes. East: Sebastiao Gregario Luis. West: Fabr:ica da Igreja de BenauliIn. 9 Ricardina Fernandes. 160.00 North: Sebastiao Gregario Luis. South: Road. East: Ricardina Fernandes. West: Filomena Lourenco Castelino & F.ahrica da Igreja de Benaul1m. '" 11 Filomena Lourenco Castelino. 30.00 North: Fabrica da Igreja de Benaulim. South: Road. East: Ricardina Fernandes. West: F.i1omena Lourenco· Gastelino: Total ...... 415,00
By order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu. P. S. Nadkarni, Under Secretary '(Revenue).
Panaji~ 16th October, 1985.
Notification Therefore the Government is pleased to notify under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, No. 22/159/85-RD 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ICsaid Act") that the Whereas it appears to the Appropriate Government (here said land is likely to be needed for the purpose specified inafter referred to as "the Government") that the land spe above. cified in the schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the 2. All persons interested in the said land are hereby warned "said land") is likely to be needed for public purpose viz. not to obstruct or interfere- with any surveyor or other Land Acqutsition for widening of two lanes from' Km. 21 to persons employed upon the said land for the purpose of 27 of N· H. 17 (part-I). the said acquisition. Any contracts for the' disposal of the 48:2 SERIES 11 No. 31 said land by sale, mortgage, assignment, exchange or functions of a Collector illlder the said Act in respect of 'Otherwise or any 'Outlay' commenced or improvements made the said land. thereon without the sanction of the Collector appointed in 5. The Government is also pleased . to authorise under paragraph 4 below, after the 'date of the publication of this sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act, the following Notification, will under clause (seventh) of Section 24 of Officers t~ do the acts, specified therein in respect of the the said Act, be disregarded by him while assessing compen said land. sation for such parts of the said land as may !be finally 1. The. Collector of Goa, Panaji. acquired. 2. The Additional Dy. Collector (3-North) Collectorate, 3. If the Government is satisfied that the said land is. Panaji. needed for the aforesaid purpose, a q.eclaration to that effect 3· The Executive Engineer, Works Division XIll, Natio: under Section 6 of the said Act will be published in the nal Highways North Goa P. W. S. Panaji. Official Gazette iIi due course. If the acquisition is abandoned 4. The Director of Land Survey, Panaji. wholly or in part, the fact will be notified.' 6. A rough plan of the said land is available for inspection 4. The Government is further pleased to appoint under 1n the office of the Additional Dy. Collector (3-North} Collec clause (c) of Section 3 of- the said Act the Additionn 1 torate, Panaji for ,a period of 30 days from the· date of Dy. Collector (3-North) Collectorate, Panaji to perform the publication of this Notification in the Offichil Gazette.
SCHEDULE ·(Description of the said land)
Taluka Village Survey No. Sub. Div. No. Names of the persons believed to be interested Approximate area in sq. mts.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pernem Dhargal 259 1 paxt Ghausham Vithal P. Dessai. 525.00 Baburao Narayan p, Des:sai. Gang;aji Pandurang p. Dessai, Raghunath Pangaji P. Dessai. Shiv,aji Govind Dessai Parsekar, Govind Balkrishna P. Dessai. V.aman Vishnu p. Dessai. PurUshottam Fondu P. Dessai, Government of Goa, 1 part Rukm:ini Ladkoba P. Dessai. 275.00 Uttam Ramchandra R· Dessai. Jaiv.anti Ganpat Mathakar. Kashibai Pandprang P. Dessai. Ghauasham Yeshwant P. Dessai. Raghunath Keshav p. Dessai. Mahadeo Ghansham P. Dessai. Rauji Tukararn p, DessaL Jairam B.alkrishna P. Dessai. Uttam Gopal P. Dessai. 223 2 part Raghunath Keshav p. D:essai. 2950.00 Mahadeo Ghausham P. Dessai. Rauji Tukar.arn p. Dessai. Bhalkrishna Gopal P. Dessai. Shivram ·Balkrishna P. Dessai, Kashibai P.andurang P. Dessai. Ghausham Yeshwant P. Dessai, Jaivantibai Ganpat Mathakar. Uttam Ramchandra P. Dessai. " Rukmini Ladkoba P. Dessa:i. Madusudan Nilkanth P. Dessai, Baburao Nara,.yan p. Dessai. GoVind Shivram P. Dess.Ri. Atmaram Shtvram P. Dessai. GhanalSham Vittal P. Dessai, Laxman N.arayan P. Dessai. Gangaji Pandurang.. P. Dessai, Raghunath Gangaji p. Dessai. Shivaji Govind P .. Des·sai. Varnan Vishnu P. Dessai. Govind Balkrishna P. Dessai. Balkrishna Ladkoba P. Dessai. Govermnent of Goa. 223 3 part Raghunath Keshav P. Dessai.. 190.00 Mahadeo Ghausham P. Dessaii, Rauji Tukaram P. Dessai, Jairam. Balkrishna p. Dessai. Balchandra Gop.al P. Dessai. Gangaji Pandurang P. Dessai. Ghanasham Yeswant P. Dess.ai. Uttam Ramchandra P. Dessai, Rukrnini Ladkoba P. Dessai. Rajendl'a Vasudeo D~hprabhu. Balkrislma Dattaji Khadpe. Kashibai Pandurang P. Dessai. Jaivanto G.anpat Mathakar.. Dattibai Kastira Dhargalkar, Jaganath Harlji Kolwalkax. 31ST OCTOBER, 1985 (KARTIKA 9, 1907) 483
1 2 8 4 i 6
Pernem Dhargal. 224 .3 p.art Raghunath Keshav P. Dessai. 1550.00 Mahadeo Ghanasham P. DessaL Rauji Tukaram P. Dessai. Balcharidra Gopal P. Dessai. Jairarn Balkrishna p. Dessai. Kashibai Pandurang P. DeSSai. Ghanasham Yeshwant P. DessaL Jaivantibai Ganpat Mthankar. Uttam Ramchandra P. Dessai. Rukmini Ladkoba P. Dessai. Madhusudan Nilk.ant P. Dessai. .Govind Shivram Dessai. . Atmaram Shivram P. Dessai Ghanasham ViithaJ. P. Dessai. Government of Goa. Baburao Narayan P. Dessai..: Laxman N.arayan P. Dessai. Raghunath Gaugaji P. Dess,ai: Shivaji Govind Dessai. Vaman Vishnu P. Dessai. Govind Balkrishna P. Dessai. Balkrishna Ladkoba Dessai. 224 4 part Edu~ation Department of Goa, Daman and Diu. 250.00 224 6 part Raghunath Keshav p. Dessai. 75.00 Mahadeo Ghanasham P. Dessai. Rauji ,Taukaram P. Dessai. Balchandra Gop.al P. Dessai. Jairam Balkrishna p. Dessai. Kashibai Pandurang P. Dessai. Ghanesham Yeshwant P. Dessai. Jaivantibai Ganpat Mathakar. Uttam Ramchandra P. Dessai. Rukini Ladkoba P. Dess.ai. Madusudan Nilkanth P. Dessai. Govind Shivram P. Dess,ai. Abnaram Shivram P. Dessai. "Gbanasham Vithal P. Dessai. Baburao Narayan p. Dessai. Laxman N.arayan" P. Dessai. Raghunath Gangaji P. Dessai. Gangaji Pandurang P. Dessai. Shivaji Govind Dessai Parsekar. Govenunent of Goa. Vaman Vishnu P. Dessa.i. Govind Balkrishna P. Dessai. BaJkrishna Ladkoba P. Dessai. 224 7 part Raghunath Keshav p. Dessai. 50.00 Mahadeo Ghansham P. DessaL Rauji Tukar.a.m P. Dessaii. Bhalchandra Gopal P. Dessai. J airam Balkrishna. P. Dessai. Kashibai Pandurang P. Dessai. Ghanasham Yeshwant P. Dessai. Jaiyan:tibai Ganpat Mathakat. Uttam Ramchandra P. Dessai. Rukm:ipi Ladkoba P. Dessa!. MadhuSudan Nilkanth P._ Dessai." Govind Shivrarn ~. Dessai. " Atmaram Shivram P. Dessai, Ghansham Vithal.P. Dessai. Baburao Narayan P. Dessaij, Laxm.an Narayan P. Dessai. Raghunath Gangaji p. Dessai, Shivaji Govind Dessai. Goverrunent of Goa. V.aman Vishnu P. Dessai. GoviIid Balkrishna P. Dessai. Balkrishna Ladkoba P. Dessai. 227 14 part Raghunath Keshao P. Dessaii. 125.00 Mahadeo Ghansham P. Dessai. Ruji Tukaram P. Dessai. Balchandra Gopal P. Dessai. Jairam Balkrishna P. Dessai. Kashibai Pandurang P. DeSsai. Ghasham Yeshwant P. Dessaii. J.aivantiba. Ganpat Mathakar.. Uttam Ramchandra P. Dessai. Rukmini Ladkoba P. Dessai. Madhusudan Nilk.ant P. Dessai. Govind Shiram. P.· Dessai. Atmaram Shiram P. Dess.ai. Ghanasham Yeshwant P. Dessai. Baburao Narayan P. "Dessa!. Laxman Narayan P. Dessai. Raghunath Gangaji P.. Dessai. Gangaji Pandurang P. Dessa!. Shivajl Govind P. Dessal. 484 SERIES II No. 31
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pernem Dhargal 227 14 part Govind BalkrJ.shna P. Dessai. vamari Vishnu P. Dessai. Ba.1krishna. Ladkoba P. Dessai. Goverrunent of Goa. 13. part Madhtisusan .Nilkant P. Dessai. 375.00 .119 4 part Madan -Daji Naik. 155.00 119 3 part M,a.darl' Daji Naik. 30.00 Narayan YesO Vaskar. Rajendra Vasudeo Deshprabhu. 119 .2 part Sham.sWldar Vassudeo B,andodkar. 320.00 Madan Daji Nalk. 6 part Narayan Masso Vask.ar. 25.00 5 part Rajendra Deshprabhu. 700.00 200 1 part Radhabai Namdeo K,aloji. 450.00 211 1 part Raghunath P. Dessai. 350.00 Mahadeo Ghansham P. Dess.ai. Rauji· 'rukaram P. Dessai. J airam Balkrisllna, & nessii. Bhalchandra "Gopal P. Dessai. Gangaji Pandur.ang P. Dessai. Rashunath Gangaji P. Dessai. Kakibai Pandurang P. Dess,aj. Rajendra Vassudeo D. Prabhu. Balkrishna Dattaji Khadpe. Ghanasham Yeshwant P. Dessai. Uttam Ramchandra P. Dessal. Rukmini Ladkoba P. Dessai. Jaivanti Yeshwant Mathakar. Dattibai Kashula Dhargalkar. Jaganath Hiraji Kolwalkar. Krishna Murari Kolwalkar. Govind . Jaideo Khalap. LaJclmidar Balkhishna Khalap. Balchandra Sad,ashiv Khalap. 2 part RaghWlath Keshav P. Dessai. 110.00 3 part -do~ 90.00 4 part -do- 90.00 5 part -'do- 80.00 6 part -do---'- 200.00 7 part Owner (as per Sr. No. 211/1). 200.00 8 part -do- 150.00 9 part -do":""'" 175.00 10 part -do- 175.00 11 part -do- 175.00 12 part -do- 165.00 13 part -do- 300.00 14 part Anant Shankar Dhargalkar. 200.00 Wishwananth Ganesh S. Dhargalkar. Jaivant Ram.a Khalap. Krishna Raffia Khalap. 210 1 part Rajendra Vassudeo D. Prabhu. 3500.00 2 part Vlthal Pursbottam Dangui. 950.00 " 209 12 part Madhukar. Krishnaji Shenai. 170.00 11 part VJ.thal Purshottam Dangui. 2175.00 Anant Shankar S. Dhargalkar. Vishwananth Ganesh S. Dhargalkar. 204 1 part Gopal Ramchandra P. Dessai. 1200.00 Baburao Gopal Dhargalkar. Appa. Babaji Dhargalk,ar. Pernem' Shargal 202 20 part Vishwanath Ganesh S. Dhai'galkar. 300.00 Anant Shankar ·S. Dhargalkar. Krishna RaIna. Khalap. Radendra Vassudeo D. Prabhu. Raghuraj V.assudeo D. Prabhu. 19 part savitri Vishwanath Dangui. 900.00 Vithal Purshottam Dangui. Chandrakant IUtri Yeshi. 203 23 part Rajendra Vassudeo Deshprabhu. 1150.00 160 3 part Gopal Ramchandra Prabhu Dessai. 1250.00 Bablo Gopal Dhargalkar. Appa. Bab.ai Dhaxgalkar. Total ...... 22100.00
By order and in the name o{ the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman and ·Diu. P. S. Nadk.urni.. Under Secretary (Revenue). Panaji, 17th October, 1935. 31ST OCTOBER, 1985 (l(A.RTIKA 9, ;901') 485
NotHication 3. If the Government is satisfied tliat the said land is needed for the aforesaid pur.po.se, a declaration to that effect No. 22/131/85-RD under Sectio~ 6 of ~e' said .A.ct will be published in the Official Gazette, in due course. If the acquisition is ab,andoned Whereas it appears to the Appropriate Government (herew wholly or in part, the fact will be notified...... ':'. inafter referred to as "the Government") that the land . specified in - the schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as 4. The Government is further pleased ,to ·a.ppoint und~.r the "said lan,d") is likely to be needed for public purpose viz. clause (c) of Section- 3 of the said 'Act the Additional'Dy; L. A. for construction of road from Velsao to. Dando in V. -Po Collector" (2-South) Margao to .perform the fWlctiona ,'of .a Ve18ao (Addl. area) .. Collector under the said "Act in respect of the said la:.nd~ . Therefore the Government is pleased to notify -under sub 5. The Government is also pleased to authorise 1,ltlder ~l1b -sectio~ (1) of Section 4 of the, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -secti~n, '(2) of Section., (4) of the said, ~ct, the' folloWing .(hereinafter: referred to as the "said Act") that the said land officers to do ·the acts, specified thereiri in respect· of.·the is likely to be needed for the purpose specified abov.e. said land . 2. All persons interested in the said land 'are hereby warned . 1. The Collector of GQa, Panaji. not to- obstruct or interfere with any surveyor or ... other 2. The ·Additional Dy.. Collector '(2-:-Sotit;h) ~~rg~ ..' persons employed upon the -srud 'land -for the p~rpose of the said acquisition. Any contracts for the di$posal of the said 3. The Executive Engineer, Works 'Division VI: (~B) Hind by sale, mortgage, asSignmeht, exchange or otherwise, or P. W. D. Fatorda Margao. _any outlay commenced or improvements made thereon without 4. The Direct~r of ~nd Survey, ~anaji. the. sanction of the Collector appointetl in paragraph 4 below, . after.' the: date of the' publication of, this Notif~cation, .will 6. A ~ough pla:n of the said land is available ~~r- insPkctiJ~ under ·.cl!luse '(seventh) of Section 24 of·· the said Act, be in the office of the Addltional Dy. Collector (2-SoilthrM'atgao ·-disregarded by him. while assessing compensation for such for a period of 30 days from the date .of publication o.·f ~this .parts of the said land as may be finally acquired. Notification in the Official Gazette. '. ,-.
SCHEDULE '(Description of the said land)
ApprOximate Taluka Village Survey No. Sub, Di,,_ No. Xames or the persoils. believed to be interested area in sq.- mt$.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Marmus-ao Pale 10 Government' of Goal Daman &' Diu as per D. C. 60.00 No. 32. North: Teotonio Britto Carvalho. 'South: Antonio Dias Barreto. mast: Govt. of Goal Daman & t;>iu as per D. C. No; 32 .. West: Fabrica de Igreja de Velsao.
8 18 Govt. of Goa, Daman & Diu as per D. C. N·o. 49. 130.00 North: Maria .Isemnia dos Merces Perefra. South: Victor Carvalho. East: Govt. of Goa, Daman & Diu as per D. C. No. 49. West: -do-
8 17 Maria Ismen:ia dos: Merces 'Pereira. 135.00 North: Lucio D'Souza. South: Govt. of Goa, Daman & Diul as per D. C. No. 49. ., East: Maria Ismenia dos Merces Pereira. W~st: Maria Ismenia dos Merces Pereira.
8 2 .0limpio Vaz Barreto. 5.00 North: .Maria Ismenia dos Merces Pereira. South: Victor Carvalho. East: Olimpio Vaz Barreto. West: Govt. of Goa,. Danian & Diu as per D. C. No. 49.
12 2 FlOrinda Carvalho & Rita MaIilana Antanazia 400.00 D'Souza. . Nor1:.l).: Estevao Pereira. .SoUth: Tito Jeroneo Britto -& Jose Carlos: Britto. East: Florindo Carvalho &. Rita Mariana Antoni2ila D'Souza. West:, -do-
Total ...... 780.00
By order and in the name of the ~t. Gove:rnor of Go.al Daman and DiU.
P. ,8. 'NadkaTni~ Under Secretary (Revenue). Panaji. 16th October. 1985. 486 SER1ESll No. 31
Notification 3. If the Government- is satJsfied that the said land "is, needed for the aforesaid purpose, a declaration to that effect No. 22/143/85-RD under Section 6 of the -Said Act wHl be published in the Official Gazette, in due course. If the acquisition is abandoned wholly Whereas it appears to the Appropriate Government' (here 01" in part, the fact will be notified. in.afte.r referred to as "the - Government") that the land .specified in the schedule hereto. (hereinafter referred to. 3.;S 4. %e Government is further pleased to appoint' under the "said land") is llitely- to be needed fDr public purpose viz. . clause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act the Additional Dy.. Land Acquisition fer construction ,cf Modern Jail Complex Collector (H. Q. II) eollectorate, Panaji to perform the' func:. at COlvale. tions of a Collector under the said Act in respect of the -said land. -'l'1ie~ore the Government is pleased ,to. notify tulder sub~ -sectiOn (1) of Sention 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act, 1894 5. The Government is also pleased to authorise under sub~ (hereinafter referred to. as the "said Act") that the said land -section (2) <>f Section (4) of the said Act, the following is likely to. be needed for the purpose specified above. officers to do the acts, specified therein in respect of the said land. 2. All persons interested in the said land are hereby warned 1. The Collector of Goa, Panaji. not to.obstruct Dr interfere with, any, surveyor Dr ether persons emp~oyed., upon' the said land for the purpose of the said 2. The Additional Dy. Collector (H. Q. II) Collectorate,. acq~tion. Any contracts for the, disposal of the said land Panaji. by sale, mortgage, assignment;--exchange Dr otherwise, Dr any 3. The Inspector G€lneral of Prisons, CoUectorate, Panajt . outlay commenc~ or improvements made thereon without 4. The, Director of Land Survey, Panaji. the sanction of the Collector apPointed in paragraph 4 below, afte~ the'date of the publiCation of this Notification, will under 6.A rough plan of the ·said land lB aVailable ·£or inspection, clause;'-(seventh) _of Section. 24 .of the said_Act,.be disregarded in the office of the Additional Dy. Collector (H; Q. II) Collee by,htm::wrule assessing compensation for sUch parts of-_ the torate, Panaji for a period of 30 days' from the date of' .said land as may be finally acquired. publication of this Notification in the Official Ga?et~e . SCHEDULE (Description of the said land)
Taluka Village Survey No. Sub. Diy. No. Nam€!s of the pansons believed to be interested , Approximate _area ill sq. mts. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bardez Camurlim 107 1 Lawachandra Dattaram Govandalkar. 2300.00 T: Thako Gangu Varang. 2 Lawachandra Dattaram Govandalkar. 3475.00 T: Sitaram Rama Naik. 3 Lawachandra Dattaram Govatttdalkar. 2050.00 T: Dattaram Ganha ·Nail<. Lawachandra Dattaram Govandalkar. 23oo.0() T: Thako Ganu V<,U'ang. Lawachand.ra Dattaram Govandalkar. 5600.00 T:. Sadassiv Morajkar alias Kannalk. 6 Lawachl)lldra Dattaram Govam.dalkar~ 4075.00 7 -do 6725.00 104 o Comunidade. 93715;00 T: 1. Poput Shiva Naik GaoJ1kar. 2. Gangaram ~orto Goltekar. 103 o Comunidade. 107075.00· T: 1_ Tukaram s. Nail<. 2. Hari Shankar Naik. 3. Paris Nagoji Naik. 4. Namdeo KrIshna Naik. 5. Pandallk Shiva N alk. 6. Gangaram M. Goltekar. ., 109 o Victor Lobo. 22600.O
• 3 4 5 Bardez Camurllm . 114 .0 Comunidade. '- ~, .. 143.7.5.00 T: Gangaram Mor.to Goltekaor• . North: S. No. 105, S. No. 94, S. No. 95, S. No. 98, S. NO. 99, S. No. 100, S. No. 102, S .. No. 101 ..'. y)',~' ,,,.', i .. _~:, South: S. No. 112, S. No. 111/1 to 7, S. No. 114, Road. East: Village Poundary of Colvale. West S. No. 1Q5, Road. Bardez: Colvale 175 l' ·0:- Comunidade of, Colvale. 700.00 -T: Preniavati Shab! Naik. 2 0·:·' Comunidade of Colvale. 575.00 T: Yeshwant Satardekar. 3. 0: Comunidade of- Colvale. 675.00 T:· Han -Keshav Naik. 4 0: Comunidade of,· Colvale. 650.00 T: Prabhakar Krishna Naik. 5 0;· Comunidade of-· Colvale. 700.W T:' Shivram VithaLNaik; 6 0: Comunidade of: Colvale. 750.00 T:· Narayan Krislina Naik. 7' 0: ComimidaUe of .Colvale. 650.00 T: Sakharam Deu:-Naik. S 0:, Comtinidade of. Colvale. 775.00 ·'.T: Sakharam Bhudaji Kaskar. 9 0: Comunidade of-. Colvale. 775.00 - ; : T: Ladu Gunaji Parcenkar. 10 : 0: Comunidade of;,Colvale. 650.00 T: ShaI'ad Rama Naik. 11 Ol Comunidade oFColvale. 825.00 T:- Ganpat Krishna Naik. 12 Oi' Comunidade o~,;colvale. 8W.00 T: Narayan Rama Saptoji. North: S. No.Ii,.~278. South: S. No. 162, S. No. 161. East: Road. " . West: Village ;("boundary of camurlim village. 1:1 ,,'0":' Comunidade o1i~'Colvale. 800.00 .S T: Popat LaxInan "}§aptoji. 14 0: Comunidade of Colvale.· 1100.00 ":''T: Bhati Shamji Naik. 1 0: Comunidade of Colvale. ,1 ,,'J. 975.00 T: . Gunaji Sakbaram Padte. :f:Y.t 2 0: Comunidade of--Colvale. 900.00 ,'T: Pandurang Revodkar. 3 0:- Comimidade of Colvale. gV-t 775.00 T:- Annapurna Gopal SaIgaukar. 4 0: Comunidade of Colvale. 425.00 T: Sakharam Tanulo Revadkar. 5 0: Comunidade of Colvale. 375.00 .T: Premavatj Datta-·Parce~.',-,· :!: . ~.' .:."; .:: ... ' 6 0: cOmunictade of Colvale.· T: Demu Saulo Naik:'~' ",:--:; ",. ,:-:"-.. ;-_:,'::: ::.'().,;' ,." }7.9:OQ, 7 0: Comuni T ;.' Ladu .G:unq.ji, I:'arGenkar: ..' ~ ,c' 116 1 0: Comuri.!da,de of ~lv¥e~.< C- .. ':i~5.00. T: GurudaS Sakharain Poke~ 2 0: Coniunidade -of Colvhle;"-' ', ' T:, Pandurang Asolkaz,',' , .., 3. 0: Comuwdade of CON'ale;', :. 'v .. T; Annapurna Gopal Salgaokar. 4 0·:· Comunidade of Colvale. T: Sakhararri 'Tanuio 'Revactkar'.: ". '. ,. ,')' 100.00 " .,;," .;-, . 5 0: CorhUnidade of ,Colvale.' T: Premavati - Datta PareeDkar: ': ,:' 125.00. . 6 0: Comunidade"of Co-lvaJ.~:~_'.. ,' , 'J ,j,:' "" . "T:·. Dhondu Saulo Naik. .,- 125.q~. '( 0: Comunidade of Col-vale. T: Sudlian,'Rama- Nai~.-" ;.'''.: 125.00' 8 0: Coriil.l.iU¢\de of Colvale.,~,." c); ..'- (;~:' : <:1':,; T: Ganpa;t'jCrishI).a Niult. :~~ ---" '.J ' "';-~ H5,OO:' .9 0: ComUhida. ~- SERIES 11 No. 31. 1 3 4 5 6 Bardez NachinoIa 176 16 0: Lavina Mascarenha.. ' , 450.0:), 17 0: 1. Subhadra Arjun Mandrekar. 2. Lavina Mascarenha. 3. Joao Francisco Lima. Bardez .Colvale 174 1 0: Subhadra Arjun Mandrekar. 635.00 2 0: Lavina Mascarenha. 925.00 3 0: Joao Francisco Lima, 125.00 4 0: Subhadra Arjun Mandrekar. 100.00 5 0: Lavina Mascarenha. 175.00 6 0: Joao Francisco' Lima. 1400.00 7 0: Subhadra Arjun Mandrekar.-' 775.00 8 0: Lavina Mascarenha. 425.00 9 0: Joao Francisco "Llma. 250.00 10 0: Subhadra Arjun Mandrekalr. 250.00 11 0: Lavina Mascarenha. 225.00 12 0: JOM Francisco Lima. 1.75.00 '13 (): Subhadra Arjun Mandrekar. 625.00 14 0: Lavina Mascarenha. 135.00 15 0:· 30ao Francisco Lima. 150.00 16 0: Su'bhadra Arjun Mandrekar. 200.00 17 0: Lavina Mascarenha. 600.00 18 0: Joao Francisco Lima. 575.00 19 0: Fran.cisco Lima. 500.00 20 0: Lavina Mashcal'enha. 475;00 21 0: Joao Franci'Sco Lima. 500.00 22 0: Subhatlra Arjun Mandrekar. 500.00 23 0: Lavina Mascarenha. 450.00 24 0: '.1oao Francisco ~tma. 400.00 25 0: Subhadra Arjun Mandrekar. 375.00 26 0: Lavina Mashcarenha. 4oo.(}O 27 0: Joao Francisco Lima. 1200.00 28 0: Subhadra Arjun Mandrekar. 125.00 29 0: Lavina Mashcarenha. 275.0v 30 0: ,Joao Francisco Lima. 250.00 31 0: S\lbhadra Arjun Mandrekair. 235.00 32 0: Lavina Mashcarenha. 200.00 33 0: Joao Francisco Lima. 500.00 34 0: Lavina Mashcarenha. 775.0'0 35 0: 1. Subhadra ArJun Mandrekar; 100.00 2. Lavina Mashcarenha. 3.- Joao Francisco Lima. 171 0: Comunldade of Colvale. 95700.00 T: Ladu Gunaji 'Parcenkar. 172 0: COmunidade of Colvale. 4350.00 T: Sukhajl Mahadev Dhargalkar. 173 0: Comunidade' of Colvale. 2625.00 T: Sukhajl Mahadev Dhargalkar. Total 524525.00 By order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu, P.· S.N_ml, Under Secretary (Revenue). Panajl, 11th October, 1985. ,N6tificotion 3. If the Government Is satisfied that the said land Is needed for the aforesaid purpose, a declaration _to that effect Wlder No. 22/136/85-RD Section 6 of the said Act will be published In the Official Gazette, in due course. If the acquisition is abandoned wholly Whereas it appears to the Appropriate GOvernment (here~ or in part, the fact will be -notified. inafter referred to as "the Government") that the land specified in the schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as 4. The Government is further 'Pleased to appoint under" the "said land") is likely to be needed for public purp-ose viz. clause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act the Additional Dy. L. A. for widening of road from Nachiriola Water Tank to Collector (3-North) Collectorate, Panaji to perfonn the Aldona Main road. . fWlctions of a Collector under the said Act in respect of the said land. Therefore -the c;;overnment is pleased to notify under s,ub -section '( 1) of Section 4 of the Land .t\.cquisition Act, 1894 5. The Government is also pleased to authorise under sub ~section (2) of Section (4) of" the said Act, the folloWing (herei.Ilafter referred to -as the "said Act") that ,the said land officers to do the acts, specified therein in respect of- the Is likely to be needed for the purpose specified above. said land. 2. All persons interested in the said land are hereby warned 1. The Colleetor of Goa, Panajl. not to obstruct or interfere with any surveyor or other 2. The Additional Dy. Collector (3-North) Collectorate. persons employed upon the said land for the purpose Panajl. of the said acquisition. Any contracts for the disposal of the 3. The Executive Engineer, Works Division II (R&B) said lan~ _by _sale, mortgage, assignment, eXchange or other~ P.W.D. Panaji. wise, or any outlay commenced or improvements made thereon without ~e sanction of the Collector appointed in paragraph 4. The Director of Land Survey, PanajL 4 below, after the date of the publication of this Notification, 6. A rougit plan of the said land is av8.nable for inspec: win under· claUse (seventh) of Section 24 of the said Act, be tlon In the ofnce·of the AdditionaJ Dy. Collector (3-North) disregarded by him while assessing Compensation for such Collectorate, Panaji for a periQd "of 30 days from the date parts of the said land as may be finaJly acquired. of publication: of this Notification in -the Official Gazette. 31ST OCTOBER, 1985 (KARTIK.49, 1907) ---:---- SCHEDULE (Description of the said land) Sub~DiV. Approximat.e 'l'aluka VlIlage Sun·e).· No. . No. Names of ih~ porsons -believed to be interested area in sq. mts. 1 2 3 4 • Bardez Nachinola 77 5 part Pedro Vincent D'Souza. 20,00 2 part Teodolinda Lobo. 175,00 3 part Bernadina D'Meilo. 100,00 4 part Luiza Cruz. 200,00 78 5 part Luiza Cruz. 20,00 6 part Remedios Santana D'Mello. 150.00 7 part Claudia A, Piedade D'Souza. 120,00 8 part Evita D'Souza. 55,00 9 part 1. Tereza Gomes. 20,00 . ,'2. Maria C. Correia. 3. EvIl';' D'Souza. 81 ' 1 pax! 0: Bernadin D'Melio. 210·00 T: Shankar Maujnkar. 2 part 0: Santa M. C. 170,00 T: Harichandra' p, Nail<, 5' part 0: Dr. Silvei,r Mario D'Souza. 30,00 1 1 part 0: Church Property St. B, Jesus, 355.00 2 part Comuni 1 ,> 3 4' 5 6 Bardez Nachinola 31 7 part PundaUk V. Dhond. 150.00 6 part Fidalis P. D!Souza. 60.00 5 part Felix C. P. D'SoUza. 75.00 4 part Felix C. D'Souza. 50.00 3 part Eslinda' 8aldanha. 215.00 2 pq.rt Anuclasao Hapoz. 25.00 North: S. No. 7,]/5,- 2, 3, 4, road, S. No. 1/3, 4, 15; 16, 17,- 18,. 19-, 20, 21, 22, 23, 8, 24, 9, 10, 11, S. No. 2/8. South: Road, S, N~ 78/5" 6, 7, 8, 9, S. No. Sl/1, 2, -5, S~ No. 1/1, 2, 7, S. No. 64/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ~, !). 10, 11, S. No. 63/1, 2, 3. East: S. No. 77/4, 5, S. No. 78/9, Road, Nala, S. No. 1/3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, S. No. 64/8, S. No. 32/2, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, ,1, S. No: 31/12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5,4, 3, 2, S. No. 15/14, 12 13, 6, 10, 9, 8, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. West: Road, Nala, S. No. 1/2, 7, S. No. 64/i, 2, 3, 4, S. No. ·1(20, S. No. 2/5, 4, 3, 2. Total 7125.00 -~y order and in the name of -th~ Lt. Governor of Goa, pa;nan and Diu. 1'-; .. .s.. Nculkarni, Under Secretary (Revenue)". 'l'ailaji, 16th October, 1985. ••• Public Heaith Deoartment Industries and labour Department Order Order No. 5/140/80-PHD-Vol. I No. 28/25/85-ILD On the recommendation of the Union PubUC:- service A, by Goa, CommissLon, Dr. ManjWlath Kamath M. is :hereby appointed The following ward given the Industrial Tribuhal, Daman and Diu is hereby published as required under the to the post of Medical Officer/Rural Medical Officer/Junior provisions of Sectlon 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 School Health Officer in the Directorate of Health, Services (Centra! Act XIV of 1947). and pOsted as Junior School Health Officer' at Pr:imary Health Centre, Valpoi against the vacant post on regular By order' and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, basis and on the terms and conditions cOlltained ilJ. the Daman- and· Diu. . Governnient Memorandum of even numbe~ Q.ated. 8.~3-85. Dr. Kamath should report to .his place .of, posttng inunedia- Subhash V. ElekarJ · Under Secr~tary (Industries and· La tely.· . bour}. Dr. M1ilnjW1ath Kamath ~s medi.cally examined ~d found Panaji, 3rd October, 1985. fit by the MemCal Board. . By order and in the· name of the Administrator of Goa, Daman .and Diu.' .'. . ' S. V. Bhadri, Under Secretary (Health). IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GOA, DAl\lAN AND DIU, PANAJI GOA panaji, 17th October, 1985. (1;lefo Corrigendum Reference No.: IT/41/85 No. 5/140/8o-PHD-VoI. I Wcrkmen, rep. by The President Goa Read: Government order No. 5/140/80-PHD-VOI. I da Trade and Commercial Workers' Union - Party I ted 4-7-83. Vis. In the.. above referred Government order, the date appear Mis. Bandekar Alloy Steel ~vt. Ltd; - Party II ing in the 5th line may be read.as 24-1-83 insteaq of "Janua ry 1983".· Pana.ji. Dated: 25-9-1985 By order and in the name of the AcIrUinistrator of Goa, REPORT Daman .and Diu. The Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, by its order S. V. B/uulri, Under Secretary (Health). No. 28/25/85-ILD dated August 6, i985, has r.eferred for the Panaji, 24th October, 1985. adjudication by this Tribunal of an industrial dispute between the above. parties. The. schedule annexed to the order of reference reads· as follows: Corrigendum "1. Whether the demand of Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Uillon for 4 pay scales with 4 different· No. 3-13/5/85-PW & UD· .. grades of the workmen employed at Mis. Bandekar Read: - Govt. order No. 3-13/5/85-PW & UDdated Alloy Steel Private Limited, Vasco' da Gama, Goa 10-10-85. factory as served by the Union under their Charter of demands dated 15-6-84 is justified? . In Govt. order read above,'. the designation of Spri A. Barbosa may be substituted as Mamlatdar. Quepem instead 2. If not, to what revision of wages the said workmen of Blo 2. Both the parties were duly served with notice to file instatement With full back wages, since the month of April their statements. On the date fixed, none of them remained 1975 with continuity of services and all other benefits present nor did they file their statement of claim and written attached to his employment. statement. 3. The employer/party II, iri their wr.itten statement, ha.... e 3. In, the absence of the parties and their written state stated that the workman never worked as an incharge t.o ments, -I am unable to proceed with this reference and, hence" spare parts and motor garage at Na,velim. He was working this report to the GQvernment with a request to treat this as an ordinary Salesman, and left the job on his 'own for reference as disposed off. going abroad _and again after some, months he returned begging for serWces. _He was taken as a fresh recruit. So, D1". genato' de Noronha his contention that he _was in service from October 1967 to 1975 is inconect. The workman was very irregular in his Presiding Officer attendance and not doing' his duties. He was .all the while Industrial Tribunal busy in his own private, wor~ other than his official worl\.. Due to the negligence of the workman in doing_· his -duties properly, tremendous loss was_ caused to the employer. The Order wages of the workman were paid and his contention that he was forced to quit senrices is incorrect. He was appointed No. 28/4/85-ILD on temporary basis and not as a permanent employee. He was always telling the employer that he wants to go abroad . The following Award _given by the Industrial Tribunal, and not interested in the job. He "was also very irregular in Goa, Daman and Diu is hereby published as- required under attending hris duties. Sometimes, for daYs together, he was the proVisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, not cOming to office without infonning the employer. He 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947). had some private business of his own and so he had no. time to do the work of the employer. The workman had By order and in the name of the Administrator of Goa, expressed h~s desire to resign but was not giving his resig Daman and Diu. nation in writing. The employer still kept him but, ulti~ mately, it was found that the- workman was not at all inte~ S. V. Bhadri) Under S~etary (Industr'ies and Labour). rested in the job. The employer has not removed the work_ man but the workman of his 'own wanted to_1eave the job. Panaji, 7th October, 1985. It is, denied that the services were illegally terminated. The question of reinstatement does not .arise as the workman himself "was not interested tin- the job and when he has ex pressed his desire to resign. Hence, the workman is not IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRmUNAL GOA, DAMAN & DIU entitled to any reliefs as prayed for by him. , PANAJI GOA (Before Dr. Benato de NoroDlla, Hon'bIe PresIding Officer) 4. On 29-5-1979, the workman submitted an application to this Tribunal with a copy sent by registered post with Reference No.: IT/24/76 AID to the Opponent, in which he has stated as follows: Shri Agnelo Pereira - Workman/Party "1. ,After prolonged unemployment, the workman secu r red employment at Bahrain in the Gulf 'from 1st -March Vis. 1978 and as such could present himself before this cow:t Mis. Rama Yeshwant Naik but was represented by Mr. M. S. Berne. & Sons - Emplo~er/party II 3. The workman is not interested .any longer in the" Panaji. Dated: 13-9-1985 reinstatement in the service from the 1st March, 1978, the date on which he was employed overseas. AWARD 4. The workman prays that this Honourable Court call The Government of Goa., Daman .and Diu, by its Order upon the employers to settle the dues of the workman arising No. CLE/1/ID(54)/75/IT-16/75/76/1425 dated 13th Septem out of the folloWling: ~, . 1976, has referred for the adjudication by this TribWla1 a) The w9rkman was' in the service of the .employer of an industrial dispute between the above parties. The from 17-1Q-1967 to 31-3-1975. During this period no schedule annexed to the order of reference reads as follows: leave wages_ were paid in lieu of leave for the period of 7 years, 5 months and thirteen days which works out "\¥hether the action of the Management 'of Mis. Ram.a at the rate of 15 -days per, each year of service, to 109 Yeshwant Naik and Sons, Margao, Goa in terminating the services of Shri Agnelo Pereira, with effect from days payable at the r:ate of 175/- per month (the last 4th April, 1975 is legal and justified; salary received). to Rs, 635-47). b) No bonus paid by the employer to the workman. If not to 'What relief the concerned workman is 7 8.33 entitled?" Bonus for years at p. c. works out to Rs. 1,225/-. " ,c) No notice pay was paid to the. workman 'in lieu 2. The case of the - workman/party I, .as per his state of notice of termination which is Rs. 175/-. ment of claim, is as follows: The workman/party I was' d) No gratuity was paid at the rate of 15 days wages appointed as incharge of spare parts dep6t and the n::totor to the workman upon termination of his services by garages of Mis. Rama Yeshwant Nail< and Sons (Party II) the employers, which 'works out to Rs. 612~50 (salary at Navelim, Salcette on· 17-10-1967 and has worked for' 'being Rs. 175/- p. m.) .. them upto 4~4-1975. Party IT infonned the workman on 31~3-1975 verbally that, due to ,rise .in the cost of vehicles, e) No termination compensation was paid to the their sales have dwindled with the result that there is slacl{ workInan at the rate of 15 day~ wages. This works out in business and -as such they do not require the services of to Rs. 612-50. . the workman any more. This 1s, otherwise, a stereotype reason they always give when they want to get rid of -the CalculatiIlg all the dues from (a) to (e) as indicated services of their employees. On 4-4-1975 the employers here: have taken over the charge of the spare "parts depOt of the a) Rs. 685-47 garage from the workman and that too without the payment b) Rs. 1,225-00 of any wages for the 4" days the workman worked during c) Rs. 175-00 April 1975, and the employer forced the workman to quit d) Rs. 612-50 the services. He was appointed on a monthly salary of e) Rs. 612-50 Rs. 175/,:, with an annual increment of Rs. 10/.. , which was never given. The termination of the services of the workman Rs. 3,260~47" was done without ~y notice or formal letter. He was in the services of the employer since 17-10-1967 on a permanent 5. By order dated 7"2-1980 of my Ld. Predecessor Dr. Coe basis. The' matter vias taken up before the Labour Commis~ lho;- Adv. Gude appeal."ing as representative of the employer sioner, who took up conciliation proceedings and finally was not allowed, in view of the objection raised by the appli~ submitted a failure -report, which"resulted- in this reference. cant. No charge was framed against the workman prtior to the 6. Following issues were framed in this 'case by Dr. Coelho: termination of his services, nor any inquiry held. He was also not paid- of his ,legal dues. He-nee, his te:rrrrination is Ill. Do the employers/party'n'-prove-th.at they are justi illegal and unjustified and the workman is entitled to re~ fied in terminating the sery1ic~ 'of" the 'workman/party'"!? y 492 SERIES II No. 31 2. Do the workman/party I prove that his services has not interested in his reinstatement, the employer is directed been terminated illegally and without any notice whatso to pay him the amount mentioned in his application dated ever? 29-5-1979 totalling Rs. 3,260/47. Costs of Rs. 200/- to be paid by the employer to the workman. 3. Do the employers/party II prove that the workman/ /party I left his services of his own? Dr. Renato de Noronha 4. Do the employers/Party II prove that the workman! /party I w.as irregular in' attending the Office and was ne Presiding Officer glecti~g p,iS duties and thereby has caused tremendous loss Industrial Tribunal to the company? 5. Do the employers/party II prov~ that all the' dues of Order the workman/party, I have ~ paid?" No. 28/4/85-ILD 7. On the· days fixed-' for evidence, neither the workman nor the employer remaind .present and so the evic;lence regard The following Award given by the Industrial Tribunal, . ing both the parties was declared closed by the Tribunal. An Goa, Daman .and Diu is hereby published as required under application mo~ed by the workman to' set aside the order for the prOVisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ex-parte proceedings- .against him and to allow him a fresh 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947 l- opportunity to lead evidence was rejected by the'·Court. By order and in the name of -the Administrator of Goa.. Damand and Diu. 8. The order of reference has' put on'the employer the burden. to prove 'the legality and justification of the termina~ S. V. Bhculri, Under Secretary (Industries and Labour). tion order of the services of the workman. However,: the employer did not lead any evridence in this connection. Panaji, 18th October, 1985. From the pleadings of the parties, the following facts can be considered as admitted: IN THE LABOUR COURT GOA, DAMAN & DIU, i) The workman/party I was employed by the employerI PANAJI GOA /party II in his spare parts department at Navelim since (Before Dr. Renato de Noronha, Hon'ble Presiding Officer) 17-10-1967 on a monthly salary of Rs. 175/-. His services were verbally terminated On 4-4-1975 without any notice Application No.: LCC/33/84. or p.ay i:h lieu thereof. Shri Babu V. L. -Applicant 9. Whether -the workman was a permanent employee, as contended by him, or a temporary employee, as contended l;l'y Vis. the employer, it does not make any difference. Since lit is not Mr. R. Mohan C/o., Shirodkar Bros. -Opponent disputed that he has put i:h continuous service for more than Engg. Works. one year, the termination of the services of the workman for any reason whatsover would_ -come within the definition (If Panaji. Dated: 4-10-19S5 "Retrenchment" under Section 2(00), as it has been laid down in the ruling of the S.,C. in the case of "L. Robert D'Sou AWARD 'z.a, V Is. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another This is an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.A., reported in 1982 S. C. Cases (Labour and SerVlices) 124. In this "ruling, .it has _been held that, except if the case falls 1947, in short the Act, filed by the above applicant against within any of the expected categoIlies: - the above Opponent,· claiming from the latter the total amount of Rs. 2,368/10,. as per the details shown in the "0) Who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air annexure to the application. Force A-ct, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline)- Act, 1934; or 2. It is applicant's case that he was working for the (ii) Who is employed in the police serv:ice or as .an officer· Opponent and has not been paid his wages, overtime, notice of other employ~e of a prison; or pay, leave wages, gratuity and retrenchment compensation, (iii) Who is employed maJinly in a managerial or admi- as shown in the annexure. nistrative capacity; or . 3. The Opponent was issued notice, but could not be (iv) Who, being emp~oyed in- a supel':vJsory capacity, served and so the notice was published in the newspapers. draws wages .exceeding five -hundrec;l rupees per _men,Sum On the date fixed, the Opponent did not turn up and so or exercises, either by the nature of th,e duties attached to the case was adjourned and fresh date fixed for ex-parte the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, func evidence' of the, applicant. The applicant gave his statement tions mainly of a managerial natur:e." . in Open, Court and produce his attendance and overtime " ·cards, which have been taken on record and _ marked "as It would come within the purview of 'retrenchment'- under Exh A-1 colly. In his 'statement before the Court, the appli Section 25'F of the Act. cant has stated that he was working as Fitter for the contractor, R~ Mohan and that he was not paid him wages 'The employer, therefore, had to comply with the conditions of 15 days at the rate of Rs. 17/- per day for the month .of precedent, specified under Section 25F of the Act, namely one April 1984, totalling Rs. 272/-. He has also worked overtime month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and payment of gra with the same contractor in the month of April 1984 during tuity at the rate of 15 days for each year of service at the 15 days in·.all 112 hours amOl,mting to Rs. 476/- and in the time of tennination of the services of the workman, which month of June 43 hours amounting to Rs. 90-10, for which he has failed to do. It is well settled today that the non com he has n~t been _paid. pliance of the conditions precedent, specified in Section 25F of the -Act, makes the retrenchment order lnvalid and inopera 4. From the .statement of the applicant and the attendance tive and, consequently" the workman is to be considered in and over time cards produced by him, I .am satis:f3ied - that service with continuity .and entitled to full back wages. It is the Opponent has to pay him the amount of his wages and to be noted, however, that the workman himself, by his appli overtime above mentioned. The other items mentioned under cation dated 29-5-1979 referred to above, has stated that he serial nos. 2 to 5 in the anneXure have not been referred to _by is not interested in the reinstatement, as he has .already the workman tin his statement and, therefore, it appears that secured a job in the gulf from 1st March, 1978 and prayed he haB dropped them. that the employer be directer to pay him the amounts men 5. In view of the above, I grant this application and pass tioned in the sadd applic,ation. the following order: 10. As, in case the workman was reinstated, the ,employer ORDER would have to pay him much more than what he has claimed, in the .above application, I grant his request and pass the The Opponent is, directed to pay to the appl'icant the total following order: amount of Rs. 838-10.. Costs of Rs. 100/- to be paid by the Opponent to the workman. ORDER Dr. Renato de Noronha The termination of the services of the workman by the Presiding Officer employer is _illegal and unjustified. Since the workman i~ Labour Court 31ST OCTOBER, 1985 (KARTIKA 9,1907) 493 Order Superiors in the editorial and administrative sections, though departJ:nentallY the foreman were head of the composing No. 28/4/85-ILD section. Since the beginning Shri Jagdish Rao was in the employment of the employer and held managerial pOSition, The following Award given by the Industria;l Tribunal, performing executive functions and even issuing cheques on Goa Daman and Diu is hereby published as required under behalf of the employer. The . employer did not maintain the 'provisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, books or registers as required under the. law. The procedure 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947). followed was completely illegal, no appointment letters were issued to the employees, no records were maintained and, By order and in the name of the Administrator of even the salaries were paid t9 them by cheques. By letter Goa, Daman and Diu. . No. NAPEU/GM/1/73 dated 5-3-1973, addressed to the Su,bhash V. Elekar~ Under Secretary (Industries and La Manager of the employer,. the Union submitted a charter of demands of the employees, The employer did not comply bour). with the said demands nor replied to the said letter. The panaji, 3rd October, 1985. Union then approached the Labour Commissioner's office, conciliation proceedings took place but the representatives of the employer did not remain present and so no concilia tion could take place. Finally, the Union, by its letter 5/73 ·IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRmUNAL GOA, DAMAN AND dated 30-7-1973, gave an ultimatum to the employer. and. DIU, PANAJI-GOA after specifically stating out the demands of the workers caned. upon the' employer to implement the same, failing (B~fore Dr. Renato de Noronha, Hon'ble Presiding Officer) which the workers would go on indefinite strike from 10-8-1973, The employer, in reply, informed the Union by Reference No.: IT/34/73 their letter dated 7-8-1913 that they have no compOSitors Workmen -Party I in their employment, which contention, according to' the Union, is faJ-se. The workmen went on stdke from 10-8-1973, Vis. of which due notice was given to the employer, Thereafter, the employer falsely and dishonestly put forward the con, Mis. Polygot Publications and their Contractor, tention that Shri Jagdish Rao was the employer of the Shri Jagdish B. Rao. --Party n i workers, which contention is false since they have been always the employees of the employer. The Assistant Labour Com Farty I represented by Shri N . .T. Rebelo, General Secretary missioner admitted the d!lspute in conciliation and served of The Newspaper and. Press Employees' Union. notices upon the employer and Shri J agdish Rao to attend Parly II represented by Late Shri Ramesh Dessai~ Labour the proceedings but neither of them attended. In view of the Consultant. confused situation created. by the employers, the Union for.:. Panaji. Dated: 9-9-1985. mally addressed a letter dated 20-8-1973 to Shli Jagdish Rao, wherein reiterated, thrqugh him, the demands of the workers AWARD upon the .employer. The Union also sent letters dated 25-8-1973 and 27-8-1973 to the employer and Shri Rao informing them... The Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, by its Order that 'in. view of the interventation of the Labour Commissio No. LC/1/ID(48)/73/IT-16/73/1314 dated 3rd November ner's office to settle the matters peacefully, they. withdraw 1973, has referred' for the adjudication by this Tribunal the strike and the workers shall resume work of 1st shift of an industrial dispute between the above parties. The on 27-8":1973 from 2.00 p. m. In r~ply .to this letter, the em~ .schedule annexed to the order of reference reads as follows: ployer falsely informed the Union by their letter dated H1. Whether the action of the Management of Mis. 27-8-1973 that none of their employees have been on strike Polygot Publications, Rua Jose Falcao, Panaji (Goa) and so the questiol]. of any worker resuming work did not and. their Contractor, Shri Jagdish B. Rao, Panaji arise. Shri Rao also replied that the question of resuming (Goa) in refusing to comply with the f1?llowing . work does not arise as he has no such workers. Except the demands of their workmen, is justified; workman at serial N(}. 21 in annexure 'A' in whose case a.. separate' dispute was raised; all the workers reported for If not, to what relief' the workmen concerned' work but they were illegally and wrongfully refused work are entitled and from what date? by the employer. Such action of the employer is wholly unjus-. a) Issues of letter confirming the workmen in tified. By letter dated 6-9_1973 addressed to the employer their services; and Shri Rao, the Union called upon to reinstate the workers b) Grant of V. D. A. according to the Wage Board with full back wages and continuity of. service .and also to recommendations for Working' Journalists and give them the benefits as demanded in the Charter of Demands. Non-Working Journalists; The employer replied that all his employees are peacefully at work .and Shri Rao also replied that he has not declared c) Leave facilities; lock out at any time or refused employment on any day. The d) Rent intervals and arrangements for nigh shift Union subm!its that is cannot be said that Shri Rao w.as the employees; 'I employer of the workers as he himself was in the employ 2) Whether the action of the Management of Mis'. ment of the employer and that this is a calculated fr.aud and Polygot Publications (Goa) and their Contractor, antUabour policy followed by the employer to disown them. Shri Jagdish B. Rao, Panaji (Goa) in refusing employment to the workmen HSited in Annexure It is prayed that the action of the employer be held as 'A' with effect from 26th 'August 1973 is legal illegal .and unjustified and the workers reinstated in services and justified; with continuity and full back wages. It is also prayed that the demands made by the workers to the employer which If not, to what relief the \vorkmen concerned are are mentioned in the order of reference be granted, which entitled?" demands the Union has tried to justify in its statement of claim. . 2. The Union, in its statement of claim, has stated. that the workmen whose names appear in the annexure 'A'. to 3. Mis. Polygot Publications' who, in the written statement, the order of reference and who are all members of the has named itself as Management, has raised a preliminary Union were employed by Mis. Polygot Publications, referred objection regarding the maintainability of this order of refe by the Union as Employer in their .composing section in rence for the following reasons: ·the categories mentioned against their 'names .in the said annexure 'A'. The employer is one of the undertakings of a) There is no dispute between the Management and the Sequeira group of industries which published an English employees' as Polygot Publications has stopped its Daily newspaper 'Goa Monitor' since about July 1972., In activities from 22-12-1973 and during the period the the expectation of better prospects most of the workers' firm was carrying on its business had employed left their services of several years with their previous .about ·13 employees whose names are given in employers and joined the employer. The publication of the annexure tA' to the written statement; employer consisted of 3 sections, namely Administrative, Editorial and composing section all situated in the same b) That there were no demands submitted by their sbtff premises. The staff employed in all the three sections be to the Management at any time; longed to the employer. All the machinery and accessories c) The Assistant Labour Commissioner without any juris in the composing section also belonged to the employer. diction or in excess of his jurisdiction· instituted con For all the matters connected with their employment, ciliation proceedings·as well as a failure report' as ·the workers were under the. contrOl. and supervision 'of their nullity in law in the absence of any demands' or an 494 . SERIES.II No. 31 industrial dispute .between the Management and the 25-8_1973 and was allowed to resume duties after his sick employees. Conseque~tly, the order of reference of the ness. He worked till the date of the closure of the business. 'Government baseq on such failure l'eport as also the The worker Martin Fernandes wa~ never in'the employment nullity in law; of the employer. The worker under serial No. 23 submitted d) The order of reference covers 2 employers including his resignation and collected hid dues. The one under serial the Management which is against the provisions ot: No'. 24 left th~ job from May 1973. On 20-8-1973, the Union submitted its demands which were received by the employer law; on 22nd. In this letter, in which abusive language was used, it e) The Government has not applied its mind while issuing was admitted that the workers on whose behalf the demands the order of reference in question; of M/s. Polygot Publications were made were employed f) The. demands listed in the orde:r of reference were by the employer as early as March 1973. On 25-8-1973, the not served by the Union upon the Management; employer received a comm1.lllication from the Union, ~hat g) The Management is not the employer for the purpose the workers would withdraw the strike w. e. f. 27-8-1983. of industrial dispute alleged to have been raised by The Union had - never :informed the employer before that the Union; the workers would go on strile from 10-8-1973. None of the workers except Shri Anthony D'Souza, serial No. 25 h) That except the workman under serial No. 21, Martin gave any explanation regarding their absence nor informed Fernandes in the annexure 'A' to the order of l'efe that they have gone' on strike. It is submitted that on . renee, the others were not employed by the Manage the date of receipt of this communication the workers were ment and in the case of Shri Martin Fernandes, the no longer in service of the employer by -virtue of the notices workers or the Union has not served any demand issued on 11-8-1975 and 17-8-1973. The employer never upon the Management; refused employment to any of the workers: In the remaining i) That in the absence of employer-employee relation portion of 'his statement, the employer tries to show that ship, no industri,aJ. dispute can exist similar beIng the the demands made by the workmen are not justified. position in the absence of any demand made by the workers on the Management. "5. By application dated 26-4-1973, the Union requested the c.ourt to direct both the employers to produce registers It is submitted that the order of reference has wrongfully and documents listed in the said application. Polygot Pu impleaded the' Management in the order of reference and, .as blications filed :its replies to this application on 10_7-1976 such, the order is bad in law. and 3-8-1976. On merits: It is admitted the receipt of the Union letter. 6. Following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor dated 5-3-:-1973 and stated that no demand w.as :incorporated Shri Khollali:- in the said letter on behalf of Shri Martin Fernandes, serial No.. 21 of the annexure 'A'. The Union sent another_ letter "1. Whether the workmen covered under reference, made dated 19-3-1973 informing that the xmployees would join one any demands upon Shri J. B. Rao and '1.'f./s. POlygot day token strike as per the directive of the Federation. In Publications ? this letter, the Union admitted that there existed a dispute 2. Whether the Union is entitled to make demands on between the Management and 'its employees. In response to Mis. Polygot Publications in absence of employer the letters of the Labour Commissioner, the Management -employee re~ationship? informed the names of the mambers of ~ts statf who had 3. Whether M;/s. Polygot Publications is the employer joined the Union or raised the diSpute. On 30'-7-1973, the of the workmen covered under the order of' Union served a strike notice upon the Management and listed reference? therein certa:in demands. Regarding letter dated 6-9.1973 the Union, it is stated that there was no strike by its employees 4. "Whether the reference is bad in law in view of .and also no lock out and/or refusal of employment by the the fact that two employers are employing same Management. The report submitted by the AsSistant Labour set of workmen-? Commissioner has made wrong and distorted statements in 5. Whether the reference survives in view of the fact order to prejudice the mind of the Govenunent against the that the establishments of· both the employers clo Management. It is submitted that none of the employees of sed since 22nd December 1973? the Management were members of the Union nor have they 6. Whether the workmen are entitled to raise demands authorised a Union to raJise any industrial dispute on their upon Shri J. B. Rao when on the date of demands behalf., It is prayed, in short, that the reference be disposed no relationship existed between the workmen and off for want of jurisdiction and held that the Management the employer? has been wrongly impleaded as a party. 7. Whether the demands are justified and if so what relief? .. 4. Shri J agadish Rao, who names himself as the employer, also filed h:is written statement raising similar pre . 7. After issues were framed and evidence recorded on the liminary objections as in the statement of the Management. preliminary points, argwnents of the Ld•. Rep. of the parties On the merits, it is stated that the Management of Mis. Poly were heard and now the matter is before me ,for passing order. got Publications approacl¥d. the employer for certain work and the employer undertook to compose all the matter for 8. Among the issues framed there :is one under serial their daily newspaper 'Goa Monitor' and at the prescribed No.4; referring to the maintainability of the order of refe rate. The employer, therefore, had to engage a number vf rence on the basis of' the fact that 2 employers are shown workers under its employment and, accordingly. it engaged, as employing same set of workmen. The said issue under in mutual agreed terms and conditions, the workers mentioned No.4 reads as follows: in Annexure 'A' to the order Of reference, except the onc under serial No. 21. On 10-8-1973, alJ the workers employed "Whether the reference is bad in law .in view of the by the employer did not report for work ·nor gave .any intima fact that 2 employers are employing the same set of tion in rega:rd to the cause· of their absence. The employer, workmen?" therefore, on 10-8-1973, displayed a notice on the notice board to their workers numbering about 18 in the presence of 3 wit I shall t.ake up first this issue, as it goes to the very root nesses. Individual notices by reg.istered post with Aj""p were of the jurisdiction of thIs Tribunal to entertain this reference. also sent on 11-8w l973 to 18 workers. In the individual notices the workers were informed that since they had not reported 9. The order of reference as published by the G<>vernment for work the employer preswned that they have abandoned has submitted for the adjudication of this Tribunal: Whether their serv.ices and their names were removed from the muster the action of the Management of Mis. Polygot Publication· roll. They were however. given 8 days time to 'give satisfac and their contractor Shli Jagdish Rao in refusing to comply tory explanation in writing regarding their absence, in which with the demands of the workmen ahd in refusing employment case the period of absence would be considered as leave with to them (the names of the employees are specifiea. in the out pay. Regarding the other 4 workers, namely those at order of refere:p.ce) is legal and justified? serial numbers 3, 22, 25, and 13 similar notices were sent on 14-8-1973 and' 17-8_1973, respectively. On account of the 10. Since the employees in respect of M/s. Polygot Publi absence of the above employees, the employer was unable cation and the contractor Shri J agdish Rae are the same to fulfil the contractual obligations to Goa Monitor tili and since Wlder the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abo 17-8-1973. Till 17-8-1973, neither the Union nor the Workmen lition) Act 1970 and the Rules framed there under, the 'informed the employer of their joining the Union or about principal employer is liable only under certain circumstances their demands. The worker under serial No. 12 was abscond for the payment of wages of the workmen engaged. by the ing from 10-7-1973 and never tlll'Il,ed up thereafter. The contractor, which liability is 8.J.so subsidiary, the first thing worker under serial No. 25 submitted his explanation on that the Tribunal Will have to investigate ~s who is the em- 31ST OCTOBER, 1985 (KARTIKA 9, 1907) 495 ployer of the workmen in question? 1. e. whether Mis. Poly And whereas the Lieutenant Governor of Goa, Daman .and got Publications or the Contractor Jagdish Roo.. Diu considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication. SUch dnvestigation, however, the Tribunal cannot undertake because it _would amount to travel beyond the terms of refe 'Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by rence, and unless a finding is given on this point, the Tribunal clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial shall not be .able to dispose off this reference. Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Lieutenant Governor of Goa, D.aman and Diu hereby refers the said dispute for 11. I, therefore, uphold the contention of Mis. Polygot adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Publications and their contractor that the reference in ques Diu, panaji-Goa, constituted under section 7 A of the said Act. tion is bad in law, as it refers to the same set of workers under 2 different employers at the same time, which is not SCHEDULE admissible. This reference therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. . "Whether the action of the employer, Mis. PI menta Cement Products, Murlda, Fatorda, Margao, Salcete-Goa, in terminating the services of the following 5 workmen Dr. Renato de Noron/w w. e. f. 4-4-1985 is legal and justified: - Presiding Officer Sl. No. Name of the worker Industrial TribWlal 1. Shr:i Camilo Dias 2. Shri Jose Silva Order 3. Shri Ramchandra Shlrodkar 4. Shri Joao Furtado No. 28/33/85-ILD 5. Shri Francis G,aonkar. Whereas the Lieutenant Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?" is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the Electricity Department, Government of Goa, Daman and By order and in the name of the Lieutenant Governor of Diu, Panaji .and their workman Shri Sebastian Fernandes, Goa, Daman and Diu. Assistant Wdreman of the Electricity Department, represen.. ted thro~gh Goa Trade & Commercial Workers' Union, in S. V. Bhadri, Under Secretary (Industries .and Labour). respect of the matter specified in the Schedule annexed hereto (hereinafter referred to as the 's.aid dispute'); Panaji, 17th October, 1985. And whereas the Ilieutenant Governor of Goa, Daman and ... Diu considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication. law Department Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Establishment Branch clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Lieutenant Governor District and Sessions Court of Goa, Daman and Diu hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Dlu, Panaji, constituted under section 7 A of the said Act. Order SCHEDULE No. DSC/JO/L/159/85/3625 "Whether Shri Sebastian Fernandes, Asst. Wireman Shri R. K. Batta; Add!. Sessions Judge and Civil Judge, of the Electricity Department, Government of Goa, Sr. Division, Mapusa, lis hereby granted Earned Leave for Daman and Diu, Panaji is a workman' as defined under 2 days w. e. f. 18~10-1985 to 19-10-1985 with permission to the Industr,ial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)? suffix 20-10-1985 being Sunday. If the answer to the above quesoon lS in the affirma Certified that but for proceeding on leave he would have tion, whether the action of the employer, the Chief officiated as Add!. Sessions Judge and Civil Judge Senior Electrical Engineer, Government of Goa, Daman and Division. ' Diu, Panaji-Goa, in terminating the services of Shri Se bastian Fernandes with effect from 13-9-1983 is legal On return from leave, Shri R. K. Batta Is reposted as and justified? Addl. Sessions Judge and Civil Judge, Sr. Dlvn. Mapusa. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? Alvaro de Noronha Ferreira, Distrtct and Sessions Judge. Panaj!, 19th October, 1985. By order and in t~e name of the Llieutenant Governor of Goa, Daman· and Diu. S. V. Bhailri, Under Secretary (Industries and Labour). Order Panaji, 16th October, 1985. No. DSC/JO/L/159/85/3610 Ex-post facto sanction is hereby granted for availing of Earned Leave for 14 days from 28-8-1985 10-9-1985 with Order to pennission to prefix 27-8-1985 being Holiday by Shri Anand No. 28/42/85-ILD D. Salkar, Civil Judge, Junior Division and J. M. F. C. Diu. Whereas the Lieutenant Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu Certified that but for leave he would have officiated. as is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between Civil Judge, Jr. Division and J. M. F. C. Diu. the management of Mis. Pimenta Cement Products, Murida, On return from leave Shri A. D. Salkar is reposted as Civil Fatorda, Margao, Salcete~Goa, and tbeir workmen represented Judge, Jr. Division and J. M. F. C. Diu. through Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union, Opposite Municipal Garden, Pan.a.ji-Goa, m respect of the matter speci~ Alvaro de Noronha Ferreira, District and SeSSions Judge. fied in the Schedule annexed hereto (hereinafter referred to as the 'said dispute'); Panaj!, 19th October, 1985. GOVT. PRINTING PRESS - GOA (lmprensa Naclonal - Goa) PRICE-R•• 1-80 Ps.