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

Panaji, 5th February, 2009 (Magha 16, 1930) SERIES II No. 45

GOVERNMENT OF GOA Order No. DAC/7/RB/Margao/Regis/2009/4226 Department of Education, Art & Culture In exercise of the powers conferred by clause 9 Directorate of Art and Culture (ix) of the Constitution of R avindra Bhavan, Fator da, __ Margao-Goa, the Government is pleased to appoint the Order following members on the General Council of Ravindra Bhavan, Margao with immediate effect. No. DAC/7/RB/Margao/Regis/2009/4225 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause 9 1. Shri Anthony San. (vii) of the Constitution of R avindra Bhavan, Fator da, 2. Shri A delin Fernandes. Margao-Goa, the Government is pleased to appoint the following members on the General Council of Ravindra 3. Shri Anand Masoor. Bhavan, Margao with immediate effect. 4. Shri Rajeev Hede. 1. Shri Damodar Naik, 5. Shri Jairam Naik. Fator da, Salcete- Goa. 6. Shri Deep Karapurkar. 2. Smt. Usha Sardesai, 7. Smt. Sangita Singbal. Comba, Margao-Goa. 8. Smt. Amelia Dias. 3. Shri Damodar Borkar, Aquem, Margao-Goa. 9. Shri Vasantlal Kanji.

4. Shri Mahendra Alvares, By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. Loutulim-Goa. Prasad Lolayekar, Dir ector of Ar t & Cultur e & 5. Shri Gautam Verlekar, ex officio Joint Secr etar y. Margao-Goa. , 27th Januar y, 2009. 6. Shri P remanand Lotlikar, ______V anelim, P. O. Colva, Salcete- Goa. Order 7. Shri Ramdas Hazare, Borda, Margao-Goa. No. DAC/7/RB/Margao/Regis/2009/4229

8. Smt. Vijaya Sheldekar, In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses 5 and Shirvodem, Margao-Goa. 6 of the Constitution of R avindra Bhavan, Fator da, Margao-Goa, the Government is pleased to appoint 9. Smt. Namita Lawande, Shri Digambar V. Kamat, Malbhat, Margao -Goa as Pajifond, Mar gao -Goa. Chairman and Shri Shridhar N. Kamat, Housing Board, 10. Shri Sudesh Malkar nekar, Margao-Goa as Vice-Chairman of Ravindra Bhavan, Margao-Goa. Margao with immediate effect.

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

Prasad Lolayekar, Dir ector of Ar t & Cultur e & Prasad Lolayekar, Dir ector of Ar t & Cultur e & ex officio Joint Secr etar y. ex officio Joint Secr etar y. Panaji, 27th Januar y, 2009. Panaji, 27th Januar y, 2009. 1059 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 Order Department of Home Ref . No. D A C / TA/2007/Par t I/4251 Home — General Division Government is pleased to appoint Shri Victor D’Sa __ as Member Secretary of the Academy under clause Order 8(a) on the constitution of Tiatr A cademy. No. 2/54/2007-HD (G) By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. Read: Order No. 4-3-2-2001/LD(1) dated 19-08-2004 Prasad Lolayekar, Dir ector of Ar t & Cultur e. and amended vide Corrigendum of even number dated 06-10-2004. Panaji, 28th Januar y, 2009. Government is pleased to extend the ad hoc promotion ———uuu——— of Smt. Milena Gomes e Pinto, Public Prosecutor for a further period of six months with effect from 28-02-2009 Department of Finance to 27-08-2009 or till the post is filled on regular basis, whichever is earlier. Revenue & Control Division This issues with the concurrence of the Goa Public Directorate of Accounts Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/ __ /58(3)/2004/116 dated 21-01-2009. Order By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. No. DA/Admn/14-58/08-09/TR-2988/2157 Siddhivinayak S. Naik, Under Secretary (Home). Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded to Por vorim, 28th Januar y, 2009. re-employ Shri Joseph Noronha, Retired Joint Director ———uuu——— of Accounts of this Directorate on contract basis initially for a period of six months. Department of Labour __ The appointment is subject to their executing the agreement specifying the terms and conditions of their Order re-employments. They shall draw emoluments as per No. 28/36/2006-LAB/107 ter ms of CC S (F ixation of Pay of r e-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986. Whereas the is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. management of M/s. Goa Construction Housing and Finance Federation Limited, Panaji and their workman, Rajan V. S. Kunkolienkar, Dir ector of A ccounts & Shri Dayanand Chodankar, Assistant, Grade-I in r espect ex officio Joint Secr etar y. of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto Panaji, 28th Januar y, 2009. (hereinafter referred to as the “said dispute”); And whereas the Government of Goa considers it ———uuu——— expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication. Department of General Administration N o w , ther efor e, in exer cise of the powers confer red __ by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) Notification (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the No. 25/4/95-GA&C Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of Goa at Government of Goa regret to state that Shri R. Panaji- Goa, constituted under Section 7 of the said Act. Venkataraman, Former President of passed away on January 27, 2009. As a mark of respect to the departed SCHEDULE Dignitar y, Gover nment of Goa declares seven days State “(1) Whether the action of the management of mourning fr om January 27, 2009 to Febr uar y 2, 2009, M/s. Goa Construction Housing and Finance both days inclusive throughout the State of Goa. Federation Limited, Panaji in ter minating the During the period of State mourning, the National services of Shri Dayanand Chodankar, Assistant, Flag will be flown at Half Mast throughout the State Grade-I with effect from 09-10-2002 is legal and of Goa in all the buildings where it is flown regularly justified ? and there will be no official entertainment. (2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?” By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Hanumant T. Toraskar, Under Secretar y (G A -II). B. S. Kudalkar, Under Secretar y (L abour). Por vorim, 28th Januar y, 2009. Por vorim, 28th Januar y, 2009.

1060 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 Notification employed a new employee in his place. The Party I has stated that his termination is illegal and in No. 28/1/2009-LAB/15 violations of the provisions of Industrial Disputes The following Award passed by the Industrial A ct. The Par ty I has ther efor e sought r einstatement Tribunal-cum-Labour Cour t-I at P anaji- Goa on 19-11-2008 with full backwages, compensation and damages for in reference No. IT/74/99 is hereby published as the illegal termination. required by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947). 3. The Par ty II has filed its written statement at Exb. 4. The Par ty II has denied that the Par ty I was By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. employed on regular basis. The Par ty II has stated that Under Secretar y (L abour). it used to engage the ser vices of the Par ty I as and when B. S. Kudalkar, required for doing the work of repairs of pump house, Por vorim, 2nd Januar y, 2009. shed, laying of pipe lines, plastering, erecting channels, ______wiring painting of iron supports, masonry work, earth filling excavation etc. and that the Par ty I was being IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR paid from time to time as per the bills submitted by him. COURT-I AT PANAJI The Par ty II has stated that the Par ty I was employed on (Before Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, Presiding Officer) regular employment as a far m hand in Januar y, 1990 and was paid daily wages of Rs. 41/- per day. The Ref. No. IT/74/99 Par ty II has fur ther stated that in the year 1998 the Shri Mohan Ganesh Dessai, poultry farm started running in loss and it decided to Golna, Pomburpa, reduce the running capacity of the farm or to close the Bardez, Goa. … Applicant/Party I farm and accordingly in the last week of August, 1998 V/s the Par ty I was asked to look out for an alter nate job. V ide letter dated 1-9-1998 the Par ty I was offer e d wages M/s. El- Cid Farm, in lieu of notice and compensation however since the Ecozim, Party I refused to accept the same, it was sent under Pomburpa, postal ser vices. The Par ty II has denied that it has Bardez, Goa. … Opponent/Party II engaged new employee in place of the Par ty I. The Applicant/Party I represented by Adv. V. A. Lawande. Par ty II has denied that it has violated any pr ovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or that the services of Opponent/Party II represented by Adv. P. J. Kamat. the Par ty I wer e illegally ter minated. The Par ty II has A WARD stated that the Par ty I is not entitled for any r elief. (Passed on this 19th day of November, 2008) 4. The following issues were framed:

By this order dated 24-2-99, the Government of Goa 1. Whether Par ty I proves that he was employed has r efer red to this Industrial Tribunal the following with the Par ty II as a Plumber -cum-Electrician- disputes for adjudication. -cum-Mechanic from the year 1983 and his monthly salary varied from Rs. 1,000/- to “(1) Whether the action of the management of Rs. 1,800/- ? M/s. El- Cid Farms Ecoxim, Pomburpa, Bardez, Goa in terminating the services of Shri Mohan Ganesh 2. Whether the Par ty I proves that the action of the Dessai, Plumber-cum-Electrician-cum-Mechanic, Party II in ter minating his ser vices fr om 1-9-1998 with effect from 1-9-1998 is legal and justified ? is illegal and unjustified ? (2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?” 3. Whether the Par ty II pr oves that it is not an “Industr y” within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of 2. On receipt of the said dispute IT/74/99 was the I. D. Act, 1947 and hence the reference is registered and notices were issued to the parties. not maintainable ? The Par ty I has filed his claim statement at Exb. 3. The Par ty II has filed its written statement at Exb. 4. The 4. Whether the Par ty I is entitled to any r elief ? Party I has stated that he was in continuous 5. What Award ? employment with the Par ty II, M/s. El- Cid Far ms fr o m 1982 till his services were terminated on 1-9-1998. The 5. Learned advocate, Shri B. A. Kapdi has filed Par ty I has stated that he was drawing salar y of written ar guments on behalf of the Par ty I. He has Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,800/- per month. The Par ty I has ar gued that the evidence of the Par ty I and the witness stated that the Par ty II had ter minated his ser vices w.e.f. examined by him clearly indicates that the Party I 1-9-1998 without issuing any show cause notice and was working for Par ty II as an electrical mechanic on a without disclosing any r easons. The Par ty I has stated regular basis. He has further argued that the evidence that the Par ty II was not r unning in loss and on the of P ar ty I indicates that Par ty II did not issue to him contrary it was making good business and it had in termination notice and had also not paid reinstatement its employment more than 25 employees. The Party I compensation. He has argued that the termination of has stated that af ter his ter mination the Par ty II has ser vice of the Par ty I is in violation of the pr ovisions of

1061 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 the Industrial Disputes Act hence the same is illegal. 9. It is to be noted that though the Par ty I has stated He has fur ther ar gued that the Par ty II is engaged in in the claim statement that he was working for Party II poultry business and is engaged in chick brooding and since 1983, in his evidence befor e this Tribunal he has selling eggs and it is within the meaning of Section 2(j) stated that he was employed with the Par ty II since of the A ct. He has ar gued that the Par ty II has 1981 on temporary basis and that since 1982 he was retrenched ser vices of the Par ty I without complying employed on regular basis. Thus according to the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and as Par ty I, he was in employment with Party II from 1981 such the retrenchment is illegal and consequently the to 1998 that is for 17 years. Whereas the witness, Par ty I is entitled to r einstatement with consequential Shri Abraham Fer nandes has not specified since when benefits. the Par ty I was working for the Par ty II. He has stated that the Par ty I had worked for Par ty II for about 20 6. Lear ned advocate, Shri P. J. Kamat has filed years. The evidence of Par ty I as well as the witness, arguments on behalf of the Par ty II. He has ar gued that Abraham Fer nandes is not in consonance with the plead- the evidence on record amply proves that the services ings. It is also to be noted that the evidence of Shri of the Par ty I wer e engaged on contract basis till the Manguesh Sawant, the brother -in-law of the Par ty I, also year 1989 and af ter 1989 the Par ty I was engaged on does not help the Par ty I in proving that the Par ty I was regular basis as farm hand on payment of Rs. 41/-. He working for the Par ty II on regular basis since 1983 as has ar gued that the business of Par ty I was r unning in this witness has not stated since when the Par ty I was loss and as such the Par ty II had decided to r educe working with the Par ty II or for how many years the work force and had therefore issued termination letter Par ty I had worked for the Par ty II. Thus the evidence to the Par ty I. He had ar gued that the Par ty I had of the witnesses does not help the Par ty I in proving refused to accept the said letter along with cheque for that he was in continuous service since 1983. notice pay and retrenchment compensation was sent under postal certificate. The said letter and the cheque 10. It is to be noted that Mrs. Edith D’Sa as well as have not returned unserved and hence it may be the witness, Christopher Couto have deposed that till ser ved on the Par ty I. He has ar gued that the Party I the year 1989 ser vices of the Par ty I were engaged as had complied with the mandatory provisions of the and when required and that he used to be paid as per Act hence the retrenchment cannot be termed as the bills submitted by him. It is pertinent to note that illegal. Lear ned advocate, Shri P. J. Kamat has ar gued in the cr oss examination, the Par ty I has admitted that that during the pendency of the proceedings the he had signed the receipts which are at Exb. E-1 to Par ty I was offer ed r einstatement however, the P arty I E-8. A perusal of the receipts at Exb. E-1 indicates declined to accept the offer without sufficient reasons that these r eceipts were issued by Par ty I on his and this fact shows that the Par ty I is not inter ested letter head wherein the Par ty I had acknowledged in reinstatement. having received an amount of Rs. 1,500/- from the Par ty II on 15-5-1992 for constr ucting a far m house. The 7. At the outset it may be mentioned that both receipt at Exb. E-2 dated 15-8-1984 indicates that the parties have not produced any documentary evidence as regards the appointment of the Par ty I or payment of Par ty I had r eceived an amount of Rs. 4,250/- fr om the salary and the case of both parties rests mainly on Par ty II for constr uction work on 10-8-1984 and laying of oral evidence. In suppor t of his case the Par ty I has pipe lines on 15-8-1984. The receipt dated 30-7-1982 examined himself and two witnesses namely, Abraham at Exb. E-3 indicates that the Par ty I had r eceived Fernandes and Mangesh Sawant, whereas the Party II Rs. 14,250/- fr om the Par ty II for constr ucting shed has examined its Proprietor, Miss Edith D ’Sa and the No. 9. The receipt dated 25-1-1985 at Exb. E-4 indicates Manager, Christopher Couto. I have per used the that the Par ty I had r eceived fr om the Par ty II a sum of records and considered the arguments advance by Rs. 3,600/- on account of laying of foundation of shed the respective parties. My findings on the aforesaid No. 10 and erecting channels for pillar. The Par ty I had issues are as follows: received Rs. 3,150/- fr om the Par ty II on account of laying of foundation of 63 platform pillars of shed No. 10 8. The Par ty I has stated in his claim Issue No. 1: and receipt dated 10-6-1985 at Exb. 6 indicates that the statement that he was employed with the Par ty II as Par ty I had r eceived fr om the Par ty II an amount of a plumber/electrician/mechanic and welder from the year 1983 and that he was in continuous service till Rs. 3,900/- for laying of water pipes and fixing of water 1-9-98. It is to be noted that the Par ty II has not tank, wiring of shed No. 10 and painting of Iron disputed that the Par ty I was in its employment supports. The receipt dated 3-3-1986 at Exb. E-7 however the Par ty II has denied that the Par ty I was indicates that the Par ty I had r eceived fr om the Party II in continuous employment since 1983. It has claimed towards construction of shed No. 2 and the receipt dated that till 1989 Par ty I was employed on contract basis 7-2-1987, 19-3-1989 at Exb. E-8 colly indicates that the as and when requir ed and since Januar y, 1990 the Par ty I had r eceived fr om the Par ty II an amount of Par ty I was employed as far m hand on a regular basis, Rs. 25,000/- for construction of pump house and store. on daily wages of Rs. 41/- per day. The question As stated earlier the Par ty I has admitted having which therefor e arises is whether the Par ty I was in signed the said receipts, but had denied having continuous service from 1983 to 1989 or whether during received the amount stated in the said receipts. It is to the said period the ser vices of Party I were engaged be noted that the Par ty I has failed to explain as to why on contract basis, as and when required. he had issued the said receipts if he had not received

1062 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 the amount mentioned in the said receipts. It is Par ty I was employed with Par ty II on regular basis also pertinent to note that it was suggested to Edith since 1989 and that he was doing regular farm work D ’Sa, the pr oprietor of Par ty II, that her husband had such as loading and unloading feed, plucking etc. and obtained these receipts fr om the Par ty I in or der to that he was also doing repairs/maintenance of claim subsidy fr om the Government. However, no such debeaking machine, generator, water tap connection explanation was given by the Par ty I even though he etc. It is to be noted that Par ty I has denied that he was was cross examined on these receipts and had an doing farm work. He has stated that he was working as opportunity to give his explanation and as such the a plumber/welder and electrician. He has deposed that case put forth in the cross examination of Mrs. Edith the wiring (electrical) of the sheds was done by him D ’Sa appears to be an af ter thought. Consequently, I am and that he was maintaining and repairing the said unable to accept the contention of the Par ty I that he wires. He has also deposed that he was maintaining the had not received the said amount mentioned in the temperature in the shed and was repairing and main- said receipts or that the husband of the witness, Edith taining three debeaking machines one defeathering ma- D’Sa had obtained the said receipts from him in order to chine and two welding machines. obtain subsidy. The r eceipts at Exb. E-1 to E-8 colly indicate that the Party I was paid lumpsum amount 12. It is to be noted that the evidence adduced by as per the work done and as per the bills submitted by the Par ty I does not indicate that wiring work so also him and this belies the contention of the Par ty I that the repair/maintenance of debeaking machine, he was employed with the Par ty II on regular and defeathering machines or welding machines was continuous basis since 1983. regular or continuous work which was required to be done on day to day or regular basis. The evidence of 11. As stated earlier, ther e is no dispute that the Par ty I and his witnesses also does not indicate that Par ty I was employed with Party II fr om 1989 till A ugust, setting temperature was a continuous work or that 1998. However there is dispute regarding the nature of constant manpower was required to regulate the duties per formed by Par ty I and the salar y paid to him. temperature. As against this the evidence of Mrs. Edith The Par ty I has claimed that he was working as an D’Sa and her witness, Christopher Couto indicates that Electrician/Plumber whereas the Par ty II has claimed electrical repairs, plumbing or maintenance work was that Par ty I was employed as a far m hand. In this r egard not regular but was occasional work. Their evidence Par ty I has deposed that the electrical wiring of the also indicates that once the temperature in the chick sheds was done by him and that he was repairing and brooder is set it is not required to be altered and this maintaining of the said wiring as well as defeathering, statement has gone unchallenged. In the absence of debeaking and welding machines. He was deposed such r egular work in the poultr y far m, the Par ty I could that he used to regulate the temperature in the chick not have worked solely as a mechanic, electrician or a brooders. The witnesses, Abraham Fernandes and plumber and the preponderance of probalities is that Manguesh Sawant have also deposed that the Party I since 1989 the Par ty I was working as a far m hand and was working for Par ty II as a plumber, welder and doing all miscellaneous work and was also maintaining electrician. The Par ty I as well as his witnesses and carrying out the repairs of the machines as and have denied that the Par ty I was also doing other when required. miscellaneous work such as plucking, loading/unload- ing feed etc. Whereas Smt. Edith D’Sa, the proprietor of 13. Now coming to the salar y paid to the Par ty I, the the Par ty II had deposed that there was no regular work Par ty I has deposed that at the time of ter mination of his of plumber/electrical or pipeline repairs etc. She has ser vices he was paid Rs. 1,800/- per month. The Party II deposed that the Par ty I was engaged as a far m hand had denied this fact and has claimed that from the and that he was doing the work of plucking, loading year 1989 the Par ty I was engaged on regular basis on and unloading of feed, repairs of pipelines etc. She has salar y of Rs. 41/- per day. It is probable that the Party I deposed that the work of plumbing, electrical and was paid salary of Rs. 41/- per day at the time of his pipeline, r epairs is done once in six months or a year. initial appointment, but it is difficult to believe that In her cross examination she has deposed that chick the Par ty I had continued working on the same salar y brooders and generator do not require daily mainte- for eight years i.e. till the date of his termination. The nance. The witness, Shri Christopher Couto has also Par ty II being the employer was requir ed to maintain deposed that as a Far m hand the Par ty I was doing the recor ds such as wage register, attendance r egister etc. work of attending to repairs in plumbing, electrical, These documents would have sufficiently proved the masonry, r epairs of cages, r unning er rands for the Farm quantum of salar y paid to the Par ty I at the time of his and such other jobs of plucking coconuts, unloading of termination. It is to be noted that Mrs. Edith D’Sa had feeds, digging etc. etc. In his cross examination he has stated in her cross that she had wage register from the stated that there was defeathering machine, debeaking year 1990 however she failed to produce the same even machine and one welding machine in the poultr y. He though she was directed to produce the same. The has deposed that the Par ty I was r epairing these witness, Mrs. Edith D’Sa had also stated that she had machines whenever there was a mechanical defect. wage register for the year 1994 to 2000, however when He has also stated in his cross examination that the she was directed to produce the same she claimed that Par ty I used to r epair the water tap connection. The the said register was misplaced. As stated earlier evidence of these two witnesses clearly indicates that the Par ty II was r equir ed to maintain the wage register

1063 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 and as deposed by Mrs. Edith D’Sa and her witness, having received the said letter. He has also denied the Christopher, the P ar ty II was infact maintaining such suggestion that he had refused to accept the said letter register. Failur e on par t of the P arty II to produce and the cheque for Rs. 7,723/- towards notice pay and the wage register warrants drawing of an adverse retrenchment compensation and that the said letter inference that the said documents were withheld to and cheque were sent under postal certificate. It may suppress the material facts relating to the wages paid be mentioned here that in the claim statement the to the Par ty I. This being the case, I am inclined to Par ty I had not denied having received the notice and accept the contention of the Par ty I that as on 1-10-98 cheque but had only challenged the validity of the he was drawing salary of Rs. 1,800/- per month. retrenchment notice. On the ground that it was not preceded by a show cause notice and an enquir y. It is 14. Under the circumstances it is held that the per tinent to note that the ser vices of Par ty I wer e not Par ty I has failed to pr ove that he was appointed on terminated for any misconduct so as to warrant show regular basis since 1983. The evidence on record cause notice an enquir y. Hence the r etr enchment indicates that Par ty I was engaged by Par ty II on notice cannot be held to be illegal on the grounds contract basis till 1989 and subsequently since 1990 he raised by Par ty I in his claim statement. It is also to be was appointed on regular basis to work at the farm noted that though the Par ty I had denied having and also to do repairs/maintenance of pipelines, received the said letter at Exb. E-9, he had referred to machines etc. whenever required and that at the time the said letter in para 8 and 11(a) of his claim statement. of termination of his services he was drawing salary This fact clearly indicates that the Par ty I was aware of of Rs. 1,800/- per month. Hence issue No. 1 is partly the contents of the said letter and in the absence of any answered in the affirmative. other explanation the only inference that can be drawn is that the Par ty I had r eceived the said letter. A per usal 15. It has been argued on behalf of the Issue No. 2: of the said letter at Exb. 9 indicates that in the month Par ty I that the Par ty II has r etrenched the ser vices of August, 1998 the Par ty II had told the Party I to of the Par ty I without complying with the mandator y lookout for a job elsewhere as the farm was running in provisions of Section 25 F and hence the retrenchment loss and the Par ty II had decided to r educe the r unning is illegal. In support of the contention, reliance is capacity of the farm. By the letter at Exb. E-9, the placed on the case of State of Bombay and others V/s ser vices of the Party I were terminated with immediate Hospital Majdoor Sabha reported in 1960 LLJ 251, effect. The said letter also indicates that cheque dated wherein the apex court has held that failure to comply 1-9-98 bearing No. 7098535 drawn on Dena Bank, with provisions of Section 25 F of the Act renders Pomburpa for Rs. 7,723/- towards notice pay and retrenchment invalid and inoperative. It is to be noted retrenchment compensation was enclosed with the said that Section 25 F prescribes procedure for retrench- letter . In this regard, Mrs. Edith D ’Sa, the witness No. 1 ment. This Section provides that a person who is in and proprietr ess of Par ty II has deposed that in the year continuous service for not less than one year cannot be 1998 the farm was not doing proper business and as retrenched unless he has been given one month’s such she had decided either to reduce the work force notice and paid compensation at the rate of 15 days or to close down the farm. She has deposed that she had average wage as per each completed year of continuous told the Par ty II to look out for another job elsewher e. service or any part thereof in excess of six months. The She has deposed that she had given retrenchment no- term continuous service has been defined u/s 25 BC(2) tice dated 1-9-98 along with cheque for Rs. 7,773/- to- of the Act. In the case of Guru Jamdeshwar University wards final settlement of dues including the retrench- the apex cour t Hisar v/s Dharam Pal 2007(2) SCC 265, ment compensation. She has deposed that Par ty I had has held that average pay has been defined u/s 2(aaa) refused to accept the said letter and the cheque and as of the Act, where the legislature has not thought it such the same were sent under certificate of posting. necessary to bring a concept of dividing monthly She has deposed that the Par ty I had r eceived the wages by 26 days for determining the average pay unlike notice and the cheque as the same were not returned in payment of Gratuity Act. It has been held that the by postal authority. The Manager of the Par ty II has average pay has to be computed on the basis of 30 days also corroborated the evidence of Mrs. Edith D’Sa as and not 26 working days. Christopher Couto has also deposed that the Party I 16. Reverting to the facts of this case it is not in had to accept the letter dated 1-9-1998 and the cheque dispute that the Par ty II had ter minated ser vices of and as such the said letter along with the cheque Par ty I vide letter dated 1-9-98. The Par ty I has stated for Rs. 7,723/- was sent to Par ty I under cer tificate of that the Par ty II was doing good business despite which posting. It is to be noted that the aforesaid statement it has terminated his services without any valid reason. made by Mrs. Edith D’Sa as well as Christopher Couto He has stated that the said order is in violation of the has gone unchallenged and this leads to an inference provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and is illegal that the Par ty I had r eceived the letter at Exb. 9 and unwarranted. In his evidence befor e the Tribunal along with the cheque for Rs. 7,723/- towards notice he had deposed that at the time of his termination wages and retrenchment compensation. about 30 employees were employed with the Party II. He has deposed that Par ty II had ter minated his 17. The Par ty I has claimed that Par ty II was doing services without any notice and without paying any good business and at the time of his termination about compensation. It is to be noted that in the cross of 30 employees were employed with Par ty II wher eas Par ty I the P ar ty II has pr oduced the copy of ter mination the witness, Abraham Fernandes has deposed that about letter dated 1-9-98 (Exb. E-9). The Par ty I has denied 50 employees were working for Par ty II. Wher eas

1064 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 Mangesh Sawant whose evidence was recorded in business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling 2002 had deposed that in the year 1985 about 50 of employers and includes any calling, service, workers were working for Par ty II and pr esently only employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or one person is working for Par ty II. Thus the evidence of avocation of workmen. In the instant case the Party II this witness clearly indicates that in the year 1985 about was running of poultry farm and was engaged in 30 persons were working for Par ty II. Wher eas in the business of selling chicken, broilers, eggs etc. and hence year 2002 only one workman was working for Party II. is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Such drastic reduction of workforce is itself an Act. This being the case issue No. 3 is answered in the indication that the poultry was running in loss. There negative. is also no evidence to pr ove that Par ty II has engaged any other person in place of Par ty I. This being the 20. Issue No. 4: It is to be noted that during the case no malafides can be attributed to the Party II for pendency of the proceedings, the Par ty II had offer e d ter minating ser vices of Party I. to reinstate the Par ty I however in his r eply dated 22-11-99, the Par ty I had stated that he was r eady and 18. The next question which arises is whether the willing to work provided he was paid salary for 15 months amount paid to the Par ty I vide cheque dated 1-9-98 from 1-9-98 onwards. The Par ty II once again offer ed is in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 F of reinstatement vide application dated 5-11-99 at Exb. 5. the Act. As it has been held earlier, the P ar ty I was in The evidence on recor d indicates that Par ty I had employment of Party II fr om 1990 till A ugust, 1998 reported for work on 5-11-99 and was asked to repair and his last drawn salary was Rs. 1,800/-. Hence in the pipeline and load and unload the feed however the accor dance with Section 25 F of the A ct, the P arty I Par ty I had lef t the workplace. The Par ty I has admitted was entitled to receive Rs. 1,800/- towards one month that he had refused to do the work. He has stated that notice wage and Rs. 8,100/- towards retrenchment he was not able to unload the bag which was weighing compensation being 15 days average wage for each 75 kgs. However in his cross he has admitted that the completed year of continuous service. It is to be noted manager had provided two labourers for unloading the that Par ty II had issued cheque dated 1-9-98 for bags. It is also to be noted that the Par ty I has stated Rs. 7,723/-. Thus the Par ty I was entitled for r etrench- that the manager of Par ty II and one Savio had told ment compensation of Rs. 9,900/- and hence it is evident him to leave the place and threatened to assault him in that the compensation offered to Par ty I was less than case he did not leave the work place. He has admitted the compensation that Par ty I was entitled to r eceive. that he had not stated the said fact in his reply dated This gives rise to a question whether the termination 22-11-99. He claims that the manager had threatened to stands vitiated due to short payment of compensation. kill him if he disclosed the said facts and that he had not stated the said facts in his reply and had also 19. It is to be noted there was dispute regarding not r epor ted to work out of fear. The allegations of quantum of salar y paid to the Par ty I at the time of his threats and attempt to assault are baseless and ter mination. The Par ty II had claimed that at the time of wild and consequently the explanations given by the the ter mination of ser vice, the Par ty I was being paid Par ty I for not doing the work allotted to him and for not salar y of Rs. 41/- per day and the Par ty II had calculated reporting for duty cannot be believed. The records the compensation on the basis of the said salar y. Ther e thus indicate that the Par ty I was given an offer of is short fall in the said compensation as it is held that reinstatement and the Par ty I has r efused to accept the the salar y of Par ty I was Rs. 1,800/- per month as on the same without any justifiable reasons and this defeats date of the termination. The finding as regards the last the claim of the Party I for reinstatement. drawn salar y of Par ty I is not based on any documentar y or conclusive evidence but is arrived on the basis of 21. Be that as it may, the ter mination of ser vices of pr obability. Under the cir cumstance, the shor t payment Par ty I w.e.f . 1-9-98 is held to be legal and consequently of compensation would not vitiate the termination. It the Par ty I is not entitled for r elief of reinstatement. is also to be noted that though the Par ty I had stated However, considering the fact that ther e was shor t in his evidence befor e the Tribunal that he had not fall in the payment of retrenchment compensation, it received the notice and the compensation, he had would be proper that Par ty I is paid some r easonable not taken such plea in the claim statement and had lumpsum compensation for the alleged breach of not challenged his termination on the ground of non Section 25F of the Act. In my considered opinion issuance of notice, non payment of retrenchment awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which can be compensation or short payment of compensation. In considered as just and fair, will meet the ends of justice. the absence of such pleadings the termination cannot Under the circumstances and in view of discussion be held to be illegal or void on the ground of short supra, I pass the following award. payment of compensation, hence issue No. 2 is answered in the negative. ORDER

19. Issue No. 3: The Par ty II had claimed that it is The action of the management of M/s. El- Cid Farm s not an industry within the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of Ecozim, Pomburpa, Bardez, Goa in ter minating the the Act and hence the reference is not maintainable. services of Shri Mohan Ganesh Dessai, Plumber-cum- In ter ms of Section 2(j) “industr y ” means any -Electrician-cum-Mechanic with effect from 1-9-1998

1065 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 is held to be legal and justified. The Par ty I is not ANNEXURE entitled for the relief of reinstatement and backwages. The Par ty I is entitled for lumpsum compensation of TERMS OF REFERENCE Rs. 10,000 fr om the Party II. 1)To review/repeal obsolete laws in for ce; No order as to costs. 2)To rectif y defects in the existing laws; Infor m the Government accordingly. 3) To identif y laws which requir e changes or amendments and to make suitable modifications or Sd/- amendments to the existing laws; (A. Prabhudessai), Presiding Officer, 4) To consolidate, modif y, simplif y and r efor m the Industrial Tribunal- existing laws; -cum-Labour Court-I. 5) To study the violations caused by the r ules, regulations, etc. to constitutional and legal ———uuu——— provisions and principles; Department of Law and Judiciary 6) To defect unper mitted use of delegated legislative powers; Office of the Law Secretary __ 7) To identif y the pr ovisions which are ultra vir es the scope of the main Acts; Order 8) To study the impact of the laws on effective No. 9/5/2008-LA/100 implementation of the Legislative intent behind Whereas, there has been a persistent demand for the Acts as well as on good governance; setting up a Law Commission for this State to examine 9) To generally examine the existing laws in the light the existing legislations and to suggest suitable of the directive principles of State policy and measures requiring changes or modifications with a suggest ways of improvement and reform; view to co-ordinating and harmonizing them, and 10) T o r eview various laws in the light of the decisions Whereas, the Government has considered the of the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court; question of appointing a Law Commission for this State to examine the existing legislations and to suggest 11) Terms and conditions of appointment of suitable measures requiring changes or modifications, Government pleaders in District Courts and with a view to co-ordinate harmonize and to simplify subordinate Courts, Government and Additional them and remove any anomalies, ambiguities and Government Advocates including District and High inequities, with specific terms of references hereto Court and Public Prosecutors in High Court. annexed. ______N o w , ther efor e, the Gover nment is pleased to constitute the Law Commission consisting of the Law (Estt.) Division members, including its Chairman, for the State as per __ the following composition: Corrigendum 1) Shri Ramakant D. Khalap, … Chairman. Ex-Union Minister of State for No. 2-1-97/LD(Vol.I) Estt./120 Law and Advocate, Mapusa Read: Government Notification bearing No. -1-97/ 2) Shri Cleofato Coutinho, … Member. /LD(Vol.I)/1334 dated 30-10-2007. Advocate, Margao The name of the Civil Judge, Junior Division & 3) Shri Mario Pinto Almeida, … Member. Judicial Magistrate First Class Shri Santana Da Silva Advocate, Margao Carlo Rohin referred to in the above mentioned Notification may be read as “Carlo Rohin Santana Da The tenure of the Law Commission will be for a period Silva”. of one year from the date of taking over charge of the Office in the first instance. The members of the This Corrigendum is issued at his own request and Commission will be paid a suitable lumpsum on the basis of the Birth Certificate issued by the remuneration as may be fixed by the Government from Directorate of Planning, Statistics and Evaluation, time to time. Government of Goa.

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

V. P. Shetye, Law Secretar y. Vassudev N. Shetye, Under Secretar y (Estt.). Por vorim, 20th Januar y, 2009. Por vorim, 22nd Januar y, 2009.

1066 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 Department of Official Language and Department of Personnel Public Grievances __ Directorate of Official Language Order __ No. 4/7/2004-PER Order Government is pleased to accept the notice of No. 4-3-2004/DOL/Ad.Br d.Meet/Par t/1157 voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of the Central The Government of Goa is pleased to constitute a Civil Ser vice (P ension) Rules, 1972, given by Dr. T. T. Sub-Committee under the Advisory Board for the Naik, Managing Director, Goa Meat Complex, vide his Effective Implementation of Official Language Act, 1987. letter dated 01-12-2008, by curtailing the normal period of three months. The following shall be the composition of the Sub-Committee: Dr. Naik shall stand r elieved with effect fr o m 01-02-2009 (f.n.) on the condition that he shall not apply 1. A dv. Uday Bhembre, Margao . Chairman. for commutation of a part of his pension before the 2. Shri Shambu Bhau Bandekar, . Member. expiry of the period of notice of three months. Saligão Shri T. T. Naik shall hand over the char ge of the post 3. Shri Tomazinho Cardozo, . Member. of Managing Director, Goa Meat Complex to Shri Heitor Candolim F aleir o, Dir ector of Animal Husbandr y & Veterinar y 4. Shri Damodar Mauzo, Majorda . Member. Services. 5. President of Goa Konkani … Member. Akademi By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. 6. President of Gomantak … Member. Umeshchandra L. Joshi, Under Secretar y (P ersonnel-I). Marathi Akademi 7. President of Dalgado Konkani … Member. Por vorim, 28th Januar y, 2009. Akademi ______

The Sub-Committee shall study the matters regarding Order framing of rules for Official Language Act, 1987 so as to hold the Government Departments/Public Sector No. 15/7/2004-PER Undertakings/Public Organisations, legally binding for the implementation of the Act. Read: 1) Or der No. 2(91)/2007/Admn F-2/439 dated 25th September, 2008 issued by the Indian The Sub-Committee shall submit its report within a Institute of Advance Study Shimla. time frame of 60 days from the date of publication of the Order in this Official Gazette. 2) Relieving Order No. 15/7/2004-PER dated 20-11-2008. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. In pursuance of order referred to in preamble (1) Menino Peres, Director of Official Language and ex officio Joint Secr etar y. Shri Shashank V. Thak ur, BDO, Satari is her e b y transferred on deputation to Indian Institute of Advance Panaji, 22nd Januar y, 2009. Study Shimla, who stands relieved vide order read ______at preamble (2). Corrigendum The terms of deputation of Shri Thakur shall be for a No. 4-3-2004/DOL/Ad.Brd.Meet period of 2 years in the first instance and shall be governed by the standard terms of deputation as Read: Order No. 4-3-2004/DOL/Ad.Brd.Meet/797 contained in the Government of India’s Department dated 28-02-2008. of Personnel & Public Grievances and Pension, O. M. In par tial modification of the above Or der, No. 2/12/87-Estt. (Pay -II) dated 29-4-1988 as amended Government is pleased to appoint Adv. Uday Bhembre from time to time and this Depar tment’s O. M. No. 13/4/ as Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Board for the /74-PER dated 12-2-1999 as amended from time Effective Implementation of Official Language Act, 1987, to time. subsequent to the resignation tendered by the present Shri Thak ur shall be entitled for transfer T.A/D.A. as Vice- Chair man, Shri Shantaram Naik, M.P. per rules. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. Menino Peres, Director of Official Language ex officio Joint Secr etar y. Umeshchandra L. Joshi, Under Secretar y (P ersonnel-I). Panaji, 22nd Januar y, 2009. Por vorim, 28th Januar y, 2009.

1067 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 Department of Public Works of Series II No. 5 of the Official Gazette dated 02-05-2008 and in two newspapers (1) “Herald” dated 23-04-2008 Office of the Principal Chief Engineer (2) “Sunaparant” dated 23-04-2008, it was notified __ under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification Subsequently, Corrigendum was issued vide No. 23/19/2008-RD dated 19-09-2008 published in the No. 8-4/CE-PWD-Accts/2008-09/1026 Official Gazette Series II dated 25-09-2008 No. 26 and in Whereas, it has ascertained that a substantial two local newspapers viz. “Sunaparant” dated amount is due to the Government as arrears of rent and 23-09-2008 and “Navhind Times” dated 23-09-2008. water charges from the defaulting consumers on account Subsequently, Addendum was issued 18-11-2008 of various reasons: published in the Official Gazette No. 35 of Series II And whereas, the Government desires to recover the dated 27-11-2008 and in two local newspapers viz. said arrears as expeditiously as possible. “Sunaparant” dated 23-11-2008 and “Navhind Times” dated 23-11-2008 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter And whereas, representations and complaints have referred to as “the said Act”) that the land, specified in been received from consumers alleging non-receipt of the Schedule appended to the said Notification was bills in time, faulty meters exorbitant rate of compound likely to be needed for the public purpose viz. Land interest being charged etc., as grounds for non clearance Acquisition for construction of bridge across Sal of arrears. alongwith approach r oad at Var ca in Talaulim villages And whereas, the Government after taking into of Salcete Taluka. consideration the various representation made by the consumers and other connected factors, including the And whereas, the Government of Goa (hereinafter cost and time involved in settling the individual referred to as “the Government”) after considering the disputed cases is of the opinion, that the ends of report made under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the justice would be served if the delayed payment said Act is satisfied that the land specified in the charges payable by the defaulters upto date (2-02-2009) Schedule hereto is needed for the public purpose are compounded as a one time amnesty. specified above (hereinafter referred to “the said N o w , ther efor e, the Gover nment of Goa is hereby land”). pleased to direct that all domestic and construction water consumers who are defaulters in payment of N o w , ther efor e, the Gover nment hereby declares, arrears of water charges upto date, their arrears be under Section 6 of the said Act that the said land is compounded to the extent of 40% and the balance 60% required for the public purpose specified above. shall be paid by them in maximum two installments within a period of five months from the date of 2. The Government also appoints, under clause (c) of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette. Section 3 of the said A ct, the Dy. Collector (LA), South This Amnesty Scheme is valid upto 15-7-2009. The Goa District, Margao-Goa, to perform the functions of consumers whose cases have already been referred to the Collector, South Goa District, Mar gao, Goa, for all revenue recovery court are also eligible to avail the proceedings hereinafter to be taken in respect of the benefits under this scheme. said land and directs him under Section 7 of the said The defaulting consumers shall produce their latest Act to take order for the acquisition of the said land . bill to the respective water supply Sub Division and get it corrected for deduction in terms of the provision of 3. A plan of the said land can be inspected at this notification and accordingly effect the payment the Office of the said, the Dy. Collector (LA), South Goa thereof. District, Margao-Goa, till the award is made under By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. Section 11.

A. M. Wachasunder, Principal Chief Engineer, P. W.D. SCHEDULE & ex officio A ddl. Secr etar y. (Description of the said land) Panaji, 2nd Febr uar y, 2009. Taluka: Salcete Village: Talaulim ———uuu——— Department of Revenue Survey No./ Names of the persons Approx. area __ /Sub-Div. No. believed to be interested in sq. mts. 123 Notification 273/1 (part) O: Mariya Melba Da Goveya 744 No. 23/19/2008-RD Pinto Soares. Whereas by Government Notification No. 23/19/2008- Exec. Eng., W.D. XIV, Water -RD dated 18-04-2008 published on pages 121 to 122 Resources Dept., Gogol.

1068 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009

123123

261/1 (part) O: Lena Coutinho. 185 East : S. No. 273/2, 20, 21, 24, 29, 297/8 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 5 30, 33, 40, 261/1, 260/2, 4. Alvares. W est : S. No. 297/18, 19, 20, 21, 1, 4, 6, T: A ugostinho Pascoal Coutinho. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, S. No. 260/2, 297/11 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 23 259/1, 248/1, 2, 249/1, 250/1. Alvares. T: Silvestr e V incente Fernandes. Taluka: Salcete Village: Varca 297/12 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 32 Alvares. 45/1 (part) O: Cleophas Arvindo Martins. 220 T: Lourenco Piedade Pires. Theresa Martins. 297/13 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 40 OR: Care taker: Jeor ge Fernandes. Alvares. Domingo Ambrosio has got T: Alex Vincente Fernandes. Usufruct (life interest) rights. 297/18 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 89 45/3 (part) O: P ascoal Dias. 267 Alvares. Jor ge L uis Fernandes. T: Silvestr e V incente Fernandes. Antoninha Fernandes D’Souza. 297/24 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 50 Pedro Augusto Rodrigues. Alvares. Antonio Arcanjo Fernandes. T: Lourence Piedade Peres. Rev. Fr. Freddy Jeromias 297/23 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 100 D’Costa. Alvares. Deelip Anant Chodnekar. T: Silvestr e V incent Fernandes. Lamberto Candido Jose 297/22 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 82 Rodrigues. Alvares. Rev. Fr. Freddy Jeromias T: A ugustinho Pascoal Coutinho. D’Costa. 297/21 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 72 OR: House built by David Alvares. Fernandes. T: Alex Vincente Fernandes. Hut belongs to Epa Fernandes. 297/20 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 94 Alvares. Boundaries : T: A ugustinho Pascoal Coutinho. North : River Sal. 297/19 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 52 South : S. No. 45/3, 1. Alvares. T: Lourenco Piedade Pires. East : S. No. 45/3. 297/10 (part) O: Dr . Constancio Rosario de 12 W est : S. No. 45/1, 3. Alvares. Total: 6122 297/9 (part) O: Comunidade. 6 260/1 (part) O: V enkatesh Ramchandra Keni. 1 0 3 By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. 260/2 (part) O: Narcinva Ramchandra Keni. 328 T: A ugusta Fernandes. D. M. Redkar, Under Secretar y (Revenue). 259/1 (part) O: Roberto Francisco Augustin 275 Por vorim, 22nd Januar y, 2009. T eles. 260/4 (part) O: Damodar Venkatesh Shenvi 148 ______Kare. Notification Govinda Venkatesh Shenvi Kare. Vasudeva Venkatesh Shenvi No. 23/18/2008-RD Kare. Whereas by Government Notification No. 23/18/2008- T: Pedro Coutinho. -RD dated 18-04-2008 published on pages 120 & 121 of 248/1 (part) O: F rancisco Emelian Fer rao. 644 Series II No. 5 of the Official Gazette dated 02-05-2008 248/2 (part) O: Piedade Coutinho. 316 and in two newspapers (1) “ Tar un Bharat” dated 249/1 (part) O: Ulhas Pandharinath Verlekar. 185 25-04-2008 and (2) “Gomantak Times” dated 23-04-2008, 250/2 (part) O: Narshiv Ramchandra Keny. 1850 it was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition T: Domingo Rosario Coutinho. Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to 250/4 (part) O: Narshiv Ramchandra Keny. 200 as “the said Act”), that the land specified in the Schedule appended to the said Notification (hereinafter referred Boundaries : to as the said land), was needed for public purpose viz. Land Acquisition for construction of Benaulim Sinquetim North : S. No. 274/2. bridge across river Sal in Navelim Constituency at South : River Sal. Benaulim and Navelim Villages of Salcete Taluka.

1069 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 45 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009

And whereas, the Government of Goa (hereinafter 123 referred to as the “Government”) being of the opinion that the acquisition of the said land is urgently 238/5 O: Filipe do Rosario Fernandes. 120 necessar y, hereby applies the pr ovisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act and directs Boundaries : that the Collector appointed under paragraph 2 below, shall, at any time, on the expiry of fifteen days from the North: S. No. 234/4, 2, 236/16, 237/2. date of the publication of the notice relating to the said South: S. No. 234/2, 4, 238/1, 5. land under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, take possession of the said land. East : 238/1, 236/16, 234/4. N o w , ther efor e, the Gover nment hereby declares, W est : S. No. 233/4, 234/2. under the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act, that Total: 1783 the said land is required for the public purpose specified above. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

2. The Government also hereby appoints under clause D. M. Redkar, Under Secretar y (Revenue). (c) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Deputy Collector (LA), South Goa District, Margao-Goa to perform the Por vorim, 23r d Januar y, 2009. functions of the Collector, for all proceedings hereinaf ter ———uuu——— to be taken in respect of the said land and directs him under Section 7 of the said Act to take order for the Department of Vigilance acquisition of the said land. Directorate of Vigilance 3. A plan of the said land can be inspected at the __ Office of the Deputy Collector (LA), South Goa District, Margao-Goa till the award is made under Section 11. Notification SCHEDULE No. 15/03/2007-VIG(Par t I)/141 (Description of the said land) Whereas, inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Shri D. K. Sawant, then S. P. (Nor th Taluka: Salcete Village: Navelim Goa), under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide Survey No./ Names of the persons Approx. area Memorandum No. 15/03/2007-VIG/2304 dated 24-10-2007 /Sub-Div. No. believed to be interested in sq. mts. is in progr ess befor e the Inquiring A uthority. 123 2. Whereas, the Inquiring Authority has reported that 131/2 (part) O: Graciana Rodrigues. 460 the State Witness No. 1 namely, Shri Rohan Olenzorio Lobo has been evading the attendance to testify before the Inquiry Authority despite summons issued to him Boundaries : to remain present on 13-11-2008 and on 9-12-2008. North : S. No. 131/2. 3. Whereas, the Governor of Goa is satisfied that this South : S. No. 131/2. is the fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 4 of East : S. No. 131/2. the Departmental Enquiries (Enforcement of Attendance W est : River. of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972. 4 . N o w , ther efor e, the Gover nor of Goa in ter ms of Taluka: Salcete Village: Benaulim powers conferred under Section 4 of the Departmental 234/2 (part) O: Maria Fatima Mariaha Colaco. 280 Enquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Maria Dorinda Julieta Production of Documents) Act, 1972 hereby empowers Eslinda Colaco. the Inquiring Authority in the inquiry proceedings under Maria Evelina Bevinda Colaco. Section 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, against Shri D. K. Exc. Eng., W.D.VI, P WD, Fator da. Sawant to exercise powers as provided under Section 5 OR: Vahivatdar Caitano Fernandes. of the said Act. H. No. 49, House built by Vahivatdar. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. No. 1 house owned by A ddl. Dir ector (V igilance) & ex officio Santano Carvel. A. W. Rane, Joint Secr etar y. 233/4 (part) O: Sacrament Pereira.23 238/1 O: Filipe do Rosario Fernandes. 900 Panaji, 30th Januar y, 2009.

www.goagovt.nic.in/gazette.htm GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA. PRICE – Rs. 12.00 1070