reg. no. gr/rnp/goa/32 rni no. goaeng/2002/6410 · ramakant r. talkar, under secretary (ga-ii)....

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of FinanceRevenue & Control Division

__

Notification

No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)Part(A)

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule

(4) of Rule 99 of the Goa Excise Duty Rules, 1964,

the Government of Goa, being satisfied that it is

necessary in the public interest, hereby directs

that all licensed premises “for the sale of liquor”

located within the jurisdiction of ward No. VIII of

the village panchayat of Colva in Salcete Taluka

and Ward No. IX of village Panchayat of

Cortalim-Quelossim in Mormugao Taluka-Goa,

shall be closed on 14-12-2013 and 15-12-2013 in

view of bye-election to vacant ward No. VIII of

village panchayat Colva in Salcete Taluka & Ward

No. IX of village Panchayat, Cortalim-Quelossim

in Mormugao Taluka.

The licensed premises having license for

“Bar and Restaurant” may be allowed to keep the

restaurant open for serving food only. However,

the Bar counter shall be closed and no liquor shall

be allowed to serve on the said days. The owners

of the license premises having “Bar & Restaurant”

shall also display a board in the premises that no

liquor will be served and that the restaurant will

be open for serving food only.

By order and in the name of the Governorof Goa.

Ajit S. Pawaskar, Under Secretary, Finance(R&C).

Porvorim, 10th December, 2013.

Panaji, 12th December, 2013 (Agrahayana 21, 1935) SERIES II No. 37

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

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

873Suggestions are welcome on e-mail: [email protected]

Notification

No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)Part(B)

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections

5 and 8 of the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964 (Act 5

of 1964) (hereinafter called the “said Act”), the

Government of Goa hereby prescribes that,

notwithstanding anything contained in the

Government Notifications No. Fin (Rev.)/2-35/SE/

/6/68/(A) dated 29-2-1972 and No. Fin(Rev.)/2-35/

/SE/6/65/(B) dated 29-2-1972, the follwing shall

be the maximum quantity of liquor which can be

transported from one place to another within the

jurisdiction of Ward No. VIII of village Panchayat

of Colva in Salcete Taluka & Ward No. IX of village

Panchayat, Cortalim-Quelossim in Mormugao

Taluka, by any person or which can be possessed

by any person within said area without a permit

issued in accordance with the provisions of the

said Act and the Rules made thereunder, on

14-12-2013 and 15-12-2013.

(a) Three quart bottles of Indian made foreign

liquor other than beer and six bottles of

beer for any person including his family.

(b) Three quart bottles of country liquor for any

person including his family.

This Notification shall remain in force only on

14-12-2013 and 15-12-2013. In view of bye-election

of Ward No. VIII of village Panchayat of Colva in

Salcete Taluka & Ward No. IX of village Panchayat,

Cortalim-Quelossim in Mormugao Taluka.


Ajit S. Pawaskar, Under Secretary, Finance(R&C).


OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOASERIES II No. 37 12TH DECEMBER, 2013

874

Department of General Administration__

Notification

File No. 25/4/95-GA&C/4205

Government of Goa regret to announce that

Dr. Nelson R. Mandela, former President of South

Africa and a Bharat Ratna Awardee passed away

on 05-12-2013. As a mark of respect to the

departed dignitary, the Government of Goa

declares State Mourning for five days from

6-12-2013 to 10-12-2013, both days inclusive

throughout the State of Goa.

During the period of State Mourning, the

National Flag will be flown at Half Mast

throughout the State of Goa in all the buildings

where it is regularly flown and there will be no

official entertainment.


Ramakant R. Talkar, Under Secretary (GA-II).


——— ———

Department of Labour__

Notification

No. 24/14/2013-LAB/782

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(e) of Section 2 of the Goa Employment (Conditions

of Service) and Retirement Benefit Act, 2001 (Goa

Act 35 of 2001) (hereinafter called as the “said

Act”) and in supersession of the Government

Notification No. CL/P.A./(107)/2001/4151 dated

20-09-2001, published in the Official Gazette,

(Extraordinary No. 3 Series I No. 25, dated

21-09-2001, the Government of Goa hereby notifies

the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Panaji, as the

competent authority for the purposes of the said

Act, with immediate effect.


Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 18th November, 2013.

Notification

No.28/l/2013-Lab/480

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on10-06-2013 in reference No. IT/103/07 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).


Meena Priolkar, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 10th July, 2013.________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDLABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Smt. Bimba K. Thaly, PresidingOfficer)

Ref. No. IT/103/07Workmen rep. byThe General Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,Tisk, Ponda-Goa. … Workmen/Party I.

V/s

The Director,Department of Tourism,Government of Goa,Patto Plaza,Panaji, Goa. … Employer/Party II.

Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri S.Gaonkar holding for Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri V.Pangam.

AWARD

(Passed on this 10th day of June, 2013 )

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (for short The Act),the Government of Goa by order dated 15-10-07bearing No. 28/36/2007-LAB/993 has referred thefollowing dispute for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the demand for regularization ofservices of Workmen employed oncontract has is by the Department ofTourism, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa.raised by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sanghis legal and justified ?

(2) If the answer to (1) above is in theaffirmative, then, to what relief theWorkmen are entitled ?”


875

2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/103/07 wasregistered. Notices were issued to both theparties under registered post, upon which boththe parties were served. Party I filed the claimstatement at Exb. 5. Party II filed the writtenstatement at Exb. 14 Party I then filed therejoinder at Exb. 15.

3. It is in short the case of Party I thatGomantak Mazdoor Sangh (Sangh for short) is aregistered trade Union and almost all the workersworking as life guards under Party II have joinedthe joined the Sangh. That Party II is the StateGovernment looking after and regulating theTourism related activities in Goa. It has engagedlife guards in all the beaches of Goa to protectthe life of the Tourists and provide them safety. Itis stated that the supervisors and some of the lifeguards are in the regular services and the lifeguards in the reference were initially appointedby Party II but only to deprive them the benefitsof permanancy, their wages were paid throughGoa Labour Recruitment and Employment Societyand the main function of the said socicety was tomake the payments of the employees working invarious State Government Departments and StateGovernment Undertakings. According to Party Ithe above arrangements of making paymenttentamounts to camouflage and is sham contract.It is stated that in the month of August, 2006 allthe workers gave notice of strike demandingregularization of their services and in support oftheir demands went on legal strike w.e.f. 10-08-06and the strike continued upto 08-09-06 howeverthe strike was withdrawn w.e.f. 08-09-06 and theworkers went to join duty w.e.f 09-09-06 butParty II refused to allow them to resume their duties.Thereafter the matter ended in failure and thedispute was referred for adjudication to this Court.It is stated that except the wages all other controland supervision was done by Party II. It is statedthat 68 life guards whose names are mentionedin Annexure “A” to the Claim Statement were onthe role of Party II and their attendance wasmarked on the Attendance register of Party II.Party II also maintained the duty allocation andattendance register and the overall control overthese life guards was with Party II. It is statedthat power to transfer/posting was with Party II andthus it is clear that these life guards were theemployees of Party II. It is stated that training andother fitness programmes for the life guards wasconducted by Party II and the training orders werealways issued by the Director of Tourism. It is statedthat the Government always treated these lifeguards as the employees of the Party II and even

the Tourism Minister has even in answer tounstarred L. A. Q. stated that these life guards wereemployed by Party II and they were working from1999 onwards. It is therefore the contention of Party Ithat only to deprive them the benefit ofregularization of service, their wages were shownas paid through the society. Party I has thereforeprayed for regularize their services, for a declarationthat the workers are regular and they are entitledfor the regular grades and wages as applicable tothe regular life guards in the Department of Tourismand to award the wages for the period they werenot allowed to join the duty.

4. In defence Party II has denied the case set upby Party I and has stated that the reference referredto this Tribunal is not an Industrial Dispute withinthe meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act; that Party IIis not an industry and Party I are not the Workmenunder the Act: that Party II is not an employer underSection 2 (g) of the Act; that the Government hasfailed to consider relevant material before makingthe reference for adjudication and that GoaRecruitment and Employment Society being theemployer is a necessary party to these proceedings.

It is also the case of Party II that in the year 1999additional eligible life guards were appointed oncontract basis including the members of Party I andtheir services were terminated after commencingof the monsoon season on 24-7-01. That an officememorandum dated 17-4-01 by Department ofPersonnel, Government of Goa, requesting all theGovernment Department to obtain the services, ifrequired, of essential nature in GovernmentDepartment to the said society was issued. Thatthe members of Party I whose names reflected inthe list of life guards annexed to the claim statementwere appointed purely on contract basis by GoaContract Labour Supply Society, now known as ‘GoaRecruitment and Employment Society’ (for short ‘thesociety‘). That in terms of the said memorandumthe employees so engaged by the said society andsupplied to the Party II would be responsible to thesociety and they would not be the Governmentemployees and on termination of the contract, theirservices would revert to the said society for freshdeployment. It is stated that Party I is not entitledto claim leave or other facilities available to theGovernment Employees in terms of the saidmemorandum and also in terms ofthis memorandum Party I has the right toterminate the contract in case the members ofParty I were found unfit and not suitable for thejob for which their services were requisitionedby Party II or for any other reasons. It is statedthat in terms of the said memorandum on


876

16-11-01 the eligible members of Party I whosenames reflected at Sr. Nos. 1 to 27 were appointedon contract basis by the said society on theterms and conditions stated therein. It is statedthat the said society supplied the eligible lifeguards as per the requisition of Party II.According to Party II the appointment of themembers of Party I comes to an end when it isdiscontinued. It is stated that due to failure onthe part of these life guards to attend dutiesw.e.f. 10-08-06, Party II by letter dated17-08-07 informed the member secretary of thesociety to take action against the life guardsappointed on contract basis and bymemorandum dated 25-08-06 the societydirected the life guards to join duties within 24hours failing which their services would standrelieved automatically. That since the membersof Party I failed to resume the duties within thestipulated time, the Party II by communicationdated 15-09-06 requested the society to treat thecontract of contractual life guards withParty II as terminated w.e.f. 10-08-06. Thatsimultaneously Party I approached the labourcommissioner for intervention in the matter.However, in the meantime Government took thedecision to transfer the Beach SafetyManagement System including engagement oflife guards on beaches to Goa TourismDevelopment Corporation Limited (GTDC),which is an independent legal entity. That on21-10-06 GTDC published advertisement forrecruitment of Iife guards on contract basis. Thatin the meantime on 30-09-06 Party I filed WritPetition No. 464/2006 before High Court ofBombay at Goa praying to regularize theservices of life guards. That after publication ofthe said advertisement Party I filedmiscellaneous application in the above WritPetition and sought to apply for the same andrelaxation of age limit. That the above petitionwas then withdrawn by Party I with liberty toraise dispute under the provisions of the Act,which was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court.That pursuant to this conciliation proceedingswere initiated but no settlement could arrive atand the conciliation officer submitted his failurereport. Thereafter, GTDC submitted offer ofappointment for the post of life guards amongstothers to the members or Party I vide letter dated31-8-07 with monthly emoluments or Rs. 6,000/-

and the members of Party I i.e. 53 life guards aftergoing through the same, joined duties with GTDCw.e.f. 21-09-07 and have been posted at various

beaches of Goa. Thus, it is in short the contention

of Party II that Party I has not made out any casefor any reliefs prayed in the claim statement andtherefore to dismiss the statement of claim withcosts.

5. In the rejoinder Party I has denied the caseset up by Party II in the written statement.

6. On the basis of the above averments ofthe respective parties, issues dated 26-09-08 atExb. 18 were framed:

7. Party I examined Shri Ravindra Kubal aswitness No. 1 and Shri Dulo Naik as witness No.2 and closed their case. On the other hand Party IIexamined Shri Swapnil Naik as witness No. 1 andShri Krishna G. Naik as witness No. 2 and closedthe case.

8. Heard learned Adv. Shri S. Gaonkar forParty I and learned Adv. Shri V. Pangam forParty II.

9. In his arguments Lnd. advocate for Party Isubmitted that the Party I/Workmen were on theroll of Party II and their attendance was markedon the attendance register of Party II, so also thatParty II maintained the duty allocation andattendance register. According to him overallcontrol over these life guards was with Party IIand that power to transfer/posting was also withParty II and therefore these life guards were theemployees of Party II. He further submitted thatthe training and other fitness programmes forthese life guards was conducted by Party II andeven the Government treated them as theemployees of Party II and this submission wasmade by referring to the answer given to theunstarred L.A.Q. by the Tourism Minister.According to him, only to deprive him the benefitsof regularization of service, the wages of theselife guards was shown as paid through the society.In his submissions he relied on the judgment inthe case of Ram Singh and others v/s UnionTerritory, Chandigarh and others 2004 (1) SCC126, to highlight the factors required to determinethe relationship of employer and employee. He thenrelied on the judgment in the case of SteelAuthority of India Ltd., and others v/s NationalUnion Water Front Workers and others 2001-II--LLJ 1087, to content that where a Workman ishired in or in connection with the work of anestablishment by the principle employer througha contractor, like in the instant case, he merelyacts as an agent and there is master and servantrelationship between the principle employer andthe Workman. Lastly by referring to the judgmentin the case of C.M. ONGC Shilchar v/s O.N.G.C.


877

Contractual Workers Union 2008 II CLR 988, hetried to impress upon the court a “to how thejudgment” in the case of Secretary, State ofKarnataka v/s Ummadevi AIR 2006 SC 1806 theratio in which indicates that any publicemployment has to be in terms of theconstitutional scheme, cannot be applied to theset of facts in the instant case as the ratio of anydecision must be understood in the backgroundof the facts of that case and that the case is onlyan authority of what it logically decides andlogically flows from it. By referring to the abovejudgment in the case of O.N.G.C. he also made itclear that the Tribunal has powers to lift the veilfor coming to the conclusion that there exist arelationship of master and servant between theprinciple employer and the Workmen.

10. On the other hand learned advocate forParty II submitted that the appointment given toeligible life guards in the year 1999 on contractbasis were terminated after commencement ofmonsoon season on 24-7-01. By referring to officememorandum dated 17-4-01 issued by the UnderSecretary (Personnel) he stated that all theGovernment Departments are required to obtainthe services, if required, of essential nature inGovernment departments through The GoaContract Labour Supply Society and in terms ofthis memorandum the employees so engaged andsupplied to Party II are responsible to the societyand further in terms of this memorandum Party IIis empowered to terminate the contract in casethe employees supplied are found unfit and notsuitable for job. Thus according to him in terms ofthis memorandum the members of Party I whoare so engaged by the society and supplied toParty II are not the employees of Party II and theyare not entitled to the reliefs of regularization oftheir services, viz-a-viz Party II. Further by referringto the judgment in the case of Ummadevi (Supra),he stated that the employment of Party I withParty II is not in terms of constitutional scheme andthough the Government has right to engagepersons in various capacities for a durationtemporarily or on daily wages to meet the needsof situation without following the requiredprocedure, such persons cannot be ordered to beabsorbed or regularized in service since theirappointment is without following due process ofselection as envisaged by the constitutionalscheme. By referring to this judgment viz-a-vizthe facts of the instant case, he stated that whenthe person accepts the employment eithertemporary or in casual nature being aware of thenature of employment, he accepts the same

knowingly as like Party I/Workman in this case,and therefore no regularization or the services orsuch Workman can be demanded.

11. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the submissions madeby both the learned advocates. I am reproducingherewith the issues alongwith their findings andreasons thereof.

Sr. Issues Findings

No.

1. Whether the Party I proves In the negative.that the said life guards arethe employees of the TourismDepartment of the State?

2. Whether the Party I proves In the negative.that the demand for regulari-zation of these services of lifeguards is legal and just?

3. Whether the Party II proves In the negative.that it is not an industry withinthe meaning of Sec. 2(j)?

4. Whether the Party II proves In the positive.that these life guards are theemployees of Goa Recruit-ment and Employment Society?

5. What relief? What Order? As per awardbelow.

REASONS

12. Issue No. 3: This issue being related to thejurisdiction of this Court, is answered first since itgoes to the root of the matter. In the writtenstatement Party II has raised certain preliminaryobjections one of which is that it is not an industrywithin the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the Act.Accordingly, this issue came to be framed castingburden on Party II of proving the same.

13. It is interesting to note that neither in thecross examination of the witnesses of Party I norin the examination in chief of the witnesses ofParty II, the fact of Party II not being an industrywithin the meaning of Sec. 2(j) of the Act has beenbrought on record. Being so, the pleadings relatingto the above preliminary objection in the writtenstatement, having not been deposed on oath.cannot be considered. This being the situation ithas to be held that Party II has failed to prove thisissue.

14. Be that as it may, in his arguments learnedadvocate for Party II submitted that the role ofParty II is of promotion of Tourism and of


878

regulating Tourism activities in the State. Hefurther stated that Party II is not the profit makingestablishment and therefore according to him it isnot an industry. However, learned advocate forParty I by referring to the observations in thejudgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply& Sewerage Board v/s A. Rajappa and others(1978) 2 SCC 213 made it clear that absence ofprofit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant forcoming within the definition of Sec. 2(j) of the Act.Thus, it is clear that the arguments advanced bylearned advocate for Party II on the subject ofParty II being not a profit making establishmentand hence is not an industry, cannot be accepted.It may be mentioned here that nothing else hasbeen pointed out or brought to my notice by thelearned advocate tor Party II to indicate thatParty II is not an industry within the meaning ofSec. 2(j) of the Act. Hence my findings.

15. Issue Nos. l & 4: Both these issues areanswered together for the sake of convenience asthey are interconnected. Though it is thecontention of Party I that the said life guards arethe employees of Party II no documentaryevidence has been produced by the witnesses ofParty I to establish that they were appointed byParty II.

16. Witness No. 1 Shri Ravindra Kubal has statedin his affidavit in evidence that life guards in hisreference were initially appointed by the TourismDepartment but in his cross examination hasstated that he does not have the letter issued bythe Goa Tourism Department asking him to comefor the interview. No doubt, he has also statedthat he will be able to produce such letters issuedto other life guards but it is noted that nothinghas been produced thereafter by this witness. Thiswitness was also shown an order dated 24-6-02(Exb. 38) issued by Director of Tourism vide whichthe services of the life guards whose names arementioned therein and who were engagedthrough Goa Contract Labour Society, Panaji werediscontinued w.e.f. 1-7-02 F. N. until further ordersand this order makes it clear that the life guardswere engaged through Goa Contract LabourSociety, Panaji. Nonetheless, the fact remains isthat Shri Ravindra Kubal has not produced anydocument to show that he or other life guards wereappointed by the Tourism Department.

17. As regards Shri Dulo Naik, witness No. 2 ofParty I, he has stated in his affidavit in evidencethat he was working as life guard since December,1999 and in the year 2001 he was told that hiswages would be paid through the Goa Labour

Recruitment and Employment Society (the societyfor short) and after completion of 3 years hisservices would be regularized by the departmentand he was also told that except the wages otherconditions and the job allocation, supervision.training, transfer and disciplinary actions will bedone by the Tourism Department of the StateGovernment. In his cross examination he hasadmitted that he does not have any document toshow that he was told that his wages will be paidby the Society and he also does not have documentto show that he was told that after completion ofthree years his services will be regularized by theDepartment. He has admitted that there is no orderor documents issued by Tourism Departmentstating that all other conditions of the job exceptthe wages would be done by Tourism Department.

18. In the above context, it may be relevantto refer to Exb. 40 which is an order dated17-12-1999 issued to Shri Dulo Naik, by theDirector of Tourism engaging him as life guard oncontract basis in the Department of Tourismw.e.f. 21-12-99. Shri Dulo Naik has admitted thatthis order clearly states that he was engaged aslife guard on contract basis. He has also admittedin his cross examination that he has studied uptoX std and understands English. He has stated that

he read and understood the contents of Exb. 40.Thus, from the above admissions of Shri Dulo Naikit becomes clear that even his initial engagementas life guard in the year 1999 was on contractbasis in the Department of Tourism and thereforethere appears to be substance in the contentionof Party II that the services of additional eligiblelife guards appointed in the year 1999 wereterminated after commencement of monsoonseason on 24-7-01.

19. There is otherwise no dispute on the part ofParty I about existence of office memorandumdated 17-4-01 (Exb. 49) produced by Shri SwapnilNaik witness No. 1 for Party II, having issued byUnder Secretary (Personnel) regarding registrationof Goa Contract Labour Supply Society. The onlygrievance made by Party I as regards Exb. 49 isthat to deprive them the benefits of regularizationof services, their wages were shown as paidthrough the society which is a camouflage andsham in nature. It is also stated by Shri Dulo Naikthat said arrangement of making payment wassham in nature and no legal requirements werecomplied before or after the commencement ofthe payments through the said society andtherefore according to him it tantamounts tocamouflage and sham contract. The above


879

statements made by the witnesses of Party I aredenied by Party II in their cross examinations. Itis however interesting to note that neither in thecross examination of Shri Swapnil Naik nor in thecross examination of Shri Krishna Naik who areboth the witnesses of Party II it has beensuggested by the teamed representative of Party Ithat the arrangement of making payment throughthe society was camouflage and sham contractand that no requirements were complied beforeor after commencement of payments through thesaid society. It was infact for Party I to havebrought on record through the witnesses of Party IIthe required evidence to indicate that the samewas a camouflage and sham contract and no legalrequirements were complied before or aftercommencement of payments through the saidsociety. Having failed to bring on record therequired evidence despite pleading the said factin the claim statement, it becomes clear that Party Ihas failed to prove the above aspect of the matter.This is because a particular relationship betweenan employer and employee is a genuine or acamouflage through the mode of contractor isessentially a question of fact to be determined onthe basis of features of relationship. the writtenterms of employment, if any, and the actual natureof employment. The actual nature of relationshipconcerning a particular employment beingessentially a question of fact, it has to be raisedand proved before an industrial adjudicator, whichthe Party I has failed to do.

20. Nevertheless, reading of Exb. 49 gives aclear indication that the object of the Society wasto provide employment to the unemployed weakersections and to attain this objective society hadengaged unemployed people on daily wages//contract basis or regular basis to render servicesto various Government Departments and thismemorandum has also enjoined upon allDepartments/Government Organizations not toengage any persons/labourer on contract basisother than those supplied by this society. Further,this office memorandum makes the employees soengaged by the society and supplied to thedepartments responsible to the society and theyare not considered as the Government employees.This memorandum has also empowered theGovernment to refuse the contract labourersupplied by the society incase he/she is found unfitor not suitable for the job for which his/her serviceswere requisitioned. I have already pointed outabove that existence of this office memorandum(Exb. 49) or for that matter the clauses containedin it are not disputed or challenged and therefore

clauses in this office memorandum are requiredto be accepted as they are.

21. In the cross examination of Shri RavindraKubal a letter dated 24-12-01 (Exb. 37 colly) hasbeen brought on record which letter is addressedby the member secretary of the society to Party II.This letter refers to the requisition made by Party IIto the society and pursuant to which Shri RavindraKubal was sent for appointment as life guard. Thus,this letter gives a clear indication that the lifeguards were appointed by Party II after arequisition to that effect was sent to the societyand which is obviously in terms of officememorandum at Exb. 49.

22. Learned advocate for Party I in order tocanvass that Party II was exercising supervisionand control over the life guards, invited myattention to the orders dated 10-1-02 (Exb. 20)and dated 29-4-2002 (Exb. 21) issued by Party IIdirecting the life guards whose names arementioned therein to report for the trainingprogramme and submitted that if the life guardswere the workers of society there was no need forthe Government to train them. He then by referringto the order dated 28-6-2000 (Exb. 22) relating tothe transfer/postings of the life guards whosenames are mentioned therein, to the order dated7-10-02 (Exb. 23) relating to the postings of thelife guards whose names are mentioned therein,to the order dated 16-10-02 (Exb. 24) relating tothe transfer of the life guards whose names arementioned therein, to the order dated 1-11-02(Exb. 25) relating to the transfers of the life guardswhose names are mentioned therein, to the orderdated 14-8-03 (Exb. 26) relating to revalidationtraining course of the life guards whose namesare mentioned therein, to the order dated 1-10-03(Exb. 28 colly) regarding duties of the life guardswhose names are mentioned therein, to the orderdated 29-10-04 (Exb. 29 colly) relating toattendance or duty by life guards whose namesare mentioned therein, to the order dated 30-6-05(Exb. 30 colly) relating to attendance of duty bylife guards whose names are mentioned thereinand to the order dated 26-7-06 (Exb. 31 colly)relating to attendance of duties of the life guardswhose names are mentioned therein, all issuedby Party II, contended that in all the above ordersthe society has not played any role and on thecontrary these orders satisfy the tests ofsupervision and control over the life guards byParty II and therefore according to him the lifeguards to this reference are the employees ofParty II.


880

23. I have already pointed out above by referringto Exb. 49 that it makes it clear that the employeesso engaged by the society and supplied to thedepartments will not be in any way Governmentemployees. Having accepted the officememorandum alongwith its contents and withoutthrowing any challenge to the clauses in the officememorandum, it would not be proper and justifiedfor Party I to now say that they are the employeesof Party II. This being the situation mere issuanceof orders for training programmes, transfers//postings for revalidation training course andposting them at various beaches by Party II wouldnot make these life guards the employees ofParty II. This is more because it is also apparentfrom Exb. 21 and Exb. 23 that there is clear mentionin these orders that the life guards whosenames are mentioned therein have been deputedby the society and further Exb. 24 and Exb. 25indicate that the transfers of the life guards whosenames are mentioned therein have been themutual transfers. Thus, reading of all thedocuments ranging from Exb. 20 to Exb. 31 collyalongwith office memorandum at Exb. 49 make itclear beyond doubt that the aforesaid orders werereferring to the life guards deputed by the society.

24. Another important factor which makes medraw the conclusion that the documents rangingfrom Exb. 20 to Exb. 31 colly cannot be read tomean that they indicate the exercise of supervisionand control hy Party II over the life guards is theletter dated 5-10-02 (Exb. 51) produced by ShriSwapnil Naik, sent by the Member Secretary ofthe Society to Party II specifying therein the termsand conditions of the life guards supplied to Party IIand condition No.7 in the same states that “allemployees on contract are under the directadministrative control of your organization andthey shall obey the orders/instructions of yoursupervisory personnel”. It is thus clear from abovethat Party II was required to exerciseadministrative control over the life guards deputedby the society. Thus, even for this reason the ordersissued by Party II and which are ranging fromExb. 20 to Exb. 31 colly are to be considered asthe ones issued while exercising administrativecontrol over these life guards.

25. It is in not in dispute that payment to all theselife guards was made by the society and it isapparent from the cross examination of Shri DuloNaik that even the contribution towards ProvidentFund was deducted from their salary by thesociety. This aspect weighs in favour of Party II tosay that there is no employer/employeerelationship between Party I and Party II.

26. It is the case of Party I that in support of thedemands of regularization of their services all theworkers went on legal strike w.e.f. 10-8-06 and thatthe strike continued upto 8-9-06 and after thematter of regularization was admitted inconciliation proceedings the strike was withdrawnw.e.f. 8-9-06 and they went to join the dutyw.e.f. 9-9-06 but Party II refused to allow them toresume the duty. But according to Party II, sincethese life guards were absent w.e.f. 10-8-06 theyaddressed a letter dated 15-9-06 to the said societyterminating the contract and as such the questionof resuming the duties by Party I does not arise.

27. Shri Ravindra Kubal has produced copy ofnotice dated 8-9-06 addressed to Party II by theGeneral Secretary of Sangh informing that the lifeguards have unanimously resolved to withdrawthe strike w.e.f. 8-9-06 and they will resume theirnormal duties in their respective place of workw.e.f. 9-9-06. In view of denial of this fact byParty II in their written statement, it was the dutyof Party I to have shown the above document toShri Swapnil Naik in his cross examination.however Part I has not taken pains to do so. ShriRavindra Kubal has also produced copy of letterdated 11-9-06 (Exb. 32 colly) addressed by GeneralSecretary of the Sangh to the Deputy LabourCommissioner, Panaji, Goa informing that the lifeguards have withdrawn their legal strike and wentto resume duty from 9-9-06 but were not allowedto resume their duty. It may be mentioned herethat even the above fact was not brought to thenotice of Shri Swapnil Naik in his crossexamination. Contrary to above, Shri Swapnil Naikhas produced copy of letter dated 17-8-06(Exb. 52) addressed by Party II to the societyinforming that the life guards deployed by thesociety on contract basis have not been reportingto duty from 10-8-06 to date and requesting totake appropriate action. He has also produced copyof letter dated 15-9-06 (Exb.53) addressed byParty II to the society requesting to treat thecontract of these life guards with the departmentas terminated w.e.f. 10-8-06. It deserves to benoted that there has been no effective crossexamination of Shri Swapnil Naik on Exb. 52 andExb. 53. That apart, in terms of office memorandumat Exb. 49 Government had every right to refusethe contract labourer supplied by the societyincase he/she is found unfit or not suitable for thejob for which he/her services were requisitioned.It is therefore clear that the letter at Exb. 53 wassent by Party II to the society by virtue of theaforesaid clause in the office memorandum. Thus. the question of Party I resuming the dutiesw.e.f. 9-9-06 does not arise.


881

28. It is the case of Party I that the TourismMinister in answer to unstarred L.A.Q. No. 41 tabledon 29-9-03 has stated that these life guards arerecruited by the Government, by enclosing theirlist and therefore according to Party I it is admittedthat these life guards were employed by theDepartment of Tourism. Shri Ravindra Kubal hasproduced the document pertaining to said L. A. Q.No. 41 at Exb. 27 alongwith annexure ‘A’ whichgives the number and names of the life guardsrecruited by the Government with places of theirposting. In his cross examination Shri Swapnil Naikhas admitted the existence of this document. Tomy mind, reading of this document does not giveany indication that the life guards whose namesare mentioned in Annexure “A” are the employeesof party II as the answer given to unstarredL. A. Q. No. 41 has obviously to be read in thebackground of the fact situation relating to officememorandum at Exb. 49. Thus, Exb. 27 is of noassistance to Party I to establish that they wereemployed by Party II.

29. There is otherwise no dispute that Party Iunion had filed W. P. 464/2006 dated 3-10-06(Exb. 42) before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombayat Panaji against State of Goa, Director of Tourism,the Goa Recruitment and Employment Society andGoa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC) asRespondents Nos. 1 to 4 respectively with prayersamongst others to regularize the services of thelife guards. It may be mentioned here that thename of GTDC came to be added as party to W.P.No. 464/06 subsequently by way of amendment.This is because of the Government decision totransfer the Beach Safety Management Systemincluding engagement of life guards on thebeaches to GTDC. It is also not in dispute that on21-10-06 GTDC published advertisement forrecruitment of life guard on contract basis andafter this publication Party I filed Misc. applicationnumber 747/06 in W. P. No. 464/2006. Shri SwapnilNaik has produced on record an order dated7-11-06 (Exb. 55) passed by the Hon’ble High Courtof Bombay at Goa in MCA No. 747/2006 in W.P.No .464/2006. Reading of this order makes it clearthat the MCA has been filed by the members ofParty I seeking to apply for the posts advertisedby GTDC with relaxation in age limit. It is alsonot in dispute that W.P. No. 646/2006 was thereafterwithdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to raisethe dispute involved in the petition before anappropriate forum under the Industrial disputesAct, and the order pertaining to the same is dated9-4-07 (Exb. 35). Thus, the above acts of Party Ispeak volumes on the subject of their standclaiming to be the life guards appointed byParty II.

30. In the case of Ummadevi (supra) reliedupon by learned advocate for Party II it is heldthat any public employment has to be in terms ofconstitutional scheme and that the power of theGovernment as an employer is more limited thanthat of a private employer as much as it issubjected to constitutional limitations and itcannot be exercised arbitrarily. This judgment alsoindicates that the employments of persons doneon temporary or daily wages basis to meet theends of situations cannot be resorted to or used todefeat the very scheme of public employment.Since in the instant case discussion supra revealsthat employment of these life guards with Party IIis not a public employment, the observations ofthe judgment in the case of Ummadevi (supra)squarely apply to the instant case.

31. Though learned advocate for Party I by

relying on the judgement in the case of ONGC

(Supra) tried to content that the Tribunal can lift

the veil and conclude that there exists a

relationship of master and servant between

Party I and Party II, on going through this

judgment it is seen that the facts therein are totally

different from the facts of the instant case. This is

because, in the case of ONGC there was evidence

amongst others to indicate that there was no

contractor appointed by ONGC: that ONGC took

disciplinary action and called for explanation from

the workers so also the wages were directly paid

to the workers by ONGC, which is not the

situation in the instant case. That apart, unlike the

situation in the instant case there was no office

memorandum like Exb.49 in the case of ONGC. It

may be mentioned here that Exb. 49 is the core

document going to the root of the matter as it

indicates the nature of employment between

Party I and Party II. As observed in this judgment,

it is correct that the ratio of any decision must be

understood in the back ground of the facts of that

case and that the case is only an authority of what

it logically decides and logically flows from it, but

as stated by me above, the set of facts in the

instant case can be easily distinguished from the

set of facts in the case of ONGC. That apart, in the

case of ONGC by referring to the judgment in the

case of R.K. Panda & ors v/s Steel Authority of

India & others 1994 II CLR 402 S.C. it is observed

that whether the contract labourers have become

the employees of the principle employer in course

of time and whether the engagement and

employment of labourers through a contractor is a


882

mere camouflage and a smokescreen is a question

of fact and has to be established by the contract

labourers on the basis of the requisite material.

As pointed by me supra, no efforts have been made

by Party I to prove the above aspect of the matter.

Thus, the judgment in the case of ONGC (supra)

is not applicable to the instant case.

32. Coming to the judgment in the case of Ram

Singh (supra) the observations in it rather assist

to the case of Party II though this judgment has

been relied upon by learned advocate for Party I

to highlight the test for determining the

relationship of employer and employee. It is

observed in this judgment that in determining the

relationship of employer and employee, no doubt

“control” is one of the important tests but it is not

to be taken as the sale test. It is also observed

that in determining the relationship of employer

and employee all other relevant facts and

circumstances are required to be considered

including the terms and conditions of the contract.

It is also observed that it is necessary to take a

multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the

factors for and against an employment instead of

going by the sale “test of control”. This being the

situation coupled with the fact that in the instant

case the life guards were deputed by the society

in terms of office memorandum at Exb. 49 and also

as the society have given liberty to Party II to

exercise administrative control over these life

guards in terms of Exb. 51, I am of the opinion

that it would not be justified and proper to say

that Party II exercised control over these life

guards irrespective of the fact that even if such

control was exercised, it could not be the sole

test for determining the employer/employee

relationship. Thus, this judgment is of no

assistance to Party I to prove its case.

33. As regards the observations in the judgment

in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra) the

life guards in the instant case have been working

for Party II in terms of office memorandum at

Exb. 49 and also with clear instructions from the

society to Party II to exercise administrative

control over them. Thus, in such situation it cannot

be said that the society has acted merely as an

agent and hence there is master and servant

relationship between these life guards and

Party II. Thus, even this judgment cannot be

accepted as advancing the case of Party I.

34. It therefore follows that Party I has failed to

prove that the life guards to this reference are the

employees of Party Il or that there is employer-

-employee relationship between Party I and

Party II hence my findings.

35. Issue No. 2: Having answered issue No. 1 in

the negative and issue No. 4 in the positive the

life guards in this reference are not entitled to

demand regularization of their services and such

demand raised is therefore not legal and justified.

Hence my findings.

36. In the result, I pass the following

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the demand ofregularization of services of Workmen employedon contract basis by the Department of Tourism,Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa raised byGomantak Mazdoor Sangh is not legal andjustified.

2. Workmen/Party I are therefore not entitled toany relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Governmenr accordingly.

Sd/(B. K. Thaly,

Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal--cum-Labour Court.

——— ———

Department of Law & JudiciaryLaw (Establishment) Division

__Order

No. 4-8-96-LD(Part file)/I/2105

On the recommendation of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Bombay, Government of Goa is pleasedto appoint the Principal District & Sessions Judge,North Goa, Panaji to handle the matters ofAdministrative Tribunal as and when the regularPresident or Additional President cannot take upthe matter for some reasons or other and recusesfrom hearing the matter.


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



883

Department of Official Language &Public Grievances

Directorate of Official Language__

Order

No. 4/3/DOL/RTI-2012 (III)/1126

In pursuance of clause 5 of the Right toInformation Act, 2005, the following officers arehereby appointed as Public Information Officer andAssistant Public Information Officer in theDirectorate of Official Language, to deal with theapplications received from the public under theRight to Information Act, 2005.

Sr. Designation Officers designed underNo. Right to Information

Act, 2005

1. Assistant Director Public Information(Marathi) Officer.

2. Head Clerk Assistant PublicInformation Officer.

The Public Information Officer shall beresponsible for the preparation and publication ofthe manuals and updating the manuals from timeto time as per the said Act.

The Assistant Public Information Officer shallensure that the applications received by him/herfor information under the Right to Information Act,2005 are submitted on top priority to the PublicInformation Officer so as to furnish the informationto the applicant within the provisions of the Act.

The Director of Official Language will be theFirst Appellate Authority in pursuance of Clause19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

This order supersedes the earlier Order No. 5/3//2005/DOL/Right Inf. Act/267 dated 23-9-2005published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 27 dated6-10-2005.

Dr. Prakash Vazrikar, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (Official Language).

Panaji, 5th December, 2013.

——— ———

Department of Personnel__

Order

File No. 10/20/2013-PER

Government of Goa is pleased to grantextension in service to Shri Vidal D’Souza,

Associate Professor in Health Education,Department of P.S.M., Goa Medical College,Bambolim beyond superannuation w.e.f. 01-12-2013to 30-11-2014.

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


Rahammtulla Aga, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).


——— ———

Department of Public Health__

Certificate

No. 2/4/2013-IV/PHD

Read: Government Order No. 11/3/89-IV/PHD/5dated 23-08-2013.

Certified that the character and antecedents ofDr. Ashwin Raghunandan Mysore, Lecturer inProsthodontics and Crown and Bridge in GoaDental College and Hospital, Bambolim-Goamentioned in the above referred order have beenverified by the District Magistrate, North GoaDistrict, Panaji-Goa and nothing adverse has cometo the notice of the Government.

Sangeeta M. Porob, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 21st November, 2013.

——— ———

Department of Revenue__

Notification

No. 23/14/2009-RD

Whereas it appears to the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) thatthe land specified in the Schedule hereto(hereinafter referred to as the “said land”) is likelyto be needed for public purpose, viz. LandAcquisition for Imp. and B/T of road from MDR-49joining Karashirmol, Parve, Panna & link road fromGovernment High School to Mirandwada in V. P.Agonda in Canacona.

Now, therefore, the Government hereby notifiesunder sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) that saidland is likely to be needed for the purpose specifiedabove.


884

2. All persons interested in the said land arehereby warned not to obstruct or interfere withany surveyor or other persons employed upon thesaid land for the purpose of the said acquisition.Any contract for the disposal of the said land bysale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange orotherwise or any outlay commenced orimprovements made thereon without the sanctionof the Collector appointed under paragraph 4below, after the date of the publication of thisnotification, will under clause (seventh) of Section24 of the said Act be disregarded by him whileassessing compensation for such parts of the saidland as may be finally acquired.

3. If the Government is satisfied that the saidland is needed for the aforesaid purpose, adeclaration to that effect under Section 6 of thesaid Act will be published in the Official Gazetteand in two daily newspapers and public noticethereof shall be given in due course. If theacquisition is abandoned wholly or in part, the factwill also be notified in the same manner.

4. The Government further appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act theDeputy Collector & SDO, Canacona-Goa to performthe functions of a Collector, under the said Act inrespect of the said land.

5. The Government also authorizes undersub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act, thefollowing Officers to do the acts, specified thereinin respect of the said land.

1. The Collector, South Goa District, Margao--Goa.

2. The Deputy Collector & SDO, Canacona-Goa.

3. The Executive Engineer, XXV(R), PWD,Fatorda, Margao-Goa.

4. The Director of Settlement and Land Records,Panaji-Goa.

6. A rough plan of the said land is available forinspection in the Office of the Deputy Collector &SDO, Canacona-Goa for a period of 30 days fromthe date of publication of this Notification in theOfficial Gazette.

SCHEDULE

(Description of the said land)

Taluka: Canacona Village: Agonda

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

sq. mts.

1 2 3

129/3 Anjieonaria Miranda. 150Jose Miranda.

Joaquina Fernandes.Joso Vicent Miranda.Camilo Miranda.

OR C) House belongs to:1) Cristin Cardoz.

D) House belongs to:2) Antonio Luis Fernandes.

B) Hut owned by:3) Anton Luies Fernandes.

(Three)129/11 Marian Fernandes. 200129/18 Govind Pandu Phal 250

Dessai.Nilu Pandu Phal Dessai.Kushali Pandu PhalDessai.Ganesh Pandu PhalDessai.Vinayak Pandu PhalDessai.Nilu Balsu Fal Dessai.

OR E) House belongs to:1) Jose Fernandes.

F) House belongs to:2) Marian Fernandes.

Hut belongs to:Marian Fernandes.(Three)

129/30 Comunidade. 150G) House belongs to:

OR 1) Constance D’Costa.(One)

129/29 Francisco Fernandes. 200130/2 Comunidade 150

Philip Marcelino Cotinho.130/5 Lalsang Pull Ruhle. 200130/3 Comunidade. 2000

Patric Fernandes.Vahivatdar:

OR 1) Sebastiao Costano Miranda.2) Caitano Sebastiao Miranda.3) Ligorio Bernatt Miranda.4) Roc Ghorgen Miranda.5) Mary Domingo Miranda.6) Ana Mary Luis Fernandes

E Miranda.7) John Marshal Miranda.8) Avelin Bernatt Miranda.9) Lorcinha Bernatt Mirande.

10) Catarina Anton Miranda.11) Philicia Milagra Miranda.12) Joaquim Jose Miranda.13) Joao Simao Miranda.14) Pascol Sebastiao Miranda.

1 2 3


885

15) Luisinha Joaquim Miranda.16) Olga Ligor Miranda.17) Florecinha Joaquim

Fernandes.18) Inacio Sebastiao Miranda.

(Eighteen)130/17 Comunidade. 100

Vahivatdar:OR 1) Fransquinha Caitano

Fernandes.(One)

130/10 Comunidade. 200Vahivatdar:

OR 1) Anton Caitano Fernandes.(One)


OR 1) Jose Manuel Fernandes.(One)


OR 1) Govind Pandu Phal Dessai.2) Nilu Pandu Phal Dessai.3) Ganesh Fal Dessai.4) Vinayak Pandu Phal Dessai.5) Kushali Pandu Phal Dessai.

(Five)144/10 Cristina Cardoz. 200

Catarina Dias.Rosa Piedad Dies.Cristalina Cardoz.Yermdina Dias.


OR 1) Sebastiao Caitano Miranda.2) Caitano Sebastiao Miranda.3) Ligorio Bernatt Miranda.4) Rock Domingo Maranda.5) Mary Domingo Miranda.6) Anamaria Luis Fernandes.7) John Marestal Miranda.8) Avelina Guge Miranda

E Fernandes.9) Lorecina Bernath Miranda.

10) Catarina Anto Miranda.11) Philicia Milagra Miranda.12) Joaqui Jose Miranda.13) Joao Simao Miranda.14) Lucian Joqui Miranda.15) Olga Ligor Miranda.16) Pascoal Sebastiao Miranda.17) Florecinha Joaquim

Fernandes.18) Inacio Sabastiao Miranda.

19) Sebastian Dias.(Nineteen)

40/1 Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan. 50039/101 Comunidade of Agonda. 600

A) House owned by:R/o 1) Babal Babani Kinalkar.

2) House owned by:Paul Jose Monteiro.Plot owned by:

3) Laxmi Vishnu Bandekar.House owned by:Inacio Fernandes.

Boundaries :

North : Nallah.

South : S. No. 130/30, 17, 18, 19,113, 3.

East : S. No. 144/10, 17, 143/1, 38.

West : 129/3, 11, 18, 30, 29,130/2, 5, 7.

Total: 7450


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

Porvorim, 2nd December, 2013.________

Notification

No. 23/36/2013-RD

Whereas it appears to the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) thatthe land specified in the Schedule hereto(hereinafter referred to as the “said land”) is likelyto be needed for public purpose, viz. LandAcquisition for construction of Solid wasteManagement Facility in Cacora Village of Quepem

Taluka.


2. All persons interested in the said land arehereby warned not to obstruct or interfere withany surveyor or other persons employed upon thesaid land for the purpose of the said acquisition.Any contract for the disposal of the said land bysale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange or

1 2 3 1 2 3


886

otherwise or any outlay commenced forimprovements made thereon without the sanctionof the Collector appointed under paragraph 4below, after the date of the publication of thisnotification, will under clause (seventh) of Section24 of the said Act be disregarded by him whileassessing compensation for such parts of the saidland as may be finally acquired.


4. The Government further appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act theDeputy Collector & SDO, Quepem-Goa to performthe functions of a Collector, South Goa District,Margao-Goa under the said Act in respect of thesaid land.



2. The Deputy Collector & SDO, Quepem-Goa.

3. The Director, Department of Science,Technology and Environment, Opp. Seminary,Saligao, Bardez-Goa.


6. A rough plan of the said land is available forinspection in the Office of the Deputy Collector &SDO, Quepem-Goa for a period of 30 days from thedate of publication of this Notification in theOfficial Gazette.

SCHEDULE


Taluka: Quepem Village: Cacora


sq. mts.

1 2 3

164/8 (part) O: Narottam Hiru Kakodkar. 120165/1 (part) O: Narottam Hiru Kakodkar. 1300168/2 O:1. Govind Mahadeo Naik 6175

Karmali.

2. Krishna Dulba NaikKarmali.

3. Dinanath VishwanathCuncolienkar.

4. Damu Datta NaikKarmali.

5. Vinayak Gopinath NaikKarmali.

6. Sadanand Saklo Kakodkar.7. Narottam Hiru Kakodkar.8. Mohini G. Lotlikar.

169/0 O: Shri Deu Vithal. 10300

Boundaries :

North : S. No. 167, S. No. 168/1,

Nall, Road, S. No. 164/8,S. No. 165/1.

South : S. No. 167, S. No. 168/1,S. No. 164/8, S. No. 165/1,S. No. 170/1.

East : S. No. 165/1, 2, Nalla,S. No. 167.

West : S. No. 165/1, S. No. 167,S. No. 168/1, Nalla.

Total: 17895


Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I)(Link).


Notification

No. 22/37/2013-RD

Whereas it appears to the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) thatthe land specified in the Schedule hereto(hereinafter referred to as the “said land”) is likelyto be needed for public purpose, viz. LandAcquisition for setting up an Industrial Estate atShiroda village in Ponda Taluka (Phase-II).


2. All persons interested in the said land arehereby warned not to obstruct or interfere with

1 2 3


887

any surveyor or other persons employed upon thesaid land for the purpose of the said acquisition.Any contract for the disposal of the said land bysale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange orotherwise or any outlay commenced orimprovements made thereon without the sanctionof the Collector appointed under paragraph 4below, after the date of the publication of thisnotification, will under clause (seventh) of Section24 of the said Act be disregarded by him whileassessing compensation for such parts of the saidland as may be finally acquired.


4. The Government further appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act theDeputy Collector & LAO, Ponda to perform thefunctions of a Collector, North Goa DistrictPanaji-Goa under the said Act in respect of thesaid land.


1. The Collector, North Goa District, Panaji--Goa.

2. The Director, Directorate of Industries, Trade& Commerce, Panaji, Goa.

3. The Dy. Collector & LAO, Ponda-Goa.


6. A rough plan of the said land is available forinspection in the Office of the Deputy Collector &LAO Ponda, Goa for a period of 30 days from thedate of publication of this Notification in theOfficial Gazette.

SCHEDULE


Taluka: Ponda Village: Shiroda

Survey No./ Names of the persons Area in/Sub-Div. No. believed to be interested sq. mts.

1 2 3

965 O: 1. Govind Shankar Prabhu 27125Gaonkar.

2. Dr. Sakharam GopalGude.

3. Village Panchayat ofShiroda.

OR: House belongs to:Pandurang Gopinath Naik.

974 O: 1. Vishwambhar Pundalik 11300Prabhu Gaonkar.

2. Meghasham PundalikPrabhu Gaonkar.

975 O: 1. Govind Shankar Prabhu 20800Gaonkar.

2. V M P Gaonkar.3. Balkrishna Purushottam

Gaonkar.979 O: 1. Vishwambhar Pundalik 47450

Prabhu Gaonkar.2. Meghasham Pundalik

Prabhu Gaonkar.3. Govind Shankar Prabhu

Gaonkar.4. V M P Gaonkar.

980 O: 1. Vishwambhar Pundalik 65625Prabhu Gaonkar.

2. Meghasham PundalikPrabhu Gaonkar.

3. Govind Shankar PrabhuGaonkar.

4. V M P Gaonkar.987 O: 1. Vishwambhar Pundalik 15525

Prabhu Gaonkar.2. Meghasham Pundalik

Prabhu Gaonkar. 1/33. Govind Shankar Prabhu

Gaonkar. 1/34. Vyankatesh Madu Prabhu

Gaonkar. 1/3

Boundaries :

North : Nala, Road, S. No. 978,

S. No. 977, S. No. 976.

South : S. No. 981, S. No. 964,S. No. 959/1.

East : S. No. 973, S. No. 966/1, 2, 3.

West : S. No. 988, S. No. 986.

Total: 187825


Ashutosh Apte, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).


1 2 3


888

Notification

No. 23/15/2013-RD

Whereas it appears to the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) thatthe land specified in the Schedule hereto(hereinafter referred to as the “said land”) is likelyto be needed for public purpose, viz. LandAcquisition for construction of road from ValentaD’Costa house to Shantadurga Temple and uptoDiago Noronha’s house at Perxet in V. P. Guirim inSaligao Constituency.




4. The Government further appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act theDeputy Collector/SDO, Mapusa Bardez-Goa toperform the functions of a Collector, under the saidAct in respect of the said land.


1. The Collector, North Goa District, Panaji--Goa.

2. The Dy. Collector/SDO, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.

3. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XXIII(R), PWD,Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.


6. A rough plan of the said land is available forinspection in the Office of the Deputy Collector//SDO, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa for a period of 30 daysfrom the date of publication of this Notification inthe Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE


Taluka: Bardez Village: Saligao


sq. mts.

1 2 3

12/1 part Shantadurga Temple 985Nandode.

12/3 part 1) Anacleto Alexandre Cruz 285De Souza.

2) Frank Corte.3) Sangeeta Y. Shetkar.4) Filipe De Souza.

13/1 part Shri Devi Shantadurga 635Nandode Deusthan.

14/1 part Shri Devi Shantadurga 570Dewsthan, CalanguteNandode.

14/4 part Diana Leandro Batista 85D’Souza.

14/5 part Joanita Alzira Pereira 70e Fernandes.Silverio Fernandes.

14/5-A part Luciano Baeano alias 100Luciano Tolentina Baeano.Shushila Olga MurielPereira alias Shushila OlgaMuriel Pereira e Baeano.

14/6 part Carrol Misquita Remedias. 19014/7 part Stepheny Carolina Josephine 50

Dias.Victoria Noella D’Souza.Marian Belmira D’Souzaalias Paintal.Neil Savio D’Souza.

15/1 part Comunidade. 20Luies Noronha.

15/2 part Diogo Noronha. 12015/3 part Urminda Zuzarte. 110

Angela Mericia Zuzarte.15/4 part Shri Shantadurga Dewsthan 200

Nandode Kalangute.15/6 part Diogo Noronha. 90


889

15/7 part Umesh Desai. 75Sweta Umesh Desai.

15/10 part Amelia Zuzarte. 330Suresh Khema Mandrekar.

15/13 part Benjamin Noronha. 10515/14 part Amelia Zuzarte. 14015/15 part Claudinha Noronha. 1515/16 part Comunidade. 15

Boundaries :

North : S. No. 15/1 to 4, 6, 7, 16, Road,S. No. 14/6, 7, S. No. 13/1,S. No. 12/1.

South : S. No. 12/1, 2, 5 & S. No. 13/1to 3, S. No. 15/2 to 4, 6, 7, 10,14/1.

East : S. No. 15/1, 2, 3, 10, 15, 16,S. No. 14/1, 5, 7, S. No. 12/3,S. No. 13/2, Road.

West : S. No. 15/10, 13, 14, S. No. 14/1,4, 5-A, Nalla, S. No. 12/1, 3.

Total: 4190




Notification

No. 22/9/2013-RD

Whereas by Government Notification No. 22/9//2013-RD dated 25-04-2013 published on pages129 & 130 Series II No. 5 of the Official Gazettedated 02-05-2013 and in two newspapers namely(1) Gomantak and and (2) Times of India(Goa Edition) both dated 01-5-2013, it was notifiedunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as“the said Act”), that the land specified in theSchedule appended to the said Notification waslikely to be needed for public purpose, viz. LandAcquisition for widening of existing road on Sy.

No. 78/2 in Village Panchayat Rachol.

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

Now therefore, the Government hereby declares,under Section 6 of the said Act that the said landis required for the public purpose specified above.

The Government also hereby appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act, the DeputyCollector (L.A.), Collectorate South Goa, Margaoto perform the functions of the Collector, for allproceedings hereinafter to be taken in respect ofthe said land and directs him under Section 7 ofthe said Act to take order for the acquisition ofthe said land.

A plan of the said land can be inspected at theoffice of the Deputy Collector (L.A.), Margao-Goatill the award is made under Section 11.

SCHEDULE


Taluka: Salcete Village: Rachol


sq. mts.

1 2 3

78/2 1. Minguel Figueiredo. 2472. Josefina Vaz.3. Caetano Jesus Vaz.4. Santana Isabela Cardozo.5. Rosario Vaz.6. Lilly Cyna Fernandes.7. Thereza Gomes.8. Edris Cruz Lopes.9. Constantino Gomes.

10. Anastasia Rodrigues aliasInacina Gomes.

11. The Village Panchayat ofRachol.

12. Francisca Alemao.13. Felix Piedade Vaz.

OR 1. House occupied by JosepaAlemao (768).

Boundaries :

North: Road, S. No. 78/2.

South : S. No. 78/2.

East : S. No. 78/2, 3.

West : S. No. 78/2, 2-E. Total: 247


Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I)(Link).


1 2 3


890

Notification

No. 23/34/2013-RD

Whereas it appears to the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) thatthe land specified in the Schedule hereto(hereinafter referred to as the “said land”) is likelyto be needed for public purpose, viz. LandAcquisition for construction of road bridge at Balliin Quepem Constituency on Balli, Fatorpa MDRroad at Balli, Quepem.




4. The Government further appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act theSpceical Land Acquisition Officer, GSIDC, Ltd.,Panaji-Goa to perform the functions of a Collector,under the said Act in respect of the said land.



2. The Spceial Land Acquisition Officer, GSIDC,Ltd., Panaji-Goa.

3. The Executive Engineer, XXV(R), PWD,Fatorda, Margao-Goa.


6. A rough plan of the said land is available forinspection in the Office of the Special LandAcquisition Officer, GSIDC, Ltd., Panaji-Goa for aperiod of 30 days from the date of publication ofthis Notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE


Taluka: Quepem Village: Balli


sq. mts.

1 2 3

74/1 part Krishna Nilu Phal Dessai. 42574/2 part Dattu Nilu Naik Dessai. 180

Balsu Vithoba Phal Dessai.Pundalik Vithobha PhalDessai.Vithal Gurguro Phal Dessai.Parnanand S. Audhi.Suresh S. Audhi.Krishna Nilu Phal Dessai.Premavati Vishnu Phal Dessai.O.R. House belongs toBalsu Vithobha Phal Dessai.

74/4 part Dattu Nillu Naik Dessai. 390Balsu Vithobha Phal Dessai.Narayan Manju Phal Dessai.Pundhalik Vithobha Phal Dessai.Vithal Gurguro Phal Dessai.Krishna Nilu Phal Dessai.Premavati Vishnu PhalDessai.O.R. House belongs toJayashri Krishna Phal Dessai& Sunanda Alies ChandraicalaVinayak Sawant.

78/1 part Raghuvir Pandhari Sinai 270Audi.

78/2 part Prabhakar Jiva Phal Dessai. 490Rama Krishna Phal Dessai.Prasad Guno Phal Dessai.Govind Modu Dessai.Tulshi Laxman Dessai.

78/3 part Anant Ganesh Phal Dessai. 10Umesh Purshottam Phal Dessai.Suresh Sawant.Rama Krishna Phal Dessai.Radha Laximan Phal Dessai.Prasad Guno Phal Dessai.


891

Ram Krishna Vishnu PhalDessai.Atul Prabhakar Fall Dessai.Rajesh Prabhakar Fall Dessai.Raj Gopal Prabhakar FallDessai.Sulbha Prabhakar Fall Dessai.Sudhakar Govind Fall Dessai.Suresh Govind Fall Dessai.Dinesh Govind Fall Dessai.Kalpana Vithobha Fall Dessai.Shivanand Balsu Fall Dessai (34)Pandurang Ganapati Chalvekar.Shalini Ganapati Bhomkar.Geeta Harichandra Shelwarkaralias Hari dha Mohan Fatarpekar.Mukund Yessu Fadte Gaonkar.Jivottam Laximan Naik Dessai.Sumant Kanoba Naik Baireli.Vishwajit Vasant Naik Tubki.Narendra Phal Dessai.Jaganath Mahadev Shirodkar.Renuka Vassudev Fal Dessai.Sandesh Shivaji Raikar.Namrata Nagesh Shahapurkar.Ramu Narayan Veer.Puja Purshottam Naik Dessai.Uday Bhikaro Naik.Uday Chandru Kudalker.Rusha Rupesh Mulve.(O.R.A) Cowshed belongs toGovind Molu Phaldessai.B) Hut belongs toBabaji Naik.C) 1. Anant Ganesh Phaldessai. 2. Nagesh Ganesh Phaldessai. 3. Suresh Sawant.D) Shop belongs toNagesh Ganesh Phaldessai.E) Hut and cowshed belongs to Anant Ganesh Phaldessai.

Boundaries :

North: Road, Nallah.

South : S. No. 78/2, 3, Nallah.

East : S. No. 74/1, 2, 4,S. No. 78/1, 2, 3.

West : Road.

Total: 1765



Porvorim, 2nd December, 2013.

Notification

No. 22/35/2013-RD

Read: Notification No. 22/35/2013-RD dated22-11-2013.

Whereas it appears to the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) thatthe land specified in the Schedule hereto(hereinafter referred to as the “said land”) isneeded for public purpose, viz. Acquisition of landfor Garbage Treatment Plant in Calangute &Saligao village of Bardez Taluka.

2. And whereas in the opinion of theGovernment, there is urgency in the present casefor acquisition of land since the Hon’ble High Courtvide order dated 13-08-2013 passed in WritPetition No. 2/2007, has directed the Governmentto set up sanitary land fill within a period of oneyear. There is urgent need for the Government toset up land fill sites and garbage treatment plantto prevent further environmental degradation suchas ground water contamination, degradation ofland air pollution including health hazards. Thesetting up of such garbage treatment plantinvolves obtaining of various permissions underprevailing Acts & Rules and also following codalformalities. Hence, the Government is of theopinion that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (CentralAct 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as “the saidAct”) are applicable to this acquisition of land.

3. Now therefore, the Government herebynotifies under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of thesaid Act, that the said land is needed for thepurpose specified above.

4. The Government fur ther directs undersub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act thatthe provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act shallnot apply in respect of the said land.

5 All persons interested in the said land arehereby warned not to obstruct or interfere withany surveyor or other persons employed upon thesaid land for the purpose of the said acquisition.Any contract for the disposal of the said land bysale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange orotherwise or any outlay commenced orimprovements made thereon without the sanctionof the Collector appointed under paragraph 4below, after the date of the publication of thisnotification, will under clause (seventh) of Section24 of the said Act be disregarded by him whileassessing compensation for such parts of the saidland as may be finally acquired.

1 2 3


892

6. If the Government is satisfied that the saidland is needed for the aforesaid purpose, adeclaration to that effect under Section 6 of thesaid Act will be published in the Official Gazetteand in two daily newspapers and public noticethereof shall be given in due course. If theacquisition is abandoned wholly or in part, thefact will also be notified in the same manner.

7. The Government further appoints under

clause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act the

Dy. Collector/SDO, Mapusa, Sub-Division, Mapusa

to perform the functions of a Collector, North Goa

District, Panaji-Goa under the said Act in respect

of the said land.

8. The Government also authorizes under

sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act, the

following Officers to do the acts, specified therein

in respect of the said land.

1. The Collector, North Goa District, Panaji-Goa.

2. The Dy. Collector/SDO, Mapusa, Sub-Division,

Mapusa, Goa.

3. The Director, Department of Science,

Technology and Environment, Saligao,

Bardez-Goa.

4. The Director of Settlement and Land Records,

Panaji-Goa.

9. A rough plan of the said land is available for

inspection in the Office of the Dy. Collector/SDO,

Mapusa, Sub-Division, Mapusa, Goa for a period

of 30 days from the date of publication of this

Notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE


Taluka: Bardez Village: Calangute

Survey No./ Names of the persons Area inSub-Div. No. believed to be interested sq. mts.

1 2 3

47/1 (part) Name of the Occupant: 138500

O: Comunidade of Calangute.

Other Rights:

O/R: 1. Cashew trees on rent for

Rs. 63/- for 12 yrs. with

Gangaram Vasudev

Korgaokar.

O/R: 2. Cashew trees on rent for

Rs. 24/- for 12 yrs. with

Sitaram Yeshwant Naik.

3. Cashew trees on rental

basis with a Heraldo

Rosario D’Souza.

Total: 138500

Taluka: Bardez Village: Saligao

112/1 (part) Name of the Occupant:O: Comunidade of Saligao. 27120

114/1 (part) Name of the Occupant:O: Comunidade of Saligao. 1945

115/1 (part) Name of the Occupant:

O: 1. Comunidade of Saligao. 60

O: 2. The State Remote Sensing

Centre.

116/1 (part) Name of the Occupant:

O: 1. Comunidade of Saligao. 305

O: 2. Antonio Francisco D’Mello.

O: 3. Timoteo Adolfo D’Mello.

O: 4. Belmira Eulalia D’Mello.

O: 5. The State Remote Sensing

Centre.

O: 6. Chief Electrical Engineer,

Panaji.

117/1 (part) Name of the Occupant:O: 1. Comunidade of Saligao. 565

Total: 29995

Boundaries :

North : Saligao S. No. 112, 116, 117.

Calangute S. No. 47, 49.

South : Saligao, S. No. 113, 115.Calangute S. No. 50.

East : Saligao S. No. 112, 116, 117.Calangute S. No. 49,Village Boundary Saligao.

West : S. No. 112, 114.Calangute S. No. 47,Village Boundary Calangute.

Grand Total: 168495

This issues in supersession of earlier NotificationNo. 22/35/2013-RD dated 22-11-2013.


Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I) (Link).


1 2 3


893

Corrigendum

No. 23/21/2012-RD

Read: Government Corrigendum/AddendumNo. 23/21/2012-RD dated 12-09-2013regarding Land Acquisition for conservationReserve at Galgibag Poinguinim for TurtleNesting, published in the Official GazetteNo. 25 Series II dated 19-09-2013.

In the Corrigendum/Addendum appended to theabove cited No. 23/21/2012-RD dated 12-09-2013,at Sr. No. 2 (a) only the area “12260 sq. mtrs” shallbe read as “122260 sq. mtrs.”

The rest of the contents of Notification shallremain unchanged.




——— ———

Department of Science, Technology &Environment

__Order

No. 3-203-2012/STE-DIR/1149

Dr. Nitin Sawant, Member Secretary, Goa StateBio-diversity Board, shall hold charge of the postof Member Secretary, Goa State Council forScience and Technology, in addition to his ownduties, thereby relieving the undersigned of theadditional charge of Goa State Council for Scienceand Technology with immediate effect.

The undersigned stands relieved from holdingadditional charge of the post of Goa State Councilfor Science and Technology with immediate effect.


Levinson J. Martins, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (STE).

Saligao, 2nd December, 2013.

——— ———

Department of Tourism__

Order

No. 1/1(29)/2013-DT/3923

Pursuance to Order No. 1/2(63)/2013/2013-DT/

/3909 dated 19-11-2013, Smt. Pamela Mascarenhas,

Dy. Director of Tourism is hereby transferred andposted at South Zone Office at Margao andShri Arvind B. Khutkar, Dy. Director of Tourism(Admn.-II) shall hold additional charge of theOffice of Dy. Director of Tourism, North Zone Office,Panaji.

Nikhil U. Desai, Director of Tourism.

Panaji, 28th November, 2013.

——— ———

Department of TransportDirectorate of Transport

__Order

No. D.Tpt/EST/1668/2013/4491

In exercise of powers conferred under Section5(1) and 5(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,the Asstt. Director of Transport (South)Dharbandora is designated as a State PublicInformation Officer and State Assistant PublicInformation Officer to provide information topersons requesting for information and to receiveapplications for information and appeals under thisAct.

Further, in exercise of powers conferred underSection 19(1) of the said Act, the Dy. Director ofTransport (South), Margao shall act as an AppellateAuthority for Asstt. Director of Transport (South),Dharbandora in respect of appeals against orderpassed by the State Public Information Officer.

By order and in the name of the Governor ofGoa.

Arun L. Desai, Director & ex officio Addl.Secretary (Transport).

Panaji, 28th November, 2013.________

Order

Ref. No.: D.Tpt/EST/244 (Part)/2013/4516

Read: 1) Order No. D.Tpt/EST/244/2012/4134dated 04-12-2012.

2) Order No. D.Tpt/EST/244/2013/1991dated 05-06-2013.

Government is pleased to further extend the adhoc promotion of Shri Vishram J. Govekar asDeputy Director of Transport for a further period of6 months w.e.f. 04-12-2013 to 03-06-2014 subjectto the condition that the proposal for lifting ofprobation period is furnished before expiry of theextended period.


894

This is issued with the approval of the

Government and concurrence of Goa Public

Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/

/11/49(1)/2011/1676 dated 29-11-2013.



Panaji, 29th November, 2013.

________

Notification

No. 5/9/90-Tpt/2013/4524

In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (xii)

of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Goa, Daman

and Diu Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1974, the

Government of Goa hereby exempts new vehicle

Mahindra Bolero PLS 9STR bearing chassis

No. MA1WG2GHKD6K47198 and Engine

No. GHD4J62228 owned by M/s Nitya Seva

Niketan, P. O. Rivona, via Quepem-Goa 403 705

from payment of Road Tax due to this State, being

a charitable Institution.



Panaji, 2nd December, 2013.________

Notification

No. 7/2/2008-TPT/4584

In pursuance of Article 66 of the Memorandum

and Articles of Association of the Konkan Railway

Corporation Ltd., and as per clause 6 (ix) of the

Agreement entered into between the Government

of India, Ministry of Railways and the Government

of Goa, the Government of Goa hereby appoints

Shri Parimal Rai, Principal Secretary (Transport &

Health), Government of Goa, as Director on the

Board of Directors of Konkan Railway Corporation

Ltd., to represent the State of Goa vice Shri R. K.

Verma, Principal Secretary (Transport).




——— ———

Department of Women & ChildDevelopment

Directorate of Women & Child Development__

Order

F. No. 1-229-2003-DW&CD/Sectt.Cell/part/7822

Government is pleased to promote Smt. MalaGadkar, Child Development Project Officer to thepost of District Programme Officer (Group BGazetted) in the Pay Band—II, ` 9,300-34,800+G. P. ` 4,800/- purely on ad hoc basis initially forperiod of six months or till the post is filled onregular basis whichever is earlier.

On promotion, Smt. Mala Gadkar is posted asDistrict Programme Officer (South), Margao againstthe vacant post thereby relieving Smt. BhartiVernekar from the additional charge of post ofDistrict Programme Officer, South.

Smt. Mala Gadkar shall continue to hold thecharge of CDPO, Salcete in addition to her ownduties until further orders.

The expenditure in respect of the above postshall be debited to the Budget Head of Account“2235—Social Security and Welfare, 102—ChildWelfare, 03—Intergreted Child DevelopmentScheme including Health Cover (Plan) (A),01—Salaries”.

The above ad hoc promotion shall not bestowany substantive right for regular appointment.


Sunil P. Masurkar, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (Women & Child Development).


www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

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

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 22.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–272/380–12/2013.

reg. no. gr/rnp/goa/32 rni no. goaeng/2002/6410 · ramakant r. talkar, under secretary (ga-ii)....

Documents