II I! I [, t'

t

Ii [1

I t.,

:\t~";!::r,: '(i~ajf:. 2nd 'March,1989(PhalgtinaU; liffO\ .

GOVERNMENT OF' GOA

Department of. Personnel

Order

No. 3/13/85'PER (Vo!.IV)·

' .. Ref.' Order No;'3/13/85'PER (VOL;IV) dltted"7-12-1988;

. :rn'pa~ial mOditic~ti"on of the Government brder read· above,.' . 'shrl._ Ashok Bakshi, I. A. S. is posted with immediate 'effect .~~' CommIssioner '·o~ Sales Tax, Excise and Entertainmen.t -Tax. ,v~ce Shri W .. C~ Khambra, ~. A. S., transferred.

. . . 2. The" Government is further pleased to order transf~r

O'«Shi'i W.", C;"-·Khambra, 'Commissioner of, Sales Tax, ExcIse ~ and Eritertairim:ent Ta~ .and post him' as .Managlng Director~.

Goa. Handicrafts Rurai and· Small Scale. Industries Deve;.. lopment Corporation Ltd.,' Panaji with inimedia~e effect .. Sild Khambra shall continue to hold the cb.arge of the llost of Commissioner for Payments- until further -orders.

By oruer and in t~e-name of ,the Governor-'of, Goa.

'. Smt:' Prab1ui :-ciw./ndran; Under.- s~Cret:iry _«perso~el).

Panajl, 13thFeJ>ruary, 1989.

Order

No. 3/17/74-PER(Vol.lV)(B)

.The, Gpvernment is 'pleased to order the following transfers arid' 'postings of,'Gr8.de II Officers of CiVil Services -with mlmediate effect.'

._Sr~-No. Name of ' the officer an~- p~seilt posting

1'. Shri'D. A. R .. -Hawaldar. Collectorate (N·o -r t 11 Go",

2: 'Shri . Mad it il Mohan, Addl. Deputy, Collector (North Goa)

3,""ShrEN. Suri(yaharayah;'" AddI. Deputy COllector'

. (sOuUt Go,\;j .

Posting on transfer

General. Man age r, Goa Marketting and- Supply Federatioti. Panaji:' -orl.' deputation.

Deputy eo1l<ictor /bfstrtct . Recovery Officer __ (North

Goa).

Deputy . COll~ct6r:;bistrict RecoveI'>Y ·Off{ri~r'·(S9utb. Goa):

, ,_~/-T-lie-dePlo~~nt of the-Officer at Sr. No. -1 is on- deputa,­tion:'1:>a81s;f<:n:!,,-9. ,perlod .. or oD,e~year'-in .. the -fitst;',-instailce'<itnd" It;is~aihbe;{~iu*teMait per 'StahdaM terms oCdeputafi'oD'! laid .dowil'bY"GoYeniiiiiint"Qf':tndl£''frbM'tinliito''Uillli:'·

'"

. ~ . :

j.

" . .- - ~ -: ,- - , ' '" ' 3.,- The Officers at Sr. No.2 anei 3 shall al::.'O lOOk·~3.ftel;·

the work pertainmg to cattle rOiUiding~~up' 'atiiLals'Q/aem61i-· tion of unauthorised structures. .

By order and in t~e name of the Governor of Goa. Smt . . Prabka Ohandran,,' Under SecretarY: (Personnel) •.

Pa~i. 2nd Febru~, 1989.

Order

No. 15/17/86-PER (Vol. I)

The Government 'is pleased to order the trarist~rs and posting ,- of the following officers' borne on the cadre:' of Mamlatdar/Jt. MalPlatdarjB.D.O. 'witp, ,immediate'- 'effect;'·

Sr:' No. Nap1~' . and ·pesig;.,: nation of the officer'

Post :. against' 'Vlrlch" i transferred-

1.

2.

. 3.

Shri N. B. Narvekar. Jt. Mamlatdar, Blcho' lim

Shri S. S., Ka;ntak. Chief _ Qfficer Sanguem' Municipal C6un~l

Shri 13: D.- Divekar, Jt.- Mam]atdar. Salc~te

Chief _ Officer, Sanguem' Mu­, nicip~l -Council" on 'deputa­tion vice Shri .S. S. Kantak transferred'

Jt. Mamlatdar, Salcete vice Shri B. D. Divekar trans­ferred

. Jt. Mamlatdar, Blcholim Vice ShrL N. B; _Narvekar trans ... ferred

2.,_ The transfer on deputati0Il of 'the_ officer at :S.'-'~Nb. 1 will be governed by' standard terms of deputation~'"

3. The deputation of sild, Kantak ·in' -Sahguem, MuJ;i~c~p'~ Council will 'stand- terminated on relief from the said 'COtiliC1L'

4.' Th.e officer 'at SI.' No~ 2 should' ',move' first'··

5. The Collector, North/South "District and 'President ':of MunicIpa). Council S,anguem s~lI' make necessary -~ang~ .. ments to relieve the above officers to joih their ·new posting~ immediately. _,,'

By 'order and in the name of -the Governo~ of ~~~' Smt, Frahha- Cha~dranJ Unde~ Secretary -(Personnel).

:Panaji. 9th: February, 1989.

Order

No. 6/3/81-PER (VOL. lV) .

Read: '1. Order No. 6/10/S4:PER(VoI. m) dated 5.,6-1986.

2. Order No;' 6/3i81;PE1R(Voi;-rv')'dated6-8-1986.

3. Order. No. 6/3/8l:-PER(VoI:lVrdaWd·31J.:.i2~87 . . '" ,;, ,- " ,,-',,' ,"'" " ",' ,: .'- ., -, -, ,. - -- - '"" ' '" ," ""~,,,:;...:

The,,'deputation terms. of Ute fo:llo1l!ing. ,Grade::n·'Offlcer.' of - 'civil Service' mentionec( in Government :~~~~:~~:' to above are hereby extended for- further period of' on&-

~~"-£I'.. ::::.::E==:::::::;:;:::;;;;;;;~~;;:;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;~;,;;;_;;;;:::::::::::::=:_==. . __ .. _____ ::..::::.::::::.::::.:. ... _ ........ _. -.. __ ....... . 't _____ ~

yeai' _ with 'effect from' the dates sho'Nll against each of. them on the ,~ting ter:ms of conditions of deputation.

..: "'::":.$-(~,:'-' -'---''--'-------

81. No. Name and designation of the O~ficer on: dejn,uation .

.The date' from,; which the depu­

tation period extended , .

~ERIE811.No.¥ i: ""!'." _f:;",,:,"""-' -');:~;"-"'~:;;; I:

The' Executive -Engineer. Works Dl~ls-ion'''--XIV·:'-''-P.-W'rlS., Fatorda, Margao ·shall hand over the Section of _ the said ~ighway Km. _ 30..80_ to 36.00 to' Margao Municipal Councili

. 'The Marg~o Municipal Council' Wi.1i be entitled to get a grailt of Rs. 16,COO/- per KIn., sanctioned by _ the Ministry" of· Surface Transport towards' mamte~ce of' this stretch by the Government of Goa. The Margao Municipal ,Cl!uncil. will be fully. responS;ible for proper maintenance of this. '$tretch Of N. H. 17 which is falling -within the Marga(>

1 ... Shri'A. X. B. Viegas, Chief Officer, Blchollm Municipal COuncil.

20-5-1988 to .19-5-1989.

.... MuniCipal, limit. .

2. Shri K. A. Satardekar, Chief Officer, Mapusa. MuniCipal Council.

3 .. Shrt F; C. Fe~ande~i -AdnU~t'r,ator of -Tigwad! Comunicta.des.' '

14-8-1988 to . 13-8'1989.

1'1'1989 to 3i-12-1989.'

By order, and in the name of ~he Governor of Goa;.

Smt. oPraboo Chan,dran, Under -Secretary (Personnel) .

. Paiiajl, 7th February, 1989.

. (; " . Directorate· of Vigilance

Order

No. 13/26/86-VIG

Read: ---: Government . order of even number dated 11-~-1988.

; ; . . Tbe.· appointment of S~ Rajeev ~. Pandit, Assistant

"'Technical Examiner in this _ Directorate -made on deputa­tion . under order dated 11-2~19S8 read." as above' is "extend:~ for further period of.' one year with effect' from

. -.8-2-1989 on usual, terms and conditions of deputation.

By ,order ~9. in the name of the Gover;nment of Goa.,

B. D. 8adhale,Deputy Director (VIgilance).

,Panajl, 16th Feb.ruary, 1989. ... Home (Generall Department

N-otification

. No. 1/53/88-HD( G)

.Read: ~ Government" Notification No. HD~34-1410/l96~. . 'dated 5th October, 1966. .

Sanction .of- the Government is hereby conveyed._to trans­fer the ,three revenue ,vlllages viz. CDdU. MisaI and Cormonem

'0'£ Kerlapal-Dabal village_ panchayat from the, jurisdiction' of the Collem -Police ,Station to. the, jurisdiction of CUr,:" chorem Police Station in addition to two revenue _villages viz. :Bandoli and Camarconda which, are already under the

, jurisdiction of same' Police Station. with immediate effect' i]J. public --int~rest. .

By order and hi the name of the Governoi' of Goa.

A. T: '~am~t, Under Se.cretary (Home).

Panajl, 3rd February, 1989.

ott

Public Works Department

Order 'i .

.... >c "" .. No .. CE/MBP/220/88-PW & UD

.. go,~J;'~e~t , i$, Pleased, .10 __ transfer a stretch· of National . Hlghway_17 Section Km. 30.80 to 36 .. 00. (Panaji-Karnataka ..Boa~:r.;'sect~on) -'passing th!Ough Margao ,_ ~unici,I>al CounCil .1or ~tenan.ce£ .', '-' ' ,

This order shall come into force with immediate' effect.

By order -and' in the name of the' GovernQr of Goa.

';'D. V.~8athe~ Under·.Secretary -to'~the ·Govt. of Goa ·(P.W.D.).

. Panajl; Jlth'February, i989, ' ... Revenue Department·

Notification

No. 22/10/89-RD

Whereas it appears to the Appropriat~ Government (here­inafter referred to as "the 'Government~·) that the land specified in the Sched'ule hereto (hereinafter referred to-as

.. the' "said land") is likely.to be needed for public purpose viz. Land AcquiSition for laying of pipeline and construction Of service roads-of villages Verna, ·Nagoa and Cuelim of Salcete and Mormugao Taluka ·for 160 MLD. Salauli Water Supply Project '( Ch. 36920 to 39385).

And Whereas, in the opinion' Of-the Government the. provi~ sion of 'sub-sectio,ll (1) of ,section 17. :of the Land Acquisi-' tion Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), arEf applicable.

Now, Therefore. the Goverrunent hereby notifies under sub­-section (1) of section 4 .of the said Act -that the said ,hind ~ likely to be ne~ded for the purpose specified above ..

, ',l'he Gove~ent further directs under- sub-section (4) of section 17 of the said, Act that the provisions of section 5A. of .the ,said Act -shnll no~ apply 1."1 respect of the said land.

2. All persons interested. in the sald __ land. are hereby walned not to' obstruct or interfere with any surveyor or other perso.ns emp~oyed upon'the said_land for. the- purpose­of the said acquisition. Any contract for the disposal ,of" the said land by sale, lease, mortgage, assigiunent, .

. exchange or otherwise, or any outlay conuneJiced or im­provements' made thereon without the sanction of the Collector appointed under paragraph 4 below, after· the' date of .the publication - of, this Notification, will under­~lause (seventh) of section 24 ot the said, Act, be ,disregarded bY,-him 'while assessing compensation for such parts ()f ,the' said land as' may be finally acquired.

. 3. If the Government. is satisfied that. the-. said land fs. .. needed for- the atoresaid,' purpose, a declaration to that. effect under section 6 .ot the 'said Act w111 be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers and' pul?llc notice thereof shall be given in dl~e course. If the

,acquisition is. abandoned wholly or. in part, the fact wilL also be notified ih the Same roallller.

4. The Government further appoints under clause (c) 'of section 3 of the said Act. The Special _Lap.d Acquisition Officer. S. I. P. Gt?gal . Margao to, perfonn the functions of a Collector. South Goa District, Margao -under the said 'Act_in respect- of U1e said ~and.· .

5. The Government also authorises, under sub-"3ection (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, South ~oa District. Margao. 2. ·The Special Land Acquisition Officer, S. I. P. Gogal

Margao •. 3. The Executive Engineer, W. D. XXIV (PHE) PWD

. Gogal- Margao. ' 4. The Director of' Land Survey. Panaji.

. 6. A' rougp.· plan of the·'said tend is availC)..ble for -inspection . in the office of the Special. Land AcquiSition Officer, S; I. P. ' Goga~ ,Margao for a· period of -30 days from the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette. :;

• '-¢"

\ ,

~NDcMARaH,1g89 (PHALGUNA 11, 1910) --~~--~----------~--~

.573

SCHEDULE

(Description of the said land)

Taluka:. Monnugao Village: CUellm

Surny No. Sub. Div. No.

90/3 part 86/28 91/4 part·

· ,91/42 part

Nemes ot the persOlls believed to oe interesled

H: ·Comunidade of Cuellm. H: Rul Cunha Braganza. H: Antonio Piedade Souza. H: Comunldade of Cuelim. T: _ Baburao ,R3.Iiganath Gaude.

'91/43 part H: Comunidade of Cuellm. T: AntOnio' -Faria.

,91/44 part· H:' Comunidad. of Cuellm. T: Rosalilia Faria.

· '91/50 part H: Comunidade of CuellnL T: Rita Colaeo.

· 84/5 part ~: Comunldade- of Cuelim ... T: Jose caitano- Misquita.

84/6 part.' H: Comunldade of· Cuellm. T:_ Jose Caitano Misquita.

84/7 part .' H: Co!%lunidade. of Cuellm. . T: :l4arlano Rosario Misqults.

84/8 part .'. H: ComUnidade of CUellm.

.84/9 part

.. / l0 l'art .

... /11 part

" /12 part.

... /13 part

. .84/14 part

... /15 part

.... IIi! part

u /17 part

'." ./18 part

.. /19 part

. '93/51 part

.. /52 part

"·/53 part .

c." i54

.. /56 part , ., /57 .' 94/1 part

, "~ i?- p_art

... /3 part

... /4 part

'.,-,,' /5 part

T:Rita Colaeo.

Boundaries:

North: Road.

SoUth: Vlllageboundary of Nagao.

'East: S. No. 90/3,91/43 . to 50, 84/6 to 16, Road,93/32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37, 40 to 46. 48. 50. 52," 56, 94/1 to 10,15.

West: 90/3, 86/28, 84/5, 8 to 18,Road, 93/35 to.37, 40 to 47,. 49, 5i, 53; 95/95, 76 Nala 94/3 tei 10 & 13.

H: Comunidade"Of Cuelim. T: Jose Caetano Misqulta. H: Comunidade of Cueliin. T: ~riano Ros;trio-Mlsquita. H: Comunidad. ofeuellm •. T: ViIicente Colaoo.,

· H:Comunidade .of Cuellm. T: FIls" Misqulta.

· H: -COmunldade' of CueUm. T: .Joaquina Sequim. H: Comunidade of Cuelirit .. T: Mariano Rosario carvalho.' H: Comunidade of Cuelim. T: Filomena Fernandes . H COmunidad. of Cuellm • T: Antonio Vaz. ,

· H: Comunidade of Cuellm. T: Francisco_ Vaz. H Comunidade of Cuelim. T: : Rosario Fernandes. H:' COmunlds4e of Cuellin.· T: ,Joaquim D'Sa. H: ,Comunidade of Cuelim. ' T:, 'Antonio Rosario D'Sa. H: Comunidade of-Cuellm . T: ': Shobhavati, Gajanan Naik. H:, Comunidade of -Cuelim. T:" Shobhavati Gajana~ Naik. H:--Comunidade of CueliIn; T: 'Antonio Rosario D'Sa. H:, Comtinidade of CUelim. H: ~do-H:' Comunidade of', Cuelim. T: Conceicao LUiza .vaz. H: Comunidade of Cuelim. T: Lourenco Gabriel Fernandes. H:':_ Comunidade of duelim. .. T: :"El~stino Pereira; H:' Comunldade of ellellm . :T::"Inacia Fernandes.

. H:' Comunidadeof Cuellm.

A.pProXI~~. area to '

'sq. mtB.

'8

1500.00 1450,00

75.00 ·'~.5.00

50:00 ..

2,5.00

15:00

125.00

J.OO.OO

125.00

175.00

325.00

175.00

375,00

300.00

300.00

550.00

550.00

500.00 .

'300.00

100.00

t5.00

100.00

300.00

100.00

125.00

75.00 75:00

1600.00

550.00

650.00

300.00

300.00 c' " T:: ~omepa ):Iaria Jo~eph Fer·

, ~ndes e Cruz. .

1 • : ~"/6 part H: Comunidade of Cuelim.

:; :T-:.'Marlana Sa~tan _Fernandes. " '/7 part H: Comunidade of Cuelim.

T: Algiria Dias. ~/!!':/8; part, H: Compnidade of 'Cuelim.

T: Florina Fernandes. ,,' /9' part H: Comunldade of Cuellm.

T: Maria Anecicao. Rego. : ,~' /10 part H: Comunldade of Cuellm.

T: Socovia Fernandes. :'93/32 part . H: ComUnidade of Cuelim.

:" /33 part

.. /34 part

. ," /35 part.

" /36 part

" /37 part

" /40 part

" /41 part

" 142 part

:" /43 part

," /33 part

, _tl' /45 p:art

"":/46 part

T: GamUo D'Sa. H: Comunldade of Cuelinl. T: Jose .Thomas D'Sa. . H: Com~nidade of Cuelim • T: Gaitan D'Sa: H: Comunidade of Cuelim • T: Francisco D'Sa. H: Comurudade of Cuelim. T: Amolia Mor.

Remedies _Mor. H:Comunidade of Cue1lm. T: Joao ,xavier Fernandes. H: Comunidade of Cuelim. T: Luis D'Sa. H: Comunldade of Cuellm. T::'Dina -Fernandes. H: ComUnidade of Cue1lin.

. T: Luis IYSa.· . H: Comunidade of Cuellm. T: Dina Fernandes. H: Comunidade of Cuellm. T-: Dltosa Meneses. H: Comunidade of Cuelim. T: FUomena xavier Fernandes. H: Comunldade of CueIInL T: Joaquim _Fern~ndes~

.. " i47 part H Comunldade of Cuellm. T: -Toudolina- D'Sa.

." /48 part H: Comunidade of CuellnL , T: Toudolina D'Sa.

n /49 part' H: Comunidade of Cueliro. T: Ambrosia D'Sa.

" /50 part H ComUnidade of CuellnL T: Ambrosia D'Sa.

94/12 part H: Comunidad. of Cuellm. T: Socorro Fernandes.

: 94/13 part HComUnidade of cuelim. T: Maria Anacelcao Rego.

,j /14 H: Comunidade of Cuelim. T: Socorro- Fernandes.

';, i15- part H: Comunidade of CueUm. T: Maria Anaceicao Rego.

. 95/75 part H: ElI<IIo Furtado Cabral. "." /76 part H: ~ do -'-

Boundarie8:

North: Village boundary' of Cuelim.

South: Village boundary at Verna.

East: S. No.7 /2, 1 & 2, l03/13 to 22, 35,' 44 to 50, 35, 30, 104/2 to 11,93/7, 22, 6 to 15, 92/12 to 19, 87/1 to 13, 20, 86/20 & 25; 84/1 & 11,

. 64/10 to 12, 32 & 34.

West: S. No.7 /1, 2, 103/9. to 19, 40 to 50, 35, 32, - :33, 104/2 to 9, 96/3, 5, 93/18, . 19, 20, 23, 6,. to' 13.- 95/1, 94/12, 14,13, 92/16 to 19, 87/1 to 13, 18,86/4,5, 22, 25, 84/1 to. 4 & 11, 64/12 to 16, 32.& 34.

• ':650:00

1\50.00

500.00

3fiO.00

325.00

5,)~OO

200:00

30_0.'00

. 300:00

375.00

575.00

375.00

<l75.00

375.00

-400.00

600.00

300;00

300:(>0

175.00

150:00

·100.00

175:00

tiO.OO

200.00

200.00

200.0G

100.00 500.0.0

Taluka: Saloet. . 'Village: Nagoa

7/1 part " 7(~part

103/9 part

H:. Joaquim Sal~a4~r :Noronha. H: Comunldade -,q'f ~agoa. ; . T: 1: Nina Noronha cabraI.

2. Francisco' D'Sa.· ' H: Comunidade-,:6f Nagoa. T: Antonio Fernandes •.

, . 275.00

2400.00.

'. -100.00

1574

2

~ ~ :/~o part H': Comunidade .of .Nagoa;.·_~' ~.::; 'l";::::J:oaquim- Sebastiao Fernandes.

C!' V.ll' pa_rt H: Comunidade of Nagoa.<~ T: Alzira Dias. .' " . "-:

:~ ,~~ ::/12 part H.: C;)munidade: 'of Nagoa:' T: Alzira'Dias. .

~:_'!':-/:13 part ~: C.omtinidade ,of 'Nagoa ... _ i T: Caloriua Colaco._ "

C!~ 1~~ part H: Comunrdade,~of Nagoa.:~·· _._.l

T: Elestina: Pereira:. ,'. ~~·l15 part H: Comunidade of-_Nagoa~.:'

T:_ Maria'Divina Atirora'.-Pinto/· ::'!'.:ji,s part H: Comunidade of Nagoa.~_.

T: Joaquim' Fernandes ... ~. !.' :Jl? part "H: Comunidade 'of Nagoa.:_"':

T: Catarina Fernandes.' .~ ~'118 pa~t H: 'Comtmidade of. Nagoa~'

T: Jose Roque-Machado. r~' '/l!) part H: Con'ltlnidade of . Nagaa. " .;

T: Roquestlnha Fernandes. '.' /2Q part H: Comunida.de of· Nag-oa.

T: Etelina Fernandes; . : 103/21 part H: COmuriidade 'of: Na:go~ "

. ' T:' JaciIi,ta".Barrett6. " /22 part H:. Comunidade of·' N"agoa.'

" /35 part ,U /4:1 part

T: Eliza' Ferllandes~ . H:. Comunidade' .of Nagoa;" H: Comun!dade- of -Nagoa., T: Etelina Fernandes.

""'/42,part H: C()I)lunidade'of- Nagoa. ~ T: Jacinta Barretto.

,n '/43 .part.- H: C9munidade of Nagoa •. T: Ra.fael Fernandes.

,11 - /"*4 part .H: Cpmunidade -.of Nagoa. ~i' ~~nin6 Fernandes.

~,' ".('/4;5 part . -H: CQ.munidade of· Nagoa.. T: Clemento- Fern~des. .

;: _~'. /4:6 -part. 'H: CO.:t;n~idad~,_ of·· N?-goa.' . T: Agostinha·_?04r;igues. "

·""/4.7 part H: C?:mun_igade ·of,'Nagoa __ ' T: Jose M~u~! Rodrigues,.

~- l!. /4:8 ,part H_: q>munidade ,of ~agoa .. T: Zito Gama ,Cab~a1. - .

;- IJ _ /~9 part H: Co.m':Ulidade. of Nagoa~ T: Antonio Fail'a. '

!.' ,~' -/.50 part H: <::tlmunidade .of -Nagoa.­T: Camilo_ Santano LObo. R: ~~unidade.,' of·Nag0<:t. H: C9munidade.-of Nagoa; T:' .A.Utonio Faria.

;. !' -/35 part . " /30 part

" " '/31 ~: COilitiIi~da:de of- Nagoa. T: C;unll(} Santano LobO ...

~.,-. /32 part H: O;>inunidaqe _ of _ N:ago~ . T: _.AJ?:tbnio }t:'¥~._. ,... . H: Conmnldade of Nagoa. H: -do-

;_, ~; .-!~3 part 104/2 par~

.. /3 part H: ComUnidade 'Of Nagoa . T: Aurora Pinto.

.. /4 part .:' H,: .'ComwiidDde 'of Nago<i:

" /5 part T: _Nicolao Menezes. ~_: .O:>munidade- of -Nagoa. T~ -Vincente 'Mene'zes.

u /6 part \. H: C6munidade of Nagoa. "T~ ~anuel_ COlaeo: ... :

,. 17 part ." -~.! ',C'-9munidade,'6f Nagoa. . T:, 'Jo~ Fernandes.

., /8 part - 'R: Cbhlunidade of _Nagoa, , T:, Josepha Cruz.· .

104/9 part 'H:. O:>munidade- of Nagoa. T.: ,.E]iza -Fernandes.

.. /10 part ." ,H: _-~munida~e-.of Nagoa~ T.:"'Francisco Fernandes.

.. /11 part . ;H.:- Comunidade of Nagoa.

96/5 part ''> /6 n /7 part " /3 part " /17.Part

_ or: _ Minguel Piedade' Fernandes. -H:' Carusta Costelo. H~ ;Maril:l .Piedade Vaz -e Seina. H:' :'Rodolfo D'Cunha. H: -Comunldade of Nagoa. H.: ,Comunidade 'of Nagoa. T: 'Carlos Pinto.

i. /18.part 'Ii:. ,Comunid<'lde of Nagon. T:Citltanb. Cabral.

. -II j19 part H: .. ;9o~~nidade .qf Nagoa. T: ,Santano 'D'Costa.­

""'/2:0 _part H: -Carminho NoreDha. . T: Francisco Vaz.·

lC:: Q5.0.~O.

J .. : 65.0.00

;"';.:=: . ,100;00

.... -,,' :4QO.~0

40.0.~0.

, --;.~ -:~ ."40.0:00

.. :4()O;oO

550.00

150.00 -- ...

50.00

50.00 11l0:oo

. : 275.{)0

:275:1)0

350;00

35();00

·275;00

....• '325;00

.5~5;00

.325;00

'350.00

275J)0 ioo.()O

300.00

5O.0()

75:00· 550.00. 50().00

400.00

325.00

·875.00

zoo.oa.

250.00

400.00

550.00

225.00

35.()O 35().00 225.()O 150.00

.• . ZO.OO

6().00

15().00

300:00

. BE.~lEEr;1J. No.;'.t,8

,.

93!7part

C"./9:part (.. - .

(~·/10 part

H: Carmino Noronha. 'H: -Adolfina Noronha.

·H: -'.do- . H:' Comuni~a:de ,of Nagoa. T: Antonio Rosario Vaz. H: COmunidade-' of Nagoa. T: Sebastiao Inacio Manuel Vaz. H: Comunidade of Nagoa. T: Regina Fernandes: '"

. H: Comunidade-' of ~NagQa. ·T: Harichandra, Govade.. .

· H:_ Comun'dade of Nagoa.'·; 'C:." -Rupa Govade; '.

',:"",/11 part - H: Comun:da:de ,_of- Nagoa. T: Ana Francisca'_Fernandes ..

C ~._ '/12 part H: Coniunidade. '.' T: PasQuinha .-Noronha.:

, (: ~I, /13 part H: Comiin;dade. T: Garlos COraea;'

, C'~'-.114 part H: Corriunidade.·· T: Mar'ninhb: _Fernandes.

C~.:/l"5 part H: Comunidad-e.··

C9J>/1 part 94/i2 part

... /,

T: carlos- Colaco .. H: Cpmunidade :6f-Nagoa~'~) H;,'~CQmunidade of' Nagoa.; , T: Co-nce-isao. Fernandes.-·· H: Lilia Berta Alvares~ . '. _.

.-..

. " /13 part " /14 part H: Marta FCQ':P.ruj.des ,$.ilvera e Soares.

T: N atalina; Miranda .. 92/12 part H: Comunidad~ ..

· T: Vithal.Datta, -Sb.et ,.Arsekar. PI /13 part ~ H: Comunidade. . .

T:' Bernando Farhi.·­.. /14 part .. H: Comunidade ..

T: Francisco Xavier Souza.. " /15 part H ~ CcnnunicIade.

T: _Manuel·,Fe'rnandes. " /16· part . H: Comunidade.

T: Pedro Vaz. .. /17 p?-rt " H: Comunldade:

"'. '1': Carlus Colaco.; .. /18 part ~ H:,: 'COmunidade:

T: ·Piedade Andrez. ' C ~'J19 part H: CqmUrildade.,.. .

T: Se.P~tiao J:'.i£ira.nfia:' .,' H:, Conllinidade 'ot.' Nagoi:(' T: Jack Sebas.talo. Vaz.' . H:: Cbmunidade of Nagoa.-, T:- Ellente ,Cruz. . H:·C9munidade. of ;Nagoa:

,.87/1 part

.. /2 part

"IS, part

.. /4, part

" /5 pwt

.. /6 part

T: -Rita Fernandes. H: "Comunidade of Nagcn:. T: Augustinho. Fernandes. : H: Comunidade_ 9f Nagoa;. T: Dev -_Esoo:Naik. H::- Ccmunidacie- of r-iagoa;-

· T: -Vicer.tto V.az. _ .. ~'.j'l. part H: Comum,<;lade of Nagoa..

T: Inaciao Caitano' Carvalho.' ~:. Com~iw.i,de of' Nag6a~ . " /8 pari T: -PhUipa' Colaco. H: Comunid~de .of -Nagoa. T: JaM Ci-uza.,

., /10 part H: ComunIda_de of Nagoa. T: Paulo Miranda.'

.. /~1 ·part H: ,Comuni9:a!1e of .Nagoa. T: Costa Rosario Vaz .

"' /12 Pilrt H: Cor.mnidade .of Nagoa~ T: ;Toao Minguel Fernandes.

"j~3 part H: Comuni4ade of N agoa. , T: Caitano 'Piedade Cqsta: Bfr.­

.. /1.8 part" 'H: cOtUimidade of Nagoa. C: T: Salvador Vaz,

.. /19 part H: Comunidade of--Nagoa. T: Pascoal Dias.

" (~~ part H: Comunida:de _ of ,Nagon. T: Salvador VaZ. '

86/4 part

86/5 part

86/6 part

H: Coniunidade of N agOs:. , T: Puific'a:sao, Vaz, . H': Comunidade of Nagoa. T: Maria Vaz. >

H: Comunidade of' N agQa. T: Sev.erlhi VaZ .

" /7 part H: COniunidide- of Nagoa. '. .. ,-:- T: PuificaSaO':Vw;',

" /8 part '''~H: ,Comrinidade- of Nagoa. T: Maria Va.z>·

• :lJ5.00 275.00 350.00 350.00

350.00

725.00

:4()0.00

·375.00

:S7.5.OO

'800.00

'.800.00

675;00

75.00

15.00 25.00

450.00 300.00

50.00

325.00

130.00

15(}.CO

125.00

100;()O

150.00.

.. 140.jl0

.230.00

~30.00

230.00

.230.00

230·06

230.00

460.00

230.00

.230.00

460.00

415,00

.350.W

415·90

165.00

325.!iO

220 •. 00

60·P()

330.W

400;00

250,00

40.00

I

I !

2NDMAROH/1989 (PHALGUNA11, 1910)

1 ·2

OJ /21" paIDt H.; Comunidade of· Nagoa.· T: Especiosa Fernandes.

" /22 part H: Comunidad. of Nagoa; T: 1. Marya Viegas Fernandes. .

2. Edallna Fern~. ~'. f25 part.· H: MarJaJoanita Cotaco e Valadares. 84/1 part H: Comunidad" Of Nagoa. .

T: Josmelin,a- E. 'Gonsalves. " /2 part' H:eomunldade of Nagoa.

T: Maria '-Joanita Colaco e Valadarer:i. " .,13 part . H: Comub.ld8.de of Nagoa. .

. T: Peter Paulo Crtiz. " (4 part H: Comunidade of Nagoa.

" /U part 64/16 part

" /14 part

~, /13.part

". /12 part . " /11 part .

64/10 part

';./32 part n. /34, part

T: Batista 'Fernandes.

H: -~uni<htde of Nagoa. T: Joaquim' Peves. H: -Comunlckide of, 'Nagoa; T: Vicente Gomsalves •

. H:ComUnldade of Nagoa. T: Pedro Gonsalves. H: Comunidad. of Nagoa. T: 1. Salvasao Rodrigues:

2. Manuel "Fernandes. H: 'Comunidade.,'of _Nagoa •. T: Caitano Luis Braganza. H: Com,unidade of- -Nagoa . T: Joaquun Remedios Gome~.

: H: Comunidade 'ot. Nagoa.-. T::-Maria Christallna Monteiro.:' -H: COmunidaae of Nagoa. H:- -Jose Pereira~

175.00 600.00

110.00

.25.00·

1525.00 245·00

305.00

525.00

635.00

235/).00

1950.00

250.00

70.00 255.00

Taluk"': Salcet.

5119 1)/20 part .

Greeta Soares Siqueira. H: Comunidade of Venia. T: Joaquim Fernandes. H: Jose _Colaco.

Vill<ige: Verna

125.00 5().OQ

5/28 part 323/5 part

323/6 part 323/7 part

H:- Comunidade of Cuelim. T:, '4>urence GardIil Fernandes. H:' Comunidade of Verna. T: Jose .Colaco;

'., IS part . .. /14· part

·"-/15 part "/16 )"'-rt •

T: Ag'D:elo Alvares, T: Agnelo Alvaries. Filomena_ Santos -Costa Pereira.

,ComUnidade of. Verna.-

't, /1,7- :i>art

.. /18 part

",·/19 part

.. /20 part

"/21 part

"·/22 part

" /23 part

.. /24- part

.. '/35 part

323/36 part

:0' l3't part

" /29 part

" /40 part

"/41 part

:" /42

"/43 part

. 11 /44 ":~'/45 "/43 part ..

334/23 . part II '125-" part

t: __ 4na' Philpin" -FeNfandes ... H: 'Coinunidade-'- of Verna; T':CaltanLObO. H:--Comunidade Of Verna~ T: ,macl.na Salena. H: Comunidade- of Verna. T: Caitan Jose _Fernandes. H::-Comunldade of Vern:a.

. T: Caitan Pedro Fernandes .. H: Comimidade of Vema. T: Lourenve CoSta .. H: 'Comunidade of Verna. T: ;FranciSCO Costa. R: COmunidade of. Verna. T: Jose Barretto.

,R:: Comunidade of Venia. T':- Marian Santan Fernandes. H:' Comunidade' .of Verna. . T: :M:inguel .Joaquim Fernandes' H: Coinunidade of Verna. 1": Roinalda _Xavier Fernandes .. H: Comtinidade of Verna. T:. Mariaila Fernandes. H: Comunidade of Verna. T: PedriD. Fernandes. H: Comtm.idade of Verna. T: Domi,Dgo Alvares. H: Oomunidade of Verna. T: Pedrina Fernandes. H: Comunidade of Verna. T: Domingo Alyares. H: _ Comunidade of Venia. T: Domingo' Alvare$.

. H: Comunidade of Verna., H: -do.-H: Philipe Abran~hei;. H:--Jose' Philip Jancito Gani~ H: COmuntdiide -of -veriia. '

50.00 . 165.00'

25().00 50.00

175.00 100.00· 225.00 550.00

415.00

470,00

415.00

825.00

360.00

225.00

140.00

50.00

25.00

280.00

1925.00.

25.00

220.00

975.00

250.00

270.00

85.00 50.00

·25.00 50.00 2l;.00

., H 126 part

H /27 part " /23 part

" /24 part

335/11 part

H: Jose Philip Jancito. " ,.Gracia Ab:ranches;.

H:_ Comunidade of Verita.. H:Jose· Phllip·Janc!to.·'

GraCia Abranclies; H: Comtmidade of Verna.' T: Xavier Fernandes; . H: Jose Philip Jancito.

GraCia Abranches. COwslled by

1. Caitan Jose Fernandes. 2. Maria Luizad Vaz . 3. Concecao -Fernandes.

BoUndaries: North: Village bour,da'ry of

. Nagoa.

. South-: Nala.

. East: S. No. 5/19, 20;28, Roafl, 323/7, 5, 15 to 2{),35, 36, 37, 42, 334/23,·24, 28, 335/11.

West: Road, 323';8, Nala, 323/14,16 to 24; p7, 3J),40, 41, 43 & 48.

TOtal ...... : ... , .... : .... :

250.00 ~.' .

25.00 . ·300~00

275.00

150.00

74410.00

By order, and 1:n 'the name of the Governor of Goa.

P. B. 'Nadkarm, Under Secretary (Revenue).

Panaji, 16th February, 1989.

••• Public Health Department

, Order

7/11/87-I/PHD

On the recommendatiolJ. of the Local Departmental Pi-o~ motion Committee, following '_officers of the Directorate of Health Seryices, are hereby' -premc;>ted " purely _ on.' a'd,-;hoc basis _ as, -Health_' Offieer/Offfce,rs of_: the -equiv~ent --gTad# in the pay schle of ItS. 2200·75-2300,J;lB,100-4000 andpoSte;i as ~!ho\Vn against their names with' iinmediate effect:-:---:- ,',.,

Sr. No.;

1

Nam'~ and 'ciesignattoi), '. &: present .place of

. working'

2

, . -. -, .

. Post" to. . .which· promoted . and- place-_ of 'posting

1., -·Dr. Fernando Menezes," Health Officer Medical Oifficer, Urban Health trrban Health Centre, ·Panajl Mapusa .

2. Dr .. Jairam Porob­Medical Officer,

. Mobile Eye' _ Clinic, Directorate o.f Health Servl~e, .Panaj!.

Assistant T. B.- Officer, . T.· B~ Contror PrOgr~mme.

Urban Health Centrej , P8:naji

These promotions' will" not bestow _ on them ~_ claim fot" regular' appointment and the. services rendered on ad~hoc basis in the grade would rro.t- co.unt fo.r the purpose of seniority in -. that grade and 1=o.r eligibility fOl"_ prom.otion to the .next _highe~ grade. '

The pos~ 'are ,~eing filled, up on- ad-hoc basis init1al~y for a penod, of SIX months or till . these posts· are filled on regular -basis whichever is earlier. The above - officers would be liable to reversion in <case _ they are not s'electe-d

. on ~egular basis: ' .

On assuming the -charge of - the' post, Dr.. N araina _ rub, '1?istrict _ Immunization' Officer shall be relieved of _ the :additional charge 'of the: _post of Health Officer, Urb~ "Health-_ Centre, : Pahajl 'and Assistant- T. B. Officer, -,'1:'. B. ·9o_ntrol l;Togramme, Panaj!.. . .. .. , .

I

I Dr.' Marla 'L;'T;'Furtado-; HealthEducator;U.H:C.; Map""" .shall' hold additi0Ilal charge: of. the post .of Medica~ Q~j)cer till- the-" vacancy caused by' Dr. --Menezes is ~illed ,up.

By order and in -the name of the Governor of

_L~ J. 'Menezes Pais, Un~er_~ecretary.. (He~.lth).

Panaji, 2nd February, 1989. ... Department of labour,

No. 28/2/88-ILD

Goa.

The following Award given by fue ind~strlal-Tribunal, '9<>a, Daman and Diu " is hereby published as required ,under the prDvisions of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 19,47).

By ,order, and ,hi. the name of, the ~-overnor D~ Goa ..

Subhash V. Elekar, ,Under Secretary -'(Industries and Labour). . ,

Panaji, 17th October, 1988.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRmUNAL GoVERN~lEl'iT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before _Shri S •. V. _N.e-vagi, Hon'ble Presiding Officer)

Reference No'. IT 112/82

Shri P. Shreedharan

VIs

- Workman/~arty I

Mis. Minerals arid Metals Trading COrpn of India Ltd. - Employer/Party II

Workman represented by' Adv; A. Nigalye. E~p:IDyer repr,esented by Adv. A. P. Lawande.

panaji.Dated: 21-9-1988

AWARD

This is a refereric~ made by the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, by Its or.der No. 28/IND/ILD dated 10th February, 1982 ,with an annexure scheduled thereto which -reads' as follows: .

'-'Whether the action_ of the,.managemerii Qf, -,M/s. 'Mine-

the Government the present l'eference caine to be' ~ade. ~e _p~~_y. __ ~o_~_J .. _.~.~r~~d~a.:r:~-"-~as ~~mself made. ~s sta~e~ merit at" the last para of page three of his deposltlon. I am inclined to make these observation at the-.initial- stage only: because I Want to go to the root '.of thi;l _matter and my quest :would be to kno~ .. whether,_ a- stale.- .matter" or -a", matter which had 'Outlived, it~"Sig'llificance-' has. -b.een incorporated in the reference made in the year 1982 and now :the reference is being (lisposed -in the year 1988.' In order to- know' the significance of these veriolu;I" date,S it, would be pecess~ry at this stage to recapulate all facts giving vise ,to this Goyern­ment, reference.

, The, ~rty" I" w~rkman worke~ as a Steno. He joined, the services Df State TradinK Corporation -here in after ,referred to as S~T.C. as a clerk_ in the year 19,53. This, S.-T,C. :.v"'1~ later on bifurcated in to S.T.S. as well as Minerals and 'M~tal Trading CDrporation - herein after refex:red as M,.~.T.~. A choice was given to. the employe~,s and Sh~eedhara,:a:t opted for 'M.M.T.C. which is 'how -party No. II .. Shreedharan who. was wDrking at Kandla was later ~ transferred- -to. yasco 'and' promDted as Stet:;t0-typist in Febyuary, 1964 .. By an office order dated _7-4-1964 ~ Order No.. 20/64 he,re m ~ter to as Exb.- El----:'_ the -'post of Steno' TypIst was abolished and a new cadre -_known .as -Jr. -Stenogl,'apilers was c!:,~ated. -Ac­cording to party I by _ virtue_ of this, order all existing Steno­-typists- w.ere to be sho~' against -the-' post o~ -Jr. StenDes. Rightly or -wrongly the name of_ 'Shreedharan was nDt shown against'the post Df Jr:. StenDgrapher· by g;iving effect to Exd. -EI dated 7-4~1964; The Management of M;M.T.C V~sco ' _corrected this mistake by an order No. 40/65 dated 6-8-65 gi-viI).g it the- retros~ective effect from 28-7-1965. ~e post of Steno-typist carried a scale of Rs. 110-180' whIle the newly created post of Jr. Steno carried a. ~cale of RS~ 130~218. The main' grievance of' Shreedharan is tpat if he ~as -pro­moted Dn or after 7-4-1964 'he would' have got the scale of

"Rs. 130-:-218, per- -·month which was denied', to him till' July, 1965'- Consequently there was 'both monet..1.1'Y loss as well _as loss in seniority. This -is ·the· crux' of his --grievance, which the Government cDnsidered in the year 1982" well after eighteen years.

-The reference to this Tribunal Is -made by the Government 'u/s 10(1)(dj of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per

the. provisions th~ Gqvernment is to. a-ct under sub-sectio.n -I . when' it forms an opinion that'" An Industri?tl Dispute exists

or "is apprehended". _As per the principles -stated_ by_ the Supreme Co1.1,rt -way -ba'ck in ·1952 -in the- case :of ~aclras Viti- Sarathy repDrted in'1953 I LLJ page 174, before making such a referenCe the- Government should satiSfy itself in .the facts and Circumstances brought to. its notice in the subjective opinion that an "Indu,strial Dispute" exists ,or 'is apprehended. It is. further observed in the above ruling that the order, malting a reference- is an administrative act and_ it is:nQt' a judicial or quasijudiCial act and as such the court" cannot examine if th_e Govt. _had material before it to support·" the

'COilclusion that the~.-di$pute ~xisted 01'- 'was apprehended . Following the above"obse'rvatiDn of the Supreme Court care-

. rals, and .Metals Trading CorporaUon 9f -India Limited; Vasco-da.Gama, Goa' is not prom_oUng their_ workman.

- Shri P. Shreedharan,' as JuniDr. Stenograph~r, 41 _ac~Drd·. ahce-With the employer's Order No. 20/1960 dated-'7-4-64 .

. fully this Tribunal' cannot examine the material to hold wh~ther the- reference is justified' or nDt. 'However, the ':rri~ bunal can at- the most try to. -know what was the material

. that -was' placed befo.~e the G?vernme!1t. i1;1 the year 1982. , Is legal and justified?' '

If-not, to what reUef.thC:_:8.alc;l workman is en~it1ed io?"~ The above Governme_nt referen~e _wa_s received in thiS Office

-on _ 15-2 .. 1982 and by order of my' predece,ssor . ,th~ referenc~ was registered and notices were issued to the 'parties. Be -it D_oted: b,ere pertinently that the Government reference is dated -lOth February, 1982 'and by this reference,--the Government has called up.on this Tribunal'to find out 'whether the action .. of the management- in not promoting- the- -workman .af:! Jr. Steno in accordance with the Drqer -No. ,20/1964 dated 7 -4~1961= is just and legal on otherwise. With these da:tes the:;. question posed ·for consideration before me, .is not the dispute between the party I and 'il -but whether the_ Government has failed to apply its mind, to the_ facts of -the case before

,'making' the said Il'eference to this Tribunal. I am inclined to make these _ observations regarding the -f?tUure of the Government to apply its mind to _ the case at this initial ,'stage only because much _-water has flown belDw the bridge of the 'river MandQvi by the :time when the .reference -was made -to this Court. There is a reason to believe that the G-.;>vernment w~s com;;trainec;l too _made this. reference_ 'in -the- year -1982: about'a 'comparatively-very small matter-wp..ich h~d :signifi" cance.between ,7-4.;.1964 to 28-7-1965. On the showixl;g of the . workman party No. I himself in the year 1980 the manage­ment did not" conSidered his demands' and -hence he undertook fast unto_ death. Probably, when he 'Yent on -fast, the unio~ intervened and too~· -up 'the, case with the Labour _ Commis­sioner and after the Labour Commissioner nia~e a -,rep-ort'- to

From the,file of Miscellaneous papers I find that Shrt 'M8Il'­dolker, the then Assistant Labour Commissioner made a report to Government on 7-11-1981 Informing that the work­man Shreedharan was denied promotion by the management of M,M.T.C. in 1964, 1967, 1968 and 1969 under one pretext

, 'Or. the other and _t~ereby causing injustice to him. He made' a- failure report on basis of _ minutes of discussiDn -which·:tODk place on 18-11:-198.0 -and 4-7-1981. As per the minutes an~ nexure' A dated' 18-11-1980_-the fDllowing demands as:reg'artls Shreedharan were made by the union.

"Shreedharan was promoted w. e.,f.' 28-7-1965 as Jr. Ste-' nographer. He passed the required test in --July; 1966."-'Still the management did nDt consider rum for the post of Sr~ StE'!­nographer in May, 1968. The post 'Was- to be filled by- pro­,motion only. Between _1968-69· the management conducted five tests for filling, up the, post. Shreedharan was deprived of -this promotive -on the statement -that he· ,had succ~ssfully paE?sed the tests. According to the union there was no test required b~cause' the post -was to be filled ,in by promotion ,Qnly fDr which -Shre~dharan was the only eligible candidate. In the mean time ·the- two posts Df Jr. StenDgrapher" and Sr.' Stenographer were amalgamated and a 'cadre Df just stenographer was intrDduced. After amalgamation a -j'Dip.t ,

"seniority list was prepared. As _ per this seniority list -some stenos who were junior to Shreedharan were shown abDve

'him and future promotions -were dependent on this senlox:ity

:2ND MA.ROH/J;!f89 (PHA.LGUNA 11, 1910)

list. With these -facts the .main. conteption,rai.sed by ·the' u~ion 'on behalf. of Shreedharan was that . .

.. it 'proper justice- was given to' Mr. Shreedharan .ri~ht from 1964 as far ~s .his -,seniority is -.c_oncerned he would: haye got: ~the promotion to the post of, office, manager in 1972. R~~ -cently 'this- .promotion has been 'offered- to him and Shreed­'-haran -has not accepted _this promotion". This -is the main «iemand made'· by the union. The union therefore dez:nanded on behalf of the workman. Shreedharan that because he' was ,denied promotion in 1964 (which was _ given to him in -:July, 1965) he should be placed in the :;;eni<?tity list as senior to

'Gadekar and he b.e "designated as' Assistant Divisional Mana­~ger ,and his 'pay should be f1x:ed' with effect 'frem the date cf such placement., ,As this demand was not acceptable to the management the failure_ repert as stated above came_ to- be made.

,A.b~ut ,the _ premotion given to Gadeker we find that he wa.3 -a departmental :candidate working as D.D.C. In terms of the office or,der No.~·20/64 dated 7-4-1964 (Exb. E-1) a pas­,~ te.'~t:~'c..on~sting of, Engli::;;b, and General_Knowledge and Five minute~ dictatien ~in' ,shorthand 10; w. p. m. \vas neces­sary to' be eligible'-for prometion as Jr. Steno. Shreedharan did not appear fer th~, competitive te'st held on 6-12-196.4 ,and ,7-3':'1965, even though he had knowledge about- test to be held .. According to 'management the prometion .to the post of Jr. _ Steno was not, automatic- ,even as per notification tio.- 20/64, dated 7-4-1964. According. to them till they eg­l.sting, steno-typist, such as Shreedharan were just to be ste~lO against-the'post of· junior stenographer. According'to ~the management notices were duly published in local news-, paper's about the tests to be- conducted in' December,' 1964 and March, 1965. Secondly ,the post of stenographer to l)e ,filled ,~by direct recr,uitment was d\lly adVertised in Janu­.ary. 1964 and May. 1964. The U.D.C. S.S. Gadekar who

, . first_ appeared .for the two tests was promoted as Jr. Steno­grapher in 1964. The eligibility for the pest of stenographer -was- the person, should have worked as Jr. Stenographer. As ·Gadekar was werking as Jr. Stenographer he having passed the reql1:ired test he was considered fer the post of Sttmo­

,'graphe'r and wa.ct recruited directly. This -:;;hows that the case of S.S. Gadekar .stands on different feoting. Howevei' w"nen the two categories were, amalgamated, Gadeker got ..a_jump and he was promoted ,as manager 1n_1972 .. According to: the -'.union the seniority list is wroJ?g and Shreedharo,n should have been promoted to the ,post of office manEj.ger in ' 1972_ by placing S.S. _Gadeker below Shreedharan. In-" this ·count the Concil~ation Proce_edings ended' m fallure ruid the' reference ca~~ to be made ,to Government_giving rise' to this ,disput~. ,_ . . .

, Hence what is the'reai,Ind~strial Dispute.? The _dispute __ was -probably p~6motion to. the post "Of office manager -to whici). Shree.dharan claim~d to be' eUgible in 1972; a: -dIfference of

. pay and placement -of Shre'edharan above Gadekar 'in the 'liBt of the. stenographers. This post. of Asstt. Divisienal Manager was' offered. te Shreedharan in 1981 which, he was relu~tant, to acc~pt; However by the tune he went in witness box in 1984, he Was already working as Asstt. Divisional Manager' irt. M. M~ T. C. Hence the ,failure.on the part of management t\? promote Shreedharan in -1984, the promotion of Gadek.1.r' ,as direct candidate and belated promotion of Shreedharan on:,:28';7,;.19?5 : are only, incidental but that '-by itself does not form an Industrial dispute which this Tribunal is' called' UV .on to decide· af~er the failure of, conciliation proceeding ill. 1981 aJ1.d there 1.S the __ report of ASf3tt. Labour- Commissiener to Secretary,' Industries and Labour Department, Se_cretariat :eanaj! dated 7-11-1981..· .. •

Hence the -present ~eference to' this Tl'ibun-al 1s not .only wreng but the same _is about an Industrial Dispute which no more existed. We find an _ answer to this in one 'Of the :demand made by the union asking M.M.T.C. to pr.omote .Shreedharan w.e.f. 1972 and place him above S; S. Gadek]'r in the rank 'Of seniority and to give Shreedharan the diffe­!'el.1c.e:·of_-pay·-censequent upon his- notional nromotion f ... ("!· ...... 1972. _What- was the -real claim of Shreedharan can b~ fo~;d :-out from .the Civil Suit ~iIed by him in 'the court at C.J.S.D. Vasco in Ci-vi1 Sui~ ~~. 21/72. That suit }Vas withdrawn __ by the werkmen ~ncondlhonally in, 1976. That was a suit fel.' ',declaration claiming the post_ of Sr. Stenographer- from July 1964 or at any rate from' July -1968. 'Hence in the suit filed in _1972; what was claimed by Shreedharan was premotion to the. ,post ,Of. senior stenegraphe~. There in the -earlier promotien 'Or. -denial ,'Of promotion is' referred _ to 'Only inci­dentally. Hence, even, though the withdrawal of' the suit in ~976 h.as no dir,ect beating in this Government reference, ~tbe:fa_cts-show tha~-the .. main grievance was not the denial cf·

.. .'

promo,tion, in 1964' but denial of _ prom'ot~on ,in, 196$ or se. It 'would be interest.inS" to 'see w~t_the management's' witness Jt.- ~egional Manager,' Vasant _Kaboor has -to .. .say in his evidence recorded ,op. 3-9-1984:

After giving .reference to- Of:fice Order No. 20/64 dat~d 7-4-1964-Exb. E-1 'qe states,'that existing post of steno­-typist was then abolished ,and post 'Of, Jr. Stenographer" was' cr:eated.-According to him th~ conditicn'-No. 6'was ne_cessary. to be complied' with before being eligible to the post' -and this condition applied to existing steno ,typists as wen~ ,'As pel' condition, No.6 seme test$ were -h,eld .in December, 1964 auci March .. 1965 to -fill in. the p'ost of Jr. Steno. The notices -of these 'test~ were duly publi,shed in local dailies at VascQ as well 'as National, newspapers. The Tequired, speed in short hand was 100 w.p.m. The wQtkman Shreedharan did uot appear for t.h~ test< However in order to accommodate Shreedharan the Head Office- of Delhi was contacted arid as per letter Exb. E-2 dated 23-7-1965 the' condition of 100 w.p.m. was' relaxed to 80 w.p.m. Hence in persuance of Exb. E-2.- wQrkman-Shreedharan was appointed 'as Jr. Stene by order 40/65 dated 6-8-1965, vide Exb. E-3. Be It neted here pertinently that ,the order was made --retrosPective w.e.f. 28-7-1965. About condition No.6 in the order Exb._ E-l'after due -advertisement in newspapers' the posts were held in the last week of June,_ 1964 and S. S. Gadekar who success­fully' passed the test was appointed on_ 2-7-1964. If aU these facts '. are considered in the proper context it_ is clear that Gad~kar'S - case stands on different footing from that' of Shree<il1:aran and they are distinct from -each other. There is reason 'to, believe_ that Shreedharan -had -also reconcilad to this position because till 1968 he had 'not complained to any body about denial of such pl~omotion te 'him.

As per the evidence of thi~ witness the next development took, place in_ 1968-69. Some posts 'Of ~tenographer were created then, and nece.ssary tests fer promotion to the post of stenographer were held in July and October 1968. Tne workman, Shreedl;laran 'app_eared for the tests but failed. He ~duQed-:.the necessary documentary evidence., Therea.fter as per, office order 1/2/69 dated -25-3-1969'. the rules regarding the'posts of- stenographers were amended. 'After this amend­inent tests were held at Vasco in- July' and October _.1969. Shreedharan appeared- for the first test _ but did not appear for the second test. As per the result, she_et the candidate failed. Thereafter there cam,e _a Significant break; There Wl.;S

a settlement with. the union. As per the settlement dated 7-11-196-9 (vide Exb. 9) the _posts of Jr. Steno 'ahd steno were m~rg,ed. An Jr. Stenoes were thereafter called as ,stenegraphers and deSignated ,as such

After, censidering this much portion of the evidence of Kaboor and taking despassionate view of the whole matter we find that the first note of discord was sounded by Shree­dharan who it seems felt htat though. he was senior in the length of, service, he was Shown' belOW some stenographers, including Gadekar who were below him. It seems that he wanted both seniority above them as well as difference in salary! Hence he filed civil suit No. 21/72- in Vasco Court (vide 'cepy Exb. E-I0) Therein, in_ the prayer column ,No. 19-he,has demanded that' '~ ,

a) He (Plai~tiff) be declared to the post of Sr. Steno with effect from -July 1964 Ot at any rate from May, 1968.

, b) . Alternative'ly he c~aime~ difference of pay of R.<:;. 9960/- as ,consequential relief. As \ve knew he ul1con­d!ti0J?ally wi~hd~ew the suit in 1976. The. suit was partly dlsmIssed as, bmebarred, and partly was withdrawn unconditionally. Hence what _ remained te 'be considered afer ;1.976 was the ,<i~mand made by- the unien that the

, werkm~n Shre'edharan be deemed to be p1,'omoted to the 'pos~ 9f· Asstt. Divisional Manager retrospectively w.e~f. 1~72;:-, that. in seniority he be placed_ above- Gadekar and difference of pay be given te him. In his eVidence the workman Shreedharan admits' all these fact13. He - also admits that. in . July, 1968 a,nd October 19~8 he appe~red for the tests ?ut failed. According to him the procedure, of tests was Irregular but there is- no'- evidence to _subs­tantiate this~. Hence he got 'his promotion in 1969 only after the umon settled the ~rnatter with the management

. and. the ,cadre of Junior' Steno was merged with that of ~ Stenographer. '.

~i~" a~l these_ facts following- facts de emerge namely.

'a)' ~etween 1964-65 after due, advertisement in- -news­paper~ two tests were held. Shreedharan did not appear fer eIther .of the tests. The U.D.C. Gadekar however' aJ;>peared fer the test and got ,promotion with til his. own right. .

b)' Shreedharan- appe~red, for, the·'two ,tests _In:100S:'afid. 'one test-.in .. 1969 but he faUed'in all these tests:and the result 'sheets are on' record. The- say 'of- Shreedharan th8.t the tests were not properiy conducted 'is not' subs­tantiated by ariy: evidepce besides his word. .

c)' Shreedharan,would have languished as Junior Steno, ordinarily. : However after 19.69. the union. 'intervened' and the _posts _ of Junior Steno and _ Stenographer were- amal­gamated and here in-after-all were designated as .Steno-

,graphe;rs, simpIic,itor. -d) The dispute arose iI1 or about 1971, when tJl,e ques­

tion -of promotion to the' post "Of SeniOr Stenographers arose~ It-appear that some Stenographers jncliJdi.~~ Gade~­kar were, placed above _ Shreedharan ,in the -gl'adatton, list and were 'promoted to the post -of -Sr; Stenographers,. This promotion ·to the P'ost of 'Sr; Stenographers vyas a further step in the direction of promotion to the c!ldre of Asst. DIvisional Manage~. .

e) Hence Shreedharan who_ languised, in _the race, felt that injustice was' done to -him. Hertce he filed Regular Civil Suit- .No. 21/72 on 1st May, 1972 where in ,prayed that· "He be declared to be entitled to the post of Senior Stenographer from July 1964 ,or at any rate -from l\-iay

-1968. As a, consequential relief he. claimed' difference of pay; .of R,s. 9960/· by way of damages.

f) The suit was 'unconditionally with,drawn _in 1976. ,

. g) Shreedharan went on hunger strike in 1979. Union intervened and approached Labour Commissioner who· made a report of failure te Government giving rise to this reference. -

This. is the sequence ~f ~vents giving rise to this reference. It is ex-:-facle clear from the chronological sequence that the belated ·promotion in 1965, instead of -1964 is referred to only incidentally -te start with and real dispute started in 1900-69 when gradation list of stenographer was prepared and therein Shreedharail. \Vas placed belew some s~enos _who were junior to him in length of servlce. What transpired after .1969 to. 1970 is alrea4y discussed in the fere going paragraphs and I, am confining myself to- the point under, reference ,namely' whether injustice was ,really done,.to Shreedharan in not, promottng him as Jr. Stenographer.in accerdance, with- the employer's order No .. 20/1964 dated 7·4·1964. I feel· that this reference, is not proper and no- mind is applied before mal5.ing _ a', reference to the Tribunal in the year 1982 when many developmen,ts had already taken place, _ Shre,edharan -was a1ready a senior Steno_grapher to whom the post of Asst. Divisiona'l Manager was alre.ady .offered by the mana~ gement. Hence the _present reference has been made without appfieatipn' of mind on ,the part of- the Government and I feel that' the report _made_ 'by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Shrl- Marctolker has ~reated the confusion with the Govern-· Mento Some ether referepce :wculd have. ,been made -by the. Government ~mely seniority list. of stenographers; eligibility of Shreedharan -for promotion tc the post of Asstt. Dlvisiono.l Man~ger had the 'failure report given the Information- to the Government. In his -report to. Government dated 7·11w1981, he. has, given the foll~wing informa:tion.

"'The' main contention was that the order No: 20 of 1964 was issued by the m'anagement and was not implcnented in respect of his _workman by showing him against the p,ost of Jr. Stenographer. - The union demanded that the 'Jrder should be implemented with retrospective effect so that {'onw sequent benefits fellow"., With this he enclosed- the details of demands -of union in the minutes enclosed as ';A". I have carefully gone through the minutes and what' _I find is that the union deniand,ed that the post of -Asstt. Divisional Manager be roven _ to 'Shreedharan and that he -be vlaced senior to Mr., Gadekar". This demand was net acceptable to the management _ and so the talks failed!' I: am compelled to go through all- these details .-because the Government, has made ~ re~erence 'abo~t an ,-I.ndustrial Dispute which -did not re'l.lly exist and the .. Industrial Dispute was something else.' '

As .ob?erved by the Sup-reme Court. In- the -case -of State ~f Madras Vis Sarathy quoted ea,rlier -"The order. of reference by the Government cannot be examined' 'by the High Court {and much less by the Tribunal} to see' if' the Government had material before it -to support the conclusion that the dispute eXisted .or was apprehended". This being the ,legal view the _Tribunal cannot examine the material on what the Government relied., Hence the reference as it is ha_s to. be c<?nsidered, by the Tribunal- to record a finding. However while, recording a finding the Tribunal cap.' .. say and examine as, to ,what is the- Industrial Dispute and I find

that "The Industrial- Dispute" is -not .the dimial ·<it-·pi'o~otieti in 1964','. .

. The workman- 'admits in- page 5 _of'-his deposition- that" through- the cadre of Steno~Typist was 'abclished' under order'. No. 20 dated' 7~4wl964, the local management ",_t Vasco wrote' to Delhi to continue the po::;t of Stena-Typist vide copy 'of: letter dated 22w~1964 Exb. 'W~5--produced by 'workman' himself.· This ·let.ter is self' explanatory- showing that the; two posts of stenowtypist were -,continue'd' 'until further -orders. Where is then the' denial of the post because as' pet clause 6 the, -workman had- to appear for the twO' tests which he did give. Howeyer even though_.he did n'ot appear for t~e tests,~ the management took action in' August, 1965. to promote:, the workman Shreedharan with retrospective 'effect from: July. 1965. Where is, then the injustice-' done t"O Shreedharan: and where Is the Industrial Dispute? Secondly the promotion of Gadekar stands,oli different ·footing because _he gave _the test arid was promoted'- earlier to Shreedharan by a, few' menths and because techiticaUy, ~enior to him., Th'e_ workman Shreedharan whc realised this, meekly accepted t~is pOSition and later on appeared for the' tests, conducted' in 1968 and· 1969 and failed. We are not concerned with the develop· ments -after 1968 because we are to' consider the Goye.rn:~ ment referen_ce- as it is.

. The other grievances of Shreedharan is that eight ern:p-Io· yees in -DeIhl· office were given promotion by _an order dated 11w2-1964 and placed_ in the scale of Rs. 130~280 of Jr. Stenos. Three special tests were held for thciu on 22nd September~ 1963 and c_n 19th January, and 4th February, 1964." Accord ...... ing to' Shreedharan this is wrong and illegal. We are not supposed to consider the legality or other -wise because he cannot expect, the benefits of' the ,- same wrong- 'shodd' be extended to him. The _management conten'ds- that· the:: cadres at Delhi and Vasco are different. While examining­the ,case of Shreedharan with reference EXb. E~l it is seen that clause -No. 6 envisages a test and he did not 'give the test and so he was not _promoted in 1964, where is the Industrial Dispute? - .

Even according to_ Shreedharan the Industrial Dispute. started, in 1972 when the seniority list _ was pl'epareq:_ The ,clioice of, .ferum was with him, _whether to approacll the civil court or tq the Industrial Court. He chose the fonun: and ,:filed the -suit in 1972 which- he withdrew in 1976 and the pr~sent reference came -to be ,made- in.'1982 abouf a~ Industrial Di~pute, Which did not exist at least in the_ form 0.1'. the referenc,e made to the Tribunal. This Trihunal has to: consider' the' reference as it is to' record a finding and I find­that 'no finding can be recorded as the Industrial Dispute in the present fOil' does not exist a.t alL, .

Here I have .to,·make a reference to a particular- deve-~ lopment during the course of' hearing; My predecessor had framed -three preliminary issues on 6-8w1982. By his order, dated 2~2w1983 he_ dispcsed of the issue ;Nc. 3 -namely JUris"': diction and while _ holding_ that he had jurisdiction he decided

. all the .preliminary issues in the_ .sam-c C2'G?l". 'I'bJs decjsj.oli was_ challenge<i before_ the High- Court which confirmed the o'rder as reg?-rds -the preliminary- issues. All these deve"': l?p:uents took place b~fore the hearing on merits at a pi:e~: hnllnary stage. _Hcwever there ,¥ere'two sub-issues (H)Uii) to issue NO.1, and_ these. sub~is~ues are, -ignored by all con­,cerned while dealing -with_ issue No.3. 'I filid that these', s~b-:issucs (Ii) and (iii) are the _most importa11t iSSilDS

namely -(ii). Application of mind by the Government while making a reference and (iii) there being no industrial" dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of Industriaf Dispute Act. In fact these issues Were the crux of the whole­matter but they- were 'riot even discussed by _my predecessor while recording a finding on the point of jurisdiction and new it has come to me to decide these issues and in Ol'der­to' un~erstand the correct position I had to go through the facts as, <:tdumbra,ted in. the ,foregoing paragraphs and t; ~ave to conle to a conclusion that the Inqustrial Dispute­in the present form did .not exist at the timl when the rete.._ r~nce was made. About Industria~ DIspute, _ "Whether _ a dlspute between _ an employee and Single workman ca,n not be' an industrial dispute?" The. Supreme_ Court has ncw, held in the case 'Of News Papers Ltd. V Is. Industrial Tribunal, . reported in 1957 II. LLJ that "An individual dispute cannot be per se an industrial dispute but may' become industrial dispute if it is taken ilp by a _ Trade Union or a number of ~orkman". While -laying down this prinCiple the Supreme Court· have affiITI).ed the view taken earlier in the case of Central_ Provinces transport services V Is. Raghunath Gopar Patwardhan reported in 1951 LLJ page 27.-_Hence the .dispute' taken up ,?y, the ~ion will be industrial dispute and I find: that the. dispute taken up by the union 'On. behalf of Shree:'

It#

·Ii. ; ill.{," __ ,

~NDJWA:R.QIJ,.19H9 (PHALGU_N_A_ll:.;.. ,_1_9_10~) _____ ~_-,--_ . 15J9·

dha.ran- was r~gar.Q.ing ,the _pro.J?:l9tion of Shreedharan to 'the post -of -Asstt: _ Divisional Manager retrospectively. 'from .1972." In view o.f,_this ;ppsition-the- present~reference: is''not proper RIJ.<l I'find_tlla-t·.the report ot-the Labour Commissioner ,gav~ aJ:l. impre.ssi(m,: tha(· the -'~O called refus_RI. of', pr()motion -was an· irl4ustrial, dispute·- raised- by the' union.-. ;Precis~ly this is ~9't,-so.:-_Ev~I;l_· t~e ".WOTkn;wD -Shreedharan-, does .DO;t .say! Other:­~lse. h_~'_ w:ould :_Dot .. a.ppeared £9r the 'tests -held __ .-in .1.968_,:,6~_. ~ven "tho1.,lgh h_,e, _failed in Jhese tests l:1e was: promoted -to ~he:-post,_of:_Stenogr~pher' because .of ·the f;ettlement arrive:d p_e,tv(een',t-he_: union an,d the_,managelllent. in _1969. So ,Sh~~ Qh,ar,an dld:>get -tp.e 'promotion ,to the post:of ,Stenographer !:iut __ :th'e--dlspute, arQse in 1971 when, grada~ion"list" was to be -pr~pai'ed. Hence, the' union took, up the matter '_ with -the ll;l.~a.g~m~mt, ari,d' thel) wi~h.the 'Government over :w~.ich-.-I have .. had _a detailed,discussion, in _ the foregoing- pragrapher.s~

:: ':H.~ri.c~_ there' i~' n~ '~isting ind1.!.strlal dispute of the -rtatu,~~ envls.aged ln the' ,GOvernment -reference. :r _ therefore, pass

, t~~_'f~llo~ing', order~ ,- - . ··ORDE:a' .

,'. No.- ~ctlon 9f _ollie' 'nia~~ge~ent ha~_ b~en' re~ponsihle ,._fO'r . preventing' ll~y prom?tfon, to the, w~rkman, "SJ?reedharan 'iIi 1964., _ ,There _'being 'no :Industrial dispute regarding: the .den~~l of-_promotion _in~'-1964 'and the' ~ndJi~trial d~spute_ raised bY.

·the, union being~ 9.efferent, the 'Gov¢.rnment reference in the pr~se_nt form~.is j~li!t filed by.'record~g the,ab,Qve finding: ' '

tnform the_ Government'·accordingly':

': -~ Pa~tles to- bea~' ¢,eir O\Vl1 'cost~:

S, V .. Nevagi Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal.

No. 28/63/84-ILD '

.- '-rhe:fol~o\ViJig"4ward given by the'industrfal'Tribun~lJ Goa, Daman and ,Diu is_:,h~reby published _ as required under the: p,roVisions 'of Sec'tion 17 of the Industrjal Dispute Act. ·,1947 (Central .Act. XlVo! 1947).

l?y- o~de~_ ~d' -in ',the _name :'of th~ :Goyernor of, Goa'.:', '8ubhash v.' Elekar~ ,tInder Secre~:ry: (Irid~'stdes and

Labour). .

~anajl, ,31st .. October, 1988.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL·

GoVERNMENT OF GOA

ATPANAJ1:

(Before Shri S. V. Neva.gi, ~on'ble Presiding Officer)

Reference No. IT/1/85

Shr! Pa,ndurang, Vaze.,

Vis M/. Kad.unba -rra;.port Corporation,. Panaji' .

- Workman/Party!.;

- Employer/Party II

Workman -represented by Adv~ Desmond D'Costa.

Employer represented by Shri -P. K. Lele.

Panaji. Dated: 18th, October. 1988. -

AWARD

,ThIs js_ a referenc~ -made by the GOvernment of Goa, by ,its ordel:" No.- 28/63/84-ILD dated 1st Jap.uary. 1985 With- an annexure_--sched\ll~~ thereto which reads- as follows:

" ._t'~~ether, 'tlie_ action of th~ emPlo~er of MIs Kadamb~ ,T1(ansp~~-~orp~rati9n Limited, P~naji~ 'Goa. in' terminat~ mg _~,e t;l~_ry!ce~. Or their wo.r;kman _Shrl- Pand?rang Vaze; '~~~~¥~~~~:_, ~:, ~ffe_ct,' fr~m' ._?9-~-:1,98,~_ Iso, lEig~1 :~d

~'::lJ~t/,~~-;:~~t" i"e1iet--the,',~O~kman is' entitled :to:!·'~.:' , ,~.

2._ In tl;te above Gov,t; _reference', the Party.: I/W9rkma_n;ilJ the: Conductor, who -was wor:klng on -the: ,buses belonging tQ the Employer l\1/s_Kada.m;ba _Transport :Corp.oration"_a'J;;,ove~n~ ment .under.taking, and obvio~sly. the:, Party II -, is _ the_ mana;,:, .gem~t- ,of ,the_ TraDf;port Corp.oration. ,For the- saire' o.~ proper 'understanding 'hereafter the Party I wou~d, be ,referre.d to. as Conductor by name V~ze and ,Party' II as the_ Kadambll Corp~ration._

, ' 3; ,-,The ,conductor Vaze joined .the Corporation on, 9~7~8i and he was :dismissed. from- service 'on ,17,;6!"'33 and this ordet o,f termination -,is challenged. by him' by- t:;tking the _lJI-atter. to" tJ;1e, L_abour Coinrn:issioner and, upon the failure Qt._the conciliation proceedings the' matter' .~vas., report~d to:' tne: Government and in turu,the Government made the' reference {ts_ stated ,aQove. As such it has: .now_to .be_·seen whether __ the Qrder ,of termi:p-ation_ of the services of the ,bus conductor is' just 'and proper in the -circumstan~es pf the case. and wh~thel! tl:iis,js a. ~ase, of. 'vlctimisation as ,adumberated by- the.:,Con-_ ducto_r in his -pleadings before_ the i_Court. The ,claim -'state .. ment .is ~iled_ 'by .t~e C.onductor on ~8!"'4~85 while- the Corpo!a-.. tion has filed_ -the written statement .qn 2-5~85 to, which" the rejoinder is filed by jhe .. _cond,uCtor _-on -5-6-::85. Thereafte'f-. my, . Predeces,sor framed' the' additional, issues ·besides, the Gov:ern:;;. ment 'reference __ on 17-7-85 and_, issu'¢- N.o. J: ,was, ·regatding. the­Dom,estlc ' ~nquiry : held against, the, workman, _by tI:te Corpo-.,. r~tiQn and tl1is issue was- treated .by. _ my -,Predecessor' as .. a preli~in~ry> i.ssue and: he 'has recorded,'a __ finding, thereon,,:on. 24 .. 86, ancl.in his brief. -order_ he held- that ,the_ proceedings -)f ihe' enquiry ,had,:n_ot been,:conducted with"due compliance :Jf the principles_9f .natural justice and as such he held that the enqui:a:-y w~s _ neither fair, nor proper. After, -th~ finding; -.-OU the prelim~narY point and' i$su.e· was: recorded, the parties went . .on _,tria.1. .and substantive evidence; both : documentary ap.d oral w{t:s- re90rded in the case., The Corporatiqn haS. examined three witnesses_ on its be.half and -they are Ankush >

R._ Naik working &S Asstt. Traffic: :rnspector (A.T.I.) -Willi the Corporation; a-Conductor-by name Suchit-Naik who was a trainee 'conductor -Who joined' the' duty on 12th July 1982 ?nd who was .a-, trainee conductor and with whom Pa~5ty - I \'.-'.1-1 assigned _duty _on the paricul·ar day to guide_ him- iri.:the matter' of conduction _,of the' duty as -a conductor. Besides these two -the CorporatIon has examined' Abrah~m L. Correia WIlO ,was ,working ,as __ Asstt. Traffic Inspector with the c.:,rp9~ ration' l;l.nd.it, is his -action dated 5th April 1982 Which has giveI.1 ;rise to the ,present controversy and,at his '.instance. the­Conductor Vaze was 'charge-sheetea for misapproprhitlGn of ~~, Corp-oratio~ funqs ,while on, duty- ·and after :due enquiry the Conductor wa.s dismissed from service' and this inCident 'Wh~cl,l took place on 5th- August, 1982, has to be considered with proper--tlme:sequence along with the versions and .ri;.'al contention~' of both Party Nd~ I and Party ,No. U. Iri'"the oral testimony before me the _Asstt. Traffic _inspector Ankush Naik states that in August, 1982 while- he was attached r-o the mai:ri Panaji bus- stand and while it was' his -duty: td aUot the dutic'.J to different Conductors and _Drivers of 'the Q9rpQration he allotted a- duty- to Conductor, Vaze on 4-8~82 __ on the bus plying between- Panaji and Sawant':'Wadi yia Patrad~v~. _ On 4-8-82 Conductor Vaze: signed in, the- -duty xegist~r. i~di~ating that the duty was allotted to him on 'that d~y._ ,The ConductOr-' Vaze' was supposed to gUide trainee conduqtor by name Sachit_ N aik. who 'was' ,a trainee _ anti: as' such Vaze was al1ott~d the duty on the same route and on th.e- same day; He had to make- this arrangem€mt of aJlottlng duty _to two, conductors because he ,knew that Sachit Naik had joined the duty, on 12-7-82 and 'he needed proper'tnilnirig for working as a Conductor. Accordiilg to him Sachit Naik had be.'~n __ given, duty-.earlier 'on very few routes 'and _the duty- -on ,a heavy route between Panaji ·to Sawantwadi_ was aSSigned to Sachit Na'ik for the first time on 4':8-.'32. ThiS­is the gist of the statement made by the A/r.I., Ankush·Nail-t whose sole, duty was to aSSign duty to _ different Conductors and Drivers and to properly maintained the re.1evant ·regi~~ ters. m, cross examination he admits t:p.at on the earlier- day i. e. 3-8~82' also Vaze was_ assigned_ duty. About the duty 'on 4-8-82 he stated -thl:'!.t the same was assigned to Pandt,ll'ang ~ Vaze in the routine manner and he -has _denied the suo-o-es_ tion that the additional duty was- given to' P. Vaze be~:use ~h~re was:, shortage -of ~onductors._ Whatever t,hat may- be; lt IS brought on record -m the cross examination that Pandu .. rang Vaze- was aSSigned the duty 'on- 4~8-82. ,RealiSing that this poSitio~, is not favourable _for the -Conductor it is' sug.:. !5ested to him that after Vaze signed in the regi~ter !egard.,; mg the allotment ,of duty on 4-8-82 -another' Conductor was available and/he was a'ssigned the duty in place -of Pandu~ rang Vaze. While denying the' suggestion he ,adds that trainee c9n~uctor should be sent 'along wiJh, the t:eguI;uo: ~onductor .. ~en asked t~ elaborate -on- this polnt he:went tl.ir9'!lgh the,register--and stated that earlier on 31-7"82 tIu'ties

l'i80

Were assigned. to two Conductors on'the same 'route and. t~e relevant~' entry' was- at Sr. No.' 10.- -Similarly _looking into the-r~gister';he_states that-on 15·7·82 there we:re two con­dUCt01'S -who were' assigned duty on the same route and both had signed in 'the register. That waS the duty allotted _ to the witness' Suchit Naik and another. conductor -by name Suohas Raut "both :of whom had :signed -in the register~' According to him 15th July. 1982 was probably the first day on which, Suchit Naik started his duty as a Conductor ... All the information elicited in the cross examination goes to show that PandurEing -Vaze who was senior conductor amongst the' two was assigned duty along with trainee con­ductor Suchit Naik and we have' to see· what Suehit Naik has to. say in this regard.

4: .. Suchit Naik' states that' he jollied dut~ with Kadamba' Transport Corporation on 12th- July 1982 and before his main assignment on 4th- August, 1982 he had worked on Panaji· ·Margao via Ponda route. He ,worked along With _ a senior conductor by name Raut." This co~irms with the testimony of the A.T.r. Ankush Naik. About the duty on 4-8-82 he states that he was rather confused_ to get the duty on a heavy route between Panaji·Sawan~wadi and he. had re· quested -Ankush Naik to give him, duty o,n a nearer route~ However, almost agailist. his desire- he, was assigned the: duty on Panaji·Sawantwadi route and he was_ 'asked ,to work under. the Si'. Conductor Party I -present in the court. Accord1i1g to him he held the tray of _ tickets between Panaji up to _Mapusa and_ iSSUed. tickets up~o Mapusa. 'At Mapusa, as there 'was heavy rush· of passengers and he did not ,know the correct stops on the route of Mapusa to Sawantwadi 1!-e gave the tray to Vaze requesting him .to issue'the ticket and take the money. Both safely reached Sawantwadi at about 5.30 'p.,ro. and the b~ left Sawantwadi for the ·return journey toPana.jl at 6.00 p. m. and again on 5-8-82 they wer~ on the same route and he held· the tray and "issued the tickets. up to Mapusa and from Mapusa o:nwards- the tray was held by Pandurang Vaze and ,the tickts were issue by him. On- return trip ,same day' from Sawantwadi to Panaji, Pandurang'Vaze was holding the tray between Sawantwadi to .Mapusa and was issuing tickets. The iIicident ,giving rise to- this dispute 'took place when. the bus reached i,ts 'destina­tion at Panaji' 'where· two .checkers 'by name C9rreia and Katkar were standing to' che!!k the bus. _ Both checkers started' che-cking the tickets issued to the passengers while they w.ere g-etting dOwn.' __ After the checking of the passenge1,'s' tickets was over they started checking the luggage and one passenger. by -name Parkar who ~d excess -luggage had no ticket issued to him. While Parker was being questioned by the checkers,_Vaze got down and started wallting ,away. When questioned by the checker' Correia the passenger told him that:he had .paid Rs. 10/· ,to Coriductor Vaze towards luggage' charges but Vaze'told him that no ticket -can be issued as there was no "E.'eparate ticket for-luggage. Relying on ,the ex­planation, of the passeng~ Correia started- looking f9~ Vaze but Vaze had vanished ',from ,the, scene. Hence Correia -asked the tramee conductor' Suehlt Naik to issue 4 tickets of Rs. 2.50 each towards the luggage, charges. This was added to ",the account of the tray of tickets and thereafte:i' the statement' of the passenger Parkar and the statement of Suchit Naik Were recorded by the checkers. This is. the story given by. ~uch1t in his examinatio'ri in chief. .

5. In his -cross examination it is suggested -to him that he falsely stated that the ticket tray was with Vaze from Sawantwadl to Mapusa on ti)e' return journey~ It is also suggested to him that Pandurang Vaze, was just returning

, llome and that he was _not on duty. He positively states ',that Pandurang'Vaze was very much on duty with him 'In 5th August; at the return trip from Sawantwadi to panaji. This is all which is elicited in his cross examiriation~ -_With his- evidence it will be material to see what the Checker Correia has to say -,ill.' the matter. The incident has taken place in 1982_- and the,_ ~vidence was _recorded 'in 1988 'and- no doubt there is a gap:of 6:years. However, the checker_should have .. come well prepared Jor the evidence: but it appear that he ,was deposing in ;a very ,:c!!ts'ual.' manner and ~ven though the inCident took pIa:ce on 5th August, 1982 he initially -stated that it ",vas -5th Alii'il, 1982 and later on, corrected himself . when the _ evidence iprogressed. This lapse on his part ,is immaterial because it is a common ground that the incident t()ok place' at the'main'bus stand .at.Panaji" at about. 2.00 to 2.30 p. m. "On 5·8·82' and_ that the two checkers Cornea and J{atkar had checked . the' bus and the ticketl3 of the passengers.

, 6. About the checking;' (Jorrela states that the way bllIot tlckets- was not complete- and about the luggage--he states that he found fr,,?m th:e -.st~tement ,of Parka:r :that ,he b,ad

.sERIES 11 :1Vo.·'48

p-aid Rs. 10/~ towards luggage charges ~ui no tickets was issued' to' him. He lo'Oked f'Or Vaze· but he had -vanished. SQ he asked the trainee,_Conductor Suchit .. Naik -to', issue -ticket, 4 tickets .. in all of the denomination 'Of Rs. '2.50 each, and thereafter he rec,orded statements -and made a report _ which is at- Exb. E-2 and he' has proved the report. 'rhis report is ,signed by, the sec'Ond checker ,Katkar _ al,so. H~ was subsequently examined in, the Domestic -Enquiry., In cross examination he states that he referred_, to Suchit Naik as trainee:'- because he was' a new conductor., According to. him -a 'new conductor -is termed -as 3._ trainee until he- works en 4 to '5_ routes and this was the practice' prevailing then. About the luggage charges he states' that the permissive' limit fQr each passenger- is 15 Kg. and the luggage weighing ab.ove that is ,charged. -He 'states that in '1982 Kadamba Corporation did not have seperate- tickets for luggage charges and passenger tickets were issued' for lug­gage_ charges. He IS· positively saying that Panduralig Vaze. was present when he had started .chepking and he had askE~d Pandurang Vaze and Pandu'rang Vaze whq got down told him that he was the conductor of the bus and thereafter CorreIa started checking' the passengers. _ He pesitively denies. the suggestion that he _ did not _meet Pandurang Vaze -on that day at all. The rest, of, the portion is ,quite immaterial and_ the evidenc_e of the 3. witne_sses _ brings out on record that Pandurang -Vaze was the, conductor, a St. conductor on the ~eavy Panaji·Sawantwadi route, he was 'incharge of -the' tickets, he- had received the amount of Rs. 10/· towards

. luggage charges but had not issued tickets to the passenger and when he found that -the _matter would -recoil 01\ him ='It the time of checking he vanished from -'the spot. This is the gist ot .the evidence led by Party n and. It would be

- prQper to see what Pandurang Vaze has to say in his evidence recorded on 25·2·88.

7, It appears from the trend of his deposition that he" is' making. a' half hearted statement so far as the assignment of duty on 4th and 5th August is concerned., According to him he finished his duty at 2.00 p. m. on 4th AugUst, 1982-and -the period of his rest start~d. 50- after 2.00 p. m. he went home to' Sawantwadi by Kadamba bus al,ld Suchit Naik was the conductor on that bus. On ,4th ev~ning he went home at Sawantwadi and on 5th he was to return from Sawantwadi. to Panaji to resume 'his duties. II;lcidently on 5th August. 1982 he travelled by the same bus on which 'Suchit Nalk. 'was the conductor and he got, down at the' main _ bus stand at Panaji along with Suchit Naik at -abeut 2.00 p. ro. This is . how, in his examination -in Chief itself he meets the Corpora­tion story more than half, way the, only, difference being that he was not on duty but he was enjoying the weekly fest. It has to be seen how far this statement is true- and COlTect. In cross examination he is questioned about duty on 3rd August and he c'Ompleted tbe' duty on Mapusa·Margao rou~e' _ from 2.00 p. m. on 3-8·82 -to 2.00 p. m:' on 4.8.82. Acc;erding to, him his duty. ended at 2.00 p. m. en 4th' AUglist at -2.00 p; m. and he went to Sawantwadi by Kadamba bus at 3.15 p. m. and here lies 'the, -crUX of the· whole ·matter. When he stated that' 'he was on off duty he was confronted with the duty register for August, 19~2; he was shown the entries from 1st to 5th August, 1982 -;.. ~egister marked Exb. E.3. Looking through' the entries he admitted that he had n(}' dutY'on 1st August, and he had to admit,that, through over­,sight' he ha? earlier stated that his duty -ended :on 1st -August, 1982. Lookmg through the entry for 2nd .August, 1982 he admitted that he_ was,-on duty on 2nd -and 3rd August, 1982 on, Panaji·Saligao·Margao route. About the crucial entry for 4~ August, 1982 he admitted that as per the register 'he had duty on Panaji·Sawantwadi ·via Patradevi route starting at, 3.25 p" m. -and he has Signed _ 'in the relevant _ signature column." He also admits that the new conductor Suchit Naik

"h:ad alse duty 'on that route. He knew ·'that Suc:hit Naik. had joined duty 'on 12th July, 1982.. .

8. '~: the adjourned eros.s examination he is again eon. fronted about duty on 3rd Aligust, '1982 and thereafte-r when questioned about 4* August, 1982 he' sta~es, that even though he -signed in the relevant column in the' duty register he did not actually, go, f9r' duty on that' route though his signature was taken in Jhe, register. According_ to· him _ the A. T. I. Ankush Naik who assigns duty to 'conductors and drivers asked hpn to sign in the regisfer and he states that be did.,n?t perfon:nduty on 4th as 'well. as 5th'August, 1982, the cruCial ,day on whi.ch the incident took place. He further states that he had travelled by, _the bus on 5th August r.eachin~ Panaji at the- -time 'Of' checking •. With this --he ;~ 'confronted with:his statement reporded fu writing an~ I feel ·that this statement which is relevant for -consideration in the ,time ,sequenc_e" would be -~~teI:ial piece of evidence for' understanding'the correct state of affairs. The cOnductor who- .

. -~

WD:,MAROH.;f1989 (PH,4LGUNA 11,1910)

has studied cup tt,' ,So S;C.hasststedln'hl~statementre-, corded by the Gen. Manager on 28·1-83 (vide p~ge 6 in Exb. E'12{ colly) that ,he went for duty along With SuchltNalk on -the '.bus because 'duty master meaning A.T .r; asked -him to go ori duty. In- reply to ;further 'questions :he stated that he went·'along with- Suchit Naik becau~e the- conductor- was a new, _ one -and he was supposed to see whether the ,new conductor worked. properly .or not. About the _ ~s:suance of the luggage ticket he stat~s that the passenger had given Rs. 10/~ but the 'ticket. was to be issued by' Suchit Naik and Suchit Naik did not issue the ticket. When he. -was asked why he did not "issue the ticket _being "a sehior conductor- ne states' that--.Suchit ,Naik told .him· that the tick~t was issued. He -has __ signed below this 'statement 'and :Qow he- wants us to believe' that -he did not sign on a written statement, but he: was ',asked to_ sign "on a -blai1k paper". This is very ha:rd and:,difficult tQ, accept -in the ,~ircumstances, of th~ -case, because-, he' is' a _ literate -person and, pos~s ,himself as the President .of: the Workers' 'Union. The other eVidence ',was record;ed in- his presence- ~d it is not' m'aterial because the evidl!mce of the domestiC enquiry caIU.1ot be -relied, upon 3.S my Predecessor has already~held that ,the_ enquiry is defective' and, the' management has' to prove its charge on- -independent' e'V1denc-e.

examinec:l before me as- a witness~ It·is just -pOSSible that--the,' Corporat.1on -wa's,- unable to "prodtic,e 'th,ls witness,':because- the-_ matter:is 6 years old and, the -passen'gers, may -not: be coo.pe-. rating- with -the CorpQration aU the time. This ~nabUio/ 'of the Corporation to ,examine p'arkar does not -' weaken~, the' case of: the Corporation 'because _1- am conSidering the evi­dence of·5-8-.:.s2 and I feel that the_ evidence 9f -Suchlt Naik" ' the checker, Correia 'and the A.T.I. Anktish Naik is suffi-·: eient to prove the involvement of , -Party I ;pandurang Vaze, in the whole 'matter. 'I am -~ot prepare.d to -believe that the Conductor Pandurang Vaze is .made a scape goat-by shielding the new' conductQr who had just entered the services -less

, than .one month back. In this regard, it 'is attempted- -t:o suggest, that -subsequently this conductor was appointed -: ~s the President of the Union after the Unidn was formed. However, I find that the inCident has taken place in August,: 1982 While 'the Union is formed in July, 1983 and, the ietter'-: Exb. 4 about" the formation of the Union was received. by· 'the Corporation on 27th JuIy, 1983' (letter dated 14'7·83). The enquiry was' conducted much before formation of th~' Union 'and tlie letter _ of termination was issued to the con­ductor much Qefore the formation of the Union and as su~h

. there ,cannot pe any question -of- victimisation. The Party:J, Conductor became- _the President of the Union much -after:, the termination of: 'his services and as- such it cannot be said,

9. ,_Adverting then' tQ the eViden'ce of the A.T.I. Correia, he states' that when, the- cash -box was checked, it was found to c:oritain Rs., ,597.35 paise only while actually, there ougllt to have been Rs. 617.70 inclucUng the luggage charges of'Rs.19/­phlg by Parker. In_ all there was·a shortage of ,Rs. 15/35 and this shQrtage is nQt accounted fQr. Now on behalf of Party I an a.ttempt is made to foist the responsibility on. ,the new conductor Suchit Naik who had just joined the _ duty hardly three weeks back. -I am not prepared to' accept the pOSition that such a new conductor _would venture to mis-appropriate the funds of the- Corporation Within .one mc,;>nth's_ 'service. The signature of Party I In. the duty register is an .important

, __ that this is a case of victimisation. The, facts in the present case ar~ considered, by me in almost all minute details fO; understand the correct position and w,ith a: view to go to the ' root of the case while taking a dispassionate view _ of the, whole matter. If'there was a slightest' doubt that the Corpo-." ration's aim was- to victimise an _innoc~nt person r would' have conSidered tiUtt aspect with toP. priority. However •. while considering the things which are brought on record.-' I am inclined to hold that Suchit Naik ,was really a noVice

, factor to be taken into conSideration in this case. It clearly Shows that Party I, conductor Pandurang Vaze was assigned duty on '4-8·82 and that duty was to end on 5-8-82 _ at about after '2:00 p. m. after the bus reached its destination at' J?a,naji. ~eIice the .Party I 'ca,nnot be' 'aUoweq to shirk his responsibility' being a. senior conductor amongst the -two and 'his immediate conduct after' the bus reached the desti­nation, is consistent more With his guilt', then his innocence.

, It is apparently clear o~ record that since . the 'charge sheet was served on him the conductor started in vain stating that he was not -on duty on that day and he had' travelled by the bus,1il{e an ,ordinary passenger., This plea could have be,en properly _ accepte4, had not th~re been pos,itive evidence . of the duty register snowing tha:t the duty -was assgined ·to him on 4-8-82 which was to' eild on· 5·8·82. There is no reason why the. _officers of'the Corporation Ankush Naik and Correia- should-come forward to tell, lies- against the Sr. w6rk­man and the report is ~ade immediately after the incident after the statements of all concerned were recorded. All -this is, consistent with the story that Suchit Naik was a trainee conductor and' Party I Pa~durang Vaze who wa.s a Sr. Con­ductor_vanished- from the scene ,suspecting that·he 'Would be called upon to answer the role playe,d by' him in -the episode . The charge' is on two grounds. The first charge is of taking B.S.- 10/- from the passenger for luggage aml not issuing ,-.a ticket to him. The 2nd charge is of the shortage of Rs. 5.35 and, these two shortages, came to light immediately after the bus reached the main Panaji bus stand - and when the -two checkers checked the passengers' tickets and' then the cash bo~ a~d the ticket tray ... All ,these things have taken place during the offic:ial, :conductio~ of ,business, and it cannot be stated that" this is ,an, attempt of victimisation and of shield­mg anybody. There was not question of shielding Suchit Naik because he was present on the spot and the, explanation given by him was found to be correct and_ the same was stated- by the passenger Parkar whose . statement was recorde4' and who was subsequently examined as a Witness in the. domestic enquiry. The' passenger Parkar in his state­ment _ record~d on 5·8.;82 itself states that he got into the bus at Sawantwadi and' the conductor gave him the tickets ior trave1lilig but no ticket was', given for'luggage. When he asked the conductor: why no tickets are given the conductor

, told ,him that- tickets for luggage are not issued at . all. _ This he said in presence of the checker and the trainee conductor. Suchit Naik. Tbis 'shows that the conductor Suchit Naik was Ii-Ot the:' conductor ~o whom' he had given the money but he ,had giv.en the money to the other conductor who was not- then_ present: In ,his preserice, the checker asked -Suchit Naik . .to _ give hini iickets and he was given 4 tickets of Rs. ~.50 each. _,: This: is the -statement ree,oi-ded immediately after tne checking ,:and has ,high ,evidentiary_ value iri the time sequence .. It is;-'no -doubt true that this Parkar'1s not

,L,

. who had just completed the service of 3 weeks and compa­ratively' Party ~, Pandurang Vaze was ~ veteran conductor having put, up a service of more than 2 years and he knew the trick_ 'Of the tray. I am inclined to hold that a novice like Suchit Naik would not venture to pocket Rs. 10/~ re..; ceived as a luggage fare. Additionally, there -is shortage on Rs. 5.35 Hence Pandurang Vaze who was, on duty. as 'R Sr. Condu.ctor along -with a trainee conductor has his respon-sibility not only to account for the money but also to ,issue tickets, both- as passenger's fare as well as luggage fare. Hence in' the circumstances of the case ,I am inclined to hold: that-- the charge of not issujng tickets 'after receiving the money from, the passengers and not' accounting for Rs'- ,5.35 is- duly and properly brought home, to 'Party I/Workman ..

10. In- this matter it is not doubt true that my Predecessor has recorded a findlng on the prelimipary issue about domes­tic, enquiry against the Corporation. In _ that case it would mean that there was no proper domestic enquiry. That by itself does not mean' that the TribUnal cannot consider the evidence over again while holding' an enquiry uls 10 read'-' with Sec. 11-A of the I.D. Act. In the case of workmen of the Motipur Sugar ::Jractory reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1803, the question referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government was whether the discharge of workmen was justified and whether they are entitled, to the relief of reinstatement. It was observed by the Supreme Court that "it was for the Tribunal to investigate the grounds on which the discharge Was ba'sed and decide_ whether those grounds justified discharge or not". Similar, to this case the Cjuestion to be considered !n that ~ase was whether it was open for the employer who had failed to make an enquiry before, dismissing or dis.charging the workmen to justify his action' befox:e, the Tribunal by placing all relevant eyidence before it. On this point the Supreme Court have observed that "the entire matter- would be open before ·the Tribunal. It wlll hav~ jurisdiction 'not only to,go into the linlited questions open to a, Tribunal where domestic enquiry has been properly held, but, also to satisfy itself on the facts adduced before it by 'the employer whether the, dismissal or discharge was justified. The important effect of omission to hold an enquiry is merely that the Tribunal would not have to con­sider only' whether there' was a prima facie case but would

. decide for itself on the eVIdence adduced whether the Charges' have really been made out". The Supr:eme Court have further stated by enunciating a principle that "in principle there .18 no guference whether the matter comeS before the 'Tribunal for approVal under S. 33 or on a reference under S. 10. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as. required by Standing. Orders, the employer would have to justify on· facts as well that it 'order of dismi,ssal_ or discha:t:'ge, was proper". While stating this prin­ciple, the Supreme Court have further ohserved that "a, defec­tive enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry. If the ,dismissal ',be set ~side by' the Indus~rial Tribunal only 'On the

~uM1t!i$~.~JllllPl<i~rih"'JqiM\\s~"d'hjl'.,ehjpl!>Y~'k;w!;\1Ml 1Wldhjg-(¥' .,nqut~~'I~ W<iul!l<'Wi\\a,~I~; llleMj·tM,tc ~;. em,. p !<>;yer·ViQll 'iIn!l1e(\l"'telll';-pr~e,¢e4: t9-: hQl(i, the-, "'~Ulry :."",03.. ~~~ :a~;. ~~e~:; ;~misstng".'"' tJ1~Jeli1pl"9ye_e, Qpce :.agai,n.:) 'In:-:tl1is;, ~nfr' _another~- inc\ustrUtli: d,i$Pllt~,;.,'w.6uJ,Q_ aris¢_c"a~~-th~.-em~· pl!iy¢r .. iwillil<h be". ~titleli' to: rely.: upOJ.1. the: eJ.1qU;ry,whj<>h: il,e: h.a,d" held·-,,in.:,the 'meantilllet -' TP:js.-, wo.uld mean_, delaY'-Qn:"tJJ.e,:'· s'~~()nd' occa_sibn'\ Wltile m,a~ingiW.ese: obserVatiQn_s;~th.e,,; Sup.:.. r~jn'e ·C~urt"iu\.ve rel~ed' .on· 4 earli.er-_c~ses_ rep.otted in Ala-1958.SC, 130, AIR195.9SC,923, AIR 1959.8C-1111 and:AIR . 1!i60sc,160. The.p.rmciple:·.laiddown ·bythe.Suprel1le.Cwrt, in,) the,., _apoye . cases.'is:, that -: th.e management· nas:'! a.: right - to_~ a.dduc_e,,'_ eYid~nce. befQre. tiJ._e,- TrIbunal to_, justify·., its a~tion-: -ofl <ij.Scp;az:ge"o~, dJsmiss;tl pf'._ the emp~Qyee~:_ frQm -the, serv~ce:

.awL the. Tribunal, has, ,got p.owers tQ. study the--_ evidence ,to hpld:;w;1;letl:ter the dischar:ge,~is:just and'prQper'ln the circums!"" ta,t;l~~,s : .of f tlte.~ cas~.- I~-· vieW, of .. -' the, p.rincipl~~ : la~d<:, down-, by,,­~-: Supreme -Court_, I ~ have,_ dis9-us'sed:,- the_ .fa.cts and:; evidencel' ii(\deta~~ .it;l,~ th~ 'opening :pal"aw;aphs, tQ:"understand-:tne case:, Il}~~e:,out.,by :t~le_,CqrpQr~tion- vis-a-viz, thee-Opponent :aDd the, ~1#jl~Ll:a\<en. bY:.I'al'ty.,I/Conductor. . .

1~ •. I,-find. ,that -the--duty assigned' to ~e-' CQnductQr::-ts: th~. dp,ty"of -trust and"he is,wQr:king-on behalf ,Qf-~the.borpQration,· for. c·oll~ctilig_. the· dues_,_ from the-- passengers-- as fares ~ for tFavel,as ,welI",a~->luggage. Such",a«dtity .i~ "a .. resppnsible jQb': R!ld it. has to be seeIf wheth-er the -person ,_commitfed -a:-grqss' misconduct by mis-appropriating: the funds· which, he had" collected : during· the course .of his duty; . In a· similar, cas~'of' the Kadamba Corporation the Bombay High' Court, Panaji Bench in PetitiQn No. '104/1983, the facts_ were.almost similar., .

·The Conductor· Who"had -recently 'joined the duties was-found iJ;1 possessiQn of -'excess .amount- at .the time of checking' apd' the amQunt was found in cQntravention of the specific ins­tructions issu_ed by -the Corp'ol"ation; T:tte ConductQr tried' to give the explanation which_, was +,Qund un-satisfactory. ,Hence after holding ,due enquiry his services were terminated .. The mat~er went into concilia:tion and the report was made to' the 'Government for making _a reference_ -u/s 10 (1) ,(d) of the Act. - The Govt. refused to' make-- a: reference·.on the ground that the ,:domestic-encluiry, conducted by the Cotpora-' tion was sufficient. This order, of the GQvernment was cha.l­lenged by the Conductor by filing the _writ Petition: ._-In that caSe -also the Gen. Manager· 'Yho had issued the .charge sheet had held ,the enquiry. :'",I'he Division Bench-- observed that t1;lis does: riot vitiate against any principles .of _natural justice. 'There was also a caSe of dismissal from service_ and on this ,point, it was urged "before ·the High' Court that the authQrities did not apply their minds to the quantum vi' punt::;:hment.: According tQ the Division Bench no other pu~ish-

. . ment coul(1 have been awarded for the miscQnduct -- CQm­mitted by, tne, PetitiQner, Conductor. -With' these observa­tions, . the Writ _ Petition _-Was dismissed I am' consfdering the:. observations of-the,-Div. Bench-'.of ·the.Bombay High C~H.g1:, P~aji _ Bench, fQr -.-limited _ purp<?se. The· prinCiple cQn ..

.:'-.

~~~tI:\IlLCl>llc,WIt$Q whetller ~"",ll1An ,Ilk .. , "":C._ctor: · Wll.Q"i"" a, tJ:U<>ty"fpr,; tll~ CllSh ;shoul,\l.,mdulg .. ,;mto:'miscODlluet,

ft,'.I!Cl,"; wU¢tl;1,~ ttl~,or,d.et:· .of:. ~sal;,.Qf;.-suchj,a:. pers:onjwould: ~.;jU$tifta;plet_m-J the,'_circumstances' ,of; the'~ ca.s.e~,andi;wh-ether,

· a.t:ly.-, I~$~rr-pun,if$hnlent~is, call,ed.',for. -:'By;' rep:eati:ng:tire:~e .f~,cts;-_, I.;'8Jl:l, jnclined,.' tQ,~'hold.' that< the': Condu,ctor, who';·was fQund, t9 ha,ve:-_taken, t4"cash, and··-not':.issued:,the ticket~,and who, had,;.betray~d:: the: cQn,fidence . by~' not,_guiding the-, Trainee' Cond1.lctor: properly' deserves thee:" ,extreme, perialty of.: <it&-< $issa~: from, "servic.es . and-., there is'.: nQ~ ground: which' _called,: for _ any lesser punishment or, interference with. the .order of;;the--m~agem:ent.. I find,~ that;_there~is,;no.:case· Qf·,victimi .. sattQn, becaus~: UniQn',. was' .. formed., much>after. _the·; .orderrof: dismlss(l;.l-. and as,_' m..a-ny as: 3., emplQ.y~es'; of .... the,~ Corporation una~tmously; stated;- that Pandurang,: .Vaze: was the' senior.: cQndtictQr:· .on ; d1.lty_ on ,I Panaji ~ Sawantwadl',;' route _ between_: 4th.; an4:- 5th .. , A1;l-gust., 1982. ,- and:, when> the> passe~gers.:~ were: cheCked Qn,~5th:Aug1,lst, ,1982::after,-the·-bus- arrived"at Panaj~ bU~Lstanc:l. a:.'shortage,,'Qf: RS;-, 15:.35 was ,noticed_: and the ~res,:;,:, ppn,sibUity-.to ,a~c'ouJlt fQr,:this' aCcQunt,.was rightlY .. 'placed,JQn', the .P.arty, I, . C9nductQr, whQ,-had subsequently_, _taken" part, in i~e~Pomesu.c ,Enquiry~·. It has,,'to, bel:noted-:that·_the';Cdn~ duc~ot,.who had., taken part, in--, the:" Domestic',' Enquiry: had .. made _ "Out a case befQre me that no such enquiry was"5.:lihld:; at all. There is reason to believe -that the ConductQr is nQt stating_ the; truth-,because he had··taken 'a-':stand:thltt--he''-was not .on:'. duty on 4th, and 5th August, 1982, but the:' record <

believes him,~ shows· that he was in.,fa:.ct·on duty as'-~a:: Sr. ConductQr, Suchit '_Naik . being _a'- Assistant and junior- to,· him.. I have cQnsidered all these facts in detail to: see. Vfhether thi~ is case of ' victim is at ion and improper tennina~ . tion of servIces. __ Up-on' a careful, conSideration .of, 'the ,facts, ~nd evidenc.e .on record I am inClined to -hold ,that the order' of terminatiQn is -just and proper and the same does not call for any interference., In, ~e res,ul~, I 'pass the following order:

ORDER

It is hereby -held _ that the' action of the employer Mis Ka~ dam~a T~anspo~t CorporatiQn, Panaji, Goa in -terminating. the ~ervlces of theIr work~an Pandurang Vaze, Conductor is Just and legal and the sa~e does not call for any, interference.

In view of the abC?v~ finding the workman, conductor is' nQt entitled: to any -relief in this reference.

In' the circum~tances of th,e _c,ase, .the, p'arties are __ directed. to -bear their own ,costs. . .

Infonn the ·GQvt. about the _passing of the' award aCCQtd-' · ingly .

S.". V .. Nevagi, -Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal

Qo\TT.PRlNTrNGPRES,S.,-.GOk.:, . (~.!IiI __ ,," Gea~ ••

. l'Bl4;ll!t"",l\e, 1-20 ·1'0; .•.