Panaji, 27th January, 2017 (Magha 7, 1938)
SERIES II No. 43
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
969
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
__
Order
No. 50/3/(99)/ELEC/BOD/MACH/RCS/CZ/
/15(Suppl. File-II)/3974
Read: Letter No. 1/186/MAACH/ARCZ/2015 dated
16th November, 2016 received from the
Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Central
Zone, Panaji-Goa to fill four vacant post of
Directors of the Maruti Apartments Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd., Mala, Panaji-Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Maruti Apartments Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Mala, Panaji-Goa from the provision of Section 60
of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for the term
i.e. 2015 to 2020 by invoking the powers under
Section 126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies
Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meena H. N. Goltekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 5th January, 2017.
Order
No. 50/3/(100)/ELEC/BOD/AMHS/RCS/NZ/
/15(Suppl. File-II)/3985
Read: Letter No. 14-123-00-TS/NZ/1108 dated
16th June, 2016 received from the Asstt.
Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Central Zone,
Panaji-Goa to fill two vacant post of
Directors of the Anant Muktangan Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd., Verem, Reis Magos,
Bardez-Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
Anant Muktangan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Verem, Reis Magos, Bardez-Goa from the provision
of Section 60 of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for
the term i.e. 2015 to 2020 by invoking the powers under
Section 126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meena H. N. Goltekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 5th January, 2017.
________
Order
No. 7-461-2007/EST/RCS/4140
Read: Note No. WRD/SE-IV/F.43/2016-17/16 dated
28-11-2016.
Ex-post facto sanction of the Government is
hereby conveyed for extension of the deputation
period of Shri Ramesh P. Naik, Asstt. Registrar of
Co-op. Societies as Credit-in-Charge, Command
Area Development Authority, Water Resources
Department, Gogal, Margao, for one year w.e.f.
28-10-2016 to 27-10-2017 on standard terms and
condition of deputation.
This order supersedes the earlier order
No. 1-3-71/EST/RCS/(part-I) dated 28-10-2016.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meena H. N. Goltekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 23rd December, 2016.
Note:-
There are three Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 42 dated 19-01-2017
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 20-01-2017 from pages
865 to 872 regarding Notifications Order from
Department of Finance and Home respectively.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 23-01-2017 from
pages 873 to 874 regarding Orders from
Department of Finance.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 23-01-2017 from
pages 875 to 968 regarding Notification from
Department of Elections.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
970
Department of Finance
Revenue & Control Division
Office of the Chief Secretary
__
Order
No. 1/9/2016-Fin (R&C) (a)
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has issued an
Order dated 15-12-2016 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12154-
-12166 of 2016 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14911-
-14913 of 2013) namely the State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department & others versus K. Balu &
another. Vide the said Order certain directions are
issued viz. for removal of all liquor vends on
National & State Highway across the country,
removal of all advertisements and signboards
depicting sale of liquor and to forthwith stop
granting any new licences along the Highways.
2. Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued directions
to all the States and Union Territories which is
reproduced as under:–
(i) All States and Union Territories shall
forthwith cease and desist from granting
licences for the sale of liquor along national
and state highways;
(ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shall
extend to and include stretches of such
highways which fall within the limits of a
municipal corporation, city, town or local
authority;
(iii) The existing licences which have already
been renewed prior to the date of this order
shall continue until the term of the licence
expires but no later than 1st April, 2017;
(iv) All signages and advertisements of the
availability of liquor shall be prohibited and
existing ones removed forthwith both on
national and state highways;
(v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be
(i) visible from a national or state highway;
(ii) directly accessible from a national or
state highway and (iii) situated within a
distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of
the national or state highway or of a service
lane along the highway.
3. Now, therefore in order to implement the
directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India it
is expedient to have a coordinated and united effort
of all stakeholder Departments. Hence, it is decided
to constitute a Core Committee comprising of the
following Officers, viz.:-
i. Commissioner of Excise
...
Chairman.
ii. Principal Chief Engineer
...
Member.
(PWD)
iii. Collector (North) or his
...
Member.
representative
iv. Collector (South) or his
...
Member.
representative
v. Superintendent of Police
...
Member.
(North)
vi. Superintendent of Police
...
Member.
(South)
vii. Director of Municipal
...
Member.
Administration.
viii. Director of Panchayats.
...
Member.
ix. Director of Settlement and
...
Member.
Land Records.
4. The Terms of Reference for the Core Committee
shall be as follows:–
a. Monitor the implementation of the order and
submit its forth nightly report on action taken
to the Office of Chief Secretary, Government of
Goa.
b. The Core Committee shall meet as frequently
as required but not less than once in fifteen
days.
c. The Core Committee shall break up responsibi-
lities between their respective Departments
and ensure that adequate directions are issued
and manpower is assigned to carry out the
work at the taluka level. The Core Committee
shall constitute Taluka Level Teams for the
purpose of carrying out the exercise of
surveying, identification, demarcation of
identifiable landmarks at the distance of 500
metres from the outer edge of the national or
state highway, etc.
d. It is required to ensure that the said order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court is implemented in
totality before 1st April, 2017.
5. The District Collectors and Superintendents of
Police shall render all the necessary help and
assistance to the Core Committee in implementing
the Order as and when requested for by the
Chairman of the Committee.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dharmendra Sharma, Chief Secretary.
Porvorim, 18th January, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
971
Debt Management Division
__
Notification
No. 2/8/2010-Fin (DMU)Part/473
Read: Notification No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU) dated
08-05-2015.
Government is pleased to accept the resignation
tendered by Shri Sidharth Kuncalienker as a
Vice Chairman of Goa State Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd., w.e.f. 11-01-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Michael M. D’Souza, Additional Secretary
(Finance).
Porvorim, 20th January, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 2/8/2010-Fin(DMU)P.F.
Read: Notification No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU) dated
07-11-2014.
Government of Goa is pleased to accept the
resignation tendered by Dr. Pramod Sawant as a
Chairman of Goa State Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd., w.e.f. 16-01-2017 and consequently
to appoint Secretary (Finance) to the post of
Chairman, GSIDC Ltd., with immediate effect, until
further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Michael M. D’Souza, Additional Secretary
(Finance).
Porvorim, 23rd January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of General Administration
__
Notification
No. 2/2/2010-GAD-III
In exercise of the powers conferred by the
explanation to Section 25 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (Act 26 of 1881) delegated
by the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi vide Notification No. U.11030/
/2/73-UTL dated 28-06-1973, read with Section 135B
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(Central Act 43 of 1951), the Government of Goa
hereby declares Saturday, the 04th February, 2017
(15 Magha, Saka-1938) as a “Public Holiday” being
the “Polling day” for the General Elections to the
Goa Legislative Assembly, 2017, throughout the
State of Goa.
The aforesaid holiday shall be a “paid holiday”,
in addition to the holidays indicated in the
Notification No. 2/1/2016-GAD-H dated 09-11-2016,
published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 33
dated 17-11-2016 to the establishments as detailed
below:
(i) industrial workers of the State of Goa;
(ii) daily wage workers of the Government
Departments and State Government
Industrial Departments;
(iii) commercial and industrial workers of
private establishments in the State of Goa;
(iv) all private establishments;
(v) daily wage/casual workers employed in any
business, trade, industrial undertakings or
any other establishments.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amarsen Wamanrao Rane, Additional Secretary
(GA).
Porvorim, 23rd January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/1/2016-LAB/Part-V/07
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 21-10-2016 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/24/13 is hereby published as required
by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar,
Hon’ble Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/24/13
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
972
Shri Ramnath Chodankar,
since deceased
through his legal heirs
1. Smt. Rashmi Ramnath
Chodankar,
2. Shri Runal Ramnath
Chodankar,
3. Ms. Rushal Ramnath
Chodankar,
… Workman/Party I.
V/s
The Goa Urban Co-operative
Bank Limited,
Panaji-Goa
… Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
George.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri G. K.
Sardessai.
Panaji, Dated: 21-10-2016
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 04-07-2013,
bearing No. 28/28/2013-LAB/456 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, in turn
assigned the present dispute to this Labour
Cour-II of Goa for its adjudication, vide her order
dated 08-07-2013.
“(1) Whether the action of the Management of
the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited,
Panaji-Goa, in dismissing from service its
workman, Shri Ramnath V. Chodankar,
Sub-staff with effect from 20-11-2012, is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/24/13 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’) filed his Statement of Claim on
15-10-2013 at Exb.6. The facts of the case, in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed with the Employer/Party–II (for short
“Employer”) as a “Sub-staff” and posted at
Savordem, Goa, with effect from October, 1979. He
stated that thereafter, he worked at Vasco branch,
consequent upon his transfer till the date of his
wrongful termination w.e.f. 20-11-2012. He stated
that neither, he was issued any memo, nor issued
any charge-sheet, alleging any act of misconduct.
He stated that all the workmen of the Employer
bank are members of a trade union by name Goa
Urban Co-op. Bank Employees union. He stated that
Mr. Subhash Naik George is the President of the
said union. He stated that he was elected as the
Assistant Secretary of the said union in the year
2009. He stated that in the year 2011, he was
elected as Executive Committee member.
3. He stated that he was issued a letter dated
05-03-2010, directing him to give a written
statement, regarding the incident of theft that had
occurred in the Vasco branch of the Employer on
19-02-2010. He stated that he replied to the said
letter of the Employer dated 05-03-2010, vide his
letter dated 18-03-2010. He stated that he was
thereafter issued a notice of preliminary enquiry
dated 24-04-2010, informing him that a preliminary
investigation would be conducted by Mr. Vijay A.
Palekar. He stated that he attended the said
preliminary enquiry before Adv. Shri Vijay A.
Palekar, however, no copy of proceedings were
given to him. He stated that thereafter, the
Employer issued to him, a charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010 alleging certain acts of misconduct
against him. He stated that upon receipt of the
said charge-sheet, he requested the Employer bank
to supply him documents on which basis, the said
charge-sheet was issued to him, in order to enable
him to submit reply to the same, by his letter dated
30-07-2010. He stated that the Employer bank,
however, did not bother to reply to his letter, nor
supplied the documents, but, straight away went
ahead with the enquiry proceedings.
4. He stated that Mr. Prasanna C. Chawdikar, an
Advocate, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold
enquiry in respect of the said charge-sheet. He
stated that Mr. Gaurish N. Agni, Advocate was
appointed as Management Representative. He
stated that the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry
in respect of the said charge-sheet issued to him.
He stated that Enquiry Officer submitted his
findings, by holding him guilty of charges of
misconduct levelled against him, vide his findings
dated 31-08-2012. He stated that thereafter, the
Employer issued him a show-cause notice dated
15-10-2012, enclosing the findings of the Enquiry
Officer. He stated that he was asked to show-cause,
as to why he should not be dismissed from service.
He stated that vide his letter dated 06-11-2012, he
replied to the said show-cause notice of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
973
Employer bank. He stated that he was thereafter
issued a letter of dismissal dated 17-11-2012,
dismissing him from service with effect from
20-11-2012. He submitted that aggrieved by the
decision of the Employer to dismiss him from
services w.e.f. 20-11-2012, he raised an industrial
dispute, in the matter of alleged illegal termination
of his services and demanded for his reinstatement
with full back wages and continuity in service
before the Appellate Authority of the Employer. He
stated that a copy of his representation was marked
to the Commissioner, Labour & Employment, Panaji,
Goa, for her intervention. He stated that the Labour
Commissioner, Panaji-Goa, intervened in the matter,
but resulted in failure.
5. He stated that vide his letter dated
12-09-2012, he had submitted his resignation from
the service of the Employer bank, at the request of
its Managing Director. He stated that the said letter
was received by the Employer bank on 12-09-2012
in the evening. He stated that when he went to
report for work as usual at Vasco branch of the
Employer on 13-09-2012, the Branch Manager did
not allow him to report for duty, by stating that he
had resigned from the service. He stated that he
addressed a letter dated 16-10-2012 to the Employer
bank, requesting to clear his legal dues, upon his
resignation from the bank. He stated that as the
Employer did not pay his legal dues, he addressed
a letter dated 18-10-2012 to the Labour
Commissioner, Panaji-Goa. He stated that the
Employer bank addressed a letter dated 19-10-2012
to him, after over a month stating that his
resignation letter is not accepted. He stated that
he replied to the said letter of the Employer bank,
vide his letter dated 25-10-2012. He stated that he
informed the Employer bank that the bank cannot
refuse to accept his resignation.
6. The Workman challenged the termination of
his services w.e.f. 20-11-2012, by contending to be
not only illegal and unjustified, but also malafide,
vindictive and as and by way of victimization for
his trade union activities. The Workman submitted
that the departmental enquiry conducted against
himis in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice as well as the service rules applicable to
the Employer bank. He submitted that the charge-
-sheet issued to him is vague as there are no
allegations leveled against him in the said charge-
-sheet. He submitted that the contents of para 1 to
5 of the said charge-sheet are statement of facts
and not allegations of misconduct. He submitted
that in the said charge-sheet issued to him, no
allegations of misconduct have been leveled
against him, though he has been charged for
misconduct namely (e) and (j).
7. He submitted that during the course of
enquiry, he had raised certain preliminary
objections before the Enquiry Officer pertaining to
holding of the enquiry. He submitted that however,
the Ld. Enquiry Officer has mechanically and
wrongly disallowed his preliminary objections and
gave ruling in favour of the Employer bank. He
submitted that the Enquiry Officer gave his
findings mechanically, without application of mind
and without there being any evidence on record to
hold him guilty of the charges leveled against him.
He submitted that the said findings of the Enquiry
Officer are vague and biased in favour of the
Employer bank. He submitted that the said findings
of the Enquiry Officer are also perverse and without
any proper reasoning. He submitted that there is
no allegation that he disobeyed any order of the
Employer bank, but the Enquiry Officer has held
him guilty of willful insubordination or
disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of
the management. He submitted that the charges
leveled in the charge-sheet has not been proved in
the enquiry at all. He submitted that in fact, it has
come in the evidence on record that the Oriental
Insurance Company has made good amount of Rs.
5,00,000/-, which was robbed from the bank, while
cash was in transit from the Employer bank to the
I.D.B.I. bank. He submitted that there is nothing in
the enquiry proceedings that he has disobeyed
any lawful and reasonable order of the management
or had indulged in willful insubordination.
8. He submitted that the charges leveled against
him in the charge-sheet is a minor misconduct as
per service conditions/bipartite settlement
applicable to him. He submitted that in terms of
clause (j) of the Service Condition namely “neglect
of work, negligence in performing duties, the
maximum punishment is warning or censure or
adverse remark in service record or have his
increment stop for a period not longer than six
months. He submitted that the punishment of
dismissal cannot be imposed on him for negligence
as per service condition/bipartite settlement. He
submitted that at the time of dismissal, the
Employer bank did not pay him gratuity till date.
He stated that the Employer did not consider his
past record, while dismissing him from services as
required under the service condition. He submitted
that even assuming for the sake arguments and
without admitting that the charges are proved, the
punishment of dismissal imposed upon him is
highly disproportionate and extremely harsh,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
974
He submitted that this Hon’ble Labour Court has
powers u/s 11 of the I.D. Act to reassess the
evidence and reduce the punishment, taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case.
9. He submitted that during his tenure as office
bearer and executive committee member of the
union, the union had gone on two days strike and
indefinite strike action, which was unlike by the
Employer bank. He stated that several employees
were transferred after the strike action and the
Employer bank was looking at opportunity to strike
at him at appropriate time. He submitted that since
the date of his termination, he is unemployed and
have no source of income. He stated that his wife
earns a little amount by making cotton bags and
his brother also supports him to make both end
meets. He therefore prayed that he be reinstated in
service with full back wages and continuity in
service with cost and interest.
10. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
04-12-2013 at Exb.9. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objection, submitted that the
reference is bad-in-law and hence not maintainable
and that the present dispute of the Workman is not
an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined under the I.D.
Act, 1947. The Employer further submitted that
there is non-application of mind by the Appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute.
11. The Employer admitted that the Workman
was employed with them as a sub-staff at its
Vasco branch. The Employer stated that on
19-02-2010, the Workman was instructed by Mrs.
Amita Bhangui (Jr. Officer) to accompany
Mrs. Archana Kare (clerk) to the I.D.B.I. bank for
depositing a cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Employer
stated that on having received her instructions,
the Workman went to the payment cashier along
with Mrs. Archana Kare, clerk and collected cash
of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Mrs. Archana Kare which
was given to her by the cashier Mrs. Milinda
Dessai. The Employer stated that the Workman also
signed the register maintained by Mrs. Milinda
Dessai. The Employer stated that the cash was
placed in the dickey of the scooter of the bank by
the Workman. The Employer stated that thereafter
both of them proceeded to the I.D.B.I. bank on the
scooter for the purpose of depositing the said
amount. The Employer stated that the scooter was
driven by the Workman. The Employer stated that
after reaching the I.D.B.I. bank, the cash was found
missing from the dickey of the scooter. The
Employer stated that the cash has not been traced
till date. The Employer stated that therefore, it has
decided to conduct enquiry against the Workman
for the act of misconduct committed by him and as
spelt out in the service condition applicable to
him,
namely,
willful
insubordination
or
disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of
the management or of a superior and doing any act
prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross
negligence or negligence involving or likely to
involve the bank in serious loss.
12. The Employer stated that accordingly, it has
issued charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry dated
26-07-2010 to the Workman. The Employer stated
that the Workman did not submit his reply to the
charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry. The Employer
stated that Mr. P. Chawdikar was appointed as an
Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that
Mr. Gaurish Agni was representing the
management and the Workman was represented
by Shri. Subhash Naik George, the President of
Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Employees Union. The
Employer stated that the Enquiry Officer submitted
his findings, after appreciating the evidence on
record and held that the Workman is guilty of
the charges of misconduct levelled against him.
The Employer stated that vide its letter dated
19-10-2012, it has replied to the resignation letter
submitted by the Workman. The Employer stated
that it has considered the proceedings of the
enquiry, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and
concurred with the same. The Employer submitted
that considering the gravity of proved misconduct,
it has decided to discharge the Workman from the
services. The Employer stated that the Workman
was accordingly served with a show-cause notice
dated 15-10-2012, as to why he should not be
dismissed from service. The Employer stated that
the Workman filed his reply to the aforesaid show-
-cause notice issued to him. The Employer stated
that after carefully perusing the contents of the
said reply to the show-cause notice and once again
going through the proceedings of the enquiry and
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, they did not
find the explanation of the Workman satisfactory
and hence it has decided to dismiss the Workman
from the service.
13. The Employer submitted that the Workman
was involved in the incident and had the
responsibility to deposit the amount given in his
physical possession. The Employer stated that the
said amount was stolen from him due to his
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
975
negligence. The Employer stated that the Workman
was asked by the Branch Manager, Vasco, by its
letter dated 05-03-2010 to give a written statement
about the incident. The Employer stated that from
his conduct in handling cash, it can be inferred
that the Workman was negligent, while discharging
the work of cash deposit, which was entrusted to
him. The Employer admitted that as it was a
preliminary investigation in the matter and fully
confidential in nature, wherein the statement of
all concerned staff related to the incident were
taken and there was no need to provide copy of
proceedings to all the concerned including the
Workman. The Employer submitted that the
preliminary enquiry is not a part of the
departmental enquiry and hence it has not affected
the outcome of the said enquiry. The Employer
stated that in the charge-sheet itself, the Workman
was informed that he may produce such documents,
he may deemed necessary to produce and that he
was also permitted to be defended by a co-
employee of his choice and was also informed that
he shall be given all the opportunities put forward
his views/defenses. The Employer submitted that
bank has offered all the opportunities to the
Workman to defend himself in the enquiry and as
such the Workman had an opportunity to give
place all his defenses in the enquiry before the
Enquiry Officer. The Employer submitted that all
the documents, on which basis the charge-sheet
was issued, were given to the Workman during the
course of enquiry. The Employer stated that the
representative of the Workman have acknowledged
for having received the same. The Employer
submitted that the charge-sheet clearly states that
there is a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- given in physical
possession of Workman and the said cash is lost
due to his negligence and not obeying the
instructions to carry the cash as per the rules of
the bank.
14. The Employer stated that there is a bankers
indemnity insurance policy with the Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. The Employer stated that
the sum insured under this policy is Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, in
which basic sum insured is Rs. 7,50,000/- sum
insured on premium is Rs. 1,92,50,000/- and sum
insured in transit is Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Employer
stated that this policy gives indemnity against the
losses to the bank. The Employer stated that it has
insured under this since the year 1990 and
continuous till date. The Employer stated that the
insurance company gives discount in the yearly
premium, if there is no claim to the insurance. The
Employer stated that there is provision in the policy
that the insured shall bear the first 25% of each
item or 2% of the basic sum insured, whichever is
higher. The Employer therefore submitted that
the bank has not received a total amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- as stated by the Workman. The
Employer stated that since that year, the bank has
lost on its discount in the form of no claim bonus.
The Employer stated that the bank has received
Rs. 4,63,700/- only thereby short fall of Rs. 36,300/-.
The Employer stated that the bank has lost on no
claims discounts on its yearly premium, due to this
claim to the insurance company since 2011 till
date, which amounting to Rs. 8,26,904/-. The
Employer stated that the said amount of no claim
discount has been forfeited forever and every year.
The Employer stated that it has to suffer this loss
due to the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Employer
stated that the Workman was given all the
documents in the enquiry. The Employer stated
that on completion of enquiry, wherein the
Workman had participated in enquiry till the end,
anticipating the action that may be taken against
him, tendered his resignation on health grounds
and remained absent from duties thereafter. The
Employer stated that vide its letter dated
19-10-2012, it has informed the Workman that as
the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
him, his resignation was not accepted. The
Employer stated that it has also informed the
Workman that its Branch Manager had informed
its head office that he has not reported for work
from 13-09-2010. The Employer stated that further
the Workman was cautioned that his failure to
report for work would be treated as additional
misconduct. The Employer stated that the Workman
has unauthorizedly remained absent from duties
from 13-09-2012. The Employer stated that the
Workman has received his salary for the full month
of September, October and in November upto the
date of his dismissal, which he has duly withdrawn
from his account through ATM.
15. The Employer stated that it is a
co-operative bank, managed by the board of
directors and the board meets once in a month.
The Employer stated that the matter related to the
staff are decided by the board, as such, there was
a time period to decide and convey its decision to
the Workman. The Employer admitted that the
gratuity is not paid to the Workman. The Employer
submitted that as per Sec. 4 (6) (a) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972, the gratuity of an employee,
whose services have been terminated for any act,
willful omission or negligence causing any damage
or loss to, or destruction of property belonging to
the Employer shall be forfeited to the extent of
damage or loss so caused and accordingly the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
976
gratuity has been fully forfeited and not paid to
the Workman. The Employer stated that the
Workman was issued a charge-sheet and enquiry
was initiated, which was drawn on the submission
of written apology by him in the year 1998. The
Employer submitted that the Enquiry Officer on
the basis of evidence on record submitted a
reasoned findings, holding the Workman guilty of
the charges leveled against him. The Employer
stated that it has considered the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, concurred with the same and
considering the gravity of proved misconducts,
decided to dismiss him from service. The Employer
submitted that they have conducted the enquiry
in a fair and proper manner and in the event, this
Hon’ble Court set aside the same on any of the
ground, they may be permitted to lead evidence
before this Hon’ble Court to prove the charges of
misconduct leveled against the Workman. The
Employer denied the overall case as pleaded by
the Workman and prayed for dismissal of the
present reference with cost.
16. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Rejoinder
on 11-12-2013 at Exb.10. The Workman by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him. The Workman submitted that the Employer
did not take into account his clean past record,
before imposing the punishment, which was
mandatory.
17. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties
herein above respectively, this court framed the
following issues on 04-12-2013 at Exb. 9.
1. Whether a fair, proper & impartial enquiry
was conducted against the Workman/Party I
in accordance with the principles of natural
justice?
2. Whether the charges of the misconduct
leveled against Workman/Party I vide
charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010 has been
proved to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer/Party II in
dismissing her services w.e.f. 20-11-2012 is
illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present Order of Reference issued by
Government of Goa is bad-in-law in view of
the allegations made in paras a, b and c of
its Written Statement?
5. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
6. What Order? What Award?
18. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1:
In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2:
Partly in the affirmative
and partly in the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3:
In the negative.
(d) Issue No. 4:
In the negative.
(e) Issue No. 5 & 6: As per final order.
REASONS:
19. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
Vide order dated 28-10-2015, passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I
have come to the conclusion and held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman, in respect of the charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010 and that the Employer could prove only
one charge of misconduct at Sr. No. (j) doing any
act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross
negligence or negligence or likely to involve the
bank in serious loss as spelt out in the said charge-
sheet dated 26-07-2010, to the satisfaction of this
court by acceptable evidence and the another
charge at sr. no. (e) willful insubordination or
disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of
the management or of a superior, has not been
proved. The issue no.1 is therefore answered in the
affirmative and issue No. 2 is answered partly in
the affirmative and partly in the negative.
20. Issue No. 4:
I am deciding the issue No. 4 first, prior to the
issue no.3 as the said issue No. 3 goes to the very
root jurisdiction of this court.
The Employer, in its written statement filed in
the present proceedings, as and by way of
preliminary objections, submitted that the present
reference filed by the Workman is bad-in-law and
hence not maintainable and that the present
dispute of the Workman is not an ‘industrial dispute’
as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Employer further submitted that there is non-
application of mind by the Appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute.
I have heard the oral arguments of the Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik George, appearing for the
Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai,
appearing for the Employer Bank. I have also
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
977
carefully considered the oral submissions made by
the Ld. Representatives appearing for the
respective parties. I have also carefully perused
the records of the present case.
21. The Employer, in its written statement filed
in the present proceeding, as and by way of
preliminary objections, contended that the present
reference filed by the Workman is bad-in-law and
hence not maintainable, that the present dispute
of the Workman is not an industrial dispute as
defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and that there is non-application of mind by the
Appropriate Government while referring the
present dispute. The said pleadings of the
Employer are vague in nature, as it does not
disclose any justification in support of its pleadings.
The Employer has also failed to produce on record
any material evidence, either oral or documentary,
in support of its aforesaid allegations.
22. Even otherwise, in the case in hand, it is not
in dispute that the Party I is a ‘workman’ within
the meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It
is also not in dispute that the Party II Bank is an
‘Employer’ within the meaning of section 2(j) of the
I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, the present dispute raised by
the Workman against the Employer Bank pertaining
to her non-employment is an ‘industrial dispute’
within the meaning of section 2(k) of the I.D. Act,
1947 and as such, this court has every jurisdiction
to adjudicate the present reference. Consequently,
the Employer failed to prove its allegations that
the reference is bad-in-law for any reasons, that
the present dispute raised by the Workman is not
an ‘industrial disputes as defined under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that there is non-
application of mind by the Appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute.
The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in the
negative.
23. Issue No. 3:
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Rep. Shri
Subhash Naik George, appearing for the Workman
as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai, appearing
for the Employer.
24. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik George,
representing the Workman, during the course of
his oral arguments, submitted that the Workman
was issued a charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010, by
alleging charges of misconduct, namely (j) doing
any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or
gross negligence or negligence or likely to involve
the bank in serious loss and (e) willful
insubordination or disobedience of any lawful or
reasonable order of the management or of a
superior. He submitted that by order dated
28-10-2015, passed on the findings on the
preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court
has held that a free, fair and proper enquiry has
been conducted against the Workman, in respect
of the charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010 and that the
Employer could prove only one charge of
misconduct at sr. no.(j) doing any act prejudicial to
the interest of the bank or gross negligence or
negligence or likely to involve the bank in serious
loss as spelt out in the said charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010, to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence and the another charge at sr.
no. (e) willful insubordination or disobedience of
any lawful or reasonable order of the management
or of a superior, has not been proved. He submitted
that the Workman was in the employment of the
Employer Bank continuously from 01-09-1976 till
the date of her wrongful dismissal w.e.f.
20-11-2012. He submitted that except the aforesaid
misconduct, the Workman was never issued any
memo or charge-sheet alleging any act of
misconduct in his long service with the Employer
Bank. He submitted that the Workman was elected
as the Asstt. Secretary of the trade union namely
Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Employees union in the
year 2009 and again in the year 2011, which was
affiliated to All Goa Co-op. Bank Employees
Federation. He submitted that the said union has
signed bipartite settlement with the Employer
Bank from time to time revising wages and service
conditions of its members. He submitted that clause
XII (1) of the said bipartite settlement on record at
Exb. 32, specifies the misconduct on the part of the
employees. He submitted that Clause XII (2) of the
said bipartite settlement classifies the misconduct
as minor misconducts and major misconducts. He
submitted that sub clause (a) to (q) of the said
clause XII (2) of the said bipartite settlement have
been termed as major misconducts. He therefore
submitted that the misconduct of negligence
proved against the Workman is a minor misconduct.
He submitted that the Employer Bank has recovered
an amount of Rs. 4,63,700/- out of the alleged theft
of the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., after adjusting the deductions
under the Banker’s Blanket Policy No.163700/48/
/2010/167 and thus the Employer Bank has hardly
suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 36,300/-. He
therefore submitted that taking into consideration,
the past clean, unblemished record of the Workman
in her long service and also taking into
consideration, the proved minor misconduct of
negligence, the punishment of dismissal imposed
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
978
on the Workman is extremely harsh and
disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of
the case. He submitted that Section 11 of the I.D.
Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to re-assess
the evidence and reduce the punishment taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case. In support of his oral submissions, he
relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta v/s.
Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank and Ors.,
reported in 2003 II CLR 72.
25. On the contrary, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai,
representing the Employer Bank, during the course
of his oral arguments submitted that the Workman
was issued a charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010,
alleging an act of misconduct of (j) doing any act
prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross
negligence or negligence or likely to involve the
bank in serious loss and (e) willful insubordination
or disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order
of the management or of a superior. He submitted
that by order dated 28-10-2015, passed on the
findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, this
Hon’ble Court has held that a free, fair and proper
enquiry has been conducted against the Workman
in respect of the charge-sheet dated 26-07-2010
and that the Employer could prove only one charge
of misconduct at Sr. No. (j) doing any act prejudicial
to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or
negligence or likely to involve the bank in serious
loss as spelt out in the said charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010, to the satisfaction of this court, by
acceptable evidence and the another charge at
Sr. No. (e) willful insubordination or disobedience
of any lawful or reasonable order of the
management or of a superior, has not been proved.
He submitted that due to the said act of negligence
on the part of the Workman, the Employer Bank
has not only suffered huge monetary loss, but also,
lost the faith created by its several customers, by
depositing their amount in the custody of the
Employer Bank. He therefore submitted that the
misconduct levelled and proved against the
Workman is a major misconduct. He submitted that
as a result of commission of the said misconduct,
the Employer lost confidence reposed in the
Workman. He submitted that thus taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the
entire case as well as the seriousness of the proved
misconduct levelled against the Workman, the
punishment of dismissal imposed upon her is just,
fair and proper and proportionate to the proved
misconduct. In support of his oral submissions, he
relied upon two judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India one in the case of Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. v/s. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy
and Ors., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 481 and another
in the case of Homba Gowda Educational Trust
and Anr., v/s. State of Karnataka and Ors.,
reported in (2006) 1 SCC 430.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have considered the oral
submissions advanced by the Ld. Rep. Shri
Subhash Naik George, appearing for the Workman
as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai, appearing
for the Employer Bank and is of the considered
opinion as under.
26. It appears from the pleadings of the
Workman, filed in the present proceedings that he
has challenged his order of dismissal, mainly on
the ground that the enquiry held against him, is
not fair and proper and that the charges of
misconduct leveled against him, vide charge sheet
dated 26-07-2010, have not been proved to the
satisfaction of this Court, by acceptable evidence.
The Workman contended that the punishment of
dismissal imposed on him is malafide, vindictive
and as and by way of victimization for his trade
union activities. The Workman finally contended
that without prejudice and without admitting that
the charges of misconduct are proved against him,
the punishment of dismissal meted out to him is
highly disproportionate and extremely harsh as per
the bipartite settlement, negligence is a minor
misconduct.
27. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
v/s. N.B. Narawade reported in 2005 (I) CLR 803,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “It is no
doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in
the I.D. Act, 1947, certain amount of discretion is
vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal
in interfering with the quantum of punishment
awarded by the management where the workman
concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said
area of discretion has been very well defined by the
various judgments of this court referred to herein
above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been
observed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The discretion, which can be exercised under Sec.
11-A is available only on the existence of certain
factors like punishment being disproportionate to
the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the
conscience of the court, or the existence of any
mitigating circumstances which require the
reduction of the sentence or past conduct of the
workman which may persuade the Labour Court to
reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such
factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of
sympathy alone exercise the power u/s. 11-A of the
Act and reduce the punishment”.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
979
28. In the case of Chairman & Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and Other
V/s P. C. Kakkar., reported in 2003–LLR 436, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that “the
court should not interfere with the administrator’s
decision unless it was illogical or suffers from
procedural impropriety or was shocking to the
conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in
defiance of logic or moral standards. Only where the
Court finds that a punishment is shockingly
disproportionate it must record reasons for coming
to such conclusion and mere expression that the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate could
not meet the requirement of law. Further the charges
against Respondent not being casual in nature, but
being serious, the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the quantum of punishment”.
29. The Principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in its aforesaid respective
judgments is well established and there is no
dispute about the same. Thus, it is settled law that
the discretion of the court to alter or reduce the
punishment as empowered u/s. 11-A of the I.D.
Act, 1947 is not absolute. The discretion, which
can be exercised u/s 11-A is available only on the
existence of certain factors, like punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, so
as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the
existence of any mitigating circumstances, which
requires the reduction of the sentence or the past
conduct of the Workman, which may persuade the
Labour Court to reduce the punishment.
30. Vide order dated 28-10-2015, passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No.1 and 2, I
have come to the conclusion and held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman in respect of the charge-sheet dated
26-07-2010 and that the Employer could prove only
one charge of misconduct at Sr. No. (j) doing any
act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross
negligence or negligence or likely to involve the
bank in serious loss as spelt out in the said charge-
sheet dated 26-07-2010, to the satisfaction of this
court by acceptable evidence and the another
charge at Sr. No. (e) willful insubordination or
disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of
the management or of a superior, has not been
proved.
31. Hence, the contentions of the Workman that
no fair and proper inquiry has been conducted
against her, is without any merits. As regards the
charges leveled against her, vide charge-sheet
dated 26-07-2010, have not been proved at all, it is
partly correct to the extent of charge at Sr. No. (e)
willful insubordination or disobedience of any
lawful or reasonable order of the management or of
a superior.
Thus, the questions remains to be decided is
that the punishment of dismissal from service
imposed upon the Workman is malafide, vindictive,
as and by way of victimization for his trade union
activities and/or disproportionate to the proved
misconduct.
32. The evidence on record indicates that the
service conditions of the Workman as well as other
employees of the Employer Bank are governed by
the said bipartite settlement signed between the
Employer with its employees union, which is on
record at Exb. 32. Clause XII (1) of the said bipartite
settlement (Exb. 32) specifies certain acts or
omissions among others as misconduct on the part
of the employee in addition to what has been
defined in Staff Accountability Policy of the
Employer Bank, which are numbered as (a) to (hh).
Clause XII (2) of the said bipartite settlement
categorized the said misconducts as stated in
Clause XII (1) as major misconducts and minor
misconducts. As per the clause XII (2) of the said
bipartite settlement, sub-clause (a) to (q) of Clause
XII (1) have been termed as major misconducts and
sub-clause (r) to (hh) of Clause XII (1) have been
termed as minor misconducts. Similarly Clause XV
of the said bipartite settlement specifies various
punishments. Sub-Clause (1) of Clause XV of the
bipartite settlement laid down punishments to an
employee, who found guilty of gross misconducts
such as (a) be dismissed without notice, or (b) be
warned or censured, or have an adverse remark
entered against him, or (c) be fined, or (d) have his
increment stopped, or (e) have his misconduct
condoned and be merely discharged, or (f) be
suspended without wages for not exceeding 15
days. Similarly, Clause (2) of Clause XV of the
bipartite settlement laid down punishments to an
employee, who found guilty of minor misconducts
may (a) be warned or censured, or (b) have an
adverse remark entered against him, or (c) have his
increment stopped for a period not longer than six
months.
33. The Employer Bank also framed its Staff
Accountability Policy in pursuance to the directions
of Reserve Bank of India. The said Staff
Accountability Policy of the Employer Bank laid
down certain guidelines pertaining to the working
of its Employer and which forms the service
conditions of the employees of the Employer Bank
in addition to its bipartite settlement. It defines
the term ‘Accountability’ and it means being
responsible for one’s own actions/inactions. It
further defines the staff accountability as
‘ownership for action taken or not taken, when the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
980
situation called for such action’. The said Staff
Accountability Policy has been classified as System
Accountability and Human Accountability. Further,
the term human accountability has been attributed
to any of the following (a) bonafide mistake, (b)
gross indifference/negligence and (c) malafide
intensions. As per the said policy, any action/
/absence of action resulting in revenue loss/
/ leakage, but without malafide intensions has been
specified as gross indifference/negligence.
34. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the
Workman was working with the Employer Bank
as a ‘Sub-staff’ continuously w.e.f. October, 1979
till the date of dismissal of his services w.e.f.
20-11-2012. It is not in dispute that the Workman
was a member of the Goa Urban Co-op. Bank
Employees Union, which was affiliated to All Goa
Co-op. Bank Employees Federation. It is further not
in dispute that the Workman was elected as Asstt.
Secretary in the year 2009 and again, in the year
2011, he was elected as executive member of the
said union.
35. The evidence on record indicates that in the
past, the Workman was issued a charge-sheet dated
28-11-1998 for his act of remaining absent
unauthorizedly and directing the depositors and
customers of the Employer bank to other financial
institutions for personal financial gain. He was let
off with warning for his aforesaid misconduct, after
his apology and assurance to the Employer, of his
good behaviour and not to repeat such act in future.
36. The misconduct charged, vide charge-sheet
dated 26-07-2010 and proved against the Workman
is “(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of
the bank or gross negligence or negligence or likely
to involve the bank in serious loss”. The said act
of misconduct on the part of the Workman has
been termed as major misconduct in terms of clause
12 of the bipartite settlement at Exb. 32. The said
misconduct is altogether different than the
misconduct specified at sub-clause (t) of clause XII
misconduct i.e. “neglect of work, negligence in
performing duties”. The former is major, while the
latter is a minor misconduct.
37. The allegations levelled in the charge-sheet
issued to the Workman are that he was instructed
to accompany Mrs. Archana Kare, Clerk to deposit
cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- in I.D.B.I. bank, Vasco, that
the Workman collected cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- from
Mrs. Archana Kare, that the Workman also signed
the register maintained by Mrs. Melinda Dessai,
that the Workman placed the cash in the dickey
of the scooter of the bank and that thereafter, both
proceeded to IDBI bank on the scooter of the bank
for the purpose of depositing the said amount, that
the Workman was driving the said scooter and
that after reaching the IDBI bank, the cash was
found missing from the dickey of the scooter driven
by the Workman. The explanation tendered by the
Workman vide his letter dated 18-03-2010 (Exb.17)
indicates that the Workman had admitted the
aforesaid allegations leveled against him. The
Workman further stated that he tied the said cash
with sutli and thereafter wrapped in a newspaper
and kept the wrapped bundle in a dickey of the
scooter of the bank. He stated that he locked the
said dickey of the scooter, which was parked infront
of the bank. He stated that as Mrs. Archana Kare,
the clerk of the bank took time to come out, he
went inside to call her back and that after she
came, they went to deposit the said cash. The
aforesaid explanation submitted by the Workman
does not appears to be satisfactory. The entire
episode clearly shows the malafide intension of
the Workman. The Employer therefore lost
confidence reposed in the Workman on account of
his aforesaid act/omission.
38. The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer bank lodged an FIR in Vasco Police
Station in respect of the said missing amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- against an unknown person. The
aforesaid act/omission on the part of the Workman
is a gross indifference/negligence within the
meaning of Staff Accountability Policy of the
Employer.
39. The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer Bank has recovered an amount of
Rs. 4,63,700/- out of the alleged theft of the amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. after adjusting the deductions under the
Banker’s Blanket Policy No. 163700/48/2010/167.
Thus, the Employer Bank suffered instant loss to
the extent of Rs. 36,300/-. Further, it is implied that
as a consequences of aforesaid claim made by the
Employer Bank to the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
it has lost no claim discount on its yearly premium,
which the Employer Bank would have otherwise
entitled from the insurance company. Thus, the
Employer suffered a huge loss every year on its
yearly payment of the premium.
40. Thus, taking into consideration the past
record of the Workman, the allegations levelled
against him in the charge-sheet, gravity of proved
misconduct and the explanation submitted by the
Workman to the show-cause notices issued to him,
the punishment of dismissal imposed on the
Workman is just, fair, proper and proportionate to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
981
the proved misconduct. The said punishment of
dismissal does not suffer from malafide,
vindictiveness and also victimization for his trade
union activities. Hence, the said punishment of
dismissal imposed on the Workman is hereby
upheld.
41. In the case of Kailash Nath Gupta (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that
”in para 11 & 12 of its judgment observed as under:-
“11...…in the background or what has been stated
above, one thing is clear that the power of
interference with the quantum of punishment is
extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not
taken note of, which have some bearing on the
quantum of punishment, certainly the court can
direct re-reconsideration or in an appropriate case
to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be
awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in
the long past service indicating either irregularity
or misconduct of the appellant except the charges
which were the subject matter of his removal from
service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above
is that though small advances may have become
irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the
appellant had misappropriated any money or had
committed any act of fraud. If any loss has been
caused to the bank (which he quantifies at about
Rs.46,000/-) that can be recovered from the appellant.
As the reading of the various articles of charges go
to show, at the most there is some procedural
irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence
to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from
service.
12. These aspects do not appear to have been
considered by the High Court in the proper
perspective. In the fitness of things, therefore, the
High Court should examine these aspects afresh.
The consideration shall be limited only to the
quantum of punishment and not to any other
question. As the appellant would have
superannuated in the normal course in the year 1994,
and the matter is pending for a long time, the High
Court is requested to dispose of the matter within
six months from the date of receipt of this order. It
is made clear that no opinion has been expressed by
us as to what would be the appropriate punishment.
In this view the impugned order is set aside”.
The facts of the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court are totally different than the case in
hand and as such the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case
in hand.
42. In the case of Hombe Gowda Education
Trust and Anr. (Supra) before the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the Respondent No. 3, a teacher, was charge-
sheeted for commission of a serious offence. He
was found guilty by the Tribunal of having
assaulted the Principal of the institution. Both the
Tribunal as also the High Court have arrived at a
concurrent finding of fact that despite grave
provocation on the part of the Principal,
Respondent No.3 cannot be absolved of the charges
levelled against him. It may be true that no
departmental disciplinary proceeding was
initiated against the Principal of the institution,
but the same by itself would not be a relevant fact
for imposing a minor punishment upon the
respondent. It may further be true that Respondent
3 committed the offence under a grave provocation,
but the Tribunal as also the High Court
categorically held that the charges against him
were established. The Hon’ble Apex Court, further
held that “Assaulting a superior at a workplace
amounts to an act of gross indiscipline. The
respondent is a teacher. Even under grave
provocation, a teacher is not expected to abuse the
head of the institution in a filthy language and
assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal
from services, therefore cannot be said to be wholly
disproportionate, so as to shock one’s conscience”.
The facts of the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court are totally different than the case in
hand and as such the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case
in hand.
43. In the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
(supra), before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
Respondent terminated the services of the
Appellant, the Assistant Grade I by holding
disciplinary enquiry on account of his misconduct
that he had stealthily taken away the title
documents of the properties deposited with the
Employer as a security towards equitable mortgage
created in favour of the Appellant. The Labour
Court held that the punishment of dismissal from
service is harsh in the circumstances. The Single
Bench as well as Division Bench of Hon’ble High
Court dismissed the writ petitions as well as writ
appeal filed by the parties. The Respondent
therefore filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex
Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while allowing
the appeal filed by the Appellant in para 26 of its
judgment observed as under:
“26. That apart, the reasons given by the Labour
Court to reduce penalty are reasons which are not
sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence
by using its discretionary power. The fact that the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
982
misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again
is no ground to condone the misconduct. On the
facts of this case as recorded by the Labour court
the loss of confidence is imminent and no finding
has been given by the courts below, including the
Labour court, that either the fact of loss of confidence
or the quantum of punishment is so harsh as to be
vindictive or shockingly disproportionate. Without
such finding based on records, interference with the
award of punishment in a domestic inquiry is
impermissible.”
The facts of the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court are totally different than the case in
hand and as such the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case
in hand.
It is therefore, held that the Workman failed to
prove that the action of the Employer in dismissing
him from service w.e.f. 20-11-2012 is illegal and
unjustified. The issue No. 3 is therefore answered
in the negative.
44. Issue No. 5:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I
have come to the conclusion and held that the
action of the Employer in dismissing the Workman
from its servicewith effect from 20-11-2012, is just,
fair, proper and proportionate to the proved
misconduct.
The Workman is therefore not entitled to any
relief. The issue no.5 is therefore answered in the
negative.
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Manage-
ment of the Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Panaji-Goa, in dismissing from service
its Workman Shri.Ramnath Chodankar,
Sub-Staff, with effect from 20-11-2012, is legal
and justified.
2. The Workman Shri Ramnath Chodankar,
Sub-Staff, is therefore not entitled to any
relief.
3. No Order as to Cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II
Notification
No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-V/13
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 03-11-2016 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/14/10 is hereby published as required
by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2017.
_________
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/14/10
Shri Sandeep Desai,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union,
Velho’s Bldg., 2nd floor
Panaji-Goa ….. Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. New Vision Imaging Pvt. Ltd.,
Thivim Industrial Estate,
Mapusa, Bardez-Goa …. Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri Suhas
Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Panaji, dated: 03-11-2016.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 23-08-2010,
bearing No. 28/31/2010-LAB referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in turn assigned the
present reference for adjudication to this Labour
Court-II vide his order dated 25-8-2010.
“1. Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. New Vision Imaging Pvt. Ltd., Thivim
Industrial Estate, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa, in
transferring its workman Shri Sandeep Desai
from Goa to Balasore-Orissa with effect from
May, 2008 is legal and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
983
2. If not, what relief, the workman is entitled
to ?”
2.On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/14/2010 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on
02-11-2010 at Exhibit 5. The facts of the case, in
brief, as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed with the Employer/Party-II (for short
“Employer”) at Thivim Industrial Estate, Thivim,
Mapusa, Goa. He stated that he alongwith many
permanent workmen working with the Employer
were bereft of the beneficial Labour Legislation.
He stated that they were made to work in most
oppressed and exploitative service conditions,
without any statutory benefits. He stated that they
were not paid the statutory dues such as overtime
wages, non-granting of leave, holidays, weekly off
etc. to which they were entitled. He stated that the
salaries paid to these workmen were meagre and
pathetic. He stated that due to the above oppressive
and exploitative working conditions, the workmen
started demanding the Welfare Labour Legislations.
He stated that when he started demanding Welfare
Labour Legislations, he was threatened to resign
from the services of the Employer.
3.He stated that he was issued a transfer order
dated 17-04-2008 as and by way of punishment for
not resigning from the services of the Employer
Company as per the dictates of the Employer
Company. He submitted that the transfer order
issued to him, does not states that as to where he
should report at Balasore. He stated that nothing
was mentioned about his accommodation, stay, food
and travelling allowance. He submitted that at the
time of his transfer, he was not having any amount
to travel to Balasore as instructed to him. He stated
that for this reason, he was not in a position to hire
any accommodation with the said salary at Balasore
and also to procure train tickets to travel at the
transferred place. He stated that the Employer
Company did not mention anything about his to
and fro travel in the transfer order. He submitted
that no circumstances of whatsoever nature had
arisen for transferring his services at Balasore. He
stated that there are many out-lets of the Employer
Company. He stated that the Employer Company
has recruited new workmen in this out-let. He
submitted that being aggrieved with the said
transfer order, he raised an objection, vide his letter
dated 09-06-2008, but no satisfactory explanation
was offered and his request was not conceded by
the Employer. He therefore raised an industrial
dispute before the office of the Labour
Commissioner, by his letter dated 26-07-2008,
requesting to intervene and to revoke and set aside
the transfer order dated 17-04-2008. The said
dispute ended in failure.
4.The Workman contended that the transfer order
dated 17-04-2008 issued to him is patently illegal
and smacks of malice. He submitted that the transfer
has been made with malafide intention of the
Employer, to take sweet revenge on him, by
adopting acts of harassment, victimization and
unfair labour practice. He submitted that the
transfer order has been issued to him, without
having any locus standi and authority. He submitted
that the Employer Company has recently adopted
a tactics to clear off all the permanent workmen
and old staff, by threatening them with transfer
letters to far off places. He submitted that all those
workmen, who refuses to resign and go, are issued
transfer letters to faraway places. He stated that
the present transfer order is the outcome of refusal
to submit his resignation, by accepting three
months’ salary for the completed years of services.
5.He submitted that inspite of all the above
difficulties, he was ready and willing to go at his
transferred place. The Employer stated that
however, he was unable to proceed at his
transferred place at Balasore, as he was in deep
financial crises. He submitted that presently, he is
unemployed and has no source of income to
maintain himself and his family. He submitted that
he has made several attempts to get gainfully
employed. He stated that however, till date, he has
not succeeded in getting gainful employment. The
Workman therefore prayed that the action of the
Employer in transferring his services from its Goa
establishment to Balasore Orissa, vide transfer order
dated 17-04-2008, be held as illegal, unjust and bad-
-in-law and be set aside and quashed. The Workman
further prayed that he be allowed to resume for his
normal duties at the establishment of the Employer
in Goa with immediate effect with full back wages
and continuity in service.
6.The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman, by filing its written statement on
25-11-2010 at Exb. 6. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objections, submitted that neither
the Party I is a ‘Workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, nor the dispute referred for
adjudication is an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined
u/s 2 (k) of the said Act. The Employer submitted
that the status of the Party I, as to whether a Jr.
Officer–Photo Processing is a ‘workman’ as defined
u/s 2 (s) or not, has to be adjudicated independently
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
984
and only after the decision on the said issue, an
industrial dispute can be raised u/s 2 (k) of the said
Act. The Employer submitted that the reference is
made u/s 10 (1) (d) of the said Act to the Industrial
Tribunal constituted u/s 7-A of the said Act and as
such this Labour Court constituted u/s 7 of the said
Act, has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the
reference.
7. The Employer stated that it is a company
registered under the provisions of Companies Act,
1956 in the State of Goa. The Employer stated that
it was mainly engaged in the business of
photography and also retailing in allied product
and other electronic items. The Employer stated
that it has outlets and Area Offices located in
various states in India. The Employer stated that all
the appointments of the personnel are made
through the registered office at Goa and deputed
to different states of the country, depending upon
the requirements at the states.
8. The Employer stated that the Party I was
appointed as a ‘Jr. Officer–Photo Processing’ w.e.f.
01-04-2007, vide letter of appointment dated
01-04-2007. The Employer stated that the services
of the Party I were placed at its lab at Panaji. The
Employer stated that in terms of clause 5 of the
letter of appointment issued to the Party I, he was
required to work at any of its offices and/or outlets/
/units in the union of India, without any added
remuneration. The Employer stated that the
Party I has accepted the terms and conditions of
his service, as spelt out in the letter of appointment
issued to him and reported as a Jr. Officer-Photo
Processing with them. The Employer stated that as
a Jr. Officer Photo Processing, the Party I was in-
charge of the lab and was administrating and
managing the D & P (Developing and Printing)
operations at Panaji outlet. The Employer stated
that there were three contract labours working
under his supervision.
9. The Employer stated that prior to the
appointment of Party I as a Jr. Officer-Photo
Processing, he was working with M/s. Gokhatak
Enterprises Limited from 01-04-1996 to 31-03-2007.
The Employer stated that while working with the
earlier company, the Party I had gained experience
in printer operations. The Employer stated that the
Party I had also acted as Lab In-charge. The
Employer stated that the Party I had vast experience
in the administration and management of the work
of the lab. The Employer stated that they had agreed
to take into account the period of service rendered
by the Party I with M/s. Gokhatak Enterprises
Limited, for computing his annual increments and
retirement benefits like gratuity etc.
10.
The Employer stated that its business was
totally dependent on the business of its associate
company, namely Phil Corporation Limited. The
Employer stated that when M/s. Konica of Japan
globally existed from the business of photography,
the said Konica of Japan stopped supply of colour
films and paper to the said associate company, due
to which, the said associate company closed its
union at Thivim, Bicholim and Valpoi in 2006. The
Employer stated that there was invasion by digital
technology in the business of photography, causing
serious disruption of business in all its outlet. The
Employer stated that the said factories eventually
brought down the conventional photography
business, which was the mainstay of the Employer
in particular and all other companies in the group
in general. The Employer stated that on account of
the aforesaid factors, the associate company had
closed three factories in the State of Goa, one
factory in Karwar in the State of Karnataka and one
factory in Dehradun in the State of Uttaranchal,
resulting in loss of photographic business and loss
of jobs in the entire groups.
11.
The Employer stated that it had to make
drastic changes in its business strategies, which
resulted in closure of several unviable outlets and
finding new avenues and locations in the changed
business scenario and laying emphasis on
diversified retailing etc. The Employer stated that
its Panaji outlet, where the Party I was working was
closed on 31-12-2007. The Employer stated that as
the Party I was not having any specific work to do,
after 01-01-2008, on closure of its Panaji outlet, it
has decided to provide alternative job to the
Party I in its other locations, where he could get
full time job and salary, allowances and other
benefits could be protected. The Employer stated
that it has therefore transferred the Party I and
posted at Balasore situated at Kamrun, Market
Complex, Cinema Bazar, Balasore in the State of
Orissa to work in its retail outlet. The Employer
stated that the Party I was offered all the regular
benefits available to the transferred place like
disturbance allowance, daily allowance for boarding
and lodging, until suitable accommodation was
found by Party I, besides travelling expenses for
self and his family members for travelling from Goa
to Balasore.
12.
The Employer stated that vide transfer order
dated 17-04-2008, the Party I was required to report
at Balasore on or before 02-05-2008. The Employer
stated that the Party I however, did not report to
the place of his transfer, by the scheduled date.
The Employer stated that after waiting for a
reasonable time, it has issued a letter dated
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
985
29-05-2008 to the Party I, informing him that he has
not reported to the place of transfer and advised
him to inform in writing, as to the cause of delay in
reporting to the place of transfer. The Employer
stated that the Party I was also informed that he
will not be entitled for salary from 02-05-2008 till he
reports for work at Balasore. The Employer stated
that since the Party I did not report to his place of
transfer, it has, by its letter dated 08-10-2008,
informed him that his absence from the place of
transfer is unauthorized and without pay.
13.
The Employer stated that thereafter the Goa
trade and commercial workers union wrote a letter
dated 26-07-2008 to the Labour Commissioner,
Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa, requesting for
setting aside and quashing the transfer order dated
17-04-2008 and to reinstate the Party I with full
back wages and continuity in service. The Employer
stated that the Asstt. Labour Commissioner,
Mapusa, Goa, without ascertaining as to whether
the said union has locus standi to raise a dispute
on behalf of the Party I, intervened in the matter,
which ended in failure.
14.
The Employer stated that during the
pendency of alleged dispute with the Secretary
Labour, some of its officers working in Goa resigned.
The Employer stated that it had immediate
requirement of a Jr. Officer in the retail outlet at
Porvorim. The Employer stated that it has therefore
reviewed the overall situations in the organization.
The Employer stated that they took a decision to
re-transfer the officer to retail outlet in Nova Cidade
Complex, Ground floor, Alto-Porvorim, Goa. The
Employer stated that it had sent a letter dated
13-08-2010 to the Party I, re-transferring him to Goa
and advised him to report at the Porvorim outlet
within three days of the receipt of the said letter.
The Employer stated that the Party I received its
said letter dated 13-08-2010, but did not report to
its Porvorim outlet and continued to remain absent,
even though, he had clearly stated in his letter
dated 09-06-2008 that he should be allowed to work
in Goa.
15.
The Employer stated that initially, the letter
dated 13-08-2010 was wrongly typed on the letter
head of the Associate Company i.e. Phil Corporation
Ltd. The Employer stated that however, the said
letter was sent and signed by its Authorized
Signatory as is clear from the page 2 of the said
letter. The Employer stated that it has realized the
mistake, after it was posted. The Employer stated
that it has sent another letter dated 13-08-2010 to
the Party I on its letter head along with a covering
letter dated 17-08-2010 to clarify the said position.
The Employer stated that Party I has acknowledged
the said letters dated 13-08-2010 and 17-08-2010.
The Employer stated that the Party I was offered to
report for work at Porvorim outlet immediately, after
raising various issues. The Employer stated that
the Party I however, did not report for work
thereafter. The Employer stated that it has written
another letter dated 16-09-2010 to him, informing
that he has not reported for work and that since he
had not obeyed the transfer order and reported at
Balasore, he will not be entitled for wages and
other benefits. The Employer stated that the
Party I did not report for work even at Porvorim and
remained absent. The Employer stated that the said
act of the Party I presumes that the Party I gainfully
employed elsewhere. The Employer stated that the
Party I is not willing to report for work at Porvorim,
where he has been re-transferred. The Employer
submitted that the transfer of the Party I to Balasore
is legal, just and bonafide and the Party I is not
entitled to any relief. The Employer denied the
overall case of the Party I, as pleaded by him in his
claim statement and prayed for dismissal of the
present reference referred by the Government of
Goa.
16. Thereafter, the Party I filed his Re-joinder on
14-01-2010 at Exb. 7. The Party I, by way of
Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his
submissions, averments and statements made in
his Claim Statement to be true and correct and
denied all the statements, averments and
submissions made by the Employer in its Written
Statement, which are contrary to his Statement and
averments made in his Claim Statement. The
Party I stated that he was appointed by Phil Photo
Ltd. and not by the Employer Company. He therefore
submitted that the transfer order issued to him is
not as per the said appointment letter dated
01-04-2007 is not binding on him. He stated that he
was asked to assist this enterprise by Phil Photo
Ltd. orally. He submitted that at the time of the
closure of the Employer unit on 31-12-2007, the
Employer did not offer any closure compensation to
him. He submitted that the Employer transferred
his services to Balasore in Orissa. He stated that
after receipt of the letter of the Employer dated
13-08-2010, he went to report for his duties at
Porvorim outlet but, he was told not to come and
that the offer of employment has been given only
on the paper to create evidence in the court of law.
He submitted that the offer of employment dated
13-08-2010 is also improper and has been issued
without having any authority.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
986
17. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the certain issues on
21-01-2011 at Exb. 8. Among the said issues the
following issue No. 4 has been treated as
preliminary issue.
1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he
is a “workman” as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947?
2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
there exists an “Industrial Dispute” as defined
u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the
action of the Employer/Party II in transferring
his services from Goa to Balasore-Orissa, w.e.f.
May, 2008 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that the
Labour Court II has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present order of reference
issued by the Government of Goa u/s 10 (1) (d)
of the act to the Industrial Tribunal constituted
u/s 7-A of the said Act?
5. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he
is entitled to any relief?
6. What Order? What Award?
18. Thereafter, both the parties i.e. the Workman
as well as Employer lead their evidence respectively
oral as well as documentary, in support of the
aforesaid issues and the matter was fixed for final
arguments. It is at this stage the Employer filed an
application for relying upon an additional
documents, which was allowed by order of this
court dated 03-08-2016 and case was adjourned for
filing affidavit in evidence of the Employer to
03-10-2016. On 03-10-2016, the Workman remained
present in person. The Employer represented by
Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal and undertaken to file an
affidavit in evidence of their witness. Accordingly,
case was adjourned to 17-10-2016. On 17-10-2016,
the Workman alongwith Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas Naik
as well as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal appearing for
the Employer remained present and filed a joint
application for consent award at Exb. 36, supported
by a memorandum of settlement signed between
both the parties u/s 2 (p) r/w 18 (1) of the I.D. Act,
1947.
I have carefully perused the said application for
consent award, jointly filed by the parties. I am of
the opinion that the said terms of settlement are
beneficial to the Workman and hence consented
for the same. Since the dispute under reference is
settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute
under present reference does not survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the dispute as to whether
the action of the Management of M/s. New
Vision Imaging Private Limited, Thivim
Industrial Estate, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa in
transferring its workman Shri Sandeep Dessai,
from Goa to Balasore-Orissa, with effect from
May, 2008, is legal and justified, does not
survive.
2. The workman Shri Sandesh C. Naik is not
entitled to any relief.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer
Labour Court II
———‹‹‹———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 7/30/2014-PER
Read: Notification No. 7/30/2014-PER dated
23-12-2016.
The Governor of Goa is pleased to allot the
following work/departments to Shri Sanjay Goel,
IAS (AGMUT: 2004) in addition to his own duties
with immediate effect and until further orders:-
1.
Secretary (Education).
2.
Secretary (Civil Aviation).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meghana V. Shetgaonkar, Under Secretary
(Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 18th January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
__
Corrigendum
No. 50/1/2017/PCE-PWD-ADM (II)/242
Read: (1) Order No. 50/1/2016/PCE-PWD-ADM
(II)/205 dated 8th December, 2016.
(2) Corrigendum No. 50/1/2016/PCE-PWD-
-ADM(II)/231 dated 30th December, 2016.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 43
27TH JANUARY, 2017
987
In partial modification of the above referred
Corrigendum, the words “Group ‘A” shown in the
3rd line of the 1st para, be read as “Group ‘B’.
The rest of the contents remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer &
ex officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 16th January, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Tribal Welfare
Directorate of Tribal Welfare
__
Addendum
No. 1-75-2016-17/ADMN/DTW/10515
Read: Order No. 1-75-2016-17/ADMN/DTW/9889
dated 26-12-2016.
Vide order referred above, the following content
may be added in the first para so as to read as:-
“His pay may be fixed as per rules”
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sandhya Kamat, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Tribal Welfare).
Panaji, 27th January, 2017.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 19.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–318/350–1/2017.
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. 3/25-15/90/WR/1188
Read: Government Order No. 3/25-15/90/WR/76
dated 29-04-2015.
Government is pleased to extend the ad hoc
promotion of following Assistant Engineers/
/Assistant Surveyor of Works (Civil) in Water
Resources Department for the interim period of
7 months and 23 days w.e.f. 29-04-2016 to
21-1-2016, as the Officers are promoted on regular
basis w.e.f. 22-12-2016 vide order No. 3/25-5/87/
/WR/1091 dated 22-12-2016.
1. Shri Bhanudas Rajaram Naik, Assistant
Surveyor of Works.
2. Shri Sunil Raghunath Karmarkar, Assistant
Engineer.
3. Shri Sharanabasappa Mahantappa Patri,
Assistant Engineer.
4. Shri Lakkappa Satyappa Nadagaddi, Assistant
Surveyor of Works.
This is issued with the approval of Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/27(2)/2016/1598 dated 04-01-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (WR).
Porvorim, 13th January, 2017.