Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Panaji, 23rd March, 2017 (Chaitra 2, 1939) SERIES II No. 51 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Note:- There are five Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 50 dated 16-03-2017 as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 16-03-2017 from pages 1143 to 1144 regarding Notification from Goa Legislature Secretariat.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 18-03-2017 from pages 1145 to 1146 regarding Notification from Goa Legislature
Secretariat.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 20-03-2017 from pages 1147 to 1148 regarding Notification from Department
of General Administration.
(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 21-03-2017 from pages 1149 to 1150 regarding Notification from Goa Legislature
Secretariat.
(5) Extraordinary (No. 5) dated 22-03-2017 from pages 1151 to 1152 regarding Notification from Goa Legislature
Secretariat.
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services
Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services
Goa State Veterinary Council
__
Order
No. GSVC/F-8/2016-17/109
List of names deleted from the State Veterinary Practitioners Register as on 03-03-2017.
In supersession of all earlier orders, the following Veterinarians are not eligible to practice Veterinary Medicine in the State of Goa.
Sr. Regn. No. Name of Doctor Reason for Deletion of Name No.
1 2 3
4
1. GSVC/01 Dr. Abdus Sami Non Renewal 2. GSVC/02 Dr. Saradindu Ray Non Renewal 3. GSVC/03 Dr. Suresh K. S. Usgaonkar Non Renewal 4. GSVC/04 Dr. N. Sreedharan Nair Deceased 5. GSVC/06 Dr. Nair NV Non Renewal 6. GSVC/07 Dr. Ashok Khandeparkar Non Renewal 7. GSVC/08 Dr. Leo F. Pinto Deceased 8. GSVC/09 Dr. H. K. Malviya Deceased 9. GSVC/11 Dr. Shastri KR Non renewal
10. GSVC/12 Dr. B. R. Chowgule Deceased 11. GSVC/15 Dr. Suresh B. Shet Deceased 12. GSVC/13 Dr. Augusto De S. Nazareth Non Renewal 13. GSVC/20 Dr. Manuel M. A. Monteiro Deceased 14. GSVC/22 Dr. Mirza A. A. Baig Deceased OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 1 2 3
4
15. GSVC/16 Dr. Aher PF Non Renewal 16. GSVC/33 Dr. Avadhut V. Pai Deceased 17. GSVC/37 Dr. Arvind Gracias Costa Non Renewal 18. GSVC/57 Dr. K. R. Pushpakaran Deceased 19. GSVC/58 Dr. A. R. Bhattacharya Deceased 20. GSVC/59 Dr. Varughese Jijimol Non Renewal 21. GSVC/60 Dr. Shanmuga Sundaram Non Renewal 22. GSVC/61 Dr. Ralph D Souza Non Renewal 23. GSVC/62 Dr. Maria A. Borges Non Renewal 24. GSVC/65 Dr. Caroline S. Cordeiro Non Renewal 25. GSVC/66 Dr. Camilo G. D Costa Transferred to Karnataka 26. GSVC/68 Dr. Vivek Panvelkar Non Renewal 27. GSVC/72 Dr. Cecilio R. J. Gonsalves Non Renewal 28. GSVC/75 Dr. Anand Datta Balve Non Renewal 29. GSVC/76 Dr. Joy TP Fernandes Non Renewal 30. GSVC/80 Dr. Texeira Peter Rosario Non Renewal 31. GSVC/81 Dr. Ashtosh Kumar Singh Non Renewal 32. GSVC/82 Dr. (Mrs.) Sarabjeet Kaur Non Renewal 33. GSVC/83 Dr. Perwin J. Nazareth Non Renewal 34. GSVC/88 Dr. Prashant Havaldhar Non Renewal 35. GSVC/89 Dr. Balkrishna V. Pai Non Renewal 36. GSVC/91 Dr. Ambika R. Nambiar Non Renewal 37. GSVC/93 Dr. Veerendran Veerasamy Non Renewal 38. GSVC/96 Dr. Adrian F. Rodrigues Non Renewal 39. GSVC/99 Dr. Jayaraman Ramnathan Non Renewal 40. GSVC/103 Dr. Vijay Mahato Non Renewal 41. GSVC/106 Dr. Jayaram R. Non Renewal 42. GSVC/107 Dr. Michelle D Cunha Non Renewal 43. GSVC/108 Dr. Virkar Shankar Kisan Non Renewal 44. GSVC/110 Dr. Ashish Kumar Chakrabarti Non Renewal 45. GSVC/111 Dr. N. V. Mallikarjuna Prasad Non Renewal 46. GSVC/116 Dr. Zarina Aziz Non Renewal 47. GSVC/117 Dr. Randhir Clayton Vaz Non Renewal 48. GSVC/120 Dr. Elizabeth J. D. C. Diniz Non Renewal 49. GSVC/121 Dr. Robin Jacob Paul Non Renewal 50. GSVC/124 Dr. Kevin Peter D Mello Non Renewal 51. GSVC/128 Dr. Parisha B. Patil Non Renewal 52. GSVC/132 Dr. Annie Thomas Non Renewal 53. GSVC/135 Dr. Chakatha Tushara Non Renewal 54. GSVC/137 Dr. Nadia Dinella Colaco Non Renewal 55. GSVC/142 Dr. B. K. Swain Transferred to Orissa 56. GSVC/145 Dr. Christe Aguiar Non Renewal 57. GSVC/148 Dr. Aditi Miranda Transferred to Karnataka 58. GSVC/151 Dr. Farah Maria De Souza Non Renewal 59. GSVC/153 Dr. Radha S. Kamat Non Renewal 60. GSVC/156 Dr. Elizabeth Abraham non Renewal 61. GSVC/189 Dr. Davina Trindade Transferred to Maharashtra 62. GSVC/199 Dr. Queenie C. Fernandes Transferred to Karnataka 63. GSVC/206 Dr. Anushka Lobo Transferred to Maharashtra
It may please be noted that as per Chapter IV, Section 30 of the 'Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984' no person, other than a Registered Veterinary Practitioner shall:–
1. Hold office as Veterinary Physician or Surgeon or any other like title (by whatever name called) in Government or in any Institution maintained by a local or other authority.
2. Practice Veterinary Medicine in any State.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 20173. Be entitled to sign or authenticate a Veterinary Health Certificate or any other Certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified Veterinary Practitioner.
4. Be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under Section 45
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on any matter relating to Veterinary Medicine.
Dr. Marwin Lopes, Registrar, Goa State Veterinary Council.
Panaji, 15th March, 2017.
V. No. A–13161/2017
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Technical Education
Polytechnic Section __
Order
No. 26/2/12/2001/DTE/4846
Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (Goa Act 9 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), I, Dipak M. Bandekar, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Goa, hereby extend the period of assessment for the financial year 2013-14 by two months with effect from 1st April, 2017. All assessments for the year 2013-14 shall accordingly be completed on or before 31st May, 2017.
Dipak M. Bandekar, Commissioner, (Commercial
Taxes).
Panaji, 22nd March, 2017.
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Department of Industries __
Notification
On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/12/34(1)/2014/540 dated 03-02-2017, the Government of Goa is pleased to declare the following Group 'A', Gazetted Officers of Government Polytechnic, Curchorem, Goa to have satisfactorily completed their probation period and confirm them in the post with effect from date mentioned in the respective column against their names.
Sr. Name of the Designation Date of No. Incumbent confirmation
1. Shri Ashok Rama Lecturer in 09-12-2012
Deulkar Computer
Engineering
2. Kum. Resha Lecturer in 09-01-2013
Rohidas Govekar Computer
Engineering
3. Shri Premanand Lecturer in 14-06-2013
Kushali Velip Electronics
Engineering
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional
Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Department of Finance
Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes __
No. 3/7/2016-IND
Whereas, the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board (hereinafter referred to as the "said Board") has received an application dated 01-07-2015 from M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik Group for setting up of Warehousing on self owned private land in the area specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "said Project");
And whereas, the said Board in its eighth meeting held on 14th December, 2015 vide Item No. 11 has granted in-principle approval for the said Project and has recommended to the Government to demarcate and notify the area specified in the schedule hereto as notified areas for the purpose of investment promotion under the Goa Investment Promotion Act, 2014 (Act 13 of 2014);
And whereas, the Government has accepted the
said recommendation of the said Board;
Notification
No. CCT/12-2/16-17/5748
In exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Goa Investment Promotion Act, 2014 (Goa Act 13 of 2014), the Government of Goa hereby demarcates and declares the whole area as specified in the Schedule hereto to be notified area for the purpose of Investment Promotion under the said Act.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017SCHEDULE
(a) Area : 30,000 sq. mtrs.
(b) Village : Verna (within Village Panchayat
of Nagoa-Verna).
(c) Taluka : Salcete.
(d) Survey No. : 30/1.
(e) Field : Fondgali.
(f) Boundaries:—
North : By the property of Communidade of Verna in the village of Nagoa, village boundary of Village Nagoa;
South : By property of Communidade of Verna
(Survey No. 31);
East : By land of Communidade of Verna (Survey
No. 31);
West : Communidade of Nagoa/Village boundary
of Village Nagoa.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 20th March, 2017.
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
"(1) Whether S/Shri Yatin Chodenkar, Jose Francisco Mories, Savio Dias, Vincent Miranda, Ms. Candida D'Costa and Ms. Diana Almeida are workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?
(2) If the answer to the issue No. (1) above is in the affirmative, then, whether the action of the management of M/s. Majorda Beach Resort, Majorda, Salcete, Goa, in terminating the services of the above
mentioned workmen, with effect from 07-06-2016, is legal and justified?
(3) If the answer to issue No. (2) above is in the negative, then, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.
________
Order
Department of Labour
— Order
No. 28/05/2017-LAB/141
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Majorda Beach Resort, Majorda, Salcete, Goa and their workmen, represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "said dispute");
And whereas the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, 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) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial No. 28/04/2017-LAB/142
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Chowgule Industries Private Limited, Campal, Panaji, Goa, and their workmen, represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "said
dispute");
And whereas the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, 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) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7-A of the said Act.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017SCHEDULE
(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?"
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.
"(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Chowgule Industries Private Limited, Campal, Panaji, Goa, in transferring the services of S/Shri Nayadade Antao, Nilesh Sawant, Kiran Gadekar, Anand Naik, Audhut Samant, Sanjay Gaude and Shri Dattaram Morajkar vide their Order dated 17-11-2016, is legal and justified?
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Notification
No. 24/18/2011-LAB/140
Read: 1) Notification No. 10(33)/2010/DOIT/e-services/Part file 2/7311 dated 26-11-2010.
2) Notification No. 24/18/2011-Lab/162 dated 28-03-2012.
In pursuance of para 5 of the above Notification issued by Department of Information Technology, Government of Goa, it is hereby informed that the public services which are mentioned below would be delivered to the citizens of Goa through State Portal of Goa and Labour Department on the web address https://www.goa.gov.in and https://labour.goa/gov.in
Sr. Name of service Time frame for document List of supporting document No.
delivery
1 2
3
5
1. Application for Registration Fifteen working days In case of Partnership Firm
* Partnership Deed.
Certificates under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule thereunder
* Identification Proof
PAN Card/Driving Licence/Aadhar Card, Passport Copy, etc.
In case of Private Limited Company
* Memorandum of Article of
Association.
* List of Directors with address. * Authority letter to whom to be signed on the application.
2. Application for Registration Fifteen working days In case of Partnership Firm
* Partnership Deed.
* Identification Proof
Certificate under the Inter- State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and Rule thereunder
PAN Card/Driving Licence/ /Aadhar Card, Passport Copy, etc.
In case of Private Limited Company
* Memorandum of Article of
Association.
* List of Directors with address. * Authority letter to whom to be signed on the application.
3. Application for Registration Fifteen working days
of Establishments Employing Building Workers under the Building and Other Construction OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 1 2
3
Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and Rule thereunder
5
4. Application for Renewal/ Fifteen working days * Original Registration Certificate.
/Amendment of Registration of Establishments Employing under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule thereunder * List of Contract Labour under each Contractor.
5. Application for Renewal/ Fifteen working days * Original Registration Certificate.
/Amendment of Registration of Establishments Employing Migrant Labour under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and Rule thereunder.
* List of Migrant Labour under each Contractor.
6. Application for Licence for Fifteen working days * Certificate by the Principal Contractors in order to employ Employer-Form V. Contract Labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation & In case of Partnership Firm Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule thereunder
* Partnership Deed. * Identification Proof * PAN Card/Driving Licence/ Aadhar Card, Passport Copy, etc.
In case of Private Limited Company
* Memorandum of Article of Association.
* List of Directors with address. * Authority letter to whom to be signed on the application.
If Principal Employer is
Government Establishment
* Work Order.
7. Application for Licence for Fifteen working days * Certificate by the Principal
In case of Partnership Firm * Partnership Deed
Identification Proof
* PAN Card/Driving Licence/ Contractors in order to employ Employer-Form VI Migrant Labour under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and Rule thereunder /Aadhar Card, Passport Copy, etc. In case of Private Limited Company
* Memorandum of Article of Association.
* List of Directors with address. * Authority letter to whom to be signed on the application.
If Principal Employer is Government Establishment * Work Order.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 20171 2
3
5
8. Application for Renewal of Fifteen working days * Original Contract Labour Licence for Contractors to employ Labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule thereunder.
Licence.
9. Application for Renewal of Fifteen working days * Original Migrant Labour Licence for Contractors to employ Migrant Labour under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and Rule thereunder.
Licence.
All the documents to be furnished should be certified by the competent authority.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 7th March, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 28/1/2016-LAB/Part-V/135
The following award passed by the Labour Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 13-12-2016 in reference No. IT/02/2009 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, 16th March, 2017. _________
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
Workman/Party-I remained absent.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar.
Panaji, dated: 13-12-2016
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 17-12-2008, bearing No. 28/9/2007-LAB/1741, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa. Subsequently, the Government of Goa transferred the present reference for its adjudication from the Industrial-Tribunal-cum- -Labour Court, Panaji-Goa to this Labour Court-II, vide its order No. 28/02/2011-Lab/86 dated 09-02-2016.
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon'ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/02/2009
Shri Vishwanath Harmalkar, Rep. by the President, Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union, Velho Building, 2nd Floor, Panaji-Goa. … Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Machine-4 Division, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim-Goa. … Employer/Party-II "(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited, Machine-4 Division 196-197-198, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim-Goa in refusing employment to Shri Vishwanath Harmalkar, Operator with effect from 01-05-2005, 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. IT/02/09 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 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 his Statement of Claim on 13-10-2009 at Exb-4. 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 'Operator' w.e.f. 15-09-1995. He stated that he was the elected representative of the Crompton Greaves Workers Managing Committee. He stated that he was espousing the cause of this workmen before the management as well as other statutory authorities. He stated that the management always pressurized, forced and coerced him not to take up the cause of his fellow workmen. He stated that sometimes he was threatened that his services would be dispensed and terminated. He stated that however, he continued with his legitimate trade union activities.
3. He stated that on 28-03-2005, he tendered his resignation under force, duress and coercion from the management. He stated that on 28-03-2005, the management itself issued a letter of acceptance of resignation tendered by him. He stated that the Employer informed him that his resignation has been accepted and that he would be relieved from the service of the Employer from 30-04-2005. He stated that on 28-03-2005, neither he was relieved from service, nor his legal dues were paid and as such he was in continues employment.
4. He stated that after a gap of two days, he realized that the management has made him a victim. He stated that he never voluntarily wanted to submit his resignation of his own accord and free will. He stated that he therefore gave a letter on 31-03-2005 to the Employer informing that he is withdrawing his resignation letter with immediate effect and that he be allowed to continue to work with the Employer, treating his resignation letter as withdrawn and non-est. He stated that pursuant to his aforesaid letter, he was allowed to continue to work till 30-04-2005. He stated that 01-05-2005 was a public holiday. He stated that on 02-05-2005, when he went to resume for his duties, the security officer of the Employer did not allow him to report for work, in spite of his withdrawal of his letter of resignation dated 31-03-2005. He stated that he therefore wrote another letter dated 02-05-2005, requesting the Employer to allow him to resume for his duties and to continue in employment. He stated that however, the Employer did not allow him to continue in employment and also to resume for his duties. The Workman submitted that he was compelled to accept dues, much after his withdrawal of letter of his resignation under force, threat, duress and coercion. He submitted that being aggrieved with the attitude of the Employer, he raised an industrial dispute before the office of Labour Commissioner, which ended in failure.
5. He submitted that as his letter of resignation is not voluntary, the action of the Employer in refusing him employment w.e.f. 01-05-2005, is illegal, unjust and bad-in-law. He submitted that the Vinculum Juris continued and the relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end on 28-03-2005. He submitted that he is unemployed and does not have any source of income to maintain himself and his family. The Workman therefore prayed that the action of the Employer in refusing him employment with effect from 01-05-2005, be held as illegal, unjust and bad-in-law and he be reinstated back in service with full back wages and continuity in service.
6. The Employer resisted the claim of the Workman by filing its written statement on 19-10-2010 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way of preliminary submissions, submitted that the statement of claim filed by the Workman is bad-in-law and is not at all tenable in terms of law in force or in equity as the Workman under reference had voluntarily resigned from its services on 28-03-2005. The Employer submitted that the said letter of resignation was written by the Workman himself, in his own handwriting and it was also signed by him. The Employer submitted that the said letter of resignation of the Workman was absolutely voluntary and genuine in all aspects. The Employer submitted that the Workman, in his own letter of resignation notified to them to relieve him from their services w.e.f. 01-05-2005 and accordingly, they agreed to relieve him on 30-04-2005, which was accepted by him. The Employer submitted that the aforesaid notice was/is strictly in accordance with the terms of his employment and as such the severance of his relationship was therefore absolutely lawful and it cannot be revoked now. The Employer submitted that the said notice was communicated to the Workman, by its letter dated 01-09-1997 and again on 01-03-1998. The Employer submitted that its letter dated 01-09-1997 was duly accepted and acknowledged by the Workman in a bonafide manner. The Employer submitted that the Workman chose to resign for better future prospects as per his letter of resignation.
7. The Employer submitted that upon receiving his letter of resignation, they chose to speak to the Workman and to discuss with him the problems, if any faced by him and the reason for leaving their services. The Employer submitted that the Workman replied that he simply wanted to be relieved as he wanted to grow faster and better elsewhere. The Employer submitted that the Workman wanted to have a bright future outside OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 their services. The Employer submitted that thereafter they accepted the resignation of the Workman in a bonafide manner and that there were/are no malafides in acceptance of the said resignation. The Employer submitted that the said resignation of the Workman was duly accepted by them and the acceptance was duly communicated to him. The Employer submitted that the Workman acknowledged the acceptance of his resignation. The Employer therefore submitted that the Workman could not have been rescinded/cancelled on a later date. The Employer submitted that from the aforesaid it is clear that the contract of employment of the Workman had ceased to be in force and as such there was/is no way that the Workman could have resumed his services. The Employer submitted that the acceptance of resignation of the Workman was lawful and as such he cannot claim as a matter of right to be re-employed. The Employer therefore submitted that there is no merits in the claim of the Workman.
8. The Employer submitted that the Workman is not entitled to withdraw his resignation, after it was duly accepted by them. The Employer submitted that it is well settled that once the resignation is accepted, the jural relationship between the Workman and the Employer comes to an end and the Workman could not have asked for withdrawal of his resignation nor reinstatement of his post. The Employer submitted that the Workman had acted in furtherance of his resignation by applying for his terminal dues and later, by accepting them without any protest. The Employer submitted that the Workman cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. The Employer submitted that having asked for resignation, they allowed him to resign and now he cannot claim to come back. The Employer therefore, submitted that it is just, proper and necessary that the claim of the Workman be dismissed in the interest of justice. The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded by the Workman in his statement of claim and prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
9. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on 13-10-2009 at Exb. 6. 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.
10 Based on the pleadings filed by the respective Parties in the present proceedings, the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court framed the following issues on 18-07-2011 at Exhibit-11.
1. Whether the Party I proves that he had tendered his resignation on 20-03-2005, under force, duress and coercion from the management of the Party II?
2. Whether the Party I proves that pursuant to his letter dated 31-03-2005, the Party II had allowed him to continue to work till 30-04-2005?
3. Whether the Party I proves that he was refused employment w.e.f. 01-05-2005/ /02-05-2005?
4. Whether the Party I proves that the action of Party II in refusing employment to him w.e.f. 01-05-2005/02-05-2005 is illegal and unjustified?
5. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?
6. What Award?
11. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1 : In the Negative. (b) Issue No. 2 : In the Affirmative. (c) Issue No. 3 : In the Affirmative. (d) Issue No. 4 : In the Affirmative. (e) Issue Nos. 5 & 6 : As per final order.
The Workman remained absent. On the contrary, ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, appeared for the Employer and filed his synopsis of written arguments. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar also argued orally.
12. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, representing the Employer, during the course of oral arguments submitted that undisputedly, the Workman was employed with the Employer. He submitted that the Workman had voluntarily submitted his resignation on 28-03-2005. He submitted that the said resignation of the Workman was accepted on the same day i.e. on 28-03-2005. He submitted that after a gap of three days from the date of accepting his resignation, the Workman submitted a letter of withdrawal of his resignation dated 28-03-2005, by alleging that it was obtained under force, duress and coercion. He submitted that the Workman has however, failed to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his case. He submitted that on the contrary, the Employer has examined its Sr. Manager-Stores, Mr. Vishwanath G. Prabhu and produced on record oral as well as OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 documentary evidence. He submitted that the said oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the Employer on record clearly proves that the Workman had tendered his resignation voluntarily on 28-03-2005 and the same was accepted on the same day. He therefore submitted that once the resignation is accepted, the jural relationship of the employer-employee comes to an end and the employee has no right to withdraw his resignation thereafter. In support of his aforesaid contention, he relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court.
(a) In the case of Raj Kumar v/s. Union of India, reported in AIR 1969 SC 180.
(b) In the case of P. Kasilingam v/s. P.S.G. College of Technology reported in 1988 (LAB. I.C. 189).
(c) In the case of M/s. J.K. Cottons Spg. And Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur v/s. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1808.
(d) In the case of Gujrat Leather Industries Ltd. v/s. Abdul Sattar Gulam Rasul Shaikh, reported in 2001 (3) LLJ 11.
(e) In the case of North Zone Cultural Centre and Anr. v/s. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, reported in 2003 (3) LLN 30.
(f) In the case of Chand Mal Chayal v/s. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 (111) FLR 573.
(g) In the case of Modern School v/s. Shashi Pal Sharma reported in 2007(8) SCC 540.
(h) In the case of Union of India and Ors. v/s. Hitendra Kumar Soni, reported in 2014 LAB. I.C. 3835.
13. He also relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble High Courts.
(e) In the case of Smt. S.N. Dharitri Burman v/s. The Gauhati High Court and Anr., reported in 2014 LAB. I.C. 4141 of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhari and.
(f) In the case of Kashi Nath Sah v/s. The Nalanda Gramin Bank & Ors. in writ petition no.10116 of 1998 of Hon'ble High of Patna, vide its judgment dated 25-06-2015.
I have carefully perused the entire records of the present case which includes the synopsis of written arguments filed by Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for the Employer. I have also carefully considered the various submissions, oral as well as written advanced by Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar and I am of the considered opinion as under:
14. Issue No. 1:
In the case of V.N.S. Engineering Services v/s.
Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu and
Anr., reported in 1987 II LLN 968, the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay has held that "there is nothing in
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that indicates a
departure from the general rule that he who
approaches a court for relief should prove his case
i.e. the obligation to lead evidence to establish an
allegation, the test being that he who does not lead
evidence, must fail. The Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay further held that the provisions of Rule-10-
B of the I.D.( Central Rules), 1957 which requires the
party raising a dispute to file a statement of
demands relating only to the issue in the order of
reference for adjudication within 15 days from the
receipt of the order of reference and forward copies
to the opposite party involved, clearly indicates that
the party who raises the industrial disputes is bound
to prove the contention raised by him and an
Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court would be erring
in placing the burden of proof on the other party to
the dispute".
(a) In the case of M. Ramkrishna v/s The Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. and Ors., reported in 1995 Lab. I.C. 2090 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
(b) In the case of S. Kesireddy v/s. Managing Director, A.P. State Ware-housing Corp. Hyderabad, reported in 1999 ALD 100 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
(c) In the case of Chairman, Vishakhapatnam Por t Trust and Ors. v/s. Ch. V.V. Satyanarayana and Anr., reported in 2003 (96) FLR 337 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
(d) In the case of N. Dinakara Shetty v/s. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2005 (2) Goa L. R. 358 of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
15. In the case of V. K. Raj Industries v/s Labour
Court (I) and Ors. reported in 1981 (29) FLR, 194,
the Allahabad High Court has held that "the
proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal are
judicial in nature, even though the Indian Evidence
Act, is not applicable to the proceeding before the
Industrial Court, but the principle underlying the
said Act are applicable." The High Court further
held that "it is well settled that if a party challenges
the validity of an order and if no evidence is
produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction must
fail. The High Court has also held that if the
Workman fails to appear or to file written statement
or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the
Government cannot be answered in favour of the
Workman and he will not be entitled any relief".
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 201716. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in its respective case is still holds good. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, in the instant case, the order of reference has been issued by the Government of Goa at the instance of the workman, who has raised the present dispute pertaining to his alleged refusal of employment w.e.f. 01-05-2005 by the Employer by contending to be illegal and unjustified. The Workman contended that he had tendered his resignation on 28-03-2005 under force, duress and coercion from the management. The Employer denied the same and submitted that the Workman had tendered his resignation on 28-03-2005 voluntarily in his own handwriting. The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court therefore cast the burden to prove the issue No. 1 on the Workman.
19. Issue No. 2:
While deciding the issue No. 1 herein above, I have come to the conclusion and held that the Workman had tendered his resignation voluntarily on 28-03-2005. The evidence on record indicates that the said letter of resignation of the Workman was accepted by the Employer on the same day and as per the said letter of resignation of the Workman, the Employer had agreed to relieve him from service on 30-04-2005. The evidence on record further indicates that the Workman has been relieved from the services of the Employer Company on 30-04-2005. The evidence on record indicates that the Workman has been paid his legal dues, which includes his P.F., gratuity etc. till 30-04-2005. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the Employer that the Workman stopped attending duties after his voluntary resignation and/or that he was not allowed to report for his duty immediately from the date of his resignation. The said evidence on record clearly indicates that the Workman had worked with the Employer till 30-04-2005. It is therefore held that the Workman proved that the Employer allowed him to continue to work till 30-04-2005. The issue No. 2 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
20. Issue Nos. 3 and 4:
17. To prove his case, the Workman filed his affidavit in evidence. The Workman also produced on record certain documents in support of his oral evidence. He was partly cross-examined by the Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for the Employer. However, the roznama proceedings maintained by this court indicates that neither the Workman remained present for his further cross-examination nor any other representative remained present on his behalf, on and from 19-04-2016. This court therefore, pleased to close the evidence of the Workman, vide order dated 2-08-2016, after giving ample opportunities to him. The said evidence adduced by the Workman on record cannot be read in evidence, unless and until, he is subjected to cross-examination by the other side. Consequently, there is no evidence on record to prove the issue No. 1 burdened on the Workman.
18. On the contrary, the Employer examined its
Sr. Manager, Stores, Shri Vishwanath G. Prabhu. The Employer also produced on record certain documentary evidence in support of their oral evidence. The said oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the Employer remained unchallenged for want of denial. The said oral as
well as documentary evidence adduced by the Employer on record clearly proves that the Workman under reference has voluntarily resigned from the service of the Employer, by submitting his resignation letter dated 28-03-2005. Hence, it is held that the Workman failed to prove that he had
tendered his resignation on 28-03-2005 under force, duress and coercion from the management of the Employer. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the negative.
I am deciding the issue nos. 3 and 4 together simultaneously as both the issues are co-related to each other.
The Workman, in para 9 of his claim statement, filed in the present proceedings, pleaded that 01-05-2005 was a public holiday and as such on 02-05-2005, when he went to resume for his work with the Employer, the Security Officer of the Employer did not allow him to enter and report for work. The Workman further pleaded that he requested the management to allow him to report for work, however, he was not allowed to resume for his work. The Employer, however, did not make any comments in its written statement filed in the present proceedings on the aforesaid pleadings of the Workman. Thus, impliedly admitted the allegations made by the Workman, in para 9 of his claim statement. Further, the Employer, in para 8 of its written statement filed in the present proceedings pleaded that the resignation of the Workman and his severance from its employment had become effective at the close of the working hours of 30-04-2005. The Employer admitted that 1st May, 2005 was a public holiday on account of Labour Day celebration. The Employer pleaded that with the resignation of the Workman and cessation of his employment, it was not possible for them to OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 allow him to report for work on 02nd May, 2005. The said pleadings on record clearly indicates that the Workman has been refused employment w.e.f. 02-05-2005. The issue No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
21. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar representing the Employer submitted that once the resignation is accepted, the jural relationship between the employer-employee comes to an end and the employee has no right to withdraw resignation thereafter and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases.
"5…….. But when a public servant has invited
by his letter of resignation determination of his
employment, his services normally stand terminated
from the date on which the letter of resignation is
accepted by the appropriate authority and, in the
absence of any law or rule governing the conditions
of his service, to the contrary, it will not be open to
the public servant to withdraw his resignation after
it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Undue
delay, intimating to the public servant concerned
the action taken on the letter of resignation, may
justify an inference that the resignation has not
been accepted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 16
of its judgment further observed that "16. Therefore
it is clear that non-communication of the acceptance
does not make the resignation in-operative provided
there is, infact, an acceptance before the
withdrawal."
22. In the case of Raj Kumar, (supra), before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Appellant belonged to the Indian Administrative Service and posted as Collector and District Magistrate, Kota in August, 1964. On 21-08-1964, he submitted a letter to the Chief Minister, Rajasthan requesting to accept his resignation from service. He also addressed a letter dated 30-08-1964 to the Chief Secretary, to the Government of Rajasthan submitting his resignation from the Indian Administrative Service for early acceptance and requested to forward the same to the Government of India with its remark. On 31-10-1964, the Government of India accepted the resignation of the Appellant and requested the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to intimate the date on which the Appellant was relieved of his duties so that a formal notification could be issued in that behalf. The Appellant changed his mind and by his letter dated 27-11-1964 requested the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to recommend acceptance of the withdrawal of his resignation from the Indian Administrative Service. He also
addressed a separate letter to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, intimating that he was withdrawing his resignation from the Indian Administrative Service. On 29-03-1965, an order accepting the resignation of the Appellant from the Indian Administrative
Service was issued and the Appellant was directed to hand over the charge to the Addl. Collector, Kota. The Hon'ble High Court, while rejecting the writ petition held that the resignation became effective on the date on which it was accepted by the Government of India, and subsequent 23. In the case of P. Kasilingam (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "it may be conceded that it is open to a servant to make his resignation operative from a future date and to withdraw such resignation before its acceptance. The principle that the services of a Government servant normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the Appropriate Authority, unless there is any law or statutory rule governing the conditions of service to the contrary, can apply to the case of any other employee."
24. In the case of M/s. J.K. Cottons Spg. And Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 4 of its judgment observed as under:
"4. Therefore, one of the ways of terminating
the contract of employment is resignation. If
an employee makes his intention to resign his
job known to the employer and the later
accepts the resignation, the contract of
employment comes to an end and with it stands
severed the employer-employee relationship.
Under the common law the resignation is not
complete until it is accepted by the proper
authority and before such acceptance an
employee can change his mind and withdraw
the resignation. But, once the resignation is
accepted, the contract comes to an end and
the relationship of master and servant stands
snapped."
withdrawal of the resignation was ineffective, even if the acceptance of the resignation was not intimated to the Appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant in para 5 of its judgment observed as under:
25. In the case of Gujrat Leather Industries Ltd. (supra), before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Respondent was a permanent worker designated as Helper in dyes section of the Petitioner Company. He was dismissed from service on 15-01-1985 in OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 view of his written and signed resignation tendered to the manager of the Petitioner Company. The Respondent however, took a stand that he was dismissed illegally w.e.f. 01-01-1985 without conducting any domestic enquiry and without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The Respondent further contended that neither one months' notice was given nor salary in lieu of one months' notice was paid to him. The Labour Court, vide its award repelled the stand of the Petitioner and found that termination of service of the Respondent was illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while quashing aside the award of the Labour Court, in para 6 of its judgment observed as under:
communication of accepting his resignation. Since after the service of acceptance letter, the Appellant was not permitted to continue to work in the concerned post, he filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Hon'ble High Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the Appellant, gave two reasons for holding that the resignation had not become effective (i) The acceptance was not communicated till the withdrawal and (ii) Respondent was permitted to attend duty even after the acceptance of resignation. An appeal filed by the Appellant before the Appellate Bench came to be dismissed. The Appellant therefore filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while allowing the appeal, in para 23 of its judgment observed as under:
"23. As noticed above, in the present case the
resignation is dated 18-11-1988 and the same
as found by us is accepted on 18-11-1988 itself.
The communication was on 1-12-1988 about
13 days thereafter which delay, in our opinion,
is not an undue delay so as to make us draw
an inference that there has been no acceptance
of the resignation. Even the fact that in the
meantime the respondent either attended duty
or signed the attendant register will be of no
assistance to claim his resignation had not
taken effect. Even otherwise the appellants
have urged that because there was no
responsible officer in the headquarter from
18-12-1988 after respondent's resignation was
accepted till 1-12-1988 and the respondent took
advantage of the same and marked his
attendance and such attendance cannot be
treated as lawful attendance in view of the
acceptance of his resignation on 18-11-1988.
We agree with this contention of the appellant.
27. In the case of 'Chand Mal Chayal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 3 of its judgment has held as under:
"6. The sentence I am unable to work in your
Company, and therefore, I am willingly
tendering my resignation, makes it clear and
speaks loudly that the resignation was
voluntary and not involuntarily obtained under
threat or coercion. The Labour Court, on mere
presumption, observed that since the Employer
did not wait for a period of one month and
relieved the respondent on the same day i.e. on
15-01-1985, it was suspicious circumstance
rendering the termination order invalid.
Needless to say that sea of suspicion has no
shore. There was no occasion for the Labour
Court to draw such suspicion. It was for the
employee, namely, the respondent to establish
that the resignation letter was got written in
a closed room by the Manager in presence of
one employee. There is no evidence on this
point except a belated stand taken by the
employee, namely, the respondent in the
witness-box after a period of six years on
28-8-1991. Even in his statement of claim it
was not asserted that the resignation was
tendered under compulsion or threat. The only
thing contained in the statement of claim
Annexure-A is that the petitioner was
dismissed on 01-01-1985 in an unjustified and
unlawful manner."
"…...3. By now it is well settled principle of law
that an incumbent is entitled to withdraw his
resignation before the acceptance. Once his
resignation is accepted, there is no jural
relationship between the employee and the
employer and the employee cannot claim
for withdrawal of the resignation nor
reinstatement in the post…."
28. In the case of Modern School (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 17 of its judgment has held as under:
"17. Once the resignation of the First
Respondent had validly been accepted, the
question which would arise for consideration
26. In the case of North Zone Cultural Centre (supra), before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondent was working as temporary Accountant in the organization of the Appellant. The Respondent tendered his resignation on 18-11-1988 alleging that he tenders his resignation w.e.f. 18-11-1988. The said resignation of the Appellant was accepted by the Director of the Appellant on the very same day. The Respondent withdrew his resignation on 21-11-1988 by sending a telegram alleging that the resignation was obtained by pressure. The Respondent however, continued to attend his duties till he received the OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017
lexicom (second Edition 1997 by P. Ramanatha Aiyar)
is – "to free or clear a person from an obligation".
This result manifests itself from the order accepting
the resignation by the Government that the
respondent has to continue in service till any
particular time or till being relieved. Hence, in the
instant case, there was no obligation on the
Government to write a formal letter that the
Respondent has been relieved. Even if such
requirement had been there, in the case in hand it
would be an empty formality."
is as to whether the same could be done before
17-06-1997. It is not a case where acceptance
of the resignation was made effective from a
future date. Resignation of the First Respondent
having been accepted, only he was to be
relieved from 17-06-1997. We have noticed
hereinbefore the purport of Section 114A of
the Act, in terms whereof resignation was to
be accepted within a period of 30 days. In
view of the aforementioned statutory provision,
in our opinion, only because the First
Respondent was to be relieved with effect from
17-06-1997 the same would not mean that even
thereafter it was open to the First Respondent
to withdraw his resignation."
30. In the case of M. Ramkrishna (supra), before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Petitioner, who was working as an 'A' grade mechanic with the first Respondent, submitted his letter of resignation on 18-03-1982. The petitioner changed his mind and sought to withdraw his resignation by his letter dated 20-03-1982. In the meantime, the competent authority had accepted the resignation letter of the Petitioner on 19-03-1982 after weaving the notice period and directed that the employee may be relieved. Aggrieved by the Employers action in not allowing him re-join his duties, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the said dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court rejected the reference by its award dated 23-09-1986. The Petitioner therefore, filed the writ petition. The Hon'ble High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, held as under:
29. In the case of Union of India and Ors. (supra),
before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Respondent
submitted his resignation, by his letter dated
07-10-1997. The said resignation was accepted
by the competent authority by its order dated
16-06-1998. The Hon'ble High Court held that
"the resignation could not have come into effect
because as per clause (4) of office memorandum dated
11-02-1988 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, the Respondent was also required to be
relieved of his duties, which was not done by the
Appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 of his
judgement observed that "the normal rule, however,
remains that Government has the power to accept
a resignation with immediate effect. In case the
Government for some reasons wishes to defer or
specify the date from which resignation would
become effective, it is entitled to take work from the
concerned Government servant till he is relieved in
accordance with the facts and requirement of the
case. The letter of Government accepting an offer of
resignation itself shows normally be conclusive for
deciding whether the Government has obtained for
immediate termination of service by accepting the
resignation or has deferred such termination to a
future date. Only in the latter eventuality the
relationship of master and servant shall continue till
the concerned Government servant is relieved of his
duties. In the instant case, the letter of acceptance
clearly shows that termination of Respondent's
service as per his offer of resignation was not deferred
to any future date and hence, there was no
requirement to relieve him of his duties. The Hon'ble
Apex Court while allowing the appeal further
observed that "the word 'relieving' itself must be
understood in the ordinary parlance because it is
not defined in the O.M. or in the relevant rules as is
apparent from the judgment of the High Court. The
meaning of the word 'relieved' given in the law
"15. The proposition that a resignation meant
to be effective from a future date can be
withdrawn by the person submitting the same
before it has become effective, cannot be
disputed. The question however is whether
the resignation in the instant case was meant
to be effective from a future date or was to
bring to an end the relationship of employer
and employee in present. A plain reading of
the letter of resignation submitted by the
petitioner leaves no manner of doubt that the
resignation was not meant to be effective from
a future date as was the position in the cases
relied upon by the learned Counsel. It therefore
become effective the moment the same was
accepted by the Competent Authority. This
acceptance it has been held by the Labour
Court was recorded by the Authority
concerned on the 19th March, 1982 i.e. before
the date the petitioner purported to withdraw
the same. In other words, as on the date, the
resignation was purported to have been
withdrawn the same had already been accepted
thereby putting an end to the employment of
the petitioner under the Respondent-
-management."
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 201731. In the case of S. Kesireddy (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in para 16 of its judgment has held as under:
33. In the case of N. Dinakara Shetty (supra), the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa Bench held that "the Petitioner's offer was accepted and it brought about a valid and binding contract between the Petitioner and the Bank. It is only at the option of the Bank that the Bank chose to relieve him at a future date, but that in itself would not give a right to the Petitioner to withdraw the offer after a concluded contract of termination of service came about between the Petitioner and the Bank."
34. In the case of Smt. S.N. Dharitri Burman (supra), before the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, the Petitioner was working as Addl. CJM, Goalpara. She submitted her resignation from service on 03-10-2012 without mentioning any prospective date. Her letter was forwarded to the High Court on 05-10-2012. On 06-10-2012, she was telephonically informed that her resignation was accepted by the High Court. On 08-10-2012, at about 3.00 p.m., she met the Registrar General of the High Court and submitted a letter of withdrawal of her resignation, but, she was asked by the Registrar General to proceed to Goalpara and handover charge and accordingly she handed over charge of her office on 08-10-2012 at 11.00 p.m. The Hon'ble High Court, after relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v/s. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 180) in para 20 of its judgment observed as under:
"16…….In this case, the petitioner could have
issued notice expressing his intention to resign
at the expiry of the period of notice in terms of
Regulation 11. He could have also submitted
his resignation expressing his intention to be
relieved with effect from a date chosen by him.
In the first eventuality his resignation could
have been accepted only after the three months'
period of notice as provided under Regulation
11 and the same would have resulted in
cessation of employer and employee
relationship between the parties with effect
from the date of acceptance of the resignation.
In the second scenario his resignation could
have been accepted by the respondent-
Corporation only with effect from future date
chosen by the petitioner. But the letter of
resignation sent by the petitioner in the
instant case suggests as if he wanted his
resignation to be accepted by the respondent-
Corporation instantaneously. In fact within
one week the petitioner reiterated his request
to accept his resignation and sent substitute
to take charge from him at the place of his
work. Neither the resignation letter dated
26-09-1990 nor the subsequent letter dated
04-10-1990 suggest any future date from which
his resignation would come into effect nor the
said letters would suggest as if the petitioner
intended to give notice of three months' in
terms of Regulation II. Under those
circumstances, the decision of the respondent-
Corporation to accept the resignation of the
petitioner by condoning the advance notice
period does not suffer from any infirmity."
32. In the case of Chairman, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in para 21 of its judgment observed as under:
"20. In view of the above decisions, there is no
difficulty in concluding that the resignation
letter, issued by an employee, expressing his or
her desire to resign from the job, without
mentioning any prospective date of
resignation, will come into effect immediately
on acceptance of the same by the appropriate
authority. However, if any prospective date of
resignation is mentioned, the resignation shall
be effective from such future date only. In
absence of any prospective date, the
resignation letter cannot be allowed to be
withdrawn, once the same is accepted by the
authority. Whereas, in respect of cases where
future date of coming into effect of the
resignation is mentioned, than the employee is
entitled to withdraw the same before the
prospective date."
"21…… The moment an order is passed
accepting their request for VRS under the
Scheme, mere signing in the attendance
register is of no consequence. It may be that
order passed on 5th June, 2001 accepting the
request of the Petitioners for voluntary
retirement was not communicated to the time
keeper immediately and therefore the
Petitioners might have been allowed to sign
the registers as usual. In our considered
opinion, that will not vitiate the order of
acceptance passed by the Appellants on 5th
June, 2001…."
35. In the case of Kashi Nath Sah (supra), before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna, the Petitioner was an employee of the Employer Bank. Regulation 10 (1) of the bank states that it prohibits an officer or employee of the bank to leave or to discontinue his service in the bank without first giving three OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 months' notice in writing to the Chairman of the bank of his intention to leave or discontinue the service. The Petitioner did not give to the bank any notice of leaving the bank in terms of aforesaid regulations, nor does his letter of resignation intended to discontinue the service in the bank, after expiry of the said period prescribed under regulation. The Hon'ble High Court held that "……in my opinion, thus, without giving notice of three months', by his conduct expressed his intention to resign with immediate effect, in breach of the provisions of Regulation 10 (1) (a) r/w Regulation 10 (1) (b) of the Regulations. He, thus, became liable to pay to the bank as compensation a sum equal to his emoluments for the period of notice required of him in terms of Regulation 10 (1) (c) of the Regulations."
The facts of the aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable than the case in hand. In most of the cases, the resignation was unconditional and in praesanti, unlike in the case in hand, the resignation was conditional to be operative from a future date. Hence, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts in all the aforesaid cases are not applicable to the case in hand.
36. On the contrary, in the case of Dr. Prabha Atri v/s. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2003 I CLR 221, the Hon'ble Apex Court after relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Moti Ram v/s. Parma Devi & Anr., reported in 1993 2 SCC 725, held as under:-
to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from the date of communication. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of the intension to relinquish, e.g. acceptance of the said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of an office is unilateral or bilateral in character would depend upon the nature of the office and the conditions governing it".
"As pointed out by the Court, 'resignation' means
the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right
and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of
giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been
held that in the general juristic sense, in order to
constitute a complete and operative resignation there
must be the intension to give up or relinquish the
office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment.
It has also been observed that the act of
relinquishment may take different forms or assume
a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the
nature of the office and the conditions governing it.
[see: Union of India v/s. Gopal Chandra Misra] if the
act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it
comes into effect when such act indicating the
intension to relinquish the office is communicated
to the competent authority. The authority to whom
the act of relinquishment is communicated is not
required to take any action and the relinquishment
takes effect from the date of such communication
where the resignation is intended to operate in
praesenti. A resignation may also be prospective
37. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is well settled and is also applicable to the case in hand. In the instant case, undisputedly, the Workman tendered his resignation voluntarily on 28-03-2005 thereby informing the Employer that he is resigning from the post from 1st May, 2005. The Employer accepted the said resignation of the Workman on the same day and informed him that his resignation has been accepted and he would be relieved from its services as per his wishes at the close of the working hours w.e.f. 30-04-2005. The evidence on record indicates that thereafter, the Workman withdrew his letter of resignation after three days from its acceptance by the Employer and worked with the Employer till 30-04-2005. The evidence on record indicates that 01-05-2005 was public holiday on account of Labour Day celebrations. The evidence on record further indicates that the Workman was refused employment by the management of the Employer, when he went to report for his duty on 02-05-2005 by alleging that he had resigned from its services. The said refusal of employment to the Workman amounts to illegal termination of services of the Workman as the resignation of the Workman was meant to be effective from a future date i.e. 30-04-2005. Thus, the employer-employee relationship between the Employer and the Workman did not cease till 30-04-2005 as the resignation letter was conditional and was meant to be effective from 30-04-2005. Therefore, the Workman had every right to withdraw the same at any time before it has become effective on 30-04-2005, which he did. Hence, it is held that the action of the Employer in refusing employment to the Workman w.e.f. 02-05-2005, is illegal and unjustified. The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 201738. Issue No. 5:
While deciding the issue No. 4 hereinabove, I have come to the conclusion and held that the action of the Employer in refusing employment to the Workman w.e.f. 02-05-2005 is illegal and unjustified.
39. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED.) and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the order of termination is void ab initio, the Workman is entitled to full back wages. The relevant para of the decision is extracted hereunder:
40. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is well recognized and is also applicable to the case in hand. In the case in hand, the Workman was in the employment of the Employer continuously w.e.f. 15-09-1995 till he was refused the employment illegally w.e.f. 02-05-2015. The Workman pleaded that he is unemployed and does not have any source of income to maintain himself and his family. The Employer denied the aforesaid pleadings of the Workman in its written statement filed in the present proceedings. The Employer has however, failed to bring on record any positive evidence that the Workman is gainfully employed during the intermitting period. Hence, the Workman is entitled for the reinstatement along with full back wages, continuity in service and consequential benefits thereof.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the management M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Machine-4 Division, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim-Goa, in refusing employment to Shri Vishwanath Harmalkar, Operator with effect from 02-05-2005, is illegal and unjustified.
2. The management M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Machine-4 Division, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim-Goa, is hereby directed to reinstate the Workman Shri Vishwanath Harmalkar, Operator, along with full back wages, continuity in service and all other consequential benefits thereof.
3. No order as to costs
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/- (Suresh N. Narulkar) Presiding Officer Labour Court-II
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division __
Notification
No. 1/13/2014/LD(Estt.)/333
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 165 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri Dattaprasad Vithal Prabhu Lawande to be Advocate General for the State of Goa.
"22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer – employee
relationship, the latter's source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The
reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial /quasi-judicial body or court that the
action taken by the employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back wages. If the employer wants to deny
back wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emoluments."
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017This Notification shall come into force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Estt-Law.).
Porvorim, 20th March, 2017.
———(cid:139)———
Shri Vijay M. Paranjape, Additional Secretary
(Protocol) shall hold additional charge of the post of Additional Secretary (Revenue), in addition to his own duties, until further orders.
The appointment of Kum. Naik shall be governed by the standard terms of deputation as contained in Office Memorandum No. 13/4/74-PER
dated 20-11-2013 and as amended.
Notifications by the High Court of
Judicature
Appellate Side, Bombay
No. A. 1201/G/2017/901
The High Court has been pleased to make the ranking of the following Judicial Officer in the order as shown herein below:
Sr. Name & present New posting No. posting
1. Ms. Vijaya D. Pol, District Judge-1 &
District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Panaji
Judge, Mapusa, Panaji vice Shri P. V. Sawaikar All the above officers shall complete the process of handing over/taking over within three days from the date of issue of order and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 15th March, 2017.
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Department of Public Health __
Order
retired.
High Court, Bombay. Sd/-
Dated: 8th March, 2017. Registrar General. ________
No. A. 1201/G/2017/902
Shri D. S. D'Costa, Principal District & Sessions Judge, Margao, shall stand retired from Goa State Judicial Service w.e.f. 08-04-2017 (A.O.H.) by superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years.
High Court, Bombay. Mangesh S. Patil,
Dated: 3rd March, 2017. Registrar General.
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
No. 2/35/2003-II/PHD/292
Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded for grant of Extraordinary Leave (E.O.L.) for 02 years to Dr. Nadia Pinto, Lecturer, Department of PSM, Goa Medical College w.e.f. 15-04-2017 to 14-04-2019, to take up private Medical work and practice.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Anthony J. D'Souza, Joint Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.
________
Order
Department of Personnel __
No. 4/1/2014-IV/PHD/Part-3/296
Order
No. 6/2/2002-PER(Part)/682
On the recommendations of Goa Services Board and with the approval of the Government, the following Senior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service is transferred on deputation and posted with immediate effect, in public interest:
Sr. Name of the Officer Posted as
No. and Designation
1. Kum. Biju Naik, Joint Secretary Joint Secretary (Revenue) to Governor.
Whereas, the Government of Goa vide Order No. 4/1/2014-IV/PHD/Part 2 dated 01-09-2015 had
appointed Dr. Sinai Khandeparkar Purva Vijay as Public Health Dentist under Directorate of Health Services, Panaji-Goa with posting at Hospicio Hospital, Margao, Goa by invoking the clause 1 of the Agreement of Bond for Admission to Post Graduate course of Goa University in Goa Dental
College and Hospital, Bambolim, Goa.
And whereas, Dr. Sinai Khandeparkar Purva Vijay vide letter dated 18-11-2016 has made OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017 a request for termination of contract as on at Hospicio Hospital, Margao under Bond service w.e.f. 30th November, 2016.
30th November, 2016, which request has been
By order and in the name of the Governor of agreed and accepted by the Government.
Goa.
Now, therefore, Government is pleased to relieve Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Dr. Sinai Khandeparkar Purva Vijay from the post of
Public Health Dentist (under Bond contract service) Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Department of Public Works
Office of the Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. 34/4/2017/PCE-PWD-ADM(II)/251
On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa Public Service Commission vide its letter No. COM/II/11/16(2)/2011/497 dated 11-01-2017, Government is pleased to promote the below mentioned Technical Assistants (Mechanical/Electrical) and Junior Engineers (Mechanical/Electrical) for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/ /Engineering Assistants (Mechanical/Electrical) Group 'B', Gazetted in the pay band Rs. 9,300- -34,800+Grade Pay Rs. 4,600/- in Public Works Department on regular basis with immediate effect and post them in the same places shown against their names below:
,
Sr. Name & present designation of Place of posting on promotion No. the officer
1 2
3
1. Shri Prashant G. Gaude (ST), As Assistant Surveyor of Works in the Office of Superintending
Technical Assistant Surveyor of Works, Altinho, Panaji in the existing vacancy.
2. Shri Sadashiv T. Kelkar, As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division III,
Junior Engineer Division III (PHE), Tonca-Caranzalem.
3. Shri Anthony F. D. T. Fernandes, As Assistant Surveyor of Works, Circle
Junior Engineer Office VII(M/E), Altinho, Panaji.
4. Shri Vinayak V. Malvankar, As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division I,
Junior Engineer Division XXIV(PHE), Bicholim.
5. Shri R. S. Naik, As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division III,
Junior Engineer Division XVII(PHE), Assonora.
6. Shri Salim Nazir, As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division II,
Junior Engineer Division X (Stores), Margao.
7. Shri Roque Fernandes, As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division V,
Junior Engineer Division IX (PHE), Verna.
8. Shri Shashikant A. Pednekar, As Assistant Surveyor of Works, in Circle
Junior Engineer Office VII(M/E), Altinho, Panaji, in the existing vacancy.
They shall exercise their option for pay fixation within a period of one month from the date of issue of this order under F. R. 22(I) (a) (1).
They will be on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of joining.
They shall draw their pay and allowances as Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works/ /Engineering Assistant (Mechanical) from the date of joining in the place of postings shown against their names in column No. (3) above.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 51 23RD MARCH, 2017Further, the Government is pleased to order the posting/transfer of the below mentioned Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineering Assistants (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) in Public Works Department and post them in the places shown against their names in column No. (4) below, in public interest:
,
Sr. Name of the Officer Present place of working Place of posting on transfer No.
1. Shri Subhash D. Parab Assistant Engineer (M/E) As Assistant Engineer in Sub-Division I,
repatriated from GIDC, Division XXI, Margao Panaji and awaiting posting vice Shri Prakash L. Poi, AE transferred.
2. Shri Prakash L. Poi Assistant Engineer, As Assistant Surveyor of Works in
Sub-Division I, Division Division V (Bldgs.), Panaji in the XXI, Margao existing vacany.
The Officer at Sr. No. (1) above, who has been repatriated from GIDC, Panaji has joined in this Department on 09-12-2016 and awaiting posting since then, shall draw his pay and allowances for the period from 09-12-2016 till the date of his joining in the new place of posting shown in column No. (4) above, against the vacant post of Assistant Surveyor of Works, Division V (Bldgs.), Panaji.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 16th March, 2017.
———(cid:139)(cid:139)(cid:139)———
Government Printing Press __
Official Gazette is now available through e-mail
for an annual subscription of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two
hundred only).
S u b s c r i p t i o n R a t e s
N o t i c e
The subscribers to the Official Gazette are kindly reminded that their present subscription term ends on the 31st March, 2017, being the end of financial year.
In case they wish to continue to be subscribers for the ensuing financial year 2017-2018 they have to renew their subscriptions from 1st April, 2017.
The subscription charges are accepted either in cash, postal order, demand draft or cheques (subject to clearance) drawn only on State Bank of India, Panaji, in favour of the Director, Printing and Stationery, Panaji-Goa.
SUBSCRIPTION RATES
(Within the Union of India)
All 3 Series Series Series
Series I II III
Subscriptions also can be opened for half year i.e. from 1st April or 1st October or for any quarter, beginning on 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.
Renewal of subscription from 1st April should be effected on or before 31st March, 2017 in order to avoid interruption in the despatch of copies of the Gazette. It should be noted that, in case the subscription is not opened/renewed before the commencement of the period to which it refers, the subscribers will be entitled to receive copies of the Gazette only from the date the subscription is actually opened/renewed.
Rs. P. Rs. P. Rs. P. Rs. P.
For any quarter .................. 900.00 460.00 350.00 175.00 (Postage) ........................... 60.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
For half year ........................ 1750.00 920.00 700.00 350.00 (Postage) ........................... 60.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
For any period exceeding
6 months up to one year... 3450.00 1840.00 1400.00 700.00 (Postage) ............................ 110.00 60.00 60.00 60.00
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery, Government Printing Press, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 20.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–382/350–3/2017.