Panaji, 23rd March, 2017 (Chaitra 2, 1939)

SERIES II No. 51

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]

1153

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017

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.

GSVC/01

Dr. Abdus Sami

Non Renewal

GSVC/02

Dr. Saradindu Ray

Non Renewal

GSVC/03

Dr. Suresh K. S. Usgaonkar

Non Renewal

GSVC/04

Dr. N. Sreedharan Nair

Deceased

GSVC/06

Dr. Nair NV

Non Renewal

GSVC/07

Dr. Ashok Khandeparkar

Non Renewal

GSVC/08

Dr. Leo F. Pinto

Deceased

GSVC/09

Dr. H. K. Malviya

Deceased

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

1154

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:–

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.

Practice Veterinary Medicine in any State.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

23RD MARCH, 2017

1155

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.

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

———‹‹‹———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Technical Education

Polytechnic Section

Order

No. 26/2/12/2001/DTE/4846

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.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Finance

Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

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.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Industries

Notification

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;

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, 2017

1156

SCHEDULE

(a) Area

: 30,000 sq. mtrs.

(b) Village

: Verna (within Village Panchayat

of Nagoa-Verna).

: 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.

———‹‹‹———

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

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

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, 2017

1157

SCHEDULE

“(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?

(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.

———‹‹‹———

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. Application for Registration

Fifteen working days

In case of Partnership Firm

Certificates under the Contract

Partnership Deed.

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

Certificate under the Inter-

Partnership Deed.

State Migrant Workmen

(Regulation of Employment

Identification Proof

and Conditions of Service)

PAN Card/Driving Licence/

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.

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

1158

Workers’ (Regulation of Employment

and Conditions of Service)

Act, 1996 and Rule thereunder

4. Application for Renewal/

Fifteen working days

* Original Registration Certificate.

/Amendment of Registration

* List of Contract Labour under

of Establishments

each Contractor.

Employing under Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition)

Act, 1970 and Rule thereunder

5. Application for Renewal/

Fifteen working days

* Original Registration Certificate.

/Amendment of Registration

* List of Migrant Labour under

of Establishments Employing

each Contractor.

Migrant Labour under the

Inter-State Migrant Workmen

(Regulation of Employment

and Conditions of Service)

Act, 1979 and Rule thereunder.

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

* Partnership Deed.

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.

If Principal Employer is

Government Establishment

* Work Order.

7. Application for Licence for

Fifteen working days

* Certificate by the Principal

Contractors in order to employ

Employer-Form VI

Migrant Labour under the

In case of Partnership Firm

Inter-State Migrant Workmen

* Partnership Deed

(Regulation of Employment

Identification Proof

and Conditions of Service) Act,

* PAN Card/Driving Licence/

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, 2017

1159

8. Application for Renewal of

Fifteen working days

* Original Contract Labour

Licence for Contractors to

Licence.

employ Labour under the

Contract Labour (Regulation &

Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule

thereunder.

9. Application for Renewal of

Fifteen working days

* Original Migrant Labour

Licence for Contractors to

Licence.

employ Migrant Labour under

the Inter-State Migrant Workmen

(Regulation of Employment and

Conditions of Service) Act, 1979

and Rule thereunder.

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

(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

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.

“(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

1160

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

1161

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

1162

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).

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.

(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.

Port 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.

(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”.

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, 2017

1163

16. 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.

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.

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:

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

1164

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.

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

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:

“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.”

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.”

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

1165

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:

“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.”

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

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:

“…...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

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

23RD MARCH, 2017

1166

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.”

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

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.”

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:

“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, 2017

1167

31. 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:

“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:

“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….”

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:

“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.”

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

1168

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:-

“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

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”.

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, 2017

1169

38. 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:

“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.”

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

———‹‹‹———

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.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

23RD MARCH, 2017

1170

This 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.

———‹———

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

Judge, Mapusa, Panaji

vice Shri P. V. Sawaikar

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.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Personnel

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.

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.

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.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Public Health

Order

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

No. 4/1/2014-IV/PHD/Part-3/296

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

1171

a request for termination of contract as on

30th November, 2016, which request has been

agreed and accepted by the Government.

Now, therefore, Government is pleased to relieve

Dr. Sinai Khandeparkar Purva Vijay from the post of

Public Health Dentist (under Bond contract service)

at Hospicio Hospital, Margao under Bond service

w.e.f. 30th November, 2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary

(Health).

Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

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

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.

Shri Sadashiv T. Kelkar,

As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division III,

Junior Engineer

Division III (PHE), Tonca-Caranzalem.

Shri Anthony F. D. T. Fernandes,

As Assistant Surveyor of Works, Circle

Junior Engineer

Office VII(M/E), Altinho, Panaji.

Shri Vinayak V. Malvankar,

As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division I,

Junior Engineer

Division XXIV(PHE), Bicholim.

Shri R. S. Naik,

As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division III,

Junior Engineer

Division XVII(PHE), Assonora.

Shri Salim Nazir,

As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division II,

Junior Engineer

Division X (Stores), Margao.

Shri Roque Fernandes,

As Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division V,

Junior Engineer

Division IX (PHE), Verna.

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, 2017

1172

Further, 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.

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.

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.

———‹‹‹———

Government Printing Press

Subscription Rates

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.

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.

Official Gazette is now available through e-mail

for an annual subscription of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two

hundred only).

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

III

Rs. P.

Rs. P. Rs. P.

For any quarter ..................

900.00

460.00

350.00 175.00

(Postage) ...........................

60.00

15.00

For half year ........................

1750.00

920.00

700.00 350.00

(Postage) ...........................

60.00

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

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.