Panaji, 30th March, 2017 (Chaitra 9, 1939)

SERIES II No. 52

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

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

1181

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Order

No. 8/88/2016-17/D.Agri/333

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public

Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/

/11/2(3)/2016/378 dated 10-11-2016, Government is

pleased to promote Kum. Geeta S. Velingkar,

Training Officer (female) Group ‘B’, Gazetted to the

post of Subject Matter Specialist (Home Science),

Group ‘A’, Gazetted in Krishi Vigyan Kendra, South,

Margao Goa on regular basis in the Pay Band III of

Rs. 15,600-39,100+5,400/- Grade Pay with

immediate effect.

Kum. Geeta S. Velingkar shall be on probation

for a period of two years from the date of her

joining.

Kum. Geeta S. Velingkar shall exercise her option

within one month from the date of promotion to fix

her pay in terms of F.R. 22(I) (a) (1).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

U. B. Pai Kakode, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 24th March, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Order

No. 4/1/CREDIT/TSII/CZ/2017/RCS/4662

Read:1) This office Order No. 21-4-03-TS-Credit-

-CZ-RCS-Vol. V/1365 dated 17th July,

2015 appointing a committee of

Administrator in terms of Section 67 A

of Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001, to

manage the affairs of the Inland Water

Transport Employees Co-op. Credit

Society Ltd., Panaji-Goa.

2) Letter dated 5th February, 2016 received

from Francisco Arauzo & other member

of Administrative Committee.

3) Order No. 21-4-03-TS-Credit-CZ-RCS-Vol

V-Part-III dated 22nd March, 2016.

4) Letter dated 7th June, 2016, received

from Fransisco Arauzo, Chairman of

Administrative Committee.

5) Letter dated 28th October, 2016 received

from Francisco Arauzo & other member

of Administrative Committee.

7) Letter dated 8th February, 2017 received

from Francis Arauzo & other members of

Administrative Committee.

Note:-

There are four Extraordinary issues to the

Official Gazette, Series II No. 51 dated 23-03-2017

as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 23-03-2017 from pages 1173

to 1174 regarding Notification from Department

of Inland Waterways.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 24-03-2017 from

pages 1175 to 1176 regarding Notification from

Raj Bhavan.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 24-03-2017 from

pages 1177 to 1178 regarding Notification from

Goa Legislature Secretariat.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 29-03-2017 from

pages 1179 to 1180 regarding Notification from

Goa Legislature Secretariat.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1182

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 67 A of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

I, Meena H. N. Goltekar, Registrar of Co-op. Societies

Government of Goa, do hereby extent the term of

Committee of Administrators appointed vide Order

referred to at Sr. No. 1 herein above for another

3 months with retrospective effect from 9-02-2017

or till constitution of full fledge new Board of

Directors, whichever is earlier.

Meena H. N. Goltekar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 17th March, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Technical Education

College Section

Order

No. 11/4/59/2001-DTE/GCP/4882

On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/12/33(2)/13/538 dated 03-02-2017, Government of Goa is pleased to declare the following

Group ‘A’, Gazetted Officers of Goa College of Pharmacy, Panaji 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

Appointment order

Date of

No.

incumbent

confirmation

No. and date

joining

1. Shri Rahul Suvarn

Assistant Professor

20-02-2016

No. 11/4/93/RSC/PF/DTE/2014/

21-02-2014

Chodankar

in Pharmaceutical

/3687 dated 20-02-2014

Chemistry

2. Shri Raveendra

Assistant Professor

07-07-2016

No. 11/4/96/RLH/PF/DTE/2014/

08-07-2014

Lagamappa

in Pharmaceutical

/876 dated 01-07-2014

Hullolikar

Chemistry

3. Kum. Nutan

Assistant Professor

24-02-2016

No. 11/4/92/NLN/PF/DTE/2014/ 25-02-2014

Laxman Naik

in Pharmaceutical

/3730 dated 24-02-2014

Chemistry

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 23rd March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 11/4/59/2001-DTE/GCP/4883

On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/12/33(2)/13/538 dated 03-02-2017, the Government of Goa is pleased to declare the following

Group ‘A’, Gazetted Officers of Goa College of Pharmacy, Panaji to have satisfactorily completed her

probation period and confirm her in the post with effect from date mentioned in the respective column

against her name.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1183

Sr.

Name of the

Designation

Date of

Appointment order

Date of

No.

incumbent

confirmation

No. and date

joining

1. Kum. Liesl Maria

Assistant Professor

20-02-2016

No. 11/4/95/LMF/PF/DTE/2014/ 21-02-2014

Fernandes

in Pharmacology

/3711 dated 21-02-2014

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 23rd March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 11/4/59/2001-DTE/GCP/4884

On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/12/33(1)/2017/539 dated 03-02-2017, the Government of Goa is pleased to declare the following

Group ‘A’, Gazetted Officer of Goa College of Pharmacy, Panaji to have satisfactorily completed his

probation period and confirm him in the post with effect from date mentioned in the respective column

against his name:

Sr.

Name of the

Designation

Date of

Appointment order

Date of

No.

incumbent

confirmation

No. and date

joining

1. Shri Anand Avinash Associate Professor

21-07-2016

No. 11/4/98/AAM/PF/DTE/2014/ 22-07-2014

Mahajan

in Pharmaceutical

/781 dated 24-06-2014

Analysis

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 23rd March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 11/4/59/2001-DTE/GCP/4885

On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/12/33(2)/13/538 dated 03-02-2017, the Government of Goa is pleased to declare the following

Group ‘A’, Gazetted Officer of Goa College of Pharmacy, Panaji to have satisfactorily completed his

probation period and confirm him in the post with effect from date mentioned in the respective column

against his name:

Sr.

Name of the

Designation

Date of

Appointment order

Date of

No.

incumbent

confirmation

No. and date

joining

1. Shri Rohan Ramesh

Assistant Professor

20-02-2016

No. 11/4/94/RRP/PF/DTE/2014/

21-02-2014

Prabhu

in Pharmaceutics

/3686 dated 20-02-2014

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 23rd March, 2017.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1184

Directorate of Archives and Archaeology

Order

No. 9/12/8/EDN/2016/Part File-AAGR(I)/2040

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/4(2)/2016/

/514 dated 17th January, 2017, the Government is

pleased to promote Shri Shradhanand Valvaikar,

Assistant Archivist Grade-II of this Directorate to

the post of Assistant Archivist Grade-I, Group ‘B’,

Gazetted in the scale of pay as per 7th CPC Pay

Matrix Level-6 (pre-revised scale of pay of PB-2 of

Rs. 9,300-34,800+Grade Pay 4,200) with immediate

effect. His pay shall be fixed as per Rules.

He will be on probation for a period of two years.

The expenditure on his pay and allowances shall

be debited to the Budget Head of Accounts as

follows:

Demand No. 45:

2205 — Art and Culture;

00 —

104 — Archives;

01 — Archives Department (Non-Plan);

01 — Salaries.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Blossom Medeira, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Archives & Archaeology).

Panaji, 21st March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 9/12/8/EDN/2016/Part File-AAGR(I)/2041

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/4(2)/2016/

/514 dated 17th January, 2017, the Government is

pleased to promote Shri Sonu Gauns, Assistant

Archivist Grade-II of this Directorate to the post of

Assistant Archivist Grade-I, Group ‘B’, Gazetted in

the scale of pay as per 7th CPC Pay Matrix

Level-6 (pre-revised scale of pay of PB-2 of Rs. 9,300-

-34,800+Grade Pay 4,200) with immediate effect.

His pay shall be fixed as per Rules.

He will be on probation for a period of two years.

The expenditure on his pay and allowances shall

be debited to the Budget Head of Accounts as

follows:

Demand No. 45.

2205 — Art and Culture;

00 —

104 — Archives;

01 — Archives Department (Non-Plan);

01 — Salaries.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Blossom Medeira, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Archives & Archaeology).

Panaji, 21st March, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Finance

Revenue & Control Division

Order

No. 3/1/2009-Fin (R&C)/1973

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Goa

Entertainment Tax Act, 1964 (Act No. 2 of 1964),

the Government of Goa is pleased to exempt the

event “New Year’s Traditional Eve Dance” from the

liability of payment of Entertainment tax in whole,

held at Community Hall, Taleigao, Goa, on 31st

December, 2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sushama D. Kamat, Under Secretary (Fin) (R&C).

Porvorim, 22nd March, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Labour

Order

No. 21/15/86-LAB-PF-III/178

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/11/28(2)/92-08/516 dated 17-01-2017,

the Government is pleased to promote following

Labour Inspectors to the post of Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Group ‘B’, Gazetted) in the office of

the Commissioner of Labour and Employment,

Panaji on regular basis in the PB-2: 9,300-

-34,800+4,600(GP) with corresponding scale at

Level 7 in the 7th Pay Commission Pay Structure

with immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name of the Officer

No.

1. Shri Milind P. Govekar.

2. Shri Gurudas M. Jalmi (ST).

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1185

The officers shall be on probation for a period of

two years from the date of joining and shall submit

Annual Assessment Report for the period.

The expenditure on pay and allowances in the

case of Shri Milind Govekar shall be debited to the

Budget Head of Account: 2230—Labour and

Employment; 01—Labour; 001—Direction &

Administration; 01—Direction (Non-Plan);

01—Salaries.

The expenditure on pay and allowances in the

case of Shri Gurudas Jalmi shall be debited to the

Budget Head of Account: 2230—Labour and

Employment; 01—Labour; 001—Direction &

Administration; 03—Strengthening of Labour

Administration (Plan); 01—Salaries.

Both the officers shall continue to hold the post

at which they are currently posted.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 24th March, 2017.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/Part-V/137

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

23-12-2016 in reference No. IT/12/02 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/12/02

Smt. Lata Naik,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Ponda-Goa.

…

Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Drogaria Menezes and Cia,

Menezes House- Rua Luis De Menezes

Panaji-Goa. … Employer/Party II (1)

Mr. Agustinho Menezes,

Proprietor,

M/s. Drogaria Menezes and Cia,

Margao-Goa.

… Employer/Party II (2)

Workman/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.

Chawdikar.

Employer/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S.

Chodnekar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month of

December of the year 2016)

By Order dated 19-02-2002, bearing No. 28/26/

/2001-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act), has referred

the following dispute to the Tribunal for

adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Drogaria Menezes and Cia, Panaji, Goa, in

terminating the services of Ms. Lata Naik,

Clerk, with effect from 6-10-99, is legal and

justified?

(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/12/02 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 3 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 6.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

Workman/Party I was working with Party II(1) since

1-6-1987 and has continuously worked for more than

12 years before her termination dated 6-10-99. The

Party II (1) is an industrial establishment engaged in

distribution of various drugs throughout Goa. It is

also the case of Party I that no seniority list was

prepared before her termination. The Party II(1)

continued its business at Margao and Panaji and

recruited new workmen to carry out job of clerical

nature. The management has not conducted any

inquiry nor were any charges framed against her.

The Party I is unemployed after her termination as

she could not succeed in getting any job and is

undergoing hardship due to unemployment. The

junior workers are still continuing in employment

and she has been terminated only to victimize her

as she was disliked by the employer. It is therefore

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1186

the termination of her services be declared as illegal,

improper, unjustified and direct the employer to re-

instate her with full back wages and continuity of

services.

4. In the written statement, the Party II(1) has

stated that its establishment at Panaji was closed

w.e.f 1-1-2000 and that the closure is not the subject

matter of adjudication. It is also the case of

Party II(1) that it was a partnership concern engaged

in trading of pharmaceutical products having

branches at Margao, Panaji and Vasco. The Party I

was initially appointed as Kardex clerk on 1-6-87 at

Vasco establishment and on its closure, she was

transferred to Margao. The Party I was transferred to

Panaji, however as the operation at Panaji

establishment was found to be uneconomical, the

management decided to close the business and a

notice of closure was displaced on the notice board

of the said establishment on 6-10-99 and the same

was closed w.e.f. 1-1-2000.

5. The Party II(I) displayed a Seniority list on

20-9-1999 at their establishments at Panaji and

Margao and by letter dated 6-10-99 the Party II

informed Party I that they have been suffering

financially for a long period and had been continuing

the said operation inspite of financial constraints.

The Party II retained the workmen in service inspite

of difficulties faced by them. The Party II also

informed the Party I by the said letter that her

services were found surplus to the requirement of

Party II(1) and it has been decided to terminate her

services with immediate effect and that she was

offered legal dues by way of notice pay,

retrenchment, etc. vide a cheque and the said

amount was offered to her along with the letter of

termination on 7-10-1999 at the Panaji establishment

but she refused to accept the same. The letter of

termination along with the legal dues were sent to

her last known address and the said envelope

containing the said letter and amount was returned

with the endorsement “Party left, return to the

sender”. The other employee who was the attendant

accepted his dues in full and final settlement and

did not raise any dispute whatsoever.

6. It is also the case of the Party II(1) that after the

closure of the establishment at Panaji, the assets

and liabilities of the partnership of Party II(1) were

taken over by Party II(2) w.e.f. 1-4-2000 and that the

Party II(2) continued with the operation of the

establishment at Margao only. Each establishment

of Party II(1) was a separate establishment for all

legal purposes. The Party II(1) displayed a seniority

list on 20-9-1999 at their establishment at Panaji and

Margao and at the relevant time the establishment

of Party II (1) at Panaji was looked after by the

Party II(2) and the only other employee there other

than Party I was the attendant, Mr. Naresh Naik.

There were no employees in the category of Party I

at Panaji establishment. The Party I was the junior

most employee in the category of clerks. The Party I

is gainfully employed since the date of termination.

The Party I is not entitled to any relief.

7. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 7 denying

the case put forth by Party II(1) in the written

statement. It is stated that establishment at Margao

is the main establishment and that Vasco and Panaji

were their branches. New employees in the same

category are employed by Party II(1) after her

termination. Party II has not complied with the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore

she is entitled for re-instatement with full back

wages.

8. It is the matter of record that Shri Agustinho

Menezes was impleaded as Party II(2) by Order dated

09-06-2009 pursuant to the application filed by

Party I on 20-07-2008 at Exhibit. 19.

9. The Party II(2) filed a Written Statement inter-

alia contending that Party I was never a workman of

Party II(2); she was neither appointed nor dismissed

by him; the reference does not refer to the closure of

establishment of Party II(1) and proceeds on the

assumption that the establishment is in existence;

the transfer of business is partial with limited

liabilities on the Party II(2). It is also the case of

Party II(2) that the business of Party II(1) was

transferred by a Deed of Assignment dated 1-4-2000

and the liability of the said business was restricted

to Margao branch only. The Party I/workman was

not an employee of Party II(2) and her services came

to be terminated on 6-10-1999 prior to the transfer of

business on 1-4-2000. The Party I was surplus to the

requirement of the Party II(1) at Margao

establishment and therefore transferred to Panaji.

The operations of Panaji establishment were found

to be uneconomical and therefore it decided to close

the business and the notice of closure was displayed

on the notice board. The Party II also displayed a

seniority list at Panaji and Margao and eventually

closed the business. The Party I was offered legal

dues by way of notice pay, retrenchment, etc. There

was no employee-employer relationship between

Party I and Party II(2). The Party I is not entitled for

any relief.

10. Issues framed at Exhibit 8 are as follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that termination of

her service by the Party II w.e.f.. 6-10-99 is

illegal and unjustified?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1187

(2) Whether the Party I proves that the Party II has

recruited new workers in her place after

termination of her service?

(3) Whether the Party II proves that the Party I was

offered notice pay and retrenchment

compensation at the time of retrenching her

service but she refused to accept the same and

thereafter, the said amount was sent to her at

her last known address?

(4) Whether the Party II proves that its

establishment is closed w.e.f 1-1-2000?

(5) Whether the Party II proves that the Party I is

gainfully employed?

(6) Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

11. It is a matter of record that additional issues

were framed on 28-09-2010 at Exhibit 23. They are as

follows:

(1) Whether the Party II(2) proves that he has taken

limited liability from Party II and only of Margao

establishment?

(2) Whether Party II proves that Party I was never

a workman of Party II(2)?

12.

The Party I, Smt. Lata Naik examined herself

and produced on record a copy of letter of

appointment at Exb. W-1, a copy of transfer letter at

Exb. W-2, a copy of letter dated 6-10-99 retrenching

services at Exb. W-3, a copy of wage slip for the

month of July 99 at Exb. W-4 and closed the case. On

the other hand, Mr. Antonio Francisco Agnelo Roque

Mariano De Menezes was examined as witness of

Party II(1) and he produced on record the copies of

termination letter at Exb. 12, a copy of notice of

closure at Exb. 15, a copy of Employees Seniority list

at Margao Depot at Exb. 16, a copy of envelope

containing the notice addressed to the Party I along

with AD, a copy of Deed of Reconstitution of

Partnership at Exb. 24. The Party II(2) examined

himself and produced on record a copy of Deed of

Assignment at Exb. 27 and also examined Ms. Maria

Rodrigues in support of his case.

13. Heard arguments.

14. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

I am reproducing herewith the issues along with

their findings and reasons thereof.

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

1. Whether the Party I proves that

Negative

the termination of her service by

the Party II(1) w.e.f. 6-10-99

is illegal and unjustified?

2. Whether the Party I proves that

Negative

Party II(1) has recruited new

workers in her place after

termination of her service?

3. Whether the Party II(1) proves Affirmative

that the Party I was offered

notice pay and retrenchment

compensation at the time of

retrenching her service but she

refused to accept the same and

thereafter, the said amount was sent

to her at her last known address?

4. Whether the Party II(1) proves Affirmative

that its establishment was closed

w.e.f. 1-1-2000?

5. Whether the Party II(1)proves Redundant

that Party I is gainfully employed?

6. Whether the Party I is entitled

Negative

to any relief?

7. What Award?

As per

final order

Additional issues

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

1. Whether Party II(2) proves that Affirmative.

he has taken limited liability from

Party II and only of Margao

establishment ?

2. Whether Party II(2) proves that Affirmative

Party I was never a workman

of Party II (2)?

REASONS

15. Issue Nos. 1 & 3: Shri P. Gaonkar for the Party I

has submitted that the services of the Party I/

/workman has been terminated by Party II which is

only the firm registered with distribution depots at

Panaji and Vasco. The Party I carried out the work of

a clerk as admitted in Para 6 of the written statement

where it stated that she is the junior most category

of the clerks which is further reiterated by their

witness, Smt. Maria Rodrigues. The seniority list

prepared by Party II shows only 6 workers when

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1188

admittedly there were 16 workers working at Margao

Branch. The said Margao branch where the Party I

was appointed is continuing the same business. The

common seniority list was not displayed before her

termination and the seniority list prepared and

shown at Exb. 16 is fabricated. He further submitted

that the provisions contained in Rule 81 for effective

compliance of section 25G is mandatory and its

breach, at least of non preparation of seniority list of

particular category of workman would vitiate any

order of retrenchment of a workman for non

compliance of section 25G. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the cases of (1) Prakash

Murlidhar Dalal Vs. Tata Engineering &

Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors. 1996 LLR 541,

(2) Central Welfare Board and Others Vs. Ms. Anjali

Bepari

and

others,

1996

LLR

1089,

(3) Superintending Engineer, Urdhwa Painganga

Project Circle & Anr. Vs Yavatmal Zilla Raste &

others, 1993 LLR 445, (4) Samishta Dube Vs. City

Board, Etawah & another, 1999 LLR 460 and

(5) B.R. Rasaily Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour

Court & another, 1996 LLR 556.

16. A little peep into 25-G which is the Procedure

for retrenchment would indicate that where any

workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs

to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this

behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the

workmen who was the last person to be employed in

that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman. Whereas

the provision of 25-H relating to re-employment of

retrenched workmen states where any workmen are

retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into

his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as

may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the

retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer

themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched

workmen who offer themselves for re-employment

shall have preference over other persons.

17. The Party I/workman in Para 9 of the affidavit

in evidence has claimed that before her termination

a seniority list was not prepared and displayed on

the notice board although she was the senior most

clerk of Party II. She denied the suggestion in the

cross examination that the seniority list was

prepared and it was displayed by Party II before

termination of her service. On the contrary,

Shri Antonio Menezes has claimed that as the

operation at Panaji establishment was found to be

uneconomical, the management decided to close the

business w.e.f. 1-1-2000 and that the seniority list

was displayed on 20-9-1999 at their establishment

at Panaji and Margao. He has produced on record a

closure notice dated 6-10-199 at Exb. 15 and the

seniority list dated 20-9-1999 at Exb. 16. He denied

in the cross examination that the seniority list was

fabricated by him after filing of the present

proceedings or that seniority list was not signed by

the other partner or that it was not prepared on the

letter head of Party II or that the seniority list was

never displayed at Margao establishment or that

Party I was not the junior most employee in the

category of clerks. He also made clear in cross

examination that the Party I was the junior most

employee and that she was retrenched as they want

to close the branch at Panaji and after the closure,

they surrendered the license.

18. The other witness viz. Agustinho Menezes also

reiterated the case of Party II. He claimed that the

Party I was terminated on 6-10-1999 on account of

closure of business of Party II(1) and that as per the

records, the Party II had displayed a notice of closure

on 6-10-1999 as well as seniority list at its Panaji and

Margao branches and that Party I was the junior most

clerk of Drogaria Menezes and Cia at the time of her

retrenchment and at the time of assignment of

business to him, the only Margao establishment was

operative and that she was retrenched much before

business was assigned to him. Similar is the case of

Maria Rodrigues, the witness examined by Party II(2).

She claimed that the management had displayed a

notice of closure and a list of seniority at their

branches and that Party I was the junior most

employee and that her services were terminated vide

letter dated 6-10-1999.

19. It is therefore demonstrably clear from the

evidence adduced on record by the parties that the

services of Party I/workman were terminated vide

letter dated 6-10-1999 which is at Exb. 12. The said

letter bears the signature of Party I. The said letter

clearly states that the Party II(1) had decided to close

the business on account of financial constraints and

since the services of Party I were surplus, they

decided to terminate her by offering legal dues. The

termination letter at Exb. 12 clearly shows that the

services of the Party I/workman were terminated on

account of closure of establishment as her services

were found surplus at Panaji depot. There is nothing

on record that Panaji depot was functional at the

time of her retrenchment as claimed by her in her

affidavit in evidence.

20. The Party I also admitted in the cross

examination that in 1997 when she was transferred

to Panaji depot, there were 4-5 employees and when

her services were terminated the strength of the

employees at Panaji was the same. She however

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1189

denied the suggestion that there was only one

employee who was attendant at the Panaji depot

when her services were terminated. There is no

dispute as seen from the deposition of Party II, Shri

Antonio Menezes that the head office of Party II(1) is

at Margao and the correspondence on behalf of

Party II(1) was also done through the head office. He

also admitted that the employees of Party II(1) were

posted at Panaji and Margao which was under the

name of Drogaria Menezes and Cia and that it was a

partnership firm.

21. The Seniority list at Exb.16 produced by Party II

shows a list of employees at Margao depot as well

as Panaji depot as on 20-9-1999. There were about 6

employees at Margao depot including one Kardex

clerks, one Kardex Supervisor and one Account clerk.

The Kardex clerk at Sr. No. 5, Ms. Rosalina Fernandes

was appointed on 1-4-1984 and the Kardex

supervisor, Ms. Maria Rodrigues was appointed on

1-1-1983. The Accounts Clerk, Ms. Terezinha Silveira

was appointed on 1-1-1984, whereas the seniority

list at Panaji depot of workman/Party I and the

attendant, Shri Naresh Naik show that they were

appointed on 1-6-1987 and 1-7-1997 respectively.

There is no dispute that Party I was appointed as

Kardex clerk and that she was the only Kardex clerk

in Panaji depot as on 20-9-1999. Even, if it is

considered that both the depots are one

establishment, the date of appointment of

Ms. Rosalina Fernandes, the other Kardex clerk was prior

to the date of appointment of Party I/workman, which

in other words mean that Party I workman was junior

to said Ms. Rosalina Fernandes. Moreover, in the

closure notice dated 6-10-1999, it is clearly

mentioned that the number of workmen whose

services would be terminated on account of closure

of the undertaking is two. Both the documents at

Exb. 15 and Exb. 16 are a clear indication of the fact

that the Party I/workman was the junior most Kardex

clerk at the time of her retrenchment.

22. Discernibly, the Party I has stated that no

seniority list was prepared before termination of her

services and that Party II ought to have made her

seniority and a common seniority list of all the

workers working in Goa. The Party I workman has

not produced any list of seniority contrary to the list

produced by Party II at Exb. 16 nor it is her case in

the rejoinder that the seniority list displayed by Party II

was fabricated or the same was not signed by other

partner or that it does not bear the date it was

prepared nor it was suggested to witness, Shri

Antonio Menezes that the seniority list produced

by him at Exb. 16 is fabricated. It is only her case as

per page 6 of the cross examination that the said list

was never displayed at Margao and Panaji

establishment. No evidence has been adduced on

record to show that the said list was fabricated.

Merely because the said list was not on the letter

head of Party II and it does not bear the signature of

other partner on which it was prepared, it cannot be

dubbed as fabricated in the absence of proof that it

was not drawn up nor any of the employees,

including Naresh Naik has been examined. It is

therefore Party I has failed to show non compliance

of section 25G & 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,

while terminating her services.

23. The reliance placed on the citations by Shri P.

Gaonkar in support of non-compliance of section 25G

and 25H supra are not applicable to the case at hand

as Party II(1) has complied with all the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act at the time of her

retrenchment and no infirmity can be attached to

the retrenchment effected to the Party I. The maxim

“last come first go” has been dealt with and the

documents and evidence produced are sufficient to

establish the said fact. The reliance placed on case

of Prakash Murlidhar Dalal, supra is not applicable

as seniority list of category of workmen had been

prepared and the Party I who is the junior most

workman was retrenched. The case of Central

Welfare Board, supra is also not applicable as no

junior to the Party I was allowed to continue in the

said establishment and the services of the Party I

was dispensed on ‘last come first go’ basis.

24. The reliance on the case of Superintending

Engineer, Urdhwa Painganga Project Circle & Anr.,

supra is on different footing where the management

had not complied with section 25G which mandates

that in ordering retrenchment, the management

should commence with the latest recruit and

progressively retrench employees higher up in the

list of seniority, which is not the case at hand. The

case of Samistha Dube, supra relied upon by the

Party I also mandates that the employers shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last

person to be employed in that category unless for

reasons to be recorded, the employer retrenches any

other person. Lastly, the case of B.R. Rasaily, supra

is also not applicable as the facts are different from

present case. The Party II has therefore sufficiently

shown compliance of section 25F and 25G of the

Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the above

submission of Shri P. Gaonkar pales into

insignificance.

25. Shri P. Gaonkar for the Party I has further

submitted that the termination of Party I is illegal

and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has

not been complied with as new workers have been

employed. The Deed of Assignment is a camouflage

between the two brothers in order to defeat the claim

of the workman. The employer has not sent any

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1190

notice required under Rule 76-A of the Industrial

Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 to the appropriate

Government within three days from the date of

retrenchment and hence the retrenchment is illegal

and in violation of law. Relying upon the case of Raj

Kumar vs Director of Education & ors., 2016 LLR

561, he submitted that notice under Section 25F(c)

read with rule 76(a) in Form ‘P’ is mandatory to be

sent to the appropriate Government within three

days from the date of notice is given to the workman

and therefore the termination is illegal, unjustified

and bad-in-law.

26. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for

Party II(1)and Ld. Adv. Shri S. Chodnekar for

Party II(2) have submitted that all the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act have been complied with at

the time of retrenching the Party I. The provision of

Section 25F (a) and (b) being mandatory in nature

have been complied with by the employer, while

clause (c) requires a mere notice to the appropriate

Government and is only directory in nature, and not

mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Pramod Jha & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors.,

in Appeal (Civil) case No. 4157 of 2000 dated

03-03-2003. They further submitted that in the case

of Ram Narain Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,

1991(1) SCC 189, it has been held that the

substantial compliance of Section 25F (a) and (b)

would be sufficient to validate retrenchment and

that compliance of clause (c) is directory. They

therefore submitted that compliance of clause 25 (a)

and (b) is enough to hold retrenchment valid under

the law.

27. Discernibly, under 25F the conditions

precedent to retrenchment of workmen are that no

workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until—

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice

in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has

expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of

such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay [for every

completed year of continuous service] or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

the appropriate Government [or such authority

as may be specified by the appropriate

Government by notification in the Official

Gazette.]

28. Undisputedly, under rule 76-A. Notice of, and

application for permission for, retrenchment, the

following are required –

(1) Notice [or, as the case may be, the application

under] sub-section (1) of Section 25-N for

retrenchment shall be served in Form PA and

served on the Central Government or such

authority as may be specified by that Government

under the said clause either personally or by

registered post acknowledgement due and where

the notice is served by registered post, the date

on which the same is delivered to the Central

Government or the authority shall be deemed to

be the date of service of the notice for the purposes

of [sub-section (4)] of the said section.

(2) The notice or, as the case may be, the application,

shall be made in triplicate and copies of such

notice or, as the case may be, the application shall

be served by the employer on the workmen

concerned and a proof to that effect shall also be

submitted by the employer along with the notice

or, as the case may be, the application.

(3) The employer concerned shall furnish to the

Central Government or the authority to whom

the notice for retrenchment has been given or the

application for permission for retrenchment has

been made, under sub-section (1) of section 25-N,

such further information as the Central

Government or, as the case may be, the authority

considers necessary for arriving at a decision on

the notice or, as the case may be, the application,

as and when called for by such authority so as to

enable the Central Government or the authority

to communicate its permission or refusal to grant

permission within the period specified in

sub-section (4) of section 25-N]

29. There is no dispute that the Party I workman

was employed with Party II(1) for more than one year

and that she has been retrenched by the employer

as per Exb. W-3 and that she was given a notice of

closure at Exb. 15 of one month in writing indicating

the reasons for retrenchment and that she has been

paid the legal dues by way of notice pay,

retrenchment, etc. vide cheque No. 1068312 of the

Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. The said fact is not in

dispute. The workman/Party I Smt. Lata Naik has

admitted that the Party II has terminated her services

and that it had offered to her a cheque of Rs. 22,313/-

but she refused to accept the cheque. The copy of

the cheque and other documents have been

produced on record. The employer has thus given a

month notice in writing in terms of Exb. 15 and paid

the legal dues at the time of retrenchment in terms

of Exb. W-3.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1191

30. The Party II(1) has thus proved that it had

offered notice pay at the time of retrenching her

services but she refused to accept the same and that

it was sent to her last known address. The employer

has thus complied the mandatory provisions of 25F

(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

submission of Shri P. Gaonkar that the employer had

not sent any notice in terms of section 25F (c) and

Rule 76-A to the appropriate Government within

three days from the date of retrenchment and hence

the retrenchment is illegal and the reliance in case

of Raj Kumar, supra in support of the fact that the

said notice in Form ‘P’ is mandatory cannot be

accepted as the Apex Court in the case of Gurmail

Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1991(1) SCC 189, has held

that the substantial compliance of Section 25F (a)

and (b) would be sufficient to validate retrenchment

and that compliance of clause (c) is directory. Sub

clause (c) of Section 25F requires a mere notice to

the appropriate Government and is only directory

in nature, not mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Pramod Jha, supra.

31. The reliance placed on the case of Raj Kumar,

supra by Shri P. Gaonkar cannot be made applicable

to the case at hand as the said case turned on its

own facts. The fact of case of Raj Kumar nor its ratio

is applicable to the present case. In the said case,

the focal point discussed is the Delhi School

Education Act, 1973 and more particularly Section

8(2) that mandates prior approval of the Director of

Education for terminating any employee of the

school. The said case relied by the workman is

factually a result of a driver being declared surplus

on account of non-availability of job and the case of

Pramod Jha, supra which holds that section 25F (c)

is directory in nature has not been discussed nor

referred in the case of Raj Kumar, Supra as it is based

on requirement of prior approval of Director of

Education akin to the requirement of section 25N

and not the requirement of section 25F of the Act.

The retrenchment of Party I was a consequence of

the intended closure of business due to continuous

financial losses and the Party I being surplus, unlike

the case relied by Shri P. Gaonkar and therefore there

is sufficient compliance of section 25F and 25G of

the Industrial Disputes Act. The fact and the law are

therefore not applicable to the case at hand. It is

therefore issue No. 1 is answered in the negative

and issue No. 3 is answered in the affirmative.

32. Issue No. 2: The Party I in Para 7 of the Claim

statement has stated that the Party II has recruited

new workman in her place and that the junior

workers are still continuing in employment. In the

affidavit in evidence, she stated that she was the

senior most clerk with Party II and she was

transferred to Panaji and their business is still

continuing at Margao where she was transferred

w.e.f. 1-8-1995 from Vasco depot and that there are

new workers working as clerks at Margao. In the

cross examination, she claimed that there were 4-6

employees at Panaji depot when her services were

terminated, however no evidence has been adduced

in support of said fact. She, however admitted that

she does not know as to whether Panaji depot is

closed or not. Exb. 11 which is a Register of

employment maintained in Form XXI shows that

there were only two employees at Panaji depot, the

Party I workman and one Shri Naresh Naik. The Party I

has admitted that she was signing the Register of

employment and that there are signatures in front

of her name in the said register.

33. The Seniority list produced at Exb. 16 shows

that the Party I/workman was at Panaji depot along

with said Naresh Naik and that she was the junior

most employee in Margao and well as in Panaji depot.

There is nothing on record that Party II(1) have

recruited any worker in her place after termination

of her services. The mere statement in cross

examination of Maria Rodrigues examined by Party II

that there were 16 workers with Party II at Margao

and that the workers who are now working as

computer clerks were earlier only the clerks and that

Party II appointed new computer clerks in Margao

office after Smt. Lata Naik was sent to Panaji will not

enure to the benefit of Party I/workman in the

absence of any document that the Party II appointed

any person in the category of Kardex clerk or

otherwise after termination of her services. Hence,

the above issue is answered in the negative.

34. Issue No. 4: The Party II, Shri Antonio Menezes

has stated that since the operations at Panaji

establishment were found to be uneconomical, the

management decided to close the business and the

notice of closure was displayed on the notice board

of the establishment on 6-10-1999 and the same was

closed on 1-1-2000. The Party I, Smt. Lata Naik in the

cross examination however feigned ignorance as to

whether business of Party II was closed and whether

Panaji depot of Party II was closed. Exhibit 15 is the

closure notice produced by witness of Party II dated

6-10-1999 which states that Party II had decided to

close down its establishment w.e.f. 1-1-2000 as they

have been suffering financially for a long period and

that services of two workmen would be terminated

on account of closure of said undertaking. The notice

of closure has not been disputed. The fact that the

establishment of Party II(1) at Panaji was closed has

been established. Hence, the above issue is answered

in the affirmative.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1192

35. Issue No. 5: The Party I/workman, Smt. Lata Naik

has stated in Para 6 of the statement of claim and

Para 17 of the affidavit in evidence that after her

termination, she is unemployed as she could not

succeed in getting job till date and is undergoing

hardship due to unemployment. The Party II(1) in

Para 7 of the written statement has denied that the

Party I was unemployed and claimed that Party I was

gainfully employed since the date of termination.

Party I/workman in cross examination though denied

the suggestion that she is working in a medical shop

owned by one Shri Singbal at Ponda, admitted that

Singbal Pharmacy had offered a job for her at Ponda

but she refused to accept the said job. She also

claimed that after termination of her services, she

did not try for another job. No suggestions have been

put to the witnesses of Party II that after termination

of her services, she could not succeed in getting a

job till date. Admittedly, Party I is a resident of Tisk,

Usgao as per Para 1 of affidavit in evidence and she

was admittedly offered a job at Singbal Pharmacy at

Ponda, which she has refused nor she made any

attempts to secure an alternate employment. The

Party II therefore have sufficiently shown that the

Party I have refused alternate employment when

available during the relevant period nor made any

attempts to secure the employment nor proved that

the termination of her services is illegal and

unjustified. It is therefore the question of Party II

proving the above issue does not arise having

answered issue No. 1 in the negative.

36. Additional Issue No. 1: Importantly, although

Party I has impleaded Party II(2) as party to the

proceedings, the Party I workman has not amended

the claim statement by fastening any liability on

Party II(2) nor sought any relief against Party II(2) in

the claim statement, more so when it is admitted

fact that Party II(2) had taken over the business of

Drogaria Menezes vide Deed of Assignment dated

1-4-2000. The Party II(2) Shri Agustinho Menezes has

claimed that by a Deed of Assignment dated

1-4-2000 the business at Margao branch of Party I

was transferred and assigned to him on terms and

conditions stipulated in the said deed and the said

transfer was effective from 1-4 -2000. Exb. 27 is a said

Deed of Assignment.

37. The Party II(2) has further stated that vide

clause 6 of Deed of Assignment he was liable to settle

claims and dues such as salaries, wages and other

retirement benefits of the employees employed as

on the date of Deed of Assignment and that the Party I

was terminated on 6-10-1999 much prior to signing

of said Deed of Assignment and that since Party I

was retrenched while she was working at Panaji

establishment, he cannot be made liable for a dues

or any benefit. The said Deed has not been

challenged. He denied the suggestion in the cross

examination that he is liable for all the liabilities of

Party I. Clause 6 of the said Deed of Assignment

clearly stipulates that Party II(2) is liable to settle

the claims and dues of Party II (1) of Margao branch

only. That being the case, the contention of Party I

that Party II(2) is liable for all the liabilities cannot

be accepted. The Deed of Assignment at Exb. 27

clearly shows that Party II (2) has taken limited

liability from Party II(1) and therefore the above issue

is answered in negative.

38. Additional issue No. 2: Admittedly, the Deed of

Assignment dated 1-4-2000 is produced at Exb. 27.

There is also no dispute that vide letter dated

6-10-1999 at Exb. 12, the services of Party I, Kardex

clerk at Panaji was terminated. The Deed of

Assignment was executed on 1-4-2000, whereas the

retrenchment of Party I was affected on 6-10-1999

and the said fact has been admitted by the Parties.

There is also no quarrel that the dispute was referred

by the appropriate Government only in 2002 but

Party II(2) was assigned business on 1-4-2000. There

is also no dispute that the Party I was appointed by

Party II(1) on 16-6-1987 as per Exb. W-1 at Vasco when

it was a partnership firm at a time when the

Party II(2) did not exist and therefore Party I cannot

be termed as a ‘Workman’ of Party II(2) and hence,

the above issue is answered in affirmative.

39. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of the

management of M/s. Drogaria Menezes & Cia,

Panaji, Goa, in terminating the services of

Ms. Lata Naik, clerk, with effect from 6-10-99, is

legal and justified. The Party I, Smt. Lata Naik is

therefore not entitled to any relief.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1193

Notification

No. 28/9/2017-LAB/147

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tibunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

31-01-2017 in reference No. IT/63/12 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/63/12

Workmen,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda, Goa.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Wallace Pharmaceutical

Pvt. Ltd.,

Nirancal Road, Curti,

Ponda-Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri H.

Shirodkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.

S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 31st day of the month of

January of the year 2017)

By Order dated 04-12-2012, bearing No. 28/37/

/2012-Lab/652, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Wallace Pharmaceutical Private

Limited, Curti, Ponda, Goa, in deducting

the one day wages of 16-05-2012 from the

wage period May, 2012, of all workmen who

were on roll as on 16-05-2012, is legal and

justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/63/12 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 4 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that vide

Notification dated 7-5-2012 the State Government

declared 16-05-2012 as Public Holiday being Polling

day for the General Election of the Gram Panchayat.

The said holiday shall be paid in addition to the

holiday declared vide Notification dated 3-10-2011.

The Party II however illegally deducted one day

wages of 16-5-2012. The Union vide letter dated

28-6-2012 informed the management that the State

Government had declared 16-5-2012 as Public

holiday with full wages and hence, the action of

the management to deduct one day wages from

the salary for the month of June 2012 is illegal and

bad in law. The Party I workmen had legally

enjoyed the declared paid holiday and hence, they

are entitled for salary for the said day.

4. In the written statement, the Party II has stated

that Party I has no locus standi to raise the dispute.

The Party II has not deducted wages of any of the

workmen as mentioned in the order of reference.

The Government of Goa has no jurisdiction to issue

such a Notification and therefore the reference

ought to be rejected.

5. The Party I filed a Rejoinder at Exhibit 6

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

6. Issues framed are at Exhibit 9.

7. It is a matter of record that the workmen were

represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh at

the time the dispute was referred to the Tribunal,

however by letter dated 27-11-2013 the said

workmen resigned from the membership of

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and by letter dated

28-11-2013 they joined the Goa Union of Industrial

Workers. It is claimed that 50 of the workmen earlier

employed by Party II by letter dated 29-9-2016

resigned from the membership of Goa Union of

Industrial Workers and decided to discuss directly

with the management through their duly elected

representatives along with Adv. G. B. Kamat and at

the time of signing of the settlement, 3 out of 50

workmen had already retired from the service and

were given benefits. The said 47 workers who

resigned from the above Union and settled the

matter filed an application dated 19-1-2017 along

with copy of Settlement dated 25-11-2016 under

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1194

Section 2(p) read with 18(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 at Exb. 29 colly and prayed that

an award be passed in terms of Settlement dated

25-11-2016.

8. The Terms of Settlement dated 25-11-2016 filed

by workmen/Party I and the Employer/Party II are

as follows:

A) It is agreed between the parties that all the

workmen shall be paid the amount

mentioned in the annexure A to the

settlement in full and final settlement of all

their claims arising out of their employment,

various references, complaints, disputes

pending before the Industrial Tribunal at

Panaji, Deputy Labour Commissioner and

other authorities and they shall have no

further claims of whatsoever nature against

the Company of any further compensation/

/benefit which can be computed in terms

of money and/or any claim of re-instatement

or re-employment or fresh employment in

the Company or any of its associate

concerns at any of its places of business

including Ponda or anywhere else

irrespective of any other developments in

the Company or decisions of the Company

or any other decision/judgment/award of

any Court, Tribunal or Government

authority.

B) It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen shall accept the amount

mentioned in Annexure A to the settlement

which shall include leave encashment,

retrenchment compensation, ex-gratia,

Bonus, Gratuity and all their statutory dues,

etc. in full and final satisfaction of all their

claims arising out of their employment.

C) It is further specifically agreed between the

parties that all the workmen covered by

this settlement and accepting the benefits

as mentioned in Annexure A shall not

obstruct/interfere in any way with the

activities of the Company including seeking

any employment afresh or otherwise, either

in Goa or Nalagarh or any other place of the

Company’s business and it is clearly

understood by the workmen that they are

voluntarily accepting the settlement

benefits as per Annexure A. Each workman

covered by this settlement shall individually

give a declaration that he/she is accepting

the settlement voluntarily and he/she shall

have no claim including any claim of re-

instatement or re-employment in the

Company or any of its associate concerns at

any place of business and he/she will get

only benefits under this settlement which

can be computed in terms of money.

D) It is agreed between the parties that this

settlement shall be produced before various

authorities including before Deputy Labour

Commissioner and sent for registration

under relevant rules and a copy of the

settlement shall be placed before the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal at Panaji for

disposing of the matters in references nos.

IT/63/12, IT/40/13, IT/28/14 and Complaint

No. C-IT/20/16, etc. and granting an award

in terms of settlement.

E) It is agreed between the parties that money

arising out of the settlement shall be paid

to the workmen by cheque and/or by

transferring the said money to individual

Saving Bank Account of the workmen on or

before 9-12-2016. It is clearly understood

that income tax, as applicable, will be

deducted from the amounts paid under this

settlement. In so far as the settlement of

Provident Fund dues is concerned, the

Company shall assist the workmen to submit

their forms to the Provident Fund

Authorities after they are duly filled in and

signed by the workmen.

F) The benefits of this settlement shall be

given to the workmen who accept the terms

and conditions of this settlement in toto. It

is agreed by and between the parties that

an amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be deducted

from the amount paid to each worker and

handed

over

the

five

elected

representatives and the cheque to that

effect shall be drawn in favour of Menino

Lourenco.

9. The above terms of settlement are signed by

Shri Eurico Noronha, Vice President-Human

Resources and Shri Nilesh Amonkar, Dy. General

Manager-Plant of Party II and S/Shri Alfred

Andrade, Rohidas P. Naik, Menino S. Lourenco,

Minguel Fernandes, Prakash G. Guade of Party I, so

also by Ld. Adv. Shri G. B. Kamat representing the

Workmen.

10. It is also a matter of record that 30 workmen

of Goa Union of Industrial Workers represented by

Adv. Hrudaynath Shirodkar filed an application

dated 19-1-2017 along with the Settlement dated

19-01-2017 under Section 2(p) read with 18(1) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at Exb. 30 colly

and prayed that an award be passed in terms of

settlement dated 19-01-2017.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1195

11. The Terms of Settlement dated 19-01-2017

filed by workmen/Party I represented by Goa Union

of Industrial Workers and the Employer/Party II are

as follows:

A) It is agreed between the parties that all the

workmen shall be paid the amount

mentioned in the Annexure A to the

settlement in full and final settlement of all

their claims arising out of their employment,

various references, complaints, disputes

pending before the Industrial Tribunal at

Panaji, Deputy Labour Commissioner and

other authorities and they shall have no

further claims of whatsoever nature against

the Company of any further compensation/

/benefit which can be computed in terms

of money and/or any claim of re-instatement

or re-employment or fresh employment in

the Company or any of its associate

concerns at any of its places of business

including Ponda or anywhere else

irrespective of any other developments in

the Company or decisions of the Company

or any other decision/judgment/award of

any Court, Tribunal or Government

authority.

B) It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen shall accept the amount

mentioned in Annexure A to the settlement

which shall include leave encashment and

all their statutory dues such as Bonus,

Gratuity, etc. in full and final satisfaction of

all their claims arising out of their

employment. The Company shall have no

objection if the workmen take any

additional benefits available under schemes

drawn up by the Goa Labour Welfare Fund

and

Employee’s

State

Insurance

Corporation. In any event, nothing shall be

due and payable by the Company to the

workmen other than what is mentioned in

Annexure A to this settlement and this

settlement is in full and final satisfaction of

all demands of whatsoever nature of the

workmen on the Company.

C) It is further specifically agreed between the

parties that all the workmen covered by

this settlement and accepting the benefits

as mentioned in Annexure A shall not

obstruct/interfere in any way with the

activities of the Company including seeking

any employment afresh or otherwise, either

in Goa or Nalagarh or any other place of the

Company’s business and it is clearly

understood by the workmen that they are

voluntarily accepting the settlement

benefits as per Annexure A. Each workman

covered by this settlement shall individually

give a declaration that he/she is accepting

the settlement voluntarily and he/she shall

have no claim including any claim of re-

instatement or re-employment in the

Company or any of its associate concerns at

any place of business and he/she will get

only benefits under this settlement which

can be computed in terms of money.

D) It is agreed between the parties that this

settlement shall be produced before various

authorities including before Deputy Labour

Commissioner and sent for registration

under relevant rules and a copy of the

settlement shall be placed before the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal at Panaji for

disposing of the matters in references Nos.

IT/63/12, IT/40/13, IT/28/14 and Complaint

No. C-IT/20/16, etc. and granting an award

in terms of settlement.

E) It is agreed between the parties that money

arising out of the settlement shall be paid

to the workmen by cheque and/or by

transferring the said money to individual

Saving Bank Account of the workmen on or

before 28-1-2017. It is clearly understood

that income tax, as applicable, will be

deducted from the amounts paid under this

settlement. In so far as the settlement of

Provident Fund dues is concerned, the

Company shall assist the workmen to submit

their forms to the Provident Fund

Authorities after they are duly filled in and

signed by the workmen.

F) The benefits of this settlement shall be

given to the workmen who accept the terms

and conditions of this settlement in toto. It

is agreed by and between the parties that

an amount of Rs. 3,000/- each shall be

deducted from the amount due to each

worker and handed over to the Union and

the cheque shall be drawn in favour of Goa

Union of Industrial Workers.

12. The above terms of settlement are signed by

Shri Eurico Noronha, Vice President-Human

Resources of Party II and S/Shri Tukaram Adpaikar-

President, Jagannath Gaonkar-Secretary, Ramnath

Guade- Treasurer, John Fernandes-Member,

Vaman Madkaikar-Member of Party I, so also Ld.

Adv. Shri Hrudaynath Shirodkar, General Secretary

of Goa Union of Industrial Workers representing

the Workmen.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1196

13. I have gone through the records of the case

and the terms of settlements filed at Exhibit 29

colly and Exhibit 30 colly in the above case and I

am convinced that the above Settlements dated

25-11-2016 and 19-01-2017 filed by the parties are

just and fair and are in the interest of the Workmen/

/Party I and Employer/Party II and therefore, the

same are accepted.

14. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in view of

the terms of settlements filed by the parties

at Exhibit 29 colly and Exhibit 30 colly.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/9/2017-LAB/149

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

31-01-2017 in reference No. IT/1/2015 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/1/2015

Workmen,

Rep. by the President,

Goa Municipal Workers Union,

C/o. Shri G. S. Naik,

Bishop Building, 1st floor,

St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403 001

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

The Commissioner,

Corporation of the City of Panaji,

Panaji, Goa-403 001

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri C. J.

Mane.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.

Kamat.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 31st day of the month of

January of the year 2017)

By Order dated 01-01-2015 bearing No. 28/43/

/2014-Lab/760, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1)

Whether the demand of the Union namely,

Goa Municipal Workers’ Union, for payment

of wages to the following 10 casual workers,

during the discontinuation in employment

from 16-03-2011 to 14-11-2011 and demand

for regularization of services with

continuity in employment, is legal and

justified?

(i) Shri Uday Shirodkar.

(ii) Shri Umesh Mashelkar.

(iii) Shri Sanjeev Vernekar.

(iv) Shri Durgadas Kundaikar.

(v) Shri Shyam Mashelkar.

(vi) Shri Kasturi Kudchadkar.

(vii) Shri Mahadev Kankonkar.

(viii) Shri Anita Talwar.

(ix) Shri Bharat Mandrekar.

(x) Shri Ashok Kambli.

(2)

If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/01/15 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 5 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 7.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

Workmen/Party I are in employment of Party II for

last more than 5 years as daily wage workers and

were engaged on perennial type of work which

they are performing except the arbitrary break

given to them for the period between 16-3-2011 to

14-11-2011 under order No. 249/2011 dated

16-3-2011. The Party I workmen vide their

application requested Party II to allow them to

perform their duties, however no reply was given

by Party II to their application as a result they

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1197

remained out of employment. The Union vide its

letter dated 29-3-2011 raised an industrial dispute

before the competent authority for redressal of their

grievances as continuing a person for a long

duration without granting permanent status in the

service notwithstanding existence of permanent

nature of work amounts to unfair labour practice.

4. It is also the case of Party I/Workmen that the

arbitrary discontinuance from service was punitive

in nature having been effected without holding an

enquiry which is violative of principle of natural

justice and their Constitutional rights. The Union

vide its letter dated 25-4-2011 addressed to the

Commissioner, Labour informed that the action of

Party II is an act of unfair labour practice since it

is in violation of provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G

of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workers were

taken back in employment by Party II as per the

understanding reached between them in which

the minutes of understanding were signed. The

employment with Party II was of the perennial

nature and the same has not been regularized. The

order dated 16-3-2011 does not disclose any reason

for discontinuance of their service while the

persons junior to them were allowed to continue

their services. The non-regularization of the

services when work is available is an unfair labour

practice. The Party I workmen is therefore entitled

for relief claimed.

5. In the written statement, the Party II has

stated that Party I has not taken any resolution to

espouse the cause of the workmen; the Party I has

no locus standi to raise the dispute as the workers

were not the members of the Union; the Party I has

not espoused the cause of the said workmen for

regularization of their services; there is no demand

made by Party I for regularization of the workers

mentioned in the schedule to the order of

reference. It is also the case of the Party II that the

Party II is a Corporation and is engaged in the

work of collection, transportation, dumping and

disposal of garbage, etc. The regular process of

recruitment for appointment has to be resorted to,

when regular vacancies in posts, at the particular

point of time are to be filled up and the filling up

of such vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard

manner or based on patronage or other

considerations. The casual workers accepted the

employment knowing fully well that their

employment is temporary or casual and have no

right for regularization.

6. The Party II has the sanctioned posts and has

its own Recruitment Rules in force. The recruitment

of additional labour force beyond sanctioned posts

is met by engaging the labour on casual, temporary

and contract basis and such labour is not

appointed by following the due process of law and

as such the Party I/Workmen has no right for

regularization or permanency. The Party I/workmen

were amongst other workers appointed on daily

wage basis from time to time on fixed terms and

their engagement was extended depending upon

the need of such workers. The issue of

discontinuation of services of said workers was

taken up in the council meeting and it was decided

to re-engage said 10 workers. The Assistant Labour

Commissioner and Conciliation Officer intervened

in the matter and held various meetings between

the parties and after discussions, the dispute was

settled on 11-11-2011 and all the said workers were

re-engaged in service as “daily wage workers”

w.e.f. 14-11-2011 vide Order No. 505/2011 dated

11-11-2011 and they were specifically informed that

they will not be entitled for any wages from

16-3-2011 to 13-11-2011 but their seniority will be

maintained from the date of joining the Corporation.

The said workers accepted the said order and

reported for work from 14-11-2011 as daily wage

workers. The said workers were purely casual

workers engaged on daily wage basis and such

engagements do not create any right for their

regularization. None of the said workers are

fulfilling the conditions specified in the

Recruitment Rules of Party II and therefore the

workers are not entitled for any reliefs.

7. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 8

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement. It is stated that they are the members

of Goa Municipal Workers Union without payment

of any fees to the Union. Their services were hired

for perennial type of job with full knowledge of

permanency in regular posts after completion of

240 days of continuous service and their

recruitment was done in accordance with

procedure set up by law. The Party I/workmen were

not recruited due to exigency of work but on

perennial type of job which they are performing

since the day of employment continuously. The

Party II has regularized the services of those workers

who were junior to them. The Party I workmen are

entitled to receive wages for the period of illegal

discontinuance as it was in violation of section

25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

8. Issues framed at Exhibit 10 are as follows:

1) Whether the Party I proves that they are

in employment of Party II for last more

than 5 years as daily wage workers

engaged on perennial work except for

the period of arbitrary break for the period

from 16-3-11 to 14-11-11?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1198

2) Whether the Party I proves that

discontinuance of service was in violation

of Sec. 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

3) Whether the Party I proves that inspite of

putting in more than 5 years service, they

are not regularized while persons junior

to them have been absorbed in service?

4) Whether the Party II proves that Party I

has no locus standi to raise this dispute as

the said workers were not the members of

Party I Union?

5) What relief? What Order?

9. The Party I workmen examined Shri Shyam

Mashelkar and Shri Uday Shirodkar and produced

on record a copy of Identity card of Shri Shyam

Mashelkar at Exb. 13, a copy of order No. 249/2011

of Corporation of the City of Panaji at Exb. 14, a

copy of letter addressed to the Commissioner of

Corporation of the City of Panaji at Exb. 15, a copy

of letter dated 4-9-2012 addressed to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner at Exb. 16, a copy of

Memorandum of Settlement at Exb. 17 and a copy

of Identity card of Shri Uday Shirodkar at Exb. 21.

On the other hand, Mrs. Anunciacao Bertha

Almeida was examined as witness of Party II and

she produced on record a copy of Recruitment Rules

at Exb. 24, a copy of Order No. 249/2011 dated

16-03-2011 at Exb. 25, a copy of order of

re-engagement No. 505/11 dated 11-11-2011 at

Exb. 26, a copy of Minutes of the Standing

Committee meeting held on 11-11-2011 at Exb. 27,

a copy of list of daily wages workers engaged by

then Municipal Council since 1995 at Exb. 28, in

support of her case.

10. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments

came to be placed on record by the Party II/Employer.

11. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answer to the above issues is as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

In the negative

Issue No. 2

…

In the negative

Issue No. 3

…

In the negative

Issue No. 4

…

In the affirmative

Issue No. 5

…

As per final order

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

12. Ld. Adv. Shri C. J. Mane for Party I/workmen

has submitted that the workmen are in employment

of Party II for the last more than 5 years as daily

wage workers without any appointment order and

were engaged on perennial type of work which

they are still performing except for the arbitrary

break given to them between 16-03-2011 to

14-11-2011. He further submitted that continuing a

person for a long duration without granting

permanent status in the service not withstanding

existence of permanent nature of work amounts to

unfair labour practice. He claimed that the

workman who has continuously worked for more

than 240 days in a year is entitled to protection

under Section 25-F and it cannot be denied on the

ground that he was daily rated workman and in

support thereof, he relied upon the case of Rattan

Singh vs. Union of India & Another, 1998 III LLJ

(Supp) 714. He further submitted that the

management is not entitled to seek any relief from

the Court if it has not complied with the legal/

/mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 while terminating services of a workman.

If a workman has completed 240 days continuous

service during the preceding 12 calendar months,

his termination without compliance of mandatory

provisions of the Act is illegal making the workman

entitled to re-instatement with back-wages. In

support, he relied upon the case of Jasmer Singh

vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2015 LLR 225.

13. There is no dispute that Party II is a

Municipal Corporation and is engaged in the work

of collection, transportation, dumping and disposal

of the garbage, etc. The Party I has examined Shri

Shyam Mashelkar and Shri Uday Shirodkar who

have claimed that they were in employment of

Party II for last more than 5 years as daily wage

workers and that their termination of services

during the period from 16-3-2011 to 14-11-2011 is

in contravention of Section 25-F and Section 25-G

of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Party II has

denied the contention of Party I that they were in

employment of Party II for more than 5 years and

that the action of Party II in discharging the services

of said workmen during the above period is in

violation of the provisions of the Act. The Party I

however have not adduced any evidence to show

that Party I had worked for 240 days continuously

preceding 12 months from the date of termination

dated 16-3-2011.

14. Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat relying upon the

case of The Range Forest Officer vs. S. T.

Hadimani, 2002 (93) FLR 179 has submitted that

it was for the Party I to adduce sufficient evidence

and documents to show the Party I had worked for

240 days preceding 16-3-2011, to claim violation of

Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the said Act. The

Apex Court on page 180, Para 2 has observed “in

our opinion, the tribunal was not right in placing

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1199

the onus on the Management without first

determining on the basis of cogent evidence that

the respondent had worked for more than 240 days

in a year preceding his termination. It was the

case of the claimant that he had so worked but

this claim was denied by the appellant. It was

then for the claimant to lead evidence to show

that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year

preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is

only his own statement in his favour and that

cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any

court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a

workman has in fact, worked for 240 days in a year.

No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days

or order or record of appointment or engagement

for this period was produced by the workman. On

this ground alone, the award is liable to be set

aside”.

15. The Party I have not produced on record any

attendance register maintained by Party II, the

appointment letter, the salary slip or identity card

to prove that they were in continuous service for

240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months

prior to the date of the termination. The witness

examined by Party II, Smt. Anunciacao Almeida

has stated that the workers were engaged

alongwith others as per exigencies of work in as

much as the very nature of operations carried out

by Party II required engagement of casual labour

on daily wages and that the services of said workers

were not required from 16-3-2011 as they were

purely casual workers engaged on daily wage

basis. There is nothing on record to dispute the

said fact nor there is any cogent evidence that the

Party I workman had worked for more than 240

days during the preceding 12 calendar months prior

to the date of their termination.

16. Mere filing of the affidavits cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence in the absence of

any proof mentioned above in support of said

contention and therefore it cannot be said that

Party I/workmen were in employment with Party II

for last more than 5 years as daily wage workers.

The reliance placed by Adv. Mane on the cases of

Ratan Singh and Jasmer Singh, supra cannot be

made applicable to the case at hand as the

workmen had not proved that they had

continuously worked for 240 days in a year

preceding their termination and therefore not

entitled to protection under the provision of the

Act. The case of Ratan and Jasmer Singh turns out

on their own facts as in those cases, the workmen

had completed 240 days continuous service during

the preceding 12 calendar months prior to their

termination, unlike in the present case and

therefore the above judgments cannot come to the

rescue of Party I. The Party I having failed to prove

that they were in employment with Party II for

more than 5 years as daily wage workers; the issue

No. 1 is answered in the negative.

Issue No. 2:

17. Discernibly, Under Section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act, no workman employed in any

industry who has been in continuous service for

not less than one year under an employer shall be

retrenched by that employer until—

(a)

the workman has been given one month’s

notice in writing indicating the reasons

for retrenchment and the period of notice

has expired, or the workman has been paid

in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice:

(b)

the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall

be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay

[for every completed year of continuous

service] or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

(c)

notice in the prescribed manner is served

on the appropriate Government [or such

authority as may be specified by the

appropriate Government by notification in

the Official Gazette.]

18. A little peep into Section 25-G of the

Industrial Disputes Act, which is the procedure for

retrenchment would indicate that where any

workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs

to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this

behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the

workmen who was the last person to be employed

in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded

the employer retrenches any other workman.

19. Needless to mention, the workmen/Party I

have failed to demonstrate that they were

employed with Party II and had completed 240

days continuous service during the 12 calendar

months preceding their termination on 16-3-2011

to claim violation of 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The Party I have also failed to show that they

have been retrenched, while persons junior to them

have been absorbed in service and therefore the

provision of 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act is

also not applicable to the case at hand. The

Party I/workmen therefore have failed to show by

cogent evidence that the Party II has violated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1200

Sections 25-F and 25–G of the Industrial Disputes

Act and therefore issue No. 2 is answered in

negative.

Issue No. 3:

20. Ld. Adv. Shri C. J. Mane for the Party I has

submitted that the workmen are not regularized

although they have put in more than 5 years of

service as daily wage workers. He further submitted

that non regularization of workmen when work is

available is an unfair labour practice. Relying upon

the case of Bhullar Nath Yadav and others vs.

Mayo Hall Sports Complex, Allahabad, and others,

1990, II LLN 946, he submitted that non-

regularization of the daily wage employees due to

paucity of funds or absence of sanctioned post

cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of

regularization to the employee. There is no

justification for not having a regular post when the

work is of permanent nature. He also submitted

that when daily wagers were doing same work of

permanent nature as was being done by

permanent workers for same working hours, paying

less wages and other benefits to daily wagers in

comparison to permanent employees is practicing

unfair labour practice and therefore it would be

appropriate to treat the services of daily wagers as

permanent. In support, he relied upon the case of

Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. The Secretary,

Municipal Employees’ Union & Ors., 2015 LLR

449.

21. Admittedly, Party II is a Public body and the

employment in the Party II is a Public employment

and has to be made in terms of Constitutional

Scheme and the vacancies of regular nature are to

be filled up as per the Recruitment Rules of the

Party I. Exhibit 24 are the Recruitment Rules. There

cannot be any dispute that when statutory rules

are framed, the appointments are to be made based

on the said rules and Party II cannot give a go-by

to the procedures to be followed in case of Public

employment. The Party II is a Municipal Corporation

of City of Panaji and the procedure for appointment

is provided under section 73(1) of the Municipality

Act, 1968 according to which a Council may, with

the sanction of the Director, create such posts of

officers and servants other than those specified in

Sub-Section (1) & (2). Sub-Section (2) provides that

the qualification, pay, allowances and other

conditions of service and method of recruitment of

any such officer and servants shall be determined

by general or special order made by the Director in

this behalf. A Director in terms of Section 2(11)

means a person appointed by the Government to

be the Director of Urban Development. It therefore

follows that the posts of officers/servants can be

created only by the Director of Urban Development

of Government of Goa and not by Party II/employer.

22. There is also no dispute that Party II has 75

sanctioned posts of road workers, 70 posts of

sweepers, 10 posts of watchmen, 9 posts of

scavengers, 2 posts of cemetery workers and 16

posts of supervisors and the said fact has not be

denied by Party I in their rejoinder. The above posts

have been filled by the Party II/employer by

following the set procedures. Needless to mention,

the Party II does not have the power to appoint

additional servants beyond sanctioned posts unless

such posts are approved by the Director as required

under section 73(1) of the Municipality Act. The

witness of Party II, Smt. Anunciacao has stated in

her affidavit in evidence that additional

requirement of servants is met by Party II by

engaging the labour on casual, temporary, daily or

contract basis and such workers are not recruited

by following due process of law.

23. Both the witnesses of Party I have admitted

in the cross examination that all the workmen who

are involved in the reference are daily wagers and

they have been discontinued from services from

16-03-2011. The Party II has no power to recruit

workers without the posts being sanctioned by

the Director of Urban Development. The daily

wagers or temporaries therefore do not acquire

any right for regularization when no recruitment

process is carried out by the Director. Ld. Adv. Shri

P. J. Kamat has submitted and rightly so that if the

appointment is not made in accordance Section 73

(1) of the Municipality Act, 1968 the same would

be ab-initio void and there cannot be any claim for

its regularization or for grant of permanency in any

manner. Mere working of the workers for number

of years cannot and does not enable a worker to

claim permanency or regularization, if there are no

posts created and sanctioned by the Director of

Urban Development.

24. It is also well settled by the Constitution

Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Secretary,

State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.,

2006 (II) CLR 261 that when appointments are

temporary, casual or contractual in nature, such a

person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate

expectation for being confirmed in the post when

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1201

the appointment to the post can only be made by

following a proper procedure for selection and

in Para 38, the Apex Court has observed as

follows:

38. When a person enters a temporary

employment or gets engagement as a contractual

or casual worker and the engagement is not

based on a proper selection as recognised by

the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of

the consequences of the appointment being

temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such

a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate

expectation for being confirmed in the post

when an appointment to the post could be made

only by following a proper procedure for selection

and in concerned cases, in consultation with

the Public Service Commission. Therefore the

theory of legitimate expectation cannot be

successfully advanced by temporary contractual

or casual employees. It cannot also be held that

the State has held out any promise while

engaging these persons either to continue them

where they are or to make them permanent. The

State cannot constitutionally make such a

promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot

be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made

permanent in the post.

25. There is no dispute that Party I/workmen

were casual workers and their engagement were

not done based on proper selection as per the rules.

It is also not in dispute that clause 1 of the

Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-10-1996 at

exhibit 17 stipulates that Party II had agreed in

principle to form a ‘pool’ in respect of daily rated

workers/employees and to regularize the services

of those daily rated workers who have completed

240 days of continuous service in the Council

subject to the condition that the workers fulfill the

requirements of the posts as specified in the

Recruitment Rules at Exb. 24. There is no evidence

with respect to the formation of the ‘pool’ of daily

wage workers of those who have completed 240

days of continuous service. The Party I have not

proved that a ‘pool’ was formed as per the

settlement and that they had completed 240 days

of continuous service prior to their termination or

that there are regular posts of sweepers sanctioned

by the Director under the Act and that they are

eligible for regularization. It is also not possible to

shut eyes to the Constitutional Scheme and the

right of other workmen who are not before the

Court. There is no dispute that the appointment of

Party I workmen has not been done by the

following the Settlement dated 10-10-1996 at exhibit

17 and the Recruitment Rules at Exb. 24 or under

Section 73 of the Municipality Act and therefore

they cannot invoke for regularization of their

services. The reliance placed on the case of

(1) Bhullar Nath Yadav and others and (2) Umrala

Gram Panchayat, supra are not applicable to the

case at hand in view of section 73(1) of the

Municipality Act and the authority of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Umadevi, supra where

it has been clearly held that the Courts must be

careful to ensure that they do not interfere unduly

with economic arrangement of its affairs by the

State or lend themselves the instruments to

facilitate the by-passing of the Constitutional and

Statutory mandates. In view of above discussions,

issue No. 3 is answered in negative.

Issue No. 4:

26. Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat has submitted that

Party I has no locus standi to raise the dispute of

the said workers as they were not the members of

Party I Union and that Party I has not espoused the

cause of said workmen for regularization of the

service nor taken any resolution to espouse the

cause of the workmen nor made any demand for

regularization of the said workmen. He also claimed

that the Party I has not denied Para 2 of the written

statement where Party II has taken the above stands

but merely stated that the said workmen are the

members of the said Union without payment of any

union fees to the Union.

27. The Party II had denied that Party I workmen

were the members of the Union. The Party I has

stated in reply to Para 2 of the written statement

that the workmen are the members of Party I/Union

without payment of union fees to the Union. The

Party I have not produced either the Minutes book

of the Party I for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 or

the Bye-laws of Party I Union to prove that they are

the members of the Union and have been paying

the fees. Undoubtedly, under Section 6 of the Trade

Unions Act, 1926 a trade union shall not be entitled

to registration under the Act, unless the executive

thereof is constituted in accordance with the

provisions of the Act and the Rules thereof fulfilling

the requirement of the said section. Moreover,

under Sub-section (ee) of Section 6, the members of

the trade Union shall pay minimum subscription

which shall not be less than- (i) one rupee per

annum for rural workers; (ii) three rupees per

annum for workers in other unorganized sectors;

and (iii) twelve rupees per annum for workers in

any other case. The contention of Party I that the

said workers were the members of Union without

payment of any union fees to the Union therefore

cannot be believed. No membership register has

been produced. The Claim statement and the

Rejoinder have also not signed by the Party I/Union

and therefore, it can be safely said that Party I/

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1202

/Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute as

the workers are not the members of Party I/Union.

It is therefore issue No. 4 is answered in the

affirmative.

28. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the demand of the

Union namely, Goa Municipal Workers’

Union, for payment of wages to the 10 casual

workers referred above, during the

discontinuation in employment from

16-03-2011 to 14-11-2011 and demand for

regularization of services with continuity

in employment, are illegal and unjustified?

2. No order as to costs.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court

________

Notification

No. 28/9/2017-LAB/150

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

31-01-2017 in reference No. IT/28/14 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/28/14

M/s. Wallace Pharmaceutical

Pvt. Ltd.,

Nirancal Road, Curti

Ponda-Goa (403 401)

… Employer/Party I

V/s

The General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Reg. No. 186,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda, Goa, 403 401 … Workmen/Party II(1)

The General Secretary,

Goa Union of Industrial Workers,

Affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

Kamakshi Krupa, Khadpabandh,

Ponda, Goa 403 401.

… Workmen/Party II(2)

Employer/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.

Bandodkar.

None represent for Workmen/Party II(1).

Workmen/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv.

Shri H. Shirodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 31st day of the month of

January of the year 2017)

By Order dated 10-11-2014, bearing No. 28/34/

/2014-Lab/642, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1)

Whether the claim of the management of

M/s. Wallace Pharmaceuticals Private

Limited, regarding loss of production to

the extent of Rs. 2.31 Crores for the period

from 29-05-2013 to 10-07-2013 could be

construed as an ‘industrial dispute’ within

the meaning of section 2(k) 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, what relief the

management is entitled to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/28/14 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 3 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Employer/Party I is

that the Party I began as a joint venture in Goa and

has signed several settlements with the workers

who were more than 100 in number. It is clear from

the Settlement dated 5-4-2010 that the workmen

were bound to give particular production as per

the norms and practices. However, the workmen at

the instigation of the Union started violating the

specific terms and conditions of the settlement

due to which company started losing heavily every

day. All the workmen who were the members of

the Union refused to do their work inspite of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1203

specific instructions. The Company by its letter

dated 10-6-2013 raised an industrial dispute in

connection with specific loss of production made

by the workmen. The workers caused loss to the

tune of 2.31 Crores to the Company for which they

are solely responsible and are required to pay to

the company along with interest. The action on

the part of the workmen is illegal, unjustified and

in breach of specific terms of the settlement. The

loss caused to the Company is tremendous. Hence,

the dispute.

4. In the written statement, the workmen/Party II

has stated that the claim for loss of production is

neither a dispute nor a difference within the

definition of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The management ought to have approached

the appropriate authority as against the alleged

non-implementation of the settlement or alleged

loss due to misconduct but on the other hand the

management has raised the issue wrongly as an

industrial dispute before the wrong forum.

5. It is a matter of record that the workmen were

represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh at

the time the dispute was referred to the Tribunal,

however by letter dated 27-11-2013 the said

workmen resigned from the membership of

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and by letter dated

28-11-2013 they joined the Goa Union of Industrial

Workers. It is a matter of record that 50 of the

workmen earlier employed by Party II by letter

dated 29-9-2016 resigned from the membership of

Goa Union of Industrial Workers and decided to

discuss directly with the management through

their duly elected representatives along with Adv.

G. B. Kamat and at the time of signing of the

settlement, 3 out of 50 workmen had already retired

from the service and were given benefits. The said

47 workers who resigned from the above Union

and settled the matter filed an application dated

19-1-2017 along with copy of Settlement dated

25-11-2016 under Section 2(p) read with 18(1) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at Exb. 9 colly

and prayed that an award be passed in terms of

Settlement dated 25-11-2016.

6. The Terms of Settlement dated 25-11-2016

filed by workmen/Party I and the Employer/Party II

are as follows:

A) It is agreed between the parties that all the

workmen shall be paid the amount

mentioned in the annexure A to the

settlement in full and final settlement of all

their claims arising out of their employment,

various references, complaints, disputes

pending before the Industrial Tribunal at

Panaji, Deputy Labour Commissioner and

other authorities and they shall have no

further claims of whatsoever nature against

the Company of any further compensation/

/benefit which can be computed in terms

of money and/or any claim of re-instatement

or re-employment or fresh employment in

the Company or any of its associate

concerns at any of its places of business

including Ponda or anywhere else

irrespective of any other developments in

the Company or decisions of the Company

or any other decision/judgment/award of

any Court, Tribunal or Government

authority.

B) It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen shall accept the amount

mentioned in Annexure A to the settlement

which shall include leave encashment,

retrenchment compensation, ex-gratia,

Bonus, Gratuity and all their statutory dues,

etc. in full and final satisfaction of all their

claims arising out of their employment.

C) It is further specifically agreed between the

parties that all the workmen covered by

this settlement and accepting the benefits

as mentioned in Annexure A shall not

obstruct/interfere in any way with the

activities of the Company including seeking

any employment afresh or otherwise, either

in Goa or Nalagarh or any other place of the

Company’s business and it is clearly

understood by the workmen that they are

voluntarily accepting the settlement

benefits as per Annexure A. Each workman

covered by this settlement shall individually

give a declaration that he/she is accepting

the settlement voluntarily and he/she shall

have no claim including any claim of re-

instatement or re-employment in the

Company or any of its associate concerns at

any place of business and he/she will get

only benefits under this settlement which

can be computed in terms of money.

D) It is agreed between the parties that this

settlement shall be produced before various

authorities including before Deputy Labour

Commissioner and sent for registration

under relevant rules and a copy of the

settlement shall be placed before the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal at Panaji for

disposing of the matters in references Nos.

IT/63/12, IT/40/13, IT/28/14 and Complaint

No. C-IT/20/16, etc. and granting an award

in terms of settlement.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1204

E) It is agreed between the parties that money

arising out of the settlement shall be paid

to the workmen by cheque and/or by

transferring the said money to individual

Saving Bank Account of the workmen on or

before 9-12-2016. It is clearly understood

that income tax, as applicable, will be

deducted from the amounts paid under this

settlement. In so far as the settlement of

Provident Fund dues is concerned, the

Company shall assist the workmen to submit

their forms to the Provident Fund

Authorities after they are duly filled in and

signed by the workmen.

F) The benefits of this settlement shall be

given to the workmen who accept the terms

and conditions of this settlement in toto. It

is agreed by and between the parties that

an amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be deducted

from the amount paid to each worker and

handed

over

the

five

elected

representatives and the cheque to that

effect shall be drawn in favour of Menino

Lourenco.

7. The above terms of settlement are signed by

Shri Eurico Noronha, Vice President-Human

Resources and Shri Nilesh Amonkar, Dy. General

Manager-Plant of Party II and S/Shri Alfred

Andrade, Rohidas P. Naik, Menino S. Lourenco,

Minguel Fernandes, Prakash G. Guade of Party I, so

also by Ld. Adv. Shri G. B. Kamat representing the

Workmen.

8. It is also a matter of record that 30 workmen

of Goa Union of Industrial Workers represented by

Adv. Hrudaynath Shirodkar filed an application

dated 19-1-2017 along with the Settlement dated

19-01-2017 under Section 2(p) read with 18(1) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at Exb. 10 colly

and prayed that an award be passed in terms of

settlement dated 19-01-2017.

9. The Terms of Settlement dated 19-01-2017 filed

by workmen/Party I represented by Goa Union of

Industrial Workers and the Employer/Party II are as

follows:

A) It is agreed between the parties that all the

workmen shall be paid the amount

mentioned in the Annexure A to the

settlement in full and final settlement of all

their claims arising out of their employment,

various references, complaints, disputes

pending before the Industrial Tribunal at

Panaji, Deputy Labour Commissioner and

other authorities and they shall have no

further claims of whatsoever nature against

the Company of any further compensation/

/benefit which can be computed in terms

of money and/or any claim of re-instatement

or re-employment or fresh employment in

the Company or any of its associate

concerns at any of its places of business

including Ponda or anywhere else

irrespective of any other developments in

the Company or decisions of the Company

or any other decision/judgment/award of

any Court, Tribunal or Government authority.

B) It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen shall accept the amount

mentioned in Annexure A to the settlement

which shall include leave encashment and

all their statutory dues such as Bonus,

Gratuity, etc. in full and final satisfaction of

all their claims arising out of their

employment. The Company shall have no

objection if the workmen take any

additional benefits available under schemes

drawn up by the Goa Labour Welfare

Fund and Employee’s State Insurance

Corporation. In any event, nothing shall be

due and payable by the Company to the

workmen other than what is mentioned in

Annexure A to this settlement and this

settlement is in full and final satisfaction of

all demands of whatsoever nature of the

workmen on the Company.

C) It is further specifically agreed between the

parties that all the workmen covered by

this settlement and accepting the benefits

as mentioned in Annexure A shall not

obstruct/interfere in any way with the

activities of the Company including seeking

any employment afresh or otherwise, either

in Goa or Nalagarh or any other place of the

Company’s business and it is clearly

understood by the workmen that they are

voluntarily accepting the settlement

benefits as per Annexure A. Each workman

covered by this settlement shall individually

give a declaration that he/she is accepting

the settlement voluntarily and he/she shall

have no claim including any claim of

re-instatement or re-employment in the

Company or any of its associate concerns at

any place of business and he/she will get

only benefits under this settlement which

can be computed in terms of money.

D) It is agreed between the parties that this

settlement shall be produced before various

authorities including before Deputy Labour

Commissioner and sent for registration

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1205

under relevant rules and a copy of the

settlement shall be placed before the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal at Panaji for

disposing of the matters in references nos.

IT/63/12, IT/40/13, IT/28/14 and Complaint

No. C-IT/20/16, etc. and granting an award

in terms of settlement.

E) It is agreed between the parties that money

arising out of the settlement shall be paid

to the workmen by cheque and/or by

transferring the said money to individual

Saving Bank Account of the workmen on or

before 28-1-2017. It is clearly understood

that income tax, as applicable, will be

deducted from the amounts paid under this

settlement. In so far as the settlement of

Provident Fund dues is concerned, the

Company shall assist the workmen to submit

their forms to the Provident Fund

Authorities after they are duly filled in and

signed by the workmen.

F) The benefits of this settlement shall be

given to the workmen who accept the terms

and conditions of this settlement in toto. It

is agreed by and between the parties that

an amount of Rs. 3,000/- each shall be

deducted from the amount due to each

worker and handed over to the Union and

the cheque shall be drawn in favour of Goa

Union of Industrial Workers.

10. The above terms of settlement are signed by

Shri Eurico Noronha, Vice President-Human

Resources of Party II and S/Shri Tukaram Adpaikar-

President, Jagannath Gaonkar-Secretary, Ramnath

Guade-Treasurer, John Fernandes-Member, Vaman

Madkaikar-Member of Party I, so also by Ld. Adv.

Shri Hrudaynath Shirodkar, General Secretary of

Goa Union of Industrial Workers representing the

Workmen.

11. I have gone through the records of the case

and the terms of settlements filed at Exhibit 9 colly

and Exhibit 10 colly in the above case and I am

convinced that the above Settlements dated

25-11-2016 and 19-01-2017 filed by the parties are

just and fair and are in the interest of the Employer/

/Party I and Workmen/Party II and therefore, the

same are accepted.

12. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in view of

the terms of settlements filed by the parties

at Exhibit 9 colly and Exhibit 10 colly.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court

________

Notification

No. 28/9/2017-LAB/151

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 24-01-2017 in reference

No. IT/05/2013 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.

________

LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. IT/05/2013

Shri Tanaji Ghadi.

C/o. V. T. Ghadia,

Daulwada,

Marcel-Goa.

… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Kadamba Transport

Corporation Ltd.,

Paraisa-de-Goa,

Alto-Porvorim-Goa

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri L. V.

Palekar.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri C. J.

Mane.

Panaji, Dated: 24-01-2017.

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 05-03-2013,

bearing No. 28/5/2013-Lab/111, referred the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1206

following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in turn

assigned the present dispute to this Labour

Court-II, vide her order dated 06-03-2013.

“(1)

Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd,

Panaji, Goa, in dismissing from service

Shri Tanaji V. Ghadi, Conductor, with effect

from 21-12-1995, is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/05/13 and registered

A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance

to the said notice, the Parties put in their

appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’), filed his statement of claim on

13-06-2013 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/

/Party II (for short, ‘Employer’) is a Corporation of

Government of Goa to cater with the needs of the

public as regards providing transport facilities to

the public at large. He stated that he joined in the

services of the Employer as a Conductor in the

year 1983. He stated that in the year 1989 and

1990, two charge-sheets were served upon him,

alleging shortage in the cash collected. He stated

that the enquiry was conducted as regards both

the charge-sheets by appointing Shri V. M. Naik,

Asstt. Traffic Superintendent (ATS) as Enquiry

Officer. He stated that during the course of enquiry,

on the first charge-sheet dated 17-08-1989 as well

as second charge-sheet dated 30-11-1990, the

charges of misconduct were never proved. He

stated that the General Manager of the Employer

however, without even considering his reply,

terminated his services on 21-12-1995. He stated

that a show-cause notice was issued to him in

November, 1995 for the charge-sheet dated

17-08-1989 and dated 30-11-1990, although the

enquiry into both these charge-sheets have been

concluded in the year 1992. He stated that as the

Employer did not respond to his representation

dated 23-11-1995, he raised an industrial dispute

before the Labour Commissioner, Panaji on

17-01-2012. He stated that the said industrial

dispute ended in failure, due to adamant stand of

the Employer.

3. He submitted that the delay in approaching

Labour Commissioner with the belief that one day,

the Employer would respond to his representation

and justice would be done to him. He stated that

since the date of his termination of service, he is

unemployed and could not succeed in getting

employment.

4. He contended that the enquiries conducted

in respect of charge-sheet dated 17-08-1989 and

charge-sheet dated 30-11-1990 were in a biased

manner in favour of the Employer. He submitted

that the Enquiry Officer was himself ATS and fully

involved in the case. He submitted that the

appointment of Shri V. M. Naik as Enquiry Officer

speaks of malafide intentions of the Employer. He

submitted that in both the charge-sheets, nothing

was proved against him. He submitted that the

findings of the Enquiry Officer were therefore

arbitrary and made without appreciating the

evidence on record. He submitted that both the

enquiries conducted against him were sham

enquiries in the eyes of law. He submitted that the

appointment of Shri V. M. Naik as Enquiry Officer

to conduct the enquiries in both the charge-sheets

is itself illegal as the checking staff has issued the

default notices to him and the report after checking

was sent to Shri V. M. Naik as their superior. He

therefore submitted that the aforesaid act on the

part of the Employer clearly shows the partisan

attitude of the Employer in appointing the Enquiry

Officer. The Workman therefore prayed that his

services be legalized and termination letter be

withdrawn and the services be restored with back

wages from the time of termination.

5. The Employer controverted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

02-08-2013. The Employer, as and by way of its

written statement, submitted that the present

dispute has been raised by the Workman after a

lapse of nearly seventeen years is not maintainable

due to delay and laches and hence the present

reference made by the Government is bad-in-law.

6. The Employer stated that the Workman joined

in its service as a conductor on 16-03-1985 and not

in the year 1983 as alleged by him. The Employer

admitted that two charge-sheets, one dated

17-08-1989 and another dated 30-11-1990 were

issued to the Workman and enquiries were

conducted in respect of both the charge-sheets by

appointing Shri V. M. Naik as Enquiry Officer. The

Employer submitted that the findings submitted

by the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence on

record and the same are in no way arbitrary. The

Employer stated that the services of the Workman

were terminated on the basis of proved misconduct

w.e.f. 21-12-1995. The Employer stated that since

the Workman was gainfully employed, he did not

raise any dispute pertaining to his termination of

service immediately and took nearly seventeen

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1207

years to raise the same. The Employer stated that

the past record of the Workman is not clean and

unblemished. The Employer submitted that in case

the enquiry is found to be defective, they should

be given an opportunity to lead additional

evidence to justify their action. The Employer finally

submitted that the termination of service of the

Workman is legal and justified and the Workman is

not entitled to any relief.

7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on

19-09-2013 at Exb. 08. The Workman, by way of his

Re-joinder confirms and reiterates all his

submissions, averments and statements made in

his Claim Statement to be true and correct and

denies all the statements, averments and

submissions made by the Employer in its Written

Statement, which are contrary to his Statement

and averments made in his Claim Statement. The

Workman submitted that he is uneducated,

illiterate and a rustic villager. He submitted that

he was not aware of the remedies available to him

against the illegal termination. He submitted that

having filed a representation dated 23-11-1995, he

bonafidely believed that the Employer would

consider his representation and take him in service

one day or the other. He submitted that he visited

the office of the Employer on several occasions on

his above referred representation. He submitted

that however, every time he was given to

understand that reply would be sent to him by

post.

8. Based on the pleadings filed by both the

parties herein above, this court framed the

following issues on 04-10-2013.

Whether a free, fair and impartial enquiry

was conducted against the Workman in

accordance with the principles of natural

justice?

Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the Workman vide charge-sheet

dated 17-08-1989 and charge-sheet dated

30-11-1990 have been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by acceptable

evidence?

Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that

the action of the Employer Corporation

in dismissing him from services w.e.f.

21-12-1995 is illegal and unjustified?

Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the present Order of Reference is not

maintainable and bad-in-law in view of

allegations made in para 8 and 9 of its

written statement?

Whether the Workman is entitled to any

relief?

What Order? What Award?

9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

: Does not arise.

(b) Issue No. 2

: Does not arise.

(d) Issue No. 4

: In the affirmative.

(e) Issue Nos. 5 & 6 : As per the final order.

REASONS

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.

Shri V. Palekar, appearing for the Workman as well

as Ld. Adv. Shri C. J. Mane, appearing for the

Employer. I have carefully perused the entire

records of the present case. I have also carefully

considered the various oral submissions made by

the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective

parties and is of the firm opinion as under.

10. Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:

Vide order dated 19-01-2017 passed in my

findings on the preliminary issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4,

I have come to the conclusion and held that the

present order of reference issued by the Govt. of

Goa is bad-in-law and not maintainable

and therefore the question of answering issue

Nos. 1 and 2 does not arise and the issue No. 4 is

therefore

answered

the

affirmative.

Consequently, the question of deciding issue as to

the legality and justifiability of the action of the

Employer Corporation in dismissing the Workman

from its services w.e.f. 21-12-1995 does not arise as

the reference does not survive. The issue No. 3 is

therefore answered accordingly. The Workman is

therefore not entitled to any relief. The issue No. 5

is therefore answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of the management

of M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Panaji, Goa, in dismissing from service

Shri Tanaji V. Ghadi, Conductor, with effect

from 21-12-1995, is legal and justified, does

not survive.

2. The Party-I, Shri. Tanaji V. Ghadi, Conductor,

is not entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to cost.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer

Labour Court-II

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1208

Notification

No. 28/9/2017-LAB/152

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

31-01-2017 in case No. C-IT/20/16 in reference

No. IT/40/13 is hereby published as required by

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 16th March, 2017.

_________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Case No. C-IT/20/16

Ref. No. IT/40/13

Workmen,

Rep. by the Local Committee

President,

Goa Union of Industrial Workers,

Ground Floor, Kamakshi Krupa,

Khadpaband,

Ponda-Goa 403 401.

… Complainant/Party I

V/s

M/s. Wallace Pharmaceutical

Pvt. Ltd.,

Nirankar Road,

Curti, Ponda-Goa.

Regd. Office:

2nd Floor, Dempo Trade Centre,

Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa.

… Respondent /Party II

Complainant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv.

Shri H. Shirodkar.

Respondent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv.

Shri M. S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 31st day of the month

of January of the year 2017)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant

under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (for short The Act).

2. In short, the case of the Complainant is that

they are the permanent workers of the Respondent

and were initially represented by the General

Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, however

upon reference of this dispute the workers resigned

from the Union and joined the Union of the

complainant. The workmen through their earlier

Union submitted Charter of Demands dated

1-2-2012 for enhancement of wages and for

alteration and addition of other service conditions

before the management and upon failure of bilateral

discussion sought intervention of Assistant Labour

Commissioner at Ponda where the matter ended in

failure. During the pendency of the proceedings,

the Respondent raised a dispute of alleged loss of

production. The complainant on many occasions

requested the Respondent to discuss and settle

the dispute amicably, however it was not settled.

The management on 10-10-2015 displayed a notice

informing the workers about the closure of the

factory at Ponda and transferred all the permanent

workers to Himachal Pradesh thereby refusing

employment. The action of the management

amounts to unfair labour practice by the employer.

The Complainant objected the said closure of

manufacturing activity and also about transfer of

all the permanent workers. The Respondent started

its activities at Ponda factory by employing contract

workers. The Deputy Labour Commissioner

intervened in the matter of closure, however there

was no fruitful discussion.

3. The Complainant thereafter approached the

Hon’ble High Court in which the Respondent

undertook to keep the notice dated 9-10-2015 in

abeyance. The action of the Respondent amounts

to closure and denial of employment. The sudden

transfer beyond the territorial jurisdiction in terms

of impugned order is an illegal method adopted by

the Respondent without following the process of

law. The management is not authorized to transfer

any permanent workmen outside Ponda which is

illegal and against the terms of Settlement dated

5-4-2010. The present transfer is punitive and issued

in colourable exercise of power and in

contravention of Section 33-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The management has altered the

conditions of service of the workmen during the

pendency of proceedings before the Industrial

Tribunal to their prejudice. The action of the

management is nothing but forceful transfer

contrary to law and against the interest of the

workmen. Hence, the complaint.

4. In the reply at Exhibit 4, the Respondent has

stated that it has not committed any breach

attracting Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The Respondent has not changed any

condition of service as alleged by the Complainant.

The matter arising out of the notice dated

9-10-2015 is pending before the Deputy Labour

Commissioner/Conciliation Officer and the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1209

cognizance of the complaint has been taken by the

said Officer and therefore the Industrial Tribunal

cannot take cognizance of the said matter. The

management has not transferred any of the

employees. The complainant is not entitled for any

relief.

5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 6.

6. It is a matter of record that 50 of the workmen

earlier employed by Party II by letter dated

29-9-2016 resigned from the membership of Goa

Union of Industrial Workers and decided to discuss

directly with the management through their duly

elected representatives along with Adv. G. B. Kamat

and at the time of signing of the settlement, 3 out

of 50 workmen had already retired from the service

and were given benefits. The said 47 workers who

resigned from the above Union and settled the

matter filed an application dated 19-1-2017 along

with copy of Settlement dated 25-11-2016 under

Section 2(p) read with 18(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 at Exb. 12 colly and prayed that

an award be passed in terms of Settlement dated

25-11-2016.

7. The Terms of Settlement dated 25-11-2016 filed

by workmen/Party I and the Employer/Party II are

as follows:

A) It is agreed between the parties that all the

workmen shall be paid the amount

mentioned in the annexure A to the

settlement in full and final settlement of all

their claims arising out of their employment,

various references, complaints, disputes

pending before the Industrial Tribunal at

Panaji, Deputy Labour Commissioner and

other authorities and they shall have no

further claims of whatsoever nature against

the Company of any further compensation/

/benefit which can be computed in terms of

money and/or any claim of re-instatement

or re-employment or fresh employment in

the Company or any of its associate

concerns at any of its places of business

including Ponda or anywhere else

irrespective of any other developments in

the Company or decisions of the Company

or any other decision/judgment/award of

any Court, Tribunal or Government

authority.

B) It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen shall accept the amount

mentioned in Annexure A to the settlement

which shall include leave encashment,

retrenchment compensation, ex-gratia,

Bonus, Gratuity and all their statutory dues,

etc. in full and final satisfaction of all their

claims arising out of their employment.

C) It is further specifically agreed between the

parties that all the workmen covered by

this settlement and accepting the benefits

as mentioned in Annexure A shall not

obstruct/interfere in any way with the

activities of the Company including seeking

any employment afresh or otherwise, either

in Goa or Nalagarh or any other place of the

Company’s business and it is clearly

understood by the workmen that they are

voluntarily accepting the settlement

benefits as per Annexure A. Each workman

covered by this settlement shall individually

give a declaration that he/she is accepting

the settlement voluntarily and he/she shall

have no claim including any claim of

re-instatement or re-employment in the

Company or any of its associate concerns at

any place of business and he/she will get

only benefits under this settlement which

can be computed in terms of money.

D. It is agreed between the parties that this

settlement shall be produced before various

authorities including before Deputy Labour

Commissioner and sent for registration

under relevant rules and a copy of the

settlement shall be placed before the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal at Panaji for

disposing of the matters in references Nos.

IT/63/12, IT/40/13, IT/28/14 and Complaint

No. C-IT/20/16, etc. and granting an award

in terms of settlement.

E) It is agreed between the parties that money

arising out of the settlement shall be paid

to the workmen by cheque and/or by

transferring the said money to individual

Saving Bank Account of the workmen on or

before 9-12-2016. It is clearly understood

that income tax, as applicable, will be

deducted from the amounts paid under this

settlement. In so far as the settlement of

Provident Fund dues is concerned, the

Company shall assist the workmen to submit

their forms to the Provident Fund

Authorities after they are duly filled in and

signed by the workmen.

F) The benefits of this settlement shall be

given to the workmen who accept the terms

and conditions of this settlement in toto. It

is agreed by and between the parties that

an amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be deducted

from the amount paid to each worker and

handed

over

the

five

elected

representatives and the cheque to that

effect shall be drawn in favour of Menino

Lourenco.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1210

8. The above terms of settlement are signed by

Shri Eurico Noronha, Vice President-Human

Resources and Shri Nilesh Amonkar, Dy. General

Manager-Plant of Party II and S/Shri Alfred

Andrade, Rohidas P. Naik, Menino S. Lourenco,

Minguel Fernandes, Prakash G. Guade of Party I, so

also by Ld. Adv. Shri G. B. Kamat representing the

Workmen.

9. It is also a matter of record that 30 workmen

of Goa Union of Industrial Workers represented by

Adv. Hrudaynath Shirodkar filed an application

dated 19-1-2017 along with the Settlement dated

19-01-2017 under Section 2(p) read with 18(1) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at Exb. 13 colly

and prayed that an award be passed in terms of

settlement dated 19-01-2017.

10. The Terms of Settlement dated 19-01-2017

filed by workmen/Party I represented by Goa Union

of Industrial Workers and the Employer/Party II are

as follows:

A) It is agreed between the parties that all the

workmen shall be paid the amount

mentioned in the Annexure A to the

settlement in full and final settlement of all

their claims arising out of their employment,

various references, complaints, disputes

pending before the Industrial Tribunal at

Panaji, Deputy Labour Commissioner and

other authorities and they shall have no

further claims of whatsoever nature against

the Company of any further compensation/

/benefit which can be computed in terms

of money and/or any claim of re-instatement

or re-employment or fresh employment in

the Company or any of its associate

concerns at any of its places of business

including Ponda or anywhere else

irrespective of any other developments in

the Company or decisions of the Company

or any other decision/judgment/award of

any Court, Tribunal or Government

authority.

B) It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen shall accept the amount

mentioned in Annexure A to the settlement

which shall include leave encashment and

all their statutory dues such as Bonus,

Gratuity, etc. in full and final satisfaction of

all their claims arising out of their

employment. The Company shall have no

objection if the workmen take any

additional benefits available under schemes

drawn up by the Goa Labour Welfare

Fund and Employee’s State Insurance

Corporation. In any event, nothing shall be

due and payable by the Company to the

workmen other than what is mentioned in

Annexure A to this settlement and this

settlement is in full and final satisfaction of

all demands of whatsoever nature of the

workmen on the Company.

C) It is further specifically agreed between the

parties that all the workmen covered by

this settlement and accepting the benefits

as mentioned in Annexure A shall not

obstruct/interfere in any way with the

activities of the Company including seeking

any employment afresh or otherwise, either

in Goa or Nalagarh or any other place of the

Company’s business and it is clearly

understood by the workmen that they are

voluntarily accepting the settlement

benefits as per Annexure A. Each workman

covered by this settlement shall individually

give a declaration that he/she is accepting

the settlement voluntarily and he/she shall

have no claim including any claim of

re-instatement or re-employment in the

Company or any of its associate concerns at

any place of business and he/she will get

only benefits under this settlement which

can be computed in terms of money.

D) It is agreed between the parties that this

settlement shall be produced before various

authorities including before Deputy Labour

Commissioner and sent for registration

under relevant rules and a copy of the

settlement shall be placed before the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal at Panaji for

disposing of the matters in references Nos.

IT/63/12, IT/40/13, IT/28/14 and Complaint

no. C-IT/20/16, etc. and granting an award

in terms of settlement.

E) It is agreed between the parties that money

arising out of the settlement shall be paid

to the workmen by cheque and/or by

transferring the said money to individual

Saving Bank Account of the workmen on or

before 28-1-2017. It is clearly understood

that income tax, as applicable, will be

deducted from the amounts paid under this

settlement. In so far as the settlement of

Provident Fund dues is concerned, the

Company shall assist the workmen to submit

their forms to the Provident Fund

Authorities after they are duly filled in and

signed by the workmen.

F) The benefits of this settlement shall be

given to the workmen who accept the terms

and conditions of this settlement in toto. It

is agreed by and between the parties that

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1211

an amount of Rs. 3,000/- each shall be

deducted from the amount due to each

worker and handed over to the Union and

the cheque shall be drawn in favour of Goa

Union of Industrial Workers.

11. The above terms of settlement are signed by

Shri Eurico Noronha, Vice President-Human

Resources of Party II and S/Shri Tukaram Adpaikar-

-President, Jagannath Gaonkar-Secretary, Ramnath

Guade- Treasurer, John Fernandes-Member, Vaman

Madkaikar-Member of Party I, so also by Ld. Adv.

Shri Hrudaynath Shirodkar, General Secretary of

Goa Union of Industrial Workers representing the

Workmen.

12. I have gone through the records of the case

and the terms of settlements filed at Exhibit 12

colly and Exhibit 13 colly in the above case and I

am convinced that the above Settlements dated

25-11-2016 and 19-01-2017 filed by the parties have

put an end to the grievances raised by the

Complainant in the above complaint.

13. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The Complaint stands disposed of in view

of the settlements filed along with the

application at exhibit 12 colly and exhibit

13 colly respectively.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court

———‹‹‹———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Notification

No. 1/13/2014/LD(Estt.)/372

The Governor of Goa is hereby pleased to accept

the resignation tendered by Shri Saresh D. Lotlikar

as Advocate General for the State of Goa, with

effect from 11-03-2017.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 24th March, 2017.

Certificate of Practice

No. 8-7-2014-LD(Estt)(46)/349

In partial modification of Certificate of Practice

dated 28-02-2014 issued under the provisions of

Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and the

Notaries Rules, 1956 made thereunder, Government

of Goa is pleased to extend the area of practice as

a Notary of Ms. Panchami Tulsidas Naik to State of

Goa, under Rule 8A of the Notaries Rules, 1956,

with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Estt.).

Porvorim, 21st March, 2017.

———‹———

District & Sessions Court, South-Goa

Order

No. DSC/MAR/GO-1/1/2016/5263

On the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee which has been approved

by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

as required under the Recruitment Rules of the

post of the Registrar/Chief Administrative Officer

vide their letter No. B(Gen)-5601/57/2016/551

dated 29-04-2016, Smt. Fatima Mascarenhas,

Superintendent in the District & Sessions Court,

South Goa, Margao is hereby promoted and

appointed to the post of Registrar/Chief

Administrative Officer, a Group ‘A’, Gazetted post,

on regular basis, in the pay scale of PB-3, Rs. 15,600-

-39,100+G. P. 5,400 and posted as such in the

District & Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao

against the post of the Registrar/Chief

Administrative Officer, fallen vacant due to

retirement of the incumbent of the post, with

immediate effect.

Smt. Fatima Mascarenhas shall be on probation

for a period of two years.

The pay of Smt. Fatima Mascarenhas shall be

fixed as per the Rules in force.

The expenditure in respect of the above

post shall be debited to the Budget Head No. 4

“2014—Administration of Justice; 00—; 105—Civil

and Sessions Courts; 02—District and Sessions

Judges (South Goa); 01—Salaries (Voted) (Non

Plan)”.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1212

This order of promotion/appointment of

Smt. Fatima Mascarenhas is issued as per the

instructions contained in the above referred letter

of the Hon’ble High Court.

Desmond S. D’Costa, Principal District & Sessions

Judge, South Goa, Margao.

Margao, 4th May, 2016.

———‹‹‹———

Department of NRI

Office of the Commissioner for NRI Affairs

Order

No. Comm/NRI/578/16-17/59

Read: Order No. 1/5/2012/HD/NRI dated

04-06-2012.

The resignation tendered by Dr. Wilfred Menezes

Mesquita as Commissioner for NRI Affairs is hereby

accepted w.e.f. 16-03-2017.

Consequently, the services of the staff appointed

to various posts on ad hoc basis co-terminus with

the tenure of Commissioner, stand terminated w.e.f.

16-03-2017 (afternoon).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Padma Jaiswal, IAS, Secretary (NRI).

Porvorim, 21st March, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 6/18/2016-PER/722

Read: Order No. 6/18/2016-PER dated 09-02-2017.

In continuation to the order read in preamble,

the last phase of the training dates is re-scheduled

from 20-03-2017 to 30-03-2017 instead of 23-03-2017

to 07-04-2017 and the officers mentioned in column

(3) shall hold the additional charges of the post

held by Shri Pipi T. Murgaonkar, Shri Brijesh D.

Manerkar, Shri Sagun R. Velip, Shri Gaurish

Shankwalkar & Shri Harish N. Adconkar, on the

additional charge basis, during their training

period i.e. from 20-03-2017 to 30-03-2017.

Sr.

Additional charges of the

Officer to hold the

No. Officer drafted for training

additional charge

1. Shri Pipi T. Murgaonkar,

Shri Ramakant Talkar,

Deputy Director Fire &

Dy. Director (Admn.),

Emergency Services

Electricity.

2. Shri Brijesh D. Manerkar,

Shri Arvind B. Khutkar,

SLAO, Tourism

Under Secretary to

Minister for Tribal

Welfare & holding

additional charge as

O.S.D. in Tourism.

Also holding

additional charge of

Deputy Collector,

Mormugao vide

order dated 09-02-2017

referred above.

3. Shri Sagun R. Velip,

Shri Pramod Desai,

Member Secretary,

Chief Officer, Sanguem.

Ravindra Bhavan,

Curchorem

4. Shri Gaurish Shankwalkar,

Smt. Snehal Shivram

1) Member Secretary,

Prabhu,

Ravindra Bhavan

Dy. Collector &

Baina, Vasco

SDO-II, Salcete.

2) Secretary Communidade

Commission

5. Shri Harish N. Adconkar,

Smt. Anju Kerkar,

SLAO, Tillari Irrigation

Under Secretary

Project

(Revenue-II).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 22/1/2013-PER/(Vol. II)/733

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/11/12/37(1)/2015/434 dated 02-12-2016,

the Governor of Goa is pleased to lift the probation

period w.e.f. 24-01-2012 of the following Junior Scale

Officers (Dy. Superintendent of Police) of Goa Police

Service and confirm them in the grade.

Sr.

Name of the Officer

No.

1. Shri Anant B. Virnodkar.

2. Shri Dinraj R. Govenkar.

3. Shri Bossuet F. de. A. M. Silva.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 20th March, 2017.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1213

Order

No. 7/10/2014-PER/748

Read: 1) Order No. 7/10/2014-PER/2660 dated

12-09-2016.

2) Order No. 7/10/2014-PER/2660 dated

29-12-2016.

3) Order No. 5-1-2006/ELEC/2494 dated

14-03-2017.

Pursuant to the concurrence of Chief Electoral

Officer vide order read at preamble (3), the

following officers deputed in the O/o CEO, shall

hold charge of the post held prior to their

appointment in the O/o CEO:-

Sr.

Name

No.

1. Shri Naveen L. S.,

Inspector General of Prisons

IAS

with additional charge of

M. D., GHRSSIDC.

2. Shri Sanjiv Gadkar

Director (Admn.), Goa

Medical College.

3. Shri Nikhil Desai

Managing Director, Goa

Tourism Development

Corporation.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 20th March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 3/1/80-PER Vo. IV/765

The Governor of Goa is pleased to designate

Shri Rupinder Kumar, IPS Officer (AGMUT:2003) as

DIGP with immediate effect, in public interest.

He shall supervise the functioning of SP (South),

SP/Traffic, Wireless & Communication and SPCR.

He shall also act as Head of SIT to investigate

mining related cases.

He shall draw his pay and allowances under the

Budget Head in the rank of Superintendent of

Police.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 22nd March, 2017.

Department of Public Health

Order

No. 44/25/2015-I/PHD/382

Government is pleased to accept the technical

resignation dated 15-01-2017 tendered by Dr. Manasi

Amar Prabhudesai, Senior Ophthalmic Surgeon

under Directorate of Health Services, with effect

from 31-01-2017 (a.n.) in order to enable her to join

the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology, Goa Medical

College, Bambolim w.e.f. 01-02-2017 (f. n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary

(Health-II).

Porvorim, 17th March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 4/11/2011-II/PHD/315

Read: Memorandum No. 4/11/2011-II/PHD dated

03-01-2017.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/I/5/30(15)/2011/447 dated 08-12-2016,

Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Abhishek

Milan Chinya to the post of Assistant Professor in

Paediatric Surgery (Group “A”, Gazetted) in Goa

Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim-Goa on

temporary basis in the Pay Band-3, Rs. 15,600-

-39,100+Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/-(pre-revised) with

immediate effect and as per the terms and

conditions contained in the Memorandum cited

above.

Dr. Abhishek Milan Chinya shall be on probation

for a period of two years.

Dr. Abhishek Milan Chinya has been declared

medically fit by the Medical Board and his

character and antecedents have been verified by

the Addl. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

The appointment is made against the vacancy

caused due to creation of the post vide Order

No. 4/4/2010-II/PHD dated 04-08-2011 and

subsequently revived vide Order No. 4/22/2009-II/

/PHD(P.F) dated 30-05-2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Smita Hede, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 21st March, 2017.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1214

Order

No. 44/45/2011-I/PHD/412

Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded

for grant of 02 years of Extraordinary Leave to

Dr. Anita Amit Naik, Junior ENT Surgeon, North

Goa District Hospital, Mapusa with effect from

01-04-2017 to 31-3-2019 in terms of the Goa State

Civil Service (Grant of leave to seek employment

either in India or abroad) Rules, 2002, notified by

the Government vide Notification No. 2/5/95-PER

dated 02-01-2003 on the following conditions:-

1) The Extraordinary Leave is subject to the

condition stipulated in the said Notification

dated 02-01-2003;

2) Request for extension of Extraordinary Leave

if any, should reach this Department at least

03 months in advance, inorder to enable to

take necessary decision and communicated

it before the expiry of Extraordinary Leave

already granted;

3) The grant of extension of Extraordinary Leave

shall be subject to the Government decision;

4) Dr. Anita Amit Naik, Junior ENT Surgeon shall

return to duty immediately on expiry of the

leave period or extended period, failing, which

action will be taken against her under

provision of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary

(Health-II).

Porvorim, 22nd March, 2017.

________

Order

No. 38/62/2016-I/PHD/434

Government is pleased to accept the resignation

tendered vide letter dated 16-09-2016 by Dr. Amy

Melissa Botelho, Medical Officer, Primary Health

Centre, Marcaim under Directorate of Health

Services and she stands relieved from the post of

Medical Officer under Directorate of Health

Services w.e.f. 01-01-2017 (b.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary

(Health-II).

Porvorim, 23rd March, 2017.

Notification

No. 5/10/2011-II/PHD (Part III)/345

Read: Order No. 5/10/2011-II/PHD dated

30-11-2016.

Government is pleased to reconstitute Appro-

priate Authorities in pursuance to Section 13(2) of

the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues

Act, 1994 as follows:-

1. The Director of Health Services — Chairman.

2. The Dean, Goa Medical College — Member.

& Hospital

3. Concerned HOD in the specia-

— Co-opted

lity from Goa Medical College

Member.

& Hospital

4. Deputy Director (Public Health), — Member.

Directorate of Health Services

5. Medical Superintendent, Goa

— Member.

Medical College & Hospital

This supersedes earlier Order of even number

dated 30-11-2016, read in preamble.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Smita S. Hede, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 24th March, 2017.

________

Certificate

No. 4/12/2008-II/PHD/327

Read: Government Order No. 4/12/2008-II/PHD

dated 16-12-2016.

Certified that the character and antecedents of

Dr. Rashmin Anilkumar Roy, Assistant Professor in

Plastic Surgery in Goa Medical College and

Hospital, Bambolim appointed vide above referred

Order has been verified by the Addl. District

Magistrate, South Goa District, Margao-Goa and

nothing adverse has come to the notice of the

Government.

Smita Hede, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 22nd March, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Urban Development

Municipal Administration

Notification

No. 10/661/2015/DMA/NNGT/Vol III/3113

Whereas under Rule 23 of the Solid Waste

Management Rules, 2016, the Department in charge

of the local bodies of the State shall constitute a

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1215

State Level Advisory Body within 6 months from

the date of notification of the rules i.e. 6 months

from 8th April, 2016.

Accordingly, the State Government hereby

constitutes the State Level Advisory Body with the

following composition:

Sr.

Designation

Member

No.

1. Secretary, Department of

Chairperson,

Urban Development

ex officio.

2. Director of Directorate of

Member,

Panchayat

ex officio.

3. Under Secretary, Revenue

Member,

Department

ex officio.

4. Representative of the Regional

Member,

Office, Bangalore, Ministry of

ex officio.

Environment, Forest & Climate

Change Government of India

5. Representative from Ministry

Member,

of Urban Development,

ex officio.

Government of India

6. Representative from Ministry

Member,

of Rural Development,

ex officio.

Government of India

7. Representative from the

Member,

Central Pollution Control

ex officio.

Board

8. Representative from the Goa

Member,

State Pollution Control Board

ex officio.

9. Representative from Indian

Member,

Institute of Technology, Goa

ex officio.

or National Institute of

Technology, Goa

10. Chief Town Planner, Town &

Member,

Country Planning Department

ex officio.

11. One Representative each from

Member.

V. P. Calangute, V. P. Taleigao,

V. P. Penha de Franca

12. One Representative each from

Member.

Corporation of the City of

Panaji, Margao Municipal

Council, Mormugao Municipal

Council

13. Shri Clinton Vaz,

Member.

Proprietor, Vrecycle

14. Representative from Goa

Member.

Small Industries Association

15. Shri Ganesh Kandaswamy,

Member.

M/s. Hindustan Waste

Treatment Pvt. Ltd.

16. Shri Shrikant Mutnuri &

Member.

Shri Pradip Sarmokadam

17. Director, Directorate of

Member,

Agriculture

ex officio.

18. Labour Commissioner,

Member,

Department of Labour

ex officio.

19. Director of Urban Develop-

Member,

ment

ex officio.

The State Level Advisory Body shall meet at

least once in every six months to review the matters

related to implementation of these rules, State

policy and strategy policy and strategy on solid

waste management and give advice to State

Government for taking measures that are necessary

for expeditious and appropriate implementation of

these rules.

The copies of the review report shall be

forwarded to the State Pollution Control Board

or Pollution Control Committee for necessary

action.

J. Ashok Kumar, IAS, Director (Urban Development).

Panaji, 22nd 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.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 52

30TH MARCH, 2017

1216

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. 36.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–395/350–3/2017.