Panaji, 12th October, 2017 (Asvina 20, 1939)
SERIES II No. 28
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1627
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
__
Order
No. 50/3/(108)/ELEC/BOD/AECHS/RCS/SZ/15/part(I)/
/2562
Read: Letter No. 18-150-97/ARSZ/HSG/2459 dated
27-12-2016 received from Asstt. Registrar of
Co-op. Societies, South Zone, Margao-Goa,
in respect of the Alleluia Enclave Co-op.
Housing Society, Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Alleluia Enclave Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Vasco-da-Gama from the provision of the Goa
Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for the term i.e. 2015 to
2020 by invoking the powers under Section 126A
of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 28th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 50/3/(18)/ELEC/BOD/PCHS.RCS/QZ/16(Part I)/2589
Read: Letter No. 17/29/ELEC/ARQZ/PCHS/2016/
/404 dated 08-07-2017, received from Asstt.
Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Quepem Zone
Quepem-Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Priti Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Priti
Apartment, Nr. Sheldekar Hospital, Curchorem-Goa
from the provision of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act,
2001 for the term i.e. 2016 to 2021 by invoking the
powers under Section 126A of the Goa
Co-op. Societies Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 28th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 50/3/(10)/ELEC/BOD/CRCHS/RCS/SZ/
/16/part (I)/2588
Read: Letter No. 18-261-2001/ARSZ/HSG/5717
dated 19-01-2017 received from Asstt.
Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone
Margao-Goa, in respect of the Coelho
Residency Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Maimollem/Mangoor Valley, Vasco-da-Gama.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Coelho Residency Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Maimollem/Mangoor Valley, Vasco-da-Gama from
the provision of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001
for the term i.e. 2014 to 2019 by invoking the powers
under Section 126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies
Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 28th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 50/3/(18)/ELEC/BOD/RPBCHS/RCS/
/PZ/15(Part II)/2591
Read: Letter No. 158-Elec/RPCH/BOD/ARPZ dated
28-12-2016 received from Asstt. Registrar of
Co-op. Societies, Ponda Zone, Ponda-Goa to
fill one vacant post of Director of the
Ratnadeep Residency “B” Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Haveli, Curti, Ponda-Goa.
Note:-
There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 27 dated 05-10-2017 namely,
Extraordinary dated 09-10-2017 from pages 1625
to 1626 regarding Order & Notification from
Department of Elections.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1628
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Ratnadeep Residency “B” Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Haveli, Curti, Ponda-Goa from the
provision of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for
the term i.e. 2015 to 2020 by invoking the powers
under Section 126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies
Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 28th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 50/3/(91)/ELEC/KCHS/BOD/RCS/PZ/
/15(Part I)/2601
Read: Letter No. 171-Elec/KCHS/BOD/ARPZ/1453
dated 25-11-2016 received from Asstt.
Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Ponda Zone,
Ponda-Goa to fill three vacant posts of
Director of the Kapila Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Khadpaband, Ponda-Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Kapila Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Khadpaband, Ponda-Goa from the provision of the
Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for the term i.e. 2015
to 2020 by invoking the powers under Section 126A
of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 3rd October, 2017.
________
Order
No. 50/3/(9)/ELEC/BOD/PHCS/RCS/SZ/
/16/part (I)/2590
Read: Letter No. 17-146-92/ARSZ/HSG/5784 dated
25-01-2017 received from Asstt. Registrar of
Co-op. Societies, South-Zone, Margao-Goa,
in respect of the Police Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd., Castle waddo, Nagoa, Salcete-
-Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Police Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Castle
waddo, Nagoa, Salcete-Goa, from the provision of
the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for the term i.e.
2016 to 2021 by invoking the powers under Section
126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 28th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 22-1-17-MR/MKT/RCS/343
Read: Government Order No. 22-1-2017-MR/MKT/
/RCS/06 dated 03-04-2017.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
16 (1) (b) of the Goa Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Development and Regulation) Act, 2007, the
Government of Goa hereby further extends the term
of Committee of Administrators of the Goa State
Agricultural Marketing Board, Margao, Arlem, Raia,
Salcete-Goa upto 03-04-2018 or till the new Board
is constituted, whichever is earlier.
The
extension
to
the
Committee
of
Administrators is allowed since the election is to
be conducted in accordance with the recent
amendment to the Goa Agricultural Produce
Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 2007.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 3rd October, 2017.
________
Order
No. 50/3/(02)/ELEC/DKCH/BOD/RCS/PZ/
/16(Part I)/2627
Read: Letter No. 5/156/11-12/ARPZ/HSG/ADM/699
dated 01-08-2017 received from Asstt.
Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Ponda Zone,
Ponda-Goa to fill two vacant posts of
Director of the Dhanashree Krupa Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd., Ganganagar, Curti,
Ponda-Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Dhanashree Krupa Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Ganganagar, Curti, Ponda-Goa from the provision
of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for the term
i.e. 2016 to 2021 by invoking the powers under
Section 126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 3rd October, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1629
Corrigendum
No. 50/3(58)/Elec/BOD/SVCH/RCS/SZ/
/15/Part-I/2668
Read: Order No. 50/3(58)/Elec/BOD/SVCH/RCS/
SZ/15/Part-I/2502 dated 21-09-2017.
In the above referred Order the term shall be
read as 2015 to 2020. Rest of the contents of the
said Order shall remain unchanged.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 5th October, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Art and Culture
__
Order
No. DAC/9/AutoBodies/Committee/2017-18/4298
In exercise of the power conferred by Clause 5
of the constitution of Kala Academy, Panaji-Goa,
the Government is pleased to appoint Shri Govind
Gaude, Hon’ble Minister for Art & Culture as
Chairman of Kala Academy, Panaji-Goa with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sd/- Director & ex officio Joint Secretry (Art
and Culture).
Panaji, 29th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. DAC/9/AutoBodies/Committee/2017-18/4299
In exercise of the power conferred by Clause
9 (ii), 9(ii) (a), 9(iii) & 9(iv) of the constitution of
Kala Academy, Panaji-Goa, the Government is
pleased to nominate following Members on General
Council for Kala Academy, Panaji-Goa with
immediate effect.
1. Finance Secretary or his nominee not below
the rank of Under Secretary from the Finance
Department, Government of Goa.
2. Director of Art & Culture, Panaji-Goa.
3. A representative of State Education
Department, Porvorim-Goa.
4. Shri Ravindra Amonkar, Panaji-Goa.
5. Shri Soma alias Satish Chandro Gawas,
Old-Goa.
6. Shri Ajay Naik, Adpai, Durbhat, Ponda-Goa.
7. Shri Rajeev Shinde, Altinho, Panaji-Goa.
8. Shri John D’Sa, Cuelim, Cansaulim-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sd/- Director & ex officio Joint Secretry (Art and
Culture).
Panaji, 29th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Finance
Revenue & Control Division
__
Notification
No. 2/3/85-Fin(R&C)/3505
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6
of the Goa, Daman and Diu Toddy Tappers’ Welfare
Fund Act, 1984 (Act No. 17 of 1985), read with
Clause 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Toddy Tappers’
Welfare Fund Scheme, 1985, the Government of Goa
hereby reconstitutes the Goa Toddy Tappers’
Welfare Fund Board, consisting of the following
members, namely:-
1. Shri Simon D’Souza, Ex-Dy.
.... Chairman.
Speaker of Goa Assembly
2. Shri Churchill Alemao,
....
MLA,
MLA, Benaulim
Benaulim.
Non-Official Members
1. Shri Antonio Francisco Remy .... Member.
Borges, President, All Goa
Toddy Tappers Association
2. Shri Juao F. Lamos,
.... Member.
r/o Junaswada, Mandrem
3. Shri Caridade Babush
.... Member.
Fernandes, Socoilowado,
Arambol, Goa
4. Shri Michael Cardozo,
.... Member.
r/o Mobor, Cavelossim,
Salcete-Goa
Official Members
1. Under Secretary (Revenue)
.... Member.
2. Director of Social Welfare
.... Member.
3. Dr. S. M. Bandekar, Professor .... Member.
and HOD of Orthopedics at
Goa Medical College,
Bambolim
4. Director of Agriculture
.... Member.
5. Director of Institute of
.... Member.
Public Assistance
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1630
6. Commissioner of Excise
.... Member
Secretary.
The official members attending the Board
meetings shall be treated as on duty and entitled
to TA/DA whenever admissible under the relevant
rules.
The non-official members shall be entitled for
sitting fees at the rate prescribed by the
Government for members of such statutory Board/
Committee, from time to time.
The expenditure on sitting fees of non-official
members shall be debited to “2039-State Excise”
head of account.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Michael M. D’Souza, Additional Secretary
(Finance).
Porvorim, 6th October, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Home
Office of the Director General of Police
—
Order
No. CA-I/108(P)/Vol.V/8341/2017
Dist. Order No. 600
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide their letter No.
COM/II/11/37(1)/2011/874 dated 22-09-2017 and
accepted/approved by the Government of Goa and
conveyed vide letters No. 22/1/2013-PER/PART/
/1192 dated 27-09-2017 of Personnel Department
and No. 1/16/2017-HD (G)/2838 dated 27-09-2017 of
Home Department, the Police Establishment Board
is pleased to promote, on regular basis, under Rule
5 (b) of the Goa Police Service Rules, 1997, as
amended from time to time, the following Police
Inspectors to the post of Junior Scale Officers of
Goa Police Service (Group “A” Gazetted) in the pay
scale of PB-3 ` 15,600–39,100 + G.P. ` 5,400/- (Pay
Matrix Level-10 (` 56,100-1,77,500) of 7th Pay
Commission), with immediate effect:-
Sl.
Name
Place of posting
No.
1
2
3
1. Smt. Maria Monseratte
FRRO, Panaji.
2. Shri Anthony Monseratte
GRP ‘E’ Coy,
Altinho.
3. Shri Uttam Y. R. Dessai
Pernem PS.
4. Shri Gurudas N. Gawade
Maina Curtorim PS.
(ST)
5. Shri Edwin M. S. Colaco
Security, Panaji.
(ST)
6. Shri Nelson Albuquerque
SDPO, Panaji.
7. Smt. Sucheta B. Dessai
ACB/Vigilance,
Altinho.
8. Smt. Ezilda D’Souza
EOC, Panaji.
9. Smt. Sunita Sawant
SDPO, Ponda.
10. Shri Rajendra V. R. Dessai
Special Branch,
Panaji.
2. They shall be on probation for a period of two
years.
3. They shall exercise option for fixation of pay
on promotion, if so desired, within a period of one
month from the date of issue of this Order.
Dr. Muktesh Chander, IPS, Director General of
Police.
Panaji, 29th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. CA-I/108(P)/Vol.V/8342/2017
Dist. Order No. 601
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide their letter No.
COM/II/11/37(1)/2011/874 dated 22-09-2017 and
accepted/approved by the Government of Goa and
conveyed vide letters No. 22/1/2013-PER/PART/
/1192 dated 27-09-2017 of Personnel Department
and No. 1/16/2017-HD(G)/2838 dated 27-09-2017 of
Home Department, the below mentioned Officers
shall hold the post of Junior Scale Officers of Goa
Police Service (Group “A” Gazetted) in the pay scale
of PB-3 ` 15,600-39,100 + G.P. ` 5,400/- (Pay Matrix
Level-10) (` 56,100-1,77,500 of 7th Pay Commission)
on officiating basis against the 2 ST vacancies till
eligible ST Officers are found eligible by the
Department or till they are promoted on regular
basis whichever is earlier, with immediate effect:-
Sl.
Name
Place of posting
No.
1. Shri Dharmesh G. P. Angle
Dy. SP. Traffic
(North).
2. Shri Kiran J. Poduval
Deputation to Goa
Human Right
Commission, Panaji.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1631
2. The above Officiating Officers shall not bestow
the any claim for regular appointment and the
service rendered on officiating basis in the grade
will not count for the purpose of seniority in that
grade for eligibility for promotion to the next higher
grade.
3. This is issued with the approval of Police
Establishment Board.
Dr. Muktesh Chander, IPS, Director General of
Police.
Panaji, 29th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
—
Order
No. 3/26/2014-IND(Part)/256
Read: Notification No. 3/26/2014-IND/109 dated
12-05-2017 published in Official Gazette,
Series II No. 7 dated 18-05-2017.
In pursuance to the Notification read in the
preamble, the Government of Goa hereby
constitutes a Committee for selection of the Chief
Executive Officer of the Goa Investment Promotion
and Facilitation Board consisting of the following,
namely:-
1) Secretary (Industries)
—
Chairperson.
2) Shri Siddharth Kuncalienkar —
Member.
Chairman, Economic Develop-
ment Corporation Limited
3) Shri Shekhar Sardesai,
—
Member.
Industrialist
4) Shri Atrey P. Sawant,
—
Member.
Chairman, Confederation of
Indian Industry, Goa Council
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 28th September, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 11/9/2012-IND/252
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
4 of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 (Act
22 of 1965 ) and in supersession of the Government
Notification No. 11/9/2012-IND/94 dated 23-10-2015,
published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 31
dated 29-10-2015 and all other Notifications issued
in this regard, the Government of Goa hereby
re-constitutes the Goa Industrial Development
Corporation, as follows, namely:-
1) Shri Glenn Souza Ticlo,
— Chairman.
Aldona
2) Secretary (Industries)
— Director.
3) Secretary (Finance)
— Director.
4) Chief Electrical Engineer
— Director.
5) Director (Industries, Trade
— Director.
& Commerce)
6) President, Goa Chamber of — Director.
Commerce & Industry
7) President, Goa Small Indus- — Director.
tries Association
8) Managing Director, Goa
— Chief
Industrial Development
Executive
Corporation
and ex officio
Secretary.
9) Shri Milind Gadgil,
— Director.
R/o Brahmakarmali, Satari
10) Shri Jaivant Shivaji Desai,
— Director.
R/o St. Inez, Panaji
11) Shri Santosh Gaonkar,
— Director.
R/o Mavlinguem, Kalay,
Sanguem
12) Shri Shekhar Sardessai,
— Director.
R/o Caranzalem, Panaji
This Notification shall come into force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 28th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Information Technology
—
Order
No. 1(90)/DOIT/ITG-DIR/2001/806
Shri Dr. Vijay Menino Jesus Borges, Assistant
Professor in Information Technology, Goa College
of Engineering, Farmagudi, Director of Technical
Education is transferred on deputation as Officer
on Special Duty/Joint M. D. in the Info Tech
Corporation of Goa for a period of one year with
immediate effect.
Shri Dr. Vijay Menino Jesus Borges shall draw
his salary and allowances from the post of
Managing Director, Info Tech Corporation of Goa
as admissible under rules.
The appointment of Shri Dr. Vijay Menino Jesus
Borges shall be initially for a period of one year
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1632
and shall be governed by standard terms of
deputation as contained in the office memorandum
No. 13/4/74-PER dated 20-11-2013 of the
Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa
and amended from time to time.
This is issued with the approval of Hon’ble Chief
Minister vide U.O. No. 7046/F dated 13-09-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Ravi Jha, IAS, Director and Joint Secretary (IT).
Porvorim, 28th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-III/642
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 28-07-2017 in reference
No. C-IT/10/15 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, 12th September, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. C-IT/10/15
Shri Jesus A. Luis,
R/o. H. No.157,
Chinchal, Margao-Goa. … Workman/Complainant
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Panaji-Goa
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal.
Panaji, Dated: 28-07-2017.
AWARD
1. This shall determine a complaint filed by the
Workman u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the Workman/Complainant
(for short, ‘Workman’) as per his pleadings that he
is working as ‘Driver’ with the Employer/Party II
(for short, ‘the Employer’) at its Margao depot. He
stated that on account of disparity in pay fixation,
he raised a dispute. He stated that the said dispute
was referred to the Hon’ble Tribunal and is pending
for its adjudication and bears registration No. IT/
/03/14. He stated that the Employer was pleased to
issue an order dated 10-06-2013, by which his pay
band and grade pay was revised and fixed in the
pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 plus Rs.1900/-. He
stated that on implementation of the order, he was
entitled for arrears w.e.f. 01-06-2006. He stated that
in accordance with the said order, he filed an
application u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act and the said
application is pending before this Labour Court II
and it bears No. LC-II/06/14. He stated that the
Employer is represented by its Personal Officer and
is aware of the aforesaid proceedings. He stated
that pending the aforesaid reference for its
adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the
Employer, vide its order dated 26-02-2015,
transferred him from its Margao depot to Porvorim
depot with immediate effect. He stated that he
was however, not relieved on the date of his transfer
and therefore continued to work at Margao depot
due to ambiguity in the transfer order. He stated
that he was relieved on 28-03-2015 after
discharging his duties at Margao depot. He
submitted that the act of the Personal Officer is
retaliation.
3. He stated that he is residing at Margao within
the limits of Margao depot. He stated that he has
two children studying in the school at Margao. He
stated that on account of his abrupt transfer, his
children are facing hardship to go to school. He
submitted that the purported transfer order dated
26-02-2015 issued to him is malafide, as and by
way of victimization and amounts to an unfair
labour practice. He submitted that the impugned
transfer order passed by the Employer is illegal
and without any authority. He submitted that the
Personal Officer of the Employer has no right of
whatsoever nature to pass the impugned order
altering the service conditions. He submitted that
the impugned transfer order is in violation of the
provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the
Employer. He submitted that in accordance with
the Standing Orders of the Employer, he can be
transferred by the Personnel Manager, however, he
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1633
has been transferred by the Personal Officer in the
flagrant abuse of process of law as well as during
the pendency of the proceedings before the
Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court II. He
therefore submitted that the Employer is therefore
liable for action for violation of provision of Section
33-A of I.D. Act, 1947. The Workman therefore
prayed for an award holding that transfer order
dated 26-02-2015, passed by the Personal Officer is
illegal and an act of victimization and that direct
the Employer to revoke/cancel the transfer order
dated 26-02-2015. The Workman also prayed that
necessary proceedings be initiated against the
Personal Officer for alteration of service conditions
in violation of Certified Standing Orders.
4. The Employer filed its written statement on
22-02-2016 at Exb.7. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objection, submitted that the present
complaint filed by the Workman is liable to be
dismissed as there is no alterations of service
conditions as alleged by the complaint, that what
is referred for adjudication is not a complaint as
defined u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act and that since the
present complaint has been filed during the
pendency of the Industrial dispute bearing
No. LC-II/IT/06/14 before this Hon’ble Labour Court
II and as such this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction
to adjudicate the complaint in terms of provisions
of Section 33-A (b) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
5. The Employer submitted that it is a
Government Company registered u/s 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956. The Employer stated that it
is State Transport Undertaking under the purview
of the Motor Transport Act, 1988. The Employer
admitted that the complainant is working with
them as Driver. The Employer stated that due to
administrative convenience, it was proposed that
some of its employees which includes drives and
conductors were required to be transferred. The
Employer stated that the said proposal was
approved by its Managing Director by issuing order
to transfer only drivers and conductors. The
Employer stated that in pursuance to the said
approval and the order of its Managing Director,
the drivers and conductors mentioned in the said
note were accordingly issued transfer orders
including the complainant. The Employer stated
that by order dated 26-02-2015 the Complainant
was transferred from Margao depot to its Porvorim
depot in terms of provisions of its Certified Standing
Orders applicable to the Complainant. The
Employer therefore submitted that the Complainant
is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is
liable to be dismissed. The Employer denied the
overall case of the Complainant as pleaded by him
and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
6. Thereafter, the Complainant filed his re-joinder
on 12-07-2016 at Exb. 8. The Complainant, by way
of his Re-joinder, reiterates and confirms all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
Complaint to be true and correct and denies all
the statements and averments made by the
Employerin its Written Statement, which are
contrary and inconsistent with the statements and
averments made by him. The Complainant stated
that the pleadings of the Employer are scandalous
and mischievous. He submitted that the Managing
Director of the Employer has signed and verified
the written statements mechanically without
perusing the records thereby making contradictory
pleas on solemn affirmation.
7. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties hereinabove, the Hon’ble Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed the following
issues on 08-08-2016 at Exb. 10.
1. Whether the Party I proves that his purported
transfer order dated 26-02-2015 is illegal,
malafide and an act of victimization and
unfair labour practice as he had filed
proceedings before Labour Court II?
2. Whether the Party I proves that the impugned
order altering the service conditions is in
violation of Certified Standing Orders as
applicable to the Party II?
3. Whether the Party I proves that the action of
Party II is in violation of the provisions of
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947?
4. Whether Party II proves that the Industrial
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate
the complaint as industrial dispute bearing
No. LC-II/IT/03/14 is pending before Labour
Court II?
8. Thereafter, the present complaint was
transferred to this Labour Court II by order of the
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court dated 09-11-2016. The matter was adjourned
and fixed for filing affidavit in evidence of the
complainant. On 28-07-2017, Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar, appearing for the Complainant as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal appearing for the
Employer remained present. Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar submitted that the Complainant does
not wish to continue with the present complaint
as he has been re-transferred from Porvorim depot
to Margao depot. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar
appearing for the Complainant therefore prayed
for permission to withdraw the present complaint
filed by the Complainant. No objection has been
given by Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal, appearing for
the Employer.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1634
9. Since it is the Complainant, who has filed the
present complaint, desires to withdraw his present
complaint, I have no other alternative rather than
to allow the request made by the Complainant.
The Complainant is hereby allowed to withdraw
the present complaint filed by him. Consequently,
the present complaint of the Complainant stands
dismissed as withdrawn.
No Order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-III/644
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
03-08-2017 in Appln. No. 9/2012 is hereby published
as required by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 12th September, 2017.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 9/2012
Mrs. Pornima Uday Sawant,
H. No. 19, Near Bambolkar Building,
Mala-Portais,
Panaji, Goa-403 001.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co.,
Colaco Building,
Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa
(403 802).
… Opponent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Opponent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 3rd day of the month of
August of the year 2017)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. In short, the case of the Party I is that she
filed an application for conciliation of the dispute
dated 12-07-2012 before the Conciliation Officer in
respect of illegal retrenchment of her services. The
Employer filed a reply on 27-7-2012 contending
that the appropriate Government is the Central
Government and not the State Government. The
Conciliation Officer failed to adjudicate the dispute
inspite of the expiry of forty five days’ from the
date of the application and hence, filed the
application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Dispute Act.
3. The Party II is engaged in business at Colaco
Building, Swatantra Peth, Vasco and is registered
under Shops and Establishment Act, 1973 with the
State Government. The Party II had engaged the
services of Party I who was employed as Junior
Clerk-cum-typist on permanent basis w.e.f. 1-6-1995.
The Party II on 25-6-2012 issued a notice dated
15-6-2012 informing Party I that Party II shall not
be able to retain her services from close of working
hours on 30-6-2012. It was mentioned in the said
letter that one month’s salary in lieu of notice will
be credited in her account along with salary of
June, 2012 and in pursuance of the said letter, the
services of the workman were retrenched from
30-6-2012. The service record of the workman is
honest and unblemished and there are no adverse
entries in her record.
4. The retrenchment of Party I is in violation of
Section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act. The Party I
was issued with a notice dated 15-6-2012 indicating
the reasons that there is global recession and her
services were retrenched from 30-6-2012 which is
in flagrant violation of provision of Section 25-F in
as much as a notice was issued on 25-6-2012,
however, the Party I was retrenched on 30-6-2012
much prior to the expiry of 30 days as provided
under the Act. The Party II has also failed to pay
at the time of retrenchment, compensation which
shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every
completed years of continuous service or any part
thereof in excess of six months. The provisions of
Section 25-F (a), (b) & (c) are mandatory and
therefore the termination of the services of Party I
is null and void and illegal.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1635
5. The retrenchment of Party I workman is also
in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial
Disputes Act in as much as the employer has not
retrenched the person who was the last to be
employed. The Party I had retained the services of
the workman who has been employed after the
Party I. The Party I has employed Mr. Amrish
Waghmare, Mr. Umesh Shinde, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi,
Mr. Snehedu Shekkar recently before the
retrenchment of Party I. The Party I at the present
age is not in a position to get the alternative
employment on account of the age bar. The Party
I on account of employment and sufficient income
has availed loan and due to abrupt retrenchment
of her services, will not be in a position to maintain
the standard of living. The Party II is doing good
business and is financially strong. The Party I is
unemployed from the date of retrenchment till date.
The Party I had approached several offices for
employment but was not successful in getting the
employment. The action of the employer in
retrenching her services is illegal. The termination
of the services of Party I workman is void and
unjustified. The workman is entitled for
reinstatement in services with full back wages and
continuity in services. Hence, the application.
6. The Opponent/Party II filed a Written
statement inter alia contending that the
application is premature as matter is pending before
the Conciliation Officer. The services of Party I were
terminated due to global recession in the Shipping
industry for last two years as the business of the
company have been very bad. The company has
paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice with the
termination letter including retrenchment
compensation, though the Party I was not a
workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.
The Party I however had refused to accept the
legal dues offered to her. The Party I was employed
in or in connection with the major port work as the
company is in the business of ship agency,
stevedoring etc. at the major port of Goa and
therefore, the Party I ought to have raised the
dispute before the Central Government and not
the State Government. The services of Party I were
terminated as there was no work available in Goa
due to global recession. The Party II was ready and
willing to give employment to Party I at their office
at Mumbai on the same terms and conditions as
the services of Party I are transferable, which offer
Party I refused. No case has been made out by
Party I and hence, not entitled for any relief.
7. The Party I filed a Rejoinder at Exhibit 5
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement. It is stated that the company had
advance booking till 2013 for shipping assignment
and is doing flourishing business in shipping
assignment. The Party II has not paid legal dues
along with termination letter including
retrenchment compensation. The Party II has
registered their establishment before the State
Government and therefore the State Government
has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The
Party I would have readily accepted the offer of
joining at Mumbai office, if the same was offered
before Party I was illegally terminated, in order to
sustain the livelihood. The company had not given
any offer before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
The retrenchment of the services of Party I
workman is in violation of Section 25-F (a), (b), (c)
and Section 25-G of the Act. The Party I is entitled
for reinstatement of services with full back wages
and continuity in service.
8. Issues framed at Exhibit 7 are as follows:
1) Whether the Party I proves that despite
expiry of 45 days from the date of the
application for conciliation of dispute, the
conciliation officer failed to adjudicate the
dispute referred to therein?
2) Whether the Party I proves that her
retrenchment is in violation of Section
25-F (a), (b), (c) and Section 25-G of the I.D.
Act, 1947?
3) Whether the Party I proves that she is
unemployed from the date of retrenchment,
till date?
4) Whether the Party II proves that the
appropriate Government for any dispute in
connection with their workers/labourers is
the Central Government and Party I having
raised the dispute before State Government,
this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the same?
5) Whether the Party II proves that they were
ready and willing to give employment to
Party I at Mumbai at their office at 16, Bank
Street, Fort, Mumbai, 400 001 on the same
terms and conditions?
6) What relief? What Award?
9. In the course of evidence, the Party I, Mrs.
Pornima U. Sawant examined herself as witness
and produced on record her affidavit-in-evidence
at Exb. 11, a copy of appointment letter dated
22-5-1995 at Exb. 12, a copy of notice/termination
letter dated 15-6-2012 at Exb. 13, a copy of
application dated 11-7-2012 filed before the Labour
Commissioner at Exb. 14, a copy of reply dated
27-7-2012 by Party II to ALC at Exb. 15, a copy of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1636
promotion letter dated 14-10-2008 at Exb. 16. On
the other hand, the Party II examined Capt. Shri
Rajesh Saigal as their witness and produced on
record his affidavit-in-evidence at Exb. 18 and a
copy of Registration Certificate of establishment at
Exb. 19.
10. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments
came to be placed on record by the parties.
11. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the submissions made
by the learned advocates for Parties. My findings
on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 5
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 6
…
As per Final Order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
12. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I had
submitted that under Section 2-A(2) of the
Act–notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 10, any such workman as is specified in
sub-section (1) may make an application direct to
the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of
the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of
the forty-five days’ from the date he has made the
application to the Conciliation Officer of the
appropriate Government for conciliation of the
dispute, and in receipt of such application, the
Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal shall have
powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon dispute.
The Party I had filed an application dated
12-7-2012 before the Conciliation Officer and even
after expiry of forty five days’, the conciliation
proceedings could not be settled. The Party II had
admitted that the workman had filed the
application before the Labour Commissioner and
that the period of forty-five days’ had expired and
therefore issue No. 1 has to be answered in
affirmative.
13. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for
Party II has submitted that it is mandatory that the
matter has to be dealt with by the Conciliation
Officer. Nothing has been produced by the Party I
that the conciliation proceedings were held before
the Conciliation Officer. Nothing is on record that
the matter in connection with the Party I was
admitted in conciliation and/or conciliation
proceedings held before the Conciliation Officer,
except the complaint. He further submitted that
since no documentary proof has been produced by
the Party I, the application filed by Party I is bad
in law. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar relying upon
the case of Suresh Vithoo Nare V/s Dharamsi
Morarji Chemicals Company Ltd., Ambemath and
another, 1992 1 BOM CR 316 has submitted that
mere issue of notice by the Conciliation Officer
does not amount to instituting a conciliation
proceeding. There is no compliance of Section
2-A(2) of the Act to the effect that proceedings
were held before Conciliation Officer and therefore
the dispute itself is bad in law and hence, the
application under Section 2-A(2) is not
maintainable.
14. Admittedly, the application has been filed
by Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, which mandates that any workman
may make an application direct to the Labour Court
or Tribunal for adjudication of dispute referred to
therein after the expiry of forty-five days’ from the
date he has made the application to the
Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government
for conciliation of the dispute and in receipt of
such application, the Labour Court or Tribunal shall
have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the dispute. There is no dispute that the Party I
had filed the said application on 12-07-2012 before
the Conciliation Officer and that the present
proceeding has been filed before the Tribunal on
3-9-2012, which is after expiry of forty-five days’ of
the filing of the application before Conciliation
Officer. The Party II has claimed in Para 1 of the
Written statement that even after expiry of
forty-five days’, the conciliation proceedings could
not be settled amicably due to the rigid and
adamant attitude of the Party I.
15. The witness of Party II, Capt. Shri Rajesh
Saigal in Para 3 of his affidavit has stated that the
Party I has raised the dispute when the conciliation
proceeding are currently pending before the
Conciliation Officer and no failure report has been
sent by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate
Government and that the Party I has filed an
application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act arising
out from the same subject matter. In the cross
examination, he has admitted that there was
conciliation proceedings before Assistant Labour
Commissioner and that he was representing on
behalf of the company and that he also filed a
reply before the conciliation proceedings. The Party
II has thus admitted in the pleadings as well as in
the affidavit-in-evidence that the Party I had filed
the application before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and that they had participated in
the said proceedings. There is no dispute that the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1637
application was filed on 12-07-2012 and that the
Assistant Labour Commissioner had not decided
the dispute within forty-five days’, after which the
Party I filed the application under Section 2-A(2)
on 3-9-2012 before the Tribunal.
16. Discernibly, Section 2-A(2) clearly stipulates
of filing of an application before the Tribunal or
the Labour Court for the adjudication of the dispute
referred after the expiry of forty-five days’ of the
application filed before the Conciliation Officer,
which was complied by Party I and the said fact
has been admitted by Party II. It is therefore the
contention of Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar as stated
above cannot be accepted. The reliance placed by
Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar in the case of Suresh
Vithoo Nare, (supra), in support of his contention
that the cause of action to file the application arises
from the date of admission of the conciliation by
the Conciliation Officer cannot be considered as
the Party I has filed the said application after expiry
of forty-five days’ from the date of filing application.
Moreover, the judgment of Suresh Vithoo Nare
(supra), has no relevance to the amended provision
of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
which came into existence in Sept. 2010, while the
case of Suresh Nare is much earlier to the said
amended provision and has no connection with
the facts of present case. The fact and the law in
the above case is completely in variance with the
present case and therefore, the above submission
of Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar pales into
insignificance. It is therefore the above issue is
answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
17. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that it is obligatory on the part of a
person who makes an application under Section
2-A(2) of the Act to show that she is a workman
and there should be pleadings and evidence to the
effect that she was performing manual, skilled,
unskilled, technical, operational or clerical work,
which would signify that she is a workman within
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. He further submitted that in
the entire application made before the Industrial
Tribunal or Assistant Labour Commissioner there
is no iota of evidence that Party I is a workman or
not and it is the position of law that the person
who pleads a particular fact has to justify it in
pleadings. According to him, there are also no
means to find out whether the Party I is a workman
or not and this burden has not been discharged by
the Party I in the entire proceedings. In fact, the
Party I has clearly admitted that she was Jr.
Executive and her salary structure changed after
she became Jr. Executive.
18. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted that Section 2(s) of the Act
defines ‘workman’ as any person employed in
industry to do any manual, skilled, unskilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work
for hire or reward. He further submitted that as per
Clause 3 of the Appointment letter at Exb. 12, the
duties of Party I include typing, accounts work and
other items as entrusted. He further submitted that
the dispute is pertaining to the retrenchment of
services of the workman who was working as
Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in the firm and the nature
of duties which includes clerical work performed
by the workman determine that she was a workman
working for Party II. He further submitted that no
issue has been framed by the Tribunal as to whether
the Party I is a workman or not as the company has
not denied that the Party I was a workman and the
appointment letter on record clearly shows that
the duties of Party I included typing work and
other items as entrusted.
19. It is well settled that the question as to
whether the Party I is a workman depends upon
the nature of duties performed by employee and
not his designation. The Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in case of Aloysius Nunes vs Thomas Cook
India Ltd., 2000(3) LLN 160 has held that one of
the tests to find out whether the person employed
is in a managerial or administrative capacity was
to ascertain, if he was entrusted with the duty/
/responsibility of distribution of work. Another test
that could be considered is whether in the
discharge of his managerial or administrative
duties, did he perform any supervisory work. The
third test would be, does he occupy a position, to
command or decide and is he authorised to act in
certain matters within the limits of the authority
given to him without the sanction of Manager or
other Supervisor. The fourth test would be, is he in
command of a territory or department over which
he exercises his managerial function. The fifth test
is what is the designation in the official record of
the person and in the attendance register and
whether the Manager could in the performance of
his duties could innovate.
20. It is also held in the case of Standard
Chartered Bank vs. Vandana Joshi and Anr., 2010
2 MhLJ 22, that the Court has to examine the
dominant nature of work or duties assigned to an
employee. In case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd.
vs. D. Samuel and Others, 1999 LLR 21, it is held
that some of the tests laid down are (1) Designation
is not material but what is important is the nature
of work, (2) Find out the dominant purpose of
employment and not any additional duties, the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1638
employee may be performing, (3) Can he bind the
company/employer to some kind of decisions on
behalf of the company/employer, (4) Has the
employee power to direct or oversee the work of
his subordinates, (5) Has he power to sanction leave
or recommend it; and (6) Has he has the power to
appoint, terminate or take disciplinary action
against workmen. It is further held that some other
tests are (a) Whether the employee can examine
the quality of work and whether such work is
performed in satisfactory manner or not; (b) Does
the employee have powers of assigning duties and
distribution of work; (c) Can he indent material
and distribute the same amongst the workmen; (d)
Even though he has no authority to grant leave,
does he have power to recommend leave; (e) Are
there persons working under him; (f) Has he the
power to supervise the work of men and not merely
machines; (g) Does he mark the attendance of other
employees; (h) Does he write the confidential
reports of his subordinates.
21. There is no dispute that no issue as to
whether the Party I is a workman or not is framed.
The question whether the Party I is a workman or
not is a question of fact which has been admitted
by the Party II in the written statement, although
denied in some paras of the written statement. The
Party I in Para 2 of claim statement has clearly
stated that the Party I workman is one of the
workmen employed as ‘Junior Clerk cum Typist’ on
permanent basis with effect from 01-06-1995 in
basic salary of Rs. 375/- in the grade of 300-25-450-
-35-660-45-885-55-1160-65-1420-80-1740, to which
the Party II in Para 2 of written statement has
claimed that the Party I was employed by Party II
as ‘Jr. Executive’, however, the nature of duties of
Party I as so called Jr. Executive has not been
defined. The Party II, however in Para B of the
written statement has stated that Party I was not
a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the
Act.
22. It is thus seen that Party I has clearly stated
in the claim statement that she is the workman
employed as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist, while it is
the case of Party II that she was employed by Party
II as a ‘Jr. Executive’. Section 2(s) defines ‘workman’
as any person (including an apprentice) employed
in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work
for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the
purpose of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence
of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not
include any such person – (i) who is subject to the
Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act,
1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957);
or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as
an officer or other employee of a prison, or (iii) who
is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity or (iv) who, being
employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages
exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per mensem or
exercises, either by the nature of the duties
attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial
nature.
23. Needless to mention, no issue has been
framed as to whether Party I is a workman or not
and rightly so because, Para 2 of the claim
statement has not been specifically denied by Party
II. On the contrary, it is stated by Party II that she
was employed by them in the capacity of a ‘Jr.
Executive’. Clause 2 of the Appointment letter at
Exb. 12, clearly states that Party I was drawing
basic salary of Rs. 375/- (Rupees three hundred
seventy five only) per month in the grade of
300-25-450-35-660-45-885-55-1160-65-1420-80-1740
and also Fixed Dearness Allowance of Rs. 1300/-
(Rupees one thousand three hundred only) and
Local Allowance of Rs. 205/- (Rupees two hundred
and five only) per month and that Clause 3 of the
said Appointment letter clearly states that the
duties of the Party I include typing, accounts works
and other items as entrusted.
24. The Party I has averred that she was
employed as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist on permanent
basis, which fact is not in dispute. The letter of
appointment dated 22-05-1995 at Exb. 12 clearly
specifies the duties of the Party I at Clause 3 which
are in the nature of skilled, technical and clerical.
The Appointment letter is not in dispute however,
the Party II claimed that she was employed as a ‘Jr.
Executive’. The witness of Party II, Capt. Shri Rajesh
Saigal has not specified as to what duties the Party
I was performing as a ‘Jr. Executive’. The nature of
work clearly shows that it was clerical and not in
a supervisory, managerial or administrative
capacity. The designation is not material. The Party
I was not appointed as executive. The dominant
purpose of employment was to perform the clerical
duties. She was not appointed to oversee the work
of her subordinates nor she had power to sanction
leave or recommend it nor she had power to
appoint, terminate or take disciplinary action
against the workmen. The documentary evidence
clearly show that the Party I was employed as Jr.
Clerk-cum-Typist and not the executive as claimed
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1639
by Party II. The evidence of record including the
Appointment letter indicates that the Party I was
a ‘workman’ with duties of clerical in nature and
therefore the Party I would fall in the definition of
workman within Section 2(s) of the Act and hence,
the contention of Ld. Adv. Shri Bandodkar as stated
above, pales into insignificance.
25. Once, it is held that Party I is a workman, it
is to be seen whether the retrenchment of Party I
is in violation of Section 25-F (a), (b), (c) and Section
25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
26. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that in Para 3 of the application, it is the
only case of the Party I that she was issued a notice
dated 15-06-2012 on 25-06-2012 stating that
Party II shall not be able to retain her services from
close of working hours on 30-06-2012 and also
mentioned in the said notice that one month’s
salary would be credited in the bank alongwith
the salary of June, 2012. He further submitted that
the Party I has admitted in the cross examination
that the one month’s salary was deposited in her
Bank account along with her June, 2012 salary,
which means that there is no violation of Section
25-F of the Act. He further submitted that as per
the Service Certificate issued to Party I, the Party
I has left services prior to 25-07-2012, there is
therefore no question of retrenchment or violation
to that effect and therefore, entire allegation of
retrenchment itself is bad in law.
27. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted and rightly so that no Service
Certificate has been produced on record nor relied
upon by Party I or Party II in their list of documents
nor it was pleaded by them and therefore, the above
submission of Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar cannot be
accepted having any merits. He further submitted
that the condition precedent to retrenchment of
workman is 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 notice; (b) the workman has been paid at
the time of retrenchment, compensation which
shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay or
any part thereof in excess of six months; (c) notice
in prescribed manner is served on appropriate
Government. He further submitted the employer
has not retrenched the person who was last person
to be employed and therefore also violated Section
25-G of the Act. According to him, once it is proved
that the Party II has violated the provisions of
Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act, the Party I is
entitled to the protection under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
28. 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.]
29. Similarly, under Section 25-G: 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
workman who was the last person to be employed
in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded
the employer retrenches any other workman.
30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anoop
Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health
Division No.1, 2010 II CLR 1, has observed in Para
13 that no workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than
one year under an employer can be retrenched by
that employer until the conditions enumerated in
clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act are
satisfied. In terms of clause (a), the employer is
required to give to the workman one month’s notice
in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
or pay him wages in lieu of notice. Clause (b) casts
a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman
‘at the time of retrenchment’, compensation
equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every
completed year of continuous service or any part
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1640
thereof in excess of six months and that Section
25-F (a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-
compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of
the employee nullity.
31. The letter dated 15-6-2012 at Exb. 13 is the
termination letter, however the employer is not
aware whether the said letter is a notice or a
termination letter as seen on page 2, para B of the
written statement, wherein it is stated that the
services of Party I were terminated vide letter
dated 15-6-2012 for the reasons mentioned in the
termination letter. It is also stated in the said para
that along with termination letter, the Party I was
paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice including
retrenchment compensation as abundant caution,
though Party I was not a workman. However, Party
I has refused to accept the legal dues when offered
to her. The Party II in Para 4 of written statement
has stated that the Party I was paid one month’s
notice pay in lieu of notice along with other legal
dues applicable to her and the said notice pay in
lieu of notice was paid to Party I at the time of
issuing the termination letter, which was accepted
by Party I.
32. There is also no dispute that Party II in Para
5 of the written statement has stated that at the
time of termination of Party I, she was paid all her
legal dues applicable to her, however in last four
lines it is stated that it has paid one month’s notice
pay in lieu of notice to the Party I prior to her
termination and thereafter she was offered
retrenchment compensation as abundant caution.
It is thus seen that Party II contradicts its own
pleadings by contending that the workman was
paid along with notice, so also that the payment
was made prior to termination. However, the notice
at Exhibit 13 states that the workman would be
paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice and the
same would be credited to the Bank account. The
Party I as stated above has admitted that one
month’s salary was deposited in her Bank account
along with her June salary, however it is not known
as to when the said amount was deposited as the
amount should have been paid on 15-6-2012 as per
the termination letter dated 15-6-2012.
33. The notice/termination letter dated 15-6-2012
at Exb. 13 clearly states that Party II shall not be
able to retain the services of Party I from close of
working hours on 30-6-2012 and that Party I will be
paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice and the
same will be credited to her Bank account. The
said letter dated 15-6-2012 is in stark violation of
provision of Section 25-F(a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act as the workman/Party I has not been
retrenched by Party II giving a one month’s notice
in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment.
The notice was given on 15-6-2012 and the services
of Party I was terminated on 30-6-2012 thereby
violating the mandatory provision of Section 25-F
of the Act. The workman has not been paid in lieu
of such notice, wages for the period of the notice
on the day of termination on 15-6-2012. The period
of one month expires on 15-7-2012 and the workman
was retrenched before the expiry of mandatory
period of one month. There is thus violation of
Section 25-F as the Party I was prematurely
retrenched before expiry of 30 days.
34. Moreover, the notice dated 15-6-2012 at
Exb.13 states that the Shipping Industry has gone
into a complete recession globally for last two years
and according to indication available from
international shipping market, the trend is likely
to continue for some time and in addition,
the environment of unhealthy and unethical
competition in the Shipping Industry has also
caused serious revenue losses to Party II and in
pursuance of above, they would not be able to
retain the services of Party I. The reason for
retrenchment is therefore, global recession and
unhealthy and unethical competition in the
Shipping Industry causing serious losses in revenue
to Party II. However, the Registration certificate of
the establishment of Party II in Form III issued by
the Labour Inspector, Vasco-da-Gama at Exb. 19
demonstrate that the said Registration certificate
was issued to commence the business of ‘Shipping
Agency’ and not ‘Shipping Business’. The
termination letter at Exb. 13 shows that the
business of shipping is in recession and not the
shipping agency.
35. There is also nothing on record that the
Party II was having unethical competition in the
shipping agency and there was loss in the revenue
to Party II. Section 25-F requires that the one
month’s notice in writing should indicate the
reasons for retrenchment. The letter at Exb. 13 in
no way indicate any valid reasons for retrenchment
of the Party I. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Gammon India Limited vs. Niranjan Dass, 1983
STPL (LE) 11507 SC, has held that when pre-
requisite for valid retrenchment as laid down in
Section 25-F has not been complied with, the
retrenchment bringing about termination of service
is ab initio void. There is nothing in the notice
dated 15-6-2012 at Exb. 13 that the office to which
the Party I was attached was in the process of
being closed down and that her services would
not be required. There is also nothing on record
produced including the Balance sheets of the
company that retrenchment was on account of
global recession and loss in revenue to Party II, on
the contrary, the Party II have recruited services of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1641
other staff, after termination of Party I and therefore
the termination of service of Party I for the reasons
mentioned in the notice at Exb. 13 is not covered
by clause (a) of Section 25-F and therefore, the
termination would be illegal and ab initio void.
36. It is also mandatory in terms of Section
25-F(b) that the workman has to be 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. There is nothing
on record that the workman has been paid at the
time of retrenchment, compensation which shall
be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay. The
witness of Party II, Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal although
stated in Para 10 of the affidavit in evidence that
Party I has refused to accept the legal dues as
offered to her, no documents have been produced
on record by the said witness including the cheque
or the payment details in support of the said
contention. It is thus clear that Party II had not
complied with the mandatory provision of 25-F (b)
of the Act.
37. There is also nothing on record that the Party
II served a notice in the prescribed manner on the
appropriate Government or such authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government in
terms of clause (c) of 25-F, which is also a condition
precedent to retrenchment of a workman. The
Party II has nowhere stated in the written
statement or the affidavit of Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal
that they have complied with the provisions of
Section 25-F (c) before termination of the Party I.
Needles to mention, Section 25-F casts a duty upon
an employer to give one month’s notice in writing
indicating the reasons for retrenchment and that
the period of notice has expired, or that the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,
wages for the period of the notice and that the
workman has been paid at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay, so also that
a notice in the prescribed manner is served on the
appropriate Government.
38. The Party II has not complied with the above
provisions of law. The said provision is mandatory
and that any violation thereof renders the
termination of services of the workman illegal per
se, ab initio void and non-est rendering the action
of the employer as nullity. Needless to reiterate,
there is no violation of Section 25-G of the Act nor
there is any evidence that the Party I belonged to
a particular category of workmen in that
establishment and that she has been retrenched
from services by keeping the last person in the
employment in that category. The Party I having
proved that her retrenchment is in violation of
Section 25-F (a), (b) (c) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, the issue No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Ors., 2014 II
CLR 813, has held that the onus lies on the
employer to specifically plead and prove that the
employee was gainfully employed and was getting
the same or substantially similar emoluments and
that the employee is required to either plead or at
least make a statement before the adjudicating
authority that she was not gainfully employed. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 33(iii) has observed
that ordinarily, an employee or workman whose
services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or
at least make a statement before the adjudicating
authority or the Court of first instance that he/she
was not gainfully employed or was employed on
lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid
payment of full back wages, then it has to plead
and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the
employee/workman was gainfully employed and
was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was
drawing prior to the termination of service. This is
so because it is settled law that the burden of
proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on
the person who makes a positive averments about
its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive
fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once
the employee shows that he or she was not
employed, the onus lies on the employer to
specifically plead and prove that the employee was
gainfully employed and getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.
40. The Party I in Para 9 of the affidavit in
evidence has stated that she was unemployed from
the date of retrenchment till date and that she had
approached several offices for employment but was
not successful in getting the employment. In the
cross examination, it has been only suggested that
she has been employed and drawing more salary
than what she was getting earlier. The Party I as
required under the law has made a statement in
the claim statement as well as in the affidavit that
she was not gainfully employed, to which the Party
II has not pleaded nor led evidence to prove that
the Party I was gainfully employed and was getting
wages equal to the wages or more wages than
what she was drawing prior to termination of her
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1642
services. The Party II has failed to show that the
Party I was gainfully employed and drawing equal
or more salary than what she was getting prior to
the termination of her services, as claimed by it. It
is therefore issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4:
41. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that the appropriate Government for the
dispute in connection with their workers is Central
Government and the Party I has raised the dispute
before the State Government. The Tribunal has
therefore no jurisdiction to try and entertain the
same. He further submitted that the Party II in
reply dated 27-7-2012 at Exb. 15 to Assistant Labour
Commissioner has stated that Party II has been
carrying out activities/business in Major Ports and
therefore, the appropriate Government is Central
Government and not the State Government under
Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the
Conciliation Officer appointed by the State
Government had no jurisdiction to entertain any
dispute. The Party I however in Para 9 of the
application has stated that since the establishment
of Party II is registered under the Shops and
Establishment Act, 1973 with the State
Government, the Central Government is not an
appropriate Government.
42. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
further submitted that except the registration by
the State Government, no evidence has been led
by the Party I to dispute the above issue. The Party
II is in the business of stevedoring, forwarding and
clearing and was employed in or in connection
with Major Port work at Mormugao. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Tulsidas Khimji vs. F.
Jeejeebhoy and others, 1960 FJR Vol. XIX 396,
has held that since the dispute raised was with
regard to the retrenchment in the Clearing and
Shipping and the Godown Departments, the
activities of which could be said to be concerning
a Major Port, Section 2(a)(i) of the Act would apply
and the reference by the Central Government was
valid. He further submitted that since Goa is Major
Port and the Party I was working in connection
with major Port, the appropriate Government is the
Central Government and not the State Government
and hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try
and entertain the dispute.
43. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted and rightly so that the
Registration Certificate at Exb. 19 of Party II shows
that the nature of business of Party II is shipping
agency and the same has been registered before
Labour Inspector, Vasco-da-Gama under Goa,
Daman and Diu Shops and Establishment Rules,
which also shows that the place of establishment
is Colaco Building, 2nd Floor, Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama. There is nothing on record that
the Party II is doing shipping business within the
Port area. The Party II has claimed that the company
is in the business of Ship Agency, clearing,
stevedoring at major Port of Goa, however the
Registration Certificate at Exb. 19 does not support
the above statement of Party I. It only mentions as
‘shipping agents’ at Vasco. There is no evidence on
record that the office of the Party II is situated
within Port area. The citation of Tulsidas Khimji,
supra relied by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar cannot
be made applicable to the present case as it
pertained to activities within Port area. The
appropriate Government being the State
Government, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try
and entertain the dispute. Hence, issue No. 4 is
answered in the negative.
Issue No. 5:
44. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that in the written statement filed as
early as 16-1-2013 before the Tribunal, the Party II
had offered re-employment to the Party I
unconditionally in Mumbai on the same terms and
conditions as per the Appointment letter dated
22-05-1995 at Exb. 12. The said offer of employment
has not been disputed by Party I nor it has been
disputed the right of Party II to ask her to work in
Mumbai nor it was alleged that the transfer was
malafide or without any right. There is no reason
for Party I not to accept the offer of appointment at
their office at Fort, Mumbai on same terms and
conditions as the services of Party I are transferable
and since the Party II is ready and willing to give
employment to Party I, no relief can be granted to
Party I. He further submitted that the Party I at
page 7 of the rejoinder has stated that she would
have readily accepted the said offer, if the same
was offered before Party I was illegally terminated
in order to sustain the livelihood.
45. Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
further submitted that it is not disputed that the
offer of employment was not made. The proposal of
Party I that if the offer was made before termination,
she would have readily accepted is an afterthought.
There are no allegations that the offer was malafide
or without any authority and inspite of offer of
employment, the Party I has failed to accept the
said offer. Relying upon the case of M/s. Purafil
Engineers, Pune vs Shaikh Anwar Abdul Rahman,
2000 LLR 268, he submitted that when the
workman was offered reinstatement which was not
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1643
accepted by her, she will not be entitled to get any
wages from the date of offer. He further submitted
that when the employer offers reinstatement at
the earliest possible opportunity including
conciliation proceedings to the workman who has
alleged termination of services, awarding
reinstatement and back wages by the Labour Court
to the workman is not sustainable and in support
thereof, he relied upon the case of Madhuri
Chandulal Lakhani, Proprietor of Jenny Colour
Lab & Studio, Chembur, Mumbai vs. Prashant
Shripad Satpute, Chembur, Mumbai, 2015 LLR
239.
46. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
also submitted that if a workman fails to resume
duties, even when the offer is made before the
Conciliation Officer as well as before the Industrial
Tribunal, it would be irresistibly presumed that
she is no longer interested in the job and has
abandoned the job on her own accord and in
support thereof, he relied upon the case of Tirloki
Nath (Shri) vs. Shri Dharam Paul Arora & Anr.
2006 LLR 1043. He also submitted that
reinstatement of a workman as awarded by the
Labour Court will be set aside when she did not
report for duty, despite offer by the management
for resumption of work. Back wages will not be
awarded when the workman is not responding to
the offer of the management to resume her duties
and in support thereof, he relied upon the case of
Sonal Garments vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve, 2003
LLR 5.
47. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted that the issue framed by the
Tribunal is whether Party II is ready and willing to
give employment to Party I at Mumbai on the same
terms and conditions. However, the workman was
retrenched by the employer in flagrant violation of
statutory provision of the law and therefore, when
the offer of reinstatement was given to the Party I
before different forums, there was no employer-
-employee relationship. The first and the foremost
condition is that the workman has to be re-instated
in services and the retrenchment has to be set
aside. It is not possible for a retrenched workman
to be offered employment elsewhere unless she is
re-instated in service and therefore, the above issue
cannot be said to have been proved by the
Party II.
48. Needless to mention, there was no employer-
employee relationship between the Party I and
Party II after the Party I was illegally retrenched by
the Party II in violation of statutory provisions of
law. The Party II cannot offer employment in their
office at Mumbai when she was retrenched from
employment at Goa. No offer was given by the
Party II before termination of services of Party I.
The Party II could have shown the bonafide by
offering services at their Mumbai office on same
terms and conditions before her termination. The
Party II could have transferred the Party I to their
office at Mumbai as the job was transferable but
could not have terminated the services of Party I
which led to the present dispute and therefore, on
the above ground alone, the offer of reinstatement
at their Mumbai office, cannot sustain.
49. It is the case of Party II that the offer of
employment was given before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner vide its reply dated 27-7-2012 at
Exb. 15. A little peep into the said letter show that
no such offer had been given of reinstatement to
Party I, on the contrary it has been alleged that
Party I is not the workman under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and therefore not entitled
to raise the dispute. The Party I was appointed
vide appointment letter dated 22-05-1995 at
Exb. 12 and was terminated vide its letter dated
15-6-2012 at Exb. 13 which shows that the Party I
worked at Vasco without any transfer for last 17
years and therefore, if at all, the Party I was to be
offered employment, it should have been at Vasco,
wherein Party I was retrenched. The offer of
employment to join the office at Mumbai was given
on 16-1-2013 with condition that the workman
should join at Mumbai. The witness of Party II,
Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal has stated in cross
examination at page 3 that the company will not
accept her services at Vasco, if she is willing to
join at Vasco office, since their financial difficulties
are still existing in Vasco. He categorically stated
that their offer of re-employment is on the condition
that she should join their Mumbai head office.
50. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case
of Doctor Pradhan vs Kumar Industries and anr.,
2007(115) FLR 164, has held that when the offer is
conditional, the question of accepting the job does
not arise. Needless to reiterate, the so called offer
made by the Party II for providing employment to
the Party I was not genuine and instead was
malafide and therefore the refusal on the part of
the workman to accept the offer of re-employment
was not bad in law. The Hon’ble High Court in Para
5 has observed thus;
5. These submissions are stated only to be
rejected. There is no dispute that the terms of
Reference indicate that the dispute which
existed between the parties was whether the
petitioner was entitled to re-instatement in
service with continuity of service and back
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1644
wages. The dispute was not whether he should
be employed with the contractor because it
was the petitioner’s case that the respondent
was his employer. The submission that the
workman should have accepted the job with
the respondent’s contractor and then sought
regularization makes a mockery of the plight
of the workman. As stated earlier, the dispute
was between the respondent and the petitioner
and not with any contractor. The petitioner
was never employed with any contractor
and,therefore, the question of his accepting
the job with a contractor does not arise.
Therefore, the so-called offer made by the
respondent for providing employment to the
petitioner was not genuine and instead was
malafide. The offer of employment stated in
the failure report indicates that the offer was
conditional and therefore the workman refused
the offer. In any case, it could not be said that
the Reference was not maintainable or that
the dispute was not in existence.”
51. In the instant case, the workman from the
date of appointment till the date of retrenchment
i.e. 15th June, 2012 worked at Vasco and never
worked at any other place and therefore the
conditional offer of employment given for the first
time before the Hon’ble Tribunal, that the workman
has to join at Mumbai cannot be termed as genuine.
Therefore, the intention of the employer was not to
provide the employment to the Party I, but to
victimize her. The offer made by the Party II being
conditional, the question of accepting the offer of
employment at Mumbai office does not arise as it
is malafide and not genuine and was made only
after termination of the Party I to wriggle out of the
situation the Party II was in, on account of illegal
termination of Party I without following the
mandatory provisions of the law. It is therefore the
above issue is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 6:
52. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I has
submitted that the main controversy in the dispute
is whether there is violation of the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He
further submitted that in cases in which the
Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross
violation of the statutory provisions or principles
of natural justice or is guilty of victimization of the
employee, then Tribunal will be fully justified in
directing payment of full back wages with
reinstatement and consequential benefits. He
further submitted that there is nothing on record
that in the notice of termination dated 15-6-2012,
the office to which the Party I was working was in
the process of being closed down, so her services
would no more be required. The termination of the
services of Party I for reasons mentioned in the
notice is not covered by any of the clauses of
Section 25-F and therefore retrenchment is ipso
facto illegal. In support thereof, he relied upon the
cases of (1) Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors.,
2014 II CLR 813; (2) Gammon India vs. Niranjan
Dass, 1983 STPL(LE) 11507 SC; 1(3) U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Uday Narain
Pandey, 2005 STPL (LE) 35154 SC; (4) Hindustan
Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees of M/s.
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd & Ors., 1978
STPL(LE) 9432 SC.
53. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for
Party II has submitted that when Party II had given
an unconditional offer of employment to the Party
I on same terms and conditions, the failure of the
Party I to report for work at the place of transfer
would disentitle the Party I to get any relief
including relief of reinstatement and back wages
as it will be presumed that she is no longer
interested in the job and has abandoned the job on
her own accord. He also submitted that the
workman cannot reap benefits of her own faults,
when she failed to respond to the offer of employer
to join duties, more particularly when such offer
was re-iterated before the Conciliation Officer and
the Tribunal. He further submitted that apart from
that, the Party I has already been employed for
higher wages than what she was earning with
Party II and therefore, she is not entitled for any
reliefs.
54. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase, supra,
the Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has held that if the order of termination is void ab
initio, the workman is entitled to full back-wages.
The relevant Para 22 of the decision is extracted
hereunder:-
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1645
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The re-
instatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or Court that the
action taken by the employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back-wages. If the employer wants to deny
back-wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back-
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer, would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back-wages including
the emoluments.”
55. In the case of Gammon India, supra, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the
pre-requisites for a valid retrenchment as laid down
in Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act has not
been complied with, the retrenchment bringing
about termination of service is ab initio void. In the
case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation, supra, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no precise
formula can be laid down as to under what
circumstances payment of entire back wages would
be allowed. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of the each case. It is not automatic.
It should not be granted mechanically. Payment of
full back wages cannot be natural consequence.
56. In the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd, supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
where termination of service is questioned as being
invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through
the litigation, his capacity to sustain himself
throughout the protracted litigation is itself so
precarious that he may not survive to see the day
when relief is granted. If after such prolonged
litigation the workman is not paid his back wages,
it would amount to a penalty for no fault of his. The
workman whose service has been illegally
terminated would be entitled to full back wages
except to the extent he was gainfully employed
during the enforced idleness. If the termination is
illegal or motivated it may amount to unfair labour
practice. In such circumstances reinstatement
being the normal rule, it should be done with full
back wages and the party objecting to it must
establish the circumstances necessitating
departure. The Tribunal will then exercise its
discretion, but the discretion must be exercised in
a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for
exercising discretion must be cogent and
convincing and must appear on the face of the
record. It should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful
but legal and regular.
57. Needless to mention, the Party I has proved
violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The employer has terminated the services of
Party I by letter dated 15-6-2012. There are no
pleading or evidence on behalf of the employer
that the workman was gainfully employed after
the retrenchment. It is also well settled that in
cases of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is a normal rule. The company is still
functioning and is carrying on business at Vasco
and also has appointed other employees in their
employment. The Party II has not produced any
documents including balance sheet to show that
it is running in loss, closed down or is in severe
financial doldrums or that the Party I has been
employed or secured better permanent employment
elsewhere. The Party I having proved that the
employer terminated her services illegally and that
the termination is motivated and found to be invalid
and that the employer has taken away her right to
work, contrary to the relevant law and has deprived
her of the earnings, the Party I is entitled for the
reliefs claimed.
58. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i.
The application filed by Party I workman
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act stands allowed.
ii.
It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s J. M. Baxi & Co., Vasco,
Goa in terminating the services of Party I,
Mrs. Pornima Uday Sawant, with effect from
30-06-2012 is illegal and unjustified.
iii.
The Party II is directed to reinstate the
services of Party I, Mrs. Pornima Uday
Sawant, with full back wages for the period
of unemployment, continuity in services and
consequential benefits attached to the post.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1646
iv.
The Party II is directed to deposit back
wages before the Tribunal as stated above
within 60 days of the publication of the
Award, failing which the Party II shall pay
an interest @ 9% per annum.
v.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-III/645
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
09-08-2017 in Appln. No. 8/2012 is hereby published
as rerquired 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, 12th September, 2017.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 8/2012
Shri Krishna V. Dabolkar,
H. No. 85, Ward No. VIII,
Behind Candelaria Church,
Sasmolem, Baina,
Vasco-da-Gama.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co.,
Colaco Building,
Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa
(403 802)
… Opponent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Opponent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 9th day of the month of
August of the year 2017)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. In short, the case of the Party I is that he filed
an application for conciliation of the dispute dated
12-07-2012 before the Conciliation Officer in respect
of illegal retrenchment of his services. The Party II
filed a reply on 27-7-2012 contending that the
appropriate Government is the Central Government
and not the State Government. The Conciliation
Officer failed to adjudicate the dispute inspite of
the expiry of forty five days’ from the date of the
application and hence, filed the application under
Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
3. The Party II is engaged in business at Colaco
Building, Swatantra Peth, Vasco and is registered
under Shops and Establishment Act, 1973 with the
State Government. The Party II had engaged the
services of Party I who was employed as Junior
Assistant on permanent basis w.e.f. 15-02-1995. The
Party II on 25-6-2012 issued a notice dated
15-6-2012 informing Party I that Party II shall not
be able to retain his services from close of working
hours on 30-6-2012. It was mentioned in the said
letter that one month’s salary in lieu of notice will
be credited in his account along with salary of
June, 2012 and in pursuance of the said letter, the
services of the workman were retrenched from
30-6-2012. The service record of the workman is
honest and unblemished and these are no adverse
entries in his record.
4. The retrenchment of Party I is in violation of
Section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act. The Party I
was issued with a notice dated 15-6-2012 indicating
the reasons that there is global recession and his
services were retrenched from 30-6-2012 which is
in flagrant violation of provision of Section 25-F in
as much as a notice was issued on 25-6-2012,
however, the Party I was retrenched on 30-6-2012
much prior to the expiry of 30 days as provided
under the Act. The Party II has also failed to pay
at the time of retrenchment, compensation which
shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every
completed years of continuous service or any part
thereof in excess of six months. The provisions of
Section 25-F (a), (b) & (c) are mandatory and
therefore, the termination of the services of Party
I is null and void and illegal.
5. The retrenchment of Party I workman is also
in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial
Disputes Act in as much as the employer has not
retrenched the person who was the last to be
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1647
employed. The Party I had retained the services of
the workman who has been employed after the
Party I. The Party I has employed Mr. Amrish
Waghmare, Mr. Umesh Shinde, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi,
Mr. Snehedu Shekkar recently before the
retrenchment of Party I. The Party I at the present
age is not in a position to get the alternative
employment on account of the age bar. The Party
I on account of employment and sufficient income
has availed loan and due to abrupt retrenchment
of his services, will not be in a position to maintain
the standard of living. The Party II is doing good
business and is financially strong. The Party I is
unemployed from the date of retrenchment till date.
The Party I had approached several offices for
employment but was not successful in getting the
employment. The action of the employer in
retrenching his services is illegal. The termination
of the services of Party I workman is void and
unjustified. The workman is entitled for
reinstatement in services with full back wages and
continuity in services. Hence, the application.
6. The Opponent/Party II filed a Written
statement inter alia contending that the
application is premature as matter is pending before
the Conciliation Officer. The services of Party I were
terminated due to global recession in the Shipping
industry for last two years as the business of the
company have been very bad. The company has
paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice with the
termination letter including retrenchment
compensation, though the Party I was not a
workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.
The Party I however had refused to accept the
legal dues offered to him. The Party I was employed
in or in connection with the major port work as the
company is in the business of ship agency,
stevedoring etc. at the major port of Goa and
therefore, the Party I ought to have raised the
dispute before the Central Government and not
the State Government. The services of Party I were
terminated as there was no work available in Goa
due to global recession. The Party II was ready and
willing to give employment to Party I at their office
at Mumbai on the same terms and conditions as
the services of Party I are transferable, which offer
Party I refused. No case has been made out by
Party I and hence, not entitled for any relief.
7. The Party I filed a Rejoinder at Exhibit 5
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement. It is stated that the company had
advance booking till 2013 for shipping assignment
and is doing flourishing business in shipping
assignment. The Party II has not paid legal dues
along with termination letter including
retrenchment compensation. The Party II has
registered their establishment before the State
Government and therefore the State Government
has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The
Party I would have readily accepted the offer of
joining at Mumbai office, if the same was offered
before Party I was illegally terminated, in order to
sustain the livelihood. The company had not given
any offer before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
The retrenchment of the services of Party I
workman is in violation of Section 25-F (a), (b), (c)
and Section 25-G of the Act. The Party I is entitled
for reinstatement of services with full back wages
and continuity in service.
8. Issues framed at Exhibit 7 are as follows:
1) Whether the Party I proves that despite expiry
of 45 days from the date of the application
for conciliation of dispute, the conciliation
officer failed to adjudicate the dispute
referred to therein?
2) Whether the Party I proves that his
retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-F
(a), (b), (c) and Section 25-G of the I.D. Act,
1947?
3) Whether the Party I proves that he is
unemployed from the date of retrenchment,
till date?
4) Whether the Party II proves that the
appropriate Government for any dispute in
connection with their workers/labourers is
the Central Government and Party I having
raised the dispute before State Government,
this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the same?
5) Whether the Party II proves that they were
ready and willing to give employment to
Party I at Mumbai at their office at 16, Bank
Street, Fort, Mumbai, 400 001 on the same
terms and conditions?
6) What relief? What Award?
9. In the course of evidence, the Party I,
Shri Krishna Dabolkar examined himself as witness
and produced on record his affidavit-in-evidence
at Exb. 11, a copy of appointment letter dated
08-02-1995 at Exb. 12, a copy of termination notice
dated 15-6-2012 at Exb. 13, a copy of application
raising dispute dated 12-7-2012 at Exb. 14, a copy
of reply dated 27-7-2012 by Party II to ALC at
Exb. 15, a copy of Service Certificate dated
30-06-2012 at Exb. 16 and a copy of confirmation
letter dated 24-08-1995 at Exb. 17. On the other
hand, the Party II examined Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal
as their witness and produced on record his
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1648
affidavit-in-evidence at Exb. 19 and a copy of
Registration Certificate of establishment at
Exb. 20.
10. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments
came to be placed on record by the parties.
11. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the submissions made
by the learned advocates for Parties. My findings
on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1 … In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2 … In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3 … In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 … In the Negative.
Issue No. 5 … In the Negative.
Issue No. 6 … As per Final Order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
12. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I had
submitted that under Section 2-A(2) of the
Act–notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 10, any such workman as is specified in
sub-section (1) may make an application direct to
the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of
the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of
the forty-five days’ from the date he has made the
application to the Conciliation Officer of the
appropriate Government for conciliation of the
dispute, and in receipt of such application, the
Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal shall have
powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon dispute.
The Party I had filed an application dated
12-7-2012 before the Conciliation Officer and even
after expiry of forty five days’, the conciliation
proceedings could not be settled. The Party II had
admitted that the workman had filed the
application before the Labour Commissioner and
that the period of forty-five days’ had expired and
therefore issue No. 1 has to be answered in
affirmative.
13. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for
Party II has submitted that it is mandatory that the
matter has to be dealt with by the Conciliation
Officer. Nothing has been produced by the Party I
that the conciliation proceedings were held before
the Conciliation Officer. Nothing is on record that
the matter in connection with the Party I was
admitted in conciliation and/or conciliation
proceedings held before the Conciliation Officer,
except the complaint. He further submitted that
since no documentary proof has been produced by
the Party I, the application filed by Party I is bad
in law. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar relying upon
the case of Suresh Vithoo Nare V/s Dharamsi
Morarji Chemicals Company Ltd., Ambemath and
anothis, 1992 1 BOM CR 316 has submitted that
mere issue of notice by the Conciliation Officer
does not amount to instituting a conciliation
proceeding. There is no compliance of Section
2-A(2) of the Act to the effect that proceedings
were held before Conciliation Officer and therefore,
the dispute itself is bad in law and hence, the
application under Section 2-A(2) is not
maintainable.
14. Admittedly, the application has been filed
by Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, which mandates that any workman
may make an application direct to the Labour Court
or Tribunal for adjudication of dispute referred to
therein after the expiry of forty-five days’ from the
date he has made the application to the
Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government
for conciliation of the dispute and in receipt of
such application, the Labour Court or Tribunal shall
have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the dispute. There is no dispute that the Party I
had filed the said application on 12-07-2012 before
the Conciliation Officer and that the present
proceeding has been filed before the Tribunal on
7-9-2012, which is after expiry of forty-five days’ of
the filing of the application before Conciliation
Officer. The Party II has claimed in Para 1 of the
Written statement that even after expiry of forty-
five days’, the conciliation proceedings could not
be settled amicably due to the rigid and adamant
attitude of the Party I.
15. The witness of Party II, Capt. Shri Rajesh
Saigal in Para 3 of his affidavit has stated that the
Party I has raised the dispute when the conciliation
proceeding are currently pending before the
Conciliation Officer and no failure report has been
sent by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate
Government and that the Party I has filed an
application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act arising
out from the same subject matter. In the cross
examination, he has admitted that he appeared
before Assistant Labour Commissioner when the
dispute was raised and also filed a reply before the
conciliation proceedings. The Party II has thus
admitted in the pleadings as well as in the
affidavit-in-evidence that the Party I had filed the
application before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and that they had participated in
the said proceedings. There is no dispute that the
application was filed on 12-07-2012 and that the
Assistant Labour Commissioner had not decided
the dispute within forty-five days’, after which the
Party I filed the application under Section 2-A(2)
on 7-9-2012 before the Tribunal.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1649
16. Discernibly, Section 2-A(2) clearly stipulates
of filing of an application before the Tribunal or
the Labour Court for the adjudication of the dispute
referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days’
of the application filed before the Conciliation
Officer, which was complied by Party I and the
said fact has been admitted by Party II. It is
therefore the contention of Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar
as stated above cannot be accepted. The reliance
placed by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar in the case
of Suresh Vithoo Nare, (supra), in support of his
contention that the cause of action to file the
application arises from the date of admission of the
conciliation by the Conciliation Officer cannot be
considered as the Party I has filed the said
application after expiry of forty-five days’ from the
date of filing application. Moreover, the judgment
of Suresh Vithoo Nare (supra), has no relevance to
the amended provision of Section 2-A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, which came into existence
in Sept., 2010, while the case of Suresh Nare is
much earlier to the said amended provision and
has no connection with the facts of present case.
The fact and the law in the above case is
completely in variance with the present case and
therefore, the above submission of Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar pales into insignificance. It is
therefore the above issue is answered in the
affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
17. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that it is obligatory on the part of a
person who makes an application under Section
2-A(2) of the Act to show that he is a workman and
there should be pleadings and evidence to the
effect that he was performing manual, skilled,
unskilled, technical, operational or clerical work,
which would signify that he is a workman within
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. He further submitted that in
the entire application made before the Industrial
Tribunal or Assistant Labour Commissioner there
is no iota of evidence that Party I is a workman or
not and it is the position of law that the person
who pleads a particular fact has to justify it in
pleadings. According to him, there are also no
means to find out whether the Party I is a workman
or not and this burden has not been discharged by
the Party I in the entire proceedings. In fact, the
Party I has clearly admitted that he was Junior
Executive and his salary structure changed after
he became Junior Executive.
18. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted that Section 2(s) of the Act
defines ‘workman’ as any person employed in an
industry to do any manual, skilled, unskilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work
for hire or reward. He further submitted that as per
clause 3 of the Appointment letter at Exb. 12, the
duties of Party I include accounts work and other
items as entrusted. He further submitted that the
dispute is pertaining to the retrenchment of services
of the workman who was working as Junior
Assistant in the firm and the nature of duties
which includes accounts work performed by the
workman determine that he was a workman
working for Party II. He further submitted that no
issue has been framed by the Tribunal as to whether
the Party I is a workman or not as the company has
not denied that the Party I was a workman and the
appointment letter on record clearly shows that
the duties of Party I included accounts work and
other items as entrusted.
19. It is well settled that the question as to
whether the Party I is a workman depends upon
the nature of duties performed by employee and
not his designation. The Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in case of Aloysius Nunes vs Thomas Cook
India Ltd., 2000(3) LLN 160 has held that one of
the tests to find out whether the person employed
is in a managerial or administrative capacity was
to ascertain, if he was entrusted with the duty/
/responsibility of distribution of work. Another test
that could be considered is whether in the
discharge of his managerial or administrative
duties, did he perform any supervisory work. The
third test would be, does he occupy a position, to
command or decide and is he authorised to act in
certain matters within the limits of the authority
given to him without the sanction of Manager or
other Supervisor. The fourth test would be, is he in
command of a territory or department over which
he exercises his managerial function. The fifth test
is what is the designation in the official record of
the person and in the attendance register and
whether the Manager could in the performance of
his duties could innovate.
20. It is also held in the case of Standard
Chartered Bank vs. Vandana Joshi and Anr.,
2010 2 MhLJ 22, that the Court has to examine the
dominant nature of work or duties assigned to an
employee. In case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd.
vs. D. Samuel and Others, 1999 LLR 21, it is held
that some of the tests laid down are (1) Designation
is not material but what is important is the nature
of work, (2) Find out the dominant purpose of
employment and not any additional duties, the
employee may be performing, (3) Can he bind the
company/employer to some kind of decisions on
behalf of the company/employer, (4) Has the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1650
employee power to direct or oversee the work of
his subordinates, (5) Has he power to sanction leave
or recommend it; and (6) Has he has the power to
appoint, terminate or take disciplinary action
against workmen. It is further held that some other
tests are (a) Whether the employee can examine
the quality of work and whether such work is
performed in satisfactory manner or not; (b) Does
the employee have powers of assigning duties and
distribution of work; (c) Can he indent material
and distribute the same amongst the workmen; (d)
Even though he has no authority to grant leave,
does he have power to recommend leave; (e) Are
there persons working under him; (f) Has he the
power to supervise the work of men and not merely
machines; (g) Does he mark the attendance of other
employees; (h) Does he write the confidential
reports of his subordinates.
21. There is no dispute that no issue as to
whether the Party I is a workman or not is framed.
The question whether the Party I is a workman or
not is a question of fact which has been admitted
by the Party II in the written statement, although
denied in some paras of the written statement. The
Party I in Para 2 of claim statement has clearly
stated that the Party I workman is one of the
workmen employed as ‘Junior Assistant’ on
permanent basis with effect from 16th August, 1995
in basic salary of Rs. 560/- in the grade of 500-60-
-740-70-1090-85-1600-100-2200-120-2680, to which
the Party II in Para 2 of written statement has
claimed that the Party I was employed by Party II
as ‘Jr. Executive’, however, the nature of duties of
Party I as so called Jr. Executive has not been
defined. The Party II, however in Para B of the
written statement has stated that Party I was not
a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the
Act.
22. It is thus seen that Party I has clearly stated
in the claim statement that he is the workman
employed as Junior Assistant, while it is the case
of Party II that he was employed by Party II as a
‘Jr. Executive’. Section 2(s) defines ‘workman’ as
any person (including an apprentice) employed in
any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work
for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the
purpose of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence
of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not
include any such person – (i) who is subject to the
Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act,
1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957);
or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as
an officer or other employee of a prison, or (iii) who
is employed mainly in a managerial or administra-
tive capacity or (iv) who, being employed in a
supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten
thousand rupees) per mensem or exercises, either
by the nature of the duties attached to the office
or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions
mainly of a managerial nature.
23. Needless to mention, no issue has been
framed as to whether Party I is a workman or not
and rightly so because, Para 2 of the claim
statement has not been specifically denied by Party
II. On the contrary, it is stated by Party II that he
was employed by them in the capacity of a
‘Jr. Executive’. Clause 2 of the Appointment letter
at Exb. 12, clearly states that Party I was drawing
basic salary of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only)
per month in the grade of 500-60-740-70-1090-85-
-1600-100-2200-120-2680 and also Fixed Dearness
Allowance of Rs. 1400/- (Rupees one thousand four
hundred only) and Local Allowance of Rs. 225/-
(Rupees two hundred twenty five only) per month
and that Clause 3 of the said Appointment letter
clearly states that the duties of the Party I include
accounts works and other items as entrusted.
24. The Party I has averred that he was employed
as Junior Assistant on permanent basis, which fact
is not in dispute. The letter of appointment dated
08-02-1995 at Exb. 12 clearly specifies the duties of
the Party I at clause 3 which are in the nature of
skilled, technical and clerical. The Appointment
letter is not in dispute however, the Party II claimed
that he was employed as a ‘Jr. Executive’. The
witness of Party II, Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal has not
specified as to what duties the Party I was
performing as a ‘Jr. Executive’. The nature of work
clearly shows that it was clerical and not in a
supervisory, managerial or administrative capacity.
The designation is not material. The Party I was
not appointed as executive. The dominant purpose
of employment was to perform the clerical duties.
He was not appointed to oversee the work of his
subordinates nor he had power to sanction leave
or recommend it nor he had power to appoint,
terminate or take disciplinary action against the
workmen. The documentary evidence clearly show
that the Party I was employed as Junior Assistant
and not the Jr. Executive as claimed by Party II.
The evidence of record including the Appointment
letter indicates that the Party I was a ‘workman’
with duties of clerical in nature and therefore the
Party I would fall in the definition of workman
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1651
within Section 2(s) of the Act and hence, the
contention of Ld. Adv. Shri Bandodkar as stated
above, pales into insignificance.
25. Once, it is held that Party I is a workman, it
is to be seen whether the retrenchment of Party I
is in violation of Section 25-F (a), (b), (c) and Section
25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
26. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that in Para 3 of the application, it is the
only case of the Party I that he was issued a notice
dated 15-06-2012 on 25-06-2012 stating that Party
II shall not be able to retain his services from close
of working hours on 30-06-2012 and also mentioned
in the said notice that one month’s salary would
be credited in the Bank alongwith the salary of
June, 2012. He further submitted that Party I has
admitted in cross examination that one month’s
salary was deposited in his Bank account along
with his June, 2012 salary which means that there
is no violation of Section 25-F of the Act. If the
letter is given on 25-06-2012 as mentioned in Para
4 by the Party II, the termination would be after
one month i.e. termination would come into effect
on 25-07-2012. It is pertinent to note that if that is
so, the Service Certificate dated 30-06-2012 at
Exb. 16 which has been produced by the Party I
clearly shows that the Party I left from the services
on 30-06-2012. If this is true, then the Party I on his
own showing left service prior to termination came
into effect i.e. prior to 25-07-2012. Therefore, if the
Party I has left services prior to 25-07-2012, there is
no question of retrenchment or violation to that
effect because prior to retrenchment came into
force, the Party I left services on 30-06-2012 and
therefore, entire allegation of retrenchment itself
is bad in law.
27. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted that the Service Certificate
at Exb. 16 has no relevance to the case of the
parties, which is self contradictory. He further
submitted that the condition precedent to
retrenchment of workman is 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 notice; (b) the workman
has been paid at the time of retrenchment,
compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days’ average pay or any part thereof in excess of
six months; (c) notice in prescribed manner is
served on appropriate Government. He further
submitted the employer has not retrenched the
person who was last person to be employed and
therefore also violated Section 25-G of the Act.
According to him, once it is proved that the Party
II has violated the provisions of Section 25-F and
25-G of the Act, the Party I is entitled to the
protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.
28. Discernibly, the Service Certificate dated
30-06-2012 produced Party I at Exb. 16 is neither
relied upon by the Party I nor Party II in their list
of documents nor it was pleaded by them. The said
Service Certificate issued by Party II to Party I reads
that the Party I joined them as Accounts Assistant
on 15-02-1995 at Goa branch and was working in
the capacity of Jr. Executive in their department
when he left from their service on 30-6-2012. The
said Certificate is contrary to the case of Party II
vis-a-vis the termination letter dated 15-6-2012. The
said Service Certificate also do not have any
bearing on the case at hand as it is self
contradictory and therefore, the above submission
of Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar cannot be accepted
having any merits.
29. 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.]
30. Similarly, under Section 25-G: While 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
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1652
workman who was the last person to be employed
in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded
the employer retrenches any other workman.
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anoop
Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health
Division No.1, 2010 II CLR 1, has observed in Para
13 that no workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than
one year under an employer can be retrenched by
that employer until the conditions enumerated in
clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act are
satisfied. In terms of clause (a), the employer is
required to give to the workman one month’s notice
in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
or pay him wages in lieu of notice. Clause (b) casts
a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman
‘at the time of retrenchment’, compensation
equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every
completed year of continuous service or any part
thereof in excess of six months and that Section
25-F (a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and
non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment
of the employee nullity.
32. The letter dated 15-6-2012 at Exb. 13 is the
termination letter, however the employer is not
aware whether the said letter is a notice or a
termination letter as seen on page 2, para B of the
written statement, wherein it is stated that the
services of Party I were terminated vide letter dated
15-6-2012 for the reasons mentioned in the
termination letter. It is also stated in the said para
that along with termination letter, the Party I was
paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice including
retrenchment compensation as abundant caution,
though Party I was not a workman. However, Party
I has refused to accept the legal dues when offered
to him. The Party II in Para 4 of written statement
has stated that the Party I was paid one month’s
notice pay in lieu of notice along with other legal
dues applicable to him and the said notice pay in
lieu of notice was paid to Party I at the time of
issuing the termination letter, which was accepted
by Party I.
33. There is also no dispute that Party II in Para
5 of the written statement has stated that at the
time of termination of Party I, he was paid all his
legal dues applicable to him, however in last four
lines it is stated that it has paid one month’s notice
pay in lieu of notice to the Party I prior to his
termination and thereafter he was offered
retrenchment compensation as abundant caution.
It is thus seen that Party II contradicts its own
pleadings by contending that the workman was
paid along with notice, so also that the payment
was made prior to termination. However, the notice
at Exhibit 13 states that the workman would be
paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice and the
same would be credited to the Bank account. The
Party I as stated above has admitted that one
month’s salary was deposited in his Bank account
along with his June salary, however it is not known
as to when the said amount was deposited as the
amount should have been paid on 15-6-2012 as per
the termination letter dated 15-6-2012.
34. The notice/termination letter dated 15-6-2012
at Exb. 13 clearly states that Party II shall not be
able to retain the services of Party I from close of
working hours on 30-6-2012 and that the Party I
will be paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice
and the same will be credited to his Bank account.
The said letter dated 15-6-2012 is in stark violation
of provision of Section 25-F(a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act as the workman/Party I has not been
retrenched by Party II giving a one month’s
notice in writing indicating valid reasons for
retrenchment. The notice was given on 15-6-2012
and the services of Party I was terminated on
30-6-2012 thereby violating the mandatory
provision of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman
has not been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for
the period of the notice on the day of termination
on 15-6-2012. The period of one month expires on
15-7-2012 and the workman was retrenched before
the expiry of mandatory period of one month. There
is thus violation of Section 25-F as the Party I was
prematurely retrenched before expiry of 30 days.
35. Moreover, the notice dated 15-6-2012 at
Exb.13 states that the Shipping Industry has gone
into a complete recession globally for last two years
and according to indication available from
international shipping market, the trend is likely
to continue for some time and in addition, the
environment of unhealthy and unethical
competition in the Shipping Industry has also
caused serious revenue losses to Party II and in
pursuance of above, they would not be able to
retain the services of Party I. The reason for
retrenchment is therefore, global recession and
unhealthy and unethical competition in the
Shipping Industry causing serious losses in revenue
to Party II. However, the Registration certificate of
the establishment of Party II in Form III issued by
the Labour Inspector, Vasco-da-Gama at Exb. 20
demonstrate that the said Registration certificate
was issued to commence the business of ‘Shipping
Agency’ and not ‘Shipping Business’. The
termination letter at Exb. 13 shows that the
business of shipping is in recession and not the
shipping agency.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1653
36. There is also nothing on record that the
Party II was having unethical competition in the
shipping agency and there was loss in the revenue
to Party II. Section 25-F requires that the one
month’s notice in writing should indicate the
reasons for retrenchment. The letter at Exb. 13 in
no way indicate any valid reasons for retrenchment
of the Party I. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Gammon India Limited vs. Niranjan Dass, 1983
STPL (LE) 11507 SC, has held that when
pre-requisite for valid retrenchment as laid down
in Section 25-F has not been complied with, the
retrenchment bringing about termination of service
is ab initio void. There is nothing in the notice
dated 15-6-2012 at Exb. 13 that the office to which
the Party I was attached was in the process of
being closed down and that his services would not
be required. There is also nothing on record
produced including the Balance sheets of the
company that retrenchment was on account of
global recession and loss in revenue to Party II, on
the contrary, the Party II have recruited services of
other staff, after termination of Party I and therefore
the termination of service of Party I for the reasons
mentioned in the notice at Exb. 13 is not covered
by clause (a) of Section 25-F and therefore, the
termination would be illegal and ab initio void.
37. It is also mandatory in terms of Section
25-F(b) that the workman has to be 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. There is nothing
on record that the workman has been paid at the
time of retrenchment, compensation which shall
be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay. The
witness of Party II, Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal although
stated in Para 10 of the affidavit in evidence that
Party I has refused to accept the legal dues as
offered to him, no documents have been produced
on record by the said witness including the cheque
or the payment details in support of the said
contention. It is thus clear that Party II had not
complied with the mandatory provision of 25-F (b)
of the Act.
38. There is also nothing on record that the Party
II served a notice in the prescribed manner on the
appropriate Government or such authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government in
terms of clause (c) of 25-F, which is also a condition
precedent to retrenchment of a workman. The Party
II has nowhere stated in the written statement or
the affidavit of Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal that
they have complied with the provisions of Section
25-F (c) before termination of the Party I. Needles
to mention, Section 25-F casts a duty upon an
employer to give one month’s notice in writing
indicating the reasons for retrenchment and that
the period of notice has expired, or that the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,
wages for the period of the notice, and that the
workman has been paid at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay, so also that
a notice in the prescribed manner is served on the
appropriate Government.
39. The Party II has not complied with the above
provisions of law. The said provision is mandatory
and that any violation thereof renders the
termination of services of the workman illegal per
se, ab initio void and non-est rendering the action
of the employer as nullity. Needless to reiterate,
there is no violation of Section 25-G of the Act nor
there is any evidence that the Party I belonged to
a particular category of workmen in that
establishment and that he has been retrenched
from services by keeping the last person in the
employment in that category. The Party I having
proved that his retrenchment is in violation of
Section 25-F (a), (b), (c) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, the issue No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
40. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Ors., 2014 II
CLR 813, has held that the onus lies on the
employer to specifically plead and prove that the
employee was gainfully employed and was getting
the same or substantially similar emoluments and
that the employee is required to either plead or at
least make a statement before the adjudicating
authority that he was not gainfully employed. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 33(iii) has observed
that ordinarily, an employee or workman whose
services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or
at least make a statement before the adjudicating
authority or the Court of first instance that he/she
was not gainfully employed or was employed on
lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid
payment of full back wages, then it has to plead
and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the
employee/workman was gainfully employed and
was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was
drawing prior to the termination of service. This is
so because it is settled law that the burden of
proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on
the person who makes a positive averments about
its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive
fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1654
the employee shows that he or she was not
employed, the onus lies on the employer to
specifically plead and prove that the employee was
gainfully employed and getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.
41. The Party I in Para 9 of the affidavit in
evidence has stated that he was unemployed from
the date of retrenchment till date and that he had
approached several offices for employment but was
not successful in getting the employment. In the
cross examination, it has been only suggested that
he has been employed and drawing more salary
than what he was getting earlier. The Party I as
required under the law has made a statement in
the claim statement as well as in the affidavit that
he was not gainfully employed, to which the Party
II has not pleaded nor led evidence to prove that
the Party I was gainfully employed and was getting
wages equal to the wages or more wages than
what he was drawing prior to termination of his
services. The Party II has failed to show that the
Party I was gainfully employed and drawing equal
or more salary than what he was getting prior to
the termination of his services, as claimed by it. It
is therefore issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4:
42. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that the appropriate Government for the
dispute in connection with their workers is Central
Government and the Party I has raised the dispute
before the State Government. The Tribunal has
therefore no jurisdiction to try and entertain the
same. He further submitted that the Party II in
reply dated 27-7-2012 at Exb. 15 to Assistant Labour
Commissioner has stated that Party II has been
carrying out activities/business in Major Ports and
therefore, the appropriate Government is Central
Government and not the State Government under
Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the
Conciliation Officer appointed by the State
Government had no jurisdiction to entertain any
dispute. The Party I however in Para 9 of the
application has stated that since the establishment
of Party II is registered under the Shops and
Establishment Act, 1973 with the State
Government, the Central Government is not an
appropriate Government.
43. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
further submitted that except the registration by
the State Government, no evidence has been led
by the Party I to dispute the above issue. The Party
II is in the business of stevedoring, forwarding and
clearing and was employed in or in connection
with Major Port work at Mormugao. The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Tulsidas Khimji vs. F.
Jeejeebhoy and others, 1960 FJR Vol. XIX 396,
has held that since the dispute raised was with
regard to the retrenchment in the Clearing and
Shipping and the Godown Departments, the
activities of which could be said to be concerning
a Major Port, Section 2(a)(i) of the Act would apply
and the reference by the Central Government was
valid. He further submitted that since Goa is Major
Port and the Party I was working in connection
with major Port, the appropriate Government is the
Central Government and not the State Government
and hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try
and entertain the dispute.
44. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted and rightly so that the
Registration Certificate at Exb. 20 of Party II shows
that the nature of business of Party II is shipping
agency and the same has been registered before
Labour Inspector, Vasco-da-Gama under Goa,
Daman and Diu Shops and Establishment Rules,
which also shows that the place of establishment
is Colaco Building, 2nd Floor, Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama. There is nothing on record that
the Party II is doing shipping business within the
Port area. The Party II has claimed that the company
is in the business of Ship Agency, clearing,
stevedoring at major Port of Goa, however the
Registration Certificate at Exb. 20 does not support
the above statement of Party I. It only mentions as
‘shipping agents’ at Vasco. There is no evidence on
record that the office of the Party II is situated
within Port area. The citation of Tulsidas Khimji,
supra relied by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar cannot
be made applicable to the present case as it
pertained to activities within Port area. The
appropriate Government being the State
Government, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try
and entertain the dispute. Hence, issue No. 4 is
answered in the negative.
Issue No. 5:
45. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
submitted that in the written statement filed as
early as 16-1-2013 before the Tribunal, the Party II
had offered re-employment to the Party I
unconditionally in Mumbai on the same terms and
conditions as per the Appointment letter dated
08-02-1995 at Exb. 12. The said offer of employment
has not been disputed by Party I nor it has been
disputed the right of Party II to ask him to work in
Mumbai nor it was alleged that the transfer was
malafide or without any right. There is no reason
for Party I not to accept the offer of appointment at
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1655
their office at Fort, Mumbai on same terms and
conditions as the services of Party I are transferable
and since the Party II is ready and willing to give
employment to Party I, no relief can be granted to
Party I. He further submitted that the Party I at
page 7 of the rejoinder has stated that he would
have readily accepted the said offer, if the same
was offered before Party I was illegally terminated
in order to sustain the livelihood.
46. Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
further submitted that it is not disputed that the
offer of employment was not made. The proposal of
Party I that if the offer was made before termination,
he would have readily accepted is an afterthought.
There are no allegations that the offer was malafide
or without any authority and inspite of offer of
employment, the Party I has failed to accept the
said offer. Relying upon the case of M/s. Purafil
Engineers, Pune vs Shaikh Anwar Abdul Rahman,
2000 LLR 268, he submitted that when the
workman was offered reinstatement which was not
accepted by him, he will not be entitled to get any
wages from the date of offer. He further submitted
that when the employer offers reinstatement at
the earliest possible opportunity including
conciliation proceedings to the workman who has
alleged termination of services, awarding
reinstatement and back wages by the Labour Court
to the workman is not sustainable and in support
thereof, he relied upon the case of Madhuri
Chandulal Lakhani, Proprietor of Jenny Colour
Lab & Studio, Chembur, Mumbai vs. Prashant
Shripad Satpute, Chembur, Mumbai, 2015
LLR 239.
47. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II has
also submitted that if a workman fails to resume
duties, even when the offer is made before the
Conciliation Officer as well as before the Industrial
Tribunal, it would be irresistibly presumed that he
is no longer interested in the job and has
abandoned the job on his own accord and in
support thereof, he relied upon the case of Tirloki
Nath (Shri) vs. Shri Dharam Paul Arora & Anr.
2006 LLR 1043. He also submitted that
reinstatement of a workman as awarded by the
Labour Court will be set aside when he did not
report for duty, despite offer by the management
for resumption of work. Back wages will not be
awarded when the workman is not responding to
the offer of the management to resume his duties
and in support thereof, he relied upon the case of
Sonal Garments vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve, 2003
LLR 5.
48. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for
Party I has submitted that the issue framed by the
Tribunal is whether Party II is ready and willing to
give employment to Party I at Mumbai on the same
terms and conditions. However, the workman was
retrenched by the employer in flagrant violation of
statutory provision of the law and therefore, when
the offer of reinstatement was given to the Party I
before different forums, there was no employer-
-employee relationship. The first and the foremost
condition is that the workman has to be re-instated
in services and the retrenchment has to be set
aside. It is not possible for a retrenched workman
to be offered employment elsewhere unless he is
re-instated in service and therefore, the above issue
cannot be said to have been proved by the
Party II.
49. Needless to mention, there was no employer-
-employee relationship between the Party I and
Party II after the Party I was illegally retrenched by
the Party II in violation of statutory provisions of
law. The Party II cannot offer employment in their
office at Mumbai when he was retrenched from
employment at Goa. No offer was given by the
Party II before termination of services of Party I.
The Party II could have shown the bonafide by
offering services at their Mumbai office on same
terms and conditions before his termination. The
Party II could have transferred the Party I to their
office at Mumbai as the job was transferable but
could not have terminated the services of Party I
which led to the present dispute and therefore, on
the above ground alone, the offer of reinstatement
at their Mumbai office, cannot sustain.
50. It is the case of Party II that the offer of
employment was given before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner vide its reply dated 27-7-2012 at
Exb. 15. A little peep into the said letter show that
no such offer had been given of reinstatement to
Party I, on the contrary it has been alleged that
Party I is not the workman under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and therefore not entitled
to raise the dispute. The Party I was appointed
vide appointment letter dated 08-02-1995 at
Exb. 12 and was terminated vide its letter dated
15-6-2012 at Exb. 13 which shows that the Party I
worked at Vasco without any transfer for last 17
years and therefore, if at all, the Party I was to be
offered employment, it should have been at Vasco,
wherein Party I was retrenched. The offer of
employment to join the office at Mumbai was given
on 16-1-2013 with condition that the workman
should join at Mumbai. The witness of Party II,
Capt. Shri Rajesh Saigal has stated in cross
examination at page 3 that the company will not
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1656
accept his services at Vasco, if he is willing to join
at Vasco office, since their financial difficulties are
still existing in Vasco. He categorically stated that
their offer of re-employment is on the condition
that he should join their Mumbai head office.
51. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case
of Doctor Pradhan vs Kumar Industries and anr.,
2007(115) FLR 164, has held that when the offer is
conditional, the question of accepting the job does
not arise. Needless to reiterate, the so called offer
made by the Party II for providing employment to
the Party I was not genuine and instead was
malafide and therefore the refusal on the part of
the workman to accept the offer of re-employment
was not bad in law. The Hon’ble High Court in Para
5 has observed thus;
5. These submissions are stated only to be
rejected. There is no dispute that the terms of
Reference indicate that the dispute which
existed between the parties was whether the
petitioner was entitled to re-instatement in
service with continuity of service and back
wages. The dispute was not whether he should
be employed with the contractor because it
was the petitioner’s case that the respondent
was his employer. The submission that the
workman should have accepted the job with
the respondent’s contractor and then sought
regularization makes a mockery of the plight
of the workman. As stated earlier, the dispute
was between the respondent and the petitioner
and not with any contractor. The petitioner
was never employed with any contractor and,
therefore, the question of his accepting the job
with a contractor does not arise. Therefore, the
so-called offer made by the respondent for
providing employment to the petitioner was
not genuine and instead was malafide. The
offer of employment stated in the failure report
indicates that the offer was conditional and
therefore the workman refused the offer. In any
case, it could not be said that the Reference
was not maintainable or that the dispute was
not in existence.”
52. In the instant case, the workman from the
date of appointment till the date of retrenchment
i.e. 15th June, 2012 worked at Vasco and never
worked at any other place and therefore the
conditional offer of employment given for the first
time before the Hon’ble Tribunal, that the workman
has to join at Mumbai cannot be termed as genuine.
Therefore, the intention of the employer was not to
provide the employment to the Party I, but to
victimize him. The offer made by the Party II being
conditional, the question of accepting the offer of
employment at Mumbai office does not arise as it
is malafide and not genuine and was made only
after termination of the Party I to wriggle out of the
situation the Party II was in, on account of illegal
termination of Party I without following the
mandatory provisions of the law. It is therefore the
above issue is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 6:
53. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar for Party I has
submitted that the main controversy in the dispute
is whether there is violation of the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He
further submitted that in cases in which the
Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross
violation of the statutory provisions or principles
of natural justice or is guilty of victimization of the
employee, then Tribunal will be fully justified in
directing payment of full back wages with
reinstatement and consequential benefits. He
further submitted that there is nothing on record
that in the notice of termination dated 15-6-2012,
the office to which the Party I was working was in
the process of being closed down, so his services
would no more be required. The termination of the
services of Party I for reasons mentioned in the
notice is not covered by any of the clauses of
Section 25-F and therefore retrenchment is ipso
facto illegal. In support thereof, he relied upon the
cases of (1) Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors.,
2014 II CLR 813; (2) Gammon India vs. Niranjan
Dass, 1983 STPL(LE) 11507 SC; 1(3) U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Uday Narain
Pandey, 2005 STPL (LE) 35154 SC; (4) Hindustan
Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees of M/s.
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd & Ors., 1978
STPL(LE) 9432 SC.
54. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for
Party II has submitted that when Party II had given
an unconditional offer of employment to the Party
I on same terms and conditions, the failure of the
Party I to report for work at the place of transfer
would disentitle the Party I to get any relief
including relief of reinstatement and back wages
as it will be presumed that he is no longer
interested in the job and has abandoned the job on
his own accord. He also submitted that the
workman cannot reap benefits of his own faults,
when he failed to respond to the offer of employer
to join duties, more particularly when such offer
was reiterated before the Conciliation Officer and
the Tribunal. He further submitted that apart from
that, the Party I has already been employed for
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1657
higher wages than what he was earning with
Party II and therefore, he is not entitled for any
reliefs.
55. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase, supra,
the Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has held that if the order of termination is void ab
initio, the workman is entitled to full back-wages.
The relevant Para 22 of the decision is extracted
hereunder:-
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The re-
instatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/
quasi-judicial body or Court that the action
taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant
statutory provisions or the principles of natural
justice, entitles the employee to claim full back-
wages. If the employer wants to deny back-
wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back-
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer, would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back-wages including
the emoluments.”
56. In the case of Gammon India, supra, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the pre-
requisites for a valid retrenchment as laid down in
Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act has not
been complied with, the retrenchment bringing
about termination of service is ab initio void. In
the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation, supra,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no precise
formula can be laid down as to under what
circumstances payment of entire back wages would
be allowed. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of the each case. It is not automatic.
It should not be granted mechanically. Payment of
full back wages cannot be natural consequence.
57. In the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd,
supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where
termination of service is questioned as being
invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through
the litigation, his capacity to sustain himself
throughout the protracted litigation is itself so
precarious that he may not survive to see the day
when relief is granted. If after such prolonged
litigation the workman is not paid his back wages,
it would amount to a penalty for no fault of his. The
workman whose service has been illegally
terminated would be entitled to full back wages
except to the extent he was gainfully employed
during the enforced idleness. If the termination is
illegal or motivated it may amount to unfair labour
practice. In such circumstances reinstatement
being the normal rule, it should be done with full
back wages and the party objecting to it must
establish the circumstances necessitating
departure. The Tribunal will then exercise its
discretion, but the discretion must be exercised in
a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for
exercising discretion must be cogent and
convincing and must appear on the face of the
record. It should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful
but legal and regular.
58. Needless to mention, the Party I has proved
violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The employer has terminated the services of
Party I by letter dated 15-6-2012. There are no
pleading or evidence on behalf of the employer
that the workman was gainfully employed after
the retrenchment. It is also well settled that in
cases of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is a normal rule. The company is still
functioning and is carrying on business at Vasco
and also has appointed other employees in their
employment. The Party II has not produced any
documents including balance sheet to show that
it is running in loss, closed down or is in severe
financial doldrums or that the Party I has been
employed or secured better permanent employment
elsewhere. The Party I having proved that the
employer terminated his services illegally and that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1658
the termination is motivated and found to be invalid
and that the employer has taken away his right to
work, contrary to the relevant law and has deprived
him of the earnings, the Party I is entitled for the
reliefs claimed.
59. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The application filed by Party I workman
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act stands allowed.
ii. It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s J. M. Baxi & Co.,
Vasco, Goa in terminating the services of
Party I, Shri Krishna Dabolkar, with effect
from 30-06-2012 is illegal and unjustified.
iii. The Party II is directed to reinstate the
services of Party I, Shri Krishna Dabolkar,
with full back wages for the period of
unemployment, continuity in services and
consequential benefits attached to the post.
iv. The Party II is directed to deposit back
wages before the Tribunal as stated above
within 60 days of the publication of the
Award, failing which the Party II shall pay
an interest @ 9% per annum.
v. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Corrigendum
No. 24/8/2010-Lab-ESI/676
Read: Order No. 24/8/2010-Lab-ESI/447 dated
19-06-2017.
In line No. 2 of para No. 6 of the Order read in
preamble, the date “27-3-2015” shall be substituted
to read as “23-7-2015”.
All the other contents of the Order remain
unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 29th September, 2017.
Department of Law and Judiciary
Law (Establishment Division)
Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge,
North Goa
__
Order
No. DSC/PR/304/2017/10791
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee and in pursuance of the
approval of the Hon’ble High Court (Appellate
Side), Bombay, as conveyed by the Registrar
(Inspection-I), vide their letter No. B(Gen)-5601/57/
/2017/1151 dated 21st September, 2017, as required
under the Recruitment Rules, Shri Shivdas Krishna
Gaunekar, Superintendent, attached to the Court
of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, North
Goa, Panaji is hereby promoted and appointed to
the post of Registrar/Chief Administrative Officer,
a Group “A” Gazetted post on regular basis, in the
pay matrix of Level-10 and posted as such in the
District & Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji, against
the post of Smt. Aruna B. Gaunekar, Registrar/Chief
Administrative Officer, retired on superannuation
w.e.f. 30-09-2017.
The pay of Shri Shivdas K. Gaunekar shall be
fixed as per rules in force.
The expenditure in respect of the above post
shall be debited to “Demand No. 3, Budget Head
2014—Administration of Justice, 00, 105—Civil and
Sessions Courts, 02—District & Sessions Judge
(North Goa), 01—Salaries, (Non-Plan) (Voted)”.
This order of promotion/appointment of
Shri Shivdas K. Gaunekar is issued as per the
instructions contained in the above referred letter
of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Irshad Agha, Principal District Judge and
Sessions Judge, North, Panaji-Goa.
Panaji, 3rd October, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 15/6/2003-PER(part) Vol. 1/2911
Read: Order No. 15/16/2012-PER dated 14-09-2016.
The ad hoc promotion of the following officers
in the Cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/
/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies is hereby
extended for the period indicated against their
names:-
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1659
Sr.
Name & designation
Ad hoc promotion
No.
of the officer
extended
From
To
1
2
3
1. Shri Pravind J. Gawas 14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
2. Shri Dhiren D.
14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
Banavaliker
3. Shri Rosario Carvalho
14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
(ST)
4. Smt. Jennifer Arez
14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
e Fernandes
5. Shri Franklin Ferrao
14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
6. Shri Pravinjay Pandit
14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
7. Shri Saiesh Naik
14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
8. Shri Krishna Gauns
14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
9. Shri Ranjeet Salgaonkar 14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
10. Ms. Janavi Kalekar (ST) 14-09-2017 30-09-2017.
This issues with the approval of Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/42(2)/2012/827 dated 22-09-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 27th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 5/3/2017-PER
Read: Order No. 5/3/2017-PER dated 05-09-2017.
Whereas on the recommendation of Depart-
mental Promotion Committee as conveyed by the
Goa Public Service Commission vide its letter
No. COM/II/11/42(1)/2017/842 dated 24-08-2017,
16 Officers holding the posts included in Schedule-II
of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 were promoted
under Rule 17 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016,
read with Rule 8 (b) of the said Rules to Junior
Scale Post of Goa Civil Service, Group ‘A’ Gazetted,
in the Level 10 of Pay Matrix vide Order No. 5/3/
/2017-PER dated 05-09-2017;
And whereas one of the Officers holding the
posts included in Schedule II of the Goa Civil
Service Rules, 2016 was not recommended for want
of clarification from Vigilance Department;
And whereas the Vigilance Department vide its
letter No. 1/3/2004-VIG/PER (Part-11)/2155 dated
22-08-2017, informed that Shri Pravin Hire Parab
does not fall in any of the three categories
mentioned in the Government of India’s O.M. dated
02-11-2012 which was immediately intimated to
the Goa Public Service Commission by the
Personnel Department vide its letter No. 05/03/
/2017-PER/2551 dated 22-08-2017;
Now therefore on the recommendation of the
Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by
Goa Public Service Commission vide letter No.
COM/II/11/42(1)/2017/857 dated 18-09-2017 in
continuation to earlier DPC dated 22-08-2017, the
Governor of Goa is pleased to promote and appoint
under Rule 17 of Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, read
with Rule 8 (b) of the said Rules, Shri Pravin Hire
Parab holding the post included in Schedule-II of
the said Rules as given below at serial No. 13 to
hold the Junior Scale Post of Goa Civil Service,
Group ‘A’ Gazetted, in the Level 10 of Pay Matrix
notionally with effect from 05-09-2017 in the
following order of their seniority within their
respective grading as on 05-09-2017:-
1. Smt. Smita S. Hede.
2. Shri Shashikant C. Bhamaikar (SC).
3. Smt. Shaila G. Bhonsle (SC).
4. Smt. Bevinda Monteiro e Dias.
5. Smt. Georgina Saldhana.
6. Smt. Shivanee Borkar (SC).
7. Shri P. D. Halarnkar (SC).
8. Shri Gurudas S. T. Desai.
9. Smt. Roshell Aurita Fernandes.
10. Smt. Snehal Shivram Prabhu.
11. Smt. Nathine Stevea Araujo.
12. Smt. Trupti Manikrao Rane alias Manerkar.
13. Shri Pravin Hire Parab.
14. Shri Uday Rama Prabhu Dessai.
15. Smt. Nayan Moroscar.
16. Shri Navnath K. Naik.
17. Smt. Deepti Kankonkar @ Milan Kankonkar.
Shri Pravin Hire Parab shall be on probation for
a period of 2 years w.e.f. 05-09-2017. He shall be
entitled for all the consequential benefits enjoyed
by his juniors promoted vide Order dated
05-09-2017 read in preamble.
Shri Pravin Hire Parab shall continue in the
present posting until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 28th September, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1660
Memorandum
No. 6/6/2011-PER/2880
Read: (1) Memorandum No. 6/8/2014-PER dated 24-06-2014.
(2) Memorandum No. 6/8/2014-PER dated 19-08-2014.
(3) Memorandum No. 6/8/2014-PER dated 30-04-2015.
(4) Memorandum No. 6/4/2016-PER dated 11-03-2016.
(5) Memorandum No. 6/4/2016-PER dated 28-06-2016.
(6) Memorandum No. 6/6/2011-PER dated 16-12-2016.
The final seniority of Selection Grade Officers of Goa Civil Service was last finalized on 16-12-2016 vide
Memorandum read in preamble (6), wherein the seniority of officers upto Sr. No. 25 stands finalized.
Thereafter, the Junior Administrative Grade Officers have been promoted to Selection Grade and the
final seniority of officers from Sr. No. 26 is drawn as follows:
Sr.
Name of the Officers
Date of
Date of
Date of
Date of
Date of
Remarks
No.
Birth
appointment appointment appointment
appointment
in
in Senior
in JAG
in Selection
Junior Scale
Scale
Grade
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Shri Sandip Jacques
26-05-1971
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
Inducted
to IAS.
2. Shri Arun L. Dessai
24-11-1959
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
Inducted
to IAS.
3. Shri N. D. Agrawal
01-01-1953
22-01-1997
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
Retired.
4. Shri Swapnil M. Naik
04-06-1973
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
Inducted
to IAS.
5. Shri Elvis P. Gomes
01-01-1963
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
VRS.
6. Shri Menino D’Souza
02-11-1963
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
7. Shri Sakharam V. Naik
26-06-1960
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
8. Shri N. B. Narvekar
15-01-1952
22-01-1997
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
Retired.
9. Shri Narayan Sawant
24-11-1962
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
10. Shri Sanjit Rodrigues
15-07-1971
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
11. Shri J. B. Bhingui
25-04-1955
22-01-1997
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
Retired.
12. Shri Damodar B. Shanke
10-05-1961
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
13. Shri Sanjiv M. Gadkar
14-02-1973
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
14. Shri Yetindra M. Maralkar
05-10-1970
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
15. Shri M. B. Kumthekar
05-09-1953
22-01-1997
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
Retired.
16. Ms. Margaret A.
18-07-1960
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
Fernandes
17. Shri Vinesh Arlenkar
07-10-1965
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
18. Shri Amarsen Rane
12-04-1968
17-04-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
19. Shri Prasad Lolayekar
27-05-1968
11-04-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
20. Shri Michael M. D’Souza
22-10-1975
11-04-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
21. Shri Nikhil U. Dessai
30-03-1975
25-07-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
22. Shri Prasanna A. Acharya
29-07-1976
25-07-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
23. Shri Vijay M. Paranjape
29-07-1965
12-09-2006
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
24. Shri Y. B. Tavde
01-06-1957
22-06-1999
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
25. Shri T. S. Sawant
07-10-1958
22-06-1999
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011
—
26. Shri Dattaram G. Sardessai 07-10-1963
11-04-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
03-04-2017
—
27. Shri Arvind Bugde
14-12-1968
25-07-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
03-04-2017
—
28. Shri Levinson J. Martins
30-09-1966
05-08-2004
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
03-04-2017
—
29. Shri Sunil P. Masurkar
01-03-1967
14-08-2002
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
03-04-2017
—
30. Shri N. S. Navti
19-03-1959
14-08-2002
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
03-04-2017
—
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1661
This is subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal No. 9587-9590 & 9591-9594/2016 before Hon’ble Supreme
Court against the orders of Writ Petition No. 397/2015, 451/2015, 482/2015 & 663/2015 filed in Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature, Goa Bench, Panaji and further decisions pursuant to the Order dated 12-04-2017 of
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1089/2016.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 22nd September, 2017.
________
Memorandum
No. 6/15/2017-PER/2881
Read: (1) Notification No. 3/1/2012-PER dated 16-08-2016.
(2) Memorandum No. 6/6/2011-PER dated 16-12-2016.
As per Rule 34 of Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 read in preamble (1), a new grade has been introduced
viz. Senior Administrative Grade of Goa Civil Service.
Thereafter, the Selection Grade Officers have been promoted to Senior Administrative Grade and the
final seniority of officers is drawn as follows.
Sr.
Name of the Officer
Date of
Date of
Date of
Date of
Date of
Date of
No.
Birth
appointment
appointment
appointment
appointment appointment
in
in Senior
in JAG
in
in Senior
Junior Scale
Scale
Selection
Administra-
Grade
tive Grade
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Shri Menino D’Souza
02-11-1963
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
2. Shri Sakharam V. Naik
26-06-1960
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
3. Shri Narayan Sawant
24-11-1962
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
4. Shri Sanjit Rodrigues
15-07-1971
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
5. Shri Sanjiv M. Gadkar
14-02-1973
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
6. Shri Yetindra M. Maralkar
05-10-1970
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
7. Ms. Margaret A.
18-07-1960
09-01-1998
29-07-2005
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
Fernandes
8. Shri Prasad Lolayekar
27-05-1968
11-04-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
9. Shri Michael M. D’Souza
22-10-1975
11-04-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
10. Shri Nikhil U. Dessai
30-03-1975
25-07-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
11. Shri Prasanna A. Acharya
29-07-1976
25-07-2003
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
12. Shri Vijay M. Paranjape
29-07-1965
12-09-2006
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
13. Shri T. S. Sawant
07-10-1958
22-06-1999
17-11-2008
03-11-2010
12-08-2011 16-12-2016.
This is subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal No. 9587-9590 & 9591-9594/2016 before Hon’ble Supreme
Court against the orders of Writ Petition Nos. 397/2015, 451/2015, 482/2015 & 663/2015 filed in Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature, Goa Bench, Panaji and further decisions pursuant to the Order dated
12-04-2017 of Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1089/2016.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 22nd September, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1662
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1723
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Quepem under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Quepem
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Agostinho Fernandes
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Jamie Nora Monteiro
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Quepem
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Utkarsh High School, Rivona
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
————
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1724
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Loutolim under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Medical Officer Incharge, PHC,
Chairperson.
Loutolim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Smt. Nivedita Naik
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Smt. Indumati Vase
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Loutolim Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Primary School, Ambora
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1663
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
————
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1725
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Colvale under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Medical Officer Incharge, PHC,
Chairperson.
Colvale
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Smt. Shri Shriram Chari
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Ramdas V. Kelkar
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Colvale
Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Shree Ram Vidhya Mandir High
School, Housing Board, Colvale
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
————
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1726
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Cortalim under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Medical Officer Incharge, PHC,
Chairperson.
Cortalim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Mr. Jude Pereira
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Mr. Achut P. Naik
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Cortalim
Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Vidhya Vihar High School, Thane
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1664
1
2
3
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
————
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1727
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Chinchinim under
Directorate of Health Services comprising of the
following members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Chinchinim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Smt. Teofilio Almeida
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Gaudencio Luis
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Chinchinim
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Mount Mary’s High School
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
————
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1728
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Sanguem under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Sanguem
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1665
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Smt. Perpetua Fernandes
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Queroiz Cruz
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Sanguem
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Government High School,
Valkini, Sanguem
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
————
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1729
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Bicholim under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Bicholim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Sagar Shetye
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Satish Gaonkar
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Bicholim
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Shantadurga High School,
Bicholim
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1666
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1730
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Siolim under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Siolim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Shivaji Gauns
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Smt. Bharati Vaigankar
Member.
(Civil society representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Siolim
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Vasant Vidyalay High School,
Siolim
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1731
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Betki under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC, Betki
Chairperson.
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Dinesh Gaude
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Nilima Naik
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Betki
Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Mahanandu School, Bhoma
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1667
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1732
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Aldona under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC, Aldona
Chairperson.
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri John Mascarenhas
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Mangesh Kotnis
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Aldona
Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Mae De Deus High School,
Khorjuvem
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1733
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Curtorim under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC, Curtorim
Chairperson.
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Marian Viegas
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Rupesh Naik
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Curtorim Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
St. Rita High School,
Maina, Curtorim
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1668
1
2
3
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1734
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Candolim under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Candolim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Adv. Swati Verlekar
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Amarnath Govekar
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Candolim
Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Pragati High School, Nerul
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1735
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Dharbandora under
Directorate of Health Services comprising of the
following members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Dharbandora
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1669
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Satish Patil
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Atmaram Kudchadkar
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Dharbandora
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Smt. Vaishali Khandeparkar,
Gomantak Vidhyalay, Pilliem
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1736
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Corlim under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Medical Officer Incharge,
Chairperson.
PHC, Corlim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Smt. Supriya Kerkar
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Suhas Naik
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Corlim
Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Old Goa Education Society
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1670
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1737
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Marcaim under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer,
Chairperson.
PHC, Marcaim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Damodar Naik
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Yogesh Gaude
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC, Marcaim Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Anandibai School,
Karanzal, Marcaim
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1738
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Cansarvanem under
Directorate of Health Services comprising of the
following members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Cansarvanem
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Pandurang Parab
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Ramesh R. Sawal
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Cansarvanem
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Lokshikshan High School,
Dhargal
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1671
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1739
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Cansaulim under
Directorate of Health Services comprising of the
following members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Cansaulim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Manuel Fernandes
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Norah D’Souza
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Cansaulim
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
St. Thomas High School
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1740
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Sankhali under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Sankhali
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Dattaram Chimulkar
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Sakharam Ghadi
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Sankhali
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Ganesh Mahavidyalay, Harvalem
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1672
1
2
3
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1741
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Shiroda under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Shiroda
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Dr. Subhash Prabhudesai
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Luis Constancio
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Shiroda
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Smt. Kamlabai Hede High
School, Karai, Shiroda
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1742
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Urban Health Centre, Panaji under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Health Officer, UHC,
Chairperson.
Panaji
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1673
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Gaurish Dhond
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Smt. Vaidehi Naik
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective UHC,
Member.
Panaji
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Bal Bharti Vidhya Mandir
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1743
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Porvorim under Directorate
of Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Medical Officer Incharge, PHC,
Chairperson.
Porvorim
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Harish Mayekar
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Jose Fernandes
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Porvorim
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Vidhya Prabodhini High
School, Porvorim
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1674
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1744
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Balli under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Balli
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Dinesh Audi
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Smt. Alka Potdar
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Balli
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Ms. Debora Fernandes, G.P.S.,
Paddi
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1745
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Primary Health Centre, Ponda under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, PHC,
Chairperson.
Ponda
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Sandip Nigalye
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Sunil Dessai
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective PHC,
Member.
Ponda
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
AJDe Almeida High School,
Ponda
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1675
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1746
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Urban Health Centre, Margao under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, UHC,
Chairperson.
Margao
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Tito Cardoso
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Ashok B. Malkarnekar
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective UHC, Margao
Member.
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Adarsh High School, Margao
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1747
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Urban Health Centre, Vasco under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1. Health Officer, UHC,
Chairperson.
Vasco
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Hassan Khan
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Santosh Lotlikar
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective UHC,
Member.
Vasco
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Mother Mary Government
High School, Baina
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1676
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
_______
Order
No. 31/11/2005-I/PHD (Part)/1748
In terms of newer guidelines of Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi,
Government is pleased to constitute Executive
Committee of Rogi Kalyan Samiti Committee for the
Urban Health Centre, Mapusa under Directorate of
Health Services comprising of the following
members as under:
Sr.
Members
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Health Officer, UHC,
Chairperson.
Mapusa
2. AYUSH Medical Officer
Member
Secretary.
3. Anganwadi Supervisor
Member.
4. Shri Rohan Kavlekar
Member.
(Prominent citizen)
5. Shri Vishwas Sagaonkar
Member.
(Civil Society Representative)
6. Secretary Panchayat
Member.
7. PWD Engineer of the jurisdiction Member.
8. Block Level ADEI
Member.
9. PHN respective UHC,
Member.
Mapusa
10. Headmistress/Headmaster of
Member.
Saraswat Vidhyalaya, Khorlim
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall
be convened by the Member Secretary by
giving clear seven days notice in writing
along with the agenda specifying the
business to be transacted, the date, time and
value of the meeting.
2. The Executive Committee will meet atleast
once in two months.
3. The quorum will be 50% members. The
presence of the Chairman will be
essential.
4. Executive Committee will implement the
decisions taken by the Governing Body and
will function within its powers.
5. The minutes of the Executive Committee
meeting will also be communicated to the
members of Governing Body.
6. Executive Committee can delegate some
of its financial powers to the Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 8th September, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. 70/35/2017/PCE-PWD-ADM(II)/115
Government is pleased to transfer Shri P. B.
Sheldarkar, Superintending Engineer, Circle
Office V (PHE), PWD, Altinho, Panaji and post him
as Managing Director in the equivalent rank of
Chief Engineer, Group ‘A’ Gazetted in the Pay
Band 4 Rs. 37,400-67,000 + G.P. Rs. 10,000/- with
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1677
immediate effect on deputation in Sewerage &
Infrastructural Development Corporation of Goa
Ltd. He stands relieved of his duties in this
Department with effect from 30-09-2017 a. n.
The deputation of the aforesaid Officer is initially
for a period of one year and shall be governed
by the terms and conditions contained in O. M.
No. 13/4/74/PER dated 12-2-1999 of the Department
of Personnel, Government of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji
as amended from time to time.
Shri Ulhas R. Kerkar, Superintending Engineer,
Circle Office I (Bldgs.), PWD, Altinho, Panaji
shall hold the additional charge of the post of
Superintending Engineer, Circle Office V (PHE),
PWD, Altinho, Panaji, in addition to his own duties,
until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex
officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 29th September, 2017.
________
Order
No. 69/36/2017/PCE-PWD-ADM(II)/116
Government is pleased to transfer Shri Deelip
M. Dhavalikar, Executive Engineer, Division III
(PHE), PWD, St. Inez, Panaji and post him as Chief
General Manager in the equivalent rank of
Superintending Engineer, Group ‘A’ Gazetted in the
Pay Band 3 Rs. 15,600-39,100 + G. P. Rs. 7,600/-
with immediate effect on deputation in Sewerage
& Infrastructural Development Corporation of Goa
Ltd. He stands relieved of his duties in this
Department with effect from 30-09-2017 a.n.
The deputation of the aforesaid Officer is initially
for a period of one year and shall be governed
by the terms and conditions contained in O. M.
No. 13/4/74/PER dated 12-2-1999 of the Department
of Personnel, Government of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji
as amended from time to time.
He shall hold the additional charge of the
post of Executive Engineer, Division III (PHE), PWD,
St. Inez, Panaji, in addition to his own duties, until
further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex
officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 29th September, 2017.
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
__
Order
No. D.Tpt/EST/2608/2017/3716
Read: Order No. D.Tpt/EST/2608/2017/3088
dated 08-09-2017.
In supersession to above Order, Government is
pleased to re-constitute following Tender
Committee for procurement of Interceptor & Road
Safety Equipments, under the Chairmanship of Shri
P. S. Reddy, Secretary (Administrative Reforms) and
comprising of the following officials:
1. Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Police
Department, Panaji.
2. Under Secretary (Finance-Exp.), Secretariat,
Porvorim-Goa.
3. Executive Engineer, PWD, Altinho, Panaji.
4. Director of Transport, Directorate of Transport,
Panaji.
5. Dy. Director of Transport (N), Directorate of
Transport, Panaji.
The following shall be the role and responsibility
of the Committee:
a. To finalize all tender terms, conditions,
eligibility criteria, RFP document and the
specifications of the items to be procured.
b. To conduct tendering process in e-tender
mode and to decide on last date for
application, submission, bid opening, issue
of corrigendum if any etc.
To conduct pre bid conference and finalize
the responses to the queries of the bidders.
c. To recommend acceptance of successful
bidder to the Government for approval.
d. To take any further steps to successfully
conduct the bidding process.
This is issued with the approval of the Hon’ble
Chief Minister vide their O.M. No. 7253/F dated
18-09-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary
(Transport).
Panaji, 4th October, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 28
12TH OCTOBER, 2017
1678
Department of Tribal Welfare
Directorate of Tribal Welfare
__
Order
No. 1-227-2017-18/ADMN/DTW/5095
Directorate of Tribal Welfare was carved out from
the Directorate of Social Welfare as an independent
Department vide Notification No. 23/1/87-GA & C
(Vol.1) dated 29-01-2010.
Directorate of Tribal Welfare functioning from
Head Office at 5th floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan,
Patto, Panaji-Goa having jurisdiction of entire
State.
The major Tribal population has been spread
out in South Goa District predominantly in Talukas
of Canacona, Sanguem, Quepem, Dharbandora,
Ponda in South Goa and Satari in North Goa
District.
Due to continuous demand of Tribal population
in South Goa to have a branch office of Dy. Director
of Tribal Welfare for their convenience and better
governance, the Government has decided to set
up office of the Dy. Director of Tribal Welfare in
South Goa at 2nd floor, A-wing Old Collectorate
Bldg., Margao-Goa.
The Government has also accorded approval and
declared the jurisdiction of South Goa District as
jurisdiction of office of the Dy. Director of Tribal
Welfare, Margao. The office of the Dy. Director of
Tribal Welfare will be headed by officer in the rank
of Dy. Director of Tribal Welfare having powers as
mentioned in the schemes notified, General
Administrative powers as per designation and
powers delegated by the Government from time to
time.
This issue is with the approval of the
Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Venancio Furtado, Director (Tribal Welfare).
Panaji, 3rd October, 2017.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 52.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–256/200–10/2017.