Panaji, 27th April, 2017 (Vaisakha 7, 1939)
SERIES II No. 4
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
93
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
__
Order
DE/AE/51/23/2015-16/36
In supersession of order No. DE/AE/51/23/2015-
-16/483 dated 30-11-2015, Government is pleased
to reconstitute the Board of Management of the
Society of Sanjay Centre for Special Education,
Porvorim with immediate effect as below:-
1. Mr. Guruprasad Pawaskar,
— Chairman.
Porvorim
2. Dr. Chandrashekhar Kelkar,
— Member.
Mapusa
3. Mr. Manohar Korgaonkar
— Member.
(Retired ADEI), Alto-Porvorim
4. Mr. Ashish Karmali, Curchorem — Member.
5. Mr. Krishna Kerkar, Vasco
— Member.
6. Mr. Johnny Silveira, Calangute— Member.
7. Ms. Audrey Menezes, Bhatti
— Member.
8. Mr. Servo Fernandes, Tivim
— Member.
9. Mr. Sagar Javdekar, Panaji
— Member.
10. Member Secretary of the
— Ex officio
Sanjay Centre for Special
Member
Education
Secretary.
The tenure of the newly constituted the Board
of Management of the Society of Sanjay Centre for
Special Education, Porvorim shall be for the period
of 3 years w.e.f. 19-04-2017.
The Board shall meet at least three times in a
year. The non-official members shall be entitled for
TA/DA as per Rules which will be met from the
funds of the Board of Management of the Society
of Sanjay Centre for Special Education, Porvorim.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
G. P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Education).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Finance
Revenue & Control Division
__
Order
No. 3/1/2009-Fin(R&C)/2137
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
-section (3) of Section 5 of the Goa Entertainment
Tax Act, 1964 (Act No. 2 of 1964), the Government
of Goa is pleased to exempt the Konkani film
“K SERA SERA” (Ghodpachem Ghoddtelem) from
the liability of payment of entertainment tax in
whole, when screened in any of the theatres in the
State of Goa for a period upto 30th June, 2017 from
the date of publication of this order in the Official
Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Ajit S. Pawaskar, Under Secretary (R&C).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Home
Foreigners & Citizenship Division
—
Order
No. 1/1/2017-HD(F&CD)/216
A copy of the under mentioned order dated
22-11-2016 received from the Government of India,
Note:-
There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 3 dated 20-04-2017 namely,
Extraordinary dated 21-04-2017 from pages
91 to 92 regarding Notification from Department
of General Administration.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
94
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi is transcribed
below and has been published for the information
of public.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2017.
______
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Order
New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2016
S. O. 3505(E).– In exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 16 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of
1955), the Central Government directs that the
powers exercisable by it under sub-section (2) of
Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 40 of the
Citizenship Rules, 2009, shall also be exercisable
by the District Collector, North Goa and District
Collector, South Goa for the purpose of inquiring
into the issue of acquisition of citizenship of
another country by residents of the State of Goa
and make appropriate recommendations to the
Central Government through the State Government
in accordance with the procedure specified in
Schedule III of the said Rules, subject to the
following conditions, namely:
(a) the applications and objections shall be
invited after due publicity by the District
Collector;
(b) the inquiry shall be conducted in fair and
transparent manner, keeping in mind the
provisions contained in the Act and the
Citizenship Rules, 2009;
(c) after inquiry, the District Collector shall
make recommendations to the Central
Government giving details of each case.
This order shall be in force for a period of two
years from the date of publication of this order in
the Official Gazette.
[F. No. 26030/34/2013-IC-I]
MUKESH MITTAL, Jt. Secy.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/01/2017-LAB/253
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited,
Alto-Porvorim, Goa, and it’s workman, Shri
Premanand S. Naik, represented by the Kadamba
Kamgar Union, in respect of the matter specified in
the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the
“said dispute”);
And whereas the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said
dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of
Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7 of
the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Kadamba
Transport Corporation Limited, Alto-
-Porvorim, Goa, of withholding upgradation
of Shri Premanand S. Naik, granted under
Modified Assured Career Progression
Scheme (MACPS), is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 20th April, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/235
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 20-02-2017 in reference
No. IT/03/204 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, 11th April, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/03/2014
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
95
Shri Sarbeshwar Puthal,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union,
Velho Building, 2nd Floor,
Panaji-Goa.
… Workman/Party-I.
V/s
M/s. Hotel Manvins,
Opp. Municipal Garden,
Panaji-Goa.
… Employer/Party-II.
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri Suhas
Naik.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri S. Vales.
Panaji, 20th February, 2017.
AWARD
1. In Exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 28-02-2014,
bearing No. 28/12/2014-Lab/167, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in turn
assigned the present dispute to this Labour
Court-II, vide her order dated 04-03-2014.
“(1) Whether Shri Sarbeswar Puthal is a
‘Workman’ as defined under section 2 (s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947)?
(2) Whether the employer and employee
relationship can be established between the
management of M/s. Hotel Manvins, Panaji,
Goa, and Shri Sarbeswar Puthal.
(3) If the answers to the issue No. (1) and (2)
above are in the affirmative, then, whether
the action of the management of M/s. Hotel
Manvins, Panaji, in refusing employment to
Shri Sarbeswar Puthal, Security Watchman,
with effect from 03-07-2013, is legal and
justified?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (3) above is in
negative, then, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/03/14 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on
10-11-2014 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed with the Employer/Party II (for short
‘Employer’) as a ‘security guard/watchman’ at its
hotel. He stated that he was continuously employed
with the Employer hotel for last more than 8 years.
He stated that however, he was not issued any
appointment letter by the Employer for the reason
best known to them. He stated that as a security
guard/watchman, he was performing the duties
such as watch and ward, helping the tourist visiting
the Employer hotel, escorting the tourist from the
ground floor to their hotel reception/to their
respective rooms in the lift as the Employer hotel
situated on the last floor of the building and
washing cars of the Employer. He stated that he
was paid his monthly salary by the owner of the
Employer hotel, Mr. Peter Vaz. He stated that he
was monitored by the said Mr. Peter Vaz. He stated
that he was directly reporting to said Mr. Peter Vaz.
He stated that the Employer did not maintain any
statutory record of his service.
3. He stated that on 03-07-2013 when he reported
for his duty at 8.00 a.m. he was told by the Employer
that his services stands terminated and that he
should not report for duties any further. He
submitted that the said action of the Employer in
directing him for not to report for duties w.e.f.
03-07-2013 is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. He
submitted that after termination of his service,
the Employer has recruited new security
guard/watchman in their hotel. He submitted that
presently, he is unemployed and do not have any
service to maintain himself, inspite of his best
efforts. The Workman therefore prayed that the
action of the Employer in terminating/refusing him
from employment w.e.f. 03-07-2013 is illegal,
unjustified and bad-in-law and that he be
reinstated back in service of the Employer with full
back wages, continuity in service and all other
consequential benefits.
4. The Employer controverted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
15-12-2014 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
claim of the Workman is baseless and devoid of any
merits and that the Workman has filed a false claim
to extract money from them. The Employer
submitted that the claim of the Workman is
malicious and appears to be instigated by some
unscrupulous elements out of malice and to take
vengeance against them. The Employer submitted
that the claim of the Workman is misconceived
under law, besides being fictitious, disgraceful and
utterly dishonest and abuse of labour law.
5. The Employer submitted that the Workman is
not a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2 (s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Employer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
96
submitted that the Workman was never employed
by them at its hotel Manvins. The Employer
submitted that there is absolutely no relationship
of employer-employee between themselves and the
workman. The Employer submitted that no wages
or salaries were ever paid by them to the Workman.
The Employer submitted that neither appointment
nor termination order was issued by them to the
Workman. The Employer submitted that none of its
staff was aware the name of the said Shri Sarbeswar
Puthal. The Employer submitted that all its office
staff has known to the Workman as ‘PANDIT’ and
perhaps he has kept his name secret for several
reasons.
6. The Employer submitted that some years ago
‘PANDIT’ was employed by the management of the
association running the affairs of the building
known as ‘CDRS Bldg.’ on daily wages, in which the
Employer has its hotel establishment known as
hotel Manvins. The Employer submitted that some
years ago, the Workman was involved in robbery,
which took place in the premises of Sony showroom
located on the ground floor of the CDRS Bldg. and
was arrested and hence dismissed from service by
the association. The Employer denied the overall
case as pleaded by the Workman and prayed that
the claim of the Workman be dismissed with cost.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 12-01-2015 at Exb. 6. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, reiterates and confirms all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
Claim Statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary and inconsistent with the statements and
averments made by him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
28-09-2015 at Exb.7.
1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he is
a ‘workman’ as defined u/s. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947?
2. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that there
exist an employer-employee relationship
between Party II and the Party I?
3. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the
action of the Employer in refusing him
employment w.e.f. 03-07-2013 is illegal and
unjustified?
4. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that the
present order of reference is not maintainable
in law in view of the statements made in para
(1) to (4) and (10) of the Written Statement?
5. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he is
entitled to any relief?
6. What order? What award?
9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a)
Issue No. 1
: In the negative.
(b)
Issue No. 2
: In the negative.
(c)
Issue No. 3
: In the negative.
(d)
Issue No. 4
: In the negative.
(e)
Issue No. 5 and 6: As per final order.
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 to 4: Heard the oral arguments of
Ld. Adv. Shri R. Pednekar appearing for the
Employer. On the contrary, Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas Naik,
appearing for the workman remained absent at the
time of final arguments.
11. In the case of V.N.S. Engineering Services
v/s. Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu and
Anr., reported in 1987 II LLN 968, the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay has held that “there is nothing in
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that indicates a
departure from the general rule that he, who
approaches a court for relief, should prove his case
i.e. the obligation to lead evidence to establish an
allegation. The test being that he, who does not lead
evidence, must fail. The Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay further held that the provisions of
Rule-10-B of the I.D. (Central Rules), 1957 which
requires the party raising a dispute to file a statement
of demands relating only to the issue in the order of
reference for adjudication within 15 days from the
receipt of the order of reference and forward copies
to the opposite party involved, clearly indicates that
the party who raises the industrial disputes, is
bound to prove the contention raised by him and an
Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court would be erring
in placing the burden of proof on the other party to
the dispute”.
12. In the case of Airtech Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of
U.P. & Ors., reported in 1984 (49) FLR 38, the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has held that “the
matter can be looked at from another angle, which
party will fail if the evidence is not led before the
Labour Court in proceedings in a reference made to
it for adjudication by the State Government? The
obvious answer is that the workman will fail. Here
the reference was made by the State Government at
the instance of the workman and for the benefit of
the workman. In the absence of any evidence led by
or on behalf of the workman, the reference is bound
to be answered by the court against the workman.
In such a situation it is not necessary for the
employers to lead any evidence at all. This matter
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
97
was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Shankar
Chaudhart v/s. Britania Biscuits Co. Ltd. in
paragraph 30th Court held that the Labour Court or
Industrial Tribunal have all the trappings of a court.
In paragraph 31 it held that any party appearing
before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal ‘Must’
make a claim or demur the claim of the other side
and when there is burden upon it to prove or
establish the fact so as to invite a decision in its
favour, it has to lead evidence. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party
is on the party making the allegation. The test would
be, who would fail if no evidence is led. It must seek
an opportunity to lead evidence”.
13. In the case of V. K. Raj Industries v/s Labour
Court (I) and Ors. reported in the year 1981 (29)
FLR, 194 of Allahabad High Court has held that
the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal are
judicial in nature, even though the Indian Evidence
Act, is not applicable to the proceeding before the
Industrial Court, but the principle underlying the
said Act are applicable. The High Court has held
that “it is well settled that if a party challenges the
validity of an order and if no evidence is produced,
the party invoking the jurisdiction must fail. The
High Court has also held that if the workman fails
to appear or to file written statement or produce
evidence, the dispute referred by the Government
cannot be answered in favour of the workman and
he will not be entitled any relief”.
14. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Courts in its respective case are still holds good.
Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble High
Courts, in the instant case, the order of reference
has been issued by the Government of Goa at the
instance of the workman, who has raised the
present dispute pertaining to his alleged
termination of services by the Employer w.e.f.
03-07-2013 by contending to be illegal and
unjustified. The Workman appeared before this
court and filed his pleadings, setting up the
grounds of challenge to his alleged illegal
termination of service. The Employer resisted the
claim of the Workman by contending that the Party
I is not a ‘workman’ as defined under the I.D. Act,
1947 and that there does not exist an employer-
employee relationship between themselves and the
Party I. It was therefore incumbent upon the
Workman to prove his case by leading material
evidence in support of the issues framed by this
court.
15. The Workman also filed his affidavit-in-
evidence in support of his claim to prove the issues
framed by this court. The rozanama proceedings
maintained by this court indicates that several
opportunities were given to the Workman to lead
evidence. The Workman has however failed to do
so by remaining absent. The roznama proceedings
maintained by this court further indicates that
neither the Workman nor Adv. Suhas Naik remained
present before this court on and from
09-12-2016 on the scheduled dates of hearing,
though ample opportunities were given to him. This
court therefore constrained to close the evidence
of the Workman on 02-02-2017. In the circumstances,
there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove
any of the issues framed by this court. Hence, it is
held that the Workman failed to prove that he is a
‘workman’ as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947. The Workman also failed to prove that
there exist an employer-employee relationship
between the Employer and himself. Consequently,
the Workman failed to prove that the action of the
Employer in refusing him employment w.e.f.
03-07-2013 is illegal and unjustified. The issue
No. 1, 2 and 3 are therefore answered in the
negative. The Workman is therefore not entitled to
any relief. The Employer also did not lead any
evidence in support of issue No. 4. The issue No. 4
is therefore answered in the negative.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that Shri Sarbeswar Puthal is not a
‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
2. It is further held that there does not exist an
employer-employee relationship between the
management of M/s. Hotel Manvins, Panaji-Goa
and Shri Sarbeswar Puthal.
3. It is further held that the action of the
management of M/s. Hotel Manvins, Panaji-Goa,
in refusing employment to Shri Sarbeswar
Puthal, Security Watchman, with effect from
03-07-2013, is legal and justified, does not arise.
4. Shri Sarbeswar Puthal, is not entitled to any
relief.
5. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer
Labour Court-II.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
98
Notification
No. 28/1/2016-LAB/Part-IV/229
The following Judgement passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 17-02-2017 in reference
No. LC-II/LCC/09/14 is hereby published as
required by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 11th April, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/ LCC/09/14
Shri Thomas Fernandes,
Rep. by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Appts., Tisk,
Ponda-Goa.
…
Applicant.
V/s
M/s. Goa State Co-operative Milk
Producers Union Ltd.,
Curti, Ponda-Goa … Opponent.
Applicant represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.
Opponent represented by Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar.
Panaji: 17th February, 2017.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall determine the claim
application of the Applicant dated 19-05-2014, filed
u/s 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act, 1947 for determination
of the amount due to him along with the interest.
2. It is the case of the Applicant that he was the
Workman of the Opponent. He stated that the
Opponent is an industrial establishment. He stated
that he has to receive from the Opponent an amount
of Rs. 1,00,000/- as his fitment was not done
properly, while in service. He stated that he had
therefore raised a dispute before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Ponda, Goa. He stated that during
the course of discussions, before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Ponda, Goa, the Employer had
agreed to consider his case after placing before
the board meeting. He stated that accordingly, in
the board meeting held on 15-10-2011, the Employer
agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to him.
He submitted that he approached the Opponent
on several occasions with a request of making
payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, however, inspite of his
representations, he was not paid said amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/-. He therefore, prayed that the court
be pleased to determine the amount due to him
along with an interest.
3. The Opponent resisted the claim application
of the Applicant by filing its reply dated
13-08-2014. The Opponent, as and by way of
preliminary objections submitted that the
Applicant did not disclose under which provision
of law the application has been filed. The Opponent
submitted that the Applicant is not a ‘workman’ as
he was performing supervisory duties and his last
drawn gross salary was Rs. 34,297/- and as such
this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
and try the present application. The Opponent
submitted that the claims of the Applicant are not
based on an admitted right and hence, liable to be
rejected in limine and that the alleged rights on
which claims are purportedly based are required
to be adjudicated. The Opponent further submitted
that the claims made cannot be decided in an
execution proceedings of an I.D. Act, 1947. The
Opponent finally submitted that the claims cannot
be the subject matter of a reference under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The Opponent stated that it is a co-operative
milk producer’s union. The Opponent stated that it
is engaged in milk producing activities at Curti,
Ponda, Goa. The Opponent stated that the
Applicant joined in their services w.e.f. 28-06-1990
as a Jr. Supervisor.
The Opponent stated that as per their records
an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the Applicant
on 07-04-2011 as an advance on medical grounds,
which was recoverable from the Applicant. The
Opponent stated that the Applicant was also paid
Rs. 49,665/- towards his medical expenditure, which
was recoverable from him as per the note dated
08-02-2012 of its then Managing Director. The
Opponent stated that the total amount recoverable
from the Applicant is Rs. 74,665/-, which was paid
to him on sympathetic grounds. The Opponent
stated that the aforesaid recoverable amount was
adjusted from the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable
to him and the balance amount of Rs. 25,335/- was
paid to the Applicant, vide cheque bearing
No. 003787, dated 20-05-2014 drawn on the Goa
State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa, settling
the entire claim of the Applicant. The Opponent
therefore submitted that the Applicant had filed a
false claim before this Hon’ble Court with ulterior
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
99
motive and without reproducing the correct facts.
The Opponent denied the overall case as pleaded
by the Applicant and prayed for dismissal of the
present claim application filed by the Applicant.
6. Thereafter, the Applicant filed his re-joinder
on 18-08-2014 at Exb. 6. The Applicant, by way of
his Re-joinder confirms and reiterates all his
submissions, averments and statements made in
his Claim Statement to be proved and correct and
denied all the statements, averments and
submissions made by the Opponent in its Written
Statement, which are contrary to his Statement
and averments made in his Claim Statement. The
Applicant stated that the said amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Board of
Directors of the Opponent in pursuance to the
dispute raised by him for anomaly in pay fixation
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Ponda, Goa.
The Applicant stated that the amount of Rs. 49,665/-
towards his medical bills were reimbursed after
adjusting the advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- and
therefore the question of adjusting the amount from
the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- sanctioned to him by
the board, does not arise.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues.
1. Whether the Applicant proves that he is a
“Workman” within the meaning of the Section
2(s) of the I.D Act, 1947?
2. Whether the Applicant proves that he is
entitled to receive from the Opponent a sum of
Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards
anomaly in his scale?
3. Whether the Opponent proves that the present
Claim of the Applicant is bad-in-law in view of
reasons mentioned in para. (a) to (e) of its
reply?
4. What order?
9. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1 : In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2 : In the affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 3 : In the negative.
(d) Issue No. 4 : As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Rep.
Shri P. Gaonkar, appearing for the Applicant as
well as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for
the Opponent. Both the parties also filed their
synopsis of written arguments respectively.
10.
Ld. Rep. Shri P. Gaonkar, representing the
Applicant, during the course of his oral arguments,
submitted that the Applicant was working with
the Opponent initially as Jr. Supervisor and
subsequently at the time of retirement of his
service, he was designated as Extension Officer,
Grade II. He submitted that as a Extension Officer,
Grade II of the Opponent, the Applicant was
predominantly performing clerical and technical
nature of duties and as such he is a ‘workman’
within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act,
1947. In support of his oral contention he relied
upon the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
(a) In the case of Arkal Govind Raj Rao v/s. Ciba
Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay, reported in 1987
Bom. L. R. 344.
He also relied upon the following judgments of
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
(a) In the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., v/s.
Union of India and Ors., reported in 2001 LLR
1135.
(b) In the case of Cricket Club of India and Anr.
v/s. Baljit Shyam and Anr., reported in 1998
LLR 511.
(c) In the case of Shri Sudhir Kumar, s/o. Sourindra
Kumar Roy v/s. M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation
Ltd., reported in 1991 LLR 422.
11. He submitted that the Applicant had raised
a dispute pertaining to anomaly in his pay fixation
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Ponda, Goa.
He submitted that the said dispute resulted
in amicable settlement in view of the assurance
given by the Opponent by making payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the Applicant by placing the matter
before its board. He submitted that the Applicant
was paid by the Opponent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as
a medical advance and Rs. 49,665/- towards medical
reimbursement of his bills. He submitted that
the said amount of Rs.74,665/- paid to the
Applicant had nothing to do with the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- which was to be paid to him. He
submitted that the Opponent contended that the
said amount of Rs. 25000/- and Rs. 49,665/- paid to
the Applicant on sympathetic ground is
recoverable. He submitted that the Opponent has
however did not produce on record any cogent
evidence in the form of document to substantiate
its aforesaid statement. He submitted that on the
contrary, the Applicant has produced on record
his pay slips issued by the Opponent for the period
from June, 2011 to August, 2011, clearly shows
that no amount of money is due and payable by
the Applicant to the Opponent. He therefore
submitted that the amount be determined and paid
to the Applicant along with interest.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
100
12. On the contrary, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar,
representing the Opponent, during the course of
his oral arguments submitted that admittedly the
Applicant was working with them w.e.f. 28-06-1990.
He submitted that the Applicant was designated
as Extension Officer, Grade II, at the time of his
retirement and was drawing a monthly gross salary
of Rs. 34,297/-. He submitted that the pre-dominant
duties and responsibilities attached to the post of
Sr. Supervisor were supervisory in nature and as
the Applicant was drawing a salary more than
Rs. 10,000/- p.m. he is not a ‘workman’ within the
meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He
further submitted that as per the records
maintained by the Opponent, it has paid an amount
of Rs. 25,000/- to the Applicant on 07-04-2011 as an
advance on medical grounds and Rs. 49,665/-
towards Applicant’s medical expenditure.
He submitted that the said total amount of
Rs. 74,665/- paid to the Applicant, is recoverable
from him. He submitted that the said amount of
Rs. 74,665/- was adjusted from an amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/- which was payable to the Applicant
and balance amount of Rs. 25,335/- was paid to the
Applicant vide cheque dated 20-05-2014 drawn on
the Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kurti, Ponda-Goa,
in terms of board resolution No. 8 dated
21-09-2011. He therefore submitted that thus the
Opponent is not liable to pay any amount to the
Applicant. He therefore submitted that the claim
application of the Applicant be therefore dismissed
with cost.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case which includes synopsis of
written arguments filed by the respective parties.
I have also considered various legal submissions
made by the Ld. Representatives appearing for the
respective parties.
REASONS
13. Issue No. 1 and 3: I am deciding the issue
No. 1 and 3 simultaneously as findings of the both
the said issues are co-related to each other.
The Opponent, as and by way of preliminary
objections, filed in its reply to the claim application
of the Applicant submitted that the Applicant does
not disclose the provisions of law, under which the
present claim application has been filed, that the
Applicant is not a ‘workman’ as he has performed
supervisory duties and his last drawn gross salary
was Rs. 34,297/- and as such this court has no
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present claim
application, that the claim of the Applicant is not
based on the admitted rights, that the alleged
rights on which claims are purportedly based, are
required to be adjudicated, that the claim cannot
be decided in an execution proceedings under the
I.D. Act, 1947 and that the claims cannot be the
subject matter of a reference under the I.D. Act,
1947. The burden to prove the issue No.1 is on the
Applicant.
The Applicant has made clear that the present
claim application has been made under Section
33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The Opponent contended that the Applicant
was predominantly performing the supervisory
duties and drawing monthly gross salary of
Rs. 34,297/- at the time of his retirement. Ld. Rep.
Shri P. Gaonkar, representing the Applicant, during
the course of his oral arguments submitted that
the duties performed by the Applicant cannot be
called as supervisory as he was not having any
power to take any decision of any kind and relied
upon the following judgments.
14. In the case of Arkal Govind Raj Rao (supra),
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“16. The test that one must employ in such a case
is what was the primary, basic or dominant
nature of duties for which the person whose
status is under enquiry was employed. A few
extra duties would hardly be relevant to
determine his status. The words like managerial
or supervisory have to be understood in their
proper connotation and their mere use should
not detract from the truth”.
15. In the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd.
(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has
held as under:
“22. After giving my careful consideration to the
facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for
the parties in this regard, it appears to me
that whether or not an employee is a
‘workman’ under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act
is required to be determined with reference
to his principal nature of duties and
functions. Such question is required to be
determined with reference to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the material
on record and it is not possible to lay down
any straight jacket formula, which can
decide the dispute as to the real nature of
duties and functions being performed by
an employee in all cases. When an employee
is employed to do the types of work
enumerated in the definition of ‘workman’
under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, there is
hardly any difficulty in treating him as
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
101
workman
under
the
appropriate
classification but in complexity of industrial
or commercial organizations quite large
number of employees are often required to
do more than one kind of work. In such
cases it becomes necessary to determine
under which classification the employee will
fall for the purpose of deciding whether he
comes within the definition of workman or
go out of it…..”.
16. In the case of Cricket Club of India (supra),
the Hon’ble High Court after replying upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.
Maheshwari v/s. Delhi Administration and Ors.,
1993 (3) SCR 949, observed as under:
“ The principle therefore is, one must look into
the main work and that must found out from
the main duties. A supervisor was one who
could bind the company to take some kind of
decision on behalf of the company. One who
was reporting merely as to the affairs of the
company and making assessment for the
purpose of reporting was not a supervisor”.
The Apex Court thereafter referred to the
definition of the supervisor in the Block’s Law
Dictionary Special Deluxe Fifth Edition, which
describes ‘supervisor’ as under:-
“ In a broad sense, one having authority over
others, to superintend and direct. The term
‘supervisor’ means any individual having
authority in the interest of the employer to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward or discipline other
employees, or responsibility to direct them, or
to adjust their grievances, or effectively to
recommend such action if, in connection with
the foregoing the exercise of such authority is
not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgments”.
17. In the case of Shri Sudhir Kumar s/o.
Sourindra Kumar Roy (supra), before the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay, the Petitioner was working
with the employer and designated as Chemist-in-
charge. The Petitioner was discharging his function
as Chemist. He was having power to recommend
leave but not empowered to grant leave or take
disciplinary action. The Hon’ble High Court has
held that “the Petitioner was employed as Chemist
and was essentially discharging his functions as
Chemist. Whatever supervisory work he did that
was ancillary to the job and hence, the Petitioner is
a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of
the I.D. Act, 1947”.
Thus, it is settled principle of law that whether
an employee is a workman or not within the
meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947,
depends upon his primary and basic nature of
duties and responsibilities which he/she was
performing at the time of termination of his/her
service. The term ‘supervisor’ has to be understood
as explained in the judgment of Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay in its case of Cricket Club of India
(supra).
18. In the case in hand, admittedly, the Applicant
was appointed as ‘Jr. Supervisor’ by the Opponent,
vide its appointment letter 28-06-1990. The
Applicant was thereafter promoted to the post of
‘Supervisor (P & AH)’, by order of the Opponent
dated 27-10-2001 (Exb.19-cross). The Applicant was
again promoted to the post of ‘Extension Officer,
Grade II’ w.e.f. 01-08-2009, by letter of the
Opponent dated 22-08-2009 (Exb.20-cross). It is also
not in dispute that the Applicant retired from the
services of the Opponent after the month of August,
2011. The evidence on record indicates that the
last drawn gross salary of the Applicant was
Rs.34,297/-. The duties and responsibilities
attached to the post of Extension Officer, Grade II
has not been spelt out in the promotion letter
(Exb.20-cross) issued to the Applicant. It is therefore
necessary to look into the primary and basic nature
of duties of the Applicant.
19.
To prove his case, the Applicant has
examined himself as his sole witness. The
Applicant in his affidavit-in-evidence deposed that
as an Extension Officer, Grade II of the Opponent,
he was performing the duties such as physically
preparing the stock of medicine in the stores,
making requisition of medicine as per requirement
of dairy societies of Goa, physically making
requisition of required medicines and submitting
the list of medicines for purchase to the purchase
dept., physically checking the quality of milk and
maintaining their records such as percentage of
fats, SNF and degree of milk etc. and physically
doing any other work as per the orders of his
supervisor manager (procurement).
In cross-examination, the Applicant admitted
that he used to see the job of supply of veterinary
medicines to the co-operative societies affiliated
to the Opponent through its veterinary stores. He
admitted that it was his duty to visit the various
dairy co-operative societies affiliated to the
Opponent and observe that the veterinary
medicine supplied to them have been utilized
properly by the said societies and if any of the
dairy co-operative societies has not utilized the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
102
veterinary medicine supplied to them, then, he used
to report the same to the Opponent and that to
observe and supervise the veterinary medicine
supplied by the Opponent to its affiliated dairy
societies.
20. On the contrary, the Opponent has examined
its Personnel Officer, Shri Priyesh Sawant as their
sole witness. The said witness of the Opponent
remained silent regarding the predominant nature
of duties of the Applicant, though the Ld. Adv. Shri
P. Chawdikar, during the course of his cross-
examination of the Applicant denied the duties
spelt out by him in his affidavit-in-evidence. The
said witness of the Opponent, in his cross-
examination clearly admitted that the Applicant
was performing the same duties as specified by
him in his affidavit in evidence. The said
Opponent’s witness admitted that the Applicant
was not the sanctioning authority of leave of any
of the employee. He deposed that he do not know
as to whether the Applicant was recommending
leave of the employees of the Opponent. He
admitted that the Applicant was performing his
duties as per the instructions given to him from
time to time by the Manager/Asstt. Manager of the
Opponent. He deposed that none of the employees
of the Opponent used to assist the Applicant during
the time of his field visit. He deposed that he do
not know as to whether the Applicant used to
physically check the fat of the milk by way of his
field visit. He deposed that he do not know the
specific duties of the Applicant, while on his visits
to different societies affiliated to the Opponent.
Thus, the aforesaid predominant nature of duties
and responsibilities performed by the Applicant as
an Extension Officer Grade II of the Opponent does
not show that he was having any authority to take
any kind of disciplinary action or to direct any of
the employees of the Opponent, other than
reporting the matter to the higher authority. The
aforesaid duties performed by the Applicant are
thus, clerical and technical in nature and as such
the Applicant is a ‘workman’ within the meaning
of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, it is
held that the Applicant is a ‘workman’ within the
meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The
issue No.1 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
21. Admittedly, the Applicant had raised a
dispute pertaining to anomaly in his pay fixation
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer, Ponda, Goa. The resolution
No. 8 taken by the board of directors of the
Opponent in its meeting held on 21-09-2011
(Exb.13) on record indicates that the Opponent
had resolved to pay to the Applicant a lump sum
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the anomaly in his
pay fixation. The said resolution on record does
not shows that the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
shall be paid to the Applicant by deducting an
amount of Rs. 25,000/- and a sum of Rs. 49,665/-
which was paid to him as an medical advance on
07-04-2011 and reimbursement of his medical bills
respectively. This clearly shows that there exists
an pre-existing right to claim the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- by the Applicant. Hence, this court
has every jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present claim application filed by the Applicant. It
is therefore held that the Opponent failed to prove
that the claim application of the Applicant is bad-
in-law for any reasons as spelt out in the preliminary
objections of their reply. The issue No. 3 is therefore
answered in the negative.
22.
Issue No. 2: While deciding the issue No. 3
herein above, I have come to the conclusion and
held that the Opponent is due and payable to the
Applicant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the
anomaly in his pay fixation.
It is the contention of the Opponent that the
Applicant was paid by the Opponent an amount of
Rs. 25,000/- on 07-04-2011 as medical advance and
also a sum of Rs. 49,665/- towards his medical bills
and that as the said amount of Rs. 74,665/- (being
Rs. 25,000/-+Rs. 49,665/-) was recoverable,
they adjusted a sum of Rs. 74,665/- towards
Rs. 1,00,000/- which was payable to the Applicant
in terms of resolution No. 8 dated 21-09-2011 and
the balance amount of Rs. 25,335/- was paid to him,
by cheque bearing No. 003787 dated 20-05-2014
drawn on the Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Curti,
Ponda-Goa. The sole witness of the Opponent
Shri Sawant, also deposed the said fact in his
affidavit-in-evidence filed in the present
proceedings. However, during the course of his
cross-examination, Shri Sawant deposed that he
do not know as to whether the Applicant has
acknowledged any such letter issued by the
Opponent pertaining to the debt of Rs. 74,665/-.
His oral evidence on record indicates that the
Opponent do possess records of all its transactions,
however, he could not produce any documents to
substantiate his statement that the aforesaid
amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 49,665/-, which were
paid to the Applicant as medical advance and
reimbursement of his medical bills, were
recoverable. On the contrary, the Applicant has
produced on record his pay slips (Exb. 30-colly)
issued by the Opponent for the period from April,
2011 till the retirement of the Applicant on August,
2011, in support of his oral evidence that the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
103
amount paid to him by the Opponent as medical
advance and reimbursement of his medical bills
were not recoverable. The said pay slips on record
clearly indicates that the recovery (old recoverable
and new recoverable column) has been shown as
zero. The Opponent has however, paid to the
Applicant a sum of Rs. 25,335/- by cheque bearing
No. 003787 dated 20-05-2014 drawn on the Goa
State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa i.e. soon
after filing the present claim application by the
Applicant. Thus, an amount of Rs. 74,665/- is yet to
be paid to the Applicant by the Opponent in terms
of its resolution No. 8 dated 21-09-2011. The
Opponent is legally due and payable to the
Applicant the balance amount of Rs. 74,665/-. The
said amount had to be paid to the Applicant at the
time of retirement of the Applicant after the month
of August, 2011. The Opponent has miserably failed
to pay the same till date. The Opponent is therefore
liable to pay to the Applicant the said amount of
Rs. 74,665/- @ 9% p.a. from September, 2011 till the
date of its realization.
In view of above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The claim application of the Applicant dated
19-05-2014, is hereby allowed. The Opponent,
M/s. Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers
Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa, is hereby
directed to pay to the Applicant Shri Thomas
Fernandes, a sum of Rs. 74,665/- along with
simple interest @ 9% p.a. from September, 2011
till the realization of the said amount.
2. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/232
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
27-02-2017 in reference No. IT/59/12 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 11th April, 2017.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/59/12
Workmen,
Rep. by the President,
Ramada Renaissance Resort
Employees Union,
Varca, Fatrade,
Salcete, Goa, 403 721.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Ramada Caravela Beach
Resort Goa,
Varca Beach,
Salcete, Goa, 403 721.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 27th day of the month of
February of the year 2017)
By Order dated 29-10-2012, bearing No. 28/31/
/2012-Lab/593, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Ramada Caravela Beach Resort Goa,
Varca, in not conceding to the demand of
their workmen, represented by the Ramada
Renaissance Resort Employees Union, for
payment of bonus at the rate of 20% for the
accounting year 2010-11, is legal and
justified?
(2) If not, what relief each of the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/59/12 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties.
3. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties filed an application dated 22-2-2017 along
with Memorandum of Settlement entered between
the management of Ramada Caravela Beach Resort,
a unit of Advani Hotels and Resorts (I) Ltd., and
permanent workmen employed under it
represented by Ramada Renaissance Resort
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
104
Employees Union under Section 12(3) read with
Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
at Exhibit 2 colly stating that they have settled
the subject matter of the dispute amongst others
by signing the settlement.
4. The terms of settlement are as follows:
A) It is agreed by and between the parties, the
Bonus/Ex-gratia shall be paid to the
permanent workmen under the Payment of
Bonus Act, 1965, for all the above accounting
years as under:
Year
Already paid
Ex-gratia to be paid
2010-2011
Bonus 8.33%
Nil
2011-2012
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 6.67%
2012-2013
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 7.67%
2013-2014
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 8.67%
2014-2015
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 9.67%
2015-2016
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 9.67%
Year
To be paid
Ex-gratia to be paid
2016-2017
Bonus 8.33%
Ex-gratia 9.67% (Bonus
payable on or before
30th September, 2017 &
Ex-gratia payable before
31st December, 2017.
2017-2018
Bonus 8.33%
Ex-gratia 11.67% (Bonus
payable on or before
30th September, 2018 &
Ex-gratia payable before
31st December, 2018.
B) The calculation of Bonus/Ex-gratia shall be
made as per the provisions of the payment
of Bonus Act, 1965 and rules made there
under. This settlement is applicable only to
permanent workers who are members of
Ramada Renaissance Resort Employees
Union and who are on rolls of Ramada
Caravela Beach Resort Goa, a unit of Advani
Hotels & Resorts (I) Ltd on the day of signing
the settlement.
C) Ex-Gratia will be applicable only for the
union employees working with the company
on date of signing this agreement. Bonus will
not be applicable for employees not covered
under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and
Rules thereof. The below mentioned chart
may be referred to for understanding the
same better.
Year
To be paid
Ex-gratia to be paid
Sr.
Category of employees
Bonus
Ex-gratia
No.
1
2
3
4
1. Employees currently on rolls of the company and
Eligible for Bonus
Eligible for Ex-gratia.
covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
2. Employees currently on rolls of the company and
Not eligible for Bonus
Eligible for Ex-gratia.
not covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
3. Employees who have left the company and were
Eligible for Bonus
Not eligible for
covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
Ex-gratia.
4. Employees who have left the company and were
Not eligible for Bonus
Not eligible for
not covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
Ex-gratia.
5. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently on
Eligible for Bonus as
Eligible for Ex-gratia
rolls of the company, and covered under the Bonus
per old provisions of
as per old provisions
Act, 1965 will be paid Bonus/Ex-gratia as per the
Bonus Act
of Bonus Act.
old provisions of Bonus Act. However, in future if
the court allows the new provisions with retrospective
effect the Bonus/Ex-gratia will be calculated as per
new provisions and differential Bonus/Ex-gratia will
be paid accordingly
6. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently not
Eligible for Bonus as
Not eligible for
working with the company and covered under the
per old provisions of
Ex-gratia.
Bonus Act, 1965 will be paid/already paid the Bonus
Bonus Act
as per the old provisions of Payment of Bonus Act.
However, in future if the court allows the new provi-
sions with retrospective effect the Bonus will be
calculated as per new provisions and differential
Bonus will be paid accordingly
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
105
7. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently
Not eligible for Bonus
Eligible for Ex-gratia
working with the company and not covered under
as per old provisions
the Bonus Act, 1965, will be paid Ex-gratia as per the
of Bonus Act.
old provisions of Bonus Act. However, in future if
the court allows the new provisions with retrospec-
tive effect, the Ex-gratia will be calculated as per
new provisions and differential Ex-gratia will be
paid accordingly
8. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently not
Not eligible for Bonus
Not eligible for
on roll with the company and not covered under
Ex-gratia.
the Bonus Act, 1965 will not be entitled to any
Bonus/Ex-gratia
D) In view of the above settlement it is agreed
between the parties that all the disputes/
/industrial disputes in connection with the
payment of Bonus/Ex-gratia for the
accounting years mentioned hereinabove
are fully, finally, irrevocably and
satisfactorily settled and no further
disputes/cases would arise in this matter of
whatsoever nature, including any claim/
benefit which could be ascertained in the
form of money.
E) It is further agreed between the parties in
so far as the Bonus for the accounting year
2010-11, 2011-12 pending in reference No.
IT/59/12 & IT/38/13 in Industrial Tribunal,
Panaji, Goa, the parties to the reference shall
make a joint application for disposing the
said reference in terms of the settlement,
within one week of signing the settlement.
A copy of this settlement shall be produced
before the Industrial Tribunal.
F) It is further agreed by the union/workmen
that in view of the above settlement their
entire demand for Bonus/Ex-gratia as per the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 for the
accounting year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13,
2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18
is fully, finally, irrevocably and satisfactorily
settled and both the parties agree to adhere
to the terms of the settlement. No further
claims or disputes can arise thereafter.
G) It is agreed between the parties that Bonus/
/Ex-gratia which is not paid shall be
paid for accounting year 2011-12, 2012-13,
2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 on or before
28-02-2017, subject to withdrawal of all the
matters by the Ramada Renaissance
Employees Union from the Industrial
Tribunal and DLC office.
H) The union and the workmen assure full
co-operation in elimination of wasteful
practices.
I) The union and the workmen agree to give
full co-operation to the management in the
maintenance of discipline, reduction of
absenteeism and adhering to good service
practices and safety regulations.
J) It is agreed that the management, the union
and the workmen undertake to maintain
good industrial relations and further agree
not to support or indulge in any unfair labour
practices and whenever conflicts of interest
arise, they shall be resolved in a peaceful
and legitimate manner through mutual
discussion and/or recourse to legal
machinery provided under the law.
K) With this, all the demands of the union have
been met and there shall be no additional
financial or non-financial demands or
requests, under the Payment of Bonus Act,
1965 and rules thereof.
L) Any employees who resigned/retires/
/separates from the company in the future
will be eligible for bonus/Ex-gratia on a pro-
rata basis as per the provisions of the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and rules
thereof.
M) This settlement is a special settlement and
payment of Ex-gratia to the non-eligible
employees under the Payment of Bonus Act
is a one-time special case and should not
create a precedent in any way whatsoever.
N) A list of employees working with the
company, on the date of signing the
settlement is enclosed, only these
employees will be eligible for the Bonus/
/Ex-gratia as per the settlement thereof.
Enclosed in Annexure A.
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
106
O) Calculation for Bonus/Ex-gratia of the
employees from the year 2010-11, 2011-12,
2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 have
been enclosed in the Annexure B, C, D, E, F
& G respectively.
9. The above terms of settlement are signed
by Shri Prahlad Advani, Director Operations,
Shri Prasad Kanoth, Hotel Manager, Shri Shankar
Kulkarni–Vice President-Finance, Shri Viraj Govekar
-Sr. Manager-Human Resources and Amit
Khanvilkar-Asst. Manager-Human Resources of
Party II and Shri Marcelino Fernandes-President,
Shri Subhash Naik George-Vice President, Shri Joao
Fernandes-General Secretary, Shri Puttu Salunke-
-Vice President, Ms. Angela Fernandes-Joint
Treasurer and Shri Gurudas Verlekar-Joint
Secretary of Party I union.
10. I have gone through the records of the case
and the above terms of settlement and I am
convinced that the Memorandum of settlement at
Exhibit 2 colly. filed by the parties are just and fair
and are in the interest of the Workmen/Party I and
Employer/Party II and therefore, the same are
accepted.
11. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) The reference stands disposed of in view of
the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10-02-2017 filed by the parties at Exhibit 2
colly.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/234
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
27-02-2017 in reference No. IT/38/13 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 11th April, 2017.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/38/13
Workmen,
Rep. by the President,
Ramada Renaissance Resort
Employees Union,
Varca, Fatrade,
Salcete, Goa, 403 721.
… Workmen/Party I.
V/s
M/s. Ramada Caravela Beach
Resort Goa,
Varca Beach, Fatrade,
Salcete, Goa, 403 721.
… Employer/Party II.
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 27th day of the month of
February of the year 2017)
By order dated 18-09-2013, bearing No. 28/44/
/2013-Lab/638, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Ramada Caravela Beach Resort Goa,
Varca, in not conceding to the demand of
it’s workmen represented by the Ramada
Renaissance Resort Employees Union, for
payment of 20% bonus for the accounting
year 2011-12 without salary limits, is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, what relief each of the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/38/13 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties.
3. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties filed an application dated 22-2-2017 along
with Memorandum of Settlement entered between
the management of Ramada Caravela Beach Resort,
a unit of Advani Hotels and Resorts (I) Ltd., and
permanent workmen employed under it
represented by Ramada Renaissance Resort
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
107
Employees Union under Section 12(3) read with
Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
at Exb.1 colly stating that they have settled the
subject matter of the dispute amongst others by
signing the settlement.
4. The terms of settlement are as follows:
A) It is agreed by and between the parties, the
Bonus/Ex-gratia shall be paid to the
permanent workmen under the Payment of
Bonus Act, 1965, for all the above accounting
years as under:
Year
Already paid
Ex-gratia to be paid
2010-2011
Bonus 8.33%
Nil
2011-2012
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 6.67%
2012-2013
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 7.67%
2013-2014
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 8.67%
2014-2015
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 9.67%
2015-2016
Bonus 8.33%
& Ex-gratia 9.67%
Year
To be paid
Ex-gratia to be paid
2016-2017
Bonus 8.33%
Ex-gratia 9.67% (Bonus
payable on or before
30th September, 2017 &
Ex-gratia payable before
31st December, 2017.
2017-2018
Bonus 8.33%
Ex-gratia 11.67% (Bonus
payable on or before
30th September, 2018 &
Ex-gratia payable before
31st December, 2018.
B) The calculation of Bonus/Ex-gratia shall be
made as per the provisions of the payment
of Bonus Act, 1965 and rules made there
under. This settlement is applicable only to
permanent workers who are members of
Ramada Renaissance Resort Employees
Union and who are on rolls of Ramada
Caravela Beach Resort Goa, a unit of Advani
Hotels & Resorts (I) Ltd. on the day of signing
the settlement.
C) Ex-Gratia will be applicable only for the
union employees working with the company
on date of signing this agreement. Bonus will
not be applicable for employees not covered
under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and
Rules thereof. The below mentioned chart
may be referred to for understanding the
same better.
Year
To be paid
Ex-gratia to be paid
Sr.
Category of employees
Bonus
Ex-gratia
No.
1
2
3
4
1. Employees currently on rolls of the company and
Eligible for Bonus
Eligible for Ex-gratia.
covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
2. Employees currently on rolls of the company and
Not eligible for Bonus
Eligible for Ex-gratia.
not covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
3. Employees who have left the company and were
Eligible for Bonus
Not eligible for
covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
Ex-gratia.
4. Employees who have left the company and were
Not eligible for Bonus
Not eligible for
not covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
Ex-gratia.
5. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently on
Eligible for Bonus as
Eligible for Ex-gratia
rolls of the company, and covered under the Bonus
per old provisions of
as per old provisions
Act, 1965 will be paid Bonus/Ex-gratia as per the
Bonus Act
of Bonus Act.
old provisions of Bonus Act. However, in future if
the court allows the new provisions with retrospective
effect the Bonus/Ex-gratia will be calculated as per
new provisions and differential Bonus/Ex-gratia will
be paid accordingly
6. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently not
Eligible for Bonus as
Not eligible for
working with the company and covered under the
per old provisions of
Ex-gratia.
Bonus Act, 1965 will be paid/already paid the Bonus
Bonus Act
as per the old provisions of Payment of Bonus Act.
However, in future if the court allows the new provi-
sions with retrospective effect the Bonus will be
calculated as per new provisions and differential
Bonus will be paid accordingly
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
108
7. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently
Not eligible for Bonus
Eligible for Ex-gratia
working with the company and not covered under
as per old provisions
the Bonus Act, 1965, will be paid Ex-gratia as per the
of Bonus Act.
old provisions of Bonus Act. However, in future if
the court allows the new provisions with retrospec-
tive effect the Ex-gratia will be calculated as per
new provisions and differential Ex-gratia will be
paid accordingly
8. For year 2014-15, for the employees currently not
Not eligible for Bonus
Not eligible for
on roll with the company, and not covered under
Ex-gratia.
the Bonus Act, 1965 will not be entitled to any
Bonus/Ex-gratia
1
2
3
4
D) In view of the above settlement it is agreed
between the parties that all the disputes/
/industrial disputes in connection with the
payment of Bonus/Ex-gratia for the
accounting years mentioned hereinabove
are fully, finally, irrevocably and
satisfactorily settled and no further
disputes/cases would arise in this matter of
whatsoever nature, including any claim/
benefit which could be ascertained in the
form of money.
E) It is further agreed between the parties in
so far as the Bonus for the accounting year
2010-11, 2011-12 pending in reference No.
IT/59/12 & IT/38/13 in Industrial Tribunal,
Panaji, Goa, the parties to the reference shall
make a joint application for disposing the
said reference in terms of the settlement,
within one week of signing the settlement.
A copy of this settlement shall be produced
before the Industrial Tribunal.
F) It is further agreed by the union/workmen
that in view of the above settlement their
entire demand for Bonus/Ex-gratia as per the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 for the
accounting year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13,
2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18
is fully, finally, irrevocably and satisfactorily
settled and both the parties agree to adhere
to the terms of the settlement. No further
claims or disputes can arise thereafter.
G) It is agreed between the parties that Bonus/
/Ex-gratia which is not paid shall be paid
for accounting year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14,
2014-15, 2015-16 on or before 28-02-2017,
subject to withdrawal of all the matters by
the Ramada Renaissance Employees Union
from the Industrial Tribunal and DLC office.
H) The union and the workmen assure full
co-operation in elimination of wasteful
practices.
I) The union and the workmen agree to give
full co-operation to the management in the
maintenance of discipline, reduction of
absenteeism and adhering to good service
practices and safety regulations.
J) It is agreed that the management, the union
and the workmen undertake to maintain
good industrial relations and further agree
not to support or indulge in any unfair labour
practices and whenever conflicts of interest
arise, they shall be resolved in a peaceful
and legitimate manner through mutual
discussion and/or recourse to legal
machinery provided under the law.
K) With this, all the demands of the union have
been met and there shall be no additional
financial or non-financial demands or
requests, under the Payment of Bonus Act,
1965 and rules thereof.
L) Any employees who resigned/retires/
/separates from the company in the future
will be eligible for bonus/Ex-gratia on a pro-
rata basis as per the provisions of the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and rules thereof.
M) This settlement is a special settlement and
payment of Ex-gratia to the non-eligible
employees under the Payment of Bonus Act
is a one-time special case and should not
create a precedent in any way whatsoever.
N) A list of employees working with the
company, on the date of signing the
settlement is enclosed, only these
employees will be eligible for the Bonus/
/Ex-gratia as per the settlement thereof.
Enclosed in Annexure A.
O) Calculation for Bonus/Ex-gratia of the
employees from the year 2010-11, 2011-12,
2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 have
been enclosed in the Annexure B, C, D, E, F
& G respectively.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
109
9. The above terms of settlement are signed
by Shri Prahlad Advani, Director Operations,
Shri Prasad Kanoth, Hotel Manager, Shri Shankar
Kulkarni–Vice President-Finance, Shri Viraj
Govekar-Sr. Manager-Human Resources and Amit
Khanvilkar-Asst. Manager-Human Resources of
Party II and Shri Marcelino Fernandes-President,
Shri Subhash Naik George-Vice President, Shri Joao
Fernandes-General Secretary, Shri Puttu Salunke-
-Vice President, Ms. Angela Fernandes-Joint
Treasurer and Shri Gurudas Verlekar-Joint
Secretary of Party I union.
10. I have gone through the records of the case
and the above terms of settlement and I am
convinced that the Memorandum of settlement at
Exhibit 1 colly filed by the parties are just and fair
and are in the interest of the Workmen/Party I and
Employer/Party II and therefore, the same are
accepted.
11. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) The reference stands disposed of in view of
the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10-02-2017 filed by the parties at Exhibit 1
colly.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/407
Read: Order No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/1344 dated
25-07-2016.
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Adv. Deep Digamber Shirodkar, Additional
Government Advocate attached to the Office of
the Ld. Advocate General, Altinho, Panaji to appear
and defend the interest of the Government in the
matters before the High Court of Bombay at Goa,
Panaji with effect from 25-07-2016 and until further
orders.
He will be paid fees as per the existing terms
and conditions laid down by the Government,
applicable to Government Advocates and
Additional Government Advocates, amended from
time to time, on submission of bills (in duplicate)
alongwith the attendence certificate, issued by the
Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji-Goa.
They should comply with the instructions
contained in the Government Circular No. 4-43-99/
/LD dated 04-05-2000. They will appear in those
matters, which would be allotted to them by the
Ld. Advocate General and perform all duties and
functions as may be assigned by the Ld. Advocate
General or the State Government.
This issues with the supersession of Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/1344 dated 25-07-2016
referred above.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary, Law (Estt.).
Porvorim, 7th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/468
Read: Order No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/1344 dated
25-07-2016.
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Adv. Amira A. Razaq as Government Advocate to
appear and defend the interest of the Government
in the matters before the High Court of Bombay at
Goa, Panaji with effect from 25-07-2016 and until
further orders.
She will be paid fees as per the existing terms
and conditions laid down by the Government,
applicable to Government Advocates and
Additional Government Advocates, amended from
time to time, on submission of bills (in duplicate)
alongwith the attendence certificate, issued by the
Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji-Goa.
They should comply with the instructions
contained in the Government Circular No. 4-43-99/
/LD dated 04-05-2000. They will appear in those
matters, which would be allotted to them by the
Ld. Advocate General and perform all duties and
functions as may be assigned by the Ld. Advocate
General or the State Government.
This issues with the supersession of Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/1344 dated 25-07-2016
referred above.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary, Law (Estt.).
Porvorim, 7th April, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
110
Order
No. 5-40-95/LD(10)
Whereas, the Government vide Notification
No. 5-40-95/LD(10) dated 16-08-1996, published in
the Official Gazette, Series II No. 36 dated
05-12-1996, appointed Shri Datta Shivaji Nadkarni,
Advocate, as a Notary for a period of three years in
the Judicial Division of Salcete with effect from
16-08-1996 (hereinafter called as the “Notary”);
And whereas, the Government vide Certificate
of Practice No. 5-40-96/LD(6) dated 16-08-1996
authorised the Notary to practice as a Notary for
Salcete Judicial Division for a period of 3 years
from 16-08-1996;
And whereas, the Certificate of Practice issued
to the Notary has been renewed by the Government
from time such Certificate of Practice was last
renewed for a period of one year with effect from
16-02-2016;
And whereas, Shri Sanjay Mohan Volvoikar,
resident of Anne Lopes Bldg., Dev Nagar,
Ghanemorod, Xeldem, Quepem, Goa filed a
complaint dated 02-09-2014 in Form XIII appended
to the Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to
as the “said Rules”) against the Notary in the office
of the State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services
(hereinafter called as the “Complaint”);
And whereas, the State Registrar-cum-Head of
Notary Services (hereinafter referred to as the
“Competent Authority”) directly initiated an
inquiry into the Complaint at his end and vide
letter No. 3/7/16-Registration/138 dated 28-10-2016,
he submitted the inquiry report to the Government.
And whereas, the Competent Authority vide
letter No. 3/7/17-Registration/152 dated 01-02-2017,
has admitted that there has been a procedural
lapse on the part of his office as the Complaint was
not made before the appropriate Government but
was submitted to his office in Form XIII and by
oversight he conducted the inquiry into the
Complaint;
And whereas, the inquiry report sumitted by
the Competent Authority into the Complaint was
placed before the Government.
And whereas, the Government has considered
the inquiry report and is of the opinion that an
action as specified under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b)
of sub-rule (12) of Rule 13 of the said Rules should
be taken against the Notary.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub-clause (iii)
of Clause (b) of sub-rule (12) of rule 13 of the said
Rules, the Government of Goa hereby lets off the
Notary with a warning that he should comply with
the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central
Act 53 of 1952) and the Rules framed thereunder
scrupulously in future, failing which stern action
will be taken against the Notary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
B. R. Singh, Secretary (Law).
Porvorim, 10th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/509
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Adv. Pradosh Dangui as Government Advocate on
the panel of Government to appear and defend the
interest of the State Government in the matters
before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa,
Panaji, National Green Tribunal, New Delhi and
National Green Tribunal, Pune with immediate
effect.
He will be paid fees as per the existing terms
and conditions laid down by the Government,
applicable to Government Advocates and
Additional Government Advocates, amended from
time to time, on submission of bills (in duplicate)
alongwith the attendence certificate, issued by the
respective Courts where the appearance put in.
He should comply with the instructions contained
in the Government Circular No. 4-43-99/LD dated
04-05-2000. He will appear in those matters, which
would be allotted to him by the Ld. Advocate
General and perform all duties and functions as
may be assigned by the Ld. Advocate General or
the State Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Estt.) (Link),
Law Department.
Porvorim, 18th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 1/13/2014/LD(Estt.)/510
The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to
accept the resignation tendered by Shri
Dattaprasad Prabhu Lawande, as Additional
Advocate General for the State of Goa, with effect
from 20-03-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Estt.) (Link),
Law Department.
Porvorim, 18th April, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
111
High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji
Order
No. HCB/GOA/PF/PMS/2017
The Honourable Senior Judge is pleased to grant
the following Officer leave for the period mentioned
against his name:-
Name & designation
Period of leave
Shri P. M. Shinde,
Earned Leave for 5 days
Deputy Registrar,
w.e.f. 17-04-2017 to 21-4-2017
High Court of Bombay
with permission to prefix
at Goa, Panaji
16-4-2017 being Sunday
and to suffix 22-4-2017 and
23-4-2017 being 4th Saturday
and Sunday respectively.
Certified that but for leave the Officer would
have continued to officiate in the post had he not
proceeded on leave during the above period.
II
The charge of the post of Dy. Registrar during
the above mentioned leave period, is kept with the
undersigned.
Panaji,
S. C. Chandak,
17th April, 2017.
Registrar (Adm.).
———‹———
Notification by the High Court of Judicature
Appellate Side, Bombay
No. A.1205/G/2017/1292
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), the High Court is
pleased to appoint the following Assistant Sessions
Judge as the Additional Sessions Judge to exercise
jurisdiction in the Courts of Sessions with immediate
effect.
Name of the Judicial Officer and present
posting
Sr.
Name of Judicial officer
No.
1.
Ms. Kshama M. Joshi, ad hoc District Judge-2
& Assistant Sessions Judge, South Goa,
Margao.
High Court, Bombay,
Sd/-
Dated: 13th April, 2017
Mangesh S. Patil,
Registrar General.
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 6/13/2009-PER
On the recommendations of Goa Services Board
and with the approval of the Government, the
following Senior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service
are transferred and posted with immediate effect,
in public interest:-
Sr.
Name of the Officer
Posted as
No.
and Designation
1
2
3
1. Shri Narayan Sawant,
Addl. Secretary (Home)
Director of Vigilance
vice Shri Srinet
Kothwale transferred.
2. Shri Sanjit Rodrigues,
MD, Goa Solid Waste
Managing Director,
Management
GSIDC
Corporation with addl.
charge of Managing
Director, GSIDC.
3. Shri Nikhil Desai,
Director of Transport
Managing Director,
vice Shri Sunil
Goa Tourism Development Masurkar transferred.
Corporation
Shri Desai shall
continue on the post
of MD, GTDC till
30-04-2017.
4. Shri D. G. Sardessai,
Director, Public
Secretary, Goa Public
Grievances vice
Service Commission,
Ms. Margaret Fernandes
transferred.
5. Shir Sunil Masurkar,
Joint Secretary (Health)
Director of Transport
vice Shri Anthony
D’Souza transferred.
6. Shri Agnelo Fernandes, Additional Collector-II,
Director of Environment North vice
Shri Surendra Naik
transferred.
7. Shri Srinet Kothwale,
Director of Information
Joint Secretary (Home) & Publicity vice
Shri Jayant Tari
transferred.
8. Shri Jayant Tari,
MD, Rehabilitation
Director of Information
Board.
& Publicity
9. Shri V. P. Dangui,
Director of Industries,
Director (Admn.),
Trade & Commerce
Directorate of Education vice Smt. Maneka, IAS
transferred.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
112
10. Shri Anthony D’Souza,
Joint Secretary (Revenue)
Joint Secretary (Health) thereby relieving Shri
Vijay Paranjape from
the additional charge.
11. Smt. Meena H. Naik,
Project Director,
Goltekar awaiting
Directorate of Rural
posting
Development and
Agency, South.
12. Shri Sanjeev Gauns
Director of Vigilance
Desai,
vice Shri Narayan
Director of Tourism
Sawant transferred.
13. Shri Surendra Naik,
Additional Collector-III,
Addl. Collector-II,
Sub-District, Bardez.
North
14. Shri Narayan Gad,
Managing Director,
awaiting posting
Goa Industrial
Development
Corporation.
15. Smt. Meghana
Director (Adm.),
Shetgaonkar,
Directorate of
Director (Training),
Education vice Shri
GIPARD
V. P. Dangui
transferred. Smt.
Shetgaonkar shall
hold addl. charge of
Director (Training),
GIPARD.
16. Shri Parag Nagarsekar,
Director of
Director (Admn.), Kala
Environment vice
Academy
Shri Agnelo A.
Fernandes transferred.
Shri Nagarsekar shall
hold addl. charge of
the post of Director
(Admn.), Kala Academy.
Shri Menino D’Souza, Commissioner of Excise
shall hold additional charge of the post of Director
of Tourism vice Shri Sanjeev Desai transferred, until
further orders.
Shri Levinson Martins, Member Secretary, Goa
State Pollution Control Board shall hold additional
charge of the post of Managing Director, Goa
Tourism Development Corporation, until further
orders w.e.f. 01-05-2017, thereby relieving Shri
Nikhil Desai.
Shri Siddhivinayak Naik, Addl. Inspector General
of Prisons shall hold additional charge of the post
of OSD to Minister (Housing) and Secretary, Goa
Human Rights Commission, until further orders.
Smt. Maneka, IAS, Ms. Margaret Fernandes, Smt.
Laura Britto & Shri Umeshchandra L. Joshi, shall
report to Personnel Department for further posting
and shall draw their salary against the post of
Leave & Training Reserve. Smt. Maneka, IAS, shall
draw her salary against the post of State Deputation
Reserve.
Shri Jayant Tari shall draw his salary against
the post of Leave & Training Reserve.
Shri Sanjit Rodrigues shall continue to draw his
salary against the post of MD, GSIDC, until further
orders.
The appointment of Shri Sanjit Rodrigues, Shri
Jayant Tari, Smt. Meena Goltekar and Shri Narayan
Gad shall be governed by deputation on standard
terms of deputation as contained in Office
Memorandum No. 13/4/74-PER dated 20-11-2013
and as amended.
Shri D. G. Sardessai shall continue to hold the
charge of Secretary, Goa Public Service Commission,
Smt. Meghana Shetgaonkar shall continue to hold
the charge of Under Secretary, Personnel-I and Shri
Parag Nagarsekar shall continue to hold the charge
of Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries, until
further orders.
All the above officers except Shri Levinson
Martins shall complete the process of handing over/
/taking over within three days from the date of
issue of order and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary
(Personnel).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Institute of Public Assistance, (Provedoria)
__
Order
No. 2-22-2013-14/IPA/Part/180
Read: Order No. 2-22-2013-14/IPA/Part/2741 dated
2nd September, 2013.
The Government is pleased to extend the period
of existing Visiting Committee for Old Aged Homes
and Orphanages run by I.P.A. (Provedoria)
comprising of the following members, with
immediate effect.
1. Secretary (Provedoria)
— Chairperson.
2. Director of Health Services — Member.
3. Director of Education
— Member.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
113
4. Director of Social Welfare
— Member.
5. Project Director, RDA
— Member.
6. Mrs. Lily Pereira, Altinho,
— Member.
Panaji-Goa
7. Mrs. Muzumdar, St. Tome,
— Member.
Panaji-Goa
8. Director of Provedoria
— Member
Secretary.
The Visiting Committee shall visit Old Aged
Homes at least once in a period of three months or
as deemed fit by the Government.
The Official Members attending the Committee
visits will be treated as on duty and will be entitled
to TA/DA wherever admissible under the normal
rules. The non-official members will be paid
Rs. 1,500/- per sitting/visit.
The term of the Committee shall be for a period
up to 30th September, 2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Daulat A. Hawaldar, Secretary (Provedoria).
Panaji, 18th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 2/8/2014-II/PHD/484
Government is pleased to accept the technical
resignation dated 10-11-2016 tendered by Dr. Roma
Varik, from the post of Assistant Professor,
Department of Paediatrics, Goa Medical College &
Hospital, Bambolim w.e.f. 10-11-2016 (afternoon) in
order to facilitate her to join the post of Associate
Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Goa Medical
College & Hospital, Bambolim.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita S. Hede, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 12th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 38/11/2017-I/PHD/620
Government is pleased to constitute a “State
Task Force for Malaria Elimination” to carry out
timely review on programmes implementation,
involving different sectors and stakeholders in the
State. The Committee shall comprise of the
following members:
1. Secretary (Health)
— Chairman.
2. Secretary (Urban Development) — Member.
3. Director of Health Services
— Member.
4. Dean, Goa Medical College,
— Member.
Bambolim
5. Director of Municipal Adminis- — Member.
tration
6. Director of Panchayat
— Member.
7. Principal Chief Engineer
— Member.
(P.W.D.)
8. Director of Information &
— Member.
Publicity
9. Officer I/C NIMR, Goa Station
— Member.
10. President, State IMA, Goa
— Member.
Chapter
11. Dy. Director (PH), Directorate
— Member.
of Health Services
12. State Entomologist
— Member.
13. Dy. Director, NVBDCP
— Member
Secretary.
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1) The Committee shall meet every quarter to
identify specific areas of co-ordination and
collaboration to discuss concerns, best
practices that could be replicated.
2) The specific areas will be identified by
concerned Health Officer/Medical Officer
I/C of that particular area with regards to
case management and Vector Control
Measures.
3) The Committee shall give directions for
planning/implementation of the Malaria
Elimination Programme and also check
effective mobilization/pooling of resources
as and when required.
4) The Committee shall also give directions
to carry out awareness programmes
with involvement of other Government
Departments and NGOs. It will also carry
out co-ordination with various Departments
to emphasize to accelerate the efforts to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
114
achieve Universal Sanitation coverage as
envisaged under Swatch Bharat Mission.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 38/11/2017-I/PHD/621
Government is pleased to constitute a “North
Goa District Task Force for Malaria Elimination” to
carry out timely review on programmes
implementation, involving different sectors and
stakeholders in the State. The Committee shall
comprise of the following members:
1. Collector, North Goa
— Chairman.
2. Director, DMA
— Member.
3. Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Panchayat
4. Principal Chief Engineer (P.W.D.) — Member.
5. Director of Information &
— Member.
Publicity
6. State Entomologist
— Member.
7. State Epidemiologist
— Member.
8. Health Officer, NVBDCP, DHS
— Member.
9. Health Officer, PHC, Candolim — Member.
10. Health Officer, UHC, Mapusa
— Member.
11. Medical Officer I/C PHC,
— Member.
Corlim
12. Medical Officer I/C, PHC,
— Member.
Porvorim
13. Health Officer, UHC, Panaji
— Member
Secretary.
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1) The Committee shall meet every quarter to
identify specific areas of co-ordination and
collaboration to discuss concerns, best
practices that could be replicated.
2) The specific areas will be identified by
concerned Health Officer/Medical Officer
I/C of that particular area with regards to
case management and Vector Control
Measures.
3) The Committee shall give directions for
planning/implementation of the Malaria
Elimination Programme and also check
effective mobilization/pooling of resources
as and when required.
4) The Committee shall also give directions
to carry out awareness programmes
with involvement of other Government
Departments and NGOs. It will also carry
out co-ordination with various Departments
to emphasize to accelerate the efforts to
achieve Universal Sanitation coverage as
envisaged under Swatch Bharat Mission.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 38/11/2017-I/PHD/622
Government is pleased to constitute a “South
Goa District Task Force for Malaria Elimination”
to carry out timely review on programme
implementation, involving different sectors and
stakeholders in the State. The Committee shall
comprise of the following members:
1. Collector, South Goa
— Chairman.
2. Director, DMA
— Member.
3. Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Panchayat or his representative
4. Principal Chief Engineer (P.W.D.) — Member.
or his representative
5. Director of Information &
— Member.
Publicity or his representative
6. Assistant Entomologist
— Member.
7. State Epidemiologist
— Member.
8. Health Officer, NVBDCP, DHS
— Member.
9. Health Officer, UHC, Vasco
— Member.
10. Health Officer, PHC, Balli
— Member.
11. Medical Officer, PHC, Curtorim — Member.
12. Health Officer, UHC, Margao
— Member
Secretary.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
115
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1) The Committee shall meet every quarter to
identify specific areas of co-ordination and
collaboration to discuss concerns, best
practices that could be replicated.
2) The specific areas will be identified by
concerned Health Officer/Medical Officer
I/C of that particular area with regards to
case management and Vector Control
Measures.
3) The Committee shall give directions for
planning/implementation of the Malaria
Elimination Programme and also check
effective mobilization/pooling of resources
as and when required.
4) The Committee shall also give directions
to carry out awareness programmes
with involvement of other Government
Departments and NGOs. It will also carry
out co-ordination with various Departments
to emphasize to accelerate the efforts to
achieve Universal Sanitation coverage as
envisaged under Swatch Bharat Mission.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 38/13/2017-I/PHD/626
Government is pleased to constitute a “State
Leprosy Co-ordination Committee” to carry out
timely review on programmes implementation,
involving different sectors and stakeholders in the
State. The Committee shall comprise of the
following members:
1. Secretary (Health)
— Chairman.
2. Secretary (Urban Development) — Member.
3. Director of Health Services
— Member.
4. Dean, Goa Medical College,
— Member.
Bambolim
5. Director of Municipal Adminis- — Member.
tration
6. Director of Panchayat
— Member.
7. Director, Education
— Member.
8. Director, Higher Education
— Member.
9. Director, Social Welfare
— Member.
10. Director of Information &
— Member.
Publicity
11. President, State IMA, Goa
— Member.
Chapter
12. Dy. Director, Public Health
— Member.
13. State Epidemiologist
— Member.
14. Chief Medical Officer, NLEP
— Member
Secretary.
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1) The Committee shall meet every quarter to
identify specific areas of co-ordination and
collaboration to discuss concerns, best
practices that could be replicated.
2) The specific areas shall be identified by
concerned Health Officer/Medical Officer,
I/C of that peripheral Health Centre
particular area with regards to case
management and treatment of cases.
3) The Committee shall give directions for
planning/implementation of the programme
and also check effective mobilization/
/pooling of resources as and when required.
4) The Committee shall also give directions
to carry out awareness programmes
with involvement of other Government
Departments and NGOs. It will also carry
out co-ordination with various Departments
to emphasize to accelerate the efforts to
achieve early diagnosis and treatment to
prevent disability and reduce stigma &
discrimination.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 20th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 38/13/2017-I/PHD/627
Government is pleased to constitute a “North
Goa District Leprosy Co-ordination Committee” to
carry out timely review on programmes
implementation, involving different sectors and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
116
stakeholders in the State. The Committee shall
comprise of the following members:
1. Collector, North Goa
— Chairman.
2. Director, DMA
— Member.
3. Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Panchayat
4. Director, Education
— Member.
5. Director, Higher Education
— Member.
6. Director of Information &
— Member.
Publicity
7. State Epidemiologist
— Member.
8. Health Officer, PHC, Candolim — Member.
9. Health Officer, UHC, Mapusa
— Member.
10. Medical Officer I/C, PHC,
— Member.
Corlim
11. Health Officer, PHC, Aldona
— Member.
12. Health Officer, UHC, Panaji
— Member
Secretary.
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1) The Committee shall meet every quarter to
identify specific areas of co-ordination and
collaboration to discuss concerns, best
practices that could be replicated.
2) The specific areas shall be identified by
concerned Health Officer/Medical Officer,
I/C of that peripheral Health Centre
particular area with regards to case
management and treatment of cases.
3) The Committee shall give directions for
planning/implementation of the programme
and also check effective mobilization/
/pooling of resources as and when required.
4) The Committee shall also give directions
to carry out awareness programmes
with involvement of other Government
Departments and NGOs. It will also carry
out co-ordination with various Departments
to emphasize to accelerate the efforts to
achieve early diagnosis and treatment to
prevent disability and reduce stigma &
discrimination.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 20th April, 2017.
Order
No. 38/13/2017-I/PHD/628
Government is pleased to constitute a “South
Goa District Leprosy Co-ordination Committee” to
carry out timely review on programmes
implementation, involving different sectors and
stakeholders in the State. The Committee shall
comprise of the following members:
1. Collector, South Goa
— Chairman.
2. Director, DMA
— Member.
3. Director, Directorate of Pancha- — Member.
yat or his representative
4. Director of Education
— Member.
5. Director of Higher Education
— Member.
6. Director of Information &
— Member.
Publicity or his representative
7. State Epidemiologist
— Member.
8. Health Officer, UHC, Vasco
— Member.
9. Health Officer, PHC, Balli
— Member.
10. Medical Officer, PHC, Curtorim — Member.
12. Health Officer, UHC, Margao
— Member
Secretary.
The terms of reference of the said Committee
shall be as under:
1) The Committee shall meet every quarter to
identify specific areas of co-ordination and
collaboration to discuss concerns, best
practices that could be replicated.
2) The specific areas shall be identified by
concerned Health Officer/Medical Officer,
I/C of that peripheral Health Centre
particular area with regards to case
management and treatment of cases.
3) The Committee shall give directions for
planning/implementation of the programme
and also check effective mobilization/
/pooling of resources as and when required.
4) The Committee shall also give directions
to carry out awareness programmes
with involvement of other Government
Departments and NGOs. It will also carry
out co-ordination with various Departments
to emphasize to accelerate the efforts to
achieve early diagnosis and treatment to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
117
prevent disability and reduce stigma &
discrimination.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 20th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 4/18/2002-II/PHD/Vol. 2/500
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/30(2)/2014/535 dated 24-01-2017,
Government is pleased to promote Dr. Mahesh
Kamble, Lecturer in Physiology, to the post of
Assistant Professor in Physiology in Goa Medical
College, Bambolim, on regular basis in the Pay
Band–3, Rs. 15,600-39,100+Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/-
(pre-revised) and other allowances to be fixed as
per rules, with immediate effect.
The promotion is made against the vacancy
occurred due to promotion of Dr. Sanjay Pandarbale
to the post of Associate Professor in Physiology
w.e.f. 23-12-2014.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita S. Hede, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 20th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 4-17-2002-II/PHD/501
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/30(6)/2015/500 dated 13-01-2017,
Government is pleased to promote Dr. Jagadish
Cacodcar, Associate Professor to the post of
Professor in Department of Preventive and Social
Medicine in Goa Medical College, Bambolim-Goa
on regular basis in the pay scale of PB-4: Rs. 37,400-
-67,000+ GP: Rs. 8,700/- and other allowances to be
fixed as per rules, with immediate effect.
The promotion is made against the vacancy
occurred due to retirement of Dr. Dilip Kumar
Motghare, Professor in Department of Preventive
and Social Medicine on attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 31-10-2015.
This issues with the directions of the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Goa in Contempt Petition
No. 40 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 808 of 2016
dated 15th February, 2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Smita S. Hede, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 20th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Sports & Youth Affairs
Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs
__
Order
No. 8/1/2001/Ad hoc-Appt/ADM/D.SPORTS/PF/166
Read: No. 8/1/2001/Adhoc-Appt/ADM/D.SPORTS/
/PF/3234 dated 25-11-2016.
In continuation to above referred order, the
ad hoc promotion of Smt. Jennifer Ferrao e
Gonsalves, to the post of Assistant Director (Physical
Education North), Group ‘B’, Gazetted in the pay
scale of PB–2 Rs. 9,300-34,800+Rs. 4,600/- is hereby
continued for the period w.e.f. 13-04-2017 to 31-05-2017.
The pay of the promotee shall be fixed as per
Rules.
The Government reserves the right to cancel at
any time the above ad hoc promotion and revert
the promotee to the post from which she was
promoted.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
V. M. Prabhu Desai, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Sports & Youth Affairs).
Panaji, 13th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Tribal Welfare
Directorate of Tribal Welfare
__
Notification
No. 1-200/2014-15/ADMN/DTW/SD/773
Government of Goa is pleased to constitute the
Organizing Committee for Celebration of Prerana
Din 2017, as per Clause 5 of the scheme named
“Celebration of Prerana Din”.
The Organizing Committee consists of the
following members:
1. The Hon’ble Minister for
— Chairperson.
Tribal Welfare
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
118
2. The Chairperson of SC/ST
— Member.
Commission
3. The Chairperson of ST
— Member.
Corporation
4. Shri Sandesh Gaonkar,
— Member.
Panch, Dabhal-Kirlpal
Village Panchayat
5. Smt. Vandana Vithoba
— Member.
Gaonkar, Bendurem,
Quepem
6. Shri Vishwas Gaude,
— Member.
Madkai, Mardola-Goa
7. The Director, Tribal Welfare — Member
Department
Secretary.
This order is issued with the approval of
Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
S. V. Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Tribal Welfare).
Panaji, 24th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
__
Corrigendum
No. 1-4-81/CE-WR/Adm.II/91
Read: Order No. 74-1-81/CE-WR/Adm II/48 dated 07-04-2017.
In the above referred General Transfer Order, the place of posting on transfer for the below mentioned
Executive Engineers/Surveyor of Works may be corrected and read as under:-
Sr.
Name & Designation
Place of present posting
Place of posting on transfer
No.
1
2
3
4
8. Shri Gopinath D. Dessai
O/o Executive Engineer,
Transfer to Works Division II stands
(Executive Engineer)
Works Division IX, WRD, Gogal,
cancelled and retained as Executive
Margao-Goa with additional charge
Engineer, Works Division IX, WRD,
of Works Division XI, Margao-Goa
Gogal, Margao-Goa thereby he is
also relieved of his additional
charge of Works Division XI, WRD,
Rawanfond, Margao-Goa.
9. Shri S. D. Kalgutkar
O/o Executive Engineer,
As Executive Engineer, Works
(Executive Engineer)
Works Division XI, WRD, Gogal,
Division XI, WRD, Gogal, Margao-Goa
Margao-Goa
with additional charge of Works
Division XIII, WRD, Gogal, Margao-Goa.
10. Shri Shivanand I. Pattan O/o Executive Engineer,
As Executive Engineer, Works
(Executive Engineer)
Works Division X, WRD, Pajimol,
Division II, WRD, Rawanfond, Margao-
Sanguem-Goa with additional
-Goa with additional charge of Works
charge of Works Division II, WRD,
Division X, WRD, Pajimol, Sanguem
Margao-Goa
and Works Division XII, WRD, Gogal,
Margao-Goa.
11. Shri H. M. Rangaraju
O/o Executive Engineer,
Transfer to Works Division XIII stands
(Executive Engineer)
Works Division VIII, WRD,
cancelled and retained in Works
Karaswada, Goa
Division VIII, WRD, thereby relieving
Shri M. K. Thilakan, Executive
Engineer of additional charge in
Works Division VIII, WRD, Karaswada,
Goa.
P. J. Kamat, Chief Engineer (WR).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
119
Corrigendum
No. 1-4-81/CE-WR/Adm.II/101
Read: Order No. 74-1-81/CE-WR/Adm. II/49 dated
07-04-2017.
In the above referred transfer order, the transfer
of the officials at Sr. No. 12, 15 and 23 stands
cancelled & the posting of official at Sr. No. 24 may
be corrected and read as “Asst. Surveyor of Works,
WD. XII, WRD, Gogal-Margao” instead of “Sub.
Div-III, Works Division III, WRD, Gogol, Margao.”
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
P. J. Kamat, Chief Engineer (WR).
Porvorim, 24th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Women & Child Development
Directorate of Women & Child Development
__
Order
No. 2-230-13-DWCD/Society/Part/237
The Government of Goa is hereby constitutes a
Governing Body for the Goa State Integrated Child
Development Scheme Society in order to ensure
effective implementation of the Integrated Child
Development Services (ICDS) Scheme in the State
consisting of the following:
Sr.
Occupation
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1.
Chief Secretary
Chairperson.
2.
Secretary, WCD
Co-Chairperson.
3.
Principal Secretary (Health)
Member.
4.
Secretary (Planning &
Member.
Finance)
5.
Secretary (Education)
Member.
6.
Additional Secretary
Member.
Finance)
7.
Director, Directorate of
Member/
Women & Child Development
/Executive
Secretary.
Governing Body shall meet once in every six
months.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
S. V. Naik, Director & ex officio Additional
Secretary (Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 20th April, 2017.
Order
No. 2-230-13-DWCD/Society/Part/238
The Government of Goa is hereby constitutes a
Executive Committee for the Goa State Integrated
Child Development Scheme Society in order to
ensure effective implementation of the Integrated
Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme in the
State consisting of the following members:
Sr.
Designation
Status in Executive
No.
Committee
1. Secretary, WCD
Chairperson,
Executive
Committee.
2. Director (DW&CD)
Vice-Chair/
/Convenor.
3. Jt. Director (ICDS)
Member.
4. Dy. Director (DW&CD)
Member.
5. State Programme Officer
Member
Secretary.
6. Programme Officer, North
Member.
7. Programme Officer, South
Member.
8. Asstt. Accounts Officer
Member.
9. Representative from Directo-
Member.
rate of Health
10. Representative from PWD
Member.
11. Representative from Directo-
Member.
rate of Education
12. Representative of Electricity
Member.
Executive Committee shall meet once in a month.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
S. V. Naik, Director & ex officio Additional
Secretary (Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 20th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 2-230-13-DWCD/Society/Part/239
The Government of Goa is hereby constitutes a
State ICDS Society Management Unit (SISMU) for
the Goa State Integrated Child Development
Scheme Society in order to ensure effective
Implementation of the Integrated Child
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2017
120
Development Services (ICDS) Scheme in the State
consisting of the following:
Sr.
Designation
Status in SISMU
No.
1
2
3
1. Director, WCD
Chairperson.
2. Jt. Director, ICDS
Member
Secretary.
3. Dy. Director
Member.
4. State Programme Officer
Member.
5. Assistant Account Officer
Member.
6. A Representative of Directorate
Member.
of Health Services
7. A Representative of Directorate
Member.
of Education
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
S. V. Naik, Director & ex officio Additional
Secretary (Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 20th April, 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. 28.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–22/350–4/2017.
1
2
3