Panaji, 11th May, 2017 (Vaisakha 21, 1939)
SERIES II No. 6
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
837
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
__
Order
No. 60/15/Bye laws/GSCB/TS/2016-17/494
Read:1) Notification No. 60/15/Bye laws/GSCB/
/TS/2016-17/4625 dated 09-03-2017.
2) Memo No. 60/15/Bye laws/GSCB/TS/2016-
-17/4624 dated 09-03-2017.
The Notification dated 9-3-2017 and Memo dated
09-03-2017 referred to hereinabove at Sr. No. (1)
and (2) are withdrawn with immediate effect with
the directions to The Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Panaji to submit fresh registration proposal to this
office as provided under the Goa Co-op. Societies
Act, 2001 and the Rules framed thereunder.
This order shall come into force with immediate
effect.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 5th May, 2017.
Department of Fisheries
Directorate of Fisheries
__
Order
No. 2-1-81-FSH
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Marine Fishing Regulation Act,
1980 (Act No. 3 of 1981), the Government of Goa
having regard to the need to conserve fish, hereby
prohibits fishing by fishing vessels fitted with
mechanical means of propulsion and by means of
trawl-net and purse-seine net, except fishing by
registered motorized canoes using gill nets only,
and fitted with outboard or inboard motors, of upto
10 HP capacity, as a means of propulsion, along the
sea coast of the State of Goa and the territorial
waters of the State of Goa, with effect from 1st June,
2017 till 31st July, 2017 (both days inclusive).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dr. Smt. Shamila Monteiro, Director and ex officio
Joint Secretary (Fisheries).
Panaji, 3rd May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/13/2017-LAB/282
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Chowgule and Company
Private Limited, Pellets Division (Mandovi Pellets),
Shiroda, Goa, and their workmen, represented by
the Mandovi Pellets Limited Worker’s Union (Goa),
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said
dispute”);
Note:-
There are four Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 5 dated 04-05-2017
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 04-05-2017 from pages 137
to 138 regarding Order from Department of
Finance & Notice of Election and Public Notice.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 05-05-2017 from
pages 139 to 140 regarding Notifications from
Department of Elections & Department of
Public Health.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 06-05-2017 from
pages 141 to 826 regarding Notifications from
Department of Panchayati Raj & Community
Development.
(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 10-05-2017 from
pages 827 to 836 regarding Notification/Notices
from Goa Legislature Secretariat & Department
of Panchayati Raj & Community Development.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
838
And whereas the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central
Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the demand raised by the Mandovi
Pellets Limited Worker’s Union (Goa), vide
their letter dated 02-12-2016 for 20% bonus/
/ex-gratia for the accounting year 2015-2016
to all the workers, who have opted VRS, is
legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 28th April, 2017.
________
Order
No. 28/11/2017-LAB/284
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. The Bicholim Merchant Urban
Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Bicholim, Goa,
and it’s workman, Shri Shailesh Govekar, Clerk, 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(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. The Bicholim Merchant Urban
Co-operative Credit Society Limited,
Bicholim, Goa, in dismissing it’s workman,
Shri Shailesh Govekar, Clerk, with effect from
07-03-2016, 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, 28th April, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-II/286
The following Order passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
29-03-2017 in reference No. IT/2/15 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd May, 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/2/15
Workmen,
Shri Uttam Jagtap & 121 Others,
Rep. by the President,
M/s. Amiantit Employees Union,
C/o. Adv. Ajeetsing Rane,
1st Floor, Neurecar Chambers,
M. G. Road, Panaji-Goa-403 001.
… Party I
V/s
1. The Director,
M/s. Amiantit Fibreglass
Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Survey No. 120 (Part), 121 and
177 (Part),
Navelim, Amona,
Bicholim, Goa-403 505.
… Party II (1)
2. Shri V. P. Katkar,
Official Liquidator,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Corporate Bhawan, EDC Complex,
Plot No. 21, Patto Plaza,
Panaji-Goa-403 001.
… Party II (2)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
839
Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.
Party II (1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G. K.
Sardessai.
Party II (2) represented by Ld. Adv. Ms Amira A.
Razaq.
ORDER
(Delivered on this the 29th day of the month
of March of the year 2017)
This Order shall dispose of the application at
Exhibit 20 filed by the Official Liquidator under
Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Official
Liquidator is as follows:
That the provisional Liquidator of the Company
was appointed by the Hon’ble High Court vide
Orders dated 09-07-2014 and 30-09-2014 and
subsequently by Order dated 09-06-2016, the
Hon’ble High Court has passed an Order directing
that the Company should be wound up. In terms of
Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, the
workmen have a priority for payment of their dues
and debts due to secured creditors to the extent
such debts rank under Clause (c) of the proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 529 pari passu with such
dues. The above said debts shall be paid in full,
unless the assets are insufficient to meet them, in
which case they shall abate in equal proportions.
3. It is further its case that the Party I in the
above proceedings is very well aware that in terms
of Order dated 01-10-2015, an amount of
Rs. 71,19,770/- has been deposited in the office of
the Official Liquidator by the secured creditor
which is subject to adjudication. By further Order
dated 11-03-2016, the Hon’ble High Court has been
pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to
adjudicate the claims of the workmen in the said
Company petition and in furtherance thereto, the
Official Liquidator has already published notice
inviting claims from the workmen of the Company
in liquidation and hence the present proceedings
are not at all maintainable in law in view of the bar
of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and in
view of above and without admitting any of the
contentions raised by the Party I, present
proceedings be closed. Hence, the application.
4. The Party I filed a reply inter-alia contending
that the Liquidator is trying to delay the matter by
filing the application on the same point and in fact
at the time of impleading the party, this objection
was taken by the Liquidator in their reply dated
08-07-2016 and therefore the present application is
hit by the principles of Res Judicata and ought not
to be allowed. It is also its case that by Order
dated 28-08-2016, the Hon’ble Tribunal has decided
the previous application and hence on this ground
alone, this application is not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
5. It is also claimed that Section 446 of the
Companies Act does not operate as a bar against
continuation of a reference under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and that Section 446 of the Act
is only applicable to ‘suits’ and ‘other legal
proceedings’. It is well settled by judicial decisions
that the expression ‘other legal proceedings’ does
not include a reference under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and that reference under Section
10 is not subject to the provisions of Section 446 of
Companies Act and once a reference is made,
Section 15 of Act imposes on the Tribunal, the duty
of holding its proceedings expeditiously and
submitting its award to the appropriate
Government as soon as it can necessarily follows
that the proceeding before Tribunal cannot be
barred under Section 446 of the Companies Act.
Hence, the application be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard.
7. Ld. Adv. Ms. Amira Razaq for the Official
Liquidator has submitted that Shri V. P. Katkar was
appointed as provisional Liquidator of Company
and by Order dated 9-6-2016 the Hon’ble High Court
passed an Order directing that the Company should
be wound up. She further submitted that under
Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, the
workmen have a priority for payment of the dues
due to the secured creditors. The Party I workmen
are well aware that an amount of Rs. 71,19,770/-
was deposited in the office of the Official
Liquidator by the secured creditor and the Hon’ble
High Court has been pleased to permit the Official
Liquidator to adjudicate the claim of the workmen
in the Company Petition and therefore the present
petition is not maintainable.
8. Per contra, Shri P. Gaonkar for Party I has
submitted that the present application is hit by
the principles of Res Judicata and that by Order
dated 28-8-2015, the Tribunal has already decided
that the bar under Section 446(1) of the Companies
Act is not attracted in this case. Section 446 of the
Companies Act does not operate as a bar against
continuation of a reference under Industrial
Disputes Act and that the expression ‘other legal
proceedings’ does not include reference under
Industrial Disputes Act but are applicable to only
to ‘suits’ and ‘other legal proceedings’ and therefore,
the application is not maintainable.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
840
9. It is well settled in the case of Silcal Workers’
Union (CITU), Palakkad vs. Silcal Mettalurgic
Limited and another, 2014(1) LLN 493 (Mad.) that
once Company is wound up, Claim Petitions can
be made only before Official Liquidator as after
winding up of Company, public interest that exists
in an industrial dispute, ceases and any claim gets
converted into a claim for money and the workmen
can approach Official Liquidator with regards to
their claims. It was also held that the object of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the mechanism
provided therein are for subserving a public interest
namely that of resolving industrial disputes and
securing industrial peace. But the moment an order
of winding up is passed, the very existence of the
industry comes under threat and hence the
question of resolving a dispute therein and
securing peace between the Management and the
Workmen in a potentially non-existent entity would
not arise. The element of public interest, that
inheres in an industrial dispute, ceases to exist,
the moment a winding up Order is passed. Upon
the winding up order being passed, the public
interest that underlies an industrial dispute gets
converted into a mere claim for money.
10. Admittedly, the Oral Order dated 9-7-2014
passed in Company Petition No. 11/2013 by Hon’ble
High Court clearly shows that the provisional
Liquidator was appointed in respect of the
Company of Party II and that the provisional
Liquidator shall commence the proceedings in
accordance with law. The Order dated 30-9-2014 of
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in
Company Application No. 38 of 2014 in Company
Petition No. 11 of 2013 shows that the Provisional
Liquidator mentioned in Clauses (iii) and (iv) of the
Order dated 9-7-2014 shall be Official Liquidator,
High Court of Bombay at Goa. There is no dispute
that Shri V. P. Katkar was appointed as provisional
Liquidator of the Company vide Order dated
9-6-2016 by the Hon’ble High Court. In the said
Company Petition, the Company was directed to
be wound up in accordance with law. There is no
dispute that by Oral Order dated 1-10-2015 of the
Hon’ble High Court in Company Application
No. 150 of 2015 in Company Petition No. 11 of 2013,
the Bank was directed to deposit a sum of
Rs. 71,19,770/- (Rupees Seventy one lakh, nineteen
thousand seven hundred and seventy only) in the
office of the Official Liquidator and furnish an
undertaking in terms of Section 13(9) of the said
Securitization Act to the satisfaction of the
Registrar (Judicial) of the Court and signed by an
Authorized Officer of the Bank to the effect that
the Bank shall honour any other payment towards
the workers dues besides the amount so deposited,
upon such demand by the Liquidator and that the
Party I workers are at liberty to file an appropriate
claim before the Liquidator based on the Orders
passed by the Labour Commissioner and, in case,
such claims are put forward, the Liquidator shall
expeditiously examine to disburse such amounts
in accordance with law.
11. Undoubtedly, suits are stayed on winding up
order in terms of Section 446 of Companies Act,
1956 which reads as follows:
446. SUITS STAYED ON WINDING UP ORDER
(1) When a winding up order has been made or
the Official Liquidator has been appointed as
provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal
proceedings shall be commenced, or if pending
at the date of the winding up order, shall be
proceeded with, against the Company, except
by leave of the [Tribunal] and subject to such
terms as the [Tribunal] may impose.
(2) The [Tribunal] shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, have jurisdiction to
entertain, or dispose of-
(a) any suit or proceeding by or against the
Company;
(b) any claim made by or against the
Company (including claims by or against
any of its branches in India);
(c) any application made under Section 391
by or in respect of the Company;
(d) any question of priorities or any other
question whatsoever, whether of law or
fact, which may relate to or arise in course
of the winding up of the Company.
Whether such suit or proceeding has been
instituted, or is instituted, or such claim or
question has arisen or arises or such
application has been made or is made
before or after the order for the winding up
of the Company, or before or after
the commencement of the Companies
(Amendment) Act, 1960.
(3) [……]
(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) of sub-section (3)
shall apply to any proceedings pending in
appeal before the Supreme Court or a High
Court.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
841
12. There is no dispute that Section 529A of the
Companies Act provides for overriding preferential
payments. It states:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other provision of this Act or any other law
for the time being in force, in the winding up
of a Company-
(a) workmen’s dues; and
(b) debts due to secured creditors to the
extent such debts rank under Clause (c)
of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
529 pari passu with such dues, shall be
paid priority to all other debts.
(2) The debts payable under Clause (a) and
Clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be paid in
full, unless the assets are insufficient to meet
them, in which case they shall abate in equal
proportions.
13. Therefore, once the Hon’ble High Court has
appointed an Official Liquidator in respect of the
Company who was directed to commence the
proceedings in accordance with law and thereafter
passed an Order directing that the Company should
be wound up and that Party I who intervened
before the Hon’ble High Court in Company
Application No. 150 of 2015 is aware that in terms
of Order dated 1-10-2015 an amount of Rs. 71,19,770/-
has been deposited in the office of the Official
Liquidator by the secured creditor with
undertaking that the Bank shall honour any other
payment towards the workers dues besides the
amount so deposited, which is subject to
adjudication before the Official Liquidator and
when the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to
permit the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the
claims of the workmen in the said Company petition
and the Official Liquidator has already seized of
the matter, it is not permissible for Party I to proceed
with the matter before the Tribunal on the ground
that Section 446 of Companies Act does not operate
as a bar or that it is hit by principle of Res Judicata
as the law as well as judicial pronouncement on
the subject matter is unambiguous and therefore
the contention raised by Shri P. Gaonkar as stated
above cannot be entertained.
14. The Party I has raised the industrial dispute
before the Tribunal with prayer to declare that the
refusal of employment of all 121 workmen as illegal,
improper and unjustified; to direct Employer/
/Liquidator to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- each as
compensation to all the workmen; to direct
Employer/Liquidator to pay full back wages till
the date of award; to direct the Employer/
/Liquidator to pay all other legal dues such as
gratuity, ex-gratia, retrenchment compensation to
all the workmen in reference. Needless to mention,
all the claims of the Party I have to be adjudicated
before the Official Liquidator. No parallel
proceedings can be allowed to operate as it is well
settled that once Company is wound up, claim can
be made only before Official Liquidator as after
winding up of the Company, public interest that
exists in an industrial dispute pending before the
Tribunal ceases and any claim gets converted into
a claim for money, which has to be adjudicated by
the Official Liquidator. The Tribunal therefore will
have no jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of the
present proceedings nor can continue or proceed
with the reference as the said exercise of
adjudication of the claim of the Party I has to be
carried out by the Official Liquidator appointed by
the Hon’ble High Court and therefore the present
proceedings do not survive.
15. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The application at Exb. 20 stands allowed.
Consequently, the present proceedings stand
closed.
2. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-II/288
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 27-03-2017 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/19/16 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, 2nd May, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
842
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/19/16
Shri Dilip S. Reddy,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers’ Union,
Velho’s Bldg., Panaji-Goa.
… Workman/Party-I.
V/s
The Managing Director,
M/s. Shrikrupa Services Pvt. Ltd.,
C/o. M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd.,
Zuarinagar, Sancoale-Goa.
… Employer/Party-II.
Workman/Party-I remained absent.
Employer/Party-II remained absent.
Panaji, dated: 27-03-2017.
AWARD
1. 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) the
Government of Goa by Order dated 04-11-2016,
bearing No. 28/44/2016-LAB/779, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court II at Panaji, Goa.
“1.
Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Shrikrupa Services Private Limited, a
maintenance and fabrication contractor at
M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited,
Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Goa in dismissing from
service Shri Dilip S. Reddy, Assistant Rigger,
with effect from 18-03-2014, is legal and
justified?
2.
If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/19/2016. Notice was
issued to both the parties. The Workman was
served by hand delivery through an office bearer
of the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union.
A registered A/D notice was issued to the Employer
has been returned back with a postal remark,
“unclaimed, returned to the sender”. Unclaimed is
a good service of summons and hence, the
Employer was presumed to be duly served. Neither
the Workman nor the Employer remained present
on any of the scheduled date of hearings from the
beginning itself without any justifiable cause,
though ample opportunities were given to them.
Consequently, neither the parties have appeared
before me nor filed any pleadings.
4. In the case of Baldev Singh V/s The Judge,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Labour
Court & ors., reported in 2007 II CLR 685, the
Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan by referring the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Virendra Bhandri V/s Rajasthan State Road
Corporation Ltd., & ors., reported in (2002) 9
SCC observed as under:
“…..a reference of certain Industrial Dispute
was made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
-Labour Court. The workman did not appear
before the Tribunal, therefore, Tribunal held
that there remains no Industrial Dispute.
However, subsequently, the Appropriate
Government again referred the dispute to the
Tribunal on the same question and on this
occasion, the Tribunal adjudicated the matter
and made an award. The High Court held
that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in
the first reference amounted to an “award”
and, therefore, second reference was
incompetent. The Hon’ble Apex Court held
that all that was stated was that the parties
concerned had not appeared before the Tribunal
and in such an event, the Tribunal should have
noted its inability to record the finding on the
issue referred to it, not that the dispute itself
does not exist. When there is no adjudication
of the matter on merits, it cannot be said that
the industrial dispute does not exist. If the
industrial dispute still exists as is opined by
the Government, such a matter can be referred
under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, as Industrial
Disputes are preferred to the Labour Court or
the Industrial Tribunal for maintenance of
industrial peace and not merely for
adjudication of the dispute between two
private parties. Therefore, it was permissible
for the Government to have made the second
reference. ……”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court in its aforesaid judgment binds a precedent
upon me. Applying the law laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid judgment, in
the case in hand, no pleadings have been filed by
the Workman as well as by the Employer before
this court and as such I am unable to record the
findings on the issue referred to me.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
843
In the circumstances, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that this court is unable to record
the finding on the issue referred by the
Appropriate Government.
2. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-II/289
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 30-03-2017 in reference
No. IT/33/12 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, 2nd May, 2017.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/33/12
Shri Sunil P. Naik,
H. No. 61/4, Damodar Temple,
Murdi, Cansaulim, Goa.
… Workman/Party-I.
V/s
The General Manager,
M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd.,
River Fleet & Shipping Division,
Opp. Damodar Temple,
Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama-Goa.
…. Employer/Party-II.
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri R.
Gauthankar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri M.S.
Bandodkar.
Panaji, dated: 30-03-2017.
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 28-05-2012,
bearing No. 28/08/2012-LAB/240, referred the
following dispute for adjudication by Industrial
Tribunal of Goa. The matter was thereafter
transferred to this Labour Court II for its
adjudication by the Appropriate Government, vide
its order dated 09-02-2016.
“(1)
Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman,
Shri Sunil P. Naik, engine driver, with effect
from 24-03-2009, is legal and justified?
(2)
If not, what relief, the workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/33/2012 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
“Workman”), filed his Statement of Claim on
13-08-2012 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”) on 01-02-2005. He stated that he was
confirmed in service of the Employer as ‘Barge
Driver’ on 01-05-2005. He stated that he was on
duty on barge Helena in second shift from
16-03-2008 till 31-03-2008. He stated that during
the trip No. 2246 in second shift on 19-03-2008,
barge Helena sailed from anchor point at 11.45
p.m. on hand steering and reached Capxem Bunder
on 20-03-2008 at about 2.00 a.m. He stated that the
barge Helena did not stop on the way, after leaving
anchor point at 11.45 p.m., hence, question of
transferring diesel from barge to canoe at Mandkem,
does not arise.
3. He stated that he was issued a vague charge-
-sheet dated 15-10-2008. He stated that there is no
specific charge that he was instrumental in
transferring the diesel to the canoe himself or at
his instance his fellow colleagues transferred the
diesel at dead of night. He stated that the canoe
owner to whom the diesel was sold has not been
examined at the enquiry for establishing the charge
of theft against workers. He stated that the charges
levelled against him are false. He submitted that
the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer are
perverse. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
844
has not given any reason in his finding for
preferring the management evidence. He submitted
that the workmen were guilty of offences of theft
i.e. stealing diesel, the Employer ought to have
filed a police complaint against them, which the
Employer has not filed, knowing fully well that
they have no evidence to put them behind bars.
He submitted that a letter dated 17-12-2008
addressed to the General Manager by Shri Sanil
Ratnakar Gaonkar (Sailor) endorsing a copy to the
Enquiry Officer has purposely been not produced
by Management Representative, since the contents
of the said letter would damage their case. He
submitted that the Enquiry Officer being biased,
has relied upon the version of the management
witnesses as gospel truth. He submitted that in
spite of the demand for GPS (Global Position
System) plan, it was not produced by Employer
since there was no pilferage/theft of diesel on
19-03-2008. The Workman finally submitted that
the statement of management witnesses produced
by Management Representative were reduced into
writing at his instance in Marathi and English
language and witnesses were taken much after
the alleged date of theft i.e. on 19-03-2008. The
Workman therefore prayed that the action of the
Employer in terminating his services be declared
as illegal and he be reinstated in service with
continuity in service and full back wages.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman, by filing its written statement on
07-01-2013 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objection, submitted that the entire
reference is bad-in-law, not maintainable and ought
to be rejected. The Employer submitted that since
the Workman had committed a serious act of
misconduct, the Employer conducted a fair and
proper enquiry by following principles of natural
justice as per its certified standing orders. The
Employer submitted that since the charges of
misconduct found proved against the workman
were grave and serious in nature, they dismissed
him from their service. The Employer submitted
that the punishment imposed upon the Workman
is proportionate and commensurate to the proved
charges. The Employer submitted that the said
dismissal of services of the Workman is fully legal
and justified and therefore no relief could be
granted to the Workman and that this Hon’ble
Tribunal should not interfere with the said
disciplinary action of the Employer.
5. The Employer stated that it is a company
established in the year 1954 and is in business of
producing and exporting iron ore as well as barge
operation. The Employer admitted that the
Workman was appointed by them as First Class
Engine Driver (Grade B 4) on probation w.e.f.
01-02-2005. The Employer admitted that the
Workman was confirmed in service from 01-05-2005
as Barge Driver. The Employer admitted that the
Workman was on duty in second shift on barge
Helena along with other crew i.e. Shri Vishnu
Halankar, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and
Shri Ramrai Potekar from 16-03-2008 to 31-03-2008.
The Employer stated that during second shift and
trip No. 2246 on 19-03-2008, after discharging cargo
at transhiper, the barge Helena proceeded towards
Capxem/Savordem Bunder. The Employer stated
that however, at around 2.30 p.m. on the way, the
Workman stopped the said barge at Rassaim for
some minor repairs and after carrying out repairs,
the barge left Rassaim at about 7.15 p.m. The
Employer stated that at around 8.00 p.m., when the
barge crossed the Borim bridge, the power steering
of the barge failed. The Employer stated that
therefore the Workman reported this fact to
Mr. Rajesh Kosambe on phone and thereafter the
barge was anchored near Borim bridge. The
Employer stated that as instructed by Mr. Kosambe
on phone, the barge Helena sailed from anchor
point at about 11.45 p.m. on hand steering and
reached at Capxem Bunder on 20-03-2008 at around
2.00 a.m. The Employer stated that after loading on
28-03-2008, at around 11.20 a.m., the barge Helena
sailed to Mormugao harbor. The Employer stated
that unloading completed at Mormugao harbor on
21-03-2008 at 3.00 a.m. The Employer stated that
during trip No. 2246 in second shift on 19-03-2008
on his way to Capxem/Savardem bundar, when the
barge Helena sailed from anchor point and reached
at Mankem, there was a torch signal from one canoe
and this was responded with search light by
Mr. Premanand Gaonkar, Sukani. The Employer
stated that upon this response, the canoe came
alongside the barge. The Employer stated that
thereafter the Workman along with other crew i.e.
Shri Vishnu Halankar, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar
and Shri Ramrai Potekar went down from wheel
house and transferred company’s diesel from the
barge Helena to the canoe through pipe. The
Employer submitted that thus it is clear that the
Workman had stolen and dishonestly taken away
diesel from the barge Helena and disposed off the
same in association with other crew i.e. Shri Vishnu
Halankar, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and
Shri Ramrai Potekar, causing loss of the goods,
property of the company. The Employer stated that
since the entire acts on the part of the Workman
was found to be serious acts of misconduct as per
its certified standing orders, he was issued a
charge-sheet dated 15-10-2008, giving details of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
845
acts of Workman and since his behaviour was
detrimental to the smooth functioning of the
establishment, he was suspended pending enquiry
w.e.f. 15-10-2008.
6. The Employer stated that the Workman
submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, vide his
reply dated 17-10-2008. The Employer stated that
the since the reply submitted by the Workman was
not found to be satisfactory, a joint enquiry was
conducted against him along with Shri Vishnu
Halankar, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and Shri
Ramrai Potekar in respect of charge-sheet dated
15-10-2008. The Employer submitted that it has
conducted an enquiry in a fair and proper manner
by following the principles of natural justice. The
Employer stated that during the course of enquiry,
the Workman fully participated in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that the Workman was represented
by Mr. Dutta Mapari. The Employer submitted that
after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings, by which the Workman was
held guilty of all the charges levelled against him.
The Employer submitted that the findings of the
Enquiry Officer are based on evidence on record.
The Employer submitted that in any event if this
Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that the
enquiry was not conducted properly or in a fair
and proper manner, or that the findings are perverse
and/or is not based on evidence on record, than
they craves leave to adduce additional evidence to
justify its case. The Employer submitted that the
disciplinary authority after going through the
enquiry proceedings and its connected papers and
evidence on record, has concurred with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and a show-cause
notice dated 04-03-2009 was issued to the Workman
along with copy of finding. The Employer stated
that on 12-04-2009, the Workman filed his
explanation to the show cause notice issued to
him. The Employer stated that the management
after going through the said explanation/reply
found it far from satisfactory. The Employer stated
that all the submissions made by the Workman in
the said reply were specifically dealt with as they
were totally false, baseless and mischievous. The
Employer stated that considering the seriousness
and gravity of misconducts found proved against
the Workman, they came to a bonafide conclusion
that no leniency was warranted. The Employer
submitted that the Workman was therefore
discharged by order dated 24-03-2009 by way of
punishment. The Employer submitted that the acts
of misconduct committed by the Workman are
grave and serious in nature and the punishment
imposed
upon
him
is
appropriate
and
commensurate with the acts of misconduct
committed by the Workman. The Employer
therefore submitted that the dismissal from service
of the Workman is just and fair and this Hon’ble
Court should not interfere with the said
administrative decision. The Employer denied the
overall case of the Workman as pleaded by him
and prayed that the entire reference be dismissed
in limine.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Rejoinder
on 11-02-2013 at Exb-7. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
Parties, the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court has framed the following issues at Exb.10.
1. Whether the Party-I proves that the
domestic enquiry conducted against him
by Party-II, is not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Party I are proved to the
satisfaction of this Tribunal by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Party-I proves that the
termination of his services by Party II w.e.f.
24-03-2009 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Party-I is entitled for any relief?
5. What award?
9. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence
of the Workman. The Workman has filed his affidavit
in evidence and also produced on record certain
documents. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Adv.
Shri M. S. Bandodkar appearing for the Employer.
On 26-09-2016, Ld. Advocates appearing for the
respective parties remained present and orally
submitted that the matter is likely to settle
amicably between the parties and sought time to
file the terms of settlement. Accordingly on
23-03-2017, the Workman along with his Adv.
Shri R. Gauthankar as well as Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar appearing for the Employer remained
present and filed a joint application for consent
award in terms of settlement of the dispute, which
is on record at Exh-13.
I have carefully perused the said application for
consent award, jointly filed by the parties. I am of
the opinion that the said terms of settlement are
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
846
beneficial to the Workman and hence consented
for the same. Since the dispute under reference is
settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute
under present reference does not survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Management
of M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman,
Shri Sunil Naik, Engine Driver, with effect
from 24-03-2009, is legal and justified, does
not survive.
2. The workman Shri Sunil Naik is not entitled
to any relief.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-II/295
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-03-2017 in reference
No. IT/32/12 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, 2nd May, 2017.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/32/12
Shri Vishnu Halarnkar,
H. No. 1371, Tem wada,
Morjim, Pernem, Goa.
… Workman/Party-I
V/s
The General Manager,
M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd.,
River Fleet & Shipping Division,
Opp. Damodar Temple,
Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama-Goa.
…. Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri R.
Gauthankar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri M.S.
Bandodkar.
Panaji, dated: 30-03-2017.
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 28-05-2012,
bearing No. 28/13/2012-LAB/269, referred the
following dispute for adjudication by Industrial
Tribunal of Goa. The matter was thereafter
transferred to this Labour Court II for its
adjudication by the Appropriate Government, vide
its order dated 09-02-2016.
“(1)
Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman, Shri
Vishnu Halarnkar, engine driver, with effect
from 24-03-2009, is legal and justified?
(2)
If not, what relief, the workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/32/2012 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
“Workman”), filed his Statement of Claim on
13-08-2012 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”) on 01-12-2002. He stated that he was
confirmed in service of the Employer as ‘Sailor’ on
01-03-2003. He stated that he was on duty on
barge Helena in second shift from 16-03-2008 till
31-03-2008. He stated that during the trip No. 2246
in second shift on 19-03-2008, barge Helena sailed
from anchor point at 11.45 p.m. on hand steering
and reached Capxem Bunder on 20-03-2008 at
about 2.00 a.m. He stated that the barge Helena
did not stop on the way, after leaving anchor point
at 11.45 p.m., hence, question of transferring diesel
from barge to canoe at Mandkem, does not arise.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
847
3. He stated that he was issued a vague charge-
-sheet dated 15-10-2008. He stated that there is no
specific charge that he was instrumental in
transferring the diesel to the canoe himself or at
his instance his fellow collegues transferred the
diesel at dead of night. He stated that the canoe
owner to whom the diesel was sold has not been
examined at the enquiry for establishing the charge
of theft against workers. He stated that the charges
levelled against him are false. He submitted that
the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer are
perverse. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer
has not given any reason in his finding for
preferring the management evidence. He submitted
that the workmen were guilty of offences of theft
i.e. stealing diesel, the Employer ought to have
filed a police complaint against them, which the
Employer has not filed, knowing fully well that
they have no evidence to put them behind bars.
He submitted that a letter dated 17-12-2008
addressed to the General Manager by Shri Sanil
Ratnakar Gaonkar (Sailor) endorsing a copy to the
Enquiry Officer has purposely been not produced
by Management Representative, since the contents
of the said letter would damage their case. He
submitted that the Enquiry Officer being biased,
has relied upon the version of the management
witnesses as gospel truth. He submitted that in
spite of the demand for GPS (Global Position
System) plan, it was not produced by Employer
since there was no pilferage/theft of diesel on
19-03-2008. The Workman finally submitted that
the statement of management witnesses produced
by Management Representative were reduced into
writing at his instance in Marathi and English
language and witnesses were taken much after
the alleged date of theft i.e. on 19-03-2008. The
Workman therefore prayed that the action of the
Employer in terminating his services be declared
as illegal and he be reinstated in service with
continuity in service and full back wages.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman, by filing its written statement on
07-01-2013 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objection, submitted that the entire
reference is bad-in-law, not maintainable and ought
to be rejected. The Employer submitted that since
the Workman had committed a serious act of
misconduct, the Employer conducted a fair and
proper enquiry by following principles of natural
justice as per its certified standing orders. The
Employer submitted that since the charges of
misconduct found proved against the workman
were grave and serious in nature, they dismissed
him from their service. The Employer submitted
that the punishment imposed upon the Workman
is proportionate and commensurate to the proved
charges. The Employer submitted that the said
dismissal of services of the Workman is fully legal
and justified and therefore no relief could be
granted to the Workman and that this Hon’ble
Tribunal should not interfere with the said
disciplinary action of the Employer.
5. The Employer stated that it is a company
established in the year 1954 and is in business of
producing and exporting iron ore as well as barge
operation. The Employer admitted that the
Workman was appointed by them as Sailor on
probation w.e.f. 01-12-2002. The Employer admitted
that the Workman was confirmed in service from
01-03-2003 as Barge Sailor. The Employer stated
that due to business exigencies, the Workman was
placed on a trial basis as ‘Asstt. Driver/Oilman’ by
its letter dated 01-11-2004. The Employer admitted
that the Workman was on duty in second shift on
barge Helena along with other crew i.e. Shri Sunil
Naik, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and Shri Ramrai
Potekar from 16-03-2008 to 31-03-2008. The
Employer stated that during second shift and trip
No. 2246 on 19-03-2008, after discharging cargo at
transhiper, the barge Helena proceeded towards
Capxem/Savordem Bunder. The Employer stated
that however, at around 2.30 p.m. on the way, the
Workman stopped the said barge at Rassaim for
some minor repairs and after carrying out repairs,
the barge left Rassaim at about 7.15 p.m. The
Employer stated that at around 8.00 p.m., when the
barge crossed the Borim bridge, the power steering
of the barge failed. The Employer stated that
therefore the Sunil Naik reported this fact to
Mr. Rajesh Kosambe on phone and thereafter the
barge was anchored near Borim bridge. The
Employer stated that as instructed by Mr. Kosambe
on phone, the barge Helena sailed from anchor
point at about 11.45 p.m. on hand steering and
reached at Capxem Bunder on 20-03-2008 at around
2.00 a.m. The Employer stated that after loading on
28-03-2008, at around 11.20 a.m., the barge Helena
sailed to Mormugao harbor. The Employer stated
that unloading completed at Mormugao harbor on
21-03-2008 at 3.00 a.m. The Employer stated that
during trip No. 2246 in second shift, on 19-03-2008
on his way to Capxem / Savardem bundar, when
the barge Helena sailed from anchor point and
reached at Mankem, there was a torch signal from
one canoe and this was responded with search
light by Mr. Premanand Gaonkar, Sukani. The
Employer stated that upon this response, the canoe
came alongside the barge. The Employer stated
that thereafter the Workman along with other crew
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
848
i.e. Shri Sunil Naik, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and
Shri Ramrai Potekar went down from wheel house
and transferred company’s diesel from the barge
Helena to the canoe through pipe. The Employer
submitted that thus it is clear that the Workman
had stolen and dishonestly taken away diesel from
the barge Helena and disposed off the same in
association with other crew i.e Shri Sunil Naik,
Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and Shri Ramrai Potekar,
causing loss of the goods, property of the company.
The Employer stated that since the entire acts on
the part of the Workman was found to be serious
acts of misconduct as per its certified standing
orders, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 15-10-
2008, giving details of acts of Workman and since
his behaviour was detrimental to the smooth
functioning of the establishment, he was
suspended pending enquiry w.e.f. 15-10-2008.
6. The Employer stated that the Workman
submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, vide his
reply dated 17-10-2008. The Employer stated that
the since the reply submitted by the Workman was
not found to be satisfactory, a joint enquiry was
conducted against him along with Shri Sunil Naik,
Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and Shri Ramrai Potekar
in respect of charge-sheet dated 15-10-2008. The
Employer submitted that it has conducted an
enquiry in a fair and proper manner by following
the principles of natural justice. The Employer
stated that during the course of enquiry, the
Workman fully participated in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that the Workman was represented
by Mr. Santosh Narvekar. The Employer submitted
that after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his findings, by which the
Workman was held guilty of all the charges levelled
against him. The Employer submitted that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on
evidence on record. The Employer submitted that
in any event if this Hon’ble Court comes to the
conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted
properly or in a fair and proper manner, or that the
findings are perverse and/or is not based on
evidence on record, than they craves leave to
adduce additional evidence to justify its case. The
Employer submitted that the disciplinary authority
after going through the enquiry proceedings and
its connected papers and evidence on record, has
concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and a show-cause notice dated 04-03-2009 was
issued to the Workman along with copy of finding.
The Employer stated that on 12-03-2009, the
Workman filed his explanation to the show cause
notice issued to him. The Employer stated that the
management after going through the said
explanation/reply found it far from satisfactory. The
Employer stated that all the submissions made by
the Workman in the said reply were specifically
dealt with as they were totally false, baseless and
mischievous. The Employer stated that considering
the seriousness and gravity of misconducts found
proved against the Workman, they came to a
bonafide conclusion that no leniency was
warranted. The Employer submitted that the
Workman was therefore discharged, by order dated
24-03-2009, by way of punishment. The Employer
submitted that the acts of misconduct committed
by the Workman are grave and serious in nature
and the punishment imposed upon him is
appropriate and commensurate with the acts of
misconduct committed by the Workman. The
Employer therefore submitted that the dismissal
from service of the Workman is just and fair and
this Hon’ble Court should not interfere with the
said administrative decision. The Employer denied
the overall case of the Workman as pleaded by him
and prayed that the entire reference be dismissed
in limine.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Rejoinder
on 11-02-2013 at Exb-7. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
Parties, the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court has framed the following issues at Exb.-10.
1. Whether the Party-I proves that the
domestic enquiry conducted against him
by Party-II, is not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Party I are proved to the
satisfaction of this Tribunal by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Party-I proves that the
termination of his services by Party II w.e.f.
24-03-2009 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Party-I is entitled for any relief?
5. What award?
9. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence
of the Workman. The Workman has filed his affidavit
in evidence and also produced on record certain
documents. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Adv.
Shri M. S. Bandodkar appearing for the Employer.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
849
On 26-09-2016, Ld. Advocates appearing for the
respective parties remained present and orally
submitted that the matter is likely to settle
amicably between the parties and sought time to
file the terms of settlement. Accordingly
on 23-03-2017, the Workman along with his Adv.
Shri R. Gauthankar as well as Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar appearing for the Employer remained
present and filed a joint application for consent
award in terms of settlement of the dispute, which
is on record at Exh-12.
I have carefully perused the said application for
consent award, jointly filed by the parties. I am of
the opinion that the said terms of settlement are
beneficial to the Workman and hence consented
for the same. Since the dispute under reference is
settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute
under present reference does not survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Management
of M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman,
Shri Vishnu Halarnkar, Engine Driver, with
effect from 24-03-2009, is legal and justified,
does not survive.
2. The workman Shri Vishnu Halarnkar is not
entitled to any relief.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-II/296
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-03-2017 in reference
No. IT/31/12 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, 2nd May, 2017.
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/31/12
Shri Ramarai Potekar,
H. No. 417/A, Penha de France,
Virlosa, P. O. Betim,
Bardez-Goa.
… Workman/Party-I
V/s
The General Manager,
M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd.,
River Fleet & Shipping Division,
Opp. Damodar Temple,
Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama-Goa.
… Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri R.
Gauthankar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar.
Panaji, dated: 30-03-2017.
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 28-05-2012,
bearing No. 28/10/2012-LAB/268, referred the
following dispute for adjudication by Industrial
Tribunal of Goa. The matter was thereafter
transferred to this Labour Court II for its
adjudication by the Appropriate Government, vide
its order dated 09-02-2016.
“(1)
Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman,
Shri Ramrai Potekar, master, with effect from
24-03-2009, is legal and justified?
(2)
If not, what relief, the workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/31/2012 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
“Workman”), filed his Statement of Claim on
13-08-2012 at Exb. 5. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed with the Employer/Party-II (for short
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
850
“Employer”) on 01-08-2004. He stated that he was
confirmed in service of the Employer as ‘Barge
Master’ on 01-11-2004. He stated that he was on
duty on barge Helena in second shift from
16-03-2008 till 31-03-2008.
3. He stated that he was issued a vague charge-
-sheet dated 15-10-2008. He stated that there is no
specific charge that he was instrumental in
transferring the diesel to the canoe himself or at
his instance his fellow collegues transferred the
diesel at dead of night. He stated that the canoe
owner to whom the diesel was sold has not been
examined at the enquiry for establishing the charge
of theft against workers. He stated that the charges
levelled against him are false. He submitted that
the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer are
perverse. He submitted that the workmen were
guilty of offences of theft i.e. stealing diesel, the
Employer ought to have filed a police complaint
against them, which the Employer has not filed,
knowing fully well that they have no evidence to
put them behind bars. He submitted that a letter
dated 17-12-2008 addressed to the General
Manager by Shri Sanil Ratnakar Gaonkar (Sailor)
endorsing a copy to the Enquiry Officer has
purposely been not produced by Management
Representative since the contents of the said letter
would damage their case. He submitted that the
Enquiry Officer being biased, has relied upon the
version of the management witnesses as gospel
truth. He submitted that in spite of the demand for
GPS (Global Position System) plan, it was not
produced by Employer since there was no
pilferage/theft of diesel on 19-03-2008. The
Workman finally submitted that the statement of
management witnesses produced by Management
Representative were reduced into writing at his
instance in Marathi and English language and
witnesses were taken much after the alleged date
of theft i.e. on 19-03-2008. The Workman therefore
prayed that the action of the Employer in
terminating his services be declared as illegal and
he be reinstated in service with continuity in
service and full back wages.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman, by filing its written statement on
07-01-2013 at Exb.6. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objection, submitted that the entire
reference is bad-in-law, not maintainable and ought
to be rejected. The Employer submitted that since
the Workman had committed a serious act of
misconduct, the Employer conducted a fair and
proper enquiry by following principles of natural
justice as per its certified standing orders. The
Employer submitted that since the charges of
misconduct found proved against the workman
were grave and serious in nature, they dismissed
him from their service. The Employer submitted
that the punishment imposed upon the Workman
is proportionate and commensurate to the proved
charges. The Employer submitted that the said
dismissal of services of the Workman is fully legal
and justified and therefore no relief could be
granted to the Workman and that this Hon’ble
Tribunal should not interfere with the said
disciplinary action of the Employer.
5. The Employer stated that it is a company
established in the year 1954 and is in business of
producing and exporting iron ore as well as barge
operation. The Employer stated that the Workman
was appointed by them as Second Class Master on
probation w.e.f. 01-08-2004. The Employer
submitted that the Workman was confirmed in
service from 01-11-2004 as Barge Master. The
Employer stated that the Workman was on duty in
second shift on barge Helena along with other
crew i.e. Shri Vishnu Halankar, Shri Premanand J.
Gaonkar and Shri Sunil P. Naik from 16-03-2008 to
31-03-2008. The Employer stated that during second
shift and trip No. 2246 on 19-03-2008, after
discharging cargo at transhiper, the barge Helena
proceeded towards Capxem/Savordem Bunder. The
Employer stated that however, at around 2.30 p.m.
on the way, the Workman stopped the said barge
at Rassaim for some minor repairs and after carrying
out repairs, the barge left Rassaim at about 7.15
p.m. The Employer stated that at around 8.00 p.m.,
when the barge crossed the Borim bridge, the power
steering of the barge failed. The Employer stated
that therefore Mr. Sunil P. Naik, driver reported this
fact to Mr. Rajesh Kosambe on phone and thereafter
the barge was anchored near Borim bridge. The
Employer stated that as instructed by Mr. Kosambe
on phone, the barge Helena sailed from anchor
point at about 11.45 p.m. on hand steering and
reached at Capxem Bunder on 20-03-2008 at around
2.00 a.m. The Employer stated that after loading on
28-03-2008, at around 11.20 a.m., the barge Helena
sailed to Mormugao harbor. The Employer stated
that unloading completed at Mormugao harbor on
21-03-2008 at 3.00 a.m. The Employer stated that
during trip No. 2246 in second shift, on 19-03-2008
on his way to Capxem/Savardem Bundar, when the
barge Helena sailed from anchor point and reached
at Mankem, there was a torch signal from one canoe
and this was responded with search light by
Mr. Premanand Gaonkar, Sukani. The Employer
stated that upon this response, the canoe came
alongside the barge. The Employer stated that
thereafter the Workman along with other crew
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
851
i.e. Shri Vishnu Halankar, Shri Premanand J.
Gaonkar and Shri Sunil P. Naik went down from
wheel house and transferred company’s diesel from
the barge Helena to the canoe through pipe. The
Employer submitted that thus it is clear that the
Workman had stolen and dishonestly taken away
diesel from the barge Helena and disposed off the
same in association with other crew i.e. Shri Vishnu
Halankar, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and Shri Sunil
P. Naik, causing loss of the goods, property of the
company. The Employer stated that since the entire
acts on the part of the Workman was found to be
serious acts of misconduct as per its certified
standing orders, he was issued a charge-sheet
dated 15-10-2008, giving details of acts of Workman
and since his behaviour was detrimental to the
smooth functioning of the establishment, he was
suspended pending enquiry w.e.f. 15-10-2008.
6. The Employer stated that the Workman
submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, vide his
reply dated 17-10-2008. The Employer stated that
the since the reply submitted by the Workman was
not found to be satisfactory, a joint enquiry was
conducted against him along with Shri Vishnu
Halankar, Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar and
Shri Sunil P. Naik in respect of charge-sheet dated
15-10-2008. The Employer submitted that it has
conducted an enquiry in a fair and proper manner
by following the principles of natural justice. The
Employer stated that during the course of enquiry,
the Workman fully participated in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that the Workman was represented
by Mr. Mahesh Nagvekar. The Employer submitted
that after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his findings, by which the
Workman was held guilty of all the charges levelled
against him. The Employer submitted that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on
evidence on record. The Employer submitted that
in any event if this Hon’ble Court comes to the
conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted
properly or in a fair and proper manner, or that the
findings are perverse and/or is not based on
evidence on record, than they craves leave to
adduce additional evidence to justify its case. The
Employer submitted that the disciplinary authority
after going through the enquiry proceedings and
its connected papers and evidence on record, has
concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and a show-cause notice dated 04-03-2009 was
issued to the Workman along with copy of finding.
The Employer stated that on 13-03-2009, the
Workman filed his explanation to the show cause
notice issued to him. The Employer stated that the
management after going through the said
explanation/reply found it far from satisfactory. The
Employer stated that all the submissions made by
the Workman in the said reply were specifically
dealt with as they were totally false, baseless and
mischievous. The Employer stated that considering
the seriousness and gravity of misconducts found
proved against the Workman, they came to a
bonafide conclusion that no leniency was
warranted. The Employer submitted that the
Workman was therefore discharged by order dated
24-03-2009 by way of punishment. The Employer
submitted that the acts of misconduct committed
by the Workman are grave and serious in nature
and the punishment imposed upon him is
appropriate and commensurate with the acts of
misconduct committed by the Workman. The
Employer therefore submitted that the dismissal
from service of the Workman is just and fair and
this Hon’ble Court should not interfere with the
said administrative decision. The Employer denied
the overall case of the Workman as pleaded by him
and prayed that the entire reference be dismissed
in limine.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Rejoinder
on 11-02-2013 at Exhibit-8. The Workman, by way
of his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
Parties, the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court has framed the following issues at Exb.-11.
1. Whether the Party-I proves that the
domestic enquiry conducted against him
by Party- II, is not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Party I are proved to the
satisfaction of this Tribunal by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Party-I proves that the
termination of his services by Party II w.e.f.
24-03-2009 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Party-I is entitled for any relief?
5. What award?
9. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence
of the Workman. The Workman has filed his affidavit
in evidence and also produced on record certain
documents. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Adv.
Shri M. S. Bandodkar appearing for the Employer.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
852
On 26-09-2016, Ld. Advocates appearing for the
respective parties remained present and orally
submitted that the matter is likely to settle
amicably between the parties and sought time
to file the terms of settlement. Accordingly
on 23-03-2017, the Workman along with his Adv.
Shri R. Gauthankar as well as Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar appearing for the Employer remained
present and filed a joint application for consent
award in terms of settlement of the dispute, which
is on record at Exh-29.
I have carefully perused the said application for
consent award, jointly filed by the parties. I am of
the opinion that the said terms of settlement are
beneficial to the Workman and hence consented
for the same. Since the dispute under reference is
settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute
under present reference does not survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Management
of M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman,
Shri Ramrai Potekar, master, with effect from
24-03-2009, is legal and justified, does not
survive.
2. The workman Shri Ramrai Potekar is not
entitled to any relief.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-II/297
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-03-2017 in reference
No. IT/30/12 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, 2nd May, 2017.
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/30/12
Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar,
r/o. H. No. 77, Haturlim,
Bicholim, Goa.
… Workman/Party-I
V/s
The General Manager,
M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd.,
River Fleet & Shipping Division,
Opp. Damodar Temple,
Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama-Goa.
…. Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri R.
Gauthankar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar.
Panaji, dated: 30-03-2017.
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
28-05-2012, bearing No. 28/09/2012-LAB/211,
referred the following dispute for adjudication by
Industrial Tribunal of Goa. The matter was
thereafter transferred to this Labour Court II for its
adjudication by the Appropriate Government, vide
its order dated 09-02-2016.
“(1)
Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman,
Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar, Sukani, with
effect from 24-03-2009, is legal and justified?
(2)
If not, what relief, the workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/30/2012 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
“Workman”), filed his Statement of Claim on
13-08-2012 at Exb. 6. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed with the Employer/Party-II (for short
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
853
“Employer”) on 01-01-1999. He stated that he was
confirmed in service of the Employer as ‘Barge
Sailor’ on 01-04-1999. He stated that he was on
duty on barge Helena in second shift from
16-03-2008 till 31-03-2008. He stated that during
the trip No. 2246 in second shift on 19-03-2008,
barge Helena sailed from anchor point at 11.45
p.m. on hand steering and reached Capxem Bunder
on 20-03-2008 at about 2.00 a.m. He stated that the
barge Helena did not stop on the way, after leaving
anchor point at 11.45 p.m., hence, question of
transferring diesel from barge to canoe at Mandkem,
does not arise.
3. He stated that he was issued a vague charge-
sheet dated 15-10-2008. He stated that there is no
specific charge that he was instrumental in
transferring the diesel to the canoe himself or at
his instance his fellow collegues transferred the
diesel at dead of night. He stated that the canoe
owner to whom the diesel was sold has not been
examined at the enquiry for establishing the charge
of theft against workers. He stated that the charges
levelled against him are false. He submitted that
the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer are
perverse. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer
has not given any reason in his finding for
preferring the management evidence. He submitted
that the workmen were guilty of offences of theft
i.e. stealing diesel, the Employer ought to have
filed a police complaint against them, which the
Employer has not filed, knowing fully well that
they have no evidence to put them behind bars.
He submitted that a letter dated 17-12-2008
addressed to the General Manager by Shri Sanil
Ratnakar Gaonkar (Sailor) endorsing a copy to the
Enquiry Officer has purposely been not produced
by Management Representative, since the contents
of the said letter would damage their case. He
submitted that the Enquiry Officer being biased,
has relied upon the version of the management
witnesses as gospel truth. He submitted that in
spite of the demand for GPS (Global Position
System) plan, it was not produced by Employer
since there was no pilferage/theft of diesel on
19-03-2008. The Workman finally submitted that
the statement of management witnesses produced
by Management Representative were reduced into
writing at his instance in Marathi and English
language and witnesses were taken much after
the alleged date of theft i.e. on 19-03-2008. The
Workman therefore prayed that the action of the
Employer in terminating his services be declared
as illegal and he be reinstated in service with
continuity in service and full back wages.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman, by filing its written statement on
07-01-2013 at Exb.7. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objection, submitted that the entire
reference is bad-in-law, not maintainable and ought
to be rejected. The Employer submitted that since
the Workman had committed a serious act of
misconduct, the Employer conducted a fair and
proper enquiry by following principles of natural
justice as per its certified standing orders. The
Employer submitted that since the charges of
misconduct found proved against the workman
were grave and serious in nature, they dismissed
him from their service. The Employer submitted
that the punishment imposed upon the Workman
is proportionate and commensurate to the proved
charges. The Employer submitted that the said
dismissal of services of the Workman is fully legal
and justified and therefore no relief could be
granted to the Workman and that this Hon’ble
Tribunal should not interfere with the said
disciplinary action of the Employer.
5. The Employer stated that it is a company
established in the year 1954 and is in business of
producing and exporting iron ore as well as barge
operation. The Employer admitted that the
Workman was appointed by them as Launch Sailor
(Grade B 4) on probation w.e.f. 01-01-1999. The
Employer admitted that the Workman was
confirmed in service from 01-04-1999 as Launch
Sailor. The Employer stated that he was transferred
w.e.f. 01-09-1999 as ‘Barge Sailor”. The Employer
admitted that the Workman was on duty in second
shift on barge Helena along with other crew i.e.
Shri Vishnu Halankar, Shri Sunil Naik and
Shri Ramrai Potekar from 16-03-2008 to 31-03-2008.
The Employer stated that during second shift and
trip No. 2246 on 19-03-2008, after discharging cargo
at transhiper, the barge Helena proceeded towards
Capxem/Savordem Bunder. The Employer stated
that however, at around 2.30 p.m. on the way, the
Workman stopped the said barge at Rassaim for
some minor repairs and after carrying out repairs,
the barge left Rassaim at about 7.15 p.m. The
Employer stated that at around 8.00 p.m., when
the barge crossed the Borim bridge, the power
steering of the barge failed. The Employer stated
that therefore Shri Sunil Naik reported this fact to
Mr. Rajesh Kosambe on phone and thereafter the
barge was anchored near Borim bridge. The
Employer stated that as instructed by Mr. Kosambe
on phone, the barge Helena sailed from anchor
point at about 11.45 p.m. on hand steering and
reached at Capxem bunder on 20-03-2008 at around
2.00 a.m. The Employer stated that after loading on
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
854
28-03-2008, at around 11.20 a.m., the barge Helena
sailed to Mormugao harbor. The Employer stated
that unloading completed at Mormugao harbor on
21-03-2008 at 3.00 a.m. The Employer stated that
during trip No. 2246 in second shift, on 19-03-2008
on his way to Capxem/Savardem bundar, when the
barge Helena sailed from anchor point and reached
at Mankem, there was a torch signal from one canoe
and this was responded with search light by the
Workman. The Employer stated that upon this
response, the canoe came alongside the barge. The
Employer stated that thereafter the Workman along
with other crew i.e. Shri Vishnu Halankar, Shri Sunil
Naik and Shri Ramrai Potekar went down from
wheel house and transferred company’s diesel from
the barge Helena to the canoe through pipe. The
Employer submitted that thus it is clear that the
Workman had stolen and dishonestly taken away
diesel from the barge Helena and disposed off the
same in association with other crew i.e Shri Vishnu
Halankar, Shri Sunil Naik and Shri Ramrai Potekar,
causing loss of the goods, property of the company.
The Employer stated that since the entire acts on
the part of the Workman was found to be serious
acts of misconduct as per its certified standing
orders, he was issued a charge-sheet dated
15-10-2008, giving details of acts of Workman and
since his behaviour was detrimental to the smooth
functioning of the establishment, he was
suspended pending enquiry w.e.f. 15-10-2008.
6. The Employer stated that the Workman
submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, vide his
reply dated 17-10-2012. The Employer stated that
the since the reply submitted by the Workman was
not found to be satisfactory, a joint enquiry was
conducted against him along with Shri Vishnu
Halankar, Shri Sunil Naik and Shri Ramrai Potekar
in respect of charge-sheet dated 15-10-2008. The
Employer submitted that it has conducted an
enquiry in a fair and proper manner by following
the principles of natural justice. The Employer
stated that during the course of enquiry, the
Workman fully participated in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that the Workman was represented
by Mr. Mahesh Nagvekar. The Employer submitted
that after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his findings, by which the
Workman was held guilty of all the charges levelled
against him. The Employer submitted that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on
evidence on record. The Employer submitted that
in any event if this Hon’ble Court comes to the
conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted
properly or in a fair and proper manner, or that the
findings are perverse and/or is not based on
evidence on record, than they craves leave to
adduce additional evidence to justify its case. The
Employer submitted that the disciplinary authority
after going through the enquiry proceedings and
its connected papers and evidence on record, has
concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and a show-cause notice dated 04-03-2009 was
issued to the Workman along with copy of finding.
The Employer stated that on 12-03-2009, the
Workman filed his explanation to the show cause
notice issued to him. The Employer stated that the
management after going through the said
explanation/reply found it far from satisfactory. The
Employer stated that all the submissions made by
the Workman in the said reply were specifically
dealt with as they were totally false, baseless and
mischievous. The Employer stated that considering
the seriousness and gravity of misconducts found
proved against the Workman, they came to a
bonafide conclusion that no leniency was
warranted. The Employer submitted that the
Workman was therefore discharged by order dated
24/03/2009, by way of punishment. The Employer
submitted that the acts of misconduct committed
by the Workman are grave and serious in nature
and the punishment imposed upon him is
appropriate and commensurate with the acts of
misconduct committed by the Workman. The
Employer therefore submitted that the dismissal
from service of the Workman is just and fair and
this Hon’ble Court should not interfere with the
said administrative decision. The Employer denied
the overall case of the Workman as pleaded by him
and prayed that the entire reference be dismissed
in limine.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Rejoinder
on 11-02-2013 at Exb-9. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
Parties, the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court has framed the following issues at Exb.-12.
1. Whether the Party-I proves that the
domestic enquiry conducted against him
by Party-II, is not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Party I are proved to the
satisfaction of this Tribunal by acceptable
evidence?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
855
3. Whether the Party-I proves that the
termination of his services by Party II w.e.f.
24-03-2009 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Party-I is entitled for any relief?
5. What award?
Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence
of the Workman. The Workman has filed his affidavit
in evidence and also producted on record certain
documents, He was cross-examined by the Ld. Adv.
Shri M. S. Bandodkar appearing for the Employer.
On 26-09-2016, Ld. Advocates appearing for the
respective parties remained present and orally
submitted that the matter is likely to settle
amicably between the parties and sought time to
file the terms of settlement. Accordingly
on 23-03-2017, the Workman along with his Adv.
Shri R. Gauthankar as well as Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar appearing for the Employer remained
present and filed a joint application for consent
award in terms of settlement of the dispute, which
is on record at Exh-16.
I have carefully perused the said application for
consent award, jointly filed by the parties. I am of
the opinion that the said terms of settlement are
beneficial to the Workman and hence consented
for the same. Since the dispute under reference is
settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute
under present reference does not survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Management
of M/s. Sesa Goa Limited, River Fleet and
Shipping Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of it’s workman,
Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar, Sukani, with
effect from 24-03-2009, is legal and justified,
does not survive.
2. The workman Shri Premanand J. Gaonkar is
not entitled to any relief.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt)/566
The Government of Goa is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following Civil Registrar-
-cum-Sub-Registrar, Group ‘B’, Gazetted Officers of Registration Department, Panaji with immediate effect
and in public interest:-
Sr.
Name of Civil Registrar-
Office to which attached
Transferred to
Remark
No.
-cum-Sub-Registrar
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Smt. Freeda B. J.
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
—
Gomes
-Sub-Registrar, Ponda
-Sub-Registrar, office of
District Registrar (South),
Margao
2.
Shri Gouresh G. Bugde Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
—
-Sub-Registrar, office of
-Sub-Registrar, office of
District Registrar (South), District Registrar (North),
Margao
Panaji
3.
Smt. Urmia U. Tari
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
—
-Sub-Registrar, office of
-Sub-Registrar, Bardez
District Registrar (North),
Panaji
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
856
4.
Shri Chandrakant M.
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-
Presently holding
Waradkar
-Sub-Registrar, Bardez
-Registrar, Pernem
charge of office of
Civil Registrar-cum-
-Sub-Registrar, Pernem
in addition to his
duties during CCL of
Smt. Soniya S. Halarnkar.
5.
Smt. Jyoti K. Nayak
Newly promoted &
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-
—
awaiting posting
-Sub-Registrar, Ponda
The above officers shall complete the process of handling over/taking over of charge with immediate
effect and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Estt.).
Porvorim, 28th April, 2017.
———‹———
1
2
3
4
5
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, Deputy
Ex post facto extension
Registrar, High Court of
of Earned Leave for 8
Bombay at Goa, Panaji
days w.e.f. 22-4-2017 to
29-4-2017 with permi-
ssion to suffix 30-4-2017
and 1-5-2017 being
Sunday and Maharashtra
Day Holiday 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.
S. C. Chandak, Registrar (ADM.).
Panaji, 3rd May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 15/1/99-PER(Part) COSanguem/Pernem
On the recommendations of Goa Services Board
and with the approval of the Government,
Shri Anil Rane Sardesai, Joint Mamlatdar-IV, Bardez
shall hold additional charge of the post of Chief
Officer, Sanquelim Municipal Council, in addition
to his own duties and until further orders, thereby
relieving Shri Jeetendra Bugde, Joint Mamlatdar-III,
Bicholim of additional charge.
The officers shall complete the process of
handing over/taking over within three days from
the date of issue of order and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II)
Porvorim, 3rd May, 2017.
________
Order
No. 5/2/2017-PER
On the recommendations of Goa Services Board
and with the approval of the Government, the
following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service
are transferred and posted with immediate effect,
in public interest:-
S/N
Name of the officer
Posted as
and designation
1
2
3
1. Shri Sagun Velip, Chief Chief Officer, Quepem
Officer, Curchorem
Municipal Council,
Cacora Municipal
thereby relieving
Council
Shri Pramod Desai of
addl. charge.
2. Shri Gurudas Desai,
Deputy Collector
awaiting posting
(Revenue), North there-
by relieving Shri Clen
Madeira of additional
charge.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
857
Shri Pramod Desai, Chief Officer, Sanguem
Municipal Council shall hold additional charge of
the post of Chief Officer, Curchorem Cacora
Municipal Council and Member Secretary, Ravindra
Bhavan, Curchorem, in addition to his own duties,
until further orders.
The appointment of Shri Sagun Velip, shall be
governed by the standard terms of deputation as
contained in Office Memorandum No. 13/4/74-PER
dated 20-11-2013 and as amended.
All the above officers shall complete the process
of handing over/taking over within three days from
the date of issue of order and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II)
Porvorim, 3rd May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 7/4/91-I/PHD(Part)/678
Read: 1) Order No. 7/4/91-I/PHD dated 28-12-2012.
2) Order No. 7/4/91-I/PHD dated 16-04-2014.
3) Order No. 7/4/91-I/PHD (Part-I) dated
27-02-2015.
4) Order No. 7/4/91-I/PHD (Part-I) dated
10-03-2016.
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/11/56(1)/2015/1905 dated 31-03-2017, the ad hoc
promotion of Smt. Nilima V. Mishal, Senior Scientific
Officer (Drugs) under the Directorate of Food and
Drugs Administration, Bambolim is extended for
the interim period from 01-07-2016 to 23-08-2016.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 26th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Tribal Welfare
Directorate of Tribal Welfare
__
Order
No. 1-114-2017-18/ADMN/DTW/1144
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3
read with Section 6 (3) of the Goa Commission for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2010
(Goa Act 9 of 2010), the Government of Goa is
pleased to appoint Shri Prakash Shankar Velip, as
Chairperson of the Goa Commission for Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes with immediate effect.
The Chairperson shall unless otherwise
disqualified, hold office for a term of three years
from the date he assumes office or until he attains
the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
S. V. Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Tribal Welfare).
Panaji, 4th April, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Urban Development
Directorate of Municipal Administration
__
Notification
No. 10/671/2015-DMA/258
Urbanization is set as a national priority by
Government of India to provide basic services like
water supply, sewerage and urban transport to
households. Every Urban Local Body (ULB) is
responsible to provide these basic amenities and
to achieve the national goal. However, ULBs are
constrained with funds and are also hindered by
long and cumbersome procedures to get access to
capital market. As there is currently no institutional
structure to cater to funding urban infrastructure
projects, Government of Goa has decided to
designate EDC Limited as State Level Financial
Intermediary (SLFI).
The key functions and responsibilities of the
SLFI shall be as follows:
• Fund urban infrastructure development project
including AMRUT that improve living
standards of the urban population.
• Enter into Joint Ventures and/or Public Private
Partnerships and facilitate private sector
participation in infrastructure development.
• Operate a complementary window of Viability
Gap Fund to assist in addressing of the cities
with weak financial health.
• Mobilise market based funds for ULBs to
finance Urban Infrastructure.
The SLFI shall also create an Urban
Infrastructure Development Fund as a “Trust” and
a project development company which also acts as
Assets Management Company to the “Trust”.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
11TH MAY, 2017
858
EDC Limited will liaise with Mission Director
AMRUT and MD & CEO, Imagine Panaji Smart City
Development Limited for further needful action.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
J. Ashok Kumar, IAS, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Municipal Administration/Urban
Development).
Panaji, 2nd May, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 1/7/UDD/2003/282
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 6
of the Rule and Regulations of the Goa State Urban
Development Agency, the Government of Goa
hereby re-constitutes the General Body of the Goa
State Urban Development Agency, as under:-
General Body
1) Hon’ble Minister for Urban
— Chairman.
Development
2) Shri Sandip Falari
— Vice
Chairman.
3) Secretary (Urban Development) — Member.
4) Joint Secretary (Finance)
— Member.
5) Director, Planning, Statistics
— Member.
& Evaluation
6) The Principal Chief Engineer
— Member.
(PWD)
7) The Chief Town Planner (CTP) — Member.
8) Managing Director (GSIDC)
— Member.
9) The Chief Project Officer
— Member.
(GSUDA)
10) Director of Municipal Adminis-
— Member
tration/Urban Development
Secretary.
This issues in supersession of this Department
Notification No. 1/7/UDD/2003/367 dated 7th May,
2013.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
J. Ashok Kumar, IAS, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Urban Development).
Panaji, 4th May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
__
Notification
No. 4/4/EO-WRD/2017-18/78
Read: Notification No. 19-2/CE-IRRG/EO/435
dated 24-02-2000, published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 49 dated 02-03-2000.
In pursuance of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 4 of the Goa Tillari Irrigation Development
Corporation Act, 1999 (Goa Act 6 of 1999) and
in supersession of the Government Notification No.
4/4/EO-WRD/2014-15/507 dated 17-09-2014, the
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint Dr. Ranbir
Singh, IAS, Secretary (Water Resources),
Government of Goa, as the Chairman of the Goa
Tillari Irrigation Development Corporation, with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
P. J. Kamat, Chief Engineer & ex officio Additional
Secretary (WRD).
Porvorim, 4th May, 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. 22.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–39/350–5/2017.