Panaji, 5th April, 2018 (Chaitra 15, 1940)

SERIES II No. 1

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

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

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Corrigendum

No. 1/22/155/2017-18/D.Agri/261

Read: Order No. 1/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol.II/256

dated 20-03-2018.

In the above referred order, “Smt. Janice Flossy

Gomes, Farm Superintendent, Government Farm

Kalay shall stand relieved from her post w.e.f.

31-03-2018 (a.n.)” instead of w.e.f. 29-03-2018 (a.n.).

She shall hand over the charge to the link officer and

proceed for joining her new posting w.e.f. 02-04-2018.

Other contents of the above said order remains

the same.

Nelson Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 28th March, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Order

No. 1-3-71/EST/RCS (Part) Vol. II/5081

On recommendations of the Departmental

Promotion Committee conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission, Panaji vide letter

No. COM/II/11/11(1)/2012/1108 dated 08-03-2018,

the Government is pleased to promote the following

officers to the post of Asstt. Registrar of Co-op.

Societies, Group “B” (Gazetted) in the establish-

ment of Registrar of Co-op. Societies in the pay of

Rs. 44,900 - Rs. 1,42,400/- (Pay Matrix Level 7) on

regular basis with immediate effect. They shall

continue to hold the same post which they were

holding on ad hoc basis, vide Order No. 1-3-71-

-EST/RCS/Part Vol-II/2545 dated 24-10-2014 &

Order No. 1-3-71-EST/RCS/Part/Vol. III/2177 dated

26-08-2016.

1. Shri H. S. Gawde (ST).

2. Shri P. S. Sawant.

3. Shri M. N. Kalangutkar (PD).

4. Shri Suraj Ghaisas.

5. Shri Pankaj Marathe.

6. Smt. Ulka Bandekar.

7. Shri Santosh P. Naik.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar & ex officio Addl.

Secretary (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 28th March, 2018.

________

Order

No. 22-1-17-MR/MKT/RCS/01

Read: 1) Government Order No. 22-1-2017-MR/

/MKT/RCS/06 dated 03-04-2017.

2) Government Order No. 22-1-2017-MR/

/MKT/RCS/343 dated 03-10-2017.

In exercise of the power conferred by Section

16 (1) (b) of the Goa Agricultural Produce Marketing

(Development and Regulation) Act, 2007, the

Government of Goa hereby further extends the term

of Committee of Administrators of the Goa State

Agricultural Marketing Board, Margao, Arlem, Raia,

Salcete-Goa for the period of three months i.e.

Note:-

There are three Extraordinary issues to the

Official Gazette, Series II No. 52 dated 29-03-2018

as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 29-03-2018 from pages

2329 to 2330 regarding Order & Notifications

from Department of Finance.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 02-04-2018 from

pages 2331 to 2332 regarding Form I from

Department of Panchayati Raj and Community

Development.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 04-04-2018 from

pages 2333 to 2336 regarding Order and

Notifications from Department of Elections and

Notifications from Department of Finance.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

03-07-2018 or till the new Board is constituted

whichever is earlier.

The extension to the Committee of Adminis-

trators is allowed since the election is to be

conducted in accordance with the recent

amendment to the Goa Agricultural Produce

Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act,

2007.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 2nd April, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Education

Order

No. 1-1(42)-2003/SE/193

Whereas, Shri Mahadeo V. Gadgil/M. V. Gadgil,

in the cadre of Deputy Education Officer/Principal,

Government Higher Secondary Schools/Vocational

Education Officer/Dy. Director of S.I.E. under the

Directorate of Education and who is presently

working as Secretary, Goa Board of Secondary &

Higher Secondary Education, Alto-Betim on transfer

on deputation has changed his name to “Madhav

Vishnu Gadgil” by execution of Deed changing

name/surname (under Registration No. 6732/17) on

21-10-2017 before Shri Manohar C. Adpaikar, Notary,

Ponda, State of Goa (India) V. No. A-1236/2017 and

publication of the said changed name in the

Official Gazette, Series III No. 30 dated 26-10-2017

and also in the local newspaper namely ‘Gomantak

Times’ dated 24-10-2017 in accordance with the

procedure of change of name by Government

employee as laid down in O. M. No. 19016/1/87-

Estt(A) dated 12-03-1987 of Government of India,

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &

Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New

Delhi.

And whereas, the said Shri Mahadeo V. Gadgil/

/M. V. Gadgil vide letter dated 06-11-2017 has

further requested to enter his changed name i.e.

“Madhav Vishnu Gadgil”, in his service records.

Now therefore, sanction of the Government

is hereby conveyed to change the name of

“Shri Mahadeo Vishnu Gadgil/M. V. Gadgil” to

“Madhav Vishnu Gadgil” in his service records.

This issues with the approval of the Government

vide U.O. No. 1427/F dated 08-2-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

G. P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary

(Education).

Porvorim, 26th February, 2018.

________

Order

No. 1(2)-18-2017/SE/197

Shri Bhagirath Shetye, Assistant Director of

Education, North Educational Zone, Mapusa and

who is presently holding the charge of Dy. Director

of Education, North Educational Zone, Mapusa in

addition to his own duties is hereby posted as

Secretary of Goa Board of Secondary and Higher

Secondary Education on working arrangement

till Mr. M. V. Gadgil resumes his duties at Goa

Board.

This issues with the approval of the Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Gajanan P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Education).

Porvorim, 7th March, 2018.

________

Order

No. 1(1)-5-2009/SE/Part/202

Government is pleased to re-employ Shri Narayan

S. Naik, Principal-Government Higher Secondary

School, Khandola, Marcela-Goa (due to retire on

superannuation w.e.f. 31-03-2018 (a.n.) beyond

superannuation w.e.f. 01-04-2018 to 30-04-2018 in

the same post and in the same school, in terms of

Clause (h) under sub-rule 2 of Rule 162 of the Goa

School Education Rules, 1986 as amended vide

Notification No. 28/297/Adm.I/B/2013/2643 dated

27-02-2014 and in terms of proviso to sub-rule 1 of

Rule 88 of the Goa School Education rules, 1986 as

amended vide Notifications No. DE/Amendment/

/2012-13/3610 dated 06-03-2013 and No. DE/Acad/

/Misc/Amendment-Rule/2016 dated 10-6-2016.

He has been declared medically fit for the job by

the Medical Board, Department of Medicine, Goa

Medical College, Bambolim-Goa vide certificate

dated 02-02-2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

His pay and allowances shall be fixed in terms

of Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-

employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Gajanan P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Education).

Porvorim, 21st March, 2018.

———u———

Directorate of Art & Culture

Corrigendum

DAC/4/TA/2017-18/Part-III/05

Read: Order No. DAC/4/TA/2017-18/5882 dated

29-11-2017.

In the aforesaid order, the name of the Member

Secretary may be read as Shri Cezar Aleixo Jose

Fernandes de Mello instead of Shri Cezar D’Mello.

Other contents of the order remain unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Art & Culture).

Panaji, 2nd April, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Home

Home—General Division

Office of the Director General of Police

—

Order

No. CA-II/134/LOP on Prom./2191/2018

Dist. Order No. 167

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide letter No. COM/

/II/12/37 (2)/2017/978 dated 05-12-2017 and

approved by Government of Goa conveyed vide

letter No. 1/18/2014-HD(G)/125 dated 05-01-2018

by the Department of Home (General), Government

of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa, the Director

General of Police (Goa) is pleased to lift the

probation period of the below mentioned Scientific

Officers of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Verna-

-Goa, as they have satisfactory completed the

probation period w.e.f. 04-11-2016:-

Sr.

Name of the officer

No.

1. Shri Gauresh V. Mapari.

2. Shri Sushant M. Naik.

By order and in the name of the Director

General of Police (Goa).

S. M. Prabhudessai, Superintendent of Police (HQ).

Panaji, 22nd February, 2018.

________

Notification

No. 2/3/2002-HD(G)/Part/952

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 20 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the

Government of Goa hereby appoints Deputy

Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer-II, Salcete,

Margao to be the Sub-Divisional Magistrate within

the respective jurisdiction of the South Goa District

with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).

Porvorim, 27th March, 2018.

________

Addendum

No. CA-I/108(P)/Vol.V/3800/2018

Read: Order No. CA-I/108(P)/Vol.V/8341/2017

dated 29-09-2017.

The last para of the above read Order is added

and read as below:

“4. The Officers are entitled for pay and

allowances from the date of acceptance of

promotions in terms of FR-17”.

By order and in the name of the Director

General of Police (Goa).

S. M. Prabhudessai, Superintendent of Police (HQ).

Panaji, 28th March, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Information and Publicity

Notification

No. DI/INF/PUB-SUPP-BOOKS/PARL-LIB/2018/34

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9

of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

the Government of Goa hereby appoints Information

Officer (Publications) in the office of Information

and Publicity, Udyog Bhavan, Panaji-Goa to receive

publications/books from the printers from the State

of Goa.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

T. S. Sawant, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary

(Information & Publicity.)

Panaji, 3rd April, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

—

Order

No. 28/5/2018-LAB/231

Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Savoi-Verem V. K. S. S. Society

Limited, Banking Section, Bazar, Savoi Verem,

Ponda, Goa, and it’s workperson Ms. Vrunda V. Shet

Verenkar, Credit Counter Incharge, 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. Savoi-Verem V. K. S. S. Society Limited, Banking

Section, Bazar, Savoi Verem, Ponda, Goa, in

terminating the services of Ms. Vrunda V. Shet

Verenkar, Credit Counter Incharge, with effect from

05-08-2017, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, to what relief the workperson is

entitled?”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 2nd April, 2018.

Notification

No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/205

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

22-02-2018 in reference No. IT/33/04 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.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 20th March, 2018.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

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

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/33/04

Miss Deepa Chari & 23 others,

Rep. by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Shetye Sankul, 3rd Floor,

Ponda, Tisk, Ponda, Goa.

… Workmen/Party I.

V/s

M/s Glenmark Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,

Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna, Goa.

… Employer/Party II.

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.

Gaonkar.

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

S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 22nd day of the month

of February of the year 2018)

By Order dated 16-08-2004, bearing No. 28/10/

/2004-LAB-Part/607, 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. Glenmark Laboratories Private Limited,

Verna, in terminating the services of below

mentioned workmen, with effect from the date

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

shown against their name, is legal and

justified.

Name of the workmen

Date of

termination

1. Ms. Deepa Chari

01-06-2004

2. Ms. Sumita Shirodkar

01-06-2004

3. Ms. Shilpa Shetkar

01-06-2004

4. Ms. Sudarshan Chingle

01-06-2004

5. Ms. Nilima Naik

01-06-2004

6. Ms. Sarika Naik

01-06-2004

7. Ms. Suman Bordekar

01-06-2004

8. Mr. Ganesh Kamat

26-06-2004

9. Mr. Nilesh Naik

26-06-2004

10. Mr. Subhash Gawas

26-06-2004

11. Mr. Vijay Naik

26-06-2004

12. Mr. Roshan Desai

26-06-2004

13. Mr. Faustin Fernandes

26-06-2004

14. Mr. Nityanand Kosmekar

26-06-2004

15. Mr. Laximikant D. Naik

26-06-2004

16. Mr. Vishwajit Lad

26-06-2004

17. Mr. Vinod Naik

26-06-2004

18. Mr. Rajesh Muli

26-06-2004

19. Mr. Shailesh Ajgaonkar

26-06-2004

20. Mr. Satish Velip

26-06-2004

21. Mr. Prasad Bhosle

26-06-2004

22. Mr. Rajaram Gawas

26-06-2004

23. Mr. Pramod Gawas

26-06-2004

24. Mr. Ajaykumar Jena

26-06-2004

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

2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/33/04 was

registered. Notices were issued to both the parties

under registered post, upon which both the parties

were served. Party I thereafter filed the Claim

statement at Exh. 3 and the Party II filed Written

statement at Exh. 4.

3. It is in short the case of the Party I that the

Party II has established Pharmaceutical factory to

manufacture various drugs for local and export and

that it employed workers to carry out their

permanent nature of work in production,

maintenance, packing, dispensing, store, etc. in

the factory and that these workers though were

initially employed on contract were then taken on

the roll of company. It is stated that the workers in

the reference were independently working in shifts

in different departments and that the products

manufactured by them were sold in local markets

as well as exported, however the workmen were

not given any facilities and Party II continued to

implement several unfair labour practices, such as

keeping the workers as trainees for years and

though the workers were called as trainees, they

were working independently in all the three shifts

operating various machines and doing the skilled

work. According to Party I all the workmen in the

reference have worked continuously on permanent

posts in all the three shifts in case of males and

first shift in case of females. It is also stated that

due to harassment and violation of provisions of

various laws almost all the production workers of

Party II have resolved to join the Union and

accordingly, they joined Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh.

Upon this, the General Secretary of the Union

informed the above fact to the management vide

letter dated 28-03-04 and also submitted a Charter

of demands of the same date.

4. It is also stated that on receipt of these letters,

the management started harassing the local

committee members and active workers of the

Union and as the employer started unfair labour

practices, the Union by letter dated 02-04-2004

requested the Dy. Labour Commissioner for

intervention however, the conciliation proceedings

failed. It is also claimed that due to implementation

of unfair labour practices and also on account of

threats and harassment by Party II, all the workers

held General Body Meeting on 30-05-2004 to decide

the future course and almost all the workers have

attended the said meeting. It is stated that on

31-05-2004 the workers namely Deepa Chari and

six others were called by the management and

asked the reason for not coming to work on

overtime on 30-05-04 and the workers told that

they had gone to attend the meeting, upon which,

the management threatened them to resign from

the Union and if not, their services would be

terminated and upon the above information all the

workers in the plant supported the above seven

workers and initiated agitation. The management

refused to discuss and the workers were asked to

go out of the factory and accordingly, all were sent

outside the gate and the said seven workers were

issued termination letters on 01-06-2004.

5. All the workers thereafter initiated legal strike

with effect from 01-06-2004 and thereafter from

26-06-2004 another seventeen workmen were

terminated as they participated in peaceful and

legal strike, without conducting any enquiry. It is

stated that the workmen in reference have worked

continuously for more than 240 days in the

preceding twelve months. The Party II was having

more than 300 workmen on its roll and hence,

Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

applicable to the Party II. It is stated that the

workmen in the reference were independently

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

working in the shifts doing the work of

manufacturing, dispensing, packing, maintenance

and operating the machines, etc. which is a

perennial nature of work. It is also stated that since

their termination, the workers are unemployed and

they could not succeed in getting any job till date.

The Party I has therefore prayed to declare that the

termination of the workers as illegal, improper and

unjustified and to direct the employer to reinstate

all the workmen with full back wages and

continuity of services.

6. In the written statement, the Party II has

claimed that the reference itself is bad since the

date of termination of the concerned persons as

mentioned in the order of reference is itself bad-in-

law. It is also the case of the Party II that immediately

after joining the Union, the seven trainee

technicians/packers at the behest and instigation

by the Union leaders started sabotaging the life

saving drugs by mixing the different products

while packaging the said medicines and that such

act on the part of said Party I was dangerous,

detrimental and criminal during the training period

itself and therefore there was no point in continuing

their training and hence their contract was

terminated with effect from 31-05-2004 and as they

refused to accept the letters, on 01-06-2004 they

were sent their earned salary, retrenchment

compensation, notice pay and other dues by

registered A.D., even otherwise the said trainees

had no lien over their employment.

7. It is also stated that immediately thereafter

and at the instigation of the Union leaders, some

of the other trainee technicians and workers started

non-cooperation and went on mass absenteeism/

/strike without notice and said mass absenteeism

affected the production of the company and before

resorting to strike, the said persons even sabotaged

the valuable machineries by removing critical parts

and hiding them and deliberately sabotaged the

machinery so that the production would be

hampered and company should lend in deep

trouble. The Party I also threatened the other

workmen who were not associating with them, of

dire consequences. The company lost confidence

in the said trainees and their continuation in the

factory premises was detrimental to the smooth

functioning of the plant. The Party I and contractual

workers resorted to illegal strike by stopping the

work and by leaving the premises on 31-05-2004

shouting slogans and abusing the employees of

the company. They also manhandled some of the

employees who were coming to work by

threatening them. The action on the part of the

management was bonafide and as per the

agreement entered into between the company and

the trainee technicians and therefore, the reference

deserves to be rejected.

8. In the rejoinder at Exh. 6, the Party I has

denied the case set up by the Party II in the written

statement.

9. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 7 are as

follows:

(1) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

termination of service of the workmen by

the Party II is in violation of the provisions

of Chapter V-B of the I.D. Act, 1947?

(2) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

action of the Party II in terminating the

services with effect from the date

mentioned against their names is illegal

and unjustified?

(3) Whether the Party II proves that the

reference made by the Government is bad

in law?

(4) Whether the Party II proves that the

workmen were appointed as trainees as per

trainee agreement and since their

performance was not satisfactory their

trainee agreement was terminated?

(5) Whether the workmen are entitled to any

relief?

(6) What Award?

10. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined

Shri Puti Gaonkar as witness No. 1 and produced

on record copies of declaration form signed by GMS

dated 27-3-2004 at Exh. W-I colly, copy of letter

dated 28-3-2004 alongwith AD card at Exh. W-2

colly, a copy of letter dated 28-3-2004 at Exh. W-3,

copies of Notices issued by Conciliation Officer in

the matter of Charter of demands at Exh. W-4 colly,

a copy of failure report dated 9-7-2004 at Exh.

W-5, copies of termination letters dated 1-6-2004 at

Exh. W-6 colly, copies of letter dated 25-6-2004

Exh. W-7 colly. Party I also examined Shri Nityanand

Kosmekar as witness No. 2 and produced on record

a copy of appointment letter dated 1-8-2003 at

Exh. 15, a copy of letter along with receipt and

cheque dated 25-6-2004 at Exh. 16 colly.

11. On the other hand, the Party II examined

Shri Walter Gonsalves as witness No. 1 and

produced on record copies of appointment letters

of the workmen at Exh. 18 to Exh. 24, a copy of

termination letter dated 31-5-2004 of the workman

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

at Sr. No.1 at Exh. 25, a copy of letter dated

1-6-2004 addressed to Party I along with copy of

the receipt, cheque and the postal slip at Exh. 26

colly, a copy of termination letter dated 31-5-2004

addressed to the workman at Sr. No. 2 at Exh. 27,

a copy of letter dated 1-6-2004 addressed to the

workman at Sr. No. 2 along with copy of the receipt,

cheque and the postal slip at Exh. 28 colly, a copy

of termination letter dated 31-5-2004 addressed to

the workman at Sr. No. 3 at Exh. 29, a copy of

letter dated 1-6-2004 addressed to the workman at

Sr. No. 3 along with copy of the receipt and cheque

at Exh. 30 colly, a copy of termination letter dated

31-5-2004 addressed to the workman at Sr. No. 4 at

Exh. 31, a copy of letter dated 1-6-2004 addressed

to the workman at Sr. No. 4 along with copy of the

receipt, cheque and the postal slip at Exh. 32 colly,

a copy of termination letter dated 31-5-2004

addressed to the workman at Sr. No. 5 at Exh. 33,

a copy of letter dated 1-6-2004 addressed to the

workman at Sr. No. 5 along with copy of the receipt

and cheque at Exh. 34 colly.

12. Shri Walter Gonsalves further produced on

record a copy of termination letter dated 31-5-2004

addressed to the workman at Sr. No. 6 at Exh. 35,

a copy of letter dated 1-6-2004 addressed to the

workman at Sr. No. 6 along with copy of the receipt,

cheque and the postal slip at Exh. 36 colly, a copy

of termination letter dated 31-5-2004 addressed to

the workman at Sr. No. 7 at Exh. 37, a copy of letter

dated 1-6-2004 addressed to the workman at

Sr. No. 7 along with copy of the receipt, cheque

and the postal slip at Exh. 38 colly, a copy of

appointment letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman

at Sr. No. 8 at Exh. 39, a copy of termination letter

dated 25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 8 along with

copy of receipt and cheque at Exh. 40 colly, a copy

of appointment letter dated 1-8-2003 of the

workman at Sr. No. 9 at Exh. 41, a copy of

termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of workman at

Sr. No. 9 along with copy of receipt and cheque at

Exh. 42 colly, a copy of appointment letter dated

1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 10 at Exh. 43, a

copy of termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of

workman at Sr. No. 10 along with copy of receipt

and cheque at Exh. 44 colly, a copy of appointment

letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 11

at Exh. 45, a copy of termination letter dated

25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 11 along with copy

of receipt and cheque at Exh. 46 colly.

13. Shri Walter Gonsalves also produced a copy

of appointment letter dated 1-8-2003 of the

workman at Sr. No. 12 at Exh. 47, a copy of

termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of workman at

Sr. No. 12 along with copy of receipt and cheque

at Exh. 48 colly, a copy of appointment letter dated

1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 13 at Exh. 49, a

copy of termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of

workman at Sr. No. 13 along with copy of receipt

and cheque at Exh. 50 colly, a copy of appointment

letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 14

at Exh. 51, a copy of termination letter dated

25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 14 along with copy

of receipt and cheque at Exh. 52 colly, a copy of

appointment letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman

at Sr. No. 15 at Exh. 53, a copy of termination letter

dated 25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 15 along

with copy of receipt and cheque at Exh. 54 colly,

a copy of appointment letter dated 1-8-2003 of the

workman at Sr. No. 16 at Exh. 55, a copy of

termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of workman at

Sr. No. 16 along with copy of receipt and cheque

at Exh. 56 colly, a copy of appointment letter dated

1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 17 at Exh. 57, a

copy of termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of

workman at Sr. No. 17 along with copy of receipt

and cheque at Exh. 58 colly, a copy of appointment

letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 18

at Exh. 59, a copy of termination letter dated

25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 18 along with copy

of receipt and cheque at Exh. 60 colly.

14. Shri Walter Gonsalves also produced on

record a copy of appointment letter dated 1-8-2003

of the workman at Sr. No. 19 at Exh. 61, a copy of

termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of workman at

Sr. No. 19 along with copy of receipt and cheque

at Exh. 62 colly, a copy of appointment letter dated

1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 20 at Exh. 63, a

copy of termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of

workman at Sr. No. 20 along with copy of receipt

and cheque at Exh. 64 colly, a copy of appointment

letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 21

at Exh. 65, a copy of termination letter dated

25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 21 along with copy

of receipt and cheque at Exh. 66 colly, a copy of

appointment letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman

at Sr. No. 22 at Exh. 67, a copy of termination letter

dated 25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 22 along

with copy of receipt and cheque at Exh. 68 colly,

a copy of termination letter dated 25-6-2004 of

workman at Sr. No. 23 along with copy of receipt

and cheque at Exh. 69 colly, a copy of appointment

letter dated 1-8-2003 of the workman at Sr. No. 24

at Exh. 70, a copy of termination letter dated

25-6-2004 of workman at Sr. No. 24 along with copy

of receipt and cheque at Exh. 71 colly, a copy of

appointment order dated 16-9-2000 at Exh. 72 and

a copy of letter dated 14-3-2001 at Exh. 73.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

15. Heard arguments. Notes of Written

arguments came to be placed on record by Party I

as well as Party II.

16. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 3

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 4

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 5

…

As per Final order.

Issue No. 6

…

As per Final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 4:

17. The Party I has claimed that they were

employed to carryout permanent nature of work in

production, maintenance, packing, etc. in the

factory of Party II and were independently working

in shifts operating machines and undertaking

skilled work and therefore they are the ‘workers’ as

defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, while it is the case of the Party II that they

were appointed as ‘Trainees’ and therefore not

covered under Section 2(s) of the Act and their

trainee contract was dispensed with as stipulated

therein. It is therefore evident that the case of the

Party I is that of ‘workmen’ and that of Party II is

that of ‘trainees’ and as, the status of Party I is

challenged and it being relevant for deciding the

above issue No. 4, it has to be taken up for

discussion, ahead of other issues.

18. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Party I has

submitted that the Party I workmen were working

for Party II at Verna Industrial Estate and were

carrying out permanent nature of work in

production, maintenance, packing, dispensing,

store, etc. in their factory and were on the roll of

the company and were working in shifts in different

departments. The workers were continuously

forced to work for 12 hours without overtime wages

and were not given any facilities and continued to

implement several unfair labour practices such as

keeping the workers as trainees, etc. The Party I

workmen worked independently for last more than

two years on permanent post in all the three shifts

and due to the harassment and violation of

provision of various law, all the production

workmen of the Party II have joined the Union and

submitted the Charter of demands. The

management started unfair labour practices. The

Party I workmen decided to hold general body

meeting at Ponda on 30-5-2004 to decide future

course. However, the Party II terminated the

workmen without holding any enquiry thereby

affording them principles of natural justice on the

alleged plea of sabotage which is misconduct under

Certified Standing Orders of the company. The

alleged termination, which is punitive in nature is

bad and non-est for want of departmental enquiry

and therefore the Party I workers are entitled for

the reliefs claimed. In support of his contention, he

relied upon the cases of (i) Gujarat Steel Tubes

Ltd vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha &

Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 593; (ii) Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd.

vs. Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 469; (iii) Ananda Bazar

Patrika Ltd. vs. State, 2016 (3) CLR 192 and

(iv) Workmen of PMP Textiles vs. Management

(Writ Petition No. 13159 of 1998 dated 03-01-2011).

(v) Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd. vs Nashik

Workers Union and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 416.

19. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for

the Party II has submitted that the workmen have

not been conferred with the status of confirmed

workmen as it is clear from the appointment letters

that it is only for fixed period as trainees and

therefore the workmen who were trainees cannot

be called as workmen under Sec. 2(s) of Industrial

Disputes Act and the termination of the trainees

appointed for a fixed period will not be stigmatic

and therefore, no reliefs can be granted to the

Party I. He further submitted that a trainee in whose

appointment letter, it has been made clear that he

would not have lien for the employment in the

company after the completion of the training period

and was paid only stipend, would not be a

workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. He

further submitted that in the absence of employer-

employee relationship, the workmen are not

entitled to seek any relief from the principal

employer and any oral evidence of the workmen

against the documentary evidence produced by

the management is insufficient to prove its case. In

support of his contention, he relied upon the cases

of (i) Workmen, rep. by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

vs. Airport Authority of India, 2017 LLR 928;

(ii) Mahinder Singh vs. Indian Airlines Ltd., 2016

III CLR 862; (iii) Kalyani Sharp India, Ltd. vs.

Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior and another, 2001

(2) LLN 853; (iv) Escorts Limited vs. Presiding

Officer and another, (1997) 11 SCC 521;

(v) Management of M/s. Otis Elevator Co. (India)

Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III

& Anr., 2003 LLR 701; (vi) Nilesh Shivaji Sapkar,

Pune vs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary,

Labour Department Mantralya, Mumbai and

Others.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

20. Discernibly, the ‘workman’ is defined under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, unlike

the trainee and to decipher whether the person

employed is a ‘workman’ or merely a ‘trainee’ one

should not go by nomenclature attached to the

post, but the nature of the job, which is material.

The definition of workman in the Act of 1947 is an

inclusive definition. Every person employed in an

industry for a consideration would be considered

as a workman for the purposes of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 save and except the categories

of persons specified to be exempted from the

purview of such Section. To come within the

definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a person has to

establish that there is a relationship of master and

servant or in other words ‘Employer-Employee’

relationship. Such relationship must be for a

consideration. The consideration may be paid in

cash or in kind and the workman concerned should

be engaged in an industry. The nomenclature and

the period of the appointment are also immaterial.

All that a person needs to establish is that, an

Employer-Employee relationship or a master and

servant relationship coupled with a consideration.

21. Whereas, a ‘trainee’ is understood to mean

that, an employee is taken into employment for the

purpose of such person being trained in any trade

or profession or calling. User of the word ‘trainee’

does not take away anything from an Employer-

Employee relationship existing between the trainer

and the trainee. The issue as to whether a trainee

can be considered as a workman within the

provisions of Section 2(s) was considered in

Tungbhadra Sugar Works (P.) Ltd, supra. It has

been held that, any person including an apprentice

can be regarded as workman if he is employed in

any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual,

supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or

reward. In view of the above position of law and

the evidence led by the parties, the Party I is

required to establish a relationship of Employer-

Employee between the Party II and the Party I and

that persons concerned involved in the reference

were ‘workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2(s)

of the Act.

22. The Party I has claimed that they were

working independently in all the three shifts

operating various machines, doing skilled work on

perennial nature of work, for last more than two

years and due to harassment and violation of

provisions of various laws, they have joined the

Union and immediately after joining the Union, the

Party II started unfair labour practices and

thereafter issued illegal letters of termination. Shri

Puti Gaonkar who has been examined has also

stated that the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh had taken

up the issue as Party I workers have joined the

Union, the conciliation proceedings were held

before the Dy. Labour Commissioner but it ended

in failure. He also claimed that though the letters

of appointment mention that they were working as

trainee technicians, they were doing the work of

permanent workmen on all the three shifts in case

of male workers and that they were working on

production line independently and were operating

the machines. In the cross examination, he denied

the suggestion that the workers were never

harassed by the management or that the trainee

employee does not get right of permanency in the

services of Party II.

23. Shri Nityanand Kosmekar examined by Party

I has stated that he along with others were working

with the company since 19-3-2001 and he was

doing the work of operator on cartoon printing

machine. The workers were initially employed on

contract and thereafter taken on the roll of the

company. The other workers in the reference were

independently working in the shifts in various

departments like gelatin, medicament, drying, etc.

and were carrying out the normal production of

the factory in each shift in the said departments.

He also stated that normally female workers were

called in the first shift and the male workers in the

other three shifts and that they were forced to

work for 12 hours shifts without overtime wages at

twice the rate of normal wages. The workmen were

not given any facilities and the Party II continued

to implement several unfair labour practices for

years. The workmen were working independently

in the shifts since their joining and have worked

continuously on the permanent posts on all the

three shifts. He also claimed that since the workers

have joined the Union and have initiated the

agitation, the workmen mentioned in the reference

were illegally terminated.

24. Shri Nityanand in the cross examination has

admitted that as per the appointment letter, he

was appointed as a trainee technician with effect

from 1-8-2003 to 31-7-2004 and he signed the letter

and had accepted the terms and conditions of the

appointment. He also admitted that he had not

written any letter to the company even after

termination stating that he was wrongly appointed

or designated as a trainee. He denied the

suggestion that he was not working in the

permanent post and that his employment was a

trainee or that he had not worked as an operator

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

on cartoon printing machine on a permanent post.

He claimed that during his tenure with Party II, he

had worked only on cartoon printing machine and

blister packing machine. He denied the suggestion

that during his tenure he was being trained to

work on the said two machines. The fact that Shri

Kosmekar was working on the machines show that

they were involved in production. If the workers

were not working in production, the management

would have never alleged in the written statement

that they were involved in sabotaging their

products as it is clear that the workers working in

production and related activities only could have

access to the products.

25. The management has examined its Manager-

Engineering and Projects, Shri Walter Gonsalves.

He has stated that the Party I workmen were

appointed as Trainee technicians for the purpose

of training for a particular period and that their

services could be dispensed with by the company

even earlier to the training period at the discretion

of the management as per the appointment letters

issued to them. He also claimed that the workers

resorted to illegal strike without notice and

therefore their services were terminated. In the

cross examination, he stated that the products

which were produced by Party II were different

types of tablets and capsules and there were about

8-10 machines for manufacturing tablets and about

6 machines for manufacturing soft gelatin capsule.

He also stated that the blister packing was done

on machines and tablets are packed in strips and

then packed in boxes. He also admitted that in the

year 2004, the machines used for manufacturing

soft gelatins capsule was fully automatic and the

paste preparation machine was not automatic and

that the printing machine is also electrical machine

and polishing of capsule and printing is done only

of one batch at a time and that the manufacturing

of capsules and tablets is a continuous process.

26. Shri Walter also admitted that packers were

trained to put labels on shippers, cartoons, checking

of tablets, blisters and strips and the labels were

printed and pasted manually. He also stated that

the packing was done only in general shift and if

necessary in the second shift. The persons who are

employed as technicians were qualified

technicians and they were given training by the

company before giving them the job. He

volunteered to produce the documents to show

that the workers were given training, however no

such documents have been produced. The evidence

of Shri Walter Gonsalves show the nature of work

carried out by workmen and that they were

involved in production, packing, printing, etc. He

also admitted that the job of packer includes

feeding of tablet in a blister hopper, checking of

web for availability of tablet, bringing the tablet

drums to blister packing room, inspection of tablet

strip and packing of product and that different

packers are involved in doing the said functions. It

therefore cannot be believed that such detailed

production activities were carried out by mere

trainees. It is thus obvious that the management

has come up with false plea dubbing the workers

as trainees and has camouflaged their

appointments as trainees only to deny them the

benefits as the fact that the workers were working

in production as stated above were strong

indicator that they were not trainees but regular

workers as held in the case of Trambak Rubber

Industries Ltd., supra.

27. Moreover, one cannot lose sight of the fact

that for the purpose of Section 11-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the status of workmen is not relevant

as Section 2(s) uses the ‘expression’ any person,

but the only requirement is that the workmen must

be employed to do work which can be termed as

manual, skilled, etc. The evidence on record

including the cross examination of Walter

Gonsalves show the nature of work done by the

workmen concerned as all the workmen were either

packers, technicians, etc and were engaged in

production activities as it is impossible to believe

that only with 18 permanent employees as stated

by Shri Walter Gonsalves in para 4 of the affidavit,

the work of production was being carried out and

that the Party I workmen were given only training

by the trainers. Shri Walter Gonsalves has also

admitted in the cross examination that the Party II

does not have any training school, but they had

instructors who imparted training to those trainees

and he was one of them, but he does not recollect

the name of the other trainers. It is however not

specified in the written statement as to who the

trainers/trainees were and that Shri Walter

Gonsalves was one of the trainers.

28. Needless to mention, there is no evidence

on record that Party I workmen were considered

for any specific training. No material has been

produced to show that they were imparted any

training in packing department or they had done

any appraisal to verify the ability of the workmen

for absorbing them against the permanent vacancy.

The materials on record clearly suggest that

although the appointment letters of Party I were

couched as trainee technicians/packers, the terms

of the letter and the nature of work performed by

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

the Party I workmen show that they were employed

in the production department of Party II and that

they could be transferred to any department or

any place in India or abroad and were required to

work in shift duty as and when required unlike the

work of the trainee workmen. Moreover, there was

no trainer or the training schedule or a period of

evaluation of the so called training, which clearly

suggest that the Party I workmen were regular

employees.

29. The management also did not produce any

evidence or documents to suggest that there was

a trainer or trainers for Party I workmen and that

there was periodic evaluation of the said so called

training and quite on the contrary, the evidence

led by the parties and admitted by Shri Walter

Gonsalves establishes that the Party I workmen

were treated as regular employees. Shri Walter has

however denied that none of the employees

including the packers were given training by the

company and he volunteered to produce the

documents to show that the workers were given

training by the company. If the Party II had the

documents of the training of the employees,

nothing prevented the Party II to produce the said

documents as it is their case that Party I workmen

were their trainees as per the appointment letters

and therefore not workman under Section 2(s) of

the Act. The Party II therefore obligated to bring

on record materials showing that the workmen

were the trainees and that their services could

have been terminated without following the due

procedure of law.

30. It is an admitted fact that the management

issued termination letters along with payment of

legal dues at Exh. 25 to Exh. 38 colly. Needless to

mention, the termination of the Party I workers

was done prior to expiry of alleged training period

as per the termination letters. The termination

letters issued to the workmen show that they have

been given salary for the month of May, 2004,

leave encashment, one month notice pay and

retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, which clearly shows

that the Party I are the workmen as retrenchment

compensation are only paid to the workmen

defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. It is not the case of Party II that the said

compensation under Section 25-F has been paid

without prejudice to their contention that they are

not the workmen. If the Party I are not the workmen

as claimed by them and merely the trainees, there

is no question of payment of any legal dues to

them. The fact that the Party I workmen were

employed to do manual, semi-skilled or skilled work

like technician, packers etc as admitted by

Shri Walter and that they were paid the legal dues

in terms of law, negates the case of the

management that they are merely the trainees and

not the workmen. The contention of Ld. Adv. Shri

M. S. Bandodkar as stated above and the reliance

placed on the citations by him is not applicable to

the case at hand as they turned on their own facts.

31. It is well settled that the burden to prove a

particular fact is always on the person who alleges

the same and the burden can be discharged by

placing documentary evidence relied by him or

the evidence adduced by the other side. It is also

well settled that technical, formal and procedural

points have almost no place in industrial disputes

and the Tribunal should construe the reference in

the light of the backdrop against which it is made

and bring out the real dispute for its decision and

has to see whether on weighing the probabilities,

the materials placed by the Party, was acceptable

or rendered probable as held in the case of Delhi

Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., supra. A little

peep into the appointment letters produced on

record of the Party shows that the Party I workmen

were appointed as a Trainee technician/Trainee

packers in their factory for a period of one year

from 1-8-2003 to 31-7-2004 and if the performance

during the training period was unsatisfactory, the

training period could be extended further or

dispensed with earlier at the discretion of the

management and during the training period, they

would be paid stipend of Rs. 2,200/- per month.

32. Evidently, clauses (1) and (2) of the

appointment letters would indicate that the Party

I workmen were appointed as trainees, however

from clauses (3) and (4), it would indicate that the

said workmen were not the trainees as trainees are

not required to work in shift duties and the services

cannot be availed of any department in the

organization subject to exigencies of work and the

management cannot reserve right to transfer them

to any other plants or offices in India or abroad.

There is no justification as to why a trainee is

required to be transferred to other departments or

in their own plants elsewhere in India or abroad,

which is indication of fact that the workers are not

trainees and their appointment letters are a sham.

The above stipulations would clearly indicate that

they were employed as regular workmen and not

the trainees. If they were merely appointed as

trainees, there was no need for above stipulation

in the letters of appointment. The stipulation at

clauses (3) and (4) demonstrates that although in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

clause (1), the Party I workmen were designated as

‘trainees’ but for all practical purposes, the Party I

workmen were considered as regular employees

and the evidence establishes such a fact. It is well

settled in the case of Ananda Bazar Patrika Ltd.,

supra that when the appointment letters of the

trainees include a transfer clause, it suggest that

they were actually not trainees at all and that

their designation or nomenclature as trainees is

irrelevant. Moreover, the termination letters clearly

mention that Party I workmen were being given

salary and not stipend, which also show that the

management were treating the workers as regular

workmen and not trainees.

33. Discernibly, clause (6) of the appointment

letters of Party I show that on satisfactory

completion of the training, the workers could be

absorbed against the permanent vacancy, if any

and in that event they would be appointed as

probationers and a fresh appointment letter would

be issued to them. It is also stated in clause (7)

that they shall give an undertaking that all matters

connected with their work or any other formula,

process or information that may come to their

knowledge in the course of their employment shall

at all time be kept by them as strictly confidential

and they shall not disclose the same to any other

person or competitors directly or indirectly. The

above two clauses of appointment letters show

that they are entitled to be absorbed by the

company after satisfactory completion of the

training. The witness of the management however

stated that as Party I were appointed as trainees

technician/packers for a particular period, their

services could be dispensed with by the company

even earlier to the training period at the discretion

of the management as per their appointment letters.

No doubt, it is true that if the performance during

the training period is unsatisfactory, the training

period could be extended further or dispensed with

earlier.

34. The termination letters however do not show

that they have been discharged for non satisfactory

performance, but as per clause (1) they were

discharged as services are no more required, which

is dehors the stipulation contained in the

appointment letters. Discernibly, Clause (1) of the

appointment letters of the Party I clearly shows

that the services could be dispensed with earlier,

if the performance during the training period is

unsatisfactory. No performance appraisal has been

produced on record nor do termination letters

indicate that their performance during the training

period was not satisfactory. There is nothing on

record that unsatisfactory performance of the Party

was brought to the notice of the Party I workmen

prior to their termination. The ground for

termination only indicates that their services are

no more required, which is not in compliance with

clause (1) of the appointment letters. It is therefore

the termination of Party I on the said ground smack

of malafide and therefore cannot be sustained in

terms of law.

35. In short, the evidence on record therefore

clearly shows that the Party I workmen were all

employed as regular workmen by Party II, although

they were designated as ‘Trainees’ and were paid

‘stipend’ as per the appointment letters and ‘salary’

as per the termination letters. There was no training

at all given to them, as also there were no trainers

and though by nomenclature, the Party I workmen

were called trainee technicians/packers, as a

matter of fact they were all workmen involved in

production activities as admitted by witness of the

management, Shri Walter Gonsalves and the

workmen who were working in production

activities have to be termed as regular workmen

and not as trainees. The Party II has not produced

any documents including training schedule nor

any material on record to show that they were only

trainees and not regular employees. Merely because

the appointment letters have been couched as

trainees, one cannot go by nomenclature reflected

in the appointment letters, but the nature of job

undertaken by them. The Party II is involved in

production and the Party I workmen were engaged

in packing and other related works in the

production and therefore though they were called

trainees, the Party I workmen were involved in the

production activities and therefore they have to be

termed as regular employees. The Party II has

therefore failed to prove that the Party I workmen

were appointed as trainees as per training

agreement and as their performance was not

satisfactory, their agreements were terminated and

hence, the issue No. 4 is answered in the negative.

Issue No. 1:

36. There cannot be any dispute that the

provisions under Chapter V-B of the Industrial

Disputes Act, is applicable to an industrial

establishment in which not less than one hundred

workmen were employed on an average per

working day for the preceding twelve months and

if the employer intends to retrench any workmen,

he has to take prior permission of the Government

under Section 25-N of the Act. Learned Advocate

Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I has submitted that the

Party II was having more than 300 workmen on its

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

roll as stated in para 26 of the claim statement and

hence, Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act

is attracted. The Party II in para 25 of the written

statement has denied that the company is having

more than 300 workmen on its roll and that it has

only 18 permanent workmen, which is less than

minimum requirement to attract the provision.

Admittedly, the Party I has stated that the company

was employing more than 300 workmen which is

merely denied by Party II. The company could have

given the exact number of workers employed in

the establishment, but has merely stated that they

are having only 18 permanent workers. Section 2(s)

defines workman to mean ‘any person’ employed

in the industry and is not restricted to only

permanent workers. The company has not given

the number of workmen who were on probation or

temporaries or trainees, etc. It is therefore as rightly

submitted by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar that for

the purpose of Chapter V-B, all the workman

including on training, probation or temporaries

have to be counted, which the company failed to

specify. Mere denial amounts to admission. The

company has not specifically mentioned the

number of workmen and therefore, an adverse

inference has be drawn against the company.

37. The witness, Shri Nityanand Kosmekar has

stated at para 22 of the affidavit that Party I was

having more than 300 workmen on its roll. In the

cross examination, he has stated that all the

employees of Party II had joined the Union. There

were 25 permanent workers at the relevant time

and the rest of the workers were designated as

trainees. On page 12 of the cross examination, he

stated that about 200 employees had attended the

General Body Meeting on 30-5-2004 at Ponda and

the said 200 employees included permanent

employees, trainees, employees employed through

the Manpower Development Cell and the workers

of the contractors. The said fact has not been

denied by the management, which clearly shows

that there were more than 100 workers employed

by the company at that relevant time. The company

has not brought on record any documents to show

the number of workers employed by them. Shri

Walter Gonsalves in the cross examination has

stated that there were only 18 permanent workmen

but does not recollect as to how many of the 18

permanent employees were working as operators

and will verify the records to show the exact

number of employees working as operators,

technicians and packers during 2001 to 2004,

however no such records have been produced by

him as he later admitted that he does not have

such records. He also claimed that he does not

remember the total number of employees working

with Party II as on date, however the same should

be more than 100. It is thus the management has

deliberately withheld the relevant materials from

the Court regarding the number of workmen

employed and therefore adverse inference has to

be drawn against them to hold that there were

more than 100 workmen working with Party II and

therefore, Chapter V-B of the Act is applicable to

the case at hand.

38. Needless to mention, the Party II has violated

the provisions of Section 25-N, which are conditions

precedent to the retrenchment of the workmen,

according to which, the workman cannot be

retrenched until the workman is given three

months notice in writing indicating the reasons

for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in

lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice

and prior permission from the appropriate

Government has to be obtained. The termination

letters dated 26-5-2004 and 1-1-2004 show that the

workers have not been paid in terms of provisions

under Section 25-N of the Act. The said notices

show that the company has paid retrenchment

compensation under Section 25-F of the Act. The

Party I therefore have proved that the termination

of their services by Party II is in violation of Chapter

V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore,

issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

39. The Party II have alleged in para 3 of the

Written statement that Party I joined the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and immediately after joining, they

at the behest and instigation of the union leaders

started sabotaging the life saving drugs by mixing

different products while packing the said

medicines and since the act of the Party I was

dangerous and criminal in nature during the

training period, there was no point in continuing

their training and therefore, the first seven workers

were terminated from services w.e.f. 31-5-2004. It

was also stated that immediately after realizing

that the seven workers were terminated, the other

workers started non co-operation and went on mass

absenteeism without notice, which affected the

production of the company and before resorting to

strike, the said persons even sabotaged the

valuable machineries by removing critical parts

and hiding them, so that the production would be

hampered. They also threatened the other workmen

who were not associating with them and therefore

it was not possible for the company to continue

them in the premises as the company has lost

confidence in the said trainees, which would be

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

detrimental to the smooth functioning of the plant.

The said allegations are not reflected in the

termination letters nor there is anything on record

that the said allegations were brought to the notice

of the workers.

40. Be that as it may, the witness of the

management, Shri Walter has stated in para 8 of

the affidavit-in-evidence that the Party I workmen

sabotaged the life saving drugs by mixing the

different products while packaging the medicines.

He, however has not stated anything about

absenteeism, strike, threatening or loss of

confidence in the workmen. In the cross

examination, he has stated that he does not know

whether there was an attempt to sabotage in

packing department or whether the seven

workmen were called by Production Manager in

connection with the same. He admitted that no

memos were issued to the trainee technicians who

had allegedly sabotaged the life saving drugs by

mixing different products while packing and that

it is not mentioned in the termination letters that

the services were terminated because they had

sabotaged the life saving drugs. He claimed that

the company was not happy with the performance

of the trainees.

41. Shri Walter has also admitted that he does

not recollect the exact date on which sabotage of

life saving drugs was detected, but it was a week

prior to letters of termination issued to the trainees

and the drugs which were sabotaged are

paracetamol and metformin tablets and that the

said drugs were packed in blisters and blister

packing is done on machines and not manually

and the tablets are packed in strips. He also

admitted that packers involved in packing the final

product in boxes cannot mix the products. It is

therefore besides the fact that there is no evidence

of sabotage, strike, threats on the part of the

workmen, the said products cannot be sabotaged

in view of the fact that the Party I workmen were

involved in packing of the final products in boxes

and drugs are packed in strips on machines.

Moreover, there is no report that the so called life

saving drugs has been sabotaged by them as falsely

claimed by Party II.

42. There is no dispute that the services of Party

I workmen were terminated on the premise that

they sabotaged their products, involved in strike

and also threatened the co-workers, which fact

has remained unproved. It therefore reveals that

the alleged termination of the workers was punitive

in nature. There is no dispute that no domestic

enquiry was conducted into the alleged

misconducts committed by the Party I workmen.

Shri Walter Gonsalves has admitted on page 24 of

the cross examination that no departmental

enquiry was held against Party I workmen before

terminating their services. He has also stated that

Party I workmen were involved in sabotaging the

life saving drugs on instigation of the union leaders,

threatening the co-workers, etc. and therefore the

foundation of termination is based not on non-

satisfactory performance on the part of Party I

workmen, but on alleged ground of sabotage, strike,

threats, etc. by the workmen, which is in other

words mean that the foundation of termination is

punitive in nature. Once the foundation of

termination is punitive in nature, the employer

must conduct a domestic enquiry and in the

absence of enquiry, the termination has to be

termed as per se illegal and bad-in-law and

therefore cannot sustain as held in the case of

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., supra. It is therefore the

termination of the Party I workers without holding

domestic enquiry is illegal and unjustified. It is in

such circumstances, the issue No. 2 has to be

answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 3:

43. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for the Party II

has submitted that the entire reference is

bad-in-law and not maintainable as dates of

termination of the persons concerned as mentioned

in the order of reference is not correct. He further

submitted that the workmen at Sr. No. 1 to 7 were

terminated on 31-5-2004 but their date of

termination has been shown as 1-6-2004. The

workmen at Sr. 8 to 24 have been terminated on

25-6-2004 but the date of termination in the

reference has been shown as 26-6-2004. He

therefore submitted that there is formal defect and

the Labour Court lacks competence to correct,

modify, amend or alter the terms of reference or

correct the name or the date of termination, etc.

and in case it does so, the award becomes a nullity

being without jurisdiction, based on a bad

reference and in support of his contention, he relied

upon the case of Suresh Chandra vs. General

Manager, Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction

Corporation, 2002 (94) FLR 843.

44. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the

Party I has submitted and rightly so that in para 20

of the claim statement, it has been averred that all

the seven workers were issued letters of

termination on 1-6-2004. In para 23 of the claim

statement, it was also pleaded that thereafter, the

remaining 17 workmen were also terminated on

26-6-2004 as they participated in the peaceful and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

legal strike. Shri Puti Gaonkar has also stated that

Miss Deepa Chari and other 6 workers were

terminated on 31-5-2004 and thereafter they were

issued notice for payment of legal dues on

1-6-2004. The date of termination in the reference

has been shown as 1-6-2004 for first 7 workers and

26-6-2004 for remaining 17 workers. The date of

termination and the letter of payment of dues have

different dates. The Party II has not proved that

workmen received letters of termination on

31-5-2004 or 25-6-2004 respectively as the letters

could have been backdated and issued to the

workmen. In any event, the Hon’ble High Court in

the case of Sheshrao Bhaduji Hatwar vs. P.O., First

Labour Court & Ors., (1992) I LLJ 672 Bom has

clearly held that technical, formal and procedural

points have almost no place in industrial disputes

and indeed it is the duty of the Courts and

Tribunals to discourage ingenuity on such points

and to adjudicate the controversy on merits as

many a times the reference is cryptic and vague

and is not properly worded and therefore in such

cases, it is the duty of adjudicating authority to

examine the pleadings, documents, etc. and to

locate the exact nature of dispute.

45. Moreover, in the case of Delhi Cloth &

General Mills Co. Ltd., supra it has been held by

the Apex Court that the formal defects have no

meaning and have to be ignored by the Tribunal

adjudicating the dispute. The order of reference

should be liberally construed and the reference

cannot be rendered incompetent merely because

there is a typographical error in the form of dates

of termination and it is permissible for the Tribunal

to construe the reference in the light of backdrop

against which it is made and to bring out the real

dispute for its decision. The date of termination of

the first 7 workmen as per the reference is 1-6-2004

and the remaining workmen as 26-6-2004, which is

actually the date of notice of payment of legal

dues. It is also not explained by Party II that the

Party I workmen received the date of termination

on 31-5-2004 and 25-6-2004 respectively as

mentioned in the letters of termination. In any

event, the said difference in one day of the date of

termination is merely a formal, technical and

procedural defect, which cannot be used to render

the reference incompetent as rightly submitted by

Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Party I workmen.

It is therefore, the submission of Ld. Adv. Shri M.

S. Bandodkar and the reliance placed in the case

of Suresh Chandra, supra pales into insignificance.

It is therefore, the issue No. 3 is answered in the

negative.

Issue Nos. 5 & 6:

46. Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Party I has

submitted that once it is held that termination is

in violation of principles of natural justice and

violation of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes

Act, the ordinary relief has to be reinstatement

with full back wages and continuity in service as

observed in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase

vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya

(D.ED) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324. He further

submitted that on question of back wages, it is

clear that the management has not come forward

to show that the said workers were employed

anywhere. The said workers were actually involved

in production and related activities and therefore

are entitled for reinstatement with full back wages.

Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar has

submitted that the Party I workmen at the most

would be entitled for stipend upto 31-7-2004 from

the last date of termination and not any other relief.

The management has already paid the Party I

workmen the compensation in terms of law. There

was no lien of Party I workmen over the

employment, which has been legally terminated.

The Party I workmen were not permanent workmen

but merely trainees and the relief of reinstatement

would be granted only if the workmen are

permanent and they have been illegally terminated

and therefore, Party I workmen are not entitled for

any relief.

47. The question therefore is what reliefs the

Party I is entitled to, once it is held that the

discharge/termination is illegal, whether the

Party I is entitled for re-instatement with full

back wages and continuity in service with

consequential benefits attached to the post or

adequate monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages.

48. It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble

Apex Court that relief by way of reinstatement

with back wages is not automatic, even if

termination of an employee is found to be illegal or

is in contravention of the prescribed procedure

and that monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages in cases of such

nature may be appropriate. It is also well settled

that the Court in appropriate cases grant

compensation in lieu of reinstatement keeping in

view the length of service rendered by a workman,

the wages that he was receiving during that

period, which would meet the ends of justice and

one can safely rely upon the cases, namely (i) State

Brassware Corpn. Ltd & Anr. vs. Uday Narain

Pandey, 2006 I CLR 39 S.C.; (ii) Uttaranchal Forest

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

Development Corpn. Vs. M. C. Joshi, 2007 III

CLR 84 SC; (iii) State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Lalit

Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; (iv) Madhya

Pradesh Administration vs. Tribhuban, 2007 II

CLR 694 SC; (v) Sita Ram & Ors. vs. Moti Lal

Nehru Farmers Training Institute, 2008 II CLR

763 SC; (vi) Jaipur Development Authority vs.

Ramsahai & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 684; (vii)

Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. vs.

Ashok Kumar & Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 261 and (viii)

Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula

& Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 575. (ix) Bhavnagar Municipal

Corporation etc. vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha

& Anr., 2014 (8) Supreme 353.

49. In the instant case, the appointment letters

of Party I workmen show that they were appointed

w.e.f. 1-8-2003 to 31-7-2004 and were discharged

during the course of said term. The said letters

also show that they were appointed for a particular

period and the same was admitted by Shri

Nityanand Kosmekar. The letters of appointment

as well as letters of termination issued to the

Party I workmen indicate that they worked for a

period of 10 months only and that the said

termination had taken place about 14 years ago

and were paid salary, leave encashment, one month

notice pay and retrenchment compensation in

terms of Section 25-F of the Act and therefore,

relief of reinstatement and back wages to them

would not be justified. However, considering that

the Party II has violated provision of Chapter V-B of

the Act, so also the nature of appointment, the

length of service in terms of the appointment letters

and the time taken to settle the dispute, ends of

justice would be met, if the Party I workmen

are paid a lumpsum monetary compensation of

Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only)

for each workman, which would be just, proper

and equitable in the facts and circumstances of

the case. Hence, the above issues are answered

accordingly.

50. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The present reference stands partly

allowed.

ii. It is hereby held that the action of the

management of M/s. Glenmark Laboratories

Private Limited, Verna, in terminating the

services of above mentioned workmen is

illegal and unjustified.

iii. The Party II is directed to pay monetary

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One

lakh fifty thousand only) for each workman

within 60 days of the publication of the

Award, failing which the Party II shall pay

an interest @ 9% per annum.

iv. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

Order

2/1/2001-PER (Part.IV)/970

Read: (1) Order No. 2/1/2001-PER (Part-IV) dated

31-03-2016.

(2) Corrigendum No. 2/1/2001-PER (Part-IV)

dated 12-10-2016.

(3) Order No. 2/1/2001-PER (Part-IV)/882

dated 31-03-2017.

The appointment of Shri Shamsundar Govind

Korgaonkar as Ombudsman made vide order read

at (1) in preamble and extended vide order at (3)

in preamble, is further extended for a period of

three months w.e.f. 01-04-2018 to 30-06-2018 in

terms of Clause (b) on sub-rule (2) 3 of the Goa

Government Employees (Redressal of Grievances

Forum) Scheme, 2001 as amended.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 29th March, 2018.

________

Order

No. 6/9/2009-PER/Part IV/984

Consequent upon retirement on superannuation

of Smt. Pushpalata Arlekar, Chief Executive Officer,

Khadi and Village Industries Board, Shri Meghnath

Porob, Director of Small Savings & Lotteries, shall

hold the charge of the post of Chief Executive Officer,

Khadi and Village Industries Board in addition to

his own duties w.e.f. 01-04-2018 until further orders.

Smt. Arlekar shall draw her retirement benefits

from the post of Leave & Training Reserve as she

superannuated from ex-cadre post.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 29th March, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

Notification

No. 15/22/96-PER/Part-II/968

In accordance with the Recruitment Rules for

the post of Block Development Officer, notified vide

Notification No. 1/25/87-PER (Pt. II) dated 06-02-2013

published in the Official Gazette, Series I No. 46

dated 14-02-2013 and in accordance with sub-rule

(2) of Rule 2 of the Goa (Departmental Examination

for the Block Development Officers) Rules, 1999,

notified under Notification No. 15/22/96-PER-Part I

dated 04-10-1999 and published in the Official

Gazette, Series I No. 30 dated 21-10-1999, the

schedule for the Departmental Examination for

Block Development Officers shall be as under:–

Date of

Morning Session

Evening Session

Examination

10.00 a.m. to

2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.

1.00 p.m.

12-05-2018

Paper (I)

Paper (II)

The syllabus for the said examination shall be in

accordance to the Goa (Departmental Examination

for the Block Development Officers) Rules, 1999,

notified under Notification No. 15/22/96-PER-Part I

dated 04-10-1999 and published in the Official

Gazette, Series I No. 30 dated 21-10-1999 and the

Goa (Departmental Examination for the Block

Development Officers (First amendment) Rules,

2011, notified under Notification No. 15/22/96-PER/

/Part I dated 27-07-2011 and published in the

Official Gazette, Series I No. 21 dated 25-08-2011.

The Examination shall be held in the Goa

College of Pharmacy, Panaji-Goa.

The following Officers in the Cadre of Block

Development Officer shall appear for the

Examination and answer the papers as shown

against their names, on the above mentioned date

and time.

Sr. No.

Name of the Officer

Papers

Shri Manesh Hari Kedar

Shri Shrikant Babi Pednekar

Shri Milindra Ganesh Velip

I and II

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 29th March, 2018.

Addendum

No. 22/8/2005-PER/967

Read: Order No. 22/8/2005-PER dated 19-03-2018.

In the order read in preamble, after third para,

following para shall be added:–

On joining of Shri Vishram U. Borkar, S. P. as ADC

to Hon’ble Governor of Goa, Shri Gajanan V. P. Desai,

Dy. S.P. shall report to the office of Director General

of Police for further posting with immediate

effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 29th March, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

Order

No. 4/14/2003-II/PHD/Vol.XVIII/742

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/12/30(1)/2018/1085 dated 26-02-2018, the

Government is pleased to declare satisfactorily

completion of probation period as well as

confirmation of following doctors, Department of

Anaesthesiology, Goa Medical College as having

satisfactorily completed their probation period of

two years as mentioned against their names, and

to confirm them in the post of Assistant Lecturer

in Anaesthesiology (ICU) in the Department of

Anaesthesiology in Goa Medical College, Bambolim,

with effect from the date of completion of their

probation period:-

Sr.

Name of the

Date of comple-

Post in which

No.

doctor

tion of probation

confirmed

period

1. Dr. Smita Gaude

18-08-2015

Assistant

Lecturer.

2. Dr. Apurva Kamat

14-10-2015

Assistant

Lecturer.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 22nd March, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

Order

No. 44/2/2017-I/PHD/816

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/12/24(1)/2018/1084 dated 26-02-2018, the

Government is pleased to declare satisfactorily

completion of probation period as well as

confirmation of following Officers under Directorate

of Health Services as having satisfactorily

completed their probation period of two years as

mentioned against their names, and to confirm them

in the post of Chief Biochemist under Directorate

of Health Services, with effect from the date of

completion of their probation period:-

Sr.

Name of the

Date of comple-

Post in which

No.

officer

tion of probation

confirmed

period

1. Smt. Seema Palav,

20-12-2003

Chief Bioche-

Chief Biochemist

mist.

2. Smt. Gauri P. S.

29-06-2014

Chief Bioche-

Varde, Chief

mist.

Biochemist

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 22nd March, 2018.

________

Order

No. 44/23/2012-I/PHD/856

Read: Order No. 44/23/2012-I/PHD/1295 dated

21-7-2017.

Government is pleased to accept the resignation

tendered by Dr. Sarika Verenkar, Medical Officer

under Directorate of Health Services and to relieve

her from the post of Medical Officer under

Directorate of Health Services with effect from

27-10-2016 (f.n.).

This is issued in supersession to the earlier Order

referred above.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary

(Health-II).

Porvorim, 26th March, 2018.

Order

No. 44/34/2017-I/PHD/888

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/11/24(1)/2018/1105 dated 08-03-2018,

Government is pleased to promote Dr. Datta Hari

Bhat, Homeopathic Physician to the post of Deputy

Director (AYUSH) under the Directorate of Health

Services on regular basis in the Level 11 of

Pay Matrix [Rs. 15600-39100+GP: Rs. 6600/-

(pre-revised)] and other allowances to be fixed as

per rules with immediate effect.

The promotion is made against the vacancy

occurred due to creation of the post of Deputy

Director (AYUSH) vide Order No. 24/4/2013-II/PHD

dated 14-01-2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary

(Health).

Porvorim, 29th March, 2018.

________

Order

No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD (Part)/899

Read: Letter No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD dated 27-08-2014.

Approval of the Government is hereby conveyed

for re-designation of the posts of ‘Lecturer’ to that

of “Assistant Professor” in the Institute of Nursing

Education under the Directorate of Health Services,

subject to the condition that the pay scales, duties,

required qualification of both the posts are equal

and also their hierarchy, promotional avenues, mode

of recruitment/selection are same.

This issues with the recommendation of the

Administrative Reforms Department vide their U.O.

No. 911/F dated 23-07-2014 and also with the

concurrence of the Finance (Rev. & Cont.)

Department vide their U.O. No. 1497104 dated

20-03-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary

(Health).

Porvorim, 29th March, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

Order

No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD/866

The following Officers shall draw their salaries for the period as mentioned against the post indicated

at column No. 3, created vide Order No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD dated 30-05-2016:-

Sr.

Name & designation

Salary to be drawn against the

For the month of

No.

post of created vide Order No. & date

Smt. Carol Noronha, Principal,

Professor vide No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD

April, 2018 & from May,

Institute of Nursing Education

dated 30-05-2016

2018 onwards against

the regular post.

Ms. Ana Rauto D’Souza,

Professor vide No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD

April, 2018 & from May,

Associate Professor

dated 30-05-2016

2018 onwards against

the regular post.

Smt. Flossy Rita Rodrigues,

Associate Professor vide No. 22/5/

For the month of

Lecturer

/2013-I/PHD dated 30-05-2016

April, 2018 only.

Shri Wilson N. Fernandes,

-do-

Lecturer

Ms. Shashilata Yadav,

-do-

Lecturer

Ms. Ana Maria Josephine

-do-

Vaz e Braganza, Lecturer

For the post of Assistant Professor, as under:-

Smt. Flossy Rita Rodrigues,

Assistant Professor vide No. 22/5/

May, 2018 & from June,

Lecturer

/2013-I/PHD dated 30-05-2016

2018 onwards against

the regular post.

Shri Wilson N. Fernandes,

-do-

Lecturer

Ms. Shashilata Yadav, Lecturer

-do-

Ms. Ana Maria Josephine

-do-

Vaz e Braganza, Lecturer

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 27th March, 2018.

________

Order

No. 1/44/2017-II/PHD/855

The Government order issued vide No. 1/44/2017-

/II/PHD dated 20-02-2018 appointing Dr. Anar

Khandeparkar, Associate Professor, Department of

Medicine, Goa Medical College as the Professor and

Head of Department of Department of Emergency

Medicine, Casualty and Trauma, Goa Medical

College proposed to be set up stands “cancelled”

with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 2nd April, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 1

5TH APRIL, 2018

Order

No. 48/3/2017-I/PHD/931

Sanction of the Secretary (Health) is hereby

conveyed for continuation of temporary Group

“A” and “B” posts under Directorate of Health

Services for a period of one year w.e.f. 01-03-2018 to

28-02-2019, as per the enclosed Annexure “A” and “B”.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health)/link.

Porvorim, 2nd April, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Revenue

Order

No. 26/2/98-RD (Part-II)/558

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee conveyed by the Goa Public

Service Commission, vide its letter No. COM/II/11/

/29(1)/2017/1107 dated 08-03-2018, Government is

pleased to promote Ms. Domiana D. Nazareth, ISLR,

Directorate of Settlement and Land Records to the

post of SSLR (Group “B” Gazetted) on regular basis

in the Pay Scale of ` 9,300-34,800+Grade Pay of

` 4,600/- (Level 7 of the 7th Pay Commission), with

immediate effect.

Ms. Domiana D. Nazareth shall also exercise

option for pay fixation within a period of one month

from the date of issue of this order, in terms of F.R.

22(I)(a)(1).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 22nd March, 2018.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 20.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—03/200–04/2018.