Panaji, 7th June, 2018 (Jyaistha 17, 1940)
SERIES II No. 10
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Order
.
No. 2/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol.II/52
Government is pleased to order the transfer of the following Agriculture Officers/Zonal Agriculture
Officers, Group “B” Gazetted of this Department to the offices indicated below against their names with
immediate effect:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Place of present posting
Place of posting on transfer
No.
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Kishore Bhave
Agriculture Officer (extension),
As Zonal Agriculture Officer, Bicholim
Directorate of Agriculture, Tonca,
in place of Shri Pradeep Malik, transferred.
Caranzalem
2. Shri Pradeep Malik
Zonal Agriculture Officer, Bicholim,
As Zonal Agriculture Officer, Tiswadi in
Zonal Agriculture Office, Bicholim
place of Shri Audhut Sawant, transferred.
3. Shri Audhut Sawant
Zonal Agriculture Officer, Tiswadi,
As Agriculture Officer (extension),
Zonal Agriculture Office, Tiswadi
Directorate of Agriculture, Tonca,
Caranzalem in place of Shri Kishore
Bhave, transferred.
4. Shri Pramod Joshi
Agriculture Officer (North-I),
As Agriculture Officer (Training), Farmers
District Agriculture Office, North,
Training Centre, Ela, Old Goa in place
Tonca-Caranzalem
of Smt. Rouchelle Fernandes, transferred.
5. Smt. Rouchelle
Agriculture Officer (Training),
As Agriculture Officer (North-I), District
Fernandes
Farmers Training Centre, Ela,
Agriculture Office, North, Tonca-
Old Goa
Caranzalem in place of Shri Pramod Joshi,
transferred.
6. Smt. Vaibhavi Dessai
Agriculture Officer (South-I),
As Agriculture Officer (North-II), District
District Agriculture Office, South
Agriculture Office, North against the
vacant post last held by Smt. Kameshwari
Raikar.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
185
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Note:-
There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 9 dated 31-05-2018 namely, Extraordinary
dated 05-06-2018 from pages 183 to 184 regarding Orders from Department of Elections.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
186
The above officers shall stand relieved from their respective posts w.e.f. 31-05-2018 (a.n.). They
shall hand over the charge to the respective link officer and proceed for joining their new postings
w.e.f. 01-06-2018.
No joining time will be allowed in case there is no change of residence.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 29th May, 2018.
________
Order
.
No. 2/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol.II/53
Government is pleased to order the transfer of the following Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Group “A” Gazetted of this Department to the offices indicated below against their names with immediate
effect:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Place of present posting
Place of posting on transfer
No.
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Satej G. Kamat
Asst. Director of Agriculture (Farms),
Against the vacant post of Asst. Director
Directorate of Agriculture, Tonca-
of Agriculture (extension), Directorate of
Caranzalem
Agriculture, Tonca-Caranzalem.
2. Shri Rajesh Dessai
Asst. Director of Agriculture (FT),
Asst. Director of Agriculture (Farms),
Farmers Training Centre,
Directorate of Agriculture, Tonca-
Ela, Old Goa
Caranzalem in place of Shri Satej G.
Kamat, with additional charge of Asst.
Director of Agriculture (FT), Ela, Old Goa.
Shri Rajesh Dessai, Assistant Director of Agriculture shall also look after the duties of Assistant
Director of Agriculture (FT), Ela, Old Goa on every Tuesday and Thursday, until further orders.
The above officers shall stand relieved from their respective posts w.e.f. 31-05-2018 (a.n.). They shall
hand over the charge to the respective link officer and proceed for joining their new postings w.e.f. 01-
06-2018.
No joining time will be allowed in case there is no change of residence.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 29th May, 2018.
________
Order
.
No. 2/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol.II/54
Government is pleased to order the transfer of the following Assistant Agriculture Officers,
Group “B” Gazetted of this Department to the offices indicated below against their names with immediate
effect:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Place of present posting
Place of posting on transfer
No.
1
2
3
4
1. Smt. Sampatti U.
Asst. Agriculture Officer, Zonal
Zonal Agriculture Office, Pernem against
Dhargalkar
Agriculture Office, Mapusa
the vacant post under B.H 2401–00–105–
–02 (NP).
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
187
2. Shri Sohan Uskaikar
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Zonal Agriculture Office, Mapusa in place
Zonal Agriculture Office, Pernem
of Smt. Sampatti U. Dhargalkar, transferred.
3. Shri Nilesh K.
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
District Agriculture Office, North in place
Vaigankar
Zonal Agriculture Office, Mapusa
of Smt. Pallavi R. Shetye, transferred.
4. Smt. Pallavi Rudresh
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Zonal Agriculture Office, Mapusa in place
Shetye
District Agriculture Office,
of Shri Nilesh K. Vaigankar, transferred.
North
5. Dr. Govind Parab
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Farmers Training Centre, Ela, Old Goa, in
Zonal Agriculture Office, Valpoi
place of Smt. Sonia Mote, transferred.
6. Smt. Nilima Y.
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Zonal Agricultural Office, Valpoi in place
Gawas
Zonal Agricultural Office,
of Dr. Govind Parab, transferred.
Bicholim
7. Smt. Shruti S.
Farm Manager, Krishi Vigyan
Zonal Agricultural Office, Bicholim in
Dhupkar
Kendra, South Goa District
place of Smt. Nilima Y. Gawas, transferred.
8. Shri Agresh
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Farm Manager, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, South
Shirodkar
Zonal Agricultural Office, Quepem
in place of Smt. Shruti S. Dhupkar,
transferred.
9. Shri Mahendra
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Zonal Agricultural Office, Quepem in
Pagi
Zonal Agricultural Office,
place of Shri Agresh Shirodkar, transferred.
Canacona
10. Shri Kirtiraj Naik
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Zonal Agriculture Office, Canacona in
Gaonkar
District Agriculture Office, South
place of Shri Mahendra Pagi, transferred.
11. Shri Vishwanath
Assistant Agriculture Officer,
Zonal Agriculture Office, Satari against the
Gawas
Zonal Agricultural Office, Ponda
vacant post under Budget Head 2401–00–
–001–02 (NP)–01 vacated by Shri Yeshwant
K. Gawas w.e.f. 31-07-2017.
12. Shri Krishnanath
Asst. Agriculture Officer, Extension
Zonal Agricultural Office, Ponda in place
B. Naik
Section, Directorate of Agricul-
of Shri Vishwanath Gawas, transferred.
ture, Tonca-Caranzalem
13. Kum. Gauri
Asst. Agriculture Officer, Zonal
District Agricultural Office, South in place
Prabhudessai
Agricultural Office, Sanguem
of Shri Kirtiraj Naik Goankar, transferred.
14. Kum. Sonia Mote
Asst. Agriculture Officer, Farmers
Extension Section, Directorate of Agricul-
Training Centre, Ela, Old Goa
ture, Tonca-Caranzalem in place of Shri
Krishnanath B. Naik, transferred.
15. Smt. Siddhi S.
Asst. Agriculture Officer,
Zonal Agriculture Office, Sanguem in
Prabhu Gaonkar
Government Agriculture Farm,
place of Kum. Gauri Prabhudessai,
Kalay
transferred.
The above officers shall stand relieved from their respective posts w.e.f. 31-05-2018 (a.n.). They
shall hand over the charge to the respective link officer and proceed for joining their new postings
w.e.f. 01-06-2018.
Smt. Siddhi S. Prabhu Gaonkar, Assistant Agriculture Officer shall not be entitled for joining period
and TA/DA as transfer is as per her request.
No joining time will be allowed in case there is no change of residence.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 29th May, 2018.
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
188
Department of Civil Aviation
Directorate of Civil Aviation
__
Order
.
No. DOCA/EST/OSD(TECH)/21/2016-17/142
Read: Order No. DOCA/EST/OSD(TECH)/
/21/2016-17/213 dated 14th June, 2017.
Order No. DOCA/EST/OSD(TECH)/
/21/2016-17/690 dated 18th December,
2017.
Appointment of Commander Gurprit Pal Singh
Bajwa (Rtd.) as OSD (Technical) on contract basis
in the Directorate of Civil Aviation is hereby
extended for a period of five months from
20-05-2018 to 31-10-2018. His monthly remuneration
will be in terms of C.C.S. (fixation of pay of
re-employed pensioners) Order, 1986 as well
as the instruction contained on the Personnel
Department’s OM No. 10/1/77-PER dated 24-6-2015.
The expenditure shall be debited to the Budget
Head 3053–Civil Aviation; 02–Airport; 800–Other
Expenditure; 01–Establishment of Airport Cell
(Plan); 01–Salaries under Demand No. 84 (Civil
Aviation).
This issues with the approval of Personnel
Department vide U.O. No. 1487/F dated 30-04-2018,
approval of the Finance (R&C) Department vide
U.O./FMS No. 1400031668 dated 21-05-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Dr. S. Shanbhogue, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Civil Aviation).
Porvorim, 31st May, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Elections
Goa State Election Commission
—
Notification
No. 4/18/Bye-Elec/MCS/2018-SEC/543
In exercise of the powers conferred on me under
Section 36 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, I,
R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), Goa State Election
Commissioner, hereby appoint the Mamlatdar/R.O.
of Sanguem Taluka as the “Requisitioning Authority”
and authorize him to requisition premises, vehicles
etc. for the purpose of bye-election to Ward No. IX
of Sanguem Municipal Council in Sanguem Taluka.
R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), Commissioner
(Goa State Election Commission).
Panaji, 04th June, 2018.
Department of Industries
__
Corrigendum
No. 3/67/2006-IND
Read: Notification No. 3/67/2006-IND/151 dated
10th May, 2018.
In the Notification referred in preamble cited
above, at Sr. No. 1 the word “Director” shall be
substituted to read as “Chairperson”.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 29th May, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
—
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/351
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa on 06-04-2018 in reference
No.LC-II/C-IT/01/2017 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, 30th May, 2018.
_________
LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar,
Hon’ble Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/C-IT/01/2017
Shri Vinayak Kolhe,
Rep. by the Gen. Secretary,
Kadamba Kamgar Union,
Panaji, Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Paraisa-de-Goa,
Alto Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal.
Panaji, Dated: 06-04-2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
189
AWARD
1. This award shall disposed off the Complaint
dated 29-11-2016 filed by the Workman u/s 33-A of
the I.D. Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the Workman in short that he
is working as ‘conductor’ and presently posted at
Vasco depot. He stated that he raised a dispute
pertaining to disparity in his pay fixation before
the ALC, Panaji, Goa, which ended in failure and
failure report was sent to the appropriate
Government. He stated that pursuant to which,
the Appropriate Government referred the reference
in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10
(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for its adjudication before
this Labour Court II. He stated that the said
reference was registered as LC-II/IT/08/15. He
stated that pursuant to the notice issued to the
parties, the Employer has appeared and filed its
written statement duly verified by its Managing
Director. He stated that during the pendency of
the aforesaid reference before this Labour Court II,
the Personnel Manager, by his order dated
18-11-2016 recommended the name of the Workman
for grant of second financial up-gradation in the
pay band of Rs. 5200-20200+2800 grade pay under
the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme.
He stated that by the said order, the basic pay of
the Applicant is fixed at Rs. 9750+2800 grade pay
w.e.f. 01-09-2008 notionally and monetary benefits
from 20-09-2016. He stated that the said order dated
18-11-2016 further stated that on implementation
of the MACP Scheme, the arrears would be paid to
the workman w.e.f. 20-09-2016 only after receipt of
funds from the Government. He stated that by
passing the said order dated 18-11-2016, the
Personnel Manager has violated the service
conditions applicable to the Workman and
therefore liable for the violation of the service
conditions.
3. He stated that he was issued a charge-sheet
dated 26-04-2007, wherein Shri M.V. Pednekar, ADM
was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri Vinayak
Naik, ATS was appointed as Presenting Officer. He
stated that the enquiry was kept in cold storage
without any hearing from 2007. He stated that
suddenly the Employer resurrected the old issue
by issuing an order dated 09-09-2014 by which an
enquiry was re-opened and the Workman was
imposed with the punishment of fine of Rs. 2000/-.
He submitted that the enquiry was conducted in
flagrant violation of principles of natural justice.
He stated that he appeared before the Enquiry
Officer. He stated that his statement was also
recorded before recording the evidence of the
management. He stated that it was imperative for
the Enquiry Officer to direct the management to
produce evidence and thereafter, the Workman had
to produce the evidence in rebuttal.
4. He stated that however, in the instant case
the Workman was called for enquiry and the same
was closed within one day and a penalty was
imposed by putting a fine of Rs. 2000/- vide order
dated 20-09-2016 and he was made eligible for the
recommendation of the second up-gradation under
the MACP Scheme. He therefore submitted that
the complaint be allowed and this Hon’ble Court
be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated
20-09-2016 by which a penalty of Rs. 2000/- was
imposed. The Workman further prayed to initiate
appropriate proceedings against the Personnel
Manager of the Employer for alteration of service
conditions in violations of the MACP Scheme
during the pendency of the dispute before the
Labour Court II.
5. The Employer resisted the complaint by filing
its reply on 14-06-2017 at Exb. 6. The Employer, as
and by way of its preliminary objections, submitted
that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as
there is no alteration of service conditions as
alleged by the complainant and that what is
referred for adjudication is not a complaint as
defined u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act.
6. The Employer stated that it is a Government
Company registered under Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956. The Employer stated that it
is a State transport undertaking under the purview
of the Motor Transport Act, 1988. The Employer
admitted that the Workman is working as
‘conductor’ in its service. The Employer admitted
that the dispute in a reference bearing No. IT/08/15
was raised by the General Secretary, Kadamba
Kamgar Union vide its letter dated 14-08-2014
regarding non-implementation of 2nd up-gradation
under the MACP Scheme to the Workman by them.
The Employer stated that the matter was referred
for conciliation which ended in failure on
11-12-2014. The Employer stated that as per para
15 of the said MACP Scheme if the financial
up-gradation under MACP Scheme is deferred and
not allowed after 10 years in a grade pay, due to
the reasons of the employee being unfit or due to
the departmental proceedings etc. this would have
consequential effect on the subsequent financial
up-gradation which would also differed to the
extent of delay in the first financial up-gradation.
The Employer stated that there were three
departmental enquiries pending against the
Complainant, one vide charge-sheet No. 127 dated
18-05-1996, second charge-sheet No. 789 dated
28-08-2001 and third charge-sheet No. 158 dated
26-04-2007. The Employer stated that the MACP
Schemes are given in the circular dated
27-11-2012, wherein the eligibility for granting
MACP is considered. The Employer stated that
since the enquiries in all the aforesaid charge-
-sheets were pending against the Complainant,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
190
financial up-gradation in the scale was differed by
them. The Employer stated that on completion of
the enquiry into the charge-sheet No. 127 dated
18-05-1996, order dated 11-04-2016 was issued to
the complainant imposing a penalty of Rs. 2500/-.
The Employer stated that similarly on completion
of enquiry into the charge-sheet No.789 dated
28-08-2001, an order dated 10-05-2016 was issued
imposing a fine of Rs. 2000/- and into the charge-
-sheet No. 158 dated 26-04-2007, an order dated
20-09-2016 was issued imposing a penalty by way
of fine of Rs. 2000/-. The Employer stated that after
the disposing off the departmental enquiries
against the complainant his case for second
financial up-gradation in the MACP was placed
before the departmental screening committee and
the departmental screening committee was
pleased to recommend the complainant for grant
of second financial up-gradation and accordingly
an order dated 18-11-2016 was issued to him. The
Employer submitted that issuance of order dated
18-11-2016, thereby granting benefits to the
complainant does not amounts to alteration of his
service conditions to the prejudice of the
complainant. The Employer therefore submitted
that the complainant is therefore not entitled to
any relief as claimed in the complaint and the
complaint is liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable. The Employer denied the overall case
as pleaded by the complainant and prayed for
dismissal of the present complaint.
7. Thereafter an opportunity was given to the
complainant to file his rejoinder to the written
statement filed by the Employer. However, Ld. Adv.
Shri A. Kundaikar representing the Workman
submitted that he does not wish to file any
re-joinder.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties’ hereinabove, this Labour Court II framed
the following issues on 24-07-2017 at Exb. 7.
1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the Employer contravened the provisions of
Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 pending a
reference bearing No. LC-II/IT/08/15 before
this Labour Court II?
2. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present complaint filed by the Workman
is liable to be dismissed in view of the
reasons stated in para 2 (a) and (b) as well
as para 10 of its written statement?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
4. What order? What Award?
9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
:
In the affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 3 and 4
:
As per final order.
REASONS
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri
A. Kundaikar, appearing for the Workman as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal, appearing for the
Employer.
10. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, appearing for the
complainant, during the course of his oral
arguments submitted that the complainant is
working as conductor and presently posted at Vasco
depot. He submitted that the complainant had
raised a dispute pertaining to disparity in his pay
fixation before the ALC, Panaji, Goa, which ended
in failure. He submitted that pursuant to the failure
report submitted to the Appropriate Government,
it has issued a reference u/s 10 (1) (d) of the I. D.
Act, 1947 for its adjudication to the Labour Court
II. He submitted that after receipt of the reference,
the Labour Court II registered the said reference
as LC-II/IT/08/15 and due notice was issued to the
parties. He submitted that pursuant to the notice
issued to them, the Employer filed its written
statement duly verified by its managing director.
He submitted that during the pendency of the
aforesaid reference, the Personnel Manager of the
Employer issued an order dated 18-11-2016, by
which the complainant was granted second
up-gradation in the pay band of Rs. 5200-
20200+2800 grade pay under the MACP Scheme
and his pay was fixed at Rs. 9750+Rs. 2800/- grade
pay w.e.f. 01-09-2008 notionally and monetary
benefits from 20-09-2016. He submitted that by
passing an order dated 18-11-2016, the Employer
violated the service conditions as stated in Section
33 of the I.D. Act, 1947. He therefore submitted
that the complaint be therefore be allowed and
necessary action deemed fit be taken against the
Employer.
11. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal,
representing the employer, during the course of
his oral arguments submitted that it is not in
dispute that the complainant is working as
conductor and presently posted at Vasco depot.
He admitted that the complainant had raised a
dispute pertaining to disparity in his pay fixation
before the ALC, Panaji, Goa, which ended in failure.
He admitted that the Appropriate Government had
issued a reference for its adjudication to this Labour
Court II in exercise of its power u/s 10 (1) (d) of the
I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted that based upon the
said reference, this court registered the said
reference as case No. LC-II/IT/08/15 and notice was
issued to the parties. He submitted that pursuant
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
191
to the aforesaid notice, the Employer also filed its
written statement. He submitted that pending the
aforesaid reference, the Employer was pleased to
grant second financial up-gradation under the
MACP scheme to the complainant. He submitted
that the second financial up-gradation under the
MACP scheme was differed to the complainant on
account of three departmental enquiries pending
against him. He submitted that after disposing off
the said three departmental enquiries, the case
of the complainant was placed before its
departmental screening committee, who in turn
pleased to recommend the complainant for grant
of second up-gradation and accordingly, order
dated 18-11-2016 was issued to him. He submitted
that by issuing order dated 18-11-2016, the basic
pay of the complainant was increased and fixed
at Rs. 5200-20200+Rs. 2800/- grade pay w.e.f.
01-09-2008 notionally and monetary benefits from
20-09-2016. He submitted that the complainant had
already availed an arrears accrued towards the
second financial up-gradation under the MACP
Scheme. He therefore submitted that granting the
second financial up-gradation to the complainant
under the MACP Scheme does not prejudicial
altering the conditions of service of the Workman.
He therefore submitted that the complaint filed by
the complainant be dismissed with heavy cost.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully considered
the oral arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocates
appearing for the respective parties and is of the
firm opinion as under.
12. Issue No.1 and 2: Undisputedly, the
complainant is in the employment of the Employer
and has been posted at Vasco depot. The
complainant raised a dispute pertaining to the
disparity in his pay fixation before the Asstt.
Labour Commissioner, Panaji, Goa, which ended in
failure. The failure report was submitted to the
Appropriate Government. The Appropriate
Government issued a reference to this Labour
Court II for its adjudication in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 10 (1) (d) of the
I.D. Act, 1947. After receipt of the aforesaid
reference, this court registered the said reference
as case No. LC-II/IT/08/15 and notice was issued to
the parties. In pursuance to the notice issued to
the parties, the Employer appeared before the court
and filed its written statement on 22-02-2016.
Pending the aforesaid reference for its adjudication,
the Personnel Manager of the Employer issued an
order dated 18-11-2016 by which the complainant
was granted second financial up-gradation under
the MACP Scheme on completion of 20 years in the
service w.e.f. 01-09-2008 and the basic pay of the
Workman was fixed at Rs. 5200-20200+Rs. 2800/-
grade pay. The basic pay of the complainant is
fixed at Rs. 9750/- plus Rs. 2800/- grade pay w.e.f.
01-09-2008 notionally and monetary benefits from
20-09-2016. The complainant accepted the said
order without any protest and has also availed the
arrears accrued therefrom.
13. By the present complaint, the complainant
claims to be in violation of Section 33-A of the I.D.
Act, 1947 by the Employer by issuing the said order
dated 18-11-2016 thereby granting him MACP
Scheme. The pre-condition for the grant of the
Section 33-A of the said Act is that the Workman
shall prove that the Employer has Contravened
Section 33 of the said Act. Section 33 (1) of the said
Act states that during the pendency of any
conciliation proceedings before the conciliation
Officer or a board of any proceedings before (an
arbitrator or) a Labour Court or Tribunal or National
Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no
employer shall—
(a) In regard to any matter connected with
the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the
workmen concerned in such dispute, the
conditions of service applicable to them
immediately before the commencement of
such proceedings or
(b) For any misconduct connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by
dismissal or otherwise, any workmen
concerned in such dispute,
Save with the express permission in
writing of the authority before which the
proceeding is pending.
14. In the case of Stanley Mendex v/s. Glovanola
Binny Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1968) II LLJ
470, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerela in para 5 of
its judgment has held as under:
“5. In a complaint made to the tribunal under
Section 33A, the primary question that falls to be
considered by tribunal is whether there has been
a contravention by the employer of the provisions
of Section 33 of the Act, and it is only in case it is
found that there has, in fact, been such
contravention that occasion arises for the tribunal
to embark upon a further adjudication of the
complaint on its merits; in other words, the tribunal
has to be satisfied initially that there has, in fact,
been a contravention by the employer of the
provisions of Section 33 by effecting during the
pendency of other proceedings before it, an
alteration to the prejudice of the workman
concerned, of the conditions of his service which
were applicable to him immediately before the
commencement of such proceedings”.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
192
15. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala is well established and also
applicable to the case in hand. Applying the law
laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in
the case in hand, pending the reference bearing
No. LC-II/IT/08/15, before this Labour Court II for
its adjudication pertaining to the disparity in the
pay fixation of the complainant, the Employer
passed an order dated 18-11-2016 by which the
complainant was granted second up-gradation
under the MACP Scheme and his pay was fixed at
Rs. 5200-20200+Rs. 2800/- grade pay and his pay
scale was fixed at Rs. 9750/- plus Rs. 2800/- grade
pay w.e.f. 01-09-2008 notionally and monetary
benefit from 20-09-2016. Further, the complainant
has also availed the arrears accrued therefrom.
The said order granting the second financial
up-gradation to the complainant is beneficial to
him and cannot be said to be prejudicial or alters
his conditions of service. Even otherwise, the
complainant has not accepted the said order dated
18-11-2016 under protest. In the circumstances, the
order dated 18-11-2016 granting second financial
up-gradation to the complainant cannot be said to
be prejudicial altering his conditions of service
and as such the Employer cannot be said to be
contravened section 33 of the said Act, which is
the mandatory requirement of Section 33-A of the
I.D. Act, 1947. In view of above, it is held that the
complainant failed to prove that the Employer has
contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.
Act, 1947, pending a reference bearing No. LC-II/
/IT/08/15 before this Labour Court II. It is held that
the Employer proved that there does not exist any
alteration of conditions of service by the Employer
so as to file the complaint u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act,
1947. The complaint filed by the complainant shall
therefore be dismissed. The issue No. 1 is therefore
answered in the negative and the issue No. 2 is
answered in the affirmative.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby
dismissed. The Workman is no entitled to any relief.
No Order as to Cost.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/352
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 03-04-2018 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/08/2015 is hereby published as
required by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 30th May, 2018.
______
LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar,
Hon’ble Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/08/2015
Shri Vinayak Kolhe,
Rep. by the Gen. Secretary,
Kadamba Kamgar Union,
Panaji, Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.
Paraisa-de-Goa,
Alto Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal.
Panaji, dated: 03-04-2018.
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 18-06-2015,
bearing No. 28/16/2015-Lab/623, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court II, Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Kadamba
Transport Corporation Ltd., Porvorim, Goa,
in not granting the second financial
up-gradation under the Modified Assured
Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), to
Shri Vinayak Kolhe, Conductor, is legal and
justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
193
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/08/15 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
27-02-2014 at Exb-5. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he is the
member of the Kadamba Kamgar Union, who is
espousing his cause in respect of anomaly in his
pay fixation. He stated that he is employed with
the Employer/Party II (for short, ‘Employer’)as
Conductor in the month of December, 1987 and
presently posted at Vasco depot. He stated that he
was confirmed in service in the month of June,
1988. He stated that on account of disparity in pay
fixation, there is cascading effect in the service
tenure as he is deprived of various scales adopted
from time to time. He stated that the workmen
placed in the similar cadre are drawing higher
scale than him, which resulted in disparity in the
scale. He stated that as per the recommendations
of fifth pay commission, his pay of scale was fixed
and placed in scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80. He
stated that on recommendation of departmental
promotional committee, he was granted Time
Bound Promotional Scale (TBPS) of Rs. 4000-100-
-6000 and was designated as conductor (TBPS) vide
order dated 31-05-2010. He stated that consequent
upon the adoption of the sixth pay scale of the
Central Civil Service Rules, 2008, his pay band and
grade pay was fixed at Rs. 5200-20200+2400 and
his pay in the revised pay was fixed at Rs. 8370 and
grade pay of Rs. 2400 by order dated 31-05-2010.
He stated that he was drawing a basic pay of
Rs. 4500/-, dearness allowance of Rs. 2250/- @ 24%,
in fact, he was entitled for pay band of Rs. 8370/-
and grade pay of Rs. 2400/-, thereby making a
difference of Rs. 10,770/- for the month of January.
He stated that he was entitled to Rs. 31,963/-
however, he was paid Rs. 26,325/- in the TBPS,
thereby making difference of Rs. 6,917/- for the
month of January, 2006 till March, 2006. He stated
that the Employer was pleased to implement MACP
Scheme, which is in suppression of ACP scheme.
He stated that in accordance with the said scheme,
he is entitled for three up-gradation at three
intervals of 10-20-30 years. He stated that the
Employer has not appointed any screening
committee at the time of implementation of the
MACP scheme and he was made eligible in general.
He stated that he was confirmed in services in the
month of June, 1988 and therefore, he was eligible
for the first up-gradation in the month of June,
1998 and was eligible for second up-gradation in
the year 2006. He submitted that he remained in
the post of conductor from the date of his
appointment till date without any promotion and
therefore he was entitled for placement in
immediate next higher grade pay in hierarchy of
the recommended revised pay band and grade pay
after completion of 20 years in the same post. He
submitted that he was granted the first financial
up-gradation under the MACP scheme and
therefore was legally entitled for second
up-gradation in the grade pay of Rs. 2,800/- after
completion of 18 years of service in the same post,
which was denied to him thereby causing
disparity in his pay fixation. He submitted that he
is grossly discriminated against the whims and
caprices of unmoving bureaucracy. The Workman,
therefore prayed for passing an award that there
exists an anomaly in his pay fixation and to release
the monitory benefits w.e.f. the date of eligibility
with interest @ 12% p.a.
3. The Employer objected to the aforesaid claim
of the Workman by filing its written statement
dated 22-02-2016 at Exb.12. The Employer, as and
by way of its preliminary objection, submitted that
the reference made u/s 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act to
the Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section
7-A of the same Act and as such this Labour Court
constituted u/s 7 of the said Act has no jurisdiction
to entertain and try the reference, that there is no
industrial dispute exists between the parties as
defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that the
reference has been made by the Government of
Goa, without any material on record in haste and
without application of mind and that the reference
is premature as the Workman has directly
approached before this court without exhausting
the other remedies available to him and that as per
Clause 39 of its Certified Standing Orders, the
Workman is having the remedy of appeal before
the Appellate Authority before approaching the
conciliation machinery and thereafter this Hon’ble
Court.
4. The Employer stated that it is a Government
Company registered u/s. 617 of the Companies Act,
1956. The Employer stated that it is a state
transport undertaking under the purview of Motor
Transport Act, 1988 and is engaged in the public
passenger services in the State of Goa as well as
in the neighbouring States like Maharashtra and
Karnataka. The Employer stated that the Workman
has not only suppressed the material facts from
this Labour Court, but also has made misleading
statements. The Employer stated that its employees
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
194
are not the employees of the Government of Goa.
The Employer stated that it being a separate legal
entity altogether different of Government of Goa,
the service benefits being granted by the
Government of Goa to its employees, do not become
automatically applicable to the employees of the
Corporation. The Employer stated that its
employees are governed by its own Certified
Standing Orders. The Employer stated that the
service condition applicable to its employees are
specified in its Certified Standing Orders as well
as Memorandum of Settlement drawn between its
management and its employees union from time to
time. The Employer stated that any benefits which
are required to be extended to its employees, are
required to be extended by the resolution of its
board of directors or through the settlement arrived
at between its management and its workmen’s
union.
5. The Employer stated that the workmen
represented by the union raised a dispute before
the conciliation authority demanding the
implementation of the recommendation of the sixth
central pay commission as made applicable to the
employees of the Government of Goa. The Employer
stated that the dispute was taken in conciliation
and an amicable settlement was arrived between
both the parties and a memorandum of settlement
dated 30-04-2010 u/s. 12 (3) r/w Section 18 (3) of
the I.D. Act, 1947 was signed. The Employer stated
that in accordance with the O.M. No. 8/7/2008-
-Fin(R&C) dated 15-05-2012, which is also a part of
recommendations of sixth Central Pay Commission,
it has placed the proposal before the board seeking
approval for applying the benefits of the said O.M.
to the eligible workmen. The Employer stated that
its board was pleased to approve the said proposal
vide resolution No. 82/2012 subject to the
clarification from the Government and thereafter
the pay of the Workman including other eligible
workmen were revised vide order dated 10-06-2013
in accordance with the said O.M. dated 15-05-2012.
The Employer stated that the sixth pay central
commission in para 6.1.15 of its report had
recommended
Modified
Assured
Career
Progression Scheme (MACPS). The Employer stated
that as per the resolution No. 110/11 passed by its
board of directors in its 176th meeting, MACPS
was adopted to its eligible employees who have
completed 10-20-30 years of regular service. The
said scheme was applied to its employees w.e.f.
01-08-2009 notionally and monetary benefits w.e.f.
01-01-2012.
6. The Employer stated that on the recommen-
dation of the departmental promotion committee,
its eligible employees were extended the benefits
of MACPS. The Employer stated that at the relevant
time, there were three departmental enquiries
pending against the workman, one vide charge-
-sheet No. 127 dated 18-05-1996, second charge-
-sheet No. 789 dated 28-08-2001 and third charge-
-sheet No. 158 dated 26-04-2007. The Employer
denied the overall case as pleaded by the workman
and prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
14-03-2016 at Exb.13. The Workman, by way of his
rejoinder, 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 their
Written Statement, which are contrary and
inconsistent with the statements and averments
made by him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
06-07-2016 at Exb. 15.
1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer Corporation in
not granting him the second financial up
gradation is illegal and unjustified?
2. Whether the Employer/Party II proves
that the present order of reference is not
maintainable in law in view of the reasons
mentioned in para 2 (a) to 2 (d) of the Written
Statement?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
4. What Order? What Award?
9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: In the negative
(c) Issue No. 3 & 4 : As per final order.
REASONS
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri
A. Kundaikar appearing for the Workman as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal appearing for the
Employer.
10. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, representing the
Workman during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman was appointed as
conductor by the Employer in the month of
December, 1987 and his services has been
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
195
confirmed in June, 1988. He submitted that as per
recommendation of fifth pay central commission
made applicable to the Employer Corporation,
the pay scale of the Workman was fixed to
Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590. He submitted that on
recommendation of departmental promotional
committee, the Workman was granted TBPS scale
of Rs. 4000-100-6000 and he was designated as
conductor (TBPS) vide order dated 31-05-2010. He
submitted that consequent upon the adoption of
sixth pay central commission scale, the pay
scale of the workman was fixed to Rs. 5200-
-20200+Rs. 2400/- as grade pay and his pay in the
revised scale was fixed at Rs. 8370/- and grade pay
of Rs. 2400/- by order dated 31-05-2010. He
submitted that the workman was drawing a basic
pay of Rs. 4500/- and dearness allowance of
Rs. 2250/- @ 24%. He submitted that in fact the
workman was entitled for pay band of Rs. 8370/-
and grade pay of Rs. 2400/- thereby making a
difference of Rs. 10,770/- for the month of January.
He submitted that the Workman was entitled for
Rs. 31,963/-, however, he was paid Rs. 26,325/- in
TBPS, thereby making a difference of Rs. 6917/- for
the month of January, 2006 till March, 2006. He
submitted that the Employer was pleased to
implement MACP Scheme in suppression of its ACP
scheme. He submitted that in accordance with the
said scheme, he was entitled for three up-gradation
at three intervals of 10-20-30 years of service. He
submitted that the workman was confirmed in
service in the month of June, 1988 and therefore,
he shall be eligible for first up-gradation in the
year 1998 and for second up-gradation in the year
2006 in accordance with the MACP Scheme. He
submitted that as the workman remained in the
post of conductor from the date of his appointment
till date without any promotion, therefore he was
entitled for second financial up-gradation under
the MACP Scheme. He therefore submitted that
the action of the Employer in not granting second
financial up-gradation under the MACP Scheme to
the Workman be held as illegal and unjustified and
the Workman be ordered to give second financial
up-gradation in the MACP Scheme.
11. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal,
representing the Employer, during the course of
his arguments submitted that admittedly the
Workman was appointed as conductor by the
Employer in the month of December, 87 and
confirmed in the service of the Employer in the
month of June, 1988. He submitted that the
Workman was not issued any promotion from the
date of his appointment till date. He submitted
that the Employer Corporation has adopted the
sixth Central Pay Commission by signing
memorandum of settlement dated 30-04-2010 u/s.
12 (3) r/w Section 18 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He
submitted that the board of directors of the
Employer was also pleased to approve in principle
the O.M. dated 15-05-2012, which is also a part of
the recommendation of sixth central pay
commission in its meeting. He submitted that the
Employer also adopted MACP scheme which was
part of sixth central pay commission report by
taking necessary resolution in its board of directors
meeting. He submitted that there were three
departmental enquiries were pending against
the Workman, one charge-sheet No. 127 dated
18-05-1996, second charge-sheet No. 789 dated
28-08-2001 and third charge-sheet No. 158 dated
26-04-2007. He submitted that in respect of the
charge-sheet dated 11-04-2016, the departmental
enquiry was closed by imposing a punishment of
fine of Rs. 2500/- vide order dated 01-04-2016. He
submitted that in respect of the charge-sheet dated
28-08-2001, the departmental enquiry was closed
by imposing a punishment of fine of Rs. 2000/- vide
order dated 10-05-2016. He submitted that in
respect of the charge-sheet dated 26-04-2007, the
departmental enquiry was closed by imposing a
punishment of fine of Rs. 2000/- vide order dated
20-09-2016. He submitted that after closing the
departmental enquiries as above, the case of the
Workman was placed before departmental
screening committee and the said departmental
screening committee was pleased to recommend
the workman for second up-gradation in the pay
band of Rs. 5200-20200+2800 grade pay under the
MACP scheme in terms of its board resolution
No. 110/11 and circular dated 27-11-2012. He
submitted that the Workman was paid MACP
arrears of Rs. 3333/-. He therefore submitted that
as the Workman has already been issued second
up-gradation in the MACP scheme vide order of
the Employer dated 18-11-2016 and his basic was
fixed at Rs. 9750+2800 grade pay with effect from
01-09-2008 notionally and monetary benefits from
20-09-2016, the reference be answered accordingly.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully considered
the oral submissions advanced by the Ld.
Advocates for the respective parties and is of the
considered opinion as under.
12. Issue No. 1: Undisputedly, the Workman
under reference was appointed as conductor by
the Employer in the month of December, 1987 and
he was confirmed in services in June, 1988. As per
the recommendation of fifth pay commission, the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
196
pay scale of the workman was fixed to Rs.3050-75-
-3950-80-4590. Further, on recommendation of
departmental promotional committee, the Workman
was granted TBPS and his pay scale was fixed to
Rs. 4000-100-6000 and he was designated as
conductor (TBPS) vide order of the Employer dated
31-05-2010. Consequent, upon the adoption of sixth
central pay commission by the Employer, the
Workman was placed under the pay scale of
Rs. 5200-20200+Rs. 2400 grade pay. The pay of the
workman in the revised scale was fixed to
Rs. 8370+Rs. 2400 grade pay by order of the
Employer dated 31-05-2010.
13. The workmen represented by the union
raised a dispute before the conciliation
authority demanding the implementation of the
recommendation of the sixth central pay
commission as made applicable to the Government
employees. The dispute was taken into conciliation
and an amicable settlement was arrived in between
both the parties and memorandum of settlement
dated 30-04-2010 was signed u/s 12 (3) r/w
Section 18 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The board of
directors of the Employer also approves in principle
the O.M. No. 8/7/2008-Fin(R&C) dated 15-05-2012,
which was also part of recommendation of sixth
central pay commission vide resolution No. 82/2012
subject to the clarification from the Government
and thereafter the pay of the Workman including
other eligible workmen were revised vide order
dated 10-06-2013 in accordance with the said O.M.
The evidence on record indicates that the board of
directors of the Employer Corporation also adopted
the MACP Scheme vide resolution No. 110/11.
In terms of the said scheme, an employee is entitled
for financial up-gradation at the intervals of 10, 20
and 30 years of continuous and regular service.
Further, in terms of Clause 14 of the said MACP
Scheme, if the financial up-gradation under the
said scheme is deferred and not allowed after 10
years in a grade pay, due to the reasons of the
employee being unfit or due to the departmental
proceedings etc. this would have consequential
effect on the subsequent financial up-gradation
which would also differed to the extent of delay in
the first financial up-gradation.
14. The Employer contended that the delay in
granting the second financial up-gradation to the
Workman under reference was on account of
pendency of three departmental enquiries. The
Employer has examined its Personnel Manager, Shri
V.D. Harmalkar and produced on record certain
documentary evidence in support of its oral
evidence.
15. The evidence on record indicates that three
departmental enquiries were pending against the
workman, one in respect of charge-sheet No. 127
dated 18-05-1996, second in respect of charge-sheet
No. 789 dated 28-08-2001 and third in respect of
charge-sheet No. 158 dated 26-04-2007. The
evidence on record indicates that in respect of the
charge-sheet dated 11-04-2016, the departmental
enquiry was closed by imposing a punishment of
fine of Rs. 2500/- vide order dated 01-04-2016. The
evidence on record indicates that in respect of the
charge-sheet dated 28-08-2001, the departmental
enquiry was closed by imposing a punishment of
fine of Rs. 2000/- vide order dated 10-05-2016. The
evidence on record indicates that in respect of the
charge-sheet dated 26-04-2007, the departmental
enquiry was closed by imposing a punishment of
fine of Rs. 2000/- vide order dated 20-09-2016. The
evidence on record indicates that after closing the
departmental enquiries as above, the case of the
Workman was placed before departmental
screening committee and the said departmental
screening committee was pleased to recommend
the workman for second up-gradation in the pay
band of Rs. 5200-20200+2800 grade pay under the
MACP scheme in terms of its board resolution
No. 110/11 and circular dated 27-11-2012 and
accordingly the workman was issued an order
dated 18-11-2016 by which he was granted second
financial up-gradation in the MACP Scheme
on completion of 20 years in the service w.e.f.
01-09-2008. The evidence on record indicates
that on account of pendency of departmental
enquiry instituted against the workman, his
recommendations
were
differed
by
the
departmental screening committee. The evidence
on record indicates that the Workman was paid an
arrears of Rs. 3333/- towards his second up-
gradation under the MACP Scheme.
16.
Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, representing
the workman submitted that the said three
enquiries pending against the Workman were
re-opened arbitrarily by pointing out Clause 11 of
the office memorandum dated 19-05-2009, which is
part and parcel of the document at Exb. 31-colly.
The said Clause 11 of the office memorandum states
that “it is clarified that no past cases would be re-
opened……..” However, I do not find any material
evidence that the Employer has re-opened the said
three enquiries pending against the Workman. On
the contrary, the Workman in his cross-examination,
admitted that the enquiries in respect of all the
three aforesaid charge-sheets at Exb. 21-colly
(cross) were pending against him and that
since the enquiry against all the aforesaid three
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
197
charge-sheets were pending against him, his
financial up-gradation in the scale was deferred
by the corporation. The aforesaid evidence of the
Workman clearly suggest that the all the three
enquiries were not re-opened against him. Hence,
contention of Ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Kundaikar
appearing for the Workman is devoid of merits and
as such it is rejected.
17. The evidence on record indicates that after
completion of all the three enquiries against the
Workman, his case was placed before the
departmental screening committee, who in turn
was pleased to recommend the name of the
Workman for grant of second financial up-gradation.
Accordingly, the Workman has been issued second
up-gradation in the MACP scheme vide order of
the Employer dated 18-11-2016 and his basic was
fixed at Rs. 9750+2800 grade pay with effect from
01-09-2008 notionally and monetary benefits from
20-09-2016. It is therefore held that the Workman
failed to prove that the action of the Employer
Corporation in not granting him second financial
up-gradation in MACP Scheme is illegal and
unjustified. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered
in the negative.
18. Issue No. 2: The Employer, as and by way of
its preliminary objection, pleaded that the
reference made u/s 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act to the
Industrial Tribunal constituted under Section 7-A
of the same Act and as such this Labour Court
constituted u/s 7 of the said Act has no jurisdiction
to entertain and try the reference, that there is no
industrial dispute exists between the parties as
defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that the
reference has been made by the Government of
Goa, without any material on record in haste and
without application of mind and that the reference
is premature as the Workman has directly
approached before this court without exhausting
the other remedies available to him and that as per
Clause 39 of its Certified Standing Orders, the
Workman is having the remedy of appeal before
the Appellate Authority before approaching the
conciliation machinery and thereafter this Hon’ble
Court.
19. As the present reference has been issued by
the Appropriate Government in exercise of its
powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the I.D. Act for its adjudication to this
Labour Court II, this court has every jurisdiction to
try and entertain the present reference.
20. Undisputedly, the present dispute has been
referred by the Appropriate Government pertaining
to the legality and justifiability of the action of the
Employer in not granting the second financial
up-gradation under the MACP scheme and if not
the relief entitled to the workman.
The term ‘industrial dispute’ has been defined
u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and “it means any
dispute or difference between employers and
employers, or between employers and workmen, or
between workmen and workmen, which is connected
with the employment or non-employment or the terms
of employment or with the conditions of labour, or
any person”
21. In the case in hand, the present dispute has
been raised by the Workman against the Employer
pertaining to his terms of employment and as such
it is an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. This court has
every jurisdiction to try and entertain the reference,
when there exists an industrial dispute between
the parties. In view of above, I do not find any
merits in any of the preliminary objections raised
by the Employer. It is therefore held that the
Employer failed to prove that the present order of
reference is not maintainable in law in any of the
reasons mentioned in para 2 (a) to 2 (d) of its written
statement. The issue No. 2 is therefore answered in
the negative.
22. Issue No. 3: While deciding the issue No. 1
hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion that the Workman has been issued by
the Employer the second financial up-gradation
under the MACP Scheme and as such the question
of granting any relief to the Workman, does not
arise. The issue No. 3 is therefore answered in the
negative.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is hereby held that the action of
M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Panaji,
Goa, in not granting the second financial
up-gradation under the Modified Assured
Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), to Shri
Vinayak Kolhe, Conductor, is legal and justified.
2. The Workman, Shri Vinayak Kolhe is not
entitled to any relief.
3. No Order as to Cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
198
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 8/16/2017-LD (Estt)(Part) File/1014
Read: i) Government Order No. 8-2-2013-LD (Estt)/
/1347 dated 01-08-2013.
ii) Government Order No. 8/16/2017-LD
(Estt.) (Part File)/898 dated 17-05-2018.
In supersession of Order issued by the
Government read above at Sr. No. 2, the Government
is pleased to dissolve the Committee constituted
vide Government Order referred at Sr. No. 1 w.e.f.
17-05-2018.
The onus of complying FEMA Regulations are
on the parties to the transaction i.e. Vendor,
Purchaser, Confirming Party, etc. It shall not be the
endeavour of the Civil Registrars-cum-Sub-
-Registrars to scrutinize the compliance of FEMA
Regulations.
If any of the transacting party is NRI/OCI/PIO/
/Foreign National, then a specific averment needs
to be made in the instrument proposed to be
registered that the land under transaction is
non-agricultural land and that they own the
responsibility for the said averment that their
transaction is in compliance of FEMA/R.B.I.
guidelines.
The Registering Authority shall not be
responsible to authenticate or verify the veracity
of averment or declaration or to check compliance
of FEMA Regulations. The Civil Registrars-cum-Sub-
-Registrars should ensure only compliance of
provisions of Registration Act and Rules.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Diwan Rane, Under Secretary (Estt.) Link.
Porvorim, 1st June, 2018.
________
Order
No. 8-25-2016-LD(Estt)/1010
Whereas, the Government vide Notification
No. 5-40-2000-LD(Estt.) dated 24-10-2000, appointed
Shri Govind Usno Bhobe, Advocate, as a Notary for
a period of five years with effect from 24-10-2000
for the area of Tiswadi taluka (hereinafter called as
the “Notary”) and Government has renewed the
Pratice of above Notary every five years i.e. for the
year 2005, 2010 and 2015;
And whereas, vide letter No. 8-25-2016-LD(Estt.)/
/2151 dated 21-12-2016, this department had
forwarded the complaint along with vide Form XIII
dated 20-06-2016 with enclosures filed by
Shri Indresh Advani (Complainant) against
Mr. Govind U. Bhobe, Advocate and Notary
(Respondent) and reply of the Respondent, wherein
the State Registrar was requested to conduct an
inquiry under Rule 13(6) of the Notaries Rules, 1956;
And whereas, vide the above complaint, the
complainant has stated that on 01-06-2015 one
Eknath Mapari presented to the Respondent a
forged/counterfeit declaration dated 22-06-2006 of
Mr. Albino Messias Gomes and Mrs. Belmira Rita
Gomes and that the Respondent falsely certified
and attested the said declaration as a True Copy of
the Original without having seen the Original. The
declaration was subsequently registered under
Serial No. 3490/15 dated 01-06-2016. Vide letter
No. 3/1/55/18-Registration/85 dated 08-05-2018, the
State Registrar has stated that he has given an
exhaustive hearing to both the parties and all
opportunities to put their case during course of
inquiry;
And whereas, the State Registrar has stated that
Respondent in his reply confessed and admitted in
para 8 of his reply to the complaint filed before the
Law Secretary on 28-11-2016. The said statement is
verified by the Respondent before a Notary to be
true and nothing false in it and the Respondent in
para 8 has stated that he allows the Clerk or
Secretary to verify the photocopy with the original,
affix necessary stamps, put seal, enter the same in
the register and after completing all the formalities
send for the signature to him. Such act on the part
of the Notary is not only the misconduct but
admission of irresponsibleness, lack of dedication
and sincerity;
And whereas, the State Registrar has pointed
out that the Notary Laws neither explicitly nor
implicitly recognizes of any of the function of the
Notary to be carried out by the clerical or
secretarial staff attached to the office of the
Advocate conferred with Notary powers. The
admission on the part of the Notary that he allows
the Secretary to verify the document has shown
disregard to the august and noble post coupled
with duty having sanctity as Notary.
And whereas, the Competent Authority has
closed the proceedings in Inquiry Report
conclusively stating that although certain doubts
and ambiguities remain in the submissions of the
complainant, the admission on the part of the
Respondent as referred above is very clear that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
199
there is all the probability of lack of due diligence,
dedication and sincerity on the part of the said
Notary which is not in the interest of Law and
society for which the Respondent is conferred with
the powers the Notary.
And whereas, the Government considering the
Inquiry Report of the State Registrar, has decided
to suspend the Notary from practice for a period of
two months;
Now, therefore, in pursuance of Rule 13(12)(b)(ii)
of the Notaries Rules, 1956, the Government of Goa
hereby suspends the Notary, Shri Govind Usno
Bhobe from practice for a period of two months
with effect from 01-06-2018 to 31-07-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Law) (Estt.) link.
Porvorim, 1st June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 7/21/2017-PER/1730
Consequent upon the Order No. 14020/01/
/2018.UTS-I dated 12-02-2018 issued by Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi, Shri Sanjay Goel, IAS,
stands relieved from the Administration of Goa
Government w.e.f. 31-05-2018 (a.n.) so as to take up
the new assignment at Government of NCT, New
Delhi.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 30th May, 2018.
________
Order
No. 13/17/2016/PER/1731
Governor of Goa is pleased to grant extension in
service to Shri S. P. Singnapurkar, Junior Scale
Officer of Goa Civil Service and presently posted
as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works
Department; beyond the date of his superannuation
for a period of six months w.e.f. 01-06-2018 to
30-11-2018 in public interest. The said extension in
service is subject to approval of Council of Ministers.
The extension is further subject to termination
without assigning any reasons at any time during
the period of extension.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 30th May, 2018.
________
Corrigendum
No. 5/16/2012-PER/1767
Read: Order No. 5/16/2012-PER/341 dated
30-01-2018.
The Rule “FR 56 (k) (1-A) (a) on the 2nd, 5th &
6th line of the para 1 of Order read in preamble
shall be corrected to read as follows:-
“Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972”
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
__
Order
.
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part/827
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/
/11/16(1)/2017/09 dated 11-04-2018, the Government
is pleased to promote Shri Sebastiao Fernandes,
Assistant Engineer (Elect.) to the post of Executive
Engineer (Elect.) on officiating basis, Group “A”
Gazetted in the Pay Matrix Level 11 with immediate
effect.
2. The above promotion is in pursuance to the
recommendations of GPSC contained in para 9 of
the Minutes of DPC held on 10-04-2018 wherein
the promotion to Shri Sebastiao Fernandes is
proposed to effect on retirement of Shri A. P. John
on superannuation on 31-05-2018.
2. His posting on promotion shall be issued
separately. Pending posting, he shall continue to
discharge the duties of the post where he is
presently posted and shall draw his pay and
allowances in the promoted post against the vacant
post of Executive Engineer (Planning), Office of the
Chief Electrical Engineer, Panaji until further
orders.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
200
3. On joining his new assignment, he shall send
the copy of CTC/joining report to this office
immediately. In case of refusal of promotion, he
shall be debarred for promotion for a period of one
year from the date of refusal of promotion.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
N. Neelakanta Reddy, Chief Electrical Engineer
& ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 1st June, 2018.
________
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part/829
Read: Order No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part/
/561 dated 15-05-2018.
In partial modification of the above order, the
column 3 of Sr. No. 3 of para 2 may be read as
“Executive Engineer (Training), Office of the Chief
Electrical Engineer, Panaji” instead of “Division VIII
(MRT), Margao” at preamble above.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
N. Neelakanta Reddy, Chief Electrical Engineer
& ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 1st June, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 21/15/99-I/PHD/1453
Read: Government Order No. 21/15/99-I/PHD/276
dated 18-01-2018.
Government is pleased to accept the voluntary
retirement tendered by Dr. Oween Jose Albuquerque,
Medical Officer, under Directorate of Health
Services vide letter dated 15-05-2017 in terms of
O.M. No. 12-1-89-Fin(R&C) dated 29-11-1989 and
O.M. No. 12/6/2001-Fin (R&C) dated 30-09-2009
issued by the Finance (Rev. & Cont.) Department
and he stands relieved from the post of Medical
Officer under Directorate of Health Services with
effect from 15-08-2017 (f.n.).
This issues in supersession of Order No. 21/15/
/99-I/PHD/276 dated 18-01-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2018.
Certificate
No. 22/3/2000-I/PHD/Part I/1427
Read: 1) Government Order No. 22/3/2000-I/PHD/
/Part I/1229 dated 10-5-2018.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
the following Junior Physicians under Directorate
of Health Services has been verified by the District
Magistrate, South Goa, Margao it is revealed that
there is nothing adverse reported against them:
Sr.
Name of the doctor
No.
1.
Dr. Hubert John Viegas.
2.
Dr. Swapnil Madhav Naik.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 29th May, 2018.
________
Corrigendum
No. 7/3/92-I/PHD/1452
Read: Order No. 7/3/92-I/PHD dated 17-07-2013.
In the first para of the above cited Government
Order, after the word “basis” the following shall
be substituted “with immediate effect” instead of
“with effect from 04-07-2013 (f.n.)”.
Rest of the content remains unchanged.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 31st May, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
__
Corrigendum
No. 35/03/02/2018-RD/1018
Read: Order No. 35/03/02/2018-RD dated
26-04-2018.
The figures and words i.e. “31/12 of the Village
Talaulim” in the above mentioned Order shall be
read as “31/13 of the Village Telaulim”.
The remaining contents of the Order shall
remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sagun R. Velip, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 29th May, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
201
Department of Women & Child
Development
Directorate of Women & Child Development
__
Notification
No. 2-1031-Status(NOTE)/2018-19/DWCD/1785
In exercise of its executive powers, the
Government of Goa herewith constitutes Committee
for making recommendations for amendment to Goa
State Commission for Woman Act, 1996 (Goa Act
No. 10 of 1996). The Committee shall comprise of
following members:-
Sr.
Name of the Committee
Designation
No.
Member
1. Hon’ble Minister for Women and
Chairman.
Child Development, Shri Vishwajit
P. Rane
2. The Hon’ble Justice A. P. Lavande,
Member.
Retired Judge, High Court
3. Adv. Pramod Kamat, Retired Law
Member.
Secretary
4. Mr. Saresh Lotlikar, Sr. Advocate,
Member.
Ex. AG
5. Ms. Vijaylaxmi Shivolkar, Ad hoc
Member.
Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,
“B” Court
6. Mr. Gurudas Tamba, Sr. Advocate
Member.
7. Ms. Fatima Silveira, Advocate
Member.
8. Ms. Shradha Shirwaikaer Poduval,
Member.
Advocate
9. Ms. Nikita Nadkarni Adwalpalkar,
Member.
L.L.M. student
10. Dr. Shaila D’Souza, Incharge of
Member.
Centre for Women Studies in
Goa, Goa University
11. Adv. Subhalaxmi Naik, Chair-
Member.
person, Goa State Women’s
Commission
12. Ms. Deepali Naik, Jt. Director
Member
(WCD)
Secretary.
The Committee shall have mandate to re-visit
and examine the provisions of the said Act and
make recommendations to the Government for
amendment to the said Act.
The tenure of the Committee shall conclude
on submission of recommendations to the
Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 30th May, 2018.
________
Notification
No. 2-104(19)-2018/DW&CD/1788
The Government of Goa hereby constitutes the
Project Sanctioning Committee (PSC) under
“Ujjawala” scheme, a comprehensive scheme for
Prevention of Trafficking and Rescue, Rehabilitation
and Re-Integration of Victims of Trafficking for
Commercial Sexual Exploitation, consisting of the
following members:-
1. Secretary (Women & Child
—
Chairperson.
Development), Secretariat,
Porvorim
2. Secretary, Finance Depart-
—
Member.
ment, Secretariat, Porvorim
3. Commissioner, Labour
—
Member.
Department, Panaji
4. Superintendent of Police,
—
Member.
Crime Branch, Ribandar
5. Director, Anyay Rahit
—
Member.
Zindagi (ARZ), Mormugao
6. Director, Directorate of
—
Member
Women & Child Develop-
Secretary.
ment, Panaji
The above constituted committee shall examine
the proposal received from eligible organization
and recommend to the Ministry of Women & Child
Development, New Delhi, for its approval, further
continuance or otherwise depending on its
performance and need.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 30th May, 2018.
________
Notification
No. 2-104(19)-2018/DW&CD/1789
The Government of Goa hereby constitutes
Monitoring Committee to ensure effective
implementation of “Ujjawala” scheme, a comprehensive
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
7TH JUNE, 2018
202
scheme for Prevention of Trafficking and Rescue,
Rehabilitation and Re-Integration of Victims of
Trafficking for Commercial Sexual Exploitation in
the State, consisting of the following members:-
1. Secretary (Women & Child
—
Chairperson.
Development), Secretariat,
Porvorim
2. Superintendent of Police,
—
Member.
Crime Branch, Ribandar
3. Representative of Goa
—
Member.
Chamber of Commerce
and Industry
4. Director, Anyay Rahit
—
Member.
Zindagi (ARZ), Mormugao
5. Director, Directorate of
—
Member
Women & Child Develop-
Secretary.
ment, Panaji
The above constituted committee shall meet at
least twice a year and monitor the Scheme. The
Chairperson may invite any other person as deemed
necessary.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 30th May, 2018.
Notification
No. 1-125-2006-DW&CD-PART/1906
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17
and 18 of Commission for Protection of Child Rights
Act, 2005, the Government of Goa hereby amends
the Notification No. 1-125-2006-DW&CD-PART/345
dated 11-04-2018 (hereinafter called the “said
Notification”) as follows:
In the said Notification, for the existing entry at
Serial Nos. 1 and 3, the following entry shall be
substituted, namely:
1. Adv. Sushma Mandrekar @ — Chairperson.
Chodankar, H. No. 713/33,
Ardhawada, Maem,
Bicholim-Goa
3. Fr. Maverick Fernandes,
— Member.
Instituto Nossa Senhora
De Piedade, Near Hotel
Mandovi, D. B. Marg,
Panaji-Goa
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 1st June, 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. 18.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—76/150–06/2018.