Panaji, 19th October, 2018 (Asvina 27, 1940)
SERIES II No. 29
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
555
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/201
On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service
Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/2(3)/2011/220 dated 03-10-2018, Government is pleased to
promote the following Assistant Directors of Agriculture to the post of Dy. Director of Agriculture, Group
‘A’ Gazetted, in the Directorate of Agriculture on regular basis in the pay scale of PB-3 Rs. 15,600-
-39,100+Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- (Level-11 of the pay matrix) with immediate effect:
1) Shri Nevil I. H. Alphonso.
2) Smt. Ana Dias e Camara.
On promotion they are posted as below:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Place of posting on promotion on regular basis
No.
1.
Shri Nevil I. H. Alphonso
Dy. Director of Agriculture (CIN), Directorate of Agriculture,
Tonca, Caranzalem.
2.
Smt. Ana Dias e Camara
Shall continue as Dy. Director of Agriculture (Extension),
Directorate of Agriculture, Tonca, Caranzalem.
The above officers shall exercise their option within one month from the date of promotion to fix his
pay in terms of F.R. 22(I) (a) (1).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
Note:-
There are three Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 28 dated 11-10-2018 as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 11-10-2018 from pages 549 to 550 regarding Notifications from Department of Finance.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 16-10-2018 from pages 551 to 552 regarding Order and Notification from
Department of Elections.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 16-10-2018 from pages 553 to 554 regarding Notifications from Goa Legislature
Secretariat.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
556
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/205
On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service
Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/2(1)/2017/219 dated 03-10-2018, Government is pleased to
promote and appoint the following Agriculture Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted to the post of Assistant
Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’ Gazetted on officiating basis in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100+
Rs. 5,400/- Grade Pay which is at Level-10 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix with immediate effect until
further orders or till the post is filled on regular basis whichever is earlier:
1) Shri Rajesh B. Dessai.
2) Smt. Shoban Ugvenkar.
On promotion on officiating basis they shall be posted as below:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Place of posting on officiating
Budget Head
No.
basis
1. Shri Rajesh B. Dessai
Shall continue as Assistant
2401 – Crop Husbandry;
Director of Agriculture (Farms),
00 –
Directorate of Agriculture,
001 – Direction & Administration;
Tonca, Caranzalem
02 – Superintendence (NP);
01 – Salaries.
2. Smt. Shoban Ugvenkar
As Assistant Director of Agriculture
2401 – Crop Husbandry;
(Extension) against the vacancy
00 –
caused due to transfer Shri Satej
001 – Direction & Administration;
G. Kamat
03 – Subordinate & Expert Staff
(NP);
01 – Salaries.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/202
On recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/
/11/2(3)/2011/220 dated 03-10-2018, Government is
pleased to promote and appoint Shri Chintamani
B. Perni, Assistant Director of Agriculture to the
post of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’
Gazetted on officiating basis in the pay band of
Rs. 15,600-39,100+Rs. 6,600/- Grade Pay which is at
Level-11 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix with
immediate effect until further orders or till the post
is filled on regular basis whichever is earlier. On
promotion on officiating basis he is posted as Dy.
Director of Agriculture (Horticulture), under Budget
Head “2401—Crop Husbandry; 00—; 001—Direction
and Administration; 02—Superintendent (NP);
01—Salaries.”
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/203
Government is pleased to order the transfer
of Shri Satej G. Kamat, Assistant Director of
Agriculture (Extension), Group ‘A’ Gazetted against
the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture
(Planning & Evaluation) vacated by Shri
Chintamani B. Perni on promotion with immediate
effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/204
On recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/
/11/2(1)/2017/219 dated 03-10-2018, Government is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
557
pleased to promote Shri Sandeep B. Fol Dessai,
Agriculture Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted to the post
of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’
Gazetted, in the Directorate of Agriculture on
regular basis in the Pay Band of PB-III Rs. 15600-
-39100+Rs. 5400 Grade Pay (Level-10 of the Pay
Matrix) with immediate effect.
On promotion, Shri Sandeep B. Fol Dessai shall
continue on deputation against the post of General
Manager in the Goa State Horticulture Corporation
Ltd.
Shri Fol Dessai shall be on probation for a period
of two years from the date of his joining.
He shall exercise option within one month from
the date of promotion to fix his pay in terms of
F. R. 22(I) (a) (1).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(I)/206
On recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/
/11/2(1)/2011/217 dated 03-10-2018, Government is
pleased to promote Shri Raghunath S. Joshi,
Assistant Agriculture Officer to the post of
Agriculture Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted, in the
Directorate of Agriculture on regular basis in the
Pay Band of PB-II Rs. 9,300-34,800+Rs. 4,600 Grade
Pay (Level-7 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix)
with immediate effect.
On promotion he shall continue at the same
place of his posting as shown below:
1) Shri Raghunath S. Joshi, Zonal Agriculture
Officer, Zonal Agriculture Office, Mapusa.
Shri Raghunath S. Joshi shall exercise his option
within one month from the date of promotion to fix
his pay in terms of F. R. 22(I) (a) (1).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(I)/207
On recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/
/11/2(1)/2011/217 dated 03-10-2018, Government is
pleased to promote and appoint Smt. Vaibhavi V.
Dessai, Assistant Agriculture Officers, Group ‘B’
Gazetted to the post of Agriculture Officer on
officiating basis in the pay band of Rs. 9,300-
-34,800+Rs. 4,600 Grade Pay which is at Level-7 of
the 7th Pay Commission Matrix with immediate
effect until further orders or till the posts are filled
on regular basis whichever is earlier. She shall
continue at the same place of her posting as shown
below:
Smt. Vaibhavi V. Dessai,
2402 – Soil and Water
Agriculture Officer
Conservation;
(North-II), District
00 –
Agriculture Office, North,
001 – Direction and
Tonca, Caranzalem
Administration;
01 – Establishment
(NP);
01 – Salaries.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 1/22/89/2018-19/D.Agri/924
Read: Order No. 4/6/2017-PER/2872 dated
18-09-2018.
In pursuance to above referred order,
Shri Madhav B. Kelkar, senior most Dy. Director of
Agriculture, presently on deputation against the
post of Managing Director in Goa State Horticulture
Corporation Ltd., shall hold the routine charge of
the post of Director of Agriculture, in addition to
his own duties during the leave period of
Shri Nelson X. Figueiredo, Officiating Director of
Agriculture w.e.f. 08-10-2018 to 19-10-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 5th October, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
558
Order
No. 8/17/2018-19/D.Agri/214
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee conveyed by the Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/
/11/2(1)/2012/178 dated 07-08-2018, Government is
pleased to promote Shri Sobhadra P. Naik, Technical
Assistant Group ‘C’ to the post of Mechanical
Cultivation Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted in the pay
scale Rs. 9,300-34,800+Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-
(Level-7 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix) on
regular basis against the vacancy caused due to
superannuation of Shri Anthony Rego, and is posted
at Mechanical Cultivation Office, Curchorem
against the post being vacated on transfer by Shri
Sadanand Harmalkar, Mechanical Cultivation
Officer, Curchorem with immediate effect.
Shri Sobhadra P. Naik, shall be on probation for
a period of two years from the date of his joining.
He shall exercise option within one month from
the date of promotion to fix his pay in terms of
F.R. 22(I) (a).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 15th October, 2018.
________
Corrigendum
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/211
Read: Order No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/205
dated 05-10-2018.
In the above referred order, the name of the
officer at Sr. No. 2 may be read as “Smt. Shobhan
S. Ugavekar” instead of “Smt. Shoban Ugvenkar”.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 8th October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
__
Order
No. 3/11/2018-IND/407
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Goa Investment Promotion & Facilitation Board
(Goa-IPB) as “Nodal Agency” to create Action-
oriented plan to achieve a Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) of USD 5 trillion before 2025 and to nominate
Chief Executive Officer of Goa-IPB as Nodal Officer
on behalf of State Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 10th October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Information Technology
__
Notification
No. 1/90/DoIT/ITG-DIR/2001/1263
In partial modification of earlier Notification
No. 1(90)/DOIT/ITG-DIR/2001/342 dated 05-07-2017,
reconstituting the board of Info Tech Corporation
of Goa Limited, and in pursuance of Clause 116 (2)
(b) and (c) of the Articles of Association of Info
Tech Corporation of Goa Limited, Government of
Goa is pleased to appoint Shri Aditya Prakash
Nagvenkar, resident of PDA Colony, House
No. 406/17, Plot No. 93, Pushpraj, Pilerne, Bardez-
-Goa as Director in place of Shri Savio Noronha,
Director with immediate effect.
Consequently Shri Savio Noronha, Director at
Sr. No. 5 of the said Notification dated 05-07-2017
stands removed from the post of Director with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Srinet N. Kothwale, Director (IT).
Panaji, 3rd October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/644
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 20-07-2018 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/05/14 is hereby published as required
by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 24th September, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
559
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/05/14
Shri Gautam Gauns,
H. No. 557/D, Vodlem Bhat,
Taleigao-Goa.
…..
Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Diago India Pvt. Ltd.,
Lower Parel, Mumbai.
……
Employer/Party-II
Party-I/Workman is represented by Adv. Shri V.
Pangam.
Party-II/Employer is represented by Adv. Shri G. K.
Sardessai.
Panaji, dated: 20-07-2018.
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 07-08-2014
bearing No. 28/22/2014-Lab/444 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court-II.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s Diago India Private Limited, Mumbai in
terminating services of Shri Gautam Gauns,
Customer Activation Manager, with effect from
07th October, 2013, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/05/2014 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
09-01-2015 at Exb.3. The facts of the case in brief as
pleaded by the Workman that he was working as
‘Customer Activation Manager’ with the Employer/
Party-II (for short, ‘Employer’) being based at Goa
w.e.f. 13-12-2012. He stated that the Employer is
carrying the business of manufacturing, importing,
marketing and selling alcoholic beverages in India.
He stated that prior to joining the services of the
Employer, he was working with ITC Limited (Konkan
branch) as an area executive from 26-09-2007 till
December, 2012. He stated that as an area executive,
his work profile was achievement of agreed sales
expectations, monitor actual sales against
expectations, implementation of market and outlet
coverage plans, adherence to fixed call frequency
for self and customer groups, infrastructure as per
plan, visible availability, ensure freshness as per
norms, cost effective order captured and efficient
delivery systems, implementation of trade and
consumer schemes, quality execution of
merchandising activity, evaluation and feedback,
launching new products of the company and budget
control (trade schemes/contracts). He stated that
during his tenure with the ITC Ltd., he handled
channel sales, Horeca and modern trade business of
all ITC products like cigarette, food division and
personal care.
2. He stated that the Employer, after going through
the curriculum vita of the Party I painted a rosy
picture for taking employment with them with
handsome remuneration around Rs. 46,200/- p.m., in
addition to other allowances based on the sales
performance and had also assured future better
prospects as a result he resigned from his previous
work for joining the Employer as they offered the
work of ‘Customer Activation Manager’ for the State
of Goa and South Maharashtra. He stated that as a
‘Customer Activation Manager’ for the State of Goa
and South Maharashtra, the work profile was
execution of regional activity calendar to agreed
scale delivering on time, in full and within budget,
track and control execution standards ensuring clear
visibility of performance and operational
effectiveness, manage agencies that support
delivery of world class execution, region value/
volume grow, ensure world class execution to agreed
scale, within budgets and on time for all planned
activities, profitable deployment of trade and brand
investment within the region, execution of region
specific calendar, always aligned to the national
activity calendar, ensure strong relationship with
third party agencies and customer to drive flawless
execution, complete annual P4G/1 cat and personal
development plan. He stated that he was issued an
offer letter dated 19-11-2012 by the Employer. He
stated that the Employer was pleased with his
performance in its establishment and his
compensation was revised w.e.f. 01-10-2013 by 10.2%
to Rs. 8,65,081/- p.a. on the then existing payment of
Rs. 7,92,230/- p.a. within a short span of 9 months
from the date of joining the Employer.
3. He stated that somewhere around September,
2013, the Employer informed him that he will have
to resign from its service without any rhyme or reason
and further he was asked to approach a different
entity/organization i.e. United Spirit Limited (USL)
for taking up fresh employment and in this regard
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
560
emails were exchanged between himself and the
Employer. He stated that despite the fact that he
had made several requests to the Employer for an
offer of employment to be issued by USL, no offer
letter in respect of fresh employment proposed was
being provided to him. He stated that thus, his work
with the Employer was supposed to end abruptly
without any sufficient cause. He stated that the
Employer issued to him the notice of termination on
07-10-2013. He stated that the said termination letter
was accepted under protest and without prejudice
to his rights and contention on 09-10-2013.
4. Aggrieved by the decision of the Employer in
terminating his employment, he raised an industrial
dispute on 08-10-2013, which ended in failure. He
stated that in the meantime the Employer issued a
cheque dated 18-10-2013 for a sum of Rs. 2,17,752/-
towards his so called full and final payment. He
stated that as there was no hope of settlement,
coupled with the fact that the validity of the cheque
was about to expire, he finally deposited the said
cheque under protest and without any prejudiced
to his rights and contentions under intimation to
the Employer. The Workman contended that in the
circumstances his termination from service is
patently illegal, malafide, unconstitutional and
against the settled principle of the prevailing law.
The Workman therefore prayed for an award
directing the Employer to reinstate him in service
with full back wages and consequential benefits.
5. The Employer resisted the claim of the Workman
by filing its written statement on 17-03-2015 at
Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, submitted that the Party I is not a
‘workman’ as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 as he was working with them as Regional
Customer Activation Manager in its sales team and
that he was responsible for the State of Goa for
promoting its brands in the region by planning the
promotion and marketing activation. The Employer
stated that as Regional Customer Activation
Manager, the duties and responsibilities of Party I
were to plan the profitable deployment of trade and
brand investment for the region and execute the
activities during the year for the including marketing
and sales activation,define the execution standards
for marketing and sales promotion and to ensure that
activities are delivered on time, in full and on agreed
budgets, work with partners, distributors, agencies,
hotels, clubs and wine shops to deliver and execute
planed marketing and sales activities, plan and
execute for the region for all marketing visibility and
point of sale material for its brands, to ensure its
brands are appropriate and is optimally placed to
influence shopper choice, work cross functionally
with regional sales teams, regional and national
customer marketing to ensure flawless promotion
and activation for its brands, to provide timely
feedback and assessment of executional standards
to regional and national customer marketing
managers to enable course correction or address
specific operational challenges in the region,
capture data and create summary reports that
provide a clear picture of operational and execution
standards in the region, employee to work with
regional customer marketing team to provide timely
information relating to regional execution plans,
consistently learns and role models Diageo values
both internally and externally to Diageo Customers
i.e. distributor, agencies, hotels, clubs and wine
shops, be the Ambassador of its code of business
conduct and executes activities in line with its
marketing code. The Employer stated that he was
informed that he is representing the Employer at all
times, dress, language and conduct should be
professional and appropriate at all times and that
business appropriate dress should be worn when
out in trade (business shirts and trousers for men).
The nature of operations which are essentially,
predominantly/exclusively are in the domine of
customer relationship/marketing/sales, does not fall
within the first part of the definition of the ‘workman’
and hence the reference is not maintainable and
deserves to be rejected at the threshold.
6. The Employer stated that it is engaged in the
business of manufacturing, importing, marketing
and selling alcoholic beverages and is an indirect
subsidiary of Diageo PLC (Public Limited Company),
United Kingdom.The Employer stated that the
remuneration of the Party I was increased
considering his additional responsibilities in the
area of sales promotion with them. The Employer
stated that Diageo PLC recently has recently
invested in USL. The Employer stated that Diageo
PLC is the single largest shareholder of USL and has
acquired management control of USL. The Employer
stated that USL is the market leader in India being
pioneer and expertise in sales, marketing, activation
and distribution network and having market share
of 59% whereas it has total 350 employees with 1% of
the market share. The Employer stated that in order
to achieve synergy between the organizations,
effective 01-10-2013 it has appointed USL as their
sale agent. The Employer stated that after
appointing USL as Sales Agent, they didn’t have sale/
/commercial team in order to provide jobs to its sales.
The Employer stated that they integrated its sales/
/commercial team with USL. The Employer stated
that it had made this announcement on 21st August,
2013 declaring same to be effective from 01-10-2013.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
561
The Employer stated that since no sales jobs were
available, they didn’t have any option but to
terminate the contract of their employees. The
Employer stated that however, in order to provide
the employment to its employees despite they not
having jobs for its employees, they provided an option
for getting a job for its employees in USL. The
Employer stated that this was followed by one to
one discussions with the Party I through its
functional head, Kiran Nithyanand. The Employer
stated that during the discussions this change was
explained to the Party I in further details and was
intimated that effective 1st October, 2013, the
commercial team in Diageo India will transition to
USL. The Employer stated that the Party I was
informed that the opportunities and the role in USL
would be shared to him in due course of time. The
Employer stated that on 05-09-2013, the Party I was
invited to participate in the “Off Trade Road Show”
anchored by the USL and its Leaders in
Mumbai, where the USL Organization was
introduced in details to all employees present. The
Employer stated that thereafter a meeting was
organized in Mumbai, on 12th September, 2013
between the Party I and the sales leader of West
Regional Profit Centre (RPC), USL for a one to one
interaction to know him better. The Employer stated
that its Regional Business Manager and Human
Resources Business partner interacted with the Party I
on 20th September, 2013 at its Pune office where the
opportunity for Senior Territory Sales Executive
within the cross segment based out of Goa was
discussed with him. The Employer stated that in the
said discussions, the details on his compensation
structure and Human Resource and other employee
related policies of USL, joining process were also
shared. The Employer stated that the Party I was
also handed over a kit which contained a
comparative statement of his current and USL
compensation structure, domestic travel policy of
USL, frequently ask questions for employees and the
joining process. The Employer stated that, at the
close of the discussions, the Party I mentioned that
he would think about the opportunity and revert to
them on the same within the timelines specified in
the joining process document. The Employer stated
that the position offered to him in the USL was same
as the position and level he holds in the company,
with same salary and perks. The Employer stated
that the name of the designation was different as
USL has different nomenclature of designation for
similar positions. The Employer stated that on 24th
September, 2013, they followed up with him on his
decision to accept or reject the offer discussed with
him, which he sent them an email on 25th September,
2013 stating that he wanted more details on the offer.
The Employer stated that the Party I specifically
asked for a draft of the USL offer letter with details
on the role, grade and compensation. The Employer
stated that Mr. Satyam Arora spoke with the Party I
on phone and explained to him that this was the
process being followed for all employees and that
once he states his interests in the offer a formal
process of appointment would follow. The Employer
stated that he was also told by Kiran on email that
they could connect him with the USL Human
Resource Team for any queries that he may have on
the offer terms. The Employer stated that the Party I
refused to talk to USL Human Resource Team and
wanted a draft offer letter from USL. The Employer
stated that, thereafter, on 26th September, 2013, its
function Head Mr. Kiran Nithyanand called him
several times to connect with him. The Employer
stated that then Satyam and Kiran had a telephonic
discussion with him, after that, Kiran emailed him a
scanned copy of a letter which once again outlines
all the details (role, location, designation and salary)
that he had requested for. The Employer stated that
they also explained to him that as per the process
being followed, once he has expressed his interest
in the USL role, a formal letter of appointment will
be issued to him by USL. The Employer stated that
however, he once again mailed them on
27th September, 2013 and conveyed that he was not
satisfied with the details provided so far and he still
could not make up his mind. The Employer stated
that while the time line to accept the offer ended on
27th September, 2013, they extended this time line
for him. The Employer stated that on 30th September,
2013, he again informed them that he is unable to
take decision. The Employer stated that Shilpi
(Human Resource Business Partner) reached out to
him once again on 1st October, 2013 to request him
for his decision on the offer. The Employer stated
that, to help him arrive at a decision, she gave him
the option of the offer details being emailed to him
directly by USL Human Resource. The Employer
stated that, however, the Party I still requested for
some more time in order to consult his family on the
decision. The Employer stated that on 4th October,
2013, he once again said that he was not able to
make up his mind with all the information that had
been provided to him so far and a details mails
having the sequence of events with letter and details
of his future employment was sent to him. The
Employer stated that on 7th October, 2013, he replied
that he is unable to make up his mind. The Employer
stated that they had therefore, no option, but to
terminate his employment by their letter of
termination dated 7-10-2013. The Employer stated
that he accepted the termination letter under protest
and handed over the assets of the Company. The
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
562
Employer stated that he was offered the option of a
role/position in USL, however, he refused to accept.
The Employer stated that they does not have
commercial/sales department and hence, no
commercial/sales roles exists in the company. The
Employer, therefore, submitted that his request for
reinstatement on his position in the Company could
not be obviously be accepted and, therefore, was
rejected. The Employer denied that the termination
of service of the Party I is illegal, malafide,
unconstitutional and against the settled principles
of prevailing law and prayed for dismissal of the
present reference.
7. Thereafter, the Party I filed its Rejoinder on
27-4-2015 at Exb. 6. The Party I, 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 its written statement, which are
contrary and inconsistent with the statements and
averments made by him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by both the parties,
this Court framed the following issues on
4-8-2015 at Exb. 8
1.
Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
he is a Workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the
I.D. Act, 1947?
2.
Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
action of the Employer/Party II in
terminating his services w.e.f. 07-10-2013 is
illegal and unjustified?
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 follows:
1. Issue No. 1
:
In the negative.
2. Issue No. 2
:
Does not arise.
3. Issue No. 3
:
In the negative.
4. Issue No. 4
:
As per Final Order.
REASONS
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri V.
Pangam appearing for the Party I as well as Ld. Adv.
Shri G. K. Sardessai for the Employer.
10.
Ld. Adv. Shri V. Pangam, representing the
Party I, during the course of his oral arguments,
submitted that the party I was working as a Customer
Activation Manager being based at Goa w.e.f.
13-12-2012. He submitted that the Employer is
involved in the business of manufacturing,
importing, marketing and selling of Alcoholic
Brewerages in India. He submitted that the
Employer, after going through his curriculum vitae,
painted to him a rosy picture for taking up
employment with them with handsome
remuneration around 46,200/- p.m. in addition to
other allowances based on the Sales performance
and had also assured future better prospects. He
submitted that as a Customer Activation Manager
for the State of Goa and South Maharashtra with the
Employer, the Party I work profile was execution of
regional activity calendar to agreed scale delivering
on time, in full and within budget, track and control
execution standards ensuring clear visibility of
performance and operational effectiveness, manage
agencies that support delivery of world class
execution, region value/volume growth, ensure
world class execution to agreed scale, within the
budgets and on time for all planned activities,
profitable deployment of trade and brand investment
within the region, execution of region specific
calendar, always aligned to the national activity
calendar ensure, strong relationship with third
party agencies and customers to drive flawless
execution and complete annual P4G/I cat and
personal development plan. He submitted that the
Employer was pleased with his performance in its
establishment and his compensation was revised
w.e.f. 1-10-2013 by 10.2% to Rs. 8,65,081/- per annum
from its existing payment of Rs. 7,92,230/- per annum
within a short span of 9 months from the date of
joining. He submitted that he was performing the
supervisory nature of duties and as such he is a
workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the I. D.
Act, 1947. He submitted that the Employer issued to
him a notice of termination on 7-10-2013 without any
notice which was accepted by him under protest
and without prejudice to his rights and contentions.
He submitted that the sudden termination of his
service w.e.f. 7-10-2013, is illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and in violation of the principles
of natural justice. He submitted that he is
unemployed after termination of his service. He
submitted that the party I be reinstated in service
with full back wages and other consequential
benefits attached to the post. In support of his oral
contention he relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, (1) in the case of K C Sharma
V/s Delhi Stock Exchange reported in 2005 AIR
(SC) 2884 and (2) in the case of Workmen of
American Express V/s Management of American
Express reported in AIR 1986 SC 458.
11. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai,
representing the Employer during the course of his
oral arguments submitted that, the party I was
appointed as Customer Activation Manager for Goa
and South Maharashtra w.e.f. 13-12-2012. He
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
563
submitted that the Party I was lastly paid
remuneration of Rs. 8,65,081/- p.a. He submitted that
the Employer, in its written statement pleaded
certain duties of the Party I which he was performing
as an Customer Activation Manager. He submitted
that the Party I did not deny the said duties and
responsibilities as spelt out by the Employer in its
written statement filed in the present proceedings.
He submitted that the duties and responsibilities
attached to the post of Customer Activation
Manager, which the Party I was performing were
managerial, administrative and supervisory in
nature. He submitted that taking into consideration
the
predominant
nature
of
duties
and
responsibilities attached to the post of Customer
Activation Manager which the Party I was
performing, he is not a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s)
of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted that even
otherwise, the Sales Promotion Act is applicable only
to pharmaceutical companies and not applicable to
the Employer Company and as such the Party I is not
entitled to any benefit from the said Sales Promotion
Act so as to invite jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
In support of his oral contentions, he relied upon the
following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India.
(a) In the case of H. R. Adyanthaya and Ors.
v/s. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Ors., reported in
(1994) 5 SCC 737.
(b) In the case of Mukesh K. Tripathy v/s.
Sr. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. and Ors.,
reported in (2004) 8 SCC 387.
(c) In the case of T.P. Srivastava v/s. National
Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., reported in (1992)
1 SCC 281.
(d) In the case of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and
Distributing Co. of India Ltd. V/s The Burmah
Shell Management Staff Association (I.D. Act
545), reported in 1971 A.I.R. S.C. 922.
He also relied upon a judgment in the case of
Standard Chartered Bank v/s. Vandana Joshi and
Anr., reported in 2010 1 CLR 163 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay.
I have carefully perused the entire records of the
present case. I have also carefully considered the
oral submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates
appearing for the respective parties and is of the
considered opinion as under.
12. Issue No.1: The Employer denied the
contention of the Party I that he is a ‘workman’ as
defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The burden to
prove that he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, is therefore squarely
lies on the Party I.
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines the term
‘workman’ and it means “any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether
the terms of employment be expressed or implied and
for the purposes of any proceedings under this act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with or a consequence of
that dispute or dismissal, discharge or retrenchment
has led to that dispute, but does not include any such
person:
(1)
who is subject to the AIR Force Act, 1950 (45 of
1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or
(2)
who is employed in the police service or as an
Officer or other employee of a prison or
(3)
who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity
(4)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity
draws wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- per mensem
or exercises either by the nature of the duties
attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial
nature.”
13. Thus, from the bare reading of definition of
“Workman” under the I. D. Act, 1947, it is clear that
in order to prove the concerned employee is a
‘Workman’ or not within the meaning of the said act,
he/she must prove that he/she was employed in an
‘Industry’ as defined under the said Act and secondly
he/she was employed to perform any of the work
such as to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work
for hire or reward and that it is not sufficient to prove
that the concerned employee was not falling in any
of the exceptional category i.e. administrative,
managerial and/or supervisory in nature and
drawing a salary of more than Rs. 7,500/- p.m.
14. In the case of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and
Distribution Co. of India Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that “for an
employee to be workman under the definition of
workman in Section 2 (s) of the Act, it is manifest
that he must be employed to do skilled or
unskilled, manual work, supervisory work,
technical work or clerical work. If the work done
by an employee is not of such a nature, he would
not be a workman”.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
564
15. In the case of T. P. Srivastava v/s. National
Tobacco Co. (I) Ltd., reported in 1992 (1) LLN 13,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as
under:
“In order to come within the definition of
workman under the Industrial Disputes Act as
it stood in the year 1973 when the appellant’s
service was terminated, the employee has to be
under the employment to do the work of one of
the types of work referred to in the section, i.e.,
manual, skilled and/or clerical in nature. The
finding of the Tribunal on the nature of the work
is a finding on a question of fact and it is also
borne out by the document produced before
Labour Court. It is seen from the facts found
that the appellant was employed to do
canvassing and promoting sales for the
company. The duties involve the suggesting of
ways and means to improve the sales, a study of
the type or status of the public to whom the
product has to reach and a study of the market
condition. He was also required to suggest about
the publicity in markets and melas,
advertisements including the need for posters,
holders and cinema slides. These duties do
require the imaginative and creative mind
which could not be termed as either manual,
skilled, unskilled or clerical in nature. The
supervising work of the other local salesman
was part of his work considered by the Tribunal
as only incidental to his main work of canvassing
and promotion in the area of his operation. Such
a person cannot be termed as a workman is also
the ratio of the decision of this Court in Burmah
Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company
v/s. Burmah Shell Management and Staff
reported in A.I.R. 1971 S. C. 922, D. S. Nagaraj
v/s. Labour Officer, Kurnool, and others, 1973 – I
L.L. N 161, J. J. Deehane Distributor v/s. State of
Kerela and others 1975 – II L.L.N 353”.
16. In the case of S. K. Maini v/s. M/s. Carona
Sahu Co. Ltd. and Ors., [1994 (68) FLR 1101], the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “whether or not
an employee is a ‘workman’ under Sec. 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined
with reference to his principal nature of duties and
functions. Such question is required to be determined
with reference to the facts and circumstances of the
case and materials on record and it is not possible to
lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide
the dispute as to the real nature of duties and
functions being performed by an employee in all cases.
When an employee is employed to do the types of work
enumerated in the definition of the workman under
Section 2 (s), there is hardly any difficulty in treating
him as a workman under the appropriate
classification but in the complexity of industrial or
commercial organizations quite a large number of
employees are often required to do more than one kind
of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to
determine under which classification the employee is
not of much importance and what is important is the
nature of duties being performed by the employees.
The determinative factor is the main duties of the
concerned employee and not some works incidentally
done. In other words, that is, in substance, the work
which employee does or what in substance he is
employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the
employee is mainly doing supervisory work but
incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some
manual or clerical work, the employee should be held
to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main
work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the
mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also
done by the employee incidentally or only a small
fraction of working time is devoted to some
supervisory works, the employee will come within the
purview of workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”.
17. In the case of H.R. Adyanthaya (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 24 of its
judgment held as under:
“24. We thus have three three-Judge Bench
decisions which have taken the view that a
person to be qualified to be a workman must be
doing the work which falls in any of the four
categories, viz. manual, clerical, supervisory or
technical and two two-Judge Bench decisions
which have by referring to one or the other of
the said three decisions have reiterated the said
law. As against this, we have three three-Judge
Bench decisions which have without referring
to the decisions in May and Baker, WIMCO and
Burmah Shell cases have taken the other view
which was expressly negative, viz., if a person
does not fall within the four exceptions to the
said definition he is a workman within the
meaning of the I. D. Act. These decisions are also
based on the facts found in those cases. They
have, therefore, to be confined to those facts.
Hence the position in law as it obtains today is
that a person to be a workman under the ID Act
must be employed to do the work of any of the
categories, viz., manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. It
is not enough that he is not covered by either of
the four exceptions to the definition. We
reiterate the said interpretation.”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
565
18. In the case of Mukesh K. Tripathi V/s LIC
reported in (2004) 8 SCC 387, before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, “the Petitioner was
appointed as ‘Apprentice Development Officer’ with
the Respondent and his services were terminated in
terms of Clause IV of his Appointment Order. The
Tribunal held him as “Workman” within the meaning
of Sec. 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. In Writ Petition filed
by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court, the said Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal was set aside. In an Appeal filed by the
Appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court after relying
upon its various decisions dismissed the said appeal
and observed that it does not appear that the
Appellant here in had adduced any evidence
whatsoever as regards the nature of his duties so as
to establish that he had performed any skilled,
unskilled, manual, technical or operational duties”.
19. In the case of Standard Chartered Bank v/s.
Vandana Joshi and Anr., reported in 2010 LLR 200,
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay also explained
the meaning of the term ‘Manager’ in para 18 of its
judgment as under and held that the Respondent is
not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s)
of the I.D. Act, 1947.
“The fact that in an organization structure
the employee, in the course of the decision
making process, is subject to checks and
balances is not a matter which would
establish that she/he is a workman within
the meaning of Section 2(s). Modern forms of
business in corporate organizations put into
place a carefully crafted process of checks and
balances. Rarely, if ever, would an employee
have authoritarian control over business
decisions. Employee are made subject to
verification or subject to a system of controls
and balances does not establish that the
employee is a workman within the meaning
of Section 2(s). Managers do not become
workmen because their decisions are
structured by process and approvals.
Absolute autonomy is not the norm in
managerial decision making. Nor does the law
insist on absolute discretion or absolute
autonomy for a person to be a manager.
Basically the answer to the question must
depend upon the dominant nature of the
duties and responsibilities”.
20. Thus, from the aforesaid series of judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay, it is now well established that whether a
concerned employee is a ‘workman’ or not under the
I.D. Act, 1947, depends upon his predominant nature
of duties and responsibilities, which he was
performing just before the termination of his services.
It is further well settled principle of industrial
jurisprudence that in order to become a ‘workman’
under the I.D. Act, 1947, the concerned employee
shall prove that he must be employed to do the work
either manual, skilled or unskilled, clerical,
technical, operational or supervisory in nature and
it is not enough that he was not doing any
administrative, managerial and /or supervisory work.
Among the aforesaid judgments, the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.P.
Srivastava (supra) is squarely applicable to the case
in hand.
21. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the
records indicate that the Party I was designated as
‘Customer Activation Manager’ and his
remuneration at the time of termination of his
services was Rs. 8,65,081/- p. a. i.e. approximately
Rs. 72,090/- p.m. As a ‘Customer Activation Manager’
for the State of Goa and South Maharashtra, his
predominant nature of duties and responsibilities
were execution of regional activity calendar to
agreed scale delivering on time, in full and within
budget, track and control execution standards
ensuring clear visibility of performance and
operational effectiveness, manage agencies that
support delivery of world class execution, region
value/volume grow, ensure world class execution to
agreed scale, within budgets and on time for all
planned activities, profitable deployment of trade
and brand investment within the region, execution
or region specific calendar, always aligned to the
national activity calendar, ensure strong
relationship with third party agencies and customer
to drive flawless execution, complete annual P4G/1
cat and personal development plan. The aforesaid
duties and responsibilities performed by the Party I
as an ‘Customer Activation Manager’ do require the
imaginative and creative mind which could not be
termed as manual, skilled, unskilled, technical,
operational or clerical, but squarely falls in a
managerial, administrative and supervisory in
nature. Ld. Adv. Shri V. Pangam during the course of
his oral arguments and cited upon a judgments in
the case of K. C. Sharma(supra) as well as in the
case of Workman of American Express (supra).
However, the principle laid down in both the said
judgments are not applicable to the case in hand.
22. The Party I was working in sales and marketing
department of the Employer. However, the provisions
of Sales Promotions Employees’ (Conditions of
Service) Act, 1976 are applicable to pharmaceutical
Companies only and not to the Employer Company
and as such the provisions of the said Act are not
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
566
applicable to the Party I. In view of above, it is held
that the Party I is not a ‘workman’ within the meaning
of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The issue No. 1 is
therefore answered in the negative.
23. Issue No. 2 and 3:
While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that the
Party I is not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
In the circumstances, this court has no
jurisdiction to decide whether the action of the
Employer in terminating services of the Party I with
effect from 07-10-2013, is legal and justified. The
Party I is therefore not entitled to any relief. The issue
No. 2 is therefore answered accordingly and the
issue No. 3 is answered in the negative.
In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass
the following Order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action the Party I
Shri Gautam Gauns is not a ‘workman’ within
the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947.
2. It is further held that the dispute as to whether
the action of the management of M/s Diageo
India Private Limited, Mumbai in terminating
services of Shri Gautam Gauns, Customer
Activation Manager, with effect from
07th October, 2013, is legal and justified, does
not survive.
3. The Party I, Shri Gautam Gauns is not entitled
to any relief.
4. No Order as to Costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/645
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 24-07-2018 in reference
No. LC-II/C-IT/02/2017 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, 24th September, 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/02/2017
Shri Vinayak Kolhe,
Conductor, Badge No. 4873,
Vasco Depot, KTC Ltd.
…… 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 24-07-2018.
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 is presently posted at
Vasco depot. He stated that he raised the dispute in
respect of disparity in his pay fixation before the
Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Panaji, Goa, which
ended in failure. He stated that accordingly failure
report was sent to the Appropriate Government. He
stated that the Appropriate Government in exercise
of the power conferred by Clause 10 (1) (d) of the I.D.
Act referred the said dispute for its adjudication to
this Labour Court II. He stated that the said dispute
referred by the Appropriate Government is
pertaining to legality and justifiability of the action
of the Employer in not granting second financial up
gradation under the Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (MACPS) to him. He stated that
the said reference was registered as LC-II/IT/08/15
and notice was issued to the parties. He stated that
in pursuance to the notice issued to the parties, they
have appeared and filed their pleadings
respectively. He stated that during the pendency of
the said reference before this Hon’ble court, the
Personnel Manager of the Employer issued an order
dated 18-11-2016 by which he was recommended
for grant of second financial up gradation in the pay
band of Rs. 5200-20200+2800 grade pay under the
MACPS. He stated that by the said order his basic
was fixed at Rs. 9,750/- plus Rs. 2,800/- grade pay
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
567
w.e.f. 01-09-2008 notionally and monetary benefits
from 20-09-2016. He stated that the said order further
states that on implementation of the MACPS, the
arrears will be paid w.e.f. 20-09-2016 only after
receipt of funds from the Government. He stated that
the said order was passed when the dispute
pertaining to the non-granting of the second financial
up gradation was pending before this Labour
Court II. He submitted that he is entitled for up
gradation in accordance with the MACPS and as
such the Personnel Manager of the Employer has no
right of whatsoever nature to breach the scheme
and implement the same with the condition that he
shall be entitled notionally from 01-09-2008 and
monetary benefits from 20-09-2016. He submitted
that the said order passed by the Personnel Manager
is illegal and without any authority. He submitted
that the said order alter the service conditions
applicable to him and as such prejudiced him. He
submitted that the Personnel Manager of the
Employer has acted in abuse of process of law and is
liable for action for violation of provisions of Section
33-A of the I.D. Act. The Workman therefore prayed
for allowing the complaint. The Workman further
prayed that the Employer be directed to implement
the second financial up gradation on completion of
20 years of service monetarily with consequential
benefits attached to the post from the date of
eligibility of the scheme and that to initiate
proceedings against the Personnel Manager of the
Employer for altering the service conditions in
violation of the MACPS during the pendency of the
dispute before this Labour Court II.
3. The Employer resisted the claim of the Workman
by filing its reply dated 05-04-2017 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 Workman and that what
is referred for adjudication is not a complaint as
defined u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act.
4. 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 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 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 Workman, financial up-
gradation in the scale was differed by them. The
Employer stated that the dispute raised by the
Workman was ought not to be raised before the
Labour Commissioner as he had to exhaust all the
remedies available to him and thereafter approach
the authorities under the Act and as such the
Workman is not entitled to any relief. 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 Workman 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 Workman 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 Workman 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 Workman does not
amounts to alteration of his service conditions to
the prejudice of the Workman. The Employer
therefore submitted that the Workman 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 Workman and prayed for dismissal
of the present complaint.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
568
5. Thereafter an opportunity was given to the
Workman 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.
6. 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 order dated 18-11-2016 passed by the
Personnel Manager of the Employer thereby
recommending the grant of second financial
up gradation under the MACP Scheme to him
during the pendency of the reference
bearing No. LC-II/IT/08/15 before the Labour
Court II is illegal?
2.
Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
by passing an order dated 18-11-2016, the
Employer altered his service conditions?
3.
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?
4.
Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
5.
What order? What Award?
7. 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
:
In the Affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4 and 5
:
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.
8. Ld. Adv. Shri. A. Kundaikar, appearing for the
Workman, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman is working as
conductor and presently posted at Vasco depot. He
submitted that the Workman 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
Workman 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 submitted that the law laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerela in its judgment in the
case of Stanley Mendex v/s. Glovanola Binny and
Ors., reported in (1968) III LLJ 470 Ker is erroneous
and has been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
its case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank
Ltd. v/s. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors.,
reported in AIR 2002 SC 643. He therefore submitted
that the complaint be therefore be allowed and
necessary action deemed fit be taken against the
Employer.
9. 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 Workman is working as conductor and
presently posted at Vasco depot. He admitted that
the Workman 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 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 Workman.
He submitted that the second financial up-gradation
under the MACP scheme was differed to the
Workman on account of three departmental
enquiries pending against him. He submitted that
after disposing off the said three departmental
enquiries, the case of the Workman was placed before
its departmental screening committee, who in turn
pleased to recommend the Workman 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
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
569
Workman 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 Workman 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 Workman under the MACP Scheme
does not prejudicial altering the conditions of service
of the Workman. He therefore submitted that the
complaint filed by the Workman 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.
10. Issue No.1 and 2:
Undisputedly, the Workman is in the employment
of the Employer and has been posted at Vasco depot.
The Workman 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 Workman 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 Workman 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 Workman accepted the said order without any
protest and has also availed the arrears accrued
therefrom.
11. By the present complaint, the Workman 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.
12. 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”.
13. 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 Workman, the Employer passed an
order dated 18-11-2016 by which the Workman was
granted second up-gradation under the MACP
Scheme.
14. Shri V. D. Harmalkar, the first witness of the
Employer, during the course of his cross-examination
admitted that the Workman was due for his second
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
570
financial up-gradation in the MACPS on completion
of 20 years in service w.e.f. 01-09-2008. He stated that
the name of the Workman was recommended for his
second up-gradation under MACPS in the year 2016.
Shri V. Harmalkar as well as the Workman in their
cross-examination respectively admitted that the
Workman were issued three charge-sheets one dated
18-05-1996, second dated 28-08-2001 and third dated
26-04-2007 and enquiries were conducted against
him. Both the said persons admitted that the
enquiries were resulted in imposing of penalties of
fine of Rs. 2500/- vide order of the Employer dated
11-04-2016 in respect of first charge-sheet dated
18-05-1996 and fine of Rs. 2000/- each in other
two charge-sheets dated 28-08-2001 and
dated 26-04-2007 vide order of the Employer dated
11-05-2016 and order dated 20-09-2016 respectively.
It is further admitted that after completion of all the
enquiries as above, the name of the Workman was
recommended for MACPS and accordingly order
dated 18-11-2016 was issued to him. By the said order
dated 18-11-2016, the Workman 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
Workman also availed the arrears accrued therefrom.
In fact, the Workman was entitled for his second up-
gradation under the MACPS on 01-09-2008. However,
he was granted the same by order dated 18-11-2016
in view of pendency of the departmental enquiry
against him. I do not find any error or mistake in the
said order dated 18-11-2016 taking into
consideration the penalties issued to the Workman
in all the three charge-sheets issued to him. In the
event if the Workman was exonerated from all the
above referred three charge-sheets than the
Workman would have been entitled for his second
up-gradation with effect from 01-09-2008. The said
order granting the second financial up-gradation to
the Workman is beneficial to him and cannot be said
to be prejudicial or alters his conditions of service.
Even otherwise, the Workman 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 Workman
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.
15. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, representing the
Workman during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that all the above referred three enquiries
conducted against the Workman were in violation
of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that
even the fines were also recovered in total violation
of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act.
However, the court do not find any substance of
merits in the aforesaid submissions as firstly, there
is no pleadings on behalf of the Workman to that
effect and secondly, there is nothing on record to
show that the enquiry proceedings have been
challenged by him in an appropriate proceedings
and set aside the same. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar
further submitted that order dated 18-11-2016
granting MACPS to the Workman is in breach of the
said scheme and also flagrant abuse of process of
law. This court however, do not find any merits in
the aforesaid submissions as the said order granting
second up-gradation in MACPS was passed after
considering the reports of all the three enquiries
holding him guilty. The law relating to promotions
are similar to the MACPS. In my considered opinion
order dated 18-11-2016 is just fair and proper and
cannot be said to be arbitrary. Ld. Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi
Vikas Bank Ltd. (supra). However, the principle
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its case is
not on the point in issue and as such not applicable
to the case in hand.
16. It is pertinent to note that the Workman had
filed two similar complaints u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act,
1947 for alleged violation of service condition on one
and the same ground. The first complaint was
dismissed by this court judgment and order dated
06-04-2018 and the present is the second complaint.
In view of above, it is held that the Workman 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. The issue No.1 is therefore answered
in the negative and the issue No. 2 is answered in
the affirmative.
17. Issue No. 3 and 4:
While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that the order
dated 18-11-2006 passed by the Personnel Manager
of the Employer recommending grant of second
financial up gradation under the MACPS of the
Workman during the pendency of the reference
bearing No. LC-II/IT/08/15 before the Labour
Court II is just, legal and proper. Similarly, while
deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that by
passing an order dated 18-11-2016, the Employer has
not altered the service conditions applicable to the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
571
Workman nor contravene the provisions of Section
33 of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, it is held that the
Employer proved that the complaint filed by the
Workman without there being an alteration of service
conditions applicable to him. The issue No. 3 is
therefore answered in the affirmative. The Workman
is therefore not entitled to any relief. The issue No. 4
is answered in the negative.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
1. The complaint filed by the Workman is hereby
dismissed. It is held that the second financial
up gradation granted to the Workman vide
order of the Employer dated 18-11-2016 is just
and legal.
2. The Workman is therefore not entitled to any
relief.
3. No Order as to Cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———u———
Inspectorate of Factories & Boilers
__
Notice
No. IFB/BAE/2018
The Board of Examiners under the Boiler
Attendant’s Rules, 2011 declares the following
candidates to have passed in the examination
conducted on 4th & 5th October, 2018 for
certificate of Competency of Boiler Attendants of
class mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule below
against their respective names:-
Sr.
Name of the candidates
Examination
No.
1
2
3
1. Shri Akhil Bhikaji Naik
Second Class Boiler
Attendant.
2. Shri Mithun Harichandra Second Class Boiler
Gawas
Attendant
3. Shri Mayuresh Madhukar Second Class Boiler
Sinari
Attendant.
4. Shri Sunil Kashinath
Second Class Boiler
Kavlekar
Attendant.
5. Shri Mohan D.
Second Class Boiler
Attendant.
6. Shri Shantaprasad Utagi
Second Class Boiler
Attendant.
7. Shri Amol Narayan
First Class Boiler
Morajkar
Attendant.
8. Shri Hari Om Ojha
First Class Boiler
Attendant.
9 Shri J. Bala Mahendran
First Class Boiler
Attendant.
10. Shri Borra Naga Babu
First Class Boiler
Attendant.
11. Shri Bishnu Charan Das
First Class Boiler
Attendant.
12. Shri Amir Sahadev Venji First Class Boiler
Attendant.
R. T. Korgaonkar, Inspector of Boilers & Secretary,
Board of Examiners under the Boiler Attendants,
Rules, 2011.
Panaji, 10th October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 22/10/2018-PER/2507
The Governor of Goa is pleased to allot the
charge of Commandant 1st, 2nd & 3rd IRBn to
Shri Utkrisht Prasoon, IPS, SP (SB), in addition to
his own duties with immediate effect, in public
interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 10th October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 7/21/2017-PER/2476
Read: Notification No. 7/21/2017-PER/2093 dated
02-07-2018.
The Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint
Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS (AGMUT:2008), as
Secretary to Government, with immediate effect
and shall hold the charge of following Departments,
namely:-
1. Women & Child Development.
2. Craftsmen Training & Skill Development.
3. Law, Judiciary & Legislative Affairs.
The notification in the preamble stands modified
to that extent.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 9th October, 2018.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
572
Order
No. 6/8/2016-PER/2521
Read: 1) Order No. 6/4/2001-PER (Vol. I) dated 27-01-2016.
2) O. M. No. 12/14/89-PER (Part) dated 12-08-2014.
The Governor of Goa is pleased to extend the period of probation under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the
Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, of the following Junior Scale Officers appointed vide order read in preamble
at Sr. No. (1) for a period of six months from the date of culmination of period of probation, as mentioned
in column 3 against their name, read with guidelines laid down vide O.M. cited at Sr. No. (2) of the
preamble:
Sr.
Name of the
Date of joining
Date of expiry of
Date upto which
No.
Officer
probation period
probation is extended
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Dr. Geeta Suresh
28-01-2016 (B.N.)
27-01-2018
27-07-2018
Nagvenkar
2.
Shri Clen Madeira
19-02-2016 (B.N.)
18-02-2018
18-08-2018
3.
Shri Rohit Ashok Kadam
28-01-2016 (B.N.)
27-01-2018
27-07-2018
4.
Shri Akshay Gurunath
10-02-2016 (B.N.)
09-02-2018
09-08-2018
Potekar
5.
Smt. Neha Amey Naik
28-01-2016 (B.N.)
27-01-2018
27-07-2018
Panvelkar
6.
Shri Deepesh Narayan
25-02-2016 (B.N.)
24-02-2018
24-08-2018
Priolkar
7.
Shri Ajay Ramchandra
10-02-2016 (B.N.)
09-02-2018
09-08-2018
Gaude
8.
Shri Kapil Chandrakant
28-01-2016 (B.N.)
27-01-2018
27-07-2018
Phadte
9.
Shri Kedar Ashok
01-02-2016 (B.N.)
31-01-2018
31-07-2018
Naik
10.
Shri Prasad Gurudas
29-02-2016 (B.N.)
28-02-2018
28-08-2018
Volvoikar
11.
Shri Rohan Janardan
28-01-2016 (B.N.)
27-01-2018
27-07-2018
Kaskar
12.
Shri Taha Idrees Haaziq
01-02-2016 (B.N.)
31-01-2018
31-07-2018
The period of probation is extended due to administrative exigencies in conducting the departmental
examination during the period of probation.
This issues with the concurrence of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide Letter
No. COM/II/12/42(1)/2012/658 dated 11-09-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 4th October, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
573
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
__
Order
No. 2015/CEE/Tech/SLDC/2013-2014/2263
Ex-post facto approval of the Government is
hereby accorded to consider the services of Shri
Laxmikant D. Kolvekar, Superintending Engineer
(Elect.) to the post of Additional Chief Engineer-I
on officiating basis, Group ‘A’ Gazetted in the Pay
Matrix Level 13 instead of ad hoc promotion for the
period from 01-01-2018 to 31-08-2018.
2. The above officiating posting in the post of
Additional Chief Engineer, will not bestow on above
officer, any claim for regular appointment and
services tendered by above officer on officiating
basis as Additional Chief Engineer shall not be
counted for the purpose of seniority in the grade
or eligibility for promotion to the post of Additional
Chief Engineer.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
N. Neelakanta Reddy, Chief Electrical Engineer
& ex officio Additional Secretary.
Panaji, 11th October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Certificate
No. 45/1/2005-I/PHD/Part/2557
Read: 1) Government Order No. 45/1/2005-I/PHD/
/Part/1559 dated 14-06-2018.
2) Certificate No. 45/1/2005-I/PHD/Part/2267
dated 30-08-2018.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Dr. Ankita Subhash Lotliker, Junior Anaesthetist
(Group “A” Gazetted) under Directorate of Health
Services, mentioned in the above referred order
has been verified by the District Magistrate, South
Goa District, Margao vide letter No. 36/03/2018/
/MAG/229/8897 dated 30-07-2018 and it is revealed
that there is nothing adverse reported against her.
This issues in supersession of Certificate No.
45/1/2005-I/PHD/Part/2267 dated 30-08-2018 read
at preamble (2).
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 10th October, 2018.
Raj Bhavan
__
Relieving Order
No. GS/ADC-AF/PER/141/2016/2412
Read: 1) Communication No. Air HQ/C 21974/
/ADC/PO-1(Dep) dated 28-03-2016.
2) Order No. GS/ADC-AF/PER/141/2016/959
dated 19-04-2016.
3) Corrigendum No. GS/ADC-AF/PER/141/
/2016/1005 dated 25-04-2016.
4) Communication No. 2(22)/2013-D(MS)
dated 22-01-2018 and Air HQ/21974/ADC/
/PO-1(Dep) dated 07-02-2018.
5) GS/ADC-AF/PER/141/2016/395 dated
13-02-2018.
6) AIRHQ/21641/29237/PO-1(ADM) dated
26-09-2018.
Sqn. Ldr. Samir S. Alve 29237-A F(P), Indian Air
Force, ADC to Governor, at Raj Bhavan, Goa, stands
relieved from this office with effect from 27th
September, 2018 a.n.
2. Sqn. Ldr. Samir S. Alve is advised to report for
duties to the place of his posting in accordance
with the orders of the Indian Air Force
Headquarters, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
3. Sqn. Ldr. Samir S. Alve has availed 11 days
Casual Leave with a balance of 09 days Casual
Leave to his credit for the calendar year 2018.
Further, the officer has availed the following leaves
during his tenure of deputation:-
i. Annual Leave for 5 days from 17-10-2016 to
21-10-2016; (Order No. GS/ADC-AF/PER/141/
/2016/2402 dated 13-10-2016);
ii. Annual Leave for 4 days from 07-02-2017 to
10-02-2017 and 5 days from 16-02-2017 to
20-02-2017 (Order No. GS/ADC-AF-PER/141/
/2017/295 dated
01-02-2017); and
iii. Annual Leave for 5 days from 17-07-2017 to
21-07-2017 with LTC for self and family for the
year 2017 (Order No. GS/ADC-AF/PER/141/
/2016/1508 dated 27-06-2018).
4. This issues with the approval of Hon’ble
Governor.
Rupesh Kumar Thakur, IAS, Secretary to the
Governor.
Raj Bhavan, 9th October, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 29
19TH OCTOBER, 2018
574
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. 74-1-81/CE-WR/Adm.II/693
Government is pleased to order transfer/posting of following Executive Engineers/Surveyor of Works
of this Department, to the offices mentioned against their names, with immediate effect.
Sr.
Name & designation
Present place of posting
Office to which posted on transfer
No.
1.
Shri Narayanan E. Nair,
O/o Executive Engineer,
As Surveyor of Works, O/o Superintending
Executive Engineer
Works Division XIII, WRD,
Engineer, Circle I, WRD, Porvorim-Goa.
Gogal, Margao-Goa with
addl. charge as Executive
Engineer, Works Div. III,
WRD, Ponda
2.
Shri M. K. Kurbet,
O/o Superintending Engineer,
As Executive Engineer, Works Division XIII,
Surveyor of Works
Circle I, WRD, Porvorim-Goa
WRD, Gogal, Margao-Goa with addl.
charge as Executive Engineer, Works
Div. III, WRD, Ponda.
The concerned Head of Office should relieve the above transferees and endorse one copy of the same
to this office.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (W.R.).
Porvorim, 12th October, 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—223/150–10/2018.