Panaji, 8th November, 2018 (Kartika 17, 1940)
SERIES II No. 32
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
607
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Civil Aviation
Directorate of Civil Aviation
__
Order
No. DOCA/EST/Appt.Dy.Col/18/16-17/1739
Read: Order No. DOCA/EST/Appt.Dy.Col/18/
/16-17/509 dated 1st December, 2016.
Addendum No. DOCA/EST/Appt. Dy.Col/
/18/16-17/925 dated 3rd January, 2017.
Order No. DOCA/EST/Appt.Dy.Col/18/
/16-17/133 dated 16th May, 2017.
Order No. DOCA/EST/Appt.Dy.Col/18/
/16-17/399 dated 29th August, 2017.
Order No. DOCA/EST/Appt.Dy.Col/18/
/16-17/56 dated 19th April, 2018.
The contractual appointment of Shri N. D.
Agarwal, Retired Collector, South Goa as Advisor
in the Directorate of Civil Aviation is hereby
extended for a period of one year from 1st October,
2018 to 30th September, 2019. He shall be paid
lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000 per month in the
addition to pension.
The expenditure shall be debited from the
following Budget Head.
Demand No. 84 (Civil Aviation).
3053 — Civil Aviation;
02 — Airport;
800 — Other Expenditure;
01 — Establishment of Airport Cell (Plan);
50 — Other Charges.
This issues as per Office Memorandum No. 1/1/
/2017-Addl. Secy (PER)/2625 dated 23-10-2018 and
Administrative approval vide U. O. No. 9158/F dated
26-10-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dr. S. Shanbhogue, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Civil Aviation).
Porvorim, 31st October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
& ex officio Joint Secretary
__
Order
.
No. 50/3/(124)/Elec/BOD/AACH/RCS/CZ/16/3084
Read: 1) Letter No. 1/212/Elec/AACH/ARCZ/2016/
/1086 dated 12th January, 2018 received
from the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op.
Societies, Central Zone, Panaji-Goa to fill
six vacant posts of Directors of the
Al-Ameen Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Cujira, St. Cruz-Goa.
The Government of Goa is pleased to exempt
the Al-Ameen Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Cujira,
St. Cruz-Goa from the Provisions of Section 60(3)(b)
of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001 for the
term i.e. 2016 to 2021 by invoking the powers
under Section 126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies
Act, 2001.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 30th October, 2018.
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 31 dated 01-11-2018
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 01-11-2018 from pages 603
to 604 regarding Notification from Department
of Finance.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 05-11-2018 from
pages 605 to 606 regarding Notification from
Department of Environment.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
608
Corrigendum
.
No. 19/01/2014/VUCCS/TS/RCS/part/3136
Read: 1. Order No. 19/12/96/UCCS/TS/RCS/4076
dated 7th June, 2011.
2. Order No. 19/01/2014/VUCCS/TS/RCS/
/Vol.I/917 dated 18th June, 2015.
3. Order No. 3/2/Urban/TS II/SZ/2017/RCS/
/1483 dated 6th July, 2017.
4. Request letter dated 18-07-2017 received
from The Managing Director, Goa State
Co-op. Bank Ltd., Panaji-Goa.
5. Representation Letter dated 27-02-2018
and 06-06-2018 received from the
Committee of Administrator of the
society.
6. Order No. 19/01/2014/VUCCS/TS/RCS/
/Suppl/1610 dated 17th July, 2018
regarding extension of term of Committee
of Administrator.
7. Order No. 19/01/2014/VUCCS/TS/RCS/
/part/2149 dated 27th August, 2018
regarding appointment of Liquidator.
8. Letter No. GSCB/I & A/2018-19/5856
dated 17-09-2018 of the Goa State
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Panaji-Goa.
In partial modification to the Order referred at
Sr. No. 7, Shri Vishwanath Chodankar, Branch
Manager of the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
is hereby authorized to discharge the duties of the
Liquidator of the Vasco Urban Co-operative Credit
Society Ltd., 3 Commerce Centre, Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa, on behalf of the Goa State Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Panaji-Goa.
All the other terms and conditions specified in
Order referred at Sr. No. 7 shall remain unchanged.
Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 2nd November, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Environment
__
Order
No. 175-10-2016/STE-DIR/591
Sub.: Constitution of an expert committee at State
Level to ensure that untreated/partially
treated sewage or industrial effluents may
not be disposed in wetlands.
Ref.: Order No. 175-10-2016/STE-DIR/382 dated
22-08-2017.
As advised by the Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) vide
their letter No. J-22102/41/2016-CS(W) dated 5th
December, 2016, the expert committee has been
constituted vide above dated 22-08-2017 for the
period of one year to ensure that untreated/
/partially treated sewage or industrial effluents are
not disposed in wetlands and strict compliance to
the Wetlands (Conservation and Management
Rules, 2010).
The term of the said committee expired on
22-08-2018. The State Government has approval for
re-constitutes of the expert committee with
following members:
Sr.
Name
Designation
No.
1. The Chief Town Planner or
Member.
Representative, Town & Country
Planning Department, Panaji
2. Director or Representative,
Member.
Directorate of Panchayat, Panaji
3. Director or Representative,
Member.
Directorate of Municipal Adminis-
tration, Panaji
4. Member Secretary, Goa State
Member.
Biodiversity Board: Head of
Nodal Agency, Goa State
Wetland Authority, Saligao
5. Member Secretary, Goa State
Member.
Pollution Control Board,
Saligao
6. Representative, Goa State
Member.
Council for Science &
Technology, Saligao
7. Dr. G. N. Nayak, Subject matter
Member.
expert, GSWA
8. Dr. Vinod Dhargalkar, Former
Member.
Scientist, National Institute
of Oceanography, Dona Paula
9. The Director (Environment),
Convenor.
Member Secertary-GSWA
For the following purpose the above expert
committee is re-constituted:
1. The untreated/partially treated sewage or
industrial effluent is not disposed of in any
wetlands by Panchayat, Urban Local Body,
Industries or PSU. For the purpose of
treatment, the norms/standards prescribed by
the Goa State Pollution Control Board shall
be the criteria.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
609
2. Immersion of idols is not permitted in any
wetland in contravention to the ‘Guidelines
for idol immersion’ brought out by Central
Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and PROBES/
/136/2010-June, 2010.
The terms of reference of the above mentioned
Expert Committee shall be as follows:
1. To ensure that the Wetlands (Conservation
and Management) Rules, 2010 are thoroughly
complied and implemented across the State:
2. To ensure that the local bodies such as
Directorate of Panchayats and Directorate
of Municipal Administration take necessary
steps to ensure that the untreated/partially
treated sewage or industrial effluents are not
disposed in wetlands and bring to the notice
of the Authority the violations occurring at
local level during the idol immersion and
oversee the process.
The term of this committee would be for the
period of one year and may be subsequently
renewed.
This issue with the approval of the State
Government vide their U.O. No. 8931/F dated
17-10-2018.
Ravi Jha, IAS, Director (Environment).
Porvorim, 31st October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Finance
Debt Management Division
—
Notification
No. 2/8/2010-FIN(DMU)/470
In pursuance to Clause 68 read with Clause 79
of the Articles of Association of EDC Limited,
Government of Goa is pleased to re-constitute the
Board of Directors of EDC Ltd., with the following
nominees with immediate effect:-
1. Shri Subhash Shirodkar,
—
Director.
Shiroda-Goa
2. Shri Santosh Kenkre,
—
Director.
Tonca, Caranzalem
3. Finance Secretary or his
—
Director.
nominee not below the rank
of Under Secretary from
Finance Department
4. Shri Sandip Bhandare, Panaji
—
Director.
5. Shri Ralph De Souza, Assgao,
—
Director.
Bardez
6. Shri Dr. Purushottam Raya
—
Director.
Pednekar, Khorlim, Mapusa
7. Shri Shivprasad Manerkar,
—
Director.
Panaji
8. Smt. Lalita Correia Alfonhso,
—
Director.
Panaji (Woman Director)
9. Shri Ninad Karpe, Panaji
—
Director.
10. Nominee of IDBI Bank Ltd.
—
Director.
11. Managing Director, EDC Ltd.
—
Director.
Government is further pleased to nominate
Shri Subhash Shirodkar as Chairman and
Shri Santosh Kenkre as Vice Chairman of EDC
Limited.
This issues in supersession of all earlier
Notifications issued in this regards.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary, Finance
(Bud-II).
Porvorim, 31st October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/738
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
24-09-2018 in reference No. IT/04/13 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 1st November, 2018.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/04/13
Shri Virendra Shukla & 9 Others,
C/o. Adv. Shri Vijay A. Palekar,
Anand Bhawan, Durgawadi,
Taleigao, Goa-403 002.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
610
M/s. Nicomet Industries Ltd.,
Plot No. L-19 and 20,
Cuncolim Industrial Estate,
Cuncolim, Goa-403 703.
… Employer/ Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri V. A.
Palekar.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 24th day of the month
of September of the year 2018)
By Order dated 12-04-2013, bearing No. 28/7/
/2013-Lab/164, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Nicomet Industries Limited, Cuncolim,
Goa, in declining to give the benefits of the
Settlement dated 09-05-2008 to the below
mentioned workmen on the ground that they
have ceased to be in employment before
signing of the Settlement, is legal and
justified?
(i) Shri Xavier Colaco.
(ii) Shri Rajappa Iiger.
(iii) Shri Milagres Dias.
(iv) Shri Suraj Deshpande.
(v) Shri Deepak Gaonkar.
(vi) Shri Ravindra Dhuri.
(vii) Shri Rajesh Gawas.
(viii) Shri Praveen Kamble.
(ix) Shri Raju Singh.
(x) Shri Veerandra Shukla.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, to what relief the workmen
are entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/04/13 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 6 and
Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 7.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that Party I
workmen were workmen of Party II and had
submitted a Charter of demands through the Union
and had raised certain demands to be effective
from April, 2004. The Party I workmen during the
pendency of the negotiations of the said Charter of
demands resigned from employment of the
company. The issues raised in the said Charter of
demands were subsequently settled in view of
Settlement dated 9-5-2008 between the company
and the Union. The Party I workmen somewhere in
first week of December, 2008 came to know of the
said Settlement and were surprised that the
Party I workmen were deprived of the benefits of
the Settlement. The Party I workmen were shocked
to know that they were conveniently deprived of
the said benefits by the company in collusion with
the Union in view of Clause 1 of the Settlement
which provided that the terms and conditions of
the Settlement shall be binding on all the
permanent workmen who are employed by Party II
and are party to the Settlement and who are on the
rolls of the company as on 8-5-2008. The exclusion
clause is not binding on Party I workmen and that
they are entitled to receive all the benefits flowing
from the said Settlement during the period from
1-4-2006 till date.
4. The Party I workmen therefore vide letter dated
20-12-2008 requested the Party II to pay the
monetary benefits accrued to them in view of the
Settlement and inspite of having received the said
letter, the Party II did not entertain the claim of
Party I and therefore a dispute was raised before
the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao on 13-4-2010.
The Party II flatly refused resulting into failure of
conciliation proceedings. The Union had no
authority to act in a manner detrimental to the
interest of the Party I and any concession made by
the Union contrary to the interest of Party I without
an express consent of Party I to that effect cannot
bind the Party I. The Party II cannot be permitted
to discriminate in the matter of payment of wages
to Party I merely because the Party I ceased to be
in employment on the date of which Settlement
was arrived at. The Party I is therefore entitled for
benefits flowing from the outcome or the end result
of the dispute raised by them as the right had
already accrued to them for the period anterior to
their resignations. Hence, the reference.
5. In the Written statement, the Party II has stated
that the Party I workmen were not in employment
at the time of signing of the Settlement dated
9-5-2008 and therefore they cannot raise an
industrial dispute much less under sub-section 1
of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is
also beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the
Tribunal to go into question of interpretation of
the Settlement under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act
and the relevant clauses of the said Settlement as
the Party I workmen do not get any benefit of the
said Settlement, since it was signed under Section
12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
611
Disputes Act. The company signed the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 9-5-2008 and
since the workmen concerned in the reference had
already resigned from the services of the company
before the said date, the Party I workmen are not
entitled to any benefits/dues in view of the clauses
of the said Settlement. The Party I workmen are not
the employees of the company anymore and
therefore the Clause 1 of the Settlement is not
applicable to them as they are not on the rolls of
the company on 8-5-2008 and since the Party I
workmen had already left the services of the
company prior to the signing of the Settlement,
they are not covered under the said Settlement
and hence, the Party I workmen cannot claim any
benefit arising out of the said Settlement and
therefore, they are not entitled for any reliefs.
6. Issues which came to be framed at Exhibit 9
are as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I prove that the exclusion
Clause is not binding on them and they are
entitled to receive all the benefits flowing
from the Settlement dated 9-5-08 during the
period from 1-4-06 till date?
(2) Whether the Party I prove that they were
conveniently deprived of the benefits by
Party II in collusion with the union in view
of Clause 1 of the Settlement dated 9-5-08?
(3) Whether the Party II prove that at the time
of signing of the Settlement dated 9-5-08,
Party I/Workmen were not in their
employment and therefore Party I has no
jurisdiction to raise an industrial dispute?
(4) What Award?
7. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
Shri Milagres Dias as their witness and produced on
record a copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated
9-5-2008 at Exh. 12. The Party II produced though
the above witness a copy of resignation letter dated
18-2-2008 at Exh. 13, a copy of relieving order dated
19-2-2008 at Exh. 14 and a copy of letter dated 9-1-
2009 at Exh. 15. On the other hand, the Party II
examined Shri Abhay Dalal as their witness and
produced on record a copy of resignation letter dated
6-4-20017 of Shri Virendra Shukla at Exh. 19, a copy
of relieving order/acceptance of resignation letter
dated 9-4-2007 at Exb. 20, a copy of resignation letter
dated 24-2-2007 of Shri Deepak Gaonkar at Exh. 21, a
copy of relieving order/acceptance of resignation
letter dated 27-4-2007 at Exh. 22, a copy of resignation
letter dated 21-4-2007 of Praveen Kumble at Exh. 23,
a copy of relieving order/acceptance of resignation
letter dated 21-4-2007 at Exh. 24, a copy of resignation
letter dated 16-7-2007 of Shri Rajiv Singh at Exh. 25,
a copy of relieving order/acceptance of resignation
letter dated 20-7-2007 at Exh. 26, a copy of resignation
letter dated 27-2-2007 of Shri Rajesh Gawas at
Exh. 27, a copy of relieving order/acceptance of
resignation letter dated 27-2-2007 at Exh. 28, a copy
of resignation letter dated 18-2-2008 of Shri Suraj
Deshpande at Exh. 29, a copy of relieving order/
/acceptance of resignation letter dated 18-2-2008 at
Exh. 30, a copy of resignation letter dated
16-2-2008 of Shri Xavier Colaco at Exh. 31, a copy of
relieving order/acceptance of resignation letter
dated 18-2-2008 at Exh. 32, a copy of resignation
letter dated 24-11-2007 of Shri Ravindra Dhuri at
Exh. 33, a copy of relieving order/acceptance of
resignation letter dated 29-11-2007 at Exh. 34, a copy
of resignation letter dated 17-8-2007 of
Shri Rajappa Iiger at Exh. 35, a copy of relieving
order/acceptance of resignation letter dated
28-8-2007 at Exh. 36, a copy of minutes of conciliation
dated 17-1-13 before the Dy. Labour Commissioner,
Margao at Exh. 37 and a copy of failure report dated
22-2-2013 at Exh. 38. The Party II also examined Shri
Ashok Gaikwad as second witness.
8. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments
came to be placed on record by the Party II.
9. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the submissions made
by the learned advocates for Parties. My answers
to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
Redundant.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 3:
10.
Ld. Adv. Shri V. A. Palekar for the Party I
has submitted that the Party I workmen along with
the other workmen through the Union submitted a
Charter of demands and during the pendency of
negotiations, the Party I workmen resigned from
the company and the issues raised in the said
Charter of demands were subsequently settled in
view of Settlement dated 9-5-2008 between the
company and the Union. However, the Party II
conveniently deprived the benefits to Party I in
view of Clause 1 of the Settlement which provided
that the terms and conditions of the Settlement
shall be binding on all the permanent workmen
employed by the company and are party to the
Settlement and are on the rolls of the company as
on 8-5-2008. The said exclusion Clause is not
binding on the Party I and they are entitled to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
612
receive all the benefits flowing from the said
Settlement during the period from 1-4-2006 till
they ceased to be in employment of the company
and therefore, above issues have to be answered
accordingly.
11. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for the Party II
has submitted that the last Settlement was signed
on 9-5-2008 between the Union and the Party II
under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act in conciliation proceedings
and that the 10 workmen who are concerned in
the reference have resigned from the services of
the Party II on their own volition, free will and for
better prospects and that they are relieved from
the services by Party II and that they have been
given all their dues. The said Settlement is a
conciliation Settlement. The Party I workmen were
not in the employment at the time of signing the
Settlement and therefore issues concerning them
was never discussed during the conciliation
proceedings. The Settlement is applicable only to
the workmen whose names are mentioned in the
annexure to the Settlement and not to Party I
workmen who were not in the employment as on
the date of signing the same and therefore, not
entitled to claim any relief. He further submitted
that the Settlement arrived under Section 12(3)
read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act are binding on the parties and cannot
be challenged before the Tribunal and in support
thereof,
he
relied
upon
the
cases
of
(i) Parshottambhai Keshavbhai Goyani & Ors. vs.
Bhavnagar Dist. Co-op. Bank Ltd., 2013 II CLR
735, (ii) The Workmen Rep. by Secretary,
Chemplast Employees Union vs. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, 2017 LLR 846, (iii) National
Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan
& Others, 2000 LLR 228 and (iv) R. Balaji Singh
vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., and another,
1997(1) LLN 936.
12. There is no dispute that the Party I workmen
were the workmen of Party II employer and had
submitted a Charter of demands through the Union
to be effective from April, 2006 and that during the
pendency of the negotiations of the said Charter of
demands, the Party I workmen resigned from the
employment of the company on various dates as
reflected in the applications for resignation and
the relieving orders from Exh. 19 to Exh. 36. There
is also no dispute that the issues raised in the said
Charter of demands were subsequently settled vide
a Memorandum of Settlement dated 9-5-2008 signed
before Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao.
Exhibit 12 is the said Settlement. It is equally not
in dispute that the benefits of the said Settlement
were not extended to Party I workmen in terms of
Clause 1 of the said Settlement which provides
that the terms and conditions of the Settlement
shall be binding only on permanent workmen who
were on the rolls of the company as on 8-5-2008
and party to the Settlement. The substratum of
controversy is with respect to the said exclusion
Clause contained in the Settlement and whether it
is unjust, irrational or unreasonable on one hand or
whether it is binding on all the employees of the
company including the Party I.
13. The Party I has examined Shri Milagres Dias.
He has reiterated the contents of the claim
statement in his affidavit in evidence. He has
stated that Party II conspired and colluded with
the Union with the sole object of causing monetary
loss to the Party I workmen and corresponding
gain to Party II at the cost of Party I in a manner
detrimental to the interest of the workers. He has
also specified the dates of resignation in Para 14 of
his affidavit and amount payable in Paras 9 and 15
of the affidavit. He denied the suggestion that
neither him nor the workmen concerned in the
reference have submitted a Charter of demands on
management or that he along with workmen
concerned have given authorization to the local
committee on his behalf or on behalf of the
workers. He admitted that when the Settlement
was signed he was not in the employment. He
denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to
any benefit of the Settlement. He claimed that
Clause 1 of the Settlement dated 9-5-2008 has been
challenged by him. He admitted that the Settlement
was signed before the Dy. Labour Commissioner,
Margao between the management and the Union.
14. The management examined Shri Abhay Dalal,
HR-Manager. He claimed that the Settlement dated
9-5-2008 arose out of a Charter of demands raised
by Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union dated
3-5-2006 for revising the benefits of the workers
which was signed in the conciliation under
Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. He also stated that the
Party I workmen were working with Party II and
that all of them resigned from the services of the
Party II of their own volition and for better prospects
and that they were relieved from the services of
Party II and were given all their dues. He claimed
that the Settlement is applicable to those workmen
mentioned in the Annexure to the Settlement and
no one else and that the Party I are not entitled for
any benefit. In the cross examination, he admitted
that he was not personally aware of the facts of the
case as he joined the establishment on 1-3-2016.
He denied the suggestion that the management in
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
613
connivance with the Union signed the Settlement
sacrificing the benefits that accrued to Party I
which was for a period from 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2009
and that in view of the said Settlement, salaries
are revised w.e.f. 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2009 and that
some of the workmen worked for the period which
covered the Settlement.
15. The management also examined Shri Ashok
Gaikwad who worked with the company as Labour
Law Consultant. He claimed that the Union has
signed several settlements with Party II and one of
such settlements was signed on 9-5-2008 under
Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the
Conciliation Officer and that the Party II has fully
complied with the terms and condition of the said
Settlement. He also claimed that he participated
in negotiations with Party II and that the Party I
workmen were working with Party II and all of
them resigned from the services of their own free
will and they were relieved from the services. The
Party I workmen are not entitled to any benefits of
the Settlement. There was no conspiracy between
the Union and the Party II and that the Settlement
is valid. The Party I was not in the employment at
the time of signing the Settlement and therefore
they are not entitled for any reliefs. In the cross
examination, he stated that the Party I workmen
were in employment as on 3-5-2006 when the
demands were raised by all the permanent
workmen of the company.
16. Shri Gaikwad has also claimed that he along
with the management jointly decided that the
Party I workmen should be excluded from the
benefits of the Settlement as they were not on the
rolls of the company or in the employment at the
time of signing of the Settlement. He, however
admitted that as a result of the Settlement, the
salaries are revised retrospectively w.e.f. 1-4-2006
as per Clause 2 of the Settlement. He denied the
suggestion that the clause of the Settlement
excluding benefit to the Party I workmen was
incorporated behind their back and therefore the
said clause is a nullity in the eyes of law. To the
question whether there is any record anywhere
that there was any discussion with regard to
Party I workmen in the course of conciliation at
any time prior to 9-5-2008, he claimed that during
the discussion of Charter of demands in
conciliation, it was decided that only permanent
workers of the company on the date of signing of
the Settlement would get the benefit of the
Settlement. However, no such records have been
produced by Party II. The said witness is an
interested witness as there is nothing on record in
the Memorandum of Settlement at Exh. 12 that he
participated in the discussion that took place before
the Conciliation Officer, although he has signed as
a witness. He denied the suggestion that as per
the Settlement, the Party I workmen are entitled
for the benefits of the said Settlement.
17. Needless to mention, the Party I were the
workmen of Party II and had submitted a Charter
of demands through the said Union and had raised
certain demands to be effective from April, 2006
and during the pendency of negotiations of the
Charter of demands, the Party I workmen resigned
from the employment of the company as mentioned
in Para 14 of the affidavit of Milagres and in terms
of letters at Exh. 19 to Exh. 36. There is also no
dispute that the issues raised in the said Charter
of demands were subsequently settled in view of
Settlement dated 9-5-2008 between the Party II and
the Union in which the Party I workmen were
deprived of the benefits of the said Settlement in
view of Clause 1 and 22 of the said Settlement,
which provided that the said Settlement shall be
binding on only the permanent workmen who are
on the rolls of the company as on 8-5-2008. The
said exclusion clauses cannot be said to be binding
on the Party I workmen as there is an underlying
assumption that the Settlement reached with the
help of the Conciliation Officer must be fair and
reasonable and can be made binding not only on
the workmen belonging to the union but also on
others. The Party I workers are not challenging any
of the terms of the Settlement that give benefits to
the workmen but only the exclusion clauses which
deny the benefits of the Settlement accrued to
them, inspite of them working during the said
period. The Party II cannot deny the monetary
benefits to the workmen for the period for which
the Party I workmen were in employment with
Party II company as claimed by them as admittedly,
the salaries of all the workmen are revised
retrospectively w.e.f. 1-4-2006 as per Clause 2 of the
Settlement.
18. The Union as well as the Conciliation Officer
ought to have considered the above clauses of the
Settlement which are detrimental to the interest of
Party I workmen keeping in view the scheme of
labour legislations that the settlement should be
just and fair and that all the workmen are entitled
for equal treatment which is beneficial to the
management as well as to the body of the workmen
and society at large as there would be industrial
peace and tranquility pursuant to such settlements,
which would avoid unnecessary social strife and
tribulation on one hand and promote industrial
and commercial development on the other hand.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
614
There is no dispute that the settlements arrived
during conciliation proceedings are binding not
only to the parties to the settlement but even to
the entire labour force working in the organization
concerned even though they may not be the
members of the union which might have entered
into the settlement during the conciliation
proceedings, as held in the case of National
Engineering Industries Ltd., supra. Clause 1
and 22 of the said Settlement are contrary to the
interest of the Party I workmen and therefore, the
said clauses which compromise the interest of
Party I workmen by declining the benefits of the
Settlement have to be treated as void and non-est,
more particularly when the Charter of demands
cover the period for which the Party I workmen
had rendered service to Party II and were in
employment of Party II. The Party II cannot
therefore discriminate in the matter of payment of
wages to Party I merely because they have ceased
to be in employment on the date on which the
Settlement was arrived at. The Party I workmen are
therefore entitled for the benefits flowing from the
said Settlement in as much as the Party I is claiming
the benefits of a right that had already accrued to
them for the period anterior to their resignations.
19. The submission of Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar that the Party I were not in the
employment at the time of Settlement dated
9-5-2008 as they had resigned from the employment
by accepting the benefits and severing their
relations with the company and hence, the
workmen are not eligible for any benefits of the
said Settlement and that the Settlement signed in
the course of conciliation under Section 12(3) read
with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is binding on all the workmen who are on the
rolls of the company as on 8-5-2008 and that the
said Settlement cannot be challenged before the
Court cannot be accepted having any merits and
the reliance placed on the citations as stated above
turned on their own facts and therefore cannot be
made applicable to the case at hand, more
particularly when the Party I workmen are not
claiming additional benefits arising out of the
Settlement but equal treatment with regard to
monetary benefits flowing from the said Settlement
for the period for which they were in employment
with Party II company, which have been unfairly
denied to them on the flimsy premise of exclusion
clauses. The Party I workmen therefore have proved
that the exclusion clauses are not binding on them
and that they are entitled to receive all the benefits
flowing from the Settlement dated 9-5-2008 during
the period from 1-4-2006 till their resignation, on
the contrary Party II has failed to prove that on the
date of Settlement dated 9-5-2008, they were not in
the employment and therefore not entitled to any
benefits and that the Party I have no jurisdiction to
raise any industrial dispute. In view of above
discussion, issue No. 1 is answered in the
affirmative and issue No. 3 is answered in the
negative.
Issue No. 2:
20. Ld. Adv. Shri V. Palekar has submitted that
the issue No. 2 is an incidental issue which has
reference to a matter of casual nature only. Relying
upon the case of Army Public School, Morar
vs. Ramdhan Sharma, 2014 3 JLJ 156, he
submitted and rightly so that the aspect of
depriving the benefits by Party II in collusion with
the Union in view of Clause 1 of the Settlement
dated 9-5-2008 is only incidental which is not
associated with the dispute and the said aspect
need not be gone into by the Court. He further
submitted and rightly so that even if it is held that
the Union had no role of collusion with the
management in depriving the benefits by Party II,
the reference would not fail as it is a beneficial
legislation and the management is not permitted
to preclude the Party I workmen from the benefits
of the Settlement for the period for which the Party
I workmen were in employment with the company.
The submission of the Ld. Adv. Shri Bandodkar
that the Party I has failed to plead and prove the
allegation that the Union has made any conspiracy
or collusion with the company cannot be accepted
as the said issue of collusion is an incidental issue
not connected with the main dispute and need not
be proved to answer the reference in favour of
Party I workmen when they have sufficiently shown
that they have been conveniently deprived of the
monetary benefits flowing from the said Settlement
during the period from 1-4-2006 till the date the
Party I workmen ceased to be in employment with
the company. It is therefore, issue No. 2 has to be
treated as redundant.
Issue No. 4:
21. The Party I have claimed the amount payable
to them in Para 10 and 15 of the claim statement
and Para 9 and 15 of the affidavit in evidence which
according to them is the outstanding dues liable
to be paid by Party II for the period for which they
were in employment with Party II company. The
said fact is not in dispute nor the amount payable
by Party II to Party I as mentioned in the claim
statement and affidavit has been challenged. The
Party I is therefore entitled for the outstanding
dues mentioned in Para 15 of the claim statement.
Hence, the above issue is answered accordingly.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
615
22. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s. Nicomet Industries
Limited, Cuncolim, Goa, in declining to give
the benefits of the Settlement dated 9-5-2008
to the workmen mentioned in the reference
on the ground that they have ceased to be
in employment before signing of the
Settlement, is illegal and unjustified.
(ii) Consequently, the Party II is directed to pay
the outstanding dues as mentioned in Para
15 of the claim statement alongwith interest
@ 8% p.a. from the date of complaint dated
11-05-2009 as per Exb. 38 till final payment.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/739
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-09-2018 in reference No. IT/8/12 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 1st November, 2018.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/8/12
Shri Joaquim Mascarenhas
& 5 Others,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union,
Velhos’ Building, 2nd Floor,
Panaji-Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Lima Leitao & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Lima Arcade, New Vaddem,
Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa-403 802
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month
of September of the year 2018)
By Order dated 5-1-2012, bearing No. 28/47/2011-
-LAB/35, the Government of Goa in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Lima Workshop, Barazan, Usgao-Goa, in
terminating the services of its below
mentioned six workmen with effect from
01-08-2007, is legal and justified?
Sr.
Name of the Workmen
Designation
No.
1) Shri Shaikh Peera Varaparla
Head Mechanic.
2) Shri Shaikh Subani Varaparla Heavy Mechanic.
3) Shri Jay Prakash Iyengar
Welder-cum-
-Fitter.
4) Shri Manohar Dhavlikar
Diesel Mechanic.
5) Shri Vinayak Gulelkar
Helper.
6) Shri Joaquim Mascarenhas
Driver.
(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/08/12 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 4 and
Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 5.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
workmen named in the reference were employed
at Lima workshop situated at Usgao by Party II.
The Party II addressed individual letters to the
workmen informing them that their services stood
terminated w.e.f. 31-7-2007. The termination of their
services is illegal, unjustified and bad in law. The
Party II failed to comply with the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and
therefore, reliefs as prayed be granted.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II has
claimed that there is no existing industrial dispute
between the workmen and the Party II. The
termination of Party I workmen is legal and justified.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
616
5. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exb. 7 denying
the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 10 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of the Party II in terminating their services
w.e.f. 01-08-2007 is illegal and unjustified?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that they are
presently unemployed and do not have any
source of income?
(3) Whether Party II proves that General
Secretary of the Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers’ Union is having no locus standi to
file the present claim statement on behalf
of Party I?
(4) Whether Party II proves that reference is
not maintainable as claim of Party I is not
an ‘Industrial Dispute’ as defined under
Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
(5) What Order? What relief?
7. Heard arguments.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 5
…
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 2:
9. It is a matter of record that Learned Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik for Party I has made an endorsement
on the affidavit of R. D. Mangueshkar and also
submitted that Party I is not interested to pursue
the present matter, to which Learned Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar for the Party II has claimed that in such
an event, the reference be rejected. It appears that
the Party I is not interested in pursuing the matter
nor led any evidence in support of the above issues.
The Party I has merely filed an affidavit of Shri R.
D. Mangueshkar, General Secretary of Goa Trade
and Commercial Workers Union. The burden to
prove that the action of the Party II in terminating
their services w.e.f. 01-08-2007 is illegal and
unjustified and that they are presently unemployed
and do not have any source of income lies on the
Party I/workmen and unless said burden is
discharged by the workmen, the onus will not shift
on Party II Company to prove otherwise. The
Party I workmen have neither led any evidence nor
proved the above issues. The Party I therefore have
failed to discharge the burden of proving issue
No. 1 and 2. Hence, the above issues are answered
in the negative.
Issue No. 3 and 4:
10. The Party II has also not led any evidence to
prove that General Secretary of the Goa Trade &
Commercial Workers’ Union is having no locus
standi to file the present claim statement on behalf
of Party I and that the reference is not maintainable.
Hence, the above issues are answered in the
negative.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) It is hereby held that action of the
management of M/s Lima Workshop, Barazan,
Usgao-Goa, in terminating the services of its
workmen mentioned in the schedule with
effect from 01-08-2007, is legal and justified?
(ii) The Party I/Workmen are therefore not
entitled to any reliefs.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji
__
Order
No. HCB/GOA/PF/PMS/2018
The Honourable Senior Judge is pleased to grant
the following Officer leave for the period mentioned
against his name:-
Name & designation
Period of leave
1
2
Shri P. M. Shinde,
1) Earned leave for 05 days
Deputy Registrar,
w.e.f. 12-11-2018 to 16-11-2018
High Court of
with permission to leave
Bombay at Goa,
headquarters w.e.f. 10-11-2018
Panaji
(A.O.H.) to 19-11-2018 (B.O.H.)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
617
and to prefix 10-11-2018 and
11-11-2018 being 2nd Saturday
and Sunday respectively and
to suffix 17-11-2018 and
18-11-2018 being Saturday
and Sunday respectively.
Certified that but for leave the Officer would
have continued to officiate in the post had he not
proceeded on leave during the above period.
II
The charge during the leave period of Shri P. M.
Shinde, Deputy Registrar, is kept with Shri Kiran A.
Bagi, Registrar (Judicial), in addition to his own
duties.
Sudhir M. Deshpande, Registrar (Admin.).
Panaji, 29th October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 5/4/2017-PER
Read: Memorandum No. 5/4/2017-PER dated
02-07-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/42(2)/2015 (Part file IV)/1237 dated
20-10-2015, the Governor of Goa is pleased to
appoint the following candidates as probationers
to the Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service (Group “A”
Gazetted) in level 10 of the Pay Matrix with
immediate effect, subject to any order that may be
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at
Panaji in Writ Petitions Nos. 568/2012 & 616/2012
and Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 14797-
-14798/2013 & 20426/2013 in terms of the
advertisement bearing No. 7/2015 published by
GPSC on 12-06-2015:
1) Shri Vikas Shankar Kamble.
2) Kum. Fiona Audrey Cardozo.
3) Shri Nilesh Kushta Dhaigodkar (ST).
4) Shri Pritidas Upasso Gaonkar (ST).
5) Shri Mangaldas Budho Gaonkar (ST).
2. The appointment of Shri Nilesh Kushta
Dhaigodkar is further subject to the final outcome
of the criminal proceedings under Section 154
Cr. PC vide FIR No. 13-2014 dated 31-07-2014 under
Section 120B of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
and related proceedings thereto.
3. The above candidates have been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board. Their character
and antecedents have been verified.
4. The appointee shall be governed by the
affidavit affirmed as per the offer of appointment
issued, read in the preamble, and any violation of
the condition thereto, shall be read as defective to
their initial appointment itself necessitating
termination of service.
5. The seniority of the appointee shall be from
the year of appointment with reference to their
date of joining.
6. The above candidates shall be on probation
for a period of two years with effect from their date
of joining, during which they shall undergo a
departmental training and shall have to pass the
Departmental Examination prescribed under the
rules.
7. The pay and allowances of the above
candidates shall be debited to the Budget Head
controlled by the concerned Department wherever
they are posted from time to time, or as per specific
orders issued by Personnel Department.
8. The above candidates shall join their duties
in the Personnel Department, within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The appointment of the above candidates shall
be subject to the verification of the genuineness of
their educational qualification certificates & caste
certificates (if applicable).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary
(Personnel).
Porvorim, 30th October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 5/4/2017-PER/2778
Read: Memorandum No. 5/4/2017-PER dated
02-07-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/42(2)/2015 (Part file IV)/1237 dated
20-10-2015, the Governor of Goa is pleased to
appoint Dr. Pooja Milind Madkaikar as probationer
to the Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service (Group “A”
Gazetted) in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix with
immediate effect, subject to any order that may be
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at
Panaji in Writ Petitions Nos. 568/2012 & 616/2012
1
2
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
618
and Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 14797-
-14798/2013 & 20426/2013 in terms of the
advertisement bearing No. 7/2015 published by
GPSC on 12-06-2015:
2. The appointee has been declared medically
fit by the Medical Board. Her character and
antecedents have been verified.
3. The appointee shall be governed by the
affidavit affirmed as per the offer of appointment
issued, read in the preamble, and any violation of
the condition thereto, shall be read as defective to
her initial appointment itself necessitating
termination of service.
4. The seniority of the appointee shall be from
the year of appointment with reference to her date
of joining.
5. The above candidate shall be on probation for
a period of two years with effect from her date of
joining, during which she shall undergo a
departmental training and shall have to pass the
Departmental Examination prescribed under the
rules.
6. The pay and allowances of the above
candidate shall be debited to the Budget Head
controlled by the concerned department wherever
she is posted from time to time, or as per specific
orders issued by Personnel Department.
7. The above candidate shall join her duties in
the Personnel Department, within a period of fifteen
days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The appointment of the above candidate shall
be subject to the verification of the genuineness of
her educational qualification certificates.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary
(Personnel).
Porvorim, 31st October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 6/10/2017-PER/2816
Shri Gurudas Pilarnekar, Director of Art & Culture
shall hold the charge of the post of Director,
Information & Publicity in addition to his own
duties, in public interest with immediate effect,
till further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 1st November, 2018.
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
—
Addendum
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part-III(B)/Vol-IV/2527
Read: Order No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/
/Part-III(B)/Vol-III/195 dated 13-04-2018.
In the order read at preamble above, in the
present place of posting of Sr. No. 15, the following
words shall be added.
“and he shall be on working arrangement in
SLDC, MRT Bhavan, Margao, until further orders”.
2. All the other contents of the order shall remain
unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
N. Neelakaanta Reddy, Chief Electrical Engineer
& ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 31st October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 4/14/2003-II/PHD/PHD/Vol.I/4077
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/12/30(9)/2006/225 dated 10-10-2018, the
Government is pleased to declare Dr. Narayan
Vasudev Kamat Dalal, Assistant Lecturer,
Department of Physiology, Goa Medical College
as having satisfactorily completed his probation
period of two years from 01-01-2016 to 31-12-2017,
and to confirm him in the post of Assistant Lecturer,
Department of Physiology in Goa Medical College,
Bambolim.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 1st November, 2018.
________
Notification
No. 7/2/2004-III/PHD(MISC)/4066
Government is pleased to constitute Medical
Board at North Goa District Hospital, Mapusa and
South Goa District Hospital, Margao for issuing of
certificate to the persons with disabilities such as
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
619
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Spectrum
Learning Disabilities (SLD), Slow Learners and
Mental Retardation as under:
1. Medical Superintended of
—
Chairman.
District Hospital
2. Paediatrician attached to
—
Member.
District Hospital
3. Psychiatrist attached to
—
Member.
District Hospital
4. Clinical Psychologist
—
Member.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim, 31st October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
—
Order
No. 40/2/2018/PCE-PWD-ADM (II)/156
Government is pleased to transfer of the
following Executive Engineers to the places shown
against their names in column No. 4 below, with
immediate effect, in public interest:
Sr.
Name of
Present place
Proposed place
No.
the officer
of posting
of posting on
transfer
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Cleasby
Executive
As Executive
C. Theodora
Engineer,
Engineer, Division
Dias
JICA Project,
IX, PWD, Margao.
South Goa
2. Shri Sanjay
Executive
As Executive
G. Walvekar
Engineer,
Engineer, JICA
Division IX,
Project, South
PWD, Margao Goa.
The deployment of the Officer at Sr. No. 2 on
deputation to JICA project, South Goa is for the
period of one year and shall be governed by
the terms and conditions of the Government
O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER dated 12-02-1999 and
11-01-2007 as amended from time to time of the
Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Porvorim.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
U. P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex
officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 31st October, 2018.
Order
No. 40/2/2018/PCE-PWD-ADM (II)/157
Government is pleased to transfer the following
Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works
to the places shown against their names in column
No. 4 below, with immediate effect, in public
interest.
Sr.
Name of
Present place
Proposed place
No.
the officer
of posting
of posting on
transfer
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Swapnil Assistant
As Assistant
G. Dessai
Engineer, SD I,
Engineer, SD II,
Division XXV,
Division XXV,
PWD, Canacona PWD, Quepem.
2. Shri Digam-
Assistant
As Assistant
ber Kulkarni
Engineer, SD II,
Surveyor of
Division XXV,
Works, Division
PWD, Quepem
XXV, PWD,
Margao.
3. Shri Euclidas Assistant
As Assistant
F.E. De souza
Surveyor of
Engineer, SD I,
Works, Division
Division XXV,
XXV, PWD,
PWD, Canacona.
Margao
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
U. P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex
officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 31st October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Sports & Youth Affairs
Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs
—
Order
No. 69/Const. of Committee/DSYA/Adm/2018/2613
Whereas, the Goan Football Club Private
Limited (FC Goa) has submitted a representation
dated 12-06-2018 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister
requesting his intervention in view of certain
“unviable circumstances for conducting Football
matches in Goa” for the Indian Super League.
And whereas, among these aspects highlighted
was also the expenditure towards Police and Traffic
arrangements for the Tournaments.
And therefore, after careful consideration, the
Government has decided to constitute a Committee
to examine the issues of Police protection fees
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
620
levied/leviable for sporting events such as the
Indian Super League and other such sporting
events. The Committee shall consist of the following
members:
i) Secretary (Sports)
—
Chairman.
ii) Additional Secretary
—
Member.
(Finance Exp.)
iii) Superintendent of Police
—
Member.
(Head Quarters)
The Committee shall submit a report for
consideration of the Government preferably within
a month’s time.
These issues with the approval of the Hon’ble
Chief Minister vide U.O. No. 8580/F dated
05-10-2018.
V. M. Prabhu Desai, Director/Jt. Secretary (Sports
& Youth Affairs).
Panaji, 30th October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Tourism
—
Notification
No. 3/3(922)17/DT/3140
In terms of Article 107 of the Articles of
Association of Goa Tourism Development
Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called the said
Corporation), the Governor of Goa is pleased to
re-constitute the Board of Directors of the Company
and appoint the following persons as Directors of
the Goa Tourism Development Corporation Limited,
with immediate effect namely:
1. Shri Dayanand Sopte,
—
Director.
R/o. Mandrem, Pernem-Goa
2. Dr. Shrikant Azgaonkar,
—
Director.
R/o. Margao
3. Dr. M. Moddasir,
—
Director.
R/o. Dona Paula
4. Smt. Joel Fernandes,
—
Director.
R/o. Konsua, Cortalim
5. Smt. Pallavi Shirodkar,
—
Director.
R/o. Mangor Hill, Vasco
6. Shri Earl Braganza,
—
Director.
R/o. Carrimodi, Curchorem
7. Shri Paresh Kenkre,
—
Director.
R/o. Miramar
8. Shri Madhav S. Sheni Desai,
—
Director.
R/o. Pernem
9. Secretary (Tourism)
—
Director.
10. Director (Tourism)
—
Director.
11. President, Travel & Tourism
—
Director.
Association of Goa
12. Managing Director, GTDC
—
Director.
In terms of Article 117 of the Article of
Association of Goa Tourism Development
Corporation Limited, Governor of Goa further
nominates Mr. Dayanand Sopte, Director as
Chairman of the Corporation.
This supersedes earlier Notification bearing
No. 3/3(922)/DT/3008 dated 12-10-2017 and remain
in force till further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjiv Gadkar, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Tourism).
Panaji, 7th November, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Town & Country Planning
—
Notification
No. 4-5-2-84-UDD(Pt)/2018/2292
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 20 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act,
1974 (Act 21 of 1975), read with Rule 3 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning
(Planning and Development Authorities) Rules,
1977 and in supersession of the Government
Notification No. 4-5-2-84-UDD(pt)/TCP/12/1796
dated 01-06-2012, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 10 dated 07-06-2012, the Government
Notification No. 4-5-2-84-UDD (pt) TCP/12/14/2314
dated 03-06-2014, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 10 dated 5-6-2014 and all subsequent
Notifications issued in this regard, the Government
of Goa, in consultation with the Goa Town and
Country Planning Board, hereby reconstitutes
in respect of the Vasco-da-Gama Planning Area,
as declared vide the Government Notification
No. 4-5-2-84-UDD(Part)/05/2737 dated 27-9-2005,
published in the Official Gazette, Extraordinary No.
3, Series I No. 25 dated 27-09-05, read with the
Government Notification No. 4-5-2-84-UDD/Part/
/TCP/2013/2109 dated 28-05-2013, published in the
Official Gazette, Series I No. 9 dated 30-05-2013
and the Government Notification No. 29/8/TCP/
/Sancoale/Pt/RP/2015-16/1175 dated 11-03-2016,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
621
published in the Official Gazette, Series I No. 51
dated 17-03-2016, an authority to be called the
Mormugao Planning and Development Authority
consisting of the following members, namely:-
1) Shri Jose Luis Carlos
— Chairman.
Almeida, MLA, Vasco
2) Shri Milind Naik,
— Member.
MLA, Mormugao
3) Shri Mauvin Godinho,
— Member.
MLA, Dabolim
4) Smt. Alina Saldanha,
— Member.
MLA, Cortalim
5) Shri Leo Rodrigues,
— Member.
R/o. Ward No. 9, Baina,
Vasco
6) Shri Ravi Luis, R/o. H. No. 07,
— Member.
Bhutea Bhat, Vasco
7) Shri Achut Naik,
— Member.
R/o. H. No. 172, Simpal,
Nr. Shantadurga Temple,
Sancoale, Goa
8) Smt. Adv. Anita Ajay Thorat,
— Member.
R/o. H. No. 57/L,
Alto Bogmalo, Goa
9) Arch. Raj Bhandare,
— Member.
R/o. Meera Govind,
Airport Road, Chicalim-Goa
10) Shri Kamla Prasad Yadav,
— Member.
Dy. Sarpanch, Chicalim-
-Dabolim Village Panchayat,
R/o. H. No. 145/B, Fatima Colony,
Alto Dabolim, Goa
11) Chairperson, Mormugao
— Member.
Municipal Council
12) Ms. Vertika Dagur,
— Member
Town Planner, Mormugao
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Rajesh J. Naik, Chief Town Planner & ex officio
Joint Secretary (Planning).
Panaji, 7th November, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Vigilance
Directorate of Vigilance
—
Order
No. 15/17/2014-VIG/4741
Whereas, Disciplinary Proceeding for major
penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 has been initiated against Smt. Mohini
Halarnkar alias Mohini A. S. Sirvoicar, the then
BDO of Mormugao, vide this Office Memorandum
No. 15/17/2014-VIG/2552 dated 06-08-2015.
2. And whereas, the charge levelled against the
Charged Officer is that Smt. Mohini Halarnkar alias
Smt. Mohini Sirvoicar while functioning as the Block
Development Officer, Mormugao during the period
from 28-02-2014 till the date of suspension, has
illegally and fraudulently taken a cash amount of
Rs. 25000/- each from the Village Panchayat
Chicalim and Sancoale by unauthorisedly issuing
a Memorandum dated 18-09-2014, enclosing a
forged letter dated 17-09-2014 purported to be
issued in the name of the office of the Learned
Advocate General in the garb of meeting the
expenses towards stamp duty and court fee in Writ
Petition No. 19/2013, thereby misusing the name of
the office of the Learned Advocate General by
forging and fabricating documents. Further, after
the matter was reported in the daily newspaper
‘Gomantak’ dated 14-10-2014, she tried to destroy
evidence against her by tampering the records
and pressurizing the Secretaries of the Village
Panchayats of Chicalim, Sancoale and Majorda-
-Utorda-Calata to return back the said
Memorandum and letter.
3. And whereas, upon denial of the charge by
said Smt. Mohini Halarnkar alias Mohini A. S.
Sirvoicar in her written statement of defence dated
21-08-2015, Shri Dipak M. Bandekar, Goa Civil
Service Officer was appointed as Inquiring
Authority to inquire into the charge framed against
Smt. Mohini Halarnkar alias Mohini A. S. Sirvoicar.
4. And whereas, the Inquiry Authority on
completion of the inquiry submitted his report
dated 15-01-2018 stating that the charge framed
against the Charged Officer as mentioned in
Article-I in the Memorandum has been proved.
5. And whereas, in terms of Rule 15 (2) of CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965, the copy of the Report of Inquiry
was forwarded to the Charged Officer to make
representation or submissions to the Disciplinary
Authority.
6. And whereas, the Charged Officer in her
written representation dated 24-04-2018 has made
the following submissions:
(i) that although the Report of the Inquiry
Authority states that she had received
notices dated 08-04-2017 and 13-04-2017, she
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
622
had not received the said notices. She had
received notice dated 18-04-2017 to remain
present for the inquiry on 02-05-2017.
However, she did not remain present for the
inquiry on 02-05-2017 as she was under the
bonafide impression that her letter dated
06-04-2017 for change of IO and PO was
pending before Director of Vigilance and the
reply was awaited on the same.
(ii) that the Inquiring Authority, nowhere in his
report has mentioned that the objections
were raised by her vide letter dated
22-02-2017, about the competency of the
Inquiring Authority. Therefore, it goes to
show that the Inquiring Authority was silent
on the subject and had suppressed the said
fact and passed ex-parte Order and as such
the report dated 15-01-2018 is liable to be set
aside.
7. And whereas, although the Charged Officer
has made the above submissions in the
representation dated 24-04-2018, the available
records revealed as under:
(a) the Charged Officer had failed to attend the
hearing fixed by the Inquiring Authority
on 22-02-2017, 08-03-2017, 13-04-2017,
18-04-2017, 02-05-2017, 15-05-2017, 01-06-2017
and 13-06-2017 inspite of being duly served
with notices. From the records of the
Inquiring Authority, it is seen that one of the
date fixed for hearing was 18-04-2017 and the
date “08-04-2017” mentioned in the Report of
the Inquiring Authority appears to be
typographical error as no such notice fixing
the matter on 08-04-2017 is available on
record.
(b) the Charged Officer filed number of frivolous
applications to change the Inquiry Officer,
Presenting Officer in order to delay the
proceedings, which requests were not
considered by the Disciplinary Authority and
the said decision was conveyed to the
Charged Officer vide letters dated 22-03-2017
and 26-04-2017 and the Charged Officer was
further informed to attend the hearing on
02-05-2017.
(c) since the Charged Officer failed to attend
the hearing, the inquiry proceedings were
conducted ex-parte.
8. And whereas, after careful perusal of the facts
of the case and the report of the Inquiring
Authority, the Disciplinary Authority is of the view
that, it is proved that the charges framed against
the Charged Officer are proved and that the
Charged Officer has been found guilty for illegally
extorting the money, forgery & destroying the
evidence thereafter. Further, the Charged Officer is
found negligent in defending her own interest
before Inquiry Officer, hence Disciplinary Authority
further decided to dismiss her from service which
shall be ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment under the Government.
9. And whereas, the Goa Public Service
Commission was consulted regarding the
imposition of proposed penalty of dismissal from
service on the delinquent Officer. The Goa
Public Service Commission has conveyed their
concurrence to the same vide their letter No. COM/
/II/15/42(1)/18/203 dated 19-09-2018.
10. Now therefore, the Disciplinary Authority, as
provided under Rule 11 Clause (ix) of the Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965, hereby impose the penalty of dismissal
of service which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment under the
Government on the said Smt. Mohini Halarnkar
alias Mohini A. S. Sirvoicar, the then BDO of
Mormugao, with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjeev C. Gauns Dessai, Director & ex officio
Additional Secretary (Vigilance).
Panaji, 11th October, 2018.
________
Order
No. 5/47/2009-VIG/4880
Whereas, disciplinary proceeding for major
penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
was initiated against Shri M. S. Rayadu, the then
Lecturer in Electrical Engineering, Goa College of
Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda, in the matter of
unauthorized absence vide this Office Memorandum
No. 5/47/2009-VIG/1345 dated 07-12-2009.
2. And whereas, the charges levelled against
the Charged Officer is as under:
(i) that the said Shri M. S. Rayadu was
sanctioned Extra Ordinary Leave for two
years with effect 03-10-2005 for seeking
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
623
Private Employment in India or Abroad.
Shri M. S. Rayadu overstayed and did not
report back to duty on expiry of Extra
Ordinary Leave.
(ii) that subsequently, Memorandum No. 4/5/
/96-GEC(E)/3591 dated 08-12-2008 was sent
to the Chennai address by the Principal,
Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi,
Ponda with directives to report back on duty
failing which disciplinary action would be
initiated against him which may include
termination of this services. Till date
Shri M. S. Rayadu has not joined back duty.
3. And whereas, no written statement of defence
has been filed by the Charged Officer. It has been
confirmed that the said Memorandum No. 5/47/
/2009-VIG/1345 dated 07-12-2009 was delivered to
him on 07-01-2010.
4. And whereas, vide Order No. 5/47/2009-
-VIG/1204 dated 25-07-2011, Shri S. V. Shirodkar, a
retired Senior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service
was appointed as Inquiring Authority to inquire
into the charges framed against Shri Rayadu.
5. And whereas, the Inquiry Authority on
completion of the inquiry submitted his report
dated 08-08-2012 stating that the allegations
levelled against the Charged Officer as mentioned
in Article-I in the Memorandum has been proved.
6. And whereas, in terms of Rule 15 (2) of CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965, the copy of the Report of Inquiry
was forwarded to the Charged Officer to make
representation or submissions to the Disciplinary
Authority vide Memorandum No. 5/47/2009-VIG/
/1843 dated 12-09-2012.
7. And whereas, the Director of Technical
Education, vide letter dated 04-07-2016 has
informed that their office had circulated the said
report of the Inquiring Authority to Shri M. S.
Rayadu to his last recorded residential address
and had annexed copy of the postal receipt
No. RM523662045IN.
8. And whereas, vide letter dated 17-11-2016,
the Director of Technical Education was requested
to send the ‘consignment delivery status’ of the
above postal receipt.
9. And whereas, vide letter dated 17-08-2017 the
Directorate of Technical Education has informed
that they have received the acknowledgment
receipt of the Reg. A. D. from Shri M. S. Rayadu of
letter dated 28-11-2016.
10. And whereas, after careful perusal of the
facts of the case and the report of the Inquiring
Authority, the Disciplinary Authority has decided
to impose penalty of dismissal from service which
shall be ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment under the Government on said Shri
M. S. Rayadu.
11. And whereas, the Goa Public Service
Commission was consulted regarding the
imposition of proposed penalty of dismissal from
service on the delinquent Officer. The Goa Public
Service Commission has conveyed its concurrence
to the same vide their letter No. COM/II/15/18(1)/
/2018/204 dated 19-09-2018.
12. Now therefore, the Disciplinary Authority, as
provided under Rule 11 Clause ix of the Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965, hereby imposes the penalty of dismissal
from service which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment under the
Government on the said Shri M. S. Rayadu, the
then Lecturer in Electrical Engineering, Goa
College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda, with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjeev C. Gauns Dessai, Director & ex officio
Additional Secretary (Vigilance).
Panaji, 24th October, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Women & Child
Development
Directorate of Women & Child Development
__
Order
.
No. 8-1-94/W&CD/Part/7290
Read: Letter No. 1-8/97/Recon/SBA/Goa dated
05-09-2018 from Central Social Welfare
Board, New Delhi.
On the recommendation of Central Social Welfare
Board, New Delhi conveyed vide letter dated
05-09-2018 referred above, the Secretary, Women
and Child Development, Government of Goa
is hereby appointed as Officer-in-Charge/
Administrator of Goa State Social Welfare Board
with immediate effect in public interest, purely as
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 32
8TH NOVEMBER, 2018
624
a stop gap arrangement to discharge the duties of
Chairperson, Goa State Social Welfare Board till
the State Board is reconstituted or until further
orders to ensure that implementation and
monitoring of the programmes of the State Board is
not hampered and the day-to-day functioning of
the State Board.
This issues with the approval of the Government
vide U.O. No. 818/F dated 24-10-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dipak Desai, Director (Women and Child
Development).
Panaji, 29th October, 2018.
Notice
No. 1-451/2015/Accom/GSCPCR/DW&CD/7587
It is hereby made known to the public that the
Goa State Commission for Protection of Child Rights
office presently functioning in the rented premises
at XA-8, 3rd floor, Sakhardande Apartments,
Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji will be shifted in new
premises w.e.f. 14th November, 2018 at Government
Quarters, H. No. D-7-A, Ground Floor, near Caculo
Mall, St. Inez, Panaji-Goa.
Given under my hand and seal of the
Department, this 5th day of November, 2018.
Dipak Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 7th November, 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—248/150–11/2018.