Panaji, 13th December, 2018 (Agrahayana 22, 1940)
SERIES II No. 37
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
675
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Relieving Order
No. 8/121/2018-19/Dep-ATMA/D.Agri/257
Read: Order No. 8/121/2017-18/Dep-ATMA/
/D.Agri/185 dated 24-09-2016.
In pursuance to above referred order, the below
mentioned officers stands relieved from their
concerned offices w.e.f. 28-09-2018 (a.n.).
Sr.
Name of
Present
Place of posting
No. the officer
designation
on repatriation
on deputation
1. Shri C. B.
Dy. Director
Assistant Director
Perni
(SAMETI-Goa)
of Agriculture
(P&E), Directorate
of Agriculture,
Tonca-Caranzalem.
2. Shri Sanjeev
Project
Assistant Director
Mayekar
Director
of Agriculture
(ATMA-North) (Hort.), Directorate
of Agriculture,
Tonca-Caranzalem
by relieving the
link officer from
the additional
charge.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 30th November, 2018.
Department of Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs
—
Order
No. DCS/ENF/DSB-24/18-19/262
The Government of Goa is pleased to constitute
a ‘Monitoring Committee’ comprising of following
Members to assist the State Government as
Monitoring Mechanism to supervise the activities
of Direct Selling:-
i) Director, Civil Supplies and
— Chairman.
Consumer Affairs
ii) Representative of Commercial — Member.
Taxes
iii) Representative of Industries,
— Member.
Trade & Commerce
iv) Controller of Legal Metrology — Member.
v) Director, Food & Drugs
— Member.
Administration
vi) Representative of Police
— Member.
Department
vii) Representative of Economic
— Member.
Offence Cell
viii) Representative of Registrar
— Member.
of Companies
ix) Asst. Registrar of Co-operative — Member.
Societies
x) Co-ordinator GOACAN, NGO
— Member.
The above Committee will assist the Department
of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs to monitor/
/supervise the activities of Direct Sellers, Direct
Selling Entity regarding compliance of the
guidelines for Direct Selling.
This issue with the approval of the Government.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
676
This order supersedes the earlier Order No. DCS/
/ENF/DSB-24/2017-18/546 dated 21st March, 2018
published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 52
dated 29th March, 2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sandhya Kamat, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs).
Panaji, 30th November, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
__
Order
No. 4-17-10-12/NZ/Vol.I/RCS/3503
Read: 1) Letter No. 14-115-00-TS/LQD-VOL.I/NZ/
/925 dated 25-09-2017 from the Asstt.
Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
North Zone, Mapusa.
2) This office letter No. 73-1-2005/TS/RCS/
/2925 dated 25-10-2017.
3) Letter No. 7/17/17/ADT/427 dated
13-06-2018 from the Asstt. Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, North Zone,
Mapusa.
The Government is pleased to exempt the
“Alabhya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,”
Thivim, Bardez-Goa, from the provisions of Section
99 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 by
invoking provisions of Section 126 A of the said
Act, with retrospective effect. The Liquidator shall
finalize the liquidation proceedings of the said
society within a period of one year from the date
of issue of this order.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjiv M. Gadkar, Registrar & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Co-operative Societies).
Panaji, 10th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
__
Order
No. 1(1)-5-2009/SE/Part/829
Government is pleased to re-employ Shri
Mathurdas V. Naik, Headmaster of Government
High School, Betoda, Ponda (due to retire on
superannuation w.e.f. 31-11-2018 (a.n.) beyond
superannuation w.e.f. 01-12-2018 to 30-04-2019 in
the same post under the Directorate of Education,
in terms of proviso to sub-rule-1 of Rule 88 of the
Goa School Education Rules, 1986 and in terms of
Clause (h) under sub-rule-2 of Rule 162 of the Goa
School Education Rules, 1986.
On re-employment, he stands posted in
Government High School, Betoda, Ponda-Goa where
he is presently working.
He has been declared medically, physically and
mentally fit by the Medical Board, Hospicio
Hospital, Margao-Goa for the post of Headmaster,
retiring on superannuation on (30-11-2018)
re-employment in service beyond superannuation
till 30-04-2019 (i.e. end of academic year 2018-19)
as certified by the Medical Superintendent/
/Dy. Director, Hospicio Hospital, Margao vide
Medical Fitness Certificate No. HH/EST/MFC/2018-
-19/3660 dated 2-8-2018.
His pay and allowances shall be fixed in terms
of Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of
Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gajanan P. Bhat, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 7th November, 2018.
———u———
Directorate of Technical Education
__
Order
No. DTE/CAD/RTI/2018/2549
The undersigned is pleased to designate the
below mentioned officials as State Public
Information Officer and State Assistant Public
Information Officer at Goa College of Art, Panaji, as
per provision of Sec. 5 of Right to Information
Act, 2005.
Sr.
Name of the officer
Designation
No.
1. Shri Wilfred Goes,
State Public Information
Asstt. Prof. in
Officer.
Applied Art Dept.
2. Shri Sameer Govekar,
State Assistant Public
Asstt. Prof. in
Information Officer.
Applied Art Dept.
This order supersedes all earlier orders regarding
the appointment of PIO, APIO at Goa College of
Art.
Vivek B. Kamat, Director (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 6th December, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
677
Directorate of Technical Education
College Section
__
Order
No. 16/150/Confirmation/GEC/04/P.F.II/2501
On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their letters
No. COM/II/12/18(1)/2013/261, No. COM/II/12/18(1)/2014/262, No. COM/II/12/18(1)/2018/263 dated
07-11-2018, the Government of Goa is pleased to declare the following Group ‘A’ Gazetted Officers of Goa
College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa to have satisfactorily completed their probation period
and confirm them in the post with effect from date mentioned in the respective column against their
names.
Sr.
Name of faculty
Designation
Date of completion
No.
of probation
period
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Krishnasetty Govindraja
Professor in Civil Engineering
12-04-2006.
Guptha
2. Shri Vinay Amrut Shirodkar
Professor in Mechanical Engineering
06-11-2014.
3. Shri Hassanali Gulamali Virani
Professor in Electronics and Telecommuni-
31-07-2015.
cation Engineering
4. Shri Purnanand Pundalik
Professor in Civil Engineering
12-08-2015.
Savoikar
5. Shri Akshay Vithal Nigalye
Professor in Mechanical Engineering
13-08-2015.
6. Shri Suraj Surendra Rane
Professor in Mechanical Engineering
10-09-2015.
7. Shri Ulhas Ganapati Sawaiker
Professor in Civil Engineering
24-09-2015.
8. Shri Nitesh Bhicu Guinde
Associate Professor in Electronics and
17-08-2015.
Telecommunication Engineering
9. Shri Shridhar Datta Mhalsekar
Associate Professor in Mechanical
05-04-2016.
Engineering
10. Kum. Smita Sadanand Aldonkar
Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering
11-08-2015.
11. Kum. Ashmita Ashok Kerkar
Assistant Professor in Science and
17-08-2015.
Humanities (Economics)
12. Smt. Deepali Madhukar Raikar
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
21-09-2015.
13. Smt. Siddhi Pradeep Naik
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
21-09-2015.
14. Shri Mario Pinto
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
30-09-2015.
15. Kum. Megha Gajanan Nayak
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
12-10-2015.
16. Kum. Nadine Amalia Dias
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
20-10-2015.
17. Shri Amogh Ajit Sanzgiri
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
23-10-2015.
18. Smt. Soniya Shakil Usgaonkar
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
23-10-2015.
19. Kum. Purti Raghuveer
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Telecommuni-
26-10-2015.
Savardekar
cation Engineering
20. Shri Sangam Prafulla Borkar
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Telecommuni- 29-10-2015.
cation Engineering
21. Kum. Melina Maria Afonso
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
02-11-2015.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
678
22. Kum. Palhavi Pandharinath
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Telecommuni-
03-11-2015.
Kerkar
cation Engineering
23. Kum. Sherica Lavinia Menezes
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
04-11-2015.
24. Kum. Geeta Suresh Shet
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Telecommuni-
09-11-2015.
cation Engineering
25. Shri Devendra Gajanan Sutar
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Telecommuni-
12-11-2015.
cation Engineering
26. Kum. Ankita Ashok Kanekar
Assistant Professor in Electrical & Electronics
09-11-2015.
Engineering
27. Kum. Shruti Gurudas Naik
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
24-11-2015.
28. Shri Amit Pundalik Patil
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
27-11-2015.
29. Shri Teslin Jacob
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
25-12-2015.
30. Smt. Kavita Sanjay Asnani
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
29-12-2015.
31. Shri Harichandra Uttam
Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering
04-05-2016.
Chandekar
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 29th November, 2018.
———u———
1
2
3
4
Office of the Returning Officer, Goa Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
__
Notification
No. GBSHSE/IT/BRD-ELE/2017-2021/1668
In pursuance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the
Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Board Members Election
Procedure Rules, 1979, I, Shri Ruildo Souza, the
Returning Officer hereby appoint the date, hours
and place for the following stages of election of
members referred to in Clauses (iii) under “Class
B-Elected Members”, of sub-section (1) of Section
12 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board Act, 1975 (Act
13 of 1975), as follows:-
(a) Nomination of candidates:-
On 8th of January, 2019 (Tuesday) from
10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and 02.00 p.m. to
04.00 p.m.
Place:- Office of the Goa Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Alto Betim, Goa.
(b) Scrutiny of Nominations:-
On 9th of January, 2019 (Wednesday) from
09.30 a.m. to 01.00 p.m.
Place:- Office of the Goa Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Alto Betim, Goa.
(c) Withdrawal of candidature:-
On 11th of January, 2019 (Friday) from
10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m.
Place:- Office of the Goa Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Alto Betim, Goa.
(d) Record of Votes:-
The recording of votes for category III (a)
(South Goa) shall be on Friday, 18th
January, 2019 from 10.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m.
at South Education Zone, Margao-Goa.
(e) Counting of Votes:-
On 22nd of January, 2019 (Tuesday) from
10.30 a.m. onwards.
Place:- Office of the Goa Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Alto Betim, Goa.
Shri Ruildo Souza, Returning Officer.
Alto Betim, 10th December, 2018.
V. No. A-1853/2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
679
Department of Labour
—
Order
No. 28/28/2018-LAB/757
Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals
Industries Limited, Madkaim Industrial Estate,
Madkaim, Goa, and it’s workmen represented
by the Ranbaxy Workers Union, in respect of
the matter specified in the Schedule hereto
(hereinafter referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central
Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the demand of the Ranbaxy Workers
Union to pay bonus as per the provisions of
the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (Central Act
No. 21 of 1965), as amended by the Payment
of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Central Act
No. 6 of 2016), to all the employees for the
accounting year 2016-2017 is justified?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, to what relief the workmen
are entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 28th November, 2018.
________
Order
No. 28/20/2018-LAB/758
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s Tulip Diagnostics (P)
Limited, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, and
it’s workmen, represented by the Gomantak
Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the matter specified
in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as
the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal of Goa, at Panaji-Goa,
constituted under Section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s Tulip Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in transferring
the workmen S/Shri Vishwanth Madkaikar,
Ankush Naik, Vishwas Gaude and Sandesh
Rane, Production Assistants’ to M/s Zephyr
Biomedical, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,
Goa, with effect from 24-10-2017, is legal and
justified?”
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 29th November, 2018.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/765
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 15-10-2018 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/05/2016 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.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 28th November, 2018.
______
LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/05/2016
Shri Crispino Marcello,
R/o. H. No. 953,
Bamon Bhatt,
Merces, Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
680
M/s. Herald Publications
Pvt. Ltd.,
1st floor, Campal Trade Centre,
Panaji-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Panaji, Dated: 15-10-2018.
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 23-02-2016,
bearing No. 28/15/2015-LAB/132, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court II, Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether Shri Crispino Marcelo is a non-
journalist newspaper employee under the
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central
Act 45 of 1955).
(2) Whether Shri Crispino Marcelo is entitled to
the benefits under the Justice Majithia Wage
Board Award dated 31-10-2010 and accepted
by the Government of India by order dated
11-11-2011?
(3) What relief?
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/05/16 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
30-06-2016 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that by his
application dated 03-11-2014 addressed to
Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Secretariat, Panaji as well as Commissioner, Labour
& Employment, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa for
recovery of the amount due to him under the Justice
Majithia Award (for short, said Award) u/s 17 of the
Working Journalist and Other Newspaper
Employees
(Conditions
of
Service)
and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short, the
said Act). He stated that in the said application, he
has also prayed that if any questions are raised by
the Employer/Party II (for short, ‘Employer’) as to
the amount due to him under the said Act, the said
disputed question may be referred to this Hon’ble
Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. He stated that during the course of
hearing before the Commissioner, Labour &
Employment, Panaji, Goa, the Employer disputed
the claim and as such the Appropriate Government
has referred the present dispute to this Hon’ble
Court.
3. He stated that he was working as a
‘Non-Journalist Newspaper Employee’ with the
Employer. He stated that he had joined the
Employer on 01-10-1988 and was confirmed in the
services w.e.f. 01-11-1990. He stated that he was
promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant (Advt.)
from 01-10-2000. He stated that upon his promotion
to the post of Accounts Assistant, he had been
given a graded scale of pay of Rs.1500-65-1825-75-
-2200-85-2540-95-2900 and fitted his basic pay at
Rs. 1825/- and was granted all other allowances as
applicable under the Bachawat Award. He stated
thathe was further promoted to the post of
‘Recovery Officer’ w.e.f. 01-12-2007, vide letter of
the Employer dated 26-11-2007. He stated that he
was fitted at basic pay of Rs. 7835/- in the grade
scale of Rs. 5350-160-6470-195-7835-235-9245 of
Manisana Wage Board Award. He stated that he
was also paid arrears arising out of the said
Manisana Wage Board Award. He stated that he
was thereafter promoted to the post of ‘Asstt. Advt.
Manager’ w.e.f. January, 2011 vide letter of the
Employer dated 18-11-2010. He stated that he was
confirmed in the same scale of pay of the Manisana
Wage Board Award. He stated that he was however
granted an increment of Rs. 3000/- in his
conveyance allowance. He stated that even after
his promotion as stated above, all other terms and
conditions of the employment as stated in his
original service contract remained unchanged. He
stated that though he was promoted as Recovery
Officer w.e.f. 01-12-2007 and as Asstt.
Advt. Manager (Recovery) from 01-01-2011, he
continued to do the same work of Account
Assistant (Advt.) and was entrusted with the work
of recovery of advertisement money from the
agency, through whom the advertisements were
booked. He stated that he had no authority of
whatsoever nature in the matter of administration,
management or supervision of the work or the
employees. He stated that his duties were mainly
of clerical in nature. He stated that he was a
non-journalist newspaper employee as defined
u/s 2 (dd) of the said Act and as such was covered
under the various wage board awards constituted
by the Government of India for working journalists
and non-journalists newspaper employees as
defined under the said Act. He stated that he being
a non-journalist newspaper employee was covered
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
681
under the Bachawat Award, Manisana Singh Award
and Justice Majithia Award and was granted the
scale of pay besides dearness allowance, HRA and
compensatory allowance as applicable to him from
time to time under the Bachawat and Manisana
Singh Award. He stated that he resigned from the
services of the Employer w.e.f. 31-10-2013.
4. He stated that the Government of India, in
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of
the said Act had constituted a wage board for the
purpose of fixing and revising rates of wages in
respect of working journalist and non-journalist
newspaper employees and news agency employees
vide notification dated 24-05-2007 which is known
as Justice Majithia Wage Board. He stated that
during the pendency of the adjudication, the
Government of India, vide notification dated
24-10-2008 had declared 30% of the basic wages as
interim relief for journalist and non-journalist
newspaper employees w.e.f. 08-01-2008. He stated
that he being a non-journalist newspaper employee
and as per the said notification, he is entitled for
30% of the basic wages as interim relief w.e.f.
08-01-2008. He stated that as per the calculations
the said 30% of interim relief comes to Rs. 1,13,810/-.
He stated that Justice Majithia had submitted the
recommendations to the Central Government on
31-10-2010, which has been accepted by the
Government of India, vide SO No. 2532 (E) dated
11-11-2011 and directed to pay the arrears
accordingly from 11-11-2011. He stated that the
Employer has however, did not implement the said
award. He stated that he wrote a letter dated
08-05-2014 to the Employer to pay the arrears arising
out of the said Award and also other payments due
to him. He stated that the Employer has however
failed to pay the arrears of interim relief, the arrears
of Justice Majithia Wage Board Award
recommendations, gratuity and leave encashment
etc. He stated that as on the date of acceptance of
his resignation on 31-10-2014, he had the balance
leave of 6 days and he is entitled for the encashment
of the said leave. He stated that the value of the
said leave in terms of money is Rs. 32,244.27. He
stated that the total amount of dues payable to
him are Rs. 3,08,762.19. The Workman therefore
prayed to decide the issue referred to this court
and the Employer be directed to pay to him the
said amount of Rs. 3,08,762.19 alongwith interest
@12% p.a. from the date of application to the
Appropriate Government till its actual payment
with costs.
5. The Employer resisted the aforesaid claim of
the Workman by filing its written statement on
20-09-2016 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that neither
the Party I is a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the
I.D. Act nor the dispute referred is an ‘industrial
dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947
and as such the present reference is not
maintainable, that the claim of the Party I is not
based on an admitted right and that there is non-
application of mind by the Appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute.
The Employer stated that the Party I had filed an
application u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and
the same has been withdrawn for the reasons best
known to him. The Employer stated that the Party
I has raised the present dispute with false and
fabricated grounds with malafide intentions. The
Employer stated that the Party I is in habit of filing
false and fabricated claims against them with
ulterior motive.
6. The Employer stated that the Party I was lastly
designated as “Asstt. Manager–Advt. (Recovery)
and his primary duty was to interact with its
various agencies, clients, customers and to recover
the dues pending from them on their behalf. The
Employer stated that however, till date the
payments and its dues remained to be recovered
on account of the lapses on the part of the Party I
and as such it has suffered financial losses on
account of the lapses of the Party I. The Employer
stated that during the tenure of service of the
Party I with themselves, he was paid properly as
per his grade and that the benefits of all the awards
applicable to his post were granted to him
alongwith its all other employees.
7. The Employer admitted that the Party I had
joined in its services on 01-10-1988 and was
confirmed in the service w.e.f. 01-11-1990. The
Employer admitted that the Party I was promoted
to the post of ‘Accounts Assistant’ w.e.f. 01-10-2000.
The Employer admitted that the Party I was issued
a letter dated 27-11-2000 confirming his promotion
as Accounts Assistant w.e.f. 01-10-2000. The
Employer admitted that upon his promotion, he
was given the graded scale of pay of Rs. 1500-65-
-1825-75-2200-85-2540-95-2900 and fitted his basic
pay at Rs. 1825/- and was granted all other
allowances as applicable under the Bachawat
Award. The Employer admitted that on 01-12-2007,
the Party I was further promoted to the post of
‘Recovery Officer’. The Employer admitted that the
Party I was further promoted to the post of Recovery
Officer w.e.f. 01-12-2007, vide letter of the Employer
dated 26-11-2007 and he was fitted at basic pay of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
682
Rs. 7835/- in the grade scale of Rs. 5350-160-6470-
-195-7835-235-9245 of Manisana Wage Board Award
and the Party I was also paid arrears arising out of
the said Manisana Wage Board Award. The
Employer admitted that the Party I was thereafter
promoted to the post of Asstt. Advt. Manager
w.e.f. January, 2011 vide its letter dated 18-11-2010.
The Employer admitted that the Party I was
confirmed in the same scale of pay of the Manisana
Wage Board Award. The Employer admitted that
the Party I was however granted an increment of
Rs. 3000/- in his conveyance allowance. The
Employer further admitted that the Party I worked
in their establishment up to 31-10-2013, when his
resignation came into effect on expiry of one
months’ notice given on 01-10-2013. The Employer
stated that the duties performed by the Party I
were that of supervisory and managerial in nature,
which clearly excludes him from the definition of
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. The Employer admitted
that the Government of India, in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 9 of the said Act had
constituted a wage board for the purpose of fixing
and revising rates of wages in respect of working
journalist and non-journalist newspaper employees
and news agency employees vide notification dated
24-05-2007 which is known as Justice Manisana
Wage Board. The Employer admitted that during
the pendency of the adjudication, the Government
of India, vide notification dated 24-10-2008 had
declared 30% of the basic wages as interim relief
for journalist and non-journalist newspaper
employees w.e.f. 08-01-2008. The Employer stated
that it has paid all the dues of the Party I and the
same has been accepted by him without any protest
of whatsoever nature and as such the present
dispute raised by the Party I is an afterthought.
The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded
by the Party I and prayed for dismissal of the
present reference.
8. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
10-10-2016 at Exb. 6. The Workman, by way of his
rejoinder, denied each and every statement,
averments and submissions made by the Employer
in its written statements which are contrary and
inconsistent to the statements, averments and a
submission made in his statement of claim and
reiterates his case as pleaded in his statement of
claim. The Workman admitted that he was lastly
designated as Asstt. Manager Advt. (Recovery). He
admitted that for recovery of dues he was required
to contact the various agencies, clients, customers
of the Employer and that he was supposed to
recover the dues of the Employer from various
agencies.
9. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
08-11-2016 at Exb. 8.
1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that
he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
2. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that
he is a non-journalist newspaper employee
under the Working Journalist and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1955 (Central Act 45 of 1955)?
3. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
the benefits under the Justice Majithia Wage
Board Award dated 31-10-2010 and accepted
by the Government of India by Order dated
11-11-2011?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves
that he is entitled to receive from the
Employer/Party II a sum of Rs. 3,08,762/-
being Rs. 1,13,810/- towards interim relief,
Rs. 1,62,708/- towards difference in wages
as per Justice Majithia Wage Board Award
and Rs. 32,244/- towards leave encashment?
5. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that
the present order of reference is not
maintainable in view of the reasons stated
in para (a) to (d) of its written statement?
6. What order? What award?
10.
My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the Affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: In the Affirmative
(c) Issue No. 3
: In the Affirmative
(d) Issue No. 4
: Partly in the Affirmative
and Partly in the Negative.
(e) Issue No. 5
: In the negative.
(f) Issue No. 6
: As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.
Shri P. J. Kamat, appearing for the Workman as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for the
Employer. Ld. Advocates appearing for the
respective parties also chose to file their synopsis
of written arguments respectively. I have carefully
perused the entire records of the present case
including the synopsis of written arguments filed
by the respective parties. I have also carefully
considered the oral submissions advanced by the
Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
683
REASONS
11. Issue No. 1, 2 and 5:
I am deciding the issue No. 1, 2 and 5
simultaneously as all the said issues are co-related
to each other. The burden to prove the issue No. 1
and 2 was cast on the Party I and the issue No. 5
was on the Employer.
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections submitted that neither the Party I is a
‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947
nor the claim of the Party I is an ‘industrial dispute’
as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that the
claim of the Party I is not based on an admitted
rights and that there is no application of mind by
the appropriate Government while referring the
present dispute.
12. The Party I claimed that he is entitled to
receive from the Employer a sum of Rs. 3,08,762/-
being Rs. 1,13,810/- towards interim relief,
Rs. 1,62,708/- towards difference in wages as per
Justice Majithia Wage Board Award and Rs. 32,244/-
towards leave encashment. The Party I is therefore
required to prove that he is a ‘workman’ as defined
under section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 as well as
‘non-journalist newspaper employee’ under the
Working Journalist and Other Newspaper
Employees
(Conditions
of
Service)
and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central Act,
45 of 1955).
The term ‘workman’ has been defined u/s 2 (s)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 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 laid to that dispute,
but does not include any such person;
a) 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
b) Who is employed in the police service or as
an Officer or other employee of a prison or
c) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity
d) Who, being employed in a supervisory
capacity draws wages exceeding Ten
Thousand Rupees per menses 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, in order to prove that the Party No. I
is/was a ‘‘Workman” as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947, one has to prove that he was performing
the duties of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory in nature and it
is not enough that he/she was not performing the
duties of supervisory, administrative and
managerial in nature. It is the settled principles of
Industrial jurisprudence that whether a particular
employee is a ‘‘Workman” or not, as defined under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
depends upon the predominant nature of duties
and responsibilities performed by him at the time
of termination of his services.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay explained the term
‘supervisor’ in its following judgments respectively.
14. In the case of All India Reserve Bank
Employees Association and Anr. V/s Reserve
Bank of India and Anr., reported in 1965 II LLJ
176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held
that “the Workman, employed to do supervisory work
drawing monthly emoluments of less than Rs. 500/-
held competent to raise an industrial dispute in
regard to their pay scale, even if the pay-scale
demanded by them goes beyond Rs. 500/- per month.
The Hon’ble Court further observed that the word
“supervise” and its derivatives are not words of
precise import and must often be construed in the
light of the context, for unless control, they cover an
easily simple oversight and directions as manual
work coupled with the power of inspection and
Superintendence of the manual work of others.”
15. In the case of Anand Regional Co-operative
Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd. V/s Shailesh kumar
Harshadbhai Shah reported in (2006) 6 SCC 548,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that
“for determining the question as to whether a person
employed in an industry is a “Workman” or not, not
only the nature of work performed by him but also
the terms of the appointment in the job performed
are relevant considerations. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India further held that the supervision
contemplates directions and control. While
determining the nature of the work performed by an
employee, the essence of the matter should call for
consideration. An undue importance need not be
given for the designation of an employee or the
name assigned to the class to which he belongs.
What is needed to be asked is as to what are the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
684
primary duties he performs for the set purpose, it is
necessary to prove that there were some person
working under him whose work was required to be
supervised. Being in charge of the section alone and
that to a small one and relating to quality control
would not answer the test. A person indisputably
carries on supervisory work if he has power of control
or supervision in regard to recruitment, promotion,
etc. The work involves exercise of tact and
independence.”
16. In the case of Burmah shell oil Storage and
Distributing Co. of India Ltd. V/S Burmah shell
Management Staff Association and Ors., reported
in AIR 1971 SC 922, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has held that “in determining the nature of
employment of an employee and in holding that the
employer is employed to do supervisory work, took
into consideration not only the work of supervision
which he was carrying on in ensuring that the skilled
and unskilled manual Workman employed under him
were properly doing work of repairs, maintenance,
servicing and fabricating etc. but also the fact that
the Workman function under his control and
direction that he allocated and reallocated work to
them and that he initiated disciplinary proceedings
etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that
the exercise of such power is clearly a part of his
supervisory duty.”
17. In the case of Ramesh s/o Ramrao Wase
V/s the Commissioner, Revenue Division
Amravati reported in 1996 1 LLJ 55 the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay has held that “the status
of a person as an employee cannot be decided merely
on the basis of his designation. The Hon’ble High
Court further held that it is popularly believed that
in order to dub the work as a ‘Supervisory’, the
person concerned must have control over the
subordinates and the person concerned should have
the power to sanction leave, give promotions et
which is only one of the facets of the supervisory
work. That is not the be all and end all of the term
“supervisory work” if the supervision is required to
be made in some other different way, like over the
quality of the work and over other aspects such as
to see and examine whether the work is completed
or not in satisfactory manner and in keeping with
specifications, that also becomes the supervisory
work, it is therefore clear that really speaking, none
of the duties of the Petitioner are of technical nature,
but are of supervisory in nature.”
18. In the case of Shri Vishnu P. Kamat V/s
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Panaji-Goa
and Anr, passed in Writ Petition No 167/1999,
before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the
Petitioner was entrusted with duties of sanctioning
of leave of operators, checking of productions,
stoppage of machinery if the product was found
not up to the mark etc. and that these duties are
certainly of supervisory in nature. The Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay at Goa refused to interfere in
exercise of the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India by observing that the
petitioner is not a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2(s) of
the I.D Act, 1947.
19. In the case of Standard Chartered Bank
V/s Vandana Joshi and another reported in 2010
I CLR 163, before the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay, the Respondent was designated as
‘Personal Financial Consultant’. His primary duties
were to achieve allocated business targets,
ensuring high quality customer service, ensuring
external and internal compliance on all branch
transactions, handling difficult customer situations
and contributing to the overall achievement
growth et. The Hon’ble High Court has held that
the Respondent is not a ‘workman’ as defined u/s
2(s) of the I.D Act, 1947. The Hon’ble High Court in
para 18 of it judgment observed as under:
“18. The fact that in an organizational 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.
Employees are made subject to checks and
balances both at the lateral and vertical level.
Managerial decisions are subject to verification
and approval. The fact that decisions of an
employee are subject to verification or subject
to a system of control 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 prose 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. In the case of German Remedies Ltd. v/s.
Micheal Gabriel Lopes and Anr., reported in 1999
(2) LLN 199, before the Hon’ble High Court of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
685
Bombay, the Respondent was designated as officer
in the personal department of the company. He
had to do laison work with Government offices like
E.S.I Department, E.P.F Office, Factory Inspector
Office and others. His salary was exceeding
Rs. 1,600/- per month. He was empowered by the
management to exercise his discretion in the best
interest of the company. The Hon’ble High Court
has held that “the Respondent is not a ‘workman’
as define u/s 2(s) of the I.D Act, 1947, but he is a
person working in a supervisory cadre. The Hon’ble
High Court has held that “it cannot be said that
unless an employee has a power to dismiss the
persons recruited by him or unless he has power to
settle the matters in court or to take decisions on
behalf of the company, he cannot fall into the
category of supervisor.”
21. In case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. v/s
Ramesh Kumbla and ors., reported in 1999 III
LLJ 1489, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has
held that, “the Respondent was employed as a
“supervisor” in electrical maintenance department.
The predominant nature of his work was
supervisory and not technical. He had power to
recommend leave and authorize overtime work and
overtime free meal. He enjoyed certain special
privileges and benefits under the pension scheme
and gratuity scheme framed by the company.
Therefore it has been held that he must be working
in supervisory capacity u/s 2(s) (IV) of the I.D Act
and merely because sometimes he carried out the
work himself, does not detract from the fact that he
was a supervisor.”
22. In the case of Seraikella Glass Works Ltd.
v/s second Industrial Tribunals W.B. and Ors.
reported in 1992 I LLJ 1158, the Hon’ble High
Court of Calcutta has held that, “the nature of duties
performed by the employees is managerial and in
carrying out the main duties as supervisor, he was
required to do various jobs like assignment of work,
allocation of job indenting of materials,
recommendation of leave and work appraisal of the
workmen working under him and was drawing a
salary of Rs. 1600/- p.m. and as such cannot prima
facie claim the benefit of workmen within a meaning
of Section 2(s) of the I.D Act, 1947.”
The aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as Hon’ble High Courts almost settled
the law on the subject.
23. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the
Party I was initially appointed by the Employer as
‘clerk’ w.e.f. 01-10-1988 and confirmed in the service
w.e.f. 01-11-1990. The Party I was promoted to the
post of ‘Accounts Assistant (Advt.)’ from 01-10-2000.
The Party I was further promoted to the post of
‘Recovery Officer’ from 01-12-2007. The Party I was
finally promoted to the post of ‘Asstt. Manager
Advt. (Recovery)’ from 01-01-2011. The Party I
worked in the said post of ‘Asstt. Manager Advt.
(Recovery)’ till 31-10-2013 when he resigned by
notice dated 01-10-2013. It is further admitted by
the Employer that the Party I was given the benefits
of the Bachawat Award as well as Manisana Wage
Board Award.
24. To prove his case, the Party I examined
himself and produced on record certain
documentary evidence in support of his oral
evidence. The Party I in his oral evidence on record
deposed that as an Asstt. Manager Advt. (Recovery)
from 01-01-2011, he continued to do the same work
of Accounts Assistant (Advt.) and was entrusted
with the work of recovery of advertisement money
from
the
agencies,
through
whom
the
advertisements were booked and that he had no
authority of whatsoever nature in the matter of
administration, management or supervision of the
work or the employees and that his duties were
mainly of clerical in nature. In his cross-
examination, the Party I deposed that though he
has given promotion to the post of Asstt.
Advertising
Manager,
his
duties
and
responsibilities never changed. He deposed that
as a clerk of the Employer, he was performing the
duties such as preparing bills of advertisement, to
collect the amount towards credit bills from various
parties by visiting them as per the instructions of
his superior and any other work as per the
directions of his superior. He deposed that he has
been promoted as Accounts Assistant (Advt.) his
duties were never changed and it remains the same
as clerk. He deposed that as an Asstt. Advertising
Manager, he used to report to Dy. Gen. Manager of
the Employer. He admitted that he was interacting
with various agencies on behalf of the Employer
for recovery of dues while in the employment. He
admitted that whenever any bill towards the
advertisement were pending he used to co-ordinate
the said Vaishali for recovery of the bill as per the
direction of higher authorities. He admitted that
he used to give necessary instructions to the said
Vaishali for recovery of bills as per the directions
of higher authorities. He admitted that whenever
he used to send email to the said Vaishali, it is on
the instructions of his higher authorities. He
deposed that he do not possess any document to
show that he has been given instructions to send
the same emails to the said Vaishali. He admitted
that he had sent an email dated 05-01-2013 to
Mr. Luis Rodrigues, a representative of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
686
Employer in Belgaum region and had also received
an email dated 09-01-2013 from him. He stated that
he had sent email dated 05-01-2013 to the said
Mr. Luis Rodrigues at the instructions of
Mr. Ramkrishna Mashelkar, an Accounts Manager
of the Employer. He deposed that as an Asstt.
Advertisement Manager, he was reporting to all
the higher authorities which includes Accounts
Manager of the Employer. He deposed that he had
drafted the said two notices as per the format given
by the management. He admitted that he had made
changes as per the requirements and prepared the
said notices. He deposed that even after serving
the notice to the customers, if the customers did
not pay the amount than the accounts department
used to look after the said matter. He deposed that
he used to check on the system as to whether the
amount towards the pending bills have been
recovered or not. He admitted that he never used
to interact with the bill collectors, clerks or any
other employees of the Employer pertaining to the
recovery of amount. He deposed that he do not
remember exactly as to whether at any point of
time he has been instructed by the Accounts
Manager to sign the said bills in his absence. He
deposed that as an Asstt. Advertising Manager, it
was his duty to ensure delivery of bills to the
advertisement agencies and not the recovery of
the said bills. He admitted that he was interacting
with the various advertising agencies to recover
the amount due from them to the Employer.
25. On the contrary, the Employer examined
Mr. Vinayak Pai Bir, its Printer/Publisher. The said
Mr. Pai Bir in his affidavit in evidence deposed that
the Party I was working with them as Asstt.
Manager–Advertisement (Recovery) and his
primary duties was to interact with the various
agencies, clients, its customers and to recover the
dues pending from them on behalf of the Employer.
He deposed that when the Party I was promoted to
the post of Advertising Manager w.e.f. January,
2011 vide its letter dated 18-11-2010 and that he
was confirmed in the said scale of pay of the
Manisana Wage Board Award and that he was
granted an increment of Rs. 3000/- in his
conveyance allowance. He deposed that the duties
performed by the Party I were of supervisory and
managerial in nature. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that the Party I had joined the services of
the Employer as clerk in the year 1988. He admitted
that he is not aware of the duties performed by
different employees of the Employer in its different
departments. He admitted that he is not aware the
duties performed by the Party I as he was working
in advertising department. He admitted that the
post designated as clerks are not allowed to sign
any contracts or any documentation for and on
behalf of the Employer. He deposed that no
authority letter of whatsoever nature was ever
issued to the Party I to sign or make agreement
with any third person on behalf of the Employer.
He admitted that during the period when the Party
I was working as a clerk, he was also co-ordinating
with various agencies in order to make the
recoveries of the pending bills and that the said
duties was also performed by him after his
promotion as Accounts Assistant. He admitted that
in the affidavit in evidence filed by him before the
Controlling Authority, he deposed that the benefits
of all the awards applicable to the post of the
Party I was granted to him along with all other
employees of the Employer. He admitted that when
the Party I was promoted, no job specifications
were issued to him as a Recovery Officer as well as
Asstt. Advertising Manager his basic scale of pay
and all other allowances as per Manisana Wage
Board Award remained the same and he was only
granted an increment of Rs. 3000/- in his
conveyance allowance. He admitted that the
Employer had at no point of time issued any
separate letter of appointment/promotion
specifying duties and job responsibilities to the
respective post of clerk to Accounts Assistant to
Recovery Officer and to Asstt. Advertising
Manager. He admitted that in the aforesaid
promotion letters issued to the Party I, it does not
contained any of the duties and job responsibilities
to the respective post. He admitted that the receipt
at Exb. 29-cross have been signed by one
Shri Sagar Shirodkar on behalf of the Employer.
26. Thus, the aforesaid evidence on record
indicates that the Party I was holding the post
of Asstt. Advertising Manager (Recovery) from
01-01-2011 till 31-10-2013 at the time of his
resignation from the services of the Employer. The
evidence on record indicates that the Party I was
promoted to the post of Asstt. Advertising Manager,
he was given an increment of Rs. 3000/- in his
conveyance allowance. The evidence on record
indicates that though the Party I was promoted
from Clerk to Accounts Assistant to Recovery Officer
and finally to Asstt. Advertising Manager
(Recovery), all other terms and conditions of his
employment as stated in his original service
contract remained unchanged. The Employer has
not issued any separate letter of appointment/
/promotion
specifying
duties
and
job
responsibilities to the post of clerk to Accounts
Assistant to Recovery Officer and to Asstt.
Advertising Manager. The evidence on record
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
687
indicates that as an Asstt. Advertising Manager of
the Employer, the predominant nature of duties
and responsibilities of the Party I to interact with
the various agencies, clients, its customers and to
recover the dues pending from them on behalf of
the Employer, to co-ordinate with various agencies
in order to make the recoveries of the pending
bills. The Party I was not having any authority of
whatsoever nature to sign or make an agreement
with any third person on behalf of the Employer.
The Party I was not having any authority to ensure
the recovery of the pending bills. The aforesaid
predominant duties and responsibilities performed
by the Party I as an ‘Asstt. Advertising Manager
are predominantly clerical in nature. The Party I is
therefore a ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The issue No. 1
is therefore answered in the affirmative.
27. Ld. Adv. Shri P.J. Kamat, during the course
of his oral arguments relied upon a judgment in
the case of Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vaidya
v/s. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.,
reported in 2010 (126) FLR 289, of Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in para 46 to 48 of its judgment
held as under:
46. It is pertinent to note that in the long span
of more than five years’ service, documents
relied upon by the management pertaining to
nature of work, according to management, are
(1) Attendance sheet, (2) Authorization Slip,
(3) Pay slip, which pertain to year 2003. The
period, during which the complainant was
appointed and has been serving, is from 17
August, 1988.
47. Had the complainant been working in
supervisory capacity, it would be shocking
to believe that he has signed only four
documents referred to in paras 14 to 23, which
are Exbs. 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40 and 41 only.
Stray suggestions as to few documents filed
by the management do not amount to proving
predominance of work.
48. Even on construing and interpreting each
and every document in favour of the
management, it would not be possible to reach
a conclusion that these six documents are liable
to be described as ‘stray pieces of evidence’ in
the background of long five years’ service of
the appellant. This evidence does not lead to
suggest that nature of predominant duties of
complainant was that of managerial and
administrative, much less to prove said
positively raised plea of the management that
the complainant was not a workman”
28. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court is well recognized and is also applicable to
the case in hand. Applying the law laid down by
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the document
at Exb. 24-cross, Exb. 25-colly (cross) i.e. email sent
to the third parties, Exb. 26-colly (cross) i.e. two
legal notices issued by the Party I in the capacity
of recovery officer to the third party. The said emails
on record indicates that the Party I was interacting
with the third parties regarding payment of
outstanding bills and the legal notices issued by
the Party I to the third party pertaining to the
payment of outstanding bills. The said documents
on record indicates that no duties of supervisory,
administrative or managerial in nature were
performed by the Party I in his 15 years of tenure
of service with the Employer. Hence, it is held that
the Employer failed to prove that the Party I was
predominantly performing the duties of supervisory,
administrative and managerial in nature.
29. In the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt.
Ltd. v/s. Krishna Kant Pandey of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, the Respondent was
appointed on the post of Operator/Technician
Grade III for six months on probation basis w.e.f.
13-03-1995 against the salary of Rs. 2600/- p.m. He
was confirmed in services w.e.f. 13-09-1995 and was
also awarded one increment w.e.f. 01-02-1996.
Earlier he was appointed in the plant of Jainpur
(Kanpur Dehat) from where he was transferred to
Satharia plant, District Jaunpur, U.P. on 30-08-1996
on the revised pay scale i.e. Rs. 5450/-. Pursuant to
the subsequent transfer order, he was posted at
Lucknow in the month of June, 1997 and till 2000
he was awarded annual increment @ of Rs. 490/-.
Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of line
supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 7716/- and
thereafter to the post of Fleet Executive. The
Employer terminated his services on 14-11-2003 by
giving one month salary in lieu of notice prior to
termination. In a reference before the Industrial
Tribunal held that the Respondent is not a
‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Being
aggrieved, the Respondent filed the writ petition
challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal.
The Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court
allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent
by quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal
against which the Appellant filed the present
appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while allowing
the appeal filed by the Appellant held that the
Appellant had entered into the service on the post
of Operator/Technician Grade–III, which is a
technical post and from there he was promoted to
different posts including fleet executive. The High
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
688
Court committed grave error in holding that
although he is not covered under the definition of
the ‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of the Act, he shall be
classified as a workman. The High Court further
exceeded its jurisdiction in advising the
Government to make an amendment in Section 2 (s)
of the Act and to exclude some clauses. The order
passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in
law.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid case is not applicable to the
case in hand as the facts of the case in hand are
totally different than the case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
30. The Employer denied that the Party I was a
non-journalist newspaper employee within the
meaning of Section 2 (dd) of the Working Journalist
and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955
(Central Act 45 of 1955). It is therefore necessary to
refer to the definition of the working journalist as
well as non-journalist newspaper employee of the
said Act.
Section 2 (c) of the said Act define the term
‘newspaper employee’ and it means that “any
working journalist, and includes any other
person employed to do any work in, or in
relation to, any newspaper establishment.
Similarly, Section 2 (dd) defines non-journalist
newspaper employee and it means “a person
employed to do any work in, or in relation to,
any newspaper establishment, but does not
include any such person who—
i) is a working journalist, or
ii) is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity, or
iii) being employed in a Supervisory Capacity,
performs either by the nature of duties
attached to his office or by reason of the
powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
managerial nature”
Thus, the term ‘non-journalist newspaper
employee’ means any person employed to do any
work in, or in relation to, any newspaper
establishment, but does not include any such
person i.e. a working journalist, employed mainly
in a supervisory, managerial or administrative
capacity performs either by the nature of duties
attached to his office or by reason of the powers
vested in him.
31. Undisputedly, the Party II was engaged in
the business of newspaper publication. Hence, the
Party I was a newspaper employee. The Party I was
holding the post of Asstt. Advertising Manager
(Recovery) from 01-01-2011 till 31-10-2013 at the
time of his resignation of his services of the
Employer. As observed in the foregoing paras, the
predominant nature of duties and responsibilities
of the Party I as Asstt. Advertising Manager of the
Employer were clerical in nature. The Party I was
not a ‘working journalist’. Hence, the Party I was a
‘non-journalist newspaper employee’ as defined
u/s 2 (dd) of the Working Journalist and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central Act
45 of 1955). Hence, it is held that the Party I proved
that he was a non-journalist newspaper employee
under the Working Journalist and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central Act 45
of 1955). The issue No. 2 is therefore answered in
the affirmative.
32. The oral evidence on record indicates that
the Party I had filed an application before the
Commissioner,
Labour
and
Employment,
Government of Goa, Panaji, under Section 17 of the
Working Journalist (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 for recovery of
money due from the Employer. The oral evidence
on record indicates that the Employer disputed
the amount due on various grounds and as such
required u/s 72 of the said Act, the Commissioner,
Labour and Employment, Government of Goa,
referred the matter to the Labour Court II u/s 10 (1)
(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for its adjudication.
The Section 17 of the said Act is reproduce as
under:
“17 (1) Recovery of money due from an employer –
(1) where any amount is due under this Act to
a newspaper employee from an employer, the
newspaper employee himself, or any person
authorised by him in writing in this behalf or
in the case of the death of the employee, any
member of his family may, without prejudice
to any other mode of recovery, make an
application to the State Government or such
authority, as the State Govt. may specify in
this behalf, is satisfied that any amount is so
due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount
to the collector, and the Collector shall proceed
to recover that amount in the same manner as
an arrear of land revenue”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
689
Thus, from the plain reading of the said Section
17 of the Act, it reveals that a newspaper employee
can make an application u/s 17 of the said Act for
recovery of money due and if there is any dispute,
the same shall be referred to the Labour Court
constituted under the provisions of the said Act by
the State Government of its motion an application
by the Party I.
33. In the case of Management of Samyuktha
Karnataka v/s. M.L. Satyanarayan Rao and Anr.,
reported in 1986 LIC 626, the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka in para 7 of its judgment held as under:
“7………Sub-Section (2) of S.17 confers power
on the State Government to refer a dispute
raised by a person on the basis that he was a
working journalist regarding salary due to him
from his employer and if the State Government
is prima facie satisfied that the matter merits
reference under the said provision it has the
power to make a reference. Therefore, it should
be held that the Labour court which is vested
with the power to decide such dispute has
also the power to decide all incidental questions
necessary for the exercise of the power.
Acceptance of the plea of the petitioner would
render S. 17 (2) purposeless for, in every case,
if the management concerned were to raise an
objection that the claimant concerned was not
a working journalist, the Labour Court would
have no jurisdiction to decide the issue.
Therefore, I hold that in a reference made under
S. 17 (2) of the Act read with S. 10 (1) of the I.D.
Act, the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to
decide the question as to whether the claimant
was a working journalist if such a question is
raised on behalf of the management.”
The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is well
recognised and is also applicable to the case in
hand.
34. In the case of the Management of Statesman
Ltd. v/s. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors., reported
in 1975 II LLJ 33, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in para 7 of its judgment held as under:
“7. The finding, I have returned, is that the
respondent No. 3 is a working journalists
governed by the Journalists Act and he is not
a workman within the meaning of Industrial
Disputes Act but all the provisions of the
industrial Disputes Act fully apply to him as
they apply to a workman so he is entitled to
take advantage of the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the machinery for
adjudication of disputes provided by it in view
of this findings the espousal of the cause of
the respondent is sufficient to convert
individual dispute of the workman into an
industrial dispute. The contention of the
counsel has no force and the findings of the
Tribunal on the preliminary issues does not
suffer from any legal infirmity. As a result the
writ petition fails and is dismissed but in the
circumstances of the case the parties will bear
their respective costs.”
35. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi is well recognised and is also
applicable to the case in hand. Applying the law
laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it is
held that the dispute raised by the Party I is an
‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of Section
2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The court also do not find
any merits in the preliminary objection raised by
the Employer and as such the said preliminary
objection raised by the Employer is hereby
overruled. Hence, it is held that the Employer failed
to prove that the present order of reference is not
maintainable in view of the reasons stated in its
preliminary objections. The issue No. 5 is therefore
answered in the negative.
36. Issue No. 3:
While deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the Party I is a non-journalist newspaper employee
under The Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of 1955. The
Party I, being a non-journalist newspaper employee
is therefore entitled to the benefits under the
Justice Majithia Wage Board Award dated
31-10-2010 and accepted by the Government of
India dated 11-11-2011. The Working Journalists
and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 of
1955. Hence, it is held that the Party I proves that
is therefore entitled to the benefits under the
Justice Majithia Wage Board Award dated
31-10-2010 and accepted by the Government of
India dated 11-11-2011. The issue No. 3 is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
37. Issue No. 4:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I
have discussed and came to the conclusion that
the Party I being a non-journalist working employee
is therefore entitled to the benefits under
the Justice Majithia Wage Board Award dated
31-10-2010 and accepted by the Government of
India dated 11-11-2011.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
690
38. The evidence on record indicates that the
Government of India, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 9 of the said Act had
constituted a wage board for the purpose of fixing
and revising rates of wages in respect of working
journalist and non-journalist newspaper employees
and news agencies employees vide notification
dated 24-05-2007 which is known as Justice
Majithia Wage Board. The evidence on record
indicates that during the pendency of the
adjudication, the Government of India vide
notification dated 24-10-2008 had declared 30% of
the basic wages as interim relief w.e.f. 08-01-2008.
The evidence on record indicates that from January
2000 onwards, the Party I had drawn basic wages
under the Manisana Singh Board Award.
39. The evidence on record indicates that the
Party I was promoted to the post of Recovery Officer
w.e.f. 01-12-2007 vide letter dated 26-11-2007 and
he was fitted at basic pay of Rs. 7835/-. The
Party I was also paid arrears arising out the
Manisana Wage Board Award. The evidence on
record indicates that the Party I was further
promoted to the post of Asstt. Advertising Manager
(Recovery) w.e.f. January, 2011 vide letter dated
18-11-2010 and was confirmed in the same scale of
pay of the Manisana Wage Board Award. The
Party I was however, granted an increment of
Rs. 3000/- in his conveyance allowance. At the
relevant time i.e. w.e.f. January, 2008 the basic of
the Party I was Rs. 7835/-. The basic of the Party I
for the period of 23 days in the month of January,
2008 was Rs. 6006.83. The basic of the Party I for
the month of October, 2008, October, 2009, October,
2010, October, 2011, October, 2012 and for the
month of October 2013 were Rs. 8070/-, Rs. 8305/-,
Rs. 8540/-, Rs. 8775/-, Rs.9010/- and Rs. 9245/-
respectively. Thus, the total calculation of 30% of
the basic wage for the period from 08-01-2008 till
10-11-2011 comes to Rs. 1,13,810.05.
40.
The Party I claimed an amount of
Rs. 1,62,000/- as an arrears towards the
recommendation of Justice Majithia Wage Board
Award. The Employer denied that the Party I is
entitled as an arrears towards the recommendation
of Justice Majithia Wage Board Award. The Party I
has produced on record a copy of the order dated
11-11-2011 issued by the Ministry of Labour and
Employment which is on record at Exb. 15. The
said order on record indicates that the wages as
revised/determined shall be payable from
11-11-2011 when the Government of India notified
the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the
recommendations made by the Justice Majithia
Wage Board hiking salaries for journalists and non-
journalists by dismissing the challenges filed by
the managements of various newspapers. Hence, it
is held that the Party I proved that he is entitled
to the arrears of the recommendations of the Justice
Majithia Wage Board Award.
41. The Party I also claimed an amount of
Rs. 32,244.27 on account of encashment of leave
credited on the day of acceptance of his resignation
on 31-10-2014. According to the Party I, there was
balance earned leave of 31 days and casual leave
of 6 days in his account. The Employer denied in
its pleadings the aforesaid encashment of leave of
earned leave of 31 days and casual leave of 6 days
in his account. It was therefore, incumbent upon
him to prove the said fact by cogent evidence. The
Party I has however, did not produce on record any
cogent evidence in support of the claim. The
Party I also failed to direct the Employer to produce
the records pertaining to his leave. Thus, the
Party I having failed to produce any cogent
evidence of his leave balance on the day of
acceptance of his resignation, also failed to prove
that he is entitled to encash the earned leave of 31
days and 6 days of casual leave. The Party I is
therefore not entitled to any leave encashment.
The issue No. 4 is therefore partly answered in the
affirmative to the extent of 30% of the interim relief
as well as differences in wages as per Justice
Majithia Wage Board Award and partly answered
in the negative to the extent of leave encashment.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that Shri Crispino Marcelo is a
non-journalist newspaper employee under the
Working Journalists and Other Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central
Act 45 of 1955).
2. The Employer, M/s. Herald Publications Pvt.
Ltd., is hereby directed to pay to the Party I,
Shri Crispino Marcelo, 30% of the interim relief
as well as arrears under the Justice Majithia
Wage Board Award. However, Party I is not
entitled to any leave encashment.
3. No order as to costs
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
691
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/764
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 22-10-2018 in reference
No. IT/25/2010 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.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 28th November, 2018.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/25/2010
Shri Menino Dias,
r/o. H. No. 399, Maria Apartment,
Mangor Hill,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.
….. Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Paraiso de Goa, Alto Porvorim,
Bardez-Goa.
…. Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri A.
Palekar.
Panaji, dated 22-10-2018.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central
Act 14 of 1947) the Government of Goa, by Order
dated 22-09-2010, bearing No. 28/34/2010-LAB
referred the following dispute for adjudication by
the Industrial Tribunal of Goa. The Government of
Goa, vide its subsequent order dated 09-02-2016,
transferred the present reference from the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to this Labour Court II
for its adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s Kadamba
Transport Corporation Ltd., Porvorim, Goa,
in dismissing from services Shri Menino
Dias, Driver, vide their order dated
20-01-2007 is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief, the workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/25/2010 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
01-12-2010 at Exb. 7. The facts of the case in
brief as pleaded by the workman are that after
successful interview, he was appointed by the
Employer/Party-II (for short, ‘Employer’) as ‘Driver’
in the year 1985. He stated that on 15-08-2005, he
was posted on schedule No. 52 on vehicle
No. GA-01-X-0306 (Mini bus) on shuttle service on
route Vasco-Panaji. He stated that the vehicle
departed from Vasco Bus stand at about 3.00 p.m.
and when he reached at Zuari bridge, Agassaim at
the end of Zuari bridge, the vehicle turned turtled
and went off the road. He was issued a charge-
sheet dated 26-01-2005 by the Employer. He stated
that he controverted the charges levelled against
him, vide his reply dated 02-11-2005. He stated
that he had also denied the charges as the same
were belatedly issued to him, despite the fact that
the accident occurred on 15-08-2005 and the
charge-sheet was issued to him on 26-10-2005
besides his defense of mechanical fault.
3. He stated that he was charged under Clause
28 of the CSO (Certified Standing Orders). He stated
that the said charge-sheet reads as when he was
on route Vasco-Panaji (shuttle) on KTC vehicle
No. GA-01-X-030805, he met with major accident
near Zuari bridge, Agassaim at 15.00 hours causing
injuries to him and 18 passengers as well as total
damages to the KTC vehicle. That the accident
took place, when the KTC driver Mr. Menino Dias
drove the vehicle in over speed and failed to control
the same, whereby vehicle went off to right side
off the road and turned turtled and struck on
electric pole and finally rested on a big tree with
all four wheel in upward directions and therefore
the driver is fully responsible for the above accident
and consequent injuries caused to the driver and
passengers as well as damages of the vehicle. He
stated that he was therefore charged under Clause
28. He stated that thereafter the Employer
conducted an enquiry against him. He stated that
the Enquiry Officer held him guilty of the charges
levelled against him. He stated that the Employer
thereafter issued him a dismissal letter dismissing
him from service vide order dated 20-01-2007.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal
issued to him, the Workman challenged the same
on the following grounds, which are taken without
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
692
prejudice to one another. The Workman contended
that the action of the Employer in dismissing him
from services is illegal, malafide and unjustified.
He submitted that the Employer is a State within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and is bound by Chapter II of the Constitution
of India. He submitted that the action of the
Employer in dismissing him from service is patently
illegal, arbitrary and thus in violation of Article 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He
submitted that his service has been terminated
without any reasonable cause and for no
misconducts committed by him. He submitted that
the departmental enquiry conducted in flagrant
violation of the principles of natural justice. He
submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer
are perverse, suffers from non-application of mind
and not based on evidence on record. He
submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer erred in placing
the burden of proving the innocence on him, when
in fact the proper procedure and in fairness, the
Enquiry Officer ought to have followed by placing
the burden to prove the charges levelled against
him on the Employer. He submitted that Ld.
Enquiry Officer ought to have appreciated the
defense taken by him vis-à-vis the evidence on
record. He submitted that the action of the
Employer is smacks of malifide and instance of
unfair labour practice only to victimize him. He
submitted that in hypothetical cases of fatal
accidents, the drivers have been imposed with
minor penalties of withholding annual increments,
however, he is imposed with the penalty of
dismissal from service, which is unwarranted. He
submitted that the alleged misconduct stipulated
in the charge-sheet does not amounts to breach of
any rules or instructions given by the superiors for
the proper functioning of the or the safety of the
establishment especially when no orders or
directions were produced on record during the
course of enquiry proceedings. Without prejudice
to the above, he submitted that he is not guilty of
the charges and that the punishment of dismissal
imposed upon him is disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct. The Workman therefore prayed
that the action of the Employer in retrenching his
services w.e.f. 15-01-2008 be declared as illegal and
unjustified and he be reinstated along with full
back wages from the date of retrenchment till
passing of the award.
5. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing written statement on 17-01-2014
at Exb. 11. The Employer stated that it is a
Government Company and also a State Transport
Undertaking under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. The Employer stated that he provides
transport services to the travelling public within
the State of Goa and also to the neighbouring
states like Maharashtra and Karnataka. The
Employer admitted that the Workman was
appointed as a Heavy Vehicle Driver on daily wages
w.e.f. 21-11-1985 and his daily wages periods were
extended from time to time. The Employer stated
that the Workman was taken on probation w.e.f.
01-11-1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 300-500. The
Employer stated that ever since his appointment,
the Workman used to be involved in many acts of
misconducts/accidents. The Employer stated that
as and when his misconduct was reported, the
Workman was imposed minor punishments with a
view to improve himself and perform his duties
sincerely. The Employer stated that however, inspite
of the opportunities given to him, the Workman
had not shown any sign of improvement. The
Employer stated that some of the misconducts
committed by the Workman and punishments
awarded to him are that he was issued
memorandum dated 29-04-1987 for causing break
down of vehicle GDX-75 due to breakage of
propeller shaft, issued memorandum dated
30-08-1987 for remaining absent on 29-08-1987 for
scheduled duty on scheduled No. 48A/46, issued
memorandum dated 04-11-1987 for remaining
absent from 02-11-1987 to 03-11-1987 for scheduled
duty on schedule No. 42A/40, issued warning dated
01-07-1988 to improve the diesel kilometers per
litre, issued default notice LC No. 02194, dated
13-03-1988 since he failed to reply to the default
notice, he was issued warning dated 04-08-1988
for non-repeatance of such instances in future,
issued memorandum dated 10-08-1988 while he
was on duty on vehicle GDX-13, his vehicle went
off the road and the same vehicle kept unattended
by him at the incident spot and after scrutinizing
the reply filed by him, the Workman was fined
Rs. 25 with warning, vide order dated 03-09-1988
for non-repeatance, issued show-cause notice dated
30-12-1988 for improper behaviour with the
travelling passenger, issued charge-sheet dated
26-04-1989 for committing the accidents to vehicle
GDX-71 and not stopping the vehicle on the
accident spot and that after scrutinizing his
reply, the Workman was warned vide letter dated
28-07-1989 for non-repetance of such instances in
future, imposed recovery of Rs. 75/- towards the
damaged caused to vehicle No. GDX-154 with
warning vide order dated 03-05-1989, issued
warning dated 01-03-1990 for refusal of double duty,
issued warning dated 28-02-1990 for refusal of
double duty, issued charge-sheet dated 16-05-1990
for committing fatal accident wherein one pillion
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
693
rider of the motorcycle succumbed to his injuries
in the hospital. Considering the gravity of the
incident, Workman was placed under suspension
pending departmental enquiry and final action.
The departmental enquiry was also instituted vide
order dated 02-07-1990 and the suspension order
issued to Workman was revoked vide order dated
08-06-1990, issued warning letter dated 13-02-1991
for causing damages to the vehicle No. GDX-95,
issued memorandum dated 15-03-1991 for causing
damages to the vehicle No. GDX-95, issued
memorandum dated 15-03-1991 for committing the
accident to the vehicle No. GDX-88 on 26-10-1990
since no reply was filed by Workman, Workman
was fined Rs. 50/- with warning for non-repeatance
vide order dated 09-04-1991, issued memorandum
dated 24-02-1992 for committing accident to
vehicle No. GDX-147 on 24-12-1991 and causing
damages to the KTC vehicle and after scrutinizing
the explanation offered by him, Workman
was warned for non-repeatance vide letter dated
25-3-1992, issued charge-sheet No. KTC/ADM(V)96-
97/113 dated 25-03-1996 for committing the
accident, after scrutinizing the reply filed by
Workman, a recovery of Rs. 1000/- in four equal
installments was imposed upon Workman vide
order dated 04-07-1995 with warning for non-
repeating in future, issued memorandum dated
06-03-1999 for unauthorizedly operating the
scheduled trip before actual scheduled timings and
thereafter refusing to operate the trip instructed
by the Traffic Controller, issued charge-sheet dated
13-04-1999 for assaulting the co-workers in the
depot premises under the influence of alcohol,
summary enquiry was conducted vide order dated
19-05-1999 and perusing the enquiry report,
Workman was issued warning dated 24-07-1999
for non-repeatance, issued memorandum dated
31-07-1999 for driving the vehicle in tyre puncture
condition thereby damaging the tyre and tube.
After scrutinizing the reply filed by Workman he
was issued warning dated 24-08-1999 for non-
repeatance of such instances in future, issued show-
cause notice dated 03-08-2000 for keeping the
vehicle unattended after operating the half
schedule, thereby causing revenue loss to the
corporation. After scrutinizing his reply, he was
imposed fine towards revenue loss of Rs. 345/- vide
order dated 05-08-2000 with a warning for non-
repeatance in future, issued charge-sheet dated
03-02-2001 for committing the accident to vehicle
to GA-01/X0242, causing damages to vehicle. After
scrutinizing the reply, summary enquiry was
conducted vide order dated 28-04-2001. On perusal
of enquiry report, the Workman was issued show-
cause notice dated 02-08-2001 proposing the
penalty of recovery of Rs. 500/- towards damages
cost to the KTC vehicle. On scrutinizing the
reply filed by Workman, a penalty of recovery of
Rs. 300/- was imposed vide order dated 30-08-2001
with warning for non-repeatance in future, issued
charge-sheet dated 30-08-2001 committing the
accident to vehicle of the KTCL, thereby causing
damages of Rs. 10,000/- to KTCL vehicles, issued
charge-sheet dated 31-08-2001 for committing the
accident to KTC vehicle thereby causing damage
to KTCL vehicle at a tune of Rs. 6000/- beside
injuries to the travelling passengers. On
scrutinizing the reply filed by the Workman,
Workman was imposed a penalty of Rs. 3000/-
towards damage cost vide order dated 01-11-2001
with warning for non-repeatance in future, issued
charge-sheet dated 09-02-2006 for committing the
accident to the KTC vehicle by driving the vehicle
careless and negligent manner. The decision to
conduct the summary enquiry was taken vide order
dated 08-03-2005. On completion the enquiry, show
cause notice dated 27-08-2005 was issued
proposing the penalty of recovery of Rs. 17632/-
towards damage cost was issued. On scrutiny of
his reply a lenient view was taken and accordingly
a penalty of recovery was Rs. 8860/- was imposed
upon him vide order dated 20-09-2005 with warning
for non-repeatance of such instances in future,
issued charge-sheet dated 20-06-2005 for
disobedience of instructions of the Depot Manager
thereby causing hardship to the passengers of the
brake down vehicle. Considering the gravity of the
misconducts, Workman was placed under
suspension vide order dated 18-06-2005 pending
departmental enquiry and final action. The
suspension order issued to Workman was revoked
vide order dated 8-7-2005 vide order issued
20-07-2005, the departmental enquiry was
instituted.
6. The Employer stated that the Workman was
on duty on route Vasco to Panaji (shuttle) on its
vehicle bearing No. GA-01-X-0306 on 15-08-2005
and on reaching near Zuari bridge (Agassaim) at
15.00 hours, met with an accident causing injuries
to13 passengers travelling in the bus as well as to
himself, besides damaging the said vehicle bearing
No. GA-01-X-0306 totally. The Employer stated that
the accident took place when the Workman drove
the vehicle in an extremely speedy manner and
failed to control the same, whereby the vehicle
veered off to the right side of the road and turned
turtle and struck an electric pole and finally rested
on a big tree with all four wheels in an upward
direction. The Employer stated that at the
preliminary inspection of the accident site, it was
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
694
observed that the accident occurred due to
careless, rash and negligent driving of the
Workman which resulted in injuries to the
passengers and total damage to its vehicle.
7. The Employer stated that the Workman was
placed under suspension vide order dated
26-10-2005 pending departmental enquiry.
The Workman was also issued charge-sheet dated
26-10-2005 directing him to file his say within 7
days from the receipt of the said charge-sheet. The
Employer stated that the Workman has filed its
reply dated 02-11-2005. The Employer stated that
the Workman participated in the enquiry alongwith
his representative. The Employer stated that the
enquiry was conducted in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer
has acted judicially and impartially. The Employer
stated that all the charges levelled against the
Workman have been proved in the said enquiry.
The Employer stated that the Workman was issued
a show-cause notice dated 16-10-2006, as to why
he should not be dismissed from its service. The
Employer stated that the Workman filed his reply
dated 16-10-2006 to the said show-cause notice.
The Employer stated that its disciplinary authority
found the said reply dated 16-10-2006 filed by the
Workman to be unsatisfactory. The Employer stated
that the disciplinary authority, after considering
the past unsatisfactory performance of the
Workman and considering all the circumstances of
the case viewed that the Workman does not deserve
a lenient view and therefore dismissed him from
service by its order dated 20-11-2007. The Employer
crave leaves of this Hon’ble Court that in the event
this court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry
conducted against the Workman is not fair and
proper on any of the grounds, in that event the
Employer be allowed to lead fresh evidence to prove
the charges of misconduct levelled against the
Workman. The Employer stated that the Workman
raised an industrial dispute vide its letter dated
12-02-2007 before the conciliation office Panaji-Goa
which ended in failure. The Employer denied the
overall case as pleaded by the Workman in its
statement of claim and prayed for dismissal of the
present claim of the Workman.
8. Thereafter, the Workman filed his re-joinder
on 27-02-2014 at Exb.13. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his
submissions, averments and statements made in
his Claim Statement to be true and correct and
denied all the statements, averments and
submissions made by the Employer in its Written
Statement, which are contrary to the Statement
and averments made in his Claim Statement.
9. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties
herein above, the Hon’ble Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed the
following issues on 14-08-2014 at Exb. 15.
1. Whether the Party I proves that the domestic
enquiry held against him is not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Workman are proved to the
satisfaction of this Tribunal by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Party I proves that the termination
of his services by the Party II vide order dated
20-01-2007 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Party I proves that he is
unemployed from the date of his dismissal?
5. What relief? What Award?
10. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: Partly in the affirmative
and Partly in the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
: In the negative.
(d) Issue No. 4
: Does not arise.
(e) Issue No. 5
: In the negative.
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri
A. Kundaikar appearing for the Workman as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri A. Palekar appearing for the
Employer.
11. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, representing the
Workman, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman under reference was
working as driver with Employer since the year
1985. He submitted that the Employer is governed
by its Certified Standing Orders. He submitted that
Clause 24 as well as 29 of the Certified Standing
Orders of the Employer on record provides for
termination of employment as well as punishment
for misconduct respectively. He submitted that vide
order dated 14-03-2018 passed in the findings on
the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, this court has
held that a fair and proper enquiry was conducted
against the Workman in accordance with the
principles of natural justice read with Certified
Standing Orders of the Employer and that the
management of the Employer Corporation could
prove the only charges of misconduct i.e. X-Rash
and negligent driving resulting in death of or injury
to the persons or damage to properties and the
rest of the charges of misconduct have not been
proved to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence. He submitted that the charge
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
695
of over speeding has not been proved by an
acceptable evidence and as such the charge of
rash and negligent driving also cannot be said to
be proved. He submitted that the Workman was
acquitted in a criminal case in a charge of rash
and negligent driving and as such no misconduct
can be said to be proved. He submitted that there
is no mitigating circumstances to dismiss the
Workman from service of the Employer. He
submitted that the punishment of dismissal from
service imposed on the Workman is too harsh and
disproportionate to the proved misconduct taking
into consideration the factor of proportionality of
punishment. He submitted that the punishment of
dismissal from service imposed upon the Workman
amounts to economic death of the Workman as
well as his family for the alleged acts of misconduct
of rash and negligent driving on his part. He
submitted that even the criminal courts do not
empower to issue major punishment for the alleged
offence of rash and negligent driving. He submitted
that no past records of the Workman have been
proved. He submitted that similarly, the damages
has not been quantified. He therefore submitted
that taking into consideration the proved charges
of misconduct of rash and negligent driving only,
a punishment of dismissal from service imposed on
the Workman be set aside and the Workman be
reinstated in service with full back wages and
continuity in service. In support of his oral
contention, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar relied upon
the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
(a) In the case of Tata Cellular v/s. Union of
India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 11.
(b) In the case of Bhagat Ram v/s. State of
H. P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1983 SC 454.
(c) In the case of Ranjit Thakur v/s. Union of
India and Ors., reported in 1987 SC 2386.
(d) In the case of Om Kumar and Ors., v/s.
Union of India, reported in AIR 2000 SC
3689.
(e) In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
(D.Ed) and Ors., reported in 2014 II CLR
813.
He also relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Rajkamal
Transport v/s. Rajendra A. Pardiwala and Anr.,
reported in 1997 (4) ALL MR 294.
12. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. Palekar,
representing the Employer, during the course of
his oral arguments submitted that the Workman
under reference was appointed as driver in its
service since the year 1985. He submitted that vide
order dated 14-03-2018 passed in the findings on
the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, this court has
held that a fair and proper enquiry was conducted
against the Workman in accordance with the
principles of natural justice read with Certified
Standing Orders of the Employer and that the
management of the Employer Corporation could
prove the only charges of misconduct i.e. X-Rash
and negligent driving resulting in death of or injury
to the persons or damage to properties and the
rest of the charges of misconduct have not been
proved to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence. He submitted that ever since
his appointment, the Workman used to be involved
in many acts of misconduct/accidents. He
submitted that the Workman was issued several
memorandums, warnings as well as minor
punishment etc. in the past. He submitted that in
spite of giving several opportunities to the
Workman, he had not shown any sign of
improvement. He submitted that the disciplinary
authority of the Employer after considering the
past unsatisfactory performance of the Workman
as well as considering all the circumstances of the
case viewed that the Workman does not deserve a
lenient view and therefore dismissed him from
service by its order dated 20-11-2007. He submitted
that the said action of the disciplinary authority of
the Employer is just, fair and proper and
proportionate to the proved charges of misconduct
levelled against the Workman. He submitted that
acquittal of the Workman in criminal case has no
bearing in the disciplinary proceedings instituted
against him. He submitted that in a criminal case,
the prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and any suspicious/doubt in the
prosecution case results in acquittal. He submitted
that however, in a departmental proceedings, the
Employer has to prove a case on preponderance of
probabilities. He therefore submitted that the
acquittal of the Workman in criminal case if any
has no bearing in the disciplinary proceedings. He
submitted that the judgments relied upon by the
Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, appearing for the
Workman has no application to the case in hand as
the facts of the case as well as the past misconduct
of the Workman are totally different. He finally
submitted that the punishment of dismissal from
service imposed upon the Workman is just, fair and
proper taking into consideration the past record of
the Workman and prayed for dismissal of the
present reference.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
696
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully considered
the legal submissions advanced by the
Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
13. Issue No. 1 and 2:
Vide order dated 14-03-2018 passed in my
findings on preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I have
discussed and came to the conclusion that a free,
fair and proper enquiry was conducted against the
Workman in accordance with the principles of
natural justice read with provisions of Certified
Standing Orders of the Employer and that the
management of the Employer Corporation could
successfully prove the only charge of misconduct
i.e. X-Rash and negligent driving resulting in death
of or injury to persons or damage to properties and
rest of the charges have not been proved at all to
the satisfaction of this court by an acceptable
evidence. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in
the affirmative and issue No. 2 is answered partly
in the affirmative and partly in the negative.
14. Issue No. 3:
It is the Workman who has challenged his order
of dismissal by raising an industrial dispute. It was
therefore incumbent upon the Workman to prove
that the said order of dismissal issued to him is
illegal as well as unjustified by leading cogent
evidence.
While deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I
have discussed and came to the conclusion that
the management of the Employer Corporation could
successfully prove the only charge of misconduct
i.e. X-Rash and negligent driving resulting in death
of or injury to persons or damage to properties and
rest of the charges have not been proved at all to
the satisfaction of this court by an acceptable
evidence.
15. The Employer has produced on record its
Certified Standing Orders at Exb. 33. Clause 29 of
the CSO provides for punishment for misconduct.
In terms of the said Clause 29 of the CSO a workman
guilty of misconduct may be warned or censored
or fined (subject to provisions of the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936, as amended from time to time),
subjected to stoppage of increments with or
without cumulative effect, demoted to a junior
category or lower grade, suspended without pay
for a period not exceeding eight days at a time,
discharged from service without notice or payment
in lieu of notice, stoppage of or withholding of
promotion for one year and dismissal without notice
of any compensation in lieu of notice. In terms of
Clause 29 (III) of the CSO, in awarding punishment
under these Standing Orders, the manager shall
take into account the gravity of the misconduct,
the previous records, if any of the Workman
and any other extenuating or aggravating
circumstances that may exists. In terms of Clause
30 of the CSO “misdemeanour-a workman may be
warned, censored or fined for any of the following
acts and omissions (which are illustrative and not
exhaustive) such as absence without leave or
without sufficient cause, late attendance,
negligence in performing duties, neglect of work,
absence without leave or without sufficient cause
for the appointed place of work, entering or leaving
or attempting to enter or leave the premises of the
establishment except by a gate or entrance
appointed, committing nuisance on the premises
of the establishment and breach of any rule for
instruction for maintenance or running of any
department provided that no workman shall be
fined except in accordance with the provisions of
the Payment of Wages Act, where the provisions of
the said Act, 1936 where the provisions of the said
Act are applicable to him.
16. In the case in hand, the Workman was
appointed as driver in the year 1985 on daily wages
w.e.f. 21-11-1985. The Workman was taken on
probation w.e.f. 01-11-1986. The Workman was
dismissed by order dated 20-01-2007 (Exb. 27). The
said dismissal order on record indicates that the
past record, he was involved in number of accident
cases of fatal, major as well as minor nature, causing
fatalities, injuries to the passengers as well as
damages to the Employer Corporation as well as
third party vehicles and that the Workman has
been warned, fined, after initiating necessary
enquiries against him. The said document at
Exb. 27 further stated that inspite of above, the
Workman has not shown any improvement in his
performance and continue to commit accidents
while on duty and that in few cases, the
departmental have been ordered and still in
progress against the Workman. The Workman has
however, failed to produce on record any material
evidence in support of any of his submissions that
the action of the Employer in dismissing him from
service is illegal and unjustified and/or that the
dismissal from service of the Workman is
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct
committed by him and/or that his past records is
unblemished and/or any other grounds of his
challenge as pleaded in his claim statement.
17. Further, the Workman had filed an appeal
against the dismissal order dated 20-01-2007 passed
by the Employer, which has been disposed off by
order dated 31-08-2007 (Exb. 26). The said document
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
697
at Exb. 26 on record indicates that the Workman
has committed an accident causing injuries to him
and thirteen passengers as well as total damages
to the Employer vehicle and therefore he is fully
responsible for the said accidents and consequent
injuries caused to him and passengers as well as
damages to the Employer vehicle. The said order
at Exb. 26 further reiterates the past records of the
Workman has been involved in number of accident
cases fatal, major as well as minor nature, causing
fatalities/injuries to passengers as well as damages
to the Employer as well as third party vehicle and
that the Workman has been warned, fined after
initiating necessary enquiries against him. The said
order at Exb. 26 further observed that the Workman
has been found driving under influence of alcohol
and he had also previously committed fatal
accidents and that his performance was not
satisfactory involving various accidents,
misbehavior etc. Further the Employer vide its letter
dated 20-11-2007 (Exb. 25) addressed to the
Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao, Goa, filed the
written reply to the Industrial Dispute raised by
the Employer. The said document at Exb. 25 on
record indicates that ever since the appointment
of the Workman, was involved in many acts of
misconducts and that as and when his misconduct
was reported, he was imposed minor punishment
with a view to improve himself and perform his
duties sincerely. The said document on record
indicates that the Workman was involved in 25
misconducts as pleaded in para 2 of its written
statement.
18. The aforesaid documentary evidence on
record indicates that the action of the Employer in
dismissing from the services of the Workman vide
its order dated 20-01-2007 is just, fair and proper in
accordance with the Certified Standing Orders of
the Employer. The said action of the Employer in
dismissing the Workman is proportionate to the
misconduct committed by the Workman taking into
consideration his past records.
19. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, appearing for the
Workman, submitted that the Workman was
acquitted in criminal case in a charge of rash and
negligent driving. However, I do not find any merits
in the submission of Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar
and hence, the same are rejected.
20. In the case of Tata Cellular (supra) of Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that “judicial review is
concerned with reviewing not the merits of the
decision in support of which the application of
judicial review is made but the decision making
process itself. The duty of the court is to confine
itself to the question of legality. Its concern should
be”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is not applicable to the case in hand as the
facts of the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court is
totally different than the case in hand.
21. In the case of Bhagat Ram (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 70 of its
judgment held as under:
“70. In this context, we shall only refer to these
cases. In Ranjit Thakur v/s. Union of India
(1978) 4 SCC 611: (AIR 1987 SC 2386: 1988
Cri LJ 158), this Court referred to
‘proportionality’ in the quantum of
punishment but the court observed that
the
punishment
was
‘shockingly’
disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
In B.C. Chaturvedi v/s. Union of India (1955)
6 SCC 749: (1995 AIR SCW 4374: AIR 1996
SC 484: 1996 Lab IC 462), this court stated
that the court will not interfere unless the
punishment awarded was one which
shocked the conscience of the court, even
then, the court would remit the matter back
to the authority and would not normally
substitute one punishment for the other.
However, in rare situations, the court could
award an alternative penalty. It was also so
stated in Ganayutham.
71. Thus, from the above principles and decided
cases, it must be held that where an
administrative decision relating to
punishment in disciplinary cases is
questioned as ‘arbitrary’ under Art. 14, the
court is confined to Wednesday principles
as a secondary reviewing authority. The
court will not apply proportionality as a
primary reviewing court because no issue
of
fundamental
freedoms
nor
of
discrimination under Art. 14 applies in such
a context. The court while reviewing
punishment and if it is satisfied that
Wednesbury principles are violated, it has
normally to remit the matter to the
Administrator for a fresh decision as to the
disciplinary proceedings and in the time
taken in courts, and (in) such extreme or
rare cases can the court substitute its own
view as to the quantum of punishment.”
22. In the case of Rajendra A. Pardiwala (supra),
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that
“According to the claim made by the workman in
the said Reference, he was victimized. He has also
pleaded that the domestic enquiry was not fair and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
698
proper. He also pleaded in the said reference that the
punishment was disproportionate. By way of Party I
award dated 1st December, 1993, the Industrial
Tribunal found that the enquiry was fair and proper.
However, the parties filed a purshis before the
Industrial Tribunal and they did not lead any oral
evidence thereafter for the purposes of proving the
propriety of the order of punishment or
victimization or malafides etc. Ultimately, on 7th
January, 1994, the Labour Court passed an award
being part-II award. The Labour Court found that
the workman was guilty of misconduct. However,
the Labour Court found that the punishment by
way of dismissal was not warranted and in the
circumstances, the Labour Court directed
reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity
of service. Being aggrieved by the part-II award dated
7th January, 1994, the above two writ petitions
have been filed. On 14th February, 1995 this court
directed the employer to pay wages under Section
17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is not in
dispute that from 14th February, 1995, the order is
implemented and the workman has been receiving
wages under Section 17B of the said Act, 1947.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid cases respectively are not
applicable to the case in hand.
In view of above, it is held that the Workman
failed to prove that the action of the Employer in
dismissing him from services vide order dated
20-01-2007 is illegal and unjustified. The issue
No. 3 is therefore answered in the negative.
23. Issue No. 4 and 5:
While deciding the issue No. 4, herein above I
have discussed and came to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in dismissing
the services of the Workman vide order dated
20-01-2007 is just, legal and proper. The question of
proving of the fact that the Workman was
unemployed from the date of his dismissal does
not arise. The Workman is therefore not entitled to
any relief. The issue No. 4 is therefore answered as
does not arise. The issue No. 5 is therefore answered
in the negative.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of M/s Kadamba
Transport Corporation Ltd., Porvorim, Goa, in
dismissing from services Shri Menino Dias,
Driver, vide their order dated 20-01-2007 is legal
and justified.
2. The Workman, Shri Menino Dias, is not entitled
to any relief.
3. No order as to costs
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 13/17/2016/PER/3159
Governor of Goa is pleased to grant extension in
service to Shri S. P. Singnapurkar, Junior Scale
Officer of Goa Civil Service and presently posted as
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works
Department; beyond the date of his superannuation
for further period of six months w .e. f. 01-12-2018
to 31-05-2019 in public interest. The said extension
in service is subject to Vigilance Clearance,
Concurrence of Finance Department and approval
of Council of Ministers.
The extension is further subject to termination
without assigning any reasons at any time during
the period of extension.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 30th November, 2018.
________
Order
No. 4/12/85-PER-Vol.I/3160
Consequent upon the superannuation of
Shri Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director of Agriculture
on 30-11-2018 Shri Madhav B. Kelkar, presently on
deputation as Managing Director, Goa State
Horticulture Corporation Ltd. shall hold the charge
of the post of Director in the Directorate of
Agriculture, Panaji on officiating basis with
immediate effect in addition to his own duties until
further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 30th November, 2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
699
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
—
Order
No. CEE/Estt-01-11-2010/S.E.I(Depu)/Vol.I/2888
Government is pleased to employ Shri
Radhakrishna Keny, retired Executive Engineer
(Elect.) as Electrical Inspector, under State
Electrical Inspectorate, Government of Goa in the
pay matrix level 12 on contract basis for the period
of six months from the date he resumes for duty.
2. His pay in the re-employed post shall be fixed
in terms of C.C.S. (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed
Pensioners) Orders, 2016.
3. His appointment is subject to an agreement
to be executed specifying the terms and conditions
of his re-employment.
4. The expenditure on his pay and allowances
shall be debited to the Demand No. 76, Head of
Account: 2801—Power; 80—General; 800—Others
Expenditure; 02—State Electrical Inspectorate
(Non Plan); 01—Salaries.
5. The issues with the approval of the
Administrative Reforms Department vide No. 9/18/
/IDCO/2018-ARD/379 dated 23-11-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Reshma Mathew, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex
officio Additional Secretary.
Panaji, 30th November, 2018.
________
Order
No. CEE/Estt-33(C)/2907
Read: Order No. CEE/Estt-33(C)/583 dated
16-05-2018.
In supersession of Order No. CEE/Estt-33 (C)/583
dated 16-05-2018, read above the Departmental
Selection Committee and Departmental Promotion
Committee for Group “C” posts in the Electricity
Department is hereby re-constituted as under with
immediate effect and until further orders:-
1. Chief Electrical Engineer,
— Chairman.
Electricity Department,
Panaji
2. Director (Admn.)/Dy. Director
— Member.
(Admn.), Office of the Chief
Electrical Engineer, Panaji
3. Executive Engineer (Elect.),
— Member.
Division XIII, Kadamba
Plateau
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Reshma Mathew, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex
officio Additional Secretary.
Panaji, 4th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
Office of the Collector & District Magistrate
South Goa District
—
Order
No. 55/2/2018/CAB/PwD Act/14206
Sub.: Implementation of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016.
Whereas, Section 7 of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (Central Act No. 49 of 2016)
designates the Executive Magistrate, within his
jurisdiction as the designated Protective Officer for
the purpose of said Section.
And whereas, Section 23 of the said Act,
authorises every Government establishment for
appointment of a Grievance Redressal Officer for
the purpose of Ss. 19 and 20 of the said Act.
Now therefore, in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 23 of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, I, the undersigned hereby
appoint every Taluka Mamlatdar within South Goa
District as the Grievance Redressal Officer under
the said Act, for the respective area under his/her
jurisdiction.
This Order shall come into force with immediate
effect.
Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS, Collector & District
Magistrate South Goa District, Margao.
Margao, 10th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Women & Child Development
Directorate of Women & Child Development
__
Order
No. 4-3-2008/DWCD/Part/8262
Read:
Offer of appointment No. 4-3-2008/DWCD/
/Part/5134 dated 08-08-2018.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
700
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/I/5/
/59 (1)/2018/152 dated 10-07-2018, Government of
Goa is pleased to appoint Ms. Swati Suresh Prabhu
to the post of Social Welfare Officer/Child
Development Project Officer (Group ‘B’ Gazetted)
under General category in the Directorate of
Women & Child Development, Panaji-Goa on
officiating basis, in the Pay Matrix Level 6 plus
other allowances as admissible with effect from the
date of her joining. She is posted as Child
Development Project Officer at WCD Block Office,
Ponda thereby relieving Smt. Pratibha Malik, Child
Development Project Officer, WCD Block Office
Ponda from additional charge and shall join duties
within 8 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the event of any adverse matter noticed by
the Government on verification of genuineness of
the certificates/documents, her services will be
terminated.
The above appointment is subject to the terms
and conditions stipulated in the offer of
appointment.
Ms. Swati Suresh Prabhu will be on one month
training under CDPO WCD Block office, Mormugao.
Ms. Swati Suresh Prabhu shall be on probation
for a period of two years.
The expenditure in respect of above post
shall be debited to the Budget Head of Account
“2235-02-102-03-01-” under Demand No. 58.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Dipak Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary,
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 4th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 4-3-2008/DWCD/Part/8263
Read: Offer of appointment No. 4-3-2008/DWCD/
/Part/5135 dated 08-08-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/I/5/
/59 (1)/2018/152 dated 10-07-2018, Government of
Goa is pleased to appoint Ms. Gauri Uddesh Parob
to the post of Social Welfare Officer/Child
Development Project Officer (Group ‘B’ Gazetted)
under General category in the Directorate of
Women & Child Development, Panaji-Goa on
officiating basis, in the Pay Matrix Level 6 plus
other allowances as admissible with effect from the
date of her joining. She is posted as Child
Development Project Officer at WCD Block Office,
Quepem against the vacant post and shall join
duties within 8 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
In the event of any adverse matter noticed by
the Government on verification of genuineness of
the certificates/documents, her services will be
terminated.
The above appointment is subject to the terms
and conditions stipulated in the offer of
appointment.
Ms. Gauri Uddesh Parob will be on one month
training under CDPO WCD Block office, Salcete.
Ms. Gauri Uddesh Parob shall be on probation
for a period of two years.
The expenditure in respect of above post
shall be debited to the Budget Head of Account
“2235-02-102-03-01-” under Demand No. 58.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Dipak Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary,
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 4th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 4-3-2008/DWCD/Part/8264
Read: Offer of appointment No. 4-3-2008/DWCD/
/Part/5133 dated 08-08-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/I/5/
/59 (1)/2018/152 dated 10-07-2018, Government of
Goa is pleased to appoint Ms. Sweta alias Sonam
Govind Parulekar to the post of Social Welfare
Officer/Child Development Project Officer (Group
‘B’ Gazetted) under OBC category in the Directorate
of Women & Child Development, Panaji-Goa on
officiating basis, in the Pay Matrix Level 6 plus
other allowances as admissible with effect from the
date of her joining. She is posted as Child
Development Project Officer at WCD Block Office,
Bicholim thereby relieving Smt. Rupa Dalvi, Child
Development Project Officer, WCD Block Office,
Bicholim from additional charge and shall join
duties within 8 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
In the event of any adverse matter noticed by
the Government on verification of genuineness of
the certificates/documents, her services will be
terminated.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
13TH DECEMBER, 2018
701
The above appointment is subject to the terms
and conditions stipulated in the offer of
appointment read above.
Ms. Sweta alias Sonam Govind Parulekar will be
on one month training under CDPO WCD Block
office, Tiswadi.
Ms. Sweta alias Sonam Govind Parulekar shall
be on probation for a period of two years.
The expenditure in respect of above post
shall be debited to the Budget Head of Account
“2235-02-102-03-01-” under Demand No. 58.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Dipak Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary,
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 4th December, 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. 27.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—283/160–12/2018.