Panaji, 27th December, 2018 (Pausa 6,1940)
SERIES II No. 39
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
729
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Environment
—
Order
No. 1/20/18-PCB/Lab-13798/743
Sub.: Preparation an action plan for “Restoration
of polluted riverine-stretches”.
Ref.: 1. Order dated 20-9-2018 issued by the
Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in the
matter of Application No. 673/2018.
2. No. Tech/45(A)/RPRS/RDS/2018-19/1311
dated 12-10-2018 letter issued by the
CPCB.
In supersession earlier sanction order issued
vide Order No. 1/20/18-PCB/Lab-13795/667 dated
21-11-2018, the State Government hereby
constitutes the River Restoration Committee with
the following members.
1. The Secretary (Environment)
— Chairman.
2. The Director, Directorate
— Member.
of Urban Development
3. The Director, Department of
— Member.
Environment
4. The Chief Engineer, Water
— Member.
Resources Department
5. The Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Industries, Trade & Commerce
6. The Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Health Services
7. The Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Panchayats, Panaji-Goa
8. The Superintending Engineer, — Member.
Circle-V, North Goa
9. The Superintending Engineer, — Member.
Circle-VI, South Goa
10. The Managing Director,
— Member.
Sewerage Infrastructure
Development Corporation
Goa Ltd.,
11. The Project Director, Japan
— Member.
International Co-operation
Agency (JICA), PWD, Altinho,
Panaji
12. The Member Secretary, Goa
— Member
State Pollution Control Board
Secretary
(GSPCB)
of the
committee.
The said committee will prepare an Action Plan
for restoration of the polluted riverine stretches
identified by the Central Pollution Control Board/
/Goa State Pollution Control Board and file progress
report on or before 15-12-2018. The Action Plan
shall be comply with the detailed direction of
Hon’ble NGT dated 20-09-2018 in W. P. No. 673
of 2018.
The Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB)
shall upload the information of the polluted
restoration and invite public to participation from
education institution/religious institution/common
establishment in website.
This is issued with the approval of the State
Government vide U.O. No. 9318 dated 31-10-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Ravi Jha, IAS, Director (Environment).
Porvorim, 26th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 1/20/18-PCB/Lab-13798/744
Sub.: Preparation an action plan for “Restoration
of polluted riverine-stretches”.
Ref.: 1. Order dated 20-9-2018 issued by the
Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in the
matter of Application No. 673/2018.
2. No. Tech/45(A)/RPRS/RDS/2018-19/1311
dated 12-10-2018 letter issued by the
CPCB.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
730
In pursuance to the order of Hon’ble National
Green Tribunal (NGT) cited (1) above, the State
Government hereby constitutes Special Environ-
ment Surveillance Task Force with the following
members:
For North Goa District
1. District Magistrate (North)
— Chairman.
2. Superintendent of Police
— Member.
(North)
3. Dr. Mohan Girap, Scientist ‘C’ — Member.
GSPCB
For South Goa District
1. District Magistrate (South)
— Chairman.
2. Superintendent of Police
— Member.
(South)
3. Mrs. Jenica Sequirra,
— Member.
Scientist ‘C’ GSPCB
Note: Special Environment Surveillance Task
Force will ensure that the no illegal mining
take place in the river belt of polluted
stretches as provided in the list attached to
this order.
This is issued with the approval of the State
Government vide U.O. No. 9318 dated 31-10-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Ravi Jha, IAS, Director (Environment).
Porvorim, 26th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/808
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
20-11-2018 in reference No. IT/11/16 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th December, 2018.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/11/16
Shri Surendra R. Naik
& 9 Others,
Rep. by United Bargemen
Association,
Damodar Polyclinic, 3rd Floor,
Fr. Joseph Vaz Road,
Vasco-da-Gama-403 802.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Vishal Shipping
Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Flat No. 4, 3rd Floor,
Queeny Elite,
Vasco-da-Gama, 403 802.
…
Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 20th day of the month
of November of the year 2018)
By Order dated 22-12-2015, bearing No. 28/54/
/2015-LAB/1083, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s Vishal Shipping Co. Private Limited,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in terminating the
services of following workmen, with effect
from 16-09-2012, is legal and justified?
Sr.
Name
Designation
No.
1. Shri Surendra R. Naik
Master
2. Shri Jagdish Devskar
Master
3. Shri Pradeep Sharma
Driver
4. Shri Manjunath Gaonkar
Driver
5. Shri Banudas Naik
Sukani
6. Shri Ramakant Majalikar
Sukani
7. Shri Digamber Naik
Oil Man
8. Shri Prakash Pawar
Oil Man
9. Shri Premanand
Sailor
10. Shri Dharamraj Bind
Sailor
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
731
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/11/16 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 4.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party I workmen were employed on M. V. Mahima
Barge No. MRH 611 owned by Party II and Party I
were primarily engaged in transporting iron ore.
All the workmen have been working with Party II
continuously for many years since their initial date
of joining and were paid monthly salary. However,
suddenly the management laid down the barge
under the pretext of annual repairs from 1-7-2012
by notice dated 2-7-2012 and advised the crew to
disembark from the said barge and thereafter from
16-9-2012 refused employment to Party I workmen
and failed to pay them their monthly salaries. The
Party I workmen pleaded with the employer not to
refuse them the employment so as to enable them
to maintain themselves and their families. The
workmen patiently waited from July, 2012 to
December, 2012 for the responses of Party II
employer, however the Party II did not respond and
as such the Party I workmen raised an industrial
dispute before the office of the Commissioner of
Labour asking for the intervention. The Party II
failed to resolve the dispute and it ended in failure
as Party II did not attend the proceedings before
the Commissioner, Labour. The refusal of the
employment to the workmen is illegal, unjustified
and bad in law. The Party II has not given any
compensation of whatsoever nature to Party I and
neither paid their pending dues. The action of
Party II in refusing employment is illegal,
unjustified and bad in law. Hence, the reference.
4. It is a matter of record that the Party II was
served a notice which was returned unclaimed on
18-2-2016. It is also seen that notice under
certificate of posting was also sent, however none
present on behalf of Party II. It is also a matter of
record that on 27-6-2016, a fresh notice was issued
to Party II by registered post A/D, which was again
returned with postal remarks ‘unclaimed,
intimated, returned to sender’. The Party I thereafter
submitted a fresh address of Party II and
accordingly, a fresh notice was issued on the said
address, however it was again returned back with
same endorsement by postal authorities
‘unclaimed, intimated, returned to sender’. It was
therefore found expedient to proceed ex-parte
against Party II.
5. Issues framed at Exhibit 11 are as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of the Party II in terminating their services
w.e.f. 16-9-2012 is illegal and unjustified?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that they are
entitled for reinstatement in services with
full back wages and continuity in services
with all other consequential benefits?
(3) What relief? What Order?
6. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
Shri Surendra R. Naik as witness No. 1 and
produced on record copies of industrial disputes
dated 28-12-2012 and 3-4-2013 raised by the Party
I workmen at Exb. 11 colly, a copy of notice dated
22-1-2013 issued by ALC at Exh. 12, a copy of
complaint dated 8-8-2015 filed by United
Bargemen’s Association at Exh. 13, a copy of
complaint dated 7-8-2015 filed before Superinten-
dent of Police at Exh. 14, a copy of minutes of the
conciliation proceedings held before the ALC at
Exh. 15, a copy of certificate issued by the Party II
at Exh. 16, copies of salary slips of Surendra Naik
for the month of Feb. 2012, March 2012, May 2012
and June 2012 at Exh. 17 colly, copies of salary slip
of Jagdesh Deusekar and certificate of second class
master issued by Govt. of Goa at Exh. 18 colly, a
copy of salary slip of Pradeep Kumar Sharma and
certificate issued by Govt. of Goa at Exh. 19 colly,
a copy of salary slip of Bhanudas Naik along with
letter dated 16-9-2012 at Exh. 20 colly, a copy of
salary slip of Dharamraj Bind along with entry
permit at Exh. 21 colly, a copy of salary slip of
Digamber Naik along with entry permit at Exh. 22
colly, a copy of salary slip of Premanand Naik along
with entry permit at Exh. 23 colly, copies of salary
sheet of all the workmen for the month of Dec. 2009
at Exh. 24 colly. The Party I also examined
Shri Jagdish Deushekar, Shri Ramakant Majalekar,
Shri Digamber Naik, Shri Bhanudas Naik and
Shri Dharamraj Bind.
7. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments
came to be placed on record by the Party I.
8. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers with their findings and reasons thereof
are as follows.
Issue No. 1
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
As per Final order.
Issue No. 3
…
As per Final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
9. Discernibly, the Party I examined six witnesses
to prove its case. Shri Surendra R. Naik has deposed
that he along with 9 others have been refused
employment w.e.f. 16-9-2012 by Party II. He further
claimed that they were employed on the barge
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
732
M. V. Mahima as its crew which was primarily
engaged in transportation of iron ore. He claimed
that he was working as second class master. He
has also specified about the working of other
workmen, their date of joining, nature of duties
and the salaries paid to them. He also stated that
after they were refused employment, they
requested the Party II to pay their salaries and that
they waited patiently for the response and as no
response was given, their union raised an industrial
dispute. He has produced on record the documents
including a copy of complaint, minutes of
conciliation proceedings, the copies of salary slips
of workmen and the salary sheets of all the
workmen. The Party I also examined Shri Jagdesh
Deuskar who claimed that he was also working as
second class master. He has also corroborated the
case of Surendra Naik as regards to their date of
joining, nature of work, salary of all the workmen
and that they have been refused employment by
Party II.
10. Shri Ramakant Majalekar examined by
Party I claimed that he was working as Sukani on
the said barge. He has also specified the nature of
work and salary of other workmen. Shri Digamber
Naik has stated that he was working as Oilman
and that they filed the complaint in respect of
illegal refusal of employment w.e.f. 16-9-2012 by
the management. He has also specified the nature
of work, the date of joining and the salary being
paid by the management to the other workmen.
Shri Bhanudas Naik also claimed that he was
working as Sukani like Shri Ramakant Majalekar
and that they have been illegally refused their
employment by Party II. Shri Dharamraj Bind was
working as Sailor as claimed by him in affidavit in
evidence. He has also corroborated the case as
stated by other witnesses. Needless to mention,
the burden to prove the above issue lies on the
workmen. The Party I workmen have led oral as
well as documentary evidence to prove the above
issue. The Party I therefore, have sufficiently
discharged the burden of proving issue No. 1.
Hence, the above issue is answered in the
affirmative.
Issue No. 2 & 3:
11. Needless to mention, the Party I have proved
that the action of the Party II in terminating their
services w.e.f. 16-9-2012 is illegal and unjustified.
The next question therefore is what reliefs the
Party I is entitled to, once it is held that the
discharge/termination is illegal, whether the
Party I is entitled for re-instatement with full
back wages and continuity in service with
consequential benefits attached to the post or
adequate monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages. It has been
consistently held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that
relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is
not automatic, even if termination of an employee
is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the
prescribed procedure and that monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back
wages in cases of such a nature may be appropriate.
It is also well settled that the Court in appropriate
cases grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement
keeping in view the length of service rendered by
a workman, the wages that he was receiving during
that period, which would meet the ends of justice.
12. In the instant case, the Party I workmen at
Sr. No. 1 and 2 were working as Masters, Workmen
at Sr. No. 3 and 4 were working as Drivers, Workmen
at Sr. No. 5 and 6 were working as Sukanis, whereas,
Workmen at Sr. No. 7 and 8 were working as Oilmans
and Workmen at Sr. No. 9 and 10 were working as
Sailors. There is also no dispute that as per
documents, the workmen have been refused
employment since 2012 i.e. for last six years and
that their last drawn salary of Masters, Drivers,
Sukani, Oilmen and Sailors were Rs. 23,000/- per
month, Rs. 16,000/- per month, Rs. 15,000/- per
month, Rs. 12,000/- per month and Rs. 11,000/- per
month respectively. The evidence on record show
that the Party I workmen were refused service
without assigning any reasons and that they had
been working for last 15 years. There is no dispute
that the vessel ‘Mahima’ has been disposed and
that there are no vessels being operated by Party
II and therefore Party I are not entitled to
reinstatement in service.
13. There is no dispute that the Party I workmen
were summarily terminated without paying any
legal dues. There are salary slips on record showing
last drawn wages, the Party I workmen were
drawing at the time of refusal of service, according
to which Masters were drawing salaries of
Rs. 23,000/- per month; Drivers… Rs. 16,000/- per
month; Sukanis… Rs. 15,000/- per month; Oilmans…
Rs. 12,000/- per month and Sailors… Rs. 11,000/-
per month. Therefore, considering that the Party I
workmen had put in services of about 15 years of
service and they are not paid any compensation
since the date of refusal of service, i.e. for a period
of 6 years and that the Party I workmen were
earning the salary as stated above, it would
translate into salary for the Masters of Rs. 2,76,000/-
per annum, which would be around Rs. 16,56,000/-
(Rupees Sixteen lakhs fifty six thousand only)
representing wages for about 6 years and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
733
considering that the said workmen would be
entitled for 50% of the total wages for said period,
it would translate into Rs 8,28,000/- (Rupees Eight
lakhs twenty eight thousand only). Similarly, salary
for the Drivers of Rs. 1,92,000/- per annum, would
be around Rs. 11,52,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs fifty
two thousand only) representing wages for about
6 years and considering that the said workmen
would be entitled for 50% of the total wages for the
period, it would translate into Rs. 5,76,000/- (Rupees
Five lakhs seventy six thousand only).
14. Similarly, salary for the Sukani of Rs. 1,80,000/-
per annum, would be around Rs. 10,80,000/- (Rupees
Ten lakhs eighty thousand only) representing
wages for about 6 years and considering that the
said workmen would be entitled for 50% of the
total wages for said period, it would translate into
Rs. 5,40,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs forty thousand
only). Similarly, salary for the Oilman of Rs. 1,44,000/
- per annum, would be around Rs. 8,64,000/- (Rupees
Eight lakhs sixty four thousand only) representing
wages for about 6 years and considering that the
said workmen would be entitled for 50% of the
total wages for said period, it would translate into
Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs thirty two
thousand only). Similarly, salary for the Sailor of
Rs. 1,32,000/- per annum, would be around
Rs. 7,92,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs ninety two
thousand only) representing wages for about 6
years and considering that the said workmen
would be entitled for 50% of the total wages for
said period, it would translate into Rs. 3,96,000/-
(Rupees Three lakhs ninety six thousand only) and
having considered the nature of appointment, the
length of service and the time taken to settle the
dispute, ends of justice would be met, if the Party
I workmen are paid the above referred monetary
compensation to the workmen which would be
just, proper and equitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence, the above issues
are answered accordingly.
15. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The present reference stands partly
allowed.
(ii) It is hereby held that action of the
management of M/s. Vishal Shipping Co.
Private Limited, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
terminating the services of workmen
mentioned in the schedule, with effect from
16-09-2012, is illegal and unjustified.
(iii) The Party II is directed to pay monetary
compensation of the amount referred in
Para 13 and Para 14 above within 60 days of
the publication of the Award, failing which
the Party II shall pay an interest @ 9% per
annum.
(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/809
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
12-11-2018 in reference No. IT/32/08 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th December, 2018.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/32/08
Shri Joseph Norbert D’Souza,
H. No. 748/A, Portavaddo,
Siolim, Bardez-Goa.
…
Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Acron Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd.,
Acron Arcade 283,
Fort Aguada Road, Candolim,
Bardez, Goa-403 515.
…
Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri V.
Menezes.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 12th day of the month
of November of the year 2018)
By Order dated 12-09-2008, bearing No. 28/140/
/2008-LAB/1343, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
734
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
(1) Whether Shri Joseph Norbert D’Souza, Café
Supervisor, at M/s. Acron Lifestyles Private
Limited, Candolim, Bardez, Goa, can be
construed as a “workman” as defined under
Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
affirmative, then whether the action of the
management of M/s Acron Lifestyles
Private Limited, Candolim, Bardez, Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri Joseph
Norbert D’Souza, Café Supervisor, with effect
from 04-07-2007, is legal and justified?
(3) If the answer to issue No. (2) above is in the
negative, then to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/32/08 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exhibit 7 and
Party II filed a Written Statement at Exhibit 13.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that he was
employed with Party II as a Café Supervisor on
permanent basis. The Party II is engaged in
running a business which consists of shopping
complex. The Party I carried out his duties in a
responsible and efficient manner till the date of
his illegal termination w.e.f. 4-7-2007. The acts of
Party II amounted to misconduct and violation of
terms of contract. The termination of Party I is
illegal and untenable in law. Hence, the reference.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II claimed
that the Party I is not a workman as defined under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as he
was performing supervisory duties. The Hon’ble
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present
dispute. The acts of Party I amounted to misconduct
and violation of terms of contract. The Party I is not
entitled for any reliefs.
5. In the rejoinder at Exhibit 17, Party I denied
the case of the Party II as stated in the written
statement.
6. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 18.
7. In the course of proceedings, the parties
arrived at an amicable settlement and filed consent
terms dated 09-11-2018 at Exh. 48 colly along with
a receipt towards full and final settlement of all
the claims.
8. The consent terms are reproduced here-in-
below:
(1) It is agreed between the parties to settle
the dispute amicably for a composite
amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five
thousand only) before this Hon’ble Court
and accordingly Party II has issued Demand
Draft dated 8th November, 2018 drawn on
HDFC Bank Ltd., Candolim Branch, bearing
No. 006255 in favour of Party I.
(2) The Party I herein has agreed to accept a
sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
thousand only) in full and final settlement
of his entire claim against Party II in the
present matter.
(3) The Party I herein declares that on receipt
of the aforesaid full and final, composite
monetary settlement, his claims in the
present matter are conclusively settled
or withdrawn, including the claim for
re-instatement of employment with the
Party II.
(4) The Party I states, agrees and confirms that
he has no claims, demands of whatsoever
nature against the Party II/Employer; that
he does not wish to pursue the present
matter and treat the matter as settled and
closed and that neither he nor any person(s)
claiming through or under him shall make
any claims, demands or disputes or initiate
any legal proceedings in any Court of law,
Tribunal or other Quasi-judicial authority
against the Party II.
(5) Pursuant to the settlement of the present
matter, the Party II shall herewith withdraw
the Writ Petition No. WP/855/2018 filed by
them, that is pending before the High Court
of Bombay at Goa.
9. The above consent terms are signed by the
Party I workman, Shri Joseph N. D’Souza along with
his Adv. Shri A. Shirodkar, so also Dr. John Britto,
Director of Party II along with his Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar on behalf of Party II. I have gone through
the consent terms filed as above, which in my view,
are just and fair and in the interest of both the
Workman/Party I as well as Employer/Party II and
hence, the same are accepted.
10. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The reference at the instance of Party I
Workman, stands disposed of in view of the
consent terms filed by both the parties at
Exhibit 48 colly.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
735
ii. No order as to costs.
iii. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-III/806
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 26-11-2018 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/10/2017 is hereby published as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th December, 2018.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/10/2017
Shri Satyawan Gurav,
Rep. by the Gen. Secretary,
Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers Union,
Velho’s Bldg., Panaji-Goa.
…
Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Goa Bagayatdar
Sahakari Kharedi
Vikri Saunstha Maryadit,
Ponda-Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Party-I/Workman is represented by Adv. Shri Suhas
Naik.
Party-II/Employer is represented by Adv. Shri A.V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, Dated: 26-11-2018.
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 14-06-2017,
bearing No. 28/51/2015-Lab/429 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court II of Goa at Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Kharedi
Vikri Saunstha Maryadit, Ponda, Goa in
re-designing Shri Satyawan Zilu Gurav to the
post of Mapari/Peon with effect from
01-04-2014 from his original post of Peon
amounts to demotion as contended by the
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
affirmative, then, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/10/17 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
12-06-2018 at Exhibit 5. The facts of the case in
brief as pleaded by the Workman are that he joined
the services of the Employer/Party-II (for short
“Employer”) as ‘Mapari’ in the year 1999. He stated
that he was confirmed on 01-11-2002. He stated
that when he joined as a Mapari, the management
of the Employer assigned him the job of peon and
was asked to do the job of peon ever since his date
of joining. He stated that he was promoted to the
post of peon w.e.f. 01-06-2007 and posted at the
head office of the Employer at Ponda. He stated
that as a peon, he was performing the duties such
as day to day checking of files at the instructions
of his superior, depositing cash as well as cheques
in the banks of various branches, collection,
receipts from branches of the Employer outlets and
handing the same to cashier etc. and doing the
filling work under the supervision and control of
his superior.
3. He stated that on 01-04-2014, he was awarded
a punishment as and by way of demotion
order dated 29-03-2014 as there was some
misunderstanding between him and his superior
officer. He stated that this resulted in his transfer
and also demotion to the post of Mapari from the
post of Peon. He stated that even after raising the
present dispute as above, he joined at his
transferred place at Marcel at the outlet of the
Employer under protest and worked from
01-04-2014 till 01-04-2018. He stated that he was
thereafter again transferred from Marcel to Mapusa
market yard. He stated that he joined at Mapusa
market yard and after working for two days, the
manager of the Employer at Mapusa has refused
him employment w.e.f. 03-04-2018 as the said
manager has failed to provide him duties and kept
idle without allotting him any work. Being
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
736
aggrieved with the said transfer as well as
demotion order, he preferred an industrial dispute
before the office of Labour Commissioner, Ponda,
Goa, which resulted in failure.
4. The Workman contended that the aforesaid
act of the management of the Employer is an act
of victimization, harassment and unfair labour
practice. He submitted that the punishment of
demotion issued to him is illegal, unjustified and
bad-in-law and in violation of the principles of
natural justice. The workman therefore submitted
that he is entitled to be reverted back to his original
designation i.e. Peon w.e.f. 01-04-2014. The Workman
therefore prayed that he be reverted back to his
designated post of peon w.e.f. 01-04-2014 with all
consequential benefits attached to the said post
including the arrears of pay and that the action of
the Employer in demoting him from the post of
peon to the post of mapari with effect from
01-04-2014 be held as illegal, unjustified and
bad-in-law.
5. On 06-09-2018, Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas Naik
appearing for the Workman as well as Ld. Adv.
Shri A.V. Nigalye appearing for the Employer
remained present and jointly submitted that they
are trying to settle the matter amicably between
the parties. Accordingly, on 26-11-2018, both the
aforesaid Advocates along with their parties
respectively remained present before this court and
filed a consent terms, which is on record at Exb. 6
and submitted that the reference be disposed off
in terms of the consent terms by passing consent
award. The said terms of settlement are reproduced
hereunder:
a. The Workman/Party I, by letter dated
11-10-2018 addressed to the managing
director of the Employer/Party II, has
expressed regrets for his misconduct of not
wearing the uniform for the post of Mapari
and other misconducts and has further
undertaken that he shall wear the uniform
for the said post. He has requested that he
may be pardoned and reinstated in service.
The Workman/Party I hereby reiterates his
regrets for his misconducts of not wearing
the uniform and for other misconducts
alleged against him in the charge-sheets
dated 31-01-2017 and 27-04-2018 and
undertakes that he will wear the uniform
and perform all duties of Mapari. The
Employer/Party II accepts the regrets
expressed by the Workman/Party I.
b. The Employer/Party II shall reinstate the
Workman/Party I to the post of mapari and
issue him the order of his posting in any of
the establishments of the Employer/Party II.
The Workman/Party I shall join the duties as
mapari at the said post/establishment from
01-12-2018.
c. The Workman/Party I shall not be entitled to
any wages or emoluments from the date of
his suspension till 30-11-2018.
d. The Employer/Party II shall withdraw
the charge-sheets dated 31-01-2017 and
27-04-2018 issued to the Workman/Party I
and the order of his suspension dated
10-05-2018. The charge-sheets and the order
of suspension shall be treated as withdrawn
from 01-12-2018.
e. The parties hereby declare that all disputes
between the Workman/Party I and the
Employer/Party II involved in Reference
No. LC-II/IT/10/2017 are settled with the
signing of these consent terms and the
parties shall not have any claim or demand
against each other in the said reference.
I have carefully perused the said terms of
settlement signed by and between the parties
hereinabove. The said terms of settlement are
beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I consented
for the same. Since the dispute under reference is
settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute
under present reference does not survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the management
of M/s. Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Kharedi
Vikri Saunstha Maryadit, Ponda, Goa in
re-designing Shri Satyawan Zilu Gurav to
the post of Mapari/Peon with effect from
01-04-2014 from his original post of Peon
amounts to demotion as contended by the
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union?,
does not survive.
2. The workman Satyawan Gurav, 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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
737
Notification
No. 28/3/2018-LAB/Part-I/807
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 08-10-2018 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/07/2014 is hereby published as
required by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th December, 2018.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/07/2014
Shri Dayanand Kambli,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Kadamba Kamgar Union,
BG-10, Gr. Floor,
Casa Immaculade,
Jose Falcao Road,
Near Panjim Church,
Panaji-Goa.
…
Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Paraise de Goa,
Alto-Porvorim, Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Kundaikar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal.
Panaji, Dated: 08-10-2018.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) the Government of Goa,
by Order dated 30-09-2014, bearing No. 28/24/2014-
-Lab/572 referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this Labour Court-II of Goa at
Panaji, Goa.
“(1) Whether the demand of the Kadamba Kamgar
Union pertaining to anomaly in pay
fixation of Shri Dayanand C. Kambli, Heavy
Vehicle Driver, by M/s Kadamba Transport
Corporation Limited, Porvorim, Goa, thereby
depriving the monetary benefits with effect
from July, 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. LC-II/IT/07/2014 and
registered A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In
pursuance to the said notice, the Parties put in
their appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on
21-11-2014 at Exb. 5. The facts of the case in brief as
pleaded by the workman are that he is working
with the Employer/Party-II (for short, ‘Employer’) as
Heavy Vehicle Driver and is presently posted at
Vasco depot. He stated that he joined in the services
of the Employer on daily wages w.e.f. 02-05-1994.
He stated that he was taken on probation w.e.f.
01-03-1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-
80-4590. He stated that he raised a dispute in
respect of the withholding of two annual
increments with cumulative effects for the year
1998 and 1999. He stated that the said dispute was
settled by him in reference No. REF/37/12 and
accordingly, an award in terms of settlement was
passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. He stated that the
Employer was pleased to implement Modified
Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS)
w.e.f. 01-09-2008 as per the board resolution
No. 110/11. He stated that as the order dated
18-03-1998 for stoppage of two annual increments
without cumulative effect for the year 1998 and
1999 is revoked with prospective effect, he was
entitled for financial up-gradation under the
MACPS which is presently effective with the
Employer. He stated that as he was appointed on
regular basis from 01-03-1995, he was entitled for
first financial up-gradation in the year 2005. The
Workman challenged the anomaly in his pay
fixation and deprivation of the monetary benefits
on the following grounds.
3. He submitted that he is entitled for the first
up-gradation on completion of 10 years of service
in accordance with the MACPS as the Employer
has revoked the order dated 18-13-1998 without
cumulative effect. He submitted that the Employer
cannot differ the grant of first financial
up-gradation on the pretext of penalty which has
been revoked by the Employer. He submitted that
the Employer by its reply dated 26-11-2013 filed
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner admitted
that the punishment of stoppage of annual
increments of 1998 and 1999 has been revoked and
as such he is eligible for financial up-gradation
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
738
under the MACP scheme. He submitted that on
account of non-implementation of first financial
up-gradation, there is disparity in his pay fixation
resulting in depriving the monetary benefits. He
submitted that the action of the Employer in
depriving him the monetary benefits is illegal and
malafide without any reasonable ground. He
submitted that the action of the Employer is smacks
of malifide and is an ex-facie instance of unfair
labour practice. He submitted that his case is gross
wherein the workmen have been compelled to seek
sanctuary in portals of the Hon’ble Tribunal. He
submitted that he is grossly discriminated against
the whims and caprices of unmoving bureaucracy.
He submitted that the illegal deprivation of the
monetary benefits with effect from July 2007 is not
fair and is not inconsistent with the principles of
natural justice. The Workman therefore prayed that
an award be passed holding that the workman is
entitled for monetary benefits from July, 2007 and
release the monetary benefits from July, 2007 with
interest @12% p.a. with continuity in service,
benefits and privileges attached to post.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its reply dated 06-02-2015 at
Exb. 9. 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 traveling public within the State of
Goa and also to the neighbouring States like
Maharashtra and Karnataka. The Employer stated
that the Workman filed his statement of claim not
only with distorted facts but also suppressed
material facts from this Hon’ble Court and also
made misleading statements. The Employer stated
that the various types of benefits/facilities as
extended by the Government of Goa to its
employees are not directly made applicable to its
employees including the workman but the same
are made applicable only after the approvals of the
board of directors as its policy makers which is
constituted as per the articles of association. The
Employer stated that the MACPS was made
applicable in the corporation on 01-09-2008
notionally and monetary benefits w.e.f. 01-01-2012.
The Employer stated that as per the MACPS issued
by the Government it is stated at para 15 of the
said scheme that for any employee if the financial
up-gradation under MACPS is deferred and not
allowed after 10 years in a grade pay due to the
reason of the employee being unfit or due to
departmental proceedings etc. this could have
consequential effect on the subsequent financial
up-gradation which would also get deferred to the
extent of delay in first financial up-gradation. The
Employer submitted that the Workman is not
entitled for any relief as prayed in his claim
statement and as such the claim of the Workman
be dismissed as not maintainable.
5. The Employer stated that the Workman was
appointed on probation as Heavy Vehicle Driver
w.e.f. 08-03-1995. The Employer stated that at the
relevant time in the year 2005 the scheme in force
was Time Bound Promotional Scheme (TBPS) and
not MACPS. The Employer stated that the
punishment of stoppage of increments of 1998 and
1999 has been revoked with prospective effect i.e.
from 09-05-2013. The Employer denied the overall
pleadings as pleaded by the Workman and prayed
for dismissal of the present reference.
6. Thereafter, the Workman filed his re-joinder
on 26-02-2015 at Exb. 10. 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.
7. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties
herein above, this Court framed the following issues
on 27-01-2016 at Exb. 26.
1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
there exists an anomaly in his pay fixation?
2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the
anomaly in his pay fixation deprived him the
monetary benefits w.e.f. July, 2007?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the
anomaly in his pay fixation w.e.f. July, 2007, is
illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the Workman is not entitled for any relief in
view of the allegations made in para 5 and 11
of its written statement?
5. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
6. What order? What Award?
8. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a)
Issue No. 1 : In the negative.
(b)
Issue No. 2 : In the negative.
(c)
Issue No. 3 : In the negative.
(d)
Issue No. 4 : In the affirmative.
(e)
Issue No. 5 and 6: As per final order.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
739
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.
Shri A. Kundaikar appearing for the Workman as
well as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal appearing for the
Employer.
9. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, representing the
Workman during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman was appointed as a
Heavy Vehicle Driver by the Employer w.e.f.
02-05-1994 on daily wages. He submitted that the
Workman was taken on probation w.e.f. 01-03-1995
in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590. He
submitted that the Workman had raised a dispute
in respect of the withholding of two annual
increments with cumulative effect for the year 1998
and 1999. He submitted that the said dispute was
registered before the Industrial Tribunal as ref
No. REF/37/12. He submitted that the said dispute
was settled between the parties and the award in
terms of the said settlement was passed by the
Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal. He submitted that the
Employer was pleased to implement MACPS
w.e.f. 01-09-2008 as per its board resolution
No. 110/11. He submitted that as the order of
stoppage of annual increment was revoked, the
service record of the Workman was unblemished.
He submitted that the Workman is therefore
entitled for first financial up-gradation in the year
2005 in the said MACPS. He submitted that the
prevised scale of the Workman in sixth pay would
have been in Rs. 4000-100-6000+Grade Pay of
Rs. 2800/-. He submitted that the circular issued
by the Government from time to time forms law
and as such need not be produced on record. He
submitted that in support of his oral submissions,
he relied upon office memorandum dated
19-05-2009 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pension as well as office memorandum dated
03-01-2013 issued by Government of India, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Expenditure. He also
relied upon a copy of extract of a judgment in the
case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v/s. Om
Prakash of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal,
representing the Employer, during the course of
his oral arguments, submitted that the Employer is
a Government Company registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. He
submitted that the various types of benefits/
/facilities as extended by the Government of Goa
to its employees are not directly made applicable
to its employees including the Workman, but the
same are made applicable only after the approvals
of its board of directors as its policy makers which
is constituted as per the Articles of Association.
He submitted that MACPS was made applicable to
the Employer Corporation from 01-09-2008
notionally and monetary benefits w.e.f. 01-01-2012.
He submitted that in terms of Clause 15 of the said
MACPS, for any employee if the financial up-
gradation under MACPS is deferred and not
allowed after 10 years in a grade pay, due to the
reason of the employee being unfit or due to
departmental proceedings etc. this could have
consequential effect on the subsequent financial
up-gradation which would also get deferred to the
extent of delay in first financial up-gradation.
REASONS
11. Issue No. 1 and 2:
The burden to prove the issue No. 1 and 2 was
cast on the Workman. The Workman has to prove
the said issue No. 1 and 2 by leading cogent
evidence. The Workman has however, failed to
prove the said issue No. 1 and 2 by leading positive
evidence. Thus, there is nothing on record to show
that there exist an anomaly in the pay fixation of
the Workman w.e.f. July, 2007.
The sole witness of the Employer, Shri V. D.
Harmalkar, the Personnel Manager of the Employer,
during the course of his cross-examination, stated
as under:
“I say that the Workman after completing 12
years of service i.e. on 08-03-2007 then he would
have been entitled for the Time Bound
Promotional Scale (T.B.P.S.) provided that he
shall not be disqualified for the same due to
pendency of disciplinary enquiry or interrupted
service. I say that a disciplinary enquiry was
pending against the Workman in and around
1998.”
12. The evidence on record indicates that the
MACPS was made applicable to the workers of the
Employer Corporation by resolution No. 110/11
passed by its Board of Directors in its 176 BOD
meeting and it was made applicable to the
employees of the Employer notionally for the first
time w.e.f. 01-08-2009. Benefits to its employees
were factually and monetarily extended w.e.f.
01-01-2012.
13. The sole witness of the Employer, Shri V. D.
Harmalkar, the Personnel Manager of the Employer
further stated that “It is correct that I have signed
the said annual increment releasing letters of the
drivers on behalf of the Employer. A xerox copy of
the said letter of the Employer dated 22-07-2016 is
taken on record and marked as Exb. 42-cross. It is
correct that the annual increment of all the 595
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
740
drivers of the Employer were released by one and
the same order at Exb. 42-cross. It is correct that the
name of the Workman under reference is reflected in
the said letter at Exb. 42-cross at serial No. 224 and
his grade pay has been shown as Rs. 2000/- as on
01-07-2016. It is correct that in the said document
at serial No. 223, the driver namely Shri Sadanand
Ramji is appearing and his grade pay is shown as
Rs. 2800/- as on 01-07-2016. It is correct that the
driver Shri Sadanand D. Ramji and the Workman
under reference were appointed vide order of the
Employer dated 13-03-1995 at Exb. 31-cross. I admit
that there is anomaly in pay fixation of the driver,
Shri Sadanand D. Ramji and the Workman under
reference, since both the said drivers were appointed
on one and the same order. The order of the Employer
dated 13-03-1995 which is on record at Exb. 31
(cross) indicates that the said Shri Sadanand D.
Ramji and the Workman under reference were
appointed by the said order on probation for the
initial period of six months w.e.f. 08-03-1995 in the
pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1600.”
14. From the aforesaid deposition of the sole
witness of the Employer, it indicates that at the
first blush, the Employer has admitted that there
was anomaly in the pay fixation of the driver, Shri
Sadanand D. Ramaji and the Workman. However,
there is nothing on record that the present
Workman and the said Shri Sadanand Ramji is
similarly placed even in terms of disciplinary
proceedings. It is not the case of the Workman
under reference that the said Workman Shri
Sadanand Ramji was given the benefit despite
disciplinary proceedings. The word ‘anomaly’
applied is entirely misconceived. The said order
dated 22-07-2016 is on record at Exb. 42-cross. The
said MACP was made applicable to the employees
of the Employer Corporation including the
Workman for the first time w.e.f. 01-08-2009
notionally. Monetary benefits were granted to its
employees w.e.f. 01-01-2012. The evidence on record
indicates that by order dated 18-03-1998 at Exb.
32-cross, the Dy. General Manager (Traffic) of the
Employer imposed a punishment of stoppage of
two annual increments with cumulative effect for
the year 1998 and 1999. The evidence on record
indicates that the Workman raised dispute against
the said punishment of stoppage of two annual
increments with cumulative effect for the year 1998
and 1999. The said dispute was registered as case
No. Ref/37/12 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Panaji, Goa. The said dispute was disposed
off by consent award dated 09-05-2013 at Exb. 28.
In terms of Clause 1 of the terms of settlement, it
is stated that “it is agreed between the parties that
the order dated 18-03-1998 for stoppage of two
annual increments without cumulative effect for the
years 1998 and 1999 shall be revoked with
prospective effect i.e. from the date of filing the
present consent term before the Hon’ble Tribunal.”
It means that the Employer had already stopped
the two annual increments without cumulative
effect for the year 1998 and 1999. However, the
penalty has been revoked prospectively w.e.f. 09-
05-2013. There is nothing on record to show that
there was an anomaly in the pay fixation of the
Workman w.e.f. July, 2007. Hence, it is held that
the Workman failed to prove that there exist an
anomaly in the pay fixation of the Workman w.e.f.
July, 2007. The issue No. 1 and 2 are therefore
answered in the negative.
15. Issue No. 3 and 4:
While deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the Workman failed to prove that there exists an
anomaly in his pay fixation w.e.f. July, 2007.
Therefore, there is no question of depriving the
monetary benefits to the Workman w.e.f. July, 2007.
16. Even otherwise, by the present reference,
the Workman challenged the anomaly in his pay
fixation and deprivation of the monetary benefits
in para 9 of his claim statement. Upon careful
perusal of para 9 of the claim statement, it appears
that the Workman contended that he has not been
given benefits of MACPS though eligible. The sole
witness of the Employer, in his cross-examination
stated that “it is correct that the Workman was
appointed on probation by order of the Employer
dated 13-03-1995 w.e.f. 08-03-1995. It is correct that
the Workman alongwith eight other workmen
were appointed by the Employer vide its order at
Exb. 31-cross. It is correct that the Workman was
entitled for his first increment in the pay scale of
one year of service w.e.f. 08-03-1996.”
The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer made applicable the MACPS to its
employees for the first time w.e.f. 01-08-2009
notionally and monetary benefits w.e.f. 01-01-2012.
Hence, I do not find any merits in the submissions
of Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar, appearing for the
Workman that the Workman was entitled to the
benefits of the MACP Scheme. The issue No. 3 is
therefore answered in the negative and the issue
No. 4 is answered in the affirmative.
17. Issue No. 5:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the Workman failed to prove that there exist an
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
741
anomaly in pay fixation of the Workman w.e.f. July,
2007 and the same is illegal and unjustified. The
Workman is not entitled to any relief from this
court. The issue No. 5 is therefore answered in the
negative.
In view of the above discussion and with regards
to the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass
the following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the Kadamba Kamgar Union
failed to prove that there exist an anomaly in
pay fixation of Workman with effect from
July, 2007.
2. It is further held that the dispute as to whether
the demand of the Kadamba Kamgar Union
pertaining to anomaly in pay fixation of
Shri Dayanand C. Kambli, Heavy Vehicle Driver,
by M/s Kadamba Transport Corporation
Limited, Porvorim, Goa, thereby depriving the
monetary benefits with effect from July, 2007,
is legal and justified, does not survive.
3. It is further held that the Workman, Shri
Dayanand C. Kambli, Heavy Vehicle Driver, is
not entitled to any relief.
4. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———uuu———
Department of Panchayati Raj and
Community Development
Directorate of Panchayats
__
Notification
No. 19/115/DP/PAN/BAC/18/8503
The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to
reconstitute the Block Advisory Committees
(B.A.C.) for every Block to advice the Block
Development Officers in implementation of the
developmental schemes in Block, and for direct
interaction between the Officials and non-Officials.
The B.A.C. shall consist of the following
members:-
Non-Official Members:
1) Member of Parliament of the
— Member.
concerned Lok Sabha/Rajya
Sabha Constituency wherein
Block falls
2) Members of the Legislative
— Members.
Assembly of the concerned
Assembly Constituency falling
within the Block
3) Elected Members of Zilla
— Members.
Panchayat from the concerned
Block
4) The Sarpanchas of the Village
— Members.
Panchayats from the concerned
Block
5) One Co-opted Member of the
— Member.
Village Panchayat elected by
the co-opted members of the
Village Panchayats from the
concerned Block
6) One member of the Mahila
— Member.
Shakti Abhiyan nominated
by the Government
7) Two to Three Members nomina- — Member.
ted by the Government from
amongst persons who have
special knowledge of practical
experience in respect of such
matters as literature, Science,
Art and Social service
Official Members:
1) All the Directors of various
— Members.
Directorates and Principal
Chief Engineer of the Public
Works Department, Chief Engineer
of the Water Resources Department
and Chief Engineer of the
Electricity Department
2) The Block Development Officer
of the concerned Block shall
be the Member Secretary of
the Committee constituted for
that Block
The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the
Committee shall be Sarpanchas duly elected by
the Sarpanchas of the Village Panchayats falling
under concerned Block, as Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson of Committee.
The post of Chairperson in the Blocks of Bardez,
Mormugao, Quepem and Satari shall be reserved
for Women. The post of Vice-Chairperson in the
Blocks of Bicholim, Pernem, Salcete and Tiswadi
shall be reserved for Women.
The initial term of the B.A.C. shall be up to 31st
of August, 2020.
The Meeting of the B.A.C. shall be held once in
a quarter in the Office of the concerned Block
Development Officer. The expenditure of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
742
meeting shall be borne by the Block Development
Officer from the funds of the Block. The non-official
members shall draw the T.A. and D.A. to attend the
meeting from the funds of the concerned Panchayat
Raj Institutions.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Rajan Satardekar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Panchayats).
Panaji, 17th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 15/19/2012-PER(Part)/3362
Read: Memorandum No. 15/19/2012-PER (Part)
dated: 12-07-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/42(2)/2017/18 dated 17-04-2018, the
Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint the following
candidates to the post of Mamlatdar/Joint
Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies
(Group “B” Gazetted) under the Government of
Goa in Level-7 of pay matrix, with immediate effect.
1) Shri Kaushik Balkrishna Dessai.
2) Smt. Sanjivani Jayanrath Satardekar (OBC).
3) Shri Gaurav Sagun Gaounkar (ST).
The above candidates have been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board, vide letter
dated 26-05-2018 & 14-06-2018 & the character and
antecedents of the candidates are verified by
respective District Magistrate vide letter dated
03-09-2018 & 05-09-2018 wherein no adverse
remarks have been reported.
The genuineness of education qualification
certificates of all the candidates have been verified
and found correct by the Goa University, Taleigao,
as informed vide letter dated 20-08-2018.
The Other Backward Class Certificate bearing
No. 270520151121/755 dated 29-05-2015 issued by
the Dy. Collector/Sub Divisional Officer, Mapusa-
Goa in respect of candidate at Sr. No. 2 is verified
by the Scrutiny Committee and is held valid as per
the certificate dated 09-11-2018 issued by the
Directorate of Social Welfare Department.
The Scheduled Tribe Certificate bearing
No. 2017/5848/2/7/1784/399 dated 03-08-2017
issued by the Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional
Officer, Quepem, Goa, in respect of candidate at
Sr. No. 3 is verified by the Scrutiny Committee
and is held valid by the Director, Directorate of
Tribal Welfare, vide certificate of verification
No. 1/11/2018-VER/DTW/ST/36/4514 dated
10-09-2018.
The above appointees shall be on probation for
a period of two years.
The pay and allowances of the above officers
shall be debited to the Budget Head controlled by
the respective Collectorates North/South.
They shall report to Personnel Department for
further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 14th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 5/1/2018-PER/3350
Shri Vivek H. P., IAS, Deputy Collector & SDO,
Bicholim shall hold the charge of the post of Deputy
Collector & SDO, Sattari in addition to his own
duties until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 18th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 5/40/84-PER(Vol-I)/3345
Read: Memorandum No. 5/40/84-PER (Vol-I)/3112
dated 26-11-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/1/5/34(1)/2017/750 dated 25-07-2017,
Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri Ajit M.
Gaonkar as Principal in Government Polytechnic
Curchorem, Cacora-Goa, in the Revised pay
scale, Level 14 in the Pay Matrix, with immediate
effect.
Shri Gaonkar shall be on probation for a period
of one year.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
743
The pay and allowances of the officer shall be
debited to the Budget Head controlled by the
Directorate of Technical Education, Porvorim,
Bardez-Goa.
The Officer shall submit technical resignation
before joining the post.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 18th December, 2018.
________
Order
No. 7/21/2017-PER/3667
Read: Order No. 14020/02/2018-UTS-1(Pt.) dated
15-12-2018.
The Governor of Goa is pleased to relieve Shri
Dharmendra Sharma, IAS (AGMUT: 1988), Chief
Secretary from this Administration with effect from
24-12-2018 (A.N.) for his next posting in Delhi.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 20th December, 2018.
Order
No. 15/12/96-PER/3387
Read: 1) Order No. 9/10/HLEC/2018-ARD dated
14-08-2018.
2) Letter No. 9/16/IDCO/2018-ARD/333
dated 26-10-2018.
The post of Data Entry Operator existing in
District Collector (South) stands re-designated as
Lower Division Clerk and their inter-se seniority
shall be fixed as per rules in force, in terms of
Clause 2(ii) of the order read in preamble (1).
This issues with the approval of the High Level
Empowered Committee (H.L.E.C.) constituted
with the approval of the Council of Ministers in
the XXth meeting held on 08-11-2017 vide order
No. 1/1/2017/Addl. Secy (Per) dated 22-11-2017
issued by Department of Personnel; and as
conveyed vide letter No. 9/10/HLEC/2018-ARD/242
dated 16-08-2018 and 12/1/5/2018-RD-I/752 dated
05-12-2018, issued by the Department of
Administrative Reforms, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 20th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
__
Order
No. 26/11/2015-RD/2647
Government is pleased on due recommendation to transfer the following Officials in the public
interest and post them to the posting shown against their name with immediate effect.
Sr.
Name of the officer
Present posting
New place of posting
Additional charge
No.
1
2
3
4
5
1. Smt. Maya K. Amonkar,
Inspector of Survey &
—
Inspector of Survey &
I.S.L.R., Panaji
Land Records, City Survey,
Land Records, Tiswadi.
Panaji
2. Smt. Anisha A.
Head Office as Assistant
Inspector of Survey
—
Matondkar, A.S.S.O.,
Survey & Settlement
& Land Records,
Panaji
Officer and Additional
Vasco
charge ISLR, Vasco
3. Shri Rajesh R. Pai
Inspector of Survey &
—
Inspector of Survey &
Kuchelakar, I.S.L.R.,
Land Records, Mapusa
Land Records, Pernem.
Mapusa
4. Shri Savio Silveira,
Inspector of Survey &
Inspector of Survey
Inspector of Survey &
I.S.L.R., Margao
Land Records, Margao
& Land Records,
Land Records, Canacona.
Quepem
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 39
27TH DECEMBER, 2018
744
5. Shri Sudesh K. Naik
Inspector of Survey &
Inspector of Survey
—
Bhaireli, I.S.L.R.,
Land Records, Quepem
& Land Records,
Quepem
and Canacona
Margao
6. Shri Anand Vaigankar,
Inspector of Survey &
—
Inspector of Survey &
I.S.L.R., Bicholim
Land Records, Bicholim
Land Records, Ponda.
7. Smt. Vinita V. Kambli,
Newly promoted
Head Office as
—
I.S.L.R.
Assistant Survey &
Settlement Officer
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 14th December, 2018.
———uuu———
1
2
3
4
5
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 16.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—296/160–12/2018.
Department of Sports & Youth Affairs
Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs
__
Order
No. SAG-03/ADM-Co/36th/Nat.Games/2014/3230
Read: Order No. SAG-3/ADM-CO/36th Nat Games/2014/595 dated 21-05-2015.
With reference to the above Order, the Government is pleased to delegate administrative and financial
powers of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs to the Chief Executive Officer, NGOC and Jt. Chief Executive Officer,
NGOC, respectively.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Anjali Sehrawat, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Sports & Youth Affairs).
Panaji, 18th December, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
__
Notification
No. D.Tpt/EST/1997/(PF)2018/6266
Read: 1. Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/1997/(PF) 2017/791 dated 11-04-2017.
2. Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/1997/(PF) 2017/1775 dated 06-07-2017.
In pursuance of Article 68 of the Articles of Association of the Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited,
the Government is pleased to appoint Smt. Nidhi N. Mamlekar, R/o Talem Durgabhat, Ponda-Goa, as
Director on the Board of Directors of Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited with immediate effect, in
place of Shri Narayan Shenvi Talaulikar, ex-Director on Board of Directors of Kadamba Transport Corporation
Limited who expired on 8-9-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Tpt.).
Panaji, 20th December, 2018.