Panaji, 28th February, 2019 (Phalguna 9,1940)
SERIES II No. 48
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Order
No. 1/22/104/2018-19/D.Agri/356
Government is pleased to accept the notice of
voluntary retirement tendered by Smt. Ana Dias e
Camara, Dy. Director of Agriculture (Extension),
working at the Headquarters of this Directorate vide
her application dated 23-11-2018 under Rule 48 of
C.C.S. Pension Rule, 1972.
Smt. Ana Camara e Dais, Dy. Director of
Agriculture (Extension), stands relieved from
Government Service w.e.f. 22-02-2019 (f.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 22nd February, 2019.
________
Corrigendum
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part (I)/360
Read: Order No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(I)/348
dated 19-02-2019.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
891
In the above referred order in column No. 3
designation & place of present posting of
incumbent at Sr. No. 1 Shri Rajesh B. Dessai may be
read as “Officiating Assistant Director of
Agriculture (Farm), Directorate of Agriculture”
instead of “Officiating Assistant Director of
Agriculture (Hort.), Directorate of Agriculture”.
Simultaneously in column No. 4 place of posting
on regular promotion to the post of Assistant
Director of Agriculture of incumbent at Sr. No. 7
Shri Anant Hoble may be read as “On promotion
on regular basis by curtailing the deputation
period against the post of Dy. Project Director
(ATMA-North) and posting against the post of
Asst. Director of Agriculture (Farm), Directorate of
Agriculture vacated by Shri Rajesh Dessai on
transfer/promotion on regular basis with additional
charge of Dy. Project Director, ATMA-North”
instead of “On promotion on regular basis by
curtailing the deputation period against the post
of Dy. Project Director (ATMA-North) and posting
against the post of Asst. Director of Agriculture
(Hort.), Directorate of Agriculture vacated by
Shri Rajesh Dessai on transfer/promotion on regular
basis with additional charge of Dy. Project Director,
ATMA-North.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 22nd February, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Order
No. 8/2/2014-DHE (Q)/5730
Read: Memorandum No. 8/2/2014-DHE(Q)/4866
dated 08-01-2019.
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated 21-02-2019
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 21-02-2019 from pages
887 to 888 regarding Notice of Publication of
Electoral Rolls & Notice of Election to the Goa
Nursing Council.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 22-02-2019 from
pages 889 to 890 regarding Notification and
Notice in Form No. I from Department of
Panchayati Raj & Community Development.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
892
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/78(2)/2015/284 dated 05-12-2018,
Government is pleased to appoint Ms. Shraddha
Shrikant Naik to the post of Assistant Professor in
Political Science (OBC) in Government College of
Arts, Science and Commerce, Sanquelim-Goa under
Directorate of Higher Education on temporary basis
in the Pay Matrix Level 10 [Pay Band-3, Rs. 15,600-
39,100+Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000/-
(pre-revised)] with immediate effect, and as per
the terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above.
Ms. Shraddha Shrikant Naik shall be on
probation for a period of two years.
Ms. Shraddha Shrikant Naik has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board. The
appointment is made subject to the verification of
her character and antecedents. In the event of any
adverse remarks noticed by the Government on
verification of her character and antecedents, her
services shall be terminated.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Prasad G. Volvoikar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
—
Order
No. 3/25/2010-IND/92
Whereas, for orderly establishment of waste
(Scrap) recycling units in the State of Goa, the
Government has formulated the Goa Waste (Scrap)
Recycling Units Scheme, 2010, as per the assurance
given by the State Government before the Hon’ble
High Court in the PIL Writ Petition No. 12/2008.
And whereas, the “Goa Waste (Scrap) Recycling
Units Scheme, 2010”, stipulate shifting of scrap
yards from its present location to the trade zones
within a period of 02 years. However as the process
of establishment of trade zones could not be
completed within the aforesaid time limit, the
Scheme was further extended for a period of 02
years, vide Notification No. 3/25/2010-IND dated
26-11-2012. The said scheme was again extended
for a period of one year vide Notification No. 3/25/
/2010-IND dated 12-08-2016 till 28-04-17.
And whereas, the Government is desirous of
appointing the Goa Waste Management
Corporation as Nodal Agency for the purpose of
relocating of the scrap yards in the State of Goa by
either formulating a new scheme or by modifying
the earlier notified scheme.
Now therefore, the Government hereby appoints
the Goa Waste Management Corporation as the
Nodal Agency for the purpose of relocating of the
scrap yards in the State of Goa and all matters
related thereto.
The Directorate of Industries, Trade and
Commerce, Panaji is hereby directed to handover
all the relevant files pertaining to the Goa Waste
(Scrap) Recycling Units Scheme, 2010 to the Goa
Waste Management Corporation.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2019.
_______
Order
No. 3/19/2010-IND/100
Whereas, the Government intend to set up a
Biotechnology Incubator in the State of Goa in
terms of the Biotechnological Policy notified vide
Notification No. 3/75/2004-IND dated 13-07-2006
published in Official Gazette, Series I No. 20 dated
17-08-2006 for the purpose to provide an
opportunity to prospective entrepreneurs to
develop, test, process their idea’s/projects at a
laboratory level a reasonable costs.
And whereas, the Government is desirous of
appointing the Directorate of Higher Education,
Porvorim as the Nodal Agency for the purpose of
setting up the project of Bio-Incubator facility at
Goa University, Taleigao, Goa.
Now therefore, the Government hereby appoints
the Directorate of Higher Education as the Nodal
Agency for the purpose of setting up the project of
Bio-Incubator facility at Goa University, Taleigao,
Goa and all matters related thereto.
The Director of Industries, Trade and Commerce,
Panaji is hereby directed to handover all the
relevant files pertaining to the project of setting
up Bio-Incubator facility to the Directorate of
Higher Education.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 21st February, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
893
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/31/2018-LAB/149
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Merck Limited, Plot
No. 11/1, Marvasado, Usgao, Ponda, Goa and it’s
workman, Shri Bhanudas Naik, represented by the
Merck Employees 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 (c) 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
Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7 (1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Merck Limited, Usgao, Goa in demoting
Shri Bhanudas Naik from Helper to Sweeper
under level of Core I, with effect from
16-05-2017, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 19th February, 2019.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/138
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-01-2019 in Appl. No. 6/2012 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, 18th February, 2019.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 6/2012
Shri Sandeep Dalvi,
Salmona, Near Sharvani Temple,
Saligao, Bardez,
Goa-403 511.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Omkar,
Plot No. 58, Pilerne Industrial
Estate,
Pilerne, P.O. Betim,
Bardez, Goa 403 101.
… Respondent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Respondent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the
month of January of the year 2019)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant/
/Party I is that the Party I was employed as a Quality
Control Employee with Party II w.e.f. 1-1-2010. The
Party I in December, 2011 called upon Party II to
meet their basic statutory demands but it did not
like the making of demands by the workers and
started terminating the services of the workmen
one by one without any cause. The Party I on
11-12-2011 was asked not to report for work from
12-12-2011. The Party I was neither given a notice
of one month nor offered pay in lieu of notice nor
any compensation. The Party I thereafter intimated
the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa about
the refusal of employment. However, The Party II
did not attend the discussion. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa also did not record the
report on failure. The action of Party II in refusing
the employment is illegal, unjust and malafide.
Hence, the dispute.
3. The Respondent/Party II filed a reply at
Exh. 8 inter-alia contending that the application is
wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. The
Party I remained absent without any prior
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
894
permission and on account of act of Party I of
sudden refusal to work and/or abandonment, the
factory operations of Party II came to a standstill.
The Party I created a situation for the Party II to
recruit new employee in his place to ensure the
survival of the organization, The Party I is not
entitled for any relief.
4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 9
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 13.
6. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and
filed a pursis for disposal of the above application
along with the consent terms dated 25-1-2019 at
Exh. 33 colly.
7. The terms of settlement are as follows:
(1) It is agreed between the parties that
Mr. Sandeep Dalvi, Party I shall be paid an
amount of Rs. 1,38,450/- (Rupees one lakh
thirty eight thousand four hundred & fifty
only) towards gratuity, leave encashment,
compensation, bonus, ex-gratia, etc. in full
& final settlement of all his legal dues.
(2) It is agreed between the parties that in
view of the payment of the amount agreed
in Clause 1 of these terms, Sandeep Dalvi
does not press for service with the
Employer/Party II.
(3) It is agreed between the parties that both
the parties shall have no claim of
whatsoever nature against each other, other
than the amount payable on payment of
amount in Clause (1) above.
(4) It is agreed between the parties that the
above amount shall be paid to Mr. Sandeep
Dalvi on or before 15-03-2019 by Account
Payee Cheque drawn in his name and
accordingly cheque dated 15-03-2019
drawn on Dena Bank, Panaji Branch
amounting of Rs. 1,38,450/- (Rupees one
lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred &
fifty only) bearing No. 005306 is handed
over to the Party I.
(5) It is agreed that if the above amount is not
paid on or before the period agreed, the
Party II shall pay interest at the rate of 12%
from the date the amount fell due.
(6) The Party I herein declare that his claim in
the present dispute as well as claim in
the reference before the Industrial
Tribunal bearing Application No. 6/2012 is
conclusively settled.
(7) The Party II establishment shall issue a
bonafide service certificate to the
workman.
(8) The Parties pray that an award in terms of
above settlement be made and the
reference be disposed of.
8. The above Consent terms are signed by the
Applicant, Shri Sandeep Dalvi and Shri Samarth
Karekar, Partner of Party II, so also, Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar for Party I and Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat
for Party II. I have gone through the records of the
case and the above Consent Terms and I am
convinced that the Consent terms filed by the
parties are just and fair and are in the interest of
the Applicant/Party I and Respondent/Party II and
therefore, the same are accepted.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Applicant/Party I
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, stands disposed of in view of
the Consent Terms dated 25-1-2019 filed by
both the parties at Exhibit 33 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/139
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-01-2019 in Appl. No. 3/2012 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, 18th February, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 3/2012
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
895
Shri Eknath J. Rao,
Bhutawadi, Vironda,
Pernem, Goa-403 512.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Omkar,
Plot No. 58, Pilerne Industrial
Estate,
Pilerne, P.O. Betim,
Bardez, Goa 403 101.
… Respondent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Respondent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the
month of January of the year 2019)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant/
/Party I is that the Party I was employed as a Cutting
Operator with Party II w.e.f. Sept., 2002. The Party
I in December, 2011 called upon Party II to meet
their basic statutory demands but it did not like
the making of demands by the workers and started
terminating the services of the workmen one by
one without any cause. The Party I on 10-1-2012
was asked not to report for work from 11-1-2012.
The Party I was neither given a notice of one month
nor offered pay in lieu of notice nor any
compensation. The Party I thereafter intimated the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa about the
refusal of employment. However, The Party II did
not attend the discussion. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa also did not record the
report on failure. The action of Party II in refusing
the employment is illegal, unjust and malafide.
Hence, the dispute.
3. The Respondent/Party II filed a reply at
Exh. 7 inter-alia contending that the application is
wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. The
Party I remained absent without any prior
permission and on account of act of Party I of
sudden refusal to work and/or abandonment, the
factory operations of Party II came to a standstill.
The Party I created a situation for the Party II to
recruit new employee in his place to ensure the
survival of the organization. The Party I is not
entitled for any relief.
4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 8
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 12.
6. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and
filed a pursis for disposal of the above application
along with the consent terms dated 25-1-2019 at
Exh. 28 colly.
7. The terms of settlement are as follows:
(1) It is agreed between the parties that Mr.
Eknath J. Rao, Party I shall be paid an
amount of Rs. 1,38,283/- (Rupees one lakh
thirty eight thousand two hundred & eight
three only) towards gratuity, leave
encashment, compensation, bonus,
ex-gratia, etc. in full & final settlement of
all his legal dues.
(2) It is agreed between the parties that in
view of the payment of the amount agreed
in Clause 1 of these terms, Mr. Eknath J.
Rao does not press for service with the
Employer/Party II.
(3) It is agreed between the parties that both
the parties shall have no claim of
whatsoever nature against each other, other
than the amount payable on payment of
amount in Clause (1) above.
(4) It is agreed between the parties that the
above amount shall be paid to Mr. Eknath
J. Rao on or before 15-03-2019 by Account
Payee Cheque drawn in his name and
accordingly cheque dated 15-03-2019
drawn on Dena Bank, Panaji Branch
amounting of Rs. 1,38,283/- (Rupees one
lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred &
eighty three only) bearing No. 005303 is
handed over to the Party I.
(5) It is agreed that if the above amount is not
paid on or before the period agreed, the
Party II shall pay interest at the rate of 12%
from the date the amount fell due.
(6) The Party I herein declare that his claim in
the present dispute as well as claim in the
reference before the Industrial Tribunal
bearing Application No. 3/2012 is
conclusively settled.
(7) The Party II establishment shall issue a
bonafide service certificate to the
workman.
(8) The Parties pray that an award in terms of
above settlement be made and the
reference be disposed of.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
896
8. The above Consent terms are signed by the
Applicant, Shri Eknath J. Rao and Shri Samarth
Karekar, Partner of Party II, so also, Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar for Party I and Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat
for Party II. I have gone through the records of the
case and the above Consent Terms and I am
convinced that the Consent terms filed by the
parties are just and fair and are in the interest of
the Applicant/Party I and Respondent/Party II and
therefore, the same are accepted.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Applicant/Party I
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, stands disposed of in view of
the Consent Terms dated 25-1-2019 filed by
both the parties at Exhibit 28 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/140
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-01-2019 in Appl. No. 2/2012 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, 18th February, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 2/2012
Mr. Adesh K. Sawant,
At: Digne, Post: Margon,
Taluka: Sawantwadi,
District: Sindhudurg (MH) … Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Omkar,
Plot No. 58, Pilerne Industrial
Estate,
Pilerne, P.O. Betim,
Bardez, Goa 403 101.
… Respondent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Respondent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month
of January of the year 2019)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant/
/Party I is that the Party I was employed as an
Offset Printer with Party II w.e.f. April, 2010. The
Party I in December, 2011 called upon Party II to
meet their basic statutory demands but it did not
like the making of demands by the workers and
started terminating the services of the workmen
one by one without any cause. The Party I on
11-1-2012 was asked not to report for work from
12-1-2012. The Party I was neither given a notice of
one month nor offered pay in lieu of notice nor any
compensation. The Party I thereafter intimated the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa about the
refusal of employment. However, The Party II did
not attend the discussion. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa also did not record the
report on failure. The action of Party II in refusing
the employment is illegal, unjust and malafide.
Hence, the dispute.
3. The Respondent/Party II filed a reply at
Exh. 7 inter-alia contending that the application is
wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. The
Party I remained absent without any prior
permission and on account of act of Party I of
sudden refusal to work and/or abandonment, the
factory operations of Party II came to a standstill.
The Party I created a situation for the Party II to
recruit new employee in his place to ensure the
survival of the organization. The Party I is not
entitled for any relief.
4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 8
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 12.
6. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and
filed a pursis for disposal of the above application
along with the terms of the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 6-4-2017 at Exh. 29 colly.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
897
7. The terms of Memorandum of settlement are
reproduced herein:
(1) That the Party II shall pay an amount of
Rs. 24,000/- to Party I in full and final
settlement of all his claims.
(2) That upon receipt of the said payment of
Rs. 24,000/- the Party I and Party II shall file
a joint application before the Industrial
Tribunal, Panaji, Goa, for disposing of the
said application in terms of the present
settlement.
(3) That in compliance of the above terms,
the Party II has paid the said amount of
Rs. 24,000/- vide cheque No. 003391 dated
6-4-2017 drawn on Dena Bank, the receipt
of which the Party I do hereby admit and
acknowledge.
8. The above Memorandum of Settlement is
signed by the Party I, Shri Adesh Sawant and
Shri Samarth Karekar on behalf of the Party II. I
have gone through the settlement terms filed as
above, which in my view, are just and fair and in
the interest of the both the Applicant/Party I as
well as Respondent/Party II and hence the same
are accepted.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Applicant/Party I
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, stands disposed of in view of
the Memorandum of Settlement dated
6-4-2017 signed by both the parties at
Exhibit 29 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/141
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-01-2019 in Appl. No. 5/2012 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, 18th February, 2019.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 5/2012
Shri Shiva Nana Kashalkar,
H. No. 641, Panashi Wada,
Pernem, Goa-403 512.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Omkar,
Plot No. 58, Pilerne Industrial
Estate,
Pilerne, P.O. Betim,
Bardez, Goa 403 101.
… Respondent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Respondent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month
of January of the year 2019)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant/
/Party I is that the Party I was employed as a Cutting
Operator with Party II w.e.f. Aug., 2002. The Party I
in December, 2011 called upon Party II to meet
their basic statutory demands but it did not like
the making of demands by the workers and started
terminating the services of the workmen one by
one without any cause. The Party I on 9-1-2012 was
asked not to report for work from 10-1-2012. The
Party I was neither given a notice of one month nor
offered pay in lieu of notice nor any compensation.
The Party I thereafter intimated the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Mapusa about the refusal of
employment. However, the Party II did not
attend the discussion. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa also did not record the
report on failure. The action of Party II in refusing
the employment is illegal, unjust and malafide.
Hence, the dispute.
3. The Respondent/Party II filed a reply at
Exh. 8 inter-alia contending that the application is
wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. The
Party I remained absent without any prior
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
898
permission and on account of act of Party I of
sudden refusal to work and/or abandonment, the
factory operations of Party II came to a standstill.
The Party I created a situation for the Party II to
recruit new employee in his place to ensure the
survival of the organization, The Party I is not
entitled for any relief.
4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 9
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 13.
6. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and
filed a pursis for disposal of the above application
along with the consent terms dated 25-1-2019 at
Exh. 29 colly.
7. The terms of settlement are as follows:
(1) It is agreed between the parties that Mr.
Shiva N. Kashalkar, Party I shall be paid an
amount of Rs. 2,01,671/- (Rupees two lakhs
one thousand six hundred & seventy one
only) towards gratuity, leave encashment,
compensation, bonus, ex-gratia, etc. in full
& final settlement of all his legal dues.
(2) It is agreed between the parties that in
view of the payment of the amount agreed
in Clause 1 of these terms, Shiva N.
Kashalkar does not press for service with
the Employer/Party II.
(3) It is agreed between the parties that both
the parties shall have no claim of
whatsoever nature against each other, other
than the amount payable on payment of
amount in Clause (1) above.
(4) It is agreed between the parties that the
above amount shall be paid to Mr. Shiva N.
Kashalkar on or before 15-04-2019 by
Account Payee Cheque drawn in his name
and accordingly cheque dated 15-04-2019
drawn on Dena Bank, Panaji Branch
amounting of Rs. 2,01,671/- (Rupees two
lakhs one thousand six hundred & seventy
one only) bearing No. 005307 is handed
over to the Party I.
(5) It is agreed that if the above amount is not
paid on or before the period agreed, the
Party II shall pay interest at the rate of 12%
from the date the amount fell due.
(6) The Party I herein declare that his claim in
the present dispute as well as claim in the
reference before the Industrial Tribunal
bearing Application No. 5/2012 is
conclusively settled.
(7) The Party II establishment shall issue a
bonafide service certificate to the
workman.
(8) The Parties pray that an award in terms of
above settlement be made and the
reference be disposed of.
8. The above Consent terms are signed by the
Applicant, Shri Shiva N. Kashalkar and Shri Samarth
Karekar, Partner of Party II, so also, Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar for Party I and Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat
for Party II. I have gone through the records of the
case and the above Consent Terms and I am
convinced that the Consent terms filed by the
parties are just and fair and are in the interest of
the Applicant/Party I and Respondent/Party II and
therefore, the same are accepted.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Applicant/Party I
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, stands disposed of in view of
the Consent Terms dated 25-1-2019 filed by
both the parties at Exhibit 29 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/142
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-01-2019 in Appl. No. 4/2012 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, 18th February, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 4/2012
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
899
Shri Rajan Pandurang Kadam,
Sasoli, H. No. 177, P. O. Sasoli,
Tal. Dodamarg,
District: Sindhudurg-416 511.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Omkar,
Plot No. 58, Pilerne
Industrial Estate,
Pilerne, P.O. Betim,
Bardez, Goa 403 101.
… Respondent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Respondent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month
of January of the year 2019)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant/
/Party I is that the Party I was employed as an
Offset Helper with Party II w.e.f. Feb., 2007. The
Party I in December, 2011 called upon Party II to
meet their basic statutory demands but it did not
like the making of demands by the workers and
started terminating the services of the workmen
one by one without any cause. The Party I on
9-1-2012 was asked not to report for work from
10-1-2012. The Party I was neither given a notice of
one month nor offered pay in lieu of notice nor any
compensation. The Party I thereafter intimated the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa about the
refusal of employment. However, The Party II did
not attend the discussion. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa also did not record the
report on failure. The action of Party II in refusing
the employment is illegal, unjust and malafide.
Hence, the dispute.
3. The Respondent/Party II filed a reply at
Exh. 7 inter-alia contending that the application is
wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. The
Party I remained absent without any prior
permission and on account of act of Party I of
sudden refusal to work and/or abandonment, the
factory operations of Party II came to a standstill.
The Party I created a situation for the Party II to
recruit new employee in his place to ensure the
survival of the organization. The Party I is not
entitled for any relief.
4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 8
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 12.
6. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and
filed a pursis for disposal of the above application
along with the consent terms dated 25-1-2019 at
Exh. 27 colly.
7. The terms of settlement are as follows:
(1) It is agreed between the parties that Mr.
Rajan Pandurang Kadam, Party I shall be
paid an amount of Rs. 1,16,126/- (Rupees
one lakh sixteen thousand one hundred &
twenty six only) towards gratuity, leave
encashment, compensation, bonus,
ex-gratia, etc. in full & final settlement of
all his legal dues.
(2) It is agreed between the parties that in
view of the payment of the amount agreed
in Clause 1 of these terms, Rajan Pandurang
Kadam does not press for service with the
Employer/Party II.
(3) It is agreed between the parties that both
the parties shall have no claim of
whatsoever nature against each other, other
than the amount payable on payment of
amount in Clause (1) above.
(4) It is agreed between the parties that the
above amount shall be paid to Mr. Rajan
Pandurang Kadam on or before 15-04-2019
by Account Payee Cheque drawn in his
name and accordingly cheque dated
15-04-2019 drawn on Dena Bank, Panaji
Branch amounting of Rs. 1,16,126/- (Rupees
one lakh sixteen thousand one hundred &
twenty six only) bearing No. 005304 is
handed over to the Party I.
(5) It is agreed that if the above amount is not
paid on or before the period agreed, the
Party II shall pay interest at the rate of 12%
from the date the amount fell due.
(6) The Party I herein declare that his claim in
the present dispute as well as claim in the
reference before the Industrial Tribunal
bearing Application No. 4/2012 is
conclusively settled.
(7) The Party II establishment shall issue a
bonafide service certificate to the
workman.
(8) The Parties pray that an award in terms of
above settlement be made and the
reference be disposed of.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
900
8. The above Consent terms are signed by the
Applicant, Shri Rajan Pandurang Kadam and Shri
Samarth Karekar, Partner of Party II, so also, Ld.
Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for Party I and Ld. Adv.
Shri P. J. Kamat for Party II. I have gone through
the records of the case and the above Consent
Terms and I am convinced that the Consent terms
filed by the parties are just and fair and are in the
interest of the Applicant/Party I and Respondent/
/Party II and therefore, the same are accepted.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Applicant/Party I
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, stands disposed of in view of
the Consent Terms dated 25-1-2019 filed by
both the parties at Exhibit 27 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/143
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-01-2019 in Appl. No. 7/2012 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, 18th February, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Appl. No. 7/2012
Shri Ramesh Singh Kushwaha,
C/o. Jai Singh Rane,
H. No. 302, Navitim, Pilerne,
P. O. Betim, Bardez,
Goa-403 101.
… Applicant/Party I
V/s
M/s. Omkar,
Plot No. 58, Pilerne
Industrial Estate,
Pilerne, P.O. Betim,
Bardez, Goa 403 101.
…
Respondent/Party II
Applicant/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Respondent/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month
of January of the year 2019)
This is an application filed by the Applicant/
/Party I under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant/
/Party I is that the Party I was employed as an
Offset Printer with Party II w.e.f. 13-12-2011. The
Party I in December, 2011 called upon Party II to
meet their basic statutory demands but it did not
like the making of demands by the workers and
started terminating the services of the workmen
one by one without any cause. The Party I on
12-12-2011 was not allotted any work and on
13-12-2011 was not allowed to report for work. The
Party I however continued to go to the factory but
was refused employment. The Party I was neither
given a notice of one month nor offered pay in lieu
of notice nor any compensation. The Party I
thereafter intimated the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa about the refusal of
employment. However, The Party II did not
attend the discussion. The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa also did not record the
report on failure. The action of Party II in refusing
the employment is illegal, unjust and malafide.
Hence, the dispute.
3. The Respondent/Party II filed a reply at
Exh. 7 inter-alia contending that the application is
wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. The
Party I remained absent without any prior
permission and on account of act of Party I of
sudden refusal to work and/or abandonment, the
factory operations of Party II came to a standstill.
The Party I created a situation for the Party II to
recruit new employee in his place to ensure the
survival of the organization. The Party I is not
entitled for any relief.
4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 8
denying the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
901
5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 12.
6. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and
filed a pursis for disposal of the above application
along with the consent terms dated 25-1-2019 at
Exh. 38 colly.
7. The terms of settlement are as follows:
(1) It is agreed between the parties that Mr.
Ramesh Singh Kushwaha, Party I shall be
paid an amount of Rs. 3,80,544/- (Rupees
three lakhs eighty thousand five hundred
& forty four only) towards gratuity, leave
encashment, compensation, bonus, ex-
gratia, etc. in full & final settlement of all
his legal dues.
(2) It is agreed between the parties that in
view of the payment of the amount agreed
in Clause 1 of these terms, Ramesh Singh
Kushwaha does not press for service with
the Employer/Party II.
(3) It is agreed between the parties that both
the parties shall have no claim of
whatsoever nature against each other, other
than the amount payable on payment of
amount in Clause (1) above.
(4) It is agreed between the parties that the
above amount shall be paid to Mr. Ramesh
Singh Kushwaha on or before 15-02-2019
by Account Payee Cheque drawn in his
name and accordingly cheque dated
10-02-2019 drawn on Dena Bank, Panaji
Branch amounting of Rs. 3,80,544/- (Rupees
three lakhs eighty thousand five hundred
& forty four only) bearing No. 005305 is
handed over to the Party I.
(5) It is agreed that if the above amount is not
paid on or before the period agreed, the
Party II shall pay interest at the rate of 12%
from the date the amount fell due.
(6) The Party I herein declare that his claim in
the present dispute as well as claim in the
reference before the Industrial Tribunal
bearing Application No. 6/2012 is
conclusively settled.
(7) The Party II establishment shall issue a
bonafide service certificate to the
workman.
(8) The Parties pray that an award in terms of
above settlement be made and the
reference be disposed of.
8. The above Consent terms are signed by the
Applicant, Shri Ramesh Singh Kushwaha and Shri
Samarth Karekar, Partner of Party II, so also, Ld.
Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for Party I and Ld. Adv. Shri
P. J. Kamat for Party II. I have gone through the
records of the case and the above Consent Terms
and I am convinced that the Consent terms filed
by the parties are just and fair and are in the
interest of the Applicant/Party I and Respondent/
/Party II and therefore, the same are accepted.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Applicant/Party I
under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, stands disposed of in view of
the Consent Terms dated 25-1-2019 filed by
both the parties at Exhibit 38 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/144
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
30-01-2019 in reference No. IT/26/14 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, 18th February, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/26/14
The President,
Bicholim Urban Co-operative
Bank Employees Association,
Gurudatta Building, 3rd Floor,
Panaji-Goa, 403 001.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
902
The Managing Director,
Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank,
Head Office: Bicholim,
Goa, 403 504.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 30th day of the month
of January of the year 2019)
By Order dated 29-10-2014, bearing No. 28/33/
/2014-Lab/616, 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 demand of the Bicholim Urban
Co-operative Bank Employees Association,
for prohibition of direct recruitment to the
post of Junior Officers and filling-up of all
the vacancies through internal promotions
of Clerks with 15 years of service, is legal and
justified?.
(2)
If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/26/14 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 6 and
Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 7.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II has employed large number of employees
in various categories and it is obligatory for the
Bank to have recruitment and promotional rules
approved by Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
There are vacancies for the post of Junior Officers
in the Bank and the Party II held promotional test
and oral interviews for last several years, except
for the year 2013 for selection of Junior Officers
from employees who are working with Party II as
clerks. The Party II put advertisement in the local
newspaper in the year 2013 that there are
vacancies for the post of Junior Officers and invited
applications and thereafter held tests and
recruited fresh candidates as Junior Officers
denying opportunity to experienced staff. The Party
I objected to the same but the Party II did not
accept their demands. The direct recruitment of
Junior Officers is bad in law and the action of
Party II in recruiting fresh employees is in violation
of provisions of recruitment and promotional rules
of the Bank. Hence, the dispute.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II has
claimed that the Party II being a Co-operative Bank
is governed by the guidelines issued by the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time
on the appointment/engagement and promotion
of employees in various categories and besides the
guidelines, the Party I as well as Party II have
agreed to certain rules framed in respect of
promotions and recruitment from the workmen to
non-workmen categories as required under
settlement dated 30-3-2011. The Party II had framed
the recruitment/promotion policy in the year 2009
providing for reservation, promotion, recruitment,
etc. which was reframed in the year 2013 and
the same was approved by the Dy. Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Panaji dated 8-10-2013. The
Party I have not made out any case for the relief
claimed.
5. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 10 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that all
other Co-operatives Banks other than
Party II Bank, fill the posts of Junior Officers
through internal promotions of clerks with
15 years of services?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that the
Promotion Rules had been violated by Party
II in the year 2013 by not having internal
promotion test?
(3) Whether the Party I proves that the
recruitment as Junior Officers in the year
2013 was illegal and unjustified and is in
violation of recruitment and Promotion
Rules?
(4) Whether the Party II proves that the
reference is not maintainable as Party I has
not authorized the President of Party I to
espouse the cause of the workers in the
matter referred above?
(5) Whether the Party II proves that the
promotion from category of workmen i.e.
clerks to non-workmen i.e. Junior Officers
and direct recruitment of non workmen are
as per the Recruitment Rules framed by
the Party II and approved by the Dy.
Registrar of Societies, Govt. of Goa?
(6) Whether the Party II proves that the
reference made by the Government as to
the promotion and recruitment of the
Junior Officers (non-workmen) from the
category of workmen, constitutes a dispute
within the meaning of Section 83 of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
903
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act,1960 and Goa Co-operative Societies
Act, 2001 and Rules thereunder?
(7) What Award? What Order?
6. The Party I examined Shri Subhash Naik Jorge
and produced on record the documents at Exh. 15
to 23 colly. The Party I also examined Shri Santosh
N. Shetye and produced on records the documents
at Exh. 26 and 27 colly. On the other hand, the
Party II examined Shri Satish Jakhi and produced
on record the documents at Exh. 30 to Exh. 34 colly
and closed its case.
7. Heard arguments.
REASONS
Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7:
8. It is a matter of record that Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge for the Party I has filed an application at
Exh. 35 claiming that the Party I workmen are not
interested in pursuing the matter as the Party I has
submitted a Charter of demands on Party II seeking
improvement in the promotional policy and that
they are hopeful of discussing the matter and
resolve the same. He claimed that the Party I does
not want to pursue the matter and discuss and
settle the issue along with the pending Charter of
demands and therefore, no dispute award be
passed in the matter, to which Learned Adv. Shri
P. J. Kamat for the Party II has made an endorsement
on the said application stating that he has no
objection for passing a ‘no dispute award’ for the
reasons stated in the application. It appears that
the Party I is not interested in pursuing the matter,
although evidence has been led, for the reasons
stated above and desires to discuss and settle the
issue along with pending Charter of demands. The
Party I have thus failed to discharge the burden of
proving the above issues. Therefore, there remains
no dispute, claim and/or demand of whatsoever
nature against each other in the present reference.
Hence, the above issues are answered accordingly.
9. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands disposed of in terms of
the application at Exhibit 35.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/145
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
22-01-2019 in reference No. IT/18/14 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, 18th February, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/18/14
Workmen,
Rep. by the President,
Kamgarancho Ekvott,
Gurudutt Building, 3rd Floor,
Dada Vaidhya Road,
Panaji-Goa 403 001.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
1. M/s. Winsome Diamond &
Jewellery Ltd.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. M/s. Opaque Industries,
P-1 and 1-A, Tivim Industrial
Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa,
Bardez-Goa-403 507.
… Employer/Party II(2)
3. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank,
Head Office at Crescenz Building,
C-38, 39, G Block, Bandra,
Kurla Complex, Bandra,
East, Mumbai-400 051. … Employer/Party II(3)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II(1) ex-parte.
Employer/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Employer/Party II(3) ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 22nd day of the month
of January of the year 2019)
By Order dated 06-08-2014, bearing No. 28/20/
/2014-Lab/430, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
904
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. Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery
Limited and M/s. Opaque Industries,
P-1 & 1A, Tivim Industrial Estate,
Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa, in declaring
lay-off for the period from 03-09-2013 to
17-9-2013 and from 25-9-2013 to 22-10-2014
is legal and justified?
(2) If the answer to the issue No. (1) above is in
the negative, then to what relief the workmen
are entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/18/14 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Upon appearance, Party I filed
a Claim statement at Exh. 7 and Party II(2) filed a
Written statement at Exh. 10.
3. In short, the case of Party I in the claim
statement is that the Party II(1) was engaged in
the business of making gold, silver and diamond
Jewellery which was exported to other countries.
The Party II(2) was set up by Party II(1) to outsource
the production of Jewellery items. The
management of both the establishments is the same.
The production of the Jewellery was done by
Party II(2) and the workers were paid by Party II(1)
through Party II(2). The workers of Party II(2) became
the members of trade union viz. Kamgarancho
Ekvott and raised a Charter of demands on behalf
of the employees seeking revision of wages and
service conditions of their members and during
the meetings, a wage settlement was arrived at. It
is also the case of Party I that when the workers
reported for work on 3-9-2013 at the factory
premises, they found that the gates were closed
and the security did not allow them to report for
work.
4. The Party I further claimed that the workers
of Party II again reported on 4-9-2013 but they were
not allowed to report for work. They have been
reporting for work subsequently also but were not
allowed. The refusal of work w.e.f. 3-9-2013 amounts
to termination of service which is illegal and
unjustified. No retrenchment compensation was
made. The Party II had employed more than 100
employees and the services could not have been
terminated without obtaining prior permission from
the State Government as per the Industrial
Disputes Act. The action of the management is
illegal and unjustified. The workers however were
later allowed to work w.e.f. 3-9-2013 to 17-9-2013
and from 25-9-2013 to 22-10-2013 but they were not
paid full wages. The Party II cannot lay-off or
terminate the workers without the prior permission
of the Government of Goa. The action of the
Party II declaring lay-off from 3-9-2013 to 17-9-2013
and from 25-9-2013 to 22-10-2013 is illegal and
unjustified and the Party I workmen are entitled
for full wages for said period.
5. The Party II(2) filed a Written statement inter-
alia contending that the reference is bad in law
and filed with ulterior motives and malafide
intention. The Party II(2) as a contractor used to
pay wages to its workmen and the same was
reimbursed by Party II(1). The Party II(1) is a
complete and separate entity. The management
had discussed the matter of lay-off with the union
and was informed that there were no demands and
the customers are not lifting the finished goods
and as such the economic condition of the company
was in very precarious position which forced the
company to declare the lay-off. The Party II(1)
followed all the procedures required for lay-off and
also paid necessary benefits to all the workers as
per the law. The workers were laid off due to
sudden increase and constant fluctuation in the
rate of prime raw material of gold, drop in orders
and accumulation of finished products. The
management of the Party II(1) had employed only
32 workmen in the company. There are no justifiable
reasons given by Party I which requires
intervention by the Court in the alleged claim and
therefore the Party I is not entitled for any reliefs.
6. Issues came to be framed at Exh. 11 are as
follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of the Party II in declaring lay-off for the
period from 03-09-2013 to 17-09-2013 and
from 25-09-2013 to 22-10-2013 is illegal and
unjustified?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that the
termination is illegal and unjustified
and therefore Party I was entitled to
reinstatement with full back wages and
continuity of service?
(3) Whether Party II proves that reference is
not maintainable as claim of Party I is not
an “Industrial Dispute” as defined under
Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947?
(4) What Relief? What Order?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
905
7. In support of the case, Party I examined
Shri Subhash Naik Jorge, President of the Union.
A copy of Notice of lay off dated 2-9-20013 along
with enclosures at Exh. 15 colly were produced by
Party II(2) through the witness of Party I. On the
other hand, Party II(2) examined Shri Deelip Gauns
and closed its case.
8. Heard arguments.
9. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
As per Final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
10. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for Party I has
submitted that the Party II has closed the factory
gates and did not allow its workers to report for
work as usual for the period from 3-9-2013 to
17-9-2013 for a period of 15 days and from
25-9-2013 to 22-10-2013 for a period of 27 days and
that the said period of lay-off declared by the
company was illegal and unjustified. He further
submitted that refusal of work with effect from
3-9-2013 amounts to termination of services and is
illegal and unjustified, which is in violation of
mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted that
Party II employed more than 100 employees and
their services could not have been terminated
without obtaining prior permission of the State
Government as per the Act and therefore, the
workers are entitled for the relief claimed.
11. Learned Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for Party II(2)
has submitted that the company has been closed
and the workers have been paid all their dues in
terms of the law. There is no evidence on record
that the Party II had employed more than 100
workmen. The Party II had paid 50% wages to the
workmen who were laid off during above said
period and the said fact has been admitted by
witness of the Party I. The workers were laid off
after complying with all the procedures as required
under the Act. The documents produced on record
including notice along with the list of workmen
and other correspondence clearly point out that
there were only 27 workmen employed with Party
II and no contrary evidence in the form of
attendance register or wage register or documents
from Employees Provident Fund Organization or
Employees State Insurance Corporation showing
list of workmen have been produced on record and
therefore, the case of Party I cannot be accepted
having any merits.
12. There cannot be any dispute that Section
2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with
“lay-off”. It means the failure, refusal or inability of
an employer on account of shortage of coal, power
or raw materials or accumulation of stocks or break-
-down of the machinery or for any other connected
reason, etc. to give employment to a workman
whose name is borne on the muster rolls of the
industrial establishment and who has not been
retrenched. Admittedly, the Party I workmen were
laid off for the period from 3-9-2013 to 17-9-2013 for
the reasons mentioned in the notice dated
2-9-2013 at Exh. 15 colly wherein it is stated that
due to sudden increase and constant fluctuation
in the rate of prime material, drop in orders and
accumulations of finished products stock, the
management is left with no option but to give
lay-off to 14 workmen as mentioned in Annexure I
commencing from 3-9-2013 to 17-9-2013. Similarly,
as per notice dated 24-9-2013, 13 workmen have
been laid off for the period from 25-9-2013 to
22-10-2013 for the reasons mentioned in the
Annexure viz. (1) due to fluctuation in Gold rate,
no orders for products and (2) Accumulation of
finished product stock. The ‘lay-offs’ during the
above periods have not been disputed by Party I.
Admittedly, Section 25C under Chapter-VA of the
Act deals with right of a workman laid off for
compensation and under the said provision,
compensation to be paid to such persons shall be
equal to the 50% of the total of the basic wages
and dearness allowances. There is no dispute that
Party I has complied with the above provision of
the Act as admitted by Shri Subhash Naik Jorge on
page 2 of the cross examination.
13. It is the case of Party I that the Party II has
employed more than 100 workmen in the
establishment and that they have been terminated
without obtaining prior permission from the State
Government. Chapter V-B of the Act deals with
special provisions relating to lay-off, etc. Section
25-K under said Chapter deals with industrial
establishment in which not less than one hundred
workmen were employed on an average per
working day for the preceding twelve months and
under Section 25-M, no workman shall be laid off
by his employer except with the prior permission
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
906
of the appropriate Government, unless such lay
off-off is due to shortage of power or to natural
calamity. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge has admitted in
the cross examination that the present reference is
restricted to lay off for the period from 3-9-2013 to
17-9-2013 and from 25-9-2013 to 22-10-2013 as per
the reference. He has also admitted that he does
not have any document to show that there are
more than 100 workmen employed in the company.
The notices dated 2-9-2013 and 24-9-2013 at
Exh. 15 colly clearly show that there were in all 27
workmen who were laid-off by the company.
14. It is not the case of Party I that out of more
than 100 workmen employed by the company, only
27 workmen were laid off. No other documents
have been produced by the Party I to prove that
there were more than 100 workmen including
attendance register or wage register or any
document from Employees Provident Fund
Organization and Employees State Insurance
Corporation. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge has also
admitted that if the company employs less than
100 workmen, no prior permission is required and
when lay-off is given, the workers are not required
to attend their duties but are entitled for 50% of
the wages. He also admitted that the employer
paid 50% of the wages to the workmen who were
laid off during the said period. The witness of Party
II(2), Shri Deelip Gauns has categorically denied
that they have employed more than 100 workmen
during the above period. The evidence of Shri Deelip
Gauns has not been shaken. The Party I thus failed
to prove that the Party II have employed more than
100 workmen and that their lay-off is illegal and
bad in law for want of permission from the
appropriate Government. It therefore cannot be
said that the action of Party II in declaring the
lay-off during the said period is illegal and
unjustified and hence, the issue No. 1 is answered
in the negative.
Issue No. 2:
15. It is claimed by Party I that the termination
of their employment is illegal and unjustified and
that they are entitled for reinstatement with full
back wages and continuity in service. Shri Subhash
Naik Jorge however has admitted that the present
reference is restricted to only lay-off. He also
admitted that the Party II(1) and Party II(2) have
closed their operation on 31-1-2015 and during the
closure, the management has paid entire
compensation due to the workers as per law. There
is therefore no evidence on record to suggest that
the termination of the workmen is illegal and they
are entitled for the relief claimed. Hence, the issue
No. 2 is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 3:
16. It is also claimed by Party II that the
reference is not maintainable as the claim of
Party I is not an industrial dispute as defined under
Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, however
the Party II has not specified as to how the
reference is not maintainable and how the claim of
Party I is not an industrial dispute. The witness
examined by Party II(2), Shri Deelip Gauns has also
not stated anything as regards to the
maintainability of the claim of Party I nor any
witnesses from Party II(1) has been examined to
prove the said fact. It is therefore, issue No. 3 is
also answered in the negative.
Issue No. 4:
17. Once the Party I has failed to prove the action
of the management of Party II(1) and Party II(2) in
declaring ‘lay-offs’ for its workmen for the period
from 3-9-2013 to 17-9-2013 and from 25-9-2013 to
22-10-2013 is illegal and unjustified, the Party I
workmen are not entitled for grant of any reliefs as
claimed by them in the claim statement. Hence,
the above issue is answered accordingly.
18. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) It is hereby held the action of the
management of M/s. Winsome Diamonds and
Jewellery Limited and M/s. Opaque
Industries, P-1 & 1A, Tivim Industrial Estate,
Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa, in declaring lay-off
for the period from 03-9-2013 to 17.9.2013 and
from 25-9-2013 to 22-10-2013 is legal and
justified.
(ii) The Party I/Workmen are therefore not
entitled to any reliefs.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
907
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-I/164
The following Judgement passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa, on 25-01-2019 in Case
No. LC-II/LCC/06/2018 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, 22nd February, 2019.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/LCC/06/2018
Shri Arvind Phadte Gaonkar,
R/o. Fadte Wada, Aldona,
Banastarim, Goa.
…
Applicant
V/s
M/s. ESS DEE Aluminum Ltd.,
ESS DEE House,
Kandiwali (East),
Mumbai 400101.
…
Opponent
Workman/Party-I present in person.
Opponent absent, marked as ex-parte
Panaji, Dated: 25-01-2019.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall determine the claim
application of the Applicant dated 19-03-2018 filed
u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
2. By the present claim application, the
Applicant claimed an amount of Rs.14,34,000/-
(Rupees Fourteen lakhs thirty four thousand only)
towards his unpaid salaries, interest, leave
encashment etc.
3. A notice issued to the Opponent by registered
post A/D, has been duly served. The Opponent has
however, remained absent on the scheduled dates
of hearings. This court after giving ample
opportunities to the Opponent, marked an ex-parte
order against them and an ex-parte proceedings
were conducted.
4. This court framed the following issues on
27-08-2018 at Exb. 4.
1. Whether the Applicant proves that he is
entitled to receive from the Opponent a sum
of Rs. 14,34,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs
thirty four thousand only) being Rs. 1,70,000/-
towards unpaid salaries, Rs. 34,000/- towards
interest, Rs. 20,000/- towards leave encash-
ment and Rs. 12,00,000/- towards unpaid
wages till the date of his retirement?
2. What order?
5. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1: Partly in the affirmative and
partly in the negative.
(b) Issue No. 2: As per final order.
REASONS
6. Issue No. 1:
In order to prove his case, the Applicant has
examined himself and produced on record certain
documentary evidence in support of his oral
evidence. The evidence on record indicates that
the Applicant was in the employment of the
Opponent for the period from 08-09-2003 till
December 2017 as ‘Broiler Helper’. He was
re-designated as ‘Operator’. His annual CTC has
been revised to Rs. 1,41,728/- p.a. The Applicant
claimed that he has not been paid his earned
salaries, leave encashment, interest, P.F. and
gratuity etc. The claim of the Applicant has been
decided as under:
(a) Unpaid Salaries:
The evidence on record indicates that the
Applicant has not been paid his earned wages for
the month of May, 2016, June, 2016, August, 2016,
October, 2016, December, 2016, February, 2017, till
December, 2017 (for total sixteen months). The
monthly salary of the Applicant at the relevant
time was Rs. 9042/- after deducting statutory
Provident Fund and ESIC. Thus, the total unpaid
salaries for the total 16 months comes to
Rs. 1,44,672/- (Rupees One lakh forty four thousand
six hundred seventy two only).
(b) Leave Encashment:
The Applicant claimed two months leave
encashment. The evidence on record indicates that
the Applicant was having two months leave on his
credit at the time of closure of their office at Goa.
Hence, the Applicant is entitled for leave
encashment for two months, which comes to
Rs. 18,084/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand eighty four
only).
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
908
(c) Provident Fund and Gratuity:
The Applicant claimed gratuity as well as
provident fund. The Applicant is entitled for the
gratuity as well as provident fund under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Employees
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 respectively. Provisions have been made in
the said legislations for the payment of gratuity as
well as provident fund in the respective
legislations. Both the said legislations are complete
code containing derailed provisions covering all
the essential features of the scheme for payment of
Gratuity as well as Provident Fund. For the
enforcement of its provisions, the act provides for
the appointment of a controlling authority for
administering the act. He has been invested with
an amplitude of power for the full discharge of
his responsibilities under the Act. Any error
committed by him can be corrected in appeal by
the Appropriate Government or an Appellate
Authority particularly constituted under the Act.
In view of above, this Labour Court II has no
jurisdiction to decide the gratuity as well as
provident fund under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D.
Act, 1947.
(d) Interest:
The Applicant claimed interest @ Rs. 20% p.a.
The Applicant has however, failed to justify the
interest rate @ Rs. 20% p.a. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the Applicant is entitled to claim
interest @ Rs. 10% p.a. on the said amount from the
date of its actual realization till its maturity.
In view of above and with regards to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. The claim application of the Applicant dated
19-03-2018 is hereby partly allowed.
Consequently, it is held that the Opponent,
M/s. ESS DEE Aluminum Ltd., is hereby
directed to pay to the Applicant, Shri Arvind
Phadte Gaonkar a total sum of Rs. 1,62,756/-
(Rupees One lakh sixty two thousand seven
hundred fifty six only) being Rs. 1,44,672/-
(Rupees One lakh forty four thousand six
hundred seventy two only) towards his
unpaid salaries and Rs. 18,084/- (Rupees
Eighteen thousand eighty four only) towards
his leave encashment along with simple
interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of its
maturity till its actual realization.
2. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court II.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 11/2/2019-LD(Estt)/354
On the recommendation of the Chief Justice, High
Court of Bombay at Mumbai and Patron-in-Chief of
Goa State Legal Service Authority, conveyed vide
letter No. MSLSA/2019/16 dated 11-02-2019, the
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Smt. Sayonara Telles Laad, District Judge-2 & Addl./
/Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao as full time
Member Secretary of Goa State Legal Service
Authority under Section 6(3) of the Goa Legal Service
Authority, 1987 to exercise the power and perform
the function conferred on or assigned by the
Executive Chairman of the said Authority.
The expenditure on the salary and other
allowances shall be debited on the Budget
Head “2235—Social Security and Welfare; 60—Other
Social Security and Welfare Programmes;
200—Other Programmes; 02—State Legal Service
Authority (Non-Plan); 01—Salaries” under Demand
No. 62.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sachin S. Desai, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2019.
________
Notification
No. 12/29/2013/LD(Estt.)/365
The following Notification No. A.3902/G/2018/
/3156 dated 01-12-2018 which has been issued by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate
Side is hereby published for general information of
the public.
Sachin S. Desai, Under Secretary (Establishment).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
909
Notification by the High Court of Judicature
Appellate Side, Bombay
No. A.3902/G/2018/3156
Read: Order of Department of Law & Judiciary,
Law (Establishment) Division, Secretariat,
Porvorim-Goa bearing Nos. (1) 12-20-2017/
/LD/Estt./470 dated 15-03-2018 and (2)
13-5-2013-LD/Estt./P.F./2025 dated 13-11-2018.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
11(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(No. 2 of 1974), the Hon’ble High Court is pleased
to confer the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the
First Class on the following Civil Judges, Junior
Division and post them on temporary basis at the
places mentioned against their names with effect
from the date they assume charge of the post:-
Sr.
Name of the newly
Designation and place
No.
appointed Civil Judges
of posting
1
2
3
1. Miss Teisy Mascarenhas
Civil Judge, Junior
Division & Judicial
Magistrate First
Class, Mapusa,
District Panaji.
2. Miss Akshata
Civil Judge, Junior
Anand Kale
Division & Judicial
Magistrate First
Class, Margao,
District Margao.
3. Miss Purva
Civil Judge, Junior
Vishnudas Naik
Division & Judicial
Magistrate First
Class, Vasco-da-
Gama, District
Margao.
4. Miss Anusha
Civil Judge, Junior
Digamber Kaisukar
Division & Judicial
Magistrate First
Class, Mapusa,
District Panaji.
5. Shri Sabino Adrian
Civil Judge, Junior
Braganza
Division & Judicial
Magistrate First
Class, Margao,
District Margao.
6. Miss Pooja Shirish
Civil Judge, Junior
Dessai
Division & Judicial
Magistrate First
Class, Panaji,
District Panaji.
High Court, Bombay.
S. P. Tavade,
Dated: 1st December, 2018.
Registrar.
Notification
No. 12/29/2013/LD(Estt.)/366
The following Order No. HCB/GOA/PF/PMS/
2018 dated 30-11-2018 which has been issued by
the Registrar (Administration), High Court of
Bombay at Goa, Panaji, is hereby published for
general information of the public.
Sachin S. Desai, Under Secretary (Establishment).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2019.
______
High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji
Order
No. HCB/GOA/PF/PMS/2018
Read: Order dated 29-10-2018.
Application dated 12-11-2018 for withdrawal
of EL.
Earned Leave for 05 days w.e.f. 12-11-2018 to
16-11-2018 granted to Shri P. M. Shinde,
Dy. Registrar vide Order No. HCB/GOA/PF/PMS/
/2018 dated 29-10-2018 is hereby revoked in view of
his application dated 12-11-2018 praying for
cancellation of the same.
Sudhiir M. Deshpande, Registrar (Admin.)
Panaji, 30th November, 2018.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 5/12/2017-PER/597
As approved by the Competent Authority, Shri
Sanjit Rodrigues, on transfer as MD (GTDC) is
transferred and posted as Project Director, DRDA
(North), in public interest, with immediate effect.
He shall be governed by standard terms of
deputation as amended from time to time.
Consequently, Shri Brijesh Manerkar is posted as
Nodal Officer (Elections) in the office of Chief
Electoral Officer, Goa. He shall draw his salary
against the post of Leave and Training Reserve from
the date of his joining.
Shri Nikhil Desai, Director of Transport shall
continue to hold the charge of MD (GTDC) in
addition to his own duties.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 19th February, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
910
Order
No. 15/1/99-PER(Part)/603
With the approval of the Competent Authority, the following Officers in the cadre of Mamlatdar/
/Jt. Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies are posted with immediate effect, as under:-
Sr.
Name of the Officer
Present post
Posting during the
No.
Elections to Lok Sabha
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Dattaraj Krishna Gauns Dessai
Mamlatdar, Quepem
Jt. Mamlatdar-IV, Tiswadi.
2.
Shri Bhiku Gawas
Jt. Mamlatdar-IV, Tiswadi
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Salcete.
3.
Shri Rahul Chandrakant Desai
Jt. Mamlatdar-V, Tiswadi
Jt. Mamlatdar-VI, Bardez.
4.
Shri Rosario Carvalho
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Salcete
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Quepem.
5.
Kum. Shama Narvekar alias
Jt. Mamlatdar-VII, Salcete
Jt. Mamlatdar-V, Tiswadi.
Smt. Shama J. Arondekar
6.
Shri Ramesh Narayan Gaonkar
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Quepem
Mamlatdar, Quepem.
7.
Ms. Archana M. Faterpekar
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Tiswadi
Mamlatdar in Collectorate,
@ Smt. Archana S. Chodankar
North.
8.
Smt. Sapna Shrikant Naik Bandodkar Mamlatdar in Collectorate, North
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Tiswadi.
9.
Kum. Amalia Olivia Fatima Pinto
Jt. Mamlatdar-III, Bardez
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Tiswadi.
10.
Shri Anant Rajaram Malik
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Tiswadi
Jt. Mamlatdar-III, Pernem.
11.
Shri Rajaram Yeshwant Parab
Jt. Mamlatdar-III, Pernem
Jt. Mamlatdar-III, Bardez.
12.
Smt. Gautami Sachin Parmekar
Jt. Mamlatdar-V, Bardez
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Pernem.
13.
Smt. Akshaya Anish Amonkar
Jt. Mamlatdar-VI, Bardez
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Bicholim.
14.
Shri Dhiren D. Banavaliker
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Pernem
Jt. Mamlatdar-III,
Mormugao.
15.
Shri Anil V. Rane Sardessai
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Bicholim
Mamlatdar, Satari with
additional charge of Chief
Officer, Valpoi Municipal
Council.
16.
Shri Dasharath Gawas
Mamlatdar, Satari holding
Jt. Mamlatdar-V, Bardez.
additional charge of Chief
Officer, Valpoi Municipal
Council
17.
Shri Joao B. Fernandes
Mamlatdar, Salcete
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Canacona.
18.
Shri Manoj Korgaonkar
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Salcete
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Quepem.
19.
Kum. Ana Rita Maria Paes
Jt. Mamlatdar-IV, Salcete
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Sanguem
with additional charge of Jt.
Mamlatdar-II, Sanguem.
20.
Smt. Deona Elsa Perreira
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Quepem
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Salcete.
21.
Shri Prataprao Gaunkar
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Canacona
Mamlatdar, Salcete.
22.
Shri Madhu Narvekar
Jt. Mamlatdar-II, Sanguem
Jt. Mamlatdar-IV, Salcete.
23.
Smt. Avelina Dsa E Pereira
Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Sanguem
Jt. Mamlatdar-VII, Salcete.
All the above officers shall continue to draw their salary against the posts presently held by them,
as mentioned in column (3) of the order.
The officers shall report back to the post as indicated in column (3) after the General Election to House
of the People (Lok Sabha), 2019 process is complete.
The officers shall join their above posting immediately without availing joining time.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 19th Ferbruary, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
911
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 21/25/97-I/PHD/534
Government is pleased to accept the notice of
voluntary retirement dated 01-11-2018 tendered by
Dr. Bandana Pandey, Senior Pathologist under
Directorate of Health Services under Rule 48-A (1) of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to relieve her from
the post of Senior Pathologist under Directorate of
Health Services with effect from 01-03-2019 (f.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2019.
________
Order
No. 44/25/2017-I/PHD/560
Read: Memorandum No. 44/25/2017-I/PHD dated
20-12-2018.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/24(1)/2018/285 dated 05-12-2018,
Government is pleased to appoint the following
candidates to the post of Medical Officer
(Group “A” Gazetted) in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix
of 7th Pay Commission (PB-3 of Rs. 15,600-39,100+
GP: Rs. 5,400) under the Directorate of Health
Services with immediate effect as per the terms
and conditions contained in the Memorandum
cited above:-
1. Dr. Sapna Shekhar Bute.
2. Dr. Sidhant Shripad Shet.
The above doctors shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
The above doctors have been declared medically
fit by the Medical Board. The character and
antecedents in respect of Dr. Sapna Shekhar Bute
has been verified by the Additional District
Magistrate, North Goa, Panaji.
The appointment of Dr. Sidhant Shripad Shet is
subject to the verification of his character and
antecedents. In the event of any adverse matter
noticed by the Government on verification of
character and antecedents, his services shall be
terminated.
Consequent upon the appointment of the above
doctors, they are posted at the places indicated
against their names:-
Sr.
Name of the doctor
Place of posting
No.
1. Dr. Sapna Shekhar Bute
North Goa District
Hospital, Mapusa.
2. Dr. Sidhant Shripad
Sub-District Hospital,
Shet
Ponda.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary
(Health).
Porvorim, 21st February, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
__
Order
No. 35/2/2013-RD/477
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
9A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of
1899), as in force in the State of Goa, the
Government of Goa, hereby permits the Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Goa Divisional
Office, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the “LIC
Goa”), to pay a consolidated stamp duty of Rs. 2.30
Lakhs (Rupees two lakhs thirty thousand only) in
lieu of payment of duty by affixing revenue stamp
on the receipts issued by its offices in the State of
Goa, towards payment of premium on Life
Insurance Policy and various other payments made
to external and internal customers viz. staff, agents
and contractors etc. (hereinafter referred to as the
“said receipts”), with effect from 1st January, 2019
to 31st December, 2019 subject to the following
conditions, namely:-
(a) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the
said receipts issued during the above period
falls short of the stamp duty consolidated
herein and paid to the Government, the
excess consolidated stamp duty shall not
be refunded.
(b) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the
said receipts issued during the above period
exceeds the stamp duty consolidated herein
and paid to the Government, the balance
amount due towards the stamp duty shall
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019
912
be paid to the Government Treasury by the
LIC Goa latest by the first week of January,
2019.
(c) A detailed report of the total stamp duty
payable on the said receipts issued by the
offices of the LIC Goa, in the State of Goa,
shall be submitted to the Secretary
(Revenue), Revenue Department, Government
of Goa, on or before the 30-09-2018.
This issues with the concurrence of the Finance
(Revenue & Control) Department vide their U.O.
No. 546 dated 07-02-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 18th February, 2019.
________
Order
No. 21/2/Misc/II/2018-RD/478
Sub.:- Transaction of Land Sale/Gift, Mutation,
Power of Attorney etc. by widows to be
endorsed by the Deputy Collector SDO’s.
Read: 1. Order No. 21/2/Misc./II/2018-RD/963
dated 22-05-2018.
2. Circular No. 21/2/Misc/II/2018-RD dated
04-10-2018.
Government is pleased to appoint Dy. Resident
Commissioner, Goa Sadan, Government of Goa,
New Delhi to issue Certificate as mentioned in the
above read Order and Circular, issued by this
Department, if the residence of the widow is from
Delhi.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Social Welfare
Directorate of Social Welfare
__
Order
No. 58-9-97-BC-Vol.IV/5/5929
Read: Order No. 58-9-97-BC-Vol. IV/5/1212 dated
15-05-2015.
In observance of the Rule-9 of the SC/ST (POA)
Rules, 1995, the Government of Goa hereby
nominates Shri Sanjiv Gadkar, Additional Secretary
to Government of Goa as Nodal Officer for
co-ordinating the function of District Magistrate,
Superintendent of Police & authorized Officers
responsible for implementation of the provision of
the Act.
This supersedes the earlier Order issued in this
matter with approval of the Government 595/F
dated 25-01-2019.
Venancio Furtado, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Social Welfare).
Panaji, 21st February, 2019.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 22.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—372/160–2/2019.