Panaji, 7th March, 2019 (Phalguna 16,1940)

SERIES II No. 49

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]

941

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Order

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(I)/348

On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service

Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/2(1)/2017/364 dated 25-01-2019, Government is pleased to

promote the following Agriculture Officers to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’

Gazetted, in the Directorate of Agriculture on regular basis in the Pay Band of PB-III Rs. 15,600-39,100+Rs.

5,400/- Grade Pay corresponding in the pay matrix at Level 10 as per 7th Pay Commission with immediate

effect.

Shri Rajesh B. Dessai.

Smt. Shobhan Ugavekar.

Shri Dilip Paranjape.

Smt. Rena Menezes.

Shri Chandrahas Naik Dessai.

Shri Anant P. Hoble.

Shri Nitin K. Bhakale.

On promotion they are posted as shown below:

Sr.

Name of the officer

Designation & place of

Place of posting on regular promotion

No.

present posting

to the post of Assistant Director

of Agriculture

1. Shri Rajesh B. Dessai

Officiating Assistant Director of

On regular promotion as Dy. Director

Agriculture (Hort.), Directorate of

(SAMETI-I)-Goa on deputation in the

Agriculture

pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+ Rs. 6,600/-

Grade Pay (Level-11 of the pay matrix)

with additional charge of Subject Matter

Specialist (Plant Protection), Krishi

Vigyan Kendra, South.

Note:-

There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 48 dated 28-02-2019 as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 01-03-2019 from pages 913 to 914 regarding Order from Department of Elections.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 05-03-2019 from pages 915 to 940 regarding Notifications and Form 1 from

Department of Panchayati Raj & Community Development.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

942

Smt. Shobhan S.

Officiating Assistant Director of

On regular promotion as Dy. Director

Ugavekar

Agriculture (Extension),

(SAMETI-II)-Goa on deputation in the

Directorate of Agriculture

pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+Rs. 6,600/-

Grade Pay (Level-11 of the pay matrix)

by relieving Shri Shiwanand Wagle

of additional charge. She will hold

additional charge of Asst. Director of

Agriculture-II, District Agriculture Office,

North.

Shri Dilip Paranjape

On deputation against the post

On promotion on regular basis by

of Dy. Project Director, ATMA-

curtailing the deputation period against

North

the post of Dy. Project Director (ATMA-

North) and posting on deputation against

the post of Project Director (ATMA-North)

in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+

Rs. 6,600/- Grade Pay (Level-11 of the

pay matrix) with additional charge of

newly created post of Assistant Director

of Agriculture-I, District Agriculture

Office, North and of Dy. Project Director,

ATMA-North.

Smt. Rena Menezes

On deputation of Goa State

On promotion on regular basis by

Horticulture Corporation Ltd.,

curtailing the deputation period against

as Manager (Farm)

the post of Manager (Farm) proposed

posting against the post of Assistant

Director of Agriculture (Ext.).

Shri Chandrahas

Zonal Agriculture Officer,

On promotion on regular basis as

Dessai

Canacona

Subject Matter Specialist (Agronomy),

Krishi Vigyan Kendra, South with

additional charge of Zonal Agriculture

Officer, Canacona.

Shri Anant Hoble

On deputation against the

On promotion on regular basis by cur-

post of Dy. Project Director

tailing the deputation period against

(ATMA-North)

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.

Shri Nitin Bakhale

Agriculture Officer (RKVY),

On promotion on regular basis against

Directorate of Agriculture

the newly created post of Assistant

Director of Agriculture (PP & RKVY),

Directorate of Agriculture with additio-

nal charge of Agriculture Officer (RKVY).

The above promoted officers shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of their

joining in the regular post of Asst. Director of Agriculture.

They shall exercise their option within one month from the date of promotion to fix their pay in terms

of F. R. 22(I) (a) (1).

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 19th February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

943

Order

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(II)/349

On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service

Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/2(1)/2017/364 dated 25-01-2019, Government is pleased

to promote and appoint the following Agriculture Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted, to the post of Assistant

Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’ Gazetted on officiating basis in the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 +

Rs. 5,400/- Grade Pay which is at Level-10 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix with immediate effect until

further orders or till the post is filled on regular basis whichever is earlier.

1) Shri Kishore N. Bhave.

2) Shri Pradeep M. Malik.

On promotion on officiating basis, they shall be posted as below:

Sr.

Name of the officer

Place of posting on

Budget Head

No.

and place of posting

officiating basis

Shri Kishore N. Bhave,

As Assistant Director of Agriculture

2401 — Crop Husbandry;

Zonal Agriculture Officer,

(FT), Ela, Old Goa by relieving

00 —

Bicholim/Sankli

Shri Rajesh Dessai of additional

109 — Extension & Farmers

charge, with additional charge

Training;

of Zonal Agriculture Officer,

05 — Extension Training

Bicholim and Sankli

Centre;

01 — Salaries.

Shri Pradeep Malik,

As Assistant Director of Agriculture

2401 — Crop Husbandry;

Zonal Agriculture Officer,

(Crops), with additional charge

00 —

Tiswadi

of Zonal Agriculture Officer, Tiswadi

001 — Direction & Administra-

tion;

01 — Directions;

01 — Salaries.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 19th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(I)/350

Government is pleased to transfer the following Officers of this Directorate to “State Agricultural

Management and Extension Training Institute (SAMETI)” and “Agricultural Technology Management

Agency (ATMA)” with immediate effect. The deputation of Officers shall be initially for a period of two

years from the date of taking charge of respective post and shall be governed by standard terms and

conditions of deputation as contained in the O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER dated 12-02-1999 and amended from

time to time.

Sr.

Name of the

Present designation & place

Place of posting on

Pay scale on deputation

No.

officer

of posting

deputation

posting

1. Shri Shriram

Subject Matter Specialist

As Project Director

Rs. 15,600-39,100 + 6,600

Dhaimodkar

(Agron), KVK, South

(ATMA-South Goa)

Grade Pay (Level-11 of the

pay matrix).

2. Shri Rajesh B.

Assistant Director of Agriculture

Dy. Director (SAMETI-

Rs. 15,600-39,100 + 6,600

Dessai

(Hort.), Directorate of Agriculture

Goa)-I

Grade Pay (Level-11 of the

pay matrix).

3. Smt. Shobhan

Assistant Director of Agriculture

Dy. Director (SAMETI-

Rs. 15,600-39,100 + 6,600

S. Ugavekar

(Extension), Directorate of

Goa)-II

Grade Pay (Level-11 of the

Agriculture

pay matrix).

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

944

4. Shri Dilip

Agriculture Officer, on deputation

On regular promotion

Rs. 15,600-39,100 + 6,600

Paranjape

against the post of Dy. Project

as Assistant Director

Grade Pay (Level-11 of the

Director, ATMA-North (which

of Agriculture against pay matrix).

has been curtailed)

the post of Project

Director (ATMA-North)

The deputation period of Shri Dilip Paranjape, at Sr. No. 4 against the post of Dy. Project Director,

ATMA-North shall stand curtailed from the date he assumes the charge of his new posting as Project

Director–ATMA (North Goa).

This is issued with the concurrence of the Government vide U. O. No. 1252/F dated 13-02-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 19th February, 2019.

________

Addendum

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(I)/363

Read: 1) Order No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part(I)/348 dated 19-02-2019.

2) Corrigendum No. 2/9/95-AGR/2018-19/Part (I)/360 dated 22-02-2019.

In the above referred order the following may be added in column No. 4 designation & place of present

posting of incumbent at Sr. No. 8 Shri Nitin Bakhale:

“He shall draw his pay and allowances under Budget Head 2401—Crop Husbandry; 00; 102—Foodgrain

Crops; 02—Crop Production & Input Management; 01—Salaries”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 25th February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Higher Education

Order

No. ADMN/APPT./CHAIRMAN/GEDC/36/2018/5865

Read: Notification No. 2/23/Accts/DHE/09-10/PF-I/

/53 dated 06-04-2017.

In exercise of the power conferred under

Section 9 of the Goa Education Development

Corporation Act, 2003 (Act No. 22 of 2003), the

Government of Goa is pleased to appoint

Shri Gajanan P. Bhat as Director of the Goa

Education Development Corporation with

immediate effect in place of Ms. Rukma Sadekar

(resigned).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sachin S. Desai, Under Secretary (Higher

Education/Link).

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

Directorate of Technical Education

Polytechnic Section

Order

No. 17/3/12/2008/DTE/2575

Approval of the Government is hereby conveyed

for acceptance of Notice of Voluntary Retirement

under Rule 48(A) (1) of CCS (Pension Rules), 1972 in

respect of Smt. B. K. Jayalakshmi, Lecturer in

Physics, Humanities & Science Department of

Government Polytechnic, Panaji.

Smt. B. K. Jayalakshmi may be relieved from her

duties with effect from 06-03-2019 (A.N.) from the

post of Lecturer in Physics, Humanities & Science

Department, Government Polytechnic, Panaji.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional

Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

945

Department of Environment

Order

No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part-I/910

In pursuance of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the

Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000,

the Government of Goa is pleased to direct the

“authority” specified in the Government

Notification No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/922 dated

04-12-2007, published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 37 dated 13-12-2007, Notification No.

7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/1545 dated 15-01-2010 and

Notification No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part-I/104 dated

23-04-2015, to permit the use of loudspeakers or

public address system during night hours (between

10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) during the year 2019,

on the days specified in the Schedule hereto,

throughout the State of Goa.

This permission is subject to following terms

and conditions:-

1. The permission shall be granted only on a

case-to-case basic, in response to a specific

application made by the concerned Village

Panchayat, Municipal Corporation/Municipal

Council or an individual.

2. The provisions of the Noise Pollution

(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 shall be

strictly complied with.

3. The ‘authority’ concerned shall monitor the

noise levels during the permitted festive

occasion and take prompt remedial action in

the event of any violation of the same and

of above conditions.”

SCHEDULE

Sr.

Cultural/Religious Festive

Date

No.

occasion

1. Carnival (Last day of carnival)

05-03-2019.

2. Holi

20-03-2019.

3. Easter Eve

21-04-2019.

4. Ganesh Chaturthi (2nd day of

03-09-2019.

idol immersion)

5. Ganesh Chaturthi (5th day of

06-09-2019.

idol immersion)

6. Anant Chaturdashi

12-09-2019.

7. Navaratri (1st day of Navaratri)

29-09-2019.

8. Navaratri (last day of Navaratri)

07-10-2019.

9. Kojagiri Poornima

13-10-2019.

10. Diwali Eve

26-10-2019.

11. Diwali

27-10-2019.

12. Tripurari/Kartiki Poornima

12-11-2019.

13. Christmas Eve

24-12-2019.

14. Christmas

25-12-2019.

15. New Year’s Eve

31-12-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Ravi Jha, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary.

Porvorim, 26th February, 2019.

________

Notification

No. 86-3-2019/ENVT/NOTI/923

Ref.: Order dated 16-1-2019 issued by the Hon’ble

National Green Tribunal in the matter of

Original Application No. 606/2018.

In pursuance to the order of Hon’ble National

Green Tribunal (NGT) as cited above, the State

Government hereby constitutes the State Level

Committee with the following members:-

1. Chief Secretary

— Chairman.

2. Secretary (Environment)

— Member.

3. Secretary (Urban Develop-

— Member.

ment)

4. Secretary (Health)

— Member.

5. Secretary (Rural Develop-

— Member.

ment)

6. Chief Engineer, Water

— Member.

Resources Department

7. Chief Engineer, Public Works

— Member.

Department

8. Director, Department of

— Member.

Environment

9. Director, Department of

— Member.

Urban Development

10. Director, Directorate of

— Member.

Industries

11. Director, Directorate of

— Member.

Panchayat

12. Director, Directorate of Health — Member.

13. Chief Town Planner, Town

— Member.

and Country Planning

Department

14. Managing Director, Goa Waste — Member.

Management Corporation

15. The Member Secretary, Goa

— Member

State Pollution Control

Secretary

Board (GSPCB)

of the

Committee.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

946

The Committee shall work as per the directions

of Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 606/

/2018. The Committee may invite experts and

officials from relevant fields for deliberation and

advice in its meeting as and when required.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Ravi Jha, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Environment).

Porvorim, 28th February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Finance

Revenue & Control Division

Order

No. 38/10/2018-Fin(R&C)

On the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide their letter

No. COM/II/11/43(1)/2019/400 dated 27-02-2019, the

following Assistant Commercial Tax Officers in the

Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are

promoted to the post of Commercial Tax Officer

(Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300-

-34,800+ Rs. 4,600 (GP) (Level 7 of the 7th Pay

Commission) on regular basis with immediate

effect:-

Sr.

Name of the Officers

No.

Smt. M.L.A. Vaz e Fernandes.

Smt. Gina I. Anes.

The above officers shall be on probation for a

period of two years from the date of their joining.

They shall exercise option for fixation of pay in

the promotional post within a period of one month

from the date of issue of Order.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Michael M. D’Souza, Addl. Secretary (Finance).

Porvorim, 01st March, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Forest

Order

No. 4-3-2014/FOR/81

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide letter No. Com/II/

/11/22(1)/16/370 dated 18-02-2019, the Governor of

Goa is pleased to promote Shri Vikas V. Dessai,

Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF), to the post of

Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF), Group “A”

Gazetted, in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100+6,600

(Level-11 of the 7th Pay Commission) on regular

basis in the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator

of Forests, Forest Department, Panaji with immediate

effect.

The above officer shall be on probation for a

period of two years.

The officer shall exercise the option for fixation

of pay within one month from the date of this order

in terms of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1).

The pay of officer on promotion shall be fixed as

per C.C.S. (RP) Rules, 2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forests).

Porvorim, 25th February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Industries

Directorate of Industries, Trade & Commerce

Order

No. DITC/ADM/GEN-421/2009-10/2090

In pursuance to the Right to Information Act,

2005 and powers vested in me under Section 5(1)

of the said Act, I hereby designate the following

Officers as First Appellate Authority, State Public

Information Officers and State Assistant Public

Information Officers:-

Sr.

Designation of the

Designated as

No.

officers

1. Deputy Director

State Public Information

(Administration),

Officer (I)

Directorate of

Industries, Trade

1. Establishment Section

& Commerce

2. Accounts Section

3. Statistical Section

4. Development-II Section

5. I.T. Section

2. Deputy Director

State Public Information

(Industries),

Officer (II)

Directorate of

Industries, Trade

1. Development-I Section

& Commerce

2. Registration Section

3. HPCC/IPB Cell

4. Scrapyard Section

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

947

5. MSME Council

6. Online Registration/

/Udyog Aadhaar

7. Ease of Doing Business

The following shall be the State Assistant Public

Information Officer against the section mentioned

below under State Public Information Officer-I

and II.

Sr.

Section

State Assistant

No.

Public Information

Officer (I)

1. Establishment Section

Office Superintendent.

2. Accounts Section

Assistant Accounts

Officer.

3. Statistical Section

Statistical Officer.

4. Development-II Section

Planning Officer.

5. I.T. Section

Functional Manager-II.

6. Any Miscellaneous

Office Superintendent.

Area

State Assistant Public

Information Officer (II)

1. Development-I Section

Functional Manager-I.

2. Registration

Functional Manager-I.

3. HPCC/IPB Cell

Functional Manager-I.

4. Scrapyard Section

Functional Manager-II.

5. MSME Council

Functional Manager-I.

6. Online Registration/

Functional Manager-I.

Udyog Aadhaar

7. Ease of Doing

Functional Manager-II.

Business

In terms of provisions of Section 19 of the said

Act, the General Manager (DIC) will be the First

Appellate Authority under this Act to hear the

appeals against the decision of the State Public

Information Officers of the Department.

The power and functions of the above officers

are defined and specified in the Notification of

Right to Information, 2005.

This order supersedes the earlier order issued

vide No. 3/421/2009-10/AD/DITC/PIO/2662 dated

26-05-2017.

V. P. Dangui, Director (Industries, Trade and

Commerce).

Panaji, 28th February, 2019.

Corrigendum

No. 10/4/2012-IND/107

Read: Government Notification No. 10/4/2012-

-IND/80 dated 13-02-2019.

In partial modification of the above cited

Notification, the entry at serial No. 2 “Shri Vishwajit

Krishnarao Rane, Vice Chairman, Valpoi-Goa”, shall

be substituted to read as under:-

“Shri Deepaji Hirbarao Rane Sardesai,

Kumarkhand, Pissurelem, Satari”

All the other contents of Notification shall remain

unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).

Porvorim, 1st March, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Order

No. 28/26/2018-LAB/171

Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management or M/s. Chowgule and Company

Private Limited, Material Handling Division,

Khandepar, Ponda, Goa, and it’s workmen

represented by the United Mine Workers Union, in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule

hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said

dispute”);

And whereas the Government of Goa considers

it expedient to refer the said dispute for

adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as

the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby

refers the said dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted

under Section 7-A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Chowgule and Company Private Limited,

Material Handling Division, Khandepar,

Ponda-Goa, in refusing to concede the

following demands raised by the United Mine

Workers Union, vide letter dated 01-04-2016,

is legal and justified?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

948

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

Demand No. 1. Pay Scales:

Grades:

I-4000-125-4625-135-5300-145-6025-155-6800-165-

-7625-175-8500-185-9425-200-10425-225-11550-250-

-12800-275-14175-300-15675.

II-4100-140-4800-150-5550-160-6350-170-7200-180-

-8100-190-9050-200-10050-215-11125-240-12325-265-

-13650-290-15100-315-16675.

III-4200-155-4975-165-5800-175-6675-185-7600-195-

-8575-205-9600-215-10675-230-11825-255-13100-280-

-14500-305-16025-330-17675.

IV C-IV-4300-170-5150-180-6050-190-7000-200-8000-

-210-9050-220-10150-230-11300-245-12525-270-

-13875-295-15350-320-16950-345-18675.

V-4400-185-5325-195-6300-205-7325-215-8400-225-

-9525-235-10700-245-11925-260-13225-285-14650-

-310-16200-335-17875-360-19675.

VI CL-III-4500-200-5500-210-6550-220-7650-230-

-8800-240-10000-250-11250-260-12550-275-13925-

-300-15425-325-17050-350-18800-375-20675.

VII-4600-215-5675-225-6800-235-7975-245-9200-255-

-10325-265-11650-275-13025-300-14525-325-16150-

-350-17900-375-19775-400-21775.

VIII-4700-230-5850-240-7050-250-8300-260-9600-270-

-10950-280-12350-290-13800-315-15375-340-17075-

-365-18900-390-20850-415-22925.

IX CL-II-4800-245-6025-255-7300-265-8625-275-

-10000-285-11425-295-12900-305-14425-330-16075-

-355-17850-380-19750-405-21775-430-23925.

X-4900-260-6200-270-7550-280-8950-290-10400-300-

-11900-310-13450-320-15050-345-16775-370-18625-

-395-20600-420-22700-445-24925.

XI CL-I-5000-275-6375-285-7800-295-9275-305-10800-

-315-12375-325-14000-335-15675-360-17475-385-

-19400-410-21450-435-23625-460-25925.

XII-5100-290-6550-300-8050-310-9600-320-11200-330-

-12850-340-14550-350-16200-375-18075-400-20075-

-425-22200-450-24450-475-26825.

Damand No. 2. Flat Rise:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

given flat rise at the rate mentioned below:

Grade: I, II, & III

:Rs. 3000/-

Grade: IV, V & VI, CL-IV & CL.III

:Rs. 3150/-

Grade: VII, VIII, IX, & CL III

:Rs. 3300/-

Grade: X, XI, XII & CL-I

:Rs. 3500/-

The above amounts should be added to the

existing basic and thereafter fitted in the revised

pay scale in the higher stage.

Demand No. 3. Seniority Increments:

Union demands that the workmen should be

given Seniority increments as mentioned below:

Service up to 3 years

: One Increment.

Service from 3 years to

: Two Increments.

7 years

Service from 7 years to

: Three Increments.

10 years

Service from 10 years to

: Four Increments.

15 years

Service from 15 years to

: Five Increments.

20 years

Service from 20 years to

: Six Increments.

25 years

Service from 25 to 30 years : Seven Increments.

Service above 30 years

: Eight Increments.

Demand No. 4. Variable Dearness Allowance:

Union demands that the VDA shall be paid at

the revised rate of Rs. 4.5/- per point rise beyond

1770 points (1960=100) the computation of VDA

shall be made quarterly based on the average

consumer price index of preceding quarter. The

amount of VDA up to 1770 points shall be merged

in the Basic. And the VDA up to 1770 points shall

be merged in the Basic.

Demand No. 5. House Rent Allowance:

Union demands that HRA should be paid at the

revised rate of 30% of Basic and Dearness

Allowance, as the cost of accommodation is very

high in Goa due to Tourist State.

Demand No. 6. Children Education Allowance:

Union demands that an amount of Rs. 1250/-

shall be added to the existing Children Education

Allowance of all the workmen.

Demand No. 7. Conveyance Allowance:

Union demands that an amount of Rs. 1000/-

shall be added to the existing Conveyance

Allowance of all the workmen.

Demand No. 8. Transport facility:

Union demands that the free transport facility

should be provided to those workmen who are

presently not provided with this facility. The detail

routes shall be given at the time of negotiations.

Demand No. 9. Washing Allowance:

Union demands that the existing washing

allowance is insufficient to meet the cost of

washing the uniforms and hence Washing

Allowance be revised to Rs. 750/- per month per

workmen.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

949

Demand No. 10. Uniforms:

Union demands that two sets of terrycloth

stitched Uniforms shall be given to all the workmen

once in a year, in the month of January every year.

Demand No. 11. Paid Holidays:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays at rate 16 days per year.

Demand No. 12. Leave:

Union demands that all the workers should be

given leave on following basis:

Earned Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen should be given Earned Leave at

the rate 35 days E.L. per year with

accumulation up to 120 days and leave shall

be allowed to take 10 times in a year. It is

further demanded that Weekly off days falling

in between the leave shall be excluded from

the leave.

Casual Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen should be given Casual Leave at

the rate of 12 days per year with encashment

facility.

Sick Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen should be given Sick Leave at the

rate of 15 days per year and accumulation up

to 60 days.

Demand No. 13. Leave Travel Assistance:

Union demands that LTA should be paid at the

revised rate of one month gross wages instead of

present practice fixed amount, with minimum of

four earned days leave. The amount shall be paid

one week before the commencement of leave.

Demand No. 14. Medical Reimbursement:

Union demands that all workmen are working in

the dusty place that causes major hazards to the

health of the workers and as such the cost of

medicine is very high which cannot be met with

the wages paid to the workmen. We therefore

demand that the cost of all medical expenses of

self and family shall be reimbursed by the company

without any ceiling. And in case the workmen want

to opt for medical allowance, such workmen shall

be paid medical allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- per year.

Demand No. 15. Promotion Policy:

Union demands that the separate promotion

policy should be promulgated in consultation with

the Union. The detail promotion policy will be

submitted to the management at the time of

negotiations.

Demand No. 16. Loan:

Union demands that interest free loan of

Rs. 200000/- should be granted for house repair

and construction of house. And Rs. 50000/- to meet

the expenses towards the purchase of household

articles or marriage of self or his/her family member,

scooter etc.

Demand No. 17. Gifts:

Union demands that workmen should be given

service award as mentioned below:

Service up to 5 years gift worth Rs. 3500/- with

service certificate.

Service from 5 years to 10 years gift worth Rs. 5000/-

with service certificate.

Service from 10 years to 20 years gift worth Rs.

7500/- with service cetificate.

Service above 20 years gift worth Rs. 10000/- with

certificate.

Union further demands that those workmen

retire shall be given 20 gram Gold chain.

Demand No. 18. Festival Allowance:

Union demands that all the workman shall be

paid Festival Allowance @ Rs. 5000/- once in a

year at the time of festival to meet the additional

expenses incurred by him for such festival.

Demand No. 19. Out station allowance:

Union demands that those workmen who are

required to work on out station duty within Goa,

they shall be paid the out station allowance at the

rate of Rs. 300/- per day and Rs. 500/- per day for

out of State.

Demand No. 20. Supply of Raincoats/Umbrella and

safety shoes:

Union demands that the workmen shall be

supplied with Raincoats of Duck Back, Gumboots

of Swastik make, Stag Brand Umbrella and Safety

shoes of BATA make every year.

Demand No. 21. Employment next to kin:

Union demands that the kin of the workmen

who died or retired shall be given employment in

the company.

Demand No. 22. Bonus/Ex-gratia:

Union demands that all the workers shall be

paid Bonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 30% of gross

wages every year before Diwali.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

950

Demand No. 23. Up gradation:

Union demands that those employees could not

get higher grade such employees should be

upgraded in higher grade as and when they

completes years in one grade.

Demand No. 24. Canteen subsidy:

Union demands that all the workers shall be

paid Canteen allowance @ Rs. 1000/- per month

per workman.

Demand No. 25. Ambulance:

Union demands that as there is no ambulance

provided at present in the entire shift, ambulance

should be provided in all the three shifts.

Demand No. 26. Shift Allowance:

The Union demands that all the workmen who

work in the third shift shall be paid shift allowance

@ rate of Rs. 200/per third shift worked.

Demand No. 27. Cash handling Allowance:

Union demands that those workers who handle

the cash shall be paid cash handling allowance @

rate Rs. 500/per month.

Demand No. 28. Gratuity:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

paid gratuity @ 30 day per year of service.

Demand No. 29. Supply of sweater:

Union demands that all the workers shall be

given one sweater in the month of September every

year.

(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the

negative, then, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 26th February, 2019.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-II/163

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-01-2019 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/9/2017 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, 22nd February, 2019.

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/9/2017

Shri Hemant G. Shet,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Appts.,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa.

…

Workman/Party-I

V/s

The Hindustan Foods Ltd.,

Marvasodo, Usgao,

Ponda-Goa.

…

Employer/Party-II

Workmen/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri S.

Gaonkar.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P. J.

Kamat.

Panaji, dated: 30-01-2019

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the

Government of Goa, by Order dated 09-05-2017,

bearing No. 28/12/2017-LAB/315, referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour

Court of Goa at Panaji-Goa.

“(1) Whether Shri Hemant G. Shet, Sales

Representative could be construed as

“workman” as defined under Section 2 (s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central

Act 14 of 1947)?

(2) If the answer to the issue No. (1) above is in

the affirmative, then whether the action of

the management of M/s. Hindustan Foods

Limited, Marvasodo, Usgao, Ponda, Goa in

transferring the workman, Shri Hemant G.

Shet, Sales Representative, to Jammu, with

effect from 10-10-2016, is legal and justified?

(3) If the answer to the issue No. (2) above is in

the negative, then, what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/09/2017 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

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

951

03-08-2017 at Exb. 4. He stated that he was

appointed as ‘Sales Representative’ at the head

office of the Employer/Party II (for short, ‘Employer’)

at Panaji, Goa, w.e.f. 01-11-2011. He stated that since

his joining he was working in Goa. He stated that

he was performing the duties such as physically

collecting the orders from the distributors from

Goa, submitting the detail order to the sales

department of the factory for processing the order

collected by him, physically checking the stock of

each distributor and submitting the data of

physical stock to the department, physical

preparation of daily reports, attending the thirty

daily calls and preparing the daily reports and

submitting the same to his higher authorities,

preparing the monthly report of the material sold

and verification of opening and closing stock of

the distributors and other clerical works as

assigned by his superior.

3. He stated that in the month of October, 2013,

he was transferred to the factory at Usgao, Ponda,

Goa vide letter dated 01-10-2013 and continued to

work till November, 2014. He stated that during

this period he has carried out the work of clerical

nature in the engineering department. He stated

that from November, 2015 again he was deputed

back to his original department at head office,

Campal, Panaji, Goa. He stated that after his transfer

to head office, his superior started harassing him

and hence in the month of September, 2016, he

joined the union namely Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh.

He stated that as a part of harassment, he was

issued a malafide transfer order dated 01-10-2016

transferring him to Jammu factory, though there is

no factory of the Employer. He stated that he was

appointed by the Chief Executive Operation,

Campal, Panaji, Goa and the transfer order was

issued to him by the authorized signatory at Usgao

factory. He stated that on receipt of the said transfer

order, he made a representation dated 16-11-2016

stating that his transfer order is illegal, unjustified

and bad-in-law, issued only with malafide

intensions to victimize him. He stated that as the

management has not withdrawn the said transfer

order, he raised a dispute through his union namely

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide union letter dated

27-10-2016. He stated that the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner, Ponda called both the parties for

intervention, which ended in failure.

4. The workman contended that as he had

worked in the factory as clerk, he had offered

himself to continue to carry out the same work in

the factory and his request was not considered

only because the management wanted to victimize

him. He submitted that the impugned transfer order

is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. He submitted

that the said transfer order is malafide. He

submitted that as per his appointment letter, he

had been appointed at Panaji and that there was

no specific clause of transfer anywhere in India

and hence, the said transfer order issued to him

was illegal and bad-in-law. He submitted that there

is no factory of the Employer in Jammu and Kashmir

and this fact clearly proves that he was

intentionally transferred to Jammu. He submitted

that the transferred place is very far from Goa and

the service conditions are different from that of

Goa. He submitted that after the transfer order, he

is unemployed. The Workman therefore prayed that

the action of the Employer in transferring him to

Jammu be held as illegal, unjustified and malafide

and direct the Employer to cancel the malafide

transfer and post him at his original place of

appointment and that too with full wages from the

date of transfer till the date of allowing him to

resume the duty at his original place of posting.

5. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

21-08-2017 at Exb.5. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that, what

is referred for adjudication is not an ‘industrial

dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the said Act, that

the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh is not a recognized

union with the Employer and that the present

dispute cannot be said to be an ‘industrial dispute’

merely because a letter of demand is made on the

letter head of the union, that the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh has no locus standi to raise an

industrial dispute on behalf of the individual

workman and that this Labour Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference.

6. The Employer stated that it is a limited

company registered under the Indian Companies

Act, 1956 and is having its corporate headquarters

and registered office at Campal, Panaji, Goa. The

Employer admitted that the Workman was

appointed by them as a Sales Representative

w.e.f. 01-11-2011 vide letter of appointment dated

01-11-2011. The Employer stated that the Workman

was confirmed in its service w.e.f. 01-09-2012 vide

letter dated 31-08-2012. The Employer stated that

the letter of appointment dated 01-11-2011

specified the terms and conditions of service of the

workman, which he had accepted at the time of

his appointment. The Employer stated that as per

Clause 10 of the appointment letter, it states that

“although at the present moment, you would be

required to attend to your duties at our head office,

Panaji, it is agreed and understood that you will

perform the companies duties at such other places

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

952

as the company may direct without any extra

remuneration. The Employer stated that for the

business exigencies and requirements, the services

of the workman were transferred to Jammu vide

letter dated 01-10-2016 and was requested to report

to the Jammu factory on 10-10-2016 by

10.00 a.m. The Employer submitted that as the

Workman was transferred to Jammu in the State of

Jammu and Kashmir, the appropriate Government

to raise any dispute before the authority is the

Jammu and Kashmir State and not Goa State

Government. The Employer therefore submitted

that the Government of Goa has no jurisdiction to

refer the present dispute to this Hon’ble Labour

Court II for adjudication and on this ground itself

the reference is bad-in-law. The Employer stated

that since the Workman was transferred to Jammu,

the Workman should have reported at the

transferred place and then only ought to have raised

the dispute before the appropriate authority of the

respective State. The Employer stated that the cause

of action arise at the transferred place. The

Employer stated that it is a better judge to run its

business in professional manner and in the interest

of organization. The Employer stated that it has

full jurisdiction and power to deploy the appropriate

manpower at the appropriate place depending

upon the business exigencies and requirements.

The Employer stated that the present transfer is

arising out of the business exigencies and

necessities. The Employer stated that the transfer

is within the provisions of law and as per the

appointment letter and this Hon’ble Labour Court

should not interfere with the administrative

decision of the Employer.

7. Without prejudice to its aforesaid contentions,

the Employer submitted that the Party I is not a

‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of

the I.D. Act, 1947. The Employer stated that it is

governed by the Certified Standing Orders

applicable to its workmen category. The Employer

stated that Clause 17 of its Certified Standing

Orders also provides for transfer of a workman from

one place to another or from one establishment to

another of the ownership or management of the

firm provided that by reason of such transfer the

emoluments, grade, continuity of service and other

conditions of service of the workman are not

adversely affected. The Employer stated that

instead of reporting for duty at the transferred

place, the Workman through the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh sent a letter dated 27-10-2016 to the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner, Ponda, Goa requesting the

said office to intervene in the matter of the said

transfer contending that the said transfer is illegal,

malafide, unjustified, bad-in-law and also to

victimize him. The Employer stated that after the

issue of transfer of order dated 01-10-2016, it had

also given option to the Workman either to go to

Jaipur or Himachal Pradesh location if he is not

comfortable to go to Jammu vide its letter dated

11-11-2016 in reply to email request to cancel his

transfer order. The Employer stated that the

Workman received the said letter, but did not report

to the place of transfer nor intimated anything in

the matter. The Employer stated that it has filed its

reply to the demand of the Workman on 17-12-2016

denying the allegations of the said union made in

its demand letter dated 27-10-2016 and reiterating

its reasons for transfer of the workman at Jammu.

The Employer stated that the letter of appointment

issued to the Workman as well as its Certified

Standing Orders clearly empowered them to

transfer the services of any employee at its

discretion in the interest of the company from one

department to another or from one place to other

or from one establishment to another of the

ownership or management of the firm. The

Employer submitted that by the said transfer, the

existing wages, grade, continuity of service and

other conditions of service of the workman are not

adversely affected. The Employer therefore

submitted that its action in transferring the

services of the Workman is within the parameters

of the provisions of law and this court should not

interfere with the same. The Employer denied the

overall case as pleaded by the Workman and prayed

for dismissal of the present reference.

8. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on

19-09-2017 at Exb. 07. The Workman, by way of his

rejoinder, denied each and every statement,

averments and submissions made by the Employer

in its written statements which are contrary and

inconsistent to the statements, averments and a

submission made in his statement of claim and

reiterates his case as pleaded in his statement of

claim.

9. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties, this court framed the following issues on

06-10-2017 at Exb. 8.

Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that

he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of

Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947?

Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the

action of the Employer in transferring his

services to Jammu w.e.f. 10-10-2016 is illegal

and unjustified?

Whether the Employer/Party II (1) proves that

the present order of reference is bad-in-law

in view of the reasons stated in para 2 (a),

2 (b) and 2 (d) of the Written Statement?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

953

Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to

any relief?

What order? What award?

10. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a)

Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b)

Issue No. 2

Does not arise.

(c)

Issue No. 3

In the negative.

(d)

Issue No. 4 & 5 :

As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.

Shri S. Gaonkar, appearing for the Workman as well

as Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat, appearing for the

Employer. Ld. Advocates appearing for the

respective parties also filed their synopsis of

written arguments.

11. Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat, representing the

Workman, during the course of his oral arguments

submitted that the Party I was appointed as ‘Sales

Representative’ by the Employer w.e.f. 01-11-2011

at Panaji, Goa. He submitted that the predominant

nature of duties of Party I were such as physically

collecting the orders from the distributors from

Goa, submitting the detail order to the sales

department of the factory for processing the order

collected by him, physically checking the stock of

each distributor and submitting the data of

physical stock to the department, physical

preparation of daily reports, attending the thirty

daily calls and preparing the daily reports and

submitting the same to his higher authorities,

preparing the monthly report of the material sold

and verification of opening and closing stock of

the distributors and other clerical works as

assigned by his superior. He submitted that the

aforesaid duties performed by the Party I were

clerical in nature although he was designated as

Sales Representative. He submitted that the

Party I is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of

Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. In support of his oral

submissions he relied upon two judgments of

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, one in the case of

Promer Sales v/s. Manohar, reported in 1993 I

Mah LJ 537 and another in the case of Berger

Paints India Ltd. v/s. C.N. Raut, reported in 2002

(1) LLN 200. He submitted that the appointment

letter issued to the Party I as well as Standing

Orders of the Employer at the time of his joining

did not contemplate transfer to a place to be set

up in the future or even to a place outside Goa. In

support of his oral submissions, he relied upon two

judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, one

in the case of Kundan Sugar Mills v/s. Ziyauddin

and Ors., reported in 1960 (2) SCR 918 and another

in the case of Crest Communications Ltd. v/s.

Ms. Sheetal, reported in (2001) 4 Mah 919. He

submitted that at the time of employment of the

Party I, it was not in the contemplation that the

workman could be transferred to any location

outside Goa and as such the transfer order is illegal.

He submitted that it is settled law that the

Employer has right to transfer on account of

business exigencies. He submitted that in the

preset case, it has been proved beyond doubt that

there were no business exigencies in Jammu in

October, 2016, when the transfer order was passed

by the Employer. He submitted that it has also

come on record that the Jammu Kashmir started

functioning only in January, 2018 and as such there

was no administrative exigencies in October, 2016

when the transfer order was issued to the Workman.

He therefore submitted that the transfer order

issued to the Workman is illegal and malafide. He

further submitted that the Employer challenged

the present reference by contending that what is

referred for adjudication is not an industrial dispute

as defined u/s 2 (k) of the said Act, that the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh is not recognized union

with the Employer and that the present dispute

cannot be said to be an industrial dispute merely

because a letter of demand is made on the letter

head of the union, that the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh has no locus standi to raise an industrial

dispute on behalf of an individual workman and

that this Labour Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain and try this reference. He submitted that

the burden to prove the said issue is on the

Employer. He submitted that a bare perusal of the

definition of the term ‘industrial dispute’ as defined

u/s 2 (k) of the said Act, made clear that any dispute

between the employer and employee which is

connected to matter of employment is an industrial

dispute. He submitted that a question of transfer

is undoubtedly an industrial dispute. He submitted

that the Party I has produced a joining letter dated

15-09-2016 (Exb.14) which gives permission to the

union to raise any dispute on his behalf. He

submitted that espousal by a trade union can be

in any form and is not required to be only by

resolution. In support of his oral submissions he

relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of J.H. Jadhav v/s. Forbes

Gokak Ltd. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 202. He also

relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble High Court

of Bombay in support of his oral submissions, one

in the case of Polypharma Pvt. Ltd. v/s. K. Sabha

reported in 2006 (2) LLN 716 and another in the

case of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v/s.

State reported in 1995 (2) Mh LJ 248. He

submitted that the Employer has also take a stand

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

954

as to the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Goa

to make the present reference. He submitted that

as the entire cause of action has been taken in the

State of Goa, the reference is valid. In support of

his oral submissions, he relied upon a judgment of

Bombay High Court, one in the case of Glaxo

Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v/s. Abhay Raj

Jain, reported in 2002 (4) Mh LJ 426 and another

in the case of Mohan Mhatre v/s. Udaipur

Distillery Co. Ltd. reported in 2003 (4) Mh LJ

1047. He submitted that since the management

has used the device of transfer as a mean to

dispense with the services of the Workman, he is

entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. In

support of his oral submissions, he relied upon the

following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court.

(a) In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase

v/s.

Kranti

Junior

Adhyapak

Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and Ors., reported

in 2014 II CLR 813.

(b) In the case of Sudarshini v/s. Presiding

Officer, reported in 2017 SCC 8390 and

reported in 2014 SCC 3434.

12. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat

representing the Employer during the course of

his oral arguments submitted that it has pleaded

in its written statement that what is referred for

adjudication is not an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined

u/s 2 (k) of the said Act, that the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh is not recognized union with the Employer

and that the present dispute cannot be said to be

an industrial dispute merely because a letter of

demand is made on the letter head of the union,

that the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh has no locus

standi to raise an industrial dispute on behalf of an

individual workman and that this Labour Court

has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this

reference. He submitted that a dispute can be an

industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2

(k) of the said Act only when it is espoused or

sponsored by the union of workmen i.e. the union

functioning in the establishment or by substantial

number of workmen of the said establishment. He

submitted that an individual employee cannot by

himself raise a dispute u/s 2 (k) in respect of his

transfer and any such dispute by an individual

workman is not an industrial dispute under the

said section. In support of his oral submissions he

relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Newspaper Ltd. v/s. State Industrial

Tribunal reported in 1950-83 SC LJ Vol. 6 page

411 and in the case of Bombay Union of Journalist

and Ors. v/s. The Hindu Bombay and Anr.,

reported in 1950-83 SC LJ Vol. 6 page 1. He also

relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay in the case of Singapore Airlines Ltd. and

Anr. v/s. Mr. Quentin Rodrigues reported in 2008

II CLR 627 Bom. He submitted that Party I has also

not produced any documentary evidence such as

resolution taken by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

admitting the Party I as its member and/or

resolution by the union showing that a substantial

number of workmen of the Employer are members

of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and/or that the

dispute of the Party I was taken up by the

substantial number of workmen of the Employer

and/or the resolution passed by the union

authorizing the General Secretary of the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh to espouse the cause of the

Party I. He submitted that except the Party I no

other workers of the Employer were members of

the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh nor it is the case of

the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh that the workmen of

the Employer are members of their union. He

submitted that the Party I has failed to produce

any such evidence. He therefore submitted that

the preset dispute represented by the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh is not an industrial dispute as

defined u/s 2 (k) of the said Act. In support of his

oral submissions, he relied upon a judgment in the

case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v/s.

Dimakuchi Tea Estate, reported in 1950-83 Vol. 6

SC LJ 334. He submitted that the present dispute

is the dispute of transfer. He submitted that the

transfer is an incidence of service and if the transfer

is a condition of service it cannot be faulted except

on the ground of malafide or there being statutory

violation. He submitted that the Party I was

transferred vide letter dated 01-10-2016. He

submitted that the Party I had not disputed the

said transfer till 27-10-2016 on which date the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh had sent a letter to the

ALC, Ponda, requesting the said authority to

intervene in the matter of alleging illegal and

malafide transfer contending victimization. He

submitted that the Party I has not pleaded as to

how the said transfer is malafide and illegal or as

to how the Party I was victimized and for what

reason. He submitted that the Party I has not

produced any evidence to that effect. He submitted

that the Employer has a factory at Jammu is clear

from the factory license at Exb. 29 and the said

license has been transferred in the name of the

Employer in the year 2018. He submitted that the

services of the Party I have been transferred to

Jammu for business requirement. He submitted

that the Party I was appointed as a Sales

Representative and to promote the business of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

955

Employer. He submitted that if the Employer desires

to promote its business in Jammu, no fault can be

found in such decisions. He submitted that in the

State of Jammu the Employer has the authorized

representative, Mr. Ashok Kumar Dabas to whom

the Party I is required to report for further

instructions. He submitted that the Party I has

however, not reported to Jammu and raised a

contention that the transfer is malafide, illegal etc.

In support of his oral submissions, he relied upon

judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, one in the case

of Cipla Ltd. v/s. Jaya Kumar and Anr., reported

in 2000 (84) FLR 80 and in the case of Suresh S.

Bhamre and Anr. v/s Devendra Purushottam

Shinde, Police Inspector, Nasik and Ors., reported

in 2003 (III) CLR 382. In the matter of V.I.P.

Industries Ltd. (formerly Aristocrat Luggages

Ltd.) Satara v/s. Maharashtra Kamgar Karmachari

Sanghatana, reported in 2008 III CLR 22 of Hon’ble

High Court of Bombay.

I have also carefully perused the entire records

of the present case. I have also considered the

various submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates

appearing for the respective parties and is of the

considered opinion as under.

REASONS

13. Issue No. 1:

The burden to prove the issue No. 1 was cast on

the Workman. In order to prove the issue No. 1, the

Workman examined himself and produced certain

documentary evidence in support of his oral

evidence.

The term ‘workman’ has been defined under

Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and it reads as under:

“Section 2 (s), “Workman” means any person

(including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or

reward, whether the terms of employment be

expressed or implied and for the purposes of any

proceedings under this act in relation to an industrial

dispute, includes any such person who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with or a consequence of that dispute or dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has laid to that dispute,

but does not include any such person

(1)

who is subject to the AIR Force Act, 1950

(45 of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of

1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or

(2)

who is employed in the police service or as

an Officer or other employee of a prison or

(3)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity

(4)

who, being employed in a supervisory

capacity draws wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/-

per mensem or exercises either by the nature

of the duties attached to the office or by

reason of the powers vested in him,

functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

Thus, one has to prove that his predominant

nature of duties shall fall in any of the categories

i.e. manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory work.

14.

In the case of Promer Sales Pvt. Ltd.

(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has

held that the Respondent was employed as sales

representative. He has to work as per the directions

and supervision of his superiors. He was not

permitted to take any initiative in the matter of

discharge of his duties. He had no managerial,

administrative or supervisory functions to perform.

While doing his main job as a salesman, he was

also doing some clerical work. He was also

performing the work of repairing radios. He used

to collect the due amounts by way of cheques,

demand drafts, cash and book fresh orders and

give receipts for the same. He gave daily reports of

his work to his Employer and more specifically to

the area sales executive. The Hon’ble High Court

has held that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, it could be said that the complainant was a

‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of

the Act.

15. In the case of Berger Paints India Ltd.

(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the

Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as ‘Sales

Representative’ in 1986 and subsequently

promoted as ‘Senior Sales Representative’ in 1988.

It was the duty of the Respondent No. 1 to obtain

order, collect payment against goods supplied,

submit daily report of sales performance, collect

the outstanding from the dealer and also to appoint

new dealers within the jurisdiction of Mumbai city.

The Hon’ble High Court has held that “the aforesaid

duties performed by the Respondent No. 1 are mainly

of clerical in nature and as such the Respondent No.

1 is a ‘Workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.”

16. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay in its aforesaid judgments are

well recognized and applicable to the case in hand.

16. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the

Party I was appointed by the Employer as Sales

Representative w.e.f. 01-11-2011 vide its letter dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

956

01-11-2011 (Exb.11). The services of the Party I were

confirmed w.e.f. 01-09-2012 vide letter of the

Employer dated 13-08-2012 (Exb.12). The Party I

was issued an appointment letter dated 01-11-2011

(Exb. 11). As per clause 11 of the said appointment

letter at Exb.11, the Party I would be held

responsible to achieve the set sales targets as

communicated to him by his superiors from time to

time with the responsibility of collecting the sales

proceeds and that in case of his failure to fulfill the

sales targets and collection of sales proceeds

thereof, the same will amount to violation of terms

of his appointment. The Party I also pleaded and

also stated on oath that as a sales representative

of the Employer, he used to make frequent visits to

the market/shops and used to take down their

requirement for particular products. This

requirement was taken by him and communicated

to the distributor. He used to take orders from the

distributors and report to the Employer and upon

his report to the Employer, then he used to make

bill and supply to the distributors. He used to help

in physically putting the stock in the rikshaw to

deliver the products to the distributors. He used to

collect cheques from the distributors and submit

the same to the Employer. He used to prepare daily

reports of the quantity of each products that were

requested by the distributors.

17. The sole witness of the Employer Shri Biju

Nair, the Sr. Executive, HR and authorized signatory

in his oral evidence deposed that the Party I was

not performing any of the duties as pleaded by

him. The said witness of the Employer, however, in

his cross examination admitted that he is not aware

of the day to day functioning of the sales

representative in Goa. He further deposed that the

sales representative does the promotion of activity

of the products of the Employer. The said witness

of the Employer admitted that the Party I being a

sales representative, he had to sell the products

manufactured by the Employer at his transferred

place. Though the Employer denied that the

Party I was not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of

Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, the Employer has

failed to plead as well as produce on record any

evidence pertaining to the predominant nature of

duties and responsibilities of the Party I.

Thus, the predominant nature of the duties and

responsibilities performed by the Party I as Sales

Representative were of clerical in nature and as

such the Party I is a ‘workman’ within the meaning

of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. In view of

above, it is held that the Party I proved that he is

a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of

the I.D. Act, 1947. The issue No. 1 is therefore

answered in the affirmative.

18. Issue No. 3:

I am deciding the issue No. 3 first, prior to the

issue No. 2 as the findings of the issue No. 3 goes

to the very root jurisdiction of this court.

The Employer, in its written statement, filed in

the present proceedings submitted that the

reference is not maintainable as what is referred

for adjudication is not an ‘industrial dispute’ as

defined u/s 2 (k) of the said Act, that the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh is not a recognized union with the

Employer and that the present dispute cannot be

said to be an industrial dispute merely because a

letter of demand is made on the letter head of the

union, that the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh has no

locus standi to raise an industrial dispute on behalf

of an individual workman and that this Labour

court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this

reference.

19. The Bombay High Court in the case of Iqbal

Ahmed Kamaruddin v/s. P.L. Majumdar, reported

in 1992 (64) FLR 827 in para 8 of its judgment held

as follows:

“8. if what is referred to a Tribunal/Labour

Court is not an industrial dispute, it is always

open to the party to show to the forum that

the dispute referred for adjudication though

purported to be an industrial dispute, is in

reality not an industrial dispute at all. This

has always been recognized as an exception

to the general rule postulated in section 10 (4).

It is therefore always permissible for an

Employer to raise an issue as to whether what

has been referred is not an ‘industrial dispute’

at all and there can be no question of the

Tribunal being bound by the order of the

reference. It is a settled law that the

Appropriate Government makes a reference

upon the prima facie view of the matter as to

the existence or apprehension of an industrial

dispute. It is open to the parties to show that

what is referred is not in reality an industrial

dispute at all.”

20. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in its case

of Deepak Industries Ltd., and Anr. v/s State of

West Bengal reported in 1975 Lab. I. C. 1153 has

held that “mere negotiations by some officials of

the union with the Employers for conciliations or

executing certain documents on behalf of the

Workman prior to reference are not conclusive proof

of the authority of the Union, to represent the

workman whose dispute it is espousing before the

Tribunal”.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

957

21. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court as well as Hon’ble Calcutta

High Court in the above referred cases, makes it

clear that the Employer is entitled to raise an

objection that the dispute referred is not an

Industrial Dispute, even after the reference is made

by the Government and the mere fact that the

Employer participated in the conciliation

proceedings or did not raise any objection during

the conciliation proceedings, does not debar the

Employer from raising the objection before the

Tribunal in a reference that the Union has no locus

standi to raise the dispute and hence there is no

Industrial Dispute.

22. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the

reference is not maintainable because there is no

‘industrial dispute’ as the union namely the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh has no locus standi to

raise the dispute on behalf of the workman as

contended by the Employer.

23. The term ‘industrial dispute’ has been defined

u/s. 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it means any

dispute or difference between employers and

employers, or between employers and workmen, or

between workman and workmen, which is

connected with the employment or non-

employment or the terms of employment or with

the conditions of labour, of any person. Thus, in

order to prove a dispute is an ‘industrial dispute’

within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Act, it

must be shown that (a) the dispute is connected

with the employment or non-employment of the

workman, (b) the dispute between the single

workman and his employer was sponsored or

espoused by the union of workmen or by a number

of workmen. The phrase ‘the union’ merely

indicates the union to which the employee belong

even though it may be a union of minority of the

workmen, (c) the establishment had no union of its

own and some of the employees had joined the

union of another establishment belonging to the

same industry. In such a case, it would be open to

the union to take up the cause of the workmen, if

it is sufficiently representative of those workmen,

despite the fact that such union was not

exclusively of the workmen working in the

establishment concern.

24. In the case of The Newspapers Ltd. (supra),

before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the third

Respondent was appointed as Lino Typist by the

Appellant Company but on allegations of

incompetence he was dismissed from service. His

case was not taken up by any union of workers of

the Appellant Company nor by any of the unions

of Workmen employed in similar or allied trades,

but the UP Working Journalists Union, Lucknow,

with which the third Respondent had no

connection, took the matter to the conciliation

board, Allahabad. Ultimately the Government made

the reference to the Industrial Tribunal by a

notification in which one of the points for

determination referred was as to whether the

services of the third Respondent were wrongfully

terminated by the management. The legality of the

reference was challenged by the Appellant and

the question was raised as to whether a dispute

between an employer and a single workman falls

within the definition of “industrial dispute” under

the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon’ble

Apex Court has held that the reference was bad

because the dispute was not between the Employer

on one hand and his Workmen on the other, nor

could the U.P. Working Journalists be called “his

workmen” within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial

Disputes Act.

25. In the case of the Bombay Union of

Journalist and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that “a dispute between an employer

and single employee cannot be per say an ‘industrial

dispute’, but it may become one if it is taken up by

the union or a number of workmen. The persons

who seek to support the cause of a workman must

themselves be directly and substantially interested

in the dispute and this would depend on the facts

and circumstances of each case. Persons who are

not employees of the same employer cannot be

regarded as so interested, that by their support they

may convert an individual dispute into an industrial

dispute. In each case, in ascertaining whether an

individual dispute has acquired the character of

individual dispute the test is whether at the date of

the reference the dispute was taken up or supported

by the union of the workman of the employer against

whom the dispute is raised by an individual

workman or by an appreciable number of workmen.”

26. In the case of Singapore Airlines Ltd. and

Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court in para 14

ruled as under:

“14. It is needless to say that the I.D. Act

nowhere contemplates that industrial dispute

can come into existence in any particular,

specific or prescribed manner. So, whether a

dispute which is apparently raised only by an

individual has acquired the category of

industrial dispute or not shall have to be

determined from all the facts and other

attending circumstances. Similarly, whether the

said dispute is espoused by the union or not

shall have to be determined by having, regard

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

958

to the relevant circumstances. Sometimes,

though apparently one may get impression

that dispute is individual dispute, in fact it

may be the dispute espoused by the union.”

27. In the case of J.H. Jadhav (supra), the

Hon’ble Apex Court in para 6 of its judgment held

as under:

“6. As far as espousal is concerned there is no

particular form prescribed to effect such

espousal. Doubtless, the union must normally

express itself in the form of a resolution which

should be proved if it is in issue. However,

proof of support by the union may also be

available aliunde. It would depend upon facts

of each case. The Tribunal had addressed its

mind to the question, appreciated the evidence

both oral and documentary and found that

the union had espoused the Appellants cause.”

28. In the case of Polypharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra),

the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay defined the term

‘espousal’ as under:

“12. Espousal of a dispute cannot have a

restricted meaning. It cannot be confined to

mere initiation of a dispute. The dictionary

meaning of the word ‘espousal’ is ‘the act of

espousing or betrothing, the taking upon

oneself of e.g. a cause. Espousal therefore, would

include not only the initiation but also taking

up the cause till its logical conclusion. Therefore

this submission of Shri Mokashi is also without

any merits. It is a well settled position of law

that subsequent withdrawal of support by a

trade union, will not affect the character of the

dispute, nor will it take away the jurisdiction

of an industrial tribunal. What is required to

be noticed is, whether on the date of the

reference was made a trade union had

espoused the cause.

29. In the case of Maharashtra General Kamgar

Union (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

held that” “this section has been the subject matter

of interpretation in a catena of decisions of the

Supreme Court and the crystalized legal position

was that, unless a substantial section of the

workmen of an industrial establishment espouse or

supported the cause made out by one or a few

individual workmen of an industrial establishment,

the dispute would continue to retain its character

as an individual dispute and would not amount to

an industrial dispute within the meaning of section

2 (k) of the Act. In other words, a workman, who

claimed relief for himself, or a few workmen, who

individually claimed relief for themselves, had no

remedy under the act, unless their cause was

espoused by a substantial section of other workmen

of the same industrial establishment. There were

two known methods of such espousal— one, by a

collective demand made by a substantial section of

workman and the other was espousal of the

individual causes by a trade union by a substantial

section of the workmen of the industrial

establishment. In the absence of either, Courts had

uniformly taken the view that the dispute was an

individual dispute and did not attend the character

of an industrial dispute so as to give jurisdiction to

the appropriate Government to make a reference for

adjudication.

Thus, from the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble

Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Courts it is

crystal clear that in ascertaining whether an

individual dispute has acquired the character of

an industrial dispute the test is whether at the

date of the reference the dispute was taken up as

supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by an

individual workmen or by an appreciable number

of workmen.

30. The Industrial Dispute envisages a collective

dispute. Unless there is an Industrial Dispute, the

reference made by the Government of Goa is not

maintainable. However after the introduction of

section 2-A to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, an

individual dispute as contemplated under the said

section is deemed to be an Industrial dispute within

the meaning of the said Act. Section 2-A

contemplates individual dispute as an Industrial

Dispute when a workman is discharge, dismissed,

retrenched or his services are terminated by the

Employer. The dispute involved in the present case

is as regards alleged malafide transfer of service of

the workman. Admittedly the workman has not

raised dispute by himself in his individual capacity,

but it is the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh who has

raised the dispute on his behalf. In other words,

it is the Union who has espoused the dispute on

behalf of the Workman. If the dispute is raised by

the Union and the Employer has challenged its

authority to raise the dispute, the Union must prove

its authority by producing some material evidence

before the Labour Court.

31. Therefore, after the introduction of Sec. 2-A,

the dispute of discharged, dismissed or retrenched

Workman can be raised by the Workman himself

or it can be raised by the Workman of the

establishment or by the Union. But, when such a

dispute is raised by the Workman himself, the

dispute is between the individual Workman and

the Employer and when it is raised by the Workmen

or the Union, the dispute is between the Workman

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

959

of the establishment as a class and the Employer

and in such a case, the Workmen collectively are

the party to the dispute and not the Workman

individually. Further, when the dispute is not raised

by the Workman himself, but is raised by the Union

and if the authority of the union is challenged,

such authority is to be proved by producing

material evidence before the Tribunal. If the dispute

is raised by the Union of the workmen of the

establishment itself, the presumption is that the

Workman of the establishment has community of

interest with the individual employee who is their

fellow Workman. But the question is different when

the dispute is raised by a Union which is not of the

Workman of the establishment, but by a General

Union of which the Workman of a particular

establishment becomes its member. In such a case,

community of interest is to be proved. Such a Union

must have a representative character, so as to make

a dispute an industrial dispute.

32. In the case in hand, admittedly the dispute

is not raised by the Workman himself, but it is

espoused by the Union i.e. the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh. The statement of claim as well as Re-joinder

has been signed by the workman. The said Union

is not the Union of the workers of the establishment

of the Employer, but it is a General Union. The

Union has examined the Workman as its sole

witness. The said Workman in his oral evidence on

record deposed that he is the only member of the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh from the factory of the

Employer. The union has produced on record a

letter of the Workman dated 15-09-2016 (Exb. 14)

addressed to the General Secretary of the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh stating that he is a worker working

with the Employer and further stated that he would

like to join their union and that he shall abide by

the rules and regulations of the said union. By the

said letter at Exb. 14 he authorized Shri P. Gaonkar,

the General Secretary and other office bearer to

represent him before the management, the

Government officials including Tribunals or any

other forum in his labour disputes. He admitted

that the said letter at Exb.14 has been typed by

the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and obtain his

signature. He admitted that there is no

acknowledgment or stamp or seal of the union

having received the same on 15-09-2016 or at any

time thereafter. He admitted that nowhere in the

said letter at Exb. 14, it has been stated that he has

been admitted as a member of the said union. He

admitted that even thereafter he has not received

any letter from the said Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

admitting him as a member of the said union by

passing necessary resolution in its meeting.

33. In the light of what is discussed above, I am

of the view that Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh has

failed to prove its authority to espouse the dispute

on behalf of the workman. The evidence on record

does not indicate that the workman was the

member of the union. Neither the General Secretary

of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh nor any other

office bearer of the said union examined himself

before this Labour Court to give the evidence that

the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh had the authority or

locus standi to espouse the dispute of the workman.

In fact the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh had to

examine some person on its behalf to prove that

the workman under reference was its member.

There is also no evidence on record as to how

many employees/workmen of the establishment of

the Employer had become the members of the said

union, leave aside substantial or appreciable

number. Also there is no document on record in

the form of resolution or otherwise to show that

the workman had authorized the union to espouse

his cause by raising the dispute nor there is any

document or otherwise to show that the office

bearers of the union were authorized to take up

the cause of the Workman. Therefore it cannot be

held that namely the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

union could represent the workman so as to

transform the dispute between the individual

workman and the Employer into an industrial

dispute. Hence, it cannot be held that the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh had the authority or the

locus standi to espouse the cause of the workman.

It therefore, follows that the dispute referred by

the Government does not partake the character of

an industrial dispute. This being the case, the

reference made by the Government is bad-in-law.

I therefore hold that the Employer has succeeded

in proving that the union namely Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh has no locus standi to raise the

dispute on behalf of the workman and that there

is no industrial dispute and as such the reference

is not maintainable. The issue No. 3 is therefore

answered in the affirmative.

34. Issue No. 2 and 4:

While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the Employer has succeeded in proving that the

union namely Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh has no

locus standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the

workman and that there is no industrial dispute

and as such the reference is not maintainable. In

view of above, the question as to whether the

workman proves that the action of the Employer in

transferring his service to Jammu w.e.f. 10-10-2016

is illegal and unjustified, does not arise.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

960

Consequently, the Workman is not entitled to any

relief. The issue No. 2 is therefore answered

accordingly. The issue No. 4 is answered in the

negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that no ‘industrial dispute’ existed

at the time when the Government made the

reference. It is further held that the reference

made by the Government is bad in law and

hence, rejected.

2. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-II/162

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 05-02-2019 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/07/2017 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, 22nd February, 2019.

______

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/07/17

Shri Premanand S. Naik,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Kadamba Kamgar Union,

BG-10, Ground Floor,

Casa Immaculade,

Jose Falco Road,

Near Panajim Church,

Panaji-Goa.

…

Workman/Party-I

V/s

The Managing Director,

M/s. Kadamba Transport

Corporation,

Porvorim, Bardez-Goa.

…

Employer/Party-II

Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A.

Kundaikar.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.

Agarwal.

Panaji, Dated: 05-02-2019

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the

Government of Goa, by Order dated 20-04-2017,

bearing No. 28/01/2017-LAB/253, referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour

Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa.

“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Kadamba

Transport Corporation Limited, Alto-

-Porvorim, Goa, of withholding up-gradation

of Shri Premanand S. Naik, granted under

Modified Assured Career Progression

Scheme (MACPS), is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/07/17 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

06-10-2017 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that he is the

member of the Kadamba Kamgar Union, which is

espousing the cause of his withholding

up-gradation granted under MACPS. He stated that

he was employed by the Employer/Party II (for short,

‘Employer’) as a ‘Driver’ and presently posted at

Margao depot. He stated that he was appointed on

probation w.e.f. 08-03-1995 in the pay scale of Rs.

950-20-1150-EB-25-1600. He stated that he was

entitled for Time Bound Promotional Scale (TBPS)

on completion of 12 years of service i.e. 08-03-2007.

He stated that he raised the dispute in respect of

withholding of his annual increment vide order

dated 17-02-2004.

3. He stated that the said dispute was referred

to the Labour Court II. He stated that the Hon’ble

Labour Court II was pleased to pass an award dated

09-07-2014 holding that action of the Employer in

withholding his one annual increment is illegal

and unjustified and further directed the Employer

to release his increment with consequential

benefits w.e.f. 17-02-2004 to mean thereby there

was no order of withholding one annual increment

concurrently for three years. He stated that the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

961

Employer entered into the settlement dated

30-04-2010 signed u/s 12 (3) r/w Section 18 (3) of

the I.D. Act in the matter of revision of wages as

per sixth pay commission recommendations. He

stated that the said settlement was implemented

w.e.f. 01-01-1996. He stated that in accordance with

the said settlement, his pre-revised scale was

Rs. 4000-100-6000 corresponding to the revised

scale of Rs. 5200-20200+2400/-. He stated that

the Employer was pleased to extend the

recommendation of pay commission for introduction

of MACPS and accepted the same with further

modification to grant three financial up-gradation

under the said scheme at intervals of 10, 20 and 30

years of continuous regular service. He submitted

that the MACPS envisages merely placement in

the immediate next higher grade pay in the

hierarchy in the recommended revised pay band

and grade pay. He submitted that in consonance

with the MACPS, he was entitled for first financial

up-gradation on completion of 10 years in the direct

entry in grade pay. He submitted that he was

entitled for the first financial up-gradation under

MACPS on completion of 10 years of service i.e. on

13-03-2005 and second financial up-gradation on

completion of 20 years of service i.e. 13-03-2015.

4. He stated that he was appointed on probation

vide order dated 13-03-1995 alongwith the driver,

Shri Anil Parab badge No. 6031, designated as

MACP II and was extended benefits of the second

financial up-gradation. He stated that the said Shri

Anil Parab was given increment in his basic pay of

Rs. 10,940/- and grade pay of Rs. 2800/- with

increment of 420/- from 01-07-2015 and thereafter

his basic pay was Rs. 11,360/- and grade pay of

Rs. 2800/- on 01-07-2016. He stated that however,

he was designated as TBPS with basic pay

of Rs. 10,170/- and grade pay of Rs. 2400/- w.e.f.

01-07-2015. He stated that he was given increment

in basic pay of Rs.10550/- and grade pay of

Rs. 2400/- w.e.f. 01-07-2016 with increment of

Rs. 380/-. He submitted that thus, there is anomaly

in his pay revision.

5. He stated that he was entitled for TBPS in the

pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 w.e.f. 08-03-2006 in

the corresponding pay scale in the pay band of

Rs. 5200-20200+2400/-. He stated that he was

entitled for increment on 01-03-2006. He stated that

he had obtained additional increment in pursuance

of pay revision as on 01-07-2006 i.e. the date of

release of annual increment under the MACPS. He

stated that his maturity was on March and therefore

he was entitled for revision in the pay scale in the

month of January. He stated that the up-gradation

in the month of March which was to be considered

in the month of January. He stated that the

withholding of his increment shall have no

consequential effect on up-gradation as he was

eligible for the revision in the month of January

prior to the date of withholding of the annual

increment. He submitted that the similarly placed

workman, who were appointed along with him vide

order dated 13-03-1995 are extended the benefits

of the second up-gradation which is prevalent in

the corporation on the strength of 20 years of

service in the same grade as provided under the

MACPS and denied the said benefits to him which

is ultra-virus of the said scheme. He stated that

his case is a gross case 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. The Workman therefore

prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to

pass an award holding that his withholding of up-

gradation under the MACPS is illegal and

unjustified and further direct the Employer to

release the up-gradation under the MACPS

with consequential reliefs attached to the post

@12% p.a. from the date of the order till the actual

realization.

6. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

03-04-2018 at Exb. 05. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

reference is not maintainable as the Kadamba

Kamgar Union has no locus standi to raise the

present dispute, that there is no industrial dispute

exist between the parties as defined u/s 2 (k) of the

I.D. Act, 1947, that the reference is bad as the

workman has directly approached before this court

without exhausting the other remedies available

to him and as per the terms of memorandum of

settlement dated 30-04-2010 agreed upon between

its management and its workmen and the same is

being applicable to the Workman and that the

reference has been made by the Government of

Goa without any material on record, in haste and

without application of mind.

7. The Employer stated that it is a Government

Company registered under Section 617 of the

Companies Act, 1956 and also a State Transport

undertaking under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988. The Employer stated that its employees

are not the employees of the Government of Goa.

The Employer stated that it being a separate legal

entity altogether different from Government of Goa,

the service benefits being granted by the

Government of Goa to its employees, do not become

automatically applicable to the employees of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

962

Corporation. The Employer stated that its

employees are governed by its own Certified

Standing Orders. The Employer stated that the

service condition applicable to its employees are

specified in its Certified Standing Orders as well

as Memorandum of Settlement drawn between its

management and its employees union from time to

time. The Employer stated that the service

conditions of its employees are not governed by

Government notifications, regulations, orders etc.

which are applicable to the Government

employees only. The Employer stated that any

benefits which are required to be extended to its

employees are required to be extended by the

resolution of its Board of Directors or through the

settlement arrived at between its management and

its workmen union. The Employer stated that

similarly, there are certain benefits which are

otherwise not applicable to the Government

employees, but the same are made available to its

employees.

8. The Employer stated that it had also decided

in principle to make applicable the recommen-

dation of the sixth pay commission to its employees

subject to the financial support for the

implementation from Government of Goa. The

Employer stated that accordingly its Board of

Directors in its 161 meeting held on 16-12-2008

resolved to request the Government for providing

financial support for implementation of the

recommendations of sixth central pay scales to its

employees vide resolution No. 136/2008. The

Employer stated that it had moved a proposal to

the Government of Goa through the Director of

Transport for providing financial assistance vide

its letter dated 12-01-2009 and the Government

after considering its request decided to provide

the financial support to them to implement sixth

pay recommendations to its employees. The

Employer stated that after the series of conciliation

meetings between themselves and its employees

union the parties arrived at a settlement on the

extension of sixth pay commission recommen-

dations vide memorandum of settlement dated

30-04-2010. The Employer stated that the said MOS

dated 30-04-2010 sets out the terms and conditions

for acceptance of certain recommendations of the

sixth pay commission in respect of revision of pay

scales and subject to the changes made in the

settlement terms of the said settlement dated

30-04-2010 to all its workmen/employees were

granted the benefits of the said settlement with

retrospective effect from 01-01-2006. The Employer

stated that in the said MOS dated 30-04-2010, it

was agreed between the parties that they shall

give effect to the recommendation of sixth pay

commission recommendations w.e.f. 01-01-2006. The

Employer stated that however, in respect of

the arrears for the period from 01-01-2006 to

31-03-2010 it was expressly agreed by and between

the parties that the Employer shall pay 25% of the

arrears in the financial year 2010-2011 and the

balance 75% of the arrears shall be paid without

any interest within a period of seven years

commencing from 01-04-2011 to 31-03-2018 in the

seven equal yearly installments subject to the

conditions as stipulated in the memorandum of

settlement dated 30-04-2010 at para 2 (a) to (o). The

Employer stated that accordingly, it has issued a

detailed orders to all its workmen individually. The

Employer stated that vide the said settlement it

was agreed by the workmen/association that the

demand of revision for wages stood conclusively

settled and that they shall not raise any dispute in

respect of the pay scales and allowances or any

other demands involving additional financial

liabilities except those items covered under the

sixth pay commission recommendations and

further agreed to bind themselves by the revised

pay scale. The Employer stated that the

recommendation of the sixth pay commission

were extended to all its employees including

the workman in terms of MOS dated 30-04-2010

u/s 12 (3) r/w 18 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the

arrears arising out of the sixth pay commission are

applicable as per the settlement.

9. The Employer stated that the Workman joined

in its employment as a Heavy Vehicle Driver on

probation w.e.f. 08-03-1995. The Employer stated

that the Workman was eligible for TBPS scale on

completion of 12 years of service in the year 2007,

however the said up-gradation was deferred on

account of stoppage of one annual increment for

the year 2004 concurrently for three years vide

order dated 17-02-2004. The Employer stated that

further the Workman was also punished for

stoppage of annual increment for the year 2007

with cumulative effect vide order dated 29-03-2006

and hence, the first up-gradation of the workman

was deferred. The Employer stated that the

punishment of stoppage of one annual increment

for the year 2004 concurrently for three years vide

order dated 17-02-2004 was challenged by the

Workman before the Hon’ble Labour Court. The

Employer stated that vide award dated 09-07-2014,

the Hon’ble Labour Court II was pleased to hold

that withholding of one annual increment vide

order dated 07-02-2004 is illegal and unjustified

and therefore the court directed to release the

increment of the Workman with consequential

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

963

benefits w.e.f. 17-02-2004 to mean thereby, there

was no order dated 07-02-2004 of withholding one

annual increment concurrently for three years. The

Employer stated that accordingly, the pay fixation

of the Workman was drawn by releasing the

increment stopped vide order dated 17-02-2004,

considering the fact that no punishment exists as

per award dated 09-07-2014 viz-a-viz his

completion of 12 years of service in the year 2007,

the up-gradation was differed further in 2007 due

to stoppage of one annual increment of 2007 with

cumulatively vide order dated 29-03-2006. The

Employer stated that in suppression of its earlier

pay fixation orders issued to the Workman i.e. dated

10-06-2013, dated 04-02-2015 and 20-04-2015 and

in terms of the award dated 09-07-2014 passed by

the Hon’ble Labour Court in case No. LC-II/IT/01/

/2003, the annual increment of the Workman was

released by order dated 06-11-2015 from Rs. 3650/-

to Rs. 3725/- w.e.f. 01-03-2004 and Rs. 3725/- to

Rs. 3800/- w.e.f. 01-03-2005.

10. The Employer stated that consequent upon

the Sixth Central Civil Service (revised pay) Rules,

2008, the pay of the Workman was fixed in the pay

band of Rs. 5200-20200+1900 grade pay to Rs. 7210/-

+1900/- (grade pay) w.e.f. 01-01-2006 and his further

annual increments in the revised pay were released

as mentioned in the order dated 06-11-2015.

The Employer stated that the said order dated

06-11-2015 also states that in terms of office circular

dated 21-11-2000, the workman is hereby granted

TBPS in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 w.e.f.

08-03-2008 in the corresponding pay scale in the

pay band of Rs. 5200-20200+2400/- and accordingly

his pay in the revised pay band is fixed to Rs. 7490/-

plus Rs. 2400/- after anticipating his option and

further increments were released as mentioned in

the order dated 06-11-2015. The Employer stated

that the said order states that with revised pay

fixation order in terms of the award passed by the

Hon’ble Labour Court II in its case No. LC-II/IT/01/

/2013, on implementation of the said order dated

06-11-2015, the Workman would be entitled for

arrears w.e.f. 01-03-2004 in terms of release of

his annual increment by virtue of award dated

09-07-2014. The Employer stated that in lieu of

award dated 01-07-2014 the difference in the arrears

amount for the period for 01-01-2006 to 31-03-2010

were received by the workman vide receipt dated

02-03-2016. The Employer stated that the Workman

was then issued order dated 28-06-2017 by which

on recommendation of the departmental screening

committee, he who had completed 20 years of

service in the same grade pay was granted second

up-gradation in the pay band of Rs. 5200-

-20200+2400/- grade pay under MACPS in terms of

board resolution No. 110/11 and circular dated

27-11-2012, his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 10,170/-

plus Rs. 2800/- grade pay w.e.f. 08-03-2015. The

Employer stated that the said order further states

that the workman may exercise an option, if desired

within one month from the date of the receipt of

the order, however, till date the Workman has failed

to exercise his option. The Employer denied the

overall case as pleaded by the Workman and prayed

for the dismissal of the present reference.

11. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for filing

rejoinder on 19-04-2018. However, Ld. Adv. Shri A.

Kundaikar, appearing for the Workman submitted

that the Workman did not wish to file any rejoinder.

12. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties

hereinabove, this court framed the following issues

on 31-07-2018 at Exb. 07.

Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer in withholding

his up gradation under the MACPS is illegal

and unjustified?

Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the present reference is not maintainable

in view of the reasons stated in para 2 (a)

to (d) of its written statement?

Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to

any relief?

What order? What award?

13. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the negative.

(b) Issue No. 2

In the negative.

As per final order.

REASONS

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.

Shri A. Kundaikar appearing for the Workman as

well as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal appearing for the

Employer. I have carefully perused the entire

records and proceedings of the present case. I have

also carefully considered the oral submissions made

by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective

parties and is of the considered opinion as under:

14. In the case of V.N.S. Engineering Services

v/s. Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu

and Anr., reported in 1987 II LLN 968, the Hon’ble

High Court of Bombay has held that “there is

nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that

indicates a departure from the general rule that he

who approaches a court for relief should prove his

case i.e. the obligation to lead evidence to establish

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

964

an allegation, the test being that he who does

not lead evidence, must fail. The Hon’ble High Court

of Bombay further held that the provisions of

Rule-10-B of the I.D. (Central Rules), 1957 which

requires the party raising a dispute to file a

statement of demands relating only to the issue in

the order of reference for adjudication within 15

days from the receipt of the order of reference and

forward copies to the opposite party involved, clearly

indicates that the party who raises the industrial

disputes is bound to prove the contention raised by

him and an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court

would be erring in placing the burden of proof on

the other party to the dispute”.

15. In the case of V.K. Raj Industries v/s Labour

Court (I) and Ors. reported in 1981 (29) FLR, 194,

the Allahabad High Court has held that “the

proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal are

judicial in nature, even though the Indian Evidence

Act, is not applicable to the proceeding before the

Industrial Court, but the principle underlying the

said Act are applicable.” The High Court further

held that “it is well settled that if a party challenges

the validity of an order and if no evidence is

produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction must

fail. The High Court has also held that if the

Workman fails to appear or to file written statement

or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the

Government cannot be answered in favour of the

Workman and he will not be entitled any relief”.

16. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court in its respective case still holds good.

Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court, in the instant case, the order of reference

has been issued by the Government of Goa at the

instance of the workman, who has raised the

present dispute pertaining to the legality and

justifiability of the action of the Employer of

withholding up-gradation of the Workman under

the MACPS and the relief entitled to him. The

Workman filed his statement of claim setting forth

his grounds of attack. The said pleadings made by

the Workman, in his claim statement has been

denied by the Employer in its written statement

filed in the present proceedings. Therefore, it was

mandatory for the Workman to prove his case that

the action of the Employer in withholding his up-

gradation under the MACPS is illegal and

unjustified and therefore entitled for the relief.

However, neither the Workman nor the Employer

has lead any evidence either oral or documentary

in support of their pleadings respectively.

Consequently, the parties failed to prove their case

as pleaded. Hence, it is held that the Workman

failed to prove that the action of the Employer in

withholding his up-gradation under the MACPS is

illegal and unjustified. The Employer also failed to

prove that the reference is bad-in-law for any

reasons as stated in its written statement by way

of preliminary objections. Hence, in the absence

of any evidence, it is held that the action of

the Employer in withholding up-gradation of

Shri Premanand S. Naik, granted under Modified

Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), is

legal and justified. The Workman is therefore not

entitled to any relief. The issue No. 1 to 3 are

therefore answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of M/s. Kadamba

Transport Corporation Limited, Alto-

Porvorim, Goa, of withholding up-gradation

of Shri Premanand S. Naik, granted under

Modified Assured Career Progression

Scheme (MACPS), is legal and justified.

2. The workman, Shri Premanand S. Naik is not

entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Order

No. 1/6/2014-LD(Estt.)/Part/407

Government of Goa is pleased to accept

resignation tendered by Adv. Ranjana Salgaonkar,

as Government Counsel on the panel of Government

Advocates for defending the interest of the

Government in the matters allotted to her by the

Law Department (Estt.), Secretariat, Porvorim

before the District Court (North Goa) for other then

Land Acquisition cases, at Mapusa-Goa with

immediate effect.

Adv. Ranjana Salgaonkar shall return all the

briefs pending with her if any, to the concerned

Department under intimation to this Department.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Sachin S. Desai, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

965

Notification

No. 8/18/2018-LD(Estt)/417

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section

78 A of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), as

in force in the State of Goa (hereinafter referred to

as the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby

approves the refund of the excess registration fees

of Rs. 2,610/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred

ten only) to Shri Pundalik Ramesh Mandrekar,

paid by him towards registration of the Deed of Sale.

This issues with the concurrence of Finance

Department (Revenue & Control), vide U.O.

No. 1400055743 dated 24-09-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Amir Parab, Under Secretary (Estt.)/link.

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

________

Notification

No. 8/21/2018-LD(Estt)/421

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section

78 A of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), as in

force in the State of Goa (hereinafter referred to as

the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby

approves the refund of the excess registration fees

of Rs. 98,250/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand two

hundred fifty only) to Shri Anoop Tehron, paid by

him towards registration of the Second Deed of

Mortgage.

This issues with the concurrence of Finance

Department (Revenue & Control), vide U.O.

No. 1400056114 dated 04-10-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Amir Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Mines

Directorate of Mines & Geology

Order

No. 01/33/2018/VRS/ADM/MINES/8214

Read: Order No. 01/33/2018/VRS/ADM/MINES/

/6814 dated 24-10-2018.

Government is pleased to accept the notice of

voluntary retirement dated 09-07-2018 tendered by

Shri Antonio J. M. Lopes, Assistant Geologist, Goa

General Service, Group “B” Gazetted of Directorate

of Mines and Geology, Panaji-Goa under Rule 48 of

CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to relieve him from

the post of Assistant Geologist, Goa General

Service, Group “B” Gazetted of Directorate of

Mines and Geology, Panaji-Goa with effect from

09-10-2018 (a. n.).

This is issued in suppression of Order No. 01/33/

/2018/VRS/ADM/MINES/6814 dated 24-10-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Ameya Abhyankar, IAS, Director (Mines &

Geology).

Panaji, 28th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 01/72/ADM/2005/MINES/PART-I/8249

Read: Order No. 01/72/ADM/2005/MINES/PART-I/

/2627 dated 13-11-2017 published in the

Official Gazette No. 33 Sr. II dated 16-11-2017.

In partial modification of order read at preamble,

and in pursuance to Section 19 of Right to

Information Act, 2005 (Central Act No. 22 of 2005)

the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology-I, II & III

is hereby designated as FIRST APPELLANT

AUTHORITY according to the subject matters.

Further, in pursuance to Section 5 of the Right

to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act No. 22 of 2005),

the following are designated as State Public

Information Officers in respect of their allocation

of subject matters.

1. Shri Sankalp U. Shet Dessai, Assistant

Geologist ….. Major Mineral & (Link) Shri

Sudhir Mandrekar, Assistant Geologist.

2. Shri Deepak Mayekar, Assistant Geologist …..

Minor Mineral & (Link) Shri Mahesh

Mayenkar, Assistant Geologist.

3. Shri Jaiwant Kamat, Surveying Officer …….

Survey Section.

4. The Assistant Accounts Officer ….. Accounts

Section.

5. Statistical Officer ….. Statistics matters.

6. Smt.Gauri Lolienkar, Head Clerk .......….

Establishment Section & (Link) Shri Saklu

Velip, Head Clerk.

The following are hereby designated as

Assistant Public Information Officers in respect of

the designated duties as shown against their

names.

1. Kum. Mary Ann Carvalho, … Major Mineral.

Assistant Geologist

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

966

2. Shri Vasant Karelkar,

… Minor Mineral.

Assistant Geologist

3. Shri Snehal Sangelkar,

… Survey Section.

Head Surveyor

4. Accountant

… Accounts

Section.

5. Research Assistant

… Statistics.

Shri Baban Gaonkar, U.D.C. dealing hand will

put up the matters related to information called for

under the Act to the concerned P.I.Os and A.P.I.Os

for obtaining of duly attested records required

under the Act.

This order is to be scrupulously adhered under

the Act failing which action as per the provision

of the Act shall be initiated.

This order comes into force with immediate

effect.

Ameya Abhyankar, IAS, Director (Mines &

Geology).

Panaji, 4th March, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 6/3/2002-PER(Vol.I)/669

In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule

43 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter

to be called as said rules), the Government, in

consultation with the Goa Public Service

Commission, hereby relaxes Rule 31(2) of the said

Rules, to the extent as indicated in column (3) of

the table hereinunder to the following class of

officers in Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service as

mentioned in column (2), who have completed

2/3rd qualifying service from the date of their

appointment/promotion.

Sr.

Name of the Officer

Relaxation

No.

granted

1. Ms. Neetal P. Amonkar

2 years.

2. Shri Arvind B. Khutkar

2 years.

3. Shri Pipi T. Murgaonkar

2 years.

4. Shri Sagun R. Velip

2 years.

5. Ms. Sushma D. Kamat

2 years.

6. Ms. Maria Seomara D’Souza

2 years.

7. Shri Gourish J. Shankhwalkar

2 years.

8. Shri Mahadev J. Araundekar

2 years.

9. Shri Harish N. Adconkar

2 years.

10. Smt. Sarita Sadashiv Marathe

2 years.

alias Gadgil

11. Smt. Sangeeta S. Rawool alias

2 years.

Smt. Sangeeta Porob

This issues with the approval of Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide letter No. COM/

/II/11/42(4)/2016(Part file)/1223 dated 25-02-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary

(Personnel).

Porvorim, 25th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 6/3/2002-PER (Vol. I)/673

On the recommendation of local DPC, the

Governor of Goa is pleased to promote on ad hoc

basis, the following Junior Scale Officers of Goa

Civil Service to Senior Scale in Level 11 of the CCS

Revised Pay Band Rules, 2016, with immediate

effect:-

1. Ms. Neetal P. Amonkar.

2. Shri Arvind B. Khutkar.

3. Shri Pipi T. Murgaonkar.

4. Shri Sagun R. Velip.

5. Ms. Sushma D. Kamat.

6. Ms. Maria Seomara D’Souza.

7. Shri Gourish J. Shankhwalkar.

8. Shri Mahadev J. Araundekar.

9. Shri Harish N. Adconkar.

10. Smt. Sarita Sadashiv Marathe alias Gadgil.

11. Smt. Sangeeta S. Rawool alias Smt. Sangeeta

Porob.

The above ad hoc promotion shall be for a period

of six months or till the post is filled on regular

basis whichever is earlier.

The above ad hoc promotion shall not bestow

on the promoted officers any claim for regular

promotion and service rendered on ad hoc basis in

the grade will not count for the purpose of seniority

in that grade or for eligibility for promotion to the

next higher grade.

The posting order of the officers is being issued

separately, and the officers shall continue to hold

the post/s presently held by them.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary

(Personnel).

Porvorim, 26th February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

967

Order

No. 7/3/2019-PER/684

The Governor of Goa is pleased to order posting

of the following officers as shown against their

name with immediate effect till the process of

General Elections to the House of the People (Lok

Sabha), 2019 is complete:-

Sr.

Name of the officer

Post

No.

Smt. R. Menaka, IAS

Collector, North.

Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS

Director, Department

of Urban Development,

Panaji.

Shri Ajit Roy, IAS

Collector, South.

Shri Shashank Mani

Commissioner of

Tripathi, IAS

Corporation of City of

Panaji.

Shri Agnelo A. J. Fernandes shall continue to

hold the charge of the post of Additional

Collector-I, South.

Shri Levinson Martins shall continue to hold the

charges of the post of Director, Science &

Technology and Managing Director, Solid Waste

Management Corporation.

The officers shall continue to draw their salary

from the post held by them prior to this order,

except Shri Shashank Mani Tripathi, IAS.

The officers shall report back to their post after

completion of the process of General Elections to

the House of the People (Lok Sabha), 2019.

The officers shall report to their respective

posting immediately.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 15/1/99-PER(Part)/685

The Governor of Goa is pleased to order the posting of the following Officers in the cadre of Mamlatdar/

/Jt. Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies as indicated in column (4) hereinbelow:-

Sr.

Name of the officer

Present post

Posting during the

No.

Elections to Lok Sabha

1. Shri Shripad Majik

Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Mormugao

Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Ponda.

2. Shri Saiesh Naik

Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Ponda

Jt. Mamlatdar-I, Mormugao.

3. Shri Pravind J. Gawas

Vigilance Officer-IV

Mamlatdar in Collectorate (North).

4. Ms. Archana M. Faterpekar

Mamlatdar in Collectorate

Vigilance Officer-IV.

@ Smt. Archana S. Chodankar

(North)

All the above officers shall continue to draw their salary against the posts presently held by them,

as mentioned in column (3).

The officers shall report back to the post as indicated in column (3) after the process of General

Election to House of the People (Lok Sabha), 2019 is complete.

The officers shall report to their respective posting immediately.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 6/5/2011-PER/686

The Governor of Goa is pleased to order postings of the following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil

Service with immediate effect. The officers shown in column (4) shall hold charge of the posts held by

officers mentioned in column (2) as under:-

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

968

Sr.

Name of the officer &

Posting during the

Officer to hold the

No.

present post

Elections to Lok Sabha

additional charge

1. Shri Vivek Naik, Chief Officer,

Administrator of Communidade,

Shri Clen Madeira, Chief Officer,

Bicholim Municipal Council

North Zone

Mapusa Municipal Council.

2. Shri Vikas Kamble,

Administrator of Communidade,

Smt. Sangeeta Porob, Asst.

Asst. Commissioner of

Central Zone

Commissioner of Commercial

Commercial Taxes (ACCT)

Taxes (ACCT) & SLAO, Goa

Housing Board.

3. Shri Vishal Kundaikar,

Deputy Collector & SDO (Satari)

Shri Kapil C. Phadte, Chief Officer,

Chief Officer, Cuncolim

Curchorem Municipal Council.

Municipal Council

4. Shri Vivek H.P. (IAS),

Deputy Collector & SDM, Tiswadi

——

Dy. Collector & SDM, Bicholim

5. Shri Sachin S. Desai,

Deputy Collector & SDM,

1) Shri Amir Parab,

1) Under Secretary (Law

Bicholim

Under Secretary to Minister

& Estt.)

for Urban Development.

2) OSD in Goa Real Estate

2) Shri Harish Adconkar,

Regulatory Authority

Under Secretary

(Personnel-I).

6. Shri Sagar Gaude,

Deputy Collector (DRO), North

Shri Chandresh Kunkalkar,

Asst. Commissioner of

Commercial Taxes

Commercial Taxes (ACCT).

7. Shri Kabir K. Shirgaonkar,

Deputy Collector & SDO-II,

Shri Pradeep Naik, Dy. Registrar

Deputy Director (Admn.), DSLR

Bardez

of Co-op. Societies.

8. Shri Raju Rogunath Dessai,

Deputy Collector & S.D.O-II,

Shri Navnath Naik, Chief Officer,

1) Deputy Registrar, Goa

Salcete

Ponda Municipal Council.

College of Engineering, Farmagudi

2) Member Secretary,

Rajiv Kala Mandir, Ponda

9. Smt. Snehal Prabhu,

Deputy Collector (LA), South

——

Dy. Collector & SDO-II, Salcete

10. Shri Paresh Faldessai,

Deputy Collector & SDM, Mormugao

——

Dy. Collector (Revenue), South

with additional charge of Member

Secretary, Ravindra Bhavan, Baina, Vasco

11. Shri Mahadev Araundekar,

Dy. Collector (Revenue), South

——

Deputy Collector & SDM,

Mormugao

The officers shall continue to draw the salary from the post held by them as indicated in column (2).

The officers shall report back to the post as indicated in column (2) after the General Election to Lok

Sabha, 2019 process is complete.

The officers shall report to their respective posting immediately.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

969

Order

No. 15/5/97-PER (Part)/705

The Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer of the following officers in the cadre of Block

Development Officers in public interest, with immediate effect:

Sr.

Name of the officer

Present Post

Posted as

No.

Shri Prasiddh Prakash Naik

BDO, Ponda

BDO, Salcete-II.

Shri Milindra G. Velip

BDO, Salcete-II

BDO, Ponda.

Shri Uttam K. Pal

BDO, Sanguem

BDO, Mormugao.

Shri Deepak P. Vaingankar

BDO, Mormugao

BDO II Bardez.

Shri Bhagwant A. Karmali, BDO, Quepem shall hold additional charge of BDO, Sanguem.

All the above officers shall take charge immediately and submit compliance report.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 28th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 22/10/2018-PER/706

The Governor of Goa is pleased to allocate the charges as mentioned against the name of the following

IPS Officers with immediate effect, in public interest:-

Sr.

Name

Present charge

New charge

No.

Smt. Aslam Khan,

Awaiting posting

SP (Training)

IPS 2007

She shall hold additional charge of SP (EOC),

Commandant IRBn, Principal PTS.

Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh,

Awaiting posting

SP (Crime)

IPS 2008

He shall hold additional charge of SP (Anti-

-Terrorist Squad), SP (SPCR) and will also

supervise SIT (Mining) and SIT (Land Grab).

Shri Utkrisht Prasoon,

SP (Training) with

SP (ACB)

IPS 2014

additional charge

He shall hold additional charge of SP (SB)

SP (SB), Principal

and SP (ANC).

PTS, Commandant

IRBn, SP (ACB),

SP (ANC)

The charge of the officer at Sr. No. 1, shall be looked after by the Officer, as per the standing link

arrangement order issued by the office of Director General of Police, during the leave.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 28th February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

970

Order

No. 7/3/2019-PER/709

Read: Order No. 7/3/2019-PER/684 dated 27-02-2019.

In supersession of the order read in the preamble, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer of

the following officers as shown against their name with immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name of the officer

Present post

Posted as

No.

1. Smt. R. Menaka, IAS

Director, Department of Urban

Collector, North.

Development, Panaji

2. Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS

Awaiting posting

Director, Department of Urban

Development, Panaji.

3. Shri Ajit Roy, IAS

Commissioner of Corporation of

Collector, South.

City of Panaji

4. Shri Shashank Mani

Deputy Collector & SDM, Tiswadi

Commissioner of Corporation of

Tripathi, IAS

City of Panaji.

5. Shri Levinson Martins

Collector, North holding additional

Managing Director, Solid Waste

charge of Director, Science &

Management Corporation. He

Technology and Managing Director,

shall hold the charge of Director,

Solid Waste Management Corporation

Science & Technology, in addition

to his own duties.

6. Shri Agnelo A. J.

Collector, South holding additional

Additional Collector-I, South.

Fernandes

charge of Additional Collector-I, South

The officers at serial No. 4 and 5 shall be governed by the standard terms of deputation as amended

from time to time.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 28th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 15/1/2018-PER/717

Read: Order No. 15/16/2012-PER dated 14-09-2016.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to extend the

ad hoc promotion of the following officers in the

cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/Assistant

Director of Civil Supplies for the period mentioned

against their names:-

Sr.

Name of the officer

Period of

No.

extension

1. Shri Dhiren D. Banavalikar

01-07-2018 to

30-06-2019.

2. Smt. Jennifer Arez e Fernandes

01-07-2018 to

30-06-2019.

3. Shri Franklin Ferrao

01-07-2018 to

30-06-2019.

4. Shri Pravinjay Pandit

01-07-2018 to

30-06-2019.

5. Shri Saiesh Naik

01-07-2018 to

30-06-2019.

6. Shri Krishna Gauns

01-07-2018 to

30-06-2019.

7. Ms. Janavi Kalekar

01-07-2018 to

30-06-2019.

This issues with the concurrence of the Goa

Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/

/11/42(2)/2012/1230 dated 26-02-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 28th February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

971

Department of Planning

Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

Notification

No. DPSE/RBD/CRS-Notification/2017/409

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section

7 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969

(Central Act No. 18 of 1969), (read with Section 21

of the General Clauses Act, 1897) (Central Act 10 of

1897), the Government of Goa hereby amends the

Government Notification No. DPSE/RBD/CRS-

-Notification/2017/3886 dated 28th June, 2018,

published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 15

dated 12th July, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as

the “said Notification”), as follows, namely:-

In the said Notification, in the Schedule, against

the entry at Serial No. (3), in column 2, for the

expression “Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar”, the

expression “Civil-Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar/

/Joint Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar” shall be

substituted.

This Notification shall come into force from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Y. Durga Prasad, Director/Chief Registrar of

Births and Deaths.

Porvorim, 26th February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Power

Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer

Order

No. CEE/Estt-34/1/98/4334

Read: Order No. CCE/Estt-34/1/98/1256 dated

10-06-2011, notifying SPIO/APIO in

Electricity Department.

In above referred order, the SPIO at Sr. No. 4 in

the office of the Dy. Director (Admn.), Vidyut Bhavan,

4th Floor, Panaji-Goa shall stand substituted as

under:-

Sr.

Office & designation

State Public

No.

Information Officer

4. Dy. Director (Admn.),

Dy. Director (Admn.).

Vidyut Bhavan,

4th Floor, Panaji-Goa

2. Further, the APIO to the O/o the Dy. Director

(Admn.), Vidyut Bhavan, 4th Floor, Panaji-Goa shall

be Office Superintendent instead of Assistant

Engineer.

3. All other contents of the order remain

unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Reshma Mathew, Chief Electrical Engineer &

ex officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 27th February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

Order

No. 44/26/2017-I/PHD/597

Dr. Vikas Kuvelkar, Chief Medical Officer of TB

Hospital, Margao shall take the charge of the post

of Medical Superintendent of Sub District Hospital,

Ponda, with immediate effect.

Dr. Ira Almeida, Medical Superintendent-cum-

-Dy. Director of Hospicio Hospital, Margao shall hold

the additional charge of TB Hospital, Margao, in

addition to her own duties, with immediate effect.

Dr. Angelica Siona Gomes, Medical Superinten-

dent-cum-Dy. Director is hereby relieved of the

charge of the post of Medical Superintendent of

Sub District Hospital, Ponda, and she shall

continue her duties as Senior Radiologist at

Sub District Hospital, Ponda, with immediate effect.

This is issued with the approval of the

Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary

(Health-II).

Porvorim, 26th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 7/4/2003-I/PHD (Part-I)/600

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

II/11/56(1)/2006/371 dated 18-02-2019, Government

is pleased to promote the following Assistant Drugs

Controller to the post of Deputy Directors in the

Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration on

regular basis in the Level 11 of Pay Matrix of 7th

Pay Commission [PB-3: Rs. 15600--39100 + GP: Rs.

6,600/- (pre-revised)] and other allowances to be

fixed as per rules with immediate effect:-

1. Smt. Medha Anant Sinai Dessai.

2. Smt. Shweta S. Dessai.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

972

The promotions are made against the vacancies occurred due to promotion of Smt. Jyoti Sardessai to the

post of Director w.e.f. 01-12-2017 vide Order No. 7/2/92-PER dated 01-12-2017 and due to retirement on

superannuation of Shri Rajendra Naik, Dy. Director w.e.f. 30-04-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 27th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 44/27/2017-I/PHD/570

The transfer and posting of the following Health Officers under Directorate of Health Services are

hereby ordered, with immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name of the

Present place of posting

Transferred at

No.

Health Officer

1. Dr. Preetam Naik,

Urban Health Centre, Panaji

PHC, Aldona vice Dr. Manish Gaunekar

Health Officer

transferred.

2. Dr. Manish Gaunekar,

Primary Health Centre, Aldona

UHC, Panaji vice Dr. Preetam Naik

Health Officer

transferred.

This is issued with the approval of the Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 25th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 44/28/2017-I/PHD/620

The transfer and posting of the following doctors under Directorate of Health Services are hereby

ordered, with immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name of the Doctor

Present place of posting

Transferred at

No.

1. Dr. Sujata Prabhu Gaonkar,

Hospicio Hospital, Margao

SDH, Chicalim.

Senior Physician

2. Dr. Swapnil Naik,

Sub-District Hospital, Chicalim

Hospicio Hospital, Margao.

Junior Physician

The above doctors shall draw their salaries against the place indicated at column No. 3 above.

This is issued with the approval of the Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 28th February, 2019.

________

Order

No. 44/21/2017-I/PHD/Part-I/605

Read: Order No. 44/21/2017-I/PHD/Part-I/39 dated 27-12-2018.

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/12/

/24(2)/2016/295 dated 12-12-2018, the Government is pleased to declare satisfactorily completion of probation

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

973

period as well as Confirmation of following doctors under the Directorate of Health Services in the posts

shown against their names with effect from the date of completion of probation period, as under:-

Sr.

Name of officers

Date of joining in regular

Date of completion

Confirmed in the

No.

service as “Junior ENT

of probation period

post of

Surgeon”

Dr. Nicola Barreto

01-02-2016

31-01-2018

Junior ENT Surgeon.

Dr. Swayamsidha H. Andhale

01-07-2016

30-06-2018

Junior ENT Surgeon.

This issues in supersession of order No. 44/21/2017-I/PHD/Part-I/39 dated 27-12-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 27th Ferbruary, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Revenue

Order

No. 3/4/2016-RD/520

Read:

(i) Order No. 3/4/2016-RD dated 23-02-2016.

(ii) Order No. 3/4/2016-RD dated 05-07-2017.

(iii) Order No. 3/4/2016-RD dated 16-02-2018.

In continuation to above Order read in preamble,

the Government is pleased to accept the

recommendation of Mamlatdar of Pernem Taluka &

Administrator of Devalayas, Pernem-Goa, to extend

the term of the ad hoc Managing Committee

appointed vide above referred order, with effect

from 26-06-2018 till 09-02-2019 for carrying out the

activities as mentioned in the above referred order.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 26th February, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Town & Country Planning

Office of the Chief Town Planner (Planning)

Notification

No. 27/15-2/CC/TCP/2017-19/662

In exercise of the powers conferred by item (i) of

sub-clause (a) of Clause 5 of the Annexure-IX

appended to the Goa Land Development and

Building Construction Regulations, 2010, the

Conservation Committee constituted by the

Government of Goa vide the Government

Notification No. 27/15-2/C.C/TCP/2017/1476 dated

25-05-2017, published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 9 dated 01-06-2017, hereby co-opts

Shri Raya Shankhwalkar, Architect, as its additional

member.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Rajesh Naik, Chief Town Planner & ex officio

Joint Secretary (Planning)/Member Secretary to the

Conservation Committee.

Panaji, 4th March, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

Order

No. 1/03/DMA/Admn/RTI/3547

Read: Order No. 1/03/DMA/Admn/RTI/165/ dated

13-4-2018.

In partial modification to the above referred

Order, the Government has approved the

appointment of the following official of the

Corporation of the City of Panaji in the State under

the Right to Information Act, 2005 to act as Official

under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005:-

Sr.

Name of the

Designation

Office

No.

Official

Telephone

number

1. Deputy

Public Information

2223339/

Commissioner

Officer

/2422736/

/2423556/

/2423557.

The Public Information Officer is responsible for

maintaining and updating all required information

and also receiving and disposing off applications

under Right to Information Act, 2005.

R. Menaka, IAS, Director (Urban Development).

Panaji, 26th February, 2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 49

7TH MARCH, 2019

974

Department of Women & Child

Development

Directorate of Women & Child Development

Notification

No. 4-19-96-SWO-W&CD/10216

Read: Notification No. 4-19-96-SWD/DW&CD/

/3225 dated 11-04-2016.

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section

4 of the Goa State Commission for Women Act,

1996 (Goa Act 10 of 1996) (hereinafter called as the

“said Act”), read with Rule 3 of the Goa State

Commission for Women Rules, 1997, and in

supersession of Government Notification referred

above, published in the Official Gazette, Series II

No. 2 dated 15th April, 2016, Series II No. 39 dated

28th December, 2017, the Government of Goa,

hereby constitutes the State Commission for

Women, to exercise the powers conferred on and

to perform the functions assigned to it, under the

said Act, and Rules consisting of the following

persons namely:

1. Mrs. Purti Patkar,

...

Chairperson.

BS2-Samarth Residency,

Caranzalem, Panaji-Goa

403002

2. Mrs. Shaila D’Souza,

...

Member.

D 14, La Marvel Colony,

Near Raj Bhavan,

Dona Paula, Goa

3. Mrs. Lawanya Shetye,

...

Member.

H. No. 20, Anandi, Lane-7,

Behind Cottage Hospital,

Alto Chicalim,

Vasco-da-Gama 403711

4. Mrs. Ketki Parob Gadekar,

...

Member.

Flat No. S4, A3 Building,

Torchem Galu, Colvale,

Bardez-Goa

5. Dr. Pritha Mallya,

...

Member.

Shree Damodar Educational

Campus, G. R. Kare Rad,

Tansor, Comba, Margao,

Salcete-Goa 403601

6. Dr. Sheela Gupte,

...

Member.

3/140/E, Chamunda Garden,

Karaswada, Near Babaji Bakery,

Mapusa-Goa

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 34.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—380/160–3/2019.

7. Ms. Kishori Mandrekar,

...

Member.

H. No. 85/4, Mainath Bhati,

Arpora, Bardez-Goa 403516

8. Ms. Alina Saldanha,

...

Member.

MLA, Cortalim Constituency

9. Shri Siddhivinayak S. Naik

...

Member

Secretary.

The tenure of the above Committee shall be for

three years from the date of its constitution.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Deepali Naik, Jt. Director (ICDS) (Women and

Child Development).

Panaji, 04th March, 2019.

________

Notification

No. 8-1-94/W&CD/Part/10274

Read: Notification No. 8/1/94/DW&CD/3539 dated

1-9-2015.

In exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule

(iv) and (v) Rule 3 of the Rules of the State Social

Welfare Board Goa, 1995, Government of Goa in

consultation with the Central Social Welfare Board,

New Delhi hereby reconstitutes State Social

Welfare Board for second term as follows:-

Smt. Kamalini Painguinker

— Chairperson.

State Government Nominees

1. Smt. Nutan Santosh Naik, Borim, Goa.

2. Smt. Shubhada Kundaiker, Old Goa

3. Shri Anthony D’Souza, Pernem-Goa.

Official Nominees

1. Director, Women & Child Development,

Panaji-Goa.

2. Director, Social Welfare, Panaji-Goa.

The tenure of the above Board will be for a period

of three years with effect from the date of

publication of the Notification in the Official

Gazette.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Dipak Desai, Director (Women & Child

Development).

Panaji, 05th March, 2019.