Panaji, 10th October, 2019 (Asvina 18,1941)

SERIES II No. 28

471

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

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Environment

—

Notification

No. 5/20/87/87-STE/DIR/Part-I/583

In exercise of powers conferred by Section 40(3)

of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)

Act, 1974, the Government of Goa on the advice of

the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, vide

their letter No. CA.V/FRM/GOA,O/1140 dated

19-08-2019 hereby appoints M/s. P. B. Deshpande &

Co. (WR3203), No. 512, Fifth Floor, Gera Imperium

1, Patto Plaza, Panaji, as the Auditors of the Goa

State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB), 1st Floor,

Dempo Tower, Patto, Panaji-Goa, for the financial

year 2018-19 on the fixed remuneration/fees of

Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each year.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Johnson J. Fernandes, Director (Environment).

Porvorim, 4th October, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Finance

Debt Management Division

—

Notification

No. 2/8/2012-FIN(DMU)/107

Read: 1. Notification No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU) dated

13-04-2017.

In pursuance to Clause 18 of the Articles of

Association of Goa State Infrastructure Development

Corporation Limited (GSIDC); read with Section 149

of sub-section 1 and 6 of the Companies Act, 2013,

Government of Goa is pleased to nominate the

following members on Board of Directors of GSIDC

Ltd., with immediate effect:-

1. Mrs. Pratima Dhond, Panaji — Women Director.

2. Shri Dattaram Chimulkar,

— Independent

Sankhali

Director.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary, Finance (Bud.-II).

Porvorim, 4th October, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

—

Notification

No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-II/601

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

30-08-2019 in reference No. IT/6/16 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, 1st October, 2019.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/6/16

The General Secretary,

Goa Union of Industrial Workers,

Note:-

There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 27 dated 03-10-2019 namely,

Extraordinary dated 07-10-2019 from pages 469

to 470 regarding Order & Notifications from

Department of Elections & Notification from

Department of Panchayati Raj & Community

Development.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

472

affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

Kamakshi Krupa, Khadapaband,

Ponda, Goa-403 401.

…

Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Terecom Limited,

102 Plant, Kundaim Industrial Estate,

Kundaim, Goa-403 401.

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri

Suhaas Naik.

Employer/Party II absent.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 30th day of the month

of August of the year 2019)

By Order dated 24-12-2015, bearing No. 28/46/

/2014-LAB/-1096, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s Teracom Limited, Kundaim Industrial

Estate, Kundaim, Goa in not conceding the

following Charter of Demands raised by the

Goa Union of Industrial Workers is legal and

justified?

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

(1) Demand No. 1 Pay Scale: The Union, hereby

demands that the pay scales of the employees

should be as under:-

(A) 5475-325-7100-360-8900-398-10875-430-13025

(B) 3975-285-5400-320-7000-358-8775-390-10725

(C) 2850-205-3875-245-5100-285-6525-325-8150

(D) 2060-165-2885-205-3910-245-5135-285-6560

(E) 1500-120-2100-155-2875-190-3825-225-4950

(2) Demand No. 2 Gratuity: It is demanded by the

Union that all the workmen should be given the

gratuity @ 75% of the Gross Salary.

(3) Demand No. 3 Dearness Allowance: It is de-

manded that:-

(A) With effect from 01-04-2014, each workman

be paid Fixed Dearness Allowance @ 25% of

the revised salary.

(B) With effect from 01-04-2014, each workman be

paid Variable Dearness Allowance @ Rs. 3/-

per point over and above base 4877 points

(AICPI 1960=100). The variable dearness

allowance should be revised once every

quarter.

(4) Demand No. 4 Flat Rise: It is demanded that

each worker be paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month

as flat rise.

(5) Demand No. 5 House Rent Allowance: It is

demanded that all the employees should be paid

house rent allowance of Rs. 4,250/- per month over

and above the existing salary.

(6) Demand No. 6 Lunch Allowance: It is demanded

that with effect from 01-04-2014, each workman be

paid Rs. 1,500 per month as the lunch allowance.

However, the Union request that present facilities

of tea provided to the employees be improved by

providing light refreshment in due consultation

with the union, so also the Canteen and

Canteen Committee be formed comprise of the

representatives of the management and the union

which should be formed at the earliest. In particu-

lar the Union suggests that 15 minutes for tea break

that further healthy balance diet be provided as

breakfast in between the 10 hours night shift duty.

The break of half an hour be provided for the

breakfast at 2.00 a.m.

(7) Demand No. 7 Education Allowance: In order

to encourage the children of the employees to go

for higher studies, it is demanded that all the work-

men should be paid educational allowance @ Rs.

750/- per month.

(8) Demand No. 8 Seniority Allowance (SA):

Seniority allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- for every

completed year of service calculating from their

date of joining till 01st March, 2014 be granted to

the Union.

(9) Demand No. 9 Leave Travel Allowance: Union

hereby demands that each employee should be

entitled to leave travel allowances @ Rs. 10,000/-

per annum.

(10) Demand No. 10 Medical Allowance: Medical

allowance to employees towards high cost of

medicines and doctors fees beside overall

hospitalization expenditure be provided to

employees and hence union demands that all the

workers should be paid Rs. 7,500/- per annum as

Medical Allowance.

(11) Demand No. 11 Shift Allowance: It is de-

manded that all the workers should be paid re-

vised shift allowance as follows:-

2nd Shift - Rs. 300/- per day. 3rd Shift - Rs. 500/- per

day.

(12) Demand No. 12 Leave Facilities: It is demanded

that the employees be eligible to the following

leave facilities:-

(a)

Privilege Leave 25 days per annum.

(b)

Casual Leave 10 days per annum.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

473

(c)

Sick Leave 10 days per annum.

(d)

Paternity Leave 25 days per annum.

(e)

Public Holidays 11 days per annum.

(f)

Restricted Holidays 4 days per annum.

(13) Demand No. 13 Over Times: It is demanded

that over-time should be paid on Gross Salary/

/Compensatory off @ Rupees 700/- per O. T. per

head.

(14) Demand No. 14 Loan: Union demands that

the loan facilities should be provided interest free

loan for all purposes by the company as under:-

(a) Personal Loan: All workmen should be

provided a personal loan of Rs. 50,000/-.

(b) Housing Loan: All the workmen should be

provided a housing loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Loan

installments should be deducted from the

monthly salary by total 36 equal installments.

(c) Marriage Loan: All the workmen should be

provided a Marriage loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Loan installments should be deducted and

recovered from the monthly salary by total of

36 equal installments.

(15) Demand No. 15 Accidental Leaves and Medical

Expenses: It is demanded that those who meet with

the accident while on duty even under the national

extension of work should be given fully paid special

sick leave till they are fit to resume the duty and

full medical expenses should be reimbursed by the

management by way of compensation.

(16) Demand No. 16 Festival Advance: It is

demanded that the workers should be paid festival

advance of Rs. 10,000/- annum.

(17) Demand No. 17 Monsoon Allowance: It is

demanded that an amount of Rs. 1000/- p.a. should

be given as Monsoon Allowance to the workmen.

(18) Demand No. 18 Bonus/Ex-gratia: It is

demanded that every worker should be paid bo-

nus/ex-gratia every year @ 20% on the salary earned

during financial year without any ceiling. The

bonus ought to be paid 15 days before Diwali fes-

tival.

(19) Demand No. 19 Incentive: It is demanded

that all the workmen should be paid 1% of the

profit share per annum.

(20) Demand No. 20 Transport: It is demanded

that good and safe transport facility be provided to

all three shifts from their major home destination

to the factory premises to and fro.

(21) Demand No. 21 Insurance Policy: It is

demanded that the entire workmen should be

covered under Group Personal Accident Insurance

Policy. The accident cover for each workman shall

be an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, each employee should

be insured on a 24 hours.

(22) Demand No. 22 Death Relief Fund: It is

demanded that the company shall pay death relief

fund of Rs. 5,000/- to the employees entitled for it.

(23) Demand No. 23 Medical Scheme: It is

demanded that:-

(a) All the workmen who are out of ESI Scheme

should be given substantial amount for treat-

ment for self, spouse and two dependent chil-

dren upto the age 25 years.

(b) Normal medical bills shall be claimed after

submission of bills. Amount should be pro-

vided within 15 days from the date of submis-

sion of bills.

(24) Demand No. 24: It is demanded that company

should give time for Union to take monthly meeting

in the company premises with the frequency of every

one month, for the purpose of joint management

and union office bearers meetings.

(25) Demand No. 25 Short Leave: It is demanded

that company shall allow short leave or late

reporting (8) times per month to all the workers in

case of any emergency.

(26) Demand No. 26: It is demanded that any

policy and recreational activities on in-house

programme should be discussed by the Manage-

ment with the Union Committee Member at least

a week in advance and that the practice of staff

and union participation in it be established along

with new recreational activities for the families of

the employees be organized at least twice a year.

(27) Demand No. 27 Bandh Day: Whenever

factories are closed or transport is not available due

to any reason beyond the control of the workmen

and if the workmen are not able to come to the

factory for work, then, that day should be considered

as ‘Paid Day’.

(28) Demand No. 28: It is demanded that company

should provide following facilities to workmen.

(a) 2 Nos. uniforms to all workmen per annum.

(b) 2 pairs of shoes per annum.

(c) 2 aprons for chemical room work per annum.

(d) A nose mask and hand gloves pairs.

(29) Demand No. 29 Chemical Allowance: It is

demanded that all the workmen should be paid

chemical allowances at the rate of Rs. 300/- per

month to workmen.

(30) Demand No. 30 Union Rights: It is demanded

that the Union reserve the right to modify, amend,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

474

add, alter and delete any clauses of the Charter of

Demands during the negotiation.

(31) Demand No. 31 Age of Retirement: It is

demanded that the retirement age of the workmen

shall be 60 years.

(32) Demand No. 32 Documents to Union: It is

demanded that the management shall issue to the

union by hand delivery in addition to display on

the notice board the copies of all documents the

provisions of which effect the wages and service

conditions of the workmen or the documents which

directly or impliedly govern the workmen of the

company.

(33) Demand No. 33 Period of Settlement: Period

of settlement shall be of 36 months effective from

01-03-2014 to 31-03-2017.

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

negative, then, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/06/16 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Justification statement at Exb. 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

Party II is a company situated at Kundiam and had

emerged as a market leader in its business. All the

workmen are employed with Party II since last many

years and their wages and allowances were fixed

at the time of initial appointment and they are still

working on the same wages and other service

conditions. The present salaries and wages paid to

the workmen are very low and pathetic and do not

even make both ends meet. The present Charter of

demands is raised on the management of the Party

II to enhance their existing wages and allowances.

The said Charter of demands was not settled by

Party II inspite of series of letters and reminders.

The management has failed to discuss and finalize

the pending Charter of demands and therefore they

raised industrial dispute before the Labour

Commissioner, which ended in failure. The Party II

is in strong financial position to meet the demands.

It is therefore, reliefs as claimed be granted.

4. The Party II was duly served, however inspite

of several opportunities, failed to file its defence/

/written statement.

5. Heard arguments.

6. The point for my determination is whether

the management of M/s Teracom Limited, Kundaim

Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa in not conceding

the Charter of Demands raised by the Goa Union of

Industrial Workers is illegal and unjustified. My

answer to the above point is in the negative for the

following:

REASONS

7. It is a matter of record that Learned Adv. Shri

Suhaas Naik for Party I has filed an application at

Exh. 8 stating that he is unable to proceed with

the evidence due to continued failure on the part

of the workmen concerned to communicate with

him and the union about the matter and as such

he does not wish to lead evidence in the matter

and the matter may be proceeded further. It

appears that the Party I is not interested in

pursuing the matter nor led any evidence in

support of the above Charter of demands. The

burden to prove that the action of the Party II in

not conceding the above Charter of Demands raised

by the Goa Union of Industrial Workers is illegal

and unjustified lies on the Party I/workmen and

unless said burden is discharged by the workmen,

the onus will not shift on Party II Company to prove

otherwise. The Party I workmen have neither led

any evidence nor proved the above point. The Party

I therefore have failed to discharge the burden of

proving that the Charter of demands raised by them

are fair, proper and justified. Hence, the above point

is answered in the negative.

8. In view of the above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) It is hereby held that action of the

management of M/s Teracom Limited,

Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa in not

conceding the following Charter of Demands

raised by the Goa Union of Industrial Workers

is legal and justified.

(ii) The Party I/Workmen are therefore not

entitled to any reliefs.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-IV/602

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

30-08-2019 in reference No. IT/01/99 is hereby

published as required under Section 17 of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

475

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 1st October, 2019.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/01/99

Workmen,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Chowgule Employees Union,

P. O. Box. No. 90,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

…

Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Chowgule & Co. Ltd.,

Chowgule House,

Mormugao Harbour, Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri Jatin

Naik.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.

K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 30th day of the month

of August of the year 2019)

By Order dated 14-12-1998, bearing No. IRM/

/CON/SG/(30)/-98/12317, the Government of Goa

in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The

Act), has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Chowgule and Company Ltd., Vasco, in

dismissing S/Shri Jose Fernandes-Mechanic,

Ramesh N. Tari-Peon, Atmaram N. Krishnaji-

-Electrician and Gopal N. Vengurlekar-Peon,

from services, with effect from 3-4-1998, is legal

and justified?

(2)If not, to what relief the workmen is

entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/01/99 was

registered and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Upon appearance, Party I filed

a Claim statement at Exhibit 3 and Party II filed a

Written Statement at Exhibit 4.

3. In short, the case of Party I in the Claim

statement is that the Party I workmen were

dedicated workmen of Party II and active members

of Chowgule Employees Union. The Party II was

waiting for an opportunity to somehow victimize

each of the said workmen and dismiss them from

service and accordingly they fabricated an

incident and implicated the above four workmen in

the said case and placed them under suspension.

Charge sheets-cum-suspension order dated

17-11-1995 was issued to each of the said four

workmen and one Shri A. M. Gaikwad, previously

employed as Manager with the Chowgules was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Said Shri Gaikwad

illegally clubbed the four separate enquiries

against each of said workmen, with each other so

also with another enquiry against one Mahesh N.

Shetye without notice to or concurrence of any of

the four workmen. None of the said four workmen

were given opportunity to be defended by any of

the office bearers and illegally restricted each of

the said four workmen to choose only co-workers

to represent them in the enquiry. The Enquiry

officer did not permit the workmen to cross

examine the witnesses of the employer during

enquiry proceedings. He was generally displaying

a pro-employer bias and partiality during the

conduct of the enquiry. The entire enquiry

proceedings were neither fair nor just. The enquiry

officer has miss-appreciated the evidence on record

and given wrong and legally unsustainable find-

ings. The employer having decided to victimize

the workmen has foisted the extreme penalty of

dismissal from service which is also disproportion-

ate to the alleged misconduct. The enquiry pro-

ceedings were neither fair nor just. Hence, the

reference.

4. In the Written statement, the Party II has

claimed that the Party I workmen were dismissed

for their involvement in an assault on co-workers.

Their place of work was at head office of employer

at Mormugao Harbour. The employees of Party II

were having allegiance to Chowgule Employees

Union. The Party I workmen along with one Mahesh

Shetye assaulted their co-workers, Shri Maruti V.

Undare and Shri S. S. Desai on 1-11-1995. All the

five workmen were issued chargesheet-cum-

-suspension. The enquiry against the workmen was

joint enquiry along with Shri Mahesh Shetye as

the incident and the witnesses from both sides

were common. The employer has not victimized

the workmen. The punishment was commensurate

with the misconduct committed by the workmen

and therefore, the reference be dismissed.

5. Based on the above averments of the

respective parties, the following issues were framed

at Exh. 6

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

476

(1) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

domestic enquiry held against the workmen

is not fair, proper and impartial?

(2) Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the workmen are proved to the

satisfaction of the Tribunal by acceptable

evidence?

(3) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

dismissal of the workmen from service by the

Party II is by way of victimization?

(4) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

action of the Party II in dismissing the

workmen from service w.e.f. 3-4-98 is illegal

and unjustified?

(5) Whether the workmen are entitled to any

relief?

(6) What Award?

6. It is a matter of record that preliminary issues

No. 1 and 2 were answered vide Order dated

30-11-2018 at Exh. 25 and it was held that domestic

enquiry initiated against the Party I workmen is

fair and proper. It was also held that the charges

of misconduct leveled against the Party I by the

Party II are proved to the satisfaction of the

Tribunal.

7. The Applicant thereafter examined Shri Gopal

N. Vengurlekar and produced on record the

affidavit-in evidence at Exh. 28. No evidence has

been led by the Party II.

8. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments

came to be placed on record by Party II.

9. My findings on issues No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are as

follows:

Issue No. 3

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 4

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 5

…

As per final order.

Issue No. 6

…

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 3:

10. Learned Adv. Shri G. K. Sardesai for Party II

has submitted that the Party I has failed to prove

that their dismissal from service is by way of

victimization as there are no pleadings or proof

that they were made victim or a scapegoat and

that they were subjected to persecution or

prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt

of their own. The Party I has not shown that they

were being pressurized to leave the union or union

activities or they were treated unequally or in an

obviously discriminatory manner for the sole reason

of their connection with the union or their particular

union activity or that they were inflicted a grossly

monstrous punishment which no rational person

would impose upon an employee as held in the

case of M/s. Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai

Patel and other, AIR 1976 SC 98.

11. Needless to mention, victimization is the

serious charge by an employee against the employer

which has not been properly and adequately

pleaded by Party I giving all particulars upon which

charge is based to enable the employer to fully

meet them. The Party I has not pleaded the nature

of victimization allegedly carried out by the Party II.

The onus of establishing the plea of victimization is

on the person pleading it. Mere allegation, vague

suggestions and insinuations are not enough and

it must be directly connected with the activities of

the concerned employee. Needless to mention,

once the Party II proved the misconducts against

the concerned workmen on legal evidence in a

fairly conducted domestic enquiry or before the

Tribunal on merits, the plea of victimization by the

workmen will not carry their case any further as

rightly submitted by Ld. Advocate Shri Sardessai

for the Party II. The plea of Party I that the dismissal

from service is by way of victimization on the part

of management therefore pales into insignificance

and hence, the issue No. 3 is answered in the

negative.

Issues No. 4, 5 & 6:

12. Ld. Adv. Shri Jatin Naik for the Party I has

submitted that the punishment of dismissal meted

out to them is too harsh and disproportionate to

the charges levelled against them. He further

submitted that the punishment should not be

disproportionate or dismissal of the workmen

should not be shockingly disproportionate to the

charges held proved against the Party I as no police

complaint was lodged in connection with the

incident of alleged assault nor criminal law was

set in the motion nor any chargesheet has been

filed and instead the Party II fabricated the event

by installing an enquiry. The dismissal of the

workmen on the charges of assault is totally against

the law, fair play and principle of natural justice

and therefore the enquiry is illegal and unfair. He

further submitted that the false and concocted story

has been foisted on the workmen in order to take

revenge or vindictiveness on the said workmen and

in support thereof, he relied upon the cases of (i)

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs. Gajendra Singh

Rawat, W.P.(C) 7826/2008 & Crl. MA 1511/2008

dated 9-9-2016 and (ii) The State Bank of Indi &

Others vs. P. Soupramaniane, Civil Appeal

No. 7011 of 2009 dated 26-4-2019.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

477

13. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for

Party II has submitted that the assault by the

workmen is a grave misconduct resulting in their

dismissal and it can be interfered with only when

inter-alia it is found that no reasonable person

would inflict such punishment or when relevant

facts which would have a direct bearing on the

question have not been taken into consideration.

He further submitted that the misconduct of the Party

I workmen concerned is grave enough to attract the

punishment of dismissal. The Party I workmen are

not expected to assault their co-workers even if

there is a strike which amounts to an act of gross

indiscipline and therefore the punishment of

dismissal from services cannot be said to be wholly

disproportionate so as to shock one’s conscience.

There is therefore no scope for interference as it is

not illogical nor suffers from procedural impropriety

or in defiance of logic or moral standards. He further

submitted that the assault on the fellow employees

in the presence of other employees clearly amounted

to breach of discipline in the organization and when

the employer terminates their services, it is not

open to Industrial Tribunal to take the view that

punishment awarded is shockingly disproportion-

ate to the charges proved and in support thereof, he

relied upon the cases of (i) Hombe Gowda

Educational Trust and another vs. State of

Karnataka and Others, (2006) 1 SCC 430; (ii)

Murlidhar Raghoji Savant vs. General Manager,

Mather & Plant (I) Ltd. & Ors. 1992 LLJ 394 and

(iii) M. P. Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra

Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hombe

Gowda Educational Trust and another, supra has

observed that the recent trend in the decisions of

the Supreme Court seek to strike a balance between

the earlier approach to the industrial relation

wherein only the interest of the workmen was

sought to be protected with the avowed object of

fast industrial growth of the country. In several

decisions of the Supreme Court it has been noticed

how discipline at the workplace/industrial

undertakings received a setback. In view of the

change in economic policy of the country, it may

not now be proper to allow the employees to break

the discipline with impunity. In the case of M. P.

Electricity Board, supra the employee was found

guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at

the workplace, obviously in the presence of other

employees. It was observed that the said act clearly

amounted to breach of discipline in the organization

and that discipline at the workplace in an

organization, is the sine qua non for the efficient

working of the organization. When an employee

breaches such discipline and the employer

terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour

Court or an Industrial tribunal to take a view that the

punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate

to the charge proved. It is also observed in the case

of Murlidhar Raghoji Savant, supra that the act of

assault on the co-worker has a direct and material

bearing on the smooth and efficient working of the

company which amounts to subversive of discipline.

15. Admittedly, issue No. 1 and 2 were answered

against the Party I workmen and it was held that

the enquiry conducted against them is fair and

proper and that charges of misconduct leveled

against them are proved to the satisfaction of the

Tribunal by acceptable evidence. The charges

against the Party I workmen were that in response

to the call for the strike given by the Union, the

workers of the head office as well as the mines,

ship building and engineering division were on

illegal strike w.e.f. 17-10-1995 and on 1-11-1995, the

incident of assault was reported to the management

which took place in the premises of administrative

building of Mormugao Port office wherein two of

the staff members of head office viz. Shri M. V.

Undare and Shri S. S. Desai were assaulted by Party

I workmen and another, as a result of assault, both

the employees suffered serious injuries and in that

connection a detailed complaint was received by

the management from said Shri Undare and that

due to interference of Central Industrial Security

Force personnel, both the employees were saved

from the above mentioned employees. There is no

act of remorse or a letter of apology on the part of

the workmen concerned with respect to the said

incident and on the contrary, they tried to justify

their action by raising the dispute and claimed

that it was a false case filed against them out of

vindictiveness. Any amount of leniency towards

such misconduct would have serious impact on

the discipline amongst the workmen in the

establishment. It needs no mention that the

employees shall adhere to discipline as discipline

at the workplace in an organization is the sine qua

non for the efficient working of the organization

and when employees breach such discipline and

the employer terminates their services, it is not

open to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal

to take the view that the punishment awarded is

shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.

16. Needless to mention, the jurisdiction to

interfere with the quantum of punishment could

be exercised only when, inter-alia, it is found to be

grossly disproportionate and that assaulting fellow

workers at a workplace amounts to an act of gross

indiscipline. The workmen are not expected to abuse

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

478

or assault their co-workers, even if they resort to a

strike and therefore punishment of dismissal from

services cannot be said to be disproportionate so

as to shock one’s conscience. The act of assault on

the co-workers by the workmen took place at

Mormugao Harbour when the victims had come to

report for duty and therefore attack on the co-

-workers amounted to an act subversive of discipline

or good behaviour. The Party I workmen have not

explained why the punishment is disproportionate.

The witness, Shri Gopal N. Vengurlekar has also

not given any good or valid reasons for reduction

in punishment or why the Court should interfere

with the punishment awarded in the domestic

enquiry. There are also no extraneous factors for

imposing lesser punishment.

17. The Party I workmen were found guilty in

assaulting co-workers in the presence of other

workers which amounted to breach of discipline.

Discipline at the workplace in an organization is a

sine qua non for the efficient working of the

organization and when employees breach such

discipline and the employer terminates their services,

it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial

Tribunal to take a view that the punishment

awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the

charge proved. The Party I was given a fair and

reasonable opportunity in the departmental enquiry,

so also before the Court and after following the

procedures and principles of natural justice, both

the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal have

held that the enquiry conducted against Party I

workmen is fair, proper and impartial and that the

charges of misconduct leveled against them are

proved. The reliance placed by Party I on the above

cases turned on their own facts and therefore not

applicable to the case at hand. It is therefore the

above submissions of Ld. Adv. Shri Jatin Naik cannot

be accepted. Hence, the above issues No. 4, 5 & 6

are answered accordingly.

18. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The present reference stands dismissed.

ii. It is hereby held that the action of the

management of M/s. Chowgule and Company

Ltd., Vasco, in dismissing S/Shri Jose

Fernandes-Mechanic, Ramesh N. Tari-Peon,

Atmaram N. Krishnaji-Electrician and Gopal

N. Vengurlekar-Peon, from services, with effect

from 3-4-1998, is legal and justified.

iii. The Party I workmen are therefore not entitled

to any reliefs.

iv. No order as to costs.

v. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2019-LAB/603

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

28-08-2019 in reference No. IT/17/17 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, 1st October, 2019.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/17/17

Workmen,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

ACGL Employees Union,

Bhuimpal, Sattari,

Goa-403 530.

…

Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd.,

Honda, Sattari,

Goa-403 530.

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik

Jorge.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.

S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month

of August of the year 2019)

By Order dated 15-11-2017, bearing No. 28/20/

/2017-LAB/783, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

479

“(1) Whether the demand of ACGL Employee’s

Union, Honda, Sattari, Goa, for Variable

Dearness Allowance (V.D.A.) at the rate of

Rs. 2.00 per point for the period from 01-06-1990

to 31-03-2006, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/17/17 was

registered. Notices were issued to both the parties

under registered post, upon which both the parties

were served. Party I thereafter filed the Claim

statement at Exh. 5 and the Party II filed a Written

statement at Exh. 6.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

Party II has a factory at Honda-Sattari, Goa which

was established by Government of Goa for

production of spare parts of vehicles and buses

and employs a large number of workers. The

permanent workers of Party II are members of trade

unions right from the beginning viz. ACGL

Employees Union and ACGL Workers Union and

both the unions have been submitting Charter of

demands on behalf of their members and have

signed various wage settlements with Party II from

time to time improving wages and service

conditions of their members. Similarly, ACGL

workers Union have also signed similar wage

settlements with Party II from time to time. The

settlement for the period from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2006

was common for both the unions viz. ACGL

Employees Union and ACGL Workers Union and

VDA was revised to Rs. 1.95 per point and the same

was common for both the unions. The settlement

for the period from 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2009 was

common for both the unions but the same was

signed separately and VDA was revised from

Rs. 1.95 per point to Rs. 2.20 per point and the same

was common for both the unions.

4. The ACGL Workers Union some years back

raised a demand with Party II for VDA @ Rs. 2/- per

point shift (1960=100) with effect from 1-1-1998 in

view of Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Settlement

dated 1-9-1990 signed between Party II and ACGL

Workers Union and the dispute was referred to the

Tribunal for adjudication and the Hon’ble Tribunal

passed an Award in said reference No. IT/13/96 on

25-3-2013 in favour of ACGL Workers Union and as

per the Award, benefits were paid to the members

of ACGL Workers Union and unjustly denied

benefits to the Party I workmen which were given

to section of workmen and hence the Party I

workmen felt discriminated. The Party I union

therefore wrote a letter dated 13-9-2015 to the

Labour Commissioner regarding the discrimination;

however the Party II declined to accept the demand

and as such recorded failure of conciliation and

sent failure report to the appropriate Government.

The Party II are therefore entitled for the relief

claimed.

5. In the Written statement, the Party II has

claimed that the entire claim of the Party II is bad

in law, not maintainable and ought to be rejected

as the Party I has no existing right to claim VDA

which was granted to the existing workers of Party

II as per the consent terms signed between the

union and the management. The Party I union was

not existing at all when the settlement dated

1-9-1990 was signed between the management and

the workers employed in sheet metal division and

the said settlement is applicable exclusively to the

workers working in the said division. The Party II

has been signing settlements with Party I workers

who were employed in bus body division. The

consent terms filed before Hon’ble High Court

cannot be extended to Party I workmen as separate

wage settlements have been signed with different

terms and conditions with respective unions. The

impugned Award passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal

has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and

the existing permanent unionized 119 workers of

ACGL Workers Union were settled as per the

consent terms of the Hon’ble High Court.

6. In the rejoinder at Exh. 7, the Party I has

denied the case set up by the Party II in the written

statement.

7. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 9 are as

follows:

(1) Whether the Party I/Union prove that their

demand for Variable Dearness Allowance

(V.D.A.) at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per point for the

period from 01-06-199 to 31-03-2006 is legal

and justified?

(2) Whether the Party II proves that the reference

is bad in law and not maintainable as stated

in Para (a) to (f) of the written statement?

(3) What Relief? What Award?

8. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined

Shri Mahesh T. Diukar as a witness who produced

on record a copy of letter dated 13-9-2015 to the

Labour Commissioner at Exh. 14, a copy of letter

dated 25-1-2016 to Assistant Labour Commissioner

at Exh. 15, a copy of Minutes of conciliation

proceedings dated 6-3-2017 at Exh. 16, a copy of

failure of conciliation proceedings dated 11-7-2017

at Exh. 17, a copy of order of reference dated

15-1-2017 at Exh. 18, a copy of Notification dated

6-5-2013 and Award dated 25-3-2013 in Ref. No. IT/

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

480

/13/96 at Exh. 19 colly and a copy of Memorandum

of Settlement dated 20-11-2003 at Exh. 20. In cross

examination, he also produced a copy of

registration certificate of the Union at Exh. 21, a

copy of Charter of demands along with the

settlement dated 1-9-1990 at Exh. 22 colly, a copy

of Oral judgment, consent terms and the list of

workmen to whom the benefits are applicable at

Exh. 23 colly. On the other hand, the Party II

examined Shri Prakash K. Naik as a witness who

produced on record a copy of Memorandum of

settlement dated 17-10-1987 at Exh. 26. In cross

examination, he also produced the copies of six

settlements at Exh. 27 colly and closed its case.

9. Heard arguments.

10. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 2

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 3

…

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

11. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the Party I has

submitted that as per law workers cannot be

discriminated based on union membership. The

members of ACGL Workers Union have been paid

VDA @ Rs. 2.00 per point for the period from

1-6-1990 to 31-3-2006 as per the Award dated

25-3-2013 of the Tribunal and the members of the

Party I workmen have been denied the said

benefits. There cannot be two sets of VDA’s in the

company as VDA has to be same for all the workmen.

The concept ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ applies to

the case at hand as both the members of the unions

did the same type of work. He further submitted

that when the members of ACGL workers Union

have been granted the benefits mentioned in the

present order of reference, same ought to have

been given to the members of the Party I workmen

working in the same establishment of Party II as

the VDA for both the union members at present is

the same and the members of the both the unions

get the same wage benefits, which practice is going

on for over a decade and therefore the members of

the Party I union shall be given VDA @ Rs. 2.00 per

point for said period as was granted to the members

of ACGL Workers Union and in support thereof, he

relied upon the case of Mahatma Phule

Agricultural University and Ors. vs. Nasik Zilla

Sheth Kamgar Union and Ors., Appeal (Civil) No.

8640-8659 of 1997 dated 24-07-2001.

12. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the Party I has

also submitted that the claim of the Party I

workmen is based on the award of the Hon’ble

Tribunal dated 25-3-2013 as well as the oral

judgment of the Hon’ble High Court passed in the

Writ Petition No. 103/2014 dated 21-11-2014

between Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. vs.

Workmen represented by ACGL Workers Union

based on the consent terms filed by the parties. He

further submitted that under Section 18(3)(d) where

a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is

composed of workmen, all persons who were

employed in the establishment or part of the

establishment, as the case may be, to which the

dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all

persons who subsequently become employed in

that establishment or part are bound by the award

and it is not open to Party II to say that they were

not the parties and the award was not binding on

them. The Party I workmen were all workmen who

are employed in the establishment and therefore

once the award is passed by the Tribunal and the

Hon’ble High Court, it would also be applicable to

other workmen who were not parties to the award

and therefore the benefit should also go to the

Party I workmen and in support thereof, he relied

upon the case of Punjab National Bank and Others

vs. Manjeet Singh and another, 2005-06 SCLJ 973.

13. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for

the Party II has submitted that the Party I have no

right to claim the VDA which was granted to the

existing workers of ACGL as per the Memorandum

of settlement signed between the union and the

management. The ACGL Employees Union came into

force in 1992, while the settlement dated 1-9-1990

was signed between the management and the

workers employed in sheet metal division prior to

the registration of the Party I union and therefore

the settlement is applicable exclusively to the

members of ACGL Workers Union. He further

submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal granted the

relief claimed by ACGL Workers Union which

Award was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court in

the Writ Petition No. 103/14 in the oral judgment

dated 21-11-2014 in which the union and the

management filed the consent terms by which all

the existing permanent unionized 119 workmen

working in the company who are the members of

the union were paid the difference in VDA and

that any ex-workmen and/or any other person could

not have any claim of whatsoever nature as per the

said Award. He further submitted that the principle

‘equal pay for equal work’ is not applicable to the

Party I workmen as they are employed in different

division than the workers of ACGL Workers Union.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

481

Moreover, their nature, duties and responsibilities

of said workers have not been shown to be identical

and similar and therefore the Party I workmen

cannot claim any reliefs by way of present

reference. In support thereof, he relied upon the

case of U. P. State Electricity Board and Anr. vs.

Aziz Ahmad, 2009 I CLR 690.

14. The Party I workmen have examined Shri

Mahesh T. Diukar, Secretary, ACGL Workers Union.

He has claimed that they are entitled for VDA @

Rs. 2.00 per point rise for the period 1-6-1990 to

31-3-2006 as was granted to the workers of ACGL

Workers Union as per the Award of the Hon’ble

Tribunal. He claimed that VDA at present paid for

all the workers of Party II is the same since 2006.

In the cross examination, he admitted that there is

another union called ACGL Workers Union which

has been registered separately and the members

of the said union are different from their union

which was registered in the year 1994 when the

company was producing only sheet metals. The

Registration Certificate at Exh. 21 is indication of

the fact that the Party I union was registered on

17-03-1992 much after the demands were raised by

ACGL Workers union on 30-05-1990 for the period

from 01-06-1990 to 31-5-1993 which clearly shows

that the Party I union was not in existence when

the demands were raised by ACGL Workers Union,

who were working in sheet metal division.

15. There is no dispute that the Party I workmen

are working in bus body division, which is different

from Metal sheet division, where members of ACGL

Workers union are employed. Shri Mahesh has

admitted that their union used to send separate

Charter of demands, so also ACGL Workers Union

were sending separate Charter of demands and

that ACGL Workers Union used to sign separate

settlements for their members and they were

signing separate settlements for their workers and

both were getting separate benefits as per the

separate settlements. Exhibit 22 colly is the Charter

of demands dated 30-5-1990 submitted by ACGL

Workers Union consequent to which a settlement

dated 1-9-1990 was entered into between the union

and the management. He admitted that the said

settlement was signed by the union for their

members and at that time bus body division workers

were not the members of ACGL Workers Union and

that at no point of time their members became the

members of ACGL Workers Union and same

position continued even today. He also admitted

that the dispute raised by the ACGL Workers Union

was with respect to Clause 3 of the settlement

dated 1-9-1990 and that Award was passed by the

Hon’ble Tribunal on 25-3-2013.

16. There is also no dispute that settlement dated

1-9-1990 was signed under Section 2(p) read with

Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and

the said settlement was applicable to the members

of ACGL Workers Union as admitted by him in the

cross examination. He also admitted that the

dispute was raised by the ACGL Workers Union

and that the management challenged the Award

in the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High

Court by oral judgment dated 21-11-2014 disposed

of the Writ Petition in terms of consent terms filed

by the parties. Exhibit 23 colly are the consent

terms along with the list of workmen to whom the

benefits are applicable. In the said consent terms,

the members of ACGL Workers Union and the

management settled the issue of VDA after they

agreed that all the existing permanent unionized

119 workmen working in the company who are the

members of the said union shall be paid the

difference in VDA @ Rs. 2.00 per point shift

(1960=100) with effect from 1-6-1990 to 31-3-2006

and accordingly an award dated 25-3-2013 was set

aside. It was also agreed that the union and its

members, ex-workmen and/or any other person

shall not have any claim of whatsoever nature as

per the said award. None of the members of ACGL

Workers Union or ACGL Employees union have

challenged the said oral judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court.

17. Needless to mention, the Party I union viz.

ACGL Employees Union was not in existence when

the settlement dated 1-1-1990 was signed between

the management and the workers employed in

sheet metal division. The Party I workmen are

working in bus body division and not sheet metal

division. The settlement dated 1-1-1990 was

exclusively applicable to the workers employed in

sheet metal division only and not others as the

Party II had signed the settlement with the workers

of bus body division on 20-6-1992 and the said

settlement is applicable to the workers of Party I

union. The settlement dated 1-1-1990 signed by

the management and the workers employed in

sheet metal division was challenged by their

workers with respect to claim of VDA and the

Hon’ble Tribunal passed an award which was set

aside by Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition

No. 103/2014 by way of consent terms. The members

of the Party I union and the members of ACGL

Workers Union are separate and the Party II have

been signing separate settlements under Section

2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Act with the

said unions revising terms and conditions as both

have been submitting their Charter of demands

separately from time to time on behalf of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

482

workers. It is therefore, the oral judgment passed

by the Hon’ble High Court based on consent terms

is applicable to 119 workmen belonging to ACGL

Workers Union and not to the Party I union and

therefore, the benefits of the said consent terms

cannot be extended to the ACGL Employees Union

as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv. Shri Bandodkar

for Party II as they are covered by separate terms

of settlement, which they have not challenged.

18. The above submissions of Shri Subhash

therefore cannot be accepted having any merits as

‘equal pay, equal work’ is not applicable to the

workers of the Party I union as Party I workers were

working in different division and entering with

seperate settlements with the management of Party

II. There is also nothing on record that the posts

held by the Party I workmen are equivalent to the

posts held by the members of ACGL Workers Union.

It was the burden of the Party I workmen to prove

that the posts held by both the workmen are equal

and that the nature, duties and responsibilities of

the said posts are identical and similar by leading

cogent and reliable evidence. There are no

pleadings or evidence in support of the said facts

and therefore it is not known that the posts held

by both the set of workers are identical and similar

to extend the benefits to the Party I workmen on

the basis of ‘equal Pay for equal Work’ and

therefore, the reliance placed by Shri Subhash Naik

Jorge on Mahatma Phule Agricultural University

and Ors., supra is misplaced. The reliance placed

on the provision contained in Section 18(3)(b) by

Party I is also fallacious as the workers of Party I

union were entering into separate set of settlements

than the workers of ACGL Workers Union and

therefore, the provision of Section 18(3)(b) as well

as award of the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court

cannot be made applicable to the Party I workmen.

Hence, the above submissions of Shri Subhash Naik

Jorge pale into insignificance. The Party 1 having

failed to prove the above issue, it is answered in

the negative.

Issue No. 2:

19. It is claimed by the Party II that the reference

is not maintainable based on the grounds taken in

para (a) to (f) of the written statement, however, no

evidence has been led to that effect. Hence, the

issue No. 2 is answered in the negative.

Issue No. 3:

20. Needless to mention, the Party I having failed

to prove that the demand for variable dearness

allowance (VDA) @ Rs. 2.00 per point for the period

from 1-6-1990 to 31-3-2006 is legal and justified, no

relief as claimed by it can be granted and the

reference has to be answered in the negative.

21. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) It is hereby held that the demand of ACGL

Employee’s Union, Honda, Sattari, Goa, for

Variable Dearness Allowance (V.D.A.) at the

rate of Rs. 2.00 per point for the period from

01-06-1990 to 31-03-2006, is illegal and

unjustified.

(ii) No order as to costs.

(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-V/604

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

30-08-2019 in reference No. IT/91/98 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, 1st October, 2019.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/91/98

Shri Mahesh N. Shetye,

(Since expired) rep. by

(i) Smt. Mamta Mahesh Shetye @

Madhuri Krishna Pednekar (widow).

(ii) Ms. Deveshi Mahesh Shetye (daughter)

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Chowgule Employees Union,

P. O. Box. No. 90,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Chowgule Brothers,

Mormugao Harbour,

Goa.

… Employer/Party II

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

483

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri Jatin

Naik.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.

K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 30th day of the month

of August of the year 2019)

By Order dated 25-09-1998, bearing No. IRM/

/CON/SG/(34)/-98/10968, the Government of Goa

in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The

Act), has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Chowgule Brothers in dismissing from

services Shri Mahesh N. Shetye, Peon, with

effect from 4-2-1998, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/91/98 was

registered and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Upon appearance, Party I filed

a Claim statement at Exhibit 5 and Party II filed a

Written Statement at Exhibit 6.

3. In short, the case of Party I in the Claim

statement is that the Party I workman Shri Mahesh

Shetye was dedicated workman of Party II and active

member of Chowgule Employees Union. The Party II

was waiting for opportunity to somehow victimize

Party I workman and dismiss him from service and

accordingly they fabricated an incident and

implicated the above workman in the said case

and placed him under suspension. Charge sheets

cum suspension order dated 17-11-1995 was issued

to him and one Shri A. M. Gaikwad was previously

employed as Manager with the Chowgules was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Said Shri Gaikwad

illegally clubbed the enquiry against said workman

with some other enquiries without notice to or

concurrence of the Party I workman. The Party I

workman was not given opportunity to be defended

by any of the office bearers and illegally restricted

him to choose only co-worker to represent him in

the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer did not permit the

Party I workman to cross examine the witnesses of

the employer during enquiry proceedings. He was

generally displaying a pro-employer bias and

partiality during the conduct of the enquiry. The

entire enquiry proceedings were neither fair nor

just. The Enquiry Officer has mis-appreciated the

evidence on record and given wrong and legally

unsustainable findings. The employer having

decided to victimize the workman has foisted the

extreme penalty of dismissal from service which is

also disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The enquiry proceedings were neither fair nor just.

Hence, the reference.

4. In the Written statement, the Party II has

claimed that the Party I workman was dismissed

for his involvement in an assault on co-workers

along with other workers. His place of work was at

head office of employer at Mormugao Harbour. The

employees of Party II were having allegiance to

Chowgule Employees Union. The Party I workman

along with other four workmen viz. Ramesh Tari,

Gopal Vengurlekar, Jose Fernandes and Atmaram

Krishnaji assaulted their co-workers, Shri Maruti V.

Undare and Shri S. S. Desai on 1-11-1995. All the

five workmen were issued charge sheet cum

suspension. The enquiry against the workman was

joint enquiry along with other four workmen as the

incident and the witnesses from both sides were

common. The employer has not victimized the

workman. The punishment was commensurate with

the misconduct committed by the workman and

therefore, the reference be dismissed.

5. Based on the above averments of the respective

parties, the following issues were framed at Exh. 7.

(1) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the do-

mestic enquiry held against the workman is

not fair, proper and impartial?

(2) Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the workman are proved to the satis-

faction of the Tribunal by acceptable evidence?

(3) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the dis-

missal of the workman from service by the

Party II is by way of victimization?

(4) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the ac-

tion of the Party II in dismissing the workman

from service w.e.f. 4-2-98 is illegal and

unjustified?

(5) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

(6) What Award?

6. It is a matter of record that preliminary issues

No. 1 and 2 were answered vide Order dated

30-11-2018 at Exh. 23 and it was held that domestic

enquiry initiated against the workman, Shri

Mahesh Shetye is fair and proper. It was also held

that the charges of misconduct leveled against the

Party I by the Party II are proved to the satisfaction

of the Tribunal.

7. The Applicant thereafter examined Shri

Suresh S. Naik and relied upon the documents

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

484

produced at the time of evidence on preliminary

issues. No evidence has been led by the Party II.

8. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments

came to be placed on record by Party II.

9. My findings on issues No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are as

follows:

Issue No. 3

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 4

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 5

…

As per final order.

Issue No. 6

…

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 3:

10. Learned Adv. Shri G. K. Sardesai for Party II

has submitted that the Party I has failed to prove

that the dismissal of workman from service is by

way of victimization as there are no pleadings or

proof that he was made a victim or a scapegoat and

he was subjected to persecution or prosecution or

punishment for no real fault or guilt of his own.

The Party I has not shown that he was being

pressurized to leave the union or union activities

or he was treated unequally or in an obviously

discriminatory manner for the sole reason of his

connection with the union or his particular union

activity or that he was inflicted a grossly monstrous

punishment which no rational person would impose

upon an employee and the like as held in the case

of M/s. Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Patel

and other, AIR 1976 SC 98.

11. Needless to mention, victimization is the se-

rious charge by an employee against the employer

which has not been properly and adequately

pleaded giving all particulars upon which charge

is based to enable the employer to fully meet them.

The Party I has not pleaded the nature of victim-

ization allegedly carried out by the Party II. The

onus of establishing the plea of victimization is on

the person pleading it. Mere allegation, vague

suggestions and insinuations are not enough and

it must be directly connected with the activities of

the concerned employee. Needless to mention,

once the Party II proved the misconducts against

the concerned workman on legal evidence in a

fairly conducted domestic enquiry or before the

Tribunal on merits, the plea of victimization by the

workman will not carry its case any further as

rightly submitted by Ld. Advocate Shri Sardessai

for the Party II. The plea of Party I that the dis-

missal from service is by way of victimization on

the part of management therefore pales into insig-

nificance and hence, the issue No. 3 is answered

in the negative.

Issues No. 4, 5 & 6:

12. Ld. Adv. Shri Jatin Naik for the Party I has

submitted that the punishment of dismissal meted

out to him is too harsh and disproportionate to the

charges levelled against him. He further submit-

ted that the punishment should not be dispropor-

tionate or dismissal of the workman should not be

shockingly disproportionate to the charges held

proved against the Party I as no police complaint

was lodged in connection with the incident of

alleged assault nor criminal law was set in the

motion nor any chargesheet has been filed and

instead the Party II fabricated the event by installing

an enquiry. The dismissal of the workman on the

charges of assault is totally against the law, fair

play and principle of natural justice and therefore

the enquiry is illegal and unfair. He further submit-

ted that the false and concocted story has been

foisted on the workman in order to take revenge or

vindictiveness on the said workman and in

support thereof, he relied upon the cases of (i)

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs. Gajendra Singh

Rawat, W.P.(C) 7826/2008 & Crl. MA 1511/2008

dated 9-9-2016 and (ii) The State Bank of Indi &

Others vs. P. Soupramaniane, Civil Appeal

No. 7011 of 2009 dated 26-4-2019.

13. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for

Party II has submitted that the assault by the

workman is a grave misconduct resulting in his

dismissal and it can be interfered with only when

inter-alia it is found that no reasonable person

would inflict such punishment or when relevant

facts which would have a direct bearing on the

question have not been taken into consideration.

He further submitted that the misconduct of the

workman concerned is grave enough to attract the

punishment of dismissal. The Party I is not expected

to assault his co-workers even if there is a strike

which amounts to an act of gross indiscipline and

therefore the punishment of dismissal from

services cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate

so as to shock one’s conscience. There is therefore

no scope for interference as it is not illogical nor

suffers from procedural impropriety or in defiance of

logic or moral standards. He further submitted that

the assault on the fellow employees in the presence

of other employees clearly amounted to breach of

discipline in the organization and when the employer

terminates his services, it is not open to Industrial

Tribunal to take the view that punishment awarded

is shockingly disproportionate to the charges

proved and in support thereof, he relied upon the

cases of (i) Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and

another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2006)

1 SCC 430; (ii) Murlidhar Raghoji Savant vs.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

485

General Manager, Mather & Plant (I) Ltd. & Ors.

1992 LLJ 394 and (iii) M. P. Electricity Board vs.

Jagdish Chandra Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hombe

Gowda Educational Trust and another, supra has

observed that the recent trend in the decisions of

the Supreme Court seek to strike a balance between

the earlier approach to the industrial relation

wherein only the interest of the workmen was

sought to be protected with the avowed object of

fast industrial growth of the country. In several

decisions of the Supreme Court it has been noticed

how discipline at the workplace/industrial under-

takings received a setback. In view of the change

in economic policy of the country, it may not now

be proper to allow the employees to break the

discipline with impunity. In the case of M. P.

Electricity Board, supra the employee was found

guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at

the workplace, obviously in the presence of other

employees. It was observed that the said act clearly

amounted to breach of discipline in the organization

and that discipline at the workplace in an organiza-

tion, is the sine qua non for the efficient working

of the organization. When an employee breaches

such discipline and the employer terminates his

services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an

industrial tribunal to take a view that the punish-

ment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to

the charge proved. It is also observed in the case

of Murlidhar Raghoji Savant, supra that the act of

assault on the co-worker has a direct and material

bearing on the smooth and efficient working of the

company which amounts to subversive of discipline.

15. Admittedly, issue No. 1 and 2 were answered

against the Party I and it was held that the enquiry

conducted against him is fair and proper and that

charges of misconduct leveled against him are proved

to the satisfaction of the Tribunal by acceptable

evidence. The charges against the Party I were

that in response to the call for the strike given by

the Union, the workers of the head office as well as

the mines, ship building and engineering division

were on illegal strike w.e.f. 17-10-1995 and on

1-11-1995, the incident of assault was reported to

the management which took place in the premises

of administrative building of Mormugao Port office

wherein two of the staff members of head office

viz. Shri M. V. Undare and Shri S. S. Desai were

assaulted by Party I workman and others, as a result

of assault, both the employees suffered serious

injuries and in that connection a detailed complaint

was received by the management from said Shri

Undare and that due to interference of Central

Industrial Security Force personnel, both the

employees were saved from the above mentioned

employees. There is no act of remorse or a letter of

apology on the part of the workman concerned with

respect to the said incident and on the contrary, he

tried to justify his action by raising the dispute

and claimed that it was a false case filed against out

of vindictiveness. Any amount of leniency towards

such misconduct would have serious impact on

the discipline amongst the workman in the

establishment. It needs no mention that the employee

shall adhere to discipline as discipline at the

workplace in an organization is the sine qua non

for the efficient working of the organization and

when an employee breaches such discipline and

the employer terminates his services, it is not open

to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to

take the view that the punishment awarded is

shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved.

16. Needless to mention, the jurisdiction to

interfere with the quantum of punishment could

be exercised only when, inter-alia, it is found to be

grossly disproportionate and that assaulting a fellow

worker at a workplace amounts to an act of gross

indiscipline. The workman is not expected to abuse

or assault his co-workers, even if they resort to a

strike and therefore punishment of dismissal from

services cannot be said to be disproportionate so

as to shock one’s conscience. The act of assault on

the co-workers by the workman took place at

Mormugao Harbour when the victim had come to

report for duty and therefore attack on the co-workers

amounted to an act subversive of discipline or good

behaviour. The Party I or his legal representatives

has not explained why the punishment is

disproportionate. The witness Shri Suresh S. Naik,

Trade Union Leader who was the General Secretary

of Chowgule Employees Union has also not given any

good or valid reasons for reduction in punishment or

why the Court should interfere with the punishment

awarded in the domestic enquiry. There are also no

extraneous factors for imposing lesser punishment.

17. The Party I workman was found guilty in

assaulting workers in the presence of other workers

which amounted to breach of discipline. Discipline

at the workplace in an organization is a sine qua

non for the efficient working of the organization

and when an employee breaches such discipline and

the employer terminates his services, it is not open

to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take a

view that the punishment awarded is shockingly

disproportionate to the charge proved. The Party I

was given a fair and reasonable opportunity in the

departmental enquiry, so also before the Court and

after following the procedures and principles of

natural justice, both the Enquiry Officer as well as

the Tribunal have held that the enquiry conducted

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

486

against Party I is fair, proper and impartial and that

the charges of misconduct leveled against the Party

I are proved. The reliance placed by Party I on the

above cases turned on their own facts and therefore

not applicable to the case at hand. It is therefore

the above submissions of Ld. Adv. Shri Jatin Naik

cannot be accepted. Hence, the above issues

No. 4, 5 & 6 are answered accordingly.

18. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The present reference stands dismissed.

ii. It is hereby held that action of the management

of M/s. Chowgule Brothers in dismissing Shri

Mahesh N. Shetye, Peon, from service with

effect from 4-2-1998, is legal and justified.

iii. The Party I workman is therefore not entitled

to any reliefs.

iv. No order as to costs.

v. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

Department of Panchayati Raj &

Community Development

Directorate of Panchayats

—

Read:- Notice of Election and Public Notice

Form I

[See Rule 10(1)]

Notice is hereby given that:-

The elections will be held to elect the members

of the below mentioned Village Panchayat on 10th

November, 2019.

Sr.

Name of the Village

Ward

Reserved for

No.

Panchayat

No.

OBC/ST/Woman

1.

V. P. Telaulim,

III

General.

Salcete

Nominations may be delivered by a candidate

to the Returning Officer in his office between such

hours as to be fixed by the State Election

Commission.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sd/-, Secretary (Panchayats).

Panaji, 26th September, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

—

Memorandum

No. 23/2/98-I/PHD/2229

A tentative Seniority list of the Officers in the grade of Health Officers under the Directorate of Health

Services was circulated vide Memorandum No. 23/2/98-I/PHD/2090 dated 12-09-2019.

Since no objections have been received, the final seniority list of the Officers is drawn in the grade

of Health Officers under the Directorate of Health Services, as under:-

Sr.

Name of the

Date of

Date of

Date of

Qualification

No.

Doctor

appointment

joining

birth

order

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Dr. Anjani Ramnath Borkar alias

13-10-2017

21-10-2017

26-07-1959

MBBS

Anju Kharangate

2. Dr. Shaila Vasudev Devari

13-10-2017

17-10-2017

05-09-1957

MBBS

3. Dr. Gokuldas Vasant Sawant

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

12-10-1961

MBBS, MD (P.S.M./P.H.),

DHA, DCH

4. Dr. Rajendra Manohar Borkar

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

23-09-1963

MBBS

5. Dr. Lorna Audrey Maria Fernandez

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

11-05-1961

MBBS

6. Dr. Neeta Vinayak Kakodkar

13-10-2017

06-11-2017

31-01-1963

MBBS

7. Dr. Freda Fernandes e D’Costa

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

19-08-1963

MBBS

8. Dr. Preetam Pradeep Naik

13-10-2017

17-10-2017

17-11-1961

MBBS, MD

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

487

9. Dr. Martinha T. Fernandes (S.T.)

13-10-2017

21-10-2017

31-01-1959

MBBS

10. Dr. Uttam Laxman Dessai

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

17-01-1964

MBBS, DA

11. Dr. Vandana Dhillon Naique Dessai

13-10-2017

16-10-2017

09-07-1959

MBBS, DA

12. Dr. Medha Shekar Salkar

13-10-2017

21-10-2017

21-09-1964

MBBS, DA

13. Dr. Mohanrao Putu Desai

13-10-2017

14-10-2017

06-03-1963

MBBS, MD

14. Dr. Gajanan Babuli Naik

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

03-04-1958

MBBS, DPM

15. Dr. Jasmine B. Pereira Furtado

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

20-11-1967

MBBS, DPH, DIH, AFIH

16. Dr. Manish Narayan Gaunekar

13-10-2017

30-10-2017

30-07-1970

MBBS

17. Dr. Cheryl Olinda De Souza

13-10-2017

14-10-2017

10-05-1969

MBBS, DPH, PGDMCH

18. Dr. Kalpana Shashank Mahatme

13-10-2017

14-10-2017

11-07-1963

MBBS, DPM, CDM

19. Dr. Sandesh K. Madkaikar

13-10-2017

14-10-2017

28-11-1968

MBBS

20. Dr. Rashmi Kamat alias Khandeparkar

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

08-05-1971

MBBS, DCH

21. Dr. Rekha G. Pednekar

09-11-2018

12-11-2018

23-09-1961

MBBS

22. Dr. Sadhana Buto Desai Shetye

09-11-2018

13-11-2018

06-08-1965

MBBS

23. Dr. Vallabh Ganpat Nadkarni

09-11-2018

10-11-2018

02-12-1969

MBBS, DA

24. Dr. Sundhara G. Bhangui

09-11-2018

12-11-2018

20-09-1965

MBBS

25. Dr. Tulximamata A. Kakodkar

09-11-2018

12-11-2018

23-11-1966

MBBS

26. Dr. Vidhya Anand Naik

09-11-2018

14-11-2018

11-10-1969

MBBS, DPM

27. Dr. Roshan Andrew Nazareth

09-11-2018

10-11-2018

21-02-1973

MBBS

28. Dr. Vassundhara B. Dessai

09-11-2018

13-11-2018

19-10-1959

MBBS, DTM (CPS)

Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 3rd October, 2019.

———uuu———

1

2

3

4

5

6

Department of Tribal Welfare

Directorate of Tribal Welfare

—

Notification

No. DTW/STAT-TSP/Notification/2019-20/3628

In supersession of the Government Notification

No. DTW/STAT-TSP/Notification/2017-18/2274(A)

dated 28-06-2017 published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 14 dated 06-07-2017, the Government

of Goa is hereby pleased to re-constitute the Tribes

Advisory Council for the State of Goa consisting of

the following members namely:-

(1) Shri Govind Gaude, Minister of — Chairman.

Tribal Welfare

(2) Shri Pandurang Madkaikar,

— Member.

MLA of Cumbharjua Assembly

Constituency

(3) Shri Prasad Gaonkar, MLA of

— Member.

Sanguem Assembly Constituency

(4) Shri Dhaku Madkaikar, Member — Member.

of the Zilla Panchayat (North)

(5) Shri Shivdas V. Gaude, Member — Member.

of the Zilla Panchayat (South)

(6) Smt. Fatima Domnic Gaonkar,

— Member.

Member of the Zilla Panchayat

(South)

(7) Smt. Minaxi Gaonkar, Member

— Member.

of the Zilla Panchayat (South)

(8) Shri Khushali J. Velip, Member

— Member.

of the Zilla Panchayat (South)

(9) Shri Shanu S. Velip, Member of

— Member.

the Zilla Panchayat (South)

(10)Shri Durgadas Gaude, Chairman — Member.

of Goa State Scheduled Tribes

Finance and Development

Corporation Limited

(11)Shri Upasso Gaonkar, Quepem

— Member.

(12)Shri Keshav Kerkar, Keri, Ponda

— Member.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

488

(13)Shri P. K. Velip Kankar, Margao

— Member.

(14)Shri Vishwas Gaude, Madkai

— Member.

(15)Shri Namdev Fatarpekar, Tiswadi — Member.

(16)Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS,

— Member

Secretary (Tribal Welfare) to

Secretary.

the Government of Goa

Key functions of the Tribes Advisory Council:

(a) To formulate policies related to Tribal Sub Plan

(TSP);

(b) To approve perspective TSP document and

Annual (TSP);

(c) To suggest measures for proper planning and

implementation of the Schemes by the

Directorate of Tribal Welfare;

(d) To monitor progress of the (TSP) so as to take

timely corrective measures for improving

performance of the Directorate of Tribal Welfare

and also advice on such other matters

pertaining to the welfare and advancement

of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa as

may be referred to it by the Government.

The Tribes Advisory Council shall meet atleast

once in six months.

This Notification shall come into force on the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Smt. Sandhya Kamat, Director, ex officio & Jt.

Secretary (TW).

Panaji, 3rd October, 2019.

———uuu———

Department of Water Resources

Office of the Chief Engineer

__

Order

No. 3/25-5/87/WR/ADM I/540

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide confidential letter

No. COM/II/11/27(3)/2019/213 dated 30-09-2019, Government is pleased to order the promotion of the

following Technical Assistants/Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor

of Works (Civil) in the Water Resources Department on regular basis in the Pay Matrix Level No. 7, and

post them against the place indicated in Column No. 4:-

Sr.

Name of the

Present designation and

Designation and place

No.

promottee

present place of posting

of posting on promotion

1

2

3

4

1. Shri Satishchandra B.

Technical Assistant

Asst. Surveyor of Works

Paste

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

Circle II, WRD, Karaswada, Goa

Circle-II, WRD, Karaswada.

2. Shri Gonsalo Rodrigues

Technical Assistant

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer,

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D-II,

Works Division IX, WRD, Gogal,

WD IX, WRD, Dharbandora.

Margao, Goa

3. Shri Shailesh D. Pokle

Technical Assistant

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D II,

Division I, WRD, Porvorim, Goa

WD VI, WRD, Valpoi (vice Shri P. G.

Babu, A.E. S.D. II, WD VI, WRD, Valpoi).

4. Shri Anil G. Parulekar

Technical Assistant

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D. III,

Division I, WRD, Porvorim, Goa

WD VI, WRD, Mulgao.

5. Shri Ajay M. Kudchadkar

Technical Assistant

Asst. Surveyor of Works

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

Division II, WRD, Rawanfond,

Div. II, WRD, Rawanfond.

Margao, Goa

6. Shri Lilesh B.

Technical Assistant

Asst. Surveyor of Work

Khandeparkar

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

489

Division IX, WRD, Gogal,

Circle III, WRD, Gogal, Margao

Margao-Goa

7. Shri Pravin C. Parsekar

Technical Assistant

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D-III (QC),

Division II, WRD, Rawanfond,

WD XI, WRD, Margao.

Margao, Goa

8. Shri Saish A. Lawande

Technical Assistant

Asst. Surveyor of Work

O/o. Chief Engineer, WRD,

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

Porvorim-Goa

Circle I, WRD, Alto-Porvorim.

9. Shri Mahesh M. Nadkarni

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD.I, WD. II,

Division II, WRD, Rawanfond,

WRD, Rawanfond, Margao.

Margao, Goa

10. Shri Manjunath S. Naik

Junior Engineer

Asst. Surveyor of Work

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

Division IX, WRD, Gogal,

Circle III, WRD, Gogal, Margao.

Margao, Goa

11. Shri Scariachen C. C.

Junior Engineer

Asst. Surveyor of Work

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

Division II, WRD, Rawanfond,

Div. XIII, Margao.

Margao, Goa

12. Shri Parmeshwara K.

Junior Engineer

Asst. Surveyor of Work

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

Division II, WRD, Rawanfond,

Central Planning Organisation,

Margao, Goa

WRD, Alto-Porvorim.

13. Shri Mohan B. Raikar

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D. III,

Division XII, WRD, Gogal,

W.D. XII, WRD, Dharbandora.

Margao, Goa

14. Shri Ravindra R. Hangal

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD. I, WD. V,

Division V, WRD, Sanquelim, Goa

WRD, Keri-Satari.

15. Shri S. M. Hundekar

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD. I,

Division III, WRD, Ponda, Goa

Works Division III, WRD, Bicholim.

16. Shri Mahabaleshwar

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

Hegde

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D-II,

Division I, WRD, Porvorim, Goa

WD VII, WRD, Dhargal (Vice Shri

Gangandhar K. Naik, A.E. S.D-II,

WD VII, WRD, Dhargal on transfer).

17. Shri B. S. Raju

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o Assistant Engineer, SD III,

Division XIII, WRD, Gogal,

W.D. XIII, WRD, Gogal, Margao.

Margao, Goa

18. Shri Bhimappa H. Ambigar Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD IV,

Division XIII, WRD, Gogal,

WD. XII, WRD, Gogal, Margao.

Margao, Goa

19. Shri Mohammad Yusuf

Junior Engineer

Asst. Surveyor of Work

Kalas

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

Division VIII, WRD, Karaswada, Goa

Div. III, WRD, Ponda.

1

2

3

4

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

10TH OCTOBER, 2019

490

1

2

3

4

20. Smt. Annakutty Raju

Junior Engineer

Asst. Surveyor of Work

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

Division VIII, WRD, Karaswada, Goa

Div. I, WRD, Porvorim.

21. Shri Nitin Jaiwant

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

Gaitonde

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD IV,

Division XIV, WRD, Gogal,

WD XIV, WRD, Quepem.

Margao, Goa

22. Shri Faleiro Antonio Felip

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

N. (ST)

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD III,

Division VII, WRD, Dhargal, Goa

WD XIV, WRD, Cuncolim.

23. Shri Remy Adolfo

Junior Engineer

Asst. Surveyor of Work

Fernandes (ST)

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

Division XII, WRD, Gogal,

Circle-V, WRD, Gogal, Margao.

Margao, Goa

24. Shri Sagar K. Gaonkar

Junior Engineer

Asst. Surveyor of Work

(ST)

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Superintending Engineer,

Division II, WRD, Rawanfond,

Circle-V, WRD, Gogal, Margao.

Margao, Goa

25. Shri Vassudev Murgaonkar Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer

(ST)

O/o. Executive Engineer, Works

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D.-I,

Division IX, WRD, Gogal,

W.D. XIII, WRD, Gogal, Margao.

Margao, Goa

The Government is also pleased to transfer the below mentioned Assistant Engineers (Civil) in WRD

in view of the above posting of the promotee Officers in Water Resources Department.

Sr.

Name of transferees

Designation and present

Designation and place

No.

place of posting

of posting on transfer

1

2

3

4

1. Shri P. G. Babu, A. E.

Assistant Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD II,

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D-IV,

WD VI, WRD, Valpoi

W.D. VI, WRD, Bicholim.

2. Shri Gangadhar K. Naik, A. E.

Assistant Engineer

Assistant Engineer

O/o. Assistant Engineer, SD II,

O/o. Assistant Engineer, S.D.-I,

WD VII, WRD, Dhargal

WD VII, WRD, Dhargal.

The officers at Sr. No. 1 to 25 shall be on probation for a period of two years as specified in column

No. 9 of the Recruitment Rules notified in the Official Gazette, Extraordinary, Series I No. 28 dated

11-10-2001.

This is issued vide Government approval No. 4384/F dated 30-09-2019.

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

S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (WR).

Porvorim, 30th September, 2019.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 20.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—233/160–10/2019.