Panaji, 24th October, 2019 (Kartika 2,1941)
SERIES II No. 30
511
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 Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
__
Order
No. 1(2)-9-2003/SE/Part-II/128
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/15 (3)/2012/147 dated 15-07-2019, Government is pleased to promote Kum. Gautami Shripad Dessai,
Teacher Grade I to the post in the cadre of Vice-Principal-Teachers Training College/Vice-Principal-
-Government Higher Secondary School/Headmaster-Government High School, Group “B” Gazetted in
“Level 10” of the Pay Matrix of 7th Pay Commission on regular basis under the Directorate of Education,
with immediate effect.
She shall be on probation for a period of two years.
She shall exercise option for fixation of pay in terms of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1) within one month from the date
of issue of this order.
She shall give in writing her acceptance/refusal of above promotion to the undersigned within 10 days
from the date of issue of order, failing which, it will be presumed as refusal of promotion by the promoted
officer and she shall be debarred for promotion for a period of one year from the date of refusal of
promotion or till next vacancy arises whichever is later, without any further intimation.
Sr. No.
Name of the Officer
Present place of posting
Place of posting on promotion
1
2
3
4
1.
Kum. Gautami Shripad Dessai
Headmaster, Government High
Headmaster, Government High
School, Fatorpa, Quepem-Goa
School, Fatorpa, Quepem-Goa.
(on officiating basis)
She shall submit her joining report to this Directorate, respective Zonal Officer and Directorate of
Accounts, Panaji.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Vandana Rao, IAS, Director (Education).
Porvorim, 7th October, 2019.
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 29 dated 17-10-2019 as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 17-10-2019 from pages 507 to 508 regarding Notifications from Department of Finance.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 21-10-2019 from pages 509 to 510 regarding Notification from Department of
Elections.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
512
Order
No. 18/14/92-RV-EDN-P-I/133
As per the provisions of Section 7(7) of Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board
Act, 1975, the Government is pleased to appoint Shri Guruprasad Pawaskar, Chairman, Sanjay School,
Porvorim, as Vice-Chairman of Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Alto Betim with
effect from the date of his taking over the charge.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Vandana Rao, IAS, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 10th October, 2019.
———u———
Directorate of Higher Education
—
Order
No. ACAD III/GC-04/CAS/50/2019/6236
Read: Government Order No. 23/2/2001-DHE-(ix)/224 dated 03-02-2006.
On the recommendation of the Screening Committee, Government is pleased to revise the eligibility
dates of grant of Senior Scale (Pre-Revised Rs. 10,000-325-15,200) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 7,000)
and Selection Grade (Pre-Revised Rs. 12,000-420-18,300) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 8000) as per
the University Grants Commission guidelines to Dr. Remy Dias, Associate Professor in History, Government
College of Arts, Science and Commerce Quepem-Goa with effect from the date indicated against his
name:-
Sr.
Name of the Lecturer
Date of review of eligibility for Senior
Date of review of eligibility for
No.
Scale (Pre-Revised Rs. 10,000-
Selection Grade
325-15,200)
(Pre-Revised Rs. 12,000-420-18,300)
(Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP
(Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP
Rs. 7,000)
Rs. 8,000)
1. Dr. Remy Dias, Associate
01-07-1998
01-07-2003.
Professor in History,
Government College of Arts,
Science and Commerce,
Quepem-Goa
Dr. Remy Dias, shall be designated as Associate Professor with effect from 01-07-2006 and shall be
placed in appropriate revised scale PB 4 Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP Rs. 9,000.
The Pay shall be fixed as per the rules in force accordingly.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Prasad G. Volvoikar, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 16th October, 2019.
________
Order
No. ACAD III/GC-04/CAS/50/2019/6237
Read: Government Order No. 8/1/2016-DHE/2766 dated 28-12-2016.
On the recommendation of the Screening Committee, Government is pleased to revise the eligibility
dates of grant of Selection Grade (Pre-Revised Rs. 12,000-420-18,300) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP
Rs. 8,000) as per the University Grants Commission guidelines to Dr. Annie F. D’Souza e Gomes, Assistant
Professor in Botany, Government College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Quepem-Goa with effect from
the date indicated against her name:-
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
513
Sr.
Name of the Lecturer
Date of review of Eligibility for Selection Grade
No.
(Pre-Revised Rs. 12,000-420-18,300)
Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 8,000)
1. Dr. Annie F. D’Souza e Gomes, Assistant Professor
31-01-2013.
in Botany, Government College of Arts, Science
and Commerce, Quepem-Goa
The Pay shall be fixed as per the rules in force accordingly.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Prasad G. Volvoikar, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 16th October, 2019.
________
Order
No. ACAD III/GC-04/CAS/50/2019/6238
On the recommendation of the Screening Committee, Government is pleased to grant Stage 2
(Pre-Revised Rs. 10,000-325-15,200) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 7,000) as per the University Grants
Commission guidelines to Dr. Roshan Usapkar, Assistant Professor in Commerce, Sant Sohirobanth Ambiye
Government College of Arts and Commerce, Pernem-Goa with effect from the date indicated against her name:-
Sr.
Name of the Lecturer
Date of eligibility for grant of Stage 2
No.
(Pre-Revised Rs. 10,000-325-15,200)
(Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 7,000)
1. Dr. Roshan Usapkar, Assistant Professor in Commerce,
10-10-2016.
Sant Sohirobanth Ambiye Govt. College of Arts and
Commerce, Pernem-Goa
The Pay shall be fixed as per the rules in force accordingly.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Prasad G. Volvoikar, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 16th October, 2019.
________
Order
No. ACAD III/GC-04/CAS/50/2019/6239
On the recommendation of the Screening Committee, Government is pleased to grant of Senior Scale
(Pre-Revised Rs. 10,000-325-15,200) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 7,000), Stage 3 (Pre-revised
Rs. 12,000-420-18,300) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 8,000) and placement as Associate Professor as
per the University Grants Commission guidelines to Dr. Shashank Maktedar, Assistant Professor in Vocal
(holding additional charge of Officiating Principal), Goa College of Music, Altinho, Panaji with effect from
the date indicated against his name:-
Sr.
Name of the Lecturer
Date of eligibility for
Date of eligibility of
Date of placement
No.
Senior Scale (Pre-Revised
Stage 3 (Pre-Revised
as Associate
Rs. 10,000-325-15,200)
Rs. 12,000-420-18,300)
Professor
(Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+
(Revised Rs. 15,600-
AGP Rs. 7,000)
39,100+AGP Rs. 8,000)
1. Dr. Shashank Maktedar,
01-07-2008
01-07-2013
01-07-2016.
Assistant Professor in Vocal
(holding additional charge
of Officiating Principal, Goa
College of Music, Panaji-Goa)
The Pay shall be fixed as per the rules in force accordingly.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Prasad G. Volvoikar, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 16th October, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
514
Department of Environment
—
Order
No. 5/2/87/STE/VIII/GEPC-08/PART V/620
Read: 1) Order No. 5/2/87-STE-DIR/VIII/GEPC-
-08/Part/634 dated 31-08-2012, published
in Official Gazette, Series II No. 24 dated
13-09-2012.
2) Corrigendum No. 5/2/87/STE-DIR/VIII/
/GEPC-08/Part/663 dated 06-09-2012
published in Official Gazette, Series II
No. 24 dated 13-09-2012.
In supersession of Order No. 5/2/87-STE-DIR/VIII/
/GEPC-08/Part/634 dated 31st August, 2012,
published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 24 dated
13th September, 2012, and corrigendum read above
at (2), the Government of Goa is pleased to
re-constitute the “Goa State Environment
Protection Council (GEPC)” as follows:
Sr.
Name
Designation
No.
1
2
3
1. Governor of Goa
Chairperson.
2. Chief Minister of Goa
Vice-
-Chairperson.
3. Minister for Environment
Co-Vice-
M. P. (Lok Sabha) North Goa
-Chairperson.
4. Shri Shripad Naik,
Member.
M.P. (Lok Sabha), North Goa
5. Shri Francisco Sardinha,
Member.
M.P. (Lok Sabha), South Goa
6. Minister for Science &
Member.
Technology
7. Leader of Opposition
Member.
8. Shri Dayanand Sopte (MLA),
Member.
Mandrem
9. Shri Pratapsingh Rane (MLA),
Member.
Poriem
10. Shri Nilkhant Halarnkar (MLA), Member.
Tivim
11. Shri Joshua De Souza (MLA),
Member.
Mapusa
12. Shri Glenn Ticlo (MLA),
Member.
Aldona
13. Shri Subhash Shirodkar (MLA),
Member.
Shiroda
14. Smt. Alina Saldanha (MLA),
Member.
Cortalim
15. Shri Aleixo Lourenco (MLA),
Member.
Curtorim
16. Shri Churchill Alemao (MLA),
Member.
Benaulim
17. Shri Prasad Gaonkar (MLA),
Member.
Sanguem
18. Shri Vijai Sardessai (MLA),
Member.
Fatorda
19. Shri Jayesh Salgaonkar (MLA),
Member.
Saligao
20. Shri Rohan Khaunte (MLA),
Member.
Porvorim
21. Shri Ramkrishna Dhavalikar
Member.
(MLA), Marcaim
22. Shri K. D. Sadhale, Nirmal
Member.
Vishwa, Ponda
23. Shri Rajendra Kerkar,
Member.
Vivekanand Environment
Brigade
24. Executive Secretary,
Member.
Council for Social Justice
& Peace
25. Dr. Sushant Naik, Scientist,
Member.
N.I.O., Dona Paula
26. Dr. Nandkumar Kamat,
Member.
Asst. Prof., Goa University &
Member, Goa State Planning
Board
27. Dr. Savio Correia,
Member.
Vasco-da-Gama
28. Chief Secretary,
Member.
Government of Goa
29. Addl. Principal Chief Conservator
Member.
of Forests
30. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Member.
Department
31. Director, Department of
Member.
Science & Technology
32. Director, Department of
Member.
Environment
33. Director, Directorate of
Member.
Industries, Trade & Commerce
34. Director, Directorate of Mines
Member.
& Geology
35. Director, Directorate of
Member.
Panchayats
36. Director, Directorate of
Member.
Municipal Administration
37. Director, Department of
Member.
Tourism
38. Director, Directorate of Health
Member.
39. Director, Directorate of
Member.
Agriculture
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
515
40. Chief Town Planner,
Member.
Town & Country Planning
Department
41. Member Secretary,
Member.
Goa State Pollution Control
Board
42. Member Secretary,
Member.
Goa State Biodiversity Board
43. Managing Director,
Member.
Goa Waste Management
Corporation
44. Representative of Nodal
Member.
Agency for Climate Change,
Saligao
45. Representative of Nodal
Member.
Agency for Wetland
Authority, Saligao
46. Project Co-ordinator,
Special
Centre for Environment
Invitee.
Education (CEE), Goa Chapter
47. Representative of MoEF,
Special
not below rank of Director of
Invitee.
MoEF
48. Principal Secretary
Member
(Environment)
Convenor.
The Council shall:
i)
Review the work relating to Environment
undertaken in the State by Government and
non-Government Organizations.
ii)
Advise the State Government on environ-
mental issues of the State, and
iii)
Identify areas requiring investigations,
research and restoration in the field of
environment.
The Council will meet twice a year or more
frequently, as may be decided by the Chairman, to
discuss the items suggested by the Members.
Decisions will be arrived at by consensus and
would be advisory in nature.
Outstation members shall be entitled for, to and
fro air fare, from the point of ‘his/her’ ‘headquarters/
/residence’ as the case may be, plus other
allowances as admissible to Grade-I Officers.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Johnson Fernandes, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Environment).
Porvorim, 16th October, 2019.
1
2
3
Notification
No. 7/4/98/STE-DIR/PART-II/670
Read: Order dated 23-10-2018, 30-10-2018 &
31-10-2018 in various IAs filed in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2015 passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Whereas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its
Judgement & Orders read above has given
directions on manufacture, distribution and use of
fire crackers in the Country. In light of these
directions and as per the modified directions
contained in Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated
30-10-2018 the State Government hereby prescribes
following timings for bursting of fire crackers
during the Diwali festival in the year 2019.
1. On the day of the Diwali i.e. on 27th October,
2019 fire crackers are allowed to be burst in
the morning from 4.30 a.m. to 5.30 a.m. and in
the evening from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. strictly.
2. For other days during the Diwali Festival
period i.e. 28th & 29th October, 2019 which is
being observed in the State of Goa, the fire
crackers bursting time shall be strictly
restricted between 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. only.
3. The Police Station in-charge of the respective
Police Station shall be fully responsible for
implementation of the Supreme Court directions.
This notification shall come into force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Johnson B. Fernandes, Director & ex officio Jt.
Secretary (Environment).
Porvorim, 23rd October, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of General Administration
—
Notification
No. 2/1/2017-GAD-III/3366
In pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 135B
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(Central Act 43 of 1951) and the ‘Explanation’ to
Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(Act 26 of 1881) read with Notification No. U-11030/
/2/73-UTL dated 28-06-1973 of the Government of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs, published in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3,
sub-section (ii), the Government of Goa
hereby declares Monday, the 21st October, 2019
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
516
(Asvina 29, Saka 1941) as a “paid holiday”, being
the polling day for General Election to Legislative
Assembly of Maharashtra, 2019, to the following
workers who are entitled to vote at the said Election
namely:-
(i)
industrial workers;
(ii)
daily wage workers of the Government
Departments and State Government
Industrial Departments;
(iii)
commercial and industrial workers of
private establishments;
(iv)
workers of all private establishments;
(v)
daily wage/casual workers employed in any
business, trade, industrial undertakings or
any other establishments.
The aforesaid paid holiday shall be in addition
to the holidays indicated in the Government
Notification No. 37/5/2018-GAD-III/3268 dated
14-11-2018, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 33 dated 15-11-2018, to the aforesaid
workers.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gouresh S. Kurtikar, Joint Secretary (GA).
Porvorim, 18th October, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
—
Order
No. 28/23/2019-LAB/642
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India)
Limited, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa,
and it’s workman, Shri Madhusudan S.
Ghadigaonkar, Operator, in respect of the matter
specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter
referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited,
Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa,
in dismissing from service it’s workman,
namely, Shri Madhusudan S. Ghadigaonkar,
Operator, with effect from 16-08-2018, is
legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th October, 2019.
________
Order
No. 28/24/2019-LAB/644
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Goa State Co-operative Milk
Producers Union Limited, Curti, Ponda, Goa, and
it’s workman, Shri Nitin S. Kolvekar, EMT Technician,
represented by the Goa Milk Union Employees
Association, in respect of the matter specified in
the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the
“said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the demand of Shri Nitin S. Kolvekar,
EMT Technician, as well as that of the Goa
Milk Union Employees Association, for the
Pay Scale of Rs. 1200-30-1440-EB-40-2040
with effect from 01-06-1995 along with other
consequential benefits, is legal and
justified?
(2) If yes, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th October, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
517
Order
No. 28/25/2019-LAB/645
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. National Travels, Panaji, Goa,
and it’s workman, Shri Krishna A. Kalangutkar,
Driver, in respect of the matter specified in the
Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said
dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the severance of Employer
and Employee relationship between
M/s. National Travels, Panaji, Goa, and
Shri Krishna A. Kalangutkar, Driver, with
effect from May, 2016, amounts to
termination of services?
(2) Whether the workman is entitled to any
relief?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th October, 2019.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-III/630
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 24-09-2019 in Case No.
Ref. IT/15/2005 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, 16th October, 2019.
LABOUR COURT–II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/15/2005
Shri Andrew Noronha,
R/o. H. No. 580, Pilimbhi Waddo,
Siolim, Bardez-Goa.
…
Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. G.K.B. Ophthalmic Pvt. Ltd.,
16-A, T, Thivim Industrial Estate,
Thivim, Mapusa-Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri Suhas
Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, Dated: 24-09-2019.
AWARD
1. 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), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 20-06-2005,
bearing No. 28/13/2005-LAB/276, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa. The Government of Goa vide its
another order dated 09-02-2016 transferred the
present dispute to this Labour Court-II, Panaji, Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. GKB Opthalmics Private Limited, Thivim,
Mapusa, Goa, in dismissing from service the
workman, Shri Andrew Nornha, permanent
operator, with effect from 26-03-2003, is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/15/2005 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 20-02-2008 at Exb-6. The facts
of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman are
that he was employed with the Employer/Party II
(for short, ‘Employer’) as an ‘operator’ at Thivim
Industrial Estate, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. He stated
that he was issued a charge-sheet dated 27-03-2002
alleging certain acts of misconducts. He stated
that he filed his reply to the said charge-sheet,
denying each and every allegations vide its reply
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
518
dated 01-04-2002. He stated that however, the
Employer conducted the enquiry against him by
appointing an Enquiry Officer.
3. He submitted that the enquiry was conducted
by Ld. Enquiry Officer in gross violation of
principles of natural justice. He submitted that in
the enquiry he was not allowed to get himself
represented by the representative of his choice and
without presence of any Defense Representative,
Ld. Enquiry Officer has wrongly recorded that he
was assisted in the enquiry by the Defense
Representative. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry
Officer forced him to participate in the enquiry
without taking any assistance of any Defense
Representative. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry
Officer recorded the written objections raised by
him in the said enquiry proceedings. He submitted
that his objections were never taken on record by
the said Enquiry Officer and as such he was forced
to file his written objections after closure of the
days proceedings by registered A/D and begged
to rely on all such written objections which were
raised by him in writing. He submitted that vide
letter dated 18-06-2002, he objected for the evidence
of the management witnesses one after another
without giving him any opportunity to cross-
-examine the said witnesses. He submitted that
however, Ld. Enquiry Officer went ahead with the
above procedure without allowing the cross-
-examination of the said witnesses. He submitted
that he also made a request to record the evidence
de-novo. He submitted that however, the said
request was also turned down by the said Enquiry
Officer, which resulted in injustice and prejudice
to his defense. He submitted that the Enquiry
Officer went ahead with the enquiry proceedings
without explaining the procedure of the enquiry
to him as per his own whims and fancies, which
prejudiced his defense. He submitted that Ld.
Enquiry Officer had acted totally in a biased and
prejudicial manner in favour of the management
and flouted the mandatory provisions of
conducting the enquiry in fair and proper manner.
He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer was totally
ignorant about the procedure to be followed in the
enquiry and as such a request was made to change
the Enquiry Officer, which was again turned down.
He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer has also
failed to inform the next stage of the enquiry and
was giving the dates arbitrarily in a high ended
fashion without taking into consideration his
convenience. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer
was recording the proceedings of the enquiry in a
locked room by keeping the workman outside of
the said room and as such he was not aware as to
what was recorded in the said four walls of the
room. He submitted that the objections were raised
by him in his letters dated 26-09-2002 and dated
04-10-2002. He submitted that he was not given
the documents, which was requested by him during
the course of enquiry. He submitted that the
proceedings were never recorded in his presence
especially dated 04-10-2002 though wrongly
mentioned in the proceedings that he participated
in the enquiry. He submitted that a detailed
objections were raised to that effect, vide letter
dated 06-11-2002. He submitted that the objections
raised by them on 02-12-2002 and on 17-12-2002
were also not considered by the Enquiry Officer.
He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer as well as
the Management Representative acted in excess
of their jurisdiction, which is evident from the
proceedings as well as from the findings given by
the Enquiry Officer. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry
Officer as well as Management Representative were
specifically appointed to investigate into the
charge-sheet dated 27-03-2002 relating to the
incident dated 24-11-2001 during the day shift at
11.00 hours. He submitted that however, Ld. Enquiry
Officer as well as the Management Representative
arbitrarily and illegally changed the date and time
of the charge-sheets without having any locus
standi or authority to do so. He submitted that the
aforesaid action on the part of Ld.Enquiry Officer
as well as Management Representative is totally
illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. He submitted
that the Management Representative was a
qualified advocate. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry
Officer was also a qualified labour law practitioner
and as such both are well aware of the procedures
of the enquiry and the legalities and technicalities
involved in the enquiry. He submitted that the
workman was ignorant of the procedure of the
enquiry as well as examination of witnesses i.e.
examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination.
He submitted that the Enquiry Officer has recorded
the statement of witnesses to suit the case of the
management and sometimes recorded the
statements, which were not even stated in the
enquiry. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer was
obtaining his signature hurriedly on the
proceedings sheets without allowing him to go
through the said proceedings sheets. He submitted
that Ld. Enquiry Officer never explained him to
read over the contents of the proceedings recorded
by him and as such without knowing the contents
his signatures were obtained on the statements as
well as the proceedings sheets which were
prepared by him. He submitted that not a single
charges levelled against him have been proved in
the departmental enquiry for the above reasons. He
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
519
submitted that he disputes the entire dismissal order
dated 26-03-2002 as illegal, unjustified and bad-in-
law and as such liable to be quashed and set aside.
Without prejudice to his aforesaid contentions, he
submitted that the punishment of dismissal is
shockingly disproportionate and hence, liable to
be set aside. He submitted that the punishment of
dismissal is an act of victimization and unfair
labour practice.
4. He submitted that being aggrieved with the
dismissal order dated 26-03-2003, he raised an
industrial dispute before the office of Labour
Commissioner vide letter dated 09-05-2003, which
ended in failure. He submitted that he is presently
unemployed and does not have any source of
income. The Workman therefore prayed that the
action of the Employer in dismissing him from
service w.e.f. 26-03-2003 be held as illegal,
unjustified and bad-in-law and direct the Employer
to reinstate him back in service with full back
wages, continuity in service and all other
consequential benefits thereof.
5. The Employer resisted the claim of the
workman by filing its written statement dated
11-04-2008 at Exb. 8. The Employer stated that it is
a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of
ophthalmic lenses at the said factory.
The Employer admitted that the Workman was
employed in the said factory as an ‘operator’. The
Employer stated that during his short tenure of
employment with them, the Workman indulge in
serious acts of misconduct leading to the
termination of his services. The Employer stated
that on 24-11-2001, the workman was working in
the Toric department of the factory during the day
shift. The Employer stated that at around 12.00
hours, when his co-employee namely, Shri
Sadanand Munankar approached him for taking
empty trays from his workplace, he abused and
assaulted him. The Employer stated that the said
acts on the part of the Workman amounts to
misconduct under its Certified Standing Orders.
The Employer stated that a charge-sheet dated
27-03-2002 was issued to the workman in respect
of his aforesaid misconduct. The Employer stated
that however, due to clerical mistake, the time of
the incident was mentioned as 16.00 hours instead
of 12.00 hours. The Employer stated that this
mistake was subsequently corrected at the initial
stage of the enquiry. The Employer stated that his
explanation to the said charge-sheet was not found
to be satisfactory. The Employer stated that
thereafter an enquiry was held into the said charges
by Shri Prashant D. Mallya, its Company Secretary,
who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
6. The Employer submitted that the workman
was given full opportunity to participate in the
enquiry and to defend himself. The Employer
submitted that it has conducted an enquiry in a
fair and proper manner in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. The Employer
submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer
are based on material on record and they are fair
and proper. The Employer stated that on conclusion
of the enquiry, Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his
findings, holding that the charges alleged against
the workman stands proved. The Employer stated
that the management accepted the said findings.
The Employer submitted that the charges alleged
and proved against the workman were very grave
and serious which also related to the discipline in
the establishment. The Employer submitted that
since the acts committed by the workman amounts
to major misconduct of abusing and assaulting a
co-worker, it has awarded the punishment of
dismissal to the workman after complying with the
requirements of the law. The Employer submitted
that the punishment awarded to the workman is
commensurate to the offense committed by him.
The Employer stated that there were no mitigating
circumstances to award any lesser penalty. The
Employer submitted that its action in dismissing
the workman is therefore fair and proper and this
Hon’ble Tribunal may hold the same accordingly.
The Employer submitted that the action of the
Government of referring the purported dispute is
without jurisdiction and/or in excess of the
jurisdiction. Without prejudice to its aforesaid
contention, the Employer submitted that in the
event this Hon’ble Tribunal holds that the said
enquiry is not fair and proper or is vitiated for any
reason whatsoever or the findings of the Enquiry
Officer are not based on records, this Hon’ble
Tribunal be pleased to give an opportunity to them
to lead fresh/additional evidence to prove charges
of misconduct against the workman and justify the
order of dismissal. The Employer denied the overall
case as pleaded by the workman and prayed that
the workman is not entitled for any relief.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
13-06-2008 at Exb. 10. The Workman, by way of his
Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
520
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
26-08-2008 at Exb. 14.
1. Whether the Party-I proves that the enquiry
held against him is not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges levelled against the Party
I are proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal?
3. Whether the Party-I proves that the action of
the Party II in dismissing his services is illegal
and unjustified?
4. What relief? What Order?
9. Among the said issues, the issue No. 1 and 2
have been treated as preliminary issues. Both the
parties i.e. the Workman as well as the Employer
led their evidence respectively and the matter was
fixed for order on the findings of the preliminary
issue No. 1 and 2, after hearing the arguments of
both the parties. It is at this stage, Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhas Naik, appearing for the Workman as well as
Ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye, appearing for the
Employer orally submitted that they are trying to
settle the matter amicably, accordingly, Ld. Adv.
Shri Suhas Naik, appearing for the Workman as
well as Ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye, appearing for
the Employer alongwith the Workman as well as
the Manager of the Employer remained present on
12-09-2019 and submitted that the parties have
amicably settled the matter and filed terms of
consent at Exb. 20 and prayed for passing consent
award. The terms of settlement appearing in Exb. 20
are reproduced hereunder:
a. The Employer/Party II is hereby paying an
amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five
thousand only) to the Workman/Party I in full
and final settlement of the claim by Party I. The
said amount is paid by a demand draft dated
28-08-2019 drawn on State Bank of India, Panaji
Branch bearing No. 111399. The Party II is also
paying an amount of Rs. 10,662/- (Rupees ten
thousand six hundred and sixty two only) to
the workman/Party I vide cheque No. 877754
dated 11-09-2019 drawn on State Bank of India,
Mapusa Branch towards the gratuity payable
to Workman/Party I. The Workman/Party I
acknowledges the receipt of the same.
b. The Workman/Party I hereby agrees and
declares that all his claims and demands
against Party II/Employer are hereby
conclusively settled on payment of the
aforesaid amounts and he has no further claim
or demand of whatsoever nature against the
Employer/Party II. Similarly, the Party II/
Employer shall have no claim or demand
against the Workman/Party I.
c. The parties shall file these consent terms in
the Hon’ble Labour Court-II, Government of Goa
at Panaji in the reference No. IT/15/2005 with
a request to pass consent award as per these
consent terms.
I have carefully perused the said terms of
settlement at Exb. 20 signed by and between the
parties hereinabove. The said terms of settlement
are beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I
consented for the same. Since the dispute under
reference is settled between the parties, I hold
that the dispute under present reference does not
survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the management
of M/s. GKB Opthalmics Private Limited,
Thivim, Mapusa, Goa, in dismissing from
service the workman, Shri Andrew Nornha,
permanent operator, with effect from
26-03-2003, is legal and justified?, does not
survive.
2. The Workman, Shri Andrew Nornha, 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.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-VI/632
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 16-09-2019 in Case No.
Ref. LC-II/IT/13/2018 is hereby published as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 16th October, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
521
THE LABOUR COURT–II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/13/2018
Shri Sujeet T. Naik,
R/o. Manaswada,
Kundaim, Goa.
… Workman/Party-I
V/s
,M/s. Goa Invescast Limited,
105-106, Kundaim Industrial Estate,
Kundaim, Goa.
… Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jeorge.
Employer/Party-II marked as ex-parte.
Panaji, Dated: 16-09-2019
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 05-07-2018,
bearing No. 28/15/2018-LAB/439 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court-II, Panaji, Goa.
“(1) Whether Shri Sujeet T. Naik, Supervisor
can 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. Goa Invescast Limited,
105-106, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim,
Goa in terminating the services of Shri Sujeet
T. Naik, Supervisor, with effect from 26-12-2017,
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/13/18 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
03-09-2018 at Exb-5. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/
/Party II (for short, “Employer”) is a factory engaged
in the production of steel castings. He stated that
the castings are used for various machinery parts,
automobile parts etc. He stated that he was employed
with the Employer initially as a ‘Trainee Maintenance’
w.e.f. 22-08-2005. He stated that he was confirmed in
service as a permanent workman w.e.f. 01-04-2006.
He stated that he was designated as ‘supervisor E1’
grade on a monthly salary of Rs. 3100/- p.m. He stated
that his salary was revised to Rs. 5600/- p.m. w.e.f.
01-07-2010 and thereafter to Rs. 7000/- p.m. w.e.f.
11-11-2010 and again to Rs. 8400/- p.m. w.e.f.
01-12-2012 and lastly to Rs. 9400/- p.m. w.e.f.
30-12-2013. He stated that he used to perform duties
such as electrical or mechanical maintenance and
repair work including cleaning of machines,
fabrication work, welding, loading of diesel etc. He
stated that he was reporting to Mr. Sudhakar Naik
and Mr. Laxmikant Naik, Maintenance In-charge.
He stated that he would do the work assigned to
him by them from time to time. He stated that the
Employer maintained daily work report of work
done by him. He stated that he used to work in all
three shifts. He stated that in second and third
shift, he had to work alone with no one else and
without safety.
3. He stated that on 26-12-2017, he came for
duties in first shift at around 3.30 p.m. Mr. John
Kuryan, the Managing Director informed the
workman to see him before leaving the factory
premises for home. He stated that accordingly, he
met him in his cabin. He stated that the Managing
Director gave him a letter saying that there was a
letter for him. He stated that the said letter dated
26-12-2017 pertains to his termination of service
w.e.f. 26-12-2017. He stated that aggrieved by the
decision of the Employer for illegally terminating
his services, he wrote a letter to the Employer vide
its letter dated 04-01-2018 demanding reinstatement
in service with full back wages and continuity of
service with costs. He stated that the Employer
did not reply to his said letter. He stated that he
therefore raised an industrial dispute before the
Asstt. Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation
Officer vide his letter dated 19-02-2018 demanding
reinstatement in service with full back wages with
cost, which ended in failure.
4. The Workman contended that no one month
notice was given to him before termination of his
services. He submitted that no retrenchment
compensation was paid to him at the time of
termination of his services. He submitted that no
seniority list was prepared before termination of
services and principles of last cum first go was not
followed at the time of termination. He submitted
that junior Workmen compared to him were
retained in service. He submitted that the Employer
did not comply with the mandatory provisions of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
522
Section 25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947 and
hence, the termination is ab-initio void, illegal and
unjustified. He submitted that he therefore entitled
for reinstatement in service with full back wages
and continuity in service. He submitted that he is
a ‘workman’ as defined under the provisions of I.D.
Act, 1947. He submitted that he had worked with
the Employer from 22-08-2005 till 26-12-2017 and
had worked for more than 240 days in one year
prior to his termination. The Workman therefore
prayed that he be reinstated in service with full
back wages and continuity in service with cost.
5. The Employer resisted the claim of the workman
by filing its written statement on 08-01-2019 at Exb.
7. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, submitted that the dispute raised by
the workman in the present reference is not an
‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.
Act, that the Party I was employed as supervisor
E1 with the Employer and as such he was not a
‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947
and that there is no application of mind by the
Appropriate Government while referring the
present dispute.
6. The Employer stated that it is a company
registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. The
Employer admitted that it is engaged in the
production of steel casting as per the demands of
customers. The Employer admitted that the castings
are used for various machinery parts, automobile
parts etc. The Employer stated that the workman
joined in its service w.e.f. 23-08-2005 and he was
confirmed in service w.e.f. 26-12-2006. The Employer
stated that the Workman was working specifically
in the managerial and supervisory cadre with them
and hence, he is not a ‘workman’ within the
meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. The
Employer stated that the workman being a
supervisor, the predominant duties performed by
him was of supervisory and managerial in nature.
The Employer stated that the Workman was
holding the post of trust of the management and
hence, his claim need not be entertained by this
Hon’ble Court. The Employer stated that the workman
was issued a letter of termination/relieving letter
dated 26-12-2017 on the ground of consequent
slump in production and invoicing. The Employer
stated that they have informed the Workman that
it had become extremely difficult to maintain the
current staff strength for the Company. The
Employer stated that it was also mentioned in the
said letter of termination that its cash flow situation
is going out of control and they were finding it
difficult to keep the operation running. The
Employer stated that it was also mentioned in the
said letter that the present economic scenario in
the country has added additional burden to them,
which is already struggling under heavy debts.
The Employer stated that its management had
taken a decision with lot of pain to reduce
manpower and maintain at a lower level required
just to run this reduced operations. The Employer
stated that the Workman was relieved from its
services after working hours on 26-12-2017
enclosing his relieving letter with a cheque No.
2855 dated 26-12-2017 amounting to Rs. 60,990/-
towards his final settlement which was realized in the
account of the workman on 22-03-2018. The Employer
denied the overall case as pleaded by the Workman
and prayed for rejection of the present reference.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
08-01-2019 at Exb. 06. The Workman, by way of his
Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
23-01-2019 at Exb. 8.
1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he
is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section
2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the
action of the Employer in terminating his
services with effect from 26-12-2017 is illegal
and unjustified?
3. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the reference is not maintainable in view of
the reasons mentioned in para (a), (b) and (c)
as and by way of its preliminary objections?
4. Whether the Workmen are entitled for any
relief?
5. What Order? What Award?
9. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the Affirmative
(b) Issue No. 2
:
In the Affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 3
:
In the Negative.
(d) Issue No. 4 & 5
:
As per final order.
I have heard the ex-parte oral arguments of Ld.
Rep. Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge, appearing for the
Workman. I have carefully perused the entire
records of the present case. I have also carefully
considered the arguments advanced by Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
523
10. Issue No. 1:
The burden was cast on the Party I to prove the
issue No. 1. To prove his case, the Party I examined
himself and produced on record certain
documentary evidence in support of his oral
evidence. The said oral as well as documentary
evidence produced on record by the Party I remained
unchallenged for want of cross-examination.
11. The Party I, in his oral evidence on record,
deposed that he was initially employed as trainee
maintenance w.e.f. 22-08-2005 and confirmed in
service as a permanent workman w.e.f. 01-04-2006
and designated as “supervisor E1” grade. The oral
evidence of the Party I on record indicates that he
was performing the duties such as electrical or
mechanical maintenance or repair work including
cleaning of machines, fabrication work, welding,
loading of diesel etc. He was reporting to Mr.
Sudhakar Naik and Mr. Laxmikant Naik,
Maintenance In-charge. The aforesaid duties
performed by the Party I as supervisor E1 grade are
of skilled and technical in nature and as such the
Party I 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.
12. Issue No. 2:
The evidence on record indicates that the
workman was in the employment of the Employer
w.e.f. 22-08-2005 till 26-12-2017. The evidence on
record indicates that he had worked more than
240 days preceding the twelve months prior to the
date of termination of his service. The evidence on
record indicates that the services of the workman
have been terminated without following the
mandatory provisions of Section 25-F and Section
25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947 and no fault of him. The
evidence on record indicates that no seniority list
was prepared before termination of services of the
workman. The evidence on record indicates that
the principles of last come first go was not followed
at the time of termination of services of the
workman. Hence, it is held that the termination of
service of the workman w.e.f. 26-12-2017 is illegal
and unjustified. The issue No. 2 is answered in the
affirmative.
13. Issue No. 3:
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, filed in its written statement, submitted
that the Party I is not a ‘workman’ within the
meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and as such
the dispute raised by the workman is not an
‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 and that there is no application of mind
by the Appropriate Government while referring
the present dispute. The burden was cast on the
Employer to prove the said allegations. The
Employer has however, failed to lead any evidence
either oral or documentary in support of its
submissions.
Even otherwise, while deciding the issue No. 1
hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion that the Party I is a ‘workman’ within
the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Hence, the dispute raised by the workman
pertaining to his non-employment is an industrial
dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947. Consequently, the present reference
made by the Appropriate Government is just and
fair. In view of above, it is held that the Employer
failed to prove that the reference is not
maintainable in view of the reasons mentioned in
para (a), (b) and (c) of its written statement as and by
way of its preliminary objections. The issue No. 3 is
therefore answered in the negative.
14. Issue No. 4:
While deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in terminating the
services of the workman w.e.f. 26-12-2017 is illegal
and unjustified.
The Workman was employed with the Employer
continuously for the period from 22-08-2005 till his
services were terminated w.e.f. 26-12-2017. Neither
the Workman pleaded nor stated on oath that he
is gainfully unemployed from the date of
termination of his services w.e.f. 26-12-2017. The
Employer also did not plead that the workman is
gainfully employed in any of the establishment.
The services of the workman has been terminated
without any fault on his behalf. Taking into
consideration the payment of Rs. 60,990/- (Rupees
sixty thousand nine hundred ninety only) made by
the Employer, the workman is entitled for
reinstatement in service without any back wages
and consequential benefits thereof.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
,ORDER
1. It is held that Shri Sujeet T. Naik, Supervisor is
a “workman” as defined under Section 2 (s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. It is held that the action of the management
of M/s. Goa Invescast Limited, 105-106,
Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa in
terminating the services of Shri Sujeet T. Naik,
Supervisor, with effect from 26-12-2017, is
illegal and unjustified.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
524
3. It is further held that M/s. Goa Invescast
Limited, 105-106, Kundaim Industrial Estate,
Kundaim, Goa is hereby directed to reinstate
the workman, Shri Sujeet T. Naik without any
back wages, continuity in service and
consequential benefits thereof.
4. 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
—
Notification
No. 8/78/2019-LD(Estt)/1909
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 78A
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. 50,510/- (Rupees fifty thousand five hundred
and ten only) to Shri Kush Kumar, paid by him
towards registration of the Deed of Sale.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance
Department (Revenue & Control), vide U.O. No.
1400068309 dated 01-10-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Estt.).
Porvorim, 14th October, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 6/9/2009-PER/Part-IV/2834
On the recommendation of Goa Services Board,
the Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer and post
Smt. Sandhya S. Kamat, Director of Civil Supplies
as Director of Tribal Welfare and Shri Sagun Velip,
Director of Tribal Welfare as Director of Civil
Supplies, with immediate effect, in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 18th October, 2019.
Addendum
No. 4/12/85-PER-Vol.I/2751
Read:
Order No. 4/12/85-PER-Vol-.I/3160 dated
30-11-2018.
In the order read in the preamble, the following
shall be added:
“Shri Madhav B. Kelkar, Director of Agriculture,
holding the charge on officiating basis shall be
entitled for charge allowance in terms of the
O.M. No. 2/38/75-PER(Vol III) dated 25-08-2004”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 15th October, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Planning
Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation
—
Order
No. DPSE/I/ADMN/DEPU/4/2018/VOL-II/1685
Sub.: Appointment against the post of Project
Economist on deputation basis.
Shri Arjun Paik Gaonkar, Research Assistant of
the Common Statistical Cadre is hereby transferred
and posted as Project Economist on deputation
basis initially for a period of one year in the District
Rural Development Agency, North Goa, Panaji, in
the Pay Band of Rs. 9,300-34,300+4,200/- (GP) in
the 7th Pay Commission at Level 6.
Shri Arjun Paik Gaonkar, Research Assistant
stands relieved from this Directorate w.e.f.
09-09-2019 (b.n.) so as to enable him to join his
duties at the place of his posting.
His period of deputation shall be as per the
standard terms and conditions of deputation
contained in O.M. No. 13/4/74/PER dated 20-11-2013
issued by the Personnel Department and as
amended from time to time.
Shri Arjun Paik Gaonkar has to submit joining
report to this Directorate for record.
This issues with the Government approval vide
U.O. No. 1718 dated 22-08-2019.
This supersedes the earlier order No. DPSE/I/
/ADMN/DEPU/4/2018/1387 dated 28-08-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dr. S. Shanbhogue, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Planning).
Porvorim, 17th October, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
525
Department of Public Health
—
Order
No. 2/1/2014-II/PHD/1666
Ex post facto approval of the Government is
conveyed for accepting the resignation tendered
by Dr. Deepa C., Lecturer, Department of
Anaesthesiology, Goa Medical College, Bambolim-
-Goa vide letter dated 28-01-2019 and she stands
relieved from the said post Lecturer, Department of
Anaesthesiology, Goa Medical College w.e.f.
16-03-2019 (a.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 17th July, 2019.
________
Order
No. 38/66/2018-I/PHD/2354
Read: 1) Order No. 38/66/2018-I/PHD/2060 dated
03-08-2018.
2) Order No. 38/66/2018-I/PHD/2059 dated
03-08-2018.
In supersession of the order referred above,
Government is pleased to constitute the Committee
State Level (1) State TB-comorbidity Co-ordination
Committee (STCC) and (2) State Technical Working
Group on TB-comorbidities (STWG); and (3) District
level i.e. District TB-comorbidity Co-ordination
Committees (DTCC), to review the co-ordination
and performance of the TB-HIV joint activities
comprising of the following:-
(I) State TB-comorbidity Co-ordination
Committee (STCC)
1. Secretary, Health
— Chairman.
2. Director of Health Services
— Vice-
-Chairman.
3. Chief Medical Officer/STO,
— Member
RNTCP
Secretary.
4. Dean, Goa Medical College
— Member.
5. Dy. Director, Public Health
— Member.
6. Project Director, GSACS
— Member.
7. Chairman, State Task Force,
— Member.
RNTCP
8. Chief Medical Officer,
— Member.
Family Welfare
9. Chief Medical Officer, STD
— Member.
10. Chief Medical Officer, NCDC
— Member.
11. State Programme Officer,
— Member.
NUHM
12. Health Officer, RNTCP
— Member.
13. State Epidemiologist
— Member.
14. Representative from BSD,
— Member.
CSD, TI Division of GSACS
15. WHO Consultant, RNTCP
— Member.
16. State TB-HIV co-ordinator
— Member.
17. Health Officer/DTO, RNTCP
— Member.
18. Representative of NGO
— Member.
working with RNTCP
19. Representative of NGO
— Member.
working with other programs
(II) State Technical Working Group on
TB-comorbidities (STWG)
1. Mission Director (NHM)
— Chairman.
2. State TB Officer
— Member
Secretary.
3. Director of Health Services
— Member.
4. Dy. Director (PH)
— Member.
5. Project Director, GSACS
— Member.
6. Chief Medical Officer,
— Member.
Health & Family Welfare
7. Chief Medical Officer, STD
— Member.
8. H.O.D. Microbiology,
— Member.
Goa Medical College
9. H.O.D. Pulmonary Medicine,
— Member.
Goa Medical College
10. Chief Medical Officer, NCDC
— Member.
11. State Programme Officer,
— Member.
NUHM
12. Health Officer, RNTCP
— Member.
13. State Epidemiologist
— Member.
14. Representative from TI
— Member.
division, GSACS
15. WHO Consultant, RNTCP
— Member.
16. State TB HIV co-ordination
— Member.
17. State IMA President or his
— Member.
representative
18. Representative of NGO working — Member.
with RNTCP
19. Representative of NGO working — Member.
with other programs
(III) District TB-Co-ordination Committees
(DTCC) North Goa
1. Collector, North Goa
— Chairman.
2. Chief Medical Officer, RNTCP
— Vice-
-Chairman.
3. Health Officer, RNTCP
— Member
Secretary.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
526
4. Medical Superintendent/
— Member.
/Representative, GMC
5. Medical Superintendent,
— Member.
Asilo Hospital
6. Health Officer, UHC, Panaji
— Member.
7. Health Officer, UHC, Mapusa
— Member.
8. Health Officer, PHC, Sankhalim — Member.
9. Health Officer, PHC, Pernem
— Member.
10. Health Officer, PHC, Aldona
— Member.
11. City TB Officer, JEET Project
— Member.
12. NGO representatives/Chairman — Member.
of TB Association
(IV) District TB-Comorbidity Co-ordination
Committees (DTCC) South Goa
1. Collector, South Goa
— Chairman.
2. Chief Medical Officer, RNTCP
— Vice-
-Chairman.
3. District TB Officer, South Goa
— Member
Secretary.
4. Medical Superintendent/
— Member.
/Representative, GMC
5. Medical Superintendent/
— Member.
/Hospicio Hospital
6. Medical Superintendent, SDH, — Member.
Ponda
7. Health Officer, RNTCP
— Member.
8. Health Officer, Margao
— Member.
9. Health Officer, UHC, Vasco
— Member.
10. Health Officer, CHC, Curchorem — Member.
11. Health Officer, PHC, Cansaulim — Member.
12. Medical Superintendent,
— Member.
SDH, Chicalim
13. City TB Officer, JEET Project
— Member.
14. NGO representative/Chairman — Member.
of TB Association
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 18th October, 2019.
———uuu———
Human Resource Development Foundation Society
(A Registered Society of Government of Goa)
Under
Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship
—
Order
No. 3/4/2019/HRDF/PART(II)/361
Read: Government Order:-
(1)
No. 21/95-LAB dated 6-2-1995.
(2)
No. 21/3/95-LAB dated 19-2-1996.
(3)
No. 3/9/97-IND(9) dated 10-07-1997
(4)
No. 3/9/97-IND(9) dated 28-10-1997.
(5)
No. 3/9/97-IND(1) dated 25-02-2004.
(6)
No. 3/9/97-IND(1)/190 dated 12-12-2007.
(7)
No. 3/4/1999-HRDF/6329 dated 13-12-2007.
(8)
No. 3/4/99-HRDF/203 dated 04-01-2008.
(9)
No. 3/4/99-HRDF/214 dated 16-01-2008.
(10)
No. 3/4/2010/HRDF/(part)/889 dated 27-04-2011.
(11)
No. 3/4/2011/HRDF/PART(I)/369 dated 22-11-2013.
(12)
No. 3/4/2014/HRDF/PART(II)/26 dated 18-03-2016.
The Government is pleased to reconstitute the Governing Committee of Human Resource Development
Foundation Society under the Chairmanship of the Director of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship and
consisting of the following members:
1.
Director of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
—
Chairman.
Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
3rd Floor, Shramashakti Bhavan, Panaji-Goa
2.
Director of Education, or his representative
—
Member.
Directorate of Education, Panaji-Goa
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 30
24TH OCTOBER, 2019
527
3.
Directorate of Technical Education or his representative,
—
Member.
Directorate of Technical Education, Government of Goa
4.
Addl. Secretary (Finance)/Jt. Secretary (Finance),
—
Member.
Finance Department, Government of Goa
5.
Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor,
—
Member.
Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
3rd Floor, Shramashakti Bhavan, Panaji-Goa
6.
Assistant Director (Training), Government of Goa,
—
Member
Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
Secretary.
3rd Floor, Shramashakti Bhavan, Panaji-Goa
7.
Asst. Accounts Officer,
—
Treasurer.
Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
3rd Floor, Shramashakti Bhavan, Panaji-Goa
8.
Deputy Director (Admn.),
—
Advisor.
Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
3rd Floor, Shramashakti Bhavan, Panaji-Goa
9.
Non-Official Members:
(a) Shri Sudesh Rane, Goa State Industries Association,
4th Floor, Goa-IDC House, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa
(b) Dr. Krishna Gopal Rajanala, General Manager Human Resources,
Dempo Shipbuilding & Engg. Co. Ltd. Confederation of
Indian Industry, 1st Floor, Salgaocar Center, next to Mary
Immaculate Girls School, Rua de Qurem, Panaji
(c) Shri B. T. Boke, Chairman of IRHR Committee, Goa Chamber
of Commerce & Industry, Narayan Rajaram Bandekar Bhavan,
T. B. Cunha Road, P. O. Box 59, Panjim, Goa
(d) Shri Nilesh Shah, Travel & Tourism Association of Goa,
609, Dempo Tower, 6th Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa
(e) Shri William Vaz, Principal, Comtech Computer Academy,
T-1, 3rd Floor, Royal Chambers, above HDFC Bank, Tisk,
Ponda, Goa
(f) Shri Sadanand Hinde, Principal, Shri Bhumika Technical
Institute, Parye, Sanquelim-Goa
All other functions/instructions/provisions incorporated and proposed/suggested in the Government
Orders referred above remains unchanged.
The tenure of the non-official members of the Governing Committee shall hold office for a period of 2
years from the date of their appointment unless reappointed by the Goa Government.
This issues with the approval of the Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dipak Desai, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Skill Development & Entrepreneurship).
Panaji, 14th October, 2019.
V. No. AP-1396/2019.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 17.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—252/160–10/2019.