Panaji, 12th December, 2019 (Agrahayana 21,1941)
SERIES II No. 37
637
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 Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Order
No. 2/25/2019-20/D.Agri(Part)/1194
On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/12/2(1)/2014/
/1142 dated 17-10-2019, the probation period of Smt. Siddhi S. Prabhu Gaonkar, Assistant Agriculture
Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted of this Directorate in the PB-II Rs. 9300-34800+4200 Grade Pay (Level 6 of the
7th Pay Commission Matrix) have been lifted as she has satisfactorily completed probation period as
shown below against her name.
Sr.
Name of the officer
Date of joining in regular service
Date of completion of probation
No.
in the promoted grade of Assistant
period in the grade of Assistant
Agriculture Officer
Agriculture Officer
1.
Smt. Siddhi S. Prabhu
01-12-2016
30-11-2018
Gaonkar
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 05th December, 2019.
________
Order
No. 2/25/2019-20/D.Agri(Part)/1195
On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/12/2(3)/2018/
/1141 dated 17-10-2019, the probation period of Smt. Shruti S. Dhupkar, Farm Manager, Group ‘B’ Gazetted
of this Directorate in the PB-II Rs. 9300-34800+4200 Grade Pay (Level 6 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix)
have been lifted as she has satisfactorily completed probation period as shown below against her name
and also have been confirmed against the post of Farm Manager with immediate effect:
Sr.
Name of the officer
Date of joining in regular service
Date of completion of probation
No.
as Farm Manager
period in the grade of Farm Manager
including extension of probation period
1.
Smt. Shruti S. Dhupkar
27-06-2016
23-03-2019
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 05th December, 2019.
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 36 dated 05-12-2019 as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 09-12-2019 from pages 633 to 634 regarding Order from Department of Home.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 11-12-2019 from pages 635 to 636 regarding Notification from Department of
Elections.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
638
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
—
Order
No. ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/7321
Read: ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/
/5354 dated 25-09-2019.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/78(5)/2019/879 dated 29-08-2019,
Government is pleased to appoint Shri Vithal
Pandurang Shet Tilvi to the post of Professor for
Research, Development and Innovation for State
Higher Education Council (Group “A” Gazetted)
under Directorate of Higher Education on temporary
basis in the Pay Matrix Level 14 with effect from
01-11-2019 (b.n.), and as per the terms and
conditions contained in the Memorandum cited
above.
Shri Vithal Pandurang Shet Tilvi shall be on
probation for a period of one year extendable by
a maximum period of one year in case of
unsatisfactory performance.
Shri Vithal Pandurang Shet Tilvi has been
declared medically fit by the Medical Board. The
appointment is made subject to the verification of
his character and antecedents. In the event of any
adverse remarks noticed by the Government on
verification of his character and antecedents, his
services shall be terminated.
He shall draw his salary against the newly
created post vide Order No. ADMN/ASSESSMENT
OF MANPOWER/28/2018/2843 dated 25-09-2018.
This issues in the supersession of the earlier
Order No. ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/
6466 dated 29-10-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Prasad Lolayekar, Director (Higher Education)
& Executive Director (SHEC)
Porvorim, 06th December, 2019.
———uuu———
Goa Legislature Secretariat
—
Order
No. LA/Admn./2019/1942
In pursuance of Rule 4 (1) of the Goa Legislature
Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1988, the Governor in consultation with
“Special Board” is pleased to promote Ms. Namrata
A. Ulman, Joint Secretary of the Goa Legislature
Secretariat to the post of Secretary, Legislature,
Group “A” (Gazetted), in the Pay Matrix Level 12,
Cell-1 Rs. 1,18,500/- on regular basis w.e.f.
09th December, 2019 (f.n.).
2. The pay of Ms. Namrata A. Ulman shall be
fixed as per the rules. She should exercise an option
for fixation of pay under F.R. 22 (I) (a) (1) within one
month from the date of promotion.
3. Ms. Namrata A. Ulman will be on probation
for a period of two years from the date of her
promotion, as prescribed under the Recruitment
Rules.
4. The expenditure on pay and allowances shall
be debited to the Budget Head “2011–Parliament/
/State/U.T. Legislature; 02–State/U.T. Legislature;
103–Legislative Secretariat; 01–Legislature
Secretariat of State; 01–Salaries.”
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
U. D. Bicholkar, Committee Officer, Legislature.
Porvorim, 09th December, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Home
Home—General Division
—
Order
No. 2/49/2019-HD(G)/3203
Whereas, the Hon’ble Union Home Minister in
his D.O. letter dated 07-09-2019 directed to review
of existing Criminal Laws viz. IPC, Cr. P.C., Arms
Act, NDPS Act, etc. with the view to make them
relevant to the contemporary law & order
situation as well as to provide speedy justice to
the vulnerable sections of the society.
Therefore, Government of Goa is pleased to
constitute a committee comprising of following
Officers to deliberate and suggest amendments in
existing Criminal Laws keeping in view practical
difficulties being faced in administration of the
aforesaid laws:-
1. Chief Secretary, Goa
— Chairman.
2. Secretary Law, Goa
— Member.
3. Special Secretary (Home), Goa — Member.
4. Director General of Police,
— Member.
Goa
5. Superintendent of Police,
— Member.
ANC, Goa
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
639
6. Superintendent of Police,
— Member.
Crime, Goa
7. District Collectors (North &
— Member.
South), Goa
8. Director of Prosecution, Goa
— Member.
9. Superintendent of Police
— Member.
(North & South), Goa
The proposed amendments should focus on
simplifying legal procedure so as to ensure ease of
living for the common man.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 4th December, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
—
Notification
No. 3/23/2019-IND/706
Read: Notification No. 3/23/2019-IND/656 dated
13-11-2019.
In exercise of the powers conferred by
Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Goa
Investment Promotion Act, 2014 (Goa Act 13 of
2014), the Goa Investment Promotion and
Facilitation Board (Goa-IPB) has appointed a
sub-committee with effect from 08-08-2019 with
the following composition:-
1) Hon’ble Minister for Industries, — Chairman.
Government of Goa
2) Secretary (Industries)
— Member.
3) Shri Harish Rajani, Member,
— Member.
Goa-IPB
4) Shri Atrey Sawant, Member,
— Member.
Goa-IPB
5) Shri Manoj Caculo, Member,
— Member.
Goa-IPB
6) Chief Executive Officer,
— Member
Goa-IPB
Secretary.
The terms of reference of the Committee shall
be as under:
i) Evaluation of all new project proposals under
the purview of Goa-IPB (meeting the criteria
such as specified in sub-section 3 of Section 3
of Goa Investment Promotion Act, 2014) and
giving recommendations before the Board
Meeting.
ii) Evaluation of projects as specified in
sub-section 4 of Section 3 of Goa Investment
Promotion Act.
iii) Decision on any matters related to project
proposals including but not limited to name
change, address change, review of proposals,
and revocation of proposals that may be
ratified at the subsequent Board Meeting.
iv) Decision on routine matters that may be
ratified at subsequent Board Meeting.
v) Discussion on addressing infrastructure gaps
in Goa for attracting investments as per
Section 5 sub-section (j) of Goa Investment
Promotion Act, 2014.
vi) Evaluation of alternative available to the
Board’s office for performing the task of
Satellite Consultants.
vii) The Committee may co-opt any other
expert(s)/official(s) if necessay, for obtaining
necessary input, assistance for its smooth
functioning.
viii) Any other term of reference/subject by the
Goa-IPB from time to time.
ix) The Committee shall meet once in a month
or as and when necessary.
This supersedes the earlier Notification
No. 3/23/2019-IND/656 dated 13-11-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 06th December, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
—
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-VI/754
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
25-10-2019 in reference No. IT/01/10 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.
Kuldeep Ulhas Arolkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 21st November, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
640
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/01/10
Shri A. S. Mulla & 38 Others,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union,
Velho Building, 2nd Floor,
Panaji-Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Sunrise Zinc Limited,
Cuncolim Industrial Estate,
Cuncolim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 25th day of the month
of October of the year 2019)
By Order dated 04-01-2010, bearing No. 28/25/
/2009-LAB/06, 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. Sunrise Zinc Limited, Cuncolim
Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, in closing its
factory at Cuncolim Industrial Estate,
Cuncolim, Goa, with effect from 14-04-2008
and consequent retrenchment of its below
mentioned 39 workmen with effect from
14-04-2008, is legal and justified?
i) A. S. Mulla
ii) Akbar Basha
iii) Anil Mhalsekar
iv) Balkrishna Achari
v) Bhikaji Thakur
vi) Braz Veigas
vii) Damodar Velip
viii) Dattatraya Naik
ix) Ganapati Manjrekar
x) Gopi Gaonkar
xi) Janu Gaonkar
xii) Kishore Naik
xiii) Krishnanand Padvalkar
xiv) Mahableshwar G. Naik
xv) Mahableshwar Kamble
xvi) Mahadev Dessai
xvii) Namdev Achari
xviii) Nanda Kalangutkar
xix) Narayan Parab
xx) Naresh Kolambkar
xxi) Pandurang Chorlekar
xxii) Polath Srinivasulu
xxiii) Premanand Kamble
xxiv) Raju Velip
xxv) S. S. Kumbhar
xxvi) Saleem Khan
xxvii) Santosh Dudhalkar
xxviii) Santosh Manjrekar
xxix) Santosh Mhalshekar
xxx) Sharad Padvalkar
xxxi) Shashikant Gaonkar
xxxii) Shyamsunder Rane
xxxiii) Suresh Gaonkar
xxxiv) Suresh Powar
xxxv) Umesh Gaonkar
xxxvi) Vijay Padvalkar
xxxvii) Vijaykumar Nair
xxxviii) V. Srinivas
xxxix) Yeshwant Gaonkar
(2)
If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/01/10 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Upon appearance, Party I filed
a Claim statement at Exh. 7 and Party II filed a
Written statement at Exh. 8.
3. In short, the case of the Party I in the claim
statement is that the Party II is engaged in the
business of manufacturing electrolytic zinc and
has been employing more than 200 workmen. The
management suddenly on 14-4-2008 closed down
its establishment without any communication or
intimation to the union or other statutory
authorities. The action on the part of the
management to close its factory w.e.f. 14-4-2008 is
illegal, unjust and bad in law and is an attempt
made by the employer to terminate the services of
all the workmen. The Party II has been employing
more than 100 workmen right from the year 1997
to 2008 and was running in three shift operations
and had a large number of work orders. The
employer has failed to appreciate that around 200
workmen including permanent and contract
workmen are directly employed at the factory and
are dependent for their livelihood and hence the
provisions of Chapter VB and Section 25-O of the
Industrial Disputes Act are applicable to the
present case as no permission has been sought by
the company from the appropriate Government
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
641
before declaring the illegal closure. The workmen
on the rolls of the company are therefore entitled
for full wages from the date of closure till date
alongwith other reliefs.
4. The Party II filed a Written statement inter-
alia contending that the Union has no locus standi
to file the claim statement on behalf of the workmen.
The Central Government banned the import of raw
material which led to an acute shortage which
again led to low capacity utilization from inception
itself and the plant started incurring operating
losses from its first year itself and due to losses
year after year, the company defaulted on payment
of interest and loan installments and became sick
unit. The company tried its best to recoup its losses
but to little avail. All the dues as per law were
paid to the employees. The management has
complied with all the necessary provisions of law
and hence the workmen are not entitled for any
reliefs.
5. In the rejoinder at Exh. 9, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II in the written
statement.
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 12 are
as follows:
(1) Whether Party I/Union proves that management
of Party II suddenly on 14-4-2008 closed down
its establishment without any communication,
intimation to them and to the other statutory
authorities in blatant violation of the
provisions of I.D. Act 1947?
(2) Whether Party I/Union proves that the
provisions of Chapter V (B) and Section 25
(O) of I.D. Act 1947 apply to this case as Party
II has been employing more than 100
workmen?
(3) Whether Party II proves that the President of
the Union has no locus standi to file the claim
statement on behalf of the workmen/other
employees?
(4) Whether Party II proves that in the absence
of a specific reference of a substantive
dispute, this Tribunal cannot decide whether
closure has been declared and if so, the same
is legal or illegal?
(5) What relief? What Award?
7. In support of the case, Party I examined Shri
R. D. Mangueshkar as witness and produced on
record a copy of industrial dispute dated 16-4-2008
at Exh. 20, Minutes of conciliation proceedings at
Exh. 21 colly, a copy of failure report dated 18-8-2009
at Exh. 22, copies of documents furnished by the
Office of Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers at
Exh. 23 colly, a copy of notice of closure dated
13-3-2008 at Exh. 24 and a copy of letter dated
1-1-2007 along with resolution dated 23-12-2006 at
Exh. 25. A copy of Notice of lay off dated 14-12-2007
along with annexures at Exh. 27 colly, a copy of
notice of lay off dated 15-1-2008 along with
annexures at Exh. 28 colly, a copy of notice of lay
off dated 13-2-2008 along with annexures at Exh. 29
colly, a copy of notice of lay off dated 13-3-2008 at
Exh. 30 and a copy of minutes of meeting held
before the Conciliation Officer at Exh. 31 colly. On
the other hand, Party II examined Shri Pankaj Jaju
as witness and produced on record a copy of order
dated 23-11-2007 at Exh. 34, a copy of letter dated
23-11-2007 from GSPCB at Exh. 35, a copy of Form
Q dated 14-2-2008 with annexure at Exh. 36 colly,
a copy of possession notice of State Bank of India
dated 3-10-2010 at Exh. 37, a copy of inventory
dated 3-10-2008 at Exh. 38, a copy of Auditors report
dated 14-8-2010 with annexure at Exh. 40 colly and
a copy of wage register at Exh. 41 colly.
8. Heard arguments.
9. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 5
…
As per Final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 2:
10. Learned Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik for the Party
I has submitted that the management of Party II
suddenly on 14-4-2008 closed down its
establishment without any communication or
intimation to them and other statutory authorities
in blatant violation of Section 25-O under Chapter
VB of the Industrial Disputes Act without seeking
permission from the appropriate Government as
the Party II employed more than 100 employees
and their services could not have been terminated
without obtaining prior permission of the State
Government as per the Act and therefore, the
workers are entitled for the reliefs claimed. As
against that, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for the
Party II has submitted that the establishment which
was running into losses had to be closed as the
company had become sick and inspite of
submitting proposals to the financial institutions
as per the direction of BIFR, none of the said
proposals were accepted. The company had also
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
642
become subject of a Public Interest Litigation in
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa bearing
Writ Petition No. 376/06 on grounds of environmental
pollution and vide order dated 23-11-2007, the
operation of plant was suspended and based on
the said order, the Goa State Pollution Control
Board ordered immediate closure of the plant dated
23-11-2007 and hence they were left with no choice
but to give lay off to its employees and thereafter
all their dues were paid in terms of law.
11. The Party I examined Shri R. D. Mangueshkar,
Secretary of the union who claimed that the
management closed its factory w.e.f. 14-4-2008
which is illegal, unjust and bad in law and is an
attempt made by the employer to terminate the
services of all the workmen. He also claimed that
the employer has been employing more than 100
workmen right from the year 1997 till 2008 and has
enforced closure without following procedure as
contemplated under Chapter VB of the Act. In the
cross examination, he also reiterated that there
were more than 200 workers working in the factory,
however admitted that only 39 workers out of 45
persons as per Exh. 25 who had joined the union
are parties to the reference. He claimed that he
was not aware of the public interest litigation filed
against the company for violation of environmental
issues but admitted that the Hon’ble High Court
vide order dated 23-11-2007 directed the Party II to
suspend its operations. The materials on records
indicate that the Goa State Pollution Control Board
also issued letter dated 23-11-2007 directing the
Party II to close down the plant forthwith.
12. The Party II has admittedly declared lay off
from 14-12-2007 and had issued the notices of lay
off dated 14-12-2007 at Exh. 27 colly, dated 15-1-2008
along with annexure at 28 colly, dated 13-12-2008
at Exh. 29 colly. Shri Mangueshkar has admitted
that the notices along with annexures as stated
above which were sent by Party II were received
by them. He also admitted that the closure notice
dated 13-3-2008 at Exh. 30 was also received by
their office. No reply has been given to the said
closure notice nor was it challenged. He also
admitted that the management has paid the wages
of lay off and that there is no dispute raised by the
union with regard to lay off as per the notices and
that the factory was closed. It therefore follows
that the Party II has followed the provisions under
the law for closure of the company. The claim of
Party I that the Party II was employing more than
100 workmen on its roll preceding 12 months from
the date of closure and as such Chapter VB of the
Act is applicable is also not borne by any records.
The schedule of reference shows that there are
only 39 workmen. The documents produced by Shri
Mangueshkar from Exh. 22 to Exh. 24 also do not
show that there were more than 100 workmen. The
Director of the Company, Shri Pankaj Jaju has
clearly specified the reason for which the company
was constrained to close its operation including
directions from Goa State Pollution Control Board
and Hon’ble High Court. He has produced on
record the copy of the muster roll and copy of
wage register at Exh. 40 colly and Exh. 41 colly
respectively for the period from September, 2007
till May, 2008, which clearly indicate that there
were 74/62 workmen on its roll. No counter
documents have been produced on record by the
Party I. The material on record therefore clearly
belies that the case of Party I that the Party II was
employing more than 100 workmen prior to its
closure.
13. Chapter V-B of the Act deals with special
provisions relating to lay-off, etc. Section 25-K under
said Chapter deals with industrial establishment
in which not less than one hundred workmen were
employed on an average per working day for the
preceding twelve months. The documents on
record including notices at Exhibits 27 colly, 28
colly, 29 colly and 30 indicate that proper
compliance under relevant provisions of law has
been made by Party II. There were less than 100
workmen working with Party II at the time of
closure. There is therefore no requirement of
seeking any permission from appropriate
Government in terms of Section 25-O of the
Industrial Disputes Act. There is no quarrel that
the Party II paid all the dues in terms of law as
admitted by Shri Mangueshkar. It is in such
circumstances, the Party I has failed to prove that
the management of the Party II closed down its
establishment without any communication to them
on 14-4-2008 in blatant violation of Industrial
Disputes Act and that the Party II has not followed
provisions of Section 25-O of Chapter VB of the Act
and hence, the issues No. 1 and 2 are answered in
the negative.
Issue No. 3 and 4:
14. It is claimed by the Party II that the President
of the Union has no locus standi to file the claim
statement on behalf of the workmen and other
employees and in the absence of specific reference
of a substantive dispute, the Tribunal cannot
decide whether closure has been declared,
however the Director of the Party II has not adduced
any evidence by way of oral as well as documentary
in support of above issues and therefore the same
are answered in the negative. Be that as it may, the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
643
Party I has not made out any case in its favour and
therefore not entitled for any relief sought by it in
the claim statement. Hence, the above issues are
answered accordingly.
15. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i)
It is hereby held the action of the
management of M/s. Sunrise Zinc Limited,
Cuncolim Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, in
closing its factory at Cuncolim Industrial
Estate, Cuncolim, Goa, with effect from
14-04-2008 and consequent retrenchment
of its above mentioned 39 workmen with
effect from 14-04-2008, 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-VI/753
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
31-10-2019 in reference No. IT/17/18 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.
Kuldeep Ulhas Arolkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 21st November, 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/17/18
Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Ranbaxy Workers Union,
C/o. Suryakant M. Naik,
H. No. 1029, Wadi Wada,
Kundaim, Ponda, Goa-403 115. … Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.,
Madkaim Industrial Estate,
Madkaim-Goa-403 404.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri S. P. Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.
K. Sardesai
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 31st day of the month
of October of the year 2019)
By Order dated 28-11-2018, bearing No. 28/28/
/2018-LAB/757, 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 demand of the Ranbaxy Workers
Union to pay bonus as per the provisions of
the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (Central Act
No. 21 of 1965), as amended by the Payment
of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Central
Act No. 6 of 2016), to all the employees for
the accounting year 2016-17 is justified?
(2)
If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, to what relief the workmen
are entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/17/18 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 6 and
Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 8.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
workmen were working with Party II since last
several years. The factory of Party II was previously
known as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. which was
taken over by the Party II in the year 2015 and
since then wages and other dues were paid by the
Party II. The Party II was paid 20% bonus for the
year 2016-17 in October, 2017 as per existing
practice. However, while paying 20% bonus, the
Party II applied the ceiling of Rs. 7000/- and paid
Rs. 16,800/- each to all the workers. The Central
Government revised the Payment of bonus vide
Notification dated 31-12-2015 which is known as
‘The Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015’
which reads as “For the word three thousand and
five hundred at both places where they occur, the
word “seven thousand rupees or the minimum
wages for the schedule employment, as fixed by
the appropriate Government, whichever is higher”
shall respectively be substituted.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
644
4. It is further case of the Party I that in the
month of October 2017, the union office bearers
requested the management to pay the additional
bonus as per the minimum wages of skilled
categories and when the Party II refused to make
the balance payment, the Party I union vide their
letter dated 25-10-2017 raised the demand before
the Party II management and since there was no
response, the Party I union vide their letter dated
8-12-2017 raised an industrial dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ponda for
intervention. The Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Ponda vide his notice dated 11-12-2017 called both
the parties on 20-12-2017. The Party II vide their
letter dated 19-1-2018 filed their written statement.
The employer was adamant as they want to crush
the union and also the past practice of signing the
periodical settlements. The Party II was bent upon
the workers and the union to agree for new terms
of yearly increase on performance and withdrawal
of Variable Dearness Allowance system and because
the workers refused to adhere to the demands of
the management, the Party II started pressuring
the workers and hence intentionally refused to pay
the balance bonus as per the new amendment of
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Due to adamant
attitude of the management, the dispute was ended
in failure and that on receipt of the failure report
dated 17-9-2018, the appropriate Government
referred the said dispute to the Hon’ble Tribunal
for adjudication.
5. In the Written statement, the Party II has stated
that pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation
sanctioned by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by
its order dated 30-5-1997, Crosland Research
Laboratories Ltd. was amalgamated with Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. and subsequently, Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. has amalgamated into Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. It is their case
that as per Payment of Bonus Act, the bonus ceiling
is now raised to Rs. 21,000/- and the calculation
ceiling has been revised to Rs. 7,000/- per month
“or the minimum wage for the scheduled
employment, as fixed by the appropriate
Government” (whichever is higher). The amended
provision is intended to deal with two classes of
employees, those who are paid minimum wages
which is bare minimum subsistence wage, and the
employees who are paid higher than the minimum
wage consequent to wage settlements or
otherwise. The provisions of Minimum Wages Act
or the Notification in relation to the payment of
minimum wages do not apply to the Party I
workmen who are paid higher than the minimum
wage. The amendment was intended to protect
those class of employees who are drawing bare
subsistence wage and not those who are drawing
a wage which can be treated as fair wage and for
the purpose of calculation of bonus, the payment
to the employees who are not covered by the
minimum wage notification, will be circumscribed
or limited by the ceiling of Rs. 7,000/-. The salaries
drawn by the workmen based on various
settlements is higher than the minimum wage
referred to in the notification for the respective
categories of workmen. The Party I workmen who
draws salary or wages above Rs. 7,000/- per month
shall be deemed to draw Rs. 7,000/- only for the
purpose of calculation of bonus and therefore to
calculate maximum bonus payable as per amended
Bonus Act shall be @20% i.e. Rs. 7,000/-x 12 x 20%=
Rs. 16,800/- and that the workmen are not entitled
to any relief and as such the reference may be
rejected.
6. In the rejoinder at Exh. 9, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II in the written
statement.
7. Issues which came to be framed at Exhibit 11
are as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the demand
for bonus as per the provisions of the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (Central Act
No. 21 of 1965), as amended by the Payment
of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Central
Act No. 6 of 2016), to all the employees for
the accounting year 2016-17 is justified?
(2) What Relief? What Award?
8. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
Shri Suryakant Naik as their witness and produced
on record a copy of letter dated 25-10-2017
addressed to the Party II at Exh. 15, a copy of letter
of intervention dated 8-12-2017 addressed to ALC,
Ponda at Exh. 16, a copy of reply dated 19-1-2019
by Party II at Exh. 17, a copy of reply dated 16-2-2018
by Party I at Exh. 18, a copy of minutes of the
conciliation proceedings dated 3-8-2018 at Exh. 19,
a copy of report of failure dated 17-9-2018 at
Exh. 20, a copy of Notification dated 24-5-2016 at
Exh. 21 and a copy of the Gazette of India regarding
Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 dated
1-1-2016 at Exh. 22. In the cross examination, the
Party II produced through him a copy of wage
settlement dated 16-1-2015 at Exh. 23, a copy of
Charter of demands dated 28-10-2017 at Exh. 24.
On the other hand, the Party II examined
Shri Timoteo Marwin Carvalho as their witness
and produced on record a copy of Memorandum of
Settlement dated 16-1-2015 at Exh. 27, a copy of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
645
Minutes of meeting dated 19-1-2018 at Exh. 28, a
copy of rejoinder dated 12-7-2018 at Exh. 29, a copy
of reply to the rejoinder dated 3-8-2018 at Exh. 30
and a copy of resolution dated 26-7-2019 at Exh. 31.
In the cross examination, the Party I produced
through him a copy of a list showing the names of
Workmen along with Grade, Department, Basic,
VDA, FDA and total at Exh. 32, a copy of list showing
names of employees, Grade, Department, Basic,
HRA, Edu. Allowance, Special Allowance, VDA.
FDA, Prod. Allowance, Medical Allowance,
Production Link Allowance and total at Exh. 33,
copies of list of workmen along with 43 pay slips
at Exh. 34 colly and copy of settlement dated
15-11-2011 at Exh. 35.
9. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments
came to be placed on record by the Party I as well
as Party II.
10. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1 … In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2 … As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
11.
Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar for
the Party I has submitted that the only question to
be answered by the Tribunal is whether bonus for
the accounting year 2016-17 is to be paid on the
ceiling of Rs. 7000/- or on the Notification of
minimum wages, as provided under the amended
Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and
that the Party II is bound to pay bonus upon the
minimum wages as notified for pharmaceutical
industry by Notification dated 23-5-2016. He further
submitted that before 2015 amendment, Section 12
which was dealing with calculation of bonus
provided for a flat ceiling of Rs. 3500/- for all
employees and after the amendment, Section 12
has been modified which now provides for
calculation of bonus to those employees whose
salary either exceeds Rs. 7000/- or exceeds the
notified minimum wage, whichever is higher. He
further submitted that the Party II has paid 20%
bonus for the year 2016-17 in October, 2017 and
has applied the ceiling of Rs. 7000/- thereby paying
Rs. 16,800/- to each worker, instead of Rs. 26,395/-
for the skilled category as per the amended
notification of Payment of Bonus Act and therefore
they are entitled for additional bonus.
12. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardesai for the
Party II has submitted the Memorandum of
settlement at Exh. 27 signed by the parties in the
matter of Charter of demands dated 16-1-2015
provides the terms and conditions relating to bonus
in clauses 13 and 15. The amended provision deals
with two classes of employees, those who are paid
minimum wages which is bare minimum
subsistence wage and the employees who are paid
higher than the minimum wages consequent to
wage settlement or otherwise. The provisions of
Minimum Wages Act or the Notification in relation
to the payment of minimum wages does not apply
to the Party I workman who are admittedly paid
higher than the minimum wages. The amendment
was intended to protect those class of employees
who are drawing bare subsistence allowance and
not those who are drawing wage which cannot be
treated as fair wage and for the calculation of bonus,
the payment to the employees who are not covered
by the minimum wage notification, will be
circumscribed or limited by the ceiling of Rs. 7000/-.
The workmen were paid monthly salary and not
wages. The salary once decided in the beginning
remained fixed till the next increment, whereas in
wage payment there is a wage rate that keep on
changing and an individual is paid on the basis of
prevailing wage rate and therefore, it is clear that
the Party I workmen are paid monthly salary and
not wage and hence they are not entitled to claim
bonus under the said Notification as it is not
applicable to them and in support thereof, he relied
upon the case of Utkal Contractors and Joinery
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 1987 (3) SCC 279.
13. In fine, the only question to be determined
is whether bonus for the accounting year 2016-17
is to be paid on the ceiling of Rs. 7000/- or on the
minimum wage as applicable, as provided under
the amended Section 12 of Payment of Bonus
Act, 1965.
14. Section 12 Payment of Bonus (amended) Act,
1965 reads as follows:
12. Calculation of bonus with respect to certain
employees.– where the salary or wage of an
employee exceeds [seven thousand rupees or
the minimum wage for the scheduled
employment, as fixed by the appropriate
Government, whichever is higher] per mensem,
the bonus payable to such employee under
Section 10 or, as the case may be, under Section
11, shall be calculated as if his salary or wage
were [seven thousand rupees or the minimum
wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed
by the appropriate Government, whichever is
higher] per mensem.
Explanation.- for the purpose of this Section,
the expression “scheduled employment” shall
have the same meaning as assigned to it in
clause (g) of Section 2 of the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
646
15. There cannot be dispute that prior to 2015
amendment, Section 12 which deals with the
calculation of bonus provided for a flat ceiling of
Rs. 3500/- for all employees, however by the present
amendment, Section 12 provides for calculation of
bonus with respect to certain employees and this
employees are the one whose salary either exceeds
Rs. 7000/- or exceeds the notified minimum wage,
whichever is higher and the employer has to
calculate bonus for such employees either on
Rs.7000/- or notified minimum wage. The witness,
Shri Suryakant Naik examined by Party I workmen
has claimed that the management paid the 20%
bonus for the year 2016-17 in October, 2017,
however while paying the bonus, the Party II
applied the ceiling of Rs. 7000/- and paid Rs.16,800/-
to all the workers after which they requested the
management to pay additional bonus as per
minimum wages of skilled categories but they
refused. The said fact has not been refuted by the
company. He also stated that as per the amended
notification, the Party I workmen are entitled for
Rs. 26,395/- for the skilled category and therefore
they are entitled for addition bonus of Rs. 9595/-
per head for the said year. He, however admitted
in the cross that the settlement is applicable to
the employees of the company who are parties to
the reference from 1-7-2014 and that as per the
settlement, VDA is paid more than what is provided
under Minimum Wages Act. The witness examined
by the Party II viz. Timoteo Carvalho has stated
that the workmen who draws salary or wages above
Rs. 7000/- per month shall be deemed to draw Rs.
7000/- for the purpose of calculation of bonus and
therefore 20% on Rs. 7000/- for 12 months works out
to Rs. 16,800/- and that minimum wages notification
is not applicable for those employees who are paid
higher than the minimum wages. However, in the
cross examination, he admitted that as per the list
showing names of the workmen alongwith grades,
department, basic, VDA, FDA at Exh. 32, the salary
of none of the workmen is above Rs. 21,000/- per
month and that they are not paying any allowance
other than the allowances referred in Exh. 33 and
the skilled allowance are paid as per the last
settlement and are included in production
allowance.
16. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the
Party I workmen are entitled for bonus as their
salary is not more than Rs. 21,000/- per month. The
only dispute is whether the calculation done by
the management is in terms of law or whether the
workmen are entitled for bonus on the minimum
wages fixed for skilled category. Section 12 of the
amended Act clearly provides that while
calculating bonus the employer has to assume that
the salary of the employee is either Rs. 7000/- or
minimum wages as per Notification, whichever is
higher. It is thus clear that while calculating bonus,
the employer has to calculate the salary of the
employee as Rs. 7000/- or as per minimum wage,
whichever is higher. There cannot be any quarrel
that as per the Notification at Exh. 31, the minimum
wage for the skilled workers is Rs. 423/- and if one
attempts calculation, it would be Rs. 26,395/-
(423 x 26 x 12 x 20%) which means that an amount
of Rs. 9595/- is balance bonus due for the said year,
which the Party I are rightly claiming.
17. It is well settled principle of statutory
interpretation that the words have to be first
understood in their natural, ordinary or popular
sense and the natural and the ordinary meaning of
words should not be departed unless shown that
the context in which the words are used required
a different meaning. In the case of Kanai Lal Sur
vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907, the
Apex Court has held that the cardinal rule of
construction of statutes is to read the statutes
literally, that is by giving to the words their
ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If
however, such a reading leads to absurdity and
the words are susceptible of another meaning, the
Court may adopt of the same, but if no such
alternate construction is possible, the Court must
adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation. In
the present case, the literal construction leads to
no apparent absurdity and therefore, there can be
no compelling reason for departing from that golden
rule of construction. Similarly, in the case of
Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. Administrator General
West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936, the Apex Court
has held that the intention of legislature has always
to be gathered by words used by it, giving to the
words their plain, normal and grammatical
meaning.
18. It is therefore, while calculating the bonus,
the employer has to take the higher figure of the
two i.e. either Rs. 7000/- or the notified minimum
wage, whichever is higher. There is no dispute
that the minimum wage has been increased to
Rs. 7000/- in the year 2016. The Party II is a
pharmaceutical industry which is a scheduled
industry and since the minimum wage is more than
Rs. 7000/- per month for the purpose of calculation
under Section 12, it is always the minimum wage
that will have to be taken for the purpose of
calculating the bonus. The statement and objects
and reasons appended to the Payment of Bonus
(Amendment) Act, 2015 also show the reason why
said amendment has been made. There is no
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
647
dispute that only the employees getting salary upto
Rs. 21,000/- are covered under Payment of Bonus
Act and the said definition makes no difference
between the person getting salary less than the
notified minimum wage, equivalent to notified
minimum wage or greater than notified minimum
wage and therefore to restrict the calculation under
Section 12 and differentiate between the
employees being paid more than the minimum
wage would be creating a distinction that was
never intended by the legislature. If the contention
of Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardesai is accepted, it would
result in absurd, inconvenient and unjust
consequences to the workmen incongruous to
Section 12 of Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act
which is never intended by the Parliament. It
therefore can be safely said that the demand for
bonus as per the provision of the Bonus Act, 1965
as amended by the Payment of Bonus (Amendment)
Act, 2015 to all the employees of the Party II for the
accounting year 2016-17 is justified.
19. Ld. Adv. Shri Sardessai has further submitted
that Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of
M/s. United Breweries Ltd. vs. Union of India in
W. P. No. 28351/2016 granted an interim stay with
respect to retrospectively and also with regard to
the payment to be determined on the basis of salary
taken based on minimum wages. He further
submitted that in the case of Kusum Ingots &
Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2004 (6) SCC 254,
the Apex Court has observed that the court must
have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order
passed on a writ petition questioning the
constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether
interim or final keeping in view the provisions
contained in clause 2 of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, will have effect throughout
the territory of India subject of course to the
applicability of the Act. It is therefore the reference
be stayed or it may be disposed of as if the bonus
is payable to all the employees for the accounting
year 2016-17 on the ceiling of Rs. 7000/-.
20. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the
Party I has submitted and rightly so that the
Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 was
retrospectively made from 1-4-2014 and this aspect
of retrospectivity was challenged by various
employers, however the present reference relates
to the year 2016-17 and has nothing to do with
retrospective application of new amendment. There
is no dispute that most of the High Courts
including the High Court of Kerala have stayed
only the ‘retrospectivity’ part of the amendment
and not any other provision. The Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala in the case of M/s. United Breweries
Ltd., supra has clearly stated that the grievance is
confined to the retrospectivity. The Hon’ble High
Court has not stayed the amendment per se and
has restricted to the retrospectivity aspect only.
Ld. Adv. Gaonkar has produced on record a copy
of the Writ Petition No. 154/2015 between Tech
Mahindra vs. Union of India, in which Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay vide order dated 13-6-2016 has
only stayed the retrospective part of the
amendment and not the amendment per se. The
order of reference at hand relates to the accounting
year 2016-17 and therefore the stay granted by
Kerala High Court have no application to it. Hence,
the above issue is answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
21. Admittedly, Party I has proved that they are
entitled for the bonus in terms of Payment of Bonus
(Amendment) Act, 2015 and therefore, the Party I
are entitled for amount of Rs. 9595/- (Rupees nine
thousand five hundred and ninety five only) per
workmen towards the balance bonus due for the
accounting year 2016-17. It is therefore the above
issue is answered accordingly.
22. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) It is hereby held that the demand of the
Ranbaxy Workers Union to pay bonus as
per the provisions of the Payment of Bonus
Act, 1965 (Central Act No. 21 of 1965), as
amended by the Payment of Bonus
(Amendment) Act, 2015 (Central Act No. 6
of 2016), to all the employees for the
accounting year 2016-17 is justified.
(ii) Consequently, the Party II is directed to
pay an amount of Rs. 9595/- (Rupees Nine
thousand five hundred and ninety five only)
per workmen towards the balance bonus
due for the accounting year 2016-17.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
648
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/757
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 18-10-2019 in case
No. Ref. LC-II/IT/07/2016 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.
Kuldeep Ulhas Arolkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 21st November, 2019.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/07/2016
Ms. Shamli Naik,
IBM Colony, C-14,
Opp. old RTO office,
Arlem, Margao- Goa.
…
Workperson/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Green Earth
Translogistics Pvt. Ltd.,
M.G. Road,
Panaji-Goa.
…
Employer/Party-II
Workperson/Party-I represented by Shri Subhash
Naik Jeorge.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Panaji, Dated: 18-10-2019
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 31-03-2016,
bearing No. 28/7/2016-Lab/225 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Green Earth Translogistics Private
Limited, Panaji, Goa, in terminating the
services of Ms. Shamli V. Naik, Travel
Hostess, with effect from 03-01-2015, is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under case No. LC-II/IT/07/2016 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 her Statement of Claim on
16-09-2016 at Exb. 7. The facts of the case, in brief,
as pleaded by the Workperson are that the
Employer/Party II (for short, ‘the Employer’) is a
contractor employed by Goa Tourism Development
Corporation to run women taxi services in the State
of Goa. She stated that the head office of the
Employer is at Mumbai. She stated that she was a
Travel Hostess employed by the Goa Tourism
Development Corporation (GTDC) and the Employer
to operate women taxi services introduced by Goa
Tourism Development Corporation in Goa. She
stated that she was a women taxi driver of one of
the taxis introduced by the Employer in the State
of Goa alongwith several other women taxi drivers
employed by the Employer. She stated that
during her training period, she was paid stipend of
Rs. 6000/- p.m. and thereafter, the women taxi
drivers were entitled for salary of Rs. 15000/- p.m.,
if they are non-graduate and Rs. 17,000/- p.m., if
they were graduate.
3. She stated that she was given an employment
offer dated 23-06-2014 by the Employer appointing
her as ‘Travel Hostess’ for its Goa taxi project. She
stated that she accepted the offer given by the
Employer alongwith wage offer of Rs. 6000/- p.m.
She stated that she was given a confirmation letter
as Travel Hostess w.e.f. 01-10-2014, by their letter
dated 01-10-2014. She stated that, by the said
confirmation letter, she was offered basic salary of
Rs. 8000/- p.m., HRA of Rs. 3200/- p.m., conveyance
allowance of Rs. 800/- p.m., education allowance
of Rs. 200/- p.m., supplementary allowance of
Rs. 2920/- p.m., medical allowance of Rs. 1250/- p.m.
besides other benefits mentioned in the said
appointment letter. She stated that she was also
issued identity card by GTDC Ltd. under heading
Women Taxi Services.
4. She stated that on 03-01-2015, she was issued
a termination letter alleging that due to extreme
misconduct, violent behaviour with the staff and
management, trying to damage company property,
using abusive language and gestures in the office,
her services have been terminated with immediate
effect from 03-01-2015. She stated that the said
letter further alleged that she should handover
vehicle key, sim card, uniform, identity card etc. to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
649
the Employer or else they would take legal action.
She stated that she handed over a car key and sim
card to the Employer and got the same
acknowledged.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the Employer in
illegally terminating her services, the Workperson
raised an industrial dispute, vide her letter dated
07-04-2015 to the Employer as well as GTDC Ltd.
demanding reinstatement in service with full back
wages and continuity in service which ended in
failure. She submitted that no memo, show-cause
notice or charge-sheet was issued to her seeking
explanation before termination of her services. She
submitted that no enquiry was held in accordance
with the principles of natural justice to prove the
allegation levelled in the termination letter dated
03-01-2015. She submitted that the termination of
her services vide letter dated 03-01-2015 was totally
in violation of the principles of natural justice and
hence, it is illegal and unjustified. She stated that
since the date of termination of her services, she is
unemployed and trying hard to find employment.
The Workperson therefore prayed that she be
reinstated in service with full back wages and
continuity in service with cost.
6. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workperson by filing its written statement dated
07-01-2017 at Exb. 08. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
present claim of the Workperson is not an
‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.
Act, 1947, that the Workperson was employed as a
“Trainee Travel Hostess” with them and was paid
stipend as per employment offer dated 23-06-2014
and as such she is not a ‘workman’ as defined
u/s. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, and that they have
terminated the services of the Workperson within
the said probation vide termination letter dated
03-01-2015 on account of reasons mentioned therein
and that there is non-application of mind by the
Appropriate Government while referring the
present dispute.
7. The Employer stated that the GTDC had
floated women taxi tender on 05-02-2014 for the
first time and before that it was only discussion
taken place. The Employer stated that GTDC did
not employ any taxi drivers. However, the Employer,
which was already working in the field of
commercial driver training programs on pan India
basis, had employed the women taxi drivers and
was training them as they had an intention to start
a women driving school in Goa as well as women
taxi service in the State to provide a safe and secure
taxi service in Goa as well as job guarantee to all
the women who would get trained in skillful
driving. The Employer stated that they approached
the village Panchayats during relevant time and
various offer letters were issued to Panchayats for
encouraging the women of their area for driving
jobs. The Employer stated that later on GTDC
floated the women taxi project tender, they decided
to participate in the tender as it was felt that
instead of starting a totally private taxi project in
Goa. The Employer stated that they felt it more
sensible to get associated with the Government of
Goa to run the project under GTDC umbrella. The
Employer admitted that during the training, women
drivers were entitled for a stipend of Rs. 6000/- p.m.
The Employer stated that the stipend was
introduced only to keep the said women associated
with them, and that they were not required to do
any job at that time. The Employer stated that they
were being called for meetings once or twice in a
month where they were given equal opportunities
to participate in the infrastructural requirements
and plan the women driving school as well as
women taxi project and they were offered food and
beverages in the meetings. The Employer stated
that the stipend and salary mentioned in the offer
letters had nothing to do with GTDC Women taxi
service till such time as they themselves had no
clue that it would win the women taxi project
tender and the offer was therefore solely for the
private women taxi project plan. The Employer
stated that they got the tender as per official order
and Letter Of Intent (LOI) was issued to Workperson
in order to run the services where GTDC allowed
them to park the vehicles at their property in order
to get regular business. The Employer stated that
they issued a letter dated 04-01-2014 to Majorda
Panchayat seeing their support. The Employer
stated that the said letter was issued when they
were planning to start its own project in the State
of Goa. The Employer stated that by October, 2014
they had won the tender and was already the
contractor of the project. The Employer stated that
the GTDC was supporting the project through
media and publicity for the safety and security of
the existing drivers and also to encourage more
and more women to participate in the project
to create women employment and women
empowerment in the State.
8. The Employer admitted that they had given
offer letter to the Workperson for its private taxi
project. The Employer stated that though the
Workperson possessed a driving license, she had
refused to give driving test when they had put her
name for the skilled driving certificate under ASDC
(Automotive Skills Development Council). The
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
650
Employer stated that, it was revealed that the
Workperson had accepted the offer letter on fake
and fraudulent grounds that she knew driving,
whereas, after getting stipend for so many months,
they revealed that she did not know driving at all.
The Employer stated that, inspite of the said facts,
they had given her very nice treatment as their
employee and had decided to train her for the
driving. The Employer stated that they encouraged
the Workperson and appointed trained drivers to
train her for the four wheeler driving. The Employer
stated that the Workperson was also referred to
National Driving School, but she refused to take
classes. The Employer stated that the Workperson
was trained by various women drivers from the
existing team on their car for various hours. The
Employer stated that the Workperson was told that
she would remain on training for as long as their
technical team does not find her fit enough to take
passengers, but would continue to get the stipend
money. The Employer stated that the Workperson
was never issued employment letter at any point
of time by them. The Employer stated that the
Workperson started creating problems in the
meetings every now and then. The Employer stated
that, in the meeting held on 3-1-2015, their business
head Ms. Manisha Banerjee was addressing the
team, the Workperson had some disagreements and
started shouting, her behavior was completely
arrogant. The Employer stated that when the
Workperson was asked to keep cool by everyone
present in the meeting, she realized that the whole
team was not giving any importance to her point
of view and started shouting and having heated
arguments with everyone. The Employer stated
that the Workperson further became violent and
took out the sunglasses of her friend Ms. Whitney
from her shirt and threw it on the floor. The
Employer stated that thereafter, she started
throwing almost everything in the room such as
glasses and pushed the chair to Ms. Manisha
Banerjee. The Employer stated that as the
Workperson who was howling in the workplace,
she was asked to leave the office quietly by Ms.
Manisha Banerjee. The Employer stated that the
Workperson refused to leave as instructed and at
that time, her friend Ms. Whitney forcefully took
her out of the room. The Employer stated that the
meeting therefore, could not proceed further and
had to be adjourned on account of such arrogant
and uncalled attitude of the Workperson. The
Employer stated that, thereafter, Ms. Manisha
Banerjee tried contacting her over the phone
several times, but, neither the Workperson, nor
Ms. Whitney received the call. The Employer stated
that as the hospitality industry demands etiquettes
and patience to deal with every guests, the
Workperson’s behaviour was alarming for everyone.
The Employer stated that Ms. Manisha Banerjee
reported the matter to her immediate superior
Mr. Yogesh Ambe and together, they formed a
consensus that the Workperson’s bad behavior
should not be taken lightly as this would set a
wrong precedent for other women drivers. The
Employer stated that Ms. Manisha was advised by
her seniors to send her an email at night in which
the Workperson was told that she was terminated
from services, hoping that the Workperson would
realize her mistake and would surely come back
with an apology letter. The Employer stated that
it was surprising to note that on the next day
morning, Ms. Whitney called Manisha Banerjee and
threatened her that she had not done the right
thing by terminating the services of the Workperson
and that she would have to bear the consequences,
if the Workperson was not taken back in service.
The Employer stated that Ms. Whitney threatened
that she would teach Ms. Manisha a lesson and
thereafter, in the evening, Ms. Whitney and Ms.
Rita came to the office while the Workperson
waited outside. The Employer stated that
Ms. Whitney once again threatened Ms. Manisha
that her career would be ruined with the Employer,
if she would not reinstate the Workperson back in
services of the Employer. The Employer stated that,
thereafter, Ms. Manisha again called her senior
Mr. Yogesh Ambe and called him for the final
meeting with the Workperson, Ms. Whitney and
Ms. Rita. The Employer stated that Mr. Yogesh
Ambe came from Mumbai for the meeting and
spoke with all three of them as well as other
travel hostesses. The Employer stated that, when
Mr. Yogesh in the process of explaining them,
Ms. Whitney in between intervened and threatened
Mr. Yogesh of dire consequences and informed him
that the Employer would have to face the
consequences if the Workperson was not taken
back. The Employer stated that from the next day,
Ms. Whitney and Ms. Rita did not report for their
duty.
9. The Employer stated that in the evening these
three girls went to Mr. Cabral, the Chairman of
GTDC asking for reinstatement of the Workperson.
The Employer stated that Mr. Cabral asked them to
give him two to three days’ time in which he would
understand what had happened and would try to
resolve the issue amicably between them. The
Employer stated that Mr. Cabral called Ms. Manisha
and Mr. Yogesh for the meeting on the very next
day and he also called a meeting of other women
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
651
drivers in the evening in which he understood
exactly what had happened. The Employer stated
that the Workperson and Ms. Rita did not receive
the phone call from the office, neither reported to
work for several days. The Employer stated that
subsequently for the safety and security purpose,
Ms. Manish and Mr. Vasudev were asked by them
to remove the taxi issued to Ms. Whitney, Ms. Rita
and the Workperson and parked them in a safe
place. The Employer stated that Ms. Whitney and
Ms. Rita were also asked to leave as they were not
reporting to work and were busy putting fake
allegations on them and GTDC in media. The
Employer stated that the Workperson, Ms. Rita and
Ms. Whitney kept on giving wrong statements and
kept on defaming them and GTDC in the newspaper
and news channels. The Employer stated that
Mr. Yogesh Ambe and Ms. Manisha started getting
threatening calls from different and NGO’s and
were continuously pressurized by unknown people
to reinstate the Workperson otherwise they would
have to bear the consequences. The Employer
stated that Mr. Yogesh and Mr. Manisha reported
this to GTDC, but the higher Government officials
discouraged the Employer to take any harsh steps
against the girls as this would have been ruined
their career. The Employer stated that the GTDC
officials anticipated that the girls such statements
were nothing, but a misguidance they must have
received from their friends and would soon fade
away. The Employer stated that one day one NGO
worker, Ms. Swati Kerkar reached their office in
Panaji and forcefully entered the office and
threatened Ms. Manisha that if she would not
arrange for the compensation funds, she would be
taught a lesson by their union. The Employer stated
that on the other hand, Ms. Manisha started
receiving registered letters at their address from
the Workperson Ms. Whitney and Ms. Rita
requesting for reinstatement. The Employer stated
that subsequently on the advice of GTDC, its higher
officials decided to call all three girls in GTDC and
in front of them a full and final settlement was
done by which these girls were paid all their
pending dues after adjusting trip collections
amounts which they owed to them in full and final
settlements of all their claims. The Employer stated
that while accepting the settlement cheques, they
signed their acknowledgment that upon
encashment of settlement cheques, they would
have no further claims/demands/disputes or
grievances of whatsoever nature (including
reinstatement in services) from them. The Employer
stated that all of them encashed their cheques and
as such, their matter was conclusively settled with
the intervention of GTDC. The Employer stated that
after few days, they received a notice from Asstt.
Labour Commissioner of the dispute raised by the
Workperson, which ended in failure. The Employer
denied the claim of the Workperson as pleaded in
her statement of claim. The Employer stated that
the Workperson is gainfully employed immediately
after termination of her services and as such she is
not entitled to any relief. The Employer therefore
prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
10. Thereafter, the Workperson filed her
re-joinder on 23-03-2017 at Exb. 9. The Workperson,
by way of her Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates
all the submissions and averments made by her in
her claim statement to be true and correct and
denies all the statements and averments made by
the Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
her.
11. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective parties, this court framed the following
issues on 29-12-2017 at Exb. 12.
1.
Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that
she 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/Party II in
terminating her services w.e.f. 03-01-2015 is
illegal and unjustified?
3.
Whether the Party II proves that the present
dispute raised by Party I is not maintainable
in view of the reasons stated in para 1(a),
1(c) and 1(d) of the written statement?
4.
Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
any relief?
5.
What Award?
12. After framing the issues the Workperson filed
her affidavit in evidence. She was cross-examined
partly by Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar appearing for
the Employer. It is at this stage, on 17-10-2019,
Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge along with
Workperson remained present. The Employer was
represented by Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar and
submitted that the parties have settled their
dispute amicably and filed consent terms which
are on record at Exb. 13 and therefore, a consent
award be passed. The terms of settlement
appearing in Exb. 13 are reproduced hereunder:
1.
That the Party No. 1 and the Party No. II
have agreed to settle the present dispute/
/reference before the Labour Court II bearing
No. IT/07/2016 for a composite amount of
Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand
only).
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
652
2.
The Party No. II herein has been paid a sum
of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five
thousand only) in full and final settlement
of the entire claim in the reference before
the Labour Court II bearing No. IT/07/2016
vide cheque bearing No. 000270 dated
17-10-2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Vasco-da-
-Gama Branch.
3.
The Party No. I herein declare that her claim
in the present dispute/reference before the
Labour Court II bearing No. IT/07/2016 is
conclusively settled.
4.
In view of the above, Party No. I and the
Party No. II requests this Hon’ble Court to
treat the present dispute/reference before
the Labour Court II bearing No. IT/07/2016
as conclusively settled and both the parties
are having no claim of whatsoever nature
against each other, other than the amount
payable of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five
thousand only) by the Party No. II as per the
above consent terms.
I have carefully perused the said terms of
settlement at Exb.13 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. Green Earth Translogistics Private
Limited, Panaji, Goa, in terminating the
services of Ms. Shamli Naik, Travel Hostess,
with effect from 03-01-2015, is legal and
justified, does not survive.
2.
The Workperson, Ms. Shamli Naik, is not
entitled to any relief.
3.
No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/756
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 18-10-2019 in Case
No. Ref. LC-II/IT/06/2016 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.
Kuldeep Ulhas Arolkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 21st November, 2019.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/06/2016
Ms. Whitney Fernandes,
R/o. H. No. 287, Ultimate Parte,
Calata, Majorda,
Salcete-Goa.
…
Workperson/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Green Earth Translogistics
Pvt. Ltd.,
M.G. Road,
Panaji-Goa.
…
Employer/Party-II
Workperson/Party-I represented by Shri Subhash
Naik Jeorge.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Panaji, Dated: 18-10-2019
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 31-03-2016,
bearing No. 28/8/2016-Lab/234 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management
of M/s. Green Earth Translogistics Private
Limited, Panaji, Goa, in terminating the
services of Ms. Whitney Fernandes, Travel
Hostess, with effect from 20-01-2015, is legal
and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
653
(2) If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/16/2016 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 her Statement of Claim on
29-09-2016 at Exb. 6. The facts of the case, in brief,
as pleaded by the Workperson are that the
Employer/Party II (for short, ‘the Employer’) is a
contractor employed by Goa Tourism Development
Corporation (GTDC) to run women taxi services in
the State of Goa. She stated that the head office of
the Employer is at Mumbai. She stated that she
was a Travel Hostess employed by the Goa Tourism
Development Corporation and the Employer to
operate women taxi services introduced by Goa
Tourism Development Corporation in Goa. She
stated that she was a women taxi driver of one of
the taxis introduced by the Employer in the State
of Goa alongwith several other women taxi driver
employed by the Employer. She stated that during
her training period, she was paid stipend of
Rs. 6000/- p.m. She stated that women taxi driver
were entitled for salary of Rs. 15000/- p.m., if they
are non-graduate and Rs. 17,000/- p.m., if they were
graduate.
3. She stated that she was given an employment
offer dated 06-01-2014 by the Employer appointing
her as ‘travel hostess’ for its Goa taxi project. She
stated that she accepted the offer given by the
Employer alongwith wage offer of Rs. 6000/- p.m.
She stated that she was given a confirmation letter
as Travel Hostess w.e.f. 01-10-2014, by their letter
dated 01-10-2014. She stated that by the said
confirmation letter, she was offered basic salary of
Rs. 8000/- p.m., HRA of Rs. 3200/- p.m., conveyance
allowance of Rs. 800/- p.m., education allowance of
Rs. 200/- p.m., supplementary allowance of
Rs. 2920/- p.m., medical allowance of Rs. 1250/- p.m.
besides other benefits mentioned in the said
appointment letter. She stated that she was also
issued identity card by GTDC Ltd. under heading
Women Taxi Services.
4. She stated that on 08-01-2015, when she
reported for work as usual, she did not find her taxi
and that the Employer did not inform her as to
what had happened and hence, she lodged a police
complaint to Police Inspector, Colva Police Station,
stating that her driving taxi was missing from
Colva, when she reported for duty to drive the
same. She stated that on 20-01-2015, she was issued
a termination letter alleging that she had been
absent from work from 03-01-2015 without proper
intimation to the Employer. She stated that in view
of the continued uninformed absence from work,
her services have been terminated with immediate
effect. She stated that the said letter further alleged
that she should handover vehicle key, sim card,
uniform, identity card etc. to the Employer or else
they would lodge a police complaint or take legal
action. She stated that she handed over a car
key and sim card to the Employer and got
acknowledged the same on 18-02-2015.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the Employer in
illegally terminating her services, the Workperson
raised an industrial dispute vide her letter dated
07-04-2015 to the Employer as well as GTDC Ltd.
demanding reinstatement in service with full back
wages and continuity in service which ended in
failure. She submitted that no memo, show-cause
notice or charge-sheet was issued to her seeking
explanation before termination of her services. She
submitted that no enquiry was held in accordance
with the principles of natural justice to prove the
allegation levelled in the termination letter dated
20-01-2015. She submitted that the termination of
her services, vide letter dated 20-01-2015 was
totally in violation of the principles of natural
justice and hence, it is illegal and unjustified. She
stated that since the date of termination of her
services, she is unemployed and trying hard to
find employment. The Workperson therefore prayed
that she be reinstated in service with full back
wages and continuity in service with cost.
6. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workperson by filing its written statement dated
08-02-2017 at Exb. 07. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
present claim of the Workperson is not an
‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.
Act, 1947, that the Workperson was employed as a
‘Trainee Travel Hostess’ with them and was paid
stipend as per employment offer dated 06-02-2014
and as such she is not a ‘workman’ as defined
u/s. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that they have
terminated the services of the Workperson within
the said probation vide termination letter dated
20-01-2015 on account of reasons mentioned therein
and that there is non-application of mind by the
Appropriate Government while referring the
present dispute.
7. The Employer stated that the GTDC had
floated women taxi tender on 05-02-2014 for the
first time and before that it was only discussion
taken place. The Employer stated that GTDC did
not employ any taxi drivers. However, the Employer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
654
which was already working in the field of
commercial driver training programs on pan India
basis, had employed the women taxi drivers and
was training them as they had an intention to start
a women driving school in Goa as well as women
taxi service in the State to provide a safe and secure
taxi service in Goa as well as job guarantee to all
the women who would get trained in skillful
driving. The Employer stated that they approached
the village Panchayats during relevant time and
various offer letters were issued to Panchayats for
encouraging the women of their area for driving
jobs. The Employer stated that later on, GTDC
floated the women taxi project tender, they decided
to participate in the tender as it was felt that
instead of starting a totally private taxi project in
Goa. The Employer stated that they felt it more
sensible to get associated with the Government of
Goa to run the project under GTDC umbrella. The
Employer admitted that during the training, women
drivers were entitled for a stipend of Rs. 6000/- p.m.
The Employer stated that the stipend was
introduced only to keep the said women associated
with them, and that they were not required to do
any job at that time. The Employer stated that they
were being called for meetings once or twice in a
month where they were given equal opportunities
to participate in the infrastructural requirements
and plan the women driving school as well as
women taxi project and they were offered food and
beverages in the meetings. The Employer stated
that the stipend and salary mentioned in the offer
letters had nothing to do with GTDC Women taxi
service till such time as they themselves had no
clue that it would win the women taxi project
tender and the offer was therefore solely for the
private women taxi project plan. The Employer
stated that they got the tender as per official order
and Letter Of Intent (LOI) was issued to Workperson
in order to run the services where GTDC allowed
them to park the vehicles at their property in order
to get regular business. The Employer stated that
they issued a letter dated 04-01-2014 to Majorda
Panchayat seeing their support. The Employer
stated that the said letter was issued when they
were planning to start its own project in the State
of Goa. The Employer stated that by October, 2014,
they had won the tender and was already the
contractor of the project. The Employer stated that
the GTDC was supporting the project through
media and publicity for the safety and security of
the existing drivers and also to encourage more
and more women to participate in the project
to create women employment and women
empowerment in the State.
8. The Employer admitted that they had given
offer letter to the Workperson on 06-02-2014 for its
private taxi project in which she was offered
Rs. 1.56 as CTC turning into Rs. 10,000/- (approx.)
in hand. The Employer admitted that the
Workperson was issued an appointment letter on
01-10-2014, by which they had hiked her offered
salary from Rs. 10,000/- to almost Rs. 15,000/- in
hand which is not in addition to her offer in the
offer letter but as a total remuneration amount.
The Employer stated that the Workperson went to
the media and started making fake and false
allegations on them and published all negative
and misleading statement in the newspapers with
the help of some NGO’s in the State. The Employer
stated that the Workperson on her own abandoned
the services and stopped reporting to work. The
Employer stated that they, after observing her
strange behaviour, decided to remove the vehicle
which was assigned to the Workperson and parked
it to a safe place. The Employer stated that the
entire ownership and parking rights were always
in their hands and that the Workperson had no
right to lodge any police complaint against the
missing vehicle without intimating them. The
Employer stated that it was absolutely an unusual
act as the responsibility of the vehicle was with
their technical team and if the Workperson was
not able to find her vehicle, she should have
contacted the in-charge of the team if at all the
vehicle was missing. The Employer stated that it
was the prerogative and responsibility of its
authorized representative to lodge the police
complaint and not the Workperson, who was not at
all authorized to file the complaint on behalf of
them.
9. The Employer stated that they had some
disciplinary issues relating to with Ms. Shamli. The
Employer stated that next day morning the
Workperson called Ms. Manisha Banerjee and
threatened her that she had not done the right
thing and that she would have to bear the
consequences and that if Ms. Shamli was not taken
back in service, the Workperson would teach Ms.
Manisha Banerjee a lesson. The Employer stated
that later Ms. Manisha Banerjee told the
Workperson that the issue was with Ms. Shamli
and not with her and as to why the Workperson
was not coming to work, to that the Workperson
kept on insisting to take back Ms. Shamli if
management wanted the Workperson to get back
to work. The Employer stated that the Workperson
was advised by Ms. Manisha Banerjee to tender
apology on what all happened and get back to
work, but the Workperson refused her instructions
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
655
completely and was very adamant. The Employer
stated that subsequently, that evening, the
Workperson and Ms. Rita came to office while
Ms. Shamli waited outside. The Employer stated
that the Workperson threatened Ms. Manisha
Banerjee that her career would be ruined with the
Employer if she would not resolved issue with
Ms. Shamli. The Employer stated that right after
Ms. Shamli’s incident, Ms. Manisha Banerjee
reported the matter to her immediate senior,
Mr. Yogesh Ambe. The Employer stated that
Mr. Yogesh came from Mumbai for meeting and
spoke with them as well as other travel hostesses.
The Employer stated that the said Mr. Yogesh told
Ms. Shamli that if she wanted to be reinstated
back, she needed to give a written apology. The
Employer stated that on this, the Workperson
threatened Mr. Yogesh that he would not be able
to take any written apology from Ms. Shamli and
that they have to face the consequences if
Ms. Shamli was not taken back. The Employer stated
that the Workperson stopped reporting to duty from
very next day and as such abandoned her duty on
her own. The Employer stated that in the evening,
the Workperson, Ms. Shamli and Rita Vaz went to
Mr. Cabral, the Chairman of GTDC asking for
reinstatement of Ms. Shamli. The Employer stated
that Mr. Cabral asked them to give him two to
three days’ time in which he would understand
what had happened and would try to resolve the
issue amicably between them. The Employer stated
that Mr. Cabral called Ms. Manisha and Mr. Yogesh
for the meeting on the very next day and he also
called a meeting of other women drivers in the
evening in which he understood exactly what had
happened. The Employer stated that the
Workperson and Ms. Rita did not receive the phone
call from the office, neither reported to work for
several days. The Employer stated that
subsequently for the safety and security purpose,
Ms. Manish and Mr. Vasudev were asked by them
to remove the taxi issued to Ms. Shamli, Ms. Rita
and the Workperson and parked them in a safe
place. The Employer stated that the Workperson
and Ms. Rita were also asked to leave as they were
not reporting to work and were busy putting fake
allegations on them and GTDC in media. The
Employer stated that the Workperson, Ms. Rita and
Ms. Shamli kept on giving wrong statements and
kept on defaming them and GTDC in the newspaper
and news channels. The Employer stated that Mr.
Yogesh Ambe and Ms. Manisha started getting
threatening calls from different and NGO’s and
were continuously pressurized by unknown people
to reinstate Ms. Shamli otherwise they would have
to bear the consequences. The Employer stated
that one day one NGO worker, Ms. Swati Kerkar
reached their office in Panaji and forcefully entered
the office and threatened Ms. Manisha that if she
would not arrange for the compensation funds, she
would be taught a lesson by their union.
10. The Employer stated that as the Workperson
was trying to tarnish the reputation of the women
taxi project in press and media, was not reporting
to work and was busy in putting fake complaints
and allegations of as many people and incidents as
possible about their staff, GTDC employees,
authenticity of the tender, missing vehicle etc.,
they felt it necessary to officially take back the
position and the vehicle from her. The Employer
stated that Ms. Manisha was instructed by the top
management to issue email to the Workperson to
handover the vehicle keys and uniform in order to
avoid any further problems. The Employer stated
that subsequently on the advice of GTDC, its higher
officials decided to call all three girls in GTDC and
in front of them a full and final settlement was
done by which these girls were paid all their
pending dues after adjusting trip collections
amounts which they owed to them in full and final
settlements of all their claims. The Employer stated
that while accepting the settlement cheques, they
signed their acknowledgment that upon
encashment of settlement cheques, they would
have no further claims/demands/disputes or
grievances of whatsoever nature (including
reinstatement in services) from them. The Employer
stated that after few days, they received a notice
from Asstt. Labour Commissioner, which ended in
failure. The Employer denied the claim of the
Workperson as pleaded in her statement of claim.
The Employer stated that the Workperson is
gainfully employed immediately after termination
of her services and as such she is not entitled to
any relief. The Employer therefore prayed for
dismissal of the present reference.
11. Thereafter, the Workperson filed her
re-joinder on 23-03-2017 at Exb.8. The Workperson,
by way of her Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates
all the submissions and averments made by her in
her claim statement to be true and correct and
denies all the statements and averments made by
the Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
her.
12. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective parties, this court framed the following
issues on 29-12-2017 at Exb.11.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
656
1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that she
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/Party II in terminating
her services w.e.f. 20-01-2015 is illegal and
unjustified?
3. Whether the Party II proves that the present
dispute raised by Party I is not maintainable
in view of the reasons stated in para 1(a), 1(c)
and 1(d) of the written statement?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
any relief?
5. What Award?
13. After framing the issues the Workperson filed
her affidavit in evidence. She was cross-examined
partly by Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar appearing
for the Employer. It is at this stage, on 17-10-2019,
Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge along with
Workperson remained present. The Employer was
represented by Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar and
submitted that the parties have settled their
dispute amicably and filed consent terms which
are on record at Exb. 22 and therefore, a consent
award be passed. The terms of settlement
appearing in Exb. 22 are reproduced hereunder:
1. That the Party No. 1 and the Party No. II have
agreed to settle the present dispute/
/reference before the Labour Court II bearing
No. IT/06/2016 for a composite amount of
Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand
only).
2. The Party No. II herein has been paid a sum
of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand
only) in full and final settlement of the entire
claim in the reference before the Labour
Court II bearing No. IT/06/2016 vide cheque
bearing No. 000271 dated 17-10-2019 drawn
on HDFC Bank, Vasco-da-Gama Branch.
3. The Party No.I herein declare that her claim
in the present dispute/reference before the
Labour Court II bearing No. IT/06/2016 OS
conclusively settled.
4. In view of the above, Party No. I and the
Party No. II requests this Hon’ble Court to
treat the present dispute/reference before the
Labour Court II bearing No. IT/06/2016 as
conclusively settled and both the parties are
having no claim of whatsoever nature
against each other, other than the amount
payable of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five
thousand only) by the Party No. II as per the
above consent terms.
I have carefully perused the said terms of
settlement at Exb. 22 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. Green Earth Translogistics Private
Limited, Panaji, Goa, in terminating the
services of Ms. Whitney Fernandes, Travel
Hostess, with effect from 20-01-2015, is legal
and justified, does not survive.
2.
The Workperson, Ms. Whitney Fernandes,
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/755
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
17-10-2019 in reference No. IT/39/08 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.
Kuldeep Ulhas Arolkar, Under Secretary (Labour)
(Link).
Porvorim, 21st November, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
657
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/39/08
Shri Anand Pandit,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers Union,
Velho’s Building, 2nd Floor,
Panaji-Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Lima Leitao & Co.
Pvt. Ltd.,
Lima Arcade, Block No. 1,
3rd Floor,
New Vaddem,
Vasco-da-Gama.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 17th day of the month
of October, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 4-11-2008, bearing No. 28/19/
/2007-LAB/1560, 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. Lima Leitao and Company Private
Limited, having workshop at Barazan,
Usgao, Goa and head office at 3rd Floor, Lima
Arcade, Block No. 1, New Vaddem, Vasco-da-
-Gama, Goa, in terminating the services of
Shri Anand Pandit, Watchman, with effect
from 7-9-2007, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/39/08 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
the Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exhibit 6 and
Party II filed a Written Statement at Exhibit 9.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party I workman was employed with the Party II as
a watchman in 1974 and has worked for more than
35 years continuously. The Party I workman was
suddenly terminated on 7-9-2007 claiming that his
services are no more required by Party II. The Party
I thereafter raised an industrial dispute through
his union and since the dispute was not resolved,
a failure was recorded by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Ponda. The termination of services
of Party I workman is illegal, unjust and bad in law.
The Party I is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II has
claimed that the reference is bad in law and is not
maintainable. The services of the Party I were never
engaged by Party II as a full time watchman and
he was carrying out the work of watchman
voluntarily on some occasions by way of purely
goodwill gesture. The Party I is not entitled for any
reliefs.
5. In the rejoinder at Exhibit 14, Party I denied
the case of the Party II as stated in the written
statement.
6. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 14A.
7. In the course of proceedings, the parties
arrived at an amicable settlement and filed consent
terms dated 14-10-2019 along with a copy of a
cheque at Exh. 29 colly towards full and final
settlement of the entire claim.
8. The consent terms are reproduced here-in-
-below:
(1) That the Party I and the Party II have agreed
to settle the present dispute/reference
before the Industrial Tribunal bearing
No. IT/39/2008 for a composite amount of
Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty
thousand only)
(2) The Party II herein has paid a sum of
Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty
thousand only) in full and final settlement
of the entire claim in the reference
before the Industrial Tribunal bearing No.
IT/39/2008 vide cheque bearing No. 000703
dated 14-10-2019 drawn on HDFC Bank,
Vasco Branch.
(3) The Party I herein declare that his claim in
the present dispute/reference before the
Industrial Tribunal bearing No. IT/39/2008
is conclusively settled.
(4) In view of the above, Party I and Party II
request the Hon’ble Court to treat the
present dispute/reference before the
Industrial Tribunal bearing No. IT/39/2008
as conclusively settled and both the parties
are having no claim of whatsoever nature
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
658
against each other, other than the amount
payable of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh
twenty thousand only) by the Party II as
per the above consent terms.
9. The above consent terms are signed by the
Party I workman, Shri Anand P. Pandit alongwith
his Ld. Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik, so also
Mrs. Nayantara M. de Lima Leitao, Director along
with her Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar on behalf of
Party II. I have gone through the consent terms
filed as above, which in my view, are just and fair
and in the interest of both the Workman/Party I as
well as Employer/Party II and hence, the same are
accepted.
10. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The reference at the instance of Party I
Workman, stands disposed of in view of
the consent terms filed by both the parties
at Exhibit 29 colly.
ii. No order as to costs.
iii. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———u———
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers
—
Notification
No. VI/FAC-3/(GOA/1676)Part/2019-IFB/3469
In exercise of the powers conferred by the
proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
66 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 63 of
1948) (hereinafter called the “said Act”), the
Government of Goa hereby varies the limits laid
down in said Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
66 of the said Act in respect of employment of
women in the production department of the factory,
namely, M/s Schiffer and Menezes India Private
Limited, L-28, Phase IIA, Verna Industrial Estate,
Verna, Salcete-Goa, thereby authorising the
employment of women in the said department
between the hours of 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., for
a period of two years with effect from the date of
publication of this Notification in the Official
Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vivek P. Marathe, Chief Inspector & ex officio
Joint Secretary (Factories & Boilers).
Panaji, 4th December, 2019.
Notification
No. VI/FAC-3/(GOA/994)Part/2017-IFB/3470
In exercise of the powers conferred by the
proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
66 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 63 of
1948) (hereinafter called the “said Act”), the
Government of Goa hereby varies the limits laid
down in said Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
66 of the said Act in respect of employment of
women in the production department of the factory,
namely, M/s Schiffer and Menezes India Private
Limited, L-26/L-27, Phase IIA, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna, Salcete-Goa, thereby authorising the
employment of women in the said department
between the hours of 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., for
a period of two years with effect from the date of
publication of this Notification in the Official
Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vivek P. Marathe, Chief Inspector & ex officio
Joint Secretary (Factories & Boilers).
Panaji, 4th December, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
—
Order
No. LS/1077/93-Part II/2246
Read: Order No. LS/1077/93-Part II/1522 dated
14-08-2019.
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Adv. Anuj Jain as a Standing Counsel for the State
of Goa to appear and defend the interest of the
State Government before the National Green
Tribunal, New Delhi and Delhi High Court with
immediate effect on the following terms and
conditions:-
1.
The allotment of cases before the National
Green Tribunal, New Delhi and Delhi High
Court for defending the interest of
Government of Goa will be assigned to
Advocate by the Hon’ble Chief Minister/Ld.
Advocate General on a case to case basis.
2.
The Standing Counsels has to keep the Ld.
Advocate General of the State of Goa
informed well in advance of the date of
hearing of the matters and also seek his
instructions from time to time.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
659
3. The Standing Counsel shall be paid ` 5,500/-
(Five thousand five hundred only) per
effective appearance before the Hon’ble
National Green Tribunal, New Delhi and Delhi
High Court. He shall also be entitled to a fee
of ` 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for
every drafting of Affidavit. In addition to this,
he shall be entitled for reimbursement of an
amount of ` 2,500/- (Maximum) (Rupees two
thousand five hundred only) per month
towards miscellaneous expenses such as
stationery, purchase of papers, photo copying
of documents, pleading, case extracts/
/citations etc. subject to production of
necessary bills/cash memos/receipts duly
certified by respective Standing Counsel as
per the Order dated 31-07-2014.
4. The above instructions shall be scrupulously
followed by the Department concerned.
5. This issues with the concurrence of Finance
(Exp.) Department vide their U.O. No.
1400069413 dated 15-11-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 27th November, 2019.
________
Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/2267
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Adv. Geetesh R. Shetye as a Additional Government
Advocate to appear and defend the interest of the
State Government in the matters before the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji with immediate
effect and until further orders.
He shall be paid fees as per the existing terms
and conditions laid down by the Government vide
Order No. 1/19/2015/LD(Estt.)/150 dated 18-01-2016
and subsequent Corrigendum No. 1/19/2015/
/LD(Estt.)/1887 dated 25-10-2016, as applicable to
Government Advocates/Additional Government
Advocates and as amended from time to time. On
submission of bills (in duplicate) alongwith the
attendance certificate, issued by the Registrar of
the High Court of Bombay, Panaji-Goa. He shall
comply with the instructions contained in the
Government Circular No. 4-43-99/LD dated
04-05-2000. He will appear in those matters, which
would be allotted to him by the Ld. Advocate
General.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 29th November, 2019.
Order
No. LS/1077/93-Part II/2306
Read: Order No. LS/1077/93-Part II/1522 dated
14-08-2019.
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint
Adv. Ashish Sareen as a Standing Counsel for the
State of Goa to appear and defend the interest of
the State Government before the National Green
Tribunal, New Delhi, the National Company Law
Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, and
Delhi High Court with immediate effect on the
following terms and conditions:-
1. The allotment of cases before the National
Green Tribunal, New Delhi, the National
Company Law Tribunal, Debt Recovery
Tribunal, New Delhi and Delhi High Court
for defending the interest of Government of
Goa will be assigned to Advocate by the
Hon’ble Chief Minister/Ld. Advocate General
on a case to case basis.
2. The Standing Counsels has to keep the Ld.
Advocate General of the State of Goa
informed well in advance of the date of
hearing of the matters and also seek his
instructions from time to time.
3. The Standing Counsel shall be paid ` 5,500/-
(Five thousand five hundred only) per
effective appearance before the Hon’ble
National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, the
National Company Law Tribunal, Debt
Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi and Delhi High
Court. He shall also be entitled to a fee of
` 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for every
drafting of Affidavit. In addition to this, he
shall be entitled for reimbursement of an
amount of ` 2,500/- (Maximum) (Rupees two
thousand five hundred only) per month
towards miscellaneous expenses such as
stationery, purchase of papers, photo copying
of documents, pleading, case extracts/
/citations etc. subject to production of
necessary bills/cash memos/receipts duly
certified by respective Standing Counsel as
per the Order dated 31-07-2014.
4. The above instructions shall be scrupulously
followed by the Department concerned.
5. This issues with the concurrence of Finance
(Exp.) Department vide their U.O. No.
1400069413 dated 15-11-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 5th December, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
660
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 4/12/85-PER-Vol.I/3349
Consequent upon the superannuation of
Shri S.T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Porvorim on 30-11-2019 (a.n.),
Shri Shrikant D. Patil, Superintending Engineer,
Water Resources Department, shall hold the charge
of the post of Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Department, in addition to his own duties until
further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 29th November, 2019.
________
Order
No. 13/27/2016/PER/3351
The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant
extension in service to Shri Mahesh V. Vengurlekar,
Principal, Goa College of Art, Altinho, Panaji-Goa
beyond the date of his superannuation for a period
of six months w.e.f. 01-12-2019 to 31-05-2020 in
public interest. This order is subject to Vigilance
Clearance, concurrence of Finance Department and
approval of Council of Ministers.
The extension is further subject to termination
without assigning any reasons during the period
of extension.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 29th November, 2019.
________
Order
No. 7/7/2017-PER/3352
Read: (i) Memorandum No. 7/7/2017-Per/2316
dated26-07-2019.
(ii) Corrigendum No. 7/7/2017-PER/3086
dated 08-11-2019.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission, conveyed vide its letter
No. COM/II/4/16(1)/08/06 dated 01-04-2019, the
Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri
Raghuvir G. Keni, Superintending Engineer,
Mormugao
Port
Trust,
Headland
Sada,
Mormugoa-Goa to the post of Chief Electrical
Engineer, Electricity Department, Government of
Goa, Panaji, Group “A” Gazetted by transfer on
deputation in Level 13 of the Pay Matrix as per
CCS Revised Pay Rules, 2016.
The appointment of Shri Keni shall be governed
by standard terms of deputation as amended from
time to time.
Shri Keni shall exercise the option to fix his pay
within one month in terms of deputation guidelines.
The expenditure on pay and allowances is
debitable to the Budget Head of Electricity
Department.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 29th November, 2019.
________
Order
No. 13/29/2016-PER/3353
The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant
extension in service to Shri P. B. Seldarkar, Chief
Engineer, Public Works Department, Altinho,
Panaji-Goa presently posted as Managing Director,
Sewerage and Infrastructural Development
Corporation of Goa Limited beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-12-2019 to 30-11-2020 in public interest. This
order is subject to Vigilance Clearance,
concurrence of Finance Department and approval
of Council of Ministers.
The extension is further subject to termination
without assigning any reasons during the period
of extension.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 29th November, 2019.
________
Order
No. 5/14/2018-PER/3575
Read: 1) Notification No. 5/14/2018-PER/2124
dated 30-07-2019.
2) Memorandum No. 5/14/2018-PER/2262
dated 20-08-2019.
3) Letter No. GIPARD/PA/JSO/004/A/
/2019-20/903 dated 24-09-2019.
Pursuant to the Departmental examination of
Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service held on
22nd, 23rd, 24th & 26th August, 2019 at Goa
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
661
Pharmacy College, Panaji by the Goa Institute of
the Public Administration and Rural Development
in accordance with the notification read in
preamble at serial numbers 1 & 2 above and
pursuant to the marks submitted by the Goa
Institute of the Public Administration and Rural
Development vide its letter dated 24-09-2019 read
in preamble at serial number 3, the following 15
Junior Scale Officers who appeared in the said
examination are declared as “PASSED”:-
Sr.
Name of Junior Scale
No.
Officers
1.
Smt. Maya Pednekar.
2.
Smt. Fransquinha Oliveira.
3.
Smt. Snehal S. Prabhu.
4.
Shri Chandresh C. Kunkalkar.
5.
Shri Kuldeep U. Arolkar.
6.
Shri Sachin S. Desai.
7.
Shri Premraj K. Shirodkar.
8.
Shri Pranab G. Bhat.
9.
Shri Kabir K. Shirgaonkar.
10.
Shri Sagar B. Gaude.
11.
Dr. Pooja M. Madkaikar.
12.
Shri Vikas S. Kamble.
13.
Shri Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar.
14.
Shri Mangaldas B. Gaonkar.
15.
Shri Pritidas U. Gaonkar.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 2nd December, 2019.
________
Order
No. 5/16/2017-PER/3577
Read: 1) Notification No. 6/8/2016-PER/1938 dated
15-06-2018.
2) Notification No. 6/8/2016-PER/2121
dated 03-07-2018.
3) Letter No. GIPARD/PA/JSO/004/A/
/2018-19/834 dated 21-08-2018.
4) Letter No. GIPARD/PA/JSO/004/A/
/2019-20/903 dated 24-09-2019.
Pursuant to the Departmental examination held
from 05-07-2018 to 08-07-2018 & on 20-08-2019 at
Goa Pharmacy College, Panaji conducted by the
Goa Institute of the Public Administration and
Rural Development in accordance with the
notification read in preamble at serial numbers 1
& 2 above and in terms of Rule 25 of the Goa Civil
Service Rules, 2016 and pursuant to the marks
submitted by the Goa Institute of the Public
Administration and Rural Development vide their
letters read in preamble at serial number 3 & 4,
Shri Taha Idrees Haaziq is declared as “PASSED”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 2nd December, 2019.
________
Order
No. 5/9/2017-PER/3589
Read: Order No. 5/9/2017-PER/2398 dated
09-09-2019.
The ad hoc promotion in Junior Scale of Goa
Civil Service of Smt. Shanti Makwana Harding,
Section Officer in General Administration
Department is extended for the period from
01-01-2018 to 13-11-2019 corresponding to the
period served as ad hoc Junior Scale of Goa Civil
Service before reversion vide order read in
preamble.
This issues with the approval of Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/42(2)/2016/1353 dated 02-12-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 4th December, 2019.
________
Order
No. 7/13/2014-PER/3604
Pursuant to Order No. F. No. 46011/1/2019-
-IFS-J (AGMUT) dated 01-11-2019 of Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Government of India New Delhi; Shri Sanjay K.
Waradkar, IFS (AGMUT: 2005) is relieved from the
State Administration w.e.f. 06-12-2019 (a.n.), to join
his new place of posting at Andaman and Nicobar
Islands.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 5th December, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
662
Order
No. 4/4/2013-PER/3635
Read: Order No. 4/4/2013-PER/2240 dated 16-07-2018.
Dr. (Smt.) Shamila Dos Milagres Monteiro, Member Secretary, Goa State Pollution Control Board, Saligao
is transferred and posted as Director in the Directorate of Fisheries.
Smt. Monteiro shall hold the charge of Member Secretary, Goa State Pollution Control Board, Saligao,
in addition to her own duties.
Consequently Shri Vinesh V. Arlenkar, Director of Fisheries shall report to the Personnel Department
for further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 06th December, 2019.
________
Order
No. 6/10/2017-PER/3609
On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer
and posting of the following Officers of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name and present posting of the officer
Posted as
No.
1
2
3
1. Surendra Naik, Additional Collector (II), South Goa
Additional Collector (I), South Goa.
2. Prasanna Acharya, Additional Collector (I), South Goa
Member Secretary, Ravindra Bhavan,
Margao.
3. Rajendra Mirajkar, Member Secretary, Ravindra
Director, Government Printing Press.
Bhavan, Margao
4. Agnelo A. J. Fernandes, M.D., Goa State ST Finance
Additional Collector (II), South Goa.
Development Corporation Ltd.
5. Meghanath Porob, Managing Director, Goa Housing
M.D., Goa State ST Finance Development
Board
Corporation Ltd.
6. Siddhivinayak Naik, Chief Officer, Margao Municipal
Additional Inspector General of Prisons
Council
with additional charge as Superintendent
of Jails.
7. Ajit Panchwadkar, Additional Inspector General of Prisons
Chief Officer, Margao Municipal Council.
8. Narayan Gad, Director of Settlement and Land Records
Director of Panchayats.
9. Gopal Parsekar, Director of Panchayats
Additional Collector (II), North Goa.
10. Dashrath Redkar, Additional Collector (II), North Goa
Additional Collector (I), North Goa with
additional charge as CEO, North Goa
Zilla Panchayats.
11. Sanjiv Gadkar, Director of Tourism
SLAO, Mopa Airport Project.
12. Umeshchandra Joshi, awaiting posting
Director of Social Welfare with additional
charge as M.D., Goa State Minorities Fin.
& Dev. Corp. Ltd.
13. Parag Nagorcekar, Director of Social Welfare
SLAO, Goa Industrial Development
Corporation.
14. Sneha Morajkar, Director of Official Language
Joint Secretary to CS.
15. Vikas Gaunekar, Additional Collector (I), North Goa
Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
16. Menino D’Souza, Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Director of Tourism.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
663
Derrick P. Neto, Managing Director, Goa Human Resource Development Corporation shall hold additional
charge of Director of Settlement and Land Records.
Nikhil Desai, Managing Director, Goa Tourism Development Corporation shall hold the additional
charge of Managing Director, Goa Housing Board.
Meghana Shetgaonkar, Director of Information and Publicity shall hold the additional charge of
Director of Official Language.
Sneha Morajkar, shall draw the salary from the post of Leave and Training Reserve.
The officers posted against ex-cadre deputation posts shall be governed by standard terms of deputation
as amended from time to time.
The officers shall complete handing over and taking over process with immediate effect and submit
compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 5th December, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 4/3/2017-IV/PHD/2074
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission
conveyed
vide
their
letter
No. COM/II/12/14(1)/2019/240 dated 06-11-2019,
Government is pleased to declare satisfactory
completion of probation period of one year by
Dr. Manisha Maruti Khorate, Professor in Oral
Medicine & Radiology under Goa Dental College &
Hospital, Bambolim and also to confirm her against
the said post.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim, 06th December, 2019.
________
Order
No. 4/3/2017-IV/PHD/2075
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission
conveyed
vide
their
letter
No. COM/II/12/14(2)/2019/239 dated 06-11-2019,
Government is pleased to declare satisfactory
completion of probation period of one year by
Dr. Pooja Shankar Wagle, Anaesthetist under Goa
Dental College & Hospital, Bambolim and also to
confirm her against the said post.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim, 06th December, 2019.
North Goa Planning and Development Authority
—
Order
NGPDA/GIRA/Vol.IV/888/2019
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) (hereafter referred
to as the “said Act”) and in supersession of Order
No. 21/22-1/TCP/CIR/10/448 dated 08-02-2010,
published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated
18-2-2010, the North Goa Planning and Development
Authority hereby designates the officer specified
in column (2) and (3) of the table below as Public
Information Officer and Assistant Public
Information Officer, respectively, for the North Goa
Planning and Development Authority, for the said
Act.
Sr.
Public Information
Assistant Public
No.
Officer
Information Officer
1
2
3
1. Vikram V. Tengse,
Babita V. Chopdekar,
Assistant Engineer
Head Clerk.
This order shall come into force from the date of
its publication in Official Gazette.
R. K. Pandita, Member Secretary (North Goa
Planning & Development Authority).
Panaji, 4th December, 2019.
V. No. AP-1636/2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 37
12TH DECEMBER, 2019
664
Greater Panaji Planning and Development Authority
—
Order
GPPDA/Appoint of PIO&APIO/647/2019
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) (hereafter referred
to as the “said Act”) and in supersession of Order
No. 21/22-1/TCP/CIR/10/448 dated 08-02-2010,
published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated
18-2-2010, the Greater Panaji Planning and
Development Authority hereby designates the
officer specified in column (2) and (3) of the table
below as Public Information Officer and Assistant
Public Information Officer, respectively, for the
Greater Panaji Planning and Development
Authority, for the said Act.
Sr.
Public Information
Assistant Public
No.
Officer
Information Officer
1
2
3
1. Shaikh Ali Ahmed,
Babita V. Chopdekar,
Dy. Town Planner
Jr. Stenographer.
This order shall come into force from the date of
its publication in Official Gazette.
R. K. Pandita, Member Secretary for and on behalf
of Greater Panaji Planning & Development
Authority.
Panaji, 4th December, 2019.
V. No. AP-1637/2019.
———uuu———
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
—
Order
No. 74-1-81/CE-WR/Adm.II/800
Government is pleased to order transfer/posting of following Executive Engineers of this Department,
to the offices mentioned against their names, with immediate effect.
Sr.
Name & designation
Present place of posting
Office to which posted on transfer
No.
1. Shri R. S. Godi,
O/o. Executive Engineer,
As Engineering Officer, O/o. Chief Engineer,
Executive Engineer
WD. III, WRD, Ponda-Goa
WRD, Porvorim against the existing
vacancy.
2. Shri Mohan G. Halkatti,
O/o. Executive Engineer,
As Executive Engineer, O/o. Executive Engineer,
Executive Engineer
WD. XII, WRD, Gogal,
WD. III, WRD, Ponda-Goa.
Margao
3. Shri Krishnakant S. Patil,
O/o. Executive Engineer,
Additional charge of Executive Engineer,
Executive Engineer
WD. XI, WRD, Rawanfond,
O/o. Executive Engineer, WD. XII, WRD,
Margao
Gogal, Margao.
The concerned Head of Office should relieve the above transferees and endorse one copy of the same
to this office.
This is issued with the approval of Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
S. D. Patil, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (W.R.).
Porvorim, 5th December, 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. 28.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—297/160–12/2019.